;i 


:^*» 


•  .* 


..^6 


^ 


•&#^ 


^  tint  ®hw%%/  ft 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


% 


i^ 


Presented    by        c3Tl:Ar\C^a  cSlTcS^TV  . 
Division ^^T  0 


Section 


W^^Ci 


/^•■:^:V 


I   *'*•*•■■  V'V*^  .••.>■••'' 


">.^^^'- 


••;,#. 


DR.   WILLIAM  SMITH'S 

DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE; 


COMPRISING    ITS 


ANTIQUITIES,    BIOGRAPHY,    GEOGRAPHY, 
AND    NATURAL    HISTORY. 


REVISED    AND    EDITED    BY 


PROFESSOR  H.    B.   HACKETT,   D.  D 

WITH   THE   COOPERATION   OF 

EZRA  ABBOT,  LL.  D. 

ASSISTANT   LIBKARIAN   OP   HARVARD   COLLEQB 


VOLUME   IV. 
REGEM-MELECH  to   ZUZIMS. 


Jerusalem. 


BOSTON: 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND   COMPANY. 

%\z  Hiter0tDe  prf00,  CambriDgc* 

1883. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1870,  by 

HuRD  AND  Houghton, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


RIVERSIDE,    CAMBRIDGE: 

STERhOTYPED   AND    PRINTED    BY 

H.   O.   HOUGHTON   AND   COMPANT. 


WRITERS  IN  THE    ENGLISH  EDITION. 


OdTIAlS  NAMES. 

H.  A.  Very  Rev.  Henry  Alford,  D.  D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

H.  B.  Rev  Henry  Bailey,  B.  D.,  Warden  of  St.  Augustine's  College,  Can- 

terbury ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  fJohn's  College,  Cambridge. 

H.  B.  Rev.  HoRATius  Bonar,  D.  D.,  Kelso,  N.  B. ;  Author  of  "  The  Land 

of  Promise." 
[The  geographical  articles,  signed  H.  B.,  are  written  by  Dr.  Bonar  :  those  on  other  subjects, 
signed  H.  B.,  are  written  by  Mr.  Bailey.] 

A.  B.  Rev.  Alfred  Barry,  B.  D.,  Principal  of  Cheltenham  College  ;  late 

Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

W.  L.  B.  Rev.  William  Latham  Bevan,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of  Hay,  Brecknock- 
shire. 

J.  W.  B.  Rev.  Joseph  Williams  Blakesley,  B.  D.,  Canon  of  Canterbury ;  late 
Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

T.  E.  B.  Rev.  Thomas  Edward  Bro^vn,  M.  A.,  Vice-Principal  of  King  Wil- 
liam's College,  Isle  of  Man  ;  late  Fellow  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford. 

R.  W.  B.  Ven.  Robert  AVilliam  Browne,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of  Bath,  and 
Canon  of  Wells. 

E.  H.  B.        Right  Rev.  Edward  Harold  Browne,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely. 
W.  T.  B.       Rev.  William  Thomas  Bullock,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 

Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 
S.  C.  Rev.   Samuel  Clark,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of    Bredwardine   with  Brobury, 

Herefordshire. 

F.  C.  C.         Rev.  Frederic  Charles  Cook,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the 

Queen. 

G.  E.  L.  C.  Right  Rev.  George  Edward  Lynch  Cotton,  D.  D.,  late  Lord  Bishop 

of  Calcutta  and  Metropolitan  of  Lidia. 
J.  LI.  D.        Rev.  John    Llewelyn    Da  vies,    M.    A.,    Rector  of  Christ   Church, 

Marylebone  ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
G.  E.  D.        Prof  George  Edward  Day,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
E.  D.  Emanuel  Deutsch,  M.  R.  A.  S.,  British  Museum. 

W.  D.        ■    Rev.  William  Drake,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 

E.  p.  E.         Rev.  Edward  Paroissien  Eddrup,  M.  A.,  Principal  of  the  Theolog- 

ical College,  Salisbury.  , 

C.  J.  E.  Right  Rev.  Charles  John  Ellicott,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Glouces- 
ter and  Bristol. 

F.  W.  F.       Rev.  Frederick  William  Farrar,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Master  of  Har- 

row  School ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

J.  F.  James   Fergusson,   F.  R.  S.,   F.  R.  A.  S.,  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Insti- 

tute of  British  Architects. 

E.  S.  Ff  Edward  Salusbury  Ffoulkes,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Jesus  College., 
Oxford. 

VV.  F.  Right  Rev.  William  Fitzgerald,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Killaloe. 

'iii) 


LIST   OF    WRITERS. 


ENirULS. 

F.  G. 

F.  W.  G. 

G. 

H.  B.  H. 

E.  H— s. 

H.  H. 

A.  C.  H. 

J.  A.  H. 

J.  D.  H. 

J.  J.  H. 

W.  H. 

J.  S.  H. 

E.  H. 
W.  B.  J. 

A.  H.  L. 

S.  L. 

J.  B.  L. 


D. 

W 

.  M. 

F. 

M. 

Oppert. 

E. 

R. 

0. 

T. 

J. 

0. 

J. 

J. 

S.  P 

T. 

T. 

P. 

H. 

W 

'.P. 

E. 

H. 

P. 

E. 

S. 

P. 

R. 

S. 

P. 

J. 

L. 

P. 

Rev.  Francis   Garden,   M.  A.,    Subdean  of   Her  Majesty's   Chapels 

Royal. 
Rev.  F.  William  Gotch,  I-L.  D.,  President  of  the  Baptist  College, 

Bristol;  late  Hebrew  Examiner  in  the  University  of  London. 
George  Grove,  Crystal  Palace,  Sydenham. 

Prof.  Horatio  Balcii  Hackett,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Theological  Institu- 
tion, Newton,  Mass. 
Rev.  Ernest  Hawkins,  B.  D.,  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 
Rev.  Henry  Hayman,  B.  D.,  Head  Master  of  the  Grammar  School, 

Cheltenham  ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 
Ven.  Lord  Arthur  Charles  Hervey,  M.  A.,  Ai-chdeacon  of  Sud- 
bury, and  Rector  of  Ickworth. 
Rev.  James  Augustus  Hessey,  D.  C.  L.,  Head  Master  of  Merchant 

Taylors'  School. 
Joseph  Dalton  Hooker,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,   Royal  Botanic  Gardens, 

Kew. 
Rev.  James  John  Hornby,  M.  A.,  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Ox- 
ford ;  Principal  of  Bishop  Cosin's  Hall. 
•Rev.  William  Houghton,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  Rector  of  Preston  on  the 

Weald  Moors,  Salop. 
Rev.  John  Saul  Howson,  D.  D.,  Principal  of  the  Collegiate  Institu- 
tion, Liverpool. 
Rev.  Edgar  Huxtable,  M.  A.,  Subdean  of  Wells. 
Rev.  William  Basil  Jones,  M.  A.,  Prebendary  of  York  and   of  St. 

David's  ;  late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  University  College,  Oxford. 
Austen  Henry  Layard,  D.  C.  L.,  M.  P. 
Rev.    Stanley  Leathes,  M.  A.,   M.  R.  S.  L.,  Hebrew  Lecturer  in 

King's  College,  London. 
Rev.  Joseph  Barber  Lightfoot,  D.  D.,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity, 

and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  D.  W.  Marks,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  University  College,  London. 
Rev.  Frederick  Meyrick,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Trinity 

College,  Oxford. 
Prof.  Jules  Oppert,  of  Paris. 
Rev.   Edward   Redman    Orger,  M.  A.,  Fellow   and    Tutor    of   St. 

Augustine's  College,  Canterbury. 
Ven.  Thomas  Johnson  Ormerod,  M.  A.,   Archdeacon  of  Suffolk; 

late  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 
Rev.  John  James  Stewart  Perowne,  B.  D.,  Vice-Principal  of  St. 

David's  College,  Lampeter. 
Rev.   Thomas   Thomason   Peroa\t^e,  B.  D.,   Fellow  and   Tutor  of 

Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  Henry  Wright  Phillott,  M.  A.,  Rector  of  Staunton-on-Wye, 

Herefordshire  ;  late  Student  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 
Rev.  Edward   Hayes   Plumptre,   M.   A.,   Professor  of  Divinity  in 

King's  College,  London. 
Edward  Stanley  Poole,  M.  R.  A.  S.,  South  Kensington  Museum. 
Reginald  Stuart  Poole,  British  Museum. 
Rev.  J.  Leslie  Porter,  M.  A.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literatm-e,  Assem- 


LIST   OF   WKITERS.  v 

mnAU  NAMES. 

bl/s  College,  Belfast ;  Author  of  "  Handbook  of  Syria  and  Palestine," 
and   "  Five  Years  in  Damascus." 

C.  P.  Rev.   Charles  Pritchard,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  Hon.   Secretary  of  the 

Royal  Astronomical  Society ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cam- 
bridge. 

G.  R.  Rev.  George  Rawlinson,  M.  A.,  Camden  Professor  of  Ancient  His- 

tory, Oxford. 

H.  J.  R.  Rev.  Hexry  John  Rose,  B.  D.,  Rural  Dean,  and  Rector  of  Houghton 
Conquest,  Bedfordshire. 

W.  S.  Rev.  William  Selwyn,  D.  D.,  Chaplain   in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen ; 

Lady  Margaret's  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge  ;   Canon  of  Ely. 

A.  P.  S.  Rev.  Arthur  Penrhyn  Stanley,  D.  D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesias- 
tical History,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford  ;  Chaplain  to  His 
Royal  Highness  the  Prince  of  Wales. 

C.  E.  S.         Prof  Calvin  Ellis  Stowe,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

J.  P.  T.         Rev.  Joseph  Parrish  Thompson,  D.  D.,  New  York. 

W.  T.  Most  Rev.  William  Thomson,  D.  D.,  Lord  Archbishop  of  York. 

S.  P.  T.  Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  LL.  D.,  Author  of  "  An  Introduction 
to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,"  &c. 

H.  B.  T.  Rev.  Henry  Baker  Tristram,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  Master  of  Greatham 
Hospital. 

J.  F.  T.  Rev.  Joseph  Francis  Thrupp,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of  Barrington  ;  late  Fel- 
low of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

E.  T.  Hon.  Edward  T.  B.  Twisleton,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Balliol  College, 

Oxford. 
Rev.  Edmund  Venables,  M.  A.,  Bonchurch,  Isle  of  Wight. 
Rev.  Brooke  Foss  Westcott,   M.  A.,  Assistant  Master  of  Harrow 

School ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.  D.,  Canon  of  Westminster. 
William  Aldis  Wright,  M.  A.,  Librarian  of  Trinity  College,  Cam' 
bridge. 


E. 

V. 

B. 

F. 

W. 

C. 

W. 

W 

.  A. 

W. 

WRITERS  IN  THE  AMERICAN  EDITION. 

A.  Ezra    Abbot,    LL.  D.,    Assistant    Librarian   of    Harvard    College, 

Cambridge,  Mass. 
S.  C.  B.         Prof  Samuel  Colcord  Bartlett,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Sem.,  Chicago,  111. 
T.  J.  C         Rev.  Thomas  Jefferson  Conant,  D.  D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 
G.  E.  D.        Prof  George  Edward  Day,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
G.  P.  F.  Prof  George  Park  Fisher,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

F.  G.  Prof  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.  D.,  Middletown,  Conn. 

D.  R.  G.         Rev.  Daniel  Raynes  Goodwin,  D.  D.,  Provost  of  the  University  of 

Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 

H.  Prof  Horatio  Balch  Hackett,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Theological  Institu- 

tion, Newton,  Mass. 
J.  H.  Prof.  James  Hadley,  LL.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

F,  W.  H.       Rev.  Frederick  Whitmore  Holland,  F.  R.  G.  S.,  London. 
A.  H.  Prof  Alvah  Hovey,  D.  D.,  Theological  Institution,  Newton,  Mass. 


LIST    OF   WRITERS. 


INITlAl & 


A.  C.  K.        Prof.  AsAHEL  Clark  Kendrick,  D.  D.,  University  of  Rochester,  X.  Y. 

C.  M.  M.        Prof.  Charles  Marsh  Mead,  Ph.  D.,  Theol.  Sem.,  Andover,  Mass. 

E.  A.  P.         Prof.  Edwards  Amasa  Park,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 

W.  E.  P.        Rev.  William  Edwards  Park,  Lawrence,  Mass. 

A,  P.  P.  Prof  Andrew  Preston  Peabody,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Harvard  College, 
Cambridge,  Mass. 

G.  E.  P.         Rev.  George  E.  Post,  M.  D.,  Tripoli,  Syria. 

R.  D.  C.  R.  Prof  Rensselaer  David  Chanceford  Robbins,  Middlebury  Col- 
lege, Vt. 

P.  S.  Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.  D.,  New  York. 

H.  B.  S.  Prof  Henry  Boynton  Smith,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

C.  E.  S.        Rev.  Calvln  Ellis  Stowe,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

D.  S.  T.        Prof  Daniel  Smith  Talcott,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Bangor,  Me. 
J.  H.  T.        Prof  Joseph  Henry  Thayer,  M.  A.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 
J.  P.  T.         Rev.  Joseph  Parrish  Thompson,  D.  D.,  New  York. 

C.  V.  A.  V.  Rev.  Cornelius  V.  A.  Van  Dyck,  D.  D.,  Behut,  Syria. 

W.  H.  W.     Rev.  William  Hayes  Ward,  M.  A.,  New  York. 

W.  F.  W.  Prof  William  Fairfield  Warren,  D.  D.,  Boston  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Boston,  Mass. 

S.  W.  Rev.  Samuel  Wolcott,  D.  D.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

T.  D.  W.  President  Theodore  Dwight  Woolsey,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Yale  College, 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

*-*  The  new  portions  in  the  present  edition  are  indicated  by  a  star  (*),  the  edi- 
torial additions  being  distinguished  by  the  initials  H.  and  A.  Whatever  is  enclosed 
in  brackets  is  also,  with  unimportant  exceptions,  editorial.  This  remark,  however, 
does  not  apply  to  the  cross-references  in  brackets,  most  of  which  belong  to  the  origi- 
nal work,  though  a  large  number  have  been  added  to  this  edition. 


ABBREVIATIONS. 

Aid.       The  Aldlne  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1518. 

Alex.     The  Codex  Alexandrinus  (5th  cent.),  edited  by  Baber,  1816-28. 

A.  V.     The  authorized  (common)  English  version  of  the  Bible. 

Comp.   The  Septuagint  as  printed  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglott,  1514-17,  published 

1522. 
FA.       The  Codex  Friderico-Augustanus  (4th  cent.),  pubhshed  by  Tischendorf  in 

1846. 
Elom.     The  Roman  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1587.     The  readings  of  the  Septuagin 

for  which  no  authority  is  specified  are  also  fi'om  this  source. 
Sin.        The  Codex  SInaiticus  (4th  cent.),  published  by  Tischendorf  in  1862.     This 

and  FA.  are  parts  of  the  same  nianuscript. 
Vat.       The  Codex  Vaticanus  1209  (4th  cent.),  according  to  Mai's  edition,  published 

by  Vercellone  in  1857.     "Vat.  H."  denotes  readings  of  the  MS.  (differing 

from  Mai),  given  in  Holmes  and  Parsons's  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1798- 

1827.     "  Vat.^  "  distinguishes  the  primary  reading  of  the  MS.  from  "  Vat.'^ " 

or  "  2.  m.,"  the  alteration  of  a  later  reviser. 


DICTIONARY 


BIBLICAL    ANTIQUITIES,    BIOGRAPHY,    GEOGRAPHY, 
AND    NATURAL    HISTORY. 


REGEM-MELECH 

llE'aEM-ME'LECH  CrybT^  D^-l  [friend 
of  the  kimjl:  'Ap/Setretp  6  ^aaiKevs\  Alex.  Ap- 
^efffffep  0  /3. :  Rogmimii^kch).  The  names  of 
Sherezer  and  Kegem-melech  occur  in  an  olisciire 
passage  of  Zechariah  (vii.  2).  I'hej  were  sent  on 
behalf  of  some  of  the  Captivity  to  make  inquiries 
at  the  Temple  concerning  fasting.  In  the  A.  V. 
the  subject  of  the  verse  appears  to  be  the  ca|)tive 
Jews  in  Babylon,  and  Bethel,  or  "  the  house  of 
God,"  is  regarded  as  the  accusative  after  the  verb 
of  motion.  The  LXX.  take  "the  king"  as  the 
nominative  to  the  verb  "  sent."  considering  the 
last  part  of  the  name  Regem-melech  as  an  appel- 
lative and  not  as  a  proper  name.  Again,  in  the 
Vulgate,  Sherezer,  Kegem-melech,  and  their  men, 
are  the  persons  who  sent  to  the  house  of  God. 
The  Peshito-Syriac  has  a  curious  version  of  the 
passage:  "  And  he  sent  to  Bethel,  to  Sharezer  and 
Rabmag;  and  the  king  sent  and  his  men  to  pray 
for  him  before  the  Lord :  "  Sharezer  and  Rabmag 
being  associated  in  Jer.  xxxix.  3,  1-3.  On  refer- 
ring to  Zech.  vii.  5,  the  expression  "  the  people  of 
the  land  "  seems  to  indicate  that  those  who  sent 
to  the  Temple  were  not  the  captive  Jews  in  Baby- 
lon, but  those  who  had  returned  to  their  own 
country ;  and  this  being  the  case  it  is  probable 
that  in  ver.  2  "  Bethel "  is  to  be  taken  as  the  sub- 
ject, "  and  Bethel,  i.  e.  the  inhabitants  of  Bethel, 
sent." 

The  Hexaplar-  Syriac,  following  the  Peshito,  has 
"Rabmag."  What  reading  the  LXX.  had  before 
them  it  is  difficult  to  conjecture.  From  its  con- 
nection with  Sherezer,  the  name  Kegem-melech 
(lit.  "  king's  friend,"  comp.  1  Chr.  xxvii.  33),  was 
probably  an  Assyrian  title  of  office.     W.  A.  W. 

REGION-ROUND  ABOUT,  THE  (^  7re- 
piXttipos)-  This  term  had  perhaps  originally  a 
more  precise  and  independent  meaning  than  it  ap- 
pears to  a  reader  of  the  Authorized  Version  to 
possess. 

In  the  Old  Test,  it  is  used  by  the  LXX.  as 
the  equivalent  of  the  singular  Hebrew  word  hac- 

Ciccar  ("ISSPT,  literally  -'the  round"),  a  word 
the  topographical  application  of  which  is  not  clear, 
but  which  seems  in  its  earliest  occurrences  to  de- 
note the  circle  or  oasis  of  cultivation  in  which 
stood  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  the  rest  of  the 
five  "cities  of  the  Ciccar"  (Gen.  xiii.  10,  11,  12, 
170 


REHOB 

six.  17,  25,  28,  29;  Deut.  xxxiv.  3).  Elsewhere 
it  has  a  wider  meaning,  though  still  attached  to 
the  Jordan  (2  Sam.  xviii.  23 ;  i  K.  vii.  40 ;  2  Chr. 
iv.  17;  Neh.  iii.  22,  xii.  28).  It  is  in  this  less 
restricted  sense  that  Trfpix<^pos  occurs  in  the  New 
Test.  In  Matt.  iii.  5  and  lAike  iii.  3  it  denotes 
the  populous  and  flourishing  region  which  con- 
tained the  towns  of  Jericho  and  its  dependencies, 
in  the  Jordan  Valley,  inclosed  in  the  amphitheatre 
of  the  hills  of  Quiiraniuna  (see  Map,  vol.  ii.  p. 
064),  a  densely  populated  region,  and  important 
enough  to  be  reckoned  as  a  distinct  section  of  Pal- 
estine—  "Jerusalem,  Judfea,  and  all  the  arron- 
dissement"  of  Jordan  "  (Matt.  iii.  5,  also  Luke  vii. 
17).  [.IuD.E.\,  WiLDEHNESs  OK,  Amer.  ed.]  It 
is  also  applied  to  the  district  of  Gennesaret,  a  re- 
gion which  presents  certain  similarities  to  that  of 
.lericho,  being  inclosed  in  the  amphitheatre  of  the 
hills  of  Hattin  and  bounded  in  front  by  the  water 
of  the  lake,  as  the  other  was  by  the  .Jordan,  and 
also  resembling  it  in  being  very  thickly  populated 
(Matt.  xiv.  35;  Mark  vi.  55;  Luke  vi.  17,  vii.  17). 

G. 

REHABI'AH  (n^?n"l  in   1   Chr.   xxiii.; 

elsewhere  -in^^nT  \_whoin  Jehovah  enlarges]  : 
'Pa^ia,  [Vat.]  Alex.  Paa^ia,  in  1  Chr.  xxiii.; 
'PaaySi'aj,  1  Chr.  xxiv.:  'PajS/a?,  Alex.  Paafiias, 
1  Chr.  xxvi. :  Jiolw/Aa,  Ralinbia  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.). 
The  only  son  of  Eliezer,  the  son  of  Moses,  and 
the  father  of  Isshiah,  or  Jeshaiah  (1  ( 'hr.  xxiii. 
17,  xxiv.  21,  xxvi.  25).  His  descendants  were 
numerous. 

RE'HOB  (S'^nn  [and  ^H"!,  street,  marker 
phice]:  'Padl3,  ['Pow>:]  Nohob)!  1.  The  father 
of  Hadadezer  king  of  Zobah,  whom  David  smote 
at  the  Euphrates  (2  Sam.  viii.  3,  12).  Josephus 
{A7it  vii.  5,  §  1)  calls  him  'Apaos,  and  the  Old 
Latin  Version  Arachus,  and  Blayney  (on  Zech.  ix. 
1)  thinks  this  was  his  real  name,  and  that  he  was 
called  Rehob,  or  "charioteer,"  from  the  number  of 
chariots  in  his  possession.  The  name  appears  to 
be  peculiarly  Syrian,  for  we  find  a  district  of  SyTia 
called  Rehob,  or  Beth-Kehob  (2  Sam.  x.  6,  8). 


a  Thus   Jerome  —  "  rejjiones   in 
meJius  .lonlane.''  Huit." 


■irniitu    per   qaa« 


2698 


REHOB 


2.  ('Poci/3.)  A  Levite,  or  family  of  Levites,  who 
sealed  the  covenant  with  Neheniiah  (Neh.  x.  11). 

\y.  A.  W. 

RE'HOB  (2n"1  [as  aliove]).  The  name  of 
more  than  one  place  in  the  extreme  north  of  the 
Holy  Land. 

1.  ([Rom.  'Po<{j3;  Vat.]  Paa/3  ;  Alex.  Poa!/3: 
/?('//o6. )«  The  northern  limit  of  the  exploration 
of  the  spies  (Num.  xiii.  21).  It  is  specified  as 
being  "as  men  come  unto  Haniath,'"  or,  as  the 
phrase  is  elsewhere  rendered,  "  at  the  entrance  of 
Hamata,  '  i.  e.  at  the  commencement  of  the  terri- 
tory of  that  name,  hy  which  in  the  early  books  of 
the  Bible  the  great  valley  of  Lebanon,  the  Bibi^ah 
of  the  Prophets,  and  the  Buka'a  of  the  modern 
Arabs,  seems  to  be  roughly  designated.  This,  and 
the  consideration  of  the  improbability  that  the 
spies  went  farther  than  the  upper  end  of  the  .Jor- 
dan Valley  (Kob.  Blbl.  lies.  iii.  -371),  seems  to  fix 
the  position  of  Itehob  as  not  far  from  'J ell  el-Kady 
and  Banias.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  statement 
of  Judg.  xviii.  28,  that  Laish  or  Dan  (  Tell  el-KaJy) 
was  "in  the  valley  that  is  by  Beth-rehob."  No 
trace  of  the  name  of  Kehob  or  Beth-rehob  has  yet 
been  met  with  in  this  direction.  Dr.  Robinson 
proposes  to  identify  it  with  fhm'in,  an  ancient 
fortress  in  the  mountains  N.  W.  of  the  plain  of 
Huleh.  the  upper  district  of  the  Jordan  Valley. 
But  this,  though  plausible,  has  no  certain  basis. 

To  those  who  are  anxious  to  extend  the  l»ound- 
aries  of  the  Holy  Land  on  the  north  and  east  it 
may  be  satisfactory  to  know  that  a  place  called 
Riihaibth  exists  in  the  plain  of  Jevud,  about  2.5 
miles  N.  E.  of  Damascus,  and  12  N.  of  the  north- 
ernmost of  the  three  lakes  (see  the  Maps  of  Van 
de  Velde  and  Porter). 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  Rehob  or 
Beth-rehob  was  identical  with  the  place  mentioned 
under  both  names  in  2  '6dm.  x.  0,  8,''  in  connection 
with  Maacah.  which  was  also  in  the  upper  district 
of  the  fhih'h. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  Beth  rehob  is  distinctly 
stated  to  have  been  "for  from  Zidon"  (.Judg.  xviii. 
28),  it  must  be  a  distinct  place  from 

2.  ('Paa/3:  Alex.  Poo/S:  liohob),  one  of  the 
towns  allotted  to  Asher  (.losh.  xix.  28),  and  which 
from  the  list  appears  to  have  been  in  close  prox- 
imity to  Zidon.  It  is  named  between  Kbron,  or 
Abdon,  and  Hammon.  The  towns  of  Asher  lay 
in  a  region  which  has  been  but  imperfectly  exam- 
ined, and  no  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  discovering 
the  position  of  either  of  these  three. 

3.  CPaav,  ['Paa/S,  'Eped,  'Po&>;3:]  Alex.  Paw^, 
[Poco/3:]  Riihob,  Rochcb.)  Asher  contained  another 
Kehob  (.Josh.  xix.  30);  but  the  situation  of  tiiis, 
like  the  former,  remains  at  present  unknown.  One 
of  fflife  two,  it  is  difficult  to  say  which,  was  allotted 
to  the  (Jershonite  Levites  (.losh.  xxi.  -"il ;  1  Chr. 
vi.  75),  and  one  of  its  Canaanite  inhabitants  re- 
tained possession  (.ludg.  i.  31).  'I'lie  mention  of 
Apbik  in  this  latter  passage  may  imply  that  the 
Rehol)  referred  to  was  that  of  .losli.  xix.  30.  This, 
Kusebius  and  .lerome  (  Uiiomdg/ictni,  "  Roob  ")  con- 
fuse with  the  Rehob  of  the  spies,  and  place  four 
Roman  miles  from  Scythopolis.  The  place  they 
refer  to  still  survives  as  Rehab,  3^  miles  S.  of 
Beis'tn,  but  their  identification  of  a  town  in  that 

«  Targum  Pseudojon.  n^^lS^G,  '.  '•  TrAaTetoi, 
itre*t3 ;  and  Samaritan  Vers.  ''SnC 


REIIOBOAM 

position  with  one  in  the  territory  of  Asher  is  ob- 
\iously  inaccurate.  (t. 

KEHOBO'AM  (D^^n"?,  enlarger  vf  tht 
people  —  see  Ex.  xxxiv.  20,  and  compare  the  name 
EupvSriiuos'-  'Po^od/J.'-  Roboam),  son  of  Solomon, 
by  the  Anmionite  princess  Naaniah  (1  K.  xiv.  21, 
31),  and  bis  successor  (1  K.  xi.  43).  Erom  the 
earliest  peiiod  of  Jewish  history  we  perceive  sj  nip- 
toms  that  the  confederation  of  the  tribes  was  but 
imperfectly  cemented.  The  powerful  Ephraim  couid 
never  brook  a  position  of  inferiority.  Throughout 
the  Book  of  Judges  (viii.  1,  xii.  1)  the  Ephrainiites 
show  a  spirit  oi  resentful  jealousy  when  any  enter- 
prise is  undertaken  without  their  concurrence  and 
active  participation.  Erom  them  had  sprung 
•loshua,  and  afterwards  (by  his  place  of  liirth) 
Sanniel  might  be  considered  theirs,  and  though  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin  gave  to  Israel  its  first  king,  yet 
it  was  allied  by  hereditary  ties  to  the  house  of 
.losejih,  and  by  geographical  position  to  the  terri- 
tory of  Ephraim,  so  that  up  to  David's  accession 
the  leadership  was  practically  in  the  hands  of  the 
latter  tribe.  But  Judah  always  threatened  to  be  a 
formidable  rival.  Durins;  the  earlier  history,  partly 
from  the  physical  structure  and  situation  of  its 
territory  (Stanley,  «S.  if  P.p.  102),  which  secluded 
it  from  Palestine  just  as  Palestine  by  its  geograph- 
ical character  was  secluded  from  the  world,  it  had 
stood  very  much  aloof  from  the  nation  [Ji'kaii]. 
and  even  after  Saul's  death,  apparently  without 
waiting- to  consult  their  brethren,  "the  men  of 
Judah  came  and  anointed  David  king  over  the  house 
of  .ludah"  (2  Sam.  ii.  4),  while  the  other  tribes 
adhered  to  Saul's  family,  thereby  anticipating  the 
final  disruption  which  was  afterwards  to  rend  the 
nation  permanently  into  two  kingdoms.  But  after 
seven  years  of  disaster  a  reconciliation  was  forced 
upon  the  contending  parties;  David  was  acknowl- 
edged as  king  of  Israel,  and  soon  after,  by  fixing 
his  court  at  Jerusalem  and  bringing  the  Taliernacle 
there,  he  transferred  from  Ephraim  the  greatness 
which  had  attached  to  Shechem  as  the  ancient 
capital,  and  to  .^Jiiloh  as  the  seat  of  the  national 
worship.  In  spite  of  this  he  seems  to  have  enjoyed 
great  personal  ]iopu!arity  among  the  Ephrainiites, 
and  to  have  treated  many  of  them  with  special 
favor  (1  Chr.  xii.  30,  xxvii.  10,  14),  yet  this  roused 
the  jealousy  of  .ludah.  and  probably  led  to  the  revolt 
of  Absalom.  [Ai'.s.\I-()M.]  Even  after  that  peril- 
ous crisis  was  past,  tiie  old  rivalry  broke  out  afresh, 
and  almost  led  to  another  insurrection  (2  Sam.  xx. 
1,  &C.-).  Compare  Ps  Ixxviii.  CO,  67,  &c.  in  illus- 
tration of  these  remarks.  Solomon's  reign,  from 
its  severe  taxes  and  other  oppressions,  aggravated 
the  discontent,  and  latterly,  from  its  irrelisrioua 
character,  alienated  the  prophets  and  provoked  the 
displeasure  of  (iod.  When  Solomon's  strons:  hand 
was  withdrawn  the  crisis  came.  Rehoboani  se- 
lected Shechem  as  the  place  of  his  coronation, 
probably  as  an  act  of  concession  to  the  Ephrainjites 
and  perhaps  in  deference  to  the  suggestions  of  those 
old  and  wise  counselldrs  of  his  father,  whose  advice 
he  afterwards  unhai)pily  rejected.  From  the  present 
Hebrew  text  of  1  K.  xii.  the  exact  details  of  the 
transactions  at  Shechem  are  involved  in  a  little 
uncertainty.  The  general  facts  indeed  are  clear 
The   people  demanded  a   remission  of  the  sever* 


'>  Here  the  name  is  written  in  the  fuller  form  oi 


REHOBOAM 

burdens  imposed  b}'  Solomon,  and  Rehoho.ini  prom- 
ised tliem  an  answer  in  tliree  dajs,  duriiii;;  wliicli 
time  lie  consulted  first  liis  father's  counsellors,  and 
then  the  young  men  "  that  were  grown  up  with 
him,  and  which  stood  before  him,"  whose  answer 
shows  how  greatly  during  Solomon's  later  years 
the  character  of  the  Jewish  court  had  degenerated. 
Rejecting  the  advice  of  the  elders  to  conciliate  the 
people  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  and  so  make 
them  "his  servants  forever,"  he  returned  as  his 
reply,  in  the  true  spirit  of  an  eastern  despot,  the 
frantic  bravado  of  his  contemporaries:  "My  little 
finger  shall  be  thicker  than  my  father's  loins.  .  . 
.  .  .  I  will  add  to  your  yoke;  my  father  hath 
"eha-stised  you  with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise  you 
with  scorpions"  (i.  e.  scourges  furnished  with 
sharp  points").  Thereupon  arose  the  formidalile 
gong  of  insurrection,  heard  once  before  when  the 
tribes  quarreled  after  David's  return  from  the  war 
with  Absalom:  — 

What  portion  have  we  in  DaviJ  ? 
What  iaheritance  in  Jesse's  son  ? 

To  your  tents,  0  Israel  I 

Now  see  to  thy  own  house,  0  David  1 

Rehoboam  sent  Adorani  or  Adoniram,  who  had 
been  chief  receiver  of  the  tribute  during  the  reigns 
of  his  father  and  his  grandfather  (1  K.  iv.  6;  2 
Sam.  XX.  24),  to  reduce  the  rebels  to  reason,  but 
he  was  stoned  to  death  by  them ;  whereupon  the 
king  and  his  attendants  fled  in  hot  haste  to  Jerusa- 
lem. So  far  all  is  plain,  but  there  is  a  doubt  as  to 
the  part  which  Jeroboam  took  in  these  transactions. 
According  to  1  K.  xii.  3  he  was  sunnnoned  by  the 
Ephraimites  from  Egypt  (to  which  country  he  had 
fled  from  the  anger  of  Solomon)  to  lie  their  spokes- 
man at  Rehoboam's  coronation,  and  actually  made 
the  speech  in  which  a  remission  of  burdens  was 
requested.  But,  in  apparent  contradiction  to  this, 
we  read  in  ver.  20  of  the  same  chapter  that  after 
the  success  of  the  insurrection  and  Rehoboam's 
flight,  "  when  all  Israel  lienrd  that  Jeroboam  was 
come  again,  they  sent  and  called  him  unto  the  con- 
gregation and  made  him  king."  But  there  is  rea- 
son to  think  that  ver.  3  has  been  interpolated.  It 
is  not  found  in  the  LXX.,  which  mnkes  no  mention 
of  Jeroboam  in  this  chapter  till  ver.  20,  substi- 
tuting in  ver.  3  for  "  Jeroboam  and  all  the  congre- 
pation  of  Israel  came  and  spoke  unto  Rehoboam  " 
the  words,  koI  iKa,\f]aev  b  Aabr  npbs  rbu  ^a(ri\^a 
'Vo^odfj..  So  too  Jeroboam's  name  is  omitted  by 
the  LXX.  in  ver.  12.  Aloreover  we  find  in  the 
LXX.  a  long  supplement  to  this  12th  chapter,  evi- 
dently ancient,  and  at  least  in  parts  authentic,  con- 
taining fuller  details  of  Jeroboam's  biography  than 
the  Hebrew.  [.Ierobo.vm.]  In  this  we  read  that 
after  Solomon's  death  he  returned  to  his  natije 
place,  Sarira  in  Ephraim,  which  he  fortified,  and 
lived  there  quietly,  watching  the  turn  of  events, 
till  the  long-expected  rebellion  broke  out,  when  the 
Ephraimites  heard  (doubtless  through  his  own 
agency)  that  he  had  returned,  and  invited  him  to 
ihechem  to  assume  the  crown.  Eron-  the  same 
supplementary  narrative  of  the  LXX.  it  would 
appear  that  more  than  a  year  must  have  elapsed 
between  Solomon's  death  and  Rehoboam's  visit  to 
Shechem,  for,  on  receiving  the  news  of  the  former 
jvent,  Jeroboam  requested  from  the  king  of  I'.gypt 


"  So  in  Latin,  icorpio,  according  to  Isidore  (Orn;'^'. 
f.  27),  is  "  virga  nodosa  et  aculeata,  quia  arcuato  vul- 
^»n  in  corpus  intiigitur"  {Faceioiati,  s.  v.). 


REHOBOAM  2699 

leave  to  return  to  his  native  country.  This  the 
king  tried  to  prevent  by  giving  him  his  sister-in- 
law  in  marriage:  but  on  the  birth- of  his  chili 
Abijah,  Jeroboam  renewed  his  request,  which  was 
then  granted.  It  is  probable  that  during  this  year 
the  discontent  of  the  N.  tribes  was  making  itself 
more  and  more  manifest,  and  that  this  led  to  Reho- 
boam's visit  and  intended  inauguration. 

On  Rehoboam's  return  to  Jerusalem  he  assem- 
bled an  army  of  180,000  men  from  the  two  faithful 
tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  (the  latter  trans- 
ferred from  the  side  of  Joseph  to  that  of  Judah  in 
consequence  of  the  position  of  David  s  capital 
within  its  borders),  in  the  hope  of  reconquering 
Israel.  The  expedition,  however,  was  forbidden  by 
the  prophet  Sheniaiah,  who  assured  them  that  tlie 
separation  of  the  kingdoms  was  in  accordance  with 
God's  will  (1  K.  xii.  24):  still  during  Rehoboam's 
life  time  peaceful  relations  between  Israel  and  Judah 
were  never  restored  (2  Chr.  xii.  15;  IK.  xiv.  30). 
Kehoboam  now  occupied  himself  in  strengthening 
the  territories  which  remained  to  him,  by  building 
a  number  of  fortresses  of  which  the  names  are 
given  in  2  Chr.  xi.  6-10,  forming  a  girdle  of 
"fenced  cities"  round  Jerusalem.  The  pure  wor- 
ship of  God  was  maintained  in  Judah,  and  the 
Levites  and  many  pious  Israelites  from  the  North, 
vexed  at  the  calf-idolatry  introduced  by  .leroboam 
at  Dan  and  Bethel,  in  imitation  of  the  I'>gyptian 
worship  of  Mnevis,  came  and  settled  in  the  southern 
kingdoui  and  added  to  its  power.  But  Rehoboam 
did  not  check  the  introduction  of  heathen  abomina- 
tions into  his  capital:  the  lascivious  worship  of 
.\shtoreth  was  allowed  to  exist  by  the  side  of  the 
true  religion  (an  inheritance  of  evil  doubtless  left 
by  Solomon),  "images"  (of  Baal  and  his  fellow 
divinities)  were  set  up,  and  the  worst  immoralities 
were  tolerated  (1  K.  xiv.  22-24).  These  evils  were 
punished  and  put  down  by  the  terrible  calamity  of 
an  Egyptian  invasion.  Shortly  before  this  time  a 
change  in  the  ruling  house  had  occurred  in  Egypt. 
The  XXIst  dynasty,  of  Tanites,  whose  last  king. 
Pisham  or  Psusennes,  had  been  a  close  ally  of  .Solo- 
mon (1  K.  iii.  1,  vii.  8,  ix.  16,  x.  28,  29),  was  suc- 
ceeded by  the  XXIId,  of  Bubastites,  whose  first  sov- 
ereign, Shishak  (Sheshonk,  Sesonchis,  ^ouaaKLfj,), 
connected  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  with  .Jeroboam 
That  he  was  incited  by  him  to  attack  Judah  is 
very  probable:  at  all  events  in  the  5th  year  of 
Rehoboam's  reign  the  country  was  invaded  by  a 
host  of  l''.gyptians  and  other  African  nations,  num- 
bering 1,200  chariots.  00,000  cavalry,  and  a  vast 
miscellaneous  multitude  of  infantry.  The  line  of 
fortresses  which  protected  Jerusalem  to  the  W.  and 
S.  was  forced,  Jerusalem  itself  was  taken,  and 
Rehoboam  had  to  purchase  an  ignominious  peace 
by  delivering  up  all  the  treasures  with  which  Solo- 
mon had  adorned  the  temple  and  palace,  including 
his  golden  shields.  200  of  the  larger,  and  300  of  the 
smaller  size  (1  K.  x.  16,  17),  which  were  carried 
before  him  when  he  visited  the  Temple  in  state. 
We  are  told  that  after  the  Egyptians  had  retired, 
his  vain  and  foolish  successor  comforted  himself  by 
substituting  shields  of  brass,  which  were  solemnly 
borne  before  him  in  procession  by  the  body-guard, 
as  if  nothing  had  been  chatiged  since  his  fother's 
time  (Ewald,  Geschic/Ue  di-s  I'.  /.  iii.  348,  464). 
Shishak's  success  is  commemorated  by  sculptures 
<liscovered  by  ('hampollion  on  the  outside  of  the 
great  Temple  at  Karnak,  where  among  a  long  list 
of  captured  towns  and  provinces  occurs  the  name 
Ifclc/d  Judfili   (kingdom   of  -ludah).      It  is   <a.\d 


2700 


REHOBOTH 


thiU  the  features  of  the  captives  in  these  sculptures 
are  umiiistakal)ly  Jewish  (Rawlinson,  Iltrodviiis, 
ii.  :J76,  and  Bmnpton  Lectures,  p.  126;  Bunseii, 
Kyypt,  iii.  '242).  After  this  great  humiliation  the 
moral  condition  of  Judah  seems  to  have  improved 
(2  Chr.  xii.  12),  and  the  rest  of  Rehoboani's  life  to 
have  been  unmarked  by  any  events  of  importance. 
He  died  b.  c.  958,  after  a  reign  of  17  years,  having 
ascended  the  throne  b.  c.  J75  at  the  aire  of  41 
(1  K.  xiv.  21;  2  Chr.  xii.  13).  In  the  addition  to 
the  LXX.  already  mentioned  (inserted  after  1  K. 
xii.  24)  we  read  that  he  was  16  years  old  at  his 
accession,  a  misstatement  probably  founded  on  a 
wrong  interpretation  of  2  Chr.  xiii.  7,  where  he  is 
called  "  young  "'  (i.  e.  neio  to  his  woi-k,  inexpe- 
rienced) and  "tender-hearted''  (23 ^"TJ^,  lonnt- 
iiiff  in  resolution  und  s/iirii).  He  had  18  wives, 
60  concubines,  28  sons,  and  60  daughters.  The 
wisest  tiling  recorded  of  him  in  Scripture  is  that 
he  refused  to  waste  away  his  sons'  energies  in  the 
wretched  existence  of  an  Kastern  zenana,  in  which 
we  may  iiifei-,  from  his  helplessness  at  the  age  of 
41,  that  he  had  himself  been  educated,  but  dis- 
persed them  in  conmiand  of  the  new  fortresses 
which  he  had  built  about  the  country.  Of  his 
wives,  Mahalath,  Abihail,  and  Maachah  were  all 
of  the  royal  house  of  Jesse:  M.ia«hah  he  loved  best 
of  all,  and  to  her  son  Al)ijali  he  bequeathed  his 
kingdom.  The  text  of  the  LXX.  followed  in  this 
article  is  Tischendorf's  edition  of  the  Vatican  MS. 
[not  of  the  Vat.  MS.,  but  reprint  of  the  Roman 
edition  of  1.587],  Leipsic,  1850.  G.  E.  L.  C. 

REHO'BOTH     (n'inn~)      [streets,      wide 

places]:  Samar.  mSTl"! :  evpvxi^pia-  Veneto- 
Gk.  al  nAareTai :  Latitudo).  The  third  of  the  series 
of  wells  dui;  liy  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvi.  22).  He  celelirates 
his  triumph  and  bestows  its  name  on  the  well  in  a 
fragiiient  of  poetry  of  the  same  nature  as  those  in 
which  Jacob's  wives  give  names  to  his  successive 
children:  '-He  calleil  the  name  of  it  Rehoboth 
(•room,')  and  said,  — 

I  Because  norr  Jehovah  hath-m»de-room  for  us 
And  we  shall  incre.^se  in  the  land.' " 

Isaac  had  left  the  valley  of  Gerar  and  its  turbulent 
inhabitants  before  he  dug  the  well  which  he  thus 
commemorated  (ver.  22).  From  it  he,  in  time, 
•'went  up"  to  Beer-sheba  (ver.  2-3),  an  expression 
which  is  always  used  of  motion  towards  the  Land 
of  promise.  The  position  of  Gerar  has  not  been 
definitely  ascertained,  luit  it  seems  to  have  lain  a 
fevF  miles  to  the  S.  of  Gaza  and  nearly  due  \L  of 
Beer-sheba.  In  this  direction,  therefore,  if  any- 
where, the  wells  Sitnah,  Esek,  and  Rehoboth, 
should  be  searched  for.  A  Wndy  Ruhaibeli,  con- 
taining the  ruins  of  a  town  of  tiie  same  name, 
with  a  large  well,"  is  crossed  by  the  road  from 
Klinn  en-Nukhl  to  Hebron,  by  which  I'alestine  is 
entered  on  the  south.  It  lies  about  20  miles  S.  W. 
of  Bir  es-Seba,  and  more  than  that  distance  S. 
of  the  most  probable  situation  of  Gerar.  It  there- 
We  seems  unsafe,  without  further  proof,  to  identify 
it  with  Reholioth,  as  Rowlands  (in  Williams'  fJuli/ 
City,  I.  465),  Stewart  ( Tent  awl  Khan.  p.  202),  and 


a  Dr.  RobinsoD  could  not  find  the  well.  Dr.  Stewart 
tound  it  "  regularly  built,  12  feet  in  circumference," 
vnt  ''completely  filled  up."  Mr.  Rowlands  describes 
it  aa  "an  ancient  well  of  living  and  good  water." 
Who  Bhall  decide  on  testimony  so  curiously  contra- 
lictorv  ? 


IIEHOBOTH,  TIIE  CITY 

Van  de  Velde*  {Memoir,  p.  343)  have  done.  Al 
the  same  time,  as  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Roliinson, 
the  existence  of  so  large  a  place  here,  witiiout  any 
apparent  mention,  is  mysterious.  All  that  can  be 
said  in  favor  of  the  identity  of  Biilinilieli  with  Reho- 
both is  said  by  Dr.  Bonar  {Desert  of  iHnni,  p.  316), 
and  not  without  consideralile  force. 

The  ancient  Jewish  tradition  confined  the  events 
of  this  part  of  Isaac's  life  to  a  much  narrower 
circle.  The  wells  of  the  patriarchs  were  shown 
near  Ashkelon  in  the  time  of  Origen,  Antoninus 
Martyr,  and  Eusebius  (Reland,  Pal.  p.  589):  the 
Samaritan  Version  identifies  Gerar  with  Ashkelon; 
Josephus  {Ant.  i.  12,  §  1)  calls  it  "  Gerar  of  Pales- 
tine,'''' i.  e.  of  Philistia.  G. 

REHO'BOTH,  THE  CITY  O^'V  mhn, 
i.  e.  Rechoboth  'Ir   [streets  of  the  city] ;   Samar. 

m^n"!;  Sam.  vers.c  ]3t2D:  'Pow^iie  ■n-6\is; 
Alex.  PocjyScoy;  platea  ciiiPitis).  One  of  the  four 
cities  built  by  Asshur,  or  by  Nimrod  in  Asshur, 
according  as  this  difficult  passage  is  translated. 
The  four  were  Nineveli;  Rehoboth-Ir;  Calah ; 
and  Resen,  between  Nine\eh  and  Calah  (Gen.  x. 
11).  Nothing  certain  is  known  of  its  position. 
The  name  of  Pudiabeli  is  still  attached  to  two 
places  in  the  region  of  the  ancient  Mesopotamia. 
They  lie,  the  one  on  the  western,  and  the  other  on  the 
eastern  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  a  few  miles  below  the 
confluence  of  the  Khaliur.  Hutli  are  said  to  con- 
tain extensive  ancient  remains  That  on  the  east- 
ern bank  bears  the  affix  of  mulik  or  royal,  and  this 
Bunsen  {Bibelwerk)  and  Kalisch  {Genesis,  p.  261) 
propose  as  the  representative  of  Rehoboth.  Its 
distance  from  Kalth-Sheryhat  and  Nimriid  (nearly 
200  miles)  is  perhaps  an  obstacle  to  this  identifica- 
tion. Sir  H.  Rawlinson  (Athemeuin,  .April  15, 
1854)  suggests  Selemiydi  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  Kalah,  "  where  there  are  still  extensive 
ruins  of  the  Assyrian  period,"  but  no  sulisequent 
discoveries  appear  to  have  confinned  this  sugges- 
tion. The  Samaritan  Version  (*e  above)  reads 
Sutccin  for  Rehoboth ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that 
the  name  Sutcan  should  be  found  in  connection 
with  Calah  in  an  inscription  on  the  lireast  of  a 
statue  of  the  god  Nebo  which  Sir  H.  Raw4inson 
disinterred  at  Ximn'id  {Atlieniertm,  as  above). 
The  Sutcan  of  the  Samaritan  Version  is  com- 
monly supposed  to  denote  the  Sittacene  of  the 
Greek  geographers  (^Viner,  Jiealwb.  '•  Rechoboth 
Ir").  But  Sittacene  was  a  district,  and  not  a 
city  as  Reholioth-lr  necessarily  was,  and,  further, 
being  in  southern  Assyria,  would  seem  to  be  too 
distant  from  the  other  cities  of  Nimrod. 

St.  Jerome,  both  in  the  Vulgate  and  in  his 
Qiuestiones  cid  (lencsim  (probably  from  Jewish 
sources),  considers  Reliobotli-Ir  as  referring  to 
Nineveh,  and  as  meaning  tlie  "streets  of  the 
city."  The  reading  of  the  Targums  of  .lonathan, 
Jerusalem,  and  Rabl)i  ,losepli,on  (ien.and  1  Chcon., 
viz.,  Platidh,  Platiutlin,  are  prol)al]ly  only  tran- 
scriptions of  the  Greek  word  7rAa7e7ai,  which,  as 
found  in  the  well-known  ancient  city  PlatEea,  is 
the  exact  equivalent  of  Reholioth.  Kaplan,  the 
Jewish    geographer     {Erets    Kedumim),  identifies 


i>  In  his  Travels  Van  de  Velde  inclines  to  place  it, 
or  at  any  rate  one  of  Isaac's  wells,  at  B  r  Isfk,  about 
six  miles  S.  W.  of  B^it  Jibrin  {Si/r.  and  Put.  ii.  146). 

<:  The  Arabic  translation  of  this  version  (Kuehnen 
adheres  to  the  Hebrew  text,  having  K'l'taftc/i  el-M* 
dinek. 


EEHOBOTH  BY  THE  RIVER 

Ralabek-malik  with  Rehoboth-by-the-river,  in 
which  he  is  possibly  correct,  but  considers  it  as 
distinct  from  liehoboth  Ir,  which  he  believes  to 
have  disappeared.  G. 

REHO'BOTH  BY  THE  RIVER  (n'l^hn 

■irrSn  :  'PooiBwd  —  in  Chr.  'Pa!/8ui0  —  t]  Trapa 
KorafiSu  ;  Ales.  Po.o0ci)d  in  each  :  c/«  Juciu 
Rolwboih  ;  Rolioboth  qua  juxta  amneni  situ 
est).  The  city  of  a  certain  Saul  or  Shaul, 
one  of  the  early  kings  of  the  Edoniites  (Gtn. 
xixTi.  37;  1  Chr.  i.  48).  The  affix  "the 
river,"  fixes  the  situation  of  Kehoboth  as  on  the 
Euphrates,  emphatically  "  the  river  "  to  the  iidiabi- 
tants  of  Western  Asia.  [Rivek.]  The  name 
still  remains  attached  *o  two  spots  on  the  Euphra- 
tes; the  one  simply  ^'(//((ie/j.  on  the  right  bank, 
eight  miles  below  the  junction  of  the  Khabur, 
and  about  three  miles  west  of  the  river  (Chesney, 
Evphr.,  i.  119,  ii.  GIO,  and  map  iv.),  the  otiier 
four  or  five  miles  further  down  on  the  left  bank. 
The  latter  is  said  to  be  called  Hahabeh-mulik,  i.  c. 
••  royal  "  (Kalisch,  Kaplan ),«  and  is  on  this  ground 
identified  by  the  Jewish  commentators  with  the 
city  of  Saul;  but  whether  this  is  accurate,  and 
whether  that  city,  or  either  of  the  two  sites  just 
named,  is  also  identical  with  Rehoboth-Ir,  the  city 
of  Nimrod,  is  not  yet  known. 

There  is  no  reason  to  su[ipose  that  the  limits  of 
F-dom  ever  extended  to  the  Euphrates,  and  there- 
fore the  occurrence  of  the  name  in  the  lists  of 
kings  of  Edom  woidd  seem  to  be  a  trace  of 
an  Assyrian  incursion  of  the  same  nature  as  that 
of  Chedorlaomer  and  Amraphel.  G. 

*  RE'HU,  1  Chron.  i.  25  (A.  V.  ed.  IGll). 
[Reu.] 

RE'HUM  (D^m  [compassionate]:  Peovfj.; 
[Vat.  omits;]  Alex,  lepeov/j.'-  Jieltum).  1.  One 
of  the  "  children  of  the  province "  who  went  up 
from  Bab} Ion  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  2).  In 
Neh.  vii.  7  he  is  called  Nehuji,  and  in  1  Esdr.  v. 
8  RoiJius. 

2.  ([Vat.  PaouX,  Paov/j.'-]  Renin.)  "  Rehum 
the  chancellor,"  with  Shimshai  the  scribe,  and 
others,  wrote  to  Artaxerxes  to  prevail  upon  him 
to  stop  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  and  temple 
of  Jerusalem  (Ezr.  iv.  8,  9,  17,  22).  He  was  per- 
haps a  kind  of  lieutenant-governor  of  the  province 
under  the  king  of  Persia,  holding  apparently  the 
game  office  as  Tatnai,  who  is  described  in  Ezr.  v. 
6  as  taking  part  in  a  similar  transaction,  and 
is  there  called   "  the  governor  on    this    side  the 

river  "  The  Chaldee  title,  D37tp"753,  be'el-le'em, 
lit.  "lord  of  decree,"  is  left  untranslated  in  the 
LXX.  BaXTUfx,  and  the  Vulgate  Beelteem ;  and 
the  rendering  "chancellor"  in  the  A.  V.  appears 
to  have  been  derived  from  Kimchi  and  others,  who 
.xplain  it,  in  consequence  of  its  connection  with 
''Bcribe,"by  the  Hebrew  word  which  is  usually 
tendered  "  recorder."  This  appears  to  have  been 
"he  view  taken  by  the  author  of  1  Esdr.  ii.  2o,  6 
ypifpuiv  Toc  ■KpoaiziwrovTa,  and  by  Josephus  (.I/)/. 
d.  2,  §  1),  0  TTOfTa  TO  TTpaTTi/iieva  ypd(pcov-  The 
lornier  of  these  seems  to  be  a  gloss,  for  the  Chaldee 
^tle  is  also  represented  by  BecAre'^/xos. 

3.  {'Paov/j,;     [Vat.    Baaoud;    E.A..   Baaaovd:] 

*  The  exietenee  of  the  second  rests  but  on  slender 
tundatiou.  It  is  shown  in  the  map  in  Layard's  Nineveh 
Ilk'  Beaton,  and  is  mentioned  by  the  two  Jewish  au- 


REKEM  2701 

Rtkum.)  A  Levite  of  the  family  of  Bani,  who  as- 
sisted in  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  (Neh. 
iii.  17). 

4.  i'Peovfj.;  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  (joined  with 
part  of  the  next  word)  Paovfx-])  One  of  tht 
chief  of  the  people,  who  signed  the  covenant  with 
Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  25). 

5.  (Otn.  in  Vat.  MS.;  [also  om.  by  Rom.  Alex. 
F.A..';  FA.'^  Peov^:]  Rheum.)  A  priestly  family 
or  the  head  of  a  priestly  house,  who  went  up  with 
Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  3).  W.  A.  W. 

RET  C^VT?  [/''■'6«';%,  social]:  [Rom.  'P-qal; 
Vat.  Alex.]  Prjcrei:''  Rei).  A  person  mentioned 
(in  1  K.  i.  8  only)  as  having,  in  company  with 
Zadok,  Benaiah,  Nathan,  Shimei,  and  the  men  of 
David's  guard,  remained  firm  to  David's  cause 
when  Adonijah  rebelled.  He  is  not  mentioned 
again,  nor  do  we  obtain  any  clew  to  his  identity. 
Various  conjectures  have  been  made.  Jerome 
(  Qiuest.  Hebr.  ad  loc. )  states  that  he  is  the  same 
with  "  Hiram  the  Zairite,"  i.  e.  Ira  the  Jairite,  a 
priest  or  prince  about  the  person  of  David.  Ewald 
(G'enc/i.  iii.  2G6  note),  dwelling  on  the  occurrence 
of  Shimei  in  the  same  list  with  Rei.  suggests  that 
the  two  are  David's  only  surviving  brothers,  Rei 
being  identical  with  Radd.vi.  This  is  ingenious, 
but  there  is  nothing  to  support  it,  while  there  is 
the  great  objection  to  it  that  the  names  are  in  the 
original  extremely  dissimilar,  Rei  containing  the 
Ain,  a  letter  which  is  rarely  exchanged  for  any  other, 
but  apparently  never  for  Daleth  (Gesen.  Thes.  pp. 
976,  977).  G. 

REINS,  I.  e.  kidneys,  from  the  Latin  renes. 
1.    The    word    is  used    to    translate    the    Hebrew 

nV73,  except  in  the  Pentateuch  and  in  Is.  xxxiv. 
6,  where  "kidneys"  is  employed.  In  the  ancient 
system  of  physiology  the  kidneys  were  believed  to 
be  the  seat  of  desire  and  longing,  which  accounts 
for  their  often  being  coupled  with  the  heart  (Ps. 
vii.  9,  xxvi.  2;  Jer.  xi.  20,  xvii.  10,  etc.). 

2.  It  is  once  used  (Is.  xi.  5)  as  the  equivalent  of 
C^^^n,  elsewhere  translated  "loins."  G. 

RE'KEM  (^TD.  [yariegnted garden]: 'PoKoi 
[Vat.  PoKOfx],  'Po06k;  Alex.  Poko/j.:  Recem). 
1.  One  of  the  five  kings  or  chieftains  of  JMidian 
slain  by  the  Israelites  (Num.  xxxi.  8;  Josh.  xiii. 
21)  at  the  time  that  Balaam  fell. 

2.  {'PiK6jjL\  Alex.  PoKo/j.-)  One  of  the  four 
sons  of  Hebron,  and  father  of  Shammai  (1  Chr.  ii. 
43,  44).  In  the  last  verse  the  LXX.  have  '•  Jor- 
koam  "  for  "  Rekem."  In  this  genealogy  it  is  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  separate  the  names  of  persons 
from  those  of  places  —  Ziph,  Mareshah,  Tappuah, 
Heliron,  are  all  names  of  places,  as  well  as  Maon 
and  Beth-zur.  In  .losh.  xviii.  27  Rekem  appears 
as  a  town  of  Benjamin,  and  perhaps  this  genealogy 
may  be  intended  to  indicate  that  it  was  founded  by 
a  colony  from  Hebron. 

RE'KEM  (D|7.T^  [as  above] :  perhaps  Kacpaf 
Ka\  Na/cai/:  Alex.  P^Kffi:  Recem).  One  of  the  towns 
of  the  allotment  of  Benjamin  (.losh.  xviii.  27).  It 
occurs  between  JMozAii  {/I'im-.Uotsa)  and  Ikpeel. 
No  one,  not  even  Schwarz,  has  attempted  to  iden- 

thorities  named  above;  but  it  does  not  appear  in  tta« 
work  of  Col.  Chesney 

S  Heading  ^  for  17. 


2702 


BEMALIAH 


tify  it  •R-ith  any  existing  site.  But  may  Uiere  not 
be  a  trace  of  the  name  in  Ain  Knriin,  the  well- 
known  spring  west  of  Jerusalem  ?  It  is  within  a 
very  short  distance  of  Motsah,  provided  Kidonith 
be  Motsah,  as  the  writer  has  already  suggested. 

G. 

EEMALI'AH  (^H^^CiT  [whom  Jehovah 
a.lorns,  Ges.]  'Po^ueAi'as  i"  Kings  and  Isaiah, 
"Po/xe\ia  in  Chr.;  [Vat.  PoyueAia  (gen.)  in  Is. 
vii.  1:]  Jiomelia).  The  father  of  Pekah,  captain 
of  Pekahiah  king  of  Israel,  who  slew  his  mas- 
ter and  usurped  his  throne  (2  K.  xv.  25-37,  xvi. 
1,  5;  2^  Chr.  xxviii.  6;  Is.  vii.  1-9,  viii.  6). 

RE'METH  (npn  [hei(/ht  ?] :  'Pefifids;  Alex. 
Vaufxad-  Raiiicih).  One  of  the  towns  of  Issachar 
(.Josh.  xix.  21),  occurring  in  the  list  next  to  En- 
gaunim,  the  modern  Jenhi.  It  is  probably  (though 
not  certainly)  a  distinct  place  from  the  Kamotm 
of  1  Chr.  vi.  73.  A  place  beai-ing  the  name  of 
Jinmeli  is  found  on  the  west  of  the  track  from 
Samaria  to  Jen'in,  about  6  miles  N.  of  the  former 
and  9  S-  W.  of  the  latter  (Porter,  Ilnndb.  p.  348  '( ; 
Van  de  Velde,  Map).  Its  situation,  on  an  isolated 
rocky  tell  in  the  middle  of  a  green  jdain  buried  in 
the  hills,  is  quite  in  accordance  with  its  name, 
which  is  probably  a  mere  variation  of  Raniah, 
"  height."  But  it  appears  to  be  too  far  south  to 
be  within  the  territory  of  Issachar,  which,  as  far  as 
the  scanty  indications  of  tiie  record  can  be  made 
out,  can  hardly  have  extended  below  the  southern 
border  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon. 

For  Schwarz's  conjecture  that  Rnmeh  is  Ra- 
MATHAIM-ZOPHIJI,  see  that  article  (iii.  2672). 

G. 

REM'MON  C|""1S"1,  i.  e.  Rimmon  [pome- 
granatt\:  'Epef^fxccv--"  Alex.  Pe^^cog:  lieinmon). 
A  town  in  the  allotment  of  Simeon,  one  of  a  group 
of  four  (.losh.  xix.  7 ).  It  is  the  same  place  which 
is  elsewhere  accurately  given  in  the  A.  V^  as  Rim- 
Biox;  the  inaccuracy  both  in  this  case  and  that  of 
Remmox-jietiioak  having  no  doubt  arisen  from 
our  translators  inad\-ertently  following  the  Vulgate, 
which  again  followed  the  LXX.  G. 

REM'MON-METH'OAR  (nwhsn  Y'"2'7, 
i.  e.  Rimmon  ham-niethoar  [pomeijranate^  :  'Pe/j,- 
^(I'vad  Madapao^d.',  Alex.  Pifxfxoovafx  pLadapt/j.' 
Rtiniiion,  Ainthar).  A  place  which  formed  one  of 
Ihe  landmarks  of  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  ter 
ritory  of  Zebulun  (.Josh.  xix.  13  only).  It  occurs 
between  Eth-Katsin  and  Neah.  Methoar  does  not 
really  form  a  part  of  the  name ;  but  is  the  Pual  of 

")Sn,  to  stretch,  and  should  be  translated  accord- 
ingly (as  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V. )  —  "  R.  which 
reaches  to  Neah."  This  is  the  judgment  of  Ges- 
enius,  Tlies.  p.  1292  n.  Rudiger,  ib.  1491  a;  Fiirst, 
Handwb.  ii.  512  a,  and  Bunsen,  as  well  as  of  the 
wicient  .lewish  commentator  Rashi,  who  quotes  as 
lis  authority  the  Targum  of  .Jonathan,  the  text  of 
vhich  has  iiowever  been  subsequently  altered,  since 
in  its  present  state  it  agrees  with  the  A.  V.  in  not 
translating  the  word.  The  latter  course  is  taken 
by  the  l.XX.  and  Vulgate  as  above,  and  by  the 
Peshito,  .luuius  and  Tremellius,  and  Luther.  The 
A.  V.   has   here  further   erroneously   followed  the 


REMPHAN 

Vulgate  in  giving  the  first  part  of  the  name  u 
Reuimon  instead  of  Rimmon. 

This  Rimmon  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
known  to  EuSebius  and  .lerome,  but  it  is  mentioned 
liy  the  early  traveller  Parchi,  who  says  that  it  is 
called  Rumaneh,  and  stands  an  hour  south  of  Sep- 
phoris  (Zunz's  Beitjniinn.,  ii.  433).  If  for  south 
we  read  north,  this  is  m  close  agreement  with  the 
statements  of  Dr.  Robinson  {BtU.  Jies.  iii.  110),  and 
Mr.  Van  de  Velde  (Map;  Memoir,  p.  344),  who 
place  Rummdneh  on  the  S.  border  of  the  Plain  of 
Buttmif,  3  miles  N.  N.  E.  of  Stffarith.  It  is 
ditBcult,  howe\er,  to  see  how  this  can  have  been  on 
the  eastern  boundary  of  Zebulun. 

Rimmon  is  not  improbably  identical  with  the 
Levitical  city,  which  in  Josh.  xxi.  35  appears  in  the 
tbrm  of  Uinmah,  and  again,  in  the  parallel  lists  of 
Chronicles    (1   Chr.  vi.   77)   as  Rimmono  (A.  V. 

Rl.M.MON).  G. 

REM'PHAN  ('P€M<?)o«',[Lachm.  Tisch.  Treg.J 
'Pe<pdv-  Remphnm,  Acts  vii.  43):  and  CHITJN 

(^^"3  :  "PaKpdv,  'Pofi.(pa,  Comjjl.  Am.  v.  26)  have 
been  su])posed  to  be  names  of  an  idol  worshipped 
by  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  but  seem  to  be 
the  names  of  two  idols.  The  second  occurs  in 
Amos,  in  the  Heb. :  the  first,  in  a  quotation  of  that 
passage  in  St.  Stephen's  address,  in  the  Acts:  the 
LXX.  of  Amos  has,  however,  the  same  name  as  in 
the  Acts,  though  not  written  in  exactly  the  same 
manner.  Much  difficulty  has  been  occasioned  by 
this  corresponding  occurrence  of  two  names  so 
wholly  different  in  sound.  The  most  reasonable 
opinion  seemed  to  be  that  Chiun  was  a  Hebrew  or 
Semitic  name,  and  Reniphan  an  Egyptian  equiv- 
alent substituted  by  the  LXX.  The  former,  ren- 
dered Saturn  in  the  Syr.,  was  compared  with  the 

Arab,  and  Pers.  ...  I  «., 

and,  according  to  Kircher,  the  latter  was  found  in 
Coptic  with  the  same  signification ;  but  perhaps  he 
had  no  authority  for  this  excepting  the  supposed 
meaning  of  the  Heljrew  Chiun.  Egyptology  has, 
however,  shown  that  this  is  not  the  true  explana- 
tion. Among  the  foreign  divinities  worshipped  in 
I'^gypt,  two,  the  god  RENPU,  perhaps  pronounced 
REMPU,  and  the  goddess  KEN,  occur  together. 
Before  endeavoring  to  explain  the  passages  in  which 
Chiun  and  Reniphan  are  mentioned,  it  will  be 
desirable  to  sjieak,  on  the  evidence  of  the  monu- 
ments^ of  the  foreign  gods  worshipped  in  Egypt, 
particularly  RI'INPU  and  KEN,  and  of  the  idolatry 
of  the  Israelites  while  in  that  country. 

Besides  those  di\inities  represented  on  the  mon- 
uments of  Egypt  which  have  Egyptian  forms  or 
names,  or  both,  others  have  foreign  forms  or  names, 
or  both.  Of  the  latter,  some  appear  to  have  been 
introduced  at  a  very  remote  age.  This  is  certainly 
the  ease  with  the  principal  divinity  of  Memphis, 
Ptah,  the  Egyptian  Hephaestus.  The  name  I'tah 
is  from  a  Semitic  root,  for  it  signifies  "  open,"  and 

in  Heb.  we  find  the  root  HHS,  and  its  cognates, 
"  he  or  it  opened,"  whereas  there  is  no  word  related 
to  it  in  Coptic.  The  figure  of  this  divinity  is  that 
of  a  deformed  pigmy,  or  perhaps  unborn  child,  and 
is  unlike  the  usual  representations  of  divinities  on 


the  planet  Saturn," 


a  The  LXX.  here  combine  the  Ain  and  Rimmon  of  no  trace  in  tiie  Hebrew,  but  wliich  is  possibly  tb« 
die  A.  V.  info  one  name,  and  make  up  the  four  cities  I  Tochen  of  1  Chr.  iv.  32  —  in  the  LXX.  of  that  pa88ai{«. 
■rf  tiiis  group  by  iusertiui;  a  feioAxo,  of  which  there  is    ©oKxa. 


REMPHAN 

the  monuments.  In  this  case  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  introduction  took  place  at  an  ex- 
tremely eaiiy  date,  as  the  name  of  Ptah  occuis  in 
very  old  tombs  in  the  necropolis  of- Memphis,  and 
is  found  throughout  the  reliirious  records.  It  is 
also  to  be  noticed  that  this  name  is  not  traceable 
in  the  mythology  of  neighboring  nations,  unless 
indeed  it  corresponds  to  that  of  the  TltxTaiKot  or 
Tlaraiicot,  whose  images,  according  to  Herudotus, 
were  the  figure-heads  of  Phoenician  ships  (iii.  37). 
The  foreign  divinities  that  seem  to  be  of  later  in 
troduction  are  not  found  throughout  the  religious 
records,  but  only  in  single  tablets,  or  are  otherwise 
very  rarely  mentioned,  and  two  out  of  their  iour 
names  are  immediately  recognized  to  be  non  Kg\p 
tian.  ITiey  are  KENPU,  and  the  goddesses  KKX. 
ANTA,  and  ASTAK  TA.  The  first  and  second 
of  these  have  foreign  forms;  the  third  and  fourth 
have  Egyptian  forms:  there  would  therefore  seem 
to  be  an  especially  foreign  character  about  the 
former  two. 

RENPU,  pronounced  REMPU(?),«  is  repre- 
sented as  an  Asiatic,  with  the  full  beard  and  ap- 
parently the  general  type  of  face  given  on  the  mon- 
uments to  most  nations  east  of  Egyjit,  and  to  the 
REBU  or  Libyans.  This  type  is  evidently  that 
of  the  Shemites.  His  hair  is  bound  with  a  fillet, 
which  is  ornamented  in  front  with  the  head  of  an 
antelope. 

KEX  is  represented  perfectly  naked,  holding  in 
both  hands  corn,  and  standing  upon  a  lion.  In  the 
last  particular  the  figure  of  a  goddess  at  Maltheiy- 
yeh  in  Assyria  may  l)e  compared  (Layard,  Xinevi;/i, 
ii.  212).  From  this  occurrence  of  a  similar  repre- 
sentation, from  her  being  naked  and  carrying  corn, 
and  from  her  being  worshipped  with  KHIC.M,  we 
may  suppose  that  KEX  convsp.inded  to  the  Syrian 
goddess,  at  least  when  the  latter  had  the  char.icter 
of  Venus.  She  is  also  called  IvErESH,  which  is 
the  name  in  hieroglyphics  of  the  great  Hittite  town 
on  the  Orontes.  This  in  the  present  case  is  prob- 
ably a  title,  ntyip  :  it  can  scarcely  be  the  name 
of  a  town  where  she  was  worshipped,  applied  to  her 
as  personifying  it. 

AXATA  appears  to  lie  Anaitis,  and  her  foreign 
character  seeuis  almost  certain  from  her  being 
jointly  worshipped  with  REXPU  and  KEX. 

ASTARTA  is  of  course  the  Ashtoreth  of 
Canaan. 

On  a  tablet  in  the  British  Museum  the  principal 
subject  is  a  group  representing  KEN,  having 
KHEMon  one  side  and  REXPU  on  the  other: 
beneath  is  an  adoration  of  AN.A.  TA.  On  the  half 
of  another  tablet  KEN  and  KHEM  occur,  and  a 
dedication  to  RENPU  and  KE  TESH. 

We  have  no  clew  to  the  exact  time  of  the  intro- 
duction of  these  divinities  into  Egypt,  nor  except  in 
ons  case,  to  any  particular  places  of  their  worship. 
TL*ir  r.ames  occur  a,s  early  as  the  period  of  the 
XVIilth  and  XlXth  dynasties,  and  it  is  therefore 
not  improbable  that  they  were  introduced  by  tlie 
Shepherds.  ASTARTA  is  mentioned  in  a  tablet 
of  Amenoph  II.,  opposite  Memphis,  wiiich  leads  to 
the  conjecture  that  she  w;is  the  foreign  Venus  there 
worshipped,  iu  the  quarter  of  the  Phoenicians  of 


REMPHAN 


2T03 


<»  In  illustration  of  this  probable  proimneiation.  we 
may  cite  the  occurrence  iu  hieroglvpliics  of  KKXPA 
or  R.\NP,  "youth,  young,  to  renew  ;  "•  and.  iu  Ooptio,. 

If  the  supposed  u  iinatd 


p*i-jiini;  pujuajj 


Tyre,  according  to  Herodotus  (ii.  112).  It  is  ob- 
servable that  the  Shepherds  worshipped  SUTEKH, 
corresponding  to  SETH,  and  also  called  15.\R,  that 
is,  Baal,  and  that,  under  king  APEPEE,  he  was 
the  sole  god  of  the  foreigners.  SUTEKH  was 
probal)ly  a  foreign  god,  and  was  certainly  identified 
with  Baal.  The  idea  that  the  Shepherds  intro 
duced  the  foreign  gods  is  therefore  partly  confirmed 
As  to  Rl'^XPU  and  KEN  we  can  only  offer  a  con- 
jecture. They  occur  together,  and  KEN  is  a  form 
of  the  Syrian  goddess,  and  also  bears  some  relation 
to  the  Egyptian  god  of  productiveness,  KHliM. 
Their  similarity  to  Baal  and  Ashtoreth  seems 
strouLT,  and  perhaps  it  is  not  imreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  they  were  the  divinities  of  some  tribe 
from  the  east,  not  of  Phoenicians  or  Canaanites, 
settled  in  Egypt  during  the  Shepherd-period.  The 
naked  goddess  KEN  woukl  suggest  such  worship  as 
that  of  the  Babylonian  Mylitta,  but  the  thoroughly 
Siiemite  appearance  of  REXPU  is  rather  in  favor 
of  an  Arab  source.  Although  we  have  not  dis- 
covered a  Semitic  origin  of  either  name,  the  absence 
of  the  names  in  the  mythologies  of  Canaan  and  the 
neighlioring  countries,  as  far  as  they  are  known  to 
us,  inclines  us  to  look  to  Arabia,  of  which  the  early 
mythology  is  extremely  obscure. 

Tiie  Israelites  in  Egypt,  after  Joseph  s  rule,  ap- 
pear to  have  fallen  into  a  general,  but  doubtless  not 
universal,  practice  of  idolatry.  This  is  only  twice 
distinctly  stated  and  once  alluded  to  (Josh.  xxiv. 
14;  Ez.  XX.  7,  8,  xxiii.  3),  but  the  indications  are 
perfectly  clear.  The  mention  of  CHIUN  or  REM- 
PH.A.N  as  worshipped  iu  the  desert  shows  that  this 
idolatry  was,  in  part  at  least,  that  of  foreigners,  and 
no  doubt  of  those  settled  in  Lower  Egypt.  The 
golden  calf,  at  first  siu;ht,  would  appear  to  be  an 
image  of  Apis  of  Alemphis,  or  Mnevis  of  Heliopolis, 
or  some  other  sacred  bull  of  Egypt;  but  it  must  be 
remembered  that  we  read  in  the  Apocrypha  of  "  the 
heifer  Baal"  (Tob.  i.  5),  so  that  it  was  possibly  a 
Phoenician  or  Canaanite  idol.  The  best  parallel  to 
this  idolatry  is  that  of  the  Phoenician  colonies  in 
Europe,  as  seen  in  the  idols  discovered  in  tombs  at 
Camirus  in  Rhodes  by  M.  Salzmami,  and  those 
found  in  toml)S  hi  the  island  of  Sardinia  (of  both  of 
which  there  are  specimens  in  the  British  Museum), 
and  those  represented  on  the  coins  of  Melita  and 
the  island  of  Ebusus. 

\\'e  can  now  endeavor  to  explain  the  passages  in 
which  Chiun  and  Fiemphan  occur.  The  Masoretic 
text  of  Amos  v.  211  reads  thus:  "  But  ye  bare  the 
tent  [or  '  tabernacle  ']  of  your  king  and  Chiun  your 
images,  the  star  of  your  gods  [or  'your  god'], 
which  ye  made  for  yourselves."  In  the  LXX.  we 
find  remarkable  differences :  it  i-eads:  Kal  aveAa- 
/Sere  t7)c  (Tki)u)^v  rav  MoAoXi  f" '  tJ)  aarpov  rov 
Oeov  v/xcoi'  'Paicpaf,  rovs  tvitovs  avTciv  ovs  eVyiTJ- 
crare  kavTols.  1  lie  Vulg.  ai^rees  with  the  Masoretic 
text  in  the  order  of  the  clauses,  though  omitting 
Chiun  or  Reniphan.  "  Kt  |X)rt:istis  tabernaculum 
Moloch  vestro,  et  imaginem  idolorum  vestrorum, 
sidus  dei  vestri,  quae  fecistis  vobis."'  The  passagfl 
is  cited  in  the  Acts  almost  in  the  words  of  the 
LXX. ;  "  Yea,  ye  took  up  the  taliernaoie  of  Moloch, 
and  the  star  of  your  sod  Kemphan,  figures  which 
ye  made  to  worship  them"  (Kal  dceAa^ere  t?V 


S.  OAinp,    "a  year;'-  so  MKNNUi'U,  Memphis, 

jULeiiSe,  Aienqj,     also  ^  tiejiSe, 

015,  and  L.N-NUFIV,   0,x>bi.i. 


JltM- 


2704  REMPHAN 

jKTjvrjv  Tov  Mo\6x,  xal  rh  Ixarpov  rov  deov 
V/J.COV  'PefKpdv,  Tovs  rinrovs  ovs  iirofrtaaTe  irpoa- 
Kvvi'iv  avTois)-  A  slit,'ht  change  in  the  Helirew 
would  enable  us  to  reail  xMoloch  (iMalcani  or  Miloom) 
instead  of  "jour  king."  Be.yond  this  it  is  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  explain  the  differences.  The 
substitution  of  Remphan  for  Chiun  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  by  verlial  criticism.  The  Hebrew  does 
not  seem  as  distinct  in  meaning  as  the  LXX.,  and 
if  we  may  conjecturally  emend  it  from  the  latter, 
the  last  clause  would  be,  " }  our  images  which  ye 
made  for  yourselves:  "  and  if  we  further  transpose 
Chiun  to  the  place  of  "  your  god  Remphan,"  in 

the  LXX.,  D37Q  niDD  nS  would  correspond 

to  "jVr)  DD^nbS  n"2lD  nS,  but  how  can  we 
account  for  such  a  transposition  as  would  thus  be 
supposed,  which,  be  it  remembered,  is  less  likely  in 
the  Hebrew  than  in  a  translation  of  a  difficult  pas- 
sage'? If  we  compare  the  Masoretic  text  and  tlie 
supposed  original,  we  perceive  that  in  the  former 

□2'^Q  v2  "]  1*^3  corresponds  in  position  to  2D1D 
DD"^n  vS,  and  it  does  not  seem  an  unwarrantable 
conjecture  that  ]1^3  having  been  by  mistake  writ- 
ten   in    the    place   of    I2D1D    by   some   copyist, 

CD''?27^  was  also  transposed.  It  appears  to  be 
more  reasonaljle  to  read  "  images  which  ye  made," 
than  "gods  which  ye  made,"  as  the  former  word 
occurs.  Supposing  these  emendations  to  be  prob- 
able, we  may  now  examine  the  meaning  of  the 
passage. 

The  tent  or  tabernacle  of  Jloloch  is  supposed  by 
Gesenius  to  have  been  an  actual  tent,  and  he  com- 
pares the  aKV\v^  Upd  of  the  Carthaginians  (Diod. 

Sic.  sx.  Go;  Lex.  s.  v.  i~1^3p).  But  there  is 
some  difficulty  in  the  idea  that  the  Israelites  car- 
ried about  so  large  an  olijeot  for  the  i)iirpose  of 
idolatry,  and  it  seems  more  likely  that  it  was  ^ 
small  model  of  a  larger  tent  or  shrine.  The  read- 
ing Moloch  appears  preferaUe  to  "your  king;" 
but  the  mention  of  the  idol  of  the  Ammonites  as 
worshipped  in  the  desert  stands  quite  alone.  It  is 
perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  there  is  reason  for 
supposing  that  IMoloeh  was  a  name  of  the  planet 
Saturn,  and  that  this  planet  was  evidently  sup- 
posed by  the  ancient  translators  to  be  intended  by 
Ciiiun  and  liemphan.  The  correspondence  of  lieni- 
phan  or  Kaiphan  to  Chiun  is  extremely  remarkalile, 
and  can,  we  think,  only  be  accounted  for  by  the 
supposition  that  tlie  LXX.  translator  or  translators 
of  the  prophet  had  Egyptian  knowledge,  and  being 
thus  acquainted  with  the  ancient  joint  worsliip  of 
Ken  and  Kenpu,  substituted  the  latter  for  the 
former,  as  they  may  have  been  unwilling  to  repeat 
the  name  of  a  foreign  Venus.  The  star  of  Rem- 
phan, if  indeed  the  passage  is  to  be  read  so  as  to 
connect  these  words,  would  be  especially  appro- 
priate if  Remphan  wece  a  planetary  god;  but  the 
evidence  for  this,  especially  as  partly  founded  upon 
an  Arab,  or  Pers.  word  like  Chiun,  is  not  sutfi- 
tiently  strong  to  enable  us  to  lay  any  stress  upon 
the  agreement.  In  hieroglyphics  the  sign  for  a 
star  is  one  of  the  two  composing  the  word  SEB, 
"  to  aiiore,"  and  is  undoubtedly  there  used  in  a 
gymbolical  as  well  as  a  phonetic  sense,  indicating 
that  the  ancient  Egyptian  religion  was  partly  de- 
rived from  a  system  of  star-worship;  and  there  are 
representations  on    the   monuments   of   mythical 


REPETITIONS  IN  PRAYEll 

creatures  or  men  adoring  stars  {Ancient  Egyptia:\3y 
pi.  30  .\.).  We  have,  however,  no  positive  indica- 
tion of  any  figure  of  a  star  being  used  as  an 
idolatrous  object  of  worship.  From  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  mentioned  we  may  conjecture  that 
the  star  of  Remphan  was  of  the  same  character 
as  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch,  an  object  connected 
with  false  worship  rather  than  an  image  of  a  false 
god.  According  to  the  LXX.  reading  of  the  last 
clause  it  might  be  thought  that  these  objects  were 
actually  images  of  Jloloch  and  Remphan ;  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  we  cannot  suppose  an 
image  to  have  had  the  form  of  a  tent,  and  that  the 
version  of  the  passage  in  the  Acts,  as  well  as  the 
Masoretic  text,  if  in  the  latter  case  we  may  change 
the  order  of  the  words,  give  a  clear  sense.  As  to 
the  meaning  of  the  last  clause,  it  need  only  be 
remarked  that  it  does  not  oblige  us  to  infer  that 
the  Isi'aelites  made  the  images  of  the  false  i:ods, 
though  they  may  have  done  so,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
golden  calf:  it  may  mean  no  more  than  that  they 
adopted  these  gods. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  whole  passage  does 
not  indicate  that  distinct  Egyptian  idolatry  was 
practiced  by  the  Israelites.  It  is  very  remarkalile 
that  the  only  false  gods  mentioned  as  worshipped 
by  them  in  the  desert  should  be  probably  Moloch, 
and  Chiun,  and  Remphan,  of  which  the  latter  two 
were  foreign  divinities  woi-sliipped  in  Egypt.  From 
this  we  may  reasonably  infer,  that  while  the  Israel- 
ites sojourned  in  Egypt  there  was  also  a  great 
stranger-population  in  the  Lower  Country,  and 
therefore  that  it  is  probable  that  then  the  shep- 
herds still  occupied  the  land.  R.  S.  P. 

*  Jablonski  {Pantheon  ^gyptiorum.,  Prolego- 
mena, L.)  makes  Remphah  the  equivalent  of  vtyiiin 
Cceli,  that  is  Ltma,  whose  vorship  was  maintained 
in  Egypt  at  an  early  day.  His  attempt,  however, 
to  prove  that  this  was  an  Egyptian  divinity,  in  his 
learned  treatise  Remplmh  illustralus,  is  not  borne 
out  by  the  evidence  of  the  monuments,  the  .Asiatic 
type  of  countenance  being  strongly  marked  in  the 
delineations  of  this  god.  He  is  represented  lirand- 
ishing  a  club.  A  good  specimen  is  to  be  seen  in 
the  Museum  of  the  Louvre  at  Paris  (Salle  dea 
Monuments  Religieux,  Armoire  K),  where  is  col- 
lected in  one  view  a  complete  Egyptian  Pantheon. 

Movers  {Die  Jicligion  der  Plioniziev)  finds  no 
trace  of  Remphan  among  the  gods  of  Phoenicia. 
He  makes  Moloch  the  Fire-god  of  the  Annnonites, 
whose  worship  was  extended  through  Assyria  and 
Chaldasa  —  the  personification  of  fire  as  the  holy 
and  purifying  element. 

Count  Rouge  considers  Atp;sh  or  Kktesh  and 
Anta  or  Anata  to  be  different  forms  or  char- 
acters of  the  same  divinity,  an  Asiatic  Venus,  for 
tliouo-h  she  wears  the  same  head-dress  and  diadem 
as  the  Egyptian  goddess  Hathor.  the  Egyptians 
never  represented  their  own  goddesses  by  an  en- 
tirely nude  figure.  Both  forms  of  this  divinity 
may  be  seen  in  the  Louvre,  as  above.  As  A>)ta 
she  appears  as  the  goddess  of  war,  wielding  a 
battle-axe,  and  holding  a  shield  and  lance.  Such 
was  also  the  character  of  Ana'itis,  the  war-god 
dess  of  the  Persians  and  old  Assyrians.  Accord 
ing  to  Movers,  Astahte  was  a  divinity  of  a  uni- 
versal character,  whose  worship,  under  variouj 
names,  was  world-wide.  J.  P.  T. 

*  REPETITIONS  IN  PRAYER.     It  ii 

a  characteristic   of    all    superstitious   devotion    t« 
repeat  endlessly  certain  words,  especially  the  namei 


KEPHAEL 

>f  thi  deities  iiivoked,  a  practice  which  our  Lord 
3esis;nates  as  ^arroXojia  and  TroAvXoyla,  and 
severely  condemns  (Matt.  vi.  7). 

Wlien  the  priests  of  Baal  besought  their  God 
for  fire  to  liiudle  tlieir  sacrifice,  tliey  cried  inces- 
santly for  several  hours,  in  endless  repetition,  0 
Baal  hear  ns,  0  Baal  hear  us,  0  Baal  htar  us, 
etc.  (1  K.  xviii.  20).  When  the  Ephesian  mob 
was  excited  to  madness  for  the  honor  of  their  god- 
dess, for  two  hours  and  more  they  did  nothing  but 
screech  with  utmost  tension  of  voice.  Great  the 
Diiiia  of  the  Epkesians,  Great  the  Diana  of  the 
A'pheslans,  Great  the  Diana  of  the  Epliesia7is, 
etc.,  with  the  same  endless  re|>etition  (Acts  six.  28, 
3.)).  In  the  same  way,  in  the  devotions  of  Pagan 
Rome,  the  people  would  cry  out  more  than  five 
hundred  times  without  ceasing,  Audi,  Ccesar, 
Audi,  Cicsar,  Audi,  Ccesar,  etc.  Among  the 
Hindoos  the  sacred  syllable  Om,  Oin,  On,  is  re- 
peated as  a  praj'er  thousands  of  times  uninterrupt- 
edly. So  the  Roman  Catholics  repeat  their  Pater 
Nosltrs  and  their  Ave  Marias.  These  single 
words,  with  nothing  else,  are  pronounced  over  and 
over  and  over  again;  and  the  object  of  the  rosary 
is  to  keep  count  of  the  number  of  repetitions. 
For  each  utterance  a  bead  is  dropped,  a^d  when 
all  the  beads  are  exhausted,  there  have  been  so 
many  prayers. 

This  is  the  practice  which  our  Saviour  '  con  - 
demns.  He  condemns  all  needless  words,  whether 
repetitions  or  not.  It  is  folly  to  employ  a  suc- 
cession of  synonymous  terms,  adding  to  the  length 
of  a  prayer  without  increasing  its  ler\or.  Such  a 
style  of  prater  rather  shows  a  want  of  fervor;  it 
is  often  the  result  of  thoughtless  affectation,  some- 
times of  downright  hypocrisy. 

Repetitions  which  really  arise  from  earnestness 
and  agony  of  spirit  are  by  no  means  forbidden. 
We  have  examples  of  such  kind  of  repetition  in 
our  Saviour's  devotions  in  Gethsemane,  and  in  the 
wonderful  prayer  of  Daniel  (ch.  ix.,  especially  ver. 
19).  C.  E.  S. 

REPH'AEL  (bSD"l  [whom  God  heals]: 
'Pa(t>a-fiA'-  Raphael).  Son  of  Shemaiah,  the  first- 
born of  01)ed-edom,  and  one  of  the  gate-keepers 
of  the  Tabernacle,  "  able  men  for  strength  for  the 
service"  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  7). 

RE'PHAH  (nDT  [riches]:  '-patp-f,:  Kapha). 
A  son  of  Ephraim,  and  ancestor  of  Joshua  the  son 
of  Nun  (1  Chr.  vii.  25). 

REPHA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (H^ST  [healed  of 
Jehovah]:  'Pa(/)aA;  Alex.  Pacpaia:  Raphnia).  1. 
The  sons  of  Rephaiah  appear  among  the  descend- 
ants of  Zerubliabel  in  1  Chr.  iii.  21.  In  the 
Peshito-Syriac  he  is  made  the  son  of  .Jesaiah. 

2.  {"Paipaia. )  One  of  the  chieftains  of  the  tribe 
of  Simeon  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  headed 
the  expedition  of  five  hundred  men  against  the 
Amalekites  of  Mount  Seir,  and  drove  them  out  (1 
Chr.  iv.  42). 

3.  [Vat.  Pa(/japa.]  One  of  the  sons  of  Tola, 
.he  son  of  Issachar,  •'  heads  of  their  fath  ;r's  house  " 
1  Chr.  vii.  2). 


REPHAIM,  THE  VALLEY  OF     2705 

4.  [Sin.  Pac^aiar.]  Son  of  Binea,  and  de- 
scendant of  Saul  and  Jonathan  (1  Chr.  ix.  43). 
In  1  Chr.  viii.  37  he  is  called  Rapha. 

5.  The  son  of  Hur,  and  ruler  of  a  portion  of 
Jerusalem  (Neb.  iii.  9).  He  assisted  in  rebuilding 
the  city  wall  under  Nehemiah. 

REPH'AIM.     [Giants,  vol.  ii.  p.  912.] 

REPHAIM,  THE  VALLEY  OF  (ppi? 

D'^SS"]  :  ri  KoiXas  TU>v  Tndvwv  [Vat.  Tsi-],  finJ 
[1  Chr.]  tUv  Vi.yci.vrwv\  k.  "?a.(pdiv  [Vat.  -fifi, 
Alex,  -eiv] ;  in  Isaiah  (pdpay^  o-repea),  2  Sam.  v. 
18,  22,  xxiii.  13;  1  Chr.  xi.  1.5,  xiv.  9;  Is.  xvii.  5. 
Also  in  .losh.  xv.  8,  and  xviii.  16,  where  it  is  trans- 
lated in  the  .\.  V.  "  the  valley  of  the  giants  "  (yr) 
"Patpdiv  and  'E/xef  'Pacpaiv  [Vat.  -eiv,  Alex,  -^ijx]  i 
A  spot  which  was  the  scene  of  some  of  David's 
most  remarkable  adventures.  He  twice  encoun- 
tered the  Pliilistines  there,  and  inflicted  a  destruc- 
tion on  them  and  on  their  idols  so  signal  that  it 
gave  the  place  a  new  name,  and  impressed  itself  on 
the  popular  mind  of  Israel  with  such  distinctness 
that  the  Prophet  Isaiah  could  em])loy  it,  centuries 
alter,  as  a  symbol  of  a  tremeixlous  impending  judg- 
ment of  God  —  nothing  less  than  the  desolation  and 
destruction  of  the  whole  earth  (Is.  xxviii.  21.  22). 
[Pkkazim,  mou.nt.] 

It  was  probably  during  the  former  of  these  two 
contests  that  the  incident  of  the  water  of  Beth- 
lehem (2  Sam.  x.xiii.  13,  &c.)  occurred.  The 
"hold""  (ver.  14)  in  which  David  found  himself, 
seems  (though  it  is  not  clear)  to  have  been  the 
cave  of  Adullam,  the  scene  of  the  commencement 
of  his  freebooting  life;  but,  wherever  situated,  we 
need  not  doubt  that  it  was  the  same  fastness  as 
that  mentioned   in  2  Sam.  v.  17,  since,  in  both 

cases,  the  same  word  (H  ^^STl,  with  the  def. 
article),  and  that  not  a  usual  one,  is  emplnyel. 
The  story  shows  very  clearly  the  predatory  nature 
of  these  incursions  of  the  Philistines.  It  was  in 
"harvest  time"  (ver.  13).  They  had  come  to 
carry  off  the  ripe  crops,  for  which  the  valley  was 
proverbial  (Is.  xvii.  5),  just  as  at  Pas-dammim 
(1  Chr.  xi.  13)  we  fiiid  them  in  the  parcel  of 
ground  full  of  barley,  at  Lehi  in  the  field  of  len- 
tiles  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  11),  or  at  Keilah  in  the  thresh 
ing-floors  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  1).  Their  animals*  were 
scattered  among  the  ripe  corn  receiving  their  load 
of  plunder.  The  "garrison,"  or  the  officer'^  in 
charge  of  the  expedition,  was  on  the  watch  in  the 
village  of  Bethlehem. 

This  narrative  seems  to  imply  that  the  valley  of 
Rephaim  was  near  Bethlehem;  but  unfortunately 
neither  this  nor  the  notice  in  .Fosh.  xv.  8  and  xviii. 
16,  in  connection  with  the  boundary  line  between 
Judah  and  Benjamin,  gives  any  clew  to  its  situa- 
tion, still  less  does  its  connection  with  the  groves 
of  nudlierry  trees  or  Baca  (2  Sam.  v.  23),  itself 
unknown.  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  4)  mentions 
it  as  "the  valley  which  extends  (from  Jerusalem) 
to  the  city  of  Bethlehem." 

Since  the  latter  part  of  the  16th  cent.''  the 
name  has  l)een  attached  to  the  upland  plain  which 
stretches  south  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  crossed  by  the 


»  There  is  no  warrant  for  "  down  to  the  hold  "'  in 
A.  V.  Had  it  been  7^^  "  down  "  might  have  been 
tdded  with  safety. 

d  This  is  the  rendering  in  the  ancient  and  trust- 


worthy Syriac  version  of  the  rare  word  71*  H  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  13),  rendered  in  our  version  "  troop." 

c  Netaib.  The  meaning  is  uncertain  (see  toI.  ix 
353,  note). 

''  According  to  Tohler  {Tapoirrnphie,  etc.,  ii.  404\ 
t3otowycus  is  the  flrst  who  rwords  this  ideutificstion. 


2706 


REPHIDIM 


load  to  Beflilehem  —  the  el-Buk'ah  of  the  modern 
Aratii5  (Tohler,  .lerusulem,  etc.,  ii.  401).  But  this, 
though  ap]3ropriate  enough  as  regards  its  prox- 
imity to  Bethlehem,  does  not  answer  at  all  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  Emtk,  wliich  appears 
always  to  desi<;nate  an  inclosed  valley,  never  an 
open  upland  ])laiii  like  that  in  question,"  the  level 
of  which  is  as  high,  or  nearly  as  high,  as  that  of 
Mount  Zion  itself.  [Valley.]  Eusebius,  ( Ono- 
mnflicon,  'Pa<paeiv  and  'Efj.eKpa(pafiij.)  calls  it  the 
valley  of  the  Philistines  (Koi\ai  aWocpvAoov),  and 
places  it  '-on  the  north  of  Jerusalem,"  in  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin. 

A  position  N.  W.  of  the  city  is  adopted  by 
Fiirst  {Uandwb.  ii.  38-3  6),  apparently  on  the 
ground  of  the  terms  of  Josh.  xv.  8  and  xviii.  IfJ, 
which  certainly  do  leave  it  doubtful  whether  the 
valley  is  on  the  north  of  the  boundary  or  the 
boundary  on  the  north  of  the  vaUey;  and  Tobler, 
in  his  last  investigations  (3We  Wanderun;/,  p.  202 >, 
conclusively  adopts  the  Wndy  der  Jusin  ( W. 
Mnklmor,  in  Van  de  Velde's  map),  one  of  the  side 
valleys  of  the  great  Wndy  Beit  //nniii'i,  as  the 
valley  of  Itephaim.  This  j)osition  is  open  to  the 
obvious  objection  of  too  great  distance  from  both 
Bethlehem  and  the  cave  of  AduUani  (according  to 
any  position  assignable  to  the  latter)  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  2  Sam.  xxiii.  13. 

The  valley  a]jpears  to  derive  its  name  from  the 
ancient  nation  of  the  Rephaim.  It  may  be  a  trace 
of  an  early  settlement  of  theirs,  possibly  after  they 
were  driven  from  tlieir  original  seats  east  of  the 
Jordan  by  Chedorlaomer  (Gen.  xiv.  5),  and  before 
they  again  migrated  northward  to  the  more  secure 
wooded  districts  in  which  we  find  them  at  the  date 
of  the  partition  of  the  country  among  the  tribes 
(Josh.  xvii.  15;  A.  V.  "giants").  In  this  case  it 
is  a  parallel  to  the  "mount  of  the  Amalekites  "  in 
the  centre  of  Palestine,  and  to  the  towns  bearing 
the  name  of  the  Zemaraim,  the  Avim,  the  Ophnites, 
etc.,  which  occur  so  frequently  in  Benjamin  (vol.  i. 
p.  277,  note  6).  "  t; 

REPH'IDIM  (C"!?"] :  'Pa^iSeiV  :  [liapli- 
idim]).  Ex.  xvii.  1,  8;  xix.  2.  The  name  means 
"rests"  or  "stays;"  the  place  lies  in  tlie  march 
of  the  Israelites  from  l'".gypt  to  Sinai.  The  "  wil- 
derness of  Sin"  was  succeeded  by  Kephidim  accord- 
ing to  these  passages,  but  in  Num.  xxxiii.  12,  13, 
Dophkah  and  Alush  are  mentioned  as  occurring 
between  the  people's  exit  from  that  wilderness  and 
their  entry  into  the  latter  locality.  There  is  noth- 
ing known  of  these  two  places  which  will  enable  us 
to  fix  the  site  of  Eephidini.  [Alush;  Dophkah.] 
Lepsius'  view  is  that  Mount  Serial  is  the  true 
Horeh,  and  that  Rephidim  is  Wady  Feiran,  the 
»vell  known  valley,  richer  in  water  and  vegetation 
l/lian  any  other  in  the  peninsula  (Lepsius'  Tow- 
from  Thebes  io  Siutii,  1845,  pp.  21,  37).  This 
would  account  for  the  expectation  of  finding  water 
Bere,  which,  however,  from  some  unexplained  cause 
failed.  In  Ex.  xvii.  G,  "the  rock  in  Horeb'"  is 
naiued  as  lie  source  of  the  water  miraculously  sup- 
plied.    Oi.  the  other  hand,  the  language  used  Ex. 


a  On  (lie  other  hand  it  is  Bomewhat  singular  that 
iie  modern  name  for  this  upland  plain,  Biilca^ah, 
•hould  be  the  Piime  with  that  of  the  great  inclosed 
ralley  of  I/ebanon,  which  differs  from  it  as  widely  as 
it  caa  differ  from  the  signification  of  Emeh.  There  is 
110  connection  between  Buk'ali  and  Baca ;  they  are 
waentially  distinct. 

i>  Uu   thU  Lepsius  remarks   that  iiobinson   would 


REPHIDIM 

xix.  1,  2,  seems  precise,  as  regards  the  point  that 
the  journey  from  Rephidim  to  Siwii  was  a  dis- 
tinct stage.  The  time  from  the  wilderness  of  Sin, 
reached  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month 
of  the  Exodus  (Ex.  xvi.  1),  to  the  wilderness  of 
Sinai,  reached  on  the  first  d:.y  of  the  third  month 
(xix.  1),  is  from  fourteen  to  sixteen  days.  This, 
if  we  follow  Num.  xxxiii.  12-15,  has  to  be  dis- 
tributed between  the  four  march-stations  Sir, 
Dophkah,  Alush,  and  Rephidim,  and  their  corre- 
sponding stages  of  journey,  which  would  allow  two 
days"  repose  to  every  day's  march,  as  there  are  four 
marches,  and  4  X  2  -)-  4  :^  12,  leaving  two  days 
over  from  the  fourteen.  The  first  grand  object 
being  the  arrival  at  Sinai,  the  inteivening  distance 
may  probalily  have  been  despatched  with  all  possi- 
ble speed,  considering  the  weakness  of  the  host  by 
reason  of  women,  etc.  The  name  Horeb  is  by 
Robinson  taken  to  mean  an  extended  range  or 
region,  some  part  of  which  was  near  to  Rephidim, 
which  he  places  at  Wady  esh-lS/ieikh,>>  running 
from  N.  E.  to  S.  W.,  on  the  W.  side  of  Gebel 
Fureia,  opposite  the  northern  face  of  the  modern 
Horeb.  [SixAi.]  It  joins  the  Wady  Feiran. 
The  exact  spot  of  Rotiinson's  Rephidim  is  a  defile 
in  the  esli-S/ieikh  visited  and  described  by  Burck- 
hardt  {Syria,  etc.,  p.  488)  as  at  about  five  hours' 
distance  from  where  it  issues  from  the  plain  Er- 
Ridie/i,  narrowing  Ijetween  abrupt  cliffs  of  black- 
ened granite  to  about  40  feet  in  width.  Here  is 
also  the  traditional  "  Seat  of  Moses  "  (Robinson, 
i.  121).  The  opinion  of  Stanley  (i\  tf  P.  pp.  40- 
42),  on  the  contrary,  with  Ritter  (xiv.  74(),  741), 
places  Rejjhidim  in  Wady  Feirnn,  where  the  traces 
of  building  and  cultivation  still  attest  the  impor- 
tance of  this  valley  to  all  occupants  of  the  de-sert. 
It  narrows  in  one  spot  to  100  yards,  8howing  high 
mountains  and  thick  woods,  with  gardens  and  date- 
groves.  Here  stood  a  Christian  church,  city  and 
episcopal  residence,  under  the  name  of  Paran,  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  convent  of  Mount  St. 
Catherine  by  Justinian  It  is  the  finest  valley  in 
the  whole  peninsula  (Burckh.ardt,  Arab.  p.  G02; 
see  also  Robinson,  i.  117,  118).  Its  f.'rtility  and 
richness  account,  as  Stanley  thinks,  for  the  Amal- 
ekites' struggle  to  retain  possession  against  those 
whom  they  viewed  as  intrusive  aggressors.  This 
view  seems  to  meet  the  largest  amount  of  possible 
conditions  for  a  site  of  Sinai.  Lepsius,  too  (see 
aVjove)  dwells  on  the  fact  that  it  was  of  no  use  for 
Moses  to  occupy  any  other  part  of  the  wilderness, 
if  he  could  not  deprive  the  Amalekites  of  the  oidy 
spot  XFeir(i7i)  which  was  inhabited.  Stanley  (41) 
tliinks  the  word  descriliing  the  ground,  rendered 
the  "hill"  in  Ex.  xvii.  9,  10,  and  said  adequately 
to  descrilie  that  on  which  the  church  of  Paran 
stood,  affords  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  Ftiran 
identity.  H.  H. 

*  Upon  tlie  other  hand,  however,  it  may  be 
urged  with  much  force,  that  since  ]Vady  Feiran 
is  full  twelve  hours'  march  from  Jcbel  Musn,  Rephi- 
dim  could  not  have  been  in  that  valley  if  the  iden- 
tity of  Sinai  with  this  mountain   is  maintained; 

have  certainly  recognized  the  true  position  of  Bepbi- 
dim  ((.  e.  at  Wik/ij  Feirnn),  had  he  not  passed  by 
Wathj  Feiran  with  its  brook,  garden,  and  ruins  —  th« 
most  interesting  spot  in  the  peninsula  —  in  order  tt 
see  Snrbfit  ef-Charlem  (ibid.  p.  22).  And  Stanley  ad 
mits  the  objection  of  bringing  tlie  Israelites  througl 
the  mos'  striking  scerery  in  the  desert,  that  of  Feiran 
without  any  event  of  importance  to  mark  it. 


REPROBATE 

for  Rephidini  was  distant  from  Sinai  but  one  day's 
march  (Kx.  xix  2;  Num.  xxxiii.  15*,  and  tlie  dis- 
tance Ironi  W'adtj  t'tlrnii  to  Jvbd  Miita  could  not 
have  been  accomplished  by  so  great  a  nnilt.tnde  on 
foot,  in  a  single  njarch.  Moreover,  the  want  of  water 
spoken  of  in  Ex.  xxii.  1,  2,  seems  to  preclude  the 
W'ltdy  Ftirnn  as  the  location  of  Rephidini;  for  the 
Wady  has  an  almost  perennial  supply  of  water, 
whereas  the  deficiency  referred  to  in  the  narrati\e 
seems  to  have  been  natural  to  the  sterile  and  rocky 
region  into  which  the  people  had  now  come,  and  it 
was  necessary  to  supply  them  from  a  supernatural 
source. 

The  location  of  Rephidini  must  be  determined 
by  that  of  Sinai;  and  the  author  of  the  above  article, 
in  his  article  on  Sinai,  seems  to  answer  his  own 
arguments  for  placing  Rephidini  in  the  Wiuhj 
Ftimn  with  Serbdl  as  the  Sinai,  and  to  accept 
in  the  main  Dr.  Robinson's  identification  of  Sinai 
and  Horeb,  which  requires  that  Rephidini  be  trans- 
ferred to  \V(i(!y  es-S/ieyk/i.  The  weight  of  topo- 
graphical evidence  and  of  learned  authority  now 
favors  this  view.  J.  P.  T. 

*  REPROBATE  (DS7?D  :  iiS6KLixos),incapa- 
ble  of  tndarlny  trlid,  or  witen  tested,  found  un- 
worthy (with  special  reference,  primarily,  to  the 
assay  of  metals,  see  Jer.  vi.  30),  hence,  in  general, 
corrupt,  wort/iluss. 

The  word  is  employed  by  St.  Paul,  apparently 
for  the  sake  of  the  antithetic  parallelism,  2  Cor. 
xiii.  6,  7,  in  the  merely  negative  sense  of  "  un- 
proved," "  unattested,"  with  reference  to  himself 
as  being  left,  snpposaWy,  without  that  proof  of  his 
apostleship  which  might  be  furnished  by  disciplinary 
chastisements,  inflicted  upon  offenders  through  his 
instnmientality.  Tiie  same  word,  which  is  ordi- 
narily in  tiie  A.  V.  translated  "  reprobate,"  is  ren- 
dered 1  Cor.  ix.  27,  "  a  castaway,'^  and  Heb.  vi.  8, 
"  rejected:'  1).  S.  T. 

RE'SEN  (Ip:^:  Aarrij;  [Alex.]  Aaae/x:  He- 
sen)  is  mentioned  only  in  Uen.  x.  12,  where  it  is 
said  to  have  been  one  of  the  cities  built  by  Asshur, 
after  he  went  out  of  the  land  of  Shinar,  and  to 
have  lain  '■'■between  Nineveh  and  Calah."  Many 
writers  have  been  inclined  to  identify  it  with  the 
Rhesina  or  Rhessena  of  the  Byzantine  authors 
(Amm.  INIarc.  xxiii.  5;  Procop.  B<dL  Pers.  ii.  19; 
Steph.  Byz.  sub  voce  'Peaiva),  and  of  Ptolemy 
{Geogrtq^h.  v.  18),  which  was  near  the  true  source 
of  the  western  Khabour,  and  which  is  most  prob- 
alily  the  modern  Jins-el-nin.  (See  ^yiner■s  lierd- 
wOrterbuch,  sub  voce  "Resen.")  There  are  no 
grounds,  however,  for  this  identification,  exce|)t  the 
similarity  of  name  (which  similarity  is  perhaps  fal- 
lacious, since    the  LXX.  evidently  read  "JDT    for 

'(Dn),  while  it  is  a  fatal  objection  to  the  theory 
that  ResDena  or  Resina  was  not  in  Assyria  at  all, 
but  in  Western  Mesopotamia,  200  miles  to  the  west 
pf  both  the  cities  between  wliich  it  is  said  to  have 
lain.  A  fiir  more  probable  conjecture  was  that  of 
Hochart  {Geogrnph.  Sacr.  iv.  23),  who  found 
Resen  in  the  Larissa  of  Xenophon  {Amib.  iii.  4, 
§  7),  which  is  most  certainly  the  modern  Niinrud. 
Resen,  or  Dasen  —  whichever  may  be  the  true 
form  of  the  word  —  must  assuredly  have  been  in 
illis  neighhoriiood.  As,  bowevei,  the  Nimrud 
ruins  seem  really  to  represent  ('.\l.\h  while  those 
opposite  Mosul  are  the  remains  of  Nineveh,  we 
^just  look  fill'  li'sen  in  the  tri'.ct  Iving  between  these 


RESURRECTION  2707 

two  sites.  Assyrian  remains  of  some  considerable 
extent  are  found  in  this  situation,  near  the  moderc 
village  of  Sebnniyeh,  and  it  is  perhaps  the  most 
probable  conjecture  that  these  represent  the  Resen 
of  Genesis.  No  doubt  it  maybe  said  that  a  "great 
city,"  such  as  Resen  is  declared  to  have  been  (Gen. 
x.  12),  could  scarcely  have  intervened  between  two 
other  large  cities  which  are  not  twenty  miles  apart; 
and  the  ruins  at  Selamiyth,  it  must  be  admitted, 
are  not  very  extensive.  But  perhaps  we  ought  to 
understand  the  phrase  "a  great  city"  relatively 
—  i.  e.  great,  as  cities  went  in  early  times,  or  great, 
considering  its  proximity  to  two  other  larger  towns. 

If  this  explanation  seem  unsatisfactory,  we  might 
perhaps  conjecture  that  originally  Asshur  {Kitvh- 
Slierohdi)  was  called  Calah,  and  Nimrud  Resen; 
but  that,  when  the  seat  of  empire  was  removed 
northwards  from  the  former  place  to  the  latter,  tlip 
name  Calah  was  transferred  to  the  new  capital.  In 
stances  of  such  transfers  of  name  are  not  uiifre- 
quent. 

The  later  .Jews  appear  to  have  identified  Resen 
with  the  KUt/i-SherijIidt  ruins.  At  least  the  Tar- 
gums  of  Jonathan  and  of  Jerusalem  exiilain  Resen 

by  Tel-Assar  (""Dbn  or  "IDSbn),  "  the  mound 
of  Asshur."  G.  R. 

*  RESH,  which  means  "head,'"  is  the  name 
of  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters  (~l).  It  designates  a 
division  of  Ps.  cxix.  and  commences  each  verse  of 
that  division.  It  occurs  in  some  of  the  other  al- 
phabetic compositions.  [Poetry,  Hkbkew  ; 
Writing.]  H. 

RE'SHEPH  (Pltrn:  2apc(«;  Alex.  Pa(r€<J,: 
Resepli ).  A  son  of  Ephraini  and  brother  of  Rephah 
(1  Chr.  vii.  25). 

*  RESURRECTION.  The  Scripture  doc- 
ti'ines  of  the  i-esurrection  and  of  the  future  life  are 
closely  connected ;  or,  rather,  as  we  shall  see  in  the 
sequel,  are  practically  identical. 

It  will  be  proper,  therefore,  to  begin  with  the 
notices  and  intimations  of  lioth,  which  are  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament. 

I.  Resukhection  in  the  Old  Testajiext. 

1.  The  passage  which  presents  itself  first  for  con- 
sideration is  Ex.  iii.  6,  the  address  of  God  to  Mo- 
ses at  the  burning  bush,  s.aying,  "  I  am  the  God  of 
thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob."  This  text  takes  prece 
denne  of  all  others,  inasmuch  as  it  is  exjiressly  ap- 
pealed to  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  xxii.  31,  32;  Mark 
xii.  2G;  Luke  xx.  37)  in  proof  of  a  resurrection, 
and  in  confutation  of  the  Sadducees,  who  denied  it. 
Now,  our  Lord  argues  that  since  God  is  not  a  (iod 
of  the  dead  but  of  the  living,  it  is  implied  that 
Abraham.  Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  still  li\ing.  That 
tliey  were  still  living  is  undoubtedly  a  truth  of  fact, 
and  expresses,  therefore,  the  truth  of  the  relation  of 
tiie  Divine  consciousness  (so  to  speak)  to  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  as  indicated  in  those  words. 
Moreover,  this  argument  from  those  words  was  in 
accordance  with  the  refei\'ed  modes  of  Jewish 
thought.  It  silenced  the  Sadducees.  It  probably 
has  a  foundation  and  a  force  in  the  structure  of 
the  Hebrew  language  which  we  cannot  easily  or 
fully  appreciate.  To  us  it  would  seem  inconclu- 
sive as  a  piece  of  mere  reasoniiin;,  especially  when 
we  consider  that  the  verli  of  existence  ("am  ")  u 
not  exprusied  in  the  Hebrew.     But  it  is  not  a  pivw 


2708  RESURRECTION 

»f  mere  reasoning.  The  recognition  in  the  Divine 
mind  of  the  then  present  relation  to  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  as  hving,  is  declared  on  Christ's 
authority;  and  the  evidence  of  it  contained  in  the 
Hebrew  text  was  sufBcient  for  the  minds  to  which 
that  evidence  was  addressed.  A  deeper  nisight 
into  the  meaning  of  this  text,  and  into  the  charac- 
ter of  Jehovah  as  the  ever-living  God  and  loving 
'  Father,  would  probably  make  clear  to  our  own 
minds  more  of  the  inherent  force  of  this  argument 
of  our  Blessed  Lord  in  proof  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead. 

2.  The  story  of  the  translation  of  Enoch,  Gen. 
V.  22,  24,  manifestly  implies  the  recognition  of  a 
fijture,  supramundane  life,  as  familiar  to  Moses  and 
the  patriarchs;  for,  otherwise,  how  should  we  find 
here,  as  the  Apostle  to  the  Helirews  argues,  any 
illustration  of  the  second  great  article  of  faith  in 
God,  namely,  that  "  Heis  a  rewarder  of  them  that 
diligently  seek  Him  "  ? 

3.  The  rapture  of  Elijah,  as  related  in  2  Kings  ii., 
implies  as  certainly  a  recognition  of  the  same  truth. 

4.  The  raising  of  the  child  by  Elijah,  1  K.  xvii. 
21-24,  implies  the  fact,  and  the  then  existing  be- 
lief in  the  fact,  of  the  continued  existence  of  the 
soul  after  death,  i.  e.  after  its  separation  from  the 
body.     "  0  Lord,  my  God,"  says  the  prophet,  "  1 

pray  Thee,  let  this  child's  soul  (tt'?3,  nephesh) 
come  into  him  again." 

5.  The  same  truth  is  implied  in  the  account  of 
the  raising  of  the  child  by  Elisha,  2  K.  iv.  20, 
32-36. 

6.  Also,  in  the  case  of  the  dead  man  resusci- 
tated by  the  contact  of  Elisha's  hones,  2  K.  xiii. 
21.  —  And  these  three  last  are  illustrations  also  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  boi/y. 

7.  The  popular  belief  among  the  Hebrews  in  the 
existence  and  activity  of  the  souls  or  spirits  of  the 
departed  is  manifest  from  the  strong  tendency 
which  existed  among  them  to  resort  to  the  practice 
of  necromancy.  See  the  familiar  story  of  the  witch 
of  Endor,  1  Sam.  xxviii.  See  also  the  solemn  pro- 
hibition of  this  practice,  Dent,  xviii.  9-11;  where 

we  have  expressly  D'^n^n"7S  tt''"P_~T,  doresh 
el'/mmmclhim,  a  seeker  of  a  miraculous  response 
from  the  dead,  —  a  necroinancer.  See  also  Lev. 
six.  31  and  xx.  6 ;  where  the  Israelites  are  forbid- 
den to  have  recourse  to  the  m^S,  obolJi,  "such 
as  havo  familiar  spirits,"  according  to  the  received 
translation,  but  according  to  Gesenius,  "  sooth- 
sayers who  evoke  the  manes  of  the  dead,  by  the 
power  of  incantations  and  magical  songs,  in  order 
to  give  answers  as  to  future  and  doubtful  things." 
Such  was  the  witch  of  Endor  herself,  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
7.  These  necromancers  are,  under  this  name,  very 
frequently  referred  to  in  the  0.  T. :  see  Isa.  xix.  3 
and  xxix.  4;  Deut.  xviii.  11;  2  K.  xxi.  6;  2  Chr. 
xxxiii.  6,  &c.  In  Isa.  viii.  19,  this  word  is  used  in 
a  very  significant  coimection :  "And  when  they 
ghaU  say  unto  you.  Seek  unto  thevi  that  have  fa- 
miliar spirits,  the  rT^I2S,  and  unto  wizards  that 
peep  and  that  mutter;  should  not  a  people  seek 
unto    their    God?   for   the    Hving    to    the    dead 

(C\n^n-bS)?  To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony." 

Now,  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  our  present  pur- 
pose whether  these  necromancers  really  had  inter 
course  with  departed  spirits  or  not,  —  whether  thr 


RESURRECTION 

witch  of  Endor  really  called  up  the  s]  Jrit  of  Sam 
uel  or  not;  they  may  all  have  been  mere  impostors 
jugglers,  mountebanks;  — -it  is  all  the  same  to  us; 
the  practice  of  consulting  them  and  confidhig  in 
them  proves  incontestably  the  popular  belief  iu  the 
existence  of  the  spirits  they  were  supposed  to  evoke. 

8.  The  same  belief  is  shown  in  the  use  of  the 
word  Rephaim  (C'SD"}),  sometimes  translated 
"giants,"  and  sometimes  "the  dead,"  but  more 
properly  meaning  Manias,  or,  perhaps,  "  the  dead 
of  long  ago:"  see  Isa.  xiv.  9;  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  10; 
Prov.  ii.  18,  ix.  18,  xxi.  10;  and  Isa.  xxvi.  14,  19. 
[Giants,  vol.  ii.  p.  912. J 

9.  This  belief  is  shown  also,  and  yet  more  dis- 
tinctly, in  the  popular  conceptions  attached  to  Shtol^ 

(VlStt7,  or  Vstr),  i.  e.  Hades,  the  abode  of  the 
departed.  Our  word  grave,  used  in  a  broad  and 
somewhat  metaphorical  sense,  as  equivalent  to  the 
abode  of  the  dead  in  gener(d,  may  often  be  a  proper 
translation  of  <S7/t(')^,-  but  it  is  to  be  carefully  ob- 
served that  Sheol  is  never  used  for  an  individual 
grave  or  sepulchre;  —  a  particular  man's  grave  is 
never  called  his  sheol.  Abraham's  burying-place 
at  Mamre,  or  .lacob's  at  Shechem,  was  never  con- 
founded with  Sheul.  However  SheCl  may  be  asso- 
ciiitul  —  and  that  naturally  enough  —  with  the 
place  in  which  the  I'ody  is  deposited  and  decays, 
the  Hebrews  evidently  regarded  it  aa  a  place  where 
the  dead  continued  in  a  state  of  conscious  existence. 
No  mat'ter  though  they  regarded  the  place  as  one 
of  darkness  and  gloom ;  and  no  matter  though  they 
regarded  its  inhabitants  as  shades  ;  —  still  tliey  be- 
lieved that  there  was  such  a  place,  and  that  the 
souls  of  the  departed  still  existed  there:  see  Isa. 
xiv.  9,  10:  "Hell  (Sheol)  from  beneath  is  moved 
for  thee  at  thy  coming;  it  stirreth  up  the  dead  for 
thee,  even  all  the  chief  ones  of  the  earth ;  it  hath 
raised  up  from  their  thrones  all  the  kings  of  the 
nations.  All  they  speak  and  say  unto  thee,  Art 
thou  also  become  weak  as  we  ?  Art  thou  become 
like  unto  us?  "  This  may  be  said  to  be  the  lan- 
guage of  poetic  imagery  and  personification ;  but 
it  imquestionably  expresses  prexailing  popular  ideas. 
Jacob  goes  down  to  Sheol  to  his  son  mourning, 
Gen.  xxxvii.  3.5.  Abraham  gofs  to  his  fathers  in 
peace,  Gen.  xv.  15.  And  so  in  general,  the  famil- 
iar phrase,  "  being  gathered  to  his  fathers,"  means 
more  than  dying  as  they  had  died,  or  being  placed 
in  the  family  tomb;  it  means,  joined  to  their  com- 
piiny  and  society  in  Sheol:  see  Job  iii.  11-19,  and 
xiv.  13;  Ps.  xvi.  10,  and  xlix.  14,  15.  For  the  fur- 
ther development  of  the  idea,  connected  with  the 
later  conception  of  "  the  bosom  of  Abraham,"  see 
Luke  xvi.  22.     [Hf:ll;  Abkah.^m's  Bosom.] 

10.  There  are  many  indications,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, of  the  idea  of  a  resurrection  proper,  of  a 
reunion  of  soul  and  body,  and  a  transition  to  a 
higher  life  than  either  that  of  earth  or  of  Sheul. 

The  vision  of  the  \alley  of  the  dry  Ijones '  in 
Ezek.  xxxvii.,  though  it  may  be  intended  merely 
to  symbolize  tlie  restoration  of  the  Jewish  state, 
yet  shows  that  the  notion  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
body,  even  after  its  decay  and  corruption,  had 
distinctly  occurred  to  men's  minds  in  the  time  of 
the  prophet,  and  was  regarded  i}either  as  absurd, 
nor  as  l)eyond  the  limits  of  Almighty  power.  It  it 
e\en  employed  for  the  purpose  of  iUuslrating  an- 
other grand  idea,  another  wonderful  fact. 

In  I.sa.  xxvi.  19,  the  prophet  says:  "Thy  dead 
men  (Ileb.  miithim)  shall  hve,  together  with  mj 


RESURRECTION 

lead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye 
rhat  dwell  in  the  dust:  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew 
of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  the  dead  " 

(2"'SDn).  Ps.  xvi.  8-11 :  "  My  flesh  also  shall 
rest  in  hope;  for  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul 
C'tt?D3)  in  hell  (VlS^^b);  neither  wilt  thou 
suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption."  Ps.  xvii. 
15:  "I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I  awake  in  thy 
likeness."  Ps.  xxiii.  4:  "  Though  I  walk  throuL;h 
the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death  I  will  fear 
no  evil."  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24-26:  "Thou  shalt  guide 
me  by  thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  me  lo 
glory.  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee?  and 
there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  besides  thee. 
My  flesh  and  my  heart  faileth,  but  God  is  the 
strengtli  of  my  heart,  and  my  portion  forever." 
Job  xiv.  13-15 :  "  Oh  that  thou  wouldest  hide  me 
me  in  the  grave  (Shevl),  that  thou  wouldest  keep 
me  secret  until  thy  wrath  be  past,  that  thou  would- 
est appoint  me  a  set  time  and  remember  me!  If 
a  man  die  shall  he  live  again  ?  All  the  days  of  my 
appointed  time  will  I  wait,  till  my  change  come. 
Thou  shall  cull,  and  I  will  answtr  thee;  thou  shalt 
have  a  desire  tn  the  work  of  thy  hands."  Job  xix. 
23-27 :  "  Oh  that  my  words  were  now  written ! 
Oh  that  they  were  printed  in  a  book !  that  they 
were  graven  with  an  iron  pen  and  lead  in  the  rock 

forever!  For  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  (7S3, 
(Joel,  —  who,  Gesenius  says,  is  here  God  himself) 
liveth,  and  that  he  shall  stand  in  the  latter  day 
upon  the  earth;  and  after  my  skin  let  them  de- 
stroy this  body,  yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God." 
It  is  true  many  attempts  have  been  made,  by  vary- 
ing translations  and  special  interpretations,  to  as- 
sign to  this  passage  some  other  reference  than  to 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  But  if  this  last  is 
the  natural  sense  of  the  words,  —  and  of  this  every 
candid  reader  must  judge  for  himself,  —  it  is  just 
as  credible  as  any  other,  for  it  is  only  begging  the 
question  to  allege  that  the  idea  of  a  resurrection 
had  not  occurred  at  that  time.  Dan.  xii.  2,  3 : 
''  And  many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth 
shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  Here  it  can 
hardly  with  any  reason  he  doubted  that  a  proper 
resurrection  of  the  body  is  meant. 

11.  This  idea  and  hope  of  a  future  resurrection 
was  yet  more  distinctly  developed  during  the  period 
between  the  close  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  Christian  era.  See  2  Mace.  vii. 
9,  14,  36;   Wisdom,  ii.  1,  23,  and  iii.  1-9. 

12.  If  we  compare  the  definition  of  faith  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
the  statement  of  the  palpable  truth  that  he  who 
cometh  to  God  "  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that 
he  is  a  reioavder  of  them  that  diUgently  seek  him,'' 
with  the  illustrations  given  in  the  rest  of  the  chap- 
ter, drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  we  shall  see 
that  it  must  be  implied  in  the  case  of  all  of  them, 
as  well  as  of  Enoch,  that  they  looked  for  a  future 
resurrection  and  everlasting  life.  See  particularly 
vv.  10,  13-16,  19,  26,  35.  " 

13.  Kemarkable  are  the  predictions  in  Ez.  xxxiv. 
23,  24,  xxxvii.  24,  25 ;  Jer.  xxx.  7 ;  and  Hos.  iii. 
) ;  —  where,  in  connection  with  a  restoration  of  the 
Jews,  we  are  told  of  "my  servant  David  who  shall 
be  their  prince,"  "David  their  king,  whom  I  will 
aise  up,"  etc.  Also,  the  prediction  in  Mai.  iv.  ^-: 
"I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet,"  etc.,  with 
«hicli  compare  Luke  ix.  7,  8,  19.     It  seo»~!  that 


RESURRECTI05I  2709 

Herod,  —  with  most  other  Jews,  probably, — ex 
pected  this  last  prediction  to  be  fulfilled  by  a  literal 
resurrection.  The  question  is.  Shall  we  find  in 
such  prophecies  a  resurrection,  metetnpsychosis,  ot 
metaphor?  Probably  the  last;  see  Matt.  xi.  14, 
Mark  viii.  13;  Luke  i.  17:  .John  i.  21.  Thus  John 
the  Baptist  was  Elias,  and  he  was  not  Elias :  that 
is  to  say,  he  was  not  Elias  literally,  but,  as  the 
angel  said,  he  came  "in  the  spirit  and  power  of 
Ellas;"  and  in  him  the  prophecy  vtas  properly 
fulfilled,  —  he  was  the  "  Elias  which  was  \;r  to 
come." 

14.  There  are  in  the  Classical  as  well  as  in  the 
Hebrew  writers,  indications  of  the  recognition  not 
only  of  the  continued  existence  of  the  souls  of  the 
departed,  but  of  the  idea  of  a  proper  resurrection; 
—  showing  that  the  thought  does  not  strike  the 
unsophisticated  human  mind  as  manifestly  absurd. 
See  Horn.  //.  xxi.  54,  and  xxiv.  756  {avairri}- 
(TovTai)-  See  also  jEschylus,  who  uses  the  same 
word. 

15.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  with  all 
the  distinct  indications  that  the  writers  and  saints 
of  the  Old  Testament  looked  for  a  future  life  and 
a  final  resurrection,  they  very  often  indulge  in  ex- 
pressions of  gloomy  despondency,  or  of  doubt  and 
uncertainty  in  regard  to  it;  so  that  it  is  strictly 
true,  for  Jews  as  well  as  for  Gentiles,  that  life  and 
immortahty  are  brought  to  light  through  the  Gospel. 
For  some  of  those  gloomy  utterances  see  Isa. 
xxxviii.  18,  19;  Job  xiv.  10-13;  xvii.  14-16;  x. 
18-22;  vii.  6-9;  Ps.  xxx.  9;  xxxix.  12,  13;  xlix. 
19,  20;  Ixxxviii.  4-12;  cii.  11,  12,  23-28;  ciii. 
15-17;  civ.  29-31;  cxliv.  3-5;  cxlvi.  4-6;  Eccles. 
iii.  18-22;  ix.  4-6,  10.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
see  Eccles.  xii.  7,  13,  14:  "Then  shall  the  dust 
return  to  the  earth  as  it  was ;  and  the  spirit  shall 
return  unto  God  that  gave  it."  "  For  God  shall 
bring  e\ery  work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret 
thing,  whether  it  lie  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil." 
So  then  the  soul,  or  .spirit,  neither  perishes  with 
the  body,  nor  is  alisorbed  into  the  Deity.  It  con- 
tinues in  conscious  existence,  a  subject  of  reward 
or  punishment. 

II.   Resurrection  in  the  New  Testament. 

1.  There  are  five  cases  of  the  raising  of  dead 
persons  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 

(a.)  The  daughter  of  Jairus,  Luke  viii.  49-55; 
(6.)  The  widow's  son  at  Nain,  Luke  vii.  11-15; 
(c.)  Lazarus  of  Bethany,  John  xi.  1-44; 
{d.)  Dorcas,  or  Tabitha,  Acts  xi.  36-42; 
(e.)  Eutychus,  Acts  xx.  9-12. 

2.  Several  other  references  are  made,  in  a  more 
or  less  general  way,  to  the  power  and  the  fact  of 
miraculously  raising  dead  persons:  Matt.  x.  8 
(text  disputed);  xi.  5;  Luke  vii.  22;  John  xii. 
1,  9,  17;   Heb.  xi.  19,  35. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  all  these  cases  recorded  or 
alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  like  the  cases  of 
miraculous  resurrections  in  the  Old  Testament, 
were  resurrections  to  a  natural,  mortal  life;  yet 
they  imply,  no  less,  continued  existence  after  death ; 
tliey  prefigure,  or  rather,  they  presuppose  a  final 
resurrection. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  a  final  general  resurrection 
was  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  .lews  (the  Phar- 
isees) at  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  See 
Matt,  xxii.;  Mark  xii.;  Luke  xx.  33-39;  John  xi. 
23,  24;  Acts  xxiii.  6-8;  xxiv.  14,  15,  21;  an^ 
xxvi.  4-8.  If,  then,  Christ  and  his  Aposlle* 
Ijlainly  and  solemnly  assert  the  same  doctrine,  w* 


2710 


RESURRECTION 


we  not  at  liberty  to  give  their  words  a  strained  or 
metaphorical  interpretation.  We  must  suppose 
them  to  mean  what  they  knew  they  would  be 
understood  to  mean.  This  is  especially  clear  in 
tlie  case  of  St.  Paul,  who  had  himself  been  edu- 
cated a  Pharisee. 

The  Jews  seem  to  have  also  believed  in  return- 
ing spirits:  Acts  xii.  13-15;  Matt.  siv.  20;  Mark 
vi.  49;  Luke  xxiv.  37-39;  but  neither  Christ  nor 
his  Apostles  seem  anywhere  to  have  admitted  or 
sanctioned  this  opinion. 

4.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  grand  pivot 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  Special  characters  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion are:  (1.)  His  body  rose,  which  had  not  seen 
corruption.  (2.)  His  body  rose  to  immortal  life  — 
"to  die  no  more,"  Kom.  vi.  9,  10.  (3.)  His  body 
rose  a  spiritual  body  —  the  same,  and  yet  not  the 
same,  which  had  been  laid  in  the  tomb,  John  xx. 

19,  20;  Luke  xxiv.  13-32;  Mark  xvi.  12;  1  Cor. 
xv-;  Phil.  iii.  21;  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  22.  (4.)  It  is 
more  consonant  with  the  Scripture  statements  to 
hold  that  his  body  rose  a  spiritual  body,  than  that, 
rising  a  natural,  corruptilile,  mortal  body,  it  was 
either  gradually  or  suddenly  chinKjed  before  or  at 
bis  ascension.  (5.)  He  was  the  first  thus  raised  to 
a  spiritual,  inmiortal  life  in  the  body.   1  Cor.  xv. 

20,  23;  for  it  is  to  be  oliserved  that,  wliile  the  rocks 
were  rent  and  thus  the  graves  were  opened  at  Ins 
'cj'ucijjxion,  yet  the  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
slept  did  not  arise  and  come  out  of  their  graves 
until  aj'ter  I/is  resurrn-titm.  They,  too,  seem  to 
have  risen,  not  with  natural  bodies  like  Lazarus 
and  others,  but  with  spiritual  bodies;  for  they  are 
said  to  have  "appeared  unto  many,"  but  they  do 
not  seem  to  have  lived  again  a  natural  life  among 
men  and  to  have  died  a  second  time.  Neither  were 
their  ^"  appearances  "  the  apparitions  of  retuivinr/ 
spirits;  their  bodies  rose  and  came  out  of  tlieir 
tjravi'S  —  not  out  of  "  the  grave,"  out  of  "  Hades" 
or  "  Sliei'il"  but  out  of  "  their  graves."  And,  like 
their  risen  Lord,  they  soon  disappeared  from  the 
scenes  of  earth. 

5.  There  are  several  uses  and  applications,  in 
the  New  Testament,  of  the  words  avaffracris  and 
eyepffLS,  which  seem  to  be  substantially  synony- 
mous, differing  only  in  the  figurative  form  of  the 
common  thought,  and  which  are  alike  translated 
"resurrection."  The  same  is  true  of  the  verbs 
from  which  they  are  derived:  (1.)  They  seem  to 
import  immortal  life,  in  general,  in  a  future  world, 
!RIatt.  xxii.  31,  and  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark 
and  Luke;  1  Cor.  xv.  18,  19.  (2.)  They  signify 
distinctly  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  John  v.  28, 
29;  xi.  23,  24;  1  Cor.  xv.  35-54;  and  all  the 
cases  where  Christ's  resurrection  is  spoken  of,  as 
John  XX.  26-29;  Luke  xxiv.  3-7;  Matt,  xxvii.  52; 
xxviii.  13,  (fee,  &c. ;  also  1  Cor.  xv.  1-23;  and  see 
Luke  xvi.  31.  (3.)  They  refer  to  a  spiritual  and 
moral  resurrection,  Eph.  i.  20,  comp.  ii.  6;  Phil, 
iii.  11  (?);  Col.  iii.  1;  Rom.  vi.  4-14;  &c. 

But  here  is  to  be  noted,  that,  according  to  the 
ideas  of  tlie  New  Testament,  as  will  be  particu- 
larly seen  in  St.  Paul's  argument  in  1  Cor.  xv., 
the  second  signification  is  always  implied  in  and 
•%'ith  the  first,  as  a  condition  or  a  consequence;  and 
uhat  the  third  is  merely  metaphorical. 

6.  The  heathen  or  philosophic  doctrine  of  im- 
jiortality  is  to  be  carefully  dietinguisbed  from  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  The  ab- 
stract immortality  of  the  human  soul,  its  immor- 
xSity  independent  of  any  reunion   with  the  body, 


RESURRECTION 

was  indeed  a  favorite  and  lofty  speculation  of  tht 
ancient  heathen  philosophers.  But  they  could 
never  demonstrate  its  necessary  truth  by  reason- 
ing, nor  establish  its  practical  reality  by  positive 
evidence.  It  remained,  and,  for  all  human  philos- 
ophy could  ever  do,  must  have  continued,  merely 
a  beautiful  vision,  a  noble  aspiration,  or,  at  best,  a 
probable  presentiment. 

Tlje  popular  view  of  the  Greek  mind  was  devel- 
oped in  the  ideas  of  Hades,  Klysium,  and  Tarta- 
rus; and  to  this  view  may  correspond  also  the  pop- 
ular Helirew  conception  of  Shevl;  from  which  the 
veil  of  darkness  —  even  for  the  minds  of  inspired 
poets  and  prophets  —  was  not  entirely  removed, 
until  the  glorious  light  of  the  Gosjiel  shined  in 
upon  it.  The  nearest  approximation  of  heathen 
theories  to  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion,—  a  kind  of  instinctive  groping  towards  it, 
—  is  found  in  the  wide-spread  philosophical  and 
popular  notion  of  metemp^ycliosis.  1'he  immor- 
tality which  the  heathen  imagined  and  to  which 
they  aspired,  even  in  l^lysium,  was,  for  the  most 
part,  a  sad  and  sorry  immortal. ty,  —  an  immor- 
tality to  which  they  would  unhesitatingly  have  pre- 
ferred this  present  life  in  the  flesh,  if  it  could  have 
been  made  permanent  and  raised  aliove  accident 
and  pain.  But  their  notions  of  metempsychosis 
could  have  afforded  them  at  this  point  but  meagre 
consokition.  Instead  of  Paradise  it  was  only  an 
indefinite  Purgatory. 

But  liow  has  the  Gospel  brought  life  and  im- 
mortality to  light?  By  establishing  as  an  indubi- 
table practical  fact  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Thus  the  natural  repugnance  to  annihilation,  the 
indefinite  longings  and  aspirations  of  the  hnrHan 
mind,  its  fond  anticipations  of  a  life  to  come,  are 
fully  confirmed  and  satisfied.  Inmiortality  is  no 
longer  a  dream  or  a  theory,  but  a  practical,  tangi- 
ble fact,  a  fact  both  proved  and  illustrated,  and 
therefore  capable  of  being  both  confidently  believed 
and  distinctly  realized. 

In  the  view  of  the  New  Testament,  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
always  involve  or  imply  ench  other.  If  the  soul 
is  immortal,  the  body  w  ill  be  raised ;  ifthe  body 
will  be  raised,  the  soul  is  immortal.  The  first  is 
implied  in  our  Lord's  refutation  of  the  Sadducees; 
the  second  is  a  matter  of  course.  The  Christian 
doctrine  of  immortality  and  resurrection  is  a  con- 
vertible enthymeme. 

And  is  not  this  plain,  common-sense  view  of  the 
Scriptures,  after  all,  nearer  the  most  philosophic 
truth,  than  the  counter  analytical  abstractions? 
All  we  need  care  about,  it  is  sometimes  thought 
and  said,  is  the  inmiortality  of  the  soul.  Let  that 
be  established,  and  we  have  before  us  all  the  future 
life  that  we  can  desire.  Why  should  we  wish  for 
the  resurrection  of  this  material  incumbrance? 
But,  though  it  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  hu- 
man soul  is  somewhat  distinct  from  the  body. —  an 
immaterial,  thinking  substance;  and  though  we 
can  easily  conceive  that  it  is  capable  of  consciou.«- 
ness  and  of  internal  activities,  and  of  spiritual 
inter-communion,  in  a  state  of  separation  from  the 
body;  yet,  inasmuch  as  all  we  have  ever  experi- 
enced, and  all  we  thus  positively  know  of  its  action 
and  development,  has  been  in  connection  with  and 
by  means  of  a  bodily  organization,  —  by  what  sort 
of  philosophy  are  we  to  conclude  that  of  course 
and  of  a  certainty  it  will  have  no  need  of  its  bod- 
ily organization,  either  for  its  continued  existence 
or  even  for  its  full  action,  progress,  and  enjoynieni 


RESURRECTION 

In  a  future  state  ?  How  do  we  know  that  the  hu- 
man soul  is  not,  in  its  very  nature,  30  constituted 
as  to  need  a  bodily  organization  for  the  nomplete 
play  and  exercise  of  its  powers  in  erary  stage  of 
its  existence?  So  that  it  would,  perhaps,  be  in- 
consistent with  the  wisdom  of  its  Creator  to  pre- 
serve it  in  an  imperfect  and  mutilated  state,  a 
mere  wreck  and  relic  of  itself  and  its  noble  func- 
tions, to  all  eternity  ?  And  so  that,  if  the  soul  is 
to  be  continued  in  immortal  life,  it  certainly  is  to 
be  ultimately  reunited  to  the  body?  Indeed,  it 
would  be  quite  as  philosojAical  to  conclude  that 
the  soul  could  not  exist  at  all,  or,  at  least,  could 
not  act,  could  not  even  exercise  its  consciousness, 
without  the  body;  as  to  conclude  that,  without 
the  body,  it  could  continue  in  the  full  exercise  of 
its  powers. 

Both  these  conclusions  are  contradicted  by  the 
Scripture  doctrine  of  a  future  life.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  soul  is  not  unconscious  while  separated 
from  tlie  body,  but  is  capable  of  enjoying  the 
blissful  spiritual  presence  and  communion  of  Christ; 
for  to  be  absent  from  the  body  is  to  be  present 
with  the  Lord,  and  to  be  tints  absent,  and  present 
with  Christ,  is  "far  better"  than  to  be  here  at 
home  in  the  body;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  full  fruition,  the  highest  expansion,  the  freest 
activity,  and  the  complete  glorification  of  the  soul, 
are  not  attained  until  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  evangelical  and 
apostolical  instruction,  and  especially  from  the  fact 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  —  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  body  —  is  constantly  set  forth  as  the 
highest  and  ultimate  goal  of  Christian  liope.  As 
Christians,  therefore,  we  should  not  prefer  the  ab- 
stract immortality  of  heathen  philosophy,  which, 
sad  and  shadowy  as  it  was,  could  never  be  proved, 
to  the  resurrection-immortality  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  is  revealed  to  us  on  Divine  authority,  and 
estabhshed  bj'  incontrovertible  evidence.  Nor  should 
we  seek  to  complete  the  heathen  idea  by  engrafting 
upon  it  what  we  arbitrarily  choose  of  the  Scripture 
doctrine.  If  any  portion  of  this  doctrine  is  to  be 
received,  the  whole  is  to  be  received;  there  is  the 
same  evidence  for  the  whole  that  there  is  for  a 
part;  for,  if  any  part  is  denied,  the  authority  on 
which  the  remainder  rests  is  annulled.  At  all 
events,  our  business  here  is  to  state,  not  so  much 
what  the  true  doctrine  is,  as  what  the  Biblical  doc- 
trine is. 

In  saying,  therefore,  that  if  the  body  be  not 
raised,  there  is  no  Scripture  hope  of  a  future  life 
for  the  soul,  we  do  not  exalt  the  flesh  above  the 
spirit,  or  the  resurrection  of  the  body  above  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  We  only  designate  the 
condition  on  which  alone  the  Scriptures  assure  us 
of  spiritual  immortality,  the  evidence  by  which 
alone  it  is  proved.  "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  even 
so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  Christ 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light,  not  by  au- 
thoritatively asserting  the  dogma  of  the  immortal- 
ity of  the  soul,  but  by  his  own  resurrection  from 
the  (lend. 

That  the  resurrection  on  which  St.  Paul  so 
earnestly  insists  (1  Cor.  xv.)  is  conceived  of  by 
him  as  involving  the  whole  question  of  a  future 
<ife  must  be  evident  beyond  dispute.  See  particu- 
Uirly  vv.  12-19,  29-32. 

8.  The  New  Testament  doctrine  of  imnuyi-tality 
18,  then,  its  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  And  its 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  we  are  now  prepared 
to  nhow  involves  the  following  points :  — 


RESURRECTION 


2711 


(1)  The  resurrection  of  the  body; 

(2;    The  resurrection  of  this  same  body; 

(3)  The  resurrection  in  a  different  body; 

(4)  That,  a  resurrection  yet  future:  and 

(5)  A  resurrection  of  all  men  at  the  last  day. 

(1.)  The  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection is  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
That  in  tlie  fifteenth  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the 
Corintiiiaus,  St.  Paul  teaches  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  immortality,  we  have  shown  above.  His  doc- 
trine is  supposed  by  some  to  be  too  refined,  as  they 
say,  to  be  consistent  with  a  proper  resurrection  of 
the  body;  and  so  they  would  contradistinguish  St. 
Paul's  view  from  other  and  grosser  views,  whether 
in  the  New  Testament  or  elsewhere.  But  on  tl  e 
other  hand  the  truth  seems  to  be  that  St.  Paul 
does  not  give  us  any  special  or  pecidiarly  Pauline 
view  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
but  only  a  fuller  exposition  and  defense  of  it  than 
the  New  Testament  elsewhere  contains.  The 
Pauline  doctrine  we  accept  as  the  Christian  doc- 
trine. And  that  the  resurrection  of  which  he  speaks 
not  only  implies  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  is, 
or  necessarily  and  primarily  implies,  a  resurrection 
of  tne  body,  is  abundantly  evident.  That  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  on  which  his  whole  argu- 
ment is  based,  was  a  resurrection  of  the  body, 
would  seem  beyond  dispute.  Otherwise,  if  Christ's 
resurrection  is  to  signify  only  the  immortality 
of  his  soul,  what  means  his  rising  on  the  third 
day  1  Did  his  soul  become  immortal  on  the 
third  day  ?  Was  his  soul  shut  up  in  .Joseph's 
sepulchre  that  it  should  come  forth  thence  ?  Did 
his  soul  have  the  print  of  the  nails  in  its  hands 
and  feet?  Did  his  soul  have  flesh  and  bones,  as 
he  was  seen  to  have?  Besides,  if  there  is  to  be 
any  proper  sense  in  the  term  resurrection,  that 
which  has  fallen  must  be  that  which  is  raised. 
The  resurrection,  therefore,  must  be  a  resurrection 
of  the  body.  "  He  shall  change  our  vile  body  that 
it  may  lie  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body, 
according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even 
to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself."  The  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection,  as  taught  by  St.  Paul, 
exposed  him  to  the  mockery  of  the  Epicureans 
and  Stoics;  it  must  therefore  have  lieen  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  for  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
would  have  been  no  theme  of  mockery  to  any 
school  of  Greek  philosophers.  The  innnortality  of 
the  soul,  though,  for  want  of  sufficient  evidence,  it 
miglit  not  be  believed,  was  never  rejected  as  /«- 
credible ;  but  St.  Paul's  appeal  is,  "  why  should 
it  seem  a  thing  incredible  with  you  that  God 
should  raise  the  dead  ?  " 

(2. )  IMoreover  it  is  the  resurrection  of  this  iden- 
tical body,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  The  res- 
urrection of  Christ,  which  is  the  type  and  first 
fruits  of  ours,  was  manifestly  the  resurrection  of 
his  own  body,  of  that  very  body  which  had  been 
placed  in  .Joseph's  sepulchre.  Otlierwise,  if  it 
were  merely  the  assumption  of  n  body,  of  some 
body  as  a  fit  covering  and  organ  of  the  soul,  why 
is  it  said  of  his  body  that  it  saw  no  corruption  ? 
.4nd  what  signifies  his  exhibiting  to  Thomas  his 
hands  and  his  side  as  means  of  his  identification? 
When  his  disciples  went  to  the  sepulchre  they 
found  not  the  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  What  had 
become  of  it  ?  That  was  the  question.  They  felt 
that  question  properly  and  sufficiently  answered 
when  tney  found  that  he  h.ad  risen  from  the  dead. 

"  It  is  sown  in  corruption,"  says  the  Apostle; 
"it   ig  raised   in   incorruption."      Wliat  is  raised 


2712 


RESURRECTION 


If  It  iie  not  what  is  sown  ?  and  what  is  sown  if  it 
be  not  the  body?  "This  corruptible,"  the  Apos- 
tle jjlaiiily  adds,  "  this  corruptUAt  must  put  on 
incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  im- 
mortality." So  then,  it  is  not  the  incorruptible 
Boul  that  shall  put  on  an  incorruptible  body,  nor 
the  immortal  soul  that  shall  put  on  an  innnortal 
body;  but  it  is  this  corruptible  and  mortal  body 
which  is  to  put  on  —  i.  c,  to  assume,  what  it  has 
not  yet  and  in  its  own  nature,  an  incorruptible 
and  immortal  constitution  and  organization,  and 
so  be  reunited  to  the  incorruptible  and  immortal 
loul. 

It  was  sugi;ested  by  Locke,  and  is  often  repeated 
by  others,  that  "the  resurrection  of  the  body," 
though  confessed  in  the  creed,  is  nowhere  spoken 
of  in  the  Scriptures,  but  only  "  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  ";  —  a  statement  which  furnishes  a  re- 
markable illustration  of  the  fact  that  a  pi'oposition 
may  be  verbally  true  and  yet  practically  false. 
And,  indeed,  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  even  cer- 
balhy  true;  tor,  besides  the  resurrection  of  our 
Saviour's  body,  we  read  in  the  Scriptures  that 
"  many  bodies  of  saints  which  slept  arose  and  came 
out  of  their  graves  after  his  resurrection  "  ;  and,  in 
general,  that  "  our  vile  boi/y  shall  i)e  changed  and 
fashioned  like  to  his  glorious  body." 

If  the  resurrection  imports  merely  the  assump- 
tion of  a  body,  of  some  body,  and  not  of  llie  body, 
of  this  identical  body,  then  why  are  the  dead  rep- 
resented as  coming  forth,  coming  forth  from  their 
graves,  coming  forth  from  the  body  sown  as  the 
plant  grows  up  out  of  the  earth  from  the  seed  that 
has  been  deposited  in  itV  W'IvaI  have  they  more 
to  do  with  their  graves,  or  with  the  mass  of  cor- 
ruption which  has  been  buried  in  the  earth  ?  The 
souls  of  the  faitliful  departed  are  now  with  Christ; 
and  to  what  end  should  they  be  made  to  come 
forth  again  from  their  graves  at  their  resurrection 
upon  his  final  appearing,  —  if  they  are  then  merely 
to  assume  a  body,  sofiit  body,  which  shall  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  body  which  was  laid  in 
the  tomb?  "  We  shall  all  be  changed,"  says  the 
Apostle.  lie  certainly  does  not  mean  that  we  shall 
be  changeliiH/s.  He  does  not  say  that  our  bodies 
shall  be  exchanged  for  others,  but  "  we  sh.all  be 
changed,"  i.  e.,  our  bodies  shall  undergo  a  change, 
a  transformation  whereby  from  natural  they  shall 
become  spiritual  l)odies,  so  that  this  very  corrupt- 
ilile  itself  shall  put  on  incorrupti  m. 

Thus,  though  it  is  this  very  mortal  body,  this 
identical  body,  that  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead, 
it  yet  remains  true  that  "flesh  and  blood,"  as  such 
and  unchanged,  "  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God,  neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption." 
"It  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spir- 
itual body." 

(3.)  And  this  brings  us  to  the  third  point, 
that  the  resurrection  of  this  same  body  is  at 
once  a  resurrection  in  a  different  body. 

But  some  will  say,  what  sort  of  body  is  a 
Bp'ritual  l»dy?  Is  not  the  expression  a  contra- 
diction in  terms?  The  answer  is,  that  a  spirit- 
ual body  is  a  body  fitted  by  its  constitution  to 
be  the  eternal  habitation  of  the  pure  and  immor- 
tal spirit,  /low  a  body  must  be  constituted  in 
order  to  be  fitted  for  such  a  purpose,  we  do  not 
know  and  cainiot  tell.  But  that  for  anything  we 
lo  know  or  can  urge  to  the  contrary,  there  may  be 
sucii  a  body  —  proper  material  body  —  without 
»ny  contradiction  or  absurdity,  .St.  Paul  labors  to 
demonstrate  by  a  multitude  of  illustrations  sliow- 


RESURRECTIOX 

ing  the  vast  diversity  that  exists  among  the 
bodies  with  which  we  are  actually  acquainted 
(1  Cor.  XV.  39-i4).  Among  all  this  variety  of 
bodies,  therefore,  which  Almighty  power  is  able  U 
constitute,  there  certaiidy  may  be,  and  the  Apostle 
asserts  that  there  certainly  is,  a  spiritual  Ijody. 

Some,  supposing  that  the  term  spiritual  was  in- 
tended to  describe  the  internal  or  essential  consti- 
tution, rather  than  to  indicate  the  use  and  purpose, 
of  this  resurrection  body,  have  surmised  that  it 
would  consist  of  some  most  refined  and  spiritualized 
kind  of  matter:  and  have  suggested  that  it  mii;lit 
1)6  of  an  aerial,  ethereal,  or  gaseous  nature.  But  all 
such  speculations  transcend  the  bounds  of  our 
knowledge,  and  of  our  necessity ;  and  are  apt  to 
end  in  something  gross  and  grovelling,  or  subli- 
mated and  meaningless.  The  term  spiritunl,  as 
already  said,  is  here  used  by  the  Apostle  to  indi- 
cate, not  how  the  resurrection  body  is  ctmstituted, 
but  that  it  is  so  constituted  as  to  be  a  fit  abode  for 
the  spirit  in  an  eternal  and  spiritual  world. 

In  the  contrasted  expression  •■  natural  body."  the 
term  nntunil  {\^vxik6s)  means,  in  the  original,  an- 
imal or  animated,  psychical,  eiismded,  —  if  the  word 
may  be  allowed;  which  surely  does  not  imply  that 
this  body  is  composed  of  soul  or  of  soul-like  sub- 
stance, but  that  it  is  fitted  to  be  the  abode  and  or- 
gan of  the  animal  or  animating  part  of  man,  of  the 
sensitive  soul.  And  thus  we  can  understand  the 
pertinence  of  the  Apostle's  allusion  to  Genesis,  which 
otherwise  must  seem  —  as  it  probably  does  to  ordi- 
nary readers  —  quite  irrelevant  and  unmeaning. 
Having  laid  down  the  assertion,  "there  is  a  natu- 
ral body,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body,"  he  adds: 
"  And  so  it  is  written.  The  first  man  Adam  was 
made  a  living  soul,  the  last  .Adam  was  made  a  quick- 
ening spirit."  Now  the  word  which  is  translated 
vidiind  is  directly  derived  from  that  translated 
soui,  and  thus  the  connection  and  the  argument  be- 
come plain  and  obvious:  as  if  the  Apostle  had  said, 
"There  is  a  soul-body,  and  there  is  a  spirit- body ; 
and  so  it  is  written.  The  first  man  Adam  was  made 
a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quickening 
spirit." 

For  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Scriptures  often 
make  a  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit,  as  well 
as  between  soul  and  body.  Man,  according  to  this 
Scripture  philosophy,  is  viewed,  not  as  bipartite 
but  as  tripartite,  not  as  consisting  of  sou!  and  body, 
but  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit.  So  viewed,  the  body 
is  the  material  organization,  the  soul  is  tiie  animal 
and  sensitive  part,  the  spirit  is  the  rational  and  im- 
mortal, the  divine  and  heavenly  part.  It  is  true 
we  are  now,  for  the  most  part,  accustomed  to  use 
soul  as  synonymous  with  spirit,  —  and  so  the  Scrip- 
tures more  frequently  do,  but  they  recognize  also 
the  distinction  just  pointed  out.  In  Scripture 
phrase,  the  spirit  is  the  highest  part  of  man,  the 
organ  of  the  Divinity  within  him.  that  part  which 
alone  apprehends  divine  things  and  is  susceptible 
of  divine  influences.  Hence  the  Apostle  says.  "-The 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  fur  they  are  foolislmess  unto  him,  neither 
can  he  know  them  liecause  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned "  —  where  the  term  natural  is,  in  the  orig- 
inal, again  \|/ux"c<{?,  psycliic,  i  e.  animtil,  pertaining 
to  the  soul.  There  ai'e  but  two  other  cases  in  which 
the  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  both 
it  is  translated  se/isuid:  James  iii.  15,  "earthly, 
sensu'd,  devilish  ";  and  Jude  19,  ^'■sensual,  having 
not  the  Spirit."  Thus,  therefore,  as  the  natural, 
or    sensual,  or  animal,  or  psychical  body,  or  th« 


KESURRECTION 

»onl-body,  is  a  body,  not  constituted  of  soul-sub- 
stauce,  but  fitted  for  the  use  and  habitation  of 
the  sensitive  soul;  so  we  concbide  that  the  spirit- 
ual body  is  a  body,  not  coastituted  or  composed  i.>f 
spiritual  substance  —  which  would  be  a  contradic- 
tion, —  but  a  true  and  proper  body,  a  material 
body,  fitted  for  the  use  and  eternal  habitation  of 
the  immortal  spirit. 

Tlie  tliou£;ht  is  sometimes  suggested,  in  one  form 
or  another,  th<it  these  bodies  of  ours  are  vile  and 
worthless,  and  do  not  deserve  to  be  raised ;  and, 
therefore,  that  the  spiritual  body  will  have  notliinsf 
to  do  with  them.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  Christianity  does  not  teach  us  to  despise,  to 
abuse,  or  to  hate  the  body,  vile  and  corruptible  as 
it  is.  That  is  a  Manichean  and  heathen  no- 
tion. It  is  true,  our  present  body  may  be  viewed 
both  as  an  organ  and  as  an  incumbrance  of  the 
soul.  So  far  as  it  is  an  organ  it  is  to  be  re- 
stored; so  far  as  it  is  an  incumbrance  it  is  to  be 
changed.  This  mortal  is  to  put  on  ininiortality. 
That  which  is  sown  in  corruption  is  to  be  raised  in 
incorruption.  Christ  at  his  appearing  shall  "change 
our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto 
his  glorious  body."  That  the  spiritual  body  is  to 
be  a  modification  of  the  natural  body,  being  as- 
sumed or  clutlied  upon,  it  as  a  new  and  glorious 
form ;  that  the  one  is  to  have  a  real,  proper,  and 
organic  connection  with  the  other,  growing  out  of 
it  as  it  were;  so  that  each  person  will  have,  at  the 
resurrection,  not  only  an  appropriate  body,  but  his 
Dwn  body,  seems  sufficiently  evident  from  the  A])os- 
lle's  whole  argument  (1  Cor.  xv. ),  and  particularly 
from  his  illustration  of  the  various  plants  which 
grow  up  from  the  seed  cast  into  the  ground.  Each 
plant  has  an  organic  connection  witli  its  seed,  and 
God  giveth  "  to  every  seed  his  own  body."  It  is 
the  seed  itself  which  is  transformed  into  the  plant 
which  rises  from  it. 

(4.)  Tlie  resurrection  of  i/ie  body,  of  this  same 
body,  of  this  same  body  transformed  into  a  new  and 
spiritual  body,  is  an  event  yet  future. 

"  As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive,  but,"  adds  the  Apostle,  "every 
man  in  his  own  order:  Christ  the  first  fruits,  after- 
wai'ils  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming."  Many 
men  had  died  before  Christ,  men  with  immortal 
souls,  yet  none  had  been  raised  from  the  dead  to 
immortal  life  before  Him  ;  He  is  the  first  fruitfl,  tlie 
first-born,  the  first-l)egotten  from  the  dead.  Nor 
is  it  said  that  any  shall  be  raised  after  Him  until 
his  coming.  Tlien  the  last  truujpet  shall  sound,  and 
the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  who 
are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  changed.  If  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  the  resin-rection  were  only  this,  that 
at  the  moment  of  death  each  soul  receives  a  spiritual 
body  fitted  to  its  eternal  state,  why  was  not  Christ 
raised  till  the  third  day '!  Aiid  why  does  the  Apostle 
represent  tlie  resurrection  of  which  he  treats  as 
both  future  and  simultaneous  for  "  them  that  are 
Christ's  at  his  coiiiiiiy"  f  Nor  can  we  suppose  the 
Apostle  here  to  teach  a  merely  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion, a  resurrection  from  sin  to  holiness;  for  if  so, 
why  dues  he  say  that  it  shall  take  place  at  tlie 
sound  of  the  last  trump?  And  what  would  become 
of  the  distinction  made  between  the  dead  who  are 
to  be  raised,  and  the  living  who  are  to  be  changed  ? 

(5.)  This  future  resurrection  of  the  body  is  to 
be  a  resurrection  of  all  men  at  the  last  day. 

This  has  partly  appeared  already  under  the  pre- 
ceding heads.  We  have  seen  that  this  is  true  of 
aU  that  are  Christ's;  but  whether,  in  1  Cor.  xv., 
171 


RESURRECTION 


2713 


the  Apostle  teaches  the  final  resurrection  of  all 
mankind  may  be  a  question.  He  does  indeed  say, 
'•in  Christ  ((//  shall  be  made  alive,"  but  whether 
this  means  absolutely  all,  or  only  all  who  are  in 
Christ,  may  fairly  be  doubted.  Perhaps  the  Apos- 
tle's meaning  here  might  be  thus  paraphrased: 
"  For  as,  by  virtue  of  their  connection  with  Adam, 
who,  by  sin,  incurred  the  sentence  of  death,  all  men 
who  are  in  him  by  nature,  being  sinners  and  actu- 
ally sinning,  die:  even  so,  lay  virtue  of  their  con- 
nection with  Christ,  who,  by  his  righteousness,  is 
the  restorer  of  life,  shall  all  men  who  are  \itally 
united  to  Him  by  faith,  be  made  alive,  being  raised 
from  the  dead  in  his  glorious  image."  But  what- 
ever may  be  the  meaning  of  those  particular  words, 
it  is,  no  doubt,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  tliat  all, 
absolutely  nil  the  dead  will  be  raised.  St.  Paul 
himself  elsewhere  unequivocally  declares  his  belief 
—  and  declares  it,  too,  as  the  common  belief  not 
only  of  the  Christians,  but  of  the  .lews  (the  Phari- 
sees) of  his  time,  —  that  "  there  shall  be  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust"  (Acta 
xxiv.  15). 

But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all  will  rise  in 
the  same  glorious  bodies,  or  be  admitted  to  the 
same  immortal  blessedness.  On  the  contrary,  it 
was  expressly  predicted  of  old  that  "some  shall 
awake  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and 
everlasting  contempt ;  "  —  not  to  annihil  itian  as  an 
everlasting  death  opposed  to  the  everlasting  life, 
but  to  shame  and  everlastiny  cinitempt,  which  must 
imply  continued  conscious  existence.  And  our 
Lord  Himself,  having  made  the  declaration :  '■  the 
hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Sou  of  God,  and  they  that 
hear  shall  live;  "  —  which  may  refer,  and  probably 
does  chiefly  refer,  to  a  mor.al  and  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion;  —  expressly  and  solemnly  adds:  "  Marvel  not 
at  this;  for  the  hour  is  coming  (he  does  not  add, 
and  now  is),  in  the  which  all  th.at  are  in  the  graves 
shall  hear  his  \oice,  and  shall  come  forth  :  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and 
they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
damnation  "  (lohn  v.  2-5,  28,  2!)). 

Tlie  future  bodies  of  the  wicked  may,  for  aught 
ive  know,  be  as  ignominious,  hideous,  and  loath- 
some, as  perfectly  fitted  to  be  instruments  and  in- 
lets of  unending  and  most  exquisite  pain  and  tor- 
ment, as  the  bodies  of  the  saints  shall  be  glorious 
and  happy.  The  Scripture  doctrine  contains  noth- 
ing positive  on  this  point.  St.  Paul  having  briefly 
stated  that  "  in  Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive,"  even 
if  in  this  he  meant  to  include  the  wicked,  gives  no 
further  account  of  their  resurrection ;  but  goes  on 
immediately  to  speak  of  those  who  are  Christ's  at 
his  coming;  and  thenceforth  confines  his  attention 
exclusively  to  them.  This  was  natural  for  the  Apos 
tie,  who  nevertheless  certainly  believed  in  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  unjust  as  well  as  of  the  just;  as  it  is  still 
for  Christians,  who  believe  the  same.  The  speciid 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  a  doctrine 
of  hope  and  joy ;  but  as  such  it  is  a  doctrine  in 
which  those  who  are  not  Christ's — who  have  not 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  —  have  no  share. 

This  resurrection  is  to  be  one  general  resurrec- 
tion at  the  last  day. 

That  such  was  the  received  doctrine  in  the  time 
of  our  Lord  is  evident  from  John  xi.  2.'i,  21:  "  Je- 
sus saith  unto  her,  thy  brother  shall  rise  again. 
Martha  saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  he  shall  rise 
again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  d.ay."  Our 
Lord  himself  seems  to  recognize  tli  s  doctrine  in 


2714 


KESURRECTION 


his  frequent  use  of  the  phrase,  "  I  will  raise  him  up 
at  the  last  day,"  John  n.  39,  40,  44,  54.  The 
same  doctrine  is  (iistinctly  tauffht  by  St.  Paul  (1 
Thess.  iv.  14-18).  As  to  the  date  of  the  comin;^ 
of  the  Lord,  of  which  he  speaks,  and  that  it  will 
have  a  reference  to  the  wicked  as  weW  as  to  the 
'ust,  see  the  first  ten  verses  of  the  next  chapter. 
See  also  the  second  epistle;  particularly  2  Thess. 
i.  7-10.  And  for  the  date,  see  aijain  2  Thess.  ii. 
1-5.  It  is  evident  that  the  day  of  the  coming  of 
the  Lord  was,  in  St.  Paul's  view,  in  the  uncertain 
future.  It  one  sense  it  was  always  at  kaml,  in  an- 
other sense  it  was  }ioi  at  hand,  2  Thess.  ii.  2.  That 
he  did  not  presume  that  he  himself  should  be  alive 
and  remain  unto  the  comintj  of  the  Lord,  is  plain 
from  his  solenui  protestation  (1  Cor.  sv.  31)  of  his 
gtanding  in  such  hourly  jeopardy  that  he  lived  in 
the  immediate  prospect  of  death  every  day;  while, 
in  the  very  same  connection  and  chapter  (1  Cor. 
XV.  52)  he  associates  himself  with  those  who  shall 
be  alive  at  the  sounding  of  the  last  trump,  as  he 
had  also  done  at  1  Thess.  iv.  15-17.  But  it  is  not 
to  be  forgotten  that  elsewhere  he  expressly  associ- 
ates himself  with  those  who  will  have  departed  be- 
fore the  coming  of  the  Lord;  —  2  Cor.  iv.  14: 
♦  Knowing  tliat  He  whicli  raised  up  tlie  Lord  .lesus 
shall  raise  up  us  also  by  .lesus,  and  si  tail  present  us 
with  you  ;  ■'  note  also  the  whole  context  in  this 
and  in  the  following  chapter.  Now  this  second 
epistle  to  the  Coruithians  was  written  almost 
immediately  after  the  first.  Nor  does  he  after- 
wards betray  the  slightest  symptom  of  disappoint- 
ment in  the  prospect  of  his  approaching  martyr- 
dom (2  Tim.  iv.  G-8).  If  the  Apostle  had  felt 
that  he  had  l)eeu  grossly  deluded  and  deceived  in 
regard  to  "  that  day,"  and  "  his  appearing,"  and 
been  left,  '•  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  to  lead  others 
into  the  same  delusion  and  error,  would  he  have 
retained  this  triumpliant  confidence  at  the  last,  and 
expressed  it  without  one  word  o.f  explanation  or 
retractation  of  his  (alleged )  former  delusive  hopes  ? 
There  is  one  passage  in  the  Apocalypse  which 
seems  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  one  general 
resurrection  at  the  last  day  (Rev.  xx.).  Here  we 
have  a  "first  resurrection,"  either  of  all  the  saints 
or  of  the  martyrs  only:  and,  after  a  long  interval, 
a  general  resurrection  and  judgment.  How  this 
representation  is  to  lie  interpreted  is  a  subject  of 
doubt  and  dispute.  It  may  be  difficult  to  reconcile 
it  with  the  othc  statements  of  Scripture  on  the 
same  suiject.  But,  at  farthest,  it  would  separate 
into  only  tico  great  portions  or  acts,  that  which  is 
elsewhere  regarded  in  one  point  of  view. 

HI.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Resur- 
rection NOT  IMPOSSIBLE   OR   INCKKUIBLE. 

Before  proceeding  to  defend  this  doctrine  against 
objections,  it  may  be  proper  to  state  distinctly  what 
the  doctrine  is,  and  what  it  is  not.  It  is,  (1)  that 
there  will  be  a  general  resurrection  at  the  last  day 
of  the  bodies  of  all  mankind. 

(2. )  Tliat  the  body  in  which  each  man  will  he 
raised  will  be  the  same  as  that  in  which  he  had 
lived ;  but  changed,  transformed  at  the  resurrec- 
tion, so  as,  from  a  natural  body,  to  become  a 
spiritual  body ;  it  will  be  at  once  the  same  and 
different. 

Such  is  the  doctrine;  but  how  far  and  in  what 
respects  the  spiritual  bodies  will  be  the  same  as  the 
natural  bodies  —  besides  that  they  will  have  an 
BTganic  connection  with  them ;  liow  far  they  will 
be  like  them  in  size,  in  form,  in  organization,  in 


RESURRECTION 

limbs,  in  functions;  whether,  e.  ff.,  they  will  hiiTV 
the  hair,  beard,  nails,  etc.;  how  far  they  may  1)6 
subject  to  tile  physical  laws  of  material  things  with 
which  we  are  conversant;  whether  they  will  hare 
the  same  senses  as  the  natural  bodies,  or  more  or 
less;  whether  they  will  have  fixed  forms,  or  the 
power  of  assuming  various  forms;  what  will  be 
their  essential  constitution,  or  how  they  may  exer- 
cise their  functions  in  relation  either  to  the  spiritual 
or  the  material  world — except  that  they  will  be 
real  bodies  ("flesh  and  bones  "),  though  not  cor- 
ruptilile  bodies  ("flesh  and  blood");  the  doctrine 
neither  affirms  nor  denies.  These  are  all  matters 
of  mere  speculation.  To  the  question,  "  How  are 
the  dead  raised  upV  and  with  what  bodies  do  they 
conieV"  the  Scriptures  vouchsafe  no  further  an- 
swer than  "spiritual  bodies,"  "like  Christ's  glori- 
ous body."  His  body  retained  the  print  of  the 
nails,  and  the  rent  in  the  side  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, but  it  appeared  also  in  various  forms;  he  ate 
and  drank  with  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection, 
but  so  did  the  angels  eat  with  Abraham;  that 
body  at  length  rose  above  the  clouds,  disappeared 
from  the  gaze  of  his  disciples,  and  ascended  to  the 
right  hand  of  God ;  it  was  seen  afterwards  by  St. 
Stephen  in  heavenly  glory,  and  by  St.  Paul  in  a 
manifestation  of  overwhelming  splendor.  But  after 
all  no  decision  is  furnished  in  regard  to  those 
speculative  questions;  and  the  positive  doctrine  of 
Scripture  is  left  within  the  limits  alreaily  stated. 

And  -now  it  remains  to  show  that  there  is  noth- 
ing impossible  or  incredible  involved  iu  this  doc- 
trine. 

(1.)  It  is  objected  that  a  material  organization 
cannot  possibly  be  made  incorruptible  and  immor- 
tal, and  fitted  to  a  spiritual  state  and  spiritual 
purposes.     But  how  does  the  olyector  know  this? 

(2.)  It  is  said  to  be  impossible  that  the  identical 
body  should  be  raised,  because  that  l^ody  will  have 
gone  entirely  out  of  existence,  and  in  order  fbr  a 
resurrection  or  a  restoration  to  take  place,  the  thing 
so  restored  or  raised  must  necessarily  be  in  ex- 
istence. 

This  must  mean  one  of  two  things:  either,  that, 
as  a  definite  Ijody,  in  respect  to  its  form  and 
constitution,  it  has  ceased  to  exist;  or  that,  in 
respect  to  its  very  substance  and  the  material 
which  composed  it,  it  has  been  annihilated. 

The  latter  sense  camiot  be  intended  by  an  ob- 
jector who  recognizes  the  law  of  nature,  that  no 
particle  of  matter  is  ever  lost.  And  according  to 
the  former  sense,  the  objector  would  make  the 
restoration,  reconstruction,  reorganization  of  any 
iiody,  under  any  circumstances,  and  on  any  hy- 
pothesis, a  sheer  absurdity;  for,  in  order  that  a 
liody  may  be  restored,  reconstructed,  reorgmized, 
he  expressly  makes  it  necessary  that  it  snould 
already  exist,  actually  constructed  and  organized. 
Is  this  self-evident?  or,  perhaps  the  position  of  the 
objector  comes  to  this:  if  a  house,  e.  g.,  has  fallen 
to  ruin,  and  you  restore  it  as  it  was  before,  it'  is  not 
the  same  house;  but  if  you  restore  it  when  it  ia 
not  dilapidated,  or  reconstruct  it  without  Uiking  it 
to  pieces  —  however  great  the  changes  you  may 
make  —  it  will  be  the  same  house.  But  does  re- 
storing mean  merely  repairing?  And  do  recon- 
structing and  reorcjanizing  mean  merely  changing 
the  existing  structure  and  organization  ?  If  so, 
these  words,  as  well  as  the  word  "resurrection,"  are 
commonly  used  in  an  abusive  sense,  or  rather  with 
no  sense  at  all. 

(3.)   But  it  is  thought  that,  even   though   iht 


RESURRECTION" 

body  might  he  restored  if  it  were  simply  resolved 
Into  dtist,  yet,  iiiasnuich  as  it  is  resolved  into 
elementary  principli'S,  into  oxj'Lteii  and  other  gases, 
which  become  mixed  and  confounded  ■\vitli  tlie  mass 
of  £;ases  of  tlie  same  l\ind,  or  combined  variously 
with  gases  of  different  kinds,  it  is  impossible  that 
the  same  portions  of  tliese  gases  should  be  segre- 
gated and  brought  together  into  the  same  body 
again. 

This  will  require  careful  consideration.  We  take 
for  granted  that  the  "elementary  principles  "  into 
which  the  body  is  said  to  l)e  resolved  are  matter, 
true  and  proper  matter.  Tliis  tliey  certainly  are 
unless  our  metaphysical  analysis  is  prosecuted  be- 
yond all  our  ciiemical  tests.  At  all  events,  they 
are  either  matter  or  not  matter.  If  they  are  not 
matter,  then  masses  of  matter  have  been  anni- 
hilated. If  they  are  true  and  proper  matter,  then, 
like  all  matter,  they  are,  or  consist  of,  material 
particles.  And  tlie  definite,  identical,  material 
particles  of  a  cubic  inch  of  oxygen  are  no  more 
annihilated  or  absolutely  lost  or  confounded  liy 
being  mixed  with  another  cubic  inch,  or  with  ten 
tiiousand  cubic  feet,  of  oxygen  gas,  than  are  tlie 
definite  identical  particles  of  a  cubic  inch  of  dust 
by  being  mixed  with  any  quantity  of  homogeneous 
dust.  It  is  certainly  assuming  more  than  is  se//- 
eviileni  to  say  that  omniscience  cannot  identify 
them  and  trace  them  through  their  new  combin.a- 
tions,  and  that  omnipotence  cannot  segregate  them 
and  restore  them  to  their  former  connections.  It 
is  not  here  contended  that  this  could  be  done  by 
any  human  power  or  merely  natural  process,  bift  it 
is  insisted  that  the  thing  involves  no  contradiction, 
and  therefore  is  not  absolutely  impossible.  The 
case  just  stated  involves  precisely  the  pinching 
point  of  the  objection,  if  it  pinches  anywhere.  For, 
as  to  saying  that  one  simple  substance  loses  its 
identity  by  entering  into  coinpos'itiim  with  another 
simple  substance,  that  is  plainly  false  even  on  nat- 
ural principles.     Let  us  try  a  few  instances. 

If  a  certain  number  of  grains  of  pure  copper  be 
combined  with  their  definite  proportion  of  oxygen, 
and  this  oxyde  of  copjier  be  dissolved  in  nitric  acid, 
we  shall  have  the  nitrate  of  copper,  which  may 
exist  in  a  perfectly  liquid  form.  But  by  decom- 
posing this  nitrate  of  copper  the  pure  copper  may 
be  reproduced  — the  very  same  copper  and  no  other 
—  the  identical  copper  with  which  the  process  was 
begun.  Now  copper  is  as  truly  an  "elementary 
principle  "  as  oxygen  gas. 

But  gases  themselves  may  be  recovered  from  their 
combinations  as  well  as  metals.  Let  a  quantity 
of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  be  combined  in  due  pro- 
portion for  forming  water.  Let  the  water  be  de- 
comjwsed  by  means  of  a  quantity  of  potassium, 
and  the  hydrogen  will  be  liberated,  the  very  same 
hydrogen  as  at  first;  and  the  potash  being  after- 
wards decomposed,  the  original,  identical  oxygen 
may  also  be  recovered.  If,  in  these  processes,  some 
portion  of  the  original,  simple  sulistances  should 
escape  from  us,  it  would  oidy  show  the  imperfec- 
tion of  our  manipulations,  Init  would  not  in  the 
elightest  degree  attect  the  applicability  and  force  of 
the  argument  for  the  i)resent  purposes.  That  is  a 
iiere  business  of  degrees.  No  principle  is  in- 
volved in  the  recovery  of  the  whole,  which  is  not 
livolved  in  the  recovery  of  a  part.  If,  then,  with 
5ar  limited,  practical  powers,  we  can  recover  a  part, 
lurely  it  cannot  be  said  to  transcend  the  powers  of 
»niii!potence  to  recover  the  whole. 

ho  much  for   the  cases  of  inorganic  combina- 


RESURRECTION  2716 

tions.  Now  take  cases  which  involve  the  organic 
influence  of  the  principle  of  life. 

Let  a  quantity  of  calcium  and  a  quantity  of 
phosphorus  be  respectively  combined  with  a  due 
proportion  of  oxygen ;  let  the  lime  be  combined 
with  the  phosphoric  acid;  and  let  this  phosphate 
be  mixed  with  a  soil  (or,  certain  ingredients  of  a 
soil)  which  did  not  before  contain  a  particle  ol 
calcium  or  phosphorus.  Let  some  grains  of  wheat 
lie  planted  in  that  soil;  and,  l)y  an  analysis  of  the 
product,  we  may  obtain,  in  its  original  simple  form, 
a  portion  at  least  of  the  identical  calcium  and 
phosphorus  with  which  we  began,  mingled,  per- 
haps, in  this  case,  with  a  small  proportion'  of  each 
of  those  substances  derived  from  the  seed. 

One  case  more:  A  takes  certain  crystals  of 
arsenic,  and,  having  pidverized  them  and  comliined 
the  metal  with  the  proper  proportion  of  oxygen, 
mingles  the  poison  with  B's  food,  who  swallows  it 
and  dies.  Some  time  after,  by  an  analysis  of  the 
contents  and  coalings  of  B's  stomach,  the  arsenic 
is  recovered  and  recrystallized.  It  either  is  or  is 
not  the  identical  arsenic  which  A  gave.  If  it  can 
be  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  a  jury  that  it  is  not 
the  same,  then  the  evidence  that  A  is  guilty  of  the 
alleged  act  of  poisoning  B,  is  not  at  all  increased 
by  the  detection  of  this  arsenic  in  B's  stomach,  for 
it  is  not  the  arsenic  which  A  is  alleged  to  have 
administered,  but  some  other. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  arsenic  as  a  mass  is  indeed 
the  same,  luit  that  the  individual  crystals  are  not 
"  identical "  with  those  originally  pulverized,  the 
answer  is,  that  thus  the  specific  point  now  in  ques- 
tion is  yielded,  namely,  that  the  alleged  impossi- 
bility of  the  resurrection  of  the  "identical"  body 
cannot  arise  in  any  degree  from  the  fact  that  the 
simple  elements,  into  which  it  has  been  resolved, 
enter  into  7iew  combinations.  The  whole  ditticulty 
is  carried  back  to  the  point  to  which  we  have 
already  referred  it,  namely,  the  fact  that  these 
simple  elements  become  mingled  with  other  quan- 
tities of  homogeneous  elements.  We  admit,  in 
the  case  supposed,  a  very  high  degree  of  improba- 
bility that  the  reproduced  crystals  of  arsenic  are, 
each  of  them,  identical,  as  a  matter  of  tact,  with 
some  one  of  the  original  crystals.  But  can  any 
one  prove  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  certainly 
are  not  identical;  still  more,  can  he  prove  that  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  and  self  contradictory  that 
they  should  be?  As  to  the  supposition  of  mechan- 
ical marks  or  defects,  they  could  not  indeed  be  re- 
produced by  crystallization ;  but  the  identity  being 
in  other  respects  restored,  they  could  easily  lie 
reproduced,  or  very  nearly  approximated,  by  me- 
chanical means. 

We  plant  ourselves  at  one  of  those  original 
crystals.  It  consists  of  certain  individual  and 
identical,  though  homogeneous,  particles,  arrani;ed 
according  to  a  certain  law  in  certain  definite  rela- 
tive positions.  It  is  dissolved;  and  its  particles 
are  mingled  with  other  homogeneous  particles. 
Now  the  question  is,  can  it  be  rationally  conceived 
that  those  original  particles  should  be  segregated 
frcrtii  their  present  mixture,  and  restored,  each  and 
all,  to  their  original  relative  positions,  and  the 
whole  to  it?  orighial  form'''  We  freely  admit  that 
such  a  restdt  cannot  be  sec7ired  by  any  skill  of 
man ;  but  we  fearlessly  assert  that  the  accomplish- 
ment of  such  a  result  cannot  be  proved  to  tran- 
scend the  power  and  wisdom  of  Almighty  God, 
who  can  identify  every  particle  of  matter  wl  ich  he 
has  created,  and  control  its  movements  frou'  begin- 


2716 


RESURRECTION 


•Ing  to  end  according  to  the  counsels  of  his  own 
will.  We  not  only  assert  that  such  a  result  can 
be  conceived  to  be  acconiplislied  by  the  exercise  of 
vuriiculoiis  power,  but  we  assert  that  its  actual 
accomplishment  would  not  violate  any  known  pos- 
itive laws  of  nature,  but  would  be  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  them  all;  and,  indeed,  is  one  of  the 
possible  contingencies  under  those  laws.  But  the 
most  scientific  men  will  confess  that  there  may  be 
e.xceptions  to  the  recognized  laws  of  nature,  or 
perhaps  we  should  rather  say,  higlier  laws  harmo- 
nizing both  the  rule  and  the  exception ;  laws  which 
may  transcend  the  scope  of  their  loftiest  general- 
izations. 

If,  finally,  it  be  insisted  that,  after  all,  the  crys- 
tal so  reproduced,  i.  e.  with  all  its  original  parti- 
cles in  all  their  original  relations,  is  not  "  identical "' 
with  the  original  crystal ;  then  the  word  "  identi- 
cal "  nnist  be  used  in  a  sort  of  hyper-metaphysical 
sense  in  vphich  it  is  not  ap])licable  to  material,  vis- 
ilile  things  at  all.  For,  according  to  such  a  view, 
supposing  an  ultimate  particle  of  water  to  consist 
of  a  particle  of  oxygen  united  to  a  particle  of  hy- 
drogen (and  the  contrary  cannot  be  proved),  it 
would  follow  that,  if  this  particle  of  water  be 
decom])osed  into  the  two  gaseous  particles,  tlie  re- 
union of  these  same  gaseous  particles  would  not 
reproduce  the  "identical,"  oriiiinal  particle  of 
water,  but  a  difl^erent  one.  And  a  fortim-i  it 
would  follow  that  an  ounce  of  water  Iieing  decom- 
posed and  the  same  elements  reunited,  or  being 
converted  into  steam,  and  that  steam  condensed, 
or  even  being  poured  out  of  one  vessel  into  another, 
or  merely  shaken  in  the  same  vessel,  the  water 
which  would  result  and  remain  would  not  be 
"identical"  with  the  original  water,  but  somewhat 
difterent.  Hence  it  would  follow  that,  as  all  visi- 
ble material  things  are  in  a  constant  flux,  the  idea 
of  identity  would  lie  absolutely  inapplicalile  to  any- 
thing in  the  physical  universe,  except,  perhaps,  to 
the  elementary  and  unch-angeable  constituent  par- 
ticles. Nay  more,  it  would  follow  that  all  such 
words  as  reproduction,  reorganization,  restoration, 
and  even  reminiscence  itself,  not  to  speak  of  '■  res- 
urrection," involve  a  logical  absurdity;  and  not 
oidy  so,  liut  the  very  terms  "ide)itica]  with  "  are 
nonsensical:  for,  inasmuch  .as,  in  every  proposition 
which  conveys  any  meaning,  the  predicate  must  be 
conceived,  in  some  respect,  di\erse  from  the  sub- 
ject, to  assert  that  the  one  is  "identical  with  "  the 
other  is  a  downright  and  palpable  self-contradiction. 

(4.)  The  general  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of 
ill  mankind  is  .sometimes  said  to  lie  impossible,  for 
vant  of  material  wherewith  to  reconstruct  them, 
.t  has  been  gravely  asserted  that  after  a  few  gen- 
erations more  shall  have  passed  away,  there  will 
not  Ije  matter  enough  in  the  whole  globe  of  the 
earth  to  reconstruct  all  the  bodies  of  the  dead. 

To  this  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that,  even  if  such 
a  reconstruction  as  the  objector  jiresmnes  were  ne- 
cessary—  whicli  it  is  not  —  there  is  more  than 
weight  and  mass  enough  of  matter  in  the  nimoa 
phere  which  pres.ses  upon  the  surface  of  the  Brit- 
ish Islands,  or  of  the  States  of  New  England,  New 
York,  and  New  .lersey  (as  will  be  fuund  upon  a 
riirid  mathematical  computation,  allowing  the  pres- 
sure upon  each  square  foot  to  be  2,000  lbs.,  and 
the  average  weight  of  the  bodies  to  be  75  lbs.  each), 
than  would  be  necessary  to  reconstruct  all  the  bod- 
ies of  mankind  which  shnidrl  have  existed  upon 
the  earth  more  than  2.00(1.000  of  years  from  this 
lime;  —  and  that,  supjiosing  three  generations  in 


RESURRECTION 

I  a  century  ail  the  way  from  Adam  onwards,  and  ■ 
continuous  population  of  1,400,000,000  of  inhab- 
itants. 

(5.)  It  is  objected  that  the  same  particles  may 
have  constituted  a  part  of  several  successive  human 
bodies  at  the  moment  of  their  dissolution:  and 
therefore  it  is  impossible  that  each  cf  these  bodies 
should  be  raised  identical  with  that  which  was  dis- 
solved. This  brings  the  idea  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  identical  body  nearer  to  an  apparent  contra- 
diction than  any  other  form  of  objection  that  w« 
know  of. 

Tliere  are  at  least  two  ways  of  answering  this 
objection.  (a.)  However  likely  the  alleged  fact 
may  be,  unless  its  absolute  certainty  can  be  de- 
monstrated, there  is  room  left  for  the  possibility 
of  the  contrary.  How  can  we  know  but  that  God 
so  watches  over  the  dust  of  every  human  body, 
and  so  guides  it  in  all  its  transmigrations  that  it 
shall  never  be  found  to  constitute  a  part  of  any 
other  human  body  ichen  that  body  dies?  Thus 
the  objection  is  answered  by  demanding  proof  of 
the  alleged  fact  on  which  it  is  based,  (b.)  As  our 
bodies  are  constantly  underrjoing  change  while  we 
live  without  being  thereby  destroyed  or  losing  their 
identity,  so  the  "identical"  body  being  raised,  it 
ni.iy  undergo  an  instantaneous  change  to  an  indefi- 
nite extent.  It  may,  therefore,  be  instantly  di- 
vested of  any  jiaitieles  which  may  be  required  for 
the  reconstruction  of  another  body;  and  this  last 
being  reconstructed,  any  needed  particles  may  be 
transferred  to  a  third ;  and  so  on,  to  any  extent. 
^Ve  have  only  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  bod- 
ies of  mankind  shall  be  raised  successively,  in  the 
order  of  their  dissolution  (at  intervals  however 
small,  infinitely  small  if  you  please,  so  that  there 
shall  lie  a  jiractioal  sinniltaneousness):  and  though 
a  certain  particle  should  have  been  common  to 
every  one,  havino;  passed  through  the  whole  series 
in  six  or  eis^ht  thousand,  or  million,  of  years,  yet 
it  may  be  caused  to  circulate  through  the  whole 
number  again,  as  they  may  be  successively  raised, 
in  less  than  the  millionth  part  of  the  least  assign- 
able instant  of  time;  for  no  limit  can  be  set  to 
the  possible  rajiidity  of  motion.  Thus  the  objec- 
tion is  answered,  admitting  the  allegation  on  which 
it  is  based. 

It  may  be  said  that  these  are  violent  supposi- 
tions. We  may  admit  it;  but  at  the  same  time 
we  have  four  things  to  saj'  with  that  admission. 
(".)  Neither  of  those  suppositions  is,  like  the  cre- 
ation- of  matter  from  nothing,  absolutely  incon- 
ceivalde  to  our  minds,  (h.)  If  theoljection  alleged 
merely  a  high  degree  of  apparent  improbability 
instead  of  an  absolute  impossiliility,  we  should  not 
urge  such  suppositions  in  reply  to  it.  (c. )  Those' 
suppositions  are  made  in  answer  to  the  objection 
taken  on  its  own  principles,  and  entirely  irrespec- 
tive of  what  may  he  the  actual,  doctrine  of  l^crip- 
ttire  on  this  question,  (d.)  However  violent  the 
suppositions  suggested  may  be,  they  will  answer 
their  present  purpose  of  refutation,  and  it  will  be 
seen  in  the  sequel  that  tee  shall  have  no  need  of 
them. 

(6.)  The  objector  has  all  along  proceeded  upon 
the  assumption,  that  the  resurrection  of  this  iden- 
tical iiody  necessarily  involves,  (1)  that  the  liody 
raised  must  lie  iilentical  with  the  body  as  it  existed 
and  was  constituted  <it  the  vioment  (f  death  ;  and 
(2)  that,  in  order  to  be  thus  identical,  it  must  con- 
sist of  the  very  same  particles  inclusively  and  ex- 
clusively, arranged  in  the  very  same  positions,  com- 


RESURRECTION 

Dinations,  and  relationships.  We  have  above  1 
jiidertaken  to  refute  the  oljections,  eveii  on  the 
idniis^ion  of  both  those  assumptions ;  bat  now  we 
ieny  them  both.  And  we  assert  that  in  order  to 
n  resurrection  of  tiie  body — of  this  identical  body, 
in  a  true,  proper,  scriptural,  and  ''human"  sense, — 
it  is  neither  necessary,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
liody  raised  should  be  identical  with  the  precise 
body  w/iich  expired  the  Inst  breath  ;  nor,  in  the 
second  place,  that  it  should  be  identicnl  with  any 
body  whatever,  in  so  strict  a  sense  as  that  de- 
manded. 

The  first  point  can  be  settled  at  once.  Here  is 
a  man  at  the  aire  of  thirty  years,  in  perfect  health 
ani  sjundness  of  body  and  mind.  Before  he  dies, 
he  may  lose  his  arms  or  his  legs;  he  may  become 
blind  and  deaf,  or  a  maniac ;  he  may  die  in  utter 
decrepitude.  Now,  if,  at  the  last  day,  the  body 
£;iven  him  should  be  identical  with  his  present 
body  instead  of  being  identical  with  that  mutilated 
or  decrepit  frame  with  which  he  will  have  died, 
would  there  Ije  no  resurrection  of  the  body,  no 
resurrection  of  his  own  proper  body  ?  Would  it  be 
a  "  new  creation"  instead  of  a  resurrection,  sim- 
ply because  the  raised  body  would  not  he  identi- 
cal with  the  body  precisely  as  it  existed  and  was 
constituted  at  the  moment  of  death  ?  Does  a 
man's  body  never  become  his  own  Initil  he  dies  — 
until  he  loses  possession  of  it?  What  becomes, 
then,  of  all  the  horror  so  often  expressed  at  the 
imagined  reappearance  of  the  lame,  the  blind,  the 
halt,  the  withered,  the  crippled,  the  maniac,  the 
savage?  Why  not  insist  also  upon  the  resuscitation 
of  the  fevers  and  ague  fits,  the  cancers  and  lepro- 
sies, the  gouts  and  rheumatisms,  and  all  the  mortal 
diseases  and  ills  the  flesh  was  heir  to  at  the  moment 
of  death '?  In  short,  why  not  maintain  that,  if 
the  body  is  raised  at  all,  it  must  be,  when  raised.  ;'« 
the  very  actof  dyi/u/  a(/ai7i?  for  the  internal  states 
are  as  essential  to  identity  as  the  external  features ! 

We  turn  now  to  the  second  point,  namely,  that, 
in  order  to  a  proper  resurrection  of  the  liody,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  the  body  raised  should  be  iden- 
tical with  any  former  body  whatever,  in  such  a 
sense  as  that  it  must  consi**^  jf  precisely  the  same 
elementary  particles,  neither  more  or  less,  arranged 
in  precisely  the  same  positions,  combinations,  and 
relationships. 

Novf  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  not  only  does 
a  great  change  take  place  in  our  bodies  between  the 
periods  of  infancy  and  old  age,  but,  while  we  live, 
♦hey  are  constantly  in  a  process  of  change,  so  that 
the  body  wliich  we  have  at  one  moment  is  not 
perfectly  "identical"  with  that  which  we  had  at 
any  preceding  moment;  and  some  physiologists 
have  estimated  that  every  particle  of  our  material 
frame  is  changed  in  the  course  of  about  seven  years. 
From  this  fact  it  follows  that  no  person  ever  wakes 
with  that  identical  body  with  which  he  went  to 
sleep,  yet  the  waking  man  does  not  fail  to  recog- 
nize himself.  But  according  to  this  strict  notion 
of  identity,  as  often  as  the  body  sleeps,  it  sleeps  an 
eternal  sleep,  and  the  body  with  which  a  man  wakes 
is  always  a  "  new  creation,"  for  the  body  which 
ivakes  is  never  "identical"  with  that  which  was 
lulled  to  slumber!  i^urely  such  absurdities  will 
not  be  maintained.  We  will  suppose,  therefore,  the 
body  which  rises  to  ditter  from  the  body  whicli 
Sved  before  otdi/  to  the  same  extent  as  tlie  body 
A'hich  wakes  differs  from  the  body  which  fell  asleep; 
vmld  there  then  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body  in 
lay  proper  sense?     If  so  then  our  proposition  is 


RESURRECTION 


2711 


estaliUshed  and  the  opposite  assumption  is  over- 
thrown. And,  besides,  a  principle  is  thus  gained 
which  reaches  much  farther  than  is  liarely  neces 
sary  to  o\erthrow  that  assumption;  for,  if  a  slight 
difference  is  consistent  with  such  a  practical  and 
sul)stantial  identity  as  is  required  for  a  proper  res- 
urrection of  the  body,  will  any  one  tell  us  pre- 
cisely the  limit  of  tliis  difference;  except  that  there 
must  be  some  organic  or  real  historical  connection, 
something  continuously  in  common,  between  the 
body  which  is  raised  and  that  which  lived  before? 
And  so  nuich  we  shall  certainly  maintain. 

Let  us  here  anmse  ourselves  a  moment  in  con- 
structing an  hypothesis. 

A  distinguished  physiologist,  .Tohannes  Miiller, 
has  given  a  well-known  theory  of  the  "  vital  i)rin- 
ciple."  "  Life  is  a  principle,"  says  he,  "  or  impon- 
derable matter,  which  is  in  action,  in  the  substance 
of  the  germ,  enters  into  the  composition  of  the 
matter  of  this  germ,  and  imparts  to  organic  com- 
binations properties  which  cease  at  death."  Now 
the  principle  of  animal  life  in  man  is  presumed  to 
be  distinct  from  the  intelligent  and  innnortal  spirit 
On  these  premises,  let  us  suppose  that,  in  the 
economy  of  human  nature  it  is  so  ordered  that, 
when  the  spirit  leaves  the  body,  the  vital  prineipla 
is  neither  lost  and  annihilated  on  the  one  hand, 
nor  on  tlie  other  aide  to  keep  up  the  functions  of 
the  animal  system,  but  lies  dormant  in  con- 
nection with  so  nuich  of  the  present,  natural 
body  as  constituted  the  seminal  principle  or  es- 
sential germ  of  that  body,  and  is  to  serve  as  a 
germ  for  the  future,  spiritual  body;  and  this  por- 
tion may  be  truly  body,  material  suljstance,  and 
yet  elude  all  possible  chemical  tests  and  sensilile 
observation,  all  actual,  physical  dissolution,  and  all 
appropriation  to  any  other  human  body.  On  the 
reunion  of  the  spirit  at  the  appointed  hour  with 
this  dormant  vital  principle  and  its  bodily  germ,  we 
may  suppose  an  instantaneous  development  of  the 
spiritual  body  in  whatever  glorious  form  shall  seem 
good  to  infinite  wisdom.  Such  a  body,  so  produced, 
would  involve  a  proper  resurrection  of  the  ]iresent 
body.  The  new  body  would  be  a  continuation  of 
'  the  old,  a  proper  development  from  it.  The  germi- 
nal essence  is  the  same,  the  vital  or  animal  prin- 
ciple is  the  same,  the  conscious  spirit  is  the  same. 
The  organic  connection  between  the  two  is  as  real 
as  that  between  at'iy  man's  present  body  and  the 
seminal  principle  fi'om  which  it  was  first  developed 
in  the  womb;  as  that  between  the  blade  of  wheat 
and  the  bare  grain  from  which  it  grew. 

We  throw  out  the  al)Ove  not  as  a  doctrine,  not 
as  a  theory  of  the  resurrection,  but  as  a  mere  casual 
hypothesis  —  one  among  many  possible  hypotheses, 
'i'he  part  assigned  in  it  to  the  "  vital  principle" 
may  be  omitted,  if  any  so  prefer.  .And  if  the  hy- 
pothesis as  a  whole  is  found  not  to  be  consistent 
with  a  proper  resurrection  of  the  body,  it  is  by  ;dl 
means  to  be  rejected. 

(7.)  It  is  thought  quite  improbable  that  the 
same  bodies  will  rise  with  all  their  present  parts, 
mem'  lers,  organs,  and  appurtenances,  not  to  say  theii 
peculiir  abnormal  developments  and  defects. 

We  have  already  said,  the  Christian  dogma  of 
the  resurrection  contains  nothing  definite  on  tliese 
points.  We  have  shown  that  such  a  resurrection, 
in  all  its  details,  is  not  absolutely  impossible;  but 
we  have  shown  that  such  a  resurrection  is  not 
necessary  to  the  proper  idea  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  We  have  shov^  n  that  the  body  raised 
would  be  the  same  as   the  present  body,  if  it  pog- 


2718 


RESURKEOTION 


Kssed  the  same  matter  and  form  as  the  present  body 
possesses  (I I  any  pei-iod  wimtccer  of  its  iiye.  We 
now  add  tliat  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body 
ooes  not  require  that  the  body  raised  should  have 
all  the  matter  or  tlie  precise  form  of  the  present 
body  as  it  actually  existed  here  at  any  jieriod  of  life. 
It  would  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  of  the 
same  body,  if  all  the  bodies  of  the  dead  should  be 
raised  in  the  vigor  and  beauty  of  youth  or  early 
manhood;  the  infant  being  instantaneously  de- 
veloped to  such  a  stature,  the  aged  restored  to  it, 
and  all  deformities  and  defects  forthwith  removed. 
And  as  to  organs  and  members;  doubtless  whatever 
characteristics  of  our  present  bodies  will  contribute 
to  the  glory  and  beauty  and  purposes  of  the  I'uture 
body  of  the  Christian  will  be  retained  in  it;  and 
whatever  characteristics  would  mar  that  glory  or 
beauty  or  fruitiun,  or  interfere  with  those  purposes, 
will  be  changed.  It  may  be  that  the  prints  of  the 
wounds  in  our  Saviour's  hands  and  feet,  or  sonie- 
thini;  significantly  corresponding  to  them,  may  re- 
main forever  in  his  glorified  body,  as  visible  nie- 
n)entoes  of  his  dying  love,  as  marks  of  honor  and 
gi'aee  to  excite  all  the  reileemed  and  the  holy  to  still 
liitcher  strains  of  love  and  adoration  and  praise. 
Since  we  are  to  le  conitbrted  for  our  departed 
friends  b_y  the  assurance  that  "  them  that  sleep  in 
Jesus  God  will  brini;  with  Him,"  it  may  well  be 
believed  that  we  shall  recognize  in  the  future  life 
those  whom  we  have  loved  in  this;  but  to  this  end 
it  is  not  necessary  that  the  spiritual  body  should 
retain  all  or  any  of  the  lineaments  of  the  present 
body.  The  beautiful  plant  that  rises  from  the 
grain  that  has  been  sown  and  has  died,  difters 
widely  in  all  its  external  form  and  aspect  from  the 
seed,  yet  by  it  we  can  as  certainly  distinguish  its 
kind  as  by  the  seed  itself.  And  this  system  of  cor- 
respondences may  reach  nuich  further  than  we  have 
yet  traced  it.  The  spiritual  libdy  may  have  an 
mtensity  and  transparency  of  expression  for  the 
character  and  individuality  of  the  soul,  such  as  the 
brightest  mortal  face  we  ever  Ijeheld,  the  clearest 
and  most  soul-expressive  eye  of  mortal  mould  into 
whose  depths  \\e  ever  gazed,  coidd  not  enable  us 
to  conceive.  The)i,  there  may  be  means  of  com- 
municating thouirht  _and  feeling  in  the  future 
world,  as  far  transcending  all  the  power  of  the 
most  perfect  humai.  speech  as  that  transcends  the 
inarticulate  language  of  brutes.  Thus  there  may 
be  abundant  means  of  recognition  independent  of 
any  outward  identity  of  form. 

(8.)  Finally,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is 
thought  improbable,  because  science,  in  her  deepest 
researches,  finds  no  symptoms  or  intimations  of 
such  an  event. 

It  is  alleged  that,  as  far  as  has  been  ascertained 
by  chemical  or  any  other  physical  tests,  the  human 
body  is  subject  to  the  same  laws  of  development, 
growth,  and  decay,  while  it  lives;  and  of  dissolu- 
tion, deconii)osition,  and  dispersion,  when  it  dies, 
as  those  to  which  the  bodies  of  the  ox  and  the 
horse  are  sulject.  But  what  does  this  prove?  Does 
it  prove  that  therefore  God  will  not  reconstruct  and 
reanimate  the  human  body?  Is  it  thereibre  to  be 
thought  a  thing  incredible  that  God  should  raise 
the  dead  ?  We  can  see  no  such  force  of  proof  in 
Jiose  facts.  A\'e  are  not  aware  that  anybody  has 
undertaken  to  bring  positive  evidence  of  a  resur- 
rection of  the  body  from  chemistry  or  natural  ])hil- 
3sophy :  and  we  caimot  conceive  what  disproof  there 
«  in  the  alisence  of  proof  derivable  from  those 
[uarters. 


IIESUKRECTION 

But  (it  is  insisted)  after  the  minutest  chemicaJ 
analysis,  after  the  most  patient  and  thorough  test- 
ing by  all  known  agents  and  re -agents,  after  the 
most  careful  examination,  and  after  ages  of  ex- 
perience, we  have  ne\er  found  any  more  signs  of  a 
tendency  to  a  resurrection  in  the  body  of  a  dead 
man  than  in  that  of  a  dead  dog.  And  what  then  ? 
Therefore  there  is  and  can  l)e  no  resurrection  of  the 
human  body  ?  Most  lame  and  impotent  conclusion  ! 
As  though  we  already  knew  everything  pertaining 
to  the  powers,  properties,  and  possibilities  even  of 
material  things;  as  though  we  were  not  prying 
deeper  and  deei)er  into  the  secrets  of  nature  every 
day :  as  though  there  were  not  evidently  dynamics 
and  laws  at  work  in  the  material  world  which  elude 
all  our  chemical  tests  and  physical  re-agents;  and 
as  tJnmgh  ice  could  set  distinctly  around  and  (ibuce 
the  poirer  of  Almiyhty  Hod,  which,  with  Us  higher, 
and  perchance  forever  inscrutalile  laws,  presides  over 
and  controls  all  the  law.s  and  functions  of  nature. 
All  positive  evidence  lor  a  resurrection  of  the  body 
must  be  sought  for  in  the  teaching  of  Eevelation ; 
anil  that  evidence,  be  it  more  or  less,  is  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  affected  by  this  chemico-physical 
argument:  it  is  lelt  just  as  it  was  and  where  it 
was,  entire  and  intact. 

IV.  History  of  the  Docthixe. 

It  remains  to  give  a  brief  outline  of  the  history 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Kesurrection.  as  it  has  been 
held  in  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Chiliarchs  and  Gnostics,  from  the  first,  held 
extreme  views,  the  former  toiding  to  an  unscrip- 
tural  grossness  of  detail,  and  the  latter  to  an  equally 
unscriptural  refining  away  of  the  substantial  fact, 
.lustin  Martyr,  Irenfeus  and  TertuUian,  inclining  to 
the  Chiliarchs,  taught  a  double  resurrection.  These 
and  Clemens  Komanus,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus, 
and  Minutius  Felix,  all  believed  in  a  proj^er  resur- 
rection of  the  body.  Origen  spiritualized  it.  (See 
Teller,  Fides  doyin.  de  Resnr.  C(n->iis,  2)ei'  i  priwa 
Secula.)  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
and  Basil  the  Great,  adopted  in  part  the  views  of 
Origen.  Jerome  went  to  an  extreme  against  them. 
Augustine  ultimately  opjiosed  them,  Init  more  mod- 
erately. Chrysostom  lielieved  in  the  identity  of 
the  body  raised  and  the  j^resent  body,  but  followed 
St.  Paul's  exposition.  I'.pijjhanius  and  TheSphilus 
of  Alexandria  agreed  with  .lerome;  but  Theoijhilus 
ordained  Synesius,  who  coidd  not  assent  to  "  the 
prevailing  notions."  [Showing  two  things:  (1) 
that  certain  views,  namely,  those  of  Jerome,  were 
then  the  prevailing  views,  and  (2)  that  to  accept 
them  was  not  considered  (by  Theophilus)  essential.] 
Phithnus  confessed  the  resurrection  l/vjvs  carnis, 
and  John  of  Jerusalem  distinguished  between  Jlesh 
and  body,  but  with  neither  of  them  was  Jerome 
satisfied.  Jerome's  became  the  prevailing  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  has  so  continued  sub 
stantially  to  the  present  day.  The  reformers  gen- 
erally adopted  the  same  doctrine,  adhering,  however, 
more  decidedly  to  the  Augustinian  and  Paulino 
representations. 

The  Socinians,  and.  after  them,  the  Unitarians, 
have  been  inclined  to  deny  the  proper  resurrection 
of  the  body.  The  Swedenborgians  also  do  the  same, 
holding  that  each  soul,  inunediately  upon  death,  \» 
clothed  with  its  s])iritual  body.  Many  persons  it. 
all  the  Protestant  coniniunions  have,  in  later  years 
felt  conipfllHil  liv  the  |iresnn)ed  ])hilosophical  difli 
culties   oi   the  case,  to  give   ui)   the  doctrine  of  a 


IIEU 

piwper  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  have  either 
remained  silent,  without  any  avowed  or  definite 
belief  upon  che  sulject,  or  have  openly  sided  witli 
the  Socini.uis  or  the  Swedenborgians. 

The  creeds  and  the  symbols  and  confessions  of 
the  Reformed  Churches,  however,  have  remained 
unchaui^ed.  See,  e.  ;/.  Article  IV.  of  the  Churcii 
of  England,  "  On  the  Resurrection  of  Christ," 
which,  speaking  of  Christ's  ascension  "with  flesh, 
bones,  and  all  things  appertaining  to  the  perfection 
of  man"s  nature,"  covers  nearly  the  whole  ground 
of  hesitation  and  difficulty.  See  also  all  the  three 
creeds,  especially  the  Athanasian.  That  of  the 
Apostles  still  confesses  the  liesurreclio  cariiis. 

D.  R.  G. 

*  For  the  literature  of  this  sulject,  one  may 
consult  the  bibliographical  appendix  to  W.  K. 
Alger's  Critlcdl  Hlstoi-y  of  the  Doctrine  of  a 
Future  Life,  Nos.  292!)-3l';52,  and  on  the  Resur- 
rection of  Christ,  Nos.  3133-3181.  A. 

RE'U  (-"ll?"!  [friend]:  'Pa^aD  m  Gen.-,  [Rom.] 
'Payav  [but  Vat.  Alex.  "Payav]  in  Chr. :  Reu,  [Ra- 
gau] ).  Son  of  Releg,  in  the  line  of  Abraham's  ances- 
tors (Gen.  xi.  18, 19,  20,  21 ;  1  Chr.  i.  2.3).  He  lived 
two  hundred  and  thirty-niiie  years  according  to  the 
genealogy  in  Genesis.  Bunsen  {Bibtltatrk)  says 
Reu  is  Rolia,  the  Arabic  name  for  Edessa,  an  as- 
sertion which,  borrowed  from  Knobel,  is  utterly 
destitute  of  foundation,  as  will  be  seen  at  once  on 
comparing  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  words.  A 
closer  resemblance  might  be  found  between  Reu 
and  Rha(/ce,  a  large  town  of  Media,  especially  if 
the  Greek  equivalents  of  the  two  names  be  taken. 

*  In  1  Chr.  i.  2.3  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611,  follow- 
ing the  Bishops'  Bible  and  the  Genevan  Version, 
reads  Rehu,  representing  the  Airi  by  H,  as  in 
Bome  other  cases.  A. 

REU'BEN  (p^S")  [see  below]:  'Vou^Tif 
and  'Poi//3r)i/;  -loseph.  'Povfir}\os-  Pesh.  Syr. 
Rubil,  and  so  also  in  Arab.  vers,  of  .Joshua:  Ru- 
ben), Jacob's  first-born  child  ((ien.  xxix.  32),  the 
Bon  of  Leah,  apparently  not  born  till  an  unusual 
interval  had  elapsed  after  the  uiarriatre  (31  ;  -Josepii. 
Ant.  i.  19,  §  8).  This  is  perhaps  denoted  by  the 
name  itself,  whether  we  adopt  the  obvious  signifi- 
oatiou  of  its  present  form  —  reu  ben,  i.  e.  "  be 
bold  ye,  a  son !  "  (Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1247  b)  —  or  (2) 
the  explanation  given  in  the  text,  which  seems  to 

imply  that  the  original  form  was  "'^S^S  ""'IS"^, 
rail  beoni/u  "  .lehovah  hath  seen  my  afflic/i(m,"  or 
(3)  that  of  .losephus,  who  uniformly  presents  it 
as  Roubel,  and  explains  it  {Ant.  i.  19,  §  8)  as  the 
"  pity    of    God  "  —  eKeov   rod  Qeov,   as  if    from 

bS2  *'^S"I  (Fiirst,  Ilnndu.-b.  ii.  344<().«  The  no- 
tices of  the  patriarch  Reuben  in  the  book  of  Gen. 
esis  and  the  early  Jewish  traditional  literature  are 
uimsually  frequent,  and  on  the  whole  give  a   favor- 


o  Redslob  {Die  Altlestamentl.  Namen,  86) maintains 
that  Reubel  is  the  oriLjinal  form  of  the  name,  which 
was  corrupted  into  Reuben,  as  Bethel  into  B^itin,  and 
Jezreel  iuto  Serin.  He  treats  it  as  signifying  the 
"  flock  of  Bel,"  a  deity  whose  worship  greatly  flour- 
ished in  the  neighboring  country  of  .Moab,  and  who 
under  the  name  of  Nebo  had  a  famous  sanctuarv  in 
^e  very  territory  of  Reuben.  In  tliis  case  it  wo'ild 
9e  a  parallel  to  the  title,  "people  of  Chemosh.  '  vl,ich 
«  bestowed  on  Moab.     Tlieal'eration  of  t'ae  obqodoiis 


REUBEN  2719 

aljle  view  of  his  disposition.  To  him,  ai.d  him 
alone,  the  preservation  of  Joseph's  life  appears  to 
have  been  due.  His  anguish  at  the  disappearance 
of  his  brother,  and  the  frustration  of  his  kindl} 
artifice  for  delivering  him  (Gen.  xxxvii.  22),  his 
recollection  of  the  minute  details  of  the  painful 
scene  many  years  afterwards  (xlii.  22),  his  otter  to 
take  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  safety  of  the 
lirother  wlio  had  succeeded  to  Joseph's  place  in  the 
family  (xlii.  37),  all  testify  to  a  warm  and  (for  those 
roui;h  times)  a  kindly  nature.  Of  the  repulsive 
criine  which  mars  his  history,  and  which  turned 
the  blessing  of  his  dyin;;  father  into  a  curse  —  his 
adulterous  connection  with  Bilhah,  — we  know  from 
the  Scriptures  only  the  fact  (Gen.  xxxv.  22).  In 
the  post-biblical  traditions  it  is  treated  either  as 
not  having  actually  occurred  (as  in  the  Taryuni 
Pseiulojonalh(in),  or  else  as  the  result  of  a  sudden 
temiitation  acting  on  a  hot  and  vigorous  nature  (as 
in  the  Test'iments  of  Ike  Twelve  Patriarclis)  —  a 
parallel,  in  some  of  its  circumstances,  to  the  in- 
trigue of  David  with  Bathsheba.  Some  severe 
temptation  there  must  surely  have  been  to  imijel 
Reuben  to  an  act  which,  regarded  in  its  social  rather 
Jian  in  its  moral  aspect,  would  be  jieouliarly  abhor- 
rent to  a  patriarchal  society,  and  wliich  is  specially 
and  repeatedly  reprobated  in  the  Law  of  Moses. 
The  Rabbinical  version  of  the  occurrence  (as  given 
in  Tiirg.  Pseu'lojon.)  is  very  characteristic,  and 
well  illustrates  the  difference  between  the  spirit  of 
early  and  of  late  Jewish  history.  '•  Reul)en  went 
and  disordered  the  couch  of  Bilhah,  his  father's 
concubine,  which  was  placed  right  opposite  the 
couch  of  Leah,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  as  if 
he  had  lain  with  her.  And  when  Israel  heard  it 
it  displeased  him,  and  he  said,  '  Lo!  an  unworthy 
person  shall  proceed  from  me,  as  Ishmael  did  from 
Abraham  and  Esau  from  my  father.'  And  the 
Holy  Spirit  answered  him  and  said,  '  All  are  right- 
eous, and  there  is  not  one  unworthy  among  them.'  " 
Reuljen's  anxiety  to  save  .loseph  is  represented  as 
arising  from  a  desire  to  conciliate  Jacob,  and  his 
alisence  while  .loseph  was  sold  from  his  sitting 
alone  on  the  mountains  in  penitent  fasting. 

These  traits,  slight  as  they  are,  are  those  of  an 
ardent,  impetuous,  unlialanced,  but  not  ungenerous 
nature;  not  crafty  and  cruel,  as  were  Simeon  and 
Levi,  but  rather,  to  use  the  metaphor  of  the  dying 
patriarch,  boiling  *  up  like  a  vessel  of  water  over  tlie 
rajjid  wood-fire  of  the  nomad  tent,  and  as  quickly 
subsiding  into  apathy  when  the  fuel  was  with- 
drawn. 

At  the  time  of  the  migration  into  Egypt  '^  Reu 
ben's  sons  were  four  (Gen.  xlvl.  9;  1  Chr.  v.  3). 
From  them  sprang  the  chief  families  of  the  trilx" 
(Num.  xxvi.  5-11).  One  of  these  families  —  that 
of  Pallu  —  became  notorious  as  producing  Eliab, 
whose  sons  or  descendants,  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
perished  with  their  kinsman  On  in  the  divine  ret- 
ribution for  their  oonspiraoy  against  Moses  (Num. 


syllable  in  Reu'if/  would,  on  this  theory,  find  a  paral. 
lei  in  the  ^l^nhbaal  and  Eshftaa/  of  Saul's  family,  whq 
became  Mephjiojj/ifM  and  lahhoslietk. 

I>  Such  appears  to  be  a  more  accurate  rendering  '>r 
the  word  which  in  the  .\.  V.  jg  rendered  "  unstable'- 
(Gesen.  Pent,  Sa?n.  p.  33). 

c  According  to  the  ancient  tradition  preserved  by 
Demetrius  (in  Euseb.  Prfrp  Ec.  ix.  21),  Heuben  WW 
■13  years  old  at  the  time  cf  th*;  migratiou. 


2720 


KEUBEN 


ivi.  1,  xxvi.  8-1]).  The  census  at  Mount  Sinai 
(Num.  i.  -20,  21,  ii.  11)  shows  that  at  the  Kxodus 
fche  numbers  of  the  tribe  were  46,500  men  abo\e 
twenty  years  of  age,  and  fit  for  active  warlilve  ser- 
vice. In  point  of  numerical  strength.  Keuben  was 
then  sixtli  on  the  list,  (jatl,  with  45.(J.50  men,  lieing 
next  below.  On  tlie  borders  of  Canaan,  after  the 
plague  which  punished  the  idolatry  of  Baal-l'eor.  tlie 
numbers  had  fallen  slightly,  and  were  4-3,730;  Gad 
was  40,500;  and  the  position  of  the  two  in  the  list 
is  lower  than  before,  Ephraim  and  Simeon  being  the 
only  two  smaller  tribes  (Num.  xxvi.  7,  ifcc). 

During  the  journey  through  the  wilderness  the 
position  of  Keubeu  was  on  the  south  side  of  the 
Tal^rnacle.  The  "  camp  "  which  went  under  his 
name  was  formed  of  his  own  tribe,  that  of  Simeon  " 
(Leah's  second  son),  and  Gad  (son  of  Zilpali,  Leah's 
slave).  The  standard  of  the  camp  was  a  deer'' 
with  the  inscription.  "  Hear,  oh  Israeli  the  Lord 
thy  God  is  one  Lord!  "  and  its  place  in  the  march 
was  second  {Tufyuni  Pstudnjun.  Num.  ii.  lO-lG). 

The  Keubenites,  like  their  relatives  and  neigh- 
bors on  the  journey,  the  (iadites,  had  maintained  I 
through  the  nwrih  to  Canaan  the  ancient  calling 
of  their  tbrefathers.  The  patriarchs  were  "feeding 
their  flocks  "  at  Shechem  when  Joseph  was  sold 
into  Kgypt.  It  was  as  men  whose  "  trade  had 
been  about  cattle  from  their  youth  "  that  they 
were  presented  to  Pharaoh  ((jen.  xlvi.  32,  34),  and 
in  the  land  of  Goshen  they  settled  "  with  their 
flocks  and  herds  and  all  that  they  had  "  (xlvi.  32, 
xlvii,  1 ).  Their  cattle  accompanied  them  in  their 
flight  from  Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  38),  not  a  hoof  was 
left  behind;  and  there  are  frequent  allusions  to  them 
on  the  journey  (Ex.  xxxiv.  3;  Num.  xi.  22;  Deut. 
viii.  13,  ifec).  15ut  it  would  appear  that  the  tribes 
wlio  were  destined  to  settle  in  the  confined  territory 
between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  .lordan  had, 
diiring  the  journey  througli  the  wilderness,  for- 
tunately relinquished  that  taste  for  the  possession 
of  cattle  which  they  could  not  have  maintained 
after  their  settlement  at  a  distance  from  tte  wide 
pastures  of  the  wilderness.  Thus  the  cattle  had 
come  into  the  hands  of  Iteuben,  Gad,  and  the  half 
of  Manasseh  (Num.  xxxii.  1),  and  it  followed  nat- 
urally that  when  the  nation  arrived  on  the  open 
downs  east  of  the  Jordan,  the  three  tr  bes  just 
named  shoidd  prefer  a  request  to  their  leader  to  be 
allowed  to  remain  in  a  place  so  perfectly  suited  to 
their  requirements.  The  part  selected  by  Keuben 
had  at  that  date  the  special  name  of  "the  Mishor," 
with  reference  possiijly  to  its  evenness  (.Stanley, 
iS.  {/•  P.  App.  §  6).  Under  its  modern  name  of 
the  Bdkii  it  is  still  esteemed  beyond  all  others  by 
the  Arab  sheep-masters.  It  is  well  watered, co\ered 
with  smooth  short  turf,  and  losing  itself  gradually 
in  those  iLimitable  wastes  which  have  always  been 
and  always  will  be  the  favorite  resort  of  pastoral 
nomad  tribes.  The  country  east  of  Jordan  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  included  in  the  original 
land  promised  to  Abraham.  That  which  the  spies 
examined  was  comprised,  on   the  east  and    west. 


a  Reuben  and  Simeon  are  named  together  by  Jacob 
in  Gen.  xlviii.  5  ;  and  there  is  perhaps  'a  trace  of  the 
tonnectiou  in  the  interchange  of  the  names  in  Jud. 
nil.  1  (Vulg.)  and  ix.  2. 

b  It  ig  said  that  this  was  originally  an  ox.  but 
tb%nged  by  Mnses,  lest  it  should  recall  the  sin  of  the 
^Idea  calf. 

«  A  few  versioug  have  been  bold  enough  to  render 


REUBEN 

between  the  "  coast  of  Jordan  "  and  "  the  sea." 
15ut  for  the  pusillanimity  of  the  greater  numlier  of 
the  tribes  it  would  have  been  entered  from  the  south 
(Num.  xiii.  30),  and  in  that  case  the  east  of  Jor 
dan  might  never  have  been  peopled  by  Israel  a, 
all. 

Accordingly,  when  the  Reubenites  and  their  fel- 
lows approach  Moses  with  their  request,  his  main 
objection  is  that  by  what  they  propose  they  will 
discourage  the  hearts  of  the  children  of  Israel 
from  going  over  Jordan  into  the  land  which  Jeho- 
vah had  gi\en  them  (Num.  xxxii.  7).  It  is  only  on 
their  undertaking  to  fulfill  their  part  in  tiie  conquest 
of  the  western  country,  the  land  of  Canaan  proper, 
and  thus  satisfying  him  that  their  proposal  was 
srounded  in  no  selfish  desire  to  escape  a  full  share 
of  the  difBculties  of  the  conquest,  that  Moses  will 
consent  to  their  proposal. 

The  "blessing"  of  Eeuben  by  the  departing 
Lawgiver  [Deut.  xxxiii.  0]  is  a  passage  which  has 
se\erely  exercised  translators  and  commentators. 
.Strictly  translated  as  they  stand  in  the  received 
Hebrew  text,  the  words  are  as  follows :  ^  — 

"  bet  Reuben  live  and  not  die, 
And  let  his  men  be  a  number  "  (i.  e.  few). 

As  to  the  first  line  there  appears  to  be  no  doubt, 
but  the  second  line  has  been  interpreted  in  two 
exactly  opposite  ways.     1.  By  the  LXX.:  — 

"  And  let  his  men  d  be  many  in  number." 
This  has  the  disadvantage  that  ^Sp^  is  never 
employed  elsewhere  for  a  large  number,  but  always 
for  a  small  one  (e.  y.  1  Chr.  xvi.  19;  Job  xvi.  22, 
Is.  x.  19;  Ez.  xii.  16). 

2.  That  of  our  own  Auth.  Version :  — 

"  And  let  not  his  men  be  few." 

Here  the  negative  of  the  first  line  is  presumed  to 
convey  its  force  to  the  second,  though  not  there 
expressed.  This  is  countenanced  liy  the  ancient 
Syriac  ^'ersion  (Peshito)  and  the  translations  of 
.funius  and  Tremellius,  and  Schott  and  Winzer. 
It  also  has  the  important  support  of  Gesenius 
{ThifA.  p.  908  n,  and  Pmt.  Sam.  p.  44). 

3.  A  third  and  verj'  ingenious  interpretation  is 
that  adopted  by  the  Veneto-Greek  Version,  and  also 
by  l\lichaelis  [Bihel  J'iir  Un<jelehrten,  Text),  which 

assumes  that  the  vowel-points  of  the  word  VHp, 

"  his  men,'"  are  altered  to  TTI^,  "  his  dead  "  — 

"  And  let  his  dead  be  few  "  — 

as  if  in  allusion  to  some  recent  mortality  in  the 
tribe,  such  as  that  in  Simeon  after  the  plague  of 
Baal-Peor. 

These  interpretations,  unless  the  last  should 
prove  to  be  the  original  reading,  originate  in  the 
fact  that  the  words  in  their  naked  sense  convey  a 
curse  and  not  a  blessing.  Fortunately,  though 
differing  widely  in   detail,  they  agree  in  general 


the  Hebrew  as  it  stands.     Thus  the  Vulgate,  Luther 
De  Wette,  and  Bunsen. 

f'  The  Alex.  LXX.  adds  the  name  of  Pinieon  ("  and 
let  Symeon  be  many  in  number''):  but  this,  though 
approved  of  by  Mlohaelis  (In  the  notes  to  the  passage 
in  tii.s  Bihel  fiir  Uiii;rlehrtrn ),  on  the  grnund  that  then 
is  no  reii.eon  for  omitfing  Simeon,  is  not  supported  bj 
any  Codex  or  any  other  Version. 


REUBEN 

meaning."  The  benediction  of  the  great  leader 
zoes  out  over  the  trilie  which  was  about  to  separate 
itself  from  its  bretliren,  in  a  fervent  aspiration  for 
its  welfare  through  all  the  risks  jf  that  remote  and 
trying  situation. 

Both  in  this  and  the  earlier  l)lessing  of  Jacob, 
Reuben  retains  his  place  at  the  head  of  the  family, 
and  it  must  Tiot  be  overloolved  that  the  tribe,  to- 
i^ether  witli  the  two  who  associated  tliennelves 
witli  it,  actually  received  its  inheritance  lefore 
either  .ludah  or  Kphraim,  to  whom  the  birthright 
which  Keuben  had  forfeited  was  transferred  (1  Chr. 
V.  1). 

From  this  time  it  seems  as  if  a  bar,  not  only  the 
material  one  of  distance,  and  of  the  intervening 
river  and  mountain-wall,  but  also  of  difference  in 
feeling  and  habits,  gradually  grew  up  more  fiub- 
stantially  between  the  eastern  and  western  tribes. 
The  first  act  of  the  former  after  the  completion  of 
the  conquest,  and  after  they  had  taicen  part  in 
the  solemn  ceremonial  in  the  valley  between  Ebal 
and  Gerizim,  shows  liow  wide  a  gap  already  ex- 
isted between  their  ideas  and  those  of  the  western 
tribes. 

The  pile  of  stones  which  they  erected  on  the 
western  banl<  of  the  Jordan  to  mark  their  boun- 
dary— -to  testify  to  after  ages  that  though  sep- 
arated by  tlie  rushing  river  from  their  brethren  and 
tlie  country  in  which  Jeliovah  had  fixed  the  place 
wiiere  He  would  lie  worshipped,  they  had  still  a 
right  to  return  to  it  for  his  worsliip  —  was  erected 
in  accoidance  with  the  unalterable  habits  of  Be- 
douin tribes  l)Oth  before  and  since.  It  was  an  act 
identical  with  that  in  which  Laban  and  Jacob 
engaged  at  parting,  with  that  which  is  constantly 
performed  by  tlie  Bedouins  of  the  present  day. 
But  by  the  Israelites  west  of  Jordan,  who  were  fast 
relinquishing  their  nomad  habits  and  feelings  for 
those  of  more  settled  permanent  life,  this  act  was 
completely  misunderstood,  and  was  construed  into 
an  attempt  to  set  up  a  rival  altar  to  that  of  the 
Sacred  Tent.  The  incompatibility  of  the  idea  to 
the  mind  of  the  Western  Israelites  is  shown  by  the 
fact,  that  notwithstanding  the  disclaimer  of  the 
2|  tribes,  and  notwithstanding  that  disclaimer  hav- 
ing proved  satisfactory  even  to  Phinehas,  the  autlior 
of  Joshua  xxii.  retains  the  name  nhbidch  for  the 
pile,  a  word  which  involves  the  idea  of  sacrifice  — 
i.  e.  of  sliiufjhter  (see  Gesenius,  Thes.  p.  402)  —  in- 
stead of  applying  to  it  the  term  c/al,  as  is  done  in  the 
case  (Gen.  xxxi.  40)  of  the  precisely  similar  "heap 
of  witness."  *  Another  Keubenite  erection,  which 
for  long  kept  up  the  memory  of  the  presence  of  the 
tribe  on  the  west  of  Jordan,  was  the  stone  of  liohan 
ben-Reuben  which  formed  a  landmark  on  the  boun- 
dary between  Judah  and  Benjamin,  (.losh.  xv. 
6.)  This  was  a  single  stoiie  {Eben),  not  a  pile, 
and  it  appears  to  have  stood  somewhere  on  the  road 
from  Bethany  to  .Jericho,  not  far  from  the  ruined 
khan  so  well  known  to  travellers. 

No  judge,  no  prophet,  no  hero  of  the  tribe  of 
Ueuben  is  handed  down   to  us.     In  the  dire  ex- 


KEUEL 


2721 


a  In  the  Revised  Translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
by  the  Rev.  C.  Wellbeloved  and  others  (London,  1857) 
he  passage  is  rendered  — 

"  Mnv  Reuben  live  and  not  die, 
Thousli  Ills  men  be  few." 

In  excellent  evasion  of  the  difficulty,  provided  it  be 
Omissible  as  a  translation. 
<>  The  "altar''  is  actually  called  Ed,  or  "witness" 


tremity  of  their  brethren  in  the  north  uiidei 
Deborah  and  Barak,  they  contented  themselves 
with  debating  the  news  amongst  the  streams  '^  of 
the  Mishor:  the  distant  distress  of  his  brethren 
could  not  move  Reuben,  he  lingered  among  his 
sheepfolds  and  preferred  the  shepherd's,  pipe'' and 
the  bleating  of  the  flocks,  to  the  clamor  of  th« 
trumpet  and  the  turmoil  of  battle.  His  individ- 
uality fades  more  rapidly  than  Gad's.  The  elever 
valiant  Gadites  who  swam  the  .lordan  at  its  highest 
to  join  the  son  of  Jesse  in  his  trouble  (1  Chr.  xii. 
8-15),  Barzillai,  Elijah  the  (iileadite,  the  siege  of 
Ramoth-Gilead  with  its  picturesque  incidents,  all 
give  a  substantial  reality  to  the  tribe  and  country* 
of  Gad.  But  no  person,  no  incident,  is  recorded, 
to  place  Reuben  before  us  in  any  distinctei  form 
than  as  a  member  of  the  community  (if  com- 
munity it  can  be  called)  of  "the  Reubenites,  the  Ga- 
dites, ajid  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh  "  (1  Chr.  xii. 
37).  The  very  towns  of  his  inheritance  —  Hesh 
bon,  Aroer,  Kirjathaim,  Dibon,  Baal-nieon,  Sibmah 
Jazer,  —  are  familiar  to  us  as  Moabite,  and  not  aa 
Israelite  towns.  The  city-life  so  characteristic  of 
Aloabite  civilization  had  no  hold  on  the  Reubenites. 
They  are  most  in  tlieir  element  when  engaged  in 
continual  broils  with  the  children  of  the  desert, 
the  Bedouin  tribes  of  Hagar,  Jetur,  Nephish, 
Nodal) ;  driving  off  their  myriads  of  cattle,  asses, 
camels;  dwelling  in  their  tents,  as  if  to  the  manor 
born  (1  Chr.  v.  10),  gradually  spreadint;!;  over  the 
vast  wilderness  whicU  extends  from  Jordan  to  the 
Euphrates  (ver.  9),  and  every  day  receding  further 
and  further  from  any  community  of  feeling  or  of 
interest  with  the  western  tribes. 

Thus  remote  from  the  central  seat  of  the  na- 
tional government  and  of  the  national  religion,  it 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Reuben  relin(pushed 
the  faith  of  Jehovah.  "They  went  a  whoring 
after  the  gods  of  the  people  of  the  land  whom  God 
destroyed  before  them,"  and  the  last  historical 
notice  which  we  possess  of  tliem,  while  it  records 
this  fact,  records  also  as  its  natural  consequence 
that  the  Reubenites  and  (iadites,  and  the  half-tribe 
of  Manasseh,  were  carried  off  by  Pul  and  Tiglath- 
Pileser,  and  placed  in  the  districts  on  and  about 
the  river  Klialmr  in  the  upper  part  of  Mesopo- 
tamia—  "in  Halah,  and  Halior,  and  Hara,  and 
the  river  Gozan  "  (1  Chr.  v.  20).  G. 

*  REU'BENITES  03?^S"} :  commonly 
'Pou^riv,  but  Josh.  xxii.  1,  ol  viol  'Pov^rji',  Alex 
01  'Pov&r]viraL\  1  Chr.  xxvi.  32,  'Poui8rji/i  [Vat 
-vei] :  Ruben,  RubenikB),  and  once  sing.,  REU'- 
BENITE  (1  Chr.  xi.  42;  EXX.  omit;  Vulg. 
Rubenili'S).  Descendants  of  Rkuisen  (Num.  xxvi. 
7;  Deut.  iii.  12,  10,  iv.  43,  xxix.  8;  .losh.  i.  12, 
xii.  6,  xiii.  8,  xxii.  1;  2  K.  x.  33;  1  Chr.  v.  0,  20, 
xi.  42,  xii.  37,  xxvi.  32,  xxvii.  10).  A. 

REU'EL  (bs^27~l  [friend  of  6W]  :  'Pa 
yov7]\'-  Raliuel,  Rir/uel).  The  name  of  several 
persons  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 

1.  One  of  the  sons  of  Esau,  by  bis  wife  Bashe 


(Josh.  xxii.  34)  by  the  Bedouin  Reubenites,  just  as  the 
pile  of  Jacob  and  Laban  was  called  Gal-ed,  the  heap 
of  witness. 

c  The  word  used  here,  peles:,  seems  to  i~efer  to  arti- 
ficial streams  or  ditches  for  irrigation.     [River.] 

''  This  is  Ewald's  rendering  (Z>i'cA(«r  des  A.  B.  i.  130), 
adopted  by  Bunsen,  of  the  passaije  rendered  in  Uu 
A.  V.  "  bleating  of  the  flocks  " 


2722 


REUMAH 


math  sister  of  Ishmael.  His  sons  were  four  — 
Nahath,  Zerah,  Sbammah,  and  ISIizzah,  "dukes" 
Df  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi.  4,  10,  13.  17 ;  1  Chr.  i.  35, 
37). 

2.  One  of  the  names  of  Moses'  father-ni-Iaw 
(Ex.  ii.  18);  the  same  which,  through  adherence 
to  the  LXX.  form,  is  given  in  another  passage  of 
the  A.  V.  Kaguel.  Moses'  father-in-law  was  a 
Midianite,  but  the  Midianites  are  in  a  well-known 
passage  (Gen.  xxxvii.  28)  called  also  Ishmaelites, 
and  if  this  may  be  taken  strictly,  it  is  not  im- 
possible thqt  the  name  of  lieuel  may  be  a  token 
of  his  connection  with  the  Isbmaelite  tribe  of  that 
ftame.  There  is,  however,  nothing  to  confii'm  this 
(uggestion. 

3.  Lather  of  Eliasaph,  the  leader  of  the  tribe  of 
Gad,  at  the  time  of  the  census  at  Sinai  (Num.  ii. 
14).  In  the  parallel  passages  the  name  is  given 
Deuel,  which  is  retahied  in  this  instance  also  by 
the  Vulgate  {Duel). 

4.  A  Benjaniite  whose  name  occurs  in  the  gene- 
alogy of  a  certain  Klah,  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
tribe  at  the  date  of  the  settlement  of  Jerusalem 
(1  Chr.  is.  8).  G. 

REU'MAH  (n^^SI  [raiseil,  high]  :  'Peifia; 
Alex.  Peripa:  lioiwi).  The  concubine  of  Nahor, 
Abraham's  brother  (Gen.  xxii.  24). 

REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN  ('A7ro/ca- 
Kv^is  ''Iwa.vvov-  Apiicaljipsis  Benti  Jonwds  Apos- 
toli).  The  following  suVijectis  in  connection  with 
this  hook  seem  to  ha\e  the  chief  claim  for  a  place 
in  this  article :  — 

A.  Canonical    Autiiokity    and    Autiioh- 

SHIP. 

B.  TiJiE  AND  Place  of  Wiuting. 

C.  Language. 

D.  Contents  and  Stiiuctuhe. 

E.  History  of  Interphetation. 

A.  Canonical  Authority  and  Autiior- 
SHip.  —  The  question  as  to  the  canonical  autiiority 
of  the  Revelation  resolves  itself  into  »  question  of 
authorship.  If  it  can  Ve  proved  that  a  book,  claim- 
ing so  distinctly  as  this  does  the  authority  of  divine 
inspiration,  was  actually  written  by  St.  John,  then 
no  doul)t  will  he  entertained  as  to  its  title  to  a 
place  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

Was,  then,  St.  John  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist 
the  writer  of  the  I!evelati<j^i  ?  This  question  was 
first  mooted  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (Eusebius, 
//.  E.  vii.  25).  The  doubt  which  he  modestly 
suggested  has  been  confidently  proclaimed  in  mod- 
ern times  by  Luther  (  VorreiJe  (mf  die  Off'tnbnriing, 
1522  and  1534),  and  widely  diffused  through  his 
influence.  Liicke  {Einli^itunfj,  p.  802),  the  most 
learned  and  diligent  of  modern  critics  of  the  Reve- 
lation, agrees  with  a  majority  of  the  eminent 
scholars  of  Germany  in  denying  that  St.  John  was 
the  author. 

But  the  general  belief  of  the  mass  of  Christians 
in  all  ages  has  been  in  favor  of  St.  John's  author- 
ship. The  evidence  adduced  in  support  of  that 
belief  consists  of  (1)  the  assertions  of  the  author, 
and  (2)  historical  tradition. 

(1  )  The  author's  descri])tion  of  himself  in  the 
1st  and  22d  chapters  is  certainly  equivalent  to  an 
Rssertion  that  he  is  the  A|iostle.  (a.)  He  names 
liniself  simply  John,  witliout  prefix  or  addition  — 
a  name  which  at  tluit  period,  and  in  Asia,  nnist 
kave  been  taken  liy  every  Christian  as  the  designa- 
IVd  \n  the  first  instance  of  the  great  Apostle  who 


REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN 

dwelt  at  Ephesus.  Doubtless  there  were  othei 
•lohns  among  the  Christians  at  that  time,  but  onlj 
arrogance  or  an  intention  to  deceive  could  account 
for  the  assinnption  of  this  simple  style  by  any  othei 
writer.  He  is  also  described  as  (6)  a  servant  of 
Christ,  (c)  one  who  had  borne  testimony  as  an 
eye-witness  of  the  word  of  God  and  of  the  testi- 
mony of  Christ —  terms  which  were  surely  designed 
to  identify  him  with  the  writer  of  the  verses  John 
xix.  35,  i.  14,  and  1  John  i.  2.  He  is  {d)  in  Pat- 
mos  for  the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  Christ:  it  may  be  easy  to  suppose  that  otlier 
Christians  of  the  same  name  were  banished  thitber, 
but  the  Apostle  is  the  only  John  who  'is  disthictly 
named  in  early  history  as  an  exile  at  Patmos.  He 
is  also  (e)  a  fellow-sufferer  with  those  whom  he 
addresses,  and  ( /')  the  authorized  channel  of  the 
most  direct  and  important  connnunication  that 
was  ever  made  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  of 
which  churches  John  the  Apostle  was  at  that  time 
the  spiritual  governor  and  teacher.  Lastly  {y)  the 
writer  was  a  fellow-servant  of  angels  and  a  brother 
of  prophets  —  titles  which  are  far  more  suitable  to 
one  of  the  chief  Apostles,  and  far  more  likely  to 
have  been  assigned  to  him  than  to  any  other  man 
of  less  distinction.  All  these  marks  are  found 
united  together  in  the  Apostle  John,  and  in  him 
alone  of  all  historical  persons.  We  must  go  out 
of  the  region  of  fact  into  the  region  of  conjecture 
to  find  such  another  person.  A  candid  reader  of 
the  Revelation,  if  previously  acquainted  witli  .St. 
.lohn's  other  writings  and  lile,  nuist  inevitably  con- 
clude that  the  writer  intended  to  be  identified  with 
St.  John.  It  is  strange  to  see  so  able  a  critic  as 
Liicke  {Einleitung^  p.  514)  meeting  this  conclusion 
with  the  conjecture  th.it  some  Asiatic  disciple  and 
namesake  of  the  Apostle  may  have  written  the 
book  in  the  course  of  some  missionary  labors  or 
some  time  of  sacred  retirement  in  Patmos.  Equally 
unavailing  against  this  conclusion  is  the  objection 
brought  by  Ewald,  Crednei',  and  others,  from  the 
fact  that  a  promise  of  the  future  blessedness  of  the 
Apostles  is  im]>lied  in  xviii.  20  and  xxi.  14;  as  if 
it  were  inconsistent  with  the  true  n.odesty  and 
humility  of  an  Apostle  to  record  —  as  Daniel  of 
old  did  in  much  plainer  terms  (Dan.  xii.  13)  —  a 
divine  promise  of  salvation  to  hin)self  personally. 
Rather  tiiose  passages  may  Ije  taken  as  instances  of 
the  writer  quietly  accepting  as  his  just  due  suci 
honorable  mention  as  belongs  to  all  the  Apostolic 
company.  Unless  we  are  prepared  to  gi\e  up  the 
veracity  and  divine  origin  of  the  whole  book,  and 
to  treat  the  writer's  account  of  himself  as  a  mere 
fiction  of  a  poet  trying  to  cover  his  own  insignifi- 
cance with  an  honored  name,  we  must  accept  that 
de.scription  as  a  plain  statement  of  fact,  equally 
credible  with  the  rest  of  the  book,  and  in  har- 
mony with  the  simple,  honest,  truthful  character 
which  is  stanijied  on  the  face  of  the  whole  narra- 
tive. 

Besides  this  direct  assertion  of  St.  John's  author- 
ship, there  is  also  an  implication  of  it  running 
through  the  l)Ook.  Generally,  tlie  instinct  of  single- 
minded,  patient,  faithful  students  has  led  them  to 
discern  a  connection  between  the  lievelation  and 
St.  John,  and  to  recognize  not  merely  the  same 
Spirit  as  the  source  of  this  and  other  books  of  Holj 
Scripture,  but  also  the  same  peculiarly -formed 
huni.'in  instrument  employed  both  in  jirodueing 
this  book  and  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  in  speaking 
the  characteristic  words  and  performing  the  char- 
I  acteristic  actions  recorded  of  S: I.  John.      Phis  evi- 


REVEL ATIOiSl    OF   ST.   JOHN 


2723 


dence  is  set  forth  at  great  length,  and  with  much 
force  and  eloquence,  by  J.  P.  Lange,  in  liis  Kssaj' 
on  the  Connection  between  the  Individuality  of  the 
Apostle  Jolni  and  that  of  tlie  Apocalypse,  1838 
{Vermiscld.  Schi-iJ'len,  ii.  173-231).  After  in- 
vestigating the  peculiar  features  of  the  Apostle's 
character  and  position,  and  (in  reply  to  Liicke)  the 
personal  traits  shown  by  the  writer  of  the  Revela- 
tion, he  concludes  that  the  !)Ook  is  a  mysterious 
but  genuine  effusion  of  prophecy  under  the  New 
Testament,  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
the  product  of  a  spiritual  gift  so  peculiar,  so  great 
and  noble  that  it  can  be  ascribed  to  the  Apostle 
.'•jhn  alone.  The  Revelation  requires  for  its  writer 
St.  John,  just  as  his  peculiar  genius  requires  for 
its  utterance  a  revelation. 

(2.)  To  come  to  the  historical  testimonies  in 
favor  of  St.  John's  authorship:  these  are  singulai'ly 
distinct  and  numerous,  and  there  is  very  little  to 
weigh  against  them,  {a.)  Justin  Martyr,  cir.  150 
A.  D.,  says:  "A  man  among  us  whose  name  was 
John,  one  of  thi^  Apostles  of  Christ,  in  a  revelation 
which  was  made  to  him,  prophesied  that  the  be- 
lievers in  our  Christ  shall  live  a  tliousand  years  in 
Jerusalem"  {Tr/j/>h.  §  81,  p.  179,  ed.  Ben.),  {b  ) 
The  author  of  the  iluratorian  Fragment,  cir.  170 
A.  D.,  speaks  of  St.  John  as  the  writer  of  the 
Apocalypse,  and  describes  him  as  a  predecessor  of 
St.  Paul,  i.  e.  as  Credner  and  Liicke  candidly  in- 
terpret it,  his  predecessor  in  the  office  of  Apostle, 
(c.)  Melito  of  Sardes,  cir.  170  A.  D.,  wrote  a  treatise 
on  the  Revelation  of  John.  F.usebius  (//.  is',  iv. 
26)  mentions  this  among  the  books  of  Melito  which 
bad  come  to  his  knowledge;  and,  as  he  carefully 
records  objections  against  the  Apostle's  authorship, 
it  may  be  fairly  presumed,  notwithstanding  the 
doubts  of  Ivleuker  and  Liicke  (p.  51-1),  that  luise- 
bius  found  no  doubt  us  to  St.  John's  authorship  in 
the  liook  of  this  ancient  Asiatic  bishop,  {d.)  The- 
ophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  cir.  180,  in  a  controversy 
with  Hermogenes,  quotes  passages  out  of  the  Rev- 
elation of  John  (Kuseb.  //.  A',  iv.  2-t).  (e.)  Ireuieus, 
cir.  195,  apparently  never  having  heard  a  suggestion 
of  any  other  author  than  the  Apostle,  often  quotes 
the  Revelation  as  the  work  of  John.  In  iv.  20,  § 
11,  he  describes  John  the  writer  of  the  Revelation 
as  the  same  who  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  at 
supper,  and  asked  Him  who  should  betray  Him. 
The  testimony  of  Ireuffius  as  to  the  authorsliip  of 
Revelation  is  perhaps  more  important  than  that 
of  any  other  writer:  it  mounts  up  into  the  preced- 
ing generation,  and  is  virtually  that  of  a  contem- 
porary of  the  Apostle.  For  in  v.  30,  §  1,  where  he 
vindicates  the  true  reading  (6G6)  of  the  number 
of  tlie  Beast,  he  cites  in  support  of  it  not  only  the 
old  correct  copies  of  the  book,  but  also  the  oral 
testimony  of  the  very  persons  who  themselves  had 
seen  St.  John  face  to  face.  It  is  obvious  that 
Irenseus's  reference  for  information  on  such  a  point 
to  those  contemporaries  of  St.  John  implies  his 
undoubting  belief  that  they,  in  common  with  him- 
self, viewed  St.  .tohn  as  the  writer  of  the  baok. 
Liicke  (p.  574)  suggests  that  this  view  was  possilily 
groundless,  because  it  was  entertained  before  the 
learned  fathers  of  .\lexandria  had  set  tlie  example 
of  historical  criticism;  but  his  suggestion  scarcely 
weakens  the  force  of  the  fact  that  such  was  the 
Relief  of  Asia,  and  it  appears  a  strange  suggestion 
W'nen  we  rememlier  that  the  critical  discernment 
if  the  Ale.Kandrians,  to  whom  he  refers,  led  them 
lO  coincide  with  Irenaus  in  his  view.  (/".)  Apol- 
A)niu8  (cir.  200)  of  Lphesus('?;,  in  controversy  with 


the  ]Montanists  of  Phrygia,  quoted  passages  out  of 
the  Revelation  of  John,  and  narrated  a  miraclt 
wrought  by  John  at  Ephesus  (Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  18). 
((/.)  Clement  of  Alexandria  (cir.  200)  quotes  the 
book  as  the  Revelation  of  John  {Sti'omntn,  vi.  13, 
p.  667),  and  as  the  work  of  an  Apostle  {Pied.  ii. 
12,  p.  207).  (h.)  Tertullian  (a.  d.  207),  in  at 
least  one  place,  quotes  by  name  "  the  Apostle  John 
in  the  Apocalypse  "  {Adv.  Marcion.  iii.  14).  (/.) 
Hippolytus  (cir.  230)  is  said,  in  the  inscription  on 
his  statue  at  Rome,  to  have  composed  an  apology 
for  the  Apocalypse  and  Gospel  of  St.  John  the 
Apostle.  He  quotes  it  as  the  work  of  St.  Jihn 
{De  AnlkhritU),  §  36,  col.  750,  ed.  Migne).  {j.) 
Origen  (cir.  233),  in  his  Commentary  on  St.  John, 
quoted  by  Eusebius  (//.  E.  vi.  25),  says  of  the 
Apostle,  "  he  wrote  also  the  Revelation."  The  tes- 
timonies of  later  writers,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries,  in  favor  of  St.  John's  authorship  of  the 
Revelation,  are  equally  distinct  and  far  more  numer- 
ous. They  may  be  seen  quoted  at  length  in  Liicke, 
pp.  628-638,  or  in  Dean  Alford's  Frokf/oinena 
[N.  T.,  vol.  iv.  pt.  ii.).  It  may  suffice  here  to  say 
tliat  they  include  the  names  of  Victorinus,  Heth- 
odius,  Ephrem  Syrus,  Epiphanius,  Basil.  Hilary, 
Athanasius,  Gregory  [of  Nyssa],  Didymus,  Am- 
brose, Augustine,  and  Jerome. 

All  the  Ibregoing  writers,  testifying  that  the  book 
came  from  an  Apostle,  believed  that  it  was  a  part 
of  Holy  Scripture.  But  many  whose  extant  works 
cannot  be  quoted  for  testimony  to  the  authorship 
of  the  book  refer  to  it  as  possessing  canonical  au- 
thority. Thus  {(I.)  Papias,  who  is  described  by 
Irenaius  as  a  hearer  of  St.  John  and  friend  of  Poly- 
carp,  is  cited,  together  with  other  writers,  by  An- 
dreas of  Cappadocia,  in  his  Commentary  on  the 
Revelation,  as  a  guarantee  to  later  ages  of  the 
divine  inspiration  of  the  book  (Routh,  JiKliq.  Sacr. 
i.  15;  Cramer's  CiUenn,  Oxford,  1840,  p.  176).  The 
value  of  this  testimony  has  not  been  impaired  by 
the  controversy  to  which  it  has  given  rise,  in  which 
Liicke,  Bleek,  Hengstenberg,  and  Rettig  have  taken 
ditfiirent  parts.  {/j.)  In  the  Epistle  from  the 
Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne,  a.  d.  177,  inserted 
in  Eusebius,  //.  E.  v.  1-3,  several  passages  (c.  tj.  i. 
5,  xiv.  4,  xxii.  11)  are  quotetl  or  referred  to  in  the 
same  way  as  passages  of  books  wliose  canonical 
authority  is  unquestioned,  (c.)  Cyprian  (^vyj.  10, 
12,  14,  10,  ed.  Fell)  repeatedly  quotes  it  as  a  part 
of  canonical  Scripture.  Chrysostom  makes  no  dis- 
tinct allusion  to  it  in'  any  extant  writing;  but  we 
are  inforuied  by  Suidas  that  he  received  it  as  canon- 
ical. Although  omitted  (perhaps  as  not  adapted 
for  public  reading  in  church)  from  the  list  af 
canonical  books  in  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  it  was 
admitted  into  the  list  of  the  Third  Council  of 
Carthage,  A.  d.  3,)7. 

Sucli  is  the  evidence  in  favor  of  St.  John's 
autiiorship  and  of  the  canonical  authority  of  this 
book.  The  following  facts  must  be  weighed  on  thf 
other  side. 

Jlarcion,  who  regarded  all  the  Apostles  except 
St.  Paul  as  corrupters  of  the  truth,  rejected  the 
Apocalypse  and  all  other  books  yf  the  N.  T.  which 
were  not  written  by  St.  Paul.  The  Alogi,  an 
oliscure  sect,  circa  180  A.  D.,  in  their  zeal  against 
Montanism,  denied  the  existence  of  spiritual  gifts 
in  the  church,  and  rejected  the  Revelation,  saying 
it  was  the  work,  not  of  John,  but  of  Cerinthua 
(Epiphanius,  Ado.  Iher.  Ii.).  The  Roman  presby- 
ter Caius  (circa  196  A.  D.),  who  also  wrote  against 
Montanism,  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  (//.  E.  iii.  28) 


272-1 


REVELATION   OF  ST.   JOHN 


fts  ascribing  certain  Revelations  to  Cerinthus :  but  it 
M  doubted  (see  Kouth,  Ih-L  Sacr.  ii.  138)  wbetber 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John  is  the  booli  to  which 
Caius  refers.  But  the  test.niony  which  is  consid- 
ered the  most  important  of  all  in  ancient  times 
against  the  Revelation  is  contained  in  a  fragment 
of  Dionjsius  of  Alexandria,  circa  240  a.  d.,  the 
most  influential  and  perlin|is  the  ablest  bisliop  in 
that  age.  The  passage,  tai<fn  from  a  booic  Un  the 
Pniiiusts,  written  in  reply  to  Nepos,  a  learned 
Judaizing  Chiliast,  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  (//.  E. 
vii.  25).  The  principal  points  in  it  are  these: 
Dionysius  testifies  that  some  writers  before  him 
altogether  repudiated  the  Re\elation  as  a  forgery 
of  Cerinthus;  many  brethren,  however,  prized  it 
very  highly,  and  Uionysius  would  not  venture  to 
reject  it,  but  received  it  in  faith  as  containing 
things  too  deep  and  too  sublime  for  his  understand- 
ing. [In  his  Epistle  to  Hernianimon  (Euseb.  H.  E. 
vii.  10)  he  quotes  it  as  he  would  quote  Holy  Scrip- 
ture.] He  accepts  as  true  what  is  stated  in  the 
book  itself,  that  it  was  written  by  John,  but  he 
argues  that  the  way  in  which  that  name  is  men- 
tioned, and  the  general  character  of  the  language, 
are  unlike  what  we  should  expect  from  John  the 
Evangelist  and  Apostle;  that  there  were  many 
Johns  in  that  age  He  would  not  say  that  John 
Mark  was  the  writer,  since  it  is  not  known  that  he 
was  in  Asia.  He  supposes  it  nmst  be  the  work  of 
some  John  who  lived  in  Asia;  and  he  observes 
there  are  said  to  be  two  tombs  in  Ephesus,  each  of 
which  bears  the  name  of  John.  He  then  points 
out  at  length  the  superiority  of  the  style  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John  to  the  style 
of  the  Apocalypse,  and  says,  hi  conclusion,  that, 
whatever  he  may  think  of  the  language,  he  does 
not  deny  that  the  writer  of  the  A])ocalypse  actually 
saw  what  he  describes,  and  was  endowed  with  the 
divine  gilts  of  knowledge  and  prophecy.  To  this 
extent,  and  no  farther,  Dionysius  is  a  witness 
against  St.  John's  authorship.  It  is  obvious  that 
he  felt  keenly  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  use 
made  of  the  contents  of  this  book  by  certain  un- 
sound Christians  under  his  jurisdiction;  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  the  doulit  as  to  its  canonical 
authority  which  some  of  his  predecessors  entertained 
as  an  inference  from  the  nature  of  its  contents; 
that  he  deliberately  rejected  their  doubt  and  ac- 
cepted the  contents  of  the  book  as  given  by  the 
inspiration  of  God ;  that,  although  he  did  not  un- 
derstand how  St.  John  could  write  in  the  style  in 
which  the  Revelation  is  written,  he  yet  knew  of  no 
authority  for  attributins  it,  as  he  desired  to  at- 
trilnite  it,  to  some  other  of  the  numerous  persons 
who  bore  the  name  of  John.  A  weightier  difficulty 
arises  from  the  fact  that  the  Revelation  is  one  of 
the  hooks  wliich  are  absent  from  tlie  ancient  Peshito 
version  ;  and  the  only  trustworthy  evidence  in  favor 
of  its  reception  by  the  ancient  Syrian  Church  is  a 
single  quotation  which  is  adduced  from  the  Syriac 
works  (ii.  332  c)  of  Ephrem  Syrus.  Eusebius  is 
rsmarkaljly  sparing  in  his  quotations  from  the 
'  Revelation  of  John,"  and  the  uncertainty  of  his 
opinion  about  it  is-best  shown  by  his  statement  in 
H.  E.  iii.  39,  that  "  it  is  likely  that  the  Revelation 
was  seen  by  the  second  John  (the  Ephesiau  pres- 
byter), if  any  one  is  unwilling  to  believe  that  it 
WHS  seen  by  the  Apostle.''  Jerome  states  {Ep.  ml 
Danhinum,  etc.)  that  the  Greek  churches  felt,  with 


respect  to  the  Revelation,  a  similar  doubt  to  tb<it 
of  the  Latins  respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
Neither  he  nor  his  equally  influential  contemporary 
Augustine  shared  such  doubts.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
Chrysostom,  Theodore  of  JMopsuestia,  and  Theodoret 
abstained  from  making  use  of  the  book,  sharing,  it 
is  possible,  the  doubts  to  which  Jerome  refers.  But 
they  have  not  gone  so  far  as  to  express  a  distinct 
opinion  against  it."  The  silence  of  these  writers  is 
the  latest  evidence  of  any  importance  that  has  been 
adduced  against  the  overwhelming  weight  of  the 
testimony  in  favor  of  the  canonical  authority  and 
authorship  of  this  book. 

B.  Ti.ME  AND  Place  of  AVritikg.  —  The  date 
of  the  Re\'elation  is  given  by  the  great  majority  of 
critics  as  A.  d.  95-97.  The  weighty  testimony  of 
Irenseus  is  almost  sufficient  to  prevent  any  other 
conclusion.  He  says  {Adc.  Iher.  v.  30,  §  3):  "It 
{i.  e.  the  Revelation)  was  seen  no  very  long  time 
ago,  but  almost  in  our  own  generation,  at  the  close 
of  Domitian's  reign."  Eusebius  also  records  as  a 
tradition  which  he  does  not  question,  that  in  the 
persecution  under  Domitian,  John  the  Apostle  and 
f^vangelist,  being  yet  alive,  was  banished  to  the 
island  Patmos  for  his  testimony  of  the  divine  vvord. 
Allusions  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen 
point  in  the  same  direction.  There  is  no  mention 
in  any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries  of  any 
other  time  or  place.  Epiphanius  (Ii.  12),  obviously 
by  mistake,  says  that  John  prophesied  in  the  reign 
of  Claudius.  Two  or  three  oljscure  and  later  au- 
thorities say  that  John  was  banished  imder  Nero. 

Unsupported  by  any  historical  ev'idence,  some 
commentators  have  put  forth  the  conjecture  that 
the  Revelation  was  written  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Nero.  This  is  simply  their  inference  from  the  style 
and  contents  of  the  book.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see 
why  St.  John's  old  age  rendered  it,  as  they  allege, 
impossible  for  him  to  write  his  inspired  message 
with  force  and  vigor,  or  why  his  residence  in 
Ephesus  must  have  removed  the  Hebraistic  pecu- 
Uarities  of  his  Greek.  It  is  difficult  to  see  in  the 
passages  i.  7,  ii.  9.  iii.  9,  vi.  12,  16,  xi.  1,  anything 
which  would  lead  necessarily  to  the  conclusion,  that 
Jerusalem  was  in  a  prosperous  condition,  and  tliat 
the  predictions  of  its  fall  had  not  been  fulfilled 
when  those  verses  were  written.  A  more  weighty 
argument  in  favor  of  an  ea.vly  date  might  be  urged 
from  a  modern  interpretation  of  xvii.  10,  if  that 
interpretation  could  be  established.  Galba  is  al- 
leged to  be  the  sixth  king,  the  one  that  "is."'  In 
Nero  these  interpreters  see  the  Beast  that  was 
wounded  (xiii.  3),  the  Beast  that  was  and  is  not, 
the  eighth  king  (xvii.  11).  For  some  time  after 
Nero's  death  the  Roman  populace  believed  that  he 
was  not  dead,  but  had  fled  into  the  East,  whence 
he  would  return  and  regain  ids  throne:  and  these 
interpreters  venture  to  su!,'gest  that  the  writer  of 
the  Revelation  shared  and  meant  to  express  the 
al)surd  popular  delusion.  Even  the  able  and  lear^ied 
Reuss  {Theol.  Chrei.  i.  443),  by  way  of  supporting 
this  interpretation,  advances  his  untenable  .claim 
to  the  first  discovery  of  the  name  of  Nero  Cajsar 
in  the  number  of  the  beast,  GOG.  The  inconsistency 
of  this  interpretation  with  prophetic  analogy,  with 
the  context  of  Revelation,  and  with  the  fact  that 
the  book  is  of  divine  origin,  is  pointed  out  by 
Hengstenberg  at  the  end  of  his  Commentary  on 
ch.  xiii.,  and  by  Elliott,  IIviw  Apoc.  iv.  547. 


a  *  Thj.'  cannot  properly  be  suid  of  Cyril  of  Joru-    canonical  {Catfck.  iv.  33,  al.  22).    See  Westcctt,  Canot 
Bieiu   H.  i.  D.  350),  who  clearly  repudiates  it  as  not ,  cfthe  N.  T.  pp.  398,  491  f.  A. 


REVELATION   OF   ST.   JOHN 


2725 


It  has  been  inferred  from  i.  2,  9,  10,  that  the 
Revelation  was  written  in  Ephesus,  immediately 
after  the  Apostle's  return  from  Patnios.  But  the 
text  is  scarcely  sufficient  to  support  this  conclusion. 
The  style  in  which  the  messages  to  the  Seven 
Churches  are  delivered  rather  suij;gests  the  notion 
that  the  book  was  written  in  Patmos. 

C.  Laxgu.vge.  —  The  doubt  first  suggested  by 
Harenberg,  whether  the  Revelation  was  written  in 
Aramaic,  has  met  with  little  or  no  reception.  The 
silence  of  all  ancient  writers  as  to  any  Aramaic 
original  is  alone  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  sugges- 
tion. Liicke  {Einhlt.  4-t])  has  also  collected  in- 
terniil  evidence  to  show  that  the  original  is  the 
Greek  of  a  .Jewish  Christian. 

Liicke  has  also  (pp.  448— i64)  examined  in 
minute  detail,  after  the  preceding  labors  of  Uonker- 
Curtius,  Vogel,  Winer,  Kwald,  KolthoflT,  and  Hit- 
zig,  the  peculiarities  of  language  which  obviously 
distinguish  the  Kevelation  from  every  other  book  of 
the  New  Testament.  And  in  sulisequent  sections 
(pp.  G80-747)  he  urges  with  great  force,  the  differ- 
ence between  the  Kevelation  on  one  side  and  the 
fourth  Gospel  and  First  I'lpistle  on  the  other,  in 
respect  of  their  style  and  composition  and  the 
mental  character  and  attainments  of  the  writer  of 
each.  Hengstenberg,  in  a  dissertation  appended  to 
his  Commentary,  maintains  that  they  are  by  one 
writer.  That  the  anomalies  and  peculiarities  of 
the  Revelation  have  been  greatly  exafjgerated  by 
Eome  critics,  is  sutKciently  shown  by  Hitzig's 
plausible  and  insienious.  tiiough  unsuccessful,  at- 
tempt to  prove  the  identity  of  style  and  diction  in 
the  Kevelation  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark.  It  may 
be  admitted  that  the  Ke\'elation  has  many  surpris- 
ing grammatical  peculiarities.  But  much  of  this 
is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  was  probably 
written  down,  as  it  was  seen,  "in  the  Spirit," 
whilst  the  ideas,  in  all  their  novelty  and  vastness, 
filled  the  Apostle's  mind,  and  rendered  him  less 
capable  of  attending  to  forms  of  speech.  His 
Gospel  and  Epistles,  on  the  other  hand,  were  com- 
posed equally  under  divine  influence,  but  an  influ- 
ence of  a  gentler,  more  ordinary  kind,  with  much 
care,  after  long  deliberation,  after  frequent  recol- 
lection and  recital  of  the  facts,  and  deep  ponder- 
ing of  the  doctrinal  truths  which  they  involve. 

D.  Contents.  —  The  first  three  verses  contain 
the  title  of  the  book,  the  description  of  the  writer, 
and  the  blessing  pronounced  on  the  readers,  which 
possibly,  like  the  last  two  verses  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, may  be  an  addition  by  the  hand  of  inspired 
survivors  of  the  writer.  John  begins  (i.  4)  with  a 
salutation  of  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia.  This, 
coming  before  the  ainiouneement  that  he  was  in 
tlie  Spirit,  looks  like  a  dedication  not  merely  of 
the  first  vision,  but  of  all  the  book,  to  those 
churches.  In  the  next  five  verses  (i.  5-9)  he 
touches  the  key-note  of  the  whole  following  book, 
the  great  fundamental  ideas  on  which  all  our  notions 
of  the  government  of  the  world  and  the  Church 
^re  Indlt;  the  Pei'son  of  Christ,  the  redemption 
wrought  by  Him,  his  second  coming  to  judge  man- 
kind, the  painful  hoi)eful  discipline  of  Christians 
in  the  midst  of  this  present  world:  thoughts  wliicli 
may  well  be  supposed  to  have  ueeii  uppermost  in 
the  mind  of  the  persecuted  and  exiled  Apostle  even 
before  the  iJivine  Inspiration  came  on  him. 

".  The  first  vision  (i.  7-iii.  22)  shows  the  Son 
if  Man  with  his  injunction,  or  Epistles  to  the 
Seven  Churches.  \\  liile  the  Apostle  is  pondering 
tose  great  truths  and  the  critical  condition  of  his 


Church  which  he  had  left,  a  Divine  Person  resem- 
bling those  seen  by  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,  and  iden- 
tified by  name  and  by  description  as  Jesus,  appears 
to  .lohn,  and  with  the  discriminating  authority  of  a 
Lord  and  Judge  reviews  the  state  of  those  churches, 
pronounces  his  decision  upon  their  several  charac- 
ters, and  takes  occasion  from  them  to  speak  to  all 
Christians  who  may  deserve  similar  encourage- 
ment or  similar  condemnation.  Each  of  these 
sentences,  spoken  bj'  the  Son  of  Man,  is  described 
as  said  by  the  Spirit.  Hitherto  the  Apostle  has 
been  speaking  primarily,  though  not  exclusively, 
to  some  of  his  own  contemporaries  concerning 
the  present  events  and  circumstances.  Hence- 
forth he  ceases  to  address  them  particularly.  His 
words  are  for  the  ear  of  the  universal  Church  in 
all  ages,  and  show  the  significance  of  things  which 
are  present  in  hope  or  fear,  in  sorrow  or  in  joy,  to 
Christians  everywhere. 

b.  (iv.  1-viii.  1).  In  the  next  vision,  Patmos 
and  the  Divine  Person  whom  he  saw  are  gone. 
Only  the  trumpet  voice  is  heard  again  calling  him 
to  a  change  of  place.  He  is  in  the  highest  court 
of  heaven,  and  sees  God  sitting  on  his  throne. 
The  seven-sealed  book  or  roll  is  produced,  and  thw 
slain  Lamb,  the  Redeemer,  receives  it  amid  the 
sound  of  universal  adoration.  As  the  seals  are 
opened  in  order,  the  Apostle  sees  (1)  a  conqueror 
on  a  white  horse,  (2)  a  red  horse  betokening  war, 
(3)  the  black  horse  of  famine,  (4)  the  pale  horse 
of  death,  (5)  the  eager  souls  of  martyrs  under  the 
altar,  (6)  an  earthquake  with  universal  commotion 
and  terror.  After  this  there  is  a  pause,  the  course 
of  avenging  angels  is  checked  while  144,0U0,  the 
children  of  Israel,  servants  of  God,  are  sealed,  and 
an  imiumerable  multitude  of  the  redeemed  of  all 
nations  are  seen  worshipping  God.  Next  (7)  the 
seventh  seal  is  opened,  and  half  an  hour's  silence 
in  hea\en  ensues. 

c.  Then  (viii.  2-xi.  19)  seven  angels  appear  with 
trumpets,  the  prayers  of  saints  are  offered  up,  the 
earth  is  struck  with  fire  from  the  altar,  and  the 
seven  trumpets  are  sounded.  (1)  The  earth  and 
(2)  the  sea  and  (3)  the  springs  of  water  and  (4) 
the  heavenly  bodies  are  successively  smitten,  (5)  a 
plague  of  locusts  afHicts  the  men  who  are  not 
sealed  (the  first  woe),  (6)  the  third  part  of  men 
are  slain  (the  second  woe),  but  the  rest  are  im- 
penitent. Then  there  is  a  pause:  a  mighty  angel 
with  a  book  appears  and  cries  out,  seven  thunders 
sound,  but  their  words  are  not  recorded,  the  ap- 
proaching completion  of  the  mystery  of  God  is 
announced,  the  angel  bids  the  Apostle  eat  the 
book,  and  measure  the  Temple  with  its  worshippers 
and  the  outer  court  given  up  to  the  Gentiles;  the 
two  witnesses  of  God,  their  martyrdom,  resur- 
rection, ascension,  are  foretold.  The  approach  of 
the  third  woe  is  announced  and  (7)  the  seventh 
trumpet  is  sounded,  the  reign  of  Christ  is  pro- 
claimed, God  has  taken  his  great  power,  the  time 
has  come  for  judgment  and  for  the  destruction  of 
the  destroyers  of  the  earth. 

The  three  preceding  visions  are  distinct  from  one 
another.  I'.ach  of  the  last  two,  like  the  longer 
one  which  follows,  has  the  appearance  of  a  distinct 
jjrophecy,  reaching  from  the  prophet's  time  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  The  second  half  of  the  Keveliv 
tion  (xii.-xxii. )  comprises  a  series  of  visions  which 
are  comiected  by  various  links.  It  may  be  de- 
scrilied  generally  as  a  prophecy  of  the  assaults  of 
the  devil  and  his  agents  (=  the  dragon,  the  ten- 
horned  beast,  the  two-horned  beast  or  false  prophet 


2726 


REVELATION   OF   ST.   JOHN 


»nd  the  harlot)  upon  the  Church,  and  their  final 
destruction.  It  appears  to  begin  with  a  reference 
to  events  anterior,  not  only  to  those  which  are  pre- 
dicted in  tlie  preceding  chapter,  but  also  to  the 
time  in  which  it  was  written.  It  seems  hard  to 
interpret  the  birth  of  the  child  as  a  prediction,  and 
not  as  a  retrospective  allusion. 

d.  A  woman  (xii.)  clothed  with  the  sun  is  seen 
in  heaven,  and  a  great  red  dragon  with  seven 
crowned  heads  stands  waiting  to  devour  her  off- 
spring; her  child  is  caught  up  unto  God,  and  the 
mother  flees  into  the  wilderness  for  1260  days. 
The  persecution  of  the  wonjan  and  her  seed  on 
earth  by  the  dragon,  is  described  as  the  conse- 
quence of  a  war  in  heaven  in  which  the  dragon 
was  overcome  and  east  out  upon  the  earth. 

St.  .lohn  (xiii.)  standing  on  the  sea-shore  sees  a 
beast  with  seven  heads,  one  wounded,  with  ten 
crowned  horns,  rising  from  the  water,  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  dragon.  Ail  the  world  wonder  at 
and  worship  him,  and  he  attacks  the  saints  and 
prevails.  He  is  followed  by  another  two-horned 
iieast  rising  out  of  the  earth,  who  compels  men  to 
wear  the  mark  of  the  beast,  whose  number  is 
666. 

St.  .John  (xiv.)  sees  the  Lamb  with  144,000 
standing  on  Jlount  Zioii  learning  the  song  of  praise 
of  the  heaveidy  host.  Three  angels  tly  forth  call- 
ing men  to  worship  God,  proclaiming  the  fall  of 
Babylon,  denouncing  the  worshippers  of  the  beast. 
A  blessing  is  pronounced  on  the  faithful  dead,  and 
the  judgment  of  the  world  is  described  under  the 
image  of  a  har\est  reaped  by  angels. 

St.  .lohn  (xv.,  xvi.)  sees  in  heaven  the  saints 
who  had  overcome  the  beast,  singing  the  song  of 
Moses  and  the  Lamb.  Then  seven  angels  come  out 
of  the  heavenly  temple  having  seven  vials  of  wrath 
which  they  pour  out  upon  the  earth,  sea,  rivers, 
sun,  the  seat  of  the  beast,  Euphrates,  and  the  air, 
after  which  there  is  a  great  earthquake  and  a  hail- 
Btorm. 

One  (xvii.,  xviii.)  of  the  last  seven  angels  carries 
St.  .Jolni  into  the  wilderness  and  shows  him  a  har- 
lot, Babylon,  sitting  on  a  scarlet  beast  with  seven 
heads  and  ten  horns.  She  is  explained  to  be  that 
great  city,  sitting  upon  seven  mountains,  reigning 
over  the  kings  of  tlie  earth.  Afterwards  St.  John 
sees  a  vision  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon,  por- 
trayed as  the  burning  of  a  great  city  amid  the 
lamentations  of  worldly  men  and  the  rejoicing  of 
saints. 

Afterwards  (xix.)  the  worshippers  in  heaven  are 
heard  celebrating  Babylon's  fall  and  the  approach- 
ing marriage-supper  of  the  Lamb.  The  \\'ord  of 
God  is  seen  going  forth  to  war  at  the  head  of  the 
heavenly  armies:  the  beast  and  his  false  prophet 
are  taken  and  cast  into  the  burning  lake,  and 
their  worshippers  are  slain. 

An  angel  (xx.-xxii.  5)  binds  the  dragon,  i.  e.  the 
devil,  for  1000  years,  whilst  the  martyred  saints 
who  had  not  worshipped  the  beast  reign  with  Christ. 
Then  the  devil  is  miloosed,  gathers  a  host  against 
the  camp  of  the  saints,  but  is  overcome  by  fire 
from  heaven,  and  is  cast  into  the  burning  lake  with 
♦.he  beast  and  false  prophet.  St.  .lohn  then  wit- 
iie.sses  the  process  of  the  final  judgment,  and  sees 
and  describes  the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth, 
iud  the  new  .Jerusalem,  with  its  people  and  their 
aray  of  life. 

In  tiie  last  sixteen  verses  (xxii.  6-21 )  the  angel 
•olenndy  asseverates  the  truthfulness  and  impor- 
Unce  of  the  foregoing  sayings,  pronounces  a  bless- 


ing on  those  who  keep  them  exactly,  gives  Wiuii- 
ing  of  his  speedy  comhig  to  judgment,  and  of  the 
nearness  of  the  time  when  these  prophecies  shall 
be  fulfilled. 

E.  Interpretation.  —  A  short  account  of  the 
different  directions  in  which  attempts  have  been 
made  to  interpret  the  Kevelation.  is  all  that  can  be 
given  in  this  place.  The  special  blessing  promised 
to  the  reader  of  this  book  (i.  3),  the  assistance  to 
common  Christian  experience  aftbrded  hy  its  pre- 
cepts and  by  some  of  its  visions,  the  striking  im- 
agery of  others,  the  tempting  field  which  it  supplies 
for  intellectual  exercise,  will  always  attract  students 
to  this  book  and  secure  for  it  the  labors  of  many 
commentators.  Ebrard  reckons  that  not  less  than 
eighty  systematic  commentaries  are  worthy  of  note, 
and  states  that  the  less  valuable  writings  on  this 
inexhaustible  sulject  are  unnumbered,  if  not  innu- 
merable. Fanaticism,  theological  hatred,  and  vain 
curiosity,  may  have  largely  influenced  their  com- 
position ;  but  any  one  who  will  compare  the  neces- 
sarily inadequate,  and  sometimes  erroneous,  exposi- 
tion of  early  times  with  a  good  modern  connneu- 
tary  will  see  that  the  pious  ingenuity  of  so  many 
centuries  has  not  been  exerted  quite  in  vain. 

The  interval  between  the  Apostolic  age  and  that 
of  Constantine  has  been  called  the  Chiliastic  period 
of  Apocalyptic  interpretation.  The  visions  of  St. 
John  were  chiefly  regarded  as  representations  of 
general  Christian  truths,  scarcely  yet  embodied  in 
actual  facts,  for  the  most  part  to  be  exemplified  or 
fulfilled  in  the  reign  of  Antichrist,  the  coming  of 
Christ,  the  millennium,  and  the  day  of  judgment. 
The  fresh  hopes  of  the  early  Christians,  and  the 
severe  persecution  they  endured,  taught  them  to 
live  in  those  future  events  with  intense  satisfaction 
and  comfort.  They  did  not  entertain  the  thought 
of  building  up  a  definite  consecutive  chronological 
scheme  even  of  those  symbols  which  some  moderns 
regard  as  then  already  fulfilled ;  although  from  the 
beginnmg  a  connection  between  Home  and  Anti- 
christ was  universally  allowed,  and  parts  of  the 
Kevelation  Were  regarded  as  the  filling-up  of  the 
great  outline  sketched  by  Daniel  and  St.  Paul. 

The  only  extant  systematic  intei-pretations  in 
this  period  are  the  interpolated  Commentary  on 
the  Kevelation  by  the  martyr  Victorinus,  circ.  270 
A.  D.  {Bihliothec-i  Pnfrum  Maxima,  iii.  414,  and 
Migne's  Patinlogia  Lnlina,  v.  318;  the  two  edi- 
tions should  be  compared),  and  the  disputed  Trea- 
tise on  Antichrist  by  Hippolytus  (Jligne's  Palro- 
lof/iii  Grac'i.  x.  720).  But  the  prevalent  views  of 
that  age  are  to  be  gathered  also  irom  a  passage  in 
Justin  Martyr  {Trypho,  80,  81),  from  the  later 
books,  especially  the  fifth,  of  Iren»us,  and  from 
various  scattered  passages  in  Tertullian,  Origen, 
and  Methodius.  The  general  anticipation  of  the 
last  days  of  the  world  in  Lactantius,  vii.  14-25, 
has  little  direct  reference  to  the  Kevelation. 

Immediately  after  the  triumph  of  Constantine, 
the  Christians,  emancipated  from  oppression  and 
persecution,  and  dominant  and  prosperous  in  their 
turn,  began  to  lose  their  vivid  expectation  of  our 
Lord's  speedy  Advent,  and  their  spiritual  concep- 
tion of  his  kingdom,  and  to  look  u]ion  the  tem- 
poral supremacy  of  Christianity  as  a  fulfillment  of 
the  promised  reign  of  Christ  on  earth.  The  Ko- 
man  empire  become  Christian  was  regarded  no 
longer  as  the  olject  of  prophetic  denunciation,  but 
as  the  scene  of  a  millennial  development.  This  view, 
however,  was  soon  met  bv  the  figurative  interpre- 
tation of  the  millennium  as  the  reign  of  Christ  ic 


REVELATION   OF  ST.   JOHN 


2723 


the  hearts  of  all  true  believers.  As  the  barbarous 
and  heretical  invaders  of  the  felling  empire  ap- 
peared, they  were  regarded  by  the  suffering  Chris- 
tians as  fulfilling  the  svoes  denounced  in  the  Reve- 
lation. The  beginning  of  a  regular  chronological 
interpretation  is  seen  in  Berengaud  (assigned  by 
some  critics  to  the  9th  century),  who  treated  the 
Revelation  as  a  history  of  the  Church  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world  to  its  end.  And  the  origi- 
nal Connnentary  of  the  Abbot  .loachim  is  remark- 
able, not  only  for  a  further  development  of  that 
method  of  interpretation,  but  for  the  scarcely  dis- 
guised identification  of  Babylon  with  Papal  Rome, 
and  of  the  second  Beast  or  Antichrist  with  some 
Universal  Pontiff. 

The  chief  commentaries  belonging  to  this  period 
are  that  which  is  ascribed  to  Tichonius,  circ.  391) 
A.  D.,  printed  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine;  Pri- 
masius,  of  Adrumetum  in  Africa,  A.  i).  5.50,  in 
Migne's  Pntrologia  Lnlina,  Ixviii.  1406;  Andreas 
of  Crete,  ch'c.  650  a.  d.,  Arethas  of  Cappadocia 
and  Qscumenius  of  Thessaly  in  the  10th  century, 
whose  commentaries  were  pnblisiied  together  in 
Cramer's  C"ieiin,  Oxon.,  1840;  the  hxplinafio 
Apoc.  in  the  works  of  Bede,  a.  d.  735 ;  the  L'xpo- 
sitio  of  Berengaud,  printed  in  the  works  of  Am- 
brose; the  Commentary  of  Hay  mo,  a.  d.  853,  first 
pubUshed  at  Cologne  in  1531;  a  short  Treatise  on 
the  .Seals  by  Anselm.  bishop  of  Havilberg,  a.  d. 
1145,  printed  in  D'Ach^ry's  Spicilei/ium,  i.  161; 
the  h'x/iosl  io  of  Abliot  .loacliim  of  Calabria,  A.  D. 
1200,  printed  at  Venice  in  1527. 

Ill  tlie  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  the  views  to 
which  tlie  reputation  of  Abbot  .loachim  gave  cur- 
rency, were  taken  up  by  the  harlnngers  of  the  im- 
pending change,  as  by  Wickliffe  and  others;  and 
they  Ijecame  the  foundation  of  that  great  historical 
school  of  interpretation,  which  up  to  this  time 
seems  tlie  most  popular  of  all.  It  is  impossible  to 
construct  an  exact  classification  of  modern  inter- 
preters of  the  Revelation.  They  are  generally 
placed  in  three  great  divisions. 

".  The  Historical  or  Continuous  expositors,  in 
whose  opinion  the  Revelation  is  a  progressive  his- 
tory of  the  fortunes  of  the  Church  from  the  first 
century  to  the  end  of  time.  The  chief  supporters 
of  this  most  interesting  interpretation  are  Mede, 
Sir  I.  Newton,  Vitringa,  Bengel,  Woodhouse,  Fa- 
ber,  R  B.  Elliott,  U'ordsworth,  Hengstenberg. 
Ebrard,  and  others.  The  recent  commentary  of 
Dean  Alford  belongs  mainly  to  tliis  school. 

6.  The  Prseterist  expositors,  who  are  of  opinion 
that  the  Revelation  has  been  almost,  or  altogether, 
fulfilled  in  the  time  which  has  passed  since  it  was 
written;  that  it  rel'ers  ]iriiicipally  to  the  triumph 
of  Christianity  over  .ludaism  and  Paganism,  sig- 
nalized in  the  downfall  of  .lerusalem  and  of  Rome. 
The  most  eminent  expounders  of  this  view  are 
Alcasar,  Orotius,  Hammond,  Bossuet,  Calmet,  Wet- 
stein.  Eichhorn,  Hug,  Herder,  Ewald,  Liicke,  De 
VN'ette,  Dlisterdieck,  Stuart,  Lee,  and  Maurice. 
This  is  the  favorite  interpretation  with  the  critics 
of  (iermany,  one  of  whom  goes  so  far  as  iv  state 
tliat  the  writer  of  the  Revelation  promised  the 
fulfillment  of  his  visions  within  the  space  of 
three  years  and  a  half  from  the  time  in  which  he 
»Tote. 

c.  The  Futurist  expositors,  whose  views  show  a 
itrong  reaction  against  some  extravagancies  of  the 
wo  preceding  schools.  They  believe  that  the  whole 
oook,  excepting  perhaps  the  first  three  chapters, 
*fer8  principally,  if  not  exclusively,  to  events  which 


are  yet  to  come.  This  view,  which  is  asserted  to 
be  merely  a  revival  of  the  primitive  interpretation, 
has  been  advocated  in  recent  times  by  Dr.  J.  H. 
Todd,  Dr.  8.  R.  Jlaitland,  B.  Newton,  C.  Maitland, 
I.  Williams.  De  Burgh,  and  others. 

Each  of  these  three  schemes  is  open  to  objec- 
tion. Against  the  Futurist  it  is  argued,  that  it  is 
not  consistent  with  the  repeated  declarations  of  a 
speed V  fulfillment  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
book  itself  (see  ch.  i.  3,  xxii.  6,  7,  12.  20).  Chris- 
tians, to  whom  it  was  originally  addressed,  would 
have  derived  no  special  comfort  from  it,  had  its 
fulfillment  been  altogether  deferred  for  so  many 
centuries.  The  rigidly  literal  interpretation  of 
Babylon,  the  Jewish  tribes,  and  other  symbols 
which  generally  forms  a  part  of  Futurist  schemes, 
presents  peculiar  difficulties. 

Against  the  Prseterist  exnositors  it  is  urged,  that 
propliecies  fulfilled  ouiiht  to  be  rendered  so  per- 
spicuous to  the  general  sense  of  the  Church  as  to 
supply  an  argument  against  infidelity;  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  having  occurred  twt!ity- 
five  years  previously,  could  not  occupy  a  large 
space  in  a  prophecy:  that  the  supposed  predictions 
of  the  downfalls  of  .lerusalem  and  of  Nero  appear 
from  the  context  to  refer  to  one  event,  but  are  by 
this  scheme  separated,  and,  moreover,  placed  in  a 
wrong  order;  that  the  measuring  of  the  temple 
and  the  altar,  and  the  death  of  the  two  witnesses 
(ch.  xi.),  cannot  be  explained  consistently  with  the 
context. 

Against  the  Historical  scheme  it  is  urged,  that 
its  advocates  ditler  very  widely  among  themselves; 
that  they  assume  without  any  authority  that  the 
1260  days  are  so  many  years;  that  several  of  it? 
applications  —  e.  g.  of  the  symliol  of  tiie  ten-horned 
beast  to  the  Popes,  and  the  sixth  seal  to  the  con- 
version of  Constantine  —  are  inconsistent  with  the 
context;  that  attempts  by  some  of  tliis  school  to 
predict  future  events  by  the  help  of  Revelation  have 
ended  in  repeated  failures. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  stated  that  two  methods 
have  been  proposed  by  which  the  student  of  the 
Revelation  may  escape  the  incongruities  and  falla- 
cies of  the  different  interpretations,  whilst  he  may 
derive  edification  from  whatever  truth  they  contain 
It  has  been  suggested  that  the  book  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  prophetic  poem,  dealing  in  general  and 
inexact  descriptions,  much  of  which  may  be  set 
down  as  poetic  imagery,  mere  embelliiiunent.  But 
such  a  view  would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the 
belief  that  the  book  is  an  inspired  prophecy.  A 
better  suggestion  is  made,  or  rather  is  revived,  by 
Dr.  Arnold  in  his  Sermons  On  (lit  Interpretation 
of  Pvophecij :  that  we  should  bear  in  mind  that 
predictions  have  a  lower  historical  sense,  as  well  as 
a  higher  spiritual  sense;  that  there  may  be  one  or 
more  than  one  typical,  imperfect,  historical  fulfill- 
ment of  a  prophecy,  in  each  of  which  the  higher 
spiritual  fulfillment  is  shadowed  forth  more  or  less 
distinctly.  Mr.  I^lliott,  in  his  //«?-<e  Apocalypiicce, 
iv.  622,  argues  against  this  principle;  but  perhaps 
not  successfully.  The  recognition  of  it  would  pave 
the  way  for  the  acceptance  in  a  modified  sense  of 
many  of  the  interpretations  of  the  Historical  school, 
and  would  not  exclude  the  most  valual)le  portions 
of  the  other  schemes.  W.  T.  B. 

*  Literature.  The  most  valuable  Introduction 
to  the  Apocalypse  is  Liicke's  Versuch  einer  vvllstdn- 
diyen  Einl.  in  die  Offeiib.  d.  J(  hanncs  (1832), 
2d  ed.,  greatly  enlarged,  2  Abth.,  Bonn,  1852. 
Besides  the  Commentaries  (a  few  of  which  will  b« 


2728    REVELATION  OF  ST.  JOHN 

mecitionetl  lielow),  and  the  general  Introductions  to 
the  N.  T.,  as  those  of  Hug,  Schott,  De  \\'ette, 
Credner.  Guericke,  lieuss  (see  also  his  art.  Jolian. 
Apok.  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Allycm.  Encyklop. 
Sect.  II.  Ikl.  xxii.  (1842)  p.  79  fF.),  Bleek,  and  Da- 
vidson, tiie  following  are  some  of  the  more  notice- 
>ble  essays  on  the  authorship,  date,  and  plan  of  the 
book:  A  Discourse^  Historical  and  Criticnl,on  the 
Rtveliiliuiis  (lici-lbed  to  St.  John  (by  F.  Abauzit), 
Lond.  1730;  also,  in  a  different  trans.,  in  his  Mis- 
cellanies  (I.ond.  1774).  This  was  reviewed  by  L. 
Twells,  in  his  Ci'il.  Exdiuination  of  the.  Lute  New 
Test,  and  Version  of  the  N.  7'.,  in  O'rtek  and 
EnyJish  [JMace's],  Lond.  1732,  trans,  in  part  by 
\Volf  in  his  Cura  Phihl.  el  Crit.  v.  387  fF.  (Basil. 
1741).  (G.  L.  Oeder,}  Freie  Unters.  iib.  die  sof/en. 
OJfiid).  Joh.,  mil  Anm.  von  Sender,  Halle,  17G9. 
Seniler,  A'eue  Unters.  iib.  d.  Apok.,  Halle,  1776. 
(F.  G.  Hartvvig,)  Apol.  d.  Apok.  ivider  fdschen 
T>i(td  u.  filsches  Lob,  4  Thle.,  Chemn.  1780-83. 
G.  C.  Storr,  Neue  Ajtjol.  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  Tub.  1782. 
Donker-Curtius,  De  Apoc.  ab  Indole,  Doct.  et 
scri/nndi  (Jtnere  Joannis  Aposi.  nan  abhwrente, 
Ultraj.  1799.  Bleek,  Btitrdrje  zur  Krit.  u.  Deu- 
tumj  d.  Ojf'nib.  Joh.,  in  the  Theol.  Zeitschr.  of 
Schleiermacher,  De  Wette  and  Liicke,  Heft  2  (Bed. 
1820):  conip.  his  Deitrdge  zur  Kvangelien-Kritik 
(18401,  p.  182  K,  267  ff.,  and  his  review  of  Liicke  in 
the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1854,  Heft  4,  and  1855, 
Heft  1.  KolthofT,  Apoc,  Joanni  Apost.  vindicata, 
Hafn.  1834.  Dainieniann,  Wer  ist  der  Verfasser 
d.  tjffeiib.  Johannis  ?  Hannov.  1841.  Hitzig, 
Ueher  Johannes  Marcus  u.  seine  Schriften,  oder 
welcher  .Johannes  hat  die  Offetib.  verfassi  f  Ziir. 
1843.  Neander,  Planting  and  Training  of  the 
Christian  Church,  p.  365  fF.,  Robinson's  trans., 
N.  Y.  1865.  W.  V.  Rinck,  Apokalypt.  For- 
Bchnngen,  Ziir.  1853.  E.  Boehmer,  Verfasser  u. 
Abfassungszeit  d.  Joh.  Ajmc,  Halle,  1856.  G.  K. 
Noyes,  The  Apocalypse  analyzed  and  explained, 
in  the  Christ.  Kxaminer  for  May  1860,  reprinted 
in  the  Jourmd  of  Sac.  Lit.  for  Oct.  1860.  The 
Apocalypse,  in  the  Westin.  liev.  for  Oct.  1861. 
(S.  Davidson,)  The  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  in  the 
National  liev.  for  April  1864;  substantially  the 
same  as  his  art.  Iterelatiun  in  the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto's 
Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Lit.  R.  D.  C.  Robbins,  The 
Author  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for 
April  and  July,  1864.  Alb.  Rt'ville,  La  lit.  apoc- 
alyptique  chez  lesjuifs  el  les  Chretiens,  in  the  Rev. 
des  Deux  Jfondes  for  Oct.  1,  1806.  B.  Weiss, 
Apokfdyptische  Sttcdien,  in  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
1869,  pp.  1-59,  cf.  p.  758  ff. 

Of  the  multitudinous  Commenlaries  on  this  tor- 
tured book  only  a  few  of  the  more  remarkable  can 
be  named  here.  The  history  of  the  interpretation 
is  given  in  detail  by  Liicke  (p.  951  ft'.)  and  after 
him  by  Stuart  (i.  450  ff.);  comp.  the  outline  in 
De  Wette  {lixeg.  IJandb.).  Jos.  Mede,  Claris 
Apocalyptica  and  Comm.  in  Apoc.  (1627,  1632),  in 
his  Works,  vol.  ii.  Grotius,  Annot.  in  N.  T.,  Par. 
1644,  often  reprinted.  Bossuet,  V Apoc.  arec  tuie 
explication.  Par.  1690.  yitr'inga,  AuaKpcai'!  Apoc. 
(1705),  ed.  alt.,  Amst.  1719,  4to.  Daubuz,  J'er- 
petual  Comm.  on  the  Rev.  of  St.  John,  Lond.  1720, 
fol.  Sir  Is.  Newton,  Obs.  upon  the  Proph.  of 
Daniel  and  the  Apoc.  of  St.  John,  Lond.  1733,  4to. 
Lownian,  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on  the  Rev.,  Lond. 
1737,  4to,  often  reprinted.     Bengel,  Erkliirle  Of- 


REZEPH 

fenb.  Johannis,  Stuttg  1740,  3?  Aufl.  1758; 
comp.  his  Gnomon.  Herder,  MAPAN  A6A.  Dat 
Buch  V(m  d.  ZukunJ't  des  Herrn,  Riga,  1779 
Eichhorn,  Comm.  in  Apoc,  2  torn.  Gott.  1791 
comp.  Christian  Disciple  (Bost.)  for  April,  1822 
and  Christ.  Examiner,  May,  1830.  J.  C.  Wood- 
house,  The  Apoc.  translated,  trith  Notes,  Lond 
1805;  sho  Annotations  on  the  Apoc.  (a  sequel  tc 
Elsley  and  Slade).  Lond.  1828.  Heinrichs,  Comm. 
in  Apoc.  2  pt.  Gott.  1818-21  (vol.  x.  of  the  Test. 
Nov.  Edit.  Kopp.).  Ewald,  Comm.  in  Apoc.  exe- 
geticvs  et  criticus,  Gott.  1828;  Die  Johanneischen 
Schriften  ubers.  u.  erkldrl,  Bd.  ii.  Gott.  1862. 
(Important.)  Ziillig,  />ie  Offenb.  Joh.  vollstiindiy 
erklart,  2  Thle.,  Stuttg.  1834-40.  Tinius,  Die 
Offenb.  Joh.  durch  J-.inl.,  Uebers.  u.  Erki.  Allen 
versidndlich  gemacht,  Leipz.  1839.  E.  B.  Elliott, 
Borce  Apocalyptlcce  (1843),  5th  ed.,  4  vols.  Lond. 
1862.  Moses  Stuart,  Comm.  on  the  Apocolypse,  2 
vols.  Andover,  1845,  also  reprinted  in  England; 
perhaps  his  most  elaliorate  work.  I  )e  Wette,  Kurze 
Erkl.  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  Leipz.  1848  (Bd.  iii.  Th.  2 
of  his  Exeg.  Hamlb.),  3e  Aufl.,  bearb.  von  W 
jMoeller,  18G2.  Hen£;stenberg,  Die  Offenb.  d.  heil. 
Joh.,  2  Bde.  Berl.  1849,  2e  Ausg.  1861-62,  trans, 
by  P.  I'airbairn,  Edin.  1851.  Ebrard,  Z'iV  Offenb. 
Joh.  erklart,  Kiinigsb.  1853  (Bd.  vii.  of  Olshau- 
sen's  Bibl.  Comm.).  Auberlen,  Der  Proph.  Dan- 
iel u.  die  Offenb.  Joh.,  Bas.  1854,  2e  Aufl.  1857, 
Eng.  trans.'  Edin.  1856.  Diisterdieck,  Krit.  exeg. 
llandb.  i\b.  d.  Offenb.  Joh.,  Gtitt.  1859,  2e  Aufl. 
1865  (Abth.  xvi.  of  Meyer's  Kommentar).  F.  I). 
Maurice,  Lectures  on  the  Apoc,  Cambr.  1861. 
Bleek,  Vorlesungen  iiher  die  Apok.,  Berl.  1862. 
Volkmar,  Comm.  zum  Offenb.  Joh.,  Ziir.  1862. 
Desprez,  The  Apoc.  fulfilled,  new  ed.,  Lond.  1865. 
We  may  also  name  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Test, 
by  Bloomfield,  Webster  and  Wilkinson,  Aiford.and 
\Vordsworth,  who  has  also  published  a  separate  ex- 
position of  the  book.  See  further  the  literaiLre 
under  A.nticiuiist. 

Critical  editions  of  the  Greek  text,  with  a  new 
English  version  and  various  readings,  have  been 
published  by  Dr.  S.  P.  Tregelles  (Lond.  1844) 
and  AN'illiam  Kelly  (Lond.  1860),  followed  by  his 
I^ectures  on  the  Apoc.  (Lond.  1861).  The  Second 
Epistle  ff  Peter,  the  Epistles  of  John  and  Jtcdas, 
and  the  Revelation:  trans,  from  the  Greek,  with 
Notes,  New  York  (Anier.  Bible  Union),  1854, 
4to,  was  prepared  by  the  late  Rev.  John  Lillie, 
D.  D. 

On  the  theology  of  the  Apocalypse,  one  may 
consult  the  works  on  Biblical  Theology  by  Lutter- 
beck,  Reuss,  Messner,  Lechler,  Schmid,  Baur,  and 
Beyschlag,  referred  to  under  John,  Gt)si>EL  of, 
vol.  ii.  p.  1439  a,  and  the  recent  work  of  B.  Wei.5S, 
Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.  T.,  Berl.  1868,  p.  600  ff. 

A. 

RE'ZEPH  (^*:^T1  [stronghold,  Fiirst] :  ^ 
['?a(p[s,  Vat]  '?a(peis,  and  'PapeB;'^  [Comp. 
'Paa4(p,  "9aa4fx  ■,  Sin.  in  Is.  Pa^es:]  lieseph). 
One  of  the  places  which  Sennacherib  mentions,  in 
his  taunting  message  to  Hezekiah,  as  having  been 
destroyed  by  his  predecessor  (2  K.  xix.  12;  Is. 
xxxvii.  12).  He  couples  it  with  Haran  and  other 
well-known  ISIesopotamian  spots.  The  name  is 
still  a  common  one,  Yakut's  Lexicon  quoting  nine 
towns  so  called.     Interpreters,  however,  are  at  va. 


«  The  Alex.  MS.  exhibits  the   same  forms  of  the 
same  as  the  \'at. ;  but  by  a  curious  coincidence  in- 


terchanged,  namely,    Va<i>e6  in    2   Kings,    Pa^cit  b 
Isaiah. 


KEZIA 

ri;inoe  lietween  the  principal  two  of  these.  The 
one  is  a  d:i\  s  march  west  of  the  Euphrates,  on 
the  road  from  Rncca  to  Hums  (Geseuius,  Keil, 
Theiiius.  Michaelis,  SiippL);  the  other,  again,  is 
east  of  the  Euphrates,  near  Bagdad  (Hitzig).  The 
former  is  mentioned  by  Ptoleni}-  (v.  15)  under  the 
name  of  'Priffd<pa,  and  appears,  in  the  present  im- 
perfect state  of  our  Mesopotamian  knowledge,  to 
he  tlie  more  feasible  of  the  two.  G. 

RE'ZIA  (S;;V'l  [deUgkt]:  'Paatd;  [Vat. 
Pa(Tfia:]  J{(;si'i).  An  Asherite,  of  the  sons  of 
L'lla  (1  Chr.  vii.  39). 

RE'ZIN  (rV"!  [perh.  stable,  firm,  or  prince, 
Mes.j:  'Vaaacrdiv,  'Vaa'iv,  ['Pa(7i7i, 'Pao-criV;  Vat. 
in  Is.  Patreij',  Pao-ei|U,  VadffooV,  Sin.  in  Is.  Vaaa- 
<Twv\  Alex.  Paaacroov,  exc.  Is.  vii.  8,  Vaffnv'■^ 
Rit.iin).  1.  A  kinn;  of  Damascus,  contemporary 
with  Pekah  in  Israel,  and  with  Jotham  and  Ahaz 
in  Judaea.  Tlie  policy  of  Hezin  seems  to  have  been 
to  ally  himself  closely  with  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
and,  thus  strengthened,  to  carry  on  constant  war 
against  the  kings  of  Judah.  He  attacked  .Jotham 
during  the  latter  part  of  his  reign  (2  K.  xv.  37); 
but  his  chief  war  was  with  .\haz,  whose  territories 
he  invaded,  in  company  with  Pekah,  soon  after 
Ahaz  had  mounted  the  throne  (about  is.  c.  741). 
The  combined  army  laid  siege  to  .lerusalem.  where 
Ahaz  was,  but  "'could  not  prevail  against  it"  (Is. 
vii.  1;  2  K.  xvi.  5).  Rezin,  however,  "recovered 
Elath  to  S}Tia"  (2  K.  xvi.  6);  that  is,  he  con- 
quered and  held  possession  of  the  celebrated  town 
of  that  name  at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akal)ah, 
which  commanded  one  of  the  most  important  lines 
of  trade  in  the  East.  Soon  after  this  he  was 
attacked  by  Tiglath-PUeser  II.,  king  of  Assyria,  to 
whom  Ahaz  in  his  distress  had  made  application; 
his  armies  were  defeated  by  the  Assyrian  hosts ;  his 
city  besieged  and  taken;  his  people  carried  away 
captive  into  Susiana  (?  Kik);  and  he  himself  slain 
(2  Iv.  xvi.  9 ;  compare  Tiglath-Pileser's  own  in- 
scriptions, where  the  defeat  of  liezin  and  the  de- 
struction of  Damascus  are  distinctly  mentioned). 
This  treatment  was  probably  owing  to  his  being  re- 
garded as  a  rebel ;  since  Damascus  had  been  taken 
and  laid  under  tribute  by  the  Assyrians  some 
time  previously  (Rawliuson's  Herodotus,  i.  467). 

G.  K. 

2.  ["Paa-dv  ;  in  Neh.,  Rom.  'Pacra-cov,  PA. 
Pafffoov.]  One  of  the  families  of  the  Nethinim 
(Ezr.  ii.  48;  Neh.  vii.  50).  It  furnishes  another 
example  of  the  occurrence  of  non-Israelite  names 
amongst  them,  which  is  already  noticed  under  j\Ie- 
IIUNI.M  [iii.  1875,  note  a;  and  see  Sisera].  In  1 
Esdr.  the  name  appears  as  Daisan,  in  which  the 
change  from  K  to  D  seems  to  imply  that  1  Esdras 
at  one  time  existed  in  Syriac  or  some  other  Semitic 
language.  G. 

BE'ZON  (pn  [jmnce]:  [Rom.  om.;  Vat.] 
Ecrpci/*-  Alex.  Pa^cov'.  Rnzon).  The  son  of  Eli- 
adah,  a  Svrian,  who,  when  David  defeated  Hadad- 
e;^er  king  of  Zobah,  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a 
Iiand  of  freebooters  and  set  up  a  petty  kingdom  at 
Damascus  (1  K.  xi.  23).  Whether  he  was  an 
officer  of  Hadadezer,  who,  foreseeing  the  destruc- 
tion which  David  would  inflict,  jirudently  esca])ed 
with  some  followers;  or  whether  he  gatliered  his 
baud  of  the  remnant  of  those  who  survived  the 
siaugnter,  does  not  appear.  The  latter  is  more 
probable.  The  settlement  of  Kezon  at  Damascus 
3o;'.ld  not  have  been  till  some  time  after  the  dis- 
172 


RHEGIUM  2729 

astrous  battle  in  which  the  power  of  Hadadezei 
was  broken,  for  we  are  told  that  David  at  the  same 
time  defeated  the  army  of  Damascene  Syrians  who 
Qame  to  the  relief  of  Hadadezer,  and  put  garrisons 
in  Damascus.  From  his  position  at  Damascus  he 
harassed  the  kingdom  of  Solomon  during  his  whole 
reign.  With  regard  to  the  statement  of  Nicolaus 
in  the  4th  book  of  his  History,  quoted  by  Josephus 
[Aid.  vii.  5,  §  2),  there  is  less  difficulty,  as  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  for  attributing  to  it  any 
historical  authority.  He  says  that  the  name  of 
the  king  of  Damascus,  whom  1  )avid  defeated,  was 
Hadad,  and  that  his  descendants  and  successors 
took  the  same  name  for  ten  generations.  If  this 
be  true,  Rezon  was  a  usurper,  Init  the  origin  of  the 
story  is  probably  the  confused  account  of  the  LXX. 
In  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  LXX.  the  account  of 
Kezon  is  inserted  in  ver.  14. in  close  connection 
with  Hadad,  and  on  this  Josephus  appears  to  have 
founded  his  story  that  Hadad,  on  leaving  Egypt, 
endeavored  without  success  to  excite  Idumea  to 
revolt,  and  then  went  to  Syria,  where  he  joined 
himself  with  Rezon,  called  by  Josephus  Kaazarus. 
who  at  the  head  of  a  band  of  robbers  was  plunder- 
ing the  country  {Ant.  viii.  7,  §  6).  It  was  Hadad 
and  not  Ffezon,  according  to  the  account  in  Jose- 
phus, who  established  himself  king  of  that  part 
of  Syria,  and  made  inroads  upon  the  IsraeUtes. 
In  1  K.  XV.  18,  Benhadad,  king  of  Damascus  in 
the  reign  of  Asa,  is  described  as  the  grandson  of 
Hezion,  and  from  the  resemblance  between  the 
names  Kezon  and  Hezion,  when  written  in  Hei)re\? 
characters,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  latter  is 
a  corrupt  reading  for  the  former.  For  this  sug- 
gestion, however,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  sutii- 
cient  ground,  though  it  was  adopted  both  by  Sir 
John  IMarsham  {Chron.  Can.  p.  346)  and  Sir  Isaac 
Newton  {Chronol.  p.  221).  Bunsen  {Bibelioerk,  i. 
cclxxi.)  makes  Hezion  contemporary  with  iieho- 
boam,  and  probably  a  grandson  of  Rezon. .  The 
name  is  Aramaic,  and  Ewald  compares  it  with 
Rezin.  W.  A.  W. 

RHE'GIUM  {'Viiyiov.  R/ier/nun).  The  men- 
tion of  this  Italian  town  (which  was  situated  on 
the  Bruttian  coast,  just  at  the  southern  entrance 
of  the  straits  of  Messina)  occurs  quite  incidentally 
(Acts  xxviii.  13)  in  the  account  of  St.  Paul's 
voyage  from  Syracuse  to  Puteoli,  after  the  ship- 
wreck at  Malta.  But,  for  two  reasons,  it  is  worthy 
of  careful  attention.  By  a  curious  coincidence  the 
figures  on  its  coins  are  the  very  •'  twin-brothers  " 
which  gave  the  name  to  St.  Paul's  ship.  See 
(attached  to  the  article  Castou  ano  PuLUU.Y)the 
coin  of  Bruttii,  which  doubtless  represents  the 
forms  that  were  painted  or  sculptured  on  the  vessel 
.-Vnd,  again,  the  notice  of  the  intermediate  position 
of  Rhegiuni,  the  waiting  there  for  a  southerly  wind 
to  carry  the  ship  through  the  straits,  the  run  to 
Puteoli  with  such  a  wind  within  the  twenty-four 
hours,  are  all  points  of  geographical  accuracy  which 
help  us  to  realize  the  narrative.  As  to  the  history 
of  the  place,  it  was  originally  a  (Jreek  colony:  it 
was  miserably  destroyed  by  Dionysius  of  Syracuse: 
from  .Augustus  it  received  advantages  which  com- 
liined  with  its  geographical  position  in  making  it 
important  throughout  the  duration  of  the  Roman 
empire:  it  was  prominently  associated,  in  the 
Middle  .-Vges,  with  the  varied  fortunes  of  the  Greek 
emperors,  the  Saracens,  and  the  Romans:  and 
still  the  modern  Re(j(/io  is  a  town  of  10,000  in- 
habitants Its  distance  across  the  straits  fron: 
Messnia  is  only  about  six  miles,  and  it  is  well  seer 


2730 


RHESA 


from  the  telegraph  station  aliove  that  Sicilian 
town.«  J.  S.  H. 

RHE'SA  {'Priad'  Resa),  son  of  Zorobabel  in 
the  genealogy  of  Christ  (Lujje  iii.  27).  Lord  A. 
Hervey  has  ingeniously  conjectured  that  Rhesa  is 
no  person,  but  merely  the  title  Rush,  i.e.  '•  Prince," 
originally  attached  to  the  name  of  Zerubbabel,  and 
gradually  introduced  as  an  independent  name  into 
the  senealogy.  He  thus  removes  an  important  ob- 
stacle to  the  reconciliation  of  the  pedigrees  in  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  (Hervey's  Ge7iealoi/ies,  etc.  pp.  Ill, 
114.  356—360).  [Genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ, 
i.  88f)  n;  Zerubbabel.]  G. 

RHO'DA  ('PcJSrj  [rose-bush]:  Rhode),  lit. 
Ruse,  the  name  of  a  maid  who  announced  Peter's 
arrival  at  the  door  of  Mary's  house  after  his  mirac- 
ulous release  from  prison   (Acts  xii.  13).      [Pok- 

TEK.] 

RHODES  ('Po'Sos  [rose]  :  Rhochis).  The  his- 
tory of  this  island  is  so  illustrious,  that  it  is  inter- 
esting to  see  it  connected,  even  in  a  small  degree, 
with  the  life  of  St.  Paul.  He  touclied  there  on  his 
return-voyage  to  Syria  from  the  third  misssionary 
journey  (Acts  xxi.  1).  It  does  not  appear  that  he 
landed  from  the  ship.  The  day  before  he  had' been 
at  Cos,  an  island  to  the  N.  W. ;  and  from  Rhodes 
he  proceeded  eastwards  to  Pataka  in  Lycia.  It 
seems,  from  all  the  circumstiinces  of  the  narrative, 
that  the  wind  was  blowing  from  the  N.  W.,  as  it 
very  often  does  in  that  part  of  the  Levant.  Rhodes 
is  immediately  opposite  the  high  Carian  and  Lycian 
headlands  at  the  S.  W.  extremity  of  the  peninsula 
of  Asia  Minor.  Its  position  has  had  much  to  do 
with  its  history.  The  outline  of  that  history  is  as 
follous.  Its  real  eminence  began  (about  400  b.  c.) 
with  the  founding  of  that  city  at  the  N.  E.  extrem- 
ity of  the  island,  which  still  continues  to  be  tlie 
capital.  Though  the  Dorian  race  was  originally 
and  firmly  established  here,  yet  Rhodes  was  very 
frequently  dependent  on  others,  between  the  Pelo- 
ponnesian  war  and  the  time  of  .Alexander's  cam- 
paign. After  Alexander's  death  it  entered  on  a 
glorious  period,  its  material  prosperity  being  largely 
developed,  and  its  institutions  deserving  and  obtain- 
ing general  esteem.  As  we  approach  the  time  of 
the  consolidation  of  the  Roman  power  in  the  Le- 
vant, we  have  a  notice  of  .Jewish  residents  in  Rhodes 
(1  Mace.  XV.  23).  The  Romans,  after  the  defeat  of 
Antiochus,  assigned,  during  some  time,  to  Rhodes 
certain  districts  on  the  mainland  [C.\RIA;  Lyci.\]; 
and  when  these  were  withdrawn,  upon  more  mature 
provincial  arrangements  being  made,  the  island  still 
enjoyed  (from  Augustus  to  Vespasian )  a  consider- 
able amount  of  independence.*  It  is  in  this  inter- 
v.al  that  St.  Paul  was  there.  Its  Byzantine  history 
is  again  eminent.  Under  Constantine  it  was  the 
metropolis  of  the  "  Province  of  the  Islands."  It 
was  the  last  place  where  the  Christians  of  the  East 
held  out  against  the  advancing  Saracens;  and  sub- 
sequently it  was  once  more  fomous  as  the  home  and 


a  *  Reg^io  is  in  full  view  from  the  h.-irbor  of  Mes- 
sina. The  Apostle  passed  there  in  winter,  probably  in 
February  (as  Luke's  notations  of  time  indicate),  and 
lit  that  season  he  must  have  seen  the  mountains,  both 
of  Sicily  and  of  the  maniland,  covered  with  snow. 
The  n.arae  is  from  p-qyvvni.,  to  brtnk  or  burst  through, 
^a  if  the  sea  had  there  torn  off  Sicily  from  the  con- 
Cioent.  See  Pape's  Wurterb.  i/er  Grieck.  Ei^ennamen, 
».  T.  H. 

b  Two  incidents  in  the  life  of  Herod  the  Great  cou- 
paeud  with  Rhodes,  are  well  worthy  of  mention  here 


RIBLAH 

fortress  of  the  Knights  of  St.  .John.  The  most  prom- 
inent remains  of  the  city  and  harbi  r  are  memorial! 
of  those  knights.  The  best  account  of  Rhodes  will 
be  found  in  Ross,  Reisen  aiif  den  Griech.  friseln, 
iii.  70-113,  and  Rtisen  nach  Kos,  Hnlikarnas.'os, 
Rhndos,  etc.,  pp.  53-80.  There  is  a  good  view,  as 
well  as  an  accurate  delineation  of  the  coast,  in  the 
English  Admiralty  Chart  No.  1639.  Perhaps  the 
best  illustration  we  can  adduce  here  is  one  of  the 
early  coins  of  Rhodes,  with  the  conventional  rose- 
flower,  which  l)ore  the  name  of  the  island  on  one 
side,  and  the  head  of  Apollo,  radiated  like  the  sun, 
on  the  other.  It  was  a  proverb  that  the  sun  shone 
every  day  in  Rhodes.  J.  S.  H. 


Coin  of  Rhodes. 


RHOD'OCUS  ('Pt^Sortoj:  Rhodoais).  A  Jew 
who  betrayed  the  plans  of  his  countrymen  to  Anti- 
ochus Eupator.  His  treason  was  discovered,  and 
he  was  placed  in  confinement  (2  Mace.  xiii.  21). 

B.  F.  W. 

RHO'DUS  {'p6Sos--  Rhodus),  1  Mace.  xv.  23. 
[Rhodes.] 

RI'BAI  [2  syl.]  ("*3'^"]  [whom  Jehovah  de- 
fends] :  'Piffd  [Vat.  Pei/3a]  in  Sam.,  Pe)3i6;  Alex. 
Pr);8ai  [FA.  Pa/3eiai]  inChr.:  Rlbiii).  The  father 
of  Ittai  tlie  IJenjamite  of  Gil>eah,  who  was  one  of 
David's  mighty  men  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  29 ;  1  Chr.  xi. 
31). 

*  RIBBAND.     [Lace.] 

RIB'LAH,  1.  (nb^nrr,  with  the  definite 
article  [feriiUty]:  BtjAci  <^  in  both  MSS. :  Rebla). 
One  of  the  landmarks  on  the  eastern  boundary  of 
the  land  of  Israel,  as  specified  by  Moses  (Num. 
xxxiv.  11).  Its  position  is  noted  in  this  passage 
with  much  precision.  It  was  immediately  between 
Shepham  and  the  sea  of  Cinnereth,  and  on  the 
"  east  side  of  the  .sprins;."  Unfortunately  Shepham 
has  not  yet  been  identified,  and  which  of  the  great 
fountains  of  northern  Palestine  is  intended  by  "  the 
spring  "  is  uncertain.  It  seems  hardly  possible, 
without  entirely  disarranging  the  specification  of 
the  boundary,  that  the  Riblah  in  question  can  be 
the  same  with  the  "  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath  " 
which  is  mentioned  at  a  much  later  period  of  the 
history.  For,  according  to  this  passage,  a  great 
distance  must  necessarily  have  intervened  betwevr: 
Riblah  and  Hamath.  This  will  be  evident  from  a 
mere  enumeration  of  the  landmarks. 

1.  The   north    boundary:   The    Mediterranean, 


When  he  went  to  Italy,  about  the  close  of  the  last  Re- 
publican struggle,  he  found  that  the  city  had  suffered 
much  from  Cassius,  and  gave  liberal  sums  to  restore  it 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  14,  §  3).  Here,  also,  after  the  bat- 
tle of  Actium,  he  met  Augustus  and  secured  his  favor 
{ibid.  XV.  6,  §  6). 

c  Originally  it  appears  to  have  stood  Ap^TfAa ;  buj 
the  'Ap  has  now  attached  itself  to  the  preceding  namt 
— SeTTt^afiap.  Can  this  be  the  Akbela  of  1  tAsuoc 
ix.  2? 


RIBLAH 

\[ount  Hor,  the  entrance  of  Hamath,  Zedad,  Ziph- 
rou,  I  lazar-enan. 

2.  The  eastern  boundary  commenced  from  Ha- 
lar-enaTi,  turning  south:  Shepham,  Riblah,  passing 
east  of  tlie  spring,  to  east  side  of  Sea  of  Galilee. 

Now  it  seems  impossible  that  Riblah  can  be  in  the 
land  of  Hamath ,«  seeing  that  four  landmarks  occur 
between  them.  Add  to  this  its  apparent  proximity 
to  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 

The  early  Jewish  interpreters  have  felt  the  force 
of  this.  Confused  as  is  the  catalogue  of  the  boun- 
dary in  the  Targum  Pseudojonathan  of  Num.  xxxiv., 
it  is  plain  that  the  author  of  that  version  considers 
"the  spring  "  as  the  spring  of  Jordan  at  Buiihis^ 
and  Kiblah,  therefore,  as  a  place  near  it.  With 
this  agrees  Parchi,  the  Jewish  traveller  in  the  l^th 
and  14th  centuries,  who  expressly  discriminates  be- 
tween the  two  (see  the  extracts  in  Zunz's  Benju- 
min.  ii.  418),  and  in  our  own  day  J.  D.  JMichaelis 
(BiOei  J'iir  Un'/eleJiiien  ;  Suppl.  ad  Lexica,  No. 
2:il3),  and  Bonfrerius,  the  learned  editor  of  Euse- 
bius's  Onomiisticon. 

No  place  bearing  the  name  of  Riblah  has  been 
yet  discovered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Banias. 

2.   Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath  (H^Il'^,  once 

nnb^").  i.  e.  Riblathah:  '' AeySAafla  in  both 
MSS.;  [Rom.  in  2  K.  xxiii.  o3,  'Va^Kaajx,  xxv. 
0,  21,  22.  'PejSAafla:]  RMatlid).  A  place  on  the 
threat  road  lietween  Palestine  and  Babylonia,  at 
which  the  kings  of  Babylonia  were  accustomed  to 
remain  while  directing  the  operations  of  their  ar- 
mies in  Palestine  and  Phoenicia.  Here  Nebuchad- 
nezaar  waited  while  the  sieges  of  Jerusalem  and  of 
I'yre  were  being  conducted  by  his  lieutenants; 
hither  were  brought  to  him  the  wretched  king  of 
Judsea  and  his  sons,  and  after  a  tune  a  selection 
from  all  raidcs  and  conditions  of  the  conquered  city, 
who  were  put  to  death,  doubtless  by  the  horrible 
death  of  impaling,  which  the  Assyrians  practiced, 
and  the  long  lines  of  the  victims  to  which  are  still 
to  be  seen  on  their  nioiuniients  (Jer.  xxxix.  .5,  6, 
lii.  !),  10,  20,  27;  2  K.  xxv.  6.  20,  21).  In  like 
manner  Phir.ioh-Neeho,  after  his  successful  victory 
over  the  Babylonians  at  Carchemish,  returned  to 
Rililali  and  summoned  Jehoahaz  from  Jerusalem 
before  him  (2  K.  xxiii.  3-3). 

This  Riblah  has  no  doubt  been  discovered,  still 
retaining  its  ancient  name,  on  the  right  (east) 
l)ank  of  the  e^.(4s!/ (Orontes),  upon  the  great  road 
which  connects  Bntlbek  and  Hums,  about  35  miles 
N.  v..  of  the  former  and  20  miles  S.  W.  of  the  latter 
place.  The  advantages  of  its  position  for  the  en- 
•ampment  of  \ast  hosts,  such  as  those  of  Egypt  and 
Babylon,  are  enumerated  by  Dr.  Rol)inson,  who  vis- 
ited it  in  18.52  {BM.  Ris.'m.  .545).  He  descrilies 
it  as  "lying  on  tiie  lianks  of  a  mountain  stream  in 
the  midst  of  a  vast  and  fertile  plain  yielding  the 
most  abundant  supiilies  of  forage.  From  this  point 
vue  roads  were  open  by  .\leppo  and  the  Euphrates 
10  Nineveh,  or  l)y  Palmyra  to  Baliylon  ....  by 
the  end  of  Lelianon  and  the  coast  to  Palestine  and 
Egypt,  or  through  the  Bukaa  and  the  Jordan 
Valley  to  the  centre  of  the  Holy  Land."      It  ap- 


JUIDDLE 


2731 


pears  to  have  been  first  alluded  to  by  Buckingh* 
in  1816. 

Riblah  is  probably  mentioned  by  Ezekiel  (vi 
14),  though  in  the  present  Hebrew  text  and  A.  V, 
it  appears  as  Diblah  or  Diblath,  The  change  from 
R  to  D  is  in  Hebrew  a  very  easy  one.  Riblah 
suits  the  sense  of  the  passage  very  well,  while  on 
the  other  hand  Diblah  is  not  known.'"    [Diblath.] 

G. 

*  RICHES,  Rev.  xviii.  17,  not  plural  but  sin- 
gular: "la  one  hour  so  great  riches  is  come  to 
nought"  (so  also  Wisd.  v.  8).  The  original  plu- 
ral was  ficliessis  (Fr.  lichesse),  as  in  Wicklitle's 
version,  and  was  generally  obsolete  at  the  tinie  of 
the  translation  of  the  A.  V.  It  stood  at  first  also 
in  Jer.  xlviii.  36,  but  as  Trench  mentions  (Authur- 
ized  Version,  p.  60)  was  tacitly  corrected,  by 
changing  "is"  to  "are."  H. 

RIDDLE  (HTri:  a'lviyfxa,  Trp6l3\r]ixa--  P'O- 
bleimi,  j/ivposltld).  The  Hebrew  word  is  derived 
from  an  Arabic  root  meaning  "  to  bend  off,"  "  to 
twist."  and  is  used  for  artifice  (Dan.  viii.  23),  a 
proverb  (Prov.  i,  6),  a  song  (Ps.  xlix.  4,  Ixxviii.  2), 
an  oracle  (Num.  xii.  8),  a  parable  (Ezr.  xvii.  2) 
and  in  general  any  wise  or  intricate  sentence  (Ps. 
xciv.  4;  Hab.  ii.  6.  &c.),  as  well  as  a  riddle  in  our 
sense  of  the  word  (Judg.  xiv.  12-19).  In  these 
senses  we  may  compare  the  phrases  (TTf)o(p^  Koywv, 
(TTpocpal  ■Kapa^oXuv  (Wisd.  viii.  8 ;  Ecclus.  xxxix. 
2),  and  TrepiTrAo/cr;  \6ywv  (Eur.  PImn.  497;  Ge- 
sen.  s.  r.),  and  the  Latin  scirjms,  which  appears  to 
have  been  similarly  used  (Aul.  Gell.  Nucl.  Att.  xii. 
6).  Augustine  defines  an  enigma  to  be  any  "  ob- 
scura  allegoria  "  {De  Triii.  xv.  9),  and  points  out, 
as  an  instance,  the  passage  about  the  daughter  of 
the  horse-leech  in  Prov.  xxx.  15,  which  has  been 
elaborately  explained  by  Bellermann  in  a  mono- 
graph on  the  sulijeet  {^■Enigmata  //ebraica,  Erf. 
1798).  Many  passages,  although  not  definitely 
propounded  as  riddles,  may  be  regarded  as  such, 
e.  (/.  Prov.  xxvi.  10.  a  verse  in  the  rendering  of 
which  every  version  differs  from  all  others.  The 
riddles  which  the  queen  of  Sheba  came  to  ask  of 
Solomon  (1  K.  x.  I,  ^Kd(  weipdcrai  avrhu  iv  al- 
vly/xacri ;  2  Chr.  ix.  1 )  were  rather  "  hart!  ques- 
tions"  referring  to  profound  inquiries.  Solomon 
is  said,  however,  to  have  been  very  fond  of  the 
riddle  proper,  for  Josepbus  quotes  two  profane  his- 
torians (>lenander  of  Ephesus,  and  Dius)  to  authen- 
ticate a  story  that  Solomon  proposed  immerous 
riddles  to  Hiram,  for  the  non-solution  of  which  Hi- 
ram was  obliged  to  pay  a  large  fine,  until  he  sum- 
moned to  his  assistance  a  Tyrian  named  Abdemon, 
vpho  not  only  solved  the  riddles,  but  propounded 
others  which  Solomon  himself  was  unable  to  an- 
swer, and  consequently  in  his  turn  incurred  the 
penalty.  The  word  aXviy/j.a  occurs  only  once  in 
the  N.  T.  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12, -darkly."  eV  aiviyixari, 
comp.  Num.  xii.  8;  Wetstein,  N.  T.  ii.  158); 
but,  in  the  wider  meaning  of  the  word,  many  in- 
stances of  it  occur  ill  our  Lord's  discourses.  Thus 
Erasmus  applies  the  term  to  Matt.  xii.  43-45. 
The  object  of  such  implicated  meanings  is  obvi- 
ous,   and   is    well    explained    by    St.    Augustine: 


a  If  Mr.  Porter's  identifications  of  ZeJaJ  and  Ilat- 
uireuan  are  adopted,  the  difficulty  i.s  increased  tenfold. 
'J   Tbe  two  great  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  —  Vati'iau  (Mai) 
Vid  .\lex.  —  present  the  name  as  follows  :  — 
2  K.  xxiii.  33,  'ApAaa  ;    AcjSAaa. 
%  K.  XX7.  6,       'lepSe^Aaflcii';    Se^KaBd. 


2  K.  XXV.  20,  AejSAaSa ;   Ae/3Aa8a. 
2  IC.  XXV.  21,  'PelSAnea;    Ae^Aafla. 
Jer.  lii.  9,  10,  26,  27,  Ae|8Aa05.  in  both. 
c  *  For  interesting  notices  of  this  Riblah,   see  Dr. 
Thomson's  diary  of  a  "  Journey  from   Aleppo  to  Iisfe 
anon,"  BM.  Sacra,  v   683  f.  H. 


2732 


RIDDLE 


•  manifestis  {jascimur,  ohscuris   exercemur "   {De 
Uuct.   Christ,  ii.  6). 

We  know  that  all  ancient  nations,  and  especially 
Orientals,  have  been  fond  of  riddles  (Rosenmiiller, 
Mvrymd.  iii.  68).  We  find  traces  of  the  custom 
anions;  the  Arabs  (Koran,  xxv.  35),  and  indeed 
several  Arabic  books  of  riddles  exist  —  as  Kttdb  al 
Ali/dz  in  1469,  and  a  book  of  riiidles  solved,  called 
Ahd  al  themin.  But  these  are  rather  emblems  and 
devices  than  what  we  call  riddles,  although  they 
are  very  ingenious.  The  Persians  call  them  A/i/iiz 
and  Maamma  (D'Herbelot,  s.  v.  Algaz).  They 
were  also  known  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  (Jablon- 
ski.  Pantheon  ^■Eyypt.  48).  They  were  especially 
used  in  banquets  both  by  Greeks  and  Romans  (Miil- 
ler,  Dot:  ii.  392;  Atheu.  x.  457;  Pollux,  vi.  107; 
A.  Gell.  xviii.  2;  Diet,  of  Ant.  p.  22),  and  the  kind 
of  witticisms  adojited  may  be  seen  in  the  literary 
dinners  described  by  Plato,  Xenophon,  Athenaeus, 
Plutarch,  and  Macroliius.  Some  ha\e  groundlessly 
'Upposed  that  the  pro\erbs  of  Solomon,  Leniuel, 
and  Agur,  were  propounded  at  feasts,  like  the  par- 
ables spoken  by  our  Lord  on  similar  occasions  (Luke 
xiv.  7   etc.). 

Kiddles  were  generally  proposed  in  verse,  like 
the  celebrated  riddle  of  Samson,  which,  however, 
was  properly  (as  Voss  points  out,  Instt.  Uratt.  iv. 
11)  no  riddle  at  all,  because  the  Pliilistines  did  not 
jiosse-ss  tlie  only  clew  on  which  the  solution  could 
depend.  I'or  this  reason  Samson  had  carefully  con- 
cealed the  fact  even  from  his  parents  (Judg.  xiv. 
14,  etc.).  Other  ancient  riddles  inverse  are  that 
of  the  Sphinx,  and  that  which  is  said  to  have 
caused  the  death  of  Homer  by  his  mortification  at 
being  unalile  to  solve  it  (Plutarch.   Vit.  /Join.). 

Franc,  .lunius  distinguishes  between  the  i,i\'(ittr 
enigma,  where  the  allegory  or  obscure  intimation 
is  continuous  throughout  the  passage  (as  in  F^. 
xvii.  2,  and  in  such  poems  as  the  Syrinx  attributed 
to  Theocritus);  and  the  lesser  enigma  or  {nrai- 
viy/xa,  where  the  difficulty  is  concentrated  in  the 
peculiar  use  of  some  one  word.  It  may  be  useful 
to  refer  to  one  or  two  instances  of  the  latter,  since 
they  are  very  frequently  to  be  found  in  the  Bible, 
and  especially  in  the  Prophets.     Such  is  the  play 

on  the  word  D5?^  ("a  portion,"  and  "  Shechem," 

the  town  of  Ephraira)  in  Gen.  xlviii.  22;  on  ~l1!iX2 

(mdtzor,  "a  fortified  city,"   and  D^"T.'!iQ,  Miz- 

raim,  Egypt)  in  Jlic.  vii.  12;  on  ^^'.^  {Shaked, 

"an    almond-tree"),    and    ^^2^    (shdkad,    "to 

hasten  "),  in  Jer.  i.  11;  on  HTS^"^  (Diimah,  mean- 
ing "Edom"  and  "the  land  of  death"),  in  Is. 
Kxi.  11;  on  ?|tC'C7,  Slieshach  (meatung  "Baby- 
lon," and  perhaps  "arrogance"),  in  Jer.  xxv.  26, 
Ii.  41. 

It  only  remains  to  notice  the  single  instance  of 
a  riddle  occurring  in  the  N.  T.,  namely,  the  number 
of  the  beast.  This  belongs  to  a  class  of  riddles 
very  common  among  Egyptian  mystics,  the  (Jnos- 
tics,  some  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  Jewish  Cabbalists. 
The  latter  called  it  Gematria  (i.  e.  yfwfxiTpia)  of 
which  instances  may  be  found  in  Carpzov  {App. 
Crit.  p.  542),  Reland  {Ant.  Ilebr.  i.  25),  and  some 


RIMMON 

of  the  commentators  on  Rev.  xiii.  16-18.  Thus 
irn^  (ndchdsh),  "serpent,"  is  made  by  the  Jews 
one   of  the   names  of  the   Messiah,   because   its 

numerical  value  is  equivalent  to  H'^tptt;  and  the 
names  Shushan  and  Esther  are  coiuiected  together 
because  the  numerical  value  of  the  letters  com- 
posing them  is  661.  Thus  the  !Marcosians  regarded 
the  number  24  as  sacred  from  its  being  the  sum 
of  numerical  values  in  the  names  of  two  quaternions 
of  their  yEons,  and  the  Gnostics  used  the  name 
Abraxas  as  an  amulet,  because  its  letters  aracunt 
numerically  to  365.  Such  idle  fancies  are  not 
unfrequent  in  some  of  the  Fathers.  We  have 
already  mentioned  (see  Cross)  the  mystic  explana- 
tion by  Clem.  Alexandrinus  of  the  number  318  in 
Gen.  xiv.  14,  and  by  Tertullian  of  the  number  300 
(represented  by  the  letter  T  or  a  cross)  in  Judg. 
vii.  6,  and  similar  instances  are  supplied  by  the 
Testimonia  of  the  Pseudo-Cyprian.  The  most 
exact  analogies,  however,  to  the  enigma  on  the 
name  of  the  beast,  are  to  be  found  in  the  so-called 
Sibylline  verses.  AVe  quote  one  which  is  exactly 
similar  to  it,  the  answer  being  found  in  the  name 
'iTjo-oOs  =  888,  thus :  I  =  10  -f  ^  =  8  -f  o"  =  200 
4-  o  =  70  4-  u  =  400  +  s  =  200  =  888.  It  is 
as  follows,  and  is  extremely  curious: 

*H|ei  (TapKO(f>6pos  6vt)toIs  o/noiov/iiei'OS  iv  yfj 
T€(ra'epa.  4>^^'V^^'^^  0e'pci,  ra  6*  a<^a)i'a  Sv*  avrta 
AicTCTiOi'  a(jT payahuiv  (?),  apiOfuhv  6'  oAoi/  egoi'O/otjji'w 
'Oktio  ■yap  M-0i'd6as,  0(rcras  SexaSas  ejri  TOiirois, 
'H6'  eKaTOvrdSas  oktio  a7ri(rTOTe'pois  av8pu>Tioi,i 
Out/Ojua  fiijAujo'et. 

With  examples  like  this  before  us,  it  would  be 
absurd  to  doubt  that  St.  John  (not  greatly  re- 
moxed  in  time  from  the  Christian  forgers  of  the 
SibyHine  verses)  intended  some  name  as  an  answer 
to  the  num1)er  GfW.  The  true  answer  must  be 
settled  by  the  Apocalyjjtic  commentators.  ISIost 
of  the  F'athers  supposed,  even  as  far  back  as  Ire- 
nanis,  the  name  Actreij/os  to  be  indicated.  A  list 
of  the  other  very  numerous  solutions,  proposed  in 
diflcrent  ages,  may  be  found  in  Elliott's  Horce 
Ap<icalyplic(B,  from  which  we  have  quoted  several 
of  these  instances  (flor.  A^'oc.  iii.  222-234). 

F.  W.  F. 

*  RIE  for  RYE,  Ex.  ix.  32  and  Is.  xxviii.  25 
(marg.  .</je/Oj  in  the  oldest  editions  of  the  A.  V. 

H. 

RIM'MON  (]''^^~]  [pomeyranate]:  •pe/j.fj.^v. 
Revimon).  Rimmon,  a  Benjamite  of  Beeroth,  was 
the  father  of  Rechab  and  Baanah,  the  murderers 
of  Ishbosheth  (2  Sam.  iv.  2,  5,  9). 

RIM'MON  (V'^^1  [pomeyranate]:  'Ve/j.fidv: 
Reinmon).  A  deity,  worshipped  by  the  Syrians 
of  Damascus,  where  there  was  a  temple  or  house 
of  Rimmon  (2  K.  v.  18).  Traces  of  the  name  of 
this  god  appear  nho  in  the  proper  names  Hadad- 
rinimon  and  Tabrimmon,  but  its  signification  is 
doubtful.  vSerarius,  quoted  by  Selden  {Dc  dis 
Syris,  ii.  10),  refers  it  to  the  Heb.  rimmon,  a 
pomegranate,  a  fruit  sacred  to  Venus,  who  is  thus 
the  deity  worshii)ped  under  this  title  (compare 
Pomona,  from  pomvm).  Ursinus  {Arboretum  Bibl. 
cap.  32,  7)  explains  Rimmon  as  the  pomegranate. 


o  In  this  passai^e  it  is  jjcnerally  thought  that  She- 
Irtisch  is  put  for  Babel,  hy  t!u-  principle  of  alphabeti- 
iu  inrersion  known  ;t<  the  iviihash.  Tt  will  be  seen 
ihst  the  5as9a;;es   abuve  quote!   ax-e  ehietly  iustauces 


of  paronomasia.  On  the  profound  a<<e  of  this  fi^re 
by  the  prophets  aud  other  writers,  see  Ewald,  DU 
Proptiflen  d.  Alt.  Bund.  i.  48 ;  Steintnal,  Urspr.  d 
Sprache,  p.  23. 


RIMMON 

,he  snililem  of  the  fertilizing  principle  of  nature, 
the  personified  naiur<t  ni(luriin.%  a  s3'ml)ol  of  fre- 
quent occurrence  in  the  old  religions  (Bahr,  Sym- 
bolib,  ii.  12-2).  If  this  l>e  the  true  origin  of  the 
name,  it  presents  us  with  a  relic  of  the  ancient 
tree-worship  of  the  I'^ast,  which  we  know  to  have 
prevailed  in  Palestine.  But  Selden  rejects  this 
derivation,  and   proposes  instead  that  Kinniion   is 

from  the  root  UV^,  7-uin,  "to  he  Linh,"  and  sig- 
nifies "most  high;"  like  the  Pluenician  EUoun, 

and  Heb.  l^^?^.  Hesychius  gives  "Pajxas,  6 
v\pi<TTOi  de6s.  Clericus,  Vitringa,  Rosenmliller, 
and  Gesenius  were  of  the  same  opinion. 

Movers  {Phiin.  i.  196,  &e.)  regards  Rimnion  as 
the  abbreviated  form  of  Hadad-I!immon  (as  Peor 
for  Ba!',l-Pe6r),  Hadad  being  the  sun-god  of  the 
Syrians.  Combining  this  with  the  ponieiiranate, 
which  was  his  symbol,  lladad-Rimmon  would  then 
be  the  sun-god  of  the  late  sunnner,  who  ripens  the 
pomegranate  and  other  fruits,  and,  after  infusing 
into  them  iiis  proiiuctive  power,  dies,  and  is 
mourned  with  the  "  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon 
in  the  valley  of  Megiddou  "  (Zech.  xii.  11). 

Between  these  different  opinions  there  is  no  pos- 
sibility of  deciding.  The  name  occurs  but  once, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  point.  But  the 
conjecture  of  Selden,  which  is  approved  Ijy  Gese- 
nius,  has  the  greater  show  of  probability. 

W.  A    W. 

RIM'MON  (  31S"3,  i-  e.  RimmonO  [pome-, 
tjraii-ite]:  r]  'Pe/j-ixiiy'-  Remmonu).  A  city  of 
Zebulun  belonging  to  the  Merarite  Levites  (1  Chr. 
vi.  77).  There  is  great  discrepancy  between  the 
list  in  which  it  occurs  and  the  parallel  catalogue 
of  .losh.  xxi.  The  former  contains  two  names  in 
place  of  the  four  of  the  latter,  and  neither  of  them 
the  same.  But  it  is  not  impossible  that  Di.mm.vii 
(•losh.  xxi.  3.5)  may  have  been  originally  Rimmon, 
as  the  1)  and  R  in  Hebrew  are  notoriously  easy  to 
confound.  At  any  rate  there  is  no  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  Rimmono  is  not  identical  with  Rinunon 
of  ^ebulun  (.Josh.  xix.  13),  in  the  A.  V.  Rkmmon- 
METHOAR.  The  redundant  letter  was  probably 
transferred,  in  copying,  from  the  succeeding  word 
—  at  an  early  date,  since  all  the  iMSS.  appear  to 
exhibit  it,  as  does  also  the  Targuni  of  .Joseph. 
[Dr.  Robinson  inquires  whether  this  Rimnion 
may  not  be  the  present  liumnidnvh,  a  little  north 
of  Nazareth.    See  B'M.  Rts.  ii.  3-10  (2d  ed. ).  —  H.] 

G. 

RIM'MON  (Vl^l  {t><-^me(ii:mrtte] :  'Epaj/xiie, 
Pefiixdu;  Alex.  Pe,U;ua)(/;  [in  1  Chr.,  Rom.  'Pefj.- 
yu)u,  Vat.  Pefj.fj.cui'-l  Reimmni).  A  town  in  tlie 
southern  portion  of  .Judah  (.Josh.  xv.  32),  allotted 
to  Simeon  (.losh.  xix.  7;  1  Chr.  iv.  32:  in  the 
former  of  these  two  passages  it  is  inaccurately  given 
in  the  .\.  V.  as  Rkmmun).  In  each  of  tiie  aliove 
lists  the  name  succeeds  that  of  .-Vix,  also  one  of  the 
cities  of  .ludah  and  Simeon.  In  the  catalogue  of 
the  places  reoccupied  by  tiie  .Jews  after  the  return 
from    Baliylon   (Neh.  xi.  29)    the   two   are  joined 

("j1!2"1  1^"^ '.  LXX.  omits:  et  in  Remnvm),  and 
appear  in  the  A.  V.  as  F.ii-Rimmon.  There  is 
lothing  to  support  this  single  departure  of  the 
Melirew  text  from  its  practice  in  the  other  lists 
fxcept  the  fact  that  the  Vatican  LXX.  (if  the 
rlition  of  Mai  may  be  trusted)  has  joined  the 
sames  in  each  of  the  lists  of  .loshua,  from  which 
I  may  be  inferred  that  at  the  time  of  the  LXX. 


RIMMON,  THE  ROCK       2733 

translation  the  Hebrew  text  there  also  showed 
them  joined.  On  the  other  h.and  there  does  no* 
appear  to  be  my  sign  of  such  a  thing  in  the 
present  Hebrew  MSS. 

No  trace  of  Rimmon  has  been  yet  discovered  in 
the  south  of  Palestine.  True,  it  is  mentioned  in 
the  Oiiomdsiicon  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome;  but 
they  locate  it  at  15  miles  north  of  Jerusalem,  ob- 
viously confounding  it  with  the  Rock  Rinnnon. 
That  it  was  in  the  south  would  be  plain,  even 
though  the  lists  above  cited  were  not  extant,  from 
Zech.  xiv.  10,  where  it  is  stated  to  be  "south  of 
Jerusalem."  and  where  it  and  Geba  (the  northern 
frontier  of  the  southern  kingdom)  are  named  as 
the  limits  of  the  change  which  is  to  take  place  in 
the  aspect  and  formation  of  the  country.  In  this 
case  Jerome,  both  in  the  Vuljiate  and  in  his  Com- 
mentary (in  Zech.  xiv.  9  ff.),  joins  the  two  names, 
and  understands  them  to  denote  a  hill  north  of 
Jerusalem,  apparently  well  known  (doul)tless  the 
ancient  Guskah),  marked  by  a  pomegranate  tree 
—  "  coUis  Rimnion  (hoc  e'nnn  Gabaa  soiiat,  nbi 
arbor  malagranati  est)  usque  ad  australein  plagam 
Jerusalem."  (i. 

RIM'MON  PA'REZ  (^"19  lb")  [pome- 
f/rann/e  of  the  breach  or  rent]:  'Pefi/j-wv  ^ap4s) 
The  name  of  a  march-station  in  the  wilderness 
(Num.  xxxiii.  19,  20).  Rimmon  is  a  common 
name  of  locality.  The  latter  word  is  the  same  as 
that  found  in  the  jdur.al  form  in  Baal-Perazini, 
"  Baal  of  the  breaches."  Perhaps  some  local  con- 
figuration, such  as  a  "  cleft,"  might  account  for  its 
being  added.  It  stands  between  Rithniah  and 
Libnali.  No  place  now  known  has  been  identified 
with  it.  H.  H. 

RIM'MON,  THE  R0CK(]'lI2nrT"  V^D: 
7]  TrsTpa.  Tod  'P e /j./ji.civ ;  Joseph,  irerpa  'Poa'  pelra 
cuji/g  vocnbulum  est  Re)n»ion ;  petni  Remmon). 
A  cliff  (such  seems  rather  the  force  of  the  Hebrew 
word  selii)  or  in.accessible  natural  fastness,  in  which 
the  six  hundred  Benjamites  who  escaped  the  slaugh- 
ter of  Gibeah  took  refu<je,  and  maintained  them- 
selves for  four  months  until  released  by  the  act  of 
the  general  body  of  the  tribes  (Judg.  xx.  45,  47, 
xxi.  13). 

It  is  described  as  in  the  "wilderness"  (mklbar), 
that  is,  the  wild  uncultivated  (though  not  unpro- 
ducti\'e)  country  which  lies  on  the  east  of  the 
central  highlands  of  Benjamin,  on  which  Gibeah 
was  situated —  between  them  .and  the  Jordan  Val- 
ley. Here  the  name  is  still  found  attached  to  a 
village  perched  on  the  summit  of  a  conical  chalky 
hill,  visible  in  all  directions,  and  commanding  the 
whole  country  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  i.  440). 

The  hill  is  steep  and  naked,  the  white  limeston« 
everywhere  protruding,  and  the  houses  clinfjins:  to 
its  sides  and  forming  as  it  were  huge  steps.  On 
the  south  side  it  rises  to  a  height  of  several  hun- 
dred feet  from  the  great  ravine  of  the  Wailij  Miit- 
yah  ;  wliile  on  the  west  side  it  is  almost  equally 
isolated  Ijy  a  cross  valle.y  of  great  depth  (Porter, 
Hnm/bk.  p.  217;  Mr.  Finn,  in  Tan  de  Velde, 
Memoir,  p.  345).  In  position  it  is  (as  the  crow 
flies)  3  miles  east  of  Betliel,  and  7  N.  E.  of  Gilieah 
(  Tuli'il  el-Ful).  Thus  in  every  particular  of  name, 
character,  and  situation  it  agrees  with  the  require- 


«  In  two  out  of  its  four  occurrences,  tlie  article  it 
omitted  both  in  the  Hebrew  ind  LXX. 


2734  RING 

meiits  of  the  Rock  Rimnion.  It  was  known  in 
ibe  days  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  who  mention  it 

( OiioiH'islicon,  "  Remmoii  " )  —  though  confounding 
it  with  Kinnnon  in  Simeon  —  as  15  Koinan  miles 
nortlnvards  from  Jerusalem.  G. 

RING(riVSl?:  SaKTvXios-  anrmlus).  The 
rins  was  regarded  as  an  indispensalile  article  of  a 
Hebrew's  attire,  inasmuch  as  it  contained  his  sig- 
net, and  even  owed  its  name  to  this  circumstance, 
tiie  term  tithhaaih  being  derived  from  a  root  sig- 
nifying "  to  impress  a  seal."  It  was  hence  the 
s\  nibol  of  authority,  and  as  such  was  presented  by 
Pharaoh  to  Joseph  (Gen.  xli.  42),  by  Ahasuerus  to 
Haman  (Esth.  iii.  10),  by  Antiochus  to  Philip  (1 
IMacc.  vi.  15),  and  by  the  father  to  the  prodigal 
son  in  the  parable  (Luke  xv.  22).  It  was  treasured 
accoidingly,  and  became  a  proverbial  expression  for 
a  most  valued  object  (Jer.  xxii.  24:  Hag.  ii.  23: 
Ecclus.  xlix.  11).  Such  rings  were  worn  not  only 
by  men,  but  by  women  (Is.  iii.  21;  Mishn.  S/iahb. 
p.  0.  §  3),  and  are  enumerated  among  the  articles 
presented  by  men  and  women  for  the  service  of  the 
Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxv.  22).  The  signet-ring  was 
wiirn  on  the  right  hand  (Jer.  I.  c. ).  We  may  con- 
clude, from  Ex.  xxviii.  11,  that  the  rings  contained 
a  stone  engraven  with  a  device,  or  with  the  owner's 
name.  Numerous  specimens  of  h,g}ptian  rijifjs  have 
been  discovered,  most  of  them  made  of  gold,  very 
mas.sive,  and  containing  either  a  scarabseus  or  an 
engraved  stone  (Wilkinson,  ii.  337).     The  number 


Egyptian  Rings. 


of  rings  worn  by  the  Egyptians  was  truly  remark- 
dble.  The  same  profusion  was  exhibited  also  by 
the  Greeks  and  Konians,  particularly  by  men  (Did. 
of  Ant.  "Rings'').  It  appears  also  to  have  pre- 
vailed among  the  Jews  of  the  Apostolic  age:  for  in 
Jam.  ii.  2,  a  rich  man  is  described  as  xpvo'oSaKTv- 
\ios,  meaning  not  simply  "  with  a  gold  ring,''  as 
in  the  A.  V.,  but  "  golden-riflged "  (like  the 
Xpv<r6x^^Pi  "  golden- handed  "  of  Lucian,  Timon, 
c.  20).  implying  equally  well  the  presence  of  several 
gold  rings.  Eor  the  term  (^dlil,  rendered  "ring" 
in  Cant.  v.  14,  see  Oh.vamekts.  W.  L.  B. 

*  RINGLEADER  (Acts  xxiv.  5),  applied  to 
Paul  by  Tertullus  in  his  speech  before  Felix,  where 
it  stands  for  wpwroardTris.  It  implies,  of  itself, 
nothing  opprolirious,  being  properly  a  military  title, 
namely,  of  one  who  stands  in  front  of  the  ranks 
as  leader.  It  marks  a  bad  pretimiiience  here, 
especially  from  being  associated  with  \oi/x6s, 
"])laL:ue,  pest"  (\.  V.  pestilent  fellow).  Ring- 
leader had  a  good  or  neutral  sense  as  well  as  bad 
in  the  older  English  writers.  H. 

RIN'NAH  (n3~]  [a  cry  of  joy  ^  or  wailing']: 
'Avd.\  Alex.  Vavvuiv-  Rimvi).  One  of  the  sons 
>f  .Shimon  in  an  obscure  and  fragmentary  gene- 
tlogy  of  the  descendants  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20). 
In  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  he  is  made  "the  son  of 
rtanan,"  Ben-hanan  being  thus  translated. 


"   nD'"^.   This    reading    is   preferred  by   Bochart 
Pkaitg,  iii.  10),  and  is   connected    by  him  with  the 


RITHMAH 

RI'PHATH  (nS"'"]  [a  breaking  in  piece», 
terioj;  Hin.]:  'PicpdO;  -A^lex.  PKpae  in  Chr.:  Ri- 
phath),  the  second  son  of  Gomer,  and  the  brother  of 
Ashkenaz  and  Togarmah  (Gen.  x.  3).  The  He- 
brew text  in  1  Chr.  i.  6  gives  the  form  Diphath," 
but  this  arises  out  of  a  clerical  error  similar  to  that 
which  gives  the  forms  Rodanim  and  Hadad  for 
Dodanim  and  Hadar  (1  Chr.  i.  7,  50;  Gen.  xxxvi. 
39).  The  name  Riphath  occurs  only  in  the  gen- 
ealogical table,  and  hence  there  is  little  to  guide  us 
to  the  locahty  which  it  indicates.  The  name  itself 
has  been  variously  identified  with  that  of  the  Rhi- 
piean  mountains  (Knobel).  the  river  Rhelias  in  Bi- 
thynia  (Bochart),  the  Rhibii.  a  people  living  eastward 
of  the  Caspian  Sea  (Schultbess),  and  the  Ripheans 
[Kiphathajans?].  the  ancient  name  of  the  Paphlago- 
niaiis  (.loseph.  Anl.  i.  (j,  §  1 ).  This  last  view  is  cer- 
tainly favored  by  the  contiguity  of  Ashkenaz  and 
Togarmah.  The  weight  of  opitiion  is,  however,  in 
favor  of  the  Rhipa'an  mountains,  which  Knobel 
(  \'iilkert.  p.  44)  identifies  etymologically  and  geo- 
grapliically  with  the  Carpathian  range  in  the  N.  E. 
of  I  lacia.  The  attempt  of  that  writer  to  identify 
Ri|ihath  with  the  Celts  or  Gauls,  is  evidently  based 
on  the  assumption  that  so  important  a  rtice  ought 
to  be  mentioned  in  the  table,  and  that  there  is  no 
other  name  to  apply  to  them ;  but  we  have  no  evi- 
dence that  the  (Jauls  were  for  any  lengthened  period 
settled  in  the  neighl)orhood  of  the  Carpathian  range. 
The  Rliipar'an  mountains  themselves  existed  more 
in  the  imagination  of  the  Greeks  than  in  reality,  and 
if  the  received  etymology  of  that  name  (from  pnrai, 
"blasts")  be  correct,  the  coincidence  in  sound 
with  Riphath  is  merely  accidental,  and  no  connec- 
tion can  be  held  to  exist  between  the  names.  The 
later  geographers,  Ptolemy  (iii.  5,  §  15,  19)  and 
others,  placed  the  Rhiptean  range  where  no  range 
really  exists,  namely,  about  the  elevated  ground 
that  separates  the  basins  of  the  Euxine  and  Baltic 
seas.  W.  L.  B. 

RIS'SAH  (nD"1  [n  rnin]:  [Rom.  Peaadf, 
Vat.  A€cr(Ta\  Alex.]  Peaaa'-  livssa).  The  name, 
identical  with  the  word  which  signifies  "a  worm," 
is  that  of  a  march-station  in  the  wilderness  (Num. 
xxxiii.  21,  22).  It  lies,  as  there  given,  between 
Lilinah  and  Kekelathah,  and  has  been  considered 
(Winer,  s.  v.)  identical  with  Rasa  in  the  Peuting. 
liinev.,  32  Roman  miles  from  Ailah  (Elah),  and 
203  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  distinct,  however, 
from  the  'Vrtacra  of  Jose|)hus  {Ant.  xiv.  15,  § 
2).     No  site  has  been  identified  with  Rissah. 

H.  H. 

RITH'MAH  (n^nn  [see  below]  :'Pa0a/ia: 
Ret h ma).  The  name  of  a  n)arch-st;Uion  in  the 
wilderness  (Num.  xxxiii.  18,  19).  It  stands  there 
next  to  Hazeroth  [Hazehoth],  and  probably  lay 
in  a  N.  \i.  direction  from  that  spot,  but  no  place 
now  known  has  been  identified  with  it.     The  name 

■     G_,_ 

is   probably    coiniected    with   ^"[^"1,  Arab.    (vi*\> 

commonly  rendered  "juniper,"  but  more  correctly 
"broom."  It  can-ies  the  aflSrmative  Tl,  common 
in  names  of  locality,  and  found  especially  among 
many  in  the  catalogue  of  Num.  xxxiii.       H.  H. 


names  of  the  town  Tohata  and  the  mountain  Tibiua 
in  the  N.  of  Aiia  .Miuor. 


mVER 

KIVER  In  the  sense  in  which  we  employ  the 
word,  namely,  for  a  perennial  stream  of  consiileriible 
lize.  a  river  is  a  nmcli  rarer  oliject  in  the  East  than 
in  the  West.  The  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Palestine  at  the  present  day  have  probably  never 
seen  one.  \\'ith  the  exception  of  the  Jordan  and 
the  IJl'Diy,  the  streams  of  the  Holy  Land  are  either 
entirely  dried  up  in  the  summer  months,  and  con- 
verted into  hot  lanes  of  glaring  stones,  or  else  re- 
duced to  very  small  streamlets  deeply  sunlv  in  a 
narrow  bed,  and  concealed  from  view  by  a  dense 
growth  of  shrubs. 

The  cause  of  this  is  twofold :  on  the  one  hand 
th 3  hilly  nature  of  the  country  —  a  central  mass 
of  highland  descending  on  each  side  to  a  lower 
level,  and  on  the  other  the  extreme  heat  of  the 
eliniate  durinir  the  summer.  There  is  little  doubt 
tliat  iu  ancient  times  the  country  was  more  wooded 
than  it  now  is,  and  that,  in  consequence,  the  evap- 
oration was  less,  and  the  streams  more  frequent: 
yet  this  cannot  Lave  made  any  very  material  dif- 
ference in  the  permanence  of  the  water  in  the 
thousands  of  valleys  which  divide  the  hills  of  Pal- 
estine. 

For  the  various  aspects  of  the  streams  of  the 
country  which  such  conditions  inevitably  produced, 
the  ancient  Hebrews  had  very  exact  terms,  which 
they  employed  habitually  with  much  precision. 

1.  For  the  perennial  river,  Ndhar  (^rTl).  Pos- 
sibly used  of  the  Jordan  iu  Ps.  Lsvi.  6,  Ixxiv.  15; 
of  the  great  iIesopv.famian  and  Eg3'ptian  rivers 
generally  in  Gen.  ii.  10,  Kx.  vii.  19;  2  K.  xvii.  6; 
Ez.  iii.  15,  &c.  But  with  the  definite  article,  linn- 
Nahor,  ''the  river,"  it  signifies  invariably  the 
Euphrates  (Gen.  xxxi.  21;  Ex.  xxiii.  31;  Num. 
xxiv.  6;  2  Sam.  x.  16,  &c.,  &c.).  With  a  few  ex- 
ceptions (Josh.  i.  4,  xxiv.  2,  1-4, 15;  Is.  lix.  19;  Ez. 
xxxi.  15),  nd/idr  is  uniformly  rendered  "river"  in 
our  version,  and  accurately,  since  it  is  never  applied 
to  the  fleeting  fugitive  torrents  of  Palestine. 

2.  The  term  for  these  is  nachal  (^H^),  for 
which  our  translators  have  used  promiscuously,  and 
sometimes  almost  alternately,  "  valley,"  "  brook." 
and  "  river."  Thus  the  "brook"  and  the  "  val- 
ley "  of  Eslicol  (Num.  xiii  23  and  xxxii.  9);  the 
"  valley,"  the  "brook,"  and  the  "river"  Zered 
(Num.  xxi.  12;  Deut.  ii.  13;  Am.  vi.  li);  the 
"  brook"  and  the  "river  "  of  Jabbok  (Gen.  xxxii. 
23;  Deut.  ii.  37),  of  Anion  (Num.  xxi.  14;  Deut.  ii. 
24 1,  of  Ivislion  (Judg.  iv.  7;  1  K.  xviii.  40).  Com- 
pare also  Deut.  iii.  16.  <t-c.« 

Neither  of  these  words  expresses  the  thing  in- 
tended; but  the  term  "brook"  is  peculiarly  un- 
happy, since  the  pastoral  idea  which  it  conveys  is 
quite  at  variance  with  the  general  character  of  the 
wadies  of  Palestine.  Many  of  these  are  deep  ab- 
rupt chasms  or  rents  in  the  solid  rock  of  the  hills, 
and  have  a  savage,  gloomy  aspect,  far  removed 
from  that  of  an  English  brook  For  example,  the 
Anion  forces  its  way  through  a  ravine  several  hun- 
drel  feet  deep  and  about  two  miles  wide  across  the 
lop.  The  Wadij  Ztrka,  probably  the  Jabbok, 
vhish  Jacob  was  so  anxious  to  interpose  between 
Lis  family  and  Esau,  is  equally  unlike  the  quiet 
'meadowy   brook"  with  which  we   are  familiar. 


RIVER   OF   EGYPT 


2735 


And  those  which  are  not  so  abrupt  and  savage  U9 
in  their  width,  their  irregularity,  their  forlorn  arid 
look  when  the  torrent  has  subsided,  utterly  unlike 
"brooks."  Unfortunatelj"  our  language  does  not 
contain  any  single  word  which  has  both  the  mean- 
ings of  the  Hebrew  nachal  and  its  Arabic  equiva- 
lent wady,  which  can  be  used  at  once  for  a  dry  val- 
ley and  for  the  stream  which  occasionally  flows 
through  it.  .Ainswortli,  in  his  Annotations  (on 
Num.  xiii.  23),  says  that  "bourne"  has  both 
meanings;  but  "  bounie  "  is  now  obsolete  in  Eng- 
lish, though  still  in  use  in  Scotland,  where,  owing 
to  the  mountainous  nature  of  the  country,  the 
"burns"  partake  of  the  nature  of  the  wadies  of 
Palestine  in  the  iiTegularity  of  their  flow.  !Mr. 
Burton  {Oeog.  .louvn.  xxiv.  209)  adopts  the  Italian 
jiitmnrii.  Others  have  proposed  the  Indian  term 
nullah.  The  double  application  of  the  Hebrew 
nachal  is  evident  in  1  K.  xvii.  3,  where  Elijah  is 
commanded  to  hide  himself  in  (not  by)  the  nachal 
Cherith  and  the  brink  of  the  nachal. 

3.  Yeor  (~1"^S^),  a  word  of  Egyptian  origin 
(see  Gesen.  Tlies.  p.  558),  applied  to  the  Nile  only, 
and,  in  the  plural,  to  the  canals  by  which  the  Nile 
water  was  distributed  throughout  Egypt,  or  to 
streams  having  a  connection  with  that  country.  It 
is  the  word  employed  for  the  Nile  in  Genesis  and 
Zxodus,  and  is  rendered  by  our  translators  "  the 
river,"  except  in  the  following  passages,  Jer.  xlvi. 
7,  8;  Am.  viii.  8,  I.k.  5,  where  they  substitute  "a 
flood  "  —  much  to  the  detriment  of  the  prophet's 
metaphor.      [See  Nile,  vol.  iii.  p.  2140  6.] 

4.  Yubal  (  '5''"")5  from  a  root  signifying  tumult 
or  fullness,  occurs  only  six  times,  in  four  of  which 
it  is  rendered  "river,"  namely,  Jer.  xvii.  8;  Dan. 
viii.  2,  3,  6. 

5.  Ptleg  (U  v2),  from  an  uncertain  root,  prob- 
acy connected  with  the  idea  of  the  division  of 
the  land  for  irrigation,  is  translated  "river  "  in  Ps. 
i.  3,  Ixv.  9;  Is.  xxx.  25:  Job  xx.  17.  Elsewhere  it 
is  rendered  "stream'"  (Ps.  xlvi.  4),  and  in  Judg.  v. 
15,  16,  "divisions,"  where  the  allusion  is  probably 
to  the  artificial  streams  with  which  the  pastoral 
and  agricultural  country  of  Keuben  was  irrigated 
(Ewald,  Dichter,  i.  129 ;  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1103  b). 

6.  Aph'ik  (p"'2S).  This  appears  to  be  used 
without  any  clearly  distinctive  meaning.  It  is 
probably  from  a  root  signifyinc;  strength  or  force, 
and  may  signify  any  rush  or  body  of  water.  It  it 
translated  "river"  in  a  few  passages:  Cant.  v. 
12;  Ez.  vi.  3,  xxxi.  12,  xxxii.  6,  xxxiv.  13,  xxxv.  8, 
xxxvi.  4,  6 ;  Joel  i.  20,  iii.  18.  In  Ps.  cxxvi.  4 
the  allusion  is  to  temporary  streams  in  the  dry  re- 
gions of  the  "south."  '>  G 

RIVER  OF  EGYPT.  Two  Hebrew  terms 
are  thus  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 

1.  C  "'V^  "Tlj  :  woTO/ubj  AlyviTTou' Jluviui 
^gi/pti  (Gen.  xv.  18),  "  the  river  of  Egypt,"  that 
is,  the  Nile,  and  here  —  as  the  western  border  of 
the  Promised  Land,  of  which  the  eastern  border 
was  Euphrates  —  the  Pelusiac  or  easternmost 
branch. 


o  Jerome,  in  his  Qiaxstioties  in  Genesirr ,  xxvl.  19,  j  est,  nunquam    enim   in   valle  i»i-tnihtr  puteus  nqutt 
iltws  the  following  curious  distinction  between  a  val-  \  vU-ir.'^ 

ey  sni  atorrcat;  "  Et  hie  pro  valte  torrnu  irriflus        *  *  It  should  be  "  river '"  (TroTa/iosl  in  both  instaa 

I  ce6,  RfT  >^4i.  lo,  16,  and  not  "  aof4  "  (A.  Y.>-      H 


2736 


RIVER   OF   EGYPT 


2.  C^jiip  Vmj  :  x^i^dppovs  AtyvTVTov, 
pdpay^  AiyvTrrov,  irojafxhs  AtyvTrrou,  'Ph'okA 
oovpa,  pi-:  iorrens  Aif/ypli,  rims  ^rhJyij/jli  (Num. 
xxxiv.  5;  Josh.  xv.  4,  47;  1  K.  viii.  05 ;  2  K.  xxiv. 
7;  Is.  xxvii.  12,  in  the  last  passage  translated  '•  the 
stream  of  Egypt").  It  is  the  common  opinion 
tliat  this  second  term  designates  a  desert  stream 
iin  the  border  of  Egypt,  still  occasionally  flowing  in 
the  \  alley  called  IVcidi-l-Areesh.  'i'he  centre  of 
the  valley  is  occupied  by  the  bed  of  this  tcirrent, 
which  only  flows  after  rains,  as  is  usual  in  the  des- 
ert \alleys.  The  correctness  of  this  opinion  can 
only  be  decided  by  an  examination  of  the  passages 
in  which  the  term  occurs,  for  the  ancient  transla- 
tions do  not  aid  us.  When  they  were  made  there 
Qiust  iiave  been  great  uncertainty  on  the  sul  ject. 
[n  the  LXX.  the  term  is  translated  by  two  literal 
meanings,    or  perliaps    three,    but   it   is    doubtful 

whether  ^H^  can  be  rendered  "river,"  and  is  once 
represented  by  Khhiocolura  (or  Rhinocorura),  the 
name  of  a  town  on  the  coast,  near  the  \\'ri(/i- 
l-'Areesh,  to  which  the  modern  El-Areesh  has  suc- 
ceeded. 

This  stream  is  first  mentioned  as  the  point  where 
the  southern  border  of  the  Promised  Land  touclieil 
the  ISIediterranean,  which  foinned  its  western  bor- 
der (Num.  xxxiv.  3-0).  Next  it  is  spoken  of  as  in 
the  same  position  with  reference  to  the  prescribed 
borders  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  4),  and 
as  beyond  Gaza  and  its  territory,  the  westernn)ost 
of  the  Philistine  cities  (47).  In  the  later  history 
we  find  Solomon's  kingdom  extending  "  from  the 
entering  in  of  Hamath  unto  the  river  of  Egypt  " 
(1  K.  viii.  65),  and  Egypt  limited  in  the  same  man- 
ner wliere  the  loss  of  the  eastern  provinces  is  men- 
tioned :  "  And  the  king  of  Egypt  came  not  again 
any  more  out  of  his  land:  for  the  king  of  Babylon 
l)ad  taken  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  river 
Euphrates  all  that  pertained  to  the  king  of  l^g3'pt  " 
(2  K..  xxiv.  7).  In  Isaiah  it  seems  to  be  spoken  of 
as  forming  one  boundary  of  the  Israelite  territory, 
Euphrates  being  the  other,  "from  the  channel  of 
the  river  unto  the  stream  of  Egypt"  (xxvii.  12), 
appearing  to  correspond  to  the  limits  promised  to 
Abraham. 

In  certain  parallel  passages  the  Nile  is  di.stinctly 
specified  instead  of  "the  Nachal  of  Egypt."  In 
the  promise  to  Abraham,  the  Nile,  "  the  river  of 
Egyjjt,"  is  mentioned  with  Euphrates  as  bounding 
the  land  in  which  he  then  was,  and  which  was 
promised  to  his  posterity  (Gen.  xv.  18).  Still 
more  unmistakably  is  Shilior,  which  is  always  the 
Nile,  spoken  of  as  a  border  of  the  land,  in  .losliua's 
description  of  tlie  territory  yet  to  be  conquered : 
'  This  [is]  the  land  that  yet  remainetli :  all  the 
legions  of  the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri,  from 
the  Sihor,  which  [is]  liefore  Egypt,  even  unto  the 
borders  of  Ekron  northward,  [whicli]  is  counted 
to  the  Canaanite  "  (Josh.  xiii.  2,  3). 


a  Herodotus,  whose  account  is  rather  obscure,  say.s 
chat  from  Phoenicia  to  the  borders  of  the  city  Cadytis 
{probably  Gaza)  the  country  belonged  to  the  Pala;stine 
3_vriaus  ;  from  Cadytis  to  Jenysus  to  the  .'Vrabian  kiug  ; 
.hen  to  the  Syrians  again,  as  far  as  Lake  Serbonis,  near 
Mount  Casius.  At  Luke  Serbonis,  Egypt  began.  The 
eastern  extremity  of  Lake  Serbonis  is  somewhat  to  tlie 
westward  of  llhinocolura,  and  Mount  Casius  is  more 
than  halfway  from  the  latter  to  I'elusium.  Herodotus 
afterwards  states,  more  precisely,  that  from  .Jenysus  to 
"  Lake  Serbonis  and  .Mount  Casius  "  ivas  three  days' 
journey  through  a  desert  without  watf  r.     He  evidently 


RIVER   OF   EGYPT 

It  must  be  observed  that  the  distinctive  chanuy 
ter  of  the  name,  "  Nachal  of  Egypt,'"  as  has  been 
well  suggested  to  us,  almost  forbids  our  supposing 
an  insignificant  stream  to  be  intended,  although 
such  a  stream  might  be  of  importance  fi'om  posi- 
tion as  forming  the  boundary. 

If  we  infer  that  tlie  Nachal  of  Eeypt  is  the 
Nile,  we  have  to  consider  the  geographical  conse- 
quences, and  to  compare  the  name  with  known 
names  of  the  Nile.  Of  the  branches  of  the  Nile, 
the  easternmost,  or  Pelusiac,  would  necessarily  be 
the  one  intended.  On  looking  at  the  map  it  seems 
incredible  that  the  Philistine  territory  should  ever 
liave  extended  so  far;  the  Wudi-i-' Aree»h  is  dis- 
tant from  Gaza,  the  most  western  of  the  Philistine 
towns;  but  I'elusium,  at  the  mouth  and  most  east- 
ern part  of  the  Pelusiac  branch,  is  very  remote. 
It  must,  however,  be  remembered,  that  the  tract 
from  Gaza  to  Pelusium  is  a  desert  that  could  never 
have  been  cultivated,  or  indeed  inhabited  by  a  set- 
tled population,  and  was  probably  only  held  in  the 
period  tn  which  we  refer  by  marauding  Arab  tribes, 
which  may  well  have  been  tributary  to  the  Philis- 
tines, for  they  must  have  been  tributary  to  them  or  to 
the  I'.gyptians,  on  account  of  their  isolated  position 
and  tlie  sterility  of  the  country,  though  no  doubt 
maintaining  a  half-independence."  All  doulit  on 
this  point  seems  to  be  set  at  rest  by  a  passage,  in 
a  hierotclyphic  inscription  of  Setliee  I  ,  head  of  the 
XlXth  dynasty,  b.  c.  cir.  1340,  on  the  north  wall 
of  the  gveat  temple  of  El-Karnak,  which  mentions 
"  the  foreigners  of  the  SHASU  from  the  fort  of 
TARU  to  the  land  of  KANANA "  (SHASU 
SHA'A  EM  SHTEM  EN  TARU  ER  PA-KAN'- 
ANA,  Brugsch,  Geoi/7-.  Inschr.  i.  p.  2(jl,  No. 
12f>5,  pi.  xlvii.).  The  identification  of  "the  fort 
of  TARU"  with  any  place  mentioned  by  the 
Greek  and  Latin  geographers  has  not  yet  been  sat- 
isfactorily accomplished.  It  appears,  fi'om  the  bas- 
relief,  representing  the  return  of  Sethee  I.  to  Egypt 
from  an  eastern  expedition,  near  the  inscription 
just  mentioned,  to  ha\e  been  between  a  Leontop- 
olis  and  a  liraiich  of  the  Nile,  or  perhaps  canal,  on 
the  west  side  of  which  it  was  situate,  commanding 
a  bridge  {Ibid.  No.  12G6,  pi.  xlviii.).  The  Leontop- 
olis  is  either  the  capital  of  the  Leontopolite  Nome, 
or  a  town  in  the  Heliopolite  Nome  mentioned  by 
.losephus  [Ant.  xiii.  3,  §  1).  In  the  former  case 
the  stream  would  probably  be  the  Tanitic  branch, 
or  perhaps  the  Pelusiac;  in  the  latter,  perhaps  the 
Canal  of  the  Red  Sea.  We  prefer  the  first  Leon- 
topolis,  but  no  identification  is  necessary  to  prove 
that  the  SHASU  at  this  time  extended  from 
Canaan  to  the  east  of  the  Delta  (see  on  the  whole 
subject  Geogr.  Inschr.  i.  pp.  260-206,  iii.  i)p.  20,  21 ). 

Egypt,  therefore,  in  its  most  flourishing  period, 
evidently  extended  no  further  than  the  east  of  the 
Delta,  its  eastern  boundary  being  probably  the 
Pelusiac  branch,  the  territory  of  the  SHASU,  an 
Arab   nation   or  tribe,   lying  between  Egypt  and 


makes  Mount  Casius  mark  the  western  boundary  of  the 
Syrians;  for  although  the  position  of  Jenysus  is  uncer- 
tain, the  whole  distance  from  Gaza  (and  if  Cadytis  be  not 
Gaza,  we  cannot  extend  the  Arabian  territory  further  * 
east)  does  not  greatly  exceed  three  days'  journey  (iii. 
5.  See  Rawlinson's  edit.  398-400).  If  we  adopt  Capt. 
Spratt's  identificatioDS  of  Pelusium  and  Riount  Casing, 
we  must  place  them  much  neai-er  together,  and  the 
latter  far  to  the  west  of  the  usual  supposed  place  (Sm 
town).  But  in  this  case  Herodotus  would  intend  th« 
western  extremity  of  Lake  Serbonis,  which  seems  un 
likely. 


RIVER   OF   EGYPT 

.'^anaan.  It  might  lie  supposed  that  at  this  time 
Ihe  SHASU  had  made  an  iiiruad  into  ligypt,  but 
it  must  he  remembered  that  iu  the  latter  period  of 
the  kings  of  .ludah,  and  during  the  classical  period, 
Felusium  was  the  key  of  ivgyiit  on  this  side.  Tlie 
Philistines,  in  the  time  of  tlieir  greatest  power, 
which  appears  to  have  been  contemporary  with  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  may  well  be  supposed  to 
iiave  reduced  the  Arabs  of  this  neutral  territory  to 
the  condition  of  tributaries,  as  doubtless  was  also 
done  liy  the  Pharaohs. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  specification  of 
a  certain  boundary  does  not  necessarily  prove  that 
the  actual  lands  of  a  state  extended  so  far;  the 
limit  of  its  sway  is  sometimes  rather  to  be  under- 
stood. Solomon  ruled  as  tributaries  all  the  king- 
doms between  the  Euphrates  and  the  land  of  the 
Philistines  and  the  border  of  Egypt,  when  the 
Land  of  Promise  appears  to  have  lieen  fully  occu- 
pied (1  K.  iv.  21,  comp.  24).  When,  therefore, 
it  is  specified  that  the  Philistine  territory  as  far  as 
the  Nachal-Mizraim  remained  to  be  taken,  it  need 
scarcely  be  inferred  that  the  territory  to  be  inhab- 
ited by  the  Israelites  was  to  extend  so  far,  and  this 
Stream's  being  an  actual  iioundary  of  a  tribe  may 
be  explained  on  the  same  principle. 

If,  with  the  generality  of  critics,  we  think  that 
the  Nachal-Mizraim  is  the  Wddi-l-Areesh,  we 
njust  conclude  that  the  name  Shihor  is  also  applied 
to  the  hitter,  although  elsewhere  designating  the 
Nile,"  for  we  have  seen  that  Xachal-Mizraim  and 
Shihor  are  used  interchangealily  to  designate  a 
stream  on  the  border  of  the  Promised  Land.  This 
difficulty  seems  to  overthrow  the  common  opinion. 
It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  in  Joshua 
xiii.  .3,  Shihor  has  the  article,  as  though  actually 
or  originally  an  appellative,  the  former  seeming  to 
be  the  more  obvious  inference  from  the  context. 
[Shihoh  ok  Egypt;   Sihor.] 

The  word  Nachal  may  be  cited  on  either  side. 
Certainly  in  Hebrew  it  is  rather  used  for  a  torrent 
or  stream  than  for  a  river;  but  the  name  Naclial- 
Mizraim  may  come  from  a  lost  dialect,  and  the 

parallel  Arabic  word  wddee,  itf  i^  1  •  though  ordi- 
narily used  for  valleys  and  their  winter-torrents, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Wddi-l-' Arees/i  itself,  has 
been  employed  by  the  Arabs  in  Spain  for  true 
rivers,  the  Guadalquivir,  etc.  It  niay,  however,  be 
suggested,  that  in  Nachal-Mizraim  we  have  the 
ancient  form  of  the  Neet-.\/isr  of  the  Arabs,  and 
that  Nachal  was  adopted  from  its  similarity  of 
sound  to  the  original  of  NeiAos  It  may,  indeed, 
be  objected  that  Ne?Ao$  is  held  to  lie  of  Iranian 
origin.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  we  find  Javan, 
we  will  not  say  the  lonians.  called  by  the  very 
name,  HANEN,  used  in  the  Kosetta  Stone  for 
"Greek"  (SIIAEE  EN  HANEN,  TOI2  TE 
EAAHNIKOI2  rPAMMASIN),  in  the  li^ts  of 
eoimtries  and  nations,  or  tribes,  conquered  by,  or 


«  There  is  a  Shihor-libnath  in  the  no-th  of  Pales- 
line,  menticned  in  Joshua  (xix.  26),  and  supposed  to 
orrespot.d  to  the  Belus,  if  its  uame  signify  "  the  river 
of  glass."'  But  we  have  no  ground  for  giving  Shihor 
the  significatioa  "  river ;"' and  when  the  connection 
Bf  the  Egyptians,  and  doubtless  of  the  Phoenician  and 
>ther  colonists  of  northeastern  Egypt,  with  the  manu- 
bcture  of  glass  is  remembered,  it  seems  more  likely 
tbat  Shihor-hbuath  was  named  from  the  Nile. 

I"  We  agree  with  Lepsius  iu  this  identiecition  (  Ueber 


RizPAH  2787 

subject  to,  the  Pharaohs,  as  earlj'  as  the  reign  of 
Amenoph  III.,  b.  c.  cir.  1400.''  An  Iranian  ajid 
even  a  Greek  connection  with  Egypt  as  early  u 
the  time  of  the  Exodus,  is  therefore  not  to  be 
treated  as  an  impossibility.  It  is,  however,  re- 
markable, that  the  word  Ne?Aos  does  not  occur  in 
the  Homeric  poems,  as  though  it  were  not  of 
Sanskrit  origin,  but  derived  Irum  the  Ei;yptians  oi 
Phoenicians. 

Brugsch  compares  the  Egyptian  MUAW  EN 
KEM  "  Water  of  P^gypt,"'  mentioned  in  the  phrase 
"  From  the  water  of  Egypt  as  far  as  NEHEKEEN 
[.Me.sopotamia]  inclusive,"  but  there  is  no  internal 
evidence  in  favor  of  his  conjectural  identification 
with  the  stream  of  Wddi-l-  Aret&h  {Geog.  /nschr. 
i.  54,  55,  pi.  vii.  no.  303).  K.  S.  P. 

*  Dr.  J.  L.  Porter  {Handbook^  and  Art.  iii 
Kitto's  Cyclop,  of  BM.  Lit.)  proposes  to  solve  the 
difficulty  created  by  the  terms  Nidiar-'SVizY-MVii  and 
..V((('A"/-iIizraim  by  making  "  the  proper  distinc- 
tion lietween  the  country  given  in  covenant  promise 
to  Abraham,  and  that  actually  allotted  to  th« 
Israelites."  The  Nile  may  have  been  in  contem- 
plation in  the  original  promise,  and  the  terra 
jV((/(rtr-iSIizraim  may  have  been  "  the  designation 
of  the  Nile  in  Abraham's  time,  belbre  the  Egyp- 
tian word  year  became  known." 

j\  iclinl  is  connnonly  used  in  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures in  its  primary  meaning  of  a  "  torrent"  or  an 
intermittent  brook  —  as  Job  vi.  15,  the  brook  that 
dries  away.  Is.  xv.  7,  and  Amos.  vi.  14,  the  brook 
of  the  desert,  the  wady  lying  between  Kerek  and 
Gelial — and  it  is  highly  improbable  that  this 
term  would  have  been  chosen  to  designate  the  vast 
and  ceaseless  volume  of  the  Nile.  Robinson  {Pliys. 
Geog.  of  the  Holy  Land,  p.  12-J)  gives  his  mature 
opinion  in  favor  of  the  rendering  "  torrent  of 
Egypt,  which  of  old  was  the  boundary  between 
Palestine  and  Egypt.  At  the  present  day  it  is 
called  Wady  el- Ansli ;  and  comes  from  the  passes 
of  .] tbd  et-Tih  towards  Sinai,  draining  the  great 
central  longitudinal  basin  of  the  desert.  It  reaches 
the  sea  without  a  permanent  stream;  and  is  still 
the  boundary  between  the  two  countries.  Near  its 
mouth  is  a  small  village,  el-  Ariah,  on  the  site  of 
the  ancient  H/iinocolura,  as  is  shown  by  columns 
and  other  Roman  remains." 

Upon  the  whole  the  probabilities  are  in  favor  of 
this  identification,  and  the  weight  of  authority  ia 
upon  its  side.  J.  P.  T. 

*  RIVERS  OF  WATER.    [Foot,  Wateb- 

IMG  WITH    THE.] 

RIZ'PAH  (nS!^'-) :  'p^acpd;  [Alex,  in  2  Sam. 
xxi.  8,  Vecpcfiad;]  Joseph.  'Puicrcpd-  Jiefphn),  con- 
cubine to  king  Saul,  and  mother  of  his  two  sons 
Armoni  and  Mephibosheth.  Like  many  others  of 
the  prominent  female  characters  of  the  Old  I'esta- 
ment —  Ruth,  Rahab,  .lezebel,  etc.  —  Rizpah  would 
seem  to  have  been  a  foreigner,  a  Ilivite,  descended 
from  one  of  the  ancient  worthies  of  tliat  nation, 
Ajah  or  Aiah,<^  son  of  Zibeon,  whose  name  and 

i/er  Namen  der  lonier  aiif  den  Mg.  Denkmalern, 
Kijuigl.  Akad.  Berlin).  His  views  have,  however,  been 
combated  by  Bunsen  {Egt/pt's  Place,  iii.  603-606), 
Brugsch  ( Geogr.  Inschr.  ii.  19,  pi.  xiii.  no.  2),  and  D« 
Rougt;  ( Tombeau  d^A/imes,  p.  43). 

«  The  Syriac-Peshito  and  Arabic  Versions,  in  2  Sam 
iii.,  read  Ana  for  Aiah  —  the  name  of  another  ancien. 
Hivite,  the  brother  of  Ajah,  and  equally  the  son  of 
Zibeon.  But  it  is  not  fair  to  lay  much  stre.'s  on  this, 
as  it  may  be  only  the  eiror  —  easily  made  —  of  a  care- 


2738 


RIZPAH 


fame  are  preserved  in  the  Ishmaelite  record  of  Gen. 
sxxvi.  If  this  be  the  case,  Saul  was  conuiiencino; 
a  practice,  which  seems  with  subsequent  kings  to 
have  thrown  ahnost  into  a  rule,  of  choosing  non- 
Israelite  vonien  for  tlieir  inferior  wives.  David's 
intrigue  witii  Bathsheba,  or  Bath-shua,  the  wife  of 
a  Hittite,  and  possibly  herself  a  Canaanitess,"  is  per- 
haps not  a  case  in  point;  but  Solomon,  Kehoboam, 
and  their  succes.sors,  seem  to  have  had  their  harems 
filled  with  foreign  women. 

After  the  death  of  Saul  and  occupation  of  the 
Eountr}-  west  of  the  -lordan  by  the  Philistines, 
Rizpah  accompanied  the  other  inmates  of  the  royal 
family  to  their  new  residence  at  Mahanaim ;  and  it 
is  here  that  her  name  is  first  introduced  to  us  as 
the  subject  of  an  accusation  leveled  at  Abner  by 
Ishbosheth  (2  Sam.  iii.  7),  a  piece  of  spite  which 
led  first  to  Aimer's  death  through  Joab's  treachery, 
and  ultimately  to  the  murder  of  Ishbosheth  him- 
self. The  accusation,  whether  true  or  false  —  and 
from  Abner's  xehenient  denial  we  should  naturally 
conclude  that  it  was  false  —  involved  more  than 
meets  the  ear  of  a  modern  and  English  reader. 
For  amongst  the  Israelites  it  was  considered  "  as  a 
step  to  the  throne  to  have  counection  with  the 
widow  or  the  uiistress  of  the  deceased  king."  (See 
Micliaelis,  L'nrs  of  J/ose.s,  art.  54.)  It  therefore 
amounted  to  an  insinuation  that  Abner  was  about 
to  make  an  attempt  on  the  throne. 

^\'e  hear  nothing  more  of  Kizpah  till  the  tragic 
story  which  has  made  her  one  of  the  most  familiar 
oljects  to  young  and  old  in  the  whole  Bible  (2  Sam. 
xxi.  8-11).  Every  one  can  appreciate  the  love 
and  endurance  with  which  the  mother  watched  over 
the  bodies  of  her  two  sons  and  her  five  relatives,  to 
save  them  from  an  indignity  peculiarly  painful  to 
the  whole  of  the  ancient  world  (see  Ps.  Ixxix.  2; 
Hom.  II.  i.  4,  5,  &c.,  &c.).  But  it  is  questionable 
whether  the  ordinary  conception  of  the  scene  is 
accurate.  The  se\en  victims  were  not,  as  the  A. 
V.  implies,  "hung;"  they  were  crucified.  The 
seven  ci-osses  were  planted  in  the  rock  on  the  top 
of  tlie  sacred  hill  of  Gibeah;  the  hill  which,  though 
not  Saul's  native  piace.^  was  through  his  long  resi- 
dence there  so  identified  with  him  as  to  retain  his 
name  to  the  latest  existence  of  the  Jewish  nation 


less  transcriber;  or  of  one  so  familiar  with  the  an- 
cient names  as  to  have  confounded  one  with  the 
other. 

a  Comp.  Gen.  xxxviii.,  where  the  "daughter  of 
Shua,"  the  Canaanitess,  should  really  be  Bath-shua. 

b  Saul  was  probably  born  at  Zelah,  where  Kish's 
eepulchre,  and  therefore  his  home,  was  situated. 
[Zelah.] 

c  "T^nS,  2  Sam.  xxi.  6- 

d   JWT^,   has-Salc. 

f  1.     /T2  ;   apTrayrj,  apirdyiiaTa :  rapinee. 

2.  p  Jrr>  '""o™   P'2^>   "  *>reak :  "  aSiKi'a  :    dila- 
ceratic. 

3.  "7127,  from  Tltt?,  "  waste :  "  oAeSpos  :  rapinez. 

4.  ^7K7 :   wpovoix-q-  prceda:    "prey,"    "spoil." 

KOOTT.] 

(2.)  Robber:  — 

1.  TTIS,   part,  from   TT2,   "  rob  :  "   jrpoi'ojieucoi' : 
■a3lans. 

2.  V"^!?'  P***-  °^  V"D^>  "  *"**^  =  "  J^o'^ios  :  '«"■"  : 
rfV!.  H  13,'"break«p." 


ROBBERY 

(1  Sam.  xi.  4,  &c.,  and  see  Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  S,  J 
1).  The  whole  or  part  of  this  hiU  seems  at  the 
time  of  this  occun-ence  to  have  been  in  some  special 
manner  <^  dedicated  to  Jehovah,  possibly  the  spot 
on  which  Ahiah  the  priest  had  deposited  the  Ark 
when  he  took  refuge  in  Gibeah  during  the  I'hilis- 
tme  war  (1  Sam.  xiv.  18).  The  victims  were  sacri- 
ficed at  the  beginning  of  barley-harvest — the  sacred 
and  festal  time  of  the  Passover  —  and  in  the  full 
blaze  of  the  summer  sun  they  hung  till  the  fall  of 
the  periodical  rain  in  October.  During  the  whole 
of  that  time  Rizpah  remained  at  the  foot  of  the 
crosses  on  which  the  bodies  of  her  sons  were  ex- 
posed: the  Mater  duluros'i,  if  the  expression  may 
be  allowed,  of  the  ancient  dispensation.  She  had 
no  tent  to  shelter  her  from  the  scorching  sun  which 
beats  on  that  oi)en  spot  all  day,  or  from  the  drench- 
ing dews  at  night,  but  she  spread  on  the  rockj 
fioor  the  thick  mourning  garment  of  black  sack- 
cloth <='^which  as  a  widow  she  wore,  and  crouching 
there  she  watched  that  neither  vulture  nor  jackal 
should  molest  the  bodies.  AVe  may  surely  be  justi- 
fied in  applying  to  liizpah  the  words  with  which 
another  act  of  womanly  kindness  was  commended, 
and  may  say,  that  "wheresoever  the  Bilile  shall  go, 
there  shall  also  this,  that  this  woman  hath  done,  be 
told  for  a  memoi'ial  of  her."  G. 

ROAD.  This  word  occurs  but  once  in  the 
Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible,  namely,  in  1 
Sam.  xxvii.  10,  where  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of 

"raid"  or  "inroad."  the  Hebrew  word  (t^K.'2) 
being  elsewhere  (e.  </.  ver.  8,  xxiii.  27,  xxx.  1,  14, 
&c.)  rendered  "invade"  and  "invasion." 

A  ro.ad  in  the  sense  which  we  now  attach  to 
the  term  is  expressed  in  the  A.  V.  by  "  way  "  and 
"path."      [Way]  G. 

*  ROBBERS.  [Churches,  Robbers  of; 
Thieves.] 

ROBBERY. «  Whether  in  the  larger  sense 
of  plunder,  or  the  more  limited  sense  of  theft,  sys- 
tematically organized,  robbery  has  ever  been  one  of 
the  principal  employments  of  tlie  nomad  tribes  of 
the  East.  From  tlie  time  of  Ishmael  to  the  present 
day,  the  Bedouin  has  been  a  "  wild  man,"  and  a 
robber  by  trade,  and  to  carry  out  his  objects  suc- 


3.  C'^Ii  £*,  Job  xviii.  9  :  Sii/^oi/tc!  :  sitis.  Targum, 
with  A.  v.,  has  "  robbers ;  "  but  it  is  most  commonlj 
rendered  as  LXX..  Job  v  5,  sitientes. 

4.  "Tliy  :   ATjo-njs:  lalro:  from   TTttJ,  "waste." 

5.  nptL''  :  ixepo:;:  deripiens:  A.  V.  "spoiler." 

6.  i32  :   (cAeV-njs:  fur:  A.  V.  "thief." 
(3.)  Rob  :  — 

1.  TT2  :   ii.apiTdi<a :  depopulor. 

2.  V*3  :  a0ai.pe'u) :   violenter  aiifero. 

3.  ^•1y ,  "  return,"  "  repeat ; "  hence  in  Pi<  sur- 
round, circumvent  (Ps.  cxix.  61) :  jrcpiTrAaK^i'ai :  cir 
cumplecti ;  usually  affirm,  reiterate  assertions  (Qea.  p 
937). 

4.  \^2p,  "  cover,"  "  hide :  "  impvi^ta :  affigo  (Qe» 
p.  1190).'  ^ 

5.  nDC?  :   hia-pna^ui :   diripio. 

6.  DDtt'  (same  as  last) :  irpovofievto  :  AeptautM- 

7.  232  :   (cAenriu  :  furor  .  A.  V.   '  steal." 


ROBBERY 

Kwfiilly.  SO  far  from  being  esteemed  disgraceful,  is 
regarded  as  in  tlae  highest  degree  creditable  (Gen. 
ivi  12;  liurckiiardt,  Notes  on  Btd.  1.  137,  157). 
An  instance  of  an  enterprise  of  a  truly  Bedouin 
jharacter,  but  distinguished  by  the  exceptional 
features  belonging  to  its  principal  actor,  is  seen  in 
the  night-foray  of  David  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  G-12),  with 
which  also  we  may  fairly  compare  Hom.  II.  VL. 
204,  &c.  Predatory  inroads  on  a  large  scale  are 
seen  in  the  incursions  of  the  Sabaeans  and  Cbal- 
daeans  on  the  property  of  .Job  {-lob  i.  15,  17);  the 
revenge  coupled  with  plunder  of  Simeon  and  Levi 
((ien.  xxxiv.  28,  29);  the  reprisals  of  the  Hebrews 
upon  the  Midianites  (Num.  xxxi.  32-5-t),  and  the 
frequent  and  often  prolonged  invasions  of  "spoil- 
ers "  upon  the  Israelites,  together  with  their  re- 
prisals, during  the  period  of  tlie  Judges  and  ivings 
(.ludg.  ii.  14,  vi.  3,  4;  1  Sam.  xi.,  xv. ;  2  Sam. 
viii.,  X.;  2  K.  v.  2;  1  Cbr.  v.  10,  18-22).  Indi- 
vidual instances,  indicating  aii  unsettled  s^vte  of 
the  country  during  the  same  period,  are  seen  in 
the  "  liers-in-wait "  of  the  men  of  Shechem  (-ludg. 
ix.  25),  and  the  mountain  retreats  of  David  in  the 
cave  of  Adullam,  the  hill  of  Machilah,  and  the 
wilderness  of  Maon,  and  liis  abode  in  Ziklag,  in- 
vaded and  plundered  in  like  manner  l)y  the  Anialek- 
ites  (1  Sam.  xxii.  1,  2,  xxiii.  10-25,  xxvi.  1,  xxvii. 
ti-lO,  XXX.  1). 

Similar  disorder  in  the  country,  complained  of 
more  than  once  by  the  prophets  (Hos.  iv.  2,  vi.  9; 
Mic.  ii.  8),  continued  more  or  less  through  Mac- 
caba;an  down  to  Roman  times,  favored  by  the  cor- 
rupt administration  of  some  of  the  Kouian  gover- 
nors, in  accepting  money  in  redemption  of  punish- 
ment, produced  those  formidable  bands  of  robbers, 
so  easily  collected  and  with  so  much  dithculty  sub- 
dued, who  found  shelter  in  the  caves  of  Palestine 
and  Syria,  and  who  infested  the  country  even  in 
the  time  of  our  Lord,  almost  to  the  very  gates  of 
Jerusalem  (Luke  x.  30;  Acts  v.  36,  37,  xxi.  38). 
[.)uu.\s  i)K  Galilee;  Caves.]  In  the  later  his- 
tory also  of  the  country  the  robbers,  or  sicarii,  to- 
gether with  their  leader,  John  of  Gischala,  played 
a  conspicuous  part  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  2,  §  1;  3,  §  4; 

"'  §  ■^^• 

The  Mosaic  law  on  the  subject  of  theft  is  con- 
tained in  Ex.  xxii.,  and  consists  of  the  following 
enactments :  — 

1.  He  who  stole  and  killed  an  ox  or  a  sheep,  was 
to  restore  five  oxen  for  the  ox,  and  four  sheep  for 
the  sheep. 

2.  If  the  stolen  animal  was  found  alive  the 
ihief  was  to  restore  double. 

3.  If  a  man  was  found  stealing  in  a  dwelling- 
house  at  night,  and  was  killed  in  the  act,  the  homi- 
cide was  not  held  guilty  of  murder. 

4.  If  the  act  was  committed  during  daylight,  the 
thief  might  not  be  killed,  but  was  bound  to  make 
full  restitution  or  be  sold  into  slavery. 

5.  If  money  or  goods  deposited  in  a  man's  house 
vere  stolen  therefrom,  the  thief,  when  detected,  was 
o  pay  double:  but 

6.  If  the  thief  could  not  be  found,  the  master  of 
the  house  was  to  be  examined  before  the  judges. 

7.  If  an  animal  given  in  charge  to  a  man  to 
keep  were  stolen  from  him,  i.  e.  through  his  negli- 
gence, he  was  to  make  restitution  to  the  owner. 
[Oath.] 

There  seems  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  law 
underwent  any  alteration  in  Solomon's  time,  as 
Michaelis  supposes;  the  expression  in  Prov.  vi.  30, 
M,  is,  that  a  thief  detected  in  stealing  should  restore 


ROGELIM  2739 

sevenfold,  i.  e.  to  the  full  amount,  and  for  this  pur- 
pose, even  give  all  the  substance  of  his  house,  and 
thus  in  case  of  failure  l)e  liable  to  servitude  (Mi- 
chaelis.  Laws  of  Musts,  §  284).  On  the  other  hand, 
see  Bertheau  on  Prov.  vi.;  and  Keil,  Arcli.  Ihbr 
§  154.  Man-stealing  was  punishable  with  death 
(Ex.  xxi.  16;  Deut.  xxiv.  7).  Invasion  of  right 
in  land  was  strictly  forbidden  (Deut.  xxvii.  17 ;  Is. 
V.  8;  Mic.  ii.  2). 

The  question  of  sacrilege  does  not  properly  come 
within  the  scope  of  the  present  article.    H.  W.  P. 

*  ROBE.     [Mantle.] 

ROB'OAM  ('Poj3oa;u:  Roboam),  Ecclus.  xlvii. 
23;  Matt.  i.  7.      [Rehoboam.] 

ROE,  ROEBUCK  C'l??,  izobi  (m. ) ;  n^*?f , 
Izebiyydh  (f.):  SopKds,S6pKaiv,  SopKaSLoV-  caprea, 
diimula).  There  seems  to  be  little  or  no  doubt 
that  the  Hebrew  word,  which  occurs  frequently  iu 
the  O.  T.,  denotes  some  species  of  antelope,  prob- 
ably the  Gaztlln  durcds,  a  native  of  Egypt  and 
North  Africa,  or  the  G.  Arabica  of  Syria  and 
Arabia,  which  appears  to  be  a  variety  only  of  the 
dorcds.  The  gazelle  was  allowed  as  food  (Deut. 
xii.  15,  22,  etc.);  it  is  mentioned  as  very  fleet  of 
foot  (2  Sam.  ii.  18;  1  Chr.  xii.  8);  it  was  hunted 
(Is.  xiii.  14;  Prov.  vi.  5);  it  was  celebrated  for  its 
loveliness  (t'ant.  ii.  9,  17,  viii.  14).  The  gazelle 
is  found  in  Eirypt,  Barbary,  and  Syria.  vStanley, 
(S.  (f-  P.  p.  207)  says  that  the  signification  of  the 
word  Ajalon,  the  valley  "of  stags,"  is  still  justified 
liy  "  the  gazelles  which  the  peasants  hunt  on  its 
mcjuntain  slopes."  Thomson  (The  Land  and  the 
Book,  p.  172)  says  that  the  mountains  of  Naphtali 
•'  abound  in  gazelles  to  this  day." 


Gazella  Arabica. 

The  ariel  gazelle  {G.  Arabica),  which,  if  not  a 
different  species,  is  at  least  a  well-marked  variety 
of  the  dorcas,  is  common  in  Syria,  and  is  hunted 
by  the  Arabs  with  a  falcon  and  a  greyhound ;  the 
repeated  attacks  of  the  l)ird  upon  the  head  of  the 
animal  so  bewilder  it  that  it  tails  an  easy  prey  to 
the  greyhound,  which  is  trained  to  watch  the  flight 
of  the  falcon.  Many  of  these  antelopes  are  also 
taken  in  pitfalls  into  which  they  are  driven  by  the 
shouts  of  the  hunters.  The  large,  full,  soft  eye  of 
the  gazelle  has  long  been  the  theme  of  oriental 
praises.  W.  H. 

ROG'ELIM  (D"'b2""l  [fuller's  place,  Ges.] . 
[Rom.  "PoyiWipL-,  Vat.]  PcoyeAXei/i,  and  so  Alex., 
though  once  PcoyeAei/u:  Roijeliin).  The  residenc« 
of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite  (2  Sam.  xvii.  27,  xix.  31) 
in  the  highlands  east  of  the  Jordan.     It  is  men- 


2740 


ROHGAH 


lioiied  on  this  occasion  only.  Notliing  is  said  to 
^uide  us  to  its  situation,  and  no  name  at  all  resem- 
bling it  appears  to  have  been  hitherto  discovered  on 
tlie  spot. 

if  interpreted  as  Hebrew  tlie  name  is  derivable 
from  rt(jtl,  the  foot,  and  signifies  the  "  fullers  "  or 
''washers,"  who  were  in  the  habit  (as  they  still 
are  in  the  East)  of  using  their  feet  to  tread  the 
cloth  which  they  are  cleansing.  But  this  is  ex- 
tremely uncertain.  The  same  word  occurs  in  the 
name  Ex-eogel.  <jr. 

ROH'GAH  (narjin,  CetMb,  narjn,  Kerl 
\outcrieiC\:  "Pooya;  Ales..  Ovpaoya- Hoaga).  An 
Asherite,  of  the  sons  of  Shamer  (1  Chr.  vii.  34). 

RO'IMUS  {'Po'ifjios)-  Ekhum  1  (1  Esdr.  v.  8). 
The  name  is  not  traceable  in  the  Vulgate. 

ROLL  (n-  yO:  Ke<pa\is)-  A  book  in  ancient 
times  consisted  of  a  single  long  strip  of  paper  or 
paj-chment,  which  was  usually  kept  rolled  up  on  a 
stick,  and  was  unrolled  when  a  person  wished  to 
read  it.  Hence  arose  the  term  megillah,  from 
</(j/'i'/,«  •' to  roll,"  strictly  answering  to  the  Latin 
vulumcn,  whence  conies  our  volume ;  hence  also  the 
expressions,  "to  spread  "  and  "roll  together,"*  in- 
stead of  "to  open"  and  "to  shut"  a  book.  The 
full  expression  for  a  book  was  "a  roll  of  writing," 
or  "a  roll  of  a  book"  {.Jer.  xxxvi.  2;  Ps.  xl.  7; 
lie.  ii.  'J),  but  occasionally  "roll"  .stands  by  itself 
(Zech.  V.  1,  2;  Ezr.  vi.  2).  The  Ke(pa\is  of  the 
LXX.  originally  referred  to  the  ornamental  knob 
(the  umlAltcMs  of  the  Latins)  at  the  top  of  the  stick 
or  cylinder  round  which  the  roll  was  wound.  The 
use  of  the  term  meyiWih  implies,  of  course,  the  ex- 
istence of  a  soft  and  pliant  material:  what  this  ma- 
terial was  in  the  Old  Testament  period,  we  are  not 
informed;  but  as  a  knife  w'as  required  for  its  de- 
struction (Jer.  xxxvi.  2-3),  we  infer  that  it  was 
parchment.  The  roll  was  usually  written  on  one 
side  only  (JMishn.  Krub.  10,  §  3),  and  hence  the 
particular  notice  of  one  that  was  "  written  within 
and  without"  (Ez.  ii.  10).  The  writing  was  ar- 
ranged in  columns,  resembling  a  door  in  shape, 
and  hence  deriving  their  Hebrew  name,''  just  as 
"column,"  from  its  resemblance  to  a  co/M/H/iff  or 
pillar.  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  term  meyilMi 
does  not  occur  before  the  7th  cent.  H.  C,  being 
first  used  l»y  .Jeremiah  (Hitzig,  in.  Jtr.  xxxvi.  2); 
and  the  conclusion  has  been  drawn  that  the  use  of 
such  materials  as  parchment  was  not  known  until 
that  period  (Ewald,  (Jescli.  i.  71,  note ;  Gesen. 
T/i(S.  p.  28U).  This  is  to  assume,  perhaps  too  con- 
fidently, a  late  date  for  the  composition  of  Ps.  xl., 
and  to  ignore  the  collateral  evidence  arising  out  of 
the  expression  "roll  together"  used  by  Is.  xxxiv. 
4,  and  also  out  of  the  prol)able  reference  to  the 
Pentateuch  in  Ps.  xl.  7,  "the  roll  of  the  book,"  a 
copy  of  which  was  deposited  by  the  side  of  the 
Ark  (Dent.  xxxi.  26).  We  may  here  add  that  the 
term  in  Is.  viii.  1,  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "roll," 
more  correctly  means  tablet.  W.  L.  B. 

*  "  Flying  roll  "  (Zech.  v.  1,  2)  means  a  book  or 
parchment  rolled  up,  represented  in  the  prophet's 
vision  as  seen  borne  through  the  air.  It  was  an 
expressive  symbol  of  Jehovah's  judgments  written 


abba. 

-  T 

b  In  the  Hebrew,  W"^.^  (2  K.  xix.  14)  and  b^; 

-  T  -  T 

Ja.  xzzir.  4) :  iu  the  Greek,  a.i>a7TTvcr<reiV  and  Trvuaireiv 
/Lnkeiv  17,20). 


ROMAN   EMPIRE 

out  as  it  were,  and  decreed,  which  at  \\u  nldding 
would  descend  and  sweep  away  the  ungodly.  Se« 
Keil,  Die  Kldnen  Fropheten,  p.  560  f.  (1866 ).    H 

*  ROLLER  (b^nn,  from  a  verb  =  "  to 
An!McZ  ")  =  bandage,  so  called  from  its  form  as  a 
roll,  Ezek.  xxx.  21.  The  prophet  declares  that  the 
aim  of  Pharaoh  should  be  broken  and  no  art  or 
appliance  of  surgery  could  enable  it  to  wield  again 
the  sword  of  the  oppressor.  H. 

ROMAM'TI-E'ZER     (IT.?     ''n7?)21-| : 

'Pcofj-iTdt-e^ep;  [V'at.  P(i)^€i,  Po/xeAxeitoeO  ^lex. 
Pccij.€/x6i-i^fp  in  1  Chr.  xxv.  4,  but  PwfjLfd-fxte^ef 
iu  1  Chr.  xxv.  31 .  Eomemthiczer).  One  of  the 
fourteen  sons  of  Heman,  and  chief  of  the  24th 
division  of  the  singers  in  the  reign  of  David  (1 
Chr.  xxv.  4,  31).      [Hothir,  Anier.  ed.] 

*  RO'MAN,  RO'MANS  ('PwiJ.aws:  Roma- 
nus),  I  Mace.  viii.  1,  2-3-29,  xii.  10,  xiv.  40,  xv.  16; 
2  Maec.  viii.  10,  36,  xi.  34;  John  xi.  48;  Acts  xvi. 
21,  37,  38,  xxii.  25-29,  xxiii.  27,  xxv.  16,  xjcviii.  17. 
[KojiAjj   Ejipike,  Rome.]  A. 

*  ROMAN  CITIZENSHIP.  [Citizen- 
ship.] 

ROMAN  EMPIRE.  The  history  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire,  properly  so  called,  extends  over  a  pe- 
riod of  rather  more  than  five  hundred  years,  namely, 
from  the  battle  of  Actiuni,  b.  c.  31,  when  Augustus 
became  sole  ruler  of  the  Roman  world,  to  the  abdi- 
cation of  Augustulus,  A.  D.  476.  The  Empire,  how- 
ever, in  the  sense  of  the  dominion  of  Rome  over  a 
large  number  of  conquered  nations,  was  in  full 
force  and  had  reached  wide  limits  some  time  be- 
fore the  monarchy  of  Augustus  was  established. 
The  notices  of  Roman  history  which  occur  in  the 
Bible  are  confined  to  the  last  centurj' and  a  half  of 
the  commonwealth  and  the  first  century  of  the  im- 
perial monarchy. 

The  first  historic  mention  of  Rome  in  the  Bible 
is  in  1  ISIacc.  i.  10.  Though  the  date  of  the  founda- 
tion of  Rome  coincides  nearly  with  the  beginning 
of  the  reign  of  Pekah  in  Israel,  it  was  not  till  the 
beginning  of  the  2d  century  b.  c.  that  the  Romans 
had  leisure  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  the  East. 
When,  however,  the  power  of  Carthage  had  been 
effectually  broken  at  Zania,  b.  c.  202,  Roman  arms 
and  intrigues  soon  made  themselves  felt  through- 
out Macedonia,  Greece,  and  Asia  Minor.  About 
the  year  161  b.  c.  Judas  Maccabaeus  heard  of  the 
Romans  as  the  conquerors  of  Philip,  Perseus,  and 
Antiochus  (1  iMacc.  viii.  5,  6).  "  It  was  told  him 
also  how  they  destroyed  and  brought  under  their 
dominion  all  other  kingdoms  and  isles  that  at  any 
time  resisted  them,  but  with  their  friends  and 
such  as  relied  upon  them  they  kept  amity  "  (viii. 
11,  12).  In  order  to  strengthen  himself  against 
Demetrius  king  of  Syria  he  sent  ambassadors  to 
Rome  (viii.  17),  and  concluded  a  defensive  alliance 
with  the  senate  (viii.  22-32).  This  was  renewed  by 
Jonathan  (xii.  1)  and  by  Simon  (xv.  17;  .loseph. 
Ant.  xii.  10,  §  0,  xiii.  5,  §  8;  7,  §  3).  Notices  of 
the  embassy  sent  by  Judas,  of  a  tribute  paid  to 
Rome  by  the  Syrian  king,  and  of  further  inter- 
course between  the  Romans  and  the  Jews,  occur 
in  2  Mace.  iv.  11,  viii.  10,  36,  xi.  34.     In   the 


c  rTin    "^  (A.  V.  "leaves,"  Jer.  xx.xvi.  23).     Hit. 
T  : 
zig  maintains   that  the    word    means  "  leaves,"   and 
that  the  megiltaii  in  this  case  vftsa  book  like  our  own 
cousistiig  of  numerous  pages. 


ROMAN    EMPIRE 

xiurse  of  the  narrative  mention  is  n.ade  of  the 
Roman  senate  {rh  ^ou\fvTr\piov,  1  Mace.  xii.  3), 
3i  the  consul  Lucius  (<)  uTraros,  1  Mace.  xv.  15, 
16).  and  the  Roman  constitution  is  described  in  a 
ioniewbat  distorted  form  (1  Mace.  viii.  14-16). 

The  history  of  the  Maccabaean  and  Idurasean 
dynasties  forms  no  part  of  onr  present  subject. 
[.M.\  CCA  bees;  Hki;«)1>.J  Here  a  brief  summitry 
af  the  progress  of  Koman  dominion  in  .Judaia  will 
suffice. 

In  the  year  G5  b.  c,  when  Syria  was  rjiade  a 
lioman  province  by  Poujpey,  the  .lews  were  still 
governed  by  one  of  the  .-Vsmoniean  princes.  Aristo- 
bulus  iiad  lately  driven  his  brother  liyrcanus  from 
the  ciiief  priesthood,  and  was  now  in  his  turn  at- 
tacked by  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia  Petraja,  the  ally 
of  Hyrcanus.  Pompey's  lieutenant,  M.  .lEmilius 
Scaurus,  interfered  in  the  contest  b.  c.  G-l,  and  the 
next  year  Pompey  himself  marched  an  army  into 
Judtea  and  took  Jerusalem  (Joseph.  Aid.  xiv.  2, 
3,  4;  B.  ./.  i.  0,  7).  From  tliis  time  the  Jews 
were  practically  under  the  government  of  Rome. 
Hyrcanus  retained  the  high-priesthood  and  a  titu- 
lar sovereignty,  subject  to  the  watchful  control  of 
his  minister  Antipater,  an  active  partisan  of  the 
Roman  interests.  Finally,  Antipater's  son,  Herod 
the  Great,  was  made  king  by  Antony's  interest, 
B.  C.  40,  and  confirmed  in  the  kingdom  by  Augus- 
tus, B.  c.  30  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  14,  xv.  6).  The 
Jews,  however,  were  all  this  time  tributaries  of 
Rome,  and  their  princes  in  reality  were  mere  Ro- 
uian  procurators.  Julius  Casar  is  said  to  have  ex- 
Bcted  from  them  a  fourth  ]iart  of  their  agricul- 
tural produce  in  addition  to  the  tithe  paid  to 
Hyrcanus  (Ant.  xiv.  10,  §  6).  Roman  soldiers 
wei-e  quartered  at  Jerusalem  in  Herod's  time  to 
su])i)ort  him  in  his  authority  {Ant.  xv.  3,  §  7). 
'I'ribute  was  paid  to  Rome,  and  an  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  emperor  as  well  as  to  Herod  appears  to 
have  been  taken  by  the  people  {Ant.  xvii.  2,  §  2). 
On  the  banishment  of  Archelaus,  a.  d.  6,  Judoea 
became  a  mere  appendage  of  the  province  of 
Syria,  and  was  governed  by  a  Roman  procurator, 
who  resided  at  Csesarea.  Galilee  and  the  adjoining 
districts  were  still  left  under  the  government  of 
Herod's  sons  and  other  petty  princes,  whose  do- 
minions and  titles  were  changed  from  time  to 
time  by  successive  emperors:  for  details  see  Herod. 

Such  were  the  rehitions  of  the  Jewish  people  to 
the  Roman  government  at  the  time  when  the  X.  T. 
history  begins.  An  ingenious  illustration  of  this 
state  of  things  has  i)een  drawn  from  the  condition 
of  Mritish  India.  The  Go\ernor  General  at  Cal- 
cutta, the  subordinate  governors  at  Madras  and 
Bombay,  and  the  native  princes,  whose  dominions 
iiave  lieen  at  one  time  enlarged,  at  another  incorpo- 
rated with  the  British  presidencies,  find  their  re- 
spective counterparts  in  the  governor  of  Syria  at 
Aiitioch,  the  procurators  of  Judiea  at  Cassarea,  and 
the  members  of  Herod's  family,  whose  dominions 
were  altertiately  enlarged  and  su]i]iressed  by  the 
Uoman  emperors  (Conybeare  and  I'lowson,  Lift  nf 
yt.  Paul,  i.  27).  These  and  other  characteristics  of 
'oman  rule  come  before  us  constantly  in  the  N.  T. 
Thus  we  hear  of  (_'a;sar  the  sole  king  (.lohn  xix.  l.i) 
—  of  (Jyrenins,  "governor  of  Syria"  (Lid^e  ii.  2) 
-of  Pontius  Pilate,  Felix,  and  Festus,  the  "  gov- 
irnors,''  i.  e.  jirocunators,  of  Judfea  —  of  the  "te- 
rarchs  "  Herod,  Philip,  and  Lysanias  (Luke  iii. 
I)  —  of  "king  Agrippa"  (.Vets  xrv.  13)  —  of  Ro- 
man soldiers,  lesjions,  centurions,  publicans  —  of  the 
Iribute-money    (Matt.    xxii.   1!))— the    taxing    of 


ROMAN   EMPIRE 


2741 


"  the  whole  world  "  (Luke  ii.  1)  —  Italian  and  Au- 
gustan cohorts  (.A.cts  x.  1,  xxvii.  1)  —  the  .appeal 
to  Cwsar  (.\cts  xxv.  11).  Three  of  the  Roman  em- 
perors are  mentioned  in  the  N.  T.  —  Augustus 
(Luke  ii.  1),  Tiberius  (Luke  iii.  1),  and  Claudius 
(Acts  xi.  28,  xviii.  2).  Nero  is  alltiJed  to  under 
various  titles,  as  Augustus  (2ey3u(rT<$j)  -^ud  Ca?sar 
(Acts  xxv.  10,  11.  21,  2.5:  Phil,  iv  22),  as  b  kv- 
pio?,  "my  lord''  (.A.cts  xxv.  20),  and  apparently 
in  other  passages  (1  Pet.  ii.  17;  Rom.  xiii.  1). 
Several  notices  of  the  provincial  administration  of 
tile  Romans  and  the  condition  of  provincial  cities 
occur  in  the  narrative  of  St.  Paul's  journeys  (Acts 
xiii.  7,  .xvi.  12.  .3.5,  38,  xviii.  12,  xix.  38). 

In  illustration  of  the  sacred  narrative  it  may  be 
well  to  give  a  general  account,  though  necessarily 
a  short  and  imperfect  one,  of  the  position  of  the 
emperor,  the  extent  of  the  empire,  and  the  admiu 
istration  of  the  provinces  in  the  time  of  our  Lord 
and  his  Apostles.  Fuller  information  will  be  found 
under  special  articles. 

I.  \\'^hen  Augustus  became  sole  ruler  of  the  Ra- 
man world  he  was  in  theory  simply  the  first  citizen 
of  the  republic,  entrusted  with  temporary  powers 
to  settle  the  disorders  of  the  State.  Tacitus  says 
that  he  was  neither  king  nor  dictator,  but  "prince" 
(Tac.  Anil.  i.  9),  a  title  implying  no  civil  authority, 
but  simply  the  position  of  chief  member  of  the  sen- 
ate (princeps  senatus).  The  old  magistracies  were 
retained,  but  the  various  powers  and  prerogatives 
of  each  were  conferred  upon  Augustus,  so  that  while 
others  commoidy  bore  tlie  chief  official  titles,  Au- 
gustus had  the  supreme  control  of  e\ery  department 
of  the  state.  Above  all  he  was  the  Emperor  (Im- 
perator).  This  word,  used  originally  to  designate 
any  one  entrusted  with  the  imperium,  or  full  mili- 
tary authority  o\er  a  Roman  army,  acquired  a  new 
significance  when  adopted  as  a  permanent  title  by 
Julius  Civsar.  By  his  use  of  it  as  a  constant  pre- 
fix to  his  name  in  the  city  and  in  the  camp  he 
openly  asserted  a  jwramount  military  authority  over 
the  state.  Augustus,  by  resuming  it,  plainly  indi- 
cated, in  spite  of  much  artful  concealment,  the  real 
basis  on  wliich  his  power  rested,  namely,  the  sup  ■ 
port  of  the  army  (.^lerivale,  Roman  Empire,  vol. 
iii.).  In  the  N.  T.  the  emperor  is  commonly  des- 
ignated by  the  family  name  "  C*sar,"  or  the  dig- 
nified and  almost  sacred  title  "  Augustus  "  (for  its 
meaning,  comp.  Ovid,  Fnsli,  i.  009).  Tiberius  is 
called  by  implication  riyifxdv  in  Luke  iii.  1,  a  title 
applied  in  the  N.  T.  to  Cyrenius,  Pilate,  and 
others.  Notwithstanding  the  despotic  character  of 
the  government,  the  Romans  seem  to  have  shrunk 
from  speaking  of  their  ruler  under  his  military  title 
(see  Merivale,  Rom.  Emjnre,  iii.  452,  and  nott)  or 
any  other  avowedly  despotic  appellatioii.  The  use 
of  the  word  o  Kvpws,  doinimts,  "  my  lord,"  in  Actg 
xxv.  26,  marks  the  progress  of  Roman  servility  be- 
tween the  time  of  Augustus  and  Nero.  Augustus 
and  Tiberius  refused  this  title.  Caligtda  first  bore 
it  (see  Alford's  note  in  I.  c. ;  Ovid,  Fast.  ii.  142). 
The  term  ffaffiAevs,  "  king,"  in  Joh-n  xix.  15,  1 
Pet.  ii.  17,  cannot  be  closely  pressed. 

The  Empire  was  nominally  elective  (Tac.  An7t. 
xiii.  4);  but  practically  it  passed  by  adoption  (see 
(Jalba's  speech  in  Tac.  Hist.  i.  15).  and  till  Nero's 
time  a  sort  of  hereditary  right  seemed  to  be  recog- 
nized. The  dangers  inherent  in  a  military  govern- 
ment were,  on  the  whole,  successfully  averted  till 
the  death  of  Pertinax,  a.  d  193  ((iibbon,  ch.  iii. 
p.  80:  but  oiitljreaks  of  military  violence  were  nol 
wanting  in  this  earlier  period  (comp.  Weuck's  not* 


2742 


ROMAN   EMPIRE 


Dn  (Jilibon,  I.  c).  The  army  was  sjstematically 
bribed  by  doiiati\es  at  the  commencement  of  each 
reifrn,  and  the  njob  of  the  capital  continually  fed 
and  amused  at  the  expense  of  the  provinces.  \V^e 
ire  reminded  of  the  insolence  and  avarice  of  the 
soldiers  in  Luke  iii.  14.  The  reigns  of  Caligula, 
Nero,  and  Domitian  show  that  an  emperor  might 
shed  the  noblest  blood  with  impunity,  so  Ion;;  as 
he  alistained  from  offending  the  soldiery  and  the 
populace. 

n.  Extent  of  the  Empire.  —  Cicero's  description 
of  the  Greek  states  and  colonies  as  a  "fringe  on  the 
skirts  of  barbarism  "  (Cio.  De  Rep.  ii  4)  has  been 
well  applied  to  the  Roman  dominions  before  the 
conquests  of  Pompey  and  Csesar  (Merivale,  Rum. 
l-.inpire,  iv.  409).  The  Roman  Empire  was  still 
Confined  to  a  narrow  strip  encircling  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea.  Ponipey  added  Asia  Minor  and  Syria. 
C;esar  added  Gaul.  The  generals  of  Augustus  over- 
ran the  X.  W.  portion  of  Spain  and  the  country 
between  the  Alps  and  the  Danube.  The  bounda- 
ries of  the  empire  were  now  the  Atlantic  on  the 
W.,  the  Euphrates  on  the  El.,  the  deserts  of  Africa, 
the  cataracts  of  the  Nile,  and  the  Arabian  deserts 
on  the  S.,  the  British  Channel,  the  Rhine,  the 
Danube,  and  the  Black  Sea  on  the  N.  The  only 
sulisequent  conquests  of  importance  were  those 
of  Britain  by  Claudius,  and  of  Dacia  by  Trajan. 
The  only  independent  powers  of  importance  were 
the  Parthians  on  the  E.  and  the  Germans  on  the  N 

The  population  of  the  empire  in  the  time  of 
Augu.stus  has  been  calculated  at  8.5,000,000  (^fcri- 
vale,  Rom.  Empire,  iv.  442-450).  Gibbon,  speaking 
of  the  time  of  Claudius,  puts  the  population  at 
120,000,000  {Decline  and  Fall,  ch.  ii.).  Count 
Franz  de  Champagny  adopts  the  same  number  for 
the  reign  of  Nero  {I.es  CeS'irs,  ii.  428).  All  these 
estimates  are  confessedly  somewhat  uncertain  and 
conjectural." 

This  large  population  was  controlled  in  the  time 
of  Tilierius  by  an  army  of  25  legions,  exclusive  of 
the  pra;toriaii  guards  and  other  cohorts  in  the 
capital.  '  The  soldiers  who  composed  the  legions 
may  be  reckoned  in  round  numbers  at  170.000 
men.  If  we  add  to  these  an  equal  numlier  of  aux- 
iliaries (Tac.  Ann.  iv.  5)  we  have  a  total  force  of 
■340.000  men.  'i"he  prsetorian  guards  may  be  reck- 
oned at  10,000  (Dion  Cass.  Iv.  24).  The  other  co- 
horts would  swell  the  garrison  at  Rome  to  15,000 
or  16.000  men.  P"or  the  number  and  stations  of 
the  legions  in  the  time  of  Tiberius,  comp.  Tac. 
Ann.  iv.  5. 

The  navy  may  have  contained  about  21,000  men 
{Les  Cen'irs,  ii.  42U;  comp.  Merivale,  iii.  534). 
The  legion,  as  appears  from  what  has  been  said, 
must  have  been  "  more  like  a  brigade  than  a  regi- 
ment," consisting  as  it  did  of  more  than  6,000  in- 
fantry with  cavalry  attached  (('onybeare  and  How- 
son,  ii.  285).  For  the  "Italian  and  Augustan 
handa"  (Acts  x.  1,  xxvii.  1)  see  Akmy,  vol.  i.  p. 
164  [and  It.vlian  Band,  Amer.  ed.]. 

III.  Tlie  Provinces..  —  The  usual  fate  of  a  coun- 
try conquered  by  Rome  was  to  liecome  a  .subject 
pro\i nee,  governed  directly  from  Rome  by  officers 
lent  out  for  that  purpose.  Sometimes,  however, 
AS  we  have  seen,  petty  sovereigns  were  left  in  pos- 
(ession  of  a  nominal  independence  on  the  borders, 
Dr  within  the  natural  limits,  of  the  province.    Such 

«  ♦  On  this  subject  one  may  consult  C.  G.  Zunipfs 
Ueber  den  Stand  der  BeviJlkeruns  u.  d't  Volksvrmeh- 
ung  im  Alt'rthun',  fob  pp.  1-92  (Berb  1841).        H. 


ROMAN   EMPIRE 

a  system  was  useful  for  rewarding  an  ally,  for  tm- 
ploying  a  busy  ruler,  for  gradually  accustoming  a 
stubborn  people  to  the  yoke  of  dependence.  There 
were  differences  too  in  the  political  condition  »f 
cities  within  the  provinces.  Some  were  free  cities, 
i.  c,  were  governed  by  their  own  magistrates,  and 
were  exempted  from  occupation  by  a  Roman  garri- 
son. Such  were  Tarsus,  Antioch  in  Syria,  Ath- 
ens, Ephesus,  Tbessalonica.  See  the  notices  ol 
the  "  Politarchs  "  and  "  Demos  "  at  Tbessalonica, 
Acts  xvii.  5-8,  the  "  town-clerk "  and  the  as- 
sembly at  Ephesus,  Acts  xix.  35,  39  (C.  and  H 
Life  of  St.  Paul  i.  357,  ii.  79).  Occasionally 
but  rarely,  free  cities  were  exempted  from  taxa 
tion.  Other  cities  were  "  Colonies,"  i.  e.  commu 
nities  of  Roman  citizens  transplanted,  like  garri 
sons  of  the  imperial  city,  into  a  foreign  land 
Such  was  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  12).  Such,  too 
were  Corinth,  Troas,  the  Pisidian  Antioch.  The 
inhaliitants  were  for  the  most  part  Romans  (Acts 
x^'i.  21),  and  their  magistrates  delighted  in  the  Ro- 
man title  of  Prsetor  (<TrpaTTfy6s),  and  in  the  at- 
tendance of  lictors  (pa^Sovxoi),  Acts  xvi.  35.  (C. 
and  H.  i.  315.) 

Augustus  divided  the  provinces  into  two  classes, 
(1)  Imperial,  (2)  Senatorial;  retaining  in  his  own 
hands,  for  obvious  reasons,  those  provinces  where 
the  presence  of  a  large  military  force  was  neces- 
sary, and  committing  the  peaceful  and  unarmed 
provinces  to  the  Senate.  The  Imperial  provinces 
at  first. were  —  Gaul,  Lusitania,  Syria,  Phoenicia, 
Cilieia,  Cyprus,  and  .(Egypt.  The  Senatorial  prov- 
inces were  Africa,  Numidia,  Asia,  Achsea  and 
Epirus,  Dalmatia,  Macedonia,  Sicily,  Crete  and 
Cyrene,  Bithynia  and  Pontus,  Sardinia,  Bsetica 
(Dion  C.  liii.  12).  Cyprus  and  Gallia  Narbonen- 
sis  were  subsequently  given  up  by  Augustus,  who 
in  turn  received  Dalmatia  from  the  Senate.  Many 
other  changes  were  made  afterwards.  The  N.  T. 
writers  invariably  designate  the  governors  of  Sen- 
atorial provinces  by  the  correct  title  of  afdvira- 
Tot,  proconsuls  (Acts  xiii.  7,  xviii.  12,  xix.  38). 
[Cyi'HUS.]  I"or  the  governor  of  an  Imperial  prov- 
ince, properly  stjled  "  Legatus  Casaris  "  (Trpecr- 
^eurri^),  the  word  rj-yefiwy  (Governor)  is  used  in 
the  N.  T. 

The  provinces  were  heavily  taxed  for  the  benefit 
of  Rome  and  her  citizens.  "  It  was  a-s  if  England 
were  to  defray  the  expenses  of  her  own  administra- 
tion by  the  proceeds  of  a  tax  levied  on  her  Indian 
empire"  (Liddell,  Hist,  of  Rome,  i.  448).  In  old 
times  the  Roman  revenues  were  raised  mainly  from 
three  sources :  (1.)  The  domain  lands;  (2.)  A  di- 
rect tax  (tributum)  levied  upon  every  citizen;  (3.) 
F'rom  customs,  tolls,  harlior  duties,  etc.  The  agra- 
rian law  of  Julius  Csesar  is  said  to  have  extin- 
guished the  first  source  of  revenue  (Cic.  nd  Ait.  u. 
xvi.;  Dureau  de  la  Malle,  ii.  430).  Roman  citi- 
zens had  ceased  to  pay  direct  taxes  since  the  con- 
quest of  Macedonia,  B.  c.  167  (Cic.  de  Off:  ii.  22; 
Plut.  yEinil.  Paul.  38),  except  in  extraordinary 
emergencies.  The  main  part  of  the  Roman  revenue 
was  now  drawn  from  the  provinces  by  a  direct  tax 
{Krtvffos,  (p6pos,  Matt.  xxii.  17,  Luke  xx.  22), 
amounting  probably  to  from  5  to  7  per  cent,  on  the 
estimated  produce  of  the  soil  (Dureau  de  la  Malle, 
ii.  418).  The  indirect  taxes  too  (reArj,  vectignlia, 
Matt.  xvii.  25;  Dureau  de  la  Malle,  ii.  449)  appear 
to  have  been  very  heavy  {Ibid.  ii.  433,  448).  -Au- 
gustus on  coming  to  the  empire  found  the  regular 
sources  of  revenue  impaired,  while  his  expense* 
must  have  been  very  great.     To  say  nothing  of  th« 


KOMAN    EMPIRE 

pay  of  the  army,  he  is  waid  to  have  supported  no 
less  than  200,000  citizens  in  idleness  by  the  miser- 
able system  of  public  gratuities.  Hence  the  neces- 
sity of  a  careful  valuation  of  the  property  of  the 
wliole  empire,  which  appears  to  have  been  made 
more  than  once  in  his  reign.  [Census.]  For  the 
historical  difficulty  about  the  taxing  in  Luke  ii.  1, 
see  Cy  REM  I  us.  Augustus  appears  to  have  raised 
both  the  direct  and  indirect  taxes  (Uureau  de  la 
Malle,  ii.  i'i'-i,  448). 

The  provinces  are  said  to  have  been  better  gov- 
erned under  the  Empire  than  under  the  Common- 
wealth, and  those  of  the  emperor  better  than  those 
of  the  Sanate  (L'ac.  Ann.  i.  70,  iv.  6;  Dion,  liii. 
14).  Two  important  changes  were  introduced  un- 
der the  Empire.  The  governors  received  a  fixed 
pay,  and  the  terra  of  their  command  was  prolonged 
(.Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  5).  But  the  old  mode  of 
levying  the  taxes  seems  to  have  been  continued. 
The  companies  who  farmed  the  taxes,  consisting 
generally  of  knights,  paid  a  certain  sum  into  the 
Roman  treasury,  and  proceeded  to  wring  what  they 
could  from  the  provincials,  often  with  the  conniv- 
ance and  support  of  the  provincial  governor.  The 
work  was  done  chiefly  by  underlings  of  the  lowest 
class  fportitores).  These  are  the  publicans  of  the 
N.  T. 

On  the  whole  it  seems  doubtful  whether  the 
wrongs  of  the  provinces  can  have  been  materially 
alleviated  under  the  imperial  government.  It  is 
not  likely  that  such  rulers  as  Caligula  and  Nero 
would  lie  scrupulous  about  the  means  used  for  re- 
plenishing tlieir  treasury.  The  stories  related  even 
of  the  reign  of  Augustus  show  how  slight  were 
the  checks  on  the  tyranny  of  provincial  governors. 
See  the  story  of  Liciims  in  Gaul  ( Diet,  of  (Jr.  and 
Rum.  Biiif/.  sub  voce),  and  that  of  the  Dalmatian 
chief  (Dion,  Iv.).  The  sufferings  of  St.  Paul,  pro- 
tected as  he  was  to  a  certain  extent  by  his  Koman 
citizenship,  show  plainly  how  little  a  provincial  had 
to  hope  from  the  justice  of  a  Roman  governor. 

It  is  iuipossible  here  to  discuss  the  difficult  ques- 
tion relating  to  Roman  provincial  go-vernment 
raised  on  John  xviii.  31.  It  may  be  sufficient  here 
to  state,  that  according  to  strict  Roman  law  the 
■lews  would  lose  the  power  of  life  and  death  when 
their  country  became  a  province,  and  there  seems 
no  sufficient  reason  to  depart  from  the  literal  in- 
terpretation of  the  verse  just  cited.  See  Alford, 
in  I  c.  On  the  other  side  see  Biscoe,  On  the  Acts, 
p.  11.3. 

The  condition  of  the  Roman  Empire  at  the  time 
when  (jhristianity  appeared  has  often  been  dwelt 
upon,  as  affording  obvious  illustrations  of  St.  Paul's 
expression  that  the  "  fullness  of  time  had  come "' 
(Gal.  iv.  4).  The  general  peace  within  the  limits 
of  the  Empire,  the  formation  of  military  roads,  the 
suppression  of  piracy,  the  mar«h  of  the  legions,  the 
voyages  of  the  corn  fleets,  the  general  increase  of 
iraffic,  the  spread  of  the  Latin  language  in  the 
West  as  Greek  had  already  spread  in  the  East,  the 
external  unity  of  the  Empire,  offered  facilities  hith- 
erto unknown  for  the  spread  of  a  world-wide  relig- 
ion. The  tendency,  too,  of  a  despotism  like  that 
of  the  Roman  Emiiire  to  reduce  all  its  subjects  to 
«  dead  level,  was  a  powerful  instrument  in  breaking 
jown  the  pride  of  privileged  nites  and  national 
religions,  and  familiarizing  men  with  the  truth  that 
'  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  on  the 
ace  of  the  earth"  (Acts  xvii.  24,  26).  But  still 
nore  striking  than  this  outward  preparation  for  the 
li£fusion  of  the  Gospel  was  the  appearance  of  a  deep 


ROMAN   EMPIRE 


2748 


and  wide-spread  corruption  which  seemed  to  defj 
any  human  remedy.  It  would  be  easy  to  accumu- 
late proofs  of  the  moral  and  political  degradation 
of  the  Romatis  under  the  Empire.  It  is  needless 
to  do  more  than  allude  to  the  corruption,  the 
cruelty,  the  sensuality,  the  monstrous  and  unnat- 
ural wickedness  of  the  period  as  revealed  in  the 
heathen  historians  and  satirists.  "  Viewed  as  a 
national  or  political  history,"  says  the  great  his- 
torian of  Rome,  "  the  history  of  the  Roman  Empire 
is  sad  and  discouraging  in  the  last  degree.  We 
see  that  things  had  come  to  a  point  at  which  no 
earthly  power  could  afford  any  help;  we  now  have 
the  development  of  dead  powers  instead  of  that  of 
a  vital  energy"  (Niebuhr,  Lect.  v.  194).  Not- 
withstanding the  outward  appearance  of  peace, 
uiuty,  and  reviving  prosperity,  the  general  condi- 
tion of  the  people  must  have  been  one  of  great 
misery.  To  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  probably 
one-half  of  the  population  consisted  of  slaves,  the 
great  inequality  of  wealth  at  a  time  when  a  whole 
province  cou'.d  be  owned  by  six  landowners,  the 
absence  of  any  middle  class,  the  utter  want  of  any 
institutions  for  alleviating  distress  such  as  are  found 
in  all  Christian  countries,  the  inhuman  tone  of 
feeling  and  practice  generally  prevailing,  forbid  U3 
to  think  favorably  of  the  happiness  of  the  world 
in  the  fan)ous  Augustan  age.  We  must  remember 
that  "  theie  were  no  public  hospitals,  no  institu- 
tions for  the  relief  of  the  infirm  and  poor,  no 
societies  for  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of 
mankind  from  motives  of  charity.  Nothing  was 
done  to  promote  the  instruction  of  the  lower  classes, 
nothing  to  mitigate  the  miseries  of  domestic  slavery. 
Charity  and  general  philanthropy  were  so  little  re- 
garded as  duties,  that  it  requires  a  very  extensive 
acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  the  times  to 
find  any  allusion  to  them  "  (.\rnold's  Later  Roman 
Commonwealth,  ii.  308).  If  we  add  to  this  that 
there  was  probably  not  a  single  religion,  except  the 
Jewish,  which  was  felt  by  the  more  enlightened 
part  of  its  professors  to  be  real,  we  may  form  some 
notion  of  the  world  which  Christianity  had  to 
reform  and  purify.  We  venture  to  quote  an  elo- 
quent description  of  its  "  slow,  imperceptible,  con- 
tinuous aggression  on  the  heathenism  of  the  Roman 
Empire." 

''  Christianity  was  gradually  withdrawing  some 
of  all  orders,  even  slaves,  out  of  the  vices,  the 
ignorance,  the  misery  of  that  corru])ted  social  sys- 
tem. It  was  ever  instilling  feelings  of  humanity, 
yet  unknown  or  coldly  commended  by  an  impotent 
philosophy,  among  men  and  women  whose  infant 
ears  had  been  habituated  to  the  shrieks  of  dying 
gladiators;  it  was  giving  dignity  to  minds  pros- 
trated by  years,  almost  centuries,  of  degrading 
despotism ;  it  was  nurturing  purity  and  modasty 
of  manners  in  an  unspeakable  state  of  depravation ; 
it  was  enshrining  the  marriage-bed  in  a  sanctity 
long  almost  entirely  lost,  and  rekindhng  to  a  steady 
warmth  the  domestic  affections ;  it  was  substituting 
a  simple,  calm,  and  rational  faith  for  the  worn-oui 
I  superstitions  of  heathenism ;  gently  establishing  in 
the  soul  of  man  the  sense  of  immortality,  till  it 
became  a  natural  and  inextinguishable  part  of 
his  moral  being "  (Milman's  Latin  Christianity, 
i.  24). 

The  chief  prophetic  notices  of  the  Roman  Empire 
are  found  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  especially  Lj  ch. 
xi.  30-40,  and  in  ii.  40,  vii.  7,  17-10,  according  to 
the  common  interpretation  of  the  "  fourth  king- 
dom; "  comp.  2  Esdr.  xi.  1.  but  see  Daniel.     Ao- 


2744    HOMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

cording  to  some  interpreters  the  Romans  are  in- 
tended in  Deut.  xxviii.  49-57.  For  the  mystical 
notices  of  Kome  in  the  lieveLition  comp.  Home. 

J.  J.  H. 
*  On  the  general  subject  of  the  preceding  article, 
see  jNIerivale's  History  of  the  Roman  ^nqnre,  espe- 
cially vol.  vi.  H. 

ROM.ANS,  THE    EPISTLE   TO    THE. 
1.  The  diilt  of  this  epistle  is  fixed  with  more  ab- 
solute certainty  and  within  narrower  limits,   than 
that  of  any  oilier  of  St.  Paul's  epistles.     The  fol- 
lowing considerations  determine  the  time  of  writing. 
First.  Certain    names   in  the  salutations  point  to 
Corinth,  as   the   place  from  which  the  letter  was 
Bent.      (1.)  I'hoebe,  a  deaconess  of  Cenchpepe,  one 
of  the  port  towns  of  Corinth,  is  commended  to  the 
Romans  (xvi.  1,  2).     (2.)  (iaius,  in  whose  house 
St.  Paul  was  lodged  at  the  time  (xvi.  i'-i),  is  prob- 
ably  the  person   mentioned   as   one  of  the   chief 
members  of  the  Corinthian  Church  in  1  Cor.  i.  14, 
though  the  name  was  very  common.      {'■}.)  Krastus, 
here  designated  "the  treasurer  of  the  city  "  (oIko- 
vofios,  xvi.  23,  E.  V.  "chamberlain")  is  elsewhere 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Corinth  (2  Tim.  iv. 
20;  see  also  Acts  xix.  22).      Secom/ly.   Havinc;  thus 
determined  the  place  of  writing  to  be  Corinth,  we 
have  no  hesitation  in  fixing  upon  the  visit  recorded 
in  Acts  XX.  '-J,  during  the  winter  and  spring  fol- 
lowing the  Apostle's  long  residence  at  Ephesus,  as 
the  occasion    on    which   the    epistle  was    written. 
For  St.  I'aul,  when  he  wrote  the  letter,  was  on  the 
point   of  carrying  tlie  contributions  of  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  to  Jerusalem  (xv.  25-27),  and  a  com- 
parison with  Acts  XX.  22,  xxiv.  17,  and  also  1  Cor. 
xvi.  4 ;  2  Cor.  viii.  1,  2,  ix.  1  fF.,  shows  that  he  was 
BO  engaged  at  this  period  of  his  hfe.     (See  I'ak-y's 
Hoite  Paulines.,   ch.   ii.  §   1.)     Moreover,   in  this 
epistle  he  declares  his    intention  of   visiting  the 
Romans  after  he  has  been  at  .Jerusalem  (xv.  23- 
25).  and   that   such  was   his   design   at  this  par- 
ticular time  appears  from  a  casual  notice  in  Acts 
xix.  21. 

The  epistle  then  was  written  from  Corinth  during 
St.  Paul's  third  missionary  journey,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  second  of  the  two  visits  recorded  in  the 
Acts.  On  this  occasion  he  remained  three  months 
in  Greece  (Acts  xx.  3).  When  he  left,  the  sea 
ffas  already  navigable,  for  he  was  on  the  point  of 
sailing  for  Jerusalem  when  he  was  obliged  to  change 
his  plans.  On  the  other  hand,  it  caimot  have  been 
late  in  the  sprin<j,  because  after  passing  through 
Macedonia  and  visiting  several  places  on  the  coast 
of  Asia  Minor,  he  still  hoped  to  reach  Jerusalem 
by  Pentecost  (xx.  16).  It  was  therefore  in  the 
winter  or  early  spring  of  the  year  that  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romany  was  written.  According  to  the 
most  probable  system  of  chronology,  adopted  by 
Anger  and  Wieseler,  this  would  be  the  year  a.  d. 
58.' 

2.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  thus  placed  in 
chronological  connection  with  the  epistles  to  the 
Galatianss  and  Corinthians,  which  appear  to  have 
been  written  within  the  twelve  montlis  preceding. 
The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written 
oefore  St.  Paul  left  Ephesus,  the  Second  from 
Macedonia  when  he  was  on  his  way  to  Corinth,  and 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  most  probably  either 
in  Macedonia  or  after  his  arri^■al  at  Corinth,  i.  e. 
ifter  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  though  the 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE   TO   THE 

contemporaneous  epistles  hereafter.  At  present  it 
will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  they  present  a  remark- 
able resemblance  to  each  other  in  style  and  matter 
—  a  much  greater  r&seniblance  than  can  be  traced 
to  any  other  of  St.  Paul's  epistles.  They  are  at 
once  the  most  intense  and  most  varied  in  feeling 
and  expression  —  if  we  may  so  say,  the  most  Pau- 
line of  all  St.  Paul's  epistles.  When  Baur  excepts 
these  four  epistles  alone  from  his  sweepinu;  con- 
demnation of  the  genuineness  of  all  the  letters 
bearing  St.  Paul's  name  {Paztlus,  ihr  Apostel)  this 
is  a  mere  caricature  of  sober  criticism :  but  under- 
l^ing  this  erroneous  exaggeration  is  the  fact,  that 
the  epistles  of  this  period  —  St.  Paul's  third  mis- 
sionary journey —  have  a  character  and  an  intensity 
peculiarly  their  own,  corresponding  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Apostle's  outward  and  inward  life  at 
the  time  when  they  were  written.  l'"or  the  special 
characteristics  of  this  group  of  epistles,  see  a  paper 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  in  the  Journal  of 
Class,  and  Sacr.  Phil.,  iii.  p.  289. 

3.  The  occasion  which  prompted  this  epistle, 
and  the  circumstances  attending  its  writing,  were 
as  follows.  St.  Paul  had  long  purposed  visiting 
Rome,  and  still  retained  this  purpose,  wishing  also 
to  extend  his  journey  to  Spain  (i.  9-13,  xv.  22-29); 
for  the  time,  howe\er,  he  was  prevented  from  car- 
rying out  his  design,  as  he  was  boimd  for  Jeru- 
salem with  the  alms  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  and 
meanwhile  he  addressed  this  letter  to  the  Romans, 
to  supply  the  lack  of  his  personal  teaching.  Phoebe, 
a  deaconess  of  the  neighboring  church  of  Cencbre<e, 
was  on  the  point  of  starting  for  Rome  (xvi.  1,  2), 
and  probably  conve3'ed  the  letter.  The  liody  of  the 
epistle  was  written  at  the  Apostle's  dictation  by 
Tertius  (xvi.  22):  but  jjerhaps  we  may  infer  from 
the  abruptness  of  the  final  doxology,  that  it  was 
added  i)y  the  Apostle  himself,  more  especially  as  we 
gather  from  other  epistles  that  it  was  his  practice 
to  conclude  with  a  few  striking  words  in  his  own 
handwriting,  to  vouch  for  the  authorship  of  the 
letter,  and  frequently  also  to  impress  some  important 
truth  more  strongly  on  his  readers. 

4.  The  orif/in  of  the  Roman  Church  is  involved 
in  oliscurity.  If  it  had  been  founded  by  St.  Peter, 
according  to  a  later  tradition,  the  absence  of  any 
allusion  to  him  both  in  this  epistle  and  in  the 
letters  written  by  St.  Paul  from  Rome  would  admit 
of  no  explanation.  It  is  equally  clear  that  no 
other  Apostle  was  the  founder.  In  this  very  epis- 
tle, and  in  close  connection  with  the  mention  of 
his  proposed  visit  to  Rome,  the  Apostle  declares 
that  it  was  his  ride  not  to  build  on  another  man's 
foundation  (xv.  20),  and  we  cannot  suppose  that 
he  violated  it  in  this  instance.  Again,  he  speaks 
of  the  Romans  as  especially  falling  to  his  share  as 
the  .-Vpostle'of  the  Gentiles  (i.  13),  with  an  evident 
reference  to  the  partition  of  the  field  of  labor  be- 
tween himself  and  St.  Peter,  mentioned  in  Gal.  ii. 
7-9.  Moreover,  when  he  declares  his  wish  to.  im- 
part some  spiritual  gift  (xapiaixa)  to  them,  "that 
they  might  be  established"  (i.  11',  this  implies 
that  they  had  not  yet  been  visited  by  an  Apostle, 
and  that  St.  Paul  contemplated  supplying  the 
defect,  as  was  done  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  in 
the  analogous  case  of  the  churches  founded  by 
Philip  in  Samaria  (Acts  viii.  14-17). 

The  statement  in  the  ClenientiVies  {Horn.  i.  §  6) 
that  the  first  tidings  of  the  (iospel  reached  Romp 


date  of  the'Galatian  Epistle  is  not  absolutely  cer-  j  during  the  lifetime  of  our  Lord,  is  evidently  a 
tain.  [Gai.ati.\ns,  ErisTi.E  TO  THE.]  AVe  shall  fiction  for  the  purposes  of  the  romance.  On  the 
biave  to  notice  the  relations  existing  between  these  I  other  hand,  it  is  clear  that  the  foundation  of  thii 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  TH& 

cliurch  dates  very  far  back.  St.  Paul  in  this 
epistle  salutes  certain  believers  resident  in  Home  — 
Andruiiicus  and  Juiiia  (or  Junianus?)  —  adding 
that  they  were  distinguished  among  the  Apostles, 
and  that  they  were  converted  to  Christ  before  him- 
self (xvi.  7),  for  sueli  seems  to  be  the  niea)iing  of 
the  passage,  rendered  somewhat  ambiguous  by  tlie 
position  of  the  relative  pronouns.  It  may  be  that 
some  of  those  Romans,  ''both  Jews  and  proselytes," 
present  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (ol  i7rtSri/j.ovuTts 
'Pwfidioi,  'lov8aioi  re  Kal  trpoaiiKvroi,  Acts  ii. 
10),  carried  back  the  earliest  tidings  of  the  new 
doctrine,  or  the  Gospel  may  have  first  reached  the 
imperial  city  througli  those  who  were  scattered 
al)i  oad  to  escape  the  persecution  which  followed  on 
the  death  of  Stephen  (Acts  viii.  4,  xi.  19).  At 
all  events,  a  close  and  constant  communication  was 
kept  up  between  the  -Jewish  residents  in  Kome  and 
tlieir  fellow-countrymen  in  Palestine  by  the  exigen- 
cies of  conmierce,  in  which  they  became  more  and 
more  engrossed,  as  their  national  hopes  declined, 
and  by  the  custom  of  repairing  regularly  to  their 
sacred  festivals  at  Jerusalem.  Again,  the  impe- 
rial edicts  alternately  banishing  and  recalling  the 
Jews  (compare  e.  g.  in  the  case  of  Claudius, 
Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  5,  §  3,  with  Suet.  Claud,  c.  25) 
must  have  kept  up  a  constant  eblj  and  flow  of 
migration  between  Rome  and  the  East,  and  the 
case  of  Aquila  and  Priacilla  (.Acts  xviii.  2;  see 
Paley,  Ilor.  Paul.  c.  ii.  §  2)  probably  represents  a 
numerous  class  through  whose  means  the  opinions 
and  doctrines  promulgated  in  Palestine  might  reach 
the  metropolis.  At  first  we  may  suppose  that  the 
Gospel  was  preached  there  in  a  confused  and  im- 
perfect form,  scarcely  more  than  a  phase  of  Juda- 
ism, as  in  the  case  of  Apollos  at  Corinth  (.Acts 
xviii.  25),  or  the  disciples  at  Kphesus  (Acts  xix. 
1-3).  As  time  advanced  and  better  instructed 
teachers  arrived,  the  clouds  would  gradually  clear 
away,  till  at  length  the  presence  of  the  great  Apos- 
tle himself  at  Rome  dispersed  the  mists  of  Judaism 
which  still  hung  about  the  Roman  Church.  Long 
after  Ciiristianity  had  taken  up  a  position  of  direct 
antagonism  to  Judaism  in  Rome,  heathen  states- 
ir'^n  and  writers  still  persisted  in  confounding  the 
oi.c?  with  the  other.  (See  Merivale,  Hist,  of  Jiome, 
vi.  278,  &c.) 

5.  A  question  next  arises  as  to  the  composition 
of  the  Riiimtn  Cliurch,  at  the  time  when  St.  Paul 
wrote.  Did  the  Apostle  address  a  Jewish  or  a 
Gentile  community,  or,  if  the  two  elements  were 
combined,  was  one  or  other  predominant  so  as  to 
give  a  character  to  the  whole  Church?  Either 
extreme  has  been  vigorously  maintained,  Baur  for 
instance  asserting  that  St.  Paul  was  wi'iting  to 
Jewish  Christians,  Olshausen  arguing  that  the  Ro- 
man Church  consisted  almost  solely  of  Gentiles. 
We  are  naturally  led  to  seek  the  truth  in  some  in- 
termediate position.  Jowett  finds  a  solution  of  the 
difficulty  in  tiie  supposition  that  the  members  of 
the  Roman  Church,  though  Gentiles,  had  passed 
through  a  phase  of  .lewish  proselytism.  This  will 
explain  some  of  the  phenomena  of  the  epistle,  but 
not  all.  It  is  more  probable  that  St.  Paul  ad- 
dressed a  mixed  church  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the 
latter  perhaps  being  the  more  numerous. 

There  are  certain  passages  which  imply  the 
presence  of  a  large  number  of  Jewish  converts  to 
Christianity.  The  use  of  the  second  person  in  ad- 
dressing the  Jews  (cc.  ii.  and  iii.)  is  clearly  uA 
assumed  merely  for  argumentative  purposes,  but 
applies  to  a  portion  at  least  of  those  into  whose 
173 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE     2745 

hands  the  letter  would  fall.  The  constant  app>ala 
to  the  authority  of  "  the  Law  "  may  in  many  c.wea 
be  accounted  for  by  the  Jewish  education  of  the 
Gentile  believers  (so  Jowett,  vol.  ii.  p.  22),  but 
sometimes  they  seem  too  direct  and  positive  to  ad- 
mit of  this  explanation  (iii.  I'J,  vii.  1).  In  the 
7th  chapter  St.  Paul  appears  to  be  addressing  Jews, 
as  those  who  like  himself  had  once  been  under  the 
dominion  of  the  Law,  but  had  been  delivered  from 
it  in  Christ  (see  especially  verses  4  and  G).  And 
when  in  xi.  13,  he  says  "  I  am  speaking  to  you  — 
the  Gentiles,"  this  very  limiting  expression,  "  the 
Gentiles,"  implies  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to 
not  a  few  to  whom  the  term  would  not  apply. 

Again,  if  we  analyze  the  list  of  names  in  the 
16th  chapter,  and  assume  that  this  list  approxi- 
mately represents  the  proportion  of  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile in  the  Roman  Church  (an  assumption  at  least 
not  improbable),  we  arrive  at  the  same  result.  It 
is  true  that  Wary,  or  rather  Mariam  (xvi.  6)  is 
the  only  strictly  Jewish  name.  But  this  fact  is 
not  worth  the  stress  apparently  laid  on  it  by  Mr. 
Jowett  (ii.  p.  27).  For  Aquila  and  PrisciUa  (ver. 
3)  were  Jews  (Acts  xviii.  2,  20),  and  the  church 
whicii  met  in  their  house  was  probably  of  the 
same  nation.  Andronicus  and  Junia  (or  Junias? 
ver.  7)  are  called  St.  Paul's  kinsmen.  The  same 
term  is  applied  to  Herodion  (ver.  11).  These  per- 
sons then  must  have  been  Jews,  whether  "  kins- 
men "  is  taken  in  the  wider  or  the  more  restricted 
sense.  The  name  Apelles  (ver.  10),  though  a 
heathen  name  also,  was  most  connnonly  borne  by 
.lews,  as  appears  from  Horace,  Snt.  I.  v.  100.  If 
the  Aristoliulus  of  ver.  10  was  one  of  the  princes 
of  the  Herodian  house,  as  seems  probable,  we  have 
also  in  "  the  household  of  Aristobulus  "  several 
Jewish  converts.  .Altoi^ether  it  appears  that  a  very 
large  fraction  of  the  Christian  believers  mentioned 
in  these  salutations  were  Jews,  even  supposing  that 
the  others,  bearing  Greek  and  Latin  names,  of 
whom  vi'e  know  nothing,  were  heathens. 

Nor  does  tiie  existence  of  a  large  Jewish  ele- 
ment in  the  Roman  Church  present  any  difficulty. 
The  captives  carried  to  Rome  by  Ponijjeius  formed 
the  nucleus  of  the  Jewish  population  in  the  metropo- 
lis [Romk].  Since  that  time  they  had  largely  in- 
creased. During  the  reign  of  Auicustus  we  hear 
of  above  8,000  resident  Jews  attachin;j;  themselves 
to  a  Jewish  embassy  vviiich  appealed  to  this  emiieror 
(Joseph.  A7it.  xvii.  11,  §  1).  The  same  emperor 
uave  them  a  quarter  beyond  the  Tiber,  and  allowed 
tliem  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion  (Philo,  Lee;, 
ad  Caium,  p.  568  M.).  About  the  time  wlien  St. 
Paul  wrote,  Seneca,  .speaking  of  the  influence  of 
Judaism,  echoes  the  famous  expression  of  Horace 
(A'/j.  ii.  1,  156)  respecting  the  Greeks  —  "  victi  vic- 
tor'ibus  leges  dederunt  "  (Seneca,  in  A«gustin,  de 
Civ.  Dei,  vi.  11).  And  the  bitter  satire  of  Juvenal 
and  indignant  complaints  of  Tacitus  of  the  spread 
of  the  infection  through  Roman  society,  are  well 
known. 

On  the  other  hand,  situated  in  the  metropolis  of 
the  great  empire  of  heathendom,  the  Roman  Church 
must  necessarily  have  been  in  great  measure  a  Gen- 
tile Church;  and  the  language  of  the  epistle  bears 
out  this  sup]X)sition.  It  is  professedly  as  the  Apos 
tie  of  the  Gentiles  that  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Ro- 
mans (i.  5).  He  hoi)es  to  have  some  fruit  aniong 
them,  as  he  had  among  tlie  other  (ientiles  (i.  13). 
Later  on  in  the  epistle  he  speaks  of  the  .lews  in  the 
third  person,  as  if  addressing  Gentiles,  '•  I  could 
wish  that  myself  were  accursed  for    my  l)rethren'. 


:^74t)    ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

my  kinsmeu  after  the  flesh,  who  are  Israelites,  etc." 
(ix.  3,  4).  And  again, ''my  heart's  desire  and 
prayer  to  God  for  tlivin  is  that  they  might  be 
saved  "  (x.  1,  the  right  reading  is  virlp  ainwv, 
not  virep  Toxi  '\apa))\  as  in  the  Keeeived  Text). 
Compare  also  xi.  2-'i,  25,  and  especially  xi.  30, 
"  For  as  ye  in  times  past  did  not  believe  God, 
.  .  .  so  did  these  also  {i.  e.  the  Jews)  now  not 
believe,"  etc.  In  all  these  passages  St.  Paul  clearly 
addresses  himself  to  Gentile  readers. 

These  Gentile  converts,  however,  were  not  for 
the  most  part  native  Romans.  Strange  as  the 
paradox  appears,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  was  at  this  time  a  Greek  and 
not  a  I.atin  Church.  It  is  clearly  established  that 
the  early  Latin  versions  of  the  New  Testament  were 
made  not  for  the  use  of  Rome,  liut  of  the  provinces, 
especially  Africa  (Westcott,  Canon,  p.  209).  AU 
the  literature  of  the  early  Roman  Church  was 
written  in  the  Greek  tongue.  The  names  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome  during  the  first  two  centuries  are 
with  but  few  exceptions  Greek.  (See  Milman, 
Latin  Christ,  i.  27.)  And  in  accordance  with 
these  facts  we  find  that  a  very  large  proportion  of 
the  names  in  the  salutations  of  this  epistle  are 
Greek  names;  while  of  the  exceptions,  I'riscilla, 
Aquila,  and  Junia  (or  .lunias),  were  certainly  Jews; 
and  the  same  is  true  of  Rufus,  if,  as  is  not  iniproti- 
able,  he  is  the  same  mentioned  Mark  xv.  21.  Julia 
was  probably  a  dependent  of  the  imperial  house- 
hold, and  derived  her  name  accordingly.  The  only 
Roman  names  remaining  are  Aniplias  (i.  e.  Ampli- 
atus)  and  Urbanus,  of  whom  nothing  is  known, 
but  their  names  are  of  late  growth,  and  certainly 
do  not  point  to  an  old  Roman  stock.  It  was  there- 
fore from  the  Greek  population  of  Rome,  pure  or 
mixed,  that  the  Gentile  portion  of  the  Church  was 
almost  entirely  drawn.  And  this  might  he  ex- 
pected. The  Greeks  formed  a  very  considerable 
fraction  of  the  whole  people  of  Rome.  They  were 
the  most  busy  and  adventurous,  and  also  the  most 
intelligent  of  the  middle  and  lower  classes  of  society. 
The  influence  which  they  were  acquiring  by  their 
numbers  and  versatility  is  a  constant  theme  of  re- 
proach in  the  Roman  philosopher  and  satirist  (Juv. 
iii.  60-80,  vi.  184;  Tac.  de  Omt.  29).  They  com- 
plain that  the  national  character  is  undermined, 
that  the  whole  city  has  become  Greek.  Speaking 
tlie  language  of  international  intercourse,  and 
brought  by  their  restless  habits  into  contact  with 
foreign  religions,  the  Greeks  had  larger  opportuni- 
ties than  others  of  acquainting  themselves  with  the 
truths  of  the  Gospel:  while  at  the  same  time  hold- 
ing more  loosely  to  traditional  beliefs,  and  with 
minds  naturally  more  inquiring,  they  would  be 
more  ready  to  welcome  these  truths  when  they 
came  in  their  way.  At  all  events,  for  whatever 
reason,  the  Gentile  converts  at  Rome  were  Greeks, 
not  Romans:  and  it  was  an  unfortunate  conjecture 
on  the  part  of  the  transcriber  of  the  Syriac  Peshito, 
that  this  letter  was  written  "  in  the  Latin  tongue," 

(n^SQ1~l).     Every  line  in  the  epistle    bespeaks 
an  original. 

When  we  inquire  into  the  probable  rank  and 
station  of  the  Roman  believers,  an  analysis  of  the 
tiames  in  the  list  of  salutations  aijaiu  gives  an  ap- 
proximate answer.  These  names  belong  for  the 
most  part  to  the  middle  and  lower  grades  of  society. 
Many  of  them  are  foiuid  in  the  columbaria  of  the 
freedmen  and  slaves  of  the  early  Roman  emperors. 
vSee  Journal  of  Class,  and  Hacr.  Phil.  iv.  p.  57.) 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

It  would  be  too  much  to  assume  that  they  were 
the  same  persons,  but  at  all  events  the  identity  of 
names  points  to  the  same  social  rank.  Among  the 
less  wealthy  merchants  and  tradesmen,  among  the 
petty  otticers  of  the  army,  among  the  slaves  and 
freedmen  of  the  imperial  palace  — whetlier  Jews  or 
Greeks  —  the  Gospel  would  first  find  a  firm  footing. 
'To  this  last  class  allusion  is  made  in  Phil.  iv.  22, 
"  tiiey  that  are  of  Cesar's  iiousehold."  From  these 
it  would  gradually  work  upwards  and  downwards; 
but  we  may  be  sure  that  in  respect  of  rank  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  no  exception  to  the  general 
rule,  that  "  not  many  wise,  not  many  mighty,  not 
many  noble"  were  called  (1  Cor.  i.  20). 

It  seems  probable  from  what  has  been  said  above, 
that  tlie  Roman  Church  at  this  time  was  composed 
of  .lews  and  Gentiles  in  nearly  equal  portions. 
'This  fact  finds  expression  in  the  account,  whether 
true  or  false,  which  represents  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Raid  as  presiding  at  the  same  time  over  the  Church 
at  Rome  (Uionys.  Cor.  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  25; 
Iren.  iii.  3).  Possibly  also  the  discrepancies  in  the 
lists  of  the  early  bishops  of  Rome  may  find  a  solu- 
tion (Pearson,  Minor  Theul.  WorLt,  ii.  449;  Bun- 
sen,  Ilippiih/tiis,  i.  p.  44)  in  the  joint  Episcopate  of 
Linus  and  Cletus,  the  one  ruling  over  the  Jewish, 
the  other  over  the  Gentile  congregation  of  the  me- 
tropolis. If  this  conjecture  be  accepted,  it  is  an 
important  testimony  to  the  view  here  maintained, 
though  we  cannot  suppose  that  in  St.  Paul's  time 
the  two  elements  of  the  Roman  Church  had  dis- 
tinct organizations. 

G.  The  heterogeneous  composition  of  this  church 
explains  the  general  character  of' the  J'jnsile  to  the 
Romans.  In  an  assemblage  so  various,  we  should 
expect  to  find  not  the  exclusive  predominance  of  a 
single  form  of  error,  but  the  coincidence  of  dif- 
ferent and  opposing  forms.  The  Gospel  had  here 
to  contend  not  specially  with  Judaism  nor  specially 
with  lieathenism,  but  with  both  together.  It  was 
therefore  the  business  of  the  Christian  Teacher  to 
reconcile  the  opposing  difficulties  and  to  hold  out 
a  meeting  point  in  the  Gospel.  This  is  exactly 
what  St.  Paul  does  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
and  what  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case  he  -as 
well  enabled  to  do.  He  was  addressing  a  large 
and  varied  community  which  had  not  been  founded 
by  himself,  and  with  which  he  had  had  no  direct  in- 
tercourse. Again,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  letter 
was  specially  written  to  answer  any  doubts  or  set- 
tle any  controversies  then  rife  in  the  Roman  Church. 
'There  were  therefore  no  disturbing  influences,  such 
as  arise  out  of  personal  relations,  or  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances, to  derange  a  general  and  systematic 
ex])osition  of  the  nature  and  working  of  the  Gos- 
pel. At  the  same  time  the  vast  importance  of  the 
metropolitan  Church,  which  could  not  have  been 
overlooked  even  by  an  uninspired  teacher,  naturally 
pointed  it  out  to  the  Apostle,  as  the  fitCest  body  to 
whom  to  address  such  an  exposition.  Thus  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  more  of  a  treatise  than  of 
a  letter.  If  we  remove  the  personal  allusions  in 
the  opening  verses,  and  the  salutations  at  the  close, 
it  seems  not  more  particularly  addressed  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  than  to  any  other  church  of 
Christendom.  In  this  respect  it  differs  widely 
from  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians, 
with  which  as  being  written  about  the  same  time 
it  may  most  fairly  be  compared,  and  which  are  full 
of  personal  and  direct  allusions.  In  one  instance 
alone  we  seem  to  trace  a  special  reference  to  the 
chursh    of  the   metropolis.       The    injunction    ol 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

)betlience  to  temporal  rulers  (xiii.  1)  would  most 
atly  be  addressed  to  a  congregation  brought  face 
to  face  with  tlie  imperial  government,  and  the 
more  so,  as  Rome  had  receiitl)'  been  the  scene  of 
frequtiit  disturbances,  on  the  part  of  either  .lews  or 
Christians,  arising  out  of  a  feverish  and  restless  an- 
ticiixition  of  Messiah's  coming  (Suet.  Clmid.  25). 
Other  apparent  exceptions  admit  of  a  different  ex- 
planation. 

7.  This  explanation  is  in  fact  to  be  sought  in  its 
reiition  to  the  contemporaneous  epistles.  The 
letter  to  the  Komans  closes  the  group  of  epistles 
written  during  the  third  missionary  journey.  This 
group  contains  besides,  as  already  mentioned,  the 
letters  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  written 
probably  within  the  few  months  preceding.  At 
Corinth,  the  capital  of  Achaia,  and  tlie  stronghold 
of  heathendom,  the  Gospel  would  encounter  its  se- 
verest struggle  with  Gentile  vices  and  prejudices. 
In  Galatia,  which  either  from  natural  sympathy  or 
from  close  contact  seems  to  have  been  more  ex- 
posed to  Jewish  influence  than  any  other  church 
within  St.  Paul's  sphere  of  labor,  it  had  a  sharp 
contest  with  .Judaism.  In  the  epistles  to  these 
two  churches  we  study  the  attitude  of  the  Gospel 
towards  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  world  respectively. 
These  letters  are  direct  and  special.  They  are 
evoked  by  present  emergencies,  are  directed  against 
actual  evils,  are  full  of  personal  applications.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Komans  is  the  summary  of  what  he 
had  written  before,  the  result  of  his  dealing  with 
the  two  antagonistic  forms  of  error,  the  gathering 
together  of  the  fragmentary  teaching  in  the  Co- 
rinthian and  Galatian  letters.  What  is  there  im- 
mediate, irregular,  and  of  pai'tial  application,  is 
here  arranged  and  completed,  and  thrown  into  a 
general  form.  Thus  on  the  one  hand  his  treat- 
ment of  the  JMosaic  law  points  to  the  difficulties  he 
encountered  in  dealing  with  the  Galatian  Church, 
while  on  the  other  his  cautions  against  antinomian 
excesses  (Rom.  vi.  15,  &c.),  and  his  precepts  against 
giving  offense  in  the  matter  of  meats  and  the  ob- 
servance of  days  (Rom.  xiv. ),  remind  us  of  the 
errors  which  he  had  to  correct  in  his  Corinthian 
converts.  (Compare  1  Cor.  vi.  12  ff.,  and  1  Cor. 
viii.  1  ff. )  Those  injunctions  th«n  which  seem  at 
tirst  sight  special,  appear  not  to  be  directed  against 
any  actual  known  failings  in  the  Roman  Church, 
but  to  be  suggested  by  the  possibility  of  those  ir- 
reirularities  occurring  in  Rome  which  he  had  al- 
ready encountered  elsewhere. 

8.  Viewing  this  epistle  then  rather  in  the  light 
of  a  treatise  than  of  a  letter,  we  are  enabled  to 
exi)lain  certain  phenomena  in  the  text.  In  the 
received  text  a  doxology  stands  at  the  close  of  the 
epistle  (xvi.  25-27).  The  preponderance  of  evi- 
dence is  in  favor  of  this  position,  but  there  is 
respectable  authority  for  placing  it  at  the  end  of 
eh.  xiv.  In  some  texts  again  it  is  found  in  both 
places,  while  others  omit  it  entirely.  How  can  we 
account  for  this?  It  has  been  thought  by  some  to 
diocedit  the  genuineness  of  tlie  doxology  itself: 
but  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  this  view.  The 
arguments  against  its  genuineness  on  the  ground 
of  style,  advanced  by  Reiche,  are  met  and  refuted 
liy  Fritzsche  {Rom.  vol.  i.  p.  xxxv.).  Baur  goes 
still  further,  and  rejects  the  two  last  chapters;  but 
such  an  inference  falls  without  the  range  of  sol>er 
triticism.  The  phenomena  of  the  jMSS.  seem  best 
Explained  by  supposing  that  the  letter  was  circu- 
i»ted  at  au  early  date  (whether  during  tlie  Apostle's 
tifetirae  or  not  it  is  idle  to  inquire)  iu  two  forms, 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE     2747 

both  with  and  without  the  two  last  chapters,  in 
the  shorter  form  it  was  divested  as  far  as  possible 
of  its  epistolary  character  by  abstracting  the  per- 
sonal matter  addressed  especiallv  to  the  Romans, 
the  doxology  being  retained  at  the  close.  A  still 
further  attempt  to  strip  this  epistle  of  any  special 
references  is  found  in  MS.  G,  which  omits  iv  'PdcfxTf 
(i.  7),  and  to??  eV  'Pd/xr)  (i.  15),  for  it  is  to  be 
observed  at  the  .same  time  that  this  MS.  omits  the 
doxology  entirely,  and  leaves  a  space  after  ch.  xiv. 
This  view  is  somewhat  confirmed  by  the  jiarallel 
case  of  the  opening  of  the  Ephesian  Epistle,  in 
which  there  is  very  high  authority  for  omitting 
the  words  iu  'Ecpfacij,  and  which  bears  strong 
marks  of  having  been  intended  for  a  circular 
letter. 

'J.  In  describing  the  purport  of  this  epistle  we 
may  start  from  St.  Paul's  own  words,  which,  stand- 
ing at  the  beginning  of  the  doctrinal  portion,  may 
be  taken  as  giving  a  summary  of  the  contents: 
"  The  Gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  sah  ation 
to  every  one  that  believeth,  to  the  Jew  first  and 
also  to  the  Greek :  for  therein  is  the  righteousness 
of  God  revealed  from  faith  to  taith  "'  (i.  16,  17). 
Accordingly  the  epistle  has  been  described  as  com- 
prising "  the  religious  philosophy  of  the  world's 
history."  The  w'orld  in  its  religious  aspect  is 
divided  into  Jew  and  Gentile.  The  different  posi- 
tion of  the  two  as  regards  their  past  and  present 
relations  to  God,  and  their  future  prospects;  are  ex- 
plained. The  atonement  of  Christ  is  the  centre  of 
religious  history.  The  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  is  the  key  which  unlocks  the  hidden  mysteries 
of  the  divine  dispensation. 

The  ejjistle,  from  its  general  character,  lends 
itself  more  readily  to  an  nntdijsis  than  is  often  the 
case  with  St.  Paul's  epistles.  The  body  of  the 
letter  consists  of  four  portions,  of  which  the  first 
and  last  relate  to  personal  matters,  the  second  is 
argumentative  and  doctrinal,  and  the  third  practi- 
cal and  hortatory.  The  following  is  a  table  of  its 
contents:  — 

Salutation  (i.  1-7).  The  Apostle  at  the  outset 
strikes  the  keynote  of  the  epistles  in  the  expres- 
sions '■'■culled  as  an  apostle,"  ^'called  as  saints." 
Divine  grace  is  everything,  human  merit  nothing. 

I.  Personal    explanations.       I'urposed    visit    to 
Rome  (i.  8-15). 

II.  Doctrinal  (i.  16-xi.  36). 

The  general  proposition.  The  Gospel  is  the 
salvation  of  Jew  and  Gentile  alike.  This 
salvation  comes  by  faith  (i.  16,  17). 

The  rest  of  this  section  is  taken  up  in  estab- 
lishing this  thesis,  and  drawing  deductions 
from  it,  or  correcting  misapprehensions. 

(a. )  All  alike  were  under  condemnation  before 
the  Gospel: 

The  heathen  (i.  18-32). 
The  Jew  (ii.  1-20). 
Objections  to  this  statement  answered  (iil. 

1-8). 
And    the   position    itself  established  from 
Scripture  (iii.  9-20). 

(6.)  A  righteousness  (justification)  is  revealed 
under  the  gospel,  which  being  of  faith,  not 
of  law,  is  also  universal  (iii.  21-26). 

And  boasting  is  thereby  excluded  (iii.  27-31). 

Of  this  justification  by  faith  Abraham  is  an 
example  (iv.  1-25). 

Thus  then  we  are  justified  in  Christ,  in  whom 
alone  we  glory  (v.  1-11). 

Aud   this   acceptance   iu  Christ   is   as   unl- 


2748     ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

versal  as  was  the  condemnation  in  Adam 
(v.  12-19). 
(c.)  The  moral  consequences  of  our  deliver- 
ance. 
The  Law  was  given  to  multiply  sin   (v.  20, 
21).    When  we  died  to  the  Law  we  died  to 
sin  (vi.  1-14).     The  abohtion  of  the  Law, 
however,  is  not  a  signal  for  moral  license 
(vi.  15-23).     On  the  contrary,  as  the  Law 
has  passed  away,  so  must  sin,  for  sin   and 
the  Law  are  correlative;  at  the  same  time 
this  is  no  disparagement  of  the  Law,  but 
rather   a    proof  of   human  weakness    (vii. 
1-25).    So  henceforth  in  Christ  we  are  free 
from  sin,  we  have  the  Spirit  and    look  for- 
ward in  hope,  triumphing  over  our  present 
afflictions  (viii.  1-39). 
(d)  The  rejection  oj' the  Jews  is  a  matter  of 
deep  sorrow  (ix.  1-5). 
Yet  we  must  remember  — 
(i.)  That  the  promise  was  not  to  the  whole 
people,  but  only  to  a  select  seed  (ix.  6-13). 
And  the  absolute  purpose  of  God   in  so 
ordaining    is    not    to    be    canvassed    by 
man  (ix.  14-19). 
(  i. )  That  the  Jews  did  not  seek  justification 
aright,  and  so  missed  it.     This  justifica- 
tion   was    promised    by  Jaitli,    and    is 
offered  to  all  alike,  the  preaching  to  the 
Gentiles    being    implied    therein.      The 
character  and  results  of  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation are  foreshadowed  in  Scripture 
(X.  1-21). 
(iii.)  That  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not 
final.    This  rejection  has  been  the  means 
of  gathering  in  the  Gentiles,  and  through 
the   Gentiles  they  themselves   will  ulti- 
mately be   brought  to  Christ  (xi.  1-36). 
in.  Practical  exhortations  (xii.  1-xv.  13). 
(a.)  To  holiness  of  life  and  to  charity  in  gen- 
eral, the  duty  of  obedience  to  rulers  being 
inculcated  by  the  way  (xii.  1-xiii.  14). 
(6.)  And    more    particul.arly    against    giving 
oflTense  to  weaker  brethren  (xiv.  1-xv.  13). 
IV.  Personal  matters. 

(n.)  The    Apostle's    motive   in    writing    the 
letter,  and    his    intention    of   visiting   the 
P>omans  (xv.  14-33). 
(b.)  Greetings  (xvi.  1-23). 
The  letter  ends  with  a  benediction  and  doxology 

(xvi.  24-27). 
AVhite  this  epistle  contains  the  fullest  and  most 
jystematic  exposition  of  the  Apostle's  tedchiny,  it 
is  at  the  same  time  a  very  striking  expression  of 
his  chi'riiclcr.  Nowhere  do  his  earnest  and  afTec- 
tionate  nature,  and  his  tact  and  delicacy  in  hand- 
ling unwelcome  topics  appear  more  strongly  than 
when  he  is  dealing  with  the  rejection  of  his  fellow- 
countrymen  the  Jews. 

The  reader  may  be  referred  especially  to  the 
introductions  of  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  and  Jowett, 
for  suggestive  remarks  relating  to  the  scope  and 
purport  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

10.  Internal  evidence  is  so  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  (/enidneness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that 
•  it  has  never  been  seriously  questioned.  Even  the 
Rweeping  criticism  of  Baur  did  not  go  beyond 
sondemning  the  two  last  chapters  as  spurious. 
But  while  the  epistle  bears  in  itself  the  strongest 
oroofs  of  its  Pauline  autlmrship,  the  external  testi- 
oioiny  in  its  fivor  is  not  inconsiderable. 

The  reference  to  Rom   ii.  4  in  2  Pet.  iii.  15  is 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

indeed  more  than  doubtful.  In  the  Epistle  of  St 
James  again  (ii.  14),  there  is  an  allusion  to  per- 
versions of  St.  Paul's  language  and  doctrine  which 
has  several  points  of  contact  with  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  but  this  may  perhaps  be  explained 
by  the  oral  rather  than  the  written  teaching  of 
the  Apostle,  as  the  dates  seem  to  require.  It  is 
not  the  practice  of  the  Apostolic  fathers  to  cite  the 
N.  T.  writers  by  name,  but  marked  passages  from 
the  Romans  are  found  embedded  in  the  epistles  of 
Clement  and  Polycarp  (Rom.  i.  29-32  in  Clem. 
Cor.  c.  XXXV.,  and  Rom.  xiv.  10,  12,  in  Polyc. 
Phil.  c.  vi.).  It  seems  also  to  have  been  directly 
cited  by  the  elder  quoted  in  Irenaeus  (iv.  27,  2, 
"ideo  Paulum  dixisse;"  cf.  Rom.  xi.  21,  17),  and 
is  alluded  to  by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  Diog-- 
netus  (c.  ix.,  cf.  Rom.  iii.  21  foil.,  v.  20),  and  by 
Justin  Martyr  {Dial.  c.  23,  cf.  Rom.  iv.  10,  11, 
and  in  other  passages).  The  title  of  Melito's  trea- 
tise, On  the  Hem-ing  of  Faith,  seems  to  be  an  allu- 
sion to  this  epistle  (see  however  Gal.  iii.  2,  3).  It 
has  a  place  moreover  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  and 
in  the  Syriac  and  Old  Latin  Versions.  Nor  have 
we  the  testimony  of  orthodox  writers  alone.  The 
epistle  was  commonly  quoted  as  an  authority  by 
the  heretics  of  the  sub-apostolic  age,  by  the  Ophites 
(Hippol.  adv.  Hair.  p.  99,  cf.  Rom.  i.  20-26),  by 
Basilides  {ib.  p.  238,  cf.  Rom.  viii.  19,  22,  and  v. 
13,  14),  by  Valentinus  (//;.  p.  195,  cf.  Rom.  viii. 
11),  by  the  Valentinians  Heracleon  and  Ptolemseus 
(^\^estcott,  On  the  Canon,  pp.  335,  340),  and  per- 
haps also  by  Tatian  {Oral.  c.  iv.,  cf.  Rom.  i.  20), 
besides  being  included  in  Marcion's  Canon.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  the  evidence 
in  its  favor  is  still  fuller.  It  is  obviously  alluded 
to  in  the  letter  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and 
Lyns  (Euseb.  //.  A",  v.  1,  cf.  Rom  viii.  18),  and 
by  Athenagoras  (p.  13,  cf.  Rom.  xii.  1 ;  p.  37,  cf. 
Rom.  i.  24)  and  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (Ad  Autol. 
p.  79,  cf.  Rom.  ii.  6  foil  ;  p.  126,  cf.  Rom.  xiii.  7, 
8 ) ;  and  is  quoted  frequently  and  by  name  by 
Irena;us,  TertuUian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (see 
Kirchhofer,  Que/len,  p.  198,  and  esp.  Westcott, 
On  the  Canon,  passim). 

11.  The  Commentaries  on  this  epistle  are  very 
numerous,  as  might  be  expected  from  its  impor- 
tance. Of  the  many  patristic  expositions  only  a  few 
are  now  extant.  The  work  of  Origen  is  preseiTed 
entire  only  in  a  loose  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus 
(Orifj.  ed.  de  la  Rue,  iv.  458),  but  some  fragments 
of  the  original  are  found  in  the  Philocalia,  and 
more  in  Cramer's  Catena.  The  commentary  on 
St.  Paul's  epistles  printed  among  the  works  of  St. 
Amlirose  (ed.  Ben.  ii.  Appx.  p.  21),  and  hence 
bearing  the  name  Ambrosiaster,  is  probably  to  lie 
attriliuted  to  Hilary  the  deacon.  Besides  these 
are  the  expositions  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  by  Chry- 
sostom  (ed.  Montf.  ix.  p.  425,  edited  separately  by 
Field),  by  Pelagius  (printed  among  Jerome's 
works,  ed.  Vallarsi,  xi.  Pt.  3,  p.  135),  by  -Prima- 
sius  (Maf/n.  Bibl.  Vet.  Patr.  vi.  Pt.  2,  p.  30),  and 
by  Theodoret  (ed.  Schulze,  iii.  p.  1).  Augustine 
conuDenced  a  work,  but  broke  oflf  at  i.  4:  it 
bears  the  name  Inchoaiu  Expositio  Epistolce  ad 
Rom.  (ed.  Ben.  iii.  p.  925).  Later  he  wrote  Ex- 
positio  quarvndani  Propositionum  Epistolce  ad 
Rum.,  also  extant  (ed.  lien.  iii.  p.  903).  To  these 
should  be  added  the  later  Catena  of  CEcunieiiius 
(lOtli  cent.)  and  the  notes  of  Theophylact  (11th 
cent.),  the  former  containing  valuable  extracts 
from  Photius.  Portions  of  a  commentary  cf  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  were  published  by  Mai  {Nov.  Pair 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

Bibl.  iii.  p.  !)•  The  Catena  edited  by  Cramer 
11844)  comprises  two  collections  of  Variorimi  notes, 
ihe  one  extending  from  i.  1  to  ix.  1,  tlie  other  from 
m.  7,  to  the  end.  Besides  passages  from  extant 
;onimentaries,  they  contain  important  extracts  from 
Apollinarius,  Theodoriis  of  Mopsuestia  [ed.  Fritz- 
sche,  1847;  Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  Ixvi.],  :Severianus, 
Gennadius,  Photius,  and  others.  Tliere  are  also  the 
Greek  Scholia,  edited  by  Mattliiii,  in  liis  large  Greek 
Test.  (Kiga,  1782),  from  Moscow  iMSS.  The  com- 
mentary of  Euthymius  Zigabenus  (Tholuck,  Junl. 
§  6)  exists  in  MS.,  but  has  never  been  printed. 

Of  tlie  later  commentaries  we  can  only  mention 
a  few  of  the  most  important.  The  dogmatic  value 
of  this  epistle  naturally  attracted  the  early  re- 
formers. Melancthon  wrote  several  expositions  of  it 
(Walch,  Bibl.  Tlieol.  iv.  679).  The  Commentary 
of  Calvin  on  the  Romans  is  considered  the  ablest 
part  of  his  able  work.  Among  Roman  Catholic 
writers,  the  older  works  of  Estius  and  Corn,  a 
Lapide  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  Of  foreign  an- 
notators  of  a  more  recent  date,  besides  the  general 
commentaries  of  Bengel,  Olshausen,  De  Wette,  and 
Meyer  (.3d  ed.  1859  [4th  ed.  18ii5]  ),  which  are  highly 
valuable  aids  to  the  study  of  this  epistle,  we  may 
single  out  the  special  works  of  Kiickert  y2A  ed.  18-39), 
Keiche  (1834),  Fritzsche  (1836-43),  and  Tholuck 
(.5th  ed.  1856).  An  elaborate  commentary  has 
also  been  published  lately  by  Van  Hengel.  Among 
English  writers,  besides  the  editions  of  the  whole 
of  the  New  Testament  by  Alford  (4th  ed.  1801) 
and  Wordsworth  (new  ed.  1861),  the  most  impor- 
tant annotations  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  are 
those  of  Stuart  (6th  ed.  1857),  .Jowett  (^d  ed. 
1859),  and  Vaughan  (2d  ed.  1801).  Further  in- 
formation on  the  subject  of  the  literature  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  may  be  found  in  the  intro- 
ductions of  Reiche  and  Tholuck.  .J.  B.  L. 

*  Recent  Literatiu-e.  —  On  the  composition  of 
the  Roman  Church  and  the  aim  of  the  epistle 
valuable  essays  have  been  lately  published  by  W. 
Mangold,  Der  Rijinerbnef  u.  die  Anfcwge  d.  roin. 
Gemeinde,  Marb.  1860,  and  W.  Beyschlag,  Das 
geschiclitliciie  Problem  des  Rdmerbriefs,  in  the 
Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1867,  pp.  627-665;  comp. 
Hilgenfeld,  Die  Paulus-Briefe  u.  ihre  netiesten 
Bearbeitungen,  in  his  Zeitschr.  f.  miss.  Theol. 
1866,  ix.  293-316,  337-367.  Renan  {Saint  Paul, 
Paris,  1869,  pp.  Ixiii.-lxxv.)  supposes  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  to  have  been  a  circular  letter,  of 
which  there  were  four  copies  with  distinct  endings 
(sent  to  the  churches  at  Rome,  Ephesus,  Thessa- 
lonica,  and  some  unknown  church),  the  body  of  the 
letter  remaining  the  same.  The  details  of  his 
theory  and  the  arguments  for  it  cannot  be  given 
here.  It  is  fully  discussed  iiy  Prof  Lightfoot  (the 
author  of  the  preceding  article)  in  the  Jourwd  of 
Philology,  1869,  vol.  ii.  pp.  264-295.  His  ovvn 
hypothesis  is,  that  the  epistle  as  originally  written 
was  without  the  benediction  xvi.  24  (omitted  by 
Lachm.,  Tisch.,  and  Tregelles  as  wanting  in  the  best 
MSS.)  and  the  doxology  (xvi.  25-27).  "  At  some 
later  period  of  his  life  ....  it  occurred  to 
the  Apostle  to  give  to  this  letter  a  wider  circula- 
tion. To  this  end  he  made  two  changes  in  it :  he 
obliterated  all  mention  of  Rome  in  the  opening 
paragraphs  by  slight  alterations  [substituting  eV 
xydirr]  deov  for  eV  "Pwfxr)  in  i.  7,  and  omitting  4v 
P(i>ixr)  in  i.  15  —  for  the  traces  of  this  in  MSS., 
;tc.,  see  Tisch.] ;  and  he  cut  otf  the  two  last  chap- 
ters containing  personal  mntters.  •  adding  at  the 
».rae  time  a  doxoldgy  [xvi.  2.")-  27]  as  a  termina- 


ROME  2749 

tion  to  the  whole.'  This  it  will  be  perceived  is  a 
modification  of  the  view  presented  in  §  8  of  the 
article  above. 

Among  the  more  recent  Commentaries,  we  may 
notice  Umbreit,  Der  Brief  an  die  Romer,  atij'  d 
Gruiule  des  A.  T.  ausgelegt,  Gotha,  1856 ;  Ewald, 
Die  Sendschreiben  des  Ap.  Paulus  Uhers.  u.  er- 
kliirt,  Gcitt  1857;  John  Brown  ("Prof,  of  Exeget. 
Theol.  to  the  United  Presbyterian  Chiu'ch"),  Ana^ 
lytical  Exposition  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans,  Edin., 
also  N.  Y.,  1857;  John  Forbes,  Anabjt.  Comm.  or. 
tlie  Ep.  to  the  Romans,  tracing  the  train  of  Thought 
by  the  aid  of  Parallelism,  Edin.  1868;  J.  P.  Lange, 
Der  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  2o  Aufl.  1808 
(Theil  vi.  of  his  Biheliceric),  greatly  enlarged  and 
enriched  by  Dr.  Schaff  and  the  Rev.  M.  B.  Riddle, 
in  the  Amer.  translation,  N.  Y.  1809  (vol.  v.  of 
Lange's  Comm.);  and  J  C.  K.  von  Hofmaim,  Der 
Brief  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  Niirdlingen,  1868 
(Theil  iii.  of  his  Die  heil.  Schrifl  d.  N.  T.  zusain- 
menhdngend  untersucht).  Of  the  commentaries 
mentioned  by  Lightfoot,  that  of  Fritzsche  is  par 
ticularly  distinguished  for  its  philological  thorough- 
ness. 

Of  American  commentaries,  we  may  further 
name  those  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  (Old  School 
Presbyterian),  Philad.  1835,  new  ed.,  revised  and 
greatly  enlarged,  1864;  S.  H.  Turner  (Episco- 
palian), N.  Y.  1853;  and  the  more  popular  Notes 
of  Albert  Barnes  (New  School  Presb.),  H.  J.  Rip- 
ley (Baptist),  A.  A.  Livermore  (Unitarian),  and  L. 
R.  Paige  (Universalist). 

On  the  theology  of  this  epistle  and  the  doctrine 
of  Paul  in  general,  in  addition  to  the  works  re- 
ferred to  under  the  art.  Paul,  vol.  iii.  p.  2397,  one 
may  consult  the  recent  volume  of  Weiss,  Lehrb. 
d.  Bibl.  Theol.  d.  N.  T.,  Bed.  1808,  pp.  216~.5()7. 
Rom.  V.  12-19  is  discussed  by  Prof.  Timothy  Dwight 
in  the  Neiu  Englander  for  July,  1808,  with  partic- 
ular reference  to  the  Commentary  of  Dr.  Hodge. 

For  a  fuller  view  cf  the  very  extensive  literature 
relating  to  the  epistie,  see  the  .\merican  translation 
of  Lange's  Commentary  as  above  referred  to,  p. 
48  IF. ;  comp.  p.  27  fF.,  37,  and  for  special  mono- 
graphs, the  body  of  the  Commentary  on  the  more 
important  passages.  The  older  literature  is  de- 
tailed in  the  well-known  bibliographical  works  of 
Walch,  Winer,  Danz,  and  Darling.  A. 

ROME  ('Pco/iTj,  Ethn.  and  Adj.  'Pw/j.a7os,  'Pto- 
fiatKSs  in  the  phrase  ypdfj.fj.ara  'PccfiaiKd,  Luke 
xxiii.  38),  the  famous  capital  of  the  ancient  world 
is  situated  on  the  Tiber  at  a  distance  of  about  15 
miles  from  its  mouth.  The  "  seven  hills"  (Rev.  xvii. 
9)  which  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  ancient  city 
stand  on  the  left  bank.  On  the  opposite  side  of  the 
river  rises  the  far  higher  ridge  of  the  Janiculum. 
Here  from  very  early  times  was  a  fortress  with  a 
suburb  beneath  it  extending  to  the  river.  Modern 
Rome  Ues  to  the  N.  of  the  ancient  city,  covering 
with  its  principal  portion  the  plain  to  the  N.  of  the 
seven  hills,  once  known  as  the  Campus  JNIartius, 
and  on  the  opposite  bank  extending  over  the  low 
ground  beneath  the  Vatican  to  the  N.  of  the 
ancient  Janiculum.  A  full  account  of  the  history 
and  topography  of  the  city  is  given  elsewhere 
{Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Geogr.  ii.  719).  Here  it 
will  be  considered  only  in  its  relation  to  Bible  his-  • 
tory. 

Rome  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible  except  lu 
the  books  of  Maccabees  and  in  three  books  of  the 
N.  T.,  namely,  the  Acts,  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans,  and  the  2d   Epistle  to  Timothy.     For  th» 


2750 


ROME 


notices  of  Rome  in  the  books  of  Maccabees  see  Ro- 
MAX  I'Zmpire. 

The  conquests  of  Pompey  seem  to  have  given 
rise  to  the  first  settlement  of  Jews  at  Rome.  The 
Jewish  king  Aristobiilus  and  liis  son  formed  part 
of  Pompey"s  triumph,  and  many  Jewish  captives 
and  emigrants  were  brought  to  Rome  at  that  time. 
A  special  district  was  assigned  to  them,  not  on  the 
Bite  of  the  modern  "  Ghetto,"  between  the  Capitol 
and  the  island  of  the  Tiber,  but  across  the  Tiber 
(Pliilo,  Leg.  ad  Qdum,  ii.  5G8,  ed.  Mangey). 
Many  of  these  Jews  were  made  freedmen  (Philo, 
I.  c).  Julius  Cjesar  showed  them  some  kindness 
(.loseph.  Ant.  xiv.  10,  §8;  Suet.  Qesm;  Si). 
They  were  favored  also  by  Augustus,  and  by  Tibe- 
rius during  the  latter  part  of  his  reign  (Philo,  I. 
c).  At  an  earlier  period  apparently  he  banished 
a  great  number  of  them  to  Sardinia  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xviii.  3,  §  5;  Suet.  Tib.  30).  Claudius  "com- 
manded all  Jews  to  depart  from  Rome "  (Acts 
xviii.  2),  on  account  of  tumults  connected,  pos- 
Blbly.  with  the  preaching  of  Christianity  at  Rome 
(Suet.  I'tiiud.  25,  "Judaios  impulsore  Chre.sto 
assidue  tinnultuantes  Roma  expuht").  This  ban- 
ishment cannot  have  been  of  long  duration,  for 
we  find  Jews  residing  at  Rome  apparently  in  con- 
siderable numliers  at  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  visit 
(Acts  xxviii.  17).  It  is  chiefly  in  connection  with 
St.  Paul's  history  that  Rome  comes  before  us  in 
the  Bible. 

In  illustration  of  that  history  it  may  be  useful 
to  give  some  account  of  Rome  in  the  time  of  Nero, 
the  "  Caesar  "  to  whom  St.  Paul  appealed,  and  in 
whose  reign  he  suffered  martyrdom  (Eus.  //.  £. 
ii.  25). 

1.  The  city  at  that  time  must  be  imagined  as  a 
large  and  irregular  mass  of  buildings  unprotected 
by  an  outei-  wall.  It  had  long  outgrown  the  old 
Servian  wall  (Dionys.  Hal.  Ant.  Horn.  iv.  13;  ap. 
Merivale,  Horn.  Hist.  iv.  497);  but  the  limits  of 
the  suburbs  cannot  be  exactly  defined.  Neither 
the  nature  of  the  buildings  nor  the  confiicuration 
of  the  ground  were  such  as  to  give  a  striking  ap- 
pearance to  the  city  viewed  from  without.  "  An- 
cient Rome  had  neither  cupola  nor  campanile  " 
(Conybeare  and  Howson,  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  371 ; 
Merivale,  Rom.  Kinp.  iv.  512),  and  the  hiUs,  never 
lofty  or  imposing,  would  present,  when  covered  with 
the  liuildings  and  streets  of  a  huge  city,  a  confused 
appearance  like  tiie  hills  of  modern  London,  to 
which  they  have  sometimes  been  compared.  The 
visit  of  St.  Paul  lies  between  two  famous  epochs  in 
the  history  of  the  city,  namely,  its  restoration  by 
Augustus  and  its  restoration  by  Nero  (C.  and  H. 
i.  13).  The  boast  of  Augustus  is  well  known, 
"  that  he  had  found  the  city  of  brick  and  left  it  of 
marble"  (Suet.  Aiuj.  28).  For  the  improvements 
eftected  by  him,  see  Did.  of  Gr.  and  Rom.  Geogr. 
ii.  740,  and  Niebuhr's  Lectures  on  Rom.  Hist.  ii. 
177.  Some  parts  of  the  city,  especially  the  Forum 
and  Campus  Martins,  must  now  have  presented  a 
maijnificent  appearance,  but  many  of  the  principal 
buihlings  which  attract  the  attention  of  modern 
travellers  in  ancient  Rome  were  not  yet  built.  The 
streets  were  generally  narrow  and  winding,  flanked 
by  densely  crowded  lodging-houses  (insidae)  of  enor- 
ijnous  height.  Augustus  found  it  necessary  to 
|niit  their  height  to  70  feet  (Strab.  v.  235).  St. 
raul's  first  visit  to  Rome  took  place  before  the 
Neronian  conflagration,  but  even  after  the  restora- 
,  ,ion  of  'Jie  city,  which  followed  upon  that  event, 
(uany  of  the  old  evils  continued  (Tac.  [list.  iii.  71; 


ROME 

Juv.  Sat.  iii.  193,  269).  The  population  of  (he 
city  has  been  variously  estimated :  at  half  a  mil- 
lion (by  Dureau  de  la  Malle,  i.  403,  and  Merivale, 
Rom.  Empire.,  iv.  525),  at  two  niilhons  and  up- 
wards (Hoeck,  Rbiiiisclie  Gesvliichte,  I.  ii.  131;  C. 
and  H.  Lift  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  376 ;  Diet,  of  Geogr. 
ii.  746),  even  at  eight  miOions  (Lipsius,  De  Mag- 
niludine  Rom.,  quoted  in  Diet,  of  Geogr.).  Prob- 
ably Gibbon's  estimate  of  one  million  two  hundred 
thousand  is  nearest  to  the  truth  (Milman's  note  on 
Gibbon,  ch.  xxxi.  vol.  iii.  p.  120).  One  half  of 
the  population  consisted,  in  all  probability,  of 
slaves.  The  larger  part  of  the  remainder  consisted 
of  pauper  citizens  supported  in  idleness  by  the  mis- 
erable system  of  public  gratuities.  There  appears 
to  have  been  no  middle  class  and  no  free  industrial 
population.  Side  by  side  with  the  wretched  classes 
just  mentioned  was  the  comparativelj'  small  body 
of  the  wealthy  nobility,  of  whose  luxury  and  profli- 
gacy we  hear  so  nuich  in  the  heathen  writers  of  the 
time.  (See  for  calculations  and  proofs  the  works 
cited.) 

Such  was  the  population  which  St.  Paul  would 
find  at  Rome  at  the  time  of  his  visit.  We  learn 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  he  was  detained 
at  Rome  for  "two  whole  years,"  "dwelling  in  his 
own  hired  house  with  a  soldier  that  kept  him  " 
(Acts  xxviii.  16,  30),  to  whom  apparently,  accord- 
ing to  Roman  custom  (Senec.  P.p.  v.;  Acts  xii.  6, 
quoted  by  Brotier,  od  Tac,  Ann.  iii.  22),  he  was 
bound  with  a  chain  (Acts  xxviii.  20;  Eph.  vi.  20; 
Phil.  1.  13).  Here  he  preached  to  all  that  came  to 
him,  no  man  forbidding  him  (Acts  xxviii.  30,  31). 
It  is  generally  believed  that  on  his  "  appeal  to  Cae- 
sar "  he  was  acquitted,  and,  after  some  time  spent 
in  freedom,  was  a  second  time  imprisoned  at  Rome 
(for  proofs,  see  C.  and  H.  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ch. 
xxvii.,  and  Alford,  Gr.  Test.  iii.  ch.  7).  Five  of 
his  epistles,  namely,  those  to  the  Colossians,  Ephe- 
sians,  Philippians,  that  to  Philemon,  and  the  2d 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  were,  in  all  probability,  written 
from  Rome,  the  latter  shortly  before  his  death  (2 
Tim.  iv.  6),  the  others  during  his  first  imprison- 
ment. It  is  universally  believed  that  he  suflfered 
martyrdom  at  Rome. 

2.  The  localities  in  and  about  Rome  especially 
connected  with  the  life  of  St.  Paul  are  —  (1.)  The 
Appian  Way,  by  which  he  approached  Rome  (Acts 
xxviii.  15).  (See  Appii  Fokuji,  and  Diet,  of 
Geogr.  "Via  Appia.")  (2.)  "The  palace,"  or 
"Caesar's  court"  (rb  irpairccpLov,  Phil.  i.  13). 
This  may  mean  either  the  great  camp  of  the  Prae- 
torian guards  which  Tiberius  established  outside 
the  walls  on  the  N.  E.  of  the  city  (Tac.  Anji.  iv  2; 
Suet.  Tib.  37),  or,  as  seems  more  probable,  a  bar- 
rack attached  to  the  Imperial  residence  on  the  Pal- 
atine (Wieseler,  as  quoted  by  C.  and  H.,  Life  of 
St.  Paul,  ii.  423).  There  is  no  sufficient  proof 
that  the  word  "  Praetorium  "  was  ever  used  to  des- 
iifiiate  the  emperor's  palace,  though  it  is  used  for 
the  oftieial  residence  of  a  Roman  governor  ( John 
xviii.  28;  Acts  xxiii.  35).  The  mention  of  "Cae- 
sar's household "  (Phil.  iv.  22),  confirms  the 
notion  that  St.  Paul's  residence  was  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood  of  the  emperor's  house 
on  the  Palatine.     [Judgment-Hall  ;    Pk.eto- 

HIUM.] 

3.  The  connection  of  other  localities  at  Rome 
with  St.  Paul's  name  rests  only  on  traditions  of 
more  or  less  proliability.  We  may  mention  esp& 
cially  —  (1.)  The  Mamertine  prison  or  Tulliaiium 
built  by  Aneus  Martins  near  the  forun   (Liv.  i.  33 


ROME 

iescrilied  by  tx.Uust  {Cat.  55).  It  still  exists  be- 
neatli  the  church  of  S.  Giuseppe  cki  Faleiimuni. 
Here  it  is  said  that  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  were 
fellow-prisouers  for  nine  tuonths.  This  is  not  the 
place  to  discuss  the  question  whevher  St.  Peter  was 
ever  at  Rome.  It  may  he  sufficient  to  state,  that 
though  there  is  no  evidence  of  such  a  visit  in  the 
N.  T.,  unless  Babylon  in  1  Pet.  v.  1-3  is  a  mystical 
name  for  Rome,  yet  early  testimony  (Diony.sius,  "p. 
Euseb.  ii.  2.3),  and  the  universal  belief  of  the  early 
Church  seem  sutHcient  to  establish  the  fact  of  his 
having  suftered  martyrdom  there.  [Peter,  \o1.  ill. 
p.  2454.]  The  story,  however,  of  the  imprison- 
ment ill  the  ]\Iamertine  prison  seems  inconsistent 
with  2  Tim.,  especially  iv.  11.  (2.)  The  chapel  on 
the  Ostian  road  which  marks  the  spot  where  the 
two  Apostles  are  said  to  have  separated  on  their 
way  to  martyrdom.  (3.)  The  supposed  scene  of 
St.  Paul's  martyrdom,  namely,  the  church  of  Si. 
Paolo  alle  tre  fontane  on  the  Ostian  road.  (See 
the  notice  of  the  Ostian  road  in  Caius,  ap.  luis.  //. 
E.  ii.  25.)  To  these  may  be  added  (4.)  The  sup- 
posed scene  of  St.  Peter's  martyrdom,  namely,  the 
church  of  St.  Pittru  in  JMontorio,  on  the  Janicu- 
lum.  (5.)  The  chapel  "  Domine  quo  Vadis,"  on 
the  Appian  road,  the  scene  of  the  beautiful  legend 
of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  St.  Peter  as  he  was 
esc.iping  from  martyrdom  (Ambrose,  Ep.  3-3).  (6.) 
The  places  where  the  bodies  of  the  two  Apostles, 
after  having  been  deposited  first  in  the  catacombs 
{KOLfj.r]Tr)pia)  (Kus.  //.  E.  ii.  25),  are  supposed  to 
have  been  tinally  buried  —  that  of  St.  Paul  by  the 
Ostian  road ;  that  of  St.  Peter  beneath  the  dome 
of  the  famous  Basilica  which  bears  his  name  (see 
Caius,  up.  Ku3.  //.  E.  ii.  25).  All  these  and  many 
other  traditions  will  be  found  in  the  Annals  of 
Baronius,  under  the  last  year  of  Nero.  "  Value- 
less as  may  be  the  historical  testimony  of  each  of 
these  traditions  singly,  yet  collecti\'ely  they  are  of 
some  importance  as  expressiuLC  the  consciousness 
of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  that  there  had 
been  an  early  contest,  or  at  least  contrast,  be- 
tween the  two  Apostles,  which  in  the  end  was 
completely  reconciled;  and  it  is  this  feeling 
which  gives  a  real  interest  to  the  outward  forms 
in  which  it  is  brought  before  us,  more  or  less 
indeed  in  all  the  south  of  Europe,  but  especially 
in  Rome  itself"  (Stanley's  >Sej'/«o«5  and  Essays, 
p.  101). 

4.  We  must  add,  as  sites  unquestionably  con- 
nected with  the  Roman  Christians  of  the  Apostolic 
age  —  (1.)  The  gardens  of  Nero  in  the  Vatican,  not 
far  from  the  spot  where  St.  Peter's  now  stands. 
Here  Christians  wrapped  in  the  skins  of  lieasts 
were  torn  to  pieces  by  dogs,  or,  clothed  in  inflam- 
mable robes,  were  burnt  to  serve  as  torches  during 
the  midnight  games.  Others  were  crucified  ( Tac. 
Ami.  XV.  44).  (2.)  The  Catacombs.  These  sub- 
terranean galleries,  commonly  from  8  to  10  feet  in 
height,  and  from  4  to  6  in  width,  and  extending 
for  miles,  especially  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  old 
Appian  and  Nomentan  ways,  were  unqueslion.al)ly 
used  as  places  of  refuge,  of  worship,  and  of  burial 
by  the  early  Christians.  It  is  impossible  here  to 
inter  upon  the  difficult  question  of  their  origin. 


o  1.  "Ai-Ti  (Matt.  ii.  22). 

2.  Xiapslv  (Mark  ii.  2). 

3.  Trin-os  (Luke  ii.  7,  xiv.  22  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  16). 

4-  IIoO  (Luke  xii.  17,  where  the  word  room  should 

be  printed  in  italics). 
5.  Au'.^oxffs  ('■  f.  a  succesaoT,  Acts  xxiv.  27 1, 


ROOM  2751 

and  their  possible  connection  with  the  deep  saud- 
pits  and  subterranean  works  at  Rome  mentioned 
by  classical  writers.  See  the  story  of  the  murder 
of  Asinius  (Cic.  ;jro  Cluerit.  13),  and  the  account 
of  the  concealment  offered  to  Nero  before  his 
death  (Suet.  Nero,  48).  A  more  complete  ac- 
count of  the  catacombs  than  any  yet  given,  may 
be  expected  in  the  forthcoming  work  of  the  Cav- 
•aliere  G.  H.  de  Rossi.  Some  very  interesting  no- 
tices of  this  work,  and  descriptions  ijf  the  Roman 
catacombs  are  given  in  Burgon's  Letters  from 
Riime,  pp.  120-258.  "  De  Rossi  finds  his  earliest 
dated  inscription  A.  d.  71.  From  that  date  to  a.  u. 
300  there  are  not  known  to  exist  so  many  as  thirty 
Clu-istian  inscriptions  bearing  dates.  Of  undated 
inscriptions,  however,  about  4,000  are  referable  to 
the  period  antecedent  to  the  emperor  Constantine  " 
(Hurgon,  p.  148).  [See  De  Rossi's  Jnscriplioaes 
Christ.  Urbis  Roma,  Vol.  I.  Rom.  1861,  fol.] 

Nothing  is  known  of  the  first  founder  of  the 
Christian  Church  at  Rome.  Christianity  may, 
perhaps,  have  been  introduced  into  the  city  not 
long  after  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  the  "  strangers  of  Rome," 
who  were  then  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  ii.  10).  It  is 
clear  that  there  were  many  Christians  at  Rome  be- 
fore St.  Paul  visited  the  city  (Rom.  i.  8,  13,  15, 
XV.  20).  The  names  of  twent3'-f'our  Christians  at 
Rome  are  given  in  the  salutations  at  the  end  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  For  the  difficult  question 
whether  the  Roman  Church  consisted  mainly  of 
.Jews  or  Gentiles,  see  C.  and  H.,  LiJ'e  of  St.  Paul, 
ii.  157 ;  Alford's  Proleg. ;  and  especially  Prof. 
.Jowett's  Epistles  oj"  St.  Paul  to  the.  Romans,  Ga- 
litians,  and  Thess(doniaris,  ii.  7-2G.  The  view 
there  adopted,  that  they  were  a  Gentile  Church  but 
Jewish  converts,  seems  most  in  harmony  with  such 
passiges  as  ch.  i.  5,  13,  xi.  13,  and  with  the  gen- 
eral tone  of  the  epistle. 

Linus  (who  is  mentioned,  2  Tim.  iv.  21),  and 
Clement  (Phil.  iv.  3),  are  supposed  to  have  suc- 
ceeded St.  Peter  as  bishops  of  Rome. 

Rome  seems  to  be  described  under  the  name  of 
Bab)  Ion  in  Rev.  xiv.  8,  xvi.  19,  xvii.  5,  xviii.  2,  21; 
and  again,  as  the  city  of  the  seven  hills  (Rev.  xvii. 
9,  cf  xii.  3,  xiii.  1).  See  too,  for  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  mystical  number  666  in  Rev.  siii.  18, 
Alford's  note,  1.  c. 

For  a  good  account  of  Rome  at  the  time  of  St. 
Paul's  visit,  see  Conylteare  and  Howson's  Life  oj 
St.  Paul,  ch.  xxiv.,  of  which  free  use  has  been 
made  for  the  sketch  of  the  city  given  in  this  ar 
tide.  J.  J.  H. 

ROOF.     [Dabei?ath,  Amer.  ed. ;  HousE.J  ■ 

ROOM.  This  word  is  employed  in  the  .\.  ^ . 
of  the  New  Testament  as  the  equivalent  of  no  less 
than  eight  distinct  Greek  "  terms.  The  only  one 
of  these,  however,  which  need  be  noticed  here  is 
TrpcoTo/cAjcri'o  (Matt,  xxiii.  6;  Mark  xii.  39;  Luke 
xiv.  7,  8,  x-x.  46),  which  signifies,  not  a  "  room  "  in 
the  sense  we  commonly  attach  to  it  of  a  chamber, 
but  the  highest  place  on  the  highest  couch  round 
the  dinner  or  supper-talile — -tlie  "ui)permost  seat," 
as  it  is  more  accurately  rendored  in  Luke  xi.  43. 
[Meals.]    The  word  "seat"  is,  however,  generally 


6.  rtptuTOKAio-ia  (chief,  highest,  uppermost  room. 

See  above). 

7.  'Kva.ya.Kov  (,au  upper  room,  Mark  xiv.  15;  Luk« 

xxii.  12). 

8.  To   virepiiL-r     (the  upper  room,  Acts  i.  13). 


2752  ROSE 

appropriated  by  our  translators  to  Ka6eSpa,  which 
seems  to  mean  some  kind  of  official  chair.  In  Luke 
xiv.  9,  10,  they  have  rendered  rSiros  hy  both 
"  place  "  and  "  room." 

The  Upper  Roo.m  of  the  Last  Supper  is  noticed 
inder  its  own  head.     [See  House,  vol.  ii.  p.  1 105.] 

G. 

ROSE  (nb-!|5n,  cltabnUtselttk:  Kpivov, 
&vQos\  Aq.  naKv^'-  flos,  UUum)  occurs  twice  only, 
namely,  in  Cant.  ii.  1,  "  I  am  the  Rose  of  Sharon," 
and  in  Is.  xxxv.  1,  "  the  desert  shall  rejoice  and 
blos.som  as  the  ?'()se."  There  is  much  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  what  particular  flower  is  here 
denoted.  Tremellius  and  Diodati,  with  some  of 
the  Kabbins,  believe  the  rose  is  intended,  but  there 
seems  to  be  no  foundation  for  such  a  translation. 
Celsius  (Hierob.  i.  488)  has  argued  in  favor  of  the 
Narcissus  {Pulynnilnis  narcissus).  This  renderinp; 
is  supported  by  the  Targum  on  Cant.  ii.  1,  where 

Chabutslstleth  is  explained  by  narkos  Olp"13). 
This  word,  says  Koyle  (Kitto's  Cyc.  art.  "  (  ha- 
bazzeleth"),  is  "the  same  as  the  Persian  n:ii(/us, 

the  Arabic   /u^SfcyJ 

indicates  Narcissus  Tdzetta,  or  the  polyai  thus 
narcissus."  Gesenius  {T/ies.s.  v.)  has  no  doubt 
that  the  plant  denoted  is  the  '-autumn  ciocus" 
{Colchicum  nutumnah).  It  is  well  worthy  of  re- 
mark that  the  Syriac  translator  of  Is.  xxxv.  1 
explains  chabatststlt'th  by  chiimtsrilyotIi<i,"  which  is 
evidently  the  same  word,  m  and  b  lieinsx  inter- 
changed. This  Syriac  word,  according  to  Michaelis 
{Supjil.  p.  0.59),  Gesenius,  and  Hosenmiiller  (Bib. 
Bol.  p.  142),  denotes  the  Colchicum  <(iilumiwle.. 
The  Hebrew  word  points  etymologicaUy  to  some 
bulbous  plant;  it  appears  to  us  more  probable  that 
the  narcissus  is  intended  than  the  crocus,  the 
former  plant  being  long  celebrated  for  its  fragrance, 
while  the  other  has  no  odorous  qualities  to  recom- 
mend it.  Again,  as  the  chabatstselvtii  is  associated 
with  the  lily  in  Cant.  I.  c,  it  seems  pi-obaMe  that 
Solomon  is  speaking  of  two  plants  which  blossomed 
about  the  same  time.  The  narcissus  and  the  lily 
[Liliuni  condidum)  would  be  in  lilossom  together 
in  the  early  spring,  while  the  Colcliicuvi  is  an 
autumn  plant.  Thomson  {L<md  and  Booh,  pp. 
112,  51-3)  suggests  the  possil)ility  of  the  Hebrew 
name  being  identical  with  the  Arabic  Kliubbaizy 


j ,  which  throughout  the  East 


(8 


■  1  J  ~^)j    "the  mallow,"  which 


plant  he  saw  growing  abundantly  on  Sharon;  but 
this  view  can  hardly  be  maintained :  the  Hebrew 
term  is  probably  a  quadriliteral  noun,  with  the 
harsh  aspirate  prefixed,  and  the  prominent  notion 
implied  in  it  is  bvtsel,  "  a  bulb,"  and  has  therefore 
no  connection  with  the  above-named  Arabic  word. 
Chateaubriand  (Ilineraire,  ii.  130)  mentions  the 
narcissus  as  growing  Iti  the  plain  of  Sharon ;  and 
Strand  (Flor.  Paliest.  No.  177)  names  it  as  a  plant 
of  Palestine,  on  the  authority  of  Jiauwolf  and 
Hasselquist;  see  also  Kitto's  Pliys.  f/ist.  (f  Palest. 
p.  216.  Hiller  {Ilieropinjl.  ii.  30)  thinks  the  cha- 
haUtsekth  denotes  some  species  of  asphodel  [Aspliu- 


'  '  V 

b  *  <f  From  the  locality  of  Jericho,"  says  Mr.  Tris- 
jam,  "aiul  the  situation  Uy  tlie  waters,  tliis  rose  is 
nogt  probably  the  Oleander,  the  Rknitnilenrlrnn,  or 
Me-rose  of  tlie  Greeks,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and 


ROSH 

dclus) :  but  the  finger-like  roots  of  this  genua  of 
pl.ints  do  not  well  accord  with  the  "  bulb  "  root 
implied  in  the  original  word. 

Though  the  rose  is  apparently  not  mentioned  in 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  it  is  referred  to  in  Ecclus.  xxiv. 
14,  where  it  is  said  of  Wisdom  that  she  is  e.xalted 
"as  a  rose-plant  (djj  cpvTa  p6Sov)  in  Jericho" 
(comp.  also  ch.  1.  8;  xxxix.  13;  VVisd.  ii.  8).* 
Roses  are  greatly  prized  in  the  East,  more  espe- 
cially for  the  sake  of  the  rose-water,  which  is  in 
much  request  (see  Hasselquist,  Trav.  p.  248).  Dr. 
Hooker  observed  the  following  wild  roses  in  Syria: 
Rosa  eijlanifvia  (L.),  R.  sempervirens  (L.),  E. 
Henkeliann,  R.  Phanicia  (Boiss),  R.  seriacea,  R. 
nngustifoU^t,  and  R.  Libanotica.  Some  of  these 
are  doubtful  species.  R.  centifoUn  and  damascena 
are  cultivated  everywhere.  The  so-called  "  Rose 
of  Jericho  "  is  no  rose  at  all,  but  the  Anastatica 
Hierocliunlina,  a  cruciferous  plant,  not  uncommon 
on  sandy  soil  in  Palestine  and  Egypt.        W.  H. 

ROSH  (trSI  [Imad]:  'Pc£s:  Ros).  In  the 
genealogy  of  (ien.  xlvi.  21,  Kosh  is  reckoned  among 
the  sons  of  Henjamin,  but  the  name  does  not  occur 
elsewhere,  and  it  is  extremely  probable  that  "  Ehi 
and  Rosh  "  is  a  corruption  of  "  Ahiram  "  (comp. 
Num.  xxvi.  38).  See  Burrington's  Generdor/its,  i. 
281. 

ROSH  (trS"l  :  'Ptis,  Ez.  xxxviii.  2,  3,  xxxix. 
1 :  translated  by  the  Vulg.  capitis,  and  by  the  A. 

V.  "chief,"  as  if  tt'S""),  "head").  The  whole 
sentence  thus  rendered  by  the  A.  V.  "  Magog  the 
chief  prince  of  Meshech  and  Tubal,"  ouiiht  to  ru.n 
"  Magog  the  prince  of  Ros'h,  Mesech,  and  Tubal;  " 

the  word  translated  "  prince "  being  S"'£i?3,  the 
term  usually  employed  for  the  head  of  a  nomad 
tribe,  as  of  Abraham  (in  Gen.  x.xiii.  fi),  of  the 
Arabians  (Gen.  xvii.  20),  and  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
several  Israelite  tribes  (Num.  vii.  41,  xxxiv.  18),  or 
in  a  general  sense  (1  K.  xi.  34;  Ez.  xii.  10.  xlv.  7, 
xlvi.  2).  The  meaning  is  that  Magog  is  the  head 
of  the  three  ^reat  Scythian  tribes,  of  which  "  Rosh  " 
is  thus  the  first.  Gesenius  considers  it  beyond 
doubt  that  by  Rosh,  or  'Pcis,  is  intended  the  tribe 
on  the  north  of  the  Taurus,  so  called  from  their 
neighborhood  to  the  Rha,  or  Volga,  and  that  in 
this  name  and  trilie  we  have  the  first  trace  of  the 
Kuss  or  Russian  nation.  Von  Hammer  identifies 
this  name  with  Rass  in  the  Koran  (xxv.  40;  1.  12), 
"the  peoples  Aad,  Thaniud,  and  the  Asshabir  (or 
inhabitants)  of  Rass  or  Ross."  He  considers  that 
Mohammed  had  actually  the  passage  of  Ezekiel  in 
view,  and  that  "Asshabir"  corresponds  to  Nasi, 
the  "prince"  of  the  A.  V.,  and  &pxovTa  of  the 
LXX.  {Hur  les  Oriyims  Rnsses,  Petersburg,  1825, 
pp.  24—29).  The  first  certain  mention  of  the  Rus- 
sians under  this  name  is  in  a  Latin  Chronicle  under 
the  year  A.  D.  839,  quoted  by  Bayer  ( Orirjims 
Russicce,  Comment.  Acad.  Petropol.  1726,  p.'  409). 
From  the  junction  of  Tiras  with  Meshech  and 
Tuljal  in  Gen.  x.  2,  Von  Hammer  conjectures  the 
identity  of  Tiras  and  Rosli  (p.  26). 

The  name  probably  occurs  again  under  the 
altered  form  of  Rasses,  in  Judith  ii.  23 —  this  time 

attractive  plants  of  Palestine,  which  abounds  in  all 
the  warmer  parts  of  the  country  by  the  side  of  pooll 
.aud  streams,  and  flourishes  especially  at  Jericho,  wher* 
I  have  not  seen  our  rose"  (Nat.  Hist,  of  tlie  Bibit, 
p.  477).  H. 


ROSIN 

m  the  ancient  Latin,  and  possibly  also  in  the 
Sjriac  versions,  in  conneotion  with  Thiras  or  'I'hars. 
But  the  passage  is  too  corrupt  to  admit  of  any 
certain  deduction  from  it.      [Kasses.] 

This  early  Biblical  notice  of  so  great  an  empire 
is  doubly  interesting  from  its  being  a  solitary 
instance.  No  other  name  of  any  modern  nation 
occurs  in  tlie  Scriptures,  and  the  obliteration  of  it 
by  the  A.  V.  is  one  of  the  many  remarkable  varia- 
tions of  our  version  from  the  meaning  of  the  sacred 
te.Kt  of  the  Old  Testament.  I'or  all  further  in- 
formation see  the  above-quoted  treatises  of  Von 
Hammer  and  Bayer.  A.  P.  S. 

ROSIN.  Properly  "naphtha,"  as  it  is  both 
in  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  (vdcpda,  nnplitlm),  as  well 
as  the  Peshito-Syriac.  In  the  Song  of  the  Three 
Children  (23),  the  servants  of  the  king  of  Pabylon 
are  said  to  have  "  ceased  not  to  make  the  oven  hot 
with  rosin,  pitch,  tow,  and  small  wood."  Pliny 
(ii.  101)  mentions  naphtha  as  a  product  of  Baby- 
Ionia,  similar  in  appearance  to  liquid  bitumen,  and 
having  a  remarkable  affinity  to  fire.  To  this 
natural  product  (known  also  as  Persian  naphtha, 
petroleum,  rock  oil,  Rangoon  tar,  Burmese  naph- 
tha, etc.)  reference  is  made  in  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion. Sir  R.  K.  Porter  thus  describes  the  naphtha 
springs  at  Kirkook  in  Lower  Courdistan,  mentioned 
by  Strabo  (xvii.  738):  "They  are  ten  in  number. 
For  a  considerable  distance  from  them  we  felt  the 
air  sulphurous:  but  in  drawing  near  it  became 
worse,  and  we  were  all  instantly  struck  with  ex- 
cruciating headaches.  The  springs  consist  of  sev- 
eral [)its  or  wells,  seven  or  eight  feet  in  diameter, 
and  ten  or  twelve  deep.  The  whole  numlier  are 
witliin  the  compass  of  five  hundred  yards.  A 
flight  of  steps  has  been  cut  into  each  pit  for  the 
purpose  of  approaching  the  fluid,  which  rises  and 
falls  according  to  the  dryness  or  moisture  of  the 
weather.  The  natives  lave  it  out  with  ladles  into 
bags  made  of  skins,  which  are  carried  on  the  backs 
of  asses  to  Kirkook,  or  to  any  other  mart  for  its 
sale The  Kirkook  naphtha  is  prin- 
cipally consumed  by  tiie  markets  in  the  southwest 
of  Courdistan,  while  the  pits  not  far  from  Kufri 
supply  Bagdad  and  its  environs.  The  Bagdad 
naphtha  is  black  "  ( Trav.  ii.  440).  It  is  described 
by  Dioscorides  (i.  101)  as  the  dregs  of  the  Baby- 
lonian asphalt,  and  wliite  in  color.  According  to 
Plutarch  (Alex.  p.  3.5)  Alexander  first  saw  it  in  the 
city  of  Ecbatana,  where  the  inhabitants  exhiliited 
its  marvelous  etfects  by  strewing  it  along  the  street 
which  led  to  his  headquarters  and  setting  it  on 
fire.  He  then  tried  an  experiment  on  a  pa<xe  who 
attended  him,  putting  him  into  a  bath  of  napiitha 
and  setting  lii^ht  to  it  (Strabo,  xvii.  743),  which 
nearly  resulted  in  the  lioy's  death.  Plutarch  sug- 
gests that  it  was  naphtha  in  which  IMedea  steeped 
the  crown  and  robe  which  she  gave  to  the  daugliter 
of  Creon ;  and  Suidas  says  that  the  (ireeks  called 
it  "  Jledea's  oil,"  but  the  Medes  "  naphtha."     The 

Persian  name  is     ''^ "  ''^    {nnfl).     Posidonius  (in 

Strabo)  relates  that  in  Baliylonia  there  were  springs 
>f  black  and  white  naphtha.  The  foinner,  says 
otrabo  (xvii.  743),  were  of  liquid  bitumen,  which 


a  The   Chald.  ")"!   (Esth.   i.  6),    which   the   A.  i'. 
lenders  "white,"  and  which  seems  to  be  identica  with 


t»  Arab.    ^i3,   dun. 


'  pearls  ; ' 


S>  i^j   liurrah,  "  3 


RUE  2753 

they  burnt  in  lamps  instead  of  oil.  The  lattef 
were  of  liquid  sulphur.  W.  A.  W. 

*  ROWERS.     [Siiii-  (6.)] 

*  ROWS,  Cant.  i.  10.  [ORNAMENr.s,  Per- 
sonal, note  s.] 

RUBIES  (Q^*??,  penhjijim  ;  D''3"*2S,  penU 
nim:  \'t6oi,  \-  iroAvreKeU'-  cuiictie  opes,  cuncta 
pretiusissima,  gem/iue,  </t  ultinis  Jtiiibtis,  ebor  an- 
tiquum), the  invariable  rendering  of  the  above- 
namedfHebrew  words,  concerning  the  meaning  of 
which  there  is  much  difference  of  opitiion  and  great 
uncertainty.  "  The  price  of  wisdom  is  above  peni- 
niw  "  (.lob  xxviii.  18:  see  also  Prov.  iii.  15,  viii. 
11,  xxxi.  10).  In  Lam.  iv.  7  it  is  said,  "the 
Nazarites  were  purer  than  snow,  tliey  were  whiter 
than  milk,  they  were  more  ruddy  in  body  than 
peinnim.'"  A.  Boote  {Animnd.  Sac.  iv.  3),  on 
account  of  the  ruddiness  mentioned  in  the  last 
passage,  supposed  "coral"  to  be  intended,  for 
which,  however,  there  ajipears  to  be  another  Hebrew 
word.  [Coral.]  .J.  D.  Michaelis  {Siippl.  p.  2023) 
is  of  the  same  opinion,  and  compares  the  Hebrew 

n339  with  the  Arab.  ..S-O,  "a  branch."     Gese- 

nius  ( Tlies.  s.  v.)  defends  this  argument.  Bochart 
{fUeroz.  iii.  601)  contends  that  the  Hebrew  term 
denotes  pearls,  and  explains  the  "  ruddiness  "  al- 
luded to  aliove,  by  supposing  that  the  original  word 

(^  ."T"^)  signifies  merely  "bright  in  color,"  or 
"color  of  a  reddish  tinge."  This  opinion  is  sup- 
ported by  Rosenmiiller  (Schol.  in  Thren.),  and 
others,  but  opposed  by  Maurer  (Comment)  and 
Gesenius.  Certainly  it  would  be  no  compliment 
to  the  great  people  of  the  land  to  say  that  their 
bodies  were  as  red  as  coral  or  rubies,  unless  we 
adopt  Maurer's  explanation,  who  refers  the  "  rud 
diness  "  to  the  blood  which  flowed  in  their  veins. 
On  the  whole,  considering  that  the  Hel>rew  word 
is  always  used  in  the  plural,  we  are  inclined  to 
adopt  Bochart's  explanation,  and  understand  pearls 
to  be  intended."     [Pearls.]  W.  H. 

*    RUDDER-BANDS,     Acts    xxvii.    40 
[Ship  (2.)] 

RUB  (iriiyavov-  ruta.)  occurs  only  in  Luke  xl 
42:  ""Woe  unto  you,  Pharisees!  for  >6  t'the  mint 
and  rue  and  all  manner  of  herbs."  The  i\xi  bere 
spoken  of  is  doulitless  the  comnDr,  RiUx  grnre- 
oleiis,  a  shrubby  plant  about  2  feet  high,  of  strong 
medicinal  virtues.  It  is  a  native  of  tiie  Mediter- 
ranean coasts,  and  has  been  found  by  Hasselquist 
on  Mount  Tabor.  Dioscorides  (iii.  4.5)  describes 
two  kinds  of  Trrjyavov,  namely,  v.  op^ivov  and  tt. 
KriirevTUP,  which  denote  the  Rula  mviitana  and 
R.  grnviolens  respectively.  Rue  was  in  great 
repute  amongst  the  ancients,  both  as  a  condiment 
and  as  a  medicine  (Pliny,  N.  H.  xix.  8;  Columell. 
R.  Riis.  xii.  7,  §  5:  Dioscorides,  /.  c).  The  Tal 
mud  enumerates  rue  amongst  kitchen-herbs  (She- 
hiith,  ch.  ix.  §  1),  and  regards  it  as  free  of  tithe, 
as  being  a  plant  not  cultivated  in  gardens.  In  our 
Lord's  time,  however,  rue  was  doubtless  a  garden- 
plant,  and  therefore  tithable,  as  is  evident  from 
our  Lord's  words,  "  these  things  ought  ye  to  have 


pearl,"  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  "  mother  of 
pearl,"  or  the  kind  of  alabaster  called  in  Oermao 
Perlenmiitterstein.  The  hXX.  hus  nCi'vivoi  M6oi.  Sat 
Gesenius,  and  Winer  (Bibl.  Realiv.  i.  71). 


2754 


RUFUS 


done."     The  rue  is  too  well  known  to  need  de- 
icription.o  ^V^  H. 

RU'FUS  i'Povcpos  [red,  reddish] :  Jiufus)  is 
mentioned  in  Mark  xv.  21,  along  with  Alexander, 
as  a  son  of  Simon  the  Cyrensean,  whom  the  Jews 
compelled  to  Lear  the  cross  of  Jesus  on  the  way  to 
Golgotha  (Luke  xxiii.  26).  As  the  Evangelist 
informs  his  readers  who  Simon  was  by  naming  the 
sons,  it  is  evident  that  the  latter  were  better 
known  than  the  father  in  the  circle  of  Christians 
where  JMark  lived.  Again,  in  Kom.  xvi.  18,  the 
Apostle  Paul  salutes  a  Kufus  whom  he  designates 
as  "elect  in  the  Lord  "  (e/cAe/crbi'  iv  Kupi'w),  and 
whose  mother  he  gracefully  recognizes  as  having 
earned  a  mother's  claim  upon  himself  l)y  acts  of 
kindness  shown  to  him.  It  is  generally  supposed 
that  this  Itufus  was  identical  with  the  one  to  whom 
Mark  refers;  and  in  that  case,  as  JNIark  wrote  his 
gospel  in  all  probability  at  Rome,  it  was  natural 
that  be  should  describe  to  his  readers  the  father 
(who,  since  the  mother  was  at  Home  while  the 
father  apparently  was  not  there,  may  have  died,  or 
have  come  ktcr  to  that  city)  from  his  relationship 
to  two  well-known  memliers  of  the  same,  com- 
munity. It  is  some  proof  at  least  of  the  early 
existence  of  this  view  that,  in  the  Actis  Andrece  e.t 
Petri,  both  Rufus  and  Alexander  appear  as  com- 
panions of  Peter  in  Home.  Assuming,  then,  that 
the  same  person  is  meant  in  the  two  passages,  we 
have  before  us  an  interesting  group  of  believers  — 
a  father  (for  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  Simon 
became  a  Christian,  if  he  was  not  already  such,  at 
the  time  of  the  crucifixion),  a  mother,  and  two 
brothers,  all  in  the  same  fixmily.  Yet  we  are  to 
bear  in  mind  that  Kufus  was  not  an  uncommon 
name  (Wetsteiu,  Nov.  Test.,  vol.  i.  p.  6.34);  and 
possil)ly,  therefore,  Mark  and  Paul  may  have  had 
in  view  different  individuals.  H.  B.  H. 

RUHA'MAH  (HT^nn  [commiserated]: 
riXfrj/jLfvr]'.  misericordiam  co/isecuia).  The  mar- 
gin of  our  version  renders  it  "  having  obtained 
mercy  ''  (Hos.  ii.  1).  The  name,  if  name  it  be,  is 
like  Lo-ruhamah,  symbolical,  and  as  that  was  given 
to  the  daughter  of  the  prophet  Hosea,  to  denote 
that  God's  mercy  was  turned  away  from  Israel,  so 
the  name  liuhamah  is  addressed  to  the  daughters 
of  the  people  to  denote  that  they  were  still  the  ob- 
jects of  his  love  and  tender  compassion. 

RU'MAH  (na^~l  [luY/h,  exnlied]:  'Pou/xii: 
Joseph.  'A^ov/uLa'.  Rama).  iMentioned,  once  only 
(2  K.  xxiii.  36),  as  the  native  place  of  a  certain 
Pedaiah,  the  father  of  Zebudah,  a  member  of  the 
harem  of  king  Josiah,  and  mother  of  Eliakim  or 
Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah. 

It  has  l)een  conjectured  to  be  the  same  plaee  as 
Arumah  (.(udg.  ix.  41),  which  was  apparently  near 
Shechem.  It  is  more  probable  that  it  is  identical 
with  Dumah,  one  of  the  towns  in  the  mountains  of 
Judah,  near  Ileljron  (Josh.  xv.  52),  not  far  distant 
from  Libnah,  the  native  town  of  another  of  Josiah's 
wives.  The  Hebrew  D  and  R  are  so  similar  as 
often  to  be  confounded  together,  and  Dumah  must 
have  at  any  rate  been  written  liumah  in  the  He- 
brew text  from  which  tlie  LXX.  translated,  since 
they  give  it  as  Remna  and  Rouma. 

Josephus  mentions  a  Rumah  in  Galilee  (5.  J. 
ii.  7,  §  21).  G. 

o  *  "  AVe  collected,"  says  Tristram,  "  four  species 
»Ud  iu  Palestine.  Riita  uraveoleiis  is  cultivated  '"  ( AVi^. 
Bijit.  of  the  Bible,  p.  478).  H. 


RUTH 
RUSH.     [Reed.] 

RUST  {QpSxris,  Us'  cerugo)  occurs  as  the  trans- 
lation of  two  different  Greek  words  in  Blatt.  vi.  19 
20,  and  in  Jam.  v.  3.  In  the  former  passage  the 
word  /Sp&jo-is.  which  is  joined  with  o-»)s,  "moth." 
has  by  some  been  understood  to  denote  the  larva  of 
some  moth  injurious  to  corn,  as  the  Tinea  grantUa 
(see  Stainton,  Insecta  Britan.  iii.  30).  The  He- 
brew W3  (Is.  1.  9)  is  rendered  ^pwais  by  Aquila; 
comp.  also  Epist.  Jerem.  v.  12,  airh  lov  Kal  fipai- 
fxarciiv,  "  from  rust  and  moths"  (A.  V.  Bar.  vi.  12). 
Scultetus  (Exerc.  Evung.  ii.  35,  Crit.  Sac.  vi.) 
believes  that  the  words  o-?^s  koI  ^pucris  are  an  hen- 
diadys  for  o-r?i  ^pwaKoiv.  The  word  can  scarcely 
be  taken  to  signify  "  rust,"  for  which  there  is 
another  term,  Us,  which  is  used  by  St.  James  to 
express  rather  the  "tarnish"  which  overspreads 
silver  than  "rust,"  by  which  name  we  now  under- 
stand "  oxide  of  iron."  hpSiais  is  no  doubt  in- 
tended to  have  reference  in  a  general  sense  to  any 
corrupting  and  destroying  substance  that  may  at- 
tack treasures  of  any  kind  which  have  long  been 
suffered  to  remain  undisturbed.  The  allusion  of 
St.  James  is  to  the  corroding  nature  of  Us  on  met- 
als. Scultetus  correctly  observes,  "  ajrugine  de- 
forman'tur  quidem,  sed  iion  corrumpuntur  immmi ;  " 
but  though  this  is  strictly  speaking  true,  the  an- 
cients, just  as  ourselves  in  connnon  parlance,  spoke 
of  the  corroding  nature  of  "  rust "  (comp.  Ham- 
mond, Annotal.  in  Matt.  vi.  19).  \V.  H. 

RUTH  (n^n:  'Po^e:  probably  for  ra27"l,' 
"  a  friend,"  the  feminine  of  Reu).  A  Moaliitish 
woman,  the  wife,  first,  of  Mahlon,  secondly  of  Boaz, 
and  by  him  mother  of  Obed,  the  ancestress  of  Da- 
vid and  of  Christ,  and  one  of  the  four  women 
(Tliamar,  Rahab,  and  Uriah's  wife  being  tlie  other 
three)  who  are  named  by  St.  Matthew  in  the  gen- 
ealogy of  Christ.  [Raiiab.]  The  incidents  in 
Hutli's  life,  as  detailed  in  the  beautiful  book  that 
bears  her  name,  may  be  epitomized  as  follows.  A 
severe  famine  in  the  land  of  Judah,  caused  perhaps 
by  the  occupation  of  the  land  by  the  JMoabites  un- 
der Eglon  (as  Ussher  thinks  possible),"^  induced 
Elimelech,  a  native  of  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  to  emi- 
grate into  the  land  of  Moab,  with  his  wife  Naomi, 
and  his  two  sons,  Mahlon  and  Chilion.  At  the 
end  of  ten  years  Naomi,  now  left  a  widow  and 
childless,  having  heard  that  there  was  plenty  again 
in  Judah,  resolved  to  return  to  Bethlehem,  and 
her  daughter-in-law,  Ruth,  returned  with  her. 
"  Whither  thou  goest,  I  will  go,  and  where  thou 
lodgest,  I  will  lod^e;  thy  people  shall  be  my  people, 
and  thy  God  my  God:  where  thou  diest  I  will  die, 
and  there  will  1  be  buried :  the  Lord  do  so  to  me,  and 
more  also,  if  aught  but  death  part  thee  and  me;" 
was  the  expression  of  the  unalterable  attachment 
of  the  young  Moabitish  widow  to  the  mother,  to 
the  land,  and  to  the  religion  of  her  lost  husl)and. 
They  arrived  at  Bethlehem  just  at  the  beginning 
of  barley  harvest,  and  Ruth,  going  out  to  •glean 
for  the  support  of  her  mother-in-law  and  herself, 
chanced  to  go  into  the  field  of  Boaz,  a  wealthy  man, 
the  near  kinsman  of  her  father-in-law  Elimelech.  / 
The  story  of  her  virtues  and  her  kindness  and 
fidelity  to  her  mother-in-law,  and  her  preference 
for  the  land  of  her  husband's  birth,  had  gone  before 


h  Some  tliink  it  is  for  iHIS"^,  "  beauty." 
p  Patrick  suggests  the  famine  iu  the  days  of  Qideo* 
(Judg.  vi.  3,  4). 


RUTH,  BOOK   OF 

3er ;  and  immediately  upou  learning  who  the  strange 
joui.g  woniun  was,  Boaz  treated  her  with  the  ut- 
most kindness  and  respect,  and  sent  her  home 
laden  with  corn  which  she  had  gleaned.  Encour- 
aged by  this  incident,  Naomi  instructed  liuth  to 
claim  at  the  hand  of  Boaz  that  he  should  perform 
the  part  of  her  husband's  near  kinsman,  by  pur- 
chasing the  inheritance  of  Elimelech,  And  taking 
her  to  be  his  wife.  But  there  was  a  nearer  kins- 
man than  Boaz,  and  it  was  necessary  tiiat  he 
should  have  the  option  of  redeeming  the  inheritance 
for  himself.  He,  however,  declined,  fearing  to  mar 
his  own  inheritance.  Upon  which,  with  all  due 
solemnity,  Boaz  took  Ruth  to  be  his  wife,  amidst 
the  blessings  and  congratulations  of  their  neighbors. 
As  a  singular  example  of  virtue  and  piety  in  a  rude 
age  and  among  an  idolatrous  people ;  as  one  of  the 
first-fruits  of  the  Gentile  harvest  gathered  into  the 
3hurch;  as  the  heroine  of  a  story  of  exquisite 
beauty  and  simplicity ;  as  illustrating  in  her  history 
the  workings  of  Divine  Providence,  and  the  truth 
of  the  saying,  that  "  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  over 
the  righteous;  "  and  for  the  many  interesting  rev- 
elations of  ancient  domestic  and  social  customs 
which  are  associated  with  her  story,  liuth  has  al- 
ways held  a  foremost  place  among  the  Scripture 
characters.  St.  Augustine  has  a  curious  specula- 
tion on  the  relative  blessedness  of  lluth,  twice  mar- 
lied,  and  by  her  second  marriage  becoming  the  an- 
cestress of  Christ,  and  Anna  remaining  constant  in 
her  widowhood  {De,  bono  Viduii.).  Jerome  ob- 
serves that  we  can  measure  the  greatness  of  Ruth's 
virtue  by  the  greatness  of  her  reward  —  "  Ex  ^us 
semine  Christus  oritur  "  {Epist.  xxii.  nd  Paulain). 
As  the  great-grandmother  of  King  David,  Ruth 
must  have  flourished  in  the  latter  part  of  Eli's 
"udgeship;  or  the  beginning  of  that  of  Samuel.  But 
there  seem  to  be  no  particular  notes  of  time  in  the 
book,  by  which  her  age  can  be  more  exactly  defined. 
The  story  was  put  into  its  present  shape,  avowedly, 
long  after  her  lifetime:  see  Ruth  i.  1,  iv.  7,  17. 
(Bertheau  on  Ruth,  in  the  Exeg.  Ilandb.;  Rosen- 
mWW.  P roMii.  in  Lib  Ruth;  Parker's  De  Wette; 
Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  205,  iii.  7(30  ff".)  A.  C.  H. 

*  RUTH,  BOOK  OF.  The  plan  of  the  Dic- 
lioimnj  requires  tiiat  some  account  should  be  given 
of  the  l)ook  of  which  Ruth  is  the  heroine.  The 
topics  which  claim  remark  are — its  place  in  the 
canon,  its  age,  authorship,  object,  sources  of  the  his- 
tory, its  archaeology  and  the  additional  literature. 

The  position  of  this  book  in  the  English  Bible 
accords  with  that  of  the  Septuagint,  it  being  very 
properly  inserted  between  Judges  and  ]  Samuel  as 
essentially  a  supplement  to  the  former  and  an  in- 
troduction to  the  latter,  for  though  Eli  and  Samuel 
as  the  immediate  precursors  of  the  kings  occupy  a 
place  in  1  Samuel,  the  book  of  Ruth  forms  a 
connecting  link  between  the  period  of  the  judges 
and  that  of  the  monarchy.  If  Obed  the  son  of 
Boaz  was  the  father  of  Jesse  (iv.  17)  the  events 
which  the  book  of  Ruth  relates  must  have  taken 
place  in  the  last  century  of  the  age  of  the  judges. 
The  arrangement  in  our  ordinary  Hebrew  Bililes  at 
present  places  this  history,  without  any  regard  to 
the  chronology,  among  the  ha gioyraphi  or  sacred 
writings  (PsAlms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Solomon's  Song, 
Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Daniel, 
Ezra,  Neliemiah,  Chronicles),  so  classified  with 
reference  to  their  ethical  or  practical  contents. 
[Canon.]  Yet  some  critics  maintain  that  the 
viginal  Uebrevv  order  was  that  ot  the  Septuagint 


RUTH,  BOOK   OF 


2755 


and  the  other  a  later  transposition.     (See  against 
that  view  Cassel,  D  is  Bach  Ruth,  p.  201  f.) 

The  date  of  the  composition  it  is  impossible  to 
ascertain  witli  much  precision.  It  must  have  been 
written  after  the  liirth  of  David  (iv.  17 )  and  prob- 
ably after  his  reign ;  for  the  genealogy  at  the  close 
presupposes  that  he  had  acquired  at  the  time  a 
historical  and  theocratic  imi]ortance  which  belonged 
to  him  only  after  he  had  finished  his  career  as  war- 
rior, king,  and  prophet.  It  is  no  certain  proof  of 
a  much  later  authorship  than  tliis  that  the  custom 
of  "  phicking  off  the  shoe  "  as  a  legal  form  had  be- 
come obsolete  when  the  book  was  written  (iv.  7,  8), 
for  many  changes  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrews  must 
have  taken  place  rapidly  after  the  estal)lishment  of 
the  monarchy,  and  in  addition  to  this,  if  Boaz  was 
the  immediate  ancestor  of  Obed,  and  Obed  was  the 
father  of  Jesse  (iv.  17 )  an  interval  of  three  genera- 
tions at  least  lay  iietween  Boaz  and  the  close  of 
David's  reign.  Some  critics  point  out  certain  words 
and  grammatical  forms  in  the  book  which  they  allege 
to  be  proof  of  a  later  composition,  and  would  even 
bring  it  down  to  the  Chaldee  period  of  Jewish  his- 
tory.    Examples  of  this  are  '^"l^n^ri,    'J"'|'73';i'5 

(iL  8,  21),  "i^nijii^  (ii.  9),  ^.rp^pb  ^-p-rn; 

(iii.  3),    ^I^Dty  (iii.  4),  S"ia  instead  of  mO 

(i.  20),  ]n7  instead  of  ^3^,  and  others,  but  as 
these  and  some  other  expressions,  partly  peculiar 
and  jiartly  infrequent  only,  either  do  not  occur  at 
all  in  the  later  books,  or  occur  at  the  same  time  in 
some  of  the  earlier  books,  they  sui-ely  cannot  be 
alleged  with  any  confidence  as  marks  of  a  Chaldee 
style  (see  Keil's  Einl.  in  das  A.  Test.  p.  41.5  f ,  and 
Wright's  Book  of  Ruth,  p.  xli.  ff.).  The  few  un- 
common words  or  phrases  are  found  in  fact  in  the 
passages  of  our  book  where  the  persons  introduced 
appear  as  the  speakers,  and  not  in  the  language  of 
the  historian,  and  may  be  considered  as  relics  of 
the  conversational  phraseology  of  the  age  of  the 
judges,  which  happen  to  be  not  elsewhere  pre- 
served. Bleek  decides  in  like  manner  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  book  settles  nothing  with  regard  to 
the  time  when  the  book  was  written.  The  earlier 
origin  of  the  book  of  Ruth,  as  De  Wette  admits 
{Einl.  in  d<is  A.  Ttst.  §  194),  is  manifest  from  the 
entire  absence  of  any  repugnance  to  intermarriage 
between  the  Hebrews  and  foreigners.  The  extrac- 
tion of  Ruth  is  not  retrarded  as  offensive  or  requir- 
ing so  much  as  a  single  word  of  apology.  It  is 
impossible  on  this  account  that  it  should  belong  to 
the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  so  different 
a  feeling  prevailed  in  regard  to  such  alliances  (see 
Ezr.  ix.  and  x.  and  Neh.  xiii.  23  ff.).  The  au 
thor  is  unknown.  One  of  the  Jewish  traditiona 
names  Samuel  as  the  writer;  but,  as  has  been  sug 
gested  already,  David  was  comparatively  unknown 
till  after  the  death  of  Sanniel. 

With  regard  to  the  sources  of  the  history  we  can 
only  say  with  Bleek  {Einl.  in  dus  A.  Test.  p.  355) 
that  we  cannot  decide  whether  the  writer  found 
and  used  an  extant  written  d(;cument  or  merely 
followed  some  tradition  preserved  in  the  fixniily  of 
Uavid  which  came  to  his  knowledge.  Nothing  m 
the  significance  of  the  personal  Hebrew  names  castii 
any  doubt  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  narrative 
Out  of  all  the  names  occurring  there  oidy  two, 
Mahlon  and  Chilion,  give  the  least  semblance  of 
truth  to  that  allegation.  The  correspondence  be- 
tween the  meaning  of  these  (as  usually  defined") 


2756  RUTH,  BOOK   OF 

and  the  early  death  of  the  persons  who  bear  them, 
may  be  accidental,  or  the  original  names  may  have 
been  changed  after  their  death.  On  this  point  see 
C'HtuoN  and  Names  (Anier.  ed.). 

The  object  of  the  book  has  been  variously 
Btated.  That  the  author  merely  intended  to  up- 
hold the  authority  of  the  levirate  law  requir- 
ing a  brother-in-law  to  marry  the  widow  of  a 
deceased  brother  (Gen.  xxxviii.  8 ;  Deut.  xxv.  5  fF. ) 
is  entirely  improbable;  for  the  assumption  of  that 
relationship  appears  here  C)nly  as  an  incident  of  the 
history,  and  in  reality  Boaz  was  not  the  brother 
of  Mahlon,  the  husband  of  Kuth  (iv.  10),  but  only 
a  remote  kinsman  of  the  lamLly,  and  his  action 
in  the  case  was  voluntary  and  not  required  by  any 
Mosaic  statute.  To  regard  also  the  object  as 
merely  that  of  tracing  the  genealogy  of  David's 
family  is  certainly  too  limited  a  view.  We  must  find 
the  explanation  of  the  purpose  in  the  facts  theiu- 
selves  which  the  history  relates,  and  the  narrator's 
manifest  interest  m  precisely  these  facts  as  shown 
in  the  tone  and  coloring  which  he  has  given  to  the 
history.  It  is  the  pious,  genuinely  theocratic  spirit 
exhibited  by  the  actors  in  the  little  book,  which  con- 
fers upon  it  its  higher  importance  and  characteristic 
unity.  This  aim  and  tendency  appear  most  con- 
spicuously in  ii.  11,  12.  Euth  has  left  her  heathen 
native  land ;  the  God  of  her  mother-in-law  is  her 
God  (i.  IG).  She  has  gone  to  an  unknown  people, 
has  taken  refuge  wider  the  wings  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  has  looked  to  Him  for  help,  and  has  found 
more  than  she  could  expect  or  conceive  of  in  being 
permitted  to  become  the  mother  of  the  royal  house 
of  David.  (See  Hiivernick's  Eiid.  in  das  A.  Ttst. 
ii.  113.)  The  fact  that  Matthew  (i.  3-G),  who  adds 
however  the  names  of  Thamar  and  Kahab,  and 
Luke  (iii.  31-33)  insert  the  genealogy  of  David 
as  given  at  the  end  of  the  book  in  the  tables 
of  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  not  only  shows  that  the 
book  of  Ruth  formed  a  recognized  part  of  the  He- 
brew Scriptures,  but  that  God's  arrangements  in 
providing  a  Sa\iour  for  all  the  races  of  mankind 
held  forth  a  significant  foretoken  of  this  uni- 
versality in  the  character  of  the  Saviour's  lineage 
as  derived  from  Gentile  ancestors  as  well  as  .Jewish. 
David's  descent  from  Kuth  is  known  to  us  only  from 
this  book.  The  books  of  Samuel  are  silent  on  this 
point,  and  Chronicles,  though  they  mention  Boaz 
as  one  of  his  ancestors,  say  nothing  of  Ruth 
(1  Chr.  ii.  11,  12). 

The  illustrations  of  oriental  life  furnished  by 
modern  travellers  impart  to  this  book  a  character 
of  vividness  and  rciility  which  deserves  attention. 
Naomi  and  liuth  arrived  at  Beth-lehem  from 
the  land  of  Moab  "  in  the  beginning  of  barley 
harvest'"  (i.  22).  It  was  about  the  first  of  April, 
therefore,  for  the  cereal  crops  are  generally  ripe  in 
the  south  of  Palestine  at  that  time.  Beth-lehem, 
which  signifies  "  house  of  bread  "  witji  reference  to 
its  fertility,  is  still  famous  fof  its  fields  of  grain, 
which  occur  especially  on  the  plains  eastward  as 
one  approaches  from  the  valley  of  the  Jordan. 
Such  fields  now,  as  was  true  anciently,  are  not  en- 
closed by  walls  or  hedges,  but  separated  by  single 
stones  set  uii  here  and  there,  or  by  a  footpath  only ; 
and  hence  it  is  said  that  it  was  "  the  hap ''  or  lot 
of  Ruth  to  light  upon  the  part  of  the  field  which 
belonged  to  Boaz  (ii.  3).  Notice  tlie  local  pre- 
cision of  the  narrator.  To  reach  the  grain-fields 
or  threshing-floor  from  her  home  in  Beth-lehem 
Ruth  "went  down"  from  the  city  (iii.  3,  G);  for 
Beth-lehem  is  on  higher  ground  than  the  adjacent  I 


RUTH,  BOOK   OF 

region,  and  especially  on  the  south  and  east  sidf 

is  almost  precipitously  cut  off  from  its  enviiong. 
The  gleaning  after  the  reapers  (ii.  3,  7,  16)  was 
allowed  to  the  poor  among  the  Hebrews  (a  right 
guaranteed  by  an  express  Mosaic  statute),  and  is 
still  practiced  in  the  l'2ast.  Dr.  Thomson  being 
in  the  vicinity  of  Beth-lehem  at  the  time  of 
barley-harvest  states  that  he  saw  women  and  chil- 
dren gleaning  after  every  company  of  reapers 
{Land  and  Buok,  ii.  50d).  The  "parched  corn" 
which  Boaz  gave  her  at  their  rustic  repast  was  not 
such  in  our  sense  of  the  expression,  but  consisted 
of  roasted  heads  of  grain.  The  mode  of  prepar- 
ing the  food  we  learn  from  the  methods  still  era- 
ployed.  Mr.  Tristram  descrilies  one  of  them  which 
he  saw  in  Galilee  near  Lake  IJuleh.  "  A  few 
sheaves  of  wheat  were  tossed  on  the  fire,  and  as 
soon  as  the  straw  was  consimied  the  charred  heads 
were  dexterously  swept  from  the  embers  on  to  a 
cloak  spread  on  the  ground.  The  women  of  the 
party  then  beat  the  ears  and  tossed  them  into  the 
air  until  they  were  thoroughly  winnowed,  when  the 
wheat  was  eaten  without  fin-ther  preparation. 
.  .  .  The  green  ears  had  become  half  charred  by  the 
roasting,  and  there  was  a  pleasant  mingling  of 
milky  wheat  and  a  fresh  crust  flavor  as  we  chewed 
the  parched  corn  "  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  590).  Ac- 
cording to  another  method  some  of  the  best  ears, 
with  the  stalks  attached,  are  tied  into  small  par- 
cels, and  the  corn-heads  are  held  over  the  fire 
until  the  chaff  is  mostly  burned  off;  and,  after 
being  thus  roasted,  they  are  rubbed  out  in  the 
hand  and  the  kernels  eaten  (Thomson,  ii.  510). 
The    Hebrew    terms    for   corn    thus   roasted   are 

''bf^  and  W^b)")  (Lev.  xxiii.  14;  Ruth  ii.  14; 
1   Sam.  xvii.  17,  xxv.  18;  and  2  Sam.  xvii.  18). 

The  chomets  or  vinegar  in  which  the  eaters 
dipped  their  morsel  (ii.  14)  was  sour  wine  mingled 
with  oil,  still  a  favorite  beverage  among  the  people 
of  the  East  (see  Keil's  Bibl  Archauluyie,  ii.  16).  At 
the  close  of  the  day  Ruth  beat  out  the  grain  of  the 
ears  which  she  had  gathered  (ii.  17).  "  It  is  a  com- 
mon sight  now,"  says  Thomson,  "  to  see  a  poor 
woman  or  maiden  sitting  by  the  way-side  and  beat- 
ing out  with  a  stick  or  stone  the  grain-stocks  which 
she  has  gleaned  "  {Land  and  Book,  ii.  509).  As  late 
as  May  21,  not  far  from  Gaza,  says  Robinson,  "  we 
found  the  lazy  inhabitants  still  engaged  in  treading 
out  the  barley  harvest,  which  their  neighbors  had 
completed  long  before.  Several  women  were  beat- 
ing out  with  a  stick  handfuls  of  the  grain  which 
they  seemed  to  have  gleaned  "  (Bibl.  Hes.  ii.  385). 
In  another  field  the  next  day  he  saw  "  200  reapers 
and  gleaners  at  work;  a  few  were  taking  refresh- 
ments and  offered  us  some  of  their  parched 
corn"  (Bibl.  Ees.  iii.  394).  The  winnowing  took 
place  by  night  in  accordance  with  the  agricultural 
h.abits  of  the  land  at  present;  for  the  heat  benig 
oppressive  by  day  the  farmers  avoid  its  power  as 
much  as  possible,  and  the  wind  also  is  apt  to  be 
stronger  by  night  than  during  the  day.  The 
Hebrew  term  [yortn)  describes  the  threshing-floor 
as  simply  a  plot  of  ground  in  the  open  air,  smoothed 
off  and  beaten  hard,  such  as  the  traveller  now  sees 
everywhere  as  he  passes  through  the  country.  It 
might  seem  strange  that  a  rich  projtrietor,  like 
Boaz,  should  be  said  to  have  slept  at  night  in  such 
a  place;  but  that  is  the  custom  still,  rendered 
necessary  by  the  danger  of  pillage  and  the  untrust- 
worthiness  of  the  hired  laborers.  Robinson,  speak- 
ing of  a  night  spent  in  the  mountains  of  Hebron 


PYE 

jays :  "  Here  are  needed  no  guards  around  the 
tent;  the  owners  of  the  crops  came  every  night 
■iiid  slept  upon  their  threshing-floors.  We  were 
here  in  the  midst  of  scenes  precisely  like  those 
of  the  book  of  Ruth  (iii.  2-14);  where  Boaz  win- 
nowed barley  and  laid  himself  down  at  night  to 
puard  the  heap  of  corn  "  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  446).  "  It 
is  not  unusual  for  the  husband,  wife,  and  all  the 
family  to  encamp  at  the  bidders  or  threshing-floors, 
until  the  harvest  is  over"  (Thomson,  ii.  511). 
The  "vail"  in  which  Kuth  carried  home  the  "six 
measures  of  barley  "  given  to  her  by  Boaz,  was  a 
mantle  as  well  as  veil,  "  a  square  piece  of  cotton 
cloth"  such  as  eastern  women  still  wear;  "and  I 
have  often  seen  it  used,"  says  Thomson,  "for  just 
such  service  as  that  to  which  Kuth  applied  hers" 
(ii.  509).  Barley  is  rarely  used  for  purposes  of 
food  in  Syria  except  by  the  poor;  and  that  Ituth 
and  Naomi  are  represented  as  glad  to  avail  them- 
selves of  such  means  of  subsistence  comports  with 
the  condition  of  poverty  which  the  narrative  as- 
cribes to  them.  [Bakley.]  The  scene  in  the 
square  at  the  gate  (iv.  1-12)  is  thoroughly  orien- 
tal. It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  gate  in 
eastern  cities  is  now  and  has  been  from  time  imme- 
morial the  place  of  concotirse  where  the  people 
come  together  to  hear  the  news,  to  discuss  public 
afliiirs,  to  traffic,  dispense  justice,  or  do  anything 
else  that  pertains  to  the  common  welfare  (Gen. 
six.  1,  xxxiv.  20;  Deut.  xvi.  18;  xxi.  19). 

Some  of  the  writers  on  this  book  are  mentioned 
hi  the  article  on  Ruth.  The  following  may  be 
added:  Umlireit,  Ueber  Geist  u.  Zweck  des 
Bucks  Ruth,  in  the  Studien  u.  Kritiken,  18-34, 
pp.  305-308.  F.  Benary,  Be  Hebrieofum  Levi- 
)-aht,  pp.  1-70  (1835).  C.  L.  F.  Metzger,  Lib.  Ruth 
ex  Ihbr.  in  Lnt  vers.  peij)etunque  inierpr.  illustr. 
(Tub.  1856).  Keil,  Bibl.  Commenlnr,  iii.  357- 
382,  and  traiisl.  ni  Clark's  Foreign  Theul.  Library, 
viii.  pp.  465-494.  Paulus  Cassel,  />  's  Buck  der 
Richter  u.  Ruth,  in  Lange's  Bihelwerh,  pp.  198- 
242  (1805).  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Bouk  of  Ruth  in 
Hebrew  and  Ch(ddee  (pp.  vii.-xlviii.  and  1-76, 1-49 ), 
containing  a  critically  revised  text  to  the  Chaldee 
Targum  of  Ruth  and  valuable  notes,  explanatory 
Bud  philological  (1865).  Christopher  Wordsworth, 
Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  in  his  f/oly  Bible,  uith 
Introductions  and  iVotes,  ii.  pt.  i.  pp.  158-170 
(1805).  Bishop  Hall,  two  sermons  on  Naomi  and 
Ruth  and  Boaz  and  Ruth,  in  his  Contemplations, 
bk.  xi.  Stanley's  Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Church, 
i.  336-38.  H. 

RYE  (npD2,  cussemeth:  ^ni,  6\vpa:  Jar, 
vicia)  occurs  in  Ex.  ix.  32;  Is.  xxviii.  25;  in  the 
latter  the  margin  reads  "spelt."  In  Ez.  iv.  9  the 
text  has  "  iitches  "  and  the  margin  "rie."  There 
are  many  opinions  as  to  the  signification  of  cus- 
semeth ;  some  authorities  maintaining  that  fitches 
are  denoted,  others  oats,  and  others  rye.  Celsius 
has  shown  that  in  all  probability  "spelt"  is 
uitended  {Hierob.  ii.  98),  and  this  opinion  is  sup- 
ported by  the  LXX.  and  the  Vulg.  in  Ex.  ix.  32, 
and  by  the  Syriac  versions.  Kye  is  for  the  most 
part  a  northern  plant,  an(f  was  probably  not  culti- 
vated in  Egypt  or  Palestine  in  early  times,  whereas 
jpelt  has  beea  long  cultivated  in  the  East,  where  it 


SABAOTH,  THE  LORD  OF       2757 

is  held  in  high  estimation.  Herodotus  (ii.  36) 
says  the  Egyptians  "  make  bread  from  spelt  (oTrb 
6\vu(aiv),  which  some  call  zea."  See  also  Phny 
(//.  JV.  xviii.  8),  and  Dioscorides  (ii.  Ill),  who 
speaks  of  two  kinds.  The  cussemeth  was  culti- 
vated in  Egypt:  it  was  not  injured  by  the  hail- 
storm of  the  seventh  plague  (Ex.  /.  c),  as  it  was 
not  grown  up.  This  cereal  was  also  sown  in  Pal 
estine  (Is.  /.  c),  on   the  margins  or  "headlands'' 

of  the  fields  (^71^32);  it  was  used  for  mixing 
with  wheat,  barley,  etc.,  for  making  bread  (Ez. 
I.  c).  The  Arabic,  Chirsanat,  "spelt,"  is  regarded 
by  Geseniiis  as  identical  with  the  Hebrew  word, 
m  and  n  being  interchanged  and  r  inserted. 
"  Spelt  "  (  Trilicuni  spelta)  is  grown  in  some  parts 
of  the  south  of  Germany;  it  differs  but  slightly 
from  our  common  wheat  (  T.  vulijnre).  There  are 
three  kinds  of  spelt,  namely,  T.  spelta,  T.  dicoc- 
cum  (rice  wheat),  and  T.  momcoccum.  [KiE, 
Amer.  ed.]  W.  H. 


"  L'an  It  be  this  phrase  which  determined  the  use 
:f  the  Te  Deum  as  a  thanksgiving  for  victories  ? 

fc  For  the  passages  which  follow,  the  writer  is  In- 
bbtod  to  the  kindnes"  of  a  friend. 


SAB'AOTH,  THE  LORD  OF  (Kvp.oj  <ra- 
fiadd-  Dominus  Sabaotli).  The  name  is  found  in 
the  English  Bible  only  twice  (Rom.  ix.  29;  .lames 
V.  4).  It  is  probably  more  familiar  through  its 
occurrence  in  the  Sanctus  of  the  Te  J^eum "  — 
"Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God  of  Sabaoth."  It  is 
too  often  considered  to  be  a  synonym  of,  or  to  have 
some  connection  with  Sabbath,  and  to  express  the 
idea  of  rest.  And  this  not  only  popularly,  but  in 
some  of  our  most  classical  writers.*  Thus  Spenser, 
Faerii  Queen,  canto  viii.  2 :  — 

"  But  thenceforth  all  shall  rest  eternally 
With  llim  that  is  the  God  of  Sabaoth  bight : 
0  that  great  Sabaoth  God,  grant  me  that  Sabaoth'a 
sight." 
And  Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learning,  ii.  24;  — 
"...  sacred  and   inspired  Divinity,  the  Sabaoth 
and  port  of  all  men's  labors  and  peregrination*  " 
And  .lohnson,  in  the  1st  edition  of  whose  Diuwirt 
ary  (1755)  Sabaoth  and  Sabbath  are  treated  as  the 
same  word.    And  Walter  Scott,  Lcanhoe,  i.  ch.  11 
(Isted.):  —  "a  week,  aye  the  space  between  twc 
Sabaoths."     But  this  connection  fte  quite  fictitious 
The  two  words  are  not  only  entirely  diflferent,  but 
have  nothing  in  common. 

Sabaoth  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  won. 
tsebdoth,  "armies,"  and  occurs  in  the  oft-repeatei 
formula  which  is  translated  in  the  Authorized  \'er 
sion  of  the  Old  Test,  by  "  Lord  of  hosts,"  "  Lori 
God  oi  hosts.''''  We  are  apt  to  take  "  Aos^s  "  (prob- 
ably in  connection  with  the  modern  expression  th< 
"heavenly  host")  as  implying  the  angels  —  bu 
this  is  surely  inaccurate.  Tsebdoth  is  in  constan' 
use  in  the  0.  T.  for  the  national  army  or  force  of 
fighting-men,<^  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  ir 
the  mouth  and  the  mind  of  an  ancient  Hebrew,  Je- 
hovah-tsebdoth  was  the  leader  and  commander  of 
the  armies  of  the  nation,  who  "  went  forth  witl 
them"  (Ps.  xliv.  9),  and  led  them  to  certain  vic- 
tory over  the  worshippers  of  Baal,  Cheinosh,  iMo- 
lech,  Ashtaroth,  and  other  false  gods.  In  latei 
times  it  lost  this  peculiar  significance,  and  l)ecame 
little  if  anything  more  than  an  alternative  title  for 
God.     The  name  is   not  found  in  the  Pentateuch, 

c  n'WnV,    See  1  Sam.  xii.  9,  1  K.  i.  19,  and  pai 
si'ot  in  Burgh "s  Concordance ,  p.  1058 


2758  SABAT 

Dr  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  or  Ruth.  It  is 
frequent  in  the  books  of  Samuel,  rarer  in  Kings, 
is  found  twice  only  in  the  Chronicles,  and  not  at 
all  in  Ezekiel;  but  in  the  Psalms,  in  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah, and  the  minor  Prophets  it  is  of  constant  oc- 
currence, and  in  fact  is  used  almost  to  the  exclusion 
of  every  other  title.     [Tsevaoth,  Am.  ed.]     G. 

SA'BAT  {■2,a(pdy\  Alex.  Sa^ar;  [Aid.  2a- 
/Sar:]  Phasphat).  1.  The  sons  of  Sabat  are 
enumerated  amona;  the  sons  of  Solomon's  servants 
who  returned  with  Zorobabel  (1  Esdr.  v.  .34). 
There  is  no  corresponding  name  in  the  lists  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

2.  (2a/3aT:  Habath.)  The  month  Sebat  (1 
Mace.  xvi.  14). 

SABATE'AS  [A.V.ed.  1611,SABATE'US] 
(2ai8aTa7os;  Alex.  2a3/3aTaias;  [Aid.  2a;3aT- 
ToiasO  Si(bbatheus).  Shabbethai  (1  Esdr.  ix. 
48;  comp.  Neh.  viii.  7). 

SAB'ATUS  (2a/3a0os;  [Aid.  :S.d0aTos:]  Znb- 
dis).     Zabad  (1  Esdr.  ix.  28;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  27). 

SAB'BAN  {-Zafidwos-  Banni).  Binnui  1 
(1  E^sdr.  viii.  63;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  33).' 

SABBATH  (n2t27,  "  a  day  of  rest,"  from 

n^C,  "  to  cease  to  do,"  "  to  rest  ").    This  is  the 

-  T  '  '  ' 

obvious  and  undoubted  etymology.  The  resem- 
blance of  the  word  to  572117,  "  seven,"  misled  Lac- 
tantius  {Inst.  iii.  14)  and  others;  but  it  does  not 
Beem   more  than  accidental.     Biihr  (Symbolih,  ii. 

533-34)  does  not  reject  the  derivation  from  H'^W, 

but  traces  that  to  21ti7,  somewhat  needlessly  and 
fancifully,  as  it  appears  to  us.  Plutarch's  associa- 
tion of  the  word  with  the  Bacchanalian  cry  aa^oi 
may  of  course  be  dismissed  at  once.     We  have  also 

(Ex.  xvi.  23,  and  Lev.  xxiii.  24)  ^in^tT,  of  more 

intense   signification    than    n^C:    also    ^2127 

pnH^C',  "  a  Sabbath  of  Sabbaths  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  15, 
and  elsewhere).  The  name  Sabbath  is  thus  ap- 
plied to  divers  great  festivals,  but  principally  and 
usuallv  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  the  strict 
observance  of  which  is  enforced  not  merely  in  the 
general  IMosaic  code,  but  in  the  Decalogue  itself. 

The  first  Scri[)tural  notice  of  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath, though  it  is  not  mentioned  by  name,  is  to  lae 
found  in  Gen.  ii  3,  at  the  close  of  the  record  of  the 
six  days'  creation.  And  hence  it  is  frequently  ar- 
gued that  the  institution  is  as  old  as  mankind,  and 
is  consequently  of  universal  concern  and  obligation. 
We  cannot,  however,  ajiproach  this  question  till  we 
have  examined  the  account  of  its  enforcement  upon 
the  Israelites.  It  is  in  Ex.  xvi.  23-29  that  we  find 
the  first  incontrovertible  institution  of  the  day,  as 
ane  given  to,  and  to  lie  kept  by,  the  children  of  Is- 
rael. Shortly  afterwards  it  was  reenacted  in  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  which  gave  it  a  rank  above 
that  of  an  ordinary  law,  making  it  one  of  the  signs 
of  the  'Covenant.  As  such  it  remained  together 
with  the  Passover,  the  two  forming  the  most  sol- 
enm  and  distinctive  features  of  Helirew  religious 
'ife.  Its  neglect  or  profanation  ranked  foremost 
(imong  national  sins;  the  renewed  observance  of  it 
iras  sure  to  accompany  national  reformation. 

Before,  then,  deaUng  with  the  question  whether 


o  Vide  Patrick  in  loc,  and  Seldea,  De  Jure  Nat.  et 
Vent.  iii.  9. 
b  Vide  Qrotius  in  loc,  who  refers  to  Aben-Ezra. 


SABBATH 

its  original  institution  comprised  inai  kind  at  kr^, 
or  merely  stamped  on  Israel  a  very  marked  badge 
of  nationality,  it  will  be  well  to  trace  somewhat  of 
its  position  and  history  among  the  chosen  people. 

Many  of  the  Rabbis  date  its  first  institution  from 
the  incident "  recorded  in  Ex.  xv.  25 ;  and  believe 
that  the  "statute  and  ordinance"  there  mentioned 
as  being  given  by  God  to  the  i3hildren  of  Israel  was 
that  of  the  Sabbath,  together  with  the  command- 
ment to  honor  father  and  mother,  their  previous 
law  having  consisted  only  of  what  are  called  the 
"  seven  precepts  of  Noah."  This,  however,  seems 
to  want  foundation  of  any  sort,  and  the  statute  and 
ordinance  in  question  are,  we  think,  sutRciently  ex- 
plained by  the  words  of  ver.  20,  "  If  thou  wilt  dili- 
gently hearken,"  etc.  We  are  not  on  sure  ground 
till  we  come  to  the  unmistakable  institution  in  ch. 
xvi.  in  connection  with  the  gathering  of  manna. 
The  words  in  this  latter  are  not  in  themselves 
enough  to  indicate  whether  such  institution  was  al- 
together a  novelty,  or  whether  it  referred  to  a  day 
the  sanctity  of  which  was  already  known  to  those 
to  whom  it  was  given.  There  is  plausiliility  cer- 
tainly in  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  that  the  day  was 
already  known,  and  in  some  measure  observed  as 
holy,  but  that  the  rule  of  abstinence  from  work  was 
first  given  then,  and  shortly  afterwards  more  ex- 
plicitly imposed  in  the  Fourtli  (_'(jnmiandment. 
There  it  is  distinctly  set  forth,  and  extended  to  the 
whole  of  an  Israelite's  household,  his  son  and  hia 
daughter,  his  slaves,  male  and  female,  his  ox  and 
his  ass,  and  the  stranger  within  his  gates.  It 
would  seem  that  by  this  last  was  understood  the 
stranger  who  while  still  uncircumcised  yet  wor- 
shipped the  true*  God;  for  the  mere  heathen 
stranger  was  not  considered  to  be  under  the  law  of 
the  Sabbath.  In  the  Fourth  Conmiandment,  too, 
the  institution  is  grounded  on  the  revealed  truth 
of  the  six  days'  creation  and  the  Divine  rest  on 
the  seventh;  but  in  the  version  of  it  which  we 
find  in  Deuteronomy  a  further  reason  is  added: 
"  And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  stranger  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought 
thee  forth  with  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched- 
out  arm ;  therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded 
thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day  "  (Deut.  v.  15). 

Penalties  and  provisions  in  other  parts  of  the 
Law  construed  the  abstinence  from  labor  prescribed 
in  the  commanuraent.  It  was  forbidden  to  light  a 
fire,  a  man  was  stoned  for  gathering  sticks,  on  the 
Sabbath.  At  a  later  period  we  find  the  Prophet 
Isaiah  uttering  solemn  warnings  against  profaning, 
and  promising  large  blessings  on  the  due  oliserv- 
ance  of  the  day  (Is.  Iviii.  13,  14).  In  Jeremiah's 
time  there  seems  to  have  been  an  habitual  violation 
of  it,  amounting  to  transacting  on  it  such  an  ex- 
tent of  business  as  involved  the  carrying  burdens 
about  (Jer.  xvii.  21-27).  His  denunciations  of 
this  seem  to  have  led  the  Pharisees  in  their  bond- 
age to  the  letter  to  condemn  the  impotent  man  for 
carrying  his  bed  on  the  Sabbath  in  obedience  to 
Christ  who  had  healed  him  (John  v.  10).  We 
nnist  not  suppose  that  our  Lord  prescribed  a  real 
violation  of  the  Law ;  and  it  requires  little  thouirh*. 
to  distinguish  between  such  a  natural  and  almost 
necessary  act  as  that  which  He  commanded,  and 
the  carrying  of  burdens  in  connection  witli  busi- 
ness which  is  denounced  by  Jeremiah.  By  Ezekiei 
(xx.  12-24),  a  passage  to  which  we  nnist  sliortly 
return,  the  profanation  of  the  Sabbath  is  made  fore- 
most among  the  national  sins  of  the  Jews.  From 
Nehemiah  x.  31,  we  learn  that  the  people  euterei 


SABBATH 

Into  a  covenant  to  renew  the  observance  of  the  Law, 
in  which  the>-  pledged  themselves  neither  to  buy 
nor  sen  victuals  on  the  Sabbath.  The  practice  was 
then  not  infrequent,  and  Nehemiah  tells  us  (xiii. 
15-22)  of  the  successful  steps  which  he  took  for  its 
stoppage. 

Henceforward  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  Sabbath 
being  neglected  by  the  Jews,  except  such  as  (1 
Mace.  i.  11-15,  39-45)  went  into  0|)eii  apostasj'. 
The  faithful  remnant  were  so  scrupulous  concerning 
it,  as  to  forbear  fighting  in  self-defense  on  that  day 
(1  j\lacc.  ii.  36),  and  it  was  only  tlie  terrible  conse- 
quences that  ensued  which  led  Mattathias  and  bis 
friends  to  decree  the  lawfulness  of  self-defense  on 
the  Sabbath  (1  Mace.  ii.  41). 

When  we  come  to  the  N.  T.  we  find  the  most 
marked  stress  laid  on  the  Sabbath.  In  whatever 
ways  the  Jew  might  err  respecting  it,  he  had  al- 
together ceased  to  neglect  it.  On  the  contrary, 
wherever  he  went  its  observance  became  the  most 
visible  badge  of  his  nationality.  The  passages  of 
Latin  literature,  such  as  Ovid,  Art.  Amnt.,  i.  415; 
Juvenal,  Siit.  xiv.  9&-106,  which  indicate  this,  are 
too  well  known  to  require  citation.  Our  Lord's 
rcode  of  observing  the  Sal)liath  was  one  of  the  main 
features  of  his  life,  which  his  Pharisaic  adversaries 
most  eagerly  watched  and  criticised.  They  had* 
by  that  time  invented  many  of  those  fantastic  pro- 
hibitions whereby  the  letter  of  the  commandment 
Beenicd  to  be  honored  at  the  expense  of  its  whole 
spirit,  dignity,  and  value:  and  our  Lord,  coming 
to  vindicate  and  fulfill  the  Law  in  its  real  scope 
and  intention,  must  needs  come  into  collision  with 
these. 

Before  proceeding  to  any  of  the  more  curious 
questions  connected  with  the  Sabbath,  such  as  that 
of  its  alleged  pre-JIosaic  origin  and  ol)servance,  it 
will  be  well  to  consider  and  determine  what  were 
its  true  idea  and  purpose  in  that  Law  of  which 
beyond  doubt  it  formed  a  leading  feature,  and 
among  that  people  for  whom,  if  for  none  else,  we 
know  that  it  was  designed.  And  we  shall  do  this 
with  most  advantage,  as  it  seems  to  us,  by  pursu- 
ing the  inquiry  in  the  following  order :  — 

I.  By  considering,  with  a  view  to  their  elimina- 
tion, the  Pharisaic  and  Rabbinical  prohibitions. 
These  we  have  the  highest  authority  for  rejecting, 
as  inconsistent  with  the  true  scope  of  the  Law. 

IL  By  taking  a  survey  of  the  general  Sabliatical 
periods  of  Hebrew  time.  The  weekly  Sabbath  stood 
in  the  relation  of  key-note  to  a  scale  of  Sabbatical 
observance,  mounting  to  the  Sabbatical  year  and 
the  year  of  Jubilee."  It  is  but  reasonable  to  sus- 
pect that  these  can  in  some  degree  interpret  each 
other. 

IIL  By  examining  the  actual  enactments  of 
Scripture  respecting  the  seventh  day,  and  the  mode 
in  which  such  observance  was  maintained  by  the 
best  Israelites. 

I.  Nearly  every  one  is  aware  that  the  Pharisaic 
and  Kabbinical  schools  invented  many  prohibitions 
respecting  the  Sabbath  of  which  we  find  nothing  in 
the  original  institution.  Of  these  some  may  have 
been  legitimate  enforcements  in  detail  of  that  insti- 
tution, such  as  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  "  sitting 
lu  Moses'  seat  "  (.Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3)  had  a  right  to 
mpose.  How  a  general  law  is  to  be  carried  out  in 
jarticular    cases,    must    often    be    determined    for 


o  It  is  obvious  from  the  whole  scope  of  the  chapter 
th&t  the  words,  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  sabbaths,"  in  Lev. 
«Ti.  3,  related  to  all  these.     Id  the  ensuing  threat  of 


SABBATH  2759 

others  by  such  as  have  authority  to  do  so.  To 
this  class  may  belong  the  limitation  of  a  Sabbath- 
day's  journey,  a  limitation  not  absolutely  at  vari- 
ance with  the  fundamental  canon  that  the  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  al- 
though it  may  ha\e  proceeded  from  mistaking  a 
temporary  enactment  for  a  permanent  one.  Many, 
however,  of  these  prohibitions  were  fantastic  and 
arbitrary,  in  the  number  of  those  "  heavy  burdens 
and  orievous  to  be  borne"  which  (be  later  ex- 
pounders of  the  Law  "laid  on  men's  shoulders." 
We  have  seen  that  the  impotent  man's  carrying  his 
bed  was  considered  a  violation  of  the  S.abbath  —  a 
notion  probably  derived  from  Jeremiah's  warnings 
against  the  commercial  traffic  carried  on  at  the 
gates  of  Jerusalem  in  his  day.  The  harmless  act 
of  the  disciples  in  the  corn-field,  and  tlie  beneficent 
healing  of  the  man  ni  the  synagogue  with  the 
withered  hand  fMatt.  xii.  1-13),  were  alike  re- 
garded as  breaches  of  the  Law.  Our  Lord's  reply 
in  the  former  case  will  come  before  us  under  our 
third  head ;  in  the  latter  He  appeals  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  objectors,  who  would  any  one  of  them 
raise  his  own  sheep  out  of  the  pit  into  which  the 
animal  had  fallen  on  the  Sabbath-day.  From  this 
appeal,  we  are  forced  to  infer  that  such  practice 
would  have  been  held  lawful  at  the  time  ancl  place 
in  which  He  spoke.  It  is  remarkable,  howe\er, 
that  we  find  it  prohibited  in  other  traditions,  the 
law  laid  down  being,  that  in  this  case  a  mail  might 
throw  some  needful  nourishment  to  the  animal,  but 
must  not  pull  him  out  till  the  next  day.  (See 
Uey]in,  Hist,  of  SrMath,  i.  8,  quoting  Buxtorf.) 
This  rule  possibly  came  into  existence  in  conse- 
quence of  our  Lord's  appeal,  and  with  a  view  to 
warding  off  the  necessary  inference  ii'om  it.  Still 
more  fantastic  prohibitions  were  issued.  It  was 
unlawful  to  catch  a  flea  on  the  Sabliath,  except 
the  insect  were  actually  hurting  his  assailant,  or  to 
mount  into  a  tree,  lest  a  branch  or  twig  should 
be  broken  in  the  process.  The  Samai-itans  were 
especially  rigid  in  matters  like  these;  and  Dosi- 
theus,  who  founded  a  sect  amongst  them,  went  so 
far  as  to  maintain  the  obligation  of  a  man's  re- 
maining throughout  the  Sabbath  in  the  posturt 
wherein  he  chanced  to  be  at  its  connnencenient  — 
a  rule  which  most  people  would  find  quite  destruc- 
tive of  its  character  as  a  day  of  rest.  When  minds 
were  occupied  with  such  microlofpj,  an  this  has  been 
well  called,  there  was  obviously  no  limit  to  the 
number  of  prohibitions  which  they  might  deTise, 
confusing,  as  they  obviously  did,  abstinence  from 
action  of  every  sort  with  rest  from  business  and 
lalior. 

That  this  perversion  of  the  Sabbath  had  become 
very  general  in  our  Saviour's  time  is  apparent  both 
from  the  recorded  olyections  to  acts  of  his  on  that 
day,  and  from  his  marked  conduct  on  occasions  to 
which  those  objections  were  sure  to  be  urged.  Thera 
is  no  reason,  however,  for  thinking  that  the  Phar 
isees  had  arrived  at  a  sentence  against  pleasure  of 
every  sort  on  the  sacred  day.  The  duty  of  hospi- 
tality was  remembered.  It  was  usual  for  the  rich 
to  give  a  feast  on  that  day;  and  our  Lord's  attend- 
ance at  such  a  feast,  and  making  it  tlie  occasion  of 
putting  forth  his  rules  for  the  demeanor  of  guests, 
and  for  the  right  exercise  of  hospitality,  show  that 
the  gathering  of  friends  and  social  enjoyment  were 

judgment  in  case  of  neglect  or  violation  of  the  I^aw, 
the  Sabbatical  year  would  seem  to  be  mainly  referred 
to  (vv.  34,  35). 


2760  SABBATH 

not  deemed  inconsistent  with  tlie  true  seoije  and 
spirit  of  tlie  .Siilibath.  It  was  tliounht  riglit  that 
the  meats,  though  cold,  should  be  of  the  best  and 
choicest,  nor  might  the  Sabbath  be  chosen  for  a 
fast. 

Such  are  the  inferences  to  which  we  are  brought 
by  our  Lord's  words  concerning,  and  works  on,  the 
sacred  day.  We  have  ah-eady  protested  against 
the  notion  which  has  been  entertained  that  they 
were  breaches  of  the  Sabbath  intended  as  harbin- 
gers of  its  al'olition.  Granting  for  argument's  sake 
that  such  aboHtion  \vas  in  prospect,  still  our  Lord, 
"  made  under  the  Law,"  would  have  violated  no 
part  of  it  so  long  as  it  was  Law.  Nor  can  any- 
thing be  inferred  on  the  other  side  from  the  Evan- 
gelist's language  (John  v.  18).  The  phrase  "  He 
bad  broken  the  Sabbath,"  obviously  denotes  not 
the  character  of  our  Saviour's  act,  but  the  Jewish 
estimate  of  it.  He  had  broken  the  Pharisaic  rules 
respecting  the  Sabbath.  Similarly  his  own  phrase, 
"  the  priests  ])rofane  the  Sabbath  and  are  blame- 
leas,"  can  only  be  understood  to  assert  the  lawful- 
ness of  certain  acts  done  for  certain  reasons  on  that 
day,  which,  taken  in  themselves  and  without  those 
reasons,  would  be  profanations  of  it.  There  re- 
mains only  his  appeal  to  the  eating  of  the  shew- 
bread  by  David  and  his  companions,  which  was  no 
doubt  in  its  matter  a  breach  of  the  Law.  It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  act  in  justifi- 
cation of  which  it  is  appealed  to  was  such  a 
breach.  It  is  rather,  we  think,  an  argument  a 
fortiori^  to  the  effect,  that  if  even  a  positive  law 
might  give  place  on  occasion,  nuich  more  might  an 
arbitrary  rule  like  that  of  the  liabbis  in  the  case  in 
question. 

Finally,  the  declaration  that  "  the  Son  of  Man 
is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath,"  must  not  be  viewed 
as  though  our  Lord  held  Himself  free  from  the 
Law  respecting  it.  It  is  to  be  taken  in  connection 
with  the  preceding  words,  "  the  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,"  etc.,  from  which  it  is  an  inference,  as  is 
shown  by  the  adverb  therefore  ;  and  the  Son  of 
Man  is  plainly  speaking  of  Himself  as  the  Man,  the 
Kepresentative  and  Kxemplar  of  all  mankind,  and 
teaching  us  that  the  human  race  is  lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  the  day  being  made  for  man,  not  man  for 
the  day. 

If,  then,  our  Lord,  coming  to  fulfill  and  rightly 
interpret  the  Law,  did  thus  protest  against  the 
Pharisaical  and  Rabbinical  rules  respecting  the  Sab- 
bath, we  are  supplied  by  this  protest  with  a  large 
negative  ^iew  of  that  ordinance.  The  acts  con- 
demned by  the  Pharisees  ivere  not  violations  of  it. 
Mere  action,  as  such,  was  not  a  violation  of  it,  and 
far  less  was  a  work  of  healing  and  beneficence.  To 
this  we  shall  have  occasion  by  and  by  to  return. 
Meanwhile  we  must  try  to  gain  a  positive  view  of 
the  institution,  and  proceed  in  furtherance  of  this 
to  our  second  head. 

II.  The  Sabbath,  as  we  have  said,  was  the  key- 
note to  ^  scale  of  Sabbatical  observance — consist- 
ing of  itself,  the  seventh  month,  the  seventh  year, 
and  the  year  of  Jubilee.  As  each  seventh  day 
was  sacred,  so  was  each  seventh  month,  and  each 
iseventh  year.  Of  the  observances  of  the  seventh 
month,  little  needs  be  said.  That  month  opened 
with  the  Feast  of  Trumpets,  and  contained  the  Day 
of  Atonement  and  Feast  of  Tabernacles  —  the  last 
named  being  the  most  joyful  of  Hebrew  festivals. 
It  is  not  apparent,  nor  likely,  that  the  whole  of 
khe  month  was  to  be  characterized  by  cessation 
6t)m    labor;    but  it  certainly  has  a  place  in  the 


SABBATH 

Sabliatical  scale.  Its  great  centre  was  the  I'east 
of  Tabernacles  or  Ingathering,  the  year  and  the 
year's  labor  having  then  done  their  work  and 
yielded  their  issues.  In  this  last  respect  its  anal- 
ogy to  the  weekly  Sabbath  is  obvious.  Only  at 
this  part  of  the  Sabbatical  cycle  do  we  find  anj 
notice  of  humiliation.  On  the  Day  of  Atonement 
the  people  were  to  afflict  their  souls  (Lev.  xxiii. 
27-29). 

The  rules  for  the  Sabbatical  year  are  very  pre- 
cise. As  labor  was  prohibited  on  the  seventh  day, 
so  the  land  was  to  rest  every  seventh  year.  And 
as  e.ich  forty-ninth  jear  wound  up  seven  of  such 
weeks  of  years,  so  it  either  was  itself,  or  it  ushered 
in,  what  was  called  "  the  year  of  Jubilee." 

In  Exodus  xxiii.  10,  11,  we  find  ..the  Sabbatical 
year  placed  in  close  connection  with  the  Sabbath- 
day,  and  the  words  in  which  the  former  is  pre- 
scribed are  analogous  to  those  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment: "Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land 
and  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof;  but  the  seventh 
year  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie  sti^;  that  the 
poor  of  thy  people  may  eat;  and  what  they  leave 
the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  eat."  This  is  inmie- 
diately  followed  by  a  renewed  proclamation  of  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath,  "  Six  days  thou  shalt  do  thy 
work,  and  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest:  that 
thine  ox  and  thine  ass  may  rest,  and  the  son  of  thy 
handmaid,  and  the  stranger  may  be  refreshed."  It 
is  impossible  to  avoid  perceiving  tliat  in  these  pas- 
sages the  two  institutions  are  put  on  the  same 
ground,  and  are  represented  as  quite  homogeneous. 
Their  aim,  as  here  exhibited,  is  eminently  a  benefi- 
cent one.  To  give  rights  to  classes  that  would 
otherwise  have  been  without  such,  to  the  bond- 
man and  bondmaid,  nay,  to  the  beast  of  the  field, 
is  viewed  here  as  their  main  end.  "  The  stranger," 
too,  is  comprehended  in  the  benefit.  iMany,  we 
suspect,  while  reading  the  Fourth  (,'onunandment, 
merely  regard  him  as  suljected,  together  with  hJs 
host  and  iamily,  to  a  prohibition.  But  if  we  con- 
sider how  continually  the  stran(jvr  is  referred  to 
in  the  enactments  of  the  Law,  and  that  with  a 
view  to  his  protection,  the  instances  being  one-and- 
twenty  in  number,  we  shall  be  led  to  regard  hig 
inclusion  in  the  Fourth  Commandment  rather  as  a 
benefit  conferred  than  a  prohibition  imposed  on 
him. 

The  same  beneficent  aim  is  still  more  apparent 
in  the  fuller  legislation  respecting  the  Sabbatical 
year  which  we  find  in  Lev.  xxv.  2-7,  "When  ye 
come  into  the  land  which  I  give  you,  then  shall 
the  lajid  keep  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord.  Six  )ears 
thou  shalt  sow  thy  field,  and  six  years  thou  shalt 
prune  thy  vineyard,  and  gather  in  the  fruit  thereof; 
but  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be  a  sjbbath  of  rest 
unto  the  land,  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord;  thou 
shalt  neither  sow  thy  field  nor  prune  thy  vineyard. 
That  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord  of  thy  har- 
vest thou  Shalt  not  reap,  neither  gather  the  grapes 
of  thy  vine  undressed:  for  it,  is  a  year  of  rest 
unto  the  land.  And  the  sabbath  of  the  land  shall 
be  meat  for  you ;  for  thee,  and  for  thy  slave,  and 
for  thy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired  servant,  and  for  thy 
stranger  that  sojourneth  w^ith  thee,  and  for  thy 
cattle  and  for  the  beasts  that  are  in  thy  land, 
shall  all  the  increase  thereof  be  meat."  One  great 
aim  of  both  institutions,  the  Sabbath-day  and  the 
Sabbatical  year,  clearly  was  to  debar  the  Hebrew 
from  the  thought  of  absolute  ownership  of  any- 
thing. His  time  was  not  his  own,  as  was  shown  him 
by  each  seventh  day  being  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord 


SABBATH 

hia  God;  bis  land  was  not  his  owii  but  God's  (Lev. 
XXV.  23),  as  was  shown  by  the  Sabbath  of  each 
seventh  year,  during  which  it  was  to  have  rest, 
and  all  individual  right  over  it  was  to  be  sus- 
pended. It  was  also  to  be  the  year  of  release  from 
debt  (r>eut.  XV. ).  We  do  not  read  much  of  the 
way  in  which,  or  the  extent  to  which,  the  Hebrews 
ol)served  the  Sabbatical  year.  The  reference  to  it 
(2  'Jhr.  xxxvi.  21)  leads  us  to  conclude  that  it  bad 
been  much  nesilected  previous  to  tl|p  Captivity,  but 
it  was  certaiidy  not  lost  sight  of  afterwards,  since 
Alexander  the  Great  absolved  the  Jews  from  pay- 
ing tribute  on  it,  their  religion  debarring  them 
from  acquiring  the  means  of  doing  so.  [Sabbat- 
ical Year.] 

The  year  of  .Jul)ilee  must  be  regarded  as  com- 
pleting this  Sabbatical  scale,  whether  we  consider 
it  as  really  the  forty-ninth  year,  the  seventh  of  a 
week  of  Sabliatical  years,  or  the  fiftieth,  a  question 
on  which  opinions  are  divided.  [Jubilep;,  Year 
OF.]  The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  deciding  for 
the  latter,  tiiat  the  land  could  hardly  bear  enough 
spontaneously  to  suffice  for  two  years,  seems  dis- 
posed of  by  reference  to  Isaiah  xxxvii.  30.  Adopt- 
ing, therefore,  that  opinion  as  the  most  probable, 
we  must  consider  each  week  of  Satibatical  years  to 
have  ended  in  a  double  Sabbatical  period,  to  which, 
moreover,  increased  emphasis  was  given  by  the  pe- 
culiar enactments  respecting  the  second  half  of 
such  period,  the  jear  of  Jubilee. 

Those  enactments  have  been  already  considered 
in  the  article  just  referred  to,  and  throw  further  light 
on  the  beneficent  character  of  the  Sabbatical  Law. 

III.  \^'e  must  consider  the  actual  enactments  of 
Scripture  respecting  the  seventh  day.  However 
homogetieous  the  different  Sabbatical  periods  may 
be,  the  weekly  Sabliath  is,  as  we  have  said,  the 
tonic  or  key-note.  It  alone  is  prescribed  in  the 
Decalogue,  and  it  alone  has  in  any  shape  survived 
the  earthly  commonwealth  of  Israel.  We  must 
still  postpone  the  question  of  its  oliservance  by  the 
patriarchs,  and  commence  otir  inquiry  with  the 
institution  of  it  in  the  wilderness,  in  connection 
with  the  gathering  of  manna  (Ex.  xvi.  23).  The 
prohiliition  to  gather  the  manna  on  the  Sabbath 
is  accompanied  by  one  to  bake  or  to  seethe  on  that 
day.  The  Fourth  Commandment  gives  us  but 
the  generality,  "all  manner  of  work,"  and,  seeing 
that  action  of  one  kind  or  another  is  a  necessary 
accompaniment  of  waking  life,  and  cannot  there- 
fore in  itself  be  intended,  as  the  later  Jews  im- 
agined, by  the  prohibition,  we  are  left  to  seek 
elsewhere  for  the  particular  application  of  the 
general  principle.  That  general  principle  in  itself, 
however,  ol)viously  endiraces  an  abstinence  from 
worldly  laljor  or  occupation,  and  from  the  en- 
forcing such  on  servants  or  dependents,  or  on  the 
stranger.  By  him,  as  we  have  said,  is  most  prob- 
ably meant  the  partial  proselyte,  who  would  not 
have  received  much  consideration  from  the  Helirews 
had  tliey  been  left  to  themselves,  as  we  must  infer 
from  the  numerous  laws  enacted  for  his  protection. 
Had  man  been  then  regarded  by  him  as  made  for 
the  Sabliath,  not  the  Sabbath  for  man,  that  is,  had 
the  prohibitions  of  the  connnandment  been  viewed 
as  the  putting  on  of  a  yoke,  not  the  conferring  of  a 
privileiie,  one  of  the  dominant  r.ace  would  probably 
have  felt  no  reluctance  to  placing  such  a  stranger 
under  that  yoke.  The  naming  him  therefore  in 
the  commandment  helps  to  interpret  its  whole 
priuciple,  and  testifies  to  its  havintj  been  a  benefi- 
oent  privilege  for  nil  who  came  within  it.  It  gave 
174 


SABBATH 


2T61 


rights  to  the  slave,  to  the  despised  stranger,  even 
to  the  ox  and  the  ass. 

This  beneficent  character  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment is  very  apparent  in  the  version  of  it 
which  we  find  in  Deuteronomy :  "  Keep  the  Sab- 
bath-day to  sanctify  it,  as  the  Lord  thy  God  hath 
commanded  thee.  Six  days  thou  slialt  labor  and 
do  all  thy  work,  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  Lord  thy  God :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do 
any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter, 
nor  thy  bondman,  nor  thy  bondwoman,  nor  thine 
ox,  nor  thine  ass,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  within 
thy  gates:  that  thy  bondman  and  thy  bond- 
woman may  rest  as  well  as  thou.  And  remember 
that  thou  wast  a  slave  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence 
through  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched-out 
arm :  therefore  the  Lord  thy  (jod  commanded 
thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath-day"  (Dent.  v.  12-15). 
But  although  this  be  so,  and  though  it  be  plain 
that  to  come  within  the  scope  of  tiie  connnand- 
ment was  to  possess  a  franchise,  to  share  in  a  privi- 
lege, yet  does  the  original  proclamation  of  it  in 
Exodus  place  it  on  a  ground  whicli,  closely  con- 
nected no  doubt  with  these  others,  is  yet  higher  and 
more  comprehensive.  The  divine  method  of  work- 
hig  and  rest  is  there  proposed  to  man  as  the  model 
alter  which  he  is  to  work  and  to  rest.  Time  then 
presents  a  perfect  whole,  is  then  well  rouniled  and 
entire,  when  it  is  shaped  into  a  week,  modeled  on 
the  six  days  of  creation  and  their  following  Sab- 
bath. Six  days'  work  and  the  se\enth  day's  rest 
conform  the  life  of  man  to  the  method  of  his  Cre- 
ator. In  distrii)uting  his  life  thus,  man  may  look 
up  to  God  as  his  Archetype.  \\'e  need  not  sup- 
pose that  the  Hebrew,  e\en  in  that  early  stage  of 
spiritual  education,  was  limited  by  so  gross  a  con- 
ception as  that  of  God  working  and  then  resting, 
as  if  needing  rest.  The  idea  awakened  by  the 
record  of  creation  and  by  the  Fourth  Commandment 
is  that  of  work  that  has  a  consunnnation,  perfect 
in  itself  and  coming  to  a  perfect  end ;  and  man's 
work  is  to  be  like  this,  not  aimless,  indefinite,  and 
incessant,  but  having  an  issue  on  which  he  can 
repose,  and  see  and  rejoice  in  its  fruits.  God's 
rest  consists  in  his  seeing  that  all  which  He  has 
made  is  very  good;  and  man's  works  are  in  their 
measure  and  degree  very  good  when  a  six  dajs' 
faithful  labor  has  its  issue  in  a  seventh  of  rest 
after  God's  pattern.  It  is  most  important  to  re- 
member that  the  Fourth  Commandment  is  not 
limited  to  a  mere  enactment  respecting  one  day, 
but  prescribes  the  due  distribution  of  a  week, 
and  enforces  the  six  days'  work  as  much  as  the 
seventh  day's  rest. 

This  higher  ground  of  observance  was  felt  to 
invest  the  Sabbath  with  a  theological  character, 
and  rendered  it  the  great  witness  for  faith  in  a 
personal  and  creating  God.  Hence  its  supremacy 
over  all  the  Law,  lieing  sometimes  taken  a.s  the 
representative  of  it  all  (Neh.  ix.  14).  The  Tal- 
mud says  that  "the  Sabbath  is  in  in)portance 
etpial  to  the  whole  Law;"  that  "he  who  dese- 
crates the  Sabbath  openly  is  like  him  who  trans- 
gresses the  whole  Law;"  while  Mainionides  winds 
up  ills  discussion  of  the  suliject  thus:  "He  who 
breaks  the  ^^abbath  openly  is  like  the  worshipper 
of  the  stars,  and  both  are  like  heathens  in  every 
respect." 

In  all  this,  hovvever,  we  have  but  an  assertion 
of  the  general  principle  of  resting  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  nuist  seek  elsewhere  fur  information  as  to  th# 


2762 


SABBATH 


ietails  wherewith  that  principle  was  to  be  brought 
out.  We  liave  already  seen  that  the  work  forbidden 
is  not  to  be  confounded  with  action  of  every  sort. 
To  make  this  confusion  was  the  error  of  the  later 
Jews,  and  their  prohibitions  would  go  far  to  render 
the  Sabbath  incompatible  with  waking  life.  The 
terms  in  the  commandment  show  plainly  enough 
the  sort  of  work  wliich  is  contemplated.     They  are 

*T327n  and  nDS7tt,  the  former  denoting  servile 
work,  and  the  latter  business  (see  Gesenius  sttb 
vvc.  ;  Michaelis,  Lmos  of  Moses,  iv.  195).  The 
Pentafeuch  presents  us  with  but  three  applications 
of  the  general  principle.  The  lighting  a  fire 
in  any  house  on  the  Sabljath  was  strictly  forbid- 
deu  ( b^x.  XXXV.  3 ),  and  a  man  was  stoned  for  gath 
ering  sticks  on  that  day  (Num.  xv.  32-36).  The 
former  prohibition  is  thought  by  the  Jews  to  be 
of  perpetual  force ;  but  some  <(t  least  of  the  Kabbis 
have  held  that  it  applies  only  to  lighting  a  fire  for 
cuhnary  pui-poses,  not  to  doing  so  in  cold  weather 
for  the  sake  of  warmth.  The  latter  case,  that  of 
the  man  gathering  sticks,  was  perhaps  one  of  more 
labor  and  business  than  we  are  apt  to  imagine. 
The  third  application  of  the  general  principle 
which  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch  was  the  prohibi- 
tion to  go  out  of  the  camp,  the  conmiand  to  every 
one  to  abide  in  his  place  (Kx.  xvi.  29)  on  the  Sab- 
bath-day. This  is  so  obviously  connected  with  the 
gathering  the  manna,  that  it  seems  most  natural 
to  regard  it  as  a  mere  temporary  enactment  for  the 
circumstances  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness.  It 
was,  however,  afterwards  considered  by  the  He- 
brews a  permanent  law,  and  applied,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  the  camp,  to  the  city  in  which  a  man 
might  reside.  To  this  was  appended  the  dictum 
that  a  space  of  two  thousand  eUs  on  every  side  of 
a  city  belonged  to  it,  and  to  go  that  distance 
beyond  the  walls  was  permitted  as  "a  Sabbath- 
day's  journey." 

The  reference  of  Isaiah  to  the  Sabbath  gives  us 
no  details.  Those  in  .Jeremiah  and  Nehemiah  show 
that  carrying  goods  for  sale,  and  buying  such,  were 
equally  profanations  of  the  day. 

There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  to  engage 
the  enemy  on  the  Sabbath  was  considered  unlaw- 
ful before  the  Captivity.  On  the  contrary,  there  is 
much  force  in  the  argument  of  JMichaelis  {Laws  of 
Moses,  iv.  196)  to  show  that  it  was  not.  His 
reasons  are  as  follows :  — 

1.  The  prohibited  ]"^2^,  senv'ce,  does  not  even 
suggest  the  thought  of  war. 

2.  The  enemies  of  the  chosen  people  would  have 
continually  selected  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  attack, 
had  the  latter  been  forbidden  to  defend  themselves 
then. 

3.  We  read  of  long-protracted  sieges,  that  of 
Kabbah  (2  Sam.  xi.,  xii.),  and  that  of  Jerusalem  in 
the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  which  latter  lasted  a  year 
and  a  half,  during  which  the  enemy  would  cer- 
tainly have  taken  advantage  of  any  sucli  abstinence 
from  warfare  on  the  part  of  the  chosen  peojile. 

At  a  subsequent  period  we  know  (1  Mace.  ii. 
34-38)  that  the  scruple  existed  and  was  acted  on 
with  most  calamitous  effects.  Those  efl'ects  led 
(1  Mace.  ii.  41)  to  determining  that  action  in  self- 
defense  was  lawful  on  the  Sabbath,  initiatory  at- 
tack not.    The  reservation  was,  it  nuist  be  thought. 


SABBATH 

nearly  as  great  a  misconception  of  the  institution 
as  the  overruled  scruple.  Certainly  warfare  hag 
nothing  to  do  with  the  servile  labor  or  tlie  worldly 
business  contemplated  in  the  I'ourth  Command- 
ment, and  is,  as  regards  religious  observance,  a  law 
to  itself.  Yet  the  scruple,  like  many  other  scruples, 
proved  a  convenience,  and  under  the  Roman  Km- 
pire  the  Jews  procured  exemption  from  military 
service  by  means  of  it.  It  was  not,  however,  wii  h- 
out  its  e\ils.  In  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  i*om- 
pey  (.loseph.  Aiil.  xiv.  4),  as  well  as  in  the  fin:»l  one 
by  Titus,  the  Romans  took  advantage  of  it,  and, 
abstaining  from  attack,  prosecuted  on  the  Salitath, 
witho\it  molestation  from  the  enemy,  such  worki  as 
enabled  them  to  renew  the  assault  with  increased 
resources. 

So  far  therefore  as  we  have  yet  gone,  so  far  as 
the  negative  side  of  Sabbatical  observance  is  con- 
cerned, it  would  seem  that  servile  labor,  whether 
that  of  slaves  or  of  hired  servants,  and  all  worldly 
business  on  the  part  of  masters,  was  suspended  on 
the  Sabbath,  and  the  day  was  a  common  right  to 
rest  and  be  refreshed,  possessed  by  all  classes  in 
the  Hebrew  community.  It  was  thus,  as  we  have 
urged,  a  beneficent  institution."  As  a  sign  between 
God  and  his  chosen  people,  it  was  also  a  monitor 
of  faith,  keeping  up  a  constant  witness,  on  the 
ground  takeji  in  Gen.  ii.  3,  and  in  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, for  the  one  living  and  personal  God 
whom  they  worshipped,  and  for  the  truth,  in  op- 
position to  all  the  cosmogonies  of  the  heathen,  that 
everything  was  created  by  Him. 

We  must  now  quit  the  negative  for  the  positive 
side  of  the  institution. 

In  the  first  place,  we  learn  from  the  Pentateuch 
that  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  were  both 
doubled  on  the  Sabbath-day,  and  that  the  fresh 
shew-bread  was  then  baked,  and  substituted  on  the 
Table  for  that  of  the  previous  week.  And  this  at 
once  leads  to  the  observation  that  the  negative 
rules,  proscribing  work,  lighting  of  fires,  etc.,  did 
not  apply  to  the  rites  of  religion.  It  became  a 
dictum  that  tliere  ivas  no  Sabbath  in  holy  things. 
To  this  our  Saviour  appeals  when  He  says  that  the 
priests  in  the  Temple  profane  the  Sabbath  and  are 
blameless. 

Next,  it  is  clear  that  individual  ofTerings  were 
not  breaches  of  the  Sabbath ;  and  from  this  doubt- 
less came  the  feasts  of  the  rich  on  that  day,  which 
were  sanctioned,  as  we  have  seen,  by  our  Saviour's 
attendance  on  one  such.  It  was,  we  may  be  pretty 
sure,  a  feast  on  a  sacrifice,  and  therefore  a  religious 
act.  •  All  around  the  giver,  the  poor  as  well  as 
others,  were  admitted  to  it.  Yet  further,  in  "  cases 
of  illness,  and  in  any,  even  the  remotest  danger," 
the  prohiliitions  of  work  were  not  held  to  apply. 
The  general  principle  was  that  "the  Sabbath  is  de- 
livered into  your  hand,  not  you  into  the  hand  of 
the  Sabbath"  (comp.  Mark  ii.  27,  28). 

We  have  no  ground  for  supposing  that  anj'thing 
like  the  didactic  institutions  of  the  synagogue 
formed  part  of  the  original  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath. Such  institutions  do  not  come  into  being 
while  the  matter  to  which  they  relate  is  itself  only 
in  process  of  formation.  Expounding  the  T>aw 
presumes  the  completed  existence  of  the  Law.  and 
the  removal  of  the  living  lawgiver.  The  assertion 
of  the  Talnmd  that  "  Moses  ordained  to  the  Israel- 


a  In  this  light  the  Sabbath  has  found  a  champion 
In  one  who  would  not,  we  suppose,  have  paid  it  much 
Mfpeot  in  its  theological  character ;  we  mean  no  lea« 


a  per.'son   than  M.  Proudhon   (JDe  /i    CHctnation   tik 
Dimanche). 


SABBATH 

itea  that  they  should  read  the  Law  on  the  Salihath- 
ilaj'8,  the  feasts,  and  the  new  moons,"  in  itself  im- 
prcliable,  is  utterly  unsupported  by  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  rise  of  such  custom  in  after  times  is 
explicable  enough.  [Synagogue.]  But  from  an 
early  period,  if  not,  as  is  most  probable,  from  the 
eery  institution,  occupation  with  holy  themes  was 
regarded  as  an  essential  part  of  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath.  It  would  seem  to  ha\e  been  an 
habitual  practice  to  repair  to  a  propliet  on  that 
day,  in  order,  it  nuist  be  presumed,  to  listen  to  his 
teachmg  (2  K.  iv.  23).  Certain  Psalms  too,  e.  g. 
the  92d,  were ,  composed  for  the  Sabbath,  and 
probably  used  in  private  as  well  as  in  the  'I'aber- 
nacle.  At  a  later  period  we  come  upon  precepts 
that  on  the  Sabbath  tlie  mind  should  lie  uplifted 
to  hif;h  and  holy  themes  —  to  God,  his  character, 
his  revelations  of  Himself,  his  mighty  works. 
Still  the  thoughts  with  which  the  day  was  in- 
vested were  ever  thoughts,  not  of  restriction,  but 
of  freedom  and  of  joy.  Such  indeed  would  seem, 
from  Neh.  viii.  9-12,  to  have  been  essential  to  tiie 
notion  of  a  holy  day.  We  have  more  than  once 
pointed  out  that  pleasure,  as  such,  was  never  con- 
sidered by  the  .Jews  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath ;  and 
their  practice  in  this  respect  is  often  animadverted 
on  by  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  who  taunt  them 
with  abstaining  on  that  day  only  from  wliat  is 
good  and  useful,  but  indulging  in  dancing  and 
luxury.  Some  of  the  heathen,  indeed,  such  as 
Tacitus,  imagined  that  the  Sabbath  was  kept  by 
them  as  a  fast,  a  mistake  which  might  have  arisen 
from  their  abstinence  from  cookery  on  that  day, 
and  perhaps,  as  Heylin  conjectures,  from  their 
postponement  of  theii'  meals  till  the  more  solemn 
services  of  religion  had  been  performed.  But 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  kept  as  a  feast, 
and  the  phrase  luxus  Sulibfitnrius,  which  we  find 
in  Sidonius  Apollinaris  (i.  2),  and  which  has  been 
thought  a  proverbial  one,  illustrates  the  mode  in 
which  they  celebrated  it  in  the  early  centuries 
of  our  era.  The  following  is  Augustine's  descrip- 
tion of  their  practice:  "  Kcce  hodiernus  dies  Sab- 
bati  est:  hunc  in  prsesenti  tempore  otio  qnodam 
corporaliter  languido  et  tluxo  et  luxurioso  celelirant 
>luda;i.  Vacant  enim  ad  nugas,  et  cum  Dens  prae- 
ceperit  Salibatum,  i!li  in  his  quse  Deus  prohibet 
exercent  Sabbatum.  Vacatio  nostra  a  mails  operi- 
bus,  vacatio  illorum  a  bonis  operibus  est.  Melius 
est  enim  arare  quani  saltare.  Illi  ab  opere  bono 
vacant,  ab  opere  nugatorio  non  vacant"  (Aug. 
Knurr,  in  Psalmos,  Ps.  xci. :  see,  too,  Aug.  Be 
decern  Chordis,  iii.  3;  Chrysost.  Honiil.  I.,  De 
Lnzaro ;  and  other  references  given  by  Bingham, 
EccL  Ant.  lib.  xx.  cap.  ii.).  And  if  we  take  what 
alone  is  in  the  Law,  we  shall  find  nothing  to  be 
counted  absolutely  obligatory  but  rest,  cessation 
from  labor.  Now,  as  we  have  more  than  once 
had  occasion  to  oliserve,  rest,  cessation  from  labor, 
cannot  in  the  waking  moments  mean  avoidance  of 
all  action.  This,  therefore,  would  be  the  question 
respecting  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Sabbath 
which  would  always  demand  to  be  de^outly  con- 
sidered and  intelligently  answered  —  what  is  truly 
rest,  what  is  that  cessation  from  labor  which  is 
really  Sabbatical?  And  it  is  plain  that,  in  ap- 
[ilication  and  in  detail,  the  answer  to  this  must 
ilmost  indefinitely  vary  with  men's  varying  cir- 
lumstances,  habits,  education,  and  familiar  asso- 
Mations. 

We  have  seen  then,  that,  for  whomsoever  else  the 
»ro\'iglon   was  intended,  the  chosen  race  were  in 


SABBATH 


2763 


possession  of  an  ordinance,  whereby  neither  a  man's 
time  nor  his  property  could  be  considered  abso- 
lutely his  own,  the  seventh  of  each  week  being 
holy  to  God,  and  dedicated  to  rest  after  the  pattern 
of  God's  rest,  and  giving  equal  rights  to  all.  We 
have  also  seen  that  this  provision  was  the  tonic  to 
a  chord  of  Sabbatical  observance,  through  which 
the  same  great  principles  of  God's  claim  and  so- 
ciety's, on  e^■ery  man's  time  and  every- man's  prop- 
erty, were  extended  and  developed.  Of  the  Sab- 
batical year,  indeed,  and  of  the  year  of  .Jubilee, 
it  may  be  questioned  whether  they  were  ever 
persistently  observed,  the  only  indications  that  we 
possess  of  Hebrew  practice  respecting  them  being 
the  exemption  from  tribute  during  the  former  ac- 
corded to  the  Jews  liy  Alexander,  to  which  we  have 
already  referred,  and  one  or  two  others,  all,  how- 
ever, after  the  Captivity.  [Sabbatical  Year; 
Year  of  .Jubilee.] 

But  no  doulit  exists  that  the  weekly  Salibath 
was  always  partially,  and  in  the  Pharisaic  and  sub- 
sequent times  very  strictly,  however  mistakenly, 
ol'served. 

We  have  hitherto  viewed  the  Sabbath  merely  a? 
a  Mosaic  ordinance.  It  remains  to  ask  wJiether, 
first,  there  be  indications  of  its  having  been  pre- 
viously known  and  observed ;  and,  secondly,  whether 
it  have  an  universal  scope  and  authority  over  all 
men. 

The  former  of  these  questions  is  usually  ap- 
proached with  a  feeling  of  its  being  connected  with 
the  latter,  and  perhaps  therefore  with  a  bias  in 
favor  of  the  view  which  the  questioner  thinks  will 
support  his  opinion  on  the  latter.  It  seems,  how- 
ever, to  us,  that  we  may  dismiss  any  anxiety  as  to 
the  results  we  may  arrive  at  concerning  it.  No 
doubt,  if  we  see  strong  reason  for  thinking  that  the 
Sabbath  had  a  pre-Mosaic  existence,  we  see  some- 
thing in  it  that  has  more  than  a  Mosaic  character 
and  scope.  But  it  might  have  had  such  without 
having  an  universal  authority,  unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  ascribe  that  to  the  prohibition  of  eating 
blood  or  things  strangled.  And  again,  it  might 
have  originated  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  yet 
possess  an  universally  human  scope,  and  an  au- 
thority over  all  men  and  through  all  time.  Which- 
ever way,  therefore,  the  second  of  our  questions 
is  to  be  determined,  we  may  easily  approach  the 
first  without  anxiety. 

The  first  and  chief  argument  of  those  who 
maintain  that  the  Sabbath  was  known  before 
Moses,  is  the  reference  to  it  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  This 
is  considered  to  represent  it  as  coeval  with  man, 
being  instituted  at  the  Creation,  or  at  le.ast,  as 
Lightfoot  views  the  matter,  immediately  upon  the 
Fall.  This  latter  opinion  is  so  entirely  without 
rational  ground  of  any  kind  that  we  may  dismiss 
it  at  once.  But  the  whole  argument  is  very  pre- 
carious. We  have  no  materials  for  ascertaining  or 
even  conjecturing,  which  was  put  forth  first,  the 
record  of  the  Creation,  or  the  Fourth  Commaiid 
nient.  If  the  latter,  then  the  reference  to  tht 
Sabbath  in  the  former  is  abundantly  natural.  Had, 
indeed,  the  Hebrew  tongue  the  variety  of  preterite 
tenses  of  the  Greek,  the  words  in  Genesis  might 
require  careful  consideration  in  that  regard  ;  but  as 
the  case  is,  no  light  can  be  had  from  grannnar; 
and  on  the  supposition  of  these  being  written  after 
the  Fourth  Commandment,  their  absence,  or  that 
of  any  equivalent  to  them,  would  be  really  mar- 
velous. 

The  next  indication  of  a  pre  Mosaic  Sabhsth  hM 


2764 


SABBATH 


been  found  in  Gen.  iv.  A,  where  we  read  that  "  in 
process  of  time  it  came  to  ])ass  that  Cain  brought 
oi  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  unto  the 
Ivord."  The  words  rendered  in  process  of  time 
mean  literally  "  at  the  end  of  days,"  and  it  is  con- 
tended that  they  designate  a  fixed  period  of  days, 
probably  the  end  of  a  week,  the  seventh  or  Sab- 
bath-day. Again,  the  division  of  time  into  weeks 
seems  recognized  in  Jacob's  courtship  of  Rachel 
(Gen.  xxix.  27,  28).  Indeed  the  large  recognition 
of  that  division  from  the  earliest  time  is  considered 
a  proof  that  it  must  have  had  an  origin  above 
and  independent  of  local  and  accidental  circum- 
stances, and  been  imposed  on  man  at  the  begimiing 
from  al)ove.  Its  arbitrary  and  factitious  character 
is  appealed  to  in  further  confirmation  of  this.  The 
Bacredness  of  the  seventh  day  among  the  Egyptians, 
as  recorded  by  Herodotus,  and  the  well-known 
words  of  Hesiod  respecting  it,  have  long  been  cited 
among  those  who  adopt  this  view,  though  neither 
of  them  in  reality  gives  it  the  slightest  support. 
Lastly,  the  opening  of  the  Fourth  Commandment, 
the  injunction  to  remember  the  Sabbatli-day,  is 
appealed  to  as  proof  that  that  day  was  already 
known. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  all  this  is  hut  a  precarious 
foundation  on  which  to  build.  It  is  not  cle<ir  that 
the  words  in  Gen  iv.  3  denote  a  fixed  division  of 
time  of  any  sort.  Those  in  Gen.  xxix.  obviously  do, 
but  carry  us  no  further  than  proving  that  the  week 
was  known  and  recognized  by  .Jacob  and  Laban; 
though  it  must  be  admitted  that,  in  the  case  of  time 
so  divided,  sacred  rites  would  ])roliably  be  celebrated 
on  a  fixed  and  statedly  recurring  day.  The  argu- 
ment from  the  prevalence  of  the  weekly  division  of 
time  would  require  a  greater  approach  to  univer- 
sality in  such  practice  than  the  facts  exhibit,  to 
make  it  a  cogent  one.  That  division  was  unknowni 
to  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  being  adopted 
by  the  latter  people  from  the  Egyptians,  as  nmst 
be  inferred  from  the  well-known  passage  of  Dion 
Cassius  (xxxvii.  18.  ID),  at  a  period  in  his  own 
time  comparatively  recent;  while  of  the  Eg\ptians 
themsehes  it  is  thought  improbable  that  they  were 
^acquainted  with  such  division  in  early  times.  The 
Bacredness  of  the  seventh  day  mentioned  by  Hesiod, 
is  obviously  that  of  the  seventh  day,  not  of  the 
week,  but  of  the  month.  And  even  after  the 
weekly  division  was  established,  no  trace  can  be 
found  of  anything  resembling  the  Hebrew  Sab- 
bath. 

While  the  injunction  in  the  Fourth  Command- 
ment to  remember  the  Sabbath-day  may  refer  oidy 
to  its  previous  institution  in  connection  with  the 
gathering  of  manna,  or  may  be  but  the  natural 
precept  to  Iteep  in  mind  the  rule  about  to  be  de- 
livered —  a  phrase  natural  and  contiimally  recur- 
ring in  the  intercourse  of  life,  as,  tor  example,  be- 
tween parent  and  child  —  on  the  other  hand,  the 
perplexity  of  the  Israelites  respecting  the  double 
supply  of  manna  on  the  sixtii  day  (Ex.  xvi.  22) 
leads  us  to  infer  that  the  Sabbath  fur  which  such 
extra  supply  was  designed  was  not  then  known  to 
them.  Moreover  the  language  of  Ezekiel  (xx.) 
seems  to  designate  it  as  an  ordinance  distinctively 
Hebrew  and  Mosaic. 

We  cannot  then,  from  the  luicertain  notices 
ffliich  we  possess,  infer  more  than  that  the  weekly 
livision  of  time  was  known  to  the  Israelites  and 
i)thers  before  the  Law  of  Moses.  [Wi:ek.]  There 
is  probability,  though  not  more,  in  the  opinion  of 
'jrrutiua,  that  the  seventh  ilay  was  deemed  sacred 


SABBATH 

to  religious  observance;  but  that  the  SabbaticBl 
observance  of  it.  the  cessation  from  labor,  wu 
superinduced  on  it  in  the  wilderness. 

But  to  come  to  our  second  question,  it  by  no 
means  follows,  that  even  if  the  Sabbath  were  no 
older  than  Moses,  its  scope  and  obligation  are  lim- 
ited to  Israel,  and  that  itself  lielongs  only  to  the 
obsolete  enactments  of  the  Levitical  L»w  That 
law  contains  two  elements,  the  code  of  a  particular 
nation,  and  commandments  of  human  and  uni- 
versal character.  For  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  Hebrew  was  called  out  from  the  world, 
not  to  live  on  a  narrower  but  a  far  wider  footing 
than  the  children  of  earth;  that  he  was  called  out 
to  be  the  true  man,  bearing  witness  for  the  destiny, 
exhibiting  the  aspect,  and  realizing  the  blessedness, 
of  true  manhood.  Hence,  we  can  always  see,  if 
we  have  a  mind,  the  difterence  between  such  feat- 
ures of  his  Law  as  are  but  local  and  temporary, 
and  such  as  are  hiunan  and  universal.  To  which 
class  belongs  the  Sabbath,  viewed  simply  in  itself, 
is  a  question  which  will  soon  come  before  us,  and 
one  which  does  not  appear  hard  to  settle.  Mean- 
while, we  must  inquire  into  the  case  as  exhibited 
by  Scripture. 

And  here  we  are  at  once  confronted  with  the 
fact  that  the  command  to  keep  the  Sabliath  forms 
part  of  the  Decalogue.  And  that  the  Decalogue 
had  a  rank  and  authority  above  the  other  enact- 
ments of  the  Law,  is  plain  to  the  most  cursory 
readers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  indicated  by 
its  being  written  on  the  two  Tables  of  the  Cove- 
nant. And  though  even  the  Decalogue  is  effected 
by  the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  so  in  the  way 
of  repeal  or  obliteration.  It  is  raised,  trans- 
figured, glorified  there,  but  itself  remains  in  its 
authority  and  supremacy.  Not  to  refer  just  now 
to  our  Saviour's  teaching  (Matt.  xix.  17-19),  of 
which  it  might  be  alleged  that  it  was  delivered 
when,  and  to  the  persons  over  whom,  the  Old  Law 
was  in  force  —  such  passages  as  I!om.  xiii.  8,  9, 
and  Eph.  vi.  2,  3,  seem  decisive  of  this.  In  some 
way,  therefore,  the  Fourth  Commandment  has  an 
authority  over,  and  is  to  be  obeyed  by.  Christians, 
though  whether  in  the  letter,  or  in  some  large 
spiritual  sense  and  scope,  is  a  question  which  still 
remains. 

The  phenomena  respecting  the  Sabbath  pre- 
sented by  the  New  Testament  are,  1st,  the  frequent 
reference  to  it  in  the  four  gospels;  and  2dly,  the 
silence  of  the  epistles,  with  the  exception  of  one 
place  (Col.  ii.  16,  17),  where  its  repeal  would 
seem  to  be  asserted,  and  perhaps  one  other  (Heb. 
iv.  9). 

1st.  The  references  to  it  in  the  four  gospels  are, 
it  needs  not  be  said,  numerous  enough.  We  have 
already  seen  the  high  position  which  it  took  in  the 
minds  of  the  Kabbis,  and  the  strange  code  of  pro- 
hibitions which  they  jiut  forth  in  connection  with 
it.  The  consequence  of  this  was,  that  no  part  of 
our  Saviour's  teaching  and  practice  would  seem  to 
have  been  so  eagerly  and  narrowly  watched  as  that 
which  related  to  the  Sabbath.  He  seems  even  to 
have  directed  attention  to  this,  thereby  intimating 
surely  that  on  the  one  hand  the  misapprehension, 
and  on  the  other  the  true  fulfillment  of  the  Sab- 
bath were  matters  of  deepest  concern.  We  have 
already  seen  tlie  kind  of  prohibitions  against  which 
both  his  teaching  and  practice  were  directed ;  and 
his  two  pregnant  declarations,  "  The  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,"  and 
"My  Father worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work,''  surelj 


SABBATH 

Sihibit  to  us  the  Law  of  the  Sabbath  as  human 
iiid  universal.  The  former  sets  it  forth  as  a  priv- 
iletje  and  a  blessing,  and  were  we  therefore  to  sup- 
pose it  absent  from  the  provisions  of  tlie  covenant 
of  grace,  we  must  suppose  that  covenant  to  have 
stinted  man  of  something  that  was  made  for  him, 
something  tliat  oonduces  to  his  well-being.  The 
latter  wonderfully  exalts  the  Sabbath  by  referring 
it,  even  as  do  the  record  of  creation  and  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  to  God  as  its  archetype; 
and  in  showing  us  that  the  repose  of  God  does 
not  exclude  work  —  inasiimch  as  God  opens  his 
hand  daily  and  fiUeth  all  things  living  with  plen- 
twusness  —  shows  us  that  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath 
does  not  exclude  action,  which  would  be  but  a 
death,  but  only  that  week-day  action  which  requires 
to  be  wound  up  in  a  rest  that  shall  be  after  the 
pattern  of  his,  who,  though  He  has  rested  from 
all  the  work  that  He  hath  made,  yet  "  worketh 
hitherto." 

2dly.  The  epistles,  it  must  be  admitted,  with 
the  exception  of  one  place,  and  perhaps  another  to 
which  we  have  already  referred,  are  silent  on  the 
subject  of  the  Sabbath.  No  rules  for  its  observ- 
ance are  ever  given  by  the  Apostles  —  its  violation 
is  never  denounced  by  tlifem.  Sabbatli-breakers 
are  never  included  in  any  list  of  offenders.  Col. 
ii.  10,  17,  seems  a  far  stronger  argument  for  the 
abolition  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion than  is  furnished  by  Heb.  iv.  9  for  its  con- 
tinuance; and  while  the  first  day  of  the  week  is 
more  than  once  referred  to  as  one  of  religious 
observance,  it  is  never  identified  with  the  Sabbath, 
nor  are  any  prohibilions  issued  in  connection  with 
the  former,  while  the  omission  of  the  Sabbath  from 
the  list  of  "  necessary  things  "  to  be  observed  by 
the  Gentiles  (Acts  xv.  29)  shows  that  they  were 
regarded  by  the  Apostles  as  free  from  obligation  in 
this  matter. 

When  we  turn  to  the  monuments  which  we 
possess  of  the  early  Church,  we  find  ourselves  on 
the  whole  carried  in  the  same  direction.  The 
seventh  day  of  tiie  week  continued,  indeed,  to  lie 
observed,  being  kept  as  a  feast  by  the  greater  part 
of  the  Church,  and  as  a  fast  from  an  early  period 
by  that  of  Rome,  and  one  or  two  other  churches 
of  the  West;  but  not  as  obligatory  on  Christians 
in  the  .same  way  as  on  .lews.  The  Council  of 
Laodicea  prohibited  all  scruple  about  working  on 
it;  and  there  was  a  very  general  admission  among 
the  early  Fathers  that  Christians  did  not  Sabbd- 
fize  in  the  letter. 

Again,  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  as  a 
Sabbath  would  have  been  well-nigh  impossible  to 
the  majority  of  Christians  in  tiie  first  ages.  The 
slave  of  the  heathen  master,  and  the  child  of  the 
heathen  father,  could  neither  of  them  have  the 
control  of  his  own  conduct  in  such  a  matter;  while 
the  Christian  in  general  would  have  been  at  once 
betrayed  and  dragged  into  notice  if  he  was  found 
abstaining  from  labor  of  every  kind,  not  on  the 
seventh  but  the  first  day  of  the  week.  And  yet 
it  is  clear  that  many  were  enabled  witiiout  blame 
w  keep  their  Christianity  long  a  secret;  nor  does 
there  seem  to  have  been  any  obligation  to  divulge 
it,  until  heathen  interrogation  or  the  order  to 
lacrifice  drau^'^ed  it  into  dayliij;ht. 

When  the  early  Fathers  speak  of  the  Lord's 
)*y,  they  sometimes,  perhaps,  by  comparing,  con- 
nect it  with  the  Salibath:  but  we  have  never  found 
t  passage,  previous  to  the  conversion  of  Constan- 
Bne,  prohibitory  of  any  work  or  occupation  on  the 


SABBATH  2765 

former,  and  any  such,  did  it  exist,  would  have 
been  in  a  great  measure  nugatory,  for  the  reasons 
just  alleged.  [Lord's  Day.]  After  Con.stantin* 
things  become  different  at  once.  His  celebrated 
edict  prohibitory  of  judicial  proceedings  on  the 
Lord's  Day  was  probably  dictated  by  a  wish  to 
give  the  great  Christian  festival  as  much  honor  as 
was  enjoyed '  by  those  of  the  heathen,  rather  than 
by  any  reference  to  the  Sal^bath  or  the  Fourth 
Commandment;  but  it  was  followed  by  several 
which  extended  the  prohibition  to  many  other  oc- 
cupations, and  to  many  forms  of  pleasure  held 
innocent  on  ordinary  days.  When  this  Itecame  the 
case,  the  Christian  Church,  which  ever  lielieved  the 
Decalogue,  in  some  sense,  to  be  of  universal  obliga- 
tion, could  not  but  feel  that  she  was  enabled  to 
keep  the  Fourth  Commandment  in  its  letter  as  well 
as  its  spirit;  that  she  had  not  lost  the  type  even 
in  possessing  the  antitype;  that  the  great  law  of 
week-day  work  and  seventh-day  rest,  a  law  so 
generous  and  so  ennoliling  to  humanity  at  larsje, 
was  still  in  operation.  True,  the  name  Sabbath 
was  always  used  to  denote  the  seventh,  as  that 
of  the  Lord's  Day  to  denote  the  first,  day  of  the 
week,  which  latter  is  nowhere  habitually  called  the 
Sabbath,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  except  in  Scotland 
and  by  the  English  Puritans.  But  it  was  surely 
impossible  to  oliser\e  both  the  I.,ord's  Day,  as  was 
done'by  Christians  after  Constanthie,  and  to  read 
the  Fourth  Commandment,  without  connecting  the 
two;  and,  seeing  that  such  was  to  be  the  practice 
of  the  developed  Church,  we  can  understand  how 
the  silence  of  the  N.  T.  epistles,  and  even  the 
strong  words  of  St.  Paul  (Col.  ii.  16,  17),  do  not 
impair  the  human  and  universal  scope  of  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  exhibited  so  stronrjly  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  Law,  and  in  the  teaching  re- 
specting it  of  Him  who  came  not  to  destroy  the 
Law,  but  to  fulfill. 

In  the  East,  indeed,  where  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  was  long  kept  as  a  festival,  that  would 
present  itself  to  men's  minds  as  the  Sabbath,  and 
the  first  day  of  the  week  would  appear  rather  in 
its  distinctively  Christian  character,  and  as  of 
apostolical  and  ecclesiastical  origin,  than  in  con- 
nection with  the  old  Law.  But  in  the  West  the 
seventh  day  was  kept  for  the  most  part  as  a  fast, 
and  that  for  a  reason  merely  Christian,  namely,  in 
commeraoratioti  of  our  Lord's  lying  in  the  sepul- 
chre throughout  that  day.  Its  observance  therefore 
would  not  ol)SCure  the  aspect  of  the  Lord's  Day  as 
that  of  hebdomadal  rest  and  refreshment,  and  as 
consequently  the  prolongation  of  the  Salsbath  in 
the  essential  character  of  that  lienignant  ordinance; 
and,  with  some  variation,  therefore,  of  \erl)al  state- 
ment, a  connection  between  the  Fourth  Command- 
!nent  and  the  first  day  of  the  week  (together,  as 
should  be  remembered,  with  the  other  festivals 
of  the  Church),  came  to  be  perceived  and  pro- 
claimed. 

Attention  has  recently  been  called,  in  coimection 
with  our  subject,  to  a  circumstance  which  is  im- 
portant, the  adoption  b;^the  Roman  world  of  tlie 
Egyptian  week  almost  contemporaneously  with  tlie 
foundini;  of  the  Christian  Church.  L>ion  Cassius 
speaks  of  that  adoption  as  recent,  and  we  are 
therefore  warranted  in  conjecturing  the  time  of 
Hadrian  as  about  that  wherein  it  must  have  estab 
lished  itself.  Here,  then,  would  .seem  a  signal 
Providential  preparation  for  providing:  the  people 
of  (lod  with  a  literal  Salibatismus;  for  prolonging 
in   the  Christian  kingdom   that   great  institution 


2766 


SABBATH 


irhich,  whether  or  not  historically  older  than  the 
Mosaic  Law,  is  yet  in  its  essential  character  adapted 
to  all  mankind,  a  witness  for  a  personal  Creator 
and  Sustainer  of  the  universe,  and  for  his  call  to 
men  to  model  their  work,  their  time,  and  their 
dves,  on  his  pattern. 

Were  we  prepared  to  embrace  an  exposition 
which  has  been  given  of  a  remarkable  passage 
already  referred  to  (Heb.  iv.  8-10),  we  should  find 
it  singularly  illustrative  of  the  view  just  suggested. 
The  argument  of  the  passage  is  to  this  effect,  that 
the  rest  on  which  Joshua  entered,  and  into  which 
he  made  Israel  to  enter,  camiot  lie  the  true  and 
final  rest,  inasmuch  as  the  Psalmist  long  after- 
wards spaaks  of  the  entering  into  that  rest  as  still 
future  and  contingent.  In  ver.  9  we  have  the 
words  "  there  remaineth,  therefore,  a  rest  for  the 
people  of  God."  Now  it  is  important  that  through- 
out the  passage  the  word  for  rest  is  KaraTravcns, 
and  that  in  the  words  just  quoted  it  is  changed 
into  aal3l3aTia/^Js,  which  certainly  means  the 
keeping  of  rest,  the  act  of  sabbatizing  rather  than 
the  objective  rest  itself.  It  has  accordingly  been 
buggested  that  those  words  are  not  the  author's 
conclusion  —  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  form  of 
tjiesis  in  the  declaration  "  we  which  have  believed 
do  enter  into  rest ""  —  but  a  parenthesis  to  the 
effect  tliat  "  to  the  people  of  (iod,"  the  (Jhristian 
community,  there  remaineth,  tliei'e  is  left,  a  sab- 
batiziny,  the  great  chantre  that  has  passed  upon 
them  and  the  mighty  elevation  to  which  they  have 
been  brought  as  on  other  matters,  so  as  regards  the 
rest  of  God  revealed  to  them,  still  leaving  scope 
for  and  justifying  the  practice."  This  exposition 
is  in  keeping  with  the  general  scope  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews;  and  the  passage  thus  viewed  will 
seem  to  some  minds  analogous  to  xiii.  10.  It  is 
given  by  Owen,  and  is  elaborated  with  great  in- 
genuity by  Or  W'ardlaw  in  his  Discimrses  on  the 
Sabbath.  It  will  not  be  felt  fatal  to  it  that  more 
than  300  years  should  have  passed  liefore  the 
Church  at  large  was  in  a  situation  to  discover  the 
heritage  that  had  l)een  preserved  to  her,  or  to 
enter  on  its  enjoyment,  when  we  consider  how  de- 
velopment, in  all  matters  of  ritual  and  ordinance, 
must  needs  be  the  law  of  any  living  body,  and 
much  more  of  one  which  had  to  struggle  from 
its^birth  with  the  impeding  forces  of  a  heathen 
empire,  frequent  persecution,  and  an  unreclaimed 
society.  In  such  case  was  the  early  Church,  and 
therefore  she  might  well  have  to  wait  for  a  Con- 
stantine  l;efure  she  could  fully  open  her  eyes  to 
the  fact  that  sal)l)atizing  was  still  left  to  her; 
and  her  memliers  might  well  lie  ijermitted  not  to 
see  the  truth  in  any  steady  or  consistent  way  even 
then. 

The  objections,  however,  to  this  exposition  are 
many  and  great,  one  being,  that  it  has  occurred 
to  so  few  among  the  great  commentators  who  have 
labored  on  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews.  Chr^sostom 
(in  loc.)  denies  that  there  is  any  reference  to  heb- 
iomadal  sabbatizing.  Xor  have  we  found  any 
commentators,  besides  the  two  just  named,  who 
admit  that  there  is  such,  with  the  single  exception 
of  Ebrard.  Dean  Alford  notices  the  interpretation 
jnly  to  condemn  it,  while  Dr.  H^sey  gives  another, 
and  that  the  usual  explanation  of  the  ver.se,  sug- 
gesting a  sufficient  reason  for  the  change  of  word 


a  According  to  this  exposition  the  words  of  ver. 
J,  "for  he  that  hatl\  entered,"  etc.  are  referred  to 
fbrlst 


SABBATH-DAY'S  JOURNEY 

from  KaroLTravais  to  cra^^aTtaixos.  It  would  uot 
have  been  right,  however,  to  have  passed  it  over 
in  this  article  without  notice,  as  it  relatos  to  a 
passage  of  Scripture  in  which  Sabbath  and  Sab- 
batical ideas  are  markedly  brought  forward. 

It  would  be  going  beyond  the  scope  of  this  arti- 
cle to  trace  the  history  of  opinion  on  the  Sabbath 
in  the  Christian  Church.  Dr.  Hessey,  in  his  Bamp- 
ton  Lectures,  has  sketched  and  distinguished  every 
variety  of  doctrine  which  has  been  or  stiU  is  main- 
tained on  the  subject. 

The  sentiments  and  practice  of  the  Jews  subse- 
quent to  our  Saviour's  time  have  been  already  re- 
ferred to.  A  curious  account  —  taken  from  Bux- 
torf,  De  Synag.  —  of  their  superstitions,  scruples, 
and  prohiliitions,  will  be  found  at  the  close  of  the 
first  part  of  Heylin's  Hist-  of  the  Sabbath.  Cal- 
met  (art.  "  Sabbath")  gives  an  interesting  sketch 
of  their  family  practices  at  the  beginning  and  end 
of  the  day.  And  the  estimate  of  the  Sabbath,  its 
uses,  and  its  blessings,  which  is  formed  by  the  more 
spiritually  minded  Jews  of  the  present  day  may  be 
infeired  from  some  striking  remarks  of  Dr.  Kalisch 
[L'oinm.  on  A'xodus),  ]}. '2~-i,  who  winds  up  with 
quoting  a  beautiful  passage  from  the  late  Mrs. 
Horatio  Montefiore's  work,  A  Few  Words  io  the 
Jews. 

Finally,  M.  Proudhon's  striking  pamphlet,  Be 
la  Celebration  du  Dimanche  consideree  sous  les 
rapports  de  l  ilyfjihne  piMique,  de  In  Monde,  des 
relations  de  Faimlle  et  de  Cite,  Paris.  1850,  may 
be  studied  with  great  advantage.  His  remarks 
(p.  07)  on  the  advantages  of  the  precise  propor- 
tion established,  six  days  of  work  to  one  of  rest, 
and  the  inconvenience  of  any  other  that  could  be 
arranged,  are  well  worth  attention. 

The  word  Sabbath  seems  sometimes  to  denote  a 
week  in  the  N.  T.  Hence,  by  the  Hebrew  usage 
of  reckoning  time  by  cardinal  numbers,  iv  rrj  fitS 
TitiU  cra^^aTiiv,  means  on  the  Jirst  day  of  the 
week.  The  Kalibis  have  the  same  phraseology, 
keeping,  howe\'er,  the  word  Sid>bath  in  the  sin- 
gular. 
'  On  the  phrase  of  St.  Luke,  vi.  1,  iv  rt^  aafi^dTCfi 
SevTepoirfjccTcii,  see  S.abbatical  Year. 

This  article  should  be  read  in  connection  with 
that  on  the  Lord's  Day. 

Literature.  —  Critici  Sacri,  on  Exod. ;  Heylin's 
Hist,  of  the  Sabbath  ;  Selden,  De  Jure  Natur.  et 
Gent,  f  Buxtorf,  De  Synag. ;  Barrow,  Jixpos.  of 
the  Decalogue  ;  Paley,  .Uond  and  Political  Philos- 
ophy, V.  7;  James,  On  the  Sacraments  and  Sab- 
bath; Whately's  Tlwughts  on  the  Sabbath;  Ward- 
law.  On  the  Sabbath ;  Maurice,  On  the  Sabbath ; 
Michaelis,  Laws  of  .Vfusts,  arts,  cxciv.-vi.,  clxviii. ; 
Oehler,  in  Herzog's  Real- F.ncyld.  "Sabbath"; 
Winer,  Realwbrterbuch,  "Sabbath";  Biihr,  Symr- 
holik  des  Mos.  Cult.  vol.  ii.  bk.  iv.  ch.  II,  §  2;  Ka- 
lisch. Historical  and  Critical  Commentary  on  0. 
T.,  in  J-Jxod.  XX. ;  Proudlion,  De  la  Cclubi-aiion 
du  Dimanche;  and  especially  Dr.  Hessey's  Sun- 
diiy  ;  the  Bam/>t<m  Lecture  for  1860.         F.  G- 

*  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Christim  Sabbath, 
by  Rev.  L.  Coleman,  Bibl.  Sacra,  i.  52G-552,  and 
Chan<je  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  Seventh  to  the 
First  Day  of  the  iree/-,"bv  John  S.  Stone,  D.  D., 
Theol.  Eclectic,  iv.  542-570,  are  valuable  articles 
on  ibis  suliject.  The  literature  is  given  with  great 
fullness  in  R.  Cox's  Literature  of  the  Sabbath 
Question,  2  vols.,  Edinb.  1865.  H. 

SABBATH-DAYS    JOURNEY    (2a/9 


SABBATH-DAY'S  JOURNEY 

Sirov  6S6s,  Acts  i.  12).  On  occasion  of  a  viola- 
tion of  the  coniniandraeiit  by  certain  of  the  people 
who  went  to  look  for  manna  on  th3  seventh  ilay, 
Moses  enjoined  every  man  to  "abide  in  liis  place," 
and  forbade  any  man  to  "gO  out  of  his  place"  on 
that  day  (Ex.  xvi.  2i).  It  seems  natural  to  look 
on  this  as  a  mere  eiiaetnientyj/'o  re  nald,  and  hav- 
ing no  bearini^  on  any  state  of  affairs  subsequent  to 
the  journey  through  the  wilderness  and  the  daily 
gathering  of  manna.  VV^hetlier  the  earlier  Hebrews 
did  or  did  not  regard  it  thus,  it  is  not  easy  to  say. 
Nevertheless,  the  natural  inference  from  2  K.  iv.  2.3 
is  against  the  supposition  of  such  a  prohibition  be- 
ing known  to  the  spokesman,  Elisha  almost  cer- 
tainly living  —  as  may  be  seen  fi-oni  the  whole  nar- 
rative—  much  more  than  a  Sabbath-day's  jduriiey 
from  Shuiiem.  HeylLn  infers  from  the  incidents  of 
David's  flight  from  Saul,  and  Elijah's  from  Jezebel, 
that  neither  felt  bound  by  such  a  limitation.  Their 
situation,  however,  being  one  of  extremity,  cannot 
be  safely  argued  from.  In  after  times  the  precept 
in  Ex.  xvi.  was  undoubtedly  viewed  as  a  permanent 
law.  But  as  some  departure  from  a  man's  own 
place  was  un.avoidable,  it  was  thought  necessary  to 
determine  the  allowable  ftmount,  which  was  fixed 
at  2,000  paces,  or  about  six  furlongs,  from  the  wall 
of  the  city. 

Though  such  an  enactment  may  have  proceeded 
from  an  erroneous  view  of  Ex.  xvi.  29,  it  is  by  no 
means  so  superstitious  and  unworthy  on  the  face  of 
it  as  are  most  of  the  Rabbinical  rules  and  prohibi- 
tions respecting  the  Sabbath-day.  In  the  case  of  a 
general  law,  like  that  of  the  Sabbath,  some  author- 
ity must  settle  the  application  in  details,  and  such 
an  authority  "  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  sitting  in 
Moses'  seat"  were  entitled  to  exercise.  It  is  plain 
that  the  limits  of  the  Sabbath-day's  journey  must 
have  been  a  great  check  on  the  profanation  of  the 
day  in  a  country  where  business  was  entirely  agi-i- 
cultural  or  pastoral,  and  must  have  secured  to  "  the 
ox  and  the  ass  ''  the  rest  to  which  by  the  Law  they 
were  entitled. 

Our  Saviour  seems  to  refer  to  this  law  in  warn- 
ing the  disciples  to  pray  that  their  flight  from  Je- 
rusalem in  the  time  of  its  judgment  should  not 
be  "on  the  Sabb.ath-day  "  (Matt.  x.xiv.  20).  The 
Christians  of  Jerusalem  would  not,  as  in  the  case 
of  Gentiles,  feel  free  from  the  restrictions  on  jour- 
neying on  that  day ;  nor  would  their  situation  en- 
able them  to  comply  with  the  forms  whereby  such 
journeying  when  necessary  was  sanctified ;  nor 
would  assistance  from  those  around  be  procuraWe. 

The  permitted  distance  seems  to  have  been 
grounded  on  the  space  to  be  kept  between  the  Ark 
and  the  people  (.Tosh.  iii.  4)  in  the  wilderness,  which 
tradition  said  was  that  between  the  Ark  and  the 
tents.  To  repair  to  the  Ark  beint;,  of  course,  a 
duty  on  the  Sabbath,  the  walking  to  it  was  no  vio- 
lation of  the  day ;  and  it  thus  was  taken  as  the  meas- 
ure of  a  lawful  Sabbath-day'sjourney.  We  find  the 
same  distance  given  as  the  circumference  outside  the 
walls  of  the  Levitical  cities  to  be  counted  as  their 
suburbs  (Num.  xxxv.  5).  The  terminus  n  quo  was 
thus  not  a  man's  own  house,  but  the  wall  of  the 
city  where  he  dwelt,  and  thus  the  amount  of  lawfid 
Sabbath-<lay's  journeying  must  therefore  liave  va- 
ried greatly ;  the  movements  of  a  Jew  in  one  of  the 
imall  cities  of  his  own  land  being  restricted  indeed 
Vhen  compared  with  those  of  a  Jew  in  Alexandria, 
Intioch,  or  Rome. 

When  a  man  was  obliged  to  go  farther  than  a 
labbath-day's  journey,  on   some  good  ami  alluw- 


SABBATICAL  YEAR         2767 

able  ground,  it  was  incumbent  on  him  on  the  even- 
ing before  to  furnish  himself  with  food  enough  foi 
two  meals.  He  was  to  sit  down  and  eat  at  the  ap- 
pointed distance,  to  bury  what  he  had  left,  and  ut- 
ter a  thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  appointed  bound- 
ary. Next  morning  he  was  at  liberty  to  make 
this  point  his  terminus  a  quo. 

The  Jewish  scruple  to  go  more  than  2,000  paces 
from  his  city  on  the  Sabi)ath  is  referred  to  by 
Origen,  yrepi  dpx^''>  '^'-  -'  ^y  Jerome,  ad  Alyn- 
s'uun,  quaest.  10;  and  by  Qicumenius  —  with 
some  apparent  difference  between  them  as  to  the 
measurement.  .Jerome  gives  Akiba,  Simeon,  and 
Hillel,  as  the  authorities  for  the  lawful  distance 

F.  G- 

SABBATHE'US  {^a^^aTalos:  Sahbathieus). 
Sh.yhbethai  the  Levite  (1  Esdr.  ix.  14;  comp. 
Ezr.  X.  15). 

SABBATICAL  YEAR.  As  each  seventh 
day  and  each  seventh  month  were  holy,  so  was  each 
seventh  year,  by  the  Mosaic  code.  We  first  en- 
counter this  law  in  Fix.  xxiii.  10,  11,  given  in 
words  corresponding  to  those  of  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, and  followed  (v«r.  12)  by  the  reen- 
forcement  of  that  commandment.  It  is  impossible 
to  read  the  passage  and  not  feel  that  the  Sabbath 
Day  and  the  Sabbatical  Year  are  parts  of  one  gen- 
eral law. 

The  commandment  is,  to  sow  and  reap  for  six 
years,  and  to  let  the  land  rest  on  the  seventh,  "that 
the  poor  of  thy  peojile  may  eat;  and  what  they 
leave  the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  eat."  It  is  added, 
"  In  like  manner  shalt  thou  deal  with  thy  vineyard 
and  thy  oliveyard." 

We  meet  next  with  the  enactment  in  Lev.  xxv. 
2-7,  and  finally  in  Deut.  xv.,  in  which  last  place 
the  new  feature  presents  itself  of  the  seventh  year 
being  one  of  release  to  debtors. 

When  we  combine  these  several  notices,  we  find 
that  every  se\'enth  year  the  land  was  to  have 
rest  to  enjoy  Iter  Sabbitlis.  Neither  tillage  nor 
cultivatiun  of  any  sort  was  to  be  practiced.  The 
spuntaneous  growth  of  the  soil  was  not  to  be 
reaped  by  the  owner,  whose  rights  of  property 
were  in  abe3ance.  All  were  to  have  their  share  in 
the  gleanings :  the  poor,  the  stranger,  and  eveii  the 
cattle.  • 

This  singular  institution  has  the  aspect,  at  first 
sight,  of  total  impracticability.  This,  however, 
wears  off  when  we  consider  that  in  no  year  was 
the  owner  allowed  to  reap  the  whole  harvest  (Lev. 
xix.  9,  xxiii.  22).  Unless,  therefore,  the  remainder 
was  gleanefl  very  carefully,  there  may  easily  have 
been  enough  left  to  ensure  such  spontaneous  de- 
posit of  seed  as  in  the  fertile  soil  of  Syria  would 
produce  some  amount  of  crop  in  the  succeeding 
year,  while  the  vines  and  olives  would  of  course 
yield  their  fruit  of  themselves.  Moreover,  it  is 
clear  that  the  owners  of  land  were  to  lay  by  com 
in  previous  years  for  their  own  and  tlieir  families' 
wants.  This  is  the  unavoidable  inference  from 
Lev.  xxv.  20-22..  And  though  the  right  of 
property  was  in  abeyance  during  the  Sabb.atica! 
year,  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  only  applied 
to  the  fields,  and  not  to  the  gardens  attached  to 
houses. 

The  claiming  of  debts  was  unlawful  during  this 
year,  as  we  learn  from  Ueut  xv.  The  exceptions 
laid  down  are  in  the  case  of  a  foreigner,  and  that 
of  there  being  no  |ioor  in  the  land  This  '.atter 
howevc'r,  it  is  straightway  said,  is  what  wUl  nevei 


2768 


SABBATICAL  YEAR 


happen.  But  though  debts  might  not  be  claimed, 
it  is  not  said  that  they  might  not  te  voluntarily 
paid ;  and  it  has  been  questioned  whether  the  re- 
lease of  the  seventh  year  was  final  or  merely  lasted 
through  the  year.  This  law  was  virtually  abro- 
gated in  later  times  by  the  well-known  y^cos/W"  of 
the  great  Hillel,  a  permission  to  the  judges  to  al- 
low a  creditor  to  enforce  his  claim  whenever  he  re- 
quired to  do  so.  The  formula  is  given  in  the 
Mishna  {S/ieviil/i,  10,  4). 

The  release  of  debtors  during  the  Sabbatical 
year  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  release  of 
slaves  on  the  seventh  year  of  their  service.  The 
two  are  obviously  distinct  —  the  one  occurring 
at  one  fi.^ed  time  for  all,  while  the  other  must 
have  varied  with  various  families,  and  with  various 
slaves. 

The  spirit  of  this  law  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
weekly  Sabbath.  Both  have  a  beneficent  tendency, 
limiting  the  rights  and  checking  the  sense  of  prop- 
erty; the  one  puts  in  God's  claims  on  time,  the 
other  on  tlie  land.  The  land  shall  "  keep  a  Sab- 
bath unto  the  Lord."     "  The  land  is  mine" 

There  may  also  have  been,  as  Kalisch  conjec- 
tures, an  eye  to  the  benefit  which  would  accrue  to 
the  land  from  lying  fellow  e\'ery  se\enth  year,  in  a 
time  when  the  rotation  of  crops  was  unknown. 

The  Sabbatical  year  opened  in  the  Sabbatical 
month,  and  the  wliole  Law  was  to  be  read  every 
such  year,  during  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  to  the 
assemljled  ])eople.  It  was  thus,  like  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  no  mere  negative  rest,  but  was  to  be 
marked  by  high  and  holy  occupation,  and  con- 
nected with  sacred  reflection  and  sentiment. 

At  the  completion  of  a  week  of  Salibatical  years, 
the  Sabbatical  scale  received  its  completion  in  the 
year  of  Jubilee.  For  the  question  whether  that 
was  identical  with  the  seventh  Sabliatical  year,  or 
was  that  which  succeeded  it,  i.  e.  whether  tlie  year 
of  Jul)ilee  fell  every  forty-ninth  or  every  fiftieth 
year,  see  .Jubilee,  Yeah  t)F. 

The  next  question  that  presents  itself  regarding 
the  Sabbatical  j'ear  relates  to  the  time  wiien  its  ob- 
servance liecame  obligatory.  It  has  been  inferred 
from  Leviticus  xxv.  2,  "  \Vhen  ye  come  into  the 
land  which  I  give  you,  then  shall  the  land  keep  a 
Sabbath  unto  the  Lord,"  that  it  was  to  be  held  by 
the  p#3ple  on  the  first  year  of  their  occupation  of 
Canaan ;  but  this  mere  literalism  gives  a  result  in 
contradiction  to  the  words  which  immediately  fol- 
low: "  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  field,  and  six 
years  thou  shalt  prune  thy  vineyard,  and  gather  in 
the  fruit  thereof;  but  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be 
a  Sabbath  of  rest  unto  the  land."  It  is  more  rea- 
sonable to  suppose,  with  the  best  Jewish  authorities, 
that  the  law  became  obligatory  fourteen  years  after 
the  first  entrance  into  the  Promised  Land,  the  con- 
rjuest  of  which  took  seven  years  and  the  distribu- 
tion seven  more. 

A  further  question  arises.  At  whatever  period 
the  obedienoe  to  this  law  ouglit  to  have  com- 
menced, was  it  in  point  of  fact  obeyed '?  Tiiis  is 
Ml  inquiry  which  reaches  to  more  of  the  Jlosaic 
statutes  than  the  one  now  before  us.  It  is,  we  ap- 
prehend, rare  to  see  the  wliole  of  a  code  in  full  op- 
eration; and  the  j)henomena  of  Jewish  history  pre- 
rious  to  the  Captivity  present  us  with  no  such 


"    Vl3D1~lD  =  probably  npo^ovKrj   or  ^rpoo•^oA^, 
For  this  and  other  curious  sjiopulations  on   the  ety- |  SnO'it/i'i) 
Bology  of  the  word,  see  Buxtorf,  L^jc.  TcUiiunj.  1807. 1  In  accordat  ;e  with  the  identi  ications  of  the  settle 


SABTAH 

spectacle.  In  the  threateninj^  iontaineJ  in  Le? 
xxvi.,  judgments  on  the  violation  of  the  SabbaticW 
year  are  particularly  contemplated  (vv.  S?,  Si,', 
and  that  it  was  greatly  if  not  quite  neglected  ap-^ 
pears  from  2  Chr.  xs»vi.  20,  21:  "  Them  that  es- 
caped from  the  sword  carried  he  away  to  Babylon ; 
where  they  were  servants  to  him  and  his  sons  until 
the  reign  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia:  to  fulfill  the 
word  of  the  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  until 
the  land  had  enjoyed  her  Sabbaths ;  for  as  lung  as 
she  lay  desolate  she  kept  Sabbath,  to  fulfill  three- 
score and  ten  years."  Some  of  tlie  Jewish  com- 
mentators ha\e  inferred  from  this  that  their  foie- 
fethers  had  neglected  exactly  seventy  Sal)batical 
years.  If  such  neijlect  was  continuous,  the  law 
must  have  been  disobeyed  throughout  a  period  of 
490  years,  i.  e.  through  nearly  the  whole  duration 
of  the  monarchy;  and  as  there  is  nothing  in  the 
previous* history  leading  to  tlie  inference  that  the 
people  were  more  scrupulous  then,  we  must  look  to 
the  return  from  Captivity  for  indications  of  the  Sab- 
batical year  being  actually  observed.  Then  we  know 
the  former  neglect  was  replaced  by  a  punctilious  at- 
tention to  the  Law;  and  as  its  leading  feature,  the 
Sabbath,  began  to  be  scruj3ulously  reverenced,  so 
we  now  find  traces  of  a  like  observance  of  the  .Sab- 
batical year.  We  read  (1  Mace.  vi.  40)  that  •■  they 
came  out  of  the  city,  because  they  had  no  victuals 
there  to  endure  the  siege,  it  being  a  year  of  rest  to 
the  land."  Alexander  the  Great  is  said  to  have 
exempted  the  Jews  from  tribute  duriiii!;  it,  since  it 
was  unlawful  for  them  to  sow  seed  or  reap  harvest 
then;  so,  too,  did  Julius  Caesar  (Jcseph.  Ant.  xiv. 
10,  §  6).  Tacitus  {Hkt.  lib.  v.  2,  §  4),  having 
mentioned  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  by  the 
Jews,  adds:  "  Dein  blandieiiti  inertia  septimum 
quoque  annum  ignavice  datum."  And  St.  Paul,  in 
reproaching  the  Galatians  with  their  JeflMsh  tend- 
encies, taxes  them  with  observing  years  as  well  as 
days  and  months  and  times  (Gal.  iv.  10),  from 
which  we  must  infer  that  the  teachers  who  com- 
municated to  them  those  tendencies  did  more  or 
less  the  like  themselves.  Another  allusion  in  the 
N.  T.  to  the  Sabbatical  year  is  perhaps  to  be  found 
in  the  |)lirase,  eV  aa^^drw  SeurepoirpcoTto  (Luke 
vi.  1).  Various  explanations  have  been  given  of 
the  term,  but  one  of  tlie  most  probable  is  that  it 
denotes  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  second  year  in  the 
cycle  (Wieseler,  quoted  by  Alford,  vol.  i.). 

F.  G. 
SABBE'US  ([Yat.]  Sa^^a/as;   [Kom.  Aid.] 
Alex,  ^a^^atos-   <S'(("ie«s),  1  iisdr.  ix.  32.      [She- 
MAIAH,  14.] 

SABE'ANS.     [Sei3A;  Sheba.] 

SA'BI  ([Yat.  l,a^€iri,  joined  with  preceding 
word:  not]  2a/3eiV  [-see  errata  in  Mai;  Kom. 
Aid.]  Alex.  2a/3n'):  Sabathen).  "The  children  of 
Pochereth  of  Zebaim "  appear  in  1  Esdr.  v.  .34 
as  "the  sons  of  Phacareth,  the  .sons  of  Sabi." 
[Sabie.] 

*  SA'BIE  (3  syl.),  the  reading  of  the  A.  V 
ed.  1611  and  other  early  editions  in  1  Esdr.  v.  34, 
representing  the  Greek  2a/3iii),  has  been  improperly 
changed  in  later  editions  to  Sabi.  A. 

SAB'TAH  (nri^p.  in  21  MSS.     SrQtt7. 

Gen.  X.  7;  ^j"^??.  1  Chr.  i.  9  [see  Iielow],  A.  Y 

Sabt.v:    2a8a(?a  :    [Yat    in    1    Chr.,   2aflaTo:j 

The  third  in  order  of  the  sons  of  ('ush 


SABTECHA 

3,ent8  of  the  Ctishites  in  the  article  Arabia  and 
•Isewhere,  Sabtah  should  be  looked  for  along  the 
southern  coast  of  Arabia.  The  v\riter  has  found 
110  traces  in  Arab  writers;  but  the  statements  of 
Pliny  (vi.  32,  §  155,  xii.  32),  Ptolemy  (vi.  7,  p.  411), 
and  Avim.  Ferqd.  (27),  respecting  Sabbatha,  Sa- 
bnta,  or  Sobotale,  metropolis  of  the  Atraniitae 
(probably  the  Chatraniotitae),  seem  to  point  to  a 
trace  of  the  tribe  which  descended  from  Sabtah, 
always  supposing  that  this  city  Sabbatha  was  not  a 
corru[)tion  or  dialectic  variation  of  Saba,  Seba,  or 
Sheba.  This  point  will  be  discussed  under  Siieisa. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  remark  here  that  the  indi- 
cations afforded  by  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers 
of  Arabian  geography  require  very  cautious  hand- 
ling, presenthig,  as  they  do,  a  mass  of  contradic- 
tions and  transparent  travellers'  tales  respecting 
the  unknown  regions  of  Arabia  the  Happy,  Arabia 
Thurifera,  etc.  Ptolemy  places  Sabbatha  in  77° 
long.  16°  30'  lat.  It  was  an  important  city,  con- 
taining no  less  than  sixty  temples  (Pliny,  N.  H. 
vi.  c.  xxiii.  §  32);  it  was  also  situate  in  the  terri- 
tory of  king  Elisarus,  or  Eleazus  (comp.  Anon. 
PeripL  ap.  Miiller,  G'tai/.  Min.  pp.  278,  270),  sup- 
posed by  Fresnel  to  be  identical  with  "  Ascharides," 
or  "  Alascharissoun,"  in  Arabic  (Journ.  Asini. 
Nouv.  Serie,  x.  191).  Winer  thinks  the  identifi- 
cation of  Sabtah  with  Sabbatha,  etc.,  to  be  prob- 
able; and  it  is  accepted  by  Bunsen  {Blbelwerk,  Gen. 
X.  and  Alius).  It  certainly  occupies  a  position  in 
which  we  should  expect  to  find  traces  of  Sabtah, 
where  are  traces  of  Cushite  tribes  in  very  early 
times,  on  their  way,  as  we  hold,  from  their  earlier 
colonies  in  Ethiopia  to  the  Euphrates. 

Gesenius,  who  sees  in  Cush  only  Ethiopia,  "has 
no  doubt  that  Sabtah  should  be  compared  with  2a- 
/Sar,  2a;8a,  2a/3ai'  (see  Strab.  xvi.  p.  770,  Casaub.; 
Ptol.  iv.  10),  on  the  shore  of  the  Arabian  Gulf, 
situated  just  where  Arkiko  is  now,  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  which  the  Ptolemies  hunted  elephants. 
Amongst  the  ancient  translators,  Pseudojonathan 

saw  the  true  meaning,  rendering  it  "^mX3D,  for 

which  read  ""H^KlD,  i.  e.  the  Sembritse,  whom 
Strabp  (liic.  cit.  p.  786)  places  in  the  same  region. 
Josephus  (Ant.  i.  6,  §  1)  understands  it  to  be  the 
inhabitants  of  Astabora  "  (Gesenius,  ed.  Tregelles, 
s.  v.).  Here  the  etymology  of  Sabtah  is  compared 
plausibly  with  'S.a^a.T;  but  when  probability  is 
against  his  being  Ibund,  in  Ethiopia,  etymology  is 
of  small  value,  especially  when  it  is  remembered 
that  Sabat  and  its  variations  (Sabax,  Sabai)  may 
be  related  to  Seba,  which  certainly  was  in  Ethi- 
opia. On  the  Rabbinical  authorities  which  he 
quotes  we  place  no  value.  It  only  remains  to  add 
that  JMichaelis  {Suppl.  p.  1712)  removes  Sabtah  to 
Ceuta  opposite  Gibraltar,  called  in  Arabic  Sebtah, 

o  "■ 
XJCjUa<  (comp.  llarasid,  s.  v.);  and  that  Hochart 
(Phale;/,  i.  114,  115,  252  ft. ),  while  he  mentions 
Sabbatha,  prefers  to  place  Sabtah  near  the  western 
»hore  of  the  Persian  Gulf,  with  the  Saphtha  of 
Ptolemy,  the  name  also  of  an  island  in  that  gulf. 

E  S.  P. 
SABTECHA,    and    SABTECHAH 

^3I|15P  [see  above]:  2a3a^a«:a,  2e3e0axa; 
[Alex,  in  Gen.,  'Sa^aKaOa;  V  at.  in  I  Chr.,  Se/Se- 
<a6a'.\  Sabdtncha,  Siibnthfc/in,  Gen.  x.  7,  1  (.'hr. 
1  9).  The  filth  in  order  of  the  sons  of  C'ush, 
whoss  sstllements  would  probalily  be  near  the  Per- 
uan  Gull,  where  are  those  o^  Kaamah.   the  next 


SACKCUT  2769 

before  him  in  the  order  of  the  Cushites.  [Raa 
MAH,  Dedan,  Sheua.]  He  has  not  been  identi* 
fied  with  any  Arabic  place  or  district,  nor  satis- 
factorily with  any  name  given  by  classical  writers 
Bochart  (who  is  followed  by  Bunsen,  Bllieho.,  Gen 
X.  and  Alius)  argues  that  he  should  be  placed  b 
Carman.ia,  on  the  Persian  shore  of  the  gulf,  com 
paring  Sabtechah  with  the  city  of  Samydace  ol 
Steph.  Byz.  (2a^iSa(C7j  or  2a^lVKdSr|  of  Ptol.  vi 
8,  7).  This  etymoloiry  appears  to  be  very  far- 
fetched. Gesenius  merely  says  that  Sabtechah  is 
the  proper  name  of  a  district  of  Ethiopia,  and  adds 

the  reading  of  the  Targ.  Pseudojonathan  C^S^ST, 
Zinyitani),  E.  S.  P. 

SA'CAR  ("13t2>  \liire,  reward]:  Axdp;  Alex. 
2axap-  Sacluir).  1.  A  Hararite,  father  of  Ahiam, 
one  of  David's  mighty  men  (1  Chr.  xi.  35).  In 
2  Sam.  xxiii.  33  he  is  called  Shakar,  but  Ken- 
nicott  regards  Sacar  as  the  correct  rea<ling. 

2.  (2axap  ;  [Vat.  2aiX"P  !  ^^'^'^-  ^ax^ap-]) 
The  fourth  son  of  Obed-edom  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  4). 

SACKBUT  (SD3P,  Dan.  iii.  5;  SD|l£r, 
Dan.  iii.  7,  10,  15:  cra/xlivKri  •  sambuca).  The 
rendering  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  Chaldee  sabheca. 
If  this  musical  instrument  be  the  same  as  the 
Greek  aafx^vKt)  and  Latin  Sfimbucfi,"  the  English 
translation  is  entirely  wrong.  The  sackbut  was  a 
wind-instrument;  the  sambuca  was  ]jlayed  with 
strings.  Mr.  Chappell  says  (Pop.  3fus.  i.  35), 
"  The  sackbut  was  a  bass  trumpet  with  a  slide,  like 
the  modern  trombone."  It  had  a  deep  note  ac- 
cording to  Drayton  (Polyolbion,  iv.  365 ) :  — 

"The  hoboy,  sa^but  deep,  recorder,  and  the  Hute." 
The  sambuca  was  a  triangular  instrument  with 
four  or  more  strings  played  with  the  fingers. 
According  to  Athen.*us  (xiv-  633),  Masurius  de- 
scribed it  as  having  a  shrill  tone;  and  Euphorion, 
in  his  book  on  the  Isthmian  Games,  said  that  it 
was  used  by  the  Parthians  and  Troglodytes,  and 
had  four  strings.  Its  invention  is  attributed  to 
one  Samhyx,  and  to  Sibylla  its  first  use  (.\then. 
xiv.  637).  Juba,  in  the  4th  book  of  his  Theatrical 
History,  says  it  was  disco\ered  in  Syria,  but  Nean- 
thes  of  Cyzicum,  in  the  first  book  of  the  Hours, 
assigns  it  to  the  poet  Ibycus  of  Rhegium  (Athen. 
iv.  77).  This  last  tradition  is  followed  by  Snidas, 
who  describes  the  sambuca  as  a  kind  of  triangular 
harp.  That  it  was  a  foreign  instrument  is  clear 
from  the  statement  of  Strabo  (x.  471),  who  says 
its  name  is  l)arbarous.  Isidore  of  Seville  ( Orig. 
iii.  20)  appears  to  regard  it  as  a  wind  instrument, 
for  he  connects  it  with  the  sanilnicus,  or  elder,  ■» 
kind  of  light  wood  of  which  pipes  were  made. 

The  sambuca  was  early  known  at  Rome,  for 
Plautus  (Stick,  ii.  2,  57)  mentions  the  women  who 
played  it  (sambucce,  or  sambucisfrim,  as  they  are 
called  in  Livy,  xxxis.  6).  It  was  a  favorite  among 
the  Greeks  (Polyb.  v.  37),  and  the  Rhodian  women 
appear  to  have  been  celebrated  for  their  skill  n 
this  instrument  (Athen.  iv.  120). 

There  was  an  engine  called  sambuca  used  m 
siege  operations,  which  derived  its  name  from  the 
musical  instrument,  because,  .according  to  Athe- 
nseus  (xiv.  634),  when  raised  it  had  the  form  of 
a  ship  and  a  ladder  combined  in  one. 

W.  A.  W. 

«  Compare  ambubaia,  from  Syr.  S3"13S,  abbhbSt 
a  flute,  where  the  m  occupies  the  place  of  the  dasnah 


2770 


SACKCLOTH 


SACKCLOTH  (pti?:  (xaKKos-  saccus).  A 
toarse  texture,  of  a  dark  color,  made  of  goats' 
hair  (Is.  1.  3;  Rev.  vi.  12),  and  resembling  the 
cilicium  of  the  Romans.  It  was  used  (1)  for 
making  sacks,  the  same  word  describing  both  the 
material  and  the  article  (Gen.  xlii.  25;  Lev.  xi. 
32;  Josh.  ix.  4);  and  (2)  for  making  the  rough 
garments  used  by  mourners,  which  were  in  extreme 
cases  worn  next  the  skin  (1  K.  xxi.  27;  2  K.  vi. 
30;  Job  xvi.  15;  Is.  xxxii.  11),  and  this  even  by 
females  (.Joel  i.  8;  2  Mace.  iii.  19),  but  at  other 
times  were  worn  over  the  coat  or  cctlwneth  (Jon. 
lii.  6)  in  Heu  of  the  outer  garment.  The  rube 
probably  resembled  a  sack  in  shape,  and  fitted  close 
to  the  person,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  application 
of  the  term  chayar"  to  the  process  of  putting  it 
on  (2  Sam.  iii.  31;  Y^.  vii.  18,  &c.).  It  was  con- 
fined by  a  girdle  3f  similar  material  (Is.  iii.  24). 
Sometimes  it  was  worn  throughout  the  night  (1  K. 
sxi.  27).  W.  L.  B. 

SACRIFICE.  The  peculiar  features  of  each 
kind  of  sacrifice  are  refei-red  to  under  their  re- 
spective heads;  the  object  of  this  article  will  be:  — 

I.  To  examine  the  meaning  and  derivation  of 
the  various  words  used  to  denote  sacrifice  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

II.  To  examine  the  historical  development  of 
sacrifice  in  the  Old  Testament. 

III.  To  sketch  briefly  the  theory  of  sacrifice, 
as  it  is  set  forth  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, with  especial  reference  to  the  Atonement 
of  Christ. 

I.  Of  all  the  words  used  in  reference  to  sacrifice, 
the  most  general  appear  to  be  — 

(rt.)  nn312,  mincliah,  from  the  obsolete  root 

n3J2,  "to  give;"  used  in  Gen.  xxxii.  13,  20,  21, 
of  a  gift  from  Jacob  to  Esau  (LXX.  Siopov);  in  2 
Sam.  viii.  2,  6  (^evia),  in  1  K.  iv.  21  {Sdpa),  in  2 
K.  xvii.  4  {fj.ava6.),  of  a  tribute  from  a  vassal 
king;  in  Gen.  iv.  3,  5,  of  i  sacrifice  generally 
{.nipov  and  Qvffia.,  indifferently);  and  in  Lev.  ii. 
1,  4,  5,  6,  joined  with  the  word  korbnn,  of  an 
unbloody  sacrifice,  or  "  meat-ofTering  "  (generally 
^Sipov  Quffia)-  Its  derivation  and  usage  point  to 
that  idea  of  sacrifice,  which  represents  it  as  an 
eucharistic  gift  to  God  our  King. 

(b.)  (]2"?p  korbnn,  derived  from  the  root  S"^!^, 
"to  approach,"  or  (in  Hiphil)  to  "make  to  ap- 
proach; "  used  with  minch'ih  in  Lev.  ii.  1,  4,  5,  6, 
(LXX.  S&pov  dvaia),  generally  rendered  Sipou 
(see  Mark  vii.  11,  Kop^av,  '6  iari  Saipou)  or  trpoa- 
^6pa.  The  idea  of  a  gift  hardly  seems  inherent 
in  the  root ;  which  rather  points  to  sacrifice,  as  a 
Bymbol  of  communion  or  covenant  between  God 
and  man. 

(c.)  (nS^,  zebnch,  derived  from  the  root  HS^, 
to  "slaughter  animals,"  especially  to  "slay  in  sacri- 
fice," refers  emphatically  to  a  bloody  sacrifice,  one 


SACKIFICE 

in  wlich  the  shedding  of  blood  is  the  eseeutial 
idea.  Thus  it  is  opposed  to  minchnh,  in  Ps.  xl.  6 
(dvaiav  koI  ■Kpoacpupaf),  and  to  ('/((/(  (the  whole 
bumt-oftering)  in  Ex.  x.  25,  xviii.  12,  &c.  With 
it  the  expiatory  idea  of  sacrifice  is  naturally  con- 
nected. 

Distinct  from  these  general  terms,  and  often 
a])pended  to  them,  are  the  words  denoting  special 
kinds  of  sacrifice:  — 

((/.)  n^"13?,  olah  (generally  oXoKavraiixa),  the 
"  whole  burnt-offering." 

(e.)  D^ti.',  shelem  (dvaia  a.  rrjpiov),  used  fre- 
quently with  nHjT,  and  sometimes  called  ^2~ir, 
the  "peace-  "  or  "  thank-oflfering." 

(/.)  nStSn,  chattath  (generally  irepl  ajxap- 
Tios)i  the  "  sin-ofTering." 

(^.)  Dtt'W  dsfiam  (generally  ■ir\rifj.fxe\eia),ihe 
"  trespass-offering." 

For  the  examination  of  the  derivation  and  niean- 
incr  of  these,  see  each  under  its  own  head. 

II.  (A.)  Origin  of  Sacrifice. 

In  tracing  the  history  of  sacrifice,  from  its  first 
beghming  to  its  perfect  development  in  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  we  are  at  once  met  by  the  long-disputed 
question,  as  to  the  orighi  of  sncrifce ;  whether  it 
arose  from  a  natur.al  instinct  of  man,  sanctioned 
and  guided  by  God.  or  whether  it  was  the  subject 
of  some  distinct  primeval  revelation. 

It  is  a  question,  the  importance  of  which  has 
probalily  been  exaggerated.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  sacrifice  was  sanctioned  by  God's  Law,  with  a 
special  typical  reference  to  the  Atonement  of  Christ; 
its  universal  prevalence,  independent  of,  and  often 
opposed  to,  man's  natural  reasonings  on  his  relation 
to  God,  shows  it  to  have  been  primeval,  and  deeply 
rooted  in  the  instincts  of  humanity,  ^\'hethe^  it 
was  first  enjoined  l)y  an  external  command,  or 
whether  it  was  based  on  that  sense  of  sin  and  lost 
communion  with  God,  which  is  stamped  by  his 
hand  on  the  heart  of  man  —  is  a  historical  ques- 
tion, perhaps  insoluble,  probably  one  which  cannot 
lie  treated  at  all,  except  in  connection  with  some 
general  theory  of  the  method  of  primeval  revela- 
tion, but  certainly  one  which  does  not  affect  the 
authority  and  the  meaning  of  the  rite  itself. 

The  great  difficulty  in  the  theory  which  refers 
it  to  a  distinct  command  of  God,  is  the  total  silence 
of  Holy  Scripture  —  a  silence  the  more  remark- 
able-, when  contrasted  with  the  distinct  reference 
made  in  Gen.  ii.  to  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath. 
Sacrifice  when  first  mentioned,  in  the  case  of  Cain 
and  Abel,  is  referred  to  as  a  thing  of  course;  it  is 
said  to  have  been  brought  by  men;  there  is  no 
hint  of  any  command  given  by  God.  This  con- 
sideration, the  strength  of  which  no  ingenuity* 
has  been  able  to  impair,  although  it  does  not  actu- 
ally disprove  the  formal  revelation  of  sacrifice,  yet 


«  -inn. 

h  See,  for  example  (as  in  Faber's  Origin  of  Sncrifire), 
fbe  elaborate  reasoning  on  the  translation  of  nStSH 
n  Gen.  iv.  7.  Even  supposing  the  version,  a  "  sin- 
effering  coucheth  at  the  door,"  to  be  correct,  on  the 
ground  of  geaeral  usage  of  the  word,  of  the  curious 
rersion  of  the  L.XX.,  and  of  the  remarkable  gram- 
Batical  construction  of  the  masculine  participle,  with 
he  feminine  noun  (as  referring  to  the  fact  that  the 


sin-offering  was  actually  a  male),  still  it  does  not  settle 
the  matter.  The  Lord  even  then  speaks  of  sacrifice 
as  existing,  and  as  kuowu  to  exist :  He  does  not  insti- 
tute it.  The  supposition  that  the  "skins  of  beasts" 
in  Gen.  iii.  21  were  skins  of  animals  sacrificed  by  God's 
command,  is  a  pure  assumption.  The  argument  on 
Heb.  xi.  4,  that  faith  can  rest  only  on  a  distinct  Divin* 
command  as  to  the  special  occasion  of  its  e.xercise 
is  contradicted  hy  the  general  definition  if  it  giren  is 
V.  1. 


SACRIFICE 

it  least  forbids  the  assertion  of  it,  as  of  a  positive 
ind  important  doctrine. 

Nor  is  the  fact  of  the  mysterious  and  super- 
aatural  character  of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement, 
with  which  the  sacrifices  of  the  O.  T.  are  expressly 
connected,  any  conclusive  argument  on  this  side 
af  the  question.  All  allow  that  the  eucharistic 
and  deprecatory  ideas  of  sacrifice  are  perfectly 
uatural  to  man.  The  higher  view  of  its  expiatory 
character,  dependent,  as  it  is,  entirely  on  its  typical 
nature,  appears  but  t^radually  in  Scripture.  It  is 
veiled  imder  other  ideas  in  the  case  of  the  patri- 
archal sacrifices.  It  is  first  distinctly  mentioned 
in  the  Law  (Lev.  xvii.  11,  &c.);  but  even  then  the 
theory  of  the  sin  offering,  and  of  the  classes  of 
Bins  to  which  it  I'eferred,  is  allowed  to  be  obscure 
and  difficult;  it  is  only  in  the  N.  T.  (especially  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  .Hebrews)  that  its  nature  is 
clearly  unlolded.  It  is  as  likely  that  it  pleased 
God  gradually  to  superadd  the  higher  idea  to  an 
institution,  derived  \>y  man  from  the  lower  ideas 
(which  must  eventually  find  their  justification  in 
the  higher \  as  that  He  originally  commanded  the 
institution  wMfen  the  time  for  the  revelation  of  its 
full  meaning  was  not  yet  come.  The  rainbow  was 
just  as  truly  the  syml  ol  of  God's  new  promise  in 
Gen.  ix.  13-17,  whether  it  had  or  had  not  existed, 
as  a  natural  phenomenon  before  the  Flood.  AYhat 
God  sets  his  seal  to.  He  makes  a  part  of  his  revela- 
tion, whatever  its  origin  may  be.  It  is  to  be 
noticed  (see  Warburton's  Dlv.  Leg.  ix.  c.  2)  that, 
except  in  Gen.  xv.  9,  the  method  of  patriarchal 
sacrifice  is  left  free,  without  an\-  direction  on  the 
part  of  God,  while  in  all  the  Mosaic  ritual  the 
limitation  and  regulation  of  sacrifice,  as  to  time, 
place,  and  material,  is  a  most  prominent  feature, 
on  which  much  of  its  distinction  from  heathen 
sacrifice  depended.  The  inference  is  at  lea.st  proli- 
able,  that  when  God  sanctioned  formally  a  natural 
rite,  then,  and  not  till  then,  did  He  define  its 
method. 

The  question,  therefore,  of  the  origin  of  sacrifice 
is  best  left  in  the  silence  with  which  Scripture 
surrounds  it. 

(B.)  Ante-Mosaic  History  of  Sacrifice. 

In  examining  the  various  saciifices,  recorded  in 
Scripture  before  the  establisliment  of  the  Law,  we 
find   that   the  words  specially  denoting  expiatory 

sacrifice  (HSTSn  and  DlfS)  are  not  applied  to 
them.  This  fact  does  not  at  all  show,  that  they 
were  not  actually  expiatory,  nor  even  that  the 
offerers  had  not  that  idea  of  expiation,  which  must 
have  been  vaguely  felt  in  all  sacrifices;  but  it  justi- 
fies the  inference,  that  this  idea  was  not  then  the 
prominent  one  in  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice. 

The  sacrifice  of  Cain  and  Abel  is  called  viinchah, 
although  in  the  case  of  the  latter  it  was  a  bloody 
sacrifice.  (So  in  Heb.  xi.  4  the  word  Bva'ia  is 
explained  1-iy  the  roiy  Siipois  below.)  In  the  case 
of  both  it  would  appear  to  have  lieen  eucharistic, 
iind  the  distinction  between  the  ofterers  to  have 
lain  in  their  "faith"  (Heb.  xi.  4).  AVhether  that 
faith  of  Abel  referred  to  the  promise  of  the  Re- 
deemer, and  was  connected  with  any  idea  of  the 
typical  meaning  of  sacrifice,  or  whether  it  was  a 
wmple  and  humble  faith  in  the  unseen  God,  as  the 
^iver  and  pron.iser  of  all  good,  we  are  not  autnor- 
Ized  by  Scripture  to  decide. 

The  sacrifice  of  Noah  after  the  Flood  (Gen.  viii. 
|0)  is  called  bumt-offering  (odih).  This  sacrifice 
I  Mjressly  connected  with  the  institution  of  the 


SACRIFICE 


2771 


Covenant  which  follows  in  ix.  8-17.  The  same 
ratification  of  a  covenant  is  seen  in  the  burnt- 
offering' of  Abraham,  especially  enjoined  and  de- 
fined by' God  in  Gen.  xv.  9;  and  is  probably  to  be 
traced  in  the  "building  of  altars  "  by  Abraham 
on  entering  Canaan  at  Bethel  (Gen.  xii.  7,  8)  and 
Mamre  (xiii.  18),  by  Isaac  at  Beer-she1ia  (xi-»i.  25), 
and  by  -Jacob  at  Shechem  (xxxiii.  20),  und  in 
.Jacob's  setting  up  and  anohiting  of  the  pillar  at 
Bethel  (xxviii  18.  xxxv.  14).  The  sacrifice  (zebnch) 
of  .lacob  at  JNIizpah  also  marks  a  covenant  with 
Laban,  to  which  God  is  called  to  be  a  witness 
and  a  party.  In  all  these,  therefore,  the  jirom- 
inent  idea  seems  to  have  been  what  is  called  the 
fc(hi-ative,  the  recognition  of  a  bond  between  the 
sacrificer  and  God,  and  the  dedication  of  himself, 
as  represented  by  the  victim,  to  the  service  of  the 
Lord. 

The  .sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  1-13)  stands 
by  itself,  as  the  sole  instance  in  which  the  idea  of 
human  sacrifice  was  even  for  a  moment,  and  as  a 
trial,  countenanced  by  God.  Yet  in  its  principle 
it  appears  to  ha\e  been  of  the  same  nature  as 
before:  the  voluntary  surrender  of  an  only  son  on 
Abraham's  part,  and  the  willing  dedication  of  him- 
self on  Isaac's,  are  in  the  foreground :  the  expiatory 
idea,  if  recognized  at  all,  holds  certainly  a  second- 
ary pos'tiou. 

In  the  liurnt-offerings  of  Job  for  his  children 
(Job  i.  5)  and  for  his  three  friends  (xlii.  8),  we 
for  the  first  time  find  the  expression  of  the  desire 
of  expiation  for  sin  accompanied  by  repentance  and 
prayer,  and  brought  prominently  forward.  The 
same  is  the  ca.se  in  the  words  of  Moses  to  Pharaoh, 
as  to  the  necessity  of  sacrifice  in  the  wilderness 
(Fx.  X.  25),  where  sacrifice  (zehich)  is  distinguished 
from  burnt-offering.  Here  the  main  idea  is  at  least 
deprecatory;  the  object  is  to  appease  the  wrath, 
and  avert  the  vengeance  of  God. 

(C.)  The  Sacrifices  of  the  Mosaic  Period. 

These  are  inaugurated  hy  the  offering  of  the 
Passover  and  the  sacrifice  of  Ex.  xxiv.  The 
Passover  indeed  is  unique  in  its  character,  and 
seems  to  embrace  the  peculiarities  of  all  the  various 
divisions  of  sacrifice  soon  to  be  established.  Its 
ceremonial,  however,  most  nearly  resembles  that  of 
the  sin-offering  in  the  emphatic  use  of  the  blood, 
which  (after  the  fii'st  celebration)  was  poured  at 
the  bottom  of  the  altar  (see  Lev.  iv.  7),  and  in  the 
care  taken  that  none  of  the  flesh  should  remain 
till  the  morning  (see  Ex.  xii.  10,  xxxiv.  25).  It 
was  unliiie  it  in  that  the  flesh  was  to  be  eaten  by 
all  (not  burnt,  or  eaten  by  the  priests  alone),  in 
token  of  their  entering  into  covenant  with  God, 
and  eating  "at  his  table,"  as  in  the  case  of  a 
peace-offering.  Its  peculiar  position  as  a  historical 
memorial,  and  its  special  reference  to  the  future, 
naturally  mark  it  out  as  incapable  of  being  referred 
to  any  tbrnial  class  of  sacrifice;  but  it  is  clear  that 
the  idea  of  salvation  from  death  by  means  of  sacri- 
fice is  brought  out  in  it  with  a  distinctness  before 
unknown. 

The  sacrifice  of  Ex.  xxiv.,  offered  as  a  solemn 
inauguration  of  the  Covenant  of  Sinai,  has  a  sim- 
ilarly comprehensive  character.  It  is  called  a 
"  burnt-oftering "  and  "peace-offering"  in  v.  5; 
but  the  solemn  use  of  the  blood  (comp.  Heb.  ix. 
18-22)  distinctly  marks  the  idea  that  expiatory 
sacrifice  was  needed  for  entering  into  covenant 
with  God,  the  idea  of  which  the  sin-  .\ud  tresp.^8»• 
offerings  were  afterwards  the  symbols. 


2172 


SACRIFICE 


The  Law  of  Leviticus  now  unfolds  distinctly  the 
farious  forms  of  sacrifice :  — 

(a.)  The  burnt-offering.     Sf.lf-dkdicatorv. 

(b.)   The  meat-ajferiiiff  {unbhioily)  )  Eucharis- 

The  jjeace-offmng  (blovdy)      )         tic. 

(c.)    The  stn-offtrinn  ]  „ 

Ti    ,  'Jr    ■      \  Expiatory. 

1  he  tresjjass-offennr/  ) 

To  these  may  be  added,  — 

(d.)  The  incense  offered  after  sacrifice  in  the 
Holy  Place,  and  (on  the  Day  of  Atonement)  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies,  the  symbol  of  the  intercession  of 
the  priest  (as  a  type  of  the  Great  High  Priest), 
accompanying  and  making  eflScacious  the  prayer 
of  the  people. 

In  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  (Lev. 
viii.)  we  find  these  ofl^ered,  in  what  became  ever 
afterwards  the  appointed  order  :  first  came  the 
Bin-oflferiiig,  to  prepare  access  to  God;  next  the 
burnt-offering,  to  mark  their  dedication  to  his 
service;  and  thirdly  the  meat-offering  of  thanks- 
giving. The  same  sacrifices,  in  the  same  order, 
with  the  addition  of  a  peace-offering  (eaten  no 
doubt  by  all  the  people),  were  offered  a  week  after 
for  all  the  congregation,  and  accepted  visibly  by 
the  descent  of  fire  upon  the  burnt-oftering.  Hence- 
forth the  sacrificial  system  was  fixed  in  all  its  parts, 
until  He  should  come  whom  it  typified. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  Law  of  Leviticus 
takes  the  rite  of  sacrifice  for  granted  (see  Lev.  i.  2, 
ii.  1,  &c.,  "If  a  man  bring  an  offering,  ye  shall," 
etc.),  and  is  directed  chiefly  to  guide  and  limit  its 
exercise.  In  every  case  but  that  of  the  peace- 
offering,  the  nature  of  the  \ictim  was  carefully 
prescribed,  so  as  to  preserve  tlie  ideas  syml)olized, 
but  so  as  to  avoid  the  notion  (so  inherent  in 
heathen  systems,  and  finding  its  logical  result  in 
human  sacrifice)  that  the  more  costly  the  offering, 
the  more  surely  must  it  nieet  with  acceptance. 
At  the  same  time,  probably  in  order  to  impress 
this  truth  on  their  minds,  and  also  to  guard  against 
corruption  by  heathenish  ceremonial,  and  against 
the  notion  that  sacrifice  in  itself,  without  obedi- 
ence, could  avail  (see  1  Sam.  xv.  22,  23),  the  place 
of  offering  was  expressly  limited,  first  to  the  Taber- 
nacle," afterwards  to  the  Temple.  This  ordinance 
also  necessitated  their  periodical  gathering  as  one 
nation  before  God,  and  so  kept  clearly  before  their 
minds  their  relation  to  Him  as  their  national  King. 
Both  limitations  brought  out  the  great  truth,  that 
God  Himself  provided  the  way  by  which  man 
should  approach  Him,  and  that  the  method  of 
reconciliation  was  initiated  by  Him,  and  not  by 
them. 

In  consequence  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  Law,  it 
has  been  argued  (as  by  Outram,  Warburton,  etc.) 
that  the  whole  system  of  sacrifice  was  only  a  con- 
descension to  the  weakness  of  the  people,  borrowed, 
more  or  less,  from  tiie  heathen  nations,  especially 
from  Egypt,  in  order  to  guard  against  worse  super- 
stition and  positive  idolatry.  The  argument  is 
mainly  based  (see  Warb.  Dio.  Leg.  iv.,  sect.  vi.  2) 
on  Ez.  XX.  2.5,  and  similar  references  in  the  0.  and 
N.  T.  to  the  nullity  of  all  mere  ceremonial.  Taken 
as  an  explanation  of  the  theory  of  s;icrifice,  it  is 
weak  and  superfioi.al;  it  labors  under  two  fatal 
difficulties,  the  historical  fact  of  the  primeval  exist- 
ence of  gacrlfice,  and  its  typical  reference  to  the 


a  For  instances  of  infringement  of  this  rule  uncen- 
lured,  gfte  .ludg.  ii.  5,  vi.  26,  xiii.  19;  1  Sam.  xi.  15, 
rrt.  5  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  13 ;  1  K.  iii.  2,  3.     Most  of  tliess 


SACRIFICE 

one  Atonement  of  Christ,  which  was  foieordaiced 
from  the  \'ery  beginning,  and  had  been  already 
typified,  as,  for  example,  in  the  sacrifice  of  Isaas. 
But  as  giving  a  reason  for  the  minuteness  and 
elaboration  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial,  so  remark- 
ably contrasted  with  the  freedom  of  patriarchal 
sacrifice,  and  as  furnishing  an  explanation  of  cer- 
tain special  rites,  it  may  probably  have  some  value. 
It  certainly  contains  this  truth,  that  the  cravinir 
for  visible  tokens  of  God's  presence,  and  visible 
rites  of  worship,  from  which  idolatry  proceeds,  was 
provided  for  and  turned  into  a  safe  channel,  by  the 
whole  ritual  and  typical  system,  of  which  sacrifice 
was  the  centre.  The  contact  with  the  gigantic 
system  of  idolatry,  which  prevailed  in  Egypt,  and 
which  had  so  deeply  tainted  the  spirit  of  the  Israel- 
ites, would  doubtless  render  such  provision  then 
especially  necessary.  It  was  one  part  of  the  pro- 
phetic office  to  guard  against  its  degradation  into 
formalism,  and  to  bring  out  its  spiritual  meaning 
with  an  ever-increasing  clearness.  ^ 

(D.)  Post-Mosaic  Sacrifices. 

It  will  not  he  necessary  to  pursue,  in  detail,  the 
history  of  Post-Mosaic  Sacrifice,  for" its  main  prin- 
ciples were  now  fixed  forever.  The  most  remark- 
able instances  of  sacrifice  on  a  large  scale  are  by 
Solomon  at  the  consecration  of  the  Temple  (1  K. 
viii.  G-'3),  by  Jehoiada  after  the  death  of  Athaliah 
(2  Chr.  xxiii.  18),  and  liy  Ilezekiah  at  his  great 
Passover  and  restoration  of  the  Temple-worship 
(2  Chr.  XXX.  21-24).  In  each  case,  the  lavish  use 
of  victims  was  chiefly  in  the  peace-offerings,  which 
were  a  sacred  national  feast  to  the  people  at  the 
I'able  of  their  Great  King. 

The  regular  sacrifices  in  the  Temple  service 
were :  — 

(a.)  Burnt-Offerings. 

1.  The  daily  burnt-offerings   (Ex.  xxix.  38-42). 

2.  The  double  burnt-offerings  on  the  Sabbath 
(Num.  xxviii.  9,  10). 

3.  The  burnt-offerings  at  the  great  festivals 
(Num.  xxviii.  11-xxix.  39). 

(b.)  Meat-Offerings. 

1.  The  daily  meat-offerings  accompanying  the 
daily  burnt-offerings  (flour,  oil,  and  wine)  (Ex. 
x.xix.  40,  41). 

2.  The  shew-bread  (twelve  loaves  with  frankin- 
cense), renewed  every  Salibath  (Lev.  xxiv.  5-9). 

3.  The  special  meat-offerings  at  the  Sabbath 
and  the  great  festivals  (Num.  xxviii.,  xxix.). 

4.  The  first-fruits  at  the  Passover  (Lev.  xxiii. 
10-14),  at  Pentecost  (xxiii.  17-20),  both  "  wave- 
offerings;  "  the  first-fruits  of  the  dough  and  thresh- 
ing-floor at  the  harvest-time  (Num.  xv.  20,  21 ; 
Deut.  xxvi.  1-11),  called  "heave-offerings." 

(c. )  Sin-Offerings. 

1.  Sin-offerhig  (a  kid)  each  new  moon  (Num. 
xxviii.  15). 

2.  Sin-offerings  at  the  Passover,  Pentecost,  Feast 
of  Trumpets,  and  Taljernacles  (Num.  xxviii.  22,  30, 
xxix.  5,  16,  19,  22,  25,  28,  31,  34,  38). 

3.  The  offering  of  the  two  goats  (the  goat 
sacrificed  and  the  scape-goat)  for  the  people,  and 
of  the  bullock  for  the  priest  himself,  on  the  Great 
Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.). 

((/.)  Incense. 

1.  The  morning  and  evening  incense  (Ex.  xxx, 
7-8). 


cases  are  special,  some  authorized  by  special  com 
niand ;  but  the  Law  probably  did  not  attain  to  Its  fuV 
strictness  till  the  foundation  of  the  Temple. 


SACRIFICE  2773 

of  the  "talile  of  the  gods"  (comp.  1  Cor.  x.  20 
21),  is  equally  certain.  Nor  was  the  higher  idea 
of  sacrifice,  as  a  representation  of  the  self-devotion 
of  the  offerer,  body  and  soul,  to  the  god,  wholly 
lost,  although  generally  obscured  by  the  grosser 
and  more  obvious  conceptions  of  the  rite,  liut, 
besides  all  these,  there  seems  always  to  have  been 
latent  the  idea  of  propitiation,  that  is,  the  belief  in 
a  communion  with  the  gods,  natural  to  man,  broken 
off  in  some  way,  and  l)y  sacrifice  to  be  restored 
The  emphatic  "shedding  of  the  blood,"  as  the  es- 
sential part  of  the  sacrifice,  while  the  flesh  wa» 
often  eaten  by  the  priests  or  the  sacrificer,  is  not 
capable  of  any  full  explanation  by  any  of  the  ideas 
above  referred  to.  Whether  it  represented  the 
death  of  the  sacrificer,  or  (as  in  cases  of  national 
offering  of  human  victims,  and  of  those  self-de.. 
voted  for  their  country)  an  atoning  death  for  hini : 
still,  in  either  case  it  contained  the  idea  tha( 
"without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission,"  and 
so  had  a  vague  and  distorted  glimpse  of  the  great 
central  truth  of  Revelation.  Such  an  idea  may  be 
(as  has  been  argued)  "  unnatural,"  in  that  it  could 
not  be  explained  by  natural  reason;  but  it  cer- 
tainly was  not  unnatural,  if  frequency  of  existence, 
and  accordance  with  a  deep  natural  instinct,  be 
allowed  to  preclude  that  epithet. 

Now  the  essential  difference  between  these 
heathen  views  of  sacrifice  and  the  Scriptural  doc- 
trine of  the  O.  T.  is  not  to  he  found  in  its  denial 
of  any  of  these  ideas.  The  very  names  used  in  it 
for  sacrifice  (as  is  seen  above)  involve  the  concep- 
tion of  the  rite  as  a  gift,  a  form  of  worship,  a 
thank-offering,  a  self-devotion,  and  an  atonement. 
In  fact,  it  brings  out,  clearly  and  distinctly,  the 
ideas  which  in  heathenism  were  uncertain,  vague, 
and  perverted. 

But  the  essential  points  of  distinction  are  two. 
First,  that  whereas  the  heathen  conceived  of  their 
gods  as  alienated  in  jealousy  or  anger,  to  be  sought 
after,  and  to  be  appeased  by  the  unaided  action  of 
man.  Scripture  represents  God  himself  as  ap- 
proaching man,  as  pointing  out  and  sanctioning 
the  way  by  which  the  broken  covenant  should 
be  restored.  This  was  impressed  on  the  Israelites 
at  every  step  by  the  minute  directions  of  the  ],aw, 
as  to  time,  place,  victim,  and  ceremonial,  by  its 
utterly  discountenancing  the  "  will-worship,"' which 
in  heathenism  found  full  scope,  and  rioted  in  the 
invention  of  costly  or  monstrous  sacrifices.  And 
it  is  especially  to  be  noted,  that  this  particularity 
is  increased  as  we  approach  nearer  to  the  deep 
propitiatory  idea;  for  that,  whereas  the  patriarchal 
sacrifices  generally  seem  to  have  been  undefined 
by  God,  and  even  under  the  Law,  the  nature  of 
the  peace-offerings,  and  (to  some  extent)  the  burnt- 
offerings,  was  determined  by  the  sacrificer  only,  the 
solemn  sacrifice  of  Abraham  in  the  inauguration 
of  his  covenant  was  prescribed  to  him,  and  the 
sin-offerings  under  the  Law  were  most  accurately 
and  minutely  determined.  (See,  for  example,  the 
whole  ceremonial  of  Lev.  x\i.)  It  is  needless 
to  remark,  how  this  essential  difference  purifies 
all  the  ideas  above  noticed  from  the  corruptions, 
which  made  them  odious  or  contemptible,  and  sets 
on  its  true  basis  the  relation  between  God  and 
fallen  man. 

The  second  mark  of  dLstinction  is  closely  con- 
nected with  ihis,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  sacrifice  t« 

»  S«e  Magce's  Diss,  on  Sacr.,  vol.  i.  diss,  v.,  and  j  Sncrifioe,  quoted  in  notes  23,  26,  to  Tliomson's  Bamp 
boat  von  Lasaul.t'8    Treatise  ou   CJreek  and  Roman  i  ttjn  Lectures,  1853. 


SACRIFICE 

2.  The  incense  on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement 
;Lev.  xvi.  12). 

Besides  these  public  sacrifices,  tliere  were  offer- 
ings of  the  people  for  themselves  indiv'dually;  at 
the  purification  of  women  (Lev.  xii.),  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  first-born,  and  circumcision  of  all  male 
children,  the  cleansing  of  the  leprosy  (Lev.  xiv.)  or 
any  uncleanness  (i^ev.  xv.),  at  the  fulfillment  of 
Nazaritic  and  other  vows  (Num.  vi.  1-21),  on  oc- 
casions of  marriage  and  of  burial,  etc.,  etc.,  besides 
the  frequent  offering  of  private  sin-ofterings.  These 
must  have  kept  up  a  constant  succession  of  sacri- 
fices every  day;  and  brought  the  rite  home  to 
every  man's  thought,  and  to  every  occasion  of 
human  life. 

(III.)  In  examining  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  it 
is  necessary  to  remember,  that,  in  its  development, 
the  order  of  idea  is  not  necessarily  tlie  same  as  the 
order  of  time.  By  the  order  of  sacrifice  in  its  per- 
fect form  (as  in  Lev.  viii.)  it  is  clear  that  the  sin- 
offerhig  occupies  the  most  important  place,  the 
burnt-offering  comes  next,  and  the  meat-offering  or 
peace-oftering  last  of  all.  The  second  could  only 
be  offered  after  the  first  had  been  accepted;  the 
third  was  only  a  sul)sidiary  part  of  the  second. 
Yet,  in  actual  order  of  time,  it  has  been  seen,  that 
the  patriarchal  sacrifices  partook  much  more  of 
the  nature  of  the  peace-offering  and  burnt-offering ; 
and  that,  under  the  Law,  by  which  was  "  the 
knowledge  of  sin"  (Rom.  iii.  20),  the  sin-otfering 
was  for  the  first  time  explicitly  set  forth.  This  is 
but  natural,  tiiat  the  deepest  ideas  should  be  the 
last  in  order  of  development. 

It  is  also  obvious,  that  those  who  believe  in  the 
unity  of  the  0.  and  N.  T.,  and  the  typical  nature 
of  the  Mosaic  Covenant,  must  view  the  type  in 
constant  reference  to  the  antitype,  and  be  prepared 
therelbre  to  find  in  the  former  vague  and  recon- 
dite meanings,  which  are  fixed  and  manifested  by 
the  latter.  The  sacrifices  must  be  considered,  not 
merely  as  they  stand  in  the  Law,  or  even  as  they 
might  have  appeared  to  a  pious  Israelite;  but  as 
they  were  illustrated  by  the  Prophets,  and  per- 
fectly interpreted  in  the  N.  T.  {e.  y.  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews).  It  follows  from  this,  that, 
as  belonging  to  a  system  which  was  to  embrace  all 
mankind  in  its  influence,  they  should  be  also  com- 
pared and  contrasted  with  the  sacrifices  and  wor- 
ship of  God  in  other  nations,  and  the  ideas  which 
in  them  were  dindy  and  confusedly  expressed. 

It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  universality  of 
heathen  sacrifices,"  and  difficult  to  reduce  to  any 
single  theory  the  various  ideas  involved  therein, 
■"t  is  clear,  that  the  sacrifice  was  often  looked  upon 
as  a  gift  or  tribute  to  the  gods:  an  idea  which  (for 
example)  nms  through  all  Greek  literature,  from 
the  simple  conception  in  Homer  to  tiie  caricatures 
of  Aristophanes  or  Lucian,  against  the  perversion 
of  which  St.  Paul  protested  at  Athens,  when  he 
declared  that  God  Jieet/ef/  nothing  at  human  hands 
(Acts  xvii.  25).  It  is  also  clear  that  sacrifices 
«'ere  used  as  prayers,  to  obtain  benefits,  or  to  avert 
wrath ;  and  that  this  idea  was  cornq)ted  into  the 
superstition,  denounced  by  heathen  satirists  as  well 
as  by  Hebrew  prophets,  that  by  them  the  gods' 
fevor  could  be  purchased  for  the  wicked,  or  their 
■'envy"  be  averted  from  the  prosperous.  On  the 
>ther  hand,  that  they  were  regarded  as  thank-ofter- 
ngs,  and  the  feasting  on  their  flesh  as  a  partaking 


2774 


SACRIFICE 


be  a  scheme  proceedini;  from  God,  and,  in  his 
foreknowledge,  connected  with  the  one  centra!  fact 
of  all  human  history.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the 
typical  character  of  all  Jewish  sacrifices,  on  which, 
as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  argues,  all  their 
efficacy  depended.  It  must  be  remembered  that, 
like  other  ordinances  of  the  Law,  they  had  a  two- 
fold effect,  depending  on  the  special  position  of 
an  Israelite,  as  a  member  of  the  natural  Theocracy, 
and  on  his  general  position,  as  a  man  in  relation 
with  God.  On  the  one  hand,  for  e.tample,  the 
sin-offering  was  an  atonement  to  the  national  law 
for  moral  ofienses  of  negligence,  which  in  "  pre- 
Bumptuous,"  i.  e.  deliberate  and  willful  crime,  was 
rejected  (see  Num.  xv.  '27-31 ;  and  comp.  Heb.  x. 
26,  27).  On  the  oth^  hand  it  had,  as  the  pro- 
phetic writings  show  us,  a  distinct  spiritual  sig- 
nificance, as  a  means  of  expressing  repentance  and 
receiving  forgiveness,  which  could  have  belonged  to 
it  only  as  a  type  of  the  Great  Atonement.  How 
far  that  typical  meaning  was  recognized  at  differ- 
ent periods  and  by  different  persons,  it  is  useless 
to  speculate ;  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  doubt, 
even  if  we  had  no  testimony  on  the  subject,  that, 
in  the  face  of  the  high  spiritual  teaching  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  a  pious  Israelite  must  have 
felt  the  nullity  of  material  sacrifice  in  itself,  and  so 
believed  it  to  be  availing  only  as  an  ordinance 
of  God,  shadowing  out  some  great  spiritual  truth, 
or  action  of  his.  Nor  is  it  unlikely  that,  with 
more  or  less  distinctness,  he  connected  the  evolu- 
tion of  this,  as  of  other  truths,  with  the  coming 
of  the  promised  Messiah.  But,  however  this 
be,  we  know  that,  in  God's  purpose,  the  whole 
system  was  typical,  that  all  its  spiritual  efficacy 
depended  on  the  true  sacrifice  which  it  represented, 
and  could  be  received  only  on  condition  of  Faith, 
and  that,  therefore,  it  passed  away  when  the  Anti- 
type was  come. 

The  nature  and  meaning  of  the  various  kinds 
of  sacrifice  is  partly  gathered  from  the  form  of 
their  institution  and  ceremonial,  partly  from  the 
teaching  of  the  Prophets,  and  partly  from  the 
N.  I\,  especially  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  All 
had  relation,  under  different  aspects,  to  a  Covenant 
between  God  and  man. 

I"he  SiN-OFFEKiNG  represented  that  Covenant 
as  broken  by  man,  and  as  knit  together  again,  by 
God's  appointment,  through  the  "shedding  of 
blood."  Its  characteristic  ceremony  was  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  before  the  veil  of  the 
Sanctuary,  the  putting  some  of  it  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar  of  incense,  and  the  pouring  out  of  all  the 
rest  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  The 
flesh  was  in  no  case  touched  by  the  offerer;  either 
it  was  consumed  by  fire  without  the  camp,  or  it 
was  eaten  by  the   priest  alone  in  the  holy  place, 

and  everything  that  touched  it  was  holy  (K^'lp). 
This  latter  point  marked  the  distinction  from  the 
peace-oflering,  and  showed  that  the  sacrificer  had 
been  rendered  unworthy  of  communion  with  God. 
llie  shedding  of  the  blood,  the  symbol  of  life,  sig- 
nified that  the  death  of  the  offender  was  deserved 
for  sin,  but  that  the  death  of  the  victim  was  ac- 
cepted   for  his  death  by  the  ordinance  of  God's 


a  Some  render  this  (like  &cfr)  "accursed ;  "  but 
',he  primitive  meaning  "  clean,"  and  the  usage  of  the 
irord,  seem  decisive  against  this.  LXX.  ayCa  (vici 
ieaea.  s.  v.). 

6  In  Lev.  i.  4,  it  is  said  to  "atone"  (^22,  «'.  «.  to 


SACRIFICE 

mercy.  This  is  seen  most  clearly  in  the  cctb- 
monial  of  the  Day  of  Atonement,  when,  after  the 
sacrifice  of  the  one  goat,  the  high-priest's  hand  'Has 
laid  on  the  head  of  the  scape-goat  —  which  was 
the  other  part  of  the  sin-offering  —  with  confession 
of  the  sins  of  the  people,  that  it  might  visibly  bear 
them  away,  and  so  bring  out  explicitly,  what  in 
other  sin-offerings  was  but  implied.  Accordingly 
we  find  (see  quotation  from  the  Mishua  in  Outr. 
Be  Sacr.  i.  c.  xv.,  §  10)  that,  in  all  cases,  it  was 
the  custom  for  the  offerer  to  lay  his  hand  on  the 
head  of  the  sin-offering,  to  confess  generally  or 
specially  his  sins,  and  to  say,  "  Let  this  be  my  ex- 
piation." Beyond  all  doubt,  the  sin-offeinug  dis- 
tinctly witnessed,  that  sin  existed  in  man,  that  the 
"wages  of  that  sin  was  death,"  and  that  God  had 
provided  an  Atonement  by  the  vicarious  suffering 
of  an  appointed  victim.  The  reference  of  the 
Baptist  to  a  "  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the 
sins  of  the  world,"  was  one  understood  and  hailsd 
at  once  by  a  "  true  Israelite." 

The  ceremonial  and  meaning  of  the  BuRNT- 
OFFEKING  were  very  different.  The  idea  of  ex- 
piation seems  not  to  have  been  absent  from  it 
(for  the  blood  was  sprinkled  round  about  the  altar 
of  sacrifice);''  and,  before  the  Levitical  ordinance 
of  the  sin-offering  to  precede  it,  this  idea  may 
have  been  even  prominent.  But  in  the  system  of 
Leviticus  it  is  evidently  only  secondary.  The 
main  idea  is  the  offering  of  the  whole  victim  to 
God,  representing  (as  the  laying  of  the  hand  on 
its  head  shows)  the  devotion  of  the  sacrificer,  body 
and  soul,  to  Him.  The  death  of  the  victim  was 
(so  to  speak)  an  incidental  feature,  to  signify  the 
completeness  of  the  devotion ;  and  it  is  to  be  no- 
ticed that,  in  all  solenm  sacrifices,  no  burnt-offering 
could  be  made  until  a  previous  sin-offering  had 
brought  the  sacrificer  again  into  covenant  with 
God.  The  main  idea  of  this  sacrifice  must  have 
been  representative,  not  vicarious,  and  the  best 
comment  upon  it  is  the  exhortation  in  Rom.  xii.  1, 
"  to  pre.sent  our  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy  and 
acceptable. to  God." 

The  Meat-offerixgs,  the  peace  or  thank- 
offering,  the  first-fruits,  etc.,  were  simply  offerings 
to  God  of  his  own  best  gifts,  as  a  sign  of  thankful 
homage,  and  as  a  means  of  maintaining  his  service 
and  his  servants.  Whether  they  were  regular  or 
voluntary,  individual  or  national,  independent  or 
subsidiary  to  other  offerings,  this  was  still  the  lead- 
ing idea.  The  meat-offering,  of  flour,  oil,  and 
wine,  seasoned  with  salt,  and  hallowed  by  frankin- 
cense, was  usually  an  appendage  to  the  devotion 
implied  in  the  burnt-offering;  and  the  peace-offer- 
ings for  the  people  held  the  same  place  in  Aaron's 
first  sacrifice  (Lev.  ix.  22),  and  in  all  others  of 
special  solemnity.  The  characteristic  ceremony  in 
the  peace-oft'ering  was  the  eating  of  the  flesh  by 
the  sacrificer  (after  the  fat  had  been  burnt  before 
the  Lord,  and  the  breast  and  shoulder  given,  to  the 
priests).  It  betokened  the  enjoyment  of 'com- 
munion with  God  at  "the  table  of  the  ^  ord,"  in 
the  gifts  which  his  mercy  had  bestowed,  of  which 
a  choice  portion  was  oflTered  to  Him,  to  his  servants, 
and  to  his  poor  (see  Deut.  xiv.  28,  29).     To  this. 


"cover,"  and  so  to  "do  away;"  LXX.  e^iKda-aa-dai). 
The  same  word  is  used  below  of  the  sin-offering :  and 
the  later  Jews  distinguish  the  burnt-offering  as  aton- 
ing for  thoughts  and  designs,  the  sin-offering  for  acts 
of  transgression.  (See  Jonath.  Paraphr.  on  Lev.  ^ 
17,  etc.,  quoted  by  Outram.) 


SACRIFICE 

new  of  sacrifice  allusion  is  made  by  St.  Paul  in 
Phil.  iv.  18;  Heb.  xiii.  15,  16.  It  follows  natu- 
rally from  the  other  two. 

It  is  clear  from  this,  that  the  idea  of  sacrifice 
is  a  coinple.K  idea,  involving  the  propitiatory,  the 
dedicatory,  and  the  euchari,stic  elements.  Any  one 
of  these,  taken  by  itself,  would  lead  to  error  and 
superstition.  The  propitiatory  alone  would  tend 
to  the  idea  of  atonement  by  sacrifice  for  sin,  as 
being  effectual  without  any  condition  of  repent- 
ance and  faith ;  the  self-dedicatory,  taken  alone, 
ignores  the  barrier  of  sin  between  man  and  God, 
and  undermines  the  whole  idea  of  atonement;  the 
eucharistic  alone  leads  to  the  notion  that  mere  gifts 
can  satisfy  God's  service,  and  is  easily  perverted 
into  the  heathenish  attempt  to  "bribe"  God  by 
vows  and  offerings.  All  three  probably  were  more 
or  less  implied  in  each  sacrifice,  each  element  pre- 
donrinating  in  its  turn :  all  must  be  kept  in  mind 
in  considering  the  historical  influence,  the  spiritual 
meaning,  and  the  typical  value  of  sacrifice. 

Now  the  Israelites,  while  they  seem  always  to 
have  retained  the  ideas  of  propitiation  and  of 
eucharistic  offering,  even  when  they  perverted  these 
by  half-heathenish  superstition,  constantly  ignored 
the  self- dedication  which  is  the  link  between  the 
two,  and  which  the  regular  burnt-offering  should 
have  impressed  upon  them  as  their  daily  thought 
and  duty.  It  is  therefore  to  this  point  that  the 
teacliing  of  the  Prophets  is  mainly  directed ;  its 
key-note  is  contained  in  the  words  of  Samuel :  "  Be- 
hold, to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken 
than  the  fat  of  rams  "  (1  Sam.  xv.  22).  So  Isaiah 
declares  (as  in  i.  10-20)  that  "the  Lord  delights 
not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  lambs,  or  goats;  " 
that  to  those  who  "  cease  to  do  evil  and  learn  to 
do  well,  ....  though  their  sins  be  as 
scarlet,  they  shall  be  white  as  snow."  Jeremiah 
reminds  them  (vii.  22,  2-3)  that  the  Lord  did  not 
"command  burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices"  under 
Moses,  but  said,  "  Obey  my  voice,  .and  I  will  be 
your  God."  Ezekiel  is  full  of  indignant  protests 
(see  XX.  39— 1-i)  against  the  pollution  of  God's 
name  by  offerings  of  those  whose  hearts  were  with 
their  idols.  Hosea  sets  torth  God's  requirements 
(vi.  6)  in  words  which  our  Lord  himself  sanc- 
tioned :  "  I  desired  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,  and 
the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt-offerings." 
Amos  (v.  21-27)  puts  it  even  more  strongly,  that 
God  "hates"  their  sacrifices,  unless  "judgment 
run  down  like  water,  and  righteousness  like  a 
mighty  stream."  And  Jlicah  (vi.  6-8)  answers 
the  question  which  lies  at  the  root  of  sacrifice, 
"Wherewith  sliall  I  come  before  the  Lord?"  by 
the  words,  "  What  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee, 
but  to  do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God'?"  All  these  passages,  and  many 
others,  are  directed  to  one  oliject  —  not  to  dis- 
courage sacrifice,  but  to  purify  and  spiritualize  the 
feelings  of  the  offerers. 

The  same  truth,  here  enunciated  from  without, 
is  recogiuzed  from  within  by  the  Psalmist.  Thus 
he  says,  in  Ps.  xl.  6-11,  "  Sacrifice  and  meat- 
offering, burnt-offering  and  sin-offering,  Thou  hag'-. 
not  required;"  and  contrasts  with  them  the  hom- 
ige  of  the  heart — "mine  ears  hast  Thou  bored," 
and  tlie  active  service  of  life  —  "  Lo !  I  come  to  do 
Thy  will,  0  God."  L.  Ps.  1.  13,  U,  sacrifice  is 
tontrasted  with  prayer  and  adoration  (comp.  Ps. 
cxli.  2):  "Thinkest  thou  that  I  will  e.at  bulls'  flesh, 
tad  drink  the  blood  of  goats?  Offer  unto  (iod 
SiMvksgiving,  pay  thy  vows  to  the  Most  Highest, 


SACRIFICE  2776 

and  call  upon  me  in  time  of  trouble."  Iiv  Ps.  IL 
16,  17,  it  is  similarly  contrasted  with  true  repent- 
ance of  the  he'art :  "  The  sacrifice  of  ( lOd  is  a 
troubled  spirit,  a  broken  and  a  contrit(  heart." 
Yet  here  also  the  next  verse  sliows  tliaf  sacrifice 
was  not  superseded,  but  purified:  "  Then  shalt 
thou  be  pleased  with  burnt-offerings  and  oblations; 
tiien  shall  they  offer  young  bullocks  upon  thine 
altar."  These  passages  are  correlative  to  the  others, 
expressing  the  feelings,  which  those  others  in  God's 
name  require.  It  is  not  to  be  argued  from  them, 
that  this  idea  of  self-dedication  is  the  main  one  of 
sacrifice.  The  idea  of  propitiation  lies  bebw  it, 
taken  fcr  granted  by  the  Prophets  as  by  the  r  hols 
people,  but  still  enveloped  in  mystery  unt.  th* 
Antitype  should  come  to  make  all  clear.  For  th» 
evolution  of  this  doctrine  we  must  look  to  the  N. 
1'. ;  the  preparation  for  it  by  the  Prophets  was  (so 
to  speak)  negative,  the  pointing  out  the  nullity 
of  all  other  propitiations  in  themselves,  and  then 
leaving  the  warnings  of  the  conscience  and  the 
cravings  of  the  heart  to  fix  men's  hearts  on  the 
better  Atonement  to  come. 

Without  entering  directly  on  the  great  subject 
of  the  Atonement  (which  would  be  foreign  to  the 
scope  of  this  article),  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer 
to  the  connection,  establislied  in  the  N.  T.,  between 
it  and  the  sacrifices  of  the  jNIosaic  system.  'I"o  do 
this,  we  need  do  little  more  than  analyze  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  which  contains  tlie  key  of  the 
whole  sacrificial  doctrine. 

In  the  first  place,  it  follows  the  prophetic  books 
by  stating,  in  the  most  eniph.atic  terms,  the  in- 
trinsic nuUity  of  all  mere  material  sacrifices.  The 
"gifts  and  sacrifices"  of  the  first  Tabernacle  could 
"  never  make  tlie  sacrificers  perfect  in  conscience  " 
(.KUTO,  avyeiSrjcnv);  they  were  but  "carnal  ordi- 
nances, imposed  on  them  till  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion "  iSiopdiiaecos)  (Heb.  ix.  9,  10).  The  very 
fact  of  their  constant  repetition  is  said  to  prove 
this  imiterfection,  which  depends  on  the  funda^ 
mental  principle,  "  that  it  is  impossible  that  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  goats  should  take  away  sin " 
(x.  i).  But  it  does  not  lead  us  to  infer,  that  they 
.actually  had  no  spiritual  efficacy,  if  oflfered  in  re- 
pentance and  faith.  On  the  contrary,  the  object 
of  the  whole  epistle  is  to  show  their  typical  and 
probationary  character,  and  to  assert  that  in  virtue 
of  it  alone  they  had  a  spiritual  meaning.  Our 
Lord  is  declared  (see  1  Pet.  i.  20)  "to  have  been 
foreordained  "  as  a  sacrifice  "  before  the  foundation 
of  the  vrorld;''  or  (as  it  is  more  strikingly  ex- 
pressed in  Rev.  xiii.  8)  "slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world."  Tlie  material  sacrifices  represented 
this  Great  Atonement,  as  already  made  and  ac- 
cepted in  God's  foreknowledge;  and  to  those  who 
grasped  the  ideas  of  sin,  pardon,  and  self-dedica- 
tion, symbolized  in  them,  they  were  means  of  enter- 
ing into  the  blessings  which  the  One  True  Sacrifice 
alone  procured.  Otherwise  the  whole  s.acrificial 
system  could  have  been  only  a  superstition  and  a 
snare.  The  sins  provided  for  by  the  sin-offering 
were  certainly  in  some  cases  moral.  [See  Sin- 
Ofkering.]  The  whole  of  the  Mosaic  description 
of  sacrifices  clearly  implies  some  real  spii'itual  bene- 
fit to  be  derived  from  them,  besides  tlie  temporal 
[jrivileges  belonging  to  the  national  theocracy, 
•lust  as  St.  Paul  argues  (Gal.  iii.  15-29)  that  the 
Promise  and  Covenant  to  Abraham  were  of  pri- 
mary, the  Law  only  of  secondary,  importance,  sc 
that  men  had  under  the  Law  more  than  they  had 
by  the  Law;  so  it  must  be  said  of  the  Levitica] 


2776 


SACRIFICE 


sacrifices.  They  could  convey  nothiug  in  them- 
selves; yet,  as  types,  they  might,  if  accepted  by  a 
true,  though  necessarily  imperfect,  faith,  be  means 
of  conveying  in  some  degree  the  blessings  of  the 
Antitype. 

This  typical  character  of  all  sacrifice  being  thus 
set  forth,  the  next  point  dwelt  upon  is  the  union 
in  our  Lord's  person  of  the  priest,  the  offerer,  and 
the  sacrifice.  [Priest.]  The  imperfection  of  all 
sacrifices,  which  made  them,  in  themsehes,  liable 
to  superstition,  and  even  inexplicable,  lies  in  this, 
that,  on  the  one  hand,  the  victim  seems  arbitrarily 
chosen  to  be  the  substitute  for,  or  the  representa- 
tive of,  the  sacrificer ; «  and  that,  on  the  other,  if 
there  be  a  barrier  of  sin  between  man  and  Ciod, 
he  has  no  right  of  approach,  or  security  that  his 
sacrifice  will  be  accepted;  that  there  needs,  there- 
fore, to  be  a  Mediator,  i.  e.  (according  to  the  defi- 
nition of  lleb.  V.  1-4),  a  true  Priest,  who  shall, 
as  being  One  with  man,  offer  the  sacrifice,  and 
accept  it,  as  being  One  with  God.  It  is  shown 
that  this  imperfection,  which  necessarily  existed  in 
all  types,  without  which  indeed  they  would  have 
been  substitutes,  not  preparations  for  the  Antitype, 
was  altogether  done  away  in  Him;  that  in  the 
first  place  He,  as  the  representative  of  the  whole 
human  race,  offered  no  arbitraril}-- chosen  victim, 
but  the  willing  sacrifice  of  his  own  blood ;  that,  in 
the  second,  He  was  ordained  by  God,  by  a  solenm 
oath,  to  be  a  high-priest  forever,  "  after  the  order 
of  IMelchizedek,"  one  "  hi  all  points  tempted  like 
as  we  are,  yet  without  sin,"  united  to  our  human 
nature,  susceptible  to  its  infirmities  and  trials, 
yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  True  Son  of  God,  ex- 
alted far  above  all  created  things,  and  ever  living 
to  make  intercession  in  heaven,  now  that  his  sacri- 
fice is  over ;  and  that,  in  the  last  place,  the  barrier 
between  man  and  God  is  by  his  mediation  done 
away  forever,  and  the  Most  Holy  Place  once  for 
all  opened  to  man.  All  the  points,  in  the  doctrine 
of  sacrifice,  which  had  before  been  unintelligible, 
were  thus  made  clear. 

This  being  the  case,  it  next  follows  that  all  the 
various  kinds  of  sacrifices  were,  each  in  its  meas- 
ure, representatives  and  types  of  the  various  aspects 
of  the  Atonement.  It  is  clear  that  the  Atonement, 
in  this  epistle,  as  in  the  N.  T.  generally,  is  viewed 
in  a  twofold  light. 

On  the  one  hand,'  it  is  set  forth  distinctly  as  a 
vicarious  sacrifice,  which  was  rendered  necessary  by 
the  sin  of  man,  and  in  which  the  Lord  "  bare  the 
sins  of  many."  It  is  its  essential  characteristic, 
that  in  it  He  stands  absolutely  alone,  offering  his 
sacrifice  without  any  reference  to  the  faith  or  the 
conversion  of  men  —  offering  it  indeed  for  those 
who  "were  still  sinners"  and  at  enmity  with  God. 
Moreover  it  is  called  a  "propitiation"  {lAatTfios  or 
iKacTTiipiov,  Rom.  iii.  25;  1  John  ii.  2);  a  "ran- 
som" {ano\vTpbi(Tis,  Rom.  iii.  24;  1  Cor.  i.  30, 
&c.);  which,  if  words  mean  anything,  must  imply 
*hat  it  makes  a  change  in  the  relation  between 
God  and  man,  from  separation  to  union,  from 
wrath  to  love,  and  a  change  in  man's  state  from 
bondage  to  freedom.  In  it,  then,  He  stands  out 
alone  as  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man ;  and 
Ws  sacrifice  is  offered  once  for  all,  never  to  be  imi- 
tated or  repeated. 

Now  this  view  of  the  Atonement  is  set  forth  in 

a  It  may  be  remembered  that  devices,  sometimes 
tudicrous,  sometimes  horrible,  were  adopted  to  make 
'ae  victim  appear  willing;  and  that  voluntary  sacri- 


SACRIFICE 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  typified  by  the  sin- 
offisring;  especially  by  that  particular  sin-off'ering 
with  which  the  high  prie.-,t  entered  the  Most  Holy 
Place  on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement  (ix.  7-12), 
and  by  that  which  hallowed  the  inauguration  of 
the  Mosaic  covenant,  and  cleansed  the  \essels  of  its 
ministration  (ix.  13-23).  In  the  same  way,  Christ 
is  called  "  our  Passover,  sacrificed  for  us  "  (1  Cor. 
V.  7);  and  is  said,  in  even  more  startling  language 
to  have  been  "made  sin  for  us,"  though  He  "knew 
no  sin"  (2  Cor.  v.  21).  This  typical  relation  is 
pursued  even  into  details,  and  our  Lord's  suffering 
without  the  city  is  coni[iared  to  the  burning  of  the 
public  or  jiriestly  sin  offerings  without  the  camp 
(Heb.  xiii.  10-13).  Tlie  altar  of  sacrifice  {Ovai- 
aaTrfpiov}  is  said  to  have  its  antitype  in  his  Pas- 
sion (.xiii.  10).  All  the  expiatory  and  propitiatory 
sacrifices  of  the  Law  are  now  for  the  first  time 
brought  into  full  hght.  And  though  the  prin- 
ciple of  vicarious  sacrifice  still  remains,  and  must 
remain,  a  mystery,  yet  the  fact  of  its  existence  in 
Him  is  illustrated  by  a  thousand  types.  As  the 
sin-offering,  though  not  the  earliest,  is  the  most 
fundamental  of  all  sacrifices,  so  the  aspect  of  the 
Atonement,  which  it  symbolizes,  is  the  one  on  which 
all  others  rest. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  set 
forth  to  us  as  the  completion  of  that  perfect 
obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  which  is  the 
natural  duty  of  sinless  man,  in  which  He  is  the 
representative  of  all  men,  and  in  which  He  calls 
upon  us,  when  reconciled  to  God,  to  "  take  up  the 
Cross  and  follow  Him."  "  In  the  days  of  his  flesh 
He  oflTered  up  prayers  and  supplications  . 
and  was  heard,  in  that  He  feared;  though  He  were 
it  Son,  yet  learned  He  obedience  by  the  things 
which  he  suffered:  and  being  made  perfect"  (by 
that  suffering;  see  ii.  10),  "  He  became  the  author 
of  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  Him"  (v.  7,  8, 
9).  In  this  view  his  death  is  not  the  principal 
object;  we  dwell  rather  on  his  lowly  incarnation, 
and  his  life  of  humility,  temptation,  and  suffering, 
to  which  that  death  was  but  a  fitting  close.  In 
the  passage  above  referred  to  the  allusion  is  not  to 
the  Cross  of  Calvary,  bur  to  the  agony  in  Gethsem- 
ane.  which  bowed  his  human  will  to  the  vrill  of 
his  Fatlier.  The  main  idea  of  this  view  of  the 
Atonement  is  representative,  rather  than  vicarious. 
In  the  first  view  the  "  second  Adam  ''  undid  by 
his  atoning  blood  the  work  of  evil  which  the  first 
Adam  did;  in  the  second  He,  by  his  perfect  obe- 
dience, did  that  which  the  first  Adam  left  undone, 
and,  by  his  grace  making  us  like  Himself,  calls 
upon  us  to  follow  Him  in  the  same  path.  This 
latter  view  is  typified  by  the  burnt-offering:  in 
respect  of  which  the  N.  T.  merely  quotes  and  en- 
forces the  language  already  cited  from  the  0.  T., 
and  especially  (see  Heb.  x.  6-9)  the  words  of  Ps. 
xl.  6,  &c.,  w'hich  contrast  with  material  sacrifice  the 
"doing  thj  will  of  God."  It  is  one,  which  cannot 
be  dwelt  upon  at  all  without  a  previous  implication 
of  the  other ;  as  both  were  embraced  in  one  act,  so 
are  tliey  inseparably  connected  in  idea.  Thus  it  is 
put  forth  in  Rom.  xii.  1,  where  the  "  mercies  of 
God"  (i.  e.  the  free  salvation,  through  the  sin- 
offering  of  Christ's  blood,  dwelt  upon  in  all  the 
preceding  part  of  the  epistle)  are  made  the  ground 
for  calling  on  us  "  to  present  our  bodies,  a  living 


fice,  such  as   that  of  the  Decii,  was  held  to  be  th» 
noblest  of  all. 


SACRIFICE 

tao'ifice,  holy  and  acceptable  to  God,''  inasmuch 
as  we  are  all  (see  v.  5)  one  with  Christ,  and  mem- 
bers of  his  body.  lu  this  sense  it  is  tliat  we  are 
gaid  to  be  "crucified  with  Christ"  (Ual.  ii.  20; 
Rom.  vi.  6);  to  have  "the  sufferings  of  Christ 
abound  in  us"  (2  Cor.  i.  5);  even  to  "  fill  up  that 
which  is  behind"  {to.  vcrTeprifiaTa)  thereof  (Col.  i. 
24);  and  to  "be  offered"  (o-7re;/5eo-9ai)  "  upon  the 
sacrifice  of  the  faith  "  of  others  (I'hil.  ii.  17;  comp. 
2  Tim.  iv.  6;  1  John  iii.  16).  As  without  the 
sin-offering  of  the  Cross,  this,  our  burnt-offering, 
would  be  impossible,  so  also  without  the  burnt- 
oftering  the  sin-offering  will  to  us  be  unavailing. 

With  thesa  views  of  our  Lord's  sacrifice  on  earth, 
as  typified  in  the  Levitical  sacrifices  on  the  outer 
altar,  is  also  to  be  connected  the  offering  of  his  in- 
tercession for  us  in  heaven,  whkh  was  represented 
by  the  incense.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
this  part  of  his  priestly  office  is  dwelt  upon,  with 
particular  reference  to  the  oft'eiing  of  incense  in 
the  Most  Holy  Place  by  the  high-priest  on  the 
Great  Day  of  Atonement  (Heb.  is.  24-28 ;  comp. 
iv.  14-16,  vi.  19,  20,  vii.  25).  It  implies  that  the 
sin-offering  has  been  made  once  for  all,  to  rend 
asunder  the  veil  (of  sin)  between  man  and  God; 
and  that  the  continual  burnt  offering  is  now  ac- 
cepted by  Him  for  the  sake  of  tlie  Great  Interced- 
ing High -priest.  That  intercession  is  the  strength 
of  our  prayers,  and  "  with  the  smoiie  of  its  in- 
cense "  they  rise  up  to  heaven  (Kev.  viii.  4). 
[Prayer.] 

The  typical  sense  of  the  meat-offering,  or  peace- 
offering,  is  less  connected  with  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  himself,  than  with  those  sacrifices  of  praise, 
thanksgiving,  charity,  and  devotion,  wliich  we,  as 
Christians,  offer  to  God,  and  "  with  which  he  is 
well  pleased  "  (Heb.  xiii.  15,  16)  as  with  "an  odor 
of  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable  to  God  "  (Phil. 
iv.  18).  They  betoken  that,  througli  the  peace  won 
by  the  sin-offering,  we  have  already  Ijeen  enabled 
to  dedicate  ourselves  to  God,  and  they  are,  as  it 
were,  the  ornaments  and  accessories  of  that  self- 
dedication. 

Such  is  a  lirief  sketch  of  the  doctrine  of  Sacri- 
fice. It  is  seen  to  have  been  deeply  rooted  in 
men's  hearts ;  and  to  have  been,  I'roni  the  begin- 
nini;,  accepted  and  sanctioned  l)y  God,  and  niade 
by  Him  one  channel  of  his  Revelation.  In  virtue 
of  that  sanction  it  had  a  value,  partly  symbolical, 
partly  actual,  but  in  all  respects  derived  from  the 
one  True  Sacrifice,  of  which  it  was  the  type.  It 
involved  the  expiatory,  the  self-dedicatury,  and 
the  eucharistic  ideas,  each  gradually  developed  and 
explained,  but  all  capable  of  full  explanation  only 
by  the  light  reflected  back  from  the  Antitype. 

On  tlie  antiquarian  part  of  the  subject  valuable 
information  may  be  found  in  Spencer,  Be  Le(/i/jus 
BeOneoruiii,  and  Outram,  De  Sucrificiis.  The 
question  of  the  origin  of  sacrifice  is  treated  clearly 
on  either  side  by  Faber,  On  the  {Divine)  Origin  of 
Sacrifice,  and  by  Davidson,  Inquiry  into  the  Origin 
of  Sricrifice  ;  and  Warburton,  Die.  Leg.  (b.  ix. 
c.  2).  On  the  general  subject,  see  Magee's  Disser- 
tation on  Atonement ;  the  Appendix  to  Tholuck's 
Treatise  on  the  Hebrews ;  Kurtz.  Der  Alttesta- 
mentliche  Opfercultus,  Mitau,  1862  [Eng.  transla- 
tion by  James  Martin,  Edinb.  186;i,  in  Clark's 
Foreign  Tlieol.  Lihr.\  comp.  BiU.  Sacra,  ix.  27- 
51] ;  and  the  catalogue  of  authorities  in  Winer's 
Rtalwortertt.,  "  Opfer."  But  it  needs  for  its  con- 
siderntiou  little  but  the  careful  study  of  Scripture 
'taelf  A.  B. 

175 


SADDUCEES 


2777 


*  For  otlier  works  on  this  subject  see  the  refer- 
ences under  Le\' incus  (Amer.  ed.),  vol.  ii.  p. 
1653  b,  and  the  list  prefixed  to  the  work  of  Kurtz, 
just  referred  to.  See  also  an  article  by  Dr.  G.  R. 
Xoyes,  'J'he  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  in 
the  Christian  Kxaminer  (Boston)  for  vSept.  1855, 
and  the  learned  and  elaborate  discussion  of  the 
suliject  in  Kahsch's  Leviticus,  part  i.  (Lond.  1867), 
pp   1-416.  A. 

SADAMI'AS  (Sadanias).  The  name  of 
SnALi.uji,  one  of  the  ancestors  of  Ezra,  is  so  writ- 
ten in  2  Esdr.  i.  1. 

SA'DAS  CAp7oi;  Alex.  Ao-rao;  [Aid.  2a5cis:] 
Archad).  Azt.Ai)  (1  Esdr.  v.  13;  comp.  Ezr  ii. 
12).  I'he  form  Sadas  is  retained  from  the  Geneva 
version.  [This  form,  it  will  be  observed,  is  the 
reading  of  the  Aldiue  edition.  —  A.] 

SADDE'US  (AoSSaToj;  [Vat.  AoSaioy;]  -A-lex. 
AoASaios;  [Aid.  AaSSalos:]  Loddeiis).  "lDDO,the 
chief  at  the  place  Casiphia,"  is  called  in  1  Esdr.  viii. 
45,  "  Saddeus  the  captain,  wlio  was  in  the  place  of 
the  treasury."  In  1  Esdr.  viii.  46  the  name  ia 
written  "  Daddeus  "  in  the  A.  V.,  as  in  the  Ge- 
neva Version  of  both  passages. 

*  SADDLE.  [Camel;  Furniture;  Horse; 
Mule.] 

SAD'DUC  (2o55oD«:os;  [Vat.  S.a.dZovXovKo^, 
Mai,  Errata :]  Sadoc).  Zadoic  the  liigh-prieat, 
ancestor  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii.  2). 

SAD'DUCEES  {^aUovKalor-  Sadduciei: 
Matt.  iii.  7,  xvi.  1,  6,  11,  12,  xxii.  23,  34:  Mnrk 
xii.  18;  Luke  xx.  27;  Acts  iv.  1,  v.  17,  xxiii.  6,  7, 
8).  A  religious  party  or  school  among  the  .lewg 
at  the  time  of  Christ,  who  denied  that  the  oral  law 
was  a  revelation  of  (iod  to  the  Israelites,  ami  who 
deemetl  the  written  law  alone  to  be  obligatory  on 
tlie  nation,  as  of  Divine  authority.  Although  fre- 
quently mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  in  con- 
junction with  the  Pliarisees,  they  do  not  throw 
such  vivid  light  as  their  great  antagonists  on  the 
real  significance  of  Christianity.  Except  on  one 
occasion,  when  they  united  with  the  Phari.sees  in 
insidiously  asking  for  a  sign  from  heaven  (Matt, 
xvi.  1,  4,  6),  Christ  never  assailed  the  Sadducees 
with  the  same  liitter  denunciations  which  he  ut- 
ters again.st  the  Pharisees;  and  they  do  not,  like 
tlie  Pharisees,  seem  to  have  taken  active  measures 
for  causing  him  to  be  put  to  death.  In  this  re- 
spect, and  in  many  others,  they  have  not  been  .so 
influential  as  the  Pharisees  in  the  world's  history; 
but  still  they  deserve  attention,  as  representing 
.Jewish  ideas  before  the  Pharisees  became  tri-  ^ 
umphant,  and  as  illustrating  one  phase  of  .Jewish 
thought  at  the  time  when  the  new  religion  of 
Chri.-itianity,  destined  to  produce  such  a  moment- 
ous revolution  in  the  opinions  of  mankind,  issued 
from  .Juda'a. 

Authorities.  —  The  sources  of  information  re- 
specting the  Sadducees  are  much  the  same  as  for 
the  Pharisees.  [Pharisees,  vol.  iii.  p.  2472.] 
There  are,  however,  some  exceptions  negatively. 
Thus,  the  Sadducees  are  not  spoken  of  at  all  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  where  the  Pharisees  are  frequently 
mentioned,  John  vii.  32,  45,  xi.  47,  57,  xviii.  3, 
viii.  3,  13-19,  ix.  13;  an  omission  which,  as  Geiger 
suggests,  is  not  unimportant  in  reference  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Gospels  ( Urschrifl  und  Ueherset- 
zungen  der  Bibel,  p.  107).  Moreover,  while  St. 
Paul  had  been  a  Pharisee  and  was  the  son  of  a 
Pharisee;  while  Josephus  vvas  a  Pharisee,  and  the 
Mishna  was   a    Pharisaical   diijest    of    Pharisaical 


•li  i' 


SADDUCEES 


opinions  and  practices,  not  a  single  undoubted , 
writing  of  an  acknowledged  Sadducee  has  come 
down  to  us,  so  that  for  an  acquaintance  with  their 
opinions  we  are  mainly  dependent  on  their  antago- 
nists. This  point  should  be  always  borne  in  mind 
in  judging  their  opinions,  and  forming  an  estimate 
of  their  character,  and  its  full  liearing  will  be  duly 
appreciated  by  those  who  reflect  that  even  at  the 
present  day,  with  all  the  checks  against  misrepre- 
sentation arising  from  publicity  and  the  invention 
of  printing,  probably  no  religious  or  political  party 
in  Ijiglaiid  would  be  content  to  accept  the  state- 
ments of  an  opponent  as  giving  a  correct  view  of 
its  ojiinions. 

(Jrlyin  of  the  name.  —  Like  etymologies  of 
words,  the  origin  of  the  name  of  a  sect  is,  in  some 
cases,  almost  wholly  immaterial,  while  in  other 
cases  it  is  of  extreme  importance  towards  under- 
standing opinions  which  it  is  proposed  to  investi- 
gate. The  origin  of  the  name  Sadducees  is  of  the 
latter  description;  and  a  reasonable  certainty  on 
this  point  would  go  i'ar  towards  ensuring  correct 
ideas  respecting  the  position  of  the  Sadducees  in  the 
■Jewish  state.  The  sulject,  however,  is  involved  in 
great  difficulties.  The  Hebrew  word  by  which  they 
are  called  in  the  JNIishna  is  Tsulukim,  the  plural  of 
Tsddok,  which  undoul]tedly  means  "just,"  or 
"  righteous,"  but  which  is  never  used  in  the  liible 
except  as  a  [jroper  name,  and  in  the  Antjlican  Ver- 
sion is  always  translated  "  Zadok  "  (2  K.  xv.  33; 
2  Sam.  viii.  17;  1  Cbr.  vi.  8.  12,  &c.\  Neh.  iii.  4, 
29,  xi.  11).  The  most  obvious  translation  of  the 
word,  therefore,  is  to  call  them  Zadoks  or  Zadok- 
ites;  and  a  question  would  then  arise  as  to  why 
they  were  so  called.  The  ordinary  Jewish  state- 
ment is  that  they  are  named  from  a  certain  Zadok, 
a  disciple  of  the  Antigonus  of  Socho,  who  is  men- 
tioned in  the  ilishna  {Acotli  i.)  as  having  received 
the  oral  law  from  Simon  the  Just,  the  last  of  the 
men  of  the  (ireat  Synagogue.  It  is  recorded  of 
this  Antigonus  that  he  used  to  say:  "  Ue  not  like 
servants  who  serve  their  master  for  the  sake  of  re- 
ceiving a  reward,  but  be  like  servants  who  serve 
their  master  without  a  view  of  receiving  a  reward;  " 
and  the  current  statement  has  been  that  Zadok, 
who  gave  his  name  to  the  Zadokites  or  Sadducees, 
misinterpreted  this  saying  so  far,  as  not  only  to 
maintain  the  great  truth  that  virtue  should  be  the 
rule  of  conduct  without  reference  to  the  rewards  of 
the  individual  agent,  but  likewise  to  proclaim  the 
doctrine  that  there  was  no  future  state  of  rewards 

^    and  punishments.       (See  Buxtorf,  «.   v.   P'l'^^* ' 


a  Aruch,  or  ^Artic  {"^y^VH),  means  "arranged,' 
or  "  set  in  order."  The  author  of  this-  work  was  an- 
other Rjibbi  Nathan  Ben  Jechier,  president  of  the  Jew- 
ish Academy  at  Rome,  who  died  in  1106.  A.  D.  (See 
Bartolocci,  Bibt.  Kabb.  iv.  261.)  The  reference  to 
Rabbi  Nathan,  author  of  the  treatise  on  the  Avot/i,  is 

made  in  the  Aruch  under  the  word  ^^D1i"T"3.  The 
treatise  itself  was  published  in  a  Latin  translation  by 
F.  Tayler,  at  Loudon,  1657.  The  original  passage  re- 
specting Zadok's  disciples  is  printed  b.v  Geiger  in  He- 
brew, and  translated  by  him.  Ursc/irift,  etc.,  p.  105. 

♦  Dr.  Giusburg,  in  his  valuable  article  Sadducees, 
in  the  Sd  editiou  of  Kitto"s  Cyrlop.  of  Bibt.  Lit.  iii.  731, 
note,  corrects  Mr.  Twi.stIeton"s  statements  respecting 
"  the  earliest  mention  "  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  and  the 
time  when  he  lived.  He  says  :  "  This  Rabbi  Nathan 
or  Nathan  Ita-Babli.,  as  he  is  called  in  the  Talmud, 
because  he  was  a  native  of  Meshan  in  Babylon  (Baba 
Bathra,  73  d),  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  Mish- 


SADDUCEES 

Lightfoot's  no7'(e  HtbraicoB  on  Mnlth.  iii.  8;  mud 
the  Note  of  Maimonides  in  Surenhusius's  Mishna.^ 
iv.  411.)  If,  however,  the  statement  is  traced  up 
to  its  original  source,  it  is  found  that  there  is  no 
mention  of  it  either  in  the  Mishna,  or  in  any  other 
part  of  the  Talmud  (Geiger's  Ursc/iriJ'l,  etc.,  p. 
105),  and  that  the  first  mention  of  something  of 
the  kind  is  in  a  small  work  by  a  certain  Kabbi 
Nathan,  which  he  wrote  on  the  Treatise  of  the 
Mishna  called  the  Avoth,  or  "  Fathers."  But  the 
age  in  which  this  Rabbi  Nathan  lived  is  uncertain 
(Bartolocci,  Hibliotliecn  Magna  Rabbinica,  vol.  iii. 
p.  770),  and  the  earliest  mention  of  him  is  in  a 
well-known  Rabbinical  dictionary  called  the  Aruch," 
which  was  completed  about  the  year  1105,  a.  d 
The  following  are  the  words  of  the  above-mentioned 
Rabbi  Nathan -of  the  Avoth.  Adverting  to  the 
passage  in  the.  Mishna,  already  quoted,  respecting 
Antigonus's  saying,  he  observes:  "Antigonus  of 
Socho  had  two  disciples  who  taught  the  saying  to 
their  disciples,  and  these  disciples  again  taught  it 
to  their  disciples.  At  last  these  began  to  scruti- 
nize it  narrowly,  and  said,  '  What  did  our  Fathers 
mean  in  teaching  this  saving?  Is  it  possible  that 
a  laborer  is  to  perform  his  work  all  the  day,  and 
not  receive  his  wages  in  the  evening  ?  Truly,  if 
our  Fathers  had  known  that  there  is  another  world 
and  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  they  would  not  have 
spoken  thus.'  They  then  began  to  separate  them- 
selves from  the  Law;  and  so  there  arose  two  sects, 
the  Zadokites  and  Baithusians,  .the  foi-mer  from 
Zadok,  and  the  latter  from  Baithos."  Now  it  is 
to  be  ob.served  on  this  passage  that  it  does  not  jus- 
tify the  once  current  behef  that  Zadok  himself  mis- 
interpreted Antigonus's  saying;  and  it  suggests  no 
reason  why  the  followers  of  the  supposed  new  doc- 
trines should  have  taken  their  name  from  Zadok 
rather  than  Antigonus.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  in 
connection  with  several  other  points  of  the  same 
nature,  such  as,  for  example,  the  total  silence  re- 
specting any  such  story  in  the  works  of  Josephus 
or  in  the  Talmud ;  the  absence  of  any  other  special 
information  respecting  even  the  existence  of  the 
supposed  Zadok ;  the  improbable  and  childishly  il- 
logical reasons  assigned  tor  the  departure  of  Zadok's 
disciples  from  the  Law;  the  circumstances  that 
Rabbi  Nathan  held  the  tenets  of  the  Pharisees, 
that  the  statements  of  a  Pharisee  respecting  the 
Sadducees  must  always  be  received  with  a  certain 
re.serve,  that  Rabbi  Nathan  of  the  Avoth,  for  aught 
that  has  e\er  been  proved  to  the  contrary,  may 
have  lived  as  long  as  1000  years  after  the  first  ap- 


naic  doctors.  In  consequence  of  his  high  birth,  as 
his  father  was  I'rince  of  the  Captivity  in  Babylon, 
and  his  marvellous  knowledge  of  the  law,  both  diTine 
and  human,  .  .  he  was  created  vicar  of  ".he  patri- 
arch Simon  II.  b.  Gamaliel  II.,  A.  D.  140-163,  or  presi- 
dent of  the  tribunal  (]''T  n^3  SS).  He  is  fre- 
quently quoted  in  the  Talmud  as  a  profound  'Scholar 
of  the  law  {Hurajoth,  13  b  ;  Bciba  Kama,  23  a  ;  Baba 
Mezia,  117  b),  and  has  materially  contributed  to  the 
compilation  of  the  Mishna,  as  he  himself  compiled  a 
Mishna,  which  is  quoted  by  the  name  of  Mis/itiath  dt 
Rabbi  Nathan,  and  which  R;ibbi  .lehudah  the  holy 
used  for  the  redaction  of  the  present  Mishna.''  But 
after  all,  Dr.  Ginsburg  is  disposed  to  regard  the  pas- 
sage about  the  Sadducees  in  the  Ai-Oth  of  Kabbi  Na- 
than as  by  a  later  hand,  "  like  many  other  pieces  in 
the  same  work."'  and  thinks  that  its  author  most 
probably  flourished  towards  the  end  of  the  7th  cen- 
tury (p.  733).  He  himself  adopts  the  view  of  GeigM 
respecting  the  origin  of  the  Sadducees.  A. 


J 


SADDUCEES 

pearance  of  the  Saxlducees  as  a  party  in  Jewish  his- 
tory, and  that  he  quotes  no  authority  of  any  kind 
for  his  account  of  their  origin,  it  seems  reasonable 
to  reject  tliis  Kabbi  Natlian's  narration  as  unwor- 
thy of  credit.  Another  ancient  suggestion  concern- 
insr  the  brigin  of  the  name  "  Sadducees  "  is  in  Kpi- 
phanius  {Adversus  H(ereses,  xiv.),Vi'ho  states  that 
the  Sadducees  called  themselves  by  that  name  from 
"righteousness,"  the  interpretation  of  the  Hebrew 
word  Zedek ;  "  and  that  there  was  likewise  an- 
ciently a  Zadok  among  the  priests,  but  that  they 
did  not  continue  in  the  doctrines  of  their  chief." 
But  this  statement  is  unsatisfactory  in  two  re- 
spects: 1st.  It  does  not  explain  why,  if  the  sug- 
gested etymology  was  correct,  the  name  of  the  Sad- 
ducees was  not  'I'saddikim  or  Zaddikites,  which 
would  have  been  the  regular  Hebrew  adjective  for 
the  "Just,"  or '*  Righteous  " ;  and  2d]y.  While  it 
evidently  implies  that  they  once  held  the  doctrines 
of  an  ancient  priest,  Zadok,  who  is  even  called  their 
chief  or  master  (eVio-raTTjs),  it  does  not  directly 
assert  that  there  was  any  connection  between  his 
name  and  theirs;  nor  yet  does  it  say  that  the  co- 
incidence between  the  two  names  was  accidental. 
Moreover,  it  does  not  give  information  as  to  when 
Zadok  lived,  nor  what  were  those  doctrines  of  his 
which  the  Sadducees  once  held,  but  sulisequently 
departed  from.  The  unsatisflictoriness  of  Kpipha- 
nius's  statement  is  increased  by  its  being  coupled 
with  an  assertion  that  the  Sadducees  were  a  branch 
broken  off  from  Dositheus;  or  in  other  words  Schis- 
matics from  I'ositheus  (aTrScrwaa/xa  uvres  airh  Ao- 
ffideov) ;  for  Dositheus  was  a  heretic  who  lived  about 
the  time  of  Christ  (Origen,  contra  Celsum,  lil).  i.  c. 
17 ;  Clemens,  Rtcognit.  ii.  8 ;  Photius,  Bibliuih.  c. 
x.^cx.),  and  thus,  if  Epiphanius  was  correct,  the 
opinions  characteristic  of  the  Sadducees  were  pro- 
ductions of  the  Christian  era;  a  supposition  con- 
trary to  the  express  declaration  of  the  Pharisee 
Josephus,  and  to  a  notorious  fact  of  history,  the 
coimection  of  Hyrcanus  with  the  Sadducees  more 
than  100  years  before  Christ.  (See  Josephus,  Ant. 
xiii.  9,  §  6,  and  xviii.  1,  §  2,  where  observe  the 
phrase  s/c  rov  iravv  apxa-iov  .  .  .)  Hence  Epipha- 
nius's  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  word  Saddu- 
cees must  be  rejected  with  that  of  Rablji  Nathan 
of  the  An'itlt.  In  these  circumstances,  if  recourse 
is  had  to  conjecture,  the  first  point  to  be  consid- 
ered is  whetiier  the  word  is  likely  to  have  arisen 
from  the  meaning  of  ''righteousness,"  or  from  the 
name  of  an  individual.  This  must  be  decided  in 
favor  of  the  latter  alternative,  inasmuch  as  the  wcjrd 
Zadok  never  occurs  in  the  Bible,  except  as  a  proper 
name;  and  then  we  are  led  to  inquire  as  to  who 
the  Zadok  of  the  Sadducees  is  likely  to  have  been. 
Now,  according  to  the  existing  records  of  Jewish 
history,  there  was  one  Zadok  of  transcendent  im- 
porLance,  and  only  one;  namely,  the  priest  who 
acted  such  a  prominent  part  at  the  time  of  David, 
and  who  declared  in  favor  of  Solomon,  when  Abia- 
thar  took  the  part  of  Adonijah  as  successor  to  the 
throne  (1  K.  i.  •)2— 1.3).  This  Zadok  was  tenth  in 
descent,  according  to  the  genealogies,  from  the 
high- priest  Aaron;  and  whatever  maj'  be  the  cor- 
»ect  explanation  of  the  statement  in  the  1st  Hook 
■f  Kings,  ii.  35,  that  Solomon  put  him  in  the  room 
if  Abiathar,  although   on    previous  occasions  he 


SADDUCEES 


2779 


«  According  to  the  Mishna,  San/ied.  iv.  2,  no  one 
iras  "  clean,"  in  the  Levitical  sense,  to  act  as  a  judge 
.n  capitiU  trials,  e.\cept  priests,  Levites,  and  Israelites 
»bose  daughters   might  uiarry   priests.     This   again 


had,  when  named  with  him,  been  always  mentioned 
first  (2  Sam.  xv.  35,  six.  11;  cf.  viii.  17),  his  line 
of  priests  appears  to  have  had  decided  preeminence 
in  subsequent  history.  Thus,  when  in  2  Chr. 
xxxi.  10,  Hezekiah  is  represented  as  putting  a  ques- 
tion to  the  priests  and  Levites  generally,  the  an- 
swer is  attributed  to  Azariah,  "  the  chief  priest  of 
the  house  of  Zadok:"  and  in  Ezekiel's  prophetic 
vision  of  the  future  Temple,  "  the  sons  of  Zadok  " 
and  "  the  priests  the  Levites  of  the  seed  of  Zadok  " 
are  spoken  of  with  peculiar  honor,  as  those  who 
kept  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary  of  .lehovah,  when 
the  children  of  Israel  went  astray  (Ezek.  xl.  4(5, 
xliii.  19,  xliv.  15,  xlviii.  11).  Now,  as  the  transi- 
tion from  the  expression  "sons  of  Zadok"  and 
"  priests  of  the  seed  of  Zadok  "  to  Zadokites  is  easy 
and  obvious,  and  as  in  the  .\cts  of  the  Apostles  v. 
17,  it  is  said,  "  T/ieri  t/ie  h'ujh-priest  rose,  ami  all 
they  that  were  inth  him,  which  is  the  sect  of  the 
Sadducees,  and  were  filled  with  indignation,"  it  has 
been  conjectured  by  Geiger  that  the  Sadducees 
or  Zadokites  were  originally  identical  with  the  sons 
of  Zadok,  and  constituted  what  may  be  termed  a 
kind  of  sacerdotal  aristocracy  {Urschrift,  etc.,  p. 
104r).  To  these  were  afterwards  attached  all  who 
for  any  reason  reckoned  themselves  as  beloui^ing  to 
the  aristocracy;  such,  for  example,  as  the  fannlies 
of  the  high-priest ;  who  had  obtained  consideration 
under  the  d3nasty  of  Herod.  These  were  for  the 
most  part  judges,"  and  individuals  of  the  official 
and  governing  class.  Now,  although  this  view  of 
the  Sadducees  is  only  inferential,  and  mainly  con- 
jectural, it  certainly  explains  the  name  better  than 
any  other,  and  elucidates  at  once  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  the  otherwise  obscure  statement  that  the 
high-priest,  and  those  who  were  with  him,  were  the 
sect  of  the  Sadducees.  Accepting,  therefore,  this 
view  till  a  more  probable  conjecture  is  suggested, 
.some  of  the  principal  peculiarities  or  supposed  pe- 
culiarities of  the  Sadducees  will  nqw  be  noticed  in 
detail,  although  in  such  notice  some  points  must 
be  touched  upon,  which  have  been  already  partly 
discussed  in  speaking  of  the  Pharisees. 

I.  The  leading  tenet  of  the  Sadducees  was  the 
negation  of  the  leading  tenet  of  their  opponents. 
As  the  Pharisees  asserted,  so  the  Sadducees  denied, 
that  the  Israelites  were  in  possession  of  an  Oral 
Law  transmitted  to  them  by  Moses.  The  manner 
in  which  the  Pharisees  may  have  gained  acceptance 
for  their  own  view  is  noticed  elsewhere  in  this  work 
[vol.  iii.  p.  2474] ;  but,  for  an  equitable  estimate 
of  the  Sadducees,  it  is  proper  to  bear  in  mind 
emphatically  bow  destitute  of  historical  evidence 
the  doctrine  was  which  they  denied.  That  doctrine 
is  at  the  present  day  rejected,  probably  by  almost 
all,  if  not  by  all.  Christians;  and  it  is  indeed  so 
foreign  to  their  ideas,  that  the  greater  number  of 
Christians  have  never  even  heard  of  it,  thougd  it 
is  older  than  Christianity,  and  has  been  the  sup- 
port and  consolation  of  the  .lews  under  a  series  of 
the  most  cruel  and  wicked  persecutions  to  which 
any  nation  has  ever  been  exposed  during  an  equal 
number  of  centuries.  It  is  likewise  now  main- 
tained, all  over  the  world,  by  those  who  are  called 
the  orthodox  Jews.  It  is  therefore  desirable,  to 
know  the  kind  of  arguments  by  which  at  the 
present  day,  in  an  historical  and  critical  age,  the 


tallies  with  the  explanation  oflered  in  the  text,  of  th« 
Sadducees,  as  a  sacerdotal  aristocracy,  beiag  "  with 
the  high-priest." 


2'.  80 


SADDUCEES 


doctrine  is  defended.  For  this  an  opportunity  has 
been  given  during  the  last  three  years  by  a  learned 
French  Jew,  Grand-Kablji  of  the  circumscription 
of  Colmar  (Klein,  Le  Judhisme,  im  la  Vdnte  sur 
It  Talinuf],  Mulhouse,  1859),  who  still  asserts  as  a 
fact,  the  existence  of  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law.  To  do 
full  justice  to  his  views,  the  original  work  should 
be  perused.  But  it  is  doing  no  injustice  to  his 
leariiing  and  ability,  to  point  out  that  not  one 
of  his  arguments  has  a  positive  historical  value 
Thus  he  relies  mainly  on  the  inconceivability  (as 
will  be  again  noticed  in  this  article)  that  a  Divine 
revelation  should  not  have  explicitly  proclaimed  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, or  that  it  should  have  promulgated  laws, 
left  in  such  an  incomplete  form,  and  requiring  so 
much  explanation,  and  so  many  additions,  as  the 
laws  in  the  Pentateuch.  Now,  arguments  of  this 
kind  may  be  sound  or  unsound;  based  on  reason, 
or  illogical ;  and  for  many  they  may  have  a  philo- 
sophical or  theological  value;  but  they  have  no 
pretense  to  be  regarded  as  historical,  inasmuch  as 
the  assumed  premises,  which  involve  a  knowledge 
of  the  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  the 
manner  in  which  lie  would  be  likely  to  deal  with 
man,  are  far  beyond  the  limits  of  historical  verifi- 
cation. The  nearest  approach  to  an  historical 
argument  is  the  following  (p.  10):  "In  the  first 
place,  nothing  proves  l)etter  the  fact  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  tradition  than  the  belief  itself  in  the 
tradition.  An  entire  nation  does  not  suddenly 
forget  its  religious  code,  its  principles,  its  laws,  the 
daily  ceremonies  of  its  worship,  to  such  a  point, 
that  it  could  easily  be  persuaded  that  a  new  doc- 
trine presented  by  some  impostors  is  the  true  and 
only  exjjlanation  of  its  law,  and  has  always  de- 
termined and  ruled  its  application.  Holy  Writ 
often  lepresents  the  Israelites  as  a  stiff-necked 
people,  impatient  of  the  religious  yoke,  and  would 
it  not  be  attributing  to  them  rather  an  excess  of 
docility,  a  too  great  condescension,  a  blind  obe- 
dience, to  suppose  that  they  suddenly  consented  to 
troublesome  and  rigorous  innovations  which  some 
persons  might  ha^■e  wished  to  impose  on  them 
tome  fine  morning?  Such  a  supposition  destroys 
itself,  and  we  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  the 
tradition  is  not  a  new  invention,  but  that  its  birth 
goes  back  to  the  origin  of  the  religion ;  and  that 
transmitted  from  father  to  son  as  the  word  of  God, 
it  lived  in  the  heart  of  the  people,  identified  itself 
with  the  blood,  and  was  always  considered  as  an 
inviolable  authority."  But  if  this  passage  is  care- 
fully examined,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  does  not 
supply  a  single  fact  worthy  of  being  regarded  as  a 
proof  of  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law.  Independent  testi- 
mony of  ^persons  contemporary  with  Moses  that  he 
had  transmitted  sucli  a  law  to  the  Israelites  would 
be  historical  evidence;  the  testimony  of  persons  in 
the  next  generation  as  to  the  existence  of  such  an 
Oral  Law  which  their  fathers  told  thenj  came  from 
Moses,  would  have  been  secondary  historical  evi- 
dence; but  the  belief  of  the  Israelites  on  the  point 
1,200  years  after  Moses,  cannot,  in  the  absence  of 
any  intermediate  testimony,  be  deemed  evidence  of 
an  historical  fact.     Moreover,  it  is  a  mistake  to 


a  See  p.  32  of  E':say  mi  the  Revenues  of  Ihe  Church 
of  England,  by  the  Rev.  Morgan  Cove,  Prebendary  of 
Hereford,  and  Rector  of  Eaton  Bishop.  578  pp.  Lon- 
:!jn,  Rivington,  1816.  Third  edition.  "  Thus  do  we 
return  again  to  the  original  ditiiculty  [the  origin  of 
titllfisj,  tr  the  solution  of  which  tlie  strength  of  human 


SADDUCEES 

assume,  that  they  who  deny  a  Mosaic  Oral  L*ir. 
imagine  that  this  Oral  Law  was  at  some  one  time, 
as  one  gfeat  system,  introduced  suddenly  amongst 
the  Israelites.  The  re.al  mode  of  conceiving  what 
occurred  is  far  different.  After  the  return  from 
the  Captivity,  there  existed  prol>al)ly  amongst  the 
Jews  a  large  body  of  customs  and  decisions  not 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch ;  and  these  had  prac- 
tical authority  over  the  people  long  before  they 
were  attributed  to  Moses.  The  only  phenomenon 
of  importance  requiring  explanation  is  not  the  ex- 
istence of  the  customs  sanctioned  liy  the  Oral  Law, 
Ijut  the  belief  accepted  by  a  certain  portion  of  tha 
Jews  that  Moses  had  divinely  revealed  those  cus- 
toms as  laws  to  the  Israelites.  I'o  explain  thia 
historically  from  written  records  is  impossible,  from 
the  silence  on  the  subject  of  the  very  scanty  his- 
torical Jewish  writings  purporting  to  be  written 
lietween  the  return  from  the  Captivity  in  5-38  before 
Christ  and  that  uncertain  period  when  the  canon 
was  closed,  which  at  the  earliest  could  not  have 
been  long  before  the  death  of  Antiothus  Epiphanes, 
B.  c.  164.  For  all  this  space  of  time,  a  period  of 
al)out  374  years,  a  period  as  long  as  from  the  acces- 
sion of  Henry  YII.  to  the  present  year  (18G2)  we 
have  no  Hebrew  account,  nor  in  fact  any  con- 
temporary account,  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  in 
Palestine,  except  what  may  be  contained  in  the 
short  works  entitled  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  And 
the  last  named  of  these  works  does  not  carry 
the  history  much  later  than  one  hundred  years 
after  the  return  from  the  Captivity:  so  that  there 
is  a  long  and  extremely  important  period  of  more 
than  two  centuries  and  a  half  before  tlie  heroic 
rising  of  the  iSIaccabees,  during  which  there  is  a 
total  absence  of  contemporary  Jewish  history.  In 
this  de.arth  of  historical  materials,  it  is  idle  to 
attempt  a  positive  narration  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  Oral  Law  became  assigned  to 
Closes  as  its  author.  It  is  amply  suthcient  if  a 
satisfactory  suggestion  is  made  as  to  how  it  might 
have  been  attributed  to  Moses,  a?id  in  this  there  is 
not  much  difficulty  for  any  one  who  bears  in  mind 
how  notoriously  in  ancient  times  laws  of  a  much 
later  date  were  attributed  to  Jlinos,  Lycurgus, 
Solon,  and  Numa.  The  unreasonableness  of  sup- 
posing that  the  belief  in  tlie  oral  traditions  being 
from  jMoses  must  have  coincided  in  [wint  of  time 
with  the  acceptance  of  the  oral  tradition,  may  Ije 
illustrated  by  what  occurred  in  England  during 
the  jiresent  century.  During  a  period  when  the 
fitness  of  maintaining  the  clergy  by  tithes  was 
contested,  the  theory  was  put  forth  that  the  origin 
of  tithes  was  to  be  assigned  to  "an  unrecorded 
revel.ation  made  to  Adam."  "  Now,  let  us  suppose 
that  England  was  a  country  as  small  as  Judaea; 
that  the  English  were  as  few  in  mnnber  as  the 
Jews  of  Judwa  must  have  been  in  the  time  of 
Nehemiah,  that  a  temple  in  London  was  the  centre 
of  the  English  religion,  and  that  the  population 
of  London  hardly  ever  reached  50,000.  [Jeru- 
salem, ii.  1320.]  Let  us  further  suppose  that 
printing  was  not  invented,  that  manuscripts  were 
dear,  and  that  few  of  the  population  could  read. 
Under  such  circumstances  it  is  not  impossible  that 


reason  is  unequal.  Nor  does  there  remain  any  othei 
method  of  solving  it,  but  by  assigning  the  origin  of 
the  custom,  and  the  peculiar  observance  of  it,  to  soma 
unrecorded  revelation  made  to  Adam,  and  by  him  ami 
his  -lescendants  delivered  down  to  posterity." 


SADDUCEES 

iie  agserti('n  of  an  unrecorded  revelation  made  to 
Adam,  might  have  been  gradually  accepted  by  a 
large  religious  party  in  England  as  a  divine  author- 
ity for  tithes.  If  this  belief  had  continued  in  the 
lanie  party  during  a  period  of  more  than  2,000 
years,  if  that  party  had  become  dominant  in  the 
English  Church,  if  for  the  first  250  years  every 
contemporary  record  of  English  history  became  lost 
to  mankind,  and  if  all  previous  English  writings 
merely  condemned  the  belief  by  their  silence,  so 
that  the  precise  date  of  the  origin  of  the  belief 
could  not  be  ascertained,  we  should  have  a  parallel 
to  the  way  in  which  a  belief  in  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law 
may  possibly  have  arisen.  Yet  it  would  have  been 
very  illogical  for  an  English  reasoner  in  the  j'ear 
4000  A.  D.  to  have  argued  from  the  burden  and 
annoyance  of  paying  tithes  to  the  correctness  of 
the  theory  that  the  institution  of  tithes  was  owing 
to  this  unrecorded  revelation  to  Adam.  It  is  not 
meant  l)y  this  illustration  to  suggest  that  reasons 
aa  specious  could  be  advanced  for  such  a  divine 
origin  of  tithes  as  even  for  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law. 
The  main  object  of  the  illustration  is  to  show  that 
the  existence  of  a  practice,  and  the  belief  as  to  the 
origin  of  a  practice,  are  two  wholly  distinct  points; 
and  that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  in  time 
between  the  introduction  of  a  practice,  and  the  in- 
troduction of  the  prevalent  belief  in  its  origin. 

Under  this  head  we  may  add  that  it  must  not  be 
assumed  that  the  Sadducees,  because  they  rejected 
a  Mosaic  Oral  Law,  rejected  likewise  all  traditions 
and  all  decisions  in  explanation  of  passages  in  the 
Pentateuch.  Although  they  protested  against  tiie 
assertion  that  such  points  had  been  divinely  settled 
by  Moses,  they  probably,  in' numerous  instances, 
followed  practically  the  same  traditions  as  the 
Pharisees.  This  will  e.^plain  why  in  the  Jlishna 
specific  points  of  difference  between  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  are  mentioned,  which  are  so  unim- 
portant; such,  e.  g.  as  whether  touching  the  Holy 
Scriptures  made  the  hands  technically  ''unclean," 
in  the  Levitical  sense,  and  whether  the  stream 
which  Hows  when  water  is  poured  from  a  clean 
vessel  into  an  unclean  one  is  itself  technically 
"clean"  or  "unclean"  {Ynda'uii,  iv.  6,  7).  If 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  had  diflfered  on  all 
matters  not  directly  contained  in  the  Pentateuch, 
it  would  scai'cely  have  been  necessary  to  partic- 
ularize points  of  difference  such  as  these,  which 
to  Christians  imbued  with  the  genuine  spirit  of 
Christ's  teaching  (Matt.  xv.  II;  Luke  xi.  37-40), 
must  appear  so  trifling,  as  almost  to  resemble  the 
products  of  a  diseased  imagination." 

II.  The  second  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the 
Sadducees,  the  denial  of  man's  resurrection  after 
death,  followed  in  their  conceptions  as  a  logical 
conclusion  from  their  denial  that  Moses  had  re- 
vealed to  the  Israelites  the  Oral  Law.  For  on  a 
point  so  nion>entous  as  a  second  life  beyond  the 
grave,  no  religious  party  among  the  Jews  would 
have  deemed  themselves  bound  to  accept  any  doc- 
trine as  an  article  of  faith,  unless  it  had  been 
jroclaimed  by  Moses,  their  great  legislator;  and  it 


a  Many  other  points  of  difference,  ritual  and  jurid- 
ical, are  uieutioued  in  the  Gemaras.  See  Graetz 
',iii.  514-518).  But  it  seems  unsafe  to  admit  the 
Semaras  as  an  authority  for  statements  respecting 
^e  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  See,  as  to  tlie  date  of 
those  works,  the  article  Ph.\risees. 

*  See  Ue  Senectvte,  xxiii.  This  tre:itise  was  coni- 
tOAOd   within    twn  years   before  Cicero's  death,  and 


SADDUCEES  2781 

IS  certain  tL»t  in  the  written  Law  jf  the  Penta- 
teuch there  is  a  total  absence  of  any  assertion  by 
Jloses  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  ab- 
sence of  this  doctrine,  so  far  as  it  involves  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  is  emphatically 
manifest  from  the  numerous  occasions  for  its  in- 
troduction in  the  Pentateuch,  among  the  promises 
and  threats,  tlie  blessings  and  curses,  with  which  a 
portion  of  that  great  work  abounds.  In  the  Law 
Moses  is  rejireseuted  as  promising  to  those  who  are 
obedient  to  the  commands  of  Jehovah  the  most 
alluring  temporal  rewards,  such  as  success  in  busi- 
ness, the  acquisition  *of  wealth,  fruitful  seasons, 
victory  over  their  enemies,  long  life,  and  freedom 
from  sickness  (Deut.  vii.  12-15,  xxviii.  1-12;  Ex. 
XX.  12,  xxiii.  25,  26);  and  he  likewise  menaces  the 
disol^edient  with  the  most  dreadful  evils  which  can 
afflict  humanity,  with  poverty,  fell  diseases,  dis- 
astrous and  disgraceful  defeats,  sulijugation,  dis- 
persion, oppression,  and  overpowering  anguish  of 
heart  (Deut.  xxviii.  15-68):  but  in  not  a  single 
instance  does  he  call  to  his  aid  the  consolations 
and  terrors  of  rewards  and  punishments  hereafter 
Moreover,  even  in  a  more  restricted  indefinite  sense, 
such  as  might  be  involved  in  the  transmigration 
of  souls,  or  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  a? 
believed  in  by  Plato,  and  apparently  by  Cicero.'- 
there  is  a  similar  alisence  of  any  assertion  by  Moses 
of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead.  This  fact  is  pre- 
sented to  Christians  in  a  striking  manner  by  the 
well-known  words  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are 
quoted  bj'  Christ  in  argmnent  with  the  Sadducees 
on  this  subject  (Ex.  iii.  6,  10;  JMark  xii  26,  27; 
Matt.  xxii.  .31,  32;  Luke  xx.  37).  It  caimot  be 
doubted  that  in  such  a  case  Christ  would  quote  to 
his  powerful  adversaries  the  most  cogent  text  in 
the  Law ;  and  yet  the  text  actUjilly  quoted  does  not 
do  more  than  suggest  an  inference  on  tiiis  sreat 
doctrine.  Indeed  it  must  be  deemed  prol)able  that 
the  Sadducees,  as  they  did  not  acknowledge  the 
divine  authority  of  Christ,  denied  even  the  logical 
validity  of  the  inference,  and  argued  that  the  ex- 
pression that  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Aliraham, 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  .lacob,  did  not 
necessarily  mean  more  than  that  .Teho\ah  had  been 
the  God  of  those  patriarchs  while  they  lived  on 
earth,  without  conveying  a  suggestion,  one  way  or 
another,  as  to  whether  the}'  were  or  were  not  still 
living  elsewhere.  It  is  true  that  in  other  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament  there  are  individual  passages 
which  express  a  belief  in  a  resurrection,  such  as  in 
Is.  xxvi.  10;  Dan.  xii.  2;  Job  xix.  26,  and  in  some 
of  the  Psalms ;  and  it  may  at  first  sight  be  a  sub 
ject  of  surprise  that  the  Sadducees  were  not  con- 
vinced by  the  authority  of  those  passages.  But 
although  the  Sadducees  regarded  the  books  which 
contained  these  passages  as  sacred,  it  is  more  than 
doubtful  whether  any  of  the  Jews  regarded  them 
as  sacred  in  precisely  the  same  sense  as  the  written 
Law.  There  is  a  danger  here  of  confounding  the 
ideas  which  are  now  common  amongst  Christians, 
who  regard  the  whole  ceremonial  law  as  alirogated, 
with   the  ideas  of  Jews    after  the   time  of  Ezra, 


although  a  dialogue,  may  perhaps  be  accepted  as  ex- 
pressing his  philosophical  opinions  respecting  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul.  He  had  held,  however,  very 
different  language  In  his  oration  pro  C/neitlin.  cap. 
Ixi.,  ill  a  passage  wliich  is  a  striking  proof  of  the 
popular  belief  at  Rome  in  his  time.  See  also  Sallust, 
Catilin.  li.  I  Juvenal,  ii.  149 ;  cad  Pliny  the  Elder, 
vii.  56. 


2782 


SADDUCEES 


(rhile  the  Temple  was  still  standing,  or  even  with 
the  ideas  of  orthodox  modern  Jews.  To  the  Jews 
Moses  was  and  is  a  colossal  Form,  preeminent  in 
authority  above  all  subsequent  prophets.  Not  only 
did  his  series  of  si^ns  and  wonders  in  Egypt  and 
at  the  Red  Sea  transcend  in  magnitude  and  brill- 
iancy those  of  any  other  holy  men  in  the  Old 
Testament,  not  only  was  he  the  centre  in  Mount 
Sinai  of  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Isiaelites,  but 
even  the  mode  by  which  divine  communications 
weie  made  to  him  from  Jehovah  was  peculiar  to 
him  alone.  While  others  were  addressed  in  visions 
or  in  dreams,  the  Supreme  Being  communicated 
with  him  alone  mouth  to  mouth  and  face  to  face 
(Num.  xii.  6,  7,  8;  Ex.  xxxiii.  11;  L)eut.  v.  4, 
xxxiv.  10-12).  Hence  scarcely  any  Jew  would 
have  deemed  himself  bound  to  l)elieve  in  man's  | 
resurrection,  unless  the  doctrine  had  been  pro- 
claimed by  Moses;  and  as  the  Sadducees  disbe- 
lieved the  transmission  of  any  oral  law  by  Moses, 
the  striking  absence  of  that  doctrine  from  the 
written  Law  freed  them  from  the  necessity  of  ac- 
cepting the  doctrine  as  divine.  It  is  not  meant  by 
this  to  deny  that  Jewish  believers  in  the  resurrec- 
tion had  their  faith  strengthened  and  confirmed  by 
allusions  to  a  resurrection  in  scattered  passages  of 
the  other  sacred  writings :  but  then  these  passages 
were  read  and  interpieted  by  means  of  the  central 
light  which  streamed  from  the  Oral  Law.  The 
Sadducees,  however,  not  making  use  of  that  light, 
would  have  deemed  all  such  passages  ineonchisive, 
»s  being,  indeed,  the  utterances  of  holy  men,  yet 
opposed  to  other  te.Kts  which  had  equal  claims  to 
be  proiiounceJ  sacred,  but  which  could  scarcely  be 
supposed  to  ha\e  Ijeen  written  by  men  who  believed 
in  a  resurrection  (Is.  xxxviii.  18,  10;  Vs.  vi.  5, 
XXX.  9,  Ixxxviii.  10,  11,  12;  Eccl.  ix.  4-10).  The 
real  truth  seems  to  be  that,  as  in  Christi.mity  the 
doctrii]e  of  the  re.siirrection  of  man  rests  on  belief 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  with  sul)sidiary  argu- 
ments drawn  from  texts  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
from  man's  instincts,  aspirations,  and  moral  nature; 
so,  admitting  fully  the  same  subsidiary  arguments, 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  among  Pharisees, 
and  the  successive  generations  of  orthodox  Jews, 
and  the  orthodox  .lews  now  living,  has  rested,  and 
rests,  on  a  belief  in  the  supposed  Oral  Law  of 
Moses.  On  tliis  point  the  statement  of  the  learned 
Grand-Rabbi  to  whom  allusion  has  been  already 
made  deserves  particular  attention.  "  What  causes 
most  surprise  in  perusing  the  Pentateuch  is  the 
silence  which  it  seems  to  keep  respecting  the  most 
fundamental  and  the  most  consoling  truths.  The 
doctrines  of  the  innnortality  of  the  soul,  and  of 
retribution  beyond  the  tomb,  are  able  powerfully  to 
fortify  man  against  the  violence  of  the  passions  and 
the  seductive  attractions  of  vice,  and  to  strengthen 
his  steps  in  the  rugged  path  of  virtue:  of  them- 
selves they  smooth  all  the  difficulties  which  are 
raised,  all  the  objections  which  are  made,  against 
the  government  of  a  Divine  Providence,  and  account 
for  the  good  fortune  of  the  wicked  and  the  bad 
fortime  of  the  just.  Rut  man  searches  in  vain  for 
these  truths,  which  he  desires  so  ardently;  he  in 
rain  devours  with  avidity  each  page  of  Holy  Writ; 
he  does  not  find  either  them,  or  the  simple  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  explicitly 
unnounced.  Nevertheless  truths  so  consoling  and 
of  such  an  elevated  order  cannot  have  been  passed 
»ver  in  silence,  and  ccrtaiidy  (iod  has  not  relied 
on  the  mere  sagacity  of  the  human  mind  in  order 
to  announce  them  only  implicitly,      //e  has  tnins- 


SADDUCEES 

mitted  ikem  verbally,  with  the  means  of  finding 
them  in  the  text.  A  supplementary  tradition  voat 
necessary,  indispens'ible  :  this  tradition  exists. 
Manes  received  the  Law  from  Sinai,  transmitted 
it  to  Joshua,  Joshua  to  the  elders,  the  elders  trans- 
mitted it  to  the  pirophets,  and  the  prophets  to  the 
men  of  the  yreat  synagogue  "  (Klein,  Le  Judaisme 
ou  la  Verite  sitr  le  Talmud,  p.  15). 

In  connection  with  the  disbelief  of  a  resurrection 
by  ^he  Sadducees,  it  is  proper  to  notice  the  state- 
ment (Acts  xxiii.8)  that  they  likewise  denied  there 
was  "angel  or  spirit."  A  perplexity  arises  as  to 
the  precise  sense  in  which  this  denial  is  to  be  un- 
derstood.  Angels  are  so  distinctly  mentioned  in 
the  Pentateuch  and  otlier  liooks  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  those  who 
acknowledged  the  Old  Testament  to  have  divine 
authority  could  deny  the  existence  of  angels  (see 
Gen.  xvi.  7,  xix.  1,  xsii.  11,  xxviii.  12;  Ex.  xxiii. 
20;  Num.  xxii.  23;  Judg.  xiii.  18:  2  Sam.  xxiv. 
It),  and  other  passages).  The  difficulty  is  increased 
by  the  fact  that  no  such  denial  of  angels  is  recorded 
of  the  Sadducees  either  by  Jose])hus,  or  in  the 
Mishna,  or.  it  is  said,  in  any  part  of  the  Talmudical 
writings.  The  two  principal  explanations  which 
have  been  suggested  are,  either  that  the  Sadducees 
regarded  the  angels  of  the  <_)ld  Testament  as  tran- 
sitory nnsulistantial  representations  of  Jehovah,  or 
that  they  disbelieved,  not  the  angels  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  merely  the  angelical  system  which 
had  become  developed  in  the  popular  belief  of  the 
Jews  after  their  return  from  the  Babylonian  Cap- 
tivity (Herzfeld,  Geschichte  des  Volk-es  Jisrael,  iii. 
3(54).  Itither  of  these  explanations  may  possibly 
be  correct;  and  the  first,  although  there  are  numer- 
ous texts  to  which  it  did  not  apply,  would  have 
received  some  countenance  from  passages  wherein 
the  same  divine  appearance  which  at  one  time  is 
called  the  "angel  of  Jehovah'"  is  afterwards  called 
simply  "Jehovah"  (see  the  instances  pointed  out 

by  Gesenius,  s.  v.  TlS/tt,  (ien.  xvi.  7,  13,  xxii. 
11,  12,  xxxi.  11,  16;  Vx.  iii.  2,  4;  Judg.  vi.  14, 
22,  xiii.  18,  22).  Perhaps,  however,  another  sug- 
gestion is  admissible.  It  appears  from  Acts  xxiii. 
9,  that  some  of  the  scribes  on  the  side  of  the 
Pharisees  suifgested  the  possibility  of  a  spirit  or 
an  angel  having  spoken  to  St.  Paul,  on  the  very 
occasion  when  it  is  asserted  that  the  Sadducees 
denied  the  existence  of  angel  or  spirit.  Now  the 
Sadducees  may  have  disbelieved  in  the  occurrence 
of  any  such  phenomena  in  their  own  time,  although 
they  accepted  all  the  statements  respecting  angels 
in  the  Old  Testament;  and  thus  the  key  to  the 
assertion  in  the  8th  verse  that  the  Sadducees  denied 
"  antrel  or  spirit "  would  lie  found  exclusively  in 
the  9th  \erse.  This  view  of  the  Sadducees  may  be 
illustrated  liy  the  present  state  of  opinion  among 
Christians,  the  great  majority  of  whom  do  not  in 
any  way  deny  the  existence  of  angels  as  recorded 
in  the  Bible,  and  yet  they  certainly  disbelieve  that 
angels  speak,  at  tlie  present  day,  even  to  the  most 
virtuous  and  pious  of  mankind. 

III.  The  opinions  of  the  Sadducees  respecting 
the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  the  way  in  which 
those  opinions  are  treated  by  Josephus  {Ant.  xiii. 
.5,  §  9),  have  been  noticed  elsewhere  [Ph.vhi.sees, 
iii.  2478],  and  an  explanation  has  been  there  sug- 
gested of  the  prominence  civen  to  a  difference  ir 
this  respect  between  the  Sndducees  and  the  Phari- 
sees. It  may  be  here  added  that  possibly  the  great 
stress  lai(i  by  the  Sadducees  on  the  freedom  of  tui 


i 


SADDUCEES 

iriU  may  have  had  some  connection  with  their 
forming  such  a  large  portion  of  that  class  from 
which  criminal  judges  were  selected.  Jewish  plii- 
losophers  in  their  study,  although  they  knew  that 
punishments  as  an  instrument  of  good  were  un- 
avoidable, might  indulge  in  reflections  that  man 
seemed  to  be  the  creature  of  circumstances,  and 
miiiht  regard  with  compassion  the  punishments 
inflicted  on  individuals  whom  a  wiser  moral  train- 
ing and  a  more  happily  balanced  nature  miuht  have 
made  useful  members  of  society.  Those  Jews  who 
were  almost  exclusively  religious  teachers  would 
naturally  insist  on  the  inability  of  man  to  do  an}- 
thing  good  if  God's  Holy  Spirit  were  taken  away 
from  him  (Ps.  li.  11,  12),  and  would  eidarge  on 
the  perils  which  surrounded  man  from  the  tempta- 
tions of  Satan  and  evil  angels  or  s[)irits  (1  C'hr. 
xxi.  1;  Tob.  iii.  17).  But  it  is  likely  that  the 
tendencies  of  the  judicial  class  would  lie  more  prac- 
tical and  direct,  and  more  strictly  in  accordance 
with  the  ideas  of  the  Levitical  prophet  I'^zekiel 
(xxxiii.  11-19)  in  a  well-knowm  passage  in  which  he 
gives  the  responsibility  of  bad  actions,  and  seems 
to  attribute  the  power  of  performing  good  actions, 
exclusively  to  the  individual  agent.  Hence  the 
Bentiment  of  the  lines  — 

"Our  acts  our  Angels  are,  or  good  or  ill, 
Our  fatal  shadows  that  walk  by  us  still," 

would  express  that  portion  of  truth  on  which  the 
Sadducees,  in  inflicting  punishments,  would  dwell 
with  most  emphasis:  and  as,  in  some  sense,  they 
disbelieved  in  angels,  these  lines  have  a  peculiar 
claim  to  lie  regarded  as  a  correct  exponent  of  Sad- 
ducean  thought."  And  yet  perhaps,  if  writings 
were  extant  in  which  the  Sadducees  explained  their 
own  ideas,  we  might  find  that  they  reconciled  these 
principles,  as  we  may  be  certain  that  Ezekiel  did, 
with  other  passages  apparently  of  a  ditterent  import 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  the  line  of  demar- 
cation between  them  and  the  Pharisees  was  not, 
in  theory,  so  very  sharply  marked  as  the  account 
of  Josephus  would  lead  us  to  suppose. 

IV.  Some  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  such 
aa  [Hippol.  Philosophum.  ix.  29,  and  the  spu- 
rious addition  to  TertuU.  De  PrcBscr.  Hcertt.  c. 
1  (or  45),]  Epiphaiuus  (Hieies.  xiv.),  Origen 
and  .lerome  (in  their  respective  Commentaries  on 
Matt.  xxii.  31,  32,  33)  attribute  to  tiie  Sadducees 
the  rejection  of  all  the  Sacred  Scriptures  except  the 
Pentateuch.  Such  rejection,  if  true,  would  un- 
doubtedly constitute  a  most  important  additional 
difterenee  lietween  the  Sadducees  and  Pharisees. 
I'he  statement  of  these  Christian  writers  is,  how- 
ever, now  generally  admitted  to  have  been  founded 
on  a  misconception  of  the  truth,  and  probal)ly  to 
have  arisen  from  a  confusion  of  the  Sadducees 
with  the  Samaritans.  See  Lightfoot's  f/ane  He- 
braiccB  on  Matt.  iii.  7;    Herzfeld's  Gesc/iichte  (hs 

]':)lkes  Jisrciel,  ii.  363.  Josephus  is  wholly  silent 
as  to  an  antagonism  on  this  point  between  the 
Sadducees  and  Pharisees;  and  it  is  absolutely  in- 
conceivable that  on  the  three  several  occasions  when 
he  introduces  an  account  of  the  opinions  of  the 
two  sects,  he  should  have  been  silent  respect- 
ing  such    ail   antagonism    if    it    had    really   ex- 

sted  (Ant.  xiii.  5,  §  9,  xviii.  1,  §  3;  B.  J.  ii.  8, 


SADDUCEES 


2783 


a  The  preceding  lines  would  be  equally  applicable, 
*f,  as  is  not  improbable,  the  Sadducees  likewise  re- 
lected  the  Chaldaeau  belief  in  astrology,  so  couimon 
jaong  the  Jews  and  Christians  of  the  Middle  Ages  :  — 


§  14).  Again,  the  existence  of  such  a  inomentoni 
antagonism  would  be  incompatilJe  with  the  man- 
ner in  which  Josephus  speaks  of  John  Hyrcanus, 
who  was  high-priest  and  king  of  Judtea  thirty-one 
years,  and  who  nevertheless,  having  been  previously 
a  Pharisee,  became  a  Sadducee  towards  the  close 
of  his  life.  This  Hyrcaims,  who  died  about  106 
H.  c,  had  been  so  inveterately  hostile  to  the  Sa- 
maritans, that  when  about  three  years  before  his 
death  he  took  their  city  Samaria,  he  razed  it  to 
the  ground ;  and  he  is  represented  to  have  dug 
caverns  in  various  parts  of  the  soil  in  order  to  sink 
the  surl'ace  to  a  level  or  slope,  and  then  to  have 
diverted  streams  of  water  o\er  it,  in  order  to  efface 
marks  of  such  a  city  having  ever  existed.  If  the 
Sadducees  had  come  so  near  to  the  Samaritans 
as  to  reject  the  divine  authority  of  all  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  except  the  Pentateuch,  it  is 
very  unlikely  that  Josephus,  after  mentioning  the 
death  of  Hyrcanus,  should  have  spoken  of  him 
as  he  does  in  the  following  manner:  "He  waa 
esteemed  by  God  worthy  of  three  of  the  greatest 
privileges,  the  government  of  the  nation,  the  dig- 
nity of  the  high-priesthood,  and  prophecy.  For 
God  was  with  him  and  enabled  him  to  know  fu- 
ture events."  Indeed,  it  may  lie  inferred  from 
this,  passage  that  Josephus  did  not  even  deem  it 
a  matter  of  vital  importance  whether  a  high-priest 
was  a  Sadducee  or  a  Pharisee  —  a  latitude  of  tolera- 
tion which  we  may  tie  confident  he  would  not  have 
indulged  in,  if  the  divine  authority  of  all  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  exce[it  the  Pentateuch,  had 
been  at  stake.  What  probably  had  moi-e  influence 
than  anything  else  in  occasioning  this  misconcep- 
tion respecting  the  Sadducees,  was  the  circumstance 
that  in  arguing  with  them  on  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life,  Christ  quoted  from  the  Pentateuch  only, 
although  there  are  stronger  texts  in  favor  of  the 
doctrine  in  some  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
But  probable  reasons  have  been  already  assigned 
why  Christ,  in  arguing  on  this  subject  with  the 
Sadducees,  referred  only  to  the  supposed  opinions 
of  Moses  rather  than  to  isolated  passages  extracted 
from  the  productions  of  any  other  sacred  writer. 

V.  In  conclusion,  it  may  lie  proper  to  notice  a 
fact,  which,  while  it  accounts  for  misconceptions  of 
early  Christian  writers  respecting  the  Sadducees,  is 
on  other  grounds  well  worthy  to  arrest  the  atten- 
tion. This  fact  is  the  rapid  disappearance  of  the 
Sadducees  from  history  after  the  first  century,  and 
the  sub.sequent  predominance  among  the  Jews  of 
the  opinions  of  the  Pharisees.  'l\vo  circumstances, 
indirectly,  but  powerfully,  contributed  to  produce 
this  result :  1st.  The  state  of  the  Jews  after  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus:  and  2dly.  The 
growth  of  the  Christian  religion.  As  to  the  first 
point  it  is  difficult  to  over-estimate  the  consterna- 
tion and  dismay  which  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
occasioned  in  the  minds  of  sincerely  religious  Jews. 
Their  holy  city  was  in  ruins;  their  holy  and  beau- 
tiful Temple,  the  centre  of  their  worship  and  their 
love,  had  lieen  ruthlessly  burnt  to  the  ground,  and 
not  one  stone  of  it  was  left  upon  another:  their 
magnificent  hopes  either  of  an  ideal  king  who  waa 
to  restore  the  empire  of  David,  or  of  a  Son  of  Mai 
who  was  to  appear  to  them  "n  the  clouds  of  heaven, 


"  Man  is  hie  own  Star  i  and  the  soul  that  can 
llenrier  an  honest  and  a  perfect  man. 
Commands  all  light,  all  influence,  all  fate  : 
Xothing  to  him  falls  early,  or  *.oo  hite." 
Fi.KTCUEB'8  Woes  ■'  i^pon  au  txf  "visi  ii'un's  Fortmm.' 


2784  SADDUCEES 

leemed  to  them  for  a  while  like  empty  dreams;  and 
the  whole  visible  norld  was,  to  their  imagination, 
black  with  desolation  and  despair.  In  this  their  hour 
of  darkness  and  anguish,  they  naturally  turned  to 
the  consolations  and  hopes  of  a  future  state,  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  Sadducees  that  there  was  nothing 
heyoiid  the  present  life  would  have  appeared  to 
them  cold,  heartless,  and  hateful.  Again,  while 
they  were  sunk  in  the  lowest  depths  of  depression, 
a  new  religion  which  they  despised  as  a  heresy  and 
a  superstition,  of  which  one  of  their  own  nation 
was  the  object,  and  another  the  unrivaled  mission- 
ary to  tlie  heathen,  was  gradually  making  its  way 
among  the  subjects  of  their  detested  conquerors, 
the  Koniaiis.  One  of  the  causes  of  its  success  was 
uudouljtedly  the  vivid  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  and  a  consequent  resurrection  of  ail  man- 
kind, which  was  accepted  by  its  heathen  converts 
with  a  passionate  eamestness,  of  which  those  who 
at  the  present  day  are  familiar  from  infancy  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  tne  dead  can 
form  only  a  faint  idea.  To  attem])t  to  check  the 
progress  of  this  new  religion  among  the  Jews  l)y  an 
appeal  to  the  temporary  rewards  and  punishments 
of  the  I'entateucii,  would  have  been  as  idle  as  an 
endeavor  to  check  an  explosive  power  by  ordinary 
mechanical  restraints.  Consciously,  therefore,  or 
unconsciously,  many  circumstances  combined  to 
induce  the  Jews,  who  were  not  I'harisees,  but  who 
resisted  the  new  heresy,  to  rally  round  the  stand- 
ard of  the  (;)ral  Law,  and  to  assert  that  their  holy 
legislator,  JNIoses,  had  transmitted  to  his  faitliful 
people  by  word  of  mouth,  although  not  in  writing, 
the  revelation  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
punishments.  A  great  Ijelief  was  thus  built  up  on 
a  great  fiction ;  early  teaching  and  custom  supi)lied 
the  place  of  evidence:  faith  in  an  imaginary  (act 
produce'd  results  as  .striking  as  could  have  flowed 
from  the  fact  itself;  and  tlie  doctrine  of  a  Jlosaic 
Oral  Law,  enshrining  convictions  and  hopes  deeply 
rooted  in  the  human  heart,  has  triumphed  for 
nearly  1800  years  in  the  ideas  of  the  .lewish  peo- 
ple. This  doctrine,  the  pledge  of  eternal  life  to 
them,  as  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  to  Christians,  is 
still  maintained  by  the  majority  of  our  .lewish  con- 
temporaries; and  it  will  probably  continue  to  be 
the  creed  of  millions  lotig  after  the  present  genera- 
tion of  mankind  has  passed  away  from  the  earth." 

E.  T. 

*  Literature. — It  should  be  noted,  perhaps, 
that  the  Jewish  sects  are  treated  of  in  the  lately 
discovered  Pliilosophumenn  or  Rtfuiatio  omnium 
Bceresium,  now  generally  ascribed  to  Hippolytus, 
lib.  ix.  cc.  18-30.  The  Sadducees  are  not  named 
byPhilo,  but  Grossmann,  De  Piiilos.  Sudducteorum, 
4  partt.  Lips.  1836-38,  4to,  has  collected  from  this 
Author  a  large  number  of  passages  which  he  sup- 
poses to  relate  to  them.  His  conjectures,  however, 
have  not  been   generally  adopted   by  scholars  (see 

a  In  Germany  and  elsewliere,  some  of  the  most 
learned  Jews  disbelieve  in  a  Mosaic  Oral  Law  ;  and 
Judaism  seems  ripe  to  enter  on  a  new  phase.  Based 
on  the  Old  Testament,  but  avoiding  ttie  mistakes  of 
the  Karaites,  it  might  still  have  a  great  future;  but 
whether  it  could  last  another  1800  years  with  the  be- 
jef  in  a  future  life,  as  a  revealed  doctrine,  depending 
Dot  on  a  supposed  revelation  by  Moses,  but  solely  on 
scattered   texts,  in  the   Hebrew  Scriptures,  is   an   in- 

«re8tiug  subject  for  speculation. 
h  The    primary   meaning   of    li7^^p,  according  to 

Jesemus  and  Dietrich,  is  "  pure  ;  "  according  to  Fiirst 


SAINTS 

Winer,  Bihl.  Eeiilworterb.  and  Eeuss  in  HerWig' 
Real-Kncykl.,  art.  Sac/ducaer).  The  tncie  recent 
writers  respecting  the  Sadducees  are  mentioned 
under  the  art.  Pharisees,  vol.  iii.  p.  2479. 
Among  these,  Keim,  Derenbourg  and  Hansratb 
may  be  specially  referred  to  for  a  view  of  the  latest 
researches  and  opinions.  See  also  Fiirst' s  Ge 
schichte  des  Karderthums,  2  vols.  Lei^z.  1862-65, 
and  J.  R.  llanne,  Die  Pharisder  u.  Sadducuer 
als  polit.  Piirteien,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.  f.  iciss. 
TheoL,  1867,  x.  131-179,^  239-263.  A. 

SA'DOC  (Sndoch).  1.  Zadok  the  ancestor 
of  Ezra  (2  Esdr.  i.  1;  comp.  Ezr.  vii.  2). 

2.  (2a5ttiK:  Sadoc.)  A  descendant  of  Zerub- 
babel  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ  (Matt.  i.  14). 

SAFFRON  (C3~l3,  carcdm:  Kp6>cos-  crocus) 
is  mentioned  only  in  Cant.  iv.  14  with  other  odorous 
substances,  such  as  spikenard,  calamus,  cinnamon, 
etc.;  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  "saf- 
fron "  is  tlie  correct  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  word; 
the  Araliic  Kitrkum  is  similar  to  the  Hebrew,  and 
denotes  the  Crocus  scdivus,  or  "saffron  crocus." 
Safiiim  lias  from  the  earliest  times  been  in  high 
esteem  as  a  perfume:  "it  is  used,"  says  Piosen- 
miiller  (Bi/j.  Bot.  p.  138),  "for  the  same  puqjoses 
as  the  modern  pot-pourri."  Saffron  was  also  used 
in  seasoning  dishes  (Apicius,  p.  270):  it  entered 
into  tlie  comiiosition  of  many  spirituous  extracts 
which  retained  the  scent  (see  Beckmann's  //is/,  of 
Inrent.  i.  175,  where  the  whole  subject  is  very  fully 
discussed).  The  part  of  the  plant  which  was  used 
was  the  stigma,  which  was  pulled  out  of  the  flower 
and  then  dried.  Dr.  Koyle  says,  that  "  sometimes 
the  stigmas  are  prepared  by  being  submitted  to 
pressure,  and  thus  made  into  cake  saffron,  a  form 
ill  which  it  is  still  imported  from  Persia  into  In- 
dia." Hnsselquist  {Trav.  p.  36)  states  that  in 
certain  places,  as  around  iNIagnesia,  large  quanti- 
ties of  saffron  are  gathered  and  exported  to  different 
places  in  Asia  and  Europe.  Kitto  {Plnjs.  /list,  of 
Pidest.  p.  321)  says  that  the  s.afflower  (Cartkumus 
tinctorius),  a  \'ery  different  plant  from  the  crocus, 
is  cultivated  in  Syria  for  the  sake  of  the  flowers 
which  are  used  in  dyeing,  but  the  Knrkom  no  doubt 
denotes  the  Crocus  sfitivus.  The  word  saffron  is 
derived  from  the  Arabic  Zrfran,  "  yellow."  This 
plant  gives  its  name  to  Saffion-Walden,  in  Essex, 
where  it  is  largely  cultivated.  It  belongs  to  the 
Natural  Order  Iridacem.  W.  H. 

*  SAINTS  (derived,  through  the  French,  from 
the  Latin   sanctus)  occurs   in    the  O.   T.  sixteen 

times  as  the  translation  of  ©"np  or  its  cognates, 

and  nineteen  times  as  the  translation  of  I^Cn, 
wliich  Hebrew  words  are  with  a  few  exceptions  rep- 
resented in  the  LXX.  by  ayios  and  ocios  respect- 
ively.*    In    some  instances  when    applied  to  men 


"  pure,"  "  fresh ;  "  according  to  Meier  (Hebr.  Wur- 
zeliv.,   p.    395)   "  separated."     Hupfeld    ascribes    to 

T^Dn  ( Comm.  on  Ps.  iv.  4)  a  passive  force,  '<  fa,- 
vored."  'A-ytos  (from  a^ia,  a^ofiaL,  venerate,  akin  to 
aya/xai.  Buttmann's  Lfxilogiis,  i.  236  ;  F.  trans,  p  471 
seems  by  derivation  to  signify  "  very  pur*-,"  then 
"  holy."  The  derivation  of  ocrios,  "  hallowed."'  is  les« 
certain  (see  Benfey,  Griech.  Wiirzrilex.  i.  434  f.) 
'0(no5,  common  in  the  classics,  in  Biblii-al  Greek  t^ 
cedes  from  use.  As  a  personal  epithet  it  is  applied  t« 
Christians  but  once  in  the  NT.,  and  then  in  describ 
iug  the  official  character  of  a  bishop  (Tit.  i   8).     'A7401 


SAINTS 

.  describes  their  inherent  personal  character  (Ps. 
ux.  4,  xxxi.  23,  xxxiv.  9,  xxxvii.  28,  etc.).  But 
.11  the  majority  of  cases  it  seems  to  be  used  in  a 
theocratic  rather  than  a  moral  sense:  so  that,  while 
having  ol'ten  a  secondary  reference,  more  or  less 
marked,  to  holiness  as  the  prescribed  and  appropri- 
ate character  of  those  who  bear  it,  it  is  applied  in- 
discriminately (especially  in  the  later  books)  to  the 
Israelites,  as  a  nation  consecrated  to  God  (Ps.  1.  5, 
cxxxii.  9;  Dan.  vii.  18,  21,  22,  25,  27;  cf.  viii.  24, 
sii.  7;  Exod.  xix.  6;  Num.  xvi.  3;  1  Esdr.  viii. 
70). 

In  the  N.  T.,  where  it  is  found  61  times,  it  uni- 
formly corresponds  to  the  Greek  ayios,  and  in  its 
application  to  Christians  it  is  not  used  to  designate 
tliem  distinctively  as  respects  either  their  nation- 
ality or  their  locality,  nor  does  it  denote  outward 
separation,  nor  does  it  refer  —  at  least  primarily  — 
to  their  moral  characteristics,  whether  they  be 
viewed  as  pardoned  sinners,  or  as  the  possessors  of 
an  imputed  holiness,  or  of  some  degree  of  actual 
holiness,  or  as  predestined  to  perfect  holiness,  or  as 
constitutinijc  a  community  the  greater  or  more  im- 
portant numl)er  of  whom  are  holy;  but  it  is  an 
appellation  of  all  Christians  as  Christians.  On  be- 
coming Christians  they  become  also  "saints"  (cf. 
the  use  of  the  singular  in  Phil.  iv.  21).  Yet  as 
in  the  0.  T.  the  inherent  sense  of  the  word  often 
gleams  through  the  theocratic,  so  in  the  N.  T., 
agreeably  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  the  tiieocratic  sense  is  regarded  as  "ful- 
filled ''  in  the  spiritual,  the  consecration  is  viewed 
more  as  internal  and  personal,  the  ayioi  are  also 
truly  Tjyiaa/xevoi  (cf.  1  Cor.  i.  2;  Eph.  i.  1,  4;  1 
Pet.  ii.  9.)  (Note  the  fluctuation  in  the  meaning 
of  aytd(^oi3  in  .fohn  xvii.  17,  19;  and  see  Heb.  ii. 
11.)  This  sense,  however,  is  one  which  does  not  so 
much  lie  in  tlie  word  itself,  as  result  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  "  people  of  God,"  which  "  the  saints  " 
constitute;  accordingly  it  comes  to  view  with  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  distinctness  in  diiTerent  passages. 
The  value  of  the  term  for  moral  uses  is  greatly 
augmented  by  this  very  flexit)ility  and  possible  com- 
prehensiveness of  signification. 

The  term  is  aljo  applied  in  the  0.  T.  several 
times  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2;  .lob  v.  1,  xv.  15;  Ps. 
Ixxxix.  5,  7:  Zech.  xiv.  5)  to  the  angels  as  preemi- 
nently "  holy  " ;  and  in  one  obscure  passage,  Hos. 
xi.  12  (xii.  1,  LXX.  yahs  ayios),  to  God  himself 
i/jhir.  mnjesl.  cf.  .losh.  xxiv.  19 ;  Prov.  ix.  10,  xxx. 
3.)  In  the  N.  T.,  also,  it  is  thought  by  many 
expositors  to  be  used  of  holy  anyels  in  1  Thess.  iii. 
13  (so  .lude,  ver.  14);  in  Rev.  xv.  3  the  reading 
"saints"  is  unsustained  by  the  MSS. 

Although,  the  term  is  usecl  in  some  passages 
which  refer  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  to  the  con- 
summation of  the  ]Messiah's  kingdom  in  the  world 
to  come  (Eph.  i.  18;  Col.  i.  12;  cf.  Acts  xx.  32, 


on  the  other  hand,  thouj;h  found  as  early  as  Ilerod., 
's  rare  iu  profane  Greek,  but  very  common  in  the 
Bible  —  selected  by  the  sacred  writers  apparently  be- 
.au.se  it  presents   holiness  under   the  aspect   of  awe 

l.owards  a  person.  Its  correlate  (ti7"Tp)  first  occurs 
)u  occasion  of  the  appearance  of  God  to  Moses  (Ex. 
ii.  5).  See  G.  v.  Zfzschwitz,  Profnnsrucitat,  etc.,  p. 
l6  I.  ;  Tittmaun,  rie  Si/n.  in  Nov.  Test.  i.  22  f.  :  Ore 
aier.  Bibl.-tkeol.  WOrterb.  (hr  N.  T.  Gracitat,  pp.  27  f , 
,19  f.  ;  Trench,  Syn.  of  N.  T.,  §  Ixxxviii.  p.  312  ff., 
»t.  ii.  E    182  ff.  (Amer  ed.). 

o  The  unrestricted  application  of  the  term  seems  to 


SAINTS  2785 

xxvi.  18),  yet  it  is  nowhere  used  to  designate  th» 
people  of  God  in  heaven,  as  distinguished  from 
those  on  earth.  Nor  is  it  ever  restricted  to  the 
eminently  pious  in  distinction  from  the  mass  of 
believers. « 

In  the  saints  Christ  will  be  glorified  at  his  com- 
ing (2  Thess.  i.  10),  :(nd  they  will  be  in  some  sense 
participants  in  the  judgment  (1  Cor.  vi.  2,  3;  cf. 
Matt.  xix.  28;  Luke  xxii.  30).  Nowhere  in  the 
Scriptures  are  they  represented  as  objects  of  wor- 
ship, nor  is  their  agency  invoked. 

The  resurrection  of  saints,  mentioned  Matt, 
xxvii.  52,  53,  has  raised  many  questions,  very  few 
of  which  can  be  answered  confidently.  That  the 
saints  spoken  of  were  brought  to  life  from  the  dead, 
and  tiiat  they  went  into  Jerusalem  after  Christ's 
resurrection  and  were  seen  by  many,  the  language 
leaves  no  doubt.  That  their  tombs  were  in  the 
vicinity  of  Calvary  and  were  opened  contempora- 
neously with  the  earthquake,  appears  to  be  implied 
(cf.  vftf  64 ).  That  they  were  not,  or  a't  least  were  not 
solely,  departed  disciples  of  Christ  seems  probable; 
for  as  yet  "many"  of  them,  could  hardly  have 
dieit  b'urther,  the  term  "saints"  applied  thus  in 
3  Chnstian  document  to  deceased  .lews  who  at  the 
same  time  are  spoken  of  as  KeKOifii^fx^veov,''  still 
more  the  congruities  of  the  case,  make  it  probable 
that  the  word  has  here  a  distinctive  force  and  de- 
notes Jewish  worthies  (cf.  1  Pet.  iii.  5).  The 
arrangement  of  the  words  favors  the  intei-pretation 
that  "  they  came  forth  from  their  sepulchres  after 
the  Lord's  resurrection;"  accordingly  T/7ep0r;trov 
has  been  regarded  by  some  expositors  as  antici- 
patory, by  others  more  naturally  as  signitying 
merely  "raised  to  HJ'e,"  and  so  distinguishing  the 
vivification  from  the  quitting  the  tonjbs.  The 
majority,  however,  have  considered  the  reanimation 
and  the  resurrection  as  simultaneous:  some  hold- 
ing that  both  took  place  at  Christ's  death,  and 
that  the  risen  saints  first  "  came  into  the  holy  city 
after  his  resurrection;"  while  others,  and  by  far 
the  greater  luniiber,  have  preferred  to  make  the 
assumption  that  both  were  postponed  until  after 
Christ  had  risen.  Possil)ly  we  may  find  in  crcOjUaTo 
support  for  the  supposition  that  they  had  died 
recently  (and  so  were  recognized  by  those  to  whom 
they  appeared).  Certainly  there  is  nothing  either 
in  the  use  of  this  word  or  of  it/e<paviffQr)(Tai>,''  nor 
in  the  context  of  historic  realities  in  which  the 
incident  lies  imbedded,  to  favor  the  tiieory  that 
their  appearance  was  by  dream  or  vision,  and  con- 
fined to  the  mind  of  the  "  many  "  who  saw  them. 
These  last  we  may,  in  accordance  with  Acts  x.  41, 
plausibly  infer  to  have  been  followers  of  Jesus  or  in 
sympatliy  with  him.  ^Vhether  the  risen  saints 
were  clothed  with  immortal  bodies  and  ascended 
with  their  Lord  (as  the  commentators  have  lieen 
commonly  pleased  to  assume),  or  rose  to  die  again; 


h.ive  continued  down  to  the  times  of  Irenaiua  and 
Tertulliau  (Herzog,  Keal-Encyk.  v.  670)  The  clause 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed  relative  to  "  the  communion  of 
.saints  "  is  not  found  in  the  more  ancient  forms  of  that 
Confession. 

b  This  word,  while  it  does  not  seem  to  warrant  any 
doctrinal  inferences  respecting  the  nature  of  the  inter- 
mediate st<ate,  does  appear  to  be  used  in  the  New  Test 
specifically  of  the  righteous  dead. 

<^  'Efii^ai'i'^w  would  be  appropriately  u.scd,  indeed, 
of  a  spectral  appear.ance  (cf.  AVisd.  of  Sol.  xvii.  4), 
but  may  designate  no  less  appropriately  an  appeaiano* 
in  the  body.     See  John  xiv  22. 


2786 


SALA 


whether  tliey  were  the  only  ones  among  the  de- 
parted whose  condition  was  aflected  immediately 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  or  were  but  specimens  of 
an  effect  experienced  by  all  the  righteous,  or  the 
ante-Christian,  dead "  —  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing. 

But  however  perplexing  our  ignorance  may  be 
respecting  details,  the  substantial  facts  stated  above 
must  be  accepted  by  all  who  accept  the  inspired 
record.  To  discard  that  record  as  an  interpolation, 
as  a  few  critics  have  done,  is  a  procedure  in  direct 
violation  of  all  diplomatic  evidence  in  the  case,  cor- 
roborated as  that  evidence  is  by  one  or  two  inteuial 
characteristics  (particularly  t?V  ayiav  ttoMv ,  cf. 
iv.  5).  Nur  is  fliere  any  pretext  for  regarding  it  as 
a  mythical  ainphfication  of  the  flict  that  graves  were 
opened  by  the  earthquake.  Matthew,  to  be  sure, 
is  the  only  evangelist  who  mentions  the  incident; 
but  Mark  and  Luke  concur  with  him  in  stating 
that  the  vail  of  the  Temple  was  rent.  Why,  then, 
should  we  not  here  as  in  other  cases  consider  par- 
ticulars not  manifestly  false,  rather  as  confirmed  by 
the  concurrence  of  the  other  testimonies  in  refer- 
ence to  a.  part  of  the  story,  than  as  discredited  by 
their  silence  respecting  tlie  reimdnder  ?  And  why 
should  the  existence  of  apocr3phal  appendages* 
bring  suspicion  upon  this  any  more  than  upon 
other  portions  of  tiie  sacred  narrative  upon  which 
such  excrescences  were  formed  ?  Nor  can  the  hy- 
pothesis of  Strauss  lay  claim  to  plausibility.  He 
conceives  that  the  story  was  fabricated  to  answer  a 
twofold  JMessianic  expectation  of  the  times  which 
had  not  been  fulfilled  by  Jesus  during  his  ministry, 
namely,  that  the  Messiah  would  effect  a  yenernL 
resurrection  of  the  pious  dead,  and  that,  too,  a  res- 
urrection to  immuiidl  life.  Yet  the  nai-rative  is 
made  to  meet  the  first  requirement  only  l)y  exag- 
gerating improbably  the  nmuerical  force  of  ttoAAo; 
and  concerning  a  resurrection  to  iiiunort'd  hfe  it 
gives,  as  has  been  already  intimated,  no  hint.  Ob- 
viously the  incident  ought  not  to  be  coiitemplated 
as  an  isolated  fact,  but  as  one  of  the  accompani- 
ments of  tlie  crowning  event  in  the  history  of  a 
being  whose  entire  earthly  career  was  attended  by 
miracles.  Viewed  thus,  its  blended  strangeness 
and  appropriateness,  its  "  probability  of  improba- 
bility," affords  a  presumption  of  its  truth. 

For  a  list  of  the  treatises  which  the  passage  has 
called  forth,  the  reader  may  see  Hase's  Leben  Jemi, 
1865,  §  119  (5th  ed.).  An  idea  of  the  speculations 
in  which  writers  have  indulged  here  may  be  gath- 
ered from  Calmefs  dissertation,  translated  in  the 
Journal  of  Sacred  Lit.  for  Jan.  1818,  pp.  112-125. 

J.  H.  T. 

SA'LA  (5aAa:  Sale).  Salah,  or  Shelah, 
the  father  of  Eber  (Luke  iii.  35). 

SA'LAH  (n^^P  [a  missile,  weapon;  also 
yn-oui]  :  2aAa:  Sale).     The  son  of  Arphaxad  and 


o  There  is  no  propriety  in  associating,  as  many 
lommentators  do,  this  incident  in  Matt,  with  the  stjite- 
ment  relative  to  "  the  spirits  in  prison  "  (1  Pet.  iii.  19). 
Although  Peter's  language  i.s  generally  reudered  in  the 
versions  and  coniuieufaries,  "  who  were  sometime  dis- 
obedient," and  so  Christ's  preaching  represented  as 
•laving  taken  pla/'e  after  his  death,  yet  such  a  trans- 
ition is  given  in  disregard  of  the  fact  that  aTreiSyjo-ao-i, 
^freeing  as  it  does  with  a  noun  which  has  the  article 
yet  itself  wanting  it,  is  properly  a  predicative,  not  an 
►ttributive,  participle.     Says  Donaldson  ( tirefi-  Gram. 


SALAMIS 

father  of  Eber  (Gen.  x.  24,  xi.  12  14;  Ltike  iij.  36V 
The  name  is  significant  of  extension,  the  cognau 
verb  being  applied  to  the  spreading  out  of  the 
roots  and  branches  of  trees  (Jer.  xvii.  8;  Ez.  xvii. 
6).  It  thus  seems  to  imply  the  historical  fact  of 
the  gradual  extension  of  a  branch  of  the  Semitic 
race  from  its  original  seat  in  Kortbern  Assyria 
towards  the  river  Euphrates.  A  place  with  a 
similar  name  in  Northern  Jlesopotaniia  is  noticed 
by  Syrian  writers  (Knobel,  in  Gen.  xi.);  but  we 
can  hardly  assume  its  identity  with  the  Salah  of 
the  Bible.  Ewald  (Gesclt.  i.  ;J54)  and  Von  Bohlen 
(Jiitrod.  to  Gen.  ii.  205)  regard  the  name  as  i)ureiv 
fictitious,  the  former  explaining  it  as  a  son  or  ojf- 
spriny,  the  latter  as  the  father  of  a  race.  That 
the  name  is  significant  does  not  prove  it  fictitious, 
and  the  conclusions  drawn  by  these  writers  are 
un\varraniod.  [The  proper  form  of  this  nanie  is 
SnELAK,  which  see.  —  A.]  W.  L.  B. 

SAL'AMIS  (2aAa(i(s  [prob.  fr.  otAx,  sea,  as 
being  near  the  shore] :  Salainis),  a  city  at  the 
east  end  of  the  island  of  Cyprus,  and  the  first  place 
visited  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  on  the  first  mission- 
ary journey,  after  leaving  the  mainland  at  Seleucia. 
Two  reasons  why  they  took  this  coiu-se  obviously 
suggest  themsel\es,  namely,  the  fact  that  Cyprus 
(and  probably  Salamis)  was  the  native  place  of 
Barnabas,  and  the  geographical  proximity  of  tliis 
end  of  the  island  to  Antioch.  But  a  further  reason 
is  indicated  by  a  circmustauce  in  the  narrative 
(Acts  xiii.  5).  Here  alone,  among  all  the  dreek 
cities  visited  by  St.  I'aul,  we  read  expressly  of  ••  s.vn- 
agogues  "  in  the  plural.  Hence  we  conclude  that 
there  were  many  Jews  in  Cyprus.  And  this  is  in 
harmony  with  what  we  read  elsewhere.  To  say 
nothing  of  possible  mercantile  relations  in  very 
early  times  [Chittim;  Cyi'UUs],  Jewish  residents 
in  the  island  are  mentioned  during  the  period 
when  the  Seleucidai  reigned  at  Antioch  (]  JIacc. 
XV.  23).  In  the  reign  of  Augustus  the  Cyprian 
copper-mines  were  farmed  to  Herod  the  Great 
(.loseph.  Ant.  xvi.  4,  §  5),  and  this  would  proba- 
ably  attract  many  Hebrew  families:  to  which  we 
may  add  evidence  to  the  sanje  effect  from  Bhilo 
{Legal,  ad  Caiuin)  at  the  very  time  of  St.  Paul's 
journey.  And  again  at  a  later  period,  in  the 
reigns  of  Trajan  and  Hadrian,  we  are  informed  of 
dreadful  tunmlts  here,  caused  by  a  vast  multitude 
of  .lews,  in  the  course  of  wliich  "  the  whole  popu- 
lous city  of  Salamis  became  a  desert "  (Mihnan's 
Hist,  of  the  Jews,  iii.  Ill,  112).  We  may  well 
believe  that  from  the  Jews  of  Salamis  came  some 
of  those  early  Cyi)riote  Christians,  who  are  so 
prominently  mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  first 
spreading  of  the  Gospel  l)€yond  Palestine  (Acts 
xi.  19,  20),  even  before  the  first  missionary  expe- 
dition. Mnason  (xxi.  16)  might  be  one  of  them. 
Nor  ought  Mark  to  be  forgotten  here.  He  was  at 
Salamis  with  Paul,  and  his  own  kinsman  Barnabas; 
and  asain  he  was  there  with  the  same  kinsman  after 


3d  ed.,  p.  532) :  "  The  participle  ivilhout  the  article 
can  never  be  rightly  rendered  by  the  relative  sentence 
with  a  definite  anteredeut,  which  is  equivalent  to  the 
participle  iviih  an  article  "  (cf.  The  Neiv  Cratytiis,  § 
304  f.).  Green  in  his  A'.  T.  Grammar  (p.  54,  ed.  1862; 
renders  the  pas.sage,  "  He  went  and  preached  to  the 
imprisoned  spirits  on  their  being  ouce  on  a  time  dis- 
obedient, when,"  etc. 

b  On  this  point  see  Eraiig.  Nico'i.  (2d  Part)  c.  17  f. 
Thilo,  Cod.  ApocT.  N.  T ,  pp.  7S0  f.,  810  f. ;  Tiwsh 
Evang  Apocr.  p  301  f. 


SALASADAI 

,he  mismiderstanding  with  St.  Paul  and  the  separa- 
Jon«(xv.  39). 

Salamis  was  not  far  from  the  modern  Fnmn- 
goicsla.  It  was  situated  near  a  river  called  the 
Pediaeus,  on  low  ground,  which  is  in  fact  a  contin- 
uation of  the  plain  running  up  into  the  interior 
toward  the  place  where  Nicosia,  the  present  capi- 
tal of  Cyprus,  stands.  We  must  notice  in  regard 
to  Salamis  that  its  harbor  is  spoken  of  by  Greek 
writers  as  very  good ;  and  that  one  of  the  ancient 
tables  lays  down  a  road  between  this  city  and 
Papjios,  the  next  place  which  Paul  and  Barnabas 
visited  on  their  journey.  Salamis  again  has  rather 
an  eminent  position  in  subsequent  Christian  his- 
tory. Constantine  or  his  successor  rebuilt  it,  and 
Dalled  it  Constantia  ("  Salamis,  quaj  nunc  Con- 
stantia  dicitur,"  Hieronym.  P/i/Vem.),  and,  while  it 
had  this  name,  Epiphanius  was  one  of  its  bishops. 

Of  the  travellers  who  have  visited  and  described 
Salamis,  we  must  particularly  mention  Pococke 
(Dtsc.  of  the  East,  ii.  214)  and  Ross  (Jieisen  nacli 
Kos,  Hidibirwissiis,  Rhoilos,  uml  Cypcrn,  pp.  118- 
12.5).  These  travellers  notice,  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Salamis,  a  village  named  St.  Seryius,  which  is 
doubtless  a  reminiscence  of  Sergius  Paulus,  and  a 
large  Byzantine  church  bearing  the  name  of  iS^ 
Barnabas,  and  associated  with  a  legend  concerning 
the  discovery  of  his  relics.  The  legend  will  be 
found  in  Cedrenus  (i.  (US,  ed.  Bonn).  [Barna- 
bas; Sergius  Pal"lus.]  J.  S.  H. 

SALAS'ADAI  [4  syl.]  ([Ales.]  laXaaaSaf. 
[Vat.  Rom.]  -2,apaaaSa'i;  [Sin.  SapicraSai,  MS. 
19]  ^ovpirraSe),  a  variation  for  Snrisadd  (Soupicr- 
a5ai,  Num.  i.  6)  in  Jud.  viii.  1.   [Zurishaduai.] 

B.  F.  W. 

SALA'THIEL  (bs\*nbstp,  [bSNI^tt.^:] 
laXadiiiX-  Salathiel:  "  I  have  asked  God  "  ").  son 
of  Jechonias  king  of  Judah,  and  father  of  Zorol)a- 
bel,  according  to  Matt.  i.  12;  but  son  of  Neri,  and 
father  of  Zorobabel,  according  to  Luke  iii.  27 ; 
while  the  genealogy  in  1  Chr.  iii.  17-19,  leaves  it 
doubtful  whether  he  is  the  son  of  Assir  or  Jecho- 
nias, and  makes  Zorobabel  his  nephew.  (Zerur- 
i5.\iiEL.]  Upon  the  incontrovertiljle  principle  that 
no  genealogy  would  assign  to  tlie  true  son  and  heir 
of  a  king  any  inferior  and  private  parentage,  whereas, 
on  the  contrary,  the  son  of  a  private  person  would 
naturally  be  placed  in  the  royal  pedigree  on  his  lie- 
coming  the  rightful  heir  to  the  throne;  we  may 
assert,  with  the  utmost  confidence,  that  St.  Luke 
gives  us  the  true  state  of  the  case,  wlien  he  informs 
us  that  Salathiel  was  the  son  of  Xeri,  and  a  de- 
scendant of  Nathan  the  son  of  David.*  And  from 
his  insertion  in  the  royal  pedigree,  both  in  1  Chr. 
and  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  after  the  childless  Jecho- 

a  Possibly  with  an  allusion  to  1  Sam.  i.  20,  27,  28. 
See  Broughton's  Our  Lord's  Family. 

b  It  is  worth  uotint;  that  Jospphus  speaks  of  Zoro- 
babel as  "  the  son  of  Salathiel,  of  the  posterity  of  Da- 
vid, and  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  "  (A.  J.  xi.  3,  §  10). 
Had  he  believed  him  to  be  the  son  of  Jeconiah,  of 
whom  he  had  spoken  (x.  11,  §  2),  he  could  hardly 
have  failed  to  say  so.     Comp.  x.  7,  §  1. 

c  "Of  Jechonias  God  sware  that  he  should  die  leav- 
ing no  child  behind  him  ;  wherefore  it  were  fJat  athe- 
sm  to  prate  that  he  naturally  became  tather  to  Sala- 
jhiel.  Though  St.  Luke  had  never  left  us  Salatliiel's 
familj'  up  to  Nathan,  whole  brother  to  Solomon,  to 
Ihow  that  Salathiel  was  of  another  family,  God's  oath 
hould  make  us  believe  that,  without  any  further  rec- 
ai"  (Broughton,  ut  supra). 


SALCAH  2787 

nias,"  we  infer,  with  no  less  confidiince,  that,  on  the 
failure  of  Solomon's  line,  he  was  the  next  heir  to 
the  throne  of  David.  The  appearance  of  Salathiel 
in  the  two  pedigrees,  though  one  deduces  the 
descent  from  Solomon  and  the  other  from  Nathan, 
is  thus  perfectly  simple,  and,  indeed,  necessary; 
whereas  the  notion  of  Salathiel  being  called  Neri's 
son,  as  Yardley  and  others  have  thought,  because 
he  married  Neri's  daughter,  is  palpably  absurd  o.'i 
the  supposition  of  his  being  the  son  of  Jechonias. 
On  this  last  principle,  you  micjlit  have  not  two 
but  about  a  million  different  pedigrees  between  Je- 
chonias and  Christ:''  and  yet  you  have  no  ra- 
tional account,  why  there  should  actually  be  njore 
than  one.  It  may  therefore  be  considered  as  cer- 
tain, that  Salathiel  was  the  son  of  Neri,  and  the 
heir  of  Jechoniah.  The  question  whether  he  was 
tlie  father  of  Zerubbabel  will  be  considered  under 
that  article.''  Besides  the  passages  already  cited, 
Salathiel  occurs  in  1  Esdr.  v.  5,  48,  56,  vi.  2;  2 
Esdr.  V.  16. 

As  regards  the  orthography  of  the  name,  it  has, 
as  noted  above,  two  forms  in  Hebrew.  The  con- 
tracted form  [Shaltiel]  is  peculiar  to  Haggai,  who 
uses  it  three  times  out  of  five;  while  in  the  first 
and  last  verse  of  his  prophecy  he  uses  the  full  form, 
which  is  also  found  in  Ezr.  iii.  2;  Neh.  xii.  1 
The  LXX.  everywhere  have  2uAa6iT)A,  while  the 
A.  V.  has  (prol)ably  with  an  eye  to  correspondence 
with  Matt,  and  Luke)  Salathiel  in  1  Chr.  iii.  17, 
but  everywhere  else  in  the  O.  T.  Shealtiel. 
[Genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ;  Jehoiachin.] 

A.  C.  H. 

SAL'CAH.'^  (n^/p  \ioandering,    miyration^ 

Fiirst]  :  Se/cx"',  'Axa,  2eAa  [Vat.  EAxa]  ;  Alea. 
AffeAxat,  EAxa,  SeAxa-  Sahcha,  Selctia).  A 
city  named  in  the  early  records  of  Israel  as  the  ex- 
treme limit  of  Bashan  (Deut.  iii.  10;  Josh.  xiii. 
11)  and  of  the  tribe  of  Gad  (1  Chr.  v.  11).  On 
another  occasion  the  name  seems  to  denote  a  dis- 
trict rather  than  a  town  (Josh.  xii.  5).  By  Eu- 
sebius  and  Jerome  it  is  merely  mentioned,  appar- 
ently without  their  having  had  any  real  knowledge 
of  it. 

It  is  doubtless  identical  with  the  town  of  Siil- 
khad,  which  stands  at  the  southein  extremity  of 
tlie  Jebel  Hauran,  twenty  miles  S.  of  Kmirtwat 
(the  ancient  Kenath),  which  was  the  southern  out- 
post of  the  Leja,  the  Argob  of  the  Bible.  Siiikhad 
is  named  by  both  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan 
historians  of  the  miadle  ages  (Will,  of  Tyre,  xvi. 
8,  "Selcath;"  Abnlfeda,  in  Schultens'  Index 
c/eofjr.  "Sarchad").  It  was  visited  by  Burckhardt 
[Syria,  Nov.  22,  1810),  Seetzen  and  others,  and 
more  recently  by  Porter,  who  describes  it  at  some 


d  See  a  curious  calculation  in  Blackstone's  Ccm- 
menl.  ii.  203,  that  in  the  20th  degree  of  ancestry  every 
man  has  above  a  million  of  ancestors,  and  in  the  40tll 
upwards  of  a  million  millions. 

e  The  theory  of  two  Salathiels,  of  whom  each  had 
a  son  called  Zerubbabel,  though  adopted  by  Hottinger 
and  J.  G.  Vossius,  is  scarcely  worth  mentioning,  ex- 
cept as  a  curiosity. 

.;■  One  of  the  few  instances  of  our  translators  hav- 
ing represented  the  Hebrew  Caph  by  c.  Their  com- 
mon practice  is  to  use  cli  for  it  —  as  indeed  they  have 
done  on  one  occurrence  of  this  very  name.  [Salchah  j 
and  compare  Caleb  ;  CAFaxoR ;  Uarmix  ;  CozBi ', 
Cosh,  etc.] 


2788 


SALCHAH 


length  (Five  Yems,  ii.  ITG-llG).  Its  identifica- 
tion with  Salcah  appears  to  be  due  to  Gesenius 
(Burckhardt's  Reisen,  p.  507). 

Immediately  below  SiilUirid  commences  the  plain 
of  the  great  Euphrates  desert,  which  appears  to 
stretch  with  hardly  an  undulation  from  here  to 
Basra  on  the  Persian  Gulf.  Tlie  town  is  of  consid- 
erable size,  two  to  three  miles  in  circumference, 
Burrounding  a  castle  on  a  lofty  isolated  hill,  which 
rise^  300  or  400  feet  above  the  rest  of  the  place 
(Porter,  pp.  178,  179).  One  of  the  gateways  of  the 
castle  bears  an  inscription  containing  the  date  of 
A.  D.  246  (180).  A  still  earlier  date,  namely,  A.  d. 
190  (Septiniius  Severus),  is  found  on  a  grave-stone 
(185).  Other  scanty  particulars  of  its  later  history 
will  be  found  in  Porter.  The  hill  on  which  the 
castle  stands  was  probably  at  one  time  a  crater,  and 
its  sides  are  still  covered  with  volcanic  cinder  and 
blocks  of  lava.  G. 

*  ilr.  Porter  describes  the  present  condition  of 
this  city  in  his  Giant  Cities  of  Bas/ian,  p.  76  f. 
Though  long  deserted,  "five  hundred  of  its  houses 
are  still  standing,  and  from  300  to  400  families 
might  settle  in  it  at  any  moment  without  laying  a 
stone,  or  expending  an  hour's  labor  on  repairs. 
The  circumference  of  the  town  and  castle  together 
is  about  thi-ee  Uiiles.  The  open  doors,  the  empty 
houses,  the  rank  grass  and  weeds,  the  long,  strag- 
gling brambles  in  tlie  doorways  and  windows, 
formed  a  strange,  impressive  picture  which  can 
never  leave  my  memory.  Street  after  street  we 
traversed,  the  tread  of  om-  horses  awakening  mourn- 
ful echoes  and  startling  the  foxes  from  their  dens 
in  the  palaces  of  Salcah.  Tlie  castle  rises  to  the 
,  height  of  .300  feet,  the  southern  point  of  the  moun- 
tain range  of  Bashan.  The  view  from  the  top  em- 
braces the  plain  of  Bashan  stretcliing  out  on  the 
west  to  Hermon;  the  plain  of  Moab  on  the  south, 
to  the  horizon ;  and  the  plain  of  Arabia  on  tiie 
east  beyond  the  range  of  visidn.  .  .  .  From  this 
one  spot  I  saw  upwards  of  30  towns,  all  of  them, 
80  far  as  I  could  see  with  my  telescope,  habitable 
like  Salcah,  but  entirely  deserted."'  See  the 
prophet's  remarkable  prediction  of  this  desolation, 
Jer.  xlviii.  15-29.  H. 

SAL'CHAH  (nabO:  *EAxa:  Selcha).  The 
form  in  wliich  the  name,  elsewhere  more  accu- 
rately  given    Salcah,  appears  in    Deut.   iii.    10 

only.  The  Targum  Pseu(hjon.  gives  it  S'^plT^D, 
i.  e.  Selucia;  though  which  Steleucia  they  can  have 
supposed  was  here  intended  it  is  difficult  to  im- 
agine. G. 

SA'LEM  (Cbttr,  i.  e.  Shalem  [whole, i)erfect]  : 
laXri/j.'-  Salem).  1.  The  place  of  which  Mel- 
chizedek  was  king  (Gen.  xiv.  18;  Heb.  vii.  1,  2). 
No  satisfactory  identification  of  it  is  perhaps  possi- 
ole.  The  indications  of  the  narrative  are  not  suffi- 
cient to  give  any  clew  to  its  position.  It  is  not 
safe  even  to  infer,  as  some  have  done,"'  that  it  lay 
between  Damascus  and  Sodom ;  for  though  it  is 
said  that  the  king  of  Sodom  —  who  had  probably 
regained  his  own  city  after  the  retreat  of  the  As- 

svrians  —  went  out  to  meet  (HS^pv)''  Abram, 
yet  it  is  also  distinctly  stated  that  this  was  after 
Abram  had  returned  ("l^^tT  "^"^.D^)  from  the 
daughter  of  the  kings.     Indeed,  it  is  not  certain 


410 


Per  instance,  Bochart,  Phaleg,  ii.  4  ;  Ewald,  Gesch. 


SALEM 

that  there  is  any  connection  of  time  or  pl\;e  be- 
tween Abram's  encounter  with  the  king  of  Sodom 
and  the  appearance  of  Melchizedek.  Nor,  sup- 
posing this  last  doubt  to  be  dispelled,  is  any  clew 
afforded  by  the  mention  of  the  Valley  of  Shaveh, 
since  the  situation  even  of  that  is  more  than  un- 
certain. 

Dr.  Wolff —  no  mean  authority  on  oriental 
questions  —  in  a  striking  passage  in  bis  last  work, 
implies  that  Salem  was  —  wliat  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  understood  it  to  be  —  a 
title,  not  the  name  of  a  place.  "  Melchizedek  of 
old  .  .  .  had  a  royal  title ;  he  was  '  King  of 
Righteousness,'  in  Hebi-ew  Mvlchi-zedck.  And  he 
was  also  '  King  of  Peace,'  Melek-Salem.  And 
when  Abraham  came  to  his  tent  he  came  forth 
with  bread  and  wine,  and  was  called  '  the  Priest  of 
the  Highest,'  and  Abraham  gave  him  a  portion  of 
his  spoil.  And  just  .so  Wolf}''s  friend  in  the  desert 
of  Meru  in  the  kingdom  of  Khiva  .  .  .  whose 
name  is  Abd-er-Rahman,  which  means  '  Slave  of 
the  merciful  God  '  .  .  .  has  also  a  royal  title.  He 
is  called  Shahe-Adaalat,  '  King  of  Righteousness  ' 
—  the  same  as  Melchizedek  in  Hebrew.  And  when 
lie  makes  peace  between  kings  he  bears  the  title, 
Shaiie  Soolkh,  '  King  of  Peace  '  —  in  Hebrew  Me- 
lek-Salem.'^ 

To  re\ert,  however,  to  the  topographical  ques- 
tion ;  two  main  opinions  have  been  cunent  from 
tlie  earliest  ages  of  interpretation.  1.  That  of  the 
.iewish  commentators,  who  —  from  Onkelos  ( Tar- 
(jum)  and  .Tosephus  [B.  J.  vi.  10;  Ant.  i.  10,  §  2, 
vii.  3,  §  2)  to  Kalisch  (Comm.  on  Gtn.  p.  360)  — 
with  one  voice  affirni_  that  Salem  is  Jerusalem,  on 
tlie  ground  that  Jerusalem  is  so  called  in  Ps.  Ixxvi. 
2,  the  Psalmist,  after  the  manner  of  poets,  or  from 
some  exigency  of  his  poem,  making  use  of  the  ar- 
chaic name  in  preference  to  that  in  common  use. 
This  is  quite  feasible;  but  it  is  no  argument  for 
the  identity  of  Jerusalem  with  the  Salem  of  ^lel- 
chizedek.  See  this  well  put  by  Reland  {Pal.  p. 
833).  The  Christians  of  the  4th  century  held  the 
same  lielief  with  the  Jews,  as  is  evident  from  an  ex- 
pression of  Jerome  ("  nostri  omnes,"  Ej^.  ad  Evan- 
yelum,  §  7). 

2.  Jerome  himself,  however,  is  not  of  the  same 
opinion.  He  states  {I'jy.  ad  Evany.  §  7)  without 
hesitation,  though  apparently  (as  just  observed) 
alone  in  his  belief,  that  the  Salem  of  Melchizedek 
was  not  Jerusalem,  but  a  town  near  Scythopolis, 
which  in  his  day  was  still  called  Salem,  and  wherp 
the  vast  ruins  of  the  palace  of  Melchizedek  were 
still  to  be  seen.  Elsewhere  {Onoin.  "  Salem  ")  he 
locates  it  more  precisely  at  eight  Roman  miles  from 
Scythopolis,  and  gives  its  then  name  as  Salumias. 
Further,  he  identifies  this  Salem  with  the  Salim 
i'XaXeifj.)  of  .St.  John  the  Ba])tist.  That  a  Salem 
existed  where  St.  Jerome  thus  places  it  there  need 
be  no  doulit.  Indeed,  the  name  has  been  recovered 
at  the  identical  distance  lielow  Beisdn  by  Mr.  Van 
de  Velde,  at  a  spot  otherwise  suitable  for  yEnon. 
But  that  this  Salein,  Sahm,  or  Salumias  was  the 
Salem  of  Melchizedek,  is  as  uncertain  as  that  Jeru- 
salem was  so.  The  ruins  were  prol)abIy  as  much 
the  ruins  of  Melchizedek's  palace  as  the  remains  at 
Ramet  eUKhalil^  three  miles  north  of  Hebron,  are 
those  of  "  Abraham's  house."  Nor  is  the  decision 
assisted  by  a  consideration  of  Abram's  lonieward 
route.     He  probably  brought  back  his  party   by 


b  The  force  of  this  word  is  occurrere  in  obviavi  (Q« 
senius,  Thes.  p.  1233  b]. 


SALEM 

Jie  road  aljng  the  Ghor  as  far  as  Jericlio,  and  then 
turning  to  the  rii;ht  ascended  to  the  upper  level  of 
the  country  in  the  direction  of  JIamre;  but  whether 
he  crossed  the  Jordan  at  the  Jisr  Benal  Yukub 
aliove  the  Lake  of  Gennesaret,  or  at  the  JUr  Mt- 
\amia  below  it,  he  would  equally-  pass  by  both  Scy- 
thopolis  and  Jerusalem.  At  the  same  time  it  must 
be  confessed  that  the  distance  of  Salem  (at  least 
eighty  miles  from  the  proljable  position  of  Sodom) 
makes  it  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  king  of  Sodom 
can  have  advanced  so  far  to  meet  Abram,  adds  its 
weight  to  the  statement  that  the  meeting  took 
place  after  Abram  had  returned,  —  not  during  his 
return,  —  and  is  thus  so  far  in  favor  of  Salem  being 
Jerusalem. 

3.  Professor  Ewald  (Gcschichle,  i.  410,  note) 
pronounces  that  Salem  is  a  town  on  the  further 
side  of  Jordan,  on  the  road  from  Damascus  to 
Sodom,  quoting  at  the  same  time  John  iii.  '23,  but 
the  writer  has  in  vain  endea\ored  to  discover  any 
authority  for  this,  or  any  notice  of  the  existence  of 
the  name  in  that  direction  either  in  former  or  re- 
cent times. 

4.  A  tradition  given  by  Eupolemus,  a  writer 
known  only  through  fragments  preserved  in  the 
Prmpiiralio  Kvani/tUca  of  luisebius  (is.  1"),  dif- 
fers in  some  important  points  from  the  Biblical 
account.  According  to  this  the  meeting  took 
place  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  city  Argarizin,  which 
is  interpreted  by  Eupolemus  to  mean  '•  the  Moun- 
tain of  the  Most  "  High."  Argarizin  *  is  of 
course  har  Gerizzint,  Mount  Gerizim.  The 
source  of  the  tradition  is,  therefore,  probably  Sa- 
maritan, since  the  encounter  of  Abram  and  Mel- 
chizedek  is  one  of  the  events  to  which  the  Samari- 
tans lay  claim  for  Mount  Gerizim.  But  it  may 
also  proceed  from  the  identification  of  Salem  with 
Shechem,  which  lying  at  the  foot  of  Gerizim  would 
easily  be  confounded  with  the  mountain  itself. 
[See  Sii.vLEM.] 

5.  A  Salem  is  mentioned  in  Judith  iv.  4,  among 
tlie  places  which  were  seized  and  fortified  by  the 
Jews  on  the  approach  of  Holofernes.  "  The  valley 
of  Salem,"  as  it  appears  in  the  A.  V.  {rhv  ahKiava 
"S.aKiijx),  is  possibly,  as  Keland  has  higeniously 
suggested  {Pal.  "Salem,"  p.  977),  a  corruption  of 
els  avKuya  els  SaA^^u  —  "  into  the  plain  to  Sa- 
lem." If  AuAwv  is  here,  according  to  frequent 
usage,  the  Jordan  <-'  Valley,  then  the  Salem  referred 
to  must  surely  be  that  mentioned  bj'  Jerome,  and 
already  noticed.  But  in  this  passage  it  may  be 
with  equal  probability  the  broad  plain  of  the 
Mukhna  which  stretches  from  Ebal  and  Gerizim 
on  the  one  hand,  to  the  hills  on  which  Sallin  stands 
on  the  other,  which  is  said  to  be  still  called  the 
'•plain  of  Salim"''  (Port^T,  Hamlbuok,  p.  340  a), 
«nd  through  which  runs  the  central  north  road  of 
ihe  country.     Or,  as  is  perhaps  still  more  likelj',  it 


SALEM 


2789 


a  Professor  Stanley  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to 
call  attention  to  this  (.S.  ^  P.  p.  249).  See  Eupolemi 
Fragmenta,  auctore  G.  A.  Kulilmey  (Berlin,  1840)  ; 
gne  of  those  excellent  monographs  which  we  owe  to 
the  German  academical  custom  of  demanding  a  trea- 
tise at  each  step  in  honors. 

fc  Pliny  uses  nearly  the  same  form  —  Argaris  ( H. 
.V.  V.  14). 

c  A.v\u)v  is  commonly  employed  in  Palestine  topog- 
raphy for  the  great  valley  ot  the  Jordan  (see  Eusebius 
vnd  Jerome,  Oiiomnsliron,  "Anion'').  But  in  the 
Book  of  Judith  it  is  used  with  much  less  precision  in 
Ihe  general  sense  of  a  valley  or  plain. 

^  The  writer  could  not  succeed  (in  1861)  in  eliciting;  I 


refers  to  another  Sulim  near  Ztrin  (Jezreel),  and  to 
the  plain  which  runs  up  between  those  two  places, 
as  far  as  Jcnin,  and  which  lay  directly  in  the  route 
of  the  Assyrian  army.  There  is  nothing  to  show 
that  the  inxaders  reached  as  far  into  the  interior  of 
the  country  as  the  plain  of  the  Mukhna.  And  the 
other  places  enumerated  in  the  verse  seem,  as  far  as 
they  can  be  recognized,  to  be  points  which  guarded 
the  main  approaches  to  the  interior  (one  of  the 
chief  of  which  was  by  Jezreel  and  En-gannim),  not 
towns  in  the  interior  itself,  like  Shechem  or  the 
Salem  near  it. 

2.  (D.;-tt.'  :  fV  elp7]vr]-  in  pace«),  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2. 
It  seems  to  l>e  agreed  on  all  hands  that  Salem  is 
here  employed  for  Jerusalem,  liut  whether  as  a 
mere  abbreviation  to  suit  some  exigency  of  the 
poetry,  and  point  the  allusion  to  the  peace  (s'llem) 
which  the  city  enjoyed  through  the  protection  of 
God,  or  whether,  after  a  well-known  habit  of  jwets/ 
it  is  an  antique  name  preferred  to  the  more  modern 
and  familiar  one,  is  a  question  not  yet  decided. 
The  latter  is  the  opinion  of  the  Jewish  commen- 
tators, but  it  is  grounded  on  their  belief  that  the 
Salem  of  Melchizedek  was  the  city  which  after- 
wards became  Jerusalem.  This  is  to  beg  the 
question.  See  a  remarkable  passage  in  Geiger'a 
Uischrift,  etc.,  pp.  74-76. 

The  antithesis  in  verse  1  between  "Judah"  and 
"  Israel  "  would  seem  to  imply  tliat  stme  sacred 
place  in  the  northern  kingdom  is  Lieing  contrasted 
with  Zion.  the  sanctuary  of  the  south.  And  if 
there  were  hi  the  Bible  any  sanction  to  the  identifi- 
cation of  Salem  with  Shechem  (noticed  above),  the 
passage  might  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  con- 
tinued relation  of  God  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
But  there  are  no  materials  even  for  a  conjecture 
on  the  j)oint.  Zion  the  sanctuary,  however,  being 
named  in  the  one  member  of  the  verse,  it  is  toler- 
ably certain  that  Salem,  if  Jerusalem,  must  denote 
the  secular  part  of  the  city  —  a  distinction  which 
has  been  already  noticed  [vol.  ii.  p.  1321]  as  fre- 
quently occurring  and  implied  in  the  Psalms  and 
Prophecies.  G. 

*  In  the  passage  quoted  above,  "  In  Judah  is 
God  known,  his  name  is  great  in  Israel,"  we  recog- 
nize not  "  antithesis  "  but  the  synonymous  paralltC- 
ism  of  Hebrew  poetry  —  each  term  being  generic 
and  designating  the  whole  nation,  as  in  Ps.  cxiv. 
2  —  "Judah  was  his  sanctuary,  and  Israel  his 
dominion"  —  where  the- words  will  bear  no  other 
construction.  In  the  next  verse —  "  In  Salem  also 
is  his  tabernacle,  and  his  dwelling-place  in  Zion"  — 
we  imderstand  the  names  as  also  coijnnte,  not  "  con- 
trasted," each  indicating  the  Holy  City  as  the 
special  seat  of  divine  worship,  ^\'e  are  not  able 
to  trace  in  the  sacred  writin<Ts,  referred  to  aliove, 
any  clear  distinction  between  the  secular  Jerusalem 


this  name  for  any  part  of  the  plain.  The  name,  given 
in  answer  to  repeated  questions,  for  the  eastern  braacb 
or  leg  of  the  Mukhna  was  always   Wariy  Snjua. 

e  The  above  is  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate  and  of 
the  '■  Galilean  Psalter."  But  in  the  Liber  Psnlmorutn 
jiixta  Htbraicam  verilatem,  in  the  Divina  Bihtiotheca 
included  in  the  Benedictine  edition  of  Jerome's  works, 
the  reading  is  Sdlem. 

f  The  Arab  poet's  are  said  to  use  the  same  abbre 
viation  (Geseuius,  Tlws.  p  1422  h).  The  preference 
of  an  archaic  to  a  modern  name  will  surprise  no 
student  of  poetry.  Few  things  are  of  more  coQgtaD< 
occurrence. 


2790  SALIM 

and  the  sacred  Zion,  but  find  the  phrases  used  in- 
terchangeably, each  sometimes  witli  a  secular  refer- 
ence, and  each  sometimes  in  a  spiritual  relation. 

S.  W. 

SA'LIM  (2aAeiV;  Alex.  2oA.Aei/x:  Salini). 
A  place  named  (.lohn  iii.  23)  to  denote  the  situa- 
tion of  .iEnon,  the  scene  of  St.  John's  last  bap- 
tisms —  Salim  being  the  well-known  town  or  spot, 
and  jEnon  a  place  of  fountains,  or  other  wnter, 
near  it.  There  is  no  statement  in  the  narrative 
itself  fixing  the  situation  of  Salim,  and  the  only 
direct  testimony  we  possess  is  that  of  Eusebius  and 
Jerome,  who  both  affirm  unhesitatingly  ( Onom. 
"yEnon'")  that  it  existed  in  their  day  near  the 
Jordan,  eight  Konian  miles  south  of  Scythopolis. 
Jerome  .adds  (under  "Salem"')  that  its  name  was 
then  Salumias.  Elsewhere  (A/i.  nd  Evangeluni, 
§§  7,  8)  he  states  that  it  was  identical  with  the 
Salem  of  Melcluzedek. 

Various  attempts  have  been  more  recently  made 
to  determine  the  locality  of  this  interesting  spot. 

1.  Some  (as  Alford,  Greek  Test,  ad  loc.)  pro- 
pose SniLimi  and  .4in,  in  the  arid  country  far 
in  the  south  of  Judsea,  entirely  out  of  the  circle 
of  associations  of  St.  John  or  our  Lord.  Others 
identify  it  with  the  Shalim  of  1  Sam.  ix.  4,  but 
this  latter  place  is  itself  unknown,  and  the  name 

in  Hebrew  contains  27,  to  correspond  with  which 
the  name  in  St.  John  should  be  2eya\ei/j.  or 
2aaA6i/x. 

2.  L)r.  Robinson  suggests  the  modern  village  of 
Siilim,  three  miles  E.  of  Nnblus  {Bibl.  Res.  iii. 
3-33),  but  this  is  no  less  out  of  the  circle  of  St. 
John's  ministrations,  and  is  too  near  the  Samari- 
tans; and  although  there  is  some  reason  to  believe 
that  the  village  contains  "  two  sources  of  living 
water"  {ibid.  298),  yet  this  is  hardly  sufficient  for 
the  abundance  of  deep  water  implied  in  the  narra- 
tive. A  writer  in  the  Colonitd  CIt.  C/iron.,  No. 
cxxvi.  40-t,  who  concurs  in  this  opinion  of  Ur. 
Kobinson,  was  told  of  a  village  an  hour  east  (?)  of 
tS(diiii  '-named  Ain-im,  with  a  copious  stream  of 
water."  The  district  east  of  Salim  is  a  blank 
in  the  maps.  Yonun  Ijes  about  li  hour  S.  E. 
of  Salim,  but  this  can  hardly  be  the  place  in- 
tended ;  and  in  the  description  of  Van  de  Velde, 
who  visited  it  (ii.  303),  no  stream  or.  spring  is 
mentioned. 

3.  Or.  Barclay  {City,  etc.,  p.  5G4)  is  filled  with 
an  "assured  conviction  "  that  Salim  is  to  be  found 
in  Wady  Seleini,  and  .^^^non  in  the  copious  springs 
of  Ain  Far(di  {ibid.  p.  559),  among  the  deep  and 
intricate  ravines  some  five  miles  N.  E.  of  Jerusalem. 
This  certainly  has  the  name  in  its  favor,  and,  if 
the  clovidng  description  and  pictorial  wood-cut  of 
Dr.  Barclay  may  be  trusted  —  has  water  enough, 
and  of  sufficient  depth  for  the  purpose. 

4.  The  name  of  Sulim  has  been  lately  discov- 
ered by  Mr.  Van  de  Velde  {Syr.  c/-  P(d.  ii.  345, 
346)  in  a  position  exactly  in  accordance  with  the 
notice  of  Eusebius,  namely,  six  English  miles  south 
of  Beisdn,  a^d  two  miles  west  of  the  Jordan.  On 
the  northern  liase  of  Tell  Redf/hnli  is  a  site  of 
ruins,  and  near  it  a  INIussulman  tomb,  which  is  called 
oy  the  Arabs  Sheykh  Salim  (see  also  .Ifemvir,  p. 
J45).  Dr.  Robinson  (iii.  333)  complains  that  the 
came  is  attached  only  to  a  Mussulman  sanctuary, 
ind  also  that  no  ruins  of  any  extent  are  to  be 
found  on  the  spot;  hut  with  regard  to  the  first 
objection,  even  Dr.  Robinson  does  not  dispute  that 
the  name  is  there,  and  that  tiie  locality  is  in  the 


SALMA 

closest  agreement  with  the  notice  of  Euaebiui. 
As  to  the  second  it  is  only  necessary  to  point  to 
Kefr-Saba,  where  a  town  (Antipatris),  which  80 
late  as  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
was  of  great  size  and  extensively  fortified,  has 
absolutely  disappeared.  The  career  of  St.  John 
has  been  examined  in  a  former  part  of  this  work, 
and  it  has  lieen  shown  with  great  probabiUty  that 
his  progress  was  from  south  to  north,  and  that  the 
scene  of  his  last  baptisms  was  not  far  distant  from 
the  spot  indicated  by  Eusebius,  and  now  recovered 
by  Mr.  Van  de  Velde.  [Jordan,  vol.  ii.  p.  1457.] 
S(dim  fulfills  also  the  conditions  implied  in  the 
name  of  ^Enon  (springs),  and  the  direct  .statement 
of  the  text,  that  the  place  contained  abundance 
of  water.  "  The  brook  of  Wady  CInisnek  runs 
close  to  it,  a  splendid  fountain  gushes  out  beside 
the  Wely,  and  rivulets  wind  about  in  all  directions. 
.  .  .  .  Of  few  places  in  Palestine  could  it 
so  truly  be  said,  '  Here  is  much  water'  "  {Syr.  ^ 
Pal.  ii.  346).      [^non,  Amer.  ed.] 

A  tradition  is  mentioned  by  Reland  {PnltEstina, 
p.  978)  that  Salim  was  the  native  place  of  Simon 
Zelotes.  This  in  itself  seems  to  imply  that  its  posi- 
tion was,  at  the  date  of  the  tradition,  believed  to 
be  nearer  to  Galilee  than  to  Judsea.  G. 

SAL'LAI  [2  syl.]  ("'Vp,  in  pause  "'V D  [perh. 
basl,-et-mak-er,  Ges.] :  2r)A.i;  [Vat.  FA.,  though 
not  properly  separated  from  preceding  word,]  Alex. 
2r7Aei:  Sdlai).  1.  A  Benjamite,  who  with  928 
of  his  tribe  settled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity 
(Neh.  xi.  8). 

2.  (2a\aj:  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.l  omit;  FA.3  2aA,- 
Aai'.] )  The  head  of  one  of  the  courses  of  priests 
who  went  up  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Neh. 
xii.  20).     In  Neh.  xii.  7  he  is  called  Sai.lu. 

SAL'LU  (-V-P  [iceiijlied]:  -XaAciju.,  :$ri\(i; 
Alex.  2a\co  in  1  Chr. :  Sala,  Sellum).  \.  The 
son  of  Meshullam,  a  Benjamite  who  returned  and 
settled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity  (1  Chr.  ix. 
7;  Neh.  xi.  7). 

2.  (Om.  in  Vat.  MS.;  [also  in  Rom.,  Alex., 
F,A..i;  FA.3]  2aAouai';  [Comp.  2oAou:]  Sellum.) 
The  head  of  one  of  the  courses  of  priests  who  re- 
turned with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  7).  Called  also 
Sallai. 

SALLU'MUS  {■S.aKovixos;  [Vat.  Aid.]  Alex. 
'S.aWoiJfj.os'  Salumus).  Shallum  (1  Esdr.  is. 
25 ;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  24). 

SAL'MA,  or  SAL'MON(np^£^,  Sttbtt?, 

or  ^ID/!^  [clothed,  a  garment,  Ges.]  :  [in  Ruth] 
"ZaKfxuv  [Vat.  "ZaXfxav];  [in  1  Chr.  ii.  11,]  Alex. 
'S.aXfj.a.v,  but  'S.aXoo/awv  both  MSS.  in  Ruth  iv. 
[rather  1  Chr.  ii.  51,  54;  in  N.  T.,  2aA^co;/]  ^ 
Snlmon  [in  Ruth  and  N.  T.,  Salma  in  1  Chr.]). 
Son  of  Nahshon,  the  prince  of  the  children  of 
Judah,  and  father  of  Boaz,  the  husband  of,  Ruth. 
Salmon's  age  is  distinctly  marked  by  that  of  his 
father  Nahshon,  and  with  tfiis  agrees  the  statemeni 
in  1  Chr.  ii.  51,  54,  that  he  was  of  the  sons  oL 
Caleb,  and  the  father,  or  head  man  of  Bethleheiu- 
Ephratah,  a  town  which  seems  to  have  been  within 
the  territory  of  Caleb  (1  Chr.  ii.  50,  51).  [Eph- 
ratah;  Betiii.khkm.]  On  the  entrance  of  the 
Israelites  into  Canaan,  Salmon  took  Rahab  of  .leri- 
cho  to  be  his  wife,  and  from  this  union  spraiii;  the 
Christ.  [Raiiaii.]  From  the  circumstance  of  Sal- 
mon having  lived  at  the  timr  of  the  conquest  o' 
Canaan,  as  well  as  from  his  being  the  first  pro 


SALMAN  ASAR 

ni'ietoi'  of  Bethlehem,  where  his  family  continued  80 
many  centuries,  perhaps  till  the  reign  of  Domiiian 
(Euseb.  Kecks.  Hist.  ii.  20),  he  may  be  called  the 
founder  of  the  house  of  David.  Besides  Beth- 
lehem, the  Netophathites,  the  house  of  Joab,  the 
Zorites,  and  several  other  families,  looked  to  Sal- 
mon as  their  head  (1  Chr.  ii.  54,  55). 

Two  circumstances  connected  with  Salmon  have 
caused  some  perplexity:  one,  the  variation  in  the 
orthography  of  his  name,  the  other,  an  apparent 
variation  in  his  genealogy. 

As  regards  the  first,  the  variation  in  proper 
names  (whether  caused  l)y  the  fluctuations  of  copy- 
ists, or  whether  they  existed  in  practice,  and  were 
favored  by  the  significance  of  the  names),  is  so 
extremely  common,  that  such  sliglit  differences  as 
those  in  the  three  forms  of  this  name  are  scarcely 
worth  noticing.  Compare  e.  g.  the  different  forms 
of  the  name  Shimen,  the  son  of  Jesse,  in  1  Sam. 
xvi.  9;  2  Sam.  xiii.  3;  1  Chr.  ii.  13:  or  of  Simon 
Peter,  in  Luke  v.  4.  &c. ;  Acts  xv.  14.  See  other 
examples  in  Hervey's  Ueneal.  of  our  Lord.,  cc.  vi. 
and  X.  ftloreover,  in  this  case,  the  variation  from 
haliwi  to  Salmon  takes  place  in  two  consecutive 
verses,  namely,  Ruth  iv.  20,  21,  where  the  notion 
of  two  different  persons  being  meant,  though  in 
some  degree  sanctioned  by  the  authcrity  of  Dr. 
Kennicott  (Dissert  i.  184,  543),  is  not  worth  re- 
futing." As  regards  the  S;;lma  of  1  Chr.  ii.  51,  54, 
his  connection  with  Bel^hlehem  identifies  him  with 
the  son  of  Nahshon,  and  the,  change  of  the  final 

n  into  N  belongs  doubtless  to  the  late  date  of  the 
book  of  Chronicles.  The  name  is  so  written  also 
in  1  Chr  ii.  11.  But  the  truth  is  that  the  sole 
reason  for  endeavoring  to  make  two  persons  out  of 
Salma  and  Salmon,  is  the  wish  to  lengthen  the 
line  between  Salma  and  David,  in  order  to  meet  the 
false  chronology  of  those  times. 

The  variation  in  Salma's  genealogy,  which  haa 
induced  some  to  think  that  the  Salma  of  1  Chr.  ii. 
51,  54  is  a  different  person  from  the  Salma  of  1 
Chr.  ii.  11,  is  more  apparent  tiian  real.  It  arises 
from  the  circumstance  that  Bethlehem  Ephratah, 
which  was  Salmon's  inheritance,  was  part  of  the 
territory  of  Caleb,  the  grandson  of  l<>phratah;  and 
this  caused  him  to  be  reckoned  among  the  sons  of 
Caleb.  But  it  is  a  complete  misunderstanding  of 
the  language  of  sucli  topographical  genealogies  to 
suppose  that  it  is  meant  to  be  asserted  that  Salma 
was  the  literal  son  of  Caleb.  Jlention  is  made  of 
Salma  only  in  Ruth  iv.  20,  21;  1  Chr.  ii.  11,  51, 
54;  Matt.  i.  4,  5;  Luke  iii.  32.  The  questions 
of  his  age  and  identity  are  discussed  in  the  Geneal. 
of  our  Lord.,  cc.  iv.  and  ix. ;  Jackson,  Citron. 
Antiq.  i.  171;  Hales,  Awdijsis,  iii.  44;  Burring- 
ton,  Gene(d.  i.  189 ;  Dr.  Mill,  Viiidic.  of  our  Lord's 
Genenl.  p.  123,  &c.  A.  C.  H. 

SALMAN A'SAR  (Sidmnnnsnr).  Shalman- 
esEK,  king  of  Assyria  (2  Esdr.  xiii.  40). 

SAL'MON  ("I'l^"'??  [shndy,  Ges.;  perh.  ter- 


SALMON  2791 

vac -ake,  Fiirst]:  'SeAfxcey;  [Vat.  Alex.  £p/ia>»':] 
S(dmo7i,  Judg.  ix.  48).  The  name  of  a  hill  near 
Shechem,  on  which  Abimelech  and  his  followers 
cut  down  the  boughs  with  which  they  set  the 
tower  of  Shechem  on  fire.  Its  exact  position  is 
not  known. 

It  is  usually  supposed  that  this  hill  is  menti(  iied 
in  a  verse  of  perhaps  the  most  difficult  of  all  the 
Psalms*  (Ps.  Ixviii.  14);  and  this  is  probable, 
though  the  passage  is  peculiarly  dlHicult,  and  the 
precise  allusion  intended  by  the  poet  seems  hope- 
lessly lost.  Commentators  ditit?r  from  each  other; 
and  Fiirst,  within  17G  pages  of  his  Hmdavrttr- 

buch,  differs  from  himself  (see  22tD  and  ^ITJv'^), 
Indeed,  of  six  distinguished  modern  connnentatcrs 
—  De  Wette,  Hitzig,  Evvald,  Hengstenlierg,  De- 
litzsch,  and  Hupfeld  —  no  two  give  distinctly  the 
same  meaning;  and  Mr.  Keble,  in  bis  admirable 
Version  of  the  Psalms,  gives  a  translation  which, 
though  poetical,  as  was  to  be  expected,  differs  from 
any  one  of  those  suggested  by  these  six  scholars. 
This  is  not  the  place  for  an  exhaustive  examina- 
tion of  the  passage.  It  may  be  mentioned,  how- 
ever,   that    the    literal    translation    of   the   words 

^1X27??  -'/^'■T'  is  "  Tliou  makest  it  snow,"  or 
"  It  snows,"  with  liberty  to  use  the  word  either  in 
the  past  or  in  the  future  tense.  As  notwithstand- 
ing ingenious  attempts,  this  supplies  no  satisfactory 
meaning,  recourse  is  had  to  a  translation  of  doubt- 
ful validity,  •'  Thou  makest  it  white  as  snow,"  or 
"  It  is  white  as  snow"  —  words  to  which  various 
metaphorical  meanings  have  been  attributed.  The 
allusion  which,  through  the  Lexicon  of  Uesenius,  is 
most  generally  received,  is  that  the  words  refer  to 
the  ground  being  snow-white  with  liones  after  a 
defeat  of  the  Canaanite  kings;  and  tiiis  may  be 
accepted  by  those  who  will  admit  the  scarcely  per- 
missible meaning,  "  white  as  snow,"  and  who  can- 
not rest  satisfied  without  attaching  some  definite 
signification  to  the  passage.  At  the  same  time  it 
is  to  be  remembered  that  the  figure  is  a  very  harsh 
one;  and  that  it  is  not  really  justified  by  passages 
quoted  in  illustration  of  it  from  Latin  classical 
writers,  such  as,  "  campique  ingentes  ossilnis  al- 
bent "  (Virg.  Alii.  xii.  3t!),  and  "  humanis  ossibug 
albet  humus  "  (Ovid,  Fast.  i.  558).  for  in  these 
cases  the  word  "bones"  is  actually  used  in  the 
text,  and  is  not  left  to  be  supplied  by  tlie  imagina- 
tion. Granted,  however,  that  an  allusion  is  made 
to  bones  of  the  slain,  there  is  a  divergence  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  Salmon  was  mentioned  sim- 
ply because  it  had  been  the  battle-ground  in  some 
great  defeat  of  the  Canaanitisli  kings,  or  whether 
it  is  only  introduced  as  an  image  of  snowy  white- 
ness. And  of  these  two  explanations,  the  first 
would  be  on  the  whole  most  probable ;  for  Salmon 
cannot  have  been  a  very  high  mountain,  as  the 
highest  mountains  near  Shechem  are  Ebal  and 
Gerizim,  and  of  these  Ebal,  the  highest  of  the 
two,  is  only  1,028  feet  higher  than  the  city  (see 


«■  Eusebius  (Chron.  Canon,  lib.  i.  22)  has  no  mia- 
^ving  as  to  the  iileutity  of  Salma. 

fi  See  a  work  by  lleuss,  Der  aclit  und  sechzigste  Psalrr 
lin  Den/cmai  exegeuschtr  Nolh  und  Kun.it.  zu  Ehrey 
uthser  ganzen  Ziinfl.,  Jena,  1851.  Independently  of  it" 
many  obscure  allusions,  the  68th  Psalm  coutaius  thir- 

««cn  oiraf  Key6\x€va.,  including  37tt''J^.  It  may  be 
^ierred  that  this  word  is  scarcely,  as  Gesenius  sug- 
gests  aD&log-ous  to  I'^m^n,   ul^^S73^   UlphiU   of 


color ;  for  these  words  have  a  signification  of  color  in 
Kal.  The  really  analogous  word  is  H^IO^rT,  "he 
niakert  it  rain,"  which  bears  the  same  relation  to 
"lion,  "rain,"  which     a'^btTH     bears  to    S^tt?, 

T    T '  •    :       •  V   V  ' 

"snow."  Owing,  probably,  to  Hebrew  religious  con- 
ceptions of  natural  phenomena,  no  instance  occurs  of 

'T'TDTSn  used  as  a  neuter  in  the  sense  of  "  it  nuns ; " 
I  though  this  would  be  grammatically  admissible. 


2792  SALMON 

Ebal,  vol.  i.  p.  640;  and  Kobinsoii's  Gesenius,  p. 
B95  a).  If  the  poet  had  desired  to  use  the  image 
of  a  snowy  niountain,  it  would  have  been  more 
natural  to  select  Hermon,  which  is  visible  from  the 
eastern  brow  of  Gerizini,  is  about  10,000  feet  high, 
and  is  covered  with  perpetual  snow.  Still  it  is  not 
lieant  that  this  circumstance  by  itself  would  be 
conclusive;  for  there  may  have  been  particular  asso- 
ciations in  the  mind  of  the  poet,  unknown  to  us, 
wbicli  led  him.  to  prefer  Salmon. 

In  despair  of  understanding  the  allusion  to  Sal- 
mon, some  suppose  that  Salmon,  i.  e.  Tsulinon,  is 
not  a  proper  name  in  this  passage,  but  merely  sig- 
nifies "darkness;"  and  this  interpretation,  sup- 
ported by  the  Targum,  though  opposed  to  the 
Septuagint,  has  been  adopted  by  Ewald,  and  in 
the  first  statement  in  his  Lexicon  is  admitted  by 
Fiirst.  Since  iselem  signifies  "  shade,"  this  is  a 
bare  et)  niological  possibility.  But  no  such  word 
tts  (salmon  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage; while  there  are  several  other  words  for 
darkness,  in  difl['erent  degrees  of  meaning,  such  as 
the  ordinary  word  chosliek,  op/iel,  ajj/ivlcdi,  and 
'arnphel. 

Unless  the  passage  is  given  up  as  corrupt,  it 
geems  more  in  accordance  with  reason  to  admit 
that  there  was  some  allusion  present  to  the  poefs 
mind,  the  key  to  which  is  now  lost;  and  this  ought 
not  to  surprise  any  stliolar  who  reflects  how  many 
allusions  there  are  in  Greek  poets  —  in  Pindar,  for 
example,  and  in  Aristophanes  —  which  would  be 
wholly  unintelligible  to  us  now,  were  it  not  for  the 
notes  of  Greek  scholiasts.  To  these  notes  there  is 
nothing  exactly  analogous  in  Hebrew  literature; 
and  in  the  absence  of  some  such  assistance,  it  is 
unavoidable  that  there  should  be  se\eral  passages 
in  the  0.  T.  respecting  the  meaning  of  which  we 
Qiust  be  content  to  remain  ignorant.  E.  T. 

SALOMON  the  father  of  Boaz  (Ruth  iv.  20, 
21;  Matt.  i.  4,  5;  Luke  iii.  32).      [Salma.] 

SALMO'NE  {Xa\fj.cl>vn:  Salmme).  The 
East  point  of  the  island  of  Crete.  In  the  ac- 
count of  St.  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  this  promon- 
tory is  mentioned  in  such  a  way  (Acts  xxvii.  7)  as 
to  afford  a  curious  illustration  both  of  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  ancients  and  of  the  minute  accuracy  of 
St.  Luke's  narrative.  We  gather  from  other  cir- 
cumstances of  the  voyage  that  the  wind  was  blow- 
ing from  the  N.  W.  {tvavriovs,  ver.  4;  ^paSv- 
wKoovvTe^,  ver.  7).  [See  Myka.]  We  are  then 
told  that  the  ship,  on  making  Ckidus,  could  not, 
by  reason  of  the  wind,  hold  on  her  course,  which 
was  past  the  south  point  of  Greece,  W.  by  S. 
She  did,  however,  just  fetch  Cape  Salmone,  which 
bears  S.  W.  by  S.  from  Cnidus.  Now  we  may 
take  it  for  granted  that  she  could  have  made  good 
a  course  of  less  than  seven  points  from  the  wind 
[Ship]  :  and,  starting  from  this  assumption,  we 
are  at  once  lirought  to  the  conclusion  that  the  wind 
nuist  have  been  between  N.  N.  \\'.  and  W.  N.  W. 
Thus  what  Paley  would  have  called  an  "unde- 
signed coincidence"  is  elicited  by  a  cross-examina- 
tion of  the  narrative.  This  ingenious  argument  is 
due  to  Mr.  Smith  of  Jordanhill  (  Voy.  avd  Sliip- 
wrec/c  of  Si.  Paid,  pp.  73,  74,  2d  ed.),  and  from 
him  it  is  quoted  by  Conybeare  and  Howson  {Life 
and  Epp.  of  Si.  Paul,  ii.  393,  2d  ed.).  To  these 
books  we  must  refer  for  fuller  details.     We  may 


tf   Jo*<eph    by    a    former    marriage    (Epiphan.    Heer. 


SALOME 

just  add  that  the  ship  had  had  the  advantages  of 
a  weather  shore,  smooth  water,  and  a  favoring  cur- 
rent, before  reaching  Cnidus,  and  that  by  running 
down  to  (^ape  Salmone  the  sailors  obtained  similai 
advantages  under  the  lee  of  Crete,  as  far  as  Fair 
Havens,  near  Las.ka.  J.  £  K. 

*  The  northeast  point  of  Crete  is  tLe  present 
Cape  Sidero,  and  has  generally  been  supposed  (as 
above)  to  be  Luke's  Salmone.  Captain  Spratt, 
R.  N.,  dissents  from  this  opinion  ( Travels  and  He- 
searches  in  Crete,  Lond.  18(j5).  He  admits  that 
the  ancient  writers,  j:;eiierally  at  least,  applied  the 
name  to  that  Cape,  but  thinks  that  Luke  refers  to 
the  promontory — jutting  out  toward  the  east 
some  miles  to  the  south  of  Cape  Sidero,  and  called 
Plaka.  His  reasons  for  this  conclusion  in  the 
case  of  Luke  are,  Jifst,  '•  that  Cape  Sidero  is,  in 
truth,  not  the  headland  or  point  his  ship  would 
keep  nearest  to  in  coming  from  Cnidus;  and,  sec- 
ondly, that  this  promontory  south  of  Grandes  Bay, 
called  Plaka  by  the  natives,  is  indeed  now  Ijy  some 
Levantine  navigators  called  Cape  Salmone,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  Cape  Sidero."  Purdy  {New 
Sailiny  Directions,  etc.,  p.  69,  Lond.  1834)  writes 
the  name  Salomon,  but  must  refer,  of  course,  to 
the  same  place.  H. 

SA'LOM  (SaAo;^:  Salom,).  The  Greek  form 
1.  of  ^hallum,'the  father  of  Hilkiah  (Bar.  i.  7). 
[SnALLUM.]  2.  (Salomvs)  of  Sain  the  father  of 
Zimri  (1  Maec.  ii.  26).      [Salu.J 

SALO'ME  (SaAci^Tj  [Heb.  peaceful]:  Sa- 
lome).  1.  The  wife  of  Zebedee,  as  appears  from 
comparing  IMatt.  xxvii.  56  with  Mark  xv.  40.  It  is 
further  the  opinion  of  many  modern  critics  that  she 
was  the  sister  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  to  whom 
reference  is  made  in  John  xix.  25.  The  words  ad- 
mit, however,  of  another  and  hitherto  generally 
received  explanation,  according  to  which  they  refer 
to  the  "Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas  "  immediately 
afterwards  mentioned.  In  behalf  of  the  former 
view,  it  may  he  urged  that  it  Kets  rid  of  the  diffi- 
culty ari.sing  out  of  two  sisters  having  the  same 
name  —  that  it  harmonizes  John's  narrative  with 
those  of  JMatthew  and  Mark  —  that  this  circuitous 
manner  of  describing  his  own  mother  is  in  char- 
acter with  St.  John's  manner  of  describing  him- 
self—that the  absence  of  any  connecting  hnk 
between  the  second  and  third  designations  may  be 
accoimted  for  on  the  ground  that  the  four  are 
arranged  in  two  distinct  couplets  —  and,  lastly, 
that  the  Peshito,  the  Persian,  and  the  jEthiopic 
versions  mark  the  distinction  between  the  second 
and  third  by  interpolating  a  conjunction.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  may  be  urged  that  the  difficulty 
arising  out  of  the  name  may  be  disposed  of  by 
assuming  a  double  marriage  on  the  part  of  the 
father  —  that  there  is  no  necessity  to  harmonize 
John  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  for  that  the  time 
and  the  place  in  which  the  groups  are  noticed  dif- 
fer materially  —  that  the  language  addressed  to 
John,  "Behold  thy  mother!"  favors  the  idea  of 
the  absence  rather  than  of  the  presence  of  his  nat- 
ural mother  —  and  that  the  var3ing  traditions" 
current  in  the  early  Church  as  to  Salome's  parents. 
worthless  as  they  are  in  themselves,  jet  bear  a 
negative  testimony  against  the  idea  of  her  being 
related  to  the  mother  of  Jesus.  Altogether  w« 
can  hardly  regard  the  point  as  settled,  though  the 


«  According  to  one  account  she  was  the  daughter    Ixxviii.  8):  according  to  another,  tb  !  wife  of  J08«pb 


(Nicech.  H.  E.  ii.  3 1. 


SALT 

vveight  of  modern  criticism  is  decidedly  in  favor  of 
the  former  view  (see  Wieseler,  Stud.  n.  Kril.  1340, 
p.  G48).  Tlie  only  events  recorded  of  Salome  are 
that  she  preferred  a  request  on  behalf  of  her  two 
sons  for  seats  of  honor  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
(Matt.  XX.  20),  that  she  attended  at  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  40),  and  that  she  visited  his 
sepulchre  (Mark  xvi.  1).  She  is  rftentioned  by 
name  only  on  the  two  latter  occasions. 

2.  The  daughter  of  Herodias  by  her  first  hus- 
band, Herod  Philip  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  4). 
She  is  the  "  daughter  of  Herodias"  noticed  in  Matt. 
xiv.  6  as  dancing  before  Herod  Antipas,  and  as 
procuring  at  her  mother's  instigation  the  death  of 
John  the  Baptist.  She  married  in  the  first  place 
Philip  the  tetrarch  of  Trachonitis,  her  paternal 
uncle,  and  secondly  Aristobulus,  the  king  of  Chal- 
cis.  W.  L.  B. 

SALT  (Hv^:   oAs:  sal).     Indispensable   as 

salt  is  to  ourselves,  it  was  even  more  so  to  the 
Hebrews,  being  to  them  not  only  an  appetizing 
condiment  in  the  food  both  of  man  (Job  vi.  6 )  and 
beast  (Is.  zxx.  24,  see  margin),  and  a  most  valua- 
ble antidote  to  the  eflfects  of  the  heat  of  the  cli- 
mate on  animal  food,  but  also  entering  largely  into 
their  religious  services  as  an  accompaniment  to  the 
various  offerings  presented  on  the  altar  (Lev.  ii. 
13).  They  possessed  an  inexhaustible  and  ready 
supply  of  it  on  the  southern  shores  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  Here  may  have  been  situated  the  Valley  of 
Salt  (2  Sam.  viii.  13),  in  proximity  to  the  moun- 
tain of  fossil  salt  which  Robinson  {Researches,  ii. 
108)  describes  as  five  miles  in  length,  and  as  the 
chief  source  of  the  salt  in  the  sea  itself.  Here 
were  the  saltpits  (Zeph.  ii.  9),  probably  formed  in 
the  marshes  at  the  southern  end  of  the  lake,  which 
are  completely  coated  with  salt,  deposited  period- 
ically by  the  rising  of  the  waters;  and  here  also 
were  the  successive  pillars  of  salt  which  tradition 
has  from  time  to  time  identified  with  Lot's  wife 
(Wisd.  X.  7;  Joseph.  Ant.  i.  11,  §  4).  [Sea,  the 
Salt.]  Salt  might  also  be  procured  from  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  and  from  this  source  the  Phoe- 
nicians would  naturally  obtain  the  supply  neces- 
sary for  salting  fish  (Neh.  xiii.  16)  and  for  other 
purposes.  The  Jews  appear  to  have  distinguished 
between  rock-salt  and  that  which  was  gained  by 
evaporation,  as  the  Talmudists  particularize  one 
species  (probably  the  latter)  as  the  "  salt  of 
Sodom"  (Carpzov,  Appar.  p.  718).  The  notion 
that  this  expression  means  bitumen  rests  on  no 
foundation.  The  saltpits  formed  an  important 
source  of  revenue  to  the  rulers  of  the  country 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  4,  §  9),  .and  Antiochus  conferred 
a  valujible  boon  on  Jerusalem  by  presenting  the 
city  with  375  bushels  of  salt  for  the  Temple  ser- 
vice {Ani.  xii.  3,  §  3).  In  addition  to  the  uses  of 
salt  already  specified,  the  inferior  sorts  were  ap- 
plied as  a  manure  to  the  soil,  or  to  hasten  the 
decomposition  of  dung  (Matt.  v.  13;  Luke  xiv. 
35).  'foo  large  an  admixture,  however,  was  held 
to  produce  sterility,  as  exemplified  on  the  shores 
of  the  Dead  Sea  (Deut.  xxix.  23;  Zeph.  ii.  9): 
hence  a  "salt"  land  was  synonymous  with  barren- 
ness (Job  xxxix.  6,  see  margin ;  Jer.  xvii.  6 ;  comp. 
Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  2,  aA./iupw5r)s  koX  &yovo's)\ 
and  hence  also  arose  the  custom  of  sowing  with 
salt  the  foundations  of  a  destroyed  city  (Judg.  ix. 
45),  as  a  token  of  its  irretrievable  ruin.  It  was 
'he  lielief  of  the  Jews  that  salt  would,  by  exposure 
to  the  air,  lose  its  virtue  {jxaiuavSi),  Matt.  v.  13) 
176 


SALT,  CITY  OF 


2793 


and  become  saltless  {oivaXoVy  Mark  x.  oOl.  The 
same  fact  is  implied  ip  the  expressions  of  Pliny, 
sal  iners  (xxxi.  39),  sal  tabescere.  (xxxi.  44);  and 
Maundrell  {luirly  Travels,  p.  512,  Bohn)  asserts 
that  he  found  the  surface  of  a  salt  rock  in  this 
condition.  The  associations  coimected  with  salt 
in  eastern  countries  are  important.  As  one  of 
the  most  essential  articles  of  diet,  it  symbolized 
hospitality;  as  an  antiseptic,  durability,  fidelity, 
and  purity.  Hence  the  expression,  ''  covenant  of 
salt"  (Lev.  ii.  13;  Num.  xviii.  19;  2  Chr.  xiii. 
5),  as  betokening  an  indissoluble  alliance  between 
friends;  and  again  the  expression,  "salted  with 
the  salt  of  the  palace"  (Ezr.  iv.  14),  not  neces- 
sarily meaning  that  they  had  "  maintenance  from 
the  palace,"  as  the  A.  V.  has  it,  but  that  they 
were  bound  by  sacred  obligations  of  fidelity  to  the 
king.  So  in  the  present  day,  "  to  eat  bread  and 
salt  together"  is  an  expression  for  a  league  of 
mutual  amity  (Hussell,  Aleppo,  i.  232);  and,  on 
the  otiier  hand,  the  Persian  term  for  traitor  is 
nemekhnram,  "faithless  to  salt"  (Gesen.  Tlies. 
p.  790).  It  was  probably  with  a  view  to  keep  this 
idea  prominently  before  the  minds  of  the  Jews 
that  the  use  of  salt  was  enjoined  on  the  Israelites 
in  their  offerings  to  God;  for  in  the  first  instance 
it  was  specifically  ordered  for  the  meat-otfering 
(Lev.  ii.  13),  which  consisted  mainly  of  flour,  and 
therefore  was  not  liable  to  corruption.  The  ex- 
tension of  its  use  to  burnt  sacrifices  was  a  later 
addition  (Kz.  xliii.  24;  Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  9,  §  1), 
in  the  spirit  of  the  general  injunction  at  the  close 
of  Lev.  ii.  13.  Similarly  the  heathens  accom- 
panied their  sacrifices  with  salted  barley-meal,  the 
Greeks  with  their  ouAox^irai.  (Horn.  II.  i.  449), 
the  Komans  with  their  mala  salsa  (Hor.  Sat.  ii.  3, 
200)  or  their  salsce  fruyes  (Virg.  A^n.  ii.  133). 
It  may  of  course  be  assumed  that  in  all  of  these 
cases  salt  was  added  as  a  condiment;  liut  the 
strictness  with  which  the  rule  was  adhered  to  — 
no  sacrifice  being  ofl^ered  without  salt  (Plin.  xxxi. 
41),  and  still  more  the  probable,  though  perhapd 
doubtful,  admixture  of  it  in  incense  (Ex.  xxx.  35, 
where  the  word  rendered  "tempered  together"  ia 
by  some  understood  as  "salted  ")  — leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  was  a  symbolical  force  at- 
tached to  its  use.  Our  Lord  refers  to  the  sacrifi  • 
cial  use  of  salt  in  Mark  ix.  49,  50.  though  some 
of  the  other  associations  may  also  be  injplied. 
The  purifying  property  of  salt,  as  opposed  to  cor- 
ruption, led  to  its  selection  as  the  outward  sign  in 
Elisha's  miracle  (2  K.  ii.  20,  21),  and  is  also 
developed  in  the  N.  T.  (Matt.  v.  13;  Col.  iv.  (5). 
The  custom  of  rubbing  infants  with  salt  (Ez.  xvi. 
4)  originated  in  sanitary  considerations,  but  re- 
ceived also  a  symbolical  meaning.  W.  L.  B. 

SALT,  CITY  OF  (nb^H-n"'^  :  „.'  7r<iAe,f 

'Za^SiV,  Alex,  at  iroKis  a\a>v:  civitas  salts).  The 
fifth  of  the  six  cities  of  Judah  which  lay  in  the 
"wilderness"  (Josh.  xv.  62).  Its  proximity  to 
En-gedi,  and  the  name  itself  seem  to  point  to  its 
being  situated  close  to  or  at  any  rate  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Salt  Sea.  Dr.  Robinson  {Bibl.  Res. 
ii.  109)  expresses  his  belief  that  it  lay  somewhere 
near  the  plain  at  the  south  end  of  that  lake,  which 
he  would  identify  with  the  Valley  of  Salt.  This, 
though  possibly  supported  by  the  reading  of  the 
Vatican  LXX.,  "  the  cities  of  Sodom,"  is  at  present 
a  mere  conjecture,  since  no  trace  of  the  name  or  the 
city  has  yet  been  discovered  in  that  position.  On 
the  other  hand,  Mr.  Van  de  Velde  {Syr.  <f  Pal.  ii 


2794 


SALT  SEA 


89;  Memoir,  p.  Ill,  and  ^fap)  mentions  a  Nahr 
MfUeh  which  he  passed  in  his  route  from  Wady 
Er-Rmail  to  Sebbelt,  the  name  of  which  (though  the 
orthography  is  not  certain)  may  be  found  to  con- 
tain a  trace  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  one  of  four 
ravines  which  unite  to  form  the  Wady  el-Bedim. 
Another  of  the  four,  W.  'Amreh  (Stjr.  cf  P.  ii.  99; 
Memoir,  p.  Ill,  ifap),  recalls  the  name  of  Gomor- 
rah, to  the  Hebrew  of  which  it  is  very  similar.  G. 
*  SALT  SEA.  [Sea,  the  Salt.] 
SALT,  VALLEY    OF    (nb^    S'^3,   but 

twice  with  the  article,  n^^l'  2  '■  Te/SeAe'^, 
FfyueAeS,  KoiXas,  and  (pdpay^,  twv  aAuu;  Alex. 
r»)/iO[Aa,  raijueAa:  Vall/'s  Salinnrum).  A  certain 
valley,  or  perhaps  more  accurately  a  "ravine,"  —  the 
Hebrew  word  6'e  appearing  to  bear  that  significa- 
tion, —  in  which  occurred  two  memorable  victories 
of  the  Israelite  arms. 

1.  That  of  David  over  the  Edomites  (2  Sam. 
viii.  13;  1  Chr.  xviii.  12).  It  appears  to  have  im- 
mediately followed  his  Syrian  campaign,  and  was 
itself  one  of  the  incidents  of  the  great  Kdoinite  war 
of  extermination."  The  battle  in  the  Valley  of 
Salt  appears  to  have  been  conducted  by  Abishai 
(1  Chr.  xviii.  12),  but  David  and  Joab  were  both 
present  in  person  at  the  battle  and  in  the  pursuit 
and  campaign  wiiich  followed;  and  Joab  was  left 
behind  for  six  months  to  consummate  the  doom 
of  the  conquered  country  (1  K.  xi.  15,  16;  I*s.  Ix. 
title).  The  number  of  Edomites  slain  in  the  bat- 
tle is  uncertain :  the  narratives  of  Samuel  and 
Chronicles  both  give  it  at  18,000,  but  this  figure  is 
lowered  in  the  title  of  Ps.  Ix.  to  12,000. 

2.  That  of  Amaziah  (2  K.  xiv.  7 ;  2  Chr.  xxv. 
11),  who  is  related  to  have  slain  ten  thousand 
Edomites  in  this  valley,  and  then  to  have  pro- 
ceeded, with  10,000  prisoners,  to  the  stronghold  of 
the  nation  at  /las-Sel/i,  the  Cliff,  i.  e.  Petra.  and, 
after  taking  it.  to  have  massacred  them  by  hurling 
them  down  the  precipice  which  gave  its  ancient 
name  to  the  city. 

Neither  of  these  notices  affords  any  clew  to  the 
situation  of  the  Valley  of  Salt,  nor  does  the  cursory 
njention  of  the  name  ("  Geniela "  and  "Mela") 
in  the  Onomasticon.  By  .Josephus  it  is  not  named 
on  either  occasion.  Seetzen  {Reisen,  ii.  35G)  was 
probalily  the  first  to  suggest  that  it  wa.s  the  brond 
open  plain  which  lies  at  the  lower  end  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  and  intervenes  between  the  lake  itself  and  the 
range  of  heights  which  crosses  the  valley  at  six  or 
eight  miles  to  the  south.  The  same  view  is  taken 
(more decisively)  by  Dr.  Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  10!.l ). 
The  plain  is  in  fact  the  termination  of  the  Ghor  or 
valley  through  which  the  Jordan  flows  from  the 
Lake  of  Tilierias  to  the  Dead  Sea.  Its  N.  W.  cor- 
ner is  occupied  by  the  Khnshm  Usdum,  a  mountain 
of  rock  salt,  between  which  and  the  lake  is  an  ex- 
tensive salt  marsh,  while  salt  streams  and  brackish 


a  Tbs  Received  Text  of  2  Sara.  viii.  13  omits  the 
mention  of  Edomites :  but  from  a  oomparisou  of  the 
parallel  passages  in  1  Chr.  and  in  the  title  of  Ps.  Ix. 
there  is  good  ground  for  believing  that  the  verse  origi- 
nally stood  thus  :  "  And  David  made  himself  a  name 
[when  he  returned  from  smiting  the  Aramites]  [and 
when  he  returned  he  smote  the  Edomites]  in  the  Val- 
ley of  Salt  —  eighteen  thousand;"  the  two  clauses 
irithin  brackets  having  been  omitted  by  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  scribes  respectively,  owing  to  the  very  close 
resemblance    of   the   words   with    wliich  each   clause 

liJihM  —  Ctt~lS  and   C^^fS.     Thig  is  the  con- 


SALUM 

springs  pen-ade,  more  or  less  the  entire  weatera 
half  of  the  plain.  Without  presuming  to  contra- 
dict this  suggestion,  which  yet  can  hardly  be 
affirmed  with  safety  in  the  very  imperfect  condition 
of  our  knowledge  of  the  inaccessible  regions  S.  and 
S.  E.  of  the  Dead  Sea,  it  may  be  well  to  call  atten- 
tion to  some  considerations  which  seem  to  stand  in 
the  way  of  the  implicit  reception  which  most  writ- 
ers have  given  it  since  the  publication  of  Dr.  K.'s 
Researches. 

(a.)  The  word  Ge  (S'^Il),  employed  for  the  place 
in  question,  is  not,  to  the  writer's  knowledge,  else- 
where applied  to  a  broad  valley  or  sunk  plain  of 
the  nature  of  the  lower  Ghor.  Such  tracts  are 
denoted  in  the  Scripture  by  the  words  Kmek  or 
Bika'ah,  while  Ge  ap])ears  to  be  reserved  for  clefbi 
or  ra^■ines  of  a  deeper  and  narrower  character. 
[Valley.] 

(6.)  A  primn,  one  would  expect  the  tract  in 
question  to  be  called  in  Scripture  by  the  peculiar 
name  uniformly  applied  to  the  more  northern  parts 
of  the  same  yo.\\6y —  ha-Arahah — in  the  sam8 
manner  that  the  .\rabs  now  call  it  el- Ghor  —  Ghor 
being  their  equivalent  for  the  Hebrew  Arabah. 

(c.)  The  name  "Salt,"  though  at  first  sight 
conclusive,  becomes  less  so  on  reflection.  It  does 
not  follow,  because  the  Hebrew  word  melnch  signi- 
fies salt,  that  therefore  the  valley  was  salt.  A  case 
exactly  parallel  exists  at  el-Milh,  the  representative 
of  the  ancient  AIoladah,  some  sixteen  miles  south 
of  Hebron.  Like  melnch,  milh  signifies  salt;  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  there  is  any  salt 
present  there,  and  Dr.  Kobinson  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  201, 
note)  himself  justly  adduces  it  as  "  an  instance  of 
the  usual  tendency  of  popular  pronunciation  to  re- 
duce foreign  proper  names  to  a  significant  form." 
Just  as  el-Milh  is  the  Arabic  representative  of  the 
Hebrew  Moladah,  so  possibly  was  f/e-mdach  the 
Hebrew  representative  of  some  archaic  Edomite 
name. 

(d.)  What  little  can  be  inferred  from  the  narra- 
tive as  to  the  situation  of  the  Ge-JIelach  is  in 
favor  of  its  being  nearer  to  Petra.  Assuming 
Selah  to  be  Petra  (the  chain  of  evidence  for  which 
is  tolerably  connected),  it  seems  difficult  to  believe 
that  a  large  body  of  prisoners  should  have  been 
dragged  for  upwards  of  fifty  miles  through  the 
heart  of  a  hostile  and  most  difficult  country, 
merely  for  massacre.  G. 

SA'LU  (S^7D  [weighed]:  ^aXfj-diV,  Alex. 
[Comp.  Aid.]  SoAciJ:  Snlu).  The  fiither  of  Zimri 
the  prince  of  the  Simeonites,  who  was  slain  by 
Phinehas  (Num.  xxv.  14).     Called  also  Salom. 

SA'LUM  {"S.aAov/j.;  [Vat.  corrupt:]  Esmen- 
nus).  1.  Shallu.m,  the  head  of  a  family  of  gate- 
keepers (A.  V.  "porters")  of  the  Temple  (1  Esdr. 
v.  28;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  42). 

2.    (SoAtjjuos;      [Aid.    2aAoC;uos:]      Schr.ie.'] 


jecture  of  Thenius  (Exeg.  Handbiich),  and  is  adopted 
by  Bunsen  (Bibelwerk,  note  to  the  passage).  Ewald 
has  shown  (Gesr/i.  iii.  201,  202)  that  the  whole  passage 

is  very  much  disordered.  Dtt7  ti?P*1  should  prob- 
ably be  rendered  "and  set  up  a  monument,"  instead 
of  ■'  and  gat  a  name  "  Gesen.  (  Thes.  p.  1431  6) ;  Michaelii) 
(Siippl.  No.  2501,  and  note  to  Bibd  fiir  Uns'l.);  De 
Wette  (Bihel);  LXX.  Coisl.,  KaX  tSriKev  eo-njAwfieVrji' ; 
Jerome  (QiKPst.  Hrhr.].  ere.xit  foruiceni  triumphalem. 
Rashi  interprets  it  ''reputation.''  and  makes  th« 
reputation  to  have  arisen  from  David's  good  act  in 
burying  the  dead  even  of  his  enemies. 


SALUTATION 

Bhallum.  tlic  father  of  Hilkiah  and  ancestor  of 
Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii.  1;  Comp.  Ezr.  vii.  2).  Called 
also  Sadajiias  and  Sadom. 

SALUTATIOIST.    Salutations  may  be  classed 

Under  the  two  heads  of  conversational  and  epistolary. 
The  salutation  at  meeting  consisted  in  eiirly  times 
of  various  expressions  of  blessing,  such  as  ■•  Uod  lie 
gracious  unto  thee"  (Gen.  xliii.  29);  "Blessed  be 
thou  of  the  Lord  "  (Ruth  iii.  10;  1  Sam.  xv.  13); 
"  The  Lord  l)e  with  you,"  "  The  Lord  bless  thee  " 
(Kuth  ii.  4);  "The  blessing  of  the  Lord  be  upon 
you;  we  bless  you  in  tiie  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Ps. 
cxxix.  8).  Hence  the  term  "bless"  received  the 
secondary  sense  of  "salute,"  and  is  occasionally  so 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  (1  Sam.  xiii.  10,  xxv.  14; 
2  K.  iv.  29,  X.  15),  though  not  so  frequently  as  it 
might  have  been  (e.  g.  Gen.  xxvii.  23,  xlvii.  7,  10 ; 
1  K.  viii.  6G).  The  blessing  was  sometimes  ac- 
companied with  inquiries  as  to  the  health  either  of 
the  person  addressed  or  his  relations.  The  Hebrew 
term  used  in  these  instances  {s/idlum")  has  no 
special  reference  to  "  peace,"  as  stated  in  the  mar- 
ginal translation,  but  to  general  well-being,  and 
strictly  answers  to  our  "  welfare,"  as  given  in  the 
text  (Gen.  xliii.  27;  Ex.  xviii.  7).  It  is  used  not 
only  iu  the  case  of  salutation  (in  which  sense  it  is 
frequently  rendered  "to  salute,"  e.  y.  Judg.  xviii. 
15 ;  1  Sam.  x.  4 ;  2  K.  x.  13 ) ;  but  also  in  other 
cases  where  it  is  designed  to  soothe  or  to  encourage 
a  [jerson  (Gen.  xUii.  23;  Judg.  vi.  23,  xix.  20; 
1  Chr.  xii.  18;  Dan.  x.  19;  compare  1  Sam.  xx. 
21,  where  it  is  opposed  to  "hurt;"  2  Sam.  xviii. 
28,  "all  is  well;"  and  2  Sam.  xi.  7,  where  it  is 
applied  to  the  progress  of  the  war).  The  saluta- 
tion at  parting  consisted  originally  of  a  simple  bless- 
ing (Gen.  xxiv.  60,  xxviii.  1,  xlvii.  10 ;  Josh.  xxii. 
6),  but  in  later  times  the  term  shdtom  was  intro- 
duced here  also  in  the  form  "  Go  in  peace,"  or 
rather  "  Earewell"  (1  Sam.  i.  17,  xx.  42;  2  Sam. 
sv.  9).  This*  was  current  at  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  ministry  (JIark  v.  34;  Luke  vii.  50; 
Acts  xvi.  36);  and  is  adopted  by  Him  in  his  parting 
address  to  his  disciples  (John  siv.  27).  It  had 
even  passed  into  a  salutation  on  meeting,  in  such 
forms  as  "  Peace  be  to  this  house  "  (Luke  x.  5), 
"Peace  be  unto  you"  (Luke  xxiv.  36;  .lohn  xx. 
19).  The  more  common  salutation,  however,  at 
this  period  was  borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  their 
word  ^^^aipeif  being  used  both  at  meeting  (Matt. 
xxvi.  49,  xxviii.  9;  Luke  i.  28),  and  probalily  also 
at  departure.  Iu  modern  times  the  ordinary  mode 
of  address  current  in  the  I'^ast  resembles  the  He- 
brew: Es-seldm  aleykum,  "Peace  be  on  you" 
(Lane's  Mod.  Kg.  ii.  7),  and  the  terra  "salam" 
has  been  introduced  into  our  own  language  to  de- 
scribe the  Oriental  salutation. 

The  forms  of  greeting  that  we  have  noticed 
were  freely  exchanged  among  persons  of  different 
ranks  on  the  occasion  of  a  casual  meeting,  and  this 
even  when  they  were  strangers.  Thus  Boaz  ex- 
changed greeting  with  his  reapers  (Ruth  ii.  4),  the 
tra\eller  on  the  ro.ad  saluted  the  worker  in  tlie 
field  (Ps.  cxxix.  8),  and  members  of  the  same  (axw- 
'ly  interchanged  greetings  on  rising  in  tlie  morn- 
ing (Prov.  xxvii.  14).  The  only  restriction  ap- 
pears to  have  been  in  regard  to  religion,  the  Jew 
of  old,  as   the  Mohammedan  of  the  present  day, 

6  The  Greek  expression  is  evidently  borrowed  from 
the    Hebrew,     the    preposition    eU    not    betokeuing 


SAMAEL 


2795 


paying  the  compliment  only  to  those  whom  he  con- 
sidered "brethren,"  i.  t.  memliers  of  the  same  re- 
ligious community  (Matt.  v.  47;  Lane,  ii.  8;  Nie- 
buhr,  Dtscript.  p.  43).  Even  the  Apostle  St 
John  forbids  an  interchange  of  greeting  where  it 
iujplied  a  wish  for  the  success  of  a  bad  cans* 
(2  John  11).  In  modern  times  the  Orientals  ar* 
famed  for  the  elaborate  formality  of  their  greetings, 
wliich  occupy  a  very  considerable  time;  the  in- 
stances given  in  the  Bible  do  not  bear  such  a  char- 
acter, and  therefore  the  prohibition  addressed  to 
persons  engaged  in  urgent  business,  "  Salute  no 
man  by  the  way"  (2  K.  iv.  2J ;  Luke  x.  4),  may 
best  be  referred  to  the  delay  likely  to  ensue  from 
subsequent  conversation.  Among  the  Persians  the 
monarch  was  never  approached  without  the  salu- 
tation "Oking!  live  for  ever"  (Uan.  ii.  4,  etc.). 
There  is  no  evidence  that  this  ever  became  cur- 
rent among  the  -lews:  the  expression  in  1  K.  i.  31 
was  elicited  by  the  previous  allusion  on  the  part  of 
David  to  his  own  decease.  In  lieu  of  it  we  meet 
with  the  Greek  x«''pe)  ''hail!  "  (Matt,  xxvii.  29). 
The  act  of  salutation  was  accompanied  with  a  va- 
riety of  gestures  expressive  of  difii^rent  degrees  of 
humiliation,  and  sometimes  with  a  kiss.  [Adoka- 
Tio>;;  Kiss.]  These  acts  involved  the  necessity 
of  dismounting  in  case  a  person  were  riding  or 
driving  (Gen.  xxiv.  64;  1  Sara.  xxv.  23;  2  K.  v. 
21).  The  same  custom  still  prevails  in  the  East 
(Niebuhr's  Dcscripl.  p.  39). 

The  epi-stolary  salutations  in  the  period  subse- 
quent to  the  O.  r.  were  framed  on  the  model  of 
the  Latin  style:  the  addition  of  the  term  "peace  " 
may,  however,  be  regarded  as  a  vestige  of  the  old 
Hebrew  form  (2  Mace.  i.  1).  The  WTiter  placed 
his  own  name  first,  and  then  that  of  the  jierson 
whom  he  saluted ;  it  was  only  in  special  cases  that 
this  order  was  reversed  (2  Mace.  i.  1,  ix.  19; 
1  Esdr.  vi.  7).  A  combination  of  the  first  and 
third  persons  in  the  terras  of  the  salutation  was  not 
unfrequent  ((ial.  i.  1,  2;  Philem.  1;  2  Pet.  i.  1). 
The  term  used  (either  expressed  or  understood)  in 
the  introductory  salutation  was  the  Greek  ■)(^aipiiv 
in  an  elliptical  construction  (1  Mace.  x.  18;  2  Mace, 
ix.  19 ;  1  Esdr.  viii.  9  ;  Acts  xxiii.  26 ) ;  this,  however, 
was  more  frequently  omitted,  and  the  only  .Vpos- 
tolic  passages  in  which  it  occurs  are  Acts  xv.  21 
and  James  i.  1,  a  coincidence  which  renders  it 
probable  that  St.  James  composed  the  letter  in 
the  former  passage.  A  form  of  prayer  for  spiritual 
mercies  was  also  used,  consisting  generally  of  the 
terms  "  grace  and  peace,"  but  in  the  tliree  Pastoral 
Epistles  and  in  2  -lohn  "grace,  mercy,  and  peace," 
and  in  Jude  "  mercy,  peace,  and  lo\e."  Ihe  con- 
cluding salutation  consisted  occasionally  of  a  trans- 
lation of  the  Latin  Vdhle  (.A.cts  xv.  29,  xxiii.  30), 
but  more  generally  of  the  terra  ocr7ra{b/xai,  "  I 
salute,"  or  the  cognate  substantive,  accon)panied  by 
a  prayer  for  peace  or  grace.  St.  Paul,  who  availed 
himself  of  an  amanuensis  (Rom.  xvi.  22),  added 
the  salutation  with  his  own  hand  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
21;  CoL  iv.  18;  2  Thes.  iii.  17).  The  omis- 
sion of  the  introductory  salutation  in  the  Epistl* 
to  the  Hebrews  is  very  noticeable. 

W.  L.   B. 

SAM'AEL  (SaAa^iTjA;  [Sin.  2a/ia;UirjA. ;  Aid 
Sa/xaTJA:]     Sitbtilnel),   a    variation    for   (margin! 


the  state   into  which,  but  answering  to  the   Hebrew 
y,  i«  which  the  person  departs. 


2796 


SAMAIAS 


Balamiel  [Shelumiel]  in  Jud.  viii.  1  (comp.  Num. 
i.  6).     The  form  in  A.  V.  is  given  bv  Aldus. 

'  B.  F.  W. 

SAMAFAS  [3  syl.]  (Sa^uai'aj:  Semeias).  1. 
Shk.maiah  the  Levite  in  tlie  reign  of  Josiah  (1 
Esdr.  i.  9;  comp.  2  Chr.  xxxv.  9). 

2.  Shemaiah  of  tlie  sons  of  Adonikam  (1  Esdr. 
nii.  39;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  13). 

3.  i'Ze/j.e'i;  [Vat.  Se^eas;  Sin.  Se/ueAmj;  Aid. 
Sa^aias;]  Alex.  Se^eiay:  oni.  in  Vulg.)  'I'he 
'■great  Samaias,"  father  of  Ananias  and  Jonathas 
( Toh.  V.  13). 

SAMA'RIA  Cj'Tipffi',  i.  e.   ShomerOn    [see 

helow] ;  Chald.  ^^'I^K'  :  Sa^apsia,  ^(/j.-npiiv, 
2  J/U({pa)r ; "  [Alex,  very  often  'S.a/j.apta,  and  so  Sin. 
or  FA.  in  Is.,  Jer.,  Obad.;  Sin.  -peta  in  Jud.  i.  9, 
iv.  4:]  .loseph.  2a/xape(o,  hut  Ant.  viii.  12,  §  5, 
2efj.aped>i'-   Samctria).    1.   A  city  of  Pnlestine, 

'i'he  word  Shomeron  means,  etyniologically.  "  ])er- 
taining  to  a  watch,"  or  "a  watch-niountaiu ;  "  and 
we  should  almost  be  inclined  to  thinli  that  the 
peculiarity  of  the  situation  of  Samaria  srave  occ.i- 
Bion  to  its  name.  In  the  territory  oriLiinally  be- 
longing to  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  about  six  luiles  to 
the  northwest  of  Shechem,  there  is  a  wide  basin- 
shaped  valley,  encircled  with  high  hills,  almost  on 
the  edge  of  the  great  plain  which  borders  upon  the 
Mediterranean.  In  the  centre  of  this  basin,  which 
is  on  a  lower  level  than  the  valley  of  Shechem, 
rises  a  less  elevated  oblong  hill,  with  steej)  yet 
accessible  sides,  and  a  long  fiat  top.  This  hill  was 
chosen  by  Omri,  as  the  site  of  the  capital  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel.  I'he  first  capital  after  the  seces- 
sion of  the  ten  trilies  had  been  Shechem  itself, 
whither  all  Israel  had  come  to  make  ItehoVjoam 
king.  On  the  separation  being  fully  accomplished, 
Jeroboam  relniilt  that  city  (1  K.  xii.  25),  which 
had  been  razed  to  the  ground  by  Abimelech  (Judg. 
ix.  45).  But  he  soon  moved  to  Tirzah,  a  place,  as 
Dr.  Stanley  observes,  of  great  and  proverbial  beauty 
(Cant.  vi.  4);  which  continued  to  be  the  royal  resi- 
dence until  Zimri  Ijurnt  the  palace  and  perished 
in  its  ruins  (1  K.  xiv.  17,  xv.  21,  33,  xvi.  6-18). 
Omri,  who  prevailed  in  the  contest  for  the  kingdom 
that   ensued,   after    "  reigning    six    years "    there, 

"bought  the  hill  of  Samaria  C|'"1~ipi27  "inrT:  rb 

opos  rh  '2,ifx7)pwv)  of  Shemer  O^?^:  2e/ur)p, 
Joseph,  ^(fiapos)  for  two  talents  of  silver,  and  liuilt 
on  the  hill,  and  called  the  name  of  the  city  which 
he  built,  after  the  name  of  the  owner  of  the  hill, 
Samaria"  (1  K.  xvi.  23,  24).  [O.mki,  Amer.  ed.] 
This  statement  of  course  dispenses  with  the  ety- 
mology above  alluded  to ;  but  the  central  position 
of  the  hill,  as  Herod  sagaciously  observed  long 
afterwards,  made  it  admirably  adapted  for  a  place 
of  observation,  and  a  fortress  to  awe  the  neighlior- 
ing  country.  And  the  singular  beauty  of  the  spot, 
upon  which,  to  this  hour,  travellers  dwell  with 
admiration,  may  have  struck  Omri,  as  it  afterwards 
struck  the  tasteful  Idumean  {B.  J.  i.  21,  §  2;  Ant. 
XV.  8,  §  5). 

From  the  date  of  Omri's  purchase,  n.  c.  925, 
Samaria  retained  its  dignity  as  the  capital  of  the 


SAMARIA 

ten  tribes.  Ahab  built  a  temple  to  Baal  then 
(1  K.  xvi.  32,  33);  and  from  this  circumstance 
portion  of  the  city,  possibly  fortified  by  a  separate 
wall,  was  called  "the  city  of  the  house  of  Baal" 
(2  K.  X.  26).  Samaria  must  have  been  a  place 
of  great  strength.  It  was  twice  besieged  by  the 
Syrians,  in  b.  c.  901  (1  K.  xx.  1),  and  hi  b.  c.  892 
(2  K.  vi.  24-vii.  20);  but  on  both  occasions  thf 
siege  was  ineffectual.  On  the  latter,  i.ideed,  it 
was  relieved  miraculously,  but  not  until  the  inhab- 
itants had  suffered  almost  incredible  horrors  from, 
famine  during  their  protracted  resistance.  The 
possessor  of  Samaria  was  considered  to  be  de  facto 
king  of  Israel  (2  K.  xv.  13,  14);  and  woes  de- 
nounced against  the  nation  were  directed  against 
it  by  name  (Is.  vii.  9,  &c.).  In  B.  c.  721,  Sarcv 
ria  was  taken,  alter  a  siege  of  three  years,  by  Shs.]- 
maneser,  king  of  Assyria  (2  K.  xviii.  9,  10),  and 
the  kiiiL'dom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  put  an  end  to. 
[See  lieldw,  Xo.  3.]  Some  years  afterwards  the 
district  of  which  Samaria  was  the  centre  was  re- 
peopled  by  F.sarhaddon;  but  we  do  not  hear  espe- 
cially of  the  city  until  the  days  of  Alexander  the 
(ireat.  That  conqueror  took  the  city,  which  seems 
to  have  somewhat  recovered  itself  (luiseb.  C/irun. 
ad  ann.  .-Vljr.  li;84),  killed  a  large  portion  of  the 
inhabitants,  and  suffered  the  remainder  to  settle 
at  Shechem.  [Shecme.m;  Syciiak.]  He  replaced 
them  by  a  colony  of  Syro-Macedonians,  and  gave 
the  adjacent  territory  {^a/xapi'iTLs  x'«V"'  '"  ^'^^ 
.lews  to  inhabit  (Joseph,  c.  Ap.  ii.  4).  These 
Syro-Macedonians  occupied  the  city  until  the  time 
of  John  Hyrcanus.  It  was  then  a  place  of  con- 
siderable importance,  for  Josephus  describes  it  (Ant. 
xiii.  10,  §  2)  as  a  very  strong  city  (■n-6\ts  oxvpu- 
Tarrj).  John  Hyrcanus  took  it  after  a  year's  siege, 
and  did  his  best  to  demolish  it  entirely.  He  inter- 
sected the  hill  on  which  it  lay  with  trenches:  into 
these  he  conducted  the  natural  brooks,  and  thus 
undermined  its  foundations.  "  In  fact,"  says  the 
Jewish  historian,  ■'  he  took  away  all  evidence  of 
the  very  existence  of  the  city."  This  story  at  first 
sis:ht  seems  rather  exaggerated,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  hilly  site  of  Samaria.  It  may  have 
referred  only  to  the  suburbs  lying  at  its  foot. 
"But,"  says  I'rideaux  {Conn.  b.  c.  109,  note), 
"  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  who  was  in  the  place,  tells 
us  in  his  Itinerary''  that  there  were  upon  the  top 
of  this  hill  many  fountains  of  water,  and  from 
these  water  enough  may  have  been  derived  to  fill 
tliese  trenches."  It  should  also  be  recnllected  that 
the  hill  of  .Samaria  was  lower  than  the  hills  in  its 
neighborhood.  This  may  account  for  the  existence 
of  these  springs.  Josephus  descrilies  the  extrem- 
ities to  which  the  inhabitants  were  reduced  during 
this  siege,  nmch  in  the  same  way  that  the  authoi 
of  the  Book  of  Kings  does  during  that  of  Ben 
hadad  (comp.  Ant.  xiii.  10,  §  2,  with  2  K.  vi.  25). 
John  Hyrcanus"  reasons  for  attacking  Samaria  were 
the  injuries  which  its  iidiabitants  had  done  to  the 
people  of  Marissa,  colonists  und  allies  of  the  Jewa 
This  confirms  what  was  said  above,  of  the  cession 
of  the  Samaritan  neighborhood  to  the  Jews  }j 
Alexander  the  Great. 

After  this  disaster  (which  occurred  in  b.  c.  109) 
the  Jews  inhabited  what  remained  of  the  city;  a. 


"  The  prevailing  LXX.  form  in  the  0.  T.  is  'S.afj.d- 
Kta,  ^Tith  the  following  remarkable  exceptions :  1  K. 
tvi.  24,  Se^iepixiV  .  .  .  Sf^T^puii'  (Mai,  2ajU7jpi6i' ) ; 
Alex    Eiiepuiv    .     .    ,     So/^>)puji' :]  Ezr.  iv.  10,  2.oix6- 


paiv  (Mai,  iu);u,ojp(oi') ;    Neh.   iv.   2;  Is.   vii.  9,  2o/[i<> 
poi'. 

I>  No  such  passage,  however,  now  exists  in  Beiys 
Diiti  of  Tulela.  See  the  editions  of  Ashcr  and  of 
1  .Un. 


SAMARIA 

least  we  find  it  in  tlieir  possession  in  the  time  of 
Alexander  Jannaius  {Ant.  xiii.  15,  §  4),  and  until 
Ponipey  |2;a\e  it  baclt  to  the  descendants  of  its 
original  inhabitants  (roty  olKy)Topaiv)-  These 
oiK7]Topes  niay  possibly  have  been  the  Syro-JMace- 
donians,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  they  were 
Samaritans  proper,  whose  ancestors  had  been  dis- 
possessed by  the  colonists  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
By  directions  of  Gabinius,  Samaria  and  other  de- 
molished cities  were  rebuilt  {Ant.  xiv.  5,  §  3).  But 
ita  more  effectual  rebuilding  was  undertaken  liy 
Herod  the  Great,  to  wliom  it  had  been  granted  l)y 
Augustus,  on  the  death  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra 
(Ani.  xiii.  10,  §  3,  xv.  8,  §  5;  B.  J.  i.  20,  §  3). 
He  called  it  Sebnsle,  "Ze^acTTri  =  Au(juU<t,  after 
the  name  of  his  patron  {Ant.  xv.  7,  §  7).  .Josephus 
gives  an  elaborate  description  of  Herod's  improve- 
ments. The  wall  surrounding  it  was  20  stadia  in 
length.  In  the  middle  of  it  was  a  close,  of  a 
stadium  and  a  half   square,   containing   a   mag- 


S  AM  ARIA  2797 

iiificent  temple,  dedicated  to  the  Caesar.  It  w«» 
colonized  by  G,000  veterans  and  others,  for  whose 
support  a  most  beautiful  and  rich  district  surround- 
ing the  city  was  appropriated.  Herod's  motives 
in  these  arrangements  were  probably,  first,  the 
occupation  of  a  conuuanding  position,  and  then 
the  desire  of  distinguishing  himself  for  taste  by 
the  embellishment  of  a  spot  already  so  adorned 
by  nature  {Ant.  xv.  8,  §  5;  B.  J.  i.  20,  §  3;  21, 
§2). 

How  long  .Samaria  maintained  its  splendor  after 
Herod's  improvements  we  are  not  informed.  In 
the  N.  T.  the  city  itself  does  not  appear  to  be 
mentioned,  but  nather  a  portion  of  lite  distinct  to 
which,  even  in  older  times,  it  had  extended  its 
name.  Our  Version,  indeed,  of  Acts  viii.  5  asys 
that  Philip  the  deacon  "  went  down  to  tlie  city  of 
Samaria;  "  but  the  Greek  of  the  passage  is  simply 
e(s  TTciAii'  rrjs  ^a/xapeias.  And  we  m.ay  fairly 
argue,  both  from  the  absence  of  the  definite  article 


Sebusliyeh,  the  ancient  Samaria,  from  the  E.  N.  E. 

Behind  the  city  are  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  verging  on  the  Plain  of  Sharon.  Tlie  Mediterranean  Sea  !■ 
in  the  furthest  disfcmce.a  The  original  sketch  from  which  this  view  is  taken  wag  made  by  William  Tipping, 
Esq.,  in  1842,  and  is  engraved  by  his  kind  permission. 


and  from  the  probability  that,  had  the  city  Samaria 
been  intended,  the  terra  employed  would  have  been 
Sebdsie,  that  some  one  city  of  the  district,  the 
name  of  which  is  not  specified,  was  in  the  mind 
of  the  writer.  In  verse  9  of  the  same  chapter 
"the  people  of  Samaria"  represents  rh  ^dvos  ttj? 
5a|Uapeias;  and  the  phrase  in  verse  2.5,  "many 
Tillages  of  the  Samaritans,"  shows  that  the  opera- 
Hons  of  evangelizing  were  not  confined  to  the  city 
.if  Samaria  itself,  if  they  were  ever  carried  on 
"here.  Comp.  Matt.  s.  5,  "  Into  any  city  of  the 
Samaritans  enter  ye  not;"  and  .lohn  iv.  4,  5, 
where,  after  it  has  been  said,  "And  He  must  needs 
po  through  Samaria,"  obviously  the  district,  it  is 
»ulijoined,  ''  Then  cometh  He  to  a  city  of  Samaria 
tailed  Sychar."  Henceforth  its  history  is  very  un- 
connected. Septiinius  Severus  planted  a  Roman 
Bolony  there  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century 


o  *  The  sea  i«  vis\Me  with  the  naked  eye  from  the 
(Of  of  the  bill.  U. 


(Ulpian,  Leg.  J.  de  Cennibus,  quoted  by  Dr.  Rob- 
inson). Various  specimens  of  coins  struck  on  the 
spot  have  been  preserved,  extending  from  Nero  to 
Geta,  the  brother  of  Cai-acalla  (Vaillant,  in  Nu- 
mism.  Imper.,  and  Noris,  quoted  by  Reland).  But. 
though  tlie  seat  of  a  Roman  colony,  it  could  not 
liave  been  a  place  of  much  political  importance. 
We  find  in  the  Codex  of  Theodo.sius,  that  by  a.  d. 
409  the  Holy  Land  had  lieen  divided  into  Paltestina 
Prima,  Secunda,  and  Tertia.  Pala?8tina  Prima 
included  the  country  of  the  Philistines,  Samaria 
(the  district),  and  the  northern  part  of  .ludft'a; 
but  its  capital  was  not  Sebaste,  but  < 'a?8area.  In 
an  ecclesiastical  point  of  view  it  stood  rather  higher. 
It  was  afi  episcopal  see  probably  as  early  as  the 
third  century.  At  any  rate  its  bishop  was  present 
amongst  those  of  Palestine  at  the  Council  of  Nictea, 
A.  D.  32.5,  and  suliscriiied  its  acts  as  "  INIaximus 
(al.  Mariiuis)  Seliastemis."  The  names  of  some 
of  his  successors  have  lieen  preseived  —  the  InttJt 
of  them  meutioaed  is  Pelagius,  who  attended  th« 


2798  SAMARIA 

Synod  at  Jerusalem,  a.  d.  536.  The  title  of  the 
see  occurs  in  the  earlier  Greek  Notitke,  and  in 
the  later  Latin  ones  (Kelaiid,  PuL  jip.  214-229). 
Sebaste  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Mohammedans 
durinp;  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  In  the  course  of 
the  Crusades  a  Latin  bishopric  was  established 
there  the  title  of  which  was  recognized  by  the 
Konian  Church  until  the  fourteenth  century.  At 
this  day  the  city  of  Omri  and  of  Herod  ■  is  rep- 
resented by  a  small  village  retaining  few  vestiges 
of  the  past  except  its  name,  Sebiisiieh,  an  Arabic 
corruption  of  Sebaste.  Some  architectural  remains 
it  has,  partly  of  Christian  construction  or  adapta- 
tion, as  the  ruined  church  of  St.  John  the  Baptist, 
partly,  perhaps,  traces  of  Idumsean  magnificence. 
"  A  long  avenue  of  broken  pillars  (says  Dr.  Stan- 
ley), apparently  tl;e  main  street  of  Herod's  city, 
here,  as  at  Palmyra  and  Damascus,  adorned  by  a 
colonnade  on  each  side,  still  lines  the  t«ipmost  ter- 
race of  the  hill."  But  the  fragmentary  aspect  of 
the  whole  place  exhibits  a  present  fulfillment  of  the 
prophecy  of  Mieah  (i.  6),  though  it  may  have  been 
fulfilled  more  than  once  previously  by  the  ravaijes 
of  Shalnianeser  or  of  .John  Hyrcanus.  "  I  will 
make  .Samaria  as  an  hea])  of  the  field,  and  as 
plantings  of  a  vineyard:  and  I  will  ])our  down  the 
stones  thereof  into  the  valley,'and  I  will  discover 
the  foundations  thereof"  (Mic.  L  0;  comp.  Hos. 
xiii.  16). 

St.  Jerome,  whose  acquaintance  with  Palestine 
imparts  a  sort  of  probabihty  to  the  tradition  which 
prevailed  so  strongly  in  later  days,  asserts  *hat 
Sebaste,  which  he  invariably  identifies  with  Samarm, 
was  the  place  in  which  St.  John  the  Baptist  was 
imprisoned  and  suffered  death.  He  also  makes  it 
the  burial-place  of  the  prophets  Klislia  and  Obadiah 
(see  various  passages  cited  by  Reland,  pp.  980, 1)81 ). 
E]iiplianins  is  at  great  pains,  in  his  work  Ai/i: 
IJtefines  (lib  i. ),  in  which  he  treats  of  the  heresies 
of  tlie  Samaritans  with  singular  minuteness,  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  their  name.  He  inter- 
prets it  as  D'*"]X3ti7,  (pv\aK€s,  or  "keepers."  The 
hill  on  which  the  city  was  built  was,  he  says, 
designated  Sonier  or  Sonieron  {'Xoo/j.rip,  ^oc/xopwv), 
from  a  certaui  Somoron  the  son  of  Somer,  whom 
he  considers  to  have  been  of  the  stock  of  tiie  an- 
cient Perizzites  or  Girgashites,  themselves  descend- 
ants of  Canaan  and  Ham.  But  he  adds,  the 
inhabitants  may  have  been  called  Samaritans  from 
their  guarding  the  land,  or  (coming  down  much 
later  in  their  history)  from  their  guarding  the  Law, 
as  distinguished  from  the  later  writings  of  the 
Jewish  Canon,  which  they  refused  to  allow.  [See 
Sam.^ritaxs.] 

For  modern  descriptions  of  the  condition  of  Sa- 
maria and  its  neighborhood,  see  Dr.  Kol)inson's 
Biblical  Rfseorc/ies,  ii.  127-133;  lieland's  Pakes- 
iina,  pp.  344,  979-1)82;  liaumer's  Pdlihtinn,  pp. 
144-148,  notes ;  Van  de  Yelde's  Sijria  ami  Pales- 
tine, i.  303-388,  and  ii.  29.5,  290,  Map,  and  Me- 
vu'ir ;  Dr.  Stanley's  Sinai  itntl  Palestine,  pp. 
242-246;  and  a  short  article  by  Mr.  G.  Williams 
in  the  Diet,  of  Geng.  Dr.  Kitto,  in  his  Piiysicnl 
Uistm-y  oj'  Palestine,  pp.  cxvii.,  cxviii.,  has  an  in- 
'eresting  reference  to  and  extract  fron>  Sandys, 
iUustrative  of  its  topography  and  general  aspect  at 
the  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

2.  The  Samaria  named  in  the  present  text  of 
1  Mace.  v.  60  (tvu  ^afxapeiav-  [Sin.  .Alex,  -piaf-] 
Snmariam)  h  evidently  an  ermr.  At  any  rate 
the  well-known  Samaria  of  the  Old  and  New  I'es- 


SAMARIA 

taments  cannot  be  intended,  for  it  is  obvious  that 
.ludas,  in  passing  from  Hebron  to  the  land  of  the 
Philistines  (Azotus),  could  not  make  so  immense  a 
detvur.  The  true  correction  is  doubtless  supplied 
by  Josephus  {Ant.  xii.  8,  §  6),  who  has  Marissa 
{i.  e.  Makesha),  a  place  which  lay  in  the  road 
from  Heliron  to  the  Philistine  Plain.  One  of  the 
ancient  Latin  Versions  exhibits  the  same  reading , 
which  is  accepted  by  Ewald  (Gescli.  iv.  361)  and  a 
host  of  commentators  (see  Grimm,  Kurzy.  Kxe<j. 
Handb.,  on  the  passage).  Drusius  proposed  Sha- 
araim ;  but  this  is  hardlj'  so  feasible  as  Maresha 
and  has  no  external  support. 

3.  Sama'kia  ([2a^ap€i'a;  Alex,  very  often  2cf 
fiapia,  and  so  Sin.  in  1  ]\Iacc.  and  N.  T.,  followed 
by  Tisch.  in  his  8th  ed.  of  the  N.  T. ;  — "  the 
country  of  Samaria,"  1  Mace.  x.  30,  xi.  28,  34,  ^ 
2a/xap6rT(?,  -Alex.  -ptTis,  and  so  Sin.  except  1 
Mace  xi.  28;  —  (woman)  "of  Samaria,"  John  iv. 
9,  'Sa/nape'iTts,  but  Tisch.  in  his  8th  ed.  of  the  N. 
r.,  2a/xapiTis; — ]  Joseph.  X'^P"  ^a/xap^wv;  Ptol 
2o/iopi5,  2a,uap6ia:   Sajnaria). 

Samak'itans  (D'^3*"ipti?  :  ^a/xape^Tai;  [Ales. 

loLfxapirai,  and  so  Sin.  and  Tisch.  (8th  ed.)  in 
lilt  N.  T. ;]   Joseph.  'Xafj.apils-   \_Samaritce'\). 

There  are  lew  questions  in  Biblical  philology 
upon"Hvbich,  in  recent  times,  scholars  have  come  to 
sue!)  opposite  conclusions  as  the  extent  of  the  terri- 
tory to  which  the  former  of  these  words  is  applica- 
ble, and  the  orisrin  of  the  people  to  which  the  latter 
is  ap[)lied  in  the  N.  T.  But  a  probable  solution  of 
'hem  may  be  gained  by  careful  attention  to  the 
historical  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  Jo- 
sephus, and  by  a  consideration  of  the  geographical 
features  of  Palestine. 

In  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  a  Samakitan 
would  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  city  of  Samaria. 
But  it  is  not  found  at  all  in  this  sense,  exclusively 
at  any  rate,  in  the  O.  T.  In  fact,  it  only  occurs 
there  once,  and  then  in  a  wider  signification,  in 
2  K.  xvii.  29.  There  it  is  employed  to  designate 
those  whom  the  king  of  Assyria  had  "  placed  in 
(what  are  called)  the  cities  of  Samaria  (whatever 
these  may  lie)  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel." 

Wexit  the  word  Samaritan  found  elsewhere  in  the 
0.  T.,  it  would  have  designated  those  who  be- 
longed to  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  in  , 
a  large  sense  was  called  Samaria.  And  as  the  ex- 
tent of  that  kingdom  varied,  which  it  did  very 
much,  gradually  diminishing  to  the  time  of  Shal- 
nianeser, so  the  extent  of  the  word  Samaritan  would 
have  \aried. 

Samajiia  at  first  included  all  the  tribes  over 
which  .lerolioam  made  himself  king,  whether  east 
or  west  of  the  river  Jordan.  Hence,  e\en  before 
the  city  of  Samaria  existed,  we  find  the  "  old 
prophet  who  dwelt  at  Betiiel  "  describing  the  pre- 
dictions of  "  the  man  of  God  who  came  from 
Judah,"  in  reference  to  the  altar  at  Bethel,  as 
directed  not  merely  against  that  altar,  but 
"  against  all  the  houses  of  the  high-places  which 
are  in  the  cities  of  Saniaiia"  (1  K.  xiii.  32),  /.  e. 
of  course,  the  cities  of  which  Samaria  was,  or  was 
to  lie,  the  head  or  capital.  In  other  places  in  the 
iiistorical  books  of  the  0.  T.  (with  the  exception 
of  2  K.  xvii.  24,  26,  28,  29)  Samaria  seems  to 
denote  the  city  exclusively.  But  the  prophets  use 
the  word,  nnich  as  did  the  old  prophet  of  Bethel, 
in  a  greatly  extended  sense.  Thus  the  "  calf  of 
Bethel  ■'  is  called  by  Hosea  (viii.  5,  6)  the  ••  c^ll 
of  Samaria";  in  Amos  (iii.  9)  the  "mountains  >. 


SAMARIA 

Samaria"  are  spoken  of;  and  the  "  captivity  of 
Samaria  and  her  daughters  "  is  a  phrase  found  in 
Ezekiel  (xvi.  53).  Hence  the  word  Samaritan 
must  have  denoted  every  one  subject  to  the  king  of 
the  northern  capital. 

But,  whatever  extent  the  word  might  have  ac- 
quired, it  necessarily  became  contracted  as  the 
limits  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  became  contracted. 
In  all  probability  the  territory  of  Simeon  and  that 
of  Dan  were  very  early  absorbed  in  the  kingdom  of 
Judah.  This  would  be  one  limitation.  Next,  in 
B.  c.  771  and  740  respectively,  "  Ful,  king  of  As- 
syria, and  Tilgath-Pilneser,  king  of  Assyria,  carried 
away  the  Keubenites  and  the  Gadites,  and  the  half- 
tribe  of  Manasseh,  and  brought  them  unto  Halah, 
and  Habor,  and  Hara,  and  to  the  river  Gozan  " 
(1  Chr.  v.  26).  This  would  be  a  second  limitation. 
But  the  latter  of  these  kings  went  further:  "  He 
took  Ijon,  and  Abel-beth-niaachah,  and  .lanoah,  and 
Kedesh,  and  Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  all 
the  land  of  Naphtali.  and  carried  them  captive  to 
Assyria"  (2  K.  xv.  29).  This  would  be  a  third 
limitation.  Nearly  a  century  before,  b.  c.  860, 
"the  Lord  had  begun  to  cut  Israel  short;"  for 
"  Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  smote  them  in  all  the 
coasts  of  Israel;  from  Jordan  eastward,  all  the  land 
of  Gilend,  the  Gadites,  and  the  Keubenites,  and  the 
Manassites,  from  Aroer,  which  is  by  the  river  Ar- 
Don,  even  Gilead  and  Bashan  "  (2  K.  x.  32,  33). 
This,  however,  as  we  may  conjecture  from  the  di- 
versity of  expression,  had  been  merely  a  passing 
inroad,  and  had  involved  no  permanent  subjection 
of  the  country  or  deportation  of  its  inhabitants. 
The  invasions  of  Pul  and  of  Tilgath-pilneser  were 
utter  clearances  of  the  population.  The  territory 
thus  desolated  by  them  was  probably  occupied  by 
degrees  by  the  pushing  forward  of  the  neighboring 
heathen,  or  by  straggling  families  of  the  Israelites 
themselves.  In  reference  to  the  northern  part  of 
Galilee  we  know  that  a  heathen  population  pre- 
vailed. Hence  the  phrase  "  Galilee  of  the  Na- 
tions," or  "  Gentiles  "  (Is.  is.  1;  1  jMacc.  v.  15). 
And  no  doubt  this  was  the  case  also  beyond  Jor- 
dan. 

But  we  have  yet  to  arrive  at  a  fourth  limitation 
of  the  kingdom  of  Samaria,  and  by  consequence,  of 
the  word  Samaritan.  It  is  evident  from  an  occur- 
rence in  Hezekiah's  reign,  that  just  before  the  dep- 
osition and  death  of  Hoshea,  the  last  king  of  Is- 
•rael,  the  authority  of  the  king  of  Judah,  or,  at 
least,  his  influence,  was  recogijized  by  portions  of 
Asher,  Issachar,  and  Zebulun,  and  even  of  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh  (2  Chr.  xxx.  1-26).  i\Ien  came 
from  all  those  tribes  to  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem. 
This  was  about  B.  c.  726.  In  fact,  to  such  miser- 
able limits  had  the  kingdom  of  Samaria  been  re- 
duced, that  when,  tv\o  or  three  jears  afterwards, 
we  are  told  that  "  Shalmaneser  came  up  through- 
out the  land,"  and  after  a  siege  of  three  years 
"  took  Samaria,  and  carried  Israel  away  into  As- 
syria, and  placed  them  in  Halah,  and  in  Habor  by 
the  river  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes  " 
(2  K.  xvii.  5,  6),  and  when  again  we  are  told  that 
"  Israel  was  carried  away  out  of  their  own  land 
into  Assyria"  {2  K.  xvii.  23),  we  must  suppose  a 
?ery  small  field  of  operations.  Samaria  (the  city). 
Hid  a  few  adjacent  cities  or  villages  only,  repre- 
sented that  dominion  which  had  once  extended 
from  Bethel  to  Dan  northwards,  and  from  the 
MediteiTanean  to  the  borders  of  Syria  and  Am- 
■non  eastwards.  This  is  further  confirmed  by 
that  we  read  of  Josiah's  progress,  in  b.  c.  6-tl, 


SAMARIA  2799 

through  '  the  cities  of  Manasseh,  and  Ephraim, 
and  Simeon,  even  unto  Naphtali  "  (2  Chr.  xxxiv. 
6).  Such  a  progress  would  have  been  impractica- 
ble had  the  number  of  cities  and  villages  occupied 
by  the  persons  then  called  Samaritans  been  at  aL 
large. 

This,  however,  brings  us  more  closely  to  the 
second  point  of  our  discussion,  the  origin  of  those 
who  are  in  2  K.  xvii.  29,  and  in  the  N.  T.,  called 
Samaritans.  Shahnaneser,  as  we  have  seen  (2  K. 
xvii.  5,  6,  26),  carried  Israel,  i.  e.  the  remnant  of 
the  ten  tribes  which  still  acknowledged  Hoshea'a 
authority,  into  Ass3ria.  This  remnant  consisted, 
as  has  been  shown,  of  Samaria  (the  city)  and  a 
few  adjacent  cities  and  villages.  Now,  1.  Did  he 
carry  away  all  their  inhabitants  or  no?  2. 
Whether  they  were  wholly  or  only  partially  des 
olated,  who  replaced  the  deported  population  y 
On  the  answer  to  these  inquiries  will  depend  our 
determination  of  the  questions,  were  the  Samari- 
tans a  mixed  race,  composed  partly  of  Jews,  partly 
of  new  settlers,  or  were  they  purely  of  foreign  ex- 
traction V 

In  reference  to  the  former  of  these  inquiries,  it 
may  be  observed  that  the  language  of  Scripture 
admits  of  scarcely  a  doubt.  "  Israel  was  carried 
away  "  (2  K.  xvii.  6,  23),  and  other  nations  were 
placed  "  in  the  cities  of  Samaria  instcud  of  the 
children  of  Israel"  (2  K.  xvii.  24).  There  is  no 
mention  whatever,  as  in  the  ease  of  the  somewhat 
parallel  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  of 
"  the  poor  of  the  land  being  left  to  be  vine-dressers 
and  husbandmen  "  (2  K.  xxv.  12).  We  add,  that, 
had  any  been  left,  it  would  have  been  impossilde 
for  the  new  inhabitants  to  have  been  so  utterly 
unable  to  acquaint  themselves  with  "  the  manner 
of  the  God  of  the  land,"  as  to  require  to  be  taught 
by  some  priest  of  the  Captivity  sent  from  the  king 
of  Assyria.  Besides,  it  was  not  an  unusual  thing 
with  oriental  conquerors  actually  to  exhaust  a  land 
of  its  inhabitants.  Comp.  Herod,  iii.  149,  "  The 
Persians  dragged  {aayqvevaavris)  Samos,  and 
delivered  it  up  to  Syloson  stript  of  all  its  men ;  " 
and,  again,  Herod,  vi.  31,  for  the  application  of 
the  same  treatment  to  other  islands,  where  the 
process  called  crayrivevftv  is  described,  and  is  com- 
pared to  a  hunting  out  of  the  population  (iKdripeu- 
eiv)-  Such  a  capture  is  presently  contrasted  with 
the  capture  of  other  territories  to  which  aayqi/ev- 
eiv  was  not  applied.  Josephus's  phrase  in  refer- 
ence to  the  cities  of  Samaria  is  that  Shalmaneser 
"transplanted  all  the  people"  {Ant.  ix.  14,  §  1). 
A  threat  against  Jerusalem,  which  was  indeed  only 
partially  carried  out,  shows  how  complete  and  sum- 
mary the  desolation  of  the  last  relics  of  the  sister 
kingdom  must  have  been:  "I  will  stretch  over 
Jerusalem  the  line  of  Samaria,  and  the  plummet 
of  the  house  of  Ahab :  and  I  will  wipe  Jerusalem 
as  a  man  wipeth  a  dish :  he  wipeth  and  turneth  it 
upon  the  face  thereof"  (2  K.  xxi.  13).  This  was 
uttered  within  forty  years  after  b.  c.  721,  during 
the  reign  of  Manasseh.  It  must  have  derived 
nuich  strength  from  the  recentness  and  proximity 
of  the  calamity. 

We  may  then  conclude  that  the  cities  of  Sama- 
ria were  not  merely  partially,  but  wholly  evacuated 
of  their  inhabitants  in  B.  c.  721,  and  that  they  re- 
mained in  this  desolated  state  until,  in  the  words 
of  2  K.  xvii.  24,  "  the  king  of  Assyria  broughj 
men  from  Babylon,  and  from  Cuthah,  and  k^m 
Ava  (Ivah,  2  K.  xviii.  34),  and  from  Hamath.  and 
from  Sepharvaira,  and  placed  them  in  the  citie*  uf 


2800  SAMARIA 

Samaria  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel:  and  they 
possessed  Samaria,  and  dwelt  in  the  cities  thereof." 
Thus  the  new  Samaritans  —  for  such  we  must  now 
call  them  —  were  Assyrians  by  birth  or  subjuga- 
tion, were  utterly  strangers  in  the  cities  of  Sama- 
Yia,,  and  were  exclusively  the  inhabitants  of  those 
cities.  An  incidental  question,  however,  arises. 
Who  was  the  king  of  Assyria  that  effected  this 
colonization  ?  At  first  sight,  one  would  suppose 
Shalmaneser;  for  the  narrative  is  scarcely  broken, 
and  the  repeopling  seems  to  be  a  natural  sequence 
of  the  depopulation.  Such  would  appear  to  have 
been  Josephus'  view,  for  he  says  of  Shalmaneser, 
••  When  he  had  removed  the  people  out  of  their 
land,  he  brought  other  nations  out  of  Cuthah,  a 
place  so  called  (for  there  is  still  in  Persia  a  river 
of  that  name),  into  Samaria  and  the  country  of 
the  IsraiJites"  {Anl.  ix.  14,  §§  ],  3;  x.  9,  §  7); 
but  he  must  have  been  led  to  this  interpretation 
Bimply  by  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  transactions 
in  the  Hebrew  text.  The  Samaritans  themselves, 
in  Ezr.  iv.  2,  10,  attril)Uted  their  colonization  not 
to  Shalmaneser,  but  to  "  Esar-haddon,  king  of  As- 
Bur,"  or  to  "  the  great  and  noble  Asnapper,"  either 
the  king  himself  or  one  of  his  generals.  It  was 
probably  on  his  invasion  of  Judah,  in  the  reign  of 
Manasseh,  about  B.  c.  077,  that  Esarhaddon  dis- 
covered the  impolicy  of  leaving  a  tract  upon  the 
very  frontiers  of  that  kingdom  thus  desolate,  and 
determined  to  garrison  it  with  foreigners.  The 
fact,  too,  that  some  of  these  foreigners  came  from 
Babylon  would  seem  to  direct  us  to  Esarhaddon, 
rather  (han  to  his  grandfather,  Shalmaneser.  It 
was  only  recently  that  Babylon  had  come  into  the 
hands  of  the  Assyrian  king.  And  there  is  an- 
other reason  why  this  date  should  he  preferred.  It 
coincides  with  the  termination  of  the  sixty-five  years 
of  Isaiah's  prophecy,  delivered  n.  c.  742,  within 
which  ••  Ephraim  should  be  broken  that  it  should 
not  be  a  people"  (Is.  vii.  8).  This  was  not  effect- 
ually accomplished  until  the  very  land  itself  was 
occupied  by  strangers.  So  long  as  this  had  not 
taken  place,  there  might  be  hope  of  return :  after  it 
had  taken  place,  no  hope.  Josephus  {Ant.  x.  9,  §  7) 
expressly  notices  this  clifference  in  the  cases  of  the 
ten  and  of  the  two  tribes.  The  land  of  the  former 
became  the  possession  of  foreigners,  the  land  of  the 
latter,  not  so. 

These  strangers,  whom  we  will  now  assume  to 
have  been  placed  in  "the  cities  of  Samaria"  by 
Esarhaddon,  were  of  course  idolaters,  and  wor- 
shipped a  strange  medley  of  divinities.  Each  of 
the  five  nations,  says  .Josephus,  who  is  confirmed 
by  the  words  of  Scripture,  had  its  own  god.  No 
place  was  found  for  the  worship  of  Hiu)  who  had 
once  called  the  land  his  own,  and  whose  it  was 
still,  (iod's  displeasure  was  kindled,  and  they  were 
infested  by  beasts  of  prey,  wliicli  had  prol>ably 
increased  to  a  great  extent  before  their  entrance 
upon  it.  "  The  Lord  sent  lions  among  them,  which 
Blew  gome  of  them."  On  their  explaining  their 
miserable  condition  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  he  de- 
ipatched  one  of  the  captive  priests  to  teach  them 
"  how  they  shoidd  fear  the  Lord."  Tlie  priest 
came  accordingly,  and  henceforth,  in  the  language 
of  the  sacred  historiai  ,  they  "  feared  the  Lord,  and 
served  their  graven  in.iges,  both  their  children  and 
their  children's  childi^n:  as  did  their  fathers,  so 
io  they  unto  this  day  ','  (2  K.  xvii.  41).  This  last 
aeutence  was  probably  ijjserted  by  Ezra.  It  serves 
two  purposes:  1st,  to  qralify  the  pretensions  of  the 
&iuiaritans  of  Ezra's  tiriie  to  be  pure  worshippers 


SAMARIA 

of  God  —  they  were  no  more  exclusively  his  att 
vants,  than  was  the  Koman  emperor  who  desired 
to  place  a  statue  of  Christ  in  the  Pantheon  enti- 
tled to  be  called  a  Christian ;  and,  2dly,  to  sho« 
how  entirely  the  Samaritans  of  later  days  differed 
from  their  ancestors  in  respect  to  idolatry.  Jose- 
phus's  account  of  the  distress  of  the  Samaritans, 
and  of  the  remedy  for  it,  is  very  similar,  with  the 
exception  that  with  him  they  are  afflicted  with 
pestilence. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  post^captivity  or  new 
Samaritans  —  men  not  of  .Jewish  extraction,  but 
from  the  further  East:  "the  Cutha?ans  had  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  inner  parts  of  Persia  and 
Media,  but  were  then  called  '  Samaritans,'  taking 
the  name  of  the  counti'y  to  which  they  were  re- 
moved," says  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  9,  §  7i.  And 
again  he  sa3's  (A7it.  ix.  14,  §  3)  they  are  called  "in 
Hebrew  '  Cuthseans.'  but  in  Greek  '  Samaritans.'  " 
Our  Lord  expressly  tenns  them  a.\\oyeye7s  (Luke 
xvii.  18);  and  Josephus'  whole  account  of  them 
shows  that  he  believed  them  to  have  been  yueroi/coi 
a\\oe6ve7s,  though,  as  he  tells  us  in  two  places 
(An/,  ix.  14.  §  .3,  and  xi.  8,  §  C),  they  sometimes 
gave  a  different  account  of  their  origin.  But  of 
this  by-and-by.  A  gap  occurs  in  their  history 
until  .fudah  has  returned  from  captivity.  They 
then  desire  to  be  allowed  to  participate  in  the  re- 
building of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  curi- 
ous, and  perhaps  indicative  of  the  treacherous 
character  of  their  designs,  to  find  them  even  then 
called,  by  anticipation,  "  the  adversaries  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin"  (Ezr.  iv.  1),  a  title  which  they 
afterwards  fully  justified.  But,  so  far  as  profes- 
sions go,  they  are  not  enemies;  they  are  most 
anxious  to  be  friends.  Their  religion,  they  assert, 
is  the  same  as  that  of  the  two  trilies,  therefore 
they  have  a  right  to  share  in  that  great  religious 
undertaking.  But  they  do  not  call  it  a  natiunat 
undertaking.  They  advance  no  pretensions  to  Jew- 
ish blood.  They  confess  their  Assyrian  descent, 
and  even  put  it  forward  ostentatiously,  perhaps  to 
enhance  the  merit  of  their  partial  conversion  to 
God.  That  it  was  but  partial  they  give  no  hint. 
It  may  have  become  purer  alieady,  but  we  have  no 
information  that  it  had.  Be  this,  however,  as  it 
may,  the  .lews  do  not  listen  favoralily  to  their  over- 
tures. Ezra,  no  doubt,  from  whose  pen  we  have  a 
record  of  the  transaction,  saw  them  through  and 
through.  On  this  the  Samaritans  throw  off  the  # 
mask,  and  become  open  enemies,  frustrate  the 
operations  of  the  Jews  through  the  reigns  of  two 
Persian  kings,  and  are  only  effectually  silenced  in 
the  reign  of  Elarius  Hystaspis,  is.  c.  519. 

The  feud,  thus  unhappily  begun,  grew  year  by 
year  more  inveterate.  It  is  jjrobable,  too,  that  the 
more  the  Samaritans  detached  themselves  from 
idols,  and  became  devoted  exclusively  to  a  sort  of 
worship  of  Jehovah,  the  more  they  resented  the 
contempt  with  which  the  Jews  treated  their  offers 
of  fraternization.  JSIatters  at  length  came  to  ? 
climax.  About  u.  C.  409,  a  certain  Manasseh,  a 
man  of  priestly  lineage,  on  being  expelled  froir 
Jerusalem  by  Nehemiah  for  an  unlawful  marriage 
obtained  permission  from  the  Persb^n  king  of  hit 
day,  IJarius  Nothus,  to  build  a  temple  on  Mounl 
Gerizim,  for  the  Samaritans,  with  whom  he  hat 
found  refuge.  The  only  thing  wanted  to  crystal- 
lize the  ojiposition  between  the  two  races,  namely 
a  rallying  point  for  schismatical  worship,  being 
now  obtained,  their  animosity  became  more  intenst 
than  ever.     The  Samaritans  are  said  to  have  doM 


SAMARIA 

[everything  in  their  power  to  annoy  the  Jews. 
They  would  refuse  hospitality  to  pily;rims  on  tlieir 
road  to  Jerusalem,  as  in  our  Lord's  case.  They 
would  even  waylay  tlieui  in  their  journey  (Joseph. 
Ant.  XX.  6,  §  1);  and  many  were  compelled  through 
fear  to  take  the  longer  route  by  the  east  of  Jordan. 
Certain  Samaritans  were  said  to  have  once  pene- 
trated into  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  have 
defiled  it  by  scattering  dead  men's  bones  on  the 
sacred  pavement  {Ant.  xviii.  2,  §  2).  We  are  told 
too  of  a  strange  piece  of  mockery  which  nuist  ha\e 
been  especially  resented.  It  was  the  custom  of  the 
Jews  to  communicate  to  their  brethren  still  in 
Babylon  the  exact  day  and  hour  of  the  rising  of 
the  paschal  moon,  by  beacon-firps  commencing  from 
Mount  Olivet,  and  flashing  forward  from  hill  to 
hill  until  they  were  mirrored  in  the  Euphrates. 
So  the  Greek  poet  represents  Agamemnon  as  con- 
veying the  news  of  Troy's  capture  to  the  anxious 
watchers  at  Mycenie.  Those  who  "sat  by  the 
waters  of  Babylon  "  looked  for  this  signal  with 
much  interest.  It  enabled  them  to  share  in  the 
devotions  of  those  who  were  in  their  fixther-land, 
and  it  proved  to  them  that  they  were  not  forgotten. 
The  Samaritans  thought  scorn  of  these  feelings, 
and  would  not  unfrequently  deceive  and  disappoint 
them,  by  kiiidling  a  rivid  dame  and  perplexing  the 
watchers  on  the  mountains."  Their  own  temple 
on  Gerizim  they  considered  to  be  much  superior  to 
that  at  Jerusalem.  There  they  sacrificed  a  pass- 
over.  Towards  the  mountain,  even  after  the  tem- 
ple on  it  had  fallen,  wherever  they  were,  they 
directed  their  worship.  To  their  copy  of  the  Law 
they  arrogated  an  antiquity  and  authority  greater 
than  attached  to  any  copy  in  the  possession  of  the 
Jews.  The  Law  (i.  e.  the  five  books  of  Moses) 
was  their  sole  code;  for  they  rejected  every  other 
book  in  the  Jewish  canon.  And  they  professed  to 
observe  it  better  than  did  the  Jews  themselves, 
employing  the  expression  not  unfrequently,  "  The 
Jews  indeed  do  so  and  so;  but  we,  observing  the 
letter  of  the  Law,  do  otherwise." 

The  Jews,  on  the  other  hand,  were  not  more 
conciliatory  in  their  treatment  of  the  Samaritans. 
The  copy  of  the  Law  possessed  by  that  people  they 
declared  to  be  the  legacy  of  an  apostate  (Manasseh), 
and  east  grave  suspicions  upon  its  genuineness. 
Cei'tain  other  Jewish  renegades  had  from  time  to 
time  taken  refuge  with  the  Samaritans.  Hence, 
by  degrees,  the  Samaritans  claimed  to  partake  of 
Jewish  blood,  especially  if  doing  so  happened  to 
suit  their  interest  (.Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  8,  §  G;  ix.  14, 
§  3).  A  remarkable  instance  of  this  is  exhibited 
in  a  request  which  they  made  to  Alexander  the 
Great,  about  b.  c.  332.  They  desired  to  be  excused 
payment  of  tribute  in  the  sabliatical  year,  on  the 
plea  that  as  true  Israelites,  descendants  of  Kphraim 
and  Manasseh,  sons  of  Joseph,  they  refrained  from 
cultivating  their  land  in  that  year.  Alexander,  on 
sross-questioning  them,  discovered  the  hollowness 
jf  their  pretensions.  (They  were  greatly  discon- 
'.evted    at   their   fiiilure,   and    their  dissatisfaction 


SAMARIA  2801 

probably  led  to  the  conduct  which  induced  Alex- 
ander to  besiege  and  destroy  the  city  of  Samaria. 
Shechem  was  indeed  their  metropolis,  but  the  de 
struction  of  Samaria  seems  to  have  satisfied  Alex 
ander.)  Another  instance  of  claim  to  Jewish 
descent  appears  in  the  words  of  the  woman  of 
Samaria  to  our  Lord  (John  iv.  12),  "Art  'I'hou 
greater  than  our  father  Jacob,  who  gave  iis  the 
well?  "  A  question  which  she  puts  without  recol- 
lecting that  she  had  just  Ijefore  strongly  contrasted 
the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans.  Very  far  were  the 
Jews  from  admitting  this  claim  to  consanguinity 
on  the  part  of  these  people.  They  were  ever  remind- 
ing them  that  they  were  after  all  mere  Cuth.eans, 
mere  strangers  from  Assyria.  They  accused  them 
of  worshipping  the  idol-gods  buried  long  ago  under 
the  oak  of  Shechem  (Gen.  xxxv.  4).  They  would 
have  no  dealings  with  them  that  they  could  possi- 
bly avoid.*  "  Thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a 
devil,"  was  the  mode  in  which  they  expressed 
themselves  when  at  a  loss  for  a  bitter  reproach. 
Everything  that  a  Samaritan  had  touched  was  aa 
swine's  flesh  to  them.  The  Samaritan  was  pub- 
licly cursed  in  their  synagogues  —  could  not  be 
adduced  as  a  witness  in  the  Jewish  courts  —  could 
not  be  admitted  to  any  sort  of  proselytism  —  and 
was  thus,  so  far  as  the  Jew  could  affect  his  posi- 
tion, excluded  from  hope  of  eternal  life.  The  tra- 
ditional hatred  in  which  the  Jew  held  him  is 
expressed  in  Ecclus.  1.  25,  26,  "  There  be  two  man- 
ner of  nations  which  my  heart  abhorreth,  and  the 
third  is  no  nation :  they  that  sit  on  the  mountain 
of  Samaria;  and  they  that  dwell  among  the  Philis- 
tines; and  that  foolish  people  that  dwell  in  Sichem." 
And  so  long  was  it  before  such  a  temper  could  be 
banished  from  the  Jewish  mind,  that  we  find  even 
the  Apostles  believing  that  an  inhospitable  slight 
shown  by  a  Samaritan  village  to  Christ  would  be 
not  unduly  avenged  by  calling  down  fire  from 
hea\en. 

"  Ye  know  not  what  spirit  ye  are  of,"  said  the 
large-hearted  Son  of  Alan,  and  we  find  Him  on  no 
one  occasion  uttering  anything  to  the  disparage- 
ment of  the  Samaritans.  His  words,  however,  and 
the  records  of  his  ministrations  confirm  most 
thorougiily  the  view  which  has  been  taken  above, 
that  the  Samaritans  were  not  Jews.  At  the  first 
sending  forth  of  the  Twelve  (Matt.  x.  5,  6)  He 
charges  them,  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye 
not,  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel."  So  again,  in  his  final  address  to  them 
on  Mount  Olivet,  "  Ye  sh.all  be  witnesses  to  Me  in 
Jeru&ilem  and  in  all  .ludaja,  and  in  Samaria,  and 
unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  "  (Acts  i.  8). 
So  the  nine  unthankful  lepers,  Jews,  were  con- 
trasted by  Him  with  the  tenth  leper,  the  thankful, 
stranger  (aWoyevris),  who  was  a  Samaritan.  So, 
in  his  well-known  parable,  a  merciful  Samaritan  is 
contrasted  with  the  unmerciful  priest  and  Levile. 
And  the  very  worsliip  of  the  two  races  is  described 
by  Him  as  difTerent  in  character.     "  Ye  worship  ye 


«  ■'  This  fact,"  says  Dr.  Trench,  "  is  mentioned  by 
Makrizi  (see  De  Siicy's  Clirest.  Arahe,  "\\.  159),  who 
iffli'uis  that  it  was  this  which  put  the  Jews  ou  making 
iccuriite  calculations  to  determine  the  moment  of  the 
lew  moon's  appearance  (comp.  Schoettgeu's  Hor.  Heb. 

344)." 

i  This  prejudice  had,  of  course,  sometimes  to  give 
way  to  nece.seity,  for  the  disciples  had  goue  to  Sychar 
«  buy  food,  while   o\ir  Lord   was   talking   with  the 


woman  of  Samaria  by  the  well  in  its  suburb  (John  iv. 
8).  And  from  Luke  ix.  52,  we  le;irn  that  the  disciples 
went  before  our  Lord  at  his  command  into  a  certain 
village  of  the  Samaritans  "  to  make  ready  "  for  Him 
Unless,  indeed  (though,  as  we  see  on  both  occasions 
our  Lord's  influence  over  them  was  not  yet  complete), 
we  are  to  attribute  this  partial  abandonment  of  theii 
ordinary  scruples  to  the  change  which  his  esaoijpl* 
had  already  wrought  in  them. 


2802 


SAMARIA 


i^now  Kot  what,"  this  is  said  of  the  Samaritans: 
"  We  liiiow  what  we  worship,  for  salvation  is  of 
the  Jewa  "  (John  iv.  22). 

Such  were  the  Samaritans  of  our  Lord's  Day:  a 
people  distinct  from  the  Jews,  though  lying  in 
the  very  midst  of  the  Jews;  a  people  preserving 
their  identity,  though  seven  centuries  had  rolled 
away  since  they  had  been  brought  from  Assyria 
by  Esarhaddon,  and  though  they  had  abandoned 
their  polytheism  for  a  sort  of  ultra  Mosaicism ;  a 
people,  who  —  though  their  limits  had  been  grad- 
ually contracted,  and  the  rallying  place  of  their 
relisjion  on  Mount  Gerizim  had  been  destroyed  one 
hundred  and  sixty  years  before  by  John  Hyrcanus 
(b.  c.  130),  and  though  Samaria  (the  city)  had 
been  again  and  again  destroyed,  and  though  their 
territory  had  been  the  battle-field  of  Syria  and 
Egypt  —  still  preserved  their  nationality,  still  wor- 
shipped from  Shechem  and  their  other  impoverished 
settlements  towards  their  sacred  hill ;  still  retained 
their  nationality,  and  could  not  coalesce  with  the 
Jews :  — 

'Of OS  T  aAei(i)a  t'  eyx^"'*  TavTW  KVTei, 
AixoiTTaTOvvT'  av  ov  <f>C\uj<;  Trpoa-evvcTroii, 

Not  indeed  that  we  must  suppose  that  the  whole 
of  the  country  called  in  oiu-  Lord's  time  Samaria 
was  in  the  possession  of  the  Cuthaean  Samaritans, 
or  that  it  had  ever  l)een  so.  "  Samaria,"  says 
Josephus  (B.  J.  iii.  -3,  §  -i),  "lies  between  Judaea 
and  Galilee.  It  connnences  from  a  village  called 
Giiisea  (Jenin),  on  the  great  plain  (that  of  Esdra- 
elon),  and  extends  to  the  toparchy  of  Acrabatta," 
in  the  lower  part  of  the  territory  of  Ephraim. 
These  points,  indicating  the  extreme  northern  and 
the  extreme  southern  parallels  of  latitude  between 
which  Samaria  was  situated,  enable  us  to  fix  its 
boundaries  with  tolerably  certainty.  It  was  bounded 
northward  by  the  range  of  hills  which  commences 
at 'Mount  Carmel  on  the  west,  and,  after  making  a 
bend  to  the  southwest,  runs  almost  due  east  to  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan,  forming  the  southern  border 
of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  It  touched  towards  the 
south,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  northern  limits  of 
Benjamin.  Thus  it  comprehended  the  ancient  ter- 
ritory of  Ephraim,  and  of  those  Manassites  who 
were  west  of  Jordan.  "  Its  character,"  Josephus 
continues,  "  is  in  no  respect  different  from  that  of 
ludsa.  Both  abound  in  mountains  and  plains, 
and  are  suited  for  agriculture,  and  productive, 
wooded,  and  full  of  fruits  both  wild  and  cultivated. 
They  are  not  almndantly  watered;  but  much  rain 
falls  there.  The  springs  are  of  an  exceedingly 
sweet  taste ;  and,  on  account  of  the  quantity  of 
good  grass,  the  cattle  there  produce  more  milk 
than  elsewhere.  But  the  best  proof  of  their  ricii- 
.ness  and  fertility  is  that  both  are  thickly  pop- 
ulated." The  accounts  of  modern  travellers  con- 
firm this  description  by  the  Jewish  historian  of 
the  "  good  land  "  which  was  allotted  to  that  pow- 
erful portion  of  the  house  of  Joseph  which  crossed 
the  Jordan,  on  the  first  division  of  the  territory. 
The  Cuthseau  Samaritans,  however,  possessed  only 
a  few  towns  and  villages  of  this  large  area,  and 
these  lay  almost  together  in  the  centre  of  the  dis- 
trict. Shechem  or  Sycliar  (as  it  was  contempt- 
uously designated)  was  their  chief  settlement,  even 
before  Alexander  the  Great  destroyed  Samaria, 
probably  because  it  lay  almost  close  to  Mount 
Gerizim.  Afterwards  it  became  more  prominently 
10,  and  there,  on  the  destruction  of  the  temple  on 
Serizim,  by  John  Hyrcanus  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  9, 


SAMARIA 

§  I),  they  built  themselves  a  temple.  The  modeia 
representative  of  Shechem  is  Ndblui,  a  corruption 
of  Neapolis,  or  the  "New  Town,"  'nuilt  by  Ves- 
pasian a  little  to  the  west  of  the  older  town  which 
was  then  ruined.  At  Ndblus  the  Samaritans  have 
still  a  settlement,  consisting  of  about  200  persons. 
Yet  they  observe  the  Law,  and  celebrate  the  Pass- 
over on  a  sacred  spot  on  Mount  Gerizim,  with  ac 
exactness  of  minute  ceremonial  which  the  Jews 
themselves  have  long  intermitted : 

"Quanquam  diruta,  servat 
Ignem  Trojanum,  et  Ve.stam  edit  Alba  minorem." 

The  Samaritans  were  very  troublesome  both  to 
their  Jewish  neighliors  and  to  their  Roman  mas- 
ters, in  the  first  century,  A.  d.  I'ilate  chastised 
them  with  a  severity  which  led  to  his  own  down- 
fall (Joseph.  A7il.  xviii.  4,  §  1),  and  a  slaughter  of 
10,600  of  them  took  place  under  Vespasian  (5.  J. 
iii.  7,  §  32).  In  spite  of  these  reverses  they  in- 
creased greatly  in  numbers  towards  its  termination, 
and  appear  to  have  grown  into  importance  under 
Dositheus,  who  was  probably  an  apostate  Jew. 
Epiphanius  (nr/v.  Hiereses,  lib.  i.),  in  the  fourth 
century,  considers  them  to  be  the  chief  and  most 
dancjerous  adversaries  of  Christianity,  and  he  enu- 
merates the  several  sects  into  which  they  had  by 
that  time  divided  themselves.  They  were  popu- 
larly, and  even  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  confounded 
with  the  Jews,  insonuich  that  a  legal  interpretation 
of  the  Gospel  was  described  as  a  tendency  to 
'S.a.jj.apsiTiafj.ds  or  ^lov^aCtrfiSs.  This  contusion, 
however,  did  not  extend  to  an  identification  of  the 
two  races.  It  was  simply  an  assertion  that  their 
extreme  opinions  were  identical.  And  pre\iously 
to  an  outrage  which  they  committed  on  the  Chris- 
tians at  Neapolis  in  the  reign  of  Zeno,  towards 
the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  the  distinction  between 
them  and  the  Jews  was  sufficiently  known,  and 
even  recognized  in  the  Theodosian  Code.  This 
was  so  severely  punished,  that  they  sank  into  an 
obscurity,  which,  though  they  are  just  noticed  by 
travellers  of  the  twelfth  and  fourteenth  centuries, 
was  scarcely  broken  until  the  sixteenth  century 
In  the  latter  half  of  that  century  a  correspondence 
with  them  was  commenced  by  Joseph  Seahger. 
(De  Sacy  has  edited  two  of  their  letters  to  that 
eminent  scholar.)  Job  Ludolf  received  a  letter 
from  them,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  next  century 
These  three  letters  are  to  be  found  in  Eichhorn's 
Reptrtorium  fur  Biblische  unci  Morrjenlandische 
Litierntur,  vol.  xiii.  They  are  of  great  archseo- 
logical  interest,  and  enter  very  minutely  into  the 
observances  of  the  Samaritan  ritual.  Among  other 
points  worthy  of  notice  in  them  is  the  inconsistency 
displayed  by  the  writers  in  valuing  themselves  on 
not  being  Jews,  and  yet  claiming  to  be  descendants 
of  Joseph.  See  also  De  Sacy's  Correspondance, 
des  Samarilains,  etc.,  in  Notices  et  Extr.  des  MSS. 
de  la  Bibliotli.  du  Roi,  etc.,  vol.  xii.  And,  for 
more  modern  accounts  of  the  people  themselves, 
Robinson's  Biblical  Researches,  ii.  280-311,  iii. 
129-30;  Wilson's  Lands  of  the  Bible,  ii.  46-78; 
Van  de  V^elde's  Syria  and  Palestine,  ii.  296  seq.; 
Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  240;  Rogers's 
Notices  of  the  Modern  Samaritans,  p.  25;  Grove's 
account  of  their  Day  of  Atonement  in  Vacation 
Toimsts  for  1861;  and  Dr.  Stanley's,  of  their 
I'assover,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Church, 
App.  iii.  [Passover,  vol.  iii.  p.  2357  f.,  Amer. 
ed.] 

The  view  maintained  in  the  above  remarks,  ai 


SAMARITAN 

jO  the  purely  Assyrian  origin  of  the  New  Samari- 
laiis,  is  tliat  of  >Suicer,  Helanti,  Hammond,  Drusius 
in  tlie  t'ritici  Sacri,  Maldonatus,  Hengstenberg, 
Hiivernick,  Hobinson,  and  Dean  Trencli.  Tlie 
reader  is  referred  to  the  \ery  clear  but  too  brief 
discussion  of  the  subject  by  the  last-mentioned 
learned  writer,  in  his  Parables,  pp.  310,  311,  and 
to  the  authorities,  especially  De  Sacy,  which  are 
there  quoted.  Tliere  is  no  doubt  in  the  world 
that  it  was  the  ancient  view.  We  have  seen  what 
Josephus  said,  and  Origen,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom,  and  Tlieodoret,  say  the  same  tiling. 
Socrates,  it  must  be  admitted,  calls  the  Samaritans 
a7ro'crxi<''/^'i  'lovhaiwv,  but  he  stands  nlmost  alone 
among  the  ancients  in  making  this  assertion.  Ori- 
gen and  Cyril  indeed  both  mention  their  claim  to 
descent  from  Joseph,  as  evidenced  in  the  statement 
of  the  woman  at  the  well,  but  mention  it  only  to 
declare  it  unfounded.  Others,  as  Winer,  Diillin- 
ger,  and  Dr.  Davidson,  have  held  a  different  view, 
which  may  be  expressed  thus  in  Dollinger's  own 
words:  "In  the  northern  part  of  the  Promised 
Land  (as  opposed  to  Juda'a  ]iroper)  there  grew  up 
a  mingled  race  which  drew  its  origin  from  the 
remnant  of  the  Israelites  who  were  left  behind  in 
the  country  on  the  removal  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  and 
also  from  the  heathen  colonists  who  were  trans- 
planted into  the  cities  of  Israel.  Their  religion 
was  as  hybrid  as  their  extraction ;  they  worshipped 
Jehovah,  but,  in  addition  to  Him,  also  the  heathen 
idols  of  Phoenician  origin  which  they  had  brought 
from  their  native  land"  {fleicknthuin  und  Judcn- 
(h II III,  p.  739,  §  ,7)-  If  the  words  of  Scripture  are 
to  be  taken  alone,  it  does  not  appear  how  iliis  view 
is  to  be  maintained.  At  any  rate,  as  Drusius  ob- 
serves, the  oidy  mixture  was  that  of  Jewish  apos- 
tate fugitives,  long  after  Esarhaddon's  colonization, 
not  at  the  time  of  the  colonization.  But  modern 
as  this  view  is.  it  has  for  some  years  been  the  pop- 
ular one,  and  even  Dr.  Stanley  seems,  though 
quite  incidentally,  to  have  admitted  it  (<S.  ^'  P. 
p.  240).  He  does  not,  however,  enter  upon  its  de- 
fense. Mr.  Grove  is  also  in  favor  of  it.  See  his 
notice  already  mentioned. 

The  authority  due  to  the  copy  of  the  Law  pos- 
sessed by  the  Samaritans,  and  the  determination 
whether  the  Samaritan  reading  of  Deut.  xxvii.  4, 
Geriziiii,  or  that  of  the  Hebrew,  Ebnl,  is  to  be 
preferred,  are  discussed  in  the  next  article.  [See 
S.\iiARiT.\x  Pentateuch;  Ebal;  Gehizim; 
SriECHEM;   SiCHEM;    Sychak.]  J.  A.  H. 

*  On  Samaria  and  tlie  Samaritans  see  the  el.ab- 
orate  article  of.!.  H.  Petermami  in  Herzog's  Rea/- 
Eiicykl.  xiii.  359-391  (conip.  his  Etisen  tin  Orient, 
Leipz.  1860-61,  i.  209-2i)2).  See  also  John  Mills's 
Three  Manlhs'  Resilience  in  NtiOlus,  Lond.  1864, 
and  a  series  of  learned  articles  by  Dr.  Geiger  in 
the  Ztitsc/ir.  d.  deutschen  murijenl.  GeselUciiaft 
from  1862  to  1868.  A.' 

*  SAMARITAN.     [Samakia,  3.] 

SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH,  a  Recen- 
lion  of  the  commonly  received  Hebrew  Text  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  in  use  with  the  Samariums,  and  writ- 
ten  in    the   anci«nt    Hebrew   {Ibri),  or   so-called 


tiDguisbed  from  i^"1T37,  D'^nVi'S  nri3.  Oomp. 
Siftt'i-  21  b,  Str.  Mea:.  5,  2;  Toslfla  Sijnh.  4;  Synkedr. 
12  »,  -Mry.  ^er.  I,  9,  Sola  Jer.  7,  2,  aq. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2803 

Samaritan  character."  This  recension  is  found 
vaguely  quoted  by  some  of  the  early  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  under  the  name  of  "  Yla\ai6Tarov  'E^pai' 
Khv  Th  napa  lafxapeirals,"  i"  contradisthiction  tc 
the  " '2;8paiVc^i'  rh  irapa  'louSaiois;  "  further,  as 
"  Samaritianorum  Volumina,"  etc.  Thus  Origen  on 
Num.  xiii.  !,...."&  kuI  oura  4k  tovtcov  2a- 
/xapfLTwy  'EjBpa'iKov  yueTe(8aAo/J.e^';"  and  on  Num. 
xxi.  13,  .  .  .  ^'' a,  iP  fj.6vois  Tuiv 'S.a.fj.ap^nSiv  €vpo- 
fx€v,'^  etc.  Jerome,  Prol.  to  Kings:  "  Samaritani 
etiani  Pentateuchum  Moysis  Midem  (?  22,  like 
the  "  Hebrews,  Syrians  and  Chaldseans")  litteria 
habent,  figuris  tantum  et  apicibus  discrepantes." 
Also  on  Gal.  iii.  10,  "  quam  ob  causaiu  "  —  (viz. 
'ETri/carapaTos  iras  hs  ovk  e/u^uevet  eV  ttckti  rols 
yeypaixixevois ,  being  quoted  there  from  Deut.  xxvii. 

26,  where  the  Masoretic  text  has  only  ""LI'S  Tl~lS 

nsTH  nmnn  nai  nw  D'^p"'  sb— "cursed 

lie  he  that  confirmeth  not  ^  the  words  of  this  Law 
to  do  them  ; "  while  the  LXX.  reads  it  as  avdpcairos 
.  .  -Kaai  rots  \6yois) — '  quam  ob  causam  Sa- 
maritanorum    IIebra;a   volumina   relegens    in\eni 

v3   scriptura  esse;  "  and  he  forthwith  charges  the 

Jews  with  having  deliberately  taken  out  the  73, 
because  they  did  not  wish  to  be  bound  indlvidunUy 
to  all  the  ordinances :  forgetting  at  the  same  time 

that  this  same  VD  occurs  in  the  very  next  chap- 
ter of  the  Masoretic  text  (Deut.  xxviii.  15)  —  '■•AH 
his  commandments  and  his  statutes."  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea  observes  that  the  LXX.  and  the  Sam. 
Pent,  agree  against  the  Received  Text  in  the  num- 
ber of  years  from  the  Deluge  to  Abraham.  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  speaks  of  certain  words  (Gen.  iv.  8), 
wanting  in  the  Hebrew,  but  found  in  the  Samari- 
tan. The  same  remark  is  made  by  Procopius  of 
Gaza  with  respect  to  Deut.  i.  6 ;  Num.  x.  10,  x. 
9,  &c.  Other  passages  are  noticed  by  Diodorus, 
the  Greek  Scholiast,  etc.  The  Talmud,  on  the 
other  hand,  mentions  tlie  Sam.  Pent,  distinctly 
and  contemptuously  as  a  clumsily  forged  record: 
"  You  have  falsified'^  your  Pentatcucli,"  said  R. 
Eliezer  b.  Shimon  to  the  San]aritan  scrilses,  with 
reference  to  a  passage  in  Deut.  xi.  30,  where  the 
well-understood  word  Shechem  was  gratuitously 
inserted  after  "the  plains  of  Moreh,"  —  "and  you 
have  not  profited  auglit  by  it"  (comp.  Jer.  Sotali 
21  b,  cf.  17;  B'lbli  33  b).  On  another  occasion 
they  are  ridiculed  on  account  of  their  ignorance  of 
one  of  the  simplest  rules  of  Hebrew  Grammar,  dis- 
played in  their  Pentateuch  ;  namely,  the  use  of  the  H 
he  lie  (unknown,  however,  according  to  Jer.  ^leg. 
6,  2,  also  to  the  people  of -lerusalem).  •'  Who  hat 
caused  you  to  blmulerV  said  R.  Shimon  b.  Elie- 
zer to  them;  referring  to  their  abolition  of  the 
Mosaic  ordinance  of  marrying  the  deceased  broth 
er's  wife  (Deut.  xxv.  5  ff.),  —  through  a  misinter- 
pretation of  the  pass.age  in  question,  which  enjoins 
tliat  the  wife  of  tlie  dead  man  shall  not  be  "  with- 
out"  to  a  stranger,  but  that  the   brother  should 

marry  her:  they,  however,  taking  n'-inn 
(  =  Vin7)  to  be  an  epithet  of  jltt-'S,   "wife," 


ft  The  A.  v.,  following  the  LXX.,  and  perhaps  Ln 
ther,  has  inserted  the  word  all. 


2804  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

translated   "the  outer  wife,"  i.  e.   the  lietrollwd 
only  (Jer.  JeOnm.  3,  2,  Ber.  R.,  etc. ). 

Down  to  within  the  last  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  however,  no  copy  of  this  divergent  Code  of 
Laws  had  readied  Europe,  and  it  began  to  he  pro- 
nounced a  fiction,  and  the  plain  words  of  the 
Church  Fathers  —  the  better  known  authorities  — 
who  quoted  it,  were  sulijected  to  subtle  interpre- 
tations. Suddenly,  in  IGIG,  Pietro  della  Yalle, 
one  of  the  first  discoverers  also  of  the  Cuneiform 
inscriptions,  acquired  a  complete  Codex  from  the 
Samaritans  in  Damascus.  In  1023  it  was  pre- 
sented by  Aehille  Harley  de  Sancy  to  the  Library 
of  the  Oratory  in  Paris,  and  in  1()28  there  ap- 
peared a  brief  description  of  it  by  J.  Morinus  in 
his  preface  to  the  Konian  text  of  the  LXX.  Three 
years  later,  shortly  before  it  was  published  in  the 
Paris  Polyglott,  —  whence  it  was  copied,  with  few 
emendations  from  other  codices,  by  \Valton,  — 
Morinus,  the  first  editor,  wrote  his  Exercitatiunts 
Ecdesiaslicce  in  utruinqiie  Samarilanonim  Ptntn- 
teuclium,  in  which  he  pronounced  the  newly  found 
Codex,  with  all  its  innumerable  A^ariants  from  the 
Masoretic  text,  to  be  infinitely  superior  to  the  lat- 
ter: in  fact,  the  unconditional  and  speedy  emenda- 
tion of  the  Received  Text  thereliy  was  urged  most 
Authoritatively.  And  now  the  imjjulse  was  given 
to  one  of  the  fiercest  and  most  barren  literary  and 
theological  controversies:  of  which  more  anon. 
Between  1G20  and  1630  six  additional  copies,  partly 
complete,  partly  incomplete,  were  acquired  liy 
Ussher:  five  of  which  he  deposited  in  English 
libraries,  while  one  was  sent  to  De  Dieu,  and  has 
disappeared  mysteriously.  Another  Codex,  now  in 
the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Blilan,  was  brought  to 
Italy  in  1G21.  Peiresc  procured  two  more,  one  of 
which  was  placed  in  the  Koyal  Library  of  Paris, 

(250)  31  □"'HMti  yj:p  I  ]ltt7S"in  ~I2D  HTn  [Masoret.  Cod.  12  Sidras  (Parshioth),  50  Chapters]. 

(200)  D\"!Sa        "  ''^Wn       "         "       [         "  11         "  40         "       ] 

(i30)D''a7i'bffi'TnH^    "     '"tt^'^btt^n    "     "    [     »        lo     "  27     "    1 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

and  one  in  the  Barberini  at  Rome.  Thus  the  num 
lier  of  MSS.  in  Europe  gradually  grew  to  sixteen 
During  the  present  century  another,  but  very  frag- 
mentary copy,  was  acquired  by  the  Gotlia  Library. 
A  copy  of  the  entire  (V)  Pentateuch,  with  'J'argum 
(?  Sam.  Version),  in  parallel  columns,  4to,  on 
parchment,  was  brought  from  Ndblus  by  Jlr.  Grove 
in  1861  for  the  Count  of  Paris,  in  whose  library  it 
is.  Single  portions  of  the  Sam.  Pent.,  in  a  more 
or  less  defective  state,  are  now  of  no  rare  occur- 
rence in  Europe. 

Respecting  the  external  condition  of  these  MSS., 
it  may  be  observed  that  their  sizes  vary  from  12mo 
to  folio,  and  that  no  scroll,  such  as  the  Jews  and 
the  Samaritans  use  in  their  synagogues,  is  to  be 
found  among  them.  The  letters,  which  are  of  a 
size  corresponding  to  that  of  the  book,  exhibit 
none  of  those  varieties  of  shajie  so  frequent  in  the 
Wasor.  Text;  such  as  majuscules,  minuscules,  sus- 
pended, inverted  letters,  etc.  Their  material  ia 
vellum  or  cotton-paper;  the  ink  used  is  black  in 
all  cases  save  the  scroll  used  by  the  Samaritans  at 
NCMus,  the  letters  of  which  are  in  gold.  There 
are  neither  vowels,  accents,  nor  diacritical  points. 
The  individual  words  are  separated  from  each  other 
by  a  dot.  Greater  or  smaller  divisions  of  the  text 
are  marked  by  two  dots  placed  one  above  the  other, 
and  by  an  asterisk.  A  small  line  above  a  conso- 
nant indicates  a  peculiar  meaning  of  the  word,  an 
unusual  form,  a  passive,  and  the  like:  it  is,  in  fact, 
a  contrivance  to  liespeak  attention."  The  whole 
Pentateuch  is  divided  into  nine  hundred  and  sixty- 
four  paragrajDhs,  or  Kazzin,  the  termination  of 
which  is  indicated  by  these  figures,  = ,  .•.,  or  < . 
At  the  end  of  each  book  the  number  of  its  divis- 
ions is  stated  thus :  — 


(218) 
a66) 


T^^^  ■  -1 

IDVp 


36 
34 


The  Sam.  Pentateuch  is  halved  in  Lev.  vii.  15 
(viii.  8,  in  Hebrew  Text),  where  the  words  "Middle 
of  the  Thorah  "  ^  are  found.  At  the  end  of  each 
MS.  the  year  of  the  copying,  the  name  of  the  scribe, 
and  also  that  of  the  proprietor,  are  usually  stated. 
Yet  their  dates  are  not  always  trustworthy  when 
given,  and  very  difficult  to  be  conjectured  when  en- 
tirely omitted,  since  the  Samaritan  letters  afford  no 
internal  evidence  of  the  period  in  which  they  were 
written.  To  none  of  the  MSS.,  however,  which 
have  as  yet  reached  Europe,  can  be  assigned  a 
higher  date  than  the  10th  Christian  century.  The 
BcroU  used  in  Nablas  bears  —  so  the  Samaritans 
pretend  —  the  following  inscription :  "  I,   Abisha, 


«  r^'^    and    nan,   IV  aud   li7,   "151  and 

-131,  bw  and  bs,  bss^  and  b3i4\  sni7;^ 

»nd  S'np'),  E?  and  W,  the  suffixes  at  the  end  of  a 
iford,  the  n  without  a  dagesh,  etc.,  are  thus  pointed 
'ut  to  the  reader. 

» smmsi  sabs. 

c  It  would  appear,  however  (see  Archdeacon  T.at- 
aua's  notice  in  the   Partlienon,  No.  4,  May  24,  1862), 


son  of  Pinehas,  son  of  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron  the 
Priest,  —  upon  them  be  the  Grace  of  Jehovah  !  To 
his  honor  have  I  written  this  Holy  Law  at  the  en- 
trance of  the  Tabernacle  of  Testimony'  on  the 
Mount  Gerizim,  Beth  El,  in  the  thirteenth  year  ol 
the  taking  possession  of  the  Land  of  Canaan,  and 
all  its  boundaries  around  it,  by  the  Children  of  Is- 
rael. I  praise  Jehovah."  (Letter  of  Meshalmah 
b.  Ab  Sechuah,  Cod.  19,791,  Add.  MSS.  Brit.  Mus. 
Comp.  F.jiist.  Sam.  SichemiUirum  ad  Jubum  Lu- 
Mphum,  Cizffi,  1088;  Antiq.  Led.  Orient,  p.  123; 
Huntingtoni  Epist.  pp.  49,  56:  Eichhorn's  Reper- 
toriumf.  bibl.  mid  morg.  Lit.,  tom.  ix.,  etc.)  But 
no  European ''  has  ever  succeeded  in  finding  it  ia 


that  Mr.  Levysohn,  a  person  lately  attached  to  the 
Russian  staff  in  Jerusalem,  hus  found  the  inscription 
iu  question  "  going  through  the  middle  of  the  body  ot 
the  Text  of  the  Decalogue,  and  extending  through 
three  columns.''  Considering  that  the  Samaritans 
themselves  told  Huntington,  "  that  this  in.scription 
had  been  in  their  scroll  once,  but  must  have  been 
enised  by  some  wicked  hand."  this  startling  piece  ol 
information  nmst  be  received  with  extreme  caution  : 
no  less  so  than  the  other  more  or  less  vague  state 
ments  with  respect  to  the  labors  and  pretended  diecf>T 
eries  of  Mi    Levysohn.     See  note,  p.  2810. 


SAMAKITAN  PENTATEUCH 

this  scroll,  however  grent  the  pains  bestowed  upon 
the  search  (comp.  Eichhorn,  Einkit.  ii.  132);  and 
even  if  it  had  been  found,  it  would  not  have  de- 
served the  slightest  credence. 

^^'e  liave  briefly  stated  above  that  the  Extrcita- 
tiones  of  Morinus,  which  placed  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch far  above  the  Received  Text  in  point  of 
genuineness,  —  partly  on  account  of  its  af,n'eeiiig  in 
many  places  with  the  LXX.,  and  paitly  on  ac- 
count of  its  superior  "lucidity  and  liarmony,"  — 
exL'ited  and  kept  up  for  nearly  two  hundred  years 
one  of  the  most  extraordinary  controversies  on  rec- 
ord. Characteristically  enouirh,  however,  this  was 
set  at  rest  once  for  all  by  the  very  first  systematic 
investigation  of  the  point  at  issue.  It  would  now 
appear  as  if  the  unquestioning  rapture  with  which 
evei'y  new  literary  discovery  was  formerly  hailed, 
the  innate  animosity  against  the  Masoretic  (.Jewish ) 
Text,  the  general  preference  for  the  LXX.,  the  de- 
fective state  of  Semitic  studies,  —  as  if,  we  say, 
all  these  put  together  were  not  sufficient  to  account 
for  the  phenomenon  that  men  of  any  critical  acu- 
men could  for  one  moment  not  only  place  the  Sam. 
Pent,  on  a  par  with  the  Masoretic  Text,  but  even 
raise  it,  unconditionally,  far  above  it.  There  was 
indeed  another  cause  at  work,  especially  in  the  first 
period  of  the  dispute:  it  was  a  controversial  spirit 
which  ])ronii)ted  Morinus  and  his  followers,  Cap- 
pellus  and  others,  to  prove  to  the  Heformers  what 
kind  of  value  was  to  lie  attached  to  iJieir  authority: 
the  received  form  of  the  Hible,  upon  which  and 
which  alone  they  professed  to  take  their  stand;  — 
it  was  now  evident  that  nothing  short  of  the  Di- 
vine Spirit,  under  the  influence  and  inspiration  of 
which  the  Scriptures  were  interpreted  and  ex- 
pounded by  the  Roman  Church,  could  be  relied 
upon.  On  the  other  hand,  most  of  the  "  Anti/iw- 
rinlins "  —  De  Muys,  Hottinger,  St.  Morinus, 
Buxtorf,  Fuller,  Leusden,  Pfeifter,  etc.  —  instead 
of  patiently  and  critically  examining  the  subject 
and  refuting  their  adversaries  liy  arguments  which 
were  within  their  reach,  as  they  are  within  ours, 
directed  their  attacks  against  the  persons  of  the 
Morinians,  and  thus  their  uusguided  zeal  left  the 
question  of  the  superiority  of  the  new  document 
over  the  old  where  they  found  it.  Of  higher  value 
were,  it  is  true,  the  labors  of  Simon,  Le  Clerc, 
Walton,  etc.,  at  a  later  period,  who  proceeded  ec- 
lectically,  rejecting  many  readings,  and  adopting 
others  which  seemed  preferable  to  those  of  the  old 
text.  Houbigant,  however,  with  unexampled  igno- 
rance and  obstinacy,  returned  to  Morinus's  first 
notion  —  already  generally  abandoned  —  of  the  un- 
questionable and  thorough  superiority.  He,  again, 
was  followed  more  or  less  closely  by  Kennicott,  Al. 
a  St.  Aquilino,  I.obstein.  Geddes,  and  others.  The 
discussion  was  taken  up  once  more  on  the  other 
side,  chiefly  by  Ravius,  who  succeeded  in  finally 
disposing  of  this  point  of  the  superiority  {Kxerckt. 
Phil,  ill  Houbiy.  ProLm\jns,<\-  P)at.  1755).  It  was 
from  his  day  forward  allowed,  almost  on  all  hands. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH     2805 

that  the  Masoretic  Text  was  the  genuine  one,  but 
that  in  douljtful  cases,  when  the  Samaritan  had  an 
•'unquestionably  clearer"  reading,  this  was  to  be 
adopted,  since  a  certain  amount  of  \alue,  however 
limited,  did  attach  to  it.  Michaelis,  Eichhorn, 
Bertholdt,  Jahn,  and  the  majority  of  modern  crit- 
ics, adhered  to  this  opinion.  Here  the  matter 
rested  until  1815,  when  Gesenius  [Di'  Pent.  E'am. 
On(jine,  Iiuhle,  et  Auctoritate)  abolished  the  ;em- 
nant  of  the  authority  of  the  Sara.  I'ent.  So  mas- 
terly, lucid,  and  clear  are  his  arguments  and  his 
proofs,  that  there  has  been  and  will  lie  no  further 
question  as  to  the  absence  of  all  value  in  this  Re- 
cension, and  in  its  pretended  emendations.  In 
fact,  a  glance  at  the  systematic  arrangement  of  the 
variants,  of  which  he  first  of  all  bethought  himself, 
is  quite  sufficient  to  convince  the  reader  at  once 
that  they  are  for  the  most  part  mere  blunders, 
arising  from  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  first 
elements  of  grammar  and  exegesis.  That  others 
owe  their  existence  to  a  studied  desigri  of  conform- 
ing certain  passages  to  the  Samaritan  mode  of 
thought,  speech,  and  foith  —  more  especially  to 
show  that  the  INIourit  Gerizira,  upon  which  their 
temple  stood,  was  the  spot  chosen  and  indicated  by 
God  to  Moses  as  the  one  upon  which  He  desired  to 
be  worshipped  "  Finally,  that  others  are  due  to  a 
tendency  towards  removing,  as  well  as  linguistic 
shortcomings  would  allow,  all  that  seemed  obscure 
or  in  any  way  doulitful,  and  towards  filling  up  all 
apparent  imperfections :  either  by  repetitions  or  bj 
means  of  newly-invented  and  badly-fitting  word, 
and  phrases.  It  must,  however,  be  premised  that 
except  two  alterations  (Ex.  xiii.  7.  where  the  Sam 
reads  "  tiix  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread,'' 
instead  of  the  received   "  Seven  dajs,"  and  the 

change  of  the  word  nTTn,  "  There  shall  not  6e," 

into  rr^nn,  "Uve,"  Deut.  xxiii.  18),  the  Mosaic 
laws  and  ordinances  themselves  are  nowhere  tam- 
pered with. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  lay  specimens  of  these 
once  so  highly  prized  variants  before  the  reader,  in 
order  that  he  may  judge  for  himself.  We  shall 
follow  in  this  the  connnonly  received  arrangement 
of  (iesenius,  who  divides  all  these  readings  into 
eight  classes;  to  which,  as  we  shall  afterwards 
show,  I'rankel  has  suggested  the  addition  of  two  or 
three  others,  while  Kirchheim  (in  his  Hebrew  work 

^I^ITSlti?  '^D'^D)  enumerates  thirteen,'' which  w» 
will  name  hereafter. 

1.  The  Jirst  class,  then,  consists  of  readings  by 
which  emendations  of  a  grammatical  nature  have 
been  attempted. 

(a.)  The  quiescent  letters,  or  so-called  matret 
lectionis,  are  supplied.'' 

(6.)  The  more  poetical  forms  of  the  pronoims, 
probably  less  known  to  the  Sam.  are  altered  into 
the  more  common  ones.'' 


•*  For  ~in2"*,  "  He  will  elect  "  (the  spot),  the  Sam. 

ilwaj's  puts  "in^,  "  Ue  lias  elected  "  (namely,  Geri- 
Slm).     See  below. 

6  D^nyii?     2^  must  be  a  misprint. 

c  Thus  D^  is  found  in  the  Samar.  for  D~  of  the 

KMOiwtJo  T. ;  m  for  H'";    V  for  T;    DfT'bW 


for  anbS;  m"nSX2  for  n'iSa  etc.:  some- 
times a  T  is  put  even  where  the  Heb.  T.  has,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  grammatical  rules,  only  a  short 

vowel   or   a   sheva  :   V3Din  is  found  for  "I^DCH , 

:   T  ' 

nvais  for  nv2S. 

t; 

<i  IDTO,  UP,  bsn,  become  I^HSS,  nDH, 


2806     SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

(c.)  The  same  propensity  for  completing  appar- 
mtly  incomplete  forms  is  ncticealile  in  the  flexion 
of  the  verlis.  I  lie  apocopated  or  short  future  is 
altered  into  the  regular  future." 

(  d. )  On  the  other  hand  the  paragogical  letters  1 

and  ''  at  the  end  of  nouns,  are  almost  universally 
»truck  out  by  the  Sam.  corrector;''  and,  in  the  igno- 
rance of  the  existence  of  nouns  of  a  common  gender, 
he  has  given  them  genders  according  to  his  fancy. <^ 

((=. )  The  infin.  absol.  is,  in  the  quaintest  manner 
possible,  reduced  to  the  form  of  the  finite  verb.'' 

For  obsolete  or  rare  forms,  the  modern  and  more 


"  ^2^15  becomes  T'Sm  ;  HX^'^I  is  emendated 
•nto  ma'^T  i  S"}";  (verb  n"b)  into  nS"!**  i  the 
final  \~  of  the  3d  pars.  fern.  plur.  fut.  into  r'Z'. 

t>  ''S^lti;  is  shortened  into  ]Dlki7,  iriTf  into 

c  Masculine  are  made  the  words  DH  V  (Gen.  xlix. 
20),  "l37Ji?  (Deut.  XV.  7,  ^tc),  nSHJi  (Gen.  xxxii. 
9) ;  feminine  the  words  ^"1S  (Gen.  xiii.  6),  "7^T 
(Deut.  xxviii.  25),  IC23  (Gen.  xlvi.  25,  etc.);  where- 
ever  the  word  "12?3  occurs  in  the  sense  of  "  girl,"'  a 
n  is  added  at  the  end  (Gen.  xxiv.  14,  etc.). 

d  SIU^I  "7lbn  imti^'^l,  "  the  waters  returned 
continually^''''  is  transformed  into  "13^n  ID'lti^'^T 
"13Ii7V"they  returned,  they  went  and  they  re- 
turned "  (Gen.  viii.  3).  Where  the  infin.  is  used  as 
an  adverb,  e.  g.  prnH  (Gen.  xxi.  16),  "far  off,"  it 
is  altered  into  Hp^mn,  ''  she  went  far  away," 
which  renders  the  passage  almost  unintelligible. 

'  C*I~137  for  C~T'V  (Gen.  iii.  10,  11) ;  l\l>  for 
"rbl  (xi.  30) ;  D"'"nD!i  for  the  collective  "115!? 
(XV.  10) ;  m^H,  "  female  servants,"  for   mri-SDS 

(XX.  17) ;  ^:2^^  "^^  nm2a  st^i  for  the  ad- 

verbial  31t2  (xlix.  15) ;  '^rT'^a  for  D'^rT^"12 
(Ex.  xxvi.  26,  making  it  depend  from  ''^*2?)  ;  DtS^D, 
in  the  unusual  sense  of  "  from  it  "  (comp.  1  K.  xvii. 
13;,   is   altered   into    HS^P     (Lev.    ii.    2);    n^H 

Is  wrongly  put  for  *',"'  (3d  p.  s.  m.  of  "^TI  =     — &•) ; 

"iy,  the  obsolete  form,  is  replaced  by  the  more  recent 
"1*'3?  (Num.  xxi.  15) ;  the  unusual  fern,  termination 
■'"  (comp.  7tD"'3S)  7"^n"^3S,  is  elongated  into 
n^~i  lim?  is  the  emendq^ion  for  VW  (Deut 
sxii.  1) ;   "^~in  for  "^'^"irT  (Deut.  xxxiii.  15),  etc. 

/  nt27WT  I27"^W,  "  man  and  woman,"  used  by 
Glen.  vii.  2  of  animals,  is  changed  into  n!3p31  "^3^, 
'  male  and  female;  "  VS^ti?  (Gen.  xxiv.  60),  "  his 
Mters,"  bevwmes  VH'^'lS,  "  his  enemies  ;  "  for  Htt 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

common   ones  have   lieen  substituted    in    a   groai 
number  of  places  « 

2.  The  secvnd  class  of  variants  consists  nf  glosset 
and  interpretations  received  into  the  text:  glosses, 
moreover,  in  vihich  the  Sam.  not  unfiequently 
coincides  with  the  LXX.,  and  which  are  in  many 
cases  evidently  derived  by  both  from  some  ancient 
Targum./ 

3.  The  Ihird  class  exhibits  conjectural  emenda 
tions  —  sometimes  far  from  happy  —  of  real  or  im 
aginary  difficulties  in  the  Masoretic  Text. 3 

4.  The  fourth  class  exhibits  readings  in  which 
apparent  deficiencies  have  been  corrected  or  sup- 


(indefin.)  is  substituted  HDISD  i  S"l^,  "he  will 
see,  choose,"  is  amplified  by  a  \).  "  for  himself;  " 
")2n  "iSn  is  transformed  into  "1:;''  ~DS  "IIIH 
(Lev.  xvii.  10) ;  D2?b2  bS  'nbs  "If^";!  (Num. 
xxiii.  4),  "  And  God  met  Bileam,"  becomes  with  the 
Sam.  'n  nS  'bW  "JSbn  S^^a^l,  "and  an 
Angel  of  the  Lord  found  Bileam  ;  "  rTtf'SrT  73? 
(Gen.  XX.  3),  "  for  the  woman,"  is  amplified  into 
nJi^Sn  miH  Vl?,  "  for  the  sake  of  the  woman  ;  " 
for  "^  ■■  3371,  from  "T3D  (obsol.,  comp.  ^XJo),  is  put 
''"T337,  "those  that  are  before  me,"  in  contradis- 
tinction to  "  those  who  will  come  after  me  ;  "  *12?^1, 
"  and  she  emptied  "  (her  pitcher  into  the  trough,  Gen. 
xxiv.  20),  has  made  room  for  T^TIjHI,  "  and  she 
took  down  ;  "  TV^W  ^mi^lD,  "  I  will  meet  there  " 
(A.  v.,  Ex.  xxix  43),  is  made  Cli?  \"ltt?~l'T3,  "  I 
shall  be  [searched]  found  there  ;  "  Num.  xxxi.  15, 
before  the  words  HSpJ  bs  CH'^'Tin,  "Have 
you  spared  the  life  of  every  female?"  a  HSv, 
"Why,"  is  inserted  (LXX.);  for  mn^  'CW  '^'2 
S"ipS  (Deut.  xxxii.  3),  "  If  I  call  the  name  of  Jeho- 
vah," the  Sam.  has  Dti73,  "  In  the  name,"  etc. 

0  The  elliptic  use  of  Tv^,  frequent  both  in  He- 
brew and   Arabic,   being  evidently    unknown   to   the 

emeudator,  he  alters  the  ib^l^  7^1W  HSQ  ^^bPT 
(Gen.  xvii.  17),  "  shall  a  child  be  born  unto  him  that 
is  a  hundred  years  old  ?  "  into  ^^  vIS,  "  shall  I  be- 
get ?  "  Gen.  xxiv.  62,  K13tt  W2,  "  he  came  from 
going  "  (A.  V.  "  from  the  way  ")  to  the  well  of  Lahai- 

roi,  the  Sam.  alters  into  "l^^ttD  K3,  "in  oi 
through  the  desert  "  (LXX.,  £id  ttjs  ipijixov)-  In  Gen. 
XXX.  34,  ■["'"imS  '^TV'  lb  in,  "BehoW,  maj 
it  be  according  to  thy  word,"  the  1  /  (Arab.  J)  is 
transformed  into  S7,  "and  if  not  —  let  it  be  like 

thy  word."  Gen.  xli.  32,  mbiin  n'"lDt|7n  bn, 
"  And  for   that    the    dream   was    doubled,"   becom»» 

n  n"^Dtt7  nb27\  "The  dream  rose  a  secono 
time,"  which  is  both  un-Hebrew,  and  Jiametrically 
opposed  to  the  sense  and  construction  of  the  passage 
Better    ia    the    emendation    Gen     xlix.    10,    V2C 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

p.ied  from  pariillel  passages  in  the  common  text. 
Cien.  xviii.  29,  30,  for  '•  I  shall  not  do  it,  «  "  I 
Bhall  not  deskroy,"  *  is  substituted  from  Gen.  xviii. 

28,  ai,  32.    Gen.  xxxvii.  4,  VIIS,  "his  brethren," 

is  replaced  by  V23,  "his  sons,"  from  the  former 
verse.  One  of  the  most  curious  specimens  of  the 
endeavors  of  the  Samaritan  Codex  to  render  the 
readings  as  smooth  and   consistent  as  possible,  is 

its  uniform  spelling  of  proper  nouns  like  l~in"", 

Jethro,  occasionally  spelt  "T  "^  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
Moses"  father-in  law  —  a  man  who,  according  to 
the  ilidrash  (iSi/ri),  had  no  less  than  stvtn  names; 

Vti7in^  (Jehoshua),  into  which  form  it  corrects 

the  shorter  27Ii7^n  (Hoshea)  when  it  occurs  in 
the  Masoretic  Codex.  More  frequent  still  are  the 
additions  of  single  words  and  short  phrases  in- 
serted from  parallel  passages  where  the  Hebrew 
text  appeared  too  concise  : '^  —  unnecessary,  often 
excessively  aljsurd  interpolations. 

5.  The  Jijt/i  class  is  an  extension  of  the  one  im- 
mediately preceding,  and  comprises  larger  phrases, 
additions,  and  repetitions  from  parallel  passages. 
Whenever  anything  is  mentioned  as  having  been 
done  or  said  previously  l)y  Moses,  or  where  a  com- 
mand of  God  is  related  as  being  executed,  the 
whole  speech  bearing  upon  it  is  repeated  again  at 
full  length.  These  tedious  and  always  superfluous 
repetitions  are  most  frequent  in  Exodus,  both  in 
the  record  of  the  plagues  and  in  the  many  interpo- 
lations from  Deuteronomy. 

6.  To  the  sixth  class  belong  those  "emendations" 


V^2"1,  "from  between  his  feet,"  into  "from 
among  his  banners,"  V^IlT  T^'S^.  Ex.  xv. 
18,  all  but  five  of  the  Sam.  Codd.  read  obll^b 
Tll^l,  "  for  ever  and  longer,"  instead  of  1V^,  the 
common  form,  "evermore."  Ex.  xxxiv.  7,  ni^DT 
nfv^^    SV,  "  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  sin," 

becomes  np3"'  W  n|7P1'  "and  the  innocent  to 
kiiii  shall  be  innocent,"  against  both  the  parallel  pas- 
sages and  the  obvious  sense.  The  somewhat  difficult 
^231^  Svl.  "and  they  did  not  cease  "  (A.  V.,  Num. 
xi,  2.5),  reappears  as  a  still  more  obscure  conjectural 
^2PS^  ,  which  we  would  venture  to  translate,  "  they 
were  not  gathered  in,"  in  the  sense  of  "  killed  "  :  in- 
stead of  either  the  1tt?33S,  "  congregated,"  of  the 
Sam.  Vers.,  or  Castell's  "continuerunt,"  orHoubiganfs 

and  Dathe's  "  convenerant."     Num.  xxi.  28,  the  ^27 

t' 

"  Ar  "  (Moab),  is  emendated  into   ^27,   "  as  far  as," 

a  pertectly  meaningless  reading  ;  only  that  the  ~)27 
"  city,"  as  we  saw  above,  was  a  word  unknown  to  the 
Sam.  The  somewhat  uncommon  words  (Num.  xi.  32), 
mi^lT  nnb  ini2JC'*1,  "and  they  (the  people) 
Hread  them  all  abroad,"  are  transposed  into 
niSintt?  Cnb  1tDntt?"^X  "and  they  slaugh- 
ered  for  themselves  a  slaughter."  Deut.  xxviii.  37, 
he  word  nSti^V)  "  *°  astonishment"  (A.  V.),  very 
rarely  used  in  this  sense  (Jei.  six.  8,  xxv.  9),  becomes 
Qtr  7,  "  to  a  name,"  i.  e.  a  bad  name.    Deut.  xxxUi.  6. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH     2807 

of  passages  and  words  of  the  Hebrew  text  which 
contain  something  objectionable  in  the  eyes  of  th« 
Samaritans,  on  account  either  of  historical  improb- 
ability or  apparent  want  of  dignity  in  the  terms 
applied  to  the  Creator.  Thus  in  the  Sam.  Pent, 
no  one  hi  the  antediluvian  times  begets  his  first 
son  after  he  has  lived  150  years:  but  one  hundred 
years  are,  where  necessary,  subti-acted  before,  and 
added  after  the  birth  of  the  first  son.  Thus  Jared, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  Text,  begat  at  1G2  years, 
lived  afterwards  800  years,  and  "  all  his  years  were 
9(52  years;  "  according  to  the  Sam.  he  begot  when 
only  62  years  old,  lived  afterwards  785  3ears,  "  and 
all  his  years  were  847."  After  the  Deluge  the 
opposite  method  is  followed.  A  hundred  or  fifty 
years  are  added  before  and  subtracted  after  the  be- 
getting: e.  (/.  Arphaxad,  who  in  the  Common  Text 
is  35  years  old  when  he  l)egets  Shelah,  and  live<l 
afterwards  403  years:  in  all  438  —  is  by  the  Sam. 
made  135  years  old  when  he  begets  Shelah,  and 
lives  only  303  years  afterwards  =  438.  (The  LXX. 
has,  according  to  its  own  peculiar  psychological  and 
chronological  notions,  altered  the  Text  in  the  op- 
posite manner.  [See  SEi-ruAGi>;T.])  An  exceed- 
ingly  important  and  often  discussed  emendation  of 
this  class  is  the  passage  in  Ex.  xii.  40,  which  in  our 
text  reads,  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years."  The  Samaritan  (supported  by  LXX. 
Cod.  Al.)  has  "the  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
Israel  \cmd  their  Jntlitrs  who  dwelt  In  the  land  of 
Canaan  and  in  the  land  of  Egypt  —  eV  •y?7  Kl-yh-Krw 
KoX  eV  7^  Karaay]  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years:"  an  interpolation  of  very  late  date  indeed. 


"1DD!2  Vna  "^n"^"),  "May  his  men  be  a  multi- 
tude," the  Sam.,  with  its  characteristic  aversion  to,  or 
rather  ignorance  of,  the  use  of  poetical  diction,  reads 

~12D^  '^'f^^.'?  TI"'"),  "  May  there  be /rom  AfVn  a 
multitude,"  thereby  trying  perhaps  to  encounter  also 
the  apparent  difficulty  of  the  word  HCDQ,  standing 
for  "  a  great  number."  Anything  more  absurd  than 
the  inSQ  in  this  place  could  hardly  be  imagined. 
A  few  verses  further  on,  the   uncommon  use  of  ?Q 

in  the  phrase  ^^l^^lp^  ]^  (Deut.  xxxiii.  11),  as 
"  lest,"  "  not,"  caused  the  no  less  unfortunate  altera- 
tion •12^''~^  "^^j  so  that  the  latter  parf  of  the  pas- 
sage, "  smite'  through  the  loins  of  them  that  rise 
against  him,  and  of  them  that  hate  him,  '.hat  they  rise 
not  again,"  becomes  "  who  will  raise  them?" — barren 
aUke  of  meaning  and  of  poetry.    For  the  unusual  aud 

poetical     t^SII'^    (Deut.    xxxiii.    25 ;    A.   V.   "  thy 

strength  "),  "7^2"1  is  suggested  ;  a  word  about  the 
significance  of  which  the  commentators  are  at  a 
greater  loss  even  than  about  that  of  the  original. 

"  ntt727W  sb.  *  n^ntt7S  sb. 

c  Thus  in  Gen_  i.  15,  the  words  7i7  "T"Sn7 
\^"1Sn,  "  to  give  light  upon  the  earth,"  are  inserted 
from  ver.  17;  Gen.  xi.  8,  the  word  7"^!!^^,  "and  a 
tower,"   is   added   from  ver.   4 ;   Gen.   xxiv.  22,     /3? 

n^S,  "  on  her  face  "  (nose),  is  added  from  ver.  47,  sc 
that  the  former  verse  reads  "And  the  man  took 
(np"*!  for  C£I7"'1)  a  golden  ring  "upon  her  face.""' 


2808  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 
Again,  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  "And  God  [?  had]  finished  I 
I.  ''3"'1,  ?  pluperf. )  on  the  seventh  day,"  ^xj^^C'n 
is  altered  into  "^tfttTI,  "the  sixth,"'  lest  God's 
rest  on  the  Sabbath-day  might  seem  incomplete 
(LXX.)-  In  Gen.  xxix.  3,  8,  "We  cannot,  until 
all  the  flocks  be  gathered  together,  and  till  they 
roll    the   stone   from    the   mouth    of    the   well," 

C"'"nr,  "flocks,"  is  replaced  by  D"'17"n,  "shep- 
herds," since  the  flocks  could  not  roil  the  stone 
from  the  well:  the  corrector  not  being  apparently 
aware  that  in  common  parlance  in  Hebrew,  as  in 
other  languages,  "they"  occasionally  refers  to  cer- 
tain not  particularly  specified  persons.  Well  may 
Gesenius  ask  what  this  corrector  would  have  made 
of  Is.  sxxvii.  [not  xxxvi.]  30 :  "And  when  they  arose 
in  the  morning,  behold  they  were  all  dead  corpses." 
The  surpassing  reverence  of  the  Samaritan  is 
shown  in  passages  like  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  "  and  they 
beheld  God," '-<  which  is  transmuted  into  "and 
they  held  by,  clung  to,  God  "  f"  —  a  reading  cer- 
tainly less  in  harmony  with  the  following  —  "and 
they  ate  and  drank."  ^ 

7.  The  seventh  class  comprises  what  we  might 


.  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

briefly  call  Saniaritanisms,  i.  e.  certain  Hebren 
forms  translated  into  the  idiomatic  Samaritan  ^ 
and  here  the  Sam.  Codices  vary  considerably 
among  themselves,  —  as  far  as  the  very  impel  feet 
collation  of  them  has  hitherto  shown  —  some  hav- 
ing retained  the  Hebrew  in  many  places  where  the 
others  have  adopted  the  new  equivalents.<^ 

8.  The  eiglith  and  last  class  contains  alterations 
made  in  fa\or  or  on  behalf  of  Samaritan  theology, 
hermeneutics  and  domestic  worship.  Thus  the 
word  Eiulnm,  four  times  construed  with  the  plura. 
verb  in  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch,  is  in  the  S:im- 
aritan  Pent,  joined  to  the  singular  verb  (Gen.  xx. 
13,  xxxi.  53,  XXXV.  7;  Ex.  xxii.  9);  and  further, 
both  anthropomorphisms  as  well  as  anthropopath- 
isms  are  carefully  expunged  —  a  practice  very  com- 
mon in  later  times.''  The  last  and  perhaps  the 
most  momentous  of  all  intentional  alterations  is 

the  constant  change  of  aU  the  "IPIS^, "  God  will 
choose  a  spot,"  into  "IHS,  "  He  has  chosen," 
namely,  Gerizim,  and  the  well  known  substitution 
of  Gerizim  for  Ebal  in  Deut.  xx\ii.  4:  "It  shall 
be  when  ye  be  gone  over  Jordan,  that  ye  shall  set 


c  The  gutturals  and  jl/ier(-letters  are  frequently 
changed:  — t2"1"in  becomes  I3~nS  (Gen.  viii.  4); 
""S2  is  altered  into  ''^JH  (xxiii.  18);  "ilZiXD  into 
172ti7  (xxvii.  19);  ''bnT  stands  for"»bnT  (Deut.  xxxii. 
21) ;  the  n  is  changed  into  H  in  words  like  3r!3 
CTT22,  which  become  DFID,  Q*'nD3  ;  FI  is  altered 
into  r  — "l^n  becomes  "17227.  The  "^  is  frequently 
doubled  (?  as  a  mater  lectionis) :  2^t2  "^H  is  substi- 
tuted for  T'^'^n  ;  NI'^'^S  for  Sn-'W  ;  '^'^D  for  ^r. 
Many  woras  are  joined  together:  —  ~TT1"1Q  stands 

for  -n-n  -in  (ex.  xxx.  23);  ]S3nr)  for  "|s  )n^ 

(Gen.  xli.  45) ;  Dn"^-)2  in  is  always  C^fn^in. 
The  pronouns  r';S  and  "Jjl^?,  2d  p.  fem.  sing,  and 
plur.,  are  changed  into  "^nS,  ^^HM  (the  obso- 
lete Heb.  forms)  respectively ;  the  sufif.  tJ  into  "^S  ; 
'1~  into  "T"^  ;  the  termination  of  the  2d  p.  b.  fem. 
praet.  ri~,  becomes  ^n,  like  the  first  p. ;  the  verbal 
form  Aphel  is  used  for  the  Hiphil;  "^iTlSTS  for 
^ni!DTn  ;  the  medial  letter  of  the  verb  1  27  is 
sometimes  retained  as  S  or  ''^  instead  of  being  dropped 
iig  in  the  Heb.  Again,  verbs  of  the  form  77  V  have 
'he  "^  frequently  at  the  end  of  the  infin.  fut.  and  part., 

Instiiad    of   the    H,      Nouns    of  the   schema     vJ^p 

••'t 

ivZlS,  etc.)  are  often  spelt  V^I^p,  into  which  the 
^     -.  T  '  "'t' 

form    V^T^n   is    likewise    occasionally    transformed. 
..  It 

Df  distinctly  Samaritan  words  may  be  mentioned : 
"fn  (Gen.  xxxiv.  31)  =  "f^S,  "f^H  (Chald  )  "  like  ;  " 

a\"in,  for  Heb.  cmn,  "seat;"  nmbs, 

'm  though  it  budded,"  becomes  riHICSS  =  Targ. 


nrrCS     I'D;     WDH,   "wise,"    reads    121311; 

IV,  "spoil,"  >iv;  n^a^  "days,"  nnv. 

<*  rmrivD  ti7"'S,  "man  of  war,"  an  expression 

used  of  God  (Ex.  xv.  3),  becomes  72  1133,  "hero  of 
war,"  the  former  apparently  of  irreverent  import  to 
the  Samaritan  ear  ;  for  ii  ?1S  7Ji727''  (Deut.  xxix. 
19.  A.  V.  20),  lit.  "And  the  wrath  (nose)  of  the  Lord 
shall  smoke,"   il  r|S  "^rT*,   "  the  wrath  of  the  Lord 

will  be  kindled,"  is  substituted  ;  "^bllllti  nU 
(Deut.  xxxii.  18),  "  the  rock  (God)  which  begat  thee," 
is  changed  into   *77 /Tm  "^^-'5  "the  rock  which 

gloriiies  thee  ;  "  Gen.  xix.  12,  D*'ti73Sn,  "  the  men," 
used  of  "  the  angels,"  has  been  replaced  by 
Q''3S7?2n,  "the  angels."  Extreme  reverenc* 
for    the    patriarchs    changed    1"11S,   "Cursed    bt 

their  (Simeon  and  Levi's)  anger,"  into  1"'1S, 
"  brilliant  is  their  anger  "  (Gen.  xlix.  7).  A  flagrant 
falsification  is    the  alteration,  in   an   opposite  sense, 

which  they  ventured  in  the  passage  TDli/'^    il  T^T' 

nti;27,  "The  beloved  of  God  [Benjamin,  the 
founder  of  the  Judajo-Davidian  empire,  hateful  to 
the  Samaritans]  shall  dwell  securely,"  transformed 
by  them  into  the  almost  senseless  il  1"^  1^ 
nimb  ISti^"^,  "  The  hand,  the   hand  of  God   will 

rest  [if  Hlph.  :  'J2ti'''^,  i  will  cause  to  rest ']  sec-urely  '' 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  12).  Reverence  for  the  Law  and  thf 
Sacred  Records  gives  rise  to  more  emendations  :  — 
T'^.''^^^  (Deut.  XXV.  12,  A.  V.  11),  "by  his  secrets." 
becomes  '11li723,  "by  his  flesh;"  n^b^ti?"*, 
"  coibit  cum  ea  ;  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  30),  TM2iV  22^7"*, 

"  concumbet  cum  ea  ;  "  ]'lD''7ti7n  2/27,  "  to  the 
dog   shall  ye    throw   it"  (Ex.   xxii.  30)  (A.  V.  31) 
7217.1    ~j7Lt7n,     "ye    shall     indeed     throw 
[away]  " 


SAMAKITAN  PENTATEUCH 

up  these  stones  which  I  command  joii  this  day  on 
Aloiint  Ebal  (Sam.  Gerizim],  and  there  shalt  thou 
build  an  altar  unto  tlie  Lord  thy  (iod,"  etc.  This 
passage  gains  a  certain  interest  from  Whiston  and 
Kennicott  havinn;  charged  the  Jens  with  corrupt- 
ing it  from  Gerizim  into  Ebal.  This  supposition, 
however,  was  met  by  Rutherford,  Parry,  T^chsen, 
I^b.ntein,  Verschuir,  and  others,  and  we  need  only 
add  that  it  is  completely  given  up  by  modern  l!ib- 
lical  scholars,  althougli  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
there  is  some  prii/id  facie  ground  for  a  doubt 
upon  the  subject.  'I'O  this  class  also  belong  niore 
especially  interpolations  of  really  existing  pas- 
sages, dragged  out  of  their  context  for  a  special 
f  urpose.  In  Exodus  as  well  as  in  Deuteronomy 
the  Sam.  has.  immediately  after  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, the  following  insertions  from  Deut. 
sxvii.  2-7  and  xi.  30:  "And  it  shall  be  on  the 
day  when  ye  shall  pass  over  Jordan  ...  ye  shall 
set  up  these  stones  ...  on  Mount  Gerizim  .  .  . 
and  there  shalt  thou  build  an  altar  .  .  .  '■That 
mminlaln '  on  the  other  side  Jordan  by  the  way 
where  the  sun  goeth  down  ...  in  the  champaign 
over  against  Gilgal,  beside  the  plains  of  IMoreh, 
'  oi'ej'  afjninst  Rliecliem : '  "  —  this  last  superfluous 
addition,  which  is  also  found  in  Deut.  xi.  30  of  the 
Sam.  Pent.,  being  ridiculed  in  the  Talmud,  as  we 
have  seen  above. 

From  the  immense  number  of  these  worse  than 
(vorthless  variants  Gesenius  has  singled  out  four, 
h'hich  he  thinks  preferable  on  the  whole  to  those 
of  the  Masoretic  Text.  We  will  confine  ourselves 
to  mentioning  them,  and  refer  the  reader  to  the 
recent  commentaries  upon  them:  he  will  find  that 
they  too  have  since  been,  all  but  unanimously, 
rejected."     (1.)  After  the  words,  "And  Cain  spoke 

(~)!3S"'1)  to  his  brother  Abel"  (Gen.  iv.  8),  the 
Sam.  adds,  "  let  us  go  into  the  field,"  ^  in  ignorance 

of  the  absolute  use  of  "^ttW,  "  to  say,  speak " 
(comp.  Ex.  xix.  25;  2  Chr.  ii.  10  (A.  V.  U)),  and 

the  absol.  l^"^"!  (Gen.   ix.  22).     (2.)   For   "IHS 

(Gen.  xxii.  13)  the  Sam.  reads  ^^S,  i.  e.  instead 
of  "behind  him  a  ram,"  "■one  ram."     (3.)  For 

D"12  "TIDn  (Gen.  xlix.  14),  "  an  ass  of  bone," 
i.  e.  a  strong  ass,  the  Sam.  has  n^~13  m^n 
(Targ.  D'na,  Syr.  P^-^-  And  (4.)  for  pT^I 
(Gen.  xiv.  14),  "  he  led  forth  his  trained  ser- 
vants," the  Sam.  reads  pT'l,  "he  numbered." 
We  must  briefly  state,  in  concluding  this  por- 


o  Keil,  in  the  latest  edition  of  hi.s  Introd.,  p.  590, 
note  7,  says,  "  Kven  the  few  variants,  which  Gesenius 
tries  to  prove  geo  tine,  fall  to  the  ground  on  closer 
examination." 

c  E.  g.  y\i:n  for  n'lp'^  (Es.  xii.  48) ;  sr:"' 
ntt7n  (Ex.  XXXV.  10). 

d  E.  g.   "nDT  for  -IIDT  (Ex.  xiii.  13) ;     1!:D3"I 

for  D12")  (Num.  XT.  35). 

e  E.  g.   V]1T^^  for   Plim  (Gen.  viii.  22) ;   yiFI 

for   yi37   (Gen.  xxxvi.  28);   J^St^n   for   Pirm^H 
[!<•▼.  xi.  16),  &c. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2809 

tion  of  the  subject,  that  we  did  not  choose  this 
classification  of  Gesenius  because  it  appeared  to  us 
to  1)6  either  systematic  (Gesenius  says  himself: 
"  Ceterum  f;icile  perspicitur  complures  in  his  esse 
lectiones  quarum  singulas  alius  ad  aliud  genus 
referre  forsitan  malit  ....  in  una  vel  altera 
lectione  ad  aliam  classem  referenda  baud  ditficUes 
erimus  .  .  .  .  ")  or  exhaustive,  or  even  be- 
cause the  illustrations  themselves  are  unassailalile 
in  point  of  the  reason  he  assigns  for  them:  but 
liecause,  deficient  as  it  is,  it  has  at  once  and  for- 
ever silenced  the  utterly  unfounded  though  time- 
hallowed  claims  of  the  Samaritan  Pen-tateuch.  It 
was  only  necessary,  as  we  said  before,  to  collect  a 
great  lumiber  of  variations  (or  to  take  them  from 
Walton),  to  compare  them  with  the  old  text  and 
with  each  other,  to  place  them  in  some  kind  of 
order  before  the  reader  and  let  them  tell  their  own 
tale.  That  this  was  not  done  during  the  two 
hundred  3ears  of  the. contest  by  a  single  one  of  the 
combatants  is  certainly  rather  strange:  albeit  not 
the  only  instance  cf  the  kind. 

Im])ortaiit  additions  to  this  list  have,  as  we 
hinted  before,  lieen  made  liy  Frankel,  such  as  the 
Samaritans'  preference  of  the  imperat.  fur  the  3d 
pers. ;  <•'  ignorance  of  the  uSe  of  the  abl.  absol. ;  ^ 
Galileanisms, —  to  which  also  belongs  the  permu- 
tation  of  the  letters  Alievi^  (comp.  Kvub.  p.  53, 

~)an,  "laS,  "^lyS),  m  the  Samaritan  Cod. ;  the 

occasional  softening  down  of  the  D  into  3,/  of  3 

into  3  ^  into  T,  etc.,  and  chiefly  the  presence 
of  words  and  phrases  in  the  Sam.  which  are  not 
interpolated  from  parallel  passages,  but  are  entirely 
wanting  in  our  text. 6'  Frankel  derives  from  these 
passages  chiefly  the  conclusion  that  the  Sara. 
Pent,  was,  partly  at  least,  emendated  from  the 
LXX.,  Onkelos,  and  other  very  late  sources.  (See 
below) 

We  now  subjoin,  for  the  sake  of  completeness, 
the  beforementioned  thirteen  classes  of  Kirchheim, 
in  the  original,  to  which  we  have  added  the  trans- 
lation :  — 

1.  Q^^-ia  in  nbi?nb  n'^'^iD-Li;!  nisDin 

[Additions  and  alterations  in  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch in  favor  of  Jlount  Gerizim.] 

2.  msbnb  mCDin.  [Additions  for  the 
purpose  of  completion.] 

3.  ^1S3.      [Commentary,  glosses.] 

4.  c^3\^nm  D^^bijan  nibn.    [Change 

of  verbs  and  moods.] 


/  tZ^nrr^l  for  tC!:n''"1  (Gen.  xxxi.  35) ;  rxDi^i 
for  n2ti73   (Ex.  XV.  10). 

g  Gen.  xxiii.  2,  after     57^~lSn   n'^^lpH     the 


Vw. 


words  pttl?  /S  are  added  ;  xxvii.  27,  after  mil^rT 
the  word  S7tt  is  found  (LXX.);  xliii.  28,  the  phrase 
C'^nbsb  Sinn  tC^Sn  -f1~Q  is  inserted  after 
the   Ethnach;    xlvii.  21,C'*13i;'b    T"21?n,   and 

Ex.  xxxii  32,  S^7  nn  StSn  Strri  CS  is  read. 
An  exceedingly  difficult  and  un-Hebrew  passage  bi 
found  in  Ex.    xxiii.  19,   reading    jlST    X^W2    "'D 

spy*^  "'nbsb  sin  n-in^i  nna?  nnT3. 


2810    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

B.  maiCn   Pllbn.      [change  of  nouns.] 

6.  nSm?n.      [Emendation  of  seeming  irreg- 
ularities by  assimilating  forms,  etc.] 

7.  nVmWn    nnian.       [Permutation    of 
letters.] 

8.  D'^'^133.      [Pronouns.] 

9.  T12.      [Gender.] 

10.  mDD"l3n    nrniS.      [Letters  added.] 

11.  Drr^n   nTmW.      [Addition  of  preposl- 
ticns,  conjunctions,  articles,  etc.] 

12.  "TT'DI  V'^^P-      [Junction  of  separated, 
and  separation  of  joined  words.] 

13.  07*13?  mii'^.  [Chronological  alterations.] 
It  may,  perhaps,  not  be  quite  superfluous  to  ob- 
serve, before  we  proceed  any  further,  that,  since 
up  to  this  moment  no  critical  edition  of  the  Sam. 
Pent.,  or  even  an  examination  of  the  Codices  since 
Kennicott  —  who  can  only  be  said  to  have  begun 
the  work  —  has  been  thought  of,  the  treatment  of 
the  whole  subject  remains  a  most  precarious  task, 
and  beset  with  unexampled  difficulties  at  every 
step;  and  also  that,  under  these  circumstances,  a 
more  or  less  scientific  arrangement  of  isolated  or 
common  Samaritan  mistakes  and  falsifications  ap- 
pears to  us  to  be  a  subject  of  very  small  conse- 
quence indeed. 

It  is,  however,  this  same  rudimentary  state  of 
investigation  —  after  two  centuries  and  a  half  of 
fierce  discussion  —  which  has  left  the  other  and 
much  more  important  question  of  the  Afje  and 
Oriffin  of  the  Sam.  Pent,  as  unsettled  to-day  as  it 
was  when  it  first  came  under  the  notice  of  Eu- 
ropean scholars.  For  our  own  part  we  cannot  but 
think  that  as  long  as  (1)  the  history  of  the 
Samaritans  remains  involved  in  the  obscurities  of 
which  a  former  article  will  have  given  an  account; 
(2)  we  are  restricted  to  a  small  number  of  com- 
paratively recent  Codices;  (3)  neither  these  Codices 
themselves  have,  as  has  just  lieen  observed,  been 
thoroughly  collated  and  recollated,  nor  (4)  more 
than  a  feeble  beginning  has  been  made  with  any 
thing  like  a  collation  between  the  various  readings 
of  the  Sam.  Pent,  and  the  LXX.  (Walton  omitted 
the  greatest  number,  "cum  nullani  sensus  varie 
tatem  constituant " ) ;  so  long  must  we  have  a 
variety  of  the  most  divergent  opinions,  all  based 
on  "  probabilities,"  which  are  designated  on  the 
other  side  as  "false  reasonings"  and  "individual 
crotchets,"  and  which,  moreover,  not  unfrequently 
start  from  flagrantly  false  premises. 

We    shall,   under  these   circumstances,   confine 
ourselves  to  a  simple  enumeration  of  the  leading 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

opinions,  and  the  chief  reasons  and  arguments  al- 
leged for  and  against  them  :  — ; 

(1.)  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  came  into  the 
hands  of  the  Samaritans  as  an  inheritance  from 
the  ten  tribes  whom  they  succeeded  —  so  the  pop- 
ular notion  runs.  Of  this  opinion  are  .).  Morinus, 
Walton,  Cappellus,  Kennicott,  JMichaelis,  Eichhorn, 
Bauer,  Jahn,  Bertholdt,  Steudel,  Mazade,  Stuart, 
Davidson,  and  others.  Their  reasons  for  it  may  be 
thus  briefly  summed  up:  — 

(".)  It  seems  improbable  that  the  S.imaritans 
should  have  accepted  their  code  at  the  hands  of  the 
.lews  after  the  exile,  as  supposed  by  soiue  critics, 
since  there  existed  an  intense  hatred  between  ths 
two  nationalities. 

(b.)  The  Samaritan  Canon  has  only  the  Penta- 
teuch in  connnon  with  the  Hebrew  Canon :  had 
that  Iiook  been  received  at  a  period  when  the  Ha- 
giographa  and  the  Prophets  were  in  the  Jrws'' 
hands,  it  would  be  surprising  if  they  had  not  ilao 
received  those. 

(c.)  The  Sam.  letters,  avowedly  the  more  an- 
cient, are  found  in  the  Sam.  Cod. :  therefore  it  wa* 
written  before  the  alteration  of  the  character  into 
the  square  Helirew  —  which  dates  from  the  end  of 
the  Exile  —  took  place. 

[We  cannot  omit  briefly  to  draw  attention  here 
to  a  most  keen-eyed  suggestion  of  S.  D.  Luzzatto, 
contained  in  a  letter  to  R.  Kirchheim  ( Cnrine 
Shumrvn,  p.  106,  &c.).  by  the  adoption  of  which 
many  readings  in  the  Heb.  Codex,  now  almost  un- 
intelligiV)le,  appear  perfectly  clear.  He  assumes 
tiiat  the  copyist  who  at  some  time  or  other  after 
Ezra  transcribed  the  Bible  into  the  modern  square 
Hebrew  character,  from  the  ancient  copies  written 
in  so-called  Samaritan,  occasionally  mistook  Samar- 
itan letters  of  similar  form."  And  since  our  Sam. 
Pent,  has  those  difficult  readings  in  connnon  with 
the  Mas.  Text,  that  other  moot  point,  whether  it 
was  copied  from  a  Hebrew  or  Samaritan  Codex, 
would   thus   appear   to   be   solved.     Its   constant 

changes  of  T  and  1,  "^  and  \  H  and  H  —  let- 
ters which  are  similar  in  Hebrew,  but  not  in  Sa- 
maritan —  have  been  long  used  as  a  powerful  argu  • 
ment  for  the  Samaritans  having  received  the  Pent. 
at  a  very  late  period  indeed.] 

Since  the  above  opinion  —  that  the  Pent,  came 
into  the  hands  of  the  Samaritans  from  the  Ten 
Tribes  —  is  the  most  popular  one,  we  will  now 
adduce  some  of  the  chief  reasons  brought  against 
it,  and  the  reader  will  see  by  the  somewhat  fee- 
ble nature  of  the  arguments  on  either  side,  that 
the  last  word  has  not  yet  been  spoken  in  the  mat- 
ter. 

(<i.)  There  existed  no  reliijiovs  animosity  what- 
soever between  Judah  and  Israel  when  they  sep- 
arated.    The  ten  tribes  could  not  therefore  have 


a  E.  g.  Is.  xi.  15,  □"T^  instead  of  D!?^?^ 
(adopted  by  Gesenius  in  Tkes.  p.  1017  a,  without  a 
mention  of  its  source,  wliich  he,  however,  distinctly 

avowed   to  Rosenmuller  —  comp.   W  D,  P-  107,  not« 
K)  ;  Jer.  iii.  8,   S"1W*1    instead  of  W~im  ;  1  Sam. 

5xiv.  11,  Dnm  for  Dnwi ;  Ezr.  Ti.  i,  nir\ 
k.i  Sin ;  Kz.  xxii.  20,  \'-in2m  for  \nnDm ; 

Jndg  XV.  20,   D*''nti)37  —  Samson's  reign  during  the 
time  of  the  Pliilistines  being  given  as  twenty  year* 


instead  of  forty  (comp.  Jer.  Sola,  1),  accounted  foi 
by  the  J2  (numerical  letter  for  forty)  in  the  original 

being  mistaken  for  3  (twenty).  Again,  2  Chr.  xxii, 
2,  forty  is  put  instead  of  tiventy  (comp.  2  K.  ^iii.  26) ; 
2  K.  xxii.  4,  DH^I  for  '^^\'^^  ;  Ez.  iii.  12,  -[Tia 
for     DT^3,    etc.;  all  these   letters  —  ^  and  »^ 

P(  and  xV,  J  and  ^J,  ^  and  hT  —  resembUag 
each  otheL-  very  closely. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

bequeathed  such  an  animosity  to  those  who  suc- 
.•.eeded  them,  atid  who,  we  may  add,  prol)ably  cared 
iis  little  originally  for  the  disputes  Ijetweeii  Judah 
and  Israel,  as  colonists  from  far  off  countries,  be- 
longing to  utterly  different  races,  are  likely  to  care 
for  the  quarrels  of  the  aborigines  who  formerly  in- 
habited the  country.  On  the  contrary,  the  contest 
between  tht  slowly  judaized  Samaritans  and  the 
Jews  only  dates  from  the  moment  when  the  latter 
refused  to  recognize  the  claims  of  the  former,  of 
belonging  to  the  people  of  God,  and  rejected  their 
did  in  building  the  Temple:  why  then,  it  is  said, 
should  they  not  first  have  received  the  one  book 
which  would  bring  them  into  still  closer  conformity 
with  the  returned  exiles,  at  their  hands?  That  the 
Jews  should  yet  have  refused  to  receive  them  as 
equals  is  no  more  surprising  than  that  the  Samari- 
tans from  that  time  forward  tr>ok  their  stand  upon 
this  very  Law  —  altered  according  to  their  curum- 
Btances;  and  proved  from  it  that  they  and  they 
alone  were  the  Jews  kut'  i^oxh"- 

{b.)  Their  not  possessing  any  other  book  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
circumstance  that  there  was  no  other  book  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  of  the  schism,  because  many 
psalms  of  Uavid,  writings  of  Solomon,  etc.,  must 
have  been  circulating  among  the  people.  But  the 
jealousy  with  which  the  Samaritans  regarded  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  intense  hatred  which  they  naturally 
conceived  against  the  post-Mosaic  writers  of  na- 
tional -lewish  history,  would  sufficiently  account  for 
their  rejecting  the  other  books,  in  all  of  which,  save 
Joshua,  Judges,  and  Jol),  either  Jerusalem,  as  the 
centre  of  worship,  or  David  and  his  House,  are 
extolled.  If,  however,  Loewe  has  really  found  with 
them,  as  he  reports  iti  the  Alli/em.  Zntun<j  d. 
Jwlenth.  April  18th,  1839,  our  Book  of  Kings  and 
Solomon's  Song  of  Songs,  —  which  they  certainly 
would  not  have  received  subsequently,  —  all  these 
arguments  are  perfectly  gratuitous. 

(c.)  The  present  Hebrew  character  was  not  in- 
troduced by  Ezra  after  the  return  from  the  Exile, 
but  came  into  use  at  a  much  later  period.  The 
Samaritans  might  therefore  have  received  the  Pen- 
tateuch at  the  hands  of  the  returned  exiles,  who, 
nccording  to  the  Talmud,  nj'terwards  changed  their 
writing,  and  in  the  Pentateuch  only,  so  as  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  Samaritan.  "  Originally," 
Bays  Mar  Sutra  {Sanhedr.  xxi.  b),  "the  Pentateuch 
was  given  to  Israel  in  Jbri  writing  and  the  Holy 
(Hebrew)  language:  it  was  again  given  to  them 
in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  the  As/iwi/h  writing  and 
Aramaic  language.  Israel  then  selected  the  Ash- 
urith  writing  and  the  Holy  language,  and  left  to 
the  Hediotes  {'\hiuirai)  the  Ibri  writing  and  the 
Aramaic  language.  Who  are  the  Hediotes  V  The 
Cuthim  (Samaritans).  What  is  Ibri  writing? 
The  Libonaah  (Samaritan).''  It  is  well  known 
also  that  the  Maccabean  coins  bear  Samaritan  in- 
scriptions: so  that  "  Hediotes"  would  point  to  the 
common  use  of  the  Samaritan  character  for  'ordi- 
aary  purposes,  down  to  a  very  late  period. 

(2.)  The  second  leading  opinion  on  the  age  and 
origin  of  the  Sam.  Pent,  is  that  it  was  introduced 
by  Manasseh  (conip.  Josephus,  Ant.  xi.  8,  §§  2,  4) 
fit  the  time  of  the  foundation  of  the  Samaritan 
Sanctuary  on  INIount  Gerizim  (Ant.  van  Dale,  R. 
Simon,  Prideaux,  Fulda,  Hasse,  De  Wette,  Gese- 
nius,  Hupfeld,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  etc.).  In  sup- 
port of  this  opinion  are  alleged,  the  idolatry  of  the 
Samaritans  before  they  received  a  Jewish  priest 
through  Esarhaddon   (2  K.  xvii.  24-33),   and  the 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2811 

immense  number  of  readings  common  to  the  LXX. 
and  this  CJode,  against  the  ]\Iasoretic  Text. 

(3.)  Other,  but  very  isolated  notions,  are  thosi 
of  Morin,  Le  Clerc,  Poncet,  etc.,  that  the  Israelit- 
ish  priest  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria  to  instruct 
the  new  inhabitants  in  the  religion  of  the  country 
brought  tiie  Pentateuch  with  him.  Further,  tnat 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  the  production  of 

an  impostor,  Dositheus  (^ST^DIT  in  Talmud),  who 
lived  during  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  who  fal- 
sified the  sacred  records  in  order  to  prove  that  he 
was  the  Messiah  (Ussher).  Against  which  there 
is  only  this  to  be  observed,  that  there  is  not  the 
slightest  alteration  of  such  a  nature  to  be  found. 
Finally,  tliat  it  is  a  very  late  and  faulty  recension, 
with  additions  and  corruptions  of  the  Masorctic 
Text  (Gth  century  after  Christ),  into  which  glosses 
from  the  LXX.  had  been  received  (Frankel).  Many 
other  suggestions  have  been  made,  but  we  cannot 
here  dwell  upon  them:  suffice  it  to  have  nientione/i 
those  to  vvhich  a  certain  popularity  and  authority 
attaches. 

Another  question  has  been  raised :  Have  all 
the  variants  which  we  find  in  our  copies  been  in- 
troduced at  once,  or  are  they  the  work  of  many 
generations  ?  From  the  number  of  vague  opinions 
on  that  point,  we  have  only  room  here  to  adduce 
that  of  Azariah  de  Rossi,  who  traces  many  of  the 
glosses  (Class  2)  both  in  the  Sam.  and  in  the  LXX. 
to  an  ancient  Targum  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
at  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  refers  to  the  Talmudical 
passage  of  Nedar.  37 :  "  And  he  read  in  the  Book 
of  the  Law  of  God  —  this  is  Mikra,  the  Pentateuch ; 

Il^mS^,  explanatory,  this  is  Targum."  [Vek- 
siONS  (  Taiigum).]  Considering  that  no  Masorah 
fixed  the  letters  and  signs  of  the  Samar.  Codex, 
and  that,  as  we  have  noticed,  the  principal  object 
was  to  make  it  read  as  smoothly  as  possible,  it  is 
not  easily  seen  why  each  succeeding  century  should 
not  have  added  its  own  emendations.  But  here, 
too,  investigation  still  wanders  about  in  the  mazes 
of  speculation. 

I'he  chief  opinions  with  respect  to  the  agreement 
of  the  numerous  and  as  3et  uninvestigated  —  even 
uncounted  —  readings  of  the  LXX.  (of  which  like- 
wise no  critical  edition  exists  as  yet),  and  the  Sam. 
Pent,  are :  — 

1.  That  the  LXX.  have  translated  from  the 
Sam.  (De  Dieu,  Selden,  Hottinger,  Hassencamp, 
Eichhorn,  etc.). 

2.  That  mutual  interpolations  have  taken  place 
(Grotius,  Ussher,  Ravius,  etc.). 

3.  That  both  Versions  were  formed  from  Hebrew 
Codices,  which  differed  among  themselves  as  well 
as  from  the  one  wliich  afterwards  obtained  public 
authority  in  Palestine;  that  however  very  many 
willful  corruptions  and  interpolations  have  crept  in 
in  later  times  (Gesenius). 

4.  That  the  Samar.  has,  in  the  main,  been  al- 
tered from  the  LXX.  (Frankel). 

It  must,  on  the  other  hand,  be  stated  also,  that 
the  Sam.  and  LXX.  quite  as  often  disagree  with 
each  other,  and  follow  each  the  Masor.  Text.  Also, 
that  tht  quotations  in  the  N.  T.  from  the  LXX., 
where  tney  coincide  with  the  Sam.  against  tli€ 
Hebr.  Text,  are  so  small  in  number  and  of  so  un- 
important a  nature  that  they  cannot  be  adduced  as 
any  argument  whatsoever. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Sam 
Pent,  now  in  European  libraries  [Ivennicott] :  — 


2812    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

No.  1.  Oxford  (Ussher)  Bodl.,  fol.,  No.  3127. 
Perfect,  except  tbe  first  twenty  and  last  nine  verses. 

No.  2.  Oxford  (Ussher)  liodl.,  4to,  No.  3128, 
ritli  an  Arabic  version  in  Sam.  characters.  Imper- 
fect. "Wanting  the  whole  of  Leviticus  and  many 
portions  of  the  other  books. 

No.  3.  Oxford  (Ussher)  Bodl.,  4to,  No.  3129. 
Wanting  many  portions  in  each  book. 

No.  4.  Oxford  (Ussher,  Laud)  Bodl.,  4to,  No. 
G24.     Defective  in  parts  of  Deut. 

No.  5.  Oxford  (Marsh)  Bodl.,  12mo,  No.  15. 
Wanting  some  \erses  in  the  beginning;  21  chapters 
obliterated. 

No.  6.  Oxford  (Pocoek)  Bodl.,24mo,  No.  5328. 
Parts  of  leaves  lost;  otherwise  perfect. 

No.  7.  London  (Ussher)  Br.  Mus.  Claud.  B.  8. 
Vellum.     Complete.     254  leaves. 

No.  8.  Paris  (Peirese)  Imp.  Libr.,  Sam.  No.  1. 
Recent  MS.,  containing  the  Hebr.  and  Sam.  Texts, 
with  an  Arab.  Vers,  in  the  Sam.  character.  Want- 
ing the  first  34  cc,  and  very  defective  in  many 
places. 

No.  9.  Paris  (Peirese)  Imp.  Libr.,  Sam.  No.  2. 
Ancient  MS.,  wanting  first  17  chapters  of  Gen.; 
and  all  Dent,  from  the  7th  ch.  Houbigant,  how- 
ever, quotes  from  Gen.  x.  11  of  this  Codex,  a  rather 
puzzliiicj  circiunstance. 

No.  10.  Paris  (Harl.  de  Sancy)  Oratory,  No.  1. 
The  famous  MS.  of  P.  della  Valle. 

No.  11.  Paris  (Dom.  Nolin)  Oratory,  No.  2. 
Made-up  copy. 

No.  12.  Paris  (Libr.  St.  Genev.).  Of  little 
value.     ' 

No.  13.  Pome  (Peir.  and  Barber.)  Vatican,  No. 
106.  Hel)r.  and  Sam.  texts,  with  Arab.  Vers,  in 
Sam.  character.  Very  defective  and  recent.  Dated 
the  7th  century  ( ?). 

No.  14.  Rome  (Card.  Cobellutius),  Vatican. 
Also  supposed  to  be  of  the  7th  century,  but  very 
doubtful. 

No.  15.  Milan  (Ambrosian  Libr.).  Said  to  lie 
very  ancient  not  collated. 

No.  16.  Leyden  (Golius  MS.),  fob,  No.  1.  Said 
to  be  complete. 

No.  17.  Gotha  (Ducal  Libr.).    A  fragment  only. 

No.  18.  London,  Count  of  Paris' Library.  With 
Version. 

I'rinted  editions  are  contained  in  the  Paris  and 
Walton  Polyglots;  and  a  separate  reprint  from  the 
latter  was  made  by  Blayney,  Oxford,  1790.  A 
Facsimile  of  the  20th  ch.  of  Exodus,  from  one  of 
he  X(i/ilu!t  MSS.,  has  been  edited,  with  portions 
of  the  corresponding  Masoretic  text,  and  a  Russian 
Translation  and  Introduction,  by  Levysohn,  Jeru- 
salem, 18G0.« 

II.  Versions. 
1.  Samnvitan.  —  The  origin,  author,  and  age  of 
the  Samaritan  Version  of  the  Live  Books  of  Moses, 
has  hitherto  —  so  Eichhorn  quaintly  obsen-es  — 
"  always  been  a  golden  apple  to  the  investigators, 
and  will  very  probably  remain  so,  until  people  leave 
off  venturing  decisive  judgments  upon  historical 
'ubjects  which  no  one  has  recorded  in  antiquity." 
And,  indeed,  modern  investigators,  keen  as  they 
have  been,  have  done  little  towards  the  elucidation 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

of  the  subject.  According  to  the  Samaritans  them 
selves  (De  Sacy,  Mem.  3;  Paulus;  Winerj,  theii 
high-j)riest  Nathaniel,  who  died  about  20  b.  c,  ;g 
its  author.  Gesenius  puts  its  date  a  few  years  afte? 
Christ.  Juynboll  thinks  that  it  had  long  been  in 
use  in  the  second  post  Christian  century.  Fraidiel 
places  it  in  the  post-Mohammedan  time.  Other  in- 
vestigators date  it  I'rom  the  time  of  Ffcrhaddon's 
priest  (Schwarz),  or  either  shortly  before  or  after 
the  foundation  of  the  temple  on  Jlount  Gerizim. 
It  seems  certain,  however,  that  it  was  composed 
before  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple;  and 
being  intended,  like  the  Targums,  for  the  use  of  the 
people  exclusively,  it  was  written  in  the  jwpulas 
Samaritan  idiom,  a  mixture  of  Hebrew,  Aramaic, 
and  Svriac. 

In  this  version  the  original  has  been  followed, 
with  a  very  few  exceptions,  in  a  slavish  and  some- 
times perfectly  childish  manner,  the  sense  evidently 
being  of  minor  consideration.  As  a  very  striking 
instance  of  this  may  be  adduced  the  translation  oi 

Deut.  iii.  9:  "  The  Zidonians  call  Hermon  ^'^Itl? 

(Shirion),  and  the  Amorites  call  it'T'Sti?  (Shenir)." 

The  translator  deriving  'J"'")!^  from  Iti?  "prince, 

master,"  renders  it  7^^  "masters;"  and  finding 
the  letters  reversed  in  the  appellation  of  the  Amor- 
ites as  T^SIi?,  reverses  also  the  sense  in  his  ver- 
sion, and  translates  it  by  "slaves"  ^TTS^ti^H! 
In  other  cases,  where  no  Samaritan  equivalent 
could  be  found  for  a  Hebrew  word,  the  translator, 
instead  of  paraphrasing  it,  simply  transposes  ita 
letters,  so  as  to  make  it  kiak  Samaritan.  Occa- 
sionally he  is  misled  by  the  orthography  of  tho 

original:   J  S12S  ]2   CS,  "If  so,  where  .  .  .?" 

he   renders   nTD~:S  p  C^*,  "If  so,  I  shall  be 

wrath:"  mistaking  SI^S  for  1CS,  from  ^IM 
"anger."  On  the  whole  it  maybe  considered  a 
very  valuable  aid  towards  the  study  of  the  Samar. 
Text,  on  account  of  its  very  close  verbal  adherence. 
A  few  cases,  however,  may  be  brought  forward, 
where  the  Version  has  departed  from  the  Text, 
either  imder  the  influence  of  popular  religious  no- 
tions, or  for  the  sake  of  explanation.  "  We  pray  " 
—  so  they  write  to  Scaliger  —  "  every  day  in  the 
morning  and  in  the  evening,  as  it  is  said,  the  one 
lamb  shalt  thou  prepare  in  the  morning  and  the 
second  in  the  evenint;;  we  bow  to  the  ground  and 
worship  God."  Accordingly,  we  find  the  translator 
rendering  the  passage,  "  And  Isaac  went  to  '  walk  ' 

(niii?  ,)  in  the  field,"  by  —  "and  Isaac  went  to 
pray  (HS^UHv)  in  the  field."    "And  Abraham 

rose  in  the  morning  ("iplISS),"  is  rendered  ""V^n, 
"  in  the  prayer,"  etc.  Anthropomorpbisms  are 
avoided.       "The    image  (n31it2i"l)  of    God"    is 


a  The  original  intention  of  the  Russian  Govc;rnnient 
lo  puhlisli  the  whole  Codex  in  the  ,«;ime  manner  seems 
:o  have  been  given  up  for  the  present.  We  can  only 
hope  that,  if  the  work  is  ever  taken  up  again,  it  will 
Kll  into  >nore  c  mipetent  hands.     Mr   Levysohn's  In- 


rendered    TMl'^'S'^,     "the 
"  The   mouth  of  Jehovah, 


glory."    mn'' 

'    is  transformed 


into 


mn^  ~)7^'^'t2,  "  the   word    of  Jehovah."      Foi 


troduction.  brief  as  it  is,  shows  him  to  be  utterly 
wanting  both  in  .scholarship  and  in  critical  acumen, 
and  to  be,  moreover,  entirely  unacquainted  with  th« 
fact  that  his  new  discoveries  have  been  disposed  or 
some  hundred  and  fifty  years  since. 


SAMARITAN  f  KN  TATE  U  (JH 

Zl'^nbW,  "  God,"  n""DSba,  »  Augel,"  is  fre- 
quently found,  etc.  A  great  difficulty  is  offered  by 
the  proper  names  which  this  version  often  substi- 

Onkelos  ia  Polyglott.  Num 

snnH  IS'  nan  ^^r^b  na\m  bsn^?^  "^sa 
C2ip  -iTT^b  snnn  113  -nab  •l£'"^-id^  ns 
'^n  -iT^  p'^n37i  mn  -i^Dna :  mn"* 
\'-itt;''  sb  p\-ii7  -Mini  bm  mn  -iiam 
]"^i2327T  ^rw^  Hb  r23p  m-ina  bsi 
.biD'^^  sb  ]'>::7''a"'T  ]"'n'^i2"i 

But  no  safe  conclusion  as  to  the  respective  rela- 
tion of  the  two  versions  can  be  drawn  from  this. 

Tliis  Version  has  likewise,  in  passing  through 
the  hands  of  copyists  and  commentators,  suffered 
many  interpolations  and  corruptions.  The  first 
copy  of  it  was  brouglit  to  Europe  by  De  la  Valle, 
together  with  the  Sam.  Text,  in  161G.  -Joh.  Ne- 
drinus  first  published  it  together  with  a  faulty  Latin 
translation  in  the  Paris  Polyglott,  whence  it  was, 
with  a  few  emendations,  reprinted  in  AValton,  with 
some  notes  by  C'astellus.  Single  portions  of  it 
appeared  in  Halle,  ed.  by  Cellarius.  1705,  and  by 
Uhlemann,  Leipz.,  18.37.  Compare  Gesenius,  De 
Ptni.  Sam.  Oi  ujine,  etc.,  and  Winer's  monograph, 
De  Versionis  Pent.  Sam.  Indole,  etc.,  Leipzig, 
1817. 

2.  Th  lafxap^iTiKSu.  The  hatred  between  the 
Samaritans  and  the  .Jews  is  supjjosed  to  have  caused 
the  Ibrmer  to  prepare  a  Greek  translation  of  their 
Pent,  in  opposition  to  the  LXX.  of  the  .lews.  In 
this  way  at  least  the  existence  of  certain  fragments 
af  a  Greek  Version  of  the  Sam.  Pent.,  presersed  in 
!ome  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  together  with  portions  of 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  Theodotion,  etc.,  is  accounted 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH    2813 

tutes,  they  being,  in  many  cases,  less  intelligible 
than  the  original  ones."  The  similarity  it  has  with 
Onkelos  occasionally  amounts  to  comjilete  ideutity, 
for  instance  — 

vi.  1,  2.         Sam.  Vers,  in  Barberini  Tngloli, 

□2?  bba  :  -io>;2b  nt27ia  cs'  mn'»  h\r:.^ 
nns  IS  -123  ]inb  -itt\'-n  bs-ia;'-  *':3 
niT^nnb  -in:  -ns  -nab  it'-id'^  "rr 
-lam  "^an  "T^T"^  vin-^^  -lan  "ja  :  mn^b 
n-TiiT'  -iia  bsT  sniT'''  sb  i^n-n  "^nm 
^>j:7>2'^«i  y-2^-^-\  ]>3327i  r^rw^  sb  I'^n^i? 

.b3^^  sb 

for.  These  fragments  are  supposed  to  be  alluded  to 
by  the  Greek  Fathers  under  the  name  2a/xapei- 
tik6v.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  it  ever  ex- 
isted (as  Gesenius,  Winer,  .luynboll,  suppose)  ia 
the  shape  of  a  complete  translation,  or  only  desig- 
nated (as  Castellus,  Voss,  Herbst,  hold)  a  certain 
number  of  scholia  translated  from  the  Sam.  Version. 
Other  critics  again  (Hiivernick,  Hengstenberg,  etc.) 
see  in  it  only  a  corrected  edition  of  certain  passages 
of  the  LXX. 

3.  Li  1070  an  ^-Ij-r/iic  Version  of  the  Sam.  Pent. 
was  made  by  Abu  Said  in  Egypt,  on  the  basis  of 
the  Arabic  translation  of  Saadjah  haggaon.  Like 
the  original  Samaritan  it  avoids  anthropomorph- 
isms and  anthropopathisms,  replacing  tlie  latter 
by  euphemisms,  besides  occasionally  making  some 
slight  alterations,  more  especially  in  proper  nouns. 
It  is  extant  in  several  MS.  copies  in  European 
libraries,  and  is  now  in  course  of  being  edited  by 
Kueiien,  Leyden,  1850-54,  &c.  It  appears  to  have 
been  drawn  up  from  the  Sam.  Text,  not  from  the 
Sam.  Version ;  the  Hebrew  words  occasionally 
remaining  unaltered  in  the  translation.''  Often 
also    it   renders  the  original  differently   from  tbe 


a  A  list  of  the  more  remarkable  of  these,  in  the 
»se  of  geographical  names,  is  subjoined  :  — 

Oen.  Till.  4,  for  Ararat,  Sarendib,  I1^^3'^D. 

X.  10,  II    Shinar,  Tsofah,  PFDI^  (?  Zobah). 

11,  «    Asshur,  Astuu,  ^12327. 

—  li    Rehoboth,   Satcan,   'JDaD   (?    Sit- 

tacene). 

—  11    Calah,  Laksah,  PTDpA 

12,  «    Resen,    Asfah,    (15017. 
30,  »    Mesha,  Mesbal,  biQDa. 

ri.  9,  <(    Babel,  Lilak,  pb"'b. 

xiii.  3,  "    Ai,   Cefrah,    mDS    (?    Cephirah, 

Josh.  ix.  17). 
ziv.  5,  "    Ashtevoth  Karnaim,AfinithKarQiah, 

u   Ham,  Lishah,  71127'^/. 
-    6,  »    EI    Paran,    Pelishah,  etc.,    DnD 

nibsb  n*^bD. 

—  14,  "    Dan,  Banias,  DS^33. 

—  16,  «    Ilobah,  Fogah,  TOID. 

—  17,  "    Shaveh,  Mifueh,  HDCa. 


Gen.  XV.  18,  for  Euphrates,  Shalmah,  nSobli?. 

—  20,  11  Rephaim,  Cbasah,  HSDH. 
XX.  1,  "  Gerar,  Askelun,  "JlvpDl?. 

xxvi.  2,  "  Mitsraim,  Nefik,  p^23   (?  Exoius). 

xxxvi.8,9,&c.u  Seir,  Gablah,    nb^J  (Jebal). 

37,  «  Rehoboth,  Fathi,  \-l5. 

Num.  xxi.  33,  "  Bashan,  Bathnin,  ^'^3n2(Batan8ea) 

xxxiv.  10,  u    Shepbam,  "Abamiab,  n^a217  (Apa. 
ma3a). 
11,  "    Sheph.am,  'Afamiah,  rT'ttd?. 
Deut.  ii.  9,  u    Ar  (-|17),  Arshah,  ntZ7-|S. 

iii.  4,  "    Argob,  Rigobaah,   nS3*l3''-|   (Pa- 

—  17,  i'    Chiuuereth,  Genesar,  "1D3!l. 

iv.4S,  "    Sion,  TCir  Telga,  S^bi"!   "1112  (Je- 

bel  et  Telj). 

h  E.  g.    Ex.  xiii.  12,  CH-l  "II^D  b^   (Sam.  Ver. 

Dm  "^mnD  ba)  remains  ^j^U    ijS:    xxi.  3 

nW^  bya  (Sam.  Ver    nnS   ^nOr-)  U  girei 


twxt  Jju. 


2814    SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

Saiaar.  Version.'-'  Principally  noticeable  is  its 
excessive  dread  of  assigning  to  God  anything 
like    human   attributes,  physical  or  mental.     For 

D'TlbS  mrf^,  "  God,"   we  find   (as  in  Saadiah 

sometimes)  xJJI    ^%^,  "the  Angel  of  God;" 

for  "  the  eyes  of   God "  we  have  (Ueut.  xi.  12) 

jJJt    &ia.a>!^Lo,    "the   Beholding   of  God." 

For   "Bread  of  God,"     j»\J',  "the    necessary," 

etc.  Again,  it  occasionally  adds  honorable  epithets 
where  the  Scripture  seems  to  have  omitted  them, 
etc.  Its  language  is  far  from  elegant  or  e\en  cor- 
rect; and  its  use  must  likewise  be  confined  to  the 
critical  study  of  the  Sam.  I'ext. 

4.  To  this  Arabic  version  Abu  Barachat,  a 
Syrian,  wrote  in  1208  a  somewhat  paraphrastic 
commentary,  which  has  by  degrees  come  to  be 
looked  upon  as  a  new  Version  ■ —  the  Syrioc,  in 
contradistinction  to  the  Arabic,  and  wliich  is 
often  confounded  with  it  in  tlie  MSS.  On  both 
Kecensions  see  Eichhorn,  Gesenius,  JuynboU,  etc. 

HI.  Samakitan  Litekatuke. 

It  may  perhaps  not  be  superfluous  to  add  here 
a  concise  account  of  the  Samaritan  literature  in 
general,  since  to  a  certain  degree  it  bears  upon  our 
subject. 

1.  Chronicon  SdmariUinum.  —  Of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  its  Versions  we  have  spoken.  AVe  have 
also  mentioned  that  the  Samaritans  have  no  other 
book  of  our  Keceived  Canon.  "  There  is  no 
Prophet  but  Moses"  is  one  of  their  chief  dogmas, 
and  fierce  are  the  invectives  in  which  they  indulge 
against  men  like  Samuel,  "a  Magician  and  an  In- 
fidel," wflj  ^  {C/iron.  Sam.);  Eli;  Solomon,  " Shi- 

loh  "  (Gen.  xlix.  10),  "  *'.  e.  the  man  wlio  shall 
tjtoil  the  Law  and  whom  many  nations  will  follow 
because  of  tlieir  own  licentiousness "  (De  Sacy, 
Mem.  4);  Ezra  "cursed  for  ever"  {Lett  to  Hun- 
tington, etc.).  Joshua  alone,  partly  on  account  of 
his  being  an  Ephraimite,  partly  because  Shechem 
was  selected  by  him  as  the  scene  of  his  solemn 
valedictory  address,  seems  to  have  found  favor  in 
their  eyes;  but  the  Buvk  of  Josliwi,  wliich  they 
perhaps  possessed  in  its  original  form,  gradually 
came  to  form  only  the  groundwork  of  a  fictitious 
national  Samaritan  history,  overgrown  with  the 
most  fantastic  and  anachronistic  legends.  This 
is   the  so-called  "  Samaritan  Joshua,"  or  C/(J'07ii- 

con  Samaritanum  (i^y->   ^^vJ    ,*-wJu2.J   >-^*w\ 

sent  to  Scaliger  by  the  Samaritans  of  Cairo  in  1584. 
It  was  edited  by  JuynboU  (Leyden,  1848),  and  his 
acute  investigations  have  shown  that  it  was  redacted 
into  its  present  form  about  a.  d.  1300,  out  of  four 
special  docuujents,  three  of  which  were  Arabic  and 
one  Hebrew  (/.  e.  Samaritan).  The  Leyden  MS. 
m  2  pts.,  which  Gesenius,  De  Sam.  Tlieol.  p.  8,  n. 
18,  thinks  unique,  is  dated  A.  H.  764-91!!  (A.  D: 
1362-1513);  —  the   Cod.    in    the    Brit.   Museuni, 


a  Thus  m**!?,  Gen.  xlix.  11  (Sam.  Ver.  nmp, 
'his  city  "),  the  Arab,  renders  5^£  •  Gen.  xli.  43, 
■J"13S  (Sam.  Ver.  TI'lD  =  K^puf ),  the  Arab,  trans- 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

lately  acquired,  dates  a.  h.  908  (a.  d.  1502).  The 
chronicle  embraces  the  time  from  Joshua  to  about 
A.  D.  350,  and  was  originally  written  in,  or  subse- 
quently translated  into,  Arabic.  Alter  eight  chap, 
ters  of  introductory  matter  begins  the  early  history 
of  "Israel"  under  ^'■King  Joshua,"  who,  aniong 
other  deeds  of  arms,  wages  war,  with  300,000 
mounted  men  —  "half  Israel"  — against  two  kings 
of  Persia.  The  last  of  his  five  "royal"  successors 
is  Shimshon  (Samson),  the  handsomest  and  most 
powerful  of  them  all.  These  reigned  for  the  space 
of  250  years,  and  were  followed  by  five  high-pi'ieats, 
the  last  of  whom  was  L'si  ( ?  =  Uzzi,  Ez.  vii.  4). 
With  the  history  of  Eli,  "the  seducer,"  which 
then  follows,  and  Samuel  "a  sorcerer,"  the  ac- 
count, by  a  sudden  transition,  runs  off  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar (ch.  45),  Alexander  (ch.  46),  and  Ha- 
drian (47),  and  closes  suddenly  at  the  time  of 
Julian  the  Apostate. 

^\e  shall  only  adduce  here  a  single  specimeD 
out  of  the  45th  cli.  of  the  book,  which  treats  of 
the  suliject  of  the  Pentateuch :  — 

Nebuchadnezzar  was  king  of  Persia  (Mossul), 
and  conquered  the  whole  world,  also  the  kings  of 
Syria.  In  tlie  tliirteenth  year  of  their  subjuga- 
tion they  rebelled,  together  with  tlie  kings  of  Jeru- 
salem (Kodsh).  Whereupon  the  Samaritans,  to 
escape  from  the  vengeance  of  their  pursuer,  fled, 
and  Persian  colonists  took  their  place.  A  curse, 
however,  rested  upon  the  land,  and  the  new  imnii- 
grants'died  from  eating  of  its  fruits  (Joseph.  A7it. 
ix.  14,  §  3).  The  chiefs  of  Israel  («.  e.  Samari- 
tans), being  asked  the  reason  of  this  by  the  king, 
explained  it  by  the  abolition  of  the  worship  of 
God.  The  king  upon  tliis  permitted  them  to  return 
and  to  erect  a  temple,  in  which  work  he  promised 
to  aid  them,  and  he  gave  them  a  letter  to  all  their 
dispersed  brethren.  The  whole  Dispersion  now 
assembled,  and  the  Jews  said,  "  We  will  now  go 
up  into  the  Holy  City  (Jerusalem)  and  live  there 
in  unity."  But  the  sons  of  Harun  (Aaron)  and 
of  Joseph  (i.  e.  the  priests  and  the  Samaritans) 
insisted  upon  going  to  tlie  "Mount  of  Blessing," 
Gerizim.  The  dispute  was  referred  to  the  king,  and 
while  the  Samaritans  pro\ed  their  case  from  the 
books  of  Bloses,  the  Jews  grounded  their  preference 
for  Jerusalem  on  the  post-Mosaic  books.  The  supe- 
rior force  of  tlie  Samaritan  argument  was  fully  recog- 
nized liy  the  king.  But  as  each  side —  by  the  mouth 
of  their  spokesmen,  Saiiballut  and  Zerubabel  respec- 
tively, —  charged  the  other  with  basing  its  claims 
on  a  forged  document,  the  sacred  books  of  each 
party  were  sulijected  to  tlie  ordeal  of  fire.  The 
Jewish  Pecord  was  immediately  consumed,  while 
the  Samaritan  leaped  three  times  from  the  lianies 
into  the  kings  lap:  the  third  time,  however,  a  por- 
tion of  the  scroll,  upon  wliich  the  king  had  sj^at, 
was  found  to  have  been  consumed.  'J"hirty-six 
Jews  were  immediately  lieheaded,  and  the  Samari- 
tans, to  the  numlier  of  300,000  wept,  and  ill  Israel 
worshipped  henceforth  upon  Mount  Gtri'zim  — 
"  and  so  we  will  ask  our  help  from  the  jjrace  of 
God,  who  has  in  his  mercy  granted  all  these  things, 
and  in  Him  we  will  confide." 

2.   I'rom  this  work  chiefly  has  been  compiled  an- 
other Chronicle,  viritteii  in  the  14th  century  (1355) 


6   A    word,    it    may    be    observt'l     by    the    way 
taken    by    the    Mohammedans    h-om   <he   Babbiiiiok) 


(SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

i)y  Abu'l  Fatah.''  This  comprises  the  history  of 
the  Jews  and  Samaritens  from  Adam  to  a.  ii.  75'J 
and  798  (a.  d.  1355  and  1397)  respectively  (tlie 
forty -two  years  must  have  been  added  by  a  later 
historiographer).  It  is  of  equally  low  historical 
value;  \ts  only  remarkable  feature  being  its  adop- 
tion of  certain  Talmudical  legends,  which  it  took 
at  second  hand  from  Josippon  ben  Gorion.  Accoi'd- 
ing  to  this  chronicle,  the  deluge  did  not  cover 
Gerizim,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Midrasli  {Ber. 
Rah.)  exempts  the  whole  of  Palestine  from  it.  A 
specimen,  likewise  ou  the  subject  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, may  not  be  out  of  place:  — 

In  the  year  of  the  world  4150,  and  in  the  10th 
year  of  Philadelphus,  this  king  wished  to  learn  the 
difference  between  the  Law  of  the  Samaritans,  and 
that  of  the  Jews.  He  therefore  bade  both  send 
him  some  of  their  elders.  The  Samaritans  dele- 
gated Ahrou,  Sumla,  and  Hudmaka,  the  Jews 
Eleazar  only.  The  king  assigned  houses  to  them, 
and  gave  them  each  an  adept  of  the  Greek  language, 
in  order  that  he  might  assist  them  in  their  transla- 
tion. 'I'he  Samaritans  rendered  only  then'  Penta- 
teuch into  the  language  of  the  land,  while  Kleazar 
produced  a  translation  of  the  whole  Canon.  The 
king,  perceiving  variations  in  the  respective  Penta- 
teuchs,  asked  the  Samaritans  the  reason  of  it. 
Whereupon  they  replied  that  these  differences  chiefly 
turned  upon  two  points.  (1.)  God  had  chosen  the 
Mount  of  Gerizim:  and  if  the  Jews  were  right, 
why  was  there  no  mention  of  it  in  their  ThoraV 
(2.)    The    Samaritans     read,    Deut.    xxxii.    35, 

Dp3  DVv,  "to  the  day  of  vengeance  and  re- 
ward," the  Jews  Dp3  "^7,  "  Mine  is  vengeance 
and  reward "  —  which  left  it  uncertain  whether 
that  reward  was  to  be  given  here  or  in  the  world 
to  come.  The  king  then  asked  wliat  was  their 
opinion  al'Out  the  .lewish  prophets  and  their  writ- 
ings, and  they  replied,  "  Either  they  must  have  said 
and  contained  what  stood  in  the  Pentateuch,  and 
then  their  saying  it  again  was  superfluous;  or  more; 
or  less:  *>  either  of  which  was  again  distinctly  pro- 
hibited in  "the  Thora;  or  finally  they  must  have 
chimrjed  the  laws,  and  these  were  unchangeable." 
A  Greek  who  stood  near,  observed  that  laws  must 
be  adapted  to  different  times,  and  altered  accord- 
ingly; whereupon  the  Samaritans  proved  that  this 
was  only  the  case  with  human,  not  with  divine 
laws:  moreover,  the  seventy  Elders  had  left  them 
the  explicit  command  not  to  accept  a  word  beside 
the  Thora.  The  king  now  fully  approved  of  their 
translation,  and  gave  them  rich  presents.  But  to 
the  Jews  he  strictly  enjoined  not  even  to  approach 
Mount  (ierizini.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there 
is  a  certain  historical  fact,  however  contorted,  at 
the  bottom  of  this  (eomp.  the  Talmudical  and  other 
accounts  of  the  LXX.),  but  we  cannot  wow  further 
pursue  the  subject.  A  lengthened  extract  from 
this  chronicle  —  the  original  text  with  a  German 
translation  —  is  given  by  Schnurrer  in  Paulus' 
Neues  Eepertorium,  1790,  117-159. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH     281c 

3.  Another  "historical"   work  is  the  i_}Uu 

YAi^AA/J'f  on  the  history  and  genealogy  of  tin 

patriarchs,  from  Adam  to  Moses,  attributed  to 
Moses  himself;  perhaps  the  same  which  Petermann 
saw  at  Ndblus,  and  which  consisted  of  sixteen 
vellum  leaves  (svipposed,  however,  to  contain  the 
history  of  the  world  down  to  the  end).  An  anony- 
mous recent  commentary  ou  it,  a.  h,  1200,  A.  d. 
178i,  is  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  (No.  lUO,  Add.). 

4.  Of  other  Samaritan  works,  chiefly  in  Arabic  — 
their  Samaritan  and  Hebrew  literature  having 
mostly  been  destroyed  liy  the  Emperor  Comnio- 
dus  —  may  be  briefly  mentioned  Commentaries  upon 
the  whole  or  parts  of  their  Pentateuch,  liy  Zadaka  b. 
Manga  b.  Zadaka;'^  further,  by  Maddib  Eddin 
Jussuf  b.  Abi  Said  b.  Khalef;  by  Ghazel  Ibn  Abu- 
i-Surur  Al-Safawi  Al-Gliazzi ''  (A.  ii.  1167-G8,  a.  u. 
1753-5-1,  Brit.  Mus.),  &c.  Theological  works  chiefly 
ill  Arabic,  mixed  with  Samaritanisms,  by  Abul 
Hassan  of  Tyre,  On  the  rili(/iotis  3Ianners  and 
Cusloins  o/'  Ihe  Samaritans,  and  the  Wurld  to 
come ;  by  Mowaffek  Eddin  Zadaka  el  Israili,  A 
Compendium  of  HAigion,  on  the  Nature  of  the 
Dicine  Bein(j,  on  Man,  on  ihe  Worship  of  God; 
by  Amin  Eddin  Alju'l  Baracat,  On  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments ;  by  Abu'l  Hassan  Ibn  El  Markura 
Gonajem  ben  Abulfaraj'  ibn  Chatdr,  On  Penance  ; 
by  Muhaddib  Eddin  Jussuf  Ibn  Salmaah  Ibn 
Jussuf  Al  Askari,  An  Exposition  of  the  Mosaic 
Laws,  etc.,  etc.  Some  grammatical  works  may 
be  further  mentioned,  by  Abu  Ishak  Ibrahim, 
On   the   Hebrtiu  La7iguJ(/e:    by   Abu    Said,    On 

reading  ihe  Hebrew  Text 


»t,.ol 


C^t 


»    ^J^t  ^J'^'  ^AAJI         ^ 

^yjMy^S    ^iJtXJ   (^*X)LA*^-'f    (HoJl  ;  Imp. 

Library,  Paris)      Two   copies    in  Berlin   Library  (Pe- 
"lermaim,  Uoseu)  recently  acquii'ed. 

*  This   work    has  .<iuce    been   published,  with    the 
tie:  "Abulfathi  Anuales  Samaritaui.     tiuos  .\r.ibice 


(fyiJI  j.Ajly;). 


Tills  grammar  begins  in  the  following  character- 
istic manner:  — 

"  Thus  said  the  Sheikh,  rich  in  good  works  and 
knowledge,  the  model,  the  aljstemious,  the  well- 
guided  Abu  Said,  to  whom  God  be  merciful  and 
compassionate. 

"  I'raise  lie  unto  God  for  his  help,  and  I  ask  foi 
his  guidance  towards  a  clear  exposition.  I  have 
resohed  to  lay  down  a  few  rules  for  the  proper 
manner  of  reading  the  Holy  Writ,  on  account  of 
the  difference  which  I  found,  with  respect  to  it, 
among  our  co-religionists  —  whom  may  God  make 
numerous  and  inspire  to  obedience  unto  Him !  — 
and  in  such  a  ni:\nner  that  I  shall  bring  proofs  for 
my  assertions,  from  which  the  wise  could  in  no 
way  differ.     But  God  knows  best  1 

"  Rule  1:  With  all  their  discrepanciefc  about 
dogmas  or  religious  views,  yet  all  the  confessors  of 

the  Hebrew  religion  agree  in  this,  that  the  H  of 
the  first  pers.  (sing,  perf.)  is  always  pronounced 

with  ICasra,  and  that  a  "^  follows  it,  provided  it  has 
no  suffix.  It  is  the  same,  when  the  suffix  of  the 
plural,  D,  is  added  to  it,  according  to  the  unani  • 
mous  testimony  of  the  MSS.,  etc." 


edidit,  cum  ProU.  ].^tiae  vertit   et  Commentario  illus 
travit  Dp.  Ed.  Vilmar."     Gotha,  18G5,  8vo.  A. 

b  Couipaiv  the  well-known  Uictuni  of  Omar  on  tht 
Ak  xandiiau  Library  (Gibbon,  ch.  51). 

'   Under  the  title     .  .,,£  ,    jl^cLaxJI  l-JUiiL5 


Jjill 


cr 


(13th  century,  Bodl.) 


v^'r^' 


.^ 


;r 


2816     SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH 

The  treatise  concludes,  at  the  end  of  the  12th 
Canon  or  Kule :  — 

"  Often  also  the  perfect  is  iised  in  the  form  of 
the  imperative.  Thus  it  is  reported  of  a  man 
of  the  best  reputation,  that  he  had  used  the 
form  of  the  imperative  in  the  passage  (Ex.  iii.  13), 

•ra^i;  nn  "^b  T1:2S1—  <  And  they  shall  say  to 
me,  What  is  his  name?'  He  who  reported  this 
to  me  is  a  man  of  very  high  standing,  against 
whose  truthfulness  nothing  can  be  brought  forward. 
But  God  knows  best! 

"  There  are  now  a  few  more  words  to  be  treated, 
of  which,  howe^■er,  we  will  treat  viva  voce.  And 
blessed  be  His  name  forevermore.'' 

5.  Their  Litingical  literature  is  more  extensive, 
and  not  without  a  certain  poetical  value.  It  con- 
sists chietly  of  hymns  (Defter,  Durranj  and  prayers 
for  Sabbath  anil  Feast-days,  and  of  occasional 
prayers  at  nuptials,  circumcisions,  burials,  and  the 
like.  We  subjoin  a  few  specimens  from  M.S!S.  in 
the  British  Museum,  transcribed  into  Hebrew  char- 
acters. 

The  following  is  part  of  a  Litany  for  the  dead  :  — 

"i3i  •  nu:r:  •  ]3^3"iist  •  spp'^i  •  pn!:'^T 

Lord  Jehovah,  Elohiui,  for  Thy  mercy,  and  for  Thine 
Own  sake,  and  for  Thy  name,  and  for  Thy  glory,  and 
for  the  sake  of  our  Lords  Abraham,  and  Ls;uic,  and 
.lacob,  and  our  Lords  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  Eleazar, 
and  [thauiar,  and  Piuehas,  and  Joshua,  and  Caleb, 
and  the  Holy  Angels,  and  the  seventy  Elders,  and  the 
holy  mouutaiu  of  Gerizim,  Beth  El.     If  Thou  accept- 

est  [D'^tt^H]  this  prayer  [S~ptt  =  reading],  may 
there  go  forth  from  before  Thy  holy  countenance  a 
gift  sent  to  protect  the  spirit  of  Thy  servant,  ,,^  J\., 


UHU^' 


the  son  of  N.],  of  the  sous  of 


[ ],  daughter  [ ]  from  the  sons  of  [ ].     0 

Lord  Jehovah,  in  Thy  mercy  have  pompassion  on  him 

(•I    [°^]  have  compassion  on  her),  and  rest  his  (her) 

soul  in  the  garden  of  Eden;    and  forgive   him    (,J 

[or]  her),  and  all  the  congregation  of  Israel  who  flock 
to  Mount  Gerizim,  Beth  El.  Amen.  Through  Moses 
the  trusty.     Amen,  Amen,  Amen. 

The  next  is  part  of  a  hymn  (see  Kirchheim's 
Carme  Shomron,  emendations  on  Gesenius,  Carm. 
6am.  iii.):  — 


inW  SbW  nbS  n'^b  There  is  no  God  but  one, 

ntt'^rp  DTlbS  The  everlasting  God, 

Db2?b  IV  n^Vpl  Who  liveth  forever  ; 

]"^bTI  bS  yV  nbW  God  above  all  powers, 

Dv27  V  ^3  ^DX21    And  who  thus  remaineth 
forever. 

2. 

^rnn3  nSI  ~jbTI3    in  Thy  grear  power  shall 
we  trust, 

]"172  in  nST    For  Thou  art  our  Lord  ; 

n^liNl  "ininbSH    in    Thy    Godhead  ;     for 
Thou  hast  conducted 

nti?'^"!  ^D  nDb37    The   world    from   begin- 
ning. 


SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 

3. 

n*'D3  "jminn    Thy  power  was  hiddeu, 

"J'^Xinil  "["iniDl     And  Thy  glory  and  mercj 

rrnSDDI  nriS^bi  ]^b:i  Revealed  are  both  thi 
things  that  are  ro 
vealed,  and  tbosi 
that  are  unrevealed 

"lD1  "ininbS  'jtablC'a  Before  the  reign  oi 
Thy  Godhead,  etc. 

IV.  ^\'e  shall  only  briefly  touch  here,  in  con- 
clusion, upon  the  strangely  contradictor}-  rabbinicaj 
laws  framed  lor  the  regulation  of  the  intercourse 
between  the  two  rival  nationalities  of  Jews  and 
Samaritans  in  religious  and  ritual  matters;  dis- 
crepancies due  partly  to  the  ever-shifting  phases  of 
their  mutual  relations,  partly  to  the  modifications 
brought  about  in  the  Samaritan  creed,  and  partly 
to  the  now  less  now  greater  acquiescence  of  the 
Jew.s  in  the  religious  state  of  the  Samaritajif». 
Thus  we  find  the  older  Talmudical  authorities  dis- 
puting whether  the  Cuthim  (Samaritans)  are   to 

be  considered  as  "  Eeal  Converts"   nCS  "*~T*3, 
or  only  converts  through  fear — "  Lion  Converts" 

i"1V~1S  ^"l"'^  — in  allusion  to  the  incident  related 
hi  2  K.  xvii.  25  {Baba  K.  38;  Kidush.  75,  &c.) 

One  Kabbi  holds  "'US  Tll^,  "  A  Samaritan  is 
to  be  cotisidered  as  a  heathen;"  while  I!.  Simon 
b.  Gamaliel  —  the  same  whose  opinion  on  the  Sam. 
Pent,  we  had  occasion  to  quote  before  —  jiro- 
nounces  that  they  are  "  to  be  treated  in  every 
respect  like  Israelites"  {Devi.  Jer.  ix.  2;  Ktiub. 
11,  (tc).  It  would  appear  that  notwithstanding 
their  rejection  of  all  but  the  I'entateuch,  they  had 
adopted  many  traditional  religious  practices  froir 
the  .Jews  ^  principally  such  as  were  derived  direct 
from  the  books  of  Moses.  It  was  acknowledged 
that  they  kept  these  oidinances  with  even  greater 
rigor  than  those  from  whom  Ihey  adopted  them. 
The  utmost  confidence  was  therefore  placed  in  them 
for  their  ritually  slaughtering  animals,-even  fowls 
{CIiiil.  4  a);  their  wells  are  pronounced  to  be 
conformed  to  all  the  conditions  prescribed  by  the 
Mishnah  {Toseph.  Mikw.  6;  comp.  Mikw.  8, 
1).  See,  however,  Abodah  Zarah  (Jer.  v.  4). 
Their  unleavened  bread  for  the  Passover  is  com- 
mended {Oil.  10;  Clitil.  4);  their  cheese  (Mas. 
Cu/li.  2);  and  even  their  whole  food  is  allowed 
to  the- Jews  (Ab.  Zar.  Jcr.  v.  4).  Compare  John 
iv.  8,  where  the  disciples  are  reported  to  have  gone 
into  the  city  of  Samaria  to  buy  food.  Their  testi- 
mony was  valued  in  that  most  stringent  matter  of 
the  letter  of  divorce  (Mas.  Culli.  ii.).  They  were 
admitted  to  the  office  of  circumcising  Jewish  boys 
(J/".<!.  Culli.  i.)  —  against  P.  JeiiudaJi,  who  asserta 
that  they  circumcise  "  in  the  name  of  Mount 
(ierizim "  {Abodah  Zanih,  43).  The  cri[|iiual 
law  makes  no  difference  whatever  between  them  and 
the  Jews  {Mas.  Cutli.  2;  Mnkk.  8);  and  a  Sa- 
maritan who  strictly  adheres  to  his  own  special 
creed  is  honored  with  the  title  of  a  Cuthi-Chaber 
(Giliin,  10  b:  Middnh,  33  b).  By  degrees,  how- 
ever, inhibitions  began  to  be  laid  upon  the  use 
of  their  wine,  vinegar,  bread  {Mug.  Cutli.  2 
Tosepli.  77,  5),  &c.  This  intermediate  stage  of 
uncertain  and  inconsistent  treatment,  which  must 
have  lasted  for  nearly  two  centuries,  is  liest  char- 
acterized by  the  small  rabliinical  treatise  quoted 
above — M<issedt<:tli    Cudiiin   {2d  cent,   a    i>.)  — 


8AMAUITAK    PENTATEUCH 

Irst  edited  by  Kirchlieim   (Hl^l^P    0X2   VJ.W 

bbU?*)")"*)  Francf.  1851  — the  beginning  of  which 
reads:  "The  ways  (treatment)  of  the  Cutliim  (Sa- 
maritans), sometimes  hke  Goyim  (heathens)  some- 
times like  Israel."  No  less  striking  is  its  conclu- 
sion :  — 

"  Aud  why  are  the  Cuthim  not  permitted  to  come 
into  the  midst  of  the  Jews?  Because  they  have 
mixed  with  the  priests  of  the  heights  "  (idolaters). 
R.  Ismael  says:  "They  were  at  first  pious  con- 
verts (p"T^  '^"T^3  =  real  Israelites),  and  why  is 
the  intercourse  witli  them  prohibited  ?  Because  of 
their  illegally  begotten  children,"  and  because  they 

do  not  fulfill  the  duties  of  DQ''  (marrying  the 
deceased  brother's  wife);  "  a  law  which  they  under- 
stand, as  we  saw  above,  to  apply  to  the  betrothed 
only. 

"  At  what  period  are  they  to  be  received  (into 
the  Community )'!"  "  When  they  abjure  the  Mount 
Gerizim,  recognize  Jerusidem  (namely,  its  superior 
claims),  and  believe  in  the  Kesurrection."* 

We  hear  of  their  exclusion  by  li.  Meir  ( (]hul. 
6),  in  the  third  generation  of  the  Tanaim,  and 
later  again  under  R.  Abbuha,  the  Amora,  at  the 
time  of  Diocletian ;  this  time  the  exclusion  was 
unconditional  and  final  {Jev.  Abochth  Zurah,  5, 
&c.).  Partaking  of  their  bread''  was  considered  a 
transgression,  to  be  punished  like  eating  the  flesh 
of  swine  {Zeb.  8,  6).  The  intensity  of  their 
mutual  hatred,  at  a  later  period,  is  best  shown  by 
dicta  like  that  in  Me<i.  28,  0.  "  May  it  never 
happen  to  nie  that  I  behold  a  Cuthi."  "  Whoever 
receives  a  Samaritan  hospitably  in  his  house,  de- 
serves that  his  children  go  into  exile "  (Synh. 
104,  1).  In  Matt.  x.  5  Samaritans  and  (ientiles 
are  already  mentioned  together;  and  in  Luke  xvii. 
18  the  Samaritan  is  called  "  a  stranger "  (aAA.o- 
yeviis)-  The  reason  for  this  exclusion  is  variously 
given.  They  are  said  by  some  to  have  used  and 
sold  the  wine  of  heathens  for  sacrificial  purposes 
(Jer.  ibid.);  by  others  they  were  charged  with 
worshipping  the  dove  sacred  to  Venus ;  an  imputa- 
tion over  the  correctness  of  which  hangs,  up  to  this 
moment,  a  certain  mysterious  doubt.  It  has,  at 
all  events,  never  been  brought  home  to  them,  that 
they  really  worshipped  this  image,  although  it  was 
certainly  seen  with  them,,  even  by  recent  travellers. 

Authorities.  —  1.  Original  texts.  Pentateuch  in 
the  l^olyglotts  of  Paris,  and  Walton ;  also  (in  Hebr. 
letters)  by  Blayney,  8vo,  Ox.  1790.  Sam.  Version 
in  the  Polyglotts  of  Walton  and  Paris.  Arab. 
Vers,  of  Abu  Said,  Libri  Gen.  Ex.  el  Lev.  by 
Kuenen,  Svo,  Lugd.  1851-54;  also  Van  Vloten, 
Specimen,  etc.,  4to,  Lugd.  180.'3.  Literce  ad  Scnl- 
tger,  etc.  (by  De  Sacy),  and  Kpistola  ad  Ludol/ih. 
(Bruns),  in  Eichhonrs  Repertorium,  xiii.  Also, 
with  Letters  to  De  Sacy  himself,  in  Notices  et  Kx- 
irnits  des  MSS.  [vol.  xii.]  Par.  1831.  Clironieon 
Samnritanun,  by  JuynboU,  4to,  Leyden,  1848. 
Specimen  of  Samar.  Commentary  on  Gen.  xlix.  by 
Schnurrer,  in  Eichhorn's  Repert  xvi.  Carm.  Sa- 
mar. [ed.]  Geseuius,  4to,  Lips.  1824. 

«  The  briefest  rendering  of  D^^TX^^  wliicli  we 
•an  give— a  full  explanation  of  the  tern  would  ex- 
iced  our  limits. 

b  On  this  subject  the  Pent,  cjiitiins  nothing  ex- 
Slicit.  Thej'  nt  first  rejected  that  ilosruia,  but  adopted 
t  at  a  later  period,  perhaps  since  Dositheus ;  coiup. 


SAMGAK-NEBO  2817 

2.  Dissertations,  etc.,  .J.  Morinus,  Kxercitntiynet 
etc.,  Par.  1631;  Opuscida  Ilebr.  S-imarilica,  Pm 
1G57 ;  Antiquitntes  Eccl.  Orient.,  Lond.  1682.  J 
H.  Hottinger,  Exercit.  Anti-moriniame,  etc.,  Tigur 
1644.  Walton,  De  Pent.  Sum.  in  Prolej/om.  ad 
Polyglott.  Castell,  Animadversiunes,  in  Polyglott, 
vi.  Cellarius,  I  lone  Sauinritame,  Ciz.  1682;  alsc 
Collectanea,  in  Ugolini,  xxii.  Leusden,  Pliiloloyw 
Hebr.  Utraj.  1686.  St.  Morinus,  Exercit.  de  Ling 
primcevd,  Utr.  1694.  Schwarz,  JixercitiUiones 
etc.  Houbigant,  Prolegomena,  etc.,  Par.  174( 
Kennicott,  State  of  the  Heb.  Text,  etc.,  ii.  1759 
J.  G.  Carpzov,  Crit.  Sacra  V.  T.  Pt.  1,  Lips 
1728.  Hassencamp,  Entikckter  Ursprung,  etc 
0.  G.  Tychsen,  DispuUUio,  etc.,  Biitz.  17G5.  Bauer, 
Crit.  Sdcr.  Gesenius,  De  Petit.  Sam.  Origine, 
etc.,  Hal.  1815  ;  Samar.  Theologia,  etc.,  Hal. 
1822;  Anecdota  Exon.,  Lips.  1824.  Hengsteuberg, 
Aulh.  des  Pent.  Mazade,  Sur  I'  Origine,  etc., 
Gen.  1830.  M.  Stuart,  N.  Amer.  Rev.  [vol.  xxii.] 
Frankel,  Vorstudien,  Leipz.  1841,  [and  Einjluss 
d.   palestin.    Exegese,    etc.,    1851.]       Kirchheiiu, 

'J'n;::')^?  "^mS,  Frankfort,  1851.  The  Einleit- 
tiiigen  of  luchhorn,  Bertholdt,  Vater,  De  Wette, 
Hiivernick,  Keil,  [lileek,]  etc.  The  Geschichten 
of  Jost,  Herzfeld,  etc. 

3.  Versions.  Winer,  De  Vers.  Pent.  Sam. 
De  Sacy,  3fem.  sur  la  Vers.  Arabe  des  Livres  de 
Mo'ise,  in  Afem.  de  Litterature,  xlix..  Par.  1808; 
also  VEtat  actuel  des  Samaritains,  Par.  1812; 
De  Versio7ie  Sumaritano-Arabica,  etc.,  in  luch- 
horn's  Allg.  Biblwthek,  x.  1-176.  E.  D. 

*  On  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  there  are  articles 
by  Prof.  Stuart  in  the  Bibl.  Repos.  for  Oct.  1832, 
and  by  T.  Walker  in  the  Christ.  Examiner  for 
May  and  Sept.  1840.  See  also  Davidson's  art.  in 
Kitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  hi.  746  ff.; 
Rosen  in  the  Zeitschr.  d.  deulschen  morgeid.  Ge- 
sellsch.,  xviii.  582  fF. ;  S.  Kohn,  De  Pentateucho 
Samarilano,  Vratisl.  1865,  and  id.  SavKirita- 
nische  Studien,  Breslau,  1867.  A. 

SAM'ATUS  {'S.a!xaT6s:  Semedius).  One  of 
the  sons  of  Ozora  in  the  list  of  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 
The  whole  verse  is  vei'y  corrupt. 

*  SAMECH,  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters  em- 
]>loyed  in  the  alphabetic  compositions.  [Poetuy; 
Wkitixg.]  H. 

SAME'IUS  [3  .syl.]  (-Zafxa-ios  [Vat.  ©n^taios, 
Aid.  2a/xe?os]  )•  Shemai.vu  of  the  sous  of  llu-im 
(1  I'.sdr.  ix.  21;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  21). 

SAM'GAR-NE'BO  (^np"~l2PP  [see  b». 
low]  :  Semegarnaba).  One  of  the  princes  or  gen- 
erals of  the  king  of  Babylon  who  commanded  the 
\'ictorious  army  of  the  Chaldoeans  at  the  capture 
of  .lerusalem  (.Jer.  xxxix.  3).  The  text  of  the 
LXX.  is  corrupt.  The  two  names  "  Samgar- 
nebo,  Sarsechim,"  are  there  written  "ZauLOLyieQ 
[Alex.  Y-iaaafxayad]  kiA  Na^ovadxap.  ''he  iXebo 
is  the  Chaldsean  Mercury;  about  the  Samgar,  opin- 
ions are  divided.  Von  Bolileu  suggested  that  from 
tlie  Sanskrit  sangara,  "war,"  might  be  formed 
sdiigara,  "warrior,"  and  that  this  was  tlie  original 
of  Sam<;ar. 


the  sayings  of  Jehudda-hadassi  and  Massudi.  that  one 
of  tiie  two  Samaritan  sects  believes  in  tbo  Uosurrec- 
tion  ;  Epiphanius,  Leontius,  Gregory  tlie  Great,  testify 
unnnimously  to  their  former  unbelief  in  this  artioU 
of  tlieir  present  fiiith. 

c   71    ,   Lightfoot  "  bucella  "  (?) 


2818 


SAMI 


SATVri  (TojjSi's;  [Vat.  Tcc/Seu;  Aid.  2a;ui;] 
Alex.  2a^6i:  Tobi).  Shobai  (1  Esdr.  v.  28; 
oonip.  Kzr.  ii.  42). 

SA'MIS  (1.0/jids,  [Vat.  •^ofj.eeis;  Alex.  2o- 
ufis;  Aid.  2a/tis:]  om.  iu  Vulg.).  Shimei  13 
(1  Esdr.  ix.  34;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  38). 

SAM'LAH  (nb7piZ7  [c/arment]  :  :^ana5d; 
Alex.  'S.aKa/j.a;  [in  l"  Clir.,  Kom.  Se^SAa;  Vat. 
Alex.  -2,a/j.aa-]  Semla),  Geu.  xxxvi.  36,  37;  1  Clir. 
'}•  47,  48.  One  of  the  kings  of  Edom,  successor  to 
Hadad  or  Hadar.  Samlah,  whose  name  signi- 
fies "a  garment."  was  of  Maskekah;  that  being 
probably  the  chief  city  during  his  reign.  This 
mention  of  a  separate  city  as  belonging  to  each 
(almost  without  exception)  of  the  "kings"  of 
Edom,  suggests  that  the  Edomite  kingdom  con- 
Bisted  of  a  confederacy  of  tribes,  and  that  tlie  chief 
city  of  the  reigning  tribe  was  the  metropolis  of  the 
whole.  E.  S.  P. 

SAM'MUS  {:S.aixp.ois;  [Vat.  So^^uoi;:]  Sa- 
mus).  Shema  (1  Esdr.  ix.  43;  comp.  Neh.  viii. 
4). 

SA'MOS  {"Zafjios  [liiiyht:  Samus]).  A  very 
illustrious  Greek  island  off  that  part  of  Asia  Minor 
where  Ionia  touches  Cakia.  For  its  history,  irom 
the  time  when  it  was  a  powerful  member  of  the  Ionic 
coniederacy  to  its  recent  struggles  against  Turkey 
during  the  war  of  independence,  and  since,  we  must 
refer  to  the  Did.  of  Greek  and  Rom.  Geog."  Sa- 
mos  is  a  very  lofty  and  commanding  island;  the 
word,  in  fact,  denotes  a  height,  especially  by  the  sea- 
shore: heuce,  also,  the  name  of  Samothhacia,  or 
"  the  Thracian  Samos."  The  Ionian  Samos  comes 
oefore  our  notice  in  the  detailed  account  of  St. 
Paul's  return  from  his  third  missionary  journey 
(Acts  XX.  15).  He  had  been  at  Chios,  and  was 
about  to  proceed  to  Jliletus,  having  passed  by 
Ephesus  without  touching  there.  The  topograph- 
ical notices  given  incidentally  by  St.  Luke  are 
most  exact.  The  night  was  spent  at  the  anchor- 
age of  Teogylliuji,  in  the  narrow  strait  between 
Samos  and  the  extremity  of  the  mainland-ridge  of 
Mycale.  This  spot  is  famous  both  for  the  great 
battle  of  the  old  Greeks  against  the  Persians  in  b. 
C.  479,  and  also  for  a  gallant  action  of  the  modern 
Greeks  against  the  Turks  in  1824.  Here,  however, 
it  is  more  natural  (especially  as  we  know,  i'rom  1 
Mace.  XV.  23,  that  Jews  resided  here)  to  allude  to 
the  meeting  of  Herod  the  Great  with  Marcus 
Agrippa  in  Samos,  whence  resulted  many  privi- 
leges to  the  Jews  (Joseph.  Ani.  xvi.  2,  §§  2,  4). 
At  this  time  and  when  St.  Paul  was  there,  it  was 
politically  a  "  free  city  "  in  the  province  of  Asia. 
Various  travellers  (Tournefort,  Pococke,  Dallaway, 
Ross)  have  described  this  island.  We  may  refer 
particularly  to  a  very  recent  work  on  the  subject. 
Description  del'ile  de  Patmos  et  de  Vile  de  Samos 
(Paris,  185G),  by  V.  Gu^rin,  who  spent  two 
months  in  the  island.  J.  S.  H. 


o  A  curious  illustratiou  of  the  renown  of  the  Sa- 
mian  earthenware  is  furnished  by  the  Vulgate  render- 
ing of  Is   xlv.  9  :  "  Testa  de  Samiis  terrffi." 

b  *  Samotlirace  lies  iu  the  track  of'  the  steamers 
from  Con.stantiuople  to  Neapolis  (Kavalla)  andThessa- 
onica.  The  work  of  A.  Couze,  Reist  aiif  den  Inseln 
des  Tlirakischen  Meeres,  contains  the  lesults  of  a  visit 
In  1858  to  Thaeos,  Samothrace,  luibros,  and  Limnos, 
toainly  for  the  purpose  of  copying  monumental  sculp- 
tures and  inscriptions.  Some  of  those  in  Samothrace 
tre  »pecially  interesting  on  account  of  their  great  an- 


SAMSON 

SAMOTHRA'CIA  (2a/io0;aV7?  [proh. /leigh, 

of  Thrace}:  Sarnoilu'acia).  Tlie  mention  of  this 
island  in  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  first  \oyage  to 
Europe  (Acts  xvi.  11)  is  for  two  reasons  worthy  of 
careful  notice.  In  the  first  place,  being  a  very 
lofty  and  conspicuous  island,  it  is  an  excellent  land- 
mark for  sailors,  and  must  have  been  lull  in  view 
if  tlie  weather  was  clear,  throughout  that  voyage 
from  Troas  to  Neapolis.  From  the  shore  at  Troas 
Samothrace  is  seen  towering  o\er  Imbros  (Horn. 
//.  xiii.  12,  13;  Kinglake's  Eothen,  p.  64),  and  it  is 
similarly  a  marked  object  in  the  view  from  thehills 
between  Neapolis  and  Philippi  (Clarke's  Traveln, 
ch.  xiii.).  These  allusions  tend  to  give  vividness 
to  one  of  the  most  important  voyages  that  ever 
took  place.  Secondly,  this  voyage  was  made  with 
a  fitir  wind.  Not  only  are  we  told  that  it  occtipied 
only  parts  of  two  days,  whereas  on  a  subsequent 
return-voyage  (Acts  xx.  6)  the  time  spent  at  sea 
was  five:  but  the  technical  word  here  used  (euOvSpo- 
IJ.ri(Tafj.€v)  implies  that  they  ran  liefore  the  wind. 
Now  the  position  of  Samothrace  is  exactly  such  as 
to  correspond  )vith  these  notices,  and  thus  incident  ■ 
ally  to  confirm  the  accuracy  of  a  n)ost  artless  nar- 
rative. St.  Paul  and  his  companions  anchored  ror 
the  night  off  Samothrace.  The  ancient  city,  and 
therefore  probably  the  usual  anchorage,  was  on  the 
N.  side,  which  would  be  sufficiently  sheltered  from 
a  S.  E.  wind.  It  may  be  added,  as  a  further  prac- 
tical consideration  not  to  be  overlooked,  that  such 
a  wind  would  be  favorable  for  overcoming  the 
opposing  current,  which  sets  southerly  -afteulea^-ing 
the  Dardanelles,  and  easterly  between  Samothrace 
and  the  mainland.  Fuller  details  are  given  in 
Life  (Hid  Kpp.  of  St.  Paul,  2d.  ed.  i.  335-338. 
The  chief  classical  associations  of  this  island  are 
mythological  and  connected  with  the  mysterious 
divinities  called  Cabeiri.  Perseus  took  refuge  here 
after  his  defeat  by  the  Romans  at  Pydna.  In  St. 
PauTs  time  Samothrace  had,  according  to  Pliny, 
the  pri\ileges  of  a  snjall  free  state,  though  it  was 
doubtless  considered  a  dependency  of  the  province 
of  Macedonia.''  J.  S.  H. 

SAMP'S  AMES  ([Rom.  Sin.]  Xcc/j^^pdfir,s, 
[Alex.]  2aiJ.\paKr]s'.  Lampsacus,  Sampsnmes),  a 
name  which  occurs  in  the  list  of  those  to  whom  the 
Romans  are  said  to  have  sent  letters  in  fiwor  of  the 
Jews  (1  Mace.  xv.  23).  The  name  is  probably  not 
that  of  a  sovereign  (as  it  appears  to  be  taken  in 
A.  v.),  but  of  a  place,  which  Grinun  identifies  with 
Samsun  on  the  coast  of  the  Black  Sea,  between 
Sinope  and  Trebizond.  B.  F.  W. 

SAM'SON  (]'ltt^52K.'.  i.  e.  Shimshon :  ^afx- 
xf/wu:  [Samson,']  "little  sun,"  or  "sunlike;"  bill 
according  to  Joseph.  Ant.  v.  8,  §  4  "strong:  "  if 
the  root  sliemisli  has  the  signification  of  "awe" 
which  Gesenius  ascribes  to  it,  the  name  Samson 
would  seem  naturally  to  allude  to  the  "  awe  "  and 
"  astonishment  "  with  which  the  father  and  mother 


tiquity  and  their  symbolic  import  as  connected  with 
the  remarkable  religious  rites  of  which  that  island 
wag  the  seat.  Fr.  W.  J.  Schelling  maintains  the  She- 
mitic  origin  of  these  rites  and  of  some  ol  the  associated 
teachings  in  his  noted  lecture,  Ueber  die  Gottheiten 
von  Samolhrake.  See  also  Creuzcr's  Symbolik,  ii. 
302  flf.  It  is  worth  mentioning  that  the  old  form  of 
the  Greek  future  which  has  generally  disappeared 
from  the  modern  Greek  is  found  to  be  ronimon  ii 
t  kese  rarely  visited  retreats  of  the  r  d  HelleuR;  race. 


SAMSON 

ooked  upon  the  angel  wlio  announced  Samson's 
oirth  —  see  Judg.  xiii.  6,  18-20,  and  Joseph.  I.  c), 
son  of  Manoah,  a  man  of  the  town  of  Zorah,  in  the 
tribe  of  Dan,  on  the  border  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv. 
33,  six.  41).  The  miraculous  circumstances  of  his 
birth  are  recorded  in  Judg.  xiii. ;  and  the  three  fol- 
lowuig  chapters  are  devoted  to  the  history  of  his 
life  and  exploits.  Samson  takes  his  place  in  Scrip- 
ture, (1)  as  a  judge  —  an  office  which  he  filled  for 
twenty  years  (Judg.  xv.  20,  xvi.  31);  (2)  as  a  Naz- 
arite  (Judg.  xiii.  5,  xvi.  17);  and  (3)  as  one  en- 
dowed with  supernatural  power  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  (Judg.  xiii.  25,  xiv.  6,  19,  xv.  14). 

(1.)  As  a  judge  his  authority  seems  to  have  been 
limited  to  the  district  bordering  upon  the  country 
of  the  Philistines,  and  his  action  as  a  deliverer  does 
not  seem  to  have  extended  beyond  desultory  attacks 
upon  the  dominant  Philistines,  by  which  their  hold 
upon  Israel  was  weakened,  and  the  way  prepared 
for  the  future  emancipation  of  the  Israelites  from 
their  yoke.  It  is  evident  from  Judg.  xiii.  1,  5,  xv. 
9-11,  20,  and  the  whole  history,  that  the  Israelites, 
or  at  least  Judah  and  Dan,  which  are  the  only 
tribes  mentioned,  were  sulject  to  the  Philistines 
through  the  whole  of  Samson's  judgeship;  so  that, 
of  course,  Samson's  twenty  years  of  office  would  be 
included  in  the  forty  years  of  the  Philistine  domin- 
ion. Prom  the  angel's  speech  to  Samson's  mother 
(Judg.  xiii.  5),  it  appears  further  that  the  Israelites 
were  already  subject  to  the  Philistines  at  his  birth; 
and  as  Samson  cannot  have  begun  to  be  judge  be- 
fore he  wag»twenty  years  of  age,  it  follows  that  his 
judgeship  must  about  have  coincided  with  the  last 
twenty  years  of  Philistine  dominion.  But  when 
we  turn  to  the  First  Book  of  Samuel,  and  especial!)- 
to  vii.  1-14,  we  find  that  the  Philistine  dominion 
ceased  under  the  judgeship  of  Samuel.  Hence  it  is 
obvious  to  conclude  that  the  early  part  of  Samuel's 
judgeship  coincided  with  the  latter  part  of  Sam- 
son's; and  that  the  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Phi- 
listines in  the  time  of  Eli  occurred  during  Samson's 
lifetime.  There  are  besides  several  points  in  the 
respective  narratives  of  the  times  of  Samson  and 
Samuel  which  indicate  great  proximity.  First, 
there  is  the  general  prominence  of  the  Philistines 
in  their  relation  to  Israel.  Secondly,  there  is  the 
remarkable  coincidence  of  both  Samson  and  Sam- 
uel being  Nazarites  (Judg.  xiii.  5,  xvi.  17,  com- 
pared with  1  Sam.  i.  11).  It  looks  as  if  the  great 
exploits  of  the  young  Danite  Nazarite  had  suggested 
to  Hannah  the  consecration  of  her  son  in  like  man- 
ner, or,  at  all  events,  as  if  for  some  reason  the 
Nazarite  vow  was  at  that  time  prevalent.  No 
other  mention  of  Nazarites  occurs  in  the  Scripture 
history  till  Amos  ii.  11,  12;  and  even  there  the  al- 
lusion seems  to  be  to  Sanmel  and  Samson.  Thirdly, 
there  is  a  similar  notice  of  the  house  of  Dagon  in 
Judg.  xvi.  23,  and  1  Sam.  v.  2.  Fourthly,  the 
lords  of  the  Philistines  are  mentioned  in  a  similar 
way  in  Judg.  xvi.  8,  18,  27,  and  in  1  Sam.  vii.  7. 
All   of  which,    taken    together,  indicates  a  close 


SAMSON 


2819 


a  ''  Hercules  once  went  to  Egypt,  and  there  the  inhab- 
itants took  him,  and,  putting  a  ohaplet  on  his  head, 
led  him  out  in  solemn  proce.«sion,  intending  to  otfer 
him  in  sacrifice  to  Jupiter.  For  awhile  he  submitted 
juietly  ;  but  when  they  led  him  up  to  the  altar,  and 
Degan  the  ceremonie^,  he  put  forth  hi.s  strength  and 
llew  them  all  "  (Rawllus.  Herod,  book  ii   45). 

The  passage  from  Lycophron,  with  the  scholiou, 
quoted  by  Bochart  (Hieroz.  pars  ii.  lib.  v.  cap.  xii  ), 
vhere  Ilen^uJes  is  said  to  have  been  three  nights  in 
li"  b"Uy  ot   the   sea-mouster,  and  to  have  come  out 


proximity  between  the  times  of  Samson  and  Sam- 
uel. There  does  not  seem,  however,  to  be  any 
means  of  fixing  the  time  of  Samson's  judgeship 
more  precisely.  The  effect  of  his  prowess  nius. 
have  been  more  of  a  preparatory  kind,  by  arous- 
ing the  cowed  spirit  of  his  people,  and  shaking  the 
insolent  security  of  the  Philistines,  than  in  the  way 
of  decisive  victory  or  deliverance.  There  is  no 
allusion  whatever  to  other  parts  of  Israel  during 
Samson's  judgeship,  except  the  single  feet  of  the 
men  of  the  border  tribe  of  Judah,  3,000  in  number, 
fetching  him  from  the  rock  Etam  to  deliver  him 
up  to  the  Philistines  (Judg.  xv.  9-13).  The  whole 
narrative  is  entirely  local,  and,  like  the  following 
story  concerning  Micah  (Judg.  xvii.,  xviii.),  seenia 
to  be  taken  from  the  annals  of  the  tribe  of  Dan. 

(2.)  As  a  Nazarite,  Samson  exhibits  the  law  in 
Num.  vi.  in  full  practice.  [Nazakite.]  The 
eminence  of  such  Nazarites  as  Samson  and  Samuel 
would  tend  to  give  that  digiuty  to  the  profession 
which  is  alluded  to  in  Lam.  iv.  7,  8. 

(3.)  Samson  is  one  of  those  who  are  distinctly 
spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  endowed  with  supernat- 
ural power  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  began  to  move  him  at  times  in 
iMahaneh-Dan."  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
mightily  upon  him,  and  the  cords  that  were  upon 
his  arms  became  as  flax  burnt  with  fire."  "The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,  and  he  went 
down  to  Ashkelon,  and  slew  thirty  men  of  them. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  after  his  locks  were  cut, 
and  his  strength  was  gone  from  him,  it  is  said 
"  He  wist  not  that  the  Lord  was  departed  from 
him  "  (Judg.  xiii.  2.5,  xiv.  G,  19,  xv.  14,  xvi.  20). 
The  phrase,  "the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon 
him,"  is  conmion  to  him  with  Othniel  and  Gideon 
(.ludg.  iii.  10,  vi.  34);  but  the  connection  of  super- 
natural power  with  the  integrity  of  the  Nazaritic 
vow,  and  the  particular  gift  of  great  strength  of 
body,  as  seen  in  tearing  in  pieces  a  lion,  breaking 
his  bonds  asunder,  carrying  the  gates  of  the  city 
upon  his  back,  and  throwing  down  the  pillars  which 
supported  the  house  of  Dagon,  are  quite  peculiar 
to  Samson.  Indeed,  his  whole  character  and  his- 
tory have  no  exact  parallel  in  Scripture.  It  is 
easy,  however,  to  see  how  forcilJy  the  Israelites 
would  be  taught,  by  such  an  example,  that  their 
national  strength  lay  in  their  complete  separation 
from  idolatry,  and  con,secration  to  the  true  God; 
and  that  He  could  give  them  power  to  suhdue  their 
mightiest  enemies,  if  only  they  were  true  to  his 
service  (conip.  1  Sam.  ii.  10). 

It  is  an  interesting  question  whether  any  of  the 
legends  which  have  attached  themselves  to  the 
name  of  Hercules  may  have  been  derived  from 
Phoenician  traditions  of  the  strength  of  Samson. 
The  combination  of  great  strength  with  submis- 
sion to  the  power  of  women ;  the  slaying  of  the 
Nemeoean  lion ;  the  coming  liy  his  death  at  the 
hands  of  his  wife;  and  especially  the  story  told  by 
Herodotus  of  the  captivity  of  Hercules  in  Egypt," 

wit/i  the  loss  of  nil  his  hnir,  is  also  curious,  and  seema 
to  be  a  compound  of  the  stories  of  Samson  and  Jonah 
To  this  may  be  added  the  connection  between  Samson. 
considered  as  derived  from  She  mesh.,  "the  sun,"  and 
the  designation  of  Moui,  the  Egyptian  Hercules,  ag 
"  Son  of  the  Sun,"'  wor.«hipped  also  under  the  name 
Stm,  which  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  compares  with  Samson 
The  Tyrian  Hercules  (whose  temple  at  Tyre  is  de- 
scribed by  Herodot.  ii.  44),  he  also  tells  us,  "  wa« 
originally  the  Sun,  and  the  same  as  Baal "  (Raw! 
Herod,  ii.  44,  note  7).     The  connection  between  th« 


2820 


SAMSON 


are  certainly  remarkable  coincidences.  Phoenician 
traflers  niii;lit  easily  have  carried  stories  concerninif 
the  Hebrew  hero  to  the  different  countries  where 
they  traded,  especially  Greece  and  Italy;  and  such 
stories  would  ha\'e  been  uioulded  according  to  the 
taste  or  iniaguiation  of  those  who  heard  them. 
The  following  description  of  Hercules  given  by  C. 
O.  JMiiller  {Dorians,  b.  ii.  c.  12)  might  almost 
have  been  written  for  Samson :  "  The  highest  de- 
gree of  human  sufTcring  and  courage  is  attril)uted 
to  Hercules :  his  character  is  as  noble  as  could  be 
conceived  in  those  rude  and  early  times:  but  he  is 
by  no  means  represented  as  free  from  the  blemishes 
of  human  nature;  on  the  contrary,  he  is  frequently 
subject  to  wild,  ungovernable  passions,  when  the 
noble  indignation  and  anger  of  the  suffering  hero 
degenerate  into  frenzy.  E\ery  crime,  however,  is 
atoned  for  by  some  new  suflering;  but  nothing 
breaks  his  invincible  courage,  until,  purified  from 
earthly  corruption,  he  ascends  jNIount  Olympus." 
And  again :  "  Hercules  was  a  jovial  guest,  and  not 
backward  in  enjoying  himself.  ....  It  was 
Hercules,  above  all  other  heroes,  whom  mythology 
placed  in  ludicrous  situations,  and  sometimes  made 
the  butt  of  the  buffoonery  of  others.  The  Cercopes 
are  represented  as  alternately  amusing  and  annoy- 
ing the  hero.  In  works  of  art  they  are  often  rep- 
resented as  satyrs  who  rob  the  hero  of  his  quiver, 
bow,  and  club.  Hercules,  annoyed  at  their  insults, 
binds  two  of  them  to  a  pole,  and  marches  off  with 

his  prize It  also  seems  that  mirth 

and  buffoonery  were  often  combined  with  the  festi- 
vals of  Hercules:  thus  at  Athens  there  was  a 
society  of  sixty  men,  who  on  the  festival  of  the 
Diomean  Hercules  attacked  and  amused  themselves 
and  others  with  sallies  of  wit."  Whatever  is 
thouffht,  however,  of  such  coincidences,  it  is  certain 
that  the  history  of  Samson  is  an  historical,  and 
not  an  allegorical  narrative.  It  has  also  a  dis- 
tinctly supernatural  element  which  cannot  be  ex- 
plained away.  The  history,  as  we  now  have  it, 
must  have  been  written  several  centuries  after  Sam- 
son's death  (-Judg.  xv.  19,  20,  xviii.  1,  -30,  xix.  1), 
though  probably  taken  from  the  annals  of  the  tribe 
of  l)an.  Josephus  has  given  it  pretty  fully,  but 
with  alterations  and  embellishments  of  his  own, 
after  his  manner.  For  example,  he  does  not  make 
Samson  eat  any  of  the  honey  which  he  took  out 
of  the  hive,  doubtless  as  unclean,  and  unfit  for  a 
Nazarite,  but  makes  him  give  it  to  his  wife.  The 
only  mention  of  Samson  in  the  N.  T.  is  that  in 
Heb.  xi.  32,  where  he  is  coupled  with  Gideon, 
Barak,  and  Jephthah,  and  spoken  of  as  one  of 
those  who  "  through  faith  waxed  valiant  in  fight, 


Phoenician  Baal  (called  B;ial  Shemen,  Baal  Shemesh. 
and  Baal   Uamman),  and   Hercules  is   well   known. 

Gesenius  ( Tfies.  s.  v.  75?3)  tells  us  that,  in  certiiin 
Phoenician  inscripcious,  which  are  accompanied  by  a 
Greek  translation,  Bnal  is  rendered  Hrrakles,  and  that 
"  the  Tyrian  Hercules  "  is  the  const:iut  Greek  designa- 
tion of  the  Baal  of  Tyre.  He  also  gives  many  Car- 
thaginian inscriptions  to  Baal  Hamman,  which  he 
renders  Baal  Solaris  ;  and  also  a  sculpture  in  which 
Baal  Hamman"s  head  is  surrounded  with  rays,  and 
Thich  has  an  image  of  the  sun  on  the  upper  part  of 
the  monument  {Man.  Pliczn.  i.  171  ;  ii.  tab  21). 
Another  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  Phoenician 
Baal  and  Hercules  may  be  found  in  Batili,  r.ear  Baiae, 
place  sacred  to  Hercules  ("locus  Herculis,"  SercOi 
»nt  evidently  .«o  called  from  Baal.  Thirlwall  (Hist,  nf 
Greece)  aacnbea  to  the  numerous  temples  built  by  the 


SAMUEL 

and  turned   to  flight  the  armies   of  the  aliens  ' 
See,  besides  the  places  quoted  in  the  course  of  thij 
article,   a  full  article  in  Winer,  Realiob.\   Ewald 
(Jesdiichte,  ii.    516,  &c.;    Bertheau,  On  Judyes 
Bayle's  IHct.  A.  0.  H. 

SAM'UEL  (bS^a^,  i.  e.  Shemuel:  2a/f 
ov7]\-  [Samuel:]  Arabic,  Samml,  or  Aschmouyl, 
see  D'Herbelot,  under  this  last  name).     Different 

derivations  have  been  given.  (1.)  VS  D^,  "  name 
of  God:"   so   apparently  Origen  (Eus.  H.  K.  vi. 

25),   0€o/cA.7jT<iy.      (2.)    bs  mtt?,    "placed   by 

God."  (3.)  bs  btSLi',  "asked  of  God"  (1 
Sam.  i.  20).  Josephus  ingeniously  makes  it  cor- 
respond to  the  well-known  Greek  name  Theoetetus. 

(4.)  bs  '3^t2W,  "heard  of  God."     This,  which 

may  have  the  same  meaning  as  the  previous  deriva- 
tion, is  the  most  obvious.  The  last  Judge,  the  first 
of  the  regular  succession  of  Prophets,  and  the 
founder  of  the  monarchy.  So  important  a  position 
did  he  hold  in  Jewish  history  as  to  have  given  his 
name  to  the  sacred  book,  now  divided  into  two, 
which  covers  the  whole  period  of  the  first  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom,  corresponding  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  name  of  jNIoses  has  been  assigned 
to  the  sacred  book,  now  divided  into  five,  which 
covers  the  period  of  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish 
Church  itself.  In  fact  no  character  of  equal  matr- 
nitude  -had  arisen  since  the  death  of  the  great 
Lawgiver.  • 

He  was  the  son  of  Elkanah,  an  Ephrathite  or 
Ephraimite,  and  Hannah  or  Anna.  His  father  is 
one  of  the  few  private  citizens  in  whose  household 
we  find  polygamy.  It  may  possibly  have  arisen 
from  the  irregularity  of  the  period. 

The  descent  of  Elkanah  is  involved  in  great  ob- 
scurity. In  1  Sam.  i.  1  he  is  described  as  an 
Ephraimite.  In  1  Chr.  vi.  22,  23  he  is  made  a 
descendant  of  Korah  the  Levite.  Hengstenberg 
(on  Ps.  Ixxviii.  1)  and  Ewald  (ii.  433)  explain  this 
by  supposing  that  the  Levites  were  occasionally  in- 
corporated into  the  tril)es  amongst  whom  they 
dwelt.  The  question,  howe\er,  is  of  no  practical 
importance,  because,  even  if  Samuel  were  a  Levite, 
he  certainly  was  not  a  Priest  by  descent. 

His  birthplace  is  one  of  tlie  vexed  questions  of 
sacred  geography,  as  his  descent  is  of  sacred  gene- 
alogy. [See  Rajiaii,  and  Kamathaim-Zophim.] 
All  that  appears  with  certainty  from  the  accounts 
is  tha.t  it  was  in  the  hills  of  Ephraim,  and  (as  may 
be  inferred  from  its  name)  a  double  height,  usee' 
for  the  purpose  of  beacons  or  out  lookers  (1  Sam.  i. 


Phoenicians  in  honor  of  Baal  in  their  diflerent  settle- 
ments the  Greek  fables  of  the  labors  and  journeys  of 
Hercules.  Bochart  thinks  the  custom  described  by 
Ovid  (Fast,  liv.)  of  tying  a  lighted  torch  between  two 
foxes  in  the  circus,  in  memory  of  the  damage  .once 
done  to  the  harvest  by  a  fox  with  burning  hay  and 
straw  tied  to  it,  was  derived  from  the  Phoenicians,  and 
is  clearly  to  be  traced  to  the  history  of  Samson  (tiieroz. 
pars.  i.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiii.).  From  all  which  arises  a 
considerable  probability  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  con- 
ception of  Hercules  in  regard  to  his  strength  was  de- 
rived from  Phoenician  stories  and  reminiscences  of  the 
great  Hebrew  hero  Samson.  Some  learned  men  con- 
nect the  name  Hircutes  with  Samson  etymologically 
(See  Sir  Q.  Wilkinson's  note  in  Rjiwlinson's  Herod,  i} 
43  ;  Patrick,  On  Judg.  xvi.  30  ;  Cornel,  a  Lapide,  etc 
But  none  of  these  etymologies  are  very  ronviucinK. 


SAMUEL 

1).  At  the  foot  of  the  hill  was  a  well  (1  Sam.  six. 
22!.  On  the  brow  of  its  two  summits  was  the 
eity.  It  never  lost  its  hold  on  Samuel,  who  in  later 
life  made  it  his  fixed  abode. 

The  combined  family  must  have  been  large. 
Peninnah  had  several  children,  and  Hannah  had, 
besides  Samuel,  three  sons  and  two  daughters. 
But  of  these  nothing  is  known,  unless  the  names 
of  the  sons  are  those  enumerated  in  1  Chr.  vi. 
26,  27. 

It  is  on  the  mother  of  Simuel  that  our  chief 
attention  is  fi.xed  in  the  account  of  his  birth.  She 
is  descriljgd  as  a  woman  of  a  high  religious  niis- 
gion.  Almost  a  Nazarite  by  practice  (1  Sam.  i. 
]5),  and  a  prophetess  in  her  gifts  (1  Sam.  ii.  1), 
she  sought  from  Gocl  the  gift  of  the  child  for  which 
she  longed  with  a  passionate  devotion  of  silent 
prayer,  of  which  there  is  no  other  example  in  the 
O.  T.,  and  when  the  son  was  granted,  the  name 
which  he  bore,  and  thus  first  introduced  into  the 
wui-ld,  expressed  her  sense  of  the  urgency  of  her 
entreaty  —  Sumuel,  "  the  Asked  or  Heard  of  God." 

Living  in  the  great  age  of  vows,  she  hafl  before 
his  birth  dedicated  him  to  the  ottice  of  a  Nazarite. 
As  soon  as  he  was  weaned,  she  herself  with  her 
husljand  brought  him  to  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh, 
where  she  had  received  the  first  intimation  of  his 
birth,  and  there  solenmly  consecrated  him.  The 
form  of  consecration  was  simibir  to  that  with  which 
the  irregular  priesthood  of  .Jeroboam  was  set  apart 
in  later  times  (2  Chr.  xiii.  9)  — a  bullock  of  three 
years  old  (LXX.),  loaves  {i>XX.).  an  ephah  of 
flour,  and  a  skin  of  wine  (1  Sam.  i.  24).  First 
took  place  tlie  usual  sacrifices  (LXX.)  by  Elkanah 
himself  —  then,  after  the  introduction  of  the  child, 
the  special  sacrifice  of  the  bullock.  Then  his 
mother  made  him  over  to  Eli  (i.  25,  28),  and  (ac- 
cordinL'  to  the  Hebrew  text,  but  not  the  LXX.) 
the  child  himself  performed  an  act  of  worship. 

The  hymn  which  followed  on  this  consecration 
is  the  first  of  the  kind  in  the  sacred  volume.  It  is 
possible  that,  like  m^ny  of  the  Psalms,  it  may  have 
been  enlarged  in  later  times  to  suit  great  occasions 
of  victory  and  the  like.  But  verse  5  specially  ap- 
plies to  this  event,  and  verses  7,  8  may  well  express 
the  sense  entertained  by  the  prophetess  of  the  com- 
ing revolution  in  the  fortunes  of  her  son  and  of  her 
country.     [Hannah. J 

From  this  time  the  child  is  shut  up  in  the 
Tabernacle.  The  priests  furnished  hira  with  a 
sacred  garment,  an  ephod,  made,  like  their  own, 
of  white  linen,  though  of  inferior  quality,  and  his 
mother  every  year,  apparently  at  the  only  time  of 
their  meeting,  gave  him  a  little  mantle  reaching 
down  to  his  feet,  such  as  was  worn  only  by  high 
personages,  or  women,  over  the  other  dress,  and 
such  as  he  retained,  as  his  badge,  till  the  latest 
times  of  his  life.  [Mantle,  vol.  ii.  p.  1782  b.] 
He  seems  to  have  slept  within  the  Holiest  Place 
(LXX.,  1  Sam.  iii.  -3),  and  his  special  duty  was  to 
put  out,  as  it  would  seem,  the  sacred  candlestick, 
and  to  open  tbe  doors  at  sunrise. 

In  this  way  his  childhood  was  passed.  It  was 
whilst  thus  sleeping  in  the  Tabernacle  th.at  he  re- 
ceived his  first  prophetic  call.  The  stillness  of  the 
night  —  the  sudden  voice  —  the  childlike  misconcep- 
tion —  the  venerable  Kli  —  the  contrast  .letween  the 
':«rrible  doom  and  the  gentle  creature  who  has  to 


SAMUEL 


2821 


a  According  to  the  Mussulman  tradition,  Samuel's 
>irth  is  grauted  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  the  nation 
»n  the  overthrow  of  the  sanctuary  and  loss  of  the  ark 


announce  it  —  give  to  this  portion  of  the  narrative 
a  universal  interest.  It  is  this  side  of  Samuers 
career  that  has  been  so  weU  caught  in  the  well- 
known  picture  by  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds. 

Fi'om  this  moment  the  prophetic  character  of 
Samuel  was  established.  His  words  were  treasured 
up,  and  Shiloh  became  the  resort  of  those  wh: 
came  to  hear  him  (iii.  19-21). 

In  the  overthrow  of  the  sanctuary,  which  fo 
lowed  shortly  on  this  vision,  we  hear  not  wha 
became  of  Sanniel."  He  next  appears,  prol)ably 
twenty  years  afterwards,  suddenly  amongst  the 
people,  warning  them  against  their  idolatrous  prac- 
tices. He  convened  an  assembly  at  Mizpeh  — 
probably  the  place  of  that  name  in  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin  —  and  there  with  a  symbolical  rite,  ex- 
pressive partly  of  deep  humiliation,  partly  of  the 
libations  of  a  treaty,  they  poured  water  on  the 
ground,  they  fasted,  and  they  entreated  Samuel  to 
raise  the  piercing  cry,  for  which  he  was  known,  in 
supplication  to  God  for  them.  It  was  at  the 
moment  that  he  was  offering  up  a  sacrifice,  and 
sustaining  this  loud  cry  (compare  the  situation  of 
Pausanias  before  the  battle  of  Plata>a,  Herod,  ix. 
61),  that  the  Philistine  host  suddenly  burst  upon 
them.  A  violent  thunderstorm,  and  (according  to 
.Josephus,  Ani.  vi.  2,  §  2)  an  earthquake,  came  to 
the  timely  assistance  of  Israel.  The  Philistines 
fled,  and,  exactly  at  the  spot  where  twenty  years 
before  they  had  obtained  their  great  victory,  they 
were  totally  routed.  A  stone  was  set  up,  which 
long  remained  as  a  memorial  of  Samuel's  triumph, 
and  gave  to  the  place  its  name  of  Eben-ezer,  "  the 
Stone  of  Help,"  which  has  thence  passed  i:;to 
Christian  phraseology,  and  become  a  couinion  name 
of  Nonconformist  chapels  (1  Sam.  vii.  12).  The 
old  Cauaanites,  whom  the  Philistines  had  dispos- 
sessed in  the  outskirts  of  the  .Judaan  hills,  seem  to 
have  helped  in  the  battle,  and  a  large  portion  of 
territory  was  recovered  (1  Sam.  vi.  14-).  This  was 
Samuel's  first  and,  as  far  as  we  know,  his  only 
military  achievement.  But,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
earlier  chiefs  who  bore  that  name,  it  was  appar- 
ently this  which  raised  him  to  the  office  of  "Judge"' 
(comp.  1  Sam.  xii.  11,  where  he  is  thus  reckoned 
with  Jerubbaal,  Bedan,  and  Jephthah ;  and  I'xclus. 
xlvi.  15-18).  He  visited,  in  discharge  of  his  duties 
as  ruler,  the  three  chief  sanctuaries  (eV  ttocti  to?s 
Ti-yiafffx^vois  TovToii)  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  — 
Bethel,  tiilgal,  and  .Mizpeh  (1  Sam.  vii.  16).  His 
own  residence  was  still  his  native  city,  Kamah  or 
Ramathaim,  which  he  further  consecrated  by  an 
altar  (vii.  17).  Here  he  married,  and  two  sons 
grew  up  to  repeat  imder  his  eyes  the  same  per- 
version of  high  office  that  he  had  himself  witnessed 
in  his  childhood  in  the  case  of  the  two  sons  of  Eli. 
One  was  Abiah,  the  other  Joel,  sometimes  called 
simply  "the  second"  (vns/ivi,  1  Chr.  vi.  28).  In 
his  old  age,  according  to  the  quasi-hereditary  priii- 
ci[)le,  already  adopted  by  previous  judges,  he  shared 
his  power  with  them,  and  they  exercised  their  func- 
tions at  the  southern  frontier  in  Beer-sheba  (1  Sam. 
viii.  1-4). 

2.  Down  to  this  point  in  Samuel's  life  there  is 
but  little  to  distinguish  his  career  from  that  of  his 
predecessors.  Like  many  characters  in  later  days, 
liad  he  died  in  youth  his  fame  would  hardly  have 
lieen  irreatei  than  that  of  Gideon  or  Samson.     He 


(Dllerbelot,  Asrkmouyl).     This,  though   false  Is  t>< 
letter,  is  true  to  the  spirit  '•f  Samuel's  life. 


2822  ^  SAMUEL 

was  a  judge,  a  Nazarite,  a  warrior,  and  (to  a  cer- 
tain point)  a  prophet. 

But  his  peculiar  position  in  the  sacred  narrative 
turns  on  the  events  which  follow.  He  is  the  in- 
iiugurator  of  the  transition  from  what  is  commonly 
called  the  theocracy  to  the  monarchy.  The  mis- 
demeanor of  his  own  sons,  in  receiving  bribes,  and 
in  extorting  exorbitant  interest  on  loans  (1  Sam. 
viii.  3,  4),  precipitated  the  catastrophe  which  had 
been  long  preparing.  The  people  demanded  a  king. 
Josephus  {Aiit.  vi.  3,  §  3)  describes  the  shock  to 
Samuel's  mind,  "  because  of  his  inborn  sense  of 
justice,  because  of  his  hatred  of  kings,  as  so  far 
'inferior  to  the  aristocratic  form  of  gdvernment, 
which  conferred  a  godlike  character  on  those  who 
Lived  under  it."  For  the  whole  night  he  lay  fast- 
ing and  sleepless,  in  the  perplexity  of  doubt  and 
difficulty.  In  the  vision  of  that  night,  as  recorded 
by  the  sacred  historian,  is  given  the  dark  side  of 
the  new  institution,  on  which  Samuel  dwells  on  the 
following  day  (1  Sam.  viii.  9-18). 

This  presents  his  reluctance  to  receive  the  new 
order  of  things.  The  whole  narrative  of  the  recep- 
tion and  consecration  of  Saul  gives  his  acquiescence 
in  it.     [Saul.] 

The  final  conflict  of  feeling  and  surrender  of  his 
office  is  given  in  the  last  assembly  o\ei'  which  he 
presided,  and  in  his  subsequent  relations  with  Saul. 
The  assembly  was  held  at  Gilgal,  immediately  after 
the  victory  over  the  Ammonites.  The  monarchy 
was  a  second  time  solenmly  inaugurated,  and  (ac- 
cording to  the  LXX.)  "Samuel"  (in  the  Hebrew 
text  "Saul")  "and  all  the  men  of  Israel  rejoiced 
greatly."  Then  takes  place  his  farewell  address. 
By  this  time  the  long  flowing  locks  on  which  no 
razor  had  ever  passed  were  white  with  age  (xii.  2). 
He  appeals  to  their  knowledge  of  his  integrity. 
Whatever  might  be  the  lawless  habits  of  the  chiefs 
3f  those  times  —  Hophni,  Phinehas,  or  his  own 
sons  —  he  had  kept  aloof  from  all.  No  ox  or  ass 
had  he  taken  from  their  stalls  —  no  bribe  to  obtain 
his  judgment  (LXX.,  i^ihacT/xa)  —  not  even  a 
sandal  (virSSyifxa,  LXX.,  and  Ecclus.  xlvi.  19).  It 
is  this  appeal,  and  the  response  of  the  people,  that 
has  made  Grotius  call  him  the  .Jewish  Aristides. 
He  then  sums  up  the  new  situation  in  which  they 
have  placed  themselves;  and,  although  "the  wick- 
edness of  asking  a  king"  is  still  strongly  insisted 
on,  and  the  unusual  portent «  of  a  thunderstorm 
in  Jlay  or  June,  in  answer  to  Samuers  prayer,  is 
urged  as  a  sign  of  Divine  displeasure  (xii.  16-19), 
the  general  tone  of  the  condemnation  is  much 
softened  from  that  which  was  pronounced  on  the 
first  intimation  of  the  change.  The  first  king  is 
repeatedly  acknov\ledged  as  "  the  Messiah  "  or 
anointed  of  the  Lord  (xii.  3,  5),  the  future  pros- 
perity of  the  nation  is  declared  to  depend  on  their 
use  or  misuse  of  the  new  constitutioUj  and  Samuel 
retires  with  expressions  of  goodwill  and  hope:  "  I 
will  teach  you  the  good  and  the  right  way  . 
.  .  only  fear  the  Lord  .  .  .  .  "  (1  Sam.  xii. 
23,  24). 

It  is  the  most  signal  example  afforded  in  the 
3.  T.  of  a  great  character  reconciling  himself  to  a 
changed  order  of  things,  and  of  the  Divine  sanction 
resting  on  his  acquiescence.  For  this  reason  it  is 
that  Athanasius  is  by  Basil  called  the  Samuel  of 
the  Church  (Basil,  £p.  82). 


SAMUEL 

3.  His  subsequent  relations  with  Saul  are  nf  the 
same  mixed  kind.  The  two  institutions  which  they 
respectively  represented  ran  on  side  by  side.  Sam- 
uel was  still  Judge.  He  judged  Israel  "  all  (he 
days  of  /lis  life'"  (vii.  15),  and  from  time  to  time 
came  across  the  king's  path.  But  these  interven- 
tions are  chiefly  in  another  capacity,  which  this  is 
the  place  to  unfold. 

Samuel  is  called  emphatically  "  the  Prophet " 
(Acts  iii.  24,  xiii.  20).  To  a  certain  extent  this 
was  in  consequence  of  the  gift  which  he  shared  in 
common  with  others  of  his  time.  He  was  espe- 
cially known  in  his  own  age  as  "  Samuel  the  Seer  " 
(1  Chr.  ix.  22,  xxvi.  28,  xxix.  29).  "I  am  the 
seer,"  was  his  answer  to  those  who  asked  "  Where 
is  the  seer?"  "Where  is  the  seer's  house?'"  (1 
Sam.  ix.  11  18,  19).  "Seer,"  the  ancient  name, 
was  not  yet  superseded  by  "Prophet  "  (1  Sam.  ix.). 
By  this  name,  Samuel  Videns  and  Samuel  6  /SAe- 
TTcoj',  he  is  called  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum.  Of  the 
three  modes  by  which  Divine  communications  were 
then  made,  "  by  dreams,  Urim  and  Thunnnim,  and 
prophets,"  the  first  was  that  by  which  the  Divine 
will  was  made  known  to  Samuel  (1  Sam.  iii.  1,  2; 
Jos.  Ant.  V.  10,  §  4).  "The  Lord  uncovered  "his 
ear  "  to  whisper  into  it  in  the  stillness  of  the  night 
the  messages  that  were  to  be  delivered.  It  is  the 
first  distinct  intimation  of  the  idea  of  "  Revela- 
tion'" to  a  human   being   (see  Gesenius,  in  vvc. 

n73).  He  was  consulted  far  and  near  on  the 
small  affairs  of  life;  loaves  of  "bread,"  or  "the 
fourth  part  of  a  shekel  of  silver,"  were  paid  for  the 
answers  (1  Sam.  ix.  7,  8). 

From  this  faculty,  comliined  with  his  office  of 
ruler,  an  awful  reverence  grew  up  round  him.  No 
sacrificial  feast  was  thought  complete  without  his 
blessing  (1  Sam.  ix.  13).  When  he  appeared  sud- 
denly elsewhere  for  the  same  purpose,  the  villagers 
"trembled  "  at  his  approach  (1  Sam.  xvi.  4,  .5).  A 
peculiar  virtue  was  believed  to  reside  in  his  interces- 
sion. He  was  conspicuous  in  later  times  amongst 
those  that  "call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Ps. 
xcix.  6;  1  Sam.  xii.  18),  and  was  placed  with 
Moses  as  "  standing  "  for  prayer,  in  a  special  sense, 
"before  the  Lord"  (Jer.  xv.  1).  It  was  the  last 
consolation  he  left  in  his  parting  address  that  he 
would  "  pray  to  the  Lord  "  for  the  people  (1  Sam. 
xii.  19,  23).  There  was  something  ])eculiar  in  the 
long  sustained  cry  or  shout  of  supplication,  which 
seemed  to  draw  down  as  by  force  the  Divine  an- 
swer (1  Sam.  vii.  8,  9).  All  night  long,  in  agi- 
tated moments,  "  he  c7-ied  unto  the  Lord  "  (1  Sam. 
XV.  11). 

But  there  are  two  other  points  which  more  espe- 
cially placed  him  at  the  head  of  the  prophetic  order 
as  it  afterwards  appeared.  The  first  is  brought 
out  in  his  relation  with  Saul,  the  second  in  his 
relation  with  David. 

(a.)  He  represents  the  independence  of  the  moral 
law,  of  the  Divine  Will,  as  distinct  from  regal  or 
sacerdotal  enactments,  which  is  so  remarkable  a 
characteristic  of  all  the  later  prophets.  As  we 
have  seen,  he  was,  if  a  Levite,  yet  certainly  not  » 
Priest;  and  all  the  attempts  to  identify  his  opposi- 
tion to  Saul  with  a  hierarchical  interest  are  founded 
on  a  complete  misconception  of  the  facts  of  the 
case.     From  the  time  of  the  overthrow  of  Shiloh, 


a  According  to  the  Mussulman  traditions,  his  anger 
was   occasioned  by  the   people  rejecting  Saul   as   not 


Teing  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.     The  sign  that  Saul  was  (belot,  Asckmouyl). 


the  king  was  the  liquefaction  of  the  sacred  oil  in  hii 
presence  and  the  recovery  of  the  Tabernacle  (D'H»» 


SAMUEL 

he  never  appears  in  the  remotest  connection  with 
the  priestly  order.  Amongst  all  the  places  in- 
cluded in  his  personal  or  administrative  visits, 
neither  ShiJoh,  nor  Nob,  nor  Gibeon,  the  seats  of 
the  sacerdutal  caste,  are  ever  mentioned.  When 
he  counsels  Saul,  it  is  not  as  the  priest,  but  as  the 
prophet ;  when  be  sacrifices  or  blesses  the  sacrifice, 
it  is  not  as  the  priest,  but  either  as  an  individual 
Israelite  of  eminence,  or  as  a  ruler,  like  Saul  him- 
self. Saul's  sin  in  both  cases  where  he  came  into 
collision  with  Samuel,  was  not  of  intruding  itito 
sacerdotal  functions,  but  of  disobedience  to  the 
prophetic  voice.  The  first  was  that  of  not  waiting 
for  Samuel's  arrival,  according  to  the  sign  given 
by  Samuel  at  his  original  meeting  at  Ramah  (1 
Sam.  X.  8,  xiii.  8);  the  second  was  that  of  not  car- 
rying out  the  stern  prophetic  injunction  for  the 
destruction  of  the  Amalekites.  When,  on  that 
occasion,  the  aged  Prophet  called  the  captive  "  prince 
before  him,  and  with  his  own  hands  hacked  him 
limb  from  limb,''  in  retribution  for  the  desolation 
he  had  brought  into  the  homes  of  Israel,  and  thus 
offered  up  his  mangled  remains  almost  as  a  human 
sacrifice  ("  before  the  Lord  in  Gilgal  "),  we  see  the 
representative  of  the  older  part  of  the  Jewish  his- 
tory. But  it  is  the  true  prophetic  utterance,  such 
as  breathes  through  the  psalmists  and  prophets,  when 
he  says  to  Saul  in  words  which,  from  their  jwetical 
form,  must  have  become  fixed  in  the  national  mem- 
ory, "  To  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to 
hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams." 

The  parting  was  not  one  of  rivals,  but  of  dear 
though  divided  friends.  The  King  throws  himself 
on  the  Prophet  with  all  his  force;  not  without  a 
vehement  efiurt  (Jos.  Ant.  vi.  7,  §  5)  the  prophet 
tears  himself  away.  The  long  mantle  by  which 
he  was  always  known  is  rent  in  the  struggle;  and, 
like  Ahijah  after  him,  Samuel  saw  in  this  the 
omen  of  the  coming  rent  in  the  monarchy.  They 
parted  each  to  his  house  to  meet  no  more.  liut 
a  long  shadow  of  grief  fell  over  the  prophet. 
"  Samuel  mourned  for  Saul."  "  It  grieved  Samuel 
for  Saul."  "  How  long  wilt  thou  mourn  for  Saul  V  " 
(1  Sam.  XV.  11,  35,  xvi.  1). 

(0.)  He  is  the  first  of  the  regular  succession  of 
prophets.  "  All  the  prophets  from  Samuel  and 
those  that  follow  after"  (Acts  iii.  24).  "Ex  quo 
sanctus  Samuel  propheta  coepit  et  deinceps  donee 
populus  Israel  in  Babylonian!  captivus  veheretur, 

totum  est   tempus  prophetarum  "  (.4ug. 

Civ.  Dei,  xvii.  1).  Moses,  Miriam,  and  Deborah, 
perhaps  Ehud,  had  been  propiiets.  But  it  was  only 
from  Samuel  that  the  continuous  succession  was 
unbroken.  This  may  have  been  merely  i'rom  the 
coincidence  of  his  appearance  with  the  beginning 
of  the  new  order  of  tilings,  of  which  the  prophet- 
ical office  was  the  chief  expression.  Some  predis- 
posing causes  there  may  have  been  in  his  own 
family  and  birthplace.  His  mother,  as  we  have 
seen,  though  not  expressly  so  called,  was  in  fact  a 
prophetess;  the  word  Zop/iim,  as  the  affix  of  I>a- 
mathaim,  has  been  explained,  not  unreasonably,  to 
mean  "seers;"  and  Elkanah,  his  father,  is  by  the 
Chaldee  paraphrast  on  1  Sam.  i.  1,  said  to  be  "  a 
disciple  of  the  nrophets."     But  the  connection  of 


SAMUEL 


2823 


o  Agag  is  desci-ibed  by  Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  7,  ^  2)  as 
i  rhief  of  magnificeut  appearance  ;  and  hence  rescued 
from  destruction.     This  is  perhaps  an  inference  from 

Jie  word   n3"ll?^,   which    the   Vulgate   translates 
finguisnmus. 


the  continuity  of  the  office  with  Samu'el  appears  to 
be  still  more  direct.  It  is  in  his  lifetime,  long  after 
lie  had  been '' established  as  a  prophet  "  (1  Sam. 
iii.  20),  that  we  hear  of  the  companies  of  disciples, 
called  in  the  O.  T.  "the  sons  of  the  prophets,"  by 
modern  writers  "the  schools  of  the  prophets."  All 
the  peculiarities  of  their  education  are  implied  or 
expressed  —  the  sacred  dance,  tile  sacred  music,  the 
solemn  procession  (1  Sam.  x.  5,  10;  1  Chr.  xxv.  1, 
6).  At  the  head  of  this  congregation,  or  "church 
as  it  were  within  a  church"  (LXX.  rr^u  iKKXrj- 
fflav,  1  Sam.  x  5,  10),  Samuel  is  expressly  de- 
scribed as  "standing  appointed  over  them  "  (1  Sam. 
xix.  20).  Their  chief  residence  at  this  time 
(though  afterwards,  as  the  institution  spread,  it 
struck  root  in  other  places)  was  at  Samuel's  own 
abode,  Kamah,  where  they  lived  in  habitationa 
{Naiulh,  1  Sam.  xix.  19,  &c.)  apparently  of  a  rustio 
kind,  like  the  leafy  huts  which  Elisha's  disciples 
afterwards  occupied  by  the  Jordan  {Niiiotli=r. 
"habitations,"  but  more  specifically  used  for  "pas- 
tures ''). 

In  those  schools,  and  learning  to  cultivate  the 
prophetic  gifts,  were  some  whom  we  know  for  cer- 
tain, others  whom  we  may  almost  certainly  conjec- 
ture, to  have  been  so  trained  or  influenced.  One 
was  Saul.  Twice  at  least  he  is  descrilied  as  hav- 
ing been  in  the  company  of  Samuel's  disciples,  and 
as  having  caught  from  them  the  prophetic  lervoi 
to  such  a  degree  as  to  have  "  proiihesied  among 
them  "  (1  Sam.  x  10,  11),  and  on  one  occasion  t<; 
have  thrown  oft'  his  clothes,  and  to  have  passed  the 
night  in  a  state  of  prophetic  trance  (1  Sam.  xix. 
24):  and  even  in  his  palace,  the  prophesying  min- 
gled with  his  madness  on  ordinary  occasions 
(1  Sam.  xviii.  9).  Another  was  David.  The 
first  acquaintance  of  Samuel  with  David,  was  when 
he  privately  anointed  him  at  the  house  of  Jesse 
[see  Daviu].  But  the  connection  thus  begun 
with  the  shepherd  boy  must  have  been  continued 
afterwards.  David,  at  first,  fled  .  to  "  Naioth  in 
Kamah,"  as  to  his  second  home  (1  Sam.  xix.  19), 
and  the  gifts  of  music,  of  song,  and  of  prophecy, 
here  developed  on  so  large  a  scale,  were  exactly 
such  as  we  find  in  the  notices  of  those  who  looked 
up  to  Samuel  as  their  father.  It  is,  further, 
hardly  possible  to  escajie  the  conclusion  that  David 
there  first  met  his  fast  friends  and  companions 
in  after  life,  prophets  like  himself — Gau  and 
Nathan. 

It  is  needless  to  enlarge  on  the  importance  with 
which  these  incidents  invest  the  appearance  of 
Samuel.  He  there  becomes  the  spiritual  father  of 
the  Psalmist  king.  He  is  also  the  Pounder  of  the 
first  regular  institutions  of  religious  instruction, 
and  communities  for  the  purposes  of  education. 
'I'he  schools  of  Greece  were  not  yet  in  existence. 
From  these  Jewish  institutions  were  develo|)ed,  by 
a  natural  order,  the  universities  of  Christendom. 
And  it  may  be  further  added,  that  with  this  view 
the  whole  life  of  Samuel  is  in  accordance.  He  ia 
the  prophet  —  the  only  prophet  till  the  time  of 
Isaiali  —  of  whom  we  know  that  he  was  so  from 
his  earliest  years.  It  is  this  continuity  of  his  own 
life  and  character,  that  makes  him  so  fit  an  instru- 
ment for  conducting  his  nation  through  so  great 
a  change. 

The  death  of  Samuel  is  described  as  taking  place 


b  1  Sam.  XV.  The  LXX.  softens  tliis  into  eiT<j)a(t 
but  tiie  Vulg.  translation,  in  frusta  rnncidit,  "  cut  Uf 
into  small  pieces,"  seems  to  be  the  true  meiiuing. 


2824 


SAMUEL 


ill  the  j-ear  of  the  close  of  David's  wanderings.  It 
is  said  with  peculiar  emphasis,  as  if  to  mark  the 
loss,  that  "  aW  the  Israelites"  —  all,  with  a  uiii- 
rersality  never  specified  before  —  "were  gathered 
together"  from  all  parts  of  this  hitherto  divided 
country,  and  "lamented  him,"  and  "buried  him," 
not  in  any  consecrated  place,  nor  outside  the  walls 
of  his  .citj",  but  within  his  own  house,  thus  in  a 
manner  consecrated  by  being  turned  into  his  tomb 
(1  Sam.  XXV.  1).  His  relics  were  translated  "from 
Judaea"  (the  place  is  not  specified)  a.  d.  406,  to 
Constantinople,  and  received  there  with  much  pomp 
by  the  Emperor  Arcadius.  They  were  landed  at 
the  pier  of  Chalcedon,  and  thence  conveyed  to  a 
church,  near  the  palace  of  Hebdomon  (see  Jcta 
Saiichn-uiii,  Aug.  20). 

The  situation  of  Itamathaim,  as  has  been  observed, 
is  uncertain.  But  the  place  lung  pointed  out  as  his 
tomb  is  the  height,  most  conspicuous  of  all  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Jerusalem,  immediately  above  the 
town  of  Gibeon,  known  to  the  Crusaders  as  "  Mont- 
joye,"  as  the  spot  from  whence  they  first  saw 
Jerusalem,  now  called  Neby  Sarnwil,  "  the  Prophet 
Samuel."  The  tradition  can  be  traced  back  as 
fai*  as  the  7th  century,  when  it  is  spoken  of  as  the 
monastery  of  St.  Samuel  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Jics.  ii. 
142),  and  if  once  we  discard  the  connection  of 
Ranjathaim  with  the  nameless  city  where  Sanniel 
met  Saul  (as  is  set  forth  at  length  in  the  articles 
Kamah;  Ramathaim-Zophim),  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  tradition  should  be  rejected.  A  cave  is 
Btill  sliowii  underneath  the  floor  of  the  mosque. 
"  He  built  the  tonib  in  his  lifetime,"  is  the  account 
of  the  JMussulman  guardian  of  the  mosque,  "  but 
was  not  buried  here  till  after  the  expulsicjn  of  the 
Greeks."  It  is  the  only  spot  in  Palestine  which 
claims  any  direct  connection  with  the  first  great 
prophet  who  was  born  within  its  limits;  and  its 
conunanding  situation  well  agrees  with  the  impor- 
tance assigned  to  him  in  the  sacred  history. 

His  descendants  were  here  till  the  time  of  David. 
Heman,  his  grandson,  was  one  of  the  chief  sing- 
ers in  the  Levitical  choir  (1  Chr.  vi.  33,  xv.  17, 
XXV.  5). 

The  apparition  of  Samuel  at  Endor  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  14;  Ecchis.  xlvi.  20)  belongs  to  the  history 
of  Saul. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  Samuel  wrote  a  Life 
of  David  (of  course  of  his  earlier  years),  which  was 
still  accessible  to  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Book  of 
Chronicles  (1  Chr.  xxix.  29);  but  this  appears 
doubtful.  [See  p.  2826  b.]  Various  other  books 
of  the  O.  T.  have  been  ascribed  to  him  by  the 
Jewish  tradition:  the  Judges,  Ruth,  the  two  Books 
of  Samuel,  the  latter,  it  is  alleged,  being  written 
in  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  He  is  regarded  by  the 
Samaritans  as  a  magician  and  an  infidel  (Iluttin- 
ger,  f/ist.  Orient,  p.  52). 

The  Persian  traditions  fix  his  life  in  the  time 
o?  Kai-i-Kobad,  2d  king  of  Persia,  with  whom  he 
Ie  said  to  have  conversed  (DTlerbolot,  Kai  Kohad). 

A.  P.  S. 

*  The  prophet  Samuel  lived  at  a  great  transi- 
tional period  of  Jewish  history.  The  Israelites  had 
been  intended  for  a  great  nation,  living  under  the 
immediate  Divine  government,  and  closely  knit  to- 
gether by  religious  ties.  Through  their  unfaith- 
fulness to  God,  they  had  become  little  more  than  a 
collection  of  independent  tribes,  continually  en- 
(laged  in  harassing  wars  with  their  neighbors,  and 
pften  falling  for  long  periods  together  under  their 
Dower.     It  was  therefore  a  natural  desire  that  they 


SAMUEL 

should  have  a  king  to  reunite  them  in  one  nation- 
ality, and  enable  them  to  ni;ike  head  against  theii 
foes.  'I'o  this  Samuel  was  earnestly  opjwsed,  nor 
did  he  acquiesce  in  their  wish  until  expressly  di- 
rected to  do  so  from  on  high.  God  saw  that  the 
people  were  too  sinful  for  the  great  destiny  offered 
them,  and  therefore  it  was  fitting  that  in  this 
matter  of  government  they  should  l)e  reduced  tc 
the  level  of  otiier  nations.  It  was  l)y  no  means  an 
"  example  of  the  Divine  sanction  resting  on  [Sam- 
uel'sj  acquiescence;"  but  rather  of  a  Divine  com- 
mand to  him  to  let  a  stift-necked  people  have  their 
way. 

In  the  Tabernacle  Samuel  probably  slept  in  one 
of  the  chamljers  over,  or  at  the  side  of,  the  Taber- 
nacle [Temple].  'I'he  extreme  improbability  that 
he  should  have  slept  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  is  en- 
hanced by  the  fact  that  he  was  evidently  in  a 
diflerent  apartment  from  Eli  (1  Sam.  iii.  4-10), 
and  if  the  latter  was  not  within  the  vail,  much  less 
the  former.  There  is  nothing  in  1  Sam.  iii.  3  to 
suggest  such  a  supposition.  The  "  Temple  "  is  there 
particularized  as  the  place  "  where  the  ark  of  God 
was"  and  the  time  is  fixed  as  "before  the  lamp  of 
God"  —  which  was  outside  the  vail  —  "went  out 
in  the  Temple  of  tiie  Lord."  No  hint  is  given  of 
the  place  of  Sanniel's  chamber.  At  a  later  date, 
when  the  Ark  was  taken  into  the  battle  with  the 
Philistines,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Tabernacle 
was  otherwise  disturbed,  or  that  Samuel  then  gave 
up  his  residence  there.  It  is  not  likely  that  Sam- 
uel himself  ever  actually  engaged  in  military  opera- 
tions. In  the  successful  battle  with  the  Philistines 
(1  Sam.  vii.)  he  assisted  by  his  prayers,  but  could 
have  taken  no  part  in  the  battle  itself,  as  he  was 
engaged  at  the  time  in  oflering  sacrifice  (ver  10). 
The  name  "  warrior "  must  therefore  be  omitted 
from  the  list  of  his  titles. 

The  nairative  in  1  Sam.  ix.  7,  8,  aflbrds  no 
ground  for  the  supposition  that  either  he  or  other 
inspired  prophets  received  compensation  for  tneir 
utterances  as  a  quid  pro  quo  after  the  fashion  of 
heathen  soothsayers  or  modern  necromancers. 
Saul,  a  young  man  not  of  distinguished  birth,  and 
an  entire  stranger  to  Samuel,  did  not  think  it 
fitting,  according  to  oriental  etiquette,  to  approach 
the  great  judge  of  Israel  and  divinely  appointed 
prophet  without  a  present.  This  appears  in  the 
narrative  much  more  iis  a  tribute  to  the  rank  and 
station  of  Samuel  than  as  a  proposed  payment  for 
his  counsel  —  a  thing  abhorrent  to  the  whole  idea 
of  the  prophetic  office. 

In  1  Sam.  xiii.  the  narrative  distinctly  makes  the 
sin  of  Saul  "  his  intruding  into  sacerdotal  func- 
tions." Saul  says  (ver.  12),  "  Therefore,  said  I,  the 
Philistines  will  come  down  now  upon  me  to  Gilgal, 
and  I  have  not  made  supplication  unto  the  Lopd; 
I  forced  myself  therefore,  and  offered  a  burnt  ofit;r- 
ing."  Samuel  replies  —  making  no  allusion  to 
the  not  waiting  for  his  coming,  —  "  Thou  hast  dona 
foolishly :  thou  hast  not  kept  the  commandment  of 
the  Lord  thy  God." 

It  is  impossible  that  Saul,  and  improbable  that 
David  had  any  training  in  the  schools  of  the 
pro]ihets  under  Samuel.  The  first  passage  adduced 
in  the  article  abo\e  in  evidence  of  such  training 
(1  Sam.  X.  10)  reads  that  "a  company  of  the 
prophets  met "  Saul  as  he  went  home  after  his 
anointing  (when  he  spent  one  night  with  Samue. 
whom  he  had  not  before  known)  and  "the  spirit 
of  God  came  upon  him,  and  he  prophesied  among 
them."     The   only   other  passage  given  (1    Sam. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

six  24)  is  quite  late  in  the  reign  of  Saul  when  he 
catije  to  Naioth  in  pursuit  of  David,  and  th'^re 
spent  a  day  and  a  night,  while  the  spirit  of  proph- 
ecy was  upor.  him.  In  both  cas:s  the  astonish- 
ment of  the  beholders  is  expressed  by  tlie  exclama- 
tion, "  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets  ?  "  —  which 
of  course  contradicts  the  supposition  that  he  had 
been  trained  among  them.  In  regard  to  David, 
it  is  inaccurately  said  that  he  fled  to  " '  Naioth  in 
Kamah  '  as  to  his  second  home  (1  Sam.  xix.  19)." 
What  is  said  is  that  "  he  came  to  Samuel  to  Ka- 
mah and  told  him  all  that  Saul  had  done  to  him. 
And  he  and  Samuel  went  and  dwelt  in  Naioth." 
David's  purjjDse  was  to  seek  refuge  with  Samuel, 
the  aged  judge  whom  Saul  still  feared  and  re- 
spected. He  went  to  his  residence  at  Ilamah. 
For  reasons  not  mentioned,  but  probably  from  pru- 
dential considerations,  they  left  then  together  and 
"went  and  dwelt  at  Naioth." 

Some  other  slight  inadvertencies  in  the  above 
article  the  reader  will  readily  correct  for  himself. 

F.  G. 

SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF  (bs^i::!^ : 
BaatAeiiOf  npcirri,  AevTfpa  :  Liber  Reyitm 
Primus,  Secuiuliis).  Two  historical  books  of  the 
Old  I'estament,  which  are  not  separated  from  each 
other  in  tlie  Hebrew  MSS.,  and  which,  from  a 
critical  point  of  view,  must  be  regarded  as  one 
book.  The  present  division  was  first  made  in  the 
Septuagint  translation,  and  was  adopted  in  the  Vul- 
gate Irom  the  Septuagint.  But  Origen,  as  quoted 
by  Eusebius  {Histor.  Ecchs.  vi.  25),  expressly  states 
that  they  formed  only  one  book  among  the  He- 
brews. Jerome  (/"/'(f/'.  in  Libros  S(()nti(fl  et  Mal- 
acliim)  implies  the  same  statement;  and  iii  the 
Talmud  {Babii  Baihra,  fol.  14.  c.  2),  wherein  the 
authorship  is  attributed  to  Samuel,  they  are  desig- 
nated  by  the  name  of  his  book,  in   the  singular 

number  (IIDD  ^HS  bsi^l^;).  After  the  in- 
vention of  printing  they  were  pulilished  as  one 
book  in  the  first  edition  of  the  whole  Bible  printed 
at  Soncino  in  1488  a.  d.,  and  likewise  in  theCom- 
plutensian  Polyglot  printed  at  Alcala,  1.502-1517 
A.  I).;  and  it  was  not  till  the  year  1518  that  the 
division  of  the  Septuagint  was  adopted  in  Hebrew, 
in  the  edition  of  the  Bible  printed  by  the  Bom- 
bergs  at  Venice.  The  book  was  called  by  the  He- 
brews "  Samuel,"  probably  because  the  birth  and 
life  of  Samuel  were  the  sulijects  treated  of  in  the 
beginning  of  the  work  — just  as  a  treatise  on  fes- 
tivals in  the  Mishna  bears  the  name  of  Btilsali,  an 
egg,  because  a  question  connected  with  the  eating  of 
an  egg  is  the  first  sulject  discussed  in  it.  [Phaiu- 
SEEs,  vol.  iii.  p.  2475  <(.]  It  has  been  suggested 
indeed  by  Aliarhanel,  as  quoted  by  Carpzov  (211), 
that  the  book  was  called  by  Samuel's  name  be- 
cause all  things  that  occur  in  each  book  may,  in  a 
certain  sense,  be  referred  to  Samuel,  including  the 
acts  of  Saul  and  David,'  inasmuch  as  each  of  them 
w.as  anointed  by  him,  and  was,  as  it  were,  the 
work  of  his  hands.  This,  however,  seems  to  be  a 
refinement  of  explanation  for  a  fact  which  is  to  be 
accounted  for  in  a  less  artificial  maimer.  And, 
generally,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  logical  titles 
of  books  adopted  in  modern  times  must  not  be 
loolied  for  in  Eastern  works,  nor  indeed  in  early 
works  bf  modern  Europe.  Thus  David's  Lamen- 
tation over  Saul  and  Jonathan  was  called  "  Tlie 
Bow,"  for  so-ne  reason  connected  with  the  occur- 
rence of  that  word  hi  his  poem  (2  Sam.  i.  13-22); 
and  Suorro  Storleson's  Chronicle  of  the  Kings  of 
178 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF        2825 

Norway  obtained  the  name  of  "  Heimskringla," 
the  World's  Circle,  because  Heimskringla  was  the 
first  ]irominent  word  of  the  MS.  that  caught  the 
eye  (Laiiig's  fhimskrinyhi^  i.  1). 

Avtliorship  awl  Date  of  the  Book.  —  The  most 
interesting  [joints  in  regard  to  every  important  his 
torical  work  are  the  name,  intelligence,  and  charac- 
ter of  the  historian,  and  his  means  of  obtaining 
correct  information.  If  these. points  should  not  be 
known,  next  in  order  of  interest  is  the  precise  pe- 
riod of  time  when  the  work  was  composed.  On  all 
.tliese  points,  however,  in  reference  to  the  book  of 
Samuel,  more  questions  can  be  asked  than  can  be 
answered,  and  the  results  of  a  dispassionate  ii'quiry 
are  mainly  negative. 

1st,  as  to  the  authorship.  In  common  with  all 
the  historical  books  of  the  r)ld  Testament,  except 
the  beginning  of  Nehemiah,  the  book  of  Samuel 
contains  no  mention  in  the  text  of  the  name  of  its 
author.  'I'he  earliest  Greek  historical  work  extant, 
written  by  one  who  has  fre(]iiently  been  called  the 
Father  of  liistory,  commences  with  the  words, 
"  This  is  a  publication  of  the  researches  of  Herod- 
otus of  Halicarna-ssus ;  "  and  the  motives  which 
induced  Herodotus  to  wTite  the  work  are  then  set 
forth.  Thucydides,  the  writer  of  the  Creeii  his- 
torical work  next  in  order  of  time,  who  likewise 
specifies  his  reasons  for  writing  it,  commences  by 
stating,  "Thucydides  the  Athenian  wrote  the  his- 
tory of  the  war  iietween  the  Peloi)omiesians  and 
Athenians,''  and  frequently  uses  the  Ibrmula  that 
such  or  such  a  year  ended  —  the  second,  or  third, 
or  fourth,  as  the  case  might  be —  "of  tliis  war  of 
which  Thucydides  wrote  the  history"  (ii.  70,  10^1; 
iii.  25,  88,  116).  Again,  when  he  speaks  in  one 
passage  of  events  in  which  it  is  necessary  that  he 
should  mention  his  own  name,  he  refers  to  himself 
as  "  Thucydides  son  of  Olorus,  who  composed  this 
work  "  (iv.  104).  Now,  with  the  one  exception 
of  this  kind  already  mentioned,  no  similar  informa- 
tion is  contained  in  any  historical  book  of  the  Old 
Testament,  although  there  are  passages  not  only  in 
Nehemiah,  but  likewise  in  Ezra,  written  in  the  first 
person.  Still,  without  any  statement  of  tiie  author- 
ship embodied  in  the  text,  it  is  possilile  that  his 
torical  books  might  come  down  to  us  with  a  title 
containing  the  name  qf  the  author.  This  is  the 
case,  for  example,  with  Livy's  Roman  /Jistvry,  and 
Ctesar's  Cvminaititrics  of  ihe  Gallic  War.  In  the 
latter  case,  indeed,  although  Csesar  mentions  a  long 
series  of  his  own  actions,  without  intimating  that 
he  was  the  author  of  the  work,  and  thus  there  is  an 
antecedent  improl lability  that  he  wrote  it,  yet  the 
traditional  title  of  the  work  outweighs  this  inq)rob- 
ability,  confirmed  as  the  title  is,  by  an  unbroken 
chain  of  testimony,  commencing  with  contempo- 
raries (Cicero,  Brut.  75;  Ctesar,  De  Bell.  Gall. 
viii.  1;  Suetonius,  ./w/.  Gbs.  56;  Quinctilian,  x.  1; 
Tacitus,  Germ.  28).  Here,  ag.ain,  there  is  noth- 
ing precisely  similar  in  Hebrew  history.  The  five 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  have  in  Hebrew  no  title 
except  the  first  Flebrew  words  of  each  part ;  and 
the  titles  Genesis,  ICxodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers. 
and  Deuteronomy,  which  are  derived  from  the  Sep- 
tuaiiint,  convey  no  information  as  to  their  author. 
In  like  manner,  the  book  of  Judges,  the  books  of 
the  Kings  and  the  Chronicles,  are  not  referred  to 
any  particular  historian ;  and  although  six  works 
bear  respectively  the  names  of  Joshua,  Ituth,  Sam- 
uel, Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  tliere  is  nothing 
in  the  works  th  :mselves  to  preclude  the  idea  that 
in  each  case  the  subject  only  M"  the  -vork  may  Iw 


2826       SAMUEL,  BOOKS   OF 

indicated,  and  not  its  authorship;  as  is  shown  con- 
clusively by  the  titles  Ruth  and  Esther,  which  no 
one  has  yet  construed  into  the  assertion  that  those 
celebrated  women  wrote  the  works  concerning  theni- 
Belves.  And  it  is  iiidisputalile  that  the  title  "Sam- 
uel" does  not  imply  that  the  prophet  was  the  au- 
thor of  the  book  of  Samuel  as  a  whole;  for  the 
death  of  Samuel  is  recorded  in  the  beginning  of 
the  ■25th  chapter;  so  that,  under  any  circum- 
stances, a  different  author  would  be  required  for 
the  remaining  chapters,  constituting  considerably 
more  than  one  half  of  the  entire  work.  Again,  in 
reference  to  the  book  of  Sanmel,  the  absence  of 
the  historian's  name  from  both  the  text  and  the 
title  is  not  supplied  by  any  statement  of  any  other 
writer,  made  within  a  reasonable  period  from  the 
time  when  the  book  may  be  supposed  to  have  been 
written.  No  mention  of  the  author's  name  is 
made  in  the  book  of  Kings,  nor,  as  will  be  here- 
after shown,  in  the  Chronicles,  nor  in  any  other 
of  the  sacred  writings.  In  like  manner,  it  is  not 
mentioned  either  in  the  .Apocrypha  or  in  Josephus. 
The  silence  of  Josephus  is  p.articularly  significant. 
He  published  his  Antiquities  about  1100  years 
after  the  death  of  David,  and  in  tliem  he  makes 
constant  use  of  the  book  of  Samuel  for  one 
portion  of  his  history.  Indeed,  it  is  his  exclusive 
authority  ibr  his  account  of  Samuel  and  Saul,  and 
his  main  authority,  in  conjunction  with  the  Chron- 
icles, lor  the  history  of  I)a\id.  Yet  he  nowhere 
attempts  to  name  the  author  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
uel, or  of  any  part  of  it.  There  is  a  similar  silence 
in  the  Mishna,  where,  however,  the  inference  from 
such  silence  is  far  less  cogent.  And  it  is  not  until 
we  come  to  the  Babylonian  Gemara,  which  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  completed  in  its  present  form 
somewhere  about  500  a.  d.,  that  any  .Jewish  state- 
ment respecting  the  authorship  can  be  pointed  out, 
and  then  it  is  for  the  first  time  asserted  {Babn 
Batlivd,  fol.  14,  c.  2),  in  a  passage  already  referred 
to,  that  "  Sauuiel  wrote  his  book,"  i.  e.  as  the  words 
imply,  the  book  which  bears  his  name.  But  this 
statement  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  made 
earlier  than  1550  years  after  the  death  of  Samuel  — 
a  longer  period  than  has  elapsed  since  the  death  of 
the  Emperor  Constantine;  and  unsupported  as  the 
statement  is  by  reference  to  any  autiiority  of  any 
kind,  it  would  be  unworthy  of  credit  even  if  it 
were  not  opposed  to  the  internal  e\idence  of  the 
book  itself.  At  the  revival  of  learning,  an  opinion 
was  propounded  by  Abarbanel,  a  learned  Jew, 
t  A.  u.  1508,  that  the  book  of  Samuel  was  written 
by  the  prophet  Jeremiah"  (Lat.  by  Aug.  I'i'eitler, 
Leipzig,  lt)8G),  and  this  opinion  was  adopted  by 
Hugo  Grotius  (Pre/',  ad  Librum  pt-iorcin  Sum- 
uelis).  with  a  general  statement  that  there  was  no 
discrepancy  in  the  language,  and  with  only  one 
special  reference.  Notwithstanding  the  eminence, 
however,  of  these  writers,  this  opinion  must  be  re- 
jected as  highly  improbable.  Under  any  circum- 
stances it  could  not  be  regarded  as  more  than  a 
mere  guess;  and  it  is  in  reality  a  guess  uncoun- 
teuanced  by  peculiar  similarity  of  language,  or  of 
style,  between  the  history  of  Samuel  and  the  writ- 
ings  of  Jeremiah.     In  our   own    time    the  most 


o  Professor  Hitzig,  in  like  manner,  attributes  some 
of  the  Psalms  to  Jeremiah.  In  support  of  this  view, 
he  points  out,  1st,  several  special  iustauces  of  striking 
Biniilarity  of  language  between  those  Psalms  and  the 
writings  of  Jeremiah,  and,  2dly,  agreement  between 
Ustorical  facts  in  the  life  of  Jeremiah  and  the  situa- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

prevalent  idea  in  the  Anglican  Church  seems  to 
have  been  that  the  first  twenty-four  chapters  of 
tlie  book  of  Sanmel  were  written  by  the  prophet 
himself,  and  the  rest  of  the  chapters  by  the  prtphets 
Nathan  and  Gad.  This  is  the  view  favored  by 
Mr.  Home  {Introduction  to  the  IJoly  Scriptures, 
ed.  1846,  p.  45),  in  a  work  which  has  had  very  ex- 
tensive circulation,  and  which  amongst  many  read- 
ers has  been  the  only  work  of  the  kind  consulted 
in  I'.ngland.  If,  however,  the  authoritj'  adduced 
by  him  is  examined,  it  is  found  to  be  ultimately 
the  opinion  "  of  the  Talmudists,  which  was  adopted 
by  the  most  learned  Eathers  of  the  Christian 
Church,  who  miquestionably  had  better  means  of 
ascertaining  this  point  than  we  have."  Now  the 
absence  of  any  evidence  for  this  opinion  in  the 
Talmud  has  been  already  indicated,  and  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  understand  how  the  opinion  could  have  been 
stamped  with  real  value  through  its  adoption  by 
learned  Jews  called  Talmudists,  or  by  learned 
Christians  called  Eathers  of  the  Christian  Church, 
who  lived  subsequently  (o  the  pu1)lication  of  the 
raJmud.  Eor  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for 
supposing  that  in  the  year  500  a.  t>  either  Jews  or 
Christians  had  access  to  trustworthy  documents  on 
this  subject  which  have  not  been  transmitted  to 
modern  times,  and  without  such  docunients  it  can- 
not be  shown  that  they  had  any  better  means  of 
ascertaining  this  point  than  we  have.  Two  cir- 
cumstances have  probably  contributed  to  the  adop- 
tion of  this  opinion  at  the  present  day:  1st,  the 
growth  of  stricter  ideas  as  to  the  importance  of 
knowing  who  was  the  author  of  any  historical  work 
which  advances  claims  to  be  trustworthy;  and 
2(lly,  the  mistranslation  of  an  ambiguous  passage 
in  the  Eirst  Book  of  Chronicles  (xxix.  29),  respect- 
ing the  authorities  for  the  life  of  David.  The  first 
point  requires  no  comment.  On  the  second  point 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  following  appears  to 
be  the  correct  translation  of  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion :  "  Now  the  history  of  David  first  and  last, 
behold  it  is  written  in  the  history  of  Samuel  the 
seer,  and  in  the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet, 
and  in  the  history  of  Gad  the  seer" — in  which 
the  Hebrew  word  dibrei,  here  translated  "  his- 
tory," has  the  same  meaning  given  to  it  each  of 
the  four  times  that  it  is  used.  This  agrees  with 
the  translation  in  the  Septuagint,  which  is  particu- 
larly worthy  of  attention  in  refei-ence  to  the  Chron 
ieles,  .as  the  Chronicles  are  the  very  last  work  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible;  and  whether  this  arose  from  their 
having  been  the  last  admitted  into  the  Canon,  or 
the  last  composed,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  any 
translation  in  the  Septuagint,  with  one  great  ex- 
ception, was  made  so  soon  after  the  composition  of 
the  original.  The  rendering  of  the  Septuagint  is 
by  the  word  x6yot,  in' the  sense,  so  well  known 
in  Herodotus,  of  "history"  (i.  184,  ii.  IGl,  vi. 
137),  and  in  the  like  sense  in  the  Apocrypha, 
wherein  it  is  used  to  descrilie  the  history  of  Tobit, 
i3i/3Aos  A(^7a)t/  ToiySiV.  Tlie  word  "history" 
{Gescliiclite)  is  likewise  the  word  four  times  used 
in  the  translation  of  this  passage  of  the  Chronicles 
in  Luther's  Bible,  and  in  the  modern  version  of 
the  German  Jews  made  under  the  superintendence 


tion  in  which  the  writer  of  those  Psalms  depicts  him- 
self as  having  been  placed  (Hitzig,  Die  Psalmen,  pp. 
48-85).  Whether  the  conclusion  is  correct  or  incor- 
rect, this  is  a  legitimate  mode  of  reasoning,  and  there 
is  a  sound  basis  for  a  critical  superstructure.  Se« 
Psahns  xxxi.,  xxxv.,  il. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OP 

»f  the  learned  Dr.  Zunz  (Berlin,  1858).  In  the 
English  \'ersion,  however,  the  word  di/ji-ti  is  trans- 
lated in  the  first  instance  "acts"  as  applied  to 
l^avid,  and  then  "book"  as  applied  to  Samuel, 
Nathan,  and  Gad;  and  thus,  througli  the  anihi- 
guity  of  the  word  "book  "  the  possibility  is  sujif- 
pested  that  each  of  these  three  prophets  wrote  a 
book  respecting  his  own  life  and  times.  This 
double  rendering  of  the  same  word  in  one  passage 
seems  wholly  inadmissible;  as  is  also,  though  in  a 
less  degree,  the  translation  of  dilivei  as  "  book," 
for  which  there  is  a  distinct  Hebrew  word  — 
tepher.  And  it  maybe  deemed  morally  certain 
that  this  passage  of  the  Chronicles  is  no  authority 
for  the  supposition  that,  when  it  was  written,  any 
work  was  in  existence  of  which  either  Gad,  Na- 
than, or  Samuel  was  the  author." 

2.  Although  the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
uel cannot  be  ascertained,  there  are  some  indica- 
tions as  to  the  date  of  the  work.  And  yet. even  on 
this  point  no  precision  is  attainable,  and  we  must 
be  satisfied  with  a  conjecture  as  to  the  range,  not 
of  years  or  decades,  but  of  centuries,  within  which 
the  historj'  was  probably  composed.  Evidence  on 
this  head  is  eitlier  external  or  internal.  The  earli- 
est undeniable  external  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
the  book  would  seem  to  be  the  Greek  translation 
of  it  in  the  Septuagint.  The  exact  date,  however, 
of  the  translation  itself  is  uncertain,  though  it  must 
have  been  made  at  some  time  between  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelpiius,  who  died  b.  c.  247,  and  the  century 
before  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  next  liest  external 
testimony  is  that  of  a  passage  in  the  Second  Book 
of  Maccabees  (ii.  13),  in  which  it  is  said  of  Nehe- 
niiah,  that  "  he,  founding  a  library,  gathered  to- 
gether the  acts  of  the  kings,  and  the  prophets, 
and  of  David,  and  the  epistles  of  the  kings  con- 
cerning the  holy  gifts."  Now,  although  this  pas- 
sage cannot  be  relied  on  for  proving  that  Nehe- 
niiah  himself  did  in  fact  ever  found  such  a  library,* 
yet  it  is  good  evidence  to  prove  that  the  Acts  of 
the  Kings,  ra  trepl  toiv  I3acn\fwv,  were  in  exist- 
ence when  the  passage  was  written ;  and  it  can- 
not reasonably  be  doubted  that  tliis  phrase  was  in- 
tended to  include  the  book  of  Samuel,  which  is 
equivalent  to  the  two  first  books  of  Kings  in  the 
Septuagint.  Hence  there  is  external  evidence  that 
.he  book  of  Samuel  was  written  liefore  the  Second 
Book  of  Maccabees.  And  lastly,  the  passage  in 
the  Chronicles  already  quoted  (1  Chr.  xxix.  29) 
seems  likewise  to  prove  externally  that  the  book 
of  Samuel  was  written  before  the  Chronicles.  This 
is  not  absolutely  certain,  but  it  seems  to  be  the 
most  natural  inference  from  the  words  that  the  his- 
tory of  Uavid,  first  and  last,  is  contained  in  the 
history  of  Samuel,  the  history  of  Nathan,  and  the 
history  of  Gad.  For  as  a  work  has  come  down  to 
us,  entitled  Sanniel,  which  contains  an  account  of 
the  life  of  David  till  within  a  short  period  before 


"  In  the  Swedish  Bible  the  word  dibrei  in  each  of 
fhe  four  Instances  Is  translated  ''  acta  "  (  Gernin^nr), 
being  precisely  the  same  word  which  is  used  to  desig- 
nate the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  translation  is  self-consistent  and  admissible. 
But  the  German  translations,  supported  as  they  are 
by  the  Septuagint,  seem  preferable. 

(>  Professors  Ewald  and  Bleek  have  accepted  the 
jtatement  that  Nehemiah  founded  such  a  library,  and 
they  make  inferences  irom  the  account  of  the  library 
\8  to  the  time  when  certiiiu  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
Bent  were  admitted  into  the  Canon.     Tbere  are,  how- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF        2827 

his  death,  it  appears  most  reasonable  to  conclude 
(although  this  ])oint  is  open  to  dispute)  that  the 
writer  of  the  Chronicles  refeired  to  this  work  by 
the  title  History  of  Sanuiel.  In  this  case,  admit- 
ting the  date  assigned,  on  internal  grounds,  to  the 
Chronicles  l)y  a  modern  .lewish  writer  of  undoubted 
learning  and  critical  powers,  there  would  he  exter- 
nal evidence  for  the  existence  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
uel earlier  than  247  b.  c,  though  not  earlier  than 
ol2  B.  c,  the  era  of  the  Seleucidse  (Zunz,  I>ie 
Gottesdienstlichen  Vortnige  der  Juileii.  p.  32). 
Supposing  that  the  Chronicles  were  written  earlier, 
this  evidence  would  go,  in  precise  proportion, 
further  back,  but  there  would  be  still  a  total  ab- 
sence of  earlier  exteinal  evidence  on  the  subject 
than  is  contained  in  the  Chronicles.  If,  however, 
instead  of  looking  solely  to  the  external  evidence, 
the  internal  evidence  respecting  the  book  of 
Samuel  is  examined,  there  are  indications  of  its 
having  been  written  some  centuries  eailier.  On 
this  head  the  following  points  are  worthy  of  no- 
tice: — 

1.  The  book  of  Samuel  seems  to  have  been  writ- 
ten at  a  time  when  the  Pentateuch,  whether  it  was 
or  was  not  in  existence  in  its  present  form,  was  at 
any  rate  not  acted  on  as  the  rule  of  religious  o\)- 
servances.  According  to  the  Mosaic  Law  as  finally 
establ  shed,  sacrifices  to  Jehovah  were  not  lawful 
anywhere  but  before  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  wiiether  this  was  a  permanent 
temple,  as  at  Jerusalem,  or  otherwise  (Deut.  xii. 
13,  14;  Lev.  xvii.  3,  4;  but  see  Ex.  xx.  24).  But 
in  the  book  of  Samuel,  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  or 
the  erection  of  altars,  which  implies  sacrifices,  is 
mentioned  at  several  places,  such  as  Mizpeh,  Ka- 
mah.  Bethel,  the  threshing-place  of  Arauuah  the 
Jebusite,  and  elsewhere,  not  oidy  without  any  dis- 
approbation, apology,  or  explanation,  but  in  a  way 
which  produces  the  impression  that  such  sacrifices 
were  pleasing  to  Jehovah  (1  Sam.  vii.  9,  10,  17, 
ix.  13,  X.  3,  xiv.  35;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  18-25).  This 
circumstance  points  to  the  date  of  the  book  of 
Samuel  as  earlier  than  the  reformation  of  .losiah, 
when  Hilkiah  the  high-priest  told  Shaphan  the 
scribe  that  he  had  found  the  Book  of  the  Law  in 
the  house  of  Jeho\ah,  when  the  Passover  was  kept 
as  was  enjoined  in  that  book,  in  a  way  that  no 
Passover  had  been  holden  since  the  days  of  the 
Judges,  and  when  the  worship  upon  high-places 
was  abolished  by  the  king's  orders  (2  K.  xxii.  8, 
xxiii.  8,  13,  15,  19,  21,  22).  The  probability  that 
a  sacred  historian,  writing  after  that  reformation, 
would  have  ex[iressed  disapprobation  of,  or  would 
have  accounted  for,  any  seeming  departure  from  the 
laws  of  the  Pentateuch  by  David,  Saul,  or  Samuel, 
is  not  in  itself  conclusive,  but  joined  to  other  cou- 
sideratioTis  it  is  entitled  to  peculiar  weight.  The 
natural  mode  of  dealipg  with  such  a  religious  scan- 
dal, when  it  shocks  the  ideas  of  a  later  generation, 
is  followed  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Kings,  who 


ever,  the  following  reasons  for  rejecting  the  state- 
ment :  1st.  It  occurs  in  a  letter  generally  deemed 
spurious.  2dly.  In  the  same  letter  a  fabulous  story 
is  recorded  not  only  of  .Jeremiah  (ii.  1-7),  but  likewise 
of  Nehemiah  himself.  3dly.  An  erroneous  historical 
statement  is  likewise  made  in  the  same  le'ter,  that 
Nehemiah  built  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  (i  18).  No 
witness  in  a  court  of  justice,  whose  credit  lad  been 
shaken  to  a  similar  extent,  would,  unless  corroborated 
by  other  evidence,  be  relied  on  a»  vn  authority  for  anv 
important  fact. 


2828     SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

undoubtedly  lived  later  than  the  reformation  of  Jo- 
giah.  or  than  the  beginning,  at  least,  of  the  captiv- 
ity of  Judah  (2  K.  xxv.  21,  27).  This  writer  men- 
tions the  toleration  of  worsliij)  on  high-places  with 
disapprobation,  not  only  in  coiniection  with  bad 
kings,  such  as  Manasseh  and  Ahaz,  but  hkewise  as 
B  drawback  in  the  excellence  of  other  kings,  such  as 
Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Jehoash,  Amaziah,  Azariah,  and 
Jothani,  who  are  praised  for  having  done  what  was 
right  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  xv.  14,  xxii.  43 ; 
2  K.  xii.  3,  xiv.  4,  xv.  4,  35,  xvi.  4,  xxi.  3);  and 
something  of  the  same  kind  might  have  been  ex- 
pected in  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Samuel,  if  he 
had  lived  at  a  time  when  the  worship  on  high- 
places  had  been  abolished. 

2.  It  is  in  accordance  with  this  early  date  of  the 
book  of  Samuel  that  allusions  in  it  even  to  the 
existence  of  Moses  are  so  few.  Alter  the  return 
from  the  Captivity,  and  more  especially  after  the 
changes  introduced  liy  I'^zra,  IMoses  became  that 
great  central  figure  in  the  thoU|,;hts  and  language 
of  devout  Jews  which  he  could  not  fail  to  be  when 
all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  were  observed,  and 
they  were  all  referred  to  him  as  the  divine  jiropliet 
who  connnunicated  them  directly  from  Jehovah. 
This  transcendent  importance  of  Jloses  must  al- 
ready have  commenced  at  the  finding  of  the  Book 
of  the  Law  at  the  reformation  of  Josiah.  Now  it 
is  remarkable  that  the  book  of  Samuel  is  the  his- 
torical work  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the 
name  of  Moses  occurs  most  rarely.  In  Joshua  it 
occurs  56  times;  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah,  31  times;  in  the  book  of  Kings  ten  times; 
in  Judges  three  times;  but  in  Samuel  only  twice 
(Zunz,  Vortvfuje,  35).  And  it  is  worthy  of  note 
that  in  each  case  JNIoses  is  merely  mentioned  with 
Aaron  as  having  brought  the  Israelites  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  but  nothing  whatever  is  said  of  the  | 
Lnw  of  Moses  (1  Sam.  xii.  6,  8).  It  may  be 
thought  that  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this 
omission  of  the  name  of  Moses,  because,  inasmuch 
as  the  Law  of  Moses,  as  a  whole,  was  evidently  not 
acted  on  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  David,  and  Solo- 
mon, there  was  no  occasion  for  a  writer,  however 
late  he  lived,  to  introduce  the  name  of  Moses  at  all 
in  connection  with  their  life  and  actions.  But  it  is 
very  rare  indeed  for  later  writers  to  refrain  in  this 
way  from  importing  the  ideas  of  their  own  time 
into  the  account  of  earlier  transactions.  Thus, 
very  early  in  the  book  of  Kings  there  is  an  allusion 
to  what  is  "written  in  the  Law  of  iSloses"  (1  K. 
ii.  3).  Thus  the  author  of  the  book  of  Chronicles 
makes,  for  the  reign  of  David,  a  calculation  of  money 
in  claries,  a  Persian  coin,  not  likely  to  have  been 
in  common  use  among  the  Jews  until  the  Persian 
domination  had  been  fully  established^  Thus, 
more  than  once,  .losephus,  in  his  Aniiquitits  of 
llie  Jens,  attributes  expressions  to  personages  in 
the  Old  Testament  which  are  to  be  accounted  for 
by  what  was  familiar  to  his  own  mind,  although 
they  are  not  justified  by  his  authorities.  For  ex- 
ample, evidently  copying  the  history  of  a  transac- 
Hon  from  the  book  of  Samuel,  he  represents  the 
prophet  Samuel  as  exhorting  the  j)eople  to  bear  in 
mind  "the  code  of  laws  which  Moses  had  given 
them"  {rrjs  Mai'vfffCiis  vofxaOeaias,  -int.  vi.  5,  §  3), 
though  tliere  is  no  mention  of  Moses,  or  of  his  leg- 
islation, in  the  coiTesponding  passage  of  Samuel  (1 


"  As  compared  with  Samuel,  the  peculiarities  of 
the  Peutateuch  are  not  qiiitr  as  striking  as  the  Uiffer- 
•D ■^«8  in  language  between   Lucretius  and  Virgil  :  the 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

Sam.  xii.  20-25).  Again,  in  giving  an  account  o 
the  punishments  with  which  the  Israelites  were 
threatened  for  disobedience  of  the  Law  by  Moses  in 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  Josephus  attributes  to 
Moses  the  threat  that  their  tenijile  should  be  burned 
{Ant.  iv.  8,  §  46).  But  no  passage  can  be  pointed 
out  in  the  whole  Pentateuch  in  which  such  a  threat 
occurs;  and  in  fact,  according  to  the  received  chro- 
nology (1  K.  vi.  1),  or  according  to  any  chronol- 
ogy, the  first  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  not  built  till 
some  centuries  after  the  death  of  Moses.  Yet  this 
allusion  to  the  burning  of  an  urjbuilt  temple  ought 
not  to  be  regarded  as  an  intentional  misrepresenta- 
tion. It  is  rather  an  instance  of  the  tendency  in 
an  historian  who  describes  past  events  to  give  un- 
consciously indications  of  his  living  himself  at  a 
later  epoch.  Similar  remarks  apply  to  a  passage 
of  Josephus  (Anl.  vii.  4,  §  4),  in  which,  giving  an 
account  of  David's  project  to  build  a  temple  at  Je- 
rusalem, he  says  that  David  wished  to  prepare  a 
temple  for  God,  "as  Moses  commanded,"  though 
no  such  command  or  injunction  is  found  to  be  in  the 
Pentateuch.  To  a  religious  Jew,  when  the  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch  were  observed,  Moses  could  not  fail 
to  be  the  predominant  idea  in  his  mind ;  but  Moses 
would  not  necessarily  be  of  equal  importance  to  a 
Hebrew  historian  who  lived  before  the  reformation 
of  Josiah. 

3.  It  tallies  with  an  early  date  for  the  compo- 
sition of  the  book  of  Samuel  that  it  is  one  of  the 
best  specimens  of  Hebrew  prose  in  the  golden  age 
of  Hebrew  literature.  In  prose  it  holds  the  same 
place  which  Joel  and  the  undisptited  prophecies  of 
Isaiah  hold  in  poetical  or  prophetical  language.  It 
is  free  from  the  peculiarities  "-f  the  book  of  Judges, 
which  it  is  proposed  to  account  ibr  by  supjiosing 
that  tbey  belonged  to  the  popular  dialect  of  Northern 
Palestine;  and  likewise  from  the  slight  peculiarities 
of  the  Pentateuch,  which  it  is  proposed  to  regard  as 
archaisms"  (Gesenius,  IJtbreio  Orammar,  §  2,  5). 
It  is  a  striking  contrast  to  the  language  of  the  book 
of  Chronicles,  which  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the 
silver  age  of  Helirew  prose,  and  it  does  not  contain 
as  man)'  alleged  Chaldaisms  as  the  few  in  the  book 
of  Kings.  Indeed  the  iiumlier  of  Chaldaisms  in  the 
book  of  Samuel  which  the  most  rigid  scrutiny  has 
suggested  do  not  amount  to  more  than  about  six 
instances,  some  of  them  doubtful  ones,  in  90  pages 
of  our  modern  Hebrew  Bible.  And,  considering  the 
general  purity  of  the  langu.ige,  it  is  not  onl}'  possi- 
ble, bu't  probable,  that  the  trifling  residuum  of  Chal- 
daisms may  be  owing  to  the  inadvertence  of  Chal- 
dee  copyists,  when  Hebrew  had  ceased  to  be  a  living 
language.  At  the  same  time  this  argument  from 
language  must  not  be  pushed  so  far  as  to  imply 
that,  standing  alone,  it  would  be  conclusive;  fbi 
some  writings,  the  date  of  which  is  about  the  time 
of  the  Captivity,  are  in  pure  Hebrew,  such  as  the 
prophecies  of  Habakknk,  the  Psalms  cxx.,  cxxxvii., 
cxxxix.,  pointed  out  by  Gesenius,  and  by  far  tlie 
largest  portion  of  the  latter  part  of  the  prophecies 
attriliuted  to  "  Isaiah  "  (xl.-lxvi.).  And  we  have 
not  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  condition  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  of  the  Captivity,  or  for  a  few  centuries 
after,  to  entitle  any  one  to  assert  that  there  were  no 
individuals  among  them  who  wrote  the  purest  He- 
brew. Still  the  balance  of  probability  inclines  to  the 
contrary  direction,  and,  as  a  subsidiary  argument, 


parallel  which  has  been  suggested  by  Gesenius.  Vir- 
gil seem.*  to  have  been  about  14  years  of  age  when 
Lucretius'  great  poem  was  published. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

the  purity  of  language  of  the  book  of  Samuel  is 
eutitled  to  some  weight. 

Assuming,  then,  that  the  work  was  composed  at 
%  period  not  later  than  the  reformation  of  Josiah, — 
say,  B.  C.  622,  —  tlie  question  arises  as  to  the  very 
earliest  point  of  time  at  which  it  could  have  existed 
m  its  present  form.  And  the  answer  seems  to  he, 
that  the  earliest  period  was  subsequent  to  tlie  seces- 
sion of  the  'I'en  Tribes.  This  results  from  the  pas- 
sage in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6,  wherein  it  is  said  of  Ua- 
vid,  "Then  Achish  gave  him  Ziklag  that  day: 
irherefore  Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings  of  .lu- 
dah  unto  this  day:"  for  neither  Saul,  David,  nor 
Solomon  is  in  a  single  instance  culled  king  of  .lu- 
dah  simply.  It  is  true  that  David  is  said,  in  one 
narrative  respecting  him,  to  have  reigned  in  Hebron 
seven  years  and  sis  months  over  Judah  (2  Sam.  v. 
5)  before  he  reigned  in  Jerusalem  thirty-three 
years  over  all  Israel  and  .hidah ;  but  he  is,  notwith- 
standing, never  designated  by  the  title  King  of 
Judah.  Before  the  secession,  the  designation  of 
the  kings  was  that  they  were  kings  of  Israel  (1 
Sam.  xiii.  1,  xv.  1,  xvi.  1;  2  Sam.  v.  17,  viii.  15; 

1  K.  ii.  11,  iv.  1,  vi.  1,  xi.  42).  It  may  safely, 
therefore,  be  assumed  that  the  book  of  Samuel 
Kiuld  not  have  existed  in  its  present  form  at  an 
earlier  period  than  the  reign  of  Keiioboam,  who  as- 
cended the  throne  b.  c.  975.  If  we  go  beyond 
this,  and  endeavor  to  assert  the  precise  time  be- 
tween 975  B.  c.  and  022  b.  c,  when  it  was  com- 
posed, all  certain  indications  fail  us.  The  expres- 
sion "  unto  this  day,''  used  several  times  in  the 
book  (1  Sam.  v.  5,  vi.  18,  xxx.  25;  2  Sam.  iv.  3, 
vi.  8),  in  addition  to  the  use  of  it  in  the  passage 
already  quoted,  is  too  indefinite  to  prove  anything, 
except  that  tlie  writer  who  employed  it  li\ed  subse- 
quently to  the  events  he  descrilied.  It  is  inade- 
quate to  prove  whether  he  lived  three  centuries,  or 
only  half  a  century,  after  those  events.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  the  phrase,  "  Therefore  it  became 
a  proverb,  'Is  Saul  among  the  Prophets'?'"  (1 
Sam.  x.  12),  and  to  the  verse,  ''  Beforetime  in  Is- 
rael, when  a  man  went  to  enquire  of  God,  thus  he 
spake.  Come,  and  let  us  go  to  the  seer :  for  he  that 
is  now  called  a  Prophet  was  beforetime  called  a 
Seer"  (1  Sam.  ix.  !)).  In  both  cases  it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  the  writer  lived  more  than  eighty  years 
after  the  incidents  to  wliicli  he  alludes.  In  like  man- 
ner, the  various  traditions  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  Saul  first  became  acquaiTited  with  David 
(1  Sam.  xvi.  14-2-3,  xvii.  55-58)  —  respecting  the 
manner  of  Saul's  death  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2-0,  8-1-3; 

2  Sam.  i.  2-12)  —  do  not  necessarily  show  that  a 
very  long  time  (say  even  a  century)  elapsed  between 
the  actual  events  and  the  record  of  the  traditions. 
In  an  age  anterior  to  the  existence  of  newspapers 
cr  the  invention  of  printing,  and  when  probably 
few  could  read,  thirty  or  forty  years,  or  e\en  less, 
have  been  sufficient  for  the  growth  of  different  tra- 
ditions respecting  the  same  historical  fact.  Lastly, 
internal  evidence  of  language  lends  no  .assistance 
for  discrimination  in  the  period  of  353  years  within 
which  the  book  may  ha\'fe  been  written ;  for  the 
undisputed  Hebrew  writings  belonging  to  that  pe- 
riod are  comparatively  few,  and  not  one  of  them  is 
a  history,  which  would  present  the  best  points  of 
comparison.  They  embrace  scarcely  more  than 
the  writings  of  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  Nahum, 
!«ud  a  certain  portion  of  the  writings  under  the  title 

'Isaiah."  The  whole  of  these  writings  together 
tan  scarcely  be  estimated  as  occupying  more  than 
iixty  pages  of  our   Hebrew  Bibles,  and  whatever 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF       2829 

may  be  their  peculiarities  of  language  or  style,  they 
do  not  afford  materials  for  a  safe  inference  as  to 
which  of  tlicir  authors  was  likely  to  have  been  con- 
temporary with  the  author  of  the  book  of  Sanuiel 
All  that  can  be  asserted  as  undeniable  is,  that  the 
book,  as  a  whole,  can  scarcely  have  been  composed 
later  than  the  reformation  of  Josiah,  and  that  it 
could  tiot  have  existed  in  its  present  form  earlier 
than  the  reign  of  liehoboam. 

It  is  to  be  added  that  no  great  weight,  in  oppo- 
sition to  this  conclusion,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
death  of  David,  although  in  one  passage  evidently 
implied  (2  Sam.  v.  5),  is  not  directly  recorded  in  the 
book  of  Samuel.  From  this  fact  Havernick  {Kiii- 
leitmig  in  das  Alte  Tn^taiiU'iit,  part  ii.,  p.  145) 
deems  it  a  certain  inference  that  the  author  lived 
not  long  after  the  death  of  David.  But  this  is  a 
very  slight  ibundation  for  such  an  inference,  since 
we  know  nothing  of  the  author's  name,  or  of  the 
circumstances  mider  which  he  wrote,  or  of  his  pre- 
cise ideas  respecting  what  is  required  of  an  histo- 
rian. We  cannot,  theretbre,  assert,  from  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  character  of  his  mind,  that  bis  deeming 
it  logically  requisite  to  make  a  formal  statement 
of  David's  death  wiatld  have  depended  on  his  living 
a  short  time  or  a  long  time  after  that  event.  Be- 
sides, it  is  very  possible  that  he  did  formally  record 
it,  and  that  the  mention  of  it  was  subsequently 
omitted  on  account  of  the  more  minute  details  by 
which  the  account  of  David's  death  is  preceded 
in  the  First  Book  of  Kings.  There  would  have 
been  nothing  wrong  in  such  an  omission,  nor  in- 
deed, in  any  addition  to  the  book  of  Samuel;  for, 
as  those  wiio  finally  inserted  it  in  the  Canon  did 
not  transmit  it  to  posterity  with  the  name  of  any 
particular  author,  their  honesty  was  involved,  not 
in  the  mere  circumstance  of  their  omitting  or 
adding  anything,  but  solely  in  the  fact  of  their 
adding  nothing  which  they  believed  to  be  false, 
and  of  omitting  nothing  of  importance  which  they 
believed  to  be  true. 

In  this  absolute  ignorance  of  the  author's  name, 
and  vague  knowledge  of  the  date  of  the  work, 
there  has  been  a  controversy  whether  the  book  of 
Samuel  is  or  is  not  a  compilation  from  pree.xist- 
ing  documents;  and  if  this  is  decided  in  the  af- 
firmative, to  what  extent  the  work  is  a  compilation 
It  is  not  mtended  to  enter  fully  here  into  this  con- 
tro\ersy,  respecting  which  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Dr.  L)avidson's  Introductmi  to  the  Critic(d  Study 
(Did  Knowitdye  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  London, 
Longman,  1856,  in  which  this  subject  is  dispas- 
sionately and  fairly  treated.  One  observation,  how- 
ever, of  some  practical  importance,  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind.  It  does  not  admit  of  nuich  reasonable 
doubt  that  in  the  book  of  Samuel  there  are  two 
different  accounts  (already  alluded  to)  respecting 
Saul's  first  acquaintance  with  David,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances of  Saul's  death — and  that  yet  the 
editor  or  author  of  the  Iwok  did  not  let  his  mind 
work  upon  these  two  different  accounts  so  far  as  tc 
make  him  interpose  his  own  opinion  as  to  which 
of  the  conflicting  accounts  was  correct,  or  even  to 
point  out  to  the  reader  that  the  two  accounts  were 
apparently  contradictory.  Hence,  in  a  certain 
sense,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  the  author  must  be 
regarded  as  a  com|)iler,  and  not  an  original  his- 
torian. And  in  rei'erence  to  the  two  accounts  of 
Saul's  death,  this  is  not  the  less  true,  even  if  the 
second  accoimt  be  deemed  reconcilable  with  the  first 
by  the  supposition  that  the  Amalekite  had  fabri- 
cated the  story  of  his  having  killed  Saul  (2  Sam. 


2830       SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

i.  6-10).  Althouifh  possibly  true,  this  is  an  un- 
likely supposition,  because,  as  the  Amalekite's  ob- 
ect  in  a  lie  would  have  been  to  curry  favor  with 
David,  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  have 
•brged  some  story  whicli  would  have  redounded 
more  to  his  own  credit  than  the  clumsy  and  im- 
probable statement  that  he,  a  mere  casual  spectator, 
had  killed  Saul  at  Saul's  own  request.  But  whether 
the  Amalekite  said  what  was  true  or  \\hat  was 
false,  an  historian,  as  distinguished  from  a  compiler, 
could  scarcely  have  failed  to  convey  his  own  opinion 
on  the  point,  affecting,  as  on  one  alternative  it  did 
materially,  the  truth  of  the  narrative  which  he  had 
just  hefore  recorded  respecting  the  circumstances 
under  which  Saul's  death  occurred.  And  if  com- 
pilation is  admitted  in  regard  to  the  two  events 
just  mentioned,  or  to  one  of  them,  there  is  no 
antecedent  improbability  that  the  same  may  have 
been  the  case  in  other  instances;  such,  for  exam- 
ple, as  the  two  explanations  of  the  proverb,  "  Is 
Saul  also  among  the  Prophets?  "  (1  Sam.  x.  9-12, 
xix.  22-2-t),  or  the  two  accounts  of  David's  having 
forborne  to  take  Saul's  life,  at  the  very  time  when 
he  was  a  fugitive  from  Saul,  and  his  own  life  was 
in  danger  from  Saul's  enmity  (1  Sam  xxiv.  3-15, 
xxvi.  7-12).  The  same  remark  applies  to  what 
seem  to  be  summaries  or  endings  'f  narratives  by 
different  writers,  such  as  1  Sam.  vii.  i.j-  H,  1  Sam. 
xiv.  47-52,  compared  with  chapter  xv. ;  2  Sam. 
viii.  15-18.  In  these  cases,  if  each  passage  were 
absolutely  isolated,  and  occurred  in  a  work  which 
contained  no  other  instance  of  compilation,  the 
inference  to  be  drawn  might  be  uncertain.  But 
when  even  one  instance  of  compilation  has  been 
clearly  established  in  a  work,  all  other  seeming 
iust;inces  must  be  viewed  in  its  light,  and  it  would 
be  unreasonable  to  contest  each  of  them  singly,  on 
principles  which  imply  that  compilation  is  as  un- 
likely as  it  would  be  in  a  work  of  modern  history. 
It  is  to  be  added,  that  as  the  author  and  the 
precise  date  of  the  book  of  Samuel  are  unknown, 
its  historical  value  is  not  impaired  by  its  being 
deemed  to  a  certain  extent  a  compilation.  Indeed, 
from  one  point  of  view,  its  value  is  in  this  way 
somewhat  enlianeed;  as  the  probability  is  increased 
of  its  containing  documents  of  an  early  date,  some 
of  which  may  have  been  written  by  persons  con- 
temporaneous, or  nearly  so,  with  the  *euts  de- 
scribed. , 

Suui-ces  of' the  Buok  of  Samuel.  —  Assuming  that 
the  book  is  a  compilation,  it  is  a  subject  of  rational 
inquiry  to  ascertain  the  materials  from  which  it 
was  composed.  But  our  information  on  this  head 
is  scanty.  The  oidy  work  actually  quoted  in  this 
book  is  the  book  of  .lasher;  i.  e.  the  book  of 
the  Upright.  Notwithstanding  the  great  learning 
which  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  tiiis  title  by 
numerous  commentators  [vol.  ii.  p.  1215],  the 
meaning  of  the  title  must  lie  regarded  as  alisolutely 
unknown,  and  the  character  of  the  book  itself  as 
uncertain.  The  best  conjecture  hitherto  offered  as 
an  induction  from  facts  is,  that  it  was  a  book  of 
Poems;  but  the  facts  are  too  few  to  establish  this 


«  Any  Hebrew  scholar  who  will  write  out  the  orig- 
inal four  lines  commencing  with  "Sun,  stand  thou 
•till  upon  Gibeoul"  may  satisfy  himself  that  they 
belong  to  a  poem.  The  last  line,  "  Uutil  the  people 
had  avenged  themselves  UDon  their  enemies,"'  which 
m  the  A.  V.  is  somewhat  heavy,  is  almost  uumistak- 
ibly  a  line  of  poetry  in  the  original.  In  a  narrative 
(Uspectiu;;  tut  Isi'aelites  in  oro>e  they  would  not  have 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

as  a  positive  general  conclusion.  It  is  only  quoted 
twice  in  the  whole  Bible,  once  as  a  work  containing 
David's  Lamentation  over  Saul  and  Jonathan  (2 
Sam.  i.  18),  and  secondly,  as  an  authority  for  the 
statement  that  the  sun  and  moon  stood  still  at  the 
command  of  Joshua  (Josh.  x.  13).  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  Lamentation  of  David  is  a  poem ; 
and  it  is  most  probable  that  the  other  passage 
referred  to  as  written  in  the  book  of  Jasher  in- 
cludes four  lines  of  Hebrew  poetry,"  though  the 
poetical  diction  and  rhythm  of  the  original  are 
somewhat  impaired  in  a  translation.  But  the  only 
sound  deduction  fi-om  these  facts  is,  that  the  book 
of  Jasher  contained  some  poems.  What  else  it 
may  have  contained  we  cannot  say,  even  nega- 
tively. AVithout  reference,  however,  to  the  book  of 
Jasher,  the  book  of  Sanniel  contains  several  poetical 
compositions,  on  each  of  which  a  few  observations 
mav  be  offered ;  commencing  with  the  poetry  of 
David. 

(1.)  David's  Lamentation  over  Saul  and  Jona- 
than, called  "The  Bow."  This  extremely  beautiful 
composition,  wliich  seems  to  have  been  preserved 
through  David's  having  caused  it  to  be  taught  to 
the  eliildren  of  Judah  (2  Sam.  i.  18),  is  universally 
admitted  to  be  the  genuine  production  of  David. 
In  this  respect,  it  has  an  advantage  over  the 
Psalms:  as,  owing  to  the  unfortunate  inaccuracy 
of  some  of  the  inscriptions,  no  one  of  the  ]«alms 
attriliufed  to  David  has  wholly  escaped  challenge- 
One  point  in  the  Lamentation  especially  merits 
attention,  that,  contrary  to  what  a  later  poet  would 
have  ventured  to  represent,  David,  in  the  generosity 
and  tenderness  of  his  nature,  sounds  the  praises  of 
.Saul. 

(2.)  David's  Lamentation  on  the  death  of  Abner 
(2  Sam.  iii.  33,  34).  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
the  geiniineness  of  this  short  poetical  ejaculation. 

(3.)  2  Sam.  xxii.  A  Song  of  David,  which  is 
introduced  with  the  inscription  that  David  spoke 
the  words  of  the  song  to  Jehovah,  in  the  day  that 
Jehovah  had  delivered  him  out  of  the  hand  of  all 
his  enemies  and  out  of  the  hand  of  Saul.  This 
song,  with  a  few  unimportai:t  verbal  differences,  is 
merely  the  xviiith  Psalm,  which  bears  substantially 
the  same  inscription.  For  poetical  beauty,  the 
song  is  well  worthy  to  be  the  production  of  David. 
The  following  difficulties,  however,  are  connected 
with  it. 

{(I.)  The  date  of  tiie  composition  is  asisigned  to 
the  day  when  Da\id  had  lieen  delivered  not  only 
out  of  the  hand  of  all  his  enemies,  but  likewise 
"  out  of  the  hand  of  Saul."  Now  David  reigned 
forty  years  after  Saul's  death  (2  Sam.  v.  4,  5),  and 
it  was  as  king  that  he  achieved  the  successive  con- 
quests to  which  allusion  is  made  in  the  psalm. 
Aloreover,  the  psalm  is  evidently  introduced  as 
composed  at  a  late  period  of  his  life;  and  it  imme- 
diately precedes  the  twenty-third  chapter,  .which 
commences  with  the  passage,  '>Now  these  be  the 
last  words  of  I)a\id."  It  sounds  strange,  there- 
fore, that  the  name  of  Saul  should  be  introduced, 
whose  hostility,  so  far  distant  in  time,  had  been 


been  described  as  "*12  (goi),  without  even  an  article. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  other  instance  in  which  the  sim- 
ple accusative  of  the   person  on  whom  vengeance  ia 

tiiken  is  used  after  DHD  {iiakam).     In  simple  prow 

"jt3  (min)  intervenes,  and,  lil<e  the  article,  it  niaj 
have  beeu  here  omitted  tor  couciseness. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

sondoned,  as  it  were,  by  David  in  his  noble  Lamen- 
tation 

(6.)  In  the  closing;  verse  (2  Sam.  xxii.  51),  Je- 
hovali  is  spoken  of  as  showing  "  mercy  to  his 
anointed,  unto  David  and  his  seed  for  evermore." 
Tliese  words  would  be  more  naturally  written  of 
David  tlian  by  David.  They  may,  however,  be  a 
later  addition ;  as  it  may  be  observed  that  at  the 
present  day,  notwithstanding;  tiie  safeguard  of  print- 
ing, the  poetical  writings  of  living  authors  are  occa- 
Bionally  altered,  and  it  must  be  added  disfigured, 
in  printed  hynni-books.  Still,  as  far  as  they  tro, 
the  words  tend  to  raise  a  doubt  wliether  the  psalm 
was  written  by  David,  as  it  camiot  be  proctd  tliat 
they  are  an  addition. 

(c.)  In  some  passages  of  the  psalm,  the  strong- 
est assertions  are  made  of  the  poet's  uprightness 
and  purity.  He  says  of  himself,  "  According  to 
the  cleanness  of  my  hands  hath  He  recompensed 
me.  For  I  have  kept  the  ways  of  Jehovah,  and 
have  not  wickeilly  departed  from  my  God.  For  all 
his  judgments  were  before  me:  and  as  for  his 
statutes.  I  did  not  depart  from  them.  I  was  also 
upright  before  Him,  and  have  kept  myself  from 
mine  iniquity  "  (xxii.  21-24:).  Now  it  is  a  subject 
of  reasonable  surprise  that,  at  any  period  after  the 
painful  incidents  of  his  lite  in  tlie  matter  of  Uriah, 
David  should  have  used  this  language  concerning 
himself.  Admitting  fully  that,  in  consequence  of 
his  sincere  and  bititer  contrition,  "  the  princely 
heart  of  innocence  "  may  have  been  freely  bestowed 
upon  him,  it  is  difhcult  to  understand  how  this 
should  have  influenced  him  so  lar  in  his  assertions 
respecting  his  own  upriglitness  in  past  times,  as  to 
make  him  forget  that  he  bad  once  been  betrayed 
by  his  passions  into  adultery  and  murder.  These 
assertions,  if  made  by  David  himself,  would  form 
a  striking  contrast  to  the  tender  hunulity  and  seli- 
mistrust  in  comiection  with  the  same  sulject  by 
a  great  hving  genius  of  spotless  character.  (See 
♦'Christian  Year,"  Qth  Stindny  cjler  Trinit/j  —  ad 
fiiif.m.) 

(4.)  A  song,  called  "  last  words  of  David  "  (2 
bam.  xxiii.  2-7).  According  to  the  Inscrijjtion,  it 
was  composed  by  "  David  the  son  of  Jesse,  the  man 
who  was  raised  up  on  high,  the  anointed  of  tlie 
God  of  Jacob,  and  the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel." 
It  is  suggested  by  Bleek,  and  is  in  itself  very  prob- 
able, that  both  the  psalm  and  the  inscription  were 
taken  from  some  collection  of  songs  or  psalms. 
'J'here  is  not  sufficient  reason  to  deny  that  this  song 
is  correctly  ascribed  to  David. 

(5.)  One  other  song  remains,  which  is  perhaps 
the  most  perplexing  in  the  book  of  Samuel.  This 
is  the  Song  of  Hannah,  a  wife  of  Elkanah  (1  Sam. 
ii.  1-10).  One  difficulty  arises  from  an  allusion 
in  verse  10  to  the  existence  of  a  king  under  Jeho- 
vah, many  years  before  the  kingly  power  was 
established  among  the  Israelites.  Another  equally 
great  difficulty  arises  from  the  internal  character 
of  the  song.  It  purports  to  be  written  by  one  of 
two  wives  as  a  song  of  thanksgiving  for  h.aving 
borne  a  child,  after  a  long  period  of  barrenness, 
which  had  caused  her  to  be  looked  down  upon  l)y 
.he  other  wife  of  her  husband.  But,  deducting  a 
general  allusion,  in  verse  5,  to  the  barren  having; 
liorne  seven,  there  is  nothing  in  the  song  peculiarly 
applicable  to  the  supposed  circumstances,  and  by 
far  the  greater  portion  of  it  seems  to  be  a  song  of 
triumph  for  deliverance  from  powerful  enemies  in 
battle  (vv.  1,4,10).  Indeed,  Tbenius  does  not 
lesitate  to  conjecture  that  it  was  written  by  David 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF        2831 

after  he  had  slain  Goliath,  and  the  Philistines  had 
been  defeated  in  a  great  battle  (Fxei/ctUclies  Fland- 
buc/i,  p.  8).  There  is  no  historical  warrant  for 
this  supposition;  but  the  song  is  certaiidy  more 
appropriate  to  the  victory  of  Da\id  o\er  tioliath, 
than  to  Hannah's  having  given  birth  to  a  child 
under  the  circumstances  detailed  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Samuel.  It  would,  however,  be  equally- 
appropriate  to  some  other  great  battles  of  the 
Israelites. 

In  advancing  a  single  step  beyond  the  songs  of 
the  book  of  Samuel,  we  enter  into  the  region  of 
conjecture  as  to  the  materials  which  were  at  the 
couunand  of  the  author;  and  in  points  which  arise 
for  consideration,  we  must  be  satisfied  with  a  sus- 
pense of  judgment,  or  a  slight  balance  of  proba- 
bilities. For  example,  it  being  plain  that  in  some 
instances  there  are  two  accounts  of  the  same  trans- 
action, it  is  desirable  to  form  an  opinion  whether 
these  were  founded  on  distinct  written  documents, 
or  on  distinct  oral  traditions.  This  point  is  open 
to  dispute;  but  the  theory  of  written  documents 
seems  prefeiable;  as  in  the  alternative  of  mere 
oral  traditions  it  would  have  been  supereminently 
unnatural  even  for  a  compiler  to  record  tliera  with- 
out stating  in  his  own  person  that  there  were  differ- 
ent traditions  respecting  the  same  event.  Again, 
the  truthful  simplicity  and  extraordinary  vividness 
of  some  portions  of  the  book  of  Sanuiel  naturally 
suggest  the  idea  that  'hey  were  founded  on  con- 
temporary documents  or  a  peculiarly  trustworthy 
tradition.  This  applies  specially  to  the  account 
of  the  combat  lietween  David  and  Goliath,  which 
has  been  the  delight  of  successive  generations, 
wliich  charms  equally  in  different  ways  the  old  and 
the  young,  the  learned  and  the  illiterate,  and  which 
tempts  us  to  deem  it  certain  that  the  account  must 
liave  proceeded  from  .in  eye-witness.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  vivichiess  of 
description  often  dei)ends  more  on  the  discerning 
faculties  of  the  narrator  than  on  mere  liodily 
presence.  "It  is  the  mind  that  sees,"  sn  that  200 
years  after  the  meeting  of  tlie  Long  I'arliament  a 
powerful  imaginative  writer  sliall  portray  Cromwell 
more  vividly  than  Ludlow,  a  contemporary  who 
knew  him  and  conversed  with  him.  Moreover, 
Livy  has  described  events  of  early  Itoman  history 
which  educated  men  regard  in  their  details  as 
imaginary;  and  Defoe,  Swift,  and  the  authors  of 
Tlie  Arabian  Niyhts  have  described  events  which 
all  men  admit  to  Ije  imaginary,  vvitli  such  seem- 
ingly authentic  details,  with  .such  a  charm  of 
reality,  movement,  and  spirit,  that  it  is  sometimes 
only  by  a  strong  effort  of  reason  that  we  escape 
from  the  illusion  that  the  narratives  are  true.  In 
the  absence,  therefore,  of  .any  external  evidence  on 
this  point,  it  is  safer  to  suspend  our  judgment  as 
to  whether  any  portion  of  the  book  of  Samuel  is 
founded  on  the  writing  of  a  contenqiorary,  or  on  a 
tradition  entitled  to  any  peculiar  credit.  Perhaps 
tiie  two  conjectures  respecting  the  composition  of 
the  book  of  Samuel  which  are  most  entitled  tf 
consideration  are —  1st.  That  the  list  which  it 
contains  of  officers  or  public  functionaries  under 
David  is  tlie  result  of  contemporary  registration ; 
and  ^dly.  That  the  book  of  Sanniel  was  the  com- 
pilation of  some  one  connected  with  the  schools  of 
the  prophets,  or  penetrated  by  their  spirit.  On 
the  first  point,  the  reader  is  referred  to  such  paa- 
sa'j;es  as  2  Sam  viii.  10-18,  and  xx.  23-20,  in 
reirai'd  to  which  one  fuct  may  lie  mentioned.  It 
has  already  been  stated   [IviNc;,  vol.  "   p.  l51iJil 


2832 


SAMUEL.  BOOKS  OF 


that  under  the  kint^s  there  existed  an  officer 
sailed  Recorder,  Eemenibraiicer,  or  Chronicler;  in 
Hebrew,  muzkir.  Now  it  can  scarcely  be  a  mere 
accidental  coincidence  that  such  an  officer  is  men- 
tioned for  tlie  first  time  in  David's  reign,  and  tliat 
it  is  precisely  for  David's  reign  that  a  list  of  public 
functionaries  is  for  the  first  time  transmitted  to 
us.  On  the  second  point,  it  cannot  but  be  ob- 
served what  prominence  is  given  to  prophets  in 
the  history,  as  compared  with  priests  and  Levites. 
This  prominence  is  so  decided,  that  it  undou1)tedly 
contributed  towards  the  formation  of  the  uncritical 
opinion  that  the  book  of  Samuel  was  the  jiroduc- 
tion  of  the  prophets  Samuel,  Nathan,  and  Gad. 
This  opinion  is  unsupported  by  external  evidence, 
and  is  contrary  to  internal  evidence:  but  it  is  liy 
no  means  improbable  that  some  writers  among  tlie 
sons  of  the  prophets  recorded  the  actions  of  those 
prophets.  This  would  be  peculiarly  prolialile  in 
reference  to  Nathan's  rebuke  of  David  after  the 
murder  of  Uriah,  Nathan  here  presents  the  image 
of  a  prophet  in  its  noblest  and  most  attractive  form. 
Boldness,  tenderness,  inventiveness,  and  tact,  were 
coml)ined  in  such  adniiralile  proportions,  that  a 
prophet's  functions,  if  always  discharged  in  a  sim- 
ilar manner  with  equal  discretion,  would  have  been 
acknowledged  by  all  to  be  purely,  beneficent.  In 
his  interposition  there  is  a  kind  of  ideal  moral 
beauty.  In  the  schools  of  the  prophets  he  doubt- 
less held  the  place  which  St.  Ambrose  afterwards 
held  in  the  minds  of  priests  tor  the  exclusion  of  the 
Emperor  Tbeodosius  from  the  church  at  Milan  after 
the  massacre  at  Thessalonica.  It  may  be  added, 
that  the  following  circumstances  are  in  accordance 
with  the  supposition  that  the  compiler  of  the  book 
of  Samuel  was  connected  with  the  schools  of  the 
prophets.  The  designation  of  .lehovah  as  the 
"  Lord  of  Hosts,"  or  (lod  of  Hosts,  does  not  occur 
in  the  Pentateuch,  or  in  Joshua,  or  in  Judges;  but 
it  occurs  in  the  book  of  Samuel  thirteen  times.  In 
the  Ijook  of  Kings  it  occurs  only  seven  times;  and 
in  tlie  book  of  Chronicles,  as  far  as  this  is  an 
original  or  independent  work,  it  cannot  be  said  to 
occur  at  all,  for  although  it  is  found  in  three  pas- 
sages, all  of  these  are  evidently  copied  from  the 
book  of  Samuel.  (See  1  Chr.  xi.  9  —  in  the  orig- 
inal, precisely  the  same  words  as  in  2  Sam.  v.  10; 
and  see  1  Chr.  xvii.  7,  24,  copied  from  2  Sam.  vii.  8, 
20.)  Now  this  phrase,  though  occurring  so  rarely 
elsewhere  in  prose,  that  it  occurs  nearly  twice  as 
often  in  the  book  of  Samuel  as  in  all  the  other 
historical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  put  to- 
gether, is  a  very  favorite  phrase  in  some  of  the 
great  projihetical  writings.  In  Isaiah  it  occurs 
sixty-two  times  (six  times  only  in  the  chapters  xl.- 
Ixvi.),  and  in  Jeremiah  sixty-five  times  at  least. 
Again,  the  predominance  of  the  idea  of  the  pro- 
phetical office  in  Samuel  is  shown  by  the  very  sub- 
ordinate place  assigned  in  it  to  the  Levites.  The 
difference  between  the  Chronicles  and  the  book  of 


«  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  prophet  Ezekiel  never 
u.ses  the  expression  "  Lord  of  Hosts."  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Levites  in  the  undis- 
puted writings  of  Isaiah 

*  Tacitus  I'ecords  it  as  a  distinguishing  custom  of 
■Jie  Jews,  "  corpora  condere  quaui  cremare,  ex  more 
lEgyptio  "  {Hist.  V.  5).  And  it  is  certain  that,  in  later 
Vnies,  they  buried  dead  bodies,  and  did  not  hurn 
.hem  ;  though,  notwithstanding  tlie  instance  in  Gen. 

2.  they  did  not,  strictly  speaking,  enibiilui  them, 
'Ke  the  Egyptians.     And  though  it  may  be  suspected, 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

Samuel  in  this  respect  is  even  more  striking  than 
their  difiference  in  the  use  of  the  expression  '•  Lord 
of  Hosts;""  though  in  a  reverse  proportion.  In 
the  whole  book  of  Samuel  the  Levites  are  men- 
tioned only  twice  (1  Sam.  vi.  15;  2  Sam.  xv.  24), 
while  in  Chronicles  they  are  mentioned  about  thirty 
times  in  the  first  book  alone,  which  contains  the 
history  of  David's  reign. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  observed  that  it  is  very 
instructive  to  direct  the  attention  to  the  passages 
in  Samuel  and  the  Chronicles  which  treat  of  the 
same  events,  and,  generally,  to  the  manner  in  which 
tiie  life  of  David  is  treated  in  the  two  histories.  A 
comparison  of  the  two  works  tends  to  throw  light 
on  the  state  of  the  Hebrew  mind  at  the  time  when 
the  book  of  Samuel  was  written,  compared  with 
the  ideas  prevalent  among  the  Jews  some  hundred 
years  later,  at  the  time  of  the  compilation  of  the 
Chronicles.  Some  passages  correspond  almost  pre- 
cise! v  word  for  word;  others  agree,  with  slight  but 
significant  alterations.  In  some  cases  there  are 
striking  omissions;  in  others  there  are  no  less  re- 
markalile  additions.  Without  attempting  to  ex- 
liaust  the  subject,  some  of  tlie  diflerences  between 
the  two  histories  will  be  now  briefly  pointed  out; 
though  at  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  l)orne  in  mind 
that,  in  drawing  inferences  from  them,  it  would  be 
useful  to  review  likewise  all  the  differences  between 
the  Chronicles  and  the  book  of  Kings. 

1.  In  -1  Sam.  xxxi.  12,  it  is  stated  that  the  men 
of  .labesh  Gilead  took  the  iiody  of  Saul  and  the 
bodies  of  his  sons  from  the  wall  of  Betli-shan,  and 
came  to  Jabesh  and  burnt  them  there.  The  com- 
piler of  the  Chronicles  omits  mention  of  the  burn- 
ing of  their  bodies,  and,  as  it  would  seem,  de- 
signedly; for  he  says  that  the  valiant  men  of 
Jabesh  Gilead  buried  the  bones  of  Saul  and  his 
sons  under  tlie  oak  in  Jabesh ;  whereas  if  there 
had  been  no  burning,  the  natural  expression  would 
have  been  to  have  spoken  of  burying  their  bodies, 
instead  of  their  bones.  Perhaps  the  chronicler 
objected  so  strongly  to  the  burning  of  bodies  that 
he  purposely  refrained  from  recording  such  a  fact 
respecting  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons,  even 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  connected  with 
that  incident.'' 

2.  In  the  Chronicles  it  is  assigned  as  one  of  the 
causes  of  Saul's  defeat  that  he  had  asked  counsel 
of  one  that  had  a  familiar  spirit,  and  "  had  not 
inquired  of  Jehovah"  (1  Chr.  x.  13,  14);  whereas 
in  Saiyuel  it  is  expressly  stated  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  6) 
that  Saul  luid  inquired  of  Jehovah  before  be  con- 
sulted the  witch  of  Kndor,  but  that  Jehovah  had 
not  answered  him  either  by  dreams,  or  by  Urim, 
or  by  prophets. 

3.  The  Chronicles  make  no  mention  of  the  civil 
ivar  between  David  and  Ishbosheth  the  son  of  Saul, 
nor  of  Aimer's  changing  sides,  nor  his  assassina- 
tion by  Joab,  nor  of  the  assassination  of  Ish- 
bosheth by  liechab  and  Baanah  (2  Sam.  ii.  8-32, 
iii.,  iv. ). 


it  cannot  be  proved,  that  they  ever  bui-ned  their  deaa 
in  early  times.  The  passage  in  Am.  vi.  10  is  ambig- 
uous. It  may  merely  refer  to  the  burning  of  bodies, 
as  a  sanitary  precaution  in  a  plague  ;  but  it  is  not 
undoubted  that  burning  is  alluded  to      See  Fiirst  s.  y 

?)~1D,      The  burning  for  Asa  (2  Chr.  xvi.  14)  is  dif 

fei-ent  from  the  burning  of  his  body.  Cooipare  Jer 
.Nxxiv.  5;  2  Chr.  x.\i.  19,  20;  Joseph.  AiU.  xv.  3,  §  4 
De  BtU.  JuU.  i.  33,  §  9. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

4.  li'avid's  adultery  with  Hath-sheba,  the  ex- 
posure of  Uriah  to  certain  death  by  David's  orders, 
the  solemn  rebuke  of  Nathan,  and  the  penitence  of 
David,  are  all  passed  over  in  aosolute  silence  in  the 
'Jhronicles  (2  Sam.  xi.,  xii.  l-2o). 

5.  In  the  account  given  in  Samuel  (2  Sam.  vi. 
2-11)  of  David's  removing  the  Ark  from  Kirjath- 
jearim,  no  special  mention  is  made  of  the  priests 
or  Levites.  David's  companions  are  said,  genemllv, 
to  have  been  "all  the  people  that  were  with  him," 
and  ''  all  the  house  of  Israel  "  are  said  to  have 
pla3ed  before  Jehovah  on  the  occasion  with  all 
manner  of  musical  instruments.  In  the  corre- 
eponding  passage  of  the  Chronicles  (1  Chr.  siii. 
1-14)  David  is  represented  as  having  publicly  pro- 
posed to  send  an  invitation  to  the  priests  and 
Levites  in  their  cities  and  "suburbs,"  and  this  is 
said  to  have  been  assented  to  by  all  the  congrega- 
tion. Again,  in  the  ]5reparations  which  are  made 
for  the  reception  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  at 
Jerusalem,  nothing  is  said  of  the  Levites  in  Sam- 
uel; whereas  in  the  Chronicles  David  is  introduced 
as  saying  that  none  ought  to  carry  the  Ark  of 
God  but  the  Levites;  the  special  numbers  of  the 
Levites  and  of  the  children  of  Aaron  are  there 
given;  and  names  of  Levites  are  specified  as  hav- 
ing been  appointed  singers  and  players  on  musical 
instruments  in  connection  with  the  Ark  (1  Chr. 
XV.,  xvi.  1-6). 

6.  The  incident  of  David's  dancing  in  public 
with  all  his  might  before  Jehovah,  when  the  Ark 
was  brought  into  Jerusalem,  the  censorious  remarks 
of  his  wife  jNIichal  on  David's  conduct,  David's 
answer,  and  Michal's  punishment,  are  fully  set 
forth  in  Samuel  (2  Sam.  vi  14-2-J);  but  the  whole 
subject  is  noticed  in  one  verse  only  in  Chronicles 
(1  Chr.  XV.  29).  On  the  other  hand,  no  mention 
is  made  in  Samuel  of  David's  having  composed  a 
psalm  on  this  great  event;  whereas  in  Chronicles  a 
psalm  is  set  forth  which  David  is  represented  as 
having  delivered  into  the  hand  of  Asaph  and  his 
brethren  on  that  day  (1  Chr.  xvi.  7-36).  Of  this 
psalm  the  first  fifteen  verses  are  almost  precisely 
the  same  as  in  Ps.  cv.  1-15.  The  next  eleven 
verses  are  the  same  as  in  Ps.  xcvi.  1-11;  and  the 
next  three  concluding  verses  are  in  Ps.  cvi.  1,  47, 
48.  The  last  verse  but  one  of  this  psalm  (I  Chr. 
xvi.  35)  appears  to  have  been  written  at  the  time 
of  the  Captivity. 

7.  It  is  stated  in  Samuel  that  David  in  his  con- 
quest of  JNIoab  put  to  deatii  two  thirds  eitiier  of 
tiie  inhabitants  or  of  the  Moabitish  army  (2  Sam. 
viii.  2).  This  fact  is  omitted  in  Chronicles  (1  Chr. 
xviii.  2),  though  the  words  used  therein  in  men- 
tioning the  conquest  are  so  nearly  identical  with 
the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  passage  in  Saui- 
uel,  that  in  the  A.  V.  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
translation  of  the  two  texts,  "  And  he  smote  Moab; 
and  the  IMoabites  became  David's  servants,  and 
brought  gifts." 

8.  In  2  Sam.  xxi.  19,  it  is  stated  that  "  there 
was  a  battle  in  Gob  with  the  Philistines,  where 

n  *  Th.  Parker  (De  Wette,  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.  ii. 
263)  speaks  of  "  an  amusing  mistake  "  in  2  Sam. 
t.xlii.  21,  as  compared  with  1  Chr.  xi.  23.  But  there 
p  no  foundation  for  this,  unless  it  be  his  own  .lingular 
'endering,  "a  respectJible  man,"  where  the  Hebrew  is 

•Imply  nM"1?3  tt'^S,  "  a  man  of  appearance '"  (= 
nirahilis  visit},  iu  the  A.  V.  "a  goodly  man,''  because 
pret-.isely  as  defined  in  1  Chr.  xi.  2;^,  he  was  very  tall, 
'  a  man  of  stit  ire,  five  cubits  high,-'  etc.  11. 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  (JP       2838 

Elhanan  the  son  of  Jaare  oregim,  a  Bethlehemite 
(in  the  original  Beit  hnl^lnclnni),  slew  Goliath  the 
Gittite,  the  staff  of  whose  spear  was  like  a  weaver's 
beam."  In  the  parallel  passage  in  tiie  Chronicles 
(1  Chr.  XX.  5)  it  is  stated  that  "Elhanan  the  son 
of  Jair  slew  l.achmi  the  brother  of  Goliath  the 
Gittite."  Thus  Lacbmi,  which  in  the  former  case 
is  merely  part  of  an  adjective  descriljing  Elhanan's 
place  of  nativity,  seems  in  the  Chronicles  to  be 
the  substantive  name  of  the  man  whom  Elhanan 
slew,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  LXX.  [Elha- 
2JAN,  i.  69G  f.;  Lah.mi,  ii.  1581.] 

9.  In  Samuel  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  1)  it  is  stated  that, 
the  anger  of  Jehovah  having  been  kindled  against 
Israel,  He  moved  David  against  them  to  give  orders 
for  taking  a  census  of  the  population.  In  the 
Chronicles  (1  Chr.  xxi.  1)  it  is  mentioned  that 
David  was  provoked  to  take  a  census  of  the  popu- 
lation by  Satan,  'i'his  last  is  the  first  and  the 
only  instance  in  which  the  name  of  Satan  is  intro- 
duced into  any  historical  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  Pentateuch  Jehovah  himself  ia 
represented  as  hardening  Pharaoli's  heart  (Ex.  vii. 
13),  as  in  this  passage  of  Samuel  He  is  said  to  have 
incited  David  to  give  orders  for  a  census." 

10.  In  the  incidents  connected  with  the  three 
days'  pestilence  upon  Israel  on  account  of  the  cen- 
sus, some  facts  of  a  very  remarkable  character  are 
narrated  in  the  Chronicles,  which  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  earlier  history.  Thus  in  Chronicles 
it  is  stated  of  the  Angel  of  Jeliovah,  that  he  stood 
between  tiie  earth  and  the  heaven,  having  a  drawn 
sword  in  his  hand  stretched  over  Jerusalem ;  that 
afterwards  Jehovah  commanded  the  an^el,  and 
that  the  angel  put  up  again  his  sword  into  its 
sheath  6  (1  Chr.  xxi.  15-27).  It  is  further  stated 
(ver.  20)  that  Oman  and  his  four  sons  hid  them- 
selves when  they  saw  the  angel:  and  tliat  when 
David  (ver.  26)  had  built  an  altar  to  Jehovah,  and 
offered  burnt-offerings  to  Him,  Jehovah  answered 
him  from  heaven  liy  fire  upon  the  altar  of  burnt- 
offering.  Regarding  all  these  circumstances  there 
is  absolute  silence  in  the  corresponding  chapter  of 
Samuel. 

11.  The  Chronicles  make  no  mention  of  the  hor- 
rible fact  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Samuel  (2  Sam. 
xxi.  3-9)  that  David  permitted  the  Gibeonites  to 
sacrifice  seven  sons  of  Saul  to  Jehovah,  as  an  atone- 
ment for  the  injuries  which  the  Gilieonites  had  for- 
merly received  from  Saul.  This  Ijarliarous  act  of 
suiiei-stition,  which  is  not  said  to  have  lieeu  com- 
nvanded  by  Jehovah  (ver.  1),  is  one  of  the  most 
painful  incidents  in  the  life  of  David,  and  can 
scarcely  be  explained  otherwise  than  by  the  suppo- 
sition either  that  David  seized  this  opportunity  to 
rid  himself  of  seven  possible  rival  claimants  to  the 
throne,  or  that  he  was,  for  a  while  at  least,  infected 
by  the  banefid  example  of  the  Piitenicians,  wiio 
endeavored  to  avert  the  supposed  wrath  of  their 
gods  by  human  sacrifices  [Phcenicia].  It  was, 
perhaps,  wholly  foreign  to  the  ideas  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  wheu  the  book  of  Chronicles  was  com- 
piled. 


h  The  statue  of  the  arcliangel  Michael  on  the  top 
of  the  mausoleum  of  Hadrian  at  Koine  is  iu  accordance 
with  the  same  idea.  In  a  procession  to  St.  Peter's, 
during  a  pestilence,  Gregory  the  Great  saw  the  arch- 
angel iu  a  vision,  as  he  is  supposed  to  be  represented 
in  the  statue.  It  is  owing  to  this  that  the  fortre8.s 
subsequently  had  the  name  of  the  Castle  of  St.  .\n- 
gelo.  See  Murray's  Handbook  for  Rome  p.  67,  6th 
ed.  1862. 


2834       SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

It  only  remains  to  add,  that  in  the  numerous  I 
instances  wherein  there  is  a  close  verbal  agreement  ! 
between  passages  in  Samuel  and  in  the  Chronicles, 
the  sound  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  the  Chroni- 
cles were  co])ied  from  Samuel,  and  not  that  both 
were  copied  I'rom  a  common  original.  In  a  matter 
of  this  kind,  we  must  proceed  upon  recognized 
principles  of  criticism.  If  a  writer  of  the  3d  or 
4th  century  narrated  events  of  Koman  history  al- 
most precisely  in  the  words  of  Livy,  no  critic  would 
hesitate  to  say  that  all  such  narratives  were  copied 
from  Livy.  It  would  be  regarded  as  a  very  im- 
probable hypothe-iis  that  they  were  copied  from 
documents  to  which  I^i.y  and  the  later  historian 
had  equal  access,  e£,jecially  when  no  proof  what- 
ever was  adduced  that  any  such  original  documents 
were  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  later  historian. 
The  same  principle  applies  to  the  relation  in  which 
the  Chronicles  stand  to  the  book  of  Samuel.  There 
IS  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  the  original  docu- 
ments, or  any  one  of  them,  on  which  the  book  of 
Samuel  was  founded,  were  in  existence  at  the  time 
when  the  Chronicles  were  compiled ;  and  in  the  ali- 
Bence  of  such  proof,  it  must  be  taken  for  granted 
that,  where  there  is  a  close  verbal  correspondence 
between  the  two  works,  the  compiler  of  the  Chron- 
icles copied  passages,  more  or  less  closely,  from  the 
book  of  Sanmel.  At  the  same  time  it  would  be 
unreasonable  to  deny,  and  it  would  be  impossible 
to  disprove,  that  the  compiler,  in  addition  to  the 
book  of  Samuel,  made  use  of  other  historical  docu- 
ments which  are  no  longer  in  existence. 

Literature.  —  The  following  list  of  Commen- 
taries is  given  by  De  "Wette:  Serrarii,  Seb. 
Schmidii,  Jo.  Clerici,  Maur.  Commentt. ;  Jo.  Dru- 
Bii,  Annotatt.  in  Locos  d/JJic.  Jos.,  Jml.,  et  Sam. ; 
Victorini  Strigelii,  Coiaiii.  In  Libr.  Sam., '  Rvg., 
et  FaraUj)}).,  Lips.  1591,  fol. :  Gasp.  Sanctii, 
Comm.  in  JV.  Lib.  Reij.  et  Paralij>j).,  1624,  fol.; 
Hensler,  Erlaiiterutujtn  cles  /.  B.  Satn.  u.  d.  Sa- 
lom.  Denhsprilche,  Hamburg,  1795.  The  best 
modevn  Conmientary  seems  to  be  that  of  Thenius, 
Exegetisches  Ilandbuch,  Leipzig,  1842.  In  this 
work  there  is  an  excellent  Introduction,  and  an 
interesting  detailed  comparison  of  the  Hebrew  text 
in  the  Bible  with  the  'J'ranslation  of  the  LXX. 
There  are  no  Commentaries  on  Samuel  in  Kosen- 
niUUer's  great  work,  or  in  the  Compendium  of  his 
Scholia. 

The  date  of  the  composition  of  the  book  of  Sam- 
uel and  its  authorship  is  discussed  in  all  the  ordi- 
nary Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament  —  such 
as  those  of  Home,  Hiivernick,  Keil,  De  Wette, 
which  have  been  frequently  cited  in  this  work.  To 
these  may  be  added  the  following  works,  which 
have  appeared  since  the  first  volume  of  this  Dic- 
tionary was  printed :  Bleek's  Einkitung  in  dus 
AUe  Ttstament,  Berlin,  18G0,  pp.  355-3G8;  Sta- 
helin's  Specielle  Einleitung  in  die  Kanunisclien 
Backer  des  Alten  Testaments,  Elberfeld,  1862,  pp. 
83-105;  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Ti-gta- 
ment,  London  and  Edinburgh,  1862,  pp.  491-536. 

E.  T. 

*  The  alleged  "  mistranslation  "  (see  the  article 
above)  of  1  Chr.  xxix.  29,  is  of  a  teclniical  rather 
than  a  practical  character.  The  same  Hebrew  word 
ifi  indeed  rendered  by  different  terms  in  English, 
out  only  in  order  to  express  more  clearly  the  dif- 
"erent  senses  in  which  the  Hebrew  word  must  nec- 
issarily  be  understood.  "  The  history  of  David  " 
•rhich  is  written  somewhere,  must  of  course  take 
Kisttjry  in  the  sense  of  biography ;  while  "  the  his- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

tory  of  Samuel,"  in  which  it  is  written,  must  bt 
the  written  record.  The  passage  certainly  assorts 
that  the  prophets  mentioned  did  write  an  account 
of  David  and  his  reign  which  was  still  extant  in 
the  time  of  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Chronicles. 
The  question  whether  that  account  was  the  same 
with  our  present  books  of  Samuel  turns  upon  the 
probability  or  improbability  of  still  another  history 
(beside  Samuel  and  Chronicles)  havin<;  been  writ- 
ten of  the  same  events  when  one  fi'om  such  author- 
ity was  already  in  existence.  Possibly  the  original 
work  may  have  been  more  full,  and  the  present 
books  have  been  more  or  less  abridged;  but  in  this 
case  they  still  remain  substantially,  contempora- 
neous history. 

The  arguments  given  above  in  favor  of  an  early 
date  of  these  books  are  entitled  to  more  weisiht 
than  is  there  allowed  to  them;  especially  the  argu- 
ment from  the  language  does  not  require  to  be  so 
mucli  qualified.  The  instances  of  pure  Hebrew  cited 
as  belonging  to  the  time  of  the  Captivity,  with  the 
single  exception  of  I's.  cxxxvii.  (whicii  is  too  brief  to 
support  the  inference  from  its  language)  all  belong 
to  a  much  earlier  date.  At  least,  if  the  opinion  of 
Gesenius  and  some  other  scholars  be  considered  an 
offset  to  the  solid  arguments  for  their  earlier  date, 
the  question  must  be  considered  an  open  one;  and 
these  books  cannot  therefore  be  legitimately  re- 
ferred to  as  evidence  of  compositions  in  pure  He- 
brew aS'  late  as  the  time  of  the  Captivity. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  arguments  in  favor  of  a 
comparatively  late  date  require  important  qualifica- 
tion. The  expression  in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6,  "  where- 
fore Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings  of  Judah 
to  this  day,"  relied  on  to  prove  that  the  book  could 
not  have  been  composed  before  the  accession  of 
llehoboam  (b.  c.  975),  will  not  sustain  the  infer- 
ence. Such  a  clause  might  be  a  marginal  note, 
crept  into  the  text;  but  this  supposition  is  unnec- 
essary. As  Judah  was  the  leading  tribe,  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  kings  of  Judali  was  sometinjes  used 
instead  of  lyings  of  Israel  to  designate  the  mon- 
archs,  even  before  the  secession.  The  contrary  is 
asserted  above:  "  Before  the  secession,  tlie  designa- 
tion of  the  kings  was  that  they  were  kings  of  Is- 
rael." But  not  one  of  the  nine  refierences  given 
happens  to  contain  the  exact  expression.  They  are 
all  "  king  over  Israel,"  or  ''  king  ovkh  all  Is- 
rael," and  this  is  quite  another  matter  when  the 
question  is  one  of  a  precise  title.  There  are  indeed 
three  passages  (none  of  which  are  given  above)  in 
which  the  construction  is  the  same  as  in  the  pres 
ent  instance,  the  exact  title  "  king  of  Israel  "  being 
used,  with  the  word  king  in  Hebrew  in  construc- 
tion with  Israel  (I  Sam.  xxiv.  14,  xxvi.  20,  2  Sam. 
vi.  20).  But  those  instances  of  this  title  along  with 
one  of  "kings  of  Judah  "  do  not  form  a  sufficient 
basis  for  an  induction.  There  is,  too,  a  special 
reason  why  "  kings  of  Judah  "  should  be  here  used. 
Ziklag  was  one  of  the  cities  originally  assigned  to 
Judah  (.losh.  xv.  31),  and  subsequently  allotted 
out  of  his  territory  to  Simeon  (xix.  5).  When  it 
came  back  from  the  I'hilistines  as  the  private  prop- 
erty of  David  and  his  descendants,  it  did  not  be- 
long to  the  kings  of  Israel  as  such,  but  only  to 
those  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  particularly,  it  did 
not  pass  to  the  inheritance  of  Simeon.  The  first 
king  was  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin;  then  for  two 
years  his  S'>n,  of  course  a  Beiijamite,  reicned  over 
"  all  Israe  "  (1  Sam.  ii.  9),  while  David  reigned 
only  over  Judah;  during  five  more  years  Davi^ 
continued  to  reign  o\  er  J  udah  only,  while  the  rec- 


SAMUEL,  BOOKS  OF 

ord  is  silent  as  to  the  sovereignty  over  the  other 
tribes ;  and  then  at  last  David  became  king  over  all. 
Certainly  it  was  natural  in  his  reiijn  to  speak  of 
Ziklag  as  pertaining  "  unto  the  kings  of  Judah." 

It  is  truly  said  that  from  certain  expressions  in 
the  book  "  it  is  not  certain  that  the  writer  lived 
more  than  eighty  years  after  the  incidents  to  which 
he  alludes."  It  should  have  been  added  that  these 
expressions  furnish  no  probable  inference  that  the 
writer  lived  more  than  twenty  years  after  the 
events. 

The  "  various  traditions  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  Saul  first  became  acquainted  with  Da\id 
(1  Sam.  xvi.  14-23,  xvii.  55-58),  respecting  the 
manner  of  Saul's  death  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2-G,  8-13, 
2  Sam.  i.  2-12),"  are  easily  shown  to  be  quite  har- 
monious. It  is  evident  that  the  passage  in  1  Sam. 
svi.  18-23  is  chronologically  later  than  that  in 
xvii.  55-58  (or  rather,  xvii.  55-xviii.  9);  for  in  the 
latter  David  is  represented  as  an  unknown  stripling, 
while  in  die  former  (ver.  38)  he  is  "  a  mighty  val- 
iant raati,  and  a  man  of  war,  and  prudent  in  mat- 
ters," and  accordingly  in  some  chronological  ar- 
rangements, as  in  that  of  Townsend,  the  passage  is 
actually  transposed,  and  there  is  then  seen  to  be  no 
inconsistency  whatever  in  the  story.  In  the  nar- 
rative itself,  ho\ve\'er,  the  former  passatre  is  a  nar- 
ration by  anticipation  in  order  to  complete  without 
interruption  the  narrative  begun  in  ver.  14. 

The  other  supposed  inconsistency  depends  en- 
tirely upon  the  assiuned  truthfulness  of  an  Amalek- 
ite  who,  according  to  his  own  story,  had  just  com- 
mitted a  great  crime.  His  fabrication  may  have 
been  "  clumsy  and  improbable,"  as  lies  are  apt  to 
be;  or  it  may  have  been,  under  the  circumstances, 
clever.  His  objeot  was  to  curry  favor  with  David 
(cf.  2  Sam.  iv.  10),  and  nothing  seemed  to  him 
more  to  the  purpose  than  to  say  that  in  Saul's  ex- 
tremity he  had  himself  actually  dispatched  him 
This  he  had  to  reconcile  with  facts  as  best  he 
coidd. 

The  theory  of  '•  a  compilation  "  has  surely  but 
Blight  sup]5ort  in  the  mention  of  Saul's  having  been 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy  at  the  only  times 
wlien  he  was  brought  into  close  contact  with  the 
company  of  the  prophets,  and  of  his  having  twice 
fallen  into  the  jtower  of  David.  There  is  nothing 
surprising  in  the  fact  that  both  these  events  sliould 
have  occurred  twice  in  the  life  of  Saul;  and  even 
were  the  accounts  of  them  given  in  separate  books, 
they  are  yet  so  clearly  distinguished  in  time  and  in 
differing  circumstances,  that  we  should  still  be 
compelled  to  regard  them  as  sepnrate  events. 

There  is  nothing  then  to  forbid,  but  much  to  fa- 
vor, the  supposition  that  the  earlier  part  of  the 
books  of  Samuel  was  written  by  the  prophet  of 
that  name,  and  the  later  parts  by  his  successors  in 
the  prophetic  office,  Nathan  and  Gad ;  or  at  least 
that  they  wrote  the  original  history,  of  which  the 
present  books,  if  an  aliridgment  at  all,  must  have 
been  an  authorized  abridgment,  since  none  otiier 
would  have  been  likely  to  supplant  the  original. 

In  comparing  the  narrative  of  Samuel  with  tliat 
of  Chronicles,  eleven  points  of  difference  are  men- 
tioned, two  or  three  of  which  are  worthy  of  further 
attention.  The  first  instance  may  well  be  classed 
imong  those  "  undesigned  coincidences  "  which  .so 
Deautifully  illustrate  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
Scripture  narratives.  In  Chronicles  no  mer.tion  is 
.iiade  of  the  burning  of  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his 
«)ns  recorded  by  Samuel;  yet  the  fact  is  recog- 
Bized  in  saying  that  tlie  men  of  Jabesh   Gilead 


SANBALLAT 


2835 


buried  —  not  their  bodies,  but  only  —  their  bones. 
In  the  second  instance  both  accounts  agree  iu  the 
fact,  although  tliere  is  a  superficial  verbal  oppo.?i- 
tion  in  the  manner  of  stating  it.  Both  assert  that 
Saul  did  not  obtain  counsel  of  the  Lord,  Sanniel 
only  mentioning  that  he  vainly  attempted  to  do  .so. 
The  fact  is  thus  expressed  by  S.amuel:  he  inquired, 
but  obtained  no  answer  because  of  his  wicked  heart, 
which  led  him  into  the  further  sin  of  inquiring  of 
the  witch  of  Endor;  the  same  fact  is  more  liriefly 
expressed  in  Chronicles  by  saying  that  he  sinned  in 
not  inquiring  of  the  Lord  (i.  e.  in  acting  without 
his  counsel),  but  seeking  counsel  of  the  witch. 
Jlost  of  the  other  instances  are  merely  the  fuller 
relation  of  events  by  one  or  other  of  the  writers, 
showing  that  the  author  of  Cliroiiicles  had  access 
to  other  sources  of  information  in  addition  to  our 
present  books  of  Samuel,  and  that  he  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  transcribe  everything  he  found  in 
that  book. 

We  dissent  from  the  representation,  under  the 
11th  head,  of  the  event  narrated  in  2  Sam.  xxi. 
3-9.  as  a  human  sacrifice  to  .leiiovah.  It  was  such 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  destruction  of  the 
Canaanites,  or  any  other  guilty  people,  was  a  sac- 
rifice. Saul  had  l)roken  the  ancient  treaty  with 
the  Gilieonites,  and  for  this  sin  God  afflicted  the 
land.  To  remove  the  famine  David  offered  the 
Gibeonites  any  satisfaction  they  might  demand, 
and  they  chose  to  have  seven  of  Saul's  descendants 
given  up  to  them.  'I'hese  the\'  hung  "  up  unto  the 
Lord  in  Gilieah,"  not  with  the  remotest  idea  of  a 
sacrifice  to  Him;  but  as  a  pnldic  token  that  they 
were  themselves  appeased.  If  this  punishment  of 
Saul's  sins  upon  his  descendants  incidentally  re- 
moved a  danger  from  David's  throne,  it  was  an  ad- 
vantage not  of  his  own  devising,  but  brought  about 
liy  the  sin  and  cruelty  of  Saul  rankling  in  the 
minds  of  the  Gibeonites.  F.  G. 

*  Recent  Literature.  —  On  the  books  of  Samuel, 
we  may  also  refer  to  Palfrey's  Lect.  on  the  Jewish 
Scripl'ures,u.  236-300,  iii.  1-43  (Boston,  1840-52); 
Niigelsliach.art.  Snimielis,  Biiclier,  in  Herzoii'sliedl- 
Kncyid.  xiii.  400-412  (Gotha,  18G0);  and  Kueneii, 
///.•;/.  crit.  </es  liv)-es  de  V Aiicien  Test.,  i.  374-399, 
567-580  (Paris,  1866);  —  Ew.ald,  Gesch.des  Vvlkes 
Israel,  3^  Ausg.,  Bde.  ii.,  iii.;  and  Stanley,  fJist.  of 
llie  Jewish  C/iurcli,  vols,  i.,  ii.  The  latest  commen- 
taries are  by  Keil,  Die  Biiclier  S((muels,  Leipz. 
1864  (Theil  ii.  Bd.  ii.  of  the  Bil>L  Comm.  by  Keil 
and  Delitzscii),  Eng.  trans.  Ediub.  1866  (Clark's 
Far.  Theol.  Lihr.),  and  \Vordsworth,  Holy  Bible, 
witli  Notes  and  Introductions,  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.  (Lond. 
1806).  A  new  edition  of  Thenius's  commentary 
{Kurzyef.  exeg.  llaiidh.  iv. )  was  published  in  1864. 
Other  works  illustrating  these  books  are  referred  to 
under*  Chi{(jnicu;s  and  Kings.  A. 

SANABAS'SAR  (Sa^uarairo-apos;  Alex.  2a- 


j/apaaaapos  '■ 


Sal,, 


Shksiidazz.xr 


(1  Esdr.  ii.  12,  15;  conip.  Ezr.  i.  8,  11). 

SANABAS'SARUS  {2a0avd(T<raiJos:  Alex. 
"Sava^daaapos'  Salnianasai-us).  Suksiibazzar 
(1  Esdr.  vi.  18,  20;  comp.  Ezr.  v.  14,  16). 

SAN'ASIB  CSavaal^:  [Vat.  2ai/a/3eis;  Aid. 
2ai/ao-6i3;]  Alex.  Avaffei0:  LH"sil,).  The  sons 
of  .leddu,  the  son  of  Jesus,  are  reckoned  "among 
tlie  sons  of  Sanasib,"  as  priests  whc  returned  with 
Zorobabel  (1  Esdr.  v.  24). 

SANBAL'LAT  (12^530  :  S.ava&aWar; 
[F.4..  2ai'o/8aAaT,  etc. :]  Sanabalhtt).  Of  u'lcer- 
taiu  etymology ;  according  to  Gesenius  after  Vod 


2836  SANBALLAT 

Bohlen,  meaning  in  Sanskrit  "  giving  strength  to 
the  army,"  but  according  to  Fiirst  "  a  chestnut 
tree."  A  JMoabite  of  Horotiaiin,  as  appears  by  his 
designation  "  Sanballat  the  Horonite  "  (Neh.  ii. 
10,  19,  xiii.  28).  All  that  we  know  of  liim  from 
Scripture  is  that  he  had  apparently  some  civil  or 
military  command  in  Samaria,  in  the  service  of 
Artaxerxes  (Neh.  iv.  2),  and  that,  from  the  mo- 
ment of  Nehemiah's  arrival  in  Jud»a,  he  set  him- 
Belf  to  oppose  every  measure  for  the  welfare  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  was  a  constant  adversary  to  the 
Tirshatha.  His  companions  in  this  hostility  were 
Tobiah  the  Ammonite,  and  Geshem  the  Arabian 
(Neh.  ii.  19,  iv.  7).  For  the  details  of  their  oppo- 
sition the  reader  is  referred  to  the  articles  Nehe- 
MiAH  and  Nehejiiah,  Book  of,  and  to  Neh.vi., 
where  the  enmity  between  Sanballat  and  the  Jews 
is  brought  out  in  the  strongest  colors.  The  only 
other  incident  in  his  life  is  his  alliance  with  the 
high-priest's  family,  by  the  marriage  of  his  daugh- 
ter with  one  of  the  grandsons  of  Eliashib,  which, 
from  the  similar  connection  formed  by  Tobiah  the 
Ammonite  (Neh.  xiii.  4),  appears  to  have  been  i)art 
of  a  settled  policy  concerted  between  Eliashib  and 
the  Samaritan  faction.  The  expulsion  from  the 
priesthood  of  the  guilty  son  of  Joiada  by  Nehemiah 
must  have  still  fmther  widened  the  breach  between 
him  and  Sanballat,  and  between  the  two  parties 
in  the  Jewish  state.  Here,  however,  the  Scriptural 
narrative  ends  —  owing,  probably,  to  Nehemiah"s 
return  to  Persia  —  and  with  it  likewise  our  knowl- 
edge of  Sanballat. 

But  on  turning  to  the  pages  of  Josephus  a 
wholly  new  set  of  actions,  in  a  totally  different 
time,  is  brought  before  us  in  connection  with  San- 
ballat, while  his  name  is  entirely  omitted  in  the  ac- 
count there  given  of  the  government  of  Nehemiah, 
which  is  placed  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes.  Josephus, 
after  interposing  the  whole  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus  between  the  death  of  Nehemiah  and 
the  transactions  in  which  Sanballat  took  part,  and 
utterly  ignoring  the  very  existence  of  IJarius  Nothus, 
Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  Ochus,  etc.,  jumps  at  once  to 
the  reign  of  "  Darius  the  last  king,"  and  tells  us 
{Ant.  xi.  7,  §  2)  that  Sanballat  was  his  officer  in 
Samaria,  that  he  was  a  Cuthean,  i.  e.  a  Samaritan, 
by  birth,  and  that  he  gave  his  daughter  Nicaso  in 
marriage  to  Manasseh,  the  brother  of  the  high- 
priest  Jaddua,  and  consequently  the  fourth  in  de- 
scent from  Eliashib,  who  was  high-priest  in  the 
time  of  Nehemiah.  He  then  relates  that  on  the 
threat  of  his  brother  Jaddua  and  the  other  Jews  to 
expel  him  from  the  priesthood  unless  he  divorced 
his  wife,  Manasseh  stated  the  case  to  Sanballat,  who 
thereu[X)n  promised  to  use  his  influence  with  king 
Darius,  not  only  to  give  him  Sanballafs  govern- 
ment, but  to  sanction  the  building  of  a  rival  temple 
on  Mount  Gerizim,  of  which  Jlanasseh  should  be 
the  hii;h-priest.  Manasseh  on  this  agreed  to  retain 
his  wife  and  join  Sanballafs  faction,  which  was  fur 
ther  strengthened  by  the  accession  of  all  those 
priests  and  Levites  (and  they  were  many)  who  had 
taken  strange  wives.  But  just  at  this  time  hap- 
pened the  invasion  of  Alexander  the  Great;  and 


SANDAL 

Sanballat,  with   7,000   men,  joined   him,  i.nd  re- 
nounced his  allegiance  to  Darius  {Ant.  xi.  8,  §  4). 
Being  favorably  received  by  the  conqueror,  he  took 
the  opportunity  of  speaking  to  him   in   behalf  vi 
Manasseh.     He  represented  to  him  how  much  it  was 
for  his  interest  to  divide  the  strength  of  the  .Jew- 
ish nation,  and  how  many  there  were  who  wished 
for  a  temple  in  Samaria;  and  so  obtained  Alexan- 
der's permission    to  build    the  temjile  on   Mount 
Gerizim,  and  make  Manasseh  the  hereditary  high- 
priest.     Shortly  after  this,  Sanballat  died  ;  but  the 
temple  on  !Mount  Gerizim  remained,  and  the  She- 
chemites,  as  they  were  called,  continued  also  as  a 
jiernianent  schism,  which  was  continually  fed  by  all 
the  lawless  and  disaffected  Jews.    Such  is  Josephus' 
account.     If  there  is  any  truth  in  it,  of  course  the 
Sanballat  of  whom  he  speaks  is  a  ditterent  person 
from   the   Sanliallat  of  Nehemiah,  who  flourished 
fully  one  huiidred  years  earlier:  but  when  we  put 
together  Josephus"  silence  concerning  a  Sanballat 
in  Nehemiah's  time,  and  the  many  coincidences  in 
the  lives  of  the  Sanballat  of  Nehemiah  and  that  of 
Josephus,  together  with  the  inconsistencies  in  Jose- 
phus' narrative  (pointed  out  by  Prideaux,  Connect. 
i.  4GG,  288,  290),  and  its  disagreement  with  what 
Eusebius  tells  of  the  relations  of  xMexander  with 
Samaria"  {Chrun.  Can.  lib.  post.  p.  340),  and  re- 
member how  apt  Josephus  is  to  follow  any  narra- 
tive, no  matter  how  anachronistic  and  inconsistent 
wit!)  Scripture,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  con- 
cluding that  his  account  of  Sanballat  is  not  histor- 
ical.    It  is  doubtless  taken  ironi  some  apocryphal 
romance,  now  lost,  in  which  the  writer,  living  under 
the  empire  of  the  Greeks,  and   at  a  time  when  the 
enmity  of  the  Jews   and   Samaritans   was  at    its 
height,*  chose  the  downfall  of  the  Persian  empire 
for  the  epoch,  and  Sanballat  for  the  ideal  instru- 
ment, of  the  consolidation  of  the  Samaritan  Church 
and  the  erection  of  the  temple  on  Gerizim.    To  lior- 
row  events  from  some  Scripture  narrati\e  and  intro- 
duce some  Scriptural  personage,  without  any  regard 
to  chronology  or  other  propriety,  was  the  regular 
method  of  such  apocryphal  l)Ooks.     See  1  Esdras, 
apocryphal    Esther,   apocryphal    additions    to-  the 
book  of  Daniel,  and  the  articles  on  them,  and  the 
story  inserted  by  the  LXX.  after  2  K.  xii.  24,  &c  , 
with  the  observations  on  it  in  the  art.  Kings,  vol.  ii. 
p.  1550.     To  receive  as  historical  Josephus'  narra- 
tive of  the  building  of  the  Samaritan  temple  by 
Sanballat,  circumstantial  as  it  is  in  its  account  of 
Manasseh"s  relationship  to  Jaddua,  and  Sanliallat's 
intercourse  with  both  Darius  Codonianus  and  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  and  yet  to  transplant  it,  as  Pri- 
deaux does,  to  the  time  of  Darius  Nothus  (n.  c. 
409),  seems  scarcely  compatible  with  sound  criti- 
cism.    For  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject,  see 
the  article  Nehemiah,  Book  ok,  iii.  2096;  Pri- 
deaux, Connect,  i.  3Qb-'396;   Geneiil.  of  our  Lord, 
p.  32-3,  &c. ;  Mills  Vindic.  of  our  Lord's  Geneal. 
p.  165;  Hales'  Analijs.  ii.  534.  A.  C.  H. 

*   SANCTUARY.     [Tabernacle  ;   Tem- 
ple.] 

SANDAL  (b^2  :  {nr6^7]fia,  ffav5d\iov).  The 


a  He  says  that  Alexander  appointed  Andromachus 
governor  of  Judsea  and  the  neighboring  districts  ;  that 
the  Samaritans  murdered  him  ;  and  that  Alexander  on 
his  return  took  Samaria  in  revenge,  and  settled  a  col- 
i>ny  of  Macedonians  in  it,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sa- 
ouiria  retired  to  Sichem. 

b  Such  <■  time,  e-  £.,  as  when  the  book  of  Ecclesias- 


ticus  was  written,  in  which  we  read  (ch.  1.  25,  26) 
"  'I'Uere  be  two  manner  of  nations  which  mine  heart 
abhorreth,  and  the  third  is  no  nation  :  they  that  sit 
upon  the  mountaui  of  Samaria,  and  they  that  dwel 
among  the  Philistines,  an^  that  foolish  people  that 
dwell  in  Sichem." 


SANDAL 

iandal  appears  to  have  been  the  article  ordinarily 
used  by  the  Hebrews  for  protecting  the  feet.  It 
consisted  simply  of  a  sole  attached  to  the  foot  by 
thongs.  The  Hebrew  term  na'al  "  implies  such  an 
article,  its  proper  sense  being  that  of  confining  or 
shutting  in  the  foot  with   thongs:  we   have  also 

express  notice  of  the  thong  *  (Tflltt^:  Ifxas-  A.V. 
"shoe-latchet")  in  several  passages  (Gen.  xiv.  2-3 ; 
Is.  V.  27;  Mark  i.  7).  The  Greek  term  virdSriixa 
properly  applies  to  the  sandal  exclusively,  as  it 
means  what  is  bound  undvr  the  foot;  but  no  stress 
can  be  laid  on  the  use  of  the  term  by  the  Alexa-.i- 
drine  writers,  as  it  was  applied  to  any  covering  of 
the  foot,  even  to  the  military  c(di(j(i  of  the  Homans 
(•loseph.  B.  J.  vi.  1,  §  8).  A  similar  observation 
applies  to  aav^aMov,  which  is  used  in  a  general, 
and  not  in  its  strictly  classical  sense,  and  was 
adopted  in  a  Hebraized  form  by  the  Talniudists. 
We  have  no  description  of  the  sandal  in  the  Bible 
itself,  but  the  deficiency  can  be  supplied  from  col- 
lateral soiii-ces.  Thus  we  learn  from  the  Talraud- 
ists  that  the  materials  employed  in  the  construction 
of  the  sole  were  either  leather,  felt,  cloth,  or  wood 
(Mishn.  Jebiini.  12,  §§  1,  2),  and  that  it  was  occa- 


SANDAL 


2837 


Egyptian  SandaU. 

gionally  shod  with  iron  {Sabh.  6,  §  2).  In  F.gypt 
various  fibrous  substances,  such  as  palm  leaves  and 
papyrus  stalks,  were  used  in  addition  to  leather 
(Herod,  ii.  37;  Wilkinson,  ii.  332,  333),  while  in 
Assyria,  wood  or  leather  was  employed  (Layard, 
Nh'i.  ii.  323,  32-f).  In  Egyi^t  the  "sandals  "were 
usually  turned  up  at  the  toe  like  our  skates,  though 
other  forms,  rounded  and  pointed,  are  also  exhib- 
ited. In  Assyria  the  heel  and  the  side  of  the  foot 
were  encased,  and  sometiuies  the  sandal  consisted 
of  little  else  than  this.  This  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  the  case  in  Palestine,  for  a  heel-strap  was 
essential  to  a  proper  sandal  {Je/jum.  12,  §  1). 
Great  attention  was  paid  by  the  ladies  to  their  san- 
dals; they  were  made  of  the  skin  of  an  animal 
named  tachash  (Ez.  xvi.  10),  whether  a  hyena  or 
a  seal  (A.V.  "  badger")  is  doubtful:  the  skins  of 
a  fish  (a  species  of  Halicore)  are  used  for  this  pur- 


pose in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai  (Robinson,  Bibl.  Res. 
i.  110).  The  thongs  were  handsomely  embroidered 
(Cant.  vii.  1;  Jud.  x.  4,  xvi.  9),  as  were  tliose  of 
the  Greek  ladies  {Diet,  of  Ant.  s.  v.  "  Sanda- 
lium  ").  Sandals  were  worn  by  all  classes  of  soci- 
ety in  Palestine,  even  by  the  very  poor  (.\m.  viii. 
6),  and  both  the  sandal  and  the  thong  or  shoe- 
latchet  were  so  cheap  and  connnon.  that  they  ]iassed 
into  a  proverb  for  the  most  insignilicant  thing  (tien. 


a  In  the  A.  V.  this  term  is  invaritibly  rendered 
"  shoes."  There  is,  however,  little  reason  to  think 
that  the  Jews  really  wore  shoes,  and  the  expres.sions 
vhich  Carpzov  (Apparat.  pp.  781,  782)  quotes  to  prove 
that  they  did  —  (namely,  "  put  tlie  blood  of  war  in 
his  shoes,"  1  K.  ii.  6  ;  "  make  men  go  over  in  shoes," 
Is.  xi.  15),  are  equally  adapted  to  the  sandal —  the 
first  signifying  that  the  blood  was  sprinkled  on  the 
tlimis:  of  the  sandal,  the  second  that  men  should  cross 
the  river  on  foot  instead  of  in  boats.  The  shoes  found 
in  E^vpt  probably  belonged  to  Greeks  (AVilkiuson,  ii. 
233). 


Assyrian  Sandals.     (From  Layard,  ii.  234.) 

xiv.  23;  Ecclus.  xlvi.  19).  They  were  not,  how- 
ever, worn  at  all  periods;  they  were  dispensed  with 
in-doors,  and  were  only  put  on  by  persons  al)out  to 
undertake  some  business  away  from  their  homes; 
such  as  a  military  expedition  (Is.  v.  27 ;  Eph.  vi. 
1.5),  or  a  journey  (Ex.  xii.  11;  Josh.  ix.  5,  13; 
Acts  xii.  8):  on  such  occasions  persons  carried  an 
extra  pair,  a  practice  which  our  Lord  olijected  to  as 
far  as  the  Apostles  were  concerned  (Matt.  x.  10; 
comp.  Mark  vi.  9,  and  the  expression  in  Luke  x.  4, , 
"  do  not  carry,"  which  harmonizes  the  passages). 
An  extra  pair  might  in  certain  cases  be  needed,  as 
the  soles  were  lial)le  to  be  soon  worn  out  (.losh.  ix. 
5),  or  the  thongs  to  be  broken  (Is.  v.  27).  During 
meal-times  the  feet  were  undoubtedly  uncovered,  as 
implied  in  Luke  vii.  38;  .John  xiii.  5,  G,  and  in  the 
exception  specially  made  in  reference  to  the  Pascha] 
feast  (Ex.  xii.  11):  the  same  custom  must  have 
prevailed  where\'er  reclining  at  meals  was  practiced 
(comp.  Plato,  Sympis.  p.  213).  It  was  a  mark  of 
reverence  to  cast  off  the  shoes  in  approaching  a 
place  or  person  of  eminent  sanctity:  ^  hence  the 
command  to  Moses  at  the  bush  (F.x.  iii.  5)  and  to 
.Joshua  in  the  presence  of  the  angel  (.Josh.  v.  1.5). 
In  deference  to  these  injunctions  the  priests  are 
said  to  have  conducted  their  ministrations  in  the 
Temple  liarefoot  (Theodoret,  ad  F.x.  iii.  qufest.  7), 
and  the  Tahnudists  even  forbade  any  person  to  pass 
through  the  Tenjple  with  shoes  on  (Mishn.  Berack. 
9,  §  5).  This  reverential  act  was  not  peculiar  to 
the  .Jews :  in  ancient  times  we  have  instances  of  it 
in  the  worship  of  Cybele  at  Home  (Piiident.  Peris. 
1.54),  in  the  worship  of  Isis  as  represented  in  a  pic- 
ture at  Herculaneum  {Ant.  d' Ercol.  ii.  320),  and 
in  the  practice  of  the  Egyptian  priests,  according 


ft  The  terms  applied  to   the   removal   of  the   shoe 
(rbn,  Deut.  XXV.  10  ;  Is.  XX.  2  ;  and  T^W,  Ruth 

iv.  7)  imply  that  the  thongs  were  either  so  nunirirou? 
or  so  broad  as  almost  to  cover  the  top  of  the  foot. 

c  It  is  worthy  of  observation   that  the   term    used 
for  "  putting  off  "  the  shoes  on  these  occasions  is  pe- 
culiar   '  vtri),  and  conveys   the  notion  of  TJolenoe 
\     _  y/i 

and  haste. 


2838 


SANHEDRIM 


to  SiJ.  Ital.  iii.  28.  In  modern  times  we  may  com 
pare  the  similar  practice  of  the  Mohammedans  of 
Palestine  before  entering  a  mosque  (liohinson's 
Rtsenrclies,  ii.  36),  and  particularly  before  enternig 
the  Kaaba  at  Mecca  (Burckhardfs  Arabia,  i.  270), 
of  the  Yezidis  of  Mesopotamia  before  entering  the 
tomb  of  their  patron  saint  (Layard's  Nin.  i.  282), 
and  of  the  Samaritans  as  they  tread  the  summit  of 
Mount  Gerizim  (Kobinson,  ii.  278).  The  practice 
of  the  modern  Egyptians,  who  take  off  their  slioes 
before  stepping  on  to  the  carpeted  Item'm,  appears 
to  be  dictated  by  a  feeling  of  reverence  rather  than 
cleanliness,  that  spot  being  devoted  to  prayer  (Lane, 
i.  3.5).  It  was  also  an  indication  of  violent  emo- 
tion, or  of  mourning,  if  a  person  appeared  barefoot 
in  public  (2  Sam.  xv.  30;  Is.  xx.  2:  Ez.  xxiv.  17, 
23).  This  again  was  held  in  common  with  other 
nations,  as  instanced  at  the  funeral  of  Augustus 
(Suet.  Aug.  100),  and  on  the  occasion  of  the  sol- 
emn processions  which  derived  their  name  of  Kiidi- 
pedalia  from  this  feature  (TertuU.  A/ioL  40).  To 
carry  or  to  unloose  a  person's  sandal  was  a  menial 
office  betokening  great  inferiority  on  the  part  of  the 
person  performing  it;  it  was  hence  selected  by 
John  the  Baptist  to  express  his  relation  to  the 
Messiah  (Matt.  iii.  11;  Mark  i.  7;  John  i.  27; 
Acts  xiii.  2.3).  The  expression  in  Ps.  Ix.  8,  cviii. 
9,  "  liver  Edoni  will  I  cast  out  my  shoe,"  evidently 
signifies  the  subjection  of  that  country,  but  the 
exact  ijoiiit  of  the  comparison  is  obscure ;  for  it  may 
refer  either  to  the  custom  of  handing  a  sandal  to  a 
slave,  or  to  that  of  claiming  possession  of  a  property 
by  planting  the  foot  on  it,  or  of  acquiring  it  by  the 
syn]bolic  action  of  casting  the  shoe,  or  aijain,  Edom 
may  be  regarded  in  the  still  more  suliordinate  posi- 
tion of  a  shelf  on  whicii  the  sandals  were  rested 
while  their  owner  bathed  his  feet.  The  use  of  the 
shoe  in  the  transfer  of  property  is  noticed  in  Ruth 
iv.  7,  8,  and  a  similar  signiticancy  was  attached  to 
the  act  in  connection  with  the  repudiation  of  a  Le- 
virate  marriage  (Deut.  xxv.  9).  Shoe-making,  or 
rather  strap-making  (i.  e.  making  the  straps  for  the 
sandals),  was  a  recognized  trade  among  the  Jews 
(.Mishn.  Pesach.  4,  §  G).  W.  L.  B. 

SAN'HEDRIM    (accurately   Sanhedrin, 

^"*'^in3P,  formed  from  (rvveSfiiov-  the  attempts 
of  the  Kabbins  to  find  a  Hebrew  etymology  are 
idle;  Buxtorf,  Lex.  C/iald.  s.  v.),  called  also  in  the 
Talmud  the  great  Srmhedrin,  the  supreme  council 
of   the  Jewish  people  in  the  time  of  Christ  and 

earlier.     In  the  Mishna  it  is  also  styled  ^*'"^  n"^3, 

Beth  Din,  "bouse  of  judgment." 

1.  The  mi(jin  of  this  assembly  is  traced  in  the 
Mishna  (Sanhedr.  i.  6)  -to  the  seventy  elders 
whom  Moses  was  directed  (Num.  xi.  16,  17)  to 
associate  with  him  in  the  government  of  the  Israel- 
ites. This  body  continued  to  exist,  according  to 
the  Rabbinical  accounts,  down  to  the  close  of  the 
Jewish  commonwealth.  Among  Christian  writers 
Schickhard,  Isaac  Casaubon,  Salmasius,  Selden, 
and  Grotius  have  held  the  same  view.  Since  the 
time  of  Yorstius,  who  took  the  ground  (De  Syn- 
hedriis,^^  2.5-40)  that  the  alleged  identity  between 
the  assembly  of  seventy  elders  mentioned  in  Nimi. 
d.  16,  17,  and  the  Sanhedrim  which  existed  in 
the  later  period  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth,  was 
simply  a  conjecture  of  the  Rabliins,  and  that  there 
are  no  traces  of  such  a  triliunal  in  Deut.  xvii.  8, 
10,  nor  in  the  age  of  Joshua  and  the  Judi^es,  nor 
during  the  reign  of  the  kings,  it  has  been  gener- 


SANHEDRIM 

ally  admitted  that  the  tribunal  established  bj 
Moses  was  probably  temporary,  and  did  not  con- 
tinue to  exist  after  the  Israelites  had  entered  Pal- 
estine  (Winer,  Realworlerb.  art.  "  Synedrium  "). 

In  the  lack  of  definite  historical  inforujation  as 
to  the  establishment  of  the  Sanhedrim,  it  can  only 
be  said  in  general  that  the  Greek  etymology  of  the 
name  seems  to  point  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
Macedonian  supremacy  in  Palestine.  Livy  ex- 
pressly states  (xiv.  32),  "  pronuntiatum  quod  ad 
statum  Macedoniee  pertinebat,  senatores,  quos  syner 
drvs  vocant,  legendos  esse,  quorum  consilio  respub- 
lica  administi-aretur."  The  fact  that  Herod,  when 
procurator  of  Galilee,  was  summoned  before  the 
Sanhedrim  (b.  c.  47)  on  the  ground  that  in  put- 
ting men  to  death  he  had  usurped  the  authority 
of  the  body  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  9,  §  4)  shows  that 
it  then  possessed  much  power  and  was  not  of  very 
recent  origin.  If  the  yepovaia  ruv  'lovSaiwv, 
in  2  Mace.  i.  10,  iv.  44,  xi.  27,  designates  the  San- 
hedrim —  as  it  probably  does  —  this  is  the  earliest 
historical  trace  of  its  exi.stcnce.  On  these  grounds 
the  opinion  of  Yorstius,  Witsius,  Winer,  Keil, 
and  others,  may  be  regarded  as  probable,  that  the 
Sanhedrim  described  in  the  Talmud  arose  after 
the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  and  in  the 
time  of  the  Seleucidaj  or  of  the  Hasmonean 
princes. 

In  the  silence  of  Philo,  Josephus,  and  the  Jlishna, 
respecting  the  constitution  of  the  Sanhedrim,  we 
are  obliged  to  depend  upon  the  few  incidental  no- 
tices in  the  New  Testament.  Erom  these  we  gather 
that  it  consisted  of  apxt^p^'ts.  chief  priests,  or  tl>e 
heads  of  the  twenty-four  classes  into  which  the 
priests  were  divided  (including  probably  those  who 
had  been  high-priests),  Trpta-fivTepoi,  elders,  men  of 
age  and  experience,  and  ypa/jL/xarfTi,  scribes,  law- 
yers, or  those  learned  in  the  Jewish  law  (Matt, 
xxvi.  57,  59;  Mark  xv.  1;  Luke  xxii.  66;  Acts 
v.  21). 

2.  The  number  of  members  is  usually  given  as 
seventy-one,  but  this  is  a  point  on  which  there  is 
not  a  perfect  agreement  among  the  learned.  The 
nearly  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Jews  is  given  in 
the  !Mishna  {Sanliedr.  i.  6):  "the  great  Sanhe- 
drim consisted  of  seventj'-one  judges.  How  is  this 
proved?  Erom  Num.  xi.  16,  where  it  is  said, 
'  gather  unto  me  seventy  men  of  the  elders  of 
Israel.'  To  these  add  Jloses,  and  we  have  seventy- 
one.  Nevertheless  R.  Judah  says  there  were 
seventy."  The  same  diflTerence  made  by  the  addi- 
tion or  exclusion  of  Moses,  appears  in  the  works 
of  Christian  writers,  which  accounts  for  the  varia- 
tions in  the  books  between  seventy  and  seventy- 
one.  Baronius,  however  (Ad.  Ann.  31,  §  10),  and 
many  other  Roman  Catholic  writers,  together  with 
not  a  few  Protestants,  as  Drusius,  Grotius,  Pri- 
deaux,  Jahn,  Bretschneider,  etc.,  hold  that  the 
true  number  was  seventy-two,  on  the  ground  that 
Eldad  and  Medad,  on  whom  it  is  expressly  said  the 
Spirit  rested  (Num.  xi.  20),  remained  in  the  camp 
and  should  be  added  to  the  seventy  (see  Hartmann, 
Verbindung  des  A.  T.  p.  182;  Selden,  De  Synedr. 
lib.  ii  cap.  4).  Between  these  three  numbers 
that  given  by  the  prevalent  Jewish  tradition  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  preferred ;  but  if,  as  we  have  seen, 
there  is  really  no  evidence  for  the  identity  of  the 
seventy  elders  summoned  by  Moses,  and  the 
Sanhedrim  existing  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity, 
the  argument  from  Num.  xi.  IG  in  respect  to  th« 
number  of  members  of  which  the  latt«r  Ivody  con- 
sisted, has  no  force,  a'jd   w*  \re  left,  as  Keii  niaii> 


SANHEDRIM 

ttins  {Archaologie,  ii.  §  259),  without  any  certain 
information  on  the  point. 

The  president  of  this  body  was  styled  S*tt"'3 
N<isi,  and,  according  to  Mainionides  and  Lightfoot, 
was  chosen  on  account  of  his  eminence  in  worth 
and  wisdom.  Often,  if  not  generally,  this  pre- 
eminence was  accorded  to  the  high-priest.  That 
the  high-priest  presided  at  the  condemnation  of 
Jesus  (Matt.  xxvi.  62)  is  plain  from  the  narra- 
tive.    The   vice-president,  called    in    the    Talmud 

y^^  Pi^H.  :2N,  "father  of  the  house  of  jadg- 
nient,"  sat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  pre5i<lent. 
Some  writers  speak  of  a  second  \ice-president,  styled 

D3n,  "  wise,"  but  this  is  not  sufficiently  con- 
firmed (see  Selden,  De  Synedr.  p.  156  fF.).  The 
Babylonian  Gemara  states  that  there  were  two 
scribes,  one  of  whom  registered  the  votes  fi)r  ac- 
quittal, the  other  those  for  condemnation.  In  Matt. 
xxvi.  58;  Mark  xiv.  5i,  &c.,  the  hctors  or  attend- 
ants of  the  Sanhedrim  are  referred  to  under  the 
name  of  virriptTat-  While  in  session  the  .*^anhe- 
drim  sat  in  the  form  of  a  half-circle  {Gem.  IJieros. 
Const,  vii.  nd  Sunhedr.  i.),  with  all  which  agrees 
the  statement  of  Mainionides  (quoted  by  Vor 
stius):  •'  him  who  excels  all  others  in  wisdom  they 
appoint  head  over  them  and  head  of  the  assembly. 
And  he  it  is  whom  the  wise  everywhere  call  Nasi, 
and  he  is  in  the  place  of  our  master  iloses.  Like- 
wise him  who  is  the  oldest  among  the  seventy,  they 
place  on  the  right  hand,  and  him  they  call  'father 
of  the  house  of  judgment.'  The  rest  of  the 
seventy  sit  before  these  two,  according  to  their 
dignity,  in  the  form  of  a  semicircle,  so  that  the 
president  and  vice-president  may  have  them  all  m 
sight." 

■  3.  The  place  in  which  the  sessions  of  the  San- 
hedrim Vi'ere  ordinarily  held  was,  according  to  the 

Talmud,  a  hall  called  n''-T5,  Gazzi/Ii  {Snnliedr.x.), 
supposed  by  Liglitfoot  (  \Vi>rks,  i.  2005)  to  have 
been  situated  in  the  southeast  corner  of  one  of  the 
courts  near  the  Temple  building.  In  special  exi- 
gencies, however,  it  seems  to  have  met  in  the  resi- 
dence of  the  high-priest  (iSIatt.  xxvi.  3).  Forty 
years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  con- 
sequently while  the  Saviour  was  teaching  in  Pales- 
tine, the  sessions  of  the  Sardiedrim  were  removed 
from  the  hall  Gazzith  to  a  somewhat  greater  dis- 
tance from  the  Temple  building,  although  still  on 
JMt.  Moriah  [Abod.  Zurn,  i.  Gem.  Babyl.  ad  San- 
liedr.  v.).  After  several  other  ch.inges,  its  seat  was 
finally  established  at  Til)erias  (Lightfoot,  Works, 
ii.  365 ). 

As  a  judicial  body  the  Sanhedrim  constituted  a 
supreme  court,  to  which  belonged  in  the  first 
instance  the  trial  of  a  trilje  fallen  into  idolatry, 
false  prophets,  and  the  high-priest  (Mishna,  San- 
hedr.  i.);  also  the  other  priests  {Miildoth,  v.). 
As  sTi  administrative  council  it  determined  other 
important  matters.  Jesus  was  arraigned  before 
this  body  as  a  false  projihet  (.Tohn  xi.  47),  and 
Peter,  .!ohn,  Stephen,  and  Paul  as  teachers  of 
error  and  decei\ers  of  the  people.  From  Acts  ix. 
2  it  appears  that  the  Sanhedrim  e.Kercised  a  degree 
of  authority  beyond  the  limits  of  Palestine.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Jerusalem  Gemara  (quoted  \<\ 
«elden,  lib.  ii.  c.  15,  11),  the  power  of  hillicting 
capital  punishment  was  taken  away  from  this  tri- 
buTial  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. With  this  agrees  the  answer  of  the  .lews  to 
Pilate  (John  xviii.  31),  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to 


SAXSANNAH  2839 

put  any  man  to  death."  Be.yond  the  arrest,  trial, 
and  condemnation  of  one  convicted  of  violating  the 
ecclesiastical  law,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  .Sanhedrim 
at  the  time  could  not  be  extended;  the  confirma- 
tion and  execution  of  the  sentence  in  capital  cases 
belonged  to  the  Roman  procurator.  The  stoning 
of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  56,  &c.)  is  only  an  apparent 
exception,  for  it  was  either  a  tumultuous  proceed- 
ure,  or,  if  done  by  order  of  the  Sanhedrim,  was 
an  illeg.al  assumption  of  power,  as  Josephus  {Ant. 
XX.  9,  §  1)  expressly  declares  the  execution  of  the 
Apostle  James  during  the  absence  of  the  procura- 
tor to  have  been  (Winer,  Realwb.  art.  "  Syne- 
drium  "). 

The  Talmud  also  mentions  a  lesser  Sanhedrim 
of  tweiitj-three  members  in  every  city  in  Palestine 
in  which  were  not  less  than  120  householders;  but 
respecting  these  judicial  bodies  Josephus  is  entirely 
silent. 

The  leading  work  on  the  subject  is  Selden,  De 
Synedriis  et  Prcefecturis  Juridicis  veterum  E/jrc3- 
nrum,  Lond.  1650,  Amst.  1679,  4to.  It  exhibits 
iunnense  learning,  but  introduces  much  irrelevant 
matter,  and  is  written  in  a  heavy  and  unattractive 
style.  The  monographs  of  Vorstius  and  Witsiua, 
contained  in  Ugolini's  Thesaurus,  vol.  xxv.,  are 
able  and  judicious.  The  same  volume  of  Ugolini 
contains  also  the  Jerusalem  and  Baljylonian  Ge- 
maras,  along  with  the  ]Mishna  on  the  Sanhedrim, 
with  which  may  be  compared  Duo  TiluU  Tahnudici 
Sanhedrin  et  Maccoth,  ed.  Jo.  Coch,  .A.mst.  1629, 
4to,  and  Mainionides,  Be  Sanhedriis  et  Poenis, 
ed.  Honting.  Amst.  1695,  4to.  Hartmann,  Die 
Wrbinilun;/  des  Alien  Testaments  init  dem  Neuen, 
Hanib.  1831,  8vo,  is  worthy  of  consultation,  and 
for  a  compressed  exhibition  of  the  subject,  Winer, 
Realwb.,  and  Keil,  Archceologie.  G.  E.  D. 

SANSAN'NAH  (HSP^p  [palm-branch,Gm,, 
Fiirst]:  'S.iQivvd.K\  Alex,  iavaauua.:  Sensenna). 
One  of  the  towns  in  the  south  district  of  Judah, 
named  in  Josh.  xv.  31  only.  The  towns  of  this 
district  are  not  distributed  into  small  groups,  like 
those  of  the  highlands  or  the  Shefelah  ;  and  as 
only  very  few  of  them  have  been  yet  identified,  we 
have  nothing  to  guide  us  to  the  position  of  San- 
sannah.  ft  can  hardly  have  had  any  connection 
with  Kikjath-San.nah  (Kiijath-Sepher,  or  De- 
bir),  wliich  was  probably  near  Hebron,  many  miles 
to  the  north  of  the  most  northern  position  possible 
for  Sansannah.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  men- 
tioned by  any  explorer,  ancient  or  modern.  Ge- 
senius  ( Thes.  p.  962)  explains  the  name  to  mean 
"  palm-branch ;  "  but  this  is  contradicted  by  Fiirst 
{Hwb.  ii.  88),  who  derives  it  from  a  root  which 
signifies  "  writing."  ■  The  two  propositions  are 
l)robabIy  equally  wide  of  the  mark.  The  conjec- 
ture of  Schwarz  that  it  was  at  Simsim,  on  the  val- 
ley of  the  same  name,  is  less  feasible  than  usual. 

The  termination  of  the  name  is  singular  (comp. 
Madjiamnah). 

By  comparing  the  list  of  Josh.  xv.  26-32  with 
those  in  xix.  2-7  and  1  Chr.  iv.  28-33,  it  will  be 
seen  that  Beth-marcaboth  and  Ilazar-susim,  or 
-susah,  occupy  in  the  two  last  the  place  of  Mad- 
niannah  and  Sansannah  respectively  in  the  first. 
In  like  manner  Shilhim  is  exchanged  for  Sharuben 
and  Shaaraim.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  tliat  tnese 
changes  can  have  arisen  from  the  mistakes  of 
copyists  solely,  but  equally  difficult  to  assign  any 
other  satisfactory  reason.  Prof.  Stanley  has  sug- 
gested that  Beth-marcaboth  and   Hazar-susim   are 


2840 


SAPH 


tokens  of  tlie  trade  in  chariots  and  liorses  whicli 
arose  in  Solomon's  time;  but,  if  so,  how  conies  it 
that  the  new  names  bear  so  close  a  resemblance  in 
form  to  the  old  ones  ?  G. 

SAPH  (HP  [threshold,  dish,  Ges.];  2€>; 
Alex.  2e(^€:  Soph).  One  of  the  sons  of  the  giant 
{'Parpd:  Ariiphn)  slain  by  Sibbechai  the  Husha- 
thite  in  the  battle  against  the  Philistines  at  Uo\> 
or  Gaza  (2  Sara.  xxi.  18).  In  1  Clir.  xx.  4  he  is 
called  SiPPAi.  The  title  of  Ps.  cxliii.  in  tiie 
Peshito  Syriac  is,  "Of  David:  when  he  slew 
Asaph  (Saph)  the  brother  of  Giilyad  (Goliath), 
and  thanksgiving  for  that  he  had  conquered." 

SA'PHAT(2a(^c(T:  om.  in  theVulg.).  She- 
PHATiAH  2  (1  Ksdr.  V.  9j  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  4). 

SAPHATFAS  (2a<?)aTiaj;  [Vat.  2o<^OTiay:] 
Saph(Uius).  Shephatiah  2  (1  Esdr.  viii.  34; 
somp.  Ezr.  viii.  8). 

SA'PHETH  (^.acpvi;  [Vat.  2a<^u6i:  Aid. 
HacpeS:]  Alex.  'S.atpvQi'-  Sejjhegi).  Shephatiah 
(1  Esdr.  V.  33;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  57). 

SA'PHIR  (T^Stt?,  [i.  e.  Shaphir,/a(/-,  beau- 
tiful]: Ka\a}s'  pulchra,  but  in  Jerome's  Com- 
ment. Snpiiir).  One  of  the  villages  addressed  liy 
the  prophet  Micah  (i.  11),  but  not  elsewhere  men- 
tioned. By  Eu.sebius  and  Jeronje  (Onoinnst. 
"Saphir")  it  is  described  as  "  in  the  mountain 
district  between  Eleutheropohs  and  Ascalon."  In 
this  direction  a  village  called  es-SdwaJir  still  exists 
(or  rather  three  with  that  name,  two  with  affixes), 
possibly  the  representative  of  the  ancient  Sajihir 
(Bob.  Bibl.  Jits.  ii.  34  note ;  Van  de  Velde,  S/jr. 
^  Pal.  p.  159).  Es-Saicafir  lies  seven  or  eight  miles 
to  the  N.  E.  of  Ascalon,  and  about  12  W.  of  Beit- 
Jibrin,  to  the  right  of  the  coast  road  from  Gaza. 
TobJer  prefers  a  village  called  Saber,  close  to  ^50- 
wcifir,  containing  a  copious  and  apparently  very  an- 
cient well  (3/te  WanderwKj,  p.  47).  In  one  impor- 
tant respect,  however,  the  position  of  neither  of 
these  agrees  with  the  notice  of  the  Unomasticon, 
since  it  is  not  near  the  mountains,  but  on  the  open 
plain  of  the  Shefelidi.  But  as  Beit-J ibrin,  the 
ancient  Eleiitberopolis,  stands  on  the  western  slopes 
of  the  mountains  of  Judah,  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  any  place  could  be  westward  of  it  {i.  e. 
between  it  and  Ascalon),  and  yet  be  itself  in  the 
mountain  district,  unless  that  expression  may  refer 
to  places  which,  though  situated  in  the  plain,  were 
for  some  reason  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
towns  of  the  mountains.  We  have  already  seen 
reason  to  suspect  that  the  reverse  was  the  case  with 
some  others.      [Keilah;  Nezib,  etc.] 

Schwarz,  though  aware  of  the  existence  of  Sn- 
lodjir  (p.  116),  suggests  as  the  most  feasible  iden- 
tification the  village  of  Snjiriyeh,  a  couple  of  miles 
N.  W.  of  Lydda  (p.  136).  The  drawback  to  this  is, 
that  the  places  mentioned  by  Micah  appear,  as  far 
as  we  can  trace  them,  to  be  mostly  near  Beit-.J ibrin, 
and  in  addition,  that  Safiriijeh  is  in  clear  contra- 
diction to  the  notice  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome. 

G. 

SAPPHI'RA  (2aTr4)6ipij  =  either  sapphire, 
from   (xaircpeipos,  or   btauliful,   from    the    Syriac 

S^^Cti?).  The  wife  of  Ananias,  and  the  partici- 
pator both  in  his  guilt  and  in  his  punishment 
(Acts  v.  1-10).  The  interval  of  three  hours  that 
elapsed  between  the  two  deaths,  Sappbira's  igno- 
rance of  what  had  happened  to  her  husband,  and 
the  predictive  language  of  St.  Peter  towards  her, 


SARAH 

are  decisive  evidences  as  to  the  supernatural  cha!  • 
acter  of  the  whole  transaction.  The  history  cl 
Sapphira's  death  thus  supplements  that  of  Ananias, 
which  might  otherwise  have  been  attril)uted  tc 
natural  causes.  W.  L.  B. 

SAPPHIRE  CT^Qp,  snpplr:  (rin^eipos 
s"pphirus).  A  precious  stone,  apparently  of  a 
bright  blue  color,  see  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  where  the  God 
of  Israel  is  represented  as  being  seen  in  vision  liy 
Moses  and  the  Elders  with  "  a  paved  work  of  a 
sajipir  stone,  and  as  it  were  the  body  of  heaven  in 
its  clearness"  (comp.  Ez.  i.  26).  The  sapjiir  was 
the  second  stone  in  the  second  row  of  the  high- 
priest's  breastplate  {Kx.  xxviii.  18);  it  was  ex- 
tremely precious  (Job  xxviii.  16);  it  was  one  of 
the  precious  stones  that  ornamented  the  king  of 
Tyre  (Ez.  xxviii.  13).  Notwithstanding  the  iden- 
tity of  name  between  our  sapphire  and  the  traTrtpei- 
pos  and  sapphirus  of  the  Greeks  and  Komans,  it  is 
generally  agreed  that  the  s'l/iphiriis  of  the  ancients 
was  not  our  gem  of  that  name,  namely,  the  azure 
or  indigo-lilue,  crystalline  variety  of  Corundum,  but 
our  lapis-l'(zuli  {ultra-marine);  this  point  may 
be  regarded  as  established,  for  Pliny  (//.  N.  xxxvii. 
9)  thus  speaks  of  the  sapphirus:  "  It  is  refulgent 
with  sjwts  of  gold,  of  an  a7ure  color  sometimes, 
but  not  often  purple;  the  best  kind  comes  from 
Media ;  it  is  never  transparent,  and  is  not  well 
suited  for  engraving  upon  when  intersected  with 
hard  crystalline  particles."  This  description  an- 
swers exactly  to  the  character  of  the  lapis-lazuli ; 
th«  "crystalline  particles  "  of  Pliny  are  crystals  of 
iron  pyrites,  which  often  occur  with  this  mineral. 
It  is,  however,  not  so  certain  that  the  sappir  of 
tfie  Hebrew  Bihle  is  identical  with  the  lapis-lazuli; 
for  the  Scriptural  requirements  demand  transpar- 
ency, great  value,  and  good  material  for  the  en- 
graver's art,  all  of  which  combined  characters  the 
lapis-lazuli  does  not  possess  in  any  great  degree. 
JMr.  King  {Antique  Gems,  p.  44)  says  that  intagli 
and  camei  of  Koman  times  are  frequent  in  the 
material,  but  rarely  any  works  of  much  merit. 
Again,  the  sappir  was  certainly  jiellucid,  '•  sane 
apud  Judseos,"  says  Braun  {De  Vest.  iSac.  p.  G80,  ed. 
1680),  "  saphiros  pellucidas  notas  fuisse  nianifestis- 
simum  est,  adeo  etiam  ut  pelluciilum  illorum  phi- 

losophis  dicatur  T^DD,  saphir.''''  Beckmann 
{Wist,  of  Invent,  i.  472)  is  of  opinion  that  the 
sappir  of  the  Hebrews  is  the  same  as  the  lapis- 
lazuli';  Ilosenmiiller  and  Braun  agree  in  favor  of 
its  lieing  our  sapphire  or  precious  Corundum.  We 
are  inclined  to  adopt  this  latter  opinion,  but  are 
unable  to  come  to  any  satisfactory  conclusion. 

W.  H. 

SATvA  {tappa.:  Sara).  1.  Sarah  the  wife 
of  Abraham  (Heb.  xi.  11;  1  Pet.  iii.  6). 

2.  The  daughter  of  Raguel,  in  the  apocryphal 
history  of  Toliit.  As  the  story  goes,  she  had  been 
married  to  seven  husbands,  who  were  all  slain  on 
the  wediling  night  by  Asmodeus,  the  evil  spirit, 
who  loved  her  (Tob.  iii.  7).  The  breaking  of 
the  spell  and  the  chasing  away  of  the  evil  spirit  b; 
the  "  fishy  fume,"  when  Sara  was  married  to 
Tobias,  are  told  in  chap.  viii. 

SARABI'AS  (2apa/3/as:  Sai-ebias).  Shehe- 
BIAH  (1  Esdr.  ix.  48;  comp.  Neh.  viii.  7). 

SA'RAH    (n"jb,  princess:    2d^^a:    Sara 

originally  ^'^'^ '■  2apa:  Sara'i).  1.  The  wife  of 
Abraham  and  mother  of  Isaac. 


SARAH 

Of  hei  birth  and  pareutafje  we  have  no  certain 
Bccount  in  Scripture.  Her  name  is  first  introduced 
hi  Gen.  xi.  2'J,  as  follows:  "  Abrani  and  Nahor 
toolv  them  wives :  the  name  of  Abram's  wife  was 
Sarai;  and  the  name  of  Nalior's  wife  was  Milcah, 
the  daughter  of  Haran,  the  father  of  Milcah  and 
the  father  of  Iscah."  In  Gen.  xx.  12,  Abraham 
speaks  of  her  as  "  his  sister,  the  daughter  of  the 
same  father,  but  not  the  daughter  of  the  same 
mother."  The  common  Jewish  tradition,  taken 
for  granted  by  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  c.  6,  §  G)  and  by 
St.  Jerome  (  Quasi.  Ilebr.  ad  Genesin,  vol.  iii.  p.  323, 
ed.  Ben.  1735),  is  that  Sarai  is  the  same  as  Iscah, 
the  daughter  of  Haran,  and  the  sister  of  Lot,  who 
is  sailed  Abraham's  -'brother"  in  Gen.  xiv.  1-1,  16. 
Judging  from  the  fact  that  Rebekah,  the  grand- 
daughter of  Nahor,  was  the  wife  of  Isaac  the  son 
of  -Abraham,  there  is  reason  to  conjecture  that 
Abraham  was  the  youngest  brother,  so  that  his 
wife  might  not  improbably  be  younger  than  the 
wife  of  Nahor.  It  is  certainly  strange,  if  the  tra- 
dition be  true,  that  no  direct  mention  of  it  is  found 
in  Gen.  xi.  29.  But  it  is  not  improbable  in  itself; 
it  supplies  the  account  of  the  descent  of  the  mother 
of  the  chosen  race,  the  omission  of  which  in  such  a 
passage  is  most  unlikely ;  and  there  is  no  other  to 
set  against  it. 

The  change  of  her  name  from  "  Sarai "  to  "  Sa- 
rah "  was  made  at  the  same  time  that  Abram's 
name  was  changed  to  Abraham,  on  the  establish- 
ment of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  between  him 
and  God.  That  the  name  "  Sarah  "  signifies  "  prin- 
cess "  is  universally  acknowledged.  But  the  mean- 
ing of  "  Sarai  "  is  still  a  subject  of  controversy. 
The  older  interpreters  (as,  for  example,  St.  Jerome 
in  Qiuest.  Hebr.,  and  those  who  follow  him)  sup- 
pose it  to  mean  "my  princess;"  and  explain  the 
change  from  Sarai  to  Sarah,  as  signifying  that  she 
was  no  longer  the  queen  of  one  family,  but  the 
royal  ancestress  of  "  all  families  of  the  earth."    They 

also  suppose  that  the  addition  of  the  letter  H,  as 
taken  from  the  sacred  Tetragrammaton  Jehovah,  to 
the  names  of  Abram  and  Sarai,  mystically  signified 
their  being  received  into  covenant  with  the  Lord. 
Among  modern  Hebraists  there  is  great  diversity  of 
interpretation.  One  opinion,  keeping  to  the  same 
general  derivation  as  tiiat  referred  to  above,  explains 
"Sarai"  as  "noble,"  "nobility,"  etc.,  an  explana- 
tion which,  even  more  than  the  other,  labors  under 
the  objection  of  giving  little  force  to  the  change. 
Another  opinion  supposes  Sarai  to  be  a  contracted 

form  of  rr^ltt?  {Serdydh),  and  to  signify  "Jeho- 
vah is  ruler."  But  this  gives  no  force  whatever  to 
the  change,  and  besides  introduces  the  same  name 
Jah  into  a  proper  name  too  early  in  the  history. 

A  third  (following  Ewald)  derives  it  from  n"lti7, 
a  root  which  is  found  hi  Gen.  xxxii.  28,  Hos.  xii. 
4,  in  the  sense  of  "to  fight,"  and  explains  it  as 
"contentious"  {sireUsiichlii/].  This  last  seems  to 
be  etymologically  the  most  probable,  and  differs 
from  the  others  in  giving  great  force  and  dignity 
to  the  change  of  name.  (See  Ges.  Tlies.  vol.  iii. 
p.  1338  6.) 

Her  history  is,  of  course,  that  of  Abraham. 
She  came  with  him  from  Ur  to  Haran,  from  Haran 


«  Note  the  significant  remark  on  Isaac's  marr):igG 
(Oen.  xxiv.  67),  "  Isaac  was  coniforted  after  his  moth- 
er's death."     There  is  a  Jewish  tradition,  based  ap- 
parently on  the  meutioa  of  Sarah's  death  almost  im- 
179 


SARAI  2841 

to  Canaan,  and  accompanied  him  in  all  the  wander- 
ings of  his  Ufe.  Her  only  independent  action  is 
the  demand  that  Hagar  and  Islimael  should  lie  cast 
out,  far  from  all  rivalry  with  her  and  Isaac;  a 
demand,  symbolically  applied  in  Gal.  iv.  22-31  to 
the  dispLacenient  of  the  Old  Covenant  by  the  New.  ' 
The  times  in  which  she  plays  tlie  most  important 
part  in  tlie  history,  are  the  times  when  Aliraham 
was  sojourning,  first  in  Egypt,  then  in  Gerar,  and 
wliere  Sarah  shared  his  deceit,  towards  Pharaoh 
and  towards  Abimelech.  On  the  first  occasion, 
about  the  middle  of  her  life,  her  personal  beauty  is 
dwelt  upon  as  its  cause  (Gen.  xii.  11-1.5);  on  the 
second,  just  before  the  birth  of  Isaac,  at  a  time 
when  she  was  old  (thirty- seven  years  before  her 
death),  but  when  her  vigor  had  been  miraculously 
restored,  the  same  cause  is  alluded  to,  as  supposed 
by  Abraham,  but  not  actually  stated  (xx.  9-11). 
In  both  cases,  especially  the  last,  the  truthfulness 
of  the  history  is  seen  in  the  unfavorable  contrast 
in  which  the  conduct  both  of  Abraham  and  Sarah 
stands  to  that  of  Pharaoh  and  Abimelech.  She 
died  at  Hebron  at  the  age  of  127  years,  28  years 
before  her  husband,  and  was  buried  by  him  in  the 
cave  of  JMachpelah.  Her  burial  place,  purchased 
of  E])hron  the  Hittite,  was  the  only  possession  of 
Aliraham  in  the  land  of  promise;  it  has  remained, 
hallowed  in  the  eyes  of  Jews,  Christians,  and  Mo- 
hammedans alike,  to  the  present  day ;  and  in  it  the 
"shrine  of  Sarah  "  is  pointed  out  opposite  to  that 
of  Abraham,  with  those  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah  on 
the  one  side,  and  those  of  Jacob  and  Leali  on  the 
other  (see  Stanley's  Led.  on  Jewish  Church,  app. 
ii.  pp.  484-509). 

Her  character,  like  that  of  Abraham,  is  no  ideal 
type  of  excellence,  but  one  thoroughly  natural,  in- 
ferior to  that  of  her  husband,  and  truly  feminine, 
both  in  its  excellences  and  its  defects.  She  is  the 
mother,  even  more  than  the  wife.  Her  natural 
motherly  affection  is  seen  in  her  touching  desire 
for  children,  even  from  her  bondmaid,  and  in  her 
unforgiving  jealousy  of  that  bondmaid,  when  she 
liecame  a  mother;  in  her  rejoicing  over  her  son 
Isaac,  and  in  the  jealousy  which  resented  the 
slightest  insult  to  him,  and  forbade  Ishmael  to 
sh.are  his  sonship.  It  makes  her  cruel  to  others  as 
well  as  tender  to  her  own,"  and  is  remarkably  con- 
trasted with  the  sacrifice  of  natural  feeling  on  the 
part  of  Abraham  to  God's  command  in  the  last 
case  (Gen.  xxi.  12).  To  the  same  ch.aracter  belong 
her  ironical  laughter  at  the  promise  of  a  child,  long 
desired,  but  now  beyond  all  hope;  her  trembling 
denial  of  that  laughter,  and  her  change  of  it  to  the 
laughter  of  thankful  joy,  which  she  commemorated 
in  the  name  of  Isaac.  It  is  a  character  deejjly 
and  truly  aflfectionate,  but  impulsive,  jealous,  and 
imperious  in  its  affection.  It  is  referred  to  in  the 
N.  T.  as  a  type  of  conjugal  obedience  in  1  Pet.  iii. 
6,  and  as  one  of  the  types  of  faith  in  Heb.  xi.  11 

A.  B. 

2.  (n^L!?:  2a/ja;  [Vat.i  M.  Kapa-I  Sara.) 
Seraii  the  daughter  of  Asher  (Num.  xxvi.  46). 

SA'RAI  [2  syl.]  C^lti)  [see  below]:  2apa: 
S(irai).  The  original  name  of  S.arah,  the  wife  of 
Abraham.     It  is  always  used  in  the  history  from 


mediately  after  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  that  the  shock 
of  it  killed  her,  and  that  Abraham  found  her  dead  tm 
his  return  from  Moriah. 


2842 


SARAIAS 


Gen.  xi.  29  to  xvii.  15,  when  it  was  changed  to 
Sarah  at  the  same  time  that  her  husband's  name 
from  Abram  became  Abraham,  and  the  birth  of 
Isaac  was  more  distinctly  foretold.  The  meaning 
of  the  name  appears  to  be,  as  Ewald  has  sug- 
■gested,  "  contentious."     [Sarah.] 

SARA'IAS  [3  syl.]  (:Zapalas:  om.  in  Vulg.). 
1.  Seraiah  the  high-priest  (1  Esdr.  v.  5). 

2.  {'A.(apaiasl  Alex.  [Aid.]  Sapai'os:  Azai-ias, 
Aznreus.)  Seraiah  the  father  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr. 
viii.  1;  2  Esdr.  i.  1). 

SAR'AMEL  ([Rom.]  Alex.  Sapa^ueA;  [Shi. 
and]  other  MSS.  'Atrapa^eA  :  Asnrnmd).  The 
name  of  the  place  in  which  the  assembly  of  the 
Jews  was  held  at  which  the  high-priesthood  was 
conferred  upon  Simon  Maccabajus  (1  j\Iacc.  xiv. 
28).  The  fact  that  the  name  is  found  only  in  this 
passage  has  led  to  the  conjecture  that  it  is  an  im- 
perfect version  of  a  word  in  the  original  Helirew  or 
Syriac,  from  which  the  present  Greek  text  of  the 
Maccabees  is  a  translation.  Some  (as  (.'astellio) 
have  treated  it  as  a  corruption  of  .Jerusalem :  but 
this  is  inadmissible,  since  it  is  inconceivable  that 
BO  well-known  a  name  should  be  corrupted.  The 
other  conjectures  are  enumerated  Ijy  Grimm  in  the 
Kurzr/ef.  exegelisches  Handb.  on  the  passage.  A 
few  only  need  be  named  here,  but  none  seem  per- 
fectly satisfactory.  All  appear  to  adopt  the  read- 
ing Asarninel.  1.  Hnhatsar  ,)filln,  "  the  court 
of  Millo,"  Millo  being  not  improliably  the  citadel 
of  Jerusalem  [vol.  iii.  p.  1937].  This  is  the  con- 
jecture of  Grotius,  and  h.as  at  least  the  merit  of 
ingemuty.o  2.  Hahatsar  Am  El,  "  the  court  of 
the  people  of  God,  that  is,  the  great  court  of  the 
Temple."  This  is  due  to,Ewald  {Gesch.  iv.  387), 
who  compares  with  it  the  well-known  Sarbetli 
Snbnnai  El,  given  by  Eusebius  as  the  title  of  the 
Maccabsean  history.  [See  Maccabees,  vol.  ii.  p. 
1718.]  3.  Ilasshnnr  Am  El,  "the  gate  of  the 
people  of  God,"  adopted  by  Winer  [R-^ahrh.).  4. 
Hii$snr  Am  El,  "  prince  of  the  people  of  God,"  as 
if  not  the  name  of  a  place,  but  the  title  of  Simon, 
the  "  in  "  having  been  inserted  by  puzzled  copyists. 
This  is  adopted  by  Grimm  himself.  It  has  in  its 
favor  the  fact  that  without  it  Simon  is  here  styled 
high-priest  only,  and  his  second  title,  "captain  and 
governor  of  the  Jews  and  priests"  (ver.  47),  is 
then  omitted  in  the  solenm  official  record  —  the 
very  place  where  it  ought  to  be  found.  It  also 
seems  to  be  countenanced  by  the  I'eshito-Syriac 
version,  which  certainly  omits  the  title  of  "high- 
priest,"  but  inserts  Rabba  de  Israel,  "  leader  of 
Israel."  None  of  these  explanations,  however,  can 
be  regarded  as  entirely  satisfactory.  G. 

SA'RAPH  (^"^tt?  [burnmg,  fiery,  poison- 
ous]: 2apd<^;  [Vat.  2aia:]  Jncendens).  Men- 
tioned in  1  Chr.  iv.  22  among  the  descendants  of 
Shelah  the  son  of  Judah.  Burrington  (Geneol.  i. 
179)  makes  Seraph  a  descendant  of  Jokim,  whom 
he  regards  as  the  third  son  of  Shelah.  In  the 
Targum  of  E.  Joseph,  Joash  and  Saraph  are 
identified  with  Mahlon  and  Chilion,  "who  mar- 
ried (^bpS)  in  Moab." 

SARCHED'ONUS  ([Rom.  Vat.]  Sox^p- 
hovSs,  [Alex.]  2axfp5ai/,  [Aid.  2,apxeS6i'os  ■■] 
Archedonassar,  Achenossar,  Snrcedonnssnr),  a  col- 
lateral form  of  the  name  Esar-haddon  [Esar-had- 


o  Junius  and  Trcmellius  render  it  by  in  atrio  tniini- 
tianit 


SARDIS 

don],  occarring  Tob.  i.  21.  The  form  in  A.  V.  foi 
Sacherdonus  appears  to  be  an  oversight,  [i.,  comes 
from  the  Aldine  edition.  —  A.]  B.  F.  W. 

SARDE'US  (ZepaXias;  Alex.  Zapdaws  [so 
Tisch.,  but  ZapSaias,  Baber's  ed.;  Aid.  SapSalos:] 
Tebedias).  Aziza  (1  Esdr.  ix-  28;  comp.  Ezr. 
X.  27). 

SARDINE,  SARDIUS  (Dl'S,  6dem:  adp- 
Stov:  Sfirdius)  is,  according  to  the  LXX.  and 
Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  v.  5,  §  7),  the  correct  render- 
ing of  the  Hebrew  term,  which  occurs  in  Ex.  xxviii. 
n,  xxxix.  10,  as  the  name  of  the  stone  ^vhich 
occupied  the  first  place  in  the  first  row  of  the  high- 
priest's  breastplate;  it  should,  however,  be  noticed 
that  .Josephus  is  not  strictly  consistent  with  him- 
self, for  in  the  Aiitiij.  iii.  7,  §  5,  he  says  that  the 
snrdimyx  was  the  first  stone  in  the  breastplate; 
still  as  this  latter  named  mineral  is  merely  another 
variety  of  agate,  to  which  also  the  sard  or  sardius 
belongs,  there  is  no  very  great  discrepancy  in  the 
statements  of  the  Jewish  historian.  The  odeni  is 
mentioned  by  Ezekiel  (xxviii.  13)  as  one  of  the  orna- 
ments of  the  king  of  Tyre.  In  Rev.  iv.  3,  St.  John 
declares  that  he  whom  he  saw  sitting  on  the 
heavenly  throne  "  was  to  look  upon  like  a  jasper 
and  a  sardine  stone."  The  sixth  foundation  of 
the  wall  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  was  a  sardius 
(Rev.  xxi.  20).  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt 
that  either  the  sard  or  the  sardonyx  is  the  stone 
denoted  by  odem.  The  authority  of  Josephus  in 
all  that  relates  to  the  high-priest's  breastplate  is  of 
the  greatest  value,  for  as  Braun  (De  Vest.  Sac. 
Heb.  p.  G3.5)  has  remarked,  Josephus  was  not  only 
a  Jew  but  a  priest,  who  might  have  seen  the  breast- 
plate with  the  whole  sacerdotal  vestments  a  hun- 
dred times,  smce  in  his  time  the  Temple  was  stand- 
ing ;  the  Vulgate  agrees  with  his  nomenclature ;  in 
Jerome's  time  the  breastplate  was  still  to  be  in- 
spected in  the  Temple  of  Concord ;  hence  it  will 
readily  be  acknowledged  that  this  agreement  of  the 
two  is  of  great  weight. 

The  sard,  which  is  a  superior  variety  of  agate, 
has  long  been  a  favorite  stone  for  the  engraver's 
art;  "on  this  stone,"  says  IMr.  King  (Antique 
Gems,  p.  5),  "  all  the  finest  works  of  the  most 
celebrated  artists  are  to  be  found;  and  this  not 
without  good  cause,  such  is  its  toughne.ss,  facility 
of  working,  beauty  of  color,  and  the  high  polish 
of  which  it  is  susceptible,  and  which  Pliny  states 
that  it  retains  longer  than  any  other  gem."  Sards 
dittei-  in  color;  there  is  a  bright  red  variety  which, 
in  I'liny's  time,  was  the  most  esteemed,  and,  per- 
haps, the  Heb.  6de?n,  from  a  root  which  means  "  to 
be  red,"  points  to  this  kind;  there  is  also  a  paler 
or  honey-colored  variety ;  but  in  all  sards  there  is 
aiways  a  shade  of  yellow  mingling  with  the  red 
(see  King's  Anl.  Gems,  p.  6).  The  sardius,  ac- 
cording to  Pliny  (//.  N.  xxxvii.  7),  derived  its 
name  from  Sardis  in  Lydia,  where  it  was  first 
found;  Babylonian  specimens,  however,  were  the 
most  esteemed.  The  Hebrews,  in  the  time  of 
Mcses,  could  easily  have  obtained  their  sard  stones 
from  Arabia,  in  which  country  they  were  at  the 
time  the  breastplate  was  made ;  other  precious  stones 
not  acquirable  during  their  wanderings,  may  have 
lieen  brought  with  them  from  the  land  of  their 
bondage  when  "  thev  spoiled  the  Egyptians." 

W.  H. 

SAR'DIS  [or  SAR'DES]  (^dpSeis).  A  city 
situated  about  two  miles  to  the  south  of  the  river 
Hermus,  just  below  the  range  of  Tmolus   {Boi 


SARDIS 

Dagh),  on  a  spur  of  which  its  acropolis  was  built. 
[t  was  the  ancient  residence  of  the  kiiip;s  of  Lydia. 
After  its  conquest  by  Gyrus,  the  Persians  always 
kept  a  garrison  in  the  citadel,  on  account  of  its 
natural  strength,  which  induced  Alexander  tlie 
Great,  when  it  was  surrendered  to  him  in  the 
sequel  of  the  battle  of  the  Granicus,  similarly  to 
occupy  it.  Sardis  was  in  very  early  times,  both 
from  the  extremely  fertile  character  of  tlie  neigh- 
boriu^r  region,  and  from  its  convenient  position,  a 
commercial  mart  of  importance.  Chestnuts  were 
first  produced  in  the  neighborhood,  which  procured 
them  the  name  of  0d\avoi  'SapSiavoi.  The  art 
of  dyeing  wool  is  said  by  Pliny  to  have  been 
invented  there;  and  at  any  rate,  Sardis  was  the 
entrepot  of  the  dyed  woolen  manufactures,  of  which 
Phrygia  with  its  vast  flocks  (iroXvwpo^aTCDTdTT], 
Herod,  v.  49)  furnished  the  raw  material.  Hence 
we  hear  of  the  (poiviiciSes  SapSiavai,  and  Sappho 
speaks  of  the  troiK'O^os  ixacr6\7)s  AvBloi'  KaAhv 
epyov,  which  waa  perhaps  something  like  the  mod- 


SARDIS 


2843 


em  Turkish  carpets.  Some  of  the  woolen  manu- 
factures, of  a  peculiarly  fine  texture,  were  called 
il/iAoTccTriSfr.  The  hall  through  which  the  king 
of  Persia  piissed  from  his  state  apartments  to  the 
gate  where  he  mounted  on  his  horse,  was  laid  with 
these,  and  no  foot  but  that  of  the  monarch  was 
allowed  to  tread  on  them.  In  the  description 
given  of  the  habits  of  a  young  Cyprian  exquisite 
of  great  wealth,  he  is  represented  as  reposing  uix)n 
a  bed  of  which  the  feet  were  silver,  and  upon  which 
these  \pt\0Tdin5es  ^apStauai  were  laid  as  a  mat- 
tress. Sardis,  too,  was  the  place  where  the  metal 
electrum  was  procured  (Soph.  Anti(j.  1037);  and 
it  was  thither  that  the  Spartans  sent  in  the  sixth 
century  b.  c.  to  purchase  gold  for  the  purpose  of 
gilding  the  face  of  the  Apollo  at  Amyelse.  Thia 
was  probably  furnished  by  the  auriferous  sand  of 
the  I'actolus,  a  brook  which  came  from  Tmolus, 
and  ran  through  the  ngnvn  of  Sardis  by  the  side 
of  the  great  temple  of  Cybebe.  But  though  iti 
gold-washings  may  have  been  celebrated  in  early 


Ruins  of  Sardis. 


I 


times,  the  greatness  of  Sardis  in  its  best  days  was 
much  more  due  to  its  general  commercial  impor- 
tance and  its  convenience  as  an  entrepot.  This 
geems  to  follow  from  the  statement,  that  not  only 
silver  and  cold  coins  were  there  first  minted,  but 
there  also  the  class  nf  /caTrrjAoi  (stationary  traders 
as  contradistin<;uished  from  the  i/nropoi,  or  travel- 
ling merchants)  first  arose.  It  was  also,  at  any 
rate  between  the  fall  of  the  Lydian  and  that  of  the 
Persian  dynasty,  a  slave-mart. 

Sardis  ratovered  the  privilege  of  municipal  gov- 
ernment (and,  as  was  alleged  several  centuries 
ftfterwards,  the  right  of  a  sanctuary)  upon  its  sur- 
ender  to  Alexander  the  Great,  but  its  fortunes  for 
the  next  three  hundred  years  are  very  obscure.  It 
changed  hands  more  than  once  in  the  contests 
between  the  dynasties  which  arose  after  the  death 
^f  Alexander.  In  the  year  214  b.  c,  it  was  taken 
tnd  sacked  by  the  army  of  Antiochus  the  Great, 
The  oesieged  his  cousin  Achaeus  in  it  for  two  years 
■>efore  succeeding,  as  he  at  last  did  through  treach- 


ery, in  obtaining  possession  of  the  person  of  tiki 
latter.  After  the  ruin  of  Antiochus's  fortunes,  it 
passed,  with  the  rest  of  Asia  on  that  side  of  Tau- 
rus, under  the  dominion  of  the  kings  of  Pergamus, 
whose  interests  led  them  to  divert  the  course  of 
traffic  between  Asia  and  Europe  away  from  Sardis. 
Its  [jroductive  soil  nuist  always  ha^e  continued  a 
source  of  wealth ;  but  its  im])ortanee  as  a  central 
mart  appears  to  have  diminished  from  the  lime  of 
the  invasion  of  Asia  by  Alexander.  Of  tlie  few 
inscriptions  which  have  been  discovered,  all,  or 
nearly  all,  belong  to  the  time  of  the  Itoman  empire. 
Yet  there  still  exist  considerable  remains  of  the 
earlier  ilays.  The  massive  temple  of  Cyl)elie  still 
bears  witness  in  its  fragmentary  remains  to  the 
wealth  and  architectural  skill  of  the  jwople  that 
raised  it.  Mr.  Cockerell,  who  visited  it  in  1812, 
found  two  columns  standing  with  their  architrave, 
the  stone  of  which  stretched  in  a  single  l>lock  from 
the  centre  of  one  to  that  of  the  other.  Tin's  stone, 
althousih  it  was  not  the  largest  of  the  arcliitrave 


2844 


SARDIS 


be  calculates  must  have  weighed  25  tons.  The 
diameters  of  the  columns  supporting  it  are  6  feet 
4^  inches  at  about  35  feet  below  the  capital.  The 
present  soil  (apparently  formed  by  the  crumbling 
away  of  the  hill  which  backs  the  temple  on  its 
eastern  side)  is  more  than  25  feet  above  the  pave- 
ment. Such  proportions  are  not  inferior  to  those 
of  the  columns  in  the  Hera;um  at  Sanios,  which 
divides,  in  the  estimation  of  Herodotus,  with  the 
Artemisiuni  at  Ephesus,  the  palm  of  preeminence 
among  all  the  works  of  Greek  art.  And  as  regards 
the  details,  "  the  capitals  appeared,"  to  Mr.  Cock- 
erel!, "  to  surpass  any  specimen  of  the  Ionic  he  had 
seen  in  perfection  of  design  and  execution."  On 
the  north  side  of  the  acropolis,  overlooking  the 
valley  of  the  Hernius,  is  a  theatre  near  400  feet  in 
diameter,  attached  to  a  stadium  of  about  1,000. 
This  probably  was  erected  after  the  restoration  of 
Sardis  by  Alexander.  In  the  attack  of  Sardis  by 
Antiochus,  described  by  Poly  bins  (vii.  15-18),  it 
constituted  one  of  the  chief  points  on  which,  after 
entering  tlie  city,  the  assaulting  force  was  directed. 
The  temple  belongs  to  the  era  of  the  Lydian 
dynasty,  and  is  nearly  conteujporaneous  with  the 
temple  of  Zeus  Panhellenius  in  ^gina,  and  that 
of  Herd  in  Samos.  I'o  the  same  date  may  be  as- 
signed the  "  Valley  of  Sweets  "  {y\vKvs  ayKwv), 
a  pleasure  ground,  the  fame  of  which  Polycrates 
endeavored  to  rival  by  the  so-called  Laura  at 
Samos. 

The  modern  name  of  the  ruins  at  Sardis  is  Seri- 
Kalessi.  Travellers  describe  the  appearance  of  the 
locality  on  approaching  it  from  the  N.  \V.  as  that 
of  complete  solitude.  The  Pactolus  is  a  mere  thread 
of  water,  all  but  evanesceni^n  summer  time.  The 
Wadis-icliai  (Hernuis),  in  Oie  neighborhood  of  the 
town,  is  between  50  and  GO  yards  wide,  and  nearly 
3  feet  deep,  but  its  waters  are  turbid  and  disagree- 
able, and  are  not  only  avoided  as  unfit  for  drink- 
ing, but  have  the  local  reputation  of  generating 
the  fever  which  is  the  scourge  of  the  neighboring 
plains. 

In  the  time  of  the  emperor  Tiberius,  Sardis  was 
desolated  by  an  earthquake,  together  with  eleven, 
or  as  pAisebius  says  twelve,  other  important  cities 
of  Asia.  The  whole  face  of  the  country  is  said  to 
ha\e  lieen  changed  by  this  convulsion.  In  the 
case  of  Sardis  the  calamity  was  increased  by  a  pes- 
tilential fever  which  followed ;  and  so  much  com- 
passion was  in  consequence  excited  for  the  city  at 
Rome,  that  its  tribute  was  remitted  for  five  years, 
and  it  received  a  benefaction  from  the  privy  purse 
of  the  emperor.  This  was  in  the  year  17  a.  d. 
Nine  years  afterwards  the  Sardians  are  found 
among  the  competitors  for  the  honor  of  erecting, 
as  representatives  of  the  Asiatic  cities,  a  temple  to 
their  benefactor.  [Smykna.]  On  this  occasfbn 
they  plead,  not  only  their  ancient  services  to  IJome 
in  the  time  of  the  Macedonian  war,  but  their  well- 
watered  country,  their  climate,  and  the  richness  of 
the  neighboring  soil;  there  is  no  allusion,  however, 
to  the  important  raamifectures  and  the  commerce 
of  the  early  times.  In  the  time  of  Pliny  it  was 
included  in  the  same  conventus  juruHcus  with.  Phil- 
adelphia, with  the  Cadueni,  a  Macedonian  colony 
in  the  neighborhood,  with  some  settlements  of  the 
|ld  Masonian  population,  and  a  few  other  towns  of 
fess  note.  These  Maeonians  stiU  continued  to  call 
Sardis  by  its  ancient  name  Hyde,  which  it  bore  in 
the  time  of  Omphale. 

The  only  passage  in  which  Sardis  is  mentioned 
in  the  Bible,  is  Rev.  iU.  1-6.     There  is  nothing  in 


SARGON 

'  «t  which  appears  to  have  any  special  reference  to 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  city,  or  to  any- 
thing else  than  the  moral  and  spiritual  condition 
of  the  Christian  community  existing  there.  This 
latter  was  probably,  in  its  secular  relations,  pretty 
nearly  identical  with  that  at  Philadelphia. 

(Athenajus  ii.  48,  vi.  231,  xii.  514,  540;  Ar- 
rian,  i.  17;  Phny,  IL  N.  v.  29,  xv.  23;  Stepha- 
nus  Byz  v.  "TStj  ;  Pausanias,  iii.  9,  5 ;  Diodo- 
rus  Sic.  XX.  107;  Scholiast,  Aristoph.  P(ic.  1174; 
Boeckh.  Inscriptiones  Urcecce,  Nos.  3451-3472; 
Herodotus,  i.  69,  94,  iii.  48,  viii.  105 ;  Strabo,  xiii. 
§  5 ;  Tacitus,  Annal.  ii.  47,  iii.  63,  iv.  55 ;  Cocker- 
ell,  in  Leake's  Asia  Minor,  p.  343 ;  Arundell,  £)is- 
Cdveries  in  Asia  Minor,  i.  pp.  26-28 ;  Tchihatcheff, 
Asie  Mineure,  pp.  232-242.)  J.  W.  B. 

SAR'DITES  THE  C'^^BH  [patr.] :  6  Hap- 
e5i  [Vat.  -Set] :  Sareditce).  The  descendants  of 
Sekkd  the  son  of  Zebulon  (Num.  xxvi.  26). 

SARDONYX  (o-op5dfu|:  sardonyx)  is  men- 
tioned in  the  N.  T.  once  only,  namely,  in  Rev. 
xxi.  20,  as  the  stone  which  garnished  the  fifth  foun- 
dation of  the  wall  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  "  By 
sardonyx,"  says  Pliny  (//.  N.  xxxvii.  6),  who  de- 
scribes several  varieties,  "was  formerly  understood,  as 
its  name  implies,  a  sard  with  a  white  ground  beneath 
it,  like  the  flesh  under  the  finger-nail."  The  sar- 
donyx consists  of  "  a  white  opaque  layer,  superim- 
posed upon  a  red  transparent  stratum  of  the  true 
red  sard"  {Antique  6'e7»s,  p.  9);  it  is,  like  the 
sard,  merely  a  variety  of  agate,  and  is  frequently 
employed  by  engravers  for  the  purpose  of  a  signet- 
ring.  W.  H. 

SA'REA  (Sarea).  One  of  the  five  scribes 
"ready  to  write  swiftly"  whom  Esdras  was  com- 
manded to  take  (2  Esdr.  xiv.  24). 

SAREP'TA  (SapeTTTo:  Snrepta:  Syriac, 
Tsarpnih).  The  Greek  form  of  the  name  which  in 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  O.  T.  appears  as  Zare- 
PHATii.  The  place  is  designated  by  the  same  for- 
mula on  its  single  occurrence  in  the  N.  T.  (Luke 
iv.  26)  that  it  is  when  first  mentioned  in  the  LXX. 
version  of  1  K.  xvii.  9,  "  Sarepta  of  Sidonia." 

G. 

SAR'GON  {y^TyD  [perh.  Pers.,  prince  of 
the  sun,  Ges.] :  'Apvu:  Sargon)  was  one  of  the 
greatest  of  the  Assyrian  kings.  His  name  is  read 
in  the  native  inscriptions  as  Sargina,  while  a  town 
which  he  liuilt  and  called  after  himself  (now  Khor- 
sabad)'  was  known  as  Sarf/hun  to  the  Arabian 
geographers.  He  is  mentioned  by  name  only  once 
in  Scripture  (Is.  xx.  1),  and  then  not  in  an  histor- 
ical book,  which  formerly  led  historians  and  critics 
to  suspect  that  he  was  not  really  a  king  distinct 
from  those  mentioned  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  but 
rather  one  of  those  kings  under  another  name.  Vi- 
tringa,  Ofierhaus,  Eichhorn,  and  Hupfeld  identified 
him  with  Shalmaneser;  Grotius,  Lowth,  and  Keil 
with  Sennacherib;  Perizonius,  Kalinsky,  and  Mi- 
chaelis  with  Esarhaddon.  All  these  ftnjectures 
are  now  shown  to  be  wrong  by  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions, which  prove  Sargon  to  have  been  dis- 
tinct and  dift'erent  from  the  several  monarchs  named, 
and  fix  his  place  in  the  list  —  where  it  had  been 
already  assigned  by  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  Ewald, 
and  Winer  —  between  Shalmaneser  a)id  Sennach- 
erib. He  was  certainly  Sennacherib's  father,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  was  his  im- 
mediate predecessor.  He  ascended  the  throne  of 
AssjTia,  as  we  gather  from  his  annals,  in  the  sam* 


SARGON 

year  that  IMerodach-Baladan  ascended  the  throne 
t(  Babylon,  which,  according  to  Ptolemy's  Canon, 
was  B.  c.  721.  He  seems  to  ha\e  been  an  usurper, 
a,nd  not  of  royal  birth,  for  in  his  inscriptions  he 
carefully  avoids  all  mention  of  his  father.  It  has 
been  conjectured  that  he  took'  advantage  of  Shal- 
maneser's  alisence  at  the  protracted  siege  of  Sama- 
ria (2  K.  xvii.  5)  to  effect  a  revolution  at  the  seat 
of  government,  by  which  that  king  was  deposed, 
and  he  himself  substituted  in  his  room.  [Shal- 
MANESER.]  It  is  remarkable  that  Sargon  claims 
the  conquest  of  Samaria,  which  the  narrative  in 
Kings  (ippeurs  to  assign  to  his  predecessor.  He 
places  the  event  in  his  first  year,  before  any  of  his 
tiher  expeditions.  Perhaps,  therefore,  he  is  the 
"king  of  Assyria"  intended  in  2  K.  xvii.  6  and 
xviii.  11,  who  is  not  said  to  be  Shalmaneser,  though 
we  might  naturally  suppose  so  from  no  other  name 
being  mentioned."  (jr  perhaps  he  claimed  the 
conquest  as  his  own,  though  Shalmaneser  really 
accomplished  it,  because  the  capture  of  the  city  oc- 
curred after  he  had  been  acknowledged  king  in  the 
Assyrian  capital.  At  any  rate,  to  him  belongs  the 
settlement  of  the  Samaritans  (27,280  families,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  statement)  in  Halah,  and  on 
the  Habor  {Kkabour),  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  (at 
a  later  period  prol>al)ly)  in  the  cities  of  the  Meiles. 
Sargon  was  undoubtedly  a  great  and  su(;cessi'ul 
warrior.  In  his  annals,  which  cover  a  space  of 
fifteen  years  (from  b.  c.  721  to  u.  c.  706 ),  he  gives 
an  account  of  his  warlike  expeditions  against  Baby- 
lonia and  Susiana  on  the  south.  Bledia  on  the  east, 
Armenia  and  Cappadocia  towards  the  north,  Syria, 
Palestine,  Arabia,  and  Kgypt  towards  the  west  and 
the  southwest.  In  Babylonia  he  deposed  Mero- 
dach-Baladan,  and  established  a  viceroy;  in  JNledia 
he  built  a  number  of  cities,  which  he  peopled  with 
captives  from  other  quarters ;  in  Armenia  and  the 
neiijliboring  countries  he  gained  many  victories; 
while  in  the  far  west  he  reduced  Philistia,  pene- 
trated deep  into  the  Arabian  peninsula,  and  forced 
Egypt  to  submit  to  his  arms  and  cor}sent  to  tiie 
payment  of  a  triliute.  In  this  last  direction  he 
seems  to  have  waged  three  wars  —  one  in  his  sec- 
ond year  (b.  c.  720),  for  the  possession  of  Gaza; 
another  in  his  sixth  year  (b.  c.  715),  when  Kgypt 
itself  was  the  object  of  attack;  and  a  third  in  his 
ninth  (b.  c.  712),  when  the  special  subject  of  con- 
tention was  Ashdod,  which  Sargon  took  by  one  of 
his  generals.  This  is  the  event  which  causes  the 
mention  of  Sargon's  name  in  Scripture.  Isaiah 
was  instructed  at  the  time  of  this  expedition  to 
"  put  off"  his  shoe,  and  go  naked  and  barefoot,'"  for 
a  sign  that  "  the  king  of  Assyria  should  lead  away 
the  Egyptians  prisoners,  and  the  Ethiopians  cap- 
tives, yoimg  and  old,  naked  and  barefoot,  to  the 
shame  of  Egypt"  (Is.  xx.  2-4).  We  may  gather 
from  this,  eitlier  that  Ethiopians  and  Egyptians 
formed  part  of  the  garrison  of  Ashdod  and  were 
captured  with  tiie  city,  or  that  the  attack  on  the 
Philistine  town  was  accompanied  by  an  invasion  of 
Egypt  itself,  which  was  disastrous  to  the  Egy|)tians. 
The  year  of  the  attack,  being  b.  c.  712,  would  fall 
into  the  reigti  of  the  first  Ethiopian  king,  Sabaco 


a  There  is  a  peculiarity  of  phraseology  in  2  K,  xviii. 
•,  10,  which  perhaps  indicates  a  knowledge  on  the  part 
of  the  writer  that  Shalmaneser  was  not  the  actual 
•Aptor.  "  lu  the  fourth  year  of  Hezekiah,''  he  says, 
''Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria  came  up  against  Sama- 
ria and  besieged  it :  and  at  the  end  of  three  years, 
easy  took  it." 


SARON  284o 

I.,  who  probably  conquered  Egypt  in  B.  c.  7M 
(Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  i.  386,  note  7,  2d  ed.), 
and  it  is  in  agreement  with  this  [that]  Sargon 
speaks  of  Egypt  as  being  at  this  time  subject  to 
Meroe.  Besides  these  expeditions  of  Saigon,  his 
monuments  mention  that  he  took  Tyre,  and  re- 
ceived tril)ute  from  the  Greeks  of  Cyprus,  against 
vhom  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  he  con- 
liK'ted  ni;  attack  in  jierson.'' 

It  is  not  as  a  warrior  only  that  Sargon  deserves 
special  mention  among  the  Assyrian  kings.  He 
was  also  the  builder  of  useful  works  and  of  one  of 
the  most  magnificent  of  the  Assyrian  palaces.  He 
relates  that  he  thoroughly  repaired  the  walls  oi 
Nineveh,  which  he  seems  to  have  elevated  from  a 
provincial  city  of  some  importance  to  the  first  posi- 
tion in  the  empire;  and  adds  further,  that  in  its 
neigiiborhood  he  constructed  the  palace  and  town 
which  he  mad^his  principal  residence.  Tliis  was 
the  city  now  known  as  "  the  French  Nineveh,"  or 
''  Khorsaliad,"  from  which  the  valualile  series  of 
Assyrian  monuments  at  present  in  the  Louvre  is 
derived  almost  entirely.  Traces  of  Sargon's  build- 
ings have  been  found  also  at  Nimrfid  and  Koyun- 
jik;  and  his  time  is  marked  by  a  consideraI>le  ad- 
vance in  the  useful  and  ornamental  arts,  which 
seem  to  have  profited  by  the  connection  which  he 
established  lietween  .Assyria  and  Egypt.  He  prol)ably 
reigned  nineteen  years,  from  k.  c.  721  to  b.  c.  702, 
when  he  left  the  throne  to  his  son,  the  celebrated 
Sennacherib.  G.  R. 

SA'RID  (1''"]iC'  \one  left,  a  survivor'] :  'Ecre- 
SeKycaXa,"  2e5Sow;  Alex.  :S.apeiS,  2api8:  Sarid). 
A  chief  landmark  of  the  territory  of  /eliulmi,  ap- 
parently the  pivot  af  the  western  and  southern 
lioundaries  (.losh.  xix.  10,  12).  All  that  can  be 
gathered  of  its  position  is  that  it  lay  to  the  west  of 
Chisloth-Tabor.  It  was  unkt-.own  to  Euseliius  and 
.leriime,  and  no  trace  of  it  seems  to  have  been 
found  by  any  traveller  since  their  day  {Onnni. 
"Sarith"). 

The  ancient  Syriac  version,  in  each  case,  reads 
Asdod.  This  may  be  only  from  the  interchange, 
so  frequent  in  this  version,  of  R  and  D.  At  any 
rate,  the  Ashdod  of  the  Philistines  cannot  be  in- 
tended. G. 

'  SA'RON  (rbj/  Sapcofa;  in  some  MSS.  aaffa 
pcova,  i-  e-  ^TT^n  [tlie  pluiii]:  Saronn).  The 
district  in  which  Lydda  stood  (Acts  ix.  35  only); 
the  SnAKON  of  the  0.  T.  The  absence  of  the  ar- 
ticle from  Lydda,  and  its  presence  before  Saron,  is 
noticeable,  atid  shows  that  the  name  denotes  a  dis- 
trict— -as  in  "The  Shefelali,"  and  in  our  own 
"  The  Weald,"  "  The  Downs."  G. 

*  The  Plain  extended  along  the  sea-coast  from 
Joppa  to  Cajsarea,  about  30  miles.  Though  con- 
nected by  Kai  to  Lydda,  in  Acts  ix.  35,  Saron  In- 
cluded that  city.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  there 
was  a  village  of  this  name,  but  no  trace  of  it  has 
been  discovered.  Luke's  meaning  is  tiiat  not  only 
the  inhabitants  of  Lydda  but  of  the  Plain  gener- 
ally, heard  of  the  miracle  and  believed.  H. 

b  The  Rtatue  of  Sargon,  now  in  the  Berlin  Muieum, 
was  found  at  Idalium  iu  Cyprus.  It  is  not  very  likely 
that  the  king's  statue  would  have  been  get  up  uulosi 
he  had  made  the  expedition  in  person. 

c  This  barbarous  word  is  obtained  by  joining  to  St 

ri(i  the  first  word  of  the  fbUowiug  verse,  Hvl?!, 


2846 


SAROTHIE 


SARO'THIE  [4syl.]  (lapooOi  [Vat.  -Oei]; 
Alex.  [.\kl.]  Sapo^flie':  Cat-onttli).  " 'I'lje  sons  of 
Sarothie  "  are  among  the  sons  of  the  servants  of 
Solomon  who  returned  with  Zorobabel,  according 
to  the  list  in  1  Esdr.  v.  34.  There  is  nothing  cor- 
responding to  it  in  the  Hebrew. 

SAR'SECHIM  (a'^3p"ltC'  [prince  if  the 
tunuchs^ :  Sarsncliim).  One  of  the  generals  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  army  at  the  taking  of  .Jerusalem 
(.ler.  xxxix.  3).  He  appears  to  have  held  the  office 
of  chief  eunuch,  for  Kab- saris  is  probably  a  title 
and  not  a  proper  name.  In  Jer.  xxxix.  13,  Nebu- 
shasban  is  called  Eab-saris,  "chief  eunuch,"  and 
the  question  arises  whether  Xebushasban  and  Sar- 
sechini  may  not  be  names  of  the  same  person.  In 
the  LXX.,  verses  3  and  13  are  mixed  up  together. 
and  so  hopelessly  corrupt  that  it  is  impossible  to 
infer  anything  iioni  their  reading  of  Na^ovadxo-p 
[but  Conip.  NaffovaapcraxiM-]  '^"'  Sarsechim.  In 
Gesenius'  Tliesmn-us  it  is  conjectured  that  Sarse- 
chim and  Kab-saris  may  be  identical,  and  both 
titles  of  the  same  office. 

SA'RUCH  {-Xapovx'-  Saru(/).  Sekug  the 
son  of  Reu  (Luke  iii.  3.5). 

SA'TAN.  The  word  itself,  the  Hebrew  ]rb, 
is  simply  an  "adversary,'"  and  is  soused  in  1  Sam. 
xxix.  4:'  2  Sam.  xix.  22;  1  K.  v.  4  (LXX.  eVi- 
/3ouAos);  in  1  Iv.  xi.  2b  (LXX.  a.vTiKfifj.evos)-  i" 
Num.  xxii.  22,  and  Ps.  cix.  6  (LXX.  5ia/8oAos  and 
cognate  words);  in  1  K.  xi.  14,  23  (LXX.  crara;/). 
This  original  sense  is  still  found  in  onr  Lord's  ap- 
plication of  the  name  to  St.  Peter  in  Matt.  xvi.  23. 
It  is  used  as  a  proper  name  or  title  only  four  times 
in  the  O.  T.,  namely,  (with  the  article)  in  ,Iob  i.  C, 
12,  ii.  1;  Zech.  iii.  1,  and  (without  the  article)  in 
1  Chr.  xxi.  1.  In  each  case  the  LXX.  has  SiajSo- 
Aos,  and  the  Vulgate  Satan.  In  the  N.  T.  the 
word  is  (TaTuva^,  followed  by  the  Vulgate  Salanas, 
except  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7,  where  aarav  is  used.  It  is 
found  in  twenty-five  places  (exclusive  of  paiallel  pas- 
gages),  and  the  corresponding  word  6  SiaySoAos  i" 
about  the  same  number.  The  title  6  apx'^"  "^ov 
KofffMov  roiiTov  is  used  three  times;  6  irovnpSs  is 
used  certainly  six  times,  probably  more  frequently, 
and  6  Tveipd^wv  twice. 

It  is  with  the  Scriptural  revelation  on  the  sub- 
ject that  we  are  here  concerned,  and  it  is  clear, 
from  this  sini))le  enmneration  of  passages,  that  it  is 
to  lie  sought  in  the  New,  rather  than  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

It  divides  itself  naturally  into  the  consideration 
of  his  existence,  his  nature,  and  his  power  and 
action. 

(A.)  His  ExisTENCK.  —  It  would  be  a  waste  of 
time  to  prove,  that,  in  various  degrees  of  clearness, 
the  personal  existence  of  a  Spirit  of  Evil  is  reveided 
again  and  again  in  Scripture.  Every  quality,  e\ery 
action,  which  can  indicate  personality,  is  attributed 
to  him  in  laniiuage  which  cannot  be  explained  away. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  it  should  be  thus  re- 
ve;ded.  It  is  obvious  that  the  fact  of  his  existence 
is  of  spiritual  importance,  and  it  is  also  clear,  fn  m 
the  nature  of  the  case,  that  it  could  not  be  discov- 
ered, although  it  mi^ht  be  suspected,  by  luinian 
reason.  It  is  in  the  power  of  that  reason  to  test 
iny  supposed  manifestations  of  supernatural  power, 
tnd  any  asserted  principles  of  Pivine  action,  which 
5all  within  its  sphere  of  experience  ("  the  eaithly 
things  "  of  John  iii.  12);  it  may  by  such  exan.ina- 
iion  satisfy  itself  of  the  truth  and  divinity  of  a  Per- 


SATAN 

son  or  a  book;  but,  having  done  this,  it  must  tlien 
accept  and  understand,  without  being  able  to  tes< 
or  to  explain,  the  disclosures  of  this  Divine  author- 
ity upon  subjects  beyond  this  world  (the  "heavenly 
things,"  of  which  it  is  said  that  none  can  see  oi 
disclose  them,  save  the  "  Son  of  Man  who  is  in 
heaven  "). 

It  is  true,  that  human  thought  can  assert  an 
a  priori  proljability  or  improbaliility  in  such  state- 
ments made,  based  on  the  iierce])tion  of  a  greater  or 
less  degree  of  accordance  in  principle  between  the 
things  seen  and  the  things  unseen,  between  the 
effects,  which  are  visible,  and  the  causes,  which  are 
revealed  from  the  regions  of  mystery.  But  even 
this  power  of  weighing  probaliility  is  applicable 
rather  to  the  fact  and  tendency,  than  to  the  method, 
of  su))ernatural  action.  This  is  true  even  of  natu- 
ral action  beyond  the  sphere  of  human  observation. 
In  the  discussion  of  the  Plurality  of  A\'orlds,  for 
example,  it  may  be  asserted  without  doubt,  that 
hi  all  the  orbs  of  the  universe  the  Divine  power, 
wisdom,  and  goodness  must  be  exercised;  but  the 
inference  that  the  method  of  their  exercise  is  found 
there,  as  here,  in  the  creation  of  sentient  and  rational 
beings,  is  one  at  best  of  but  moderate  probability. 
Still  more  is  this  the  case  in  the  spiritual  world. 
Whatever  supernatural  orders  of  beings  may  exist, 
we  can  conclude  that  in  their  case,  as  in  oms,  the 
Divine  government  must  be  carried  on  liy  the  union 
of  individual  freedom  of  action  with  the  overruling 
power  of  God,  and  must  tend  finally  to  that  good 
which  is  his  central  attribute.  Put  beyond  this 
we  can  assert  nothing  to  be  certain,  and  can  scarcely 
even  say  of  any  part  of  the  method  of  this  govern- 
ment, whether  it  is  antecedently  probable  or  im- 
probable. 

Thus,  on  our  present  subject,  man  can  ascertain 
by  ol)servation  the  existence  of  evil,  that  is,  of  facts 
and  thoughts  contrary  to  the  standard  which  con- 
science asserts  to  be  the  true  one,  bringing  with 
them  suftt?ring  and  misery  as  their  inevitalile  re- 
sults. If  he  attempts  to  trace  them  to  their  causes, 
he  finds  them  to  arise,  for  each  individual,  partly 
from  the  power  of  certain  internal  impulses  which 
act  upon  the  will,  partly  from  the  influence  of  ex- 
ternal circumstances.  These  circumstances  them- 
selves arise,  either  from  the  laws  of  nature  and  so- 
ciety, or  by  the  delilierate  action  of  other  men. 
He  can  conclude  with  certainty,  that  both  seriss  of 
causes  must  exist  by  the  permission  of  God,  and 
must  finally  be  overruled  to  liis  will.  But  whether 
there  exists  any  superhuman  but  subordinate  cause 
of  the  circumstances,  and  whether  there  be  any 
similar  influence  acting  in  the  origination  of  the 
impulses  which  move  the  will,  this  is  a  question 
which  he  cannot  answer  with  certainty.  Analogy 
from  the  observation  of  the  only  ultimate  cause 
which  he  can  discover  in  the  visible  world,  namely, 
the  free  action  of  a  personal  will,  may  lead  him, 
and  generally  has  led  him,  to  conjecture  in  the  af- 
firmative, l)ut  still  the  inquiry  remains  unanswered 
liy  authority. 

The  tendency  of  the  mind  in  its  inquiry  is  gen- 
erally towards  one  or  other  of  two  extremes.  The 
first  is  to  consider  evil  as  a  negative  imperfection, 
arising,  in  some  unknown  and  inexplicable  way, 
from  the  nature  of  matter,  or  from  some  disturbing 
influences  which  limit  the.  action  of  goodness  on 
earth  :  in  fact,  to  ignore  as  much  of  evil  as  possible, 
and  to  decline  to  refer  the  residuimi  to  any  positive 
cause  at  all.  'I'he  other  is  the  old  Persian  or  Man- 
1  icliKau  hypothesis,  which  traces  the  eiisteace  ol 


SATAN 

ivil  to  a  rival  Creator,  not  subordinate  to  the  Cre- 
»tor  of  Good,  though  perhaps  inferior  to  Him  in 
power,  and  destined  to  be  overcome  by  Him  at  last. 
lietween  tliese  two  extremes  the  mind  varied, 
through  many  gradations  of  tliought  and  countless 
forms  of  superstition.  Each  hypothesis  had  its  ar- 
guments of  probability  against  tiie  otiier.  The  first 
labored  under  the  difficulty  of  being  insufficient  as 
an  account  of  the  anomalous  facts,  and  indetermi- 
I'ate  in  its  account  of  the  disturbing  causes;  the 
second  sinned  against  that  belief  in  the  Unity  of 
God  and  the  natural  supremacy  of  goodness,  which 
is  supported  by  the  deepest  instincts  of  the  heart. 
But  both  were  laid  in  a  spliere  beyond  human  cog- 
nizance; neither  could  be  proved  or  disproved  with 
certainty. 

The  Revelation  of  Scripture,  speaking  with  au- 
thority, meets  the  truth,  and  removes  the  error  in- 
herent in  both  these  hypotiieses.  It  asserts  in  the 
strongest  terms  the  perfect  supremacy  of  God,  so 
that  under  his  permission  alone,  and  for  his  inscru- 
table purposes,  evil  is  allowed  to  exist  (see  for 
example,  Prov.  xvi.  4;  Is.  xlv.  7;  Am.  iii.  6; 
comp.  Kom.  ix.  22,  2.3).  It  regards  this  evil  as  an 
anomaly  and  corruption,  to  he  taken  away  by  a 
new  manifestation  of  Divine  Love  in  the  Incarna- 
tion and  Atonement.  The  conquest  of  it  began 
virtually  in  God's  ordinance  after  the  Fall  itself, 
was  efFected  actually  on  the  Cross,  and  shall  be 
perfected  in  its  results  at  the  Judgment  Day. 
Still  Scripture  recognizes  the  existence  of  evil  in 
the  world,  not  only  as  felt  in  outward  circum- 
stances ("  the  world  "),  and  as  inborn  in  the  soul 
of  man  ("  the  flesh  "),  but  also  as  proceeding 
from  the  influence  of  an  Evil  Spirit,  exercising 
that  mysterious  power  of  free  will,  which  God's 
rational  creatures  possess,  to  rebel  against  Him, 
and  to  draw  others  into  the  same  rebellion  ("  the 
devil '"). 

In  accordance  with  the  "  economy "  and  pro- 
gressiveness  of  God's  revelation,  the  existence  of 
Satan  is  but  gradually  revealed.  In  the  first  en- 
trance of  evil  into  the  world,  the  temptation  is 
referred  only  to  the  serpent.  It  is  true  tliat  the 
whole  narrative,  and  especially  the  spiritual  nature 
of  the  temptation  ("to  be  as  gods"),  which  was 
united  to  the  sensual  motive,  would  force  on  any 
thoughtful  reader «  the  conclusion  that  sometiiing 
more  tiuin  a  mere  animal  agency  was  at  work; 
but  the  time  was  not  then  come  to  reveal,  what 
afterwards  was  revealed,  that  "  he  who  sinneth 
is  of  the  devil"  (1  John  iii.  8),  that  "the  old 
serpent  "  of  Genesis  was  "  called  the  devil  and 
Satan,  who  deceiveth  the  whole  world  "  (Kev.  xii. 
9,  XX.  3). 

Throughout  the  whole  period  of  the  patriarchal 
and  Jewish  dispensation,  tliis  vague  and  imperfect 
revelation  of  the  Source  of  Evil  alone  was  given. 
The  Source  of  all  Good  is  set  forth  in  all  his  su- 
preme and  unapproachable  Majesty;  evil  is  known 
negatively  as  the  falling  away  from  Him ;  and  the 
I' vanity  "  of  idols,  rather,  than  any  positive  evil 
influence,  is  represented  as  the  opposite  to  his 
reality  and  goodness.  The  Law  gi\es  "  the  knowl- 
edge of  sin  "  in  the  soul,  without  referring  to  any 
external  influence  of  evil  to  foster  it;  it  denounces 


SATAN- 


2847 


a  See  Wisd.  ii.  24,  $edi/(j)  He  Sia^dAou  edvaroi  el<rn\- 
fcv  tU  Toi/  Koa-fj.oi', 

f>  For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  seems  impossi- 
ble to  accept  the  interpretation  of  "  Azazel,'"  given  bv 
gpencer,  Uengsteuberg,  and  others,  in  Lev.  xvi.  8.  as 


idolatry,  without  even  hinting,  what  the  N.  T, 
declares  plainly,  that  such  evil  implied  a  "  powei 
of  Satan."* 

The  book  of  Job  stands,  in  any  case,  alon 
(whetiier  we  refer  it  to  an  early  or  a  later  period) 
on  the  basis  of  "  natural  religion,"  apart  from  the 
gradual  and  orderly  evolutions  of  the  .Mosaic  reve- 
lation. In  it,  for  the  first  time,  we  find  a  distinct 
mention  of  "  Satan,"  "  the  adversary  "  of  Job. 
But  it  is  important  to  remark  the  emphatic  stress 
laid  on  his  subordinate  position,  on  the  absence  of 
all  but  delegated  power,  of  all  terror,  and  all  grand- 
eur in  his  character.  He  conies  among  the  "  sons 
of  God"  to  present  himself  before  the  Lord;  his 
malice  and  envy  are  permitted  to  have  scope,  in 
accusation  or  in  action,  only  for  God's  own  pur- 
poses; and  it  is  especially  remarkable  that  no  power 
of  spiritual  influence,  but  only  a  power  over  outr 
ward  circumstances,  is  attributed  to  him.  All  this 
is  widely  difttrent  from  the  clear  and  terrible  reve- 
lations of  the  N.  T. 

The  Captivity  brought  the  Israelites  face  to  face 
with  the  great  dualism  of  the  Persian  mythology, 
the  conflict  of  Ormuzd  with  Ahriman,  the  co- 
ordinate S|(irit  of  Evil.  In  the  books  written  after 
the  (_'aptivity  we  have  again  the  name  of  "  Satan  " 
twice  mentioned;  but  it  is  confessed  by  all  that 
the  Satan  of  Scripture  bears  no  resemblance  to  the 
Persian  Ahriman.  His  subordination  and  inferi- 
ority are  as  strongly  marked  as  ever.  In  1  Chr. 
xxi.  1,  where  the  name  occurs  without  the  article 
("  an  adversary,"  not  "  the  adversary  "),  the  com- 
parison with  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1  shows  distinctl}'  that, 
in  the  temptation  of  David,  Satan's  malice  was 
overruled  to  work  out  the  "anger  of  the  Lord" 
against  Israel.  In  Zech.  iii.  1,  2,  "Satan"  is 
6  auTiSiKos  (as  in  1  Pet.  v.  8),  the  accuser  of 
Joshua  before  the  throne  of  God,  rebuked  and  put 
to  silence  by  Him  (comp.  Ps.  cix.  6).  In  the  case, 
as  of  the  good  angels,  so  also  of  the  Evil  One,  the 
presence  of  fable  and  idolatry  gave  cause  to  the 
manifestation  of  the  truth.  [Angels,  i.  97  6.1 
It  would  have  been  impossible  to  guard  the  Israel- 
ites more  distinctly  from  the  fascination  of  the 
great  dualistic  theory  of  their  conquerors. 

It  is  perhaps  not  difficult  to  conjecture,  that  the 
reason  of  this  reserve  as  to  the  disclosure  of  the 
e.xistence  and  nature  of  Satan  is  to  be  found  in 
the  inveterate  tendency  of  the  Israelites  to  idolatry, 
an  idolatry  based  as  usual,  in  great  degree,  on  the 
supposed  power  of  their  false  gods  to  inflict  evil. 
The  existence  of  evil  spirits  is  suggested  to  them 
in  the  stern  prohibition  and  punishment  of  witch- 
craft (Ex.  xxii.  18;  Dent,  xviii.  10),  and  in  the 
narrative  of  the  possession  of  men  by  an  "evil"  or 
"lying  spirit  from  the  Lord"  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14 
1  K.  xxii.  22);  the  tendency  to  seek  their  aid  is 
shown  by  the  rebukes  of  the  prophets  (Is.  \iii 
19,  ifcc).  But  this  tendency  would  have  been  in 
creased  tenfold  by  the  revelation  of  the  existence  of 
the  great  enemy,  concentrating  round  himself  all 
the  powers  of  evil  and  enmity  against  God.  There- 
fore, it  would  seem,  the  revelation  of  the  "  strong 
man  armed"  was  withheld  until  "the  stronger 
than  he  "  should  be  made  manifest. 

For  in  the  New  Test,  this  reserve  suddenly  \au- 


a  reference  to  the  Spirit  of  EviL  Such  a  reference 
would  no.  only  stand  alone,  but  would  be  entirely  in- 
consistent with  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Mosaic  revsU 
tion.     See  Dat  of  Atonement. 


2848  SATAN 

whes.  In  the  interval  between  the  Old  and  New 
Test,  the  Jewish  mind  had  pondered  on  the  scanty 
revelations  already  given  of  evil  spiritual  influenre. 
But  the  Apocryphal  Books  (as,  for  example,  Tobit 
Rud  Judith),  while  dwellinc;  on  "demons"  (5a/juo- 
via).  have  no  notice  of  Satan.  The  same  may  be 
otiserved  of  .losephus.  The  onlj'  instance  to  tlie 
contrary  is  tlie  reference  already  made  to  Wisd.  ii. 
2-1.  It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  the  Tar<fmns  often 
introduce  the  name  of  Satan  into  the  descriptions 
of  sin  and  temptation  found  in  the  0.  T. ;  as  for 
example  in  Ex.  xxxii.  19,  in  connection  with  the 
worship  of  the  £;olden  calf  (comp.  the  tradition  as 
to  the  body  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxxiv.  5,  f!;  Jude  9, 
Michael).  But,  while  a  mass  of  fable  and  super- 
stition grew  up  on  the  general  sulyect  of  evil 
Bpiritiial  influence,  still  the  existence  and  nature  of 
Satan  remained  in  the  background,  felt,  but  not 
understood. 

The  N.  T.  first  brings  it  plainly  forward.  From 
the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  when  he  appears  as 
the  j)ersonal  tempter  of  our  Lord,  through  all  the 
Gospels,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  it  is  asserted  or 
implied,  again  and  again,  as  a  familiar  and  im- 
portant truth.  To  refer  this  to  mere  "  accommo- 
dation "  of  the  language  of  the  Lord  and  his 
Apostles  to  the  ordinary  Jewish  belief,  is  to  contra- 
dict facts,  and  evade  the  meaning  of  words.  The 
subject  is  not  one  on  which  error  could  be  tolerated 
as  unimportant;  but  one  important,  practical,  and 
even  awful.  The  language  used  respecting  it  is 
either  truth  or  falsehood ;  and  unless  we  impute 
eiTor  or  deceit  to  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.,  we  uuist 
receive  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  Satan  as  a 
certain  doctrine  of  Revelation.  \\'ithout  dwelling 
on  other  passages,  the  plain,  solemn,  and  unmeta- 
phorical  words  of  John  viii.  44,  must  be  sufficient : 

"  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil He 

was   a  murderer  from   the  beginning,  and  abides 

{ea-Tr]Kev)  not  in  the  truth When 

he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own,  for  he  is 
a  liar  and  the  lather  of  it."  On  this  subject,  see 
Dejioxiacs,  vol.  i.  p.  585. 

(B.)  His  Natuke.  —  Of  the  nature  and  original 
Btate  of  Satan,  little  is  revealed  in  Scripture.  Most 
of  the  common  notions  on  the  subject  are  drawn 
from  mere  tradition,  popularized  in  England  by 
Milton,  but  without  even  a  vestige  of  Scriptural 
authority.  He  is  spoken  of  as  a  "spirit"  in  Eph. 
ii.  2,  as  the  prince  or  ruler  of  the  "  demons " 
(SaifiSvia)  in  Matt.  xii.  24-26,  and  as  having 
"angels"  suliject  to  him  in  Matt.  xxv.  41;  Rev. 
xii.  7,  9.  The  whole  description  of  his  power  im- 
plies spiritual  nature  and  spiritual  influence.  We 
conclude  therefore  that  he  was  of  angelic  nature 
[Akgels],  a  rational  and  spiritual  creature,  super- 
human in  ]iower,  wisdom,  and  energy;  and  not 
only  so,  but  an  archangel,  one  of  the  "princes"  of 
heaven.  We  cannot,  of  course,  conceive  thaj  any- 
thing essentially  and  oritrinally  evil  was  created  by 
God.  We  find  by  exjierience,  that  the  will  of  a 
free  and  rational  creature  can,  by  his  permission, 
oppose  his  will;  that  the  very  conception  of  free- 
dom implies  capacity  of  temptation ;  and  that 
every  sin,  unless  arrested  by  God"s  fresh  gift  of 
grace,  .strengtliens  the  hold  of  evil  on  the  spirit, 
till  it  may  fall  into  the  hopeless  state  of  repro- 
bation. We  can  only  conjecture,  therefore,  that 
Satan  is  a  fallen  angel,  who  once  had  a  time  of 


"  It  is  referred  b}'  some  to  Gen.  vj.  2,  where  many 
USS.  ot  tue  LXX.  have  d-yyeAoi.  ©eov  for  ''  sous  of 


SATAN 

probation,  but  whose   condemnation  is  now  irr» 
vocably  fixed. 

But  of  the  time,  cause,  and  manner  of  his  falL 
Scripture  tells  us  scarcely  anything.  It  limits  ita 
disclosures,  as  always,  to  that  which  we  need  to 
know.  The  passage  on  which  all  the  fabric  of 
tradition  and  poetry  has  been  raised  is  Rev.  xii.  7, 
9,  which  speaks  of  "  Michael  and  his  angels  "  as 
"  fighting  against  the  dragon  and  his  angels,"  till 
the  "great  dragon,  called  the  devil  and  Satan," 
was  "cast  out  into  the  earth,  and  his  angels  cast 
out  with  him."  Whatever  be  the  meaning  of  this 
passage,  it  is  certain  that  it  cannot  refer  to  the 
original  fall  of  .Satan.  The  0)dy  other  passage 
which  refers  to  the  fall  of  the  angels  is  2  Pet.  ii.  4, 
"  Gcd  spared  not  the  angels,  when  they  had  sinned, 
but  having  cast  them  into  hell,  delivered  them  to 
chains  of  darkness  {aeipais  (^6<pov  raprapdlxTas 
irapeSwKev],  reserved  unto  judgment,"  with  the 
parallel  passage  in  Jude  6,  "  Angels,  who  kept  not 
their  first  estate  (ttiv  eavrcov  apxw)i  l^"^'*  left 
their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlast- 
ing chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of 
tlie  Great  Day."  Here  again  the  passage  is  mys- 
terious ; "  but  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  consider 
Satan  as  one  of  these  ;'  for  they  are  in  chains 
and  guarded  (TiTr]p7]ij.4vovs)  till  the  Great  Day; 
he  is  pernjitted  still  to  go  about  as  the  Tempter 
and  the  x\dversary,  until  his  appointed  time  be 
come. 

Setting  these  passages  aside,  we  have  still  to  conr 
sider  the  declaration  of  our  Lord  in  Luke  x.  18, 
"  I  beheld  (idiwpow)  Satan,  as  hghtning,  fall 
from  heaven."  This  may  refer  to  the  fact  of  his 
original  fall  (although  the  use  of  the  imperfect 
tense,  and  the  force  of  the  context,  rather  refer  it 
figuratively  to  the  triumph  of  the  disciples  over  the 
evil  spirits);  but,  in  any  case,  it  tells  nothing  of  its 
cause  or  method.  There  is  also  the  passage  already 
quoted  (John  viii.  44)  in  which  our  Lord  declares 
of  him,  that  "  he  was  a  murderer  from  the  be- 
ginning," that  "he  stands  not  (eVrTj/ce)  in  the 
truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him,"  "  that  he 
is  a  liar  and  the  father  of  it."  But  here  it  seems 
likely  the  words  air  apxns  refer  to  the  beghming 
of  his  action  upon  man;  perhaps  the  allusion  is 
to  his  temptation  of  Cain  to  be  the  first  murderer, 
an  allusion  explicitly  made  in  a  similar  passage  in 
1  John  iii.  9-12.  The  word  farriKe  (wrongly 
rendered  "abode"  in  A.  V.),  and  the  rest  of  the 
verse,  refer  to  present  time.  The  passage  therefore 
throws  little  or  no  light  on  the  cause  and  method 
of  his  fall. 

Perhaps  the  only  one,  which  has  any  value,  is 
1  Tim.  iii.  6,  "  lest  being  lifted  up  by  pride  he  fall 
into  the  condemnation  (Kpi/j.a)  of  the  devil."  It 
is  concluded  from  this,  that  pride  was  the  cause 
of  the  devil's  condemnation.  The  inference  is  a 
probable  one;  it  is  strengthened  by  the  only  an.al- 
OKy  within  our  reach,  that  of  the  fall  of  roan,  in 
which  the  spiritual  temptation  of  pride,  the  de- 
sire "to  be  as  gods,"  was  the  subtlest  and  most 
deadly  temptation.  Still  it  is  but  an  inference; 
it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  certain  Reve- 
lation. 

But,  while  these  points  are  passed  by  almost  in 
silence  (a  silence  which  rebukes  the  irreverent 
e.xercise  of  imagination  on  the  subject).  Scripture 
describes  to  us  distinctly  the  moral  nature  of  the 


God  ;  "  es]jecially  because  2  Pet.  iii.  5,  relating  to  th« 
Flood,  seems  closely  connected  with  that  passa^ 


SATAN 

Evil  One.  This  is  no  matter  of  barren  speculation 
k>  those  wlio  by  yielding  to  evil  may  become  the 
"children  of  Satan,"  instead  of  "children  of  God." 
The  ideal  of  goodness  is  made  up  of  tlie  three  great 
moral  attributes  of  God,  Love,  Truth,  and  Purity 
Dr  Holiness;  combined  with  that  spirit,  which  is 
the  natural  temper  of  a  finite  and  dependent  crea- 
ture, the  spirit  of  Faith.  We  find,  according!}-, 
that  the  opposites  to  these  qualities  are  dwelt  upon 
as  the  characteristics  of  the  devil.  In  John  viii. 
44,  compared  with  1  John  iii.  10-15,  we  have 
hatred  and  falsehood ;  in  tlie  constant  mention  of 
the  "unclean"  spirits,  of  which  he  is  the  chief, 
we  find  impurity;  from  1  Tim.  iii.  6,  and  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Temptation,  we  trace  tlie  spirit  of 
pride.  These  are  especially  the  "  sins  of  tlie  devil ; " 
in  them  we  trace  the  essence  of  moral  evil,  and  the 
features  of  the  reprobate  mind.  Add  to  this  a 
spirit  of  restless  activity,  a  power  of  craft,  and  an 
intense  desire  to  spread  corruption,  and  with  it 
eternal  death,  and  we  have  the  portraiture  of  the 
Spirit  of  Evil  as  Scripture  has  drawn  it  plainly 
before  our  eyes. 

(C.)  His  I'owER  and  Action.  —  Both  these 
points,  being  intimately  connected  with  our  owni 
life  and  salvation,  are  treated  with  a  distinctness 
and  fullness  remarkably  contrasted  with  the  ob- 
scurity of  the  previous  subject. 

The  power  of  Satan  over  the  soul  is  represented 
as  exercised,  either  directly,  or  by  his  instruments. 
His  direct  influence  over  the  soul  is  simply  that  of 
a  powerful  and  evil  nature  on  those  in  whom  lurks 
the  germ  of  the  same  evil,  differing  from  the  in- 
fluence exercised  by  a  wicked  man  in  degree  rather 
than  in  kind;  but  it  has  the  power  of  acting  hy 
suggestion  of  thoughts,  without  the  medium  of 
actions  or  words  —  a  power  which  is  only  in  very 
slight  degree  exercised  by  men  upon  each  other. 
This  influence  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture  in  the 
strongest  terms,  as  a  real  external  influence,  cor- 
relative to,  but  not  to  be  confounded  with,  the 
existence  of  evil  within.  In  the  parable  of  the 
sower  (Matt.  xiii.  19),  it  is  represented  as  a  nega- 
tive influence,  taking  away  the  action  of  the  ^^'ord 
of  God  for  good ;  in  that  of  the  wheat  and  the 
tares  (Matt.  xiii.  39),  as  a  positive  influence  for 
evil,  introducing  wickedness  into  the  world.  St. 
Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  represent  it  as  a  power, 
permitted  to  dispute  the  world  with  the  power  of 
God ;  for  he  declares  to  Agrippa  that  his  mission 
was  "  to  turn  men  from  darkness  to  light,  and 
from  the  power  (i^ouaia^)  of  Satan  unto  God," 
and  represents  the  excommunication,  which  cuts 
men  ott'  from  the  grace  of  Christ  in  his  Church,  as 
a  "deliverance  of  them  unto  Satan  "  (1  Cor.  v.  5; 
1  Tim.  i.  20).  The  same  truth  is  conveyed,  though 
in  a  bolder  and  more  startling  form,  in  the  Epistles 
to  the  Churches  of  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  body 
of  the  unbelieving  Jews  is  called  a  "  synagogue  of 
Satan  "  (liev.  ii.  9,  iii.  9),  where  the  secrets  of  false 
doctrine  are  called  "  the  depths  of  Satan  "  (ii.  24), 
and  the  "throne''  and  "habitation"  of  Satan  are 
said  to  be  set  up  in  opposition  to  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Another  and  even  more  remarkable  ex- 
uression  of  the  same  idea  is  found  in  the  Epistle 
o  the  Hebrews,  where  the  death  of  Christ  is  spoken 
»f  as  intended  to  baffle  UaTapye'tv)  "  him  that 
Oath  the  power  J^rb  Kparos)  of  death,  that  is,  the 
ievil;"  for  death  is  evidently  regarded  as  the 
''wages  of  sin,"  and  the  power  of  death  as  in- 
leparalile  from  the  power  of  corruption.  Nor  is 
vhis    trutli    only  expressed  directly  and  formally; 


SATAN 


2840 


it  meets  us  again  and  again  in  passages  simply 
practical,  taken  for  granted,  as  already  familia? 
(see  Kom.  xvi.  20;  2  Cor.  ii.  11;  1  Thess.  ii.  18 
2  Thess.  ii.  9;  1  Tim.  v.  15).  The  Bil)le  does 
not  shrink  from  putting  the  fact  of  Satanic  influ- 
ence over  the  soul  before  us,  in  plain  and  terrible 
certainty. 

Yet  at  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
its  language  is  very  far  from  countenancing,  even 
lor  a  moment,  the  horrors  of  the  IManichtean  the- 
ory. The  influence  of  Satan  is  always  spoken  of 
as  temporary  and  limited,  subordinated  to  the 
Divine  counsel,  and  liroken  by  the  Incarnate  Sod 
of  God.  It  is  brought  out  visibly,  in  the  form  of 
possession,  in  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord,  only  in 
order  that  it  may  give  the  opportunity  of  his 
triumph.  As  for  Himself,  so  for  his  redeemed 
ones,  it  is  true,  that  "  God  shall  bruise  Satan  under 
their  feet  shortly"  (Kom.  xvi.  20;  comp.  Gen.  iii. 
15).  Nor  is  this  all,  for  the  history  of  the  book 
of  Job  shows  plainly,  what  is  elsewhere  constantly 
implied,  that  Satanic  influence  is  permitted,  in 
order  to  be  overruled  to  good,  to  teach  liumility, 
and  therefore  faith.  The  mystery  of  the  existence 
of  evil  is  lelt  unexplained;  but  its  present  subordi- 
nation and  future  extinction  are  familiar  truths.  So 
accordingly,  on  the  other  hand,  his  power  is  spoken 
of  as  capable  of  being  resisted  by  the  will  of  man, 
when  aided  by  the  grace  of  God.  "  liesist  the 
devil,  and  he  will  flee  from  you,"  is  the  constant 
language  of  Scripture  (Jam.  iv.  7).  It  is  indeed 
a  power,  to  which  "place"  or  opportunity  "is 
given  "  only  by  the  consent  of  man's  will  (Eph.  iv. 
27).  It  is  probably  to  be  traced  most  distinctly  in 
the  power  of  evil  habit,  a  power  real,  but  not  irre- 
sistible, created  by  previous  sin,  and  by  every  suc- 
cessive act  of  sin  riveted  more  closely  upon  the 
soul.  It  is  a  power  which  cannot  act  directly  and 
openly,  but  needs  craft  and  dissimulation,  in  order 
to  get  advantage  over  man  by  entangling  the  will. 
The  "wiles"  (Eph.  vi.  11),  the  "devices"  (2  Cor. 
ii.  ]1>,  the  "snare"  (1  Tim.  iii.  7,  vi.  9;  2  Tim. 
ii.  26)  "of  the  devil,"  are  expressions  which  indi- 
cate the  indirect  and  unnatural  character  of  the 
power  of  evil.  It  is  therefore  urged  as  a  reason 
for  "soberness  and  vigilance"  (1  Pet.  v.  8).  for 
the  careful  use  of  the  "  whole  armor  of  God " 
(Eph.  vi.  10-17);  but  it  is  never  allowed  to  obscure 
the  supremacy  of  God's  grace,  or  to  disturb  the 
inner  peace  of  the  Christian.  "He  that  is  born 
of  God,  keepeth  himself,  and  the  wicked  one  touch- 
eth  him  not"  (1  John  v.  18). 

Besides  his  own  direct  influence,  the  Scripture 
discloses  to  us  the  fact  that  Satan  is  the  leader  of 
a  host  of  evil  spirits  or  angels  who  share  his  evil 
work,  and  for  whom  the  "  everlasting  fire  is  pre- 
pared'' (Slatt.  XXV.  41).  Of  their  origin  and  fall 
we  know  no  more  than  of  his,  for  they  cannot  be 
the  .same  as  the  fallen  and  imprisoned  angels  of 
2  Pet.  ii.  4,  and  Jude  G;  lint  one  passage  (Matt, 
xii.  24-2())  identifies  them  distinctly  with  the 
SatinSfia  (A.  V.  "devils"")  who  had  power  to 
possess  tlie  souls  of  men.  The  Jews  there  speak 
of  a  Beelzebub  (B€€\(,'e;8ouA.),  "a  prince  of  the 
demons,"  whom  they  identify  with,  or  symbolize 
by  the  idol  of  Ekron,  the  "god  of  flies"  [see 
Bkklzebl'b],  and  by  whose  power  they  accuse  our 
Lord  of  casting  out  demons.    His  answer  is,  "  How 


«  It  is  unfortunate  that  the  A.  V.  should  use  th« 
word  "  devil,"  not  onlv  for  its  proper  equivaleul 
Sia^oAos,  but  also  for  Saiiioviov. 


2S50  SATA3^ 

can  Sa^an  cast  out  Satan  ?  "  The  inference  is  clear 
that  Satan  is  Beelzebub,  and  therefore  the  demons 
aie  "the  angels  of  the  devil;  "  and  this  inference  is 
Btrengthened  by  Acts  x.  38,  in  which  St.  Peter 
describes  the  possessed  as  KaraSwaa-T^vo/xfuov^ 
virh  rov  5ia^6\ov,  and  by  Luke  \.  18,  in  which 
the  mastery  over  the  demons  is  connected  by  our 
Lovd  with  the  "fall  of  Satan  from  heaven,"  and 
their  power  included  by  Him  in  the  "  power  of  the 
enemy  "  (tou  exflpoO);  comp.  Matt.  xiii.  30).  For 
their  nature,  see  Dejions.  They  are  mostly  spoken 
of  in  Scripture  in  reference  to  possession ;  but  in 
Eph.  vi.  12  they  are  described  in  various  lights, 
as  "principalities"  (apxai),  "powers"  (e^ovffiai), 
"rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,"  and 
''  spiritual  powers  of  wickedness  in  heavenly  places  " 
(or  "things")  (ra  irvev/xaTiKO.  rrjs  Trovrif)'ias  iu 
Tols  iirovpaviois);  and  in  all  as  "wrestling" 
against  the  soul  of  man.  The  same  reference  is 
made  less  explicitly  in  Rom.  viii  38,  and  Col.  ii. 
15.  In  Rev.  xii.  7-9  they  are  spoken  of  as  fight- 
ing with  "the  dragon,  the  old  serpent  called  the 
devil  and  Satan,"  against  "  JMichael  and  his  angels," 
and  as  cast  out  of  heaven  with  their  chief.  Taking 
all  these  passages  together,  we  find  them  sharing 
the  enmity  to  God  and  man  implied  in  the  name 
and  nature  of  Satan;  but  their  power  and  action 
are  but  little  dwelt  ujion  in  comparison  with  his. 
That  there  is  against  us  a  power  of  spiritual  wick- 
edness is  a  truth  wliich  we  need  to  know,  and  a 
mystery  which  only  Revelation  can  disclose;  but 
whether  it  is  exercised  by  few  or  by  many  is  a 
matter  of  comparative  indiffi?rence. 

But  the  Evil  One  is  not  only  the  "  prince  of  the 
demons,"  but  also  he  is  called  the  "prince  of  this 
world  "  (6  'dpx<^v  tov  Koa/xov  tovtov)  in  Jolin  xii. 
31,  si  v.  30,  xvi.  11,  and  even  the  "god  of  this 
world  "  (o  6ehi  rov  aloovos  tovtov)  in  2  Cor.  iv. 
4;  the  two  expressions  being  united  in  the  words 
Tovs  KoaixoKpoLTopas  TOV  crK6Tovs  TOV  aiSivos 
TOVTOV,  used  in  Eph.  vi.  12."  This  jiower  he 
claimed  for  himself,  as  a  dckgnhd  authority,  in 
the  temptation  of  our  Lord  (Luke  iv.  6);  and  the 
temptation  would  have  been  inireal,  had  he  spoken 
altogether  falsely.  It  implies  another  kind  of  in- 
direct intluence  exercised  through  earthly  instru- 
ments. There  are  some  indications  in  Scripture  of 
the  exercise  of  this  power  through  inanimate  in- 
struments, of  an  influence  over  the  powers  of  na- 
ture, and  what  men  call  the  "chances"  of  life. 
Such  a  power  is  distinctly  asserted  in  the  case  of 
Job,  and  probalily  implied  in  the  case  of  the  woman 
with  a  spirit  of  infirmity  (in  Luke  xiii.  16),  and  of 
St.  Paul's  "thorn  in  the  flesh"  (2  Cor.  xii.  7). 
It  is  only  consistent  with  the  attribution  of  such 
action  to  the  angels  of  Cod  (as  in  Ex.  xii.  23 ;  2 
Sam.  xxiv.  16;  2  K.  xix.  35:  Acts  xii.  23);  and, 
in  our  ignorance  of  the  method  of  connection  of  the 
second  causes  of  nature  with  tlie  Supreme  Will  of 
God,  we  cannot  even  say  whether  it  has  in  it  any 
antecedent  improbability;  but  it  is  little  dwelt 
upon  in  Scripture,  in  comparison  witli  the  otlier 
exercise  of  this  power  through  the  hands  of  wicked 
men,  who  become  "children  of  the  devil,"  and 
accordingly  "do  the  lusts  of  their  father."  (See 
John   viii.   44;   Acts  xiii.  10;    1  John  iii.  8-10; 


a  The  word  Koo-fiiO!,  properly  referring  to  the  Bvstem 
»f  the  universe,  and  so  used  in  John  i.  10,  is  generally 
tpplied  in  Scripture  to  human  society  as  alienated 
from  God,  with  a  reference  to  the  "  pomp  and  vanity  " 
VhicU  makes  it  an  idol  (see,  e.g.,  1  John  ii.  15);  alu>v 


SATAN 

and  comp.  John  vi.  70.)  In  this  sense  the  Scrip 
ture  regards  all  sins  as  the  "works  of  the  devil," 
and  traces  to  him,  through  his  ministers,  all 
spiritual  evil  and  error  (2  Cor.  xi.  14,  1.5),  and  all 
the  persecution  and  hindrances  which  oppose  the 
Gospel  (Rev.  ii.  10;  1  Thess.  ii.  18).  Most  of  all 
is  this  indirect  action  of  Satan  manifested  in  those 
who  deliberately  mislead  and  tempt  men,  and  who 
at  last,  independent  of  any  interest  of  their  own, 
come  to  take  an  unnatural  pleasure  in  the  sight  of 
evil-doing  in  others  (Rom.  i.  32). 

The  method  of  his  action  is  best  discerned  by 
an  examination  of  the  title  by  which  he  is  desig- 
nated in  Scripture.  He  is  called  emphatically 
6  Sia^oAo?,  "  the  devil."  The  derivation  of  the 
word  in  itself  implies  only  the  endeavor  to  break  the 
bonds  between  others,  and  "set  them  at  variance" 
(see,  e.  g.,  Plat.  Hymj).  p.  222  c:  Sta^dAXfiv  e/xe 
Koi  'Ayddoiva) ;  but  common  usage  adds  to  this 
general  sense  the  special  idea  of  "  setting  at  vari- 
ance by  skinder."  In  the  N.  T.  the  word  Std^o\ot 
is  used  three  times  as  an  epithet  (1  Tim.  iii.  11 ; 
2  Tim.  iii.  3;  Tit.  ii.  3);  and  in  each  case  with 
something  like  the  special  meaning.  In  the  appli- 
cation of  the  title  to  Satan,  both  the  general  and 
special  senses  should  be  kept  m  view.  His  general 
object  is  to  break  the  bonds  of  communion  between 
God  and  man,  and  the  bonds  of  truth  and  love 
which  bind  men  to  each  other,  to  "set"  each  soul 
"at  variance"  both  with  men  and  God,  and  so 
reduce  it  to  that  state  of  self-will  and  selfishness 
which  is  the  seed-plot  of  sin.  One  special  means 
by  which  he  seeks  to  do  this,  is  slander  of  God  to 
man,  and  of  man  to  God. 

The  slander  of  God  to  man  is  seen  best  in  the 
words  of  Gen.  iii.  4,  5:  "Ye  shall  not  surely  die: 
for  God  doth  know,  that  in  the  day  that  ye  eat 
thereof  your  eyes  shall  be  opened,  and  ye  shall  be 
as  gods,  knowing  good  and  evil."  These  words 
contain  the  germ  of  the  false  notions,  which  keep 
men  from  God,  or  reduce  their  service  to  Him  to  a 
hard  and  compulsory  slavery,  and  which  the  hea- 
then so  often  adopted  in  all  their  hideousness,  when 
they  represented  their  gods  as  either  careless  of 
human  weal  and  woe,  or  "envious"  of  human  ex- 
cellence and  happiness.  They  attribute  selfisiniess 
and  jealousy  to  the  Giver  of  all  good.  This  is 
enough  (even  without  the  imputation  of  falsehood 
which  is  added)  to  pervert  man's  natural  love  of 
freedom,  till  it  rebels  against  that  which  is  made 
to  appear  as  a  hard  and  arbitrary  tyranny,  and 
seeks  to  set  up,  as  it  thinks,  a  freer  and  nobler 
standard  of  its  own.  Such  is  the  slander  of  God 
to  man,  by  which  Satan  and  his  agents  still  strive 
against  his  reuniting  grace. 

The  slander  of  man  to  God  is  illustrated  by  the 
book  of  .lob  (Job  i.  9-11,  ii.  4,  5).  In  reference 
to  it,  Satan  is  called  the  "adversary"  (avTiSiKos) 
of  man  in  1  Pet.  v.  8,  and  represented  in  that 
character  in  Zech.  iii.  1,  2;  and  more  plainly  still 
designated  in  Rev.  xii.  10,  as  "  the  accuser  of  our 
brethren,  who  accused  them  before  our  God  day 
and  night  "  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  understand 
what  can  be  the  need  of  accusation  or  the  power  of 
slander,  under  the  all-searching  eye  of  God.  The 
mention  of  it  is  clearly  an  "accommodation"  of 


refers  to  its  transitory  character,  and  is  evidently 
used  above  to  qualify  the  startling  application  of 
tlie  word  fleos,  a"god  of  an  age"  being  of  cours* 
no  true  God  at  all.  It  is  used  with  KoafiK  in  Eph 
ii  2. 


SATAN 

atod'i  judgment  to  the  analogy  of  our  human  expe- 
rience; but  we  understand  by  it  a  practical  and 
j.wt'ul  truth,  that  every  sin  of  life,  and  even  the 
idniixture  of  lower  and  evil  motives  which  taints 
the  liest  actions  of  man,  will  rise  up  against  us  at 
the  judgment,  to  claim  the  soul  as  their  own,  and 
fix  forever  that  separatio?i  from  God,  to  which, 
tlirough  them,  we  have  yielded  ourselves.  In  that 
accusation  Satan  shall  in  some  way  bear  a  leadiuL; 
part,  pleading  against  man  with  that  worst  of 
slander  which  is  based  on  perverted  or  isolated 
facts ;  and  shall  be  overcome,  not  by  any  counter- 
claim of  human  merit,  but  "by  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb  "  received  in  true  and  steadi'ast  faith. 

But  these  points,  important  as  they  are,  are  of 
less  moment  thau  the  disclosure  of  the  method  of 
Satanic  action  upon  the  heart  itself.  It  may  be 
summed  up  in  two  words  —  Temptation  and  Pos- 
session. 

The  suliject  of  temptation  is  illustrated,  not  only 
by  abstract  statements,  but  also  by  the  record  of 
the  temptations  of  Adam  and  of  our  Lord.  It  is 
expressly  laid  down  (as  in  James  i.  2-4)  that 
"temptation,"  properly  so  called,  i.  e.  "trial" 
[weipaa/xos),  is  essential  to  man,  and  is  accord- 
ngly  ordained  for  him  and  sent  to  him  by  God 
^as  in  Gen.  xxii.  1).  Man's  nature  is  progressive; 
his  faculties,  which  exist  at  first  only  in  capacity 
(SuvdfjLfi)  must  be  brought  out  to  exist  in  actual 
efficiency  (ivepyeia)  by  free  exercise."  His  appe- 
tites and  passions  tend  to  their  objects,  simply  and 
unreservedly,  without  respect  to  the  rightness  or 
wrongness  of  their  obtaining  them ;  they  need  to 
be  checked  by  the  reason  and  conscience,  and  this 
need  constitutes  a  trial,  in  which,  if  the  conscience 
prevail,  the  spirit  receives  strength  and  growth ;  if 
it  be  overcome,  the  lower  nature  tends  to  predomi- 
nate, and  the  man  has  fallen  away.  Besides  this, 
the  will  itself  delights  in  independence  of  action. 
Such  independence  of  physical  compulsion  is  its 
high  privilege;  but  there  is  over  it  the  Moral  Power 
of  God's  Law,  which,  by  the  very  fact  of  its  truth 
and  goodness,  acknowledged  as  they  are  by  the 
reason  and  the  conscience,  should  regulate  the  hu- 
man will.  The  need  of  giving  up  the  individual 
will,  freely  and  by  conviction,  so  as  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  will  of  God,  is  a  still  severer  trial, 
with  the  reward  of  still  greater  s|)iritual  progress, 
if  we  sustain  it,  with  the  punishment  of  a  suljtler 
and  more  dangerous  fall  if  we  succumb.  In  its 
struggle  the  spirit  of  man  can  only  gain  and  sus- 
tain its  authority  by  that  constant  grace  of  God, 
given  through  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  is  the  breath  of  spiritual  life. 

It  is  this  tentability  of  man,  even  in  his  original 
nature,  which  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  giving 
scope  to  the  evil  action  of  Satan.  He  is  called  the 
"tempter"  (as  in  Matt.  iv.  .3;  1  Thess.  iii.  5). 
He  has  power  (as  the  record  of  Gen.  iii.  shows 
clearly),  first,  to  present  to  the  appetites  or  passions 
their  objects  in  vivid  and  captivating  forms,  so  as 
to  induce  man  to  seek  the.se  objects  against  the 
(-aw  of  God  "  written  in  the  heart;  "  and  next,  to 
act  upon  the  false  desire  of  the  will  for  indepen- 
dence, the  desire  "to  be  as  gods,  knowing"  (that 
.8,  practically,  judging  and  determining)  "good 
»nd  evil."  It  is  a  power  which  can  be  resisted, 
because  it  is  under  the  control  and  overruling  power 
tf  God,  as  is  emphatically  laid  down  in  1  Cor.  x. 

«  See  the  connection  between  faith  and  love  by 
Vhicb  it  is  made   perfect  {ivepyovfx.ti'r])  in  Gal.  v.  6, 


Satan  2851 

1-1;  Jam.  iv.  7,  ifcc;  but  it  can  be  bo  resisted  only 
by  yielding  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  by  a  stniggle 
(sometimes  an  "agony")  in  rehance  on  its 
strength. 

It  is  exercised  both  negatively  and  positively. 
Its  negative  exercise  is  refeired  to  in  the  paral)le  of 
the  sower,  as  taking  away  the  word,  the  "engrafted 
word  "  (James  i.  21)  of  grace,  i.  e.  as  interposing 
itself,  by  consent  of  man,  between  him  and  the 
channels  of  God"s  grace.  Its  positive  exercise  is  set 
forth  in  the  parable  of  the  v.heat  and  the  tares, 
represented  as  sowing  actual  seed  of  evil  in  the  in- 
dividual heart  or  the  world  generally;  and  it  is  to 
be  noticed,  that  the  consideration  of  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  tai-es  (^'i^aria)  leads  to  the  conclusion, 
which  is  declared  plainly  in  2  Cor.  xi.  14,  namely, 
that  evil  is  introduced  into  the  heart  mostly  as 
the  counterfeit  of  good. 

This  exercise  of  the  Tempter's  power  is  possible, 
even  against  a  sinless  nature.  We  see  this  in  the 
Temptation  of  our  Lord.  The  temptations  pre- 
sented to  Him  appeal,  first  to  the  natural  desire 
and  need  of  food,  next  to  the  desire  of  power,  to 
be  used  for  good,  which  is  inherent  in  the  noblest 
minds;  and  lastly,  to  the  desire  of  testing  and 
realizing  God's  special  protection,  which  is  the  in- 
evitable tendency  of  human  weakness  under  a  real 
l)ut  imperfect  faith.  The  objects  contemplated  in- 
volved in  no  case  positive  sinfulness;  the  temptation 
was  to  seek  them  by  presumptuous  or  by  unholy 
means;  the  answer  to  them  (given  by  the  Lord  as 
the  Son  of  Man,  and  therefore  as  one  like  ourselves 
in  all  the  weakness  and  finiteness  of  our  nature) 
lay  in  simple  Faith,  resting  upon  God,  and  on  his 
Word,  keeping  to  his  way,  and  refusing  to  con- 
template the  issues  of  action,  which  belong  to  Him 
alone.  Such  faith  is  a  renunciation  of  all  self- 
confidence,  and  a  simple  dependence  on  the  will  and 
on  the  grace  of  God. 

But  in  the  temptation  of  a  fallen  nature  Satan 
has  a  greater  power.  P^very  sin  connnitted  makes 
a  man  the  "servant  of  sin"  for  the  future  (John 
viii.  .34;  Rom.  vi.  l(i);  it  therefore  creates  in  the 
spirit  of  man  a  positi^•e  tendency  to  evil,  which 
sympathizes  with,  and  aids,  the  temptation  of  the 
Lvil  One.  This  is  a  fact  recognized  by  experience; 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  inscrutably  mysterious, 
but  unmistakably  declared,  is  that,  since  the  Fall, 
this  evil  tendency  is  born  in  man  in  capacity,  prior 
to  all  actual  sins,  and  capable  of  being  brought  out 
into  active  existence  by  such  actual  sins  committed. 
It  is  this  which  St.  Paul  calls  "a  law,"  i.  e.  (ac- 
cording to  his  universal  use  of  the  word )  an  exter- 
nal power  "  of  sin  "  over  man,  liringing  the  inner 
man  (the  vovs)  into  captivity  (Kom.  vii.  14-24). 
Its  power  is  broken  by  the  Atonement  and  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit,  but  yet  not  completely  cast  out ;  it 
still  "lusts  against  the  spirit"  so  that  men  "can- 
not do  the  things  which  they  would"  (Gal.  v.  17). 
It,  is  10  this  spiritual  power  of  evil,  the  tendency  to 
falsehood,  cruelty,  pride,  and  unbelief,  independently 
of  any  benefits  to  be  derived  from  them,  that  Satan 
is  said  to  appeal  in  tempting  us.  If  his  tempta- 
tions be  yielded  to  without  repentance,  it  becomes 
the  reprobate  {aS6Ki/j.os)  mind,  which  delights  in 
evil  for  its  own  sake  (Kom.  i.  28,  32)  and  makes 
men  emphatically  "children  of  the  devil"  (John 
viii.  44:  Acts  xiii.  10;  1  John  iii.  8,  10),  and  "ac- 
cursed" (Matt.   XXV.    41),   fit   for  "the  fire    pre- 


and  between  faith  and  the  works  by  which  it  is  per 
fected  (TeAcioCrai)  in  Jam.  ii.  22. 


2852 


SATHRABUZANES 


pared  fo  die  devil  and  his  angels."  If  they  Uii 
resisted,  as  by  God's  grace  they  may  be  resisted, 
then  tlie  evil  power  (the  "  flesh  "  or  the  "  old 
man")  is  gradually  "  crucified  "  or  "mortified," 
until  the  soul  is  preijared  for  that  heaven,  where 
uo  evil  can  enter. 

This  tvFofbld  power  of  temptation  is  frequently 
referred  to  in  Scripture,  as  exercised,  chiefly  by  the 
suggestion  of  evil  thoughts,  but  occasionally  by  the 
delegated  power  of  Satan  over  outward  circum- 
stances. To  this  latter  power  is  to  be  traced 
(as  has  been  said)  the  trial  of  Job  by  temporal  loss 
and  bodily  suffering  (Job  i.,  ii.),  the  remarkable 
expression,  used  by  our  Lord,  as  to  the  woman 
with  a  "spirit  of  infirmity"  (Luke  xiii.  16),  the 
"thorn  in  the  flesh,"  which  St.  Paul  calls  the 
"  messenger  of  Satan  "  to  buffet  him  (2  Cor.  xii.  7). 
Its  language  is  plain,  incapable  of  being  explained 
as  metaphor,  or  poetical  personification  of  an  ab- 
stract principle.  Its  general  statements  are  illus- 
trated by  examples  of  temptation.  (See,  besides 
those  already  mentioned,  Luke  xxii.  3;  John  xiii. 
27  (Juda.s);  Luke  xxii.  .'ll  (i'eter);  Acts  v.  3  (An- 
anias and  Sapphira);  1  Cor.  vii.  5;  2  Cor.  ii.  11; 
1  Thess.  iii.  .5.)  The  subject  itself  is  the  most 
startling  form  of  the  mystery  of  evil;  it  is  one  on 
which,  from  our  ignorance  of  the  connection  of  the 
First  Cause  with  Second  Causes  in  Nature,  and 
of  the  process  of  origination  of  human  thought, 
experience  can  hardly  be  held  to  be  competent 
either  to  confirm  or  to  oppose  the  testimony  of 
Scripture. 

On  the  .subject  of  Possession  see  Desioniacs. 
It  is  sufficient  here  to  remark,  that  although  widely 
different  in  form,  yet  it  is  of  the  same  intrinsic 
character  as  the  other  power  of  Satan,  including 
both  that  external  and  internal  influence  to  which 
reference  has  been  made  above.  It  is  disclosed 
to  us  only  in  comiection  with  the  revelation  of  that 
redemption  from  sin,  which  destroys  it,  —  a  reve- 
lation begun  in  the  first  promise  in  Eden,  and 
manifested,  in  itself  at  the  Atonement,  in  its  effects 
at  the  Great  I>ay.  Its  end  is  seen  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, where  Satan  is  first  "  bound  for  a  thousand 
years,"  then  set  free  for  a  time  for  the  last  conflict, 
and  finally  "  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brim- 
stone ...  for  ever  and  ever "'  (xx.  2,  7-10). 

A.  B. 

*  The  literature  of  this  subject  is  extcTisive. 
Some  of  the  works  relating  to  it  are  referred  to 
dnder  the  articles  Angels,  1)E!MOns,  and  Demo- 
KiACS.  Among  the  more  recent  books  it  may  he 
suflBcient  to  name  here  G.  RoskofF's  Geschicltit  ths 
Teiifek,  2  vols.  Leipz.  1869,  8vo.  A. 

SATHRABUZA'NES  (l.aepafiovCdi'v^  ; 
[yiit.  once  -j3ovp(avTis'-]  ISatrabuznnes).  Sheth- 
AKBOZNAi  (1  Esdr.  vi.  3,  7,  27  [vii.  1];  comp. 
Ezr.  V.  3,  6,  vi.  G,  13). 

SATYRS  {'D'''-))3P,seMm:  SaifxSvia.  pUosi), 
the  rendering  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  above-named 
plural  noun,  which,  having  the  meaning  of  "  hairy  " 
or  "rough,"  is  frequently  applied  to  "he-goats" 
(comp.  the  Latin  Jiircus,  from  hirtus,  hirstdus);  the 
Seiriin,  however,  of  Is.  xiii.  21,  and  xxxiv.  14, 
where  the  prophet  predicts  the  desolation  of  Baby- 
lon, have,  probably,  no  allusion  to  any  species  of 
goat  whether  wild  or  tame.  According  to  the  old 
versions,  and  nearly  all  the  connnentators,  our  own 
translation  is  correct,  and  Satyrs,  that  is,  demons 
jf  woods  and  de-sert  places,  half  men  and  half 
joats,  are  intended.    Comp.  Jerome  {Commenl.  ad 


iSAUL 

\/s.  xiii.),  "Seirim  vel  incubones  vel  satyros  vel 
sylvestres  quosdani  homines  quos  nomndli  fatuos 
ficarios  vocant,  aut  da^monum  genera  intelligunt.' 
This  explanation  recei\es  confirmation  from  a  pas 
sage  in  Lev.  xvii.  7,  "they  shall  no  more  otfei 
their  sacrifices  unto  Seirim,"  and  from  a  similai 
one  in  2  Chr.  xi.  15.  The  Israelites,  it  is  prob- 
able,  had  become  acquainted  with  a  form  of  goat- 
worship  from  the  Egyptians  (see  Bochart,  /Jiervz. 
iii.  825;  Jablonski,  Pant,  ^cjypt.  i.  273  W-). 
The  opinion  held  by  Michaelis  {'Siipp.  p.  2342)  and 
Lichtenstein  ( Commeiilat.  de  Simiarum,  etc.,  §  4, 


CynocephaluB.    (Egyptian  Monuments  ' 

50,  sqq.),  that  the  Seirim  probably  denote  some 
species  of  ape,  has  been  sanctioned  by  Hamilton 
Smith  in  Kitto's  Cyc.  art.  "Ape."  From  a  few  pas- 
sages in  Pliny  (//.  jV.  v.  8;  vii.  2;  viii.  54)  it  is 
clear  that  by  Satyrs  are  sometimes  to  be  understood 
some  kind  of  ape  or  monkey;  Col.  H.  Smith  has 
figured  the  Mdcncus  Arabicus  as  being  the  prob- 
able satyr  of  Babjlon.  That  some  species  of  Cyno- 
cepliahis  (dog-faced  baboon)  was  an  anintal  that 
entered  into  the  tlieology  of  the  ancient  Egyptians, 
is  evident  from  tl)e  monuments  and  from  what 
Horapollo  (i.  14-16)  has  told  us.  The  other  ex- 
planation, however,  has  the  sanction  of  Gesenius, 
Bochart,  Rosenmiiller,  Parkburst,  Maurer,  Fiirst, 
and  others.  As  to  the  "  dancing  "  satyrs,  comp. 
Virg.  J^cl.  v.  73,  — 

"  Saltantes  satyros  imitabitur  Alphesiboeus." 

W.  H. 
SAUL  (bnStt7, /.  e.  Shafil  [asked  for,  be- 
aowjlit]:  2aouA;  Joseph.  2aouA.os:  Saiil),  more 
accurately  Shaul,  in  which  form  it  is  given  on 
several  occasions  in  the  Authorized  Version.  The 
name  of  various  persons  in  the  Sacred  History. 

1.  Saul  of  IJehoboth  by  the  Kiver  was  one  of 
the  early  kings  of  I^dom,  and  successor  of  Samlah 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  37,  38).  In  1  Chr.  i.  48  he  is  called 
Shaul.  .       G. 

2.  The  first  king  of  Isnael.  The  name  here 
first  appears  in  tlie  history  of  Israel,  though  found 
before  in  the  Edomite  prince  already  mentioned ; 
and  in  a  son  of  Simeon  (Gen.  xlvi.  10;  A.  V. 
Shaul).  It  also  occurs  among  the  Kohathites  in 
the  genealogy  of  Samuel  (1  Chr.  vi.  24),  and  in 
Saul,  like  the  king,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  better 
known  as  the  Apostle  Paul  (see  below,  p.  2857) 
Josephus  (B.  J.  ii.  18,  §  4)  mentions  a  Saul,  fathei 
of  one  Simon  who  distinguished  him.self  at  Scythop' 
olis  in  the  early  part  of  the  Jewish  war. 

In  the  foUowhig  genealogy  may  be  obstiTved  •  - 


I 


SAUL 


SAUL 


2853 


1.  The  repetition  in  two  generations  of  the  names  (6.)  .l/((/c/(t-shua:^  Je-shua.  (c.)  Esh-6aa/=:  Ish- 
of  Kish  and  Ner,  of  Nadab  and  Abi-nadab,  and  of  bvshtlh.  ((/.)  Mephi-  (or  Men-)  6rtrtZ  =  Mephi- 
Mephibosheth.  2.  The  occurrence  of  the  name  of  ,  busliKlli.  4.  The  long  continuance  of  the  family 
Ba;il  in  three  successive  generations :  possibly  in  down  to  the  times  of  Ezra.  5.  Is  it  possible  that 
four,  as  there  were  two  Mephibosheths.  3.  The  Zimri  (1  Chr.  ix.  42)  can  be  the  usurper  of  1  K. 
constant  shiftiugs  of  the  names  of  God  as  incor- '  xvi.  —  if  so,  the  last  attempt  of  the  liouse  of  S?u] 
porated  in  the  proper  names:  (((.)  ^6-iel  = -/e-hiel.    to  regain  its  ascendency?     The  time  would  agree. 

^  Apiiiah.    (1  Sam.  Lx.  1.) 

I 
Bechorath. 

Zeror.    (LXX.  Jaord.) 

Abiel,  or  Jehiel  =  Maachnh. 
0  Sam.  ix.  1.)  ,  (1  Chr.  ix.) 
(1  Chr.  viii.  2a.) 


Ner.  Nadab. 

(1  Chr.  ix.  3G.) 

I 


Kish. 

I 

Ahinoam  =  SAUL  =  Rizpah. 

(1  Chr.  ix.  3a.) 


Gedor.        Ahio.        Zechariah.         Mikloth. 

(Zaclier,        (1  Chr.  ix.  S7.) 
1  Chr.  viii.)  | 

Shimeah. 


Jonathan.  Ishui.  Malchi-shua.  Abinadab.     Esh-baal.   Merab.   David  =  Michal  =  Phaltiel.    Armoni.  Mepiubotheth. 


I        (1  Sam.  Ishbosheth. 

I  xiv.  49  !  Jeshua  ['Ie(roOs],  Jos.  Ant.  vi.  6,  §  6.) 

■baal. 


Merib 

Mephibosheth.    (1  Chr.  ix.  40.) 

Micah. 
I 


Fithon. 


ahrea. 


Ahaz. 

Jehoadah.    (Jarah,  1  Chr.  ix.  42.) 


Alemeth.         Azmaveth. 

Zimri. 
Moza. 
Binea. 

Rephar. 

(Raphaiah,  1  Chr.  Ix.  48.) 

Eleaeah. 
1 

Azel. 
1 

Eshek. 
1 

Aziikam. 

Pocheru. 

Ishraael.     Sheariah.      Obadiah. 

Hanan. 

Ulam. 

Jehuah.      EUph 

There  is  a  contradiction  between  the  pedigree  in 
1  Sam.  ix.  1,  xiv.  51,  which  represents  Saul  and 
Abner  as  the  grandsons  of  Abiel,  and  1  Chr.  viii. 
33,  ix.  39,  which  represei^ts  them  as  his  great- 
grandsons.  If  we  adopt  the  more  elaborate  pedi- 
gree in  the  Chronicles,  we  must  suppose  either  that 
a.  link  has  been  dropped  lietvveen  Abiel  and  Kish, 
in  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  or  that  the  elder  Kish,  the  son  of 
Abiel  (1  Chr.  ix.  36),  has  been  confounded  with 
the  younger  Kish,  the  son  of  Ner  (1  Chr.  ix.  39). 
The  pedigree  in  1  Chr.  viii.  is  not  free  from  con- 
fusion, as  it  omits,  amongst  the  sons  of  Abiel, 
Ner,  who  in  1  Chr.  ix.  36  is  the  fifth  son,  and  who 
in  both  is  made  the  father  of  Kish. 

His  character  is  in  part  illustrated  by  the  fierce, 
wayward,  fitful  nature  of  the  tribe  [Benjajiin], 
and  in  part  accounted  for  by  the  struggle  between 
the  old  and  new  systems  in  which  he  found  him- 
self involved.  To  this  we  must  add  a  taint  of 
madness,  which  broke  out  in  violent  frenzy  at 
times,  leaving  him  with  long  lucid  intervals.  His 
affections  were  strong,  as  appears  in  his  lo."e  both 
for  David  and  his  son  .lonathan,  but  thty  were 
unequal  to  the  wild  accesses  of  religious  zeal  or 


a  2  Sam.  i.  19,  tlie  word  translated  "  beauty,"  but 
be  same  term  (^31J)  in  2  Sam.  ii.  18  and  elsewhere 
I  tmislated  "roe."     The  LXX.  haT«  confoundei/  it 


150  descendants, 
insanity  which  ultimately  led  to  his  ruin.  He  was, 
like  the  earlier  Judges,  of  whom  in  one  sense  he 
may  be  counted  as  the  successor,  remarkable  for  his 
strength  and  activity  (2  Sam.  i.  23),  and  he  was, 
like  the  Homeric  heroes,  of  gigantic  stature,  taller 
by  head  and  shoulders  than  the  rest  of  the  people, 
and  of  that  kind  of  beauty  denoted  by  the  Hebrew 
word  "good"  (1  Sam.  ix.  2),  and  which  caused 
him  to  be  compared  to  the  gazelle,  "  the  gazeUe 
of  Israel."  "  It  was  probably  these  external  quali- 
ties which  led  to  the  epithet  which  is  frequently 
attached  to  his  name,  "chosen"  —  "whom  the 
Lord  did  choose" — "■See  ye  {i.  e.  Look  at)  him 
whom  the  Lord  hath  chosen ! "  (1  Sam.  ix.  17, 
X.  24;  2  Sam.  xxi.  6). 

The  birthplace  of  Saul  is  not  expressly  men- 
tioned ;  but  as  Zelah  was  the  place  of  Kish's  sep- 
ulchre (2  Sam.  xxi.),  it  was  probably  his  native 
village.  There  is  no  warrant  for  saying  that  it 
was  Gibeah,*  though,  from  its  subsequent  connec- 
tion with  hiln,  it  is  called  often  "Gibeah  of  Saul" 
[GiBE.vu].  His  father,  Kish,  was  a  powerful  and 
wealthy  chief,  though  the  family  to  which  he  be- 
longed was  of  little  importance  (1  Sam.  is.  1,  21). 

with  a  Tery  similar  word,  and  render  it  SttjAoxjoi', 
"set  up  a  pillar." 

b  When  Abiel,  or  Jehiel  (1  Chr.  viii.  29,  ix.  35),  is 
railed   the    father  of  "Qibeon,"   it   probably  mean* 
I  founder  of  Gibtoh, 


2854 


SAUL 


A  portion  of  his  property  consisted  of  a  drove  of 
asses.  In  search  of  tliese  asses,  gone  astray  on 
the  mountuins,  he  sent  his  son  Saul,  accompanied 
by  a  servant,"  who  acted  also  as  a  guide  and 
guardian  of  the  3'oung  man  (ix.  3-10).  After  a 
three  days"  journey  (ix.  20),  which  it  has  hitherto 
proved  impossible  to  track,  through  Ephraini  and 
Benjamin  [Shalisha  ;  Shalim;  Zuph],  they 
arrived  at  the  foot  of  a  hill  surrounded  by  a  tuwn, 
when  Saul  proposed  to  return  home,  but  was  de- 
terred by  the  advice  of  the  servant,  who  suggested 
that  before  doing  so  they  should  consult  "  a  man 
of  God,"  "a  seer,"  as  to  the  fate  of  the  asses  — 
securing  his  oracle  by  a  present  (backshish)  of  a 
quarter  of  a  silver  shekel.  Tliey  \\ere  instructed 
by  the  maidens  at  the  well  outside  the  city  to  catch 
the  seer  as  he  came  out  of  the  city  to  ascend  to  a 
Bacred  eminence,  where  a  sacrificial  feast  was  wait- 
insi  for  his  benediction  (1  Sam.  ix.  11-13).  At 
the  gate  they  met  the  seer  for  the  first  time  —  it 
was  Samuel.  A  divine  intimation  had  indicated 
to  him  the  ajiproach  and  the  future  destiny  of  the 
youthful  Benjamite.  Surprised  at  his  language, 
but  still  obeying  his  call,  they  ascended  to  the  high 
place,  and  in  the  inn  or  caravanserai  at  the  top 
Irh  KaTa.\vjj.a,  LXX.,  ix.  27)  foufid  thirty  or 
(1,XX.,  and  Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  4,  §  1 )  seventy  guests 
Rssenibled,  amongst  whom  they  took  the  chief  place. 
In  anticipation  of  some  distinguished  stranger, 
Samuel  had  bade  the  cook  reserve  a  lioiled  shoulder, 
from  which  Saul,  as  the  chief  guest,  was  bidden  to 
tear  oft'  the  first  morsel  (LXX.,  ix.  22-24).  They 
then  descended  to  the  city,  and  a  bed  was  prepared 
for  Saul  on  the  housetop.  At  daybreak  Samuel 
roused  him.  They  descended  again  to  the  skirts 
of  the  town,  and  there  (the  servant  having  left 
them)  Samuel  poured  over  Saul's  head  the  conse- 
crated oil,  and  with  a  kiss  of  salutation  announced 
to  him  that  he  was  to  be  the  ruler  and  (LXX.) 
deliverer  of  the  nation  (ix.  2.5 -x.  1).  From  that 
moment,  as  he  turned  on  Samuel  the  huge  shoulder 
which  towered  above  all  the  rest  (x.  0,  LXX.),  a 
new  life  dawned  upon  him.  lie  returned  by  a 
route  which,  like  that  of  his  search,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  make  out  distinctly;  and  at  every  step 
homeward  it  was  confirmed  by  the  incidents  which 
according  to  .Samuers  prediction,  awaited  him  (x. 
9,  10).  At  Rachel's  sepulchre  he  met  two  men,'' 
who  announced  to  him  tlie  recovery  of  the  asses  — 
his  lower  cares  were  to  cease.  At  the  oak  "^  of 
Tabor  [PuA in;  Tabor,  Plain  of]  he  met  three 
men  carrying  gifts  of  kids  and  bread,  and  a  skin 
of  wine,  as  an  offering  to  Beth-el.  Two  of  the 
loaves  were  offered  to  him  as  if  to  indicate  his  new 
dignity.  At  "the  hill  of  ''God"  (whatever  may 
lie  meant  thereby,  possibly  his  own  city,  Gibeah), 
he  met  a  band  of  prophets  descending  with  musi- 
cal instruments,  and  he  caught  the  inspiration  from 
them,  as  a  sign  of  his  new  life.<^ 


n  The  word  is  '^172,  "  servant,"  not  ^5??^ 
"  slave." 

li  At  Zelzah,  or  (LXX.)  "leaping  for  joy." 

<-■  Mistranslated  in  A.  V.  "plain."' 

<i  lu  X.  5,  Gibentli  ha-Elohim  ;  in  x.  10,  /log-gibeah 
Dnly.  Joseph.  (Ant.  vi.  4,  §  2)  gives  the  name  Ga- 
batha,  by  which  he  elsewhere  designates  Gibeah,  Saul's 
fity. 

e  See  for  this  Ewald  (iii.  28-30). 

/  v"*nrT,  "  the  strength,"  the  host,  x.  26 ;  comp. 
i  Sam.  xxiv.  2.     The  word  "  band ''  is  usually  em- 


SAUL 

This  is  what  may  be  called  the  private,  inn« 
view  of  his  call.  The  outer  call,  which  is  related 
independently  of  the  other,  was  as  follows.  An 
assembly  was  convened  liy  Samuel  at  Mizpeh,  and 
lots  (so  often  practiced  at  that  time)  were  cast  to 
find  the  tribe  and  the  fanjily  which  was  to  produce 
the  king.  Saul  was  named  —  and,  by  a  Di^ine  in- 
timation, found  hid  in  the  circle  of  baggage  which 
surrounded  the  encampment  (x.  17-24).  His 
stature  at  once  conciliated  the  public  feeling,  and 
for  the  first  time  the  shout  was  raised,  afterwards 
so  often  repeated  in  modern  times,  "  Long  live  the 
king  "  (x.  23,  34),  and  he  returned  to  his  native 
Gilieah,  accompanied  by  the  fighting  part.^  of  the 
people,  of  whom  he  was  now  to  be  the  especial 
head.  The  murmurs  of  the  worthless  pai-t  of  the 
comnumity  who  refused  to  salute  him  with  the 
accustomed  presents  were  soon  dispelled  y  by  an  , 
occasion  arising  to  justify  the  selection  of  Saul. 
He  was  (having  apparently  returned  to  his  private 
life)  on  his  way  home,  drivini;  his  herd  of  oxen, 
when  he  heard  one  of  those  wild  lamentations  in 
the  city  of  (jibeah,  such  as  mark  in  eastern  towns 
the  arrival  of  a  great  calamity.  It  was  the  tidings 
of  the  threat  issued  by  Nahash  king  of  Ammon 
against  Jabesh  Gilead  (see  Amjion).  The  inhab- 
itants of  Jabesh  were  connected  with  Benjamin, 
by  the  old  adventure  recorded  in  Judg.  xxi.  it 
was  as  if  this  one  spark  was  needed  to  awaken  the 
dormant  spirit  of  the  king.  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  came  upon  him,"  as  on  the  ancient  judges. 
The  shy,  retiring  nature  which  we  have  observed, 
vanished  ne\er  to  return.  He  had  recourse  to  the 
ex[)edient  of  the  earlier  days,  and  summoned  the 
people  by  the  bones  of  two  of  the  oxen  from  the 
herd  which  he  was  driving:  three  (or  six,  LXX.) 
hundred  thousand  followed  from  Israel,  and  (per- 
haps not  in  due  proportion)  thirty  (or  .seventy, 
LXX.)  thousand  from  Judah:  and  Jabesh  was 
rescued.  The  effect  was  instantaneous  on  the  [jeo- 
ple  ;  the  punishment  of  the  minniurers  was  de- 
manded —  but  refused  by  Saul,  and  the  monarchy 
was  inaugurated  anew  at  Gilgal  (xi.  1-15).  It 
should  be,  however,  oliserved  that,  according  to  I 
Sam.  xii.  12,  the  affair  of  Nahash  piecec/ed  and 
occasioned  the  election  of  Saul.  He  becomes  king 
of  Israel.  But  he  still  so  far  resemlileg  the  earlier 
judges,  as  to  be  virtually  king  only  of  his  own 
tribe,  Benjannn,  or  of  the  immediate  neighborhood. 
Almost  all  his  exploits  are  confined  to  this  circle 
of  territory  or  associations. 

Samuel,  who  had  up  to  this  time  been  still 
named  as  ruler  with  Saul  (xi.  7,  12,  14),  now  with- 
drew, and  Saul  became  the  acknowledged  chief.^ 
In  the  2d  year «'  of  his  reign,  he  began  to  organize 
an  attempt  to  shake  off  the  Philistine  yoke  which 
pressed  on  his  country;  not  least  on  his  own  tribe, 
where  a  Philistine  officer  had  long  been  statioiied 
even  in  his  own  field  (x.  5,  xiii.  3).     An  army  of 


ployed  in  the  A.  V.  for  "T^^3,  a  very  different  tenu, 
with  a  strict  meaning  of  its  own.     [Troop.] 

g  The  words  which  close  1  Sam.  x.  27  are  in  tha 
Hebrew  text  "he  was  as  though  he  were  deaf;"  in 
Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  5,  §  1,  and  the  LXX.  (followed  by 
Ewald),  "  and  it  came  to  pass  after  a  month  that. "' 
'i  Also  2  Sam.  x.  15,  LXX.,  for  "Lord." 
'  The  expres.'iion,  xiii.  1,  "Saul  was  one  year  old' 
(the  son  of  a  year)  in  his  reigning,  may  be  eithei 
(1),  he  reigned  one  jear  ;  or  (2),  the  word  30  may  hart 
dropped  out  thence  to  xiii.  5,  and  it  ma^  have  b**" 
'■  he  was  31  when  he  liegau  to  reicn."' 


SAUL 

3.000  was  formed,  vvl'icli  he  soon  afterwards  gath- 
ered together  round  him;  and  Jonathan,  apparently 
with  his  sanction,  rose  against  the  officer"  and 
Blew  him  (xiii.  2-4).  This  roused  the  whole  force 
of  the  Philistine  nation  against  him.  The  spirit 
of  Israel  was  completely  broken.  Jlany  concealed 
themselves  in  the  caverns ;  many  crossed  the  Jor- 
dan ;  all  were  disarmed^  e.xcept  Saul  and  his  son, 
with  their  immediate  retainers.  In  this  crisis, 
Saul,  now  on  the  very  confines  of  his  kingdom  at 
Gilgal,  found  himself  in  the  position  long  before 
descrilied  by  Samuel;  longing  to  exercise  his  royal 
right  of  sacrifice,  yet  deterred  by  his  sense  of  obe- 
dience to  the  prophet.''  At  last,  on  the  7th  day, 
he  could  wait  no  longer,  but  just  after  the  sacrifice 
was  completed  Samuel  arrived,  and  pronounced  the 
fir.st  curse,  on  his  impetuous  zeal  (.xiii.  5-14). 
Meanwhile  the  adventurous  exploit  of  Jonathan  at 
Michmash  brought  on  the  crisis  which  ultimately 
drove  the  Philistines  back  to  their  own  territory 
[Jonathan].  It  was  signalized  by  two  remark- 
able incidents  in  the  life  of  Saul.  One  was  the 
first  appearance  of  his  madness  in  the  rash  vow 
which  all  but  cost  the  life  of  his  son  (1  Sam  xiv. 
24,  44).  The  other  was  the  erection  of  his  first 
altar,  built  either  to  celebrate  the  victory,  or  to 
expiate  the  savage  feast  of  the  famished  peo|)le 
(xiv.  35). 

The  expulsion  of  the  Philistines  (although  not 
entirely  completed,  xiv.  52)  at  once  placed  Saul  in 
a  position  higher  than  that  of  any  previous  ruler 
of  Israel.  Probably  from  this  time  was  formed 
the  organization  of  royal  state,  which  contained 
in  germ  some  of  the  future  institutions  of  the 
monarchy.  The  host  of  3,000  has  been  already 
mentioned  (1  Sam.  xiii.,  xxiv.  2,  xxvi.  2;  comp. 
1  C'hr.  xii.  29).  (.)f  this  Abner  became  captain 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  50).  -A.  body  guard  was  also  formed 
of  runners  and  messengers  (see  1  Sam.  xvi.  J  5,  17, 
xxii.  14,  17,  xxvi.  22).c  Of  this  David  was  after- 
wards made  the  chief.  These  two  wei'e  the  prin- 
cipal officers  of  the  court,  and  sate  with  Jonathan 
at  the  king's  taiile  (1  Sam  xx.  2o).  Another 
officer  is  incidentally  mentioned  —  the  keeper  of 
the  royal  nudes  —  the  comes  slalmli,  the  "consta- 
ble" of  the  king,  such  as  appears  in  the  later 
monarchy  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  30).  He  is  the  first 
instance  of  a  foreigner  employed  about  the  court 

—  being  an  Edoniite  or  (LXX.)  Syrian,  of  the 
name  of  Doeg  (1  Sam.  xxi.  7,  xxii.  9).  According 
to  Jewish  tradition  (Jer.  Qu.  Heb.  ad  loc. )  he  was 
the  servant  who  accompanied  Saul  in  his  pursuit 
of  his  father's  asses,  who  counseled  him  to  send 
for  David  (ix.,  xvi.),  and  whose  son  ultimately 
killed  him  (2  Sam.  i.  10).  The  high  priest  of  the 
house  of  Ithamar  (.Vhimelech  or  Ahijah)  was  in 
attendance  upon  him  with  the  e])hod,  when  he 
desired  it  (xiv.  3),  and  felt  him.self  bound  to  assist 
his  secret  commissioners  (xxi.  1-9,  xxii.  14). 

The  king  himself  was  distinguished  by  a  state 
tot  before  marked  in  the  rulers.  He  had  a  tall 
spear,  of  the  same  kind  as  that  described  in  the 
hand  of  Goliath.      [,\kms.]      This  never  left  him 

—  in  repose  (1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  xix.  9);  at  his  meals 
(xx.  33);  at  rest  (xxvi.  11),  in  battle  (2  Sam.  i.  6). 


SAUL 


2856 


a  The  word  may  be  rendered  either  "  garrison  "  or 
'  officer  ;  "  its  meaning  is  uncertain. 

!>  The  command  of  Samuel  (x.  8)  had  apparently  a 
perpetual  obligtition  (xni.  13).  It  had  been  given  two 
rears  before  and  in  the  interval  they  had  both  been  at 


In  battle  he  wore  a  diadem  on  his  head  and  a 
bracelet  on  his  arm  (2  Sam.  i.  10).  He  sate  at 
meals  on  a  seat  of  his  own  facing  his  son  (1  Sam 
XX.  25;  LXX.).  He  was  received  on  his  return 
from  battle  by  the  songs  of  the  Israelite  '^  women 
(1  Sam.  xviii.  G),  amongst  whom  he  was  on  such 
occasions  specially  known  as  bringing  back  from 
the  enemy  scarlet  robes,  and  golden  ornaments  fo» 
their  apparel  (2  Sam.  i.  24). 

The  warlike  character  of  his  reign  naturally  stiU 
predominated,  and  he  was  now  able  (not  merely, 
like  his  temporary  predecessors,  to  act  on  the 
defensive,  Imt)  to  attack  the  neighboring  tribes  of 
Moab,  Anmioii,  Kdom,  Zobah,  and  finally  Amalek 
(xiv.  47).  The  war  with  Amalek  is  twice  related, 
first  briefly  (xiv.  48),  and  then  at  length  (xv.  1-9). 
Its  chief  connection  with  Saul's  history  lies  in  the 
diso!)edience  to  the  prophetical  command  of  Sam- 
uel; shown  in  the  sparing  of  the  king,  and  the 
retention  of  the  spoil. 

The  extermination  of  Amalek  and  the  subsequent 
execution  of  Agag  belong  to  the  general  question 
of  the  moral  code  of  the  O.  T.  There  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  Saul  spared  the  king  for  any  othei 
reason  than  that  for  which  he  retained  the  spoil  — 
namely,  to  make  a  more  splendid  show  at  the 
sacrificial  thanksgiving  (xv.  21).  Such  was  the 
Jewish  tradition  preserved  by  Josephus  {Ant.  vi.  7, 
§2),  who  expressly  says  that  Agag  was  spared  for 
his  stature  and  beauty,  and  such  is  the  general 
impression  left  by  the  description  of  the  celebration 
of  the  victory.  Saul  rides  to  the  southern  Carmel 
in  a  chariot  (LXX.),  never  mentioned  elsewhere, 
and  sets  up  a  monument  there  (Heb.  "a  hand,'' 
2  Sam.  xviii.  18),  which  in  the  Jewish  traditions 
(Jerome,  Qu.  Heb.  ad  loc.)  was  a  triumphal  arch 
of  olives,  myrtles,  and  palms.  And  in  alhi.sion  to 
his  crowning  triumijh,  Samuel  applies  to  God  the 
phrase,  "The  Victory  (Vulg.  triumphdtor)  of  Israel 
will  neither  lie  nor  repent"  (xv.  29;  and  comp. 
1  Chr.  xxix.  11).  This  second  act  of  disobedience 
called  down  the  second  curse,  and  the  first  distinct 
intimation  of  the  transference  of  the  kingdom  to  a 
rival.  The  struggle  between  Sanniel  and  Saul  ir 
their  final  parting  is  indicated  by  the  rent  of 
Sanniel's  robe  of  state,  as  he  tears  himself  away 
Irom  Saul's  grasp  (for  the  gesture,  see  Joseph.  Ant 
vi.  7,  §  5),  and  by  the  long  mourning  of  Samuel 
for  the  separation  —  "  Samuel  mourned  for  Saul." 
"  How  long  wilt  thou  mourn  for  Saul  ?  "  (xv.  35, 
xvi.  1). 

The  rest  of  Saul's  life  is  one  long  tragedy.  The 
ft-enzy,  which  had  given  indications  of  itself  before, 
now  at  times  t<Jok  almost  entire  possession  of  hira. 
It  is  described  in  mixed  phrases  as  "  an  evil  spirit 
of  God  "  (nnieh  as  we  might  speak  of  "  religious 
madne-ss  " ),  which,  when  it  came  upon  him,  almost 
choked  or  strangled  him  from  its  violence  (xvi.  14, 
LXX.;  Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  8,  §  2). 

In  this  crisis  David  was  reconnnended  to  him  liy 
one  of  the  young  men  of  his  guard  (in  the  Jewish 
tradition  groundlessly  supposed  to  be  Doeg.  .le- 
rome,  Qu.  Ihb.  ad  loc).  From  this  time  forward 
their  lives  are  blended  together.  [David]  In 
Saul's  better  moments  he  never  lost  the  strong  af- 

Oilgal  (xi.  15).  N.  B.  —  The  words  "had  appointed*^ 
(xiii.  8)  are  inserted  in  A.  V. 

<^  They  were  Beig;imite3  (1  Sam.  xxii.  7  ,  .loseph.  Ant. 
vii.  14),  young,  tall,  and  handsome  {Ibid.  vi.  6,  §  G). 

''  .losepli.  (Ant.  vi.  10,  §  1)  makes  the  women  sintl 
the  praises  of  Saul,  the  maidens,  of  David. 


2856 


SAUL 


fection  which  he  had  contracted  for  David.  "  He 
loved  him  greatly"  (xvi.  21).  "Saul  would  let 
him  go  no  more  home  to  his  father's  house  "  (xviii. 
2).  "  Wherefore  cometh  not  the  son  of  Jesse  to 
meat?  "  (xx.  27).  "  Is  this  thy  voice,  my  son  Da- 
vid. .  .  .  Return,  my  son  David;  blessed  be  thou, 
my  son  David"  (xxiv.  16,  xxvi.  17,  25).  Occa- 
sionally too  his  prophetical  gift  returned,  blended 
with  his  madness.  He  "prophesied  "  or  "  raved  " 
in  the  midst  of  his  house  —  "  he  prophesied  and  lay 
down  naked  all  day  and  all  night"  at  Kaniah  (xix. 
24).  But  his  acts  of  fierce,  wild  zeal  increased. 
The  massacre  of  the  priests,  with  all  their  families  " 
(xxii.)  —  the  massacre,  perhaps  at  the  same  time, 
of  the  Gibeonites  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1),  and  the  violent 
extirpation  of  the  necromancers  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  3, 
9),  are  all  of  the  same  kind.  At  last  the  monarchy 
itself,  which  he  had  raised  up,  broke  down  under 
the  weakness  of  its  head.  The  Philistines  reen- 
tered the  country,  and  with  their  chariots  and 
horses  occupied  the  Plain  of  Esdraelon.  Their 
camp  was  pitched  on  the  southern  slope  of  the 
range  now  called  Little  Hernion,  by  Shunem.  On 
the  opposite  side,  on  Mount  Gilboa,  was  the  Israel- 
ite army,  clinging  as  usual  to  the  heights  which 
were  their  safety.  It  was  near  the  spring  of  Gid- 
eon's encampment,  hence  called  the  spring  of  Harod 
or  "trembling"  — and  now  the  name  assumed  an 
evil  omen,  and  the  heart  of  the  king  as  he  pitched 
his  camp  there  "trembled  exceedingly  '  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  5).  In  the  loss  of  all  the  usual  means  of 
consulting  the  Divine  will,  he  determined,  with 
that  wayward  mixture  of  superstition  and  religion 
which  marked  his  whole  career,  to  apply ''  to  one  of 
the  necromancers  who  had  escaped  his  persecution. 
She  was  a  woman  living  at  Endor,  on  the  other 
«ide  of  Little  Hermon ;  she  is  called  a  woman  of 
"  Ob,"  i.  e.  of  the  skin  or  bladder,  and  this  the 
I.XX.  has  rendered  liy  i-yyaarpiixvOos  or  ventrilo- 
quist, and  the  Vulgate  by  Pythoness.  According 
to  the  Hebrew  tradition  mentioned  by  Jerome,  slie 
was  the  mother  of  Abner,  and  hence  her  escape 
from  the  general  massacre  of  tlie  necromancers  (see 
Leo  AUatius,  De  Enyastriinylho,  cap.  G.  in  Crilicl 
ISdcri,  ii.).  Volumes  have  been  written  on  the 
question,  whether  in  the  scene  that  follows  we  are 
to  understand  an  imposture  or  a  real  apparition  of 
Samuel.  Eustathius  and  most  of  the  Fathers  take 
the  former  ^■iew  (representing  it,  however,  as  a  fig- 
ment of  the  devil);  Origen,  the  latter  view.  Au- 
gustine wavers.  (See  Leo  AUatius,  ui  supra,  pp. 
1062-11 U.)  The  LXX.  of  1  Sam.  xxvii.  7  (by 
the  above  tran.slation )  and  the  A.  V.  (by  its  omis- 
sion of  "himself"  in  xxviii.  14,  and  insertion  of 
"when"  in  xxviii.  12)  lean  to  the  former.  Jose- 
phus  (who  pronounces  a  glowing  eulogy  on  the 
woman,  Ant.  vi.  14,  §§  2.  3),  and  the  LXX.  of 
1  Chr.  X.  13,  to  the  latter.  At  this  distance  of 
time  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the  relative 
amount  of  fraud  or  of  reality,  though  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  narrative  itself  tends  to  the  hypoth- 
B.SJS  of  some  kind  of  apparition.  She  recognizes  the 
disguised  king  first  by  the  appearance  of  Samuel, 
seemingly  from  his  threatening  aspect  or  tone  as 
towards  his  enemy."    Saul  apparently  saw  nothing, 


SAUL 

but  listened  to  her  description  of  a  god-like  figuK 
of  an  aged  man,  wrapped  round  with  the  royal  c" 
sacred  robe."^ 

On  hearing  the  denunciation  which  the  appa- 
rition conveyed,  Saul  fell  the  whole  length  of  hia 
gigantic  stature  (see  xxviii.  20,  margin)  on  the 
ground,  and  remained  motionless  till  the  woman 
and  his  servants  forced  him  to  eat. 

The  next  day  the  battle  came  on,  and  according 
to  Josephus  (Atil.  vi.  14,  §  7),  perhaps  according 
to  the  spirit  of  the  sacred  narrative,  his  courage 
and  self-devotion  returned.  fhe  Israelites  were 
driven  up  the  side  of  Gilboa.  The  three  sons  of 
Saul  were  slain  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2).  Saul  himself 
with  his  armor-bearer  was  pursued  by  the  archers 
and  the  charioteers  of  the  enemy  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  3; 
2  Sam.  i.  6).  He  was  wounded  in  the  stomach 
(LXX.,  1  Sam.  xxxi.  3).  His  shield  was  castaway 
(2  Sam.  i.  21}.  According  to  one  account,  he  fell 
upon  his  own  sword  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  4).  According 
to  another  account  (which  may  be  reconciled  with 
the  former  by  supposing  that  it  describes  a  later 
incident),  an  Amalekite*'  came  up  at  the  moment 
of  his  death-wound  (whether  from  himself  or  the 
enemy),  and  found  him  "  fallen,"  but  leaning  on 
his  sjrear  (2  Sam.  i.  6,  10).  The  dizziness  of  death 
was  gathered  over  him  (LXX.,  2  Sam.  i.  9),  but 
he  was  still  alive;  and  he  was,  at  his  own  request, 
put  out  of  his  pain  by  the  Amalekite,  who  took  oflf 
his  royal  diadem  and  bracelet,  and  carried  the  news 
to  David  (2  Sam.  i.  7-10).  Not  till  then,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus  {Ant.  vi.  14,  §  7),  did  the  faithfid 
armor-bearer  fall  on  his  sword  and  die  with  him 
(1  Sam.  xxxi.  5).  The  body  on  being  found  by 
the  Philistines  was  stripped,  and  decapitated.  The 
armor  was  sent  into  the  Philistine  cities,  as  if  in 
retribution  for  the  spoliation  of  Goliath,  and  finally 
deposited  in  the  temple  of  Astarte,  apparently  in 
the  neighboring  Canaanitish  city  of  Beth-shan ;  and 
o\er  the  walls  of  the  same  city  was  hung  the  naked, 
headless  corpse,  with  those  of  his  three  sons  (vv.  9, 
10).  'I'he  head  was  deiwsited  (probably  at  Ash- 
dod)  in  the  temple  of  L)agon  (1  Chr.  x.  10).  The 
corpse  was  removed  from  Beth-shan  by  the  gratitude 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh-gilead,  who  came  over 
the  Jordan  by  night,  carried  oflf  the  bodies,  burnt 
them,  and  buried  them  under  the  tamarisk  at  Ja- 
besh  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  13).  Thence,  after  the  lapse  of 
several  years,  Ijis  ashes  and  those  of  Jonathan  were 
removed  by  David  to  their  ancestral  sepulchre  at 
Zelah  in  Benjamin  (2  Sam.  xxi.  14).  [Mephi- 
BOSHETH,  vol.  iii.  p.  1889  6.]  A.  P.  S. 

*  On  the  history  and  character  of  Saul  may  be 
mentioned  Ewald,  Gescliidtte  des  Volk-ts  Israel, 
3e  Ausg.  (1866).  iii.  22-76;  Nagelsbach,  art.  Saul, 
in  Herzog"s  Rad-Encyk.  xiii.  432-437;  Wunder- 
lich,  in  Zeller's  Bihl.  Worterb.  ii.  407-9 ;  Bishop 
Hall,  Contempliitkms  on  the  0.  and  N.  Testaments, 
bks.  xiii.-xv;  Milman,  History  of  the  Jcics,  i.  315- 
331  (N.  Y.  1865);  Stanley,  writer  of  the  preceding 
sketch,  "  House  of  Saul,"  in  his  Lectnres  on  the 
Jewish  Church,  ii.  1-44;  and  Archbishop  Trench, 
Shipicrecks  of  Faith :  Three  Sermons  preached 
before  the  University  of  Cambridge  in  May,  1867. 
This  last  writer  has  drawn  a  sad  picture  of  the  con- 


a  This  is  placed  by  Josephus  as  the  climax  of  his 
^uilt,  brought  on  by  the  intoxication  of  power  (Ant. 
ri.  12,  §  7). 

b  His  companions  were  Abner  and  Aniasa  (Seder 
"Ham,  Meyer,  p.  492). 

c  Wheu  we  la?t  heard  ol  Samuel  he  was  mourning 


for,  not  hating,  Saul.  Had  the  massacre  of  the  priest> 
and  the  persecution  of  D;ivid  (xix.  18)  alienated  him 

<i  'UpaTiKrjv  SinKoiSa  (Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  14,  §  2). 

e  According  to  the  Jewish  tradition  (Jerome,  C^ 
Heb  ad  loc),  he  was  the  son  of  Doeg. 


SAVAKAN 

trast  between  tlie  beginuing  and  the  close  of  Saul's 
career.  All  the  finer  and  nobler  eleweiits  of  his 
character  disphyed  themselves  at  the  outset  of  his 
evcntl'ul  life;  wiiile  at  the  end  we  have  before  us 
the  mournful  spectacle  of  "  the  gradual  breakiucr 
down  under  the  wear  and  the  tear  of  the  workf 
under  the  influence  of  unresisted  temptations,  of  a 
lolty  soul:  the  unworthy  close  of  a  life  worthily 
begun."  ^_  •' 

3.  The  Jewish  name  of  St.  Paul.     This  was 
the  most  distinguished  name  in  the  genealo<ries  of 
the  tribe  of  Henjamin,  to  which  the  Apostle  felt 
some  pride  ni  belonging  (Rom.  xi.  1;  Phil.  iii.  5) 
He  himself  leads  us  to  associate  his  name  with  that 
of  the  Jewish  king,  by  the  marked  way  in  which  he 
mentions  Saul  m  his  address  at  the  Pisidian   Viiti- 
och :  "  God  gave  unto  them  Saul  the  son  of  C'is  a 
man  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin"    (Acts  xiii.  21) 
These  indications  are  in  harmony  with  the  intensely 
Jewish  spirit  of  which  the  life  of  the  Apostle  ex- 
hibits so  many  signs.     [Paul.]     The  early  ecclesi- 
astical writers  did  not  fail  to  notice  the  prominence 
thus  given  by   St.  Paul   to  his   tribe.     Tertullian 
(nc/r.  JJarc.  v.  1)  applies  to  him  the  dying  words 
of  J.acob  on   Henjamin.     And  Jerome,  in  his  J-'/ji- 
taplua,n  PauLe  [^  8),  alluding  to  the  preservatLi 
of  the  SIX  hundred  men  of  Benjamin   after  the  af- 
fair of  (iibeah  (.Judg.  XX.  49),  speaks   of  them  as 
"trecentos  (sic)  viros  propter  Apostolum  reserm- 
to«.       Compare  the  article  on  Bknj.v.mix  (vul   i 
p.  279  a).  \      ■    ■ 

Nothing  certain  is  known  about  the  chanu-e  of 
the  Apo.stle's  name  from  Saul  to  Paul  (\cts^xiii 
9),  to    which    reference    has    been    already  made' 
[1  AUL,  yol,  iii.  p.  2;j(i9   a.]     Two   chief  conject- 
ures «  prevail  concerning  the  chano-e.      (1  )  Th-it 
of  .lerome  and  Augustine,  that  the  name  was  de- 
rived from  Skhgius  P.vulus,  the  first  of  his  Cien- 
d.e   converts.      (2.)  That   which    appears   due    to 
l.ightfoot,  that   Paulus  was  the  Apostle's   Roman 
name  as  a  citizen  of  Tarsus,  naturally  adopted  into 
common   use  by   his  biographer  when   his   labors 
among  the  heathen   commenced.     The  former  of 
these  IS  adopted  by  Olshausen   and  Meyer.     It  is 
also  the  view  of  Kwald  {Gesc/,.  vi.  419.  420)   who 
seems  to  consider  it  self-evident,  and  looks  on  the 
absence  of  any  explanation  of  the  change  as  a  proof 
that  it  was  so  understood  by  all  the  readers  of  the 
Acts.      [See  vol.  iii.   p.  2369  a,   and   note,  Amer. 
ed.J      However  this  may  be,  after  Saul  has  taken 
his  place  definitively  as  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentile 
world,  his  Jewish  name  is  entirely  dropped.     Two 
divisions  of  his  life  are  well  marked  by  the  use  of 
the  two  names.  J   1 1    D 


SAVIOUR 


2857 


SAV'ARAN  (6  ^avapdv,  [Sin.  o  Avoav 
Comp  with  4  MSS.  A.apa':J  /L  Saura,ZZ: 
«'«.0,  an  erroneous  form  of  the  title  Avaran 
borne  by  K  eazar  the  son  of  Mattathias,  which  is 
tound  in  the  common  texts  in  1  Mace.  vi.  4.3 
[t^LEAZAK  8,  vol.  i.  p.  695  «.]  B.  F.  W. 

V,fu7K^^  ^T  '"  ^'''^•'  Ale^-2ao.i'a;'om"in 
vulg.).  Uzzi  the  ancestor  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii. 
2;  comp.  Ezr.  vii.  4). 

SAVIOUR.  The  following  article,  together 
with  the  one  on  the  Sox  of  God,  forms  the  com- 
plement to  the  life  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Chk.st. 
[See  vol.  II.   p.   1437.]     An    explanation   is   first 


given  of  the  word  "  Saviour,"  and  then  of  his  icork 
of  salvation,  as  unfolded  and  taught  in  the  New 
iestament.      [See  also  Messlvh.] 
I      I.  The  .Word   Saviouk.  — The  term  "Sav- 
iour," as  applied  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repre- 
sents the  Greek  sOter  (aair-fif,),  which  in   turn  rep- 
resents  certain  deri^•atives  from  the  Hebrew  root 
ydsk'a  (VW>y.  particularly  the   participle   of  the 
Hiphil  form  mos/n'a  CS>WM2):  which  is  usually 
rendered   "  Saviour  "  in  the  A.  V.  (e.  (/.  U.  xlv. 
15  xlix.  21)).     In  considering  the  true  import  of 
"  Saviour,"  it  is  essential  for  us   to  examine  the 
original  terms  answering  to  it,  including  in   our 
view  the  use  of  so/er  in  the  LXX.,  whence  it  was 
more   immediately  derived   by  the  writers  of  the 
New  iestament,  and  further  noticing  the  co.niate 
terms  ''to  save"  and  "salvation,"  which  express 
respectively  the  action  and  the  results  of  the  Sav- 
iour s  office.     ( L )   The  first  point  to  be  observed  is 
that  the  term  sdter  is  of  more  frequent  occurrence 
in   the   LXX.  than  the  term   "  Saviour "  in  the 
A.  V.of  the   Old   Testament.     It  represents   not 
only  the  word  mSs/n'a  above  mentioned,  but  also 
very  frequently  the  uounsyesh\t  (l?tt7.';)  am]yes/,udh 
inV^W':):   which,   though  properly  expressive  of 
the  abstract  notion  "  salvation,"  are  yet  sometimes 
u.sed  111  a  concrete  sense  for  "  Savioui-."      We  may 
I  cite  as  an  example.  Is.  Ixii.  1],  "  Behold,  thy  s.dva- 
tion  Cometh,  /us  reward  is  with  him,"  where  evi- 
dently "  salvation  "  =  Savmir.      So  again  in  pas- 
sages where  these  terms  are  connected  immediately 
with  the  person  of  the   Godhead,  as  in  Ps.  Ixvjii" 
20,  "the  God  our  Saviour"  (A.  V.  "God  of  our 
.salvation  ").     Not  only  in  such  cases  as  these,  but 
in  nia^iy  others  where  the  sense  does  not  require  it 
the  I.XX.  has  solcr  wliere  the  A.  V.  has  "  salva- 
tion;" and  thus   the  word   "  Saviour "  was  more 
tamihar  to  the  ear  of  the  reader  of  the  Old  Testa- 
meiit  III  our  Lord's  a^e  than  it  is  to  us.     (2  )  The 
I  same  obser\-ation   holds  good   with   regard  to  the 
yerb  (Tci(,iu,  and  the  substantive  awrvpia,  as  used 
in  tlie  L\X.     An  examination  of  the  passa.'es  in 
which  they  occur  shows  that  thev  stand  as  emiiva- 
leiits  for  words  conveying  the  notions  of  well-bein..' 
succor,  peace,  and  the  like.      We  have  further  t"o 
notice  crwT-r}pia  in  the  sense  of  recovery  of  the  bmi- 
^/«/  health   (2  Mace.  iii.  32),  together  with  the  etv 
UKjlogical  connection  supposed  to  exist  between  the 
terms   ac^T-fip  and  rri^a,  to   which    St.    Paul   evi- 
dently alludes  in  Eph.  v.  23;  Phil.  iii.  20.  21.     (3  ) 
If  we  turn  to  the  Hebrew  terms,  we  cannot  fail  to 
be  struck  with  their  comprehensiveness.     Our  verb 
"  to   save  "   implies,  in  its  ordinary  sense,  the  res- 
cue of  a  person  from  actual  or  impending  dan.rer 
Ihis  is  undoubtedly  included  in  the  Heijrew  root 
yashy,  and  may  be  said  to  be  its  ordinary  sense,  as 
testified   by  the  frequent  accompaniment  of    the 
prepo.sition    min  ()»;    compare   the    ^diau   airA 
which  the  angel  gives  in  explanation  of  the  name 
Jesus,  .Matt.  i.  21).     But  ydslCn,  beyond  this,  ex 
presses  assistance  and  protection  of  every  kind  • 
assistance  in  aggressive  measures,  protectio'ii  auainsi 
attack;  and,  in   a  secondary  sense,  the  results  of 
such   assistance -victory,  safety,  prosperity,   and 
happiness.      We  may  cite  as  an  instance  of  the  ay- 


'ho  treats  PauluB  as  a  contraction  of  pi^Ulu"' fu!i '  '^f'°^'''' "°  ^'^'■°""' "^  ^^'^  i-^"»fi<-ant  stat.m- • 
180 


2858 


SAVIOUR 


(/rtssive  sense,  Deut.  xx.  4,  "  to  fight  for  you 
a£;ainst  your  enemies,  to  save  you;  "  of  proieclkm 
against  attack,  Is.  xxvi.  1,  "  salvation  will  God  ap- 
point for  walls  and  bulwarks;  "  of  rictery,  2  Sam. 
viii.  6,  "  The  Lord  preserved  David,"  i.  e.  gave 
him  victory;  of  jiroiipeyilt/  and  htippine'ss,  Is.  Ix. 
18,  "  Thou  shalt  call  thy  walls  Salvation;  "  Is.  Ixi. 
10,  "  He  hath  clothed  me  with  the  garments  of 
salvation."  No  better  instance  of  this  last  sense 
can  be  adduced  than  the  exclamation  "  Hosanna," 
meaning,  "  Save,  I  beseech  thee,"  which  was  uttered 
as  a  prayer  for  God's  ble.ssing  on  any  joyous  occa- 
sion (I-s.  cxviii.  25),  as  at  our  Lord's  entry  into 
Jerusalem,  when  the  etymological  connection  of  the 
terms  llosainia  and  Jesus  could  not  have  been  lost 
on  the  ear  of  the  Hebrew  (JIatt.  xxi.  9,  15).  It 
thus  appears  that  the  Hel)rew  and  (ireek  terms  had 
their  positive  as  well  as  their  negative  side,  in  other 
words  that  they  expressed  the  presence  of  blessing 
as  well  as  the  absence  of  dancjer.  actual  security  as 
well  as  the  removal  of  insecurity."  (4.)  The  histor- 
ical personages  to  whom  the  terms  are  applied  fin'- 
ther  illustrate  this  view.  The  judges  are  styled 
"saviours,"'  as  having  rescued  their  country  from  a 
state  of  bondage  (Judg.  iii.  9,  15,  A.  V.  "  deliv- 
erer;" Neh.  ix.  27);  a  "saviour"  was  subse- 
quently raised  up  in  the  person  of  Jeroboam  II.  to 
deliver  Isniel  from  the  Syrians  (2  K  xiii.  5):  and 
ill  the  same  sense  Josephus  styles  the  deliverance 
from  Egypt  a  "salvation"  {Ant.  iii.  1,  §  1). 
Joshua  on  the  other  hand  verified  the  promise  con- 
tained in  his  name  by  his  conquests  over  the  Ca- 
iiaanites:  the  Lord  was  his  helper  in  an  aggressive 
sense.  Similarly  the  office  of  the  •■  saviours  "  prom- 
ised in  Obad.  21  was  to  execute  vengeance  on  lulora. 
The  names  I.saiah,  Jeshua,  Ishi,  Hosea,  Hoshea, 
and  lastly,  Jesus,  are  all  expressive  of  the  general 
idea  of  (issistnncc  from  the  Lord.  The  Greek  soier 
was  in  a  similar  manner  applied  in  the  double  sense 
of  a  deliverer  from  foreign  foes  as  in  the  case  of 
Ptolemy  Soter,  and  a  general  protector,  as  in  the 
numerous  instances  where  it  was  ajipended  as  the 
title  of  heathen  deities.  (5.)  There  are  numerous 
indications  in  the  0.  T.  that  the  idea  of  a  spiritual 
salvation,  to  be  effected  by  God  alone,  was  by  no 
means  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the  pious  Hebrew. 
In  the  Psalms  there  are  mmierous  petitions  to  God 
to  save  from  the  effects  of  sin  (e. ;/.  xxxix.  8,  Ixxix. 
9).  Isaiah  in  particular  appropriates  the  tenii 
''  saviour  "  to  Jehovah  (xliii.  11 ),  and  connects  it 
with  the  notions  of  justice  and  righteousness  (xlv. 
21,  Ix.  16,  17):  he  adduces  it  as  the  special  manner 
in  which  Jehovah  reveals  Himself  to  man  (xlv.  15): 
he  hints  at  the  means  to  be  adopted  for  effecting 
salvation  in  passages  where  he  connects  the  term 
"saviour"  with  "redeemer"  (fjoel),  as  in  xli.  14, 
xlix.  26,  Ix.  16,  and  aojain  with  "ran.som,"  as  in 
xliii.  3.  Similar  notices  are  scattered  over  the  pro- 
phetical books  (e.  ff.  Zech.  ix.  9:  Hos.  i.  7).  and 
though  in  many  instances  these  notices  admitted 
of  a  reference  to  proximate  events  of  a  temporal 
nature,  they  evidently  looked  to  higher  things,  and 
Ibus  fostered  in  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  the  idea 


SAVIOUK 

of  a  "  Saviour "  who  should  far  surjiass  in  hia 
achievements  the  "  saviours  "  that  had  as  yet  ap- 
peared. The  mere  sound  of  the  word  would  conjure 
up  before  his  imagination  visions  of  deliverance,  se- 
curity, peace,  and  prosperity. 

II.  The  Wokk  of  the  Saviour.  —  1.  The 
three  first  Evangelists,  as  we  know,  agree  in  show- 
ing that  Jesus  unfolded  his  message  to  the  disci- 
ples by  degrees  He  wrought  the  miracles  that 
were  to  be  the  credentials  of  the  Messiah;  He  laid 
down  the  great  principles  of  the  Gospel  morality, 
until  He  had  established  in  the  minds  of  the 
Twelve  the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Christ  of 
God  Then  as  the  clouds  of  doom  grew  darker, 
and  the  malice  of  the  Jews  became  more  intense, 
He  turned  a  new  page  in  his  teaching.  Drawing 
from  his  disciples  the  confession  of  their  faith  in 
Him  as  Christ,  He  then  passed  abruptly,  so  in 
speak,  to  the  truth  that  remained  to  be  learned  in 
the  last  few  months  of  his  ministry,  that  his  work 
included  suffering  as  well  as  teachuig  (Matt.  xvi. 
20,21).  He  was  instant  in  pressins;  this  unpal- 
atable doctrine  home  to  his  disciples,  from  this 
time  to  the  end.  Four  occasions  when  He  proph- 
esied his  bitter  death  are  on  record,  and  they 
are  probably  only  examples  out  of  many  more 
(Matt.  xvi.  21).  We  grant  that  in  none  of  these 
places  does  the  word  "  sacrifice"  occur;  and  that 
the  mode  of  sjieaking  is  somewhat  obscure,  as  ad- 
dressed to  minds  unprepared,  even  then,  to  bear  the 
full  weight  of  a  doctrine  so  repugnant  to  their 
hopes.  IJut  that  He  must  (SeD  go  and  meet  death  ; 
that  the  powers  of  sin  and  of  this  world  are  let 
loose  against  Him  for  a  time,  so  that  He  shall  be 
betrayed  to  the  .lews,  rejfcted,  delivered  liy  them  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  liy  them  be  niocked  and  scouriied, 
crucified,  and  slain;  and  that  all  this  shall  he  done 
to  achieve  a  foreseen  work,  and  accomplish  all  things 
WTitten  of  Him  by  the  prophets  —  these  we  do  cer- 
tainly find.  They  invest  the  death  of  .'e.sus  with  a 
peculiar  significance;  they  set.  the  mind  inquiring 
what  the  meaning  can  be  of  this  hard  necessity  that 
is  laid  on  Him.  For  the  answer  we  look  to  other 
places;  but  at  least  there  is  here  no  contradiction 
to  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  though  the  Lord  does 
not  }et  say,  "  I  bear  the  wrath  of  God  against  your 
sins  in  your  stead  ;  I  become  a  curse  for  you.''  Of 
the  two  sides  of  this  mysterious  doctrine,  —  that 
.lesus  dies  for  us  willingly,  and  that  He  dies  to  bear 
a  doom  laid  on  Him  as  of  necessity,  because  some 
one  must  bear  it,  —  it  is  the  latter  side  that  is  made 
prominent.  In  all  the  passages  it  pleases  Jesus  to 
speak,  not  of  his  desire  to  die,  but  of  the  burden 
laid  on  Him,  and  the  power  given  to  others  against 
Him. 

2.  Had  the  doctrine  been  explained  no  further, 
there  would  have  been  much  to  wait  for.  But  the 
series  of  announcements  in  these  passages  leads  up 
to  one  more  definite  and  complete.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  words  of  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  speak  most  distinctly  of  a  sacrifice. 
"  Drink  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
new  covenant,"  or,  to  follow  St.  Luke,  "  the  new 


"  The  Latin  language  possessed  in  the  clu.«sical  pe- 
riod uo  proper  equivalent  for  the  Greek  o-ionjp.  This 
appears  from  the  introduction  of  the  Greek  word  itself 
ill  a  Latinized  form,  and  from  Cirero's  remark  (hi  Yen. 
Act.  2.  ii.  63)  that  there  was  no  one  word  which  ex- 
pressed the  notion  qtd  salutem  ihilil.  Tacitus  (Ann. 
»v.  71)  uses  conservator,  and  Piiny  (xxii.  5)  servator. 
The  term  $alvator  appears  appended  as  a  title  of  Jupi- 


ter in  an  inscription  of  the  age  of  Trajan  (Gruter,  p 
19,  No.  5).  This  was  adopted  by  Christian  writers  as 
the  most  adequate  equivalent  for  (twttjp,  though  ob- 
jections were  evKlently  raised  against  it  (Augustin, 
Serjn.  299,  §  6).  Another  term,  salctifiratur,  wa* 
occasionallv  used  by  Tertullian  {De  Restirr.  Cam 
c.  47  ;   Dp  Cam.  Chr.  c.  14). 


SAVIOUR 

icvenaiit  in  my  blood."  We  are  carried  back  by 
these  words  to  tbe  first  covenant,  to  the  altar  with 
twelve  pillars,  and  the  burnt  offerint,'s  and  peace- 
otterin<Ts  of  oxen,  and  the  blood  of  the  victims 
spriulvled  on  the  altar  and  on  the  people,  and  the 
words  of  Jloses  as  he  sjirinkled  it:  ''Behold  the 
blood  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  liath  made 
with  you  concerning  all  these  words"  (Ex.  xxiv.). 
No  interpreter  has  ever  failed  to  draw  from  tliese 
passages  the  true  meaning:  "  When  my  sacrifice  is 
accomplished,  my  blood  shall  be  the  sanction  of  the 
new  covenant."  The  word  "sacrifice"  is  wanting; 
but  sacrifice  and  nothing  else  is  described.  And 
the  words  are  no  mere  figure  used  for  illu.stration, 
and  laid  aside  when  they  have  served  that  turn, 
"  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me."  They  are  the 
words  in  wliich  the  Church  is  to  interpret  the  act 
of  Jesus  to  the  end  of  time.  They  are  reproduced 
exactly  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xi.  2.5).  Then,  as 
now,  Christians  met  together,  and  by  a  solemn 
act  declared  that  they  counted  the  blood  of  -lesus 
as  a  sacrifice  wherein  a  new  co\  enant  was  sealed ; 
and  of  the  blood  of  that  sacrifice  they  partook  by 
faith,  professing  themselves  thereby  willing  to  enter 
the  covenant  and  be  sprinkled  with  the  blood. 

3.  So  far  we  have  examined  the  tiiree  "  synop- 
tic "  Gospels.  They  follow  a  historical  order.  In 
tlie  early  chapters  of  all  three  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  sacrifice  is  not  found,  because  He  will  first 
ETi.swer  the  question  about  Himself,  "  Who  is 
this?"  before  He  shows  them  "  Wliat  is  his 
work?"  But  at  length  the  announcement  is 
made,  enforced,  repeated ;  until,  when  the  feet  of 
the  betrayer  are  ready  for  their  wicked  errand,  a 
command  is  given  wliich  secures  tliat  the  death  of 
Jesus  shall  be  described  forever  as  a  sacrifice  and 
nothing  else,  sealing  a  new  covenant,  and  carry- 
ing good  to  many.  Lest  the  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment should  seem  to  he  an  afterthought,  as  indeed 
De  Wette  has  tried  to  represent  it,  St.  John  pre- 
serves the  conversation  witii  Nicodemus,  which  took 
place  early  in  the  ministry;  and  there,  under  the 
figure  of  the  brazen  serpent  lifted  up,  the  atoning 
virtue  of  the  Lord's  death  is  fully  set  forth.  "  As 
Moses  lifted  up  the  ser]jeiit  in  the  wilderness,  even 
so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up;  that  whoso- 
ever believetli  in  Him  should  not  pei-ish,  but  have 
eternal  life"  (John  iii.  14,  15).  As  in  this  inter- 
cessory act,  the  image  of  tbe  deadly,  hateful,  and 
actwrsed  (Gen.  iii.  14,  1.5)  reptile  liecame  by  God's 
decree  t!ie  means  of  health  to  all  wlio  looked  on  it 
earnestly,  so  does  Jesus  in  the  form  of  sinful  man, 
uf  a  deceiver  of  the  peoj^  (JIatt.  xxvii.  6-3),  of  An- 
tichrist (Matt.  xii.  24;  John  xviii.  3-3),  of  one  ac- 
cursed (Gal  iii.  13),  become  the  means  of  our  sal- 
vation; so  that  whoever  fastens  tlie  earnest  gaze  of 
fiiith  on  Uim  shall  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life. 
There  is  even  a  significance  in  the  word  "  lifted 

up;  "  the  Lord  used  probably  the  word  ^pT, 
which  in  older  Hebrew  meant  to  lift  up  in  the 
widest  sense,  but  began  in  the  Aramaic  to  have  the 
testricted  meaninir  of  lifting  up  for  punishment." 
With  Christ  the  lifting  up  was  a  seeming  disiirace, 
I  true  ti-iumph  and  elevation.  But  the  context  in 
which   these  verses  occur  is  as   important  as  the 


SAVIOUR  2859 

verses  themselves.  Nicodemus  comes  as  an  in- 
quirer; he  is  told  that  a  man  must  be  born  again, 
and  then  he  is  directed  to  the  death  of  Jesus  as  the 
means  of  that  regeneration.  The  earnest  gaze  of 
the  wounded  soul  is  to  be  the  condition  of  its  cure 
and  tliat  gaze  is  to  be  turned,  not  to  Jesus  on  the 
mountain,  or  in  the  Temple,  but  on  the  Cross. 
This,  then,  is  no  passing  allusion,  but  it  is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Christian  teaching  addressed  to  an 
earnest  seeker  after  truth. 

Another  passage  claims  a  reverent  attention  — 
'•  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for 
ever,  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesli, 
wliicli  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world  "  (John 
vi.  51).  He  is  the  bread;  and  He  will  give  the 
bread.''  If  his  presence  on  earth  were  the  expected 
fotxl,  it  was  given  already ;  but  would  He  speak  o( 
"drinking  his  blood"  (ver.  53),  which  can  only 
refer  to  the  dead  ?  It  is  on  the  cross  that  He  will 
attbrd  this  food  to  his  disciples.  We  grant  that 
tliis  wliole  passaiie  has  occasioned  as  much  dis- 
puting among  Christian  commentators  as  it  did 
among  tlie  Jews  who  heard  it;  and  for  the  same 
reason,  —  for  the  hardness  of  the  saying.  But 
there  stands  the  saying;  and  no  candid  person  can 
refuse  to  see  a  reference  in  it  to  the  death  of  Him 
that  speaks. 

In  tliat  discourse,  which  has  well  been  called  the 
Prayer  of  Consecration  offered  by  our  High  Priest, 
there  is  another  passage  which  cannot  be  alleged  as 
evidence  to  one  who  thinks  that  any  word  applied 
by  Jesus  to  his  disciples  and  Himself  must  bear  in 
both  cases  precisely  the  same  sense,  but  which  is 
really  pertinent  to  this  inquiry:  '•  Sanctify  them 
through  thy  truth :  thy  word  is  truth.  As  Thou 
hast  sent  Me  into  tlie  world,  even  so  have  I  also 
sent  them  into  the  world.  And  for  their  sakes  I 
sanctify  M\self,  that  they  also  might  be  sanctified 
tliroui;h  the  truth  "  (John  xvii.  17-19).  The  word 
ayid^iiv,  "sanctify,"'  "consecrate,"  is  used  in  the 
LXX.  for  the  offering  of  sacrifice  (I>ev.  xxii.  2), 
and  for  the  dedication  of  a  man  to  the  Divine  ser- 
vice (Num.  iii.  15).  Here  the  present  tense  "  1 
consecrate,"  used  in  a  discourse  in  which  our  Lord 
says  He  is  "  no  more  in  the  world,"  is  conclusive 
against  the  interpretation  "  I  dedicate  my  life  to 
Thee;  "  for  life  is  over.  No  self-dedication,  except 
that  by  death,  can  now  be  spoken  of  as  present. 
"  I  dedicate  Myself  to  Tiiee,  in  my  death,  that 
these  may  be  a  people  consecrated  to  Thee;  "  such 
is  the  great  tliought  in  this  sublime  passage,  which 
suits  well  with  his  other  declaration,  that  tlie  blood 
of  his  sacrifice  sprinkles  them  for  a  new  covenant 
with  God.  To  the  great  majority  of  expositors 
from  Chrysostom  and  Cyril,  the  doctrine  of  recon- 
ciliation through  the  death  of  Jesus  is  asserted  in 
these  verses. 

The  Redeemer  has  already  described  Himself  as 
the  Good  Shepherd  who  lays  down  his  life  for  the 
sheep  (John  x.  11,  17,  18),  taking  care  to  distin- 
guish liis  death  from  that  of  one  who  dies  against 
his  will  in  striving  to  compass  some  other  aim  i 
"  Therefore  dotli  my  Father  love  Me,  because  I  lay 
down  my  life  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man 
taketh  it  from  Me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  Jlyself. 
I  have  power  to  la}'  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to 
take  it  ajjain." 


a  So  Tholuck,  and  Kuapp  {Opimciiln,  i.  217).      The 

treatise    of    Kuapp    on    this    discourse    is    valuable  world  "     So  Tertulliaii  .«eems   to  have   read   •'  IVinij 

ihroujrliout.  queni  ego  deJero   pro    salute   iiiuiuli  caro  niea  est." 

•'  Soii.e,  omitting  17^  eyi)  Suitrai,  would  read.  '*  And  Tliu  sense  is  the  same  with  tlie  omission  ;  hut  tb«  r» 

Kv  flesh  i<  the  bma')  that  I  will  giye  fur  the  life  of  the  ceived  reading  may  be  successfully  defon  led. 


2860  SAVIOUB 

Other  passages  that  relate  to  his  death  will  occur 
to  the  memory  of  any  Bible  reader.  The  com  of 
wheat  that  dies  in  the  ejromid  to  bear  much  fruit 
(John  xii.  24)  is  explained  by  his  own  words  else- 
where, where  He  says  that  He  came  "to  minister, 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Matt. 
XX.  28). 

4.  Thus,  then,  speaks  Jesus  of  Himself.  What 
say  his  witnesses  of  Him  ?  "  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,"  says  the  Baptist,  "  which  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world  "  (.John  i.  29).  Commentators 
differ  about  the  allusion  implied  in  that  name.  But 
take  any  one  of  their  opinions,  and  a  sacrifice  is 
implied.  Is  it  the  Pasch.al  lamb  that  is  referred 
to  y  Is  it  the  lamb  of  the  daily  sacrifice  ?  Either 
w.ay  the  death  of  the  victim  is  hrou-iht  before  us. 
But  the  allusion  in  all  probability  is  to  the  well- 
known  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (liii.)  to  the  Lamb 
brought  to  the  slaughter,  who  bore  our  griefs  and 
carried  our  sorrows." 

5.  The  Apostles  after  the  Kesurrection  preach  no 
moral  system,  but  a  belief  in  and  love  of  Christ, 
the  crucified  and  risen  Lord,  through  whom,  if 
they  repent,  men  shall  obtain  salvation.  This  was 
Peter's  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts 
ii.);  and  he  appealed  boldly  to  the  prophets  on  the 
ground  of  an  expectation  of  a  suffering  Jlessiah 
(Acts  iii.  18).  Philip  traced  out  for  the  Eunuch, 
in  that  picture  of  suffering  holiness  in  the  well- 
known  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  lineaments  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  (Acts  viii. ;  Is.  liii.).  The  first  ser- 
mon to  a  Gentile  household  proclaimed  Christ  slain 
and  risen,  and  added  "  that  through  his  name 
whosoever  believeth  in  Him  shall  receive  reniission 
of  sins"  (Acts  X.).  Paul  at  Antioch  preaches  "a 
Saviour  Jesus"  (Acts  xiii.  2.3);  "through  this 
ISIan  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  by  Him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all 
things  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the 
Law  of  Moses"-  (.-icts  xiii.  38,  39).  At  Thessa- 
lonica  all  that  we  learn  of  this  Apostle's  preaching 
is  "  that  Christ  must  needs  have  suffered  and  risen 
again  from  the  dead:  and  that  this  .lesus,  whom  I 
preach  unto  you,  is  Christ''  (Acts  xvii.  3).  ]5efore 
Agrippa  he  declared  that  he  had  preached  always 
"  that  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  He  sliould  be 
the  first  that  sliould  rise  from  the  dead"  (Acts 
xxvi.  23 ) ;  and  it  was  this  declaration  that  con- 
vinces his  royal  hearer  that  he  was  a  crazed  fanatic. 
The  account  of  the  first  founding  of  the  Church 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  concise  and  frag- 
mentary; and  sometimes  we  have  hardly  any  means 
of  judging  what  place  the  sufferiufrs  of  Jesus  held 
in  the  teaciiing  of  the  Apostles;  but  when  we  read 
that  they  ••  preached  .lesus,"  or  the  like,  it  is  only 
fair  to  infer  from  other  passages  that  the  Cross 
of  Christ  was  never  concealed,  whether  Jews,  or 
Greeks,  or  barbarians  were  the  listeners.  And  this 
very  pertinacity  sliows  how  much  weight  the}'  at- 
tached to  the  facts  of  the  life  of  our  Lord.  They 
■iid  not  merely  repeat  in  each  new  place  the  pure 
/norality  of  Jesus  as  He  uttered  it  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Moinit:  of  such  lessons  we  have  no  record. 
They  took  in  their  hands,  a-s  the  strongest  weapon, 
the  fact  that  a  certain  Jew  crucified  afar  off  in 


SAVIOUR 

Jerusalem  was  the  Son  of  God,  who  had  died  to 
save  men  from  their  sins ;  and  they  offered  to  aU 
•alike  an  interest,  through  faith,  in  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead  of  this  outcast  of  his  own  people. 
No  wonder  that  Jews  and  Greeks,  judging  in  their 
worldly  way,  thought  this  strain  of  preaching  came 
of  folly  or  madness,  and  turned  from  what  they 
thought  unmeaning  jargon. 

6.  We  are  able  to  complete  from  the  epistles  our 
account  of  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  on  the  doc- 
trine of  Atonement.  "The  Man  Christ  Jesus"  is 
the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  for  in  Him  the 
human  nature,  in  its  sinless  purity,  is  lifted  up  to 
the  Divine,  so  that  He,  exempt  from  guilt,  can 
ple.ad  for  tlie  guilty  (1  Tim.  ii.  5;  1  Jolni  ii.  1,  2; 
Heb.  vii.  25).  Thus  He  is  the  second  Adam  that 
shall  redeem  the  sin  of  the  first;  the  interests  of 
men  are  bound  up  in  Him,  since  He  has  power  to 
take  them  all  into  Himself  (Eph.  v.  29,  30:  Rom. 
xii.  5;  1  Cor.  xv.  22;  Rom.  v.  12,  17).  This  sal- 
\ation  was  provided  by  the  Father,  to  "  reconcile 
us  to  Himself"  (2  Cor.  v.  18),  to  whom  the  name 
of  "Saviour"  thus  belongs  (Luke  i.  47);  and  our 
redemption  is  a  signal  i)roof  of  the  love  of  God  to 
us  (1  John  iv.  10).  Not  less  is  it  a  proof  of  the 
love  of  Jesus,  since  He  freely  lays  down  his  life  for 
us — offers  it  as  a  precious  gift,  capable  of  pur- 
chasing all  the  lost  (1  Tim.  ii.  fi;  Tit.  ii.  14;  Eph. 
i.  7.  Conip.  JMatt.  xx.  28).  But  there  is  .another 
side  of  (>he  truth  more  painful  to  our  natural  rea- 
son. How  came  this  exhibition  of  Divine  love  to 
be  needed  ?  Because  wrath  had  already  gone  out 
against  man.  The  clouds  of  God's  anger  gathered 
tliick  over  the  whole  human  race ;  they  discharged 
themselves  on  Jesus  only.  (Jod  has  made  Him  to 
be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin  (2  Cor.  v.  21);  He 
is  made  "a  curse"  (a  thing  accursed)  for  us,  tliat 
the  curse  that  hangs  over  us  may  be  removed  (Gal. 
iii.  13);  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree  (1  Pet.  ii.  24).  There  are  those  who  would 
see  on  the  page  of  the  Bible  only  the  sunshine  of 
the  Divine  love;  but  the  nuittering  thunders  of 
Divine  wrath  against  sin  are  heard  there  also:  and 
He  who  alone  was  no  child  of  wrath,  meets  the 
shock  of  the  thunderstorm,  becomes  a  curse  for  us, 
and  a  vessel  of  wrath ;  and  the  rays  of  love  break 
out  of  that  thunder-gloom,  and  shine  on  the  bowed 
head  of  Him  who  hangs  on  the  Cross,  dead  for  our 
sins. 

We  have  spoken,  and  advisedly,  as  if  the  New 
Testament  were,  as  to  this  doctrine,  one  book  in 
harmony  with  itself.  That  there  are  in  the  New 
Testament  different  typea^f  the  one  true  doctrine, 
may  be  admitted  without  peril  to  the  doctrine. 
The  principal  types  are  four  in  number. 

7.  In  the  Epistle  of  James  there  is  a  remarkable 
absence  of  all  explanations  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement;  but  this  admission  does  not  amount  to 
so  much  as  may  at  first  appear.  True,  the  key- 
note of  the  epistle  is  that  the  Gospel  is  the  Law 
made  perfect,  and  that  it  is  a  practical  moral  sys- 
tem, in  which  man  finds  himself  free  to  keep  the 
Divine  Law.  lUit  with  him  Christ  is  no  mere 
Lawgiver  appointed  to  impart  the  .lewish  system. 
He  knows  tliat  1-lias  is  a  man  like  himself,  but  of 


"  See  this  passage  discussed  fully  in  the  notes  of 
Meyer,  Lange  {Bibe/iverk),  and  Alford.  Tlie  reference 
to  the  Paschal  Uamb  finds  favor  with  Grotius  aud 
others ;  the  reference  to  Isaiah  is  approved  by  Chry- 
iwtom  and  many  others.  The  taking  away  of  sin 
[alpeiv)  of  the   Ba)  tist,  aud    the  bearing  it  (<(>€'peiv, 


LXX.)  of  Isaiah,  have  one  meaning,  and  answer  to  the 
Hebrew  word   Wtt'S.      I'o  take  the  sins  on  Himself  is 

T  T 

to  remove  them  from  the  sinners  ;  and  how  can  tha 
be  through  his  death  except  in  the  way  of  expiitioj 
by  that  death  itself? 


SAVIOUR 

the  Persoi  of  Christ  he  speaks  in  a  different  spirit. 
He  culls  himself  "  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  who  is  "the  Lord  of  Glory." 
He  speaks  of  the  Word  of  Truth,  of  which  Jesus 
has  heen  tlie  utterer.  He  knows  that  faith  in  the 
Lord  of  Glor}'  is  inconsistent  with  time-serving 
iud  "respect  of  persons"  (James  i.  1,  ii.  1,  i.  18). 
"There  is  one  Lawgiver,"  he  says,  "who  is  able 
to  save  and  to  destroy"  (James  iv.  12);  and  this 
refers  no  doubt  to  Jesus,  whose  second  coming  he 
holds  up  as  a  motive  to  obedience  (James  v.  7-9). 
These  and  like  expressions  remove  this  epistle  far 
out  of  the  sphere  of  Ebio«iitish  teaching.  The 
iuspirod  writer  sees  the  Sa\iour,  in  the  father's 
piory,  preparing  to  return  to  judge  the  quick  and 
dead.  He  puts  forth  Christ  as  Prophet  and  King, 
for  he  makes  Him  Teacher  and  Judge  of  the 
world;  but  the  office  of  the  Priest  he  does  not 
dwell  on.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  say  that  he  knows 
it  not.  Something  nuist  have  taken  place  before 
he  could  treat  his  hearers  with  confidence,  as  free 
creatures,  able  to  resist  temptations,  and  even  to 
meet  temptations  with  joy.  He  treats  "  j'our 
faith"  as  something  founded  already,  not  to  be 
prepared  by  this  epistle  (James  i.  2,  -3,  21).  His 
purpose  is  a  purely  practical  one.  There  is  no 
intention  to  unfold  a  Christology,  such  as  that 
which  makes  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  so  valu- 
able. Assuming  that  Jesus  has  manifested  Him- 
self, and  begotten  anew  the  human  race,  he  seeks 
to  make  them  pray  with  undivided  hearts,  and 
be  considerate  to  the  poor,  and  strive  with  lusts, 
for  which  they  and  not  God  are  responsible;  and 
iiridle  their  tongues,  and  show  their  fruits  by  their 
works." 

8.  In  the  teaching  of  St.  Peter  the  doctrine  of 
the  Person  of  our  Lord  is  connected  strictly  with 
that  of  his  work  as  Saviour  and  Messiah.  The 
frequent  mention  of  his  sufferings  shows  the  prom- 
inent place  he  would  give  them;  and  he  puts  for- 
ward as  the  ground  of  his  own  right  to  teach,  that 
he  was  "a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ" 
(1  Pet.  V.  1).  The  atoning  virtue  of  those  suf- 
ferings lie  dwells  on  with  peculiar  emphasis;  and 
not  less  so  on  the  purifying  intiuenee  of  the  Atone- 
ment on  the  hearts  of  belie\'ers.  He  repeats  again 
and  again  that  Christ  died  for  us  (1  Pet.  ii.  21, 
iii.  18,  iv.  1);  that  He  i>are  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree''  (1  Pet.  ii.  24).  He  bare  them; 
and  what  does  this  phrase  suggest,  but  the  goat 
that  "shall  bear"  the  iniquities  of  the  people  off 
into  the  land  that  was  not  inhabited?  (Lev.  svi. 
22)  or  else  the  feelinf)  the  consequences  of  sin,  as 
the  word  is  used  elsewhere  (Lev.  xx.  17,  19)?  We 
have  to  choose  between  the  cognate  ideas  of  sacri- 
fice and  substitution.  Closely  allied  with  these 
statements  are  those  which  connect  moral  reforma- 
tion with  the  death  of  .lesus'.  He  bare  our  sins 
that  we  might  live  unto  righteousness.  His  death 
is  our  life.  We  are  not  to  be  content  with  a  self- 
gatisfied  contemplation  of  our  redeemed  state,  but 
to  live  a  life  worthy  of  it  (1  Pet.  ii.  21-2.5,  iii. 
1.5-18).  In  these  passages  the  whole  (lospel  is 
contained ;  we  are  justified  by  the  death  of  .lesus, 
ivho  bore  our  sins  that  we  might  be  sanctified  and 


SAVIOUR 


286J 


ransL  p.  498  ff.] ;  Schmid,  Tlipiitoisie  dts  N.  T.,  part 
I. ;  and  Doruer,  Christoln^ii',  i   95- 

*>  If  there  wei-e  any  doubt  that  "  for  us "  (virep 
<lltu>v)  means  ''in  our  stead"  (see  ver.  21),  this  24th 
rerse,  waich  oxpldus  tlie  former,  would  set  it  at  rest. 


renewed  to  a  life  of  godliness.  And  from  thi. 
Apostle  we  hear  again  the  name  of  "  the  Lamb," 
as  well  as  from  John  the  Baptist;  and  the  passaga 
of  Isaiah  comes  back  upon  us  with  unmistakable 
clearness.  ^Ve  are  redeemed  "  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot"  (1  Pet.  i.  18,  19,  with  Is.  hii.  7). 
Every  word  carries  us  back  to  the  Old  Testament 
and  its  sacrificial  system:  the  siwtless  victim,  tiie 
release  from  sin  by  its  blood  (elsewhere,  i.  2,  by 
the  spriiikUnf/  of  its  blood),  are  here;  not  the  typo 
and  shadow,  but  the  truth  of  them;  not  a  cere- 
monial ptu-gation,  but  an  effectual  reconcilement  of 
man  and  God. 

9.  In  the  inspired  writings  of  .lohn  we  are  struck 
at  once  with  the  erapliatic  statements  as  to  the 
Divine  and  human  natures  of  Christ.  A  right 
belief  in  the  incarnation  is  the  test  of  a  Christian 
man  (1  John  iv.  2;  John  i.  14;  2  John  7);  we 
must  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  fiesh, 
and  that  He  is  manifested  to  destroy  the  works  of 
the  devil  (1  John  iii.  8).  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
He  who  has  come  in  the  flesh  is  the  One  who  alone 
has  been  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  seen  the 
things  that  human  eyes  have  never  seen,  and  has 
come  to  declare  them  unto  us  (1  John  i.  2,  iv.  14; 
John  i.  14-18).  This  Person,  at  once  Divine  and 
human,  is  "the  propitiation  for  our  sins,"  our 
"  Advocate  with  the  Father,"  sent  into  the  world 
"that  we  might  live  through  Him;",  and  the 
means  was  his  laying  down  his  life  for  us,  which 
should  make  us  ready  to  lay  down  our  ii^-es  for 
the  brethren  (1  John  ii.  1,  2,  iv.  9,  10,  v.  11-1:3, 
iii.  16,  v.  6,  i.  7;  John  xL  51).  And  the  moral 
eftect  of  his  redemption  is,  that  "  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin"  (L.Iolin 
i.  7).  The  intimate  connection  between  his  work 
and  our  holiness  is  the  main  sufject  of  his  first 
epistle:  "Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not 
commit  sin"  (1  John  iii.  9).  As  with  St.  Peter, 
so  with  St.  John;  every  point  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement  comes  out  with  abundant  clearness: 
the  substitution  of  another  who  can  bear  our  sins, 
for  us  who  cannot;  the  sufferings  and  death  as  the 
means  of  our  redemption,  our  justification  thereby, 
and  our  progress  in  holiness  as  the  result  of  our 
justification. 

10.  To  follow  out  as  fully,  in  the  more  volumi- 
nous writings  of  St.  Paul,  the  passages  that  speak 
of  our  salvation,  would  far  transgress  the  limits  of 
our  paper.  Jlan,  according  to  this  Apostle,  is  a 
transgressor  of  the  Law.  His  conscience  tells  him 
that  he  cannot  act  up  to  that  Law  which,  the  same 
conscience  admits,  is  Divine,  and  binding  tipon 
him.  Through  the  old  dispensations  nun  remained 
in  this  condition.  Even  the  Law  of  ]Moses  could 
not  justify  him:  it  only  by  its  strict  behests  held 
up  a  mirror  to  conscience  that  its  fraihiess  might 
be  seen.  Christ  came,  sent  by  the  mercy  of  our 
Father  who  had  never  forgotten  us;  given  to,  nt>t 
deserved  by  us.  He  came  to  reconcile  men  am\ 
God  Ijy  dying  on  the  Cross  for  them,  and  bearing 
their  punishment  in  their  ste.ad'^  (2  Cor.  v.  14-21; 
Rom.  V.  0-8).  He  is  "a  propitiation  through 
faith  in  his  blood  "   (Rom.  iii.  25,  26.     Compare 


a  See  Neander,   Pftanzuns,  b.  vi.  c.  3  [Robinson's    [It  may  be  the  inferential,  but  not  direct  force  of  ujre'p 


(conip.  Philip,  i.  '29).     See  ^Viner,  jV.  T.  dr.,  7th  ed., 
pp.  382.  383  (Th.ayer's  trans.  1959). —  H.] 

f-'  These  two  passages  are  decisive  as  to  the  fact 
of  suhstitutiou  :  they  might  be  fortified  with  niauj 
others.  . 


2862  SAVIOUR 

Lev.  xvi.  ]5.  '\Kaar'r}piov  means  -'victim  for 
Bxpiatioii "):  words  which  most  people  will  find 
unintelligible,  except  in  reference  to  the  did  Testa- 
ment and  its  sacrifices.  He  is  the  ransom,  or  price 
paid,  for  the  redemption  of  niau  from  all  iniquity  " 
(Titus  ii.  14).  'I'he  wrath  of  God  was  ayainst 
man,  but  it  did  not  fall  on  man.  (jod  made  his 
Son  "to  be  sin  for  us"  though  He  knew  no  sin, 
and  Jesus  suffered  though  men  had  sinned.  By 
this  act  God  and  man  were  reconciled  (Rom.  v.  10; 
2  Cor.  V.  18-20;  Eph.  ii  IG;  Col.  i.  21).  On 
the  side  of  man,  trust  and  love  and  hope  take  the 
place  of  fear  and  of  an  evil  conscience;  on  the  side 
of  (jod,  that  terrible  wrath  of  his,  which  is  re- 
vealed from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness  of  men,  is  turned  away  (Kom.  i. 
18,  V.  9;  1  Thess.  i.  10).  The  question  whether 
we  are  reconciled  to  God  only,  or  God  is  also  rec- 
onciled to  us,  might  be  discussed  on  deep  meta- 
physical grounds ;  but  we  purposely  leave  that  on 
one  side,  content  to  show  that  at  all  events  the  in- 
tention of  God  to  punish  man  is  averted  by  this 
"  propitiation  "  and  "  reconcilement." 

11.  Different  views  are  held  al)0ut  the  author- 
ship of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  by  modern 
critics;  out  its  numerous  points  of  contact  with 
the  other  epistles  of  St.  Paul  must  be  recognized. 
In  both,  the  inconipleteness  of  Judaism  is  dwelt  on  ; 
redemption  from  sin  and  guilt  is  what  religion  has 
to  do  for  men,  and  this  the  Law  failed  to  secure. 
In  both,  reconciliation  and  forgiveness  and  a  nevi' 
moral  power  in  the  believers  are  the  fruits  of  the 
work  of  Jesus.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
Paul  shows  that  the  Law  failed  to  justify,  and 
that  faith  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  must  lie  the  ground 
of  justification.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Helirews  the 
same  result  follows  from  an  argument  rather  dif- 
ferent: all  that  the  .lewish  S3'stem  ainjed  to  do  is 
accomplished  in  Christ  in  a  far  more  perfect  manner. 
The  Gospel  has  a  better  Priest,  more  effectual  sacri- 
fices, a  more  profoimd  peace.  In  the  one  epistle 
the  Law  seems  set  aside  wholly  for  the  s\stem  of 
faith;  in  the  other  the  Law  is  exalted  and  glorified 
in  its  Gospel  shai)e;  but  the  aim  is  precisely  the 
Bame  —  to  show  the  weakness  of  the  Law  and  the 
effectual  fruit  of  the  Gospel. 

12.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to  see  how  far  the 
teaching-  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  effects  of  the 
death  of  .lesus  is  continuous  and  consistent.  Are 
the  declarations  of  our  Lord  about  Himself  the 
Bame  as  those  of  James  and  Peter,  John  and  Paul? 
and  are  those  of  the  Apostles  consistent  with  each 
other?  The  several  points  of  this  mysterious  trans- 
action may  be  thus  roughly  descrilied  :  — 

(1.)  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  to  redeem 
lost  and  ruined  man  from  sin  and  death,  and  the 
Son  willingly  took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant 
for  this  purpose:  and  thus  the  Eather  and  the  Son 
manifested  their  love  for  ns. 

(2.)  God  the  Eather  laid  upon  his  Son  the  weight 
of  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  so  that  He  bare  in 
his  own  body  the  wrath  which  men  nmst  else  have 
borne,  because  there  was  no  other  way  of  escape  for 
them :  and  thus  the  Atonement  was  a  manifestation 
of  Divine  justice. 

(3.)  The  effect  of  the  Atonement  thus  wrought 
is,  that  man  is  placed  in  a  new  position,,  freed  from 
.he  dominion  of  sin,  and  able  to   follow  holiness; 

"  Still  stronger  in  1  Tim.  il.  6,  "ransom  instead 
>f  "  (ai'Tt'AwTpov).  Also  Eph.  i.  7  (a.7roA.vTpiucris) ;  1  Cor. 
ri.  20,  vii.  23. 


SAVIOUR 

and  thus  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  ought  to 
work  in  all  the  hearers  a  sense  of  love,  of  obedience, 
and  of  self-sacrifice. 

In  shorter  words,  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of 
Christ  is  a  proof  of  l)i\ine  l'ii\-,  and  of  Divine  jvs~ 
iice,  and  is  for  us  a  docuuient  of  obcdieJice. 

Of  the  four  great  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
Peter,  Paul,  and  John  set  forth  every  one  of  these 
points.  Peter,  the  "  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,"  tells  us  that  we  are  redeemed  with  the 
blood  of  Jesus,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot ;  says  that  (.'hrist  bare  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree.  If  we  "  have  tasted  that 
the  Lord  is  gracious"  (1  Pet.  ii.  3),  we  must  not 
rest  satisfied  with  a  contemplation  of  our  redeemed 
state,  but  must  live  a  life  worthy  of  it.  No  one 
can  well  doubt,  who  reads  the  two  epistles,  that 
the  love  of  God  and  Christ,  and  the  justice  of  God, 
and  the  duties  thereby  laid  on  us,  all  have  their 
value  in  them ;  but  the  love  is  less  dwelt  on  than 
the  justice,  whilst  the  most  prominent  idea  of  all  is 
the  moral  and  practical  working  of  the  Cross  of 
Christ  upon  the  lives  of  men. 

With  St.  John,  again,  all  three  points  find  place. 
That  Jesus  willingly  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  and 
is  an  advocate  with  the  Eather;  that  He  is  also  the 
propitiation,  the  suffering  sacrifice,  for  our  sins; 
and  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin,  for  that  whoever  is  born  of  (iod  doth 
not  commit  sin  —  all  are  put  forward.  The  death 
of  Christ  is  both  justice  and  love,  both  a  pro- 
pitiation and  an  act  of  loving  self-surrender;  but 
the  moral  effect  upon  us  is  more  pron)inent  even 
than  these. 

In  the  epistles  of  Paul  the  three  elements  are  all 
present.  ■  in  such  expressions  as  a  ransom,  a  pro- 
pitiation, who  was  "  made  sin  for  us,"  the  wrath 
of  God  against  sin,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  was 
turned  away,  are  presented  to  us.  Yet  not  wrath 
alone.  "  llie  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us;  be- 
cause we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then 
were  all  dead :  and  that  He  died  for  all,  that  they 
which  live  should  not  henceforth  live  imto  them- 
selves, but  unto  Him  which  died  for  them,  and 
rose  again"  (2  Cor.  v.  14,  15).  Love  in  Him  be- 
gets love  in  us,  and  in  our  reconciled  state  the  holi- 
ness which  we  could  not  practice  before  becomes 
easy. 

The  reasons  for  not  finding  from  St.  James  simi- 
lar e\  idence,  we  have  spoken  of  already. 

Now  in  which  of  these  points  is  there  the  sem- 
blance of  contradiction  between  the  Apostles  and 
their  Master?  In  none  of  them.  In  the  Gospels, 
as  in  the  Epistles,  Jesus  is  held  up  as  the  sacrifice 
and  victim,  draining  a  cup  from  which  his  human 
nature  shrank,  feeling  in  himself  a  sense  of  desola- 
tion such  as  we  fail  utterly  te  comprehend  on  a 
theory  of  human  motives.  Yet  no  one  takes  from 
Him  his  precious  redeeming  life;  He  lays  it  down 
of  Himself,  out  of  his  great  love  for  men.  '  But 
men  are  to  deny  themselves  and  take  up  their  crors 
and  tread  in  his  steps  '1  hey  are  his  friends  only 
if  they  keep  his  commands  and  follow  his  foot- 
steps. 

We  must  consider  it  proved  that  these  three 
points  or  moments  are  the  doctrine  of  the  whole 
New  Testament.  What  is  there  about  this  teaching 
that  has  pro\oked  in'  times  past  and  present  so 
much  disputation  ?  Not  the  hardness  of  the  doc- 
trine, —  for  none  of  the  theories  put  in  its  place 
are  any  easier,  —  but  its  want  of  logical  complete- 
ness.    Sketched  out  for  us  in  a  few  broad  lines,  il 


SAVOUR 

'^liipts  the  fan^y  to  fill  it  in  and  lend  it  color;  and 
we  do  not  always  remember  that  the  hands  that 
attempt  this  are  trying  to  make  a  nij-stei-y  into  a 
theory,  an  infinite  truth  into  a  finite  one,  and  to 
reduce  tlie  great  things  of  God  into  the  narrow 
limits  of  our  little  field  of  view.  To  whom  was  the 
ransom  paid '?  What  was  Satan's  share  of  the 
transaction  ?  How  can  one  sutler  for  another  ? 
How  could  the  Redeemer  be  Miserable  when  He 
was  conscious  that  his  work  was  one  which  could 
bring  happiness  to  the  whole  human  race?  Yet 
■  this  condition  of  indefiniteness  is  one  which  is  im- 
posed on  us  in  the  reception  of  every  mystery: 
prayer,  the  incarnation,  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
are  all  suiyects  tliat  pass  far  beyond  our  range  of 
thought.  And  here  we  see  the  wisdom  of  tiod  in 
coimecting  so  closely  our  redemption  witli  our 
reformation.  If  the  object  were  to  give  us  a  com- 
plete theory  of  salvation,  no  doubt  there  would  be 
•  in  the  liible  much  to  seek.  The  theory  is  gathered 
by  fragments  out  of  many  an  exhortation  and  warn- 
ing; nowhere  does  it  stand  out  entire,  and  without 
logical  tiaw.  But  if  we  assume  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  written  for  the  guidance  of  sinful  hearts, 
we  find  a  wonderful  aptness  for  that  particular  end. 
Jesus  is  proclaimed  as  the  solace  of  our  fears,  as 
the  founder  of  our  moral  life,  as  the  restorer  of  our 
lost  relation  with  our  Father.  If  He  had  a  cross, 
there  is  a  cross  for  us ;  if  He  pleased  not  himself, 
let  us  deny  ourselves;  if  He  suifered  for  sin,  let  us 
hate  sin.  And  the  question  ought  not  to  be.  What 
do  all  these  mysteries  mean  V  but,  Are  these 
thoughts  really  such  as  will  serve  to  guide  our  life 
and  to  assuage  our  terrors  in  the  hour  of  death  ? 
The  answer  is  twofold  —  one  from  history  and  one 
fi'om  experience.  The  preaching  of  the  Cross  of 
the  Lord  even  iii  this  simple  fashion  converted  the 
world.  The  same  doctrine  is  now  the  ground  of 
any  definite  hope  that  we  find  in  ourselves,  of  for- 
giveness ot  sins  and  of  everlasting  life. 

It  would  1)6  out  of  place  in  a  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible  to  e.'camine  the  History  of  the  Doctrine  or  to 
answer  the  modern  objections  urged  against  it.  l-'or 
these  subjects  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  author's 
essay  on  the  "  Death  of  Christ,"  in  Aids  to  Faltli, 
which  also  contains  the  substance  of  the  present 
article.  [See  also  the  arts.  Jesus  Cukist,  Mk.s- 
siAH,  Son  of  God,  and  Son  of  Man.  in  this 
Dictionary.]  W.  T. 

*  SAVOUR  as  a  verb  occurs  in  the  A.  V. 
only  in  Matt.  .xvi.  23,  and  the  parallel  passage 
Mark  viii.  33,  in  our  Lord's  rebuke  of  Peter:  "Thou 
siivourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  those 
that  be  of  men."  The  Greek,  ov  (ppovels  to  tov 
0eoO,  etc  ,  m.ay  be  well  rendered,  as  it  is  by  Mr. 
Green  in  his  Twofold  New  Test.,  "  Thy  mind  is 
not  on  the  thhi^s  of  God,  but  on  those  of  men." 
L)r.  Johnson  defines  th^  word  suvour  here  "  to 
exhibit  a  taste  for,"  and  probably  most  English 
readers  so  understand  it.  But  it  may  have  been 
used  by  our  translators  in  a  more  comprehensive 
sense,  coiTesponding  to  the  translation  given  above. 
Wyclitfe  renders  Col.  iii.  2  (Vulg.  quie  suri'iim 
(lint,  siijtite),  ^' sever  ye  tho  thingis  that  nen 
»bove,"  and  uses  the  same  word  in  his  translation 
if  Horn.  viii.  5,  xii.  3,  IG;  Phil.  iii.  19,  etc.,  where 


SCEPTRE 


2sm 


a  1.   m^^ :  Trpi'wv :    from    T^'^  *.   oi^'J'  used   in 
i»rt.  Pual,  1  K.  vii.  9. 
2.  "mti^Q  :   irpiu)!' :  serra. 


the  A.  V.  has  "  mind  "  or  "  think  of."  The  tenii 
is  derived,  ultimately,  through  the  French  noun 
saveni;  O.  F.  suvor,  verb  snvorei;  from  the  Latin 
sapere,  meaning  primarily  to  taste  or  sDiell,  then 
to  discern,  jjossess  discernment  or  IcnowUdije,  etc. 

The  noun  s'lvoitr  occurs  very  often  in  the  A.  V.. 
and  almost  always  in  the  sense  (now  becoming  ob- 
solete) of  "  odor."  A. 

SAW."  Egyptian  saws,  so  far  as  has  yet  been 
discovered,  w^ere  single-handed,  though  St.  Jerome 
has  been  thought  to  allude  to  circular  saws.  As 
is  the  case  in  modern  oriental  saws,  the  teeth 
usually  incline  toward  the  handle,  instead  of  away 
from  it  like  ours.  They  have  in  most  cases,  bronze 
lilades,  apparently  attached  to  the  handles  liy 
leatheru  thongs,  but  some  of  those  in  the  British 
-Museum  have  their  blades  let  into  them  like  our 
knives.  A  double-handed  iron  saw  has  been  tbund 
at  Ximrud;  and  double  saws  strained  with  a  conl, 
such  as  modern  carpenters  use,  were  in  use  among 
the  Romans.  In  sawing  wood  the  Egyptians 
placed  the  wood  perpendicularly  in  a  sort  of  frame, 
and  cut  it  downwards.  No  evidence  exists  of  the 
use  of  the  saw  applied  to  stone  in  Egypt,  nor  with- 
out the  double-handed  saw  does  it  seem  likely  that 
this  should  be  the  case ;  but  we  read  of  sawn  stones 
used  in  the  Temple.  (1  K.  vii.  9 ;  Ges.  T/ies  p. 
305;  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egyp-  ii-  11-1,  119;  Brit 
Mus.  tLyyp-  Room,  Xo.  60-tG;  Layard,  Nin.  ana 
Bab.  p.  195;  Jerome,  Comm.  in  Is.  .xxviii.  27.) 
The  saws  "  under  "  or  "  in  "  *  which  David  is  said 
to  have  placed  his  captives  were  of  iron.  The 
expression  in  2  Sam.  xii.  31  does  not  necessarily 
imply  torture,  but  the  word  "cut"  in  1  Chr. 
XX.  3  can  hardly  be  understood  otherwise.  (Ges. 
Tlies.  p.  132(3;  Theiuus  on  2  Sam.  xii.  and 
1  Chr.  XX. )  .A.  case  of  sawing  asunder,  by  placing 
the  criminal  lietvveen  boards,  and  then  beginning 
at  the  head,  is  mentioned  by  Shaw,  Trav.  p.  254. 
(See  Did.  of  Antiq.  "Serra.")  [Haniuckaft; 
Punishments,  111   (>.  (3).]  H.  \V.  P. 

SCAPE-GOAT.     [.\ToxEMENT,  Day  of.] 

SCARLET.     [CoU)Ks.J 

SCEPTRE  lt-55ttJ).  The  Hebrew  term  she- 
bet,  like  its  Greek  equivalent  (TKrjTTTpov,  and  our 
derivative  sceptre,  originally  meant  a  rod  or  stuff 
It  was  thence  specifically  applied  to  the  shepherd's 
crook  (Lev.  xxvii.  32;  Mic.  vii.  14),  and  to  the 
wand  or  sceptre  of  a  ruler.  It  has  been  inferred 
that  the  latter  of  these  secondary  senses  is  derived 
from  the  former  (Winer,  lieidivb.  "  Sceptre");  but 
this  appears  doubtful  from  the  circumstance  that 
the  sceptre  of  the  Egyptian  kings,  whence  the  idea 
of  a  sceptre  was  probably  borrowed  by  the  early 
Jews,  resembled  not  a  shepherd's  crook,  but  a 
plough  (Diod.  Sic.  iii.  3).  The  use  of  the  staff  as 
a  symbol  of  authority  was  not  confined  to  kings; 
it  might  lie  used  by  any  leader,  as  instanced  in 
.ludg.  v.  14,  where  for  "pen  of  the  writer,"  as  in 
the  A.  v.,  we  should- read  "sceptre  of  the  leader." 
Indeed,  no  instance  of  the  sceptre  lieinor  actually 
handled  by  a  Jewish  king  occurs  in  the  Bible:  the 
allusions  to  it  are  all  of  a  metaphorical  character, 
and  describe  it  simply  as  one  of  the  insignia  of  su- 
preme power  ((ien.  xhx.  10;  Num.  xxiv.  17;  Ps 
xlv.  G;  Is.  xiv.  5;  Am.  i.  5;  Zech.  x.  11;  Wisd. 
X.  14;  Bar.  vi.  14  [or  Epist.  of  Jer.  14]).     We  are 


^2^3  :    iv  T<{)  -npiovu  {cfijK 


2864 


SOEVA 


consequent!}'  unable  to  descrilie  the  article  from 
any  Hiblical  notices;  we  may  infer  from  the  term 
sJ>ebet,  that  it  was  iirobably  made  of  wood;  but 
we  are  not  warranted  in  quotins;  Ez.  six.  11,  in 
support  of  this,  as  done  Tiy  Winer,  for  the  term 
rendered  "  rods  "  may  better  be  rendered  "  slioots," 
or  "  sprouts  "  as  =  offspriny.  I'he  sceptre  of  the 
I'ersian  monarchs  is  described  as  "golden,"  i.  «. 
probably  of  massive  gold  (Esth.  iv.  11;  Xen.  Cr/rop. 
viii.  7,  §  13);  the  inclination  of  it  towards  a  sub- 
ject by  the  monarch  was  a  sii^n  of  favor,  and  kiss- 
ing it  an  act  of  homage  (Esth.  iv.  11,  v.  2).  A 
carved  ivory  staff  discovered  at  Ximrfid  is  sup- 
posed to  liave  been  a  sceptre  (Layard,  Niii.  and 
Biib.  p.  195).  The  sceptre  of  the  Egyptian 
queens  is  represented  in  \\'ilkinson's  Anc.  E<). 
i.  276.  The  term  s/iebet  is  rendered  in  the  .V.  V. 
'•  rod  "  in  two  passages  where  sctptm  should  be 
substituted,  namely,  in  Ps.  ii.  9,  where  "  sceptre  of 
iron  "  is  an  expression  for  strong  authority,  and  in 
Fs.  cx.\v.  3.  \V.  L.  B. 

SCE'VA  (S/ceuSs:  Sceva).  A  Jew  residing 
at  Kphesus  at  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  second  visit 
to  that  town  (Acts  xix.  14-16).  He  is  described 
as  a '•  bji^h-priest "  (apx'>'pei's),  either  as  having 
exercised  the  office  at  Jerusalem,  or  as  being  chief 
of  one  of  the  twenty-four  classes.  His  seven  sons 
atteiu[)ted  to  exorcise  spirits  by  using  the  name  of 
Jesus,  and  on  one  occasion  severe  injury  was  in- 
flicted by  the  demoniac  on  two  of  them  (as  implied 
in  the  term  a^ipoTipcuv,  the  true  reading  in  ver.  16 
instead  of  aliTcbv)-  W.  L.  B. 

*  SCHOOL.     Acts  xix.  9.     [Tyuaxnus.] 

*  SCHOOLS    OF    THE    PKOPHETS. 

[Sajiuki,,  3  {b);  Prophet,  II.] 

SCIENCE  {'2'V2:  yviiais-  scientia).  In 
the  A.  V.  this  word  occurs  only  in  Dan.  i.  4,  and 
1  Tiui.  vi.  20.  Elsewhere  the  rendering  for  the 
Helirew  or  Greek  words  and  their  cognates  is 
'•  knowledge,"  while  the  Vulg.  has  as  uniformly 
scitiili !.  Its  use  in  Dan.  i.  4  is  probably  to  be 
explained  by  the  number  of  synonymous  words  in 
the  verse,  forcing  the  translators  to  look  out  for 
diversified  equivalents  in  English.  Why  it  should 
have  been  chosen  for  1  Tim.  vi.  20  is  not  so  ob- 
vious. Its  effect  is  injurious,  as  leading  the  reader 
to  suppose  that  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  something 
else  than  the  "  knowledge "  of  which  both  the 
Judaizing  and  the  mystic  sects  of  the  apostolic  age 
continually  boasted,  against  which  he  so  uri,'ently 
warns  men  (1  Cor.  viii.  1,  7),  the  counterfeit  of 
the  true  knowledge  which  he  prizes  so  highly 
(1  Cor.  xii-.  8,  xiii!  2;  Phil.  i.  9;  Col.  iii.  10).  A 
natural  perversion  of  the  meaning  of  the  text  has 
followed  from  this  translation.  Men  have  seen  in 
it  a  warning,  not  against  a  spurious  theosophy  — 
of  which  Swedenborgianism  is,  perhaps,  the  nearest 
modern  analogue  —  but  against  tliat  which  did 
not  come  within  St.  Paul's  horizon,  and  which,  if 
it  had,  we  may  l)elieve  he  would  have  welcomed  — 
the  study  of  tlie  works  of  God,  the  recognition  of 


a  The  following  quotation  from  Tindal  is  decisive  as 
to  the  sense  in  which  he  used  the  word.  It  shows 
that  he  contemplated  no  form  of  science  (in  the  mod- 
ern sense  of  the  term),  mathematical  or  physical,  but 
the  vi-ry  opposite  of  this,  —  the  attempt  to  bring  all 
ipiritual  or  divine  truths  under  the  formula;  of  the 
logical  understanding.  He  speaks  of  the  disputes  of 
Romish  theologians  as  the  ''  contradictions  nf  whicli 
Paul  warned  Timothy,  calling  them  the  oppositions  of 


SCORPION 

his  Will  working  by  laws  in  nature.  It  has  !.(«* 
hurled  successively  at  the  heads  of  astronomers  and 
geologists,  whenever  men  have  lieen  alarmed  a( 
what  they  have  deemed  the  antagonism  of  jihysica) 
"science"  to  religion.  It  would  be  interesting  to 
ascertain  whether  this  were  at  all  the  (fiiuiui.i  of 
the  translators  of  the  A.  V.  • —  whether  they  were 
beginning  to  look  with  alarm  at  the  union  of  skep- 
ticism and  science,  of  which  the  common  i)roverb, 
ubi  ires  medicl  duo  athei,  was  a  witness.  As  it 
is,  we  must  content  ourselves  with  noting  a  few 
facts  in  the  Piililical  history  of  the  English  word. 

(1.)  In  WicklifTe's  translation,  it  appears  less 
frequently  than  might  have  been  expected  in  a  ver- 
sion based  upon  the  Vulgate.  For  the  "  knowledge 
of  salvation  "  of  the  A.  V.  in  Luke  i.  77,  we  have 
the  "  science  of  health."  In  Christ  are  hid  "the 
treasures  of  wisdom  and  of  science"  (Col.  ii.  3). 
In  1  Tim.  vi.  20,  however,  Wickliife  has  "kun- 
nynge."  • 

(2.)  Tindal,  rejecting  "  science  "  as  a  rendering 
elsewhere,  introduces  it  here;  and  is  followed  by 
Cranmer's  and  the  Geneva  Bibles,  and  by  the 
A.  V.« 

(3.)  The  Rhemish  translators,  in  this  instance 
adhering  less  closely  to  the  Vulg.  than  the  Protest- 
ant versions,  give  "  knowledge." 

It  would  obviously  be  out  of  place  to  enter  here 
into  the  wide  question  what  were  the  a.vTiQ(<yns 
TTjs  \pev5oivvjuiov  yviiafous  of  which  St.  Paul 
speaks.  A  dissertation  on  the  Gnosticism  of  the 
Apostohc  age  would  require  a  volume,  ^\'hat  is 
necessary  for  a  Dictionary  will  be  foinid  under 
Ti.MOTiiY,  Epistles  to.  E.  H.  P. 

SCORPION  (S^rrV,  '"^■'■''*  =  aKopnios  ■■ 
Scorpio).  The  well-known  animal  of  that  name, 
belonging  to  the  class  Arnchnida  and  order  Pul- 
monaria,  which  is  twice  mentioned  in  the  0.  T. 
and  four  times  in  the  N.  T.  The  wilderness  of 
Sinai  is  especially  alluded  to  as  being  inhabited  by 
scorpions  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (Deut.  viii.  15), 
and  to  this  day  these  animals  are  common  in  the 
same  district,  as  well  as  in  some  parts  of  Palestine. 
Ehrenberg  {Syinb.  Pliys.)  enumerates  five  species 
as  occurring  near  Mt.  Sinai,  some  of  which  are 
found  also  in  the  Lebanon.  Ezekiel  (ii.  6)  is  told 
to  be  in  no  fear  of  the  rebellious  Israelites,  here 
compared  to  scorpions.  The  Apostles  were  endued 
with  power  to  resist  the  .stings  of  serpents  and 
scorpions  (Luke  x.  19).  In  the  vision  of  St.  Jolin 
(Kev.  ix.  3,  10)  the  locusts  that  came  out  of  tiie 
smoke  of  the  bottomless  ]iit  are  said  to  have  had 
"  tails  like  unto  scorpions,"  while  the  pain  result- 
ing from  this  creature's  sting  is  alluded  to  in  verse 
5.  A  scorpion  for  an  egg  (Luke  xi.  12)  was  prob- 
ably a  proverbial  expression.  According  to  Eras- 
mus the  Greeks  had  a  similar  jiroverb  {avrX  irep- 
Krjs  ffKopTTiov)-  Scorpions  are  generallv  found  in 
dry  and  in  dark  places,  under  stones  and  in  ruins, 
chiefly  in  warm  climates.  They  are  carnivorous  in 
their  habits,  and  move  along  in  a  threatening  atti- 
tude with  the  tail  elevated.     The  sting,  which  ia 


a  false-named  science,  for  that  their  scholasticai  divinity 
must  make  objections  against  any  truth,  be  it  nevel 
so  plain,  with  pro  and  contra''''  {Siippn  of  the  Lor'l 
iii  2S4,  Parker  Soc.  Edition).  Tindal's  use  and  appli- 
cation of  the  word  accounts,  it  may  be  remarked,  fni 
the  choice  of  a  different  word  by  the  Rhemish  transia 
toi-s.  Those  of  the  A.  V.  may  have  used  it  with  t 
different  meaning. 


SCOURGING 

«tuated  at  the  extremity  of  the  tail,  has  at  its 
case  a  gland  that  secretes  a  poisonous  fluid,  which 
IS  liischargeil  into  the  wound  by  two  minute  ur- 
itices  at  its  extremity.  In  hot  climates  the  stin- 
often  occasions  much  sufFerinc.,  and  sometimes 
alarming  symptoms.  The  following  are  the  spa- 
cies  of  scorpions  mentioned  by  Ehrenberc;  Scorpiu 
micocentrus,  S.  p„tmatus,  S.  bicolor,  S.  kptocht- 
Itf,  a.  fanes/US,  aU  found  at  Mt.  Sinai;  S.  ni.jro- 
nnclus,  S.  mdnnophysi,  S.  ixi/matus,  Mt.  Lel)anou.'' 
lies.des  these  Palestuie  and  Sinai  kinds,  five  others 
•>re  recorded  as  Oi;cur:iug  in  Egypt. 


SCRIBES 


2865 


Scorpion. 


The  '•  scorpions  "  of  1  K.  xii.  11,  14,  o  (^hr  x 
11.  U.  have  clearly  no  allusion  whate'ver  to  the 
animal,  but  to  some  instrument  of  scounnno- _ 
uness,  nideed,  the  expression  is  a  mere  "fiacre. 
CelsM.s  {ffterob.  ii.  4-5)  thinks  the  "scorpion" 
scourge  was  the  spiny  stem  of  what  the  Arabs  call. 
I/ei/ek  (^-(Xa^).  the  Solmnim  melongena  var 
esculentum,  egg-i)lant,  because,  according  to  Abdul 
I'ad  1,  this  plant,  from  the  resemblance  of  its  .'■nines 
to  the  stnig  of  a  scorpion,  was  sometimes  callei  \e 
"scorpion  thorn;  "  but  in  all  probability  this  m- 
strument  of  punishment  was  in  the  form  of  a  whin 
armed  with  iron  points  "  Virga  -  si  nodosa  vel  acu- 
leata,  scorpio  rectissimo  nomine  vocatur,  qui  arcuate 
vulnere  m  corpus  infigitur."     (Isidorus,  Orin.  Lai 

?'rp  I"  T}lT  ''''''"'  ^'^-  ^"'-  1^-  287.)  'In  the 
Cxreek  of  1  Maec.  v..  51,  some  kind  of  war  missile 
IS  mentioned  under  the  name  aKop.i^^ou:  but  we 
want  mformation  both  as  to  its  form  and   the  rea 


son,^«c.  E(jyp.  abridgm.  ii  211).  The  instru- 
nient  of  punishment  in  ancient  |.:gvpt,  as  it  is  also 
m  modern  times  generally  in  tie  I'^ist,  was  usualh 
the  stick,  applied  to  the  soles  of  the  feet  —  basti- 
nado (Wilkinson,  I.  c;  Cha.din,  vi.  114-  Lane 
Mod  Eg,, p.  i.   146).      ^  „,Q^g  ^^.^^^  ^^^^^^^^  .^ 

possibly  implied  in  the  term  "  scorpions,"  whips 
armed  with  pointed  balls  of  lead,  the "  horribUe 
tiage Hum  "  of  Horace,  though  it  is  more  prol)ably 
merely  a  vivid  figure.  Under  the  Boman  method 
the  culprit  was  stripped,  stretched  with  cords  or 
tliongs  on  a  frame  {divaricatio),  and  beaten  with 
rods.  After  the  Torcian  law  (is.  c.  300),  Koman 
citizens  were  exempted  from  scourging,  but  slaves 
and  foreigners  were  liable  to  be  beaten,  even  to 
death  (Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1062;  Isid.  Oriq.  v.  27 
ap.  Scheller,  Lex.  Lot.  Scorpio;  Hor.  1  Sat.  ii' 
41,  111.  119;  Prov.  xxvi.  3;  Acts  xvi.  22,  and  Gro- 

•■"'',«''1„  '  '''"•  •-^'  2-5;  1  K.  xii.  11;  Cic.   Ver. 
1.1.  28,  2!J;  pro  Rnh.  4;   Liv.  x.  9;  Sail.    Cat.  51) 

Li  U.NISH.MKNTS,  III.  c.   (4.)]  H.  W.  P 

SCREECH-OWL.      [Owl.] 

SCRIBES  CD>-3-1D:  ^p„^^„,,:,:  ,e,*a). 
Ihe  prominent  position  occupied  by  the  Scribes  in 
the  Gospe  history  would  of  itself  make  a  knowl 
edge  of  their  hfe  and  teaching  essential  to  any 
c  eiir  conception  of  our  Lord's  work.  It  was  by 
tlieir  influence  that  the  later  form  of  .Tudaism  had 
I'een  determined.  Such  as  it  was  when  the  »  new 
fh,i'',"'r  n  "■''  ^'''*  Pr^'clain.ed,  it  had  become 
t  uough  them.  I-ar  more  than  priests  or  Levites 
hey  represented  the  religious  life  of  the  people. 
On  the  one  hand  we  must  know  what  they  were 
m  order  to  understand  the  innumerable  points  of 
contrast  presented  by  our  Lord's  acts  and  wonls. 
On  the  other  we  must  not  forget  that  there  were 
also,  inevitably,  points  of  rasemi.lance.  Opposed 
teachins:  was,  in   its  deepest  principles,  to 


c  .,  -"  "■'  ".I  111  ,ijRi    tne  rea- 

on  of  Its   name.     (See   Did.  uf  AntvpM.s.  art. 
lormentum.")  ^^r    .r 

SCOURGING."  Tlie  punishment  of  scon'r..- 
ng  was  prescribed  by  the  Law  in  the  case  of  a  be- 
trothed bondwoman  guilty  of  unchastity,  and   per- 

xiToo/'^^"''^''^  f^°tl>  tl^e  guilty  pe;sons  (Lv. 
xis.  ()).  ^Vomen  were  sulyect  to  scourging  in 
Egypt,  as  they  still  are  by  the  law  of  the  Ko'l-an 
or  incontinence  (Sale.  Koran,  chap.  xxiv.  and 
chap.  iv.  not,  ;  Lane,  Mod.  Egyp.  i.  147;   '^Vilkin- 


"  Modern  naturalists  restrict  the  genus  Scorpio  to 
.hose  lun.ls  which  have  six  eyes,  Boathus  to  the  e 
^vfcwS."'''-^"'^  Androctonus   to   those  wiL 

6  1.  To  scourge,  t2."ltt7;  the  scourge,  lohtT  :  ;aa<7- 
rtf  ;  flagHlum  ;  also  in  A.  V.  «  whip." 

8-    laiiti?  :   iiA.0?  :    offendiculum ;    only    in    Josh. 


,1     .         ,.  =>  '  ■  •    ""    i'ce|jrau    uiincipies,  to 

theirs,  He  was  yet,  in  the  eyes  of  men,  as  one  of 
their  order,  a  Scribe  among  Scribes,  a  Kabbi  amonc, 
Kabbis  OJohn  1  49,  iii.  2,  vi.  25,  &c.;  Schoett-^en"! 
//«•.  m.  n.  CAristus  RMinorum  Summus). 

1.  Art«e._(i.)  Three  meanings  are  connected 
with  the  verb  saphnr  (^20)    the  root  of  Sophevim 
-  (1)  to  write,  (2)  to  .set  in  order,   (3)  to  count. 
Ihe  explanation  of  the  word   has  been  referred  to 
each  of  tiie.se.     The  Sopherim  were  so  called  be- 
cause  they   wrote  out   the  Law,  or  because  they 
classified  and  arranged  its  precepts,  or  because  they 
counted    with  scrupulous   minuteness  every  clause 
and    letter   it   contained.     The    traditions    of  the 
Scril)es,  glorying  in  their  own  achievements.''  were 
in  favor  of  the  last  of  the.se  etymologies  (Sehdim 
5;   Carpzov,  App.  Crlt.  ii.  1.35).       The  second   fits 
111  liest  with  the  military  functions  connected  with 
the  word  m  the  earlier  stages  of  its  history  {infra) 
I  he  authority  of  most  Hebrew  scholars  is  with  the 
first  ((icsenius,  s.  v.).     The  Greek   equivalent  an- 
.swers  to  the  derived  rather  than  the  original  mean 
ing  of  the   word.      The  ypa^.^,aT^{„  of  a  Greek 


Either  a  subst.  or  the  inf.  in  Piel  (Ges.  p. 


xxiii.  13. 
1379). 

<•  They  had  a.scertaincd  that  the  cenrral  letter  of  the 
whole  Law  was  the  vaa  of  ^'inS  in  [^v.  xi.  42,  and 
wrote  it  accordingly  in  a  larger  character.  (Ki'hh.sh 
m  Mghtfoot,  On  Luke  x  )  They  counted  up  in  liW 
luanmr  the  prwepts  of  the  Law  that  answered  to  the 
number  of  .Abraham's  servants  or  Jacob's  descend- 


2866 


SCRIBES 


state  was  not  the  mere  writer,  but  tbe  keeper  And 
re"-istrar  of  pul.iic  documents  (Thuc  iv.  118  vii. 
KK  so  in  Acts  xix.  35).  I'be  Scribes  of  Jerusalem 
were  in  Hke  manner,  the  custodians  and  mterpret- 
ei-s  of  the  ypd/xixara  upon  ^vbich  the  polity  ot  the 
nation  rested.  Other  words  applied  to  the  same 
class  are  found  in  the  N.  T.  ^/xiKol  appears  m 
Watt.  xxii.  35,  Luke  vii.  30,  x.  25,  xiv.  3;  vofioSr 
SdaKaXo.  in  Luke  v.  17;  Acts  v.  34.  Attempt, 
have  been  made,  but  not  very  successfully,  to  re- 
duce the  several  terms  to  a  classification."  All 
that  can  be  said  is  that  ypafifiarevs  appears  the 
most  generic  term;  that  iu  Luke  xi.  45  it  is  con- 
trasted with  uo/xikSs;  that  uofioSiSdcTKaXos,  as  in 
Acts  V.  34,  seems  the  highest  of  the  three.  Jose- 
plms  {Ant.  xvii.  0,  §  2)  paraphrases  the  technical 
word  by  e|7)77JTal  v6fxccr.  ^ 

(2  )  'The    name   of    KiK.J.iTH-SKPHEU    (ttoAis 
ypa^f^drccu,    LXX.,  Josh,   xv    15;    Jnd^.  i.  12) 
may  possiblv  connect  itself  with  some  early  use  ot 
the  title.     In  the  Song  of  Deborah  (Judjr.  v.  14) 
the  word  appears   to  point  to  military  functions  of 
some  kind.     The  "  pen  of  the  writer"  of  the  A. 
V.  (LXX.  iv  poj85'«!    Siriyiiafi^i  Ypan^aTfo;?)  's 
probably  the  rod  or  sceptre  of    the    commander 
uumberinc;  or  marshallino;  his  troops.*      The  title 
appears  with  more  distinctness  in  the  early  history 
of  the  monarchv.     Three   men  are  mentioned   as 
Buccessively  fillin-  the  office  of  Scribe  under  David 
and    Solomon  (2  SaJii-  viii.  17,  xx.  2o;  1  K-  iv.  3, 
in  this  instance  two  simultaneously).     Their  func- 
tions are  not  specified,  but  the  high  place  assigned 
to  them,  side  by  side  with  the  high-priest  and  the 
captain  of  the  host,  imjilies  power  and  honor.      \\  e 
may  think  of  them  as  the  king's  secretaries,  writing 
his'  letters,  drawini;  up  his  decrees,  managing  his 
finances  (comp.  the  work  of  the  Scribe  under  .To- 
ash  2  K.  xii.  10).     At  a  later  period   the  word 
a<'ain  connects  itself  with  the  act  of  innnbermg  the 
military   forces  of   the  comitry   (Jer.  In.   25,  and 
nrobabiv  Is.  xxxiii.  18).     Other  associations,  how- 
ever be^an  to  gather  round   it  about  the  same  pe- 
riod!    Tlie  zeal  of  Hezekiah  led  him  to  foster  the 
growth  of  a  body  of  men  whose  work  it  was  to 
transcribe  old  records,  or  to  put  in  writing  what 
had  been  handed  down  orally  (I'rov.  xxv.  1).     To 
this  period,  accordinsly,  belongs   the  new  sio-infi- 
cance  of  the  title.     It  no  longer  designates  only  an 
oflicer  of  the  king's  court,  but  a  class,  students  and 
interpreters  of  the   Law  boasting  of  their  wisdom 
(Jer.  viii.  8). 

(3.)  The  seventy  years  of  the  Captivity  gave  a 
fresh  glory  to  the  name-  The  exiles  would  be 
anxious  above  all  things  to  preserve  the  sacred 
books,  the  laws,  the  hymns,  the  prophecies  of  the 
past.  To  know  what  was  worth  preserving,  to 
transcribe  the  older  Hebrew  documents  accurately, 
when  the  spoken  language  of  the  people  was  pass- 
ing into  Aramaic,  to  explain  what  was  hard   and 


SCRIBES 

oi.scure  —  this  was  what  the  necessities  of  the  rima 
demanded.     The  man  who  met  them  became  em 
phatically  Ezra  the  Scribe,  the  priestly  functions 
falling   into  the  background,  as  the  priestly  ordei 
itself  did  before  the  Scribes  as  a  class.     The  words 
of  Ez.  vii.  10  describe  the  high   ideal  of  the  new 
office.     The  Scribe  is  "  to  seek  {'2.^'^'^)  tbe  law  of 
the  Lord  and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel  stat- 
utes  and  judgments."     This,  far  more  than   his 
priesthood,  was  the  true  glory  of   Ezra.     In  the 
eyes  even  of  the  Persian  king  he  was  "  a  Scribe  of 
tiie  Law  of  the   God   of  Heaven"  (vii.  12).     He 
was  assisted  in  his  work  by  others,  chiefly  Levites. 
Publicly  they  read   and   expounded   the   Law,  per- 
haps also  translated  it  from  the  already  olisolescent 
Hebrew  into    the  Aramaic  of  the  people  =  (Neh. 
viii.  8-13).  •  ,  ,  ,    . 

(4.)  Of    the  time  that   followed   we   have   but 
scanty  records.     The  Scribes'  office  apparently  be- 
came more  and  more  prominent.    Traces  are  found 
in  the  later  canonical  books  of  their   work  and  in- 
fluence.    Already  they  are  recognized  as  "  masters 
of  assemblies,"  acting  under  "one  shepherd,"  hav- 
ing, that  is,  something  of  a  corporate  life  (Led  xii. 
if;'  Jost,  .Judenth.  i.  42).     As  such  they  set  their 
faces  steadily  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  i.aw 
and  the  Prophets,  to  exclude  from  all  equality  with 
them  the  '-manv  books"  of  which  "there  is  no 
end"   (Eccl.  xii.  12).     Tliey  appear  as  a  distmct 
class    "  the  families  of  the  Scribes,"  with  a  local 
habitation  (1  Chr.  ii.  55).     They  compile,  as  in  the 
two  books  of  Chronicles,   exc^rptn   and  epitomes 
of  larger  histories  (1  Chr.  xsix.  29;  2  Chr.  ix.  2!i). 
The  o'ccurreiice  of  the  word  midrash   ("the  story 
—  margin,    'the  commentary '  — of   the   Proiihet 
Iddo")"^  afterwards  so  memorable,  iu  2  Chr.  xiii. 
22,  shows  that  the  work  of  commenting  and  ex- 
pounding had  begun  already. 

II.   Devi'lopmcnt  of  Doclrhie.  — {!■)  It  is  char- 
acteristic of  the  Scribes  of  this  period  that,  with 
the  exception  of  Ezra  and  Zadok  (Xeh.  xiii.  13). 
we  have  no  record  of  their  names.     A  later^  age 
honored  them  collectively  as  the  men  of  the  Great 
SNna'^o<Tue,   the   true  successors  of  the    Prophets 
{Pirke^Ahot/i,  i.  1),  but  the  men  themselves  by 
whose  agency  the   Scriptures  of  the   0.  T.   were 
written  in  tiieir  present  characters.''  compiled  m 
their  present  form,  limited  to  their  present  num- 
ber, remain  unknown  to  us.     Never,  perhaps,  was 
so  important  a  work  done  so  silently.     It  has  been 
well  ar.nied  (.lost,  Judrnllmm,  i.  42)  that  it  was  sc 
1  of  set  p"urpose.     The  one  aim  of  those  early  Scribes 
was  to  promote  reverence  for  the  Law,  to  make  it 
I  the  groundwork  of  the  people's  life.     They  would 
write  nothing  of  their  own,  lest  less  worthy  words 
should  be  raised  to  a  level  with  those  of  the  oracles 
of  God.     If  interpretation  were  needed,  their  teach- 
ing should  be  oral  only.     No  precepts  should  be 
perpetuated  as  resting  on  their  authority."     In  the 


1  Li.'htfoot's  arrangement,  though  conjectural,  is 
wc-th  giving  (Harm.  §  77).  The  "  Scribes,"  as  such, 
were  those  who  occupied  themselves  \yith  the  Miira. 
Next  above  them  were  the  "  Lawyers,"  students  of  the 
Mhkna  acting  as  assessors,  though  not  voting  in  the 
Sanhedrim.  The  "  Doctors  of  the  Law  "  were  ex- 
pounders of  the  Gemara,  and  actual  members  of  the 
Banhedrim.  (Comp.  Carpzov,  App-  Crit.  i.  7  ;  Le^is- 
ien.  PhU.  Htbr.  c.  23  ;  Leyrer,  in  Herzog's  EncykLop. 
Schriftgel'ihrte.") 
b  Ewald,  however  [Poet.  Bilch.  i.  126  [182,  2o  Aufl.]), 

gaS:es  "HSb  as  equivilent  to  "(^^T,  ''a  judge." 


c  If  this  were  so  (and  most  commentators  adopt  this 
view)  we  should  have  in  this  history  the  starting- 
point  of  the  Targum.  It  has,  however,  been  ques- 
tioned. (Comp.  Leyrer,  I.  c) 

d  .lost  (Jii'lenth.  i.  52)  draws  attention  to  the  singu- 
lar almost  unique  combinations  of  this  period.  The 
Jewish  teachers  kept  to  the  old  Hebrew,  but  u-^ed 
Aramaic  characters.  The  Samaritans  spoke  Aramaic, 
but  retained  the  older  Hebrew  writing. 

c  The  principle  of  an  unwritten  teaching  was  main 
1  toined  among  the  R:vbbir=  of  P.lestine  up  to  the  da 
I  itructiou  of  tlie  Temple  (Jost,  i.  97,  367). 


SCRIBES 

urords  of  later  Judaisni.  they  devoted  themselves  to 
the  MiJcrn  {i.  e.  recitation,  reading,  as  in  Xeh.  viii. 
B),  the  careful  study  of  the  text,  and  laid  down 
rules  for  transcribing  it  with  tlie  most  scrupulous 
precision  (comp.  the  tract  Sopherim  iu  the  Jeru- 
salem Geniara). 

(2.)  A  saying  is  ascribed  to  Simon  the  Just 
(b.  c.  300-21)0 ),  the  last  of  the  succession  of  the 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  which  embodies  the 
principle  on  which  they  had  acted,  and  enables  us 
to  trace  the  next  stai^e  of  the  growth  of  their  sys- 
tem. "Our  fothers  have  taught  us,"  he  said, 
"  tliree  things,  to  be  cautious  in  judging,  to  train 
many  scholars,  and  to  set  a  fence  about  the  Law  " 
{I'irka  Abol/i,  i.  1;  Jost,  i.  95).  They  wished  to 
make  the  Law  of  iMoses  tlie  rule  of  life  for  the 
whole  nation  and  for  individual  men.  But  it  lies 
in  the  nature  of  evei-y  such  law,  of  every  informal, 
half-systematic  code,  that  it  raises  questions  which 
it  does  not  solve.  Circumstances  change,  while  the 
Law  remains  the  same.  'I'lie  infinite  variety  of  life 
presents  cases  which  it  has  nut  contemplated.  A 
Roman  or  Greek  jurist  would  liave  dealt  with  these 
on  general  principles  of  equity  or  polity.  The 
Jewish  teacher  could  recognize  no  principles  beyond 
the  precepts  of  the  Law.  To  him  they  all  stood 
on  the  same  footing,  were  all  equally  divine.  All 
possible  cases  nmst  be  brought  within  their  range, 
decided  by  their  authority. 

{'■i.)  The  result  showed  that,  in  this  as  in  other 
i;istances,  the  idolatry  of  the  letter  was  destructive 
of  the  very  reverence  in  which  it  had  originated. 
Step  by  step  the  Scribes  were  led  to  conclusions  at 
which  we  may  believe  the  earlier  representatives  of 
the  order  would  have  started  back  with  horror. 
.Uecisions  on  fresh  questions  were  accumulated  into 
a  complex  system  of  casuistry.  Tiie  new  precepts, 
still  transmitted  orally,  moi-e  precisely  fitting  in  to 
the  circumstances  of  men's  lives  than  the  old,  came 
l)ractically  to  take  their  place.     The  "  Words  of 

the  Scribes  "  (D''~]51D  "'~^^1,  now  u.sed  as  a  tech- 
nical phrase  for  these  decisions)  were  honored  above 
the  Law  (Lightfoot,  J/fir),i.  i.  §  77;  Jost,  Judenth. 
i.  93).  It  was  a  greater  crime  to  offend  against 
them  than  against  the  Law.  They  were  as  wine, 
while  the  precepts  of  the  Law  were  as  water.  The 
first  step  was  taken  towards  annulling  the  com- 
mandments of  God  for  tlie  sake  of  their  own  tra- 
ditions. The  casuistry  became  at  once  subtle  and 
prurient,"  evading  the  plainest  duties,  tampering 
with  conscience  (JIatt.  xv.  1-6,  xxiii.  lG-2-3).  The 
right  relation  of  moval  and  ceremonial  laws  was 
not  only  forgotten,  Init  alisolutely  inverted.  This 
was  the  result  of  the  profound  "re^■ereuce  for  the 
letter  which  gave  no  heed  to  the  "  word  aliiding  in 
them"  (John  v.  38). 

(4.)  The  history  of  the  full  development  of  the.se 
tendencies  belongs  to  a  history  of  the  Talmud.'' 
Here  it  will  be  enough  to  notice  in  what  way  the 
teaching  of  the  Scribes  in  our  Lord's  time  was 


a  It  would  be  profitless  to  accumulate  proofs  of 
this.  Those  who  care  for  them  may  find  them  in 
fiuxtorf,  Synagoga  Jmlfiica  ;  M'Caul.  Old  Paths.  Re- 
volting as  it  is.  we  must  remember  that  it  rose  out  of 
the  principle  that  there  can  be  no  iiuUfferuut  action, 
that  there  must  be  a  right  or  a  wrong  even  for  the 
tommonest  nece.ssitie.s,  the  merest  animal  functions  of 
man's  life,  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  teacher  to  for- 
nulate  that  principle  into  rules.  [Compare  the  Ro- 
•nan  Catholic  writers  on  "  Moral  Theology."— A.] 

*  *  For  a  partial  view  of  the  liteiuture  relating  to 


SCRIBES  2867 

making  to  that  result.  Their  first  work  was  to 
report  the  decisions  of  previous  Rabbis,  'i'hese 
were  the  Ihdnd.itih  (that  which  </oes,  the  cui'vent 
precepts  of  the  schools)  — precepts  binding  on  th 
conscience.  As  they  accumulated  they  had  to  be 
compiled  and  classified.  A  new  code,  a  second 
CorjMS  Juris,  the  Mishiia  (devTepcio-eis),  grew  out 
of  them,  to  become  hi  its  turn  the  subject  of  fresh 
questions  and  conmientaries.  Here  ultimately  the 
spirit  of  the  commentators  took  a  wider  rami-e. 
The  anecdotes  of  the  .si;hools  or  coin-ts  of  law,~th8 
oOiter  dicta  of  Rabbis,  the  wildest  fables  of  Jewish 
superstition  (Tit.  i.  14),  were  brought  in,  with  oi 
without  any  relation  to  the  contest,  and  the  6'e- 
mnra  (completeness)  fiDed  up  the  measure  of  the 
Institutes  of  Rabbinic  Law.  The  Misima  and  the 
Gemara  together  were  known  as  the  Talmud  (in- 
struction), the  "  necessary  doctrine  and  erudition  " 
of  e\ery  learned  .lew  (.lost,  Judenth.  ii.  202-222). 

(5.)  Side  by  side  with  this  was  a  development 
in  another  direction.  The  sacred  books  were  not 
studied  as  a  code  of  laws  only.  To  search  into 
their  meaning  had  from  the  first  belonged  to  the 
ideal  office  of  the  Scribe.  He  who  so  searched  was 
secure,  in  the  lantruage  of  the  Serilies  theu)selves, 
of  everlasting  life  (John  v.  39;  Pirke  Aboil,,  ii.  8) 
But  here  also  the  book  suggested  thoughts  which 
could  not  logically  be  deduced  from  it.  Men  came 
to  it  with  new  beliefs,  new  iu  form  if  not  in  e.5sence, 
and,  not  finding  any  ground  for  them  in  a  literal 
interpretation,  were  compelled  to  have  recourse  to 
an  interpretation  wliich  was  the  reverse  of  literal.<^ 
The  fruit  of  tliis  effort  to  find  what  was  not  there 
appears  in  the  Midmshiiii  (searchings,  investiga- 
tions) on  the  se\eral  books  of  the  0.  T.  The 
jirocess  by  which  tlie  meaning,  moral  or  mystical, 
was  elicited,  was  known  as  Hagudit  (saying,  o[)in- 
ion).  There  was  obviously  no  assignable  limit  to 
such  a  process.  It  became  a  proverb  that  no  one 
ought  to  spend  a  day  in  the  Beth-ham-Midrash 
("the  house  of  the  interpreter")  without  lighting 
on  something  new.  But  there  lay  a  stawe  hii»her 
even  than  the  Hagada.  The  mystical  school  of  in- 
terpretation culminated  in  the  Kablmla  (reception, 
the  receivetl  doctrine).  Every  letter,  e\ery  num- 
ber, became  pregnant  with  mysteries.  With  the 
strangest  possible  distortion  of  its  original  mean- 
ing, the  Greek  word  which  had  been  tlie  repre- 
sentative of  the  most  exact  of  all  sciences  was 
chosen  for  the  wildest  of  all  interpretations.  The 
(lematria  (=  ^eoj^sTpia)  showed  to  what  depths 
the  wrong  path  could  lead  men.  The  mind  of  the 
interpreter,  obstinately  shutting  out  the  light  of 
day,  moved  in  its  self  chosen  darkness  amid  a  world  . 
of  fantastic  Eidola  (comp.  Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  i 
7:  Schoettgen,  //<ir.  Htb.  de  Mess.  i.  4;  Zuuz, 
GottesdiciistL  Vurtrcif/e,  pp.  42-61 ;  Jost,  Judenth. 
iii.  05-81;  [Gin.sburg,  llie  Kabbalah:  its  Doc- 
trines, Development,  and  Lilernture,  Lond.  1865: 
also  his  arts.  Knhh(dali  and  Midrash  in  Kitt-j's 
Cyclop,  of  RIM.  Lit.,  3d  ed.]). 


the  Talmud  the  reader  may  see  the  references  under 
Pharisees  (vol.  iii.  p.  2472.  note  4),  to  which  may  bt 
added  the  interesting  and  instructive  article  on  Tlie 
Jewiiti  Reforma'ion  nnri  the  Tnlminl  in  Blackwood's 
Ma^.  for  Nov  1869,  reprinted  iu  Uttells  Li  ring  Agt 
for  Jan.  22,  1870,  No.  1338.  A. 

c  Comp.  e.  g.  the  exposition  which  found  in  I^abar 
and  Balaam  ''going  to  their  own  place '' (Oe*.  xx,\i 
55  ;  Num.  xxiv.  25)  an  intimation  of  their  being  sen- 
tenced  to  Gehenna  (Gill,  Comm.  on  Acts,  i.  25). 


2868 


SCRIBES 


III.  History.  —  (l.)  The  names  of  the  earlier 
Scribes  passed  awaj',  as  has  been  said,  unrecorded. 
Simon  the  Just  (cir.  n.  c.  300-290)  appears  as 
tlie  last  of*  the  men  of  the  Gre:it  Synagogue,  the 
beginner  of  a  new  period.  The  memorable  names 
of  the  times  that  followed  —  Antigonus  of  Socho, 
Zadok,  Boethos  —  connect  themselves  with  the  rise 
of  the  first  opposition  to  the  traditional  system 
which  was  growing  up.  [SaddI'cees.]  The  tenet 
of  the  Sadducees,  however,  never  commanded  the 
adhesion  of  more  than  a  small  minority.  It  tended, 
by  maintaining  the  sufficiency  of  the  letter  of  the 
Law,  to  destroy  the  very  occupation  of  a  Scrilie," 
aVid  the  class,  as  such,  belonged  to  the  party  of  its 
opponents.  The  words  '-Scribes"'  and  "Pharisees" 
were  bound  together  by  the  closest  possible  alliance 
(Matt,  xxiii.  passim;  Luke  v.  30).  [Phakisees.] 
Within  that  party  there  were  shades  and  sub- 
divisions, and  to  understand  their  relation  to  each 
other  in  our  Lord's  time,  or  their  coimection  with 
his  life  and  teaching,  we  must  look  back  to  w'hat  is 

known  of  the  five  pairs  (nil^O)  of  teachers  who 
represented  the  scribal  succession.  Why  two,  and 
two  only,  are  named  in  each  case  we  can  only 
conjecture,  but  the  Rabbinic  tradition  that  one  was 
always  the  Nasi  or  President  of  the  Sanhedrim  as 
a  council,  the  other  the  Ab-beth-din  (Father  of 
the  House  of  Judgment),  presiding  in  the  supreme 
court,  or  in  the  Sanhedrim  when  it  sat  as  such,  is 
not  improl)able  (Jost,  Jurhnth.  i.  IGO). 

(2.)  The  two  names  that  stand  first  in  order  are 
Joses  ben-Joezer,  a  priest,  and  Joses  ben-Jochanan 
(cir.  B.  c.  140-130).  The  precepts  ascribed  to 
them  indicate  a  tendency  to  a  greater  elaboration 
of  all  rules  connected  with  ceremonial  defilement. 
Their  desire  to  separate  themselves  and  their  dis- 
ciples from  all  occasions  of  defilement  may  ha\e 
furnished  the  starting-point  for  tiie  name  of  Phari- 
see. The  brave  struggle  with  the  Syrian  kings 
had  turned  chiefly  on  questions  of  this  nature,  and 
it  was  the  wish  of  the  two  teachers  to  prepare  the 
people  for  any  future  conflict  by  founding  a  fra- 
ternity (the  Chaberim,  or  associates)  bound  to  the 
strictest  oliservance  of  the  Law.  Every  member 
of  the  order  on  his  admission  pledged  himself  to 
this  in  the  presence  of  three  Chaheriiti.  They 
looked  on  each  other  as  brothers.  The  rest  of  the 
nation  they  looked  on  as  "  the  jjeople  of  the 
earth."  The  spirit  of  Scribedom  was  growing. 
The  precept  associated  with  the  name  of  Joses  ben- 
Joezer,  "  Let  thy  house  be  the  assemhl^'-place  for 
the  wise;  dust  thyself  with  the  dust  of  their  feet; 
drink  eagerly  of  their  words,"  pointed  to  a  further 
growth  (Pirke  Alx^'i,  i.  1;  Jost,  i.  233).  It  was 
hardly  checked  by  the  taunt  of  the  Sadducees  that 
"these  Pli.arisees  would  purify  the  sun  itself" 
(Jost,  i.  217). 

(3.)  .loshua  ben-Perachiah  and  Nithai  of  Ar- 
liela  were  contemporary  with  John  Hyrcanus  (cir. 
B.  C.  135-108),  and  enjoyed  his  fiivor  till  towards 
the  close  of  his  reign,  when  caprice  or  interest  led 
him  to  pass  over  to  the  camp  of  the  Sadducees. 
The  saying  ascribed  to  Joshua,  '•  Take  to  thyself  a 
teacher  (Rah),  get  to  thyself  an  associate  {Chaher), 
judge  every  man  on  his  better  side "  {Pirke 
Alioth,  i.  1),  while  its  last  clause  attracts  us  by  its 


SCRIBES 

candor,  shows  hi.w  easily  even  a  fair-minded  man 
might  come  to  recognize  no  bonds  of  fellowshii; 
outside  the  limits  of  his  sect  or  order  (Jost,  i 
227-233). 

(4.)  The  secession  of  Hyrcanus  involved  the 
Pharisees,  and  therefore  the  Scribes  as  a  class,  in 
difficulties,  and  a  period  of  confusion  followed. 
The  meetings  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  suspended  or 
became  predominantly  Sadducean.  Under  his  suc- 
cessor, Alexander  Jannai,  the  influence  of  Simon 
ben-Shetach  over  the  queen-mother  Salome  rees- 
talilished  for  a  time  the  ascendency  of  the  Scribes. 
The  Sanhedrim  once  again  assembled,  with  none 
to  oppose  the  dominant  Pharisaic  party.  The  day 
of  meeting  was  observed  afterwards  as  a  festival 
only  less  solemn  than  those  of  Purira  and  the 
Dedication.  The  return  of  Alexander  from  his 
campaign  against  Gaza  again  turned  the  tables. 
Eight  hundred  Pharisees  took  refuge  in  a  fortress, 
were  besieged,  taken,  and  put  to  death.  Joshua 
ben-Perachiah,  the  venerable  head  of  the  order, 
was  driven  into  exile.  Simon  ben-Shetach,  his 
successor,  had  to  earn  his  livelihood  by  spinning 
flax.  The  Sadducees  failed,  however,  to  win  the 
confidence  of  the  people.  Having  no  body  of  oral 
traditions  to  fall  back  on,  they  liegan  to  compile  a 
code.  They  were  accused  by  their  opponents  of 
wishing  to  set  up  new  laws  on  a  level  with  those 
of  Moses,  and  had  to  abandon  the  attempt.  On 
the  death  of  Jannai  the  influence  of  his  widow 
.■Alexandra  "vvas  altogether  on  the  side  of  the  Scrilies^ 
and  Simon  ben-Shetach  and  Judah  ben-Tahbai 
entered  on  their  work  as  joint  teachers.  L'nder 
them  the  juristic  side  of  the  Scribe's  functions 
became  prominent.  Their  rules  turn  chiefly  on 
the  laws  of  evidence  (Pirke  Abnth,  i.  1).  In  two 
memorable  instances  they  showed  what  sacrifices 
they  were  prepared  to  make  in  support  of  those 
laws.  Judah  had,  on  one  occasion,  condemned 
false  witnesses  to  death.  His  zeal  against  the  guilt 
led  him  to  neglect  the  rule  which  only  permitted 
that  penalty  when  it  would  have  been  the  conse- 
quence of  the  original  accusation.  His  colleague 
did  not  shrink  from  rebuking  him,  "  Thou  hast 
shed  innocent  blood."  From  that  day  Judah  i-e- 
solved  never  to  give  judgment  without  consulting 
Simon,  and  every  day  threw  himself  on  the  trrave 
of  the  man  he  had  condemned,  imploring  pardon. 
Simon,  in  his  turn,  showed  a  like  sense  of  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Law.  His  own  sou  was 
brought  before  him  as  an  offender,  and  he  sen- 
tenced him  to  death.  On  the  way  to  execution 
tlie  witnesses  confessed  that  they  had  spoken 
falsely;  but  the  son,  more  anxious  that  they  should 
suffer  than  that  he  himself  should  escape,  turned 
round  and  entreated  his  father  not  to  stop  the 
completion  of  the  sentence.  The  character  of  such 
a  man  could  not  fail  to  impress  itself  upon  his 
followers.  To  its  influence  may  probal)ly  be  traced 
the  indomitable  courage  in  defense  of  the  Temple, 
which  won  the  admiration  even  of  the  Koman 
generals  (Jost,  i.  234-247). 

(5.)  The  two  that  followed,  Shemaiah  and  Xh- 
talion  (the  names  also  appear  under  the  form  ol 
Sameas,  Joseph.  Ani.  xiv.  9,  §  4,  and  Pollio,  Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xiv.  1,  §  1),  were  conspicuous  for  an- 
other reason.     Now,  for  the  first  time,  the  teach- 


«  A  striking  instance  of  this  is  seen  in  the  history  was  the  answer.  "  But  what  then  will  become  of  the 
ol  John  Hyrcanus.  A  Sadducee  came  to  him  with  ;  teaching  of  the  Law?"  "The  Law  is  now  in  the 
prix)f<  of  the  disaffection  of  the  Pharisees.  The  king  \  hands  of  every  man.  They,  and  they  only,  would 
isked,  "  What  then  am  I  to  do  ?  "     ''  Crush  them,"'  i  keep  it  in  a.  corner  '"  ^Jost,  JuUenth.  i.  235). 


SCRIBES 

er8  who  sat  in  ^roses'  seat  were  not  even  of  the 
;hildren  of  Abraham.  Proselytes  themselves,  or 
the  sons  of  proselytes,  their  preeminence  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Law  raised  them  to  tliis  office. 
']  he  jeaIoii>(y  of  the  high-priest  was  excited.  .A.s 
the  [jeople  flocked  round  their  favorite  Kahbis  when 
it  was  his  function  to  pronounce  the  blessing,  he 
looked  round  and,  turning  his  benediction  into  a 
Barcasm.  said,  with  a  marked  emphasis,  "  JMay  the 
Bons  of  the  nlien  walk  in  peace!  "  Tlie  answer  of 
the  two  teachers  expressed  the  feeling  of  scorn  with 
which  the  one  order  was  beginning  to  look  upon 
tlie  other:  "  Yes,  the  sons  of  the  alien  shall  indeed 
walk  in  peace,  for  they  do  the  work  of  peace.  Not 
80  the  son  of  Aaron  who  follows  not  in  the  foot- 
steps of  his  father."  Here  also  we  have  some  sig- 
nificant sayings.  The  growing  love  of  titles  of 
honor  was  checked  by  Shemaiah  by  the  counsel 
that  "  men  should  lo\e  the  work,  but  hate  the 
Rabl)iship."  The  tendency  to  new  opinions  (the 
fruits,  probably,  of  the  freer  exposition  of  the  lla- 
ynda)  was  rebuked  by  Abtalion  in  a  precept  which 
enwraps  a  parable:  "  Take  good  heed  to  thy  words, 
lest,  if  thou  wander,  thou  light  ujion  a  place  where 
the  wells  are  poisoned,  and  thy  scholars  who  come 
after  thee  drink  deep  thereof  and  die "  {Pirke 
AbotJi,  i.  1).  The  lot  of  these  two  also  was  cast 
upon  evil  days.  They  had  courage  to  attempt  to 
clieck  the  rising  power  of  Herod  in  his  bold  defi- 
ance of  the  Sanhedrim  (. Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  9,  §  .3). 
When  he  showed  himself  to  be  irresi.stilile  they  had 
the  wisdom  to  submit,  and  were  suffered  to  con- 
tinue their  work  in  peace.  Its  glory  was,  howe\er, 
in  great  measure,  gone.  The  doors  of  their  school 
were  no  longer  thrown  open  to  all  comers  so  that 
crowds  might  listen  to  the  teacher.  A  fixed  fee  « 
had  to  be  paid  on  entrance.  The  regulation  was 
probably  intended  to  discourage  the  attendance  of 
the  young  men  of  .Jerusalem  at  the  Scribes"  classes; 
and  apparently  it  had  that  effect  (Jost,  i.  248-2.53). 
On  the  death  of  Shemaiah  and  Abtalion  there  were 
no  qualified  successors  to  take  their  place.  Two 
sons  of  Bethera,  otherwise  unknown,  for  a  time  oc- 
cupied it,  but  they  were  tbemseh'es  conscious  of 
their  incompetence.  A  question  ^\as  brought  be- 
fore them  which  neither  they  nor  any  of  the  otlier 
Scrilies  could  answer.  At  last  they  asked,  in  their 
perplexity,  "  Was  tiiere  none  present  who  had  been 
a  disciple  of  the  two  who  had  been  so  honored?  " 
The  question  was  answered  by  Hillel  the  Babylo- 


SCRIBES 


2869 


«  The  amount  is  uncertain.  The  story  of  Hillel 
(in/rn)  represents  it  as  half  a  stn'er,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  stater  here  is  equal  to  twice  the  di'lracknta 
or  to  half  (comp.  Geiger,  De  Hit/He  et  Shainwai,  in 
Ugohui,  Thes.  xxi.).  It  was,  at  any  rate,  half  the 
day's  wages  of  a  skilled  laborer. 

f>  *  AVe  have  not  the  means  of  fixing  with  any  pre- 
cision the  date  of  Uillel's  birth.  The  question  is  fully 
discussed  by  Esvald  in  his  Gfw/i.  d.  Volkes  Israel, 
3e  Ausg.  (1867),  V.  12-26.  Assuming  that  Hillel  is  the 
same  person  with  the  Pollio  of  Josephus  (so  Josippon, 
V.  4,  etc.  cited  by  Ewald)  he  is  disposed  to  consider 
him  as  flourishing  from  about  60  B.  c.  to  10  A.  D. 
Derenbourg(&.<;a/ .«/')•  Phist.  el  la  grog,  r/e  la  Palestine. 
i  li9  f ,  463  {.)  thinks  that  the  Sameas  and  Pollio  of 
Josephus  represent,  through  a  confusion  on  the  part 
of  this  writer,  sometimes  Shemaiah  and  Abtalion,  and 
sometimes  Sh.xmmai  and  Hillel.  Ginsburg,  art.  Hiil(-l 
In  Kitto's  Cyclop,  of  Bihl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  says,  without 
jfiviug  any  authority,  that  he  was  born  about  75.  B.  c. 
On  Hillel,  whose  merits,  really  great,  have  been 
»trangely  exaggerated  by  some  recent  Jewish  writers, 

g.  Dr   Geiger  (not  the  Geiger  so  often  referred  to  in 


nian,  known  also,  then  or  afterwards,  as  the  son 
of  David.  He  solved  the  ditficulty,  appealed  t<j 
principles,  and,  when  they  demanded  authority 
as  well  as  argument,  ended  by  saying,  "  So  have 
I  heard  from  my  masters  Shemaiah  and  .Abta- 
lion." This  was  decisive.  The  .sons  of  Bethera 
withdrew.  Hillel  was  invited  by  acclamation  to  en- 
ter on  his  high  office.  His  alleged  descent  from  the 
house  of  David  may  have  added  to  his  popularity. 
(6.)  The  nanje  of  Hillel  (born  circ.  b.  c.  112'') 
has  hardly  recei\ed  the  notice  due  to  it  from  stu- 
dents of  the  Gospel  history."^  The  noblest  and 
most  genial  representative  of  his  order,  we  may  ses 
in  him  the  best  fruit  which  the  system  of  the 
Scribes  was  capable  of  producing.^/  It  is  instruc- 
tiv'e  to  mark  at  once  how  far  he  prepared  the  way 
for  the  higher  teaching  which  was  to  follow,  how 
far  he  inevitably  fell  short  of  it.  The  starting- 
point  of  his  career  is  told  in  a  tale  whicii,  though 
deformed  by  Rabbinic  exaggerations,  is  yet  fresh 
and  genial  enough.  The  young  student  had  come 
from  Golah  in  Balijlonia  to  study  under  Shemaiah 
and  Abtalion.  He  was  poor  and  had  no  money. 
The  new  rule  requiring  payment  was  in  force.  For 
the  most  part  he  worked  for  his  livelihood,  kept 
himself  with  half  his  earnings,  and  paid  the  rest  as 
the  fee  to  the  college-porter.  On  one  day,  how- 
ever, he  had  failed  to  find  employment.  The  door- 
keeper refused  him  entrance;  but  his  zeal  for 
knowledge  was  not  to  be  baffled.  He  stationed 
himself  outside,  under  a  window,  to  catcii  what  he 
could  of  the  words  of  the  Scribes  within.  It  was 
winter,  and  the  snow  began  to  fall,  but  he  re- 
mained there  still.  It  fell  till  it  hay  upon  him  six 
cubits  high  ( !  )  and  the  window  was  darkened  and 
blocked  up.  At  last  the  two  teachers  noticed  it, 
sent  out  to  see  what  cau.sed  it,  and  when  they  found 
out,  received  the  eager  scholar  without  payment. 
"  For  such  a  man,"  said  Shemaiah,  "  one  might 
even  break  the  Sabbath  "  (Geiger,  ut  gupm  ;  .lost, 
i.  2.54).  In  the  earlier  days  of  his  activity  Hillel 
had  as  his  colleague  JMenahem,  probably  the  same 
as  the  Fssene  iNIanaen  of  Josephus  {Ant.  xv.  10, 
§  5).  He,  however,  was  tempted  by  the  growing 
power  of  Herod,  and,  with  a  large  number  (eighty 
in  the  Rabbinic  tradition)  of  his  followers,  entered 
the  king's  service  and  al)andoned  at  once  their  call- 
ing as  Scribes  and  their  habits  of  devotion.  They 
appeared  publicly  in  tlie  gorgeous  apparel,  glitter- 
ing with  gold,  which  was  inconsistent  with  both' 

this  article),  one  may  see,  in  addition  to  the  works  al- 
ready referred  to  in  the  body  of  the  article,  or  just  men- 
tioned, Ewald's  Jahrh.  d.  Bibl.  iiu.ssensc/inft,  x.  56-83 
(substantially  reproduced  in  his  (Jeschichte,  as  above), 
and  the  interesting  little  pamphlet  of  Delitzsch,  Jesiii 
tmrl  Hillel,  mil  RikksiclU  aiif  lienan  iind  Geiger  ver- 
glicheii,  2i-'  Aufl.,  Erlangen,.1867.  A. 

<-'  The  exhaustive  treatise  by  Geiger  in  Ugolini,  T/ies. 
xxi.  must  be  mentioned  as  an  exception. 

<'  The  reverence  of  later  Jews  for  Hillel  is  shown  in 
some  curious  forms.  To  him  it  was  given  to  under 
stand  the  speech  of  animals  as  well  as  of  men.  He 
who  hearkened  not  to  the  words  of  Hillel  was  worthy 
of  death.  (Geiger,  ui  supra.)  Of  him  too  it  was  s;iid 
that  the  Divine  Shechinah  rested  on  him  :  if  the 
heavens  were  parchment  and  all  the  trees  of  the  earth 
pens,  and  all  the  sea  ink,  it  would  not  be  enough  to 
wTite  down  his  wisdom  (comp.  John  xxi.  25).  (See 
Heubuer,  De  Acaitemiis  Htbrteorum ,  in  Ugoliul,  Thes 
xxi.) 

e  We  may  perhaps  find  in  this  fact  an  explanation 
which  gives  a  special  force  to  words  that  l«ive  hitherto 
been  interpreted  somewhat  vaguely.      When  our  LorO 


2.S70 


SCRIBES 


(Jost,  i.  259).  The  place  tlms  vacniit  was  soon 
filleil  by  Shaiatnai.  The  two  were  held  in  nearly 
equal  honor.  One,  in  .lewish  lansruage,  was  the 
Nasi,  the  other  the  .\b-lieth-(lin  of  the  Sanliedriui. 
riiey  did  not  teach,  however,  as.  their  predecessors 
had  done,  in  entire  harmony  with  each  other. 
Within  the  party  of  the  Pharisees,  within  the  or- 
der of  the  Scrilies,  there  came  for  the  first  time  to 
he  two  .schools  with  disthictly  oppo.sed  tendencies, 
one  vehemently,  rif^idly  orthodox,  the  other  ortlio- 
dox  also,  hut  with  an  orthodoxy  which,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  modern  politics,  might  be  classed  as  Lili- 
eral  Conservative.  The  points  on  which  they  dif- 
fered were  almost  innunieraljle  (conip.  (;ei<];er,  ui 
suprn).  In  mo.st  of  them,  questions  as  to  the 
causes  and  degrees  of  uncleaniiess,  as  to  the  law  of 
contracts  or  of  wills,  we  can  find  little  or  no  inter- 
est. On  the  former  class  of  subjects  the  school  of 
hhammai  represented  the  extremest  development  of 
the  riiarisaic  spirit.  Everything  that  could  possi- 
bly have  been  touched  by  a  heathen  or  an  unclean 
Israelite,  became  itself  unclean.  "Defilement" 
was  as  a  contagious  disease  which  it  was  hardly 
possible  to  avoiil  even  with  the  careful  scrupulosity 
described  in  .Mark  vii.  1-4.  They  were,  in  like 
manner,  rigidly  Sabbatarian.  It  was  unlawful  to 
do  anything  before  the  Sabbath  which  woi.ld,  in  any 
sense,  be  in  operation  during  it,  e.  <j.  to  put  cloth 
into  a  dye-vat,  or  nets  into  the  sea.  It  was  un- 
lawful on  the  Sabliath  itself  to  give  money  to  the 
poor,  or  to  teach  children,  or  to  visit  the  sick. 
They  maintained  the  marriage  law  in  its  strictness, 
and  held  that  nothing  but  the  adultery  of  the  wife 
could  j'lstify  repudiation  (.lost,  i.  257-2G0).  SVe 
must  not  think  of  them,  however,  as  rigid  and 
austere  in  their  lives.  The  religious  wdrld  of  .!u- 
d.iisni  presented  the  inconsistencies  which  it  has 
otten  presented  since.  The  "  straitest  sect "  was 
also  the  most  secular.  Shammai  himself  was  said 
to  be  rich,  luxurious,  self-indulgent.  Hillel  re- 
mained to  the  day  of  his  death  as  poor  as  in  his 
youth  (Geiger,  /.  c. ). 

(7.)  The  teaching  of  Hillel  showed  some  capac- 
ity for  wider  thoughts  His  personal  character  was 
more  lovable  and  attractive.  ^A'liile  on  the  one 
side  he  taught  as  from  a  mind  well  stored  with  the 
traditions  of  the  elders,  he  was,  on  the  other,  any- 


contrasted  the  sVadfastness  and  austerity  of  the  Bap- 
tist with  tlie  hves  of  those  who  wore  soft  clothing, 
were  gorgeously  appareied,  and  lived  delicatelj'  in 
kings'  houses  (.Matt.  xi.  3  ;  Luke  vii.  24),  those  who 
heard  llim  may  at  once  have  recognized  the  picture. 
In  the  multitude  of  uncertain  guesses  as  to  the  lle- 
rodiaus  of  the  Gospels  (Matt.  xxii.  16)  we  may  be  per- 
mitted to  hnaird  the  co;  jecture  tiiat  they  may  be 
identified  with  the  party,  perhaps  rather  with  the 
clique,  of  .Menaheui  and  his  followers  (Geiger,  iit  sup.  ; 
Otho,  Hist.  Doriorvm  Misn^coriim,  in  Ugolini.  Thes. 
xxi.).  The  fact  that  the  stern,  .sharp  words  of  a  di- 
vine scorn  which  have  been  quoted  above,  meet  us 
just  after  the  first  conibiuafion  of  Ilerodians  and 
Pharisees,  gives  it  a  strong  confirmation  (comp.  Mark 
iii.  6;   Luke  vi.  11,  vii.  19). 

n  It  is  fair  to  add  that  a  great  Rabbinic  .scholar 
Diaintaiiis  that  this  "  spoiling  the  dinner "  was  a 
well-known  figurative  phrase  for  conduct  which 
brought  shame  or  discredit  on  the  husband  (Jost,  i. 
264). 

'>  The  history  connected  with  this  .saying  is  too 
charmingly  characteristic  to  be  passed  over.  A  pros- 
ilyte  came  to  Shammai  and  begged  for  some  instruc- 
■,i',>n  in  the  Law  if  it  were  only  for  as  long  as  he,  the 
learner,  cmild  stand  on  one  foot.     The  Scribe  was  an- 


SCRIBES 

thing  but  a  slavish  follower  of  those  traditions 
He  was  the  first  to  lay  down  principles  for  aii 
equitable  construction  of  the  Law  with  a  dialectic 
precision  which  seems  ahnost  to  imply  a  (ireek  cul- 
ture (.lost,  i.  2.57).  Uhen  the  letter  of  a  law,  as 
e.  y.  that  of  the  year  of  release,  was  no  longer 
suited  to  the  times,  and  wa,s  working,  so  far  as  it 
was  kept  at  all,  only  for  evil,  he  suggested  an  in- 
terpretation which  met  the  diffictdty  or  practically 
set  it  aside.  His  teaching  as  to  divorce  was  in  like 
manner  an  adaptation  to  the  temper  if  the  age.  It 
was  lawlul  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  aiij. 
cause  of  disfavor,  even  for  so  slight  an  offense  as 
that  of  spoiling  his  dinner  by  her  bad  cooking  " 
(Geiger,  /.  c).  The  genial  character  of  the  njan 
conies  out  in  some  of  his  sayings,  which  remind  us 
of  the  tone  of  .Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach.  and  present 
some  faint  approximations  to  a  liiicher  teaching: 
"  Trust  not  thyself  to  the  day  of  thy  death," 
"  .Judge  not  thy  neighbor  till  thou  art  in  his  place," 
"  Leave  nothing  dark  and  obscuie,  saving  to  thy- 
self, I  will  explain  it  when  I  have  time;  for  how 
kuowest  thou  whether  the  time  will  comeV" 
(comp.  .lames  iv.  I'J-1.5).  '•  He  who  gains  a  good 
name  i;ains  it  for  him.self,  but  he  who  gains  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  Law  gains  everlasting  life"  (comp.  John 
V.  ;3U;  Pirke  Abnth,  ii.  5-8).  In  one  memorable 
rule  we  find  the  nearest  approach  that  had  as  3'et 
been  made  to  the  great  commandment  of  the  Gos- 
pel: '' Uo  nothing  to  thy  neiuhiior  that  thou  would- 
est  not  that  he  .should  do  to  thee."  '' 

(8.)  'i'he  contrast  showed  itself  in  the  conduct 
of  the  followers  not  less  than  in  the  teachers.  The 
disciples  of  Shammai  were  conspicuous  for  tlieir 
fierceness,  appealed  to  poj)ular  pa.ssions.  used  the 
sword  to  decide  their  controversies.  Out  of  that 
school  grew  the  party  of  the  Zealots,  fierce,  fiinat- 
ieal,  vindictive,  the  Orangemen  of  Pharisaism  (.lost, 
i.  2(i7-26'J).  Those  of  Hillel  were,  like  their  mas- 
ter (comp,  €.  (J.  the  advice  of  Gamaliel,  Acts  v.  34- 
42).  cautious,  gentle,  tolerant,  unwilling  to  make 
enemies,  content  to  let  things  take  their  course. 
One  school  resisted,  the  othier  was  disposed  lo  fos- 
ter the  study  of  tireek  literature.  One  sonnht  to 
impose  upon  the  jiroselyte  from  heathenism  the  full 
burden  of  the  Law,  ti.e  other  that  he  .shoidd  li« 
treated     with    some    sympathy    and    indulgence. 


gry,  .and  drove  him  away  harshly.  He  went  to  Hillel 
with  the  same  request.  He  received  the  inquirer  be- 
nignaptly,  and  gave  him  the  precept  above  quoted, 
adding  —  '■  Do  this,  and  thou  hast  fulfilled  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets  "  (tleiger,  ul  suf.ra).  [Comp.  Tobit, 
iv.  lo,  o  nicreis  /oi7)6tcl  ttoi^otjs,  and  see  Wetstein's 
note  on  Matt,  vii  12.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
same  preci  pt  appears  i-epeatedly,  in  this  negative 
form,  among  the  sa\  logs  ascribed  to  Confucius.  See 
the  Lun-Yii,  or  "  Confucian  Analects,"  as  Dr.  Legge 
calls  the  work,  bk.  v.  e.  11:  xii.  2  ;  xv.  23.  In  the 
Oiling-  Yiins.  xiii.  3,  4,  Confucius  delivers  the  ,sau  e 
rule  with  a  positive  application,  but  confes.ses  that  he 
has  not  himself  been  able  to  practice  it  perfectly 
Comp.  the  L">i-  Yii,  iv.  l.y.  where  the  whole  doctrine  of 
Confucius  is  summed  up  in  two  words,  chiiiiga,Dd  .^/i", 
translated  by  Pauthier  ( Confucius  el  Mcncius,  Paris, 
18.58,  p.  1^2)  avoir  In  drnilure  clu  recur  and  aimtr  son 
■prnrlinin  comme  soi-mcvie.  S.  Vi.  Williams,  Tunic 
Diet,  of  the  Chinese.  Lang  in  the  Canton  Dialect,  Can- 
ton, 1856,  pp.  453.  454.  gives  among  the  meanings  ot 
."!/()/,  "  treating  others  as  one  wishes  to  be  treated," 
and  similar  definitions  are  given  by  De  (Jnignes,  Mor- 
rison, Medhurst,  and  begge  Confucius  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  accepted  the  doctrine  of  n-turuiiig  gno^ 
for  evil  (L«/i-  Yu,  xiv.  36).  —  A.i 


SCRIBES 

[Proselyte  J  One  subject  of  debate  between 
the  schools  exhil)its  the  contrast  as  goin'^'  deeper 
than  these  questions,  touching  upon  the  great  prob- 
lems of  the  universe.  "  Was  tlie  state  of  man  so 
full  of  misery  that  it  would  have  i)een  better  for 
him  never  to  have  been  V  Or  was  this  life,  with 
all  its  suffering,  still  the  gift  of  God,  to  be  valued 
and  used  as  a  training  for  something  higher  than 
itselt'V  "  The  school  of  Shammai  took,  as  might 
be  expected,  the  darker,  that  of  liillel  the  brighter 
and  the  wiser  view  (Jost,  i.  2(54). 

(9.)  Outwardly  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  nnist 
have  appeared  to  men  different  in  many  ways  troin 
both.  While  they  repeated  the  traditions  of  tlie 
elders,  He  "spake  as  one  having  authority,"  "  not 
as  the  Scribes''  (Matt.  vii.  29;  comp.  the  con- 
stantly recurring  "  1  say  unto  you  "').  'Wlnle  they 
confined  their  teaching  to  the  class  of  scholars.  He 
"  had  compassion  on  the  multitudes  "  (Matt.  ix.  3G). 
While  they  were  to  be  found  only  in  the  council  or 
in  their  schools.  He  join-neyed  through  the  cities 
and  villages  (Matt.  iv.  23,  ix.  35,  &c.,&c.).  While 
they  s[ioke  of  the  kingdom  of  God  vaguely,  as  a 
thing  far  off.  He  [iroclaimed  that  it  had  already 
come  nigh  to  men  (Matt.  iv.  17).  But  in  most  of 
the  points  at  issue  between  the  two  parties.  He 
must  have  appeared  in  direct  antagonism  to  the 
school  of  Shannnai,  in  sympathy  with  that  of  Hil- 
lel.  In  the  questions  that  gathered  round  the  law 
of  the  Sabbath  (Matt  xii.  1-14,  and  John  v.  1-lB, 
&u. ),  and  the  idea  of  purity  (Matt.  xv.  1-11,  and 
its  parallels),  this  was  obviously  the  case.  Kven 
in  the  controversy  about  divorce,  while  his  chief 
Work  was  to  assert  the  truth  which  the  disputants 
on  both  sides  were  losing  sight  of,  He  recognized, 
it  must  be  remembered,  the  rule  of  Hillel  as  being 
a  true  interpretation  of  the  Law  (Matt.  xix.  8). 
When  He  summed  up  the  great  commandment  in 
which  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  fulfilled,  He 
repro  luced  and  ennobled  the  precept  winch  had 
been  g.ven  by  that  teacher  to  his  disciples  (Matt. 
vii.  12,  xxii.  34:-40).  So  far,  on  the  other  hand, 
as  the  temper  of  the  Hillel  school  was  one  of  mere 
adaptation  to  the  feeling  of  the  people,  cleaving  to 
tradition,  wanting  in  the  inuuition  of  a  higher  life, 
the  teaching  of  Christ  must  have  been  felt  as  un- 
sparingly condemning  it. 

(10.)  It  adds  to  the  interest  of  this  inquiry  to 
remember  that  Hillel  himself  lived,  according  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Kabbis,  to  the  great  age  of  120, 
and  may  therefore  have  been  present  among  the 
doctors  of  Ltike  ii.  4(i,  and  that  Gamaliel,  his 
grandson  and  successor,"  was  at  the  head  of  this 
school  during  the  whole  of  the  ministry  of  Christ, 
as  well  as  in  the  early  portion  of  the  history  of  the 
Acts.  We  are  thus  able  to  explain  the  fact,  which 
so  many  passages  in  the  (iospels  lead  us  to  infer, 
the  existence  all  along  of  a  party  among  the 
Scribes  thetnselves,  more  or  less  disposed  to  recog- 
nize Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  a  teacher  (.John  iii  1 ; 
Mark  x.  17),  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God 
(.Mark  xii.  34),  advocates  of  a  policy  of  toleration 

"  liibbi  Simeoa,  the  son  of  Gamaliel,  caiue  between 
them,  but  apparejtiy  for  a  short  time  ouly.  Tiie 
tiiiestioa  whether  he  is  to  be  identifieil  with  the  Simeoa 
;f  IjuUe  ii.  25,  is  one  which  we  have  not  sufficient 
lat:>,  to  determine.  Most  commentators  answir  it  in 
t:ie  nesjative.  There  seem,  however,  some  probabilities 
on  the  other  side.  One  trained  in  the  school  of  Hil- 
lel might  not  unnaturally  be  looking  for  the''conso- 
lation  of  Israel."  Himself  of  the  house  and  lineage 
•)f  David,  he  would  readily  accept  the  inward  witness 


SCRIBES 


2871 


(John  vii.  51),  but,  on  the  other  hand,  timid  and 
time-serving,  unable  to  confess  even  their  hall'-l)elief 
I, John  xii.  42),  afraid  to  take  their  stand  against 
the  strange  alliance  of  extremes  which  brought 
together  the  Sadducean  section  of  the  priesthood 
and  the  ultra-Pharisaio  followers  of  Shammai. 
When  the  last  great  crisis  came,  they  apparently  , 
contented  themselves  with  a  policy  of  absence 
(Luke  xxiii.  50,  51),  possibly  were  not  even  sum- 
moned, and  thus  the  Council  which  condennied  our 
Lord  was  a  packed  meeting  of  the  confederate  par- 
ties, not  a  formally  constituted  Sanhedrim.  All  itg 
proceedings,  the  hasty  investigation,  the  iraraediatjj 
sentence,  were  vitiated  by  irregularity  (Jost,  i. 
407-40i)).  Afterwards,  when  the  fear  of  violence  was 
once  over,  and  popular  feeling  had  turned,  we  find 
Gamaliel  summoning  courage  to  maintain  openly 
the  policy  cf  a  tolerant  expectation  (Acts  v.  34). 

IV.  Education  and  Life.  —  (1.)  The  special 
training  for  a  Scribe'^office  began,  probably,  about 
the  age  of  thirteen.  According  to  the  Pirke 
Abotli  (v.  24)  the  child  began  to  read  the  Mikra  at 
five  and  the  ilishna  at  ten.  Three  ye.trs  later  every 
Israelite  became  a  child  of  the  Law  (Bur-Miisvalt), 
and  was  bound  to  study  and  obey  it.  'J'he  great 
mass  of  men  rested  in  the  scanty  teaching  of  their 
synagogues,  in  knowing  and  re]^ating  their  Te- 
phillim.  the  texts  inscribed  on  their  phylacteries. 
For  the  boy  who  was  destined  by  his  parents,  or 
who  devoted  himself,  to  the  calling  of  a  Scribe, 
something  more  was  required.  He  made  his  way 
to  Jerusalem,  and  applied  for  admission  to  the 
school  of  some  famous  Kabl)i.  If  he  were  poor,  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  synagogue  of  his  town  or  vil- 
lage to  provide  for  the  payment  of  his  fees,  and  in 
part  also  for  his  maintenance.  His  power  to  learn 
was  tested  by  an  examination  on  entrance.      If  be 

passed  it  he  became  a  "chosen  one"  (T^n^, 
comp.  John  sv.  1(5),  and  entered  on  his  work  as  a 
disciple  (Carpzov,  App.  CrU.  i.  7).  The  master 
and  his  scholars  met,  the  former  sitting  on  a  high 

chair,  the  elder   pupils  (S^T'^vn)  on  a  lower 

bench,  the  yoimger  ^CDISp)  on  the  ground,  both 
litei'ally  "  at  his  feet."  The  class-room  might  be 
the  chamlier  of  the  Temple  set  apart  for  this  pur- 
pose, or  the  private  school  of  the  Kaljbi.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  Uabbi,  or  head  master,  there  were 
assistant  teachers,  and  one  interpreter  or  crier, 
whose  function  it  was  to  proclaim  aloud  to  the 
whole  school  what  the  Rabbi  had  spoken  in  a  whis- 
per (comp.  Matt.  x.  27).  The  education  was  chiefly 
catechetical,  the  pupil  subhiitting  the  cases  and 
asking  questions,  the  teacher  examining  the  pujiil 
(Ltike  ii.).  The  questions  might  he  ethical,  "  What 
was  the  great  commandment  of  all  V  What  must 
a  man  do  to  inherit  eternal  lifeV  "  or  casuistic, 
"  What  might  a  man  do  or  leave  undone  on  the 
Sal)l)ath?  "  or  ceremonial,  "  What  did  or  did  not 
render  him  unclean?"''  In  due  time  the  pupil 
passed  on  to  the  laws  of  property,  of  contracts,  and 

wliich  pointed  to  a  child  of  that  house  as  '■  the  Lord's 
(Jhi'ist.  '  There  is  something  significant,  too,  in  th« 
■silence  of  Kabbiuic  literature.  In  the  Pirke  Aboth  he 
is  not  even  named.  Comp.  Otho,  Hist.  Doct.  M:sn.  in 
Ugolini  xxi. 

''  We  are  left  to  wonder  what  were  the  que.itions 
and  answers  of  the  school-room  of  Luke  ii.  40,  but 
those  proposed  to  our  Lord  by  his  own  di.sciples,  or  by 
I  the  Scribes,  a.s  testa  of  his  protlcionc.v .  may  fairly  o» 
\  taken  as  type.s  of  what  was  commonly  di.scussed.    The 


2872 


SCRIBES 


of  eviilence.  So  far  he  was  within  the  circle  of 
tlie  llalacliah,  the  simple  exposition  of  the  tradi- 
tional "  Words  of  the  Scribes."  He  might  re- 
main content  with  this,  or  might  pass  on  to  the 
higher  knowledge  of  the  Beth-hani-Midrash,  with 
its  inexhaustible  stores  of  mystical  interpretation. 
In  both  cases,  pretiminently  in  the  latter,  parables 
entered  largely  into  the  method  of  instruction. 
The  teacher  uttered  the  similitude,  and  left  it  to 
his  hearers  to  interpret  for  themselves  [Paha- 
BLES.J  That  the  relation  between  the  two  was 
often  one  of  genial  and  kindly  feeling,  we  may 
infer  fi'ora  the  saying  of  one  famous  Scribe,  "  I 
have  learnt  much  from  the  Habbis  my  teachers, 
I  have  learnt  more  from  the  Habliis  my  colleagues, 
I  have  learnt  most  of  all  from  my  disciples  " 
(Carpzov,  Ajip.  Crit.  i.  7). 

(2.)  After  a  sutiicient  period  of  training,  prob- 
ably at  the  age  of  thirty, «  the  probationer  was  sol- 
emnly admitted  to  his  «ffice.  'I'he  presiding 
Kabbi  pronounced  the  formula,  "  I  admit  thee,  and 
thou  art  admitted  to  the  Chair  of  the  Scribe," 
solemnly  ordained  him  by  the  imposition  of  hands 

(the  nS^'^D  =  x^^poGeaia),''  and  gave  to  him, 
as  the  symbol  of  his  work,  tal)lets  on  which  he  wa.s  to 
note  down  the  sayings  of  the  wise,  and  the  "  key  of 
knowledge  "  (cotup.  Luke  xi.  52),  with  which  he  was 
to  open  or  to  shut  the  treasures  of  Divine  wisdom. 
So  admitted,  he  took  his  place  as  a  Cliaber,  or  mem- 
ber of  the  fraternity,  was  no  longer  dypa,iJ.iJ.aTos 
Kal  iSiwTi^s  (Acts  iv.  13),  was  separated  entirely 
from  the  multitude,  the  brute  herd  that  knew  not 
the  Law,  the  "  cursed  ""  people  of  the  earth  " 
(John  vii.  15,  49).= 

(3.)  There  still  remained  for  the  disciple  after 
his  admission  the  choice  of  a  variety  of  functions, 
the  chances  of  failure  and  success.  He  might  gi\e 
himself  to  any  one  of  the  branches  of  study,  or 
combine  two  or  more  of  them.  He  might  rise  to 
high  places,  become  a  doctor  of  the  Law,  an  arlii- 
trator  in  family  litigations  (Luke  xii.  l'l),the  head 
of  a  school,  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim.  He 
might  have  to  content  himself  with  the  humbler 
work  of  a  transcriber,  copying  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  for  the  use  of  synagogues,  or  Tephillim 
for  that  of  the  devout  (Otho,  Lex.  Ritbb.  s.  v. 
"  Phylacteria  " ),  or  a  notary  writing  out  contracts  of 
sale,  covenants  of  espousals,  bills  of  repudiation. 
The  position  of  the  more  fortunate  was  of  course 
attractive  enough.  Theoretically,  indeed,  the  office 
of  the  Scribe  was  not  to  be  a  source  of  wealth. 
It  is  doubtful  how  far  the  fees  paid  by  the  pupils 
were  appropriated  by  the  teacher  (Buxtorf,  ^ynny. 
Jiulaic.  cap.  46).  The  great  Hillel  worked  as  a 
day-laborer.  St.  Paul's  work  as  a  tent  maker,  our 
Lord's  work  as  a  carpenter,  were  quite  compatible 
with  the  popular  conception  of  the  most  honored 
Kabbi.  The  indirect  payments  were,  however,  con- 
siderable enough.     Scholars  brought  gifts.     Kich 


SCRIBES 

and  cievout  widows  maintained  a  IJabbi  as  an  act 
of  piety,  often  to  the  injury  of  their  own  kindrec 
(Matt,  xxiii.  14).  Lach  act  of  the  notary's  office, 
or  the  arbitration  of  the  jurist,  would  be  attended 
l)y  an  honorarium. 

(4. )  In  regard  to  social  position  there  was  a  like 
contradiction  between  theory  and  practice.  The 
older  Scribes  had  had  no  titles  [Raijui]  ;  Shemaiah, 
as  we  have  seen,  warned  his  disciples  agninst  them. 
In  our  Lords  time  the  passion  for  distinction  was 
insatiable.  The  ascending  scale  of  Kali,  Kabbi, 
Kabban  (we  are  reminded  of  our  own  Kevereud, 
Very  Reverend,  Right  Reverend),  presented  so 
many  steps  on  the  ladder  of  ambition  (Serupius, 
de  tit.  Rdbbi,  in  Ugolini  xxii.).  Other  forms  of 
worldliness  were  not  far  oft".^'  The  salutations  in 
the  market-place  (Matt,  xxiii.  7),  the  reverential 
kiss  offered  by  the  scholars  to  their  master,  or  by 
liabbis  to  each  other,  the  greeting  of  Abba,  father 
(Matt,  xxiii.  9,  and  Lightfoot.  Ilm:  IJeb.  in  loc. ), 
the  long  aroKaU  as  contrasted  with  the  simple 
XiTaj;/  and  Ifxariov  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples, 
with  the  broad  blue  Zizith  or  fringe  (the  Kpd(r~ 
TreSoi'  of  Matt,  xxiii.  5),  the  Tephillim  Of  ostenta- 
tious size,  all  these  go  to  make  up  the  picture  of  a 
Scribe's  life.  Drawing  to  themselves,  as  they  did, 
nearly  all  the  energy  and  thought  of  .Judaism,  the 
close  hereditary  caste  of  the  priesthood  was  power- 
less to  compete  with  them.  Unless  the  priest  lie- 
came  a  Scribe  also,  he  remained  in  obscurity.  The 
order,  as  such,  became  contemptible  and  base.* 
For  the  Scribes  there  were  the  best  places  at  feasts, 
the  chief  seats  in  synagogues  (Matt,  xxiii.  6 ;  Luk€ 
xiv.  7). 

(5.)  The  character  of  the  order  was  marked  un 
der  these  influences  by  a  deep,  incurable  hypocrisy, 
all  the  more  perilous  because,  in  most  cases,  it  was 
unconscious.  We  must  not  infer  from  this  that 
all  were  alike  tainted,  or  that  the  work  which  they 
had  done,  and  the  worth  of  their  office,  were  not 
recognized  by  Him  who  rebuked  them  for  their 
evil.  Some  tliere  were  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God,  taking  their  place  side  by  side  with  propli- 
ets  and  wise  men,  among  the  instruments  by  which 
the  wisdom  of  God  was  teaching  men  (Matt,  xxiii. 
34).  The  name  was  still  honorable.  The  Apostles 
themselves  wei-e  to  be  Scribes  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  (Matt.  xiii.  52).  The  Lord  himself  did  not' 
refuse  the  salutations  which  hailed  Him  as  a  Rabbi. 
In  "  Zenas  the  lawyer"  (fo^iKds,  Tit.  iii.  13)  and 
ApoUos  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  sent  appar- 
ently for  the  special  purpose  of  dealing  with  the  /xd- 
Xai  vofxiKai  which  prevailed  at  Crete  (Tit.  iii.  9), 
we,  may  recognize  the  work  which  members  of  the 
order  were  capable  of  doing  for  the  edifying  of  tiie 
Church  of  Christ  (comp.  Winer.  lieatwb.,  and  Her- 
zog's  Encyklnp.  "  Schriftgelehrte  ").      E.  H.  P. 

*  Literature.  —  The  preceding  article  is  so  full 
and  satisfactory  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  add 
many    references.     We   may  name,  however,  'the 


Apocrypfial  Gospels,  as  usual,  mocli  our  curiosity  with 
the  most  irritating  puerilities.  (Comp.  Evangel.  In- 
fant, c.  45,  in  Tischendorf,  Et-angelia  Apocrypha.) 

a  Tliis  is  inferred  by  Schoettgen  (Hor  Heb.  I.e.) 
from  the  analogy  of  the  Levite's  office,  and  from  the 
(act  that  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord  both  entered  on 
their  ministry  at  this  age. 

6  It  was  said  of  Hillel  that  he  placed  a  limit  on  thi? 
practice.  It  had  been  exercised  by  any  Scribe.  After 
bis  time  it  was  reserved  for  the  Nasi  or  President  of 
[he  Sauhedrim  (Geiger,  h(  supra). 

'  Ff>r  all  the  details  in  the  .above  section,  and  many 


others,  comp.  the  elaborate  treatises  by  U -sinus,  An- 
ti'iij.  Heb.,  and  Heubner,  De  Academiis  H'^OBorurr> 
in  Ugolini,  Tkes.  xxi. 

'/  The  later  Rabbinic  saying  that  "  the  disciples  of 
the  wise  have  a  right  to  a  goodly  house,  a  fair  wife, 
and  a  soft  couch,"  reflected  probably  the  luxury  of 
ail  earlier  time.  (Ursini  Antiqr/.  Heb.  cap.  5,  tit  su- 
pra.) 

e  The  feeling  is  curiously  prominent  in  the  Rabbini* 
scale  of  precedence.  The  Wise  Man,  ?.  e.  the  Rabbi 
is  higher  than  the  High  Priest  himself.  (Gem.  Hierw 
Horaioth,  f.  84.) 


SCRIP 

Histories  of  ifie  Jews  (in  German)  by  Herzfelcl, 
Graetz,  and  Ewald;  Zunz,  Die  yutltgdiensllic/ie 
VurtriUje  der  Jtidtn,  Eerl.  18-32;  Hirschl'ekl, 
U(d(ic/iische  Exeytse,  Berl.  18-tO,  and  IliUjudin-lie 
Exeyese,  1847 ;  Ginsburg's  art.  "  Scribes  "  in  Kitto's 
Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Lit.  3d  ed.,  vol.  iii. ;  and  Haus- 
ratli's  Ntutist.  Zcityeschichte,  i.  75-114.         A. 

SCRIP  (i:i^p?V  ffvWoyii,  Trrjpd:  pera). 
The    Hebrew   word "   thus    translated   appears   in 

1  Sam.  xvii.  40,  as  a  synonym  for  D'^l^in  "*73 
(rh  KaSiov  rh  woifj-ei/iKov),  the  bag  in  which  the 
shejiherd's  of  Palestine  carried  their  food  or  other 
uecessaries.  lu  Symiuachus  and  the  Vulg.  pera, 
and    in  the  marginal  reading  of   A.  V.  "scrip," 

appear  in  2  K.  iv.  42,  for  the  p7i7^,  which  in 
the  text  of  the  A.  V.  is  translated  /lusk  (comp. 
Gesen.  s.  v.).  The  irripa  of  the  N.  T.  appears  in 
our  Lord's  command  to  his  disciples  as  distin- 
guished from  the  {ajvjj  (.Matt.  x.  lU;  Mark  vi.  8) 
and  the  ^aKKavriov  (Luke  x.  4,  xxii.  35,  30),  and 
its  nature  and  use  are  sufhciently  defined  by  the 
lexicographers.  The  scrip  of  the  Galilean  peasants 
was  of  liather,  used  especially  to  carry  their 
food  on  a  journey  (^  B-qKi]  twv  UpToiy,  Suid.; 
SepfjLa  T(  apropopov,  Amnion.),  and  slung  over 
tiieir  shoulders.    In  the  Talmudic  writers  the  word 

^^^"liH  is  used  as  denoting  the  same  thing,  and 
is  named  as  part  of  the  equipment  both  of  shepherds 
in  their  common  life  and  of  proselytes  coming  on  a 
pilgrinjage  to  Jerusalem  (Lightfoot,  IJor.  tltb.  on 
Matt.  X.  10).  The  ^uut),  on  the  other  hand,  was 
the  loose  girdle,  in  the  folds  of  which  money  was 
often  kept  for  the  sake  of  safety  [Girdlk]  ;  the 
^aWavTiov  (sdccidus,  Vulg.),  the  smaller  bag 
used  ejcclusively  for  money  (Luke  xii.  33).  The 
connnand  given  to  the  Twelve  first,  and  afterwards 
to  the  Seventy,  invohed  therefore  an  absolute  de- 
pendence upon  God  for  each  day's  wants.  They 
were  to  appear  in  every  town  or  village,  as  men 
unlike  all  other  traveUers,  freely  doing  without  that 
which  others  looked  on  as  essential.  The  iresh  rule 
given  in  Luke  xxii.  35,  36,  perhaps  also  the  facts 
that  Judas  was  the  bearer  of  the  bag  (.-yAoxrcrd/co- 
uov,  John  xii.  0),  and  that  when  the  disciples 
were  without  bread  they  were  ashamed  of  their 
forgetfulness  (Mark  viii.  14-10),  show  that  the 
connnand  was  not  intended  to  be  permanent. 

Tlie  linglish  word  has  a  meaning  precisely 
equivalent  to  that  of  the  Greek.  Connected  as  it 
probably  is,  with  scrripe,  scrap,  the  scrip  was  used 
for  articles  of  food.  It  belonged  especially  to 
shepherds  {As  You  Like  It,  act  iii.  so.  2).  It  was 
made  of  leather  (Milton,  Comm,  020).  A  similar 
article  is  still  used  by  the  Syrian  shepherds  (Por- 
ter's Damascus,  ii.  109).  The  later  sense  of 
scrip  as  a  written  certificate,  is,  it  need  hardly  be 
said,  of  ditierent  origin  or  meaning;  the  word,  on 
its  first  use  in  English,  was  written  ^'■script" 
(Chaucer).  E.  H.  P. 

SCRIPTURE  (a»n3,  Dan.  x.  21:  ypa4,-f,, 
ypdiJ.fJ.aTa,  2  Tim.  iii.  16:  Scriptura).  The  chief 
facts  relating  to  the  books  to  which,  individually 
and  collectively,  this  title  has  been  applied,  will  be 
found    under   Bible   and    Canon.      It   will   fidl 


SCRIPTURE 


287  b 


a  Yalkiu,  the  scrip,  is  the  quaint  title  of  some  of 
the  most  learned  of  the  Rabbinical  treatises :  for  in- 
stance, the  l'a/^-M/ 5/ii>«orti,  a  miscellaneous  collection 

of  &aguientary  comments  ou  the  whole  of  the  0.  T., '  title  of  the  sacred  book  of  Islam  ^Koruu  =  reeikition 
181 


within  the  scope  of  this  article  to  trace  the  history 
of  the  word,  and  to  determine  its  exact  meanun' 
in  the  language  of  the  O.  and  N.  T. 

(1.)  It  is  not  till  the  return  from  the  Captivity 
that  the  word  meets  us  with  any  distinctive  force. 
In  the  earlier  books  we  read  of  the  Law,  the  Book 
of  the  Law.  In  Ex.  xxxii.  16,  the  conunandments 
written  on  the  tables  of  testimony  are  said  to  be 
"the  writing  of  God  "  {ypacprj  Oeov),  but  there  is 
no  special  sense  in  the  word  taken  by  itself.  In 
the  passage  from  Dan.  x.  21  (eV  ypacpij  a\-rj- 
deias),  where  the  A.  V.  has  "the  Scripture  of 
truth,"  the  words  do  not  probably  mean  more 
than  a  "  true  writing."  The  thought  of  the  Scrip- 
ture as  a  whole  is  hardly  to  be  found   in    tliem. 

This  first  appears  in  2  Chr.  xxx.  5,  18  (2^i"133, 
Kara  t)]v  ypa<p-r}v,  LXX.,  "as  it  was  written," 
A.  v.),  and  is  probably  connected  with  the  profound 
reverence  for  the  Sacred  Books  which  led  the  earlier 
Scribes  to  confine  their  own  teaching  to  oral  tradi- 
tion, and  gave  therefore  to  "the  Writing"  a  dis- 
tinctive preeminence.  [Sckibes.]  The  same  feel- 
ing showed  itself  in  theconstant  formula  of  quota- 
tion, "  It  is  written,"  often  without  the  addition  of 
any  words  defining  the  passage  quoted  (Matt.  iv.  4, 
6,  xxi.  13,  xxvi.  24).  The  Greek  word,  as  will  be 
seen,  kept  its  ground  in  this  sense.  A  slight  change 
passed  over  that  of  the  Hebrew,  and  led   to  the 

substitution  of  another.  The  D^Zl^HS  (ce/lnV/un 
^writings),  in  the  Jewish  arrangenjent  of  the 
0.  T.,  was  used  for  a  part  and  not  the  whole  of 
the  0.  T.  (the  Hagiographa;  comp.  Bible),  while 
another  form  of  the  same  root  (cethib)  came  to 
have  a  technical  significance  as  applied  to  the  text, 
which,  though  written  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  might,  or  might  not  be  recognized  as 
keri,  the  right  intelligible  reading  to  be  read  in  the 
congregation.    Another  word  was  therefore  wanted, 

and  it  was  found  in  the  Mikm'  (S~1|7D,  Neh. 
viii.  8),  or  "reading,"  the  tlung  read  or  recited, 
recitation.''  I'his  accordingly  we  find  as  the  equiva- 
lent for  the  collecti\-e  ypa(pai.  The  boy  at  the 
age  of  five  ijegins  the  study  of  the  .Mikra,  at  ten 
passes  on  to  the  Mis/uia  {Pirke  Aljvtii,  v.  24). 
The  old  word  has  not,  however,  disappeared,  and 

2^n3n,  "  the  Writing,"  is  used  with  the  same 
connotation  (ibid.  iii.  10). 

(2.)  With  this  meaning  the  word  ypacpri  passed 
into  the  language  of  the  N.  T.  Used  in  the  singu- 
lar it  is  applied  chiefly  to  this  or  that  passage 
quoted  from  the  0.  T.  (Mark  xii.  10;  John  vii.  38, 
xiii.  18,  xix.  37;  Luke  iv.  21;  Eom.  ix.  17;  GaL 
iii.  8,  et  III.).  In  Acts  viii.  32  (rj  irtpioxv  ttJ3 
ypa(pfis)  it  takes  a  somewhat  larger  extension,  as 
denoting  the  writiny  of  Isaiah;  but  hi  ver.  35  the 
more  limited  meaning  reappears.  In  two  passages 
of  some  difficulty,  some  have  seen  the  wider,  some 
the  narrower  sense.  (1.)  Tlaaa  ypaipyj  e^Sirviva- 
Tos  {'■i  Tim.  iii.  16)  has  been  translated  in  the 
A.  V.  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspiration 
of  God,  '  as  though  ypacpri,  though  without  the 
article,  were  takeu  as  equivalent  to  the  O.  T.  as  a 
whole  (comp.  nacra  oIkoSoixt],  Eph.  ii.  21;  waffa 
'lepoaSKufia,  Matt.  ii.  3),  and  de6irvfv(TT0Si  the 
predicate  asserted  of  it.     Ketainhig  the  narrower 


consisting  of  extracts  from  more  than  fifty  older  Jew- 
ish works  (.Zunz,  Gottrsil.  Vor'.rage,  cap.  18). 

*  The  iiame  root,  it  may  be  noticed,  is  found  in  th» 


287-4 


SCRIPTURE 


meaning,  however,  we  might  still  take  Qi6irvev<TT0S 
as  the  predicate.  "  Every  Scripture  —  sc.  every 
separate  portion  —  is  divinely  inspired."  It  bus 
been  urged,  however,  that  this  assertion  of  a  truth, 
which  both  St.  Paul  and  'liniothy  held  in  common, 
would  be  less  suitable  to  the  context  than  the  as- 
signing that  truth  as  a  ground  for  the  further  in- 
ference drawn  irom  it;  and  so  tiiere  is  a  prepon- 
derance of  authority  in  favor  of  the  rendering, 
"Every  •ypa<J)TJ,  being  inspired,  is  also  jirotltable, 
..."  (comp.  Meyer,  Allord,  Wordsworth,  Ellicott, 
Wiesingei-,  in  foe).  There  does  not  seem  any 
ground  for  making  the  meanhig  of  ypa<pv  depend- 
ent on  the  adjective  QeoirvevaTos  (''every  inspired 
writing"),  as  though  we  recognized  a 'yf)a<jbT/ not 
inspired.  The  usui  Ivijiieii'/i  of  the  N.  T.  is  uni- 
form  in  this  respect:  and  the  word  ypacp-i)  is  never 
used  of  any  common  or  secular  writing. 

(2.)  The  meaning  of  the  genitive  in  Tracra 
Ttpocp-nTila  ypacpris  (2  Pet.  i.  20)  seems  at  first 
Bight,  anarthrous  though  it  be,  distinctively  collec- 
tive. '•  Every  prophecy  of,  i.  e.  contained  in,  the 
O.  T.  Scripture."  A  closer  exanjination  of  the 
passage  will  perhaps  lead  to  a  different  conclusion. 
The  Apostle,  after  speaking  of  the  vision  on  the 
holy  mount,  goes  on,  "  VVe  have  as  something  yet 
firmer,  the  prophetic  word  "  (here,  prol)ably  includ- 
ing the  utterances  of  N.  T.  TrpocfirJTai,  as  well 
as  the  writings  of  the  0.  T.«)-  Men  did  well  to 
gi\e  heed  to  that  word.  They  needed  one  cau- 
tion in  dealing  with  it.  They  were  to  rememlier 
that  no  irpo<pT)rela  ypacprjs,  no  such  prophetic 
utterance  starting  from,  resting  on  a  ypacpi],'' 
came  from  the  iSia  firiAvais,  the  individual  power 
of  interpretation  of  the  speaker,  but  was,  like  the 
ypacp^  itself,  inspired.  It  was  the  law  of  irpo(p7ireia, 
of  the  later  as  well  as  the  earlier,  that  men  of  God 
spake,  "borne  along  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

(3.)  In  the  plural,  as  might  be  expected,  the 
collective  meaning  is  prominent.  Sometimes  we 
have  simply  at  ypa(pa'i  (Matt.  xxi.  42,  xxii.  29; 
John  V.  3.J;  Acts  xvii.  11;  1  Cor.  xv.  3).  Some- 
times Traaai  al  ypatpai  (l-uke  xxiv.  27).  The 
epithets  ayiai  (Kom.  i.  2),  iTpo(pr)TiKai  (Eom. 
xvi.  20),  are  sometimes  joined  with  it.  In  2  I'et. 
iii.  10,  we  find  an  extension  of  the  term  to  the 
epistles  of  St.  Paul;  but  it  remains  uncertain 
wliether  al  Aoiiral  ypa(pai  are  the  Scriptures  of 
the  O.  T.  exclusively,  or  include  other  writings, 
then  extant,  dealing  with  the  same  topics.  There 
seems  little  doubt  that  such  writings  did  exist. 
A  comparison  of  Koni.  xvi..  20  with  I'.ph.  iii.  5 
might  even  suggest  the  conclusion,  that  in  both 
there  is  the  ^lanie  assertion,  that  what  had  not  been 
-  revealed  before  was  now  man.fested  by  the  Spirit 
to  the  apostles  and  prophets  of  the  Church;  and 
60  that  the  -'prophetic  writings"  to  wdiich  St. 
Paul  refers,  are,  like  the  spoken  words  of  N.  T. 
prophets,  those  that  reveal  things  not  made  known 
before,  the  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  Christ. 

it  is  noticeaiile,  that  in  the  [spurious]  2d  Epistle 
of  Clement  of  Home  (c.  xi. )  we  have  a  long  citation 
of  this  nature,  not  from  the  0.  T.,  quoted  as  6 
npocpririKhs   \6yos  (comp.  2  Pet.  i.  I'J),  and  that 


«  'O  irpoiJjrjTiKbs  Ao-yos  is  used  by  Pliilo  of  the  words 
of  Moses  (i.''^.  Allei;.  iii.  14,  vol.  i.  p.  95.  ed.  Mang.). 
He,  of  course,  could  recognize  no  prophets  but  those 
of  the  0.  T.  Clement  of  Rome  [Psfic/o-Cleuient,  A.] 
;ii.  II)  uses  it  of  a  prophecy  not  included  in  the 
Can  >n 

''  So  in  the  only  other  instance  in  which  the  geni- 
iTe  is  found  (Kom.  xv.  4),  ^  TrapaxAticnf  tuv  yoaiiiiv 


SCYTHIAN 

in  the  1st  Epistle  (c.  xxiii.)  the  same  is  quoted  u 
7]  ypa<p7]-  Looking  to  the  special  lullness  of  the 
prophetic  gifts  in  the  Church  of  Corinth  (1  Cor 
i.  6,  xiv.  1),  it  is  obviously  probable  that  some  of 
the  spoken  prophecies  would  be  committed  to  writ- 
ing; and  it  is  a  striking  coincidence,  that  both  ttie 
apostolic  and  post-apostolic  references  are  connected, 
first  with  that  church,  and  next  with  that  of  Konie, 
which  was  so  largely  influenced  by  it. 

(4.)  In  one  passage,  to  Upa  ypd/x/^aTa  (2  Tim. 
iii.  15)  answers  to  "The  Holy  Scriptures'"  of  the 
A.  V.  Taken  by  itself,  the  word  niight,  as  in 
John  vii.  15,  Acts  xxvi.  24,  have  a  wider  range,  in- 
cluding the  whole  circle  of  Pabbinic  education. 
As  determined,  however,  by  the  use  of  other  Htl- 
lenistic  writers,  Philo  {Lfij.  ad  Caium,  vol.  ii.  p. 
574,  ed.  Mang.),  Josephus  {Ant.  pivoein.  3,  x.  10, 
§  4;  c.  A/lion.  i.  20),  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
it  is  accurately  translated  with  this  special  mean- 
ing. E.  H.  P. 

*  SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION. 

[Old  Testa.meist,  vol.  iii.  p.  2228  tf.J 

*  SCURVY.     [Medicine.] 

SCYTHIAN  {■S.Kve-ns--  ^nji/ifi]  occurs  in 
Col.  iii.  11,  as  a  generalized  term  for  rude,  igno- 
rant, degraded.  In  the  Gospel,  says  Paul,  "  there 
is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  circumcision  nor  uncir- 
cumcision,  b.arliarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free;  iiut 
Christ  is  all  and  in  all."  The  same  view  of  Sc\  thian 
barbarism  appears  in  2  Mace.  iv.  47,  and  3  Mace, 
vii.  5.  Eor  the  geographical  and  ethnographical 
relatiofis  of  tbe  term,  see  Diet,  of  6't"(/.  ii.  'J30- 
945.  The  Scythians  dwelt  mostly  on  the  north  of 
the  Black  Sea  and  the  Caspian,  stretching  thence 
indefinitely  into  inner  Asia,  and  were  regarded  liy 
the  ancients  as  standing  extremely  low  in  point  of 
intelligence  and  civilization.  Josephus  (f.  Aj>kn. 
ii.  37)  says,  ^Kv6ai  Se  <l>6vois  x''^''-povTis  avdpdnwp 
Ka\  I3paxv  T(iv  Qnplwv  oiacpipovrfs'.  and  Par- 
menio  {iqi.  Athen.  \.  221),  av7]p  yap  (Xkwv 
olvov,  us  v5<i>p  'iiriTos  'S.kvOkttI  <pwve^,  oi/Se 
Kainra  yiyvdiaicaiv-  lor  other  similar  testimonies 
see  Wetstein,  Nov.  Test.  vol.  ii.  p.  2'J2.  At  the 
same  time,  by  the  force  of  numbers,  and  by  their 
wildness  and  savage  ferocity,  the  Scythians  were  a 
dreaded  foe,  and  often  spread  slaughter  and  desola- 
tion through  the  lands  which  they  invaded  (see 
Rawlinson's  Ancient  Monwclites,  ii.  508-517).  It 
is  generall}-  allowed  that  they  are  the  hordes  meant 
under  the  name  of  Maoog  in  Ez.  xxxviii.  and 
xxxix.,and  are  also  the  warriors  whom  Jeremiah 
describes  as  so  terrible  (iv.-vi.).  Perha])s  it  may 
be  inferred  from  Col.  iii.  1 1  that  there  were  Scy- 
thians also  among  the  early  converts  to  Christianity. 
Many  of  this  peojile  lived  in  Greek  and  Koman 
lands,  and  could  have  heiird  the  (lospel  theie,  even 
if  some  of  the  first  preachers  had  not  penetr.ated 
into  Scythia  itself.  According  to  one  of  the  early 
Christian  traditions  it  was  the  mission  of.  the 
Apostle  Andrew  to  go  to  the  ScUhians  and  preach 
to  them  the  Gospel  (Euseb.  Hist,  t'ccles.  iii.  1). 

Herodotus  states  (i.  103-105)  that  the  Scythians 
made  an  incursion  through  Palestine  into  Egypt, 


is  the  counsel,  admonition,  drawn  from  the  Scriptures. 
Aoyos  rapaicA^o-eu)?  appears  in  Acts  xiii.  15  as  the  re- 
ceived term  for  such  an  address,  the  Sermon  of  the 
Synagogue.  napaK\-qai';  itself  was  so  closely  allied 
with  7rpo<|)7)Teia  (comp.  Barnabas  =  uiw  TrpotJiijTcias  = 
wibs  7rapaKA))o-ea)s),  that  the  expressions  of  the  twf 
ApoBtles  may  be  regarded  as  substantially  id<!Utical. 


SCYTHOPOLIS 

uder  Psammetichus,  the  coiiteniponir}-  of  Josiah. 
[n  this  way  some  would  account  tor  the  Greek 
Dame  of  15eth-shean,  ScylhojKilis.  H.  B.  H. 

SCYTHOP'OLIS  (2/fue(£j'  ttJais:  Peshito- 
Syriac,  Btisaii:  cicitas  Sci/tluifuin),  that  is,  "the 
2ity  of  the  Scythians,''  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  of  Jud. 
iii.  10  and  2  Mace.  xii.  29  only.  In  the  LXX. 
of  Judg.  i.  27,  however,  it  is  inserted  (in  both  the 
great  MSS.)  as  the  synonym  of  Betii-shean,  and 
this  identification  is  confirmed  by  the  narrative  of 
1  Mace.  V.  52,  a  parallel  account  to  that  of  2  Mace, 
xii.  29,  as  well  as  by  the  repeated  statements  of 
Josephus  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  22,  vi.  14,  §  8,  xii.  8,  §  5). 
He  uniformly  gives  the  name  in  the  contracted 
shape  (2/ci/0orroAij)  in  which  it  is  also  given  by 
Eusebius  {Oiwia.  passim),  I'liny  (//.  N.  v.  18), 
Strabo  (xvi.),  etc.,  etc.,  and  which  is  uiaccurately 
followed  in  the  A.  V.  Polybius  (v.  70,  §  -1)  employs 
the  fuller  form  of  the  LXX.  Beth-shean  has  now, 
like  so  many  other  places  in  the  Holy  Land,  re- 
gained its  ancient  name,  and  is  known  as  Beisdii 
only.  A  mound  close  to  it  on  the  west  is  called 
TtU  Shuk,  in  which  it  is  perhaps  just  possible  that 
a  trace  of  Scythopolis  may  linger. 

But  although  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  of  the 
identity  of  the  place,  there  is  considerable  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  name."  'I'iie 
LXX.  (as  is  evident  from  the  form  in  which  they 
present  it)  and  I'liny  (//.  ^V.  v.  IG  '')  attribute  it  to 
the  Scytliians,  who,  in  the  words  of  the  Byzantine 
historian,  George  Syncellus,  ''overran  Palestine, 
and  took  possession  of  Baisaii,  which  from  them  is 
called  Scythopolis."  This  has  been  in  modern 
times  generally  referred  to  the  invasion  recorded  by 
Herodotus  (i.  104-6),  when  the  Scythians,  after 
their  occupation  of  Media,  passed  tlirongh  Pales- 
tine on  their  road  to  Egypt  (about  n.  c.  (jOO  —  a 
few  years  before  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  l)y  Nebu- 
shadnezzar),  a  statement  now  recognized  as  a  real 
fact,  though  some  of  the  details  may  be  open  to 
question  {JJict.  cf  Gvoyr.  ii.  U-tO  b;  Rawhnson's 
Ileiod.  i.  216).  It  is  not  at  all  improliable  that 
either  on  their  passage  through,  or  on  their  return 
after  being  repulsed  by  Psanmietichus  (Herod,  i. 
105),  some  Scythians  may  have  settled  in  the  coun- 
try (Evvald,  (Jegch.  iii.  ii'Ji,  note);  and  no  place 
would  be  more  likely  to  attract  them  than  Bnsun 
—  fertile,  most  abundantly  watered,  and  in  an  ex- 
cellent military  position.  In  the  then  state  of  the 
Holy  Land  they  would  hardly  meet  with  much  re- 
sistance. 

lieland,  however  (apparently  incited  thereto  by 
his  doubts  of  the  truth  of  Herodotus'  account),  dis- 
carded this  explanation,  and  suggested  that  Scy- 
thopolis was  a  corruption  of  Succothopolis  —  the 
thiet  town  of  the  district  of  Succoth.  In  this  he  is 
supported  by  Gesetiius  {Notes  to  Burckluirdl,  p. 
I'^oS)  and  by  Grimm  {Kxey.  flandbuck  on  1  Mace. 


SEA 


2875 


«  The  "  modern  Greeks  "  are  said  to  derive  it  from 
ihcOtos,  a  hide  (Williams,  in  Diet,  of  Geonr.].  This  is, 
doubtless,  another  appearance  of  the  legend  so  well 
known  in  connection  with  the  foundation  of  Byrsa 
Carthage).  One  such  has  been  mentioned  in  refer- 
ence to  Hebron  under  Macuphelah  (vol.  ii.  p.  1729, 
note  f). 

■''  The  singular  name  N3'sa,  mentioned  in  this  pas- 
Uge  as  a  former  appellation  of  Scythopolis,  is  ideu ti- 
led by  Kwald  {G'-sch.  iv.  453)  with  Ntasli,  an  inver- 
(ion  of  (Beth-)  Shean,  actually  found  on  coins. 

"  2^,  Oh.    S^^,  Dan.  vii.  2,  3  :  9dKa.<r<Ta.  :   mare, 


y.  52).  Since,  however,  the  objection  of  Reland  to 
the  historical  truth  of  Herodotus  is  now  removed, 
the  necessity  for  this  suggestion  (certainly  most  in- 
genious) seems  not  to  exist.  The  distance  of  Suc- 
coth from  Beisan,  if  we  identify  it  with  SuhU,  is 
10  n>  les,  while  if  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Beke  are 
valid  it  would  lie  nearly  double  as  far.  And  it  is 
surely  gratuitous  to  suppose  that  so«  large,  inde- 
pendent, and  important  a  town  as  Beth-shean  was 
in  the  earlier  history,  and  as  the  remains  show  it 
to  have  been  in  the  Greek  period,  should  have  taken 
its  name  Irom  a  comparatively  insignificant  place 
at  a  long  distance  from  it.  Or.  Kobinson  {Bi/A. 
Bcs.  iii.  330)  remarks  with  justice,  that  had  the 
Greeks  derived  the  name  from  Succoth  they  woukl 
have  employed  that  name  in  its  translated  form  as 
5/frji'ai,  and  the  compound  would  have  been  Scen- 
opolis.  Keland's  derivation  is  also  dismissed  with- 
out hesitation  by  Ewald,  on  the  ground  that  the 
two  names  Succoth  and  Skythes  have  nothing  in 
comuion  {Gescli.  iii.  694,  nvti^).  Dr.  Kobinscu 
suggests  that,  after  all.  City  of  tlie  Scythicins  may 
be  right;  the  word  iScylhia  being  used  as  in  the 
N.  T.  as  equivalent  to  a  barliarian  or  sa\age.  In 
this  sense  he  thinks  it  may  have  been  apiilied  t^ 
the  wild  Araljs,  who  then,  as  now,  inhaliited  the 
ti/idi;  and  at  times  may  have  had  possession  of 
Beth-sheaTi. 

The  Canaanites  were  never  expelled  from  Beth- 
shean,  and  the  heathen  appear  to  have  alwaj  s  main- 
tained a  footing  there.  It  is  named  in  the  Misltna 
as  the  seat  of  idolatry  (Mishna,  Ahod<t,  Zar(t,  i.  4), 
and  as  containing  a  double  population  of  .lews  and 
heathens.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Roman  war 
(a.  d.  65)  the  heathen  rose  against  the  Jews  and 
massacred  a  large  number,  according  to  Josephus' 
{B.  J.  ii.  18,  §  3)  no  less  than  13,000,  in  a  wood  or 
grove  close  to  the  town.  Scythopolis  was  the 
largest  city  of  the  Decapolis,  and  the  only  one  of 
the  ten  which  lay  west  of  Jordan.  By  Euseliius 
and  Jerome  {Oiiom.  "  Bethsan  ")  it  is  character- 
ized as  ttSAis  iTri^7)fj.os  and  urbs  nobilis.  It  was 
surrounded  by  a  district  of  its  own  of  the  most 
alnindant  fertility.  It  Iiecame  the  seat  of  a  Chris- 
tian bishop,  and  its  name  is  found  in  the  li-.ts  of 
signatures  as  late  as  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
A.  D.  536.  The  latest  mention  of  it  under  the 
title  of  Scythopolis  is  probably  that  of  William 
of  Tyre  (xxii.  16,  26).  He  mentions  it  as  if  it 
was  then  actually  so-called,  carefulljr  explaining 
that  it  was  formerly  Beth-shan.  G. 

*  SCYTHOPOL'ITANS  (2«i;0o7roArTai  : 
Scythopulilie),  inhabitants  of  Scythopolis  (2 
Mace.  xii.  30).  -H. 

SEA.  The  Sea,  ydm,'^  is  used  in  Scripture  to 
denote  —  (L)  The  "  gathering  of  the  waters  "  {yd- 
mim)  encompassing  the  land,  or  what  we  call  in  a 
more  or  less  definite  sense  "  the  Ocean."     (2.)  Some 


from  nC,  not  used,  i.  q.  D^n,  or  n^n,  "  roar," 

T  t'  -    T   '  T    T  ' 

n  and  "*  being  interchanged.    Connected  with  this  is 

mnin  :  a(3u<r(ros  :  ahyssus,  "  the  deep  "  (Gen.  i.  2  ; 
.Ton.  ii.  5  ;  Oes.  p.  371).  It  also  means  the  west  COes. 
pp.  360,  598).  When  used  for  the  sea,  it  very  often, 
but  not  always,  takes  the  article. 

Other  words  for  the  sea  (in  A  V.  "  deep  ")  are  :  (1.) 

nbn!Jt2,   nbS!?n  (only   in   plural),  or   nb^!J  : 
T        :  '        T         ;  T 

aPva-a-o';,  pdOcy;:  nhy-rs'is,  profunrtum.     (2.)    V^ISP  : 

KaTaKKv<TtJ.6<: ;  rf(V»ivifm,  "  water  flood 'VPs.  xxix  10\ 


2876  SEA 

portion  of  this,  as  tlie  Mediterranean  Sea.  (3.)  In- 
land lakes,  whetlier  of  salt  or  fresh  water.  (4.)  Any 
great  collection  of  water,  as  the  rivers  Nile  or  f^u- 
phrates,  especially  in  a  state  of  overflow. 

1.  In  the  first  sense  it  is  used  in  Gen.  i.  2,  10, 
and  elsewhere,  as  Deut.  xxx.  13;  1  K.  x.  22:  Ps. 
xxiv.  2;  Job  xxvi.  8,  12,  xxxviii.  8;  see  Horn.  //. 
xiv.  301,  302,  and  Has.  Thtog.  107, 109 ;  and  2  Pet. 
iii.  5. 

2.  In  the  second,  it  is  used,  with  the  article  (a) 
of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  called  the  "  hinder,"  «  the 
"western,"  and  the  "utmost"  sea  (Deut.  xi.  24, 
xxxiv.  2 ;  -Joel  ii.  20) ;  "  sea  of  the  Philistines  "  (Ex. 
xsiii.  31);  "  the  great  sea  "  (Num.  xxxiv.  0,7;  Josh. 
XV.  47 ) ;  "  the  sea  "  (Gen.  xlix.  13 ;  Ps.  Ixxx.  11,  cvii. 
23 ;  1  K.  iv.  20,  Ac).  (6)  Also  frequently  of  the  Ped 
Sea  (Ex.  XV.  4;  Josh.  xxiv.  G),  or  one  of  its  gulfs 
(Num.  xi.  31;  Is.  xi.  15),  and  perhaps  (1  R.  s.  22) 
the  sea  traversed  by  Solomon's  fleet.    [Red  Sea.] 

3.  The  inland  lakes  termed  seas,  as  the  Salt  or 
Dead  Sea.      (See  the  special  articles.) 

4.  The  term  y&m,  like  the  Arabic  bahr^  is  also 
applied  to  great  rivers,  as  the  Nile  (Is.  xix.  5 ;  Am. 
viii.  8,  A.  V.  "  flood;  "  Nah.  iii.  8;  Ez.  xxxii.  2), 
the  Euphrates  (Jer.  li.  36).  (See  Stanley,  S.  </•  P. 
App.  p.  533.) 

The  qualities  or  characteristics  of  the  sea  and 
sea-coast  mentioned  in  Scripture  are,  (1.)  The  sand,* 
whose  abundance  on  the  coast  both  of  Palestine 
and  Egypt  furnishes  so  many  illustrations  (Gen^ 
xxii.  17,  xli.  49;  Judg.  vii.  12;  1  Sam.  xiii.  5;  1 
K.  iv.  20,  29;  Is.  x.  22;  Matt.  vii.  26;  Strabo, 
lib.  xvi.  758,  759;  Raunier,  Pal.  p.  45;  Robinson, 
ii.  34-38,  404 ;  Shaw,  Trav.  p.  280;  Hasselquist, 
Trav.  p.  119 ;  Stanley,  S.  f  P.  pp.  255,  260,  264), 
(2.)  The  sliore."  (3.)  Creeks  "^  or  inlets.  (4.)  Har- 
bors.''    (5.)  Waves/ or  billows. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  almost  all  the  figures 
of  speech  taken  from  the  sea  in  Scripture  refer 
either  to  its  power  or  its  danger,  and  among  the 
woes  threatened  in  punishment  of  disobedience,  one 
may  be  remarked  as  significant  of  the  dread  of  the 
sea  entertained  by  a  non-seafaring  people,  the  being 
brought  back  into  Egypt  "  in  ships  "  (Deut.  xxviii. 
68).  The  national  feehng  on  this  sulject  may  be 
contrasted  with  that  of  the  Greeks  in  reference  to 
the  sea.  [Commerce.]  It  may  be  remarked,  that, 
as  is  natural,  no  mention  of  the  tide  is  found  in 
Scripture. 

The  pla<#  "  where  two  seas  met  "  s  (Acts  xxvii. 
41 )  is  explained  by  Conybeare  and  Howson  as  a 
place  where  the  island  Salmonetta,  off  the  coast  of 
Malta  in  St.  Paul's  Bay,  so  intercepts  the  passage 
from  the  sea  without  to  the  bay  within  as  to  give 
the  appearance  of  two  seas,  just  as  Strabo  repre- 
sents the  appearance  of  the  entrance  from  the  IJos- 


"   ^"1~inS:   {9a\a<T(ja.  >))  eaxdrr) :     {mare)    novis- 
timum. 

Ij    Vin  ■   ajj.fx.O'; :  arena. 

c   P]"^n,  joined  with  Q**  :   napaXCa  yrj  '•  ^i't"^-     In 
Ben.  xlix.  13,  "haven  ;  "  Acts  xxvii.  39,  aiyiaXos- 
<i  ^"Hp^,  from  ^^^5,   "  break,"  only  in  Judg. 
.  17,  in  plural :  SiaKoivai :  partus  :  A.  V.  "  breaches." 

«  Tin^,  a  place  of  retreat :  Ai/nij)/ :  partus :  A.  V. 
''  haven." 

/  (1.)    v3,  lit.    a   heaf,   in  plural,  waves  :  xvixa : 
fwgites,  maf^ Jiuctuans.     (2.)  "'D"^,  or  HD'^  :    tjrt- 


SEA,  MOLTEN 

phorus  into  the  Euxine ;  but  it  seems  quite  as  likely 
that  by  the  "  place  of  the  doul)le  sea,"  is  meant 
one  where  two  currents,  caused  by  the  intervention 
of  the  island,  met  and  produced  an  eddy,  which 
made  it  desii-able  at  once  to  ground  the  ship  (Cony 
beare  and  Howson,  ii.  423;  Strabo,  ii.  124). 

H.  W.  P. 
*  SEA,  THE  GREAT.     [Sea,  2.] 

SEA,  MOLTEN.''  The  name  given  to  the 
great  brazen  '  laver  of  the  JMosaic  ritual.   [Layer.] 

In  the  place  of  the  laver  of  the  Tabernacle,  Solo- 
mon caused  a  laver  to  be  cast  for  a  similar  purpose, 
which  from  its  size  was  called  a  sea.  It  was  made 
partly  or  wholly  of  the  brass,  or  rather  copper, 
\vhich  had  been  captured  by  David  from  "  Tibhalh 
and  Chun,  cities  of  Hadarezer  king  of  Zobah " 
(1  K.  vii.  23-26;  1  Chr.  xviii.  8).  Its  dimensions 
were  as  follows:  Height,  5  cubits;  diameter,  10 
cubits  ;  circumference,  30  cubits  ;  thickness,  1 
handbreadth ;  and  it  is  said  to  have  been  capable 
of  containing  2.000,  or,  according  to  2  Chr.  iv.  5, 
3,000  baths.  Below  the  Lrim.''  there  was  a  double 
row  of  "  knops,"  ^'  10  (i.  e.  5  4-  5)  in  each  cubit. 
These  were  probably  a  running  border  or  double 
fillet  of  tendrils,  and  fruits,  said  to  be  gourds,  of  an 
oval  shape  (Celsius,  lli.ervb.  i.  397,  and  Jewish  au- 
thorities quoted  by  him).  The  brim  itself,  or  lip, 
was  wrought  "  like  the  brim  of  a  cup,  with  flowers ' 
of  lilies,"  i.  e.  curved  outwards  like  a  lily  or  lottTB 
flower.  The  la\er  stood  on  twelve  oxen,  three  to- 
wards each  quarter  of  the  heavens,  and  all  looking 
outwards.  It  was  mutilated  by  Ahaz,  by  being 
removed  from  its  liasis  of  oxen  and  placed  on  a 
stone  base,  and  was  finally  broken  up  by  the  Assyr- 
ians (2  K.  xvi.  14,  17,  XXV.  13). 

Josephus  says  tllat  the  form  of  the  sea  was  hemi- 
spherical, and  that  it  held  3,000  baths;  arwl  he  else- 
where tells  us  that  the  bath  was  equal  to  72  Attic 
leVrai,  or  1  /xerpTjTTjs  =  8  gallons  5.12  [jints 
(Joseph.  Ai/t.  viii.  2,  §  9,  and  3,  §  5.  The  question 
arises,  which  occurred  to  the  Jewish  writers  them- 
selves, how  the  contents  of  the  laver,  as  they  are 
given  in  the  sacred  text,  are  to  be  reconciled  with 
its  dimensions.  At  the  rate  of  1  bath  =  8  gallons 
5.12  pints,  2,000  b.aths  would  amount  to  aliout 
17,250  gallons,  and  3,000  (the  more  precisely  stated 
reading  of  2  Chr.  iv.  5)  would  amount  to  25,920 
gallons.  Now,  supposing  the  vessel  to  be  hemi- 
spherical, as  Josephus  says  it  was,  the  cubit  to  be 
=  20i  inches  (20  6250),  and  the  palm  or  hund- 
I)readth  =  3  inches  (2.9464,  Wilkinson,  Anc.  K;/ypt. 
ii.  258),  we  find  the  following  proportions:  From 
the  height  (5  cubits  =  102^  inches)  subtract  the 
thickness   (3  inches),  the  axis  of  the  hemisphere 


rpi\liti.$  ■■  fluctus ;  only  in  Ps.  sciii.  3.     (3.)  "IStpO  : 

/neTewpia-fAos  :  gvrges, elatio :  "a  breaker"    (4.)  HttS 
(Job  ix.  8) :  fuctiis ;  lit.  "a  high  place  '  (Ez.  xx.  29). 
9  ToTTOs  Si6oAo<7-(ros  :  locus  ditnalassus. 

h  p'^2^72  :  x^'Tos  ■■  /"sil'S. 
J  TIZW  :   YeiAos  :   lahrum. 

T    T 

^  n^27p2  :  VTTOo-njpi'yuaTa  :  sculptura  :  properly 
"  gourds." 

'  ]tyil27  n"ri5  :  /SAao-TOS  KpCvuv  :  folium  repandi 
lilii.  The  passage  literally  is,  "and  its  lip  (was)  llk« 
work  (such  as)  a  cup's  lip,  a  lily-flower." 


SEA,  MOLTEN 

woiAd  he  99 J  inches,  and  its  contents  in  gallons,  at 
277^  cubic  inches  to  the  gallon,  would  be  about 
7,500  gallons;  ortakinj;  the  cubit  at  22  inches,  the 
contents  would  reach  10,045  gallons  —  an  amount 
still  far  below  the  required  quantity.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  hemispherical  vessel,  to  contain  17,250  gal- 
lons, must  have  a  depth  of  1 1  feet  nearly,  or  rather 
more  than  6  cubits,  at  the  highest  estimate  of  22 
inches  to  the  cubit,  exclusive  of  the  thickness  of 
the  vessel.  To  meet  the  difficulty,  we  may  imag- 
ine—  (1.)  An  erroneous  reading  of  the  numbers. 
(Z  ,  We  may  imagine  the  laver,  like  its  prototype 
in  the  Tabernacle,  to  have  had  a  "  foot,"  which  may 
have  been  a  basin  which  received  the  water  as  it 
was  drawn  out  by  taps  from  the  laver,  so  that  the 
priests  might  be  said  to  wash  "  at  "  "  not  "  in  "  it 
(Ex.  XXX.  18,  19;  2  Chr.  iv.  6).  (3.)  We  may 
suppose  the  laver  to  have  had  another  shape  than 
the  hemisphere  of  Josephus.  The  Jewish  writers 
supposed  that  it  had  a  square  hollow  base  for  .3 
cubits  of  its  height,  and  2  cubits  of  the  circular 
form  above  (Lightfoot,  Descr.  Tempi,  vol.  i.  p. 
647).  A.  far  more  probable  suggestion  is  that  of 
Thenius,  in  which  Keil  agrees,  that  it  was  of  a 
bulging  form  below,  but  contracted  at  the  mouth 
to  the  dimensions  named  in  1  K.  vii.  23  (4.)  A 
fourth  supposition  is  perhaps  tenable,  that  when 
it  is  said  the  laver  contained  2,000  or  3,000  baths, 
the  meaning  is  that  the  supply  of  water  required 
for  its  use  amounted,  at  its  utmost,  to  that  quan- 
tity. The  quantity  itself  of  water  is  not  surpris- 
ing, when  we  remember  the  quantity  mentioned  as 
the  supply  of  a  private  house  for  purification, 
namely,  6  amphorae  of  2  or  3  firkins  (/xfrpriTai) 
each,  i.  e.  from  16  to  24  gallons  each  (John  ii.  6). 


Hypothetical  restoration  of  the  Laver.     From  Keil. 


The  laver  is  said  to  have  been  supplied  in  earlier 
days  by  the  Gibeonites,  but  afterwards  by  a  conduit 
from  the  pools  of  Bethlehem.  Ben-Katin  made 
twelve  cocks  (epistomia)  for  drawing  off  the  water, 
and  invented  a  contrivance  for  keeping  it  pure 
during  the  night  {./umn,  iii.  10;  Tumid,  iii.  8; 
Middoth,  iii.  6;  Lightfoot,  I.  c).  Mr.  Layard 
mentions  some  circular  vessels  found  at  Xineveh, 
of  6  feet  in  diameter  and  2  feet  in  depth,  which 
seemed  to  answer,  in  point  of  use,  to  the  Molten 
Sea,  though  far  inferior  in  size;  and  on  the  bas- 
reliefs  it  is  remarkable  that  cauldrons  are  repre- 
sented supported  i)y  oxen  (Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab. 
p.  180;  see  Thenius  on  1  K.  vii.;  and  Keil,  Arch. 
Bibl.  i.  127,  and  pl.*3,  fig.  i.).  H.  W.  P. 


«  ^3i27p  :   ef  avToO  :  A.  V.  "  thereat  "  (Ex.  xxx.  19). 

'2  :  iv  a-vTJj  (2  Chr.  iv.  6). 

*  In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  also  in  iv.  49. 

c  In  Zechanah  and  Joel,  as  an  antithesis  to  "  the 
hinder  sea."  /.  e.  tlie  Mediterranean  ;  wlience  the  ob- 
Kare  rendering  of  the  A.  V.,  "  former  sea." 


SEA,  THE  SALT  287  ( 

SEA,  THE  SALT  {H^'^n  C\  jf  ed\aa^a 
tSiu  aAoJf ;  Q.  1}  oKvKT],  and  ttjs  oAuk^s;  d.  a\6s- 
in  Gen.  mare  sfdig,  elsewhere  m.  salsissinium,  ex- 
cept .Josh.  iii.  quod  nunc  vocatur  moiiuum).  The 
usual,  and  perhaps  the  most  ancient  name  for  the 
remarkable  lake,  which  to  the  Western  world  is 
now  generally  known  as  the  Dead  Sea. 

I.  (1.)  It  is  found  only,  and  but  rarely,  in  the 
Pentateuch  (Gen.  xiv.  3;  Num.  xxxiv.  3.  12;  Deut. 
iii.  17*),  and  in  the  book  of  Joshua  (iii.  16,  xii.  3, 
XV.  2,  5,  xviii.  19). 

(2.)  Another,  and  possibly  a  later  name,  is  the 

Sea  of  the  Arabah  (n3'^57n  72"^ :  ddXacraa 
"Apa^a;  ij  6dK.  "Apa^a;  ri  dd\.  Trjs  ''Apa^a'- 
via  re  suliludinis,  or  deserti ;  A.  V.  "Sea  of  the 
plain"),  which  is  found  in  Deut.  iv.  49,  and  2  K. 
xiv.  25;  and  combined  with  the  former — "the  sea 
of  the  Arabah,  the  salt  sea"  —  in  Deut.  iii.  17; 
Josh.  iii.  16,  xii.  3. 

(3.)  In  the  prophets  (Joel  ii.  20;  Ez.  xlvii.  18, 
Zech.  xiv.  8)  it  is  mentioned  by  the  title  of  the 

Eastc  Sea  C^^inij^n  C^H  :  in  Ez.  tV  ddkaa- 
aav  T-r]v  irphs  avaroAas  ^oti/iKooi'OSi^^  in  Joel  and 
Zech.  rr?;/  dd\.  tV  Trpdirnju.  mare  (rritidale). 
(4.)  In  Ez.  xlvii.  8,  it  is  styled,  without  previous 

reference,  the  sea  (D*i^),  and  distinguished  from 
"the  great  sea"  —  the  Mediterranean  (ver.  10). 

(5. )  Its  connection  with  Sodom  is  first  suggested 
in  the  Bible  in  the  book  of  2  Ksdras  (v.  7)  by  the 
name  "  Sodomitish  sea"  {mare  Sodomiticum). 

(6.)  In  the  Talmudical  books  it  is  called  both  the 

«  Sea  of  Salt  "  (Sflbm  Sn"*),  and    "  Sea  of 

Sodom  "  (miD  hw  ^12'^).  See  quotations  from 
Talmud  and  Midrash  Tehillim,  by  Keland  {PaL  p. 
237). 

(7.)  Josephus,  and  before  him  Diodorus  Siculus 
(ii.  48,  xix.  98),  names  it  the  Asphaltic  Lake  — 
7]  'Aa(pa\T7Tis  Kifivt]  {Ant.  i.  9,  iv.  5,  §  1,  ix.  10, 
§  1;  B.  J.  i.  33,  §  5,  iii.  10,  §  7,  iv.  8,  §  2,  4), 
and  once  A.  r;  a.fffpa.\Tocp6pos  {Ant.  xvii.  6,  §  5) 
Also  {Ant.  V.  1,  §  22)  ^  SoSoyUiTis  Kiixvr). 

(8.)  The  name  "  Dead  Sea"  appears  to  have  been 
first  used  in  Greek  {ddXaaaa  viKpd)  by  Pausaniaa 
(v.  7)  and  Galen  (iv.  9),  and  in  Latin  {mare  mor- 
tuum)  by  Justin  (.xxxvi.  3,  §  6),  or  rather  by  the 
older  historian,  Trogus  Pompeiius  (cir.  b.  c.  10), 
whose  work  he  epitomized.  It  is  employed  also  by 
Eusebius  {Omtm.  'S6So/j.a)-  The  expressions  of 
Pausanias  and  Galen  imply  that  the  name  was  in 
use  in  the  country.  And  this  is  corroborated  Ijy 
the  expression  of  Jerome  {C'omm.  on  Dan.  xi.  45), 
"  mare  ....  quod  nunc  appellatur  nior- 
tuuni."  The  Jewish  writers  appear  never  to  have 
used  it,  and  it  has  become  established  in  modern 
literature,  ii'om  the  belief  in  the  very  exaggerated 
stories  of  its  deadly  character  and  gloomy  aspect, 
which  themselves  probably  arose  out  of  the  name, 
and  were  due  to  the  preconceived  notions  of  the 
travellers  who  visited  its  shores,  or  to  the  implicit 


d  The  version  of  the  LXX.  is  remarkable,  as  intro- 
ducing the  name  of  Phoenicia  in  both  vv.  18  and  19. 
This  may  be  either  an  equivalent  of  Eu-gedi.  originally 
Hazazon-tamar,  the  "City  of  Palm-trees"  (0ot>'i<c<oi' ) ; 
or  may  arise  out  of  a  corruption  of  Kaclmoiii  into 
Kanaan,  which  in  this  version  is  occasionally  rendered 
by  Phoenicia.  The  only  warrant  for  it  in  the  existing 
Hebrew  text  is  the  name  Tamar(="a  palm,"  and 
rendered  Qaifxav  km,  "toifiKoifO!)  in  ver.  19. 


2878 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


faith  with  wliich  they  received  the  statements  of 
their  giiicfes.  'J'hus  Maundeville  (ch.  ix.)  says 
it  is  called  the  Dead  Sea  because  it  inoveth  not, 
but  is  ever  still — the  fact  being  that  it  is  fre- 
quently agitated,  and  that  when  in  motion  its 
waves  have  great  force.  Hence  also  the  fable  that 
no  birds  could  fly  across  it  alive,  a  notion  which 
the  experience  of  ahiiost  every  modern  traveller  to 
Palestine  would  contradict. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

(0.)  The  Arabic  name  is  Bahr  Lul,  the  "  Sea  of 
Lot."  The  name  of  Lot  is  also  specially  connected 
with  a  small  piece  of  land,  sometimes  island  some- 
times peninsula,  at  the  north  end  of  the  lake. 

IL  (1.)  The  so-called  D]5AD  Sea  is  the  final  re- 
ceptacle of  the  river  Jordan,  the  lowest  and  largest 
of  the  three  lakes  which  interrupt  the  rush  of  its 
downward  course.  It  is  the  deepest  portion  of  that 
very  deep  natural  fissure  which  runs  like  a  furrow 


Map  and  Longitudmvl  Section  (fiom  noith  to  south)  ot  the  Dead  Sea,  from  the  Observations,  Surveys,  and 
i^ouudiugs  ot  L\nch,  Robinson,  De  baulcy.  Van  de  Velde,  and  others,  drawn  under  the  superintendence  of 
Mr.  Grove  by  Trelawney  Saunders,  and  engraved  by  J.  D.  Cooper. 

References.  —  \.  Jericho.  2.  Ford  of  Jordan.  3  Wady  Goumran.  4.  Wady  Zurka  Ma'in.  5.  Ras  el-Fesh 
"khah.  6.  Ain  Terabeh.  7.  Ras  Mersed.  8.  Wady  Mojib.  9.  Ain  Jidy.  10.  Birket  el  Khulil.  11.  Seb- 
beh.  12.  Wady  Zuweirah.  12.  Uui  Zoghal.  14.  Khashm  Dsdum.  15.  Wady  Fikreh.  16.  Wady  el-Jeib. 
17.  Wady  Tufileh.  18.  Ghor  es-Safieh.  19.  Plain  es-Sabkah.  20.  Wady  ed-Dra"ah.  21.  The  Peninsula. 
22.  The  Lagoon.     23.  The  Frank  Mountain.     24.  Bethleheui.     25.   Hebron. 

The  dotted  lines  crossing  and  recrossing  the  Lake  show  the  places  of  the  tranvei-se  sections  given  on  the  oppo- 
site page. 


from  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  to  the  range  of  Lebanon, 
and  from  the  range  of  Lebanon  to  the  extreme 
north  of  .Syria.  It  is  in  fact  a  pool  left  by  the 
ocean,  in  its  retreat  from  what  there  is  reason 
to  believe  was  at  a  very  remote  period  a  channel 
connecting  the  Mediterranean  with  the  Red  Sea. 
As  the  most  enduring  result  of  the  great  geological 
iperatiou  which  deteruiiiied  the  present  form  of  the 


country  it  may  be  called  without  exaggeration  the 
key  to  the  physical  geography  of  the  Holy  Land. 
It  is  therefore  in  every  way  an  object  of  extreme 
interest.  The  probable  conditions  of  the  formation 
of  the  lake  will  be  alluded  to  in  the  course  of  this 
article:  we  shall  now  attempt  to  describe  its  dimen- 
sions, ajipearance,  and  natural  features. 

2.  Viewed  on  the  map,  the  lake  is  of  an  oblong 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

„^    ,.      1.  From  Aiii  i'eshkhah  to  E.  shore,     v.^f 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


•2879 


"t.  Stow 

the  W. 

shore  to  the  N.  poin 

t  of  Peninsula 

fl 

:^T:zf: 

J  500 

\  ^/ 

I 


Forfl  near  S.  end 
ot  Peninsula. 


Across  tlie  Lajroon  from  E.  to  W. 


I'ransverse  Sections  (from  west  to  east)  of  the  Dead 
Sea  ;  plotted  for  the  first  time,  from  the  Souiidinps 
given  by  Lynch  on  the  Map  in  his  Nanntivi  of  ihe 
U.  S.  Expedition,  etc.,  London,  1849.  The  spots  at 
which  the  Section.^  were  taken  are  indicated  on  the 
Map  (oppo.'iite)  by  the  dotted  lines  The  deptl-s  are 
given  in  English  feet. 

N.  B  — For  the  sake  of  clearness,  the  horizontal 
*od  vertical  scales  for  these  Sections  have  been  en- 
ATged  from  those  adopted  for  the  Map  auj  Longitiidi- 
uj  Section  on  the  opposite  page. 


form,  of  tolerably  regular  contour,  interru])ted  only 
by  a  large  and  long  peninsula  which  projects  from 
the  eastern  shore,  near  its  southern  end,  and  vir- 
tually divides  the  expanse  of  the  watfr  into  two 
portions,  connected  by  a  long,  narrow,  and  some- 
what devious  passage.  Its  longest  axis  is  situated 
nearly  north  and  south.  It  lies  between  ;il°  6' 
•20"  and  .31°  4G'  N.  lat.,  nearly;  and  thus  its  water 
sm-face  is  from  N.  to  S.  as  nearly  as  possible  40 
geographical,  or  46  English  miles  long.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  lies  between  3.5°  24'  and  35°  37' 
east  lung.,"  nearly;  and  its  greatest  width  (some  3 
miles  S.  of  Ain  Jiihj)  is  about  9*  geographical  miles, 
or  10  j  English  miles.  The  ordinary  are^f  the  up- 
per portion  is  about  174  square  geographical  miles  ; 
of  the  channel  29;  and  of  the  lower  portion,  here 
alter  staled  "the  lagoon,"  4(j;  in  all  about  2.50 
square  geographical  miles.  The.se  dimensions  are 
not  very  dissimilar  to  those  of  the  Lake  of  (ieneva. 
They  are,  however,  as  will  be  seen  further  on,  sub- 
ject to  considerable  variation  according  to  the  time 
of  the  year. 

At  its  northern  end  the  lake  receix-es  the  stream 
of  the  Jordan:  on  its  eastern  side  the  Zurlct  J/rt'jn 
(the  ancient  Callirrhoe,  and  possibly  the  more  an- 
cient en-Eglaim),  the  Majlb  (the  Arnon  of  the 
Bible),  and  the  Beni-Heiiind.  On  the  south  the 
Kuraliy  or  tl-Ahsy ;  and  on  the  west  that  of  Ain 
■lidij.  These  are  probably  all  perennial,  though 
varialile  streams;  but,  in  addition,  the  beds  of  the 
torrents  which  lead  through  the  mountains  east 
and  west,  and  over  the  fiat  shelving  plains  on  both 
north  and  south  of  the  lake,  show  that  in  the 
winter  a  very  large  quantity  of  water  must  be 
poured  into  it.  There  are  also  all  along  the  west- 
ern side  a  considerable  number  of  springs,  some 
Iresb,  some  warm,  some  salt  and  fetid — which 
appear  to  run  continually,  and  all  find  their  way, 
more  or  less  absorbed  by  the  sand  and  shingle  of 
the  lieach,  into  its  waters.  The  lake  has  no  visible  <^ 
outlet. 

3.  Excepting  the  hist  circumstance,  nothing  has 
yet  been  stated  about  the  Dead  Sea  that  may  not 
lie  stated  of  numerous  other  inland  lakes.  The 
depression  of  its  surface,  however,  and  the  depth 
wliicli  it  attains  below  that  surface,  combined  with 
the  alisence  of  any  outlet,  render  it  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  spots  on  the  glolie.  According  to  the 
oliservations  of  Lieut.  Lyncli,  the  surface  of  the  lake 
in  May,  1848,  was  1,310.7  ^  feet  below  the  level  of 

"  The  longitudes  and  latitudes  are  given  with  car<» 
by  Van  de  Velde  {Mem.  p.  65),  but  they  can  none  of 
them  be  implicitly  trusted. 

(<  Lynch  says  9  to  9j  ;  Dr.  Robinson  says  9  (i.  509) 
The  ancient  writers,  as  is  but  natural,  estimated  its 
dimensions  very  inaccurately.  Diodorus  states  the 
length  as  500  stadia,  or  about  50  miles,  and  breadth 
63.  or  6  miles.  Joseph  us  extends  the  length  to  580 
suidia,  and  the  breadth  to  160.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
accuse  him.  on  this  account,  of  willful  exaggeration. 
Nothing  is  more  difficult  to  estimate  accurately  than 
the  extent  of  a  sheet  of  water,  especially  one  which 
varies  so  nuich  in  appearance  as  the  Dead  Sea.  As 
regards  the  length,  it  is  not  impossible  that  at  the 
time  of  Josephus  the  water  extended  over  the  southern 
pliii),  which  would  make  the  entire  length  over  50 
geographical  miles. 

o  Nor  can  there  be  any  invisible  one :  the  distant„ 
of  the  surface  below  that  of  the  ocean  alone  rendei.. 
it  impossible  ;  and  there  is  no  motive  *br  supposing  it. 
Iiecause  the  evaporation  (see  note  to  §  4i  is  amply 
sufficient  to  carrv  ofl'  i!k>  suiiply  frnin  ,vithoiit. 

'/  Tl'is  tjijure  was  obtaiueJ  b.\  runuiiig  levels  from 


2880 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


the  Mediterranean  at  Jaffa  (Repm't  of  Secretary  of 
Niivy,  etc..  8vo,  p.  •2-3),  and  although  we  cannot 
Rlisokitely  rely  on  the  accuracy  of  that  dimension, 
still  there  iS  reason  to  believe  that  it  is  not  very 
far  from  the  fact.  The  measurements  of  the  depth 
of  the  lake  taken  by  the  same  party  are  probably 
more  trustworthy.  The  expedition  consisted  of 
sailors,  who  were  here  in  their  element,  and  to 
whom  taking  soundings  was  a  matter  of  every  day 
occurrence.  In  the  upper  portion  of  the  lake, 
north  of  the  peninsula,  seven  cross  sections  were 
obtained,  six  of  which  are  exhibited  on  the  pre- 
ceding page."  They  show  this  portion  to  be  a 
perfect  ba^n,  descending  rapidly  till  it  attains,  at 
about  one-third  of  its  length  from  the  north  end, 
a  depth  of  1,308  ^  feet.  Immediately  west  of  the 
upper  extremity  of  the  peninsula,  however,  this 
depth    decreases    suddenly   to    336    feet,  then    to 


Ain  Teriibek  up  the  Wddij  Ras  el- Ghiiireir  and  Wady 
en-Nar  to  Jerusalem,  and  thence  by  R;(iuleh  to  Jafi'a. 
It  seems  to  have  been  usually  assumed  as  accurate, 
and  as  settling  the  quehiion.  The  elements  of  error 
iu  leveling  across  such  a  country  are  very  great,  and 
even  practiced  surveyors  would  be  liable  to  mistake, 
unless  by  the  adoption  of  a  series  of  checks  which  it 
is  incouceivable  that  Lynch's  party  can  have  adopted. 
The  very  fact  that  no  datum  on  the  beach  is  men- 
tioned, and  that  they  appear  to  have  leveled  from  the 
theu  surface  of  the  water,  shows  that  the  part\'  was 
not  directed  by  a  practiced  leveler,  and  casts  suspicion 
over  all  the  observations.  Lynchs  observations  with 
the  barometer  (p.  12)  gave  1,231.589  feet  —  82  feet  less 
depression  than  that  mentioned  above.  The  e-xistence 
of  the  depression  was  for  a  long  time  unknown.  Even 
Scetzen  (i.  425)  believed  that  it  lay  higher  than  the 
ocean.  Marmont  (Voyage,  iii.  61l  calculates  the 
Mount  of  Olives  at  747  metres  above  the  Mediterra- 
nean, and  then  estimates  the  Dead  Sea  at  500  metres 
below  the  Mount.  The  fact  was  first  ascertained  by 
Sloore  and  Beek  in  March,  1837,  by  boiling  water  ; 
but  they  were  unable  to  arrive  at  a  figure.  It  may  be 
well  here  to  give  a  list  of  the  various  observations  on 
the  level  of  the  lake,  made  by  difi'erent  travellers  :  — 


Eng.  tt. 

Apr.  1837 

A'on  Schubert    . 

Barom. 

637. 

1838 

De  Bertou    .   .  . 

Barom. 

1,374.7 

1838 

Russegger    .  .  . 

Barom. 

1,429.2 

1841 

Symouds  .... 

Trignom. 

1.312.2 

1845 

Ton  Wildenbruch 

Barom. 

1,446.3 

May,  1848 

Lynch    

Bariim. 

1,234.6 

Mav,  IS48 

Lvnch    

Level 

1,316.7 

Nov.  1850 

Rev.  G.W.  Bridges 

Aneroid 

1,367. 

Oct.  27. 1855 

Poole 

Aneroid 

1,313.5 

Apr.  (?j  1857 

Roth 

Barom. 

1,374.6 

—  See  Petermann,  in  Geosr.  Journal,  xviii.  90;  for 
Roth,  Petermann's  Mittkeilunaen,  1858,  p.  3 ;  for 
Poole,  Geni;r.  Joiirn.  xxvi.  58.  Mr.  Bridges  has 
kindly  communicated  to  the  writer  the  results  of  his 
ob.<ervations.  Captain  Symonds'  operations  are 
brietly  described  by  Jlr.  Hamilton  in  his  addresses  to 
the  iliiyal  Geogr.  Society  in  1842  and  1843.  He 
carried  levels  across  from  Jaffa  to  Jerusalem  by  two 
routes,  and  thence  to  the  Dead  Sea  by  one  route  : 
the  ultimate  difference  between  the  two  observations 
was  le.'is  than  12  feet  (Geogr.  Journal,  xii.  p.  Ix.  ;  xiii. 
p.  Ixxiv.).  One  of  the  sets,  ending  in  1.3122  feet,  is 
^iven  in  Van  de  Velde's  Memoir,  pp.  75-81. 

Widely  as  the  results  in  the  table  differ,  there  is  yet 
enough  agreement  among  them,  and  with  Lynch's 
level-observation,  to  warrant  the  statement  in  the  text. 
.Chose  of  Symonds,  Lynch,  ami  Poole,  are  remarkably 
elose.  when  the  great  difficulties  of  the  case  are  con- 
sidered ;  but  it  must  be  admitted  that   those   of  De 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

114,  and  by  the  time  the  west  point  of  the  pe- 
ninsula "is  reached,  to  18  feet.  Below  this  the 
southern  portion  is  a  mere  lagoon  of  ahnost  even 
bottom,  \-arying  in  depth  from  12  feet  in  the 
middle  to  3  at  the  edges.  It  will  be  convenient  to 
use  the  term  '•  lagoon  "  <^  in  speaking  of  the  south- 
ern portion. 

The  depre.ssion  of  the  lake,  both  of  its  surface 
and  its  bottom,  below  that  of  the  ocean  is  at  pres- 
ent quite  without  parallel.  The  lake  Assal,  on  the 
Somali  coast  of  Eastern  Africa  opposite  Aden,  fur- 
nishes the  nearest  approach  to  it.  Its  surface  ia 
said  to  be  57(1  feet  below  that  of  the  ocean.'' 

4.  The  level  of  the  lake  is  Halle  to  variation 
according  to  the  season  of  the  year.  Shice  it  haa 
no  outlet,  its  level  is  a  balance  struck  between  the 
amount  of  water  poured  into  it,  and  the  amount 
given  olf  by  evaporation.*     If  more  water  is  sup- 


Bertou,  Roth,  and  Bridges  are  equally  close.  The 
time  of  year  must  not  be  overlooked.  Lynch's  level 
was  taken  about  midway  between  the  winter  rains  and 
the  autumnal  drought,  and  therefore  is  consistent  with 
that  of  Poole^takeu  5  months  later,  at  the  very  end  of 
the  dry  season. 

"  The  map  in  Lynch's  private  ISarralive  (London, 
1849),  from  which  these  sections  have,  for  the  first 
time,  been  plotted,  is  to  a  much  larger  scale,  contains 
more  details,  and  is  a  more  valuable  document,  than 
that  in  his  Official  Report,  4to  (Baltimore,  1852),  or 
his  Report, _?,vo  (Senate  Papers,  80th  Congr.,  2d  Ses- 
sion, No.  34). 

6  Tliree  other  attempts  have  been  made  to  obtain 
soundings,  but  in  neither  case  with  any  very  practical 
result.  (1. )  By  Messrs.  Moore  and  Beek.  in  March,  1837 
They  record  a  maximum  depth  of  2,400  ft.  between  Ain 
Terabeli  and  W.  Zurka,  and  a  little  north  of  the  same 
2,220  ft.  (See  Palmer's  Ulup,  to  wliich  these  observa- 
tions were  contributed  by  Mr.  Beek  himself:  also 
Geogr.  Journ.  vii.  456.)  Lynch's  soundings  at  nearly 
the  same  spots  give  1,170  and  1,309  ft.  respectively,  at 
once  reversing  and  greatly  diminishing  the  depths. 
(2.)  Captain  Symonds,  R.  E.,  is  said  to  have  been 
upon  the  lake  and  to  have  obtained  soundings,  tlie 
deepest  of  which  was  2,100  ft.  But  for  this  the  writer 
can  find  uo  authority  beyond  the  statement  of  Ritter 
(Erdkunde,  "Jordan,"  p.  704),  who  does  not  name  the 
source  of  his  information.  (3.)  Lieut.  Molyneux,  R. 
N.,  in  Sept.  1847,  took  three  soundings.  The  first  of 
these  seems  to  have  beSn  about  opposite  Ain  Jidy,  and 
gave  1,350  ft.,  though  without  certainly  reaching  the 
bottom.  The  other  two  wei'e  further  north,  and  gave 
1,068  and  1,098  ft.  (Geogr.  Journ.  xviii.  pp.  127,  1'28). 
The  greiitest  of  these  appears  to  be  about  coincident 
with  Lynch's  1.104  feet  ;  but  there  is  so  much  vague- 
ness about  the  spots  at  which  they  were  taken,  that  no 
use  can  be  made  of  the  results.  Lynch  and  Beek  agree 
in  representing  the  west  side  as  more  gradual  in  slope 
than  the  east,  which  has  a  depth  of  more  than  900  ft. 
close  to  the  brink. 

c  Irby  and  Mangles  always  term  this  part  "the 
back-water,"  and  reserve  the  name  "  Dead  Sea  "  for 
the  northern  and  deeper  portion. 

d  Murchison  in  Geogr.  Journal,  xiv.  p.  cxvi.  A 
brief  description  of  this  lake  is  given  in  an  interesting 
paper  by  Dr.  Buist  on  the  principal  depressions  of  the 
globe,  reprinted  in  the  Edinb.  N.  Phil.  Journal,  April, 
1855. 

e  This  subject  has  been  ably  and  carefully  investi- 
gated by  the  late  Professor  Marchand,  the  eminent 
chemist  of  Halle,  in  his  paper  on  the  Dead  Sea  in  the 
Joirrncll  fiir  prakt.  Chemie,  Leipzig,  1849,  pp.  371-374. 
The  result  of  his  calculations,  founded  on  the  observa- 
tions of  Shaw,  A.  von  Humboldt,  and  Balard,  is  that 
while  the  average  quantity  supplied  cannot  vxceeo 
20,000.000  cub.  ft.,  the  evaporation  may  be  taken  %i 
24,000,000  cub.  ft.  per  diem. 


SEA,  IHE  SALT 

plied  than  the  evaporation  can  carry  off,  the  lake 
will  rise  until  the  evaporating  surface  is  so  nnich 
increased  as  to  restore  tlie  balance.  On  the  otlier 
hand,  should  the  evaporation  drive  off  a  larger 
quantity  than  the  supply,  tlie  lake  will,  descend 
until  the  surface  becomes  so  small  as  again  to  re- 
store the  balance.  'I'liis  fluctuation  is  increased  by 
the  fact  that  tlie  winter  is  at  once  the  time  when 
the  clouds  and  streams  supply  most  water,  and 
when  the  evaporation  is  least ;  while  in  sunmier,  on 
the  other  hand,  when  the  evaporation  goes  on  most 
furiously,  the  supply  is  at  its  mininnnn.  The 
extreme  differences  in  level  resulting  from  these 
causes,  have  not  yet  been  carefully  observed.  I'r. 
Kobinson,  in  May,  1S'-i8,  from  the  lines  of  drift- 
wood which  he  found  beyond  the  then  brink  of  the 
water  in  the  southern  part  of  the  lake,  judged  that 
the  level  must  be  sometimes  from  10  to  15  feet 
higher  than  it  then  was  (fiiU.  Jles.  i.  51."),  ii.  115); 
but  this  was  only  the  coinnienoement  of  the  sum- 
mer, and  by  tlie  end  of  September  the  water 
would  probably  have  fallen  much  lower.  The 
writer,  in  the  begiiming  of  September,  1858,  after 
a  very  hot  summer,  e>tinrited  the  line  of  drift-wood 
along  the  steep  be.ach  of  the  north  end  at  from 
10  to  12  feet  above  the  then  level  of  the  water. 
Robinson  (i.  50G)  mentions  a  bank  of  shingle  at 
Ain  July,  6  or  8  feet  above  the  then  (May  10)  level 
of  the  water,  but  which  bore  marks  of  having  been 
covered.  Lynch  {Nan:  p.  289)  says  that-  the 
marks  on  the  shore  near  the  same  place  indicated 
that  the  lake  had  already  (April  22)  fallen  7  feet 
that  season. 

Possilily  a  more  permanent  rise  has  lately  taken 
place,  since  Mr.  I'oole  (p.  60)  saw  many  dead  trees 
standing  in  the  lake  for  some  distance  from  the 
shore  opi)osite  Kluis/iia  Usdum.  This  too  was  at 
the  end  of  October,  when  the  water  must  have  been 
at  its  lowest  (for  that  year). 

5.  The  change  in  level  necessarily  causes  a 
change  in  the  dimensions  of  the  lake.  This  will 
chiefly  affect  the  southern  end.  The  shore  of  that 
part  slopes  up  from  the  water  with  an  extremely 
gradual  incline.  Over  so  flat  a  beach  a  very  slight 
rise  in  the  lake  would  send  the  water  a  considerable 
distance.  This  was  found  to  be  actually  the  case. 
The  line  of  drift-wood  mentioned  by  Dr.  K'obinson 

*  (ii.  115)  was  about  3  miles  from  the  brink  of  the 

lagoon.  Ur.  Anderson,  the  geologist  of  the  Amer- 
ican expedition,  conjectured  that  the  water  occa- 
sionally extended  as  much  as  8  or  10  miles  south 
of  its  then  position  {Oj/icinl  Jieport,  4to,  p.  182). 
On  the  peninsula,  the  acclivity  of  which  is  nmch 
greater  than  that  of  the  southern  shores  of  the  la- 
goon, and  in  the  early  part  of  the  summer  (.lune 

▼  2),  Irby  and  Mangles  found  the  "  higli-water  mark 
a  mile  distant  from  the  water's  edge."  At  the 
northern  end,  the  shore  being  steeper,  the  water- 
line  probably  remains  toleraljly  constant.  The  va- 
riation in  breadth  will  not  be  so  much.  At  the 
N.  W.  and  N.  K.  corners  there  are  some  flats  which 
must  be  often  overflowed.  Along  the  lower  part 
of  the  western  shore,  where  the  beach  widens,  as  at 
Birktt  el-KlndU,  it  is  occasionally  covered  in  por- 
tions, but  they  are  probably  not  enough  to  make 
any  great  variation  in  the  width  of  the  lake.  Of 
Vhe  eastern  side  hardly  anything  is  known,  but  the 
Deach  there  appears  to  be  only  partial,  and  confined 
)o  the  northern  end. 

6.  The  mountains  which  form  the  walls  of  the 
great  fissuie  in  whose  depths  the  lake  is  contained, 
tODtinue  a  nearly  parallel  course  througlumt  its  en- 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


•2S81 


tire  length.  Viewed  from  the  beach  at  the  north- 
ern end  of  the  lake  —  the  only  view  within  the 
reach  of  most  travellers  —  there  is  little  perce()tible 
difference  between  the  two  ranges.  Each  is  equally 
bare  and  stern  to  the  eye.  On  the  leit  the  eastern 
mountains  stretch  their  long,  hazy,  horizontal  line, 
till  they  are  lost  in  the  dim  distance.  The  west- 
ern mountains,  on  the  other  hand,  do  not  ofler  the 
same  appearance  of  continuity,  since  the  headland 
of  Ras  el-Feshkhah  projects  so  far  in  front  of  the 
general  line  as  to  conceal  the  southern  portion  of 
the  range  when  viewed  from  most  points.  The 
horizon  is  formed  by  the  water-line  of  the  lake 
itself,  often  lost  in  a  thick  mist  wliich  dwells  on  the 
surface,  the  result  of  the  rapid  evaporation  always 
going  on.  In  the  centre  of  the  horizon,  when  the 
h.aze  permits  it,  may  be  discovered  the  mysterious 
peninsula. 

7.  Of  the  eastern  side  but  little  is  known.  One 
tra\eller  in  modern  times  (Seetzen)  has  succeeded 
in  forcing  his  way  along  its  whole  length.  The 
American  party  landeil  at  the  iV.  Mojilj  and  other 
points.  A  few  others  have  rounded  the  southern 
end  of  the  lake,  and  advanced  for  10  or  12  miles 
aloni:;  its  eastern  shoi'es.  But  the  larger  portion 
of  tlio-e  shores  —  the  flanks  of  the  mountains  which 
stretch  Irom  the  peninsula  to  the  north  end  of  the 
lake  -  ha\e  been  approached  by  travellers  from 
the  west  only  on  \ery  rare  occasions  nearer  than 
the  western  shore. 

Both  Dr.  Robinson  from  Ain  J  id;/  (i.  502),  and 
Lieut.  Molyneux  (p.  127)  from  the  surface  of  the 
lake,  record  their  impression  that  the  eastern  moun- 
tains are  much  more  lofty  than  the  western,  and 
nmch  more  broken  by  clefts  and  ravines  than  those 
on  the  west.  In  color  they  are  lirown,  or  red  —  a 
great  contrast  to  the  gray  and  white  stones  of  the 
western  mountains.  Both  sides  of  the  lake,  how- 
ever, are  alike  in  the  alisence  of  vegetation  —  al- 
most entirely  barren  and  scorched,  except  where 
here  and  there  a  spring,  bursting  up  at  the  foot  of 
the  mountains,  covers  the  beach  with  a  bright 
green  jungle  of  reeds  and  thorn  bushes,  or  gives 
life  to  a  clump  of  stunted  pahns;  or  where,  as  at 
Ain  J  id y  ov  the  Wutiy  .l/iy'/^,  a  perennial  stream 
lietrays  its  presence,  and  breaks  the  long  monotony 
of  the  precipice  by  filling  the  rift  with  acacias,  or 
nourishing  a  little  oasis  of  verdure  at  its  emljouch-' 
ure.  • 

8.  Seetzen's  journey,  just  mentioned,  was  ac- 
complished in  1807.  He  started  in  .lanu.iry  from 
the  ford  of  the  .lordan  through  the  upper  country, 
by  Mk'tur,  AUurrus,  and  the  ravine  of  the  Wndy 
Mojih  to  the  penin.sula;  returning  immediately 
after  by  the  lower  level,  as  near  the  lake  as  it  was 
possible  to  go.  He  was  on  foot  with  but  a  single 
guide.  He  represents  the  general  structure  of  the 
mountains  as  limestone,  capped  in  many  places  by 
basalt,  and  having  at  its  foot  a  red  ferruginous 
.sandstone,  which  forms  the  immediate  margin  of 
the  lake."  The  ordinary  path  lies  high  up  on  the 
face  of  the  mountains,  and  the  lower  track,  wliich 
Seetzen  pursued,  is  extremely  rough,  and  often  aU 
but  impassable.  l"he  rocks  lie  in  a  succession  of  eiior- 
moiis  terraces,  apparently  more  vertical  in  form  than 
those  on  the  west.  On  the  lower  one  of  these,  but 
still  far  above  the  water,  lies  the  path,  if  jiath  it  can 
be  called,  where  the  traveller  has  to  scramble  through 
and  over  a  chaos  of  enormous  blocks  of  limestone, 
sandstone,  and    basalt,  or  basalt  conglomerate,  the 

«  Termed  by  .indersoQ  (pp.  189,  190)  the  UndercliS 


2882 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


debris  of  the  slopes  above,  or  is  l)rouglit  abruptly 
to  a  stand  by  wild  clefts  in  the  solid  rock  of  the 
precipice.  The  streams  of  the  J/<>/76  and  Zurka 
issue  from  portals  of  dark  red  sandstone  of  roman- 
tic beauty,  the  overhanfrinil  sides  of  which  no  ray 
of  sun  ever  enters.''  The  deltas  of  these  streams, 
and  that  portion  of  the  shore  between  them,  where 
several  smaller  rivulets  *>  flow  i..to  the  lake,  abound 
hi  vei;etation,  and  form  a  tndy  sjrateful  relief  to  the 
niijged  desolation  of  the  remainder.  I'alnis  in 
particular  are  numerous  (Anderson,  p.  192;  Lynch, 
Narr.  p.  369  j,  and  in  Seetzen's  opinion  bear  marks 
of  being  the  relicp  of  an  ancient  cultivation  ;  but 
except  near  the  streams,  there  is  no  xeijetation.  It 
was,  says  he,  the  irreatest  possilile  rarity  to  see  a 
plant.  The  northeast  corner  of  the  lake  is  occupied 
hy  a  plain  of  some  extent  left  by  the  retiring  moun- 
tfvins,  probably  often  overtiowed  by  the  lake,  mostly 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

salt    and   unproductive,  and    called    the   Ghdr  A 
Btlka. 

9.  One  remarkable  feature  of  the  northern  por- 
tion of  the  eastern  heights  is  a  plateau  which  divides 
the  mountains  half-way  up,  apparently  forming  a 
gigantic  landing-place  in  the  slope,  and  stretching 
northwards  from  the  Wadij  Zurka  Maiii.  It  is 
very  jilainly  to  be  seen  from  Jerusalem,  espe- 
cially at  sunset,  when  many  of  the  points  of  these 
fascinatiuij  mountains  come  out  into  unexpected 
rehef  This  plateau  apjiears  to  be  on  the  same 
general  le\el  with  a  similar  plateau  on  the  western 
side  opposite  it  (Poole,  p.  G8),  with  the  top  of  the 
rock  of  IStbbeh,  and  perhaps  with  the  Mediterra- 
nean. 

10.  The  western  shores  of  the  lake  have  been 
more  investigated  than  the  eastern,  althonuh  they 
cannot   be  said  to  have  been  vet  more  than  very 


"^fZ-Jt  f%?^ 


The  D'  vd  Sev 


•  \  ic«  troni   Ain  hly^  lookmg  "-oufli      tioiu  a  diiwiug 


aiTxle  ou   the  spot  in    1842,  bj  W 


partially  explored.  Two  travellers  have  passed 
over  their  entire  length  :  De  Saulcy  in  January 
1851,  from  north  to  south,  Voyat/e  dcins  la  Syrie, 
»tc.,  1853;  and  Narrative  of  n  Juui-iwy,  etc., 
Londoc,  1854:  and  Poole  in  November  1855,  from 
south  to  north  {Utoyr.  Journnl^  xxvi.  55).  Others 
have  passed  over  considerable  portions  of  it,  and 
have  recorded  observations  lioth  with  pen  and  ]ien- 
cil.  Dr.  Robinson  on  his  first  journey  in  1838 
visited  Ain  Jiity.  and  proceeded  from  thenee  to  the 
Jordan  and  Jericho  :  Wolcott  and  Tipping,  in 
1842.  scaled  the  rock  of  Masada  (probably  the  first 
travellers  from  the  western  world  to  do  so),  and 
from  thence  journeyed  to  Ain  July  along  the  shore. 
The  views  which  illustrate  this  article  have  been, 
through  the  kindness  of  INIr.  Tipping,  selected  from 

-  A  rude  view  of  the  embouchure  of  the  former  of 
Aese  is  given  by  Lynch  (^Narrative,  p.  368). 


those  which  he  took  during  this  journey.  Lieut. 
Van  de  Velde,  in  1852,  also  visited  Masada,  and 
then  went  south  as  far  as  the  south  end  of  Jebel 
Usdiiin,  after  which  he  turned  up  to  the  right  into 
the  western  mountains.  Lieut.  Lynch's  party,  in 
1848.  landed  and  travelled  over  the  greater  part  of 
the  shore  from  Ain  Faliklinh  to  Usdiim.  'Mr. 
Holman  Hunt,  in  1854,  with  the  Messrs  Beamont, 
resided  at  Usdum.  for  several  days,  and  afterwards 
went  over  the  entire  length  from  Us'him  to  the 
.lordan.  Of  this  journey  one  of  the  ultimate  fruits 
was  Mr.  Hunfs  picture  of  the  Dead  Sea  at  sunset, 
known  as  "  The  Soapeiroat."  Miss  ?3mily  IJeaufort 
and  her  sister,  in  December  1800,  accomplished  tl)e 
ascent  of  Masada,  and  the  journey  from  thence  tc 
Ain  Jidy;  and  the  same  thing,  including  Usdum, 


h  Conjectured  by  Seetzen  to  be  the 
g»h." 


tpriugs  of  Pi» 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

iraa  done  in  April,  18G3,  by  a  party  consisting  of 
Mr.  G.  Clowes,  Jr.,  Mr.  Straton,  and  others 

11.  The  western  ranue  preserves  for  the  greater 
part  of  its  length  a  course  hardly  less  regular  than 
the  eastern.  That  it  does  not  appear  so  regular 
when  viewed  from  the  nortliwestern  end  of  the 
lake  is  owing  to  the  projection  of  a  mass  of  the 
mountain  eastward  from  the  line  sulftciently  far  to 
shut  cut  from  view  the  range  to  tlie  south  of  it. 
It  is  Dr.  Itobinson's  opinion  (BM.  Res.  i.  510,  511) 
that  the  projection  consists  of  the  Mas  el-Fcs/d/iah 
and  its  "  adjacent  cliffs  "  only,  and  that  from  that 
headland  the  western  range  runs  in  a  tolerably  di- 
rect course  as  far  as  Usdum,  at  the  S.  W.  corner 
of  the  lake.  The  li'is  i-l-Feslikhah  stands  some 
six  miles  below  the  head  of  tlie  lake,  and  forms  the 
northern  side  of  the  gorge  by  which  the  Wtu/y  eii- 
N'lr  (the  Kidronj  debouches  into  the  lake.  Dr. 
Kobinson  is  such  an  accurate  oliserver,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  question  his  opinion,  but  it  seems  prob- 
able that  the  projection  really  conunences  further 
south,  at  the  itus  Meised,  north  of  At/i  Jhly.  At 
any  rate  no  traveller  "  appears  to  have  been  able  to 
pass  along  the  beach  l)etween  Ain  July  and  Ji  is 
FtshLiiii/i,  and  the  great  .Arab  road,  which  adheres 
to  the  shore  from  tlie  south  as  far  as  Ain  July, 
leaves  it  at  that  point,  and  mounts  to  the  sunnnit. 
It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  L3nch's  party,  who 
had  encampments  of  .several  days'  duration  at  Ain 
Ftslikltdii,  Ain  Terabth,  and  Ain  Jidy,  did  not 
make  such  observations  as  would  have  decided  the 
configuration  of  the  shores. 

12.  The  accompanying  wood-cut  represents  the 
view  lookiuir  southward  from  the  spring  of  ^1//;  •/'"'?/, 
a  point  abiiut  700  feet  above  the  water  (Poole,  p.  06 ). 
It  is  taken  from  a  drawing  by  the  accurate  pencil 
of  Mr.  Tip|)ing,  and  gives  a  good  idea  of  the  course 
of  th.it  portion  of  the  western  heights,  and  of  their 
ordinary  character,  except  at  a  few  such  excejitional 
spots  as  the  headlands  just  mentioned,  or  the  iso- 
lated rock  of  Stbhtli,  the  ancient  Masada.  In  their 
present  aspect  they  can  hardly  be  termed  "  vertical  " 
or  ••perpendicular,"  or  even  "cliffs"  **  (the  favorite 
term  for  them),  though  from  a  distant  point  on  the 
surface  of  the  lake  they  probably  look  vertical 
enough  (Molyneu.K,  p.  127).  Their  '  structure  was 
originally  in  huge  steps  or  offsets,  but  the  horizon- 
tal portion  of  each  offset  is  now  concealed  by  the 
slopes  of  debris,  which  have  in  the  lapse  of  ages 
rolled  down  from  the  vertical  cliff  aliove."^ 

1-3.  The  portion  -actually  represented  in  this 
view  is  described  by  Dr.  Anderson  (p.  175)  as 
"varying  from  1,200  to  1,500  feet  in  height,  bold 
and  steep,  admitting  nowhere  of  the  ascent  or  de- 
scent of  beasts  of  burden,  and  practicable  only  here 

and  there  to  the  most  intrepid  climber 

The  marked  divisions  of  the  great  escarjiment, 
reckoning  from  above,  are;  (1.)  Horizontal  lajers 
of  limestone  from  200  to  300  feet  in  depth.     "(2. ) 

«  Poole  appears  to  have  tried  his  utmost  to  keep 
the  sliore,  and  to  have  accomplished  more  than  others, 
but  with  only  small  success.  De  Saulcy  was  obliged 
to  take  to  the  heights  at  Ain  Terabeh.  and  keep  tr 
them  till  he  reached  Ain  Jirjy 

f>  It  is  a  pity  that  travellers  should  so  often  indulge 
f\  the  use  of  such  terms  as  "  vertical,"  "  perpeiiUieu- 
lar,"  '■  overhanging,"  etc.,  to  descrilie  acclivities  which 
prove  to  be  only  moderately  steep  slopes.  Even  Dr. 
iobinson  —  usually  so  moderate  —  on  more  than  one 
»ccasiou  speaks  of  a  mouutain-side  as  "  perpendicular," 
Uid  immediately  afterwardii  describes  the  asosut  or  de- 
•cent  of  it  by  his  party  I 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


2883 


A  series  of  tent-shaped  embankments  of  debrii, 
brought  down  through  the  small  ravines  intersect- 
ing the  upper  divisinn,  and  lodged  on  the  jm  jecting 
terrace  below.  (3  )  A  sharply  defined,  well-marked 
formation,  less  perfectly  stratified  than  No.  1,  and 
constituting  by  its  unbroken  continuity  a  zone  of 
naked  rock,  probably  150  feet  in  depth,  running 
like  a  vast  frieze  along  the  face  of  the  cliff,  and  so 
precipitous  that  the  detritus  pushed  over  the  edce 
of  this  shelf-like  led<;e  finds  no  lodgment  anywhere 
on  its  almost  vertical  face.  Above  this  zone  is  an 
interrupted  bed  of  yellow  limestone  40  feet  thick. 
(1.)  A  broad  and  boldly  sloping  talus  of  limestone  — 
partly  bare,  partly  covered  by  debris  from  above  — 
descends  nearly  to  the  base  of  the  cliff.  (5.)  A 
breastwork  of  fallen  fragments,  sometimes  swept 
clean  away,  seiiarates  the  upjier  edge  of  the  beach 
from  the  ground  line  of  the  escarpment.  (0.)  A 
beach  of  varialile  width  and  structure  —  sometimes 
sandy,  sometimes  gravelly  or  shiMgly,  sometimes 
made  up  of  loose  and  scattered  patches  of  a  coarse 
travertine  or  marl  —  falls  gradually  to  the  border 
of  the  Dead  .Sea." 

14.  Further  south  the  mountain  sides  assume  a 
more  abrupt  and  savage  aspect,  and  in  the  Wady 
Zuweirah,  and  still  more  at  bebbeh  —  the  ancient 
Masada  <'  —  reach  a  pitch  of  rugged  and  repulsive, 
though  at  the  same  time  impressive  desolation, 
which  perhaps  cannot  be  exceeded  anywhere  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  Heyond  Usdum  the  niouiitains 
continue  their  general  line,  but  the  district  at 
their  feet  is  occupied  by  a  mass  of  lower  eminences, 
which,  advancing  inwards,  gradually  encroach  on 
the  plain  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake,  and  finally 
shut  it  in  completely,  at  about  8  miles  below  Jtbel 
Usdum. 

15.  The  region  wliich  lies  on  the  top  of  the 
western  heights  w.'js  probably  at  one  time  a  wide 
table-land,  rising  gradually  towards  the  high  lands 
which  form  the  central  line  of  the  country  —  He- 
bron, Beni-naiiti,  etc.  It  is  now  cut  up  by  deep 
and  difficult  ravines,  separated  by  steep  and  inac- 
cessible summits;  but  portions  of  the  table-land.s 
still  remain  in  many  places  to  testify  to  the  orig- 
inal conformation.  The  material  is  a  soft  cre- 
taceous limestone,  bright  white  in  color,  and  con- 
taining a  good  deal  of  sulphur.  The  surface  is 
entirely  desert,  with  no  sign  of  cultivation:  here 
and  there  a  shrub  of  Jieteni,  or  some  other  desert- 
plant,  but  only  enough  to  make  the  monotonous 
desolation  of  the  scene  more  frightful.  "  II  existe 
au  monde,"  says  one  of  the  most  intelligent  of 
modern  travellers,  "pen  de  rt^gions  jilns  desol^es, 
plus  abandonn^es  de  Dieu,  plus  fennees  a  la  vie, 
que  la  pente  rocailleuse  qui  forme  le  hord  occi- 
dental de  la  Mer  Morte "  (Kenan,  I7e  de  Jesus. 
ch.  vii.). 

16.  Of  the  elevation  of  this  region  we  hitherto 
possess  but  scanty  observations.     Between  Ain  Jidu 


■  Lynch's  view  of  Ain  Jitly  (Nan.  p.  290),  though 
rough,  is  probably  not  inaccurate  in  general  eli'ect. 
It  agrees  with  .Mr.  Tipping's  as  to  the  structure  of  the 
heights.  That  in  De  Saulcy  by  M.  Belly,  which  pur- 
ports to  be  from  the  same  spot  as  the  latter,  is  very 
poor. 

(I  This  was  the  fortress  in  which  the  last  remnant 
of  the  Zealots,  or  fanatical  party  of  the  Jews,  defended 
themselves  against  !<ilva,  the  Ron]an  general,  in  a.  d. 
71,  and  at  last  put  themselves  to  dciith  to  escape  cap- 
ture. The  spot  is  described  and  the  tragedy  related  in 
a  very  graphic  and  imjiressive  mnnner  by  Deau  iliV 
man  (Hist,  of  the  Jtics  3d  ed.,  ii.  386-38i;;. 


2884 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


und  Ain  Terdbeh  the  summit  is  a  tahle-land  740 
feet  above  the  lake  (Poole,  p.  67)."  Further  north, 
above  Ain  Terabeh,  the  suuiniit  of  the  pass  is 
1,305.75  feet  above  the  lake  (Lynch,  Off.  Rep.  p. 
4-3),  within  a  few  feet  the  heitfht  of  the  plain  be- 
tween the  Wculy  en-Nar  and  Guumron,  which  is 
piven  by  Mr.  Poole  (p.  68)  at  1,-340  feet.  This 
appears  also  to  be  about  the  height  of  the  rock  of 
BMeh,  and  of  the  table-land,  already  mentioned, 
on  the  eastern  mountains  north  of  the  Wady 
Zurkn.  It  is  also  nearly  coincident  with  that  of 
the  ocean.  In  ascending;  from  the  lake  to  Nehi 
Musa,  Mr.  Poole  (p.  58)  passed  over  what  he 
"thout;ht  nii^ht  be  the  original  level  of  the  old 
plain,  5-32i  feet  above  the  Dead  Sea."  That  these 
are  the  reni.ains  of  ancient  sea  margins,  chronicling 
steps  in  the  history  of  the  lake  (Allen,  in  Geoi^r. 
Jvurn.  xxiii.  163),  may  reasonalily  be  conjectured, 
but  can  only  lie  determined  by  the  observation  of  a 
competent  geologist  on  the  spot. 

17.  A  beach  of  varying  width  skirts  the  foot 
of  the  mountains  on  the  western  side.  Above 
Ain  Jidy  it  consists  mainly  of  the  deltas  of  the 
torrents — fan-shaped  banks  of  debris^  of  all  sizes, 
at  a  steep  slope,  spreading  from  the  outlet  of  the 
torrent  like  those  which  become  so  familiar  to 
travellers,  in  Northern  Italy  for  example.  In  one 
or  two  places  —  as  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kidron  and 
at  Ain  Terddt/i  — the  beach  may  be  1,000  to  1,400 
yards  wide,  but  usually  it  is  much  narrower,  and 
often  is  reduced  to  almost  nothing  by  the  advance 
of  the  headlands.  For  its  major  part,  as  already 
remarked,  it  is  impassable.  Below  Ain  Jidy,  how- 
ever, a  marked  change  occurs  in  the  character  of 
the  beaeh.  Alternating  with  the  shingle,  .solid 
deposits  of  a  new  material,  soft  friable  chalk,  marl, 
and  gypsum,  with  salt,  begin  to  make  their  appear- 
ance. These  are  gradually  developed  towards  the 
south,  till  at  SMje/i  and  below  it  tiiey  form  a  ter- 
race 80  feet  or  more  in  height  at  the  back,  though 
sloping  off  gradually  to  the  lake.  This  new  mate- 
rial is  a  greenish  white  in  color,  and  is  ploughed 
up  by  the  cataracts  from  the  heights  behind  into 
very  .strange  forms:  here,  hundreds  of  small  mame- 
lons,  covering  the  plain  like  an  eruption ;  there, 
long  rows  of  huge  cones,  looking  like  an  encamp- 
ment of  enormous  tents;  or,  again,  rectangular 
blocks  and  pillars,  exactly  resenrliling  the  streets 
of  a  town,  with  rows  of  houses  and  other  edifices, 
all  as  if  constructed  of  wliite  niarlile.<^  These 
appear  to  be  the  remains  of  strata  of  late-  or  post- 
tertiary  date,  deposited  at  a  time  when  the  water 
of  the  lake  stood  much  higher,  and  covered  a  much 
larger  area,  than  it  does  at  present.  The  fact  that 
they  are  strongly  impregnated  with  the  salts  of  the 


a  De  Saulcy  mentions  this  as  a  small  rocky  table- 
land, 250  metres  above  the  Dead  Sea.  But  this  was 
evidently  not  the  actual  summit,  as  he  speaks  of  the 
sheikh  occupyiDg  a  post  a  few  hundred  yards  above 
the  level  of  that  position,  and  further  west  {Narr.  i. 
169). 

b  Lynch  remarks  that  at  Ain  el-Feshkhah  there  was 
a  "  total  absence  of  round  pebbles ;  the  shore  was 
covered  with  small  angular  fragments  of  flint"  {Nan. 
p.  274).     The  same  at  Avi  Ji/lij  (p.  290). 

c  De  Saulcy,  Nnrr.  ibid.  ;  .\nderson,  p  176.  See 
ilso  a  striking  description  of  the  "  re.semblaiice  of  a 
^reat  city  "  at  the  foot  of  Sfbbeh,  in  Beamout's  Diary, 
^tc.,  ii.  62. 

a  A  specimen  brought  by  Mr.  Clowes  from  the  foot 
A  Sebheh  has  been  examined  for  the  writer  by  Dr. 
Price,  aad  proves  to  contain  no  less  than  6- -8  per  cent. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

lake  'i  is  itself  presumptive  evidence  of  lliis.  In 
many  places  they  have  completely  disajipeared. 
doubtless  washed  into  the  lake  by  the  action  of 
torrents  from  the  hills  behind,  similar  to,  though 
more  violent  than  those  which  have  played  the 
strange  freaks  just  described :  but  they  still  linger 
on  this  part  of  the  shore,  on  the  peninsula  oppo- 
site,«  at  the  southern  and  western  outskirts  of  the 
plain  south  of  the  lake,  and  probably  in  a  few 
spots  at  the  northern  and  northwestern  end,  to 
testify  to  the  condition  which  once  existed  all  round 
the  edge  of  the  deep  basin  of  the  lake.  The  width 
of  the  beach  thus  formed  is  considerably  greater 
than  that  above  Ain  .Jidy.  From  the  Biiket  el- 
Kla'dil  to  the  wady  south  of  SMth,  a  distance  of 
six  miles,  it  is  from  one  to  two  miles  wide,  and  is 
passalile  for  the  whole  distance.  The  Birket  el- 
Klii'dil  just  alluded  to  is  a  shallow  depression  on 
the  shore,  which  is  filled  by  the  water  of  the  lake 
when  at  its  greatest  height,  and  forujs  a  natural 
salt-pan.  After  the  la'/ce  retires  the  water  evajj- 
orates  from  the  hollow,  and  the  salt  remains  for 
the  use  of  the  Arabs.  They  also  collect  it  from 
similar  though  smaller  spots  further  south,/  and 
on  the  peninsula  (Irby,  June  2).  One  feature  of 
the  beach  is  too  ciiaracteristic  to  escape  mention  — 
the  line  of  driftwood  which  encircles  the  lake,  and 
marks  the  highest,  or  the  ordinary  high  level  of 
the  water.  It  consists  of  liranches  of  brushwood, 
and  of  the  limbs  of  trees,  some  of  considerable 
size,  brought  down  by  the  Jordan  and  other 
streams,  and  in  course  of  time  cast  up  on  the 
beach.  They  stand  up  out  of  the  sand  and  shingle 
in  curiously  fantastic  shapes,  all  signs  of  life  gone 
from  them,  and  with  a  charred  though  blanched 
look  vei-y  desolate  to  behold.  Amongst  them  are 
said  to  be  great  numbers  of  palm  trunks  (Poole,  p. 
69);  some  doubtless  tloated  over  from  the  palm 
groves  on  the  eastern  shore  already  spoken  oi,  and 
others  brought  down  by  the  Jordan  in  the  distant 
days  when  the  palm  floin-ished  along  its  banks. 
The  driftwood  is  saturated  with  salt,  and  much  of 
it  is  probably  of  a  very  great  age. 

A  remarkable  feature  of  the  western  shore  has 
been  mentioned  to  the  writer  by  the  members  of 
Jlr.  Clowes'  party.  This  is  a  set  of  3  parallel 
beaches  one  above  the  other,  the  highest  about 
50  feet  above  the  water;  which,  though  often  in- 
terrupted by  ravines,  and  l)y  debris,  etc.,  can  be 
traced  during  the  whole  distance  from  Wady  Zu- 
iceir<di  to  Ain  Jidy.  These  terraces  are  possibly 
alluded  to  by  Anderson  wlsen  speaking  of  the 
"several  descents"  necessary  to  reach  the  floor  of 
Wiidy  Seyal  (p.  177). 

18.  At  the  southwest  corner  of  the  lake,  below 

of  salts  soluble  in  water,  namely,  chlor.  sodium,  4..559, 
chlor.  calcium, 2.08,  chlor.  magnesium.  0-241.  Bromine 
was  distinctly  found. 

e  They  are  identified  by  Dr.  Anderson. 

/  The  salt  of  the  Dead  .Sea  was  anciently  much  in 
request  for  use  in  the  Temple  service.  It  was  pre- 
ferred before  all  other  kinds  for  its  reputed  efJect  in 
hastening  the  combustion  of  the  sacrifice,  while  it 
diminished  the  unpleasant  smell  of  the  burning  flesh. 
Its  deliquescent  character  (due  to  the  chlorides  of  alka- 
line earths  it  contains)  is  al.«o  noticed  in  the  Talmud 
(Menacoth,  xxi.  1;  Jalkiit).  It  was  called  "Sodom 
salt,  '  but  also  went  by  the  name  of  the  "salt  that 

does  not  rest"  (,17131127  ]3Sti7  Plbc),  becaus* 
it  was  made  on  the  Sabbath  as  on  other  days,  like  the 
"Sunday  salt ''  of  the  Enjrlish  salt-woks.  It  is  stiR 
much  esteemed  in  Jerusalem. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

irher;  the  wadies  Zuweirah  and  Mahauwar  Creali 
down  through  the  inclosing  heights,  the  beach  is 
sncroached  on  by  the  salt  mountain  or  ridge  of 
Kltashm  Usdimi.  This  remarkable  object  is  hith- 
erto but  iniperleetly  knowai.  It  is  said  to  be  quite 
independent  of  the  western  mountains,  l.ying  in 
front  of  and  separated  from  them  by  a  considerable 
tract  filled  up  with  conical  hills  and  short  ridges 
of  the  Soft,  chalky,  marly  deposit  just  descrilied. 
It  is  a  long,  level  ridge  or  dyke,  of  several  miles 
long."  Its  northern  portion  runs  S.  S.  E. :  but 
■after  more  than  half  its  length  it  makes  a  sudden 
and  decided  bend  to  the  riuht,  and  then  runs  S. 
W.  It  is  from  300  to  400  feet  in  height,  of  in- 
considerable width,''  consisting  of  a  body  of  crys- 
tallized rock-salt,  more  or  less  solid,  covered  with 
a  capping  of  chalky  limestone  and  gypsum.  The 
lower  portion,  the  salt  rock,  rises  abruptly  from  the 
glossy  plain  at  its  eastern  base,  sloping  back  at  an 
angle  of  not  more  than  45°,  often  less.  It  has  a 
strangely  dislocated,  shattered  look,  and  is  all  fur- 
rowed and  worn  into  huge  angular  buttresses  and 
ridges,  from  the  face  of  which  great  fragments  are 
occasionally  detached  by  the  action  of  the  rains, 
and  appear  as  "pillars  of  salt,"  advanced  in  front 
of  the  general  mass.  At  the  foot  the  ground  is 
Btrewed  with  lumps  and  masses  of  salt,  salt  streams 
drain  continually  from  it  into  the  lake,  and  the 
whole  of  the  beach  is  covered  with  salt  —  soft  and 
sloppy,  and  of  a  pinkish  hue  in  winter  and  spring, 
though  during  the  heat  of  sunniier  dried  up  into 
a  shining,  brilliant  crust.  An  occasional  patch  of 
the  Kali  plant  {Salicornue,  etc.)  is  the  only  vegeta- 
tion to  vary  the  monotony  of  this  most  monoto- 
nous spot. 

Between  the  north  end  of  K.  Usdum  and  the 
lake  is  a  mound  covered  with  stones  and  liearing 
the  name  of  uin-Zoghal.'^  It  is  about  60  feet  in 
diameter  and  10  or  12  high,  evidently  artificial, 
and  not  improbably  the  remains  of  an  ancient 
structure.  A  view  of  it,  engraved  from  a  photo- 
graph by  Mr.  James  Graham,  is  given  in  Isaac's 
Lead  Sen  (p.  21).  This  heap  iM.  I>e  Saulcy  main- 
tained to  be  a  portion  of  the  remains  of  Sodom. 
Its  name  is  more  suggestive  of  Zoar,  but  there  are 
great  obstacles  to  either  identification.  [Sodom  ; 
Zoar.] 

19.  It  follows  from  the  fact  that  the  lake  occu- 
pies a  portion  of  a  longitudinal  depression,  that 
its  northern  and  southern  ends  are  not  inclosed  by 
highland,  as  its  east  and  west  sides  are.  The  floor 
of  the  Ghor  or  Jordan  Valley  has  been  already  de- 
scribed. [Palestijje,  iii.  2298.]  As  it  approaches 
the  northern  shore  of  the  lake  it  breaks  down  by 
two  oH'sets  or  terraces,  tolerably  regular  in  figure 


o  There  is  great  uncertainty  about  its  length.  Dr. 
Robinson  states  it  at  5  miles  and  "  a  considerable  dis- 
tance further"  (ii.  107,  112).  Vau  de  Velde  makes  it 
10  miles  (ii.  113),  or  3,i  hours  (ii.  116).  But  when  these 
dimensions  are  applied  to  the  map  they  are  much  too 
large,  and  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  it  can  be  more 
than  5  miles  in  all. 

'>  Dr.  Anderson  (p.  181)  says  it  is  about  2s,  miles 
wide.  But  this  appears  to  contradict  Dr.  Kobinson's 
expressions  (ii.  107).  The  latter  are  corroborated  by 
Mr.  Clowes'  party.  They  also  noticed  salt  in  large 
quantities  among  the  rocks  in  regular  strata  some  coa- 
■derable  distance  back  from  the  lake. 

-    jLt.V    f^'    (Robinson,  ii.  107).     By  De  Saulcy 

the  name  is  given  Redjom  el-Mezorrahl  (the  gh  and  rr 
»r«  both  attempts  to  represent  the  ghain).     The  "  Pil- 


SEA,  THE  SALT  288-5 

and  level.  At  the  outside  edge  of  the  second  of 
these  a  range  of  driftwood  marks  the  highest  level 
of  the  waters  —  and  from  this  point  the  beach 
slopes  more  rapidly  into  the  clear  light-green  watei 
of  the  lake. 

20.  A  small  piece  of  land  lies  off  the  shore  about 
halfway  between  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  and 
the  western  side  of  the  lake.  It  is  nearly  circular 
in  form.  Its  sides  are  sloping,  and  therefore  its 
size  varies  with  the  height  of  the  water.  When 
the  writer  went  to  it  in  September,  1858,  it  was 
about  i;iO  yards  in  diameter,  10  or  12  feet  out  of 
tiie  water,  and  connected  with  the  shore  by  a  nar- 
row neck  or  isthmus  of  about  100  yards  in  length. 
The  isthmus  is  concealed  when  the  water  is  at  its 
full  height,  and  then  the  little  peninsula  becomes  an 
island.  M.  De  Saulcy  attributes  to  it  the  name 
RedjAm  Lilt  —  the  cairn  of  Lot.''  It  is  covered 
with  stones,  and  dead  wood  washed  up  by  the 
waves.  The  stones  are  large,  and  though  much 
weather-worn,  appear  to  have  been  originally 
rectangular.  At  any  rate  they  are  very  differ- 
ent from  any  natural  fragments  on  the  adjacent 
shores. 

21.  Beyond  the  island  the  northwestern  corner 
of  the  lake  is  bordered  by  a  low  plain,  extending  up 
to  the  foot  of  the  mountains  of  Nebij  Mtisa,  and 
south  as  far  as  Ii"S  Feshkliah.  This  plain  must 
be  considerably  lower  than  the  general  level  of  the 
land  north  of  the  lake,  since  its  appearance  implies 
that  it  is  often  covered  with  water.  It  is  described 
as  sloping  gently  upwards  from  the  lake:  flat  and 
barren,  except  rare  jjatches  of  weeds  round  a  spring. 
It  is  soft  and  slimy  to  the  tread,  or  in  the  summer 
covered  with  a  white  film  of  salt,  fornjed  by  the 
evaporation  of  the  surface  water.  The  upjier  sur- 
face appears  to  be  oiily  a  crust,  covering  a  soft  and 
deep  substratum,  and  often  notf  strong  et'ough  to 
liear  the  weight  of  the  traveller.^  In  all  these  par- 
ticulars it  agrees  with  the  plain  at  the  south  of  the 
lake,  which  is  undoubtedly  covered  when  the  waters 
rise.  It  further  agrees  with  it  in  exhibiting  at  the 
back  remains  of  the  late  tertiary  deposits  already 
mentioned,  cut  out,  like  those  about  Sebbeli,  into 
fantastic  shapes  iiy  the  rush  of  the  torrents  from 
behind. 

A  similar  plain  (the  (Hior  el-Belka,  or  Ghor 
Seisiib'in)  appears  to  exist  on  the  N.  E.  corner  of 
the  lake  between  the  embouchure  of  the  Jordan  and 
the  slopes  of  the  mountains  of  Moab.  Beyond, 
however,  the  very  brief  notice  of  Seetzen  (ii.  373), 
establishing  the  fact  that  it  is  "salt  and  stony," 
nothing  is  known  of  it  / 

22.  The  southern  end  is,  like  the  northern,  a 
■wide  plain,  and  like  it  retains  among  the  Arabs  the 


grim  "  in  Alhevmum,  Apr.  2, 1854,  expressly  states  that 
his  guide  called  it  Hiuljeim  ez-Zogheir. 

<'  This  island  was  shown  to  Maundrell  (March  30, 
1697)  as  containing,  or  having  near  it.  the  "  uionumeut 
of  Lot's  wife."  It  forms  a  prominent  feature  in  the 
view  of  ''  the  Dead  Sea  from  its  northern  shore,"  No. 
429  of  Frith's  stereoscopic  views  in  the  Holy  Land. 

e  This  was  especially  mentioned  to  the  writer  b> 
Mr.  David  Roberts,  R.  A.,  who  was  nearly  lost  in  such 
a  hole  on  his  way  from  the  Jordan  to  Mar  Saba. 

f  The  statement  of  the  ancient  traveller  Thietn.ai 
(A.  D.  1217),  who  crosi?ed  the  Jordan  at  the  ordinary 
ford,  and  at  a  mile  from  thence  was  shown  the  "  salt 
pillar  "  of  Lot's  wife,  seems  to  imply  that  there  are 
masses  of  rock-salt  at  this  spot,  of  the  same  nature 
as  that  at  ifslum,  though  doubtless  less  extensiT* 
(Thietmar,  Peregr.  xi   47). 


2886 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


name  of  El  Ghor."  It  has  lieen  visited  by  but  few  i 
travellers.  Seotzeii  crussed  it  from  E.  to  W.  in  i 
Aiiril,  18t)G  [Rti.'itii,  i.  42(j-42ii),  Irl>y  and  Mangles 
in  May,  1S18,  L)e  Saulcy  in  Jan.  1851,  and  I'oole 
in  Nov.  I8.5.5,  all  crossed  it  in  the  opposite  direc- 
tion at  a  moderate  distatice  from  the  lake.  Dr. 
tioliinson,  on  bis  way  from  Heliron  to  Petra  in 
May,  1838,  descended  the  IVwIy  Zuweirah,  passed 
between  A'.  Usdum  and  the  lake,  and  went  along 
the  western  side  of  the  plain  to  the  W'ady  el-Jcib. 
The  same  route  was  partially  followed  by  JI.  ^'an 
de  Velde.  The  plain  is  boundetl  on  the  west  side, 
below  the  Khns/mi  Usdum,  liy  a  tract  thickly 
studded  with  a  confused  mass  of  unimportant  emi- 
nences, '-low  cliffs  and  conical  hills,"  of  chalky 
indurated  marl  (Hob.  ii.  110),  apparently  of  the 
same  late  formation  as  that  already  mentioned  fur- 
ther north.  These  eminences  intervene  between 
the  iofty  mountains  of  Judah  and  the  plain,  and 
thus  diminish  the  width  of  the  GJior  from  what  it 
is  at  Aiii  Jidij.  Their  present  forms  are  due  to 
the  fierce  rush  of  the  winter  torrents  from  the  ele- 
vated tracts  behind  them.  In  height  they  vary 
from  50  to  150  feet.  In  color  they  are  brilliant 
white  (Poole,  p.  61).  .\11  along  their  base  are 
springs,  generally  of  brackish,  though  occasionally 
of  fresh  water,  the  overflow  from  which  forms  a 
tract  of  marshland,  overgrown  with  canes,  tama- 
risks, reteni,  ghurkud,  thorn,  and  other  shrubs. 
Here  and  there  a  stunted  palm  is  to  be  seen.  Sev- 
eral principal  wadies,  such  as  the  \V(tdy  Emaz,  and 
the  ^Vtidy  Fikrtli,  descend  into  the  Olior  through 
these  bills  from  the  higher  mountains  behind,  and 
their  wide  beds,  strewed  with  great  stones  and 
deeply  furrowed,  show  w'hat  vast  liodies  of  water 
they  must  discharge  in  the  rainy  season.  The  hills 
themselves  bend  gradually  round  tg  the  eastward, 
and  at  last  close  tire  valley  in  to  the  south.  In  plan 
they  form  "a«i  irregular  curve,  sweeping  across 
the  Glii'ir  in  something  like  the  segment  of  a  circle, 
the  chord  of  which  would  lie  G  or  7  geographical 
miles  in  length,  extending  obliquely  from  N.  W. 
to  S.  E."  (Kob.  ii.  120).  Their  apparent  height 
remains  about  what  it  was  on  the  west,  but  though 
still  insignificant  in  themselves,  they  occupy  here 
an  important  position  as  the  boundary-line  between 
the  districts  of  the  Ghor  and  the  Arafjcdi  —  the 
central  and  southern  compartments  of  the  great 
longitudinal  valley  mentioned  in  the  outset  of  this 
article.  The  Arabidi  is  higher  in  level  than  the 
Gliur.  The  valley  takes  at  this  point  a  sudden  rise 
or  step  of  about  100  feet  in  height,  and  from  thence 
continues  rising  gradually  to  a  point  about  .35 
miles  nci'th  of  A/cnlx-li,  where  it  reaches  an  ele- 
vation of  1800  feet  aliove  the  Dead  Sea,  or  very 
nearly  500  feet  above  the  ocean.* 

2-3.  Thus  the  waters  of  two  thirds  of  the  Arribnh 
drain  northwards  into  the  plain  at  the  south  of  the 
lake,  and  thence  into  the  lake  itself.  The  Wody 
isl-.ld/)  —  the  principal  channel  by  which  this  vast 
drainage  is  discharged  on  to  the  plain  —  is  very 
large,  "  a  husre  channel,"  "  not  far  from  half  a  mile 
wide,'  "  oearing  traces  of  an  inmiense  volume  of 
water,  rushing  along  with  violence,  and  covering 
the  whole  breadth  of  the  valley."  The  body  of  de- 
tritus discharged  by  such  a  river  must  be  enormous. 


a  Rokr  in  the  spelling  adopted  by  De  Saulcy. 

b  See  the  section  gi>'ru  by  Petermann  in  Geogr 
'ourn.  xviii.  89. 

c  Irby.  1^  hour:  De  Haulcy.  1  hr.  18  min. -|- 800 
netres  ;  I'oole,  1  hr.  5  mlu.     Seetzen,  .3  hours  (i.  4281 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

^Ve  have  no  measure  of  the  elevation  of  the  plain 
at  the  foot  of  the  southern  line  of  mounds,  but 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  rise  from  the  lake 
upwards  is,  as  the  torrents  are  approached,  consid- 
erable, and  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  avoid  thf 
conclusion  that  the  silting  up  of  the  lagoon  which 
forms  the  southern  portion  of  the  lake  itself  is  due 
to  the  materials  brought  down  by  this  great  tor- 
rent, and  by  those  hardly  inferior  to  it,  which,  as 
Iready  mentioned,  discharge  the  waters  of  the  ex- 
tensive highlands  both  on  the  east  and  west. 

24.  Of  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  plain  we 
po.ssess  hardly  any  information.  We  know  that  it 
is  formed  by  the  mountains  of  Moab,  and  we  can 
just  discern  that,  adjacent  to  the  lake,  they  consist 
of  sandstone,  red  and  yellow,  with  conglomerate 
containing  porphyry  and  L'ranite,  fragments  of 
which  have  rolled  down  and  seem  to  occupy  the 
position  which  on  the  western  side  is  occupied  by 
the  tertiary  hills.  We  know  also  that  the  wadies 
GIntrimr/ei  and  Tiifileli,  which  drain  a  district  of 
the  mountains  N.  of  Petra,  enter  at  the  .S.  E.  cor- 
ner of  the  plain  —  but  beyond  this  all  is  uncertain. 

25.  t)f  the  plain  itself  hardly  more  is  known 
than  of  its  boundaries  Its  greatest  width  from  W. 
to  E.  is  estimated  at  from  5  to  6  miles,  while  its 
length,  from  the  cave  in  the  salt  mountain  to  the 
range  of  heights  on  the  south,  appears  to  be  about  8. 
Thus  the  breadth  of  the  Glwr  seems  to  be  here  con- 
sideralily  less  than  it  is  anywhere  north  of  the  lake, 
or  across  the  lake  itself.  That  part  of  it  which 
more  immediately  adjoins  the  lake  consists  of  two 
very  distinct  sections,  divided  by  a  line  running 
nearly  N.  and  S.  Of  these  the  western  is  a  region 
of  salt  and  barrenness,  bounded  Ijy  the  salt  moun- 
tain of  Klinshm  Uxduiii,  and  fed  by  the  liquefied 
salt  fi'om  its  caverns  and  surface,  or  by  the  drain- 
age from  the  salt  springs  beyond  it  —  and  over- 
flowed periodically  by  the  brine  of  the  lake  itself. 
Xear  the  lake  it  bears  the  name  of  es-Sn/A-nh,  i.  e. 
the  plain  of  salt  mud  (De  Saulcy,  p.  2G2).  Its 
widtii  frou)  W.  to  E.  —  from  the  foot  of  A".  Usdum 
to  the  belt  of  reeds  which  separates  it  from  the 
Glior  vs-Sdfeh — is  from  3  to  4  miles.'  Of  its 
extent  to  the  south  nothing  is  known,  but  it  is 
probable  that  the  muddy  district,  the  Sabbik 
proper,  does  not  extend  more,  at  most,  than  3 
miles  from  the  lake.  It  is  a  naked,  marshy  plain, 
often  so  boggy  as  to  be  impassable  for  cahiels  (Hob. 
ii.  115),  destitute  of  every  species  of  vegetation, 
scored  at  frequent  intervals''  by  the  channels  of 
salt  streams  from  the  Ji:bd  Usdtiiii,  or  the  salt 
springs  along  the  base  of  the  hills  to  the  south 
thereof.  As  the  southern  boundary  is  approached 
the  plain  appears  to  rise,  and  its  surface  is  covered 
with  a  "  countless  number  "  of  those  conical  mame- 
lons  (Poole,  p.  61),  the  remains  of  late  aqueous 
deposits,  which  are  so  characteristic  of  the  whole  of 
this  region.  At  a  distance  from  the  lake  a  partial 
vegetation  is  found  (Hoi),  ii.  103),  clumps  of  reeds 
surrounding  and  choking  the  springs,  and  spread- 
ing out  as  the  water  runs  off. 

26.  To  this  curious  and  repulsive  picture  the 
eastern  section  of  the  plain  is  an  entire  contrast.  A 
dense  thicket  of  reeds,  almost  impenetrable,  divides 
it  from  the  ISabkcili.     This  past,  the  aspect  of  the 


i!  Irby  and  Mangles  report  the  number  of  these 
"  drains  "  between  Jebel  Usdum  and  the  edge  of  th« 
GlifJr  es- Sri  ft' li  at  nix  ;  I'oole  at  eleven  ;  De  Saulcy  at 
three,  but  he  evidently  uaii.es  uiily  the  most  formidabU 
ones. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

land  completely  chances,  ft  is  a  think  copse  of 
ghnihs  similar  to  that  aruund  Jericho  (Rob.  ii.  113). 
and,  like  that,  cleared  here  and  there  in  patches 
where  the  G/iawnr'meli,"  or  Arabs  of  the  Gliof, 
cultivate  their  wheat  and  durra,  and  set  up  their 
wretched  villages.  The  variety  of  trees  appears  to 
be  remarkable.  Irby  and  Mangles  (p.  108/;)  speak 
of  "  an  infinity  of  plants  that  they  knew  not 
how  to  name  or  describe."  De  Saulcy  expresses 
himself  in  the  same  terms  —  "  une  riche  moisson 
botanique."'  The  plants  which  these  tra\ellers 
name  are  dwarf  mimosa,  tamarisk,  dom,  osher, 
Asch-pins  procerc,  nubk,  arek,  indigo.  Seetzen 
(i.  427)  names  also  the  TInijn  aphylln.  Here,  as 
at  Jericho,  the  secret  of  this  vegetation  is  an 
ab'Hidance  of  fresh  water  acting  on  a  soil  of  ex- 
treme richness  (Seetzen,  ii.  355).  Besides  the 
watercourse,''  in  which  the  belt  of  reeds  flourishes 
(like  those  north  of  the  Lake  of   Huleh  in  the 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


2887 


marshes  which  bound  the  upper  Jordan  c),  the 
Wiiihj  Kuraliy  (or  el-Alisy),  a  considerable  stream'' 
from  the  eastern  mountains,  runs  throui.'h  it,  and 
Mr.  Poole  mentions  having  jiassed  three  swift 
brooks,  either  branches  of  the  same,*^  or  independ- 
ent streams.  But  this  would  hardly  be  sufficient 
to  account  for  its  fertility,  unless  this  pcirtion  of 
the  plain  were  too  high  to  be  overflowed  by  the 
lake;  and  although  no  mention  is  made  of  any 
sucli  change  of  level,  it  is  probably  safe  to  assume 
it.  Perhaps,  also,  something  is  due  to  the  nature 
of  the  soil  brought  down  by  the  Wndi/  tl-Alii»j, 
of  which  it  is  virtually  the  delta.  This  district,  so 
well  wooded  and  watered,  is  called  the  O'linr  es- 
Safieh.  f  Its  width  is  less  than  that  of  the  Unhknh. 
No  traveller  has  traversed  it  from  VV.  to  E.,  for 
the  only  road  through  it  is  a])parently  that  to 
Kcrnlc,  which  alone  takes  a  N.  E.  direction  imme- 
diately aftar  passing  the  reeds.     De  Saulcy  made 


WW 


"'7  JXw':^" 


The  Dexd  Se.\.  —  View  from  the  h(.ij,ht»  bfhnid  Sfb^  h  (Masada),  showing  the  «ide  beach  on  the  western   side 
of  Ihe  lake,  and  the  tongue-shaped  peninsula.     From  a  drawing  made  on  the  spot  by  W.  Tipping,  Esq. 


the  nearest  approach  to  such  a  traverse  on  his  re- 
turn from  Kerak  (Nurvd/ive,  i.  492),  and  on  his 
detailed  map  (feuille  6)  it  appears  about  2^  miles 
in  width.  Its  length  is  still  more  uncertain,  as  we 
are  absolutely  without  record  of  any  exploration 
of  its  southern  portion.  Seetzen  (ii.  355)  specifies 
it  (at  second  hand)  as  extending  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Wddy  el-Hossn  (i.  e.  the  tl-AIigy).  On  the 
other  hand,  De  Saulcy,  when  crossing  the  Sabkah 


a  The  Ghorneys  of  Irby  and  Mangles  ;  the  Rhaouar- 
nas  of  De  Saulcy. 

''  I'robably  the  Wady  et-Tiifileh. 

c  See  De  Sau'.cv.  Narr.  i.  493. 

(I  Larger  than  the  Warlij  Mojib  (Seetzen.  i.  427). 

«  Seetzen  (ii.  355)  states  that  the  stream,  which  he 
calls  el-HiJssii,  is  conducted  in  artificial  channels 
{Kanalen)  through  the  fields  (also  i.  427).  Poole 
namefi  them  Ain  Aslika. 

f  Jlr.  Tristram  found  even  at  the  foot  of  the  salt 
(nountain  of  Usdum  that  about  2  feet  below  the  salt 
•urAice  there  was  a  epleodid  allurial  soil ;  aud  be  haa 


for  the  first  time  from  W.  to  E.  {Narr.  i.  263), 
remarked  that  there  was  no  intermission  in  the 
wood  before  him,  between  the  Ghor  ts-SfrJte/i  and 
the  foot  of  the  hills  at  the  extreme  south  of  the 
plain.  It  is  possible  that  both  ai'e  right,  and 
that  the  wood  extends  over  the  whole  east  of 
the  Ghvr,  though  it  bears  the  name  of  ts-SaJteh 
ordy  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the  el-Ahsy. 

27.  The  eastern  mountains,  which  form  the  back- 


suggested  to  the  writer  that  there  is  an  analogy  be- 
tween this  plain  and  certain  districts  in  North  Africa, 
which,  though  fertile  and  cultivated  in  Roman  times, 
are  now  barren  and  covered  with  effloresi-tnie  of  na- 
tron. The  cases  are  to  a  certain  degree  parallel,  in- 
a.smuch  as  the  African  plains  (also  called  Sebklia)  have 
their  salt  mountains  (like  the  Klinshm  Usr/iim,  ''iso- 
lated from  the  mountain  range  behind,"  and  flanked 
by  small  mamelons  bearing  stunted  herbage),  the 
streams  from  whicli  supply  them  with  salt  ( T/te  (rreat 
Sn/iara,  p.  71,  &c.).  They  are  also,  like  the  Sabkah  oj 
Syria,  overflowed  every  winter  by  the  ac(joinlng  lak# 


2888 


SEA.  THE  SALT 


ground  to  this  district  of  woodland,  are  no  less 
naked  and  rugged  than  those  on  the  opjiosite  side 
of  the  valley.  They  consist,  according  to  the  re- 
ports of  Seetzen  (ii.  354),  Poole,  and  l^ynch,  of  a 
red  sandstone,  with  limestone  above  it  —  the  saiid- 
Btone  in  horizontal  strata  with  vertical  cleavage 
(Lynch,  Narr.  pp.  311,  31.3).  To  judge  from  the 
fragments  at  their  feet,  they  must  also  contain  very 
fine  brecciffi  and  conglon)erates  of  granite,  jasper, 
greenstone,  and  felspar  of  varied  color.  Irb)  and 
Mangles  mention  also  porphu-y,  serpentine,  and 
basalt;  but  Seetzen  expressly  declares  that  of  basalt 
he  there  found  no  trace. 

Of  their  height  nothing  is  known,  but  all  travel- 
lers concur  in  estimating  them  as  higher  than  those 
on  the  west,  and  as  preserving  a  u:ore  horizontal 
line  to  the  south. 

After  passing  from  the  Ghor  es-SaJieh  to  the 
north,  a  salt  ])lain  is  encountered  resembling  the 
Sctikii/i,  and  like  it  overflowed  by  the  lake  when 
high  (Seetzen,  ii.  355).  With  this  esception  the 
mountains  come  down  abruptly  on  the  water  dur- 
ing the  whole  length  of  the  eastern  side  of  the 
lagoon.  In  two  places  only  is  there  a  projecting 
beach,  apparently  due  to  the  deltas  caused  by  the 
wadies  tn-Nemeirah  and  Ulieiiiiir. 

28.  \Ve  have  now  arrived  at  the  peninsula 
which  projects  from  the  eastern  shore  and  forms 
the  north  inclosure  of  the  lagoon.  ]t  is  too  re- 
markable an  object,  and  too  characteristic  of  the 
southern  portion  of  the  lake,  to  be  passed  over  with- 
out description. 

It  has  been  visited  and  described  by  three  ex- 
plorers—  Irby  and  Mangles  in  June,  1818;  Mr. 
Poole  in  November,  1855;  and  the  American  expe- 
dition in  April,  18-18.  Among  the  Arabs  it  appears 
to  bear  the  names  Ghor  el-Mezrii' ah  and  Ghorel- 
Lisaii.     The    lattft-   name — "the    Tongue""  — 

recalls  the  similar  Hebrew  word  Inshon,  ^'^W/, 
which  is  employed  three  times  in  relation  to  the 
lake  in  the  specification  of  the  boundaries  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin,  contained  in  the  liook  of  Joshua. 
Hut  in  its  three  occurrences  the  word  is  applied  to 
two  different  places  —  one  at  the  north  (Josh.  xv. 
5,  xviii.  19),  and  one  at  the  south  (xv.  2);  and  it 
is  proliable  that  it  signifies  in  both  cases  a  tongue 
of  water  —  a  bay — instead  of  a  tongue*  of  land. 

'2'J.  Its  entire  length  from  north  to  south  is  about 
10  geographical  miles,  and  its  lireadth  from  5  to 
6  —  though  these  dimensions  are  subject  to  some 


o  This  appellation  is  justified  by  the  view  on  the 
preceding  page. 

i  From  the  expression  being  in  the  first  two  cases 
"  tougiie  of  the  sea,"  and  iu  the  third  simply 
"  fnuiiiie,''  M.  de  Saulcy  conjectures  that  in  the  last 
sase  a  tongue  of  land  is  intended  :  but  there  is  noth- 
ing to  warrant  this.  It  is  by  no  means  certain 
whether  the  two  Arabic  names  just  meutioued  apply 
to  different  parts  of  the  peninsula,  or  are  given  indis- 
criminately to  the  whole.  GliSr  el-l\lezraVi/i  is  the 
only  name  which  Seetzen  mentions,  and  he  attaches 
it  to  the  whole.  It  is  also  the  only  one  mentioned  by 
Dr.  Anderson,  but  he  restricts  it  to  the  depression  on 
the  east  side  of  the  peninsula,  which  runs  N.  and  S. 
and  intervenes  between  the  main  body  and  the  foot  of 
the  eastern  mountains  (And.  p.  184).  M.  de  Saulcy  is 
apparently  the  earliest  traveller  to  mention  the  name 
Lisctii.  lie  (Jan.  15)  ascribes  it  to  the  whole  penin- 
sula, though  he  appears  to  attach  it  more  particu- 
larly to  its  southern  portion,  —  "  Le  Lifan  actuel  des 
4rabes.  c'est-a-dire  la  pointe  sud  de  la  presqu'-ile,''  (  Voy- 
\gt.^  i   290).     And  this  is  supported  by  the  practice  of 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

variation  according  to  the  time  of  year.  It  appcan 
to  be  formed  entirely  of  recent  aqueous  deposits, 
late,  or  post-tertiary,  very  similar,  if  not  identical, 
with  those  which  face  it  on  the  western  shore,  and 
with  the  "  mounds  "  which  skirt  the  plains  at  the 
south  and  N.  W.  of  the  lake.  It  consists  of  a 
friable  carbonate  of  lime  intermixed  with  sand  or 
sandy  marls,  and  with  frequent  masses  of  sulphate 
of  lime  (gypsum).  The  whole  is  impregnated 
strongly  with  sulphur,  lumps  of  which  are  found, 
as  on  the  plain  at  the  north  end  of  the  lake,  and 
also  with  salt,  existing  in  the  form  of  lumps  or 
packs  of  rock-salt  (And.  p.  187).  Nitre  is  reported 
by  Irby  (p.  139),  but  neither  Poole  nor  Anderson 
succeeded  in  meeting  with  it.  The  stratification  is 
almost  horizontal,  with  a  slight  dip  to  the  east 
(Poole,  p.  63).  At  the  north  it  is  worn  into  a  sharp 
ridge  or  mane,  with  very  steep  sides  and  serrated 
top.  Towards  the  south  the  top  widens  into  a 
table-land,  which  Poole  (ibid.)  reports  as  al)0ut  " 
230  ft.  aiiove  the  level  of  the  lake  at  its  southern 
end.  It  breaks  down  on  the  W.,  S.,  and  N.  E.  sides 
by  steep  declivities  to  the  shore,  furrowed  by  the 
rains  which  are  gradually  washing  it  into  the  lake, 
into  cones  and  other  fantastic  forms,  like  tho.se  al- 
ready described  on  the  western  bead  near  SehlieM. 
It  presents  a  brilliant  white  appearan.:e  when  lit  up 
by  the  blazing  sun,  and  contrasted  with  the  deep  blue 
of  the  lake  (Beaufort,  p.  104).  A  scanty  growth  of 
shrubs  (Poole,  p.  64)  —  so  scanty  as  to  be  almost 
invisible  -(Irby,  p.  139  i)  — is  found  over  the  table- 
land. On  the  east  the  highland  descends  to  a  de- 
pression of  U  or  2  miles  wide,  which  from  the 
description  of  Dr.  Anderson  (p.  184)  appears  to  run 
across  the  neck  from  S.  to  N.,  at  a  level  hardly 
above  that  of  the  lake.  It  will  doubtless  be  ulti- 
mately worn  down  quite  to  the  level  of  the  water, 
and  then  the  peninsula  will  become  an  island  (An- 
derson, pp.  184,  189).  Into  this  valley  lead  the  tor- 
rents from  the  ravines  of  the  mountains  on  the 
east.  The  principal  of  these  is  the  Wody  td-Drn'a 
or  W.  Keruk,  which  leads  up  to  the  city  of  that 
name.  It  is  here  that  the  few  inhabitants  of  the 
peninsula  reside,  in  a  wretched  village  called  Mez- 
7-a'ah.  The  soil  is  of  the  most  unbounded  fertility, 
and  only  requires  water  to  burst  into  riotous  prodi- 
gality of  vegetation  (Seetzen,  ii.  351,  352). 

30.  There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this 
peninsula  is  the  renmant  of  a  bed  of  late  aqueous 
strata,  which  were  deposited  at  a  period  when  the 


Van  de  Velde,  who  on  his  map  marlis  the  north  portion 
of  the  peninsula  as  GhOr  el-Mezra^ah,  and  the  south 
G/iOr^el-l.isan  M.  de  Saxilcy  also  specifies  with  much 
detail«the  position  of  the  former  of  the.'e  two  as  at  the 
opening  of  the  Wad;/  ed-Dra'a  (Jan.  15).  The  point 
is  well  worth  the  attention  of  future  travellers,  for  if 
the  name  Lisfiri  is  actually  restricted  to  the  south  side, 
a  curious  confirmation  of  the  accuracy  of  the  ancient 
survey  recorded  in  Josh.  xv.  2  would  be  furnished, 
as  well  as  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  tenacity  of  an  old 
name. 

c  This  dimension,  which  Mr.  Poole  took  with  his  ane- 
roid, is  strangely  at  variance  with  the  estimate  of 
h)  nch's  party.  Lynch  himself,  on  approaching  it  at 
the  north  point  ([farT.  p.  29"),  states  it  at  Irom  40  to 
60  feet  high,  with  a  sharp  angular  central  ridge  some 
20  feet  above  that.  This  Last  feature  is  mentioned  also 
by  Irby  (June  2).  Anderson  iucrea.ses  the  dimension 
of  his  chief  to  80  or  90  ft.  {Off.  Rfp.  p  185)  ;.but  pven 
this  falls  short  of  Poole.  The  peninsula  probably 
slopes  off  considerably  towards  the  north  end,  at  whicli 
Lynch  and  Anderson  made  their  estimate. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

water  of  the  lake  stood  very  much  higher  thar  it 
now  does,  l>iit  which,  since  it  attained  its  present 
level,  and  thus  exposed  them  to  the  action  of  the 
winter  torrents,  are  gradually  being  disintegrated 
and  carried  down  into  the  depths  of  the  lake.  It 
is  in  fact  an  intrusion  upon  the  form  of  the  lake,  as 
originally  cteterniined  by  the  rocky  walls  of  the 
great  fissure  of  the  Glidr.  Its  presence  here,  so 
long  after  tlie  great  bulk  of  the  same  formation  has 
been  washed  away,  is  an  interesting  and  fortunate 
circumstance,  since  it  furnishes  distinct  evidence  of 
a  staire  in  the  existence  of  the  lake,  which  in  its 
absence  iijight  have  been  inferred  from  analogy, 
but  could  never  have  lieen  affirmed  as  certain.  It 
may  have  been  deposited  either  by  the  general  ac- 
tion of  the  lake,  or  by  the  special  action  of  a  river, 
possibly  in  the  direction  of  Wadtj  Kerak,  which 
iu  that  case  formed  this  extensive  deposit  at  its 
month,  just  as  the  Jordan  is  now  forming  a  similar 
tiank  at  its  embouchure.  If  a  change  were  to  take 
place  which  either  lowered  the  water,  or  ele\ated 
the  bottom  of  the  lake,  the  bank  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Jordan  would  be  laid  bare,  as  the  Lisaii  now 
is,  and  would  inniiediately  begin  to  undergo  the 
process  of  disintegration  which  that  is  undergoing. 

31.  The  extraordinary  difference  between  the 
depth  of  the  two  portions  of  the  lake  —  north  and 
south  of  the  peninsula — has  been  already  alluded 
to,  and  may  be  seen  at  a  glance  on  the  section 
given  on  page  2878.  The  former  is  a  bowl,  which 
at  one  place  attains  the  depth  of  more  than  I, -300 
feet,  while  the  avera'jje  depth  along  its  axis  may  be 
taken  at. not  far  short  of  1,000.  On  the  other  hand 
the  southern  portion  is  a  Hat  plain,  with  the  greater 
part  of  its  area  nearly  level,  a  very  few  feet"  only 
below  the  surface*  shoaling  gradually  at  the  edges 
till  the  brink  is  reached.  So  shallow  is  this  lagoon 
that  it  is  sometimes  possible  to  ford  right  across 
from  the  west  to  the  east  side  (Seetzen,  i.  428,*  ii. 
358;  Rob.  i.  521;   Lynch,  N<irr.  p.  304). 

The  channel  comiecting  the  two  portions,  on  the 
western  side  of  the  peninsula,  is  ver}'  gradual  in 
its  slope  from  S.  to  N.,<^  increasing  in  depth  from 
3  fathoms  to  13,  and  from  13  to  19,  32  and  56, 
when  it  suddenly  drops  to  107  (642  feet),  and 
joins  the  ujjper  portion. 

32.  Thus  the  circular  portion  above  the  penin- 
sula, and  a  part  of  the  chainiel,  form  a  mere  la- 
goon, entirely  distinct  and  separate  from  the  basin 
of  the  lake  proper.  This  portion  and  the  plain  at 
the  south  as  fivr  as  the  rise  or  offset  at  which  the 
Arabah  commences  —  a  district  in  all  of  some  16 
miles  by  8  —  would  appear  to  have  been  left  by 
the  last  great  change  in  the  form  of  the  ground 
at  a  level  not  far  below  its  present  one,  and 
consequently  much  higher  than  the  bottom  of  the 
lake  itself.  But  surrounded  as  it  is  on  three  sides 
oy  highlands,  the  waters  of  which  have  no  other 
outlet,  it  has  become  the  delta   into  which  those 


2Y.\    THE  SALT 


2889 


o  When  sounded   by  Lynch,  its   depth   over   the 
greater  part  of  the  area  was  12  feet. 

i>  He  fixes  the  ford  at  ^  au  hour  north  of  the  N. 
end  of  Jebel  Uxihan. 

<•'  Across  this,  too,  there  is  a  ford,  described  in  some 
detail  by  Irby  and  Mangles  (June  2).  The  water  must 
have  been  unusually  low,  since  they  not  only  state 
that  donkeys  were  able  to  cross,  but  also  that  the 
width  did  not  exceed  a  mile,  a  matter  in  which  the 
keen  eye  of  a  practical  sailor  is  not  likely  to  have 
been  deceived.  Lynch  could  find  no  trace  of  either 
ford,  and  his  map  shows  the  channel  as  fully  two 
miles  wide  at  its  narrowest  spot. 
182 


waters  dif>cha'"f«!  ♦heiii^'  Ke*  •_'"  'ts  south  side  are 
the  innneuse  toirents  ot  tne  J  no,  the  unurundc(, 
and  the  Fikreh.  On  the  east  the  somewhat  less 
important  el-Ahsy,  Nuiiinrnh,  Bumeii;  and  ecl- 
Vrii'dh.  On  the  west  the /^«rt'(!(r(i/i,  MttbiKjIiyhik,'^ 
and  Seniii.  These  streams  are  the  drains  of  a  dis- 
trict not  less  than  6,000  square  miles  in  area,  very 
uneven  in  form,  and  composed  of  materials  more  or 
less  friable.  They  must  therefore  bring  dc'vu 
enormous  quantities  of  silt  and  shingle.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  they  have  already  filled  up 
the  sinithern  part  of  the  estuary  as  far  as  the  pres- 
ent brink  of  the  water,  and  the  silting  up  of  the 
rest  is  merely  a  work  of  time.  It  is  the  same  pro- 
cess which  is  going  on,  on  a  larger  and  more  rapid 
scale,  in  the  Sea  of  Azov,  the  upper  portion  of  which 
is  fast  filling  up  with  the  detritus  of  the  river  Don. 
Indeed  the  two  portions  of  the  Dead  Sea  present 
several  points  of  analogy  to  the  Sea  of  Azov  and 
the  Black  Sea. 

It  is  difficult  to  speak  with  confidence  on  any  of 
the  geological  features  of  the  lake,  in  the  absence 
of  reports  by  competent  observers.  But  the  theory 
that  the  lag(jon  was  lowered  by  a  recent  change, 
adid  overflowed  (liobinson,  Bibl.  Jics.  ii.  180),  seems 
directly  contrary  to  the  natural  inference  from  the 
fact  that  such  large  torrents  discharge  themselves 
into  that  spot.  There  is  nothing  in  the  appear- 
ance of  the  ground  to  suggest  any  violent  change 
in  recent  (/.  e.  historical)  times,  or  that  anything 
has  taken  place  but  the  gradual  accunmlation  of 
the  deposits  of  the  torrents  all  over  the  delta. 

33.  The  water  of  the  lake  is  not  less  remarkable 
than  its  other  features.  Its  most  obvious  pecul- 
iarity is  its  great  weight."*  Its  specific  gravity 
has  been  found  to  be  as  much  as  12.28;  that  is 
to  say,  a  gall(>n  of  it  would  weigh  over  12|^  lbs. 
instead  of  10  lbs.,  the  weight  of  distilled  water. 
\\'ater  so  heavy  must  not  only  be  extremely 
buoyant  but  must  possess  great  inertia.  Its 
buoyancy  is  a  common  theme  of  remark  by  the 
travellers  who  have  been  upon  it  or  in  it.  Jose- 
phus  {B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  4)  relates  some  experiments 
made  by  Vespasian  by  throwing  bound  criniinala 
into  it;  and  Lynch,  bathing  on  the  eastern  shore 
near  the  mouth  of  the  W'idy  Zurka,  says  {Norr. 
p.  371),  in  words  curiously  parallel  to  those  of  the 
old  historian,  "With  great  difficulty  I  kept  my 
feet  down,  and  when  I  laid  upon  my  back,  and, 
drawnig  up  my  knees,  placed  my  hands  upon  them, 
I  rolled  immediately  over."  In  the  bay  on  the 
north  side  of  the  peninsula,  "  a  horse  could  with 
difficulty  keep  himself  upright.  Two  fresh  hens' 
eggs  floated  up  one-third  of  their  lentith,"  i.  e. 
with  one-third  exposed ;  "  they  would  have  sunk  in 
the  water  of  the  Mediterranean  or  Atlantic" 
{Mnrr.  p.  342).  "A  muscular  man  floated  nearly 
breast  high  without  the  least  exertion"  {i/ri<l.  p.  325). 
One  of  the  things  remembered  by  the  JIaltese  ser- 


''  Pronounced  Muburrik ;  the  Embarreg  of  De 
Saulcy . 

<?  Of  the  salt  lakes  in  Northern  Persia  {Unimiyeh, 
etc.)  nothing  is  yet  known.  SVagner's  account  is  very 
vague.  Those  in  Southern  Russia  have  been  fully 
investigated  by  Goebel  (Reisen,  etc.,  Dorpat,  1837). 
Tlie  heaviest  water  is  that  of  the  "  Red  Sea,"  near 
Perekop  in  the  Crimea  (sohd  contents  37.22  per  cent.  ; 
sp.  gr.  13.31).  The  others,  including  the  leltonskoe 
or  Elton,  contain  from  24  to  28  per  cent,  of  solid  mat- 
ter in  solution,  and  range  in  sp.  (jr.  fiom  12.07  to 
12.68. 


2890 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


vant  of  ]Mr.  Costigan  —  who  lost  his  life  from  ex- 
posure on  the  lake  —  was  that  the  boat  "floated  a 
palni  his/her  than  liefore"  (.Stephens,  Incidtnts, 
ch.  xxxii.)-  I'r.  llohinson  '-could  never  swim  be- 
fore, either  in  fresh  or  salt  water,"  j'et  here  he 
"  could  sit,  stand,  lie,  or  swim  without  difficulty  " 
{Bi:,l.  Rts.  i.  50(5). 

34.  .So  much  for  its  buoyancy.  Of  its  weight 
and  inertia  the  American  expedition  had  also  prac- 
tical experience.  In  the  gale  in  which  the  party 
were  caught  on  their  first  day  on  the  lake,  lietween 
the  mouth  of  the  Jordan  and  Ain  Feshkhn/i,  "  it 
seenjed  as  if  the  bows  of  the  boats  were  encounter- 
ing the  sledge-hammers  of  the  Titans."  When, 
however,  '-the  wind  aliated,  the  sea  rapidly  fell: 
the  water,  from  its  ponderous  quality,  settling  as 
soon  as  the  agitating  cause  had  ceased  to  act  " 
(Xcirr.  pp.  268,  269).  At  ordinary  times  there  is 
nothing  remarkable  in  the  action  of  the  surface  of 
the  lake.  Its  waves  rise  and  fall,  and  surf  beats 
on  the  shore,  just  like  the  ocean.  Nor  is  its  color 
dissimilar  to  that  of  the  sea.  The  water  has  a 
greasy  feel,  owing  possibly  to  the  saponification  of 
the  lime  and  other  earthy  salts  with  the  perspira- 
tion of  the  skin,  and  this  seems  to  have  led  some 
observers  to  attribute  to  it  a  greasy  look.  But 
Buch  a  look  exists  in  imagination  only.  It  is  quite 
transparent,  of  an  opalescent  green  tint,  and  is 
compared  by  Lynch  (Nun:  p.  .337)  to  diluted 
absinthe.  Lynch  (Narr.  p.  296)  distinctly  contra- 
dicts the  assertion  that  it  has  any  smell,  noxious  or 
not.     So  do  the  chemists  "  who  have  analyzed  it. 

35.  One  or  two  phenomena  of  the  surface  may 
be  mentioned.  Many  of  the  old  travellers,  and 
some  modern  ones  (as  Osburn,  P<il.  Past  ami 
Present,  p.  443,  and  ('burton,  Land  of  the  Morn- 
inf/,  p  ]49),  mention  that  the  ftrliid,  yellow 
stream  of  the  .Jordan  is  distinguishable  for  a  long 
distance  in  the  lake.  iMolyneux  (p.  129)  speaks  of 
a  "curious  broad  strip  of  white  foam  which  ap- 
peared to  he  in  a  straight  line  nearly  N.  and  S. 
throughout  the  whole  length  of  the  sea  ...  .  some 
miles  W.  of  the  mouth  of  the  .lordan  "  (comp. 
Lynch,  N'ln:  pp.  279,  295).  "It  seemed  to  be 
constantly  bubl)ling  and  in  motion,  like  a  stream 
that  runs  rapidly  through  still  water;  while  nearly 
over  this  track  during  both  nii;hts  we  observed  in 
the  sky  a  white  streak  like  a  cloud  extending  also 
N.  and  S.  and  as  far  as  the  eye  could  reach." 
Lines  of  foam  on  the  surface  are  mentioned  by 
others:  as  Robinson  (i.  503);  Borr"r  {.Journey, 
etc.,  p.  479);  Lynch  (A^^(»-/-.  pp.  288,  289).  From 
Ain  Jiily  a  current  was  observed  by  Mr.  Clowes' 
party  running  steadily  to  the  N.  not  far  from  the 
shore  (comp.  Lynch,  Narr.  p.  291).  It  is  pos- 
sibly an  eddy  caused  by  the  influx  of  the  .Jordan. 
Both  De  Saulcy  {Narr.  .January  8)  and  Kobinson 
(i.  504)  speak  of  spots  and  belts  of  water  remain- 
ing smooth  and  calm  while  the  rest  of  the  surfece 
was  rippled,  and  presenting  a  strong  resemblance 
to  islands  (comp.  Lynch,  p.  288;  Irby,  June  5). 
The   haze  or  mist   which   perpetually  broods  over 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

the  water  has  been  already  mentioned.  It  is  the  r* 
suit  of  the  prodigious  evaporation.  Lynch  Kmtinu- 
ally  mentions  it.  Irby  (June  1)  saw  it  in  broad, 
transparent  columns,  like  water-spouts,  only  very 
much  larger.  Extraordinary  eflects  of  mirage  due 
to  the  unequal  refraction  produced  by  the  heat  and 
moisture  are  occasionally  seen  (Lynch,  Narr.  p.  320). 

36.  The  remarkable  weight  of  this  water  is  due 
to  the  very  large  quantity  of  mineral  salts  which  it 
holds  in  solution.  The  details  of  tiie  various  anal- 
yses are  given  on  p.  2891  in  a  tabular  form,  accompa  ■ 
iiied  by  that  of  sea-water  for  cunparison.  Fron 
that  of  the  U.  S.  expedition  ''  it  appears  that  eacl 
gallon  of  the  water,  weighing  12^  lbs.,  contains 
nearly  3j  lbs.  (3.319)  of  matter  in  solution  —  an 
immense  quantity  when  we  recollect  that  sea-water, 
weighing  \Q^  lbs.  per  gallon,  contains  less  than  ^  a 
lb.  Of  this  3j  lbs.  nearly  1  lb.  is  common  salt 
(chloride  of  sodium);  about  2  lbs.  chloride  of  mag- 
nesium, and  less  than  ^  a  lb.  chloride  of  calcium 
(or  muriate  of  lime).  The  most  unusual  ingredi- 
ent is  bromide  of  m.agnesium,  which  exists  in  truly 
extraordinary  quantity.'^  To  its  presence  is  due 
the  therapeutic  reputation  enjoyed  by  the  lake 
when  its  water  was  sent  to  Rome  for  wealthy  in- 
valids ((ialen,  in  Reland,  P(d.  p.  242),  or  lepers 
flocked  to  its  shores  (.\nt.  Mart.  §  x.).  Boussin- 
gault  {Ann.  de  Chiinie,  1856,  xlviii.  168)  remarks 
that  if  ever  bromine  should  liecome  an  article  of 
commerce,  the  Dead  Sea  will  be  the  natural  source 
for  it.  It  is  the  magnesian  compounds  which  im- 
part so  nauseous  and  bitter  a  flavor  to  the  water. 
The  quantity  of  common  salt  in  solution  is  very 
large.  Lynch  found  {Narr.  p.  377)  that  while 
distilled  water  would  dissolve  .5-17ths  of  its  weight 
of  salt,  and  the  water  of  the  Atlantic  l-6th,  the 
water  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  so  nearly  saturated  as 
only  to  be  able  to  take  up  1-11  th. 

37.  The  sources  of  the  components  of  the  water 
may  be  named  generally  without  difhculty.  The 
lime  and  magnesia  proceed  from  the  dolouiitic  lime- 
stone of  the  surrounding  mountains;  from  the  gyp- 
sum which  exists  on  the  shores,  nearly  pure,  in 
large  quantities;  and  from  the  carbonate  of  lime 
and  carbonate  of  magnesia  found  on  the  peninsula 
and  elsewhere  (Anderson,  p.  185).  The  chloride  of 
sodium  is  supplied  from  Khaslini  Usdum,  and  the 
copious  brine  springs  on  both  shores.  Balls  of 
nearly  pure  sulphur  (probably  the  deposit  of  some 
sulphurous  stream)  are  found  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  lake,  on  the  jjeninsula  (Anderson,  p.  187), 
on  the  western  beach  and  the  northwestern  heights 
{ibid.  pp.  176,  180,  160),  and  on  the  plain  S.  of 
Jericho  (Rev.  G.  W.  Bridi^es).  Kitre  inay  exist, 
but  the  specimens  mentioned  by  Irby  and  others 
are  more  probably  pieces  of  rock  salt,  since  no  trtce 
of  nitric  acid  has  been  found  in  the  water  or  soil 
(Marchand,  p.  370). f'  Manganese,  iron,  and  alu- 
mina have  been  found  on  the  peninsula  (Anderson, 
pp.  185,  187),  and  the  other  constituents  are  the 
product  of  the  numerous  mineral  springs  which 
surround  the  lake,«  and  the  washings  of  the  aque- 


a  With  the  single  exception  of  Moldenhauer,  who 
when  he  first  opened  the  specimen  he  analyzed,  found 
it  to  smell  strongly  of  sulphur. 

b  This  is  chosen  because  the  water  was  taken  from 
a  considerable  depth  in  the  centre  of  the  lake,  and 
therefore  probably  more  fairly  represents  the  average 
compnpition  than  the  others. 

c  AJopting  Marchand's  analysis,  it  appears  that  the 
^QAntit}  of  this  salt  in  the  Dead  Sea  is  128  "iuies  ss 


1 


great  as  in  the  ocean  and  74  times  as  great  as  in  the 
Kreuznach  water,  where  its  strength  is  considered  re- 
markable. 

d  On  the  subject  of  the  bitumen  of  the  lake,  the 
writer  has  nothing  to  add  to  what  is  said  under  Pal- 
estine, iii.  2307,  and  Slime. 

e  The  bromine  has  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  traced. 

The  salt  of  Klms/im  Us/tum  has  been  analyzed  for  it» 

I 'li<ir>oTerv  fHf)  a    liM).  ouc  in  tiuq      Marchand  iz 


SEA,  THE  SALT  2891 

OOMTARATIVB   TABLE   OF    ANALYSES   OF    THE    WATER   OF   THE   DEAD   SEA. 


1. 
C.  G. 

Gnielin, 
1»24. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Booth, 

6. 

7. 

8. 

6. 

Mar- 

Hera- 

of  PhiUi- 

deli)liia 

(U.S. 

Exped.), 

1849. 

Boutron- 
Charhlrd 

and 
Henry. 

Prof.  W. 

Molden- 

Water  Oi 

As  recal- 

Apjohn, 

chand, 

path, 

Gregory, 

hauer. 

the 

culated 
by  Mar- 
chand. 

1S3S. 

1847. 

1849. 

1854. 

Nov.  1854. 

Ocean. 

Bhlortde  of  Mafruesiura 

ll'.lliO 

7..'3ril 

10..i4.3 

7.822 

14.589 

1.696 

1.3.951 

6.s;u 

.:<(il 

Sodium       .    . 

7.IK) 

7..s.'i9 

0.578 

12.109 

7.855 

ll.(K)3 

7..3.S9 

2.9.57 

2.7»l 

»             Calcium      .     . 

3.:»J 

2.4.» 

2.894 

2.4.M 

*3.107 

.(Ml) 

2.796 

1.471 

- 

"            Potassium  .    . 

l.lWli 

.8.52 

l.S'JS 

1.217 

.058 

.166 

.571 

2.391 

.071 

"            Manganese     . 

.Kil 

.(HI5 

.OUT) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

"            Ammonium   . 

.(Kir 

_ 

- 

.(H«J 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Alumiuium    . 

.]4;3 

- 

.018 

.o.jo 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

"            Iron    .... 

. 

_ 

- 

.003 

. 

_ 

- 

- 

- 

Sulphate  of  Potash    .    .    . 

_ 

~ 

. 

- 

- 

.062 

- 

Lime      .    .    . 

.052 

.075 

.OS.S 

.068 

.070 

- 

.106 

- 

.14C 

.  *'             Magnesia    .    , 

_ 

_ 

- 

_ 

.2.3.3 

- 

- 

.2:M 

Bronii  le  of  Majraesium     . 
Soclium  .    .    . 

.442 

.201 

.251 

.251 

.137 

trace. 

.069 

.183 

.Wi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Organic  matter       .... 

- 

_ 

— 

.062 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Bilieu      . 

_ 

_ 

.003 

_ 

- 

.200 

- 

- 

- 

Bituminous  matter    .    .    . 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

. 

. 

- 

- 

- 

Cai'bonate  of  Lime    .    .    . 

24.4'« 

" 

- 

- 

" 

.953 

■ 

■ 

.008 
Loss    .0^5 

1  ntiil  solid  contents  .    .    . 

1S,780 

21.773 

24.055 

26.416 

14.927 

24.8.32 

I3..S95 

3..530 

Water 

r.i.oiw 

81.220 

78.227 

75.945 

73.584 

85.073 

75.168 

86.105 

96.470 

100.(»li' 
1.21)2 

mum 

loo.duo 

100.000 

lOO.O(X) 

lOO.OlW 

llKl.OOO 

100.000 

IIKMKX) 

Specific  gravity     .... 

1.153 

I. 1841 

1.172 

1.227 

1.099 

1.210 

1.116 

1.0278 

at  00'^  F. 

at  GO"  F. 

at  60"  F. 

Boiling  point 

- 

221° 

- 

227.75 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Water  obtained     .... 

_ 

i  mile 

in  1.847, 

in  March, 

Mav  5,  '48 

April  2, 

from 

in  June, 

- 

from 

at  the 

1.S49, 

195  fath. 

18.50, 

Island  at 

1854. 

Jordan, 

north 

I  mile 

deep, 

"2  hours 

N.  end. 

late 

end. 

isr.  w.of 

ott 

frou)  tlie 

March  11, 

in  rainy 

mouth  of 

A.  Tera- 

Jordan." 

1854. 

season. 

Jordan. 

beh. 

No.  1.  The  figures  in  the  table  are  the  recalcula- 
tions of  Marchaiid  (Journal,,  etc.,  p.  359)  on  the  basis  of 
the  improved  chemical  science  of  his  time.  The  orig- 
inal analysis  is  in  Naturwiss.  Abhandl.,  Tiibiiigeu,  i. 
(1827)  333. 

No.  2.  See  T/ie  Athenceum,  June  15,  1839. 

No.  3.  Journal  fiir  prakt .  CAewiV,  etc.,  Leipzig,  xlvii. 
(1849),  365. 

No.  4.  Quarterly  Journal  of  Ckem.  Soc.  ii.  (1850) 
3313. 

No.  5.    Of.  Report  of  U.  S.  Expedition ,  4to,  p.  204. 

No.  6.  Journal  de  Pkarmacie  et  de  Chimie,  Mars, 
1852. 

No.  7.  Calculated  by  the  writer  from  the  propor- 
tionate table  of  salt.s  given  in  Stewarfs  Tent  and  Klian, 
p.  381. 

No  8.  Liebig  and  Wohler's  Annalen  der  Chemie, 
xlvii.  (1856)  357 ;  xlviii.  (1856)  129-170. 

No.  9.  Reguault's  Coars  Etcm.  de  Chimie,  ii.  190. 

The  older  analyses  have  not  been  reprinted,  the 
methods  employed  having  been  imperfect  and  the  re- 
sults uncertain  as  compared  with  the  more  modern 
ones  quoted.  They  are  as  follows  :  (1.)  Wacquer,  La- 
voisier, and  Lesage  {M-m.  de  I'Acad.  des  Siietices, 
1778) ;  (2.)  Marcet(P/ii7.  Trani.,  1807,  p.  29fi,  &c.);  (3.) 
Klaproth  (Mag.  der  Gesells.  natiirfor.  Freunde  zu 
i)cr//rt,  iii.  139) ;  (4.)  Gay  Lussac  (Ann.  de  Chimie, 
xi.  (1819)  197) ;  (5.)  Hermbstadt  (Schweij;ger's  Journal, 
xxxiv.  163). 

Want  of  space  compels  the  omission  of  the  analysis 
of  Houssiugault  of  water  collected  in  spring,  1855  (Ann. 
de  Chimie,  xlviii.  (1856)  129-170),  which  corresponds 
very  dosely  with  that  of  Gmehn  (namely,  sp.  gr. 
1.194  ,  salts.  22.785  per  cent.),  as  well  as  that  of  Com- 
miues  (quoted  in  the  same  paper)  of  water  collected  in 
luue,  1853,  showing  sp.  gr.  1.196  and  salts  18.26  per 
cent.  Another  analysis  by  Professor  W.  Gregory,  giv- 
ing 19.25  per  cent,  of  salts,  is  quoted  by  Kitto  (^PJiys. 
Geogr.  p.  374). 

The  writer  has  been  fiivored  with  specimens  of 
ivater  collected  13th  November,  1850,  by  the  Ilev.  G. 
\V.  Bridges,  and  7th  April,  1863,  by  Mr.  R.  D  Wilson. 
Both   were  taken  from   the  north  end.     The  former. 


which  had  been  carefully  sealed  up  until  examination, 
exhibited  sp.  gr.  1.1812,  solid  contents,  21.585  per 
cent. ;  the  latter,  sp.  gr.  1.184,  solid  contents,  22.188  ; 
the  boiling  point  in  both  cases  226°  4  Fahr.  —  a  singu 
lar  agreement,  when  it  is  remembered  that  one  speci 
men  was  obtained  at  the  end,  the  other  at  the  begin 
niug  of  sui^iBier.  For  this  investigation,  and  much 
more  valuable  assistance  iu  this  part  of  his  article,  the 
writer  is  indebted  to  his  friend.  Dr.  David  Simpson 
Price,  F.  C.  S. 

The  inferiority  in  the  quantity  of  the  salts  in  Nos. 
2.  6,  and  8  is  very  remarkable,  and  must  be  due  to  the 
fact  (acknowledged  in  the  two  first)  that  the  water  was 
obtained  during  the  rainy  season,  or  from  near  the 
entrance  of  the  Jordan  or  other  fresh  water.  Nos.  7 
and  8  were  collected  within  two  months  of  each  other. 
The  preceding  winter,  1853-54,  was  one  of  tlie  wettest 
and  coldest  remembered  in  Syria,  and  yet  the  earlier 
of  the  two  analyses  shows  a  largely  preponderating 
quantity  of  salts.  The'^e  i.''  sufficient  discrepancy  in 
the  whole  of  the  results  to  render  it  desirable  that 
a  fresh  set  of  analyses  should  be  made,  of  water  ob- 
tained from  various  deflued  spots  and  depths,  at  dif 
ferent  times  of  the  year,  and  investigated  by  the  same 
analyst.  The  variable  density  of  the  water  was  ob- 
served as  early  as  by  Galea  (see  quotations  in  Reland, 
Pat.  p.  242). 

The  best  papers  on  this  interesting  subject  are  those 
of  Gmehn,  Marchand,  Herapath,  and  Boussingault  (see 
the  references  given  above).  The  second  of  these  con- 
tains an  excellent  review  of  former  analy.^es,  and  most 
instructive  observations  on  matters  more  or  le.ss  con- 
nected with  the  subject. 

The  absence  of  iodine_  is  remarkable.  It  was  par- 
ticularly searched  for  by  both  Herapath  and  .Mar- 
chand, but  without  effect.  In  September,  1858,  the 
writer  obtained  a  large  quantity  of  water  from  the 
island  at  the  north  end  of  the  lake,  which  he  reduced 
by  boiling  on  the  spot.  The  concentrated  salts  were 
afterwards  tested  by  Dr.  D.  S.  Price  by  his  nitrate  oi 
potash  test  (see  Cliem.  Soc.  Journal  for  1851),  with  ihe 
express  view  of  detecting  iodine,  but  not  a  trace  co  tld 
l)e  discovered. 


f  iter  from  "  another  part "  of  the  lake  he  found  as  much  as  4.8  per  cent 


2892 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


ou?  deposits  on  the  shores  (see  §  17),  which  are 
gnuliially  restoring  to  the  lake  the  salts  they  re- 
ceived from  it  ages  back,  when  covered  by  its 
waters.  The  strength  of  these  ingredients  is 
heiirhtened  by  the  continual  evaporation,  which  (as 
already  stated)  is  sufficient  to  carry  off  the  whole 
amount  of  the  water  supplied,  leaving,  of  course, 
the  salts  in  the  lake;  and  which  in  the  Dead  Sea. 
as  in  every  other  lake  which  has  affluents  but  no 
outlets,  is  gra<lually  concentrating  the  mineral  con- 
stituents of  the  water,  as  in  the  alembic  of  the 
chemist.  "When  the  water  becomes  saturated  with 
salt,  or  even  before,  deposition  will  take  place,  and 
salt-beds  be  formed  on  the  bottom  of  the  lake/' 
If,  then,  at  a  future  epoch  a  convulsion  should  take 
place  which  should  upheave  the  bottom  of  the  lake, 
a  salt  mountain  would  be  formed  similar  to  the 
Kliaslim  Usdiim;  and  this  is  not  improbably  the 
manner  in  which  that  singular  mountain  was  formed. 
It  appears  to  have  been  the  lied  of  an  ancient  salt 
lake,  which,  during  the  convulsion  which  depressed 
the  bed  of  the  present  lake,  or  some  other  remote 
change,  was  forced  up  to  its  present  position.  Thus 
this  spot  may  have  been  from  the  earliest  ages  the 
home  of  Dtad  Sens ;  and  the  present  lake  but  one 
of  a  numerous  series. 

38.  It  has  been  long  supposed  that  no  life  what- 
ever existed  in  the  lake.  But  recent  facts  show 
'hat  some  inferior  organizations  can  and  do  find  a 
home  even  in  these  salt  and  acrid  waters.  The 
Cabinet  d'Hist.  Naturelle  at  Paris  contains  a  fine 
specimen  of  a  coral  called  S/ylop/wra  pistillotn, 
which  is  stated  to  have  been  brought  from  the  lake 
m  1837  by  the  Marq.  de  I'Escalopier,  and  has  every 
appearance  of  having  been  a  resident  there,  and 
not  an  ancient  or  foreign  specimen.''  Khrenberg 
discovered  11  species  of  Polygaster,  2  of  Folytha- 
lamise,  and  5  of  Phytolithariae,  in  mud  and  water 
brought  home  by  Lepsius  {Monntsb.  d.  Kon.  Pr. 
Ahid.  June,  1849).  The  mud  was  taken  from  the 
north  end  of  the  lake,  1  hour  N.  W.  of  the  Jor- 
dan, and  far  from  the  shore.  Some  of  the  speci- 
mens of  I'olygaster  exhibited  ovaries,  and  it  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  all  the  species  were  found 
in  the  water  of  the  Jordan  also.  The  copious 
phosphorescence  mentioned  by  Lynch  (Narr.  p. 
280)  is  also  a  token  of  the  existence  of  life  in  the 
waters.  In  a  warm  salt  stream  which  rose  at  the 
foot  of  the  Jebel  Usdum,  at  a  few  yards  only  from 
the  lake,  JMr.  Poole  (Nov.  4)  caught  small  fish 
(C)iprinodmi  hnmmom&)  1\  inch  long.  He  is  of 
opinion,  though  he  did  not  ascertain  the  fact,  that 
Uiey  are  denizens  of  the  lake.  The  vieknwpsis 
sheils  found  by  Poole  (p.  67 )  at  the  fresh  springs 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

(?  Ain  Terabe/i),  and  which  other  travellers  have 
brought  from  the  shore  at  Ain  Jidy,  belong  to  the 
spring  and  not  to  the  lake.  Fucua  and  ulva  are 
spoken  of  by  some  of  the  travellers,  but  nothing 
certain  is  known  of  them.  The  ducks  seen  diving 
by  Poole  must  surely  have  been  in  search  of  some 
form  of  life,  either  animal  or  vegetable. 

39.  The  statements  of  ancient  travellers  and 
geographers  to  the  effect  that  no  living  creature 
could  exist  on  the  shores  of  the  lake,  or  bird  fly 
across  its  siirface,  are  amply  disproved  by  later 
travellers.  It  is  one  of  the  first  things  mentioned 
by  Maundrell  (March  30);  and  in  our  own  days 
almost  every  traveller  has  noticed  the  fable  to  con- 
tradict it.  The  cane  brakes  of  Ain  FeshUuih.  and 
the  other  springs  on  the  margin  of  the  lake,  har- 
bor snipe,  partridges,  ducks,  nij^htingales,  and  other 
birds,  as  well  as  frogs;  hawks,  doves,  and  bare* 
are  found  along  the  shore  (Lynch,  pp.  274,  277. 
279,  287,  294,'"371,  376);  and 'the  thickets  of  ^i/i 
Jidy  contain  "innumerable  liirds,"  among  which 
were  the  lark,  quail,  and  jiartridge,  as  well  as  birds 
of  prey  {Bibl.  lies.  i.  524).  Lynch  mentions  the 
curious  fact  that  "all  the  birds,  and  most  of  the 
insects  and  animals  "  which  he  saw  on  the  western 
side  were  of  a  stone  color,  so  as  to  be  almost  in- 
visible on  the  rocks  of  the  shore  {Nan-,  pp.  279, 
291,  294).  Van  de  Velde  (S.  cf  P.  ii.  119),  Lynch 
{Narr.  pp.  279,  287,  308),  and  Poole  (Nov.  2,  3, 
and  7),  even  mention  having  seen  ducks  and  other 
birds,  single  and  in  tiocks,  swimming  and  diving  in 
the  water. 

40.  Of  the  temperature  of  the  water  more  ob- 
servations are  necessary  before  any  inferences  can 
be  drawn.  Lynch  (Bejxirt,  May  5)  states  that  a 
stratum  at  .^9°  Fahr.  is  almost  invariably  found  at 
10  fathoms  below  the  surfece.  Between  Wady 
Ziirka  alid  Ain  Terabeh  the  temp,  at  surfece  wa.s 
76°,  gradually  decreasing  to  62°  at  1,044  ft.  deep, 
with  the  exception  just  named  {Narr.  p.  374). 
At  other  times,  and  in  the  lagoon,  the  temp, 
ranged  from  82°  to  90°.  and  from  5°  to  10°  below 
that  of  the  air  {ibid.  pp.  310-320.  Comp.  I'oole, 
Nov.  2).  Dr.  Stewart  {Tent  and  K/ian,  p.  381), 
on  11th  March,  1854,  found  the  Jordan  60°  Fahr., 
and  the  Dead  Sea  (N.  end)  73°;  the  teniperature 
of  the  air  being  83°  in  the  former  case,  and  78°  in 
the  latter. 

41.  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  anything  in- 
imical to  life  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  lake  or  its 
shores,  except  what  naturally  jjroceeds  from  the 
great  heat  of  the  climate.  The  Ghawarineh  and 
Rrisliaideh   Arabs,  who  inhabit  the  southern  and 


amined  a  specimen  of  soil  from  a  "salt-plain  called 
Keph  "  i  an  hour  W.  of  the  lake,  and  found  it  to  cou- 
iain  "  an  appreciable  quantity  of  bromiue  "  {Journal 
fiir  prakl.  Chemie,  xlvii.  369,  370). 

In  addition  to  the  obvious  sources  named  in  the 
text,  there  are  doubtless  others  less  visible.  The  re- 
markable variation  in  the  proportions  of  the  constitu- 
ents of  the  water  in  the  specimens  obtained  by  differ- 
ent travellers  (see  the  analyses)  leads  to  the  inference 
that  in  the  bed  of  the  lake  there  are  masses  of  min- 
eral matter,  or  mineral  springs,  which  may  modify  the 
constitution  of  the  water  in  their  immediate  neigh- 
boi'hood. 

«  This  is  already  occurring,  for  Lynch "s  sounding- 
lead  sever.il  times  brought  up  cubical  crvstals  of  salt. 
sometimes  with  mud,  sometimes  alone  {Narr.  pp.  281, 
297  ;  comp.  Molyneux,  p.  127).  The  lake  of  Assal,  on 
the  E.  coast  of  Africa,  which  has  neither  afiBuent  nor 


outlet,  is  said  to  be  concentrated  to  (or  nearly  to)  the 
point  of  saturation  {Edin.  N.  Phil.  Journ.  April,  18C5, 
p.  259) 

0  This  interesting  fact  is  mentioned  by  Ilumto'.dt 
{Views  of  Nat.  p.  270);  but  the  writer  is  indebted  to 
the  kind  courtesy  of  M.  Valenciennes,  keeper  of  the 
Cabinet,  for  confirmation  of  it.  Humboldt  gives  the 
coral  the  name  of  Pontes  elniiitata,  but  the  writer  has 
the  authority  of  Dr.  P.  Martin  Duncan  for  saying  that 
its  true  de.'ignation  is  Stylopiwra  pist.  Unfortunately 
nothing  whatever  is  known  of  the  place  or  manner  of 
its  discovery  ;  and  it  is  remarkablt  that  after  26  years 
no  second  specimen  should  have  been  acquired.  It  is 
quite  po.ssible  for  the  coral  in  question  to  grow  under 
the  conditions  pre.»ented  by  the  Dead  Sea,  and  it  is 
true  that  it  abounds  also  in  the  Red  Sea ;  but  it  will 
not  be  safe  to  draw  any  deduction  from  these  facts 
till  other  specimens  of  it  have  been  brought  from  th« 
lake. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

«e8l«m  sides  and  the  peninsula,  are  described  as  x 
poor  stunted  race;  but  this  is  easily  accounted  for 
by  the  heat  and  relaxing  nature  of  the  climate,  and 
by  their  meagre  way  of  life,  without  inferring  any- 
thing specially  unwholesome  in  the  exhalations  of 
the  lake.  They  do  not  appear  to  lie  more  stunted 
or  meagre  than  the  natives  of  Jericho,  or,  if  more, 
not  more  tiian  would  be  due  to  the  fact  that  tliey 
inhabit  a  spot  500  to  000  feet  fm-ther  below  the 
surface  of  the  ocean  and  more  ettectually  inclosed. 
Considering  the  hard  work  which  the  American 
party  accomplished  in  the  tremendous  heat  (the 
tlieimometer  on  one  occasion  100°,  after  sunset, 
Narr.  p.  314),  and  that  the  sounding  and  working 
the  boats  necessarily  brought  them  a  great  deal 
into  actual  contact  with  the  water  of  the  lake,  their 
general  good  health  is  a  proof  that  there  is  nothing 
pernicious  in  the  proximity  of  the  lake  itself  A 
strong  smell  of  sulphur  pervades  some  parts  of  the 
western  shore,  proceeding  from  springs  or  streams 
impregnated  with  sulphuretted  hydrogen  (I)e  Saul- 
cy,  Nan:  i.  192;  Van  de  Velde,"  ii.  109;  Beaufort, 
ii.  113).  It  accompanied  the  north  wind  which 
blew  in  the  evenings  (Lynch,  pp.  292,  294).  But 
this  odor,  though  unpleasant,  is  not  noxious,  and 
in  fact  jM.  de  Saulcy  compares  it  to  the  baths  of 
Bareges.  The  Sahkah  has  in  summer  a  "  strong 
marshy  smell,"  from  the  partial  desiccation  of  the 
ditches  which  convey  the  drainage  of  the  salt 
springs  and  salt  rocks  into  the  lagoon ;  but  this 
smell  can  hardly  be  stronger  or  more  unhealthy 
than  it  is  in  the  marshes  above  the  lake  el-Hiileh, 
or  in  many  other  places  where  marshy  ground 
exists  under  a  sun  of  equal  power ;  such,  for  exam- 
ple, as  the  marshes  at  Jskaiu/eruii,  quoted  by  Mr. 
Porter  {Handbook^  p.  201  a). 

42.  Of  the  botany  of  the  Dead  Sea  little  or 
nothing  can  be  said.  Dr.  Hooker,  in  his  portion 
of  the  article  Palestine,  has  spoken  (iii.  2312, 
2313)  of  the  vegetation  of  the  Ghor  in  general,  and 
of  that  of  Ain  Jidy  and  the  N.  W.  shore  of  the 
lake  in  particidar.  Beyond  these,  the  only  parts 
of  the  lake  which  he  explored,  nothing  accurate  is 
known.  A  few  plants  are  named  liy  Seetzen  as 
inhabiting  the  Glwr  es-S([fieh  and  the  peninsula. 
These,  such  as  they  are,  have  been  already  men- 
tioned. In  addition,  the  following  are  emmierated 
in  the  lists  ^  which  accompany  the  Ojjickd  Report 
(4to)  of  Lynch,  and  the  Voytye  of  De  Saulcy 
(Alias  dcs  Planches,  etc.).  At  Ain  Jidy,  Reseda 
lutea,  Malva  sylvestris,  Glinus  lotoides,  Sedum 
rejlexum,  Sideritis  syrinca,  Eupatonum  syriacuni, 
and  Wilhania  somnifera.  On  the  southeastern 
and  eastern  shore  of  the  lake,  at  the  Glwr  es- 
Siijieh,  and  on  the  peninsula,  they  name  Zill/i 
myagroides,  Zyyopliylla  coccinea,  Rata  bracteosa, 
Zizyplius  spina  Ciiristi,  Indiyofera,  Tamarix, 
Aizvon  canarieHse,  Salvndora  persica,  Ifloya  fon- 
t'lnesii,  Picridium  tinyitanum,  Soltinum  villosuin, 
Kup/iorbia  peplus,  Erythrostictus  punctatus,  Carex 
steniipliylla,  and  Helidlropwn  (dbidum.  At  Ain 
Feskkhnli,  Ain  Ghuweir,  Ain  Terdbeh,  and  other 
spots  on  the  western  shore,  they  name,  in  addition 
to    those   given    by    Dr.    Hooker,    Sida    asiatica. 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


2893 


\ 


a  M.  Van  de  Velde's  watch  turned  bl.-ick  with  the 
pulphur  iu  the  air  of  the  hills  and  valleys  south  of 
Masada.  Miss  Beaufort  (at  Birk-'.t  el-Kluiiil)  says  it 
svaa  "  very  strong,  immensely  more  nauseous  than  that 
p  the  springe  of  Tadmor." 

ft  Lynch's  lists  were  drawn  xip  by  Dr.  R.  Eglesfield 
3rifflth  ;  and  De  Saulcy's  by  the  Abbt5  Michoii,  who 
ilso  himself  collected  the  bulk  of  the  si>ecimeus. 


Knautia  arveiisis,  Scabios't  papposa,  Echium  itul- 
icwn  and  creiicum,  Stratice  sinuata,  Annstatict. 
l/ierochuntina,  Heliulnipum  rotunilifolium,  and 
Plirayinites  communis.  At  other  places  not  speci- 
fied along  the  shores,  Kakile  and  Crumhe  vuiriti- 
via,  Arenaria  marilima,  Clienopodium  maritiiiram. 
Anabasis  apliylla,  Anemone  coronaria,  Rnnunculut 
asiaticus,  Fumaria  micrnntiia,  Sisymbrium  irio, 
Cleone  trineroia,  Anayyrisjcetida,  Chrysimthemum 
coronaria,  Rhayadiobis  stellatus,  Annyidlis  arven- 
sis,  Convolvulus  siculvs,  Onosma  syriaca,  Lilho- 
spermum  temufiorum,  f/yoscynmus  aureus,  Euphor- 
bia hclioscopa.  Iris  caudisica,  Morea  sisyrinchiiiin, 
Romidea  bulbocodium  and  yrandijlnra.  The  mouth 
of  the  Wady  Zuweiruh  contains  large  quantities 
of  oleanders. 

43.  (Jf  the  zoiilogy  of  the  shores,  it  is  hardly 
too  much  to  say  that  nothing  is  known.  The  birda 
and  animals  mentioned  by  Lynch  and  Robinson 
have  been  already  named,  but  their  accurate  identi- 
fication must  await  the- visit  of  a  traveller  versed  in 
natural  history.  On  the  question  of  the  existence 
of  life  in  the  lake  itself,  the  writer  has  already  said 
all  that  occurs  to  him. 

44.  The  a|ipearance  of  the  lake  does  not  fulfill 
the  idea  conveyed  by  its  popular  name.  "  The 
Dead  Sea,"  says  a  recent  traveller ,<^  "did  not  strike 
me  with  that  sense  of  desolation  and  dreariness 
which  I  suppose  it  ought.  I  thought  it  a  pretty, 
smiling  lake  —  a  nice  ripple  on  its  surface."  Lord 
Xugent  {Lands,  etc.,  ii.  ch.  5)  expresses  himself  in 
similar  terms.  Schubert  came  to  it  from  the  Gulf 
of  Akabeh,  and  he  contrasts  the  ''desert  look"  of 
that  with  the  remarkable  beauties  of  this,  "  the 
most  glorious  spot  he  had  ever  seen  "  (Hitter,  p. 
557).  This  was  the  view  from  its  northern  end. 
The  same  of  the  southern  portion.  "  1  expected  a 
scene  of  unequaled  horror,"  says  j\lr.  Van  de 
Velde  (ii.  117),  "instead  of  which  I  found  a  lake 
calm  and  glassy,  blue  and  transparent,  with  an  im- 
clouded  heaven,  a  smooth  beach,  and  surrounded 
by  mountains  whose  blue  tints  were  of  rare  beauty. 

.  ■  It  bears  a  remarkable  resemblance  tc 
Loch  Awe."  "  It  reminded  me  of  the  lieautiful 
lake  of  Nice"  (Paxton,  in  Kitto,  Phys.  Ge.oyr.  p. 
383).  "Nothing  of  gloom  and  de.solation,"  says 
another  traveller,  "  .  .  .  .  even  the  shore  was 
richly  studded  with  bright  <*  yellow  flowers  growing 
to  the  edije  of  the  rippling  waters."  Of  the  view 
from  Masada,  Miss  Be.aufort  (ii.  110)  thus  speaks: 
"  Some  one  says  there  is  no  beauty  in  it  .  .  .  . 
but  this  view  is  beyond  all  others  for  the  splendor 
of  its  savage  and  yet  l)eautiful  wildness."  Seetzen, 
in  a  lengtiiened  and  unusually  enthusiastic  passage 
(ii.  304,  305)  extols  the  beauties  of  the  view  fnmi 
the  delta  at  the  mouth  of  the  Wady  Mojib,  and 
the  advantages  of  that  situation  for  a  permanent 
residence.  These  testimonies  might  be  multiplied 
at  pleasure,  and  they  contrast  strangely  with  the 
statements  of  some  of  the  mediaeval  pilgrims  (on 
whose  accounts  the  ordinary  conceptions  of  the 
lake  are  based),  and  evfti  those  of  some  modem 
travellers,''  of  the  perpetual  gloom  wtiich  broods 
over  the  lake,   and   the   thick   vapors   which   roll 

c  Rev.  W.  Lea  (1847),  who  has  kindly  allowed  the 
writer  the  use  of  his  MS.  journal.  See  very  nearly  tba 
same  remarks  by  Dr.  Stewart  {Tent  nwl  Khan). 

(I  Probably  Intita  crilhmoiiles. 

e  As,  for  instance,  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusfilpui, 
quoted  by  Brocai-dus  (A.  D.  1290),  and  the  terrific  de- 
scription given  by  Quaresmius  (ii.  7.59,  &c.),  as  if  from 
Brocardus,  though  it  is  not  in  the  Received  Text  of  his 


2894 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


from  its  wafers  like  the  smoke  of  some  infernnl  fur- 
nace, filling  the  whole  neighborhood  with  a  mias- 
ma which  has  clestrojed  all  life  within  its  reach. 

45.  The  truth  lies,  as  usual,  somewliere  between 
these  two  extremes.  On  the  one  hand  the  lake 
certainly  is  not  a  gloomy,  deadlj%  smoking  gulf. 
In  this  respect  it  does  not  at  all  fulfill  the  promise 
of  its  name."  The  name  is  more  suggestive  of  the 
dead  solitude  of  the  mountain  tarns  of  Wales  or 
Scotland,  the  perpetual  twilight  and  undisturbed 
lingering  decay  of  the  Great  Dismal  Swamp,  or  the 
reeking  miasma  of  the  Putrid  Sea  of  the  Crimea. 
L)eath  can  never  be  associated  with  the  wonderful 
bi'ightness  .of  the  sun  of  Syria,  with  the  cheerful 
reflection  of  the  calm  bosom  of  the  lake  at  some 
periods  of  the  day,  or  with  the  regular  alternation 
jf  the  breezes  which  rufHe  its  surface  at  others.  At 
Buniise  and  sunset  the  s(?ene  must  be  astonishingly 
beautiful.  Every  one  who  has  been  in  the  West 
of  Scotland  knows  what  extraordinaiy  pictures  are 
sonietimes  seen  mirrored  in  the  sea-water  lochs 
when  they  lie  unruffled  in  the  calm  of  early  morn- 
ing or  of  sunset.  The  reflections  from  the  bosom 
of  the  Dead  Sea  are  said  to  surpass  tho.se,  as  far  as 
the  hues  of  the  mountains  which  encircle  it,  when 
lit  up  by  the  gorgeous  rising  and  setting  suns  of' 
Syria,  surpass  in  brilliancy  and  richness  those  of  the 
hills  around  Loch  Fyne  and  Loch  Goyle.  One 
such  aspect  may  be  seen  —  and  it  is  said  by  com- 
petent judges  to  lie  no  exaggerated  representation 
—  in  "The  Scapegoat ''  of  Mr.  Holman  Hunt,  which 
is  a  view  of  the  Moab  mountains  at  sunset,  painted 
from  the  foot  of  Jehel  Usdum,  looking  across  the 
lower  part  of  the  lagoon.*  But  on  the  other  hand, 
with  all  the  brilliancy  of  lis  illumination,  its  fre- 
quent beauty  of  coloring,  the  fantastic  grandeur  of 
its  inclosing  mountains,  and  the  tranquil  charm 
afforded  by  the  reflection  of  that  unequaled  sky  on 
the  no  less  unequaled  mirror  of  the  surface  —  with 
all  these  there  is  something  in  the  prevalent  sterility 
and  the  dry,  burnt  look  of  the  shores,  the  over- 
powering heat,  the  occasional  smell  of  sulphur,  the 
dreary  salt  marsh  at  the  southern  end,  and  the 
fringe  of  dead  driftwood  round  the  margin,  which 
nuist  go  far  to  excuse  the  title  which  so  many  ages 
have  attached  to  the  lake,  and  which  we  pay  be 
sure  it  will  never  lose. 

4(i.  It  does  not  appear  probable  that  the  condition 
or  aspect  of  the  lake  in  Biblical  times  was  mate- 
rially dilTerent  from  what  it  is  at  present.  Other 
par.ts  of  Syria  may  have  deteriorated  in  climate  and 
appearance  owing  to  the  destruction  of  the  wood 
which  once  covered  them,  but  there  are  no  traces 
either  of  the  ancient  existence  of  wood  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  lake,  or  of  anything  which  would 

works  (Amst.  1711);  Sir  R.  Guylforde  (a.  d.  1506); 
Schwarz  (a.  d.  1845).  It  is,  however,  surprising  how 
free  the  best  of  the  old  travellers  are  from  such  fables. 
The  descriptions  of  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  of  Arcul- 
fus,  Maundeville,  Thietmar,  Doubdan,  Maundrell,  bar- 
ring a  little  exaggeration  of^he  buoyancy  of  tlie  water 
and  of  its  repulsion  to  life,  are  sober,  and,  as  far  as 
they  go,  accurate.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  the  pop- 
ular conception  of  the  lake  was  not  founded  on  these 
accounts,  instead  of  the  sensation-descriptions  of  others 
It  second  hand. 

«  "  It  is  not  gloom  but  desolation  that  is  its  prevail- 
ing characteristic,"  is  the  remark  of  Prof.  Stanley,  in 
lis  excellent  chapter  on  the  lake  in  Sinai  and  Pa.lestinc 
(ch.  vii)  "So  mournful  a  landscape,  for  one  having 
teal  beauty,  I  have  never  seen  "  (Miss  Martiueau,  East- 
vm  Lije^  pt  iii.  ch.  4). 


SEA.  THE  SALT 

account  for  its  destruction,  supposing  it  to  \\%rt 
existed.  A  few  spots,  such  as  Aiii  July,  the  mouth 
of  the  Wndy  Zuweirnli,  and  that  of  the  Waily  ed- 
Dni'n,  were  more  cultivated,  and  consequently  mora 
populous  than  they  are  under  the  discouraging  in- 
fluences of  Mohammedanism.  But  such  attempts 
must  always  have  been  partial,  confined  to  the  imme- 
diate neighborhood  of  the  fresh  springs  and  to  a 
certain  degree  of  elevation,  and  ceasing  directly  irri- 
gation was  neglected.  In  fact  the  climate  of  the 
shores  of  the  lake  is  too  sultry  and  trying  to  allow 
of  any  considerable  amount  of  civihzed  occupation 
being  conducted  there.  Nothing  will  grow  without 
irrigation,  and  artificial  irrigation  is  too  labrrioui 
for  such  a  situation.  The  plain  of  .Jericho,  we  know 
was  cultivated  like  a  g.arden,  but  the  plain  of.Jeri- 
cho  is  \ery  nearly  on  a  level  with  the  spring  ol 
Ain  .Jirly,  some  600  feet  above  the  Ghor  el-Lisdn 
the  Glior  es-Siifie/i,  or  other  cultivable  portions  of 
the  beach  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Of  course,  as  far  as 
the  capabilities  of  the  ground  are  concerned,  pro- 
vided there  is  plenty  of  water,  the  hotter  the 
climate  the  better,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that,  if  some  system  of  irrigation  could  lie  carried  out 
and  maintained,  the  plain  of.Iericho,  and,  still  more, 
the  shores  of  the  lake  (such  as  the  peninsula  and 
the  southern  plain),  might  be  the  most  productive 
spots  in  the  world.  But  this  is  not  possilile,  and  the 
difficulty  of  communication  with  the  external  world 
would  alone  be  (as  it  must  always  have  been)  a 
serious  bar  to  any  great  agricultural  eflforts  in  this 
district. 

When  iMachrerus  and  Callirrhoe  were  inhabited 
(if  indeed  the  former  was  ever  more  tlian  a  fortress, 
and  the  latter  a  bathing  estalilishment  occasionallj' 
resorted  to),  and  when  the  plain  of  .Jericho  was 
occupied  with  the  crowded  population  necessary 
for  the  cultivation  of  its  balsam -gardens,  vineyards, 
sugar-plantations,  and  palm-groves,  there  may  have 
been  a  little  more  life  on  the  shores.  But  this  can 
never  have  materially  afl^ected  the  lake.  The  track 
along  the  western  shore  and  over  Ain  Jidy  was  then, 
as  now,  used  for  secret  marauding  exi)editions,  not  for 
peaceable  or  commercial  tratBc.  What  transport 
there  may  have  been  between  Idumasa  and  Jericho 
came  by  some  other  channel.  A  doubtful  passage 
in  Josephus,<^  and  a  reference  by  Edrisi  (ed.  .Tau- 
bert,  in  Hitter,  Jordan,  p.  700)  to  an  occasional  ven- 
ture of  the  people  of  "  Zara  and  Dara  "  in  the  12th 
century,  are  all  the  allusions  known  to  exist  to 
the  navigation  of  the  lake,  until  Entrlishmen  and 
Americans''  laimched  their  boats  on  it  within  the 
last  twenty  years  for  purposes  of  scientific  inves- 
tigation. The  temptation  to  the  dwellers  in  the 
environs  must  always  have  been  to  ascend  to  the 


b  The  remarks  in  the  text  refer  to  the  monntaing 
which  form  the  background  to  this  remarkable  painting 
The  title  of  the  picture  and  the  accidents  of  the  fore- 
ground give  the  key  to  the  sentiment  which  it  conveys, 
which  is  certainly  that  of  loneliness  and  death.  But  the 
mountains  would  form  an  appropriate  background  to  a 
scene  of  a  very  different  description. 

c  Quoted  by  Heland  ( Pal.  p.  2.52)  as  "  liber  v.  de  bell, 
cap.  3."  But  this  —  if  it  can  be  verified,  which  the 
writer  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  doing  —  only  shows 
that  the  Romans  on  one  occasion,  sooner  than  let  theii 
fugitives  escape  them,  got  some  boats  over  and  pu 
them  on  the  lake.  It  does  not  indicate  any  continued 
navigation. 

d  Costigan  in  1835,  Moore  and  Beek  m  1837,  Symondi 
in  1841.  Molyneux  iu  1847,  Lynch  in  1848. 


SEA,   J'HE  SALl 

fresiier  air  of  the  heights,  rather  than  descend   to 
the  sultry  climate  of  the  shores. 

47.  I'he  connection  between  tliis  singular  lake 
and  the  liiblical  history  is  very  slight.  In  the  topo- 
graphical records  of  the  Ppntateuoh  and  the  book 
of  Joshua  "  it  forms  one  among  the  landmarks  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  whole  country,  as  well  as  of  the 
inferior  divisions  of -Juilah  and  Benjamin ;  and  atten- 
tion has  been  already  drawn  to  tlie  niirmte  accuracy 
with  which,  according  to  the  frequent  custom  of 
these  renuirkaljle  records,  one  of  tiie  salient  features 
of  the  lake  is  singled  out  for  mention.  As  a' land- 
mark it  is  once  named  in  what  appears  to  l)e  a 
quotation  from  a  lost  work  of  the  prophet  Jonah 
(2  K.  xiv.  2.j),  itself  apparently  a  reminiscence  of 
the  old  Mosaic  statement  (Num.  xxxiv.  8,  12). 
Besides  this  the  name  occurs  once  or  twice  in  the 
imagerj'  of  the  Prophets.''  In  the  New  Testament 
there  is  not  even  an  allusion  to  it.  There  is,  how- 
ever, one  passaire  in  which  the  "  Salt  Sea"  is  men- 
tioned in  a  different  manner  to  any  of  tlwse  already 
quoted,  namely,  as  having  been  in  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham the  Vale  of  Siddim  (Gen.  xiv.  o).  The  narrative 
in  which  this  occurs  is  now  generally  acknowledged 
to  be  one  of  the  most  ancient  of  those  venerable 
documents  from  which  the  early  part  of  the  liook  of 
Genesis  was  compiled.  But  a  careful  examination 
shows  that  it  contains  a  number  of  explanatory 
statements  which  cannot,  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  have  come  from  the  pen  of  its  original 
author.  The  sentences,  "  Bela  which  is  Zoar  "  c 
(2  and  8);  "  Kn-Jlishpat  which  is  Kadesh  "  (7); 
"  The  Valley  of  Shaveh  which  is  the  King's  Valley  " 
(17):  and  the  one  in  question,  "  the  Vale  of  Siddim 
which  is  the  Salt  Sea"  (-3),  are  evidently  explana- 
tions added  by  a  later  hand  at  a  time  when  the 
ancient  names  had  become  obsolete.  These  remarks 
(or,  as  they  may  lie  termed,  '•annotations")  stand 
on  a  perfectly  different  footing  to  the  words  of  the 
original  record  which  they  are  ii]tended  to  elucidate, 
ajid  whose  antiquity  they  enhance.  II  bears  every 
mark  of  being  contemi>orary  with  the  events  it  nar- 
rates. Tlivy  merely  embodv  the  opinion  of  a  later 
person,  and  must  stand  or  fall  by  their  own  merits. 

48.  Now  the  evidence  of  the  spot  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  no  material  change  has  taken  place  in  the 
upper  and  deeper  portion  of  the  lake  for  a  period 
very  lonr;  anterior  to  the  time  of  Abraham.  In  the 
lower  portion  —  the  lagoon  and  the  plain  below  it  — 
if  any  change  has  occurred,  it  appears  to  have  been 
rather  one  of  reclamation  than  of  submersion  —  the 
gradual  silting  up  of  the  district  by  the  torrents 
which  discharge  tiieir  contents  i]ito  it  (see  §2;3). 
We  have  seen  that,  owing  to  the  gentle  slope  of  i\\e 
plain,  temporary  fluctuations  in  the  level  of  the  lake 
would  affect  tliis  portion  very  materially:  and  it  is 
quite  allowable  to  believe  that  a  few  wet  winters  fol- 
lowed liy  cold  summers,  would  raise  the  level  of  the 
lake  sufficiently  to  lay  the  whole  of  the  district  south 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


•2805 


a  See  the  quotations  at  the  head  of  the  article. 

6  One  of  these  (Ez.  xlvii. )  is  remarkable  for  the  man- 
ner iu  which  the  characteristics  of  tlie  lake  aud  its  en- 
virons—  the  dry  ravines  of  the  western  mountjiins ; 
the  noxious  waters  ;  the  want  of  fish  ;  the  southern 
lignou— are  brought  out.  See  Prof.  Stanley  s  uotice 
(S.^  P.p.  294). 

e  ~)l)lS"S"'n  ^7.2  :  such  is  the  formula  adopted 
In  each  of  the  instances  quoted.  It  is  the  same  which 
|g  used  in  the  precisely  parallel  case.  ''  Hazazon-Tamar, 
which  is  En-gedi  "  (2  Chr.  xx.  21.  In  other  cases,  where 
lie  remark  seems  to  have  proceeded  from  the  '."rigiu.U 


of  the  lagoon  under  water,  and  convert  it  for  the  tim» 
into  a  part  of  the  "  Salt  Sea."  A  rise  of  20  feet  be- 
yond the  ordinary  high-water  pohit  would  prolably 
do  this,  and  it  would  take  some  years  to  bring  thingB 
back  to  their  former  condition.  Such  an  exceptional 
state  of  things  the  writer  of  the  words  in  Gtn.  xiv. 
may  have  witnessed  and  placed  on  record. 

49.  This  is  merely  stated  as  a  possible  explanation ; 
and  it  assumes  the  Vale  of  Siddim  to  have  been  the 
plain  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake,  for  which  there 
is  no  e\idence.  But  it  seems  to  the  writer  more 
natural  to  believe  that  the  author  of  this  note  on 
a  document  which  even  in  his  time  was  probabfy 
of  great  antiquity,  believed  that  the  present  laki? 
covered  a  district  which  in  historic  times  had  beer, 
permanently  habitable  dry  land.  Such  was  the  im- 
plicit belief  of  the  whole  modern  world  —  witli  the 
exception  perhaps  of  Keland  ''  —  till  within  less  than 
half  a  century.  Even  so  lately  as  ISoO  the  for- 
mation of  the  Dead  Sea  was  described  by  a  divine 
of  our  Church,  remarkable  alike  for  learning  and 
discernment,  in  the  following  terms:  — 

'•  The  Valley  of  the  Jordan,  in  which  the  cities 
of  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Adma.  and  Tseboim,  were 
situated,  was  rich  and  highly  cultivated.  It  is 
most  probable  that  the  river  then  flowed  in  a  deep 
and  uninterrupted  channel  down  a  regular  descent., 
and  discharged  itself  into  the  eastern  gulf  of  the 
lied  Sea.  The  cities  stood  on  a  soil  broken  and 
undermined  with  veins  of  bitumen  and  suliihur. 
These  inflammable  sulistances  set  on  fire  by  light- 
ning caused  a  terrible  convulsion;  the  water- 
courses—both the  river  and  the  canals  by  which  the 
land  was  extensively  irrigated  —  burst  their  banks: 
the  cities,  the  walls  of  which  were  perhaps  built 
from  the  combustible  materials  of  the  soil,  were 
entirely  swallowed  up  by  the  fiery  inundation,  and 
tiie  whole  valley,  which  had  been  compared  to  Par- 
adise and  the  well-watered  corn-fields  of  the  Nile, 
became  a  dead  and  fetid  lake  "  (Miluian,  Hist,  of 
the  Jews.  2d  ed.,  i.  1-5). 

In  similar  language  does  the  usually  cautious  Dr. 
liobinson  express  himself,  writing  on  the  spot,  before 
the  researches  of  his  countrymen  had  revealeil  the 
depth  and  nature  of  the  chasm,  and  the  consequent 
remote  date  of  the  formation  of  the  lake:  "  !?hat- 
tered  mountains  and  the  deep  chasms  of  the  rent 
earth  are  here  tokens  of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  of 
his  vengeance  upon  the  guilty  inhabitants  of  thfl 
plain"  {Bibl.  lits.  i.  525). « 

Now  if  these  explanations — so  entirely  ground-- 
less,  when  it  is  recollected  that  the  identity  of  the 
Vale  of  Siddim  with  the  Plain  of  Jordan,  and  tlie 
submersion  of  the  cities,  find  no  warrant  whatever 
in  Scripture  —  are  pronuilgated  by  persons  of  learn- 
ing and  experience  in  the  lUth  century  after  Christ, 
surely  it  need  occasion  no  surprise  to  find  a  similar 
view  put  forward  at  the  time  when  the  contradic- 
tions involved  in  the  statement  that  the  Salt  Se.i 


writer,  another  form  is  used  —  T^'S  —  as  iu  ■'  El- 
Paran,  which  is  by  the  Wilderness"  (6),  "  llobah, 
which  is  on  the  left  hand  of  Damascus  "  (15). 

''  See  his  chapter  De  lacu  Asp'ialtite  iu  Pattg^liiia, 
lib.  i.  cap.  xxxviii.  —  truly  admirable,  considering  tht 
scanty  materials  at  his  dispos;il.  lie  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  disprove  the  idea  ths  the  '-ities  o) 
the  plain  were  submerged 

(  Even  Lieut.  Lynch  can  pause  between  the  casts  of 
the  lead  to  apostrophize  the  "  unhallowed  sea  .  .  .  the 
record  of  God's  wrath,"'  or  to  notice  the  ■' seimlohra 
light  ■■  cast  around  hv  the  phosphoreuce,  eU'..,  stf 
UVu;r.  pp.  284,  2SS,  280). 


2896 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


had  once  been  the  Vale  of  Siddini  could  not  have 
presented  tiieniselves  to  the  ancient  commentator 
who  added  that  explanaton'  note  to  the  ori^'inal  rec- 
ord of  Gen.  xiv.  At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  the  passaije  in  question  is  the  onl}' 
one  in  the  whole  Bible  —  Old  Testament,  Apocrypha, 
or  New  Testament  —  to  countenance  the  ncition  tliat 
the  citiesof  the  plain  weresubmerged ;  a  notion  which 
the  present  writer  has  endeavored  elsewhere "  to 
show  does  not  date  earlier  than  the  Christian  era. 

50.  The  writer  has  there  also  attempted  to  prove 
that  the  belief  which  prompted  the  statements  just 
quoteil  from  modern  writers,  namel>',  that  the  Dead 
Sea  was  formed  by  the  catastrophe  which  over- 
threw the  ''Cities  of  the  Plain,"  is  a  mere  as- 
sumption. It  is  not  only  unsupported  by  Scrip- 
ture, but  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  evidence 
of  the  ground  itself.  Of  the  situation  of  those 
cities  we  only  know  that,  being  in  the  "  Plain  of 
the  Jordan,"  they  must  have  been  to  the  north  of 
the  lake.  Of  the  catastrophe  wliich  destroyed 
them,  we  oidy  know  that  it  is  described  as  a  shower 
of  ignited  sulphur  descending  from  the  skies.  Its 
date  is  uncertain,  but  we  shall  be  safe  in  placing  it 
within  the  limit  of  2,000  years  before  Christ. 
Now,  how  the  chasm  in  whicii  the  .Jordan  and  its 
lakes  were  contained  was  pn^duced  out  of  the  lime- 
stone block  which  forms  the  main  body  of  Syria, 
we  are  not  at  pi-esent  sufficiently  informed  to  know. 
It  may  have  been  the  efteet  of  a  sudden  fissure 
of  dislocation,*  or  of  gradual  erosion,''  or  of  a  com- 
bination of  both.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that, 
however  the  operation  w-as  performed,  it  was  of  far 
older  date  than  the  time  of  Abraham,  or  any  other 
historic  event.**  And  not  only  this,  but  the  details 
of  the  geology,  so  far  as  we  can  at  present  discern 
them,  all  point  in  a  direction  opposite  to  the  popu- 
lar hypothesis.  That  hypothesis  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  valley  was  once  dry,  and  at  a  certain 
historic  period  was  covered  with  water  and  con- 
verted into  a  lake.  The  evidence  of  the  spot  goes 
to  show  that  the  very  reverse  was  the  case;  the 
plateaus  and  terraces  traceable  round  its  sides,  the 


a  Under  the  heads  of  Sodom,  Siddi.m,  Zoar. 

b  See  the  remarks  of  Sir  II.  Murchison  before  the 
B.  Association  (in  Athenaion^  29  Sept.  1849) 

c  This  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Anderson. 

rf  Dr  Anderson  is  compelled  to  infer  from  the  fea- 
tures of  the  eastern  shore  that  the  Gk^r  e.\isted  "  be- 
fore the  tertiary  age  "  (p.  189  ;  and  see  his  interesting 
remarks  on  pp.  190,  192). 

e  This  Report  is  the  only  document  which  purports 
to  give  a  .scientific  account  of  the  geology  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  The  author  was  formerly  Proftssor  at  Columbia 
Coilsge,  U.  S.  It  forms  a  part  of  his  Geological  Re- 
cmmnissance  of  those  portions  of  the  Holy  Laud  which 
were  visited  by  the  American  expedition.  The  writer 
is  not  qualified  to  pass  judgment  ou  its  scientific  merits, 
but  he  can  speak  to  its  fullness  and  clearness,  and  to 
the  modesty  with  wliich  the  author  submits  his  con- 
clusions, and  which  contrasts  very  fiivorably  witli  tlie 
loose  bombast  in  which  the  chief  of  the  expedition  is 
too  prone  to  indulge.  Its  iLsefuluess  would  be  greatly 
increased  by  the  addition  of  sections,  showing  the  order 
of  succession  of  the  strata,  and  diagrams  of  some  of 
the  more  remarkable  phenomena. 

/  An  instance  of  the  loose  manner  in  which  these 
expressions  are  used  is  found  in  Lynch's  Narrative  (p. 
283),  where  he  characterizes  as  ■'  scathed  by  fire "  a 
rock  near  the  mouth  of  the  Kidron,  which  iu  the  same 
sentence  he  states  was  in  rapid  progress  of  disintegra- 
ion,  with  a  "sloping  hill  of  half  its  own  height"  at 
•ts  base  formed  by  the  dust  of  its  daily  decay. 

y  There  is  a  slight  correspondence,  though  probably 


SEA,  THE  SALT 

aqueous  deposits  of  the  peninsula  and  the  western 
and  southern  shores,  saturated  with  the  salts  of 
their  ancient  immersion,  speak  of  a  depth  at  one 
time  far  greater  than  it  is  at  present,  and  of  a 
gradual  subsidence,  until  the  present  level  (the 
balance,  as  already  explained,  between  supply  anrf 
evaporation)  was  reached. 

Beyond  these  and  similar  tokens  of  the  action  of 
water,  there  are  no  marks  of  any  geological  action 
nearly  so  recent  as  the  date  of  Abraham.  Ines- 
perienced  and  enthusiastic  travellers  have  reported 
craters,  lava,  pumice,  scoriae,  as  marks  of  modern 
volcanic  action,  at  every  step.  But  these  thingi 
are  not  so  easily  recognized  by  inexperienced  tib- 
servers,  nor.  if  seen,  is  the  deduction  from  them  so 
obvious.  The  very  few  competent  geologists  who 
have  visited  the  spot  —  both  those  who  have  pub- 
lished their  observations  (as  Dr.  Anderson,  geol- 
ogist to  the  American  expedition^),  and  those  who 
have  not,  concur  in  stating  that  no  certain  indica- 
tions exist  in  or  about  the  lake,  of  volcanic  action 
within  the  historical  or  human  period,  no  volcanic 
craters,  and  no  coulees  of  lava  traceable  to  any 
vent.  The  igneous  rocks  described  as  lava  are  more 
probably  basalt  of  great  antiquity;  the  bitumen  of 
the  lake  has  nothing  necessarily  to  do  with  volcanic 
action.  The  scorched,  calcined  look  of  the  rocks 
ill  the  inunediate  neighborhood,  of  which  sf  many 
travellers  have  si)oken/as  an  evident  token  o.'  the 
conflagration  of  the  cities,  is  due  to  natuial  causes 
—  to  the  gradual  action  of  the  atmosphere  on  the 
constituents  of  the  stonft. 

The  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  may 
have  been  by  volcanic  action,  but  it  may  be  safely 
asserted  that  no  traces  of  it  have  yet  been  discov- 
ered, and  that,  whatever  it  was,  it  can  have  had 
no  connection  with  that  far  vaster  and  far  more 
ancient  event  which  opened  the  great  valley  of  the 
.Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  and  at  some  subsequent 
time  cut  it  off  from  communication  with  the  lied 
Sea  by  forcing  up  between  theKQ  the  tract  of  the 
Wady  Arahah.o  G. 

*  The  theory  advanced  in  the  preceding  article, 


but  a  superfici.al  one,  lietween  the  Dead  Sea  at  the 
apex  of  the  Gulf  of  Akabeh  and  the  Bitter  Lakes  at 
the  apex  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  Each  was  probably  at 
one  time  a  portion  of  the  sea,  and  each  has  been  cut 
off  by  some  change  in  the  elevation  of  the  land,  and 
left  to  concentrate  its  waters  at  a  distance  from  the 
parent  branch  of  the  ocean.  The  change  iu  the  latter 
case  was  probably  far  more  recent  than  in  the  former, 
and  may  even  have  occurred  since  the  Exodus. 

The  parallel  between  the  Euxine  and  the  Dead  Sea 
has  been  already  spoken  of".  If  by  some  geological 
change  the  strait  of  the  Bosphorus  should  ever  be 
closed,  and  the  outlet  thus  stopped,  the  parallel  would 
in  some  respects  be  very  close  —  the  Danube  and  the 
Dnieper  would  correspond  to  the  Jordan  and  the 
Ziir/ca:  the  Sea  of  Azov  with  the  Sivash  would  answer 
to  the  lagoon  and  the  SahLah  —  the  river  Don  to  the 
Wady  fl-Jeib.  The  process  of  adjustment  between 
supply  and  evaporation  would  at  once  commence,  anfi 
from  the  day  the  straits  were  closed  the  saltness  of  the 
water  would  begin  to  concentrate.  If.  further,  the 
evaporation  should  be  greater  than  the  present  sup- 
ply, the  water  would  siuk  and  sink  until  the  great 
Euxiue  became  a  little  lake  in  a  deep  hollow  far  below 
the  level  of  the  Mediterranean  ;  and  the  parallel  would 
then  be  complete. 

The  likeness  between  the  Jordan  with  its  lakes  and 
the  river  of  Utah  has  been  so  often  alluded  to.  that  it 
need  not  be  more  than  mentioned  here.  See  Dr  B  lis* 
iu  Edin.  N.  Phil.  Journal,  April,  1855;  Burton's  Citf 
of  the  Saints,  p.  394. 


.SKA,  THE  SALl 

that  the  cities  of  the  plain  "  must  have  been  to  the 
north  of  the  lake."  the  reader  will  find  critically 
examined  in  the  articles  Sodom  and  Zoak  (Anier. 
ed. ).  We  propose  to  review  here  the  theory  advanced 
in  the  preceding  ar.ijle,  and  in  the  articles  Souu.m 
and  SiUDi.M,  The  Vale  of,  respecting  the  su/j- 
meri/eiice  (if  t/ie  plain.  The  question  of  the  sub- 
mergence of  the  site  of  the  cities  is  distinct  from 
that  of  the  submergence  of  a  portion  of  the  valley. 
It  is  only  on  the  latter  point  that  we  claim  any 
clear  historical  data;  the  former  is  a  matter  of  in- 
ference merely. 

The  evidences  which  bear  on  the  question  of 
submergence  are  mainly  of  two  classes,  the  his- 
torical and  the  neological.  The  latter  we  pass  over, 
concuiTing  with  Mr.  Grove  in  the  conviction  that 
the  data  as  ^et  ascertained  would  not  furnish  the 
most  scientific  observer  with  the  basis  of  a  solid 
and  adequate  theory.  It  is  sufl5cient  that  no  points 
have  thus  lar  been  established  by  geological  ex- 
ploration whicli  conflict  with  the  historical  testi- 
mony as  we  understand  it. 

The  earliest  histor'cal  evidence  is  contained  in 
the  oldest  record  extant:  ''All  thee  were  joined 
together  in  the  Vale  of  Siddini,  which  is  tlie  Salt 
Sea''  (Gen.  xiv.  3).  'i'he  writer  here  asserts  that 
what  was  the  Vale  of  Siddim  at  the  time  of  the 
battle  descriljed,  was  at  the  time  of  his  writing  the 
Salt  Sea.  If  we  are  to  accept  the  unity  of  the 
authorship  of  the  book,  it  was  so  when  the  orijfinal 
record  was  made.  If  we  may  regard  the  book  as 
a  couipilution,  and  the  la.st  clause  of  this  verse  as 
the  gloss  of  the  compiler,  it  was  so  when  the  com- 
pilation was  made.  Both  theories  leave  us  the  an- 
cient, indisjiutable.  Biblical  testimony  to  the  iden- 
tity, in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  site  of  the  Vale 
of  Siddini  and  of  that  of  tlie  Salt  Sea.  This  in- 
terpretation is  sustained  by  Gesenius,  who  defines 
the  Vale  of  Siddini  (valley  of  the  plains)  as  the 
plain   "  now  occupied   by   the   Dead   Sea "    {Lex. 

JMr.  Grove  adopts  the  second  of  the  theories  just 
named,  but  he  places  on  this  passage  the  same  in- 
terpretation that  we  do.  He  rejects  the  transla- 
tion of  these  who  would  construe  the  latter  clau.se 
of  the  verse,  ''  which  is  near,  at,  or  by  the  Salt 
Sea,"  and  insists  on  the  other  interpretation.  He 
says:  "The  original  of  the  passage  will  not  bear 
even  this  slight  acconmiodation,  and  it  is  evident 
that  in  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the  words,  no 
less  than  of  the  learned  and  eloquent  divine  and 
historian  of  our  own  time  already  alluded  to,  the 
Salt  Sea  covers  the  actual  si^ace  formerly  occupied 
by  the  Vale  of  Siddim  "  (Siddoi,  thk  Vali-;  of). 
This  is  decisive:  and  thus  understanding  the  Scrip- 
tural testimony,  which  pointedly  contradicts  his 
theory,  how  does  he  dispose  of  it?  His  explana- 
tion given  above  is  concisely  repeated  in  the  article 
just  quoted,  as  follows:  "  The  words  which  more 
especially  bear  on  the  subject  of  this  article  (v.  3) 
do  not  form  part  of  the  original  document.  That 
venerable  record  has  —  with  a  care  which  shows 
how  greatly  it  was  valued  at  a  very  early  date  — 
been  annotated  throughout  by  a  later,  though  still 
very  ancient  chronicler,  who  has  added  what  in  his 
day  were  believed  to  be  the  equivalents  for  names 
if  places  that  had  become  obsolete.     Bela  is  ex- 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


2897 


a  *  "  The  clause  is  found  in  all  the  ancient  MSS. 
ind  versions,  and  iu  the  Targum  of  Onlielos.  Its 
genuiueness  rests  on  the  very  saa»e  ba.sis  as  the  other 
portions  of  the  narrative.     We  have  the  saaie  evidence 


plained  to  be  Zoar;  En-Mishpat  to  be  Kadesh;  tt« 
Emek-Shaveh  to  be  the  Valley  of  the  Kinc;  the 
Emek  ha.s-Siddim  to  be  the  Salt  Sea,  ihat  is,  in 
modern  phraseology,  the  Dead  Sea.  And  when 
we  remember  how  persistently  the  notion  has  been 
entertained  tor  the  last  eighteen  centuries  that  the 
Dead  Sea  covers  a  district  which  l)efure  its  suljuier- 
siou  was  not  only  the  Valley  of  Siddim  but  also 
tlie  Plain  of  the  .lordan,  and  what  an  elaborate 
account  of  the  catastrophe  of  its  submersion  has 
been  constructed  even  very  recently  by  one  of  the 
most  able  scholars  of  our  day,  we  can  hardly  he 
surprised  that  a  chronicler  in  an  age  far  le.ss  able 
to  interpret  natural  phenomena,  and  at  the  same 
time  long  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  actual 
event,  should  have  shared  in  the  belief."  [Siddim, 
THK  Vale  of.] 

This  reasoning  from  the  modern  to  the  ancient, 
from  Dean  Milman  to  Moses,  or  the  ancient  chron- 
icler who  wrote  these  words,  is  very  imsatisfactory 
to  those  who  belie\e  in  the  integrity  of  the  sacred 
canon."  Any  theor}'  which  may  be  held  respecting 
the  authorship  of  the  book  is  of  no  consequence  iu 
this  matter,  if  we  have  here  an  unblemished  copy 
of  the  Divine  revelation.  Any  theory  which  gives 
us  this,  leaves  this  testimony  of  equal  value  to  us. 
If  the  authenticity  of  the  record  is  conceded  in 
this  passage,  Init  it  is  alleged  that  the  later,  yet 
very  ancient  chronicler,  who  conqDiled  or  annotated 
the  original  document,  and  gave  it  to  us  in  its 
present  shape,  was  in  point  of  fact  mistaken,  we 
consider  the  surmise  wholly  unwarranted  and  mi- 
warrantable,  and  believe  the  writer  to  have  had  far 
belter  data  for  his  statement  than  any  modern 
critic  can  possibly  have  for  correcting  him.  The 
rea.son  assigned  for  the  supposed  error,  moreover,  is 
irrelevant.  The  submergence  of  the  Vale  of  Sid- 
dim, the  conversion  of  its  site  to  the  waters  of  the 
Dead  Liea,  is  simply  a  question  of  historic  fact,  the 
statement  of  which  does  not  require  a  chronicler 
who  is  "  able  to  interpret  natural  phenomena." 
If,  in  the  above  extracts  and  in  the  remark  in  the 
present  article  that  these  "  annotations  "  "  must 
stand  or  fall  by  their  own  merits, ".the  writer  means 
to  impeach  the  ins|)ired  record,  or  fasten  the  sus- 
picion of  corruption  upon  it,  it  is  an  uncalled-for 
disparagement  of  the  lleceived  Text. 

The  other  glosses  or  annotations,  as  j\Ir.  Grove 
claims  them  to  be,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  accept 
as  valid  historic  testimony.  He  says  of  Zoar, 
that  "  its  original  name  was  Bela,"  of  Bethlehem, 
that  "its  earliest  name  was  Ephrath,"  and  of 
Hazezon-Tamar,  that  it  "afterwards  became  En- 
gedi,"  on  exactly  the  authority,  and  no  other,  which 
he  rejects  as  inconclusive  here.  "  Bela,  which  is 
Zoar;"  "the  Vale  of  Siddim,  which  is  the  Salt 
Sea;"  "En-Mishpat,  which  is  Ksdesh;"'  "the 
valley  of  Shaveh,  which  is  the  kiug's  dale;  " 
"  Ephrath,  which  is  Bethlehem ; "  "  Hazezon-Tamar, 
which  is  Eii-gedi :  "  annotations  or  glosses  like  the.se, 
if  they  are  such  (the  first  four  occurring  in  the  same 
narrative),  are  equally  reliable  or  equally  worthless. 
No  law  of  interpretation  will  permit  us  to  accept 
one  and  reject  another  on  the  ground  that  the 
writer  was  not  a  naturalist.  Such  a  claim,  if  it 
were  conceded,  would  establish  the  fact  that  prior 
to  the  composition  or  completion  of  our  book  of 


of  its  Mosaic  authorsliip  as  we  Uive  of  anj  othev  pur 
of  the  book"  (I'orter,  Kitto's  Bibi.  Cijc.  iii.  801) 

S.  W 


2898 


SEA,  THE  SALT 


Genesis,  the  belief  was  current  that  the  chasm  now 
tilled  liy  tlie  waters  of  the  Dead  Sea  had  been,  in 
part  at  least,  a  valley  or  plain ;  and  then  the  qnes- 
tion  would  remain :  Whence  could  such  a  belief 
ha\e  orininated ?  In  attempting  to  withdraw  from 
the  view  which  he  opposes  the  support  of  the  an- 
cient record,  the  writer  is  obliged  to  grant  it  the 
weight  of  a  tradition  older  than  the  chronicler. 

The  sacred  narrative  names  a  single  physical 
feature  of  the  Vale  of  Siddim,  namely,  that  it 
abounded  with  "shme-pits"  (Gen.  xiv.  10).  These 
pits  were  wells  of  asphaltum,  or  bitumen,  probably 
of  various  dimensions,  "sufficient,"  either  from 
their  number,  or  size,  or  both,  "  materially  to  affect 
the  issue  of  the  liattle."  'J'hese  asphaltic  wells 
have  disappeared ;  but  bitumen  is  still  found  around 
the  southern  section  of  the  sea,  and  it  rises  to  the 
surface  of  the  water  in  large  quantities,  in  that 
poi'tion  of  it,  when  dislodged  by  an  eaiihquake 
{B'M.  Res.  ii.  229);  and  the  supply  was  formerly 
more  copious  than  now.  We  have  modern  testi- 
mony to  this  effect,  and  we  have  that  of  three 
eminent  ancient  historians  in  the  century  before 
Christ,  and  the  following:  Diodorus  Siculus,  Jose- 
phus,  and  Tacitus,  who  represent  the  asphaltunj  as 
rising  to  the  surfivce  of  the  water  in  black  and 
bulky  masses.  The  theory  that  the  Vale  of  Sid- 
dim is  covered  by  the  southern  part  of  the  sea 
reconciles  the  ancient  record  and  the  late  phe- 
nomena. It  sustains  the  statement  that  it  was  full 
of  bituminous  wells;  it  accounts  for  their  disap- 
pearance, and  it  exjilains  the  occasional  spectacle 
since,  down  to  the  present  time,  of  large  quantities 
of  asphaltum  on  the  surface  of  the  water.  Thus 
far  we  have  a  consistent,  confirmed,  uncontradicted, 
testimony. 

As  we  pass  from  the  simple  affirmation  of  the 
sacred  writer,  with  the  confirmation,  in  subsequent 
ages,  of  the  only  physical  feature  of  the  territory 
which  he  names,  we  leave  behind  us,  of  course,  all 
direct  testimony.  Tiie  only  remaining  evidence, 
exclusively  historical,  is  of  that  secondary  and  con- 
firmatory kind  which  may  be  drawn  from  the  in- 
vestigations and  impressions  of  later  writers  most 
comjietent  to  'fu?-m  a  judgment,  who  have  exam- 
ined the  subject,  or  who,  as  historians,  have  re- 
corded the  prevalent  tradition,  or  the  most  intelli- 
gent opinion.  The  testimony  of  these  writers  the 
reader  will  find  quoted  in  an  article  by  the  present 
writer  on  "  The  Site  of  Sodom,"  Bibl.  Sacra 
(18(i8),  XXV.  121-12G. 

Whether  the  flame  which  kindled  on  Sodom  and 
the  guilty  cities  and  coiisunied  them,  the  inflam- 
malile  bitumen  entering  largely  into  the  composi- 
tion of  their  walls,  devoured  also  the  adjacent  Vale 
of  Siddim,  whose  soil,  abounding  with  asphalt- 
wells,  woidd  under  a  storm  of  fire  be  a  magazine 
of  quenchless  fuel,  and  thus  burned  out  a  chasm, 
which  in  whole  or  in  part,  now  forms  the  lagoon ; 
or  whether  some  volcanic  convulsion,  an  agency  of 
which  tliat  region  has  been  the  known  theatre,  up- 
heaved the  combustible  strata,  exposing  them  to 
the  action  of  fire,  and  thus  secured  the  result,  each 
Bupposition  confirming  the  sacred  narrative  that  as 
Aliraham,  from  his  high  point  of  observation  sur- 
veying the  terrible  destruction,  "  looked  toward 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  toward  all  the  land  of 
the  plain,  and  behold,  and  lo,  the  smoke  of  the 
■sountry  w«nt  up  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace;"  or 
whether,  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of  the 
jities  by  fire,  some  earthquake-throe,  such  as  that 
jtwpendous  crevasse  has  more  than  once  felt,  iuuk 


SEAL 

a  portion  of  the  soil  out  of  sight,  leaving  the  stag 
nant  waters  above  as  its  memorial,  cannot  now  b( 
known.  The  agency  which  destroyed  the  cities 
was  plainly  igneous.  The  agency  which  converted 
the  A'ale  of  Siddim  into  a  sheet  of  water  is  not 
stated.  Any  theory  is  admissible  which  consist- 
ently explains  the  tvv'o  facts. 

'i'he  submergence  of  the  Vale  of  Siddim  and  the 
submergence  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  or  of  their 
site,  are  distinct  questions,  liecause  the  cities  were 
not  in  this  valley.  On  this  point  we  concur  with 
the  judicious  Keland:  — 

"The  inspired  writer  does  not  say  that  the  five 
cities.  Sodom  and  the  rest,  were  situated  in  the 
Valley  of  Siddim;  on  the  contrary,  the  text  (Gen. 
xiv.  3)  leads  to  an  opposite  conclusion:  since  the 
kings  of  these  five  cities,  after  having  collected  their 
armies,  joined  together  towards  the  Valley  of  Sid- 
dim. Supposing  the  translation  to  be  in  the  valley, 
the  meaning  is  still  the  same.  The  probability  is, 
then,  that  the  Valley  of  Siddim  was  quite  distinct 
from  the  country  in  which  the  five  cities  were  sit- 
uated "  {/'(i/cesiiiui,  i.  161). 

We  see  not  how  any  other  opinion  than  this 
could  have  obtained  currency  among  scholars.  The 
vale  and  the  territory  of  the  cities,  though  distinct, 
were  e\idently  contiguous  and  may  have  shared, 
and  to  some  extent  probably  did  share  a  conmion 
catastrophe.  The  former  may  have  been  consun;ed 
with  the  latter,  or  the  latter  may  have  been  de- 
pressed with  the  former.  Neither  the  exact  loca- 
tion nor  extent  of  the  \ale  of  Siddim  can  be  ascer- 
tained. If  it  covered  the  whole  breadth  of  the 
soutiiern  part  of  the  sea,  the  plain  which  borders 
on  the  south,  ten  miles  long  by  six  broad,  was 
ample  enough  for  the  cities;  liut  in  all  prol)ability 
it  was  confined  to  a  part  of  its  width,  leaving  the 
rest  for  fruitful  fields  and  walled  towns,  the  sites 
of  which  are  entombed  by  the  sea.  The  vale  was 
the  battle-field  between  Chedorlaomer  and  his  allies, 
and  the  confederate  kings  of  the  cities;  and  as  the 
invaders  apparently  menaced  the  cities  from  the 
present  point  of  Aiu  Jidy,  and  the  kings  went  forth 
to  meet  them  in  this  vale,  it  must  ha/e  lain  west 
or  north  of  the  cities. 

If  the  rich  vegetation  of  the  well-watered  plain 
of  the  .Jordan,  on  whose  tropical  luxuriance  Lot 
looked  down  from  the  highlands  of  .Judaea,  extended 
southward  skirting  fresh  water  along  the  site  of  a 
part  of  the  present  basin  of  the  Salt  Sea,  and 
embosomuig  the  Vale  of  Siddim  with  the  cities 
which  bordered  it,  the  allusions  in  the  Scripture 
narrative  are  all  adjusted  and  explained.  This 
theory  encounters  no  historic  ditticulty,  nor  any 
in.superable  scientific  difficulty,  so  far  as  is  known. 
If  there  be  a  fatal  objection  to  it,  it  lies  buried  in 
that  vast,  mysterious  fissure,  and  awaits  the  resur- 
rection of  some  future  explorer.  Should  geology 
ever  compel  tiie  substitution  of  a  different  theory, 
we  may  exi>ect  from  some  quarter  the  additional 
light  which  will  enable  us  to  reconcile  it  with  the 
inspired  record.  In  the  meantime  we  rest  on  this 
hypothesis.     [Siddim,  the  Vale  of,  Anier.  ed.] 

S.  \\\ 

SEAL."     The  importance  attached  to  seals  in 


«  1.  Dmn  (Arab.  j^'L^)  :  (70payis,aTro(r</)po 
yicr/ia:  aiDiuUis  (Gen.  xxxviii.  25).  nCi^n./' 
SaKTvAtos  :  annidiis    from  CHP,  "close  'or  "seal 


SEAL 

the  East  is  so  great  that  without  one  no  document 
is  regarded  as  authentic  (l.ayard,  Nin.  cf  Bab.  p. 
608;  Chardiii,    ]'oy.  y.  454).     The    use  of   some 
method  of  sealing  is  obviousl3',  therefore,  of  remote 
antiquity.     Amoiiq  such  methods  used  in  Egypt 
at  a  very  early  period  were  engraved  stones,  pierced 
through  their  length  and  hung  by  a  string  or  chain 
from  the  arm  or  neck,  or  set  in  rings  for  the  finger. 
The  most  ancient  form  used  for  this  purpose  was 
the  scaraliaaus,  formed  of  precious  or  common  stone, 
or  even  of  blue  pottery  or  porcelain,  on  the  flat  side 
of  which  the  inscription  or  device  was  engraved. 
Cylinders  of  stone  or  pottery  bearing  devices  were 
also  used  as  signets.    One  in  the  Alnwick  Museum 
bears  the  date  of  Osirtasen   I.,  or   between  2000 
and  3000  B.  c.     Besides  tinger-rings,  the  Egyp- 
tians,  and    also    the  Assyrians   and    Babylonians, 
made  use  of  cylinders  of  precious  stone  or  terra- 
cotta,  which   were   probably  set   in   a  frame  and 
rolled  over  the  document  which  was  to  be  sealed. 
The  document,    especially  among    the  two   latter 
nations,  was  itself  often  made  of  baked  clay,  sealed 
while  it  was  wet  and  burnt  afterwards.     But  in 
many  cases  the  seal  consisted  of  a  lump  of  clay, 
impressed  with  the  seal  and  attached  to  the  docu- 
ment,  whether  of  papyrii.s  or  other  material,  by 
strings.     These  clay  liunps  often  bear  the  impress 
of  the  finger,  and  also  the  remains  of  the  strings 
by  which  they  had  been  fastened.     One  such  found 
at  Nimroud  was  the  seal  of  Sabaco  king  of  Egyitt, 
B.  c.  711,  and  another  is  believed  by  Mr.  Layard 
to   have  been   the  seal  of  Sennacherib,   of  nearly 
the  same  date  (Birch,  //i.'it.  of  PotUry,  \.  101,  118; 
Wilkinson,  Anc.  J\f/ypt.  ii.  -iil,  304;  Layard,  Nin. 
(f   Biib.   pp.    154-160).     In    a   somewhat  similar 
manner  doors  of  tombs  or  other  places  intended  to 
be  closed   were  sealed   with   lumps  of  clay.     The 
custom  prevalent  among  the  Babylonians  of  carry- 
ing seals  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  i.  liJ5,  who 
also   notices  the  seals  on   tombs,  ii.  121;  Wilkin- 
son, i.  15,  ii.  364;  jNIatt.  xxvii.  60;   Dan.  vi.   17. 
The  use  of  clay  in  sealing  is  noticed  in  the  book 
of  .Job    (xxxviii.  14),   and  the    signet-ring   as  an 
ordinary  part  of  a  man's  equipment  in  the  case  of 
Judah  (Gen.  xxxviii.  18),  who  probably,  like  many 
modern  Arabs,  wore  it  suspended  \fy  a  string  "  from 
his  neck  or  arm.      (See  Cant.  viii.  6;  Ges.  pp.  538, 
1140;   Robinson,  i.  36;  Niebuhr,   Descr.  dt  l Ar. 
p.  90;  Chardin,  /.  c  Olearius,  Tnw.  p  317;  Knobel 
on   Gen.  xxxviii.    in    Exvij.   IJdh.)     The   ring   or 
the  seal  as  an  emblem  of  authority  both  in  Egypt, 
in  Persia,  and  elsewhere,  is  mentioned  in  the  cases 
of  Pharaoh  with  Joseph,   Gen.  xli.  42;  of  Ahal), 
1  K.  xxi.  8;  of  Ahasuerus,  Esth.  iii.  10,  12,  viii. 
2;    of  Darius,    Dan.   I.   c,   also    1   Mace    vi.    15; 
Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  2,  §  2;  Herod,  iii.  128;  Curtius,  iii. 
6.  7,  X.  5,  4;  Sandys,  Trav.   p.  62;  Chardin,  ii. 
2.)1,  V.  451,  462;  and  as  an  evidence  of  a  covenant 
in  Jer.  xxxii.  10,  44;  Neh.  ix.  38,  x.  1;   Hag.  ii. 
23.     Its    general    importance    is    denoted    by  tiie 
jietaphorical  use  of  the  word    (Rev.  v.   1,  ix.  4). 
Rings  with    seals    are   mentioned   i)i   the  Mishna 
(Shdbb.  vi.  3),  and  earth  or  clay  6  as  used  for  seals 
of  bass  (viii.  5).     Seals  of  four  sorts  used  in  the 
Temple,  as  well  as  special  guardians  of  them,  are 
mentioned  in  Shekal.  v.  1. 


Ch.   □nn  :   <T<t>payii^ofiai :    signum    irnprimere,   sig 
tart 
3.  Ring,  or  8igE9l>-ring,  DJ7213. 


REBA  2899 

Among  modern  C>rientals  the  size  and  place  of 
the  seal  vary  according  to  the  importance  botb 
of  the  sender  of  a  letter  and  of  the  person  to  whom 
it  is  sent.  In  sealing,  the  seal  itself,  not  the  paper, 
is  smeared  with  the  sealing-substance.  Thus  illit- 
erate persons  .sometimes  use  the  object  nearest  a 
hand  —  their  own  finger,  or  a  stick  notched  foi  the 
purpose  —  and,  daubing  it  with  ink,  smear  the 
paper  therewith  (Chardin,  v.  454,  ix.  347;  Arvi.mx, 
Triiv.  p.  161;  liauwolfF,  Trav.  in  Ray,  ii.  61; 
Niebuhr,  I.e.;  Kobinson,  i.  36).  Engraved  sig- 
nets were  in  use  among  the  Hebrews  in  early  tiaies, 
as  is  evident  in  the  description  of  the  high-priest's 
breastplate  (Ex.  xxviii.  11,  36,  xxxix.  6),  and  ths 
work  of  the  engraver  as  a  distinct  occupation  ia 
mentioned  in  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  27.     [Clay,  i.  471.] 

H.  \V.  P. 

*  SEALED  FOUNTAIN.     [Fountain.] 

*  SEALS'  SKINS.     [Badgkks'  Skins.] 
SE'BA    (SSP    [see  below]:    2a3<x,   2o^n)-, 

[Vat.  in  1  Cbn  ■S.a^ar-]  Saba:  gent.  n.  pi. 
a>'3P  :  [Is.  xlv.  14,]  :S,a0aeliJ.,  [FA.l  Sa^aeif, 
Alex.  Sf/Scoei/^:]  Sabaim:  A.  V.  incorrectly  ren- 
dered  Sahkans,   a  name  there  given  with  more 

probability  to  the  C^Sitt?,  Joel  iii.  8  [Heb.  text, 
iv.  8] ;  and  to  Sheba,  used  for  the  people.  Job  i. 
15 ;  but  it  would  have  been  better  had  the  original 
orthograpliy  ijeen  followed  in  both  cases  by  such 
renderings  a.s  "people  of  Seba,"  "people  of  Sheba," 
where  the  gent,  nouns  occur).  Seba  heads  the  list 
of  the  sons  of  Cush.  If  Seba  be  of  Hebrew  or 
cognate  origin,  it  may  be  connected  with  the  root 

S^D,  "he  or  it  drank,  drank  to  excess,"  which 

T  T  '  '  ' 

would  not  be  inappropriate  to  a  nation  seated,  as 
we  shall  see  was  tliat  of  Seba,  in  a  well-watered 
country;  but  the  comparison  of  two'  other  similar 

names  of  Cushites,   Sabtah    (nri3p)  and   Sab- 

techah  (S3F15P)>  does  not  favor  this  supposition, 

as  they  were  probably  seated  in  Arabia,  like  the 

Cushite  Sheba  (Snti'),  which  is  not  remote  from 

Seba  (S3p),  the  two  letters  being  not  unfrequently 
interchanged.  Gesenius  has  suggested  the  Ethiopic 
(^•{"J  ^  :  sdbeay,  "  a  man,"  as  the  origin  of  both 
Seba  and  Sheba,  but  this  seems  unlikely.  The 
ancient  Egyptian  names  of  nations  or  tribes,  possi- 
bly countries,  of  Ethiopia,  proliably  mainly,  if  not 
wholly,  of  Nigritian  race,  SAHABA,  SABARA 
(Brugsch,  Geoyr.  Inschi:  ii.  9,  tav.  xii.  K.  1.),  are 
more  to  the  point;  and  it  is  needless  to  cite  later 
geographical  names  of  cities,  though  that  of  one 
of  the  upper  confluents  of  the  Nile,  Astasobas. 
compared  with  Astalioras,  and  Astapus,  seems  wor 
thy  of  notice,  as  perhaps  indicating  the  name  of  a 
nation.  The  pro|)er  names  of  the  first  and  second 
kings  of  the  Ethiopian  XXVth  dynasty  of  Egypt, 

SHEBEK  (S'"^D)  and  SHEBETEK,  may  .also  be 
compared.  Gesenius  was  led,  by  an  en  or  of  the 
Ei'yptologists,  to  connect  Sevechus,  a  (ireel:  tran 
scription  of  SHEBETEK,  with  SABK  or  SBAIv 

1       8:    S^*"^'',  Ch. :  SaxTvAios:  annulns. 

.. f  t:  •  ' 

a    7'^jn'' :   op/iio-Ko?:   nrmilla  ;  A.  V.  "  bracelet  " 
0  nSSlS  (see  Q«s.  p.  27> 


2900 


SEBA 


the  crocodile-headed  diviuit}'  of  Onihos  {Lex.  s.  v. 
KID). 

The  list  of  the  sons  of  Cush  seems  to  indicate 
the  position  of  the  Cushite  nation  or  countrj'  Seha. 
Ninirod,  who  is  mentioned  at  the  close  of  the  list, 
ruled  at  first  in  Babylonia,  and  apparently  after- 
wards in  Assyria:  of  the  names  enumerated  be- 
tween Seba  and  Nimrod,  it  is  highly  probable  that 
•ome  belong  to  Arabia.  We  thus  may  conjecture 
i  cuive  of  Cushite  settlements,  one  extremity  of 
which  is  to  be  placed  ui  Babylonia,  the  other,  if 
pi'3l)nged  far  enough  in  accordance  with  the  men- 
-ti.  1)  of  the  African  Cush.  in  Ethiopia.  The  more 
e.xr.ct  position  of  Selia  will  be  later  discussed. 

Besides  the  mention  of  Selia  in  the  list  of  the 
Jons  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  7;  1  Chr.  i.  9),  there  are 
but  three,  or,  as  some  hold,  four  notices  of  the 
nation.  In  Psalm  Ixxii.,  which  has  evidently  a 
first  reference  to  the  reign  of  Solomon,  Seba  is  thus 
spoken  of  among  the  distant  nations  which  should 
do  honor  to  the  king:  "The  kings  of  Tarshish 
and  of  the  isles  shall  bring  presents :  the  kings  of 
Sheba  and  Seba  shall  offer  gifts "  (10)  This 
mention  of  Slieba  and  Seba  together  is  to  be  com- 
pared with  the  occurrence  of  a  Sheba  among  the 
descendants  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  7),  and  its  fulfillment 
is  found  in  the  queen  of  Sheba's  coming  to  Sol- 
omon. There  can  be  little  doulit  that  the  Arabian 
kingdom  of  Shela  was  Cushite  as  well  as  Joktan- 
ite;  and  this  oicurrence  of  Siielia  and  Seba  together 
certainly  lends  some  support  to  this  view.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  connection  of  Seba  with  an  Asiatic 
kingdom  is  important  in  reference  to  the  race  of 
its  people,  which,  or  at  least  the  ruling  class  was, 
no  doulit,  not  Nigritian.  In  Isaiah  xliii ,  Seba 
is  spoken  of  with  Egypt,  and  more  particularly 
with  Cush,  apparently  with  some  reference  to  the 
Elxodus,  where  we  read:  "  I  gave  Egypt  [for]  thy 
ransom,  Cush  and  Seba  for  thee "  (3).  Here, 
to  render  Cush  by  Ethiopia,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  is 
perhaps  to  miss  the  sense  of  the  passage,  which 
does  not  allow  us  to  infer,  though  it  is  l)y  no 
means  impossilile,  that  Cush,  as  a  geographical 
designation,  includes  Seba,  as  it  would  do  if  here 
meaning  l^thio|>ia.  T-ater  in  the  book  there  is  a 
passage  ]iarallel  in  its  indications:  "  The  labor  of 
Egypt,  and  merchandise  of  Cush,  and  of  the  people 
of  Seba,  men  of  stature,  shall  come  over  unto  thee, 
and  they  sliall  he  thine  "  (xlv.  14).  Here  there  is 
the  same  mention  together  of  the  three  nations, 
and  the  same  special  association  of  Cush  and  Seba. 
The  great  stature  and  beauty  of  the  Ethiopians  is 
mentioned  liy  Herodotus,  who  speaks  of  them  as 
by  report  the  tallest  and  handsomest  men  in  the 
world  (iii.  20;  comp.  114);  and  in  the  present  day 
some  of  the  trilies  of  the  dark  races  of  a  type  inter- 
mediate between  the  Nigritians  and  the  Egyijtians, 
as  well  as  the  Caucasian  Abyssinians,  are  remark- 
able for  tlieir  fine  form,  and  certain  of  the  former 
for  their  height.  The  doubtful  notice  is  in  Eze- 
kiel,  in  a  difficult  passage :  "  and  with  men  of  the 
multitude   of    Adam    [were]    brought    drunkards 

r2''S2ip,  but  the  Keri  reads  n.*"S2P,  '  people 
of  Seba  ']  from  the  wilderness,  which  put  bracelets 
upon  their  hands,  and  beautiful  crowns  upon  their 
heads  "  "  (xxiii.  42).  The  first  clause  would  seem 
to  favor  the  idea. that  a  nation  is  meant,  but   the 


a  liie  reading  of  the  A.  V.  in  the  text  's,  "  with 
;h«  tiien  of  tlie  common  sort,"  and  in  the  margin, 
<  wlttj  th«  men  of  the  multitude  of  men.'' 


SEBA 

reading  of  the  text  is  rather  supported  by  what  fol- 
lows the  mention  of  the  "drunkards."  Nor  is  i( 
clear  why  people  of  Seba  should  come  from  the 
wilderness.  The  jiassages  we  have  examined  thus 
seem  to  show  (if  we  omit  the  last)  that  Seba  was  a 
nation  of  Africa,  bordering  on  or  included  in  Cush, 
and  in  Solomon's  time  independent  and  of  political 
importance.  We  are  thus  able  to  conjecture  the 
position  of  Seba.  No  ancient  Ethiopian  kingdom 
of  importance  could  have  excluded  the  island  of 
Jleroii,  and  therefore  tliis  one  of  Solomon's  time 
may  be  identified  with  that  which  must  ha\e  arisen 
in  the  period  of  weakness  and  division  of  Egypt 
that  followed  the  Empire,  and  have  laid  the  basis 
of  that  power  that  ujade  SHEBEK,  or  Sabacn, 
able  to  coiquer  Egypt,  and  found  the  Ethiopian 
dynasty  which  ruled  that  country  as  well  as  Ethi- 
opia. 

Josephus  says  that  Saba  (2a^a)  w'as  the  ancient 
name  of  the  Ethiopian  island  and  city  of  Meroe 
{A.  J.  ii.  10,  §  2).  but  he  writes  Seba,  in  the  no- 
tice of  the  Noachian  settlements,  Sabas  {ibid.  i.  6. 
§2).  Certainly  the  kingdom  of  Meroe  succeeded 
that  of  Seba;  and  the  ancient  city  of  the  same 
name  may  have  been  tlie  cajiital,  or  one  of  the  cap- 
itals, of  Seba,  though  we  do  not  find-  any  of  its 
monuments  to  be  even  as  early  as  the  XXYth  dy- 
nasty. There  can  be  no  connection  between  the 
two  names.  According  to  .losephus  and  others, 
Meroe  was  named  after  a  sister  of  Cambyses;  but 
this  is  extremely  unlikely,  and  we  prefer  taking  it 
from  the  ancient  EKyptian  MEKU,  an  island, 
which  occurs  in  a  name  of  a  part  of  Ethiopia  that 
can  only  be  this  or  a  similar  tract,  MEKU-I'ET, 
"  the  island  of  PET  [PhutV]  the  bow,"  where  the 
bow  may  have  a  geographical  reference  to  a  bend 
of  the  river,  and  the  word  island  to  the  country 
inclosed  by  that  bend  and  a  tributary  [Phut]. 

As  Meroe,  from  its  fertility,  must  have  been  the 
most  important  portion  of  any  P^thiopian  kingdom 
in  the  dominions  of  which  it  was  included,  it  may 
be  well  here  to  mention  the  chief  facts  respecting 
it  which  are  known.  It  may  be  remarked  that  it 
seems  certain  that,  from  a  remote  time,  I-Lthiopia 
below  jMeroe  could  ne\er  have  formed  a  separate 
powerful  kingdom,  and  was  probably  always  de- 
pendent upon  either  Meroe  or  Egypt.  The  island 
of  Meroe  lay  Ijetween  the  Astalwras,  the  Atbara, 
the  most  northern  tributary  of  the  Nile,  and  the 
Astapus,  the  Bahr  el-Azrak  or  "  Blue  Biver,"  the 
eastern  of  its  two  great  confluents;  it  is  also  de- 
scribed as  bounded  by  the  Astaboras,  the  Astajnis, 
and  the  Astasolias.  the  latter  two  uniting  to  form 
the  Blue  River  (Strab.  xvii.  821),  but  this  is  essen- 
tially the  same  thing.  It  was  in  the  time  of  the 
kingdom  rich  and  productive.  The  chief  city  was 
microti,  where  was  an  oracle  of  Jupiter  Amnion. 
Modern  research  confirms  these  particulars.  The 
country  is  capaiile  of  being  rendered  very  wealthy, 
though  its  neighborhood  to  Abyssinia  has  checked ' 
its  commerce  in  that  direction,  from  the  natural 
dread  that  the  Abyssinians  have  of  their  country 
being  absorbed  like  Kurdufan,  Darfoor,  and  Fay- 
zosrjiu,  by  their  powerful  neighbor  Egypt.  The  r<j- 
mains  of  the  city  Meroii  have  not  been  identified 
with  certainty,  but  between  N.  lat.  16°  and  17°, 
temples,  one  of  them  dedicated  to  the  ram-headed 
Num,  confounded  with  .Amnion  by  the  Greeks,  and 
pyramids,  indicate  that  there  must  have  lieen  a 
great  population,  and  at  least  one  important  city 
When  ancient  wi-iters  speak  of  sovereigns  of  Meroe, 
they  may  either  mean  rulers  of  Meroij  alone,  or,  la 


»£BAT 

addition,  cf  Eiliiopia  to  the  north  nearly  as  far,  or 
w  iar  as  Egypt.  11.  S.  P. 

SE'BAT.     [Month.] 

SEC'ACAH  (n33P  [thkkd,  Dietr.]:  hlo- 
Xi(^C"'  Alex.  '2,oxox°--  '^'-'hachn,  or  Sachadia). 
One  of  the  six  cities  of  Judah  which  were  situated 
in  the  Midbnr  ("wilderness"),  that  is,  tlie  tract 
bordering  on  the  Dead  Sea  (.losh.  xv.  61).  It  oc- 
curs in  the  list  between  Middin  and  han-Nibshan. 
It  was  not  known  to  Eusebius  and  .lerouie,  nor  has 
the  name  been  yet  encountered  in  that  direction  in 
more  modern  times.  From  Sinj'd,  among  the 
highlands  of  Ephraim,  near  Seili'm,  Dr.  Kobinson 
saw  a  place  called  Sekdkeh  {htt/jL  Ji<:s.  ii.  267, 
note).  G. 

SECHENI'AS  (2ex^pias  ;  [Vat.  omits:] 
£ceciliiis).  1.  Shechaniah  (1  Esdr.  viii.  21); 
comp.  Ezr.  viii.  3). 

2.  {[Vat.  Eiexovias-]  Jechmiias.)  Shecha- 
niah (1  Esdr.  viii.  32;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  5). 

SE'CHU  (^3"^n  with  the  article  [the  watch- 
tower]  :  iv  T(f  2e<f)i  [Vat.  2eii>ei] ;  Alex,  (v  Sok- 
Xce'  iSocho).  A  place  mentioned  once  only  (1 
Sam.  xix.  22),  apparently  as  lying  on  the  route  lie- 
tween  Saul's  residence,  Gibeah,  and  Ramah  (Ra- 
mathaim  Zophim),  that  of  Samuel.  It  was  noto- 
rious for  "  the  great  well"  (or  rather  cistern,  "112) 
which  it  contained.  The  name  is  derivable  from  a 
root  signifying  elevation,  thus  perhaps  implying 
that  the  place  was  situated  on  an  eminence. 

Assuming  that  Saul  started  from  Gibeah  ( Ttdtil 
el-Fiil),  and  that  Neby  Snmiril  is  Kamah,  then 
Bir  Ntbdlla  (the  well  of  Neballa),  alleged  by  a 
modern  traveller  (Schwarz,  p.  127)  to  contain  a 
large  pit,  would  be  in  a  suitable  position  for  the 
great  well  of  Sechu.  Schwarz  would  identify  it 
with  Askiir.,  on  the  S.  E.  end  of  ]\Iount  Ebal,  and 
the  well  with  Jacob's  Well  in  the  plain  below;  and 
Van  de  Velde  (5.  (f  P.  ii.  53,  54)  hesitatingly 
places  it  at  Shuk,  in  the  mountains  of  .Judah  N. 
E.  of  Hebron;  but  this  they  are  forced  into  by 
their  respective  theories  as  to  the  position  of  Rama- 
thaim  Zophim. 

The  Vat.  LXX.  alters  the  passage,  and  has  "  the 
well  of  the  threshing-floor  that  is  in  Sephei,"  sub- 
stituting, in  the  first  case,  ^"12  for  713,  or  aAco 

for  fxi-yaXov,  and  in  the  latter  ^Stli'  for  ^^W. 
The  Alex.  MS.,  as  usual,  adheres  more  closely  to 
the  Helirew.  G. 

*  SECT.  This  word  is  used  five  times  in  the 
Bible,  always  in  tlie  singular,  and  always  as  a  trans- 
lation of  alp^ais-  of  the  Sadducees,  Acts  v.  17: 
of  the  Pharisees,  xv.  5,  xxvi.  5:  and  of  the  Chris- 
tians (by  Jews  or  heathen),  xxiv.  5,  xxviii.  22. 
Ai'pecrxs  occurs  once  more  in  the  singular,  xxiv.  14 
(A.  V.  "heresy"),  and  three  times  in  the  plural, 
1  Cor.  xi.  19,  Gal.  v.  20,  2  Pet.  ii.  1  (A.  V. 
"  heresies,"'  but  1  Cor.  xi.  19  "sects"  in  the  mar- 
gin). The  word  seems  in  the  X.  T.  to  be  used  in 
the  twofold  sense  which  it  had  before  in  classical, 
and  afterwards  in  ecclesiastical  Greek  (cf.  Sopho- 
cles: (jlossnry  of  Later  and  Byzantine  Greek): 
denoting  now  a  "  chosen  "  set  of  doctrines  or  mode 
of  life  (e.  g.  Acts  xxiv.  14,  t^iv  65i)v  ^v  Aeyovaiv 
tXpfffiv,  2  Pet.  ii.  1,  perhaps  also  Acts  xxviii.  22, 
jal.  V.  20),  now  a  party  adhering  to  the  doctrines. 

That  a'lpta-is  denotes  in  the  N.  T.  religious 
peculiarities    or   parties    is    evident  from  the    six 


SEDITIONS 


2'01 


cases  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  singular.  The 
presumption  therefore  is  that  in  the  three  othei 
cases  the  oipeVeis  have  the  same  characteristio 
It  is  evident  also  that  the  word  has  (as  it  did  not 
have  in  classical  Greek)  a  bad  sense.  The  reason 
for  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  N.  T.  conception  of 
the  Church  as  a  unit,  a  body  united  to  Christ  the 
Head  (1  Cor.  xii.  27;  Eph.  i.  22),  so  that  diver 
sities  of  opinion  which  produce  a  schism  in  the 
body  or  divide  any  part  of  it  from  the  Head  'cf. 
1  Cor.  xii.  25;  Col.  ii.  19)  cannot  be  tolerated,  as 
could  ditferences  on  merely  philosophical  or  indif- 
ferent matters.  Especially  instructive  is  1  Cor.  xi. 
18,  19.  While  Paul  has  spok(!n  of  epiSes,  i-  11, 
and  of  QfjKos  xai  eptSy  iii.  3,  as  undoubtedly  ex- 
isting among  the  Corinthians,  he  is  reluctant  to 
give  to  the  report  that  there  are  crxi^crfJ-ara  amoug 
them  more  than  qualified  credit  (xi.  18,  jx4pos  ti 
TTiffTevw),  and  founds  even  this  qualified  belief  not 
so  much  on  the  reports,  as  on  the  general  principle 
(ver.  19)  that  there  is  a  providential  necessity  that 
there  should  be  even  aipfVeis  {5(7  yap  koI  alp- 
ehai),  that  the  S6Kifxoi  niay  be  made  manifest 
(cf  1  John.  ii.  19).  The  a?6Kifxoi  are  those  who 
do  not  have  Christ  in  them  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5).  AipeVei* 
then  are  divisions  (distinguished  from  crx'to'fj.aTa, 
as  the  cause  from  the  etfect)  which  imply  or  lead 
to  a  separation  of  false  from  true  Christians.  In 
strict  accordance  with  this  is  the  <ise  of  aipeafis  in 
Gal.  V.  20,  and  especially  in  2  Pet.  ii.  1 ;  as  also 
Paul's  injunction  (lit.  iii.  10),  to  reject  an  alperi- 

Khv    txvOpCOTTOl'- 

The  term  a'lpeais,  as  far  as  parties  in  the  Church 
are  concerned,  is  in  the  N.  T.  confined  to  general 
or  hypothetical  statements,  and  is  not  applied  to 
any  particular  heretical  body,  though  the  existence 
of  heretical  tendencies  is  recognized.  But  the 
prominent  notion  in  tlie  N.  T.  conception  of 
a'ipiais  is  that  of  apostasy  from  Christ.  Mere 
variations  in  belief  among  those  who  "  hold  the 
Head  "  are  nowhere  branded  with  the  name  of 
a'iptais  (cf.  Rom.  xiv. ;  1  Cor.  viii.).       C.  M.  M. 

SECUN'DUS  (Se/coCj/Sox:  Secicndiis)  was 
one  of  the  party  who  went  with  the  Apostle  Paul 
from  Corinth  as  far  as  Asia  i'dxp'  tTjs  'Aaias), 
probably  to  Troas  or  Miletus  (all  of  them  so  tar, 
some  further),  on  his  return  to  Jerusalem  from  his 
third  missionary  tour  (see  Acts  xx.  4).  He  and 
Aristarchus  are  there  said  to  have  been  Thessa- 
lonians.     He  is  otherwise  unknown.      II.  B.  II. 

*  SECURE  formerly  differed  from  "  safe,"  aa 
the  feeling  of  safety  (which  may  be  unfounded' 
differs  from  the  reality.  Thus,  in  Judg.  xuii.  7, 
10,  27,  the  people  of  Laish  are  said  to  have  beep 
"secure";  i.  e.  in  their  own  beUef,  which  their 
speedy  and  utter  overthrow  showed  to  be  a  delu 
sion.  It  is  in  the  same  sense  that  the  A.  V.  ren- 
ders v/xas  a.fj.epiiJ.i'Ovs  iToii](rop.iv  b)'  "  ^^^  ^^''^^  *®" 
cure  you,"  in  Matt,  xxviii.  14.  (See  Trench'i 
Glossary  of  English  Words,  p.  147,  Amer.  ed.) 

H. 

SEDECI'AS  (SeSeKiay;  Sedccias),  the  Greek 
form  of  Zedekiah.  1.  A  man  mentioned  in  Bar. 
i.  1,  as  the  father  of  Maaseiah,  himself  the  grand- 
father of  Banich,  and  apparently  identical  with  the 
false  prophet  in  Jer.  xxix.  21,  22. 

2.  Tile  "  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah  "  (Bar 
i.  8).     [Zedekiah.]  B.  F.  W. 

*  SEDITIONS,  in  the  current  sense  of  th« 
word,  appears  out  of  place  in  Paul's  catalogue  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh  (Gal.  v.  19-21).     U  stands  foi 


2902 


SEER 


hixocrraaiai,  correctly  rendered  "divisions"  in 
Hoii).  xvi.  16  and  1  Cor.  iii.  -i,  as  it  slioidd  lie  in 
the  above  passaire.  The  restricted  political  sense, 
if  included  at  all  in  this  instance,  is  only  a  part  of 
the  sense.  Archdeacon  Hare  ascrilies  the  mistake 
of  the  A.  V.  to  TyiKtale"s  followins;  Erasmus"  ver- 
sion, where  scdUiunes  means  "divisions  "  as  one  of 
its  Latin  significations  {Mission  of  the  C('  n^'mlur, 
p.  225  f.  Amer.  ed.).  .'1. 

SEER.     [Pkophet.] 

SE'GUB  (n*ai?7:  Kri,  3^:P  [e/.n/te/] : 
'le-yov^  [Vat.  M.  Zeyoiy/SO  i^^in^'A-  1-  The 
youngest  son  of  Hie!  the  Bethelite,  who  rebnilt 
.lericho  (1  K.  xvi.  34).  According  to  Hal)bini,cal 
tradition  he  died  when  his  father  had  set  up  the 
gates  of  the  city.  One  story  says  that  his  father 
i.ew  hiui  as  a  sacrifice  on  the  same  occasion. 

2.  (SffiouX'  Al«'f-  Sfyow^.)  Son  of  Hezron, 
by  the  daughter  of  Macliir  the  fiither  of  Gilead  (1 
Chr.  ii.  21,' 22). 

*  SE'IR  ("1"'?'E?,  ruvfjh,  hristhj:  S.-neip:  in 
I  CLr.  2r)ip,  Alex.  27?Cip:  Seir),  a  Horite  chief, 
who,  perhaps,  gave  his  name  to  the  mountainous 
region  in  which  he  dwelt  ((jen.  xxxvi.  20,  21 ;  1 
Chr.  i.  38).   [Skii;,  iMou.nt,  1.]  A. 

SE'IR,  MOUNT  O^VW,  ruuyli  or  rurj^ed: 

2t76i>:    Seir).       AVe    have    both    "^^VXD    Vl?^', 

"land  of  Seir"  ((Jen.  xxxii.  3,  xxxvi.  30),  and  "'H 

'^,'^Vb:,  "Moimt  Seir"  (Gen.  xiv.  6).  L  The 
original  name  of  the  mountain  ridge  extending 
along  the  east  side  of  the  Valley  of  Arabah,  from  the 
Dead  Sea  to  the  Elanitic  Gulf.  The  name  may 
either  have  been  derived  from  Seir  the  Horite,  who 
ajtpears  to  have  been  the  chief  of  the  aborigin;il 
inhabitants  (Gen.  xxxvi.  20),  or,  what  is  perhaps 
more  probable,  from  the  rough  aspect  of  the  whole 
country.  The  view  from  Aaron"s  tomb  on  Hor,  in 
the  centre  of  .Mount  Seir,  is  enough  to  show  the 
appropriateness  of  the  appellation.  The  sharp  and 
serrated  ridges,  the  jagged  rocks  and  cliffs,  the 
straggling  bushes  and  stunted  trees,  give  the  whole 
scene  a  sternness  and  ruggedness  almost  unparal- 
leled.      In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  instead  of 

"1"'3?t£7,  the  name  n7!2!l  is  used;  and  in  the  Je- 
rusalem Targum,  in  place  of"  Slount  Seir  "  we  find 

Sbnzn  S~11t:>,  Munm  OnUn.  The  word  Gnhla 
signifies  "mountain,"  and  is  thus  descriptive  of  the 
region  (Keland,  Pul.  p.  83).  The  name  Gebala,  or 
Gebalene,  was  applied  to  this  province  by  Josephus, 
and  also  by  Kusebius  and  Jerome  (Joseph.  Anl.  ii. 
1,  §2;  Onomasl.  "IduniEea").  The  northern 
section  of  jMount  Seir,  as  far  as  Petra,  is  still  called 
Jebcil,  the  Arabic  form  of  Gebal.  The  Mount  Seir 
of  the  Bible  extended  much  further  .south  than  the 
modern  province,  as  is  shown  by  the  words  of  Deut. 
ii.  1-8.  In  fact  its  lioundaries  are  there  defined 
with  tolerable  exactness.  It  had  the  Arabah  on 
he  west  (vv.  1.  8);  it  extended  as  far  south  as 
rfie  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akabah  (ver.  8 ) ;  its  east- 
ern  border  ran  along  the  base  of  the  mountain 


«  'Aa-a-dp.     This  looks  as  if  the  Heb.  name  had  once 
bad  the  &  ~^le  prefi.xed 


b  Poasil     .^the   Xu 


which,  in   the  .\lex.  MS.,  is 


tne  of  the  tieven  names  inserted  b^'  the  LXX.  in  Josh. 
ju  XT.  59.  The  neighboring  names  agree.  lu  the  Vat 
<  ff^lS   it  is  -Ew^jj;. 


SEIR,  MOUNT 

ranga  where  the  jjlateau  of  Arabia  begin i.  it' 
northern  border  is  not  so  accurately  determined. 
The  land  of  Israel,  as  described  by  Joshua,  ex 
tended  from  "  the  .Mount  Halak  that  gocth  up  tf 
Seir,  even  unto  Baal  Gad  "  (.losh.  xi.  17).  As  no 
part  of  Edom  was  given  to  Israel,  Mount  Halak 
must  have  been  on  its  northern  border.  Now  therf- 
is  a  line  of  "naked"  (linlnk  signified  "naked') 
white  hills  or  cliffs  which  runs  across  the  jjreat  val- 
ley about  eight  miles  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  form- 
ing the  division  between  the  Arabah  |)roper  anJ 
the  deep  (jlwr  noith  of  it.  The  view  of  these 
cliffs,  from  the  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea.  is  very 
striking.  They  appear  as  a  line  of  hills  shutting 
in  the  valley,  and  extending  up  to  the  mountains 
of  Seir.  The  impression  left  by  them  on  the  mind 
of  the  writer  was  that  this  is  the  very  "  IMount  Ha- 
lak, that  goeth  up  to  Seir  "  (Kobinson,  Bihl.  Jits.  ii. 
113,  &c.;  see  Keil  on  Josh.  xi.  17).  The  northern 
border  of  the  modern  district  oi  Jvbdl  is  \\'(uly  eU 
Alisy,  which  falls  into  the  (r/tor  a  few  miles  furthei 
north  (Burckhardt,  ^y/•.  p.  401). 

In  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  Seir  appears  to  be  connected 
with  Sinai  and  j'aran;  but  a  careful  consideration 
of  that  difficult  passage  proves  that  the  connection 
is  not  a  geographical  one.  Moses  there  only  suujs 
up  the  several  glorious  manifestations  of  the  Divine 
Majesty  to  the  Israelites,  without  regard  either  to 
time  or  place  (comp.  Judg.  v.  4,  5). 

jSiount  Seir  was  originally  inhabited  by  the 
Horites,  or  "  troglodytes,"  who  wei'e  doubtless  the 
excavators  of  those  singular  rock-dwellings  found ' 
in  such  numbers  in  the  ravines  and  cliffs  around 
Petra.  They  were  disjjossessed,  and  apparently 
annihilated,  by  the  posterity  of  Esau,  who  "  dwelt 
in  their  stead"  (Deut.  ii.  12).  The  history  of 
Seir  thus  early  merges  into  that  of  Edom.  Though 
the  country  was  afterwards  called  Edom,  yet  the 
older  name,  Seir,  did  not  pass  away;  it  is  fre- 
quently mentioned  in  the  sulisequent  history  of  the 
Israelites  (1  Chr.  iv.  42;  2  Chr.  xx.  10).  Mount 
.Seir  is  the  subject  of  a  terrible  prophetic  curse 
pronounced  by  I'zekiel  (ch.  xxxv.),  which  seems 
now  to  be  literally  fulfilled  :  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  Behold,  0  Mount  Seir,  I  am  against 
thee,  and  I  will  make  thee  most  desolate.  I  will 
lay  thy  cities  waste,  ....  when  the  whole  earth 

rejoiceth  I  will  make  thee  desolate I  will 

make  thee  perpetual  desolations,  and  thy  cities 
shall  not  return,  and  }-e  shall  know  that  1  am  the 
Lord."  J.  L.  P. 

2.  (T'lyti?  "in  :^pos 'Ao-o-ap;  "Alex.  o.  2rj6(p: 
Moiis  Si'ir.)  An  entirely  different  place  from  the 
foregoing;  one  of  the  landmarks  on  the  north 
boundary  of  the  territory  of  .ludah  (Josh.  xv.  10 
only).  It  lay  westward  of  Kirjath-jearim,  and 
between  it  and  Beth-shemesh.  If  KitritI  el-F.nab 
be  the  former,  and  Ain-slwins  the  latter  of  these 
two,  then  Blount  Seir  cannot  fail  to  be  the  ridge 
which  lies  between  the  ]Vachj  Aly  and  the  Wady 
Ghurab  (I!ob.  iii.  155).  A  village  called  Snris>> 
stands  on  the  southern  site  of  this  ridge,  which  Tob- 
ler  i'-itle  U'/tiiderun;/,  p.  '20'i)^nd  Schwarz  (p.  97) 
would  identify  with  Seir.  The  obstacle  to  this  is 
that  the  names  are  radically  different.*^  The  Sa''i?'ah 


"^      LxxJsLvu  is  the  orthography  of  Saris  (Lista  of 

Dr.  Smith  in  1st  ed.  of   Robinson,  iii.  App.  123),  ow 
taining  no  Am  and  a  duplicate  8. 


SEIRAH 

i8y-ULv<">  on  the  south  of  the  ]V(t<:!y  Sunir  (liob. 

BiOl.  lies.  1st  ed.  ii.  3f!4),  is  nearer  in  orthogra- 
phy, but  not  so  suitable  in  position. 

l[ow  the  name  of  Seir  came  to  be  located  so  far 
to  the  north  of  the  main  seats  of  the  Seirites  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing.  Perhaps,  like  other 
names  occuring  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  it  is  a 
monument  of  an  incursion  by  the  Edomites  which 
has  escaped  record.  [Oph.ni,  etc.]  But  it  is  more 
proliable  that  it  derived  its  name  from  some  pecul- 
iarity in  tlie  form  or  appearance  of  the  spot.  \h\ 
Kobinson  (iii.  155),  apiiartntly  without  intending' 
any  allusion  to  the  name  of  Seir,  speaks  of  the 
•t  rugged  points  which  composed  the  main  ridge" 
of  the  mountain  in  question.  Such  is  the  meaning 
of  ti:e  Hebrew  word  ISeir.  "Whether  there  is  any 
connection  between  this  mountain  and  Skik.\th 
or  h(is~Seirak  (see  the  next  article)  is  doubtful.  The 
name  is  not  a  connnon  one,  and  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  it  may  have  been  attached  to  the  more  north- 
ern continuation  of  the  hills  of  .ludah  which  ran  up 
into  Benjamin  —  or,  as  it  was  then  called,  JMount 
Ephraim.  G. 

*  SEI'RAH.     [Seikath.] 

SEI'RATH  (n-^yiipn,  with  the  definite 
article  [Me  hairy,  perh.  =  avody] :  Sereipoj^a;  " 
Alex.  2,eeipai6a'  Seirath).  'l"he  place  to  which 
Khud  fled  after  his  murder  of  Eglon  (Judg.  iii.  20), 
and  whither,  by  blasts  of  his  cowhorn,  he  collected 
his  countrymen  for  the  attack  of  the  Moabites  in 
Jericho  (27).  It  was  in  "  Mount  [mountains  of  J 
Ephraim  '"  (27),  a  continuation,  perhaps,  of  the 
same  wooded,  shaggy  hills  (such  seems  to  be  the 
signification  of  Seir,  and  Seirtith)  which  stretched 
even  so  far  south  as  to  enter  the  territory  of  Judah 
(.losh.  XV.  10).  The  definite  article  prefixed  to  the 
name  in  the  original  slmws  that  it  was  a  well- 
known  spot  in  its  day.  It  has,  however,  hitlierto 
escaped  observation  in  modern  times. ^  G. 

SE'LA  and  SE'LAH  (ubz),  or  V^^PT : 
irirpa,  or  ^  irerpa),  2  K.  xiv.  7;  Is.  xvi.  1:  ren- 
dered "the  rock  "  in  the  A.  \^,  in  Judg.  i.  3U,  2 
Chr.  XXV.  12,  Chad.  3.  Probably  the  city  later 
k'lown  as  Petra,  500  Roman  miles  trom  Gaza  (Plin. 
vi.  o'2).  the  ruins  of  which  are  found  about  two  days' 
journey  N.  of  the  top  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  and 
thfLe  (T  four  S.  from  Jericho.  It  was  in  the  midst 
of  Mount  Seir,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Mount  II or 
(Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  4,  §  7),  and  therefore  Edomite 
territory,  taken  by  Amaziah,  and  called  Joktmkkl 
(not  therefore  to  be  confounded  with  Joktheel, 
Ji  sh.  XV.  38,  which  [jertained  to  Judah  in  the  time 
of  Joshua),  but  .seems  to  have  afterwards  come  un- 
der the  dominion  of  Moab.  In  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  b.  c.  it  appears  as  the  head-quarters 
of  the   Nabathseans,  who   successfully  resisted   the 


«  This  is  the  reading  of  the  Vat.  Codex  according 
to  Mai.     If  accurate,  it  furnishes  an  in.«tauce  of  tl-e 

V  being  represented  by  t,  which  is  of  the  greatest 
.•firity,  and  is  not  mentioned  by  Frankel  (  Vorstuilien, 
«tc.,p.  1121).  yandKare  the  ordinary  equivalents  of  1? 
Vn  the  LXX.. 

b  ♦  The  name  for  us  is  properly  Scirah,  and  not 
Seirath  (which  is  only  the  directive  local  form).  It 
ws«  properly  a  district  rather  than  a  town,  and  was 
among  'he  mountains  of  Ephraim  (the  lieb.  being  a 
•ollecBTe  singular).  H. 


SELA-HAM-MAHLEKOTH     2903 

atto-^ks  of  Antigonus  (Diod.  Sic.  xix.  731,  ed. 
Haiiov.  1604),  and  under  them  became  one  of  tht 
greatest  stations  for  the  approach  of  eastern  com- 
merce to  Rome  (i/Ad.  94;  Strabo,  xvi.  p.  7!)!);  Apul. 
Flor.  i.  6).  About  70  u.  c.  Petra  appears  as  the 
residence  of  the  Arab  princes  named  Aretas 
(.loseph.  Ant.  xiv.  1,  §  4,  and  5,  §  1;  iS.  J.  i.  6; 
§  2,  and  29,  §  3).  It  was  by  Trajan  reduced  to 
sulijection  to  the  Roman  empire  (Dion  Cass.  Ixviii. 
14),  and  from  the  next  emperor  received  the  name 
of  Hadriana,c  as  ajjpears  from  the  legend  of  a  coin, 
•losephus  (Ant.  iv.  4,  §  7)  gives  the  name  of  Arcc 
("Ap/crj)  as  an  earlier  synonym  for  Petra,  w'here, 
however,  it  is  probable  that  'ApKrifx  or  'ApKefi  '^ 
(alleged  by  Euseb.  Oiwni.,  as  found  in  Josephu«, 
shoidd  be  read.  The  city  Petra  lay,  though  at  a 
hisih  level,''  in  a  hollow  shut  in  by  mountain  cliffs 
and  approached  only  by  a  narrow  ravine  thiougk 
which,  and  across  the  city's  site,  ihe  river  winda 
(I'lin.  vi.  32;  Strabo,  xvi.  p.  779).  The  principal 
ruins  are  —  {{.)  el-Kliui'^eh  ,  (2)  the  theatre;  (3)  a 
tomb  with  three  rows  of  columns;  (4)  a  tomb  with 
a  Latin  inscription:  (5)  ruined  briiges;  (6)  a  tri- 
umplial  arch;  (7)  Zub  Far' on  ;  (8)  Kiisr  Far' on  ; 
and  are  chiefly  known  by  the  illustrations  of  La- 
borde  and  Linant,  who  also  thought  that  they 
traced  the  outline  of  a  nauniachia  or  theatre  for 
sea-fights,  which  would  be  flooded  from  cisterns,  in 
which  the  water  of  the  torrents  in  the  w^et  season 
had  been  reser\ed  —  a  remarkable  proof,  if  the  hy- 
pothesis be  correct,  of  the  copiousness  of  the  water 
supply,  if  properly  husbanded,  and  a  confiimation 
of  what  we  are  told  of  the  exuberant  iertility  of 
the  region,  and  its  contrast  to  the  barren  Arabah 
on  its  immediate  west  (Robinson,  ii.  169).  Prof. 
Stanley  (.S'.  cf  P.  p.  95)  leaves  little  doulit  that  Pe- 
tra was  the  seat  of  a  primeval  sanctuary,  which  ha 
fixes  at  the  spot  now  called  the  "  Deir  "  or  "  Con- 
vent," and  with  which  fact  the  choice  of  the  site 
of  Aaron's  tomb  may,  he  thinks,  have  been  con- 
nected (p.  96).  As  regards  the  question  of  its  iden- 
tity with  Kadesh,  see  Kadesh;  and,  for  the  gen- 
eral subject,  Ritter,  xiv.  69,  997  Vi.,  and  Robinson, 
i .  1.  H.  H. 

SE'LA-HAM '-MAH'LEKOTH     {i.     e. 

"the  cliff  of  escapes "  or  "of  divisions,"  2J7D 
mp^nSn  .  TreVpa  ?;  fxipiaduaa,  in  both  MSS. : 

Petra.  dicideiis).  A  rock  or  cliff  in  the  wilderness 
of  Maon,  the  scene  of  one  of  those  remarkalde  es- 
capes which  are  so  frequent  in  the  history  of  Saul's 
pursuit  of  Uavid  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  28).  Its  name,  if 
interpreted  as  Hebrew,  signifies  the  "  cliff  of 
escapes,"  or  "  of  divisions."  The  former  is  the 
ex[ilanation  of  Gesenius  (  T/ies.  p.  485),  the  latter  of 
the  Targum  and  the  ancient  Jewish  interpreters 
(Midrash;  Rashi).  The  escape  is  that  of  David: 
the  divisions  are  those  of  Saul's  mind  undecided 

c  Nummi  in  quibus  AAPIANH  HHTPA  MHTPO- 
nOAI2,  Reland,  s.  v. 

d  Eusebius  (0(io)«.),  under  a  later  article,  identi- 
fies Petra  aqd  'PeKeV,  which  appears  (Num.  xxxi.  8) 
as  the  name  of  a  Midianitish  prince  (see  Stanley,  S 
^  P.  p.  94,  note). 

'-  Robinson  (ii.  124)  computes  the  Wntly  Moiisa  u 
about  2,000  feet  or  more  above  the  Arabah. 

/  One  of  the  few  cases  in  which  the  lli'brew  article 
has  been  retained  in  our  translation,  liam-moleketb 
and  Uelkath  haz-Zurim  are  examples  of  the  same. 


29  OA 


SELAH 


whether  to  remain  in  pursuit  of  his  enemy  or  to 
go  alter  the  I'hihstines;  but  such  explanations, 
though  appropriate  to  either  iiitei'i)retation,  aiul 
consistent  with  the  oriental  habit  of  playing  on 
words,  are  doubtless  mere  accommodations.  The 
analogy  of  topographical  nomenclature  makes  it 
almost  certain  that  this  cliff  must  have  derived  its 
name  pither  from  its  smoothness  (the  radical  mean- 
ing of  p/R)  or  from  some  peculiarity  of  shape  or 
position,  such  as  is  indicated  in  the  translations  of 
the  LXX.  and  Vulgate.  No  identification  has  yet 
been  suggested.  G. 

SE'LAH  (nbp).  This  \vord,  which  is  only 
found  in  the  poetical  hooks  of  the  Old  Testament, 
occurs  seventy  one  times  in  the  Psalms,  and  three 
times  in  Habakkuk.  In  sixteen  psalms  it  is  found 
once,  in  fifteen  twice,  in  seven  three  times,  and  in 
one  four  times  —  always  at  the  end  of  a  verse,  ex- 
cept in  Ps.  Iv.  19  [20],  Ivii.  3  [4],  and  Hab.  iii.  3, 
9,  where  it  is  in  the  middle,  though  at  the  end  of 
a  clause.  All  the  psalms  in  which  it  occurs,  except 
eleven  (iii  ,vii.,  xxiv.,  xxxii.,  xlviii  ,1.,  lxxxii.,lxxxiii., 
Ixxxvii.,  kx\ix.,  cxliii.),  liave  also  the  nmsical  direc- 
tion, "  to  the  Chief  Musician  "  (comp.  also  Hab. 
iii.  19):  and  in  these  exceptions  we  find  the  words 

"It^^p,  miznidr  (A.  V.  "Psalm"'),  Shiggaion,  or 
Maschil,  which  sufficiently  indicate  that  they  were 
intended  for  music.  Besides  these,  in  the  titles  of 
the  Psalms  in  which  Selah  occurs,  we  meet  with 
the  musical  terms  Alamoth  (xlvi.),  Altaschith  (Ivii., 
lix.,lxxv.),  Gittith  (Ixxxi.,  l.'cxxiv.),  Mahalath  Lean- 
noth  (Ixxxviii.),  Michtam  (Ivii.,  lix.,  Ix),  Neginah 
(Ixi.),  Neginoth  (iv.,  liv.,  Iv.,  Ixvii.,  Ixxvi. :  comp. 
Hab.  iii.  19),  and  Shushan-eduth  (Ix.);  and  on  this 
association  alone  might  be  formed  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that,  Uke  these,  Selah  itself  is  a  term 
which  had  a  meaning  in  the  musical  nomenclature 
of  the  Hebrews.  What  that  meaning  may  have 
been  is  now  a  matter  of  pure  conjecture.  Of  the 
many  theories  which  have  been  framed,  it  is  easier 
to  say  what  is  not  likely  to  lie  the  true  one  than  to 
pronounce  certainly  upon  what  is.  The  Versions 
are  first  deserving  of  attention. 

In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  instances  the 

Targum  renders  the  word  by  ]^D7V  <>  U'dlmin, 
"for  ever;  "  four  times  (Ps.  xxxii.  4,  7;  xxxix.  11 
[12] ;  4  [fi] )  ST^bp^,  le'almd  ;  once  (Ps.  xliv.  8 
[9])   r^p^V   ''72'^Vh,   U'alme  'almbi;  And  (Fs. 

xlviii.  8  [9])  Vf^'^V  ^T2hv  IV,  \<d  'nlnie  \d- 
min,  with  the  same  meaning,  "for  ever  and   ever.' 

In  Ps.  xlix.  13  [14]  it  has   \~IS"T  S^bl^b,  le- 
L     J  ••  T  :       T  :  -  :' 

'alma  t/eiJ/Ae,  "  for  the   world   to  come;  "  in    Ps. 

xxxix.  5  [6]   W^7^  ^I'Jj?,  lec/iriyye  'alma,  "  for 

the  life  everlasting;  "  and  in  Ps.  cxl.  5  [6]  S'n"'"Tri, 
tedii-d,  "continually."  This  interpretation,  which 
(s  the  one  adopted  by  the  majority  of  Rabbinical 
writers,  is  purely  traditional,  and  based  upon  no 
etymology  whatever.  It  is  followed  by  Aquila,  who 
renders  "Selah"  aei;  by  the  Emtio  quinta  and 
Editiu  scxla,  which  give  respectively  5tairavT6s 
and  els  t4Ko^\"'  by  Symmachus  (eij  rhv  alwva) 
and  Theodotion  (ei'y  t€\os),  in  Habakkuk;   by  the 


a  IJxcept  in  Ps.  ix.  16  [17],  Ixxv.  3  [4],  Ixxvi.  3,  9 
4  10],  where  Ed.  5«a  tias  aei,  Ps.  xxi.  2  [3],  where  it 
*ias  SiTjyeKw?,  and  in    Ilab.  iii.  3,  13,  where   it  repro- 


SELAH 

reading  of  the  Alex.  MS.  (els  reXos)  in  Hab.  ir. 
l-J;  by  the  Peshito-Syriac  in  Ps.  iii.  8  [9],  iv.  2 
[3],  xxiv.  10,  and  Hab.  iii.  13;    and  liy  .Jerome, 

who  has  semper.  In  Ps.  Iv.  19  [20]  nbo  Cl|7., 
kedem  selah,  is  rendered  in  the  Peshito  "  from  be- 
fore the  world."  That  this  rendering  is  manifestly 
inappropriate  in  some  passages,  as  for  instance  Ps. 
xxi.  2  [3],  xxxii.  4,  Ixxxi.  7  [8],  and  Hab.  iii.  3, 
and  superfluous  in  others,  as  Ps.  xliv.  8  [9],  Ixxxiv. 
4  [.5],  Ixxxix.  4  [.5].  was  pointed  out  long  since  by 
Aben  Ezra.  In  the  Psalms  the  uniform  rendering 
of  the  LXX.  is  ^la^aKfxa-  Symmachus  and  Theo- 
dotion give  the  .same,  except  in  Ps.  ix.  16  [17], 
where  Theodotion  has  dei,  and  Ps.  Iii.  5  [7],  where 
Symmachus  has  ei'r  dei.  In  Hab.  iii.  13,  the  Alex. 
MS.  gives  els  t4\os-  In  Ps.  xxxviii.  (in  LXX.) 
7,  Ixxx.  7  [8],  Sid\pa\iij.a  is  added  in  the  LXX., 
and  in  Hab.  iii.  7  in  the  Alex.  MS.  In  Ps.  Ivii.  it  is 
put  at  the  end  of  ver.  2;  and  in  Ps.  iii.  8  [9],  xxiv. 
10,  Ixxxviii.  10  [11],  it  is  omitted  altogether.  lu 
all  passages  except  those  already  referred  to,  in 
which  it  follows  the  Targum,  the  Peshito-Syr.ac  has 

«.£n2./>^  an  ablireviationfor  Siai^/oA^o.  This  ab- 
breviation is  added  in  Ps.  xlviii.  13  [14],  1.  1.5  [16], 
Ixviii.  13  [14],  Ivii.  2,  Ixxx.  7  [8],  at  the  end 
of  the  verse;  and  in    Ps.  Iii.  3    in  the  middle  of 

the  verse  after  3112^  ;  ji  Ps.  xlix.  it  is  put 
after  "JS-^IS  in  ver.  14  [15],  and  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  af- 
ter n^'V^    in  ver.  8    [9],  and  after   DT^bsb 

T  T     T  ■-     -"  ... 

in  ver.  32  [33].  The  Vulgate  omits  it  entirely, 
while  in  Hali.  iii.  3  the  Editio  sexta  and  others 
give  fiSTafioAr]  Smv^aAyUaroj. 

The  rendering  Siaif/aA/ia  of  the  LXX.  and  other 
translators  is  in  every  way  as  traditional  as  that  of 
the  Targum  "  for  ever,"  and  has  no  foundation  in 
any  known  etymology.  With  regard  to  the  mean- 
ing of  Sid^paAfxa  itself  there  are  many  opinions. 
Both  Ori^ien  ( Coinm.  ad.  Ps.,  0pp.  ed.  iJelarue, 
ii.  510)  and  Athanasius  (Symips.  Hcript.  5ntv.  xiii.) 
are  silent  upon  this  point.  Eusebius  of  Caesarea 
(Pnvf.  ill  Ps.)  says  it  marked  those  passages  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  ceased  for  a  time  to  work 
upon  the  choir.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  ( Tract.  2  in 
Ps.  cap.  X.)  interprets  it  as  a  sudden  lull  in  the 
midst  of  the  psalmody,  in  order  to  receive  anew 
the  Divine  inspiration.  Chrysostom  {Oup.  ed. 
Montfaucon,  v.  540)  takes  it  to  indicate  the  por- 
tion of  the  psalm  which  was  given  to  another  choir. 
.•\ugustine  (on  Ps.  iv.)  regards  it  as  an  interval  of 
silence  in  the  psalmody.  Jerome  (/,}?  ad  .V^t)-cel- 
lam)  enumerates  the  various  opinions  wine!,  have 
lieen  held  upon  the  subject;  that  diapsalma  de- 
iKites  a  change  of  metre,  a  cessation  of  the  Spirit's 
influence,  or  the  beginning  of  another  sense.  Others, 
he  says,  regard  it  as  indicating  a  difference  of 
rhythm,  and  the  silence  of  some  kind  of  music  hi 
the  choir;  but  for  himself  he  falls  back  upon  the 
version  of  Aquila,  and  renders  Selah  by  semper, 
with  a  reference  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  put 
at  the  end  of  their  writings  Amen,  Selah,  or  Sha- 
lom. In  his  commentary  on  Ps.  iii.  he  is  doubtful 
whether  to  regard  it  as  simjily  a  musical  sign,  or 
as  indicating  the  perpetuity  of  the  truth  contained 
in  the  passage  after  which  it  is  placed ;   so  that,  he 

duces  the  Hebrew  o-eKa.  In  Ps.  ix  16  [17]  Editio  filu 
has  aet,  in  Ps.  Ixxv.  3  [4]  Sianavro^  and  in  Ps.  lxx»» 
3  [4]  eU  TO  TtAos- 


SELAH 

a&jB,  "  wheresoever  Selah,  that  is  dinps''ilma  or 
st/ii/>Kr,  is  put,  there  we  may  know  that  wliat  fol- 
lows, as  well  as  what  precedes,  belongs  ncit  ciJy  to 
the  present  time,  but  to  eternity."  Theodoret 
{Pntf.  ill  Ps.)  explains  diiqjsalmit  by  ^jAojs  fxtr- 
a&oKi)  or  ivaWay-i]  (as  Suidas),  "a  change  of  the 
melody."  On  the  whole,  the  rendering  6itt\i'aA/xa 
rather  increases  the  difficulty,  for  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  the  true  meaning  of  Selah,  and  its  own 
signification  is  obscure. 

Leaving  the  Versions  and  the  Fathers,  we  come 
to  tlie  Rabbinical  writers,  the  majority  of  whom 
follow  the  Targum  and  the  dictum  of  K.  Eliezer 
(Tahn.  Babl.  Krubin,  v.  54)  in  rendering  Selah 
"for  ever."  But  .\ben  Ezra  (on  X'a.  iii.  3)  showed 
that  in  some  j5a.ssages  this  rendering  was  inap- 
propriate, and  expressed  his  own  opinion  that  Selah 
\»«  a  word  of  emphasis,  used  to  give  weight  and 
importance  to  what  was  said,  and  to  indicate  its 
truth:  "But  the  right  explanation  is  that  the 
meaning  of  Selah  is  like  'so  it  is'  or  'thus,'  and 
'the  matter  is  true  and  right.'"  Kimchi  (Lex. 
8.  V.)  douliteil  whether  it  had  any  special  meaning 
at  all  in  connection  with  the  sense  of  the  passage 
iu  which  it  was  found,  and  explained  it  as  a  musi- 
cal   term.      He   derives   it    from    V7D,  to  raise, 

elevate,  with  H  paragogic,  and  interprets  it  as  sig- 
nifying a  raising  or  elevating  the  voice,  as  much 
as  to  say,  in  this  place  there  was  an  elevation  of  the 
voice  in  song. 

Among  modern  writers  there  is  the  same  diver- 
sity  of  opinion.     Gesenius   (Thes.  s.  v.)    derives 

Selah  from  H^D,  sdldli,  to  suspend,  of  which  he 

thinks  it  is  the  imperative  Kal,  with  H  paragogic, 

Tl^D,  in  pause  nvD.  But  this  form  is  sup- 
ported by  no  parallel  instance.  In  accordance  with 
his  derivation,  whicii  is  harsh,  he  interprets  Selah 
to  mean  either  "  suspend  tiie  voice,"  that  is,  "  lie 
silent,"  a  hint  to  the  singers;  or  '' raise,  elevate 
the  stringed  instruments."  In  either  case  he  re- 
gards it  as  denoting  a  jjause  in  the  song,  which 
was  filled  up  by  an  interlude  played  by  the  choir 
of  Eevites.  Kwald  {Die  Bickter  des  A.  B.  i.  179) 
arrives  at  substantially  the  same  result  by  a  difiei'- 

ent  process.     He  derives  Selah  from  ^70,  sdlcd, 

to  rise,  whence  the  sulistantive  VD,  which  with  H 

paragogic  becomes  in  pause  H^D   (comp.  n~^^7) 

from  "in,  root  ~T^n,  Gen.  xiv.  10).  So  far  as 
the  form  of  the  word  is  concerned,  this  derivation 
is  more  tenable  than  the  former.  Ewald  regards 
the  phrase  "  Higgaion,  Selah,"  in  Ps.  ix.  16  [17], 
as  the  full  form,  signifying  "  nmsic,  strike  up!  ''  — 
an  indication  that  the  voices  of  the  choir  were  to 
cease  while  the  instruments  alone  came  in.  Heng- 
stenherg  follows  Gesenius,  I)e  Wette,  and  others, 
in  the  rendering  pnuse  !  but  refers  it  to  the  cim- 
tents  of  the  psalm,  and  understands  it  of  the  silence 
of  the  music  in  order  to  gi^•e  room  for  quiet  reflec- 
tion. If  this  were  the  case,  Selah  at  the  ejid 
of  a  prfahn  would  be  superfluous.  The  same 
meaning  of  pause  or  end  is  arrived   at  by  Fiirst 

(ffnndw.  I,.  V.)  who  derives  Selah  from  a  root  H^D, 
sdti'ih,  to  cut  off  (a  meaning  which  is  perfectly  ar- 
bitrary), whence  the  substantive  70,  sel,  which 
with  71  paragogic  becomes  in  pause  71  yD;  a 
183 


SELAIl  2905 

form  which  is  without  parallel.  While  etymolo- 
gists have  recourse  to  such  shifts  as  these,  it  can 
scarcely  be  expected  that  tiie  true  meaning  of  the 
word  will  be  evolved  by  their  investigations.  In- 
deed the  question  is  as  far  from  solution  as  ever. 
Beyond  the  fact  that  Selah  is  a  musical  term,  we 
know  absolutely  nothing  about  it,  and  are  entireh' 
in  the  dark  as  to  its  meaning.  Sonmier  (Bibt 
Ahluindl.  i.  1-84)  has  devoted  an  elaborate  dis- 
course to  its  explanation."  After  observing  that 
Selah  e\erywhere  appears  to  mark  critical 
ipoments  in  the  religious  consciousness  of  the 
Israelites,  and  that  the  music  was  employed  to 
give  expression  to  the  energy  of  the  poet's  sen- 
timents on  these  occasions,  he  (p.  40)  arrives  at 
the  conclusion  that  the  word  is  used  "in  those 
passages  whei-e,  in  the  Temple  Song,  the  choir  of 
priests,  who  stood  opposite  to  the  stage  occupied  by 

the  Levites,  were  to  raise  their  trumpets  (77D), 
and  with  the  strung  tones  of  this  instrument  mark 
the  words  just  spoken,  and  bear  them  upwards  to 
the  hearing  of  Jeho\ah.  Probably  the  Levite 
minstrels  supported  this  priestly  intercessory  niu.sic 
by  vigorously  striking  their  harps  and  psalteries ; 
whence  the  Greek  expression  Biw]iaXfx.a.  To  this 
points,  moreover,  the  fuller  direction,  '  Higg;\ion, 
Selah'  (I's.  ix.  16);  the  first  word  of  which  de- 
notes the  whirr  of  the  stringed  instruments  (Ps. 
xcii.  3),  the  other  the  raising  of  the  trumpets,  l)oth 
which  were  here  to  sound  together.  The  less  im- 
portant Higgaion  fell  away,  when  the  expression 
was  abbreviated,  and  Stlali  alone  remained."  i)r. 
Davidson  (Iiitrod.  to  die  0.  T.  ii.  248)  with  good 
reason  rejects  this  explanation  as  labored  and  arti- 
ficial, though  it  is  adopted  by  Keil  in  Hiivernick's 
Einleilung  (iii.  120-1'2'J).  He  shows  that  in  some 
passages  (as  Ps.  xxxii.  4,  5,  Iii.  3,  Iv.  7,  8)  the 
playing  of  the  priests  on  the  trumpets  would  be 
unsuitalile,  and  proposes  the  following  as  his  own 
solution  of  the  difficulty :  "  The  word  denotes  le- 
viition  or  ascent,  i.  e.  loud,  clear.  The  music 
which  commonly  accompanied  the  singing  was  soft 
and  feeble.  Iu  cases  where  it  was  to  burst  in  more 
strongly  during  the  silence  of  the  song,  Seluli  was 
the  sign.  At  the  end  of  a  vei'se  or  strophe,  where 
it  commonly  stands,  the  music  may  have  readily 
been  strongest  and  loudest."  It  may  be  remarked 
of  this,  as  of  all  the  other  explanations  which  hav<, 
been  given,  that  it  is  mere  conjecture,  based  on  an 
etymology  which,  in  any  other  language  than  He- 
lirew,  would  at  once  be  rejected  as  unsound.  A 
few  other  opinions  may  be  noticed  as  belonging  to 
the  history  of  the  subject.  Rlichaelis,  in  despair  at 
being  unable  to  assign  any  meaning  to  the  word, 
regarded  it  as  an  abbreviation,  formed  by  takinc 
the  first  or  other  letters  of  three  other  words 
{Huppl.  ad  Lex.  Ilebr.),  though  he  decMnes  to 
conjecture  what  these  may  have  been,  and  rejects 
at  once  the  guess  of  iMeibomius,  who  extracts  the 
meaning  da  capo  from  the  three  words  which  he 
suggests.  For  other  conjectures  of  this  kind,  see 
Eichhorn's  BibUothek,  v.  54.5.  Mattheson  was  of 
opinion  that  the  passages  where  Selah  occurred 
were  repeated  either  by  the  instruments  or  by 
another  ciioir:  hence  he  took  it  as  equal  to  ril(tr- 
nello.  Herder  regarded  it  as  marking  a  change  of 
key;  while  Paulus  Burgensis  and  Schindler  as- 
signed to  it  no  meaning,  but  looked  upon  it  as  an 


"  *  For  ii  translation  of  this  treatise  by  Prof  B.  B 
Edward.*,  see  BiU.  Sacra,  v.  liU-"'*  H 


2006  SELED 

enclitic  word  used  to  fill  up  the  verse.  Buxtorf 
{Lex.  Iltbr.)  derived  it  from  H^^p,  saWi,  to 
gpread,  lay  low :  hence  used  as  a  siirn  to  lower  the 
voice,  like  jmno.  In  Eichhorn's  BiUiolhek  (v.  550)  j 
it  is  suggested  that  Selah  may  perhaps  signify  a 
Bcale  in  music,  or  indicate  a  rising  or  falling  in  the 
tone.  Kr.ster  (S/Hc/.  urn/  Kiit.  1831)  saw  in  it 
only  a  mark  to  indicate  the  strophical  divisions  of 
the  Psalms,  but  its  position  in  the  middle  oL 
verses  is  against  this  theory.  August!  {Pract: 
Kinl.  in  d.  Ps.  p.  125)  thouglit  it  was  an  exclama- 
tion, like  h'llk'/uja/i  !  and  the  same  view  was  taken 
by  the  late  Prof.  Lee  (Hth.  Or.  §  243,  2),  who 
classes  it  among  the  interjections,  and  renders 
It  jjraise!  "  For  my  own  part,"  he  says,  "  I  be- 
lieve it  to  be  descended  from  the  root  ^A,0,  'he 
blessed,'  etc.,  and  used  not  uidike  the  word  nmen, 
or  the  doxology  among  oursehes."  If  any  further 
information  be  sought  on  this  hopeless  subject, 
it  may  be  found  in  the  treatises  contained  in 
Ugolini,  vol.  xxii.,  in  Noldius  {Concord.  Pari. 
Ann.  et  Vind.  No.  1877),  in  Saalschiitz  {Uebr. 
Poes.  p.  346)  and  in  the  essay  of  Sommer  quoted 
above.  W.  A.  W. 

SE'LED  (T^P  [exultation']:  2aAc{5;  [Vat. 
once  AAo-aAaS-]  Baled).  One  of  the  sons  of  Na- 
dab,  a  descendant  of  Jerahmeel  (1  Chr.  ii.  30). 

SELEMI'A  (Salemia).  One  of  the  five  men 
"  ready  to  write  swiftly,"  whom  Esdras  was  com- 
manded to  take  (2  Esdr.  xiv.  24). 

SELEMI'AS  (SeAe^ias:  om.  in  Vulg.). 
Shelk.miau  of  the  sons  of  Bani  (1  Esdr.  ix.  34; 
conip.  Ezr.  x.  39). 

SELEU'CIA  (SfAewem:  Seleucia)  was 
practically  the  seaport  of  Antioch.  as  Ostia  was 
of  Rome,  Neapolis  of  Philippi,  t'enchreas  of  Cor- 
inth, and  the  Pira?us  of  Athens.  The  river  Oron- 
tes,  after  flowing  past  Antioch,  entered  the  sea  not 
far  from  Seleucia.  The  distance  between  the  two 
towns  was  about  IG  miles.  We  are  expressly 
told  that  St.  Paul,  in  company  with  Barnabas, 
sailed  from  Seleucia  at  the  beginning  of  his  first 
missionary  circuit  (Acts.  xiii.  4);  and  it  is  almost 
certain  that  he  landed  there  on  his  return  from  it 
(xiv  26).  The  name  of  the  place  shows  at  once 
that  its  history  was  connected  with  that  line  of 
Seleucid*  who  reigned  at  Antioch  from  the  death 
of  Alexander  the  Great  to  the  close  of  the  Poman 
Repulilic,  and  whose  dynasty  had  so  close  a  con- 
nection with  Jewish  annals.  This  strong  fortress 
and  convenient  seaport  was  in  fact  constructed  by 
the  first  Seleucus,  and  here  he  was  buried.  It  re- 
tained its  impoitance  in  Roman  times,  and  in  St. 
Paul's  day  it  had  the  privileges  of  a  free  city  (Plin. 
//.  N.  v.  18).  The  remains  are  numerous,  the 
most  considerable  being  an  immense  excavation 
extending  from  the  higher  part  of  the  city  to  the 
sea:  but  to  us  the  most  interesting  are  the  two 
piers  of  the  old  harbor,  which  still  bear  the  names 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  The  masonry  continues  so 
good,  that  the  idea  of  clearing  out  and  repairing 
the  harbor  has  recently  been  entertained.  Ac 
counts  of  Seleucia  will  be  found  in  the  narrative 
of  the  Kuplrralvs  Expedition  by  General  Chesney, 
»nd  in  his  papers  in  the  Journal  of  tlie  Royal  Geo- 


SEMIS 

(jraphic'd  Society,  and  also  in  a  paper  by  Dr.  Vat«i 
in  the  Museum  of  Classical  Antiquities." 

J.  S.  H. 

SELEU'CUS  (2f'Aei;/cos  :  Seleucus)  IV. 
Philopator,  "king  of  Asia"  (2  Mace.  iii.  3),  that 
is,  of  the  provinces  included  in  the  Syrian  mon- 
archy, according  to  the  title  claimed  by  the  Seleu- 
cidfe,  even  when  they  had  lost  their  footing  in  Asia 
iMinor  (comp.  1  Mace.  viii.  6,  xi.  13,  xii.  39,  xiii. 
32),  was  the  son  and  successor  of  Antiochus  the 
Great.  He  took  part  in  the  disastrous  battle  of 
Magnesia  (is.  c.  190),  and  three  years  afterwards, 
on  the  death  of  his  father,  ascended  the  throne. 
He  seems  to  have  devoted  himself  to  strengthening 
the  Syrian  power,  which  had  been  broken  down  at 
Magnesia,  seeking  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  Rome 
and  Egypt  till  he  could  find  a  favorable  opportu- 
nity for  war.  He  was,  however,  murdered,  after  a 
reign  of  twelve  years  (p..  C.  175),  by  Heliodorus, 
one  of  his  own  courtiers  [Heliodorus],  "neither 
in  [sudden]  anger  nor  in  battle  "  (Uan.  xi.  20,  and 
.Jerome,  ad  luc).  but  by  ambitious  treachery, 
without  having  efft;cted  anything  of  importance. 
His  son  Demetrius  I.  Soter  [Demetrius],  whom 
he  had  sent,  while  still  a  boy,  as  a  hostage  to  Rome, 
after  a  series  of  romantic  adventures  pained  the 
crown  in  162  u.  c.  (1  Mace.  vii.  1 ;  2  Mace.  xiv.  1). 
The  general  policy  of  Seleucus  towards  the  .Jews, 
like  that  of  his  father  (2  Mace.  iii.  2,  3,  Ka\ 
SeAeuKOf),  was  conciliatory,  as  the  possession  of 
Palestine  was  of  the  highest  importance  in  the 
prospect  of  an  Egyptian  war;  and  he  undertook  a 
large  share  of  the  expenses  of  tlie  Temple-ser\ice 
(2  Mace.  iii.  3,  G).  On  one  occasion,  by  tlie  false 
representations  of  Simon,  a  .Jewish  officer  [SnioN, 
3],  he  was  induced  to  make  an  attempt  to  carry 
away  the  treasures  deposited  in  the  Temple,  by 
means  of  the  same  Heliodorus  who  murdered  him. 
The  attempt  signally  failed,  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  afterwards  showed  any  resentment  against 
the  Jews  (2  Mace.  iv.  5,  6):  though  his  want  of 
money  to  pay  the  enormous  triliute  due  to  the  Ro- 
mans [Antiochus  III.,  vol.  i  p.  115]  may  have 
compelled  him  to  raise  extraordinary  revenues,  for 
which  cause  he  is  described  in  Daniel  as  "  a  raiser 
of  taxes"  (Dan.  xi.  I.e.;  Liv.  xli.  19). 

B.  F.  W. 

SEM  (2^ju:  Sem).  Shem  the  patriarch  (Luke 
iii.  36). 

SEMACHFAHOn^rjap:  l,a^axla;  [Vat. 
2a/8oxfia;]  Alex.  2afj.axia.s--  Saniachias).  One 
of  the  sons  of  Shemaiah,  the  son  of  Obed-edom 
(1  Chr.  xxvi.  7). 

SEM'EI  (Se^e';  ["^'at.  2eMf«'-]  -S^""^'') 
1.  SiiiMEi  of  the  sons  of  Hashum  (I  Esdr.  ix.  .33; 
comp.  Ezr.  x.  33). 

2.  (Se/ueias;  [Vat.  2e/iee<as;  FA.  2ejU6ios]). 
Shisiki,  the  ancestor  of  INIordecai  (Esth.  xi.  2). 

3.  CZifid:  [Tisch.  Treg.  2ejU€eii/]).  The 
father  of  Mattathias  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
Christ  (Luke  iii.  26). 

SEMEL'LIUS  (2a;U6AA<os;  [Alex,  also  26- 
^eAAtos,  leBeWtos'-]  Sabellius).  Shimshai  the 
scribe  (1  Esdr.  ii.  16,  17,  25,  30;  comp.  F-zr.  iv.) 

SE'MIS  (2e^€/s;  [Vat.  2er,reii-;  Aid.  2f/u(s:] 
Semeis).  Shimei  the  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra 
(1  Esdr.  ix.  23;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  23). 


a  •  For  a  description  of  Seleucia,  see  Thomson's 
Travel  in   Northern    Syria,  an  article   in    the   Bibl. 


Sacra,  v.  451  ff.    He  mentions  the  incidents  of  a  rid* 
of  five  hours  from  Seleucia  to  Ant'och  H- 


SEMITIC  LANGUAGES 

SEMIT'IC  LANGUAGES.  [Sukmitic 
Languages.] 

SENA'AH  (nS3P  Ithorny-] :  [Sej/ai,  2,au- 
ara,  'Affavd;  Vat.]  ^aava,  2,avava;  [in  Neh. 
iii.  3,  Vat.  Aa-ay,  FA.  Aaavaa;  Alex,  in  Ezr. 
•2€j-voo."]  Senaa).  The  "cluklrjn  of  Senaah " 
are  enumerated  amongst  the  "  people  of  Israel  " 
who  returned  from  the  Captivity  with  Zerubbabel 
(Ezr.  ii.  35;  Keh.  vii.  38).  In  Neh.  iii.  3,  the 
name  is  given  with  the  article  has-Senaah. 

The  names  in  these  lists  are  mostly  those  of 
towns;  but  Senaah  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
Bible  as  attached  to  a  town.« 

The  Magdal-Senna,  or  "great  Senna"  of  Eu- 
sebius  and  Jerome,  seven  miles  N.  of  Jericho 
(Oiiom.  "Senna"),  however,  is  not  inappropriate 
in  position.  There  is  a  variation  in  the  nuuil)ers 
given  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  but  even  adopting 
the  smaller  figure,  it  is  difficult  to  underritand 
how  the  people  of  Senaah  should  have  been  so 
much  more  numerous  than  those  of  the  other  [tlaces 
in  the  catalogue.  Bertheau  {l-^xny.  Iltindb.)  sug- 
gests that  Senaah  represents  not  a  single  place  but 
a  district;  but  there  is  nothing  to  corroborate 
this. 

In  the  parallel  passages  of  1  Esdras  (iv.  23)  the 
name  is  given  An2<aas,  and  the  number  3,3.30. 

G. 

*  SENATE  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  oidy  in  Acts 
v.  21,  the  translation  of  yepoua-la,  also  peculiar  to 
that  i]lace.  As  auffSpiof  accompanies  the  term,  it 
camiot  be  equivalent  to  Sanhedrim,  but  must  denote 
a  branch  of  that  body,  and  no  doubt,  as  the  affinity 
of  meaning  itself  indicates,  is  interchangeable  with 
TTpeff^vTepiov,  "eldership,"  one  of  the  three  classes 
(priests,  elders,  scribes)  collectively  designated  as 
the  Sanhedrim  (see  Acts  iv.  5).  We  find  yepouaia 
in  1  Mace.  xii.  6;  2  Mace.  i.  10,  iv.  44,  xi.  27; 
3  Mace.  i.  8,  where  it  designates  the  highest  Jewish 
Council  of  that  earlier  period,  but  whether  tlie  Coun- 
cil was  then  organized  precisely  like  the  Saidiedrim 
in  the  time  of  the  Saviour  is  not  easily  determined. 
(See  Fritzsche,  Handb.  zu  den  Apokryphtn,  iii. 
184  f.)  The  Latin  V'ulgate  renders  yepovcria  liy 
Si-natus  and  seniores.  On  the  general  topic,  see  in 
the  Dictwmiry,  Eluers;  Sanhedeui.  H. 

SE'NEH  (n.3p  [thorn]:  :^evud,  [Vat.  E;'- 
kaap;]  Alex,  omits:  Sene).  The  name  of  one  of  the 
two  isolated  rocks  which  stood  in  the  "  passage  of 
Michmash,"  at  the  time  of  the  adventure  of  Jona- 
than and  his  armor-beai-er  (1  Sam.  xiv.  4).  It  was 
the  southern  one  of  the  two  (ver.  5),  and  the  near- 
est to  Geba.  The  name  in  Hebrew  means  a  "  thorn," 
or  thorn -bush,  and  is  applied  elsewhere  only  to  the 
memorable  thorn  of  Horeb:  but  whether  it  relers 
in  this  instance  to  the  shape  of  the  rock,  or  to  the 
growth  of  seneb  upon  it,  we  cannot  ascertain.  The 
latter  is  more  consistent  with  analogy.  It  is  re- 
markable that  Josephus  {B.  J.  v.  2,  §1),  in  de- 
scribing the  route  of  Titus  from  the  north  to  Jeru- 
salem, mentions  that  the  last  encampment  of  his 
army  was  at  a  spot  "  which  in  the  Jews'  tongue  is 
;alled  the  valley  "  or  perhaps  the  plain  "  of  thorns 
aKavQuv  av\ciu),  near  a  certain  village  called  Ga- 
batlisaoul(?,"  i.  c.  Gibeath  of  Saul.  The  ravine  of 
Michmash  is  about  four  miles  from  the  hill  which 
's,  with  tolerable  certainty,  identified  with  Gibeah. 


a  Tlie  rock  of  Se^eh  of  1  Sam.  xiv.  4  is  liardly  ap- 
ITO  Delate. 


SENNACHERIB 


2901 


This  distance  is  perhaps  too  great  to  suit  Josephus 
expression ;  still  the  point  is  worth  notice.       G. 

SE'NIR  n'^^ip  [coat  of  mail]:  [%avlp,  2e- 
feip;  Ales.]  Saj/eip,  [and  so  Vat.  in  1  Chr. :]  Sanir). 
This  name  occurs  twice  in  the  A.  V.,  namely,  1  Chr. 
v.  23,  and  Ez.  xxvii.  5;  but  it  should  be  found  in 
two  other  passages,  in  each  of  which  the  Hebrew 
word  is  exactly  similar  to  the  above,  namely,  Deut. 
iii.  9,  and  Cant.  iv.  8.  In  these  it  appears  in  tlie 
A.  V.  as  SnENiK.  Even  this  slight  change  is  un 
fortunate,  since,  as  one  of  the  few  Ainorite  words  pre- 
served, the  name  possesses  an  interest  which  should 
have  protected  it  fi-om  the  addition  of  a  single  letter. 
It  is  the  Amorite  name  for  the  mountain  in  the  north 
of  Palestine  which  the  Hebrews  called  Her.mom,  and 
the  Phoenicians  Sikion  ;  or  perhaps  it  was  rather 
the  name  for  a  portion  of  the  mountain  than  the 
whole.  In  1  Chr.  v.  23,  and  Cant.  iv.  8,  Hermon 
and  it  are  mentioned  as  distinct.  Abulfeda  (ed. 
Kohler,  p.  104,  quoted  by  Gesenius)  reports  that 
the  part  of  Anti- Lebanon  north  of  Damascus  —  that 
usually  denominated  Jebel  esh-Shurki/,  "  the  East 
Mountain  "  —  was  in  his  day  called  Seiiir.  The  use 
of  the  word  in  Ezekiel  is  singular.  In  describing 
Tyre  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  the  Phoe- 
nician name  (Sirion)  of  the  mountain  employed, 
if  the  ordinary  Israelite  name  (Hermon)  were  dis- 
carded. That  it  is  not  so  may  show  that  in  the 
time  of  Ezekiel  the  name  of  Senir  had  lost  its  orig- 
inal significance  as  an  Amorite  name,  and  was  em- 
ployed without  that  restriction. 

The  Taigum  of  Joseph  on  1  Chr.  v.  23  (ed.  Beck) 

renders  Senir  by  "^PD  '^"?.t?7*'!;?  '^^'^,  of  which 
the  most  probable  translation  is  "  the  mountain  of 
the  plains  of  the  Perizzites."     In  the  edition  of 

Wilkins  the  text  is  altered  to  '*).~1'^9  "^T!?^  '^i 
"  the  mountain  that  corrupteth  fruits,"  in  agree- 
ment with  the  Targums  on  Deut.  iii.  9,  though  it 
is  there  given  as  the  equivalent  of  Sirion.  Which 
of  these  is  the  original  it  is  perhfips  impossible  now 
to  decide.  The  former  has  the  slight  consideration 
in  its  favor,  that  the  Hivites  are  speflally  mentioned 
as  "  under  Mount  Hermon,"  and  thus  may  have 
been  connected  or  confounded  with  the  Perizzites; 
or  the  reading  may  have  arisen  from  mere  caprice, 
as  that  of  the  S.im.  version  of  Deut.  iii.  9  appears 
to  have  done.  [See  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
p.  2812  6.]  G. 

SENNACHERIB  or  SENNACHE  RIB 
(:2'^"in3P  [see  below]:  [Rom.  in  2  K.  and  2 
Chr.]  Set'J'axrjpiV,  [in  Is.]  Sei/faxT^peiyti'  [Vat- 
Alex,  and  Sin.  Seyvaxvp^^H  throughout,  exc.  2  K.. 
xviii.  13,  Alex.  'S.efax-,  and  Is.  xxxvii.  21,  Sin. 
-XVP'M-''']  '^iva-X'hp'&os,  Joseph.;  'S.avax'J.pi^oi, 
Herod.:  Stun  ic/itrib)  was  the  son  and  successor  of 
Sargon.  [Sargon.]  His  name  in  the  original  is  . 
read  as  Ts'm-ukki-irib,  which  is  understood  to  mean. 
Sin  (or  the  .Moon)  increases  brothers:  "  an  indica- 
tion that  he  was  not  the  first-born  of  his  fa'^lver.  The 
LXX.  have  thus  approached  much  more  nearly  to 
the  native  articulation  than  the  Jews  of  Palestine, 
having  kept  the  vowel-sounds  almost  exactly,  and 
merely  changed  the  labial  at  the  close  from  ;8  to  ju. 
losephus  has  been  even  more  entirely  correct,  hav- 
ing only  added  the  Greek  nominatival  ending. 

We  know  little  or  nothing  of  Sennacherib  during 

is  father's  lifetime.     From  his  name,  and  from  a 

circumstance  rehited  by  I'olyhistor,  we  may  gathei 

that  he  was  not  the  eldest  son,  and  not  the  heir  to 

the  cr^wn   till   the  year  before  his  father's  death. 


2908  SENNACHERIB 

Polyhistor  (following  Berosus)  related  that  the  trib- 
utary kingdom  of  Babylon  was  held  by  a  brother 
—  who  would  doulitless  be  an  elder  brother  —  of 
Sennacherib's,  not  long  before  that  prince  came  to 
the  throne  (Beroe.  Fr.  12).  Sennacherib's  brother 
was  succeeded  by  a  certain  Hagisa,  who  reigned 
only  a  month,  being  murdered  by  ]Merodach-Bala- 
dai),  who  then  took  the  throne  and  held  it  six 
months.  These  events  belong  to  the  year  b.  c.  703, 
whicli  seems  to  have  been  tlie  last  year  of  Sargon. 
Sennacherib  mounted  the  throne  b.  c.  702.  His 
first  efforts  were  directed  to  crushing  the  revolt  of 
Baliylonia,  which  he  invaded  with  a  large  army. 
INIerodach-Baladan  ventured  on  a  battle,  but  was 
defeated  and  driven  from  the  country.  Sennacherib 
then  made  ]>elibus,  an'officer  of  his  court,  viceroy, 
and,  quitting  Babylonia,  ravaged  the  lands  of  tlie 
Aramaean  tribes  on  the  Tigris  and  Euplirates, 
whence  he  carried  off  200,000  captives.  In  the 
ensuing  year  (B.C.  701)  he  made  war  upon  the 
independent  tribes  in  Mount  Zagros,  and  penetrated 
thence  to  Jledia,  where  he  reduced  a  portion  of  the 
nation  which  had  been  previously  independent.  In 
his  third  year  (b.  c.  700)  he  turned  his  arms  towards 
the  west,  chastised  Sidou,  took  tribute  from  Tyre, 
Aradus,  and  the  other  Phoenician  cities,  as  well  as 
from  Edom  and  Ashdod,  besieged  and  captured 
Ascalon,  made  war  on  Egypt,  which  was  still  de- 
pendent on  Ethiopia,  took  Libnali  and  Lachish  on 
•.lie  Egyptian  frontier,  and,  having  ]j?obably  eon- 
iluded  a  convention  with  his  chief  enemy,"  finally 
marched  against  Hezekiah,  kingof  Judah.  Heze- 
kiah,  apparently,  had  not  only  revolted  and  with- 
held his  tribute,  but  had  intermeddled  with  the 
atliiirs  of  the  Philistian  cities,  and  given  his  support 
to  tlie  party  opposed  to  the  influence  of  Assyria 


SENNACHERIB 

tection  of  I'.gypt,  which  seems  to  have  been  regarded 
by  Sennacherib  as  the  true  cause  of  the  Syr-vn 
trouliles.  Instead,  therefore,  of  besieging  J(  a- 
saleni,  the  Assyrian  king  marched  past  it  to  the 
Egyptian  frontier,  attacked  once  more  Lachish  and 
Libnah,  but  ai)parently  failed  to  take  them,  sent 
messengers  from  the  former  to  Hezekiah  (2  K'. 
xviii.  17),  and  on  their  return  without  his  submis- 
sion wrote  him  a  threatening  letter  (2  K.  xix.  14), 
wliile  he  still  continued  to  press  the  war  against 
Egypt,  wliich  had  called  in  the  assistance  of  Tir- 
hakah,  king  of  Ethiopia  (ibid.  ver.  9).  Tirhakah 
was  hastening  to  the  aid  of  the  Egyptians,  but  proi)- 
aljly  had  not  yet  united  his  troops  with  theirs, 
when  an  event  occurred  which  relieved  both  Egypt 
and  .Judoea  from  tlieir  danger.  In  one  night  the 
Assyrians  lost  either  by  a  pestilence  or  by  some 
more  awful  manifestation  of  Divine  power,  185,000 
men  !  The  camp  immediately  broke  up  —  tlie  king 
fled  —  the  Egyptians,  naturally  enough,  as  the  de- 
struction lia])pened  upon  their  borders,  ascribed  it  to 
their  own  gods,  and  made  a  lioast  of  it  centuries  after 
(Herod,  ii.  141).  Sennacherib  reached  his  capital 
in  safety,  and  was  not  deterred,  by  the  terrilde  dis- 
aster which  had  befallen  his  arms,  from  engaging 
in  other  wars,  thougli  he  seems  thenceforward  i'* 
have  carefully  avoided  Palestine.  In  his  fifth  yeai 
he  led  an  expedition  into  Armenia  and  iMedia;  after 
which,  from  liis  sixth  to  his  eighth  year,  he  was 
engaged  in  wars  with  Susiana  and  Babylonia.  From 
this  point'  his  annals  fiiil  us. 

Sennacherib  reigned  twenty-two  years.  The  date 
of  his  accession  is  fixed  by  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy  to 
B.  c.  702,  tlie  first  year  of  Belil}us  or  Elibus.  The 
date  of  his  deatli  is  marked  in  the  same  document 
by  the  accession  of  .\saridanus  (Esar-Haddon)  to 


It  was  at  this  time  that  "  Sennacherib  came  up  j  the  throne  of  Babylon  in  b.  c.  080.   The  monuments 
against  all  the  fenced  cities   of  Judah,   and  tot^k    ire  in  exact  conformity  with  tliese  dates,  for  tlie 


them  "  (2  K.  xviii.  13).  There  can  lie  no  doubt 
that  the  record  which  he  has  left  of  his  campaign 
against  "lliskiah"  in  his  third  year,  is  the  war 
with  Hezekiali  so'liriefly  touched  in  tlie  four  verses 
of  this  chaptet  (vv.  13-10).  The  Jewish  monarch 
was  compelled  to  make  a  most  humlile  submission. 
He  agreed  to  liear  wliatever  the  Great  King  laid 
upon  him;  and  that  monarch,  besides  carrying  off 
a  rich  booty  and  more  than  200,000  captives,  ap- 
pointed him  a  fixed  tribute  of  300  talents  of  silver, 
and  30  talents  of  gold.  He  also  deprived  him  of  a 
considerable  portion  of  his  territory,  which  he  be- 
utowed  on  the  petty  kings  of  Ashdod,  Ekroii,  and 
Gaza.  Having  made  tliese  arrangements,  he  left 
Palestine  and  returned  into  his  own  country. 

In  the  following  year  (B.C.  690),  Sennacherili 
invaded  Baliylonia  for  the  second  time.  Merodach- 
Baladan  continued  to  have  a  party  in  that  country, 
where  his  brotliers  still  resided;  and  it  may  be 
Buspected  that  the  viceroy,  Belibus,  either  secretly 
favored  his  cause,  or  at  any  rate  was  remiss  in 
opposing  it.  The  Assyrian  monarch,  tlierefore, 
took  the  field  in  jiersoii,  defeated  a  Chaldsean  chief 
who  had  taken  up  arms  on  behalf  of  the  banished 
king,  expelled  the  king's  lirothers,  and  displacing 
Belibus,  put  one  of  his  own  sons  on  the  throne  in 
bis  stead. 

It  was  perhaps  in  this  same  year  that  Sen- 
nacherib made  his  second  expedition  into  Palestine. 
Hezekiah  had  again  revolted,  and  claimed  the  pro- 


22d  year  of  Sennacherib  has  been  found  upon 
them,  while  they  have  not  furnished  any  notice  of 
a  later  year. 

It  is  impossilile  to  reconcile  these  dates  with  the 
chronology  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  according  to  tlie 
iiumliers  of  the  present  Hebrew  text.  Those  num- 
bers assign  to  Hezekiah  the  space  between  b.  c.  726 
and  B.  c.  6iJ7.  Consequently  the  first  invasion  of 
Sennacherib  falls  into  Hezekiah's  twtnly-Sf-rentk 
year  instead  of  his  fourteenth,  as  stated  in  2  K. 
xviii.  13,  and  Is.  xxxvi.  1.  Various  solutions  have 
been  proposed  of  this  difficulty.  According  to  some, 
there  has  been  a  dislocation  as  well  as  an  alteration 
of  the- text.  Originally  the  words  ran,  "Now  it 
came  to  pass  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  kint:  Heze- 
kiah, that  the  king  of  Assyria  [Sargon]  came  up 
against  tlie  fenced  cities  of  Judah."  Then  followed 
ch.  XX.  (Is.  xxxviii.)  —  "  In  those  days  was  Hezekiah 
sick  unto  death,"  etc.;  after  which  came  the  nar- 
rative of  Sennacherib's  two  invasions.  [See  Hi;ze- 
KiAii.]  Another  suggestion  is,  that  the  year  has 
been  altered  in  2  K.  xviii.  13  and  Is.  xxxvi.  1.  by  a 
scribe,  who,  referring  the  narrative  in  ch.  xx.  (Is 
xxxviii.)  to  the  period  of  Sennacherib's  first  inva 
sion,  concluded  (from  xx.  6)  that  the  whole  hap- 
pened in  Hezekiah's  fourteenth  year  (Rawlinson's 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  479,  note  2),  and  therefore 
boldly  changed  "  twenty-seventh "  into  "  four- 
teenth." 

Sennacherib  was  one  of  the  most  magnificent  of 
the  Assyrian  kings.  He  seems  to  have  been  the 
a  The  impression  on  clay  of  the  seal  of  Sabaco,  found  first  who  fixed  the  seat  of  srovernment  permanently 
in  Sennacherib's  palace  at  Koyunjik,  had  probably  at  Nineveh,  which  he  carefully  repaired  and  adorned 
b««u  appanded  to  this  treaty.  'with  splenuid  buildings.     His  greatest  work  is  th« 


SENUAH 

^iid  palace  at  Koyunjik,  which  covered  a  space  of 
il)Ove  eight  acres,  and  was  adorned  throurrhout  with 
Bculptiire  of  finished  execution.  lie  built  also,  or 
repaired,  a  second  palace  at  N'inevehon  the  mound 
of  Neljbi  Yunus,  confined  the  rii;ris  to  its  channel 
by  an  embankment  of  brick,  restored  tiie  ancient 
aqueducts  which  bad  gone  to  decay,  and  gave  to 
Nineveh  tiiat  splendor  which  she  thenceforth  re- 
tained till  the  ruin  of  the  empire.  He  also  erected 
monuments  in  distant  countries.  It  is  his  memorial 
which  still  remains"  at  the  mouth  of  the  Ndhr-el- 
Ktlb  on  the  coast  of  Syria,  side  by  side  with  an 
inscription  of  liameses  the  Great,  recording  his  con- 
quests six  centuries  earlier. 

Of  the  death  of  Sennacherib  nothing  is  known 
beyond  the  brief  statement  of  Scripture,  that  "  as 
he  was  worshipping  in  the  house  of  Nisroch  (?),  his 
god,  Adranimeleeh  and.Sharezer  his  sons  smote  him 
with  the  sword,  and  escaped  into  the  land  of  Ar- 
menia "  (2  K.  xix.  37;  Is.  xxxvii.  .JS).  It  is  curious 
tliat  Moses  ©f  (Jhorene  and  Alexander  I'olyhistor 
should  both  call  the  elder  of  these  two  sons  by  a 
different  name  (Ardumazanes  or  Argamozanus); 
and  it  is  still  more  curious  that  Abydenus,  who 
generally  drew  from  Herosus,  should  interpose  a  king 
Nergilus  between  Semiacherib  arid  Adrammelech, 
and  make  the  latter  be  slain  by  Ksarhaddon  (luiseb. 
Clir.  Cnii.  i.  9;  comp.  i.  5,  and  see  also  Mos.  Chor. 
Arm.  [list.  i.  ^2).  JNIoses,  on  the  contrary,  confirms 
the  escape  of  both  brothers,  and  mentions  the  parts 
of  Armenia  where  they  settled,  and  which  were 
afterwards  peopled  by  their  descendants.     G.  R. 

SBNU'AH  (nS^DP  [bristling,  Ge%.']  I'Aaa- 
vd'-  Serina).  Properly  Hassenuah,  with  the  def. 
article.  A  Benjamite,  the  father  of  Judah,  who 
was  second  over  the  city  after  the  return  from  Baby- 
lon (Neh.  xi.  9).  In  1  Chr.  ix.  7,  ".Judah  the  son 
of  Senuah  "  is  "  Hodaviah  the  son  of  Hasenuah." 
[Hasenuah.] 

«  SEO'RIM  (an_i}^  [barky]-.  :^iwpifi;  [Vat. 

Sfcopei/^;]  Alex.  Secoptc:  Storiiii).  The  chief  of 
the  fourth  of  the  twenty-four  courses  of  priests  in- 
stituted by 'David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  8). 

SE'PHAR  npp  [hook]:  2,a<pr,P<i;  Ahx- loo- 
cp-qpa-  Sephiir).  It  is  written,  after  the  enumera- 
(;i<jn  of  the  sons  of  .loktan,  "  and  their  dwelling  was 
from  Jlesha  as  thou  goest  unto  Sephar,  a  mount  of 
the  east  "  (Gen.  x.  30).  The  immigration  of  the 
Joktanites  was  probably  irom  west  to  east,  as  we 
have  shown  in  Arabia,  Mksifa,  etc.,  and  tiiey  oc- 
cupied tiie  southwestern  portion  of  the  peninsula. 
The  undoubted  identifications  of  Arabian  places 
and  tribes  with  their  -loktanite  originals  are  in- 
cluded within  these  limits  and  point  to  Sephar  as 
the  eastern  boundary.  There  .appears  to  be  little 
doubt  that  the  ancient  sea-port  town  called  Dlia- 
fdri  or  Znfuri,  and  Dkajar  or  Z-iJ'dr,  without 
the  inflexional  termination,  represents  the  Biblical 
site  or  district:  thus  the  etymology  is  sufficiently 
Gftar,  and  the  situation  exactly  agrees  with  the  re- 
quirements of  the  case.  Accordini,dy,  it  has  been 
generally  accepted  as  the  Sephar  of  Genesis.  But 
.he  etymological  fitness  of  this  site  opens  out  an- 


a  It  has  been  stateJ  tliat  in  1861  the  French  occu- 
pants of  Syria  destroyed  this  tablet,  and  replaced  it  by 
m  inscription  in  their  own  honor  ;  but  such  an  act 
tf  barbarism  seems  .scarcely  possible  in  the  nineteenth 
leotury. 

''  Abu-I-Filii  has  fallen  into  an  absurl  error  in  his 


SEPHAH  21)09 

other  question,  inasmuch  as  there  are  iio  less  than 
four  places  bearing  the  same  name,  besides  several 
others  bearing  names  that  are  merely  variations 
from  the  same  root.  The  frequent  recurrence  ol 
these  variations  is  curious;  but  we  need  only  here 
concern  ourselves  with  the  four  first  named  places, 
and  of  these  two  only  are  important  to  tiie  subject 
of  this  article.  They  are  of  twofold  importance,  aa 
liearing  on  the  site  of  Sepliar,  and  as  being  closely 
comiected  with  tlie  ancient  history  of  the  .loktanite 
kingdom  of  Southern  Araliia,  the  kingdom  founded 
by  the  tribes  sprung  from  the  sons  of  Joktan.  The 
following  extracts  will  put  in  a  clear  light  what  the 
liest  Aral)ian  writers  themselves  say  on  the  subject. 
The  first  is  from  the  most  important  of  the  Arabic 
Lexicons :  — 

^^  Bhn/dri  i'Xjub)  is  a  town  of  the  Yemen; 

one  says,  '  He  who  enters  Dhnfuri  learns  the  Hini- 
yeritic'  ....  Es  Siighanee  says,  '  In  the  Yemen 
are  four  places,  every  one  of  which  is  called  Dlia- 
fdri ;  two  cities  and  two  fortresses.  The  two 
cities  are  Dit<ifdri~l-IIald,  near  Sun'd,  two  days' 
journey  from  it  on  the  south;  and  the  Tubbaas 
used  to  abide  there,  and  it  is  said  that  it  is  Sana 
[itself].  In  relation  to  it  is  called  the  onyx  of 
Dlmjdri.  (fbn-es-Sikkeet  says  that  the  onyx  of 
DItiifdri  is  so  called  in  relation  to  Dhufdri-Asad, 
a  city  in  the  Yemen.)  Another  is  in  the  Yemen, 
near  Afirbdt,  in  the  extremity  of  the  Yemen,  and 
is  known  by  the  name  of  Dhnfdri-s- Sahib  [that  is, 
of  the  sea-coast],  and  in  relation  to  it  is  called  the 
Kmt-Dhafdri  [either  costus  or  aloes-wood],  that 
is,  the  wood  with  which  one  fumigates,  because  it 
is  Ijrought  thither  from  India,  and  from  it  to  [the 
rest  of  ]  the  Yemen.'  ....  And  it  Yakoot  meant, 
for  he  said,  '  DhaJ'dri  ....  is  a  city  in  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  Yemen,  near  to  Enli-Shihr.''  As  to 
the  two  fortresses,  one  of  them  is  a  fortress  on  the 
south  of  San'd,  two  days'  journey  from  it,  in  the 
country  of  [the  tribe  of]  Benoo-Mmfdd,  and  it  is 
called  Dhafdri-l-  Wniliyeyn  [that  is,  of  the  Two 
Valleys].  It  is  also  called  Dhujdri-Zeyd ;  and 
another  is  on  the  north  thereof,  also  two  days'  jour- 
ney from  it,  in  the  country  of  Ileinddn,  and  is 
called  Dhajdri  dh-D/idhir  "  {Tiij'-el-' Arous,  MS, 
s.  v.).b 

Yakoot,  in  his  Homonymous  Dictionary  (El- 
MusiitnridCi  s.  V.)  says:  "  D!i<iJ'dri  is  a  celel)rated 
city  in  the  extremity  of  the  country  of  the  Yeme' 
between  '  Oman  and  Mirbdt,  on  the  shore  of  the 
sea  of  India:  I  have  been  informed  of  this  by  one 
who  has  seen  it  jjrosperous,  abounding  in  good 
tlungs.  It  is  near  Ksh-Sliihr.  Dlid/dri-Zeyd  is  a 
fortress  in  the  Yemen,  in  the  territory  of  Uabb, 
and  UhitJ'dri  is  a  c!ty  near  to  Sand,  and'in  relation 
to  it  is  called  the  Dliafdri  onyx;  in  it  was  the 
alwde  of  the  kings  of  Hiniyer,  and  of  it  was  said 
'  He  who  enters  Dliafdri  learns  the  Himyeritic; ' 
and  it  is  sairl  that  Snn'd  itself  is  DhaJ'dri."' 

Lastly,  in  the  Geograiiliical  Dictionary  called  the 
Mardsid,  which  is  ascribed  to  Yiikoot,  we  read, 
s.  V. :  "  DhaJ'dri :  two  cities  in  the  Yemen,  one  ol 


Gens;rnpliy,  noticed  by  M.  Fresnel  {IVe  Lettre,  p.  3171 
He  endeavors  to  prove  that  the  two  Zn/iris  were  only 
one,  by  supposing  that  the  inland  town,  which  In 
places  only  twenty-four  leagues  from  San'o,  wte  orV 
iually  on  the  sea-coast.  i 


2910  SEPHAR 

them  near  to  Snn'a,  in  relation  to  wliicli  is  called 
the  Dhafdri  onyx:  in  it  was  the  dwelling  of  the 
kings  of  Himyer;  and  it  is  said  that  Dliafari  is  the 
sity  of  &an'a  itself.  And  Dhufuri  of  this  day  is  a 
:ity  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  of  India,  between  it  and 
Mirbdt  are  five  jjarasaiigs  of  tlie  territories  of  Kslt- 
Sliihr,  [and  it  isj  near  to  Huhdr,  and  Mirbdt  is  the 
other  anchorage  besides  Dliajdn.  I'rankincense  is 
only  found  on  the  mountain  of  Dliajdri  of  Esh- 
Sliilir." 

These  extracts  show  that  the  city  of  Dhofdri 
near  SmVa  was  very  little  known  to  the  writers, 
and  that  little  only  by  tradition :  it  was  even  sup- 
posed to  be  the  same  as,  or  another  name  for 
Sati'a,  and  its  site  had  evidently  fallen  into  obliv- 
ion at  their  day.  But  the  seaport  of  ibis  name 
Was  a  celelirated  city,  still  flourishing,  and  identified 
on  the  authority  of  an  eye-witness  M.  1  lesnel  has 
endeavored  to  prove  that  this  city,  and  not  the 
western  one,  was  the  Himyerite  capital;  and  cer- 
tainly his  opinion  appears  to  be  borne  out  by  most 
of  the  facts  that  have  been  brought  to  light. 
Niebuhr,  however,  mentions  the  ruins  of  DJtafdri 
near  Yereem^  which  would  be  those  of  the  western 
city  (Descr.  p.  206).  While  iJ/iafdri  is  often 
mentioned  as  the  capital  in  the  history  of  the  Him- 
yerite kingdom  (Caussin,  L'ssai,  i.  pfissim),  it  was 
also  in  the  later  times  of  the  kingdom  the  seat  of  a 
Christian  Church  (Philostorgius, }//«/.  Eccks.  iii.  4). 

But,  leaving  this  curious  point,  it  remains  to 
give  what  is  known  respecting  Dliajdri  the  sea- 
port, or  as  it  will  be  more  convenient  to  call  it, 
after  the  usual  pronunciation,  Zafdr.  All  the  e\i- 
dence  is  clearly  in  favor  of  this  site  being  tl:at  of 
the  Sephar  of  the  Bible,  and  the  identification  has 
accordingly  been  generally  accepted  by  critics. 
More  accurately,  it  appears  to  preserve  the  rame 
mentioned  in  Gen.  x.  30,  and  to  be  in  the  district 
anciently  so  named.  It  is  situate  on  the  coast,  in 
the  province  of  Hudramdwt^  and  near  to  the  district 
which  adjoins  that  province  on  the  east,  called  /,«//- 
SMhr  (or,  as  ]M  Fresnel  says  it  is  pronounced  in 
the  modern  Himyeritic,  Sfilier).  Wellsted  says  ot 
it,  "  Dofdr  is  situated  beneath  a  lofty  mountain  '' 
(ii.  453).  In  the  Murdsid  it  is  said,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  frankincense  (in  the  author's  time)  was 
found  only  in  the  "  mountaiti  of  Bhajdri ;  "  and 
Kiebubr  {Desci:  p.  248)  says  that  it  exports  the 
best  frankincense.  M.  Fresnel  gives  almost  all  that 
is  known  of  the  present  state  of  this  old  site  in  his 
Leitres  sur  I'fJist.  des  Artibts  avant  V Jslfimisine 
(Ve  Lettre,  J  (rum.  Asinl.  mP  serie,  tome  v.).  Zti- 
fdr,  he  tells  us,  pronounced  by  the  modern  inhab- 
itants "  Isfor,"  is  now  the  name  of  a  series  of  vil- 
lages situate  some  of  them  on  the  shore,  and  some 
close  to  the  shore,  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  between 
Mirbdl  and  Jids-Sdjir,  extending  a  distance  of  two 
ilays"  journey,  or  17  or  18  hours,  from  east  to  west. 
Proceeding  in  this  direction,  those  near  the  shore 
lire  named  Tdbili,  Jid-Biduireez,  Jil-Bileed,  El- 
Jldfcli,  Sdldliali,  and  Aivkad.  The  first  four  are  on 
the  sea-shore,  and  the  last  two  at  a  small  distance 
from  it.  El-Btked,  otherwise  called  Harkdm,  is. 
in  1\I.  I'Yesnel's  opinion,  the  ancient  Zafdr.  It  is 
in  ruins,  lint  ruins  that  attest  its  former  prosperity. 
The  inhaljitants  were  celebrated  ibr  their  hospital- 
"ty.     There  are  now  only  three  or  four  inhabited 

<i  Obtained  by  taking  the  prefixed  preposition  as 

fc  part  of  tlie  name — ^"1^'D3  i  and  at  the  same  time 
r^j«;ting  th«  floal  D. 


SEPHARAD 

houses  in  El-Bthed.  It  is  on  a  small  peninaula 
lying  between  the  ocean  and  a  bay,  and  the  port  is 
on  the  land  side  of  the  town.  In  the  present  day 
during  nearly  the  whole  of  the  year,  at  least  at  low 
tide,  the  bay  is  a  lake,  and  the  peninsula  an  isth- 
mus, but  the  lake  is  of  sweet  water.  In  the  rainy 
season,  which  is  in  the  spring,  it  is  a  gulf,  of  sweet 
water  at  low  tide  and  of  salt  water  at  high  tide. 

The  classical  writers  mention  Sapphar  metrop- 
olis (2o7r(^apa  yUTjTpoTroAis)  or  Saphar  (in  Anon. 
PmpL  p.  274),  in  long.  88°,  lat.  14°  30',  according 
to  Ptol.,  the  capital  of  the  Sappbaritas  (2a7r(^ap?Toi ), 
placed  by  Ptol.  (vi.  6,  §  25)  near  the  Hor\erit«; 
but  their  accounts  are  obscure,  and  probably  from 
hearsay.  In  later  times,  as  we  have  already  said, 
it  was  the  seat  of  a  Christian  Church:  one  of  thrc-t! 
which  were  founded  A.  D.  343,  by  permission  of  the 
reigning  Tubl]aa,  in  Dliajdri  (written  Tajiliarvn, 
Ta.(\)apov,  by  Philostorgius,  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  4),  in 
'Adtn,  and  on  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf. 
Theophilus,  who  was  sent  with  an  embassy  by  or- 
der of  the  emperor  Constantine  to  efl«ct  this  pur- 
pose, was  the  first  bishop  (Caussin,  i.  Ill  ff.).  In 
the  reigh  of  Alirahah  (A.  d.  537-570),  S.  Gregen- 
tius  was  bishop  of  these  churches,  having  been  sent 
by  the  Patriarch  of  .Ailexandria  (cf.  authorities  cited 
by  Caussin,  i.  112-145).  E.  S.  P. 

SEPH'ARAD  CT^VP    [see   below]:    Targ. 

S^pCpS,  i.  e.  "Ispania":  e«s  'EcppaOd,  in  both 
MSS. :  in  Bosporo).  A  name  which  occurs  in 
Obad.  ver.  20  only,  as  that  of  a  place  in  which  tlie 
Jews  of  Jerusalem  were  then  held  in  captivity,  and 
whence  they  were  to  return  to  possess  the  cities  of 
the  south. 

Its  situation  has  always  been  a  matter  of  un- 
certainty, and  cannot  even  now  be  said  to  be 
settled. 

1.  The  reading  of  the  LXX.  given  above,  and 
followed  by  the  Arabic  Version,  is  probably  a  mere 
conjecture,  though  it  may  point  to  a  modified  form 
of  the  name  in  the  then  original,  namely,  Sepha- 
rath.  In  Jerome's  copy  of  the  LXX.  it  appears  to 
have  lieen  EvcppaT-qs,  .since  {Comm.  in  Abd.)  he 
renders  their  version  of  the  verse  transmiyratio  Je- 
riisaltm  usqut  Evphratliem.  This  is  certainly  ex- 
tremely ingenious,  but  will  hardly  hold  water  when 
we  turn  it  back  into  Hebrew. 

2.  The  reading  of  the  Vulgate,  Bofprrrvs,"  was 
adopted  by  Jerome  from  his  Jewish  instructor, 
who  considered  it  to  be  "  the  place  to  which  Ha- 
drian had  transported  the  captives  from  Jerusalem" 
(Cmnm.  in  Abdiam).  This  interpretation  Jerome 
did  not  accept,  but  preferred  rather  to  treat  Seph 
arad  as  connected  with  a  similar  Assyrian  word 
signiiying  a  "  boundary,"  and  to  consider  the  jias- 
sage  as  denoting  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  into  all 
regions. 

"We  have  no  means  of  knowing  to  which  Bospo- 
rus Jerome's  teacher  alluded  —  tlie  Cimmerian  or 
the  Thraeian.  If  the  former  (Strait  of  Ytvi-kak), 
which  was  in  Iberia,  it  is  not  impossilile  that  tliis 
Kabbi,  as  ignorant  of  geography  outside  the  Holy 
Land  as  most  of  his  brethren,  confounded  it  with 
Iberia  in  Spain,  and  thus  agreed  with  the  rest  of 
tlie  Jews  whose  opinions  have  come  down  tons.  If 
the  latter  (Strait  of  Constantino|)le),  then  he  may 
be  taken  as  confirming  the  most  modern  opinion 
(noticed  below),  that  Sepharad  was  Sardis  in  Lydia. 

The  Tarcrum  Jonathan  (see  above)  and  tne 
Peshito-Syriao,  and  from  them  the  modern  Jew4 
interpret  Sepharad  as  Spain  (Ispamia  and  Ispania) 


SEPHARAD 

one  common  variation  of  which  name,  Hesperia 
{£Hcl.  of  (I'eogr.  i.  1074  i),  does  certainly  hear  con- 
gideralile  reseml>lance  to  Sepharad;  and  so  deeply 
has  this  taken  root  that  at  the  present  day  the 
Spanish  Jews,  who  form  the  chief  of  the  two 
great  sections  into  which  the  Jewish  nation  is 
divided,  are  called  by  the  Jews  themselves  the 
Sepliardiin,  German  Jews  being  known  as  the 
Ashkennzim. 

It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  either  of  these  can 
be  the  true  explanation  of  Sepiiarad.  The  proph- 
ecy of  Oliadiah  has  every  appearance  of  referring;  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  jSehuchadnezzar, 
and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  Jews  had 
been  at  that  early  date  transported  to  Spain. 

3.  Others  have  suggested  the  identity  of  Seph- 
arad with  Sipphara  in  Mesopotamia,  but  that  is 
more  probably  SEI>HAK^•AIM. 

4.  The  name  has  perhaps  been  discovered  in 
the  cuneiform  Persian  inscriptions  of  Nakih-i-Rus- 
tuiii  and  Btkislun  ;  and  also  in  a  list  of  Asiatic  na- 
tions given  by  Niebuhr  [Jitkeb.  ii.  pi.  31).  In  the 
latter  it  occurs  between  Ka  Ta  Pa  TUK  (Cappa- 
docia)  and  Ta  UNA  (Ionia).  De  Sacy  was  the 
first  to  propose  the  identification  of  this  with  Seph- 
arah,  and  subsequently  it  was  su'jgested  by  Lassen 
that  S  Pa  Ra  D  was  identical  with  Sardis,  the  an- 
cient capital  of  Lydia.  This  identification  is  ap- 
proved of  by  Winer,  and  adopted  by  Dr.  Pusey 
{Jntrod.  to  O'jaJ.  p.  232,  note,  also  p.  24.5).  In 
support  of  this,  Fiirst  (Hnndirb.  ii.  95  «)  points 
out  that  Antigonus  (cir.  b.  c.  320)  may  very  prob- 
ably have  taken  some  of  his  Jewish  captives  to  Sar- 
dis; but  it  is  more  consistent  with  the  apparent 
date  of  Obadiah's  prophecy  to  believe  that  he  is 
referring  to  the  event  mentioned  by  Joel  (iii.  G), 
when  "  children  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  "  were 
sold  to  the  "sons  of  the  Javanim  "'  (lonians), 
wiiich  —  as  the  first  captivity  that  had  befallen 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  a  transportation  to  a 
strange  land,  and  that  beyond  the  sea  —  could 
hardly  fail  to  make  an  enduring  impression  upon 
the  nation. 

5.  Kwald  {Propheten,  i.  404)  considers  that 
Sepharad  has  a  connection  with  Zarephath  in  the 
preceding  verse;  and  while  deprecating  the  "pen- 
etration "  of  those  who  have  discovered  the  name 
in  a  cuneiform  inscription,  suggests  that  the  true 
reading  is  Sepharam,  and  that  it  is  to  be  found 
in  a  place  three  hours  from  Akbt^  i.  e.  doubtless 
the  modern  Shcfa  ''  Omar,  a  place  of  much  an- 
cient re[)ute  and  veneration  among  the  Jews  of 
Palestine  (see  Zunz,  note  to  "  Parchi,"  p.  428); 
init  it  is  not  ol)vious  how  a  residence  within  the 
Holy  Land  can  have  been  spoken  of  as  a  captivity, 
und  there  aie  considerable  diflferences  in  the  form 
of  the,  two  names. 

6.  iMichaelis  {Suppl.  No.  1778)  has  devoted 
»cnie  space  to  this  name;  and,  among  other  con- 
jectures, ingeniously  suggests  that  the  "  Spartans  " 
of  I  Mace.  xii.  5  are  accurately  "  Sepharadites." 
This  suggestion,  however,  does  not  appear  to  have 
stood  the  test  of  later  investigation.  [See  Spak- 
^A^'s.]  G. 


SEPHELA 


2911 


"  When  Plmy  place?  Hippara  or  Sippara  ou  tlie 
.IfarragLUii  (Nahr  A^ain),  instead  of  ou  the  Euphrates, 
bis  reference  is  to  the  artificial  channel  which  braucheJ 
»ff   from  the  Kuphrates  at   Sippara,   and  lej  to   the 

jreat  talce  (Chalil.  N^3DS)  excavated  by  Nebucbadnez- 
lar  A-byrtenus  called  this  branch  "Aracauus"' 
."AaoKai'os),  Ar  Ahan  {Fr.  10). 


SEPHARVA'IM  (D'^I'^^P  [see  below]: 
2fir(papovai/j.,'Ew(papovai:fj.-  Sepharvaim)  is  n.en- 
tioned  by  Sennacherib  in  his  letter  to  Hezckiah  as 
a  city  whose  king  had  been  unable  to  resist  the 
Assyrians  (2  K.  six.  13;  Is.  xxxviL  13;  conip. 
2  K.  xviii.  34).  It  is  coupled  with  Hena  and 
Ava,  or  Ivah,  which  were  towns  on  the  Euphratea 
above  Babylon.  Again,  it  is  mentioned,  in  2  K. 
xvii.  24,  as  one  of  the  places  from  which  colonista 
were  transported  to  people  the  desolate  Samaria, 
alter  the  Israelites  had  been  carried  into  captivity, 
where  it  was  again  joined  with  Ava,  and  also  with 
L'utliah  and  Babylon.  These  indications  are  enough 
to  justify  us  in  identifying  the  place  with  the 
famous  town  of  Sippara,  on  the  Euphrates  aliove 
Babylon '(Ptol.  v.  18),  which  was  near  the  site  of 
the  modern  Mosaib.  Sippara  was  mentioned  by 
Berosus  as  the  place  where,  according  to  him, 
Xithrus  (or  Noah)  buried  the  records  of  the  anta- 
diluvian  world  at  the  time  of  the  Deluge,  and  from 
which  his  posterity  recovered  them  afterwards. 
[Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  ii.  501,  iv.  280.)  Abydenug 
calls  it  Tr6\tv  'S.miraprtvwv  i.Fr.  9),  and  says  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  excavated  a  vast  lake  in  its  vicin- 
ity for  the  purposes  of  irrigation.  Pliny  seems  to 
intend  the  same  place  by  his  "  oppida  Hippareno- 
rum  "  « —  where,  according  to  him,  was  a  great 
seat  of  the  Chaldaic  learning  (//.  A'',  vi.  30).  The 
plm-al  form  here  used  by  Pliny  may  be  compared 
with  the  dual  form  in  use  among  the  Jews;  and 
the  explanation  of  both  is  to  be  found  in  the  ftict 
that  there  were  two  Sipparas,  one  on  either  side 
of  the  river.  Berosus  called  Sippara,  "  a  city  of 
the  sun"  ('HAi'ou  it6Kiv)\  and  in  the  inscriptions 
it  bears  the  same  title,  being  called  Tsipiti-  sha 
SliiiiiKis,  or  "  Sippara  of  the  sun  "  —the  sun  being 
the  chief  object  of  worship  there.  Hence  the  Se- 
pharvites  are  said,  in  2  K.  xvii.  31,  to  have  "  burnt 
their  children  in  the  fire  to  Adrannnelech  and 
Anammelech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim  "  —  these 
two  distinct  deities  representing  respectixely  the 
male  and  female  powers  of  the  sun,  as  Lunus  and 
Lima  represented  the  male  and  female  powers  of 
the  moon  among  the  Romans.  G.  It. 

*  SE'PHARVITES  (D'''1"15P:  2eTr(pap- 
ova'i/j.',  Vat.  ^i(p(f>apovvi  Alex.  2,e(pcpapovai/x' 
hi  qui  eriint  de  Sfpli((rvuiin),  2  K.  xvii.  31.  Thd 
people  of  Sepiiakvaim.  H. 

SEPHE'LA  ({j  ^e<p-n\d:  Sephela).  The 
Greek    form    of   the   ancient    word    has-S/ieJe:ah 

(n^pti-'n),  the  native  name  for  the  southern  di- 
vision of  the  low-lying  flat  district  which  intervenoa 
between  the  central  highlands  of  the  Holy  Land 
and  the  iMediteiTanean,  the  other  and  northei'n  por- 
tion of  which  was  known  as  Sharon.  The  name 
occurs  tlirougliout  the  topographical  records  of 
Joshua,  the  historical  works,  and  the  topographical 
passages  in  the  Prophets;  always  with  the  article 
prefixed,  and  always  denoting  the  same  region  * 
(Dent.  i.  7;  Josh.  ix.  1,  x.  40.  xi.  2.  115  a,  xii.  8, 
XV.  33;  Judg.  i.  9;  1  K.  x.  27;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  28; 
2  Chr.  i.  15,  ix.  27.  xxvi.  10,  xxviii.  18;  Jer.  xvii. 
26,  xxxii.  44,  xxxiii.  13;  Obad.  19;  Zech.  vii.  7). 
In   each   of  these   passages,  however,  the  word   ig 

b  So  absolute  is  this  usage,  that  on  the  .single  <Mica 
sion  where  it  is  used  without  the  article  (Josh.  xi.  I'ih 
it  evidently  does  not  denote  the  region  ref-rieJ  w 
above,  but  the  plains  surrounding'  the  uioautam*  trf 
KuUraim. 


2912  oiDPHELA  SEPTUAGINT 

mile  husbandry  of  its  iuhalntaiits  year  after  year 
with  crops  of  com  which  are  described  by  the  trav- 
ellers as  prodiijious. 

Thus  it  was  in  ancient  times  the  corn-field  of 
Syria,  and  as  such  the  constant  subject  of  warlare 
between  Philistines  and  Israelites,  and  tiie  refuge 
of  the  latter  when  the  harvests  in  the  central  coun- 
try were  ruined  by  drought  (2  K.  viii.  1-3).  But 
it  was  also,  from  its  evenness,  and  from  its  situa,- 
tion  on  the  road  between  Kgypt  and  Assyria,  ex- 
posed to  continual  visits  from  foreign  armies,  visits 
which  at  last  led  to  the  destruction  of  the  Israel- 
ite kingdom.  In  the  earlier  history  of  the  country 
the  Israelites  do  not  appear  to  have  ventured  into 
the  ShfJ'tln/i,  but  to  have  awaited  the  approach  of 
their  enemies  from  thence.  Under  the  Maccabees, 
however,  their  tactics  were  changed,  and  it  became 
the  field  where  some  of  the  most  hardly  contested 
and  successful  of  their  battles  were  fought. 

These  conditions  have  hardly  altered  in  modem 
times.  Any  invasion  of  Palestine  must  take  place 
through  the  maritime  plain,  the  natural  and  only 
road  to  the  highlands.  It  did  so  in  Napoleon'a 
case,  as  has  already  been  noticed  under  Palp;stixe 
[iii  2201  n].  The  Sliefelnh.  is  still  one  vast  corn- 
field, but  the  contests  which  take  ]ilace  on  it  are 
now  reduced  to  those  between  the  oppressed  peas- 
ants and  the  insolent  and  rapacious  othcials  of  the 
Turkish  go\ernnient,  who  are  gradually  putting 
a  stop  by  their  extortions  to  all  the  industry  of 
this  district,  and  driving  active  and  willing  hands 
to  better  governed  regions.  [See  .Iuuah,  vol.  ii. 
p.  1490;  Palestine,"  vol.  iii.  pp.  2290  f.,  219S  f.; 
Plains,  2.j47.]  G. 

SEPTUAGINT.  The  Greek  version  of  the 
Old  restament  known  by  this  name,  is  like  the 
Nile,  fimtiuiii  qui  eclat  oriyines.  The  causes 
wiiich  produced  it,  the  number  and  names  of  the 
translators,  the  times  at  which  different  portions 
were  translated,  are  all  uncertain. 

It  will  therefore  be  best  to  launch  our  skiff  on 
known  waters,  arid  try  to  track  the  stream  upwards 
towards  its  source. 

This  V^ersion  appears  at  the  present  day  in  four 
principal  editions. 

1.  Ijiblia  Polyglotta  Complutensis,  A.  d.  151-1- 
1517.  [The  pul)lication  of  the  work  was  not  au- 
thorized till  1520,  and  it  did  not  get  hito  general 
circulation  before  1522.  —  A.] 

2.  The  Aldine  Edition,  Venice,  A.  d.  1518. 

3.  The .  Roman  Edition,  edited  imder  Pope 
Sixtus  v.,  A.  D.  1587.  [Some  copies  have  the 
date  1586.  These  want  the  "  Corrigenda  in  Nota- 
tionibus  Psalterii,"  etc.,  and  the  Privikyium  of 
Sixtus  v.,  dated  May  9,  1587.  The  copies  of  this 
later  issue  have  tlie  date  158G  changed  to  1587 
with  a  pen.  Before  the  work  was  published  it 
was  carefully  revised,  and  many  MS.  corrections 
were  made  in  all  the  copies.  —  A.] 

4.  Fac-simile  Edition  of  the  Codex  Alexandri-' 
nus,  by  H.  H.  Baber,  A.  D.  1816   [-1828]. 

1,  2.  The  texts  of  (1)  and  (2)  were  probably 
formed  by  collation  of  several  MSS. 

3.  The  Koman  edition  (3)  is  printed  from  the 
venerable  Codex  V^aiicanus,  but  not  without  many 
eri-ors.  The  text  has  been  followed  in  most  of  the 
modern  editions. 

A  transcript  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  prepared 
by  Cardinal  Mai,  was  lately  published  at  Home,  bjr 

«  In   his  comment  on  Obadiah,  St.  Jerome  appears    tlie  same  time  to  extend  Sharon  so  far  MOUth  as  to  Id* 
fl  ext«uil  it  to  Lydda  and  Emmaus-Nicopolis ;  and  at    elude  the  PUilistiue  cities. 


treated  in  the  A.  V.  not  as  a  proper  name,  analo- 
gous to  the  C'aiiipayna,  the  Wvkls,  tht  Carse,  but 
as  a  mere  appellative,  and  rendered  "the  vale," 
'the  valley,"  "the  plain,"  "the  low  plains," 
and  "  the  low  country."  How  destructive  this  is 
to  the  force  of  the  narrative  may  be  realized  by  im- 
agining what  confusion  would  be  caused  in  the 
translation  of  an  English  historical  work  into  a 
foreign  tongue,  if  such  a  name  as  "The  Downs  " 
were  rendered  by  some  general  term  applical)le  to 
any  other  district  in  the  country  of  similar  forma- 
tion. Fortunately  the  book  of  Maccabees  has  re- 
deemed our  Version  from  the  charge  of  having 
entirely  suppressed  this  interesting  name.  In 
1  JIacc.  xii.  38  the  name  Sephela  is  found,  though 
even  here  stripped  of  the  article,  which  was  at- 
tached to  it  in  Hebrew,  and  still  accompanies 
it  in  the  Creek  of  the  passage. 

Whether  the  name  is  given  in  the  Heljrew 
Scriptures  in  the  shape  in  which  the  Israelites  en- 
countered it  on  cTitering  the  country,  or  modified 
so  as  to  conform  it  to  the  Helirew  root  shajul,  and 
thus  (according  to  the  constant  tendency  of  lan- 
guage) liring  it  to  a  form  intelligent  to  Hebrews  — 
we  shall  probably  never  know.  The  root  to  which 
it  is  related  is  in  common  use  both  in  Hebrew  and 
Arabic.  In  the  latter  it  has  originated  more  than 
one  pro])er  name  —  as  Mespilti.,  now  known  as 
Koyimjik;  el-Mesfule,  one  of  the  quarters  of  the 
city  of  Mecca  ( Purckhardt,  AmIAn,  i.  203,  204) ;  and 
Seville,  originally  fli-spulis,  probably  so  called  from 
its  wide  plaui  (Arias  Montano,  in  Ford,  IJuniil/uok 
of'  tSjxd/i). 

The  name  Sliefdnh  is  retained  in  the  old  ver- 
sions, even  those  of  the  Samaritans,  and  Kalibi 
Joseph  on  Chronicles  (probably  as  late  as  the  11th 
century  A.  D.).  It  was  actually  in  use  down  to 
the  5th  century.  Eusebius,  and  after  him  .lerome, 
{Onom.  "Sephela,"  and  Comin.  on.  Obad.), 
distinctly  state  that  "the  region  round  Eleuthe- 
ropolis  on  the  north  and  west  was  so  called." « 
And  a  careful  investigation  migiit  not  improbably 
discover  liie  name  still  lingering  about  its  ancient 
home  even  at  the  present  day. 

No  definite  limits  are  mentioned  to  the  ShefelaJi, 
nor  is  it  [irobable  that  there  were  any.  In  the  list 
of  Joshua  (xv.  33-47)  it  contains  43  "cities"  as 
well  as  the  hamlets  and  temporary  villages  depend- 
ent upon  them.  Of  these,  as  far  as  our  knowl- 
edge avails  us,  the  most  northern  was  Ekron,  the 
most  southern  Gaza,  and  the  most  western  Nezii) 
(about  7  miles  N.  N.  W.  of  Hebron).  A  large 
number  of  these  towns,  however,  were  situated  not 
in  the  plain,  nor  even  on  the  western  slopes  of  the 
central  mountains,  but  in  the  mountains  themselves. 
.[Jahmuth;  Keilah;  Nkzib,  etc.]  This  seems 
to  show,  either  that  on  the  ancient  principle  of 
dividing  territory  one  district  might  intrude  into 
the  limits  of  another,  or,  which  is  more  proliable, 
that,  as  already  suggested,  the  name  Sliefdnh  did 
not  originally  mean  a  lowland,  as  it  came  to  do  in 
its  accommodated  Hebrew  form. 

The  Sli<.'fi;l(ih  was,  and  is,  one  of  the  most  pro- 
ductive regions  in  the  Holy  Land.  Sloping  as  it 
does  gently  to  the  sea,  it  receives  every  year  a  fresh 
dressing  from  the  materials  washed  down  from  the 
mountains  beliind  it  by  the  furious  rains  of  winter. 
This  natural  manure,  aided  by  the  great  heat  of 
its  climate,  is  sufficient  to  enable  it  to  reward   the 


SEPTUAGINT 

rercellonc  [Published  in  1857,  in  5  vols,  fol., 
bicludiii<|  the  N.  T.]  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
this  edition  is  not  so  accurate  as  to  preclude  the 
necessity  of  consultiiis;  the  MS.  The  text  of  the 
Codex,  and  tiie  parts  added  by  a  later  hand,  to  com- 
plete the  Codex  (among  them  nearly  all  Genesis), 
are  printed  in  the  same  Greek  type,  with  distin- 
guishing notes,     [^e  addition  below.J 

4.  The  Fac-simile  Edition,  by  Mr.  Baber,  is 
printed  with  types  made  after  the  form  of  tlie  let- 
ters in  the  Codex  Alexiindrinus  (Brit.  IMuseum 
Library)  for  the  Fac-simile  Edition  of  the  New 
Testament,  by  ^V'oide.  in  1786.  Great  care  was 
bestowed  on  the  sheets  as  they  passed  through  the 
press. 

*  Some  further  account  of  the  first  three  edi- 
tions here  mentioned  seems  desirable.  The  L'om- 
plutensian  text  has  been  supposed  by  many  critics 
(e.  rj.  Walton)  to  have  been  arbitrarily  formed  by 
the  editors,  partly  from  the  Septnagiiit  and  partly 
from  the  other  Greek  versions  and  even  the  Greek 
commentators,  in  order  to  make  it  more  conforma- 
ble to  the  Hebrew  or  the  Vulgate.  The  fact,  how- 
ever, is  now  well  established,  that  it  represents  a  cer- 
tain class  of  manuscripts,  agreeing  paiticulariy  with 
those  numbered  by  Holmes  and  I'arsons  19,  Gl,  72 
(in  part),  93,  108,  119,  and  248.  Of  these  we 
know  that  Nos.  108  and  248  were  borrowed  from 
the  Vatican  Library  for  the  use  of  the  editors. 
(See  Vercellone'.s  Preface  to  Cardin.al  Mai's  Vi;l. 
ei  Nuv.  Test,  e  Cud.  V(d.,  Kom.  1857,  vol.  1.  p.  v.) 
The  Comphitensian  text  was  reprinted  in  the  Ant- 
werp Polyglott  (1509-72),  that  of  Vatable  or  rather 
C.  B.  Bertram  {ex  official  Siinctimdreami  [Heidel- 
berg], 1581)  or  1587;  ex  off.  CommeUniana  [ibid.], 
1599,  1016),  holder's  (Hamb.  15Jfl),  and  the  Paris 
Polyglott  (1028-45).  It  does  not  contain  the 
first  (  Vuhj.  third )  book  of  l{lsdras. 

In  the  dedication  of  the  .\ldine  edition  the  text 
is  said  to  have  been  formed  from  the  collation  of 
many  very  ancient  manuscripts,  "  niultis  vetustissi- 
mis  exemplaribus  collatis;"  but  such  expressions 
must  be  taken  witli  large  allowance.  Its  text  in 
the  Pentateuch  accords  with  the  MS.  numbered  by 
Holmes  29,  of  the  10th  or  11th  century,  belonging 
to  the  Library  of  St.  Mark  in  Venice,  with  which 
the  other  Venice  MSS.  numbered  by  Holmes  08, 
120,  121,  122  agree,  being  all  apparently  tran- 
scripts of  the  same  original.  Copies  of  this  edition, 
the  first  of  the  whole  Bible  in  Greek,  are  now  ex- 
ceedingly rare.  There  is  one,  however,  in  the  Li- 
brary of  Harvard  College,  deposited  by  the  late 
George, Livermore  of  Camliridge  The  variations 
of  the  Aldine  text  from  that  of  tiie  Roman  edition 
are  given,  though  veiy  imperfeptly.  in  Walton's 
Polyglott,  from  which  they  have  been  copied  by 
Bos  in  his  edition  of  the  Septuagint.  As  we  have 
had  frequent  occasion  to  observe  in  this  Dictiumtry, 
the  forms  of  tlie  [iroper  names  in  the  common 
English  version  of  the  Apocrypha  generally  agree 
with  this  edition,  where  it  ditters  from  the  lioman 
text.  Among  the  editions  of  the  whole  Bible  in 
(ireek  derived  mainly  from  tlie  Aldiue,  may  be 
mentioned  those  printed  Argentoiati,  up.  Wolph. 
Ceplialmum,  1526  (son-s  copies  dated  1529); 
Basiiese,  pei-  J.  Hervai/lum,  1545;  ibid.,  per  N. 
BryliiKjerum,  1550;  and  Francof.,  n}}.  A.  W'";heli 
\eredes,  1597.  The  variations  of  the  last  from 
he  Aldine  text  are  considerable. 

The  Koman  edition  of  the  Septuagint  has  been 
j;enerally  supposed  to  represent  the  text  of  the 
bnious  V'atican   MS    No.  1209,  and  its  readings 


SEPTUAGINT 


2D13 


are  continually  quoted  in  the  English  edition  ol 
this  Diclionary  as  those  of  that  MS.  But  this  ig 
a  grave  error.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  in  the  forms 
of  proper  names  alone  it  differs  from  the  Vatican 
MS.  in  more  than  1,000  places.  The  Vat.  .AIS 
w.is  indeed  u.sed  as  the  basis  of  the  Koman  edition, 
and  was  understood  by  the  editors  to  be  of  the 
highest  value;  but  many  other  ancient  MSS.  were 
collated  for  it,  particularly  one  belonging  to  Cardi- 
nal Hessarion,  an  uncial  of  the  8th  or  9th  century, 
numl)ered  2-3  in  the  edition  of  Holmes  and  I'ar- 
sons, another  in  the  possession  of  Cardinal  Carata, 
and  several  from  the  Medicean  Lilnary  at  Florence. 
The  language  of  the  Preface  to  the  Roman  edition 
(written  by  P.  Morinus)  might  indeed  lead  the 
reader  to  suppose  the  text  of  the  Vat.  MS.  to  have 
been  ujore-  closely  followed  than  it  really  was, 
though  he  admits  that  the  editors  have  changetl 
the  old  orthography,  and  have  corrected  evident 
mistakes  of  the  copyist.  The  Preface  of  Cardinal 
Carafa  to  the  Latin  tran?lation  published  the  next 
year  (1588)  as  a  complement  to  the  edition  gives  a 
more  correct  account  of  the  matter.  (See  on  this 
subject  Vercellone"s  Preface  to  Card.  Mai's  edition 
of  the  Vat.  MS.,  vol.  i.  p.  vi.,  note,  and  eump. 
Tisclieiidorf 's  Prolerjoni.  to  his  4th  ed.  of  the  Sept., 
p.  Ixxxix.)  It  should  fnrther  be  observed  that  the 
Vat.  MS.  wants  the  larger  part  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  (it  commences  with  the  word  n6\iv,  Gen. 
xlvi.  28),  Ps.  cv.  27-cxxxviii.  6,  and  the  books  of 
Maccaliees.  The  poetical  and  prophetical  books  of 
the  O.  T.  (with  the  exception  of  Job),  and  the 
apocryphal  books  of  Baruch,  Wisdom,  and  ICcclesi- 
asticus,  were  not  collated  for  the  edition  of  Holmes 
and  Parsons.  The  edition  of  Cardinal  Mai  men 
tioned  above  is  unsatisfactory  (comp.  Tischendorf, 
nt  suprii,  p.  Ixxxix.  ff.),  though  we  may  generally 
place  confidence  in  its  readings  where  its  text  dif- 
fers from  that  of  the  Roman  edition.  It  will  be 
wholly  superseded  by  the  magnificent  edition  now 
publishing  at  Rome  under  the  direction  of  Vercel- 
lone,  Cozza,  and  Sergio,  to  be  com])leted  in  six  vols., 
of  which  two  at  least  (one  containing  the  N.  T.) 
have  already  (Feb.  1870)  appeared.  Comp.  the 
art.  New  Test.\.^ik.vt,  vol.  iii.  p.  2121  a.       A. 

Oilier  Editions. 

The  Septuagint  in  Walton's  Polyglott  (1657)  ig 
the  Roman  text,  with  the  various  readings  of  tho 
Codex  Alexandrinus. 

*  The  readings  of  other  MSS.  and  of  the  Com- 
phitensian and  Aldine  editions  are  also  g'.v?i',  and 
Walton  reprints  (vol.  vi.)  the  valuable  critical  iiotes 
to  the  Raman  edition,  and  to  the  Latin  transla- 
tion by  Flaminius  Nobilius  which  accompanied  it. 
The  text  of  tlie  Roman  edition  is  not  very  faith- 
fully reproduced ;  see  the  Prolegomena  to  Bos'a 
edition  of  the  Septuagint  (1709).  A. 

The  Camljridge  edition  (1G05),  (Roman  text,)  ia 
only  valuable  for  the  Preface  by  Pearson. 

An  editioti  of  the  Cod.  Alex,  was  published  liy 
Grnhe  (Oxford,  1707-1720),  but  its  critical  value 
is  far  below  that  of  Baber's.  It  is  printed  in  com- 
mon type,  and  the  editor  has  exercised  his  judg- 
n-.ent  on  the  text,  putting  some  words  of  the  Codex 
in  the  margin,  and  replacing  them  by  what  he 
thought  better  readhigs,  distinguished  by  a  smaller 
type.  This  edition  was  reproduced  by  Brdtiininr 
(Ziirich,  1730  [-32]),  4  vols.  4to,  with  the  vanoua 
readings  of  t^ie  Vatican  text  [the  Roman  edition]. 

The  edition  of  Bos  (Franeq.  1709)  follows  the 
Roman  text,  with  its  Scholia  and  the  various  r(  il- 


2914  SEPTUAGINT 

ingg  given   in   Walton's  Polyglott,  especially  those 
of  the  Cod.  Alex. 

The  valuable  Critical  Edition  of  Holmes,  con- 
tinued Ijy  Parsons,  is  similar  in  plan  to  the  He- 
brew Bible  of  Kennicott;  it  has  the  Roman  text, 
with  a  large  body  of  various  readings  from  numer- 
ous MSS.  and  editions,  Oxford,  1798-1827  [in  5 
vols.,  fol.]. 

*  For  a  full  list  of  the  IMSS.  used,  see  the  end 
of  vol.  V. ;  they  are  described  in  the  introductions 
to  the  difterent  Ijooks.  The  uncials  are  numbered 
I.  to  XIII.,  IX.  also  being  numbered  by  mistake 
294,  and  XIII.,  13.  Nos.  IV.  and  V.  are  really 
only  parts  of  the  same  JIS.  To  these  are  to  be 
ad.ded  Nos.  23,  27,  43,  2.j8,  and  202,  m.nking  17 
uncials  in  all.  The  whole  number  of  cursives,  after 
making  allowance  for  these  which  are  designated 
by  two  different  numbers,  appears  to  be  285;  but 
several  of  these  are  either  mere  transcripts  of  others 
on  the  hst,  or  copied  trom  the  same  archetype. 
Very  few,  if  any,  of  these  M.SS.  contain  the  whole 
of  the  Septuagint.  A. 

The  Oxford  Edition,  by  Cakjhrd,  1848,  has  the 
Roman  text,  with  the  various  readings  of  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus  lielow. 

Tischendor/'s  Editions  (the  2d,  1856,  [3d,  18G0, 
4tli,  1869,])  are  on  the  same  plan;  he  has  added 
readings  from  some  other  ilSS.  discovered  by  him- 
self, with  very  useful  Prolegomena. 

*  Besides  the  readings  of  the  Cod.  Alex.,  he 
has  given  those  of  the  Codex  Friderico-Auyus- 
tnnus,  and  of  the  l>phrem  jMS.  (See  note  b  be- 
low.) The  2d  and  subsequent  editions  contain  the 
Septuagint  version  of  the  book  of  Daniel  in  addition 
to  that  of  Theodotion.  'the  first  edition  (1850) 
having  been  stereotyped,  the   importiint  materials 


«  There  are  some  singular  variations  in  1  Kings 
(see  the  article  on  Kings,  vol.  ii   p.  1-543  f.). 

b  An  uncial  MS.,  brought  by  Tischendorf  Irnni  St. 
Catherine's  Monastery,  and  named  Codex  Siuaitii-u?,  is 
supposed  by  Uim  to  be  as  ancient  as  Cod.  Vaticauus  (11.). 

*  This  iuiportaut  manuscript  was  published  hy 
Tischendorf  at  St.  Petersburg  in  18tj2  iu  4  vols,  folio, 
the  last  containing  the  N.  T.  (For  a  description  of 
the  edition,  see  art.  New  Test.\ment,  iii.  2120  *.)  Of 
the  Old  Testament,  it  contains  1  Chr.  ix  27 -xi  22 ; 
Tobit  ii.  2  to  the  end  ;  Judith,  except  xi.  14-xiii.  8  ; 
1st  and  4th  Mace.  ;  Isaiah  ;  Jer.  i.  1-x.  25  ;  the  Minor 
Prophets  from  Joel  to  Malachi  inclusive  (wanting 
Hosea,  Amos,  Micah);  and  all  the  remaining  poetical 
books  (Psilms,  Prov.,  Eccles.,  Cant.,  Wisdom  of  Sol., 
Ecclus.,  Job).  The  Co'lix  Fn'r/erico-Augiistanus,  dis- 
covered by  Tischendorf  in  1844,  and  published  in  fac- 
simile at  Leipzig  in  1846,  consists  of  43  leaves  of  the 
same  manuscript,  containing  1  Chr.  xi.  22-xix.  17  ; 
Ezr.  ix.  9  •o  the  end  ;  Neh. ;  Esther  ;  Tobit  i.  1-ii.  2  ; 
Jer.  X.  25  to  the  end  ;  Lam  i.  1-ii.  20.  A  few  more 
fragments,  most  of  which  had  been  used  by  the  monks 
of  St.  Catherine  for  binding  MSS.,  contain  small  por- 
tions of  Gen.  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  and  Num.  v.,  vi  ,  vii.,  and 
were  published  by  Tischendoi-f  iu  his  l\]oii.  Sarr.  ined. 
Nov.  Coll.  vol.  ii.  p.  321  (1857),  and  Appnidi.r  Codil. 
Sin.  Vat  Alex.  pp.  3-6  (1867).  The  books  of  Tobit 
and  Judith  iu  the  Siuaitic  MS.  present  a  recension  of 
the  text  differing  very  widely  from  that  in  the  Cudix 
Vatlranus. 

Respecting  the  uncial  MSS.  mentioned  in  the  text 
above,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  fragments  of  the 
(.'oiitx  Cotloniamis  (1.),  containing  part  of  Genesis, 
have  been  published  by  Ti.<chendorf  in  his  Mon.  Sucr. 
iiieil.  Nova  Coll.  vol.  ii.  pp.  95-176  (1857).  'J'lie  new 
edition  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus  (II.)  by  Vercellone  and 
Dthers  has  already  been  referred  to  'I'he  CwUx  Aiii- 
'toiianus  (^ni.),  containing  portions  of  the  Pent,  and 


SEPTUAGINT 

gathered  by  Tischendorf  since  its  publication  han 

not  been  used  (except  to  a  small  extent  in  hia 
4th  edition)  in  the  apparatus  of  various  readings 
which  accompanies  the  text.  For  a  translation  of 
the  P rolcyomenu  to  Tischendorf 's  first  edition,  by 
Mr.  Charles  Short,  see  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct 
1852  and  Jan.  1853.  A. 

Some  convenient  editions  lupe  been  published 
by  JMr.  Ilagster,  one  in  Bvo,  and  others  of  smaller 
size  forming  part  of  his  Polygiott  series  of  Bibles. 
His  text  is  the  Koman. 

The  latest  edition,  by  Mr.  Field  (1859)  differs 
from  any  of  the  preceding.  He  takes  as  his  basis 
the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  but  corrects  all  the  mani- 
fest errors  of  transcription,  by  the  help  of  other 
MSS.;  and  brings  the  dislocated  portions  of  the 
Septuagint  into  agreement  with  the  order  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible." 

dlunusci-ijAs. 

The  various  readings  given  by  Holmes  and 
Parsons,  enable  us  to  judge,  in  some  measure,  of 
the  character  of  the  several  MSS.  and  of  the  degree 
of  their  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  text. 

They  are  distinguished  thus  by  Holmes:  the 
uncial  by  Roman  numerals  [see  the  exceptions 
above],  the  cursive  by  Arabic  figures. 

Among  them  may  be  specially  noted,  with  their 
probaljle  dates  and  estimates  of  value  as  given  by 
Holmes  in  his  Preface  to  the  Pentateuch :  — 

Probable 
UnCIAL.o  d.ite. 

Century. 

I.  CoTTONUMJS.     Brit.  Mus.  (fragments)     .       4 
II.   Vatic.UvUS.     A'at.  Library,  Rome  ...       4 

III.  Ales.\M)RII>us.     Brit.  Mus 6 

VII.  AMBR0SI.4MJS.     Ambros.  Lib.,  Milan  .     .       7 
X.   CoisLiMANUS.     Bibl.  Imp.,  Paris   ...       7 


Joshua,  is  in  course  of  publication  by  Ceriani  in  vol. 
iii.  of  his  Bloniimenta  sacra  el  jirofatia  ex  Codicibus 
prrrsertim  Biblioth.  Ambrosiaiia',  Milan,  1S64  ff.  Tisch- 
endorf assigns  it  to  tlie  5th  century  instead  of  the 
7th  :  and  he  (with  Montfaucon)  regards  the  Codex 
Coisliuianus  fX.)  as  probably  belonging  to  the  6th 
century.     The  latter  MS.  has  the  llexaplir  text. 

The  fragments  of  the  0.  T.  contained  iu  the  Ephrem 
manuscript,  a  palimpsest  of  the  5th  century  belonging 
to  the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris, —  namely,  parts  of 
.lob,  Proverbs.  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  and  Ecclesiasticus,  —  were  published  by  Tisch 
endorf  in  1845.  On  his  edition  of  the  N.  T.  portion 
of  tlie  same  SIS.  (designated  by  the  letter  C),  see  the 
art.  New  Test.^me>t,  vol.  iii.  p.  2121. 

Among  the  uncial  MSS.  collated  for  the  edition  of 
Holmes  and  Parsons,  we  may  mention  further  the 
Codex  Sarrnviiinii.'!  (numbered  by  Holmes  lY.  and  V.), 
of  which  130  leaves  are  preserved  at  Leyden,  k2  at 
Paris,  and  1  at  St.  Petersburg.  It  has  been  published 
in  part  by  Ti.schendorf  in  his  Mon.  Sarr.  intd.  Nova 
Coll.  vol.  iii.  (1860),  —  the  22  Paris  leaves  .are  reserved 
for  vol.  viii.,  — and  is  referred  by  him  to  the  4th  cen- 
tury or  the  beginning  of  the  5th.  This  MS.  is  of 
great  iinportanci  for  the  Hexaplar  text  of  Origen.  It 
contains  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  and  Judges 
The  Codex  jMarr/ialidiii's  (XII.  Holmes)  of  the  7th  cen- 
tury, now  in  the  Vatican  Library,  is  also  an  importiint 
Hexaplar  MS.,  containing  the  I'rophets.  The  part 
containing  Daniel  has  been  published  by  Ti.schendorf 
in  vol.  iv.  of  his  Mmtinn.  (1869).  Another  uncial 
codex  of  the  8th  or  9th  century  which  has  the  Hex- 
aplar text  is  Holmes's  No.  28.  belonging  to  the  Library 
of  St  Mark  in  Venice,  containing  Proverbs  and  all  the 
following  books  of  the  0.  T.,  with  part  of  the  book  of 
Job.  Next  to  the  Vatican,  this  seems  to  have  been 
the  most  important  MS.  used  for  the  Koman  edition 
of  the  Se;  t   (15S71      Sen  .above,  p.  2913  b.    No.  262  U 


SEPTUAGINT 

„  Probable 

Cursive.  date. 

Century. 
16      Medio3US.     Med.  Laurentian  Lib.,  Flor- 

eace 11 

19.     Chigiauus.     Similar  to  Couiplut.   Text 

auJ  108.  118 10 

25.     Mouachiensis.     Munich 10 

58.  Vaticanus  (uBin.  x.).     Vat.  Lib.,  similar 

to  72 13 

59.  Glasguensis 12 

61.  Bodleianus.     Laud  36,  notae  optimae    .  12 

64.  Parisiensis  (11).     Imperial  Library   .      10  or  11 

72.  Venetus.     Maximi  faciendus  ....  13 

75.  Oxoniensis.     Uoiv.  Coll 12 

84.  Vaticanus  (1901),  optimae  notae    ...  11 

,  „_'  t  Ferrarieuses.     These  two  agree    .     .       \  .  , 
lOi.  )  °  (14 

108.  (  Vaticanus  (330)  I  Similar  to  Comp.  (  14 

118.  t  Parisiensis.  Imp.  Lib.  )      Text  and  (19)    [  13 

The  texts  of  these  MSS.  differ  considerably  from 
Bach  other,  and  consequently  differ  in  various  de- 
grees from  the  Hebrew  original. 

Tlie  tbllowino;  are  the  results  of  a  comparison 
of  the  readings  in  the  first  eight  chapters  of  Ex- 
odus :  — 

1.  Several  of  the  ^ISS.  asjree  well  with  the  He- 
brew; others  differ  very  much. 

2.  The  chief  variance  from  the  Hebrew  is  in 
the  addition,  or  omission,  of  words  and  clauses. 

3.  Taking  the  Roman  text  as  the  basis,  there 
are  found  80  places  (a)  where  some  of  the  JISS. 
differ  from  the  Roman  text,  either  by  addition  or 
. amission,  in  nyreement  with  the  I/ebrew ;  25  places 
(0)  where  differences  of  the  same  kind  are  not  in 
ai/reeinent  loiih  the  Ilebreic.  There  is  therefore  a 
large  balance  against  the  Roman  text,  in  point  of 
accordance  with  the  Helirew. 

4.  Those  MSS.  which  have  the  largest  number 
of  differences  of  class  (a)  have  the  smallest  nuu:- 
ber  of  class  (yS).  There  is  evidently  some  strong 
reason  for  this  close  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  in 
these  MSS. 

5.  The  divergence  between  the  extreme  points 
of  the  series  of  MS.S.  may  be  estimated  from  the 
following  statement :  — 


Holmes  and  Parsonss  edition  also  represents  an  uncial 
MS.,  being  the  celebrated  Ziirich  Psalter,  to  be  noticed 
below. 

For  an  account  of  21  other  very  ancient  MSS.  of  the 
Sept.  not  used  by  Holmes,  see  Tischendorf's  Prole- 
Somena  to  liis  4th  edition,  p.  Ivii.  fT.  Many  of  these 
have  been  published  by  Tischendorf  in  vols,  i.-  iv.  and 
vi.  of  his  Mnn.  Sacr.  ined.  Nova  CoU.  (1855-1869), 
and  others  are  destined  for  vol.  viii.  of  the  same  collec- 
tion. The  most  remarkable  of  them  are  the  (1)  Verona 
MS.  of  the  Psalms,  of  the  5th  or  6th  century,  in 
which  the  Oreek  text  is  written  in  Latin  letters,  with 
the  Old  Latin  version  in  a  parallel  column.  This  w,as 
published  by  Blanchinus  (Bianchini)  at  Rome  in  1740, 
as  an  appendix  to  his  Vinlicice  Cminn.  ^criptnranim. 
(2  )  Fragments  of  the  Psalms  on  pnpiinix,  in  the  Brit- 
ish Museum,  ascribed  by  Tischendorf  to  the  4th  cen- 
tury, and  formerly,  at  least,  regarded  by  him  as  the  old- 
est known  Biblical  M^.  They  are  published  in  his 
Moil.  Sacr.  ined.  Nnm  CnlL  vol.  i.  pp.  217-278  (1855). 
(3.)  Palimpsest  fr.igments  of  the  book  of  Numbers  (now 
\\  St.  Petersburg),  of  the  6th  century,  published  by 
Tischendorf  in  his  Mnn.  Sacr.  iiifrl.  Noca  Coll.  vol.  i.  pp. 
61-13S  (1855).  (4.)  Colrx  Tischemlo'finnvs  II.  (Leip- 
lig),  a  palimpsest,  containing  fragments  of  Num.,  Deut., 
Josh.,  and  .fudges,  of  the  7th  century.  Published 
t)y  Tischendorf  in  tl\e  vol.  just  mentioned,  pp.  141- 
'.76.     (5.)  The  Codex   Oxoniensis  (Bodl.  Libr.)  of  the 


SEPTUAGINT 


2915 


72  differs  from  the  Roman  (  in  40  places,  with  Hebrew 

Text I  in    4      "       against    " 

(in  40       "        with         " 
59  d.tto  ditto  I  ;^    9      ,       „„„.  ,^^    „ 

Between  these  and  the  Roman  text  lie  many 
shades  of  variety. 

The  Alexandrine  text  falls  about  halfway  between 

the  two  extremes :  — 

^.„    .      „        -r.  ~     .  (  in  25  places,  with  Hebrew. 

DiffenngfromRomanTextj  .^jg      „     '„,„,„,,« 

The  diagram  below,  drawn  on  a  scale  represent 
ing  the  comparison  thus  instituted  (by  the  test  cf 
agreement  with  the  Hebrew  in  respect  of  adtlitiou* 
or  omissions),  may  help  to  bring  these  sesults  mors 
clearly  into  view. 

The  base-line  R.  T.  represents  thf  L»  .man  test. 


^    < 


M     a 


I      I      I 


a  e 


I    1 


w   g 


I    I    I    I 

I    I    I    I    I    I    I   ^ 

I  I  I  I  I  I  I  7 


I  I 


I  I  I 


I  I 


I  I  i  I 


The  above  can  only  be  taken  as  an  approxima- 
tion, the  range  of  comparison  being  limited.     A 


8th  century,  discovered  by  Tischendorf  in  1853,  and 
publislied  in  his  Mon.  Sacr.  ined.  NoL-a  CoU  vol.  ii. 
pp.  179-308  (1857).  It  contains  the  larger  part  of 
Genesis.  (6)  Codex  Cri/ptn/ermtensis,  a  p,Tlimp!;est 
of  the  7th  century,  conUiining  fragments  of  most  of 
the  prophetical  books,  belonging  to  the  monastery  of 
Grottii  Ferrata  near  Rome,  and  published  by  Giuseppe 
Cozza  in  his  Sacrorum  Biblioruni  vetusli.'^s.  Fra^menta 
Graca  et  Latina  ex  paliir}}isestis  Codd.  Biblioth.  Cryp- 
toferratensis  eriita^  etc.,  Romae,  1867.  •  The  Zurich 
Psalter  (No.  262,  Holmes),  a  beautiful  MS.  in  silver 
letters  with  the  titles  in  gold,  ou  purple  vellum,  has 
also  just  been  published  by  Ti-^chendorf  in  his  Mon. 
Siirr.  ined.  Nova  CoU.  vol.  iv.  (1869). 

For  further  information  respecting  the  MSS.  of 
the  Septuagint  one  may  consult,  in  addition  to  thii 
Prolegomena  of  Holmes  and  Parsons  and  Tischendorf, 
F.  A.  Stroth"s  Vnsurh  eines  Verzeichnisx  der  Hnn  I- 
schriften  der  LXX  ,  in  Eichhorn's  Reperlnriiini.  v 
94  ff.,  viii.  177  If,  -xi.  45  ff.  (1779,  1780,  1782);  thy 
Preface  to  Lagarde's  Genesis  Grrr.c.i\  Lips.  1868  ;  and 
the  review  of  that  work  by  Kamphau.<!en  in  the  Theol. 
Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1869.  p.  721  ff.  Valuable  contributions 
towards  a  classification  of  these  .MSS.,  witli  i-efersnce 
to  the  character  of  their  text,  have  been  made  by  O 
F.  Fritzsche  in  the  worlis  referred  to  at  tbu  endf>f  thil 
article.  A. 


2916 


SEPTUAGINT 


more  extended  comparison  might  enable  us  to 
discniuinate  the  several  MSS.  more  accurately,  but 
the  result  would,  perhaps,  hardly  repay  the  labor. 

But  whence  these  varieties  of  text?  Was  the 
Version  at  fir  it  more  in  accordance  with  the  He- 
brew, as  ill  72  and  59,  and  did  it  afterwards  de- 
geiieiate  into  the  less  accurate  state  of  the  Codex 
Vaticanus  ? 

Or  was  the  Version  at  first  less  accurate,  like  the 
Vatican  text,  and  afterwards  brought,  by  critical 
labors,  into  the  more  accurate  form  of  the  JNISS. 
which  stand  highest  in  the  scale? 

History  supplies  the  answer. 

Hierouymus  {Ep.  ad  Suiiiam  et  Freielam,  toni. 
ii.  p.  G27)  speaks  of  two  copies,  one  older  and  less 
accurate,  Kotvr],  fragments  of  which  are  believed  to 
be  vppresented  by  the  still  extant  remains  of  the 
old  Latin  Version ;  the  other  more  faithful  to  the 
Hebrew,  which  be  took  as  the  basis  of  his  own  new 
Latin  Version. 

"  In  quo  ilhid  breviter  adnioneo,  ut  sciatis,  aliam 
esse  editionem,  quam  Origenes,  et  Csesariensis  Eu- 
Bebius,  omnesque  Grsecise  tractatores  kolv^u,  id 
est,  communem,  apiiellant,  atque  vulyntam,  et  a 
plerisque  nunc  AovKiavbs  dicitur;  aliam  LXX.  iu- 
terpretum,  quae  et  in  i^anKoTs  codicibus  reperitur, 
et  a  nobis  in  Latinum  sermonem  fideliter  versa  est, 
et  Hierosolyma;  atque  in  Orientis  Ecclesiis  deean- 
tatur  ....  Koivij  autem  ista,  hoc  est.  com- 
munis editio,  ipsa  est  quae  et  LXX.  sed  hoc  interest 
inter  utramque,  quod  koiv^  pro  locis  et  temporibus, 
et  pro  voluntate  scriptoruin,  vetus  corrupta  editio 
est;  ea  autem  quse  habetur  in  e^airAo7s,  et  quam 
nos  vertin.us,  ipsa  est  quae  in  eruditorum  libris  in- 
corrupta  et  immaculata  LXX.  iiiterpretum  trans- 
latio  reser\-atur.  Quicquid  ergo  ab  hoc  discrepat, 
uulli  duljium  est,  quin  ita  et  ab  Hebra;orum  auc- 
toritate  discordet." 

In  another  place  {Prmfaf.  in  Parallp.  tom.  i. 
col.  102-2)  he  speaks  of  the  corruption  of  the  an- 
cient translation,  and  the  great  variety  of  copies 
used  ill  ditf'erent  countries:  — 

"  Cum  germana  ilia  antiquaque  translatio  cor- 
rupta sit."  ....  <' Alexandria  et  jEgyptus 
in  LXX.  suis  Hesychium  laudant  auctorem:  Con- 
gtantiiiopoiis  usque  Antiochiam  Luciani  Jlartyris 
exemplaria  probat  ;  media;  inter  has  provinciiB 
Pala;stinos  codices  legunt:  quos  ah  Origene  elab- 
orates Eusebiiis  et  Paniphilus  vulgaverunt:  to- 
tusque  orbis  hac  inter  Be  contraria  varietate  com- 
pugnat." 

The  labors  of  Origen,  designed  to  remedy  the 
conflict  of  discordant  copies,  are  best  described  in 
his  own  words  {Comment,  in  Matt.  tom.  i.  p.  381, 
ed.  Iluet.). 

"  Now  there  is  plainly  a  great  diflference  in  the 
copies,  either  from  the  carelessness  of  scribes,  or 
the  rash  and  mischievous  correction  of  the  text  by 
others,  or  from  the  additions  or  omissions  made  by 
others  at  their  own  discretion.  The  discrepance 
in  the  copies  of  the  Old  Covenant,  we  have  found 
means  to  remedy,  by  the  help  of  God,  using  as  our 
criterion  ilie  other  versions.  In  all  passages  of  the 
LXX.  rendered  doubtful  by  the  discordance  of  the 
copies,  forminq  a  judgment  from  the  other  ver- 
sions, we  have  preserved  what  agreed  with  them ; 
and  some  words  we  have  marked  with  an  obelus  as 
not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  not  venturing  to  omit 
them  entirely;  and  some  we  have  added  with  aster- 
isks affixed,  to  show  that  they  are  not  found  in  the 
LXX.,  but  added  by  us  from  the  other  versions,  in 
icc<»rdiince  with  the  Hebrew." 


SEPTUAGIKT 

The  other  e/cS<((T6is,  or  versions,  are  those  ol 
Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus. 

Origen,  Coinm.  in  Joann.  (tom.  ii.  p.  131,  ed. 
Huet. ).  "  The  same  errors  in  names  may  be  ob- 
served frequently  in  tlie  Law  and  the  Prophets,  as 
we  have  learnt  by  diligent  inquiry  of  the  Hebrews, 
and  by  comparing  our  copies  with  their  copies,  af 
represented  in  the  still  uncorrupted  versions  of 
Aquila,  Theodotion.  and  Symmachus." 

It  appears,  from  tliese  and  other  passages,  that 
Origen,  finding  great  discordance  in  the  sever?! 
copies  of  the  LXX.,  laid  this  version  side  by  side 
with  the  other  three  translations,  and,  taking  their 
accordance  trith  each  other  as  the  test  of  their 
agreement  with  the  Hebrew,  marked  the  copy  of 
the  LXX.  with  an  obelos,  -~,  where  he  found  su- 
perfluous words,  and  sujiplied  the  deficiencies  of  the 
LXX.  by  words  taken  from  the  other  versions,  with 
an  asterisk,  *,  prefixed. 

The  additions  to  the  LXX.  were  chiefly  made 
from  Theodotion  (Hieronymus,  Prolog,  in  Genesin 
tom.  1). 

"  Quod  ut  auderem,  Origenis  me  studium  pro- 
vocavit,  qui  Editioni  antiquae  translationem  Theo- 
dotionis  miscuit,  asterisco  *  et  obelo  -=-,  id  est, 
Stella  et  veru,  opus  omne  distingueiis:  dum  aut 
ilhicescere  facit  qu£e  minus  ante  fuerant,  aut  super- 
flua  quaeque  jugulat  et  confodit "  (see  also  Pretf. 
in  Job,  p.  705). 

From  Eusebius,  as  quoted  below,  we  learn  that 
this  work  of  Origen  was  called  TerpaTrAa,  the  four- 
fold Bible.  The  specimen  which  follows  is  giveu 
by  Jlontfaucon. 

Gen.  i.  1. 


AKYAA2. 

2VM- 
MAX02. 

010. 

®eo8oTUi)V. 

iv  Kei^aXaiw 

ev  ipxrj 

ev  ipxri 

if  apxyi 

eKTiaev  o 

CKTia-iV  0 

eTTOtrjcrei' 

eKTiffef  6 

©eb;  aiiv  tov 

©ebs  Tov 

6  ©cos 

©COS  TOV 

ovpai'ov  KaL 

ovpavov  (cai 

TOv  ovpai'ov 

ovpavov  Kai 

<TVV   TTJV  yr)!'. 

Tiji-  yi)!/. 

(cai  Trjv  yr)V. 

TTivyrjv. 

But  this  was  only  the  earlier  and  the  smaller 
portion  of  Origen's  labors;  he  rested  not  till  he 
had  acquired  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  and  com- 
pared the  Septuagint  directly  with  the  Ilelnew 
copies.  Euseliius  (f/ist.  Keel.  vi.  16,  p.  217,  ed. 
'N'ales.)  thus  descilies  the  labors  which  led  to  the 
greater  work,  the  Uexapla ;  the  last  clause  of  the 
passage  refers  to  the  Tetrapla:  — 

"  So  careful  was  Oricren's  investigation  of  the 
sacred  oracles,  that  he  learnt  the  Hebrew  tongue, 
and  made  himself  master  of  the  original  Scriijtures 
received  among  the  .Jews,  in  the  Hebrew  letters; 
and  reviewed  the  versions  of  the  other  interpreters 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  besides  the  LXX. ;  and 
discovered  some  translations  varying  from  the  well- 
known  versions  of  .Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theo- 
dotion, which  he  searched  out,  and  brought  to  light 
from  their  long  concealment  in  neglected  corners 
.  .  and  in  his  Uexapla,  after  the  four 
principal  versions  of  the  Psalms,  added  a  fifth,  yea, 
a  sixth  and  seventh  translation,  stating  that  one 
of  these  was  found  in  a  cask  at  .Jericho,  in  the  time 
of  Antoninus,  son  of  Severus:  and  liringint;  these 
all  into  one  view,  and  dividing  them  in  columns, 
over  against  one  another,  togetlier  with  the  Hebrew 
text,  he  left  to  us  the  work  called  Hexapla ;  having 
arran!j;ed  separately,  in  the  Tetrapla,  the  versions 
of  .\quila,  Symniacims,  and  Theodotijn,  togethei 
with  the  version  of  the  Seventy." 


SEPTUAGINT 

So  Jerome  (in  Cnlnl.  Script.  Eccl.  torn.  iv.  P.  2, 
p.  116):  "  Quis  igiiorat,  quod  tantum  in  Scrip- 
turis  diviiiis  habuerit  studii,  ut  etiam  Hebroeam 
linguam  contra  setatis  gentisque  suae  naturam 
edisceret;  et  acceptia  I^XX.  interpretibus,  alias 
qtioque  editiones  in  unum  volumen  coiigregaret : 
Aquiloe  scilicet  Pontici  proselyti,  et  Theodotionis 
Ebiotisei,  et  Symmachi  ejusdem  dogmatis.  . 
Prseterea  Quiiitam  et  Sextain  et  Septiniain  Edi- 
tionein,  quas  etiam  nos  de  ejus  Bil)liotheca  halie- 
nius,  miro  labore  reperit,  et  cum  caiteris  editiouibus 
coniparavit." 


SEPTUAGINT 


201' 


From  another  passage  of  Jerome  (in  Hpift.  nd 
Titum,  torn.  iv.  P.  1,  p.  437)  we  learu  that  in  the 
Hexapla  the  Hebrew  text  was  placed  in  one  column 
in  Hebrew  letters,  in  the  next  column  in  Greek 
letters :  — 

"  Unde  et  nobis  curse  fuit  omnes  veteris  legis 
libros,  quos  vir  doctus  Adamantius  (Origeiies)  in 
Hexapla  digesserat,  de  Cwsariensi  Bibliotlieca  de- 
scriptos,  ex  ipsis  authenticis  emeudare.  in  qiiiljus  et 
ipsa  Hel)rsea  propriis  sunt  characteribus  verba  de- 
scripta,  et  Griecis  hteris  traraite  expressa  vicino." 


Hexapla  (iios.  xi.  1). 


To  EBPAIKON. 

To  EBP. 
EAAHNIKOIS  rP. 

AKYAA2. 

SYMMAX02. 

o;  o. 

bvnW^  1P3  "^3 

X'  "fP 

OTi  irais 

OTI  TTOLIS 

OTI  urjirios 

innnsi 

laparjK 

I(7par)A, 

l(XpaT]\ 

IcrpariA  Kai 

oveal3r]ou 

Kui  TiyaTrrjaa 

Kai 

g-yo)  7)ya.iry\(Ta 

D''-i!rn7:2'i 

ovfxifjLicrpaiij. 

auToy,  Kui 

7)yaTrriiJ.evos 

avTou  Kai 

"•snb  \ns-ip 

Kapadi 

airo  AiyvwTov 

e|  AiyvTTTOv 

€|  Al7l'7rTOU 

Ae/Savi. 

fKaAecra 

KeKATjTat 

KeK\T]Tai 

TOV  VIOV  IXOV, 

vtos  /xov. 

vios  fiov. 

eEOAOTlON, 


OTI  vrj-nios 

IffparjA 

Kai  T]yaTn]ffa 

avTov  Kai 

e/coAecra 

UIOl'  fxOl, 

€|  Ai7U7rT0v. 


It  should  here  be  mentioned  that  some  take  the 
Tetrapln  as  denoting,  not  a  separate  work,  but 
only  that  portion  of  the  Hexapla  which  contains  the 
four  columns  filled  by  the  four  principal  Greek  ver- 
sions. Valesius  {Notes  on  F.useblus,  p.  lOG)  thinks 
that  the  Tetrapla  was  formed  by  taking  those  four 
columns  out  of  the  Hexapla,  and  making  tliem  into 
a  separate  book. 

But  the  testimony  of  Origen  himself  (i.  381, 
ii.  131),  above  cited,  is  clear  that  he  formed  one 
corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint,  by  comparison  of 
the  three  other  Greek  versions  (A,  2,  0),  tisinff 
(hem  as  his  criterion.  If  he  had  known  Hebrew 
at  this  time,  would  he  have  confined  himself  to  the 
Greek  versions?  Would  he  have  appealed  to  the 
Hebrew,  as  represented  by  Aquila,  etc.  ?  It  seems 
rery  evident  that  he  must  have  learnt  Hebrew  at  a 
later  time,  and  therefore  that  the  Hexapla,  which 
rests  on  a  comparison  with  the  Hebrew,  nuist  have 
followed  the  Tetra[)Ia,  which  was  formed  by  the 
help  of  Greek  versions  only. 

The  words  of  Eusebius  also  (//.  E.  vi.  IG)  ap- 
pear to  distinguish  very  clearly  between  the  Hex- 
apla and  Tetrapla  as  separate  works,  and  to  imply 
that  the  Tetrapla  preceded  the  Hexapla. 

The  order  of  precedence  is  not  a  mere  literary 
question;  the  view  above  stated,  which  is  supported 
by  Montfaucon,  Ussher,  etc.,  strengthens  the  force 
of  Origen's  example  as  a  diligent  student  of  Scrip- 
ture, showing  his  increasing  desire  integros  acce- 
clere  fontes. 

Tlie  labors  of  Origen,  pursued  through  a  long 
course  of  years,  first  in  procuring  by  personal  travel 
the  materials  for  his  great  work,  and  then  "in  com- 
paring and  arranging  them,  made  him  worthy  of 
the  name  Adamnntius. 

But  what  was  the  result  of  all  this  toil  ?  Where 
is  now  his  great  work,  the  Hexapla,  prepared  with 
io  much  care,  and  written  by  so  many  skillful 
Dands?  Too  large  for  transcription,  too  early  by 
jenturios  for  printing  (which  alone  could  have  saved 
it),  it  was  destined  to  a  short  existence.  It  was 
brought  from  Tyre  and  laid  up  in  the  Library  at 
L'tesarea,  and  there  nrobably  perished  by  the  flames, 
4.  i>.  653. 


One  copy,  however,  had  been  made,  by  Pam- 
philus  and  Euseliius,  of  the  column  containing  the 
corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint,  \vith  Origen's 
asterisks  and  obeli,  and  the  letters  denotuig  from 
which  of  the  other  translators  each  addition  vas 
taken.  This  copy  is  probably  the  ancestor  of  those 
Codices  which  now  approach  most  nearly  to  the 
Hebrew,  and  are  entitled  lltxiipitr  ;  but  in  the 
course  of  transcription  the  distinguishing  marks 
have  disappeared  or  become  confused ;  and  we  have 
I  thus  a  text  composed  partly  of  the  old  Septuagint 
I  text,  jxirtly  of  insertions  from  the  three  other  chief 
!  Greek  versions,  especially  that  of  Thoodotion. 

The  facts  above  related  agree  well  with  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  JISS.  before  stated.  As  we  have 
Codices  derived  from  the  Hexaplar  text,  e.  //.  72, 
59,  58;  and  at  the  other  extreme  the  Codex  Vati- 
canus  (II.),  proliably  representing  nearly  the  an- 
cient uncorrected  text,  koivt]'-,  so  between  these  we 
find  texts  of  intermediate  character  in  the  Codex 
Alexandrinns  (HI),  and  others,  which  may  per 
haps  be  derived  from  the  text  of  the  Tetra[)la. 

To  these  main  sources  of  our  existing  MSS.  must 
be  added  the  recensions  of  the  Septuagint  mentioned 
by  Jerome  and  others,  namely,  those  of  Lucian  of 
.4ntioch  and  llesycliius  of  Egypt,  not  long  after  the 
time  of  Origen.  We  have  seen  above  that  each  of 
these  had  a  wide  range ;  that  of  Lucian  (sujiposed 
to  be  corrected  by  the  Hebrew)  in  the  churches 
from  Constantinople  to  .\ntioch;  that  of  llesychius 
in  Alexandria  and  Egypt;  while  the  churches  ly- 
ing between  these  two  regions  used  the  Hexaplar 
text  copied  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  (Hieron. 
tom.  i.  col.  1022). 

The  great  variety  of  text  in  the  existing  MSS.  is 
thus  accounted  for  by  the  variety  of  sources  from 
which  they  have  descended. 

I.  History  of  the  \Er.«T-^N. 

We  have  now  to  pursue  our  course  upwards,  by 
such  guidance  as  we  can  find.     The  ancient  text, 

I  "ailed  KoivT),  which  was  current  before  the  time  o) 

I  (Jritjen,  whence  came  it? 

I  We  find  it  quoted  by  the  early  Christiaj;  Fathers, 
iu    Greek  by  Clemens    Romanus.  Jutiii   MartvT 


2918  SEPTUAGTNT 

Irenteus;  in  Latin  versions  by  Tertullian  and 
Cyprian ;  we  find  it  questioned  as  inaccurate  by 
tiie  Jews  (Just.  JMartyr,  AjjvL),  and  provoking 
tbeni  to  obtain  a  better  version  (hence  the  versions 
of  Aquila,  etc.);  we  find  it  quoted  by  Josephus 
and  Philo:  and  thus  we  are  brousrht  to  the  time 
of  tiie  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  whose  writings  are 
full  of  citations  and  references,  and  imbued  with 
the  phraseology  of  tlie  Septuagint. 

But  when  we  attempt  to  trace  it  to  its  origin, 
our  path  is  beset  with  difficulties.  Before  we  enter 
on  this  doubtful  ground  we  may  pause  awhile  to 
mark  the  wide  circulation  which  the  Version  had 
obtained  at  the  Christian  era,  and  the  important 
services  it  rendered,  first,  in  jjreparing  the  way  of 
t;ni!iST,  secondly,  in  promoting  the  spread  of  the 
Gospel. 

1.  This  version  was  highly  esteemed  by  the  Hel- 
lenistic Jews  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  An  an- 
nual festival  was  held  at  Alexandria  in  remem- 
brance of  the  completion   of  the  work  (Philo,  De 

I'ila  Mosis,  lib.  ii.).  The  manner  in  which  it  is 
quoted  by  the  writers  of  the  New  ■Jestameiit  proves 
that  it  had  been  long  in  general  use.  Wherever, 
by  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  or  by  colonization, 
tlie  Greek  language  jirevailed:  wherever  .lews  were 
settled,  and  the  attention  of  the  neighboring  Gen- 
tiles was  drawn  to  their  wondrous  history  and  law, 
there  was  found  the  Septuagint,  which  thus  be- 
came, by  Divine  Providence,  the  means  of  spread- 
ing widely  the  knowledge  of  the  one  true  God,  and 
his  promises  of  a  Saviour  to  come,  throughout  the 
nations;  it  was  indeed  ostivm  c/enfihus  ad  Cliris- 
tuiii.  To  the  wide  dispersion  of  this  version  we 
may  ascribe  in  great  measure  that  general  persua- 
sion which  prevailed  over  the  whole  East  { per  ere- 
buerat  orieiite  Mo)  of  the  near  a]iproach  of  the 
Redeemer,  and  led  the  JIagi  to  recognize  the  star 
which  proclaimed  the  birth  of  the  King  of  the  Jews. 

2.  Not  less  wide  was  the  influence  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint in  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.  Many  of 
those  Jews  who  were  assemliled  at  Jerusalem  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  from  Asia  Minor,  from  Africa, 
from  Crete  and  Rome,  used  the  Greek  language; 
the  testimonies  to  Christ  from  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  came  to  them  in  the  words  of  the  Septua- 
gint; St.  Stephen  probably  quoted  from  it  in  his 
address  to  the  Jews;  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  was 
reading  the  Septuagint  version  of  Lsaiah  in  his  char- 
iot (.  ...  coy  TTpS^arov  eVl  crrpay^iv  ijxdv  ••••); 
they  who  were  scattered  abroad  went  forth  into 
many  lands  speaking  of  Christ  in  (ireek,  and  point- 
ing to  the  things  written  of  Him  in  the  Greek  ver- 
sion of  Moses  and  the  I'rophets;  from  Antioch  and 
Alexandria  in  the  East  to  Home  and  Massilia  in  the 
"West  the  voice  of  the  Gosjiel  sounded  forth  in 
Greek;  Clemens  of  Rome,  Ignatius  at  Antioch, 
Justin  Martyr  in  Palestine,  Irenfeus  at  Lyons,  and 
many  more,  taught  and  wrote  in  the  words  of 
the  Greek  Scriptures  ;  and  a  still  wider  range 
was  given  to  them  by  the  Latin  version  (or  ver- 
«ons)  made  from  the  LXX.  for  the  use  of  the  Latin 
Churches  in  Italy  and  Africa;  and  in  later  times 
Dy  the  mmierous  other  versions  into  the  tongues  of 
^gypt,  ^Ethiopia,  Armenia,  Arabia,  and  Georgia. 
Kor  a  long  period  the  Septuagint  was  the  Old 
Testament  of  the  far  larger  part  of  the  Christian 
Church." 


«  On  this  part  of  the  subject  see  an  Hul.<ean  Prize 
Sesay,  by  W.  R.  Churton,  On  t/tp.  Injlucnct  of  the 
\XX.  on  tUe  Progress  of  Christianity. 


SEPTUAGINT 

Let  us  now  try  to  ascend  towards  the  source. 
Can  we  find  any  clear,  united,  consistent  testinionj 
to  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint?  (1)  Where  and 
(2)  when  was  it  made'i*  and  (3)  by  whom?  and 
(■i)  whence  the  title?  The  testimonies  of  ancient 
writers,  or  (to  speak  more  properly)  their  tradi- 
tions, have  been  weighed  and  examined  by  many 
learned  men,  and  the  result  is  well  described  by 
Pearson  {Prcef.  ad  LXX.,  16G5): 

"  Neque  vero  de  ejus  antiquitate  dignitateque 
quicquam  imprtesentiarum  dicemus,  de  quibus  viri 
docti  nuilta,  hoc  praisertim  saeculo,  scripsere;  qui 
cum  maxime  inter  se  dissentiant,  iii/iil  adhuc  salts 
ctrli  el  explorati  vkhntui-  ti-ai/idisse.'" 

1.  The  only  point  in  wiiich  all  agree  is  that 
Alexandria  was  the  birthplace  of  the  Version :  the 
Septuagint  begins  where  the  Nile  ends  his  course. 

2.  On  one  other  point  there  is  a  near  agree- 
ment, namely,  as  to  time,  that  the  ^'ersion  waa 
made,  or  at  least  commenced,  in  the  time  of  the 
earlier  Ptolemies,  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury B.  c. 

3.  By  ivJuym  urns  it  made  ?  The  following 
are  some  of  the  traditions  current  among  the 
Fathers :  — 

Irenaeus  (lib.  iii.  c.  24)  relates  that  Ptolemy 
Lagi,  wishing  to  adorn  his  Alexandrian  Library 
with  the  writings  of  all  nations,  requested  trom  the 
Jews  of  Jerusalem  a  Greek  version  of  their  Scrip- 
tures ;  that  they  sent  seventy  elders  well  skilled  in 
the  Scriptures  and  in  later  languages;  that  the 
king  separated  them  from  one  another,  and  bade 
them  all  translate  the  several  books.  When  they 
came  together  before  Ptolemy  and  showed  their 
versions,  (iod  was  glorified,  for  they  all  agreed 
exactly,  from  beginning  to  end,  in  every  phrase 
and  word,  so  that  all  men  may  know  thid  the 
Scriptures  are  translated  by  the  insjnndion  of 
God. 

Justin  Martyr  (Cohort,  ad  Grcecos,  p.  34)  gives 
the  same  account,  and  adds  that  he  was  taken  to 
see  the  cells  in  which  the  interpreters  worked. 

Epiphanius  says  that  the  translators  were  divided 
into  pairs,  in  36  cells,  each  pair  being  provided 
with  two  scribes;  and  that  36  versions,  agreeing 
in  every  point,  were  produced,  by  the  gift  if  the. 
Holy  Spirit  (De  Pond,  et  Mens.  cap.  iii.-vi.). 

Among  the  Latin  Fathers  Augustine  adheres  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  translators:  "  Non  antem 
secundum  LXX.  interpretes,  qui  etiam  ipsi  divino 
Spiritu  interpretati,  ob  hoc  aliter  videntur  nonnuUa 
dixisse;  ut  ad  spiritualem  sensum  scrutandum  ma- 
gis  admoneretur  lectoris  intentio  .  .  .  ."  [De 
Docir.  Christ,  iv.  15). 

But  Jeronje  boldly  throws  aside  the  whole  story 
of  the  cells  and  the  inspiration :  "  Et  nescio  quis 
primus  auctor  Septuaginta  cellulas  Alexandrise 
mendacio  suo  extruxerit,  quibus  divisi  eadem  scrip- 
titarent,  cum  Aristieus  ejusdem  Ptolema?i  Oirepaa- 
irtffTTts,  et  nudto  post  tempore  .Josephiis,  nihil  tal<» 
retulerint:  sed  in  una  basilica  congregates,  contu 
lisse  scribant,  non  prophetasse,  Aliud  est  enim 
vatem,  aUud  esse  interpretem.  Ibi  spiritus  ventura 
praedicit;  hie  eruditio  et  verborum  copia  ea  quse 
intelligit  transfert  "  (Prtef.  ad  Pent.}. 

The  decision  between  these  conflicting  reports  as 
to  the  inspiration  may  be  best  made  by  careful 
study  of  the  Version  itself. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Jerome,  while  rejecting 
the  stories  of  others,  refers  to  the  relation  of  .\ri8 
t£eus,  or  Aristeas,  and  to  Josephus,  the  fcrmer  b«" 
ing  followed  by  the  latter. 


SEPTUAGINT 

Thi*  (so-called)  letter  of  Aristeas  to  his  brother 
Philocrates  is  still  extant;  it  may  be  found  at  the 
begiuiiiii<;  of  the  folio  volume  of  Hody  (Z>e  B'Mi- 
orum  Texiibus  OriijiihtHijus,  etc.,  Oxon.  jidccv.), 
ftiid  separately  in  a  small  volume  publislied  at  Ox- 
ford (1G'J2).  [t  gives  a  splendid  account  of  the 
orij^in  of  the  Septuagint;  of  theemliassy  and  pres- 
ents sent  by  King  l^tolemy  to  the  high-priest  at 
Jerusalem,  by  the  advice  of  Demelrtns  P/udn-eus, 
lug  librarian,  50  talents  of  gold  and  70  talents  of 
silver,  etc.;  the  .Jewish  slaves  wiiom  he  set  free, 
paying  their  ransom  himself;  the  letter  of  tiie 
king;  the  answer  of  the  high-priest;  the  choosing 
of  six  interpreters  from  each  of  the  twelve  tribes, 
and  their  names;  the  copy  of  the  Law,  in  leffers 
of  gold;  their  arrival  at  Alexandria  on  the  anni- 
versary of  the  king's  victory  over  Antigoiuis ;  the 
feast  prepared  for  the  seventy-two,  wliich  continued 
for  seven  days;  the  questions  proposed  to  eacli  of 
the  interpreters  in  turn,  with  the  answers  of  each; 
their  lodging  by  the  sea-shore;  and  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  work  in  seventy-two  days,  by 
conference  imd  com/ririson. 

OJ  Srj  fireriKovv  iKaara  (xifxipcava  wotovvres 
irpbs  kauTovs  tcu^  avTi^jKals,  rh  5e  e/c  t^? 
ffu^acpajvia?  yiv6i.i.^vov  Trpen6vrr>is  ava.-Ypa<pris  ou- 
Tois  irvyxafe  irapa  tov  Arj/xriTptov'   .... 

The  king  rejoiced  greatly,  and  commanded  the 
books  to  be  carefully  kept ;  gave  to  each  three  robes, 
two  talents  of  gold,  etc. ;  to  Kleazar  tlie  higli-priest 
he  sent  ten  silver-footed  tables,  a  cup  of  thirty 
talents,  etc.,  and  begged  him  to  let  any  of  the 
interpreters  who  wished  come  and  see  him  again, 
for  he  loved  to  have  such  men  and  to  .spend  his 
wealth  upon  tliein. 

This  is  the  story  which  proliably  gave  to  this 
version  the  title  of  tlie  Se/ifufifjinf.  It  differs  from 
the  later  accounts  ,'iliove  cited,  being  more  embel- 
lished, but  less  marvelous.  It  speaks  much  of 
royal  pomp  and  muniticence,  but  says  nvtiiing  of 
inspiraiiun.  The  trinsl.itors  met  together  and  con- 
ferred, and  produced  the  l)est  version  they  could 

A  simpler  account,  anil  probably  more  genuine, 
is  that  given  by  Aristobulus  (2d  century  h.  c.  )  in 
a  fragment  preserved  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
(Stromatfi,  lib.  v.  p.  5U5)  and  by  Eusebius  {Privp. 
Evang.  bk.  xiii.  c.  12):  — 

"  It  is  manifest  that  Plato  has  followed  our  Law, 
and  studied  diligently  all  its  particulars.  Lor  Ije- 
fore  Demetrius  I'halereus  a  translation  had  been 
made,  by  otliers,  of  tlie  history  of  the  Hebrews' 
going  forth  out  of  Kgypt,  and  of  all  that  happened 
to  tliem,  and  of  the  conquest  of  the  land,  and  of 
the  exposition  of  the  whole  Law.  Hence  it  is 
manifest  that  the  aforesaid  pliilosopher  borrowed 
many  things  ;  for  he  was  very  learned,  as  was  Py- 
thagoras, who  also  transferred  many  of  our  doc- 
trines into  his  system.  15ut  the  entire  tnuislation 
of  our  whole  Law  (^  5e  oKi\  ipp.7iveia  tSiv  3ia  tov 
v6jj.ov  iroLvrotiu)  was  made  in  the  time  of  the  king 
named  Philadelphus,  a  man  of  greater  zeal,  under 
the  direction  of  Demetrius  Phalereus."  a 

This  proliably  expresses  the  belief  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  2d  century  h.  c.,  namely,  that  some 
porti(>ns  of  the  Jewish  liistory  had  been  publisiied 
in  Greek  before  Demetrius,  but  that  in  his  time 
and  under  his  direction  the  whole  Law  was  trans- 
lated :  and  this  agrees  with  the  story  of  Aristeas. 

<•  Some  doubts  have  been  raise  1  of  the  genuineness 
■ti  this  fragment,  but  it  is  well  defended  ky  Valcken:ier 
'Diatribe,  dt  Aristobulo  Judao). 


SEPTUAGINT 


2919 


The  Prologue  of  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  Son 
of  Sirach  (ascribed  to  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Phys- 
con,  about  133  n.  c.)  makes  mention  of  "  the  Law 
itself,  the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books  '• 
having  been  translated  from  the  Hebrew  into 
another  tongue. 

Tlie  letter  of  Aristeas  was  received  as  genuine 
and  true  for  many  centuries;  by  Josephus  and  Je- 
rome, and  by  learned  men  in  modern  times.  Lhe 
first  who  expressed  doubts  were  Liul.  de  Vive3 
(Note  on  Augustin.  J)e  Cicit.  Dei,  xviii.  42)  and 
Julius  Scaliger,  who  boldly  declared  his  belief  that 
it  was  a  forgery:  "«  Jutkeo  quudam  Arisieie  nom- 
ine confeclam  esse ;"  and  the  gener.al  belief  of 
scholars  now  is,  that  it  was  the  work  of  soii'e  AI 
exandrian  Jew,  whether  with  the  object  of  fcnhan- 
c'.ng  the  dignity  of  his  Law,  or  the  credit  of  the 
Greek  version,  or  for  the  meaner  purpose  of  gain. 
The  age  in  which  the  letter  of  Aristeas  makes  its 
appearance  was  fertile  in  such  fictitious  writings 
(see  Bentley  on  Phalnris,  p.  85,  ed.  Dyce). 

"  The  passage  in  Galen  that  I  refer  to  is  this 
'  When  the  Attali  and  the  Ptolemies  were  in  emu- 
lation about  their  libraries,  the  knavery  of  forging 
books  and  titles  begati.  For  there  were  those 
that,  to  enhance  the  price  of  their  books,  put  the 
nanfes  of  great  authors  before  them,  and  so  sold 
them  to  those  princes.'  " 

It  is  worth  while  to  look  through  the  letter  of 
Aristeas,  that  the  reader  may  see  for  liimself  how 
exactly  the  characters  of  the  writing  corresjiond  to 
those  of  the  fictitious  writings  of  the  Sophists,  so 
ably  exposed  by  Bentley. 

Here  are  the  same  kind  of  errors  and  anachro- 
nisms in  history,  the  same  embellishments,  eminent 
characters  and  great  events,  splendid  giits  of  gold 
and  silver  and  purple,  of  which  the  writers  of  fic- 
tion were  so  lavish.  These  are  well  exposed  by 
Hody ;  and  we  of  later  times,  with  our  inherited 
wisdom,  wonder  how  such  a  .story  could  have  ob- 
tained credit  with  scholars  of  former  days. 

"  What  clumsie  cheats,  those  Sibylline  oracles 
now  extant,  and  Aristeas'  story  of  the  Septuagint, 
passed  without  contest,  even  among  many  learned 
men  "  (Bentley  on  P/iidaris,  Introd.  p.  8.3). 

But  the  Pseudo-Aristeas  had  a  basis  of  fact  for 
his  fiction;  on  three  points  of  his  story  there  is  no 
material  difference  of  opinion,  and  they  are  con- 
firmed by  the  study  of  the  Version  itself:  — 

1.  The  Version  was  made  at  Alexandria. 

2.  It  was  begun  in  the  time  of  the  earlier  Ptole- 
mies, about  280  n.  C. 

3  Tlie  Law  {i.  e.  the  Pentateuch)  alone  was 
translated  at  first. 

It  is  also  very  possible  that  there  is  some  truth 
in  the  statement  of  a  copy  being  placed  in  the  royal 
library.  (Lhe  emperor  Akbar  caused  the  New 
Testament  to  be  translated  into  Persian.) 

But  by  wiiom  was  the  Version  madey  As  Hody 
justly  remarks,  "  It  is  of  little  moment  whether  it 
was  made  at  the  command  of  the  king  or  sponta- 
neously by  the  Jews ;  but  it  is  a  question  of  great 
im])ortance  whether  the  Llebrew  copy  of  the  Law, 
and  the  interpreters  (as  Pseudo-Aristeas  and  his 
followers  relate),  were  summoned  from  .lerusalom, 
and  sent  by  the  high-priest  to  Alexandria." 

On  this  question  no  testimony  can  be  so  conclu- 
sive as  the  evidence  of  the  Version  itself,  which 
baars  upon  its  face  the  marks  of  impeii'ect  knowl- 
ed^'e  of  Hebrew,  and  exhibits  the  furnis  and  phntsea 
of  the  M.acedonic  Greek  prevalent  in  Alexandria, 
with  a  plentiful  sprinkling  of  Egyptian  words.  Th( 


2920 


SEPTUAGINT 


forms  fjKeoa-av,  irapeve0d\o(rav,  bewray  the 
fellow-citizens  of  Lycophron,  the  Alexaiulriaii  poet, 
who  closes  his  iambic  line  with  Kanh  •yfjs  eVxaC'J" 
croc.  Hody  (ii.  c.  iv.)  gives  several  examples  of 
Egyptian  renderings  of  nanjes,  and  coins,  and 
measures;  among  them  the  hippodrome  of  Alexan- 
dria, for  the  Hebrew-  Cibvatit  ((ien.  xlviii.  7),  and 
the  papyrus  of  the  Nile  for  the  rush  of  Job  (viii. 
11).  The  reader  of  the  LXX.  will  r&idily  agree 
with  liis  conclusion,  "  Sive  regis  jussu,  sive  sponte 
a  Judffiis,  a  Judseis  Alexandrinis  fuisse  factam." 

The  question  as  to  tlie  moving  cause  which  gave 
birth  to  the  Version  is  one  which  cannot  be  so  de- 
cisively answered  either  by  internal  evidence  or  by 
historical  testimony.  The  balance  of  probability 
must  be  struck  between  the  tradition,  so  widely 
and  permanently  prevalent,  of  the  king's  interven- 
tion, and  the  simpler  account  suggested  by  the 
facts  of  history,  and  the  phenomena  of  the  Version 
itself. 

It  is  well  known  that,  after  the  Jews  returned 
from  the  Captivity  of  Babylon,  having  lost  in  great 
measure  the  familiar  knowledge  of  the  ancient  He- 
brew, tlie  readings  from  the  Books  of  Jloses  in  the 
Bynagoiiues  of  Palestine  were  explained  to  them  in 
the  Chaldaic  tongue,  in  Targunis  or  Paraphrases; 
and  the  same  was  done  with  the  Books  of  the 
Prophets  when,  at  a  later  time,  tiiey  also  were  read 
in  the  synagogues. 

The  Jews  of  Alexandria  had  probably  still  less 
knowledge  of  Hebrew;  their  familiar  language  was 
Alexandrian  Greek.  Tliey  had  settled  in  Alexan- 
dria in  large  nunil)ers  soon  after  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander, and  under  tlie  earlier  Ptolemies.  They 
would  naturally  follow  the  same  practice  as  their 
brethren  in  Palestine;  the  Law  &-st  and  afterwards 
the  Propbets  would  be  explained  in  Greek,  and 
from  this  practice  would  arise  in  time  an  entire 
Greek  \'ersion. 

All  the  phenomena  of  the  Version  seem  to  con- 
firm this  view;  the  Pentateuch  is  the  best  part  of 
the  Version;  the  other  books  are  more  defective, 
betraying  probably  the  increasing  degeneracy  of 
the  Hebrew  MSS.,  and  the  decay  of  Hebrew  learn- 
ing with  the  lapse  of  time. 

4.  Whence  the  title?  It  seems  unnecessary  to 
suppose,  with  Eichhorn,  that  the  title  SejHungiiit 
arose  from  the  approval  given  to  the  Version  by 
an  Alexandrian  Sanhedrim  of  70  or  72 ;  that  title 
appears  sufficiently  accounted  for  above  by  the  prev- 
alence of  the  letter  of  Aristeas,  describing  the 
mission  of  72  interpreters  from  .lerusalem.  [For  a 
different  view  of  the  origin  of  this  name,  founded 
on  a  curious  Latin  scholion,  see  art.  Vkksions, 
Anciknt  (Greek).  —A.] 

II.  Character  of  the  Septuaoixt. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  character  of  the 
Version,  and  the  help  which  it  affords  in  the  crit- 
icism and  interpretation  of  the  .Scriptures. 

The  Character  of  the  Version.  —  Is  it  faithful 
in  substance?  Is  it  minutely  accurate  in  details? 
Does  it  bear  witness  for  or  against  the  tradition  of 
Its  having  been  made  by  special  inspiration  ? 

These  are  some  of  the  chief  questions:  there  are 
others  which  relate  to  particulars,  and  it  will  be 
well  to  discuss  these  latter  first,  as  they  throw  some 
licrht  on  the  more  general  questions. 

5.  Was  the  Version  made  from  Hebrew  MSS. 
intb  the  vowel-points  now  used  ? 

A  few  examples  will  indicate  the  answer. 


SEPTUAGINT 

1.  Proper  Names 

Hebrew.  Septuagiht 

Kx..  vi.  17.  ^337,  Libni.  Ao^evei. 

Ti.  19.  "^bn72,   Machli.  MooAei. 

xiii.  20.  DnS,  Etham.  'Oeuifi.. 

Deut.  iii.  10.  H^bD,   Salchah.  'EAxo. 

1V.43.  ~l'*2,   Bezer.  Boo-op. 

xxxiy.  1.  rT2D2,  Pisgah.  <J>a(77d. 

2.  Othee  Words. 

Hebrrw.  Septuagint. 

Gen.  i.  9.    Dlp^2,  place,      avvaymyri     (n."1p^), 

XV.  11.    ens  SM?*!,  Kal  crweKaOio-ev  avTO* 

and  lie  drove  th.ern  away.        (DWM  Dli?*"!). 

Ex.  xii.  17.   niu  ^rT"inSl,  ri]V  ei/ToArj^  TavTqv 

unleavened  bread.  (m!i72n"jnS). 

Num.  xvi.  5.  ~1pZ2,    in  the  eTreo-KeTrrai 

morning.  ("1^2). 

Deut.  XT.  18.   n3tt.'?p,   double.     eTreTeioc  (H^tt^tt). 
Is.  ix.  7.  ~13"^,   a  word.         eduarov   ("13"^). 

Examples,  of  these  two  kinds  are  innumerabb. 
Plainly  the  (jreek  translators  had  not  Hebrew 
IM.SS.  pointed  as  at  present. 

In  many  cases  (e.  (/.  Ex.  ii.  25;  Nahum  iii.  8) 
the  LXX.  have  probably  preserved  the  true  pro- 
nunciation and  sense  where  the  Masoretic  pointing 
has  gone  wrong. 

3.  Were   the  Hebrew  words  divided   from  one 

another,  and  were  the  final  letters,  ^,  Pj,  "],  D,  ^, 
in  use  when  the  Septuagint  was  made? 
Take  a  few  out  of  many  examples :  — 

Hebreio.  LXX 

(1.)  Deut.  xxiv.  5.    13S  ''JS'^S,    Svpi'av  d-rre^aktv 
a  perishing  Syrian.  ("TSS"*  D"1S). 

(2.)     2  K.  ii.  u.    s:in-?lS, 

he  also. 

(,3.)  2  K.  xxii.  20.   "Q^,  oux  ov™! 

tlierefore.  (]p"^^b). 

(4.)  1  Chr.  xvii.  10.   tJ  ^  ^^S"1,  koI  ai'frjo-io  o-f 

and  I  will  tell  thee.  C^^^^SI). 

(5)   Hos    vi.  5.   ~)^S   Tj'^t2?3tt?X3'1  Kal  ro  Kpifxa  fjLOv 

■   ^  •     '  (OS  (f)ias  €f cAeu- 

S^'^,  o-tTttt. 

and  tky  jiidgments  {are  The  LXX.  read 

(6.)  Zech.  xi.  7.  '])^-lT\  "'.fD^  "Jpb,    ei?  Trjv  XafavJ- 

even  you,  O  poor  of  the      [they  join  the  two 
fork.  first  words]. 

Here  we  find  three  cases  (2,  4,  6)  where  the 
I^XX.  read  as  one  word  what  makes  two  in  the 
present  Hebrew  text:  one  case  (3)  where  one  He- 
brew word  is  made  into  two  by  the  LXX.;  two 
cases  (1.  5)  where  the  LXX.  transfer  a  letter  from 
the  end  of  one  word  to  the  beginning  of  the  next 


[they  join  the  two 
words  in  one]. 


SEPTUAGINT 

By  •DSjiection  of  the  Elebrew  in  these  cases  it  will 
be  easily  seen  tliat  the  Hebrew  MSS.  must  have 
been  written  without  intervals  between  the  words, 
and  that  the  present  filial  forms  were  not  then  in 
use. 

In  three  of  the  above  examples  (4,  5,  6),  the 
Septuagint  has  probably  preserved  the  true  division 
and  sense. 

In  the  study  of  these  minute  particulars,  which 
enable  us  to  examine  closely  the  work  of  the  trans- 
lators, great  help  is  afforded  by  C'lj'jn-lli  Crilicn 
Sacra,  and  by  the  Vorstudkn  of  Frankel,  who  has 
aiost  diligently  anatomized  the  text  of  the  LXX. 
Ills  projected  work  on  the  whole  of  the  Version  has 
not  been  completed,  but  he  has  pubMshed  a  part  of 
It  in  his  treatise  Ueber  den  Einjiiiss  dur  Palds- 
tinis:lien  Exegese  auf  die  Alexii/idrinisc/ie  Ilev- 
mentutik,  in  which  be  reviews  minutely  the  Septu- 
agint Version  of  the  Pentateuch. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  larger  questions. 

A.  Is  the  Sepiiiat/int  failliful  in  substance  ? 
Here  we  cannot  answer  by  citing  a  few  examples; 
the  question  refers  to  the  general  texture,  and  any 
opinion  we  express  must  be  verified  by  continuous 
reading. 

1.  And  first  it  has  been  clearly  shown  by  Hody, 
Frankel,  and  others,  that  the  several  books  were 
translated  by  different  persons,  without  any  com- 
j'rehensive  revision  to  harmonize  the  several  parts. 
Names  and  words  are  rendered  differently  in  dif- 
ferent books ;  e.  ij.  nD2,  the  passover,  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  rendered  Trao-xa,  in  2  Chr.  xxxv.  6, 
■patreK- 

C^^S,  Uriiii.  Ex.  xxviii.  30  (LXX.  2()),Sri\a>- 
(Xis,  L)eut.  xxxiii.  8,  SrjKoi,  lizr.  ii.  03,  (pwri^ov- 
res,  Nell.  vii.  65,  (pccriawv. 

D'^?2.."',  Thunmim,  in  Ex.  xxviii.  30  (LXX.  20), 
s  a\-fideia\  in  Ezr.  ii.  03,  reKeiov. 

The  I'hilistines  in  the  Pentateuch  and  .Joshua 
ire  (pvXiffTiel/j.,  in  tlie  other  books,  a\\6<puKoi. 

The  books  of -lud^^es,  I-inth,  Samuel,  and  Kings, 
are  distinguished  liy  the  use  of  iyw  elixt,  instead  of 
4y<i. 

These  are  a  few  out  of  many  like  variations. 

2.  Thus  the  character  of  the  Version  varies 
much  in  tlie  several  books ;  those  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  the  best,  as  .Jerome  says  {Coiifilemur  jjlusq/inm 
aeteris  rum  Ilebrnicis  consori'ire),  and  this  agrees 
well  with  the  external  evidence  that  the  ].,aw  was 
translated  first,  when  Hebrew  MSS.  were  more  cor- 
rect and  Hebrew  better  known.  Perhaps  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  style  in  these  early  books  facilitated 
the  fidelity  of  the  \'ersion. 

<j.  The  poetical  pai'ts  are,  generally  speaking,  in- 
ferior to  the  historical,  the  original  abounding  with 
rarer  words  and  expressions.  In  these  parts  the 
reader  of  the  LXX.  must  be  continually  on  the 
watch  lest  an  imperfect  rendering  of  a  difficult 
word  mar  the  whole  sentence.  The  Psalms  and 
Proverbs  are  perhaps  the  best. 

4.  In  the  Major  Prophets  (probably  translated 
nearly  100  years  alter  the  Pentateuch)  some  of  the 
most  important  prophecies  are  sadly  obscured :  c.  ;/. 
Is.  ix.  i,  TovTO  TtpSiTov  Trie  raxv  iroieL,  X'^P" 
ZaSov\iji>,  K.  T.  \.,  and  in  ix.  0,  Ksnhis  nnctus 
est  interpretem  sese  indiynum  (Zuingli);  .Jer.  xxiii. 
0.  Kal  Tourn  rh  ouofxa  avrov  t  KaAeff^i  avrhv 
Kvf)ios    ^Cl}(Tf5fK  fV  To?s  Troo<p7)Tais. 

Kzekiel  n'ld  the  IMinor  Prophets  (speaking  gen- 
erally) seem  to  be  better  rendered  The  LXX.  ver- 
184 


SEPTUAGINT 


2921 


sion  of  Daniel  was  not  used,  that  of  Theodotion 
being  substituted  for  it. 

5.  Supposing  the  numerous  glosses  and  dupli- 
cate renderings,  which  have  evidently  crept  from 
the  margin  into  the  text,  to  be  removed  (e.  f/.  Is. 
vii.  10;  Hab.  iii.  2;  Joel  i.  8),  —  for  these  are 
blemishes,  not  of  the  Version  itself,  but  of  the 
copies,  —  and  forming  a  rough  estimate  of  what  the 
Septuagint  was  in  its  earliest  state,  we  may  per- 
hai)s  say  of  it,  in  the  words  of  the  well-known  sim- 
ile, that  it  was,  in  many  parts,  t/ie  ivronr/  side  oj" 
I  he  Hebrew  tapeslnj^  exhibiting  the  general  out- 
lines of  the  pattern,  but  confused  in  the  more  deli- 
Ciite  lines,  and  with  many  ends  of  threads  visilile; 
or,  to  use  a  more  dignified  illustr.ation,  the  Sep- 
tuai,dnt  is  the  image  of  the  original  seen  through 
a  glass  not  adjusted  to  the  proper  focus;  the  larger 
features  are  shown,  but  the  sharpness  of  definition 
is  lost. 

B.  We  have  anticipated  the  answer  to  the  sec- 
ond question  —  Is  the  Version  minutely  accurate 
in  details  ?  —  but  will  give  a  few  examples: 

1.  The  same  word  in  the  same  chapter  is 
often  rendered  by  differing  words,  —  Ex.  xii.   13, 

"^rnrjDS,  >•  I   win  pass  over,"   LXX.  cTKeirda-ai, 

but  23,  np2,  "  will  pass  over,"  LXX.  irapiKev- 
(Terai. 

2.  Differing  words   by  the    same  word,  —  Ex. 

xii.  23,  "1)?^,  "  pass  through,"  and  HD^,  "pass 
over,"  both  by  irapeAevaeTai;  Num.  xv.  4,  5, 
nnS^,  "  ofTering,"  and  Hi^T,  "sacrifice,"  both 
by  duaia. 

3.  Tlie  divine  names  are  frequently  inter- 
changed ;  Kvpios  is  put  for  Q^H  7S,  God,  and 

@e6s  for  nin"],  Jkhovah;  and  the  two  are  often 
wrongly  combined  or  wrongly  separated. 

4.  Proper  names  are  sometimes  translated, 
sometinies  not.  In  Gen.  xxiii.  by  translating  the 
name  Muchjiel di  {rh  5iir\ovu),  the  \'ersion  is 
made  to  speak  first  of  the  cave  l)eing  in  the  field 
(ver.  9),  and  then  of  the  Jield  bein;/  in  the  cave 
(ver.  17),  o  ayphs  'Ecppaiv,  fes  fjv  iv  tv  diwA'f 
cnrTjXaiai,  the  last  word  not  warranted  by  the  He- 
brew.    Zech.  vi.  14  is  a  curious  example  of  four 

names  of  persons  being  translated,  e.  g.  H^IIlltD/j 
"to  Tobijah,"  LXX.  rols  XRVi^'^f^^ots  outtjs;  Pis- 
gah  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  1  is  (paayd,  but  in  Deut.  iii. 
27,  ToD  AeXa^iv/xeuov. 

5.  The  translators  are  often  misled  by  the  sim- 
ilarity  of   Hebrew    words:    e.    g.    Num.    iii.  26, 

T~in''!3,  "  the   cords  of    it,"   LXX.   to,    kotci- 

T  T       •■  '  ' 

Aoiira,  and  iv.  26,  t^  iripiffaa.  In  other  places, 
ol  KaKoi,  and  Is.   liv.  2,   to.   axoivicrfj-ara.,   both 

rightly.  Ex.  iv.  31,  ^VtZiW^^,  "they  heard," 
LXX.  e'xaprj  (^n»b^) ;  Num.  xvi.  1,5,  "  I  have 
not  taken  one  ass  "  ("Tl^n),    LXX.    ovk    (ttiOv-  , 

jurj^a(l'2n)er\T/^a;  Deut.  xxxii.  10,  ^nS"p"^_, 
"he  found  him,"  LXX.  auroipKriaei'  avrdv;  1 
Sam.  xii.  2,  ^rn2tt7,  "I  am  grayheaded,"  LXX. 
Ka^aofxai  Onntt');  Gen.  iii.  17,  ^"l^n.^?, 
"  for  thy  sake,"  LXX.  eV  rots  tpyn.s  aov  (~T  fot 


2922  SEPTUAGINT 

In  very  many  cases  the  error  may  be  thus  traced 
to  the  shnihirity  of  some  of  the  Hebrew  letters, 

T  and  "1,  H  and  n,  ^  and  X  etc. ;  in  some  it  is 
difficult  to  see  any  connection  between  the  original 
and  the  Version:  e.  (j.  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  vS~lti7^  "^J??) 
"the  sons  of  Israel,"  LXX.  a-y-yeAoj;'  ©eoG. 
Aquila  and  Symmachus,  vloiv  'I<rpaT)A. 

Is.  xxi.  11,  12.  LXX. 

Watchman,  what  of  the  night  ?  4>uXacrcreTe  eTraXfeis. 

^yatchmau,  what  of  the  night?  ^vKacrcrui  TOnpuit  KaC 
The  watchman  said,  rrji- vu/tra 

The  morning  eometh,  and  also  "Eav  frjTfl;  ^rirer 

the  nijrlit :  Kalwap'  e/iol  oikci. 
If  ye  will  inquire,  inquire  ye. 
Keturn,  come. 

6.  Besides  the  above  deviations,  and  many  like 
them,  which  are  probably  due  to  accidental  causes, 
the  change  of  a  letter,  or  doubtful  writing  'in  the 
Hebrew,  there  are  some  passages  which  seem  to  ex- 
hibit a  studied  variation  in  the  LXX.  from  the  He- 
brew: e.  g.  Gen.  ii.  2,  on  the  seventh  ("*27^3ki/n) 
day  God  ended  his  work,  LXX.  crvvejiXiaev  6 
@ehs  iv  rfj  rifiepa  rfj  (ktt;  to,  epya  avrov.  The 
addition  in  Ex.  xii.  -iO,  kol  iv  rfj  yfi  Xavadv, 
appears  to  be  of  this  kind,  inserted  to  solve  a  ditfi- 
culty. 

Frequently  the  strong  expressions  of  the  Hebrew 
are  softened  down ;  where  human  parts  are  ascribed 
to  God,  for  hand  the  LXX.  substitute  power ;  for 
mouth  —  word,  etc.     Ex.  iv.  IG,  "  Thou  shalt  be  to 

him  instead  of  God "  (n'^H  bi^b),  LXX.  ah  «« 
avT^  fCTTj    TO,    irphs   tIiv    &e6u;  see   Ex.   iv.  15. 

These  and  many  more  savor  of  design,  rather  than 
of  accident  or  error. 

The  Version  is,  therefoi-e,  not  minutely  accurate 
in  details;  and  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a  principle, 
never  to  build  any  argument  on  words  or  phrases 
of  the  Sepluagint,  without  comparing  them  with 
the  Hebrew.  The  Greek  may  be  right;  but  very 
often  its  variations  are  wrong. 

r.  We  shall  now  be  prepared  to  weigh  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Fathers,  that  the  Version  was  made 
by  inspiration:  nar  iiriirvoiav  tov  &eov,  Ire- 
nseus;  "  divino  Spiritu  interpretati,"  Augustine. 
Even  Jerome  himself  seems  to  think  that  the  LXX. 
may  have  sometimes  added  words  to  the  original, 
"  ob  Spi7-itus  Sancti  auctoritatem,  licet  in  Htbrceis 
voluminibus  non  legatur''^  {Prcefai.  in  Parniip.  torn. 
i.  col  1419). 

Let  us  try  to  form  some  conception  of  what  is 
meant  by  the  inspiration  of  translators.  It  cannot 
mean  what  Jerome  here  seems  to  allow,  that  the 
translators  were  divinely  moved  to  add  to  the  orig- 
inal, for  this  would  be  the  inspiration  of  Prophets  ; 
as  he  himself  says  in  another  passage  (Prolog,  in 
Genesin,  tom.  i.)  '■^  aliud  est  enim  verier e,  aliud 
esse  interpretem.'''  Every  such  addition  would  be, 
in  fact,  a  new  revelation. 

Nor  can  it  be,  as  some  have  thought,  that  the 
%  deviations  of  the  Septuagint  from  the  original  were 
divinely  directed,  whether  in  order  to  adapt  the 
Scriptures  to  the  mind  of  the  heathen,  or  for  other 
purposes.  This  would  be,  piv  tanto,  a  new  revela- 
tion, and  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  such  a  revela- 
tion:  for,  lie  it  observed,  the  discrepance  between 
the  Helirew  and  Greek  Scriptures  would  tend  to 
separate  the  .lews  of  Palestine  from  those  of  Alex- 
»nd»-ia.  and  of  other  places  where  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tur«i8  were  used;  there  would  be  two  different  cop- 


SEPTUAGINT 

ies  of  the  same  books  dispersed  throughout  the 
world,  each  claiming  Divine  authority;  tiie  ap[)eal 
to  Moses  and  the  Prophets  would  lose  much  of  its 
force;  the  standard  of  Divine  truth  would  be  ren- 
dered doubtful;  the  trumpet  would  give  an  uncer- 
tain sound.    • 

No !  If  there  be  such  a  thing  as  an  inspiration 
of  translators,  it  must  be  an  effect  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  their  minds,  enabling  them  to  do  their 
work  of  translation  more  perfectly  than  by  their 
own  abilities  and  acquirements;  to  overcome  the 
difficulties  ai-ising  from  defective  knowledge,  from 
imperfect  MSS.,  from  similarity  of  letters,  from 
human  infirnjity  and  weariness;  and  so  to  produce 
a  copy  of  the  .'Scriptures,  setting  forth  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  history  of  his  people,  in  its  original 
truth  and  purity.  This  is  the  kind  of  inspiration 
claimed  for  the  translators  by  Philo  (lit.  Mosis, 
lib.  ii.):  "  We  look  upon  the  persons  who  made  this 
Version,  not  merely  as  translators,  but  as  persona 
chosen  and  set  apart  by  Divine  appointment,  to 
whom  it  was  given  to  comprehend  and  express  the 
sense  and  meaning  of  Moses  in  the  fullest  and 
clearest  manner.'' 

The  reader  will  be  able  to  judge,  from  the  fore- 
going examples,  whether  the  Septuagint  Version 
satisfies  this  te.st.  If  it  does,  it  will  be  found  not  ■ 
only  substantially  faithful,  but  minutely  accurate 
in  details;  it  will  enable  us  to  correct  the  Hebrew 
in  every  place  where  an  error  has  crept  in;  it  will 
give  evidence  of  that  faculty  of  intuition  in  its 
highest  form,  which  enaliles  our  great  critics  to 
divine  from  the  faulty  text  the  true  reading;  it  will 
be,  in  short,  a  repubhcation  of  the  original  text, 
purified  from  the  errors  of  human  hands  and  eyes, 
stamped  with  fresh  autliority  from  Heaven. 

This  is  a  question  to  be  decided  by  facts,  by  the 
phenomena  of  the  Version  itself.  We  will  simply 
declare  our  own  conviction  that,  instead  of  such  a 
Divine  republication  of  the  original,  we  find  a 
marked  distinction  between  the  original  and  the 
Septuagint;  a  distinction  which  is  well  expressed  in 
the  words  of  Jerome  [Prolog,  in  Genesin):  "  Ibi 
Spiritus  Ventura  pradicit;  hie  eruditio  et  verborum 
copia  ea  qux  intelligit  transfert." 

And  it  will  be  remembered  that  this  agrees  with 
the  ancient  narrative  of  the  Version,  known  by  the 
name  of  Aristeas,  which  represents  the  interpreters 
as  meeting  in  one  house,  forming  one  council,  con- 
ferring together,  and  agreeing  on  the  sense  (see 
Hody,  lib.  ii.  c.  vi.). 

There  are  some,  perhaps,  who  will  deem  this 
estimate  of  the  LXX.  too  low;  who  think  that  the 
use  of  this  version  in  the  N.  T.  stamps  it  with  an 
authority  above  that  of  a  mere  translation.  But 
as  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  do  not  invariably 
cite  the  O.  T.  according  to  this  version,  we  are  left 
to  judge  by  the  light  of  facts  and  evidence.  Stu- 
dents of  Holy  Scriptiu-e,  as  well  as  studerits  of  (he 
natural  world,  should  bear  in  mind  the  ciaxini  of 
Bacon:  "  Sola  spes  est  in  vera  inductione." 

III.  What,  then,  are  the  benefits  to  be 

DEKIVETJ     KItUM    THE     STUDY    OF    THE    SkP- 
TUAGI>'T  ? 

After  all  the  notices  of  imperfection  above  given, 
it  may  seem  strange  to  say,  but  we  lielieve  it  to  be 
the  truth,  that  the  student  of  Scripture  can  scarcely 
read  a  chapter  without  some  benefit,  e.sjiecially  if  he 
be  a  student  of  Hebrew,  and  able,  even  in  a  very 
humble  way,  to  compare  the  Version  with  tin 
Original. 


SEPTUACINT 

1.  For  the  Old  Testament.  We  have  seen 
ibove  that  the  Septuawint  gives  evidence  of  the 
character  and  condition  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  from 
nrhich  it  was  made,  with  respect  to  vowel-points 
und  the  mode  of  writing. 

This  evidence  often  renders  very  material  help  in 
the  correction  and  establishment  of  the  Hebrew  te.xt. 
Deing  made  from  MSS.  far  older  than  the  Maso- 
retic  recension,  the  Septuagint  often  intiicates  read- 
uigs  more  ancient  and  more  correct  than  those  of 
our  present  Hebrew  AISS.  and  editions;  and  often 
speaks  decisively  between  the  conflicting  readings 
of  the  present  MSS. 

E.  <j.  Ps.  xxii.  17  (in  LXX.  xxi.  16),  the  printed 
Hibrew  text  is    "^"^SS;  but  several  MSS.  have  a 

verb  in  3d  pers.  plural,  T^SD:  the  LXX.  steps  in 
to  decide  the  doubt,  Sipu^av  x^ipcis  yuou  koI  Tr6'Sas 
/.lou,  confirmed  Ijy  Aquila,  rja^vvav. 

Ps.  xvi.  10.  The  printed  text  is  "^^T^On,  in 
the  plural ;  but  near  20(1  MSS.  have  the  singular, 

^"T^On,  which  is  clearly  confirmed  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the  LXX.,  ovSe  Swaeis  rhi/  ociSv  aov 
iSi7i/  Sia(p9opav. 

In  passages  like  these,  wiiich  touch  on  the  cardi- 
nal truths  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  of  great  importance 
to  have  the  testimony  of  an  unsuspected  witness, 
in  the  I..XX.,  long  before  the  controversy  between 
Christians  and  .lews. 

In  llosea  vi.  5,  the  context  clearly  requires  that 
the  first  person  should  be  maintained  throughout 
the  verse;  the  LXX.  corrects  the  present  Hebrew 
text,  witliout  a  change  except  in  the  position  of  one 
letter,  rh  Kpi/xa  fiou  ws  (pii  i^eXeva^rat,  render- 
ing unnecessary  the  addition  of  words  in  Italics,  in 
our  English  Version. 

More  examples  might  be  given,  but  we  must 
■  content  ourselves  with  one  signal  instance,  of  a 
clause  omitted  in  the  Hebrew  (probably  by  what 
is  called  oixotoTeAevTov),  and  preserved  in  the 
LXX.  In  Genesis  iv.  8,  is  a  passage  which  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  in  our  Kuglish  Version,  is  evidently 
incomplete :  — 

"And  Cain  talked  ("ipS*])  with  Abel  his 
brother;  and  ic  came  to  pass  when  they  were  in 
the  field,'"  etc. 

Here  the  Hebrew  word  "^QS*!  is  the  word  con- 
stantly used  as  the  introduction  to  words  spoken, 
"  Cain  Sfiid  unto  Abel  "....,  but,  as  the  text 
stands,  there  are  no  words  spoken ;  and  the  follow- 
ing words  "  .  .  .  .  wlieii  they  were  in  the  field^' 
come  in  abruptly.  The  LXX.  fills  up  the  lacuna 
UebvKovnm  codicum  (Pearson),  koI  elire  KaiV 
Tphs  'Aj8«A  rhy  aS^Kcpbv  avTOv,  Si4\0tu/xev  eis  rb 
,reSiW  ( =  nYa?n  n?b:).  The  Sam.  Penta- 
teuch and  the  Syriac  Version  agree  with  the  LXX., 
«id  the  passage  is  thus  cited  by  Clemens  Komanus 
^Ep.  i.  c.  iv.).     The 'Hebrew  transcriber's  eye  was 

probably  misled  by  the  word  n7_tt7,  terminating 
both  the  clauses.  [For  a  different  view,  see  p. 
^809  II,  2d  par.  (1).  —  A.J 

In  all  the  foregoing  cases,  we  do  •  not  attribute 
tny  paramount  authority  to  the  LXX.  on  account 
of  its  superior  antiquity  to  the  extant  Hebrew 
yiSS. ;  but  we  take  it  as  an  evidence  of  a  more 


a  One  of  the  most  diligent  students  of  the  LXX., 
ylio    has    devoted    his  life  to  the   promotiou   of  tiiis 


SEPTUAGINT  2923 

ancient  Hebrew  text,  as  an  eye-witness  of  the  texts, 
280  or  180  years  b.  c.  The  decision  as  to  any 
particular  reading  must  be  made  by  weighing  this 
evidence,  together  with  that  of  other  ancient  Ver- 
sions, with  the  argun\ents  from  the  context,  the 
rules  of  grammar,  the  genius  of  the  language,  and 
the  comparison  of  parallel  passages.  And  thus 
the  Hebrew  will  sometimes  correct  the  Greek,  and 
sometimes  the  Greek  the  Hebrew:  both  liable  kc 
err  through  the  infirmity  of  human  eyes  and  hands, 
but  each  checking  the  other's  errors. 

2.  The  close  connection  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  makes  the  study  of  the  Septuagint 
extremely  valuable,  and  almost  indispensable  to  the 
theological  student.  Pearson  quotes  from  Ire- 
naeus  and  Jerome,  as  to  the  citation  of  the  words 
of  propliecy  from  the  Septuagint.  The  former,  as 
Pearson  obsei-ves,  speaks  too  universally,  when  he 
says  that  the  Apostles,  "  prophetica  uninin  ita  enun- 
ciaverunt  quemadmodum  Seniorum  interpretatio 
continet."  But  it  was  manifestly  the  chief  store- 
house from  which  they  drew  their  proofs  and  pre- 
cepts. Jlr.  Grinfield  "  says  that  "  the  nnmlier  of 
direct  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles,  may  be  estimated  at 
;5.jO,  of  which  not  more  than  50  materially  differ 
from  the  LXX.  But  the  indirect  verbal  allusions 
would  swell  the  number  to  a  far  greater  amount '' 
{Apol.  for  LXX.,  p.  37).  The  comparison  of  the 
citations  with  the  Septuagint  is  much  facilitated 
by  Mr.  Grinfield's  "  Editio  Hellenistica"  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  by  Mr.  Cough's  New  Test. 
Quotations,  in  which  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Test,  are  placed  side  by  side  with 
the  citations  in  the  New.  (On  this  subject  see 
Hody,pp.  248,  281;  Kennicott,  Dissert.  Gen.  §  84; 
Cappelli,  Critica  Sacra,  vol.  ii.)  [See  also  Turpie's 
The  Oil  Test,  in  the  New  (Lond.  1808),  which 
gives  various  readings  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek; 
Kautzsch,  Dt  Vet.  Test.  Locis  a  Paulo  Apost.  nl- 
legalis.  Lips.  1869;  and  the  works  referred  to  at 
the  end  of  the  art.  Old  Testajient,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
22:39  6,  2240  a.  —  A.] 

3.  Further,  the  language  of  the  LXX.  is  the 
mould  in  which  the  thouglirts  and  expressions  of  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  are  cast.  In  this  version 
Divine  Truth  has  taken  the  Greek  language  as  its 
shrine,  and  adapted  it  to  the  things  of  God.  Here 
the  peculiar  idioms  of  the  Hebrew  are  grafted  upon 
the  stock  of  the  Greek  tongue;  words  and  phrases 
take  a  new  sense.  The  terms  of  the  JMosaic  ritual 
in  the  Greek  Version  are  employed  by  the  Apostles 
to  express  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel,  e.  ;/.  ap- 
Xiepev?,  dvala,  6(r/xr]  evaiSias.  Hence  the  LXX.  is 
a  treasury  of  illustration  for  the  Greek  Testament. 

Many  examples  are  given  by  Pearson  (Pnef.  ad 
LXX.),  e.  (].  aap^,  Trveii/xa,  SlkuiSoi,  (pp6i/r]fjia  t7is 
aapK6'!.  "  Frustra  apud  veteres  Gracos  qua;ra9 
quid  sit  TrKTrevecv  ra>  0e<j),  vel  eis  rhy  ©edf, 
quid  sit  eis  rhv  Kvpiov,  vel  wpbs  rhyQehv  Tricmr, 
qua;  toties  in  Novo  Foedere  inculcantur,  et  ex  lec- 
tione  .Seniorum  facile  intelliguntur." 

Valckenaer  also  (on  Luke  i.  5 1 )  speaks  strongly 
on  this  suliject:  "  GrjEcum  Novi  Testanienti  cou-' 
textum  rite  intellecturo  nihil  est  utilius.  quam  dili- 
genter  versasse  Alexandrinam  antiqui  Fcederis  in- 
terpretationem,  e  qua  una,  plus  peti  poterit  auxihi, 
quam  ex  veteribus  scriptorilius  Gracis  sinml  suratis. 
Centena  reperientur  in   N.   T.   nusquam  obvia  in 

branch  of  Scripture  study,  .and  has  lately  founded  » 
Lecture  on  the  LXX.  in  the  University  of  Oxfcrd 


2924 


SEPTUAGINT 


icriplis  Grireoruni  veteruni,  sed  frequentata  in  Alex"- 
Versione." 

K.  g.  the  sense  of  rd  Tracrxo  in  Dent.  xvi.  2, 
incliKlinu;  the  sacrifices  of  the  Paschal  week,  throws 
light  on  the  question  as  to  the  day  on  which  our  Lord 
kept  his  last  Passover,  arising  out  of  the  words  in 
John  xviii.  28,  aAA'  'iva  (payrcai  rh  irdax'^' 

4.  The  frequent  citations  of  the  LXX.  liy  the 
Greek  Fathers,  and  of  the  Latin  Version  of  the 
LXX.  by  the  Fathers  who  wrote  in  Latin,  form 
another  strong  reason  for  the  study  of  the  Septua- 
gint.  Pearson  cites  the  appellation  of  Scarobau/, 
bcnus,  applied  to  Christ  by  Ambrose  and  Angus- 
tine,  as  explained  by  reference  to  the  LXX.  in 
Habak.  ii.  11,  KavQapo^  eK  ^vAov- 

5.  On  the  value  of  the  LXX.  as  a  monument  of 
the  Greek  language  in  one  of  its  most  curious 
phases,  this  is  not  the  place  to  dwell.  Our  busi- 
ness is  with  the  use  of  this  Version,  as  it  bears  on 
the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  I!ii)le.  And 
we  may  safely  urge  the  theological  student  who 
wishes  to  be  "  thoroughly  furnished  "  to  have  al- 
ways at  his  side  the  Septuagint.  Let  the  Hebrev/, 
if  possible,  be  placed  liefore  him;  and  at  his  right, 
in  the  next  place  of  honor,  the  Alexandrian  Version  ; 
the  close  and  careful  study  of  this  Version  will  l)e 
more  profitable  than  the  most  learned  inquiry  into 
its  origin;  it  will  help  him  to  a  l)etter  knowledge 
both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New. 

OujECTS   TO     BE   ATTAINED    I'.Y    THE    CRITICAL 
SfHULAK. 

1.  A  question  of  much  interest  still  waits  for  a 
solution.  In  many  of  the  passages  which  show  a 
studied  varintion  from  the  Hebrew  {some  of  which 
are  above  noted),  the  Septuagint  and  the  Samar- 
itan Pentateuch  agree  together:  e.  (j.  Gen.  ii.  2; 
Ex.  xii.  40. 

They  also  agree  in  many  of  the  ages  of  the 
post-diluvian  Patriarchs,  adding  100  years  to  the 
age  at  which  the  first  son  of  each  was  born,  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrew.  (See  Cappelli  Cvit.  Sticr. 
iii.,  XX.,  vii.) 

They  agree  in  the  addition  of  the  word.s  SieA0£c- 
ufv  eU  rh  TreSiov,  Geji.  iv.  8,  which  we  have  seen 
reason  to  think  rightly  added. 

Various  reasons  have  been  conjectured  for  this 
agreement;  translation  into  Greek  from  a  Samar- 
itan text,  interpolation  from  the  Samaritan  into 
the  Greek,  or  vice  versa  ;  but  the  question  does  not 
seem  to  have  found  a  satisfactory  answer.  [Sajiak- 
iiAN  Pentateuch,  p.  2811  b;  Vkhsions,  An- 
cient (Gkeek).] 

2.  For  the  critical  scholar  it  would  be  a  worthy 
object  of  pursuit  to  ascertain,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
the  original  text  of  the  Septuagint  as  it  stood  in 
the  time  of  the  Apostles  and  Philo.  If  this  could 
be  accomplished  with  any  tolerable  completeness,  it 
would  possess  a  strong  interest,  as  being  the  first 
translation  of  any  writing  into  another  tongue,  and 
the  first  repository  of  Divine  truth  to  the  great 
colony  of  Hellenistic  Jews  at  Alexandria. 

The  critic  would  probalily  take  as  his  basis  the 
*  Roman  edition,  from  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  as  rep- 
resenting most  nearly  the  ancient  {koivt])  texts 
The  collection  of  fragments  of  Origen's  Hexapln, 
by  IMontfaucon  and  others,  would  help  him  to 
I'liminate  the  additions  which  have  been  made  to 
the  LXX.  from  other  sources,  and  to  purge  out 
the  glosses  and  double  renderings;  the  citations  in 
the  New  Testament  and  in  Philo,  in  the  early 
CLristiaD  Fathers,  loth  Greek   and    Latin,  would 


SEPTUAGINT 

render  assistance  of  the  same  kind;  and  perhapi 
the  most  effective  aid  of  all  would  be  found  in  the 
fragments  of  the  Old  Latin  Version  collected  by 
Sabatier  in  ;?  vols,  folio  (Rlieims,  1743). 

3.  Anotiier  work,  of  more  practical  and  general 
interest,  still  remains  to  be  done,  namely,  to  provide 
a  Greek  \'er8ion,  accurate  and  faithful  to  the  He- 
brew original,  for  the  use  of  the  Greek  Church,  and 
of  students  reading  the  Scriptures  in  that  language 
for  purposes  of  devotion  or  nientai  improvement. 
Mr.  Field's  edition  is  as  yet  the  best  edition  of 
this  kind;  it  originated  in  the  desire  to  supply  the 
Greek  Church  with  such  a  faithful  copy  of  the 
Scriptures;  but  as  the  editor  has  followed  the  text 
of  the  Alexandrian  MS.,  only  C\>rrecting,  by  th» 
help  of  other  MSS.,  the  evident  ei  rors  of  transcrip- 
tion (e.  (j.  in  Gen.  xv.  15,  correcting  rpa<peis  in 
the  Alex.  MS.  to  racpeis,  the  reading  of  the  Com- 
plut.  text),  and  as  we  have  seen  above  that  the 
Alexandrian  text  is  far  from  being  the  nearest  to 
the  Hebrew,  it  is  evident  that  a  more  faithful  ami 
complete  copy  of  the  Old  I'estament  in  Gresk 
might  yet  be  provided. 

We  may  here  remark,  in  conclusion,  that  such 
an  edition  might  pre])are  the  way  for  the  correction 
of  the  blemishes  which  remain  in  our  Authorized 
English  Version.  Embracing  the  results  of  the 
criticism  of  tlie  last  250  years,  it  might  exhibit 
several  passages  in  their  original  purity;  and  the 
corrections  thus  made,  being  approved  by  the  judg- 
ment of- the  best  scholars,  would  probably,  after  a 
time,  find  their  way  into  the  margin,  at  least,  of  our 
English  Jjibles. 

One  example  only  can  be  here  given,  in  a  passage 
which  has  caused  no  small  perplexity  and  loads  of 
commentary.  Is.  ix.  8  is  thus  rendered  in  the 
LXX. :  rb  irXelarov  rov  \aov,  o  Karriyayts  iv 
€v(ppo(jvvrj  crov  koI  (V(ppavQi)(rovTai  ivu>-iTi6v  aov, 
Q)S  oi  ev(ppaLv6fj.(voL  iv  a/j.riTCf>,  Kal  hv  rpoirov  oi 
Siaipovfievoi  (TKvKa. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  faulty  rendering  of  the 
first  part  of  this  has  arisen  from  the  similarity  of 

Hebrew  letters,  H  and  H,  1  and  1,  and  from 
an  ancient  error  in  the  Hebrew  text.  'Ihe  follow- 
ing translation  restores  the  whole  passage  to  its 
original  clearness  and  force:  — 

livl\.rjBvvo.<;  Ty}v  ayaXKiaciv  (V  3lj), 

ene-yaAOi'os  ■n)v  ev<|)po<ri;Vi}i'" 

iv(^paivovrai.    kvijoiriov   aov    ujs    ol  ev(/>paii'djiiei  ot 


ov  TpOTTOt*  ct-yaAAti 


oi  Siaipou'/j.ei'ot  CTKCAa. 


Thnu  hast  multiplied  the  gladness, 

Thou  hast  increufud  the  joy  ; 

They  njoice  before  thee  as  with  the  joy  of  harvest. , 

As  uieu  are  glad  when  they  divide  the  spoil. 

Here  ayaWiaais  and  ayaWiUvTai,  in  tiie  fiist 
and  fourth  lines,  correspond  to  ^^2  and  •'^''3^  •' 
fvcppoffm'r)  and  ^veppaivovrai,  in  the  second  and 
third,  to  nntlW  and  ^HTZb. 

The  fourfold  introverted  parallelism  is  complete, 
and  the  connection  with  the  context  of  the  prophecy 
perfect. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  that  in  such 
an  edition  the  apocryjihal  additions  to  the  book 
of  F'sther,  and  those  to  the  liook  of  Daniel,  which 
are  not  recognized  by  the  Hebrew  Canon,  would 
be  either  omitted,  or  (perhaps  more  properly,  sine* 
they  appear  to  have  been   incorporated   with  th« 


SEPTUAGINT 

Septuagiiit  at  an  early  ilate)  would  be  placed  sepa- 
rately, as  ill  Mr.  Field's  edition  and  our  Englisli 
Version.  [See  ArdCKVPH.v;  Canon;  Damel, 
Apoc.  Additions;  Estiiek;  Samaritan  Pent.] 

LiTEKATUKE. 

Cappelli  Critica  Sacra,  1G51.  Waltoni  Proleg. 
ad  Bibl.  Puli/f/lott.  1657.  Pearsoni  Prcef.  Pnrie- 
netica  ad  LXX.,  1655.  Voss,  I.,  de  LXX.  Inierp. 
Hag.  1661;  App.  166.3.  ^IoxMaucow,  Ihxnpbruvi 
Origenis  quce  supcrsuni,  Paris,  1710;  ed.  Bahrdt^ 
Lips.  1740.  Hody.  de  Bibl.  Text.  Oriyinal.  Vers. 
Greeds,  el  Ldtina  Vulyaid,  1705.  Hottinger, 
Thesauriis.  Owen,  Dr.  H.,  Enrpdry  into  the  LXX., 
1769;  Brief  Account,  etc.  119il.  Kennicott's /)/«- 
tertations.  Holmes,  Proleyg.  ad  LXX.,  1798. 
Valckenaer,  Diidrihede  Aristobulo  Judceo,  1806. 
Schleusuer,  Opusc.Crit.  nd  Verss.  Ur.  V.  7'.  1812. 
Dahiie,  Jiidisch-Alexnndrinische  Phihsophie,  IS-Jl. 
Tiipler,  de  Pentid.  interp.  Alex,  indtde  crit.  et 
hermen.  18'iO.  Pliischke,  Lectiones  Alex,  et  Hebr. 
1837.  Thiersch,  de  Pentateuchi  Vers.  Alexan- 
drina,  1841. «  Fraiikel,  Vovstudien  zu  der  Septua- 
ginta.  1841 ;  Utber  den  Einfluss  der  Paldstinischen 
Exegeseaiif  die  Alex.  HenneneiUik,  1801.  Grin- 
field,  E.  W.,  N.  T.  Editio  Hellenlstica,  1843,  and 
Apology  for  the  Sepiudgint.  Selwyn,  W.,  Notie 
Criticce  in  Ex.  i.-xxiv.,  Numeros,  Deuteronomium, 
1856-58  (comp.aring  LXX.  with  Hebrew,  etc.). 
Hor.  Hebr.  on  Is.  ix.  Churton,  Iltdsenn  Essay, 
1861.  Journal  of  Sacred  Lit.,  Papers  (by  G. 
Pearson)  on  LXX.\  Vols,  i.,  iv.,  vii.,  3d  series. 
Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  Carpzov,  Eichhorn,  Hii- 
vernick,   Davidson  [De  Wette.  Keil,  Bleek]. 

Concordances,  Kirclier,  1607;  Trominius,  1718. 

Lexica,  Biel,  1780;   Schleusner,  1820. 

On  the  Language  of  the  LXX.  —  Winer,  Gram- 
mar; Sturz,  de  Dialecto  Macedonicd ;  Maltby,  Ed., 
Two  Sermons  before  University  of  Durham,  1843. 

W.  S. 

*  We  have  as  yet  no  critical  edition  of  the 
Septuagint, —  none  in  which  the  existing  materials 
for  settling  the  text  have  been  api)Iied  for  that  pur- 
pose. Tlie  availalile  materials  are  indeed  inade- 
quate. It  is  to  be  ho[)ed,  however,  that  through 
the  lators  of  Biancliiiii,  Baber,  Tischendorf,  Ver- 
cellone  and  Cozza,  Ceriani,  and  otliers,  we  shall 
soon  have  the  text  of  all  the  known  uncial  MSS. 
of  this  version  publislied  in  a  trustworthy  form. 
Wlien  this  is  accomplislied,  Tischendorf  promises, 
if  liis  lil'e  is  spared,  to  undertake  a  new  edition, 
"  talem  qualem  litterte  sacrse  poscunt  et  per  instru- 
menta  critica  perfici  licebit  "  (Pref.  to  his  4th  ed., 
1809,  p.  vii.  J.  But  before  a  thoroughly  satisfac- 
tory edition  can  be  prepared  a  great  amount  of 
labor  must  still  be  spent  uu  the  cursive  manuscripts, 
the  ancient  versions  made  from  the  Greek  (the  Old 
Latin,  Egyptian  in  different  dialects,  ^Ethiopic, 
A.rtnenian,  and  Hexaplar  Syriac),  and  on  the  quo- 


SEPTUAGINT 


2926 


a  ♦  A  special  value  of  this  treatise  by  Dr.  Thiersch 
U  the  testimouy  which  it  furnishes  to  the  accuracy 
of  our  present  Hebrew  text.  His  decisiou  after  an 
elaborate  collatioa  of  the  two  works  is,  tliat  in  the 
jreat  bulk  of  the  passages  the  Greek  Septuagint  of 
be  Perititeuch  and  the  traditionary  Masoretic  text 
orrespond  to  each  other  as  nearly  as  the  different 
.•suius  of  tue  two  languages  will  permit.  Variations 
exist,  it  is  true,  but  we  can  refer  these  for  the  most 
jart  to  principles  of  translation  on  the  part  of  tlie 
^venty,  rhetorical  or  dogmatic,  which  will  account 
foi  iheui  witiiont  assuming  the  existence  of  different 
Hebfevi    niidings.     The    couclusioa    of  Dr.  Thiersch 


tations  from  the  Sept.  in  the  writings  of  tae 
Fathers.  The  edition  of  Holmes  and  Parsona 
leaves  very  much  to  be  desired  ,iii  all  these  respects. 
A  formidable  programme  of  the  work  required,  and 
a  small  but  thankworthy  contribution  towards  it, 
are  given  by  P.  A.  de  Lagarde  in  his  Genesis  Gree- 
ce, e  Fide  Ed.  Sixtime  uddita  Scripturce  Discre- 
pantia  e  Libris  Afanu  scriplis  a  se  ipso  conlutis  et 
Edd.  Compl.  et  Aid.  adcuratissime  enotata  (Lips. 
1868);  comp.  the  review  by  Kaniphausen  in  the 
Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1869,  pp.  721-758.  Useful 
preliminary  lal)or  ha?  also  been  performed  by  0.  F. 
Fritzsche,  especially  in  regard  to  tlie  classification 
of  the  MSS.,  in  his  editions  of  several  books,  namely, 
E20HP  Duplicem  Libri  Textum  ad  optimos  Cod- 
ices edidit,  Turici.  1848;  'Poi/0  Kara,  tous  O', 
ibid.  1864 ;  Liber  ludicum  secundum  LXX.  InUr- 
pretes.  Triplicein  Textus  Conformationem  recun- 
suit,  etc.  ibid.  1867,  first  published  as  two  Univer- 
sity proirramnies  with  the  title,  Specimen  novae  Ed 
crit.  LXX.  Interpretum.  H<-  Has  also  paid  partic- 
ular attention  to  the  text  in  the  Kurzgcf.  exeg. 
llandb.  zu  d.  Apokryphetl  d.  A.  T.,  edited  t\y  him 
and  C.  L.  W.  Grimm  (1851-59);  and  the  valuable 
articles  Alexandrinische  Ueberset:  mg  and  VnU 
gata  in  Herzog's  Real-Ency/cl.  are  from  his  pen. 

On  the  MSS.  of  the  Sept.  see  before,  p.  2914  f. 
and  note  6;  see  also  Amersfoordt,  De  variis  Lec- 
tio7iibus  Holinesiiviis  Locorum  quorundam  Penta- 
teuchi, Lugd.  Bat.  1815.  Respecting  the  Hexaplai 
text  there  -are  a  number  of  important  articles  l)y 
Doederlein,  Matthosi,  Eichhorn,  Bruns,  and  De 
Kossi  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium ;  see  also  Ver- 
sions, Ancient  (Syuiac),  I,  B,  and  the  editions 
of  Jeremiah  (ijy  Spohn)  and  Ezekiel  mentioned 
below.  The  more  important  MSS.  containing  this 
text  have  already  been  referred  to  (p.  2914  f.  note  b). 
For  the  quotations  of  the  Christian   Fathers,  see 

F.  A.  Stroth,  Baitrdge  zur  Kritilc  lib.  d.  70  Doll- 
■metscher,  in  Eichhorn's -fte/iect  ii.  66  tf.,  iii.  213  If. 
vi.  124  ff.,  xiii.  158  tf. ;  comp.  Credner's  Beilruge 
zur  Eini  in  d.  bibl.  Schriften  (1838),  Bd.  ii.  .i. 
new  edition  of  the  Hexapla  has  been  begun  by  F. 
Field,  Tom.  ii.  fasc.  1,  2,  Lond.  1867-68,^"  4to. 

Among  the  monographs  relating  to  the  Septua- 
gint version  of  particular  books,  we  may  also  luen- 
tion  the  following;    G.  Bickell,  De  Indole  et  Rat. 

Vers.  Alex,  in  interpretando  Libro  Jobi,  JNIarb 
1863.       J.  G.  Jiiger,    Obss.  in    Prov.    Salomonis 

Vers.  Alex.  1788.  P.  A.  de  Lagarde,  Aninerlcun- 
gen  zur  griech.  iibers.  d.  Proverbien,  Leipz.  1863. 

G.  L.  Spohn,  Jeremias  Vates  e  Vers.  Jud.  Alex, 
ac  reliq.  Interp.  Grmcorum  emend.  Nolisque  crit. 
illustr.  2  vols.  Lips.  1794-1824.  F.  C.  Movers, 
De  idriusque  Recens.  Vaticin.  Jerem.  Indole  ei 
Origine,  Hamb.  1837.  J.  Wichelhaus,  De  Jerem. 
Vers.  Alex.  Indole  et  Auctoritate,  Hal.  1840.     Je- 

zeciel  secundum  LXX.  ex  Tetraplis  Origenis  e 
singidari  Chisiano  Codice.  .  .  .  op.  A.  Vincenlii  de 

under  this  head  is  :  "  Hac  dissertatione  videmur  de- 
nionstrasse  earn  esse  versionis  Pentateuchi  Alex, 
andrinae  indolem,  ut  ad  explicaudum  quidem  textum 
Masorethicum  non  parum  conferat,  ad  jnutamliim 
vero  nisi  magna  cum  temeritate  adhiberi  nequnat."' 

The  other  two  parts  of  the  treatise  relate  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  Greek  dialect  represented  in  this  version, 
and  to  the  unconsciously  transferred  Hebraisms  which 
are  mixed  with  it.  The  author's  view  as  to  the  basil 
of  the  Greek  dialect  in  distinction  from  its  Hebre-.^ 
coloring  is  substantially  that  'if  Sturz,  liuttuiauQ,  Wi- 
ner, and  others.  U. 


2926 


SEPULCHKE 


Reyibus,  Rom.  1840,  fol.  Daniel  sec.  LXX.  ex 
Teti'fiplis  Orijtnis  nunc  piiiaum  ed.  e  sing.  Clii- 
siano  Codice,  Horn.  1772,  fol.,  reprinted  in  several 
»ditions,  the  best  by  Hahn,  Lips.  1845.  J.  G.  C. 
Hoepfner,  Cururum  crit.  et  txeg.  in  LXX.  vindtni 
Wis.  Vaticin.  Junce  Spccim.  i.-iii.  Lips.  1787-88. 
The  Septuagiiit  version  of  the  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  is  pai-ticularly  discussed  by  Thenius 
{Kurzyvf.  exey.  Ilnmllj.  zum  A.  T.  vols,  iv.,  ix.). 
He  regards  it  as  a  very  important  help  in  the  correc- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  text. 

Other  dissertations  worth  naming  are  by  L.  T. 
Spittler,  De  Usu  Vtrs.  Alex.  (qi.  Jusepimm,  Gott. 
1779;  J.  G.  Scharfenberg,  De  Jusephi  et  Vers. 
Alex.  Consensu,  Lips.  1780;  and  T.  Studer,  De 
]'ers.  Alex.  Oriyine,  Hist,  et  Abusu  criticu,  Bern. 
1823.  See  also  Geiger,  Urschrift  u.  JJeberselzuii^ 
yen  der  Bibel,  Bresl.  1857 ;  Ewald,  Gesch.  des  Volkes 
Jsniel,  3e  Ausg.  (1803),  iv.  322  ft".;  and  the  art. 
Vei;.sio.\s,  AxciEjiT  (Greek),  in  this  Dictiunnrij. 

A  good  Lexicon  to  the  Sept.  is  still  a  desidera- 
tum. The  Xoi'us  Thesaurus  pJiilol.  sive  Lex.  in 
LXX.  etc.  of  J.  C.  Biel,  3  vols.  Hagaj-Com.  1779 
-80,  and  the  Novus  Tiies.  jj/iil.-criticus  of  J.  F. 
Schleusner,  5  pts.  Lips.  1820-21,  reprinted  at  Glas- 
gow in  1822  in  3  vols.  8vo,  are  but  little  more  than 
collections  of  valuable  materials  for  a  dictionary, 
rudely  arranged.  Much  better  (for  the  Apocrypha) 
is  C  A.  A\'ahrs  Cl'ivis  Librorum/^Vet.  Test.  Apocr. 
P/iiluloyica,  Lips.  1863.  A. 

SEPULCHRE.     [BuKiAL.] 

SE'liAH  (n^Cl'  [abundance] :  2apa  in  Gen., 
2op4  ill  1  Chr. ;  Alex.,  'Zaap  in  Gen.,  '2,apai  in 
1  Chr.:  JSara)-  The  daughter  of  Asher  (Gen. 
slvi.  17;  1  Chr.  vii.  30);  called  hi  Num.  xxvi.  40, 

S.^KAH. 

SERA'IAH  [3syl.]  {H'^W  [warrior  of  J  e- 
liovahy.  2a(7a;  [Vat.  Arra;]  Aler.  :S,apaias-  Sara- 
ias).  1.  Seraiali,  the  kiiig's  scribe  or  secretary  in 
the  reign  of  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  17).  In  the  Vat- 
ican MS.  [llonian  ed.]  of  the  LXX.  'Zaad  appears 
to  be  the  result  of  a  confusion  between  Seraiah  and 
Shisha,  wliose  sons  were  secretaries  to  Solomon 
(1  K.  iv.  3). 

%  (Sapai'as,  [l.apala:]  .Hex.  [Sopaia,]  'Sapa- 
ias'  Suraias.)  The  high-priest  in  the  reign  of 
Zedekiah.  He  was  taken  captive  to  Babylon  by 
Nebuzaradan,  the  captain  of  the  guard,  and  slain 
with  others  at  Kiblah  (2  K.  xsv.  18;  1  Chr.  vi.  14; 
Jer.  lii.  24). 

3.  ([2,a.paias;  Vat.  in  Jer.,  Sapaia:]  Saraia, 
Sarea.)  The  son  of  Tanhumeth  the  iNetophathite, 
according  to  2  K.  xiv.  23,  who  came  with  Ishmael, 
Johanan,  and  Jaazaniah  to  Gedaliah,  and  was  per- 
suaded by  him  to  submit  quietly  to  the  Chaldajans 
aud  settle  in  the  land  (.Jer.  xl.  8). 

4.  (2apa'/a;  [Alex,  in  ver.  14,  2api«-]  i^iiraii(.) 
The  sou  of  Kenaz,  brother  of  Othniel,  and  father 
of  Joab,  the  father  or  founder  of  the  vaUey  of  Cha- 
rasbim  (1  Clir.  iv.  13,  14). 

5.  {2,apav;  [Vat.  'S.apaav;]  Alex.  'Sapata) 
Ancestor  of  Jehu,  a  chief  of  one  of  the  Simeonite 
families  (1  Chr.  iv.  35). 

6.  (Sapatas;  [Vat.  Apaias-])  One  of  the 
fhilJren  of  the  province  \vho  returned  with  Zerub- 
babel  (Ezr.  ii.  2,.  In  Neh.  vii.  7  he  is  called  Aza- 
P.iAii,  and  in  1  Esdr.  v.  8,  Zachakias. 

?•  [Sapai'as-]  One  of  the  ancestors  of  Ezra  the 
8cril>e  (I'^zr.  vii.  1),  but  whether  or  not  the  same  as 
Seraiah  the  high-priest  seems  uncertain.  Called 
also  Sakaias  (1  Esdr.  viii.  I;  2  Esi'r.  i.  1). 


SERAPHIM 

8.  (vihs  .\pa'ia\  Alex.  [FA.]  vios  Xaptua'- 
[Saraias.] )  A  priest,  or  priestly  family,  who  tigned 
the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  2). 

9.  {'Sapa'ia:  [S'lrrtia.])  A  priest,  the  son  of 
Hilkiah  (Xeh.  xi.  11),  who  was  ruler  of  the  house 
of  God  after  the  return  from  Babylon.  In  1  Chr. 
ix.  11  he  is  called  Azakiah. 

10-  CZapa'ia.)  The  head  of  a  prie.stly  house 
which  went  up  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel. 
His  repre.sentative  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  the  high- 
priest  was  Meraiah  (Neh.  xii.  1,  12). 

11.  ("Xapalas ;  [EA.  in  ver.  59,  Sopeas.]  1  Fh* 
son  of  Neriah,  and  brother  of  Baruch  (Jer.  li.  69, 
61).  He  went  with  Zedekiah  to  Babylon  in  the 
4th  year  of  his  reign,  or.  as  the  Targum  has  it, 
"in  the  mission  of  Zedekiah,"  and  is  described  oi 

nn^jp  "Iti-',  siir  luenuclidh  (lit.  "  prince  of 
rest  ;  "  A.  V.  "a  quiet  prince;  "  marg.  "or,  prince 
of  Menucha,  or,  chief  cliandierlain  "),  a  title  which 
is  interpreted  by  Kimchi  as  that  of  the  office  of 
chamberlain,  "for  he  was  a  friend  of  the  king,  and 
was  with  the  king  at  the  time  of  his  rest,  to  talk 
and  to   delight  himself  with   him."      The   LXX. 

and  Tarrjum  read  Hn^Q,  minchdh,  "  an  offering;," 
and  so  Hashi,  who  says,  "  under  his  hand  were 
those  who  saw  the  king's  face,  who  brought  him  a 
present."       The  Peshito-Syriac  renders  "  chief  of 

the  camp,"  apparently  reading  npnS,  machdneh, 
unless  the  translator  understood  menuchah  of  the 
halting-place  of  an  army,  in  which  sense  it  occurs 
in  Num.  x.  33.  Geseiiius  adopts  the  latter  view, 
and  makes  Seraiah  hold  an  office  similar  to  that  of 
"  quartermaster- general  "  in  the  Baliyloiiiaii  army. 
It  is  perfectly  clear,  however,  that  he  was  in  attend- 
ance upon  Zedekiah,  and  an  officer  of  the  Jewish 
court.  The  suggestion  of  jMaurer,  adopted  by  Hit- 
zig,  has  more  to  commend  it,  that  he  was  an  officer 
who  took  charge  of  the  royal  caravan  on  its  march, 
and  fixed  the  place  where  it  should  halt.  Hiller 
{Ononi.)  says  Seraiah  was  prince  of  ^Menuchah, 
a  ])lace  on  the  borders  of  Judah  and  Dan,  elsewhere 
called  Manahath.  The  rendering  of  the  Vulgate  is 
unaccountable,  princeps  propheiice. 

Seraiah  was  commissioned  by  the  prophet  .lere- 
miah  to  take  with  liim  on  his  journey  the  roll  in 
which  he  had  written  the  doom  of  Babylon,  and 
sink  it  in  the  midst  of  the  Euphrates,  as  a  token 
that  Bal)ylon  should  sink,  never  to  rise  again  (Jer. 
li.  60-04).  W.'a.  AV. 

SER'APHIM  (C'^Cntt;  [see  below] :  :Zepa- 
(pei/x:  Serajilnni).  An  order  of  celestial  beings, 
whom  Isaiah  beheld  in  vision  standing  aliove  Jeho- 
vah (not  as  in  A.  V.,  "above  f/,"  i.  e.  the  throne) 
as  He  sat  upon  his  throne  (Is.  vi.  2).  They  are 
described  as  having  each  of  them  three  pairs  of 
wings,  with  one  of  which  they  covered  their  faces 
(a  token  of  humility;  comp.  Ex.  iii.  6;  1  K.,  xix. 
13;  Plutarch,  Qua'sl.  Eom.  10);  with  the  second 
they  covered  their  feet  (a  token  of  respect;  see 
"Lowth  on  Is.  vi.  who  quotes  Chardin  in  illustra- 
tion); while  with  the  third  they  fiew.  They  seem 
to  have  borne  a  general  resemblance  to  the  human 
figure,  for  they  are  represented  as  having  a  face,  a 
voice,  feet,  and  hands  (ver.  6).  Their  occupation 
was  twofold  — to  celebrate  the  praises  of  Jehovah's 
holiness  and  power  (ver.  3),  and  to  act  as  the  me- 
dium of  comnumication  between  heaven  anrl  earth 
(ver.  6).  From  their  antiphonal  chant  ("one 
cried  unto  another")  we  may  conceive  tliem  to 
have  been  ranged  in  opposite  rows  ou  each  side  ol 


SERED 

the  throne.  As  the  Seraphim  ar<»  r>owhere  els9 
mentioned  in  the  Bible,  our  conceptions  of  their  ap- 
pearance must  lie  restricted  to  tlie  above  particulars, 
aided  by  such  uncertain  lii,'ht  as  etyniolojiy  and 
analogy  will  supply.  We  may  observe  tiiat  the 
idea  of  a  winged  human  figure  was  not  peculiar  to 
the  Hel)rews  :  among  the  sculptures  found  at 
Mouryhtab  in  Persia,  we  meet  with  a  representa- 
tion of  a  man  with  two  pairs  of  wings,  springing 
from  the  shoulders,  and  extending,  the  one  pair  up- 
wards, the  other  downwards,  so  as  to  admit  of 
3overing  the  bead  and  the  feet  (Vaux's  Nin.  and 
Persep.  p.  322).  The  wings  in  this  instance  imply 
deification;  for  speed  and  ease  of  motion  stand,  in 
man's  imagination,  among  the  most  prominent  to- 
kens of  Divinity.  The  meaning  of  the  word  "  ser- 
aph "  is  extremely  doubtful;  the  only  word  which 
resembles  it  in  the  current  Hebrew  is  sdra/ih,"  "  to 
tiurn,"  whence  the  idea  of  brilUunaj  has  been  ex- 
tracted. Such  a  sense  would  harmonize  with  other 
descriptions  of  celestial  beings  (e.  //.  Ez.  i.  13; 
Matt,  xxviii.  3);  but  it  is  objected  that  the  Hebrew 
term  never  bears  this  secondary  sense,  (iesenius 
(T/its.  p.  13-tl)  connects  it  with  an  Arabic  term 
sii;nifying  hiffh  or  exalted;  and  this  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  generally  recei\ed  etymology;  but 
the  absence  of  any  cognate  Hebrew  term  is  certainly 
worthy  of  remark.  The  similarity  Ijetween  the 
names  Seraphim  and  Sarapis,  led  Hitzig  (in  Is.  vi. 
2)  to  identify  the  two.  and  to  give  to  the  former 
the  figure  of  a  winged  serpent.  But  Sarapis  was 
unknown  in  the  Egyptian  Pantheon  until  the  time 
of  Ptolemy  Soter  (Wilkinson's  Anc.  Ey.  iv.  360 
IF.);  and,  even  had  it  been  otherwise,  we  can  hardly 
conceive  that  tlie  Hebrews  would  have  borrowerl 
their  imagery  from  such  a  source.  Knobel's  con- 
iecture  that  Serapliim  is  merely  a  false  reading  for 
ilidratliiiii,*'  "  ministers,"  is  ingenious,  but  the  lat- 
ter word  is  not  Helirew.  The  relation  sul)sisting 
l)etween  the  Cherubim  and  Serapliim  presents  an- 
other difficulty:  the  "living  creatures  "  descrilied 
in  Rev.  iv.  8  resemble  the  Seraphim  in  their  occu- 
pation and  the  aunilier  of  the  wings  ;  and  the 
Cherubim  in  their  general  appearance  and  number, 
as  described  in  Ez.  i.  5  fT.,  s.  12.  The  difference 
between  the  two  may  not.  therefore,  be  great,  but 
we  cannot  believe  them  to  be  identical  so  long  as 
the  distinction  of  name  holds  good.        W.  L.  B. 

SE'RED  (T^?  [fear'] :  Sepe'S  in  Gen.,  5a- 
pe'5  in  Num. :  Snrtd).  The  firstborn  of  Zebulon, 
and  ancestor  of  the  family  of  the  Sahdites  (Gen. 
xlvi.  14;  Num.  xxvi.  26). 

*  SERGEANTS  occurs  only  in  Acts  xvi.  35, 
38,  answering  to  pa/3dovxoi,  properly  "  rod-l)earers'' 
(in  Latin,  liclores).  They  w'ere  the  official  attend- 
ants of  the  higher  Roman  magistrates,  and  exe- 
cuted their  orders,  especially  for  the  arrest  and  pun- 
ishment of  criminals.  Their  duties  were  civil 
rather  than  military,  and  "sergeants,"  in  its  older 
English  sense,  was  less  inappropriate  than  it  is  at 
present.  In  the  colonies  the  lictors  carried  staves, 
not  J'lisces,  as  at  Rome.  It  was  to  them  that  Mie 
rulers  at  Philippi  gave  the  command  to  beat  Paul 
and  Silas  (eVeA.euoj'  pa^Si^sii-)-  Luke  speaks  of 
the  presence  of  "rod-bearers  "  only  in  his  accomit 
of  what  took  place  at  Philippi;  and  it  is  almost 
the  only  place  in  his  narrative  wbere  he  could 
rightly  introduce  them,     Philippi  being  a  Roman 


SERPENT 


2927 


Pintr. 


0  i:\T;ir' 


coliiiiy,  uidike  other  Grecian  cities,  was  governed 
after  the  Roman  mode;  its  chief  officers,  though 
properly  called  according  to  their  number  i/uuniriri 
or  qunlutirvlri^  assumed  the  more  iionorary  title  oi 
pne/ors  {aTpaTrtyui,  five  times  here  in  Acts),  and 
in  token  of  the  Roman  sovereignty,  had  rod-bear- 
ers or  liL-tors  as  at  Rome  [Colony,  Amer.  ed.] 
The  lictors  exercised  their  highest  functions  during 
the  time  of  the  republic,  Imt  still  existed  under  the 
emperors.  (See  Pauly's  Jieal.  Kncijki.  iv.  1(182  f. ) 
Paul  was  at  Philippi  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  about 
A.  D.  .52.  H. 

SER'GIUS  PAU'LUS  (Sep-yioj  UadKos: 
Seryiiis  P(.nilus)  was  the  name  of  the  proconsul  o1 
Cy])riis  when  tlie  Apostle  Paul  visited  that  islami 
with  Barnabas  on  his  first  mi.ssioTiary  tour  (.Acts 
xiii.  7  fF. ).  He  is  described  as  an  intelligent  man 
{auveT6s)i  truth-seeking,  eager  for  information 
irom  all  sources  within  his  reach.  It  was  tiiis  trait 
of  his  character  which  led  him  in  the  first  instance 
to  admit  to  his  society  Elymas  the  Magian,  and 
afterwards  to  seek  out  the  missionary  strangers  and 
learn  from  them  the  nature  of  the  Christian  doc- 
trine. 'J'he  strongest  minds  at  that  period  were 
drawn  with  a  singular  fascination  to  the  occult 
studies  of  the  East;  and  the  ascendancy  which 
Luke  represents  the  "sorcerer"  as  having  gained 
over  Sergius  illustrates  a  characteristic  featm-e  ol 
the  times.  For  other  examples  of  a  similar  char- 
acter, see  Howson's  Life  mid  EpiUles  of  Paul,  vol. 
i.  p.  177  f.  But  Sergius  was  not  effectually  or  long 
deceived  by  the  arts  of  the  impostor;  for  on  becom- 
ing acquainted  with  the  Vpostle  he  examined  at 
once  the  claims  of  the  Gospel,  and  yielded  his  mind 
to  the  evidence  of  its  truth. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  this  officer  is  styled  "  dep- 
uty "  in  the  Common  Version,  and  not  "procon- 
sul," according  to  the  import  of  the  Greek  term 
[avQviraTos)-  Though  Cyprus  was  originally  an 
imperial  province  (Dion  Cassius,  liii.  12),  and  aa 
such  go\erned  by  proprwtors  or  legates  {avTicTTpa- 
T7]yoi,  TTpea^euTai),  it  was  afterw-ards  transferred 
to  the  Roman  senate,  and  henceforth  governed  liy 
proconsuls  (koI  ot/Toiy  avdviraroi  Ka\  e'r  eKfiva  to 
eyvT?  irffiTTicrdai  fjp^avro,  Dion  Cassius,  liv.  4). 
For  the  value  of  this  attestation  of  Luke's  accuracy, 
see  Lardner's  Credibility  of  the  Gosjiel  Bistoi^.  vol. 
i.  p.  32  ft'.  Coins  too  are  still  extant,  on  which 
this  very  title,  ascribed  in  the  Acts  to  Sergius 
Paulus,  occurs  as  the  title  of  the  Roman  governors 
of  (_'yprus.  (See  Akernian'a  Numismatic  llluitra- 
ticns,  p.  41;  and  Howson's  LiJ'e  and  Epistles  of 
Paul,  vol.  i.  pp.  176,  187.)  H.  B.  H. 

SE'RON  (S.-npaiv:  in  Syr.  and  one  Gk.  j\IS. 
"Hpwu-  Seron),  a  general  of  Antiochus  Epiph.,  in 
chief  command  of  the  Syrian  army  (1  Mace.  iii.  13, 
6  ^pxt^v  T.  5vv.  2.),  who  was  defeated  at  Beth- 
horon  by  Judas  Maccaliasus  (b.  c.  106),  as  in  the 
day  when  Joshua  pursued  the  five  kings  "  in  the 
going  down  of  Beth-horon  "  (1  Maoo.  iii.  24;  Josh, 
x.  11).  According  to  Josephus,  he  was  the  gov- 
ernor of  Coele-Syria  and  fell  in  the  battle  (Josh. 
Aiit.  xii.  7,  §  1),  nor  is  there  any  reason  to  supix>s« 
that  his  statements  are  mere  deductions  from  the 
lajiicuage  o(  1  Maco.  B.  F.  W, 

SERPENT.  The  following  Ilel^rew  wxnU 
denote  serpents  of  some  kind  or  other.  '.-ItWid'i, 
pelliei),  tzephn'  or  tziplioni,  she/iliipJiuii,  iiachMb, 
and  e/ih'ek.  There  is  great  uncertainty  with  re- 
spect to  the  identification  of  some  of  these  terms, 
the  first  four  of  which  are  noticed  under  the  artJ- 


2928 


SERPENT 


SERPENT 


ties  AmI'KU  and  Asp:  the  two  remaining  names    that  the  serpent,  [irior  to  the  Fall,  moved  along  in 
we  proceed  to  discuss. 

1.  Xdchnsh  (^'H?  "  ""f"^'  Spa/<a)v:  serpens, 
coluber),  the  generic  name  of  any  serpent,  occurs 
frequently  in  the  0.  T.  The  following  are  the 
principal  Bililical  allusions  to  this  animal:  its  sub- 
tilty  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  iii.  1 ;  its  wisdom  is 
alluded  to  by  our  Lord  in  Matt.  x.  16 ;  the  poison- 
ous properties  of  some  species  are  often  mentioned 
(see  Ps.  Iviii.  4;  Prov.  xxiii.  32);  the  sharp  tongue 
of  the  serpent,  which  it  would  appear  some  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews  believed  to  be  the  instrument  of 
poison,  is  mentioned  in  Ps.  cxl.  3;  Job  xx.  10, 
"  the  viper's  tongue  shall  slay  him ;  "  although  in 
other  places,  as  in  Prov.  xxiii.  32;  Eccl.  x.  8,  11; 
Num.  xxi.  U,  the  venom  is  correctly  ascribed  to  the 
bite,  while  in  Job  xx.  14  the  gall  is  said  to  be  the 
poison ;  the  habit  serpents  have  of  lying  concealed 
in  hedges  is  alluded  to  in  Eccl.  x.  8,  and  in  holes 
nf  walls,  in  Am.  v.  19;  their  dwelling  in  dry  sandy 
places,  in  Ueut.  viii.  15;  their  wonderful  mode  of 
progression  did  not  escape  the  observation  of  the 
author  of  Prov.  xxx.  who  expressly  mentions  it  as 
"  one  of  the  three  things  which  were  too  wonder- 
ful for  him"  (ver.  19);  the  oviparous  nature  of 
most  of  the  order  is  alluded  to  in  Is.  lix.  5,  where 
the  A.  v.,  however,  has  the  unfortunate  rendering 
of  "  cockatrice."'  The  art  of  taming  and  charming 
Serpents  is  of  great  antiquity,  and  is  alluded  to  in 
Ps.  Iviii.  5;  Eccl.  x.  11;  Jer.  viii.  17,  and  doubt- 
less intimated  by  St.  James  (iii.  7),  who  particu- 
larizes serpents  among  all  other  animals  that 
"  have  been  tamed  by  man."     [Serpext-charm- 

IJJG.] 

It  was  under  the  form  of  a  serpent  that  the  devil 
seduced  Eve;  hence  in  Scripture  Satan  is  called 
'•  the  old  serpent"  (Rev.  xii.  9,  and  comp.  2  Cor. 
xi.  3). 

The  part  which  the  serpent  played  in  the  trans- 
action of  the  I'all  must  not  be  passed  over  without 
some  brief  comment,  being  full  of  deep  and  curious 
interest.  First  of  all,  then,  we  have  to  note  the 
sul)tilty  ascribed  to  this  reptile,  which  was  the 
reason  for  its  having  been  selected  as  the  instru- 
ment of  Satan's  wiles,  and  to  compare  with  it  the 
quality  of  wisdom  mentioned  by  our  Lord  as  be- 
longing to  it,  "Be  ye  wise  as  serpents,"  Matt.  x. 
If).  It  was  an  ancient  belief,  both  amongst  Orien- 
tals and  the  people  of  the  western  world,  that  the 
serpent  was  endued  with  a  large  share  of  sagacity, 
riie  Hebrew  word  translated  '•  subtle,"  tliough  fre- 
quently used  in  a  good  sense,  inqjlies,  it  is  proba- 
ble, in  this  passage,  "  mischievous  and  malignant 
craftiness,"  and  is  well  rendered  by  Aquila  and 
Theodotioii  by  itavovpyos,  and  thus  conunented 
upon  by  Jeiome,  "  magis  itaque  hoc  verbo  calliditas 
et  versutia  quam  sapientia  demonstratur "  (see 
Kosenmiiller,  Schol.  I.  c).  The  ancients  give  va- 
rious reasons  for  regarding  serpents  as  being  endued 
H'ith  wisdom,  as  that  one  species,  the  Cerastes, 
lides  itself  in  the  sand,  and  bites  the  heels  of  ani- 
mals as  they  pass,  or  that,  as  the  head  was  consid- 
ered the  only  vulnerable  part,  the  serpent  take.?  care 
to  conceal  it  under  the  folds  of  the  body.  Serpents 
have  in  all  ages  been  regarded  as  emblems  of  cun- 
ning craftiness.  The  particular  wisdon:  alluded  to 
by  our  Lord  refers,  it  is  probable,  to  the  sagacity 
displayed  by  serpents  in  avoidins  danger.  The 
iisciples  were  warned  to  be  as  prudent  in  not  in- 
Hirring  unnecessary  persecution 


an  erect  attitude,   as  Milton  {Pi(r.  Lost,  ix.  4961 

says,  — 

"  Not  with  indented  w.-ive 
Prone  on  the  ground,  as  .since,  but  on  liis  rear, 
Circular  base  of  risiu;^  folds  tbat  tower'd 
Fold  above  fold,  a  surging  maze." 

Compare  also  Josephus,  Aniiq.  i.  1,  §  4,  who  be- 
lieved that  (_;od  now  for  the  first  time  inserted  poi- 
son under  the  serpent's  tongue,  and  de|)rived  him 
of  the  use  of  feet,  causing  him  to  crawl  low  on  the 
ground  by  the  undulating  inflexions  of  the  body 
(fcoTtt  T>}$  yr)s  iKvcrrrw^iivov)-  Patrick  ( CommeiU, 
I.  c. )  euteitained  the  extraordinary  notion  that  the 
serpent  of  the  Eall  was  a  winged  kind  (Savfipk). 

It  is  quite  clear  that  an  erect  mode  of  progres- 
sion is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  structure  of  a 
serpent,  whose  motion  on  the  ground  is  so  beauti- 
fully effected  by  the  mechanism  of  the  vertebral 
column  and  the  multitudinous  ribs  which,  forming 
as  it  were  so  many  pairs  of  levers,  enable  the  ani- 
mal to  move  its  body  from  place  to  place;  conse- 
quently, had  the  snakes  before  the  Fall  moved  in 
an  erect  attitude,  they  must  have  been  formed  on  a 
different  plan  altogether.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
saurian  reptiles,  such  as  the  Saurophis  Mradac- 
ii/ltis  and  the  ClidiiHesaura  anyuinn  of  S.  Africa, 
which  in  external  form  are  very  like  ser])ents,  but 
with  quasi-feet;  indeed,  even  in  the  boa-constric- 
tor, undenreath  the  skin  near  the  extremity,  there 
exist  rudimentary  leirs;  some  have  been  disposed  to 
believe  that  the  snakes  before  the  Fall  were  similar 
to  the  Saurophis.  Such  an  hypothesis,  however, 
is  untenable,  for  all  the  fossil  ophidia  that  have 
hitherto  been  found  differ  in  no  essential  respects 
from  modern  representatives  of  tliat  order:  it  is, 
moreover,  beside  the  mark,  for  the  wonis  of  the 
curse,  '•  upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,"  are  as  char- 
acteristic of  the  progression  of  a  saurophoid  serpent 
before  the  Fall  as  of  a  true  ophidian  after  it. 
There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  conclude  from  the 
language  of  Scripture  that  the  serpent  underwent 
any  change  of  lurm  on  account  of  the  part  it  played 
in  the  history  of  the  Fall.  The  sun  and  the  mof)n 
were  in  the  heavens  long  before  they  were  appointed 
"  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  for 
years."  The  typical  form  of  the  serpent  and  its 
mode  of  progression  were  in  all  proljability  the 
same  before  the  Fall  as  after  it;  but  subsequent  to 
the  Fall  its  form  and  progression  were  to  be  re- 
iT-arded  with  hatred  and  disgust  by  all  mankind, 
and  thus  the  animal  was  cursed  "  above  all  cattle," 
and  a  mark  of  condemnation  was  forever  stamped 
upon  it.  There  can  be  no  necessity  to  show  how 
that  part  of  the  curse  is  literally  fultilled  which 
speaks  of  the  "enmity"  that  was  henceforth  to 
exist  between  the  serpent  and  mankind  ;  and 
though,  of  course,  this  has  more  especial  allusion 
to  the  devil,  whose  instrument  the  serpent  was  iy 
his  deceit,  yet  it  is  perfectly  true  of  the  seri)ent. 
Few  will  be  inclined  to  differ  with  Theocritus  ( id. 
xv»58):  — 

T'ov  ^f/vxpov  o^iv  TofioXto'Ta  SeSoiKu 
'Ek  TratSos. 

Serpents  are  said  in  Scripture  to  "  eat  dust  "  (see 
Gen.  iii.  14;  Is.  Ixv.  25;  Mic.  vii.  17);  these  ani- 
mals, which  for  the  most  part  take  their  food  ou 
the  ground,  do  consequently  swallow  with  it  large 
portions  of  sand  and  dust. 

Almost  throughout  the  East,"  writes  Dr.  Kal 


I-  has  been  supposed   by  m.any  commentators !  isch  {Uist.  and  Oil.  Comment.  Gen.  iii.  1),  "Um 


SERPENT 

terpent  was  used  as  an  einlileiii  of  the  evil  princi- 
ple, of  the  spirit  of  disoheilience  and  contumacy. 
A  few  exceptions  only  can  be  discovered.  The 
Phoenicians  adored  that  animal  as  a  beneficent 
genius;  and  the  Chinese  consider  it  as  a  symbol  of 
superior  wisdom  and  power,  and  ascribe  to  the 
kings  of  heaven  [titti-hoanys)  bodies   of  serpents. 


Cneph  Agathodaemon ,  denoting  Immortality  (see 
Horapollo,  i.  1). 

Some  other  nations  fluctuated  in  their  conceptions 
recjardins;  the  serpent.  'I'he  Egyptians  represented 
the  eternal  spirit  Knepli,  the  author  of  all  good, 
under  the  mythic  form  of  that  reptile;  they  under- 
stood the  art  of  taming  it,  and  embalmed  it  after 
death;  but  they  applied  the  same  symbol  for  the 
^od  of  revenge  and  punishment  (Tithramlio),  and 
for  Typhon,  the  author  of  all  moral  and  physical 
evil;  and  in  tlie  Egyptian  .symbolical  alphal)et  the 
serpent  represents  subtlety  and  cunning,  Inst  and 
sensual  pleasure.  In  Greek  mythology  it  is  cer- 
tainly, on  the  one  hand,  the  attribute  of  Ceres,  of 
Mercury,  and  of  ^Esculapins,  in  their  most  benefi- 
3ent  qualities ;  but  it  forms,  on  the  other  haiid,  a 
part  of  the  terrible  Furies  or  Enmenides:  it  appeare 
in  the  form  of  a  Python  as  a  fearful  monster, 
which  the  arrows  of  a  god  only  were  able  to  destroy ; 
and  it  is  the  most  hideous  and  most  fornddable 
part  of  the  impious  glints  who  de>pi-,e  and  bUs- 
pheme  the  power  ot  Heaven.     'Ihe  Indians,  like 


Agathodsemon.  From  Egyptian  Monuments.  ' 
«.  Sacred  symbol  of  the  winged  globe  and  serpent. 
!>.  Head  of  hawk  surmounted  by  globe  and  serpent. 

the  savage  tribes  of  Africa  and  .\merica,  suffer  and 
nourish,  indeed,  serpents  in  their  temples,  and  even 
in  their  houses;  they  lielieve  that  they  bring  hap- 
piness to  the  places  which  they  inhabit;  they 
worship  them  as  the  symlwls  of  eternity:  but  they 
regard  'J'em  also  as  evil  genii,  or  as  the  inimical 
fnwerfi  of  nature  ivhich  is  gradually  d>»praved  by 


SERPENT  2929 

them,  and  as  the  enemies  of  the  gods,  who  eithei 
tear  them  in  pieces  or  tread  their  venomous  head 
under  their  dl-conquering  feet.  So  contradictory 
is  all  anin)al  worship.  Its  principle  is,  in  some 
in.^tances,  gratitude,  and  in  others  fear;  but  if  a 
noxious  animal  is  very  dangerous  the  fear  niay 
manifest  itself  in  two  ways,  either  liy  the  resolute 
dfsire  of  extirpating  the  beast,  or  by  the  wish  of 
averting  the  conflict  with  its  superior  power;  thus 
the  same  fear  may,  on  the  one  hand,  cause  fierce 
enmity,  and  on  the  other  submission  and  worship.' 
(See  on  the  sulject  of  serpent  worship,  Vossius,  </6 
Oriij.  IduL  i.  5;  Bryant's  Mijlliohigy,  i.  ■420-490; 
it  is  well  illustrated  in  the  apocryphal  story  of  "  Bel 
and  the  Dragon;  "  coinp.  Steindorif,  de  '0(/)io\o- 
rpeiot;  Winer's  Bib.  Rtnlwoj-i.  ii.  488.)  The  sulj- 
joined  wood-cut  represents  the  horned  cerastes,  aa 
very  frequently  depicted  on  the  Egjptian  monu 
ments. 


Horned  Cerastes.     From  Egyptian  Monuments. 

The  evil  spirit  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  appears 
in  the  .Vhriman,  or  lord  of  evil,  who,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  Zoroaster,  first  taught  men  to  sin 
under  the  guise  of  this  reptile  {Z-^iidavesta,  ed. 
Ivleuk.  i.  25,  iii.  84;  see  J.  Keinh.  lius  dt  ser 
pente  seductore  nun  naturaU  scd  diabolo,  Jen.  1712, 
and  Z.  Grapius,  de  tentalione  Ecte  et  C/irisli  ct 
diabolo  in  ussuinpto  corpore  facta,  Kostoch.  1712). 
But  compare  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Kalisch,  who 
{Comment,  on  Gen.  iii.  14,  15)  says  "the  serpent 
is  the  reptile,  not  an  evil  demon  that  had  assumed 
its  shape  ....  If  the  serpent  represented 
Satan,  it  would  be  extremely  surprising  that  the 
former  only  was  cursed ;  and  that  the  latter  is  not 
even  mentioned  ....  it  would  be  entirely 
at  variance  with  the  Divine  justice  forever  to  curse 
the  animal  whose  shape  it  had  pleased  the  evil  one 
to  assume."  According  to  the  Talmudists,  the 
name    of   the   evil  spirit    that  beguiled  Eve    was 

Sammael  (^SSO) ;  "  E.  Moses  ben  Majemon 
scriliit  in  More  lib.  2,  cap.  30,  Sammaelem  incqui- 
tasse  serpenti  antiquo  et  seduxisse  Evaui.  Dicit 
etiam  nomen  hoc  absolute  usurpari  de  Satana,  et 
Hainmrtelem  nihil  aliud  essequam  ipsum  Satanam  " 
(Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  14'J5). 

Much  has  been  written  on  the  question  of  (he 

"fiery  serpents"  (D^p^ifn  D^tt??!?:!)  of 
Num.  xxi.  6,  8,  with  which  it  is  usual  erroneously 
to  identify  the  "  fiery  flying  serpent "  of  Is.  xxx.  G, 
and  xiv.  29-  In  the  transaction  recorded  (Num. 
I.  c.  ;  Deut.  viii.  15)  as  having  occurretl  at  the 
time  of  the  Exodus,  when  the  rebellious  Israelites 
were  visited  with  a  plague  of  serpents,  there  is  not 
a  word  about  their  having  been  "flying  "  creatures; 
there  is  therefore  no  occasion  to  refer  the  venomous 
snakes  in  question  to  the  kind  of  which  Niebuhr 
{Descript.  de  CArab.  p.  156)  speaks,  and  which 
the  Arabs  at  Basra  denominate  Heie  sursurie,  or 
//eie  tliidre,  "flying  serpents,"  which  obtained  that 
name  from  their  habit  of  "springing"  from  branch 
to  branch  of  the  date-trees  they  inhabit.  Besides 
these  are  tree-serpents  {DendrophidiB),  a  harmless 
family  of  the  Colubrine  snakes,  and  therefore  quite 
out  of  the  question.  The  Heb.  term  rendered 
"  fiery  "  by  the  \.  V.  is  by  the  Alexandrine  edi 
tion  of  the    LXX.    represented    by  QavaTovvm 


2930 


SERPENT 


"deadly;  "  Oiikelos,  the  Arabic  version  of  Saadias, 
and  the  ^  ulg.  translate  the  word  "  hui'ning,"  in 
allusion  to  the  sensation  produced  by  the  bite; 
other  authorities  understand  a  reference  to  the 
bright  color  of  the  serpents.  It  is  impossible  to 
point  out  the  species  of  poisonous  snake  which  de- 
sliojed  the  people  in  the  Arabian  desert.  Niebuhr 
says  that  the  only  truly  formidable  kind  is  that 
called  Bcelnn,  a  small  slender  creature  spotted  black 
and  white,  whose  bite  is  instant  death,  and  whose 
poison  causes  the  dead  body  to  swell  in  an  extraor- 
dinary manner  (see  Forskal,  Dtscript.  Animal,  p. 
15).  What  the  modern  name  of  this  serpent  is  we 
have  been  unable  to  ascertain;  it  is  obvious,  how- 
ever, that  either  the  Cerastes,  or  the  Naia  haje,  or 
any  other  venomous  species  frequenting  Arabia, 
may  denote  the  "serpent  of  the  burning  bite" 
which  destroyed  the  children  of  Israel.  The  "  fiery 
flying  serpent  "  of  Isaiah  {L  c.)  can  have  no  exis- 
tence in  nature,  though  it  is  curious  to  notice  that 
Herodotus  (ii.  75,  iii.  108)  speaks  of  serpents  with 
wings  whose  bones  he  imagined  he  had  himself 
seen  ue.ir  Bute  in  Arabia.  Monstrous  forms  (<f 
snakes  with  birds'  wings  occur  on  the  Kgyptian 
sculptures;  it  is  piobable  that  some  kind  of  flying 
lizard  {Drticu,  JJracocella,  or  Dmcimcalus)  may 
have  been  the  "  flying  serpent  "  of  which  Herodo- 
tus speaks:  and  perhaps,  as  this  animal,  though 
harmless,  is  yet  calculated  to  inspire  horror  by  its 
appearance,  it  may  denote  the  flying  serpent  of  tlie 
prophet,  and  have  been  regarded  by  the  ancient 
Hebrews  as  an  animal  as  terrible  as  a  venomous 
snake. 

2.  Eph'eh  (Hl^^S  :  6(pLS,affTv'is,  $aal\iaKos- 
vipera,  reguhis)  occurs  in  Job  xx.  36,  Is.  xxx.  6, 
and  Ux.  5,  in  all  of  which  passages  the  A.  V.  has 
"  viper."  There  is  no  Scriptural  allusion  by  means 
of  which  it  is  possil)le  to  determine  the  species  of 
serpent  indicated  by  the  Heb.  term,  which  is  de- 
rived from  a  root  which  signifies  "  to  hiss."     Shaw 


Common  Viper.     (  Vipera  berus. ) 

{Trav.  p.  251)  speaks  of  some  poisonous  snake 
which  the  Arabs  call  l-effiih  {El-effali):  "it  is  the 
most  malignant  of  the  tribe,  and  rarely  above  a 
foot  lont;."  Jackson  also  (M<irucco,  p.  110)  men- 
tions this  serpent;  from  his  descri]]tion  it  would 
seem  to  be  the  Algerine  adder  {Krhidiia  arielniis 
/ar.  Maitritanica).     The  snake  (e^'Sfa)  that  fast- 


'<  The  theory  wliich  ascribes  the  healing  to  myste- 
rious powers  known  to  the  astrologers  or  alchemi.*ts  of 
Egypt  may  be  mentioned,  but  hardly  calls  for   exam- 


SERPENT,  BRAZEN 

ened  on  St.  Paul's  hand  when  he  was  at  Meli« 
(Acts  xxviii.  3)  was  probably  the  common  viper  of 
this  country  (Pelias  berus),  which  is  widely  dis- 
tributed throughout  Europe  and  the  islands  of  the 
Mediterranean,  or  else  the  Vipera  aspis,  a  not  un- 
common species  on  the  coasts  of  the  same  sea. 

W.  H. 

SERPENT,  BRAZEN.  The  familiar  his- 
tory of  the  brazen  serpent  need  not  be  repeated 
here.  The  nature  of  the  fiery  snakes  by  which  the 
Israelites  were  attacked  has  been  discussed  under 
Skki'ENT.  The  scene  of  the  history,  deterniined 
by  a  comparison  of  Num.  xxi.  3  and  xxxiii.  42, 
must  have  been  either  Zalmonah  or  Punon.  The 
names  of  both  places  probably  connect  themselves 
with  it,  Zalmonah  as  meaning  "  the  place  of  the 
image,"  Punon  as  probaljly  identical  with  the 
^aivoi  mentioned  by  Greek  writers  as  famous  for 
its  copper-mines,  and  therefore  possibly  supplying 
the  materials  (Bochart,  Hieruz.  ii.  3, 13).  [Punok; 
Zal.moxaii.]  The  chief  interest  of  the  narrative 
lies  in  the  thoughts  which  have  at  different  times 
gathered  round  it.  A\'e  meet  with  these  in  three 
distinct  stages.  We  ha\e  to  ask  by  what  associa- 
tions each  was  connected  with  the  others. 

I.  'I'he  truth  of  the  history  will,  in  this  place,  lie 
taken  for  granted.  Those  who  prefer  it  may  choose 
among  the  hypotheses  iiy  which  men  halting  l)e- 
tween  two  opinions  have  endeavored  to  retain  the 
historical  and  to  eliminate  the  supernatural  ele- 
ment." They  may  look  on  the  cures  as  having 
been  effected  by  the  force  of  imagination,  which 
the  visible  symbol  served  to  heighten,  or  by  the 
i-apid  rushing  of  the  serpent-bitten  from  all  parts 
of  the  camp  to  the  standard  thus  erected,  curing 
them,  as  men  are  said  to  be  cured  by  dancing  of 
the  bite  of  the  tarantula  (Bauer,  Ueb.  Oesdi.  ii. 
320;  Paulus,  Comm.  IV.  i.  198,  in  Winer, 
Realid).).  They  may  see  in  the  serpent  the  em- 
blematic fi^'upost,  as  it  were,  of  the  camp  hospital 
to  which  the  sutiei-ers  were  brought  fur  special  treat- 
ment, the  form  in  this  instance,  as  in  that  of  the  rod 
of  ^-Esculapius,  being  a  sunljol  of  the  art  of  healing 
(Hotiiuann,  in  Scherer's  Sviniftfors-.li.  i.  576: 
Winer,  Rtalirb.).  Leaving  these  conjectures  or 
one  side,  it  remains  for  us  to  inquire  into  the  fit 
ness  of  the  s>nibol  thus  employed  as  the  instnnnen/ 
of  healing.  To  most  of  the  Israelites  it  must  hav 
seeujed  as  strange  then  as  it  did  afterwards  to  tht 
later  Kabbis,''  that  any  such  symbol  should  be  em- 
ployed. The  Second  Commandment  appeared  tc 
forbid  the  likeness  of  any  living  thing.  The  golden 
calf  had  been  desti'oyed  as  an  abouiination.  Now 
the  colossal  serpent  (the  narrative  implies  that  it 
was  visible  from  all  parts  of  the  encamijinent). 
made,  we  may  conjecture,  by  the  hands  of  ISezaletl 
or  Aholiab,  was  exposed  to  their  gaze,  and  they 
were  told  to  look  to  it  as  gifted  with  a  supeniatura, 
power.  What  reason  was  there  for  the  dift'erence ';* 
In  part,  of  cour.se,  the  answer  may  be,  that  the  Sec- 
ond t'onnnandmeiit  forbade,  not  all  symbolic  forms 
as  such,  but  those  that  men  njade  for  themselves  to 
worship;  but  the  question  still  remains,  why  was 
this  form  chosen?  It  is  hardly  enough  to  say,  with 
Jewish    commentators,   that   any   outward    meauii 


Justin  Martyr  with  Trypho  (p.  S'22)  declares  that  h« 
had  often  askjd  his  teachers  to  solve  the  difficulty, 
and  had  never  found  one  who  explained  it  satislacto- 


matioii  (Marsham,  Can.  Chroii.  pp.  148,  149;  R.  Tirza.  i  r;!y.     Justin  himsflf,  of  cojiie,  e?;plaius  it  as  a  typ« 
^  Deyling,  Ex'rrit     Sacr.  ii.  210)  ot  Christ 

fc  One  of  the  Jewish  interlocutors  in  the  dialogue  of  ] 


SERPENT.  BRAZEN 

QQight  have  been  chosen,  like  the  hinip  of  fii^s  in 
Hezekiah's  sickness,  the  salt  which  healed  the 
bitter  waters,  and  that  the  brazen  serpent  made  the 
miracle  yet  more  miraculous,  inasmuch  as  the  glare 
of  burnished  brass,  the  gaze  upon  the  serpent  tbrni, 
were,  of  all  things,  most  likely  to  be  fatal  to  those 
who  had  lieen  liitten  (Gem.  Uab.  Joma  ;  A  ben  Ezra 
and  others  in  ISuxtorf,  Hht.  ^-En.  Serp.  c.  51.  The 
foct  is  doubtful,  the  reason  inadequate.  It  is  hardly 
enough  again  to  say,  with  most  Christian  interpret- 
ers, that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  type  of  Christ. 
Some  meaning  it  must  have  had  for  those  to  whom 
it  was  actually  presented,  and  we  have  no  grounds 
for  assuming,  even  in  Moses  himself,  still  less  in  the 
multitude  of  Israelites  slowly  rising  out  of  sensual- 
ity, unbelief,  rebellion,  a  knowledge  of  the  far-oft' 
mystery  of  redenijjtion.  If  the  words  of  our  Lord 
in  John  iii.  14,  15  point  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
type,  there  must  yet  have  been  another  meaning 
for  the  symbol.  Takiiig  its  part  in  the  education 
of  the  Israelites,  it  must  have  had  its  st;irting-point 
in  the  associations  pre\ious]y  connected  with  it. 
Two  views,  very  different  from  each  other,  have 
been  held  as  to  the  nature  of  those  associations. 
On  the  one  side  it  has  been  maintained  that,  either 
from  its  simply  ]jhysical  effects  or  from  the  mys- 
terious history  of  the  temptation  in  Gen.  iii.,  the 
serpent  was  the  representative  of  evil.  To  present 
the  serpent-form  as  deprived  of  its  power  to  hurt, 
mpaled  as  the  trophy  of  a  conqueror,  was  to  as- 
sert that  evil,  physical  and  spiritual,  had  been  over- 
come, and  thus  help  to  strengthen  the  weak  faith 
of  the  Israelites  in  a  victory  over  both.  The  ser- 
pent, on  this  view,  expressed  the  same  idea  as  the 
d,-agon  in  the  popular  repi'esentations  of  the  Arch- 
angel Michael  and  St.  George  (Ewald,  Geschicbte, 
ii.  228 ).«  To  some  writers,  as  to  Ewald,  this  has 
commended  itself  as  the  simplest  and  most  obvious 
view.  It  has  been  adopted  by  some  orthodox  divines 
who  have  l)een  uualile  to  convince  themselves  that 
the  same  form  could  ever  really  have  been  at  once 
a  type  of  Satan  and  of  Christ  (.Jackson,  Humili- 
ation tifthe  Sun  of  lio'/,  c.  Jil;  Patrick,  Comin.  in 
loc.  ;  Espagnaeus,  I'urmann,  Vitringa,  in  Deyling, 
Observatl.  Sac.  ii.  15).  Others,  again,  have  started 
from  a  different  ground.  They  raise  the  question 
whether  Gen.  iii.  was  then  written,  or  if  written, 
known  to  the  great  body  of  the  Israelites.  I'hey 
look  to  Egypt  as  the  starting-point  for  all  the 
thoughts  which  the  serpent  could  suggest,  and  they 
find  there  that  it  was  worship]jed  as  an  cK/ntho'lm- 
mon,  the  syml.iol  of  health  and  life.*  This,  for 
them,  explains  the  mystery.  It  was  as  the  known 
emblem  of  a  power  to  heal  that  it  served  as  the 
sign  and  sacrament  on  which  the  faith  of  the  people 
might  fa-sten  and  sustain  itself. 

Contrasted  as  these  views  appear,  they  have,  it 
is  believed,  a  point  of  contact.  The  idea  primarily 
connected  with  tlie  serpent  in  the  history  of  the 
Fall,  as  throughout  the  proverbial  language  of 
Scripture,  is  that  of  wisdom  (Gen.  iii.  1 ;  Matt.  x. 
16;  2  Cor.  xi.  3).     Wisdom,  apart  from  obedience 


a  Auorher  view,  verging  almost  on  the  ludicrous, 
has  been  miiintaineJ  by  some  Jewish  writers.  The 
serpent  was  set  up  in  tirnirtm,  as  a  iiiau  who  has 
chastised  his  son  hangs  up  the  rod  against  the  wall  as 
t  warning  (Otho,  Lfxic.  Habbin   s.  v.  Ser/iens). 

>>  Comp.  Serpent,  and.  iu  addition  to  the  authori- 
tieg  tliera  refirred  to,  Wilkinson's  Anc.  E^yplians.  ii. 
184,  ii   31*5,  V.  04,  233  ;  Kurtz,  History  of  ike  Old  Cov- 


SERPENT,  BRAZEN         2931 

to  a  dnine  order,  allying  itself  to  man's  lower  na. 
ture,  passes  into  cunning.  jNIan's  nature  is  enven- 
omed  and  degraded  by  it.  But  wisdom,  the  self- 
same power  of  understanding,  yielding  to  the  di- 
vine law,  is  the  source  of  all  heahng  and  restoring 
influences,  and  the  serpent-form  thus  becomes  a 
symbol  of  deliverance  and  health.  The  Israelites 
were  taught  that  it  would  be  so  to  them  in  pro- 
portion as  they  ceased  to  be  sensual  and  rebelUous. 
There  were  facts  in  the  life  of  Moses  himself  which 
must  have  connected  themseh'es  with  this  twofold 
symbolism.  When  he  was  to  'le  taught  that  the 
Divine  Wisdom  could  work  with  any  instruments, 
his  rod  became  a  serpent  (Ex.  iv.  1-5).  (Comp. 
Cyril.  Alex.  Sdwl.  15.  Gl"pliyra  in  Ei.  ii.)" 
When  he  and  Aaron  were  called  to  their  great 
conflict  with  the  jjerverted  wisdom  of  Eirypt,  the 
many  serpents  of  the  magicians  were  overcome  by 
the  one  serpent  of  the  future  high-priest.  The 
conqueror  and  tlie  conquered  were  alike  iu  outward 
form  (Ex.  vii.  l()-12j. 

II.  The  next  stage  in  the  history  of  the  brazen 
serpent  shows  how  easily  even  a  legitimate  symbol, 
retained  beyond  its  time,  after  it  had  done  it? 
work,  might  become  the  occasion  of  idolatry.  It 
a])pears  in  the  reian  of  Hezekiab  as  having  been 
for  some  undefined  period,  an  object  of  worship 
The  zeal  of  that  king  leads  him  to  destroy  it.  It 
receives  from  him,  or  had  borne  before,  the  nam? 
Nehuslitan.  [Comp.  Nehusiitax.]  We  are  left 
to  conjecture  when  the  worship  began,  or  what  was 
its  locality.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  it  should  have 
been  tolerated  l)y  the  reforming  zeal  of  kings  like 
Asa  and  .lehoshaphat.  It  must,  we  may  believe, 
ha\e  received  a  fresh  character  and  become  more 
conspicuous  in  the  period  which  preceded  its  de- 
struction. All  that  we  know  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz 
makes  it  probable  that  it  was  under  his  auspices 
tliat  it  received  a  new  development,'^  that  it  thus 
became  the  object  of  a  marked  aversion  to  the 
iconoclastic  party  who  were  prominent  among  the 
counsellors  of  Hezekiah.  Intercourse  with  countries 
in  which  Ophiolatry  prevailed  —  Syria,  Assyria, 
possibly  Egypt  also  —  acting  on  the  feeling  which 
led  him  to  bring  together  the  idolatries  of  all 
neighboring  nations,  might  easily  bring  aljout  this 
perversion  of  the  reverence  telt  for  the  time 
honored  relic. 

Here  we  might  expect  the  history  of  the  mate- 
rial' object  would  cease,  but  the  passion  for  relics 
has  prevailed  even  against  the  hitjtcry  of  the  Bible. 
The  i;hurch  of  St.  Ambrose,  at  Milan,  has  boasted, 
for  centuries,  of  possessing  the  brazen  serpent 
which  JMoses  set  up  in  the  wilderness.  The  earliei 
history  of  the  relic,  so  called,  is  matter  for  conjec- 
ture. Our  knowledge  of  it  begins  in  the  year  a.  u. 
!I71,  when  an  envoy  was  sent  by  the  Milanese  to 
the  court  of  the  Emperor  John  Zinusc€s,  at  Con- 
stantinople. He  was  taken  thrrugh  the  impeiial 
caliinet  of  treasures  and  invited  to  make  hia 
choice,  and  he  chose  this,  which,  the  Greeks  as- 
sured him,  was  made  of  the  same  metal  as    the 


enanl,ii\.  348,  Eng.  trausl.  ;  Witsius,  ..^'^/i/iaca,  in 
Ugolini,  i.  852. 

'•  The  explanation  given  by  Cyril  is,  as  might  b« 
expected,  more  mystical  than  that  in  the  text.  The 
rod  transformed  into  a  serpent  represents  the  Divin* 
Word  taking  on  Himself  the  likem-s."  of  sinful  tle.^h. 

''  Ewakl's  conjecture  ( Gc.irA  iv.  622)  that,  till  then, 
the  serpent  may  have  remained  at  Ziilnionah,  the  t  >■ 
.iect  of  occasioual  pilgrimages,  is  probable  euouyh 


2932         SERPE]S"T,  BKAZEN 

original  serjioiit  (Si£(onius,  Ilifl.  liKjn.  lUil.h.  vii.). 
On  his  retuiTi  it  was  placed  in  tlie  Church  of  St. 
Ambrose,  and  popularly  identified  with  that  which 
it  professed  to  represent.  It  is,  at  least,  a  possible 
hypothesis  that  the  Western  C'htu-ch  has  in  this 
way  been  led  to  venerate  what  was  orii;inaIly  the 
object  of  the  worship -of  some  Ophite  sect. 

III.  \\'hen  the  material  symbol  had  perished,  its 
history  began  to  sui,'gest  deeper  tlioughts  to  the 
minds  of  men.  The  writer  of  the  Book  of  Wis- 
dom, in  the  elaborate  contrast  which  he  draws 
between  true  and  false  religions  in  their  use  of 
on'.ward  signs,  sees  in  it  a  av/x^oXoi/  awTTjpias, 
tis  avu/xvifiaiv  iPToKfis  v6fj.ov  crov-  "he  that 
tiirnsd  himself  was  not  .saved  by  the  thing  that  he 
iaw  (Sio  T^  (^^mpovixivov),  but  by  Thee  that  art 
the  t^aviuur  of  all"  (Wisd.  xvi.  U,  7).  The  Tar- 
gum  of  Jonathan  paraphrases  Nun;,  xxi.  8,  "  He 
shall  be  healed  if  he  direct  his  heart  unto  the 
Name  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord."  I'liilo,  witii  his 
characteristic  taste  for  an  ethical,  mystical  inter]}re- 
tation  represents  the  history  as  a  pai'able  of  man's 
victo—  over  his  lower  sensuous  nature.  The 
metal,  the  symbol  of  permanence  and  strength,  has 
changed  the  meaning  of  the  symbol,  and  that 
tvhich  had  before  been  the  emblem  of  the  will, 
yielding  to  and  poisoned  by  the  serpent  pleasure, 
now  represents  auKfypoavvr],  the  avrnvaQts  aKo- 
\aaias  (pap/xaKov  {^f  A<jricitl(.).  The  facts  just 
stated  may  help  us  to  enter  into  the  bearing  of 
the  words  of  .John  iii.  14,  15.  If  the  paraphrase 
of  Jonathan  represents,  as  it  does,  the  current  in- 
terpretation of  the  schools  of  Jerusalem,  the  devout 
liabbi  to  whom  the  words  were  spoken  could  not 
have  been  ignorant  of  it.  The  new  teacher  car- 
ried the  lesson  a  step  further,  lie  led  him  to 
identify  the  "Name  of  the  M'ord  of  the  Lord" 
with  that  of  the  Son  of  j\lan.  He  [jrepared  him 
to  see  in  the  lifting-up  of  the  Crucifixion  that 
which  should  answer,  in  its  power  to  heal  and  save, 
to  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness. 

IV.  A  full  discussion  of  the  typical  meaning 
here  imfolded  belongs  to  Exegesis  rather  than  to 
a  Dictionary.  It  will  be  enough  to  note  here  that 
which  connects  itself  with  facts  or  theories  already 
mentioned.  On  the  one  side  the  typical  interpre- 
tation has  been  extended  to  all  the  details.  The 
pole  on  which  the  serpent  was  placed  was  not  only 
a  type  of  the  cross,  but  was  itself  crucial  in  form 
(Just.  Mart.  Did.  c.  Tnjph.  p.  322).  The  serpent 
was  nailed  to  it  as  Christ  was  «iiailed.  As  the 
symbol  of  sin  it  represented  his  being  made  sin  for 
us.  The  very  metal,  like  the  fine  brass  of  Kev.  i. 
15,  was  an  emblem  of  the  might  and  glory  of  the 
Son  of  Man  (comp.  Lamps,  in  Inc. ).  On  the 
other  it  has  been  maintained  (Patrick  and  Jack- 
son, ut  supra)  that  the  serpent  was  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  remains  still,  exclusively  the  synilwl  of 
evil,  that  the  litling-up  of  the  Son  of  JIan  answered 
to  that  of  the  serpent  because  on  the  cross  the  vic- 
tory over  the  serpent  was  acconi[)lislied.  The  point 
of  comparison  lay  not  between  the  serpent  and 
Christ,  but  between  the  look  of  the  Israelite  to  the 
jutward  sign,  the  look  of  a  justifying  faith  to  the 
cross  of  Christ.  It  will  not  surprise  us  to  find 
that,  in  tlie  spiritual,  as  in  the  historical  interpre- 
tation, both  theories  haxe  an  element  of  truth. 
The  serpent  here  also  is  primarily  the  emblem  of 
the  "knowledge  of  good  and  evil.'  To  man,  as 
ha\ing  obtained  that  knowledge  by  doing  evil,  it 
lias  l)«-n  as  a  venomous  .serpent,  poisoning  and 
wrrupting.     In  the  nature  of  the  Son  of  Man  it 


SERPENT-CHAKMING 

is  once  more  in  harmony  with  the  Di-^ine  will,  a;icl 
leaves  the  humanity  pure  and  untainted.  The 
Crucifixion  is  the  witness  that  the  evil  has  been 
overcome  by  the  good.  Those  who  are  bitten  bj 
the  serpent  find  their  deliverance  in  looking  to 
Him  who  knew  evil  only  by  subduing  it,  and  whu 
is  therefore  mighty  to  save.  Well  would  it  have 
been  for  the  Church  of  Christ  if  it  had  been  con- 
tent to  rest  in  this  truth.  Its  history  shows  how 
easy  it  was  for  the  old  perversion  to  reproduce 
itself.  The  highest  of  all  symliols  might  share  the 
fate  of  the  lower.  It  was  possilile  even  for  the 
cross  of  Christ  to  pass  into  a  Nehushtan.  (Comp. 
Stier,  Words  of  tUe  Lord  Jesus,  on  John  iii.,  and 
Kurtz,  Hi'st.  if  the  Old  Cm-tnant,  iii.  3-4'4-358. 
Eng.  transl.)  E.  H.  P. 

SERPENT-CHARMING.  Some  few  re- 
marks on  this  subject  are  made  under  Asp  (vol. 
i.  p.  180  0),  where  it   is    shown    that   the  jiethen 

(TO??)  probably  denotes  the  Egyptian  cobra. 
There  can  be  no  question  at  all  of  the  remarkable 
power  which,  from  time  immemorial,  has  been  ex- 
ercised by  certain  people  in  the  12ast  over  poison- 
ous serpents.  The  art  is  most  distinctly  mentioned 
in  the  Bible,  and  probably  alluded  to  by  St.  James 
(iii.  7).  The  usual  species  operated  upon  both  in 
Africa  and  India,  are  the  hooded  snakes  {\(da 
tripudiitns,  and  Nina  hnjt)  and  the  horned  Ceras- 
tes. The  skill  of  the  Italian  Marsi  and  the  Libyan 
Psylli  in  taming  serpents  was  celebrated  through- 
out the  world ;  and  to  this  day,  as  we  are  told  by 
Sir  G.  Wilkinson  (Kawlinson's  Herodotus,  iii.  124, 
7wte,  ed.  1862),  the  snake-players  of  the  coast  of 
Barbary  are  worthy  successors  of  the  Psylli  (see 
PUny,  viii.  25,  xi.  25,  and  especially  Lucan's  ac- 
count of  the  Psylli,  Plinrsal.  ix.  892).  See  nu- 
merous references  cited  by  Bochart  (Hieroz.  iii. 
Itii-t,  &c.)  on  the  subject  of  serpent-taming. 

That  the  charmers  frecpiently,  and  perhaps 
generally,  take  the  precaution  of  extracting  the 
poison  fangs  before  the  snakes  are  subjected  to 
their  skill,  there  is  much  probability  for  believing, 
but  that  this  operation  is  not  always  attended  to 
is  clear  from  the  testimony  of  Bruce  and  numerous 
other  writers.  "  Some  people,"  says  the  traveller 
just  mentioned,  "  have  doubted  that  it  was  a  trick, 
and  that  the  animals  so  handled  had  been  first 
trained  and  then  di.sarmed  of  their  power  of  hurt- 
ing, and,  fond  of  the  discovery,  they  have  rested 
themselves  upon  it  without  experiment,  in  the  face 
of  all  antiquity.  But  I  will  not  hesitate  to  aver 
that  I  have  seen  at  Cairo  a  man  .  .  .  who  has 
taken  a  cerastes  with  his  naked  hand  from  a  num- 
ber of  others  lying  at  the  bottom  of  the  tub,  has  put 
it  upon  his  bare  head,  covered  it  with  the  common 
red  cap  he  wears,  then  taken  it  out,  put  it  in  hia 
breast  and  tied  it  about  his  neck  like  a  necklace, 
after  which  it  has  been  applied  to  a  hen  and  bit  it, 
which  has  died  in  a  few  minutes."  Dr.  Davy,  in 
his  Inteiior  of  Cei/toii,  speaking  of  the  snake-' 
charmers,  sa3's  on  this  sulject:  "The  ignorant 
vulgar  lielie\e  that  these  men  really  possess  a 
charm  by  which  they  thus  play  without  dread,  and 
with  impunity  from  danger.  Ihe  more  enlight- 
ened, laughing  at  this  idea,  consider  the  men  im- 
postors, and  that  in  playing  their  tricks  there  is  no 
danger  to  be  avoided,  it  being  removed  by  the  ab- 
straction of  the  poison  fangs.  The  enlightened  in 
this  instance  are  mistaken,  and  the  vulgar  are 
nearer  the  truth  in  their  opinion.  I  ha  .-e  examined 
the  snakec  1  have  seen  exhibited,  and   have  fuviid 


SERUG 

their  poison  f'a;iirs  in  and  uninjured.  These  men 
3o  possess  a  cliarm,  though  not  a  supernatural 
»ne  —  nnniply,  that  of  confiden;e  and  couracre.  .  .  . 
The)'  will  play  their  tricks  with  any  hooded  snakes 
(Nnj((  ij-ijm(li(nis)j  whetlier  just  taken  or  long  in 
confinement,  but  with  no  other  kind  of  poisonous 
Bnake."  See  also  'Jennent,  Ctylon,  i.  10!),  :3d  ed. 
Some  have  supposed  that  tlie  practice  of  takins; 
out  or  breaking  off  the  poison  fangs  is  alluded  to 
in  I's.  Iviii.  0,  "  Break  their  teeth,  0  God,  in  their 
nioulli." 


SEllVITOR 


2933 


Serpent  charming 

The  serpent-charmer's  usual  instrument  is  a 
flute.  Shrill  somids.  it  would  appear,  are  those 
which  serpents,  with  their  imperfect  sense  of  hear- 
ing, are  able  most  easily  to  discern ;  hence  it  is  that 
the  Chinese  summon  their  tame  fish  by  whistling 
or  by  rinsing  a  bell. 

The  reader  will  find  much  interesting  matter  on 
the  art  of  serpent-charming,  <as  practiced  by  the 
ancients,  in  Hochart  {Huroz.  iii.  161)  in  the  dis- 
sertation by  Hi  Inner  entitled  Dt  J^syllwum,  Mar- 
swum,  e(  Opinoyemim  odversus  serpentes  viriute, 
Lips.  1745;  and  in  Ka'mpfer's  Amccnitates  Exot- 
me,  iii.  ix.  565;  see  also  Hroderip's  Nule  Book 
of  a  Niiiwfilist,  and  Anecdotes  of  Serptnts,  pub- 
lished by  (.^hambers;  Lane's  Moda-n  Egyptians, 
ii.  106.  Those  who  professed  the  art  of  taming 
serpents  were  called  by  the  Hebrews  viendchasMin 

(C^tt'q^!?),  while  the  art  itself  was  called  hichash 

(trn^),  Jer.  viii.  17;  Eccl.  %.\\\  but  these  terms 
were  not  always  used  in  this  restricted  sense. 
[Divination;  Enchantjiknt.]  W.  H. 

SE'RUG  Cl^liy  [shoot,  tendriq-.  Sepovx- 
Sam;/.  [Seniff] ).  [Gen.  si.  20-23 ;  1  Chr.  i.  26 ; 
in  Luke  iii.  35,  Saruch.]  Son  of  Reu,  and  great- 
grandfather of  Abraham.  His  age  is  given  in  the 
Helirew  Bil)Ie  as  2-iO  years  —  30  years  before  he 
begat  Nahor,  and  200  years  afterwards.  But  in 
the  LXX.  130  years  are  assigned  to  him  before  he 
begat  Nahor  (making  his  total  age  330),  being  one 
of  those  systematic  variations  in  the  ages  of  the 


"  But  perhaps  elxove';  and  avSpCavTes  may  here  be 
IseJ  of  picture.'. 

''  In  many  passajjes  the  correct  reading  would  add 
!C'..>idenible  force  to  tlie  meaning,  e.  ^.  in  Gen.  ix.  26, 
'Cursed  be  Oanaiin  .  a  slave  of  sla-es  shall  he  be 
into  Ills  brethrfiu  ;  "  in  Duut.  v    15,  "  Remember  th.at 


patriarchs  between  Shem  and  Terah,  as  given  hj 
the  LXX.,  by  which  the  interval  between  the  Flood 
and  Abraham  is  lengthened  from  292  (as  in  the 
Heb.  B.)  to  1172  (or  Alex.  1072)  years.  [Chro- 
nology, vol.  i.  p  440.]  Bochart  [Phal.  ii.  cxiv.) 
conjectures  that  the  town  of  Seruj,  a  day's  journey 
from  Charra;  in  Mesopotamia,  was  named  from  this 
patriarch.  Suidas  and  others  ascribe  to  him  the 
deification  of  dead  benefactors  of  mankind.  Epi- 
phanius  (Ai/v.  Hceres.  i.  6,  8),  who  says  that  his 
name  signifies  "  provocation,"  states  tlial,  though 
in  his  time  idolatry  took  its  rise,  yet  it  was  con- 
fined to  pictures;  and  that  the  deification  of  dead 
men,  as  well  as  the  making  of  idols,  was  subse- 
quent. He  characterizes  the  religion  of  m  mkind 
up  to  Serug's  days  as  Scythic:  after  Serug  and 
the  building  of  the  Tower  of  Babel,  the  Hellenic 
or  Greek  form  of  religion  was  introduced,  and  con- 
tinued to  the  writer's  time  (see  Petavius,  Anim. 
adr.  I'piph.  Opcr.  ii.  13).  The  account  given  by 
•iohn  of  Antioch,  is  as  follows:  Serug,  of  the  race 
t  .laphet,  taught  the  duty  of  honoring  eminent 
^  I  eased  men,  either  by  images  or  statues,"  of  wor- 
shipping  them  on  certain  anniversaries  as  if  still 
living,  of  preserving  a  record  of  their  actions  in 
the  sacred  books  of  the  priests,  and  of  calhng  them 
gods,  as  being  benefactors  of  mankind.  Hence 
arose  Polytheism  and  idolatry  (see  Fraym.  Historic. 
Grcec.  iv.  345,  and  the  note).  It  is  in  accordance 
with  his  being  calleil  of  the  race  of  .laphet  that 
Epiphanius  sends  Phaleg  and  Pen  to  Thrace  {Epist. 
ad  Descr.  Paid.  §  ii.).  There  is,  of  course,  httle 
or  no  historical  va.lue  in  any  of  these  statements. 

A.  C.  H. 

SERVANT  (1172;  n"ntt?X?).  The  Hebrew 
terms  w"  '»•  and  mes/idret/i,  which  alone  answer  to 
our  "  servant,"  in  as  far  as  this  implies  the  notions 
of  liberty  and  voluntariness,  are  of  comparatively 
rare  occurrence.  On  the  other  hand,  'ebed,  which 
is  common  and  is  equally  rendered  "  servant "  in 
the  A.  v.,  properly  means  a  slave.''  Slavery  was 
in  point  of  fiict  the  normal  condition  of  the  under- 
ling in  the  Hebrew  connuonwealth  [Slave],  while 
the  terms  above  given  refer  to  the  exceptional  cases 
of  young  or  confidential  attendants.  Joshua,  for 
instance,  is  described  as  at  once  the  na'ar  and  7ne 
sluhrtli  of  Moses  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11);  Elisha's  servant 
sometimes  as  tlie  former  (2  K.  Iv.  12,  v.  20),  some- 
times as  the  latter  (2  K.  iv.  43,  vi.  15).  Amnon's 
servant  was  a  meslirlreth  (2  Sam.  xiii.  17,  18), 
while  young  .loseph  was  a  na'ar  to  the  sons  of 
Bilhah  (Gen.  xxxvii.  2,  where  instead  of  "  the  lad 
was  with,"  we  should  read,  "  he  was  the  servant- 
boy  to"  the  sons  of  Bilhah).  The  confidential 
designation  meshareth  is  applied  to  the  priests  and 
Levites,  in  their  relation  to  Jehovah  (Ezr.  viii.  17; 
Is.  Ixi.  6;  Ez.  xliv.  11),  and  the  cognate  verb  to 
Joseph  after  he  found  favor  with  Potiphar  (Gen. 
xxxix.  4),  and  to  the  nephews  of  Ahaziah  (2  Chr 
xxii.  8).  In  1  K.  xx.  14,  15,  we  should  substitute 
"servants  "  {na'ar)  for  "  young  men." 

.  W.  L.  B. 

*  SERVITOR,  only  in  2  K.  iv.  43,  used  o* 
Elisha's  personal  attendant  or  servant.     The  He- 


thou  wast  a  slave  in  the  land  of  Egypt ;  "  in  Job  iii 
19,  "  The  slave  is  free  from  his  master ; "  and  par 
ticularly  in  piissages  where  the  speaker  uses  the  term 
of  himself,  as  in  flen.  xviii.  3,  "  Pass  not  away,  I  praj 
thee,  from  thv  slave.  " 


2934 


SESIS 


brew  term,  which  is  TT^tftt,  the  A.  V.  commonly 
ri'uilers  "servant"  or  "minister."'  H. 

SE'SIS  (2€(7(s;  [Vat.  Seo-eiy:]  Alex.  2e(r(reis: 
oni.  in  Vulg.).  Shashai  (1  Esdr.  ix.  34;  comp. 
Kzr.  X.  40). 

SES'THEL  CZeae-fiA  •■  Beseel).  Bezalekl 
of  tlie  sons  of  Pahatli-JIoab  (1  Esdr.  ix.  ;J1 ;  Ezr. 
X.  30). 

SETH  (nXr,  i.  e.  Sheth  [see  l.elow]  :  2rje: 
Seth),  Gen.  iv.  25,  v.  3;  1  Chr.  i.  1.  The  third 
son  of  Adam,  and  father  of  Enos.  The  significa- 
tion of  his  name  (yiven  in  Gen.  iv.  25)  is  'ap- 
pointed" or  "  [lut "  in  the  place  of  the  murdered 
Abel,  and  Delitzsch  speaks  of  him  as  the  second 
Abel;  but  Ewald  {Gesch.  i.  353)  thinks  that 
»nother  signification,  which  he  prefers,  is  indicated 
in  the  text,  namely,  "seedling,"  or  "germ."  The 
phrase,  "children  of  Sheth"  (Num.  xxiv.  17)  has 
been  understood  as  equivalent  to  all  mankind,  or 
as  denoting  the  tribe  of  some  unknown  IMoabitish 
chieftain  ;  but  later  critics,  among  whom  are  Kosen- 
miiller  and  Gesenins  (  Tlies.  i.  346),  bearing  in  mind 
the  parallel  passage  (Jer.  xlviii.  45),  render  the 
phrase,  "children  of  noise,  tumultuous  ones,"  i.  e. 
hostile  armies.      [Sheth.] 

In  the  4th  century  there  existed  in  Egypt  a  sect 
callinrj  themselves  Sethians,  who  are  classed  by 
Neander  {C/i.  IJist.  ii.  115,  ed.  Eohn)  among  those 
Gnostic  sects  which,  in  opposing  Judaisni,  approxi- 
mated to  paganism.  (See  also  Tillemont,  Me- 
muires,  ii.  318.)  Irenfeus  (i.  30;  comp.  INlassuet, 
Dissert,  i.  3,  §  14)  and  Theodoret  (f/cerel.  Fah. 
xiv.  300),  without  distinguishing  between  them 
and  the  Ojihites,  or  worshippers  of  the  serpent,  say 
that  in  their  system  Seth  was  regarded  as  a  divine 
effluence  or  virtue.  Epiphanius,  who  devotes  a 
chapter  to  them  [Adv.  Hm\  i.  3,  §  39),  says  that 
they  identified  Seth  with  our  Lord.       W.  T.  B. 

SE'THUR  ("^np  \]rukhn\.  2a0o6p:  Stimr). 
The  Asherite  spy,  son  of  Michael  (Num.  xiii.  13). 

SEVEN-  The  frequent  recurrence  of  certain 
numbers  in  the  sacred  literature  of  the  Hebrews  is 
obvious  to  the  most  superficial  reader;  and  it  is 
almost  equally  obvious  that  these  numbers  are  as- 
sociated with  certain  ideas,  so  as  in  some  instances 
to  lose  their  numerical  force,  and  to  pass  over  into 
the  province  of  symbolic  signs.  This  is  more  or 
less  true  of  the  numbers  three,  four,  seven,  twelve, 
and  forty;  but  seven  so  far  surpasses  the  rest,  both 
in  the  frequency  with  which  it  recurs,  and  in  the 
importance  of  the  oljects  with  which  it  is  asso- 
ciated, that  it  may  fairly  be  termed  the  representa- 
tive symljolic  number.  It  has  hence  attracted 
considerable  attention,  and  may  lie  said  to  be  the 
keystone  on  which  the  symbolism  of  numbers  de- 
pends. The  origin  of  this  symbolism  is  a  question 
that  meets  us  at  the  threshold  of  any  discussion  as 
to  the  number  seven.  Our  limits  will  not  permit 
us  to  follow  out  this  question  to  its  legitimate  ex- 
tent, but  we  may  briefly  state  that  the  views  of 
Biblical  critics  may  be  ranged  under  two  heads, 
iccording  as  the  symbolism  is  attributed  to  theo- 
retical speculations  as  to  the  internal  properties  of 
the  number  itself,  or  to  external  associations  of  a 
physical  or  historical  character.  According  to  the 
tormer  of  these  views,  the  symbolism  of  the  num 
oer  seven  would  be  traced  back  to  the  symbolism 
of  its  component  elements  three  and  fom-,  the  first 
at  which  =  Divinity,  and  the  second  =  Humanity, 


SEVEN 

whence  seven  =  Divinity  -|-  Humanity,  or,  in  othei 
words,  the  union  between  God  and  Man,  as  efiecteti 
by  the  manifestations  of  the  Divinity  in  creatioL 
and  revelation.  So  again  the  sj.mbolism  of  twelve 
is  explained  as  the  symbolism  of  3  X  4,  i.  e.  or 
a  second  combination  of  the  same  two  elements 
though  in  different  proportions,  the  representative 
number  of  Humanity,  as  a  multiplier,  assuming  a 
more  prominent  position  (Biihr's  SymboUk,  i.  187, 
201,  224).  This  theory  is  seductive  from  its  in- 
fifenuity,  and  its  appeal  to  the  imagination,  but 
there  appears  to  be  little  foundation  for  it.  For 
(1)  we  do  not  find  any  indication,  in  early  times  at 
all  events,  that  the  numlier  seven  was  resolved  into 
three  and  four,  rather  than  into  any  other  arith- 
metical elements,  such  as  two  and  five.  Benijel 
notes  such  a  division  as  running  throuirh  the  hep- 
tads  of  the  Apocalypse  {Gruinwn,  in  Rev.  xvi.  1), 
and  the  remark  undoulitedly  holds  good  in  certain 
instances,  e.  g.  the  trumpets,  the  three  latter  being 
distinguished  from  the  four  former  by  the  triple 
"woe"  (Kev.  viii.  13),  liut  in  other  instances,  e.  g. 
in  reference  to  the  promises  (Gnomtm,  in  Rev.  ii.  7), 
the  distinction  is  not  so  well  estabhshed,  and  even 
if  it  were,  an  explanation  might  be  found  in  the 
adaptation  of  such  a  division  to  the  sulject  in 
hand.  The  attempt  to  discover  such  a  distinction 
in  the  Mosaic  writiu<:s — as,  for  instance,  where  an 
act  is  to  be  done  on  the  third  day  out  of  seven 
(Num.  xix.  12)—  appears  to  be  a  failure.  (2.)  It 
would  lie  difficult  to  show  that  any  associations 
of  a  sacred  nature  were  assigned  to  three  and  four 
previously  to  the  sanctity  of  seven.  This  latter 
mimber  is  so  far  the  sacred  number  kut  ^^oxv*' 
that  we  should  be  less  surj)rised  if,  by  a  jirocess 
the  reverse  of  the  one  assumed,  sanctity  had  been 
sulisequently  attached  to  three  and  four  as  the 
su]iposed  elements  of  seven.  But  (3)  all  such 
speculations  on  mere  numbers  are  alien  to  the 
spirit  of  Hebrew  thought;  they  belong  to  a  dif- 
ferent stage  of  society,  in  which  speculation  is  rife, 
and  is  systematized  by  the  existence  of  schools  of 
philoso])hy. 

We  turn  to  the  second  class  of  opinions  which 
attribute  the  synibolism  of  the  number  seven  to 
external  associations.  This  class  may  be  again 
subdivided  into  two,  according  as  the  symbolism 
is  supposed  to  have  originated  in  the  ol)servation  of 
purely  physical  phenomena,  or,  on  the  otli«r  hand, 
in  the  peculiar  religious  enactments  of  Mosaism. 
The  influence  of  the  mnnber  seven  was  not  re- 
strictecf  to  the  Hebrews:  it  prevailed  among  the 
Persians  (Esth.  i.  10,  14),  among  the  ancient 
Indians  (Von  Bohlen's  Alt.  Indien,  ii.  224  ff.), 
among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  to  a  certain  extent, 
and  probably  among  nil  nations  where  the  week  of 
seven  days  was  established,  as  in  China,  Egypt, 
Arabia,  etc.  (Ideler's  Chronol.  i.  88,  178,  ii.  473). 
The  wide  range  of  the  word  seven  is  in  this  respect 
an  interesting  and  significant  fact:  with  the  ex- 
ception of  "six,"  it  is  the  only  numeral  which  the 
Semitic  languages  have  in  common  with  the  Indo- 
European  ;  for  the  Hebrew  shebu  "  is  essentially  the 
same  as  eirra,  septem,  seven,  and  the  Sanskrit, 
Persian,  and  Gothic  names  for  this  number  (Pott's 
Ftym.  Forsch.  i.  12'J).  In  the  countries  above 
enumerated,  the  institution  of  seven  as  a  cyclical 
number  is  attributed  to  the  otiservation  of  thi 
changes  of  the  moon,  or  to  the  supposed  number  of 


«  yr-tt\ 


SEVEN 

the  planets.  The  Hebrews  are  held  by  some  writers 
to  have  borrowed  their  notions  of  the  sanctity  of 
leven  from  their  heathen  neighbors,  either  wliolly 
or  partiaily  (Von  Bohlen's  Intrud.  tu  (Jen.  i.  SUi 
ft'.;  H engsten berg's  ^rt/!w(/«,  p.  393,  Clark's  ed.); 
but  the  peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew  view  consists  in 
the  special  dignity  of  the  sefenlh,  and  not  simply 
in  that  of  seven.  Whatever  influence,  therefore, 
may  be  assigned  to  astronomical  observation  or  to 
prescriptive  usapje,  in  regard  to  the  orii;inal  insti- 
tution of  the  week,  we  cannot  trace  back  the  pe- 
culiar associations  of  the  Hebrews  farther  than  to 
the  point  when  the  seventh  day  was  consecrated  to 
the  purposes  of  religious  rest. 

Assuming  this,  therefore,  as  our  starting-point, 
the  tirst  idea  associated  with  seven  would  he  that 
of  rtUijious  perivdicUy.  The  Sabbath,  being  the 
seventh  day,  suggested  the  adoption  of  seven  as  the 
coejjickitt,  so  to  say,  for  the  appointment  of  all 
sacred  periods;  and  we  thus  find  the  7th  month 
ushered  in  by  the  Feast  of  Trumpets,  and  signal- 
ized by  the  celebration  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
and  the  great  Day  of  Atonement;  7  weeks  as  the 
interval  between  the  I'assover  and  the  I'entecost; 
tiie  7th  year  as  the  Sabbatical  3 ear;  and  the  year 
succeeding  7x7  years  as  the  Jubilee  year.  F'rom 
the  idea  of  periodicity,  it  passed  by  an  easy  transi- 
tion to  the  duration  or  re/je/itiun  of  religious  pro- 
cee^ngs;  and  thus  7  days  were  appointed  as  the 
length  of  the  Feasts  of  Passover  and  Tabernacles; 
7  days  for  the  ceremonies  of  the  consecration  of 
priests;  7  days  for  the  interval  to  elapse  between 
the  occasion  and  the  removal  of  various  kinds  of 
legal  uncleanness,  as  after  childbirth,  after  contact 
with  a  corpse,  etc. ;  7  times  appointed  for  aspersion 
either  of  the  blood  of  the  victim  (e.  y.  Lev.  iv.  6, 
xvi.  14),  or  of  the  water  of  purification  (Lev.  xiv. 
51;  couip.  2  K.  v.  10,  1-1);  7  things  to  be  ottered 
in  sacrifice  (oxen,  sheep,  goats,  pigeons,  wheat,  oil, 
wine);  7  victims  to  be  offered  on  any  special  occa- 
sion, as  in  Balaam's  sacrifice  (Num.  xxiii.  1),  and 
especially  at  the  ratification  of  a  treaty,  the  notion 
of  seven  being  eniljodied  in  the  very  term"  signify- 
ing to  swear,  literally  meaning  to  do  seven  times 
(Gen.  xxi.  28;  comp.  Herod,  iii.  8,  for  a  similar 
custom  among  the  Arabians).  The  same  idea  is 
furtlier  carried  out  in  the  vessels  and  arrangements 
of  the  Tabernacle  —  in  the  7  arms  of  the  golden 
randlestick,  and  the  7  chief  utensils  (altar  of  burnt^ 
offerings,  laver,  shewbread  taljle,  altar  of  incense, 
sandlestick,  ark,  mercy-se.at). 

The  number  seven,  having  thus  been  impressed 
with  the  seal  of  sanctity  iis  the  symbol  of  all  con- 
nected with  the  Divinity,  was  adopted  generally  as 
a  cyclic'd  number,  with  the  subordinate  notions  of 
perfection  or  completeness.  It  hence  appears  in 
cases  where  the  notion  of  satisfaction  is  required, 
as  in  reference  to  punishment  for  wrongs  (Gen.  iv. 
15;  Lev.  xxvi.  18,  28;  Ps.  Ixxix.  12;  Frov.  vi.  31), 
or  to  forgiveness  of  them  (.Matt,  xviii.  21).  It  is 
again  mentioned  in  a  variety  of  passages  too  nu 
merous  for  quotation  (e.  (j.  Job  v.  19;  Jer.  xv.  9; 
iMatt.  xii.  45)  in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  of  a 
"  round  number,"  but  witn  the  additional  idea  of 
lufficiency  and  completeness.  To  the  same  head 
we  may  refer  the  numerous  instances  in  which  per 
\)ns  or  things  are  mentioned  by  sevens  in  the  his 
Vorica.'  portions  of  the  Bible  —  e.  ;/.  the  7  kine  and 
the   7    cars    oi   cva  in  Pharaoh's    dream,    the  7 


a  ^utr^. 


SEVENTY  DISCIPLES      2936 

daughters  of  the  priest  of  Midian,  the  7  sons  of 
. I  esse,  the  7  deacons,  the  7  sons  of  Sceva,  the  twice 
7  generations  in  the  pedigree  of  Jesus  (Matt.  i.  17); 
and  again  the  still  more  numerous  instances  in 
which  periods  of  seven  days  or  seven  years,  occa- 
sionally combined  with  the  repetition  of  an  act 
seven  times;  as,  in  the  taking  of  Jericho,  the  town 
was  surrounded  for  7  days,  and  on  the  7th  day  it 
fell  at  the  blast  of  7  trumpets  borne  round  the 
town  7  times  by  7  priests;  or  again  at  the  Flood, 
an  interval  of  7  days  elapsed  between  the  notice  to 
enter  the  ark  and  the  coming  of  the  Flood,  the 
beasts  entered  by  sevens,  7  days  elapsed  between 
tlie  two  missions  of  the  dove,  etc.  So  again  in 
private  life,  7  years  appear  to  have  been  the  u^unl 
period  of  a  hiring  (Gen.  xxix.  18),.  7  days  tbr  a 
marriage-festival  (Gen.  xxix.  27;  Judg,  xiv.  12), 
and  tlie  same,  or  in  some  cases  70  days,  for 
mourning  for  the  dead  (Gen.  1.  3,  10;  1  Sam. 
x.xxi.  13). 

The  foregoing  applications  of  the  number  seven 
become  of  great  practical  importance  in  connection 
with  the  interpretation  of  some  of  the  prophetical 
portions  of  the  Bible,  and  particularly  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse. F'or  in  this  latter  book  the  ever-recurring 
nundier  seven  both  serves  as  the  mould  which  has 
decided  the  external  form  of  the  work,  and  also  to 
a  certain  degree  penetrates  into  the  essence  of  it. 
We  have  but  to  run  over  the  chief  subjects  of  that 
book  —  the  7  churches,  the  7  seals,  the  7  trumpets, 
the  7  vials,  the  7  angels,  the  7  spirits  before  the 
throne,  the  7  horns  and  7  eyes  of  the  Lamb,  etc. — 
in  order  to  see  the  necessity  of  deciding  whether 
the  number  is  to  be  accepted  in  a  literal  or  a  met- 
aphorical sense  —  in  other  words,  whether  it  repre- 
sents a  numlier  or  a  quality.  The  decision  of  this 
question  affects  not  only  the  number  seven,  but  also 
the  number  which  stands  in  a  relation  of  antagonism 
to  seven,  namely,  the  half  of  seven,  which  appears 
under  the  form  of  forty-two  months,  =  3^  years 
(Kev.  xiii.  5),  twelve  hundred  and  sixty  days,  also 
=  3.J  years  (xi.  3,  xii.  G),  and  again  a  time,  times, 
and  half  a  time  =  3J  years  (xii.  14).  We  find  thia 
lunnber  frequently  recurring  in  the  Old  Testament, 
as  in  the  forty-two  stations  of  the  wiklernesa 
(Num.  xxxiii.),  the  three  and  a  half  years  of  the 
famine  in  Elijah's  time  (Luke  iv.  25),  the  "time, 
times,  and  the  dividing  of  time,"  during  which  the 
persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  to  last 
(Uan.  vii.  25),  the  same  period  being  again  de- 
scriljed  as  "  the  midst  of  the  week,"  i.  e.  the  half 
of  seven  years  (Dan.  ix.  27),  "  a  time,  times,  and  a 
half"  (Dan.  xii.  7),  and  again  probably  in  the 
number  of  days  specified  in  Dan.  viii.  14,  xii.  11, 
12.  If  the  number  seven  express  the  notion  of 
completeness,  then  the  number  half-seven  =  incom- 
pleteness and  the  secondary  ideas  of  sutt'ering  and 
disaster:  if  the  one  represent  Divine  agency,  the 
other  we  may  expect  to  represent  human  ageucy. 
Mere  numerical  calculations  would  thus,  in  regard 
to  unfulfilled  prophecy,  be  either  wholly  superseded, 
or  at  all  events  take  a  subordinate  position  to  the 
general  idea  conveyed.  W.  L.  B. 

*  SEVENTY  DISCIPLES.  A  body  of 
disciples  whom  Christ  appointed  for  the  immediate 
purjjose  of  going  "  two  and  two  before  his  face  into 
e\'ery  city  and  place,  whither  He  himself  would 
come"  (Luke  x.  1).  They  are  only  mentioned  by 
St.  Luke,  and  nothing  further  is  said  of  them  by 
him  than  is  contained  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth 
I  chapter  of  his  Gospel.    Neither  the  whole  l)ody  nof 


2936        SEVENTY  DISCIPLES 

inj  members  of  it  are  ever  mentioned,  as  sucli,  in 
tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor  in  any  of  the  Iqiistles. 

The  time  of  their  appointment  appears  to  have 
heen  near  tlie  close  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  just  as 
He  was  taldng  his  final  departure  i'rom  Galilee 
(Luke  ix.  51-x.  1).  Different  chronological  ar- 
rangements of  the  life  of  our  Lord  would,  of  course, 
lead  to  a  difference  of  opinion  here  also;  but  the 
niost  probable  supposition  seems  to  be  that  Jesus 
himself,  on  finally  leaving  Gahlee,  made  a  rapid  and 
somewhat  private  journey  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  2-10),  sending  forth 
the  seventy  just  as  He  set  out,  probably  into  Ferea, 
where  tiiey  were  to  prepare  the  way  for  liis  own  com- 
ing to  teach  during  the  greater  part  of  the  interval 
before  his  last  Fassover. 

However  this  may  be,  after  the  fulfillment  of  this 
their  immediate  mission  the  seventy  returned  again 
rejoicing  in  their  possession  of  miraculous  powers 
(Luke  X.  17).  From  our  Lord's  answer,  '■  Behold 
I  give  unto  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents  and 
scorpions,  and  over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy : 
and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt  you  "  (ver. 
19),  it  is  manifest  that  their  office  did  not  cease 
with  the  fulfillment  of  their  immediate  and  tem- 
)rary  mission,  but  was  to  continue,  as  indeed 
was  already  probable  from  the  use  of  the  technical 
di'e'Sei|e>'  in  ver.  1.  Yet  we  hear  nothing  further 
of  them  in  the  books  of  the  N.  T. 

In  the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity  there  is 
frequent  mention  of  them,  sometimes  as  seventy, 
sometimes  as  seventy-two  in  number  {Rtcoij. 
CU/n.  i.  40),  and  comparison  is  very  naturally 
made  to  the  seventy  elders  of  Israel  (Num.  xi.  16) 
appointed  to  assist  Moses  (e.  r/.  ICuseb.  De  Kriin(j. 
iii.  c.  2);  but  there  is  very  little  to  throw  light 
Opon  their  history  or  their  names.  The  earliest 
notice  of  this  kind  is  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who 
incidentally  mentions  that  Barnabas  was  one  of 
them  {Strom,  ii.  c  20),  and  is  also  quoted  by  Euse- 
bius  (//.  -£.  i.  c.  12)  as  saying  the  same  thing  of 
Sosthenes,  and  also  of  a  certain  Cephas  whom  Faul 
"  withstood  to  his  face,"  whom  he,  curiously  enough, 
supposes  to  have  been  not  the  Apostle,  but  one  of 
the  seventy  of  the  same  name.  Lusebius  gives  a 
variety  of  reports  without  himself  apparently  at 
taching  any  weight  to  them.  In  addition  to  those 
already  mentioned,  he  says  (//.  /i.  i.  e.  12):  "And 
that  Rlatthias,  who  was  numbered  with  the  Apos- 
tles in  place  of  Judas,  and  he  who  had  been  hon- 
ored to  be  a  candidate  with  him,  is  also  said  t«S 
have  been  deemed  worthy  of  the  same  calling  with 
the  seventy.  They  also  say  that  Thaddeus  was  one 
of  them."  In  the  following  chapter  he  speaks  of 
Thaddeus  positively  as  one  of  their  number.  Half 
a  century  later  Epiph.anius  {H(erv».  li. )  speaks  of 
their  number  as  seventy-two,  and  oi  Jlark  and  Luke 
as  among  them.  Also  [Hupves.  xx.),  he  sa\s  that 
our  Lord  "  sent  forth  also  seventy-two  others  to 
preach,  of  whose  number  were  the  seven  appointed 


SHAALBIM 

over  the  widows,  Stephen,  Fhilip,  Frochorns,  Nica- 
nor,  'limon,  Farmenas,  and  Xiccjlaus:  before  these 
also  Matthias,  who  was  nuuibered  among  the  Apos- 
tles in  the  place  of  .ludas ;  but  after  these  seven  and 
Matthias  before  them,  JMark,  Luke,  Justus,  F*rna 
has  and  ApeUes,  Kufus.  Niger,  and  the  remaindei 
of  the  seventy-two." 

It  does  not  appear  what  authority  Epiphanius 
had  for  these  statements.  He  seems  to  be  quite 
alone  in  this  supposition  as  to  the  seven  deacons. 
The  names  of  the  seven  hidicate  that  they  were 
Hellenists,  and  as  such  were  not  likely  to  have  been 
of  the  seventy.  In  regard  to  some  of  the  others, 
Matthias  and  Justus,  it  is  certain  that  they  were 
personal  companions  of  our  Lord  during  his  minis- 
try (Acts  i.  21-23),  and  therefore  probable  that 
they  were  selected  fiom  among  the  seventy.  Bar- 
nabas also  rests  on  the  nmeh  earlier  authority  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  according  to  Eusebiua, 
Sosthenes  also,  but  the  original  work  of  Clement  in 
this  case  is  lost.  lu  regard  to  the  others  Epipha- 
nius nmst  be  considered  to  have  simply  gathered 
up  the  current  traditions  of  his  time;  these  are 
not  quite  the  same  with  those  mentioned  earlier  by 
Eusebius,  Imt  even  those  he  does  not  appear  to 
have  considered  as  of  much  authority.  F.  G. 

SHAALAB'BIN   (I'llbX'.a^  but  in  many 

MSS.  C^^bl^Li?  [ciiy  of  foxes  ovjnckals'\:\mom. 
2aAa|t.v;  Vat.]  SaAajSeiy;  Alex.  SaAa^ei/':" 
adtbin).  A  town  in  the  allotment  of  Dan,  named 
between  Ih-Sukjiksh  and  Ajalon  (Josh.  xix. 
42).  There  is  some  uncertainty  about  the  form  of 
the  name.  The  i\ISS.  preponderate  in  favor  ol 
Shaauu.m,  in  which  form  it  is  found  in  two  other 
passages.  ISut  there  is  also  some  ground  for  sus- 
pecting that  it  was   Shaalbon.      [See  Shaalium 

and  SlIAALliONITE.] 

SHAAL'BIM  (Cab^tt'  [place  of  foxes 
or  jock- i/s]:  @a\afifLV,'>  Alex,  ai  aAtoTre/cey;  in 
1  K.  [l.'oni.  SaAa^iV,  Tat.]  B7j6aAa/x6i,  Alex. 
2aAa/8e(/i:  Solobiiii,  Saleliim).  The  commoner 
form  of  the  name  of  a  town  of  Dan  which  in  one 
passage  is  tbund  as  Shaalabbin.  It  occurs  in  an 
ancient  fragment  of  history  inserted  in  Judg.  i. 
enumerating  the  towns  of  which  the  original  inhab- 
itants of  Canaan  succeeded  in  keeping  possession 
after  the  general  conquest.  Mount  Heres,''  Aija- 
lon,  and  Shaalbim  were  held  against  the  Danites 
by  the  Amorites  (ver.  35)  till, the  help  of  the  great 
tribe  of  Ephraim  being  called  in,  they  were  at  last 
compelled  to  succumb.  It  is  mentioned  with  Ai- 
jalon  again  in  Josh.  xix.  42  (Shaalabliin)  and  with 
Beth-shemesh  both  there  and  in  1  K.  iv.  !),  in  the 
last  passage  as  making  up  one  of  Solomon's  com- 
missariat districts.  By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  it  is 
mentioned  in  the  Onomosiicon  ("Selab")  as  a 
large  village  in  the  district  of  Sebaste  (i.  e.  Sama- 
ria 1,  and  as  then  called  Selaba.     But  this  is  .not 


a  A  city  called  SoAa^iV,  or  2aAo|ai's,  formerly  lay 
at  the  east  end  of  the  island  of  Cypru.*!,  betweeu  which 
and  Plioeuicia,  or  Canaan,  tliere  w.as  a  constant  inter- 
course .and  close  connection.  I'erhaps  this  also  was 
Shaalabbin. 

I<  This  passage  in  the  Vatican  Codex  (Mai's  ed.)  con- 
tains a  curious  specimen  of  a  double  reading,  each  of 
the  two  being  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  proper 
Qames  :  iv  tu  opei  tw  ocrTpaiculSei  iv  a!  at  apKOi  koI  iv 
«j  at  aAcoTreKe?  iv  rto  MvpfTivwvi^  Kal  iv  ©aAa^etV.  [!?o 
Kom.,  exc.  QaAa^tV.]     Uijre  otrTpaKwfins  and  Muocrifui' 


are  both  attempts  to  render  D"^n,  reading  it  tt7"^n 

and  D^n  respectively.     The  aAion-cKes  is  due  to  the 

^37ti?  in  Shaalbin  ;  ai  apxoi,  "  the  she-bears,''  is  for 
Ajalon,  though  that  signifies  dier  or  gazelles. 

c  *  The  A.  V.  represents  lieres  as  situated  in  Aija- 
lou,  whereas  a  conmia  should  separate  Ueres  (more 
correctly  Har-heres)  from  Aijalou  as  well  as  from  the 
other  uanii'S  which  follow.  This  coutu.«ion  is  a§  old 
at  least  as  the  Bi.*hop's  Bible.  ti. 


SHAALBONITE,  THE 

■^"•v  intelligible,  for  except  in  the  statement  of  Jo- 
sephiis  (Ant.  V.  1,  §  22),  that  the  allotment  of  tlie 
I )anites  extended  as  far  north  as  Dor  (  7' («?«/■((), 
there  is  nothing  to  lead  to  the  belief  that  any  of 
their  towns  were  at  all  near  Samaria,  while  the  per- 
sistent enumeration  of  Shaalbim  with  Aijalon  and 
Beth-sliemesh,  the  sites  of  both  which  are  known 
with  tolerable  certairity  as  within  a  radius  of  15 
miles  west  of  Jerusalem,  is  strongly  against  it.  It 
is  also  at  variance  with  another  notice  of  Jerome, 
in  his  commentary  on  Ez.  xlviii.  22,  where  he  men- 
tions the  "  towers  of  Ailon  and  Selebi  and  Emnia- 
us-Nico[)olis,"  in  connection  with  Joppa,  as  three 
landmarks  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  No  trace  appears 
to  have  been  yet  discovered  of  any  name  resembling 
Shiiilbim,  in  the  neighborhood  of  I'ulo  or  Aiii- 
ihems,  or  indeed  anywhere  else,  unless  it  be  a  place 

called  'Esnlin,  .,\,aa,amA,  mentioned  in  the  lists 

of  Eli  Smith  and  Robinson  (Bibl.  lies.  1st  ed.  iii. 
App.  120  0)  as  lying  next  to  Suralt,  the  ancient 
Zoiah,  a  position  which  is  very  suitalile. 

The  Sh(da''bun,  discovered  hy  M.  Kenan's  expe- 
dition about  4  miles  N.  W'.  of  Biitt-Jcbeil,  in  the 
Bel'iil  Besharr  ill  (see  the  (Jm-ta  drcssce  par  lit 
briyiidt  tiipoffriiphiqiie,  etc.,  1802),  may  be  an  an- 
cient Shaall)im,  possibly  so  named  by  the  northern 
coloiiJ*  of  Danites  after  the  town  of  their  original 
dwelling-place.  But  it  is  obvious  from  tlie  fore- 
going description  that  it  cannot  be  identical  with 
it.  G. 

SHA.AL'BO]SriTE,  THE  C'ph^^'Vn  [see 
below] :  [in  2  Sam.,  Hom.]  o  XaAa^wvlr-qs  [Vat. 
Alex.  -veL-;  in  1  Clir.,  Kom.  Alex.  6  'ZaXa^wvi, 
Vat.  0  O^fi,  FA.  o  Sco^Ei] :  f'<^  S'llboni,  [Sn/abo- 
nltes]).  Eliahlia  the  Shaalbonite  was  one  of  Da- 
vids thirty -seven  heroes  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  32;  1  Chr. 
xi.  33).  He  was  the  native  of  a  place  named  Sha- 
allion,  which  is  unmentioued  elsewliere,  unless  it  is 
identical  with  Shaalisi.m  or  Shaalahiun  of  the 
tribe  of  Dan.  In  this  case  it  becomes  ditlicult  to 
decide  which  of  the  three  is  the  original  form  of  the 
name.  G. 

SHA'APH  (^yW  [ilivishn]:  2,ayae;  Alex. 
"SayiKp;  [Comp.  'Xad(p-]  Siirqj/t}.  1.  The  son  of 
Jahdai  (1  Chr.  ii.  47). 

2.  The  son  of  Caleb  the  brother  of  .lerahmeel  by 
his  conouliine  INIaachah.  He  is  called  the  father, 
that  is.  the  founder,  of  the  town  Madmannah  (1 
Chr.  ii,  49). 

SHAARA'IM  in^l'Sll''  [two  gates] :  [in  1 
Sam.]  Tuv  wuXiv  in  both  IMSS. ;  [in  Chr.,  Vat. 
Alex.]  'Sswpfifj.:  [Kom.,  joined  with  preceding 
word,  BapoviTtuipifx;  Comp.  'Sa.petfj.-]  Snriiini,  S  i- 
ariiii).  A  city  in  the  territory  allotted  to  Judah 
(Josh.  XV.  30;  in  A.  V.  incorrectly  Shahai.m).  It 
is  one  of  the  first  group  of  the  towns  of  the  Shcfc- 
l  ih,  or  lowland  district,  which  contains  .also  Zoreali, 
Jarmuth,  Socoh,  besides  others  not  yet  recognized. 
It  is  msntioned  again  in  the  account  of  the  rout 
which  followed  the  fall  of  Goliath,  where  the 
woundeil  fell  down  on  the  road  to  Sliaaraim  and  as 
far  as  Gath  and  Ekron   (1  Sam.  xvii.  52).     These 


SHACHIA 


2937 


a  TtK!  word  siviaraim  means  "  two  gateways  "  ;  ami 
but  for  tlie  nieution  of  the  town  in  Josbua,  and  the 
oonsistency  of  its  positioa  with  1  Sam.  xvii.  52,  it 
would  be  perliaps  more  natural  in  that  passage  to  take 
it  as  meauiag  the  gates  of  Oath  and  KkroQ,  as  the 
185 


two  notices  are  consistent  with  each  other.  Goli- 
ath proliably  fell  in  the  Wady  ts-Swiit,  on  oppo- 
site sides  of  which  stand  the  representatives  of 
Socoh  and  Jarmutli;  Gath  was  at  or  near  I'lll  es- 
Siifieh,  a  few  miles  west  of  Socoh  at  the  mouth  of 
the  s.ame  Wady;  whilst  Ekron  (if  'Akir  be  Ekron) 
lies  farther  north.  Shaaraim  is  therefore  probably 
to  be  looked  for  somewhere  west  of  S/iuiKlL-eh,  on 
tlie  lower  slopes  of  the  hills,  where  they  subside 
into  the  great  plain." 

We  find  the  name  mentioned  once  more  in  a  list 
of  the  towns  of  Simeon  (1  Chr.  iv.  31),''  occupying 
the  same  place  with  Sharuchen  and  Sansannah,  in 
the  corresponding  lists  of  Joshua.  Eying  as  the 
allotment  of  Simeon  did  in  the  lowest  part  of  Ju- 
dah, many  miles  south  of  the  region  indicated 
above,  it  is  impossible  that  the  same  Shaaraim  can 
be  intended,  and  indeed  it  is  quite  doubtful  whether 
it  be  not  a  mere  corruption  of  one  of  the  other  two 
names. 

Taken  as  Htbrew,  the  word  is  a  dual,  and  means 
"two  gateways,"'  as  the  EXX.  have  remlered  it  in 
1  Sam.  xvii.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  group  in 
which  Shaaraim  is  included  in  Josh.  xv.  shoidd  con- 
tain more  names  in  dual  form  than  all  the  rest  of  the 
list  put  together;  namely,  besides  itself,  Adithaim, 
and  Gederotliaim,  and  prob.ably  also  Enam  and 
AduUani.  For  the  possible  mention  of  Shaaraim 
in  1  Mace.  v.  06,  see  S.vmakia,  p.  2798.         G. 

SHAASH'GAZ  (T2tp??tt7  [Pers.  servant  of 
the  beautiful,  Ges.] :  not  found  in  the  LXX.,  who 
substitute  Vai,  Hegai,  as  in  vv.  8,  15:  Susayazus). 
I'he  eunuch  in  the  palace  of  Xerxes  who  had  the 
custody  of  the  women  in  the  second  house,  i.  e.  of 
those  who  had  been  in  to  the  king  (Esth.  ii.  14). 
[Hegai.]  A.  C  H. 

SHAB'BETHAI  [3  syl.]  {"'O'^W  [sabbath- 
bnrn]  :  [in  Ezr.J  2a/3)3a0a(;  Alex.  Ka';8,8a0at;  [Vat. 
FA.  2a/3a6ai;  in  Xeh.,  Kom.  Vat.  Alex.  EA.omit; 
Comp.  2a;8a06a7os,  Aid.  2,a^adaTos-]  Hebethiii  in 
Ezr.,  HejAliiu  in  Xeh.).  1.  A  Levite  in  the  time 
of  Ezra,  who  assisted  him  in  investigating  the  mar- 
riages with  foreigners  which  had  taken  place  among 
the  people  (Ezr.  x.  15).  It  is  apparently  the  same 
who  with  Jeshua  and  others  instructed  the  people 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  Law  (Neh.  viii.  7).  He 
is  called  S.v ur,. \theus  (1  Esdr.  ix.  14)  and  Saba- 
TKAs  (1  Esdr.  ix.  48). 

2.  (Oin.  in  LXX.  [i.  e.  Rom.  Vat.  FA.i  Alex.; 
Init  Comp.  2a/8a90aros,  Aid.  ^a^adalos,  FA.-^ 
'S,o0^aOa6aios}-  Siibatliiii.)  Shabbetliai  and  Jo- 
zabad,  of  the  chief  of  the  Levites,  were  over  the 
outward  business  of  the  house  of  God  after  the  re- 
turn from  Babylon  (Xeh.  xi.  16).  Possibly  1 
and  2  are  identical,  although  Burrington  [Geneal. 
i.  107)  regards  Shabbethai,  who  is  mentioned  in 
Neh.  viii.  7,  as  a  priest. 

*  SHABI'AH.     [Shachia.] 

SHACHI'A  (n^?ti7  [/rtmeo/J«A,  Fiirstj; 
Za^ia;  [Vat.  2a/8ia;  Alex.  Se/Sia:]  Sechin). 
I'roperly  "  Shabiah,"  a  son  of  Shaharaim  by  his 
wife  llodesh  (1  Chr.  viii.  10).  This  form  of  the 
name  is  retained  from  the  Geneva  Version.  The 
translators  have  followed  the   Vulgate  in  reading 

LXX.  have  done.  In  that  case,  however,  it  ought  to 
have  the  article,  which  it  has  not. 

6  Here  there  is  a  slight  difference  in  the  vowels,  du« 

to  the  pau.'e  —  S^Tl^K? —  which  is  reflected  iu  l»ui.4 
LXX.  and  Vulgate  (see  above,  at  heivil  of  article > 


2938 


SHADDAI 


3  for  3.    Seven  of  Kennicotfs  MSS.  read  S'^D^, 

and  fifteen  Tl^DW  [=annnuncejneni,  FiirstJ. 

SHAD'DAI  [2  sjl.]  {'^'=}^?,  in  pause,  "'^tt^). 
An  ancient  name  of  God,  rendered  "  Almighty  " 
everjwliere  in  tlie  A.  V.  In  all  passages  of  Gen- 
esis, except  one  (xlix.  25  ")>  •"  l-x-  vi.  3,  and  in  Ez. 

X.  5,  it  is  found  in  connection  with  7S,  el,  "  God," 
El  Shaddai  being  there  rendered  "God  Almighty," 
or '-tlie  Almighty  God."  It  occurs  six  times  in 
Genesis,  once  in  Exodus  (vi.  3),  twice  in  is'^umbers 
(xxiv.  4,  IG),  twice  in  Ruth  (i.  20,  21),  thirty-one 
times  in  Job,  twice  in  the  Psalms  (Ixviii.  14  [15], 
xci.  1),  once  in  Isaiah  fxiii.  0),  twice  in  Ezekiel 
(i.  24,  X.  5),  and  once  in  Joel  (i.  15).  In  Genesis 
and  Exodus  it  is  found  in  what  are  called  the 
Elohistic  portions  of  those  books,  in  Numbers  in 
the  Jehovistic  portion,  and  tliroui;l)out  Job  the 
name  Shaddai  stands  in  parallelism  with  Elohini, 
and  never  with  Jehovah.  By  the  name  or  in  the 
character  of  El  Shaddai,  God  was  known  to  the 
patriarchs  —  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  1),  to  Isaac 
(Gen.  xxviii.  3),  and  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xliii.  14,  xlviii. 
3,  xlix.  25),  before  the  name  .lehovah,  in  its  full 
significance,  was  revealed  (Ex.  vi.  3).  By  this 
title  He  was  known  to  the  Jlidianite  Balaam 
(Num.  xxiv.  4,  16),  as  God  the  Giver  of  Visions, 
the  j\Iost  High  (comp.  Ps.  xci.  1);  and  the  iden- 
tity of  Jehovah  and  Shaddai,  who  dealt  bitterly 
with  her,  was  recognized  by  N.tomi  in  her  sorrow 
(Kuth  i.  20,  21).  Shaddai,  the  Almighty,  is  the 
(jod  who  chastens  men  (Joli  v.  17,  vi.  4,  xxiii.  lli, 
xxvii.  2);  the  just  God  (.lob  viii.  3,  xxxiv.  10) 
who  hears  prayer  (Job  viii.  5,  xxii.  2G,  xxvii. 
10);  the  God  of  power  who  cannot  be  resisted  (Job 
XV.  25),  who  punishes  the  wicked  (Job  xxi.  20, 
xxvii.  13),  and  rewards  and  protects  those  who 
trust  in  Him  (Job  xxii.  23,  25,  xxLx.  5);  the  God 
of  providence  (Job  xxii.  17,  23,  xxvii.  11)  and  of 
fore-knowledge  (Jol)  xxiv.  1 ),  who  gives  to  men 
understanding  (Job  xxxii.  8)  and  life  (Job  xxxiii. 
4):  "excellent  in  power,  and  in  judgment,  and  in 
plenty  of  justice,"  whom  none  can  perfectly  know 
(Job  xi.  7,  xxxvii.  23).  The  prevalent  idea  at- 
taching to  the  name  in  all  these  passages  is  that 
of  strength  and  power,  and  our  translators  have 
probalily  given  to  "  Shaddai "  its  true  meaning 
when  they  rendered  it  "Almighty." 

In  the  'I'arguni  throughout,  tlie  Hebrew  word  is 
retained,  as  in  the  Peshito-Syriac  of  Genesis  and 
Exodus  and  of  Kuth  i.  20.  The  LXX.  gives 
iKav6s,  «(r;(iipds,  6e6s,  Kvptos,  TravTOKpaToufi, 
KVfitos  ■wavTOKpa.TCiip,  o  TO,  trdvra  Troiria'as  (Job 
viii.  3),  ewovpdvLos  (Ps.  Ixviii.  14  [15]),  6  deh^  rov 
oupavov  (Ps.  xci.  i.),  a-aSdai  (Ez.  x.  5),  and  tu- 
\anrajpia  (Joel  i.  15).  In  Job  xxix.  5,  we  find  the 
Btrange  rendering  vAdSris-  In  Gen.  and  Ex.  "  El 
Shaddai"  is  translated  6  6e6s  /xov,  or  aov,  or  avrS)v, 
lis  the  case  may  Ije.  The  \'ulgate  has  omnipoltns 
in  all  cases,  except  Dominus  (Job  v.  17,  vi.  4,  14; 
Is  xiii.  6),  Dnis  (Job  xxii.  3,  xl.  2),  Dtuscceli  (Ps. 
xci.  1 ),  stiblimis  Detis  (Ez.  i.  24),  ccdtslis  (Ps.  Ixviii. 
14  [15]),  i>(>lt7)s  (Joel  i.  15),  and  (li(^ne  (Job  xxxvii. 
23).  The  Veneto-Greek  has  K/)aTai(Sj.  The  Peshito- 
Syriac,  in  many  passages,  renclers  "  Shaddai  "  simply 

"God,"    in   others    h  *  ^ITIa^,   chasino,   "strong, 

o  Etcd  here  some  MSS.  and  the  Samaritan  Text 
tWMl  TS.  el,  for  nS,  et/i. 


SHADRACH 

powerful"  (Job  v.  17,  vi.  4,  <$i;.),  and  oace 
J-^^,  'e%o,  "  Most  High  "  (Job  vi  14).  The 
Samaritan  Version  of  Gen.  xvii.  1  has  for  "  El  Shad- 
dai," "  powerful,  sufficient,"  though  in  the  other 
passages  of  tienesis  and  Exodus  it  simply  retains 
the  Hebrew  word;  while  in  Num.  xxiv.  4,  16,  the 

translator  must  have  read  mtt7,  sadeh,  "  a  field," 

V  T  '  '  ' 

for  he  renders  "  the  vision  of  Shaddai,"  the  "  vision  ^ 

of  the  field,"  /.  e.  the  vision  seen  in  the  open 
plain.  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi  render  it  "  power- 
ful." 

The  derivations  assigned  to  Shaddai  are  various. 
We  may  mention,  only  to  reject,  the  Eabbinical 

etymology  which  connects  it  with  "'^,  dai,  "  suffi- 
ciency," given  by  Kashi  (on  Gen.  xvii.  1),  'I  am 
He  in  whose  Godhead  there  is  sufficiency  for  the 
whole  creation;"  and  in  the  Talmud  {Chayiyn, 
fol.  12,  col.  1),  "I  am  He  who  said  to  tlie  world, 

Enough !  "  According  to  this,  '^'^W  =  ''I  ~)tr"'S, 
"  He  who  is  sufficient,"  "the  all-sufficient  One;  " 
and  so  "  He  who  is  sufficient  in  himself,"  and 
therefore  self-existent.  This  is  the  origin  of  the 
l/cacds  of   the   LXX.,  Theodoret,  atd  Hesychius, 

and  of  the  Arabic  ^^LxJI,  cdkd/i,  of  Saadias, 
which  has  the  same  meaning.  Gesenius  {Grain. 
§  86,  and  Jesain,  xiii.  6)  regards  ^'^Ttt'',  shaddai, 
as  the  plural  of  majesty,  from  a  singular  noun, 
^K.'',  shad,  root  Tltt7,  shddad,  of  which  the  pri- 
mary notion  seems  to  be,  "  to  be  strong  "  (Fiirst, 
Handivb.).  It  is  evident  that  this  derivation  was 
present  to  the  mind  of  the  prophet  from  the  play 
of  words  in  Is.  xiii.  6.      Ewald  (Lehrb.   §  155  c. 

5te  Ausg.)  takes  it  from  a  root  n"Ty=TTy, 

and  compares   it   with  "*^'^,   davvai,  from  TT]1, 

ddvdh,  the  older  termination  ''"T"  being  retained. 

He  also  refers  to  the  proper  names  *'^^^,  Yishai 

(Jesse),  and  "^5?,  Bavvai  (Neh.  iii.  18).  Eoediger 
(Ges.  Thes.  s.  v.)  disputes  Ewald's  explanation, 
and  proposes,  as  one  less  open  to  objection,  that 
Shaddai  originally  signified  "  my  powerful  ones," 
and  afterwards  became  the  name  of  God  Almighty, 
like  the  analogous  form  Adonai.  In  favor  of  this 
is  the  fact  that  it  is  never  found  with  the  definite 
article,  but  such  would  be  equally  *iie  case  if  Shad- 
dai were  regarded  as  a  proper  name.  On  the 
whole  there  seems  no  reasonable  object]  an  to  the 
view  taken  by  Gesenius,  which  Lee  a  so  adopts 
(6'rrnM.  139,  6). 

Shaddai  is  found  as  an  element  in  the  piojier 
names  Ammishaddai,  Zurishaddai,  and  possiblj 
also  in  Shedeur  there  may  be  a  trace  of  it. 

W.  A.  W. 

SHA'DRACH  (Tl'nTtl'  [circuil  of  the-  sun, 
sun-god,  or  royal  one  C^)  Fiirst]:  [LXX.]  2e5poxi 
[in  Dan.  iii.  (Theodot.)  Alex.  2e5pa»c:]  Sidj-ach: 
of  uncertain  etymology).  The  Chaldee  name  of 
Hananiah  [Hanamah  7;  Shkshbazzak],  the 
chief  of  the  "three  children,"  whose  song,  as  given 
in  the  apocryphal  Daniel,  forms  part  of  the  service 
of  the  Church  of  England,  under  the  name  of 
"  Benedicite,  omnia  opera."  A  long  prayer  in  the 
furnace  is  also  ascribed  to  him  in  the  LXX.  and 
Vulgate,  but  this  is  thought  to  be  by  a  diflTerent 
hand  from  that  which  added  the  sonj;      1  he  his- 


SHADRACH 

lory  of  Shadrach,  or  Haiiaiiiah,  is  briefly  this.  He 
was  taken  captive  witli  Daniel,  Misliael,  and  Aza- 
riah,  at  tlie  first  invasion  of  Judali  by  Nelmcliad- 
nezzar,  in  tlie  fourtli,  or.  as^lJaniel  (i.  Ij  reckons, 
in  the  tliird"  year  ot  .lehoiakini,  at  tlie  time  when 
the  Jewish  king  himself  was  bound  in  fetters  to  be 
carried  oft'  to  Babylon.  [JEiioiAKUt.]  lieins;, 
with  his  three  companions,  apparently  of  royal 
birth  (Dan.  i.  3),  of  superior  understanding,  and  of 
goodly  person,  he  was  selected,  with  them,  for  the 
king's  immediate  service,  and  was  for  this  end  in- 
structed in  the  language  and  in  all  the  learning  and 
wisdom  of  the  Chaldsans,  as  taught  in  the  college 
of  the  magicians.  Like  L)aniel,  he  avoided  the 
pollution  of  the  meat  and  wine  which  formed  their 
daily  provision  at  the  king's  cost,  and  obtained  per- 
mission to  live  on  pulse  and  water.  When  the 
time  of  his  probation  was  over,  he  and  his  three 
Companions,  being  found  superior  to  all  the  other 
niagicians,  were  advanced  to  stand  before  the  king. 
When  the  decree  lor  the  slaughter  of  all  the  ma- 
gicians went  forth  from  Nel)uchadnezzar,  we  find 
[Shadrach  uniting  with  his  companions  in  prayer  to 
God  to  reveal  the  dream  to  Daniel;  and  when,  in 
answer  to  that  prayer,  Daniel  had  successfully  in- 
terpreted the  dream,  and  been  made  ruler  of  the 
province  of  Babylon,  and  head  of  the  college  of 
niagicians,  Shadrach  was  promoted  to  a  high  civil 
office.  But  the  penalty  of  oriental  greatness, 
esiiecially  when  combined  with  honesty  and  up- 
rightness, soon  had  to  lie  paid  liy  him,  on  the  ac- 
cusation of  certain  envious  ( 'haldasans.  For  refiLs- 
jng  to  worship  the  golden  image  he  was  cast  with 
Meshach  and  Abed-nego,  into  the  burning  fur- 
nace. But  his  faith  stood  firm;  and  his  victory 
was  complete  when  he  came  out  of  the  furnace, 
with  his  two  companions,  unhurt,  heard  the  king's 
testimony  to  the  glory  of  (iod,  and  was  "  promoted 
in  the  province  of  Babylon."  We  hear  no  more 
of  Shadrach,  JMeshach,  and  Abed-nego  in  the  O.  T. 
after  this;  neither  are  they  spoken  of  in  the  N.  T., 
except  in  the  pointed  allusion  to  them  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  iiaving  "  through  faith 
quenched  the  violence  of  fii-e  "  (Heb.  xi.  33,  34). 
But  there  are  repeated  allusions  to  them  in  the 
later  apocryphal  books,  and  the  mart3rs  of  the 
IMaccabiean  period  seem  to  have  been  miioh  en- 
couraged by  their  example.  See  1  IMacc.  ii.  59, 
60;  3  Mace.  vi.  6;  4  Mace,  xiii,  9,  xvi.  3,  21, 
xviii.  12.  Ewald  {Gesc/iickle,  iv,  557)  observes, 
indeed,  that  next  to  the  Pentateuch  no  book  is  so 
often  referred  to  in  these  times,  in  proportion,  as 
the  book  of  Daniel.  The  apocryphal  additions  to 
Uaniel  contain,  as  usual,  many  supplementary  par- 
ticidars  aliout  the  furnace,  the  angel,  and  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, besides  the  intmduction  of  the  prayer 
of  Shadrach,  and  tlie  hymn.  Theodore  Parker 
observes  with  truth,  in  opposition  to  Hertholdt, 
that  these  additions  of  the  Alexandrine  prove  that 
th«  Hebrew  was  the  original  text,  because  they  are 
obviously  inserted  to  introduce  a  better  connection 
.nto  the  narrative  {.Joseph.  AnI.  x.  10;  Prideaux, 
Connect,  i.  59,  GO;  Parker's  De  Wette,  liiirod.  ii. 
183-510;  Grimm,  on  1  Mace.  ii.  60;  Ilitzig  (who 
.ftkes  a  thoroughly  skeptical  view),  on  Dun.  iii.; 
Kwald,  iv.  106,  107,  557-559;  Keil,  Einleil. 
Dfinid).  A.  C.  H. 

«  Keil  explains  the  discrepancy  by  supposing  that 
K<:bui'h!i(lQpzzar  may  have  set  off  from  Babylon  to- 
R'ards  the  end  of  the  thin!  year,  but  not  have  reiicbed 
ludtea  till  the  fourth  {Emlut.  p.  387). 


SHALEM 


2939 


SHA'GE  (K?C7  [e?-rtwi/]  :  2,a>Ad;  Alex.  Sayrj; 
Sdfje).  Father  of  Jonathan  the  Hararite,  one  of 
David's  guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  34).  In  the  parallel 
list  of  2  Sam.  xxiii.  33,  he  is  called  Shammah: 
unless,  as  seems  probable,  there  is  a  confusion  be- 
tween .lonathan  the  son  of  "  Shage  the  Hararite," 
Jonathan  the  son  of  Shammah,  David's  brother, 
and  ''  Shammah,  the  son  of  Agee  the  Hararite." 
[See  SiiAJOiAH,  5.] 

SHAHARA'IM  (ClT^nK?  [two  dmnu\: 
'Za.apiv;  [Vat.  SaapTjA;]  Alex.  'S.aap-qfx-  S((/ii(- 
rinia).  A  Benjamite  whose  history  and  descent 
are  alike  obscure  in  the  present  text  (1  Chr. 
viii.  8).  It  is  more  intelligible  if  we  remove  the 
full  stop  from  the  end  of  ver.  7,  and  read  on  thus : 
"  and  begat  Uzza  and  Ahihud,  and  Shaharaini  he 
begat  in  the  field  of  Moab,"  etc.  This  would 
make  Shaharaim  the  son  of  Gera.  He  had  three 
wives  and  nine  children. 

SHAHAZ'IMAH  (na'^^^nti?  [Imoht, 
Ges.];  but  in  the  orig.  text  (Cefliib)  '^72^'^^W, 
I.  e.  ShahatsCimah :  SaAi^u  [Vat.  SaAei^]  Kara* 
daAaaaav;  Alex.  'S.acrei/xad;  [Conip.  Aid.  :S,a(rifi.d:^ 
!<(-liesiina).  One  of  the  towns  of  the  allotment  of 
Issachar,  apparently  between  Tabor  and  the  Jordan 
(Josh.  xix.  22  only).  The  name  is  accurately  Sha- 
hatsim,  the  termination  ah  being  the  particle  of 
motion  —  "to  Shahatsira."  G. 

SHA'LEM    {dhw    [safe,   whole]:    Samar 

D1^ti7:  els 'SaA-n/j.:  in  Salem),  Gen.  xxxiii.  18. 
It  seems  more  than  probable  that  this  word  should 
not  here  be  taken  as  a  proper  name,  but  that  the 
sentence  should  be  rendered,  "  Jacob  came  safe  to 
the  city  of  Shechem."  Our  translators  have  fol- 
lowed the  LXX.,  Peshito-Syriac,  and  Vulgate, 
among  ancient,  and  Luther's  among  modern  ver 
sions,  in  all  of  which  Shalem  is  treated  as  a  proper 
name,  and  considered  as  a  town  dependent  on  or 
related  to  Shechem.  And  it  is  certainly  remark 
able  that  there  should  be  a  modern  village  bearing 
the  name  of  Salim  in  a  position  to  a  certain  degree 
consistent  with  the  requirements  of  the  narrative 
when  so  interpreted:  namely,  three  miles  east  of 
N'dblus  (the  ancient  Shechem),  and  therefore  be- 
tween it  and  the  Jordan  Valley,  where  the  preced- 
ing verse  (ver.  17)  leaves  Jacob  settled  (Kob.  BiU. 
Jies.  ii.  279;  Wilson,  Lands,  ii.  72;  Van  de  Velde 
Syr.  and  Pal.  ii.  302,  334). 

But  there  are  several  considerations  which  weigh 
very  much  against  this  being  more  than  a  fortuitous 
coincidence. 

1.  If  Shalem  was  the  city  in  front  of  which 
Jacob  pitched  his  tent,  then  it  certainly  was  the 
scene  of  the  events  of  chap,  xxxiv. ;  and  the  well 
of  Jacoi)  and  the  tomb  of  Joseph  must  be  removed 
from  the  situation  in  which  tradition  has  so  appro- 
priately placed  them  to  some  spot  further  eastward 
and  nearer  to  S(dim.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  felt 
this,  and  they  accordingly  make  Sychem  and  Salem 
one  and  the  same  (Onom.,  under  both  these 
heads). 

2.  Though  east  of  Ndhlus,  Snlim  does  not  ap- 
pear to  lie  near  any  actual  line  of  communication 
between  it  and  the  Jordan  Valley.  The  road  froro 
Sa/nU  to  A'dOltis  would  be  either  by  U'ady  Maleh^ 


b  Readiug  the   final    syUatjle   as   HS^.     '  to    tb« 


21)40    SHALIM,  THE  LAND  OF 

ihroush  Teyri&if,  Tulnts,  and  the  Wady  Biddn,  or 
by  Keraivti,  Vdiiun,  and  Btit-Fuiik.  The  former 
passes  two  mik'S  to  the  north,  the  latter  two  miles 
to  the  south  of  Snlhii,  but  neither  apjjroach  it  in 
the  direct  way  which  the  narrative  of  (ien.  xxxiii. 
J8  seems  to  denote  that  Jacob's  route  did. 

3.  With  the  exceptions  already  named,  the  unan- 
imous voice  of  translators  and  scholars  is  in  favor 
of  treating  sluihin  as  a  mere  appellative.  Among 
the  ancients,  Jose])hus  (by  his  silence,  Ant.  i.  21, 
§  1 ),  the  'i'argums  of  Onkelos  and  Pseudojonathan, 
the  Samaritan  Codex,  the  Arabic  Version  Among 
the  moderns,  the  Veneto-Greek  Version,  Rashi," 
Junius,  and  Tremellius,  Meyer  {Annot.  on  Seder 
01am),  Ainsworth,  Keland  {Pal.  and  Dissert. 
Misc.),  Schumann,  Eosenmiiller,  J.  D.  Michaelis 
{Bibtl  fiiv  UiKjdthrt.),  and  the  great  Hebrew 
scholars  of  our  own  day,  Gesenius  {Tlies.  p.  1422), 
Zunz  (24  Biicher,  and  IlandwO.),  De  AVette,  Luz- 
zatto,  Knobel,  and  Kalisch  — all  these  take  s/inlem 
to  mean  "  safe  and  sound,"  and  the  city  before 
which  Jacob  pitched  to  be  the  city  of  Shechem. 

Sfiliin  does  not  appear  to  have  been  visited  by 
any  traveller.*  It  could  be  done  without  difficulty 
from  Ncibiiis,  and  the  in\estigation  might  be  of 
iui]iortance.  The  springs  which  are  reported  to  lie 
there  should  not  be  overlooked,  for  their  bearing  on 
its  possil)le  identity  with  the  Salim  of  St.  John 
the  Uaptist.  G. 

SHALIM,  THE  LAND  OF  ("V"ll^* 
C^^PttJ.  i.  e.  Shaalim  [land  of  foxes'] :  [Vat.] 
TTjs  yr]s  EaaaKffj.  [Rom.  'S.^yaXifi];"  Alex.  t.  y. 
:S,aa\etix.  [Comp.  t.  7.  :S,aayiix-]  terra  S(iliin). 
A  district  through  which  Saul  passed  on  his  jour- 
ney in  quest  of  his  father's  asses  (1  Sam.  ix.  4  only). 
It  appears  to  have  lain  between  the  "  land  of  Sha- 
lisha '  and  the  ''land  of  Yemini "  (probably,  but 
by  no  means  certainly,  that  of  Benjanun). 

In  the  comiilete  uncertainty  which  attends  the 
route  —  its  starting-point  and  termination,  no  less 
than  its  whole  course — it  is  very  difficult  to  hazard 
any  conjecture  on  the  position  of  Shalini.  The 
spelling  of  the  name  in  the  original  shows  that  it 
had  no  cormection  with  Shalem,  or  with  the  modern 
ISidim  east  of  Nablus  (though  between  these  two 
there  is  probably  nothing  in  common  except  the 
name).  It  is  more  possibly  identical  with  the 
"land  of  Shual,"''  the  situation  of  which  appears, 
from  some  circumstances  attending  its  mention,  to 
be  almost  necessarily  fisefl  in  the  neighliorhood  of 
Tdiyibeh,  i.  e.  nearly  six  miles  north  of  JMichmash, 
and  about  nine  from  Gibeah  of  Saul.  But  this  can 
only  be  taken  as  a  conjecture.      [Ramaii.]      G. 

SHAL'ISHA,  THE  LAND  OF  ("VT;^ 
nE?bK?,  ;.  e.  Shalishah  [third-land,  Fiirst] :  i, 
777  2eAxct;  Alex,  n  7.  'S.aAiaaa;  [Comp.  2aA<(ra:] 
terra  Salisa).     One  of  the  districts  traversed  by 


a  The  traditional  explanation  of  the  word  among 
the  Jews,  as  stated  by  Rashi,  is  that  Jacob  arrived 
before  Shechem  sound  from  his  lameness  (incurred  at 
Peniel),  and  with  his  wealth  and  his  faith  alike  un- 
mjured. 

b  *  Tristram  visited  this  village,  which  he  repre- 
Fents  as  "  modern  and  insignificant,"  but,  as  he  says, 
"  took  only  a  hasty  glance  at  it."  He  thinks  that 
Jacob  may  have  crossed  the  Jahbok  at  one  point 
whence  his  route  would  have  brought  him  to  the  vi- 
iirAty  of  >Snlhn  (Land  nf  Urnet.  p.  146).  This  possi- 
hility,  however,  is  not  sufficii^nt  to  outweigh  the  op- 
pasing  considerations  stated  in  the  text  above.     H. 


SHALLUM 

Saul  when  in  search  of  the  asses  of  Kish  (1  Sam 
ix.  4,  only),  it  apparently  lay  between  "  Mount 
Ephraim  "  and  the  "  land  of  Shaalim,"  a  specifi- 
cation which  with  all  its  evident  preciseness  is  ir- 
recognizalile,  because  the  extent  of  jMount  Ephraira 
is  so  uncertain;  and  Shaalim,  though  probably 
near  Taiyibeh,  is  not  yet  definitely  fixed  there 
The  difficulty  is  increased  by  locating  Shalisha  at 
»S(5r?s  or  Khirbet  Saris,  a  village  a  few  miles  west 
of  Jerusalem,  south  of  Abu  Gosh  (Tobler,  Site 
Wand.  p.  178),  which  some  have  proposed.  If  the 
hind  of  Shalisha  contained,  as  it  not  impossiitlj 
did,  the  place  called  Baal-Shalisha  (2  K.  iv. 
42),  which,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebiua 
and  Jerome  (  Oreom.  "  Beth  Salisha  " ),  lay  fifteen 
Roman  (or  twelve  English)  miles  north  of  Lydd^ 
then  the  whole  disposition  of  Saul's  route  would  be 
changed. 

The  words  Eylath  Shalishiynh  in  .Jer.  xlviii.  34 
(A.  V.  "a  heifer  of  three  years  old")  are  by  some 
translators  rendered  as  if  denoting  a  place  named 
Shalisha.  But  even  if  this  be  correct,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  Shalisha  of  the  prophet  was  on  the  coast 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  therefore  by  no  means  appro- 
priate fur  that  of  Saul.  ti. 

SHALLE'CHETH,  THE  GATE  ("ipip 

i^^ "...?''  [see  below]:  ^  ttuAt)  Tra<TTO(popiov:  jxyria 
qnce  ducil).  One  of  the  gates  of  the  "house  of 
Jehovali.,"  whether  by  that  expression  be  intended 
the  sacred  tent  of  David  or  the  I'emjile  of  Solomon. 
It  is  mentioned  only  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  16,  in  what 
purports  to  be  a  list  of  the  staff  of  the  sacred 
establishment  as  settled  by  David  (xxiii.  6,  25, ' 
xsiv.  31,  XXV.  1,  xxvi.  31,  32).  It  was  the  gate 
"  to  the  causeway  of  the  ascent,"  that  is,  to  the 
lono;  embankment  which  led  up  from  the  central 
valley  of  the  town  to  the  sacred  inclosure.  As  the 
causeway  is  actually  in  existence,  though  very  much 
concealed  under  the  mass  of  hou.ses  which  fill  the 
valley,  the  gate  Shallecheth  can  hardly  fail  to  be 
identical  with  the  Bib  Silsiltli,  or  Sinslth,  which 
enters  the  west  wall  of  the  Maram  area  opposite 
the  south  end  of  the  platform  of  the  Dome  of  the 
Rock,  alioiit  GOG  feet  from  the  southwest  corner 
of  the  Haram  wall.  For  the  bearing  of  this  posi- 
tion on  the  topography  of  the  Temple,  see  that 
article.      , 

The  signification  of  shalleceth  is  "  falling  or 
casting  down.".    The  LXX.,  however,   appear  to 

have  read  HStTy,  the  word  which  they  usually 
render  liy  iraffTocpoploy.  This  would  point  to  the 
"  chanibers  "  of  the  Temple.  G. 

SHAL'LUM  (D^vK7  [reinbution] :  2e\- 
Aov/j.:   Selluin). 

1.  The  fifteenth  king  of  Israel,  son  of  Jabesh, 
conspired  against  Zechariah,  son  of  Jeroboam  II., 
killed  him,  and  brought  the  dynasty  of  Jehu  to  a 
close,  B.  c.  770,  according  to  the  prophecy  in'  2  K. 


c  Many  MSS.  have  2eyaAi/n  or  Se-yoAein*  (see  Holmes 
and  Parsons),  the  reading  followed  by  Tischendorf  id 
his  text  (1856).  The  reading  of  the  Alex,  is  remark- 
able for  its  suppression  of  the  presence  of  the  27  in 
the  Hebrew  word,  usually  rendered  In  Greek  by  -y. 

'I  It  will  be  seen  that  Slialim  contains  the  Ain  which 
is  absent  from  Shalem.  It  is,  however,  present  in 
Shual. 

«  At  the  same  time  omitting  ri-^D^,  "  the  caiut 
way,"  or  confounding  it  with  the  word  before  it. 


SHALL UM 

t.  30,  where  it  is  promised  that  Jehu's  children 
should  occupy  the  throne  of  Israel  to  the  fourth 
generation.  In  the  English  version  of  2  K.  xv. 
10,  we  read,  "  And  .Shalhun  the  son  of  Jabesh 
conspired  a<;ainst  him,  and  sniot  ■  him  before  (he 
people,  and  slew  him,  and  reigned  in  his  stead." 
And  so  the  Vulg.  percussitque  ciim  /iithim  tt  inler- 
ffcit.  But  in  the  LXX.  we  find  Kf^Aaa^a  in- 
stead of  b<fbre  (he  people,  i.  e.  .Shallinii  and 
Keblaam  killed  Zechariah.  The  connnon  editions 
read  eV  Ke)3Aaa/x,  nieanins;  that  Shallum  killed 
Zechariah  in  Kolilaaui;  but  no  place  of  sucii  a 
name  is  known,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Hebrew 
to  answer   to   eV.     The  words  translated    l-efore 

the    people,  pal'im,    KciSAaa^,    are     DV   ^^i^, 

Ewald  (Geschichte,  iii.  598)  maintains  tlmt   V2p 

never  occurs  in  prose,"  and    that  C37  would  be 

C37n  if  the  Latin  and  English  translations  were 
correct.  He  also  observes  that  in  vv.  1-1,  25,  30, 
where  almost  the  same  expression  is  used  of  the 
deaths  of  Shallum,  Pekahiali,  and  Pekah,  the  words 
bejtrre  (he  ptoide  are  omitted.  Hence  he  accepts 
the  translation  in  the  Vatican  JIS.  of  tiie  LXX., 
and  considers  that  Qobolam ''  or  Ke/8Aaa/i  was  a 
fellow-conspirator  or  rival  of  Shalhim,  of  whose 
subsequent  fate  we  have  no  information.  On  the 
death  of  Zechariah,  Shallum  was  made  king,  but, 
after  reigning  in  Samaria  for  a  month  only,  was  in 
his  turn  dethroned  and  killed  by  Menahem.  To 
these  events  Ewald  refers  the  obscure  passage  in 
Zech.  xi.  8:  Three  shepherds  also  1  cut  off  in  one 
month,  and  my  soul  abhorred  them  —  the  three  shep- 
herds being  Zechariah,  Qobolam,  and  Shallum. 
This  is  very  ingenious :  we  must  remember,  how- 
ever, that  Ewald,  like  certain  English  divines 
(Mede,  Hammond,  Newcome,  Seeker,  Pye  Smith), 
thinks  that  the  latter  chapters  of  the  prophecies 
of  Zechariah  belong  to  an  earlier  date  than  the 
rest  of  the  book.  G.  E.  L.  C. 

2.  (2eA\i7/u;  Alex.  SeWov^ti  in  2  K.)  The 
husband  (or  son,  according  to  the  LXX.  in  2  K.) 
of  Huklah  the  prophetess  (2  K.  xxii.  14;  2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  22)  in  the  reign  of  .losiah.  He  appears  to 
have  been  keeper  of  the  priestly  vestments  in  the 
Temple,  though  in  the  LXX.  of  2  Chr.  this  office 
is  w-rongly  assigned  to  his  wife. 

3.  (2aA.oi'/i;  Alex.  SaAAou^.)  A  descendant 
of  Sheshan  (1  Chr.  ii.  40,  41). 

4.  ([Rom.  SaAou^,]  Alex.  2aAAouu  in  1  Chr., 
[both]  2eAA7j^  in  .Jer. )  The  third  son  of  Josiah 
king  of  Judah,  known  in  the  liooks  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles  as  .Jehoahaz  (1  Chr.  iii.  15;  Jer.  xxii. 
11).  Hengsteidierg  (Chris(olo//y  of  the  0.  T.  ii. 
4C0,  Eng.  transl.)  regards  the  name  as  symbolical, 
''the  recompensed  one,"  and  given  to  Jehoahaz  in 
token  of  his  fate,  as  one  whom  God  recompensed 
according  to  his  deserts.  This  would  be  plausible 
(nough  if  it  were  only  found  in  the  prophecy:  but 
h  genealogical  table  is  the  last  place  where  we 
should  expect  to  find  a  syndiolical  name,  and  Shal- 
lum. is  more  proliably  the  original  name  of  the 
iing,  which  was  chansred  to  .lehoahaz  when  he 
iame  to  the  crown.     Upon  a  comparison  of  the 


SHALMAI 


2941 


a  Is  not  tlie  objection  rather  that  the  wont  is  t'nal- 
iee?  It  occurs  repeatedly  in  Daniel  (ii.  31 ;  iii.  3  ;  iv. 
i,  6,  10),  iiud  also  in  the  Ohaldee  portions  of  Ezra  (v. 
16;  vi.  13). 

6  Q  is  the  best  representative  of  the  Hebrew    p. 


ages  of  Jehoiakim,  Jehoahaz  or  Shallum,  and  Zede- 
kiah,  it  is  evident  that  of  the  two  last  Zedekiah 
must  have  teen  the  younger,  and  therefore  that 
Shalliun  was  the  (hird,  not  the  fourth,  son  of 
Josiah,  as  stated  in  1  Chr.  iii.  15. 

5.  CZak^iJ.-)  Son  of  Shaul  the  son  of  Simeou 
(1  Chr.  iv.  25). 

6.  (2aAa;^  in  Chr.,  SeXovfj.  [Vat.  SaAovju]  ii 
Ezr. ;  Alex.  2eAAoi;^.)  A  high-priest,  son  of 
Zadok  and  ancestor  of  Ezra  (1  Chr.  vi.  12,  13; 
Ezr.  vii.  2).  Called  also  Salum  (1  Esdr.  viii.  1), 
and  Sadamias  (2  Esdr.  i.  1). 

7.  C^fWovfj.;  [Vat.  ■XaKcc/j.av.])  A  son  of 
Naphthali  (1  Chr.  vii.  13).  He  and  his  brethren 
are  ca'leJ  "sons  of  Hilhah,"  but  in  the  Vat.  MS. 
of  the  LXX.,  Shallum  and  the  rest  are  the  sons 
of  Naphthali,  and  Balam  (not  iJilhah)  is  the  son  of 
Shallum.     Called  also  Shillem. 

8.  {2aA£i^,  Alex.  2aAAco/i  in  1  Chr.  ix.  17; 
2eAAoi^^  [Vat.  'S.aAov/j.]  in  Ezr.  ii.  42;  2aAoiV, 
Alex.  2eAAoii|U  in  Neh.  vii.  45.)  The  chief  of  a 
family  of  porters  or  gatekeepers  of  the  east  gate 
of  the  Temple,  for  the  camps  of  the  .sons  of  Levi. 
His  descendants  were  among  those  who  returned 
with  Zerubbabel.  In  1  Esdr.  v.  28  he  is  called 
SALUjr,  and  in  Neh.  xii.  25  Meshullam. 

9.  i'S.iWov/j.  [Vat.  2aAa)^a)j'],  'S.aKdifji:  Alex. 
"ZaXaifji.)  Son  of  Kore,  a  Korahite,  who  with  his 
brethren  was  keeper  of  the  thresholds  of  the  Taber- 
nacle (1  Chr.  ix.  19,  31),  "and  their  fiithers  (were) 
over  the  camp  of  Jehovah,  keepers  of  the  entry." 
On  comparing  this  with  the  expression  in  ver.  18, 
it  would  appear  that  Shallum  the  son  of  Kore  and 
his  brethren  were  gatekeepers  of  a  higher  rank 
than  Shallum,  Akkub,  Tahnon,  and  Ahiman,  who 
were  only  "  for  the  camp  of  the  sons  of  Levi." 
With  this  Shallum  we  may  identify  Meshelemiah 
and  Shelemiah  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  1,  2,  9,  14),  but  he 
seems  to  be  different  from  the  last-mentioned  Shal- 
lum. 

10.  (2eAA')7^.)  Father  of  Jehizkiah,  one  of 
the  heads  of  the  children  of  Ephraim  (2  Chr. 
xxviii.  12). 

11.  {-S.oKfjii]v;  [Vat.  T^Wjih:  FA.  TaiAAei^;] 
Alex.  2oAA7}|U.)  One  of  the  porters  of  the  Tem- 
ple who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  24). 

12.  (2€AAou/x:  [Vat.  FA.  2aAoi//tt.J)  Son  of 
Bani,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wile  at  the  com 
mand  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  42). 

13.  (2aAAoi^/i;  [Vat.]  FA.  2aAov/i.)  The  son 
of  Halohesh  and  ruler  of  a  district  of  Jerusalem. 
With  his  daufrhters  he  assisted  Nehemiah  in  re- 
building the  w'all  of  the  city  (Neh.  iii.  12). 

14.  (2aAai^;  [FA.  2aA/.tttii/.] )  The  uncle  of 
Jeremiah  (.ler.  xxxii.  7);  perhaps  the  same  as 
Shallum  the  husband  of  Huldah  the  prophetess. 
[JiiiiEJiiAH,  vol.  ii.  p.  1254  a.] 

15.  (26Ac6^:  [FA.i  AiAo)^,  FA.'^  laiXoiix.l) 
Father  or  ancestor  of  iNIaaseiah,  "keeper  of  the 
threshold  "  of  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah 
(Jer.  XXXV.  4);  perha[)s  the  same  as  9. 

SHAL'LUN  (l=1vty  [perh.  retribution-]  : 
[Rom.]  2aAa!^aJ;';  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit:]  iS'e^ 
luin  ^  The  son  of  CVl-hozeh,  and  ruler  of  a  dis- 
trict of  the  Mizpah.  He  assisted  Nehemiah  in 
repairing  the  s'pring  gate,  and  "the  wall  of  the 
pool  of  llassbelach  "  (A.  V.  "Siloab")  belonuing 
to  the  king's  garden,  "even  up  to  the  stairs  that 
go  down  from  the  city  of  David  "  (Neh.  iii.  15). 

SHAL'MAI  [2  syl.]  (''^^t£',  Keri ;  ^^\^ 


2942 


SHALMAN 


in  Ezr.,  '^f^  r^  in  Neli.  [my  thanks]:  2eAa/i(, 
Xe\/j.d:  [Vat.  Sayuaaj/,  SaAoyuei:]  Alex.  SeAojuei, 
SeAyitei  [FA.  2a/xaei] :  t^emlai,  Sdinni).  'J'he 
children  of  Shaliiiai  (or  Siiajilai,  as  in  the  margin 
of  Ezr.  ii.  46)  were  among  the  Nethinini  who  re- 
turned with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  4G;  Neh.  vii.  48). 
In  Neh.  the  name  is  properly  Salmai.  In  1  Esdr. 
V.  30  it  is  written  Subai. 


SHAL'MAN  iV^l^  [as  below]:  SaAa^c^j/: 
Sa/iiicma).  Shalnianeser,  king  of  Assyria  (Hos. 
X.  14).  The  versions  differ  in  a  remarkable  man- 
ner in  their  rendering  of  this  verse.     The  LXX. 

read  "^W,  sm-  (ixpxov),  for  IW,  shod  (in  which 
they  are  followed  l>y  the  Arabic  of  the  Polyglot), 
and  "Jeroboam  "  (Alex.  ".leriibbaal")  for  "  Arbel." 
The  "\'ulgate,  reading  "Jerubiiaal,"'  appears  to  have 
confomuled  Shalman  with  Zalmunna,  and  renders 
the  clause,  sicut  vaslahis  est  iSnlmiom  a  doino'ejus 
qid  jmlicav'U  Baal  in  die  picelii.  The  Tari;uni  of 
Jonathan  and  Peshito-Syriac  both  give  "Shalnia;" 

the  former  for  bS3~lS  n''2,  readincr   niSS^S, 
..    :-         ^'  «        T-:-  :' 

"by  an  ambush,"  the  latter,  VS  jI^S,  "Beth-el." 
The  Chaldee  translator  seems  to  have  caught  oidy 
the  first  letters  of  the  word  "Arbel,"  while  the 
S}  rian  only  saw  the  last  two.  The  Targum  pos- 
sibly regards  "Shalman  "as  an  appellative,  "the 
peaceable,"  following  in  this  the  traditional  inter- 
pretation of  the  verse  recorded  by  Kashi,  whose 
note  is  as  follows:  "  As  spoilers  that  come  upon  a 
people  dwelling  in  peace,  suddenly  by  means  of  an 
ambush,  who  ha\e  not  been  warned  against  them 
to  flee  before  them,  and  destroy  all." 

SHALMANE'SER  ("IDSS^btt'  [perh./7v- 
worshipptr;  see  Ges.  s.  t;.]  :  2aAct;uaVa(rcrap ;  [Vat. 
2  K.  xvii.,  2,afj.evi'aff(Tap;  Alex.  SaAa^ai/ao-ap, 
^a/xauaaaap;]  Joseph.  SaA^oi'ao-o-aprjs:  S(diiM- 
niisar)  was  the  Assyrian  king  who  reigned  imme- 
diately before  Sargon,  and  probably  immediately 
after  'I'iglath-pileser.  Very  little  is  known  of  him, 
since  Sargon,  his  successor,  who  was  of  a  different 
family,  and  most  likely  a  rebel  against  his  authority 
[Sargox],  seems  to  have  destroyed  his  monu- 
ments. He  can  scarcely  have  ascended  the  throne 
earlier  than  b.  c.  730,  and  may  possibly  not  have 
done  so  till  a  few  3  ears  later.  [Tiglath  pileskk.] 
It  must  have  been  soon  after  his  accession  that  he 
led  the  forces  of  Assyria  into  Palestine,  where  Ho- 
shea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,  had  revolted  against 
his  authority  (2  K.  xvii.  3).  No  sooner  was  he 
come  than  Hoshea  submitted,  acknowledged  him- 
self a  "  servant  "  of  the  Great  King,  and  consented 
to  pay  him  a  fixed  tribute  annually.  Shalmaneser 
uiKMi  this  retunied  home;  l)ut  soon  afterwards  he 
"  found  conspiracy  in  Hoshea,"  who  had  concluded 
an  alliance  with  the  king  of  I'^gypt,  and  withheld 
his  tribute  in  consequence.  In  b.  c  723  Shalmane- 
ser invaded  Palestine  for  the  second  time,  and,  as 
Hoshea  refused  to  submit,  laid  siege  to  Samaria. 
The  siege  lasted  to  the  third  year  (b.  c.  721), 
when  the  Assyrian  arms  prevailed;  Samaria  fell; 
Hoshea  was  taken  captive  and  shut  up  in  prison, 
and  the  bulk  of  the  Samaritans  were  transimrted 
from  their  own  country  to  Upijer  Mesopotamia  (2  K. 
svii.  4-0,  xviii.  9-11).    It  is  uncertain  whether  Shal- 


a  In  2  K.  xvii.  6,  the  expression  is  simply  "  the 
ting  of  Assyria  took  it."  In  2  K.  xviii.  9,  10,  we 
tnd, iitill  more  remarkably,  "Shalnianeser,  king  of  .\8- 


SHAMER 

maneser  conducted  the  siege  to  its  close,  or  whelhei 
he  did  not  lose  his  crown  to  Sargon  before  the  citj 
was  taken.  Sargon  claims  the  capture  as  ins  own 
exploit  in  his  first  year;  and  Scripture,  it  vdll  be 
(bund,  avoids  saying  that  Shalmaneser  took  the 
place.«  I'erhaps  Shalmaneser  died  before  Samaria, 
or  perhaps,  hearing  of  Sargon's  revolt,  he  left  hia 
troops,  or  a  part  of  them,  to  continue  the  siege, 
and  returned  to  Assyria,  where  he  was  defeated 
and  deposed  (or  murdered)  by  his  enemy. 

According  to  Josephus,  who  professes  to  follow 
the  Phoenician  history  of  Jlenander  of  Ephesus, 
Shalmane.ser  engaged  in  an  important  war  with 
Phoenicia  in  defense  of  Cyjmis  {Aiit.  ix.  14,  §  2). 
It  is  possible  that  he  may  have  done  so,  though  w€ 
have  no  other  evidence  of  the  fact;  but  it  is  perhaps 
more  pfobable  that  Josei)hus,  or  IMenander,  made 
some  confusion  between  him  and  Sargon,  who  cer- 
tainly warred  with  Pha-nicia,  and  set  up  a  memo- 
rial in  Cyprus.     [Saiigojj.]  G.  R. 

SHA'MA  (37^1^''  [hearinc/,  obedient:]  :  Sa/xaOd; 
Alex.  2a/.i/^a:  Sainiiin).  One  of  David's  guard,  son 
of  I-lothan  of  Aroer  (1  Chr.  xi.  44).  and  biother  of 
Jehiel.     Probably  a  Eeubenite  (see  1  Chr.  v.  8). 

SHAMARI'AH  (n:;-l)?tt^  [ichom  Jehovah 
protects]:  'Xa/xopla:  [Vat.]  Alex.  2a/xapm:  So- 
nioria).  Sun  of  liehoboam  by  Abihail  the  daugh- 
ter of  Eliab  (2  Chr.  xi.  I'J). 

*  SHAMBLES.  1  Cor.  x.  25  (/icf/ceAAoj/  from 
the  Latin  macelluiii  =^  -^^^pionrtLxiov  as  explained  by 
Plutarch),  flesh -market.  Meat  which  had  been 
offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  was  often  brought  to 
such  places  for  sale.  Some  of  the  first  Christians 
doulited  whether  they  could  lawfully  eat  such  meat. 
Paul  decides  that  the  scruple  was  unnecessary ;  but 
if  any  one  entertained  it  he  was  bound  by  it,  and 
e\en  if  tree  from  it  shoidd  forego  his  own  liberty 
out  of  regard  to  the  weak  consciences  of  others. 
"  Shambles "  is  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  scamel, 
scamal,  which  meant  a  bench  or  stool.  H. 

SHA'MED  (~l'2tt'  [perh.  watch,  keeper]: 
lefx/jLTip:  [^'at.  2r7^r)$;  Comp.  2a,u7j5:]  Snmad). 
Properly  Shamkh,  or  Shemer;  one  of  the  sons  of 
Elpaal  the  ISenjamite,  who  built  Ono  and  Lod,  with 
the  towns  thereof  (1  Cbr.  viii.  12).  The  A.  V.  has 
followed  the  Vulg.,  as  in  the  case  of  Sliachia,  and 
retains  the  reading  of  the  Geneva  Version.  Thir- 
teen of  Kennicott's  jMSS.  have  ^Z2U17. 

*  SHAMEFACEDNESS  is  a  current  mis- 
print or  corruption  in  1  Tim.  ii.  9,  for  "  Sliamefast- 
ness,"  in  the  sense  of  being  fast  or  established  in 
modesty  and  decorum.  The  old  English  versions 
(Wickliffe,  Tyiidale,  Cranmer,  Geneva),  as  well  as 
the  original  ed.  of  IGll,  have  "  shamefastness." 
The  word  is  formed  from  shamefast,  like  steadfast- 
ness from  steadfast,  rootf'astness  from  rootfast,  etc. 
(.See  Trench  On  the  Authorized  Versioji,  p.  G6.) 
The  Greek  word  is  alScos,  which  the  A.  V.  renders 
"  reverence  "  in  Heb.  xii.  28.  H. 

*  SHAMEFASTNESS.      [Sh-vmefaced- 

NESS.] 

SHA'MER  ("ir.7  [keepej;  or  tees  0/ 
icine':/]:  2€/xr)p:    [Vat.]    Alex.  2,efifi7ip:   Somer) 

Syria,  came  up  against  Samari.a,  and  besieged  it;  a  DO 
at  the  end  of  three  years  t/iry  took  it." 


SHAMGAR 

I,    A  Merarite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Ethan  (1  Clir. 
vi.  46). 

2.  (26^^T7p;  Alex.  2&)^r;p.)  Shomer  the  sou 
of  Helier  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  34).  His  four 
jons  are  mentioned  by  name.  \V.  A.  W. 

SHAM'GAE,  ("iS^tt^  [possibly,  cup-Jjearer] : 
Sa/ieyap;  [Vat.  in  Judg.  iii.  31,  ^a/j.ayap:]  Sam- 
<j(ir :  of  uncertain  etymology;  compare  Sauigar- 
nel(O).  Son  of  Auath,  judge  of  Israel  after  Khud, 
and  before  Barak,  though  possibly  contemporary 
with  the  latter,  since  he  seems  to  be  spoken  of  in 
Judg.  V.  6  as  a  contemporary  of  .Jael,  if  the  reading 
is  correct."  It  is  not  improbable  from  his  patronymic 
that  Shamgar  may  have  been  of  the  tribe  of  Naph- 
tali,  since  15eth-auath  is  in  that  tribe  (.Judg.  i.  33). 
Ewald  conjectures  that  he  was  of  Dan  — an  opinion 
in  which  Bertheau  (  On  Judy.  iii.  31)  does  not  coin- 
cide. And  since  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  bore  a  chief 
part  in  the  war  against  Jabin  and  Sisera  (Judg.  iv. 
6,  10,  V.  18),  we  seem  to  have  a  point  of  contact 
between  Shamgar  and  Barak.  Anyhow,  in  the 
days  of  Shamgar,  Israel  was  in  a  most  depressed 
condition;  the  tributary  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  33), 
in  league  apparently  with  their  independent  kins- 
men, the  Philistines,  rose  against  their  Israelite 
masters,  and  the  country  became  so  unsafe,  that 
the  highways  were  deserted,  and  Hebrew  travellers 
were  oliliged  to  creep  unobserved  by  cross-roads  and 
by-ways.  The  open  villages  were  deseited,  the 
wells  were  inaccessible,  and  the  people  hid  them- 
selves in  the  mountains.  Their  arms  were  ap- 
parently taken  from  them,  by  the  same  policy  as 
was  adopted  later  by  the  same  peoi)le  (.ludg.  iii.  31, 
V.  8;  comp.  with  1  Sam.  xiii.  19-22),  and  the 
whole  nation  was  cowed.  At  this  conjuncture 
Shamgar  was  raised  up  to  be  a  deliverer.  With  no 
arms  in  his  hand  but  an  ox-goad  (Judg.  iii.  31; 
comp.  1  Sam  xiii.  21),  he  made  a  desperate  assault 
upon  tlie  Philistines,  and  slew  GOO  of  them ;  an  act 
of  valor  by  which  he  procured  a  temporary  respite 
for  his  people,  and  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of 
the  Canaanites  and  their  Philistine  allies.  But  it 
was  reserved  for  Deborah  and  Barak  to  complete 
the  deliverance;  and  whether  Shamgar  lived  to  wit- 
ness or  [jarticipate  in  it  we  have  no  certain  informa- 
tion. I'rom  the  position  of  "  the  Philistines  "  in 
1  Sam.  xii.  9,  between  "  jMoab  "  and  "  Hazor,"' 
the  allusion  seems  to  be  to  the  time  of  Shamgar. 
Ewald  observes  with  truth  that  the  way  in  which 
Shamgar  is  mentioned  in  Deborah's  song  indicates 
that  his  career  was  very  recent.  The  resemblance 
to  Samson,  pointed  out  by  him,  does  not  seem  to 
lead  to  anything.  A.  C.  II. 

*  It  may  have  been  as  leader  and  not  by  his  own 
»ingle  hand  that  Shamgar  slew  the  GOO  Philistines. 
The  suljugated  Helirews  being  disarmed  (comi). 
Judg.  v.  8),  he  may  have  put  himself  at  the  head 
of  a  band  of  peasants  armed  with  ox-goads,  tlie  oidy 
wea[)ons  left  to  them,  and  with  such  warriors  may 
have  achieved  the  victory.  In  common  speech  we 
Ascribe  to  the  leader  what  is  done  under  his  leader- 
ship. [SiiKCHE.M.]  One  of  Houier"s  heroes  put  to 
flight  Itionysius  and  the  Bacchantes  with  his 
,'ioviT\7i^  {11.  vi.  13.5).  Mr.  Porter  states  (Ivitto's 
Daily  liihle  lllustr.  ii.  340)  that  he  "once  saw  a 
fjoad  of  a  Druse  ploughman,  on  the  mountains  of 
Bashan  —  of  which  the  shaft  was  ten  feet  long 
»nd  made  of  an  oak  sapling;  the  goad  appeared  to 

n  The  mention  of  Jael  seems  scarcely  natural.  It 
IM  occurred  to  the  writer  to  conjecture   for    ^i^^U 


SHAMMA  2943 

lie  an  old  spear-head,  very  sharp  »:id  firmly  fast 
ened.  The  Druse  remarked  that  it  was  for  the 
Arabs  as  well  as  the  oxen."  Thomson  describes 
this  fornndal>le  weapon  in  his  Land  and  Boo/c,  i. 
500.     [See  also  Ox-goad.]  H. 

SHAM'HUTH  {P^rCDW  [perh.  desolation, 
waste]:  '2,afxaci6'.  [Vat.  SaAocofl:]  Samaotk).  The 
fifth  captain  for  the  fifth  month  in  David's  arrange- 
ment uf  Ids  army  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  8).  His  designa- 
tion n"l^*rT,  hayyizrdcli,   i.  e.   the   Yizrach,    is 

probably  for  Tt'l-tH,  hazzaicin,  the  Zarhitc,  or 
descendant  of  Zerah  the  son  of  Judah.  From  a 
comparison  of  the  lists  in  1  Chr.  xi.,  xxvii.,  it 
would  seem  that  Shamhuth  is  the  same  as  Shajc- 
MOTH  the  Harorite.  \V.  A.  W. 

SHA'MIR  (I'^tttt?  [Iliom-hedc/e]:  [Rom. 
2a,uip;  Vat.]  2n/ieip;  Alex,  in  Josh,  ^acpeip,  in 
.ludg.  'SiUfxapeta'-  Sauiir).  The  name  of  two  places 
in  the  Holy  Land. 

1.  A  town  in  the  mountain  district  of  Judah 
(Jobh.  XV.  48,  only).  It  is  the  first  in  tliis  division 
of  the  catalogue,  and  occurs  in  company  with  Jat- 
Tiit  in  the  group  containing  Sociio  and  Esiite- 
JioH.  It  therefore  probably  lay  some  eight  or  ten 
miles  south  of  Heliron,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
three  places  just  named,  all  of  which  have  been 
identified  with  tolerable  certainty.  But  it  has 
not  itself  been  yet  discovered. 

2.  A  place  in  Mount  Ephraim,  the  residence 
and  burial-place  of  Tola  the  Judge  (Judg.  x.  1,  2). 
It  is  singular  that  this  judge,  a  man  of  Issachar, 
should  have  taken  up  his  official  residence  out  of 
liis  own  tribe.  We  may  account  for  it  by  sup- 
posing that  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  which  formed 
the  greater  part  of  the  territory  of  Issachar,  was 
o\errun,  as  in  Gideon's  time,  by  the  Canaanites  or 
other  marauders,  of  whose  incursions  nothing  what- 
ever is  told  us  —  though  their  existence  is  certain 
—  driving  Tola  to  the  more  secure  mountains  of 
Ephraim.  Or,  as  Manasseh  had  certain  cities  out 
of  Issachar  allotted  to  him,  so  Issachar  on  the 
other  hand  may  have  possessed  some  towns  in  the 
mo.untains  of  Ephraim.  Both  these  suppositions, 
however,  are  but  conjecture,  and  have  no  corrobora- 
tion in  any  statement  of  the  records. 

Shamir  is  not  mentioned  by  the  ancient  topog- 
raphers. Schwarz  (p.  151)  proposes  to  identify  it 
with  Sanilr,  a  place  of  great  natural  strength  (which 
has  some  claims  to  be  Bethulia),  situated  in  the 
mountains,  half-way  between  Samaria  and  Jenin, 
about  eight  miles  from  each.  Van  de  ^'elde  ( Mem.  p. 
348)  proposes  Khirbet  Sainmer,  a  ruined  site  in  the 
mountains  overlooking  the  .lordan  valley,  ten  miles 
li.  S.  E.  of  NCiblus.  There  is  no  connection  be- 
tween the  names  Shamir  and  Samaria,  as  proposed 
in  the  Alex.  LXX.  (see  above),  beyond  the  acci- 
dental one  which  arises  from  the  inaccurate  form 
of  the  latter  in  that  Version,  and  in  our  own,  it 
being  correctly  Shoinrvn.  (J,. 

SHA'MIR    ("nt^tt^    [tried,  proved,  Fiirst] ; 

Keri,  'T'l^iW '.  Sa/j.-np:  Saniir).  A  Kohathite, 
son  of  Micab,  or  Michah,  the  firstborn  of  Uzziel  (1 
Chr.  xxiv.  24). 

SHAM'MA  (Sl^^y  [desolation]: -Zand;  [Vat. 

^l?"*,  7W"m7''2,  as  m  ver.  7.  Dr.  Dona!  Ison  {Janiiar, 
pp.  271,  272)  conjectures  H  -rD\  "  anu  previour.T  '" 


2944 


SHAMMAH 


2s/uo;]  Alex.  5aju/xo:  Snmmn).  One  of  the  sons 
of  Zophar,  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  37). 

SHAM'MAH  {T^^.Xg  [dtsolukmy.  So^te; 
Alex.  'S.ofxiJ.f  in  1  Chr.  i.  37:  Snmmn).  1.  The 
son  of  Iteiiel  the  son  of  Esau,  and  one  of  the  chief- 
tains of  his  tribe  (Gen.  .xx.xvi.  13,  17;  1  Chr.  i.  37). 

2.  (2a^o;  Alex.  Sa^^ua:  Smnma.)  The  third 
son  of  Jesse,  and  brother  of  David  (1  Sam.  xvi.  9, 
xvii.  13).  Called  also  Shimea,  Suimkah,  and 
SiiiMM.A.  He  was  present  when  Samuel  anointed 
David,  and  with  his  two  elder  brothers  joined  the 
Hebrew  army  in  the  valley  of  Elah  to  fight  with 
the  Philistines. 

3.  (Sci^ola;  Alex.  Sa^^eas:  Semma.)  One  of 
the  three  greatest  of  David's  miiibty  men.  He  was 
with  him  during  his  outlaw  life  in  the  cave  of 
Adullam,  and  signalized  himself  by  defending  a 
piece  of  ground  full  of  lentiles  against  the  Philis- 
tines on  one  of  their  marauding  incursions.  This 
achievement  gave  him  a  place  among  the  first  three 
heroes,  who  on  another  occasion  cut  their  way 
through  the  Philistine  garrison,  and  brought 
David' water  from  the  well  of  ISethlehem  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  11-17).  The  text  of  Chronicles  at  this  part 
is  clearly  very  fragmentary,  and  what  is  there  at- 
tributed to  Kleazar  the  son  of  Dodo  properly  be- 
longs to  Shanmiah.  There  is  still,  however,  a 
discrepancy  in  the  two  narratives.  The  scene  of 
Shammah's  exploit  is  said  in  Samuel  to  be  a  field 

of  lentiles  (CtTll?),  and  in  1  Chr.  a  field  of  bar- 
ley (C*'"n!S7tZ7).  Kennicott  proposes  in  both  cases 
to  read  "  barley,"  the  words  being  in  Hebrew  so 
similar  that  one  is  produced  from  the  other  by  a 
very  slight  change  and  transposition  of  the  letters 
{DL^s.  p.  141).  It  is  more  likely,  too,  that  the 
Philistines  should  attack  and  tlie  Israelites  defend 
a  field  of  barley  than  a  field  of  lentiles.  In  the 
Peshito-Syriac,  instead  of  being  called  "  the  Ha- 
rarite,"  he  is  said  to  be  '■  from  the  king's  mountain  " 
()..D^.20  '"^4^  ^^);  a'l'l  the  same  is  repeated 
at  ver.  2.5.  The  Vat.  j\IS.  of  the  LXX.  makes 
him  the  son  of  Asa  {vihs  "Acra  6  'Apovxo-^os, 
where  'ApovSaios  was  perhaps  the  original  read- 
hig).  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  4)  calls  him  Cesa- 
basus  the  son  of  Ilus  ('i;>oC  /j.ev  vlhs  Kr}(xa0aios 
8e  tjvofjLo)- 

4.  (Sai^a;  Alex.  2ajUjuai:  Semma.)  The  Ha- 
rodite,  one  of  David's  niighties  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  25). 
He  is  calletl  "  Shammotii  the  Harorite  "in  1 
Chr.  xi.  27,  and  in  1  Chr.  xxvii.  8  "  Shamhuth 
the  Izrahite."  Kennicott  maintained  the  true 
reading  in  both  to  be  "  Shamhoth  the  Harodite" 
{Diss.  p.  181). 

5.  {^a/j.vdi';  Alex.  'Xa/xvas,  [and  so  Vat.^; 
Comp.  Aid.  -Zajxci:  Semm<(.] )  In  the  list  of  David's 
mighty  men  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  32,  33,  we  find  '■  .Jona- 
thaii.  Shammah  the  Hararite;  "  while  in  the  cor- 
respon«ing  verse  of  1  Chr.  xi.  34,  it  is  "  Jonathan, 
the  son  of  Shage  the  Hararite."  Combining  the 
two,  Kennicott  proposes  to  read  "  Jonathan,  the 
son  of  Shamha,  the  Hararite,"  David's  nephew 
who  slew  the  giant  in  Gath  (2  Sam.  x.xi.  21).  In- 
stead of  "  ths  Hararite,"   the  Peshito-Syriac  has 

"  of  the  mount  of  OUves  "  (J  ^}  '^^-^  r^?^j 
ni  2  Sam.  xxiii.  33,  and  in  1  Chr.  xi.  34,  "  of 
McuntCarmel"()J-^;-3  »Q^  r^?);  but  the 
>rigm  of  Ijoth  these  interpretations  is  obscure. 

w.  A.  \y. 


SHAPHAN 

SHAM'MAI  [2  syl]  ("3^  [deeolaied]'. 
2a^at;  Alex.  Sa^^ai':  Semei).  1.  The  son  of 
Onam,  and  brother  of  Jada  (1  Chr.  ii.  28,  32). 
In  the  last-quoted  verse  the  LXX.  give  'Axico/U-aJ 
for  "  the  brother  of  Shammai." 

2.  (S'lmmai.)  Son  of  Rekem,  and  father  ot 
founder  of  Maon  (1  Chr.  ii.  44,  4.5). 

3.  (2€/xfi':  [Vat.  2€;a6i';]  Alex.  2a^^a"(':  [Snm- 
mai.])  The  brother  of  IMiriani  and  Ishbah  the 
founder  of  l^shtemoa,  in  an  obscure  genealogy  of 
the  descendants  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  17).  lialibi  D 
Kimchi  conjectures  that  these  were  the  children 
of  Mered  by  his  Egyptian  wife  Bitliiah,  the  daugh- 
ter of  Pharaoh.  [Mered.]  The  LXX.  makei 
.lether  the  father  of  all  thi-ee.  The  tradition  in 
the  Qmest.  in.  Libr.  Paral.  identifies  Shammai 
with  Moses,  and  Ishbah  with  Aaron. 

SHAM'MOTH  {r\M2iW  [desolations,  Ges.]: 
'Xafj.ade ;  Alex.  2afic<j0;  [Comp.  2a/[i^co0:]  Sam- 
rnolli).  The  Harorite,  one  of  David's  guard  (1 
Chr.  xi.  27).  He  is  apparently  the  same  with 
"  Shammah  the  Harodite "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  25), 
and  with  "  Shamhuth  "  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  8). 

SHAMMU'A  (r^SK7  [renowned]  :  2a/i- 
oi/r)A;  Alex.  2a^aAir;A:  Smnmun).  1.  The  son 
of  Zaccur  (Num.  xiii.  4)  and  the  spy  selected  from 
the  tribe  of  Reuben. 

2.  (2a/ifaa:  .\lex.  'SafXfxaov\  [FA.  2a^/iaiai:] 
Sainua.)  Son  of  David  by  his  wife  Hathsheba, 
born  to  him  in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  xiv.  4).  In  the 
A.  V.  of  2  Sam.  v.  14  he  is  called  Shammuah, 
and  in  1  Chr.  iii.  5  Shimea. 

3.  (■^afjLOvi:  [Vat.]  FA.  ■S.a/j.ovei:  [Srmuin.]) 
A  Levite,  the  father  of  Abda  (Neh.  xi.  17).  He  is 
the  same  as  Shejiaiah  the  father  of  Obadiah  {\ 
Chr.  ix.  10). 

4.  CXa/xoue :  [Vat.  Alex.  FA. 1  omit :]  Sammwi.) 
The  representative  of  the  priestly  family  of  Bilsjah, 
or  Bilgai,  in  the  days  of  the  high-priest  Joiakim 
(Neh.  xii.  18). 

SHAMMU'AH  {V^T^W  [remmned]:  :Za^- 
fiovs;  Alex.  S.afji/j.ove  :  Samua).  Son  of  David 
(2   Sam.  V.  14);  elsewhere  called  Shammua,  and 

SllIJIEA. 

SHAMS'HERAI  [3  syl.]  C'^t?''?!^'  [heroic, 
Fiirst] :  'Xa/j.ffapi;  [Vat.  Ic^ao-apia;]  Alex.  2o/t- 
aapia-  Si(ms(iri).  One  of  tiie  sons  of  Jeroham,  a 
I5enjamite,  whose  family  lived  in  Jerusalem  (1  CLr. 
viii.  26). 

SHA'PHAM  (-v''?  ^y^^^-  ^^'^'^-  *'"'^]"  2a- 
(pa/j.;  [Vat.  S.a^aT:]  Siiphnn).  A  Gadite  who 
dwelt  in  Basban  (1  Chr.  v.  12).  He  was  second 
in  authority  in  his  tribe. 

SHA'PHAN  O^t^' [cowfy]  :  :^aTr(pdv;  [Vat.] 
Alex.  :S,a(p(pai'  in  2  K.  xxii.  [exc.  ver.  3,  Alex. 
'S.itpcpav,  and  14,  Vat.  Xe(p^a6a,  Alex.  ^a<j>av'\.  but 
elsewhere  both  JNISS.  have  ^a(pdi'  [exc.  2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  15,  Alex.  Aa-acf)]:  Scp/imt).  The  scribe  or 
secretary  of  king  Josiah.  He  was  the  son  of  Aza- 
liah  (2  k.  xxii.  3;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  8),  father  of  Ahi- 
kam  (2  K.  xxii.  12;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  20),  Elasah 
(Jer.  xxix.~3),  and  Gemariah  (Jer.  xxxvi.  10,  11, 
12*),  and  grandfather  of  (iedaliah  (Jer.  xxxix.  14, 
xl.  5,  9,  11,  xii.  2,  xUii.  6),  Michaiah  (Jer.  xxxvL 
11),  and  probably  of  Jaazaniah  (Kz.  viii.  11). 
There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  sui))X)3- 
ing  that  Shayihan  the  father  of  Ahikam  and  Shi- 
phan  the  scribe,  were  different  persons.     The  hi» 


SHAPHAT 

«)ry  of  Shaphan  brings  out  some  points  wit):  regard 
to  tlie  office  of  scrilie  wliicli  lie  held.  He  appears 
31)  an  equality  with  the  governor  of  the  city  and 
the  royal  record  n.  with  whom  he  was  sent  by  the 
king  to  Hilkiali  to  take  an  account  of  the  money 
which  had  been  collected  by  the  I.evites  for  the 
repair  of  the  Temple  and  to  pay  the  workmen  {2 
K.  xxii.  4;  2  (Jhr.  xxxiv.  9;  conjp.  2  K.  xii.  JO). 
Ewald  calls  him  Minister  of  Finance  {(itsc/i.  iii. 
607).  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  Hilkiah  coni- 
Uiunicated  his  discovery  of  a  copy  of  the  Faw, 
which  he  had  probal  ly  found  while  making  prep- 
arations for  the  repair  of  the  Temple.  [Hilkiaii, 
vol.  ii.  p.  1075  f.]  Shaphan  was  entrusted  to  de- 
liver it  to  the  king.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  thus  discovered,  the 
manner  of  its  discovery,  and  the  conduct  of  the 
king  upon  hearing  it  read  by  Shaphan,  prove  that 
for  many  years  it  uuist  have  l)een  lost  and  its  con- 
tents tbrgotten.  The  part  read  was  apparently 
from  Deuteronomy,  and  when  Shaphan  ended,  the 
king  sent  him  wi'tli  the  high-priest  Hilkiah,  and 
other  men  of  hii;h  rank,  to  consult  Huldah  the 
prophetess.  Her  answer  moved  Josiah  deeply,  and 
the  work  which  began  with  the  restoration  of  the 
decayed  fabric  of  the  Temple,  quickly  took  the  form 
of  a  thorough  reformation  of  religion  and  revival  of 
the  Levitical  services,  while  ail  traces  of  idolatry 
were  for  a  time  swept  away.  Shaphan  was  then 
probably  an  old  man,  for  his  son  Ahikam  nuist 
have  been  in  a  position  of  importance,  and  his 
grandson  Gedaliah  was  already  born,  as  we  may 
infer  from  the  fact  that  thirty-five  years  afterwarils 
he  is  made  governor  of  the  country  by  tlie  Chaldse- 
ans,  an  office  which  would  hardly  be  given  to  a  very 
young  man.  Be  this  as  it  may,  Shaphan  disap- 
pears from  the  scene,  and  probably  died  before 
the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  eighteen  years  later, 
when  we  find  Elisliama  was  scribe  (.Jer.  xxxvi.  12). 
There  is  just  one  point  in  the  narrative  of  the  burn- 
ing of  tlie  roll  of  .Jeremiah's  prophecies  by  the 
order  of  the  king,  which  seems  to  identify  Sliaphan 
the  father  of  Ahikam  with  Shaphan  the  scribe.  It 
is  well  known  that  Ahikam  was  Jeremiah's  great 
friend  and  protector  at  court,  and  it  was  therefore 
consistent  with  this  friendship  of  his  brother  for 
tlie  prophet  that  Geniariah  the  spn  of  Shaphan 
should  warn  .Jeremiah  and  ISaruch  to  hide  them- 
selves, ami  should  intercede  with  the  king  for  the 
preservation  of  the  roll  (Jer.  xxxvi.  12,  I'J,  25). 

W.  A.  W. 

SHA'PHAT  i'^'DW  [jmh/e]:  :S.a4>dT  :  Sn- 
phut).  1.  The  sou  of  I  lori,  selected  from  the  tribe 
of  Simeon  to  spy  out  the  land  of  Canaan  (Num. 
xiii.  5). 

2.  [Vat.  1  K.  xix.  10,  2a<|)a0:  2  K.  iii.  II,  Ico- 
aa<pa6,  see  Errntn  in  Mai. J  The  father  of  the 
prophet  Elisha  (I  K.  xix.  IG,  I'J;  2  K.  iii.  Jl, 
vi.  31). 

3.  {'S,a(pd6;  Alex.  '2,a(paT.)  One  of  the  six  sons 
of  Shemaiah  in  the  royal  line  of  .ludah  (1  L'hr. 
iii.  22). 

4.  (o  ypannarevs;  [Comp.  Sae^ai'.])  One  of 
the  chiefs  of  tlie  Gadites  in  liashan  (1  Chr.  v.  12), 

a  Codex  A  here  retains  the  y  as  the  equivalent  fo- 
ihe  ^,  wliich  has  JisappeareJ  from  the  name  in  Codex 
B.     The  first  p.  however,  is  unusual.   [Comp.  Tid.\l.] 

b  Two  singular  variations  of  this  are  found  in  the 
r»t.  MS.  (Mai's  ed.),  namely,  1  Chr.  v.  lij,  replay. ;  and 
sxTii.  29,  ■  VcretS'oi'  [Rom.  Sapooi/],  where  the  A  is  a  rem- 


SHARON 


294i 


5.  {'Zcixpa.T  ;  [Vat. 'ScAxpav-])  The  son  of  Adla., 
who  was  over  David's  oxen  in  the  valleys  (1  Chr. 
xxvii.  29). 

SHA'PHER,  MOUNT  ("Iptt?— IPT  [see  be- 
low]:  ^uipdp;  [Alex.  Ap(Ta(pap,  'Zapaacpap-  /nom 
Stjiher,]  Num.  xxxiii.  2y,  2-1).  The  name  of  a 
desert  station  where  the  Israelites  encamped,  of 
which  no  other  mention  occurs.  The  name  prob- 
ably means  "  mount  of  pleasantness,"  but  no  site 
has  been  suggested  for  it.  11.  H. 

SHA'RAI  [2  syl.]  C'^t;^  [berjiiminy,  or  re- 
le'ist'i\:  'Zapiov;  [Alex.  Apou;]  I'A.  'S.apovi-  Scv- 
rii'i).  One  of  the  sons  of  Hani  who  put  away  hia 
foreign  wife  at  the  command  of  I'^zra  (Ezr.  x.  40). 
He  is  called  Eshil  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 

SHARA'IM  (Q|'n3?tt',  i.  e.  Shaaraim  [two 
f/<it<-s\  :  [Hom.  laKaplv  \  Vat]  ^uKapet/j.;  Alex. 
"'Sittpyapfifj.:  [Akl.  'Zapaei/j.'-]  Sariiiiaud  Saraiin). 
An  imperfect  version  (Josh.  xv.  36  only)  of  the 
name  which  is  elsewhere  more  accurately  given 
Sh.v.vk.viji.  The  discrepancy  does  not  exist  in 
the  original,  and  doubtless  arose  in  the  A.  V.  from 
adherence  to  the  Vulgate.  G. 

SHA'RAR  (l^iy.'  [corf/,  Ges.] :  'Apai;  Alex. 
Apa5:  S'lrar).  The  father  of  Aliiani  the  Harar- 
ite,  one  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  33).  In  1 
Chr.  xi.  35  he  is  called  Sacar,  which  Kennicott 
{Diss.  p.  203)  thinks  the  true  reading. 

SHARE'ZER  Ol^^l^  [Pers.  prhice  of 
Jii'e]:  'S.apa.ffdp;  [in  Is.  xxxvii.  38,  Sin.  Alex.  2o- 
paffa:]  Hufitsur)  was  a  son  of  Sennacherib,  whom, 
in  conjunction  with  his  brother  Adramiiielech,  he 
murdered  (2  K.  xix.  37).  Moses  of  Chorene  calls 
him  Sanasar,  and  says  that  be  was  favoraldy  re- 
ceived by  the  Armenian  king  to  >vhom  he  fled,  and 
given  a  tract  of  country  on  the  Assyrian  frontier, 
where  his  descendants  became  very  numerous 
{Hht.  Arinen.  i.  22).  He  is  not  mentioned  as 
engaged  in  the  murder,  either  by  Polyhistor  or 
Abydenus,  who  both  speak  of  Adrammelech. 

G.  R. 

SHA'RON  (I'l^'^'H,  with  the  def.  article 
[the  j)lni)i\:  o  2apwv;''  6  dpvfxosi  rb  vrtSiov: 
ISanm,  cranpesiria,  cidijiiis).  A  district  of  the 
Holy  Land  occasionally  referred  to  in  the  Bible  e 
(1  Chr.  v.  16,  xxvii.  29;  Is.  xxxiii.  9,  xxxv.  2,  Ixv. 
10;  Cant.  ii.  1;  Acts  ix.  35,  A.  V.  Saiion).  The 
name  has  on  each  occurrence,  with  one  exception 
only,  the  definite  article  —  Jicis-Sliaron  —  as  is  the 
case  also  with  other  districts  —  the  Arabah,  the 
Shefelab,  the  Ciccar;  and  on  that  single  occasion 
(J  Chr.  V.  16),  it  is  obvious  that  a  different  spot 
must  be  intended  to  that  referred  to  in  the  other 
])as.sages.  This  will  be  noticed  further  on.  It 
would  therefore  appear  that  "  the  Sharon  "  was 
some  well-defined  region  familiar  to  the  Isi'aelites, 
though  its  omission  in  the  formal  topographical 
documents  of  the  nation  shows  that  it  was  not  a 
recognized  division  of  the  country,  as  the  Shefelah 
for  example.   [Sephela.]   From  the  passages  above 

naiit  of  the  Hebrew  def  article.  It  is  worthy  of  ri'mark 
that  a  more  decided  trace  of  the  Ueb.  article  appears 
iu  Acts  ix.  35,  where  some  MSS.  have  acra-aptova.. 

c  The  Lashai'OB  of  Josh.  xii.  18,  which  .some  5ehol 
ars  consider  to  be  Sharon  with  a  prepo.sition  prttix"d 
appears  to  the  writer  more  probably  correctly  gi»''n  Ik 
thu   A.  V.      [U\SHAB0K.] 


2946 


SHARON 


3ited  we  gather  that  it  was  a  place  of  pasture  for 
aattle,  where  the  rojal  herds  of  David  grazed  (1 
Chr  xxvii.  29);  the  beautj  of  whicli  was  as  gener- 
ally recognized  as  that  of  Carmel  itself  (Is.  xxxv. 
2);  and  the  d^dolation  of  which  woidd  lie  indeed  a 
calamity  (xxxiii.  9),  and  its  reestablishnient  a  sym- 
bol of  the  highest  prosperity  (Ixv.  10).  The  rose 
of  Sharon  (possibly  the  tall,  graceful,  and  striking 
Bquill )  was  a  simile  for  all  that  a  lover  would  ex- 
press (Cant.  ii.  1).  [liosE,  vote,  Amer.  ed.]  Add 
to  these  slight  traits  the  indications  contained  hi 
the  renderings  of  the  LXX.  to  mSioy, ''  the  |ilain," 
and  0  5pv/j.6s,  "  the  wood,"  and  we  have  exhausted 
all  that  we  can  gather  from  the  Bible  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  Sharon. 

The  only  guide  to  its  locality  furnished  by 
Scripture  is  its  mention  with  Lydda  in  Acts  ix. 
35.  There  is,  however,  no  doubt  of  the  identifica- 
tion of  Sharon.  It  is  that  broad  rich  tract  of  land 
which  lies  between  the  niountains  of  the  central 
part  of  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Mediterranean  — 
the  northern  continuation  of  the  Siiekklah.  Jo- 
Bejihus  but  rarely  alludes  to  it,  and  tlien  so  ob- 
Bcurely  that  it  is  ini[iossible  to  pronounce  with 
certainty,  from  his  words  alone,  that  he  does  refer 
to  it.  He  employs  the  same  term  as  the  LXX., 
"  woodland."  Apvfxol  rh  x'^c'^ov  KaXe'irai,  says 
he  (Ant.  xiv.  13,  §  3;  and  comp.  B.  J.  i.  13,  §  2), 
but  lieyond  its  comiection  with  Carmel  there  is  no 
clew  to  be  gained  I'rom  either  passage.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  Strabo  (xvi.  28),  who  applies  the 
same  name,  and  at  the  same  time  mentions  Car- 
mel. 

Sliaron  is  derived  by  Gesenius  ( Thes.  p.  642)  from 
nir^,  to  be  straight  or  even — the  root  also  of 
Mislior,  the  name  of  a  district  east  of  .Jordan. 
The  application  to  it,  however,  by  the  LXX.,  by 
Josephus,  and  by  Strabo,  of  the  name  Apv/xos  or 
Apv/xoi  —  '' woodland,"  is  singular.  It  does  not 
seem  certain  that  that  term  implies  th^  existence  of 
wood  on  the  plain  of  Sharon.  Iteland  has  pointed 
out  (/'('/.  p  190)  tliat  the  Saronicus  Sinus,  or  ISay  of 
Saron,  in  Greece,  was  so  called  (l^liny,  //.  iV.  iv.  5) 
because  of  its  woods,  adpwvis  meaning  an  oak. 
Thus  it  is  not  impossible  that  Apv/x6i  was  used  as 
an  equivalent  of  the  name  Sharon,  and  was  not 
intended  to  denote  the  presence  of  oaks  or  woods  on 
the  spot.  May  it  not  be  a  token  that  the  original 
meaning  of  Saron,  or  Sharon,  is  not  that  which  its 
received  Hebrew  root  would  imply,  and  that  it  has 
perished  except  in  this  one  instance'?  The  Alex- 
andrine Jews  who  translated  the  LXX.  are  not 
likely  to  have  known  much  either  of  the  Saronic 
gulf,  or  of  its  connection  with  a  rare  Greek  word. 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Oiiomasl.  "Saron  "),  tm- 
der  the  name  of  Saronas,  specify  it  as  the  region 
extending  from  Casarea  to  Joppa.  And  this  is 
corroborated  by  Jerome  in  his  comments  on  the 
three  passages  in  Isaiah,  in  one  of  which  (on  Ixv. 
10)  he  appears  to  extend  it  as  far  south  as  Jamnia. 
There  are  occasional  allusions  to  wood  in  the  de- 
scription of  the  events  which  occurred  in  this  dis- 
trict in  later  times.  Thus,  in  the  Chronicles  of 
the  Crusades,  the  '■  Forest  of  Saron  "  was  the  scene 
)f  one  of  the  most  romai  ^ic  adventures  of  L'ichard 
[Midland,  fJistoii-t  viii.;,  the  '•  forest  of  Assur  " 
[i.  t.  Arsuf)  is  mentioned  by  Vinisauf  (iv.  16).  To 
the  S.  E.  of  Kiiisdr'veli  there  is  still  "  a  dreary 
wood  of  (natural)  dwarf  pines  and  entangled 
Dushes "  ('I'hoinson,  Lund  and  Booh,  ch.  33). 
The  orchai'ds  and  palm-groves  round  Jimzu,  Lydd, 


SHARUHEN 

and  RamJeh,  and  the  dense  thickets  of  dom  in  thi 
neighborhood  of  the  two  last —  as  well  as  the  real- 
berry  plantations  in  the  Valley  of  the  Aitjth  a  few 
miles  from  Jaffa  —  an  industry  happily  increasing 
every  day- — show  how  easily  wood  might  be  main- 
tained liy  care  and  cultivation  (see  Stanley,  <S.  4 
P.  p.  200  note). 

A  general  sketch  of  the  district  is  given  under 
the  head  of  Palestine  (vol.  iii.  p.  2290  f.).  Je- 
rome (Comm.  on  Is.  xxxv.  2)  characterizes  it  in 
words  which  admirablj'  porti-ay  its  aspects  even  at 
the  present:  ''  Oninis  igitur  candor  (the  white  sand- 
hills of  the  coast),  cultus  Dei  (the  wide  crops  of  the 
tinest  corn),  et  circumcisionis  scientia  (the  well 
trimmed  plantations)  et  loea  uberrima  et  campes- 
tria  (the  long,  gentle  swells  of  rich  red  and  black 
earth)  qaie  appellantur  Saron." 

2.  O'^'lp:  [Vat]  TfpiafjL-,  [Rom.]  Alex.  2a- 
pcov-  Saroii.)  The  SnAuox  of  1  Chr.  v.  16,  to 
which  allusion  has  already  been  made,  is  distin- 
guished from  the  western  plain  iiy  not  having  the 
article  attached  to  its  name  as  the  other  invariably 
has.  It  is  also  apparent  from  the  passage  itself 
that  it  was  some  district  on  the  east  of  Jordan  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Gilead  and  Bashan.  The  ex- 
pression "  suburbs  "  ("'tt''"]^^)  is  in  itself  remark- 
able. The  name  has  not  been  met  with  in  that 
direction,  and  the  only  approach  to  an  explanation 
of  it  is  that  of  Prof.  Stanley  (6'.  cf  P.  App.  §  7), 
that  Sharon  may  here  be  a  synonym  for  the  Afi- 
sl/or  —  a  word  probaljly  derived  from  the  same 
root,  describing  a  region  with  some  of  the  same 
characteristics,  and  attached  to  the  pastoral  plains 
east  of  the  Jordan.  G. 

SHA'RONITE,  THE  Os'lltt^H  [sec 
above]:  [Vat.]  o  Sa/joireiTrjs:  [Kom.]  Alex.  2a- 
paivir-qs'-  Saronites).  Shitrai,  who  had  charge  of 
the  royal  herds  pastured  in  Shiiron  (1  Chr.  xxvii. 
29),  is  the  only  Sharonite  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 

G. 

SHARU'HEN  (in-"l~lt^*'  {pha^ani  ludfjing, 
Ges.] :  ol  aypo)  "  auToiu,  i>>  both  MSS  :  Sareon 
[_YS(rr(Iieii])  A  town  named  in  Josh.  xix.  0  only 
amongst  those  which  were  allotted  within  Judah 
to  Simeon.  Sharuhen  does  not  appear  in  the  cat- 
alogue of  the  cities  of  Judah  ;  but  instead  of  it, 
and  occupying  the  same  position  with  regard  to 
the  other  names,  we  find  Siiilhui  (xv.  32).  In 
the  list  of  1  Chr.  on  the  other  hand,  the  same  po- 
sition Is  occiqiied  by  Siiaahaiji  (iv.  31).  Whether 
tiiese  are  ditier^it  places,  or  different  names  of  the 
same  place,  or  mere  variations  of  careless  cojiyists; 
and,  in  the  last  case,  which  is  the  original  form,  it 
is  perhaps  impossible  now  to  determine.  Of  the 
three,  Sliaaraim  would  seem  to  have  the  strongest 
claim,  since  we  know  that  it  was  the  name  of  a 
place  in  aiiotlier  direction,  while  Shilhim  and  Sha- 
ruhen are  found  once  only.  If  so,  then  the  Jiti 
which  exists  in  Sliaaraim  has  disappeared  in  the 
others. 

Kiiobel  {Exeg.  Ilandlj.  on  Josh.  xv.  32)  calls 
attention  to  Tell  Sln-rVuli,  about  10  miles  west  of 
Bit-  es-Seb'i,  at  the  head  of  ]V<idy  SherVah  (the 
"watering-place"),  'i'he  position  is  not  unsuit- 
alile,  but  as  to  its  identity  with  Shaaraim  or  Sha- 
ruhen we  can  say  nothing.  G. 

a  Probably  reading  ]n"*'TiZ7,  as  R«laD  1  cOAjec 
tures. 


SHASHAI 

SHA'SHAI  [2  8yl.]  (^^^  [perh.  ichiUsh]: 
Seaei;  [Vat.  FA.  with  preceding  word,  Na^ouae- 
rei']  Sisiii).  One  of  the  sons  of  Hani  who  had 
married  a  foreign  wife  and  put  her  away  in  the  time 
of  Ezra  (lizr.  x.  40). 

SHA'SHAK  (ptt'd:  2coo-i7/c;  [Vat.  2COK77A, 
SctfiTj/c:]  Sesac).  A  Heiijaniite,  one  of  the  sons  of 
Beriah  (1  Chr.  viii.  14,  2.5). 

SHA'UL  (b^Stt^  [lonijliiff,  Sim.  Ges.] :  2a- 
ov\;  Alex.  2a/iou7)A  in  Gen.:  Saiil).  1.  The  son 
of  Simeon  by  a  Canaanitish  woman  (Gen.  xlvi.  10; 
Ex.  vi.  15;  Num.  xxvi.  l-l:  1  Chr.  iv.  24),  and 
founder  of  the  family  of  the  Shaulites.  The  .Jew- 
ish traditions  identify  him  M'ith  Zimri,  "  who  did 
the  work  of  the  Canaanites  in  Shittim "  (Targ. 
Pseudojon.  on  Gen.  xlvi.). 

2.  Shaul  of  Keholioth  by  the  river  was  one  of 
the  kings  of  Edom,  and  successor  of  Samlah  (1 
Ghr.  i.  48,  49).  In  the  A.  V.  of  Gen.  xxxvi.  37, 
he  is  less  accurately  called  Saul. 

3.  A  Kohathite',  son  of  Uzziah  (1  Chr.  vi.  24). 

*  SHA'ULITES,    THE    (^b^Sa\    patro- 

nym.:  6  2aou\i;  Vat.  Alex. -Aec  Snulitce),  de- 
scendants of  Shaul,  1  (Num.  xxvi.  13).  A. 

SHA'VEH,  THE  VALLEY  OF  (r^PV 

niti?  [see  note  c  below] ;  the  Samar.  Cod.  adds  the 

article,  mtCTT  V,  Sam.  Vers.  n32!2:«  tjV 
KoiXdSa  tV  2au77'';  Alex.  t.  k.  t.  'S.avrjv-  v/illis 
Save  qute  est  vallis  re(ji»).  A  name  found  only  in 
Gen.  xiv.  It  is  one  of  those  archaic  names  with 
which  this  venerable  chapter  abounds  —  such  as 
Bela,  En-iMishpat,  Ham,  Hazezon-tamar  —  so  ar- 
chaic, that  many  of  them  have  been  elucidated  liy 
the  insertion  of  their  more  modern  ^  equivalents  in 
the  body  of  the  document,  by  a  later  liut  still  very 
ancient  hand.  In'the  present  case  the  explanation 
does  not  throw  any  liLdit  upon  the  locality  of  Sha- 
veh:  "  The  valley  of  Shaveh,  that  is  the  Valley  of 
the  King"  (ver.  17).  True,  the  "Valley  of  tlie 
Kinjc  "  is  mentioned  again  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  18,  as 
the  site  of  a  pillar  set  up  by  Aljsalom ;  but  this 
passage  again  conveys  no  indication  of  its  position, 
and  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  two  passages 
refer  to  the  same  spot.  The  extreme  obscurity  in 
which  the  whole  account  of  Aliram"s  route  from 
Damascus  is  involved,  has  been  alreadv  noticed 
under  .Salem.  A  notion  has  been  long''  prevalent 
that  the  pillar  of  .\bsalom  is  the  well-known  pyram- 
idal structure  wliich  forms  the  northern  member 
of  the  group  of  monuments  at  the  western  foot  of 
Olivet.  This  is  perhaps  originally  founded  on  the 
statement  of  .Jose|>hus  {Ant.  vii.  10,  §  3)  that  Ab- 
salom erected  (etrTrjKe)  a  column  (cm^Arj)  of  mar- 
ble (\idov  fxafifjiapLvov)  at  a  distance  of  two  stadia 


«  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  gives  the  same  equiva- 
leut,  but  with  a  curious  adJition,  "the  plain  of  Me- 
I'aua,  which  is  the  king's  place  of  i-aeing  ;  "  recalling 
the  iTrTToSpoiuos  so  strangely  inserted  by  the  L.>LX.  iu 
Gen.  xlviii.  7. 

''  This  is  one  of  the  numerous  instances  in  which 
;h<^  Vatican  Cod.  (M;ii)  agrees  with  the  Alex.,  and  dis- 
grees  with  the  ordinary  text,  which  in  this  case  has 
'oO  5aj3u.  [This  part  of  Genesis  is  wnntiiii;  in  the 
'aticaii  MS.  (see  art.  Septu.^gint,  p.  2913  h),  and  is 
Tinted  in  Mai's  ed.  from  a  comparatively  modern  MS. 
No.  55,  Holmes).  —  A.] 

'•  II  the  .■iigiiification  of  Shnveli  b^' valley."  as  Qe- 
unius  and  F  irst  assert,  then  its  extreme  antiquity  is 


SHAWM  2917 

from  Jerusalem.  But  neither  the  spot  nor  the 
structure  of  the  so-called  "  Absalom's  tomb  "  agree 
either  with  this  desci'iption.  or  with  the  terms  of 
2  Sam.  xviii.  18.  The  "  Valley  of  the  Iving  "  waj 
an  EmeJc,  that  is,  a  broad,  open  valley,  having  few 
or  no  features  in  common  with  the  deep,  rugged 
ravine  of  the  Kedron.  [Valley.]  The  pillar  of 
Absalom  — which  w^ent  liy  the  name  of  "Absalom's 

hand  "  —  was  set  up,  erected  (2^*^),  according  to 
.Josephus  in  rfiarble  —  while  the  lower  existing  part 
of  the  monument  (which  alone  has  any  pretension 
to  great  antiquity)  is  a  monolith  not  erected,  bul. 
excavated  out  of  the  ordinary  limestone  of  the  hill, 
and  almost  exactly  similar  to  the  so-called  "  tomb 
of  Zechariah,"  the  second  from  it  on  the  south. 
.\nd  even  this  cannot  claim  any  very  great  age 
since  its  Ionic  capitals  and  the  ornaments  of  tho 
frieze  speak  with  unfaltering  voice  of  Koman  art. 

Shaveh  occurs  also  in  conjunction  with  another 
ancient  word  in  the  name 

SHAVEH   KIRIATHA'IM  {TIW 

0\iy^^f)  [plain  of  the  double  city]:  eV  2au)?  tt) 
■ir6\eL'-  Save  Caiiatliaim),  mentioned  in  the  same 
e.arly  document  (G*i.  xiv.  5)  as  the  residence  of 
the  Emim  at  the  time  of  Chedorlaomer's  incur- 
sion. Kiriathaim  is  named  in  the  Liter  history, 
and,  though  it  has  not  been  identified,  is  known 
to  have  been  a  town  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan; 
and  Shaveh  Kiriathaim,  which  was  also  in  the 
same  region,  was  (if  Shaveh  mean  "  valley " ) 
probably  the  valley  in  or  by  wliich  the  town  lay. 

G. 

SHAVSHA  (Sl^'^ltt.^  [warrior  of  Jehovah]: 
2ou(7ci:  [Vat.  Itjo-ous;]  l'"-'^-  2ous:  Susa).  The 
I'oyal  secretary  in  tlie  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xviii. 
16).  He  is  apparently  tlie  same  with  Seraiah 
(2  Sam.  viii.  17),  who  is  called  2e«(ra  by  Josephus 
(Ant.  vii.  5,  §  4),  and  2a(ra  in  the  Vat.  MS.  of 
the  1  AX.  [2ao'a  in  the  Koman  ed.,  but  Acra  in 
the  Vat.  MS.  (Mai). —A.]  Siiisha  is  the  read- 
ing of  two  MSS.  and  of  the  Targum  in  1  Chr. 
xviii.  16.  In  2  Sam.  xx.  2b  he  is  called  SiiEV.\, 
and  in  1  K.  iv.  3,  Shisha. 

SHAWM.  Iu  tlie  Prayer-book  version  of  Ps. 
xcviii.  G,  "with  trumpets  also  and  shnwins'"  is  the 
rendering  of  what  stands  in  the  A.  V.  "  with  trum- 
])ets  and  sound  of  corint."  The  Hebrew  word 
translated  "  cornet  "  will  be  found  treated  under 
tliat  head.  The  "shawm"  was  a  musical  instru- 
ment resembling  the  clarionet.  The  word  occurs 
in  the  forms  shalm,  shalmie,  aiid  is  connected  with 
the  Germ,  scalaineie,  a  reetl-pipe. 
"  With  shnumns  and  trompets  and  with  clarions  sweet.  ' 

Spe.\ser,  F.  q.  i.  12,  §  13. 
"  Even  from  the  slirillest  s/i«(/?n  unto  the  coiuamute  ' 
Dr.vyto.n,  Folyolb.  iv.  306. 


involved  in  the  very  expression  "  the  Emet  Shaveh," 
which  shows  that  the  word  had  ceased  to  be  intelli- 
gible to  the  writer,  who  added  to  it  a  modi  in  word  ol 
the  same  meaning  with  itself.  It  is  equivalent  to 
such  names  as  ''  Pueute  d'.Vleautara,"  ''  the  Greosen 
Steps."  etc.,  where  the  one  part  of  the  name  is  a  mere 
repetition  or  translation  of  the  other,  and  which  can- 
not exist  till  the  meaning  of  the  older  term  is  ob- 
solete. 

*  Both  Qesenius  and  Flirst  define  iTIl?-'  as  "  plain  " 
{plnnities,  Ebetit).  H. 

<'  Perhaps  first  mentioned  by  Benjamin  of  Tudel* 
(.\.  D.  1160),  and  next  by  MauudevilU  nS2i;i 


2948 


SHEAF 


Mr.  Chappell  sajs  {Pop.  Mas.  i.  35,  note  b),  "The 
Qiodern  clarionet  is  an  improvement  upon  the 
?hawni,  which  was  played  with  a  reed  liiie  the 
Rayte,  or  hautboy,  but  being  a  bass  instrument, 
with  about  the  compass  of  an  octave,  had  probably 
more  tlie  tone  cf  a  bassoon."'  In  the  same  note  he 
quotes  one  of  the  "proverbis"  written  about  tlie 
time  of  Henry  YIl.  on  the  walls  of  the  Manor 
House  at  Leckingfield,  near  Beverley,  Yorkshire :  — 

"A  shawiue  maketh  a  swete  sounde,  ftr  he  tunythe 
the  bas.se  ; 
It  niountithe  not  to  hye,  but  kepith  rule  and  space. 
Yet  yf  it  be  blowne  with  to  vehement  a  wynde. 
It  makithe  it  to  mysgoverne  out  of  his  kinde." 

From  a  passage  quoted  by  Nares  (Glossary)  it  ap- 
pears that  the  shawm  had  a  mournful  sound:  — 

«He  — 

That  never  wants  a  Gilead  full  of  balm 
Fvtr  bis  elect,  shall  turn  thy  woful  skalni 
Iiito  the  merry  pipe." 

G.  TOOKE,  BelidfS,  p.  18. 

W.  A.  W. 
*  SHEAF.     [Passovee,  vol.  iii.  p.  2346.] 
SHE'AL  (^^*^'    [nsUngY:    SaAovia;    Alex. 
2aaA :   Smil).     One  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  had 
married  a  foreign  wife   (Ezr.  x.  29).     In  1  Esdr. 
Lx.  30  he  is  called  Jasael. 

SHEAL'TIEL  (bS"'ribstr',  but  three  times 

in  Haggai  ^S"*i^i  .  f^'  [whom  J  asked  of  God]: 
SaAafiiTJA.:  Salailiitl).  Father  of  Zerubbabel.  the 
leader  of  the  Ketuni  from  Captivity  (Ezr.  iii.  2,  8, 
v.  2;  Neh.  xii.  1;  Hag.  i.  1,  12,  14,  ii.  2,  23). 
Tlie  name  occurs  also  in  the  original  of  1  Chr.  iii. 
17,  though  there  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  Sala- 
THIEL.  That  is  its  equivalent  in  the  books  of  the 
Apocryjiha  and  the  N.  T. ;  and  under  that  head 
the  curious  questions  connected  with  his  person  are 
examined. 

SHEARI'AH  (n^lVr  [«■/""«  J'^l'ovali  es- 
iima/is]:  Sopaia;  [Vat.  Sin.]  Alex.  Sapia  in 
1  Chr.  ix.  44:  Saria).  One  of  the  six  sons  of 
Azel,  a  descendant  of  Saul  (1  Chr.  viii.  38.  ix. 
44). 

SHEARING-HOUSE,  THE  Oj^^.  n^3 

D''j7~in:«  BaiBaKde  ricv  trotij.ivwv;  Alex.  Bai- 
0aKa5  T.  7r. :  camera  pastomni).  A  place  on  the 
road  between  .lezreel  and  Samaria,  at  which  .Jehu, 
on  his  way  to  tlie  latter,  encountered  forty-two  mem- 
bers of  the  royal  family  of  Judah,  whom  he  slausjh- 
tered  at  the  well  or  pit  attached  to  the  place  (2  K. 
X.  12. 14).  The  translators  of  our  version  have  t'iven 
in  the  margin  the  literal  meaning  of  the  name  — 
"house  of  bindini.'  of  the  shepherds,"  and  in  the 
text  an  interpretation  perlia[>s  adopted  from  .los. 
Kimchi.  Binding,  however,  is  Imt  a  suliordinate 
part  of  the  operation  of  shearing,  and  the  word 
akad  is  not  anywhere  used  in  the  Bible  in  connec- 
tion therewith  The  interpretation  of  the  Targum 
and  Arabic  version,  adopted  by  Kashi,  namely, 
"  house  of  the  meeting  of  she[)herds,"'  is  accepted 
by  Simonis  {Omtin.  p  18lj)  and  Gesenius  [Tla-s. 
p.  195  I/).  Other  renderiuics  are  given  by  Aquila 
»nd  Symmachus.  None  of  them,  however,  seem 
latisfactory,    and    it   is  probable    that    the    origi- 


n  The  last  word  of  the  three  is  omitted  in  ver.  14  in 
the  original,  and  in  both  the  Versions. 


SHEBA 

nal  meaning  has  escaped.  By  the  LXX.,  Ea»e- 
bins,  and  Jerome,  it  is  treated  as  a  proper  name, 
as  they  also  treat  the  "garden-house"  of  ix.  27. 
Euseliius  (Onom.)  mentions  it  as  a  village  of  Sama- 
ria "  in  the  great  plain  [of  Esdraeloii]  15  miles 
from  Legeon."  It  is  remarkable,  that  at  a  distance 
of  precisely  15  Roman  miles  from  Li-jjun  the  name 
of  Beth-kad  appears  in  Van  de  Velde's  map  (see 
also  Rob.  Bill.  Res.  ii.  316);  but  this  place,  though 
coincident  in  point  of  distance,  is  not  on  the  plain 
nor  can  it  either  belong  to  Samaria,  or  be  on  the 
road  from  Jezreel  thither,  being  behhid  (south  of) 
Mount  Gilboa.  The  slaughter  at  the  well  recalls  the 
massacre  of  the  pilgrims  by  Ishmael  ben-Nethaniah 
at  Jlizpah,  and  the  recent  tragedy  at  Cawnpore. 

SHE'AR-JA'SHUB  O^W^  ^i^^f  [a  rem- 
nant shall  return]:  6  Kara\ei(pdels  'lacrov^:  qui 
derelictus  est  Jasiib).  The  son  of  Isaiah  the 
prophet,  who  acconiiianied  him  when  he  went  to 
meet  Ahaz  in  the  causeway  of  the  fuller's  field  (Is. 
vii.  3).  The  name,  like  that  of  the  prophet's  other 
son,  Maher-shalal-hash-baz,  had  a  mystical  signifi- 
cance, and  apjjears  to  have  been  given  with  mixed 
feelings  of  sorrow  and  hope  —  sorrow  for  the  cap- 
tivity of  the  people,  and  hope  that  in  the  end  a 
remnant  should  return  to  the  land  of  their  fathers 
(comp.  Is.  X.  20-22). 

SHE'BA  (37?tt'  [seven,  an  oath]:  Sa/Ste, 
[Alex.  2  Sam.  xx.  1,  7,  A/3ee;]  Joseph,  la^alos- 
Heba).  The  son  of  Bichri,  a  Benjamite  from  the 
mountains  of  Fphraim  (2  Sam.  xx.  1-22),  the  last 
chief  of  the  Absalom  insurrection.  He  is  described 
as  a  "man  of  Belial,"  which  seems  [comp.  SnuiEi] 
to  have  been  the  usual  term  of  invective  cast  to  and 
fro  between  the  two  parties.  But  he  nnist  have 
been  a  person  of  some  consequence,  from  the  im- 
mense effect  produced  by  his  appearance.  It  was 
in  fact  all  but  an  anticipation  of  the  revolt  of  Jero- 
boam. It  was  not,  as  in  the  case  of  Absalom,  a 
mere  conflict  between  two  factions  in  the  court  of 
Judah,  l)ut  a  strugKle,  arising  out  of  that  conflict, 
on  the  part  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  to  recover  its 
lost  ascendancy;  a  strugijle  of  which  some  indica- 
tions had  been  already  manifested  in  the  excessive 
bitterne.ss  of  the  Benjamite  Sliimei.  The  occasion 
seized  by  Sheba  was  the  emulation,  as  if  from  loy- 
alty, lietween  the  northern  and  southern  triljes  on 
David's  return.  Through  the  ancient  custom,  he 
summoned  all  the  tribes  "to  their  tents;"  and 
then,  and  afterwards,  .ludah  alone  remained  faith- 
ful to  the  house  of  David  (2  Sam.  xx.  1,  2).  The 
king  might  well  say,  "  Sheba  the  son  of  Bichri 
shall  do  us  more  harm  than  did  .-Vbsalom  "  {ibid.  6). 
What  he  feared  was  Shelia's  occu])ation  of  the  for- 
tified cities.  This  fear  was  justified  by  the  result. 
Sheba  traversed  the  whole  of  Palestine,  apparently 
rousing  the  population,  .loab  following  him  in  full 
pursuit,  and  so  deeply  impressed  with  the  gravity 
of  the  occasion,  that  the  murder  even  of  the  great 
Amasa  was  but  a  passing  incident  in  the  campaign. 
He  stayed  but  for  the  moment  of  the  deed,  and 
"  pursued  after  Sheba  the  son  of  Bichri."  Thft 
mass  of  the  army  halted  for  an  instant  by  the 
bloody  corpse,  and  then  they  also  "went  on  after 
.loaf)  to  pursue  after  Sheba  the  son  of  Bichri."  It 
seems  to  have  lieen  his  intention  to  establish  hini- 
.self  in  the  fortress  of  Abel-Beth-maacah.  in  the 
nortimiost  extremity  of  Palestine,  possibly  allied  to 
'  the  cause  of  Al)#loin  throuo;h  his  mother  Maacah. 
I  and  famous  tor  the  prudence  of  its  inhabitants  CSI 


SHEBA 

Sam.  XX  13).  That  prudence  was  put  to  the  test 
Di)  the  present  occasion.  Joab's  terms  were — the 
head  of  the  insurgent  chief.  A  woman  of  the  place 
undertoolv  the  mission  to  her  city,  and  proposed 
the  execution  to  her  fellow-citizens.  The  head  of 
Sheha  was  thrown  over  the  waU,  and  the  insurrec- 
tion ended. 

2.  (2e/3€e;  Alex.  2o/3a06:  Sebe.)  A  Gadite. 
one  of  the  chiefs  of  his  tribe  who  dwelt  in  Baslian 
(1  Chr.  V.  13j.  A.  P.  S. 

SHE'BA  (WDd  [see  below]).  The  name 
of  three  fathers  of  tribes  in  the  early  gene:dogies 
of  (Genesis,  often  referred  to  in  the  sacred  books. 
They  are :  — 

1.  (2a/3a';  [Vat.  in  I  Chr.  2a/8oT:]  Saba.)  A 
Ron  cf  liaaniah,  son  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  7 ;  1  Chr. 
i.S). 

2.  (Alex.  2a0ev,  2a3aj'.)  A  son  of  .loktan 
(Gen.  X.  28;  1  Chr.  i.  22);  the  tenth  in  order  of 
his  sons. 

3.  (2oea,  2ai3ai;  Alex.  :S,a0av,  2a/3a.)  A 
son  of  Jukshan,  son  of  Keturah  (Gen.  s.w.  3;  1 
Chr.  i.  32). 

We  shall  consider,  first,  the  history  of  the  Jok- 
tanite  Sheba;  and,  secondly,  the  Cushite  Sheba 
and  the  Keturahite  Sheha  together. 

I.  It  has  been  shown,  in  Ahahi.\  and  other 
articles,  that  the  Joktanites  were  among  the  early 
coloni.sts  of  southern  Araliia,  and  that  the  kingdom 
which  they  there  founded  was,  for  many  centuries, 
called  the  kingdom  of  Sheba,  after  one  of  the  sons 
of  Joktan.  They  appear  to  have  lieen  preceded  l)y 
an  aboriginal  race,  which  the  Arabian  historians 
describe  as  a  people  of  gigantic  stature,  who  culti- 
vated the  land  and  peopled  the  deserts  alike,  living 
with  the  Jinn  in  the  "  deserted  quarter,"  or,  like 
the  tribe  of  Tliamood,  dwelling  in  caves.  This 
people  correspond,  in  their  traditions,  to  the  abo- 
riginal races  of  whom  remains  are  found  wherever 
a  civilized  nation  has  supplanted  and  dispossessed 
the  ruder  race.  But  besides  these  extuict  tribes, 
there  are  the  evidences  of  Cushite  settlers,  who 
appear  to  have  passed  along  the  south  coast  from 
west  to  east,  and  who  probably  preceded  the  Jok- 
tanites, and  mixed  with  them  when  they  arrived  in 
the  country. 

Sheba  seems  to  have  been  the  name  of  the  great 
south  Arabian  kingdom  ami  the  peoples  which 
composed  it,  until  tliat  of  Hiniyer  took  its  place  in 
later  times.  On  tliis  point  much  obscurity  re- 
mains; but  the  Sal  Jeans  are  nifiitioned  by  Diod. 
Sic,  who  refers  to  the  historical  books  of  tlie 
kings  of  Kgypt  hi  the  Alexandrian  Library,  and 
by  Kratosthenes,  as  well  as  Artemidorus,  or  Aga- 
tharchides  (iii.  38,  4G),  who  is  Straljo's  chief  au- 
thority; and  the  Hoiueritaj  or  Himyerites  are  first 
mentioned  by  Strabo,  in  the  expedition  of  /Elius 
Gallus  (b.  c.  24).  Nowhere  earlier,  in  sacred  or 
profane  records,  are  the  latter  people  mentioned, 
e.xcept  by  the  Arabian  historians  themselves,  who 
place  Himyer  very  high  in  their  list,  and  ascribe 
hnportance  to  his  family  from  that  early  date. 
We  have  endeavored,  in  other  articles,  to  .show 
reasons  for  supposing  that  in  this  verj'  name  of 
Himyer  we  have  the  Ked  Man,  and  the  origin  of 
Liythnis,  Erythra;an  Sea,  Phrenicians,  etc.  [.See 
Xkabia;  Keu  Se.v.]  The  apjiarent  difficulties  of 
jhe  case  are  reconciled  by  supposing,  as  M.  Caussin 
ae  i'erceval  (/'xsni,  i.  54,  5.t)  has  done,  that  the 
hn-rdoiii  and  its  people  received  the  name  of  Sheba 
[AidOic,  Sebii),  but  that  its  chief  and  sometimes 


SHEBA 


2949 


reigning  family  or  tribe  was  that  of  Himyei :  and 
that  an  old  name  was  thus  preserved  until  th« 
foundation  of  the  modern  kingdom  of  Himyer  or 
the  Tubbaas,  which  M.  Caussin  is  inclined  to  place 
(but  there  is  much  uncertainty  about  this  date) 
about  a  century  before  our  era,  when  the  two  great 
rival  families  of  Himyer  and  Kahlan,  together  with 
smaller  tribes,  were  united  under  the  former.  Ii 
su|)port  of  the  view  that  the  name  of  Sheba  ap- 
plied to  the  kingdom  and  its  people  as  a  generic 
or  national  name,  we  find  in  the  Kamocs  "  the 
name  of  Sebii  comprises  the  tribes  of  the  Yemen 
in  common"  (s.  v.  Sebii);  and  this  was  wi'itteE 
long  after  tiie  later  kingdom  of  Himyer  had  nour- 
ished and  fallen.  And  further,  as  Himyer  meant 
the  "  Ked  JNlan,"  so  proljably  did  Sebii.     In  Arabic, 


the  verb  seba,  \u<jm,  said  of  the  sun,  or  of  a 
journey,  or  of  a  fever,  means  "it  altered  "  a  man, 
i.  e.  by  turning  him  red ;  the  noun  seba,  as  well  as 
slbd  and  sebee-a/i,  signifies  "wine"  {TiiJ  ei-'Anios 
MS  ).  The  Arabian  wine  was  red;  for  we  read 
"  kunieyt  is  a  name  of  wine,  because  there  is  in  it 
blackness  and  redness"  (Sihdli  MS.).  It  appears, 
then,  that  in  Sebii  we  very  possibly  have  the  oldest 
name  of  the  Red  ilan,  whence  came  (polfi^,  Him- 
yer, and  Erythrus.         . 

We  have   assumed  the  identity  of  the   Arabic 

Sebii,  La*w,  with  Sheba  (S2ttJ).      The  pL  form 

□''SSli?  corresponds  with  the  Greek  2o/3arcs  and 
the  Latin  Sabsei.  Gesenius  compares  the  Heb. 
with  Eth.-rt'd^i  "man."  The  Hebrew  shin  is, 
in  by  far  the  greater  number  of  instances,  sin  in 
Arabic  (see  Gesenius);  and  the  historical,  ethno- 
logical, and  geographical  circumstances  of  the  ease, 
all  require  the  identification. 

In  the  Bible,  the  Joktanite  Sheba,  mentioned 
genealogically  in  Gen.  x.  28,  recurs,  as  a  kingdom, 
in  the  account  of  the  visit  of  the  queen  of  Sheba 
to  king  Solomon,  when  she  heard  of  his  fame  con- 
cerning the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  came  to  prove 
him  with  hard  questions  (1  Iv.  x.  1);  "and  she 
came  to  Jerusalem  with  a  very  great  train,  with 
camels  that  bare  spices,  and  \ery  nmch  gold,  and 
precious  stones  "  (v^r.  2).  And,  again,  "  she  gave 
the  king  an  hundred  and  twenty  talents  of  gold, 
and  of  spices  very  great  store,  and  jirecious  sttjnes : 
there  came  no  more  such  abundance  of  spices  as 
these  which  the  queen  of  Shelia  gave  to  king  Solo- 
mon "  (ver.  10).  She  was  attracted  by  the  f:mie 
of  Solomon's  wis<iom,  which  she  had  heard  ii;  her 
own  land;  but  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  had 
recently  been  solemnized,  and,  no  doubt,  the  people 
of  xVraliia  were  desirous  to  see  this  famous  house. 
That  the  queen  was  of  Sheba  in  Arabia,  and  not  of 
Seba  the  Cushite  kingdom  of  Ethiopia,  is  unques- 
tionalile;  Josephus  and  some  of  the  Kabbinical  writ' 
ers"  perversely,  as  usual,  refer  her  to  the  latter;  and 
the  Kthi<>[)ian  (or  Abyssinian)  Church  has  a  con- 
venient t'-adition  to  the  same  effect  (conip.  Joseph. 
Aiil.  viii.  G,  §  5;  Ludolf,  J/isl.  A^thiop.  ii.  3;  Har- 
ris's Abyssinia,  ii.  10.5).  The  Arabs  call  her  Bilkees 
(or  Yelkamah  or  Balkamah;  Ibn  Khaldoon),  a 
queen  of  the  later  Hiu)yerites,  who,  if  M.  Caussin's 


a  Aben-Ezra  (on  Dan.  xi.  6),  however,  remarks  that 
the  queeu  of  Sheba  came  from  the  Yemtn,  for  flu 
spoke  an  Ishmaelite  (or  rather  a  Shemiuci  laaguaa* 


2950 


SHEBA 


shronological  adjustments  of  the  early  history  of 
ihe  Yemen  be  correct,  reigned  in  the  first  century 
Df  our  era  (/issai,  i.  75,  &c.);  and  an  edifice  at 
Ma-rih  (iMariaba)  still  bears  her  name,  while  M. 
Fresnul  read  the  name  of  "  Almacah  "  or  "  Pial- 
uiacah  "  in  many  of  the  Hiniyeritic  inscriptions. 
The  Arab  story  of  this  queen  is,  in  the  present 
state  of  our  knowledj^e,  altogether  unhistorical  and 
unworthy  of  credit;  liut  tlie  attempt  to  make  her 
Solomon's  queen  of  Sheba  piobably  arose  (as  ^l. 
(  aussin  conjectures)  from  the  latter  being  men- 
tioned in  the  Kur-an  without  any  name,  and  the 
conimentators  adopting  Bilkees  as  the  most  ancient 
queen  of  Shelia  in  tlie  lists  of  tiiC  Yemen.  The 
Kur-an,  as  usual,  contains  a  very  poor  version  of 
tlie  Biblical  narrative,  diluted  with  nonsense  and 
encumbered  with  faliles  (ch.  xxvii.  ver.  24,  <tc.). 

The  other  passages  in  the  Bible  which  seem  to 
refer  to  the  Joktanite  Shelia  occur  in  Is.  Ix.  G. 
where  we  read,  "all  they  from  Sl.eba  shall  come: 
they  shall  bring  gold  and  incense."  in  conjunction 
with  JMidian,  I-^phah,  Kedar,  and  Nebaioth.  Here 
reference  is  made  to  the  commerce  that  took  the 
road  from  Sheba  along  the  western  borders  of 
Arabia  (unless,  as  is  possible,  the  Cushite  or  Ketu- 
raliite  Shelia  be  meant);  and  ayain  in  .ler.  vi.  20, 
it  is  written,  "To  wliat  purpose  con  etii  there  to 
me  incense  from  Sheba,  and  the  sweet  cane  from  a 
far  country?  "  (but  compare  Ez.  xxvii.  22,  23,  and 
see  below).  On  the  other  hand,  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  10, 
the  .loktanite  Sheba  is  undoulitedly  meant;  for 
tl'.e  kingdoms  of  Shelia  and  Seba  are  named  to- 
gether, and  in  ver.  15  the  gold  of  Sheba  is  men- 
tioned. 

The  kingdom  of  Sheba  embraced  the  greater 
part  of  the  Yemen,  or  Arabia  Felix.  Its  chief 
cities,  and  proljably  successive  capitals,  were  Sebii, 
San'a  (Uzal),  and  Zaftir  (Sephak).  Seba  was 
probably  the  name  of  the  city,  and  generally  of  the 
country  and  nation ;  but  the  statements  of  the 
Arabian  writers  are  conflicting  on  this  point,  and 
they  are  not  made  clearer  by  the  accounts  of  the 
classical  geographers.  JNIa-rib  was  another  name 
tif  the  city,  or  of  the  fortress  or  royal  palace  in  it: 
■'Seba  is  a  city  known  by  the  name  of  Ma-rib, 
,hree  nights'  journey  from  San'ii "  (Ez-Zejjiij,  in 
the  Tdj-eP Arovs  MS.).  Again,  "  Sebii  was  the 
city  of  Ma-rib  {MiishUtrak,  s.  v.),  or  the  country 
in  the  Y'enien,  of  which  the  city  was  Ma-rib " 
{Mar'isiil,  in  voc  ).  Near  Sebii  was  the  famous 
I'yke  of  Kl-'Arini,  said  liy  tradition  to  have  been 
bnilt  by  Liikman  the  'Adite,  to  store  water  for  the 
inhabitants  of  the  place,  and  to  avert  the  descent 
of  the  mountain  torrents.  The  catastrophe  of  the 
rupture  of  this  dyke  is  an  important  point  in  Arab 
history,  and  marks  the  dispersion  in  the  2d  century 
of  the  .loktanite  trilies.  This,  like  all  we  know  of 
Sella,  points  irresistibly  to  the  great  importance  of 
the  city  as  the  ancient  centre  of  Joktanite  power. 
Altiiougli  Uzal  (wiiicli  is  said  to  be  the  existing 
San'a)  lias  been  supposed  to  be  of  earlier  founda- 
tion, and  Zafar  (Skphak)  was  a  royal  residence, 
we  cannot  doubt  that  Seba  was  the  most  important 
of  these  chief  towns  of  the  Yemen.  Its  value  in 
tlie  eyes  of  the  old  dynasties  is  shown  by  their 
struggles  to  olitain  and  hold  it;  and  it  is  narrated 
that  it  passed  several  times  into  the  hands  alter- 
nately of  the  so-called  Himyerites  and  the  people 
)f  Hadramiiwt  (Hazak-jiavkth).  Eratosthenes, 
Artemidorus,  Strabo,  and  I'liny,  speak  of  Mdiinbn ; 
iJiodorus,  Ai.'atharcliides,  Steph.  Byzant.,  of  Salin. 
la&ai  (Steph.  Byzant.).     2a;8ax  (Agath.).     I'tol. 


SHEBA 

(vi.  7,  §§  30,  42),  and  Pliu.  (vi.  23,  §  34)  menti.Hi 
Sa/Srj.  But  the  former  all  say  that  Mariaba  was 
the  metropolis  of  the  Sab£ei;  and  we  may  conclude 
that  both  names  applied  to  the  same  place,  one  the 
city,  the  other  its  palace  or  fortress  (though  prob- 
ably these  writers  were  not  aware  of  this  fact): 
unless  indeed  the  form  Sabota  (with  the  variant? 
Sabatha,  Sobatale,  etc  )  of  Pliny  (//.  ,V.  vi.  28,  § 
32),  have  reference  to  Shibam,  capital  of  Hadra- 
miiwt,  and  the  name  also  of  another  celeljrated 
city,  of  which  the  Arabian  writers  {Murdsid,  s.  v.) 
give  curious  accounts.  The  classics  are  generally 
agreed  in  ascribing  to  the  Sabaii  the  chief  riches, 
the  best  territory,  and  the  greatest  numbers  of  the 
four  principal  peoples  of  the  Arabs  which  they 
name:  the  Sabcei,  Atramitse  (=  Hadramiiwt),  Ka- 
tabeni  (=  Kahtan  =  .loktan),  and  Minsei  (for 
which  see  Uiklah).  See  Bochart  {PliuUuj^  xxvi.), 
and  Miiller's  Utoy.  Min.  p.  18G  fi". 

The  history  of  the  Salutans  has  been  examined 
by  M.  L'aussin  de  Perceval  (l-.'sstti  siir  I'/Jist.  de» 
Arabts),  but  much  remains  to  be  adjusted  before 
its  details  can  be  received  as  trustworthy,  the 
earliest  safe  chronological  point  being  about  the 
coinniencement  of  our  era.  An  examination  of 
the  existing  remains  of  Sabaz'an  and  Ilimyerite 
cities  and  buildings  will,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  add 
more  facts  to  our  present  knowledge;  and  a  further 
acquaintance  with  the  language,  from  inscriptions, 
aided,  as  M.  Fresnel  believes,  by  an  existing  dialect, 
will  probably  give  us  some  safe  grounds  for  placing 
the  building,  or  era,  of  the  dyke.  In  the  art. 
Arabia  (vol.  i.  p.  142  b),  it  is  stated  that  there 
are  dates  on  the  ruins  of  the  dyke,  and  tiie  oonclu 
sions  which  De  Sacy  and  L'aussin  ha^•e  drawn  from 
those  dates  and  other  indications  respecting  the 
date  of  the  rupture  of  the  dyke,  which  forms 
then  an  important  point  in  Arabian  history;  but 
it  must  be  placed  in  the  2d  century  of  our  era,  and 
the  older  era  of  the  building  is  altogether  unfixed, 
or  indeed  any  date  before  the  expedition  of  ^Hius 
GaUus.  The  ancient  buildings  are  of  massive 
masonry,  and  evidently  of  Cushite  workmanship, 
or  origin.  Eater  temples,  and  palace-temples,  of 
which  the  Arabs  gi\e  us  descriptions,  were  prob- 
alily  of  less  massive  character;  but  Sabajan  art  is 
an  almost  unknown  and  interesting  subject  of  in- 
quiry. The  religion  celebrated  in  those  temples 
was  cosmic;  but  this  subject  is  too  obscure  and  too 
little  known  to  admit  of  discussion  in  this  place. 
It  may  be  necessary  to  observe  that  whatever  con- 
nection there  was  in  rtlu/iuit  between  the  Sabajana 
and  the  Sabians,  there  was  none  in  name  or  in 
race.  Kespecting  the  latter,  the  reader  may  con- 
sult Chwolson's  Ss'ibier,  a  work  that  may  be 
recommended  with  more  confidence  than  the  same 
author's  Nabntlicean  Agriculture.  [See  Neb.\. 
luTii.]  Some  curious  papers  have  also  appeared 
in  the  .lournal  of  the  German  Oriental  Society  of 
Leipsic,  by  Dr.  Osiander.  [Ahabia,  i.  142,  iiote 
c,  Amer.  ed.] 

II.  Sheba,  son  of  Ramah  son  of  Cush,  settled 
somewhere  on  the  shores  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  In 
the  Afardiid  (s.  v.)  the  writer  has  found  an  identi- 
fication which  appears  to  be  satisfactory  —  that  on 
the  island  of  Awal  (one  of  the  "  Bahreyn  Islands  ") 
are  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  city  called  Seiiii 
Viewed  in  connection  with  IJaamah,  and  the  other 
facts  which  we  know  respecting  Sheba,  traces  of 
his  settlements  ought  to  lie  found  on  or  near  the 
shores  of  the  gulf.  It  was  this  Sheba  that  carried 
on  the  great  Indian  traffic  with  Palestine,  iu  con 


SHEBA 

junction  with,  as  we  hold,  the  other  Sheba,  son  of 
Jokshan  son  of  Keturah,  \vIio,Iike  Dedan,  appears 
to  ha\e  foniied  with  the  Cushiteof  the  same  name, 
one  trile:  the  Cushites  dwelling  on  the  shores  of 
the  Persian  tiulf,  and  carryinsj  on  the  desert  trade 
thence  to  Palestine  in  conjunction  with  the  nomade 
Keturahite  tribes,  whose  pasturages  were  mostly  on 
the  western  frontier.  The  trade  is  mentioned  by 
Ez.  xxvii.  22,  23,  in  an  unmistakable  manner;  and 
possibly  liy  Is.  Ix.  6,  and  .ler.  vi.  20,  but  these 
latter,  we  think,  rather  refer  to  the  .Toktanite  Sheba. 
The  predatory  bands  of  the  Keturahites  are  nien- 
tiDned  in  Job  i.  15,  and  vi.  19.  in  a  manner  that 
recalls  th*  forays  of  modern  13edawees.  [Comp. 
AiiAHiA,  Deuan,  Tf.man,  etc.]  E.  S.  P. 

SHE'BA  (37?tK'  [seven,  an  oath]:  2,afj.aa.\ 
Alex.  Sa/Bee:  Sabee).  One  of  the  towns  of  the 
(illotment  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  2).  It  occurs  be- 
tween Reer-sheba  and  Moladah.  In  the  list  of  the 
cities  of  the  south  of  Judah,  out  of  which  those 
of  Simeon  were  selected,  no  Sheba  appears  apart 
from  P.eer-sheba;  but  tliere  is  a  Shenia  (xv.  26) 
whit;h  stands  next  to  Moladah,  and  which  is  prob- 
ably the  Sheba  in  question.  This  suggestion  is 
supported  by  ihe  reading  of  the  Vatican  LXX. 
The  change  from  b  to  m  is  an  easy  one  both  in 
Bjjeaking  and  in  writing,  and  in  their  other  letters 
the  words  are  identical.  Some  have  supposed  that 
the  name  Sheba  is  a  mere  repetition  of  the  latter 
portion  of  the  preceding  'name,  Beer-sheba,  —  by 
the  connnon  error  called  Iximoioltleulvn,  —  and  this 
is  sup[iorted  by  the  facts  that  the  number  of  names 
given  in  xix.  2-6  is,  including  Sheba,  fourteen, 
th<jugh  the  number  stated  is  thirteen,  and  that  in 
the  list  of  Simeon  of  1  Chr.  (iv.  28)  Sheba  is 
entirely  omitted.  Gesenius  suggests  that  the  words 
in  xix.  2  may  be  rendered  "  Beer  sheba,  the  town, 
with  Sheba,  the  well; '"  but  this  seems  forced,  and 
is  besides  inconsistent  with  tlie  fact  that  the  list  is 
a  list  of  ''  cities  "  ( T/ng.  p.  1-355  a,  where  other 
suggestions  are  cited).  G. 

SHE'BAH  {T1V-2V',  i.  e.  Shib-ah  [fem.  seven 
or  an  oath]:  opKo^:  Abundantai).  The  famous 
well  which  gave  its  name  to  the  city  of  Beer-sheba 
((ien.  xxvi.  33).  According  to  this  version  of  the 
occurrence,  Shebah,  or  more  accurately,  Shibeah, 
w:is  the  fourth  of  the  series  of  wells  dug  by  Isaac's 
people,  and  received  its  name  from  him,  apjiarently 

in  allusion  to  the  oaths  (31,  •"1275'i''^,  iiisshabe''ii) 
which  had  passed  between  himself  and  the  Philis- 
tine cliieftains  the  day  before.  It  should  not  be 
overlooked  that  according  to  the  narrative  of  an 
earlier  chapter  the  well  owed  its  existence  and  its 
name  to  Isaac's  father  (xxi.  32).  Indeed,  its  pre- 
vious existence  may  be  said  to  be  implied  in  the 
narrative  now  directly  under  consideration  (xxvi. 
23).  The  two  transactions  are  curiously  identical 
in  many  of  their  circumstances  —  the  rank  and 
names  of  the  Philistine  chieftains,  the  strife  be-' 
tween  the  subordinates  on  either  side,  the  covenant.  I 
the  adjurations,  the  city  that  took  its  name  from  ' 
the  well.  They  differ  alone  in  the  fact  that  the 
chief  figure  in  the  one  case  is  Abraham,  in  the 
other  Isaac.  Some  connnentators,  as  Kalisch 
(Gen.  p.  500),  looking  to  the  fact  that  there  are  two 
large  wells  at  Bir  es-Seba,  propose  to  consider  the 
two  transactions  as  distinct,  and  as  belonging  the 
we  to  the  one  well,  the  other  to  the  other.  Others 
lee  in  the  two  narrati\es  merely  two  versions  of 
the  circumstances  under  which  this  renowned  well 


SHEBARIM 


29-51 


was  first  dug.  And  certainly  in  the  analogy  of  the 
early  history  of  other  nations,  and  in  the  very  close 
correspondence  between  the  details  of  the  two  ac- 
counts, there  is  much  to  support  this.    The  various 

plays  on  the  meaning  of  the  name  I^^IT,  inter- 
preting it  as  "  seven  " — as  an  "  oath  " —  as  "  abun- 
dance "  "  —  as  "a  lion  "  ''  —  are  all  lo  many  direct 
testimonies  to  the  remote  date  and  archaic  form  of 
this  most  venerable  of  names,  and  to  the  fact  that 
the  narratives  of  the  early  history  of  the  Hebrews 
are  tnider  the  control  of  the  same  laws  which  regu- 
late the  early  history  of  other  nations.  G. 

SHE'BAM  (C?Jf,  i-  e.  Sebam:  -E^Ba/^d: 
Saban).  One  of  the  towns  in  the  pastoral  district 
on  the  east  of  Jordan  —  the  "  land  of  -lazer  and 
the  land  of  Gilead  " — demanded  and  finally  ceded 
to  the  tribes  of  lieuben  and  Gad  (Num.  xxxii.  3, 
only).  It  is  named  between  Elealeh  and  Nebo, 
and  is  probably  the  same  which  in  a  subsequent 
verse  of  the  chapter,  and  on  later  occasions,  appears 
in  the  altered  forms  of  Shibmah  and  Sibmah. 
The  change  from  Sebam  to  Sibmah  is  perhaps  due 
to  the  diflerence  between  the  Amorite  and  Moabite 
and  Hebrew  languages.  G. 

SHEBANI'AH  (n;;35K?  [whom  Jehovah 
built  n/)]  :  in  Xeh.  ix.,  S^x^i^ia,  [Vat.  5apa/3(o, 
FA.  SapaSio,]  Alex.  Saxai'ia;  in  Neh.  x..  2a- 
0uvia,  [Alex.  FA.  5e/3ai/io;]  Sabaiiiii,  lSebui(C 
in  Neh.  ix.,  Sebenia  in  Neh.  x.). 

1.  A  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  one  of  those 
who  stood  upon  the  steps  of  the  Levites  and  sang 
the  psalm  of  thanksgiving  and  confession  which  is 
one  of  the  last  efforts  of  Hebrew  psalmody  (Neh. 
ix.  4,  5).  He  sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  X.  10).  In  the  LXX.  of  Neh.  ix.  -i  ho  is 
made  the  son  of  Sherebiah. 

2.  (Se/Saj/i  [Vat.  -vn,  FA.  with  preced.  word 
TovtraBavii]  in  Neh.  x.,  Se^fi'ia  [liom.,  but  Vat. 
Alex.  F.V.i  omit]  in  Neh.  xii.  14:  lS<-/jenin.)  A 
priest,  or  priestly  family,  who  sealed  the  covenant 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  4,  xii.  14).  Called  She- 
CHAXiAH  in  Neh.  xii.  3. 

3.  (Se/SaKi'a:  Sabaiiia.)  Another  I.evit.e  who 
sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neli.  x.  12). 

4.  On^?Il''p  2o/*r//a;  Alex.  So/Sei'ia;  [FA 
'S.o^i/eta:]  Sebenias.)  One  of  the  priests  appointed 
by  David  to  blow  with  the  trumpets  before  the  ark 
of  God  (1  Chr.  XV.  24).  W.  A.  W. 

SHEB'ARIM  (a^-in^n,  with  the  def 
article  [breaches,  i-uiiis]:  avvfrpixf/av:  Sabarim) 
A  place  named  in  Josh.  vii.  5  only,  as  one  of  the 
points  in  the  flight  from  Ai.  The  root  of  the  word 
has  the 'force  of  "dividing"  or  "breaking,"  and 
it  is  therefore  suggested  that  the  name  was  at- 
tached to  a  spot  where  there  were  fissuies  or  rents 
in  the  soil,  gradually  deepening  till  they  ended  in 
a  sheer  descent  or  precipice  to  the  ravine  by  which 
the  Israelites  had  come  from  Gilgal  —  "  the  going 

down"  (T^IBrT;  see  verse  5  and  the  margin  of 
[he  A.  v.).  The  ground  around  the  site  of  Ai,  on 
any  hypothesis  of  its  locality,  was  very  much  of 
tins  character.  No  trace  of  the  name  has,  how- 
ever, been  yet  remarked. 

Keil    {Josua,  ad  loc.)    interprets  Shebarim  bj 


«  This  is  Jerome's  (Qi^ffi^m  (Sennim  antlVuleatt} 

as  if  the  word  was   Hl??^')  ^^  '"  ^-  *^'-  **• 
b  The  modem  Arabic  B'lr  es-Seba'. 


2952 


SHEBER 


''stone  quarries;"  but  this  does  not  appear  to  lie 
Bupported  hy  other  commentators  or  by  lexieoi;- 
raphers.  The  ancient  interpreters  usually  discard 
it  as  a  proper  name,  and  render  it  "till  they  were 
broken  up,"  etc.  G. 

SHE'BER  (~l?^-'  [breaking,  rtdn]:  ^a&ffj: 
Alex.  26/3e/j:  Saber).  Son  of  Caleb  ben-Hezrun 
by  his  conoubine  Maachah  (1  Chr.  \i.  48). 

SHEB'NA  (W?t?i  [youth,  Gas.]:  :S3fiyds, 
[exc.  2  K.,  Rom.  Sco^vat:  Is.  xxxvi.  3,  Vat.  2o0- 
yas']  tSubuas).  A  person  of  high  position  in 
Hezekiah's  court,  holding  at  one  time  the  otRee 
of  prefect  of  the  palace  (Is.  xxii.  15),  but  subse- 
quently the  subordinate  office  of  secretary  (Is.  xxxvi. 
3;  2  K.  xviii.  37,  xix.  2).  This  change  appears 
to  have  been  effected  by  Isaiah's  interposition;  for 
Shebna  had  incurred  the  prophet's  extreme  dis- 
pleasure, partly  on  account  of  his  pride  (Is.  xxii. 
lli),  his  luxury  (ver.  18),  and  his  tyranny  (as  im- 
phed  in  the  title  of  "father''  bestowed  on  his  suc- 
cessor, ver.  21),  and  partly  (as  appears  from  his 
successor  being  termed  a  "servant  of  .lehuvah '' 
ver.  20 ),  on  account  of  his  belonging  to  the  political 
party  which  wa.s  opposed  to  the  theocracy,  and  in 
fa\or  of  the  Egyptian  alliance.  From  the  omission 
of  the  usual  notice  of  his  father's  name,  it  has  been 
conjectured  that  he  was  a  novus  lionw.   \V.  L.  B. 

SHEBU'EL  (bS-1DK?  [c,tp<ke  of  God]). 
1-  {1ou0a-fi\:  [1  Chr.  xxvi.  24-,  Vat.  IojtjA:]  Siibml, 
Sii'jnel.)  A  descendant  of  (jershom  (1  Chr.  xxiii. 
IG,  xxvi.  24),  who  was  ruler  of  the  treasures  of  the 
house  of  (iod;  called  also  Shubael  (1  Chr.  xxiv. 
20).  The  Targum  of  1  Chr.  xxvi.  24  has  a  strange 
piece  of  confusion :  "  And  Shebuel,  that  is,  .Jona- 
than the  son  of  (iershom  the  son  of  Moses,  returned 
to  the  fear  of  Jehovah,  and  when  David  saw  that 
he  was  skillful  in  money  matters  he  appointed  him 
chief  o\'er  the  treasures."  He  is  the  last  descendant 
of  Moses  of  whom  there  is  any  trace. 

2.  [^ov&aiiA'-  Subud.]  One  of  the  fourteen 
sons  of  lleman  the  minstrel  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4);  called 
also  Siiun.VKL  (IChr.  xxv.  20),  which  was  theread- 
h)g  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate.  He  was  chief  of 
the  thirteenth  band  of  twei\e  in  the  Temple  choir. 

SHECANI'AH  (^H^.??^  [familiar  rdtli 
Jehovah]:  'Sex^i'ias;  [Vat.  lo-xaj-ia:]  Sechenin). 
1.  The  tenth  in  order  of  the  priests  who  were  ap- 
pointed by  lot  in  the  reign  of  Da\id  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  1 1 ). 

2.  (26X<"''"^'  Sechenias.)  A  priest  in  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah,  one  of  those  appointed  in  the  cities  of 
the  priests  to  distribute  to  their  bretliren  their  daily 
portion  for  their  service  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  1.5). 

SHRCHANFAH  ("f;::i3tp  [.see  above]:  Se- 
^euias  [  Vat. -j/(a] :  Sechtnias).  1.  A  descendant 
of  Zerubbabel  of  the  line  royal  of  -Judah  (1  Chr.  iii. 
21,  22). 

2.  {taxa-vlas  [or  -vla\  Vat.  'Xava-xias  or 
"Xia-])  Some  descendants  of  Shechaniah  appear 
to  have  returned  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  3).  He  is 
called  SiECiiENiAS  in  1  ]'2sdr.  viii.  29. 

3.  (Sexfias:  [Vat.  omits.])  The  sons  of  Slie- 
cnaniah  were  anotlier  family  who  returned  with 
Ezra,  three  hundred  strong,  with  the  son  of  .Jaha- 
ziel  at  their  head  (Ezr.  viii.  5).  In  this  verse  some 
name  appears  to  have  been  omitted.     The  LXX. 


a  From  the  foot  of  the  mountains  on  either  side  of 
the  town  can  be  discerned  on  the  one  hand  the  range 
beyond  Jordan  Valley,  and  on  the  other  the  blue  waters 


SHECHEM 

has  "o£  the  sons  of  Zathoe.  Secheiias  the  son  of 
Aziel,"  and  in  this  it  is  followed  hy  1  Esdr.  viii.  32, 
"  of  the  sons  of  Zathoe,  Sechenias  the  son  of  .le- 
zelus."  Perhaps  the  reading  should  be:  "  of  the 
sons  of  Zattu,  Shechaniah,  the  son  of  .lahaziel." 

4.  The  son  of  .lehiel  of  the  sons  of  Elam,  who 
proposed  to  Ezra  to  put  an  end  to  the  foreign  mar- 
riages which  had  been  contracted  after  the  return 
from  Babylon  (Ezr.  x.  2). 

5.  The  father  of  Shemaiah  the  keeper  of  the 
east  gate  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  29). 

6.  The  sou  of  .\rah,  and  father-in-law  to  Tobiab 
the  Annnonite  (Neh.  vi.  18). 

7.  (Sexcia:  Sebenias.)  The  head  of  a  priestly 
family  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  "(Neh.  sii.  3). 
He  is  also  called  Sheuaniah,  and  Shecaxiaii, 
and  was  tenth  in  order  of  the  priests  in  the  reign 
of  David. 

SHE'CHEM  (G.ptt',  shoulder,  ridge,  like 
dorsum  in  Latin:  Sux^V*  '"  most  passages,  but  also 
7)  'SiKi/j.a  in  1  K.  xii.  2.3,  and  to.  SUtfia,  as  in  Josh, 
xxiv.  32,  the  form  used  by  Josephus  and  Eusebius, 
with  still  other  variations  [as  27jKi/j.a,  and  in  Josh, 
xxiv.  1,  2.5,  SrjAoi] :  Sichem,  [Sichima  (both  sing, 
and  pi.)]).  There  may  be  some  doubt  respecting 
the  origin  of  the  name.  It  has  been  made  a  question 
whether  the  place  was  so  called  from  Shechem  the 
son  of  Hamor,  head  of  their  trilie  in  the  time  of 
.lacob  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18  ff. ),  or  whether  he  received 
his  name  from  the  city.  .  The  import  of  the  name 
favors  certainly  the  latter  supposition,  since  the  po- 
sition of  the  place  on  the  "  saddle  "  or  "shoulder  " 
of  the  heights  which  divide  the  waters  there  that 
flow  to  the  ilediterranean  on  the  west  and  the  .lor- 
dnn  on  the  east,'^  would  naturally  originate  such  a 
name;  and  the  name,  having  been  thus  introduced, 
would  be  likely  to  appear  again  and  again  in  the 
family  of  the  hereditary  rulers  of  the  city  or  region. 
The  name,  too,  if  first  given  to  the  city  in  the  time 
of  Hamor,  would  have  been  taken,  accoriling  to 
historical  analogy,  from  the  father  rather  than  the 
son.  Some  interpret  Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  19  as  show- 
ing that  Shechem  in  that  passage  may  have  been 
called  also  .Shalem.  But  this  opinion  has  no  sup- 
port except  from  that  passage;  and  the  meaning 
even  there  more  naturally  is,  that  Jacob  came  in 

safety  to  Shechem  {Oy'Q!'^  as  an  adjective,  safe; 
comp.  Gen.  xviii.  21);  or  (as  recognized  in  the 
Eng.  Bible)  that  .Shalem  belonged  to  Shechem  as  a 
dependent  tributary  village.  [Shalem.]  The  name 
is  also  given  in  the  Auth.  Version  in  the  form  of 
Sichem,  and  Sychem,  to  which,  as  well  as  Sv- 
(.HAR,  the  reader  is  referred. 

The  etymology  of  the  Hebrew  word  Shecem  in- 
dicates, at  the  outset,  that  the  place  was  situated 
on  some  mountain  or  hill-side;  and  that  presump- 
tion agrees  with  Josh.  .xx.  7,  which  places  it  in 
.Mount  Ephraim  (see,  also,  1  K.  xii.  25),  and  with 
•ludg.  ix.  7,  which  represents  it  as  under  the, sum- 
mit of  Gerizim,  which  belonged  to  the  Ephraim 
range.  The  other  Biblical  intimations  in  regard  to 
its  situation  are  only  indirect.  They  are  worth  no- 
ticing, though  no  great  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  them. 
I'hus,  for  example,  Shechem  must  have  been  not 
far  from'Shiloh,  since  Shiloh  is  said  (Judg.  xxi.  19) 
to  be  a  little  to  the  east  of  "  the  highway  "  which 
led  from  Beth-el  to  Shechem.     Again,  if  Shaleu: 


of  the  Mediterranean.     The  latter  appears  in  the  illua 
tration  to  this  article.  ' 


SHECHEM 

In  Gen.  xxxiii.  18  be  a  proper  name,  as  otir  version  ' 
assuiues,  and  identical  with  Mie  present  S'llim  on 
the  left  of  the  plain  of  the  .UiMni'i,  then  Shechem, 
which  is  said  to  be  east  of  Sh<dim,  must  have  been 
among  the  hills  on  the  opposite  side.  Further, 
Shechem,  as  we  learn  from  Joseph's  history  (Gen. 
xxxvii.  12,  (tc),  must  have  been  near  Dothan;  and, 
assuming  Dothan  to  be  the  place  of  that  name  a 
few  miles  northeast  of  Nabultis,  Shechem  must 
have  been  among  the  same  mountains,  not  far  dis- 
tant. So,  too,  as  the  Sychar  in  John  iv.  5  was 
probably  the  ancient  Sliecliera,  that  town  must 
have  been  near  Mount  Gerizim,  to  which  the  Sa- 
maritan woman  pointed  or  glanced  as  she  stood  by 
the  well  at  its  foot. 

But  the  historical  and  traditional  data  which 
exist  outside  of  the  Bible  are  abundant  and  decisive. 
Josephus  {Ant.  iv.  8,  §  44)  descrilies  Shechem  as 
between  Gerizim  and  Ebal :    t/js  XiKi/jLuu  irSKeoDS 


SHECHEM 


•2953 


fxeralh  Svoiv  opoiv,  Vapi^aiov  /xev  rod  eV  Se^tif 
Kfifxevov,  Tov  5'  eK  Katciv  Ti^aKov  Trpocrayopivo- 
fifvov-  Tlie  present  Ndbulus  is  a  corruption 
merelv  of  Neapolis:  and  Neapolis  succeeded  the 
more  ancient  Shechem.  All  the  early  writers  who 
touch  on  the  topography  of  Palestine,  testify  to 
this  identity  of  the  two.  Josephus  usually  retains 
the  old  name,  Init  has  Neapolis  in  B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  1. 
Epiphanius  says  {Adv.  Hmi:  iii.  1055):  iv  Sirei- 
/iois,  toOt'  eo-TiJ',  eV  TJ?  vvv\  NedwoKei-  Jerome 
says  in  the  Kpit.  Pmdte':  "  Transivit  Sicheni.  quaj 
nunc  Neapolis  appellatur."  The  city  received  its 
new  name  {^ia.voKis=  Nabulus)  from  Vespasiun. 
and  on  coins  still  extant  (Ecthel,  Ducti:  Numm.  iii. 
433)  is  called  Flavia  Neapolis.  It  had  been  laid 
waste,  in  all  probability,  during  the  Jewish  war: 
and  the  overthrow  had  been  so  complete  that,  con- 
trary to  what  is  generally  true  in  such  instances 
of  the  substitution  of  a  foreign  name  for  the  native 


^^^ 


the  Valley  and  Town  of  Nabliis,  the  ancient  Shechem,  from  the  southwestern  flank  of  Mount  Ebal,  looking 
westward.  The  mount:iiu  on  the  Itft  is  Geriziui.  The  Meiittrrinem  is  discermble  in  the  distance 
Krom  a  sketch  by  W.  Tipping,  Esq. 


one,  the  original  appellation  of  Shechem  never 
regained  its  currency  among  the  people  of  the 
country.  Its  situation  accounts  for  another  name 
which  it  bore  among  the  natives,  while  it  was 
known  chiefly  as  Neapolis  to  foreijiners.  It  is 
nearly  midway  between  .ludsea  and  Galilee;  and, 
it  being  customary  to  make  four  stasfes  of  the 
journey  between  those  provinces,  the  second  day's 
halt  occurs  most  conveniently  at  this  place.     Being 

thus  a  "  thoroughfare "  (=  Snn3}??3)  on  this 
important  route,  it  was  called  <•  also  MaBop9d  or 
Ma^apdd,  as  Josephus  states  {B.  .J.  iv.  8,  §  1). 
He  says  there  that  Vespasian  marched  from  Am- 
niails,  5ict  rfjj  2a/uap6iTi5oy  koI  ■napa  t)]v  Neci- 
TtoXiv   KaKovfiivt)v,    MdlSopdu   5e    uirh   twj'    eV.- 

o  This  happy  conjecture,  in  explanation  of  a  name 
wbicL  liaffled  even  the  in  reniiin-:  R«laud.  is  due  to  01s- 
taAuseu    ttitter,  as  abuvei. 

lae 


Xwp'iwv-  Pliny  {H.  N.  v.  13)  writes  the  same 
name  •'  Mamortha."  Others  would  restrict  the  term 
somewhat,  and  understand  it  rather  of  the  "  pass  " 
or  "  gorge  "  through  the  mountains  where  the  town 
was  situated  (Ritter's  Urdkunde,  Pol.  p.  640). 

The  ancient  town,  in  its  most  flourisliing  ai;e, 
may  have  filled  a  wider  circuit  than  its  modern 
representative.  It  could  easily  have  extended 
further  up  the  side  of  Gerizim,  and  eastward  nearer 
to  the  openinu;  into  the  valley  from  the  plain.  But 
any  great  change  in  this  respect,  certainly  the  idea 
of  an  altogether  different  position,  the  natural  con- 
ditions of  tlie  locality  render  doubtful.  That  the 
suburbs  of  tlie  town,  in  the  age  of  Christ,  ap- 
proached neaier  than  at  present  to  the  entrance 
mto  tlie  valley  between  (jerizim  and  Ebal,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  implied  >ij;nity  of  Jacob's 
well  to  Sychar,  in  J  ^m's  narrative  (.r  I  S". 
The  iinpression  made  there  on  the  reader  is,  ttiat 
the  fjeople could  lie  readily  seen  as  they  came  forth 


295  i 


SHECHEM 


from  the  town  to  repair  to  .Jesus  at  the  well,  whereas 
Niiljut>ii>  is  more  tliaii  a  mile  distant,  and  not  vis- 
ilile  from  that  point.  'i"he  present  iiihaliitants 
have  a  l)elief  or  tradition  that  Sliechem  occupied  a 
poition  of  the  valley  on  the  east  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  modern  town ;  and  certain  travellers  speak 
of  ruins  there,  which  they  regard  as  eviilence  of  the 
same  fact.  The  statement  of  Euseljius  that  Sychar 
•dT  east  of  Neapolis,  may  be  explained  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  part  of  Neapolis  in  that  quar- 
ter had  fallen  into  such  a  state  of  ruin  when  he 
Uved,  as  to  be  mistaken  for  the  site  of  a  separate 
.own  (see  Reland's  PakesL  p.  1004).  The  portion 
01  the  town  on  the  edge  of  the  plain  was  more  ex- 
posed than  that  in  the  recess  of  tiie  valley,  and,  in 
.he  natural  course  of  things,  woidd  be  destroyed 
first,  or  he  left  to  desertion  and  decay.  Josephus 
•lajs  that  more  than  ten  thousand  Samaritans  (in- 
habitants of  Shechem  are  meant)  were  destroyed 
by  the  Romans  on  one  occasion  {B.  J.  iii.  7,  §  32). 
The  popidation,  therefore,  must  have  been  much 
greater  than  Ndbulus  with  its  present  dimensions 
would  contain. 

The  situation  of  the  town  is  one  of  surpassing 
beauty.  "  The  land  of  Syria,"  said  Mohammed, 
"  is  beloved  by  Allah  beyond  all  lands,  and  the  part 
of  Syria  which  He  loveth  most  is  the  district  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  the  place  which  He  loveth  most  in  the 
district  of  .Jerusalem  is  the  mountain  of  Nalilus" 
{Fiim/ijr.  (hs  Uritnis,  ii.  1.39).  Its  appearance  has 
called  forth  the  admiration  of  all  travellers  who  have 
any  sensiliility  to  the  charms  of  nature.  It  lies  in  a 
sheltered  valley,  protected  by  Gerizim  on  the  south, 
and  Ebal  on  the  north.  The  feet  of  these  moun- 
tains, where  they  rise  from  the  town,  are  not  more 
than  five  hundred  yards  apart.  The  bottom  of  the 
valley  is  about  1800  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea, 
and  "the  top  of  Uerizim  800  feet  higher  still.  Those 
who  have  been  at  Heidelberg  will  assent  to  O.  von 
Kichter's  remark,  that  the  scenery,  as  viewed  from 
the  foot  of  the  hills,  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  beauti- 
ful German  town.  The  site  of  the  present  city, 
which  we  belie\e  to  have  been  also  that  of  the  He- 
brew city,  occurs  exactly  on  the  water-summit;  and 
streams  issuing  from  the  numerous  springs  there, 
flow  down  the  opposite  slopes  of  the  valley,  spread- 
ing verdure  and  fertility  in  every  direction.  Travel- 
lers vie  with  each  other  in  the  language  which  they 
employ  to  describe  the  scene  that  bursts  here  so 
suddenly  upon  them  on  airiving  in  spring  or  early 
summer  at  this  paradise  of  the  Holy  Land.  The 
somewhat  sterile  aspect  of  the  adjacent  mountains 
becomes  itself  a  foil,  as  it  were,  to  set  off  the  effect 
of  the  verdant  fields  and  orchards  which  fill  up  the 
\'alley.  "  There  is  nothing  finer  in  all  Palestine,' 
gays  Dr.  Clarke,  "  than  a  view  of  Natjiilus  from  the 
heights  around  it.  As  the  traveller  descends  to- 
wards it  from  the  hills,  it  appears  luxuriantly  em- 
bosomed in  the  most  delightful  and  fragrant  bow- 
ers, half  concealed  by  rich  gardens  and  by  stately 
trees  collected  into  groves,  all  around  the  liold  and 
beautiful  valley  in  which  it  stands."  "  The  whole 
valley,"  says  Dr.  Robinson,  "  was  filled  with  gar- 
dens of  vegetables,  and  orchards  of  all  kinds  of 
fruits,  watered  by  fountains,  which  burst  forth  in 
various  parts  and  flow  westwards  in  refreshing 
itreams.     It  came  upon  us  suddenly  like  a  scene 


SIIECHEM 

of  fairy  enchantment.  We  saw  uothit.g  to  com* 
pare  with  it  in  all  Palestine.  Here,  beneath  the 
shadow  of  an  immense  mulberry-tree,  by  the  sidp 
of  a  purling  rill,  we  pitched  our  tent  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  day  and  the  night. 
We  rose  early,  awakened  by  the  sonss  of  nightin- 
gales and  other  birds,  of  which  the  ijardeus  around 
us  were  full."  "  There  is  no  wilderness  here," 
says  Van  de  Yelde  (i.  -386),  "  there  are  no  wild 
thickets,  yet  there  is  always  verdure,  always  shade, 
not  of  the  oak,  the  terebinth,  and  the  carob-tree,  but 
of  the  olive-grove,  so  soft  in  color,  so  picturesque 
in  form,  that,  for  its  sake,  we  can  willingly  dis- 
pense with  all  other  wood.  There  is  a  singularity 
about  the  vale  of  Shechem,  and  that  is  the  pecul- 
iar coloring  which  objects  assume  in  it.  You 
know  that  wherever  there  is  water  the  air  beccj.es 
charged  with  watery  particles,  and  that  distant  ob- 
jects beheld  through  that  medium  seem  to  be  en- 
veloped in  a  pale  blue  or  gray  mist,  such  a.s 
contributes  not  a  little  to  give  a  charm  to  the  land 
scape.  But  it  is  precisely  those  atmospheric  tints 
that  we  miss  sc  much  in  Palestine.  Fiery  tints 
are  to  be  seen  both  in  the  morning  and  the  even- 
ing, and  glittering  violet  .>r  purple  colored  hues 
where  the  light  falls  next  to  the  long,  deep  shad- 
ows; but  there  is  an  absence  of  coloring,  and  of 
that  charmino-  dusky  hue  in  which,  objects  assume 
such  softly  blended  forms,  and  in  which  also  the 
transition  in  color  from  the  foreground  to  the 
furthest  distance  loses  the  hardness  of  outline  pe- 
culiar to  the  perfect  transparency  of  an  eastern  sky. 
It  is  otherwise  in  the  vale  of  Shechem,  at  least  in 
the  morning  and  the  evening.  Here  the  exhala- 
tions remain  hovering  among  the  branches  and 
leaves  of  the  olive  trees,  and  hence  that  lovely  blu- 
ish haze.  The  valley  is  far  from  broad,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  some  places  a  few  hundred  feet.  This 
you  find  generally  inclosefl  on  all  sides;  here,  like- 
wise, the  vapors  are  cordeiised.  And  so  you 
advance  under  the  shade  of  the  foliatre,  along  the 
living  waters,  and  charmed  by  the  melody  of  a  host 
of  singing  birds  —  for  they,  too,  know  where  to 
find  their  best  quarters  —  while  the  perspective 
fades  away  and  is  lost  in  the  damp,  vajjory  atmos- 
phere." Apart  entirely  from  the  historic  interest 
of  the  place,  such  are  the  natural  attractions  of  this 
favorite  resort  of  the  patriarchs  of  old,  such  the 
beauty  of  the  .scenery,  and  the  indescribable  air  of 
tranquillity  and  repose  which  hangs  over  the  scene, 
that  the  traveller,  anxious  .as  he  may  be  to  hasten 
forward  in  his  journey,  feels  that  he  would  gladly 
linger,  and  could  pass  here  days  and  weeks  without 
impatience. 

The  allusions  to  Shechem  in  the  Bible  are  nu- 
merous, and  show  how  important  the  place  was  in 
Jewish  history.  Abraham,  on  his  first  migration 
to  the  Land  of  Promise,  pitched  his  tent  and  built 
an  altar  under  the  Oak  "  (or  Terebinth)  of  Moreh 
at  Shechem.  "  The  Canaanite  was  then  ill  the 
land;  "  and  it  is  evident  that  the  region,  if  not  the 
city,  was  already  in  possession  of  the  aboriginal 
race  (see  Gen.  xii.  6).     Some  have  inferred  from 

the    expression,    "place   of    Shechem,"     (C^pQ 

Cptt""),  that  it  was  not  inhabited  as  a  city  in  the 


a  The  rendering  "plains  of  Moreh  "  in  the   Auth. 
Vers,  is  incorrect.     The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  trans- 

ibtM  rivS  in  Gen.  xxxv.  4  "  bow  "  or  "arch  ;  "  and 


on  the  basi.i  of  that  error  the  Samaritans  at  Ndbutiu 
show  a  structure  of  that  sort  under  an  acclivity  of 
Gerizim,  which  they  say  was  the  spot  where  Jacok 
buried  the  Mesoiotamian  idols. 


SHECHEM 

lime  of  Abraham.  But  we  have  the  same  expres- 
lioii  used  of  cities  or  towns  in  other  instances  ((ien. 
xviii.  '24,  xix.  12,  xxix.  22);  and  it  may  have  lieen 
interchanged  here,  without  any  difference  of  niean- 
ini>,  with  the  plirase,  "  city  of  Sliecheni,"  uhicii 
occurs  in  xxxiii.  18.  A  position  affording  sucli 
natural  advantages  would  hardly  fail  to  l>e  occupied, 
as  soon  as  any  population  existed  in  the  country. 
The  narrative  shows  incontestahly  that  at  the  time 
of  .Jacob's  arrival  here,  after  his  sojourn  in  Meso- 
potamia (tien.  xxxiii.  18,  xxxiv. ),  Sheehem  was  a 
Hivite  city,  of  which  Hamor,  the  father  of  Sheehem, 
was  the  head-man.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the 
patriarch  purchased  from  that  chieftain  "  the  parcel 
of  the  field,"  which  he  subsequently  bequeathed,  as 
a  special  patrimony,  to  his  son  Joseph  ((Jen.  xliii. 
22;  Josh.  xxiv.  32;  John  iv.  5).  'Ihe  field  lay  un- 
doubtedly on  the  rich  plain  of  the  Mukiina,  and 
its  value  was  the  oreater  on  account  of  the  well 
which  Jacol)  had  dug  there,  so  as  not  to  be  depend- 
ent on  hi-s  neighbors  for  a  supply  of  water.  The 
defilement  of  liinah,  .lacoli's  daughter,  and  the 
capture  of  Sheehem  and  massacre  of  all  the  male 
inhabitants  by  Simeon  and  Levi,  are  events  that 
belong  to  this  period  (Gen.  xxxiv.  1.  f.).  As  this 
bloody  act,  which  Jacob  so  entirely  condenmed 
(Gen.  xxxiv.  30)  and  reprobated  with  his  dying 
breath  (Gen.  xlix.  5-7),  is  ascribed  to  two  persons, 
some  uri;e  that  as  evidence  of  the  very  insignificant 
character  of  the  town  at  the  time  of  that  transac- 
tion. But  the  argument  is  liy  no  means  decisive. 
Those  sons  of  Jacol)  were  already  at  the  head  of 
households  of  their  own,  and  may  have  had  the 
support,  in  that  achievement,  of  their  numerous 
slaves  and  retainers.  We  speak,  in  like  manner, 
of  a  commander  as  taking  this  or  that  city,  when 
we  mean  that  it  was  done  under  liis  leadership. 
The  oak  under  which  Aliraham  had  worshipped, 
survived  to  Jacob's  time;  and  the  latter,  as  he  was 
about  to  remove  to  Beth-el,  collected  the  imaces  and 
anuilets  which  some  of  his  family  had  lirought  with 
them  from  I'adan-aram,  and  buried  them  "  under 
the  oak  which  was  by  Sheehem  "  (Gen.  xxxv.  1-4). 
The  "  oak  of  the    monument "  (if  we  adopt  that 

rendering  of  ^"^^^  P ''^  i"  Judg.  ix.  G),  where 
the  Shecheniites  made  Abinielech  king,  marked, 
perhaps,  the  veneration  with  which  the  Hel)rews 
looked  back  to  these  earliest  footsteps  (the  incunnb- 
uln  (jentis)  of  the  patriarchs  in  the  Holy  Land." 
During  Jacob's  sojourn  at  Heliron,  his  sons,  in  the 
course  of  their  jiastoral  wanderings,  drove  their 
flocks  to  Sheehem,  and  at  Dothan,  in  that  neish- 
borhood,  Joseph,  who  had  been  sent  to  look  after 
their  welfare,  was  seized  and  sold  to  the  Ishniaelites 
(Gen.  xxxvii.  12,  28).  In  the  distribution  of  the 
land  after  its  Qonquest  by  the  Hel)revs's,  Sheehem 
fell  to  the  lot  of  Kphraim  (Josh.  xx.  7),  but  was 
assigned  to  the  Levites,  and  became  a  city  of 
refuge  (Josh.  xxi.   20,  21).     It  acquired   new  im- 


SHECHEM 


2955 


n  Here  again  the  Auth.  Vers.,  wliicti  renders  "  the 
^lain  of  the  pillar,"  is  certainly  wrong.  It  will  not 
miwer  to  insist  on  the  explanation  suj^gested  iu  the 
text  of  the  article  The  Hebrew  expression  may  re- 
•er  to  "  the  stone"  which  Jcshua  erected  at  ShecUeni 
A.S  a  witness  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  his  peo- 
ple (Josh  x.xiv.  26)  ;  or  may  mean  "  the  oak  of  the 
garrison,"  i.  e.  the  one  where  a  military  post  was  es- 
.ablished.  (See  Gesen.  Htb.  Le:c.  s.  v.)  [Pu,L.\^, 
Plain  op  the,  vol.  iii.  p.  2532  ] 

b  *  TJie  po.'sibility  of  hearing  such  responsive 
•■Dices  has ■  been  questioned;  but  travellers   have  now 


portance  as  the  scene  of  the  renewed  promulgation 
of  the  Law,  when  its  Uessings  were  heard  front 
Gerizim  and  its  curses  from  Ebal,  and  the  people 
bo<ved  their  heads  and  acknowledged  Jehovah  as 
their  king  and  ruler  (Dent,  x.xvii.  li;  and  Josh 
viii.  3o-35;.''  It  was  here  Joshua  assembled  tht 
people,  sliortly  before  his  death,  and  delivered  tc 
them  his  last  counsels  (.Tosh.  xxiv.  1,  25).  Afte. 
the  death  of  (iideon,  Abimelech,  his  bastard  sor,. 
induced  the  Shechemites  to  revolt  from  the  Hebi-ew 
commonwealth  and  elect  him  as  ki.ijj,  (Judg.  ix. ) 
It  was  to  denounce  this  act  of  usurpation  and  trea 
son  that  Jotham  delivered  his  parable  of  the  \xetH 
to  the  men  of  Sheehem  from  the  top  of  (ier)/;:'iii. 
as  recorded  at  length  in  Judg.  ix.  22  f.  The  pic- 
turesque traits  of  the  allegory,  as  Prof.  Stainev 
suggests  (S.  <;•  P.  p.  23G;  Jewhh  Clntich,  p.  348  J, 
are  strikingly  appropriate  to  the  diversified  foliage 
of  the  region. c  In  revenge  for  his  expulsion,  after 
a  re:gn  of  three  years,  Abimelech  destroyed  the  city, 
and,  as  an  emblem  of  the  fate  to  which  he  would 
consign  it,  sowed  the  ground  with  salt  (Judg.  ix. 
34-45).  It  was  soon  restored,  however,  for  we  are 
told  ill  1  K.  xii.  that  all  Israel  asseinl)led  at 
Sheehem,  and  Kehoboam,  Solomon's  successoi 
went  thither  to  lie  inaugurated  as  king.  Its  cen- 
tral position  made  it  convenient  for  such  assemblies; 
its  liistory  was  fraught  with  recollections  which 
would  give  the  sanctions  of  religion  as  well  as  of 
patriotism  to  the  voVs  of  sovereii^n  and  ])eople. 
The  new  king's  obstinacy  made  him  insensible  to 
such  iniiuences.  Here,  at  this  same  place,  the  ten 
tribes  renounced  the  house  of  David,  and  trans- 
ferred their  allegiance  to  Jeroboam  (1  K.  xii.  16), 
under  whom  Sheehem  became  for  a  time  the  capi- 
tal of  his  kingdom.  We  come  next  to  the  epoch 
of  the  exile.  The  people  of  Sheehem  doulitle.ss 
shared  the  fate  of  the  other  inhabitants,  and  were, 
most  of  them  at  least,  carried  into  captivity  (2  K. 
xvii.  5,  6,  xviii.  9  f. ).  But  Shalmaneser,  the  con- 
queror, sent  colonies  fniin  Babylonia  to  occupy  the 
place  of  the  exiles  (2  K.  xvii.  24).  It  would  seem 
that  there  was  annther  influx  of  strangers,  at  a 
later  period,  under  Lsar-haddou  (Ezr.  iv.  2).  The 
"certain  men  from  Sheehem,"  mentioned  in  Jer. 
xii.  5,  who  were  slain  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem, 
were  possibly  C'uthites,  /.  e.  Babylonian  iihmigrants 
who  had  become  proselytes  or  worshippers  of  Jeho- 
vah (see  Hitzig,  '/tr /■/■'-/;/(.  Jtr.  p.  331).  These 
Bain  Ionian  settlers  in  the  land,  intermixed  no 
doulit  to  some  extent  with  the  old  inhabitants,  were 
the  Samaritans,  who  erected  at  length  a  rival  tem- 
ple on  tierizim  (n.  c.  300),  and  between  whom  and 
the  .lews  a  iutter  hostihty  existed  for  so  many  ages 
(■lose))li.  Ant  xii.  1,  §  1,  xiii.  3,  §  4).  The  son  of 
Siraeii  (1.  26)  says,  that  "a  foolish  people,"  i.  e. 
the  Samaritans,  '•  dwell  at  Sheehem  "  (ra  SiKi^a). 
From  its  vicinity  to  their  place  of  worship,  it  be- 
came the  principal  city  of  the  Samaritans,  a  rank 
which  it  maintained  at  least  till  the  destruction  of 

frequently  made  the  experiment  and  find  tliey  can 
hear  others  with  perfect  distinctness  from  the  opposite 
heights.  See  Scpp's  Jtriis.  u.  das  heil.  Land,  ii.  29; 
and  Tiihler's  Dritte  Wan/leruns,  p.  164  f.  H. 

(•■  *  Dr.  llo.sen  points  out  a  huire  projecting  crag  of 
Gerizim  which  overlooks  Sheehem  (.nd  the  entire  val- 
ley, as  iu  all  probability  the  rock-pulpit  from  which 
Jotham  addressed  the  Shechemites  (Judg.  ix.  7  tf). 
From  that  position  as  ''  he  lifted  up  his  voice  "  he 
could  easily  be  heard  by  the  dwellers  in  the  city.  Tht 
same  thing  occurred  iu  a  recent  attempt  therf  to  ii.sti 
g;ite  a  revolt.  H. 


2956 


SUECHEM 


their  t<»^iple,  about  b.  c.  129,  a  npnoo  o?  nearly 
two  hundred  years  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  9,  §  1;  B.  J. 
i.  2,  6).  It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  sketch 
further.  From  the  time  of  the  origin  of  the  Sa- 
maritans, the  history  of  Shechem  blends  itseU' with 
tiiat  of  this  people  and  of  their  sacred  mount, 
Gerizim ;  and  the  reader  will  find  the  proper  in- 
formation on  this  part  of  the  subject  under  those 
heads  (see  Herzog,  Renl-Kvcyk.  xiii.  302).  [Sa- 
makia;  Samaritan  Pknt.] 

As  intimated  already,  Shechem  reappears  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  the  Sychar  of  John  iv.  5, 
near  which  the  Saviour  conversed  with  the  Samari- 
tan woman  at  Jacob's  Well."  Si^xaP)  ^^  ^''^  P'^''® 
is  termed  there  (S^x^P  "^  ^^'^'  ^"^^  ^^  incorrect), 
found  only  in  that  passage,  was  no  doubt  current 
among  the  Jews  in   the  age  of  Christ,  and   was 

either  a  term  of  reproach  (''p.ti?,  "a  lie,")  with 
reference  to  the  Samaritan  faith  and  worship,  or, 
possibly,  a  provincial  misproinmciation  of  that 
period  (see  LUcke's  C'oinm.  iib.  Johan.  i.  577).  The 
Saviour,  with  his  disciples,  remained  two  days  at 
Sychar  on  his  journey  from  Judoea  to  Galilee.  He 
preached  the  AV^ord  there,  and  many  of  the  people 
believed  on  Him  (John  iv.  .39,  40).  In  Acts  vii. 
16,  Stephen  reminds  his  hearers  that  certain  of 
the  patriarchs  (meaning  Joseph,  as  we  see  in 
Josh.  xxlv.  32,  and  following,  perhaps,  some  tra- 
dition as  to  Jacob's  other  Sons)  were  buried  at 
Sycheni.  Jerome,  who  lived  so  long  hardly  more 
than  a  day's  journey  from  Shechem,  says  that  the 
tombs  of  the  twelve  patriarchs  were  to  be  seen'^ 
there  in  his  day.  The  anonymous  ^  city  in  Acts 
viii.  .5,  where  I'hilip  preached  with  such  effect,  may 
have  been  Sychem,  though  many  would  refer  that 
nairative  to  Samaria,  the  capital  of  the  province. 
It  is  interesting  to  remember  that  Justin  Martyr, 
who  follows  so  soon  after  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
vfas  born  at  Shechem. 

It  only  remains  to  add  a  few  words  relating 
more  especially  to  Ndbulus,  the  heir,  under  a  dif- 
ferent name,  of  the  site  and  honors  of  the  ancient 
Shechem.  It  would  be  inexcusable  not  to  avail 
ourselves  here  of  some  recent  observations  of  Dr. 
Rosen,  in  the  Zeitschr.  der  D.  M.  Gesellschnfl, 
for  1800  (pp.  022-639).  He  has  inserted  in  tliat 
journal  a  careful  plan  of  Ndbulus  and  the  environs, 
with  various  accompanying  remarks.  The  popu- 
lation consists  of  alxjut  five  thousand,  among 
whom  are  five  hundred  Greek  Christians,  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  Samaritans,  and  a  few  Jews.  The 
enmity  between  the  Samaritans  and  Jews  is  as 
inveterate  still  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Christ. 
The  Mohammedans,  of  course,  make  up  the  bulk  of 
the  population.  The  main  street  follows  the  Une 
of  the  valley  from  east  to  west,  and  contains  a  well- 
stocked  bazaar.  IMost  of  the  other  streets  cross 
this:  here  are  the  smaller  shops  and  the  workstands 
of  the  artisans.  Most  of  the  streets  are  narr«w  and 
dark,  as  the  houses  hang  over  them  on  arches,  very 


a  *  Some  suppose  Shechem  and  Sychar  to  be  differ- 
ent places.  See  the  arguments  for  that  view  under 
Sychar.  Dr.  Robinson  reaffirms  his  belief  that  they 
are  identical  {Later  Res.  iii.  131 :  see  also  ii.  290-292). 
And  Mr.  Tristram  says :  "  Jacob's  well  is  only  half 
an  hour  from  the  modern  city  "  (Nabiclus,  Shechem), 
while  "  it  is  evident  that  the  ancient  town  lay  more 
■o  the  east,  among  the  rough  rocks  and  stone  that 
Itrew  the  uninclosed  and  scattered  olive  yards  for 
«  Diile  and  a  half"  {Land  of  Israel,  2d  ed.  p.  145). 

U. 


SHECHEM 

much  as  in  the  closest  parts  of  Cairo.  The  hoiiaet 
are  of  stone,  and  of  the  most  ordinary  style,  with 
the  exception  of  those  of  the  wealthy  sheikhs  of 
Samaria  who  live  here.  There  are  no  pulilic  build- 
ings of  any  note.  The  Keniseh  or  synagogue  of 
the  Samaritans  is  a  small  edifice,  in  the  interior  of 
which  there  is  nothing  remarkable,  unless  it  1)6  an 
alcove,  screened  by  a  curtain,  in  which  their  sacred 
writings  are  kept.  The  structure  may  be  three 
or  four  centuries  old.  A  description  and  sketch 
plan  of  it  is  given  in  Mr.  Grove's  paper  '•  On  the 
Modern  Samaritans  "  in  Vacalivn  Tourists  {or  HM. 
Ndbulus  has  five  mosques,  two  of  which,  according 
to  a  tradition  hi  which  Mohammedans,  Christians, 
and  Samaritans  agree,  were  originall}*  churches. 
One  of  them,  it  is  said,  was  dedicated  to  John  the 
Baptist;  its  eastern  portal,  still  well  preservefl, 
shows  the  European  taste  of  its  founders.  The 
domes  of  the  houses  and  the  minarets,  as  they 
show  themselves  above  the  sea  of  luxuriant  vegeta- 
tion which  surrounds  them,  present  a  striking  view 
to  the  traveller  approaching  from  the  east  or  the 
west. 

Dr.  Rosen  says  that  the  inhabitants  boast  of  the 
existence  of  not  less  than  eighty  springs  of  water 
within  and  around  the  city.  He  gives  the  names 
of  twenty-seven  of  the  principal  of  them.  One  ol 
the  most  remarkalile  among  them  is  'Ain  el-Kcrun, 
which  rises  in  the  town  under  a  vaulted  dome,  to 
which  a. long  flight  of  steps  leads  down,  from  which 
the  alnmdant  water  is  conveyed  by  canals  to  two  of 
the  mosques  and  many  of  the  private  houses,  and 
after  that  serves  to  water  the  gardens  on  the  north 
side  of  the  city.  The  various  streams  derived  from 
this  and  other  fountains,  after  being  distributed 
thus  among  the  gardens,  fall  at  length  into  a  single 
channel  and  turn  a  mill,  kept  going  summer  and 
winter.  Of  the  fountains  out  of  the  city,  three 
oidy  belong  to  the  eastern  water  shed.  One  of 
them,  'Ain  Baldtn,  close  to  the  hamlet  of  that 
name,  rises  in  a  partly  subterranean  chamber  sup- 
ported by  three  pillars,  hardly  a  stone's  throw 
from  Jacob's  Well,  and  is  so  large  that  Dr.  Rosen 
observed  small  fish  in  it.  Another,  'A in  ' Askar, 
issues  from  an  arched  passage  which  leads  into 
the  base  of  El)al,  and  flows  thence  into  a  tank 
inclosed  by  hewn  stone,  the  workmanship  of  which, 
as  well  as  the  archway,  indicates  an  ancient  origin. 
The  third,  'Ain  Defnn,  which  comes  from  the  same 
mountains,  reminds  us,  by  its  name  (Aacf)!'?}),  of 
the  time  when  Shechem  was  called  Neapolis 
Some  of  the  gardens  are  watered  from  the  fountains, 
while  others  have  a  soil  so  moist  as  not  to  need 
such  irrigation.  The  olive,  as  in  the  days  when 
Jotham  delivered  his  famous  parable,  is  still  the 
principal  tree.  Figs,  almonds,  walnuts,  mulberries, 
grapes,  oranges,  apricots,  promegranates,  are  abun- 
dant. The  valley  of  the  Nile  itself  hardly  surpasses 
Ndbulus  in  the  production  of  vegetables  of  every 
sort. 

Being,  as  it  is,  the  gateway  of  the  trade  between 

b  Probably  at  the  Rejel  el-Amttd,  a  wely  at  the  foot 
of  Gerizim,  east  of  the  city,  which  is  still  believed  to 
contain  the  remains  of  forty  eminent  Jewish  saints 
(Rosen,  as  above).  Dr.  St;i,nley  appears  to  have  been 
the  first  to  notice  tlie  possible  connection  between 
the  name  AmU/l,  "  pillar,"  attached  to  this  ively,  aa 
well  as  to  one  on  the  west  end  of  Ebal,  and  the  old 
Hebrew  locality  the  ''  oak  of  the  Pillar." 

c  The  Auth.  Vers,  inaccurately  adds  the  article.  H 
is  simply  "  a  city  of  Samarii." 


SHECHEM 

,.  2j*a  and  Bdrut  or  the  one  sid«,  and  the  trans- 
•ordaiiic  districts  on  the  other,  and  the  centre  also 
»f'  a  [irovince  so  rich  in  wool,  grain,  and  oil,  Ndb- 
idus  berciiies,  necessarily,  the  seat  of  an  active 
commerce,  and  of  a  comparative  luxury  to  be  found 
in  very  few  cf  the  inland  oriental  cities.  It  pro- 
duces, in  its  own  manufactories,  many  of  the 
coarser  woolen  fabrics,  delicate  silk  goods,  cloth  of 
camel's  hair,  and  especially  soap,  of  which  last  com- 
modity large  quantities,  after  supplying  the  iamie- 
diate  country,  are  sent  to  Egypt  and  other  parts 
of  the  East.  The  ashes  and  other  sediments 
thrown  out  of  the  city,  as  the  result  of  the  soap 
manufacture,  have  grown  to  the  size  of  hills,  and 
give  to  the  environs  of  the  town  a  peculiar  aspect. 
[Ashes,  Amer.  ed.] 

Dr.  llosen,  during  his  stay  at  Ndbulus,  examined 
anew  the  Samaritan  inscriptions  found  there,  sup- 
posed to  be  among  the  oldest  written  monuments 
in  I'alestine.  He  has  furnished,  as  I'rotessor  iuidi- 
ger  admits,  the  best  copy  of  them  that  has  been 
taken  (see  a  fac-siniile  in  Zeilsc/iriJ't,  as  above,  p. 
621).  I'he  inscriptions  on  stone- tablets,  distin- 
guished in  his  account  as  No.  1  and  No.  2,  belonged 
siriginally  to  a  Samaritan  synagogue  which  stood 
just  out  of  the  city,  near  the  Samaritan  quarter, 
of  which  synagogue  a  few  remains  oidy  are  now 
left,  i'hey  are  thought  to  be  as  old  at  least  as 
the  age  of  Justinian,  who  (A.  d.  521))  destroyed 
so  many  of  the  Samaritan  places  of  worship.  Some, 
with  less  reason,  think  they  may  have  been  saved 
from  the  temple  on  Gerizim,  having  been  transferred 
afterwards  to  a  later  syfiagogue.  One  of  the  tab- 
lets is  now  inserted  in  the  wall  of  a  minaret ; "  the 
other  was  discovered  not  long  ago  in  a  heap  of 
rubbish  not  far  from  it.  The  inscriptions  consist 
of  brief  extracts  from  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
probably  valuable  as  palaeographic  documents. 

Similar  slabs  are  to  be  found  budt  into  the  walls 
of  several  of  the  sanctuaries  izi  tlie  neighborhood 
of  Ndbiihta;  as  at  the  tombs  of  Eleazar,  Phinehas, 
and  Ithamar  at  AictrUili.  H.  Ji.  li. 

To  the  ureceding  account  some  notice  should  be 
appended  of  the  two  spots  in  the  neigliborhood  of 
Nwjidus  which  bear  the  names  of  the  Well  of  Jacob 
and  the  Tomb  of  Joseph.  Of  these  the  former  is 
the  more  remarkable.  It  lies  about  a  mile  and  a 
half  east  of  the  city,  close  to  the  lower  road,  and 
just  beyond  the  wretched  hamlet  of  Baldtn. 
Among  the  Mahommedans  and  Samaritans  it  is 
known  as  Bir  el-  I'ukub,  or  'Aiti  i'ukub  ;  the  Chris- 
tians sometimes  call  it  Bir  es-JSdiiuiriyeh  —  "  the 
well  of  the  Samaritan  woman."  "  A  low  spur  pro- 
jects from  the  base  of  Gerizim  in  a  northeastern 
direction,  between  the  plain  and  the  openmg  of  the 


SHECHEM  29o'5 

valley.  On  the  point  of  this  spur  is  a  little  mound 
of  sliapeless  ruins,  with  several  fragments  of  granite 
olumns.  13eside  these  is  the  well.  Formerly  tliere 
was  a  square  hole,  opening  into  a  carefully-built 
aulted  chamber,  about  10  feet  square,  in  tlie  flooi 
of  which  was  the  true  mouth  of  the  well.  Now  a 
portion  of  the  vault  has  fallen  in  and  completely 
covered  up  the  mouth,  so  that  nothing  can  Ije  seen 
above  but  a  shallow  pit  half  filled  with  stones  and 
rubbish.  The  well  is  deep  —  75  feef)  when  last 
measured  —  and  there  was  probably  a  considerable 
accumulation  of  rubbish  at  the  bottom.  Sometimes 
it  contains  a  few  feet  of  water,  but  at  others  it  is 
quite  dry.  It  is  entirely  excavated  in  the  solid 
rock,  perfectly  round,  U  feet  in  diameter,  with  the 
sides  hewn  smooth  and  regular  "  (Porter,  lluiidtji<ok\ 
p.  34:0).  "  It  has  every  claim  to  be  considered  the 
original  well,  sunk  deep  into  the  rocky  ground  by 
'our  fiither  Jacob.'  "  This  at  least  was  the  tradi- 
tion of  tlie  place  in  the  last  days  of  the  Je\\ish  peo- 
ple (.)ohn  iv.  6,  12).  And  its  position  adds  proba- 
liility  to  the  conclusion,  indicating,  as  has  been  well 
observeil,  that  it  was  there  dug  by  one  who  could 
not  trust  to  the  springs  so  near  in  the  adjacent 
vale  —  the  springs  of  Win  B<data  and  '-•!/«  JJi^f- 
utli  —  which  still  belonged  to  the  Canaanites.  Of 
all  the  special  localities  of  our  Lord's  life,  this  is 
almost  the  only  one  ab.solutely  undisputed.  "  The 
tradition,  in  which  by  a  singular  coincidence  Jews 
and  Samaritans,  Christians  and  Mohammedans,  all 
agree,  goes  back,"  says  Dr.  Robinson  {Bibl.  livs.  ii. 
28-t),  '-at  least  to  the  time  of  Eusebius,  in  the 
early  part  of  tlw  4th  century.  That  writer  indeed 
speaks  only  of  the  sepulchre;  but  the  Bordeaux 
Pilgrim  in  A.  D.  33.3,  mentions  also  the  well;  and 
neither  of  these  writers  has  any  allusion  to  a  church, 
liut  Jerome  in  J'Jjdtaphiuia  Paulie,  which  is  re- 
ferred to  A.  D.  404,  makes  her  visit  the  church 
erected  at  the  side  of  Jlount  Gerizim  around  the 
well  of  Jacob,  where  our  Lord  met  the  Samaritan 
woman.  The  church  would  seem  therefore  to  have 
been  built  during  the  4th  century;  though  not  liy 
Helena,  as  is  reported  in  modern  times.  It  was 
visited  and  is  mentioned,  as  around  the  well,  liv 
Antoninus  Martyr  near  the  close  of  the  Gth  cen- 
tury ;  by  Arculfus  a  century  later,  who  describes  it 
as  built  in  the  form  of  a  cross ;  and  again  by  St. 
Wilhbalil  in  the  8th  century.  Yet  Sa^wulf  about 
A.  D.  1103,  and  Phocas  in  1185,  who  speak  of  the 
well,  make  no  mention  of  the  church;  whence  we 
may  conclude  that  the  latter  had  been  destroyed 
liefore  the  period  of  the  crusades.  Brocardus  speaks 
of  ruins  around  the  well,  blocks  of  marble  and  col- 
umns, which  he  held  to  be  the  ruins  of  a  town, 
the  ancient  Thebez;  they  were  probably  those  of 


o  *  A  more  perfect  copy  of  this  tablet  "immured 
(upside  down)  in  the  southern  wall  of  tlie  luiuaret " 
has  been  lately  takeu  (1866)  by  the  explorers  of  the 
Palestiue  E.'cploratiou  Fund.  Dr  lloseu's  copy  left 
three  of  its  teu  hues  incomplete,  with  some  of  the  char- 
acters in  other  parts  very  indistinct.  Mr.  Deutsch  of 
the  British  Museum,  to  whom  the  photograph  was  sub- 
mitted, has  favored  us  with  a  report  of  the  contents  of 
the  stone.  These  are,  first,  au  abbreviated  form  of 
the  Ten  Commaudmeuts  as  found  in  the  Samaritan 
Hecension  (8  lines) ;  secondly,  a  sentence  t;ikeu  from 
.he  interpolated  passage  following  these  commaud- 
UJents  in  the  Samaritan  Godex  (line  9) ;  and  finally 
,Une  10),  the  formula,  "Arise,  0  Loidl  Return,  0  Lord  I "' 
which  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  S:imaritaii  worship. 
It  is  probably  the  oldest  Samaritan  epigraph  in  exist- 
(wr*.     ^Seo  Atlienaiiin,  June  30,  1866.  j  U. 


b  The  well  is  fast  filling  up  with  the  stones  thrown 
iu  by  travellers  and  others.  At  Maundrell's  visit 
(1697)  it  was  105  feet  deep,  and  the  same  measure- 
ment is  given  by  Dr.  llobinson  as  having  been  taken 
in  May,  1838.  Hut,  five  years  later,  when  Dr.  Wilson 
recovered  Mr.  A.  Bouar's  Bible  from  it,  the  depth 
had  decreased  to  "  exactly  75 ''  (Wilson's  LaniJs,  ii.  57). 
Mauudrell  (March  24)  fouod  15  feet  of  water  standing 
in  the  well.  It  appears  now  to  bo  always  dr.v.  [TUt 
water  varies  from  time  to  time,  b«t  appi'ars  to  b* 
rarely  if  ever  entirely  gone.  Near  the  end  of  De- 
cember, says  Mr.  Tristram,  "  there  was  no  water 
but  broken  stones  and  some  wet  mud,  showing  that  1 
had  i"ecoiitly  contained  water,  which  indeed  was  fouua 
there  afterwards  in  the  month  of  March"'  {I, ami  m 
Istui'/,  2d  ed.,  p.  H7).  -  H,] 


2P58 


SHECHEM 


the  clinrdi,  to  wliich  be  makes  no  allusion.  Other 
travellers,  both  of  that  age  and  later,  speak  of  the 
church  only  as  destroyed,  and  the  well  as  already 
desei'ted.  Before  the  days;  of  Eusebius,  there  seems 
to  be  no  historical  testimony  to  show  the  identity 
of  this  well  with  that  which  our  Saviour  visited; 
and  the  proof  must  therefore  rest,  so  far  as  it  can 
be  made  out  at  all,  on  circumstantial  evidence.  I 
am  not  aware  of  anything,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  goes  to  contradict  the  common  tradition; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  see  much  in  the  circum- 
stances, tending  to  confirm  the  supposition  that 
this  is  actually  the  spot  where  our  l.ord  held  i 
his  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman. 
Jesus  was  journeying  from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee, 
and  rested  at  the  well,  while  '  his  disciples  were 
gone  away  into  the  city  to  buy  meat.'  The  well 
therefore  la3-  a])parently  before  the  city,  and  at 
some  distance  from  it.  In  passing  along  the  east- 
ern plain,  Jesus  bad  h.alted  at  the  well,  and  sent  his 
disciples  to  the  city  situated  in  the  narrow  valley, 
intending  on  their  return  to  proceed  along  the 
plain  on  his  way  to  Galilee,  without  himself  visit- 
ing the  city.  All  this  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
present  character  of  the  ground.  The  well  too 
was  Jacol/s  well,  of  high  antiquity,  a  known  and 
vfenerated  spot ;  which,  after  having  already  lived 
for  so  many  ages  in  tradition,  would  not  be 
likely  to  be  forgotten  in  the  two  and  a  half  cen- 
turies intervening  between  St.  John  and  Euse- 
bius."" 

It  is  understood  that  the  well,  and  the  site  around 
it,  have  been  lately  purchased  by  the  Russian 
C  hurcb,  not,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  with  the  intention 
of  erecting  a  church  over  it,  and  thus  foreier 
destroying  the  reality  and  the  sentiment  of  the 
place.* 

The  second  of  the  spots  alluded  to  is  the  Tomb 
of  Joseph.  It  lies  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  north 
of  the  well,  exactly  in  the  centre  of  the  opening  of 
the  valley  between  Gerizim  and  Ebal.  It  is  a  small 
square  inclosure  of  high  whitewashed  walls,  sur- 
rounding a  tomb  of  the  ordinary  kind,  but  with 
the  peculiarity  that  it  is  placed  diagonally  to  the 
walls,  in.stead  of  parallel,  as  usual.  A  rough  pillar 
used  as  an  altar,  and  black  with  the  traces  of  fire, 
is  at  the  he.ad,  and  another  at  the  foot  of  the  tomb. 
In  the  left-hand  corner  as  you  enter  is  a  \ine. 
who.se  branches  "  run  over  the  wall,"  recalling 
exactly  the  metaphor  of  Jacol/s  blessing  ((Jen.  xlix. 
2:2).  In  the  walls  are  two  slalis  with  Hebrew  in- 
scriptions,'^ and  the  interior  is  almost  covered  with 
the  names  of  Pilgrims  in  Hebrew,  Arabic,  and  Sa- 
maritan. ■  Beyond  this  there  is  nothing  to  remark 
in  the  structure  itself.  It  purports  to  cover  the 
tomb  of   Joseph,  buried   there  in  the  "parcel  of 

"  *  Among  the  proofs  of  this  identity  one  should  not 
overlook  the  striking  incidental  eonuectiou  between 
John's  narrative  and  the  locality  (iv.  20).  Gerizim 
is  not  named  by  the  Evangelist ;  but  as  we  read  the 
words  "  our  fathers  worshipped  in  this  mountain,'' 
how  readily  do  we  think  of  the  woman's  glance  of  the 
jye  or  outstretched  liand  In  that  direction,  whioii 
made  the  expression  definite  on  the  spot  though  in- 
lefinlte  to  us.  Gerizim  stood  at  that  moment  within 
full  sight  only  a  short  distance  from  the  scene  of  the 
lonversation.  H. 

6  *  No  church  or  chapel  has  yet  been  erected  there 
'1870),  as  was  feared  might  be  done  at  the  time  of 
«rriting  the  above  article.  H. 

<•  One  of  ttiese  is  given  by  Dr.  Wilson  {Lnnds,  etc 
li.  til). 


SHECHEM 

giound  "  which  his  father  bequeatned  especially  If 
him  his  favorite  son,  and  in  which  his  bones  were 
deposited  after  the  conquest  of  the  country  waj 
completed  (Josh.  xxiv.  32,. 

The  local  tradition  of  the  Tomb,  like  that  of  tht 
well,  is  as  old  as  the  beginning  of  the  4tb  century. 
Both  Eusebius  ( Onoiiutst.  '2,vx(/J-)  and  the  Bor 
deaux  Pili,'rim  mention  its  existence.  So  do  Ben 
jamiu  of  Tudela  (1100-79),  and  Maundeville  (13-22), 
and  so  —  to  pass  over  intermediate  travellers  — 
does  Maundrell  (1G97).  All  that  is  wanting  in 
these  accounts  is  to  fix  the  tomb  which  they  meu- 
tion'to  the  present  spot.  But  this  is  difficult  — 
JMaundrell  describes  it  as  on  his  right  hand,  in 
leaving  Nilblus  for  Jerusalem;  "just  without  the 
city  "  —  a  small  mosque,  '•  built  over  the  sepulchre 
of  Joseph  "  (Jlarch  25).  Some  time  after  passing 
it  he  arrives  at  the  well.  This  description  is  quite 
inapplicable  to  the  tomb  just  described,  but  perfectly 
suits  the  Wely  at  the  northeast  foot  of  Gerizim, 
which  also  bears  (among  the  Moslems)  tLe  name 
of  Joseph.  And  when  the  expressions  of  the  two 
oldest  authorities  f'  cited  above  are  examined,  it  will 
be  seen  that  they  are  quite  as  suitable,  if  not  more 
so,  to  this  latter  spot  as  to  the  tomb  on  the  open 
plain.  On  the  other  band,  the  Jewish  travellers.'' 
from  hap-l'archi  (cir.  1320)  downwards,  specify  the 
tomb  as  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  vil 
lage  d-Daldtn.f 

In  this -conflict  of  testimony,  and  in  the  absence 
of  any  information  on  the  date  and  nature  of  tb* 
Moslem?  tonili,  it  is  imposyble  to  come  to  a  dei 
inite  conclusion.  There  is  some  force,  and  that  in 
fa\or  of  the  received  site,  in  the  remarks  of  a  learned 
and  intelligent  Jewish  traveller  (Loewe,  in  All;/. 
Ziiluiuj  des  Jiidcnlkuins,  Leipzig,  1839,  No.  50) 
on  the  peculiar  form  and  nature  of  the  ground  sur- 
rounding the  tomb  near  the  well:  the  more  so  be- 
cause they  are  suggested  by  the  natural  features 
of  the  spot,  as  reflected  in  the  curiously  minute, 
the  almost  technical  language,  of  the  ancient  rec- 
ord, and  not  based  on  any  mere  traditional  or  arti- 
ficial considerations.  "  The  thought,"  says  he, 
'•  forced  itself  upon  me,  how  impossible  it  is  to  un- 
derstand the  details  of  the  Bible  without  examining 
them  on  the  spot.  This  place  is  called  in  the 
Scripture,  neither  emeh  ('valley')  nor  glie/'tla 
(' plain '),  but  by  the  individual  name  of  Chelkai 
lias-Hade  ;  and  in  the  whole  of  Pdestine  there  is 
not  such  another  plot  to  be  found,  —  a  dead  level, 
without  the  least  hollow  or  swelling  in  a  circuit  of 
two  hours.  In  addition  to  this  it  is  the  loveliest 
and  most  fertile  spot  I  have  ever  seen." 

SHE'CHEM.     The  names  of  three  persons  ia 
the  annals  of  Israel. 

1.  (Dp^''  [shoulder,  riclge\:  %vx^ii'i  [in  Josh  , 


d  Eusebius  :  iv  Trpooo-reiotsNcas  TroXfcos,  iv6a  koX  o 
Ta<^o?  &ei.KvvTai  tov  'luicrij4>' 

Bordeaux  Pilgrim  :  "  Ad  pcdem  mentis  locus  est  cai 
nomen  est  Sechim  :  ibi  positum  est  monumeatum  ubi 
positus  est  Joseph.  Inde  passus  mille  ....  ubi  pu- 
teum,"  etc. 

e  Benjamin  of  Tudela  (cir.  1165)  says,  "  The  Sa- 
maritans are  in  possession  of  the  tomb  of  Joseph  the 
righteous  ;  "  but  does  not  define  its  position. 

/  See  the  Itineraries  entitled  Jichiis  hal-lsadikim 
(a.  d.  1561),  and  Jichus  lia-Aboth.  (1537),  in  Carmoly'a 
Itincraires  dt  la  Terre  Salnte. 

II  It  api^ears  from  a  note  in  Prof.  Stanley's  Sincn 
Sj-  Fal.  p  241,  that  a  later  Joseph  ig  also  commemorat** 
iu  thii  sanctuary. 


SHECHEMITES,  THE 

SiKi/uo,  pi:]  Sic/iem.)  The  son  of  Hamor  the 
chieftain  of  the  Hivite  settlement  of  Shechem  at 
the  time  of  Jacob's  arrival  (Gen.  xxxiii.  I'J,  xxxiv. 
2-26;  Josh.  xxiv.  32;  Judg.  ix.  28). 

2.  (Sux^V*  'S«c/(e'B.)  A  man  of  Jlanasseh,  of 
the  clan  of  Gilead,  and  head  of  tlie  family  of  the 
Shechemites  (Num.  xxvi.  31).  His  family  are 
again  mentioned  as  the  Bene-Sliecheni  [sons  of  S.] 
(Josh.  xvii.  2). 

3.  (Sux^A'*  ^^^hem.)  In  the  lists  of  1  Chr. 
another  Shechem  is  named  amongst  the  Gileadites 
as  a  son  of  Shemida,  the  younger  brother  of  the 
foregoing  (vii.  I'J).  It  must  have  lieen  the  recol- 
lection of  one  of  these  two  Gileadites  which  led 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  into  his  strange  fancy  (quoted 
by  Reland,  Pal.  p.  1007,  from  his  Comm.  on  Hosea) 
of  placing  the  city  of  Shechem  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  Jordan.  G. 

SHE'CHEMITES,  THE  {''t^'^^r}  [patr., 

§ee  above]:  o  2uxf/^''  [y^^-  ^^-  "M^'-  '-"^-  "Mf"'] 
tSec/iemifw).  The  family  of  Sechem,  son  of  Gilead  : 
one  of  the  minor  clans  of  the  Eastern  Manasseh 
(Num.  xxvi.  31;  comp.  Josh.  xvii.  2;. 

SHECHFNAH  (in  Chaldee  and  neo-Hebrew, 
n3"'Dt?',  majestas  Dti,  pnesea/ia  Dei,  Sjjiriius 
Sanctus,  Buxtorf,  from  )'DW  and  ^3^7,  "to  rest," 

"settle,"  "dwell,"  whence  ]3pp  "a  tent,"  the 
Tabernacle  ;  comp.  ffKrjvri)-  This  term  is  not 
found  in  the  Bible.  It  was  used  by  the  later  Jews, 
and  borrowed  by  Christians  from  them,  to  express 
the  visible  majesty  of  the  Divine  Presence,  espe- 
cially when  resting,  or  dwelling,  lietween  the  cher- 
ubim on  the  mercy-seat  in  the  Tabernacle,  and  in 
the  Tetnple  of  Solomon ;  but  not  in  Zerubbabel's 
teni[)le,  for  it  was  one  of  the  five  particulars  which 
the  Jews  reckon  to  have  been  wanting  in  the  sec- 
ond temple  «  (Castell,  Lcxic.  s.  v. ;  Prideaux,  6'ore- 
nect.  i.  138).  The  use  of  the  term  is  first  found 
in  the  Targums,  where  'it  forms  a  frequent  peri- 
phrasis for  God,  considered  as  dwelUmj  amongst 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  is  thus  used,  especially 
by  Oiikelos,  to  avoid  ascribing  corporeity  *>  to  God 
himself,  as  Castell  tells  us,  and  may  be  compared 
to  the  analogous  periphrasis  so  frequent  in  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan,  "  the  Word  of  the  Lord." 
Many  Christian  writers  have  thought  that  this 
threefold  expression  for  the  Deity  — •  the  Lord,  the 
vord  of  the  Lord,  and  the  Shechinah  —  indicates 
the  knowledge  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons  in  the  (iod 
head,  and  accordingly,  following  some  Kal)liinical 
writers,  identify  the  Shechinah  with  the  Huly 
Spirit.  Others,  however,  deny  this  (Calmet's  Did. 
of  the  Bib.;  Job.  Sauliert,  On  (he  Loc/os,  §  xix.  in 
Critic.  Sacr.;  Glass.  PhiloUxj.  Sncr.  lib.  v.  1,  vii. 
etc.). 

Without  stopping  to  discuss  this  question,  it 
will  most  conduce  to  give  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  use  if  the  term  Shechinah  by  the  Jews 
themselves,  if  we  produce  a  few  of  the  most  strik 
ing  passages  in  the  Targums  where  it  occurs.  In 
Ex.  XXV.  8,  where  the  Hebrew  has  "  Let  them  make 

me  a  sanctuary  that  I  may  dicell  ('^FlSStl.''))  among 

«  Dr.  Bernard,  iu  his  notes  on  Josephus,  tries  to 
orove  tliat  these  five  things  were  all  in  the  second 
emple,  because  Josephus  says  the  Uriui  and  Thum 
sim  were.     See  Wotton's  Traditions,  etc.,  p.  xl. 

b  S»M.  e.  g.  Ps.  Ixix.  17,  and  Kulisch  on  Ex.  xxiv. 
W. 


SHECHINAH 


2959 


them,"  Onkelos  has,  "  I  will  make  my  Shechinah 
to  dwell  among  them."  In  xxix.  -15,  tfJ,  tor  tht 
Hebrew  "I  will  dwell  among  the  children  of  Is- 
rael," Onkelos  has,  "  I  will  make  my  Shechinah  to 
dwell,"  etc.  In  Ps.  Ixxiv.  2,  for  "  this  !Mount 
Zion  wherein  thou  hast  dwelt,"  the  Targum  has 
wherein  thy  Shechinah  hath  dwelt."  In  the  de- 
scription of  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple 
(1  K.  viii.  12,  13),  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  runs 
thus:  "'The  Lord  is  pleased  to  make  his  Shechinah 
dwell  in  Jerusalem.  I  have  built  the  house  of  the 
sanctuary  for  the  house  of  thy  Shechinah  for  ever," 
where  it  should  be  noticed  that  in  ver.  13  tiie  He- 

l)rew  ^ptf  is  not  used,  but  /3?,  and  2W.'"' 
And  in  1  K.  ^•i.  13,  for  the  Heb.  "  I  will  dwell 
among  the  children  of  Israel,"  .lonathan  has  "  I 
will  make  my  Shechiuah  dwell,"  etc.  In  Is.  vi. 
5  he  has  the  combination,''  "  the  glory  of  the  .She- 
chinah of  the  King  of  ages,  the  Lord  of  Hosts:  '' 
and  in  tlie  next  verse  he  paraphrases  "  from  off  the 
altar,"  by  "from  liefore  his  Sheciiinah  on  the 
throne  of  iiiory  in  the  lofty  heavens  that  are  above 
the  altar."  Compare  also  Num.  v.  3,  xxxv.  34; 
Ps.  Ixviii.  17,  18,  cxxxv.  21;  Is.  xxxiii.  5,  Ivii.  1-5; 
Joel  iii.  17,  21,  and  numerous  other  passages.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  Tar- 
gums never  render  "the  cloud"  or  "the  glory" 

by  Shechinah,  but  by  S33^  and  nin"*,  and  that 
•'  '  ■'       ttt:  _      T  t:' 

even  in  such  passages  as  Ex.  xxiv.  16,  17:  Num. 
ix.  17,  18,  22,  X.  12,  neither  the  mention  of  the 

cloud,  nor  the  constant  use  of  the  verb  I'^V     in 

'  '   -     T 

the  Heljrew  provoke  any  refei-ence  to  the  Shechi- 
nah. Hence,  as  regards  tlie  use  of  the  word  She- 
chinah in  the  'Targums,  it  may  be  defined  as  a 
periphrasis  for  God  whenever  He  is  said  to  dwell 
on  Zion,  amongst  Israel,  or  between  the  cheru- 
bim, and  so  on,  in  order,  as  before  said,  to  avoid 
the  slightest  approach  to  materialism.  Far  most 
frequently  this  term  is  introduced  when  the  verb 

"jSK'  occurs  in  the  Heb.  text;  but  occasionally,  as 
in  some  of  the  above-cited  instances,  where  it  does 
not,  but  where  the  Paraphrast  wished  to  interpose 
ail  abstraction,  coiresponding  to  Presence,  to  break 
the  bolder  anthrojiopathy  of  the  Hebrew  writer. 

Our  view  of  the  Targumistic  notion  of  the  She- 
chinah would  not  be  complete  if  we  did  not  add, 
that  though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Jews  reckoned 
the  Shechinah  among  the  marks  of  the  Divine  fa- 
vor which  were  wanting  to  the  second  temple,  tliey 
manifestly  expected  the  return  of  the  .Shechinah  in 
the  days  of  tlie  ilessiah.  'Thus  Hag.  i.  8,  "  Build 
the  house,  and  I  will  take  jileasure  in  it,  and  I  will 
be  glorified,  saith  the  Lord,"  is  paraphrased  by 
Jonathan,  "  I  will  cause  my  Shechinah  to  dwell  in 
it  in  glory."  Zech.  ii.  10,  "  Lo  I  come,  and  I  will 
dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee,  saith  the  Lord,"  is  para- 
phrased "  I  will  be  revealed,  and  will  cause  my 
Shechinah  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee;  "  and  viii. 
3,  "  I  am  returned  unto  Zion,  and  "ill  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  Jerusalem,"  is  paraphrased  "  I  will  make 
my  Shechinah  dwell  in  the  midst  of  Jeru.salem;  " 
and  lastly,  in  Ez.  xliii.  7,  9,  in  the  vision  of  the  re- 
turn of  the  Glory  of  God  to  the  'Temple,  Jonathan 

c  In  Ps  Ixviii.  17  (16,  A.  V.),  the  Targum  has  "  th« 
Word  of  tlie  Lord  has  desired  to  place  his  Shechinah 
upou  Ziou.'" 

't  Always  (as  far  as  I   have  observed)  ifTidered  bj 

the  Chaldee   mtt'- 


2960 


SHECHINAH 


paraphrases  thus,  "  Son  of  man,  this  is  the  place 
of  the  house  of  the  throne  of  iiiy  glory,  and  this  is 
the  place  of  the  house  of  the  dwelling  of  nij 
Shechinah,  where  I  will  make  my  Shechinah  dwell 
in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel  for  ever.  .  .  . 
Now  let  them  cast  away  their  idols  .  .  .  and  I 
will  make  my  Shechinah  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them 
for  e\er."  Compare  Is.  iv.  5,  where  the  return  of 
the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  fire  by  nisht  is 
foretold  as  to  take  place  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 
As  regards  the  visible  manifestation  of  the  Di- 
vine Presence  dwelling  amongst  the  Israelites,  to 
which  the  term  Shechinah  has  attached  itself,  the 
idea  which  the  different  accounts  in  Scripture  con- 
vey is  that  of  a  most  brilliant  and  glorious  light," 
enveloped  in  a  cloud,  and  usually  concealed  by  the 
cloud,  so  that  the  cloud  itself  was  for  the  most  part 
alone  visible  ;  but  on  particular  occasions  the  glory  * 
appeared.  Thus  at  the  Exodus,  "  the  Lord  went 
before  "  the  Israelites  "  by  day  in  a  jiillar  of  cloud 
....  and  by  night  in  a  piUar  of  fire  to  give 
them  light."  And  again  we  read,  that  this  pillar 
"  was  a  cloud  and  darkness "  to  the  Egyptians, 
''  but  it  gave  light  by  night  "  to  the  Israelites. 
But  in  the  morning  watch  "  the  Lord  looked  unto 
the  host  of  the  Egyptians  through  the  pillar  of  fire 
and  of  the  cloud,  and  troubled  the  host  of  the 
Egyptians:  "  L  e.  as  I'hilo  (quoted  liy  Patrick)  ex- 
plains it,  '■  the  fiery  appearance  of  the  Deity  shone 
forth  from  the  cloud,"  and  liy  its  amazing  bright- 
ness confounded  them.  So  too  in  the  Pirke  Eliezer 
it  is  said.  "  The  Blessed  God  aiijjeared  in  his 
glory  upon  the  sea,  and  it  fled  back:  "'  with  which 
Patrick  compares  Ps  Ixxvii.  16,  "The  waters  saw 
thee,  0  Uod,  the  waters  saw  thee;  they  were 
afraid :  "  where  the  Targuui  has,  "  They  saw  thy 
Shechinah  in  the  midst  of  the  waters."  In  Ex. 
six.*  9,  "  the  Lord  said  to  Moses,  Lo,  I  come  unto 
thee  in  a  thick  cloud,"  and  accordingly  in  ver.  Ifj 
we  read  that  •'  a  tiiick  cloud  "  rested  "  upon  the 
mount,"  and  in  ver.  18,  that  "  Jlount  Sinai  was 
altogether  on  a  smoke,  because  the  Lord  descended 
upon  it  in  fire."  And  this  is  further  explained, 
Ex.  xxiv.  Ifi,  where  we  read  that  "  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  abode  upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  the  cloud  cov- 
ered it  (/.  e.  as  Aben  Ezra  explains  it,  the  glory) 
six  days."  But  upon  the  seventh  day,  when  the 
Lord  calle<l  •'  unto  Moses  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
cloud,"  there  was  a  breaking  forth  of  the  glory 
throuiih  the  cloud,  for  "the  sight  of  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  was  like  devouring  fire  on  the  top  of  the 
mount  in  the  eyes  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  ver. 
17.  So  again  when  God  as  it  were  took  possession 
of  the  Tabernacle  at  its  first  completion  (Ex.  xl.  34, 
35),  "the  cloud  covered  the  tent  of  the  congrega- 
tion (externallyj,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled 
the  Tabernacle  (within),  and  Moses  was  not  able  to 
enter  into  the  tent  of  the  congregation  "  (rather, 
of  7iHeting)\  just  as  at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's 
Temple  (1  Iv.  viii.  10,  11),  "the  cloud  filled  the 
bouse  of  the  Lord,  so  that  the  priests  could  not 
stand  to  minister  because  of  the  cloud,  for  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  had  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord."  In 
the  Tabernacle,  however,  as  in  the  Temple,  this  was 
only  a  temporary  state  of  things;  for  throughout 
the  books  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers  we  find  Moses 
■»nstantly  entering  into  the  Tabernacle.  And  when 
M  did  so,  the  cloud  which  rested  over  it  externally, 
rlark  by  day,  and  luminous  at  night  (Num.  ix.  15, 


o  The    Arabic    expression,    corre.'ponding   to    tlie 
tifcAmah  of  th"  Targums,  is  a  word  sijiiiif .  iug  light 


SHECHINAH 

16),  came  down  and  stood  at  the  door  of  the  laber 
nacle,  and  the  Lord  talked  with  Moses  inside,  "  face 
to  face,  as  a  man  talketh  with  his  friend  "  (Ex. 
xxxiii  7-11).  It  was  on  such  occasions  that  Moses 
"  heard  the  voice  of  one  speaking  unto  him  from 
oft'  the  mercy-seat  that  was  upon  the  ark  of  testi- 
mony, from  between  the  two  cherubims  "  (Num. 
vii.  8U),  in  accordance  with  Ex.  xxv.  22;  Lev.  xvi 
2.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  glory  was  habi^ 
ually  seen  either  by  Moses  or  the  people.  Occasion- 
ally, however,  it  flashed  forth  from  the  cloud  which 
concealed  it;  as  Ex.  xvi.  7, 10;  Lev.  ix.  6,  23,  when 
"  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared  luito  all  the  peo- 
ple," according  to  a  previous  promise;  or  as  Num. 
xiv.  10,  xvi.  19,  42,  xx.  6,  suddenly,  to  strike  terror 
in  the  people  in  their  rebellion.  The  last  occasion 
on  which  the  trlory  of  the  Lord  appeared  was  that 
mentioned  in  Num.  xx.  6,  when  they  were  in  Iva- 
desh  in  the  40th  year  of  the  Exodus,  and  nnirmured 
for  want  of  water:  and  the  last  express  mention  of 
the  cloud  as  visibly  present  over  the  Tabernacle  is 
in  Deut.  xxxi.  15,  just  before  the  death  of  Moses. 
The  cloud  had  not  been  mentioned  before  since  the 
second  year  of  the  Exodus  (Num.  x.  11,  34,  xii.  5, 
10);  but  as  the  description  in  Num.  ix.  15-23;  Ex. 
xl.  38,  relates  to  the  whole  time  of  their  wanderings 
in  the  wilderness,  we  may  conclude  that  at  all 
events  the  cloud  visibly  accompanied  them  through 
all  the  migrations  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  till 
they  reached  the  plains  of  Moab,  and  till  Moses 
died.  From  this  time  we  have  no  mention  what- 
ever in  the  history  either  of  the  cloud,  or  of  the 
glory,  or  of  the  voice  from  between  the  cherubim, 
till  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Teni[)le.  But  since 
it  is  certain  that  the  Ark  was  still  the  special  sym 
bol  of  God's  presence  and  power  (Josh,  iii.,  iv.,  vi., 
1  Sam.  iv.;  Ps.  Ixviii.  1  ff. ;  compared  with  Num. 
X.  35;  Ps.  cxxxii.  8,  Ixxx.  1,  xcix.  1),  and  since  such 
passages  as  1  Sam.  iv.  4,  21.  22;  2  Sam.  vi.  2;  Ps. 
xcix.  7;  2  K.  xix.  15,  seem  to  iniply  the  continued 
manifestation  of  God's  Presence  in  the  cloud  be- 
tween the  cherubim,  and  that  Lev.  xvi.  2  seemed 
to  promise  so  nuich,  and  that  more  general  expres- 
sions, such  as  Ps.  ix.  11,  cxxxii.  7,  8,  13,  14,  Ixxvi. 
2;  Is.  viii.  18,  &c.,  thus  acquire  much  more  point, 
we  may  perhaps  conclude  that  the  cloud  did 
continue,  though  with  shorter  or  longer  interrup- 
tions, to  dwell  between  "  the  cherubims  of  glory 
shadowing  the  mercy-seat,"  until  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  [Olives, 
Mount  of,  iii.  2249  a.] 

The  allusions  in  the  N.  T.  to  the  Shechinah  are 
not  unfrequent.  Thus  in  the  account  of  ihe  Na- 
tivity, the  words,  "  Lo,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  canif 
upon  them,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shone  rounfl 
aliout  them"  (Luke  ii.  9),  followed  by  the  appari- 
tion of  "  the  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host,"'  ri^ 
call  the  appearance  of  the  Divine  glory  on  Sinai, 
when  "  He  sliined  forth  from  Parai:.  and  came  with 
ten  thousands  of  saints"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2;  comp. 
Ps.  Ixviii.  17  ;  Acts  vii.  53 ;  Heb.  ii.  2 ;  Ez.  xliii  2). 
The  "  God  of  glory  "  (Acts  vii.  2,  55),  "  the  chtsr- 
ubims  of  glory  "  (Heb.  ix.  5),  "  the  glory  "'  (Rom. 
ix.  4),  and  other  like  passages,  are  distinct  refer- 
ences to  the  manifestations  of  the  glory  in  the  0. 
T.  When  we  read  in  .John  i.  14,  that  "the  Word 
was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us  (iffK-fiPoxret 
iv  rifui/),  and  we  beheld  his  glory;  "  or  in  2  Cor. 
xii.  9,  "  that  the  power  of  Christ   may  rest  upoc 


f)  In  Hebrew     "^   1123  ;   in   Chaldee     ^  '^\}'^. 


SHEDEUR 

me"" (einaKripdxrr)  eir'  ifie);  or  in  Rev.  xxi.  3, 
'  lielioM  the  tabernacle  of  God  is  with  men,  and 
He  will  dwell  with  them  "  (,';  aKrjy^  rov  Qeov 
•  •  ■  ■  Kal  crKr]fwa(t  /x^t'  avrdv),  we  have  not 
only  i-eferences  to  the  Shechinah,  but  are  dis- 
tinctly taught  to  connect  it  with  the  incarnation 
and  future  coming  of  Messiah,  as  type  with  anti- 
ty[)e.  Nor  can  it  he  doubted  that  the  constant 
connection  of  the  second  advent  with  a  cloud,  or 
clouds,  and  attendant  angels,  points  in  the  same 
direction  (Matt.  xxvi.  Ui;  Luke  xxi.  27;  Acts  i.  9, 
11;  2  Thess.  i.  7,  8;  liev.  i.  7). 

It  should  also  be  specially  noticed  that  the  at- 
tendance of  angels  is  usually  associated  with  the 
Shechinah.  These  are  most  frequently  called  (Ez. 
X.,  xi.)  cherubim;  but  sometimes,  as  in  Is.  vi., 
seraphim  (comp.  Rev.  iv.  7,  8).  In  Kx.  xiv.  19, 
'•  the  angel  of  God  "  is  spoken  of  in  connection 
with  the  cloud,  and  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  the  descent 
upon  Sinai  is  described  as  being  "with  ten  thou- 
K^nds  of  saints"  (comp.  I's.  Ixviii.  17;  Zecli.  xiv. 
5).  The  predominant  association,  however,  is  with 
the  cherubim,  of  which  the  golden  cherubim  on  the 
nieroy-seat  were  the  representation.  And  (his 
gives  force  to  the  interpretation  that  has  been  put 
upon  (ien.  iii.  24,*  as  being  the  earliest  notice  of 
the  Shechinah,  under  the  symbol  of  a  pointed 
flaaie,  dwelling  between  the  cherubim,  and  consti- 
tuting that  local  Presence  of  the  Lord  from  which 
Cain  went  forth,  and  before  which  the  worship  of 
Adam  and  succeeding  patriarchs  was  performed 
(see  Hale's  C/irvnul.  i\  94;  Smith's  Sacr.  Aniial. 
i.  173,  176,  177).  Parkhurst  went  so  far  as  to  im- 
airiiie  a  talieruacL  containing  the  cherubim  and  the 
glory  all  the  time  from  Adam  to  Moses  (Heb.  Lex. 
p.  623 ).  It  is,  however,  pretty  certain  that  the 
various  appearances  to  Abraham,  and  that  to  Moses 
in  the  bush,  were  manifestations  of  the  Divine 
Majesty  similar  to  those  later  ones  to  which  the 
term  Shechinah  is  applied  (see  especially  Acts  vii. 
2 1.  For  further  information  the  reader  is  referred, 
besides  the  works  quoted  aliove,  to  the  articles 
Cloud,  Akk,  Chkhuh,  to  Winer,  Renlivb.  art. 
Clitrubim ;  to  Uishop  Patrick's  Cvminenldri/ ;  to 
Buxtorf,  //isf.  Arc.  Feed.  c.  xi. ;  and  to  Lowman, 
Uii  the  tilwhiiMh.  A.  C  H, 

SHED'EUR  ("l^SMK?  [darting  of  fire,  Ges. ; 
sender  of'  a  rtvdilion,  Ftirst]  :  SeSiowp;  [Vat. 
'S.rStaoup  in  Num.  vii.  30;]  .Alex.  'ESiovp  in  Num. 
i.  5,  ii.  10:  Sedeiir).  The  father  of  IClizur,  chief 
of  the  tribe  of  Reuben  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus 
(Num.  i.  5,  ii.  10,  vii.  30.  35,  x.  18).  It  has  been 
conjectured  (Zeitschr.  d.  Dciit.  Mor;/.  (Jes.  xv. 
80l()  that  the  name  is  compounded  of  Shaddni. 

SHEEP.  The  well-known  domestic  animal 
which  from  the  earliest  period  has  contributed  to 
the  wants  of  mankind.  Siieep  were  an  important 
part  of  the  possessions  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  and 
of  eastern  nations  generally.  Tlie  fiivt  mention 
of  sheep  occurs  in  Gen.  iv.  2.  The  following  are 
the  principal  Biblical  allusions  to  these  animals. 
They  were  used  in  the  sacrificial  offerings,  both  the 
adult  animal  (Ex.  xx  24;    1   K.  viii.  63;   2  Chr. 

sxix.  33)   and    the  lamb,    ££^55'  «•  «•     "a    male 


a  This  expression  of  St  Paul's  has  a  singular  re- 
embi.ince  to  the  Kabbinical  saung,  that  of  eighty 
yupil.'!  of  Hillel  the  elder,  thirty  were  worthy  that  the 
m/ierhiiiali  s''oyliJ  rest  iipnii  them  :  and  of  these  Jona- 
.hau  (author  of  the  Targum)  was  the  first  (Wolf.  Bib. 

i 


SHEEP  2961 

from  one  to  three  years  old,"  but  young  knibs  of 
the  first  year  were  more  genei  ally  used  in  the  offer- 
ings (see  Ex.  xxix.  38:  Lev.  ix.  3,  xii.  6;  Num 
xxviii.  9,  ifcc).  No  lamb  under  eight  days  old  wa? 
allowed  to  be  killed  (Lev.  xxii.  27).    A  very  young 

lamb  was  called  Hlpti  tdleh  (see  1  Sam.  vii.  9; 
Is.  Ixv.  25).  Sheep  and  lambs  formed  an  impor- 
tant article  of  food  (1  Sam.  xxv.  18;  1  K.  i.  19,  iv. 
23;  Ps.  xliv.  11,  &c.).  The  wool  was  used  as 
clothing  (Lev.  xiii.  47:  Deut.  xxii.  11;  Prov.  xxxi. 
13;  Job  xxxi.  20,  &c.).  [Wool.]  Trumpets  may 
have  l)een  made  of  the  horns  of  rams  (.Josh.  vi.  4) 
though  the  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  in  this  passage 
is  generally  thought  to  be  incorrect.  "  Rams' 
skins  dyed  red  "  were  used  as  a  coverino;  for  the 
Tal)ernacle  (Ex.  xxv.  5).  Sheep  and  lambs  were 
sometimes  paid  as  triiiute  (2  K.  iii.  4).  It  is  very 
striking  to  notice  the  immense  numbers  of  sheep 
that  were  reared  in  Palestine  in  Biblical  times:  see 
for  instance  1  Chr.  v.  21  ;  2  Chr.  xv.  11,  xxx. 
24;  2  K.  iii.  4;  .lob  xlii.  12.  Especial  mention 
is  made  of  the  sheep  of  Bozrah  (Mic.  ii.  12; 
Is.  xxxiv.  6)  in  the  land  of  Edom,  a  district  well 
suited  for  pasturiiii;  sheep.  "  Bashan  and  Gilead  " 
are  also  mentioned  as  pastures  (Mic.  vii.  14). 
'•  Large  parts  of  Carmel,  Bashan,  and  Gilead,  "  says 
Thommw  [L'l ml  (Hid  Book, -p.  205),  "are  at  their 
proper  seasons  alive  with  countless  fiocks "  (see 
also  p.  331).  "The  flocks  of  Kedar"  and  "  the 
rains  of  Nebaioth,"  two  sons  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv. 
13)  that  settled  in  Arabia,  are  referred  to  in  Is.  Ix.  7. 
Sheep-shearing  is  alluded  to  Gen.  xxxi.  19,  xxxviii. 
13;  Deut.  XV.  19;  1  Sam.  xxv.  4;  Is.  liii.  7,  &c. 
.Sheep-dogs  were  emijloyed  in  Biblical  times,  as  is 
evident  from  Job  xxx.  1,  "  the  dogs  of  my  flock." 
l'"rom  the  manner  in  which  they  are  spoken  of  by 
the  patriarch  it  is  clear,  as  Thomson  (Land  and 
Bonk,  p.  202)  well  observes,  that  the  oriental  shep- 
herd-dogs were  very  different  animals  from  the 
sheep-doLjs  of  our  own  land.  The  existing  breed 
are  described  as  beina;  ''  a  mean,  sinister,  ill-con- 
ditioned generation,  which  are  kept  at  a  distance, 
kicked  about,  and  half-starved,  with  nothing  noble 
or  attractive  about  them."  They  were,  however, 
without  doulit,  useful  to  the  shepherds,  more  espe- 
cially at  night,  in  keeping  off  the  wild  beasts  that 
prowled  about  the  hills  and  valleys  (comp.  Theoc. 
Id.  V.  lOG).  Shepherds  in  Palestine  and  the  East 
generally  go  before  their  flocks,  which  tliey  induce 
to  follow  by  calling  to  them  (comp.  John  x.  4;  Ps. 
Ixxvii.  20,  Ixxx.  1),  though  they  also  drove  them 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  13).  [Shki'IIEKD.]  It  was  usual 
amongst  the  ancient  .lews  to  give  names  to  sheep 
and  goats,  as  in  EiiLjland  we  do  to  our  dairy  cattle 
(see  John  x.  3).  This  practice  prevailed  amongst 
the  ancient  Greeks  (see  Theoc.  Id.  v.  103):  — 

OvK  aTTO  ras  5pu6?  ovTos  6  Kcofapo^,  a  re  Kvt^atSa  ; 
The  following  quotation  from  Hartley's  liesenrclus 
in  Greece  and  the  Levant,  p.  321,  is  so  strikimily 
illustrative  of  the  allusions  in  John  x.  1-16,  that  we 
cainiot  do  lietter  than  quote  it:  "Having  had  my 
attention  directed  last  night  to  the  wonls  in  .lohn 
X.  3,  I  asked  my  man  if  it  was  usual  in  (!ieece  tc 
give  names  to  the  sheep.      He  informed  me  tliat  it 

b  "  He  drove  out  the  man,  and  stiitioned   his   jl.e- 
chiuah  of  old  between   the  two  cherubim  "'  (^.lenisaL 

Targum);  C'-ri^SH-nS  ^Stt'*]  (Heb  Bib.) 
See  Patrick  On  Gen.  iii.  34. 


29G2  SHEEP 

was,  and  (hat.  the  slieep  obeyed  the  shepherd  when 
he  called  them  by  their  names.  This  morning  I 
aad  an  opportunity  of  verifyir.s;  die  truth  of  this 
remark.  Passing  by  a  tiock  of  sheep,  I  asked  the 
shej)herd  the  same  question  which  I  had  put  to 
the  aervant,  and  he  gave  me  the  same  answer.  I 
then  bade  him  call  one  of  his  sheep.  He  did  so, 
and  it  instantly  left  its  pasturage  and  its  compan- 
ions and  ran  up  to  the  hands  of  the  shejjherd 
wittf  signs  of  pleasure  and  with  a  prompt  obedience 
which  I  had  never  before  observed  in  any  other 
Bnimal.  It  is  also  true  in  this  country  that  '  a 
Btranger  will  they  not  follow,  but  will  flee  from 
him.'  The  shepherd  told  me  that  many  of  his 
sheep  were  still  wild,  that  thev  had  not  yet  learned 
their  names,  but  that  by  teaching  them  they  would 
all  learn  them."  See  also  Thomson  (p  203):  "The 
ehepherd  calls  sharply  from  time  to  time  to  remind 
the  sheep  of  his  presence;  they  know  his  voice  and 
follow  on :  but  if  a  stranger  call  they  stop  short, 
lift  lip  their  heads  in  alarm,  and  if  it  is  repeated 
they  turn  and  flee,  because  they  know  not  the 
voice  of  a  stranger."  " 


Bi'oad-taileJ  Sheep. 


The  conniiou  sheep  of  Syria  and  Palestine  are 
the  broad-tuil  [Otis  Inticnudatus).  and  a  variety  of 
the  conmion  sheep  of  this  country  {Ovis  aries) 
called  the  Biiloween  according  to  Kussell  {Aleppo, 
ii.  147).  The  broad-tailed  kind  has  long  been 
reared  in  Sjria.  Aristotle,  who  lived  more  than 
2,000  years  ago,  expressly  mentions  Syrian  sheep 
with  tails  a  cubit  wide.  This  or  another  variety  of 
the  species  is  also  noticed  by  Herodotus  (iii.  113)  as 
occurring  in  Arabia.  '  The  fat  tail  of  the  sheep  is 
probably  alluded  to  in  Lev.  iii.  9,  vii.  3,  etc.,  as  the 
fat  and  the  whole  rump  that  was  to  be  taken  off 
hard  by  the  back-bone,  and  was  to  be  consumed  on 
the  altar.  The  cooks  in  Syria  use  this  mass  of  fat 
instead  of  Arab  butter,  which  is  often  rancid  (see 
Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  p.  97).  [Buttek, 
Amer.  ed.] 


SHEEP 

The  whole  passage  in  Gen.  xxx.  which  bears  on 
the  subject  of  Jacob's  stratagem  with  Laban's  sheep 
is  involved  In  considerable  perplexity,  and  Jacob'i 
conduct  in  this  matter  has  been  severely  and  un- 
compromisingly condemned  by  some  writers.  We 
touch  upon  the  question  briefly  in  its  zoological 
bearing.  It  is  altogether  impossible  to  account  for 
the  complete  success  which  attended  Jacob's  device 
of  setting  peeled  rods  before  the'ewes^und  she-goats 
as  they  came  to  drink  in  the  watering  troughs,  on 
nfiiurcd  yruunds.  The  Greek  fathers  for  the  most 
part  ascribe  the  result  to  the  direct  operation  of  the 
Deity,  whereas  Jerome  and  the  Latin  fathers  regard 
it  as  a  mere  natural  operation  of  the  imagination, 
adducing  as  illustrations  in  point  various  devices 
that  have  been  resorted  to  by  the  ancients  ni  the 
cases  of  mares,  asses,  etc.  (see  Oppian,  Cyneg.  i. 
327,  357 ;  Pliny,  H.  jV.  vii.  10,  and  the  passages 
from  Quintilian,  Hippocrates,  and  Galen,  as  cited 
by  Jerome,  Grotius,  and  Bochart).  Even  granting 
the  general  truth  of  these  instances,  and  acknowl- 
edging the  curious  effect  which  peculiar  sights  by 
the  power  of  the  imagination  do  occasionally  pro- 
duce in  the  fetus  of  many  animals,  yet  we  must 
agree  with  the  Greek  fathers  and  ascribe  the  pro- 
duction of  Jacob's  spotted  sheep  and  goats  to  I  'ivine 
agency.  The  whole  question  has  been  carefully 
considered  by  Nitschmann  (De  Corylo  Jacobi,  in 
Thes.  Nur.  Theol.  Phil.  i.  202-206),  from  whom 
we  quote  the  following  passage:  "  Fatemur  itaqne, 
cum  Vossio  aliisque  piis  viris,  illam  pecudum  im- 
af/inationem  iantum  J'uisse  caiisam  adjuvantem,  ac 
plus  in  hoc  negotio  divinse  tribuendum  esse  virtuti. 
qua2  suo  concursu  sic  debilem  causae  seeundffi  vim 
adauxit  ut  quod  ea  sola  secundum  naturam  praj- 
stare  non  valeret  id  divina  benedictione  siqira  na- 
turam praestaret;  "  and  then  Nitschmann  cites  the 
passage  in  Gen.  xxxi.  5-13,  where  Jacob  expressly 
states  that  his  success  was  due  to  Divine  interfer 
ence;  for  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  Jacob  is  here 
uttering  nothing  but  a  tissue  of  falsehoods,  which 
appears  to  be  the  opinion  of  Kalisch  (//^s^  nna 
Ciit.  Comment.  Gen.  xxx.  and  xxxi.),  who  repre 
sents  the  patriarch  as  "  unblushingly  executing 
frauds  suggested  by  his  fertile  invention,  and  then 
abusing  the  authority  of  God  in  covering  or  justi- 
fying them."  We  are  aware  that  a  still  graver 
difficulty  in  the  minds  of  some  persons  remains,  if 
the  above  explanation  be  adopted;  but  we  have  no 
other  alternative,  for,  as  Patrick  has  observed,  '-let 
any  shepherd  now  try  this  device,  and  he  will  not 
find  it  cTo  what  it  did  then  by  a  Divine  operation."  * 
The  greater  difficulty  alluded  to  is  the  supposing 
that  God  would  have  directly  interfered  to  help  Ja- 
cob to  act  fraudulently  towards  his  uncle.  But  are 
we  quite  sure  that  there  was  awy  fraud,  faiily  called 
such,  in  the  matter?  Had  Jacob  not  been  thus 
aided,  he  might  have  remained  the  dupe  of  Laban's 
niggardly  conduct  all  his  days.  He  had  served  his 
money-loving  uncle  faithfully  for  fourteen  yeats; 
Laban  confesses  his  cattle  had  increased  consider- 
ably under  Jacob's  management;  but  all  the  return 
he  got  was  unfair  treatment  and  a  constant  desire 


n  *  Dr.  Thomson's  remarks  in  illustration  of  these 
BraitB  of  pastoral  life  in  the  East  are  very  interesting 
[Land  and  Bnnk,  i.  303,  304).  H 


selves,  and  not  reflections  of  inanimate  objects,  were 
the  cause  of  some  marked  peculiarity  in  the  felus 
Rosenmi'iller.  however   (Sclwl.   in   loc),  cites  Hastfeei 


^  None  of  the  instances  cited  by  .Terome  and  others  [(De  Re  oi-iarin,  German  version,  pp.  17,  30,  43,46,  47' 
»re  exact  parallels  with  that  in  question.     The  quota-  i  as  a  writer  by  whom    the   contrary  opinion   is   con- 
Hong  adduced,  with  the  exception  of  tliose  which  speak    firmed.     We  have  been  unable  to  gain  accRSS  lo  thi# 
nf  pa'nted  images  sf*.  before  Spartan  women  inter  cnn- 1  work. 
>^irti-iuni  tefer  ro  cases  in  which  living  animals  them- ' 


SHEEP 

on  the  part  of  I,aban  to  strike  a  Iiard  bargain  with 
him  (Gen.  xxxi.  7).  God  vouchsafed  to  dehver 
Jacob  out  of  the  hands  of  his  hard  master,  and  to 
punish  Laban  tor  his  cruelty,  whicli  He  did  by 
pointing;  out  to  Jacob  how  lie  could  secure  to  him- 
gelf  large  Hocks  and  abundant  cattle.  God  was  only 
helping  Jacob  to  ol)tain  that  which  justly  belonged 
to  him,  but  which  Laban 's  rapacity  refused  to 
grant.  "  Were  it  lawful,"  says  Stackliouse,  "  for 
any  (jrivate  person  to  make  reprisals,  the  injurious 
treatment  Jacob  iiad  recei\ed  from  Laban,  both  in 
imposing  a  wife  ujxjn  him  and  prolonging  his  servi- 
tude without  wages,  was  enough  to  give  him  both 
the  provocation  and  the  privilege  to  do  so.  God 
Almighty,  however,  was  pleased  to  take  tlie  deter- 
II  ination  of  the  whole  matter  into  his  own  hands.'' 
This  seems  to  us  the  best  way  of  understanding 
this  disputed  subject." 

The  following  Hebrew  words  occur  as  the  names 
of  sheep:  'iS!^,  ^'S!;,  S3!J,  or  TIT^,  a  collec- 
tive noun  to  denote  ■'  a  dock  of  sheep  or  goats," 
to  which  is  opposed  the  noun  of  unity,  'HW,  "  a 
sheep "  or  "  a  goat,"  joined  to  a  masc.  where 
"rams"  or  "he-goats  "  are  signified,  and  with  a 
fem.  when  "  ewes  "  or  "  she-goats  "  are  meant, 
though  even  in  this  case  sometimes  to  a  masc.  (as 

in  Gen.  xxxi.   10):    V^^S,  "a  ram;"    ^fn,   "a 

ewe;  "   ti^S?  or  ^^2?  "a  lamb,"  or  rather  "  a 

Bheep  of  a  year  old  or  above."  opposed  to  Tl~>t2i, 

"  a  sucking  or  very  young  lamb;  "  "13  is  another 

term  applied  to  a  lamb  as  it  skips  ("flS)  in  the 
pastuies. 


SHEEFFOLD  2963 

As  the  sheep  is  an  embh n:  of  meekness,  p**:ence, 
and  subnussion,  it  is  expressly  mentioned  as  typi- 
fying these  qualities  in  the  person  of  our  blessed 
Lord  (Is.  liii.  7;  Acts  viii.  32,  &c  ).  The  relation 
that  exists  between  Christ,  •*  the  chief  Shepherd,'" 
and  his  memliers,  is  beautifully  compared  to  that 
which  in  the  East  is  so  strikingly  exhibited  by  tlie 
shepherds  to  their  flocks  (see  Thomson,  Lund  ana 
Book,  p.  203).  W.  H 

*  SHEEPCOTE.     [Sheepfold.] 

*  SHEEPFOLD.  The  original  woids  for 
this  expression  in  the  Old  Testament  are  nn"T3, 
nbp!3,  CnSirp  (dual,  with  reference  to  the 

troughs  which  divided  them),  and  ]S!2  m~l7?! 
and  in  the  N.  T.,  av\^  tu>v  irpoBdrcav  (John  xi. 
1)  and  auAT)  and  ToiiJLvr)  (the  latter  erroneously) 
(John  X.  IG).  Sheepfolds  as  usually  constructed 
in  the  East,  according  to  Thomson  {Lmid  and 
Buok,  i.  299), are  "low,  flat  buildings,  erected  on 
the  sheltered  side  of  the  valleys,  and,  when  the 
nights  are  cold,  the  flocks  are  shut  up  in  them, 
but  in  ordinary  weather  they  are  merely  kept 
within  the  yard."  During  the  day  of  course  they 
are  led  forth  to  pasture  by  the  shepherds.  The 
folds  '■  are  defended  by  a  wide  stone  wall,  crowned 
by  sharp  thorns  which  the  wolf  will  rarely  attempt 
to  scale.  The  leopard  and  panther,  however,  when 
pressed  with  hunger,  will  overleap  the  thorny 
hedge,"  and  make  havoc  of  the  flock.  Manf  little 
villages  in  Syria,  especially  in  the  BukaUi  between 
Leiianon  and  Anti-Lebanon,  consist  of  sheepcotes  or 
liave  sprung  from  them,  and  have  the  syllable 
Haush  (herd-fold)  prefixed  to  their  names.  In 
Greece  the  writer  has  seen  folds  built  merely  of  a 


Sbeuptold. 


[lara-pet  of  bushes  or  branches,  placed  at  the  en- 
trance of  caves,  natural,  or  made  for  the  purpose 
in  the  side  of  hills  or  rocky  ledges.  A  porter  kept 
tlie  door  of  the  larger  sheepfolds.    [Portep.,  Amer. 

3d.] 

A  mistranslation  in  John  x.  16,  or  at  least  am- 
biiruity  ("fold"  being  susceptible  of  a  twofold 
sense),  mars  the  exquisite  beauty  of  the  passage. 
Instead  of  "  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shep- 


o  We  have  considered  this  perplexing  ijuestiou  in 
«cor<iance  with  the  generally  received  opinion  that 
lb*-  whole  account  is  the  work  of  one  and  the  same 
iDthOi  :  at  the  sauie  time,  we  must  allow  that  there 
li  *troc|j  probability  that  those  portions  of  the  uarra- 


herd,"  it  should  read:  "and  there  shall  be  one 
flock,  one  she])herd."  The  A.  V.  confuses  av\i\ 
and  TToifjLUt},  and  we  necessarily  lose  in  any  render- 
ing the  alliterative  succession  of  iroinvy)  and  ttoi- 
ix-)]v.  The  Saviour  no  doubt  refers  more  immedi- 
ately in  the  figure  to  the  union  of  Jews  and  Gentiles 
in  the  faith  and  blessings  of  the  gospel.  "  Sheep- 
cote  "  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  three  times  interchange- 
ably with  "  sheepfold."  H. 


tive  which  relate  to  Jacob's  stratagem  with  th« 
"  peeled  rods,"  are  attributable,  not  to  the  Elohistit 
or  ancient  source,  but  to  tlie  supplementary  h  xoviftM 
writer. 


2964  SHEEP-MASTER 

*  SHEEP-MASTER  (2  K.  iii.  4).    [Shep- 

HKKO.] 

SHEEP  GATE,  THE  ("jS^Jn  "^VW:  {, 
tivKti  ■!]  TtpofiaTiKi]-  im-ta  (/regis).  One  of  the 
£;ates  of  Jerusalem  as  rebuilt  by  Nehemiah  (Neli. 
iii.  1,  32;  xli.  39).  It  stood  between  the  tower  of 
Meah  and  the  chamber  of  the  corner  (iii.  32,  1)  or 
gate  of  the  guard-bouse  (xii.  39,  A.  V.  "  prison- 
gate").  The  latter  seems  to  have  been  at  the 
angle  formed  by  the  junction  of  the  wall  of  the  city 
of  Da\  id  with  that  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  proper, 
having  the  Sheep  Gate  on  the  north  of  it.  (See  the 
diagram  in  p.  1322,  vol.  ii.)  According  to  the  view 
taken  in  the  article  Jekusalem,"  the  city  of  Da- 
vid occupied  a  space  on  the  mount  Jloriali  about 
coil  ciding  with  that  between  the  south  wall  of  the 
platform  of  the  Dome  of  the  Rock  and  the  south 
wall  of  the  Haram  es-Slierif.  'I'he  position  of  the 
Sheep  Gate  may  therefore  have  been  on  or  near  that 
of  the  Ba/j  el-Kattaii'vi.  Bertheau  {Exvij.  Ilnnd- 
bucli,  on  Nehemiah,  p.  14-i)  is  right  in  placing  it 
on  the  east  side  of  the  city  and  on  the  north  of  the 
corner;  but  is  wrung  in  placing  it  at  the  present 
St.  Stephen's  Gate,  since  no  wall  existed  nearly  so 
far  to  the  east  as  that,  till  after  the  death  of  Christ. 
[Jehusalem.] 

The  pool  which  was  near  the  Sheep  Gate  (.John 
V.  2;  A.  V.  inaccurately  '■  miirlcet")  was  probably 
the  present  Hammdia  esh-S/ieJa.  G. 

SHEEP-MARKET,  THE  (John  v.  2). 
The  word  "  market "  is  an  interpolation  of  our 
translators,  possibly  after  Luther,  who  has  SclifiJ- 
luius.  The  words  of  the  original  are  iwl  rfi  vrpo- 
BoiTiKi],  to  which  should  proljably  be  supplied  not 
market  but  gate,  irvA??,  as  in  the  LXX.  version  of 
the  passages  in  Nehemiah  quoted  in  the  foregoing 
article.  The  Vulgate  connects  the  npo^aTiK-n 
with  the  KoAvfifivOpa,  and  reads  Probatica  pis- 
virut ;  while  the  Syriac  omits  all  mention  of  the 
eheep,  and  names  only  "  a  place  of  baptism." 

G. 

*  SHEETS,  only  in  Judg.  xiv.  12, 13,  and  there 
"  shirts  "  in  the  margin.  The  Hebrew  is  7^1^, 
elsewhere  only  in  Prov.  xxxi.  2t  and  Is.  iii.  23, 
where  the  A.  V.  renders  "  fine  linen.''  The  LXX. 
has  in  tlie  difl'erent  places  C7iv^6v(s  or  ^vcraira, 
and  the  Vulg.  sinchmes.  It  was  something  worn 
by  men  and  women,  as  the  above  passages  show, 
and  must  have  been  an  article  of  dress.  It  may 
have  been  a  thin  covering  of  linen  worn  next  to  the 
body  as  a  shirt  (Fiirst,  Keil),  or  a  loose  night- 
wrapper  thrown  around  one  on  taking  off  his  other 
garments  (Saalschutz).  In  the  latter  case  it  cor- 
responds nearly  to  the  Greek  aiySwi'  (com  p.  Mark's 
tnpS6i'a  iirl  yv/nvov,  xiv.  51).  It  formed  part  of 
the  raiment  which  Samson  was  to  give  to  the 
Philistines  if  they  should  discover  his  riddle  within 
the  appointed  time  (Judg.  xiv.  12  ff. ).  It  was 
evidently  at  that  period  an  article  of  value  or  lux- 
ury among  the  Philistines,  as  it  was  still  later 
among  the  Hebrews  (Is.  iii.  23;  Prov.  xxxi.  24). 


a  *  Against  this  theory  respecting  the  site  of  "  the 
sity  of  David,"  see  under  Jeedsalem,  §  iv.,  near  the 
eud  (Amer.  ed.).  '    S.  W. 

''  The  character  nearly  resembles  that  of  Samaritan 
MSS.,  although  it  i.s  not  quite  identical  with  it.  The 
Hebrew  and  Samaritan  alpliabets  appear  to  be  diver- 
gent riipresentJitives  of  some  older  form,  aa  may  be 
liJerrel  from  several  of  the  letters.     Thus  the  £flh 


SHEKEL 

Fiirst  calls  in  question  the  commonly  auaumad  at- 

finity  between  ati/Sdv  and  ^''ID  {Lex.  a.  v.). 

H. 
*  SHEFE'LAH.     [Sephela.] 

SHEHARFAH  (n^intt?  [Jehovah  seeks] 
'Xaaplas;  [Vat.  '^apaia;]  Alex.  'Xaapta'  Sohn- 
I'ia).  A  Renjamite,  son  of  Jeroham  (1  Chr.  viii 
26). 

SHEKEL.  In  a  former  article  [:Money]  a 
full  account  has  been  given  of  the  coins  called 
shekels,  which  are  found  with  inscriptions  in  the 
Samaritan*  character:  so  that  the  present  article 
will  only  contain  notices  of  a  few  particulars  relat- 
ing to  the  Jewish  coinage  which  did  not  fall 
within  the  plan  of  the  former. 

It  may,  in  the  first  place,  be  desirable  to  men- 
tion, that  although  some  shekels  are  found  with 
Hebrew  letters  instead  of  Samaritan,  these  are  un- 
doubtedly all  forgeries.  It  is  the  more  needful  to 
make  this  statement,  as  in  some  books  of  high 
reputation,  e.  <j.  Walton's  PolygloU,  these  shekels 
are  engraved  as  if  they  were  genuine.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  suggest  the  reasons  which  may  have 
led  to  this  series  of  forgeries.  But  the  difference 
between  the  two  is  not  confined  to  the  letters  only ; 
the  Hebrew  shekels  are  much  larger  and  thinner 
than  the  Saniaritan,  so  that  a  person  might  dis- 
tinguish them  merely  by  the  touch,  eveu  under  a 
covering. 

Our  attention  is,  in  the  next  place,  directed  to 
the  early  notices  of  these  shekels  in  Rabbinical 
writers.  It  might  be  supposed  that  in  the  IMishna, 
where  one  of  the  treatises  bears  the  title  of  "  She/ca- 
Uin"  or  Shekels,  we  should  find  some  information 
on  the  subject.  But  this  treatise,  being  devoted  to 
the  consideration  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  half-shekel  for  the  Temple,  is  of  course 
useless  for  our  purpose. 

Some  references  are  given  to  tlie  works  of  Hash! 
and  Jlaimonides  (contemporary  writers  of  the  12th 
century)  for  information  relative  to  shekels  and  the 
forms  of  Hebrew  letters  in  ancient  times;  but  the 
most  important  Rabbinical  quotation  given  by- 
Bayer  is  that  from  Rnmban,  i.  e.  Rubbi-Moses 
Biir-N(tchm<in,  who  lived  about  the  commence 
ment  of  the  13tli  century.  He  describes  a  shekel 
which  be  had  seen,  and  of  which  the  Ciitlimans 
read  the  inscription  with  ease.  The  explanation 
which  they  ga\  e  of  the  inscription  was,  on  one  side : 
Shekel  ha-Shekriliiii,  "the  shekel  of  shekels,"  and 
on  the  other  "Jerusalem  the  Holy."  The  former 
was  doul)tless  a  misinterpretation  of  the  usual  in- 
scription "the  shekel  of  Israel;"  but  the  latter 
cori'esponds  with  the  inscription  on  our  shekeV 
(Bayer,  JJe  Nwnis.  p.  11).  In  the  IGth  century 
R.  Azarias  de  Rossi  states  that  R.  Closes  Basula 
had  arranged  a  Cuthaean,  i.  e.  Samaritan,  alphabet 
Irom  coins,  and  I!.  JMoses  Alaskar  (of  whonv  little 
is  known)  is  quoted  by  Bayer  as  having  read  in 
some  Samaritan  coins,  "  in  such  a  year  of  the  con- 
solation of  Israel,  in  such  a  year  of  such  a  king." 
And  the  same  R.  Azarias  de  Rossi  (or  de  Adumim, 
as  he  is  called  by  Bartolocci,  Bibl.  Rubb.  vol.  iv.  p. 


and  several  other  letters  are  evidently  identical  Ju 
their  origin.  And  the  ]S  {Shin)  of  the  Hebrew  alpha. 
bet  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Samaritan  ;  for  if  w« 
make  the  two  middle  strokes  of  the  Samaritan  lettw 
coalesce,  it  takes  the  Hebrew  form. 


SHEKEL 

158),  ill  his  S":"'!; -nS72,  "The  Light  of  ti'ie 
Eyes,"  (not  Fons    Oculoruiii,  as   Bayer  transhites 

it,  wiiich  would  require  V^^j  "Ot  "IISTS), 
discusses  the  Transfluvial  or  Samaritan  letters,  and 
describes  a  shekel  of  Israel  which  he  had  seen, 
but  the  most  important  passage  of  all  is  that  in 
which  this  writer  quotes  the  description  of  a  siiekel 
seen  by  Kamban  at  St.  Jean  d'Acre,  a.  i>.  1210. 
He  gives  inscriptions  as  abo\e,  "  the  Shekel  of 
Shekels,"  and  "Jerusalem  the  Holy;"  but  he  also 
determines  the  weight,  which  he  makes  about  half 
an  ounce. 

We  find,  therefore,  that  in  early  times  shekels 
were  known  to  the  Jewish  Kabbis  with  Samai'itan 
inscriptions,  corresponding  with  those  now  found 
(except  in  one  point,  which  is  probably  an  error), 
and  corresponding  with  them  in  weight.  These 
are  important  considerations  in  tracing  the  his- 
tory of  this  coinage,  and  we  pass  on  now  to  the 
earliest  mention  of  these  shekels  by  Christian  writ- 
ers. We  believe  that  W.  Postell  is  the  first  Chris- 
tian writer  who  saw  and  described  a  shekel.  He 
was  a  Parisian  traveller  who  visited  Jerusalem 
early  in  the  16th  centiu-y.  In  a  curious  work  pub- 
lished by  him  in  15;i8,  entitled  Al/>hiibetuiii  JJiio- 
ileciiH  LuiguarHiii;  the  following  passage  occurs. 
After  stating  that  the  Samaritan  alphabet  was  the 
original  form  of  the  Hebrew,  he  proceeds  thus :  — 

"  1  draw  this  inlerence  from  silver  coins  of  great 
antiquity,  which  I  found  among  the  .lews.  They 
set  such  store  by  them  that  I  could  not  get  one  of 
them  (not  otherwise  worth  a  quincunx)  for  two 
gold  pieces.  The  Jews  say  they  are  of  the  lime  of 
Holoiiion,  and  they  added  that,  hating  the  Samari- 
tans as  they  do,  worse  than  dogs,  and  ne\er  speak- 
ing to  them,  nothing  endears  these  coins  so  much 
to  them  as  the  consideration  that  these  characters 
were  once  in  their  common  usage,  nature,  as  it 
were,  yearning  after  the  things  of  old.  They  say 
that  at  Jerusalem,  now  called  Chus  or  Cliussem- 
bni  ic/i,  in  the  masonry  and  in  the  deepest  part  of 
the  ruins,  these  coins  are  dug  up  daily."  " 

i'ostell  gives  a  very  bad  wood-cut  of  one  of  these 
shekels,  but  the  inscription  is  correct.  He  was  un- 
able to  explain  the  letters  over  the  vase,  which 
soon  became  the  subject  of  a  discussion  amoiig  the 
learned  men  of  Europe,  which  lasted  for  nearly  two 
centuries.  Their  attempts  to  explain  them  ai'e  enu- 
merated by  Bayer  in  his  I'reatise  Oe  Numis  He- 
bneii- Hanwritanis,  which  may  be  considered  as  the 
first  work  which  placed  the  explanation  of  these 
coins  on  a  satisfactory  basis.  But  it  would  obvi- 
ously be  useless  here  to  record  so  many  unsuc- 
cessful guesses  as  Ba\er  enumerates.  The  work  of 
Bayer,  although  some  of  the  authors  nearly  solved 
the  problem,  called  forth  an  antagonist  in  Professor 
Tychsen  of  Kost6ck,  a  learned  Orientalist  of  that 


SHEKEL 


296i 


a  Postell  appears  to  have  arranged  his  Samaritan 
alpliabet  from  these  coins. 

f>  Ue  quotes,  c.  g.,  the  following  passage  from  the 
Jerusalem  Talmud  :  ^iri^  ("^"Ijaa?)  n?ati7  1721073 

(bbnn)  -ybnn  ID'^S  Wa^nD  p;  "Revolu- 
tion (Samaritan)  money,  like  that  of  Ben  Cozlta,  does 
lot  defile."  The  meaning  of  this  is  not  very  obvious, 
jor  does  Tychsen's  explanation  appear  quite  satisfac- 
»ry.  He  adds,  "does  not  defile,  if  used  as  an  amu- 
*t."  We  should  rather  inquire  whether  the  expres- 
aion  may  not  have  some  relation  to  that  of  "  defiling 
Oie  hands,"  aa  applied  to  the  canonical  books  of  thu 


period.  Several  publications  passed  between  them 
which  it  is  unnecessary  to  enumerate,  as  Tychser 
gave  a  summary  of  his  objections,  in  a  small  pam- 
phlet, entitled  O.  G.  Tychsen,  De  Nuwi-i  lie- 
braids  Diatribe^  qua  siiiiul  ad  Xuperas  ill.  F.  P. 
Bayerii  Objectionts  respomktur  (Kostochii,  1791). 
His  first  position  is  —  That  either  (1)  all  the 
'coins,  whether  with  Hebrew  or  Samaritan  inscrip- 
tions, are  false,  or  (2)  if  any  are  genuine,  they 
belong  to  Barcoceba  —  p.  6.  This  he  modifies 
slightly  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  treatise,  pp. 
52,  5-],  where  he  states  it  to  be  his  conclusion  (1) 
that  the  Jews  had  no  coined  money  before  the  time 
of  our  Saviour;  (2)  that  during  the  rebellion  of 
Barcoceba  (or  Barcozibd),  Samaritan  money  was 
coined  either  by  the  Samaritans  to  please  the  Jews, 
or  by  the  Jews  to  please  the  Samaritans,  and  that 
the  Samaritan  letters  were  used  in  order  to  make 
the  coins  desirable  as  amulets!  and  (3)  that  the 
coins  attributed  to  Simon  Maccabreus  belong  to 
this  period.  Tychsen  has  quoted  some  curious 
passages,**  but  his  arguments  are  wholly  untenable, 
hi  the  first  place,  no  numismatist  can  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  the  shekels  attributed  to  Siniofl 
Maccabreus,  or  believe  that  they  belong  to  the  same 
epoch  as  the  coins  of  Barcoceba.  But  as  Tychsen 
never  saw  a  shekel,  he  was  not  a  competent  judge. 
There  is  another  consideration,  which,  if  further 
demonstration  were  needed,  would  supply  a  very 
strong  argument.  These  coins  were  first  made 
known  to  Europe  through  Postell,  who  doe^not  ap- 
pear to  have  lieen  aware  of  the  description  given  of 
them  in  Kabbinical  writers.  The  correspondence 
of  the  newly-found  coins  with  the  earlier  descrip- 
tion is  .almost  demonstrative.  But  they  bear  such 
undoubted  marks  of  genuineness,  that  no  judge  of 
ancient  coins  could  doubt  thein  for  a  mouient. 
On  the  contrary,  to  a  practical  eye,  those  with  He- 
brew inscriptions  bear  undoubted  marks  of  spuri 
ousness.'' 

Among  the  symbols  found  on  this  series  of  coins 
is  one  which  is  considered  to  represent  that  which 
was  called  Lulab  by  the  Jews.  This  term  was  ap- 
plied (see  Maimon.  on  the  section  of  the  Mi.shna 
called  Rosh  Hashawih,  or  Commencement  of  tlie 
Year,  ch.  vii.  1,  and  the  Mishna  itself  in  Succa/i, 

HDID,  or  Booths,  ch.  ii.  1,  both  of  which  passages 
are  quoted  by  Bayer,  De  Num.  p.  129)  to  the 
branches  of  the  three  trees  mentioned  in  Lev.  xxiii. 
40,  which  are  thought  to  be  the  Palm,  the  Myrtle, 
and  the  Willow.  These,  which  were  to  be  carried 
by  the  Israelites  at  the  Feast  of  'Tabernacles,  were 
usually  accompanied  by  the  fruit  of  the  Citron, 
which  is  also  found  in  this  representation.  Some- 
times two  of  these  Lulubs  are  found  together.  At 
least  such  is  the  explanation  given  by  some  authori- 
ties of  the  symbols  called  in  the  article  Money  by 


0.  T.  See  Ginshurg,  Commenlary  on  the  Snug  of 
Songs,  p.  3.  The  word  for  polluting  is  different,  but 
the  expressions  may  be  analogous.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  these  col'is  are  ottea  perforated,  which  gives 
countenance  tf  the  notion  that  they  were  used  af 
amulets.     Tht   passage  Is  from   the  division  of  the 

Jerusalem  Talmud  entitled  ^3{i7  "IJi^l'D,  I^laaser 
Skeni,  or  "  The  Second  Tithe." 

c  The  statement  here  made  will  not  be  disputed  Dy 
aty  practical  numismati.st.  It  is  made  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  late  Mr.  T.  Burgnn,  of  the  British  Mu- 
seum, whose  knowledge  and  skill  in  these  qa«8tionf 
wag  known  throughout  lilurope. 


2966 


SHEKEL 


Uie  name  of  Sheaves.  The  subject  is  involved  in 
much  difficulty  and  obscurity,  and  we  speai;  :liere- 
t'ore  with  some  hesitation  and  diffidence,  especially 
Bs  experienced  numismatists  differ  in  their  explana- 
tions. This  explanation  is,  however,  adopted  by 
Bayer  (De  Num.  pp.  128,  219,  &c.),  and  by  Cave- 
doni  (BibLNuin.  PI).  31,  32  of  the  German  transla- 
tion, who  adds  references  to  1  jMacc.  iv.  59;  John 
X.  22),  as  he  considers  that  the  Lulab  was  in  use 
at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication  on  the  2')th  day  of 
the  9th  month  as  well  as  at  that  of  Tabernacles. 
He  also  refers  to  2  Mace.  i.  18,  x.  6,  7,  where  the 
celebration  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  is  descrilied, 
and  the  branches  carried  by  the  worshippers  are 
ipecifi^d. 

The  symbol  on  the  reverse  of  the  shekels,  repre- 
senting a  twig  with  three  buds,  appears  to  bear 
more  resemblance  to  the  buds  of  the  pomegranate 
than  to  any  other  plant. 

The  following  list  is  given  by  Cavedoni  (p.  11  of 
the  German  translation)  as  an  enumeration  of  all 
the  coins  which  can  be  attributed  with  any  cer- 
tainty to  Simon  JMaccaljreus. 

I.  Shekels  of  three  years,  with  the  inscription 
Slitkei  Jsrnel  on  the  obverse  with  a  vase,  over 
wiiich  appears  (1)  an  Ali-j/h  ;  (2)  the  letter  67/ w 
with  a  Bt-t/i ;   (3)  the  letter  Shin  with  a  UiiiieL 

K.  On  the  reverse  is  the  twig  with  three  buds, 
and  the  inscription  Jtriisaleni  Kedushah  or  Uak- 
kedushnh." 

II.  The  same  as  the  above,  only  half  the  weight. 

which  is  indicated  by  the  word  '^^H,  chdtsi,  "  a 
half."  These  occur  only  in  the  first  and  second 
years. 

The  above  are  silver. 

III.  ''^n  2712ns  n^W,  Shenath  Arb'a  ChdIsL 
The  fourth  year  —  a  half.  A  Citron  between  two 
Luliibs. 

R,  ]T!S  nbS^b,  Lerieullaih  Tsion,  "  Of  the 
[liberation  of  Zion."  A  palm-tree  between  two 
baskets  of  fruit. 

IV.  ^J"^:!")  273~!S  n3tt7,  Shenath  Arb\i, 
Rebi'a.  The  fourth  year  —  a  fourth.  Two  Lu- 
labs. 

R.  ]  VI*  nbS^b  — as  before.    Citron-fruit. 

Y.  2:2"IW  nDti?,  Shenath  Arb'a.  The  fourth 
year.     Lulab  between  two  citrons. 

R.  "JVS  nbS^b,  Leyeullath  Tsimi,  as  before. 

The  vase  as  on  the  shekel  and  half-shekel. 

These  are  of  copper. 

The  other  coins  which  belong  to  this  series  have 
been  sufficiently  illustrated  in  the  article  M<iney. 

In  the  course  of  1802  a  work  of  considerable 
importance  was  published  at  Breslau  liy  Dr.  M.  A. 
Levy,  entitled  Geschichte  der  Jiidischen  lUunzen.b 
It  appears  likely  to  be  useful  in  the  elucidation  of 
the  questions  relating  to  the  Jewish  coinage  which 
have  been  touched  upon   in  the  present  volume. 

«  The  spelling  varies  with  the  year.  The  shekel 
of  the  first  year  has  only  na^lip  Dbti^T)"; 
while  tnose  of  the  second  and  third  years  have  the 
fuller  form,  ntt'lipn  C^bci^l")^,  The  "^  of  the 
Jerusalem  is  important  as  showing  that  both  modes 
9f  spelling  were  in  use  at  the  same  time. 

*  From  the    time  ol    is    publication,   it   was    not 


SHELAH 

There  are  one  or  two  points  on  which  it  is  desirable 

I  to  state  the  views  of  the  author,  especially  as  he 
1  quotes  coins  which  have  only  become  known  lately 
Some  coins  have  lieen  described  in  the  Jievne 
Numismatique  (1860,  p.  260  seq.),  to  which  the 
name  of  Eleazar  coins  has  been  given.  A  coin  was 
published  some  time  ago  by  De  Saulcy  which  is 
supposed  by  that  author  to  be  a  counterfeit  coin. 
It  is  scarcely  legible,  but  it  appears  to  contain 
the  name  Eleazar  on  one  side,  and  that  of 
Simon  on  the  other.  During  the  troubles  which 
preceded  the  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  I'Llea- 
zar  (the  son  of  Simon),  who  was  a  priest,  and 
Simon  Ben  Giora,  were  at  the  head  of  large  fac- 
tions. It  is  suggested  by  Dr.  Levy  that  money 
may  have  been  struck  which  bore  the  names  of 
both  the.se  leaders;  but  it  seems  scarcely  probable, 
as  they  do  not  appear  to  have  acted  in  concert. 
But  a  copper'coin  has  been  published  in  the  Rerue 
Numismatique  which  undoubtedly  bears  the  in- 
scription of  "  Eleazar  the  priest."  Its  types  are  — 
I.  A  vase  with  one  handle  and  the  inscription 

.    ]nOn  "Tr277S,  "Eleazer  the  priest,"   in 

Samaritan  letters. 
K.  A    bunch    of    grapes    with    the    inscription 

[bs-i]^;''  Tibsjb  nn  shd^?,  "ye« 

one  of  the  redemption  of  Israel." 
Some  silver  coins  also,  fii-st  published  by  Reichardt, 
bear  the. same  inscription  on  the  obverse,  under  a 
])alm-tree,  but  the  letters  run  from  left  to  right. 
The  reverse  bears  the  same  type  and  inscription  as 
the  copper  coins. 

These  coins  are  attributed,  as  well  as  some  that 
bear  the  name  of  Sinion  or  Simeon,  to  the  period 
of  this  first  rebellion,  by  Dr.  Levy.  It  is,  however, 
quite  clear  that  same  of  the  coins  bearing  similar 
inscriptions  belong  to  the  period  of  l>ar-cocab"s 
rebellion  (or  Barcoceba's  as  the  name  is  often 
spelt)  under  Hadrian,  because  they  are  stamped 
upon  denarii  of  Trajan,  his  predecessor.  The  work 
of  Dr.  Levy  will  be  found  very  useful  as  collecting 
together  notices  of  all  these  coins,  and  throwing 
out  very  useful  suggestions  as  to  their  attribution; 
but  we  must  still  look  to  further  researches  and 
fresh  collections  of  these  coins  for  full  satisfaction 
on  many  points.*^  The  attribution  of  the  shekels 
and  half  shekels  to  Sinion  Maccaba'us  may  be  con- 
sidered as  well  established,  and  several  of  the  other 
coins  described  in  the  article  Monky  offer  no 
grounds  for  hesitation  or  doubt.  But  still  tliis 
series  is  very  much  isolated  from  other  classes  of 
coins,  and  the  nature  of  the  work  hardly  corresponds 
in  some  cases  with  the  periods  to  which  we  are 
constrained  from  the  existing  evidence  to  attribute 
the  coins.  We  must  therefore  still  look  for  further 
light  from  future  inquiries.  Drawings  of  shekels 
are  given  in  the  article  Monky.  H.  J.  R, 

*  SHE'LACH.     [SiLOAir,  The  Pool  of.] 
SHE'LAH  (nblp  [petition]  :  ^nXci/i,   [Stj- 
\uy,  Vat.  Alex,  in  Num.,  Vat.  1  Chr.  ii.  3;  Comp. 


available  for  the  article  Money  ;  but  I  am  indebted  to 
the  author  of  that  article  for  calling  my  attention  to 
this  book.  I  was,  however,  unable  to  procure  it  until 
the  article  Shekel  was  in  type.  U.  J.  R. 

c  The  passage  from  the  Jeru.salem  Talmud,  quoted 
in  a  former  note,  is  considered  by  Dr.  Levy  (p.  127), 
and  a  different  explanation  given.  The  word  traus- 
lated  by  Tychsen  "  to  pollute,"  is  translated  by  hia 
"  to  pay  ''  or  "  redeem  the  tithe,"  which  seems  better 


SHELAXITES,  THE 

in  Clir.,  S'JjAci!:]  Seln).  1.  The  youngest  son  of 
Judah  by  the  daughter  of  Shuah  the  Canaanite, 
and  ancestor  of  the  family  of  the  Shklaxites 
(Gen.  xxxviii.  5,  11,  14,  26,  xlvi.  12;  Num.  xxvi. 
20;  1  Chr.  ii.  .3,  iv.  21).  Some  of  his  descendants 
are  enumerated  in  a  remarliable  passage,  1  Chr.  iv. 
21-23. 

2.  {r\/W:  2aAd:  Sale.)  The  proper  form  of 
the  name  of  Salah  the  son  of  Arphaxad  (1  Chr. 
i.  18,  24). 

SHE'LANITES,  THE  C'^^tt^n  [patr.,  see 
aliovej :  S  ^rjAoovi  [Vat.  -vei]  ■  SelaUie).  The 
descendants  of  Shelah  1  (Num.  xxvi.  20). 

SHELEMI'AH  (H^pbtt?  [w/wm  Jehmah 
repaijs]:  SeAe/xio;  Alex.  SeAe^ja?;  £FA.  2eAe- 
fifia-]  Saliidas).  1.  One  of  the  sons  of  IJaiii  who 
had  married  a  foreign  vpife  in  the  time  of  Ezra 
(Ezr.  X.  39).     Called  Selejiias  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 

2.  ([Gen.]  2eA€^io;  Alex.  See^ia;  [Vat.  Te- 
A€,u(o;  FA.  TeAe^ias:]  Selemuc.)  The  father  of 
Hananiah  (Neb.  iii.  30),  who  assisted  in  restoring 
the  wall  of  Jerusalem.  If  this  Hananiah  be  "the 
same  as  is  mentioned  in  Neh.  iii.  8,  Sheleniiah  was 
one  of  the  priests  who  made  the  sacred  perfumes 
and  incense. 

3.  [Gen.  SeAe^ui'a ;  Vat.  BAe^uia  ;  FA.  leAe- 
jUio!  Acc.  SeUmiam.^  A  priest  in  the  time  of  Ne- 
hemiah,  who  was  made  one  of  the  treasurers  over 
the  treasuries  of  the  Levitical  tithes  (Neh.  xiii.  13). 

4.  [SeAe^i'as-J  The  father  of  .Jehucal,  or  Jucal, 
in  the  time  of  Zedekiah  (.Jer.  xxxvii.  3). 

5.  The  father  of  Irijah,  the  captain  of  the  ward 
who  arrested  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvii.  13).  In  Jer. 
xxxviii.  1,  his  name  appears  in  the  lengthened  form, 
like  the  following. 

6.  (^n^?:?b;£?:  2eA€/xio;  [Vat.  SaAa^sia.]) 
The  sariie  asMKsriELEMiAH  and  Siiallum  8  (1 
Chr.  xxvi.  14). 

7.  ([2eA€;Uia,  Alex,  -jxias,  FA.  -fx^ia.-^  Stk- 
miaii.)  Another  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  had 
married  a  foreign  wife  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x. 
41). 

8.  (2€Ae^(as;  Mex.  2aAa/iias:  Sde7)ua  [or 
-as].)  Ancestor  of  Jehudi  in  the  time  of  Jeboia- 
kim  (Jer.  xxxvi.  14). 

9.  (Om.  in  LXX.)  Son  of  Abdeel;  one  of  those 
who  received  the  orders  of  Jehoiakim  to  take  Baruch 
and  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvi.  26). 

SHE'LEPH  (^1?^-^  [drawing  out,  phickinij]  : 
[in  Gen.,  Rom.  2aA€'0,  in  Chr.,  omits,  with  Vat.;] 
Alex.  ^a\e(j>  [in  both]:  Siikph),  Gen.  x.  26;  1 
Chr.  i.  20.  The  second  in  order  of  the  sons  of 
Joktan.  The  tril)e  which  sprang  from  him  has 
been  satisfactorily  identified,  both  in  modern  and 
classical  times;  as  well  as  the  district  of  the  Ye- 
men named  after  him.  It  has  been  shown  in  other 
articles  [.Arabia;  .Ioktan,  etc.]  that  the  evidence 
of  Joktaii"s  colonization  of  .Southern  Arabia  is  in- 
disputably proved,  and  that  it  has  received  the 
assent  of  critics.  Sheleph  is  found  where  we  should 
expect  to  meet  with  him,  in  the  district  {MikhkiJ\ 
is  the  ancient  divisions  of  the  Yemen  are  called  by 

the  Arabs)  of  Sidaf  {^..JlXmj,  Marddd,  s.  v.), 
which  appears  to  be  the  same  as  Niebuhr's  Siilfie 
\nescr.  p.  215),  written   in  his    map  Selfia.     He 

gives  the  Arabic   X^aJLmwi  with  the  vowels  prob- 


SHELOMITH 


2967 


ably  Sulafeeyeh.  Niebuhr  says  of  it.  "  srandfi 
ttendue  de  pays  gouvernt^e  par  sept  Schtclis:"  it 
is  situate  in  N.  lat.  14°  30',  and  about  GO  miles 
nearly  south  of  San'a. 

Besides  this  geogi-aphical  trace  of  Sheleph,  we 
have  the  tribe  of  Shelif  or  Shulaf,  of  which  the 
first  notice  appeared  in  the  Zeitschrtft  d.  Deutschen 
Mnrf/enlandischen  Ceselhcliaft,  xi.  153,  by  Dr. 
Osiander,  and  to  which  we  are  indebted  for  th: 
following  information.  Yakoot  in  the  .Mttajmn,  s 
v.,  says,  "  Es-Selif  or  F2s-Sulaf  they  are  two  ancient 
tri)ies  of  the  tribes  of  Yemen;  Hisham  Ibn-Mo- 
hanniied  says  they  are  the  children  of  Yuktan  (.Iok- 
tan); and  Yuktan  was  the  son  of  Eber  the  son  of 
Salah  the  son  of  Arphaxad  the  son  of  Shem  the 
son  of  Noah  ....  And  a  district  in  El-Yemen  is 
named  after  the  Sulaf."  I^l-Kalkasander  (in  the 
British  Museum  library)  says,  "  El-Sulaf,  called 
also  Beni-s-Silfan,  a  tribe  of  the  descendants  of 
Kahtiin  (Joktan).  .  .  .  The  name  of  their  father 
has  remained  with  them,  and  they  are  called  Es- 
Sulaf :  they  are  children  of  Es-Sulaf  son  of  Yuktan 
who  is  Kahtan.  .  .  .  Es-Sulaf  originally  signifies 
one  of  the  little  ones  of  the  partridge,  and  Es-Silfan 
is  its  plural :  the  tribe  was  named  after  that  on  ac- 
count of  translation."  Y.'ikoot  also  says  (s.  v. 
Muntdbik)  that  El-^Iuntabik  was  an  idol  belong- 
ing to  Es-Sulaf.  Finally,  according  to  the  Kumoos 
(and  the  Lubb-el-Lubab,  cited  in  the  Mardsid,  s. 
v.),  Sulaf  was  a  branch-tribe  of  Dhu-1-Kilaa;  [a 
Himyerite  family  or  tribe  (Caussin,  Hssdl  i.  113), 
not  to  be  confounded  with  the  later  king  or  Tub- 
baa  of  that  name.] 

This  identification  is  conclusively  .satisfactory, 
especially  when  we  recollect  that  Hazarniaveth 
(Hadramawt),  Shelia  (.Seba),  aiid  other  .loktanite 
names  are  in  the  immediate  neighborhood.  It  is 
strenjithened,  if  further  evidence  were  required,  by 
the  classical  mention  of  the  '2,a\air7)vo'i.  Salapeni, 
also  wTiften  'AKairrivoi,  Alapeni  (Btol.  vi.  7).  Bo- 
chart  puts  forward  this  people,  with  rare  l)revity. 
The  more  recent  researches  in  Arabic  MSS.  have, 
as  we  have  shown,  confirmed  in  this  instance  his 
theory;  for  we  do  not  lay  much  stress  on  the  point 
that  Ptolemv's  Salapeni  are  placed  by  him  in  X. 
lat.  22°.       '  E.  S.  V. 

SHE'LESH  {Whw  [triad,  Ges.]:  SeW-l^s 
[Vat.  Ze/xr]'-]  Selhs).  One  of  the  sons  of  Helenc 
the  brother  of  Shamer  (1  Chr.  vii.  35). 

SHEL'OMT  (  ^nbc?  [pacific-] :  2e\€M<  [Vat„ 
-/uei]  :  Srdcmii).  Father  of  Ahihud,  the  prince  oi 
the  tribe  of  Asher  (Num.  xxxiv.  27). 

SHEL'OMITH  {rVfp^hW  [lore  of  pence:]: 
2aAa>|Uei0:  Sidumith).  1.  The  daughter  of  Dibri 
of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Lev.  xxiv.  11).  She  had 
married  an  Eg}'ptian,  and  their  son  was  stoned  for 
blasphemy. 

2.  ('S.a\(ifMf6i  ,  [Vat.  -0€t;  Comp.  2aAQ)|tif?:] 
Sfdiiinitli.)  The  daughter  of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr. 
iii.  I'J). 

3.  ('2a\a>fjL<i9;  Alex.  'SaXovfjLooO.)  Chief  of  the 
Izharites,  one  of  the  four  families  of  the  sons  of 
Kohath  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  18).  He  is  called  Siif.lo- 
iMOTH  in  1  Chr.  xxiv.  22. 

4.  (m^s'btr;  Keri  iT'abtt^  in  1  Chr.  xxvi. 

25;  HITS  be?  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  26;  H'^DbE?  in  1 
Clvr.  xxvi.  28:  \2a\wuiie:]  Sdemith  )  A  rfe- 
scendant  of  Eliezer  the  son  of  Mo.ses,  who  with  bit 


2968 


SHELOMOTH 


brethren  had  change  of  the  treasures  dedicated  for 
tlie  I'emple  in  the  reign  of  David. 

5  {n'\U'bW;  Keri  n^D'^I??  :  2aAcoMi9; 
[^at.  AKccOetfj.;]  Alex.  '2a\cofifi6'-  Saluinitli.)  A 
Gershonite,  son  of  Shiniei  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  9). 
'•Shiniei"  is  proliably  a  mistake,  as  Sheloiiiith  and 
bis  brotliers  are  afterwards  described  as  chief  of  the 
fathers  of  Laadan.  who  was  the  brother  of  Sliimei, 
and  the  sons  of  Shimei  are  then  enumerated. 

6.  {n'^r;i''b\p  :  SfXi/j-oie  [Vat.  -Asi]  ;  Alex. 
2aA€i|Uou9:  Selomith.)  According  to  the  present 
text,  the  sons  of  Shelomith,  with  the  son  of  Josi- 
phiah  at  their  head,  returned  from  Babylon  with 
Kzra  (Ezr.  viii.  10).  There  appears,  however,  to 
be  an  onnssion,  whick  niay  be  supplied  from  the 
I,XX.,  and  the  true  reading  is  probably,  "  Of  the 
sons  of  Bani,  Shelomith  the  son  of  Josiphiah." 
See  also  1  Esdr.  viii.  36,  where  he  is  called  "  Assa- 
LIMOTH  son  of  Josaphias."  * 

SHEL'OMOTH  {r\'\f2i''bp  [love  of  peace]  : 
S,a\o>ixwd-  Salamiith).  The  same  as  Shelo:mith 
3  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  22). 

SHELU'MIEL  (bS^D^r?,'  [friend  of  G.hT]  : 
SaAaiUn'jA:  Snlamit!).  The  son  of  Zurishaildai, 
and  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  at  the  time  of 
the  Kxodus.  He  had  59,300  men  under  him 
(Num.  i.  6,  ii.  12,  vii.  36,  41,  x.  19).  In  Judith 
(viii.  1)  he  is  called  Sajiael. 

SHEMCO,'^}  [name,  sign]:  S.^fjiu.:  Scm).  The 
eldest  son  of  Isoah,  born  (Gen.  v.  32)  when  his 
father  had  attained  the  age  of  .500  years.  He  was 
9S  years  old,  married,  and  childless,  at  the  time  of 
tlie  Hood.  After  it,  he,  with  his  father,  brothers, 
sisters-in-law,  and  wife,  received  the  blessing  of 
God  (ix.  1),  and  entwed  into  the  covenant.  Two 
years  afterwards  he  liecame  the  father  of  Arphaxad 
(xi.  10).  atid  other  children  were  born  to  him  sub- 
sequently. \Mth  the  help  of  his  lirother  .lapheth, 
he  covered  the  nakedness  of  their  father,  wliicli  Ca- 
naan and  11am  did  not  care  to  hide.  In  the 
prophecy  of  Noah  which  is  connected  with  this  in- 
cident (ix.  2.5-27),  the  first  blessing  falls  on  Shem. 
He  died  at  the  age  of  GOO  years. 

Assuming  that  the  years  ascribed  to  the  patri- 
archs in  the  present  copies  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  are 
coiTect,  it  appears  that  Methuselah,  who  in  his  first 
2-13  years  was  contemporary  with  Adam,  had  still 
nearlv  100  years  of  his  long  life  to  run  after  Shem 
was  born.  And  when  Shem  died,  Abraham  was 
148  years  old,  and  Isaac  had  been  9  years  married. 
There  are,  therefore,  but  two  links  —  Methuselah 
and  Shem  —  between  Adam  and  Isaac.  So  that 
the  early  records  of  the  Creation  and  the  Tall  of 
Jlan,  which  camedown  to  Isaac,  would  challenge 
(apart  from  their  inspiration)  the  same  cotifidence 
vhich  is  readily  yielded  to  a  tale  that  reaches  the 
hearer  through  two  well-known  persons  between 
himself  and  the  original  chief  actor  in  the  events 
-«iated. 

There  is  no  chronological  improbability  in  that  an- 
cient .Jewish  tradition  which  brings  Shem  and  Abra- 
ham into  personal   conference.     [Mki.cmizkdek.] 

A  mistake  in  translating  x.  21,  svhich  is  admit- 
ted into  the  Septuagint,  and  is  followed  by  the  A. 
V.  and  Luther,  has  suggested  the  supposition  that 
Shem  was  younger  than  .lapheth  (see  A.  PfeiflTeri 
Opera .  p.  301.  There  can  be,  however,  no  doubt 
'.see  llosenmiiller.  ni  h>r..  with  whom  (lesenius, 
Itietaii  IIS,  p.  1433.  seems  to  agree)  that  the  trans- 


SHEMAAH 

lation  ought  to  be,  according  to  grammatical  rule, 
•'  the  elder  brother  of  .lapheth."  In  tlie  six  places 
(v.  32.  vi.  10,  vii.  13,  ix.  18,  x.  1 ;  1  Chr.  i.  4; 
where  the  three  sons  of  Noah  are  named  together, 
precedence  is  uniformly  assigned  to  Shem.  In  ch. 
x.  the  descendants  of  Ham  and  Japheth  are  enu- 
merated first,  possibly  because  tlie  sacred  historian, 
regarding  the  Shemitic  people  as  his  proper  subject, 
took  the  earliest  opportunity  to  disencumber  his 
narrative  of  a  digression.  The  verse  v.  32  com- 
pared with  xi.  10  maj'  be  fairly  understood  to  mean 
that  the  three  sons  of  Noah  were  born  after  their 
father  had  attained  the  age  of  500  years;  but  it 
cannot  be  reasonably  inferred  from  thence  either 
that  Shem  was  the  second  son,  or  that  they  were 
all  born  in  one  year. 

The  portion  of  the  earth  occupied  by  the  de- 
scendants of  Shem  (x.  21-31)  intersects  the  por- 
tions of  Japheth  and  Ham,  and  stretches  hi  an  un- 
interrupted line  from  the  Jlediterranean  Sea  to  the 
Indian  Ocean.  Beginning  at  its  northwestern  ex- 
tremity with  Lydia  (according  to  all  ancient  author- 
ities, though  doubted  by  Michaelis  ,■  see  Gesen. 
Tlies.  p.  745),  it  hicludes  Syria  (Aranij,  Chaldaea 
(Arphaxad),  parts  of  Assyria  (Asshur),  of  Persia 
(Elam),  and  of  the  Arabian  Peninsula  (.loktan). 
The  various  questions  connected  with  the  disper- 
sion of  the  Shemitic  people  are  discussed  in  the 
article  Shkmitic  EAXGUACiEs. 

The  servitude  of  Canaan  under  Shem,  predicted 
by  Noah  (ix.  20),  was  fulfilled  primarily  in  the 
subjugation  of  the  people  of  Palestine  (.losh.  xxiii. 
4,  and  2  Chr.  viii.  7,  8).  It  is  doubtful  whether 
in  verse  27  God  or  Japheth  is  mentioned  as  the 
dweller  in  the  tents  of  Shem:  in  the  former  sense 
the  verse  may  refer  to  the  special  presence  of  (iod 
with  the  Jews,  and  to  the  descent  of  Christ  from 
them ;  or,  in  the  latter  sense,  to  the  occiipatioii  of 
Palestine  and  adjacent  countries  by  the  Romans, 
and  (spiritually  understood )  to  the  accession  of  the 
(ientiles  to  the  Church  of  (iod  (Eph.  iii.  6).  See  A. 
I'feifl^eri  Opera,  p.  40;  Newton,  Un  the  Prophecies, 
Diss.  i.  W.  T.  B. 

SHE'MA  (27^tt7  [hearing,  rumor] :  [in  Josh.] 
'S.aKfiaa;  Alex.  'S.afjLaa.;  [in  1  Chr.,  Itoni.  2a^aa, 
Vat.  Alex.  2e,uaa:]  S'ime).  One  of  the  towns  of 
Judah.  It  lay  in  the  region  of  the  south,  and  is 
named  between  Aaiam  and  Moladah  (Josh.  xv. 
20).  In  the  list  of  the  towns  of  Simeon  selected 
from  those  in  the  south  of  .ludah,  Sheba  takes  the 
place  of  Shema,  probably  by  an  error  of  transcrip- 
tion or  a  change  of  pronunciation.  The  genealog- 
ical hsts  of  1  Chr.  (ii.  43,  44)  inform  us  tiiat  Shema 
originally  proceeded  from  Hebron,  and  in  its  tuni 
colonized  Maon.  G. 

SHE'MA  (^'Pli'  [rumo7-]:  2a/io:  Samma). 
1.   A  Reubenite,  ancestor  of  Bela  (1  Chr.  v.  8). 

2.  (Samn.)  Son  of  Elpaal,  and  one  of  the  heads 
of  the  fathers  of  the  inhabitants  of  Aijalon  who 
drove  out  the  inhabitants  of  Gath  (1  Chr.  viii.  13) 
Probably  the  same  as  Shimiii. 

3.  ('S.a/xaias  ■■  Seinei'i.)  One  of  those  who  stood 
at  Ezra's  right  hand  wlien  he  read  the  Law  to  the 
people  (Neh.  viii.  4).  Called  Samjius,  1  Esdr.  ix 
43. 

SHEM'AAH  C^^^"^^^  [fem.,  see  above]- 
'Aff/xa:  [Vat]  FA.  A/^a:  [.\lex.  20^00:]  Samna). 
.A  Benjamite  of  Gibeah,  and  father  of  Ahiezer  and 
.loash,  two  warriors  of  their  tribe  who  joined  David 
at  ZikhiK  il   Chr.  xii.   3).     Hia  name  is  written 


SHEMAIAH 

irith  the  article,  and  is  properly  "  Hasshemaah." 
The  margin  of  A.  V.  gives  "  Hasmaah."' 

SHEMA'TAH  [3  syl.]  {Tl'^VrzW  [.h-hnvih 
heurs]:  "^.a/xalas;  [Vat.  in  1  Clir.  sii.,  2a//^aiar:] 
Se?Hd'is).  1.  A  prophet  in  the  reiL,'n  of  Kehulioani. 
When  tlie  king  had  assembled  180,000  men  of  Ben- 
iamin  and  Judah  to  reconquer  the  northern  king- 
dom after  its  revolt,  Shemaiah  was  commissioned 
to  charge  them  to  return  to  their  homes,  and  not 
to  war  against  their  brethren  (1  K.  xii.  22;  2  Chr. 
xi.  2).  His  second  and  last  appearance  upon  the 
stage  was  upon  the  occasion  of  the  invasion  of  Judah 
and  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Shishak  king  of  Egypt. 
His  message  was  then  one  of  comfort,  to  assure  the 
princes  of  Judah  that  the  punishment  of  their 
i  lolatry  should  not  come  by  the  hand  of  Shishak 
(2  Chr.  xii.  5,  7).  This  event  is  in  the  order  of 
narrative  subsequent  to  the  first,  but  from  some 
circumstances  it  would  seem  to  have  occurred  before 
the  disruption  of  the  two  kingdoms.  Compare  xii. 
1,  where  the  people  of  Rehoboam  are  called  "  Israel," 
and  xii.  .5,  6,  where  the  princes  are  called  indiffer- 
ently "  of  Judah  "  and  "of  Israel."  He  wrote  a 
chronicle  containing  the  events  of  Rehoboam's  reign 
(2  Chr.  xii.  15).     In  2  Chr.  xi.  2    his    name  is 

driven  in  the  lengthened  form  ^rT^l^Qil?. 

2.  (2a,uafa;  [in  Neh.,  FA.  ■S.e/j.eia:]  Se7nein, 
Semali.)  The  son  of  Shechaniah,  among  the  de- 
scendants of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr.  iii.  22).  He  was 
keeper  of  the  east  gate  of  the  city,  and  assisted 
Nehemiah  in  restoring  the  wall  (Xeh.  iii.  29).  Lord 
A.  Hervey  {Geneal.  p.  107)  proposes  to  omit  the 
words  at  the  beginning  of  1  Chr.  iii.  22  as  spurious, 
and  to  consider  Shemaiah  identical  with  Shuiei 
5,  the  brother  of  Zerubbabel. 

3.  CSiafiaias ;  [Vat.  -^v/xeaiv'-]  Samaia.)  An- 
cestor of  Ziza,  a  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (1 
Chr.  iv.  -37).     Perhaps  the  same  as  Shijiei  0. 

4.  {-Xenet,  [Vat.  Sf^eei;  Alex.  Se^eij/:]  Sa- 
inid.)  Son  of  Joel  a  Reubenite;  perhaps  the  same 
as  Shkma  (1  Chr.  v.  4).     See  Joel  5. 

5.  {SoLfxa'ta;  Semeia.)  Son  of  Hasshub,  a  Me- 
rarite  Le\ite  who  lived  in  Jerusalem  after  the 
Captivity  (1  (Jhr.  ix.  14;  Neh.  xi.  15),  and  had 
oversight  of  the  outward  business  of  the  house  of 
God.  " 

6.  {'Sa/j.ia;  [Vat.  Sa^eio;  Alex,  ^afiias-  Se- 
mein.l )  Father  of  Obadiah,  or  Abda,  a  Invite  who 
returned  to  Jerusalem  after  the  Captivity  (1  Chr. 
ix.  16).  He  is  elsewhere  called  Shajijiua  (Neh. 
si.  17). 

7.  {'Zffxe'i,  'Se/xaiu'i  [Vat.  'S.a/j.aias '-,  FA.  2a- 
Ufas,  lafxaias \]  Alex.  Oe/jLa'Ca.  'Ze/A.eia-  Semeias.) 
Son  of  Klizaphan,  and  chief  of  his  house  in  the 
reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  sv.  8,  11).  He  took  part 
in  the  ceremonial  with  wiiich  the  king  brought  the 
Ark  from  the  house  of  Obed-edom. 

8.  {"Sa/xaias;  Alex.  2a/i|Uaias:  [Seineias.])  A 
Levite,  son  of  Nethaneel,  and  also  a  scribe  in  the 
time  of  David.  He  registered  the  divisions  of  the 
priests  by  lot  into  twenty-four  orders  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  fi). 

9.  (2ajuaias;  [Rom.  Vat.  ver.  7,  2a/uai';]  Alex. 
So'xei'as:  [Seinepis,  Seinei.])  The  eldest  son  of 
Oljed-eilom  the  Gittite.  He  and  his  lirethren  and 
his  sons  were  gate-keepers  of  the  Temple  (1  Chr. 
xxvi.  4,  6,  7). 

10.  ([2a^aios;]  Alex.  2aue(as:  [Sc?7U' j'(s.] ) 
A  descendant  of  .leduthun  the  singer  who  live<l  in 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  14).  He  as- 
■isted  in  the  purification  of  the  Temple  and  the 

187 


iSHEMAIAH  2969 

reformation  of  the  service,  and  with  Uzziel  repre- 
.sented  his  family  on  that  occasion. 

11.  (2a^aio;  Alex.  ^afJ-aeia:  S'lnuwig.)  One 
of  the  sons  of  Adonikam  who  returned  in  the  second 
caravan  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  13).  Called  Sasiaias 
in  1  Esdr.  viii.  39. 

12.  iS.^/j.eias;  [Vat.  'Za/xaias-]  Saneicis.) 
One  of  the  "heads"  whom  Ezra  sent  for  to  his 
camp  by  the  river  of  Ahava,  for  the  purpose  of  ob- 
taining invites  and  ministers  for  the  Temple  from 
"  the  place  Casiphia  "  (Ezr.  viii.  16).  Called  Mas- 
man  in  1  Esdr.  viii.  43. 

13.  (2a^at'a:  Stmeia.)  A  priest  of  the  family 
of  Harim,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife  at  Ezra's 
bidding  (Ezr.  x.  21).  He  is  called  Sajieius  in 
1  Esdr.  ix.  21. 

14.  (2o/xtti'as  ;  [Vat.  2a/xaia  ;  FA.  2e/xea  :] 
Semtias.)  A  layman  of  Israel,  son  of  another  Ha- 
rim, who  also  had  married  a  foreigner  (Ezr.  x  31). 
Called  S.vnuEUs  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  32. 

15.  (Sefid:  [Vat.  F.-V.  2e/i66i:  Seinnias.])  .Son 
of  I)elaiah  the  son  of  Mehetabeel,  a  prophet  in  the 
time  of  Nehemiah,  who  was  bribed  l)y  Sanballat 
and  his  confederates  to  frighten  the  Jews  from  their 
task  of  rebuilding  the  wall,  and  to  put  Nehenii-.ih 
in  fear  (Neh.  vi.  10).  In  his  assumed  terror  he 
appears  to  have  shut  up  his  house  and  to  have  pro- 
posed that  all  should  retire  into  the  Tem|)le  and 
close  the  doore. 

16.  (2aMaia,  2,efj.ias;  Alex,  [rather  FA.^]  2€- 
^ei'ar  in  Neh.  xii.  [fi,  18;  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  onnt, 
and  so  Rom.  ver.  6;  in  Xeh.  xii.  35,  'Za/xdia']  ^e- 
metii,  [Samaia  or  -as.] )  The  head  of  a  priestly 
house  who  signed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  X.  8).  His  family  went  up  with  Zerubbaliel, 
and  were  represented  in  the  time  of  Joiakim  by  Je- 
honathan  (Neh.  xii.  6,  18).  Probably  the  same 
who  is  mentioned  again  in  Neh.  xii.  35. 

17.  {:S.a/j.diav,  [A^at.  Alex.  2apaia;]  Alex.  2aa- 
/iidCas'  [Semeia.])  One  of  the  princes  of  Judah 
who  went  in  procession  with  Ezra,  in  the  right 
hand  of  the  two  thanksgiving  companies  who  cele- 
lirated  the  solemn  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jeru- 
salem (Neh.  xii.  34). 

18.  (2a/xafa:  [Sevieia.])  One  of  the  choir  who 
took  part  in  the  procession  with  which  the  detliea- 
tion  of  the  new  wall  of  Jerusalem  by  Ezra  was  ac- 
companied (Neh.  xii.  36).  He  appears  to  have  been 
a  Gershonite  Levite,  and  descendant  of  Asaph,  for 
reasons  which  are  given  under  Mattaxi.mi  2. 

19.  (Om.  in  Vat.  MS.  [also  Rom.  Alex.  FA.']; 
Alex,  [rather  FA.-^]  'S.ifJ.e'ias-)  A  priest  who  blew 
a  trumpet  on  the  same  occasion  (Neh.  xii.  42* 

20.  (2a|Uaias;  [FA.  2a^€as:]  Seineias.)  She- 
maiah the  Nehelamite,  a  false  prophet  in  the  time 
of  Jeremiah.  He  prophesied  to  the  peojile  of  the 
Captivity  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  atteni|)ted 
to  counteract  the  infiuence  of  Jeremiah's  advice  that 
they  should  settle  quietly  in  the  land  of  their  exile, 
build  houses,  plant  vineyards,  and  wait  patiently  for 
the  period  of  their  return  at  the  end  of  seventy 
years.  His  animosity  to  Jeremiah  exhil)ited  itself 
in  the  more  active  form  of  a  letter  to  the  liigh-]iriest 
Zei)haniah,  urging  him  to  exercise  the  functions  of 
his  office,  and  lay  the  prophet  in  prison  and  in  the 
stocks.  The  letter  was  read  by  Zeplianiah  to  .ler- 
emiah,  wlio  instantly  pronounced  the  message  ot" 
doom  against  .Shemaiah  for  liis  presur.iption,  tiiat 
he  should  have  none  of  his  family  to  dwell  among 
the  people,  and  that  himself  should  not  live  t^-  ^ee 
their  return  from  captivity  (.ler.  xxix.  24-32  i.     His 


2970  SHEMARIAH 

name  is  writteu  in  ver.  2J  in  the  lengthened  fonii 

21.  (Sa/xaia?;  [Vat.  Sa^iouay:  Alex.  'S.au.ov- 
ioy.])  A  Levite  in  the  third  3ear  of  Jehoshaphat, 
who  wa.s  sent  with  other  Levites,  accompanied  by 
two  priests  and  some  of  the  princes  of  Judah,  to 
teach  the  people  the  book  of  the  i,aw  (2  Cbr.  xvii.  8). 

22.  (2e^ei;  [Vat.  Se^ei;/:]  Stineids.)  One  of 
the  l.evites  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  were 
placed  in  the  cities  of  the  priests  to  distribute  the 
tithes  among  their  brethren  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  15). 

23.  (So/iciias.)  A  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
who  assisted  at  the  solemn  passover  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  9). 
He  is  called  the  brother  of  Conaniah,  and  in  2  Chr. 
xxxi.  12  we  find  Cononiah  and  Shimei  his  brother 
mentioned  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  as  chief  Levites ; 
but  if  Cononiah  and  Conaniah  are  the  names  of 
persons  and  not  of  families,  they  cannot  be  identical, 
nor  can  Shemaiah  be  the  same  as  Shimei,  who 
lived  at  least  eighty-five  years  before  him. 

24.  ([FA.  Mao-easO  SeintL)  The  father  of 
Urijah  of  Kirjath-jearim  (Jer.  xxvi.  20). 

25.  (2eA6Aii'as;  FA.  SedeKias;  [Comp.  2e- 
/teia?:]  Htnitias.)  The  fiither  of  Delaiah  (Jer. 
zxxvi.  12).  W.  A.  W. 

SHEMARI'AH  (^H^^Tpip  [whom  Jehovah 
keeps]:  Sa^uapaia;  Alex.  [FA.]  'Safiapia'-  Sama- 
ria). 1.  One  of  the  Benjamite  warriors,  "  helpers 
of  the  battle,"  who  came  to  David  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr. 
xii.  5). 

2.  (n''"1^t£' :  Sa^api'a  [Vat.  -peia] :  Sama- 
rins.)  One  of  the  family  of  Harim,  a  layman  of 
Israel,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife  in  the  time 
of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  32). 

3.  ([Vat.  FA.  Sa^apeia;  Alex.  Sa/xapeiasO 
Semeria.)  One  of  the  family  of  Bani,  under  the 
same  circumstances  as  the  preceding  (Ezr.  x.  41). 

SHEME'BER  (1?Spt^^  [lojhj  flight,  Ges.] : 
^vfiolSop'-  Semcber).  King  of  Zelioim,  and  ally 
of  the  king  of  Sodom  when  he  was  attacked  by  the 
northeastern  invaders  under  Chedorlaomer  (Gen. 
xiv.  2)  The  Sam.  Text  and  Version  give  "  She- 
niebel." 

SHE'MER  ("IJ^V^  [kept,  thence  lees  oficine']  -. 
%efji7ip;  [Vat.  once  2a^7?p:]  Somer).  The  owner 
of  the  hill  on  wliich  the  city  of  Samaria  was  built 
(1  K.  xvi.  24),  and  after  whom  it  was  called  Slio- 
ineron  by  its  founder  Omri,  who  bought  the  site  for 
two  silver  talents.  We  should  rather  have  e.xpected 
that  the  name  of  the  city  would  have  been  Shiiiiron, 
from  Shenier ;  for  Slwmerun  would  have  been  the 
name  given  after  an  owner  Shome?-.  This  latter 
form,  which  occurs  1  Chr.  vii.  32,  appears  to  be 
that  adopted  by  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac,  who  read 
Soiner  and  Shamir  respectively;  but  the  Vat.  JIS. 
of  the  LXX.  retains  the  present  form  "  Shemer," 
and  changes  the  name  of  the  city  to  'X^/j.^pduor  26- 
uripdoi'  [so  Koni.,  but  Vat.  ^.a/xTtpcov]-     W.  A.  W. 

SHEMI'DA  (l^T'Jpty  [fame  of  knowledge]: 
"ivixaip,  'S.oixapifi.  [Vat.  -peifx] ;  Alex.  26/iipa€  in 
.losh.:  Seml(la).  A  son  ofGilead,  and  ancestor  of 
the  family  of  the  Shemidaites  (Xum.  xxvi.  32;  Josh, 
xvii.  2).  Called  Shemidah  in  the  [later  edition-s 
of  the]  A.  V.  of  1  Chr.  vii.  19. 

SHEMI'DAH  (27T7ptp  [see  above] :  -X^fxipi.; 
[Vat.  26;U6ipa:]  Seiiiida).  The  same  as  Shemida 
the  son  of  (iilead  (1  Chr.  vii.  19).  [The  name  is 
bere  spelled  Shemida  in  A.  V.  ed.  1611.  —  A.] 


SHEMIRAMOTH 

SHEMIDAITES,  THE  ( "'l^Taii^r! 
[patr.,  above]:  b  ^.^fia^pi  [Vat.-pei]:  SemidaitcB). 
The  descendants  of  Shemida  the  son  of  GUead 
(Num.  xxvi.  32).  They  obtained  their  lot  among 
the  male  children  of  Manasseh  (Josh.  xvii.  2). 

SHEM'INITH  (n^rari^n  [the  eighth,  see 
below]).  The  title  of  Ps.  vi.  contains  a  direction 
to  the  leader  of  the  stringed  instruments  of  the 
Temple  choir  concerning  the  manner  in  which  the 
Psalm  was  to  be  sung.  "To  the  chief  Musician 
on  Neginoth  upon  Sheminith,"  or  "  the  eighth," 
as  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  has  it.  A  similar  di- 
rection is  found  in  the  title  of  Ps.  xii.  The  LXX. 
in  both  passages  renders  inrip  Trjs  o^Si/tjs.  and 
the  Vulgate  /);•()  octavd.  The  Geneva  Version  gives 
"upon  the  eighth  tune."  lieferring  to  1  Clir.  xv. 
21,  we  find  certain  Levites  were  appointed  by  David 
to  play  "with  harps  on  the  Sheminith,"  which  the 
Vulgate  renders  as  above,  and  the  LXX.  by  a,fxa- 
aeviO,  which  is  merely  a  corruption  of  the  Hebrew. 
The  Geneva  Version  explains  in  the  margin,  "  which 
was  the  eighth  tune,  over  the' which  he  that  was 
the  most  excellent  had  charge."  As  we  know 
nothing  whatever  of  the  music  of  the  Hebrews,  all 
conjectures  as  to  the  meaning  of  their  musical  terms 
are  necessarily  vas^ue  and  contradictory,  ^\'ith  re- 
spect to  Sheminith,  most  Kabbinical  writers,  as 
Rashi  and  Aben  F>zra,  follow  the  Targuni  on  the 
Psalms 'in  regarding  it  as  a  harp  with  eiirht  strings; 
but  this  has  no  foundation,  and  depends  upon  a 
misconstruction  of  1  Chr.  xv.  21.    Gesenius  (  Thes. 

s.  V.  n^3)  says  it  denotes  the  Oass,  in  opjxisition 
to  Alamoth  (1  Chr.  xv.  20),  which  signifies  the 
treble.  But  as  the  meaning  of  Alamoth  itself  is 
very  obscure,  we  cannot  make  use  of  it  for  deter- 
mining the  meaning  of  a  term  which,  thoutrh  dis- 
tinct from,  is  not  necessarily  contrasteil  with  it. 
Others,  with  the  author  of  Shilte  llaggibbaiim,  in- 
terpret "the  sheminith^'  as  the  octave;  but  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  were  ac- 
quainted with  the  octave  as  understood  by  our- 
selves. On  comparing  the  manner  in  which  the 
word  occurs  in  the  titles  of  the  two  psalms  already 
mentioned,  with  the  position  of  the  terms  Aijeleth 
Shahar,  Gittith,  Jonath-elem-rechokim,  etc.,  in 
other  ps.alms,  which  are  generally  regarded  as  in- 
dicating the  melody  to  be  employed  by  the  singers, 
it  seems  most  probable  that  Sheminith  is  of  the 
same  kind,  and  denotes  a  certain  air  known  as  tlie 
eighth,  or  a  certain  key  in  which  the  psalm  was 
to  be  sung.  JNIaurer  ( Comm.  in  Ps.  vi. )  regards 
Sheminith  as  an  instrument  of  deep  tone  like  the 
violoncello,  while  Alamoth  he  compares  with  the 
violin ;  and  such  also  a]ipears  to  be  the  view  taken 
by  Junius  and  Treniellius.  It  is  impossible  in  such 
a  case  to  do  more  than  point  to  the  most  probable 
conjecture.  W.  ,\.  W. 

SHEMIE'AJVIOTH  {Tr\iy^'^'tl^  [name 
most  high,  Ges.,  name  of  the  height  z=  Jehovah, 
Flirst]:  -XefjupafAwQ:  Alex.  'Si/nipafxaie,  1  Chr.  xv. 
18;  [Vat.J  FA.  :S.eij.eipaij.we,  1  Chr.  sv.l8;  [Vat. 
SafxiLpaixcedeid,  FA.  ^efiipafjcoodfie,  1  Chr.  xv.] 
20;  [Vat.  laixapfi/xaid,  FA.]  ^.a/jLapi/xue,  1  Chr. 
xvi.  5:  Semirdiiinili).  1.  A  Levite  of  the  second 
degree,  appointed  to  play  with  a  psaltery  "on  Ala- 
moth," in  the  choir  formed  by  David.  He  was  in 
the  division  which  Asaph  led  with  cymbals  (1  Chr 
XV.  18.  20,  xvi.  5). 

2.   (2e/Aipo|U£tfe  i   [Vat.  2au€ipa/*a)e.J)     A  I* 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


2971 


rite  in  the  reign  of  Jehosliapliat,  who  was  sent  1      3.  Varieties  of   the   great   Shemitic   lani;u:i:,'e 
irith  others  through  the  cities  of  .ludali  to  teach  j  family  are  to  be  found   in   use  in   the  followin: 


the  book  of  the  Law  to  the  [leople  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8 

SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  and  WRIT- 
ING. Intkoduction,  §§  1-5.  —  1.  The  expres- 
sions, "Shemitic  family,"  and  '•Shemitic  lan- 
guages," are  based,  as  is  well  known,  on  a  reference 
to  Gen.  X.  21  ft"  [See  Shkm.]  Suhsequently, 
the  obvious  inaqcuracy  of  the  expression  has  led  to 
an  attempt  to  substitute  others,  such  as  Western 
Asiatic,  or  Syro- Arabic  —  this  last  a  happily  chosen 
designation,  as  bringing  at  once  before  us  the  two 
geographical  extremes  of  this  family  of  languages. 
But  the  earlier,  though  incorrect  one,  ha.s  main- 
tained its  ground :  and  for  purposes  of  convenietice 
we  shall  continue  to  use  it." 

2.  It  is  impossible  to  lay  down  with  accuracy 
the  boundaries  of  the  area  occupied  by  tlie  tril)es 
employing  so-called  Shemitic  dialects.  Various 
disturbing  causes  led  to  fluctuations,  especially  (as 
on  the  northern  side)  in  the  neighborhood  of  rest- 
less Aryin.  tribes.  For  general  purposes,  the  tiigh- 
lands  of  Armenia  may  be  taken  as  the  northern 
boundary  —  the  river  Tigris  and  the  ranges  beyond 
it  as  the  eastern  —  and  the  Red  Sea,  the  Levant, 
and  certain  portions  of  Asia  ^Nlinor  as  the  western. 
Within  these  limits  lies  the  proper  home  of  tiie 
Shemitic  family,  which  has  exercised  so  mighty  an 
influence  on  the  history  of  the  world.  Tlie  area 
named  may  seem  small,  in  comparison  with  the 
wider  regions  occupied  by  the  Aryan  stock.  But 
its  geographical  position  in  respect  of  so  much  of 
the  old  world  —  its  two  nolile  rivers,  alike  facilita- 
ting foreign  and  internal  intercourse  —  the  extent 
of  seaboard  and  desert,  presenting  long  lines  of 
protection  against  foreign  invasion  —  have  proved 
eminently  favorable  to  the  undi.sturlied  growth  and 
development  of  this  family  of  languages,  as  well  as 
inve.sting  some  branches  (at  certain  periods  of  their 
history)  with  very  considerable  influence  abroad.'' 


localities  within  the  area  named.  In  those  or.li 
narily  known  as  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  BabyloniiL 
and  Assyria,  there  prevailed  Aramaic  dialects  (jf 
different  kinds,  e.  (j.  Biblical  Chaldaic  —  that  of 
the  Targums  and  of  the  Syriac  versions  of  Scrip- 
ture —  to  which  may  be  added  otiier  varieties  of 
the  same  stock  —  such  as  that  of  the  Palm3rei!e 
inscriptions  —  and  of  difierent  Sabian  fragments. 
Along  the  JMediterranean  seaboard,  and  among  the 
tribes  settled  in  Canaan,  must  be  placed  the  home 
of  the  language  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Ukl 
Testament,  among  which  were  interspersed  some 
relics  of  that  of  the  Phoenicians.  In  the  south, 
amid  the  seclusion  of  Araliua,  was  preserved  the 
dialect  destined  at  a  subsequent  period  so  widely 
to  surpass  its  sisters  in  the  extent  of  territory  over 
which  it  is  spoken.  A  variety,  allied  to  this  last, 
is  found  to  have  been  domiciliated  for  a  long  time 
in  Abyssinia. 

In  addition  to  the  singular  tenacity  and  exclu- 
siveness  of  the  Shemitic  character,  as  tending  to 
preserve  unaltered  the  main  features  of  their  lan- 
guage, we  may  allow  a  good  deal  for  the  tolerably 
uniform  climate  of  their  geographical  locations. 
But  (as  compared  with  variations  fiom  the  parent 
stock  in  the  .Japhetian  family),  in  the  case  of  the 
Shemitic,  the  adherence  to  the  original  tyjje  is  very 
remarkable.  Turn  where  we  will,  from  whatever 
causes  springing,  the  same  tenacity  is  di.scernihle  — 
whether  we  look  to  the  simple  pastoral  tribes  of  the 
wilderness — the  fierce  and  rapacious  iidmbitants 
of  mountain  regions  —  the  craftsmen  of  cities,  the 
tillers  of  the  soil,  or  the  traffickers  in  distant  marta 
and  havens."^ 

The  following  table  is  taken  from  Professor  M. 
Midler's  late  volume  On  the  Science  of'  Lauf/vaye 
(p.  381)  —  a  volume  equally  remarkable  for  re- 
search, fidelity,  and  graphic  description;   - 


Living  Languages. 

Dialects  of  Arabic 
Amharic  . 


The  Jews 


Neo-Syriac 


Qexealoqical  Table  of  the  Shemitic  FAJiaT  op  LAjjauAGES. 
Dead  Languages. 

Ethiopic I  Arabic,   or  > 

Himvaritic  Inscriptions )  Southern. 

Uiblical  Hebrew 

Samaritan  Pentateuch 

Carthaginian-Phoenician  Inscriptions )  MiiMle 

Chaldee,  JIasora,  Talmud,  Targum,  Biblical  Chaldee     .  ^  Aramaic, 

Syriac  (Fesliito,  2d  cent.  a.  D.) 

Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Babylon  and  Nineveh 


Few  inquiries  vrould  be  more  interesting,  were 
Bufficiently  trustworthy  means  at  hand,  than  that 
into  the  oriijinitL  Shemitic  dialect,  and  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  Aramaic  was  —  not  otdy  in  the 
first  instance,  but  more  long  and  widely  tlian  we 
ordinarily  suppose  —  the  principal  means  of  inter- 
communication among  all  tribes  of  Shemitic  origin, 
with  the  exception  perhaps  of  those  of  the  Arabian 
oeninsula.  The  historical  books  of  the  t)ld  Testa- 
aient  show  plainly,  that  between  the  occupation  of 
Canaan  and  the' victories  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  many 


«  "  La  d(5nomiuation  de  s^mitiques  ne  peut  avoir 
i'inconv(5nient,  du  moment  qu'on  la  pieud  coiiime 
uue  simple  appellation  conveiitionuelle  et  que  lou 
test  expliquii  sur  ce  qu'elle  reuferme  de  pi-ofondonient 
■ne\act "  (Renan,  Htsl.  Gen.  i/es  Lringiies  S ■mtti(/iies, 
.  2).  Knglish  soholars  have  lately  adopted,  from  the 
V'reoch.  the  form   "Semitic;"  but  there  Is  no  rwiccu 


causes  led  to  the  extension  of  the  Aramaic,  to  the 
restriction  of  pure  Hebrew.  But  there  is  much 
that  is  probable  in  the  notion  held  by  n)ore  than 
one  scholar,  that  the  spoken  dialect  of  the  Shemitic 
tribes  external  to  Arabia  (in  the  earlisst  periods  of 
their  history)  closely  resembled,  or  was  in  fact  a 
better  variety  of  Aramaic.  This  notion  is  cor- 
roborated liy  the  traces  still  discernible  in  the 
Scriptures  of  .\ramaisms,  where  the  language  (as 
in  poetical  fragments)  would  seem  to  have  l>een 
preserved  in  a   form    most   nearly   resembling   its 


why  toe  should  abandon  the  Hebrew  sound  because 
the  Krenoh  find  the  pronunciMtion  difficult. 

''  Bertheau,  in  Ilerzog's  Reuf-Ency/rl'i/iarlie,  v.  609, 
013  ;   t'iirst,  Lehrgfbaiide  der  Aftimaiscken  llinme,  §  I. 

(••  Schol/,,  Einleitiina  in  das  A.  T ,  Coin,  1S33,  21-28  ; 
Fiirst,  Lrhr^fh.  §§  1,  20,  22. 


2972 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


original  one:"  and  also  from  tlie  resemblances 
which  may  be  detected  between  the  Aramaic  and 
the  earliest  monunieiit  of  Arabic  speech  —  the 
tlimyaritic  frajjments.^ 

4.  The  history  of  the  Shemitic  people  tells  us  of 
various  movements  undertaken  by  them,  but  sup- 
plies no  remarkable  instances  of  their  (issimilniiny. 
Though  carrying  with  them  their  language,  insti- 
tutions, and  habits,  they  are  not  found   to  have 
struck  root,  but  remained  strangers  and  exotics  in 
several  instances,  passing  away  without  traces  of 
their  occupancy.     So  late  as  the  times  of  Augus- 
tine,  a  dialect,   derived   from   the  old  I'hoenician 
settlers,  was  sjioken  in  some  of  the  more  remote 
districts  of  Koman  Africa.    But  no  traces  remained 
of  the  power,  or  arts  of   the  former  lords  of  sea 
and  land,  from  whom   these  fragments   were  in- 
herited.    Equally  striking  is  the  absence  of  results, 
from  the  occupation  of  a  vast  aggregate  of  coun- 
tries by  the  victorious  armies  of  Islam.     The  cen- 
turies since  elapsed  prove  in  tlie  clearest  manner, 
that  the  vocation  of  the  Arab  branch  of  the  Shem- 
itic  family   was  not  to  leaven  the  nations  whom 
their    first   onset   laid    prostrate.     They    brought 
nothing  with  them  but  their  own  stern,  subjective, 
unsocial  religion.     They  borrowed   many  intellect- 
ual   treasures    from    the    conquered    nations,    yet 
ft-ere   these  never  fully  engrafted   upon   the  alien 
Shemitic  nature,  but  remaini.d,   under  the   most 
favorable  circumstances,  only  external  adjuncts  and 
ornaments.    And  the  same  inveterate  isolation  still 
charac'rrizes  tribes  of  tlie  race,  when  on  new  soil. 
i).  The  peculiar  elements  of  the  Shemitic  char- 
acter will  be  found  to  have  exercised  considerable 
influence  on  their  literature.     Indeed,  accordance 
is  seldom    more  close,   than    in    the  case  of   the 
Sheniitic    race    (where    not   checked    by    external 
causes)  between  the  generic  type  of  thought,  and 
its  outward  expression.     Like  other  languages,  this 
one  is  mainly  resolvable  into  nionosyllabie  prim- 
itives.    These,  as   far  as  they  may  be  traced  by 
research  and  analysis,  carry  us  back  to  the  early 
times,  when  the  broad  line  of  separation,  to  which 
we   have   been   so  long  accustomed,   was   not  yet 
vlrawn   between  the  .Japhetian   and   the  Shemitic 
languages.     Instances  of  this  will  be  brought  for- 
ward in  the  sequel,  but  subsequent  researches  have 
amply  confirmed  the  substance  of  Halhed's  predic- 
tion of  the  ultimate  recognition  of  the  affinities 
between    Sanskrit  (=  the  Indo-Gernianic   family) 
and  Araljic  (=  the  Shemitic)  "  in  the  main  ground- 
work of  language,  in  monosyllables,  in  the  names 
of  numbers,  and  the  appellations  of  such  things, 
as  would  be  first  discriminated  on  the  immediate 
dawn  of  civilization."  <^ 

These  monosyllabic  primitives  may  still  be  traced 
in  particles,  and  words  least  exposed  to  the  ordi- 
nary causes  -of  variation.  But  differences  are  ob- 
servable in  the  principal  parts  of  speech  —  the  verb 


and  the  noun.  Secondary  notions,  and  those  Oi 
relation,  are  grouped  round  the  primary  ones  of 
meaning  in  a  single  word,  susceptible  of  various 
internal  changes  according  to  the  particular  re- 
quirement. Hence,  in  the  Shemitic  fannly.  the 
prominence  of  J'orvwt'wn,  and  that  mainly  internal 
(or  contained  williin  the  root  form).  By  such  in- 
strumentality are  expressed  the  differences  between 
noun  and  verb,  adjective  and  sul^stantive.  This 
mechanism,  within  certain  limits,  invests  the  Shem- 
itic lauijuages  with  considerable  freshness  and  sharp- 
ness; but,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  this  lan- 
guage-family does  not  (for  higher  purposes)  possess 
distinct  powers  of  expression  equal  to  those  pos- 
sessed by  the  Japhetian  family.  Another  leading 
peculiarity  of  this  branch  of  languas^es  is  the 
aljsence  (save  in  the  case  of  proper  names)  of  com- 
iwund  words  —  to  which  the  sister  family  is  in- 
debted for  so  much  life  and  variety.  In  the  Shem- 
itic family  —  agglutination,  not  logical  sequence  — 
independent  roots,  not  compound  appropriate  deri- 
vations from  the  same  root,  are  used  to  express 
respectively  a  train  of  thought,  or  ditlerent  modifi- 
cations of  a  particular  notion.  Logical  sequence 
is  replaced  by  simple  material  sequence. 

Both  language-favnilies  are  full  of  life;  but  the 
life  of  the  .laphetian  is  organic  —  of  the  Shemitic, 
an  asrsregate  of  units.  The  one  looks  around  to 
be  taught,  and  ])aiises  to  gather  up  its  lessons  into 
ibrm  aud  shape :  the  other  contains  a  lore  within 
itself,  and  pours  out  its  thoughts  and  fancies  as 
they  arise.'' 

§§  6-13.  —  IlEiiRKW  Language.  —  Period  of 
Ghowtii. 
6.  The  Hebrew  language  is  a  branch  of  the  so- 
called  Shemitic  fiimily,  extending  over  a  large  por- 
tion of  Southwestern  Asia.  The  development 
and  culture  of  this  latter  will  be  found  to  have 
been  considerably  influenced  by  the  situation  or 
fortunes  of  its  different  districts.  In  the  north 
(or  Aram,  under  which  designation  are  compre- 
hended Syria.  IMesopotamia,  Babylonia),  and  under 
a  climate  partially  cold  and  ungenial  —  in  the  close 
proximity  of  tribes  of  a  different  origin,  not  un- 
frequently  masters  by  conquest  —  the  Shemitic 
dialect  became  in  places  harsher,  and  its  general 
character  less  pure  and  distinct.  Towards  the 
south,  opposite  causes  contributed  to  maintain  the 
language  in  its  purity.  In  Arabia,  preserved  by 
many  causes  from  foreign  invasion,  the  language 
maintained  more  euphony  and  delicacy,  and  ex- 
hibited greater  variety  of  words  and  construction. 
A  reference  to  the  map  will  serve  to  explain  this  — 
lying  as  did  .Uida'a  between  Aram  and  Arabia,  and 
chiefly  inhabited  by  the  Hebrew  race,  with  the 
exception  of  Canaanite  and  Phoenician  tribes.  Of 
the  language  of  these  last  few  distinctive  remains 
have  hitherto   been   brought  to  light.«      But  its 


a  "  Un  autre  fait,  noa  nioins  digne  de  remarque, 
cest  I'aualogie  frappante  qu'oat  toutes  ces  in-egu- 
larittSs  provinciales  avec  TArauKjen.  11  semble  que, 
uieme  avant  la  captivite,  le  patois  populaire  se  rap- 
prochait  beaucoup  de  eette  laugue,  en  sorte  qu'il  nous 
sst  maintenant  impossible  de  siiparer  bien  iiettenient, 
4anR  le  style  de  certains  ecrits,  ce  qui  appartient  au 
(lialecte  populaire,  ou  au  patois  du  royaunie  d"Israel, 
ou  a  I'intiuence  des  temps  de  la  captivite."'  "II  est  a 
remarquer,  du  reste,  que  les  langues  seniitiques  dif- 
ferent nioins  dans  la  boucbe  du  peuple  que  dans  les 
tivi-es  "  (Renan,  i.  141,  142  and  also  fijist,  Lehr^eh. 
\\  3,  4,  3,  llj. 


6  Hoffmann,  Grnmm.  Syr.  pp.  5,6;  Scholz,  i.  p.  41, 
Ui.  p.  8,  9  ;  Gesenius,  Le/irgetUiitJe  (1817),  pp.  194-196  ; 
Fiirst,  Lelimeb.  §§  4,  14  ;  Rawlinson,  Journal  of  Asiatic 
Society,  xv.  233. 

c  Hallied's  Grammar  of  the  Bengal  Language,  1778, 
quoted  in  Delitzsch,  Je.mrtin,  p.  113:  I'iirst,  Lehrgeb 
Zweiter  Haupttheil. 

d  Ewald,  Grairm.  'I.  A.  T.  1833,  pp.  4-8  ;  Bertheau, 
in  Herzog,  v.  611,  612;  Reuss,  ibid.  pp.  598,  600; 
Franck,  Etudes  Orientates,  p.  387. 

e  "The  namfi  of  their  courtry,  JHU^IPQ  =  <•»« 
land  of  immigration,  —  points   to  the  fact  that  tli# 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


2978 


»eneral  resemblance  to  tliat  of  the  Terachite  set- 
tlers is  beyond  all  doulit,  both  in  the  case  of  the 
Hamite  tribes,  and  of  the  I'hilistine  tribes,  another 
branch  of  the  same  stock. 

Originally,  the  lani;u:me  of  the  Hebrews  pre- 
sented more  attinities  with  the  Aramaic,  in  accord- 
ance with  their  own  family  accounts,  which  bring 
the  Patriarchs  from  the  N.  E.,  —  more  directly  from 
northern  Mesopotamia.  In  consequence  of  vicinity, 
as  was  to  l>e  anticipated,  many  features  of  resem- 
blance to  the  Aral)ic  may  be  traced ;  but  subse- 
quently, the  Heljrew  language  will  lie  found  to  have 
followed  an  independent  course  of  growth  and  de- 
velopment. 

7.  Two  questions,  in  direct  connection  with  the 
early  movemenis  of  the  ancestors  of  the  subsequent 
Hebrew  nation,  have  been  discussed  with  great 
earnestness  by  many  writers  —  the  first  bearing  on 
the  causes  which  set  the  Terachite  family  in  mo- 
tioa  towards  the  south  and  west;  the  second,  on 
the  origin  and  language  of  the  tribes  in  possession 
of  Canaan  at  the  arrival  of  Abraham. 

In  Gen.  x.  and  xi.  we  are  told  of  five  sons  of 
Shem —  Elam,  Asshur,  Arfihaxad,  Lud,  and  Aram. 
The  last  of  these  (or  rather  the  peoples  descended 
from  him)  will  be  considered  subsequently.  The 
fourth  hiis  been  supposed  to  be  either  the  progeni- 
tor (or  the  collective  appellation)  of  the  tribes 
which  originally  occupied  Canaan  .and  the  so-called 
Shemitic  regions  to  the  south.  Of  the  remaining 
three,  the  tribes  descended  from  Elam  and  called 
by  his  name  were  probably  subjugated  at  an  early 
period,  for  in  Gen.  xiv.  mention  is  made  of  the 
headship  of  an  anti-Terachite  league  being  vested 
in  the  king  of  Elam,  Chedorlaomer,  whose  name 
points  to  a  Cushite  origin.  Whether  Shemitic  oc- 
cupation was  succeeded  at  once  (in  the  case  of 
Elam  ")  by  Aryan,  or  whether  a  (jushite  (Hamite) 
donibiation  intervened,  cainiot  now  be  decided. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  second,  Asshur,  there  can  be 
little  doubt,  on  the  showing  of  Scripture  (Gen.  x. 
11),  that  his  descendants  were  disturbed  in  their 
home  by  the  advance  of  the  clearly  traceable  Cush- 
ite stream  of  population,  flowing  upwards  on  a  re- 
turn course  through  Arabia,  where  plain  marks  are 
to  be  found  of  its  presence.''  When  we  bear  in 
mind  the  strongly  marked  differences  existing  be- 
tween the  Shemitic  and  Cushite  (=  Hamite)  races 
in  habits  and  thought,'^'  and  the  manifest<ation  of 
God's  wrath  left  on  recoril,  we  can  well  understand 
an  uneasiness  and  a  desire  of  removal  among  the 
Shemitic  population  of  the  plains  by  the  river. 
Scripture  only  tells  us  that,  led  in  a  way  which  they 
knew  not,  chosen  Shemitic  wanderers  of  the  lineage 
of  Arphaxad  set  forth  on  tlie  journey  fraught  with 
Buch  enduring  consequences  to  the  history  of  the 
world,  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  in  its  second  stage 
of  progress.  There  is  at  least  nothing  unreason- 
able in  the  thought,  that  the  movement  of  Terah 
from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (if  modern  scholarship  is 
right  in  the  locality  selected )  was  caused  by  Divine 
tggestion,  atting  on  a   mind  ill  at  ease  in  the 


Philistines  did  not  reacti  ttie  line  of  coast  from  the 
Interior  at  all  events"  (Quart.  Rev.  Ixxviii.  172). 

«  The  word  Elam  ii  simply  the  pronunciation,  ac- 
jording  to  the  organs  of  Western  .-Vsia,  of  Iran  =  Airy- 
»ma  =  Airjana.  Reaan,  i.  41,  on  the  authority  of 
Buruouf  and  M.  Muller  ;  J.  G.  MiiUer,  R.  E.  xiv. 
233  ;  liivwliason.  Journal  of  Axlatk  Society,  .xv.  222. 

b  Renan,  i.  34,  312,  31-5;  Spiegel,  in  Herzog,  x.  305, 

c  Oompare  Oen.  xi.  5  with  Oen.  xviii.  20,  and  note  1, 


neighijorhood  of  Cushite  thought  aiid  habits.  [( 
may  be  that  the  .active  cause  of  the  movement  re- 
corded in  Gen.  xi.  31  was  a  renewed  manifestation 
of  the  One  True  God,  the  influences  of  which  we''e 
to  be  stanq)ed  on  all  that  was  of  Israel,  and  nut 
least  palpably  on  its  language  in  its  purity  aiiil 
proiier  development.  The  leading  particulars  of 
that  memorable  journey  are  preserved  to  us  in 
Scripture,  which  is  also  distinct  upon  the  fact,  that 
the  new  comers  and  the  earlier  settlers  in  Canaan 
found  no  difficulty  in  conversing.  Indeed,  neither 
at  the  first  entrance  of  Terachites,  nor  at  the  re- 
turn of  their  descendants  after  their  long  sojourn 
in  Egypt,  does  there  apjiear  to  have  been  any  diffi- 
culty in  this  respect  in  the  case  of  any  of  the  nu- 
merous tribes  of  either  Shemitic  or  Hamitic  origin 
of  which  mention  is  made  in  Scripture.  But,  as 
was  to  be  expected,  very  great  difference  of  opinion 
is  to  be  found,  and  very  much  learned  discussion 
has  taken  place,  as  to  whether  the  Terachites  adopt- 
ed the  language  of  the  earlier  settlers,  or  established 
their  own  in  its  place.  The  latter  alternative  is 
hardly  proliable,  although  for  a  long  time,  and 
among  the  earlier  writers  on  Biblical  subjects,  it  was 
maintained  with  great  earnestness  —  ^\'alton,  for 
example,  holding  the  advanced  knowledge  and  civ- 
ilization of  the  Terachite  immigration  in  all  im- 
portant particulars.  It  may  be  doubted,  with  a 
writer  of  the  present  day,''  whether  this  is  a  sound 
line  of  reasoning,  and  whether  "  this  contrast  be- 
tween the  inferiority  of  the  chosen  peojile  in  all 
secular  advantages,  and  their  preeminence  in  re- 
ligious privileges,''  is  not  "  an  argument  which 
cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  on  by  a  Christian 
ad\ocate."  The  whole  history  of  the  .Jewish  peo- 
ple anterior  to  the  advent  of  Christ  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  any  great  early  amount  of  civilization, 
being  built  necessarily  on  closer  intercourse  with 
tlie  surrounding  peoples,  would  have  tended  to  re- 
tard rather  than  pi'omote  the  object  for  which  that 
people  was  chosen.  The  probability  is,  that  a 
great  original  similarity  existing  between  the  dia 
lects  of  the  actual  possessors  of  the  country  in 
their  various  localities,  and  that  of  the  innnigrants, 
the  latter  were  less  likely  to  impart  than  to  borrow 
from  their  more  advanced  neighbors. 

On  what  grounds  is  the  undoubted  similarity 
of  the  dialect  of  the  Terachites  to  that  of  the  oc- 
cupants at  the  time  of  their  immigration,  to  be  ex- 
plained V  Of  the  origin  of  its  earliest  occupants, 
known  to  us  in  the  sacred  records  by  the  n;ysteri- 
ous  and  boding  names  of  Nephilim,  Zamzunimim, 
and  the  like,  and  of  whose  probable  Titanic  sizt 
traces  have  been  l)rought  to  light  by  recent  travel- 
lers, history  records  nothing  certain.  Some  .assert 
that  no  reliable  traces  of  Shemitic  language  are  to 
be  found  north  of  Mount  Taurus,  and  claim  for  the 
early  inhabitants  of  .\sia  Minor  a  Japhetian  origin. 
Others  affirm  the  descent  of  these  early  trilies 
from  Lud,  the  fourth  son  of  Shem,  and  their  mi- 
gration from  "  Lydia  to  .-Vrabia  I'etnea  and  the 
southern  borders  of  Palestine."  «     But  these  must 

Kawlinson,  /.  A.  S.  xv.  231.  Does  tlie  cuneiform  or- 
thography Bab-Il  =  "  the  gate  of  God,"  point  to  the  act 
of  Titanic  audacity  recorded  in  Uen  .'  and  is  the  punisli- 
ment  recorded  in  the  confusion  expre.-!sed  in  a  Sheuiitie 
word  of  kindred  sound  ;  Quatremere.  Miam^es  (f  His- 
toire,  113,  ItU 

''  Bishop  of  St.  David's  Letter  to  the  Ket .  R.  Wil- 
liam.':, D.  D;  p.  65. 

<;  Renan,  i.  45,  107;  Arnold,  in  Ileriog,  viii.  310 
11  ;  Orahari,  OimOridge  Essays,  lSu8. 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


2974 

have  disapjjeared  at  an  early  period,  no  mention 
being  made  of  tliem  in  Gen.  x.,  and  their  remains 
being  only  idluded  to  in  references  to  the  tribes 
whicli,  under  a  well-known  designation,  we  find  in 
occupation  of  Palestine  on  the  return  from  I'^gvpt. 

8.  Another  view  is  that  put  forward  by  our  coun- 
tryman liawlinsou,  and  shared  by  other  scliulars. 
"  liither  from  ancient  monuments,  or  from  tradi- 
tion, or  from  the  dialects  now  spoiven  by  their  de- 
Bcendants,  we  are  authorized  to  infer  that  at  some 
very  remote  period,  before  the  rise  of  tlie  Sliemitic 
or  Aryan  nations,  a  great  Scythic  "  (=  Handtic) 
"  population  n)ust  have  overspread  Europe,  Asia, 
and  Africa,  speaking  languages  all  more  or  less  dis- 
similar in  their  vocabulary,  but  possessing  in  com- 
mon certain  organic  characteristics  of  grammar 
and  construction."  " 

And  this  statement  would  appear,  in  its  leading 
features,  to  be  historically  sound.  As  was  to  be 
anticipated,  both  from  its  importance  aud  from  its 
extreuie  obscurity,  few  subjects  connected  with  Bib- 
lical antiquities  have  been  more  warmly  discussed 
than  the  origin  of  the  Canaanitish  occupants  of 
Palestine.  Looking  to  the  authoritative  records 
((ien.  ix.  18,  x.  6,  15-20)  there  would  seem  to  l)e 
no  reason  for  doubt  as  to  the  Hamitic  origin  of 
these  tribes.*  Nor  can  the  singular  accordances 
discernible  between  the  langua^^e  of  these  Canaan- 
itish {=  Hamitic)  occupants,  and  the  Shemitic 
family  be  justly  pleaded  in  bar  of  this  view  of  the 
ori<;in  of  tiie  former.  "  If  we  examine  the  inval- 
uable ethnography  of  the  book  of  Genesis  we  shall 
find  tluit,  while  Ham  is  the  brother  of  Shem,  and 
therefore  a  relationship  between  his  descendants  an<t 
the  Shemitic  nations  fully  recognized,  the  Hamites 
are  described  as  those  who  previously  occupied  the 
different  countries  into  which  the  Aramteau  race 
afterwards  forced  their  way.  'I'hus  Scripture  ((jen. 
X.  if.)  attributes  to  the  race  of  Ham  not  only  the 
aboriginal  population  of  Canaan,  with  its  wealthy 
and  civilized  conmiunities  on  the  coast,  luit  also  the 
mighty  empires  of  Uabylon  and  Nineveh,  tlie  rich 
kingdoms  of  .Slieba  and  Havilah  in  Arabia  Felix, 
and  the  wonderful  realm  of  Kgypt.  There  is  every 
reason  to  beliex'e  —  indeed  in  some  cases  the  proof 
amounts  to  demonstration  —  that  all  these  Hanutic 
nations  spoke  languages  which  differed  only  dialec- 
tically  from  those  of  the  Syro-Arabic  family."  <' 

9.  Connected  with  this  suliject  of  the  relation- 
ship discernible  among  the  early  Noachidse  is  that 
of  the  origin  and  extension  of  the  art  of  writing 
among  the  Shemites,  the  branch  with  which  we 
are  at  present  concerned.  Our  limits  preclude  a 
discussion  upon  the  many  theories  by  which  the 
Btudent  is  still  bewildered:  the  question  would 
Beeni  to  be,  in  the  case  of  the  Terachite  branch  of 
the  Shemitic  stock,  did  they  acquire  the  art  of 
writing  from  the  Phcenicians,  or  Egyptians,  or 
Assyrians  —  or  was  it  evolved  from  gi\'eu  elements 
among  themselves  ? 

But  while  the  truth  with  respect  to  the  origin 
of  Shemitic  writing  is  as  yet  involved  in  obscurity. 


n  llawlinson,  /.  nf  A.  S.  xv.  230,  232. 

b  '■  iVll  the  Canaanites  were,  1  am  satisfied,  Scyths  ; 
inrl  Uie  inliabitauts  of  Syria  ret;iiiieil  ttieir  Jistiuctive 
ethuic  'c.liiiraoter  until  quite  a  late  period  of  history. 
Aceoriiiuj;  to  the  inscriptions,  the  Klietta  or  llittit«s 
were  the  dorainant  Scythian  race  trom  the  earliest 
limes."     Kawlinson,  J.  A.  i".  xv.  2.30. 

*   Quarterly  Hf:V.  bucviii.  173.     See  a   quotation  in 


there  can  be  no  doubt  that  an  indelible  influence 
was  exercised  by  Egypt  upon  the  Terachile  Ijranch 
in  this  particular.  The  language  of  Egypt  cannot 
be  considered  as  a  liar  to  this  theory,  for,  in  the 
opinion  of  most  wlio  have  studied  the  subject,  the 
I'^gyptian  language  may  claim  an  Asiatic,  and  in- 
deed a  Shemitic  origin.  Nor  can  the  changes 
wrought  be  justly  attributed  to  the  Hyksos,  instead 
of  the  Eijyptians.  These  people,  when  scattered 
after  their  long  sojourn,  doubtless  carried  with 
them  many  traces  and  results  of  the  superior  cul- 
ture of  Egypt ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  they  can  be  considered  in  any  way  as  instruc- 
tors of  the  Terachites.  'i"he  claim,  so  long  acqui- 
esced in,  of  the  Phoenicians  in  this'  respect,  hag 
been  set  aside  on  distinct  grounds.  What  was  the 
precise  amount  of  cultivation,  in  respect  of  the  art 
of  writing,  possessed  by  the  IVrachites  at  the  im- 
migration or  at  their  removal  to  Euypt,  we  cannot 
now  tell,  —  probably  but  limited,  when  estimated 
by  their  social  position.  Hut  the  E.xodus  found 
them  possessed  of  that  priceless  treasure,  the  germ 
of  the  alphabet  of  the  civilized  world,  built  on  a 
])ure  Sliemitic  basis,  but  modified  by  Egyptian  cul- 
ture. "  Tiicre  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  phonetic 
signs  are  subsequent  to  the  objective  and  determi- 
native hieroglyphics,  and  showing  as  they  do  a 
much  hiiiiier  [wwer  of  abstraction,  they  must  be 
considered  as  infinitely  more  valuable  contributions 
to  the  art  of  wi-iting.  But  the  I'lgyptians  have 
conferred  a  still  greater  boon  on  the  world,  if  their 
hieroglyphics  were  to  any  extent  the  origin  of  the 
Sliemitic,  which  has  formed  the  basis  of  almost 
every  known  system  of  letters.  The  long  contin- 
uance of  a  pictorial  and  figurative  system  of 
writing  among  the  Egyptians,  and  their  low,  and 
alter  all,  imperfect  syllabariuni,  must  be  referred  to 
the  same  source  as  their  pictorial  and  figurative 
representation  of  their  idea  of  the  L)eity;  just  as, 
on  the  contrary,  the  early  adoption  by  the  people 
of  Israel  of  an  alphaljet  [)roperly  so  called,  must 
be  regarded  as  one  among  many  proofs  which  they 
gave  of  their  powers  of  abstraction,  and  conse- 
quently of  their  fitness  for  a  more  spiritual  wor- 
ship." '' 

10.  Between  the  dialects  of  Aram  and  Arabia, 
that  of  the  Terachites  occupied  a  middle  place  — 
superior  to  the  first,  as  being  the  langu.age  in 
which  are  preserved  to  us  the  inspired  outpourings 
of  so  many  great  ]irophets  and  poets  —  wise, 
learned,  and  eloquent  —  and  different  from  the 
second  (which  does  not  appear  in  history  until  a 
comparatively  recent  period)  in  its  antique  sim- 
plicity and  majesty. 

Tlie  dialect  which  we  are  now  considering  hai 
been  ordinarily  designated  as  that  of  the  Hebrew.i, 
rather  than  oif  the  Israelites,  apparently  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons.  The  apiiellation  Hebrew  is  of  oM 
standing,  but  has  no  reference  to  the  history  of  the 
people,  as  connected  with  its  glories  or  eminence, 
while  that  of  Israel  is  bound  up  with  its  historical 
orandeur.    The  people  is  addressed  as  Isniel  by  their 


X  A.  S.  XV.  23S,  on  the  corruption  of  manners  flowing 
from  the  advanced  civilization  of  the  Ilauiite.s. 

'/  Q.  R.  txxviii.  156  ;  Ewald,  Gmr/i.  i.  472-474 ; 
It)ffiiianu,  Grawm.  tiyriar.  pp.  60-62  ;  Leyrer,  Her- 
zog,  xiv.  3.58.  35U  ;  Lepsius,  Zwfi  AhkaiulUinge.n,  39 
40^56,  65  ;  .)■  (5-  Miiller,  in  llerzog,  xiv  2.32  :  Rawlin- 
son,  J.  A.  S.  XV  222,  226,2.30;  Saalscliiitz.  Zur  Ge 
schichip  'I.  Bich.^tnbensclirift,  •§§  6,  17,  18;  Vaihiagej 
in  llerzog,  xi.  302. 


SHHMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


2975 


priests  anJ  prophets,  on  solemn  occasions,  while  by 
(breiiriiers  they  are  desit;nated  as  Hehrews  ((ieii.  xl. 
15),  and  i^deed  hy  some  of  their  own  early  writers, 
where  uo  point  is  raised  in  connection  with  their 
religion  (Gen.  xliii.  32;  Ex.  xxi.  2;  i  Sam.  xiii. 
3,  7,  xiv.  21).     It   was  long   assumed   that  their 

designation  (D"'^527  =  oi  Trepdrat)  had  reference 

to  Eber.  the  ancestor  of  Abraham.  More  probably 
it  should  be  regarded  as  designating  all  the  Shem- 
iticspeaking  tribes,  wliich  had  migrated  to  the 
south  from  the  other  side  of  the  Euphrates;  and  in 
that  case,  might  have  been  applied  by  the  earlier 
inhabitants  of  Canaan.  But  in  either  case,  the 
term  "  Hebrews  "  would  comprise  all  the  descend- 
Buts  of  Abraham,  and  their  language  therefore 
should  be  designated  as  the  Hebrew,  in  accordance 
with  the  more  usual  name,  of  the  people.  "  The 
language  of  Canaan''  is  used  instead  (Is.  xix.  18), 
but  in  this  passage  the  country  of  Canaan  is  con- 
trasted with  that  of  Egypt.  The  expression  '•  the 
Jews'  language"  (Is.  xxxvi.  11,  13)  applies  merely 
to  the  dialect  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  in  all 
probability,  more  widely  used  after  the  fall  of 
iSamaria. 

11.  Many  causes,  all  obvious  and  intelligible, 
combine  to  make  difficult,  if  not  impossibk',  any 
formal  or  detached  account  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage anterior  to  its  assuming  a  written  shape. 
But  various  reasons  occur  to  render  difficult,  even 
within  this  latter  period,  such  a  reliable  history  of 
the  Hebrew  language  as  befits  the  exceeding  in- 
terest of  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  very  little 
has  come  down  to  us,  of  what  appears  to  have  been 
an  extensive  and  diversified  literature.  Where  the 
facts  requisite  tor  a  judgment  are  so  limited,  any 
attempt  of  the  kind  is  likely  to  mislead,  as  being 
built  on  speculations,  erecting  into  characteristics 
of  an  entire  period  what  may  be  simijly  the  pecul- 
iarities of  the  author,  or  incidental  to  his  sulject 
or  style.  Again,  attempts  at  a  philological  history 
of  the  llelirew  language  will  be  much  impeded  by 
the  fact  —  that  the  chronological  order  of  the  ex- 
tant .Scriptures  is  not  in  all  instances  clear  —  and 
that  the  history  of  tlie  Hebrew  nation  from  its 
settlement  to  the  seventh  century  b.  c.  is  without 
changes  or  progress  of  the  marked  and  promi- 
nent nature  required  for  a  satisfactory  critical 
judgment.  Unlike  languages  of  the  Japhetian 
stock,  such  as  the  Greek  or  German,  the  Hebrew 
language,  like  all  her  Shemitic  sisters,  is  firm  and 
hard  as  from  a  mould  —  not  susceptible  of  change. 
In  addition  to  these  characteristics  of  their  lan- 
guage, the  people  by  whom  it  was  spoken  were 
of  a  retired  and  exclusive  case,  and,  for  a  long  time, 
exempt  from  ibreign  sway.  The  dialects  also  of 
the  few  conterminous  tribes  with  whom  they  had 
any  intercourse  were  allied  closely  with  their  own. 

Tiie  c.'wtant  remains  of  Hebrew  literature  are 
destitute  of  any  important  changes  hi  language, 
during  the  i)eriod  from  iMoses  to  the  Captivity.  A 
certain  and  intelligible  amount  of  progress,  but  no 
considenilile  or  remarkable  difference  (according  to 
one  school),  is  really  observable  in  the  hiuguai;e  of 
the  I'entateuch,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Kuth, 
Samuel,  the  Kings,  the  Psalms,  or  the  projjliecios 
»£    Isaiah,    Hosea,   Amos,   Joel,    Micah,    Nalium, 


Habakkuk,  and  Jeremiah  —  widely  separated  frcm 
each  other  l)y  time  as  are  many  of  these  writings 
Grannnars  and  lexicons  are  confidently  referred  to 
as  supplying  abundant  evidence  of  unchan;ied  ma- 
ferial^:  and  fashioning;  and  foreign  words,  when 
occurring,  are  easily  to  be  recognized  under  their 
Shemitic  dress,  or  their  introduction  as  easily  tc 
be  explained. 

At  the  first  sight,  and  to  modern  judgment, 
nnich  of  this  appears  strange,  and  possibly  unten- 
able. But  an  explanation  of  the  difficulty  is  sought 
in  the  unbroken  residence  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
without  removal  or  ^iiolesf ation  —  a  feature  of  his- 
tory not  unexpected  or  surprising  in  the  case  of  a 
people  preserved  by  Providence  simply  as  the  guar- 
dians of  a  sacred  deposit  of  truth,  not  yet  ripe  for 
publication.  An  additional  illustration  of  the  im 
munity  h-om  change,  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  his 
tory  of  the  other  branches  of  the  Shemitic  stock. 
The  Aramaic  dialect,  as  used  by  various  writers  for 
eleven  hundred  years,  although  inferior  to  the  He- 
brew in  many  respects,  is  almost  without  change, 
and  not  essentially  diflerent  from  the  language  of 
Daniel  and  Ezra.  And  the  Arabic  language,  sub- 
sequently to  its  second  birth,  in  connection  with 
Mohammedanism,  will  be  found  to  present  the 
same  phenomena. 

12.  iMoreover,  is  it  altogether  a  wild  conjecture 
to  assume  as  not  impossible,  the  formation  of  a 
sacred  language  among  the  chosen  people,  at  so 
marked  a  period  of  their  history  as  that  of  Moses? 
Every  argument  leads  to  a  belief,  that  the  popular 
dialect  of  the  Hebrews  from  a  very  early  period 
was  deeply  tinged  with  Aramaic,  and  that  it  con- 
tinued so.  But  there  is  surely  nothing  unlikely 
or  inconsistent  in  the  notion  that  he  who  was 
'■  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians " 
should  have  been  tauglit  to  introduce  a  sacred 
language,  akin,  but  superior  to  the  every-day  dia- 
lect of  his  people  —  the  property  of  the  rulei's,  and 
which  subsequent  writers  should  be  guided  to  copy. 
Such  a  language  would  be  the  sacred  and  learned 
one,  —  that  of  the  few,  —  and  no  clearer  proof  of 
the  limited  hold  exercised  l)y  this  classical  Hebrew 
on  the  ordinary  language  of  the  people  can  be  re- 
quired than  its  rapid  withdrawal,  after  the  Cap- 
tivity, before  a  language  composed  of  dialects 
hitlierto  disregarded,  but  still  living  in  popular 
use.  It  has  been  well  said  that  '>  literary  dialects, 
or  what  are  commonly  called  classical  languages, 
pay  for  their  temporary  greatness  by  inevitable  de 
cay."  ''If  later  in  history  we  meet  with  a  new 
body  of  stationary  lani;uage  forming  or  formed,  we 
may  be  sure  that  its  tributaries  were  those  rivu- 
lets which  for  a  time  were  almost  lost  to  our 
sight.'"  " 

13.  A  few  remarks  may  not  lie  out  of  place  here 
with  reference  to  sonie  leading  linguistio  pecul- 
iarities in  different  books  of  the  O.  T.  For  ordi- 
nary purposes  the  iild  division  info  the  goMen  and 
silver  ages  is  suflicient.  A  detailed  list  of  pecul- 
iarities observable  in  the  Pentateuch  (without, 
however,  destroying  its  close  similarity  to  other 
0.  T.  writings)  is  given  by  Scholz,  divided  under 
lexical,  grannnatical,  and  syntactical  heads.  With 
the  style  of  the  Pentateuch  (as  might  be  6Xi)ected) 
that  of  Joshua  very  closely  corresponds.      The  feel- 


o  M.  Mullfir,  Science  of  Language,  pp.  57-59:  a  most 
Wtructive    passage.       Forster,     Voicf    of    lsia>/,    77. 
'  Vieles  audi,  was  uns  jetzt  zum   ersten  Male   in   ileu 
Itenkuiulern  der  luacedouischeu  Weftiseit  bcjsejj'uet,  mag  i  707 


wohl  iilter  seyu,  aber  daaials  ziitT.-it  aiis  deui  Duokel 
iler  Volkssprache,  die  ja  iiberall  reiclier  ist  als  ilU 
<lvv  classisclieu   Legitimitat.''    Remw,  iu  UursJg,  t 


2976 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


Ing  of  hostility  to  the  neighboring  peoples  of  mixed 
descent,  so  prevalent  at  the  time  of  the  restoration, 
makes  strongly  against  the  asserted  late  origin  of 
the  book  of  Kuth,  in  which  it  cannot  be  traced, 
but  (with  which  we  are  at  present  concerned)  the 
st\lL'  points  to  an  earlier  date,  the  asserted  Ara- 
maisms  being  probably  relics  of  the  popular  dia- 
lect." The  same  linguistic  peculiarities  are  ob- 
servable (among  other  merits  of  style)  in  the  books 
of  Samuel.'' 

The  books  of  Job  and  Ecclesiastes  contain  many 
asserted  Aramaisms,  which  have  been  pleaded  in 
support  of  a  late  origin  of  these  two  poems.  In 
the  case  of  the  first,  it  is  argued  (on  the  other  side) 
that  these  peculiarities  are  not  to  be  considered  so 
much  poetical  ornaments  as  ordinary  expressions 
and  usages  of  the  early  Hebrew  language,  affected 
necessarily  to  a  certain  extent  by  intercoui'se  with 
neighboring  tribes.  And  the  asserted  want  of 
Btudy  and  polish  in  the  diction  of  this  liook  leads 
to  the  same  conclusion.  As  respects  the  book  of 
Ecclesiastes  the  case  is  more  oliscure,  as  in  many 
instances  the  peculiarities  of  stjle  seem  rather  ref- 
erable to  the  secondary  Hebrew  of  a  late  period 
of  Hebrew  history,  than  to  an  Aramaic  origin. 
But  our  acquaintance  with  Hebrew  literature  is  too 
limited  to  allow  the  formation  of  a  positive  opinion 
on  the  subject,  in  opposition  to  that  of  ecclesiastical 
autiquity.<=  In  addition  to  roughness  of  diction, 
growing  probably  out  of  the  same  cause- — close  in- 
tercoiu-se  with  the  people  —  so-called  Aramaisms  are 
to  be  fotmd  in  the  remains  of  .Jonah  and  Hosea, 
and  expressions  closely  allied  in  those  of  Amos.^' 
This  is  not  the  case  in  the  writings  of  Nahum, 
Zephaniah,  and  Habakkuk,  and  in  the  still  later 
ones  of  the  minor  prophets;  the  treasures  of  past 
times,  which  filled  their  hearts,  served  as  models 
of  style. "^ 

As  with  respect  to  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  (at 
the  hands  of  modern  critics),  so,  in  the  case  of 
Ezekiel,  .Jewish  critics  have  sought  to  assign  its 
peculiarities  of  style  and  expression  to  a  secondary 
Hebrew  origin./  But  the  references  above  given 
may  serve  to  aid  the  consideration  of  a  most  in- 
teresting question,  as  to  the  extent  to  which  Ara- 
maic elements  entered  into  the  ordinary  dialect  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  from  early  times  to  the  Caj)- 
tivity. 

The  peculiarities  of  language  in  Daniel  belong 
to  another  field  of  inquiry;  and  under  impartial 
consideration  more  difficulties  may  be  found  to  dis- 
appear, as  in  the  case  of  those  with  regard  to  the 
asserted  Greek  words.  The  language  and  subject- 
matter  of  Daniel  (especially  the  latter),  in  the 
opinion  of  scholars,  led  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to 
place  this  book  elsewhere  than  among  the  prophet- 
ical writings.  To  their  minds,  the  apocalyptic  char- 
acter of  the  book  might  seem  to  assign  it  i-ather  to 
the  Hagiographa  than  the  roll  of  prophecy,  prop- 
erly so  called.     Inquiries,  with  respect  to  the  clos- 


o  Scholz,  Einl.  313,  and  note ;  NiigeUbach,  in  Her- 
lOg,  xiii.  188. 

b  Niigelsbach,  ibid.  412. 

c  Scholz,  Einl.  iii.  65-67,  180, 181 ;  Ewald,  Hiob,  65. 

rf  Scholz,  ibifJ.  681,  537,  549. 

e  Srholz,  ibid.  695,  600,  606  ;  Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  t.  2, 
§215. 

/  ZuQZ,  Gni.texrlienxlliche  Vortrdge  der  Jiiden,  162. 

II  See  also  Rjiwlinson,  /  A.  S.  xv.  247  ;  Delitzsch, 
ui  Ilerzog,  iii.  274 ;  Vaihinger,  Stud.  it.  Krit.  1857,  pp. 


ing  of  the  canon,  tend  to  shake  the  con)paritiieij 
recent  date  which  it  has  been  so  customary  to  as- 
sign to  this  book.ff 

With  these  exceptions  (if  so  t-o  be  considered) 
few  traces  of  dialects  are  discernible  in  the  sniaL 
reuiains  still  extant,  for  the  most  part  conqiosed  in 
.Judah  and  Jerusalem.  The  dialects  of  the  north- 
ern districts  [irobably  were  influenced  by  their  Ara- 
maic neighliors;  and  local  expressions  are  to  be 
detected  in  .ludg.  v.  and  xii.  G.  At  a  later  period 
Philistine  dialects  are  alluded  to  (Neh.  xiii.  23,  24), 
and  that  of  Galilee  (Matt.  xxvi.  73). 

As  has  been  remarked,  the  Aramaic  elements 
above  alluded  to,  are  most  plainly  observable  in  the 
remains  of  some  of  the  less  educated  writers.  The 
general  style  of  Hebrew  prose  literature  is  plain 
and  simple,  but  lively  and  pictorial,  and  rising  with 
the  subject,  at  times,  to  considerable  elevation.  But 
the  strength  of  the  Heljrew  language  lies  in  its 
poetical  and  prophetical  remains.  For  simple  and 
historical  narrative,  ordinary  words  and  formations 
sufficed.  But  the  requisite  elevation  of  poetical 
composition,  and  the  necessity  (growing  out  of  the 
general  use  of  parallelism)  for  enlarging  the  supply 
of  striking  words  and  expressions  at  command,  led 
to  the  introduction  of  many  expressions  which  we 
do  not  connnonly  find  in  Hebrew  prose  literature.* 
For  the  origin «  and  existence  of  these  we  must 
look  especially  to  the  Aramaic,  from  which  expres- 
sions were  borrowed,  whose  force  and  peculiarities 
might  give -an  additional  ornament  and  point  not 
otherwise  attainable.  Closely  resembling  that  of 
the  poetical  books,  in  its  general  character,  is  the 
style  of  the  prophetical  writings,  but,  as  might  be 
anticipated,  more  oratorical,  and  running  into 
longer  sentences.  Nor  should  it  Ije  forgotten,  by 
the  side  of  so  much  that  is  uniform  in  language 
and  construction  throughout  so  long  a  period,  that 
diversities  of  individual  dis[)ositions  and  standing 
are  strongly  marked,  in  the  instances  of  several 
writers.  But  from  the  earliest  period  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  literature  among  the  Hebrew  people  to 
B.  c.  000,  the  Hebrew  language  continued  singu- 
larly exempt  from  change,  in  all  leading  and  gen- 
eral features,  and  in  the  general  laws  of  its  expres- 
sion, forms,  and  combinations. 

From  that  jieriod  the  Hebrew  dialect  will  be 
found  to  give  way  before  the  Aramaic,  in  what  has 
been  preserved  to  us  of  its  literature,  although,  as 
is  not  unfrequently  the  case,  some  later  writers 
copy,  with  almost  regretful  accuracy,  the  classical 
and  consecrated  language  of  a  brighter  period. 

§§  14-19.  Aramaic  Languagk.  —  Scholastic 
Pekiod. 

14.  The  language  ordinarily  called  Aramaic  is  a 
dialect  of  the  great  Shemitic  family,  deri\ing  its 
name  from  the  district  over  which  it  was  spoken, 
Aram  =  the  high  or  hill  country  (as  Canaan  =  the 
low  country).     But  the  name  is  applied,  both  Ijj 


'i  "  L'importauce  du  verset  dans  le  style  des  S(5miteB 
est  la  meilleure  preuve  du  manque  absolu  de  con- 
struction interieure  qui  caractiSrise  leur  phrase.  Ixj 
ver.set  n'a  rien  de  commun  avec  la  periode  grccque  e» 
latine,  puisqu'il  n'offre  pas  une  suite  de  niembres 
di^pendants  les  uns  des  autres :  c'est  une  coupe  li 
peu  pres  arbitraire  dans  une  s^rie  de  propositions 
separOes  par  des  virgules."     Renan,  i.  21. 

'  Reus.*,  in  Herzog,  v.  606-608;  Bleek,  Eiiileituig 
pp.  80-89. 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


29 


I  I 


Bibliea!  and  other  writers,  in  a  wider  and  a  more 
restricted  sense.  Tlie  desij^riation  —  Aram  —  was 
imperfectly  i\nown  to  tlie  Greeks  and  Komans,  liy 
wiiom  tlie  country  was  called  Syria,  an  abbrevia- 
tion of  Assyria,  according  to  Herodotus  (vii.  63)  " 
In  general  practice  Aram  was  divided  into  Eastern 
iiud  Western.  The  dialects  of  these  two  districts 
were  severally  called  Chaldaic  and  Syriac  —  desig- 
nations not  happily  chosen,  but,  as  in  the  case  of 
Sliemitic,  of  too  long  currency  to  be  changed  with- 
out great  inconvenience.  No  traces  remain  of  the 
numerous  dialects  which  must  have  existed  in  so 
large  an  aggregate  of  many  very  populous  districts. 
Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  than  the  applica- 
tion of  the  word  "Chaldaic"  to  the  East  Aramaic 
dialect.  It  seems  prol)al)le  that  the  Chaldteans 
were  a  people  of  .Japhetian  extraction,  who  prolia- 
bly  took  the  name  of  the  Shemitic  tribe  whom  they 
dislodged  before  their  connection  with  Babylon,  so 
long,  so  varied,  and  so  full  of  interest.  Hut  it 
would  be  an  ei'ror  to  atti-ilmte  to  these  conquei'ors 
any  great  or  early  amount  of  cultivation.  The  ori- 
gin of  the  peculiar  and  advanced  civilization  to  be 
traced  in  the  iiasiu  of  Mesopotamia  must  be  as- 
signed to  another  cause  —  the  uiflueiices  of  Cushite 
immigration.  The  colossal  scientific  and  industrial 
characteristics  of  Assj'rian  civilization  are  not  rea- 
sonably deducible  from  .Japhetian  influences,  that 
race,  in  those  early  times,  having  evinced  no  re- 
markable tendency  for  construction  or  the  study  of 
the  applied  sciences.  Accordingly,  it  would  seem 
not  unreasonable  to  place  on  the  two  rivers  a  popu- 
lation of  Cushite  (Hauute)  accomphshments,  if  not 
origin,  subsequent  to  the  Shemitic  occupation, 
which  established  its  own  language  as  the  ordinary 
one  of  these  districts ;  and  thirdly  a  body  of  war- 
riors and  influential  men  of  .laphetian  origin,  the 
true  Chaldieans,  whose  name  has  been  applied  to  a 
Shemitic  district  and  dialect.'' 

The  eastern  boundary  of  the  Shemitic  languages 
is  obscure;  but  this  much  niaj'  be  safely  assumed, 
that  this  family  had  its  earliest  settlement  on  the 
upper  basin  of  the  Tigris,  from  which  extensions 
were  douljtless  made  to  the  south.  And  (as  has 
been  before  said)  history  points  to  another  stream, 
flowing  northward  (at  a  subsequent  but  equally 
ante-historic  period),  of  Cushite  population,  with 
its  distinctive  accomplishments.  These  settlements 
would  seem  to  comprise  the  wide  extent  of  country 
extending  from  the  ranges  bounding  the  watershed 
of  the  Tigris  to  tbe  N.  and  E.,  to  the  plains  in  tlie 
S.  and  W.  towards  the  lower  course  of  the  '■  ijreat 
river,"  =  Assyria  (to  a  great  extent),  Mesopotamia 
and  Babylonia,  with  its  southern  district,  Clial  laea. 
There  are  few  more  interesting  linguistic  questions 
than  the  nature  of  the  vernacular  lani;uage  of  this 
last-named  region,  at  the  period  of  the  .Jewish  de- 
portation by  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  was,  mainly  and 
incontestal)ly,  .Shemitic;  but  by  the  side  of  it  an 
Aryan  one,  chiefly  oflicial,  is  said  to  be  discern- 
ible. [Chai.dea;  Ch.vli)k.\ns.]  The  passages 
ordinarily  relied  on  (Dan.  i.  4,  ii.  4)  are  not  very 
conclusive  in  support  of  this  latter  theory,  which 
derives  more  aid  from  the  fact,  that  many  proper 
names  of  ordinary  occurrence  (Belshazzar,  Mero- 
:lach-Baladan,  Nabonassar,  Nabopolassar,  Nebo, 
Nebuchadnezzar)  are  certainly  not  Shemitic.  As 
-ttle,  perhaps,  are  they  Aryan  —  but  in  any  case 


they  may  be  naturalized  relics  of  the  Assyrian  su- 
premacy. 

The  same  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the 
Shemitic  or  Aryan  origin  of  tiie  vernacular  language 
of  Assyria  —  i.  e.  the  country  to  the  E.  of  the  Eu- 
phrates. As  in  the  case  of  Babylonia,  the  language 
appears  to  have  been,  ordinarily,  that  of  a  blended 
Sliemitic  and  Cushite  population,  and  a  similar  dif- 
licidty  to  be  connected  with  the  ordinary  proper 
names  —  Nibcliaz,  Pul,  Salnianassar,  Sardanapalus,\ 
Sennacherib,  Tart;dv,  and  Tiglatli-Pileser.  Is.  xxxiii. 
19,  and  .Jer.  v.  1,5,  have  been  referred  to  as  estab- 
lishing tne  ditterence  of  the  vernacular  language  of 
.Assyria  from  the  Shemitic.  Our  knowledge  of  the 
so-called  Cushite  stock  iti  the  basins  of  the  tno  rivers 
is  but  limited;  but  in  any  case  a  strong  Shemitic  if 
not  Cushite  element  is  so  clearly  discernible  in  many 
old  local  and  proper  names,  as  to  make  an  .\ryan 
or  other  vernacular  language  unlikely,  although  in- 
corporations may  be  found  to  have  taken  place,  from 
some  other  language,  pro!  ably  that  of  a  concjuering 
race. 

Until  recently,  the  literature  of  these  wide  dis- 
tricts was  a  lilank.  Yet  '■  there  must  have  been 
a  Babylonian  literature,  as  the  wisdom  of  the 
Chaldsians  had  acquired  a  reputation,  which  could 
hardly  have  been  sustained  without  a  liter-ature. 
If  we  are  ever  to  recover  a  knowledge  of  that  an- 
cient Babylonian  literature,  it  must  be  from  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions  lately  brought  home  from 
Babylon  and  Nineveh.  They  are  clearly  written  in 
a  Shemitic  langu  ^ge  "  (^I.  Miiller,  »S.  o/'i.  p.  2G3). 
As  has  been  before  remarked  [Babyloki.v,  §  IGJ, 
the  civilization  of  Assyria  was  derived  from  Baby- 
lonia in  its  leading  features  —  Assyrian  art,  how- 
ever, being  progressive,  and  marked  by  local  fea- 
tures, such  as  the  substitution  of  alabaster  for 
bricks  as  a  material  for  sculpture.  With  regard  to 
the  dialects  used  for  the  class  of  inscriptions  with 
which  we  are  concerned,  namely,  the  Assyrian,  as 
distinguished  from  the  Zend  (or  I-'ersian)  and  Tar- 
tar ( ? )  families  of  cuneiform  memorials,  the  opin- 
ion of  scholars  is  all  but  unanimous — Lassen, 
Burnouf  (as  far  as  he  pronounces  an  opinion), 
Layard,  Spiegel,  all  agree  with  the  great  authority 
above  cited.    Kenan  differs,  unwilHngly,  from  them. 

From  what  source,  then,  does  it  seem  most 
probable  that  future  scholars  will  find  this  peculiar 
form  of  writing  deducible?  One  of  the  latest  writ- 
ers on  the  subject,  Oppert,  divides  the  family,  instead 
of  three,  into  two  lar>;e  classes  —  the  Aryan  or  Old 
Persian,  and  another  large  class  containing  various 
subdivisions  of  which  the  .Vssyrian  forms  one.  The 
character  itself  he  asserts  to  be  neither  Aryan  nor 
.Shemitic  in  its  origin,  but  ancient  Central  Asiatic, 
and  applied  with  difficulty,  as  extraneous  and  ex- 
otic, to  the  languages  of  totally  different  races.  Ijut 
it  is  quite  as  likely  that  the  true  origin  may  l)e 
found  in  an  exactly  ditterent  direction  —  the  S.  W. 
—  for  this  peculiar  system  of  characters,  which,  1  e- 
sides  occu|)ying  the  great  river  basins  of  which  we 
have  spoken,  may  be  traced  westward  as  far  as 
Beyrout  and  Cyprus,  and  eastward,  although  lesa 
plainly,  to  Bactra.  Scholars,  including  Oppert, 
incline  to  the  judgment,  that  (as  Hebrew,  Creek, 
and  .Vrabic  writers  all  show)  from  a  Cushite  stock 
(Gen.  X.  8-12)  there  grew  up  BaViylon  and  Nine- 
veh, and  other  great  homes  of  civilization,  extend- 


o  Other  derivations  are  given  and  refuted  by  Quatre- 
li'<l«,  Metanges  d^Histoi''<i.  p.  122. 


b  Reuau,  p.  211.    Quatrem^re,  Ulelanges  cfHistoire 
pp.  58-190,  and  especially  113-104. 


2978 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


ing  from  i*.e  level  plains  of  Chaklaea  far  a\va>   to  ]  isli-Araniaic,  >,ut  with  the  Chaldaic  (properlj  sc 
the  N.  and   E.  of  Assyria.     In  these  districts,  far  |  calle<l).     Accordingly,  we  ma}- understand  how  the 


anterior  to  the  deportation  of  the  Jews,  but  down 
to  that  period,  Honrished  the  schools  of  learnhig 
that  gave  birth  to  results,  material  and  intellectual, 
stamped  with  affinity  to  those  of  I'^gypt  It  may 
well  lie,  that  in  the  progress  of  discovery,  from 
Shemitic-Cusbite  records  —  akin  to  the  Himyaritic 
and  Ethiopic — scholars  may  carry  back  these  re- 
searches to  Shemitic-Cushite  imitations  of  kindred 
writing  from  southern  lands.  Already  the  notion 
has  obtained  currency  that  the  so-called  primitive 
Shemitic  alphabet,  of  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  ori- 
gin, is  transitional,  built  on  the  older  formal  and 
syllabic  one,  preserved  in  cuneiform  remains.  To 
this  fact  we  shall  in  the  sequel  recur —  passing  now 
to  the  condition  of  the  Aramaic  language  at  the 
time  of  the  Captivity.  Little  weight  can  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  argmiient  that  the  ancient  literature  of 
the  district  being  called  "  Chaldiean,"  an  Aryan 
origin  is  implied.  The  word  '■  Chaldtean '"  natu- 
rally" drove  out  "  Babylonian,"  after  the  estalilisli- 
ment  of  Chaldaean  ascendency,  in  the  latter  country ; 
but  a-s  in  the  case  of  (ireece  and  Rome,  intellectual 
ascendency  held  its  ground  after  the  loss  of  mate- 
rial power  and  rnle." 

15.  Without  entering  into  tlie  discussions  re- 
specting the  exact  propriety  of  the  expressions,  it 
will  be  sutHcient  to  follow  the  ordinary  division  of 
the  Aramaic  into  the  Chaldaic  or  Kastern,  and  the 
^^'estern  or  Syriac  dialects. 

The  term  "Chaldaic  "  is  now  (like  "Shemitic") 
firmly  established,  but  "  Babylonian  "  would  appear 
more  suitable.  We  know  that  it  w^s  a  spoken  lan- 
guage at  the  time  of  the  Captivity. 

A  valuable  outline  of  the  different  ages  and  styles 
observable  in  the  Aramaic  branch  of  the  Shemitic 
family  has  been  given  by  l;oth  Delitzseh  and  Fiirst, 
which  (with  some  additions)  is  here  reproduced  for 
the  reader.'' 

(1.)  The  earliest  extant  fragments  are  the  well- 
known  ones  to  be  found  at  Dan.  ii.  4-vii.  28;  Kzr. 
iv.  8-vi.  18,  vii.  12-2ti.  Affinities  are  to  1  e  traced, 
without  difficulty,  between  these  fragments,  which 
difier  again  in  some  very  marked  particulars  from 
the  earliest  Targums.*^ 

To  those  who  in  the  course  of  travel  have  ob- 
served the  ease,  almost  the  uncon.sciousness,  with 
which  persons,  living  on  the  confines  of  cognate 
dialects,  pass  from  the  use  of  one  to  another,  or 
who  are  aware  how  close  is  the  connection  and  how 
very  slight  the  difference  between  conterminous  di- 
alectical varieties  of  one  common  stock,  there  can 
be  nothing  strange  in  this  juxtaposition  of  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic  portions.  The  prophet  Daniel,  we 
may  be  sure,  cherished  with  true  Israelite  affection 
the  holy  language  of  his  early  home,  while  his  high 
official  position  must  have  involved  a  thorough 
acquaintance  not  only  with  the  ordinary  Baliylon- 


«  Lepsius,  Zwei  Abhnni/luns;en,\>.  [>S.  Quatremere, 
EtiijJes  Hisiorirjufs,  as  quoted  above  Renan,  pp. 
56-79.  Herzog's  Renl-Enc,,  vol.  i.  Ribel,  Bitbi/lomrn 
(Ruetsclii)  ;  vol.  ii.  Chatdaa  (Arnold)  ;  vol.  x.  Ninive 
|Spies;el),  pp.  363,  379,  381.  Bleek,  Sinl.  i.  d.  A.  T. 
pp  43-18. 

b  Deiitzsch,  Jesurim,  pp.  65-70  ;  Fiirst,  Lehrgeb. 
§19. 

c  Mengsteuberg,  Daniel,  pp.  302-306. 

d  lleugstenberg,  ihia.  p.  298.  Hence  in  our  own 
dme,  l^atiu  and  Welsh,  and  Latin  and  Saxon  pas.«ages, 
»re  to  be  found  in  the  same  juxtaposition  in  chartu- 


pi'ophet  might  pass  w'thout  remark  from  the  i.se 
of  one  dialect  to  the  other.  Again,  in  the  case 
of  I'^lzra,  although  writing  at  a  later  period,  when 
the  holy  language  had  again  lieen  adopted  as  a 
stanilard  of  style  and  means  of  expression  by  .lew- 
isli  writers,  there  is  nothing  difficult  to  be  under 
stood  in  his  incorporating  with  his  own  com- 
positi(m  accounts,  written  by  an  eye-witness  i^ 
Aramaic,  of  events  which  took  place  before  his  owu 
arrival.'' 

(2.)  The  Syro-Chaldaic  originals  of  several  oi 
the  Apocryphal  books  are  lost;  many  Hebraisms 
were  engrafted  on-  the  Aramaic  as  spoken  by  the 
Jews,  but  the  dialect  of  the  earlier  Targums  con- 
tains a  perceptibly  smaller  amount  of  such  admix- 
ture than  later  compilations. 

(3.)  The  languaire  of  the  (Jemaras  is  extremely 
composite  —  that  of  the  Jerusalem  Geniara  being 
less  pure  than  that  of  B.abylon.  Still  lower  in  the 
scale,  according  to  the  same  authority,  are  those 
of  the  fast-expiring  Samaritan  dialect,  and  that  of 
Galilee. 

(i.)  The  curious  book  Zohar  —  an  adaptation  of 
Aramaic  expressions  to  Judaizing  Gnosticism  — 
among  its  foreign  additions  contains  very  many 
from  the  Arabic,  indicative  (according  to  Deiitzsch) 
of  a  Spanish  origin. e 

(5.)  The  Masora,  brief  and  symbolical,  *s  chiefly 
remarkable  for  what  may  be  called  vernacular  pe- 
culiarities. 

(G.)  The  Christian  or  ecclesiastical  Aramaic  is 
that  ordinarily  known  as  Syriac  —  the  language  ol 
early  Christianity,  as  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  respect- 
ively, of  the  Jewish  religion  and  Mohammedanism. 

The  above  classification  may  be  useful  as  a  guide 
to  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Aramaic  dialect 
with  which  a  Biblical  student  is  directly  concerned. 
For  that  ordinarily  called  the  Samaritan  coijtains 
very  little  calculated  to  aflbrd  illustration  among 
its  scanty  remains;  and  future  discoveries  in  that 
branch  of  pagan  Aramaic  known  as  the  dialect  of 
the  Naliathoeans,  Mendaites,  or  Zabians  of  Meso- 
potamia (not  the  Sabeans  of  Southern  .Arabia),  can 
only  exercise  a  remote  or  secondary  influence  on 
the  study  of  Aramaic  as  coimected  with  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

The  following  sketch  of  the  three  leading  varie 
ties  of  the  West-Aramaic  dialect,  is  built  on  the 
account  given  by  Fiirst./ 

(((.)  What  is  known  of  the  condition  of  (jalilee 
corroborates  the  disparaging  statements  given  by 
the  Talmudists  of  the  sub-dialect  (for  it  is  no 
more)  of  this  district.  Close  and  constant  com- 
munication with  the  tribes  to  the  north,  and  a 
large  .'ulmixture  of  heathens  among  the  inhabitants, 
would  necessarily  contribute  to  this.  The  dialect 
of  Galilee  apjiears  to  have  been  marked  by  confu- 


laries  and  historical  records  ;  but  the  instances  are 
more  apposite  (given  iu  Delitzscli,  Wisienscka/'i,  Ktiiisi, 
JiiiJeiitliHtii,  p.  256  ff.)  of  the  simultaneous  use  of  lie- 
brew.  Rabbinic,  and  Arabic,  anioug  Jewish  writers 
after  the  so  called  revival  of  literature  under  Moham- 
uiedau  iuHuence. 

e  *  This  book  is  now  clearly  proved  to  have  beet 
thp  production  of  Moses  de  Leon,  a  Spanish  Jew  of  th« 
13th  century.  See  Ciusburg  The  Kabbalali  (l<OQd 
1865),  p  90  ff.  A 

J  Lthrgtb.  §§  15-19. 


SHEMITIC  LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


2979 


jioD  of  letters  —  S,  and  3,  3  with  p  (as  in  ^'ari- 
au8  European  (Ualects)  —  and  aphajresis  of  the  gut- 
tural —  a  habit  of  connecting  words  otherwise 
separate  (also  not  uncomnion  in  rude  dialects); 
carelessness  about  vowel-sounds,  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  Tj/nnal  for  n. 

(b.)  The  Samaritan  dialect  appears  to  have  been 
a  compound  of  the  vnlirar  Hebrew  with  Aramaic, 
as  might  have  been  antici])ated  from  the  elements 
of  which  the  population  was  composed,  remains  of 
the  "  Ephraiunte"  occupiers,  and  Aramaic  immi- 
grants. A  confusion  of  the  unite  letters  and  also 
of  the  gutturals,  with  a  predilection  for  the  letter 

37,  has  been  noticed. 

(c. )  The  dialect  called  tliat  of  .Terusalem  or  Ju- 
dsea,  i)etween  wiiich  and  the  purer  one  of  the  Bab- 
ylonish .Jews  so  many  invidioua  distinctions  have 
beeu  drawn,  seems  to  have  been  variable,  from  fre- 
quent changes  among  the  inhabitants,  and  also  to 
have  contained  a  large  -amount  of  words  different 
from  those  in  use  in  Babylonia,  besides  being  some- 
what incorrect  in  its  orthography. 

Each  dialect,  it  wdl  be  seen,  was  directly  influ- 
enced by  the  circumstances —  physical  or  social  — 
of  its  locality.  For  instance,  in  the  remote  and 
unlettered  Galilee,  peculiarities  and  words  could 
not  fail  to  be  engrafted  from  the  neighboring  tribes. 
The  bitter  hatred  which  existed  between  the  Sa- 
maritans and  tlie  .lews  eftectnally  precluded  the 
admission  of  any  leavening  influences  from  the 
latter  source.  A  dialect  originally  impure  —  the 
Samaritan  became  in  course  of  time  largely  inter- 
spersed with  Aramaic  words.  That  of  .Ind.aM, 
alone  being  spoken  by  Jews  to  whom  nationality 
was  most  precious,  was  preserved  in  tolerable  im- 
munity from  corresponding  degradation,  until  over- 
powered by  Greek  and  Koman  heatiieuism. 

'l"he  small  amount  of  real  difference  between  the 
two  branches  of  Aramaic  has  been  often  urged  as 
:in  argument  for  making  any  division  su])ertluons. 
lint  it  has  been  well  observed  by  Kiirst,"  that  each 
is  animated  by  a  very  ditferent  spirit.  The  chief 
relics  of  Chaldaic,  or  l'",astern  Aramaic  —  the  Tar- 
irums  —  are  tilled  with  traditional  faitli  in  the  va- 
ried pages  of  Jewish  history:  they  combine  nuicli 
of  the  better  Pharisaism  — nourished  as  it  was  on 
lively  conceptions  of  hallowed,  national  lore,  with 
warm,  earnest  longings  fur  the  kingdom  of  the. 
Messiah.  \\'estern  Aramaic,  or  Syriac  literature, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  essentially  Christian,  with  a 
new  terminology  especially  framed  for  its  necessi- 
ties. Accordingly,  the  tendency  and  lingnistic 
cliaracter  of  the  first  is  essentially  Hebrew,  that  of 
the  second  Hellenic.  One  is  full  of  Hebraisms,  the 
other  of  Hellenisms. 

IG.  Perhaps  few  lines  of  demarcation  are  traced 
with  greater  difficulty,  than  those  by  which  one  age 
of  a  language  is  separated  from  another.  This  is 
remarkably  the  case  in  respect  of  the  cessation  of 
the  Hebrew,  and  the  ascendency  of  the  Aramaic, 


n   Lf.hrgeb    §  14. 

h  Ranke,  D.  G.  im  Zfitnltfr  d.  Reformatinn,  b.  iv. 
tap.  V.  p  476  ;  Barthelemy  St.  llilaire,  Le  Boiidillin 
\t  S(i  RfUaioH,  Pai'is,  1860,  p.  385-  "  OrJinairement 
»n  ne  rw-ite  que  le  texte  Pali  tout  seul.  et  alors  le 
peuple  n'en  comprend  pas  uu  mot  ;  maia  quelquefois 
tussi,  quaud  le  te.xle  Pali  a  (SttS  rec.itt5,  un  pretre  eu 
toune  uue  iatorprtStation  en  Singhalais  pour  le  vul- 
faire  " 


or.  as  it  in.ay  be  put,  in  respect  of  the  date  at  which 
the  period  of  growth  terminates,  and  that  of  expo- 
sition and  scholasticism  begins,  in  the  literature  of 
the  chosen  people. 

Much  uimecessary  discussion  has  been  roused 
with  respect  to  the  introduction  of  interpretation. 
Xot  only  in  any  missionary  station  among  the 
heathen,  but  in  Europe  at  the  lieformation,  we  can 
find  sulistantially  the  germ  of  Targnnis.  During 
the  IGth  century,  in  the  eastern  districts  of  the 
present  kingdom  of  Prussia,  the  desire  to  bring  the 
Gospel  home  to  the  humljler  classes,  hitherto  but 
little  touched  by  its  doctrines,  opened  a  new  field 
of  activity  among  the  non-German  inhaliitants  of 
those  pro\inc('S,  at  that  time  a  very  ninnerous  body. 
Assistants  were  .appointed,  under  the  name  of  Tol- 
ken  (interpreters),  who  rendered  tiie  sermon,  sen- 
tence by  sentence,  into  the  vernacular  old  Prussian 
dialect.''  Just  so  in  Palestine,  on  the  return,  an 
eager  desire  to  bring  their  own  Scriptures  within 
the  reach  of  the  iieople  led  to  measures  such  aa 
that  described  iji  Nehemiah  viii.  8,  a  jjassage  of  dif- 
ficidt  interpretation.  It  is  possiijle,  that  the  ai>- 
pareiit  vagueness  of  this  passage  may  represent  the 
two  methods,  which  would  be  naturally  aclopte<l  for 
such  ditferent  purposes  as  rendering  Bililical  He- 
brew intelligible  to  the  common  jjeople,  who  only 
s|iiike  a  dialect  of  Aramaic  —  and  supplying  a  com- 
mentary after  such  deliberate  reading. 

Of  the  several  Targums  which  are  preserved,  the 
dates,  style,  character,  and  value  are  exceedingly 
different.  An  account  of  them  is  given  under 
Vkiisions,  Ancient  (Takgum). 

17.  In  th^  scholastic  period,  of  which  we  now 
treat,  the  schools  of  the  prophets  were  succeeded  by 

"  houses  of  inquiry,"  —  ^''1J?7^  ^^'^-  For  with 
Vitrinsa,  in  pi'eference  to  Rabbinical  writers,  we 
prefer  considering  tlie  first  nameil  institutions  as 
pastoral  and  devotional  .seminaries,  if  not  monastic 
retreats  —  rather  than  scliools  of  law  and  dialectics, 
as  some  woui  1  explain  them.  It  was  not  until  the 
scholastic  period  that  all  Jewish  studies  were  so 
employed.  Two  ways  only  of  extending  the  bless- 
ings hence  derivable  seem  to  have  i>resented  them- 
selves   to    the    national    mind,  by  eonnnentary  — 

raa'iri,  and  inquiry  —  ^'^'^.  In  the  first  of 
these,  Targumic  literature,  but  limited  openings 
occurred  for  critical  studies  ;  in  the  second  still 
fewer.c  The  vast  storehouse  of  Helirew  thought 
reaching  through  so  many  centuries  —  known  by 
the  name  of  the  Talmud  — and  the  collections  of  a 
similar  nature  called  the  Midrashim,  extending  hi 
the  case  of  the  first,  dindy  but  tangibly,  from  the 
period  of  the  Captivity  to  the  times  of  liabbi  Asher 
—  the  closer  of  the  Talmud  (A.  n,  426),  contain 
comparatively  few  accessions  to  linguistic  knowl 
edge.  The  terms  l)y  which  serious  or  i)hilosophical 
inquiry  is  described,  with  the  names  of  its  subor- 
dinate branches  —  Hjilacha  (rule)  —  Hag.ada  (what 
is  said  or  preached) — Tosi[)bta  (addition) — Bo- 
raitha  (statements  not  in  the  Mishna)  —  Mechilta 


c  Vitringa,  De  Synasoga,  1696,  p.  1,  cap,s.  v.  vi.  vii., 
p.  11,  caps,  v.-viii.  —  no  scholar  should  be  without 
rhi*  storehouse  of  learning  ;  Cas.sel,  in  Ilerzog.  ix.  a'ZCy 
529  ;  B'ranck,  Elmles  Orimlales.  p.  127  ;  Oehler,  in 
Hcrzog.  xi.  215,  225 ;  Zunz,  GotUsliensllirlu  Vnrlraat 
iler  Jiir/en,  cap.  10.  This  last  volume  is  most  valuable 
as  a  guiding  summary,  iu  a  little  knowu  a.uJ  bewilder- 
ing field. 


2980 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND   WHITING 


(measure,  form)  ;  the  successive  designations  of 
learned  dignitaries  —  Sopherini  (scribes)  —  Chaca- 
tnim  (sages) — Tannaim  (^  Slioiiiin,  teacliers)  — 
Amoraiin  (speakers)  —  Seburaim  (disputants)  --Ge- 
onim  (eminences)  —  all  bear  reference  to  the  study 
and  exposition  of  the  rules  and  liearing  of  the  Mo- 
saic law,  with  none,  or  very  little  to  the  critical 
study  of  their  own  prized  laniiua^e —  the  vehicle  of 
the  law.  The  two  component  parts  of  the  Tahiiud, 
the  Mishna  and  Gemara  —  republication  and  final 
explanation  —  are  conceived  in  the  same  spirit. 
Thj  style  and  composite  nature  of  these  woi'lis  be- 
long to  the  history  of  liabbinical  literature. 

18.  Of  the  (jther  main  division  of  the  Aramaic 
language  —  the  ^\'estern  or  Syriac  dialect  —  the 
earliest  existing  document  is  the  Peshito  version 
of  the  Scriptures,  \vhich  not  improbably  belongs  to 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Various  sub- 
dialects  probaljly  existed  within  the  wide  area  over 
which  this  Western  one  was  current:  but  there  are 
no  means  now  attainable  for  pursuing  the  inquiry 

—  what  we  Icnow  of  the  Pahnyrene  being  only  de- 
rivable from  inscriptions  ranging  from  A.  D.  49  to 
the  middle  of  the  third  century.  The  Syriac  dia- 
lect is  thickly  studded  with  foreign  words,  Arabic, 
Persian,  Greek,  and  Latin,  especially  witli  the  third. 
A  comparison  of  this  dialect  with  the  Eastern  brancli 
will  show  that  they  are  closely  allied  in  all  the  most 
important  peculiarities  of  grammar  and  syntax,  as 
well  as  in  their  store  of  orifjinal  words  —  the  true 
standard  in  linguistic  researches. 

A  few  lines  may  be  here  allowable  on  the  for- 
tunes of  a  dialect  which  (as  will  be  sliown  hereafter) 
has  been  so  conspicuous  an  instrument  in  extend- 
ing a  knowledge  of  the  truths  originally  given,  and 
go  long  preserved  in  the  sacred  language  of  the  He- 
brews. Subsequently  to  the  fall  of  .Jerusalem  its 
chief  seat  of  learning*and  literature  was  at  Edessa 

—  from  A.  D.  440,  at  Nisibis.  Before  the  8th  and 
9th  centuries  its  decline  had  connnenced,  in  spite 
of  the  [)i'otests  made  by  .James  of  Edessa  in  favor 
of  its  own  classical  writers.  But,  as  of  old  the  He- 
brew language  had  given  way  to  the  Aramaic,  so 
in  her  turn,  the  Western  Aramaic  was  driven  out 
by  tlie  advances  of  the  .Arabic  during  the  lOth  and 
11th  centiu'ies.  Somewhat  later  it  may  be  said  to 
have  died  out  —  its  last  writer  of  mark,  Barhelirseus 
(or  Abulpharagius)  composing  in  Arabic  as  well  as 
Syriac." 

19.  The  C'haldaic  paraphrases  of  Scripture  are 
exceedingly  valuable  for  the  light  which  they  throw 
on  .Jewish  manners  and  customs,  and  tlie  meaning 
of  passages  otherwise  obscure,  as  likewise  for  many 
happy  renderings  of  the  original  text.  But  they 
are  valuable  also  on  higher  reasons  —  the  Christian 
interi)retation  put  by  their  authors  on  controverted 
passages.  Their  testimony  is  of  the  greatest  value, 
as  showing  that  Messianic  interpretations  of  many 
important  passages  must  have  been  current  among 
the  .Jews  of  the  period.  Walton,  alluding  to  .Jew- 
ish attempts  to  evade  tlieir  own  orthodox  traditions, 
says  that  "  many  such  passages,"  i.  e.  of  the  later 
and  evasive  kind,  "  miglit  be  produced  which  find 
no  sanction  among  the  Jews.     Those  very  passages, 


which  were  applied  by  their  own  teachers  to  tin 
Messiah,  and  are  incapable  of  any  other  fair  ajipli- 
cation  save  to  Him  in  whom  they  all  centre,  are 
not  unfrequently  warped  into  meanings  irreconcil- 
able alike  with  the  truth,  and  the  judgment  of  theii 
own  most  valued  writers."  * 

A  comparative  estimate  is  not  yet  attainable,  as 
to  what  in  Targumic  literature  is  the  pure  expres- 
sion and  development  of  the  .Jewish  mind,  and  what 
is  of  foreign  growth.  But,  as  has  been  said,  the 
Targums  and  kindred  writings  are  of  considerable 
dogmatical  and  exegetical  value;  and  a  similar  good 
work  has  been  effected  by  means  of  the  cognate 
dialect,  Western  Aramaic  or  Syriac.  From  the 
3d  to  the  9th  century,  Syriac  was  to  a  great  part 
of  Asia  —  wiiat  in  their  spheres  Hellenic  Greek  and 
mediajval  Latin  have  respectively  been — the  one 
ecclesiastical  language  of  the  district  named.  Be- 
tween the  literally  preserved  records  of  Holy  Scrij)- 
ture,  as  delivered  to  the  Terachites  in  the  infancy 
of  the  world,  and  the  understandings  and  hearts  of 
Aryan  peoples,  who  were  intended  to  share  in  those 
treasures  fully  and  to  their  latest  posterity,  some 
connecting  medium  w.as  necessary.  This  was  sup- 
plied by  the  dialect  in  question  —  neither  so  spe- 
cific nor  so  clear,  nor  so  sharply  subjective  as  the 
jnn-e  He1)rew,  but  for  those  very  re.asons  (while  in 
itself  essentially  Shemitic)  open  to  impre.ssIons  and 
thoughts  as  well  as  words  from  without,  and  there- 
fore well  calculated  to  act  as  the  pioneer  and  intro- 
ducer of  Biblical  thoughts  and  Bililical  truths 
among  minds,  to  whom  these  treasures  would 
otherwise  long  have  remained  obscure  and  unintel- 
ligible. 


20-24.    Arabic    Language. 
Revival. 


Period    of 


a  Bleek,  Einleituus,  pp.  61-57. 

h  Walton,  Prot.  xii.  18,  19.  See  also  Delitzsch,  W(j- 
tensclinf'l,  A'»»is(,  JKdentluim,  p.  173  ff.  (in  respect  of 
Cliristiau  anticipations  iu  the  Targums  and  Synagogal 
ievotional  poetry ),  and  also  p  190,  note  fin  respect  of 
roderate  tone  of  Talmud) ;  Oehler,  in  Ilerzog,  ix.  431 
Ml  i  »ud  Westcott,  Introduction,  pp.  110-115. 


20.  The  early  population  of  Arabia,  its  antiqui- 
ties and  peculiarities,  have  been  described  under 
Arabia."  We  find  .\raliia  occupied  by  a  conflu- 
ence of  tribes,  the  leading  one  of  undoulited  Ish- 
maelitish  descent  —  the  others  of  the  seed  or  lin- 
eage of  .A.l;)raham,  and  blended  by  alliance,  language 
neighborhood,  and  haliits.  Before  these  any  ab- 
oriiiinal  inhabitants  must  have  disappeared,  as  the 
Canaanitish  nations  before  their  brethren,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  greater  promise  —  as  the  Edoniites 
and  Ishmaelites  were  of  a  lesser,  but  equally  certain 
one. 

We  have  seen  [.\rabi.\]  th.at  the  peninsula  of 
Arabia  lay  in  ihe  track  of  Cushite  civilization,  in 
its  supposed  return-course  towards  the  northeast. 
As  in  the  basin  of  Mesopotamia,  so  in  Arabia  it 
has  left  traces  of  its  constructive  tendencies,  and 
predilections  for  grand  and  colossal  undertakings. 
Jlodern  research  has  lirousht  to  light  in  addition 
many  valuable  remains,  full  of  pliilolo^ical  interest. 
There  may  now  be  found  abundant  illustration  of 
the  relationship  of  the  Himyaritic  with  tlie  early 
Shemitic  before  adverted  to:  and  the  language' of 
the  Ehkili  (or  Mahrah),  on  wliich  so  much  light 
has  recently  been  thrown,  ]iresents  us  with  the  sin- 
gular phenomenon,  not  merely  of  a  specimen  of 
what  the  Himyaritic  (or  language  of  Yemen)  must 


c  Comp.  for  the  early  history  of  the  Arabic  languag* 
the  recent  work  by  Freytag  (Bonn,  1861),  alike  remark- 
able  for  interest  and  research,  Einkitjing  in  da<<  Stu^ 
rJiinn  dir  Arabischen  i'prache  bis  Mohammed  und  zum 
Tlieil  spaler. 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND   WRITING 


2981 


oave  been  before  its  expulsion  by  the  Koreishite, 
but  of  a  dialect  less  Arabic  than  Hebrew,  and  pos-  ] 
gassing  close  affinity  with  the  Ghez,   or  Ethiopi- 
an." 

21.  The  affinity  of  the  Ghez  (Gush  ?  the  sacred 
language  of  Ethiopia)  with  the  Sheinitic  has  been 
long  remarked.  ^Valton  supposes  its  inti'oduction 
to  have  been  consequent  on  that  of  Christianity. 
But  the  tradition  is  probably  correct,  according  to 
which  I'^thiopia  vvas  colonized  from  8.  U'.  Arabia, 
and  according  to  which  this  launuage  should  be 
considered  a  relic  of  the  nimyaritic.  In  the  O.  T., 
Gush,  in  addition  to  Ethiopia  in  Africa,  comprises 
S  .Arabia  (Gen.  x.  7,  8;  2  Ghr  xiv.  9,  xxi.  IG; 
Hab.  iii.  7),  and  by  many  the  stream  of  Haniite 
ci\ilization  is  supposed  to  have  flowed  in  a  northerly 
course  Irora  that  point  into  Egypt.  In  its  lexical 
peculiarities,  the  Ghez  is  said  to  resemble  the  Ara- 
maic, in  its  grammatical  the  Arabic.  The  alpha- 
bet is  very  curious,  differing  from  Shemitic  alpha- 
bets in  the  number,  order,  and  name  and  form  of 
the  letters,  by  the  direction  of  the  writing,  and 
especially  by  the  form  of  vowel  notation.  This  is 
extremely  singular.  Each  consonant  contains  a 
short  ?•  —  the  vowels  are  exjiressed  by  additions  to 
the  consonants.  The  alphabet  is,  by  this  means, 
converted  into  a  "  syllaliariuni  "  of  2U2  signs.  Va- 
rious points  of  rei^euiblance  have  been  traced  be- 
tween this  alpha!  et  and  the  Samaritan;  but  recent 
discoveries  establish  its  kindred  (almost  its  identity) 
with  that  of  the  Hini\aritic  inscriptions.  The  lan- 
guage and  character  of  which  v\e  have  spoken 
briefly,  have  now  been  succeeded  for  general  pur- 
poses by  the  Amharic  —  probably  in  the  first  in- 
stance a  kindred  dialect  with  the  Ghez,  but  now 
altered  by  subsequent  extraneous  additions.'' 

22.  Internal  evidence  demonstrates  that  the 
Arabic  language,  at  the  time  when  it  first  Jippears 
on  the  field  of  history,  was  Ijeing  gradually  de- 
veloped in  its  remote  and  barren  peninsular  home. 
Not  to  dwell  on  its  broken  (or  internal)  plurals, 
and  its  system  of  cases,  there  are  peculiarities  in 
the  earliest  extant  remains,  which  evince  progress 
made  in  the  cultivation  of  the  language,  at  a  date 
long  anterior  to  the  peri(jd  of  which  we  speak. 

A  well-known  legend  speaks  of  the  present 
Arabic  language  as  being  a  fusion  of  different 
dialects,  effected  by  the  tribe  of  Koreish  settled 
round  Mecca,  and  the  reputed  wardens  of  the 
Caaba.  In  any  case,  the  paramount  purity  of  the 
Koreishite  dialect  is  asserted  by  Arabic  writers  on 
grammar,  in  whose  judgment  the  quality  of  the 
spoken  dialects  appears  to  liave  declined,  in  pro- 
portion to  their  distance  from  Mecca.  It  is  also 
asserted,  that  the  stores  of  the  Koreishite  dialect 
were  increased  by  a  sort  of  philological  eclecticism 
—  all  striking  elegancies  of  construction  or  expres- 
sion, observal)le  in  the  dialects  of  the  many  dif- 
ferent tribes  visiting  Mecca,  being  engrafted  upon 
the  one  in  question.''  But  the  recognition  of  the 
Koran,  as  the  idtimate  standard  in  linguistic  as  in 
religious  matters,  established  in  Arabic  judgment 
'Jie  superior  purity  of  the  Koreishite  dialect. 

That  the  Arabs  possessed  a  literature  anterior  to 
lie  birth  of  Mohammed,  and  expressed  in  a  Ian 


a  Renan,  i.  302-S17. 

*>  Walton,  Prol.  ii.  585  ;  Jones,  Comm.  1774,  p.  18  ; 
Wipsius,  Zwei  Abh.  pp.  78,  79 ;  Renan,  i.  317-330 ; 
I'richarfl,  Physical  Hist,  of  Mankind,  ii.  169,  quoted 
>y  Forster. 

"  Pococke  (ed.  White,  Oxford),  pp  157.  168. 


guage  marked  with  many  grammatical  peculiarities 
is  beyond  doubt.  There  is  no  satisfactory  pruof  of 
the  assertion,  that  all  efirly  Arabic  Mterature  was 
destroyed  by  the  jealous  disciples  of  Islam.  "  Of 
old,  the  Arab  gloried  in  nothing  but  his  sword,  his 
hos))it;)lity,  and  his  fluent  speech."  '^  The  last  gift, 
if  we  may  judtre  from  what  has  been  preserved 
to  us  of  the  history  of  tliose  early  times,  seems 
to  have  been  held  in  especial  honor.  A  zealous 
purism,  strange  as  it  sounds  amid  the  rude  and 
uneducated  children  of  the  desert,  seems,  as  in 
later  times,  to  have  kept  almost  Masoretic  watch 
over  tlie  exactitude  of  the  transmission  of  these 
early  outpourings.*' 

Even  in  our  own  times,  scholars  have  seeme<l  un- 
willing altogether  to  al)andon  the  legend  —  liow  at 
the  fair  of  Ocadh  ("the  luart  of  proud  rivalry"'/) 
goods  and  tr.afiic  —  wants  and  profit  —  were  alike 
neglected,  while  bards  contended  amid  thcii-  listen- 
ing countrymen,  anxious  for  such  a  verdict  as  shciuld 
entitle  their  lays  to  a  place  among  the  Moallakat, 
the  avaB-fifiaTa  of  the  Caaba,  or  national  tenjjile  at 
Mecca.  But  the  appearance  of  Mohammed  i)ut  an 
end  for  a  season  to  conmierce  and  bardic  contests: 
nor  was  it  until  the  work  of  conquest  was  done, 
tliat  the  foithful  resumed  the  pursuits  of  peace. 
And  enough  remains  to  show  that  poetry  was 
not  alone  cultivated  among  the  ante-Mohauimedan 
Arabians.  "  Seeds  of  moral  truth  appear  to  have 
been  embodied  in  sentences  and  aphorisms,  a  form 
of  instruction  peculiarly  congenial  to  the  temper  of 
Orientals,  and  proverbially  cultivated  Ijy  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  Arabian  peninsula.'"  g  Poetry  and 
romance,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  degree  of 
Arab  civilization,  would  seem  to  have  been  the 
chief  objects  of  attention. 

Against  these  views  it  has  been  urged,  that 
although  of  such  compositions  as  the  Moallakat, 
and  others  less  generally  known,  the  substance  may 
be  considered  as  undoubtedly  very  ancient,  and 
illustrative  accordingly  of  manners  and  customs  — 
yet  the  same  antiquity,  according  to  competent 
judges,  caimot  reasonably  be  assigned  to  their 
present  form.  Granting  (what  is  borne  out  from 
analogy  and  from  references  in  the  Helirew  Scrip- 
tures) the  existence  of  philosophical  compositions 
among  the  Arabs  at  an  early  period,  still  no  trace?) 
of  these  remain.  The  earliest  reliable  relics  of 
Arabic  literature  are  only  fragments,  to  lie  foi  nd 
in  what  has  come  down  to  us  of  pre-Islamite  com- 
positions. And,  as  has  been  said  already,  variLi:s 
arguments  have  been  put  fonvard  against  the  proti- 
ability  of  the  present  form  of  these  remains  being 
their  original  one.  Their  obscurities,  it  is  con- 
tended, are  less  those  of  age  than  of  individual 
style,  while  their  uniformity  of  language  is  at  vari- 
ance with  the  demonstrably  late  cultivation  and 
ascendency  of  the  Koreishite  dialect.  Another, 
and  not  a  feeble  argument,  is  the  utter  absence  of 
allusion  to  the  early  religion  of  the  Arabs.  Most 
ju.st  is  Kenan's  remark  that,  skeptical  or  volup- 
tuaries as  were  most  of  their  poets,  still  such  a 
silence  would  be  inexplicable,  but  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  a  systematic  removal  of  all  traces  of  former 
paganism.     No  great  critical  value,   accordingly, 


rf  Pococke,  pp.  166-168. 

e  Unibreit  in  Tiiet'logisr/ie  Slud.  it.  Kritiken    1841 
pp.  223,  224;  Ewald,  G>'sc/i.  i.  24,  25. 
./'  Fresnel,  Ire  Lflirr  siir  les  Arabes,  p.  83. 
(;   Forster,  u.  298,  319. 


2982 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND   WRITING 


2an  fairly  be  assigned  to  any  Araliic  remains  ante- 
rior to  the  publication  of  the  Koran." 

It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  sketch  to  touch 
upon  the  theological  teaching  of  the  Koran,  its 
objects,  sources,  merits,  or  deficiencies.  But  its 
style  is  very  peculiar.  Assuuiini;  that  it  represents 
the  best  forms  of  the  Koreishite  dialect  about  the 
middle  of  the  7th  century,  we  may  say  of  the 
Koran,  that  its  linguistic  approaolied  its  religious 
supremacy.  The  Koran  may  be  characterized  as 
marking  the  transition  from  versification  to  prose, 
from  poetry  to  eloquence.  Mohammed  himself  has 
adverted  to  his  want  of  poetical  skill  —  a  lilemish 
which  required  explanation  in  the  judgment  of  his 
countrymen  —  but  of  the  efl'ect  of  his  forcible  lan- 
guage and  powers  of  address  (we  can  hardly  call  it 
oratory)  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  Koran  itself 
contains  distinct  traces  of  the  change  (to  which 
allusion  has  been  ujade)  then  in  progress  in  Araliic 
literature.  The  balance  of  proof  inclines  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  Suras  of  the  Koran,  which  are 
placed  last  in  order,  are  earliest  in  point  of  com- 
position —  outpourings  bearing  some  faint  resem- 
blance to  those  of  Hebrew  prophecy.'' 

23.  It  would  lead  to  discussions  foreign  to  the 
present  suliject,  were  we  to  attempt  to  follow  the 
thoughts  respecting  the  future,  .suggested  by  the 
almost  universal  prevalence  of  the  Arabic  idiom 
over  so  wide  a  portion  of  the  globe.  A  comparison 
of  some  leading  featiu'es  of  the  Arabic  langnaije, 
with  its  two  sisters,  is  re.served  for  the  next  divisicm 
of  this  sketch.  With  regard  to  its  value  in  illus- 
tration two  different  judgments  obtain.  Accord- 
ing to  one,  all  the  lexical  riches  and  grammatical 
varieties  of  the  Shemitic  family  are  to  be  found 
combined  in  the  Aral)ic.  What  elsewhere  is  im- 
perfect or  esceptional  is  here  said  to  be  fully 
develojied  —  forms  elsewhere  rare  or  anomaloiis  are 
here  ibund  in  rei,'ular  use.  Great  faults  of  style 
cannot  be  denied,  but  its  superiority  in  lexical 
riches  and  grammatical  precision  and  variety  is 
incontestable.  Without  this  means  of  illustration, 
the  position  of  the  Hebrew  student  may  be  likened 
to  tliat  of  the  geologist,  who  should  have  nothing 
whereon  to  found  a  judgment,  beyond  the  scat- 
tered and  im])erfect  remains  of  some  few  primeval 
creatures.  But  the  Arabic,  it  is  maintained,  for 
purposes  of  illustration,  is  to  the  Hebrew  precisely 
what,  to  such  an  inquirer,  would  lie  the  discovery 
of  an  imbedded  multitude  of  kindred  creatures  in 
all  their  fullness  and  completeness  —  even  more,  for 
the  Arabic  (it  is  urged)  —  as  a  means  of  comparison 
and  illustration  —  is  a  living,  breathing  reality. 

24.  Another  school  maintains  very  different  opin- 
ions with  respe"ct  to  the  value  of  Arabic  in  illus- 
tration. The  companUively  recent  date  (in  their 
present  form  at  least)  and  limited  amount  of  Arabic 
remains  are  pleaded  against  its  claims,  as  a  stand- 
ard of  reference  in  respect  of  the  Hebrew.  Its 
verbal  copiousness,  elaborate  mechanism,  subtlety 
of  thought,  wide  and  diversified  fields  of  literature, 
eaimot  be  called  in  question.  But  it  is  urged  (and 
•jolorably)  that  its  riches  are  not  all  pure  metal, 
ind  that  no  great  attention  to  etymology  has  been 
evinced  by  native  writers  on  the  language.  Nor 
should  the  follies  and  perversions  of  scholasticism 


a  Kenan,  Ixiitg.  S^m.  1.  iv.  c.  11,  a  lucid  summary 
Df  recent  researclies  on  this  subject. 

i  Beuan,  pp.  3.58-360 ;  Umbreit,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1841, 

c  Delitzsch,  Jfsuriin,  pp.  76-89. 


(in  the  case  of  R.ibbinical  writers)  blind  us  to  the 
superior  purity  of  the  spirit  by  which  the  Hebrew 
language  is  animated,  and  the  reflected  influences, 
for  elevation  of  tone  and  character,  from  the  sub- 
jects on  which  it  was  so  long  exclusively  emplo3-ed. 
"My  doctrine  shall  drop  a.s  the  rain,  my  speech 
shall  distil  as  the  dew,  as  the  small  rain  upon  the 
tender  herb,  and  as  the  showers  upon  the  grass." 
No  more  fitting  description  of  the  spirit  and  power 
of  the  holy  language  can  be  found  than  these  words 
of  the  Lawgiver's  last  address  to  his  people.  The 
Aral)ic  language.-  on  the  other  hand,  is  first,  that 
of  wandering  robljers  and  herdsmen,  destitute  of 
religion,  or  filled  with  second-hand  superstitions, 
in  its  more  cultivated  state,  that  of  a  self-satisfied, 
luxurious,  licentious  people,  the  vehicle  of  a  bor- 
rowed philosophy,  and  a  dogmatism  of  the  most 
wearisome  and  captious  kind.'-' 

Undoulitedly  schools  such  as  that  of  Albert 
Schultens  (d.  17.30)  have  unduly  exalted  the  value 
of  Arabic  in  illustration;  but  in  what  may  be 
designated  as  the  field  of  lower  criticism  its  im- 
portance cannot  be  disputed.  The  total  extent  of 
the  canonical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  is  so 
very  limited  as  in  this  respect  to  make  tlie  assist- 
ance of  the  Arabic  at  once  welcome,  trustworthv, 
and  copious.  Nor  can  the  proposed  substitute  lie 
accepted  without  demur — the  later  Hebrew,  which 
has  found  an  advocate  so  learned  aiul  able  aa 
Delitzsch.''  That  its  claims  and  usefulness  have 
licen  UTideservedly  overlooked  few  -will  dis])ute  or 
deny;  but  it  would  seem  to  be  recent,  uncertain, 
and  heterogeneous,  to  a  degree  which  lays  it  open 
to  many  objections  taken  by  the  admirers  of  the 
Arabic,  as  a  trustworthy  means  of  illustration. 

§§  25-33.     Structure  of  the  Shk.mitic  Lan- 
Gu.\t;t;.s. 

2.5.  The  question,  as  to  whether  any  large  amount 
of  primitives  in  the  Shemitic  langu.ages  is  fairly 
deduciltle  from  imitation  of  sounds,  has  been  an- 
swered very  differently  by  high  authorities.  Gese- 
nius  thought  instances  of  onomatopoeia  very  rare  in 
extant  remains,  althoui;h  probably  more  numerous 
at  an  early  period.  Hoft'niann's  judgment  is  the 
same,  in  respect  of  Western  Aramaic.  On  the 
other  hand,  Kenan  qualifies  his  admission  of  the 
identity  of  numerous  Shemitic  and  Japhetian  prim- 
itives by  a  suggestion,  that  these,  for  the  most  part, 
may  be  assigned  to  biliteral  words,  originating  in 
the  imitation  of  the  simplest  and  most  obvious 
sounds.  Scholz  also  h.as  an  interesting  passage  in 
which  he  maintains  the  same  proposition  with  con- 
siderable force,  and  attempts  to  follow,  in  some 
particular  cases,  the  analogy  between  the  simjile 
oriiiinal  sign  and  its  distant  derivatives.  But  on  a 
careful  examination,  it  is  not  unlikely  that,  although 
many  are  lost,  or  overlaid,  or  no  longer  as  appre- 
ciable by  our  orgiuis  as  by  the  keener  ones  of  earlier 
races,  yet  the  truth  is,  as  the  case  has  been  piit  by 
a  great  living  comparative  philologist — -  "  The  4('0 
or  500  roots  which  remain  as  the  constituent  ele- 
ments in  different  families  of  languages  are  not 
interjections,  nor  are  they  imitations.  Tliey  are 
plwnetic  types,  produced  by  a  power  inherent  in 
human  nature."  « 


'/  Ibid.,  pp.  89-108. 

e  ()c.senius,  Lekr^ebdu'le,  pp.  183-185;  IlnfTmann, 
Gr.  Si/r.  p.  7;  Renan,  pp  449,  454;  Scholz,  Einl 
i.  31,  .32,  37;  M.,Mi'iller,  Sc.  of  Lang,  pp.358  869 
370. 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND  WRITING 


29Sr. 


26.  The  deeply  cuiious  inqtiiry.  as  to  t1ie  ex- 
tent of  affinity  still  discernible  between  Slieniitic 
und  .Irtplietian  roots,  belonrrs  to  anotlier  article. 
[To.vouES.]  Nothins;  in  the  Scriptnre  wliicli  bears 
upon  the  subject,  can  be  fairly  pleaded  aijainst  such 
an  affinity  being  possible.  A  literal  lielief  of  Hilili- 
cal  records  does  not  at  all  call  niion  us  to  suppose 
an  entire  abrogation,  by  Divine  interference,  of  all 
existing  elements  of  what  must  have  Ijeen  the  com- 
mon language  of  the  early  Noachidre  «  Tliat  such 
resemblance  is  not  dimly  to  be  tra-ed  cannot  be 
denied  —  although  the  means  used  for  establishin<j; 
instances,  by  Delitzsch  and  the  analytical  school, 
cannot  be  admitted  without  great  reserve.*  But 
in  treating  the  Shemitic  languages  in  connection 
with  Scripture,  it  is  most  prudent  to  turn  away 
from  this  tempting  field  of  inquiry  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  simple  elements  —  the  primitives  — 
the  true  base  of  e\-ery  latiguage,  in  that  these,  rather 
than  the  mechanism  of  grammar,  are  to  be  regarded 
as  exponents  of  internal  spirit  and  character.  It 
is  not  denied,  tiiat  these  apparently  inorganic  bodies 
may  very  frequently  be  found  resolvable  into  con- 
st'tuent  parts,  and  that  kindred  instances  may  be 
easily  found  in  conternunous  daphetiaii  dialects.  <^ 

27.  Humboldt  has  named  two  very  remarkable 
points  of  difference  between  the  .Ta])hetian  and 
Shemitic  languatce  families  —  the  latter  of  wiiich  he 
also,  for  tlie  second  reason  aliout  to  be  named, 
assigns  to  the  number  of  those  which  have  deviated 
from  the  regular  course  of  development.  The  first 
peculiarity  is  the  triUteral  root  (as  the  language  is 
at  present  known)  —  the  second  the  expression  of 
significations  by  consonants,  and  i-elitlioii.'f  \^y  vowels 
—  botli  forming  part  of  the  flexions  within  words, 
so  reniarkable  in  the  Shemitic  family.  Widely  dif- 
ferent from  the  Japhetiau  primitive,  a  fully  formed 
and  independent  word  —  the  Shemitic  one  (even  in 
its  present  triliteral  state)  appears  to  have  consisted 
of  three  separate  articulations,  aided  by  an  indefinite 
sound  like  the  Shiva  of  the  Hebrews,  and  to  have 
varied  in  the  shades  of  its  meaning  according  to 
the  vowels  assigned  to  it.  [n  the  opinion  of  the 
same  scholar,  the  prevalent  triliteral  root  was  suli- 
stituted  for  an  earlier  or  biliteral,  as  being  fomid 
impracticable  and  obscure  in  useA 

Traces  of  this  survive  in  the  rudest,  or  Aramaic, 
branch,  where  what  is  pronounced  as  one  syllable, 
in  the  Hebrew  forms  two,  and  in  the  more  elaborate 
Arabic  three —  e.  g.  ktal,  katal,  katala.  It  is  need- 
less to  say,  that  much  has  been  written  on  the 
question  of  this  peculiarity  being  original  or  sec- 
ondary. A  writer  arnong  ourselves  has  thus  stated 
the  case:  "An  imiforni  root-formation  by  three 
letters  or  two  syllables  developed  itself  out  of  the 
original  monosyllabic  state  by  the  addition  of  a 
third  letter.  This  tendency  to  enlargement  presents 
itself  in  the  Indo-Germanic  also;  but  there  is  this 
difference,  that  in  the  latter  monosyllaliic  roots 
remain  besides  those  that  have  l)een  enlarged,  while 
in  the  other  they  have  almost  disappeared."'  «  In 
this  judgment  most  will  agree.    Many  now  triliteral 


a  Walton,  Prol.  (ed.  Wrangham),  i.  121.  "Hoc 
ratioui  niiaiine  consentaaeum  est,  ut  Deus  in  illo  loco 
Unguani  primam  servaret,  ubi  linguarum  divensitatcm 
iminiserat,  ne  coepto  opere  progrederentur.  I'roba- 
bilius  itaque  est,  liiiguas  alias  in  eos  Deuin  infudisse, 
Buj  ibi  coiumorati  sunt,  ue  se  mutuo  intelligerent,  et 
tb  insiinu  structura  desistereut."  M.  Miiller,  Sc.  of 
Umg.  p.  269. 


rnnt-words  (especially  those  expressive  of  the  pri- 
mary relations  of  life)  were  at  first  biliteral  oidy. 

Thus  I2S  is  not  really  from  H^S,  nor  ilS  from 
D^S.  In  many  cases  a  third  (assumed)  root-letter 
has  been  obviously  added  by  repetition,  or  by  the 
use  of  a  weak  or  movable  letter,  or  by  prefixing  the 
letter  Nun.     Additional  instances  may  be  found  in 

connection  with  the  biliterals  "21^,  "["T,  and  "T3, 
and  many  others.  Illustrations  may'a]<o  be  drawn 
from  another  quarter  nearer  home  —  in  the  .laphe- 
tian  languages  of  Europe.  Fear  is  variously  ex- 
pressed by  (p  p  4  u  or  (p  p  i  a  a  <a,  p'lvere,  peur,  pa- 
urn,  pm-or  {iiY>^n.),feai:furcht.fryl-t  (Scandin  ), 
and  braw  (Old  Celtic).  In  all  these  cognate  woid.j, 
the  common  rudimentary  idea  is  expressed  by  the 
same  two  sounds,  the  third  corresponding  with  the 
various  non-essential  additions,  by  which  apparent 
triliteral  uniformity  is  secured  in  Shemitic  dialects. 
Again,  in  the  Shemitic  fiimily  many  primitives 
may  be  found,  having  the  same  two  letters  in 
common  in  the  first  and  second  places,  with  a  dif- 
ferent one  in  the  third,  yet  all  expressive  of  different 

modifications  of  the  same  idea,  as  1.  "^3  and  its 


family ; 


?tc.;    3. 


"ID  =  Ji,  etc. 


2.  m=    0, 

=  JLii',  etc.  —  each  with  a  similar  train  of 
cognate  words,  containing  the  same  two  consonants 
of  the  biliteral  form,  but  with  a  third  active  con- 
sonant added  / 

28.  We  now  approach  a  question  of  great  inter- 
est. Was  the  art  of  writing  invented  by  Moses 
and  his  contemporaries,  or  from  what  source  did 
the  Helirew  nation  acquire  it  ?  It  can  hardly  be 
doubted,  that  the  art  of  writing  was  knowti  to  the 
Israelites  in  the  time  of  Aluses.  An  art,  such  as 
that  ofwrithig,  is  neither  acquired  nor  invented  at 
once.  No  trustworthy  evidence  can  lie  alleged  of 
such  an  exception  to  the  ordinary  course.  The 
writing  on  the  two  tables  of  the  law  (Kx  xxiv.  4)  — 
the  list  of  stations  attributed  to  the  hand  of  Moses 
himself  (Num.  xxxiii.  2)  —  the  prohibition  of  print- 
ing on  the  body  (Lev.  xix.  28)  —  the  writing  of 
"  the  curses  in  a  book  "  by  the  priest,  in  the  trial 
of  jealousy  (Num.  v.  23)  —  the  description  of  the 
land  (literally,  the  writing)  required  by  Joshua 
(.losh.  xviii.  G)  —  all  point  to  the  probability  of  the 
art  of  writing  being  an  accomplishment  already 
possessed  by  the  Hebrews  at  that  period.  So  com- 
]ilex  a  system  as  alphabetic  writing  could  hardly 
have  been  invented  in  the  haste  and  excitement  of 
the  desert  pilgrimage. 

Great  diflference  of  opinion  has  prevailed  as  to 
which  of  the  Shemitic  peoples  may  justly  claim  the 
ilivention  of  letters.  As  has  been  said,  tlie  award 
to  the  Phcenicians,  so  long  unchallenged,  is  now 
practically  set  aside.  The  so-called  I'luenician  al- 
plialiet  bears  no  distinctive  tr.aces  of  a  Phoenician 
origin.  None  of  the  selected  objects,  wdiose  initial 
letters  were  to  rule  the  sounds  of  the  several  pho- 
netic characters,  are  in  keeping  with  the  habits  and 

f>  Comparative  tables  are  to  be  found  in  Delitzscli, 
Jesitrini,  p.  HI;  Renan,  pp.  151-464;  Scliolz,  i.  37. 

'•■  Mi^rian,  Principes  ite  p£tur/e  Comjxirath-e  des 
L'uv^nn,  Paris,  1828.  pp.  10,  11,  19,  20. 

''  Humboldt,  t)ber  die  VersMedenlmt  d.  mensi  Miehe.n 
SpracUbaws,  pp.  307-311. 

<?  Davidson,  Biblical  Criticism^  \.  11. 

,'"  Gesenius,  Lehr^ebdude,  p.  181 ;  Benan,  Lang 
Sem.  pp  100,  412,  450.  M.  Miiller,  Sc.  of  Umg  p.  871 


2984 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND   WRITING 


iccwpations  of  the  I'haenicians.     On  the  contrary,    functions,  is  apparently  of  l.tter  crnwth :  and  the 

separate  existence  of  Kesh,  in  many  languajpsj,  ia 
(lei-.ionstrahly  of  comp.iratiyely  recent  rlate,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  kiiiflrecl  sound  Lamed.  In 
chis  manner  (according  to  Lepsius),  and  l)y  such 
Shemite  equivalents,  may  be  traced  the  progress  of 
the  parent  alphabet.  In  the  one  letter  yet  to  lie 
mentioned  —  Yod  —  as  in  Kuph  and  Lamed,  the 
same  scholar  finds  remains  of  the  ancient  vowel 
strokes,  which  carry  us  back  to  the  early  syllabaria. 
whose  existence  he  maintains,  with  great  force  and 
learning. 

Apparently,  in  the  case  of  all  Indo-Germanic 
and  Shemitic  alphabets,  a  parent  alphabet  may  be 
traced,  in  which  each  letter  possessed  a  combined 
vowel  and  consonant  sound  —  each  in  fact  forming 
a  distinct,  well  understood  syllable.  It  is  curious 
to  mark  the  different  processes,  by  which  (in  the 
instances  given  by  Lepsius)  these  early  syllabaria 
have  been  affected  by  the  course  of  enunciation  in 
different  families.  What  has  been  said  above 
(§  21),  may  serve  to  show  how  far  the  svstem  is 
still  in  force  in  the  Ethiopic.  In  the  Indo-(_7er- 
niauic  languages  of  Europe,  where  a  strong  ten- 
dency existed  to  draw  a  line  of  demarcation  between 
vowels  and  consonants,  the  primary  syllables  alej)h, 
he,  gho  =  (7,  /,  M,  were  soon  stripped  of  their  weak 
truttura!  (or  consonant)  element,  to  be  treated  sim- 
ply as  the  vowel  sounds  named,  in  combination 
with  the.  more  olnions  consonant  tounds.  A  very 
similar  course  was  followed  by  the  Shemitic  fann'lv, 
tiie  vowel  element  being  in  most  letters  disrejrarded ; 
but  the  guttural  one  in  the  breath  syllables  was 
apparently  too  congenial,  and  too  firmly  fixed  to 
allow  of  these  lieing  converted  (as  in  the  case  of  the 
Indo-Germanic  family)  into  simple  vowels.  Aieph, 
the  weakest,  for  that  reason  forms  the  exce])tioii. 
As  apparently  containing  (like  the  Devanagari) 
traces  of  its  people's  syllabarium,  as  well  for  its 
majestic  forms,  befitting  Babylonian  learning,  Lep- 
sius with  others  attributes  a  very  hii;h  antiquity 
to  the  square  Ilelirew  character.  But  this  is  dif- 
ficult to  be  maintained.'' 

2D.  Passing  from  the  growth  of  the  alphabet,  to 
the  history  of  the  formation  of  their  written  char- 
acters anioni;  the  three  leading  branches  of  the 
Sliemitic  family,  that  of  the  Hebrews  has  been  thus 
sketched.  "  In  its  oldest,  though  not  its  original 
state,  it  exists  in  Phoenician  monuments,  both 
stones  and  coins.  It  consists  of  22  letters,  written 
from  riirht  to  left,  and  is  characterized  generally  liy 
stiff  straight  down  strokes,  without  regularity  and 
beauty,  and  by  closed  heads  round  or  pointed.  We 
have  also  a  twofold  memorial  of  it,  namely,  the 
inscriptions  on  Jewish  coins,  struck  under  the  iM.ac- 
cabean  ])rinees,  where  it  is  evident  that  its  char- 
acters resemble  the  Phoenician,  and  the  Samaritan 
character,  in  which  the  Pentateuch  of  the  Samari- 
tans is  written. c  This  latter  differs  from  the  first 
named,  merely  by  a  few  freer  and  fizier  strbkes. 
The  development  of  the  written  character  in  the 
Aramaic  branch  of  the  Shemitic  family  illustrates 
the  passage  from  the  stiff  early  character,  spoken 
of  above,  to  the  more  fully  formed  angular  one  of 
later  times  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew  family,  and 
in  that  of  the  Arabic?  to  the  Cufic  and  Neshki 


while  no  references  to  the  sea  and  commerce  are  to 
be  found,  the  majority  of  the  objects  selected  are 
such  as  would  suggest  themselves  to  an  inland  and 
nomadic  people,  e.  g.  Aleph  =  an  ox,  Gimel  =  a 
camel,  Teth  =  a  snake,  Lamed  ^  an  ox-goad. 

A  more  probable  theory  would  seem  that  which 
represents  letters  as  having  passed  from  the  Ei;yp- 
tians  to  the  Phoenicians  and  Hebrews.  Either 
people  may  have  acquired  this  accomplishment  from 
the  same  source,  at  the  same  time  and  independ- 
ently ^  or  one  may  ha\e  preceded  the  other,  and 
sul)sequently  imparted  the  acquisition.  Either 
case  is  quite  possible,  on  the  assumption  that  the 
Egyptian  alphabet  consisted  of  only  such  characters 
as  were  equivalent  to  those  used  by  the  Hebrews 
and  Phoenicians  —  th.at  is,  that  the  multiplicity  of 
Bigns,  which  is  found  to  exist  in  the  Egyptian  al- 
phabet, was  only  introduced  at  a  later  period.  But 
the  contrary  would  seem  to  be  the  case  —  namely, 
that  tiie  Egyptian  alphabet  existed  at  a  very  early 
period  in  its  present  form.  And  it  is  hardly  likely 
that  two  tribes  would  separately  have  made  the 
same  selection  from  a  larger  amount  of  signs  than 
they  required.  But  as  the  Hebrew  and  Phoenician 
alphabets  do  correspond,  and  (as  has  been  said) 
the  character  is  less  Phoenician  th;in  Hebrew  —  the 
litter  people  would  seem  to  ha'  e  been  the  first 
possessors  of  this  accomplishment,  and  to  have  im- 
parted it  sulisequently  to  the  Phunicians. 

Tlie  theory  (now  almost  passed  into  a  general 
belief)  of  an  early  uniform  language  overspreading 
the  range  of  countries  comprehended  in  Gen.  x. 
serves  to  illustrate  this  question.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  as  to  the  fact  of  the  Hamite  occupants  of 
Egypt  having  migrated  thither  from  Asia;  nor  (on 
this  hypothesis)  can  there  be  any  difficulty  in  ad- 
mitting, in  a  certain  degree,  the  corres])ondence  of 
their  written  character  with  the  Hebrew.  That 
changes  should  subsequently  have  been  introduced 
in  the  ICgyptian  characters,  is  perfectly  intelligilile, 
when  their  advances  in  civilization  are  considered 
—  so  different  from  the  nomadic,  unlettered  con- 
dition of  the  Hebrew  people.  On  such  a  primary, 
generic  agreement  as  this  between  the  advanced 
language  of  Egypt,  and  that  of  the  Hebrews  —  in- 
ferior from  necessary  causes  at  the  time,  the  mighty 
intellect  of  Mo.ses,  divinely  guided  for  such  a  task- 
(as  has  been  before  suggested),  would  find  little 
difficulty  in  grafting  improvements.  The  theory 
that  the  Hyksos  built  a  syllabic  alphabet  on  t!ie 
Egyptian,  is  fuU  of  difficidties." 

According  to  the  elaborate  analysis  of  Lepsius, 
the  original  alphabet  of  the  language  family,  of 
which  the  Shemitic  formed  a  part,  stood  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

Weak-  Uiitturals.  Labials.  Gutturals.     Dentals. 

Aleph  =  A      .  Beth  -j-  Gimel  -J- Daleth  =  Media 

lie  =  E  -|-  i    .  Vav    -|-  Heth     -f-  Teth    =  Aspirates 

Uliain  =  0  -}-  u  Pe      _j-  Kupli  -|-  Tau     =  Teuues 

As  the  processes  of  enunciation  became  more 
Jelicate,  the  liquids  Lamed,  Mem,  Nun,  were  ap- 
parently interposed  as  the  third  row,  with  the 
original  S,  Samech,  from  which  were  derived  Zain, 
Tsaddi,  and  Shin  —  Caph  (soft  k),  from  its  limited 

a  "  Sont-ce  les  Hyksos,  ainsi  que  le  suppose  M. 
Ewald,  qui  firent  passer  I'tcriture  tgjptienne  de  I'ttat 
phonetique  a  I'etat  .s)  llabique  ou  alphabetique,  comuie 
p8  Japonaia  et  les  Cori^ens  lent  fait  pour  I'ecriture 
ihinoise  "'  (Reuan,  p.  112).    SaaUchiitz,  Zur  OtschiclUe 


der  Biir.hslabevschrift,  Kijnigsberg,  1838,  §§  16,  17,  18 
Comp.  also  Leyrer,  in  Herzog,  xiv.  9. 

'>  Lepsiiis,  Zwei  Ahliandlini^en,  pp  9  29- 

c  Davidson,  Biblical  Criticism,  i.  23. 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND   WRITING 


2985 


Aramaic  writing  may  be  divided  into  two  principal 

families -^(1.)  ancient  Aramaic,  and  (2.)  Sjriac, 
more  properly  so  called.  Of  the  first,  the  most  early 
specimen  extant  is  the  well-known  Oarpentras  stone, 
preserved  at  that  place  in  France,  since  the  end  of 
the  17th  century."  Its  date  is  very  douhtful,  but 
anterior  to  those  of  the  inscriptions  from  Palmyra, 
which  extend  from  A.  D.  4'J,  to  the  .3d  century. 
The  first  very  closely  resembles  the  Phoenician 
character  —  the  tops  of  the  letters  being  but  slightly 
opened ;  in  the  second,  these  are  more  fully  opened, 
and  many  horizontal  strokes  of  union  added,  show- 
ing its  cursive  character.  From  these  remains  may 
be  fairly  deduced  the  transitional  nature  of  the 
written  character  of  the  period  preceding  the  in- 
vention (or  according  to  others  the  revival)  of  the 
square  character. 

Hupfeld,  Fiirst,  and  all  leading  writers  on  the 
subject,  concur  in  designating  this  last  as  a  gradual 
development  from  the  sources  mentioned  above.  A 
reference  to  these  authors  will  show  how  confused 
were  even  Jewish  notions  at  an  early  period  as  to 
its  origin,  from  the  different  explanations   of  the 

word  i~l"^"1/l!i?W    (Assyriaca),  substituted  by  the 

Rabbins  for  ^2~ip  ("square"),  by  which  this 
character    was    distinguished    from    their    own  — 

7^317  3n3 —  "round  writing,"  as  it  was  called. 
T        T  :       ^ 

But  assuming  wi^i  Hupfeld  and  Fiirst,  the  presence 
of  two  active  principles  —  a  wish  to  write  quickly, 
and  to  write  pictorially  —  the  growth  of  the  squ;ire 
Hebrew  character  from  the  old  Phoenician  is  easily 
discernible  through  the  Carpentras  and  Palmyrene 
relics.  •'  Thus  we  find  in  it  the  points  of  the  letters 
blunted  off,  the  horizontal  union-strokes  enlarged, 
figures  that  had  l)een  divided  rounded  and  closed, 
the  position  and  length  of  many  cross  lines  altered, 
and  final  letters  introduced  agreeably  to  tachyg- 
raphy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  caligraphical  prin- 
ciple is  seen  in  the  extraordinary  nnifornuty  and 
symmetry  of  the  letters,  their  separation  from  one 
another,  and  in  the  peculiar  taste  which  adorns 
them  with  a  stiff  and  angular  form."  * 

Few  important  changes  are  to  be  found  from 
the  period  of  Kzra,  until  the  close  of  the  5th  cen- 
tury of  our  era  During  this  period,  the  written 
character  of  the  text  (as  well  as  tlie  text  itself)  was 
settled  as  at  present,  and  likewise,  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, the  reading  and  divisions  of  the  text.  During 
this  period,  the  groundwork  of  very  much  con- 
tained in  the  subsequent  JMasora  was  laid,  but  as 
yet  only  in  an  unwritten,  traditional  shape.  The 
old  character  gave  way  to  the  square,  or  Assyrian 
character  —  not  at  once  and  by  the  authority  of 
Ezra,  but  (as  has  been  proved  with  much  clearness) 
by  gradii.al  transitions.'^  The  square  char.acter  is, 
demonstrably,  not  an  exact  copy  of  any  existing 
Aramaic  style,  but  grew  by  degrees  out  of  the 
earlier  one,  although  greatly  modified  by  Aramaic 
influence.  No  exact  date  can  be  assiu'ned  to  the 
actual  change,  which  probably  was  very  gradual: 
but  that  the  new  character  had  become  generally 
adopted  by  the  first  century  of  our  era,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  Gospels  (Matt.  v.  18).  It  is, 
moreover,  alluded  to  in  the  Mishna  a-s  the  Assyrian 
character,  and  by  Origen  as  settled  by  long  usage. 


a  A  copy  of  it  is  given  in  Fiirst,  Lekrgeb.  p.  23. 

b  David.son,  Biblic.  Criticism,  i.  29  ;  IIofTmann, 
Gramm.  tSi/riaca,  §  6,  1-6  ;  and  Fiirst,  Lekrg.  i.  §§ 
22-27 

188 


and  was  obviously  well-known  to  Jerome  and  the 
Talumdists.  The  latter  writers,  aided  puwriiiiUy 
by  the  ceremonious  (not  to  say  superstitious)  tone 
engendered  among  the  Jews  by  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem, secured  the  exclusive  use  of  its  square  char- 
acter for  sacred  purposes.  All  that  external  care 
and  scruijulons  veneration  could  accomplish  for  the 
exact  transmission  of  the  received  text,  in  the  con- 
secrated character,  was  secured.  It  is  true  that 
much  of  a  secondary,  much  of  an  erroneous  kind 
was  included  among  the  olijects  of  this  devout  ven- 
eration;  but  in  the  absence  of  sound  principles  of 
criticism,  not  only  in  those  early,  but  many  sub- 
sequent generations,  this  is  the  less  to  be  deplored. 
The  character  called  Rabbinic  is  best  described  as 
an  attempt  at  Hebrew  cursive  writing. 

The  history  of  the  characters  ordinarily  used  in 
the  Syriac  (or  Western)  branch  of  the  Aramaic 
family,  is  blended  with  that  of  those  used  in  Judaea. 
Like  the  square  characters,  they  were  derived  from 
the  old  Phoenician,  but  passed  through  some  inter- 
mediate stages.  The  first  variety  is  that  known 
by  the  name  of  Fstrangelo  —  a  heavy,  cumbrous 
character,  said  to  be  derived  fiom  the  Greek  adj. 
(TTpoyyvKo^,  liut  more  probably  from  two  Arabic 
words  signifying  the  writing  of  the  Gospel.  It  is 
to  be  found  in  use  in  the  very  oldest  documents. 
Concurrently  with  this,  are  traces  of  the  existence 
of  a  smaller  and  mor,e  cursive  character,  very  much 
resembling  it.  The  character  called  the  "doul)le" 
(a  large,  hollow  variety),  is  almost  identical.  There 
are  also  other  varieties,  slightly  difiei-ing  —  the 
Nestorian  for  example  —  but  that  in  ordinary  use 
is  the  Pe.shito=  simple  (or  lineal  according  to 
some).  Its  origin  is  somewhat  uncertain,  but 
probably  may  be  assigned  to  the  7th  century  of 
our  era.  It  is  a  modification  of  the  Fstrangelo, 
sloped  for  writing,  and  in  some  measure  altered 
by  use.  This  variety  of  written  characters  in  the 
Aramaic  family  is  probably  attributaljle  to  the  fact, 
that  literature  was  more  extensi^■ely  culti\ated 
among  them  than  among  kindred  trilies.  Although 
not  spared  to  us,  an  extensive  literature  probably 
existed  among  them  anterior  to  the  Christian  era; 
and  subsequently  for  a  long  period  they  were  the 
sole  imparters  of  knowledge  and  learning  to  West- 
ern Asia. 

The  history  of  the  Arabic  language  has  another 
peculiar  feature,  beyond  its  excessive  purism,  which 
has  been  alluded  to,  at  first  sight,  so  singular 
among  the  dwellers  in  the  desert.  Until  a  com  ■ 
paratively  short  time  before  the  days  of  iMohani- 
med,  the  art  of  writing  appears  to  have  been  ]jracti- 
cally  unknown.  For  the  Himyarites  guarded  with 
jealous  care  their  own  peculiar  character  —  the 
"  musnad,"  or  elevated  ;f'  in  itself  unfitted  for 
general  use.  Possibly  different  tribes  might  have 
possessed  approaches  to  written  characters;  but 
about  the  beginning  of  the  7th  century,  the  heavy, 
cumbrous  Cufic  character  (so  called  from  Cufa,  the 
city  where  it  was  most  early  used)  appears  to  have 
been  generally  adopted.  It  was  said  to  have  been  in- 
vented l)y  Muramar  Ibn-iMurrat,  a  native  of  Baby 
Ionian  Irak.  But  the  shapes  and  arrangement  of 
the  letters  indicate  their  derivation  from  the  Fs- 
trangelo; and  the  name  assigned  to  their  intro- 
ducer —  containing  the  title   ordinarily  borne  hy 


e  Leyrer,  in  Ilerzog,  xiv.  12. 

d  Another  etymology  of  this  word  is  given  ty  Lsp 

sius,  j_Xi/„«,fc/t.  from    t\JLww    "India." 


2986 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES  AND  WRITING 


Syrian  pcdesiastics  —  is  also  indicative  of  their 
real  origin.  But  it  is  now  only  to  be  found  in 
the  documents  of  the  early  ages  of  Islamisni. 

The  well-known  division  of  '•  the  people  of  the 
book  "  =  Christians,  who  were  educated,  and  •'  the 
common  people''  who  could  not  read  =  the  tribes 
round  JNlecca,  and  the  summary  way  in  which  an 
authoritative  text  of  the  Koran  was  established 
(in  the  Caliphate  of  Othman),  alike  indicate  a  very 
rude  state  of  society.  It  is  generally  asserted  that 
Mohammed  was  unable  to  write :  and  this  would  at 
first  sight  appear  to  be  borne  out  by  his  description 
of  himself  as  an  illiterate  prophet.  ^lodern  writers, 
however,  generally  are  averse  to  a  literal  interpre- 
tation of  these  and  kindred  statements.  In  any 
casn.  about  the  10th  century  (the  fourth  of  the 
H(-'JI«,),  a  smaller  and  more  flowing  character,  the 
KisLki,  was  introduced  by  Ibn  Moklah,  which, 
with  considerable  alterations  and  improvements,  is 
that  ordinarily  in  present  use." 

30.  As  in  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  branches,  so 
in  the  Arab  branch  of  the  Shemitic  family,  various 
causes  rendered  desu'able  the  introduction  of  dia- 
critical signs  and  vowel  points,  which  took  place 
toward  the  close  of  the  7th  century  of  our  era  — 
not  however  without  considerable  opposition  at  the 
outset,  from  Shemitic  dislike  of  innovation,  and 
addition  to  the  roll  of  instruction  already  complete 
in  itself.  But  the  system  obtained  general  recogni- 
tion alter  some  modifications  in  deference  to  popular 
opinion,  though  not  carried  out  with  the  fulhiess  of 
the  Masoretes. '' 

Ewald,  with  great  probability,  assumes  the  ex- 
istence and  adoption  of  certain  attempts  at  vowel 
marks  at  a  very  early  period,  and  is  inclined  to 
divide  their  history  into  three  stages. 

-At  fii'st  a  simple  mark  or  stroke,  like  the  dia- 
critical line  in  the  Samaritan  MSS.,  was  adopted 

to  mark  unusual  significations,  as  ^^"T,  a  "  pesti- 
lence," as  distinguished  from  "12"^,  "to  speak," 
or  "a  word."  A  further  and  more  advanced  stage, 
like  the  diacritical  points  of  the  Aramaic,  was  the 
employment  (in  order  to  express  generally  the  dif- 
ference of  sounds)  of  a  point  abuct  the  line  to  ex- 
press sounds  of  a  high  kind,  like  a  and  o  —  one 
bduw  for  feebler  and  lower  ones  like  i  and  e  —  and 
a  third  in  the  centre  of  the  letters  for  those  of 
a  harsher  kind,  as  distinguished  from  the  other 
two.'' 

Originally,  the  number  of  vowel  sounds  among 
the  Shemitic  races  (as  distinguished  from  v(nvtl 
points)  was  only  three,  and  apparently  used  in  com- 
bination with  the  consonants.  Origen  and  .Jerome 
were  alike  ignorant  of  vowel  points,  in  the  ordinary 
acceptation.  Many  readings  in  the  hXX.  indicate 
the  want  of  some  such  system  —  a  want  to  which 
some  directions  in  the  Talmud  are  said  to  refer. 
But  until  a  later  period,  a  regidar  system  of  punc- 
tuation remained  unknown ;  and  the  number  of 
vowel  sounds  limited.  The  case  is  thus  put  by 
\\'alton.  "  The  modern  points  were  not  either 
from  Adam,  or  affixed  by  Moses,  or  the  Prophets 
that  were  before  the  Captivity,  nor  after  the  Captiv- 
ity, devised  either  by  Ezra,  or  by  any  other  before 
the  completing  of  the  Talmud,  but  after  five  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ,  invented  by  some  learned 


o  A  much  earlier  existence  is  claimed  for  this  char- 
leter  by  Forster,  One  Prim.  Laii^-.  i.  167. 

b  Pococke,  Abulfeda,  ed.  White  ;  Walton,  FroU.  De 
Lingua  Arat-ic&;  Leyrer,  Uerzog,  x'v.  12. 


Jews  for  the  help  of  those  who  weie  ignoiaiit  of  the 
Hebrew  tongue."  "  We  neither  affirm-  that  the 
vowels  and  accents  were  invented  liy  the  JNIasoretes. 
but  that  the  Hebrew  tongue  did  always  consist  of 
vowels  and  consonants.  Aleph,  Van,  and  Yod  were 
the  vowels  before  the  points  were  invented,  as  they 
were  also  in  the  Syriae,  Arabic,  and  other  Eastern 
tongues."  'i 

^^'e  will  add  one  more  quotation  from  the  same 
author  with  reference  to  the  alleged  uncertainty 
introduced  into  the  rendering  of  the  text,  by  any 
doubts  on  the  antiquity  of  the  system  of  vowel- 
points,  a  question  which  divided  the  scholars  of  his 
day.  "  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  Chaldean  Para- 
phrase of  the  Pentateuch  and  Prophets,  and  the 
Syriae  translation  of  the  Bible,  continued  above  a 
thousand  years  before  they  were  pointed."  "  That 
the  true  reading  might  be  preserved  above  a  thou- 
sand ye;irs,  is  not  against  all  reason,  since  we  see 
the  same  done  in  the  Samaritan,  Syriae,  and  Chal- 
dee,  for  a  longer  time;  and  the  same  may  be  said 
of  the  Arabic,  though  not  for  so  long  a  time  after 
the  Alcoran  was  written."  « 

31.  The  reverence  of  the  Jews  for  their  sacred 
writings  would  have  been  outraged  by  any  at- 
tempts to  introduce  an  authoritative  system  of  in- 
terpretation at  variance  with  existing  ones.  To 
reduce  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  to  authorita- 
tive and  intelligible  uniformity  was  the  object  ,of 
the  Masoretes,  by  means  of  a  syslem  of  vowels  and 
accents. 

A\'hat  would  have  suggested  itself  to  scholars, 
not  of  Shemitic  origin,  was  at  utter  variance  with 
Hebrew  notions,  which  looked  upon  the  established 
written  characters  as  sacred.  No  other  plan  was 
possible  than  the  addition  of  different  external 
marks.  And,  in  fact,  this  plan  was  adopted  by 
the  three  great  divisions  of  the  Shemitic  family; 
probably  being  copied  to  a  certain  extent  by  the 
Hebrew  and  Arabic  branches  from  the  Syriae, 
among  whom  there  existed  schools  of  some  repute 
during  the  first  centuries  of  our  era.  Of  the  names 
of  the  inventors,  or  the  exact  time  of  their  intro- 
duction, nothing  can  be  stated  with  certainty. 
Their  use  probably  began  about  the  sixth  century, 
and  appears  to  have  been  completed  about  the 
tenth.  The  system  has  been  carried  out  with  far 
greater  minuteness  in  the  Hebrew,  than  in  the  two 
sister  dialects.  The  Arabic  grammarians  did  not 
proceed  beyond  three  signs  for  a,  i,  u  ;  the  Syriae 
added  e  and  o,  which  they  represented  by  figures 
borrowed  from  the  Greek  alphabet,  not  very  much 
altered.  In  both  these  cases  all  the  vowels  are, 
strictly  speaking,  to  be  considered  as  short;  while 
the  Hebrew  has  five  long  as  well  as  five  short,  and 
a  half-vowel,  and  other  auxiliary  signs.  Con- 
nected with  this  is  the  system  of  accents,  which  ig 
involved  in  the  same  obscurity  of  origin.  But  it 
bears  rather  on  the  relation  of  words  and  the  mem- 
bers of  sentences,  than  on  the  construction  o'f  indi- 
vidual words. 

The  chief  agents  in  this  laborious  and  peculiar 
undertaking  were  the  compilers  of  the  Mascra,  as 
it  is  called  =  "  tradition,"  as  distinguished  from 
the  word  to  be  read.  As  the  Talmud  has  its 
province  of  interpreting  legal  distinctions  and  regu- 
lations, under  the  sanction  of  the  sacred  text,  and 


c  Ewald,  Grammatik  (1836),  p.  62. 

d  Walton,  Considerator  Considered,  ii.  229,  210. 

e  Walton,  ibid.  222,  223. 


SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES   AND   WRITING 


20S7 


the  Kabbala  its  peculiar  function  of  dealing  with    known  to  us,  presents  them  as  very  unevenly  (lt>- 


theological  and  esoteric  tradition,  so  the  object  of 
the  Masora  (HniDD,"  tradition  ")  and  its  com- 
pilers the  Masoretes  (or  rTI^DiD  ^_P5??>  "  masters 
of  tradition")  was  to  deal  critically,  grammat- 
ically, and  lexically  with  a  vast  amount  of  tradition 
bearing  on  the  text  of  Scripture,  and  to  reduce  this 
to  a  consistent  form.  Little  is  known  with  accu- 
racy of  the  authors,  or  the  growth  of  this  remark- 
able collection.  Tradition  assigns  the  commence- 
ment (as  usual)  to  Ezra  and  tiie  great  sjnagogue; 
but  other  authorities,  Jewish  and  Christian,  to 
the  learned  members  of  tlie  school  of  Tiberias, 
about  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century.  These 
learned  collections,  comprising  some  very  early 
fragments,  were  probably  in  progress  until  the 
eleventh  century,  and  are  divided  into  a  greater 
and  less  Masora,  the  second  a  compendium  of  the 
former.  "  The  masters  of  the  Masora,"  in  the  well- 
known  quotation  of  Elias  Levita,*"  were  innumer- 
able, and  followed  each  other  in  successive  genera- 
tions for  many  years;  nor  is  the  lieginning  of  them 
known  to  us,  nor  the  end  thereof."  Walton,  who 
was  by  no  means  blind  to  its  deficiencies,  has  left 
on  record  a  very  just  judgment  on  the  real  merits 
of  the  Masora."  It  is  in  truth  a  very  striking  and 
meritorious  instance  of  the  devotion  of  the  Jewish 
Mind  to  the  text  of  Scripture  —  of  the  earnest- 
ness of  its  authors  to  add  the  only  proof  in  their 
power  of  their  zeal  for  its  preservation  and  eluci- 
dation.'' 

32.  A  comparison  of  the  Shemitic  languages,  as 


eloped.  In  their  present  form  the  Arabic  is  un- 
doulitedly  the  richest:  but  it  would  have  bwen 
rivaled  by  the  Hebrew  had  a  career  been  vouch- 
safed equally  long  and  favorable  to  this  latter. 
The  cramping  and  perverting  conditions  of  iU. 
labors  depressed  the  Rabbinic  dialect  (child  of 
the  old  age  of  the  Hebrew)  into  bewildering  con- 
fusion in  many  instances,  but  there  are  many 
valuable  signs  of  life  about  it.  Ancient  He- 
brew, as  has  been  truly  said,  possesses  in  the 
bud  almost  all  the  mechanisms  which  constitute 
the  riches  of  the  Arabic.  In  the  preface  to  his 
great  work  (Lehrf/ebdtule,  p.  vii.)  Gesenius  has 
pointed  out  various  instances,  v\hich  will  repay  the 
labor  of  comparison.  It  is  true  that  to  the  Ar;i- 
maic  has  been  extended  a  longer  duration  than  to 
the  Hebrew;  but  for  various  causes  its  inferiority 
is  remarkable,  as  regards  its  poverty  —  lexical  and 
grammatical  —  its  want  of  harmony  and  flexil)ility, 
and  the  consequent  necessary  frequency  of  peri- 
phrases and  particles  in  aid. 

A  brief  comparison  of  some  leading  grammatical 
and  syntactical  peculiarities,  in  the  three  main  dia- 
lects of  the  Shemitic  family,  will  not  be  out  of 
place  at  the  end  of  this  sketch.  To  scholars  it  will 
necessarily  appear  meagre:  but,  brief  as  it  is,  it 
may  not  be  without  interest  to  the  general  reader. 
The  root-forms  with  the  consonants  and  vowels 
have  been  already  considered. 

Conjuijdtifins  or  their  Equivalent  Verb-forms. — 
The  following  is  the  tabulated  form  given  by  Ewakl 
for  the  ordinary  Hebrew  verb:  — 


1.  (Simple  form)  Kal. 


(Forms  extremely  augmented) 


2.  (Causative  form" 

Hipkil.  w. 
Passive  Hophal. 


(Reflexive  form) 
Nipkal. 


(Inten.sive  form) 

Piel.  w. 
pass.  I  PicaL 


5.  (Reflexive  and  Intensive  form) 
Hithjiael. 


In  the  Aramaic  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  of 
these  appear,  with  another  (=  Hithpael),  all  with 
passives,  marked  by  a  syllable  prefixed.  In  the 
Arabic  the  verb-forms,  at  the  lowest  computation, 
are  nine,  but  are  ordinarily  reckoned  at  thirteen, 
and  sometimes  fifteen.  Of  these,  the  ninth  and 
eleventh  forms  are  comparatively  rare,  and  serve 
to  express  colors  and  defects.  As  may  be  seen 
from  the  table  given,  the  third  and  fourth  forms  in 
Hebrew  alone  have  passives. 

Equiralents  to  Conjunctive  Moods,  etc.  —  One 
of  the  most  remarkable  features  of  the  Arabic  lan- 
guage is  what  is  ordinarily  described  as  the  "  futu- 
rum  figuratum."  As  in  almost  all  Shemitic  gram- 
mars imperfect  is  now  substituted  for  future,  this 
may  be  explained  by  stating  that  in  Arabic  there 
are  four  forms  of  the  imperfect,  strongly  marked, 
by  which  the  absence  of  moods  is  almost  compen- 
sated. The  germs  of  this  mechanism  are  to  be 
found  in  the  connnon  imperfect,  the  jussive,  and 
the  cohortative  of  the  Hebrew,  but  not  in  the 
Aramaic.  Again,  a  curious  conditional  and  suo- 
unctive  usage  (at  first  sight  almost  amounting  to 


a   Prol.  viii.  17. 

*>  Arnolcl,  in   Herzog,  ix.  5.  v. 
Uv.  1£. 


Leyrer,  in  Herzog, 


an  inversion)  applied  to  the  perfect  and  imperfect 
tenses  by  the  addition  of  a  portion,  or  the  whole, 
of  the  substantive  verb  is  to  be  found  in  both 
Hebrew  and  Arabic,  although  very  differently  de- 
veloped. 

Nouns.  —  The  dual  number,  very  uncommon  in 
the  Syriac,  is  less  so  in  Hebrew,  chiefly  limited, 
however,  to  really  dual  nouns,  while  in  the  Araljic 
its  usage  may  be  descrilied  as  general.  What  is 
called  the  •'  status  emphaticus,"  t.  e.  the  rendering 
a  word  definite  by  appending  the  article,  is  found 
constantly  recurring  in  the  Aramaic  (at  some  loss 
to  clearness  in  the  singular).  This  usage  brings  to 
mind  the  addition  of  the  definite  article  as  a  jwst- 
positive  in  Swedish  —  s^-J6,  ship;  skibet,  the  ship. 
In  the  Arabic  it  is  lost  in  the  inflections  of  cases, 
while  in  the  Helirew  it  may  be  considered  as  un- 
important. As  regards  nouns  of  abstraction,  also, 
the  Aramaic  is  fuller  than  the  Hebrew;  but  in  this 
last  particular,  as  in  the  whole  family  of  nouns, 
the  Arabic  is  rich  to  excess.  It  is  in  this  last  only 
that  we  find  not  only  a  regular  system  of  c;i.ses, 
and  of  comparison,  but  especially  the  numerous 
plural  formations  called  broken  or  internal,  which 
form  so  singular  a  part  of  the  language.  As  re- 
gards their  meaning,  the  broken  plurals  are  totally 
different  fh)ni  the  reguLar  (or,  as  they  are  techni- 


^98?     SHEMITIC   LANGUAGES 

wily  called,  sound)  plurals  —  the  latter  denoting 
several  individuals  of  a  £jenus,  the  former  a  number 
of  individuals  viewed  collectivel.y,  the  idea  of  indi- 
viduality beinw  wholly  suppressed.  Broken  plurals 
accordingly  are  sinijulars  with  a  collective  meaning, 
and  are  closely  akin  to  abstract  nouns.'* 

33.  To  the  scholar,  as  before  remarked,  this  re- 
capitulation of  some  leading  peculiarities  may  ap- 
pear unnecessary,  while  to  those  unacquainted  with 
the  Sheniitic  languages,  it  is  feared,  these  instances 
must  unavoidably  appear  like  fragments  or  speci- 
mens, pussiUy  new  and  peculiar,  but  conveying  no 
very  definite  instruction.     But  in  any  case  some  of 
the  chief  grammatical  features  of  tlie  family  have 
been  enumerated  —  all,  moreover,  illustrative  of  the 
internal,  self-contained  type  so  peculiarly  Shemitic. 
In  this  respect,  as  with  its  formal,  so  with  its  syn- 
tactical peculiarities.     Of  one  fertile  parent  of  new 
words    in    the    Japhetian    lans,'uage-family,  —  the 
power  of  creating  compound  words,  —  the  Shemitic 
is    destitute.     Different  meanings  are,  it  is  true, 
expressed  by  diflTerent  primitives,  but  these  stand 
necessarily    divided    by   impassable    barriers    from 
each  other;  and  we  look  in  vain  for  the  shades  and 
gradations  of  meaning  in  a  word  in  the  Shemitic 
languages  which  gives  such  copiousness  and  charm 
to  the  sister-family.     It  is  so  with  regard  to  the 
whole  range  of  privative  and  negati\e  words.     The 
prefixes  of  the  otlier  family,  in  conjunction  with 
tiouns,  give  far  more  life  and  clearness  than  do  the 
iwllective  verbals  of  the  Sheniitic.      Kven  the  preg- 
nant and  curiously  jointed   verb-forms,  sjireading 
out  from  the  sharply  defined  root,  with  pronominal 
adjuncts  of  obvious  meaning,  and  the  aid  of  a  deli- 
cate vowel- system,  have  an   artificial   appearance. 
The  Japhetian,  whose  spiritual  fullness  would  prob- 
ably never  have   reached    him,  but    that  its  sub- 
stance was  loni;  preser\ed  in  these  very  forms,  will 
gratefully   acknowledge   the    wisdom    of   that  Al- 
mighty Being  who  framed  for  the  preservation  of 
the  knowledge  of  Himself — the  One  True  God  — 
80  fitting  a  cradle  as  the  language  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament.    Of  other  families,  the  .Japhetian  was  not 
ripe  for  such  a  trust.     Of  those  allied   with   the 
Shemitic,  the  Aramaic  was  too  coarse  and  indefi- 
nite, however  widely  and  early  spread,  or  useful  at 
a  later  period  as  a  means  of  extension  and  explana- 
tion, and  (as  has  been  before  observed)  the  Arabic 
in  its  origin  was  essentially  of  the  earth,  earthy. 
The  Japhetian  cannot  then  but  recognize  the  wis- 
dom, cannot  but  thank  the  goodness  of  God,  in 
thus  giving  and  preserving  his  lessons  concerning 
Himself  in  a  form  so  fitting  and  so  removed  from 
treachery.     He  will  do  all  this,  but  he  will  see  at 
the  same  time  in  his  own  languages,  so  flexible,  so 
varied,  so  logical,  drawing  man  out  of  himself  to 
tind  him  to  Ids  neighbor,  means  far  more  likely  to 
spread  the   treasures  of   the  holy   language  than 
even  its  general  adoption.     It  is  Humboldt  who 
has  said,  in  reference  to  the  wonderful  mechanism 
discernililc  in    the    consonant   and  vowel  systems 
of  the  Shemitic    languages  —  that,  admitting  all 
this,    there    is    more    energy   and    weight,    more 
truth  to  nature,  when  the  elements  of  language 
can  1)8  recognized  independently  and  in  order,  than 
when  fused    in  such  a  combination,  however  re- 
markable. 

And  froiH  this  rigid,  self-contained  character  the 


SHENIR 

Shemitic  language-family  finds  diflSculty  in  depart- 
ing. The  more  recent  Syriac  has  added  various 
auxiliary  forms,  and  repeated  pronouns,  to  the 
characteristic  words  by  which  the  meaning  is 
chiefly  conveyed.  But  the  general  effect  is  cum- 
brous and  confused,  and  brings  to  mind  some  fea- 
tures of  the  ordinary  Welsh  version  of  the  Epis- 
tles. In  Arabic,  again,  certain  prefixes  are  found 
to  be  added  for  the  sake  of  giving  definiteness  to 
portions  of  the  verb,  and  prepositions  more  fre- 
quently employed.  But  the  character  of  the  Ian 
guage  remains  unaltered  —  the  additions  stand  out 
as  something  distinct  from  the  original  elements  of 
the  sentence. 

In  what  consists  the  most  marked  point  of  dif- 
ference between  the  Indo-European  family  of  an- 
guages  and  the  Shemitic  family  as  known  to  us? 
The  first  has  lived  two  lives,  as  it  were:  in  its  case 
a  j)eriod  of  synthesis  and  complexity  has  lieen  suc- 
ceeded by  another  of  analysis  and  decomposition. 
The  second  family  has  been  developed  (if  the  word 
may  be  used)  in  one  way  only.  No  other  instance 
of  a  language-family  can  probably  be  found  cast  in 
a  mould  equally  unalterable.  Compared  with  the 
living  branches  of  the  Indo-European  family,  those 
of  the  Shemitic  may  be  almost  designated  as  in- 
organic: they  have  not  vegetated,  have  not  grown; 
they  have  simply  existed.*  T.  J.  0. 

SHEMU'EL  (bs^?2K7  [=  Samuel,  which 
see]  :  'XaKafxiTjA  ■  Sanniel).  1.  Son  of  Ammihud, 
appointed  i'rom  the  tribe  of  Simeon  to  divide 
the  land  of  Canaan  among  the  tribes  (Num. 
xxxiv.  20). 

2.  (Sa/.tou'^A.)  Samuel  the  prophet  (1  Chr. 
vi.  33). 

3.  [Vat.  laa/j-ovTjA.]  Son  of  Tola,  and  one 
of  the  chiefs  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (1  Chr. 
vii.  2). 

SHEN  O'^Jp'iJ,  with  the  def.  article  [the  tooth]  : 
T^s  iraAaias-  Sen).  A  place  mentioned  only  in 
1  Sam.  vii.  12,  defining  the  spot  at  which  Samuel 
set  up  the  stone  Eben-ezer  to  commemorate  the 
rout  of  the  Philistines.  The  pursuit  had  extended 
to  "below  Lieth-car,"  and  the  stone  was  erected 
"  between  the  Mispah  and  between  the  Shen." 
Nothing  is  known  of  it.  The  Targum  has  SJdnnn. 
The  Peshito-Syriac  and  Arabic  Versions  render 
both  Beth-car  and  Shen  by  Beit-.Jasan,  but  the 
writer  has  not  succeeded  in  identifying  the  name 
with  any  place  in  the  lists  of  Dr.  Robinson  (1st  ed. 

App.  to  vol.  iii.).  The  LXX.  read  )^^,  ydslidn, 
old.  ■  G. 

SHENA'ZAE,  P?;W?^  [fery  tooth,  Ges.]  : 
'S.aveaap-.  \Com\).  'S.ava^ap'^  Senneser).  Son  of 
Salathiel,  or  Shealtiel  (1  Chr.  iii.  18).  According 
to  the  Vulgate  he  is  reckoned  as  a  son  of  Jeciio- 
niah. 

SHE'NIR  O^'pii?,  t.  e.  Senir  [coat  of  mail]: 

Sam.  A^ers.  ]"T3>':£'a  :  [Rom.  SociV ;  Vat.  Alex.] 
Saveip;  [Sin.  in  Cant.,  'S.avieip'-]  Snnir).  This 
name  occurs  in  Deut.  iii.  9,  Cant.  iv.  8.  It  is  an 
inaccurate  equivalent  for  the  Hebrew  Senir,  the 
Amorite  name  for  JMount  Henuon,  and,  like  Shib- 
mah  (for  Sibmah),  has  found  its  way  into  the  Au- 


(•  Wright's  .4ra6/c  Grnmmnr,  fa,rt\  'p.\9Q.  "  Cette 
partie  de  la  gnimuiaire  Anibe  est  celle  oil  il  r^gne  le 
plus  (l'art>itraire,  et  ou  les   regies  gtinerales   sont  su- 


jettes  a  uu  plus  grand  nombre  d'exceptions."  De  S«ey 
i.  279  (ed.  1810). 

t>  Kenan,  i.  423.  424. 


SHEOL 

tLorized  Teraion  without  any  apparent  authority. 
The  correct  fonii  is  fouud  in  1  Chr.  v.  23  and  Ez. 
uvii.  5.     [Senik.]  G. 

*  SHE'OL.     [Dead,  The;  Hell;  Pit.] 

*  SHEOL,  BANDS  OF.  [Sxaues  of 
Death,  Amer.  ed.] 

SHE'PHAM  (nSt^  :  ^encpafidp;"  [Comp. 
Aid.  SeTT^a^a:]  Sephnian).  A  [)lace  mentioned 
only  in  the  specification  by  Moses  of  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  Promised  Land  (Num.  sxxiv.  10, 
11),  the  first  landuiarlv  from  Hatser-enan,  at  which 
the  northern  boundary  terminated,  and  lying  lie- 
tween  it  and  Kiiilah.  Tlie  ancient  interpreters 
(Targ.  Fseudojon. ;  Saadiah)  render  the  name  by 
Apameia;*  but  it  seems  uncertain  whether  by  this 
they  intend  the  Greelv  city  of  that  name  on  the 
Orontes,  50  miles  below  Antioch,  or  whether  they 
use  it  as  a  synonym  of  IJanias  or  Uan,  as  Schwarz 
affirms  (Bescr.  Gtuyr.  p.  27).  No  trace  of  the 
name  appears,  howe\er,  in  that  direction.  JNlr. 
Porter  would  fix  Hatser-enan  at  Kuryetein,  70 
miles  E.  N.  E.  of  Damascus,  which  would  remove 
Shephani  into  a  totally  different  re<i;ion,  in  which 
there  is  equally  little  trace  of  it.  The  writer  ven- 
tures to  disagree  with  this  and  similar  attempts  to 
enlarge  the  bounds  of  the  Holy  Land  to  an  extent 
for  which,  in  his  opinion,  there  is  no  warrant  in 
Sijripture.  G. 

SHEPHATHI'AH  (H^tDCtr;  [Jehovah 
jud(jes,  or  is  jud(je\:  'Zacparia-  i^upJiatin).  A 
Benjamite,  father  of  Meshullam  G  (1  Chr.  ix.  8). 
The  name  is  properly  Shephatlvh  [as  in  A.  V. 
ed.  1611]. 

SHEPHATI'AH  (H^^C^  [as  above] :  2a- 
tparia;  [Vat.  'XajSanta'-,]  Alex.  '2,a(paQia,  'Za<pa- 
Tias'-  Sapliailiid,  Saphniias).  1.  The  fifth  son  of 
David  by  his  wife  Abital  (2  Sam.  iii.  4;  1  Chr. 
iii.  3). 

2.  (^acparia;  [in  Ezr.  ii.  4,  Vat.  A<Ta()>;  viii. 
8,  ^a(paTeia:]  Sephalia,  Saphatia.)  The  family 
of  Shephatiah,  372  in  number,  returned  with  Ze- 
rubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  4;  Neh.  vii.  9).  A  second  de- 
tachment of  eighty,  with  Zebadiah  at  their  head, 
came  up  with  Ezra  (1-zr.  viii.  8).  The  name  is 
written  Saphat  (1  Esdr.  v.  9),  and  Saphatias 
(1  Esdr.  viii.  34). 

3.  ([[n  Ezr.  ii.  57,  Vat.  'S,a((>areLa-]  Saphafia.) 
The  family  of  another  Shephatiah  were  among  th6 
children  of  Solomon's  servants,  who  came  up  witli 
Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  57;  Neh.  vii.  59). 

4.  A  descendant  of  Perez,  or  Pliarez,  the  son 
of  Judah,  and  ancestor  of  Athaiah  (Neh.  xi.  4), 

5.  ('Zarpavias-' >^<'ph(Uias.)  The  son  of  Mat- 
tan;  one  of  the  princes  of  Judah  who  counselled 
Zedekiah  to  put  Jeremiah  in  the  dungeon  (Jer. 
ixxviii.  1). 

(J.  (:in;^5?7:  2a<(,aria,;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Sa- 
maria; VA.  ^apareia'-  Saphatia.)  The  Haruph- 
te,  or  llariphite,  one  of  the  Benjamite  warriors 
who  joined  David  in  his  retreat  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr. 
cii.  5). 

7.  (Sai^aTias:  SaphaHas.)  Son  of  Maachah, 
»nd  chief  of  the  Simeonites  in  the  reign  of  David 
(1  Chr.  xxvii.  16). 


SHEPHERD 


2989 


<>  The  nr  at  the  end  of  the  LXX.  version  of  the 
lanie  is  partly  due  to  thc"/i  (particle  of  motion)  which 
IB  affixed  to  it  in  the  original  of  ver.  10,  and  partly 
Jerived  from  the  commencement  of  Riblah,  which  fol- 


8.   (:2,acpaTlas;   [Vat.   ^acpareiar,^    Alex.   2a 
(paTias-)     Son  of  Jehoshapliat  (2  Chr.  xxi.  2). 

SHEPHERD  (n^"-|;  "li?.^2^  Am.  vii.  14 

^l73,  Am.  i.  1).  In  a  nomadic  state  of  society 
e\ery  man,  from  the  sheikh  down  to"  the  slave,  is 
more  or  less  a  shepherd.  As  many  regions  in  the 
East  are  adapted  solely  to  pastoral  pursuits,  the  in- 
stitution ot  the  nomad  life,  with  its  appliances  of 
tents  and  camp  equipage,  was  regarded  as  one  of 
the  most  memorable  inventions  (Gen.  iv.  20).  The 
progenitors  of  the  Jews  in  the  ]jatriarehal  age  were 
nomads,  and  their  history  is  rich  in  scenes  of  jias- 
toral  life.  'I'he  occupation  of  tending  the  flocks 
was  undertaken,  not  only  by  tlie  sons  of  wealthy 
chiefs  (Gen.  xxx.  29  fF.,  xxxvii.  12  ff.),  but  even  by 
their  daughters  (Gen.  xxix.  6  ff. ;  Ex.  ii.  19).  The 
Egyptian  captivity  did  nuich  to  implant  a  love  of 
settled  abode,  and  consequently  we  find  the  tribes 
which  still  retained  a  taste  for  shepherd  lile  select- 
ing their  own  quarters  apai't  from  their  brethren 
in  the  'i'ransjordanic  district  (Num.  xxxii.  1  ftl). 
Henceforward  in  Palestine  Proper  the  shepherd 
held  a  subordinate  position;  the  increase  of  agri- 
cnltin-e  involved  the  decrease  of  pasturage;  and 
though  large  flocks  were  still  maintained  in  certain 
parts,  particularly  on  the  borders  of  the  wilderness 
of  Judah,  as  about  Carmel  (1  Sam.  xxv.  2),  Beth- 
lehem (1  Sam.  xvi.  11;  Luke  ii.  8),  Tekoah  (Am. 
i.  1),  and  more  to  the  south,  at  Gedor  (1  Chr.  iv. 
39),  the  nomad  life  was  practically  extinct,  and  the 
shepherd  became  one  out  of  many  classes  of  the  la- 
boring, population.  The  completeness  of  the  tran- 
sition from  the  pastoral  to  the  agricultural  state  is 
strongly  exhiliited  in  those  passages  which  allude 
to  the  presence  of  the  shepherd's  tent  as  a  token 
of  desolation  (e.  (/.  Ez.  xxv.  4;  Zeph.  ii.  6).  The 
humble  position  of  the  shepherd  at  the  same  period 
is  implied  in  the  notices  of  David's  wondrous  ele 
vation  (2  Sam.  vii.  8;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  70),  and  again 
iu  the  self-depreciating  confession  of  Amos  (vii. 
14).  The  frequent  and  beautiful  allusions  to  the 
shepherd's  office  in  the  poetical  portions  of  the 
Bible  (e.  //.  Ps.  xxiii.;  Is.  xl.  11,  xiix.  9,  10;  Jer. 
xxiii.  3,  4;  Ez.  xxxiv.  11,  12,  23)  rather  bespeak 
a  period  when  tlie  shepherd  had  become  an  ideal 
character,  such  as  the  Koman  poets  painted  tlie  pas- 
tors of  Arcadia. 

The  office  of  the  eastern  shepherd,  as  described 
in  the  Bible,  was  attended  with  much  hardship, 
and  even  danger.  He  was  exposed  to  tiie  extremes 
of  heat  and  cold  (Gen.  xxxi.  40);  his  food  fre- 
quently consisted  of  the  precarious  supplies  afforded 
by  nature,  such  as  the  fruit  of  the  "  sycomore,"'  or 
Egyptian  fig  (Am.  vii.  14),  the  "husks"  of  the 
carob-tree  (Luke  xv.  16),  and  perchance  the  locusts 
and  wild  honey  wliicli  sujiported  the  Ba[)tist  (Matt, 
iii.  4) ;  he  liad  to  encounter  the  attacks  of  wild 
beasts,  occasionally  of  the  larger  species,  such  as 
lions,  wolves,  panthers,  and  bears  (1  Sam.  xvii.  34; 
Is.  xxxi.  4;  Jer.  v.  6;  Am.  iii.  12)  ;  nor  was  he 
free  from  the  risk  of  robbers  or  predatory  hordes 
(Gen.  xxxi.  39).  To  meet  these  various  foes  the 
siiepherd's  equi[)mfint  consisted  of  tlie  following 
articles:  a  mantle,  made  probably  of  slieep'sskin 
with  tlie  fleece  on,  tviiich  he  turned  inside  out  in 
cold  weather,  as  in  plied  in  the  comparison  in  Jer. 

lows  it  in  ver.  11,  and  which  t  ey  have  given  withoul 
its  r,  as  BrjAa. 

b  nS'^»!:S  :    «jUoLj  :  Sam.  Vers    n'^DDr. 


2990 


SHEPHERD 


xliii.  12  (cf.  Juv.  xiv.  187);  a  scrip  or  wallet,  con- 
taining a  small  amount  of  food  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40; 
Porter's  Danmscus,  ii.  100);  a  slinw,  which  is  still 
the  favorite  weapon  of  the  Bedouin  shepherd  (1 
Sam.  xvii.  40;  Burckhardfs  Notea.'i.bl);  and, 
lastly,  a  staff,  which  served  the  double  purpose  of  a 
weapon  against  foes,  and  a  crook  for  the  manage- 
ment of  the  flock  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40;  Ps.  xxiii.  4: 
Zech.  xi.  7).  If  the  shepherd  was  at  a  distance 
from  his  home,  he  was  provided  with  a  light  tent 
(Cant.  i.  8;  Jer.  xxxv.  7),  the  removal  of  which 
was  easily  effected  (Is.  xxxviii.  12).  In  certain 
localities,  moreover,  towers  were  erected  for  the 
double  purpose  of  spying  an  enemy  at  a  distance, 
and  protecting  the  flock :  such  towers  were  erected 
by  Uzziah  and  Jotham  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  10,  xxvii.  4), 
while  their  existence  in  earlier  times  is  testified  by 
the  name  JNIigdal-Eder  (Geu.  xxxv.  21,  A.  V.  "  tower 
of  Edar;  "  Mic.  iv.  8,  A.  V.  "  tower  of  the  flock  "). 
The  routine  of  the  shepherd's  duties  ajjpears  to 
have  lieen  as  follows :  in  the  morning  he  led  forth 
his  flock  from  the  fold  (John  x.  4),  which  he  did 
by  going  before  them  and  calling  to  them,  as  is 
still  usual  in  the  East;  arrived  at  the  pasturage,  he 
watched  the  flock  with  the  assistance  of  dogs  (Job 
XXX.  1),  and,  should  any  sheep  stray,  he  had  to 
search  for  it  until  he  found  it  (Ez.  xxxiv.  12;  Luke 
XV.  4);  he  supplied  them  with  water,  either  at  a 
running  stream  or  at  troughs  attached  to  wells 
(Gen.  xxix.  7,  xxx.  38:  Ex.  ii.  llJ;  Ps.  xxiii.  2); 
at  evening  he  brought  them  back  to  the  fold,  and 
reckoned  them  to  see  that  none  \\ere  missing,  by 
passing  them  "under  the  rod  "  as  they  entered  the 
door  of  the  inclosure  (Lev.  xxvii.  32;  Ez.  xx.  37), 
checking  each  sheep  as  it  passed,  by  a  motion  of 
the  hand  (Jer.  xxxiii.  13);  and,  finally,  he  watched 
the  entrance  of  the  fold  throushout  the  night,  act- 
ing as  porter  (John  x.  3).  We  need  not  assume 
that  the  same  person  was  on  duty  both  by  night 
and  by  day;  Jacob,  indeed,  asserts  this  of  himself 
(Gen.  xxxi.  40),  but  it  would  be  more  probable 
that  the  shepherds  took  it  by  turns,  or  that  they 
kept  watch  for  a  portion  only  of  the  night,  as  may 
possibly  be  implied  in  the  expression  in  Luke  ii.  8, 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  keeping  watch,"  rather 
"keeping  the  watches  "  {(pvXaffaovTis  (pvAaKas)- 
The  shejiherd's  office  thus  required  great  watchful- 
ness, particularly  by  night  (Luke  ii.  8;  cf.  Nah. 
iii.  18).  It  also  required  tenderness  towards  the 
young  and  feelile  (Is.  xl.  11),  particularly  in  driv- 
ing them  to  and  from  the  pasturage  (Gen.  xxxiii. 
13).  In  large  establishments  there  were  various 
grades  of  shepherds,  the  highest  being  styled 
"rulers"  (Gen.  xlvii.  6),  or  "chief  shepherds" 
(1  Pet.  v.  4):  in  a  royal  household  the  title  of  ab- 
bir,"  "  n)ighty,"  was  bestowed  on  the  person  who 
held  the  post  (1  Sam.  xxi.  7).  Great  responsibility 
attached  to  the  office;  for  the  chief  shejjherd  had 
to  make  good  all  losses  (Gen.  xxxi.  39 ) ;  at  the 
same  time  he  had  a  personal  interest  in  the  flock, 
inasmuch  as  he  was  not  paid  in  money,  but  re- 
ceived a  certain  amount  of  the  produce  (Gen.  xxx. 
32;  1  (,'or.  ix.  7).  The  life  of  the  shepherd  was  a 
monotonous  one;  he  may  perhaps  have  wiled  away 
an  hour  in  playing  on  some  instrument  (1  Sam. 
xvi.  18;  Job  xxi.  12,  xxx.  31),  as  his  modern  rep- 
"esentative  still  occasionally  does  (Wortabet's  Si/ria, 
I.  234).  He  also  had  his  periodical  entertainments 
tt  the  shearing-time,  which  was  celpomted  by  a 


"T'SW. 


oHEREBIAH 

general  gathering  of  the  neighboihood  for  festiv- 
ities (Gen.  xxxi.  19,  xxxviii.  12;  2  Sam.  xiii.  2b)' 
but,  generally  speaking,  the  life  must  have  been 
but  dull.  Nor  did  it  conduce  to  gentleness  of  man- 
ners; rival  shepherds  contended  for  the  possession 
or  the  use  of  water  with  great  acrimony  (Gen.  xxi. 
25,  xxvi.  20  ff. ;  Ex.  ii.  17);  nor  perhaps  is  this  a 
matter  of  surprise,  as  those  who  come  late  to  a  well 
frequently  have  to  wait  a  long  time  until  their  turn 
comes  (Burckhardfs  ^yria,  p.  63). 

I'he  hatred  of  the  Egyptians  towards  shepherda 
(Gen.  xlvi.  34)  may  have  been  mainly  due  to  their 
contempt  for  the  sheep  itself,  which  appears  to  have 
been  valued  neither  for  food  (Plutarch,  Be  Js.  72), 
nor  generally  for  sacrifice  (Herod,  ii.  42),  the  only 
district  where  they  were  offered  being  about  th; 
Natron  lakes  (Strab.  xvii.  p.  803).  It  may  have 
been  increased  by  the  memory  of  the  Shepherd  in 
vasion  (Herod,  ii.  128).  Abundant  confirmation 
of  the  fact  of  this  hatred  is  supplied  by  the  low 
position  which  all  herdsmen  held  in  the  castes  of 
Egypt,  and  by  the  caricatures  of  them  in  Egyptian 
paintings  (Wilkinson,  ii.  109). 

The  term  "  shepherd  "  is  applied  in  a  metaphor- 
ical sense  to  princes  (Is.  xliv.  28;  Jer.  ii.  8,  iii.  15, 
xxii.  22;  Ez.  xxxiv.  2,  &c.),  prophets  (Zech.  xi.  5, 
8,  16),  teachers  (Eccl.  xii.  ll),  and  to  Jehovah 
himself  (Gen.  xlix.  24;  Ps.  xxiii.  1,  Ixxx.  1):  to 
the  same  effect  are  the  references  to  "feeding"  in 
Gen.  xlvjii.  15;  Ps.  xxviii.  9;  Ilos.  iv.  16. 

W.  L.  B. 

*  SHEPHERDS,  TOWER  OF  (Gen. 
xxxv.  21).     [David,  voL  i.  p.  553  a.] 

SHE'PHI  (  pt?'  [a  naked  hill,  Ges.]:  2a)<^j', 
.Alex.  2,w(pap'-  Sejiln).  Son  of  Shobal,  of  the  soni 
of  Seir  (1  Chr.  i.  40).  Called  also  Shepho  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  23);  which  Burrington  concludes  to  be  the 
true  reading  (Geneal.  i.  49). 

SHE'PHO  02p  [smoothness]:  -2.u(pip:  Se- 
phv).     The  same  as  Shkphi  (Gen.  xxxvi.  23). 

SHEPHUTHAN  (l^^^ip  [serpenq-.  2e- 
(pov(pd/j.--,  Alex.  'S,w(pav--  Sephvphan).  One  of  the 
sons  of  Bel#  the  firstborn  of  Benjamin  (1  Chr.  viii. 
5).  His  name  is  also  written  Shephupham  (A. 
V.  "  Shupham,"  Num.  xxvi.  39),  Shuppim  (1  Chr. 
vii.  12,  15),  and  Muppisi  (Gen.  xlvi.  21).  Lord 
A.  Hervey  conjectures  that  Shephuphan  may  have 
been  a  son  of  Benjamin,  whose  family  was  reckoned 
with  those  of  Iri  the  son  of  Bela.      [Muppim.] 

SHE'RAH  (nnStt\  i.  e.  Sheerdh  [kins- 
womnn]:  'S,apad\  Alex.  2aapa:  Sara).  Daugh- 
ter of  Ephraim  (1  Chr.  vii.  24),  and  foundress  of 
the  two  Beth-horons,  and  of  a  town  which  was 
called  after  her  Uzzen-Shekah. 

*  SHERD.     [Potsheed;  Pottery.] 

SHEREBI'AH  (^^5^^.'  U'ect  qf  Jehovah, 
Ges.]:  Sapaia,  Ezr.  viii.  24;  2apa/3ias,  Neh'.  viii. 
7,  ix.  4;  2apa3i'a,  Neh.  x.  12,  xii.  8,  24;  Alex. 
2apa3ia,  Neh.  viii.  7;  2apa/3ai'a,  Neh.  ix.  4: 
Sarai/ias,  Ezr.:  Serehia,  Neh.  viii.  7,  x.  ]2,  xii. 
24;  Sa7-ehias,  Neh.  ix.  4;  Sarebia,  Neh.  xii.  8). 
A  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  of  the  family  of  JMahli 
the  son  of  Merari  (Ezr.  viii.  18,  24).  He  was  one 
of  the  first  of  the  ministers  of  the  Temple  to  join 
Ezra  at  the  river  of  Ahava,  and  with  Hashabiah 
and   ten  of  their  brethren  **  had  the  charge  of  the 


b  They  are  called  "  priest* ;  "  but  the  terui  M  used 
loosely,  as  iu  Josh.  iii.  3. 


SHERESH 

ressels  and  gifts  which  the  king  and  his  court,  and 
the  ijfople  of  Israel  had  contributed  for  thp  service 
of  the  Temple.  When  Ezra  read  the  Law  to  the 
people,  Sherebiah  was  among  the  Levites  who  as- 
sisted him  (Neh.  viii.  7).  He  took  part  in  the 
psalm  of  confession  and  thanksgiving  which  was 
Bung  at  the  solenni  fast  after  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles (Neh.  ix.  4,  5),  and  signed  the  covenant 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  12).  He  is  again  men- 
tioned as  among  the  chief  of  the  Levites  who  be- 
longed to  the  choir  (Neh.  xii.  8,  24).  In  1  Esdr. 
viii.  54  ne  is  called  Esebrias. 

SHE'llESH  (tt^^lt^  in  pause  [roo«]:  %odpos; 
Alex.  Sopos!  Saves).  Son  of  Machir  the  son  of 
Manasseh  by  his  wife  M.aachah  (1  Chr.  vii.  IG). 

SHERE'ZER  {'^1^^'^^  [=Sharezer]  : 
'Sapaadp-  Sttrdsar).  Properly  "  Sharezer;  "  one 
of  tiie  messengers  sent  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius 
by  the  pecpl<»  who  had  returned  from  the  Captivity 
to  inquire  concerning  fasting  in  the  fifth  month 
(Zech.  vii.  2).     [See  Regemmelech.] 

*  SHERIFFS  C'ri^r')  only  '»  Dan.  iii.  2, 
3,  enumerated  among  the  high  officers  of  state 
at  Babylon.  Their  exact  province  is  unknown. 
The  etymology  (see  Fiirst,  s.  v.)  is  too  obscure  to 
decide  their  position  or  duties.  According  to  the 
English  designation  they  may  have  been  an  order 
of  judges,  as  "sheriff"  has  sometimes  that  mean- 
ing. They  are  more  commonly  supposed  to  have 
been  lawyers  or  jurists  who  acted  as  the  king's  ad- 
visers, or  the  state  councillors,  and  as  such  held  a 
high  position  under  the  government.  Gesenius 
{Hebr.  u.  Chnld.  Lex.  s.  v.)  compares  them  with 
the  Mufti,  the  head  doctors  of  the  law  in  the 
Turkish  emigre.  De  Wette  translates  the  title 
liechtgffelehrten,  and  H.  A.  Perret-GentiL  Ics  juris- 
consulles.  H. 

SHE'SHACH  Cntt?tt?  [see  below]  :  [Comp. 
2r)(Tax,  Secraic:]  Stsich)  is  a  term  which  occurs 
34ily  in  Jeremiah  (xxv.  26,  li.  41),  who  evidently 
uses  it  as  a  synonym  either  for  Babylon  or  for  Bab- 
ylonia. According  to  some  connnentators,  it  rep- 
resents "  Babel  "  on  a  principle  well  ft  own  to  the 
later  Jews — the  substitution  of  letters  according 
to  their  position  in  the  alphabet,  counting  back- 
wnnls  from  the  last  letter,  for  those  which  hold  the 
same  numerical  position,  counting  in  the  ordinary 

way.     Thus  H  represents  S,  W  represents  ^,  "^ 

represents  3,  and  so  on.     It  is  the  fact  that  in  this 

way  Tfti7ti7  would  represent  V33'  It  may  well 
be  doubted,  however,  if  this  fanciful  practice  is  as 
old  as  Jeremiah.  At  any  rate,  this  explanation 
does  not  seem  to  be  so  satisfactory  as  to  make  any 
other  superfluous.  Now  Sir  H.  Kawlinson  has  ob- 
served that  the  name  of  the  moon-god,  which  was 
identical,  or  nearly  so,  with  that  of  the  city  of 
Abraham,  Ur  (or  Hur),  "might  have  been  read  in 
one  of  the  ancient  dialects  of  Babylon  as  Sliishnki.,'' 
<nd  that  consequently  "  a  possible  explanation  is 
hus  obtained  of  the  Sheshach  of  Scripture  "  (Haw- 
l.nson's  [If.roilotus,  vol.  i.  p.  filG).  Siieshaoh  may 
itand  for  Ur,  Ur  itself,  the  old  capital,  being  taken 
/as  Babel,  the  new  capital,  was  constantly)  to  rep 
»sent  the  country.  G.  K. 

SHE'SHAI  [2  syl]  Ott?tt7  [whithh,Ges.'\: 
Seffo-i  [Vat.  -trei],  Num.  and  Judg. ;  Somri  [Vat. 
<r€»],  Josh.;  Alex.  SeMei,   Sowirai,    T^Qdi.:   His  li. 


SHETHAR 


2901 


Num.;  Sesai).  One  of  the  three  sons  of  Anak 
who  dwelt  in  Hebron  (Num.  xiii.  22)  and  were 
driven  thence  and  slain  by  Caleb  at  the  head  of  the 
children  of  Judah  (Josh.  sv.  14;   Judg.  i.  10). 

SHE'SHAN  (]EJtt7  [perh.  city]  :  ■s.wffdf, 
[Vat.  twice  ^oaa/j.-]  Sesan).  A  descendant  of 
Jerahuieel  the  son  of  Hezron,  and  representative  of 
one  of  the  chief  faraihes  of  Judah.  In  consequence 
of  the  fiiilure  of  male  issue,  he  gave  his  daughter  in 
marriage  to  Jarha,  his  Egyptian  slave,  and  through 
this  union  the  line  was  perpetuated  (1  Chr.  ii.  M, 
34,  35). 

SHESHBAZ'ZAR  O^^'^VpW  [Pers.,  /»•<•- 
u'orsliijipi-r,  Ges.]  :  'Zaffa^aadp  ;  \_'S,a^ava(Ta.p\ 
Vat.  "Sia^avaaap,  'Rayaaap,  'S,ap&ayap\]  Alex. 
2a(7aj3ao-(7ap,  [SaffajSao'crapoy  :]  Sa^siibasar  :  oi 
uncertain  meaning  and  etymology).  The  Chaldsean 
or  Persian  name  given  to  Zerubbabel,  in  Ezr.  i.  8, 
11,  v.  14,  10;  1  Esdr.  ii.  12,  15,  after  the  analog) 
of  Shadrach,  Meshaeh,  Abednego,  Belteshazzar. 
and  Esther.  In  like  manner  also  Joseph  received 
the  name  of  Zaphnath-Paaneah,  and  we  learn  from 
Manetho,  as  quoted  by  Josephus  (c.  Apioii.  i.  28), 
that  Moses"  Egyptian  name  was  Osarsiph.  The 
change  of  name  in  the  case  of  Jehoiakim  and  Zed- 
ekiah  (2  K.  xxiii.  34,  xxiv.  17)  may  .also  be  com- 
pared. That  Sheshbazzar  means  Zerubbabel  is 
proved   by  his   being  called   the  prince  of  Judah 

(S"^t2?3n),  and  governor  (nn!3),  the  former  term 
marking  him  as  the  head  of  the  tribe  in  the  Jewish 
sense  (Num.  vii.  2,  10,  11,  &c.),  and  the  latter  as 
the  Persian  governor  appointed  by  Cyrus,  both 
which  Zerubbabel  was:  and  yet  more  distinctly,  by 
the  assertion  (Ezr.  v.  16)  that  "  Sheshbazzar  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  House  of  God  which  is  in 
Jerusalem,"  compared  with  the  promise  to  Zerub- 
babel (Zech.  iv.  9),  "  The  hands  of  Zerubbabel 
have  laid  the  foundation  of  this  house,  his  hands 
.shall  also  finish  it."  It  is  also  apparent,  from  the 
mere  comparison  of  Ezr.  i.  11  with  ii.  1,2,  and  the 
whole  history  of  the  returned  exiles.  The  Jewish 
tradition  that  Sheshbazzar  is  Daniel,  is  utterly 
without  weight.     [Zerubbabel.]       A.  C.  H. 

SHETH  {TW  [see  below]:  StjA:  Seth). 
1.  The  patriarch  Seth  (1  Chr.  i.  1). 

2.  In  the  A.  V.  of  Num.  xxiv.  17,  iTW  is  ren- 
dered as  a  proper  name,  liut  there  is  reason  to  re- 
gard it  as  an  appellative,  and  to  translate,  instead  of 
"the  sons  of  Sheth,"  "the  sons  of  tumult,"  the 
wild  warriors  of  Moab,  for  in  the  parallel  passage. 

Jer.  xlviii.  45,  ]'^Stp,  shaon,  "  tumult,"  occupies 
the  place  of  sheth.  nC?,  sheth,  is  thus  equivalent 
to  nStt.',  sheth,  as  in  Lam.  iii.  47.  Ewald  pro- 
poses,   very    unnecessarily,    to   read  iHtt?,  seth  = 

nSti^,  and  to  translate  "  the  sons  of  haughtiness  "' 
{Hochinuthssiihne).  Rashi  takes  the  word  as  a 
proper  name,  and  refers  it  to  Seth  the  son  of  .\dam, 
and  this  seems  to  have  t>een  the  view  taken  by 
Onkelos,  who  re;,  ders,  "  he  shall  rule  all  the  sons 
of  men."  The  Jerusalem  Targum  gives,  "all  the 
sons  of  the  East;"  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  lien- 
Uzziel  retains  the  Hebrew  word  Sheth,  and  ex- 
plains it  of  the  armies  of  Gog  who  were  to  sit 
themsehes  in  battle  arrav  against  Israel. 

W.  A.  W. 

SHETHAR  P-'^r  [I'ers.  a  swrj :  Sc^aa- 


2992 


SHETHAR-BOZKAI 


SHEW  BREAD 


SHEW    BREAD.      (C'^DS   Cnb, 


9a7os\   Alex.  'XapeaOeosi    [FA.'  ApKi<raos-]    ^c- \ 
Uiiir:   "a  star,"  Pers.).     One  of  the  seve]i  princes  | 
of  Persia  and  Media,  who  had  access  to  the  king's,  C^DCH   (Ex.  xxv.  30,  xxxv.  13,  xxxix.  3(J,  &c.) 
presence,  and  were  the  first  men  in  tlie  kingdom,    literally     "bread     of    the     face"     or     "faces." 
in  the  tliird  year  of  Xerxes  (Esth.  i.  H).     Compare    ^    ,      — ^_«,«_  "U    w»><i.»  w^t, 
i.v,,.  ,.;;    1,   nn,i  ti,»   '      V      -    rr       -     >   '  Onk.  HD  tVDTl    7,  C^SS  CH?,  "bread  set 

I'-zr.  \n.  li  ami   tUe  sTrra  tcov  Flepaajf  eTricrrj/xof  ,  '  ' 

"  ■       -  -     -  ...  m  order."    1  L'hr.  ix.  32,  xxiii.  29,  2  Chr.  xxix.  18, 


of  C'tesias  (14),  and  the  statement  of  Herodotus 
with  regard  to  the  seven  noble  Persians  who  slew 
Smerdis,  that  it  was  granted  to  them  as  a  pri\i- 
lege  to  have  access  to  the  king's  presence  at  all 
times,  without  being  sent  for,  except  when  he  was 
with  the  women;  and  that  the  king  might  only 
take  a  wife  from  one  of  these  seven  families,  iii.  84, 
and  Gesen.  s.  v.      [Cahshexa;  Esther.] 

A.  C.  H. 

SHE'THAR-BOZ'XAI  02V"^2  "^O^' : 
S,adap-^ov^avdi  [Vat.  -ava,  -av] ;  Alex,  -oi/tjj, 
[aye,  -auai'-]  Siharbuzani:  "star  of  splendor"). 
A  Persian  officer  of  rank,  having  a  command  in 
the  province  "  on  this  side  the  river  "  under  'I'atnai 

the  satrap  (HnQ),  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis 
(Ezr.  V.  3,  6,  vi.  0,  13).  He  joined  with  Tatnai 
and  the  Apharsachites  in  trying  to  obstruct  the 
progress  of  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  Zerubbabel, 
and  in  writing  a  letter  to  Darius,  of  which  a  copy 
is  preserved  in  I'^zr.  v.,  in  which  they  reported 
that  "  the  house  of  the  great  God  "  in  Judaea  was 
being  builded  with  great  stones,  and  that  the  work 
was  going  on  fast,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  a 
decree  from  Cyrus.  They  requested  that  search 
might  be  made  in  the  rolls  court  whether 
such  a  decree  was  ever  given,  and  asked  for 
the  king's  pleasure  in  the  matter.  The  de- 
cree was  found  at  Egliatana,  and  a  letter  was 
sent  to  Tatnai  and  Shethar-boznai  from  Da- 
rius, ordering  them  no  more  to  obstruct,  Init, 
on  the  contrary,  to  aid  the  elders  of  the  Jews 
in  relniilding  tlie  Temple,  by  supplying  them 
both  with  money  and  with  beasts,  corn,  salt, 
wine,  and  oil,  for  the  sacrifices.  Shethar- 
boznai  after  the  receipt  of  this  decree  offered 
no  further  obstruction  to  the  Jews.  The 
account  of  the  Jewish  prosperity  in  Ezr.  \\. 
14-22,  would  indicate  that  the  Persian  gov- 
ernors acted  fully  up  to  the  spirit  of  their  in- 
structions from  the  king. 

As  regards   the   name  Shethar-boznai,  it 
seems  to  be  certainly  Persian.     The  first  ele- 
ment of  it  appears  as  the  name  Shethar,  one 
of  the  seven  Persian  princes  in  Esth.  i.  14. 
It   is   perhaps    also   contained   in  the  name 
Pharna-zathres  (Herod,  vii.  65) ;  and  the  whole  name 
is  not  unlike  Sati-barzanes,  a  Persian  in  the  time 
of  Artaxerxes  Jlnemon  (Ctesias,  57).    If  the  names 
of   tiie  Persian  officers  mentioned  in  the  Book  of 
Ezra   could   lie    identified    in   any  inscriptions  or 
other  records  of  the  reigns  of  Darius,  Xerxes,  and 
Artaxerxes,  it  would  be  of  immense  value  in  clearing 
up  the  ditficulties  of  that  book.  A.  C.  H. 

SUE'VA  (M:;tr,  Keri;  Sltp,  2  Sam.  [Se- 
k.uah]:  ScufTo:  [Vat.  Itjo-ous;]  Alex,  laovs- 
t<iv(i).  1.  'J'he  scrilie  or  royal  secretary  of  David 
(2  Sam.  XX.  25).  He  is  called  elsewhere  Seralvh 
;2  Sam.  viii.  17),  Shisha  (1  K.  iv.  3),  and  Shav- 
BiiA  (1  Chr.  xviii.  16). 

2.  {%a.ov\  Alex.  2aou\:  »S«e.)  Son  of  Caleb 
oen-Hezron  liy  his  concubine  IMaachah,  and  founder 
or  chief  of  Machbena  and  Giliea  (1  Chr.  ii.  49). 


Neh.  X.  34,  m3~ll?n.     In  Kum.  t-  7,  we  find 

T^^nn    7»  "the  perpetual  bread."     In  1  Sam. 

xxi.  4-6,  it  is  called  ti7^p    7>  "holy  bread."    Syr. 

JLa^J^J     Cn^O>t^2>  ).iC>^^,  "bread  of  the 

Table  of  the  Lord."  The  LXX.  give  us  o/)to< 
ivdnrioi,  Ex.  xxv.  30;  apToi  t^s  irpoff<popas,  1  K. 
vii.  48.  N.  T. :  dproi  ttis  -Kpodiaws,  Matt.  xii. 
4,  Luke  vi.  4;  rj  irpodeais  toiv  apTwp,  Heb.  ix.  2. 
The  Vulg.  panes  pnipusltwnis.  Wichfle,  "  loaves  of 
proposition."  Luther,  Schmihrode ;  from  which 
our  subsequent  English  versions  have  adopted  the 
title  Shevv-kkeau.) 

Within  the  Ark  it  was  directed  that  there  should 
be  a  table  of  shittim-wood,  i.  e.  acacia,  two  cubits 
in  leni;th,  a  cubit  in  breadth,  and  a  cubit  and  a 
half  in  height,  overlaid  with  pure  gold,  and  hav- 
ing "  a  golden  crown  to  the  border  thereof  round 
about,"  i.  e.  a  border,  or  list,  in  order,  as  we  may 
suppose,  to  hinder  that  which  was  placed  nn  it 
from  by  any  accident  falling  off.  The  furthei  de- 
scription of  this  table  will  be  found  in  Ex.  xxv. 
23-30,  and  a  representation  of  it  as  it  existed   in 


Table  of  Shew  Bread  (from  relief  on  an  Arch  of  Titusl. 

the  Herodian  Temple  forms  an  interesting  feature 
in  the  bas-reliefs  within  the  Arch  of  Titus.  The 
accuracy  of  this  may,  as  is  obvious,  be  trusted. 
It  exhibits  one  strikhig  correspondence  with  the 
prescriptions  in  Exodus.  We  there  find  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "and  thou  shalt  make  unto  it  a 
border  of  a  handbreadth  round  about."  In  the 
sculpture  of  the  Arch  the  hand  of  one  of  the  slaves 
who  is  carrying  the  Table,  and  the  border,  are  of 
about  equal  breadth."     This  Table  is  itself  called 

2''32n  "jnbty,  "the  Table  of  the  Faces,"   in 

Num.  iv.  7,  and  "ini^H  "JPlbci?*  "the  pure 
table,"  in  Lev.  xxiv.  6;  and  2  Chr.  xiii.  11.  This 
latter  epithet  is  generally  referred  by  commenta- 
tors to  the  unalloyed  gold  with  which  so  much  of 
it  was  covered.     It  may,  however  mean  somewhat 


a  Taking,  (.  e.   the  four   fingers,  when  closed   to- 
gether, as  th%  measure  of  a  haudbreadth,  as  we  are 


instructed  to  do  if  a  comparisr; 
Jer.  m.  21. 


( f  1  K  Tii.  26  »DC 


SHEW  BREAD 

more  than  this,  and  bear  something  of  the  force 
irhich  it  has  in  ISlalachi  i.  11. 

It  was  thought  by  Philo  and  Clement  of  Alex- 
jndria  that  the  table  was  a  symbol  of  the  world, 
its  four  .sides  or  legs  typifjing  the  four  seasons.  In 
the  utter  absence  of  any  argument  in  their  sup- 
port, we  may  feel  warranted  in  neglecting  such  fan- 
ciful conjectures,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of 
Biihr's  arguments  against  them. 

In  2  Chr.  iv.  I'J,  we  have  mention  of  "  the  tables 
whereon  the  shew  bread  was  set,"  and  at  ver.  8  we 
read  of  Solomon  making  ten  tables.  This  is  prob- 
ably explained  by  the  statement  of  .losephus  {Anf. 
viii.  3,  §  7),  that  the  king  made  a  number  of  tables, 
and  one  great  golden  one  on  which  they  placed  the 
loaves  of  God.     [See  Tejiple.] 

The  table  of  the  second  temple  was  carried  away 
by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (1  Mace.  i.  22),  and  a  new 
•one  ma<le  at  the  refurnishing  of  the  sanctuary  under 
Judas  Jlaccalktus  (1  Mace.  iv.  49).  Afterwards 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus  presented  a  magnificent  table 
(Joseph.  Aid.  xii.  2,  §§  8,  9). 

The  table  stood  in  the  sanctuary  together  with 
the  seven-branched  candlestick  and  the  altar  of  in- 
cense. I'^very  Sabbath  twelve  newly-baked  loaves 
were  put  on  it  in  tw'o  rows,  six  in  each,  ,ind  .sprin- 
kled with  incense  (the  LXX.  add  salt),  where  they 
remained  till  the  following  Sabbath.  Then  they 
were  replaced  by  twelve  new  onis,  the  incense  was 
burned,  and  they  were  eaten  by  the  priests  in  the 
Holy  Place,  out  of  which  they  might  not  be  re- 
moved. Besides  these,  the  Shew-bread  Table  was 
adorned  with  dishes,  spoons,  bowls,  etc.,  which  were 
of  pure  uold  (Ex.  xxv.  29).  These,  however,  were 
manifestly  sid)sidiary  to  the  loaves,  the  preparation, 
presentation,  and  sul)sequent  treatment  of  which 
manifestly  constituted  the  un/humce  of  the  shew 
bread,  whose  probalile  purport  and  significance 
must  now  lie  considered. 

The  number  of  the  loaves  (twelve)  is  considered 
by  Philo  and  Josephus  to  represent  the  twelve 
mouths.  If  there  was  such  a  reference,  it  must 
Burely  have  been  quite  subordinate  to  that  which  is 
obvious  at  once.  The  twelve  loaves  plainly  answer 
to  the  twelve  tribes  (compare  Rev.  xxjj.  2).  But, 
taking  this  for  granted,  we  have  still  to  ascertain 
the  meaning  of  the  rite,  and  there  is  none  which 
is  left  in  Scripture  so  wholly  unexplained.  Though 
it  is  mentioned,  as  we  have  seen,  in  other  parts  of 
the  O.  T.  besides  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  never  more 
than  mentioned.  The  narrative  of  Davitl  and  his 
companions  being  permitted  to  eat  the  shew  bread, 
does  but  illustrate  the  sanctity  which  was  ascribed 
to  it;  and  besides  our  Saviour's  appeal  to  that 
narrative,  the  ordinance  is  only  once  referred  to 
in  the  N.  T.  (Ileb.  ix.  2),  and  there  it  is  merely 
named  among  the  other  appurtenances  of  the  first 
sanctuary. 

But,  although  unexplained,  it  is  referred  to  as 
one  of  the  leading  and  most  solemn  appointments 
of  the  sanctuary.  For  example,  the  appeal  of  Alii- 
jam  to  the  revolted  tribes  (2  Chr.  xiii.  10,  11)  runs 
thus  —  "  but  as  for  us,  the  Lord  is  our  God,  and 
we  have  not  forsaken  Him;  and  the  priests,  which 
minister  unto  the  Lord,  are  the  sons  of  Aaron, 
and  the  Levites  wait  upon  their  business;  and 
\liey  burr  unto  the  Lord  every  mor;'ing  and  every 
evening  burnt-sacrifices  and  sweet  incense;  the 
jhew  brbiid  also  set  they  in  order  upon  the  pure 
teble,"  etc.,  etc. 

In  this  absence  of  expl-ination  of  that  which  is 
fet  regardsd  as  so  solemn,  we  have   but  to  seek 


SHEW    ±JKEAD  2993 

whether  the  names  bestowed  on  and  the  riles  con- 
nected with  the  shew  bread  will  lead  us  to  soma 
apprehension  of  its  meaning. 

The  first  name  we  find  given  it  is  obviously  the 
dominant  one,  D^3D  DH  V,  "  bread  of  the  face, 
or  faces."  This  is  explained  Isy  some  of  the  Kab- 
bis,  even  by  Maimonides,  as  referring  to  the  four 
sides  of  each  loaf.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  title  was  given  on  a  ground  which  in  no  way 
distinguished  them  from  other  loaves.  Besides, 
it  is  applied  in  Num.  iv.  7,  simply  to   the   table, 

□''DDrT  ]n7£Z7.  not,  as  in  the  English  version,  the 
'•tal)le  of  shew  bread,"  but  the  "shew  table,"  the 
"  table  of  the  face,  or  faces." 

We   have   used  the   words  J'nce  or  faces,  for 

CSD,  it  needs  scarcely  be  said,  exists  only  in  the 
plural,  and  is  therefore  applied  equally  to  the  face 
of  one  person  and  of  many.  In  connection  with 
this  meaning,  ii,  continually  bears  the  secondary 
one  of  presence.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  cite 
any  of  the  countless  passages  in  which  it  does  so. 
But  whose  face  or  presence  is  denoted '?  That  of 
the  people?  The  rite  of  the  shew  bread,  accoiding 
to  some,  was  performed  in  acknowledgment  of 
Goil  s  being  the  giver  of  all  our  bread  and  suste- 
nance and  the  loaves  lay  always  on  the  table  as  a 
memorial  and  monitor  of  this.  But  against  this, 
besides  other  reasons,  there  is  the  powerful  objec- 
tion that  the  shew  bre.id  was  unseen  by  the  people ; 
it  lay  in  the  sanctuary,  and  was  eaten  there  by 
the  priests  alone.  So  that  the  first  condition  of 
symbolic  uistruction  was  wanting  to  the  rite,  had 
this  been  its  meaning. 

The  □''^D,  therefore,  or  Presence,  is  that  not  of 
the  people  but  of  God.  The  aproi  ivunrioi  and  the 
aproi  rfjs  irpocKpopas  of  the  LXX.  seem  to  indicate 
as  much.     'I'o  say  nothing  of  1  Sam.  xxi.  G,  where 

the  words  mn'^  ''iDbx:  a^-iDinn  □•^2!:n  "b 

seem  decisive  of  the  whole  question.  But  in  what 
sense  ?  Spencer  and  others  consider  it  bread  offered 
to  God  as  was  the  Minchah,  a  symbolical  meal  for 
God  somewh.it  answering  to  a  heathen  Lectister- 
niuiii.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  find  this  meaning  in 
the  recorded  appointments.  The  incense  is  no  doubt 
to  be  burnt  on  the  appointed  altar,  but  the  bread, 
on  the  Sabbath  following  that  of  its  presentation, 
is  to  be  eaten  in  the  Holy  Place  by  the  priests. 
There  remains,  then,  the  view  which  has  been 
brought  out  with  such  singular  force  and  beauty 
by  Bilbr  —  a  view  broad  and  clear  in  itself,  and 
not  disturbed  by  those  i'anoiful  theories  of  numbers 
which  tend  to  abate  confidence  in  some  parts  of 
his  admirable  SymboUk. 

He  remarks,  and  justly,  that  the  phrase  D"*DS 
is  applied  solely  to  the  table  and  the  brearl,  not  to 
the  other  furniture  of  the  sanctuary,  the  altar 
of  incense,  or  the  golden  candlestick.  There  ia 
something  therefore  peculiar  to  the  former  which 

is  denoted  by  the  title.  Taking  C^SDH  as  equiva- 
lent to  the  Presence  (nf  God  subaud.),  he  views 
the  application  of  it  to  the  table  and  the  bread 
as    analogous    to    its    application    to    the    angel, 

D''32  "7Sb?2  (Is.  Ixiii.  9,  compared  with  Ex. 
xxxiii.  14,  15;  Deut.  iv.  37).  Of  the  Angel  of 
(iod's  Presence  it  is  said  that  God's  "  Name  is  in 
Him  "  (ICx.  xxiii.  20).  The  Presence  and  the 
Name  may  therefore  be  taken  as  equivalent,    tioth. 


2994  SHIBBOLETH 

In  reference  to  their  context,  indicate  the  manifes- 
tation of  God  to  his  creatures.  "  Tlie  Name  of 
God,"  he  remarks,  "  is  Himself,  but  that,  in  so 
far  as  He  reveals  Himself,  the  face  is  that  wherein 
the  being  of  a  man  proclaims  itself,  and  makes 
known  its  individual  personality.  Hence,  as  Name 
stands  for  He  or  Himself,  so  Face  for  Person :  to 
see  the  Face,  for,  to  see  the  Person.  The  Bread 
of  the  Face  is  therefore  that  bread  through  which 
God  is  seen,  that  is,  with  the  participation  of  which 
the  seeing  of  God  is  bound  up,  or  through  the  par- 
ticipation of  which  man  attains  the  sight  of  God. 
Whence  it  follows  that  we  have  not  to  think  of 
bread  merely  as  such,  as  the  means  of  nourishing 
the  bodily  life,  but  as  spiritual  food,  as  a  means  of 
appropriating  and  retaining  that  life  which  consists 
iu  seeing  the  face  of  God.  Bread  is  therefore  here 
a  symbol,  and  stands,  as  it  so  generally  does  in  all 
languages,  both  for  life  and  life's  nourishment ;  but 
by  being  entitled  (he  Bread  (J'  the  Face  it  be- 
comes a  symbol  of  a  life  higher  than  the  physical: 
it  is,  since  it  lies  on  the  table  placed  in  the  sym- 
bolic heaven,  heavenly  bread :  they  who  eat  of  it, 
and  satisfy  themselves  with  it  see  the  face  of  God  " 
(Biihr,  iSymbolik,  book  i.  c.  6,  §  2).  It  is  to  be 
remembered  that  the  she\v  bread  was  "taken  from 
the  children  of  Israel  liy  an  everlasting  covenant  " 
(Lev.  xxiv.  8),  and  may  therefore  be  well  expected 
to  bear  the  most  solenm  meaning.  Biihr  proceeds 
to  show  very  beautifully  the  connection  in  Scrip- 
ture between  seeing  God  and  being  nourished  by 
God,  and  points,  as  the  coping-stone  of  his  argu- 
ment, to  Christ  being  at  once  the  perfect  Image  of 
God  and  the  Bread  of  Life.  The  references  to  a 
table  prepared  ibr  the  righteous  man,  such  as  Ps. 
xxiii.  5,  Luke  xxii.  HO,  should  also  be  considered. 

F.  G. 

SHIB'BOLETH  (nb'llW :  ScMo'eth), 
Judg.  xii.  6.  The  Helirewword  which  the  Gilead- 
ites  under  Jephthah  made  use  of  at  the  passages  of 
the  Jordan,  after  a  victory  over  the  Ephrainiites, 
to  test  the  pronunciation  of  the  sound  :<h  by  those 
who  wished  to  cross  over  the  river.  Tiie  I^phraim- 
ites,  it  would  appear,  in  their  dialect  substituted 
for  sh  the  simple  sound  s  ,•  and  the  Gileadites,  re- 
garding every  one  who  failed  to  pronounce  sh  as  an 
Ephraimite  and  therefore  an  enemy,  put  him  to 
death  accordingly. 

The  word  "  Shibboleth,"  which  has  now  a  sec- 
ond life  in  the  English  language  in  a  new  significa- 
tion, h,as  two  meanings  in  Hebrew:  1st,  an  ear  of 
corn;  '2dly,  a  stream  or  flood:  and  it  was,  perhaps, 
in  the  latter  sense  that  this  particular  word  sug- 
gested itself  to  the  Gileadites,  the  .lordan  being  a 
rapid  liver.  The  word,  in  the  latter  sense,  is  used 
twice  in  the  69th  Psalm,  in  verses  2  and  15,  where 
the  translation  of  the  A.  V.  is  "  the  Jioix/s  o\  erflow 
me,"  and  ''  let  not  the  water-^w«7  overflow  me." 
If  iu  English  the  word  retained  its  original  mean- 
ing, the  latter  passage  might  be  translated  "  Let 
not  a  shibboleth  of  waters  drown  me."  There  is 
no  mystery  in  this  particular  word.  Any  word  be- 
giinnng  with  the  sound  sh  would  have  answered 
equally  well  as  a  test. 


SHIELD 

Before  the  introduction  of  vowel-points  (which 
took  place  not  earlier  than  the  6th  century  a.  h., 
there  was  nothing  in  Hebrew  to  distinfjuish  the 
letters  Shin  and  Sin,  so  it  could  not  be  known  bv 
the  eye  in  reading  when  /(  was  to  be  sounded 
after  .«,  just  as  now  in  English  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  it  should  be  sounded  in  the  words  su(;nr, 
Asia,  Persia  ;  or  in  German,  according  to  the 
most  conmion  pronunciation,  after  s  in  the  wonis 
Sprache,  Spiel,  Sturm,  Sticfel,  and  a  large  chiss 
of  similar  words.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  sound 
sh  is  unknown  to  the  Greek  language,  as  the  Eng- 
lish th  is  unknown  to  so  many  modern  languages. 
Hence  in  the  Septuagint  proper  names  commei  ce 
simply  with  s,  which  in  Hebrew  commence  with 
sli ;  and  one  result  has  been  that,  through  the  Sep- 
tuagint and  the  Vulgate,  some  of  these  names, 
such  as  Samuel,  Samson,  Simeon,  and  Solomon, 
having  become"  naturalized  in  the  Greek  form  in 
the  English  language,  have  been  retained  in  this 
form  in  the  English  version  of  the  O.  T.  Hence, 
likewise,  it  is  a  singularity  of  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion that,  in  the  passage  in  Judg.  xii.  6,  the 
translator  could  not  introduce  the  word  "  Shib- 
boleth," and  has  substituted  one  of  its  transla- 
tions, aTcixvs,  "  an  ear  of  corn,"  which  tells  the 
original  story  by  analogy.  It  is  not  impossilile 
that  this  word  may  have  been  ingeniously  preferred 
to  any  Greek  word  signifying  "stream."  oi 
"  flood,"  from  its  first  letters  being  rather  harsh- 
sounding,  independently  of  its  containing  a  gut- 
tural. •  E.  T. 

SHIB'MAH  (n^nit',  i.  e.  Sibmah  [covlnese 
or  fragrance]:  2e/3ayua:  Sabamn).  One  of  the 
places  on  the  east  of  Jordan  which  were  taken 
possession  of  and  rebuilt  by  the  tribe  of  Keuber 
(Num.  xxxii  38).  It  is  probably  the  same  with 
Shebam  («.  e.  Sebam)  named  in  the  list  at  tlie  be- 
ginning of  the  chapter,  and  is  certainly  identical 
with  Sibmah,  so  celebrated  at  a  later  date  for  its 
vines.  Indeed,  the  two  names  are  precisely  the 
same  in  lielirew,  though  our  translators  have 
chosen  to  introduce  a  difference.  Siumaji,  and 
not  Shilmah,  is  the  accurate  representative  of  the 
Hebrew  ori<{inal.  G. 

SHIC'RON  (1^"^??''  idrunkenness]:  ■^.ok- 
Xc£0;  Alex.  AKKapwva:  Sechrona).  One  of  the 
landmarks  at  the  western  end  of  the  north  boun- 
dary of  Judah  (Josh.  XV.  11,  only).  It  lay  between 
Ekron  (^IXi/')  and  Jabneel  {Yehna),  the  port  at 
which  the  boundary  ran  to  the  sea.  No  trace  of 
the  name  has  been  discovered  between  these  two 
places,  which  are  barely  four  miles  apart.  The 
Alex.  LXX.  (with  an  unusual  independence  of  the 
Hebrew  text )  has  evidently  taken  Shicron  as  a 
repetition  of  Ekron,  l)Ut  the  two  names  are  toe 
essentially  different  to  allow  of  this,  which  is  not 
supported  by  any  other  version. **  The  Targinn 
gi\es  it  Shicaron,  and  with  this  agrees  Eu.sebius 
[Utium.  Aax<^pa.v),  though  no  knowledge  of  the 
locality  of  the  place  is  to  be  gained  from  his  notice. 

G. 

SHIELD  (ns^';  '\yt2;  12^^;  nnrb). 


a  In  proper  names  not  naturalized  in  Enf^lish 
through  the  LXX.,  the  Hebrew  form  is  retjiined,  as  iu 
MephiboBheth,  Ishbosheth  The  latter  name  is  melted 
ftowu  in  the  LXX.  to  'le^otrefl  ;  ap,  with  tho  p.  fmnc 
tihe  French  liave  soft<>ued  many  l^tin  words  tegiuniiig 


with  St,  such  as  Studiura  =  Etude,  Strenae  =  Ktrennes 
etc.,  etc. 

b  *  Morn  probably  the  ini  ial  1  was  omitted  acci 
dentally  in  the  Alex.  MS.  on  account  of  the  EI2  pre 
ceding.  The  reading  of  Couip.  auJ  Ale",  is  eis  Xaicxa 
paiva.  A. 


SHIOGAION 

rhe  three  first  of  the  Hebrew  terms  quoted  have 
been  ah-eaily  noticed  under  the  head  of  Akjis, 
where  it  is  stated  that  the  tziiini'th  was  a  large  ob- 
long shield  or  target,  covering  the  whole  body;  that 
the  iiuhjen  was  a  small,  round  or  oval  shield ;  and 
that  the  term  shtlti  is  of  doubtful  import,  applying 
to  some  ornamental  piece  of  armor.  To  these  we 
may  add  socherah,  a  poetical  term  occurring  only  in 
Ps.  xci.  4.  The  ordinary  shield  consisted  of  a  frame- 
work of  wood  covered  with  leather;  it  thus  admit- 
ted of  being  burnt  (I-^z.  xxxix.  9).  The  md[/eii  was 
frequently  cased  with  metal,  either  brass  or  cop|)er ; 
its  appearance  in  this  case  resembled  gold,"  when 
the  sun  shone  on  it  (1  Mace.  vi.  39),  and  to  this, 
rather  than  to  the  practice  of  smearing  blood  on  the 
shield,  we  may  refer  the  redness  noticed  by  Nahura 
(ii.  y).  The  surface  of  the  shield  was  kept  bright 
by  the  application  of  oil,  as  implied  hi  Is.  xxi.  5; 
hence  Saul's  shield  is  descril)ed  as  "  not  anointed 
with  oil,"  i.  e.  dusty  and  gory  (2  Sam.  i.  21).  Oil 
would  be  as  useful  for  the  metal  as  for  the  leather 
shield.  In  order  to  preserve  it  from  the  effects 
of  weather,  the  shield  was  kept  covered,  except  in 
actual  conflict  (Is.  xxii.  G ;  comp.  Cies.  B.  G.  ii. 
21;  Cic.  iViii.  Deur.  ii.  14).  The  shield  was  worn 
on  the  left  arm,  to  which  it  was  attached  by  a 
strap.  It  was  used  not  only  in  the  field,  but  also 
in  besieging  towns,  when  it  served  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  head,  the  combined  shields  of  the  be- 
siegers forming  a  kind  of  testudo  (Ez.  xxvi.  8), 
Shields  of  state  were  covered  with  beaten  gold. 
Solomon  maBe  such  for  use  in  religious  processions 
(1  K.  X.  16,  17);  when  these  were  carried  off  they 
were  replaced  by  shields  of  brass,  which,  as  being 
less  valual>le,  were  kept  in  the  guard- room  (1  K. 
xiv.  27),  while  the  former  had  been  suspended  in 
the  palace  for  ornament.  A  large  golden  shield 
was  sent  as  a  present  to  the  Komans,  when  the 
treaty  with  them  was  renewed  by  Simon  Maccabseus 
(1  Mace.  xiv.  24,  xv.  18);  it  was  intendetl  as  a 
token  of  alliance  {avfi^oXov  rrjs  av/xfiaxias ,  Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xiv.  8,  §  5),  but  whether  any  symbolic 
significance  was  attached  to  the  shield  in  particular 
as  being  the  weapon  of  |)rotection,  is  uncertain. 
Other  instances  of  a  similar  present  occur  (Suet. 
CnUy.  16),  as  well  as  of  complimentary  presents  of 
a_  different  kind  on  the  part  of  allies  (Cic.  Vevr. 
2  Act.  iv.  29,  §  67).  Shields  were  suspended  about 
public  buildings  for  ornamental  purposes  (1  K.  x. 
17;  1  Mace.  iv.  57,  vi.  2);  this  was  particularly 
the  case  with  the  shields  (assuming  shtkt  to  have 
this  meaning)  which  David  took  from  Hadadezer 
(2  Sam.  viii  7;  Cant.  iv.  4),  and  which  were  after- 
wards turned  to  practical  account  (2  K.  xi.  10;  2 
Chr.  xxiii.  9);  the  Gamniadim  similarly  suspended 
them  about  their  towers  (Kz.  xxvii.  11;  seeGA.MM.v- 
DI.MS).  In  the  metaphorical  language  of  the  Bible 
the  shield  generally  represents  the  protection  of  (jod 
(e.  g.  Ps.  iii.  3,  xxviii.  7);  but  in  Ps.  xlvii.  9  it  is 
applied  to  earthly  rulers,  and  in  Eph.  vi.  16,  to 
faith.  W.  L.  B. 

SHIGGA'ION  [3  syl.]  (lV|tr7  :  ^a\fi.6^: 
Pgrdiniis),  Ps.  vii.  1.  A  particular  kind  of  psalm, 
the  specific  character  of  wliich  is  now  not  known. 

In  the  singular  number  the  word  occm's  no- 
where in  Hebrew,  except  in  the  inscription  of  the 
'th  Psalm,  and  there  seems  to  be  nothing  peculiar 


SHIGGAION 


2995 


a  In  the  pa.'isage  qucted,  the  shields  carried  by  the 
pf>l;ller8  of  Antiochus  are  said  to  have  been  actually 
M'  gold.     This,  howert ',  must  hare  been  a  mi>'*ake, 


in  that  psalm  to  distinguish  it  from  numerous 
others,  in  which  the  author  gives  utterance  to  his 
feelings  against  his  enemies,  and  implores  the  as 
sistance  of  Jehovah  against  them;  so  that  the  con- 
tents of  the  psalm  justify  no  conclusive  inference 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In  the  inscription 
to  the  Ode  of  the  Prophet  Habakkuk  (iii.  1),  the 
word  occurs  in  the  plural  nundier;  but  the  phrase 
in  which  it  stands  "  'al  sli'ujyom'ith  "'  is  deemed  al- 
most unanimously,  as  it  would  .seem,  by  modern 
Hebrew  scholars  to  mean  "  after  the  manner  of  tlia 
Shiggaion,"  and  to  be  merely  a  direction  as  to  the 
kind  of  musical  measures  by  which  the  ode  was  to 
be  accompanied.  This  being  so^  the  ode  is  no  lea] 
help  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  Shiggai  m ;  for 
the  ode  itself  is  not  so  called,  though  it  is  directed 
to  be  sung  according  to  the  measures  of  the  shig- 
gaion. And,  indeed,  if  it  were  called  a  shiggaion, 
the  difficulty  would  not  be  diminished ;  for,  inde- 
pendently of  the  inscription,  no  one  would  have 
^ever  thought  that  the  ode  and  the  psalm  belonged 
to  the  same  species  of  sacred  poem  ;  and  even  since 
their  possible  similarity  has  been  suggested,  no  one 
has  definitely  pointed  out  in  what  that  siualarity 
consists,  so  as  to  justify  a  distinct  classification. 
In  this  state  of  uncertainty  it  is  natural  to  en- 
deavor to  form  a  conjecture  as  to  the  meaning  of 
shiggaion  from  its  etymology;  but  unfortunately 
there  are  no  less  than  three  rival  etymologies,  each 
with  plausible  claims  to  attention.     Gesenius  and 

Fiirst,  s.  v.,  concur  in  deriving  it  from  m2K7  (the 

Piel  of  rt.UtJ)'),  in  the  sense  of  magnifying  or  ex- 
tolling  with  praises;  and  they  justify  this  deriva- 
tion by  kindred  Syriac  words.  Shiggaion  would 
thus  mean  a  hymn  or  )isalm:  but  its  specific  mean- 
ing, if  it  has  any,  as  applicable  to  the  7th  Psalm, 
would  continue  unknown.  Ewald,  Die  Poetisc/ien 
Biiclier  lies  Allen  Buiuks,  i.  29;  Riidiger,  s.  v.  in 
his  continuation  of  Gesenius'  Thesaurus ;  and  De- 
litzsch,  (Jommentar  iiber  den  Psalter,  i.  51,  derive 

it  from  nity,  in  the  sense  of  reeling,  as  from  wine, 
and  consider  the  word  to  be  somewhat  equivalent 
to  a  dithyrambus ;  while  I)e  Wette,  Die  Psnlmen, 
p.  34,  Lee,  s.  v.,  and  Hitzig,  Die  Zwulf  Idetnen 
Prnpheten,  p.  26,  interpret  the  word  as  a  psalm  of 
lamentation,  or  a  psalm  in  distress,  as  derived  from 
Arabic.  Hupfeld,  on  the  other  hand.  Die  P^'dmen, 
i.  109,  199,  conjectures  that  shiggaion  is  identical 
with  higgaion,  Ps.  is.  16,  in  the  sense  of  poem  or 

song,  from  n^n,  to  meditate  or  compose;  but  even 
so,  no  information  would  be  conveyed  as  to  the 
specific  nature  of  the  poem. 

As  to  the  inscription  of  Habakkuk's  ode,  "  'aJ 
shif/yondth,''^  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  is  fierit 
c/)5/js,  which  conveys  no  definite  meaning.  The 
Vulgate  tran.slates  "  pro  ignorantiis,"  as  if  the 
word  had  been  slier/ayoih,  transgressions  through 
ignorance  (Lev.  iv.  2,  27;  Num.  xv.  27;  Eccl.  v. 
6),  or  shegioth  (Ps.  xix.  13),  which  seems  to  have 
nearly  the  same  meaning.  Perhaps  the  Vulgate 
was  influenced  by  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  where 

shlgydnvih  seenis  to  be  translated  Sni7ti/3. 
In  the  A.  V.  of  Hab.  iii.  1,  the  rendering  is  '  upon 
shigionoth,"  as  if  shigionoth  were  .some  musical 
instrument.       But   under   any    circumstances    'ai 

as  even  silver  shi'lds  were  very  rare  (Diod.  8J-.  xtU 

57). 


2996  SHIHON 

(73?)  must  not  be  translated  "  upon,''  in  the  sense 
jf  playing  upon  an  instrument.  Of  this  use  there 
is  not  a  single  umloubted  example  in  prose,  although 
playing  on  musical  instruments  is  frequently  re- 
ferred to ;  and  in  poetry,  although  there  is  one  pas- 
sage, Ps.  xeii.  3,  where  the  word  iniylit  be  so  trans- 
lated, it  might  equally  well  be  rendered  there  "  to 
the  accompaniment  of"  the  musical  instruments 
therein  specified  —  and  this  translation  is  preferable. 
It  seems  likewise  a  mistake  that  'a/  is  translated 
'■  upon  '■  when  preceding  the  supposed  musical  in- 
struments, Gittith,  Machalath,  Neginath,  Nechi- 
16th,  Shushan,  Shoshannim  (Ps.  viii.  1,  Ixxxi.  1, 
ixxxiv.  1,  liii.  1,  Ixxxviii.  1,  Ixi.  1,  v.  1,  Ix.  1,  xlv. 
1,  Ixix.  1,  Ixxs.  1).  Indeed,  all  these  words  are 
regarded  by  Ewald  {Poet.  Biich.  i.  177)  as  mean- 
uig  musical  ke3S,  and  by  Fijrst  {s.  w.)  as  mean- 
ing musical  bands.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  proposed  substitutes,  it  is  very  singular,  if  those 
six  words  signify  musical  instruments,  that  not  one 
of  them  should  be  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  whole' 
Bible.  E.  T. 

SHI'HON  ('j'lW''^',  i-  e.  Shion  :  Sicow; 
[Alex.  SeiavO  Si  on).  A  town  of  Issachar,  named 
only  in  .losh.  xix.  19.  It  occurs  between  Ha- 
phraim  and  Anaharath.  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
{Onomast.)  mention  it  as  then  existing  "near 
Mount  Tabor."  The  only  name  at  all  resembling 
it  at  present  in  that  neighborhood  is  the  L'ldrbtt 
SchiHn  of  l)r  Schulz  (Zimmerniann's  Map  of  Gal- 
ilee, 1861)  1^  mile  N.  VV.  of  Ddmrieh.  this  is 
prcbably  the  place  mentioned  by  Schwarz  (p.  166) 
as  "  Sain  between  Dubtrieh  and  Jafa.^''  The 
identification  is,  however,  very  uncertain,  since 
Schi'in  appears  to  contain  the  Ain,  while  the  He- 
brew name  does  not. 

The  redundant  h  in  the  A.  V.  is  an  error  of  the 
recent  editions.  In  that  of  1611  the  name  is 
Shion.  G. 

SHI'HOR  OF  EGYPT  (Q^T'f  ??  "I'^n'^tt' : 
opLOL  AlyviTTov:  Sihov  Ji^fjijpti,  1  Chr.  xiii.  5)  is 
Bpoken  of  as  one  limit  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in 
David's  tinje,  the  entering  in  of  Hamath  being  the 
other.  It  must  correspond  to  "  Shihor,"  "the 
Shihor  which  [is]  before  Egypt  "  (Josh.  xiii.  2,  3), 
A.  V.  "  Sihor,"  sometimes,  at  least,  a  name  of  the 
Nile,  occurring  in  other  passages,  one  of  which 
(where  it  has  the  article)  is  pai-allel  to  this.  The 
use  of  the  article  indicates  that  the  word  is  or  has 
been  an  appellative,  rather  the  former  if  we  judge 
only  from  the  complete  phrase.  It  must  also  be 
remembered  that  8liihor  ]\Iizraini  is  used  inter- 
changeably with  Naluil  Mizraim,  and  that  the 
name  Shihor-Libnatii,  in  the  north  of  Palestine, 
unless  derived  from  the  Egyptians  or  the  Phoeni- 
3ian  colonists  of  Egypt,  as  we  are  disposed  to  think 
possible,  from  the  connection  of  that  country  with 
the  ancient  manufacture  of  glass,  shows  that  the 
word  Shihor  is  not  restricted  to  a  great  river.  It 
would  appear  therefore  that  Shihor  of  Egypt  and 
"the  Shihor  which  [is]  before  Egypt"  might  des- 
ignate the  stream  of  the  Wddi-V  Areesh :  Shihor 
alone  would  still  be  the  Nile.  On  the  other  hand, 
both  Shihor,  and  even  Nahal,  alone,  are  names  of 
the  Nile,  while  Nahal  Mizraim  is  used  interchange- 

»b!y  with  the  river  ("^n3,  not   ^HD)  of  Mizraim. 

We   therefore  are  disposed    to  hold    that   all  the 
Dames   designate   the   Nile.      The   fitness  of  the 


SHIHOR-LIBNATH 

name  Shihor  to  the  Nile  must    be  remembered 
[NiLK;  KivER  OF  Egypt;  Sihok.]     R.  S.  P. 

*  It  is  difficult  to  adjust  all  the  Biblical  refer- 
ences to  Shihor,  to  the  river  Nile.  In  Isaiah  xxiii. 
3,  the  exports  of  Egypt,  especially  in  grain,  are 
spoken  of  as  contributing  to  swell  the  commerce  of 
Tyre:  "By  great  waters  the  seed  of  Shi/tor,  the 
harvest  of  Ytor,  is  her  revenue."  This  must  refer 
to  the  Nile  as  the  cause  of  the  fertility  of  Egypt. 
Again,  in  Jeremiah  ii.  18,  where  the  Lord  is  expos- 
tulating with  Israel  for  seeking  help  from  Egypt  and 
Assyria,  the  Nile  is  evidently  referred  to  as  the 
water  of  which  the  Egyptians  drink,  and  as  answer- 
ing to  the  Euphrates :  "  What  hast  thou  to  do  in 
the  way  of  Eirypt,  to  drink  the  waters  of  S/ii/ior, 
or  what  hast  tlmu  to  do  in  the  way  of  Assyria,  to 
drink  the  waters  of  the  river?  " 

But  the  meaning  is  less  clear  where  Shihor  is 
spoken  of  as  the  boundary  between  Egypt  and  Ca- 
naan. Just  liefore  his  death  Joshua  described  the 
land  on  the  south  that  remained  to  be  possessed,  as 
"  all  the  borders  of  the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri, 
from  Sihor  which  is  Ijefore  Egypt  "  (.Josh.  xiii.  3); 
and  David,  when  taking  the  ark  up  to  Jerusalem,  is 
said  to  have  "  gathered  all  Israel  together,  from  Shi- 
hor of  Egypt  even  unto  the  entering  of  Hamath  " 
(1  Chr.  xiii.  5).  Joshua  may  have  had  in  view  the 
lireadth  of  dominion  promised  to  Abraham;  but 
certainly  in  his  day  the  E^Optians  theni.selves  did 
not  limit  their  territory  eastward  at  the  Nile;  and 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  kingdom ^f  David  in 
its  highest  prosperity,  ever  extended  lirerally  to  the 
bank  of  the  Nile.  Hence,  if  the  description  in 
these  passages  is  taken  with  geographical  accuracy, 
the  Shihor  before  F.<iypt  must  denote  the  Wddi-l- 
'Areesh  ;  but  if  taken  with  the  latitude  of  prophetic 
or  poetic  description  it  may  also  denote  the  Nile, 
and  so  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  passages 
cited  above.  Only  in  this  way  can  the  name  be 
relieved  of  its  apparent  ambiguity.  J.  P.  T. 

SHrHOR-LIB'NATH    (HD^b  '^\^■n'^w 

[see  below]:  tS  Sicbi'  [Vat.  'Zeiuiv]  koI  Aa^avad; 
.Alex.  2etii)/j  (f  •  A- :  Silair  et  Labanalh ).  Named  only 
in  Josh.  xix.  26  as  one  of  the  landmarks  of  the  boun- 
dary of  Asher.  Nothing  is  known  of  it.  By  the 
ancient  translators  and  commentators  (as  Peshito- 
Syriac,  and  Eusebius  and  Jerome  in  the  Onoiua^licon^ 
the  names  are  taken  as  belonging  to  two  distinct 
places.  But  modern  connnentators,  beginning  per- 
liaps  with  Masius,  have  inclined  to  consider  Shihor  as 
identical  with  the  name  of  the  Nile,  and  Shihor-Lib- 
nath  to  be  a  river.  Led  by  the  meaning  of  Libnath 
as  "white,"  they  interpret  the  Shihor-Libnath  as  the 
fflass  river,  which  they  then  naturally  identify  with 
the  Belus"  of  Pliny  (//.  N.  v.  19),  the  i)resent 
Nahr  Naman,  which  drains  part  of  the  plain  of 
Akka,  and  enters  the  ilediterranean  a  short  dis- 
tance below  that  city.  It  is  a  jiity  to  disturb  a 
theory  at  once  so  ingenious  and  so  consistent,  and 
supported  by  the  great  name  of  iMichaelis  (Siippl. 
No.  2462),  hut  it  is  surely  very  far-fetched.  There 
is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Shihor-Libnath  is  3 
stream  at  all,  except  the  agreement  of  the  first  por- 
tion of  the  name  with  a  rare  word  used  or  the 
Nile  — -  a  river  which  can  have  nothing  in  connnon 
with  an  insignificant  streamlet  like  the  Naman. 
And  even  if  it  be  a  river,  the  ])osition  of  the  Na- 


a  It  is  singular,  too,  that  Josophus  should  Btat« 
that  there  was  a  monument  of  Memnon  standing cios# 
to  the  Bdus  (B.  J.  ii.  10.  &  21. 


SHILHI 

nan  is  ur.suitable,  since,  as  far  as  can  be  gathered 
from  the  very  obscure  list  in  which  the  name  oc- 
curs, Shihor-Libnatli  was  the  south  pivot  of  the 
territory  of  Asher,  below  Mount  Caruiel.  Keland's 
conjecture  of  the  Crocodeilon  river,  probalily  the 
^[oie.h  et-Temsek,  close  to  Kaisariyeh,  is  too  far 
Bouth.  G. 

SHII/HI  On^t?^  [perh.  ormecl]  :  2aAat 
2aAi;  [Vat.  2efxeei,  SaAei;]  Ales.  2aA,aAa,  2o- 
\ei:  Salni,  Selahi).  The  father  of  Aziibah,  .le- 
hosbaphat's  mother  (1  K.  xxii.  42;  2  Clir.  xn.  31). 

SHIL'HIM  (C^nbtp  {armed  men,  Ges.; 
f oimtn inn,  Yursi].  2aAV);  Alex.  2eAe€iyii:  Selim). 
One  of  the  cities  in  the  southern  portion  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah.  Its  place  in  the  list  is  between 
Lebaoth  and  Ain,  or  Ain-Rimmon  (Josh.  xv.  32), 
and  it  is  not  elsewhere  mentioned.  It  is  not  even 
named  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  No  trace  of  it 
has  yet  been  discovered.  In  the  list  of  Siineon's 
cities  in  Josh,  xix.,  Sharuhen  (ver.  6)  occupies 
the  place  of  Shilhim,  and  in  1  Chr.  iv.  31  this  is 
Btill  further  changed  to  Shaarai.m.  It  is  diflScult 
to  say  if  these  are  mere  corruptions,  or  denote  any 
actual  variations  of  name. 

The  juxtaposition  of  Shilhim  and  Ain  has  led  to 
the  conjecture  that  they  are  identical  with  the  Sa- 
lim  and  ^'Enon  of  St.  John  the  Baptist:  but  their 
position  in  the  south  of  Judah,  so  remote  from  the 
scene  of  St.  John's  laliors  and  the  other  events  of 
the  Gospel  history,  seems  to  forbid  this.  G. 

SHIL'LEM  (D^tZ?  [requital] :  2oAA^^,  %(\- 
\^fi  [Vat.  -Atj]  ;  Alex.  XvWrjfi.  in  Gen. :  Salltm, 
Sellem).  Son  of  Naplitali,  and  ancestor  of  the 
family  of  the  Shillemites  (Gen.  xlvi.  24;  Num. 
xxvi.  49).     The  same  as  Shallum  7. 

SHIL'LEMITES,  THE  (V;)bffi7n  [patr., 
as  above] :  6  2eAA7)^i  [Vat.  -/j.ei] :  Sellemitce).  The 
descendants  of  Shillem  the  son  of  Naphtali  (Num. 
xxvi.  49). 

SHILO'AH,    THE    WATERS  OF   {''72 

n  7I£^n    [sending  forth]  :  rh  vSa>p  roi  ^eiKudfj.; 

Alex.   2tAcoa^  :    Saad.    ^'yXjM    i^V^.     -^in 

Sdwdn  :  aqiuB  Siloe).  A  certain  soft-flowing 
stream  employed  l)y  the  prophet  Isaiah  (viii.  G)  to 
point  his  comparison  between  the  quiet  confidence 
in  .lehovah  which  he  was  ursiing  on  the  people,  and 
the  overwhelming  violence  of  the  king  of  Assyria, 
for  whose  alliance  they  were  clamoring. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  waters  in 
question  were  the  same  which  are  better  known 
under  their  later  name  of  Siloa.m  —  the  only  per- 
ennial spring  of  Jerusalem.  Olyection  has  been 
taken  to  the  fact  that  the  "  waters  of  Siloam  "  run 
with  an  irregular  intermittent  action,  and  therefore 
could  hardly  be  appealed  to  as  flowing  "  softly." 
But  the  testimony  of  careful  investigators  (Hob.  Bihl. 
Rts.  I.  341,  342;  Barclay,  Cit>j,  p.  .516)  establishes 
the  fact  that  the  disturbance  oiily  takes  place,  at  the 
oftenest,  two  or  three  times  a  day,  say  three  to  four 
hours  out  of  the  tvventy-fo_ur,  the  flow  being  "  per- 
fectly quiescent  "  during  the  rest  of  the  time.  In 
summer  the  disturbance  only  occurs  once  in  two  or- 
three  days.     Such  interruptions  to  the  quiet  flow 

<»  The  Targum  .Jonathan,  Pe.shito,  and  Arabic  Ver- 
iom  of  1  K  i.  33,  read  Shiloahi  for  the  Gihon  of  the 
Sebrew. 


SHILOH 


2997 


of  the  stream  would  therefore  not  intv  .fere  witli  the 
contrast  enforced  in  the  piophet's  metaphor. 

The  form  of  the  name  employed  by  Isaiah  is 
midway  between  the  hus-Slielach  of  Nehemiah  (A. 
V.  SiLOAH)  and  the  Siloam  of  the  N.  T.  A  sim- 
ilar change  is  noticed  under  Shiloni. 

The  spring  and  pool  of  Siloam  aie  treated  of 
under  that  head.  G. 

..    SHILOH   (n  V  ip '.  TO,   airoKel/.-iva  auT^'- 

qui  mittendus  eai).  In  the  A.  V.  of  the  Biiile,  Shi- 
loh  is  once  used  as  the  iTame  of  a  person,  in  a  verj 
difficult  passage,  in  the  10th  verse  of  the  49tii  chap 
ter  of  Gene'sis.  Supposing  that  the  translation  i» 
correct,  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  Peaceable,  oi 
Pacific,  and  the  allusion  is  either  to  Solomon,  whose 
name  has  a  similar  signification,  or  to  the  expected 
Messiah,  who  in  Is.  ix.  6  is  expressly  called  the 
Prince  of  Peace.  This  was  once  the  translation  of 
Gesenius.  though  he  afterwards  saw  reason  to  alian- 
don  it  (see  his  Lexicon,  s.  v.),  and  it  is  at  present 
the  translation  of  Hengstenberg  in  his  Cliristoluijie 
des  Alien  Tcstdinents,  p.  69,  and  of  the  Grand 
Kabbin  Wogue,  in  his  Translation  of  Genesis,  a 
work  which  is  approved  and  reconunended  by  the 
Grand  Rabbins  of  France  {Le  Pent'iteuqne,  ou  les 
Cinq  Litres  de  ^foise,  Paris,  1860).  Both  these 
writers  regard  the  passage  as  a  JMessianic  propiiecy, 
and  it  is  so  accepted  by  tiie  writer  of  the  article 
Messiah  in  this  work  (vol.  iii.  p.  1LI06). 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  original  Hebrew 
text  is  correct  as  it  stand.s,  there  are  three  objec- 
tions to  this  translation,  which,  taken  collectively, 
seem  fatal  to  it.  1st.  The  word  Sliiloh  occurs  no- 
where else  in  Hebrew  as  the  name  or  appellation  of 
a  person.  2dly.  The  only*  other  Hebrew  word, 
apparently,  of  the  same  form,  is  Giloh  (Josh.  xv. 
51;  2  Sam.  xv.  12);  and  this  is  the  name  of  a  city, 
and  not  of  a  person.  3dly.  By  translating  the 
word  as  it  is  translated  every  where  else  in  tiie  Bible, 
namely,  as  the  nafne  of  the  city  in  I^phraim  where 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  remained  during  such  a 
long  ]ieriod,  a  sufliciently  good  meaning  is  siven  to 
tiie  passage  without  any  violence  to  the  Helirew 
language,  and,  indeed,  with  a  precise  grammat- 
ical  parallel  elsewhere  (compare  71  /W   S^^^,  1 

Sam.  iv.  12).  The  simple  translation  is,  •'  The 
sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  .ludah,  nor  the  ruler's 
staff  from  between  his  feet,  till  he  shall  go  to  Slii- 
loh." And,  in  this  case,  the  .allusion  would  be  to 
the  primacy  of  Judah  in  war  (Judg.  i.  1,  2,  xx.  18; 
Num.  ii.  3,  x.  14),  which  was  to  continue  until  the 
Promised  Land  was  conquered,  and  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  was  solemnly  deposited  at  Shiloh.  Some 
.Jewish  writers  had  previously  maintained  that  Shi- 
lob,  the  city  of  Kphraim,  was  referred  to  in  this 
passage  ;  and  Servetus  had  propounded  tlie  same 
opinion  in  a  fanciful  dissertation,  in  which  he  at- 
tributed a  double  meaning  to  the  words  (De  Trin- 
it'ite,  lib.  ii  !>  61,  ed.  of  1553  A.  n.).  But  the 
above  translation  and  explanation,  as  proposed  and 
defended  on  critical  grounds  of  reasonable  validity, 
was  fir,--t  suggested  in  modern  days  by  Teller  (iVoAe 
Criliae  c(  Lxei/eticiii  in  Gen.  xlix..  Dent.,  xxxiii. 
Ex.  XV.,  Jif/y.  v.,  Halie  et  Helmstadii,  1766),  and 
it  has  since,  with  modifications,  found  favor  with 
numerous  learned  men  belonging  to  various  schools 
of  theology,  such  as  Kichhorn,  Hitzig,  Tuch,  HIeek, 
l'".wald,  Delitzsch,  Riidiger,  Kalisch,  Luzzatto,  and 
Davidson. 

The  objections  to  this  interpretation  are  set  fortl 


2998  SHiLOH 

at  length  by  Hengsteiiberg  (l.  c),  and  the  reasons 
in  its  favor,  with  an  account  of  the  various  inter- 
pretations which  have  been  suggested  by  others,  are 
well  givei;  by  Davidson  (/ntroiluc/wn  to  i/ie  Old 
Ttgtament,  i.  199-210).  Supposing  ahvays  that 
lie  existing  text  is  correct,  the  reasons  in  favor  of 
Teller's  interpretation  seem  much  to  preponderate. 
It  ma}- be  observed  that  the  main  obstacle  to  inter- 
preting the  word  Shiloh  in  its  simple  and  obvious 
meaning  seems  to  arise  from  an  imaginative  view 
uf  the  prophecy  respecting  the  Twelve  Trilies,  which 
finds  in  it  more  than  is  justified  by  a  sober  exami- 
nation of  it.  Thus  Hengstenberg  says:  "The  tem- 
poral limit  which  is  here  placed  to  the  preiiminence 
of  Judah  would  be  in  glaring  contradiction  to 
verses  8  and  9,  in  which  .Indah,  without  any  tem- 
poral limitation,  is  raised  to  be  the  Lion  of  God." 
But  the  allusion  to  a  lion  is  simply  the  following: 
"  .ludah  is  a  lion's  whelp:  from  the  prey,  my  son, 
thou  art  gone  up:  he  stooped  down,  he  couched  as 
a  lion,  and  as  an  old  lion ;  who  shall  rouse  him 
up?  "  Now,  bearing  in  mind  the  general  coloring 
of  oriental  imagery,  there  is  nothing  in  this  pas- 
sage which  makes  a  reference  to  tlie  city  Shiloh 
improbable.  Again,  Hengstenberg  says  that  the 
visions  of  .Jacob  never  go  into  what  is  special,  but 
always  have  regard  to  the  future  as  a  whole  and  on 
a  great  scale  (iiii  f/anzen  vnd  (jrossen).  If  this  is 
so,  it  is  nevertheless  compatiljle  with  the  following 
geographical  statement  respecting  Zeljulun  :  "  Zeb- 
ulun  shall  dwell  at  the  haven  of  the  sea,  and  he 
shall  be  for  an  haven  of  ships,  and  his  border  shall 
be  unto  Zidon."  It  is  likewise  compatible  with 
prophecies  respecting  some  of  the  other  tribes, 
which,  to  any  one  who  examined  Jacob's  blessing 
minutely  with  lofty  expectations  would  be  disap- 
pointing. Thus  of  Benjamin,  within  whose  terri- 
tory the  glorious  Temple  of  Solomon  was  afterwards 
built,  it  is  merely  said,  "  Benjamin  shall  ravin  as  a 
wolf;  in  the  niorning  he  shall  devour  the  prey,  and 
at  night  he  shall  divide  the  spoil."  Of  (iad  it  is 
said,  •'  A  troop  shall  overcome  him,  hut  he  shall 
overcome  at  the  last."  ()i  Asher,  "Out  of  Asher 
his  bread  shall  be  fat,  and  he  shall  yield  royal 
dainties."  And  of  Naphtali,  "  Naphtali  is  a  hind 
let  loose;  he  giveth  goodly  words  "  (Gen.  xlix.  19, 
20,  21,  27).  Indeed  the  difference  (except  in  the 
blessing  of  Joseph,  in  whose  territory  Shiloh  was 
situated )  1  letween  the  reality  of  the  pi'ophecies  and 
the  demands  of  an  imaginative  mind,  explains,  per- 
haps, the  strange  statement  of  St.  Isidore  of  Pelu- 
sium,  quoted  by  Teller,  that,  when  .lacob  was  about 
to  announce  to  his  sons  the  future  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation,  he  was  restrained  by  the  finger  of 
God ;  silence  was  enjoined  him  :  and  he  was  seized 
with  loss  of  memory.  See  the  letter  of  .St.  Isidore, 
Lib.  i.  Epist.  365,  in  BMiui/ieca  Maxima  Patrum, 
rii.  570. 

2.  The  next  best  translation  of  Shiloh  is  per- 
ha^  that  of  "  Rest."  The  passage  would  then  run 
thus:  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah 
....  till  rest  come,  and  the  nations  obey  him  " 
—  and  the  reference  would  be  to  the  Messiah,  who 
was  to  spring  from  the  tribe  of  Judah.  This 
translation  deserves  respectful  consideration,  as 
having  been  ultimately  adopted  by  Gesenius.     It 


SHILOH 

was  preferred  by  Vater,  and  is  defended  by  Knobel 
in  the  A'xer/etisc/ies  Ilandbuch,  Gen.  xlix.  10.  There 
is  one  ol  jection  less  to  it  than  to  the  use  of  Shiloh 
as  a  person,  and  it  is  not  without  some  probability. 
Still  it  remains  sulject  to  the  objection  that  Shiloh 
occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible  except  as  the  name 
of  a  city,  and  tliat  by  translating  the  word  here  as 
the  name  of  a  city  a  reasonably  good  meaning  may 
be  given  to  the  passage. 

3.  A  third  explanation  of  Shiloh,  on  the  as- 
sumption that  it  is  not  the  name  of  a  person,  is  a 
translation  by  various  learned  Jews,  apparently 
countenanced  by  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  that 
Sliiloli  merely  means  "  his  son,"  i.  e.  the  son  of 
Judah  (in  the  sense  of  the  Messiah ),  from  a  sup- 
])osed  word  Sliil,  "  a  son."  There  is,  however,  no 
such  word  in  known  Hebrew,  and  as  a  plea  for  its 
possible  existence  reference  is  made  to  an  Arabic 
word,  ghalU,  with  the  same  signification.  This 
meaning  of  "  his  son  "  owes,  perhaps,  its  principal 
interest  to  its  having  been  substantially  adopted  by 
two  such  theologians  as  Luther  and  Calvin.  (See 
the  Commentaries  of  each  on  Gen.  xlix.  10.)  Lu- 
ther connected  tlie  word  with  Schilyah  in  Deut. 
xxviii.  57,  but  this  would  not  now  be  deemed  per- 
missible. 

The  translation,  then,  of  Shiloh  as  the  name  of 
a  city  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  soundest,  if  the  pres- 
ent Hebrew  text  is  correct.  It  is  proper,  however, 
to  bear  in  nnnd  the  possibility  of  there  being  some 
error  in  that  text.  When  ,Ierome  translated  the 
word  "qui  missus  est,"  we  may  be  certain  that  he 
did    not   read  it  as   Shiloh,  but  as  some  form  of 

n  Vti7,  '•  to  send,"  as  if  the  word  d  oiretrraA- 
fjiffos  might  have  been  used  in  Greek.  We  may 
likewise  be  certain  that  the  translator  in  the  Se))- 
tuagint  did  not  read  the  word  as  it  stands  in  our 

Bibles.     Reread  it  as  H  7tt7=  IvIT,  precisely 

corresponding  to  17  1tf"'S,  and  translated  it  well 
by  the  phrase  ra  aTroKei/xeva  auT£\,  so  that  the 
meaning  would  be,  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart 
from  .ludah  ....  till  the  things  reserved  for  him 
come."  i\  is  most  probable  that  Ezekiel  read  the 
word  in  the  same  way  when  he  wrote  the  words 

tipttJan  lb~lK-'>^  S3-117  (Kz.  xxi.  32,  in 
the  A.  V.  verse  27);  and  it  seems  Ukely,  though 
not  certain,  that  the  author"  of  the  Paraphrase  of 
Jacol)'s  last  words  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  fol- 
lowed the  reading  of  Ezekiel  and  the  Septuagint, 

substituting  the  word  SH^D^a  for  the  tC^K^'n 
"  T        :  -  T  :    • 

of  Ezekiel.     It  is  not  meant  by  these  remarks  that 

n  /W  is  more  likely  to  have  been    correct  than 

Shiloh,  though  one  main  argument  against  H  7ti7, 

that  W  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Pentateuch  as 

an  equivalent  to  "Iti^W,  is  inconclusive,  as  it  occurs 
in  the  song  of  Deborah,  which,  on  any  hypothesis, 
must  be  regarded  as  a  poem  of  great  antiquity. 
But  the  fact  that  there  were  different  readings,  in 
former  times,  of  this  Aery  difficult  passage,  necessa- 
rily tends  to  suggest  the  possibility  that  the  correct 
reading  may  have  been  lost. 


«  This  writer,  however,  was  so  fanciful,  that  no  re- 
innce  can  be  placed  on  his  judgment  on  any  point 
where  it  was  passible  for  him  to  go  wrong.  Thus 
hi*  .paraphrase  of  the  prophecy  respecting  Benjamin 
|i  :  "  The  ibechiaah  Hhall  abide  in  the  land  of  Benja- 


min ;  and  in  his  possession  a  sanctuary  shall  he  built 
Morning  and  evening  the  priests  shall  offer  oblations 
and  in  the  evening  they  shall  divide  the  residut  0* 
their  portion.'' 


SHILOH 

Whatever  interpretation  of  the  present  rea'linsf 
may  be  adopted,  the  one  which  must  be  proiiouncfd 
Entitled  to  the  least  consideration  is  that  which 
supposes  the  prophecy  relates  to  the  birth  of  Christ 
as  occurring  in  the  reign  of  Herod  just  before  .)u 
dsea  became  a  Koman  province.  There  is  no  such 
interpretation  in  the  Bible,  and  however  ancient 
this  mode  of  regarding  the  passage  may  be,  it  must 
submit  to  the  ordeal  of  a  dispassionate  scrutiny. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  impossible  reasonably  to  re- 
gard the  dependent  rule  of  King  Herod  the  fdu- 
niai'an  as  an  instance  of  the  sceptre  being  still  borne 
by  Jiidah.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  precise  ]ios:- 
tion  of  Herod,  it  may  be  enough  to  quote  tlie  un- 
suspicious testimony  of  Jerome,  who,  in  his  Com- 
mentaries on  Matthew,  lib.  iii.  c.  22,  writes  as 
follows:  ■' Cajsar  Augustus  Herodem  filium  Anti- 
patris  alienigenam  et  proselytum  regem  Juda;is  con- 
stituerat,  qui  tribuiis  prceesset,  et  Romnno  pareret 
imperio."  Secondly,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
about  588  years  before  Christ,  Jerusalem  ha<:l  been 
taken,  its  Temple  destroyed,  and  its  inhabitants 
led  away  into  Captivity  liy  Nebuchadnezzar,  king 
of  the  Chaldees,  and  during  the  next  fifty  years  the 
Jews  were  subjects  of  the  CbakUiean  Empire.  After- 
wards, during  a  period  of  somewhat  above  20t) 
years,  from  the  taking  of  Habylon  by  Cyrus  to  the 
defeat  of  Darius  by  Alexander  the  Great  at  Arbela, 
Judaja  was  a  province  of  the  Persian  empiie.  Sub- 
sequently, during  a  period  of  IG-J  years,  from  the 
death  of  Alexander  to  the  rising  of  the  Maccabees, 
the  .lews  were  ruled  by  the  successors  of  Alexander. 
Hence  lor  a  period  of  more  than  400  years  from 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  Jews  were  deprived  of  their  independence;  and, 
as  a  plain,  undeniable  matter  of  fact,  tiie  sceptre 
had  already  departed  from  Judah.  ^Vithout  pur- 
suing this  subject  farther  through  the  rule  of  the 
Maccabees  (a  family  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  not 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah)  down  to  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  conquest  of  Palestine  by  Pom- 
pey  (B.  c.  63),  it  is  suthcient  to  observe  that  a 
supposed  fulfillment  of  a  prophecy  which  ignores 
the  dependent  state  of  Juda-a  during  400  years 
after  the  destruction  of  the  first  Temple,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  based  upon  sound  principles  of  inter- 
pretation. E.  T. 

SHI'LOH,  as  the  name  of  a  place,  stands  in 

Hebrew  as  Tl'\>W  (Josh,  xviii.   1-10),  '"^^K?    (1 

Sam.  i.  24,  iii.  21;  Judg.  xsi.  19),  H'b'^E?  (1  K. 

ii.  27), 'lVtt7  (Judg.  xxi.   21;   Jer.  vii.   12),  and 

\ierhaps  also  ^^7^1Z7,  whence  the  gentile  ^2  7*^127 

(1  K.  xi.  29,  xii.  15):  in  the  LXX.  generally  as 
2rjAii,  l.TiKd/j.;  in  Judg.  x.xi.  Vat.  StjAcoc;  in  Jer. 
xli.  5  2aAr)(U,  Alex.  2,a\(ii/j.;  in  Joseph.  Ani.  viii. 
7,  §  7;  11^  §  1,  etc.  SiAoS;  v.  1,  §  19;  2,  §  9, 
SfAoDv;  2,  §  12,  Sr/Aoi:  and  in  the  V^ulg.  as  Siln, 
and  more  rarely  Selo.  The  name  was  derived  prob- 
ably from  n7tt7,  Iz-tf,  f*  to  rest,"  and  repre- 
sented the  idea  that  the  nation  attained  at  this 
place  to  a  state  of  rest,  or  that  the  Lord  himself 
would  here  rest  among  his  people.  Ta,\.n.\th- 
Shiloii  may  be  another  name  of  the  same  place, 
or  of  a  different  place  near  it,  through  which  it  was 
customary  to  pass  on  the  way  to  Shiloh  (as  the 
obscure  etymology  may  indicate).  [Taanatit- 
Siiii-oH.j  (See  also  Kurtz's  Gtscli.  dt$  A.  Bund. 
\i.  569.) 


SHILOH 


2999 


The  principal  conditions  for  identifying  with 
confidence  the  site  of  a  place  mentioned  in  the 
Bible,  are:  (1)  that  the  modern  name  should  beat 
a  proper  resemblance  to  the  ancient  one;  (2)  that 
its  situation  accord  with  the  geographical  notices 
of  the  Scriptures:  and  (-i)  that  the  statements  of 
early  writers  and  travellers  point  to  a  coincident 
conclusion.  Shiloh  affords  a  striking  instance  of 
the  combination  of  these  testimonies.  I'he  de- 
scription in  Judg.  xxi.  19  is  singularly  explicit. 
Shiloh.  it  is  said  there,  is  "on  the  north  side  of 
Beth-el,  on  the  east  side  of  the  highway  that  goeth 
up  from  lieth-el  to  Shechem,  and  on  the  south  of 
Lebonah."  In  agreement  with  this  the  traveller 
at  the  present  day  (the  writer  quotes  here  his  owe 
note-book),  going  north  from  Jerusalem,  lodges  the 
first  night  at  Beitin,  the  ancient  Beth-el;  tlie  next 
day,  at  the  distance  of  a  few  hours,  turns  aside  to 
the  right,  in  order  to  visit  Seiiun,  the  .\rabic  for 
Shiloh;  and  then  passing  through  the  narrow 
Wady,  which  brings  him  to  the  main  road,  leaves 
el-LMdn,  the  Lebonah  of  Scripture,  on  the  left 
as  he  pursues  "the  highway"  to  Ndblus,  the  an- 
cient Shechem.  [Shlciiem.]  It  was  by  search- 
ing for  these  sites,  under  guidance  of  the  clew  thus 
given  in  Scripture  that  Dr.  Kobinson  rediscovered 
two  of  them  (Shiloh  and  Lebonah)  in  1835.  Its 
present  name  is  suflBciently  like  the  more  familiar 
Hebrew  name,  while  it  is  identical  with  ISInlon 
(see  above),  on  which  it  is  evidently  founded. 
Again,  Jerome  {nd  Zapli.  i.  14),  and  Ensebius 
(Onomast.  art.  "Silo")  cert.ainly  have  iStilun  in 
view  when  they  S])eak  of  the  situation  of  Shiloh 
with  reference  to  Neapolis  or  Ndblus.  It  discovers 
a  strange  oversight  of  the  data  which  control  the 
question,  that  some  of  the  older  travellers  placed 
Shiloh  at  Xeby  Samwil,  about  two  hours  north- 
west of  Jerusalem. 

Shiloh  was  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  sacred 
of  the  Hebrew  sanctuaries.  The  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  had  been  kept  at  Gilgal  diu'ing  the 
progress  of  the  Conquest  (.losh.  xvih.  1  f. ),  was  re- 
moved thence  on  the  subjugation  of  the  country, 
and  kept  at  Shiloh  from  the  last  days  of  Joshua  to 
the  time  of  Samuel  (Josh,  xviii.  10;  Judg.  xviii. 
31;  1  Sam.  iv.  3).  It  was  here  the  Hebrew  con- 
queror divided  a.niong  the  tribes  the  portion  of  the 
west  Jordan-region,  which  had  not  been  already 
allotted  (Josh,  xviii.  10,  xix.  51).  In  this  distri- 
bution, or  an  earlier  one,  Shiloh  fell  within  the 
limits  of  Ephraini  (Josh.  xvi.  5).  Af*er  the  vic- 
tory of  the  other  tribes  over  Benjamin,  the  national 
camp,  which  appears  to  have  been  temporarily  at 
Bethel,  was  transferred  again  to  Shiloh  (Judg.  xxi. 
12).  [House  of  God,  Amer.  ed.]  The  notice 
in  that  coimection  that  Shiloh  was  in  t^'anaaa 
marks  its  situation  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  as 
opposed  to  Jaliesh-Gilead  on  the  east  side  (Ber- 
theau,  Keil,  Cassel).  The  seizure  here  of  the 
■"  daughters  of  Shiloh  "  by  the  Benjamites  i^  re- 
corded as  an  event  which  preserved  one  of  the 
tribes  from  extinction  (Judg.  xxi.  19-23).  The 
aniuial  "  feast  of  the  Lord  "  was  observed  at  Shi- 
loh, and  on  one  of  these  occasions,  the  men  lay  in 
wait  in  the  vineyards,  and  when  the  women  went 
forth  "  to  dance  in  dances,"  the  men  took  them 
captive  and  carried  them  home  as  wives.  Here 
Eli  judged  Israel,  and  at  last  died  of  grief  on  hear- 
ing that  the  ark  of  the  Lord  was  taken  by  the  en- 
emy (1  S.am.  iv.  12-18).  The  story  of  Hannah 
and  her  vow,  which  belongs  to  our  recollections  of 
Shiloh,  transmits  to  us  a  characteristic  incideut  is 


5000 


jshiloh 


the  life  of  the  Hebrews  (1  Sam.  i.  1,  etc.)-  Sam- 
uel, the  child  of  her  prayers  and  hopes,  was  hertj 
hrought  up  in  the  sanctuary,  and  called  to  the  pro- 
phetic oHice  (1  Sam.  ii.  26,  iii.  1).  'J'he  ungodly 
conduct  of  the  sons  of  Eli  occasioned  the  loss  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant,  which  had  been  carried  into 
battle  against  the  Philistines,  and  Shiloh  from 
that  time  sank  into  insignificance.  It  stands  forth 
in  the  Jewish  history  as  a  striking  example  of  the 
Divine  indignation.  "  Go  ye  now,"  says  the 
prophet,  "  unto  my  place  which  was  in  Shiloh, 
where  I  set  my  name  at  the  first,  and  see  what  I 
did  to  it,  for  the  wickedness  of  my  people  Israel " 
(Jer.  vii.  12).  Not  a  single  Jewish  relic  remains 
there  at  the  pi-esent  day.  A  few  broken  Corin- 
thian columns  of  the  Koman  age  are  the  only  an- 
tiquities now  to  be  found  on  the  site  of  Shiloh. 

Some  have  inferred  from  Judg.  xviii.  31  (comp. 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  60  f.)  that  a  permanent  structure  or 
temple  had  been  built  for  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh, 
and  that  it  continued  there  (as  it  were  sine  numiiit) 
for  a  long  time  after  the  Tabernacle  was  removed  to 
other  phices."  But  the  language  ii»  2  Sam.  vii.  6 
is  too  explicit  to  admit  of  that  conclusion.  God 
says  tliere  to  David  through  the  moutii  ot  Nathan 
the  prophet,  "  I  have  npt  dwelt  ni  any  house  since 
the  time  that  I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel 
out  of  F.gypt,  even  to  this  day,  but  ha\e  \\alked  in 
a  tent  and  in  a  tabernacle."  So  in  1  K.  iii.  2,  it 
is  said  expressly  that  no  "house"  had  been  built 
for  the  worship  of  God  till  the  erection  of  Solo- 
mon's Temple  at  Jerusalem.  It  must  be  in  a  spir- 
itual sense,  therefore,  that  the  Tabernacle  is  called 
a  "house"  or  "temple"  in  those  passages  which 
refer  to  Shiloh.  God  is  said  to  dwell  where  He  is 
pleased  to  manifest  his  presence  or  is  worshipped ; 
and  the  place  thus  honored  becomes  his  abode  or 
temple,  vvhether  it  be  a  tent  or  a  structure  of  wood 
or  stone,  or  even  the  sanctuary  of  the  heart  alone. 
Ahijah  the  jirophet  had  his  abode  at  Shiloh  in  the 
time  of  Jeroboam  I.,  and  was  visited  there  by  the 
messengers  of  .lerolioam's  wife  to  ascertain  the  is- 
sue of  the  sickness  of  their  child  (1  K.  xi.  29,  xii. 
15,  xiv.  1,  etc.).  The  people  there  after  the  time 
of  the  exile  (.ler.  xli.  5)  appear  to  have  been  Cuth- 
ites  (2  K.  xvii.  30)  who  had  adopted  some  of  the 
forms  of  Jewish  worship.  (See  Hitzig,  ZuJerem. 
p.  331.)  Jerome,  who  surveyed  the  ruins  in  the 
4th  century,  says:  "  Yix  ruinarum  parva  vestigia, 
vix  altaris  fundamenta  monstrantur." 

The  contour  of  the  region,  as  the  traveller  views 
it  on  the  ground,  indicates  very  clearly  where  the 
ancient  town  must  have  stood.  A  Tell,  or  moder- 
ate hill,  rises  from  an  inieven  plain,  surrounded  by 
other  higher  hills,  exce])t  a  narrow  valley  on  the 
south,  which  hill  would  naturally  be  chosen  as  the 
principal  site  of  the  town.  The  Tabernacle  may 
nave  been  pitched  on  this  eminence,  where  it  would 
be  a  conspicuous  olject  on  every  side.  The  ruins 
touud  there  at  present  are  very  inconsiderable. 
They  consist  chiefly  of  the  remains  of  a  compara- 
lively  modern  village,  with  which  some  large  stones 
and  fragments  of  columns  are  intermixed,  evidently 


a  *  The  A.  V.  speaks  of"  the  temple  of  the  Lord  " 
at  Shiloh,  in  1  Sam.  i.  9,  but  erroneously,  for  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  it  should  be  "  palace  of  the  Lord." 

That  term  (  vD'^n)  was  applied  to  the  "  tabernacle  " 
%i  well  as  the  "  temple."  The  Vulg.  has  in  like  man- 
Q»r,  templum  dorr  hi  i.  II. 

''  Thic  ii  on  the   authority  of  Dr.  Robinson.     Dr. 


SHILOH 

from  much  earlier  times.  Near  a  ruined  mosqut 
flourishes  an  immense  oak.  or  terel^inth-tree,  the 
branches  of  which  the  winds  of  centuries  have 
swayed.  Just  beyond  the  precincts  of  the  hill 
stands  a  dilapidated  edifice,  which  combines  some 
of  the  architectural  properties  of  a  fortress  and  a 
church.  Three  columns  with  Corinthian  capitals 
lie  prostrate  on  the  floor.  An  amphora  between 
two  chaplets,  perhaps  a  work  of  Pioman  sculpture, 
adorns  a  stone  over  the  doorway.  The  natives  call 
this  ruin  the  "  iMosque  of  Si-ilun.'^  *  At  the  dis- 
tance of  about  fifteen  minutes  from  the  main  site 
is  a  fountain,  which  is  approached  through  a 
narrow  dale.  Its  water  is  abundant,  and  accord- 
ing to  a  practice  very  common  in  the  East,  flows 
first  into  a  pool  or-well,  and  thence  into  a  larger 
reservoir,  from  which  flocks  and  herds  are  watered. 
This  fountain,  which  would  be  so  natural  a  resort 
for  a  festal  party,  may  have  been  the  place  where 
the  "daughters  of  Shiloh"  were  dancing,  when 
they  were  surprised  and  borne  off"  by  their  cap- 
tors. In  this  vicinity  are  rock-hewn  sepulchres, 
in  which  the  bodies  of  some  of  the  unfortunate 
house  of  Eli  may  have  been  laid  to  rest.  There 
was  a  .lewish  tradition  (Asher's  Bivj.  of  Tud.  ii. 
435)  that  VX\  and  his  .sons  were  btn-ied  here  <^ 

It  is  certainly  true,  as  some  travellers  remai-k, 
that  the  scenery  of  Shiloh  is  not  specially  attract- 
ive; it  presents  no  feature  of  grandeur  or  1  eauty 
adapted  to  impress  the  mind  and  awaken  thoughts 
in  harmony  with  the  memories  of  the  place.  At 
the  same  time,  it  deserves  to  be  mentioned  that, 
for  the  olijects  to  which  Shiloh  was  devoted,  it  was 
not  unwisely  chosen.  It  was  secluded,  and  there- 
fore favorable  to  acts  of  worship  and  religious  study, 
in  which  the  youth  of  scliolars  and  devotees,  like 
Sanniel,  was  to  be  spent.  Yearly  festivals  were  cel- 
ebrated there,  and  brought  together  assemblages 
which  would  need  the  supplies  of  water  and  pastur- 
age so  easily  obtained  in  such  a  place.  Terraces 
are  still  visilJe  on  the  sides  of  the  rocky  hills,  which 
.show  that  every  foot  and  inch  of  the  soil  once 
teemed  with  verdure  and  fertility.  The  cereuionies 
of  such  occasions  consisted  largely  of  processions 
and  dances,  and  the  place  afforded  ample  scope  for 
such  movements.  The  surrounding  hills  served  as 
an  amphitheatre,  whence  the  spectators  could  look, 
and  have  the  entire  scene  under  their  eyes.  The 
position,  too,  in  times  of  sudden  danger,  admitted 
of  an  easy  defense,  as  it  was  a  hill  itself,  and  the 
neighboring  hills  could  be  turned  into  bulwarks. 
To  its  other  advantages  we  should  add  that  of  its 
central  position  for  the  Hebrews  on  the  west  of  the 
.lordan.  "It  was  equidistant,"  says  Tristram, 
"  from  north  and  south,  and  easily  accessible  to  the 
trans-Jordanic  trilies."  An  air  of  oppressive  still- 
ness hangs  now  over  all  the  scene,  and  adds  force 
to  the  reflection  that  truly  the  "  oracles  "  so  long 
consulted  there  "are  dumb;"  they  had  fulfilled 
their  purpose,  and  given  place  to  "  8,  more  sure 
word  of  prophecy." 

A  visit  to  Shiloh  requires  a  detour  of  several 
miles  from  the  ordinary  track,  and  it  has  been  less 


Wilson  understood  it  was  called  "  Mosque  of  the  Sixty  " 
(Siltin)  {Lnnda  of  the  Bible,  ii.  294).  [This  latter  is 
the  name  given  also  by  Sepp,  Jfrus.  tend  das  heil. 
Land,  ii.  25.  —  H.] 

c  *  The  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  have  had  pho- 
tographic views  taken  of  the  ruins  of  the  mosque  al 
SfiiUn,  of  the  rock-hewn  tombs  near  the  fountain, 
and  of  various  ruins,  from  the  northwest.  H. 


SHILONI 

frequently  described  than  other  n:ore  accessible 
places.  (I'be  reader  may  consult  Relaud's  PkLcs- 
iiiti,  p.  lOlU;  Bachiene's  Btsckreilnmij,  ii.  §  582; 
Kaumer's  Palast.  p.  221  [ite  Aufl.]  ;  Hitter's 
Ei-dk.  XV.  631  f.;  Robinson's  BM.  Res.  ii.  261)- 
276 ;  Wilson's  Lumis  of  the  Bible,  ii.  294 ;  Stanley. 
Sin.  and  Pal.  pp.  231-233 ;  Porter's  Umidb.  of 
Syria,  ii.  328;  Herzog's  Renl-Encyh.  xiv.  361); 
Ur.  Sepp,  Jerus.  und  das  heil.  Land,  li.  25  f. ; 
Tristram,  Land  of  Israel,  2d  ed.  p.  1G3  f. ;  and 
Stanley,  Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Church,  i.  308  ff.) 

II.  B.  H. 

SHILO'NI  03"bt^n,  i.  e.  "the  Shilonite:" 
[Vat.]  Tov  Ar]\oovi\  [Rom.  SryAojj/i;  Alex.  HKaivr, 
l'"A.  AijAoife^:]  Siloniles).  This  word  occurs  in 
the  A.  V.  only  in  Neh.  xi.  5,  where  it  should 
bo  rendered  —  as  it  is  in  other  cases  —  "  the  Slii- 
luiiite,"  that  is,  the  descendant  of  Slielab  the 
youngest  son  of  Judah.  The  passage  is  giving  an 
accDunt  (like  1  Chr.  ix.  3-6)  of  the  families  of 
Jadi'i  who  lived  in  .Jerusalem  at  the  date  to  which 
it  ref  rs,  and  (like  that)  it  divides  them  into  the 
great  houses  of  Pharez  and  Sbelah. 

The  change  of  Shelani  to  Shiloni  is  the  same 
which  .seems  to  have  occuiTed  in  the  name  of 
Siloam  —  Shelach  in  Nehemiah,  and  Shiloach  in 
Isaiah.  G. 

SHI'LONITE,  THE  C'^  b'-IS^H  [see  above] ; 
in  Chron.,  ''^'l^"'a?n  and  '"ShbCi^n  :  [Vat.]  o 
STjAa'j/etTTjs;  [Rom.]  Alex.  2rjA.ai;'iT7;x :  Silnnites, 
[Silonitis]);  that  is,  the  native  or  resident  of 
Shiloh,  —  a  title  ascribed  only  to  Ahijah,  the 
prophet  wiio  foretold  to  Jeroboam  the  disruption 
of  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms  (1  Iv.  xi. 
29,  xii.  15.  XV.  29;  2  Chr.  ix.  29,  x.  15).  Its  con- 
nection with  Shiloh  is  fi.xed  by  1  K.  xiv.  2,  4,  which 
shows  that  that  sacred  spot  was  still  the  residence 
of  the  prophet.  The  word  is  therefore  entirely  dis- 
tinct from  that  examined  in  the  following  article 
and  under  Shii.,i>ni.  G. 

SHILONITES,  THEOJ^^'i^n  [see  be- 
low]: [Vat.]  raiv  2r]\copei:  [Rom.  Alex.  ^■)j\wvi:] 
Siliiiii)  are  mentioned  among  the  descendants  of 
.ludah  dwelling  in  Jerusalem  at  a  date  difficult  to 
fix  (1  Chr.  ix.  5).  They  are  doubtless  the  mem- 
bers of  the  house  of  Shki,.\ii,  who  in  the  Penta- 
teuch are  more  accurately  designated  Siikl.vnitks. 
This  is  supported  by  the  reading  of  the  Targuni 
Joseph  on  the  passage  —  "the  tribe  of  Shelah,'' 
and  is  allowed  by  Gesenius.  The  word  occurs 
again  in  Neh.  xi.,  a  document  which  exhibits  a 
certain  correspondence  with  1  Chr.  ix.  It  is  iden- 
tical in  the  original  except  a  slight  contraction,  but 
in  (he  A.  V.  it  is  given  as  Shilu>[. 

HHIL'SHAH  (nE?^E7  [triad,  Ges.] :  2oA- 
KTo.  ;  [Vat.]  Alex.  SoAeiira  :  S(dusa).  Son  of 
Zoi)hah  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (1  Cljr.  vii.  37). 

SIIIM'EA  (S^TpW  [rumor]:  :tafxo.i;  [Vat. 
So/xae:]  Simmaa).  1.  Son  of  David  by  Hath- 
sheba  (1  Chr.  iii.  5).     Called  also  Shammua,  and 

SlIA.^I.MU.VII. 

2.  ([Vat.  S'j^ea:]  Alex.  2a^a:  [Samaa.])  A 
Merarite  I.evite  (1  Chr.  vi.  30  [15]). 

3.  ([2a/xaa:]  Sainaa.)  AGershonite  Levite, 
ancestor  of  Asaph  the  minstrel  (1  Chr.  vi.  39  [24]). 

4.  (.-Vlex.  2a//aas-)  The  brother  of  David  (1 
Chr.  XX.  7),  elsewhere  called  Siiammah,  Sui.mma. 
Mil'  Shijikaii. 

189 


SHI?iIEI 


3001 


SHIM'EAH    (^"^f^W  [rumor,  f a, ^,:];  Keri, 

i^VfpW  :  2e/j.ei-,  [Vat.]  Alex,  ^.e/neei:  Samaa). 
1.  brother  of  David,  and  father  of  Jonathan  and 
Jonadal)  (2  Sam.  xxi.  21  [where  A.  V.  ed.  1611 
reads  Shimea]):  called  also  Shammah,  Shimea, 
and  Spumjia.     In  2  Sam.  xiii.  3,  32,  his  name  is 

written  H^Htt?  (:S,a/j.aoi ;  [Vat.]  Alex.  2a^a  in 
ver.  32:   Sauiuia). 

2.  (nWptp:  2a/xacJ;  [Vat.  2e/xaa ;]  Alex. 
2a/i6a :  Samaa. )  A  descendant  of  Jehiel  the  father 
or  founder  of  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  viii.  32). 

SHIM'EAM  [n'^TlXp  [fam€,name'\:  2a/jLad; 
Alex.  2ix//a:  Sainnan).  A  descendant  of  Jehiel, 
the  founder  or  prince  of  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  ix.  38). 
Called  Shisieah  in  1  Chr.  viii.  32. 

SHIM'EATH  (n^S?tt7  [fern.  ==  Siiimeah]  : 
'UfJiovaQ,  'Za/j.add-.  [Vat.  2a^a,]  A:ex.  ^a/uad  iu 
Chr.  :  Semaath,  Semmaath).  An  Ammonitess, 
mother  of  Joz^ar,  or  Zabad,  one  of  the  murder- 
ers of  King  Joash  (2  K.  xii.  21  [22] ;  2  Chr.  xxiv. 
26). 

*  SHIM'EATHITES  (;'D\'1V'0W,  patron.: 
'Za/j.aBu/j.;  Vat.  Alex.  'S.a/xaOiei/j.:  7-es(innntes),  one 
of  the  three  families  of  scribes  residing  at  Jabez 
(1  Chr.  ii.  55),  probably  descendants  of  a  certain 
Shimea.     See  Tihathites.  A. 

SHIM'EI  (  ^PK7  [renoivnecq-.  :s,€fxd ;  [in 
Zech.,  -Xv/jLecliu:  Vat.  also  2e^e6(,  2o^eei:]  Seiitei). 
1.  Son  of  Gershom  the  son  of  Levi  (Num.  iii.  18; 
1  Chr.  vi.  17,  2:),  xxiii.  7,  9,  10;  Zech.  xii.  13); 
called  Shimi  in  Ex.  vi.  17.  In  1  Chr.  vi.  29,  ac- 
cording to  the  present  text,  he  is  called  the  son  of 
liljni,  and  both  are  reckoned  as  sons  of  Merari,  but 
there  is  reason  to  sup[jose  that  there  is  something 
omitted  in  this  verse.      [See  Libni  2;  Mahi.i  1.] 

W.  A.   \V. 

2.  ([Vat.]  Alex.  26,a€6i.)  Shimei  the  son  of 
(iera,  a  Benjamite  of  the  house  of  Saul,  who  lived 
at  Bahurim.  His  residence  there  agrees  with  the 
other  notices  of  the  place,  as  if  a  marked  spot  on 
the  way  to  and  from  the  Jordan  Valley  to  Jeru 
salem,  and  just  within  the  border  of  Benjamin 
[B.VHUi.'iM.]  He  may  have  received  the  unfor- 
tunate Phaltiel  after  his  separation  from  Michal 
(2  Sam.  iii.  16). 

^Mien  David  and  his  suite  were  seen  descendini> 
the  long  defile,  on  bis  flight  from  Absalom  (2  Sam. 
xvi.  5-13),  the  whole  feeling  of  the  clan  of  Ben- 
jamin liurst  forth  without  restraint  in  the  person 
of  Shimei.  His  house  apparently  was  separated 
from  the  road  by  a  deep  valley,  yet  not  so  far  as 
that  anything  that  he  did  or  said  could  not  lie  dis- 
tinctly heard.  He  ran  along  the  ridge,  cursing, 
throwing  stones  at  the  king  and  his  companions, 
and  when  he  came  to  a  patch  of  du.st  on  tlie  dry 
hill  side,  taking  it  up,  and  throwing  it  over  them. 
Aliishai  was  so  irritated,  that,  but  for  David's  re- 
monstrance, he  would  have  darted  across  the  ravine 
(2  Sam.  xvi.  9)  and  torn  or  cut  of?' his  head.  Tin 
whole  conversation  is  remarkable,  as  showing  what 
may  almost  be  called  the  slang  terms  of  aliuse 
prevalent  in  the  two  rival  courts.  The  cant  name 
for  David  in  Shinni's  mouth  is  "the  man  of  blood," 
twice  emphatic.alli  repeated  :  "  Come  out,  come 
out,  thou  man  of  blood  "  —  "  A  man  of  blood  art 
thou  "  (2  Sam.  xvi.  7.  8).  ft  seems  to  have  Iteen 
derived  from  the  slaughter  of  the  sons  of  Saul  li 


8002  SHIMEI 

Sam.  xxi.),  or  generally  perhaps  from  David's  pre- 
datory, warlike  life  (coinp.  1  Clir.  xxii.  8).  The 
laiit  name  for  a  Beiijaiiiite  i.i  ^-ihishai's  mouth  was 
"a  dead  dog"  (2  Sam.  xvi.  ij ;  compare  Aimer's 
expression,  "  Am  I  a  dog's  head,"  2  Sam.  iii.  8). 
"  Man  of  Belial "  also  appears  to  have  been  a 
favorite  term  on  both  sides  (2  Sam.  xvi.  7,  xx.  1). 
The  royal  party  passed  on;  Shimei  following  them 
with  his  stones  and  curses  as  long  as  they  were  in 
sight. 

The  next  meeting  was  very  different.  The  king 
was  now  returning  from  his  successful  campaign. 
Just  as  he  was  crossing  the  Jordan,  in  the  ferry- 
boat or  on  the  bridge  (2  Sam.  xix.  18;  LXX.  5ia- 
PaivovTos,  Jos.  Ant.  vii.  2,  §  4,  eVJ  t^v  yecpvpaf), 
the  first  person  to  welcome  him  on  the  western,  or 
perhaps  even  on  the  eastern  side,  was  Shimei,  who 
may  have  seen  him  approaching  from  the  heights 
above.  He  threw  himself  at  David's  feet  in  abject 
penitenpe.  "  He  was  the  first,"  he  .said,  "  of  all 
the  house  of  Joseph,''  thus  indicating  the  close 
political  alliance  between  Benjamin  and  Ephraim. 
Anotlier  altercation  ensued  bet\WKi  David  and 
Abishai,  which  ended  in  David's  guaranteeing 
Sliimei's  life  with  an  oath  (2  Sam.  xix.  18-2-3),  in 
consideratio!!  of  the  general  jubilee  and  amnesty 
of  the  return. 

But  the  king's  suspicions  were  not  set  to  rest  by 
this  sulimission ;  and  on  bis  death-ised  he  recalls  the 
whole  scene  to  the  recollection  of  his  son  Solomon. 
Sliimei's  head  was  now  white  with  age  (1  K.  ii.  U), 
and  he  was  living  in  the  favor  of  the  court  at  .Jeru- 
salem {ibiil.  8).  Solomon  gave  him  notice  that 
from  henceforth  he  must  consider  himself  confined 
to  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  on  pain  of  death.  The 
Kidron,  which  divided  him  from  the  road  to  his 
old  residence  at  Bahurini,  was  not  to  be  crossed. 
He  was  to  build  a  bouse  in  Jerusalem  (1  K.  ii.  3G, 
37).  l'"or  three  years  the  engagement  was  kept. 
At  the  end  of  that  time,  for  the  purpose  of  captur- 
ing two  slaves  who  had  escaped  to  Gath,  he  went 
out  on  his  ass,  and  made  his  journey  successfully 
(ibif/.  ii.  40).  On  his  return,  the  king  took  him 
at  his  word,  and  he  was  slain  by  Benaiah  (ibid.  ii. 
41—46).  In  the  sacred  historian,  and  still  more  in 
Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  1,  §  5),  great  stress  is  laid  on 
Shimei's  having  broken  his  oath  to  remain  at  home; 
so  that  his  death  is  regarded  as  a  judgment,  not 
only  for  his  previous  treason,  but  for  his  recent 
Bacrilege.  A.  P.  S. 

3.  [Vat.  Alex.  Se^oieei.]  One  of  the  adherents 
of  Solomon  at  the  time  of  Adonijah's  usurpation 
(1  K.  i.  8).  Unless  be  is  the  same  as  Shimei  the 
son  of  Elah  (1  K.  iv.  18),  Solomon's  commissariat 
officer,  or  with  Shimeah,  or  Shammah,  David's 
brother,  as  Ewald  (Gesc/i.  iii.  266)  suggests,  it  is 
impossible  to  identify  him.  From  the  mention 
which  is  made  of  "  the  mighty  men  "  in  the  same 
verse,  one  might  be  tempted  to  conclude  that 
Shimei  is  the  same  with  Shammah  the  Hararite 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  11);  for  the  diflference  in  the  He- 
brew names  of  Shimei  and  Shammah  is  not  greater 
than  that  between  those  of  Shimeah  and  Sham- 
mah, wiiich  are  both  applied  to  David's  brother. 

4.  [Vat.  A ;  Alex.  Se/xeet.]  Solomon's  com- 
missariat officer  in  Benjamin  (1  K.  iv.  18);  son 
■>{  Elah. 

5.  [Vat.  omits  ;  Rom.  :^e/xfi ;  Alex.  2e/x€i.] 
Son  of  Pedaiah,  and  brother  of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr. 
Iii.  191. 

6.  [Vat   2e;U£6i.]    A  Simeonite,  son  of  Zacchur 


SHIMRATn 

(1  Chr.  iv.  26,  27).     He  had  sixteen  son*  and  eb 
daughters.     Perhaps  the  same  ;is  Shemalah  3. 

7.  [Vat.  Alex.  2efj.fet.]  Son  of  Gog,  a  Keubenite 
(1  Chr.  V.  4).     Perhaps  the  .same  as  Shema  1. 

8.  [Vat.  Se^iiesi;  Alex.  2e/x6J.]  A  Gershonite 
Levite,  son  of  Jahath  (1  Chr.  vi.  42). 

9-  {2,efj.eia  ;  [Vat.  E^eei  ;]  Alex.  2f/ue'j  : 
Semeins.)  Son  of  Jeduthun,  and  chief  of  the  tenth 
division  of  the  singers  (1  Chr.  xxv.  17).  His  name 
is  omitted  from  the  list  of  the  sons  of  Jeduthun  in 
ver.  3,  but  is  evidently  wanted  there. 

10.  (2f/iel;  [Vat.  Se^eec]  Semeins.)  The 
Ramathite  who  was  over  David's  vineyards  (1  Chr. 
xxvii.  27).  In  the  Vat.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  he  ia 
described  as  6  e/c  'ParjA. 

11.  (Alex.  2a/j.fMs-  Seme'i.)  A  Levite  of  th« 
sons  of  Heman,  who  took  part  in  the  iririncation 
of  the  Temple  under  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  14). 

12.  [Alex.  Se^ei,  Se^ei'-]  The  brother  of  Con- 
oniah  the  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  had 
charge  of  the  oflferings,  the  tithes,  and  the  dedicated 
things  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  12,  13).  Perhaps  the  same 
as  the  preceding. 

13.  C2,a/xov:  FA.  'Xa/j.ovS.)  A  Levite  in  the 
time  of  Ezra  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr. 
X.  23).     Called  also  Sejiis. 

14.  (26/^6^  [Vat.]  FA.  26^66t.)  One  of  the 
family  of  Hashum,  who  put  away  his  foreign  wife 
at  Ezra's  command  (Ezr.  x.  33).  Called  Sejiei 
in  1  Esdr.  ix.  33. 

15.  A  son  of  Bani,  who  had  also  married  a 
foreign  wife  and  put  her  away  (Ezr.  x.  38).  Called 
Sam  IS  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 

16.  (26M€iar;  [Vat.  FA.]  :Se/j.eeias-)  Son  of 
Kish  a  I Jenjamite,  and  ancestor  of  Mordecai  ( Esth. 
ii.  5).  W.  A.  W. 

SHIM'EON  (1^^^?^  ["  henrinff,  or/amcm 
one]  :  "S.ep.ei.ov  ■  Simeon ).  A  layman  of  Israel,  of 
the  family  of  Harim,  who  had  married  a  foreign 
wife  and  divorced  her  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x. 
31).     The  name  is  the  sanie  as  Simeon. 

SHIM'HI  (*'VPtp:  2a^a-f0;  [Vat.  2a^a€.e;] 
Alex.  'S.ajxaX'  Seinei).  A  Benjamite,  apparently 
the  same  as  Sheji.v  the  son  of  Elpaal  (1  Chr.  viii 
21).     The  name  is  the  same  as  Shimei. 

SHIM'I  {"Vt^W  :  26^6f-;  [Vat.  S^/xeer,  Alex 
2e/i6i:]   Semi  i"=  Shimei  1,  Ex.  vi.  17). 

SHIM'ITES,  THE  C'S^^n  [renmmed, 
Ges.]  :  6  2e^ei  ;  [Alex.  'Sefj.ei'.]  Seine'itica,  so. 
famili'i).  The  descendants  of  Shimei  the  son  of 
Gershom  (Num.  iii.  21).  They  are  again  men- 
tioned  in   Zech.   xii.   13,   where   the   LXX.   have 

'SiVfJ.iWP. 

SHIM'MA  (SS'pi;;  :  -S-afxai  ;  Alex.  2a/taia: 
Siniman).  The  third  son  of  Jesse,  and  brother  of 
David  (1  Chr.  ii.  13).  He  is  called  also  Sham- 
mah, Shimea,  and  Shimeah.  Josephus  calls 
him  2a/ia^os  {Anl  vi.  8,  §  1 ),  and  2a/xa  {Ant.  vii 
12,  §  2). 

SHI'MON  it'^'^''^  {deserf] :  26^ci^  ;  [Vat. 
26^iajj/:]  Alex.  "Zeixei^v'  Simon).  The  four  sons 
of  Shimon  are  enumerated  in  an  ol)scure  genealogy 
of  the  tribe  of  .ludah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20).  There  is  no 
trace  of  the  name  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew,  but  in 
the  Alex.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  there  is  mention  made 
of  "  Someion  the  father  of  Joman  "  in  1  Chr.  iv. 
19,  which  wa-s  possibly  the  same  as  Shimon. 

SHIM'RATH     (n^pc;     {walch,    guavl] 


SHIMRI 

iafj.apdd'  Samara Ih).  A  Benjamite,  of  the  sons 
af  Shiiiilii  (1  Chr.  viii.  21). 

SHIM'RI  ("""Pae?  [viyilant]:  S.e^pi;  [Vat. 
2a/iap;]  Ales.  "Zajxaptas-  Seinri).  1.  A  Sinieon- 
ite,  son  of  Shemaiah  (1  Chr.  iv.  37). 

2.  (:^afj.epl;  [Vat.  FA.  Sa/xepei;]  Alex.  Sa/xapi : 
Samri.)  The  father  of  Jediael,  one  of  Uavid"s 
guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  45). 

3.  {Za/x0pi;  [Vat.  Za/^^Spet;]  Alex.  Sa/jL^pt.) 
A  Kohathite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  of  tlie 
Bons  of  Elizaphan  (2  Chr.  xxix.  13).  He  assisted 
in  the  purification  of  the  Temple. 

SHIM'RITH  (rVy^^  [feni.  visjilmi]  : 
:Safiaprid;  [Vat.  ^o/j.aiaj'e  ;]  Alex.  ■ZajxapiQ  ■ 
Semarith).  A  Moabitess,  mother  of  Jehozabad, 
one  of  the  assassins  of  King  Joash  (2  Chr.  xxiv. 
26).  In  2  K.  xii.  21,  she  is  called  Sho.mek.  The 
I'eshito-Syriac  gives  NelunUh,  which  appears  to  be 
a  kind  of  attempt  to  translate  the  name. 

SHIM'ROM  ("|1"1P^  \ioatch-hd>jhf\ :  2€^- 
epdu;  Alex.  'Sa/xpa/j.'-  Simeron).  Shimkon  the 
son  of  Issachar  (1  Chr.  vii.  1).  .  The  name  is  cor- 
rectly given  "  Shimron  "  in  the  A.  V.  of  1611. 

SHIM'RON  (Vllptt?  [waich-Mghi]:  2u- 
/Lcowv;  Alex.  So^epcoi/,  ^e/xpoiV-  Seinenni,  Sem- 
foii).  A  city  of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  15).  It  is  pre- 
viously named  in  the  list  of  the  places  whose  kings 
were  called  by  .Jabin,  king  of  Hazor,  to  his  assist- 
ance against  Joshua  (xi.  1).  Its  full  appellation 
was  perhaps  Shimkon-mekon.  Schwarz  (p.  172) 
proposes  to  identify  it  with  the  Simonias  of  Jose- 
phus  (  Vita,  §  2-t),  now  Simuniyek,  a  village  a 
few  miles  W.  of  Nazareth,  which  is  mentioned  in 
the  well-known  list  of  tlie  Talmud  {Jems.  Me(jil- 
Idh,  cap.  1)  as  the  ancient  Shimron.  This  has  in 
its  favor  its  proximity  to  Bethlehem  (comp.  xix. 
15).  The  Vat.  LXX.,  like  the  Tahnud,  omits  the 
(■  in  the  name.  G. 

SHIM'RON  (V"1P^  [see  above] :  in  Gen. 
[Rom.  S.afjLPpav,  Alex.]  Zafj-^pa/x  ;  in  Num. 
[Vat.]  ^a/xapa/x;  [Horn,  ^aix^pd/x',]  Alex.  A/x- 
Qpav-  ISemron,  [_Seiiiran]).  The  fourth  son  of 
Issachar  according  to  the  lists  of  Genesis  (xlvi.  13) 
and  Numbers  (xxvi.  2-t),  and  the  head  of  the  fam- 
ily of  the  Shimronites.  In  the  catalogues  of 
Chronicles  his  name  is  given  [in  later  eds.  of  the 
A.  v.]  as  Shimrom.  G. 

SHIM'RONITES,  THE  O^'lt^Wn  [patr., 
lee  above]:  [Vat.]  o  ^a/xapavii;  [Hom.  6  Xafx- 
f)a/xi(l  Alex.  0  A/x^pa/xei'  Semrani/m).  The  fam- 
ily of   Shimron,  son  of  Issachar  (Num.  xxvi.  2-1). 

SHIMRON-MERON     (l^Sip     '{T)ipW 

[ivaich-heiy/it  of  J/.,  Ges.]  ;  the  Keri  omits  the  S  : 
S,vfx6ccv  .  ■  ■  [Ma/x^pdO,  Vat.]  Ma,jxpaid;  Alex. 
2afxpa!i/  .  .  "  ^aa-ya  •  •  MapaiV-  iSemeron).  The 
king  of  Shimron-meron  is  mentioned  as  one  of 
the  thirty-one  kings  vanquished  by  Joshua  (Josh, 
sii.  20).  It  is  prot)ably  (though  not  certainly)  the 
complete  name  of  the  place  elsewliere  called  Shim- 
ron. Both  are  mentioned  in  proximity  to  .\chshaph 
(xi  1,  xii.  20).  It  will  be  observed  that  the  LXX. 
treat  the  two  words  as  belongiiig  to  two  distinct 
places,  and  it  is  certainly  worth  notice  that  Madon 


a  This  addition,  especially  in  the  Alex.  MS.  —  usu- 
Uly  so  close  to  the  Hebrew  —  is  remarkable.     There 
notbiug  in  the  oiigiual  te.\t  to  suggest  it. 


SHINAR 


3003 


—  in  Hebrew  so  easily  substituted  for  Meron.  and 
in  fact  so  read  by  the  LXX.,  Peshito,  and  Arabic  — 
occurs  next  to  Shimron  in  Josh.  xi.  1. 

There  are  two  claimants  to  identity  with  Shim- 
ron-meron. The  old  Jewish  traveller  hap-Parchi 
fixes  it  at  two  hours  east  of  En-gannim  (Jeiiin), 
south  of  the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  at  a  village  called 
in  his  day  Dnr  .Ucrori  (Asher's  Benjamin,  ii.  434). 
No  modern  traveller  appears  to  have  explored  that 
district,  and  it  is  consequently  a  blank  on  the  maps. 
The  other  is  the  village  of  Simuniyeli,  west  of  Naza- 
reth, which  the  Talmud  asserts  to  be  the  same  with 
Shimron.  G. 

SHIM'SHAI  [2  syl.]  ^Wl^W  [sunny]  :  2a^- 
ifa;  [Vat.  'Safiaa'a,  Sa/xee,  etc.;]  Alex.  'Zafxcrai: 
Siimstii).  The  scribe  or  secretary  of  Kehum,  who 
was  a  kind  of  satrap  of  the  conquered  province  of 
Judsea,  and  of  the  colony  at  Samaria,  supported  by 
the  Persian  court  (Ezr.  iv.  8,  9,  17,  23).  He  was 
apparently  an  Aramaean,  for  the  letter  which  he 
wrote  to  Artaxerxes  was  in  Syriac  (Ezr.  iv.  7),  and 
the  form  of  his  name  is  in  favor  of  this  supposition. 
In  1  Esdr.  ii.  he  is  called  Semelhus,  and  by  Jose- 
phus  2e^€'A.to$  {Ant.  xi.  2,  §  1).  The  Samaritans 
were  jealous  of  the  return  of  the  Jews,  and  for 
a  long  time  plotted  against  them  without  efTect. 
They  appear  ultimately,  however,  to  have  preju- 
diced the  royal  officers,  and  to  have  prevailed  upon 
them  to  address  to  the  king  a  letter  which  set  forth 
the  turbulent  cliaracter  of  the  Jews  and  the  dan- 
gerous character  of  their  undertaking,  the  effect  of 
which  was  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  ceased 
for  a  time. 

SHI'NAB  (3Wti7  [falhei-'s  tooth]:  2ewoap: 
Sennacib).  The  king  of  Admah  in  the  time  of 
Abraham :  one  of  the  five  kings  attacked  by  the 
invading  army  of  Chedorlaomer  (Gen.  xiv  2) 
Josephus  {Ant.  i.  9)  calls  him  'S.iva^ap-qs. 

SHI'NAR  ("li'PCp  [see  below]:  2e«'aap, 
1,evvaap\  [Alex.  2ewaafi;  see  also  Ijelow:]  Sen- 
naar)  seems  to  have  been  the  ancient  name  of  the 
great  alluvial  tract  through  which  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates  pass  before  reaching  the  sea  —  the  tract 
known  in  later  times  as  Chaldasa  or  Babylonia.  It 
was  a  plain  country,  where  brick  had  to  be  used  for 
stone,  and  slime  (mud?)  for  mortar  (Gen.  xi.  3). 
Among  its  cities  were  Babel  (Babylon),  Erech  or 
Orech  (Orcboe),  Calneh  or  Calno  (probably  Nijf'er), 
and  Accad,  the  site  of  which  is  unknown.  These 
notices  are  quite  enough  to  fix  the  situation.  It 
may,  however,  be  remarked  further,  that  the  LXX. 
render  the  word  liy  "Babylonia"  (BaySuA.coi'ia)  in 
one  place  (Is.  xi.  11),  and  by  "the  land  of  Baby 
Ion"  {yri  Ba^vAuvos)  in  another  (Zech.  v.  11). 
[The  word  also  occurs  (.losh.  vii.  21)  in  the  phrase 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  Babylonish  Garjient. — 
A.] 

The  nati\'e  inscriptions  contain  no  trace  of  the 
term,  which  seems  to  be  purely  Jewish,  and  un- 
known to  any  other  people.  At  least  it  is  extremely 
doubtful  whether  there  is  really  any  connection  be- 
tween Shinar  and  Singara  or  Siiijar.  Singara  was 
the  name  of  a  town  in  Central  Mesopotamia,  well 
known  to  the  Komans  (Dion  Cass.  Ixviii.  22;  Amni. 
Marc,  xviii.  5,  &c.),  and  still  existing  (Layard, 
A'in.  and  Bab.  p.  249).  It  is  from  this  place  that 
the  mountains  which  run  across  Mesopotamia  from 
Mosul  to  Kakkeh  receive  their  title  of  "  the  Sinjar 
range"  {2tyydpas  opos,  Ptol.  v.  18).  As  this 
name    first   appe;irs    in    central   Mesopotamia,    to 


B004 


SHIP 


«'hich  the  term  Shinar  is  never  applied,  about  the 
time  of  the  Antoiiiiies,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  it 
can  represent  the  old  Shinar,  which  ceased  practi- 
cally to  be  a  geographic  title  soon  after  the  death 
of  Moses." 

It  may  be  suspected  that  Shinar  was  the  name 
by  which  the  Hebrews  originally  knew  the  lower 
Wesopotainian  country  where  they  so  long  dwelt, 
and  which  Abraham  lirought  with  him  from  "  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees  "  {Miujhtir).  Possibly  it  means 
"the  country  of  the  Two  Rivers,"  being  derived 

from  "'31?',  "  two "  and  'or,  which   was  used  in 

Babj'lonia,  as  well  as  nnhr  or  ndlidr  ("TID),  for 
"  a  river."  (Compare  the  "  Ar-malchar"  of  i'liny, 
//.  N.  vi.  26,  and  "Ar-macales"  of  Abydenus,  Fr. 
9,  with  the  Naar-malcha  of  Animianus,  sxiv.  6, 
called  'Nap/u.dxa,  by  Isidore,  p.  5,  which  is  trans- 
lated as  '-the  Royal  River;"  and  compare  again 
the  "Narragam"  of  Pliny,  //.  N.  vi.  30,  with 
the  "Aracanus"  of  Abydenus,  l.  s.  c.)       G.  R. 

SHIP.  No  one  writer  in  the  whole  range  of 
Greek  and  Roman  literature  has  supplied  us  (it 
may  be  doubted  whether  all  put  together  ^ave  sup- 
plied us)  with  so  much  information  concerning  the 
merchant-ships  of  the  ancients  as  St.  lAike  in  the 
narrative  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  (Acts 
xxvii.,  xxviii.).  In  illustrating  the  Biblical  side  of 
this  question,  it  will  lie  best  to  arrange  in  order  the 
various  particulars  which  we  learn  from  this  nar- 
rative, and  to  use  them  as  a  basis  for  elucidating 
whatever  else  occurs,  in  reference  to  the  subject,  in 
the  Gospels  and  other  parts  of  the  N.  T.,  in  the 
"J.  T.  and  the  Apocrypha.  As  regards  the  earlier 
Scriptures,  the  Septuagintal  thread  will  Ire  fol- 
lowed. This  will  be  the  easiest  way  to  secure  the 
mutual  illustration  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
hi  regard  to  this  subject.  The  merchant-ships  of 
various  dates  in  the  Levant  did  not  differ  in  any 
essential  principle;  and  the  Greek  of  Alexandria 
contains  the  nautical  phraseology  which  supplies 
our  best  linguistic  information.  Two  preliminary 
remarks  may  be  made  at  the  outset. 

As  regards  St.  Paul's  voyage,  it  is  important  to 
remember  that  he  accomplished  it  in  three  ships : 
first  the  Adramyttian  vessel  [ADUAMYTXiUii] 
wiiich  took  him  from  C.iiSAREA  to  INIyra,  and 
which  was  proliably  a  coasting  vessel  of  no  great 
size  (xxvii.  1-G);  secondly,  the  large  Alexandrian 
corn-ship,  in  which  he  was  wrecked  on  the  coast  of 
Jlalta  (xxvii.  6-xxviii.  1 )  [Melita];  and  thirdly, 
another  large  Alexandrian  corn-ship,  in  which  he 
sailed  from  Malta  by  Sykacuse  and  Rhegium  to 
PuTEoLi  (xxviii.  11-13). 

Again,  the  word  employed  by  St.  Luke,  of  each 
of  these  ships,  is,  with  one  single  exception,  when 
he  uses  vavs  (xxvii.  41),  the  generic  term  irXoluv 
(xxvii.  2,  G,  10,  15,  22,  30,  37,  38,  39,  44,  xxviii. 
11).  The  same  general  usage  prevails  throughout. 
Elsewhere  in  the  .\cts  xx.  13,  38,  xxi.  2,  3,  6)  we 
have  ttKoiov.  So  in  St.  James  (iii.  4),  and  in  the 
Revelation  (viii.  9,  xviii.  17,  19).  In  the  Go.spels 
we  have  irKotov  (jxissim)  or  irKoidpLOV  (Mark  iv. 
3G;  John  xxi.  8).  In  the  LXX.  we  find  ttKoiov 
ised  twenty-eight  times,  and  vavs  uiiTe  times. 
Both  words   generally  correspond   to  the  Hebrew 


SHIP 

^3S  or   n*3S.     In  Jon.  i.  5,  irXoiov  is  used  to 

represent  the  Hebrew  Hi'^pP,  seplnndh,  which, 
from  its  etymology,  appears  to  mean  a  vessel  cov- 
ered with  a  deck  or  with  hatches,  in  opposition 
to  an  open  boat.  The  senses  in  which  ffKd<pos 
(2  Mace  xii.  3,  G)  and  <TKd<pr)  (Acts  xxvii.  16,  32) 
are  employed  we  shall  notice  as  we  proceed.  The 
use  of  Tpiripris  is  limited  to  a  single  passage  in  the 
Apocrypha  (2  Mace.  iv.  20). 

(1.)  Size  uf  Ancient  Ships.  —  The  narrative 
which  we  take  as  our  chief  guide  affords  a  good 
standard  for  estimating  this.  The  ship  in  which 
St.  Paul  was  wrecked  had  276  persons  on  board 
(.\cts  xxvii.  37),  besides  a  cargo  {(popriov)  of  wheat, 
{ib  10,  28);  and  all  these  passengers  seem  to  havp 
been  taken  on  to  Puteoli  in  another  ship  (xxviii.  11 ) 
which  had  its  own  crew  and  its  own  cargo;  nor  is 
there  a  trace  of  any  difficulty  in  the  matter,  though 
the  emergency  was  unexpected.  Now  in  English 
transport-ships,  prepared  for  carrying  troops,  it  is 
a  common  estimate  to  allow  a  ton  and  a  half  per 
man ;  thus  we  see  that  it  would  he  a  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  these  Alexandrian  corn-ships  were  very 
much  smaller  than  modern  trading  vessels.  What 
is  here  stated  is  quite  in  harmony  with  other  in- 
stances. The  ship  in  which  Jo.sephus  was  wi'ecked 
(Vit.  e.  3),  in  the  same  part  of  the  Levant,  had 
600  soul_s  on  lioard.  The  Alexandrian  corn-ship 
described  by  l.ucian  [Navig.  s.  rvla)  as  driven 
into  the  Pirwus  by  stress  of  weather,  and  as  ex- 
citing general  attention  from  its  great  size,  would 
appear  (from  a  consideration  of  the  measurements, 
which  are  explicitly  given)  to  have  measured  1,000 
or  1,200  tons.  As  to  the  ship  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus,  de.scribed  by  Athenreiis  (v.  204),  this  must 
have  been  much  larger;  but  it  would  be  no  more 
fair  to  take  that  as  a  standard  than  to  fake  the 
"Great  ICastern  "  as  a  type  of  a  modern  steamer. 
On  the  whole,  if  we  say  that  an  ancient  merchant- 
ship  might  range  from  500  to  1,000  tons,  we  are 
clearly  within  the  mark. 

(2. )  Steering  Apparatus.  —  Some  commentators 
have  fallen  into  strange  perplexities  from  observing 
that  in  Acts  xxvii.  40  (ras  (evKTtiplas  tuv  Trr/Sa- 
Xioiu  "the  fastenings  of  the  rudders"),  St.  Luke 
uses  7r775aAioi/  in  the  plural.  One  even  suggests 
that  the  ship  had  one  rudder  fasten'ed  at  the  bow 
and  another  fastened  at  the  stern.  We  may  say 
of  him,  as  a  modern  writer  says  in  reference  to  a 
similar  comment  on  a  passage  of  Cicero,  "  It  is 
hardly  po.ssible  that  he  can  have  seen  a  ship." 
The  sacred  writer's  use  of  -n-q^dXia  is  just  like 
Pliny's  use  of  guhernaculn  {II.  N.  xi.  37,  88),  or 
Lucretius's  of  guberna  (iv.  440).  Ancient  ships 
were  in  truth  not  steered  at  all  by  rudders  fastened 
or  hinged  to  the  stern,  but  by  means  of  two  jmd- 
dle-rudders,  one  on  each  quarter,  acting  in  a  row- 
lock or  through  a  port-hole,  as  the  vessel  might  bs 
small  or  large.''  This  fact  is  made  familiar  to  us  in 
classical  works  of  art,  as  on  coins,  and  the  sculptures 
of  Trajan's  Column.  The  same  thing  is  true,  not 
only  of  the  Mediterranean,  but  of  the  early  ships 
of  the  Northmen,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Bayeux 
tapestry.  Traces  of  the  "  two  rudders  "  are  found 
in  the  time  of  Louis  IX.     The  hinged  rudder  first 


o  In  Isaiah  and  Zechariah,  Shiuar,  once  used  by 
each  writer,  is  an  archaism. 

b  Dr.  Wordsworth  gives  a  very  interesting  illustra- 
tion from  Hippolytus,  bishop  of  Portus  (de  Antichr.  9), 


where,  in  a  detailed  allegorical  comparison  of  the 
Church  to  a  ship,  he  says  "  her  two  rudders  are  tht 
two  Testaments  by  which  she  steers  her  course." 


SHIP 

ippaars  on  the  coins  of  our  King  Edward  III. 
There  is  nothing  out  of  harmony  with  this  early 
system  of  steering  in  .lam.  iii.  4,  where  TTTjSaAiov 
occurs  in  the  singular;  fc;r  "the  governor"  or 
steersman  (o  evOvvoou)  would  only  use  one  paddle- 
rudder  at  a  time.  In  a  case  like  that  descrilied  in 
Acts  xxvii.  40,  where  four  anchors  were  let  go  at 
the  stern,  it  would  of  course  he  necessary  to  lash 
or  trice  up  both  paddles,  lest  they  should  interfere 
with  the  ground  tackle.  When  it  became  necess;iry 
to  steer  the  ship  again,  and  the  anchor-ropes  were 
cut,  the  lashings  of  the  paddles  would  of  course  be 
unfastened. 

(3.)  Build  and  Ornaments  of  the  Hull. —  It  is 
probab.J,  fiom  what  has  been  said  about  the  mode 
of  steering  (and  indeed  it  is  nearly  evident  from 
ancient  v\orks  of  art),  that  there  was  no  very 
marked  difference  between  the  bow  (irpdopa,  "  fore- 
ship,"  ver.  .'JO,  'fore  part,"  ver.  41)  and  the  stern 
{■rrpvava,  "  hinder  i)art,"  \er.  41 ;  see  Jlark  iv.  38  ). 
The  -'hold  "  (/coi'\rj,  ''the  siilen  of  the  ship,"  Jonah 
i.  5)  wotdd  present  no  special  peculiarities.  One 
characteristic  ornament  (the  ^crj^'iV/cos,  or  nplzistre), 
rising  in  a  lofty  curve  at  the  stern  or  the  bow,  is 
familiar  to  us  in  works  of  art,  but  no  allusion  to  it 
occurs  in  Scripture.  Of  two  other  customary  orna- 
ments, however,  one  is  probably  implied,  and  the 
second  is  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  account  of  St. 
Paul's  voyage.  That  personification  of  ships,  which 
seems  to  be  instinctive,  led  the  ancients  to  paint  an 
eye  on  each  side  of  the  bow.  Such  is  the  custom 
still  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  indeed  our  own  sail- 
ors speak  of  "the  eyes  "  of  a  ship.  This  gives  viv- 
idness to  the  word  a.vrocpOaAiJ.e'iv,  which  is  used 
(Acts  xxvii.  15)  where  it  is  said  that  the  vessel 
could  not  "bear  up  into"  (literally  "look  at") 
the  wind.  This  was  the  vessel  in  which  St.  Paul 
was  wrecked.  An  ornament  of  that  which  took  him 
on  from  Malta  to  Pozzuoli  is  more  explicitly  re- 
ferred to.  The  "  sign  "  of  that  ship  {irapdarifj.ov, 
Acts  xxviii.  11)  was  Castok  and  Pollux;  and 
the  symbols  of  these  heroes  (probably  in  the  form 
represented  iu  the  coin  engraved  under  that  article) 
were  doubtless  painted  or  sculptured  on  each  side 
of  the  bow,  as  was  the  case  with  the  goddess  Isis 
on  Lucian's  ship  (j;  Trpwpa  riiv  iTrwvufiov  ttjs 
ve^s  6ihv  exovaa  rrjp'laiu  iKaripoidtv,  Ntivig. 
0.  5). 

(4.)  U'nder(/ir(k')-s. —  The  imperfection  of  the 
build,  and  still  more  (see  below,  0)  the  peculiarity 
of  the  rig,  in  ancient  ships,  resulted  in  a  greater 
tendency  than  in  our  times  to  the  starting  of  the 
plaidvs,  and  consequently  to  leaking  and  foundering. 
We  see  this  taking  place  alike  in  the  voyages  of 
Jonah,  St.  I'aul,  and  .Josephus;  and  the  loss  of  the 
fleet  of  ^Eneas  in  Virgil  ("  laxis  laterum  compagi- 
bus  omnes,"  ^fJn.  i.  122)  may  be  adduced  in  illus- 
tration. Hence  it  was  customary  ta  take  «n  board 
peculiar  contrivances,  suitably  called  "  helps  " 
{Bo-qdeiais,  Acts  xxvii.  17),  as  precautions  against 
nuch  dangers.  These  were  simply  cables  or  chains, 
which  in  case  of  necessity  coulii  be  ]iassed  round 
the  frame  of  the  ship,  at  right  angles  to  its  length, 
and  made  tight.  The  process  is  in  the  English 
navy  called  J'l'uppini/,  and  many  instances  could 
3e  given  where  it  has  been  found  necessary  in 
modern  experience.  Ptolemy's  great  ship,  in 
\theni)eus  (/.  c),  carried  twelve  of  these  under- 
eirders  {uTro^ii/uaTa)'  Various  allusions  to  the 
practice  are  to  bo  found  in  the  ordinary  classical 
writers.  See,  for  instance,  Thucyd.  i.  21);  Plat. 
ftt/J.   X.   3,    GIG;   llor.  Od.   i.    14,  G.     But   it   is 


SHIP  3005 

most  to  our  purpose  to  refer  to  the  inscriptions, 
containing  a  complete  inventory  of  the  Athenian 
navy,  as  published  by  Boeckh  ( Urkunden  iiber  dni 
Seewesen  des  Attischen  Sfiiates,  Berl.  1840).  The 
editor,  however,  is  quite  mistaken  in  supposing  (pp. 
133-138)  that  these  undergirders  were  passed  round 
the  body  of  the  ship  froui  stem  to  stern. 

(5.)  Anchors.  —  It  is  probable  that  the  ground 
tackle  of  Greek  and  Roman  sailors  was  quite  as 
good  as  our  own.  (On  the  taking  of  soundings, 
see  below,  12.)  Ancient  anchors  were  similar  in 
form  (as  may  be  seen  on  coins)  to  those  which  we 
use  now,  except  that  they  were  without  tlukes. 
T'wo  allusions  to  anchoring  are  found  in  the  N.  T., 
one  in  a  very  impressive  metaphor  concerning 
Christian  hope  (Heb.  vi.  19).  A  saying  of 
Socrates,  quoted  here  by  Kypke  {ovre  vavv  e^ 
kvh^  ayKvpiov  ovTe  &iov  eK  fj.ias  eXiriSos  dpfii- 
(TaaOai),  niay  serve  to  carry  our  thoughts  to  the 
other  passage,  which  is  part  of  tlie  literal  narrative 
of  St.  Paul's  voyage  at  its  most  critical  point. 
The  ship  in  which  he  was  sailing  had  four  anchrira 
on  board,  and  these  were  all  employed  in  the  night, 
when  the  danger  of  falling  on  breakers  was  immi- 
nent. IJie  sailors  on  this  occasion  anchored  by  tiie 
stern  (eK  Trpvij.vr)s  yixpavres  aryKvpas  reffaapas, 
.\cts  xxvii.  29).  In  this  there  is  nothing  remark- 
alile,  if  there  has  been  time  for  due  preparation. 
Our  own  ships  of  war  anchored  by  the  stern  at 
Copenhagen  and  Algiers.  It  is  clear,  too,  that 
this  was  the  right  course  for  the  sailors  with  whom 
St.  Paul  was  concerned,  for  their  plan  was  to  run 
the  ship  aground  at  daybreak.  The  only  motives 
for  surprise  are  that  they  should  have  been  able  so 
to  anchor  without  preparation  in  a  gale  of  wind, 
and  that  the  anchors  should  have  held  on  such  a 
night.  The  answer  to  the  first  question  thus  sug- 
gested is  that  ancient  ships,  like  their  modern  suc- 
cessors, the  small  craft  among  the  Greek  islands, 
were  in  the  habit  of  anchoring  by  the  stern,  and 
therefore  prepared  for  doing  so.  We  have  a  proof 
of  this  in  one  of  the  paintings  of  Herculaneum, 
which  illustrates  another  point  already  mentioned, 
namely,  the  necessity  of  tricing  up  the  movable 
rudders  in  case  of  anchoring  by  the  stern  (see  ver. 
40).  The  other  question,  which  we  have  supposed 
to  arise,  relates  rather  to  the  holding-ground  than 
to  the  mode  of  anchoring;  and  it  is  very  in- 
teresting here  to  quote  what  an  English  sailing 
book  says  of  St.  Paul's  Bay  in  Malta:  "While 
the  cables  hold,  there  is  no  danger,  as  the  anchors 
will  never  start"  (Purdy's  SaUiny  Directions,  p. 
180). 

(6.)  Musts,  Sails,  Hopes,  and  Yards. — These 
were  collectively  called  aKfvri  or  aKev-fi,  or  (jenr 
(to.  5e  (TvpLTTavTu  cTKevri  Ka\(7Tai,  Jul.  Poll.).  \\'e 
find  this  word  twice  used  for  parts  of  the  rigging 
in  the  narrative  of  the  .Acts  (xxvii.  17,  19).  The 
rig  of  an  ancient  ship  was  more  simple  and  clumsy 
than  that  employed  in  modern  times.  Its  great 
feature  was  one  large  mast,  with  one  large  square 
sail  fastened  to  a  yard  of  great  length.  Such  was 
the  rig  also  of  the  ships  of  the  Northmen  at  a 
later  period.  Hence  the  strain  upon  the  hull,  and 
the  danger  of  starting  the  planks,  were  greater 
than  under  the  present  system,  which  distributes 
the  mechanical  pressure  more  evenly  ovei  the  whole 
ship.  Not  that  there  were  never  more  masts  thau 
one,  or  more  sails  than  one  on  the  same  mast,  lu 
an  ancient  merchantman.  But  these  were  repeu- 
tions,  .so  to  speak,  of  the  same  general  unit  oi  n^. 
In  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  shipwreck  very  expiicii 


3006  SHIP 

mention  is  made  of  tlie  aprf/xdop  (xxvii.  40),  which 
is  undoubtedly  the  "  foresail  "  (not  "  mainsail,"  as 
in  the  A.  V.)-  Such  a  sail  would  be  almost  neces- 
sary in  putting  a  large'  ship  about.  On  that  occa- 
sion it  was  used  in  the  process  of  running  the  vessel 
aground.  Nor  is  it  out  of  place  here  to  quote  a 
Crimean  letter  in  the  Times  (Dec.  5,  1855):  "  The 
'Lord  Eaglan  '  (merchant-ship)  is  on  shore,  but 
taken  there  in  a  most  sailorlike  manner.  Directly 
her  captain  found  he  could  not  save  hei-,  he  cut 
away  his  mainmast  and  mizen,  and  seitiny  a  top- 
sail on  her  foremast,  ran  her  ashore  stem  un." 
Such  a  mast  may  be  seen,  raking  over  the  bow,  in 
representations  of  ships  in  Roman  coins.  In  the 
0.  T.  the  mast  {IcttSs)  is  mentioned  (Is.  xxxiii. 
and  from  another  prophet  (Ez.  xxvii.  5)  we 


Ancient  ship,     From  a  painting  at  Pompeii. 


learn  that  cedar-wood  from  Lebanon  was  sometimes 
used  for  this  part  of  ships.  There  is  a  third  pas- 
gage  (Prov.  xxiii.  34,  73n  tt^^i"))  where  the  top 
of  a  ship's  mast  is  probably  intended,  though  there 
is  some  slight  doulit  on  the  subject,  and  the  LXX. 
take  the  phrase  difti^rently.  Both  ropes  (trxoifia, 
Acts  xxvii.  32)  and  sails  (Iffria)  are  mentioned  in 
the  above-quoted  passage  of  Isaiah;  and  from 
Ezekiel  (xxvii.  7)  we  learn  that  the  latter  were 
often  made  of  Egyptian  linen  (if  such  is  the  mean- 
ing of  (TTpwixvi)).  There  the  word  xctAaoi  (which 
we  find  also  in  Acts  xxvii.  17,  30)  is  used  for  low- 
ering the  sail  from  the  yard.  It  is  interesting  here 
to  notice  that  the  word  viroar^Wofxai,  the  tech- 
nical term  for  furling  a  sail,  is  twice  used  by  St. 
Paul,  and  that  in  an  address  delivered  in  a  seaport 
in  the  course  of  a  voyage  (Acts  xx.  20,  27).  It  is 
one  of  the  very  few  eases  in  which  the  Apostle 
employs  a  nautical  metaj^hor. 

This  seems  the  best  place  for  noticing  two  other 
poin'ts  of  detail.  Though  we  must  not  suppose 
that  merchant-ships  were  haV)itually  propelled  by 
rowing,  yet  sweeps  nuist  sometimes  have  been  em- 
ployed. In  Ez.  xxvii.  29,  oars  (lOltTTS)  are  distinct- 
ly mentioned  ;  and  it  seems  that  oak-wood  from 
Bashan  was  used  in  making  them  (4k  rf/s  Baaa- 
viriSos  iiroiricrav  ras  Kckiras  aov,  iiiid.  6).  Again, 
in  Is.  xxxiii.  21,  ^"^.tp  ^3S  literally  means  "a  ship 

of  oar,"  i.  e.  an  oared  vessel.  Rowing,  too,  is 
prol)ably  implied  in  Jon.  i.  13,  where  the  LXX. 
have  simply  Trap€^td(ovro.  The  other  feature  of 
the  ancient,  as  of  the  modern  ship,  is  the  flag  or 
ffrjuiiou  at  the  top  of  the  mast  (Is.  I.  c,  and  xxx. 
17).  Here  perhaps,  as  in  some  other  respects, 
the  early  Egyptian  paintings  supply  our  best  illus- 
tration. 

(7.)  Elite  oj'  Sriiliny. —  St.  Paui's  \oyages  *'ur- 


SHIP 

nish  excellent  data  for  approxiraatelj  estimatiug 
this;  and  they  are  quite  in  harmony  wuh  what  wa 
learn  fiom  other  sources.  We  must  notice  here, 
however  (what  commentators  sometimes  curiously 
forget),  that  winds  are  variable.  Thus  the  voyage 
lietween  Tk(>.\s  and  Philippi,  accomplished  on 
one  occasion  (Acts  xvi.  11,  12)  in  two  days,  occu- 
pied on  another  occasion  (Acts  xx.  6)  five  days. 
Such  a  variation  might  be  illustrated  by  what  took 
place  almost  any  week  between  Dublin  and  Holy- 
head before  the  application  of  steam  to  seafaring. 
With  a  fair  wind  an  ancient  ship  would  sail  fully 
seven  knots  an  hour.  Two  very  good  instances 
are  again  supplied  by  St.  Paul's  experience:  in  the 
voyages  from  t'sesarea  to  Sidon  (Acts  xxvii  2,  3), 
and  from  Rliegium  to  Puteoli  (Acts  xxviii.  13). 
The  result  given  by  conq)aring  in  these  cases  the 
measurements  of  time  and  distance  con-esponds 
with  what  we  gather  from  Greek  and  Latin  authors 
generally;  e.  r/.,  fi-om  Pliny's  story  of  the  fresh  fig 
produced  by  Cato  in  the  Roman  Senate  before  the 
third  Punic  war:  "This  fruit  was  gathered  fresh 
at  Carthage  three  days  ago :  that  is  the  distance 
of  the  enemy  from  your  walls  "  (Plin.  //.  N.  xv. 
20). 

(8.)  Siiiliiig  before  the  wind,  and  near  the  loind. 
—  The  rig  which  has  been  described  is,  like  the  rig 
of  Chinese  junks,  peculiarly  favorable  to  a  quick 
run  before  the  wind.  We  have  in  the  N.  T.  (Acta 
xvi.  11,  xxvii.  16)  the  technical  term  evdvSpo/nfoi) 
for  voyages  made  under  such  advantageous  condi- 
tions."  It  would,  however,  be  a  great  mistake  to 
suppose  that  ancient  ships  could  not  work  to  wind- 
ward. Pliny  distinctly  says:  "  lisdeni  ventis  in 
contrarium  navigatur  prolatis  pedibus  "  (//.  JV.  ii. 
48).  The  superior  rig  and  build,  however,  of 
modern  ships  enable  them  to  sail  nearer  to  the  wiud 
than  was  the  case  in  classical  times.  At  one  very 
critical  point  of  St.  Paul's  vojage  to  Rome  (Acts 
xxvii.  7)  we  are  told  that  the  ship  could  not  hold 
on  her  course  (which  was  W.  by  S.,  from  Cnidus 
by  the  north  side  of  Crete)  against  a  violent  wind 
(fxri  irpoaeciPTos  r]ixas  rod  aye/j.ov)  Ijlowing  from 
the  N.  \V.,  and  that  consequently  she  ran  down  to 
the  east  end  of  Ckete  [Salmone],  and  worked 
up  under  the  shelter  of  the  south  side  of  the  island 
(vv.  7,  8).  [Fair  Havens.]  Here  the  technical 
terms  of  our  sailors  have  been  employed,  whose 
custom  is  to  divide  the  whole  circle  of  the  compass- 
card  into  thirty-two  equal  parts,  called  points.  A 
modern  ship,  if  the  weather  is  not  very  boisterous, 
will  sail  within  six  points  of  the  wind.  To  an 
ancient  vessel,  of  which  the  hull  was  more  clumsy 
and  the  jards  coidd  not  be  braced  so  tight,  it 
would  be  safe  to  assign  se\en  points  as  the  limit. 
This  will  enable  us,  so  far  as  we  know  the  direction 
of  the  wind  (aiid  we  can  really  ascertain  it  in  each 
case  very  exactly),  to  lay  down  the  tacks  of  the 
ships  in  which  St.  Paul  sailed,  beating  against  the 
wind,  on  the  voyages  from  Philippi  to  Troas  (axp's 
T]liipu3v  TreVre,  Acts  xx.  6),  from  Sidon  to  Myra 
(5(a  rh  Tovs  av^/j-ovs  ilvai  ivavriovs,  xxvii.  3-5), 
from  j\Iyra  to  (Jnidus  (eV  iKavoiS  ri/xfpais  ^paSv- 
ttAoovvt^s,  xxvii.  6,  7),  from  Salmone  to  Fair  Ha- 
vens (/i($Ais  irapaKiySfxivoi,  xxvii.  7,  8),  and  from 
Syracuse  to  Rliegium  {Tepie\d6vTiS,  xxviii.  12. 
13). 

(9.)  Lying-to.  —  This  topic  arises  naturally  out 


a  With  tliis  compare  rbi/  i-ir'  ei^ei'as  hpoixov  in  an 
interesting  pussag?  of  Philo  concerning  ttie  Alex 
auiiriau  ships  {m  Flacc.  p.  968,  ed   fc'raukf  1691). 


SHIP 

of  what  has  preceded,  and  it  is  so  important  in 
reference  to  the  niaLu  questions  connected  with  the 
shipwreck  at  Malta,  that  it  is  liere  made  the  sub- 
ject of  a  separate  section.  A  ship  that  could  make 
progress  on  lier  proper  course,  in  moderate  weathi'r, 
when  sailing  within  seven  points  of  the  wind,  would 
lie-to  in  a  gale,  with  her  length  making  about  the 
same  angle  with  the  direction  of  the  wind.  This 
is  done  when  the  object  is,  not  to  niake  progress  at 
all  hazards,  but  to  ride  out  a  gale  in  safety;  and 
this  is  what  was  done  in  St.  Paul's  ship  when  she 
was  undergirded  and  the  boat  taken  on  board  (Acts 
sxvii.  1-1-17)  under  the  lee  of  Clauda.  it  is  here 
that  St.  Luke  uses  the  vivid  term  avToipdaKfj.e'ii/, 
mentioned  aliove.  Had  the  gale  been  less  violent, 
the  ship  could  easily  have  held  on  her  cuurse.  'I'o 
anchor  was  out  of  the  question ;  and  to  have  drifted 
before  the  wind  would  have  been  to  run  into  the 
fatal  Syrtis  on  the  African  coast.  [QuicivSANUS.J 
Hence  the  vessel  was  (aid-to  ("close-hauled,"  as 
the  sailors  say)  "on  the  starboard  tack,"  i.  e.  with 
her  right  side  towards  the  storm.  The  wind  was 
E.  N.  E.  [EuKoCLYDOx],  the  ship's  bow  would 
point  N.  by  W.,  the  direction  of  drift  (sis  points 
being  added  for  "lee-way")  would  be  W.  by  N., 
and  the  rate  of  drift  about  a  mile  and  a  half 
an  hour.  It  is  from  these  materials  that  we 
easily  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  shipwreck 
nuist    have    taken    place  on   the  coast  of  iMalta. 

[AUKIA.J 

(10.)  Shij/s  Boat. — This  is  perhaps  the  best 
p\ace  for  noticing  separately  the  crKatpt],  which  ap- 
pears prominently  in  the  narrative  of  the  voyage 
(Acts  XKvii.  16,  32).  Every  large  merchant-ship 
must  have  had  one  or  more  boats.  It  is  evident 
that  the  Alexandrian  corn-ship  in  which  St.  Paul 
was  sailing  from  Fair  Havens,  and  in  which  the 
sailors,  apprehending  no  danger,  hoped  to  reach 
Phenice,  had  her  boat  towing  behind.  When 
the  gale  came,  one  of  their  first  desires  nmst  have 
been  to  take  the  boat  on  board,  and  this  was  done 
under  the  lee  of  Clauda,  when  the  ship  was  under- 
girded,  and  brought  round  to  the  wind  for  tiie  pur- 
pose of  lying-to;  but  it  was  done  with  difficulty, 
and  it  would  seem  that  the  passengers  gave  assist- 
ance in  the  task  (ij.6\is  Itrxvcrufxev  TrepiKpare'ii  ye- 
veadat  t)Js  (TKacpris,  Acts  xxvii.  16).  The  sea  by 
this  time  must  have  been  furiously  rough,  and  the 
boat  must  have  been  filled  with  water.  It  is  with 
this  very  boat  that  one  of  the  most  lively  passages 
of  the  whole  narrative  is  comiected.  When  the 
ship  was  at  anchor  in  the  night  before  she  was  run 
aground,  the  sailors  lowered  the  boat  from  the  da- 
vits with  the  selfish  desire  of  escaping,  on  which  St. 
Paul  spoke  to  the  soldiers,  and  they  cut  the  ropes 
(ra  axo'i-via)  and  the  boat  fell  ofi"  (Acts  xxvii.  ;j(#- 
32). 

(II.)  Officers  and  Crew.  —  In  Acts  xxvii.  11 
we  have  both  KuPepvnrrjs  and  vavKA-qpos.  The 
Utter  is  the  owner  (in  part  or  in  whole)  of  the  ship 
or  the  cargo,  receiving  also  (possibly)  the  fares  of 
the  passengers.  The  former  has  the  charge  of  the 
steering.  The  same  word  occurs  also  in  Kev.  xviii. 
17:  Prov.  xxiii.  34;  Ez.  xxvii.  8,  and  is  equivalent 
■o  TTpiiipivs  in  Ez.  xxvii.  2i);  .Ion.  i.  6.  In  .James 
•li.  ■!  o  ivQuuaiv,  "the  governor,"  is  sinijjly  the 
*teersman  for  the  moment.  The  word  for  "  ship- 
men  "  (.Acts  xxvii.  27,  30)  and  "sailors"  (l-iev. 
Kviii.  17)  is  simply  the  usual  term  vavrai-  In  the 
latter  passage  ojxiKos  occurs  for  the  crew,  but  tlie 
^xt  is  iluulitful.  In  Ez.  xxvii.  8,  '.I,  2i!.  27.  2li. 
Mr,  we  have  K'j}ny)\a,Tcn  for  "  those  who  ham  He  the 


SHIP  3007 

oar.  "  and  in  the  same  chapter  (ver.  29)  eTn/Saroi, 
which  may  mean  either  passengers  or  mariners 
The  only  other  passages  which  need  be  noticed 
here  are  1  K.  is.  27,  and  2  Chr.  viii.  18,  in  the 
account  of  Solomon's  ships.  The  former  has  rwv 
TTaiSuy  auTOv  avSpes  vavTiKol  iKavveiv  el5<i- 
Tes  daAaccrav',  the  latter,  TrdtSes  elSons  QaKaff 
aav." 

(12.)  Storms  and  Shipwrecks.  —  The  first  cen- 
tury of  the  Christian  era  was  a  time  of  immense 
traffic  in  the  Mediterranean ;  and  there  must  have 
been  many  vessels  lost  there  every  year  by  ship- 
wreck, and  (perhaps)  as  many  by  foundering.  This 
last  danger  would  be  much  incre.ased  by  the  form 
of  rig  described  above.  Besides  this,  we  must  re- 
member that  the  ancients  had  no  compass,  and  very 
imperfect  charts  and  instruments,  if  any  at  all; 
and  though  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose 
that  they  never  ventured  out  of  sight  of  land,  yet, 
dependent  as  they  were  on  the  heavenly  bodies,  the 
danger  was  much  greater  than  now  in  bad  weather, 
when  the  sky  was  overcast,  and  "  neither  sun  nor 
stars  in  many  days  appeared  "  (.A.cts  xxvii.  20). 
Hence  also  the  winter  season  was  considered  dan- 
gerous, and,  if  possible,  avoided  (ivros  ^5?}  eVicr- 
(pa\ovs  TOv  ttAoos,  5ia  rb  Kal  t7]v  v'r)(TT^iav  ^5tj 
irapi\rj\vQivai,  V-iid.  9).  Certain  coasts  too  were 
much  dreaded,  especially  the  African  Syrtis  {ibid. 
17).  The  danger  indicated  by  breakers  {ibid.  29), 
and  the  fear  of  falling  on  rocks  {rpax^'is  tSttol), 
are  matters  of  course.  St.  Paul's  experience  seema 
to  have  been  full  of  illustrations  of  ail  these  perils. 
We  learn  I'voni  2  Cor.  xi.  2.5  that,  before  the  voy- 
age described  in  detail  by  St.  Luke,  he  had  been 
'•  three  times  wrecked,"  and  further,  that  he  had 
once  lieen  "  a  night  and  a  day  in  the  deep  "  prob- 
ably floating  on  a  spar,  as  was  the  case  with  Jose- 
phus.  These  circumstances  give  peculiar  force  to 
his  using  the  metaphor  of  a  shipwreck  {ivavayr)- 
aav,  1  Tim.  i.  19)  in  speaking  of  those  who  had 
apostatized  from  the  faith.  In  connection  with 
this  general  subject  we  may  notice  the  caution  with 
which,  on  the  voyage  from  Troas  to  Patara  (Acts 
XX.  13-16,  sxi.  1),  the  sailors  anchored  for  the 
(light  during  the  period  of  dark  moon,  in  the  in- 
tricate passages  between  the  islands  and  the  main 
[.Mitylene;  Sajios;  Trogylliuji],  the  evident 
acquaintance  which,  on  the  voyage  to  Rome,  the 
sailors  of  the  Adramyttian  ship  had  with  the  cur- 
rents on  the  coasts  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  (Acts 
xxvii.  2-5)  [Aukamyttiu.m],  and  the  provision 
for  taking  soundings  in  case  of  danger,  as  clearly 
indicated  m  the  narrative  of  the  shipwreck  at 
Malta,  the  measurements  being  apparently  Ae  same 
as  those  which  are  customary  with  us  {0oKicrav 
res  fupov  opyvias  (Ikoctv  ^paxv  Se  dia(rTi}(TavT€s. 
Kal  wdXiv  0o\i(raPTes,  eupov  opyvias  deKairevre^ 
Acts  xxvii.  28). 

(13.)  Boats  on  the  Sen  of  Galilee.  —  There  is  i 
melancholy  interest  in  that  passage  of  Dr.  Kobii.- 
son's  Researches  (ill.  253),  in  which  he  says,  that 
on  his  approach  to  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  he  saw  a 
single  white  sail.  This  was  the  sail  of  the  one 
rickety  boat  which,  as  we  learn  from  other  travellers 
(see  especially  Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  pp.  -lOi- 
401),  alone  remains  on  a  scene  represented  to  us  in 
the  Gospels  and  in  Josephus  as  full  of  life  from  the 

a  *  The"mariners  "(A.  V.)in.Ion   i.  f  (CRv  wl 

ravTi.KoC)  ar°  .simply  those  wUo  fcliuw  the  seiv,  v»Ueth«i 
o.iieers  or  crew.  11 


^^ms 


3008 


SHIP 


tnultitiiile  of  its  fishing-boats/'  In  the  imrnUives 
3f  ihe  call  of  the  dlsciiJes  to  be  "  fisliers  of  men  " 
(Matt.  iv.  18-2-2;  Mark  i.  10-20;  Luke  v.  1-11), 
tliere  is  no  special  iuforniation  concerning  the  cbai-- 
acteristics  of  these  boats.  In  the  account  of  the 
Sturm  and  the  miracle  on  the  lake  (^latt.  viii.  23- 
27;  Mark  iv.  -35-41;  Luke  viii.  22-2-5),  it  is  for 
every  reason  instructive  to  compare  the  three  narra- 
tives; and  we  should  observe  that  Luke  is  more 
technical  in  his  language  than  Matthew,  and  JIark 
than  Luke.  Thus  instead  of  creLa/uLhs  /xeyas  iyev- 
ero  eV  tj7  daAdaaj!  (Matt.  viii.  24),  we  have  Ka- 
Tf/37)  AaiXaip  avffiov  sis  r^v  AifMvriv  (Luke  viii. 
2-i),  and  again  rrS  /cAuSoiyi  rov  vSaros  (ver.  24); 
and  instead  of  ware  rb  Tr\o7ou  KaKvirreadai  we 
have  crvveTrXrjpowTo.  In  Mark  (iv.  -il  ]  we  have 
TOt  Kv/xara.  ine^aWev  eis  rb  ttKowv,  licrre  avrh 
fjSr]  yeuiCecrdaL.  This  Evangelist  also  mentions 
the  ■Kj>o(rKs<paKaiov,  or  boatman's  cushion,*  on 
which  our  Blessed  Saviour  was  sleeping  iv  rij 
■KpvjjLViu  and  he  uses  the  technical  term  ewJiratrej' 
for  the  i!>!iing  of  the  storm.  [I'illow,  Amer.  ed.j 
See  nii.ve  on  this  suliject  in  Smith,  DUsertatioii  on 
the  Guspi-k  (Loud.  18-5-3).  We  may  turn  now  to 
St.  -John.  In  the  account  he  gives  of  what  followed 
the  miracle  of  walking  on  the  sea  (vi.  lC-2-5),  ttAoI- 
ov  and  irKoidpiov  seem  to  be  used  indifferently, 
and  we  have  mention  of  other  irhoidpia.  There 
would  of  course  be  boats  of  various  sizes  <')n  the 
lake.  The  reading,  howe\er,  is  doubtful."^  Finally, 
in  the  solemn  scene  after  the  resurrection  (.Tolni  xxi. 
1-8),  we  have  the  terms  alyiaKos  and  rd  5e|id 
juepr)  Tov  irXoiov,  which  should  be  lioticjed  as  tech- 
nical. Here  again  -kKoIov  and  TrXoidpLov  appear 
to  be  synonymous.  If  we  compare  all  these  pas- 
sasies  with  -losephus,  we  easily  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that,  with  the  large  population  round  the  Lake 
of  Tiberias,  there  must  have  been  a  vast  number 
both  of  fishing-boats  and  pleasure-boats,  and  that 
boat-building  must  Lave  been  an  active  trade  on  its 
shores  (see  Stanley,  Sin.  and  Pal.  p.  307).  The 
term  used  by  Josephus  is  sometimes  irKoiov.,  some- 
times (TKdipos.  There  are  two  passages  in  the 
Jewish  historian  to  which  we  should  carefully  refer, 
one  in  which  he  describes  his  own  taking  of  Tibe- 
rias by  an  expedition  of  boats  from  Tarichaa  (  Vit. 
32,  33,  B.  J.  ii.  21,  §§  8-10).  Here  he  says  that 
he  collected  all  the  boats  on  the  lake,  amounting  to 
230  in  number,  with  four  men  in  each.  He  states 
also  incidentally  that  each  boat  had  a  "pilot"  and 
an-'anchjr."  The  other  passage  describes  the 
opt  rations  of  Vespasian  at  a  later  period  in  the 
same  neighborhood  {B.  J.  iii.  10,  §§1,5,6,9). 
Thise  «f)erations  amounted  to  a  regular  Koman 
Bea  fight:  and  large  rafts  (crxeSiai)  are  mentioned 
betides  tiie  boats  or  aKdcpri. 

(14.)  Merchant-Ships  in  tlte  Old  Ttstament. — 
The  earliest  passages  where  seafaring  is  aHuded  to 
in  the  0.  T.  are  the  following  in  order,  Gen.  xlix. 
13,  in  the  prophecy  of  Jacob  concerning   Zebulun 


a  *  Some  recent  travellers  speak  of  two  and  three,  or 
more,  boats  on  this  lake.  The  number,  at  present, 
varies  at  different  times,  or  else  they  are  not  all  .«eeu 
or  heard  of  by  the  same  traveller.  H. 

b  The  wora  in  I'oUux  is  vnrjpdcrLov,  but  Hesjchius 
gires  npoa-Ke<t>(i\aiov  as  the  equivalent.  See  Kiihu's 
Dote  oil  Jul.  Poll.  Onnm.  i.  p.  59.  (Ed.  Amstel.  1706.) 

<;  So  in  Mark  iv.  36,  "  little  ships,'"  the  true  read- 
me appears  to  be  nko'ia,  not  TrAotapta. 

d  So  in  Dan.  xi.  30,  where  the  same  phrase  ''  ships 
of  ''hittim  ■'  occurs  there  is  no  strictly  corresponding 


SHIP 

(Ka.TOtK-f](T€i  Trap'  ou/jlou  wKoioiv);  Num.  xxiv.  24, 
in  IJaiaaui's  pro[ihecy  (where,  however,  ships  are 
not  mentioned  in  the  LXX.'');  Dent,  xxviii.  08,  ic 
one  of  the  warnings  of  Moses  {anoarpe^ei  ae  Kv- 
pios  els  AiyvTTTOv  iv  ttAoi'ois);  Judg.  v.  17,  in 
Deborah's  Song  (Aaj/  ejy  ri  TrapoiKel  irKoiois'^}- 
Next  after  these  it  is  natural  to  mention  the  illus- 
trations and  descriptions  connected  with  this  sub- 
ject in  Job  (ix.  2(3,  fj  Kai  icrri  vavalv  Xx^^s  o5o£/),  " 
and  in  the  Psalms  (xlvii.  [xlviii.]  7,  iv  Trvev/xaTi 
I3taicj}  '^  auvTpi\psis  Tr\o7a  Qapais,  ciii.  [civ.]  20, 
eVe?  TrAoZa  SMiropevovTai,  cvi.  [cvii.]  23,  ol  Kara- 
(iaivovres  eis  SdAaaaav  iv  irXoiois)-  Prov.  xxiii. 
34  has  already  Ijeen  quoted.  To  this  add  xxx.  19 
(rpi^ovs  vr)os  TrovTonopov(rr]s),  xxxi.  14  (vads  t'u- 
iropivoju.4vri  jxaKpoQiv)-  Solomon's  own  ships, 
which  may  have  suggested  some  of  these  illustra- 
tions (1  K.  ix.  26;''2  Chr.  viii.  18,  ix.  21),  have 
previously  been  mentioned.  We  must  notice  the 
disastrous  expedition  of  Jehoshaphat's  ships  from 
the  same  port  of  Ezion-geber  (1  K.  xxii.  48,  49 ;  2 
Chr.  XX.  36,  37).  The  passages  which  remain  are 
in  the  jjrophets.  Some  have  been  already  adduced 
from  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel.  In  the  former  prophet 
the  general  term  '•  ships  of  Tarshish  "  is  variously 
given  in  the  LXX.,  irXolov  daXdaa-ris-^  (ii-  16), 
TrAoia  Kapx'?^'''^''^  (xxiii.  1,  14),  irXola  ©apais 
(Ix.  9).  I'or  another  allusion  to  seafaring,  see  xliii. 
14.  The  ceielirated  27th  chapter  of  Ezekiel  ought 
to  be  carefully  studied  in  all  its  detail;  and  in  -lo- 
nah  i.  -3-10,  the  following  technical  phrases  (besides 
what  has  been  already  adduced)  should  be  noticed: 
vavKov  (3),  (TVVTpijiqvaL  (4),  iK^oKrjv  inoiriaavTO 
Tcov  aKevdv,  rov  Kovcpiadrjvai  (-5),  Koirdaa  tj  da- 
Xaffcra  (H,  12).  In  Dan.  xi.  40  (o-urax^weTax 
I3aai\evs  rov  Boppa  iv  apfiacn  Kal  iv  i-mTevoi 
Kal  iv  vaval  noAKais)  we  touch  the  suliject  of  ships 
of  war. 

(15.)  Ships  of  ]V(ir  in  ihe  Apocryphn. — Mil- 
itary o[)erations  both  l»y  land  and  water  (ivrri  da- 
\aaar]  Kal  iirl  rfjs  ^Vpas,  1  Mace.  viii.  23,  32) 
are  prominent  snlijects  in  the  books  of  Maccabees. 
Thus  in  the  contract  between  Judas  Macoaba^ua 
and  the  Komans  it  is  agreed  {ibid.  20,  28 )  that  no 
supplies  are  to  be  afforded  to  the  enemies  of  either, 
whetlxer  ctitos,  ovrAa,  apyvpiov,  or  TrAoia.  In  a 
later  passage  (xv.  3)  we  have  more  exphcitly,  in 
the  letter  of  King  Antiochus,  irAoia  iroAeyUUfci  (see 
v.  14),  while  in  2  Mace.  iv.  20  (as  observed  above) 
the  word  rpLT)piis,  "galleys,"  occurs  in  the  account 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  infamous  Jason.  Here  we 
must  not  forget  the  monument  erected  by  Simon 
Maccabfeus  on  his  father's  grave,  on  which,  with 
other  ornaments  and  military  symbols,  were  TrAora 
iiTLyeyKvfxfieva,  €is  rh  deoipe7adai  vnh  wavruv 
rwv  Tz\e6vr(>iv  r^v  QdXaffdav  (1  Macc.  xiii.  29). 
Finally  must  be  mentioned  the  noyade  at  Joppa, 
when  the  resident  Jews,  with  wives  and  children, 
200  in  number,  were  induced  to  go  into  boats  and 
were  drowned  (2  Macc.  xii.  3,  4),  with  the  venge- 

phrase  in  the  LXX.  The  translators  appear  to  have 
read  S^*."]")  and  "'S?''  for  □'^^'l  and  Q\»^  in  thew 
passages  respectively. 

e  The  LXX.  here  read  pt2p,  katun,  "small,"  foi 

D"^^p,  kadim,  "east." 

/  This  Js  perhaps  a  mistake  of  the  copyist,  who  tran 
scribed  from  dictation,  and  mistook  ©apcr<e  fO'  BaXao 


SHIP 

auce  taken  by  Judas  (rhv  fjiev  \tfj.tva  vvKToop  eVe- 
vpy\<fe  KoX  TO.  (TKcLcpr]  KaTi(p\e^f,  ver.  6).  It  seems 
sufficient  simply  to  enumerate  the  otlier  passages  in 
the  Ajwcryplia  where  some  allusion  to  sea-faring  is 
made.  They  are  the  following:  Wisd.  v.  10,  xiv. 
1;  Ecclus.  xxxiii.  2,  xliii.  2-1:;   1  Esdr.  iv.  23. 

(16.)  Nautical  Terms.  —  The  great  repertory  of 
such  terms,  as  used  by  those  who  sjioke  the  Greek 
*  language,  is  the  C/Jo/«"s^/co«  of  .Julius  Pollux;  and 
it  may  be  useful  to  conclude  this  aiticle  by  men- 
tioning a  few  out  of  many  which  are  found  there, 
and  also  in  the  N.  T.  or  LXX.  First,  to  quote 
some  which  have  been  mentioned  above.  We  find 
the  following  both  in  Pollux  and  the  Scriptures : 
(Txoii'ia,  (TKevlj,  KhuSwf,  x^^f^^v,  (pSpriov,  fK0o\r], 
avpTLS,  oiiSev  vTroareW^adai,  ovk  i)v  rhv  i]Kiov 
iBilv,  (TKacpT],  ffKa(pos,  vavKov,  avVTpt^rjvau  6(p- 
daAnhs  birov  Kai  rovi/o/xa  rris  veus  iiriypdcpovai 
(compared  with  Acts  xxvii.  15,  xxviii.  11),  rpax^^s 
alyiaXoi  (compared  with  Acts  xxvii.  20,  40).  Tlje 
following  are  some  which  have  not  been  mentioned 
in  this  article:  audye(x6ai  and  Kardyea-dai  {e.  g. 
Acts  xxviii.  11,  12),  aauiSes  (Ez.  xxvii.  5),  TpSiris 
(Wisd.  V.  10),  ava^niuco  (Jon.  i.  3;  Mark  vi.  51), 
yaArjvr)  (Matt.  viii.  26),  a.fj.(pl0\rjcrrpov  (Matt.  iv. 
18,  Mark  i.  10),  airocpopTia-acrdai  (.A.cts  xxi.  4), 
v-TOTTVfui  (xxvii.  13),  rucpciv  idve/j-os  rvtpwviKSs, 
xxvii.  14),  ayKvpas  KaraT^iveiv  {ayKvpas  e/cret- 
vnf,  ibid.  30),  v^piffT^s  avefj.0?  {vfip^oos,  10, 
Sfipiv,  21),  Trpo(TOKf\\cc  {eiroKeWii),  ibid.  41), 
KoAvfM^Av  (ibid.  42).  SiaXud^icrrjs  ttjs  veiis  (t] 
Trpvfxva  iXu^ro,  ibid.  41).  This  is  an  imperfect 
list  of  the  whole  number;  but  it  may  serve  to  show 
hov?  rich  the  N.  T\  and  I.XX.  are  in  the  nautical 
phraseology  of  the  Greek  Levant.  To  this  must 
be  added  a  notice  of  the  peculiar  variety  and  accu- 
racy of  St.  Luke's  ordinary  phrases  for  sailing  un- 
der different  circumstances,  ttAe'co,  aTOTrAeco,  I3pa5v- 
TrAoe'o),  StaTrKew,  e/CTrAe'o),  KaraizKiw,  viroTrAeca, 
napaTT\4<ji,  eu9t/5po,uea),  vvoTp^x^i  T'apa\iyo/xai, 
cpepofxal,  Sia(p€poij,ai,  dian^paui. 

(17.)  Ai/dwrilitK. — The  [ireceding  list  of  St. 
Luke's  nautical  verbs  is  from  JNIr.  Smitii's  work 
on  the  VotjiKje  and  Shipiorerk  cf  St.  Paul  (Lon- 
don. 1st  ed.  1848,  2d  ed.  18.5G)!  No  other  book 
need  be  mentioned  here,  since  it  has  for  .some  time 
been  recoijnized,  lioth  in  England  and  on  the  Con- 
tinent, as  the  standard  work  on  ancient  shi|)s,  and 
it  contains  a  complete  list  of  previous  books  on  the 
subject.  Kefereiice,  however,  may  be  made  to  the 
memoranda  of  Admiral  Penrose,  incorporated  in 
the  notes  to  tlie  27tb  chapter  of  Conybeare  and 
Howson's  The  Lifa  nnd  t'pistles  oj'  St.  Paid  (Lon- 
don, 2d  ed.  1850).  J.  S.  H. 

*  Many  of  th3  identical  sea-phrases  pointed  out 
above  are  still  in  use  among  the  modern  Greeks, 
''^he  Oi/ofj.aTo\oyioi/  'NauriKOf  (issued  from  the 
Admiralty  office  at  Athens,  1858)  prescribes  the 
nautical  terms  to  be  used  on  board  the  national 
ves-sels.  The  object,  of  coarse,  is  not  to  invent  or 
arbitrarily  impose  such  terms,  but  taking  them 
from  actual  life  to  guard  them  against  extrusion  by 
foreign  words.  ^Ve  subjoin  some  examples  with  the 
English  and  French  definitions  as  triven  in  the 
Catalogue,  together  with  references  to  the  Scrijiture 
places  where  the  same  words  occur  in  the  same 
sense:  iKTeifw  ayKvpav,  elorif/er,  to  hty  out  iiiclior, 
\.cts  xxvii.  30;  afpoo,  enlevtr,  to  hoist,  Acts  xxvii. 
|3;  eaw,  I'lisser  idler,  to  let  i/o,  Acts  xxvii  40; 
♦  a\aa),  (uiiviier  tvM  bas,  to  fowerand  to  strike  S'lil, 
\cU  xxvii.  17,  30;  fn-aipa)  Iffrlov,  hisser  une  voile, 
'c   hois    sail,   i^bid. ;   ai/a^aivai  7Tjr',   dccouvrir   la 


SHISHAK 


yoo9 


'erre,  to  siyht  land,  Acts  xxi.  3,  and  cf.  airoKpinrrm 
yrjv,  a  classical  phrase;  uTroirAe'o),  pass  to  leeward, 
cf.  Acts  xxvii.  4,  7,  and  xxviii.  7 ;  irpoa-op/xl^o/xaL, 
reliicher,  put  into  port,  Mark  vi.  53;  irapa^dWoi , 
nccoster,  to  go  alongside,  to  const,  Acts  xx.  15; 
iKavpco,  nager,  to  pull  in  rowing,  Mark  vi.  48; 
^evKTTipiat,  ics  sunvegardes,  rudder-pendants,  Acts 
xx\ii.  40;  ^o\i^co,  sonder,  to  sound.  Acts  xxvii. 
28;  7]  a-Ko^oK-i),  la  perte,  loss  by  sea,  or,  throw- 
ing overboard ;  iwoKeWo),  faire  echouer,  to 
strand  a  ship,  Acts  xxvii.  41 ;  Siacrd^co,  fnire  le 
sauvetage,  to  rescue,  i.e.  from  shipwreck.  Acts  xxviii. 
1 ;  f/x0L0d^aj,  cLibarquer,  to  ship,  embark,  Act» 
xxviii.  1;  Kov<p'i(co,  alleger,  to  lighten.  Acts  xxviii. 
18 ;  eViSi'Sco,  laisser  porter,  to  bear  aioay,  Acts 
xxvii.  15;  ;^aAaco,  amene.r  un  eanot,  to  lower  a 
boat.  Acts  xxvii.  17,  30.  To  these  we  mi<rht  add 
others.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  sea-phrases  which 
Luke  heard  on  board  the  "Castor  and  Pollux"  may 
l)e  heard  now  among  the  seamen  who  navigate  the 
same  waters. 

The  processes  and  instruments  of  steam-naviga- 
tion render  a  new  terminology  necessary  to  some 
extent  in  that  sphere;  but  for  this  exigency 'the 
Greek  language,  so  wonderfully  plastic,  is  able  to 
provide  within  itself  by  the  use  of  compounds. 

H. 

SHI'PHI  ("'V?^'  [abundant]:  ^a.<paC'C;  [Vat. 
Sac^aA;]  Alex.  2s(f)6tv:  Sephei).  A  Simeonite, 
father  of  Ziza,  a  prince  of  the  tribe  in  the  time  of 
Hezekiah  (1  Chr.  iv.  37). 

SHIPH'MITB,  THE  CpSri^n :  [Vat]  o 
Tov  'S,i(l>viL;  [Rom.]  Alex,  o  r-  '2,i<pvi:  Scjihoiii- 
Ics).  Probably,  though  not  certainly,  the  nati\e 
of  Shepuam.  Zabdi,  the  officer  in  David's  house- 
hold who  had  charge  of  the  wine-making  (1  Chr. 
xxvii.  27),  is  the  only  person  so  distinguished 

G. 

SHIPH'RAH  (nns:ii7  [see  below] :  ^eir- 
(pcipa:  Sephora,  Ex.  i.  15).  The  name  of  one  of 
the  two  midwives  of  the  Hebrews  who  disobeyed 
tlie  command  of  Pharaoh,  the  first  oppressor,  to 
kill  the  male  children,  and  were  therefore  blessed 
(vv.  15-21).  It  is  not  certain  that  they  were  He- 
brews: if  they  were,  the  name  Shiphrah  would  sig- 
nify "brightness"  or  "beauty."  It  has  also  ai: 
I'^gyptian  sound,  the  last  syllable  resemlding  that 
of  Potiphar,  Poti-phra,  and  Hophra,  in  all  which 
we  recognize  the  word  PH-KA,  P-RA,  "the  sun,'' 
or  "  Pharaoh,"  in  composition,  when  alone  written 

in  Heb.  n37"13  :  in  these  cases,  however,  the  V 
is  usual,  as  we  should  expect  from  the  Egyptian 
spelling.    [PUAH.]  K.  S.  P. 

SHIPH'TAN  (]p?tt'  [judicial] -.^alSaeau; 
[Vat.  -0a;  Comp.  Aid.  2a(pTdu:]  Sephtlmn). 
Father  of  Kemuel,  a  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim 
(Num.  xxxiv.  24). 

SHI'SHA  (SW^QI?  [see  Seraiah]  :  27jj8a:  [Vat. 
2a/3a;]  Alex.  Setcra:  Sisa).  Father  of  Elihorejih 
and  .'Vhiah,  the  royal  secretaries  in  the  reign  of 
Solomon  (1  K.  iv.  3).  He  is  apparently  the  same 
as  SiiAVSHA,  who  held  the  same  position  under 
David. 

SHI'SHAK    (pff'ti'a:     Soi/o-a/ci'/t;     [Vat 


«  The  text  in  1  K.  xiy.  26  has    [^K-^ItT,  but  t\»e 
Keri  proposes   pJi7''Ii7. 


8010 


SHISHAK 


Alex.  -Ket/j.'-]   Ses'ic),  king  of  Egypt,  the  .Sheslienk 

I.  of  the  moiiutuents,  first 

Bovei-eij.'M  of  the  Bubastite 

XX I  Id  dynasty.    His  name 

is  tlius   written   in    hiero- 

glypliics. 

Chronology.  —  The  reii,'n 
of  Shishak  offers  the  first 
determined  synchronisms  of 
P^gyptian  and  Hebrew  his- 
tory. Its  chronology  must 
therefore  be  examined.  We 
first  tjive  a  talile  with  the 
Egyptian  and  Hebrew  data 
for  the  chronology  of  the  dynasty,  continued  as 
far  as  the  time  of  Zerali,  who  was  probalily  a  suc- 
cessor of  Shishak,  in  order  to  avoid  repetition  in 
treating  of  the  latter.      [Zekah.] 

Eespecting  the  Egyptian  colunuis  of  this  table, 


SHISHAK 

it  is  only  necessary  to  observe  that,  as  a  date  of  Um 
2.Jd  year  of  Usarken  II.  occii's  on  tlie  mo'aumeuta, 

it  IS  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  sum  of  the 
third,  fourth,  and  fifth  reigns  should  be  29  years 
instead  of  25,  K0  being  easily  changed  to  KE 
(Lepsius,  Konigsbuclt,  p.  85).  We  follow  lepsius" 
ariangement,  our  Tekerut  I.,  for  instance,  being 
the  same  as  his. 

The  synchronism  of  Shishak  and  Solomon,  and 
that  of  Shishak  and  Keholioam,  may  be  nearh 
fixed,  as  shown  in  article  Ch homology,  where  a 
slight  correction  should  be  made  in  one  of  the  data. 
We  there  njentioned,  on  the  authority  of  Champol- 
.  that  an  inscription  bore  the  date  of  the  22d 
year  of  Shishak  (vol.  i.  p.  448  b).  Lepsius,  however 
states  that  it  is  of  the  21st  year,  correcting  Cham- 
poUion,  who  had  been  followed  by  Bunsen  and 
others  (xxii  Aeg.  Konigsdyn.  p.  272  and  note  1). 
It  must,  therefore,  be  supposed  that  the  invasion  ol 


TABLE    OF    FIRST  SIX    REIGNS    OF  DYNASTY   XXII. 


Egyptian   D.\ta. 

Hebrew  Data. 

Manelh.0. 

Monuments. 

Kings.                                  Events. 

Africanus. 

Yrs. 

1.  Sesonchis  .    21 

2.  Otorthon.  .  15 

Eusebius. 

Yrs. 

1.  Sesonchosis     21 

2.  Osortlion  .  .   15 

Order. 
1.  SHESHENK  [I.] 
■>.  USARKEN  [I.] 

High- 
est  Vr. 
XXI. 

Solomon, 
Judah.     Yrs. 

1.  Kehoboam  .    17 

2.  Abij.ah  ....    8 

40  years. 

Israel.      Yrs. 
1.  Jeroboam  .  .  22 

Jerohram  flees  to 

Shish.ik. 
Shishak  20  0)  in- 

.^ades       JudaL. 

Kehoboam  5 

8.-) 

1  Three  others, 

'  j       25 1.  29? 

3.  TEKERUT  [I.] 

4.  USARKEN  [II.] 

5.  SHESHENK  [II.] 

xxm. 

3.  Asa 41 

2.  Nadab 2 

3.  Baasha  ....  24 

4.  Elah 2 

5.  Zimri 

G.  Omri 12 

R.  Takel6thi6    IS 

Takclothis       l;i 

6.  TEKERUT  [11.) 

XIV. 

Judah  took  pl.ace  in  the  20th,  and  not  in  the  21st 
year  of  Shishak.  The  first  ye.ar  of  Shishak  would 
thus  flbout  correspond  to  the  26th  of  Solomon,  and 
the  20th  to  the  5th  of  Kehoboam. 

The  synchronism  of  Zerah  and  Asa  is  more  dif- 
ficult to  determine.  It  seems,  from  the  narrative 
in  Chronicles,  that  the  battle  between  Asa  and  Ze- 
rah took  place  early  in  the  reign  of  the  king  of  Ju- 
dah. It  is  mentioned  before  an  event  of  the  15th 
year  of  his  reign,  and  afterwards  we  read  that 
"  there  was  no  [more]  war  unto  the  five  and  thir- 
tieth year  of  the  reign  of  Asa  "  (2  Chr.  xv.  19). 
This  is  inmiediately  followed  by  the  account  of 
Baa-^ha's  coming  up  against  Judah  "  in  the  six 
and  thirtieth  year  of  the  reign  of  Asa"  (xvi.  1). 
The  latter  two  dates  may  perhaps  be  reckoned  from 
tha  division  of  the  kingdom,  unless  we  can  read  the 
15th  and  16th,«  for  Baasha  began  to  reign  in  the 
3d  year  of  Asa,  and  died,  after  a  reign  of  24 
years,  and  was  succeeded  by  Elah,  in  the  26th  year 
of  Asa.  It  seems,  therefore,  most  probable  that 
the  war  with  Zerah  took  place  early  in  Asa's 
reign,  before  his  15th   year,  and   thus  also  early 


a  The  25th  and  26th  are  out  of  the  question,  unless 
jlie  ceseation  of  war  referred  to  relate  to  that  with 
Berth,  for  it  Is  said   that  Asa  and    Baasha    warred 


in  the  reign  of  Usarken  II.  The  probable  iden- 
tification of  Zerah  is  considered  under  that  name 
[Zk1!Ah]. 

The  chronological  place  of  these  synchronisms 
may  be  calculated  on  the  Egyptian  as  well  as  the 
Biblical  side.  The  Egyptian  data  enable  us  to  cal- 
culate the  accession  of  Shishak  .".pproximatively, 
reckoiiing  downwards  from  the  XlXth  dynasty, 
and  upwards  from  the  XXVIth.  The  first  GO 
years  of  the  Sothic  Cycle,  commencing  b.  c.  1322.' 
apjiear  to  have  extended  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
reign  of  liameses  II.  (o  a  year  after  the  12th  of 
liameses  III.  The  interveninf;  reigns  are  Men- 
ptah  19,  .Sethee  II.  x,  Seth-nekht  .t,  which, added 
to  Rameses  II.  x  and  Kanieses  III.  12,  probaljly 
represent  little  less  than  «50  years.  The  second  CO 
yeai's  of  the  same  Cycle  extended  from  the  reign  of 
one  of  the  sons  of  Ilameses  HI.,  Eameses  VI..  sep-* 
arated  from  his  father  by  two  reigns,  certainly 
short,  one  of  at  least  5  years,  to  the  reign  of  Ra- 
meses XI.,  the  reii;ns  intervening  betv.een  Rame- 
ses VI.  and  XI.  giving  two  dates,  which  make  a 
sum  of  18  years.      We  can  thus  very  nearly  fix  the 


against  each  other  "all   their  davs  "  (1  K.   xv.  16 
32). 

b  We  prefer  the  date  B.  c.  1322  to  M.  Biofs   r    « 
cir.  1300,  for  reasons  we  cannot  here  explain 


SHISHAK 

iccessioii  of  the  XXth  dynasty.    In  the  order  of  the 
kinj;s  we  Ibllow  M.  de  Kouge  [Eltule,  pp.  183  ff.). 
XIX.  2.    Rauiese.'  II.  1 

1322 


1263 


3. 

Meu-ptah 

.    19 

4. 

Sethee   11.      .      . 

X 

5. 

Seth-nekht    . 

X 

12  (14) 

XX.  1. 

Rameses  III. 

2. 

Rameses  IV. 

(5) 

3. 

Rameses  V. 

4. 

Rameses  V]. 

5. 

Rameses  VII.     . 

6. 

Rameses  VIII.    . 

7. 

Rameses  IX. 

•  •'  a6) 

8. 

Rameses  X. 

•     •     (2) 

9. 

Rameses  XI. 

12C2 
1203 


The  commencement  of  the  XXth  dynasty  would, 
on  this  evidence,  fall  about  u.  c.  1280.  The  dura- 
tion of  the  dynasty,  according  to  Manetho,  was  178 
(Eus.)  or  135  (Afr. )  years.  The  highest  dates 
found  give  us  a  sum  of  99  years,  and  the  Sothio 
data,  and  the  circumstance  that  there  were  five  if 
not  six  Itings  after  Kameses  XI.,  show  that  the 
length  cannot  have  been  less  than  120  years. 
Manetho's  numljers  would  l)ring  us  to  b.  c.  1102 
or  114.3,  for  the  end  of  this  dynasty.  The  moiui- 
nieuts  do  not  throw  any  clear  light  upon  the  cln-o- 
nology  of  the  succeeding  dynasty,  the  XXIst:  the 
only  indications  upon  wliich  we  can  found  a  con- 
jecture are  those  of  Manetlio's  lists,  according  to 
which  it  ruled  for  130  years.  This  number,  sup- 
posing that  the  dynasty  overlapped  neither  the 
XXth  nor  the  XXIId,  would  bring  the  commence- 
ment of  the  XXI  Id  and  accession  of  Shishak  to 
B.  c.  972  or  1015. 

Keckoning  upwards,  the  highest  certain  date  is 
that  of  the  accession  of  Psannuitichus  I.,  b.  c.  664. 
He  was  preceded,  probably  with  a  short  interval, 
by  Tirhakah,  whose  accession  was  b.  c.  cir.  695." 
The  beginning  of  Tirhakah's  dynasty,  the  XXA'tii, 
was  probably  719.  For  tlie  XXIVt'h  and  XXIIld 
dynasties  we  have  only  the  authority  of  Manetho's 
lists,  in  which  they  are  allowed  a  sum  of  95  (Afr. 
6  -)-  89 )  or  88  ( Kus.  44  -f  44 )  years.  This  carries 
us  up  to  B.  c.  814  or  8l)7,  supposing  that  the  dy- 
nasties, as  liere  stated,  were  wholly  con.secutive. 
'I'o  tlie  XXIid  dyn;i.sty  the  lists  allow  120  (Afr.) 
or  49  (Kus. )  years.  Tiie  latter  sum  may  be  dis- 
carded at  once  as  merely  tint  of  the  three  reigns 
nientioned.  The  monuments  show  th:x,  the  for- 
nier  needs  correction,  for  tiie  highest  dates  of  the 
individual  kings,  and  the  length  of  the  reign  of 
one  of  them,  Sheshenk  III.,  determined  by  the  Apis 
talilets,  oblige  us  to  raise  its  sum  to  at  least  166 
years.  This  may  be  thus  shown:  1.  Sesonchis  21. 
(1.  Sheshenk  I.  21.)  2.  Osorthou  15.  (2.  Usar- 
ken  I.)  3,  4,  5.  Three  others,  25  (29?).  (3.  Te- 
kerut  I.  4.  Usarken  I(.  23.  5.  Sheshenk  II.) 
6.  Takelothis  13.  (6.  Tekerut  II.  14.)  7,  8,  9. 
Three  others,  42.  (7.  Shesiienk  III.  date  28  reign 
51.  8.  Peshee  2.  9.  Sheshenk  IV.  37).  (21-1- 
15  -(-  29  -f  13  -4-  51  -I-  1  -f-  36  =  166.)  It  seems 
impossible  to  trace  the  mistake  that  has  occasioned 
the  difference.  The  most  reasonable  conjectures 
seem  to  be  either  that  the  first  letter  of  the  sum  of 
the  reign  of  Sheshenk  III.  fell  out  in  some  copy  of 
Manetho,  and  51  thus  was  changed  to  1,  or  that 
Jiis  reign  fell  out  altogether,  and  that  there  was 

«  In  a  previous  article  (Chronology,  i.  447  6)  we 
*»ted  the  first  \ear  of  Tirhakah's  reigu  over  Egypt 
B.  c.  689.  This  date  is  founded  upon  an  interprettition 
rf  an  Apis-tablet,  which  is  not  certain.  It  coucludes 
«jlh  th«  words  ''  done  '"  or  "  made  in  year  21  ?  "  which 


SHISHAK  301] 

another  king  not  mentioned  on  the  monuments. 
The  sum  would  thus  be  166-)- a;,  or  169,  which, 
added  to  our  last  number,  place  the  accession  oi 
Sheshenk  I.  b.  c.  980  or  983,  or  else  seven  years 
later  than  each  of  these  dates. 

The  results  thus  obtained  from  approximative 
data  are  sufficiently  near  the  Biblical  date  to  make  it 
certain  that  Sheshe]ik  I.  is  the  Shishak  of  Solomon 
and  Rehoboam,  and  to  confirm  the  Bible  chronology. 

The  BibUcal  date  of  Sheshenk's  conquest  of  Ju- 
dah  has  been  computed  in  a  previous  article  to  t>e 
B.  c.  cir.  969  [Chronology,  i.  448  6],  and  thia 
having  taken  place  in  his  2()th  year,  his  accession 
would  have  been  b.  c.  cir.  988.  The  progress  of 
Assyrian  discovery  has,  however,  induced  some 
writers  to  propose  to  shorten  the  chronology  by 
taking  35  years  as  the  length  of  Manasseh's  reign, 
in  which  case  all  earlier  dates  ,vould  have  to  be 
lowered  20  years.  It  would  be  premature  to  ex- 
press a  positive  opinion  on  this  matter,  but  it  uuist 
be  remarked  that,  save  only  the  taking  of  Samaria 
by  Sargon,  although  this  is  a  most  important  ex- 
ception, the  Assyrian  chronology  appears  rather  to 
fevor  the  reduction,  and  that  the  Egyptian  clironol- 
ogy,  as  it  is  found,  does  not  seem  readily  reconcil- 
able with  the  received  dates,  but  to  require  some 
small  reduction.  The  proposed  reduction  would 
place  the  accession  of  Sheshenk  I.  b.  c.  cir.  908, 
and  this  date  is  certainly  more  in  accordance  with 
those  derived  fronj  the  Egyptian  data  than  the 
higher  date,  but  these  data  are  too  approximative 
for  us  to  lay  any  stress  upon  minute  results  from 
them.  Dr.  Hincks  has  drawn  attention  to  what 
appears  to  be  the  record,  already  noticed  by 
Brugsch,  in  an  inscription  of  Lepsius'  Tekerut  II., 
of  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  on  the  24th  iNIesori  (4th 
April)  li.  c.  945,  in  the  15th  year  of  his  father. 
The  latter  king  must  lie  Usarken  I.,  if  these  data 
be  correct,  and  the  date  of  Sheshenk  I.'s  accession 
would  be  B.  c.  980  or  981.  But  it  does  not  .seem 
certain  that  the  king  of  the  record  must  be  Teke- 
rut I.  Nor,  indeed,  are  we  convinced  that  the 
eclipse  was  lunar.  (See  Journ.  Sac.  Lit.  January, 
1863 ;   Lepsius,  Denkmiikr,  iii.  bl.  256,  a. ) 

History.  —  In  order  to  render  the  following  ob- 
servations clear,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  a  fevir 
words  on  the  history  of  Egypt  before  the  accession 
of  Sheshenk  I.  On  the  decline  of  the  Theban  line 
or  Rameses  family  (the  XXth  dynasty),  two  royal 
houses  appear  to  have  arisen.  At  Thebes,  the 
high-priests  of  Amen,  after  a  virtual  usurpation,  at 
last  took  the  regal  title,  and  in  Lower  Egypt  a 
Taffite  dynasty  (Manetho's  XXIst)  seems  to  have 
gained  royal  power.  But  it  is  possible  that  there 
was  but  one  line  between  the  XXth  and  XXIId  dy- 
nasties, and  that  the  high-priest  kings  belonged  to 
the  XXIst.  The  origin  of  the  royal  Une  of  whjch 
Sheshenk  I.  was  the  head  is  extremely  obscure. 
Mr.  Birch's  discovery  that  several  of  the  names  of 
the  family  are  Shemitic  has  led  to  the  supposition 
that  it  was  of  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  origin.  Shi- 
shak, ptT'^tp,  may  be  compared  with  Sheshak, 
"JJ^'^^'i  a  name  of  Babylon  (rashly  thought  to  be 
for  Baliel  by  Atbash),  Usarken  has  been  conipaietl 
with  Sargon,  and  Tekerut,  with  Tiglath  in  Tiglath- 


we  formerly  read,  as  had  been  preyiou.sly  done,  "com- 
pleting 21  years,"  referring  the  number  to  tlie  life  ol 
the  buUj  not  to  the  ye,ar  of  the  king  in  wl  kh  the  tab- 
let was  executed  or  completed.  (See  the  text  in  l*p 
sill"    Kunigsbuc/i,  p.  96.) 


5012 


SHISHAK 


Pileser.  If  there  were  any  doulit  as  to  these  iden- 
tifications, some  of  which,  as  tlie  second  and  third 
cited,  are  certaiidy  conjectural,  the  name  Namuret. 
Nimrod,  which  occurs  as  that  of  princes  of  tliis 
line,  would  afford  coiiclusi\e  evidence,  and  it  is 
needless  here  to  compare  other  names,  though  those 
occurring  in  the  genealogies  of  the  dynasty  given  by 
Lepsius.  well  merit  the  attention  of  Semitic  stu- 
dents {xxii.  Aey.  Koniysdyn.  and  Kdnirjshuch). 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  name  Nimrod,  and 
the  designation  of  Zerah  (perhaps  a  king  of  this 
line,  otherwise  a  general  in  its  service)  as  "the 
Cushite,"  seem  to  indicate  that  the  family  sprang 
from  a  Cushite  origin.  They  m.ay  possildy  have 
been  connected  with  the  WASHUWASHA,  a 
Shemitic  nation,  apparently  of  Libyans,  for  Te- 
kerut  II.  as  Prince  is  called  "great  chief  of  the 
MASHUWASHA."  and  also  "  great  chief  of  the 
MATU,"  or  mercenaries;  but  they  can  scarcely 
have  been  of  this  people.  Whether  eastern  or 
western  Cushites,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any 
evidence  in  favor  of  their  having  been  Nigritians, 
and  as  there  is  no  trace  of  any  comiection  between 
them  and  the  XXVth  dynasty  of  Ethiopians,  they 
must  rather  be  supposed  to  be  of  the  eastern 
branch.  Their  names,  when  not  Egyptian,  are 
traceable  to  Shemitic  roots,  which  is  not  the  case, 
as  far  as  we  know,  with  the  ancient  kings  of  Ethi- 
opia, whose  civilization  is  the  same  as  that  of  Egypt. 
We  find  these  foreign  Shemitic  names  in  the  fam- 
ily of  the  high-priest  king  Her-har,  three  of  whose 
sons  are  called  respectively,  M.\SAH.\RATA, 
MASAKAHAKATA,  and  MATEN-NEH,  al- 
though the  names  of  most  of  his  other  sons  and 
those  of  his  line  appear  to  be  Egyptian.  This  is 
not  a  parallel  case  to  the  preponderance  of  Shem- 
itic names  in  the  line  of  the  XXI Id  dynasty,  but  it 
warns  us  ai^ainst  too  positive  a  conclusion.  M.  de 
Rou!X(?,  instead  of  seeing  in  those  names  of  the 
XXIId  dynasty  a  Shemitic  or  .Vsiatio  origin,  is  dis- 
posed to  trace  the  line  to  that  of  the  high-priest 
kings.  Manetho  calls  the  XXIId  a  dynasty  of  Bu- 
bastites,  and  an  ancestor  of  the  priest-king  dy- 
nasty l)ears  the  name  Meree-bast,  "  beloved  of  Bu- 
bastis."  Both  lines  used  Shemitic  names,  and  both 
held  the  hiuh-priesthood  of  Amen  (comp.  Etude  siir 
uiie  Slek  E(jyptienne,  -203,  204).  This  evidence 
does  not  seem  to  us  conclusive,  for  policy  may  have 
induced  the  line  of  the  XXIId  dynasty  to  effect  in- 
termarriages with  the  family  of  the  priest-kings,  and 
to  assume  their  functions.  The  occurrence  of  Shem- 
itic names  at  an  earlier  time  may  indicate  nothing 
more  than  Shemitic  alliances,  but  those  alliances 
might  not  improbably  end  in  usurpation.  Lepsius 
gives  a  genealogy  of  Sheshenk  I.  from  the  tablet  of 
Har-psen  from  the  Serapeum,  which,  if  correct,  de- 
cides the  question  {xxii.  Koniijsdyn.  pp.  2(57-209). 
In  this,  .Sheshenk  I.  is  the  son  of  a  chief  Namuret, 
fl  hose  ancestors,  excepting  his  mother,  who  is  called 
"  royal  mother,  "  not  as  Lepsius  gives  it,  "  royal 
daughter  "  {Etude,  etc.,  p.  21)3,  note  2),  are  all  un- 
titled persons,  and,  all  but  the  princess,  bear  foreign, 
apparently  Shemitic,  names.  But,  as  M.  de  Roug<^ 
observes,  this  genealoscy  cannot  be  conclusively  m.ade 
out  from  the  tablet,  though  we  think  it  more  prob- 
able than  he  does  {Etude,  p.  2()-3,  and  note  2). 

Sheshenk  I.  on  his  accession,  must  have  found 
the  state  weakened  by  internal  strife,  and  deprived 
5f  much  of  its  foreign  influence.  In  the  time  of 
ihe  later  kings  of  the  Ranieses  family,  two,  if  not 
three,  sovereigns  had  a  real  or  titular  aiffhority: 
but  befori'  the  accession  of  Sheshenk  it  is  probable 


SHISHAK 

that  their  lines  had  been  united:  certainly  towardi 

tlie  close  of  the  XXIst  dynasty  a  Pharaoh  was  pow- 
erful enough  to  lead  an  expedition  in:o  Palestine 
and  capture  Gezer  (1  K.  ix.  16).  Sheshenk  took 
as  the  title  of  his  standard,  "  He  who  attains 
royalty  by  imiting  the  two  regions  [of  Egypt]." 
(De  Roug(?,  Etude,  etc.,  p.  204;  Lepsius,  Kdniys- 
bud/,  xliv.  567  A,  a.)  He  himself  probably  mar- 
ried the  heiress  of  the  Rameses  family,  while  his 
son  and  successor  Usarken  appears  to  have  taken 
to  wife  the  daughter,  and  perhaps  heiress,  of  the 
Tanite  XXIst  dynasty.  Prob.ably  it  was  not  until 
late  in  his  reign  that  he  was  able  to  carry  on  the 
foreign  wars  of  the  earlier  king  who  captured  Gezer. 
It  is  observal)le  that  we  trace  a  change  of  dynasty 
in  the  policy  that  induced  Sheshenk  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  reign  to  receive  the  fugitive  .Jeroboam 
(1  K.  xi.  40).  Although  it  was  probably  a  con- 
stant practice  for  the  kings  of  Egypt  to  show  hos- 
pitality to  fugitives  of  importance,  Jeroboam  would 
scarcely  have  lieen  included  in  their  class.  Proba- 
bly, it  is  expressly  related  that  he  fled  to  Shishak 
because  he  was  well  received  as  an  enemy  of  Solomon. 
We  do  not  venture  to  lay  any  stress  upon  the 
LXX.  additional  portion  of  1  K.  xii.,  as  the  narra- 
tive there  given  seems  irreconcilable  with  that  of 
the  previous  chapter,  which  agrees  with  the  j\las. 
text.  In  the  latter  chapter  Iladad  (LXX.  Ader) 
the  Edomite  flees  from  the  slauijhter  of  his  people 
by  Joab  ajid  David  to  Egypt,  and  marries  the  elder 
sister  of  Tahpenes  (LXX.  Thekemina),  Pharaoh's 
queen,  returning  to  Idimifea  after  the  death  of 
David  and  .Joab.  In  the  additional  portion  of  the 
former  chajiter,  .Jeroboam  —  already  said  to  have 
fled  to  Shishak  (LXX.  Susacim)  —  is  married  after 
Solomon's  death  to  Ano,  elder  sister  of  Thekemina 
the  queen.  Between  Hadad's  return  and  .Solomon's 
death,  probably  more  than  thirty  years  elapsed, 
certainly  twenty.  Besides,  how  are  we  to  account 
for  the  two  elder  sisters  V  Moreover,  Shishak's 
queen,  his  only  or  principal  wife,  is  called  KAR.l- 
A^L\,  which  is  more  remote  from  Tahpenes  or 
Thekemi  na .      [T  a  h  r  k  n  es.  ] 

The  king  of  Egypt  does  not  seem  to  have  com- 
menced hostilities  during  the  powerful  reign  of 
Solomon.  It  w.as  not  mitil  the  division  of  the 
tribes,  that,  probal)ly  at  the  instigation  of  .Jeroljoam, 
he  attacked  Rehoboam.  The  following  particulars 
of  the  war  are  related  in  the  Bilde:  "In  the  fifth 
year  of  king  Rehoboam,  Shishak  king  of  Egypt 
came  up  against  Jerusalem,  because  they  had  trans- 
gressed against  the  Lord,  with  twelve  hundred 
ch.ariots,  and  threescore  thousand  horsemen :  and 
the  people  [were]  without  number  that  came  with 
him  out  of  Egypt;  the  Lubim,  the  Sukkiim,  and 
the  (.'ushim.  And  he  took  the  fenced  cities  which 
[pertAined]  to  Judali,  and  came  to  Jerusalem " 
(2  Chr.  xii.  2-4).  Shishak  did  not  pillage  Jerusa- 
lem, but  exacted  all  the  treasures  of  his  city  from 
Rehoboam,  and  apparently  made  him  tributary 
(5,  9-12,  esp.  8).  The  narrative  in  Kings  men 
tions  only  the  inv.osion  and  the  exactii>n  (1  K.  xiv. 
25,  26).  The  strong  cities  of  Rehoboam  are  thus 
enumerated  in  an  earlier  passage:  "And  Rehoboam 
dwelt  in  Jerusalem,  and  built  cities  for  defense  in 
-ludah.  He  built  even  Beth-lehem,  and  Etam, 
and  Tekoa,  and  Beth-zur,  and  Shoco,  and  Adul- 
1am,  and  Gath,  and  Mareshah,  and  Ziph,  and  Ado- 
raim,  and  Lachish,  and  Azekah,  and  Zorah,  .xnd 
.\ijaIon,  and  Hebron,  which  [are]  in  Judah  and  il 
Benjamin  fenced  cities  "  (2  Chr.  xi.  5-10). 


SHISHAK 

Shishak  has  left  a  record  of  this  expedition, 
sculptured  on  the  wall  of  the  great  Temple  of  El- 
Kamak.  It  is  a  list  of  the  countries,  cities,  and 
tribes,  couquered  or  ruled  liy  him,  or  trilnitary  to 
him.  In  this  list  Champollion  recognized  a  name 
which  he  translated,  as  we  shall  see,  incorrectly, 
"  the  kingdom  of  Judah,"  and  was  thus  led  to  trace 
the  names  of  certain  cities  of  Palestine.  The  docu- 
ment has  since  been  more  carefidly  studied  liy  Dr. 
Brugsch,  and  with  less  success  by  Dr.  Blau.  On 
account  of  its  great  importance  as  a  geographical 
record,  we  give  a  full  transcription  of  it. 

There  are  two  modes  of  transcribing  Hebrew  or 
eognate  names  written  in  hieroi:ly|)hics.  They  can 
either  be  rendered  by  the  Knglisli  letters  to  which 
the  hieroglyphics  correspond,  or  by  the  Hebrew 
etters  for  which  thev  are  known  from  other  in- 


SHISHAK 


3013 


stances  to  be  used.  The  former  mode  in  perhaps 
more  scientific;  the  latter  is  more  useful  for  the 
present  investigation.  It  is  certain  that  the  Egyp- 
tians employed  one  sign  in  preference  for  H,  and 

another  for  H,  but  we  cannot  prove  that  these  signs 
had  any  difference  when  used  for  native  words, 
though  in  other  cases  it  seems  clear  that  there 
was  such  a  difference.  We  give  the  list  transcribed 
by  both  methods,  the  first  as  a  check  upon  the 
second,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  M.  de  Roug^'.i 
comparative  alphabet,  by  far  the  most  satisfactory 
yet  published,  though  in  some  parts  it  may  ba 
questioned  (Rtrue  Archeoloyique,  N.  S.  xi.  351- 
3.54).  These  transcriptions  occupy  the  first  two 
columns  of  the  table,  the  third  contains  Dr. 
Brugsch's  identification,  and  the  fourth,  our  own." 


THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  LIST  OF  SHESHENK   I. 


No. 

Transcr.  in  English 
Letters. 

Transcr.   in    Hebrew 

Letters. 

Brugsch's  Identification. 

Our  Identification. 

13 

ReBATA 

snsub 

Rabbith. 

Rabbith  ? 

14 

TAANKAU 

iSD3rsr2 

Taanach. 

Taanach. 

15 

SHeNeMA-AA 

SS2?J23K? 

Shunem. 

Shunem. 

16 

BAT-SUeNRA.\ 

SH-i3ti'  nsa 

Beth-shan 

17 

KeHeBAA 

ss^nb 

Rehob. 

Rehob. 

18 

UePURMAX 

ss^bi2n 

Haphraim. 

Haphraim. 

19 

ATeRMA 

S!2b-TS 

Adoraim. 

Adoraim. 

21 

SHUATEE. 

•  iis^k; 

22 

MAHANMA 

37a;sn2?a 

Mahanaim. 

Mahanaim. 

23 

KeBAXNA 

S3r3p 

Gibeoa. 

Gibeon. 

24 

BAT-HUAReN 

ibwin  ns3 

Beth-horon. 

Beth-horon. 

25 

KATMeT 

n?iisp 

Kedemoth. 

Kedemoth. 

26 

AYUReN 

]bvs 

Aijalon. 

Aijalon. 

27 

MAKeTAU 

1«13Pn 

Megiddo. 

Megiddo. 

28 

ATEERA 

sbns 

Edrei  ? 

29 

YUTeH-MARK 

fbi'a  mv 

Kingdom  of  JudabT 

31 

HAlNeM 

mssn 

Anem  ? 

32 

AARANA 

sss-ir 

Eglon. 

33 

BARMA 

s:^bs2 

Bileam,  Ibleam. 

Bileam,  Ibleam. 

34 

TATPeTeR 

bn^-rsT 

\ 

35 

A.  H.  M. 

•a-n-s 

36 

BAT-AARMeT 

n^sbi:  ns3 

Alemeth. 

Alemeth,  Almon. 

37 

KAKAREE 

"^bspsp 

Ua-kikkar  (Circle  of  Jordan* 

38 

SHAUKA 

SpiStL' 

Shoco. 

Shoco. 

39 

BAT-TePU 

^^v^  ns3 

Beth-Tappuah. 

Beth-Tappuah. 

40 

ABARAX 

ssbsns 

Abel. 

45 

BAT-TAB  .  . 

•  •  3ST  nS3 

. 

53 

NUPAR 

bS213 

54 

.  PeTSHAT 

nstri!:. 

55 

Pe-KeTeT? 

?  ni022 

56 

ATMAA 

ss»-rs 

Edom 

Edom? 

57 

TARMEM 

c^^bsT 

Zalmonah  ? 

58 

.  ..RR.A 

s*.^^... 

a  The  list  of  Shishak  in  the  original  hieroglyphics 
3  published  by  Roselliui,  Monnmenti  Heali,  No. 
ixlviii.  ;  Lepsius,  Dfnkni alfr ,  Abtli.  iii.  bl.  252;  and 
jirugsch,  Geoi:r.  Insrhr.  ii  tuf.  xxi-  ;  and  commented 


upon  by  Brugsch  (li.  pp.  56  ff.)  and  Dr.  Blau  (^Zeit 


schrifl.    d.%Deutsc/i.    Morgenldnd.    GeseW -Jt. 
233  ff.) 


XT        PP 


3014 


SHISHAK 


No. 

Traiiscr.  in   English 
liCtters. 

Trapper,    in  -Hebrew 
Letteis. 

Brugsch's  Identification. 

Our  Ideiitificatiofi. 

59 

. .RTAA 

SSTb  •  • 

Tirzah  ? 

64 

.  .  APeN 

]!:«•• 

65 

PeAAMAK 

pV72V^ 

66 

AA-AATeSIAA 

SSttTSWr 

Azem. 

Azem,  or  Ezem? 

67 

ANARA 

«bSDS 

68 

PeHAKRAA 

ssbpsnc 

Ha^rites. 

Hagarites. 

69 

FeTYDSHAA 

ssa^vns 

.     . 

Letusiiim 

70 

ARAHeReR 

bbnsns 

U 

PelleKRAA 

ssbpn«D 

Hagarites 

Hagarites. 

72 

MeRSARAMA 

raNnSDna 

Cf.  Salma  ? 

73 

SHEBPeReT 

nb^w 

Shephelah  ? 

Shephelah? 

74 

NeKBeREE 

^bms 

75 

SHeBPeRet 

nhnw 

Shephelah  ? 

Shephelah  ? 

76 

WARAKEET 

n^rs-iST 

77 

PeHeKRAX 

ssbpns 

Hagarites. 

HagaritM. 

78 

NAABAYT 

n^S21^2 

Nebaloth. 

79 

AATeTMAA 

ssan^ 

Tema? 

80 

TePKeKA 

SPP=T 

81 

MA  .  A  .  . 

•  •  S  •  372 

i 

82 

TA.  .  .  . 

si:j 

83 

KANAA 

SS3S3 

Eenites? 

84 

PeNAKBD 

"in3s:5 

Negeb. 

Negeb. 

85 

ATeM-Xe  Te  2-HeT 

?nnn:i3!2T27 

I 

Azem,  or  Embi. 

86 

TASHTNAU 

isa-rti'Sta 

87 

PellKARA 

sbspnD 

Hagarites. 

Hagarites. 

88 

SHNAYAA 

ss'^siri? 

89 

HAKA 

spwn 

90 

PeNAKBU 

in3S3D 

Negeb. 

Negeb. 

91 

WAHTDRKA 

ssbinnsT 

92 

PeNAKBU 

132X22 

Negeb. 

Negeb. 

93 

ASH-UeTA 

snntt^s 

94 

PeHellREE 

"'binD 

Hagarites. 

Hagarit««. 

95 

IIANEENYAU 

1S^3^2Sn 

96 

PeHeKRAD 

iwbans 

Hagarites. 

HagaritM. 

97 

ARKAT 

ispbw 

98 

MERTMAM 

csmia 

Duma? 

99 

UANANYEE 

^•^^SDsn 

100 

MERTRA-AA 

sssnna 

Cf.  Eddara.* 

101 

PeUeKeR 

bins 

Hagarites. 

Hagarites. 

102 

TRUAN 

"isibn 

103 

HEETBAA 

WS3^^^ 

Adbeel? 

104 

SIleRNeRVM 

csb^btr? 

105 

IlEETBAA 

wsnT^n 

Adbeel? 

106 

TEEWAXEE 

\'nsTi 

107 

HAKeRMA  or 
HAReKMA 

27abpsn  I 
S'apbsn  > 

Kekem  (Petra)? 

108 

aXkataX 

ssisbi? 

Eldaah  ? 

109 

RABAT 

nN3sb 

Beth-lebaoth,  Lebaotb. 

Beth-lebaoth,  Lebaoth ' 

Rabb^ 

no 

aar.\taXy 

^NMisb^: 

And. 

Eldaah? 

m 

NeBPTeBel 

n2tD33 

SHISHAK 


30.15 


Transcr.  in   English 
''*'•               Letters. 

Transcr.    in   Heltrew 
Letters. 

Brugschs  Identification. 

Our  Identification. 

112 

YURAHMA 

S'nns-m 

Jerahmeelites  ? 

116 

MeREE  .  M 

c-  ^^n 

117 

MeRTKA-AA 

sssTnn 

Cf.  Eddara  ? 

118 

PeBYAl 

ss-'ns 

119 

MAHKAX 

ss3n3JD 

Maachah  ? 

120 

. ARYUK 

-[Vns  • 

121 

FeRTMA-AA 

ssi?nn-iD 

122 

MeRBARA 

S-iS2na 

123 

BPAR-RATA 

STsnbsn 

124 

BAT-A-AXT 

nvv  nsa 

Beth-anoth. 

Beth-anoth,  or  Eeth-anath* 

125 

SHeRUATAU 

isnsnnri? 

Sharulien  ? 

126 

ABMATeN 

^ni^ms 

127 

KeRNAi 

ws2b: 

Golan  T 

128 

MeRMA  .  . 

•  •  S!2n!2 

129 

.  .  RHeT 

nm  •  • 

130 

. . . RAA 

ss-i  •  •  • 

131 

MA  ...  . 

....  27  J3 

132 

AR 

••••bs 

133 

YURA  .  .  . 

•  •  •  sbi> 

The  following  identifications  are  so  evident  tliat 
it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  them,  and  they  may 
be  made  the  basis  of  our  whole  investigation:  Nos. 
U,  22,  24,  26,  27,  38,  39.  It  miglit  appear  at 
first  sight  that  there  was  some  geographical  order, 
but  a  closer  examination  of  these  few  names  shows 
that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  all  that  we  can  infer 
is,  that  the  cities  of  each  kingdom  or  nation  are  in 
general  grouped  together.  The  forms  of  tlie  names 
show  that  irregularity  of  the  vowels  that  charac- 
terizes the  Egyptian  language,  as  may  he  seen  in 
the  different  modes  in  which  a  repeated  name  is 
written  (Nos.  68,  71,  77,  87,  94,  96,  101).  The 
consonants  are  used  \ery  nearly  in  accordance  with 
tlie  system  upon  which  we  liave  transcribed  in  the 
second  column,  save  in  the  case  of  the  Egyptian 

K,   which  seems  to   be    indifferently   used   for  "^ 

and   7. 

There  are  several  similar  geographical  lists, 
dating  for  the  most  part  during  the  period  of  the 
Empire,  but  they  differ  from  this  in  presenting  few, 
if  any,  repetitions,  and  only  one  of  them  contains 
names  certainly  the  same  as  some  in  the  present. 
They  are  lists  of  countries,  cities,  and  tribes,  form- 
ing the  Egyptian  Empire,  and  so  far  records  of 
conquest  that  any  cities  previously  taken  by  the 
Pharaoh  to  whose  reign  they  belong  are  mentioned. 
The  list  which  contains  some  of  the  names  in 
Sheshenk's  is  of  Thothmes  III.,  sixth  sovereign  of 
the  XVIIIth  dynasty,  and  comprises  many  names  of 
cities  of  Palestine  mainly  in  the  outskirts  of  the 
Israelite  territory.  It  is  important,  in  reference  to 
this  list,  to  state  that  Thothmes  III.,  in  his  2:jd 
year,  had  fought  a  battle  with  confederate  nations 
«ear  Megiddo,  whose  territories  the  list  eiuunerates. 
I'he  narrative  of  the  expedition  fully  establishes 
the  identity  of  this  and  other  towns  in  the  list  of 
Shishak.  It  is  given  in  the  document  known  as 
.,he  Statistical  Tablet  of  El-Karnak  (Birch,  "  An- 
4ali  of  Thothmes   III.,"   Archxohgin,  1853;    Ue 


Roug^,  Rev.  Arch.  N.  S.  xi.  347  ff.;  Brugsch, 
Gevgr.  Inschr.  ii.  p.  32  ff.).  The  only  general 
result  of  the  comparison  of  the  two  lists  is,  that 
in  the  later  one  the  Egyptian  article  is  in  two 
cases  prefixed  to  foreign  names.  No.  56,  NEKBU, 
of  the  list  of  Thothmes  111.,  being  the  same  as 
Nos.  84,  90,  92,  PeNAKBU  of  the  list  of  Shishak; 
and  No.  105,  AAMeKU,  of  the  former,  being  the 
same  as  No.  65,  PeAAMAK,  of  the  latter. 

We  may  now  commence  a  detailed  examination 
of  the  list  of  Shishak.  No.  13  may  correspond  to 
Kabbith  in  Issachar.  No.  14  is  certainly  Taanach, 
a  Levitical  city  in  the  same  tribe,  noticed  in  the 
inscription  of  Thothmes  commemoratini;  the  cam- 
paign above  mentioned,  in  some  connection  with 
the  route  to  Megiddo:  it  is  there  written  TA- 
ANAK.^.  No.  15  is  probably  Shunem,  a  town 
of  Issachar:  the  form  of  the  hieroglyjihic  name 
seems  to 'indicate  a  dual  (comp.  Nos.  18,  19,  22), 
and  it  is  remarkable  that  Shunem  has  been  thought 

to  be  originally  a  dual,  D3^U7  for  W^^'^  (Ges. 
Thes.  s.  v.).  No.  16  is  supposed  by  Ur.  Brugsch 
to  be  Beth-shan;  but  the  final  letter  of  the  Egyp- 
tian name  is  wanting  in  the  Hebrew.  It  was  a 
city  of  Manasseh,  but  in  the  tribe  of  Issaih.ir 
No.  17  is  evidently  Kehob,  a  Levitical  city  in 
Asher;  and  No.  18  Haphraim,  a  town  in  Issachar 
No.  19  seems  to  be  Adoraim,  one  of  Rehoboam's 
strong  cities,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah:  Adullani  is 

out  of  the  question,  as  it  commences  with  y,  and 
is  not  a  dual.  No.  21  we  cannot  explain.  No.  22 
is  Mahanaim,  a  Levitical  city  in  Gad.  No.  23  is 
Gibeon,  a  Levitical  city  in  Benjamin.  No.  24  is 
Beth-horon,  which,  though  counted  to  Ephraim, 
was  on  the  boundary  of  Benjamin.  It  was  as- 
signed to  the  I.«vites.  The  place  consisted  of  two 
towns  or  villages,  both  of  which  we  mav  suppose 
are  here  intended.  No.  25  is  evidently  the  l.ie- 
vitical  city  Kedemoth  in  Reuben,  ar/  No.  26, 
Aijalou,  also   Levitical,  in  Dan.     No.  2?    .a  the 


3016 


SHISHAK 


famous  iMegiddo,  which  in  the  Statistical  Tablet  of 
Thotlinies  III.  is  written  IMAKeTA,  and  in  the 
same  kincr's  list  AIAIveTEK,  but  in  the  intro- 
ductory title  MAKeTA.  It  was  a  city  ol  the 
western  division  of  Manasseh.  No.  28  may  per- 
haps be  Edrei,  in  trans-Jordanite  JManasseh,  though 

the  sign  usually  employed  for  V  is  wanting.  No. 
2.4  is  the  famous  name  which  Chauipollinu  read 
'■the  kingdom  of  .ludah."  To  this  Dr.  Erugsoh 
objects,  (1)  that  the  name  is  out  of  place  as  fol- 
lowing some  names  of  towns  in  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  as  well  as  in  that  of  Israel,  and  preceding 
others  of  both   kingdoms;   (2)   that  the  supposed 

equivalent  of  kingdom  (MARK,  "7^^^)  does  not 

satisfactorily  represent  the  Hebrew  71^3/^,  but 

corresponds  to  Tfytt;  and  (.3)  that  the  supposed 
construction  is  inadmissible.  He  proposes  to  read 
^7X271  "TTn''  as  the  name  of  a  town,  which  he 
does  not  find  in  ancient  Palestine.  The  position 
does  not  seem  to  us  of  much  consequence,  as  the 
list  is  evidently  irreuular  in  its  order,  and  the  form 
might  not  be  Hebrew,  and  neither  Arabic  nor 
Syriac  requires  the  final  letter.  The  kingdom  of 
, ludah  cannot  be  discovered  in  the  name  without 
disregard  of  grammar;  Ijut  if  we  are  to  read 
".ludaii  the  king,"  to  which  .ludah  does  the  name 
point?  There  was  no  .Jewish  king  of  that  name 
l>efore  Judas-Aristobulus.  It  seems  useless  to  look 
for  a  city,  although  there  was  a  place  called  Jehud 
in  the  trilie  of  Dan.  The  only  suggestion  we  can 
propo.se  is,  that  the  second  word  is  "  kingdom," 
and  was  placed  after  the  first  in  the  manner  of  an 
Egyptian  determinative.    No.  31  may  be  compared 

with  Anem  in  Issacbar  (D]3^),  occurring,  however, 
only  in  1  Chr.  vi.  73  (Heb.  58),  but  it  is  not  cer- 
tain that  the  Egyptian  H  ever  represents  2?.  No. 
32  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Rrugsch  with  Eglon, 
but  evidence  as  to  its  position  shows  that  he  is  in 
error.  In  the  Statistical  Tablet  of  El-Karnak  it  is 
placed  in  a  mountain-district  apparently  southward 
of  jMe^'iddo,  a  half-day's  mareli  from  the  plain  of 
that  city.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  BI.  de 
Koug^   is  correct  in   supposing  that  the   Heljrew 

original  signified  an  ascent  (comp.  rT*^??;  -^'"i'- 
Arcli.  p.  3.50).  This  name  also  occurs  in  the  list 
of  Tiiotlnnes  {Id.  p.  3G());  there  diftijring  only  in 
hanng  another  character  for  the  second  letter. 
No.  33  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Brugsch  with 
Bileam  or  Ibleam,  a  Levitical  city  in  the  western 
division  of  Mana.sseh.  For  No.  34  we  can  make 
no  suggestion,  and  No.  35  is  too  much  effaced  for 
any  conjecture  to  be  hazarded.  No.  39  Dr.  Hruiisch 
identities  with  Alemeth,  a  Levitical  city  in  \'ei\- 
jannn,  also  called  Almon,  the  first  being  probably 
either  the  later  or  a  correct  form.  [Ai.KMi;rTi ; 
Almon.]  No.  37  we  think  may  be  the  C'ircle  of 
Jordan,  in  the  A.  V.  Plain  of  Jordan.  No.  38  is 
Shoco,  one  of  Itehoboam's  strong  cities,  and  30, 
15eth-Tappuah,  in  the  mountainous  part  of  Judah. 
No.  to  has  been  supposed  by  Dr.  Brugsch  to  be  an 
Abel,  and  of  the  towns  of  that  name  he  chcjoses 
Abel-siiittim,  the  Abila  of  Josephus,  in  the  Bible 
generally  called  Shittini.  No.  45.  though  greatly 
effaced,  is  sufficiently  preserved  for  us  to  conclude 
that  it  does  not  correspond  to  any  known  name  in 
mcient  Palestine  beginning  with  Beth:  the  second 

Mit  of  the  nanif  con.mei>ces  with  3ST,  as  though 


SHISHAK 

it  were  "  the  house  of  the  wolf  or  Zeeb,"  which 
would  agree  with  the  southeastern  part  of  Pales- 
tine, or  indicate,  which  is  far  less  fikely,_a  place 
named  after  the  Midianitish  prince  Zeeb,  or  some 
chief  of  that  name.  No.  53  is  uncertain  in  its  third 
letter,  which  is  indistinct,  and  we  offer  no  con- 
jecture. No.  54  conmiences  with  an  erased  siyn, 
followed  by  one  that  is  indistinct.  No.  55  is 
doubtful  as  to  reading:  probably  it  is  Pe-KETET. 
Pe  can  be  the  Egyptian  article,  as  in  the  name  of 
the  Hagarites,  the  second  sign  in  Egyjrtian  signi- 
fies •'  little,"  and  the  remaining  part  corresponds 

to  the  Hebrew  n^|7?  Kattath,  "small,"  the  name 
of  a  town  in  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  15),  apparently 
the  same  as  Kitron  (.ludg.  i.  30).  The  word  KE  T 
is  ibund  in  ancient  Egyptian  with  the  sense  "little" 

(comp.  Copt.KOTXJ,  De  Koug^,  Elude,  p.  66). 

It  seems,  however,  rare,  and  may  be  Shemitic. 
No.  56  is  held  by  Dr.  Brugsch  to  be  Edom,  and 
there  is  no  objection  to  this  identification  but  that 
we  have  no  other*names  positively  Edonjite  in  the 
list.  No.  57  Dr.  Brugsch  compares  with  Zalmo- 
nah,  a  station  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert.  If  it 
lie  admissible  to  read  the  first  letter  as  a  Hebrew 

I^,  this  name  does  not  seem  remote  from  Telerr: 
and  Telaiu],  which  are  i^robably  the  names  of  one 
]ilace  in  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Nos.  58,  5IJ,  and  64 
are  not  sufficiently  ])reserved  for  us  to  venture  upon 
any  conjecture.     No.  65  has  been  well  supposed  by 

Dr.  Brugsch  to  be  the  Hebrew  P^^,  "a  valley." 
with  the  Egyptian  article  prefi.xed,  but  what  valley 
is  intended  it  seems  hopeless  to  conjecture:  it  may 
be  a  town  named  after  a  valley,  like  the  Beth-emck 
mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  border  of  Aslier 
(.losh.  xix  27).  No.  66  has  been  reasonably  identi- 
fied l)y  Dr.  Itrnysch  with  Azem,  which  was  in  the 
southernmost  part  of  Judah,  and  is  supposed  to 
have  been  afterwards  allotted  to  Simeon,  in  whose 
list  an  Ezem  occurs.  No.  85  reads  ATeM-A'A'T"- 
HeTV  the  second  part  being  the  sign  for  "little" 
(comp.  No.  55).  This  suggests  that  the  use  of  tiie 
sign  lor  "great"  as  the  first  chai-acter  of  the 
present  name  is  not  without  significance,  and  that 
there  was  a  great  and  little  Azeifi  or  Ezem,  per- 
haps distinguished  in  the  Hebrew  text  by  different 
orthography.  No.  67  we  caimot  explain.  No.  t;8 
is  unquestionably  "  the  Hagarites,"  the  Etryptian 
article  being  prefixed.  The  same  name  recurs  Nos. 
71,  77,-87,  !)4,  96,  and  101.  In  the  Bible  we  find 
the  Hasjarites  to  the  east  of  Palestine,  and  in  the 
classical  writers  they  are  placed  along  the  north 
of  Arabia.  The  Hagaranu  or  Hagar  are  men- 
tioned as  conquered  by  Sennacherib  (Hawlinson's 
IJdi.  i.  470;  Oppert,  S((rfjonides,  p.  42).  No.  69, 
FeTYUSHAA,  seems,  from  the  termination,  to  be 
a  gentile  name,  and  in  form  resembles  Letushim,  a 
Keturahite  tribe.  But  this  resemblance  seems  to 
be  more  than  superficial,  for  Letushim,  "  the  ham- 
mered  or   sharpened,"  comes  from    tt^^7,    "he 

hannnered,  forged,"  and  E7^2  (unused)  signifies 
"  he  bent  or  hanmiered."  From  the  occurrence 
of  this  name  near  that  of  the  Hagarites,  this 
identification  seems  deserving  of  attention.  No. 
70  may  perhaps  be  Aroer,  but  the  correspondence 
of  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  scarcely  allows  this  sup- 
position. No.  72  commences  with  a  sign  that  is 
frequently  an  initial  in  the  rest  of  the  list.  If  here 
svUabio,  it  must  read  MEB;  if  alphabetic,  and  iU 


SHISHAK 

alpha! letic  use  is  possible  at  this  period,  M.     In 
the  terms  used  for  Etrjptiaii  towns  we  find  MER 
written  with  the  same  sign,  as  the  desii,'nation  of 
the  second  town  ni  a  nonie,  therefore  not  a  capital 
but  a  town  of  importance.     Tiiat  this  si-n  is  here 
similarly  employed   seems   certain   from  Its   beimr 
once  followed  by  a  geographical  determinative  (N(° 
122).      We  therefore  read  this   n.ame  S-\i;\MA 
or,  according  to  Lepsius,   BAHAM.A.     The  final 
s^Uable  seems  to  indicate  a  dual.      W'e  may  com- 
pare the  name  Salma,  which  occurs  in  Ptolemy's 
list  of  the  towns  of  Arabia  Deserta,  and   his  list 
of  those  of  the  interior."     No.  73,  repeated  at  75, 
has  been  compared  by  Dr.  Brugsch  with  the  She- 
phelah,  or  maritime  plain  of  the  Thilistines.     The 
word  seems  neaier  to  Shibboleth,  "a  stream  "  but 
It  IS  unlikely  that  two  places  should  have  been  so 
ftiUed,  and  the  names  among  which  it  occurs  favor 
the  other  explanation.     No.  74  seems  co.niate  to 
Ao.  87,  though  it  is  too  different  for  us  to' venture 
upon  supposing  it  to  be  another  form  of  the  same 
name.     No.  76  has  been  compared^v  Dr.  Brut'sch 
with  Berecah,  "a  pool,"'  but  it  seems  more  probably 
the  name  of  a  trilie.     No.  78   reads    NA'vBWT 
and  is  unquesticnably  Ne!<aioth.     There  was  a  peo- 
ple or  trihe  of  Xehaioth  in  Isaiah's  time  (Is.  Ix  7) 
and   this   second,  occurrence  of  the  name  in   the 
form  of  that  of  Islimael's  son  is  to  be  considered 
in  reference  to  the  supposed  Chaldean  ori.rin  of  the 
Nabatha?ans.     In   Lepsius's  copy  the  name  is  N. 
lAll,  the  second  character  being  unknown,  and 
no  doubt,  as  well  as  the  third,  incorrectly  copied. 
The  occurrence  of  the  name  immediately  after  that 
ot  the  Hagarites  is  sufficient  evidence  in  favor  of 
Dr.  Brugsch's  reading,  which  in  most  cases  of  dif- 
ference m  this  list  is  to  be  preferred  to  Lepsius's  * 
No   79,  AATeTMAA,  may  perhaps  be  compared 
T^  r-^*"?!^  ">e  «o"    of  Ishmael,  if  we  may  read 
AAfTeMAA.     No.  80  we  cannot  explain.     Nos. 
SI  and  82  are  too  much  effaced  for  any  conjecture 
No.  83  we  compare  with  the  Kenites:  here  it  is  a 
mbe.    No.  Si  is  also  found  in  the  list  of  Thothmes  : 
here  it  has  the  Egyptian  article,  BeNAKUU   there 
It  is  written  NeKBU   {litv.  Arch.  pp.  364,'  305). 
It  e\idently  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  3:3,  ';  the 
south,'*sometimes  specially  applied  to  the  southern 
district  of  I'alestine.     No.  85  reads  A'1'eM-A'er- 
Hel  ^      The  second  part  of  the  name  is  "little" 
(comp   No.  55).     M'e  have  already  shown  that  it 
IS  probably  a  "little"  town,  corresponding  to  the 
''  great "  town  No.  66.     But  the  final  part  of  No 
8o  remains  unexplained.     No.  86  we  cannot   ex- 
pkin      No.  87  differs  from  the  other  occurrences 
of  the  name  of  the  Hagarites  in  being  followed  by 
the  sign  for  MEK:  we  therefore  suppose  it  to  be 
a  city  ot  this  nation.     No.  88  may  be  compared 
wit),  bhen  (1  Sam.  vii.  12),  which,  however,  may 
not  be  tlie  name  of  a  town  or  village,  or  with  the 
two  Ashnahs  (Josh.  xv.  33,  43  f.     Nos.  89,  91,  and 
93,  we  cannot  e.xplain.     No.  95  presents  a  name, 
repeated  with  slight  variation  in  No.  99,  which  is 
evidently  that  of  a  tribe,  but  we  cannot  reco-nize 

TAr^xr  ^'^  ^"^I'f"^'  ''•''^"''  "^-     No.  98  is  a  town 
ieMAM,  possibly  the  town  of  Dumah  in  the  north 


SHISHAK 


3017 


«  We  were  disposed  to  thiuk  that  this  might  be 
Jerusalem,  especially  on  account  of  the  dual  tern.ina- 
tion  ;  but  the  wipossibility  of  reading  the  first  char- 
«ctcr  ATUR  or  AUR  (nS>),  as  an  ideogruphic  si.n 
for  "rirer,''  to  say  nothing  of  th<!  doubt  as  to  the 
190 


of  Arabia  or  that  in  .Judah.  No.  100  is  a  town 
TRA-AA,  which  we  may  compare  with  Eddara  in 
Arabia  Deserta.  No.  102  may  mean  a  resting- 
place,  from  the  root  ]-"lb.  No.  103,  repeated  at 
105,  is  apparently  the  name  of  a  tribe.  It  may  be 
Adbeel,  the  name  of  a  son  of  Ishniael,  but' the 
form  is  not  close  enough  for  us  to  offer  this  as 
more  than  a  conjecture.  Nos.  104  and  106  we 
cannot  exj.lain.  No.  107  is  either  HAKeR.MA  or 
HAI.'eK.MA.  It  may  be  compared  with  Rekem 
or  Arekeme,  the  old  name  of  Petra  accordiiio-  to 
Josephiis^  (A.  J.  iv.  7),  but  the  form  is  problbly 
dual.  No.  108  has  been  compared  with  Arad  l>y 
Dr.  Brugsch:  it  is  a  country  or  place,  and  the 
variation  in  No.  110  appears  to  be  the  name  of  the 
people.  No.  109  may  be  Beth-lelwoth  in  Simeon, 
evidently  tiie  same  as  Lel)aoth  originally  in  .hidah 
or  else  Rabljah  in  Judah.  No.  Ill  we  cannot 
explain.  No.  112  is  most  like  the  Jerahmeelites 
m  the  south  of  Judah.  No.  110  is  partly  effaced. 
No.  117  IS  thef  same  name  as  No  100.  No.  118 
is  probably  the  name  of  an  unknown  tribe.     No. 

119  may  be  Maachah,  if  the  geo<;raphical  direction 
is  changed.  No.  120  is  partly  effaced.  No  1'>1 
we  cannot  explain.  No.  122  appears  to  be  a  town 
of  BARA  or  BALA.  No.  123  seems  to  read 
BAR-RATA  (STST  bv^),  but  we  know  no 
place  of  that  name.  No.  124  reads  BAT- \  AT 
but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  really  BAT- 
ANAT.  In  this  case  it  might  be  either  Beth- 
anath  in  Naphtali  or  Beth-anoth  in  Judah.     No 

120  we  cannot  explain.  No.  126  appears  to  com- 
mence «ith  Aram,  but  the  rest  does  not  correspond 
to  any  distinctive  word  known  to  follow  this  name. 
No.  12/  has  been  identified  bv  Dr.  Brugsch  with 
Oolan,  a  Levitical  city  in  Bashan.  The  remaining 
names  are  more  or  less  effaced. 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  list  contains  three 
classes  of  names  mainly  <;rouped  together—  (I )  Le- 
vitical and  Canaaiiite  cities  of  Israd;  (2)  cities  of 
Judah;  and  (3)  Aral)  tribes  to  the  south  of  Pales- 
tine. The  occurrence  together  of  Levitical  cities 
was  observed  by  Dr.  Brugsch.  It  is  evident  that 
Jerol>oam  was  not  at  once  firmly  established,  and 
that  the  Levites  especially  held  to  Rehoboam. 
Iherefore  it  may  have  been  the  nolicy  of  Jeroboam 
to  employ  Shishak  to  capture  their  cities.  Other 
cities  in  his  territory  were  perhaps  still  garrisoned 
by  Rehoboam's  forces,  or  held  by  the  Canaan  ites, 
who  may  ha^■e  somewhat  recovered  their  indepen- 
dence at  this  period.  The  smaU  number  of  cities 
Identified  m  the  actual  territory  of  Rehoboam  is 
explained  by  the  erasure  of  fourteen  names  of  the 
part  of  the  list  where  they  occur.  The  identifica- 
tion of  some  names  of  Arab  tribes  is  of  <rreat  in 
terest  and  historical  value,  though  it  is  to  be  feared 
that  further  j.rogress  can  scarcely  be  made  in  tiieir 
part  of  the  list. 

The  Pharaohs  of  the  Empire  .passed  throuo-h 
northern  Palestine  to  push  their  conquests  to  the 
Euphrates  and  Mesopotamia.  Siiishak,  probably 
unable  to  attack  the  Assyrians,  attempted  the  sub 
jugation  of  Palestine  and  the  tracts  of  Arabia  which 
border  Egyt)t,  knowing  that  the  Arabs  would  iii 


second  character,  makes  us  reject  this  reading;  and 
the  position  in  the  list  is  unsuitable.  The  Rev  D 
Haigh  has  learnedly  supported  this  view,  at  which  he 
mdepeudeutly  arrived,  in  a  correspondence. 

6  Lepsius-s  copy  preseuts  many  errors  .%f  cArele*. 
Dess. 


3018 


SHITRAI 


terpose  an  effectual  resistance  to  any  invader  of 
Egypt.  He  seems  to  liave  succeeded  in  consolidat- 
ing his  power  in  Arabia,  and  we  accordingly  find 
Zerali  in  alliance  with  the  people  of  Gerar,  if  we 
may  infer  this  from  their  sharing  his  overthrow. 

R.  S.  P. 

*  Bunsen  in  his  Bibelwerk,  i.  p.  ccxxvi.,  gives 
an  elaborate  taljle  of  synchronisms  between  the  early 
Biblical  history  and  the  history  of  Egypt,  of  As- 
syria, and  of  Babylon.  He  professes  to  have  found 
several  points  of  contact  Ijetween  Israelitish  and 
Egyptian  history  before  the  reigns  of  Solomon  and 
Shishak;  such  as  the  exodus,  the  era  of  Joseph, 
etc.  'I'hough  his  argument  is  marked  by  the  arbi- 
trary conjecture  and  the  dogmatic  assertion  so  fre- 
quent in  his  writings,  it  is  deserving  of  careful 
study.  The  reign  of  Solomon  he  fixes  at  39  years, 
from  1007  to  909  b.  c.,that  of  Sheshonk  from  979 
to  956  B.  c. 

The  geographical  identifications  of  the  lists  of 
Shishak's  victories,  will  be  considered  more  at 
length  in  comparison  with  the  lists  of  Thothmes 
in.  under  Thebes.  J.  P.  T. 

SHIT'RAI  [2syl.]  0"i:?tp;  iTerO^")^  = 
2aTf)di;  [Vat.  AcrapTttisO  Setrrti).  A  Sharonite 
%vho  was  over  David's  herds  that  fed  in  Sharon 
(1  Chr.  xxvii.  29). 

SHITTAH-TREE,  SHITTIM  (H^t??, 
shi/li'ih:  ^iiAou  So-TjTTTo;/ :  H.'/na  setim,  spina)  is 
without  doulit  correctly  referred  to  some  species  of 
•icacia,  of  which  three  or  four  kinds  occur  in  the 


Acacia  Seyal. 

Bible  lands.  The  wood  of  this  tree  —  pernaps  the 
A.  seyal  is  more  definitely  signified  —  was  exten- 
sively employed  in  the  construction  of  the  Taber- 
nacle, the  boards  and  pillars  of  which  were  made 


SBITTAH-TREE 

of  it;  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and  the  slaves  for 
carrying  it,  the  table  of  shew  biead  with  its 
staves,  the  altar  of  burnt-ofterings  and  the  altar 
of  incense  with  their  respective  staves  were  also 
constructed  out  of  this  wood  (see  Ex.  xxv.,  xxvi., 
xxxvi.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii.).  In  Is.  xli.  19  the  acacia- 
tree  is  mentioned  with  the  "  cedar,  the  myrtle, 
and  the  oil-tree,"  as  one  which  God  would  plant  in 
the  wilderness.  The  Egyptian  name  of  the  acacia 
is  soiH,  s'lnl^  or  sanih :  see  .Jablonski,  Upusc.  i.  p. 
201;  Kossius,  Etymol.  jEgypt.  p.  273;  and  Pros- 
per Alpinus  (Plant.  yE(/ypt.  p.  0),  who  thus  speaks 
of  this  tree:  "The  acacia,  which  the  Egyptians 
call  sani,  grows  in  localities  in  Egypt  remote  from 
the  sea ;  and  large  quantities  of  this  tree  are  pro- 
duced on  the  mountains  of  Sinai,  overhanging  the 
Red  Sea.  That  this  tree  is,  witliont  doubt,  the  true 
acacia  of  the  ancients,  or  the  Egyptian  thorn,  is 
clear  from  several  indications,  especially  from  tht 
fact  that  no  other  spinous  tree  occurs  in  Egypt 
which  so  well  answers  to  the  required  characters. 
Tliese  trees  gr*?  to  the  size  of  a  mulberry-tree, 
and  spread  their  (tranches  aloft."  "  The  wild  aca- 
cia (.\fiiiwsn  Nilolica),  under  the  name  of  sunt," 
says  Prof.  Stanley  {Stjr.  cf  Pal.  p.  20),  "every- 
where represents  the  '  seneh  '   or  '  serma  '  of  the 

Burning  Bush."  The  Heb.  term  (ntStt'')  is,  by 
Jablonski,  Celsius,  and  many  other  authors,  derived 
from  the  Egyptian  word,  the  3  being  dropped ;  and 
from  an  Arabic  JIS.  cited  by  Celsius,  it  appears 
that  the  Arabic  term  also  comes  from  the  Egyptian, 
the  true  Arabic  name  for  the  acacia  being  karadh 
{Hierob.  i.  p.  508). 

The  shittdh-tree  of  Scripture  is  by  some  writers 
thought  to  refer  more  especially  to  the  Acacia 
Seyal,  though  perhaps  the  Acacia  Nilotica  and  A. 
Arabica  may  be  included  under  the  terra.  The 
A.  Seyal  is  very  common  in  some  parts  of  the 
peninsula  of  Sinai  (M.  Bov^,  Voyage  du  Caire  au 
Mont  Sinai,  Ann.  des  Scienc.  Nat.  1834,  i.,  sec. 
ser.  p.  106;  Stanley,  Syr.  ^  Pal.  pp.  20,  69,  298). 
These  trees  are  more  common  in  Arabia  than  in 
Palestine,  though  tliere  is  a  valley  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  the  Wady  Seyal,  which  derives  its 
name  from  a  few  acacia-trees  there.  'V\\e»Acacia 
Seyal,  like  the  A.  Arabica,  yields  the  well-known 
substance  called  gum  arable  which  is  obtained  by 
incisions  in  the  bark,  but  it  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  the  ancient  Jews  were  acquairjted  with  its 
use.  From  the  tangled  thickets  into  which  the 
stem  of  this  tree  expands,  Stanley  well  remarks  that 
hence  is  to  be  traced  the  use  of  the  plural  form  of 
the  Hebrew  noun,  shittim,  the  sing,  number  occur- 
ring but  once  only  in  the  Bible."  Besides  the 
Acacia  Seyal,  there  is  another  species,  the  A.  tcr- 
tilis,  common  on  Mount  Sinai.  Although  none  of 
the  above  named  trees  are  sufficiently  large  to 
yield  plants  10  cubits  long  by  IJ  cubit  wide,  .which 
we  are  told  was  the  size  of  the  boards  that  formed 
the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxvi.  21),  yet  there  is  an  acacia 
that  grows  near  Cairo,  namely  the  A.  Serissa,  which 
would  supply  boards  of  the  required  size.  'Jhere  is, 
however,  no  evidence  to  show  that  this  tree  ever 
grew  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai.  And  though  it 
would  be  unfair  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  such 
negative   evidence,  still  it  is  probable   that  "  the 


a  Livingstone  (Trav.  iti  S.  Africa,  abridged  ed., 
p.  77)  thinks  tile  Acad  i  ^imffa  (camel-thorn)  sup- 
piled    the   wood  for   the   Tabernacle,   etc.     "  It   is,'" 


he  adds,  "  an  imperishable  wood,  while  that  which  U 
usually  supposed  to  be  the  Shittim  [Acacia  Nilotiu^ 
wants  beauty  and  soon  decays." 


SHITTIM 

boards  "  (D'^tt^~li?nj  ivere  supplied  by  one  of  the 

other  acacias.     There  is,  however,  no  necessity  to 

irait  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  tt^'^p.  {keresh) 

to  "  a  single  plank."  In  Ez.  xxvii.  6,  the  same 
word  in  the  singular  number  is  applied  in  a  col- 
lective sense  to  "the  deck"  of  a  ship  (conip.  our 
"  on  board  " ).  The  keresh  of  the  Tabernacle,  there- 
fore, may  denote  "  two  or  more  boards  joined  to- 
gether," which,  from  being  thus  united,  may  have 
been  expressed  by  a  singular  noun.  These  aca- 
cias, which  are  for  the  most  part  tropical  plants, 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  tree  {Rubinia 
vseudo-acacin),  popularly  known  by  this  name  in 
England,  which  is  a  North  American  plant,  and 
belongs  to  a  different  genus  and  sul)-order.  The 
true  acacias,  most  of  which  possess  hard  and  dura- 
ble wood  (comp.  Pliny,  //.  N.  xiii.  19;  .Josephus, 
Aid.  iii.  6,  §  1),  belong  to  the  order  Lef/umuiosce, 
sub-order  Mlmnseos.  Vv".  H. 

SHIT'TIM  (C"*t3r]?n,  with  the  def.  article: 
[Vat.]  SaTTeiV;  [Koni.  in  Josh.,  "ZarTiv'i  Alex,  in 
Josh.  ii.  1,  SaTTeiO  in  the  Prophets,  oi  crxori/oi: 
Sf^llim,  \_Seiim] ).  The  place  of  Israel's  encampment 
between  the  conquest  of  tlie  Transjordanic  highlands 
and  the  passage  of  the  Jordan  (Num.  xxxiii.  49,  xxv. 
1 ;  Josh.  ii.  1,  iii.  1 ;  Mic.  vi  5).  Its  full  name  appears 
to  be  given  in  the  first  of  these  passages  —  Abel 
has-Shittini  —  "  the  me;idow,  or  moist  place  of  the 
acacias."  It  was  •'  in  the  .\rl)oth-Moab,  by  Jordan- 
Jericho:"  such  is  the  ancient  formula  repeated  over 
and  over  again  (Num.  xxii.  1,  xxvi.  3,  xxxi.  12, 
xxxiii.  48,  49).  That  is  to  say,  it  was  in  the  Ara- 
bah  or  Jordan  Valley  opposite  .lericho,  at  that  part 
of  the  Arabah  which  belonged  to  and  bore  tlie  name 
of  Moab,  wliere  the  stre.inis  whicli  descend  from  the 
eastern  mountains  and  force  their  winding  way 
through  the  sandy  soil  of  the  plain,  nourished  a 
vast  growth  of  tlie  seyxl,  stent,  and  sidr  trees,  such 
as  is  nourisiied  by  the  streams  of  the  IVady  Kelt 
and  the  Ain  iStdkin  on  the  opposite  side  of  tlie 
river. 

It  was  in  the  shade  and  the  tropical  heat  of  these 
acacia-groves  that  tlie  people  were  seduced  to  tlie 
licentious  rites  of  Baal-Peor  by  the  ^lidianites;  but 
it  was  from  the  same  spot  that  Moses  sent  forth 
the  army,  under  the  fierce  Phinehas,  which  worked 
so  fearful  a  retribution  for  that  license  (xxxi.  1-12). 
It  was  fiYim  the  camp  at  Shittim  that  Joshua  sent 
out  the  spies  across  the  river  to  Jericho  (Josh.  ii.  1 ). 

The  Nachai-Shittim,  or  IVaily-Sunt,  as  it  would 
now  be  called,  of  Joel  (iii.  18),  can  hardly  be  the 
same  spot  as  that  descrilied  aljove,  but  there  is 
nothing  to  give  a  clew  to  its  position."  G. 

*  Tristram  identities  the  plain  of  Shittim  with 
the  Ghor  es-Seisnl/itn,  extending  in  unbroken  ver- 
dure from  Keferein  on  its  northern  margin  (which 
he  identifies  as  the  site  of  Abel-.Shittim,  Num.  xxxiii. 
49),  to  the  northeast  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and 
which  he  pronounces  "  by  far  the  largest  and  rich- 
sst  oasis  in  the  whole  Ghor."'  It  was  in  the  midst 
of  its  gardens  and  groves  that  Israel  encamped,  and 
the  irrigated  luxuriance  around  them  explains  some 
sf   the  allusions   in    the  prophetic  "parable"  of 


SHOBACH 


3019 


«  *  Joel  in  the  above  passage  may  refer  to  an  ideal, 
not  an  actual  place.  He  is  foretelling  the  triumphs 
Df  a  purer  and  more  effective  religion  iu  the  latter 
luies.  The  places  where  the  acacias  grow  are  gener- 
tJly  arid  and  otherwise  unproductive.    From  the  truth 


Balaam,  as  he  looked  down   upon  them   from   tha 
heights  of  Peor  {Land  nf  Israel,  2d  ed.  p.  528). 

S.  \V. 

SHI'ZA  (i-p'."  [splendor,  Fiirst] :  2aiC<i-; 
Alex.  [2ex«'  ^^-l  EC«!  [Comp.  21(0:]  Ska). 
A  Keubenite,  lather  of  Adina,  one  of  David's 
mighty  men  (1  Chn  xi.  42). 

SHO'A  (V'^ti?  [rich,  liberal]:  Soi^e';  Alex. 
2oy5:  tyranni).  A  proper  name  which  occurs 
only  in  Ez.  xxiii.  2.3,  in  connection  with  Pekod 
and  Koa.  The  three  apparently  designate  dis- 
tricts of  Assyria  with  which  the  southern  kingdom 
of  Judah  had  been  intimately  connected,  and  whieli 
were  to  be  arrayed  against  it  for  punishment.  The 
Peshito-Syriac  has  Liul,  that  is  Lydia;  while  the 
Arabic  of  the  London  Polyglott  has  Sui,  and  Lud  oc- 
cupies  the  place  of  Koa.  Kashi  remarks  on  the  three 
words,  "  the  interpreters  say  that  they  signify  otficers, 
princes,  and  rulers."  This  rendering  must  have 
been  traditjonal  at  the  time  of  Aquila  (inicTKeTrTris 
Kol  Tvpavvos  Kol  Kopvcpaios)  and  Jerome  (nobiles 
tyranni  el principes).  Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  1208  n) 
maintains  that  the  context  requires  the  words  to 
be  taken  as  appellatives,  and  not  as  proper  names; 
and   Fiirst,  on    the  same   ground,  maintains    the 

contrary  {ffandwh.  s.  v.  ^^''p).  Those  who  tak€ 
Shoa  as  an  appellative  refer  to  the  usage  of  the 
word  in  Job  xxxiv.  19  (A.  V.  "rich")  and  Is.  xxxii. 
b  (A.  V.  "  liountiful  "),  where  it  signifies  rich, 
liberal,  and  stands  in  the  latter  passage  in  parallel- 
ism with  3^'^3,  nadib,  by  which  Kimchi  explains 
it,  and  which  is  elsewhere  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
"prince"  (Prov.  xvii.  7)  and  "nolile"  (Prov.  viii. 
10).  But  a  consideration  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse  Ez.  xxiii.  23,  where  the  captains  and  ruLjrs 
of  the  Assyrians  are  distinctly  mentioned,  and  the 
fondness  which  Kzekiel  elsewhere  shows  for  playing 
upon  the  sound  of  proper  names  (as  in  xxvii.  10, 
XXX.  5),  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  in  this  case 
Pekod,  Slioa,  and  Koa  are  proper  names  also;  but 
nothing  further  can  be  said.  The  only  name  which 
has  been  found  at  all  resembling  Shoa  is  that  of  a 
town  in  Assyria  mentioned  by  Pliny,  "  Sue  in  ru 
pibus,"  near  Ganganiela,  and  west  of  the  Orontes 
mountain  chain.     Bochart  {Phaleg,  iv.  9)  derives 

Sue  from  the  Chaldee   S27^tC,  shu^a,  a  rock. 

W.  A.  W. 

SHO'BAB  (S^'^tt?  [rebellious,  erring] :  2co- 
/3a/3;  Alex.  'S.ai^aSav  in  Sam.;  [1  Chr.  iii.,  Vat. 
2ai/8ai';  xiv..  Vat.  la-o^oa/x,  PA.  ^o^aafj.'-]  Sobab, 
\_Sob(td\ ).  1.  Son  of  David  by  Bathsheba  (2  Sam. 
V.  14;   1  Chr.  iii.  5,  xiv.  4). 

2.  (2ot//3a/8;  [Vat.  lao-ou/S;]  Alex.  2co;3a/3.) 
Apparently  the  son  of  Caleb  the  son  of  Hezron  by 
his  wife  Azubah  (1  Chr.  ii.  18).  But  the  passage 
is  corrupt. 

SHO'BACH  C?T?""1^  [«  f'-ee  one,  Fiirst]: 
2co/3aK:,  Alex.  2a|3ax,  2  Sam.  x.  16:  Sobnch). 
The  general  of  Hadarezer,  king  of  the  Syrians  of 
Zolia,  who  was  in  command  of  the  army  which  was 
summoned  from  beyond  the  Euphrates  against  the 
Hebrews,  after  the  defeat  of  the  combined  forces  of 


yet  to  break  forth  from  Judaism  a  new  form  was  to 
ari.'e  which  should  transform  aud  bless  tlie  natioug 
that  hitherto  have  presented  only  a  sceue  of  the  wildest 
moral  desolation.  Compare  B.\c.^  ;  jEHOSH.iPH.iT,  VaIt 
L£T  OF  [Amer.  ed].  H 


3020 


SHOBAI 


Syria  and  the  Ammonites  before  the  gates  of 
Rabbah.  He  was  met  by  David  in  person,  wlio 
crossed  the  Jordan  and  attacked  him  at  Helam. 
The  battle  resulted  in  the  total  defeat  of  the  Syr- 
ians. Shobach  was  wounded,  and  died  on  the 
field  (2  Sam.  x.  1.5-18).  In  1  Chr.  xix.  16,  18, 
he  is  called  Shophach,  and  by  Josephus  {Ant.  vii. 
n,  §  3)  2a/36K-oj. 

SHO'BAI  [2  syl.]  {''^W  [taUng  captive] : 
Sa-flau  2afli;  [Vat.  Afiaov,  2ai3ei;]  Alex.  2=- 
eati  [FA.  2a/3ei]  in  Neh. :  Sobfti).  ']"he  children 
of  Shobai  were  a  family  of  the  doorkeepers  of  the 
Temple,  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  42; 
Neh.  vii.  45).     Called  Sami  in  1  Esdr.  v.  28. 

SHO'BAL  (b:nhtt7  [fowinfj,  or  a  shoot]: 
2a>/8aA:  Sobal).  1.  The  second  son  of  Seir  the 
Horite  (Gen.  xxxvi.  20;  1  Chr.  i.  38),  and  one  of 
the  "dukes"  or  phylarchs  of  the  Horites  {Gen. 
sxxvi.  29).  E.  S.  P. 

2.  [Vat.  in  ver.  50,  2coj3ap-]  Son  of  (]aleb,  the 
Bon  of  Hur,  and  founder  or  prince  of  Kirjath- 
jearim  (1  Chr.  ii.  50,  52). 

3.  {2ouy8a\-)  In  1  Chr.  iv.  1,  2,  Shobal  ap- 
pears with  Hur,  among  the  sons  of  Judah,  and  as 
the  father  of  Keaiah.  He  is  possibly  the  same  as 
the  preceding,  in  which  case  Keaiah  may  be  iden- 
tical with  Haroeh,  the  two  names  in  Hebrew  being 
not  very  unlike. 

SHO'BEK  (p^m'  [y,erh.  forsakinff]  :  2coy3^/c: 
[Vat  Eio-o-co.Stjk:;  EA.  n^Srjic:]  Sobec).  One  of 
the  heads  of  the  people  who  sealed  the  covenant 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  24). 

SHO'BI  (^^tt?  [one  icho  cajAures] :  Ovefffil; 
\Yiit.]  Alex.  Ovea&ei-  Sobi).  Son  of  Nahash  of 
Kabbah  of  the  children  of  Amnion  (2  Sauj.  xvii. 
27).  He  was  one  of  the  first  to  meet  David  at  JMa- 
hanaim  on  his  flight  from  Absalom,  and  to  offer 
him  the  hospitality  of  a  powerful  and  wealthy  chief, 
for  he  was  the  son  of  David's  old  friend  Nahash, 
and  the  bond  between  them  was  strong  enough  to 
survive  on  the  one  hand  the  insults  of  Hanun,  and 
on  the  other  the  conquest  and  destruction  of  Kabbah. 
Josephus  calls  him  Siphar  {Aiii.  vii.  9,  §  8),  '•chief 
(SwdaTTis)  of  the  Ammonite  country." 

SHO'CO  Od'ID  [branches] :  [Vat.]  ttji/  2o«- 
X<^6'^  '"I'ld  so  Alex.;  [Rom.  '2,oxa>6'  Conip.  2o/c- 
Xa>']  Socho),  2  Chr.  xi.  7.  A  variation  of  the 
name  Sucoh,  unnecessarily  increased  in  the  A.  V. 
by  the  substitution  of  ISh  for  the  S  of  the  original. 

SHO'CHO  03'"^b  [as  above]:  tV  2&>x£5: 
Socho),  2  Chr.  xxviii.  18.  One  of  the  four  [six] 
varieties  of  the  name  Socoh.  In  this  case  also  the 
discrepancies  in  the  A.  V.  are  needlessly  multiplied 
by  Sh  being  substituted  for  (S  and  ch  for  c  of  the 
sriginal. 

SHO'CHOH  {rib'^W  [branches]:  :S,oKx^e\ 
Alex.  Okx<^  fi"d  'XoKX'v'i  [Comp.  2ox^-]  Socho), 
1  Sam.  xvii.  1.  This,  like  SnocHo,  Sociion,  [So- 
CHO,]  and  Shoco,  is  an  incorrect  variation  of  the 
name  Socoh. 

SHO'HAM  (nriW  [onyx] :  'iffod/x;  Alex.  lo- 
rooju;  [Comp.  2oa^:]  Soam).  A  Merarite  Le- 
rite,  son  of  Jaaziah  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  27). 

SHOE.     [Sandal.] 

SHO'MER  ("ic'ltr  [keeper]:  [Rom.  Vat. 
lanilp ;  Ales.]    Soi/iij/. :  So7ner).     1.  A   man    of 


SHOSHANNIM-EDUTH 

the  tribe  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  32),  who  is  also 
called  Shanier  (ver.  34). 

2.  [2,o}fi^p;  Alex,  naaoufxrip.]  The  father  of 
Jehozabad,  who  slew  king  Joash  (2  K.  xii.  21):  in 
the  parallel  passage  in  2  Chr.  xxiv.  26,  the  name  is 
converted  into  the  feminine  form  Shinirith,  who  is 
ftu'ther  descrilied  as  a  Sloabitess.  This  variation 
may  have  originated  in  the  dubious  gender  of  the 
preceding  name  Shimeath,  which  is  also  made  fem- 
inine by  the  Chronicler.  W.  L.  B. 

SHO'PHACH  (TT?'1tt7  [extension,  FiirstJ: 
1w(bde:  [Vat.  S.oKpap,  2a(/)a0;  FA.l  in  ver.  16, 
E(T(i>(pap\]  Alex.  2a)^ax,  2a!;3ax:  Sophach). 
Shobach,  the  general  of  Hadarezer  (1  Chr.  xix. 
16,  18). 

SHO'PHAN  ("IS'ltiS  Samar.  D'^Cti?  [perh. 
naked,  ba7Ten]:  tV  2o(pdp:  Sophan).  One  of 
the  fortified  towns  on  the  east  of  Jordan  which 
were  taken  possession  of  and  rebuilt  by  the  tribe  of 
(jad  (Num.  xxxii.  35).  It  is  probably  an  affix  to 
the  second  Atroth,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  for- 
mer one,  not  an  independent  place.  No  name 
resembling  it  has  yet  been  met  with  in  that  lo- 
cal ity.  G. 

SHOSHAN'NIM.  "  To  the  chief  musician 
upon  Shoshamiim  "  is  a  musical  direction  to  the 
leader  of  the  Temple  choir  which  occurs  in  Pss. 
xlv.,  Ixix.,  and  most  probably  indicates  the  melody 

"after"  or  "in  the  manner  of"  wVi  ''■''i  -A--  V. 
"upon  ")  which  the  psalms  were  to  be  sung.  As 
"  Shoshannim  "  literally  signifies  "  lihes,"  it  has 
been  suggested  that  the  word  denotes  lily-shaped 
instruments  of  music  (Simonis,  Lex.  s.  v.),  per- 
haps cymbals,  and  this  view  appears  to  be  adopted 
by  De  Wette  (Die  Psulmen,  p.  34).  Hengsten- 
iierg  gives  to  it  an  enigmatical  interpretation,  as 
indicating  "  the  suliject  or  subjects  treated,  as  lilies 
figuratively  for  bride  in  xlv. ;  the  delightful  conso- 
lations and  deliverances  experienced  in  Ixix.,  etc." 
(Davidson,  Jnlrod.  ii.  246);  which  Dr.  Davidson 
very  truly  characterizes  as  "  a  most  improbable 
fancy."  The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  have  in  both 
psalms  vTzep  tSuv  aWoiccdi^aofxevo}!/  and  pj-p  iis 
qui  imiiiuliibvntur  respectively,  reading  apparently 

CStt^P  bV  for  Q^pWW  bp.  Ben  Zeb  (Ot- 
sar  /il/ishshor.  s.  v.)  regards  it  as  an  instrument  of 
psalmody,  and  Junius  and  Tremellius,  after  Kim- 
clii,  render  it  "  hexachorda,"  an  instrument  with 
six  sfriiigs,  referring  it  to  the  root  shcsh,  "  six," 
and  this  is  approved  by  Eichhorn  in  his  edition  of 
Simonis.  W.  A.  W. 

SHOSHAN'NIM-E'DUTH.  In  the  title 
of  I's.  Ixxx.  is  found  the   direction   "to   the  chiel 

musician    upon     Shoshannim  eduth "     (D"^3ti,'tt7 

n^~T5^),  which  appears,  according  to  the  most 
probable  conjecture,  to  denote  the  melody  6r  air 
"after"  or  "in  the  manner  of"  which  the  psalm 
was  to  be  sung.  As  the  words  now  stand  they 
signify  "  lilies,  a  testimony,"  and  the  two  are  sep- 
arated by  a  large  distinctive  accent.  In  themselves 
they  have  no  meaning  in  the  present  text,  and 
must  therefore  be  regarded  as  probaldy  a  fragment 
of  the  beginning  of  an  old«r  psalm  with  which  the 
choir  were  familiar,  l^wald  gives  what  he  consid- 
ers the  original  meaning  —  "  '  lilies,'  that  is.  pure, 
innocent,  is  'the  Law;  '  "  but  the  words  will  not 
bear  this  interpretation,  nor  is  it  possibh  in  thetr 
present  position  to  assign  to  them  any  intelligible 


SHOULDER-PIECE 

lense.  For  the  conjectures  of  those  who  regard 
the  words  as  the  names  of  musical  instruments,  see 
the  articles  SuosHAN^■^^I,  Shushan-kduth. 

W.  A.  \V. 

*  SHOULDER-PIECE.  [Ephod;  High- 
priest.] 

*  SHOVEL.  [Agriculture,  vol.  i.  p. 
4-t  a.] 

*  SHROUD,  Ezek.  xxxi.  3,  has  its  older  sense 
of  "  cover,"  "  shelter."  H. 

SHU'A  (l?=1t27  [WcA,  noUe]:  Sam;  [Comp. 
Soi's'O  Sue).  A  Canaanite  of  AduUam,  father  of 
Judah's  wife  (1  Chr.  ii.  3),  who  was  hence  called 
liath-Shua.  In  the  LXX.  of  Gen.  xxxviii.  2,  Shua 
is  wrongly  made  to  be  the  name  of  the  daughter. 
[Bath-Shua.] 

SHU'AH  (Jl^W  [pit]:  2cui6,  Stoe;  Alex. 
Scoue:  Sue).  1.  Son  of  Abraham  by  Keturah 
(Gen.  XXV.  2;   I  Chr.  i.  32). 

2.  (nn^ri?:  'Aaxd-  Sua.)  Properly  "  Shu- 
chah."  The  name  Shuah  occurs  among  the  de- 
scendants of  Judah  as  that  of  the  brother  of  Clie- 
lub  (1  Chr.  iv.  11).  For  "  Chehib  the  brother  of 
Shuah,"  the  LXX.  read  "Caleb  the  father  of  Ach- 
sah  [Ascha]."  In  ten  of  Keiniicott's  and  De 
Rossi's  MSS.,  Shuah  is  made  the  son  of  Chelub. 

3.  (V^W  :  2aua:  Sue.)  The  ftither  of  Judah's 
wife,  the  Canaauitess  (Gen.  xxxviii.  2,  12);  also 
sailed  Shua  in  the  A.  V.  The  LXX.  make  Shuah 
the  name  of  the  woman  in  both  instances. 

SHU'AL  (iV^W  [Jackal]:  XovSd;  [Vat. 
2ou\a;]  Alex.  2ot;a.\:  Sual).  Son  of  Zophah, 
a.n  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  36). 

SHU'AL,  THE  LAND  OF  (bvW  V^W 
[land  of  the  jackal]:  y^  "XcayaK'.,  Alex,  is  lost: 
terra  Sual).  A  district  named  only  in  1  Sam. 
xiii.  17,  to  denote  the  direction  taken  by  one  of  the 
three  parties  of  marauders  who  issued  from  the 
Philistine  camp  at  ]\[ichmash.  Its  connection  with 
Oplirah  (probal)ly  Ta'njibeh)  and  the  direction  of 
the  two  other  routes  named  in  the  passage  make  it 
pretty  certain  tliat  tlie  land  of  Shual  lay  north  of 
Michmash.  If  therefore  it  be  identical  with  the 
"land  of  Shalini  "  (I  Sam.  ix.  4)  —  as  is  not  im- 
possible—  we  obtain  the  first  and  only  clew  yet  ob- 
tained to  Saul's  journey  in  quest  of  the  asses.  The 
name  S/iual  has  not  yet  been  identified  in  the  neigli- 
borhood  of  Taiyibeh  or  elsewhere.  It  may  have 
originated  in  the  Helirew  signification  of  the  word 
—  "jackal  ";  in  which  case  it  would  be  appropri- 
ate enough  to  the  wild,  desolate  region  east  of  Tai- 
yibeh ;  a  region  containing  a  valley  or  ravine  at  no 
great  distance  from  Taiyibeh  which  bore  and  per- 
haps still  bears  the  name  of  "  Hyaenas."  [Zv,- 
BoiM,  Valley  of.]  Others  (as  Thenius,  in 
Kxeg.  JIandb.)  derive  the  name  from  a  different 
root,  and  interpret  it  as  "  hollow  land."  G. 

SHU'BAEL  (bsZina:  [caiHive  of  God]: 
2a'3a^A.;  [Vat.  Ia.(3aT)A.;]  Alex.  2ou/3aT)A.:  Su- 
iael).  1.  Shebuel  the  son  of  Gershom  (1  ^hr. 
txiv.  20). 

2.  {'S,ou0a^\.)  Shebuel  the  son  of  Heman 
ihe  minstrel  (1  Chr.  xxv.  20). 

SHU'HAM  (nn^Ci'  [perh.;«7-c%^cr,Ges.]: 
Safif-,  [Vat.  2a,ueiO  -^lex.  2a^6i5rj:  Siiham). 
Sou  of  Dan,  and   ancestor  of   the   Shuh.vjiites 


SHUNAMMITE.  THE 


!02] 


(Xum.   xsvL  42).     In   Gen.  xlvi.  23  he  is  called 
HusniJi. 

SHU'HAMITES,  THE  Onm^L^H  [patr., 
see  above]:  S  2,afxei:  [Vat.  ^afief,]  Alex.  2a- 
fieidrii,  'Sa/j.^i:  SuhtimiUe,  Suamitoi).  The  de- 
scendants of  Shuham,  or  Ilushim,  the  son  of  Dan 
(Num.  xxvi.  42,  43).  In  the  census  taken  in  the 
plains  of  Moab  they  numbered  4,4G0. 

SHU'HITE  On-ItT:  [Job  ii.  11,  6  2au- 
■)(iiiiv  (Vat.  Sin.  -x^'")  Alex.  At/xatiDj')  rvpavvos', 
elsewhere,  2ayx''''"'7^i  ^^'^'  ^^^^-  ~X^'-~  ^*''"  •'■'  '^'"" 
"Xei-  xlii.  9,  and  Alex.  P^vxir-qs,  xviii.  1 :]  Shu- 
h/tes),  .lob  viii.  1.  This  ethnic  appellative  "  Shu- 
hite  "  is  frequent  [occurs  5  times]  in  the  book  of 
Job,  but  only  as  the  epithet  of  one  person,  Biklad. 
The  local  indications  of  the  book  of  Job  point  to  a 
region  on  the  western  side  of  Chaldaea,  bordering 
on  Arabia;  and  exactly  in  this  locality,  above  Hit 
and  on  both  sides  of  the  Eupiirates,  are  found,  in 
the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  the  Tt:ukhi,  a  powerful 
people.  It  is  probable  that  these  were  the  Slnihites. 
and  that,  having  been  conquered  by  the  Babylonian 
kings,  they  were  counted  by  Lzekiel  among  the 
tribes  of  the  Clmldseans.  Having  lost  their  inde- 
pendence, they  ceased  to  be  noticed ;  but  it  was  no 
doubt  from  them  that  the  country  on  the  Euphra- 
tes immediately  above  Babylonia  came  to  be  desig- 
nated as  Sohene,  a  term  applied  to  it  in  the  i'eu- 
tingerian  Tables.  The  Shuhites  appear  to  have 
been  descendants  of  Abraham  by  Keturah.  [Shu- 
ah, 1.]  G.  K. 

SHU'LAMITE,  THE  (n^TsbntS^n,  i.  e. 
the  Simlammite  [see  below] :  [Vat.]  rj  'S.ovfxavsi- 
Tis;  [Rom.  2ouca/.tiTis;]"  Alex.  [FA-]  ri 'S.ouKa.fx- 
iTiS'  Sulamitis  and  Sunamitis).  One  of  the  [ler- 
sonages  in  the  poem  of  Solomon's  Song,  who. 
although  named  only  in  one  passage  (vi.  13),  is, 
according  to  some  interpreters,  the  most  prominent 
of  all  the  characters.  The  name  —  after  the  anal- 
ogy of  Shunanniiite  ^ — denotes  a  woman  belonging 
to  a  place  called  Shulem.  The  only  place  bearing 
that  name,  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  is 
Shunem  itself,  which,  as  far  back  as  the  4th  cen- 
tury, was  so  called  (Eusebius,  quoted  under  Shu- 
ne.m).  In  fact,  there  is  good  ground  for  believing 
that  the  two  were  identical.  Since,  tlien,  Sh"lam- 
mite  and  Shunaraniite  are  equivalent,  there  is  noth- 
ing surely  extravagant  in  supposing  that  the  !Shu- 
nammite  who  was  the  object  of  Solomon's  passion 
was  Abishag,  —  the  most  lovely  girl  of  her  day, 
and  at  the  time  of  David's  death  one  of  the  mast 
prominent  persons  at  the  court  of  Jerusalem.  Thia 
would  be  equally  appropriate,  whether  Solomon  was 
himself  the  author  of  the  Song,  or  it  were  written 
by  another  person  whose  object  was  to  personate 
him  accurately.  For  the  light  which  it  throws  on 
the  circumstances  of  Solomon's  accession,  see  S>>l- 
oi\iON.     [\Vkdi>i.\g,  Amer.  ed.]  G. 

SHU'MATHITES,  THE  {\'y^Wri,  i.  e. 
the  Shumathite  [patr.] :  [Vat.]  Ho-a^uaflei/i  [Rom 
-Qln,  Alex,  -dfiv] :  Semathei).  One  of  the  four 
families  who  sprang  from  Kiijath-jearim  (1  Chr.  ii. 
53).  They  probably  colonized  a  village  named 
Shuraah  somewhere  in  that  neighborhood.  But 
no  trace  of  such  a  name  has  been  discovered.    G. 

SHU'NAMMITE,    THE    {rVtp^rJrf"  • 

a  In  1  K.  ii.  21, 22,  the  shorter  form  of  iTlpy^T^ 
is  used. 


8022 


SHUNEM 


[Vat.]  7j  Swyuai/eiTij  [Rom.  -yi-] ;  Alex.  ['S.cofji.av 
IT7JS,]  Sovfji.aviTis'  >Sunainitis),  L  e.  the  native  of 
Sbuiieiii,  as  is  plain  from  2  Iv.  iv.  8.  It  is  applied 
to  two  persons:  Abisbag,  the  nurse  of  King  David 
(1  K.  i.  3,"  15,  ii.  17,  21,"  22),  and  the  nameless  host- 
ess of  Elisba  (2  K.  iv.  12,  25,  36). 

The  modern  representative  of  Shunem  being  So- 
lam.  some  nave  suggested  (as  Geseuius,  TJies.  p. 
1379  6),  or  positively  affirmed  (as  Fiirst,  ILmdwb.  ii. 
422),  that  Sbunammite  is  identical  with  Shulara- 
mite  (Cant.  vi.  13).  Of  this  all  that  can  be  said  is, 
that,  though  highly  probable,  it  is  not  absolutely 
certain.  G. 

SHU'NEM  (Q3-"ltt^  [te-o  resfin(/-places]  :  2ou- 
vav'^:  Siiiiem,  Sunnin).  One  of  the  cities  allotted 
to  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (Josh.  xix.  18).  It  occurs 
in  the  list  between  ChesuUoth  and  Ilaphraim.  It 
is  mentioned  on  two  occasions.  First,  as  the  place 
of  the  Philistines'  first  encampment  before  the  bat- 
tle of  Gilboa  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  4).  Here  it  occurs  in 
connection  with  Mount  Gilboa  and  En-dor,  and 
also  probably,  with  Jezreel  (xxix.  1).  [Gilboa, 
Amer.  ed.]  Secondly,  as  the  scene  of  Elisha's  in- 
tercourse with  the  Shunammite  woman  and  her 
son  (2  K.  iv.  8).  Here  it  is  connected  with  adja- 
cent cornfields,  and,  more  remotely,  with  Mount 
Carrael.  It  was  besides  the  native  place  of  Abi- 
shag,  the  attendant  on  King  David  (1  K.  i.  3), 
and  possibly  the  heroine  of  the  poem  or  drama  of 
"  Solomon's  Song." 

By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.)  it  is  men- 
tioned twice:  under  Xov07]/n  and  "  Sunem,"  as  5 
miles  south  of  IMount  Tabor,  and  then  known  as 
Sulem:  and  under  "  Sonam,"  as  a  village  in  Acra- 
battine,  in  the  territory  of  Sebaste  called  Sanim. 
The  latter  of  these  two  identifications  probably  re- 
fers to  Saniii;  a  well-known  fortress  some  7  miles 
from  Seb(tstii/eh  and  4  from  Arrabth  —  a  spot 
completely  out  of  the  circle  of  the  associations 
which  connect  themselves  with  Shunem.  The 
other  has  more  in  its  favor,  since  —  except  for  the 
distance  from  Mount  Tabor,  which  is  nearer  8  Ro- 
man miles  than  5  —  it  agrees  with  the  position  of 
the  present  Solum,  a  village  on  the  S.  W.  flank  of 
JeOtl  Duliy  (the  so-called  "Little  Hermon"),  3 
miles  N.  of  Jezreel,  5  from  Gilboa  (./.  Fukua),  full 
in  view  of  the  sacred  spot  on  Mount  Carmel,  and 
situated  in  the  midst  of  the  finest  cornfields  in  the 
world. 

It  is  named,  as  Salem,  by  the  Jewish  traveller, 
hap-Parchi  (Asher's  Benjmnin,  ii.  431).  It  had 
then  its  spring,  without  which  the  Philistines 
would  certainly  not  have  cho.sen  it  for  their  en- 
campment. Now,  according  to  the  notice  of  Dr. 
Robinson  (ii.  324),  the  spring  of  the  village  is  but 
a  poor  one. 

The  change  of  the  n  in  the  ancient  name  to  /  in 
the  modern  one,  is  the  reverse  of  that  which  has 
taken  place  in  Zerin  (Jezreel)  and  Beiiin  (Bethel). 

G. 

SHU'NI  C^^TT  [quiet]:  :S.avvis,  ^ovvl  [Vat. 
-vei\;  Alex.  Sai/j/fs  in  Gen. :  Suiii).  Son  of  Gad, 
B.nd  founder  of  the  family  of  the  Shunites  (Gen. 
dvi.  Ifi:  Num.  xxvi.  15). 


"  The  A.  V.  is  here  incorrect  in  omitting  the  defi- 
nite article. 

6  Perhaps  contracted  from  D'*3'lli7  (Oesenius,  Thus. 
>.  1879  b). 
'   It  is  given  differently  on  each  occunence  in  each 


SHUR 

SHU'NITES,THE  Om'n  [patr.  from  the 

above]:  Slow:  [Vat.  -vei]'-  Sunilce).  Descend- 
ants of  Shuni  the  son  of  Gad  (Num.  xxvi.  15). 

SHU'PHAM.     [Shuppim.] 

SHU'PHAMITES,  THE  Ol^CVi-n 
[patr.]  :  d  'S,o}cpai'i  [Vat.  -vet]  •  Siiphamitce).  The 
descendants  of  Shupiiam,  or  Shephupham,  the 
Benjamite  (Num.  xxvi.  39). 

SHUP'PIM  (C5tr.  U^^W  [perh.  seri^ents, 
Ges.]  :  2air<^iV;  [Vat.  '2,an<peiv,  Ma^^eii';]  Alex. 
'2,a<p(ifj.,  :S,f(p<pfi/j.:  Stplhim,  Siipluin).  1.  In  the 
genealogy  of  Benjamin,  "  Shuppim  and  Huppim, 
the  children  of  Ir,"  are  reckoned  in  1  Chr.  vii.  12. 
Ir  is  the  same  as  Iri  the  son  of  Bela  the  son  of 
Benjamin,  so  that  Shujipim  was  the  great-grandson 
of  Benjamin.  In  Num.  xxvi.  39,  he  and  his 
brother  are  called  Shuijham,  and  Huidiam,  while  in 
1  Chr.  viii.  5  they  appear  as  Shephuphan  and  Hu- 
ram,  sons  of  Bela,  and  in  Gen.  xlvi.  21  as  Mup- 
pim  and  Huppim.  sons  of  Benjamin.  To  avoid 
the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  Benjamin  had  a 
ixreat-grandson  at  the  time  he  went  down  to 
Kg\pt,  Lord  X.  Hervey  conjectures  that  Shuppim 
or  Shephuphan  was  a  son  of  Benjamin,  whose 
family   was    reckoned    with   that   of    Ir    or    Iri. 

[MUPPIM.] 

*  2.  (Rom.  Vat.  omit;  Alex.  260ie(^;  iSf/>/(im.) 
A  Levite  who,  with  Hosah,  had  charge  of  the  gate 
Shallecheth  (1  Chron.  xxvi.  16).  A. 

SHUR  {"-iW  \waiq  d  :  S.oip,  TiXafi-^oip  \ 
[Alex,  in  Gen.  xxv.  18  SourjA,  1  Chr.  xxvii.  8,  Te- 
Xajxffovp'^  Siir),  a  place  just  without  the  eastern 
border  of  I'^gypt.  Its  name,  if  Hebrew  or  Arabic, 
signifies  "  a  wall,"  and  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  it  is  of  Shemitic  origin  from  the  position  of 
the  place.  The  LXX.  seems  to  have  thus  inter- 
preted it,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  obscure  render- 
ing of  1  Sam.  xxvii.  8,  where  it  must  be  remarked 
the  extraordinary  form  reXa/x^povp  is  found.  This 
word    is    evidently    a   transcription  of   the  words 

rn^tf   •   •   •   •   □blS'S),  the  former,  save  the  in- 

T  T        ■ 

itial  particle,  not  being  translated. 

Shur  is  first  mentioned  in  the  narrative  of  Ha- 
gai-'s  flight  from  Sarah.  Abraham  was  then  in 
southernmost  Palestine,  and  when  Hagar  fled  she 
was  found  by  an  angel  "  by  the  fountain  in  the  way 
to  Shur"  (Gen.  xvi.  7).  Probably  she  was  en- 
deavoring to  return  to  Egypt,  the  country  of  her 
birth  • —  she  may  not  have  been  a  pure  Egyptian  — 
and  had  reached  a  well  in  the  inland  caravan  route. 
Abraham  afterwards  •'  dwelled  between  Kadesh  and 
Shur,  and  sojourned  in  Gerar "  (xx.  1 ).  From 
this  it  would  seem  either  that  Shur  lay  in  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Philistines  of  Gerar,  or  that  this  pas- 
toral tribe  wandered  in  a  region  extending  from 
Kadesh  to  Shur.  [Gerak.]  In  neither  case  can  we 
ascertain  the  position  of  Shur.  The  first  clear  in- 
dication of  this  occurs  in  the  account  of  Ishmael's 
posterity.  "  And  they  dwelt  from  Havilah  unto 
Shur,  that  [is]  before  Eirypt,  as  thou  goest  toward 
Assyria"  (xxv.  18).    With  this  should  be  compared 


of  the  two  great  Codices  :  Vat.  (Mai),  lovvav,  iiio/noi', 
SovjLiav  J  Alex.  Soui^ajut,  Ttoya^iav,  2ia}jULa/x  J  [Rom 
Sovi^ajLL,  ^(ol'a)Ll,  "^ttiixdv,] 

d  The  ancient  name,  says  Dietrich,  still  exists  in  the 
Jfbei  e>-.S'»r  which  stretches  from  the  southwest  o 
the  desert  fr-T/A  towards  Egypt  (Ges.  Hebr.  Hatuiw 
p.  857).  "  a 


SHUSHAN 

the  mention  of  the  extent  of  the  Anialekite  terri- 
tory, given  in  tliis  passacje,  "  And  Saul  smote  the 
Anialekites  from  Haviluh  [until]  thou  coniest  to 
Shur,  that  [is]  over  against  Egypt"  (1  Sam.  xv. 
7).  It  is  also  important  to  notice  that  the  Geshu- 
rites,  Gezrites,  and  Amalekites,  whom  David  smote, 
are  deseril)ed  as  "  from  an  ancient  period  the  in- 
habitants of  the  land,  an  thou  comest  to  Shur,  even 
unto  the  land  of  Egypt"  (xxvii.  8).  Tlie  Wilder- 
ness of  Shur  was  entered  by  the  Israelites  after 
they  had  crossed  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  xv.22,  23).  It 
was  also  called  the  Wilderness  of  liltham  (Num. 
xxxiii.  8).  The  first  passage  presents  one  difficulty, 
upon  which  the  LXX.  and  Vuli;.  throw  no  light, 
in  the  mention  of  Assyria.  If,  however,  we  com- 
pare it  with  later  places,  we  find  m^^W  HIDSS 
here,  remarkably  like  m^tt?  '^^'^2  i"  1  Sam. 
xxvii.  8,  and  "1^*"  tTS^S  in  xv.  7,  as  though  the 
same  phrase  had  been  originally  found  in  the  first 
as  a  gloss,  but  it  may  have  l)een  there  transposed, 
and  have  originally  followed  the  mention  of  Havi- 
lah.  In  the  notices  of  the  Amalekite  and  Ishmael- 
ite  region,  in  which  the  latter  succeeded  the  former, 
there  can  be  no  question  that  a  strip  of  northern 
Arabia  is  intended,  stretching  from  the  Isthmus  of 
Suez  towards  and  probaljly  to  the  Tersian  (iulf. 
The  name  of  the  wilderness  may  perhaps  nidicate  a 
somewhat  southern  position.  Shur  may  thus  have 
betjn  a  fortified  town  east  of  the  ancient  head  of 
the  Ited  Sea,  but  in  the  hands  of  the  Arabs,  or  at 
one  time  the  Philistines,  not  of  the  Egyptians. 
From  its  being  spoken  of  as  a  limit,  it  was  prob- 
ably tlie  last  Arabian  town  before  entering  E<;ypt. 
The  hierogl\ phic  inscriptions  have  not  been  found 
to  throw  any  linlit  upon  this  question.  The 
SH.AUA  or  SHAL.V  mentioned  in  them  is  an  im- 
portint  country,  perhaps  Syria.  K.  S.  P. 

SHUSHAN  (^©•^tt7:  ^odcra,  [^ovadv-]  Su- 
inn)  is  said  to  have  received  its  name  from  the 
abundance  of  the  lily  {S/iiish'in  or  ShitslxuKth)  in 
its  neighborhood  (Atheu.  xii.  5iy).  It  was  one  of 
the  most  important  towns  in  the  whole  East,  and 
requires  to  Ije  described  at  some  length. 

1.  llislanj.  —  Susa  was  originally  the  capital  of 
the  country  called  in  Scripture  Elam,  and  by  the 
classical  writers,  sometimes  Cissia  (Kicro-ia),  some- 
times Snsis  or  Susiana.  [Elaji.]  Its  foundation 
is  thought  to  date  from  a  time  anterior  to  Chedor- 
laomer,  as  the  remains  found  on  the  site  have  often 
a  character  of  very  high  antiquity.  The  first  dis- 
tinct mention  of  the  town  that  has  been  as  yet 
found  is  in  the  inscriptions  of  Asslnir-/iniu-p(il,  tlie 
son  and  successor  of  Esar-Haddon,  who  states  that 
he  took  the  place,  and  exhibits  a  ground-plan  of  it 
upon  his  sculptures  (Layard,  Niii.  and  Bnb.  pp. 
452,  453).  The  date  of  this  monument  is  about 
B.  c.  fiGO.  We  next  find  Susa  in  the  possession  of 
the  Babylonians,  to  whom  Elam  had  prolialily 
passed  at  the  division  of  the  Assyrian  empire  made 
by  Cyaxares  and  Nabopolassar.  In  the  last  year 
of  Belshazzar  fB.  c.  538),  Daniel,  while  still  a 
Bal)y Ionian  subject,  is  there  on  the  king's  business, 
ind  "at  Shuslian  in  the  palace"  sees  his  famous 
rision  of  the  ram  and  he-goat  (Dan.  viii.  2).  Tlie 
'onquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  transferred  Susa  to 
the  Persian  dominion;  and  it  was  not  long   before 


o  Not  only  were  the  passes  difficult,  but   thpv  were 
In  the  possessioo  of  semi-iudependtjut  tribes,  "ijo  lev 


SHUSHAN  3023 

the  Achsemenian  princes  determined  to  make  it  the 
capital  of  their  whole  empire,  and  the  chief  place 
of  their  own  residence.  Accordinsr  to  some  writers 
(Xen.  Cyrop.  viii.  6,  §  22;  Strab?  xv.  3,  §  2),  the 
change  was  made  by  Cvrus;  according  to  others 
(Ctes.  Kxc.  Pers.  §  9;  Herod,  iii.  30,  65,  70),  it 
had  at  any  rate  taken  place  before  the  death  of 
Cambyses;  but,  according  to  the  evidence  of  the 
place  itself  and  of  the  other  Achsemenian  monu- 
ments, it  would  seem  most  probable  that  the  trans 
fer  was  really  the  work  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  who  is, 
found  to  have  been  (as  Pliny  said,  //.  N.  vi.  27) 
the  founder  of  the  great  palace  there  —  the  building 
so  graphically  described  in  the  book  of  Esther  (i.  5, 
6).  'I'he  reasons  which  induced  the  change  are 
tolerably  apparent.  After  the  conquest  of  Baby- 
lonia and  Egypt,  the  western  provinces  of  the  em- 
pire were  become  by  fai-  the  most  important,  and 
the  court  could  no  longer  be  conveniently  fixed 
east  of  Zagros,  either  at  Ecbatana  {Hainwhin)  or 
at  Pasargadse  {Muryaub),  which  were  cut  off  from 
the  Mesopotamian  plain  by  the  dilficulty  of  the 
passes  for  fully  one  half  of  the  year."  It  was  ne- 
cessary to  find  a  capital  west  of  the  mountains,  and 
here  Babylon  and  Susa  presented  themselves,  each 
with  its  peculiar  advantages.  Darius  probably  pre- 
ferred Susa,  first,  on  account  of  its  vicinity  to  Per- 
sia (Strab.  XV.  3,  §  2);  secondly,  because  it  was 
cooler  than  l>ab\lon,  being  nearer  the  mountain 
chain;  and  thirdly,  because  of  the  excellence  of  the 
water  there  {GHxjraph.  Journ.  ix.  70).  Susa  ac- 
cordingly became  the  metropolis  of  Persia,  and  is 
recognized  as  such  by  .iEschylus  {Pers  10,  124, 
&c.),  Herodotus  (v.  25,  49,  &c.)  Ctesias  (Pws. 
/■'xc.  passim),  Strabo  (xv.  3,  §  2),  and  almost  all 
the  best  writers.  The  court  must  have  resided 
tiiere  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  only 
quitting  it  regularly  for  I'xbatana  or  Persepolis  in 
the  height  of  summer,  and  perhaps  sometimes 
leaving  it  for  Bab\lon  in  the  depth  of  winter  (see 
Kawlinson's  Herodotus,  iii.  256).  Susa  retained 
its  preeminence  to  the  period  of  the  Macedonian 
conquest,  when  Alexander  found  there  above  twelve 
millions  sterling,  and  all  the  regalia  of  the  Great 
King  (Arrian.  Exp.  Alex.  iii.  16).  After  this  it 
declined.  The  preference  of  Alexander  for  Baby- 
lon caused  the  neglect  of  Susa  by  his  successors, 
none  of  whom  ever  made  it  their  capital  city.  We 
liear  of  it  once  only  in  their  wars,  when  it  falls  into 
the  power  of  Aiitigonus  (b.  c.  315),  who  obtains 
treasure  there  to  tlie  amount  of  three  millions  and 
a  half  of  our  money  (Diod.  Sic.  xix,  48,  §  7). 
Nearly  a  century  later  (b.  c.  231)  Susa  was  at- 
tacked by  jMoIo  in  his  reliellion  against  Antiochus 
tlie  Great;  he  took  the  town,  but  failed  in  his  at 
tempt  ujion  the  citadel  (Polyb.  v.  48,  §  14),  We 
hear  of  it  again  at  the  time  of  the  Arabian  con- 
quest of  Persia,  when  it  was  bravely  defended  by 
Hormuzau  (Ixiftus,  Ch(ddcea  ami  Susiann,  p.  344). 
2.  Position,  etc.  —  A  good  deal  of  uncertainty 
has  existed  ooncerning  the  position  of  Susa.  While 
most  historians  and  comparative  geographers  have 
inclined  to  identify  it  with  the  modern  ^^;«  or  S/iush, 
which  is  in  lat.  '32°  10',  long.  48°  26'  E.  from 
(ireenwicli,  between  the  Shapur  and  the  river  ot 
Dizful,  there  have  not  been  wanting  some  to  main 
tain  the  rival  claims  of  Shuster,  which  is  situated 
01.  the  left  bank  of  the  Kuran,  more  than  half  a 


ii'd  a  tnll  on  all   passengers,  eveu   the  Persiun  kings 
tUeuistjIVL-s  ^Strab.  sv.  3,  §  41. 


5024 


SHUSHAN 


degree  fyvther  to  the  eastward.  A  tliird  candidate 
for  the  honor  has  even  been  started,  and  it  has 
neen  maintained  with  much  learning  and  ingenuity 
tliat  Siisiin,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  same  stream, 
50  or  60  miles  above  Shuslei;  is,  if  not  the  Susa 
of  the  Greeks  and  Komans,  at  any  rate  the  Shushan 
of  Scripture  (Gi-ogr.  Journ.  ix.  85).  But  a  care- 
ful examination  of  these  several  spots  has  finally 
caused  a  general  acquiescence  in  the  belief  that  Sics 
alone  is  entitled  to  the  honor  of  representing  at 
once  the  Scriptural  Slnishan  and  the  Susa  of  the 
classical  writers  (see  Loftus,  CludJcea  and  Su.-iianii, 
p.  338;  Smith,  Diciwnary  of  Geoyrnphy^  sub  voc. ; 
Kawlinsoii,  Ihrodoius,  iii.  254).  The  difficulties 
caused  by  the  seemingly  confused  accounts  of  the 
ancient  writers,  of  whom  some  place  Susa  on  the 
Choaspes  (flerod.  v.  49,  52 ;  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4 ;  Q. 
Curt.  V.  2),  some  on  the  Eulajus  (Arr.  Exp.  Al. 
vii.  7;  Ptol.  vi.  3:  Plin.  //.  N.  vi.  27),  have  been 
removed  by  a  careful  survey  of  the  ground,  from 
which  it  appears  that  the  Choaspes  (Ka-kkah)  orig- 
inally bifurcated  at  Pai  Piil,  20  miles  above  Susa, 
the  rigiit  arm  keeping  its  present  course,  while  tiie 
left  flowed  a  little  to  the  east  of  Sus,  and,  absorb- 


SHUSHAN 

ing  the  Shapur  about  12  miles  below  the  ruins, 
flowed  on  somewhat  east  of  south,  and  joined  the 
Ktn-un  (Pasitigris)  at  Ahiaaz.  The  left  branch  of 
the  Choaspes  was  sometimes  called  by  that  name, 
but  more  properly  bore  the  appellation  of  Euteus 
(Ulai  of  Daniel).  Susa  thus  lay  between  the  two 
streams  of  the  Eulseus  and  the  Shapur,  the  latter 
of  which,  being  probably  joined  to  the  Eulseus  by 
canals,  was  reckoned  a  part  of  it;  and  hence  Pliny 
said  that  the  EuIkus  surrounded  the  citadel  of 
Susa  (/.  s.  c. ).  At  the  distance  of  a  few  miles 
east  and  west  of  the  city  were  two  other  streams  — 
the  Coprates  or  river  of  Dizful,  and  the  right  arm 
of  the  Choaspes  (the  modern  Kerkhah).  Thus  the 
country  about  Susa  was  most  al)undantly  watered ; 
and  hence  the  luxuriance  and  fertility  remarked 
alike  by  ancient  and  modern  authors  (Athen.  xii. 
513;  Giioyraph.  Jnurn.  ix.  71).  The  Kerkhah 
water  was  moreover  regarded  as  of  peculiar  excel- 
lence; it  was  the  only  water  drunk  by  the  Great 
King,  and  vras  always  carried  with  bun  on  his 
journeys  and  foi'eign  expeditions  (Herod,  i.  188; 
'Phit.  de  Jixil.  ii.  601,  D;  Athen.  Deijm.  ii.  171, 
ifcc).     Even  at  the  present  day  it  is  celebrated  for 


Scale  of  Icet. 


1.  Ruins  of  Susa. 

2.  The  hiffh  mound  or  citadel  (?) 
8.  The  palace. 

4.  The  great  platform. 

5.  Kuinsof  the  city. 


No.  1.    Plan  of  the  Ruins  of  Susa. 


lightness  and  purity,  and  the  natives  prize  it  above 
that  of  almost  all  other  streams  ( Geof/r.  Journ.  ix. 
70,  80). 

3.  General  Description  of  the  Ruins.  —  The 
ruins  of  Susa  cover  a  space  about  6,000  feet  long 
from  east  to  west,  by  4,500  feet  broad  from  north 
to  south.  I'he  circumference  of  the  whole,  exclu- 
sive of  outlying  and  comparatively  insignificant 
mounds,  is  about  three  miles.  According  to  INIr. 
Loftus,  "  the  principal  existing  remains  consist  of 
four  spacious  artificial  platforms,  distinctly  separate 
froii.  each  other.  Of  these  the  western  mound  is 
the  smallest  in  superficial  extent,  but  considerably 
the  most  -loft--  and  important Its  highest 


point  is  119  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Sbaour 
(Shapur).  In  form  it  is  an  irregular,  obtuse-an- 
gled triangle,  with  its  corners  rounded  off,  and  'its 
base  facing  nearly  due  east.  It  is  apparently  con- 
structed of  earth,  gravel,  and  sun-dried  lirick,  sec 
tions  being  exposed  in  numerous  ravines  produced 
by  the  rains  of  winter.  The  sides  are  so  perpen- 
dicular as  to  be  inaccessible  to  a  horseman  except 
at  three  places.  The  measurement  roup.d  the  sum- 
mit is  about  2,850  feet.  In  the  centre  is  a  deep, 
circular  depression,  probably  a  large  court,  sur- 
rounded by  elevated  piles  of  buildings,  the  fall  of 
which  has  given  the  present  configuration  to  the 
surface.    Here  and  there  are  exposed  in  the  ra\ine« 


SHUSHAN 

traces  of  1  rick  walls,  which  show  that  the  present 
elevation  of  the  mound  has  heen  attained  by  much 
subsequent  sujjerposition  "  {Cluthken  and  Susiani, 
p.  343).  Air.  Loftus  regards  this  mound  as  indu- 
bitalily  the  remains  of  the  famous  citadel  (6.Kpa  or 
o(cp((7roAi$)  of  Susa,  so  frequently  mentioned  l>y 
the  ancient  writers  (Herod,  iii.  08;  Folyb.  v.  48, 
§  14;  Strah.  xv.  3,  §  2;  Arr.  Exp.  Al.  iii."  16,  &c.). 
"  Se|iarated  from  the  citadel  on  the  west  by  a 
channel  or  ravine,  the  bottom  of  which  is  on  a 
level  with  the  e-tternal  desert,  is  the  great  central 
platform,  covering  upwards  of  sixty  acres  (No.  3 
on  the  Plan).  Tlie  highest  point  is  on  the  south 
side,  where  it  presents  generally  a  perpendicular 
escarpment  to  the  plain,  and  rises  to  an  elev-ition 
of  about  70  feet;  on  the  east  and  north  it  does  not 
exceed  40  or  50  feet.  The  east  face  measures  3,000 
feet  in  length.  Enormous  ravines  penetrate  to  the 
very  heart  of  the  mound"  (Loftus,  p.  345).  The 
third  platform  (Xo.  2  on  the  I'lan)  lies  towards  the 
north,  and  is  "  a  considerable  square  mass,"  about 
a  thousand  feet  eacii  way.  It  abuts  on  the  central 
platform  at  its  northwestern  extremity,  but 
is  separated  from  it  by  "  a  slight  hollow," 
which  "  was  perhaps  an  ancient  roadway  " 
(Loftus,  ibid.).  These  three  mounds  form 
together  a  lozenge-shaped  mass,  4,500  feet 
long  and  nearly  3,000  feet  broad,  pointing  in 
its  longer  direction  a  little  west  of  north. 
East  of  them  is  the  fourth  platform,  which  is 
very  extensive  but  of  much  lower  elevation 
than  the  rest  (No.  4  on  the  Plan).  Its  plan 
is  very  irregular:  in  its  dimensions  it  about 
equals  all  the  rest  of  the  ruins  put  together. 
Beyond  this  eastern  platform  a  number  of 
low  mounds  are  traceable,  extendhig  nearly 
to  the  Dizful  river;  but  there  are  noreuiains 
of  walls  in  any  direction,  and  no  marks  of 
any  Inuldings  west  of  the  Shapur.  All  the 
ruins  are  contained  within  a  circumference  of 
about  seven  miles  {Heoyraph.  Juurn.  ix.  71) 
G.  R. 
Arciiitectuke  —  The  explorations  un- 
dertaken by  General,  now  Sir  Fenwick  Wil- 
liams  of  Kars,  in  the  mounds  at  Susa.  in  the 
year  1851,  resulted  in  the  discovery  of  tiie 
bases  of  three  colunms,  marked  5,  0,  and  7 
on  the  accompanying  plan  (wood-cut  No.  2).  These 
were  found  to  be  27  feet  6  inches  apart  from  centre 
to  centre,  and  as  they  were  very  similar  to  the 
bases  of  the  great  hall  known  popularly  as  the  Chel 
Minar  at  I'ersepolis,  it  was  assumed  that  another 
row  would  be  found  at  a  like  distance  inwards. 
Holes  were  accordingly  dug,  and  afterwards  trenches 
driven,  without  any  successful  result,  as  it  hap- 
pened to  be  on  the  spot  where  the  walls  originally 
stood,  and  where  no  columns,  consequently,  could 
have  existed.  Had  any  trustworthy  restoration  of 
the  Persepolitan  hall  been  publislied  at  that  time, 
the  mistake  would  have  been  avoided,  but  as  none 
then  existed  the  opportunity  was  nearly  lost  for  our 
becoming  acquainted  with  one  of  the  most  interest- 
ing ruins  coiniected  with  Bible  history  which  now 
exist  out  of  Syria.  Fortunately  in  the  following 
year  Mr.  Loftus  resun^d  the  excavations  wit*)  more 
success,  and  ascertained  the  position  of  all  the  72 
columns  of  which  the  original  building  was  com- 
posed. Only  one  base  had  been  entirely  removed, 
»nd  as  that  was  in  the  midst  of  the  central  plia- 
hnx,  its  absence  threw  no  doubt  on  any  part  of  the 
Krrangement.  On  tiie  liases  of  four  of  the  colunms 
^us  uncovered  (shade!  darker  on  the  plan,  and 


SHUSHAN 


.3025 


numbered  1,  2,  3,  4)  were  found  trilingual  inscrip- 
tions in  the  languages  adopted  by  the  Achwmenian 
kings  at  Behistun  and  elsewhere,  hut  all  were  so 
much  injured  by  the  fall  of  the  superincumlsent 
mass  that  not  one  was  complete,  and  unfortunately 
the  Persian  text,  which  could  have  been  read  with 
most  certainty,  was  the  least  perfect  of  any.  Not- 
withstanding this,  Mr.  Edwin  Norris,  with  his  usual 
iiiuenuity,  by  a  careful  comparison  of  the  whole, 
made  out  the  meaning  of  the  first  part  certainly-, 
of  the  latter  half  with  very  tolerable  precision. 
As  this  inscription  conta'ns  nearly  all  we  know  of 
the  history  of  this  building,  we  quote  it  entire  from 
./num.  As.  Soc,  vol  xv.  162:  '-Says  Artaxen^es 
(.Mnenion),  the  (ireat  King,  the  King  of  Kings,  the 
King  of  the  Country,  the  King  of  the  Earth,  the 
son  of  King  Darius —  Darius  was  the  son  of  King 
.\rtaxerxes  —  Artaxerxes  was  the  son  of  Xerxes 
—  Xerxes  was  the  son  of  King  Darius  —  Darius 
was  the  son  of  Hystaspes  the  Achamenian  — 
Darius  my  ancestor  anciently  built  this  temple, 
and    afterwards    it    was    repaired    by    Artaxerxes 


O 
O 
O 
O 
O 

o 


o   o   o  o   o   o 

O    O    O    O    O    p 

I 

:  ^■ 

O^        roDDDUG    D--^-^--^-—o    o 

Oci  ^D     D     □    U    □    D  O     O 

O^  iODDDDD  OO 

O  iDDDDaO  OO 

O  iDDUODD  OO 

O  siDGDODD  OO 

700  ff  I //.Tj:' I  7  00. ft  I 


No.  2.     Plan  of  the  Great  Palace  at  Susa. 

my  grandfather.  By  the  aid  of  Ormazd  I  placed 
the  etfigies  of  Tanaites  and  Mithra  in  this  tem- 
ple. INIay  Ormazd,  Tanaites,  and  Mithra  protect 
me,  with  the  other  Gods,  and  all  that  I  have 
done  ....'" 

The  bases  uncovered  by  Mr.  Loftus  were  arranged 
as  on  the  wood-cut  No.  2,  reduced  from  that  given 
at  page  306  of  his  C/iakhen  and  Stisi.mui,  and  most 
fortunately  it  is  found  on  examination  that  the 
building  was  an  exact  counterpart  of  the  celebrated 
( 'hel  Miliar  at  Persepolis.  They  are  in  fact  more 
like  one  another  than  almost  any  other  two  build- 
ings of  antiquity,  and  consequently  what  is  wanting; 
in  the  one  may  safely  be  supplied  from  the  other,  if 
it  exists  there. 

Their  age  is  nearly  the  same,  that  at  Susa  having 
been  connnenced  by  Darius  Hystaspis,  that  at  Per- 
sepolis —  if  one  may  trust  the  inscription  on  its 
staircase  (./.  A.  S.  x.  320)  —  was  built  entirely  by 
Xerxes.  Their  dimensions  are  practically  identical, 
the  width  of  that  at  Susa,  according  to  Mr.  Loftus, 
being  345  feet,  the  depth  N.  and  S.  244."  The  cor- 
responding dimensions  at  Persepolis,  according  to 
Flandin  and  (  oste's  survey,  are  357.6  by  254.6,  or 
from  10  to  12  feet  in  e.xcess;  Imf  tl»e  iliffereuoe 


3026 


SHUSHAN 


may  arise  as  much  from  imperfect  surveying  as 
from  any  real  discrepancy. 

Tlie  number  of  columns  and  their  arrangement 
are  identical  in  the  two  buildings,  and  the  details 
of  the  architecture  are 
practically  the  same  so 
far  as  they  can  be  made 
out.  But  as  no  pillar 
is  standing  at  Susa,  and 
no  capital  was  found 
entire  or  nearly  so,  it  is 
not  easy  to  feel  quite 
sure  that  the  annexed 
restoration  (wood-cut 
No.  3)  is  in  all  respects 
correct.  It  is  reduced 
from  one  made  by  Mr. 
Churchill,  who  accom- 
panied Jlr.  Loftus  in 
his  explorations.  If  it 
is  so,  it  ap|jears  that 
the  great  difference  be- 
tween the  two  liuildini;s 
was  that  double  bull 
capitals  were  used  in 
the  interior  of  the  cen- 
tral square  hall  at  Susa, 
while  their  use  was  ap- 
propriately confined  to 
the  porticoes  at  Persep- 
olis.  In  other  respects 
the  height  of  the  capi- 
tal, which  measures  28 
feet,  is  very  nearly  the 
same,  but  it  is  fuller, 
Mo.  3.  Restored  elevation  and  looks  somewhat  too 
of  capital  at  Susa.  heavy  for  the  siiaft  that 

lupports  it.  This  defect  was  to  a  great  extent  cor- 
rected at  Persepolis,  and  may  ha\e  arisen  from 
those  at  Susa  being  the  first  translation  of  the 
Ninevite  wooden  origin.al  into  stone  architecture. 

The  pillars  at  I'ersepolis  vary  from  GO  to  67  feet 
in  height,  and  we  may  therefore  assume  that  those 
at  Susa  were  nearly  the  same.  No  trace  of  -the 
walls  which  enclosed  these  pillars  was  detected  at 
Susa,  from  which  j\Ir.  Loftus  assumes,  somewhat 
too  hastily,  that  none  existed.  As,  however,  he 
could  not  make  out  the  traces  of  the  walls  of  any 
other  of  the  numerous  buildings  which  he  admits 
once  existed  in  these  mounds,  we  ought  not  to  be 
surprised  at  his  not  finding  them  in  this  instance. 

Fortunately  at  Persepolis  sufficient  remains  still 
exist  to  enable  us  to  supjily  this  hiatus,  though 
there  also  sun-burnt  brick  was  too  much  used  for 
the  walls,  and  if  it  were  not  that  the  jambs  of  the 
doors  and  windows  were  generally  of  stone,  we 
should  be  as  nuich  at  a  loss  there  as  at  Susa.  The 
annexed  wood-cut  (No.  4),  repre.senting  the  plan  of 
the  hall  at  Persepolis,  is  i-ogtored  from  data  so  com- 
jSjete  as  scarcely  to  admit  of  doubt  with  regard  to 
aiky  part,  and  will  sufKce  to  explain  the  arrange- 
ment of  both." 

Both  buildings  consisted  of  a  central  hall,  as 
nearly  as  may  be  200  feet  square,  md  consequently, 
Ko  far  as  we  know,  the  largest  ii  tei-ior  of  the  an- 
cient world,  with  the  single  excep.ion  of  the  great 
hall  at  Karnac,  which  covers  58.-jv>(J  square  feet. 
while  this  only  extends  to  40,000.      IJoth  the  Per- 

o  For  details  of  this  restoration,  see  i'/if  Palaces  of 
Sin'veh  and  Persepolis  Restored.     By  Jas.  Fergusson 
PubiiiJiieJ  in  1861. 


SHUSHAN 

sian  halls  are  supported  by  36  columns,  upwanls  of 
60  feet  in  height,  and  spaced  equidistant  from  one 
another  at  about  27  feet  6  inches  from  centre  to 
centre. 

On  the  exterior  of  this,  separated  from  it  bj 
walls  18  feet  in  thickness,  were  three  great  porches, 
each  measuring  200  feet  in  width  by  65  in  depth, 
and  supported  by  12  columns  whose  axes  were  co- 
incident with  those  of  the  interior.  These  were  lie- 
yond  doulit  the  great  audience  halls  of  the  palace, 
and  served  the  same  purposes  as  the  House  of  tiie 
Forest  of  Lebanon  in  Solomon's  palace,  though  its 
dimensions  were  somewhat  different,  150  feet  by  75. 
These  porches  were  also  identical,  as  far  as  use  and 
arrangement  go,  with  the  throne-rooms  in  the  pal- 
aces of  Delhi  or  Agra,  or  those  which  are  used  at 
this  day  in  the  palace  at  Isjiahan. 

The  western  porch  would  be  appropriate  to  morn- 
ing ceremonials,  the  eastern  to  those  of  the  after- 
noon. I'here  was  no  porch,  as  we  might  expect  in 
that  climate,  to  the  south,  but  the  principal  one, 
both  at  Susa  and  Persepolis,  was  that  which  faced 
the  north  with  a  slight  inclination  towards  the 
east.  It  was  the  throne-room,  pnr  excellence.,  of 
the  palace,  and  an  inspection  of  the  Plan  will  show 
how  easily,  by  the  arrangement  of  the  stairs,  a 
whole  army  of  courtiers  or  of  tribute-bearers 
could  file  before  the  king  without  confusion  or  in- 
convenience. The  bassi  relievi  in  the  stairs  at 
Persepolis  in  fact  represent  permanently  the  pro- 
cession 'that  on  great  festivals  took  place  upon 
their  steps;  and  a  similar  arrangement  of  stairs 
was  no  doubt  to  be  found  at  Susa  when  the  palace 
was  entire. 

It  is  by  no  means  so  clear  to  what  use  the  cen- 
tral hall  was  appropriated.  The  inscription  quoted 
above  would  lead  us  to  suppo.se  that  it  was  a  tem- 
jjle,  properly  so  called,  but  the  sacred  and  the  sec- 
ular functions  of  the  Persian  kings  were  so  inti- 
mately blended  together  that  it  is  in)possible  for  us 
to  draw  a  line  anywhere,  or  say  how  far  "  temple 
cella  "  or  "  palace  hall  "  would  be  a  correct  desig- 
nation for  this  part  of  the  building.  It  probably 
was  used  for  all  great  semi-relijjious  ceremonies, 
such  as  the  coronation  or  enthronization  of  the 
king  —  at  such  ceremonies  as  returning  thanks  or 
making  offerings  to  the  gods  for  victories  —  for  any 
pur](0se  in  fact  requiring  more  than  usual  state  or 
solemnity;  but  there  seems  no  reason  to  suppose  it 
ever  was  used  for  purely  festal  or  convivial  purposes, 
tor  which  it  is  singularly  ill  suited. 

From  what  we  know  of  the  buildings  at  Persep- 
olis, we  may  assert,  almost  with  certainty,  that  the 
■'  King's  Gate,"  where  JMordecai  sat  (Lsth.  ii.  21), 
and  where  so  many  of  the  transactions  of  the  liook 
of  Esther  took  place,  was  a  square  hall  (wood-cut 
No.  5),  measuring  probably  a  little  more  than  100 
feet  each  way.  and  with  its  roof  supported  by  four 
pillars  in  the  centre,  and  that  this  stood  at  a  dis- 
tance of  al>out  150  or  200  feet  from  the  front  of 
the  northern  portico,  where  its  remains  will  proba- 
bly now  be  found  when  looked  for.  We  may  also 
be  tolerablv  certain  that  the  inner  court,  where 
Esther  appeared  to  implore  the  king's  fevor  (Esth. 
V.  1),  *vas  the  space  between  the  northern  portico, 
and  this  square  building,  the  outer  court  being  the 
space  between  the  "  Kind's  Gate  "  and  the  north- 
ern terrace  wall.  We  may  also  predicate  with  tol- 
erable certainty  that  the  "Royal  House"  (i.  9) 
and  the  '  House  of  the  Women  "  (ii.  9,  11)  were 
situated  behii  d  this  great  hall  to  the  soutliward, 
or  l)etvveen  it  and  the  citadel,  and  having  a  direct 


SHUSHAN 

jomniuiiic.ation  with  it  either  by  means  of  a  bridge 
over  the  nxvine,  or  a  covered  way  under  ground, 
most  [*oba!)ly  tiie  former. 

There  seems  also  no  reasonable  doubt  but  that  it 
was  in  front  of  one  of  the  lateral  porticoes  of  this 
Duildiug  that  King  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  "  made  a 


SHUSHAN-EDUTH 


5027 


feast  unto  all  the  people  that  were  present  in  Shu- 
shan  the  palace,  both  unto  great  and  small,  seven 
days  in  the  coitri  of  the  garden  of  the  king's  paU 
(ice  ;  where  were  white,  green,  and  blue  hangings, 
fastened  with  cords. of  fine  linen  and  purple  to  silver 
rings  and  pillars  of  marble:  the  beds  were  of  gold 


No.  4.     Restored  plan  of  Great  Ilall  of  Xerxes  at  Persepolis.     Scale  100  feet  to  an  inch. 


Hid  silver  upon  a  pavement  of  red  and  blue  and 
white  and  black  marble"  (Esth.  i.  5,  6).  From 
this  it  is  evident  that  the  feast  took  place,  not  in 
the  interior  of  any 
hall,  but  out  of  doors, 
in  tents  erected  iiii 
one  of  the  courts  of 
the  palace,  such  as  we 
may  easily  fancy  ex- 
isted in  front  of  either 
the  eastern  or  western 
porches  of  the  great 
central  building. 

The  whole  of  this 
great  group  of  build- 
ings was  raised  on  an 
No.  5.  Restored  plan  of  the  artificial  mound,  near- 
"  King's  Gate  "  at  palace  of  u,  sqiiare  in  plan 
measuring  about 
1,000  feet  each  way, 
and  rising  to  a  height  apparently  of  50  or  GO  feet 
above  the  plain.  As  the  principal  building  nnist, 
like  those  at  Persepolis,  have  had  a  tnlur  or  raised 
platform  [Templk]  aliove  its  roof,  its  height  could 
not  have  been  less  than  100  or  120  feet,  and  its 
elevation  above  the  plain  must  consequently  have 
teen  170  or  200  feet. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  anything  much 
^nder  in  an  architectural  point  of  view  than  such 
A  building,  rising  to  such  a  height  out  of  a  group 
jf  subordinate  palace-buildings,  interspersed  with 


Persepolis 

Scale  100  feet  to  an  inch. 


trees  and  shrubs,  and  the  whole  based  on  such  a 
terrace,  rising  from  the  fiat  but  fertile  plains  that 
are  watered  by  the  Euteus  at  its  base.         J.  F 

SHU'SHAN-E'DUTH.  "  To  the  chief  mu- 
sician upon  Shushan-Eduth "  {TfinV  y^^'W) 
is  plainly  a  musical  direction,  whatever  else  may 
be  obscure  about  it  (Vs.  Ix.).  In  Ps.  Ixxx.  we 
have  the  fuller  phrase  "  Shoshannim-eduth,"  of 
which  Roediger  regards  Shushan-eduth  as  an  ab- 
breviation (Gesen.  Tl(es.  p.  1385).  As  it  now 
stands  it  denotes  "  the  lily  of  testimony,"  and  pos- 
sibly contains  the  first  words  of  some  Psalm  to  the 
melody  of  which  that  to  which  it  was  prefixed  was 

sung ;  and  the  preposition  7^,  V(Z  (A.  V.  "  upon  " ) 
would  then  signify  "  after,  in  the  manner  of,"  in- 
dicating to  the  conductor  of  the  Temple-choir  the 
air  which  he  was  to  follow.  If,  however,  l«'oedigei 
is  correct  in  his  conjecture  that  Shushan-eduth  i.a 
merely  an  abbreviation  for  Shoshannini-edutli.  tiie 
translation  of  the  words  above  given  would  be  in- 
correct.    The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  appear  to  have 

read  D^StfP'vl?,  for  they  render  tojs  aWotu- 
6r)(rofi4vovs  and  pro  his  qui  immutabvntuv  respec- 
tively.    In    the    LXX.,    ^^^^,    'eih'ith,  becomes 

T137,  'Oil,  ert.  There  does  not  appear  to  be  much 
su])i5ort  for  the  view  taken  by  some  (as  by  Joel 
Bril)  that  Shushan-eduth  is  a  musical  instrument, 
so  called  from  its  resemblance  to  a  lily  in  shape 


8028      SHUTHALHITES,  THE 

(Simonis),  or  from  havinf;  lily-shaped  ornaments 
upon  it,  or  from  its  six  (sliesli )  strings.  Fiirst,  in 
consistency  with  his  theory  with  respect  to  the 
titles  of  the  I'salnis,  regards  Shnshan-eduth  as  the 
name  of  one  of  the  twenty-four- divisions  of  singers 
appointed  by  David,  so  called  after  a  band-master, 
Shushan,  and  having  its  headquarters  at  Eduth, 
which  he  conjectures  may  be  the  same  as  Adithaim 
in  .losh.  XV.  30  {Hanihcb.  s.  v.).  As  a  conjecture 
this  is  certainly  ingenious,  but  it  has  the  disadvan- 
tage of  introducing  as  many  difficulties  as  it  re- 
moves.    Simonis  {Lex.  s.  v.)  connects  ''eduth  with 


the  Arabic   t>«-C.,   '?i'/,  a  lute,"  or  kind  of  guitar 

played  with  a  plectrum,  and  considers  it  to  be  the 
melody  produced  by  this  instrument;  so  that  in 
his  view  Shushan-eduth  indicates  that  the  lily- 
Bhaped  cymbals  were  to  be  accompanied  with  play- 
ing on  the  lute.  Gesenius  proposes  to  render 
^ediitli  a  "  revelation,"  and  hence  a  psalm  or  song 
revealed ;  but  there  seems  no  reason  why  we  should 
depart  from  the  usual  meaning  as  above  given,  and 
we  may  therefore  regard  the  words  in  question  as 
a  fragment  of  an  old  psalm  or  melody,  the  saiue  in 
character  as  Aijeleth  Sliahar  and  others,  which  con- 
tained a  direction  to  the  leader  of  the  choir. 

W.  A.  W. 

SHUTHALHITES,  THE  fTtbnt^n 
[patr.,  see  below]:  o  'S.oudaXd'C;  [Vat.  SouTaA.aei; 
Alex.  PoucraAai':]  SutliahiiUe].  The  descendants 
of  Shuthelah  the  son  of  I'^phraim  (Num.  xxvi.  35). 

SHUTHE'LAH  (nbri-lti'  [noise  of  break- 
ii)f/,  Ges  ] :  [in  Xuni..]  'S.ovdaXd,  [Vat.  SovraAa,] 
Alex.  [@coaovaa\a,]  QoutraAa;  [in  Chr.,  2a)0a- 
\de  (Alex.  So-eaAa),  l,o,>ee\€:]  Siiikala).  He.ad 
of  an  Ephraimite  family,  called  after  him  Shuthal- 
hites  (Num  xxvi.  35),  and  lineal  ancestor  of  .Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun  (1  Chr.  vii.  20-27).  Shutlielah 
appears  from  the  former  passage  to  be  a  son  of 
Ephraim,  and  the  father  of  Eran,  from  whom 
sprung  a  liunily  of  Eranites  (ver.  36).  He  appears 
also  to  iiave  had  two  brothers,  Becher,  father  of 
the  Bachrites,  and  Tahan,  father  of  the  Tahan- 
ites.  But  in  1  Chr.  vii.  we  have  a  further  notice 
of  Shuthelah,  where  he  appears  first  of  all,  as  in 
Num.,  as  the  son  of  Ephraim;  but  in  ver.  21  he 
is  placed  six  generations  later.  Instead,  too,  of 
Becher  and  Tahan,  as  Shuthelah"s  brothers,  we  find 
Bered  and  'i'abath,  and  the  latter  twice  over;  and 
instead  of  Eran,  we  find  Eladah;  and  there  is  this 
strange  anomaly,  that  Ephraim  appears  to  be  alive. 
and  to  mourn  for  the  destruction  of  his  descendants 
in  the  eighth  generation,  and  to  have  other  children 
born  after  their  death.  And  then  again  at  ver.  25, 
the'  genealogy  is  resumed  with  two  personages,  Ke- 
phali  and  Heslieiih,  whose  parentage  is  not  dis- 
tinctly stated,  and  is  conducted  through  Telah,  and 
another  Tahan,  and  Laadan,  to  .Joshua  the  son  of 
Nun,  who  thus  appears  to  be  placed  in  the  twelfth 
generation  from  .loseph,  or,  as  some  reckon,  in  the 
eighteenth.  Obviously,  therefore,  the  text  in  1 
Chr.  vii.  is  corrupt.  The  following  observations 
will  perhaps  assist  us  to  restore  it. 

I.  The  nauTes  that  are  repeated  over  and  over 
»gain,  either  in  identical  or  in  slightly  varied  forms, 


o  With  the  article,  el  ''ml  is  the  origin  of  the  Ital. 
\uto,  Fr.  liUk^  and  English  lute. 
b  'file  Samaritar   text,  followed  by  the  IiXX.  and 


^SHUTHELAH 

represent  probably  only  o^k  person.  Hence,  Ela- 
dah, ver.  20;  Eleiid,  ver.  21;  and  Laadan,  sec.  26, 
are  the  names  of  one  and  the  same  person.  And 
a  comparison  of  the  last  name  with  Num.  xxvi.  36, 
where  we  have  "  of  Eran,"  will  further  show  that 
Eran  is  also  the  same  person,  whether  Eran''  or 
Laadan  be  the  true  form  of  the  name.  So  again, 
the  two  TahaOis,  in  ver.  20,  and  Tahan  in  ver.  25, 
are  the  same  person  as  Tahan  in  Num.  xxvi.  35; 
and  Shutlielali  in  vv.  20  and  21,  and  Telah  in  ver. 
25,  are  the  same  a,s  the  Shuthelah  of  Num.  xxvi. 
35,  30 ;  and  the  Bered  of  ver.  20,  and  Zabad  ol 
ver.  21,  are  the  same  as  the  Becher  of  Num.  xxvi. 
35.  The  names  written  in  Hebrew  are  subjoined 
to  make  this  clearer. 

^"I^b,  of  Eran.  Hnn,  Tahath. 

^Tyb,  Laadan.  ']'^^,  Tahan. 

mi^bS,  Eleadah.  "133,  lecher. 

"Tl^bS,  Elead.  Tl3"1,  and  Bered. 
nbnVL27,  Shuthelah.  12T,  Zabad. 

nbm,  and  Telah. 

2.  The  words  "  his  son  "  are  improperly  added 
after  Bered  and  Tahath  in  1  Chr.  vii.  20. 

3.  Tahan  is  improperly  inserted  in  1  Chr.  vii. 
25  as  a  son  of  Shuthelah,  as  appears  from  Num. 
.xxvi.  35,  36.  The  result  is  that  Shuthelah's  line 
maybe  thus  restored:  (1)  Joseph.  (2)  ICphraim. 
(3)  Shuthelah.  (4)  Eran,  or  Laadan.  (5)  Ammi- 
hud.  (6)  Elishama,  captain  of  the  boat  of  I'^phraim 
(Num.  i.  10,  ii.  18,  vii.  48).  (7)  Nun.  (8)  .loshua; 
a  number  which  agrees  well  with  all  the  genealo- 
gies in  which  we  can  identify  individuals  who  were 
living  at  the  entrance  into  Canaan ;  as  Phinehas, 
who  was  sixth  from  Levi ;  Salmon,  who  vi'as  seventh 
from  Judah;  Bezaleel,  who  was  seventh;  Achan, 
who  was  sixth ;  Zelophehad's  daughter  seventh,  etc. 

As  reirards  the  interesting  story  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Ephraim's  sons  by  tlie  men  of  Gath,  which 
Ewald  {Gesch.  i.  491),  Bunsen  (Eyypt,  vol.  i.  p. 
177),  Lepsius  (Letters  from  Egypt,  p.  400),  and 
others,  have  variously  explained  [Ephrai.ai  ;  Be- 
iJiAH],  it  is  impossible  in  the  confused  state  of  the 
text  to  speak  positively  as  to  the  part  borne  in  it  by 
the  house  of  Shuthelah.  But  it  seems  not  unlikely 
that  the  repetition  of  the  names  in  1  Chr.  vii.  20, 
21,  if  it  was  not  merely  caused  by  vitiated  JISS. 
like  2  Sam-  v.  14—10  (LXX.),  arose  from  their  hav- 
ing been  really  repeated  in  the  MS.,  not  as  addi- 
tional links  in  the  genealogr,  but  as  having  borne 
part,  either  personally  or  in  the  persons  of  their  de- 
scendants, in  the  transaction  with  the  men  of  Gath. 
If  so,  we  have  mention  first  in  ver.  20  of  the  lour 
families  of  Ephraim  reckoned  in  Num.  xxvi.,  namely 
Shuthelah,  Bered  or  Becher.  Tahath  or  Tahan,  and 
Eladah  or  Eran,  the  son  of  Shuthelah :  and  we  are 
then,  perhaps,  told  how  Tahath,  Bered,  and  Shu- 
thelah, or  the  clans  called  after  them,  went  to  help 

(1"1T^)  Laadan  (or  Eran),  Shuthelah's  son,  and 
were  killed  by  the  men  of  Gath,  and  how  their 
father  mourned  them.  This  leads  to  an  account  of 
another  branch  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  of  which 
Beriah  was  the  head,  and  whose  daughter  or  sister 
(for  it  is  not  clear  which  was  meant)  was  Sherah 


the  Syria  t,  and  two  or  three  Heb.  MSS.,  read  Edan 
and  ont  Heb.  MS.  reads  Eilan  for  Laadan  at  1  Chi 
vii.  26  (Burrington,  Geneal.  Tables). 


SHUTHELAH 

(n"1Str),  who  built  the  upper  and  lower  Beth- 
boron  (on  the  border  of  Beiijaniin  and  Ephraiin), 
ind  Uzzeii-Sherah,  a  town  evidently  so  called  from 
her  (Sherah's)  ear-rin-^.  The  writer  then  returns 
to  his  genealogy,  ben'inning,  according  to  the  LXX., 
with  La;idan.  But  the  fragment  of  Shuthelah's 
name  in  ver.  25,  clearly  shows  that  the  genealogy 
of  Joshua  which  is  here  given,  is  taken  up  from 
that  name  in  ver.  20.*'  The  clause  probably  be- 
gan, "the  sons  of  Shuthelah,  Laadan  (or,  of  Eran) 
his  son,"  etc.  But  the  question  remains  whether 
the  transaction  wliich  was  so  fat.d  to  tlie  Kphraini- 
ites  occurred  really  in  Jiphraim  s  lifetime,  and  that 
of  his  sons  and  grandson,  or  whether  it  belongs  to 
the  times  after  the  entrance  into  Canaan ;  or,  in 
other  words,  whether  we  are  to  understand,  by 
Ephraim,  Shuthelah,  etc.,  the  individuals  who  bore 
those  names,  or  the  tribe  and  the  families  which 
sprung  from  them.  Ewald  and  Bunsen,  under- 
standing the  names  personally,  of  course  refer  the 
U'ansaction  to  the  time  of  the  sojourn  of  the  Israel- 
ites in  Goshen,  while  Lepsius  merely  points  out  the 
confusion  and  inconsistencies  in  tlie  narrative, 
though  he  apparently  suspects  that  the  event  oc- 
curred in  Palestine  after  the  Exodus.  In  the  Ge- 
neiil.  of  our  Lord  Jtnus  Christ,  p.  305,  the  writer 
of  this  article  had  suijgested  that  it  was  the  men  of 
Gath  who  had  coiiin  down  into  Goshen  to  steal  the 
cattle  of  the  Israelites,  in  order  to  obviate  the  ob- 
jection from  the  word  -'came  down."  [See  too 
EptiK.^TAH.]  But  subsequent  consideration  has 
suggested  another  possible  way  of  understanding 
the  passage,  which  is  also  advocated  by  Bertheau, 
in  the  Kurzij.  exegtt.  H  indb.  z.  A.  T.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  the  slaughter  of  the  Ephraimites 
took  place  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  and  the 
event  related  in  1  Chr.  viii.  l^i,  in  which  Beriah 
also  took  part,  had  a  close  connection  with  it.  The 
names  therefore  of  the  patriarch,  and  fathers  of 
families,  must  be  understood  of  the  families  which 
sprung  I'rom  them  [Nkhemiah,  iii.  2095  a],  and 
Bertheau  well  compares  Judg.  xxi.  6.  By  Ephraim 
(I  Chr.  vii.  22,  2y),  we  must  in  this  case  under- 
stand the  then  head  of  the  tribe,  who  was  probalily 
Joshua,"  and  this  would  go  far  to  justily  the  con- 
jecture in  Genealog.  p.  364,  that  Sherah  (=  rT^D) 
was  the  daughter  of  Joshua,  arrived  at  by  compar- 
ison of  Josh.  xix.  49,  50;  1  Chr.  vii.  30,  and  by 
observing  that  the  latter  passage  is  Joshua's  gene- 
alogy. Beriah  would  seem,  from  1  Chr.  viii.  13,  to 
have  obtained  an  inheritance  in  Benjamin,  and  also 
in  Asher,  where  we  find  him  and  "  his  sister  Serah  " 

(n"^t27)  in  1  Chr.  vii.  30.  It  is,  however,  impos- 
sible to  speak  with  certainty  where  we  have  such 
scanty  information.  Bertheau's  suggestion  that 
Beriah  was  adopted  into  the  family  of  the  Ephra- 
imites, is  inconsistent  with  the  precision  of  the 
statement  (1  Chr.  vii.  23),  and  therefore  inadmis- 
sible. Still,  putting  togetiier  the  insuperable  diffi- 
culties in  understanding  the  passage  of  the  literal 
Ephraim,  and  his  literal  sons  and  daughter,  with 
the  fact  that  the  settlements  of  the  Ephraimites  in 
the  mountainous  district,  where  Beth-horon.  Gezei, 


«  It  seems  highly  improbable,  not  to  say  impossi- 
ble, that  a  literal  daughter  or  granddaughter  of 
Ephraim  should  have  built  the.se  cities,  which  must 
aave  been  built  after  the  entrance  into  Canaa,u. 

''  It  does  not  appear  who  Rephah  and  Kesheph  are. 
Fahan  seems  to  <v  repeated  Out  of  its  place,  as  in  the 


SIBMAH 


8029 


Timnath-Serah,  etc.,  lay,  were  exactly  suited  for  a 
lesctiit  upon  the  plains  of  the  Philistine  country 
where  the  men  of  Gath  fed  their  cattle,  and  with 
the  further  facts  that  the  Ephraimites  encountered 
a  successful  opposition  from  the  Canaan  ites  in 
Gezer  (.losh.  xvi.  10;  Judg.  i.  29),  and  that  they 
apparently  called  in  later  the  Benjamites  to  help 
tliem  in  driving  away  the  men  of  Gath  (1  Chr. 
viii.  13),  it  seems  best  to  understand  the  narrative 
as  of  the  times  after  the  entrance  into  Canaan. 

A.  C.  H. 
*  SHUTTLE.    [Handicraft;  Weaving.] 

SI'A  {'i^'J^O  :  'Ao-oui'a;  [FA.  laaovia;]  Alex. 
Sioi'a:  Sinn).  "The  children  of  Sia "  were  a 
family  of  Nethinim  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel 
(Neh.  vii.  47).  The  name  is  written  Siaha  in 
Ezr.  ii.  44,  and  Sud  in  1  Esdr.  v.  29. 

SFAHA  («n5?*'p:  2ma' ;  [Vat.  2a,rjA;] 
Alex.  Acroa:  Siaa)  =  SiA  (Ezr.  ii.  44). 

SIB'BECAI  [3  syl.]  C*??? :  SeySoxa  [\'at. 
Oe^oxa]  in  Sam.,  2o/8oxax  in  Chr.;  Alex.  2e- 
jSoxaei,  2o/3oxai'  '•  Sohochiit).  Sibbeciiai  the 
Hushathite  (2  Sam.  x.xi.  18;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  11). 

SIBfBECHAI  [3  syl.]  ("330:  2o^ox"'': 
[FA.  in  1  Chr.  ix.,  2o3oxe:]  .Vlex  2o33ox"'  "'  ^ 
Chr.  XX.  4:  SobOncliu,  Subochni).  One  of  bavid's 
guard,  and  eighth  captain  for  the  eighth  month  of 
24,000  men  of  the  king's  army  (1  Chr.  xi.  29, 
xxvii.  11).  He  Ijelonged  to  one  of  the  principal 
families  of  Judah,  the  Zarhites,  or  descendants 
of  Zerah,  and  is  called  "the  Hushathite,"  prob- 
ably from  the  place  of  his  birth.  Josephus  {Ant. 
vii.  12,  §  2)  calls  him  "the  Hittite,"  but  this  is  no 
doubt  an  error.  Sibbechai's  great  exploit,  which 
gave  him  a  place  among  the  mighty  men  of  David's 
army,  was  his  single  combat  with  Saph,  or  Sippai, 
the  Philistine  ijiant,  in  the  battle  at  Gezer,  or  Gob 
(2  Sam.  xxi.  18;  1  Chr.  xx.  4).  In  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
27  his  name  is  written  Mebunxai  by  a  n)istakeof 
the  copyist.  Josephus  says  that  he  slew  "  many  " 
who  boasted  that  they  were  of  the  descent  of  the 

giants,  apparently  reading  D"^3n  for  "^20  in  ) 
Chr.  XX.  4.     [SiHBECAi.] 

SIB'BOLETH  (nbilD:  Sibbokth).  The 
Ephraimite  (or,  according  to  the  text,  the  Eph- 
rathite)  pronunciation  of  the  word  Shil)boleth 
(Judg.  xii.  6).  The  LXX.  do  not  represent  Sib 
boleth  at  all.     [See  Shibboleth.]  G. 

SIB'MAH  (np:?b  \bcdsmn-plnce,  Fiirst]: 
2e/3a,ua;  in  Jer.  [Kom.  'A(Tepr]/j.a,  FA.i  Claep7]fx0'5, 
Vat.  FA.-^]  ooa^prifxa-  S<d)iiiHa).  A  town  on  the 
east  of  the  .lordan,  one  of  those  which  were  taken 
and  occupied  by  the  tribe  of  Ileuben  (Josh.  xiii. 
19).  In  the  original  catalogue  of  those  places  it 
appears  as  Sheb.vm  and  Siiibjiaii  (the  latter 
merely  an  inaccurate  variation  of  the  A.  V.). 
Like  most  of  the  Tr.ansjordanic  places,  Sibmah 
disappears  from  view  during  the  main  part  of  the 
.lewish  history.  We,  however,  gain  a  parting 
glimpse  of  it  in  the  lament  over  Jlo.ab  pronounced 
by  Isaiah  and  by  Jeremiah  (Is.  xvi.  8,  9;  Jer.  xlviii. 


Alex.  LXX.     It  is  after  Laadau,  there  corrupted  into 
Galaada. 

c  There  is  no  mention  elsewhere  of  any  posterity  ot 
Joshua.  The  Jewish  tradition  assigned  him  a  wlA 
and  children.     [Kau.vb.] 


3030 


SIBRAIM 


32).  It  was  then  a  Moabite  place,  famed  for  the 
aliuiidaiice  and  excellence  of  its  grapes.  They 
must  have  been  remarkably  good  to  have  been 
(bought  worthy  of  notice  by  tliose  who,  like  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah,  lived  close  to  and  were  familiar  with 
the  renowned  vineyards  of  Sorek  (Is.  v.  2,  where 
"choicest  vine"  is  "vine  of  Sorek").  Its  vine- 
yards were  devastated,  and  the  town  doubtless  de- 
stroyed by  the  "lords  of  the  heathen,"  who  at 
some  time  unknown  appear  to  have  laid  waste  the 
whole  of  that  once  smiling  and  fertile  district. 

Sibmah  seems  to  have  been  known  to  Kusehius 
(Onomnsticon,  "SMbama"),"  and  .Jerome  (Com- 
ment, in  Isninni,  lib.  v.)  states  that  it  was  hardly 
600  p.aces  distant  from  Heshbon.  He  also  speaks 
of  it  as  one  of  the  very  strong  cities  ( Urbiis  va- 
U'lisslnioB)  of  that  region.  No  trace  of  the  name 
has  been  discovered  more  recently,  and  nothing 
resembling  it  is  found  in  the  excellent  lists  of  Dr. 
Eli  Smith  (Kobinsou,  BM.  lies.  ed.  1,  App.  169, 
170).  G. 

SIBRA'IM  (n';'2?P  [fi  twofold  hope:]: 
-erjpa)r  'E^painri{\id/j.;  [Alex.  -dr\pa)s  Etppafx- 
r)(MiaiJ.\  Comp.  2a/3apiV:]  Sob'ivim).  One  of 
the  landmarks  on  tlie  northern  boundary  of  the 
Holy  Land  as  stateii  liy  I'^zekiel  (xlvii.  16).  It 
occurs  between  Berothah  and  Hazarhatticon,  and 
is  described  in  the  same  passage  as  lying  between 
the  boundary  of  Damascus  and  that  of  Haniath. 
It  has  not  been  identified — and  in  the  great 
obscurity  of  the  specification  of  this  boundary  it 
is  impossible  to  say  where  it  should  be  sought. 

G. 

SI  CHEM  (Cptr,  i.  e.  Shechem  [ghoukler, 
ridge]  :  Sux^V-  'Si<^'litm).  1.  The  same  well-known 
name — identical  in  the  Helirew  —  with  that  which 
in  all  other  places  in  the  0.  T.  is  accurately  ren- 
dered by  our  translators  Shf.ciieji.  Here  (Gen. 
xii.  6)  its  present  form  arises  from  a  too  close  ad- 
herence to  the  ^"ulgate,  or  rather  perhaps  from  its 
non-correspondence  with  the  Hebrew  having  been 
overlooked  in  the  revision  of  1611. 

The  unusual  expression  "the  place  of  Sichem  " 
may  perhaps  indicate  that  at  that  early  age  the 
city  did  not  exist.  The  "  oaks  of  iMoreh  "  were 
there,  but  the  town  of  Shechem  as  yet  was  not, 
its  "  place "  only  was  visited  by  the  great  pa- 
triarch. 

2.  (iv  'S.iKifj.ois '■  '«  Sicl/imis)  Ecelus.  1.  26. 
The  Greek  original  here  is  in  the  form  which  is 
occasionally  found  in  the  0.  T.  as  the  equivalent 
of  SiiKCHEM.  If  there  could  be  any  doubt  that 
the  son  of  Sirach  was  alluding  in  this  passage  to 
the  Samaritans,  who  lived  as  they  still  live  at 
Shechem,  it  would  be  disproved  liy  the  character- 
istic pun  which  he  has  perpetrated  on  the  word 
Moreh,  the  ancient  name  of  Shechem :  "  that  fool- 
ish people  {\uhs  /j.  cop  6s)  that  dwell  in  Sichem." 

G. 

SICKLE.     [Agriculture,  vol.  i.  p.  43.] 

SIC'YON  i'SiKvwv)-  A  city  mentioned  with 
leveral  others  [see  Piiaselis]  in  1  Mace.  xv.  2.3. 
The  name  is  derived  from  a  Punic  root  (sik,  sik, 
or  sok),  which  always  implies  a  periodical  market; 


a  The  statement  of  this  passage  that  Sibmah  was 
"in  Gilead,"  coupled  with  its  distance  from  Heshbon 
as  given  by  Jeron.e,  supports  the  local  tradition  which 
places  Mount  Gilead  "outh  of  the  Jabbok,  if  the  Wady 
Zerka  be  the  Jubbok. 


SICYOIf 

and  the  original  settlement  was  prc(:&bly  cne  to 
which  the  inhabitants  of  the  narrow  strip  of  highly 
fertile  soil  between  the  mountains  and  the  southern 
shore  of  the  Corinthian  Gulf  brought  their  produce 
for  exportation.  The  oldest  name  of  the  town  on 
the  coast  (the  Sicyon  of  the  times  before  Alex- 
ander) was  .said  to  have  been  Alyid\rj,  or  Ai-YiaAoi. 
This  was  perhaps  the  common  native  name,  and 
Sicyon  that  given  to  it  by  the  Phoenician  traders, 
which  would  not  unnaturally  extrude  the  other  as 
the  place  acquired  commercial  importance.  It  is 
this  Sicyon,  on  the  shore,  which  was  the  seat  of 
the  government  of  the  Orthagorids,  to  which  the 
Cleisthenes  celebrated  by  Herodotus  (v.  67)  be- 
louiied.*  But  the  Sicyon  referred  to  in  the  book 
of  Maccabees  is  a  more  recent  city,  built  on  the 
site  which  served  as  an  acropolis  to  the  old  one, 
and  distant  from  the  shore  from  twehe  to  twenty 
stades.  Demetrius  Poliorcetes,  in  the  year  303 
B.  C,  surprised  the  garrison  which  Ptolemy  had 
five  years  liefore  placed  there,  and  made  himself 
master  of  the  harbor  and  the  lower  town.  The 
acropolis  was  surrendered  to  him,  and  he  then  per- 
suaded the  population,  whom  he  restored  to  inde- 
pendence, to  destroy  the  whole  of  the  buildings 
adjacent  to  the  harbor,  and  remove  thither:  the 
site  being  one  nnich  more  easily  defensible,  espe- 
cially against  any  enemy  who  might  attack  from 
the  sea.  Diodorus  describes  the  new  town  as  in- 
cluding a  large  space  so  surrounded  on  every  side 
by  precipices  as  to  be  unapproachal)le  by  the  ma- 
chines which  at  that  time  were  employed  in  sieges, 
and  as  possessing  the  great  advantage  of  a  plentiful 
supply  of  water  within  its  circuit.  Modern  trav- 
ellers completely  confirm  his  account.  Mr.  Clark, 
who,  in  18.37,  descended  upon  Sicyon  from  "a 
ridge  of  hills  running  east  and  west,  and  conunand- 
ing  a  splendid  prospect  of  both  the  [Corinthian 
and  Saronic]  gulfs  and  the  isthmus  between."  after 
two  hours  and  a  half  of  riding  from  the  highest 
point,  came  to  a  ruined  bridge,  probably  ancient, 
at  the  bottom  of  a  ravine,  and  then  ascended  the 
right  bank  by  a  steep  path.  Along  the  crest  of 
this  hill  he  traced  fragments  of  the  western  wall 
of  Sicyon.  The  mountain  which  he  had  descended 
did  not  fall  towards  the  sea  in  a  continuous  slope, 
but  presented  a  succession  of  aljrupt  descents  and 
level  terraces,  sevei'ed  at  intervals  by  deep  rents 
and, gorges,  down  which  the  mountain-torrents 
make  their  way  to  the  sea,  spreading  alluvium  over 
the  plain,  about  two  miles  in  breadth,  which  hes 
betweeii  the  lowest  cliffs  and  the  shore.  "  Between 
two  such  gorges,  on  a  smooth  expanse  of  table- 
land overlooking  the  plain,"  stood  the  city  of 
Demetrius.  "  On  every  side  are  abrupt  cliffs,  and 
even  at  the  southern  extremity  there  is  a  lucky 
transverse  rent  separating  this  from  the  next  pla- 
teau. The  ancient  walls  may  be  seen  at  intervals 
along  the  edge  of  the  cliff  on  all  sides."  It  is 
easy  to  conceive  how  these  advantages  of  position 
must  at  once  have  fixed  the  attention  of  the  great 
engineer  of  antiquity  —  the  besieger. 

Demetrius  established  the  forms  of  republican 
government  in  his  new  city ;  but  republican  gov- 
ernment bad  by  that  time  become  an  impossibility 
in  Hellas.     In  the  next  half-century  a  number  of 


h  The  commercial  connection  of  the  Sicyon  of  the 
Orthagorids  with  Plioenicia  is  shown  by  the  quautitj 
of  Tartessian  briiss  in  the  treasury  of  the  Orthagori(J 
Myron  at  Olynipia.  The  fhoenician  (CarthaginiaD 
treasury  was  next  to  it  (I'ausanias,  vi.  10,  §  1 1. 


SIDDIM,  THE  VALE  OF 


5031 


tyrants  succeeded  one  another,  maintaining  tlieni- 
lelves  bj  the  aid  of  mercenaries,  and  by  temporiz- 
ing with  tlie  rival  sovereigns,  who  each  endeavored 
to  secure  tlie  liegemony  of  the  Grecian  race.  This 
state  of  things  received  a  temporary  check  by  the 
efforts  of  Aratus,  himself  a  native  of  Sicyon,  of 
which  his  ftitlier  Cleinias  for  a  time  became  dynast, 
hi  his  twentieth  year,  being  at  the  time  in  exile, 
ne  contrived  to  recover  possession  of  the  city  and  to 
unite  it  with  the  Achaean  league.  This  was  in  tlie 
year  2.51  b.  c,  and  it  appears  that  at  this  time  the 
Dorian  population  was  so  preponderant  as  to  nlake 
the  addition  of  the  town  to  a  confederation  of 
Achseans  a  matter  of  remark.  For  the  half  century 
before  the  foundation  of  the  new  city,  fSicyon  had 
favored  the  anti-Lacedfemonian  party  in  Pelopon- 
nese,  taking  active  part  with  the  ilessenians  and 
Argives  in  support  of  JMegalopolis,  which  I'.panii- 
nondas  had  founded  as  a  counter-clieck  to  Sparta. 
The  Sicyonian  territory  is  described  as  one  of 
snigular  fertility,  which  was  probalily  increased  by 
artificial  irrigation.  In  the  changeful  times  which 
preceded  the  final  absorption  of  luiropean  Hellas 
by  the  Romans  it  was  subject  to  plunder  by  who- 
ever had  the  command  of  tlie  sea;  and  in  the  year 
208  B.  c.  the  Koman  general  Sulpicius,  who  had  a 
squadron  at  Naupactus,  landed  between  Sicyon  and 
Corinth  (probably  at  the  moutli  of  the  little  river 
Nemea,  which  was  the  boundary  of  the  two  states), 
and  was  proceeding  to  harass  the  iieighborliood, 
when  Philip  king  of  JNIacedonia,  who  was  then  at 
Corinth,  attacked  him  and  drove  hinj  back  to  his 
ships.  But  very  soon  after  this,  Koman  influence 
began  to  prevail  in  tlie  cities  of  the  Achaean  league, 
which  were  instigated  by  dre.ad  of  Nal)is  the  dynast 
of  Lacedoemon  to  seek  Roman  protection.  C)ne 
congress  of  the  league  was  held  at  Sicyon  under 
the  presidency  of  tlie  Romans  in  198  b.  c,  and 
anotlier  at  tlie  same  place  six  3ears  later.  From 
tliis  time  Sicyon  always  appears  to  have  adhered  to 
t!ie  Roman  side,  and  on  the  destruction  of  Corintl 
by  Jlummius  (b.  c.  14U)  was  rewarded  by  the 
victors  not  only  with  a  large  portion  of  the  Corin- 
tiiian  domain,  but  with  the  management  of  tiie 
Isthmian  games,  'i'his  distinction  was  again  lost 
when  Julius  Csesar  refounded  Corinth  and  made  it 
a  Roman  colony;  but  in  the  mean  while  Sicjon 
enjoyed  for  a  century  all  the  advantages  of  an  entre- 
pot which  had  before  accrued  to  Corinth  Irom  her 
position  between  the  two  seas.  F^en  in  the  davs 
of  the  Antonines  the  pleasure-grounds  (re'/xej/os)  of 
the  Sicyonian  tyrant  Cleon  continued  appropriated 
to  the  Roman  governors  of  Achaia  ;  and  at  the 
time  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  Maccabees, 
it  was  probably  the  most  important  position  of 
all  over  which  the  Romans  exercised  influence  in 
Greece. 

(Diodorus  Siculns,  xv.  70,  xx.  37,  102:  Polyb- 
ius,  ii.  43;  Strabo,  viii.  7,  §  25;  Livy,  xxxii.  15, 
19,  XXXV.  25;  Pausanias,  ii.  8,  v.  14,  9,  vi.  19,  §§ 
1-6,  X.  11,  §  1;  Clark,  Ptlt^jminesus,  pp.  338  ff.) 

J.  W.  13. 
SID'DIM,    THE    VALE    OF    (PP? " 
-'*'7^i?  [see  below]:  ^   cpipay^  rj  kKvKi],  and 

o  The  followin?  are  the  equi-alents  of  the  name 
ffven  in  the  ancient  versions  :  Sam.  Vers.,  "1Ji?^Q 
n^pbn  ;  Onkelos,  S^bpn  "'ti?''^  ;  AraWc  merj 
*i    KukUt      Peshito,     y^Q^Cdi    \S\2£)(^^  ; 


7]  KoiKas  T)  hXvKri-  ValUs  Silvestiis).  A  place 
named  only  in  one  passage  of  Genesis  (xiv.  3,  8, 
10);  a  document  pronounced  by  Ewald  and  other 
eminent  Hebrew  scliolars  to  be  one  of  the  oldest,  if 
not  the  oldest,  of  the  fragments  of  historical  record 
of  which  the  early  portion  of  the  book  is  composed. 
The  meaning  of  the  name  is  very  doubtful.  Uese- 
nius  says  truly  {T/ies.  p.  1321  a)  that  everyone  of 
the  ancient  interpreters  has  tried  his  hand  at  it, 
and  the  results  are  so  various  as  to  compel  the  be- 
lief, that  nothing  is  really  known  of  it,  certainly 
not  eiiougii  to  .allow  of  any  trustworthy  inferences 
being  drawn  therefrom  as  to  the  nature  of  the  spot. 
Gesenius  expresses  his  conviction  (by  inference  froiu 

the  Arabic  cX^uw,  an  obstacle)  that  the  real  mean- 
ing of  the  words  A'mek  hns-Sirldim  is  "  a  plain  cut 
up  by  stony  channels  which  render  it  difficult  of 
transit  ;"  and  with  this  agree  Fiirst  {[Jandicb.  ii 
411  b)  and  Kalisch  {Genesis,  p.  355). 

Prof.  Stanley  conjectures  {S.  (/■  P.)  that  Siddim 
is  connected  with  Uddehb  and  thus  that  the  signif- 
ication of  the  name  was  the  "valley  of  the  fields,'' 
so  called  from  the  high  state  of  cultivation  in  which 
it  was  maintained  before  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
and  the  other  cities.  This,  iiowever,  is  to  identify 
it  with  the  Ciccar,  the  "circle  (A.  V.  'plain')  of 
Jordan,"  which  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any 
warrant  for  doing. 

As  to  the  spot  itself  :  — 

1.  It  was  one  of  that  class  of  valleys  which  the 
Hebrews  designated  by  the  word  eme/c.  This  terra 
appears  to  have  been  assigned  to  a  broad  flatfish 
tract,  sometimes  of  considerable  width,  enclosed  on 
each  side  by  a  definite  range  of  hills.      [V'alley.] 

The  only  evie/c  which  we  can  identify  with  any 
approacli  to  certainty  is  that  of  Jezreel,  namely, 
the  valley  or  plain  which  lies  between  Gilboa  and 
Little  Hermon. 

2.  It  was  so  far  a  suitable  spot  for  the  combat 
between  the  four  and  five  kings  (ver.  8);  but, 

3.  It  contained  a  multitude  of  bitiunen-pits, 
sufficient  materially  to  attect  the  issue  of  the  battle. 

4.  In  this  valley  the  kings  of  the  five  allied  cities 
of  Sodom,  Gomorrali,  .-\dniah,  Zeboiim,  and  13ela, 
seem  to  have  awaited  tiie  approach  of  the  iinaders. 
It  is  therefore  probable  that  it  was  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  "  plain,  or  circle,  of  Jordan  "'  in  which 
those  cities  stood.  Rut  this  we  can  only  infer;  it 
is  not  stated,  and  scarcely  implied. 

5.  So  much  may  be  gathered  from  the  passage 
as  it  appears  originally  to  have  stood.  lUit  the 
words  which  more  especially  bear  on  the  subject  of 
this  article  (ver.  3)  do  not  form  part  of  tlie  original 
document.  That  venerable  record  has  —  with  a 
care  which  shows  how  greatly  it  was  valued  at  a 
very  early  date  —  been  annotated  throughout  by  a 
later,  though  still  very  ancient,  chronicler,  who  has 
added  what  in  his  day  were  believed  to  be  the  equiv- 
alents for  names  of  places  that  had  become  obsolete. 
Bela  is  explained  to  be  Zoar;  En-Mishpat  to  be 
Kadesh ;  the  Flmek-Shaveh  to  be  the  Valley  of  the 
King;  the  Emek  has-Siddini  to  be  the  Salt  Sea, 
that  is,  in  modern  phraseology,  the  Dead  Sea. 
And  when  we  remember  how  persistently  the  no- 


Aquila,  K.  Trnv  nepiireSCvui  ;  Symm.  and  Theod.,  K. 

Twv  a.Ka-S)v  (=  mii^M)  ;  Josephus,  ^peara  acr<#)dA.- 
Tou  :  Jerome  (Q»a's«.  ni  Gen.)   Vatlis  Salinaruin. 

h  Perhaps  more  accurately  with  SarJacI,  "  to  harrow." 
See  Kali.sch  ( Gen.  p.  356  n) ;  who,  however,  disapproref 
of  such  a  derivation,  and  adheres  to  that  of  0««enius. 


3032 


SIDDIM,  THE  VALE  OP 


tioii  has  rieen  entertained  for  the  last  eighteen  cen- 
turies," that  the  Dead  Sea  covers  a  district  vvhicii 
before  its  submersion  was  not  only  tlie  \'alley  of 
Siddim  but  also  the  Plain  of  the  Jordan,  and  what 
an  elaliorate  account  of  the  catastrophe  of  its  sub- 
mersion lias  been  constructed  even  very  recently  by 
one  of  the  most  able  scholars  of  our  day,  we  can 
hardly  be  surprised  that  a  chronicler  in  an  age  hr 
less  able  to  interpret  natural  pienometia',  and  at 
the  same  time  long  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the 
actual  event,  should  have  sliared  in  the  belief.  He- 
cent  investigation,  however,  of  the  geolosjical  evi- 
dence furnished  by  (he  aspect  of  the  spot  itself,  has 
not  hitherto  lent  any  support  to  this  view.  On  the 
contrary,  it  seems  to  contradict  it.  Tlie  northern 
and  deeper  portion  of  the  lake  unquestionably  be- 
longs to  a  geological  era  of  very  much  older  date 
than  the  time  of  Abraham ;  and  as  to  even  the 
Bouthern  and  shallower  portion,  if  it  has  undergone 
any  material  change  in  historic  times,  such  change 
would  seem  to  be  one  rather  of  gradual  elevation 
than  of  submersion.* 

If  we  could  venture,  as  some  have  done,  to  in- 
terpret tlie  latter  clause  of  verse  3,  "  which  is  near," 
or  "  which  is  at,  or  by,  the  Salt  Sea,"  then  we 
might  agree  with  Dr.  Robinson  and  others  in  iden- 
tifying the  Valley  of  Siddim  with  the  inclosed  plain 
which  intervenes  between  the  south  end  of  the  lalie 
and  the  range  of  heights  which  terminate  the  G/im- 
and  commence  the  Wncly  Anibuh.  This  is  a  dis- 
trict in  many  respects  suitalile.  In  the  ditches  and 
drains  of  the  Suh/Jinh  are  the  impassable  channels 
of  Gesenius.  In  the  thickly  wooded  G/ior  es-SnJic/i 
are  ample  conditions  for  the  fertility  of  Prof  Stan- 
ley. Tlie  general  aspect  and  formation  of  the  plain 
answers  fully  to  the  idea  of  an  emcks  But  the 
original  of  the  passage  will  not  bear  even  this  slight 
acconmiodation,  and  it  is  evident  that  in  the  mind 
of  the  autlior  of  the  words,  no  less  than  of  the 
learned  and  eloquent  divine  and  historian  of  our 
own  time  already  alluded  to,  the  Salt  Sea  covers 
the  actual  space  formerly  occupied  by  the  Vale  of 
Siddim.  It  should  be  remembered  that  if  the 
pities  of  the  plain  were,  as  there  is  much  reason  to 
believe  they  were,  at  the  nortli  end  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  tlie  five  kings  would 
have  gone  so  far  from  home  as  to  the  other  end  of 
the  lake,  a  distance  of  more  than  forty  miles,  espe- 
cially as  on  their  road  they  must  have  passed  Haz- 
ezon-Tamar,  the  modern  Ain  Jiihj,  where  the 
Assyrians  were  then  actually  encamped  (ver.  7 ). 
The  course  of  the  invaders  at  this  time  was  appar 
ently  northwards,  and  it  seems  most  proliable  — 
though  after  all  nothing  but  conjecture  on  such  a 
point  is  possible  —  that  the  scene  of  the  engage- 
ment was  somewhere  to  the  north  of  the  lake,  per- 
haps on  tlie  plain  at  its  northwest  corner.  This 
plain  is  in  many  of  its  characteristics  not  unlike  tlie 
iS'.ibkli'ih  already  mentioned,  and  it  is  a  proper  and 
natural  spot  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  plain  of 
Jericho  to  attack  a  hostile  force  descending  from 
the  passes  of  Ain  Jidy.  G-. 

*  The  discussion  of  this  site  is  so  interwoven 
with  the  question  Df  the  basin  of  the  Salt  Sea,  and 
the  submersion  of  a  portion  of  the  valley,  that  they 


a  Joscphus  states  it  empha'.ically.  His  words  (Ant. 
i.  9)  are,  "  They  emauiped  in  the  valley  railed  the 
rt'ells  of  Asphalt ;  for  at  that  time  there  were  wells  iu 
that  spot  ;  but  now  that  the  city  of  the  Sodomites  has 
iisappeared,  that  valley  has  become  a  lake  which  is 
sailed  Asphaiytes."'     See  also  Strabo,  xvi.  764. 


cannot  be  separated.  We  dissent  from  the  writer'g 
positions  as  presented  in  the  article.  Salt  Sea, 
and  repeated  in  this.  But  instead  of  repeating  our 
argument  in  reply,  we  refer  the  reader  to  tlie  former 
article  (Anier.  ed.),  for  our  reasons  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  the  submersion  of  the  plain  and  the  site  of 
the  Vale  of  Siddim.  And  for  an  e.xamination  of 
his  theory  respecting  the  site  of  the  cities  of  the 
plain,  as  north  of  the  Sea,  which  Mr.  Grove  also 
introduces  here,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  articles 
Sodom  and  Zoak  (Anier.  ed.).  See  also  Bib. 
Sacra,  xxv.  112-Uy. 

Relative  to  the  inroad  of  Chedorlaonier  and  his 
allies,  we  remark  that  the  northern  invaders,  after 
making  the  distant  circuit  of  the  valley  on  the  east 
and  south,  came  up  on  the  west  and  smote  En-gedi 
and  secured  that  pass.  The  cities  and  their  kings 
were  in  the  deep  valley  below,  whether  north  or 
south,  or  opposite,  is  wholly  immaterial,  so  far  as 
we  can  discover,  in  relation  eitiier  to  the  previous 
route  of  conquest  or  to  the  subsequent  course  of  the 
victors.  Between  the  cities,  wherever  situated,  and 
Kn-gedi,  lay  the  Vale  of  Siddim,  in  which  the  bat- 
tle was  fought.  Neither  the  narrative  of  the  inva- 
sion, nor  that  of  the  conflagration  of  the  cities  and 
the  plain,  as  viewed  by  the  patriarch  Abraham  from 
a  hill  near  Hebron,  appmrs  to  us  to  throw  decisive 
light  on  any  disputed  theory  respecting  their  site. 

If  the  eminence  about  three  miles  east  of  Heliron, 
the  highest  in  that  part  of  the  country,  now  known 
as  Buni  NiChn,  and  where,  according  to  JMuslim 
tradition,  is  the  tomb  of  Lot,  was  the  spot  where 
Abraham  stood  before  the  Lord,  as  claimed  by  Je- 
rome, it  would  clearly  favor  the  received  tlieory. 
Robinson  speaks  of  the  southern  sand-banks  of  the 
sea  as  \isible  from  it  "  through  gaps  in  the  western 
mountains,  by  which  the  eye  could  penetrate  into 
its  deep  bosom"  {Bibl.  Jies.  ii.  188). 

W'itli  reference  to  the  view  expressed  in  the  arti- 
cle above,  respecting  the  bed  of  the  sea,  that  "  if 
it  has  undergone  any  material  change  in  historic 
times,  such  change  would  seem  to  be  one  rather  of 
gradual  elevation  than  of  submersion,"  we  com- 
mend to  the  reader  the  pertinent  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Warington,  that  the  eUvatiun  of  the  salt  mountain 
Within  the  historic  period  would  account  both  for 
the  present  saltness  of  the  waters,  and  the  rise  of 
their  le\e\  more  than  fifty  feet,  through  the  salt 
which  they  hold  in  solution.  The  occurrence  f^i 
river  shtUs,  not  marine,  such  as  are  now  found  in 
the  Jordan,  along  the  ancient  beaches  of  the  sea, 
he  regards  as  proof  that  "  the  sea  was  at  one  time 
J'rtsli  water,  not  «alt;  "  and  he  says,  "if  the  salt 
were  removed,  the  water  would  be  found  to  occupy 
only  nine-tenths  of  its  present  bulk"  {.Journal  oj 
Sacred  Literature,  A.\it\\  180G,  p.  47).  This  would 
lea\e  the  southern  portion  of  the  present  bed  dry, 
with  ample  room  on  the  side  for  the  passage  of  the 
patriarch  and  his  flocks,  north  and  south.  In  a 
letter  to  the  writer  of  this  (March  7,  18G8),  iMr. 
Tristram  says,  "  My  belief  is  that  the  Jebel  Vs- 
duin  has  been  recently  elevated.  This  I  judge 
from  the  layers  of  stratified  marl  corresponding 
with  the  adjacent  deposits  on  its  top.  IMr.  W'ax- 
ington  suggests  that  the  influx  of  salt  has  so  in- 


b  The  grounds  of  this  conclusion  are  stated  under 
Sea,  the  Salt. 

c  This  is  the  plain  which  Dr  Robinson  and  others 
would  identify  with  the  Valley  of  Salt,  ge  melar.h.  It 
is  hardly  possible  that  it  can  be  both  an  emek  and  a 
fie 


creased  (he  volume  of  water,  by  the  introduction  of 
soliii  matter,  that  it  must  have  raised  its  level  at 
least  15  feet  ['some  5G  feet'],  'i'his  would  a-lmit 
of  the  overflow  over  the  southern  lagoon,  and  would 
admit  generally  of  an  easy  passage  hy  tlie  margin 
of  the  lake  on  the  west  side.  1  must  say  the  ex- 
planation is  satisfactory  to  my  own  mind."  [Ska, 
The  Salt,  Amer.  ed.]  S.  \V. 

SI'DE  (Si'Stj:  Side).  A  city  on  the  coast  of 
i'amphvlia,  in  lat.  36°  40',  long.  31°  27',  ten  or 
twelve  miles  to  the  east  of  the  river  Eurymedon. 
It  is  mentioned  in  1  Alacc.  xv.  23,  among  the  list 
of  places  to  which  the  Roman  senate  sent  letters 
in  favor  of  the  .lews  [see  PiiAsKi.r.s].  It  was  a 
C-'louy  of  Cuniffians.  In  the  time  of  Straho  a  tem- 
ple cf  Athen^  stood  there,  and  the  name  of  that 
goddess  associated  with  Apollo  appears  in  an  in- 
scription of  undoubtedly  late  times  found  on  the 
spot  by  Admiral  Beaufort.  Side  was  closely  con- 
nected with  Aradus  in  Phoenicia  by  commerce, 
even  if  there  was  not  a  considerable  I'hcenician 
element  in  the  population;  for  not  only  are  the 
towns  placed  in  juxtaposition  in  the  passage  of  the 
Maccabees  quoted  above,  but  Antiochus's  ambas- 
sador to  the  Achaean  league  (Livy,  xxxv.  48),  when 
boasting  of  his  master's  navy,  told  his  hearers  that 
the  left  division  was  made  up  of  men  of  Sli/e  and  of 
Ar(«lus,  as  the  right  was  of  those  of  Tyre  and  of  Si- 
don,  quits  ijentcs  iiidlie  unqwnii  ntc  iirte  IH'C  rir- 
tttlt  niivdli  lequ'issent.  It  is  possible  that  the  name 
has  the  same  root  as  that  of  Sidon,  and  that  it  (as 
well  as  the  Side  on  the  southern  coast  of  the  Va\x- 
ine,  Strabo,  xii.  3)  was  originally  a  Phoenician  set 
tlement,  and  that  the  Cuma^an  colony  was  some- 
thing sul^sequent.  In  the  times  in  which  Sid^ 
appears  in  history  it  had  become  a  place  of  consid- 
erable importance.  It  was  the  station  of  Anti- 
ochus's navy  on  the  eve  of  the  battle  with  the 
Hhodian  fleet  described  by  Livy  (xxxvii.  23,  24). 
The  r(?mains,  too,  which  still  exist  are  an  evidence 
of  its  former  wealth.  They  stand  on  a  low  penin- 
sula running  from  N.  K.  to  S.  \V.,  and  the  mari- 
time character  of  the  former  inhabitants  appears 
from  the  circimistance  that  the  walls  towards  the 
sea  were  but  slightly  built,  while  the  one  which 
faces  the  land  is  of  excellent  workmanship,  and  re- 
mains, in  a  considerable  portion,  perfect  even  to 
this  time.  A  theatre  (beloniring  apparently  to  tlie 
Roman  times)  is  one  of  the  largest  and  best  pre- 
served in  Asia  Minor,  and  is  calculated  to  have 
been  capable  of  containing  more  than  15,000  spec- 
tators. This  is  so  prominent  an  oliject  that,  to 
persons  approaching  the  shore,  it  appears  like  an 
acropolis  of  the  city,  and  in  fact,  during  the  iMiddle 
Ages,  was  actually  occupied  as  a  fort.  The  suburbs 
of  Side  extend  to  some  distance,  liut  the  greatest 
length  within  the  walls  does  not  exceed  1300  yards. 
Three  gates  led  into  the  town  from  the  sea,  and 
one,  on  the  northeastern  side,  into  the  country. 
From  this  last  a  paved  street  with  hiirh  curbstones 
conducts  to  an  agora,  180  feet  in  diaujeter,  and 
formerly  surrounded  with  a  double  row  of  coluums, 
of  which  only  the  bases  remain.  In  the  centre  is  a 
large  ruined  pedestal,  as  if  for  a  colossal  statue,  and 
on  the  southern  side  the  ruins  of  a  teujple,  prob- 
ably the  one  spoken  of  by  Strabo.  Opposite  to 
this  a  street  ran  to  the  principal  water-gate,  and  on 
the  fourth  side  of  the  agora  the  avenue  from  the 
land-gate  was  continued  to  the  front  of  the  theatre. 


o  In  this  passage  the  form  "S.i.&uivCa.  i.<  useil. 

b  Here  the  adjective  is  eraplojed  —  StSui'i'o 

l!tl 


siHON  303S 

Of  this  last  the  lower  half  is,  after  the  manner  of 
Roman  architects  whenever  the  site  permitted,  ex- 
cavated from  tiie  native  rock,  the  upper  half  built  up 
of  excellent  masonry.  The  .seats  for  the  spectatni-s, 
most  of  which  remain,  are  of  white  marble  beauti- 
fully wrought. 

The  two  principal  harbors,  which  at  first  seem 
to  have  been  united  in  one,  were  at  the  extremity 
of  the  peninsula:  they  were  closed,  and  together 
contained  a  surface  of  nearly  500  yards  by  200. 
Hesides  these,  the  principal  water-gate  on  the  N.  W. 
side  was  connected  with  two  small  piers  of  150 
feet  long,  so  that  it  is  plain  that  vessels  used  to 
lie  here  to  discharge  their  cargoes.  And  the  ac- 
count which  Livy  sives  of  the  sea-fight  with 
Antiochus  above  referred  to,  shows  that  shelter 
could  also  be  found  on  the  other  (or  S.  Iv)  side 
of  the  peninsula  whenever  a  strong  west  wind  was 
blowing. 

The  country  by  which  Side  is  backed  is  a  broad, 
swampy  plain,  stretching  out  for  some  miles  beyond 
the  belt  of  sand-hills  which  fringe  the  sea  shore 
IjOW  hills  succeed,  and  behind  these,  far  inland,  are 
the  mountains  which,  at  Mount  Climax  40  miles  to 
the  west,  and  again  about  the  same  distance  to  the 
east,  come  down  to  tlie  coast.  These  mountains 
were  the  habitation  of  the  Pisidians,  against  wlioni 
Antiociius,  in  the  spring  of  the  year  192  n.  v..  made 
an  expedition;  and  as  Side  was  in  the  interest  of 
Antiochus,  until,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  it 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Romans,  it  is  reason 
able  to  presume  that  hostility  was  the  normal  rela- 
tion between  its  inhabitants  and  the  highlanders.  to 
whom  they  were  probal)ly  olijects  of  the  same  jeal- 
ousy that  the  Spanish  settlements  on  the  African 
seaboard  inspire  in  the  Kabyles  round  aiiout  theni 
This  would  not  prevent  a  large  amount  of  traffic,  to 
the  mutual  interest  of  both  pai'ties,  but  would  hin- 
der the  people  of  Side  from  extending  their  sway 
into  the  interior,  and  also  render  the  construction 
of  effective  fortifications  on  the  land  side  a  neces- 
sity. (Strabo,  xii.,  xiv. ;  Livy,  xxxv.,  xxxvii.; 
Beaufort,  Kitramnnia ;  Cicero,  7s'/jp.  nd  Fmii.  iii. 
6.)  J.  W.  B. 

SI'DON.  The  Greek  form  of  the  Phrenician 
name  Zidon,  or  (more  accurately)  Tsidon.  As  such 
it  occurs  naturally  in  the  N.  T.  and  Apocrypha  of 
the  A.  V.  (SiSaJ;/;  [Sin.  in  1  Mace.  luScov-]  S!- 
duu:  2  Ksdr.  i.  11;  -hid.  ii.  28;  1  ftlacc.  v.  15: 
Matt.  xi.  21,  22,  xv.  21;  Mark  iii.  8,  vii.  24,  31 ; 
Luke  iv.«  20,  vi.  17,  x.  13,  14;  Acts  xii.  20." 
xxviii.  3).     It  is  thus  a  parallel  to  Sion. 

But  we  also  find  it  in  the  O.  T.,  where  it  imper- 
fectly reijresents  the  Hebrew  word  elsewhere  pre- 
sented as  ZiDON  (Gen.  x.  15,  19;  ^T^^ :  2(50;;'- 
SidvH).     [ZiDox.]  G. 

SIDO'NIANS  (n'^y^'''^;  in  Judg.  ^3"T^^ 
[inhahitimts  of  Zidon]:  SeiScii'ioi;  in  l)eut.  <}>oi- 
viKes-  ill  dudg.  SiScifios:  Sidonii,  Sidoniu.'i) 
The  Greek  form  of  the  word  Zioonians,  usually 
so  exhiliited  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  O.  T.  It  oc- 
curs Deut.  iii.  9;  Josh.  xiii.  4,  6;  Judg.  iii.  3- 
1  K.  V.  tJ.  G 

*  SIEVE.     [Agkicultuke.] 

*  SIGNET.     [Oknajie.nts:  Ring;    Shau] 
SFHON    {V~I''D,    and    '|'"in"'D "  [one    iclu 


c  This  form  is  found  frequently,  thougli   not  ex(  l"i- 
sively.iu  tht  books  subsequent  to  the  Feafjtemh      Id 


3034 


SIHOR 


tweeps  away,  Ges.]:  Samar.  ]in^D  :  2r)wv\  [in 
Josh.  xiii.  21,  Alex,  ^rjuip,  and  in  last  part  of  verse, 
Koni.  'S.idou,  Vat.  Scicoi';]  -loseph.  Six^"'  'S<^^'"", 
[Seuri] ).  King  of  the  Aniorites  when  Israel  ar- 
rived on  the  borders  of  the  Promised  Land  (Num. 
xxi.  21).  He  was  evidently  a  man  of  great  courage 
and  audacity.  Shortly  before  the  time  of  Israel's 
arrival  he  had  dispossessed  the  Moabites  of  a  splen- 
did territory,  driving  them  south  of  the  natural 
bulwark  of  the  Anion  with  great  slaughter,  and  the 
loss  of  a  great  number  of  captives  (xxi.  26-29). 
When  the  Israelite  host  appears,  he  does  not  hesi- 
tate or  temporize  like  Balak,  but  at  once  gathers 
his  people  together  and  attacks  them.  But  the 
battle  was  his  last.  He  and  all  his  host  were  de- 
stroyed, and  their  district  from  Anion  to  Jabbok 
became  at  once  the  possession  of  the  conqueror. 

Josephus  (Ant.  iv.  5,  §  2)  has  preserved  some 
singular  details  of  the  battle,  which  have  not  sur- 
vived in  the  text  either  of  the  Helirew  or  LXX. 
He  represents  the  Amorite  army  as  containing 
exery  man  in  the  nation  fit  to  bear  arms.  He 
states  that  they  were  unable  to  fight  when  away 
from  the  shelter  of  their  cities,  and  that  being  es- 
pecially galled  by  the  slings  and  arrows  of  the  He- 
brews, and  at  last  suffering  severely  from  thirst, 
they  ruslied  to  the  stream  and  to  the  shelter  of  the 
recesses  of  the  ravine  of  the  Anion.  Into  these  re- 
cesses they  were  pursued  by  their  active  enemy  and 
slaughtered  in  vast  numbers. 

Whether  we  accept  these  details  or  not,  it  is 
plain,  from  the  manner  in  wliioh  the  name  of  Si- 
hon  «  fixed  itself  in  the  national  mind,  and  the 
space  which  his  image  occupies  in  the  official  rec- 
ords, and  in  the  later  poetry  of  Israel,  that  he  was 
a  truly  formidable  chieftain.  G. 

SI'HOR,  accurately  SHI'HOR,  once  THE 
SHIHOR  (-l'"in^tt7,  -I'lntt',  I'nW  [black, 
turbid]  :  7;  ao'iK-qTOS  f)  /car^  ■KpSaceirov  AiyvnTOv, 
rT)aiv'-  Jluvius  tiu-bklus,  N'dus,  {aqua)  turbida):  or 

SHIHOR  OF  EGYPT  (C^'^VP  ~l'"in"^tt7 : 
opia  Klyv-KTOv'  Silnir  yE(/ypti),  when  unqualified, 
a  name  of  the  Nile.     It  is  held  to  signify  "  the 

black"  or ''turbid,"  from  "intt"",  "he  or  it  was 
or  became  black;  "  a  word  used  in  a  wide  sense  for 
different  degrees  of  dark  color,  as  of  hair,  a  face 
tanned  by  the  sun,  a  skin  black  through  disease, 
and  extreme  blackness.  [Nile,  vol.  iii.  p.  2149.] 
Several  names  of  the  Nile  may  be  compared.  Ne7- 
\os  itself,  if  it  be,  as  is  generally  supposed  [?],  of 
Iranian  origin,  signifies  '-the  blue,"  that  is,  '-the 
dark"  rather  than  the  turbid;  for  we  must  then 
compare  the  Sanskrit  nila,  •'  blue,"  probably  espe- 
cially "  dark  blue,"  also  even  "  black,"  as  7iila- 
linnka,  "  black  mud."  The  Arabic  uzruk,  "blue," 
signifies  "  dark "  in  the  name  B(thr  el-Azvnk,  or 
Blue  River,  applied  to  the  eastern  of  the  two  great 
confluents  of  the  Nile.  Still  nearer  is  the  Latin 
Meh,  from  fieAas,  a  name  of  the  Nile,  according 
to  Festus  and  Servius  {Georg.  iv.  291;  ^n.  i. 
745,  iv.  246);  but  little  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
such  a  word  resting  on  no  better  authority.  With 
the  classical  writers,  it  is  the  soil  of  Egypt  that  is 
black,  rather  than  its  river.     So  too  in  hieroglyph- 

the  Pent,  itself  it  occurs  four  times,  two  of  which  are 
Id  the  song,  Num.  xxi.  27,  29. 

a  It  is  possible  that  a  trace  of  the  name  may  still 
remain  iu  the  Jtbel  S/ii/t/tan,  a  lofty  and  conspicuous 
mountain  just  to  the  south  of  the  WaiJy  Moieb. 


SILAS 

ics,  the  name  of  the  country,  KKM,  means  "  tJie 
black;  "  but  there  is  no  name  of  the  Nile  of  like 
signification.  In  the  ancient  painted  sculptures, 
however,  the  figure  of  the  Nile-god  is  colored  ditttr- 
ently  according  as  it  represents  the  river  during  the 
time  of  the  inundation,  and  during  the  rest  of  the 
year,  in  the  former  case  red,  in  the  latter  blue. 

There  are  but  three  occurrences  of  Shihor  in  the 
Bible,  and  but  one  of  Shihor  of  Egypt,  or  Shihor- 
Mizraim.  It  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  limits  of 
territory  which  was  still  unconquered  when  .'oshua 
was  old.  "This  [is]  the  land  that  yet  remaineth: 
all  the  regions  of  the  Philistines,  and  all  Geshuri, 

from  the  Shihor  ("nn"*^'n),  which  [is]  before 
Egypt,  even  unto  the  borders  of  Ekron  northward, 
is  counted  to  the  Canaanite  "  (Josh.  xiii.  2,  3). 
The  enumeration  of  the  Philistines  follows.  Here, 
therefore,  a  district  lying  between  Egypt  and  the 
most  northern  Philistine  city  seems  to  be  intended. 
With  this  pass.a^e  must  be  compared  that  in  which 
Shihor-Mizraim  occurs.  David  is  related  to  have 
"  gathered  all  Israel  together,  from  Shihor  of  Egypt 
even  unto  the  entering  of  Hamath  "  (1  Chr.  xiii. 
5).  There  is  no  other  evidence  that  the  Israelites 
ever  spread  westward  beyond  Gaza;  it  may  seem 
strange  that  the  actual  territory  dwelt  in  by  them 
in  David's  time  should  thus  appear  to  be  spoken  of 
as  extending  as  far  as  the  easternmost  branch  of 
the  Nile,  but  it  must  be  recollected  that  more  than 
one  tribe  at  a  later  time  had  spread  beyond  even 
its  first  boundaries,  and  also  that  the  limits  may  be 
those  of  David's  dominion  rather  than  of  the  land 
actually  fully  inhabited  by  the  Israelites.  The 
stream  may  therefore  be  that  of  the  Wddi-l-'Areesh. 
That  the  stream  intended  by  Shihor  unqualified 
was  a  nangable  river  is  evident  ft'oin  a  passage  in 
Isaiah,  where  it  is  said  of  Tyre,  "  And  by  great 
waters,  the  sowing  of  Shihor,  the  harvest  of  the 

river  ( I'eor,  "1S^),  [is]  her  revenue"  (xxiii.  3). 
Here  Shihor  is  either  the  same  as,  or  compared 
with,  Yeor,  generally  thought  to  be  the  Nile 
[Nile],  but  in  this  work  suggested  to  be  the  ex- 
tension of  the  Red  Sea.  [Ked  Sea.]  In  Jere- 
miah the  identity  of  Shihor  with  the  Nile  seems 
distinctly  stated  where  it  is  said  of  Israel,  "And 
now  what  hast  thou  to  do  in  the  way  of  Egypt,  to 
drink  the  waters  of  Shiiior  'i*  or  what  hast  thou  to 
do  in  the  way  of  Assyria,  to  drink  the  waters  oi 
the  river  V"  i.  e.  Euphrates  (ii.  13).  In  consider- 
uig  these  passages  it  is  important  to  distinguish  be- 
tween "the  Shihor  which  [is]  before  Egypt,"  and 
Shihor  of  Egypt,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Shihor 
alone,  on  the  other.  In  articles  Nile  and  Kivek 
OF  Egypt  it  is  maintained  too  strongly  that  Shi- 
hor, however  qualified,  is  always  the  Nile.  The; 
later  opinion  of  the  writer  is  expressed  here  under 
Shihok  of  Egtpt.  The  latter  is,  he  thinks,  un- 
questionably the  Nile,  the  former  two  probably,  but 
not  certainly,  the  same.  R.  S.  P. 

SI'LAS  (2iAas:  Silas).  An  eminent  member 
of  the  early  Christian  Church,  described  under  that 
name  in  the  Acts,  but  as  Silvanus ''  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles.  He  first  appears  as  one  of  the  leaders 
(riyovixfvot)  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  sv. 
22),  holding  the  office  of  an  inspired  teacher  {Trpo<p- 


b  The  Alexandrine  writers  adopted  somewhat  bold 
abbreviations  of  proper  names,  such  as  Zenas  for  Ze- 
nodorus,  ApoUos  for  Apollonius,  Hennas  for  Uermo- 
dorus.  The  method  by  which  they  arrived  at  tbcM 
'  forms  is  not  very  apparent. 


SILK 

fyrtft,  IV.  32).  His  name,  derived  from  tlie  Latin  1 
silvii,  ''^ood,"  betokens  him  a  Hellenistic  .lew,  and 
ne  appears  to  have  been  a  Koinan  citizen  (Acts  xvi. 
37).  He  was  appointed  as  a  delegate  to  accom- 
panj'  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  their  return  to  Antioch 
with  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts 
XV.  22,  32).  Having  accomplished  this  mission, 
he  returned  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  3-3;  the  follow- 
ing verse,  e5o|e  Se  tw  2iAa  eirt/xeifai  avTov,  is 
decidedly  an  interpolation  introduced  to  harmonize 
the  passage  with  xv.  40).  He  must,  however, 
have  immediately  revisited  Antioch,  for  we  find 
him  selected  by  St.  Paul  as  the  companion  of  his 
second  mis.sionary  journey  (.Vets  xv.  40-xxi.  17). 
At  BetxEa  he  was  left  behind  \\  ith  Timothy  while 
St.  Paul  proceeded  to  Athens  (Acts  xvii.  14),  and 
we  hear  nothing  more  of  his  movements  until  he 
rejoined  the  Apostle  at  Corinth  (.\cts  xviii.  5). 
\\'hether  he  had  followed  Paul  to  Athens  in  oljedi- 
eiice  to  the  injunction  to  do  so  (Acts  xvii.  15),  and 
had  been  sent  thence  with  Timothy  to  Thessalonica 
(1  Thess.  iii.  2),  or  whether  his  movements  were 
wholly  independent  of  Timothy's,  is  uncertain 
(Coiiyb.  and  Ho^ws.  St.  Paul,  i.  458,  note 3).  His 
presence  at  Corinth  is  several  times  noticed  (2  Cor. 
i.  lU;  1  Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess.  i.  1).  He  probably 
returned  to  Jerusalem  with  St.  i'aul,  and  from  that 
time  the  connection  between  them  appears  to  have 
terminated.  Whether  he  was  the  Silvanus  who 
coineyed  St.  Peter's  First  ICpistle  to  Asia  Minor 
(1  Pet.  V.  12)  is  doubtful:  the  prol labilities  are  in 
favor  of  the  identity;  the  question  is  chiefly  inter- 
esting as  bearing  uixiu  the  Pauline  character  of  St. 
Peter's  epistles  (De  Wette,  EiitUit.  §  4).  A  tra- 
dition of  very  slight  authority  represents  Silas  to 
Lave  become  bishop  of  Corinth.  We  have  finally 
to  notice,  for  the  purpose  of  rejecting,  the  theories 
which  identify  Silas  with  Tertius  (Uoni.  xvi. 
22)    through  a  Hebrew  explanation  of  the  name 

(tf'  _^E?),  and  again  with  Luke,  or  at  all  events 
with  the  author  of  the  Acts  (Alford's  Pcoleyoni.  in 


Acts,  i.  §  1). 


W.  L.  b. 


SILK  i(T7]piK6v)-  The  only  imdoubtt^d  notice 
of  silk  in  the  Bible  occurs  in  liev.  xviii.  12,  where 
it  is  mentioned  among  the  treasures  of  the  typical 
Babylon.  It  is,  however,  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  the  texture  was  known  to  the  He- 
brews from  the  time  that  their  commercial  relations 
were  extended  by  Solomon.  For,  though  we  have 
no  historical  evidence  of  the  importation  of  the  raw 
material  to  the  shores  of  the  Alediterranean  earlier 
than  that  of  Aristotle  (//.  .-1.  v.  19)  in  the  4th 
century  B.  c.,  yet  tliat  notice,  referring  as  it  does 
to  the  island  of  Cos,  woukl  justify  the  assumption 
that  it  had  been  known  at  a  far  earlier  period  in 
Western  Asia.  The  commercial  routes  of  that 
continent  are  of  the  highest  antiquity,  and  an  indi- 
rect testimony  to  the  existence  of  a  trade  witii  China 
in  the  age  of  Isaiah  is  probalily  afforded  us  in  his 
reference  to  the  Sinim.  [Sixni.J  The  well-known 
classical  name  of  the  substance  {aripiKiv,  sericum) 


a  Calmet  conjectured  that  H  ''p^~lti7  (Is.  xix.  9, 
k..  V.  "  fine  ")  was  connected  with  sericum. 

(l  The  A.  V.  confounds  WW  with  silk  in  Prov. 
Lx\i.  22. 

•■  2  Olir.  xxiv.  25.  a  passage  tinged  with  the  usual 
iOlor  of  Ciiu  narracivp   of  Oaruuicles,   aud   couCaiuiU|$ 


SILLA  3036 

does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew  language, '  but  this 
may  be  accounted  for,  partly  on  the  ground  that 
the  Hebrews  were  acquainted  only  with  the  texture 
and  not  with  the  raw  material,  and  partly  on  the 
supposition  that  the  name  seiictuii  reached  the 
Greeks  by  another  channel,  namely,  through  Ar- 
menia. The  Hebrew  terms  which  have  been  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  silk  are  mes/df>  and  deiiitshtk.': 
The  former  occurs  only  in  Ez.  xvi.  10,  13  (A.  V. 
"silk")  and  is  probably  connected  with  the  root 
iiiaslMli,  "  to  draw  out."  as  though  it  were  made 
of  the  finest  drawn  silk  in  the  manner  described  I13 
Pliny  (vi.  20,  xi.  26):  the  equivalent  term  in  the 
LXX.  (Tpi';;^arrTov),  though  connected  in  point  of 
etymology  with  hair  as  its  material,  is  nevertheless 
explained  by  Hesychius  and  Suidas  as  referring  to 
silk,  which  may  well  have  been  descrilied  as  resem- 
bling hair.  The  other  term  dtines/itk  occurs  in 
Am.  iii.  12  (A.  V.  "Damascus"),  and  has  tjeen 
supiiosed  to  refer  to  silk  from  the  resemblance  of 
the  word  to  our  "damask,"  and  of  this  again  to 
"  Damascus,"  as  the  place  where  the  manufacture 
of  silken  textures  was  carried  on.  It  appears,  how- 
ever, that  "  damask  "  is  a  corruption  of  diiiudso, 
a  term  applied  by  the  Arabs  to  tlie  raw  material 
alone,  and  not  to  the  maiuifactured  article  (Pusey's 
J/ ill  Propli.  p.  183).  We  must,  therefore,  con- 
sider the  reference  to  silk  as  extremely  dubious.'' 
We  iiave  notice  of  silk  under  its  classical  name  in 
the  Mishna  {Kil.  9,  §  2),  where  Ciiinese  silk  is  dis- 
tinguished from  floss-silk.  The  value  set  upon  silk 
by  the  Komans,  as  implied  in  Kev.  xviii.  12,  is  no- 
ticed by  Josephus  (S.  J.  vii.  5,  §  4),  as  well  as  liy 
classical  writers  (e.  (j.  Sueton.  Caliy.  52:  JIart.  xi. 
9).  '  W.  L.  B. 

SIL'LA  (S^D  [twig,  basket]:  [Rom.  SeAa; 
Vat]  raa.KKa\  Alex.  FaAoaS;  [Conip.  SeAAa:] 
Sella).  -The  house  of  Mdlo,  which  goeth  down  to 
Silla,"  was  the  scene  of  the  murder  of  king  .loash 
(2  K.  xii.  20).  What  or  where  Silla  was  is  en- 
tirely matter  of  conjecture.  Jlillo  seems  most  prob- 
ably to  have  been  the  citadel  of  the  town,  and  situ- 
ated on  Mount  Zion.  [See  iii.  1937  a.]  Silla  must 
have  been  in  the  valley  below,  overlooked  l\v  that 
part  of  the  citadel  whicli  was  used  as  a  residence. 
The  situation  of  the  present  so-called  Pool  of  Siloam 
would  be  approiiriate,  and  the  aiireement  between 
the  two  names  is  tempting;  but  the  likeness  exists 
in  the  Greek  and  English  versions  only,  and  in  the 
original  is  too  slight  to  admit  of  any  inference. 
Gesenius,  with  less  than  his  usual  caution,  attirms 
Silla  to  lie  a  town  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jeru- 
salem. Others  (as  Thenius,  in  Kursy.  Exc//. 
[landb.  on  the  passage)  refer  it  to  a  place  on 
or  connected  with  the  causeway  or  flight  of  step* 

(n  vDI2)  which  led  from  the  central  valley  of  the 
city  up  to  the  court  of  the  Temple.  To  indulge  in 
such  confident  statements  on  either  side  is  ai. 
entire  mistake.  Neither  in  the  parallel  passage  of 
Chronicles,'-  in  the  lists  of  Nehemiah  iii.  and  xii., 
the  Jewish  Commentator/  the  LXX.,  in  Josephus, 

some  curious  variations  from  that  of  the  Kings,  but 
passing  over  the  place  of  the  murder  siib  sikntio. 

f  The  reading  of  the  twe  great  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  — 
agreeing  in  the  r  as  tlie  conmiencemeut  of  the  name 
—  is  remarkable,  aud  prompts  the  suggestion  tlia;    he 

Hebrew  name  may  originally  have  begun  with  S2, 
a  ravine  (as  Oe-hinnom).  The  Ko.Ta.\i.ivovra.  of  the 
Alex,  is  doubtless  a  corruption  of  Karo^aii  oyra 


3036    SILOAH,  THE  TOOL  OF 

nor  in  Jerome,  do  we  find  the  smallest  clew:  and 
^here  is  therefore  no  alternative  but  to  remain  for 
the  present  in  ignorance.  G. 

SILOAH,    THE    POOL     OF    (n3"?2 

n^tS?n  [see  below]:  Ko\vfj.^-{]6pa  ruv  KuiSiuV, 
FA.l  K.  rwv  6eT0u  Siacdo^;  [Comp.  k.  tov  2i- 
Aa>a:]  Piscina  Silue).  This  name  is  not  accu- 
rately represented  in  the  A.  V.  of  Xeh.  iii.  15  — 
the  only  passage  in  which  this  particular  form  oc- 
curs. It  should  be  Shelach,  or  rather  has-Shelach, 
since  it  is  given  with  the  definite  article.  This 
was  possibly  a  corrupt  form  of  the  name  which  is 
first  presented  as  Sliiloach,  then  as  Siloam,  and  is 
now  Selwdn.  The  meaning  of  Sl/elac/i,  taken  as 
Hebrew,  is  "  dart."  This  cannot  be  a  name  given 
to  the  stream  on  account  of  its  swiftness,  because  it 
is  not  now,  nor  was  it  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  any- 
thing but  a  very  soft  and  gentle  stream  (Is  viii.  6). 
It  is  probably  an  accommodation  to  tlie  popular 
mouth,  of  the  same  nature  as  that  exemplified  in  the 
name  Dart  which  is  now  liorne  by  more  than  one 
river  in  England,  and  which  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  swiftness,  but  is  merely  a  corruption  of 
the  ancient  word  which  also  appears  in  the  various 
forms  of  Derweiit,"  Uarent,  Trent.  The  last  of 
these  was  at  one  time  supposed  to  mean  "  thirty;  " 
and  the  river  Trent  was  believed  to  have  -30  tribu- 
taries, -30  sorts  of  fish,  30  convents  on  its  banks, 
etc. :  a  notion  preserved  from  oblivion  by  Jlilton  in 
his  lines:  — 

'■  And  Treut,  that  like  some  earth-born  gi.int  spreads 
llis  thirty  arms  along  the  iudeuted  meads." 

For  the  fountain  and  pool,  see  Siloam.  G. 

SILO 'AM  {n'hwn,  Shiloach,    Is.    viii.    6; 

n^tJ^n,  Shtldch,  Neh.  iii.  15  [see  above];  the 
change  in  the  Jlasoretic  punctuation  indicating 
merely  perhaps  a  change  in  the  pronunciation  or 
in  the  spelling  of  the  word,  sometime  during  the 
three  centuries  between  Isaiah  and  Nehemiah. 
Kabbinical  writers,  and,  following  them,  .lewisli 
travellers,  both  ancient  and  modern,  from  Benja- 
min of  Tudela  to  Sclnvarz,  retain  the  earlier  S/iilu- 
ttch  in  preference  to  the  later  Shulach.  I'he 
Kabbis  give  it  with  the  article,  as   ui    the  Bible 

(mb"'tt?n,  Dachs's  Codex  Talmudicus,  p.  367). 
The  LXX.  gives  StAoict^  [Vat.  Sin.  2fiAa)a/n]  in 
Isaiah  ;  but  in  Nehemiah  KoKvfji.^r)6pa  -riov  KaiSiwv, 
the  pool  of  the  sheepskins,  or  '-lieece-pool;  "  per- 
haps because,  in  their  day,  it  was  used  lor  washing 
the  fleeces  of  the  victims.*  The  Vulgate  has  uni- 
formly, both  in  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Silue ; 
in  the  Old  calling  it  piscina,  and  in  the  New  nntn- 
teria.  The  Latin  Fathers,  led  by  the  Vulgate, 
have  always  Siloe ;  the  old  pilgrims,  who  knew 
nothing  but  the  Vulgate,  Silue  or  Sylue.  The 
Greek  Fathers,  adhering  to  the  LXX.,  have  Sikxim. 
The  word  does  not  occur  in  the  Apocrypha.  Jo- 
gephus  gives  both  Siloam  and  Sih'is,  generally  the 
former.) 


SILOAM 

Siloam  is  one  of  the  few  undisputed  localitiee 
(though  Heland  and  some  others  misplace<l  it)  in 
the  topography  of  .Jerusalem ;  still  retaining  it« 
olil  name  (with  Arabic  modification,  Silicdn),  while 
every  other  pool  has  lost  its  Bible-designation. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  it  is  a  mere  sub- 
urban tank  of  no  great  size,  and  for  many  an  age 
not  particularly  good  or  plentiful  in  its  waters, 
though  Josephus  tells  us  that  in  his  day  they  were 
both  "sweet  and  abundant"  {B.  J.  v.  4.  §  1). 
Aijart  from  the  identity  of  name,  there  is  an  un- 
broken chain  of  exterior  testimony,  during  eighteen 
ccTituries,  connecting  the  present  Birkel  Siltodn 
with  the  Sliiloih  of  Isaiah  and  the  Siloam  of  St. 
John.  There  are  ditticulties  in  identifying  the  Bir 
Kyub  (the  well  of  Salah-ed-din,  Jin  Eyub,  the 
great  digger  of  wells,  Jalal-Addin.  p.  239),  but 
none  in  fixing  Siloam.  Josephus  mentions  it  fre- 
quently in  his  Jewish  Wai',  and  his  references  in- 
dicate that  it  was  a  somewhat  noted  place,  a  sort 
of  city  landmark.  From  him  we  learn  that  it  was 
without  the  city  (e|a)  tov  'a.<TT fws,  B.  J.  v.  9,  §  4); 
that  it  was  at  this  pool  that  the  "  old  wall  took  a 
bend  and  shot  out  eastward  "  {avaKafxTrrov  eis  av- 
aToXrjv,  ib.  v.  6,  §  1);  that  there  was  a  valley  under 
it  {r)}v  virh  SiAtoa/x  (pdpayya,  ibid.  vi.  8,  §  5),  and 
one  beside  it  (rp  Kara  T^f  SiAcoa/x  (pdpayyi,  ibid. 
V.  12,  §  2);  a  hill  (\6(l>os)  right  opposite,  appar- 
ently on  the  other  side  of  the  Ivedron,  hard  by  a 
clitf  or  rock  called  I'eristereon  (ibid.);  that  it  was 
at  the  termination  or  mouth  of  the  Tyropceon 
{ibid.  V.  4,  §  1 ) :  that  close  beside  it,  apparently 
eastward,  was  another  pool,  called  Solomon's  pool, 
to  which  the  '-old  wall  "  came  after  leaving  Siloam, 
and  past  which  it  went  on  to  Ophlns,  where,  bend- 
ing northward,  it  was  united  to  the  eastern  arcade 
of  the  Temple.  In  the  Antonme  Itinerary  (a.  d. 
333)  it  is  set  down  in  the  same  locality,  but  it  is 
said  to  be  "juxta  murum,"  as  Josephus  implies; 
whereas  now  it  is  a  considerable  distance — up- 
wards of  1200  feet  —  from  the  nearest  angle  of  the 
present  wall,  and  nearly  1,900  feet  from  the  south- 
ern wall  of  the  Haram.  Jerome,  towards  tlie  be- 
ginning of  the  5th  century,  describes  it  as  "  ad 
radices  niontis  Moriah  "  {in  Matt,  x.),  and  tells 
(though  without  indorsing  the  fable)  that  the 
stones  sprinkled  with  the  blood  (rubra  saxa)  of  the 
prophet  Zechariah  were  still  pointed  out  [in  .\/att. 
xxiii.).  He  speaks  of  it  as  being  in  the  Valley  of 
the  Son  of  Hinnom,  as  Josephus  does  of  its  being 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Tyropceon  (in  Jer.  ii.);  and 
it  is  noticeable  that  he  (like  the  Itabbis)  never 
mentions  the  Tyropceon,  while  he,  times  without 
number,  speaks  of  the  ^'alley  of  the  Son  of  Hin- 
nom. He  speaks  of  Hinnom,  Tophet,  with  their 
gro\es  and  gardens,  as  watered  by  Siloam  {in  .ler. 
xix.  G,  and  xxxii.  35).  "  Tophet,  qute  est  in  vaUe 
filii  Ennom,  ilium  locum  significat  qui  Siloe  fonti- 
bus  irrigatur,  et  est  amcenus  atque  nemorosus,  ho- 
dieque  hortorum  prsebet  delicias  "  {in  Jel:  viii  ). 
He  speaks  of  Siloam  as  dependent  on  the  rains, 
and  as  the  only  fountain  used  in  his  day :  "  Uno 
fonte  Siloe  et  hoc  non    perpetuo   utitur  civitas ;  et 


a  Derwent  appears  to  be  the  oldest  of  these  foi-ms, 
and  to  be  derived  from  dmvyn,  an  ancient  British 
word,  meaning  "  to  wind  about.'"  On  the  Continent 
the  name  is  found  in  the  following  forma  :  Fr.  Dti- 
tance ;  Germ.  Drewenz ;  Tt.  Trento ;  Russ.  Duna 
[Ferguson's  Rifer  Name^,  etc  ). 

6  In  Talmudical  H(>brew  Shetnch  signifies  "a  skin" 
T/^Tig  lAitiiua  Surra);  and  the  Alexandrian  transla- 


tors attached  this  meaning  to  it ;  they  and  the  earlier 
Rabbis  considering  Nehemiah's  Shelach  as  a  ditferent 
pool  from  Siloam  ;  probably  the  same  as  Bethe.<da.  by 
the  Sheep  Gate  (John  v.  2),  the  Trpo/SariKT)  Ko\vy.^r)9pa 
of  Euseblus,  the  probatica  piscina  of  Jerome.  If  so, 
then  it  is  Bethesda.  and  not  Siloam,  that  is  mentiontKl 
by  Nehemiah. 


SILOAM 

Bsque  in  prajseiitein  diem  sterilitas  pluviaruni,  non 
joluiu  frugum  sed  et  bibendi  iiiopiain  facit  "  (in 
Jer.  xiv.).  Now,  though  Jei-ouie  ought  to  have 
known  well  the  water-supplies  of  .lerusalem,  seeing 
he  lived  the  greater  part  of  his  hte  within  six  miles 
of  it,  yet  other  authorities,  and  the  modern  water- 
^  provision  of  the  city,  show  us  tliat  it  never  could 
have  been  wholly  dependent  on  its  puo/s.  Its  in- 
numerable l)ottle-necked  private  cisterns  kept  up  a 
supply  at  all  times,  and  hence  it  often  happened 
that  it  was  the  besitt/ers,  not  the  busieijed,  that 
suffered  most;  though  Josephus  records  a  memora- 
ble instance  to  the  contrary,  when  —  relating  a 
speech  he  made  to  the  Jews,  standing,  beyond  their 
darts,  on  a  part  of  the  southeastern  wall  which 
the  Romans  had  carried  —  he  speaks  of  Siloam  as 
overflowing  since  the  Romans  had  got  access  to  it, 
whereas  before,  when  tlie  Jews  held  it,  it  was  dry 
{B.  J.  V.  9,  §  4).  And  we  may  here  notice,  in 
passing,  that  Jerusalem  is,  except  perhaps  in  the 
very  heat  of  the  year,  a  well-watered  city.  Dr. 
Barclay  says  that  "  within  a  circuit  swept  by  a 
radius  of  seven  or  eight  miles  there  are  no  less  than 
thirty  or  forty  natural  springs  "  {City  of  tht  Grtat 
KiiKj,  p.  295);  and  a  letter  from  Consul  Finn  to 
the  writer  adds,  "  This  I  believe  to  be  under  the 
trutli ;  but  they  are  almost  all  found  to  the  S.  and 
S.  W. :  in  those  directions  there  does  not  appear 
to  be  a  village  without  springs."  " 

In  the  7th  century,  Antoninus  Martyr  mentions 
Siloam  as  both  fountain  and  pool.  Rernhard  the 
monk  speaks  of  it  in  the  9th,  and  the  annalists  of 
the  Crusades  mention  its  site  in  the  fork  of  two 
valleys,  as  we  find  it.  Benjamin  of  Tudela  (a.  d. 
1173)  speaks  of  "  the  great  spring  of  Shiloach 
which  runs  into  the  brook  Kedron  "  (Asher's  ed. 
vol.  i.  p.  71);  and  he  mentions  "a  large  building 
upon  it  "  (7^),  which  he  says  was  erected  in  the 
days  of  his  fathers.  Is  it  of  this  building  that  the 
present  ruined  pillars  are  the  relics  ?  Caumont  (a. 
D.  1118)  speaks  of  tiie  r<r%/ o/  Siloah,  "  ou  est 
le  fonteyne  ou  le  (iic)  vierge  Alarie  lavoit  les  dra- 
pellez  de  son  enfant,'"  and  of  the  fountain  of  Si- 
loam as  close  at  hand  (  Voyaye  doidXrcmev  en 
Jhcrusiiltm,  etc.,  i'aris  edition,  p.  G8).  Felix 
Fabri  (a.  d.  1481)  describes  Siloam  at  some 
length,  and  seems  to  have  attempted  to  enter  the 
subterraneous  passage;  but  lailed,  and  retreated  in 
dismay  after  filling  his  flasks  with  its  eve-healing 
water.  Arnold  von  Hiirff  (a.  u.  1196)  also  identi- 
fies the  spot  (Z)ie  Pilyi^rfalirt,  p.  18ii.  Col.  ed.). 
After  this,  the  references  to  Siloam  are  innumera- 
ble; nor  do  they,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  vary 
in  their  location  of  it.  We  hardly  needed  these 
testimonies  to  enable  us  to  fix  the  site,  thou:,di 
some  topographers  have  rested  on  these  entireFy. 
Scripture,  if  it  does  not  actually  set  it  down  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Tyropoeon  as  Josephus  does,  brings 
us  very  near  it,  both  in  Nehemiah  and  St.  John. 
The  reader  who  compares  Xeli.  iii.  15  with  Neh. 
sii.  37,  will  find  that  the  pool  of  Siloah,  the  Foun- 
tain Gate,  the  stairs  of  the  city  of  David,  the  wall 
above  the  house  of  David,  the  Water  Gate,  and  the 
king's  gardens,  were  all  near  each  other.  The  Evan- 
gelist's narrative  regarding  the  bliml  man,  whose 
jyes  the  Lord  miraculously  opened,  when  carefully 


SILOAM 


oUo< 


a  Stiabo's  statement  is  that  .lerusalem  itself  was 
rocky  but  well  watered  Uvv&pov),  but  all  the  region 
iromi.l  was  barren  and  w^tei  less  (Kvirpav  Ka.\  avv- 
Utv),  b.  xvi.  eh.  2,  sect  3o. 


examined,  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  Silo^ra 
was  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  lue  Temple. 
The  Rabbinical  traditions,  or  his/ories,  as  they 
doubtless  are  in  many  cases,  frequently  refer  to 
Siloam  in  coimection  with  the  Temple  service.  It 
was  to  Siloam  that  tlie  Invite  was  sent  with  the 
golden  pitcher  on  the  "  last  and  great  day  of  the 
feast"  of  Tabernacles;  it  was  from  Siloam  that  he 
broujjht  the  water  which  was  then  poured  over  the 
sacrifice,  in  memory  of  the  water  from  the  rock  of 
Rephidim ;  and  it  was  to  this  Siloam  water  that 
the  Ixird  pointed  when  He  stood  in  the  Temple  on 
that  day  and  cried,  "  If  any  man  thirst,  lot  hin; 
come  unto  me  and  drink." 

The  Lord  sent  the  blind  man  to  wash,  not  in, 
as  our  version  has  it,  but  at  {eh)  the  pool  of  Si- 
loam;'' for  it  was  the  clay  from  his  eyes  that  was 
to  be  washed  off;  and  the  Evangelist  is  careful  to 
throw  in  a  remark,  not  lor  the  purpose  of  telling 
us  that  Siloam  meant  an  '■  aqueduct,"  as  some 
think,  but  to  give  higher  significance  to  the  mira- 
cle. "  Go  wa-sh  at  Siloam,"  was  the  command; 
the  Evangelist  adds,  "  which  is  ^ly  interpretation. 
SKXT."  On  the  inner  meaning  here  —  the  paral- 
lelism between  "the  Sent  One"  (Luke  iv.  18; 
John  X.  30)  and  "  the  Sent  water,"  the  missioned 
One  and  the  missioned  pool,  we  say  nothing;  far- 
ther than  what  St.  Basil  said  well,  in  his  exposition 
of  the  8th  of  Isaiah,  tis  ouy  6  awearaAfxei/os  Kal 
a.\f/o(pr]Tl  peaiv ;  y)  irepl  ou  dp'fjTah  Ki'ipios  airea- 
Ta\Ke  fxi-  Kal  ■n-aKiv,  ouK  epiaei  ou5e  Kpavyaaa  ; 
That  "  Sent"  is  the  natural  interpretation  is  evi- 
dent,  not  simply  from  the  word   itself,  but  from 

other  passages  where  T^lW  is  used  in  connection 
with  water,  as  Job  v.  10,  "  he  sendetk  waters  upon 
the  fields;"  and  Ez.  xxxi.  4,  "she  se7it  out  her 
little  rivers  unto  all  the  trees  of  the  field."  The 
Talmudists  coincide  with  the  Evangelist,  and  say 
that  Shiloach  was  so  called  because  it  sent  forth  its 
waters  to  water  the  gardens  (Levi's  Linyua  S<i. 
cm).     \Ve  may  add  Homer's  line:  — 

'Ei/j/rj/xap  fi'  es  Tetxos  'iet  pooi/  {U.  xii.  25). 

A  little  way  below  the  Jewish  burying-groinid, 
but  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  valley,  where  the 
Kedron  turns  slightly  westward,  and  widens  itself 
coiisideralily,  is  the  fountain  of  the  Virgin,  or 
Uiii  eil-Dci-iij\  near  the  beginning  of  that  saddle- 
shaped  projection  of  the  Temple-hill  supposed  to 
be  the  Oi'Mel  of  the  Bible,  and  the  Op/das  of  Jo- 
sephus. [En-Rogel.]  At  the  back  part  of  this 
foimtain  a  subterraneous  passage  begins,  through 
which  the  water  flows,  and  through  wliich  a  man 
may  make  his  way,  as  did  Robinson  and  Barclay, 
sometimes  walking  erect,  sometimes  stooping,  some- 
times kneeling,  and  sometimes  crawling,  to  Siloam. 
This  rocky  conduit,  which  twists  considerably,  but 
keeps,  in  general,  a  southwesterly  direction,  is,  ac- 
cording to  Robinson,  1,750  feet  long,  while  the 
direct  distance  between  Silird/i  and  (Jm  ed-Dtrnj 
is  only  a  little  above  1,200  feet.  In  former  davs 
this  passage  was  evidently  deeper,  as  its  bed  is  sand 
of  some  depth,  which  has  been  accumulating  for 
ages.  This  conduit  has  had  tril)utaries,  which 
have  formerly  sent  their  waters  down  from  the  city 
pools  or  Temple-wells  to  swell  Siloam.  Harolay 
writes,   "  In   exploring   the  subterraneous  channel 


b  See  Woljii  Cum,  etc.  Or  ^U  gets  its  force  from 
uTraye,  vi\\iai.  coming  between  the  verb  and  its  prepo- 
sition, parentiietically,  "  Go  to  the  pool  and  wash 
thine  eyes  there." 


8038  SILOAM 

conveying  the  water  from  the  Virgin's  Fount  to 
Siloam.  I  discovered  a  similar  channel  entering 
from  the  north,  a  fe.v  yards  from  its  commence- 
ment; and  on  tracing  it  up  near  the  JMugrabin 
Gate,  where  it  became  so  choked  with  rubbish  that 
it  could  be  traversed  no  farther,  I  there  found  it 
turn  to  the  west,  in  the  direction  of  the  south  end 
of  the  cleft  or  saddle  of  Zion ;  and  if  this  channel 
was  not  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  conveying 
to  Siloam  the  surplus  waters  of  Hezekiah's  aque- 
duct, I  am  unable  to  suggest  any  purpose  to  which 
it  could  have  been  applied"  {City  of  the  Great 
King^  p.  309).  In  another  place  he  tells  us  some- 
thing more :  "  Having  loitered  in  the  pool  [Virgin's 


SILOAM 

Fount]  till  the  coming  down  of  .be  waters,  I  soon 
found  several  widely  separated  places  where  it- 
gained  admittance,  besides  the  opening  under  the 
steps,  where  alone  it  had  formerly  been  supposed 
to  enter.  1  then  observed  a  large  opening  entering 
the  rock-hewn  channel,  just  below  the  pool,  which, 
though  once  a  copious  tributary,  is  now  dry.  Being 
too  much  choked  with  tesserre  and  rubbish  to  be 
penetrated  far,  I  carefully  noted  its  position  and 
bearing,  and,  on  searchins  for  it  above,  soon  identi- 
fied it  on  the  exterior,  where  it  assumed  an  u])ward 
direction  towards  the  Temple,  and,  entering  through 
a  breach,  traversed  it  for  nearly  a  thousand  feet, 
sometimes    erect,  sometimes    bending,   sometimes 


Pool  of  Siloam,  looking  north.     From  a  sketch  by  B«v.  S.  C.  Malan. 


inching  my  way  snake-fashion,  till  at  last  I  reached 
a  point  near  the  wall  where  I  heard  the  donkeys 
tripping  along  over  my  head.  I  was  satisfied,  on 
sulisequently  locating  our  course  above  ground  with 
the  theodolite,  that  this  canal  derived  its  former 


a  *  Lieut.  Warren's  researches  have  shown  that 
Dr.  Barclay  was  singularly  mistaken  in  the  statements 
here  quoted.  The  subterranean  passage  connected 
with  the  aqueduct  and  pool,  which  the  latter  supposed 
ae  had  ''  identified  on  the  exterior,"'  was  ascertained 
by  the  latter  to  be  about  40  feet  below  the  surface  of 
Xne  rni-k.  The  passajie  which  Barclay  mistook  for  this, 
Uld  entering  from  the  ext«>-ior,  "  traversed  it  for  nearly 


supply  of  water,  not  from  Moriah,  but  from  Zion  "  " 
{City,  p.  523). 

This  conduit  enters  Siloam  at  the  northwest 
angle ;  or  rather  enters  a  small  rock-cut  chamlier 
which  forms  the  vestibule  of  Siloam,  about  five  or 

a  thousand  feet."  is,  according  to  Warren,  "  the  main 
drain  of  the  town,  which  is  built  of  masonry,  and 
generally  only  a  few  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  made 
earth."  The  subterranean  passage,  moreover,  was  not 
as  Barclay  supposed,  a  tributary  to  the  fountain,  but 
a  conduit  to  a  shaft,  of  which,  as  explored  by  War 
ren,  some  account  is  given  at  the  end  of  this  artid* 
(Amer.  ed.J.  S   VV 


SILO  AM 

At  feet  broad.  To  this  you  descend  by  a  few  rude 
itt'iis,  under  which  the  water  pours  itself  nito  the 
main  pool  {Narrtilive  of  Mission  to  the  Jews,  vol. 
i.  p.  207).  This  pool  is  oblong;  eighteen  paces  in 
length  according  to  Laffi  (  Viaggio  al  Santo  Sepol- 
cro,  A.  I).  1678);  fifty  feet  according  to  Barclay; 
and  fifty-three  according  to  Robinson.  It  is  eigh- 
teen feet  broad,  and  nineteen  feet  deep,  according 
to  Robinson;  but  Barclay  gives  a  more  minute 
measurement,  "  fourteen  and  a  half  at  the  lower 
(eastern)  end,  and  seventeen  at  the  upper;  its 
western  end  side  being  somewhat  bent;  it  is  eigh- 
teen and  a  half  in  depth,  but  never  filled,  the 
waver  either  passing  directly  through,  or  being 
maintained  at  a  depth  of  three  or  four  feet;  this 
is  effected  by  leaving  open  or  closing  (with  a  few 
handfuls  of  weeds  at  the  present  day,  but  formerly 
by  a  tlood-gate)  an  aperture  at  the  bottom;  at  a 
height  of  three  or  four  feet  from  the  bottom,  its 
dimensions  become  enlarged  a  few  feet,  and  the 
water,  attaining  this  level,  fiiUs  through  an  aper- 
ture at  its  lower  end,  into  an  edtict,  subterranean 
at  first,  but  soon  appearing  in  a  deep  ditch  under 
the  perpendicular  cliff  of  Ophel,  and  is  received 
into  a  few  small  reservoirs  and  troughs  "  (t'itij.  p. 
524). 

The  small  basin  at  the  west  end,  which  we  have 
described,  is  what  some  old  tra\ellers  call  "  the 
fountain  of  Siloe  "  {F.  Fabri,  vol.  i.  p.  420).  "In 
front  of  this,"  Fabri  goes  on,  "there  is  a  bath  sur- 
rounded by  walls  and  buttresses,  like  a  cloister, 
and  the  arches  of  these  buttresses  are  supported 
by  marble  pillars,"  which  pillars  he  affirms  to  be 
the  remains  of  a  monastery  built  above  the  pool. 
The  present  pool  is  a  ruin,  with  no  moss  or  ivy  to 
make  it  romantic;  its  sides  falling  in;  its  pillars 
broken  ;  its  stair  a  fragment ;  its  walls  giving  way ; 
the  edge  of  every  stone  worn  round  or  sharp  by 
time;  in  some  parts  mere  debris ;  once  Siloam, 
now,  like  the  city  whioh  overhung  it,  a  heap; 
though  around  its  edges,  "wild  flowers,  and,  among 
other  plants,  the  caper-tree,  grow  luxuriantly " 
{^Narvdtivt  i>f  Mission,  vol.  i.  p.  207 ).  'l"he  gray 
crumbling  limestone  of  the  stone  (as  well  as  of  the 
surrounding  rocks,  which  are  almost  verdureless) 
gives  a  poor  and  worn-out  aspect  to  this  \enerable 
relic.  The  present  pool  is  not  the  original  build- 
ing; the  work  of  crusaders  it  may  be;  perhaps 
even  improved  by  Saladin,  wiiose  affection  for  wells 
and  pools  led  him  to  care  for  all  these  things; 
perhaps  the  work  of  later  dajs.  Yet  the  spot  is 
the  same.  Above  it  rises  the  high  rock,  and  be- 
yond it  the  city  wall;  while  eastward  and  south- 
ward the  verdure  of  gardens  relieves  the  gray 
monotony  of  the  scene,  and  beyond  these  the 
Kedron  vale,  overshadowed  by  the  third  of  the 
three  heights  of  Olivet,  "the  mount  of  corruption  " 
(1  K.  xi.  7;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  with  the  village  of 
Hiliraii  jutting  out  over  its  lowei-  slope,  and  look- 
ing into  the  pool  from  which  it  takes  its  name  and 
draws  its  water. 

This  pool,  which  we  may  call  the  second,  seems 
anciently  to  have  poured  its  waters  into  a  lliird, 
before  it  proceeded  to  water  the  royal  gardens. 
This  lliird  is  perhaps  that  which  Josephus  culls 
"Solomon's  pool"'  {B.  J,  v.  4,  §  2),  and  which 
Nehemiah  culls  "the  King's  pool"  (ii  14);  for 
this  must  have  been  somewhere  about  "  the  king's 
jarden"  (.logeplums  ^aaiKiKhs  irapaSeKros,  Ant. 
>ii.  14,  §  4);  and  we  know  that  this  was  by  "the 
HM  of  the  pool  of  Siloah"  (iii.  15).  The  Anto- 
siue    Itinerary  speaks  of   it    in    connection   with 


SILOAM 


8030 


Sild'i,  as  "  alia  piscina  grandis  fori\s."  It  is  now 
known  as  the  Birket  el-Hamra,  xnd  may  be  per- 
haps some  five  times  the  size  of  Birket  es-ISilwan. 
Barclay  speaks  of  it  merely  as  a  "depressed  fig- 
yard;  "  but  one  would  like  to  see  it  cleared  out. 
Siloam  is  in  Scripture  always  called  o.  pool.     It 

is  not  an  DS^^,  that  is,  a  marsh-pool  (Is.  xxsv.  7 ) ; 

nor  a  HSS,  a  natural  hollow  or  pit  (Is.  xxx.  14); 

nor  a  mi7^,  a  natural  gathering  of  water  (Gen. 

i.  10;  Is.  xxii.  11);  nor  a  "^WS,  a  well  (Gen.  xvi. 

14);  nor  a  *T^2,  a  pit  (Lev.  xi.  36);  nor  an   ]^^, 

a  spring  (Gen.  svi.  7);  but  a  n^nS,  a  regularly 
built  pool  or  tank  (2  K.  xx.  20;  Neb.  iii.  15;  Eccl. 
ii.  6).  This  last  wr-id  is  still  retained  in  the 
Arabic,  as  any  traveller  or  reader  of  travels  knows. 
While  Nehemiah  calls  it  a  povl,  Isaiah  merely 
speaks  of  it  as  "  the  waters  of  Shiloah;  "  while  the 
New  Testament  gives  KoKvfj.^r]6pa,  and  .Josephus 
irriyf].  The  Raljbis  and  .Jewish  travellers  call  it 
a  fountain;  in  which  they  are  sometimes  followed 
by  the  Euroj)ean  travellers  of  all  ages,  though 
more  generally  they  give  us  piscina,  natatoria,  and 
stagnum. 

It  is  the  least  of  all  the  .lerusalem  pools;  hardl}' 
the  sixth  part  of  the  Birket  eLMcmiiLla ;  hardly 
the  tenth  of  the  Birket  es-SuUun,  or  of  the  lowest 
of  the  three  pools  of  Solomon  at  el-Bunik.  Yet 
it  is  a  sacred  spot,  even  to  the  Moslem;  much  more 
to  the  Jew;  for  not  oidy  from  it  was  the  water 
taken  at  the  l-'east  of  Tabernacles,  but  the  water 
lor  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  (Dachs's  Tid/ii.  Babyl. 
p.  380).  Jewish  tradition  makes  Gilion  and  Si- 
loam  one  (Lightfoot,  Cent.  Chor.  in  Molt.  p.  51; 
Schwatz,  p.  2U5),  as  if  Gihon  were  "the  bursting 

forth"  (n'^2)  to  break  out),  and  Siloam  the  re- 
ceptacle of  the  waters  "  sent."  If  this  were  the 
case,  it  might  be  into  Siloam,  through  one  of  the 
many  subterranean  aqueducts  with  which  Jerusa- 
lem abounds,  and  one  of  which  probably  went  down 
the  Tyropoeon,  that  Hezekiah  turned  the  waters  on 
the  other  side  of  the  city,  when  he  "stopped  the 
upper  watercourse  of  Gihon,  and  brought  it  straight 
down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  Da\id  "  ( 2 
Chr.  xxxii.  30). 

The  rush  of  water  down  these  conduits  is  re- 
ferred to  by  Jerome  ("  per  terrarum  concava  et 
antra  saxi  durissimi  cum  magno  sonitu  veiiit,"  in 
Is.  viii.  G),  as  heard  in  his  day,  showing  that  the 
water  was  more  abundant  then  than  now.  The 
intermittent  character  of  Siloam  is  also  noticed  by 
him;  but  in  a  locality  perforated  by  so  many 
aqueducts,  and  supplied  by  so  many  large  wells 
and  secret  springs  (not  to  S])eak  of  the  discharge 
of  the  great  city-baths),  this  irregular  flow  is  easily 
accounted  for,  both  by  the  direct  and  the  siphonic 
action  of  the  water.  How  this  mtlund  interinit- 
tency  of  Siloam  could  be  made  identical  with  the 
miraculous  troubling  of  Bethesda  (John  v.  4)  one 
does  not  see.  The  lack  of  water  in  the  pool  now 
is  no  proof  that  there  was  not  the  great  abundance 
of  which  Josephus  speaks  {B.  ./.  v.  4,  §  1):  and  as 
to  the  "sweetness"  he  speaks  of,  like  the  "aquae 
dulces  "  of  V^irgil  {Geory.  iv.  (il),  or  the  Old  Testa- 
ment pop  (Kx.  XV.  25),  which  is  used  both  in 
reference  to  the  sweetness  of  the  Marah  waters 
(ICx.  XV.  25),  and  of  the  "stolen  water>- "  of  tht 
foolish    wonuui    (I'rov.   ix.   17;,    it    simply   toeaut 


3040 


SILOAM 


fresh   or    pleasant   in    opposition   to  bitter    C"^: 

TTLKpOS)- 

Tlie  expression  in  Isaiah,  "  waters  of  Shiloah 
that  go  softly,"  seerns  to  point  to  the  slender 
rivulet,  flowino;  ojently,  thouijli  once  very  profusely, 
out  of  Siloam  into  the  lower  breadth  of  level,  where 
the  king's  gardens,  or  "royal  paradise,"  stood, 
and  which  is  still  the  greenest  siwt  about  the  Holy 
City,  reclaimed  from  sterility  into  a  fair  oasis  of 
olive-groves,  fig-trees,  pomegranates,  etc.,  by  the 
tiny  rill  which  flows  out  of  Siloam.  A  winter- 
torrent,  like  the  Kedron.  or  a  swelling  river  like 
the  Euphrates,  carries  havoc  with  it,  by  sweeping 
off  soil,  trees,  and  terraces ;  but  this  Siloam-fed  rill 
flows  softly,  fertilizing  and  beautifying  the  region 
through  which  it  passes.  As  the  Euphrates  is  used 
by  the  prophet  as  the  symbol  of  the  wasting  sweep 
of  the   Assyrian  king,  so  Siloam  is  taken  as  the 


SILOAM 

type  of  the  calm  prosperity  of  Israel  under  Mes- 
sianic rule,  when  "  the  desert  rejoices  and  blossomi 

as  the  rose."  The  word  softly  or  secretly  (tiS^) 
does  not  seem  to  refer  to  the  secret  transmission 
of  the  waters  through  the  tributary  viaducts,  but, 
like  Ovid's  "  molles  aquae,"  "  blandse  aqua;,"  and 
Catullus'  "  molle  flumen,"  to  the  quiet  gentleness 
with  which  the  rivulet  steals  on  its  mission  of 
beneficence,  through  the  gardens  of  the  king.  Thus 
"  Siloah's  brook  "  of  Milton,  and  "cool  Siloam's 
shady  rill,"  are  not  mere  poetical  fancies.  The 
"fountain"  and  the  "pool,"  and  the  "  rill  "  of 
Siloam,  are  all  visible  to  this  day,  each  doing  its 
old  work  beneath  the  high  rock  of  Moriah,  and 
almost  lieneatli  the  shadow  of  the  Temple  wall. 

I^ast  of  the  Kedron,  right  opposite  the  rough 
gray  slope  extending  between  Deraj  and  t^ilican, 
above  the  kitchen-gardens  watered  by  Siloam  which 


M. 


The  Village  of  Silwan  (Siloam),  and  the  lower  part  of  the  Valley  of  tlie  Kedron,  showing  the  "  King's  Gar 
dens,-'  which  are  watered  by  the  Pool.  The  background  is  the  highlands  of  Judah.  The  view  is  ft'om  a 
photograph  by  James  Graham,  Esq..  taken  from  beneath  the  S.  wall  of  the  Haram. 


supply  Jerusalem  with  vegetables,  is  the  village 
which  takes  its  name  from  the  pool,  —  Kefr- 
Sdican.  At  Dernj  the  Kedron  is  narrow,  and  the 
village  is  very  near  the  fountain.  Hence  it  is  to 
it  rather  than  to  the  pool  that  the  villagers  gen- 
erally betake  themselves  for  water.  For  as  the 
Kedron  widens  considerably  in  its  progress  south- 
ward, the  Kefr  is  at  some  little  distance  from  the 
Birkeh.  This  village  is  unmentioned  in  ancient 
times;  perhaps  it  did  not  exist.  It  is  a  wretched 
place  for  filth  and  irregularity;  its  square  hovels 
all  huddled  together  like  the  lairs  of  wild  beasts, 
or  rather  like  the  tombs  and  caves  in  which  savages 
or  diinioniaes  may  be  supposed  to  dwell.  It  lies 
uear  the  foot  of  the  third  or  southern  height  of 
Olivet;  and  in  all  likelihood  marks  the  spot  of  the 
idol-shrines  which  Solomon  built  to  Cheniosh,  and 
Ashtoretb  and  Milcnm.     This  was  "  the  mount  of 


corruption"  (2  K.  xxiii.  1.3),  the  hill  that  is  before 
(east;  before  in  Hebrew  geography  means  east) 
Jerusalem  (1  K.  xi.  7);  and  these  " abominationa 
of  the  Moabites,  Zidonians,  and  Ammonites  "  were 
built  on  "  the  right  hand  of  the  mount,"  that  is, 
the  southern  part  of  it.  This  is  the  "  opprobrious 
hill  "of  Milton  (Par.  L.  b.  i.  403);  the  "  mons 
oft'ensionis  "  of  the  Vulgate  and  of  early  travellers, 
the  Moo-fla^  of  the  Sept.  (see  Keil  On  kings);  and 
the  Berg  des  /Ergernisses  of  German  maps.  In 
Ramboux'  singular  volume  of  lithographs  (Col. 
1858}  of  Jerus'ilein  and  its  Holy  Places,  in  imita- 
tion of  the  antique,  there  is  a  sketch  of  an  old 
monolith  tomb  in  the  village  of  Silwan,  which  few 
travellers  ha\e  noticed,  but  of  which  De  Saulcy  haa 
given  us  both  a  cut  and  a  deocription  (vol.  ii.  p. 
•21.5);  setting  it  down  as  a  relic  of  Jebusite  work- 
manship.    One  would  like  to  know  more  about 


SILOAM,  TOWF.E  IN 

tliis  village  and  about  the  pedigree  of  its  inhab- 
itants." H.   B. 

*  Tlie  rock-cut  passnge  between  tlie  Fountain 
of  the  Virgin  and  Siloaui  was  traversed  and  care- 
fully surveyed  by  l>ieut.  Warren.  He  found  two 
passages  leading  into  it  from  the  nortliwest,  the 
largest  being  about  50  feet  from  the  entrance  to 
the  pool.  It  was  filled  with  hard  mud,  the  deposit 
0)  centuries,  which  with  much  ditiiculty  was  dug 
out  an  1  carried  through  the  passage  and  pool,  and 
up  the  steps  to  the  outside.  At  the  end  of  17  feet 
he  reached  a  shaft  leading  upwards  for  more  than 
40  feet,  with  smooth  sides,  cut  out  of  tlie  solid 
rock,  and  averaging  G  feet  in  leni;th  and  4  in 
width.  By  constructing  a  scaffolding  with  three 
landings  he  mounted  to  the  top.  In  the  masonry 
overhanging  it  he  found  an  iron  ring,  through  which 
a  rope  might  have  passed,  and  from  this  he  inferred 
that  the  shaft  was  "  the  ancient  draw-well  of 
Ophel."  Coimected  with  it,  near  the  top,  he  dis- 
covered and  explored  e.xtended  passa<;es  and  cham- 
bers cut  in  the  rock,  and  found  glass  lamps  of 
curious  construction  and  water-vessels  of  red  pot- 
tery, showing  that  the  place  had  "  evidently  been 
used  as  a  refuge."  The  other  passage,  40  feet  from 
the  entrance,  extended  but  U  feet.  Lieut.  VV.  also 
excavated  4  feet  under  the  lowest  step  of  the  Vir- 
gin's Fount,  to  ascertain  the  source  of  supply,  and 
reached  a  hard  substance,  '•  either  masonry  or 
rock,"  but  in  that  depth  of  water  could  proceed  no 
further.  "  The  other  point  of  entrance  of  the  water 
is  a  deep  hole  in  the  middle  of  the  pool,  at  which 
nothing  can  be  done."  Warren  is  inclined  to  the 
belief,  contrary  to  Barclay,  that  there  is  a  con- 
nection between  the  Unminatii  csh-SheJ'a  and  the 
Virgin's  Fount;  but  the  point  is  not  yet  ascer- 
tained. S.  W. 

SILO'AM,  TOWER  IN.  ('O  vipyos  it'  rv 
^iKoodfi,  Luke  xiii.  4.)  Of  this  we  know  nothing 
definitely  beyond  these  words  of  the  Lord.  Of  the 
tower  or  its  fall  no  historian  gives  us  any  account; 
and  whether  it  was  a  tower  in  connection  with  tiie 
pool,  or  whether  "  in  Siloam  "  refers  to  the  valley 
near,  we  cannot  say.  There  were  fortifications  hard 
by,  for  of  .lotham  we  read,  "on  the  wall  of  Ophel 
he  built  much  "  (2  Chr.  xxvii.  ii);  and  of  Manasseh 
that  "he  compassed  about  Ophel"  {ibid,  xxxiii. 
]4);  and,  in  connection  with  Ophel,  there  is  men- 
tion made  of  "a  tower  tlml  littli  uiW''  (Neh.  iii. 
20);  and  there  is  no  unlikelihood  in  connecting 
this  pr<ijectin(j  tower  with  the  tower  in  Siloam, 
while  one  may  be  almost  excused  for  the  conjecture 
that  its  projtction  was  the  cause  of  its  ultimate 
fall.  H.   B. 


rt  *  The  later  publication  of  tlie  Ordnanre  Surcey 
of  Jerusalem  (Lend.  18G5)  enables  us  to  satisfy  iu  part 
this  curio.sity.  "  Enteiing  Siloam  on  the  norta,  tliere 
is  on  the  left  a  high  cliff,  whicli  bears  evident  signs 
of  liaving  been  worked  as  a  quarry  ;  on  the  right 
hand  side  is  the  curious  mouolith  with  the  hKivy 
Egyptian  cornice ;  the  exterior  of  the  cliff  is  quite 
Uat,  but  the  interior  is  sloping  like  a  tent;  in  front 
is  a  small  cistern.  The  present  village  of  Siloam  oc- 
tupies  the  site  of  an  old  quarry  ;  the  houses  are  often 
made  simply  by  the  walling  up  of  the  excavation,  and 
sometimes  they  cling  on  the  scarped  face  of  the  rock  : 
one  e.xcavatiou  was  of  considerable  extent,  and  similar 
In  character  to  that  near  the  Damascus  gate,  though 
jot  nearly  so  large  ;  several  pillars  were  left  to  sust.iin 
tie  roof.  The  stoue  from  this  quarry  is  '  malaki  ' 
»f  »  very  S"ft  kind;  higher  up,  by  the  monolith,  a 
ibissal/  and  the  upper  bed  of  'malaki'  are  found. 


SILVER  3041 

SILVA'NUS.     [Silas.] 

SILVER  (^5?,  cesepli).  In  very  early  times, 
according  to  the  Bible,  silver  was  used  for  orna- 
ments (Uen.  xxiv.  53),  for  cups  (Gen.  xliv.  2),  for 
the  sockets  of  the  pillars  of  the  Taliernacle  (Ex.  xxvi. 
19,  &c.),  their  hooks  and  fillets,  or  rods  (Fx.  xxvii. 
10),  and  their  capitals  (Fx.  xxxviii.  17);  for  dishes, 
or  chargers,  and  bowls  (Num.  vii.  13),  trumpets 
(Num.  x.  2),  candlesticks  (1  (Jhr.  xxviii.  15),  tables 
(1  Chr.  xxviii.  10),  basins  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  17),  chains 
(Is.  xl.  19),  the  setthii^s  of  ornaments  (Prov.  xxv. 
11),  studs  (Cant.  i.  11),  and  crowns  (Zech.  vi.  11). 
Images  for  idolatrous  worship  were  made  of  silver 
or  overlaid  with  it  (Fx.  xx.  23;  Hos.  xiii.  2;  Hab. 
ii.  19 ;  Bar.  vi.  39  [or  I'.pist.  of  Jer.  39] ),  and  the 
manufacture  of  silver  shrines  for  Diana  was  a  trade 
in  Fphesus  (Acts  xix.  24)  [Dkmkthius.]  But 
its  chief  use  was  as  a  medium  of  e.xchange,  and 
throughout  the  0.  T.  we  find  ceseph,  "  silver,''  used 
for  money,  like  the  Fr.  ari/ent.  To  this  general 
usage  there  is  but  one  exception.  (See  Metals, 
iii.  1910.)  Vessels  and  ornaments  of  gold  and 
s  Iver  were  common  in  Ffjypt  in  the  times  of 
Osirtasen  I.  and  Thothmes  111.,  the  contemporaries 
of  Joseph  and  Moses  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Kg.  iii  225). 
In  the  Homeric  poems  we  find  indications  of  the 
constant  application  of  silver  to  purposes  of  orna- 
ment and  luxury.  It  was  u.sed  for  basins  ( Od.  i. 
137,  iv.  53),  goblets  {II.  xxiii.  741),  baskets  {Od. 
iv.  125),  coffers  (//.  xviii.  413),  sword-hilts  (//.  i. 
219;  Od.  viii.  404),  door-handles  {Od.  i.  442),  and 
clasps  for  the  greaves  (//.  iii.  331).  Door-posts 
{Od.  vii.  89)  and  hntels  {Od.  vii.  90)  glittered  with 
silver  ornaments:  baths  {Od.  iv.  128),  tables  {Od. 
X.  355),  bows  {II.  i.  49,  xxiv.  605),  scalibards  {II. 
xi.  31),  sword-belts  (//.  xviii.  598),  belts  for  the 
shield  (//.  xviii.  480),  chariot-poles  (//.  v.  729)  and 
the  naves  of  wheels  (//.  v.  729)  were  adorned  with 
silver;  women  braided  their  hair  with  silver -thread 
{II.  xvii.  52),  and  cords  ai)pear  to  have  been  made 
of  it  {Od.  x.  24);  while  we  constantly  find  that 
swoi-ds  {II.  ii.  45,  xxiii.  807)  and  sword-belts  (//. 
xi.  2-J7),  thrones,  or  chairs  of  state  {Od.  viii.  05), 
and  bedsteads  {Od.  xxiii.  200)  were  studded  with 
silver.  Thetis  of  the.  silver  feet  was  probably  so 
called  from  the  silver  ornaments  on  her  sandals 
(//.  i.  538).  The  practice  of  overlaying  silver  with 
gold,  referred  to  in  Homer  {Od.  vi.  232,  xxiii.  159), 
is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Bi'nle,  though  inferior 
materials  were  covered  with  silver  (Prov.  xxvi.  23). 

Silver  was  brought  to  Solomon  from  Arabia 
(2  Chr.  ix.  14)  and  from  Tarshish  (2  Chr.  ix.  21), 
which  supplied  the  markets  of  Tyre  (Fz.  xxvii.  12). 
From  Tarshish  it  came  iu  the  form  of  plates  (.Jer. 


A  large  portion  of  the  quarrying  at  Siloam  has  been 
iu  the  'missal'  beds,  and  throughout  tlie  village  the 
deep  vertical  cuts  made  by  the  quarrymen  may  be 
seen  e.xactly  corresponding  to  those  found  in  ail  the 
quarries  ;  steps  cut  in  the  rock  lead  to  different  parts 
of  the  village  ;  first  made  for  the  convenience  of  tlie 
workmen,  they  have  now  been  made  to  serve  as  streuts. 
There  are  a  few  tombs  in  the  village,  but  not  as  many 
as  has  generally  been  suppo.sed.  Tlie  state  ot  the 
houses  and  streets  was  worse  than  anything  seen  about 
.Jerusalem,  and  they  were  swarming  with  vermin  ;  »t\\\ 
the  village  is  highly  interesting,  and  deserves  more 
notice  from  travellers  than  has  generally  been  be- 
stowed upon  it ''  (p.  64  f.). 

For  some  very  recent  discoveries  which  seem  to 
connect  Siloam  'rith  ZouEU  cia  see  ia  ttiu  latter  oaue 
(Amer.  ej.).  U 


k 


3042  SILVERLINGS 

t  9),  like  tbose  on  which  the  sacred  books  of  the 
Singlialese  are  written  to  this  day  (Tennenfs  Ceu- 
lon,  ii.  102).  The  silver  bowl  given  as  a  prize  by 
Achilles  was  the  work  of  Sidonian  artists  (11.  xxiii. 
743;  comp.  Od.  iv.  618).  In  Homer  {11.  ii.  857), 
Alybe  is  called  the  birthplace  of  silver,  and  was 
proiialily  celebrated  for  its  mines.  But  Spain  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  chief  source  whence  siher 
was  obtained  by  the  ancients.  [Mixes,  iii.  193iJ  />.] 
Possibly  the  hills  of  Palestine  may  have  afforded 
some  supply  of  this  metal.  "  When  Yolney  was 
amoni;  the  Druses,  it  was  mentioned  to  him  that 
an  ore  affording  silver  and  lead  had  been  discovered 
on  the  declivity  of  a  hill  in  Lebanon  "  (Kitto,  Pliys. 
Hist,  of  Pd/esiine,  p.  73). 

For  an  account  of  the  knowledge  of  obtaining 
and  refining  silver  possessed  by  the  ancient  He- 
brews, see  the  articles  Lead  and  ^Iines.  The 
whole  operation  of  mining  is  vividly  depicted  in 
Job  xxviii.  1-11  ;  and  the  process  of  purifying 
metals  is  frequently  alluded  to  (Ps.  xii.  6 ;  Prov 
XXV.  4),  while  it  is  described  with  some  minuteness 
in  Ez.  xxii.  20-22.  Silver  mixed  with  alloy  is  re- 
ferred to  in  .ler.  vi.  30,  and  a  finer  kind,  either 
purer  in  itself,  or  more  thoroughly  purified,  is  men- 
tioned in  Prov.  viii.  19.  \X.  A.    W. 

SILVEKLINGS  C^^S  :  (tIkXos:  aryenUus, 
siclux  imderstood ),  a  word  used  once  only  in  the 
A.  V.  (Is.  vii.  23),  as  a  translation  of  the  He- 
brew word  ceseph,  elsewhere  rendered  "  silver  "  or 
"money."     [Piece  of  Silver.]  K.  S.  P. 

SIMALCU'E  ([Rom.]  T£,lfj.a\Koval ;  [Sin. 
Ifj.a\KOV€  ;  .A.lex.]  Sif/ioAKouTj  ;  [Comp.  'S.tfj.aK- 
Kove:]  Emrildtutl,  Miiklius:  MaAxos,  .Joseph.), 
an  Arabian  chief  who  had  charge  of  Antiochus,  the 
young  son  of  Alexander  Balas,  before  he  was  put 
forward  by  Tryphon  as  a  claimant  to  the  .Syiian 
throne  (1  Mace.  xi.  39).  [.\ntiociius  VI.,  vol 
i.  p.  117.]  According  to  Diodorus  {Kcloy.  xxxii.  1) 
the  name  of  the  chief  w.as  Diodes,  though  in  an- 
other place  {Frag.  xxi.  .Miiller)  he  calls  him  .Jam- 
blichus.  The  name  evidently  Contains  the  element 
MtU-L;  "  king,"  but  the  original  form  is  uncertain 
(comp.  Grotius  and  Grimm  on  1  Mace.  /.  c). 

B.  F.  W. 

SIM'EON  {i'^V'l2W  [a  heavbvj.  llsltmii,j]: 
^ufiedav',  [in  1  Chr  iv.  24,  Pom.  'S.f^idv  (niis- 
print?  Vat.  Alex  here  as  elsewhere  Su/ueoi;')] 
Simeon).  The  second  of  .lacoli's  sons  by  Leah. 
His  birth  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xxix.  33,  and  in  the 
explan.ation  there  given  of  the  name,  it  is  derived 
from  the  root  slia>iin\  to  hear  "  —  "  '  Jehovah  hath 
heard  (slidiim')  that  I  was  hated.'  ....  and  she 
called  his  name  Shime'on."  *  This  metaphor  is 
not  carried  on  (as  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  other 
names)  in  Jacob's  Blessing;  and  in  that  of  Moses 
all  mention  of  Simeon  is  omitted. 

The  first  group  of  Jacob's  children  consists,  be- 
sides Simeon,  of  the  three  other  sons  of  Leah  — 
Reuben,  Levi,  Judah.  With  each  of  these  Simeon 
is  mentioned  in  some  connection.  '•  As  Reuben 
and  Simeon  are  mine,"  says  Jacob,  "so  shall  Jo- 


«  i'iirst  {Haiuhcb.  ii.472)  incliues  to  the  interpreta- 
ioQ   "  famous  "  (n(/i?»)(>(c/ier).     Kedslob  (AUlest.   AVj- 


SIMEON 

seph's  sons  Ephraim  and  iManasseh  be  mine  ''  (Gen. 
xlviii.  5).  With  Levi,  Simeon  was  associated  in 
the  massacre  of  the  Shechemites  (xxxiv.  25)  —  a 
deed  which  drew  on  them  the  remonstrance  of  their 
father  (ver.  30),  and  perhaps*-'  also  his  dying  curse 
(xlix.  5-7).  With  Judah  the  connection  was  drawn 
still  closer.  He  and  Simeon  not  only  "  went  up  " 
together,  side  by  side,  in  the  forefront  of  the  nation, 
to  the  conquest  of  the  south  of  the  Holy  Land 
(Judg.  i.  3,  17),  but  their  allotments  lay  together 
in  a  more  special  manner  than  those  of  the  other 
tribes,  something  in  the  same  manner  as  Benjamin 
and  Ephraim.  Besides  the  massacre  of  Shechem 
—  a  deed  not  to  be  judged  of  by  the  standards  of 
a  more  civilized  and  less  violent  age,  and,  when 
fairly  estimated,  not  altogether  discreditable  to  its 
perpetrators  —  the  only  personal  incident  related 
of  Simeon  is  the  fact  of  his  being  selected  by  Jo- 
seph, without  any  reason  given  or  implied,  as  the 
hcjstage  for  the  appearance  of  Benjamin  (Gen.  xlii. 
19,  24,  .30;  xlai.  23). 

These  .slight  traits  are  characteristically  amplified 
in  the  .lewish  traditions.  In  the  Targum  Pseudo- 
jonathan  it  is  Simeon  and  Levi  who  are  the  ene- 
mies of  the  lad  .Joseph.  It  is  they  who  counsel  his 
Ijeing  kille<l,  and  Simeon  binds  him  before  he  is 
lowered  into  the  well  at  Dothan.  (See  further 
details  in  Fabricus,  Cod.  Pseud,  i.  535.)  Hence 
Joseph's  selection  of  him  as  the  hostage,  his  bind- 
ing and-incarceration.  In  the  Midrash  the  strength 
of  Simeon  is  so  prodigious  that  the  Egyjjtians  are 
unable  to  cope  with  him,  and  his  binding  is  only 
accomplished  at  length  by  the  intervention  of  Ma- 
nasseh,  who  acts  as  the  house-steward  and  inter- 
preter of  Joseph.  His  powers  are  so  great  that  at 
the  mere  roar  of  his  voice  70  \aliant  Egyptians  fall 
at  his  feet  and  break  their  teeth  (Weil,  Bib.  Leg. 
88).  In  the  "  Testament  of  Simeon''  his  fierce- 
ness and  implacability  are  put  prominently  forward, 
and  he  dies  warning  his  children  against  the  indul- 
gence of  such  passions  (Fabricius,  O'd.  Psewltp.  i. 
533-543). 

The  chief  families  of  the  trile  are  mentioned  in 
the  lists  of  Gen.  xlvi.  (10).  in  which  one  of  them, 
bearing  the  name  of  Shaul  (Saul),  is  sjiecified  as 
"the  son  of  the  Canaanitess  "  —  Num.  xxvi.  (12- 
14),  and  1  Chr.  iv.  (24-43).  In  the  latter  passage 
(ver.  27)  it  is  mentioned  that  the  family  of  one  of 
the  heads  of  the  tribe  "  had  not  many  children, 
neither  did  they  nudtiply  like  to  the  children  of 
Judali."  This  appears  to  have  been  the  case  not 
only  with  one  family  but  with  the  whole  tribe.  At 
the  census  at  Sinai  Simeon  numbered  59,300  fight- 
ing men  (Num.  i.  23).  It  was  then  the  most  nu- 
merous but  two,  .ludah  and  Dan  alone  exceeding 
it;  liut  when  the  second  census  was  taken,  at  Shit- 
tiin.  the  numbers  bad  fallen  to  22,200,  and  it  w.as 
the  weakest  of  all  the  trilies.  This  was  no  doulit 
jiartly  due  to  the  recent  mortality  following  the 
idolatry  of  Peor,  in  which  the  tribe  of  Simeon  ap- 
pears to  have  taken  a  prominent  share,  but  there 
must  ha\e  been  other  causes  which  have  escaped 
mention. 

The  connection   between   Simeon  and   Levi  im- 


b  The  name  is  given  in  this  its  more  correct  form 
in  the  A.  V    in  couuection  with   a  later   Israelite  in 


7itn.  9i),  on   the   other  hand,  adopting   the  Arabic    j-,,   ^   oi 

^  -  i      c  It  is  by  no  means  certain   that  Jacob's  words  al- 

cool   ^1  ^^.    considers  the  name   to  mean  "  sons  of  j  lude   to   the   transaction   at  Shechem.     They  appeal 
\^  I  rather  to  r'-fer  to  some  other  ai  t  of  tlie  brothers  whtob 

Xtndage  "  or  "  bou'lmen."  |  has  escaiied  direct  record. 


SIMEON 

plied  in  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix.  5-7),  has 
been  already  adverteil  to.  Tiie  passage  relating  to 
them  is  thus  rendered  :  — 

Shimt'on  and  Levi  are  brethren," 

Instruments  of  violence  are  tlieir  machinations  (or 

their''  swords). 
Into  their  secret  council  come  not  my  soul  I 
Unto  their  assembly  join  not  mine  honor  ! 
For  in  their  wrath  tliey  slew  a  man, 
And  in  their  self-will  they  houjjhed  an  c  ox. 
Cursed  be  their  wrath,  for  it  is  fierce, 
And  their  anger,  for  it  is  cruel  1 
I  will  divide  them  in  Jacob, 
And  scatter  them  in  Israel. 

The  terms  of  this  deniniciation  seem  to  imply  a 
closer  bond  of  union  between  Simeon  and  Levi, 
and  more  violent  and  continued  exploits  performed 
under  that  bond,  than  now  remain  on  record.  'I'he 
expressions  of  the  closing  lines  also  seem  to  necessi- 
tate a  more  advanced  condition  of  the  nation  of 
Israel  than  it  could  have  attained  at  the  time  of 
the  death  of  the  father  of  the  individual  patriarchs. 
Taking  it  however  to  be  what  it  purports,  an  aetnal 
prediction  by  the  hidividual  .lacob  (and,  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge,  however  doubtful 
this  may  be,  no  other  conclusion  can  be  safely  ar- 
rived at),  it  has  been  often  pointed  out  how  difti'i- 
ently  the  same  sentence  was  accomplished  in  the 
cases  of  the  two  tribes.  Both  were  "  divided  " 
and  "scattered."  But  how  differently  !  The  dis- 
persion of  the  Levites  arose  from  their  holding  the 
post  of  honor  in  the  nation,  and  being  spread,  for 
the  purposes  of  education  and  worship,  broadcast 
over  the  face  of  the  country.  In  the  case  of  Sim- 
eon the  dispersion  seems  to  have  arisen  from  some 
corrupting  element  in  the  tribe  itself,  which  iirst 
reduced  its  numbers,  and  at  last  drove  it  from  its 
allotted  seat  in  the  country  —  not,  as  Dan,  because 
it  could  not,  but  because  it  would  not  st.ay  —  and 
thus  in  the  end  caused  it  to  dwindle  and  disappear 
entirely. 

The  non-a]ipearance  of  Simeon's  name  in  the 
Blessins  of  Jloses  (Deut.  xxxiii.  6'')  may  be  ex- 
plained in  two  ways.  On  the  assumption  that  the 
Blessing  was  actually  pronounced  in  its  present 
form  by  Moses,  the  omission  may  be  due  to  his 
displeasure  at  the  misbehavior  of  the  tribe  at  Shit- 
tim.  On  the  assumption  that  the  Blessing,  or 
this  portion  of  it,  is  a  composition  of  later  date, 
then  it  may  be  due  to  the  fact  of  the  trilje  having 
liy  that  time  vanished  from  the  Holy  Land.  The 
latter  of  these  is  the  explanation  conmionly  adopted. 

Duriiiii  the  journey  through  the  wilderness  Sim- 
i>on  was  a  member  of  the  camp  which   marched  on 


SIMEON 


3043 


I 


k 


a  The  word  is  C^HS,  meaning  "  brothers  '"  in  the 
fullest,  strictest  sense.  In  the  Targ.  Pseudojon.  it  is 
rendered  ar/iin  telamiii,  "  brothers  of  the  womb." 

b  Identified  by  some  (Jerome,  Talmud,  etc.)  with 
the  Greek  |ixdx<i'pa.  The  "habitations''  of  the  A  V. 
Is  derived  from  Kimchi,  but  is  not  countenanced  by 
later  scholars. 

c  A.  V.  "digged  down  a  wall;  "  following  Onkelos, 

who  I'eada   "l^ltt?  ~  "^-^tO,  "  a  town,  a  wall." 

d  The  Alexandrine  MS.  of  the  LXX.  adds  Simeon's 
name  in  this  passage  —  "  Let  Reuben  live  and  not  die, 
and  let  Simeon  be  few  in  number."  In  so  doing  it 
(liffers  not  only  from  the  Vatican  MS.  but  also  from 
*e  Heb«w  text,  to  which  this  MS.  usually  adheres 
nore  closely  than  the  Vatican  does.  Tlie  insertion  is 
idopted  in  the  Ooniplutensian  and  Aldine  editions  of 
(he  LXX  but  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  other 
'en)on£ 


the  scuih  side  of  the  Sacred  Tent.  His  aesociatet 
were  Keuben  and  Gad  —  not  his  whole  brothers, 
but  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  Leah's  maid.  The  head  of 
the  tribe  at  the  time  of  the  Kxodus,  was  Shelumiel, 
son  of  Zurishaddai  (Num.  i.  6),  ancestor  of  its 
one  heroine,  the  intrepid  Judith.  [Salasadai.] 
Among  the  spies  Simeon  was  represented  by  Sha- 
phat  son  of  Hori,  i.  e.  Horite.  a  name  which  jier- 
haps,  like  the  "  Canaauitess  "  of  the  earlier  list, 
reveals  a  trace  of  the  lax  tendencies  which  made 
the  Simeonites  an  easy  prey  to  tiie  licentious  rites 
of  Peor,  and  ultimately  destroyed  the  perujanence 
of  the  tribe.  At  the  division  of  the  land  his  re[>- 
resentative  was  Shemuel,«  son  of  Anunihud. 

The  connection  Itetween  Judah  and  Simeon  al- 
ready mentioned  seems  to  have  begun  with  the 
Conquest.  Judah  and  the  two  Joseph-brethren 
were  first  served  with  the  lion's  share  of  the  land; 
and  then,  the  (.'anaanites  having  been  sutticiently 
sulidued  to  allow  the  Sacred  Tent  to  be  estal)lished 
without  risk  in  the  heart  of  the  country,  the  work 
of  dividing  the  remainder  amongst  the  seven  in- 
ferior tribes  was  proceeded  with  (.losh.  xviii.  1-6). 
Benjamin  had  the  first  turn,  then  Simeon  (xix.  1). 
By  this  time  .ludah  had  discovered  that  the  tract 
allotted  to  him  was  (oo  lai-^e  (xix.  0),  and  also  too 
much  exposed  on  the  west  and  south  for  even  his 
great  powers/  To  Simeon  accordingly  was  allotted 
a  district  (jut  of  the  territory  of  his  kinsman,  on 
its  southern  frontier,?  which  contained  eighteen  or 
nineteen  cities,  with  their  villages,  spread  round 
the  venerable  well  of  ISeer-sheba  (Josh.  xix.  1-8; 
1  Chr.  iv.  28-33).  Of  these  places,  with  the  help 
of  .ludah,  the  Simeonites  possessed  themselves 
(.ludg  i.  3.  17;;  and  here  they  were  found,  doubt- 
less by  Joal),  residing  in  the  reign  of  David  (I  Chr. 
iv.  31).  During  his  wandering  life  David  must 
have  been  much  amongst  the  Simeonites.  In  fact 
three  of  their  cities  are  named  in  the  list  of  those 
to  which  he  sent  jiresents  of  the  spoil  of  the  .■\nia- 
lekites,  and  one  (Ziklag)  was  his  own  private  * 
property.  It  is  therefore  remarkable  that  the  num- 
bers of  Simeon  and  Judah  who  attended  his  in- 
stallation as  king  at  Hebron  should  have  been  so 
much  below  those  of  the  other  tribes  (1  Chr.  xii. 
23-37).  Possibly  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
event  was  taking  place  in  the  heart  of  their  own 
territory,  at  Hebron.  This,  however,  will  not  ac- 
count ior  the  curious  fact  that  the  wan-ioi-s  of 
Simeon  (7,100)  were  more'  numerous  than  those 
of  Judah  (t!,800).  After  David's  removal  to  Jeru- 
salem, the  head  of  the  tribe  was  Shephatiah  son  of 
Maaohah  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  16). 

What  part  Simeon  took  at  the  time  of  the  divis- 

«  It  is  a  curiovis  coincidence,  though  of  course 
nothing  more,  that  the  scanty  records  of  Simeon 
should  disclose  two  names  so  illustrious  in  Israe.'ito 
history  as  Saul  and  Samuel. 

/  This  is  a  different  account  to  that  supplied  in 
.ludg.  i.  The  two  are  entirely  distinct  documents 
That  of  Judges,  from  its  fragmentary  and  abrupt 
character,  has  the  appearance  of  being  the  more  an 
cient  of  the  two. 

a  "  The  parts  of  Idumaea  which  border  on  Arabia 
and  Egypt  "  (Joseph.  Aiit.  v.  1,  §  22). 

h  It  had  been  first  taken  from" Simeon  by  the  Philis- 
tines (1  Sam.  xxvii.  6),  if  indeed  he  ever  got  jossession 
of  it. 

i  Possibly  because  the  Simeonites  were  war-'ors 
and  nothing  else,  instead  of  husbauumeu,  etc  ,  Uk« 
the  men  of  Judah. 


8044  SIMEON 

ion  of  the  kinfidoni  we  are  not  told.  The  tribe 
was  prolialily  not  in  a  sufficiently  stronw  or  com- 
pact condition  to  have  shown  any  northern  tenden- 
cies, even  had  it  entertained  theuj.  The  only  thing 
ivliich  can  be  interpreted  into  a  trace  of  its  having 
taken  any  part  with  the  northern  kingdom  are  the 
two  casual  notices  of  2  Chr.  xv.  9  and  xxxiv.  0, 
which  appear  to  imply  the  presence  of  Sinieonites 
there  in  the  reigns  of  Asa  and  .losiah.  But  this 
may  have  been  merely  a  manifestation  of  that 
vagrant  spirit  which  was  a  cause  or  a  consequence 
of  the  prediction  ascribed  to  Jacob.  And  on  the 
other  hand  the  definite  statement  of  ]  Chr.  iv.  41- 
43  (the  date  of  which  by  Hezekiah's  reign  seems 
to  show  conclusively  its  southern  origin)  proves 
that  at  that  time  there  were  still  some  of  them  re- 
maining in  the  original  seat  of  the  tribe,  and  ac- 
tuated by  all  the  warlike  lawless  spirit  of  their 
progenitor.  This  fragment  of  ancient  chronicle 
relates  two  expeditions  in  search  of  more  elijiible 
territory.  The  first,  under  thirteen  chieftains, 
leading  doubtless  a  large  body  of  followers,  was 
made  against  the  Hamites  and  the  Mehunim,"  a 
powerful  tribe  of  Bedouins,  "  at  the  entrance  of 
Gedor  at  the  east  side  of  the  ravine."  The  second 
was  smaller,  but  more  adventurous.  Under  the 
guidance  of  (bur  chiefs  a  band  of  500  undertook  an 
expedition  airainst  the  remnant  of  Anialek,  who 
had  taken  refuL'e  from  the  attacks  of  Saul  or  1  )a- 
vid,  or  soii.e  later  pursuers,  in  the  distant  fast- 
nesses of  Mount  Seir.  The  expedition  was  suc- 
cessful. I  bey  smote  tlie  Anialekites  and  took 
possession  of  their  quarters;  and  they  were  still 
living  there  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from 
Captivity,  or  whene\er  the  First  Book  of  Chroni- 
cles was  edited  in  its  pi-esent  form. 

Tiie  audacity  and  intrepidity  which  seem  to 
have  characterized  the  founder  of  the  tribe  of 
Simeon  are  seen  in  their  fullest  force  in  the  last  of 
his  descendants  of  whom  there  is  any  express  men- 
tion in  the  Sacred  Record.  \\'hether  the  book 
which  bears  her  name  be  a  history  or  a  historic 
romance,  Judith  will  always  remain  one  of  the 
most  prominent  figures  among  the  deliverers  of  her 
nation.  Bethulia  would  almost  seem  to  have  been 
a  Simeonite  colony.  Ozias,  the  chief  man  of  the 
city,  was  a  Simeonite  (Jud.  vi.  15),  and  so  was 
JIanasses  the  husband  of  Judith  (viii.  2).  She 
herself  had  the  purest  blood  of  the  trilie  in  her 
veins.  Her  genealogy  is  traced  up  ^o  Zurishad- 
dai  (in  the  Greek  form  of  the  present  text  Salasa- 
dai,  viii.  1),  the  head  of  the  Simeonites  at  the  time 
of  their  greatest  power.  She  nerves  herself  for  her 
tremendous  exploit  by  a  prayer  to  "  the  Lord  God 
of  her  father  Simeon  "  and  by  recalling  in  the 
most  characteristic  manner  and  in  all  their  details 
the  incidents  of  the  massacre  of  Shechem  (ix.  2). 

Simeon  is  named  by  Ezekiel  (xlviii.  25)  and  the 
author  of  the  Hook  of  the  lievelation  (vii.  7)  in  their 
catalogues  of  the  restoration  of  Israel.  The  former 
removes  tiie  tribe  from  Judah  and  places  it  by  the 
side  of  Benjamin. 

2.  (Su/uecii':  Simeon.)  A  priest  of  the  family 
ofJoarib  —  or  in  its  full  form  Jehoiarib  —  one 
of  the  ancestors  of  tiie  Maccaliees  (1  Mace.  ii.  1). 

3.  Son  of  .luda  and  fatlier  of  l^vi  in  the  gene- 
alogy of  our  Lord  (Luke  iii.  30).  '!"he  Vat.  MS. 
gives  the  name  Xt/x^dov-     [I'liis  is  an  error.  —  A.] 

4.  ISinun.]     I'liat   is,   Simon   I'eter    (Acts   xv. 


«  A  v.  "  habitations."     See  Mehundi. 


SIMEON    NIGER 

14).  The  use  of  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  name  in 
this  place  is  very  characteristic  of  the  speaker  lii 
whose  mouth  it  ocpurs.  It  is  found  once  again 
(2  Pet.  i.  1 ),  though  here  there  is  not  the  same 
unanimity  in  the  MSS.  Lachmann,  with  B,  here 
adopts  "  Simon."  G. 

5.  [Simeon.]  A  devout  Jew  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  who  met  the  parents  of  our  Lord  in 
the  Temple,  took  Him  in  his  arms,  and  gave  thanks 
for  what  he  saw  and  knew  of  Jesus  (Luke  ii.  2.> 
35).  In  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicodenius,  Sim- 
eon is  called  a  higli-priest,  and  the  nairative  of  our 
Lord's  descent  into  Hell  is  put  into  the  mouths  of 
Charinus  and  Lenthius,  who  are  described  as  two 
sons  of  Simeon,  who  rose  from  the  grave  after 
Christ's  resurrection  (Matt,  xxvii.  53)  and  related 
their  story  to  Annas,  Caiaphas,  Nicodemus,  Joseph, 
and  (Gamaliel. 

liablian  Simeon,  whose  grandmother  was  of  the 
family  of  David,  succeeded  his  father  Hillel  as  pres- 
ident of  the  Sanhedrim  about  A.  D.  13  ^Dtho, 
Lexicon  Rnbb.  p.  0S)7),  and  his  son  Gamaliel  was 
the  Pharisee  at  whose  feet  St.  Paul  was  brought  up 
(.Vets  xxii.  3).  A  .Jewish  writer  specially  notes 
that  no  record  of  this  Simeon  is  preserved  in  the 
Mishna  (Lightfoot,  florm  Heh.  Luke  ii.  25).  It 
has  been  conjectured  that  he  (Prideaux,  Connection,, 
anno  37,  Michaelis)  or  his  grandson  (Schijttgen, 
Hnr(B  Heb.  Luke  ii.  25;  of  the  same  name,  may 
be  tlie  Simeon  of  St.  Luke.  In  favor  of  the  iden- 
tity it  is  alleged  that  the  name,  residence,  time  of 
life,  and  general  character  are  the  same  in  both 
cases;  that  the  remarkable  silence  of  the  Mishna, 
and  the  counsel  given  by  Gamaliel  (Acts  v.  38), 
countenance  a  suspicion  of  an  inclination  on  the 
part  of  the  family  of  the  Kaliban  towards  Christian- 
ity. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  argued  that  these 
facts  fall  far  short  of  historical  proof;  and  that 
Simeon  was  a  very  common  name  among  the  Jews, 
that  St.  Luke  would  never  have  inti-oduced  so  cel- 
ebrated a  character  as  the  President  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim merely  as  "a  man  in  .lerusaleni,"  and  that 
his  son  Gamaliel,  after  all,  was  educated  as  a  Phar- 
i.see.  The  question  is  discussed  in  Witsius,  Mis- 
cellavea  S((crn,i.2\,^§  14-16.  See  also  Wolf.  Cti- 
rce  PlululoyiceB,  Luke  ii.  25,  and  BibL  Uebr.  ii. 
682.  W.  T.  B. 

*  It  is  customary  to  speak  of  Simeon  (Siz/xewi') 
as  aged ;  he  may  have  been  so,  though  the  proof 
of  this  is  by  no  means  so  explicit  (Luke  ii.  25,  29) 
as  in  tlie  case  of  Zacharias  (Luke  i.  18)  and  of 
Anna  the  pro[)hetess  (ii.  36).  Simeon's  language, 
''  Now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace  " 
{.vvv  airoAvets  rhv  Sov\6v  crou),  is  simply  declara- 
tive, and  not  a  prayer  as  some  mistake  it  to  be. 
The  words  which  tlie  Spirit  prompted  Simeon  to 
utter,  as  he  blessed  the  child  Jesus  and  the  par- 
ents, are  remarkable  for  the  breadth  of  Jlessianic 
view  which  they  disclose.  In  his  announcement 
of  the  universality  of  Christ's  mission  as  destined 
to  bless  Gentiles  as  well  as  .lews,  he  seems  to  have 
gone  forward  as  by  a  single  step  to  the  full  teach- 
ing of  the  apostolic  jieriod  (ii.  31,  32).  There  is  a 
noticeable  difli^rence  between  his  degree  of  iUnmi- 
nation  and  that  apparent  in  the  songs  of  Elizabeth, 
Mary,  and  Zacharias.  It  has  lieen  justly  remarked 
that  they  evince  a  rhetorical  and  psychological 
diversity  which  stamps  as  authentic  this  prelim- 
inary history  of  Christ  in  which  they  are  found 
Luke  only  records  these  discourses.  II 

SIM'EON  NI'GER.    Acts  xiii.  1.  [Nigkb.] 


SIMux> 

SITVION.  [2tiJ.u>v-  Simon.]  A  name  of  fre- 
quent occurrence  in  Jewish  history  in  the  post- 
Babyioiiian  period.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  was 
borrowed  from  the  Greeks,  with 'whom  it  was  not 
uncommon,  or  wliether  it  was  a  contraction  of  the 
Hebrew  Shimeon.  That  tiie  two  names  were  re- 
garded as  identical  appears  from  1  Mace.  ii.  65. 
Terliaps  the  Hebrew  name  was  thus  slightly  altered 
in  order  to  render  it  identical  with  the  Greeit. 

1.  Son  of  Mattathias.  [Maccabees,  §  4,  vol. 
ii.  p.  1711] 

2.  Son  of  Onias  the  high-priest  {Upevs  6  ue- 
7aj),  whose  eulogy  closes  the  "  praise  of  famous 
men  "  in  the  book  of  Kcclesiasticus  (ch.  1.).  [Ec- 
CLESiASTicus,  vol.  i.  p.  651.]  Fritzsche,  whose 
edition  of  Ecclesiasticus  (h'xer/.  ffmidb.)  has  ap- 
peared (1860)  since  tlie  article  referred  to  was  writ- 
ten, maintains  the  common  view  that  the  reference 
is  to  Simon  II.,  but  without  bringing  forward  any 
new  arguments  to  support  it,  though  he  strangely 
underrates  the  importance  of  Simon  I.  (the  .Just). 
Without  laying  undue  stress  upon  the  traditions 
which  attached  to  this  name  (Herzfeld,  Gesch.  /sr. 
i.  195),  it  is  evident  that  Simon  the  Just  was  pop- 
ularly regarded  as  closing  a  period  in  Jewish  his- 
tory, as  tlie  last  teacher  of  "the  Great  Synagogue." 
Yet  there  is  in  fact  a  doubt  to  which  Simon  the 
title  "the  Just"  was  given.  Herzfeld  (i.  377, 
378)  has  endeavored  to  prove  that  it  l)elongs  to  Si- 
mon II.,  and  not  to  Simon  I.,  and  in  this  he  is  fol- 
lowed by  Jost  (Gesch.  d.  Judmlh.  i.  95).  The  later 
Hebrew  authorities,  by  whose  help  the  question 
should  be  settled,  are  extremely  unsatisfactory  and 
confused  (Jost,  110,  ifec.);  and  it  appears  better  to 
adhere  to  the  express  testimony  of  Josephus,  who 
identifies  Simon  1.  with  Simon  the  Just  {Anl.  xii. 
2,  §  4,  &c.),  than  to  follow  the  Talmudic  traditions, 
which  are  notoriously  untrustworthy  in  chronologv. 
The  legends  are  connected  with  the  title,  and  Herz- 
feld and  Jost  both  agree  in  supposing  that  the  ref- 
erence in  Ecclesiasticus  is  to  Simon  known  as  "  the 
Just,"  though  they  believe  this  to  be  Simon  II. 
(compare,  for  the  .lewish  anecdotes,  Raphall's  Hist, 
of  .leics,  i.  115-124;   Prideaux,  Connection,  ii.  1). 

3.  "  A  governor  of  the  Temple  "  in  the  time  of 
Seleucus  Philopator,  whose  information  as  to  the 
treasures  of  tlie  Temple  led  to  the  sacrilegious 
attempt  of  Heliodorus  (2  Mace.  iii.  4,  &c.).  After 
this  attempt  failed,  through  the  interference  of  the 
high-priest  Onias,  Simon  accused  Onias  of  conspir- 
acy (iv.  1,2),  and  a  bloody  feud  arose  between  their 
two  parties  (iv.  3).  Onias  appealed  to  the  king,  but 
nothing  is  known  as  to  the  result  or  the  later  his- 
tory of  Simon.  Considerable  doubt  exists  as  to  the 
exact  nature  of  the  office  which  he  held  (irpocrTdTrjs 
Tov  Upou,  2  Mace.  iii.  4).  Various  interpretations 
are  given  by  Grimm  (Kxeg.  Handb.  ad  loc.).  The 
chief  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  that  Simon  is  said  to 
have  been  of  "  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  "  (2  Mace.  iii. 
4),  while  the  earlier  "  ruler  of  the  house  of  God  " 
(6  Tiyov/jL^uos  oIkov  tov  deov  (Kvpiou),  1  Chr.  ix. 
11;  2  Chr.  xxxi.  13;  Jer.  xx.  1)  seems  to  have 
been  ajways  a  priest,  and  the  "captain  of  the 
Temple"  {<TTpaTy}yhs  tov  hpov,  Luke  xxii.  4,  with 
Lightfoofs  note  ;  Acts  iv.  1,  v.  24,  26)  and  the 
keeper  of  the  treasures  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  24  ;  2  Chr. 
\xxi.  12)  must  have  been  at  ie.ast  Levites.  Herz- 
feld (Gesch.  Isr.  i.  218)  conjectures  that  Benjninin 
is  an  error  for  Minjnmin,  the  head  of  a  priestly 
»ouse  (Neh.  xii.  5,  17).  In  support  of  this  view 
it  may  be  observed  that  iNIenelaus,  the  usurping 
high-priest,  is  said  to  have  been  a  brother  of  Sinwn 


siMOX  8045 

(2  Mace.  iv.  23),  and  no  intimation  is  anywhere 
given  that  he  was  not  of  priestly  descent.  At  the 
same  time  the  corruption  (if  it  exist)  dates  from  an 
earlier  period  than  the  present  Greek  text,  for 
"  trilje  "  {(pv\y])  could  not  be  used  for  "family" 
(oJkos)-  I'he  various  reading  ayopavofxias  ("reg- 
ulation of  the  market")  for  irapavofxias  ("disor- 
der," 2  Mace.  iii.  4),  which  seems  to  be  certainly 
correct,  points  to  some  otiice  in  connection  with  the 
supply  of  the  sacrifices;  and  prol)al)ly  Simon  was 
appointed  to  carry  out  the  design  of  Seleucus,  who 
(as  is  stated  in  tlie  context)  had  undertaken  to  de- 
fray the  cost  of  them  (2  Mace.  iii.  3).  In  this  case 
there  would  be  less  ditficulty  in  a  Benjamite  acting 
as  the  agent  of  a  foreign  king,  even  in  a  matter 
which  concerned  the  Temple-service.      B.  F.  W. 

4.  Si.Mox  THE  Bhuthku  of  Jesus.  —  'I'he 
only  undoubted  notice  of  this  Simon  occurs  in  Matt, 
xiii.  55,  Mark  vi.  3,  where,  in  common  with  James, 
Joses,  and  Judas,  he  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the 
"  brethren  "  of  Jesus.  He  has  been  identified  by 
some  writers  with  Simon  the  Canaanite,  ai?d  still 
more  generally  with  Symeon  who  liecame  bishop 
of  Jerusalem  after  the  death  of  James,  a.  d.  62 
(Euseb.  //.  A',  iii.  11,  iv.  22),  and  who  suffered 
martyrdom  in  the  reign  of  Trajan  at  the  extreme 
age  of  120  years  (Hegesippus,  ap.  Euseb.  //.  A', 
iii.  32),  in  the  year  107,  or  accv/rding  to  Burton 
(Lectures,  ii.  17,  note)  in  104.  The  former  of 
these  opinions  rests  on  no  evidence  whatever,  nor 
is  the  latter  without  its  difficulties.  For  in  what- 
ever sense  the  term  "  brotlier,"  is  accepted — a 
vexed  question  which  has  been  already  amply  dis- 
cussed under  Bkotheu  and  Jajie.s,  —  it  is  clear 
tiiat  neither  Eusebius  nor  the  author  of  the  so-called 
Apostolic'il  Conslitulions  understood  Symeon  to 
be  tlie  lirother  of  James,  nor  consequently  the 
"  brother  "  of  the  Lord.  Eusebius  invariably  de- 
scribes .lames  as  "the  brother"  of  Jesus  (//.  E.  L 
12,  ii.  1,  '(/.),  but  Symeon  as  the  son  of  Clopas, 
and  the  cousin  of  Jesus  (iii.  11,  iv.  22),  and  the 
same  distinction  is  made  by  the  other  author 
(Const.  Apost.  vii.  46). 

5.  Simon  the  Canaanite,  one  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  (Matt.  x.  4;  Alark  iii.  18),  otherwise  de- 
scribed as  Simon  Zelotes  (Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13). 
Tlie  latter  term  (i^r)\wTi)s),  which  is  peculiar  to 
Luke,  is  the  Greek  equivalent  for  the  Chaldee  term  " 
preserved  by  Matthew  and  Mark  (Kavai'iTy]s,  as  in 
text.  1'ecept.,  or  Kafawaios,  as  in  the  Vulg.,  Cnncb- 
meus,  and  in  the  liest  modern  editions).  Each  of 
these  equally  points  out  Simon  as  belonging  to  the 
faction  of  the  Zealots,  who  were  conspicuous  for 
their  fierce  advocacy  of  the  Mosaic  ritual.  The 
supposed  references  to  Canaan  (A.  V.)  or  to  Cana 
( Luther's  version )  are  equally  erroneous.  [Can A an- 
iTi;.]  The  term  Kavay'iTTjs  appears  to  have  sur- 
vived the  other  as  the  distinctive  surname  of  Simon 
(Const.  Apost.  vi.  14,  viii.  27).  He  has  been  fre- 
quently iiieiitified  with  Simon  the  brother  cf  Jesus; 
but  Euseliius  (H.  A.  iii.  11)  clearly  distinguishes 
between  the  Apostles  and  the  relations  of  Jesus. 
Still  less  likely  is  it  that  he  was  identical  with 
Symeon,  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  stated 
by  Sophronius  (App.  ad  Ifieron.  Cn/oL).  Simon 
the  Canaanite  is  reported,  on  the  doubtful  author- 
ity of  the  Pseuilo-Dorotheus  and  of  Nicephonia 
Callistus,  to  have  preached  in  Egypt,  Cyrene,  and 
Mauritania  (Burton's  Lectures,  i.  333.  note),  and, 


]^?^- 


3046  SIMON 

M  the  equally  doubtful  authority  of  an  annotation 
preserved  in  an  ori<;inal  copy  of  the  Ajjcstulicul 
Cuns/itaduiis  (viii.  27;,  to  have  been  crucified  in 
Judtea  in  the  reign  of  Uoinitian. 

6.  Si.MuM  Oh'  CviiKNK. — A  Hellenistic  Jew, 
born  at  Gyrene  on  the  nortli  coast  of  Africa,  vvlw 
was  present  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Jesus,  eitlier  as  an  attendant  at  the  feast 
(Acts  ii.  10),  or  as  one  of  the  numerous  settlers  at 
Jerusalem  from  that  place  (Acts  vi.  9).  Meeting 
the  procession  that  conducted  Jesus  to  Golgotha,  as 
lie  was  returning  from  the  country,  l.e  was  pressed 
into  the  service  (ijyydpeuaai',  a  nnlitary  term )  to 
bear  the  cross  (Alatt.  xxvii.  62;  Mark  xv.  21; 
Luke  xxiii.  20),  when  Jesus  himself  was  unable  to 
beai'  it  any  longer  (comp.  John  xix.  17).  Mark 
describes  him  as  tiie  father  of  Alexander  and  Uufus, 
perhaps  because  this  was  the  Kufus  known  to  the 
Koman  Ghristians  (Kom.  xvi.  13),  for  whom  he 
more  especially  wrote.  Tlie  IJasilidiau  Gnostics 
behaved  that  Simon  suffered  in  lieu  of  Jesus  (Bur- 
ton's  Ltcltcrts,  ii.  (i-i). 

7.  Si.^ioN  THE  Lei'KH.  —  A  resident  at  Beth- 
any, distinguislied  as  "  the  leper,"  not  from  liis 
having  leprosy  at  the  time  when  he  is  mentioned, 
but  at  some  previous  period.  It  is  not  improbable 
that  he  had  been  miraculously  cured  by  Jesus.  In 
his  house  Mary  anointed  Jesus  preparatory  to  his 
deatli  and  burial  (.Malt.  xxvi.  (i,  &c. ;  Mark  xiv.  3, 
&c. ;  John  xii.  1,  &c.)M  Lazarus  was  also  present 
as  one  of  the  guests,  while  Martha  served  (John 
xii.  2);  the  presence  of  the  brother  and  his  two 
sisters,  together  with  the  active  part  the  latter  took 
in  the  proceedings,  leads  to  the  inference  that  Si- 
mon was  related  to  them :  but  there  is  no  evidence 
of  this,  and  we  can  attach  no  credit  to  the  state- 
ment that  he  was  their  father,  as  reported  on  apoc- 
ryphal authority  by  Nicephorus  (//.  A.  i.  27),  and 
still  less  to  the  idea  that  he  was  the  husband  of 
Mary.  Simon  the  Leper  must  not  be  confounded 
with  Simon  the  Pharisee  mentioned  in  Luke  vii.  40. 

8.  SiJio>'  iL\GU8.  —  A  San^aritan  living  in  the 
Apostolic  age,  distinguished  as  a  sorcerer  or  •■  ma- 
gician," from  his  practice  of  magical  arts  (fxayevaiv, 
Acts  viii.  9).  His  history  is  a  remarkable  one: 
he  was  born  at  (iitton,''  a  village  of  Samaria  (Jus- 
tin Mart.  Apvl.  i.  2(j),  identified  with  the  modern 
Kuryi'i  Jit,  near  XabuUis  (Robinson's  Bibl.  Rts. 
ii.  308,  note).  He  was  probably  educated  at  Alex- 
andria (as  stated  in  CUiutnt.  Hum.  ii.  22),  and 
there  became  acquainted  with  the  eclectic  t«nets  of 
the  Gnostic  school.     Either  then   or  subsequently 

«  *  On  the  chronological  ditflculty  relating  to  the 
time  of  the  feast  in  Simons  hou.se  see  vol.  ii.  p.  1372, 
note  a  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 

b  Some  doubt  has  been  thrown  on  Justin's  state- 
ment from  the  fact  that  Josephus  (Ant.  xx.  7,  §  2) 
mentions  a  reputed  magician  of  the  same  name  and 
about  the  same  date,  who  was  born  in  Cyprus.  It 
has  been  suggested  that  Justin  borrowed  hie  iuforma- 
tiuii  from  this  source,  and  mistook  Citium,  a  town  of 
Cyprus,  for  Oitton.  If  the  writers  had  respectively 
used  the  gentile  forms  Kirtevs  and  riTTwiis,  the  simi- 
larity would  have  favored  such  an  idea.  But  neither 
does  Josephus  mention  Citium,  nor  yet  does  Justin 
use  the  gentile  form.  It  is  far  more  probable  that 
Jo.sephus  would  be  wrong  than  Justin,  in  any  point 
respecting  Samaria. 

c  The  A.  V.  omits  the  word  KoAovme'i/r/,  and  renders 
Ihe  words  "  the  great  power  of  God."  but  this  is  to 
o»e  the  whole  point  of  the  designation.     The  Saihar- 

tanB  described  the  angels  as  hvvafktK,  C*^'*n,  '.  c 


SIMON 

he  was  a  pupil  of  Dositheus,  who  preceded  bim  oa 
a  teacher  of  Gnosticism  ni  Samaria,  and  whom  he 
supplanted  with  the  aid  of  Cleobius  ( Constit.  Apug- 
(vl.  vi.  8).  He  is  first  introduced  to  us  in  the  Bible 
as  practicing  magical  arts  in  a  city  of  Samaria, 
perhaps  Sychar  (Acts  viii.  5;  comp.  .lohn  iv.  5), 
and  with  such  success,  that  be  was  pronounced  to 
be  -'the  power  of  God  which  is  called  great"' 
(Acts  viii.  10).  The  preaching  and  miracles  of 
Philip  having  excited  his  observation,  he  became 
one  of  his  disciples,  and  received  baptism  at  hia 
hands.  Subsequently  he  witnessed  the  efiect  pro- 
duced by  the  imposition  of  hands,  as  practiced  by 
the  Apostles  I'eter  and  John,  and,  being  desirous  of 
acquiring  a  similar  power  for  hin)self,  he  offered  a 
sum  of  money  for  it.  His  object  evidently  was  to 
apply  the  power  to  the  prosecution  of  magical  arts. 
The  motive  and  the  means  were  equally  to  be  rep- 
robated ;  and  his  proposition  met  with  a  severe  de- 
nunciation from  Teter,  followed  oy  a  petition  on 
the  part  of  Simon,  the  tenor  of  which  bespeaks 
terror  but  not  penitence  (Acts  viii.  9-24).  The 
memory  of  his  peculiar  guilt  has  been  perpetuated 
in  the  word  simoni/,  as  applied  to  all  traffic  in  spir- 
itual offices.  Simon's  history,  sulisequently  to  his 
meeting  with  I'eter,  is  involved  in  ditticujties. 
Karly  Church  historians  depict  him  as  the  perli- 
nac.ous  foe  of  the  Ajjostle  I'eter,  whose  movements 
he  followed  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  encounters, 
in  which  he  was  signally  defeated.  In  his  jour- 
neys he  was  accompanied  by  a  female  named  Hel- 
ena, who  had  previously  been  a  prostitute  at  Tyre, 
but  who  was  now  elevated  to  the  position  of  his  ej/- 
voia'^'  or  divine  intelligence  (Justin  Mart.  ApoL  i. 
2(5;  Euseb.  //.  A',  ii.  13).  His  first  encounter 
with  I'eter  took  place  at  Cwsarea  Stratonis  (ac- 
cording to  the  Con  slit  ill  ioiies  Aposlolicce,  vi.  8), 
whence  he  followed  the  Apostle  to  Home.  Fmsc- 
bius  makes  no  mention  of  this  first  encounter,  but 
represents  Simon's  journey  to  Kome  as  followhig 
immediately  after  the  interview  recorded  in  Scrip- 
ture (//.  7i'.  ii.  14) ;  but  his  chronological  state- 
ments are  evidently  confused ;  for  in  the  very  same 
chapter  he  states  tliat  the  meeting  between  the  two 
at  iiome  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  some 
ten  years  after  the  events  in  Samai'ia.  Justin 
Martyr,  with  greater  consistency,  represents  Simon 
as  having  visited  Iiome  in  the  reign  of  Claudius, 
and  omits  all  notice  of  an  encounter  with  I'eter. 
His  success  tliere  was  so  great  that  he  was  deified, 
and  a  statue  was  erected  in  his  honor,  with  the  in- 
scription "  Simoni  Deo  Sancto  "  «  {Apul.  i.  2G,  56) 


uncreated  influences  proceeding  from  God  (Gieseler, 
Ecd.  Hist.  i.  48,  note  6).  They  Intended  to  distin- 
guish Simon  from  such  an  order  of  beings  by  adding 
the  words  "  which  is  called  great,"  meaning  thereby 
the  source  of  all  power,  In  other  words,  the  Supreme 
Deity.  Simon  was  recognized  as  the  incarnation  of 
this  power.  He  announced  himself  e,s  in  a  special 
sense  "  some  great  one  "  (Acts  viii.  9)  ;  or  to  use  his 
own  words  (as  reported  by  Jerome,  on  Matt.  xxiv.  5), 
"  Ego  sum  sermo  Dei,  ego  sum  speciosus,  ego  Paracie- 
tus,  ego  Ouniipotens,  ego  omnia  Dei." 

li  In  the  evyoia,  as  embodied  in  Helena's  pA-son,  we 
recognize  the  dualistic  element  of  Gnostici.<m,  dei'ived 
from  the  Manichean  system.  The  Gnostics  appear  to 
have  recognized  the  Svvaij.is  and  the  ecwia.  as  the  two 
original  principles  from  whose  junction  all  being.«  eui. 
anated.  Smion  and  Helena  were  the  incarnations  in 
which  these  principles  resided. 

e  Justin's  authority  has  been  impugned  in  re.'^pect 
to  this  stat<'uient,  on  the  grouu  J  that  a  tablet  was  dis- 
covered iu  1574  uu  the  TiOtrma  'nsuta,  which  auewen 


SIMON  CHOSAM^US 

.n»e  above  statements  can  be  reconciled  only  by 
assuming  that  Simon  made  two  expeditions  to 
Rome,  the  first  in  the  reit^n  of  Claudius,  tlie  second, 
in  which  he  encountered  Peter,  in  the  reign  of 
Nero."  about  tlie  year  08  (Burton's  J.eclurts,  i. 
233,  318):  and  even  this  takes  for  granted  the  dis- 
puted fact  of  St.  I'eter's  visit  to  Rome.  [I'ktkk.] 
His  death  is  associated  with  the  meeting  in  ques- 
tion:  according  to  Hippolytus,  the  earliest  autlior- 
ity  on  the  subject,  Simon  was  buried  alive  at  his 
own  request,  in  the  confident  assurance  that  he 
would  rise  again  on  the  third  day  (A'lc.  /her.  vi. 
20).  .-Vccording  to  another  account,  he  attempted 
to  fly  in  proof  of  his  supernatural  power;  in  an- 
swer to  the  prayers  of  Peter,  be  fell  and  sustained 
a  fracture  of  his  thigh  and  ankle  bones  {Constitut. 
Apostul.  ii.  14,  vi.  9);  overcome  with  vexation, 
he  committed  suicide  (Arnob.  Adv.  Gent.  ii.  7). 
Whether  this  statement  is  confirmed,  or,  on  the 
other  hand  weakened,  by  the  account  of  a  similar 
attempt  to  fly  recorded  by  heathen  writers  (Sue- 
ton.  Ner.  12;  Juv.  SiU.  iii.  79),  is  uncertain.  Si- 
mon's attempt  may  have  supplied  the  basis  for  this 
report,  or  this  report  may  have  been  erroneously 
placed  to  his  credit.  Burton  (Lt^clures,  i.  295) 
rather  favors  the  former  alternative.  Simon  is 
generally  ])ronounced  by  early  writers  to  have  been 
the  founder  of  heresy.  It  is  difficult  to  understand 
how  he  was  guilty  of  heresy  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  term,  inasmuch  as  he  was  not  a  Christian:  per- 
haps it  refers  to  his  attempt  to  combine  Christian- 
ity with  Gnosticism.  He  is  also  reported  to  have 
forged  works  professing  to  emanate  from  Christ 
and  his  disciples  {Constitut.  Ajxistol.  vi.  10). 

9.  Si.MON  Petkk.     [Peter.] 

10.  Simon,  a  Pharisee,  in  whose  house  a  penitent 
woman  ancnnted  the  head  and  feet  of  Jesus  (Luke 
vii.  40). 

11.  Simon  the  Tannek.  —  A  Christian  con- 
vert living  at  Joppa,  at  whose  house  Peter  lodged 
(Acts  ix.  43).  The  profession  of  a  tanner  was 
regarded  with  considerable  contempt,  and  even  as 
approaching  to  uncleanness,  by  the  rigid  .lews. 
[Tanner.]  That  Peter  selected  such  an  abode, 
showed  the  diminished  hold  which  .Judaism  bad 
on  him.  The  house  was  near  tlie  sea-side  (Acts  x. 
6.  32),  for  the  convenience  of  the  water. 

12.  Simon,  the  father  of  Judas  Iscariot  (.John 
vi   71,  xiii.  2,  26).  W.  L.  B. 

SI'MON  CHOSAMJE'US  {Xiiacov  Xoaa- 
juaior:  Simon).  Shim  eon,  and  the  three  follow- 
ing names  in  Ezr.  x.  31,  32,  are  thus  written  in 
the  LXX.  (1  Esdr.  ix.  32).  The  Vulgate  has  cor- 
rectly "  Simon,  Benjamin,  et  Malchus,  et  JIarras.'' 
"  Chosamseus  "  is  apparently  formed  by  combining 
the  last  letter  of  jSIalluch  with  the  first  part  of  the 
following  name,  Shemariah. 


SIN 


SQ^) 


to  the  locality  described  by  Justin  (et/ru  Tt'/3epc  tto- 
Tttfia!  nerafv  Tuiv  60o  ye(j>vpo>v).  and  bearing  au  inscrip- 
tion, the  first  svords  of  which  are  "  Semoni  saaco  deo 
fidio."  This  inscription,  which  really  applies  to  the 
Sabine  Hercules  Sanctis  Sumo,  is  suppcsed  to  have 
been  mistaken  by  Justin,  in  his  ignorance  of  Latin, 
for  cue  in  honor  of  Simon.  If  the  inscription  had 
been  confined  to  the  words  quoted  by  Justin,  such  a 
mistake  might  have  been  conceivable  ;  but  it  goes  on 
♦o  state  the  name  of  the  giver  and  otlier  particulars  : 
"  Semoni  Sanoo  Deo  Kidio  sacrum  Sex.  rompeius,  Sp. 
F.  Col.  Mussianus  Quinquennalis  deous  Bidentalis  do- 
Dum  dedit.''  That  Justin,  a  man  of  literary  acquire- 
men'g.  should  be  unable  to  translate  such  an  inscrip- 
lion  '   that  he  should  misquote  it  in  an  Apology  duly 


SIM'RI  ("'"l^tt?  [watcliful]  :  ^vXdtra-oi'Tts: 
Seiii7-i).  Properly  "  Shimri,"  son  of  Hosah,  a 
Merarite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvi. 
10).  Though  not  the  first-born,  his  father  made 
him   the   head    of  the  family.      The  LXX.   read 

^^'P^',  slwinSre,  "  guards." 

SIN  O'^D  [mire]:  Sai's,  5ur)«'rj;  [in  ver.  15, 
Alex.  Tayis'-]  Ptluuum),  a  city  of  Egypt,  men- 
tioned oidy  by  Ezekiel  (xxx.  15,  IG).  Tlie  name 
is  Hebrew,  or,  at  least,  Shemitic.  Gesenins  sup- 
poses it  to  signify  "  clay,"  from  the  unused  root 

"{"^P,  probably  "he  or  it  was  muddy,  clayey."  It 
is  identified  in  the  Vulg.  with  Pelusium,  rirjAoi^ 
aiov,  "the  clayey  or  muddy"  town,  from  irT)K6s'i 
and  seems  to  be  preserved  in  the  Arabic  Et-  Ttent/i, 


aUjJaJt, 


which  forms  part  of  the  names  of  Fuin 


ef-Teeneli,  the  Mouth  of  Et-Teeneh,  the  supposed 
Pelusiac  mouth  of  the  Nile,  and  Burg  or  Kul'dt  et- 
Tetneh,  the  Tower  or  Castle  of  A7-  Teeneh,  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood,  "teen"  signifying  "mud," 
etc.,  in  Arabic.  This  evidence  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  Sin  is  Pelusium.  The  ancient  Egyptian  name 
is  still  to  be  sought  for:  it  has  been  snpi)used  that 
Pelusium  preserves  traces  of  it,  liut  this  is  very  im- 
probalile.      Champollion    identifies   Pelusium    with 

the  HepejULOVJi,  IlepejuLajn  (the 

second  being  a  variation  held  by  Quatremere  to  be 
incorrect),  and    U^OeJULOTJl,  of  the  Copts, 

El-Farma,  L«wCJ!,  of  the  Arabs,  which  was  in 

the  time  of  the  former  a  boundary-city,  the  limits 
of  a  governor's  authority  being  stated  to  have  ex- 
tended from  Alexandria  to  Pilak-h,  or  Philas,  and 
Peremoun  (Acts  of  St.  Sarapamon  MS.  Copt.  Vat. 
67,  fol.  90,  ap.  Quatremere,  .Mdimiires  Geog.  et  l/ist, 
sur  VEgypte,  i.  259).  Champollion  ingeniously 
derives  this  name  from  the  article  cb^  ^Pj  "to 
be,"  and  OJULJ,  "mud"  {DEgrjpte,  ii.  82-87; 
comp.  Brugsch,  (?eo(/r.  Insclir.  i.  p.  297).  Brugsch 
compares  the  ancient  Egyptian  HA-REM,  which 
he  reads  Pe-rema,  on  our  system,  PE-REM,  "  th(» 
abode  of  the  tear,"  or  "of  the  fish  rem"  (Geogt. 
Insclir.  i.  /.  c,  pi.  Iv.  ro.  1679).  Pelusium,  he 
would  make  the  city  SAMHAT  (or,  as  he  reads  ii; 
Sam-hud),  remarking  that  "  the  nome  of  the  city 
Samhud  "  is  the  only  one  which  has  the  determina- 
tive of  a  city,  and,  comparing  the  evidence  of  the 
Roman  nome-coins,  on  which  the  place  is  ap]jarently 
treated  as  a  nome;  but  this  is  not  certain,  for  there 
may  have  been  a  Pelusiac  nome,  and  the  etymology 


prepared  at  Rome  for  the  eye  of  a  Roman  emperor ; 
and  that  the  mistake  should  be  repeated  by  other 
early  writers  whose  knowledge  of  Latin  is  unquestioned 

(Ireneeus,  Ailv.  Hcerts.  i.  20;  Tertullian,  ^;>o/.   13), 

these  assumptions  form  a  series  of  improbabilities, 
amounting  almost  to  an  impossibility.  [See  Norton's 
Evidences  of  the  Gen.  of  the  Gospels.,  2d  ed.,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  iii.-xxiii.  (Addit.  Notes).] 

"  This  later  date  is  to  a  certain  extent  confirmed 
by  the  account  of  Simon's  death  preserved  by  Hippo- 
lytus {Aih:  Har.  vl.  20)  ;  for  the  event  is  st;ited  to 
have  occurred  while  Peter  and  Paul  (the  term  iiro- 
o-ToAois  evidently  implying  the  presence  of  the  litter) 
were  together  at  Rome. 


3048 


SIN 


of  the  name  SAMHAT  is  unknown  {Id.  p.  128; 
PI.  xxviii.  17). 

The  site  of  I'ehisiuni  is  as  yet  uiideterniined.  Tt 
aas  been  thought  to  be  marked  by  mounds  near 
.  Bury  et-Teene/i,  now  called  el-Farma  and  not  et- 
Titnch.  This  is  disputed  by  Captain  Spratt,  who 
supiwses  that  tlie  mound  of  Aboo-Klifeydr  indicates 
where  it  stood.  'J'his  is  further  inland,  and  ap- 
parently on  the  west  of  the  old  Pelusiac  liranch,  as 
was  I'elusium.  It  is  situate  between  Funna  and 
Tel-Defenneh."  Whatever  may  have  been  its  e.Kact 
position,  Pelusium  must  have  owed  it?  strength  not 
to  any  great  elevation,  but  to  its  being  placed  in 
the  midst  of  a  plain  of  niarsli-land  and  nuid,  never 
easy  to  traverse.  The  ancient  sites  in  such  alluvial 
tracts  of  Egypt  are  in  general  only  sufficiently 
raised  above  the  level  of  the  plain  to  preserve  them 
fi-om  being  injured  by  the  inundation. 

The  antiquity  of  the  town  of  Sin  may  perhaps 
be  inferred  from  the  mention  of  "  the  wilderness 
of  Sin  "  in  the  journeys  of  the  Israelites  (Ex.  xvi. 
1;  Num.  xxxiii.  11).  It  is  remarkalile,  however, 
that  tlie  Israelites  did  not  immediately  enter  this 
tract  on  leaving  the  cultivated  part  of  Egypt,  so 
that  it  is  held  to  have  been  within  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula,  and  therefore  it  may  take  its  name  from 
some  otlier  place  or  country  than  the  Egyptian  Sin. 
[Sin,  \Vii.oki!X1-:ss  oK.] 

I'elusium  is  mentioned  by  Ezekiel,  in  one  of  the 
projiliecies  relating  to  the  invasion  of  Egypt  l)y 
Nebucbailnez/.ar,  as  one  of  the  cities  which  should 
then  suffi^r  calamities,  with,  probably,  reference  to 
their  later  history.  The  others  spoken  of  are  Noph 
(Memjihis),  Zoan  (Tanis),  No  (Thebes).  Aven 
(Heliopolis),  Fi-beseth  (Bubastis),  and  Tehaphnehes 
(Dapbnw).  All  these,  excepting  the  two  ancient 
capitals,  Thebes  and  iMemphis,  lay  0!i  or  near  the 
eastern  boundary;  and,  in  the  apjiroach  to  Memphis, 
an  invader  could  scarcely  advance,  after  capturing 
Pelusium  and  Daphna?,  without  taking  Tanis, 
Hubastis,  and  Helicipolis.  In  the  mo.st  ancient 
times  Tanis,  as  afterwards  Pelusium,  seems  to  have 
been  the  key  of  l*>gypt  on  the  east.  Bubastis  was 
an  important  position  from  its  lofty  mounds,  and 
Heliopolis  as  securing  the  approach  to  Memphis. 
The  projihet  speaks  of  Si)i  as  "  Sin  the  stronghold 
of  Egypt  "  (ver.  15).  This  place  it  held  from  that 
time  until  the  period  of  the  Pomans.  Herodotus 
relates  that  Sennacherib  advanced  against  Pelusium, 
and  that  near  Pelusium  Camljyses  defeated  Psam- 
menitus.  In  like  manner  the  decisive  battle  in 
which  Ochus  defeated  the  last  native  king,  Nectane- 
bos,  NEKHT-NEBF,  was  fougiit  near  this  city. 
It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  Ezekiel  twice 
mentions  Pelusium  in  the  prophecy  which  contains 
the  remarkable  and  signally-fulfilled  sentence  : 
'•'  There  sliall  be  no  more  a  prince  of  the  land  of 
Egypt"  (ver.  13).  As  he  saw  the  long  train  of 
salamities  that  were  to  fall  upon  the  country, 
Pelusium  may  well  have  stood  out  ns  the  chief  place 
of  her  successive  humiliations.  Two  Persian  con- 
quests, and  two  submissions  to  strangers,  first  to 
Alexander,  and  then  to  Augustus,  may  ex])lain  the 
especial  misery  foretold  of  this  city:  "Sin  shall 
suffer  great  anguish ''  (ver   IG). 

We  find  in  the  Bible  a  geographical  name,  which 
has  the  form  of  a  gent,  noun  derived  from  Sin,  and 
la  usually  held  to  apply  to  two   different  nations. 


»  Capt.  Spratfs  reports  have  unfortunately  been 
printefi  only  in  abstract  ("  Delta  of  the  Njle,"  etc.  ; 
ttt'_rn,   Uouse  of  (Jouimons,  9th   Feb.  1860),  with  a 


SIN,  WILDERNESS  OF 

neither  coimected  with  the  city  Sin.  In  the  liiit 
of  the  descendants  of  Noah,  the  Sinite,  ^TD. 
occurs  among  the  sons  of  Canaan  (Gen.  x.  17; 
1  Chr.  i.  15;.  This  people,  from  its  place  between 
the  Arkite  and  the  Arvadite  has  lieen  supposed  to 
have  settled  in  Syria  north  of  Palestine,  where 
similar  names  occur  in  classical  geography  and 
have  been  alleged  in  confirmation.  This  theory 
would  not,  however,  necessarily  imply  that  the  whole 
trilie  was  tliei-e  settled,  and  the  supposed  traces  of 
the  name  are  by  no  means  conclusive.  On  the 
other  liand,  it  must  be  observed  that  some  of  the 
eastern  towns  of  Lower  Egypt  have  Hebrew  as  well 
as  Egyptian  names,  as  Hehopolis  and  Tanis;  that 
those  very  near  the  border  seein  to  have  liorne  only 
Hel)rew  names,  as  Migdol;  so  that  we  have  an 
indication  of  a  Shemitic  influence  in  this  part  of 
Egypt,  diminishing  in  degree  according  to  the  dis- 
tance from  the  border.  It  is  difficult  to  account 
for  this  influence  liy  the  single  circumstance  of  the 
Shepherd  invasion  of  Egypt,  especially  as  it  is 
shown  yet  more  strikingly  by  the  remarkaWy  strong 
characteristics  which  have  distinguished  the  in- 
iialiitants  of  northeastern  Egypt  from  their  fellow- 
countrymen  from  tlie  days  of  Herodotus  and  .Vchilles 
Tatius  to  our  own.  And  we  must  not  pass  l)y  the 
statement  of  the  former  of  these  writers,  that  the 
Palestine  Syrians  dwelt  westward  of  the  Araliians 
to  the  eastern  boundary  of  I'^gypt  (iii.  5,  and  aljove 
p.  2736,.  note  (i).  Therefore,  it  does  not  .seem  a 
violent  hypothesis  that  the  Sinites  were  connected 
with  Pelusium,  though  their  main  body  may  per- 
haps have  settled  much  further  to  the  north  The 
distance  is  not  greater  than  that  between  the  Hit- 
tites  of  southern  Palestine  and  tliose  of  tlie  valley 
of  the  Orontes,  although  the  separation  of  tlie  less 
powerful  Hivites  into  those  dwelling  l)eneath  Mount 
Hermon  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  small  confed- 
eracy of  which  Gibeon  was  apparently  the  head,  ig 
perhaps  nearer  to  our  supposed  case.  If  the  AVil- 
derness  of  Sin  owed  its  name  to  Pelusium,  this  is 
an  evidence  of  the  very  early  importance  of  the 
town  and  its  connection  with  Arabia,  which  would 
perhaps  be  strange  in  the  case  of  a  purely  Egyptian 
town.  The  conjecture  we  have  put  forth  suggests 
a  recurrence  to  the  old  explanation  of  the  famous 

mention  of  "  the  land  of  Sinira,"  tZ'^D'^p  '^T'^j 
in  Isaiah  (xliv.  12),  supposed  by  some  to  refer  to 
China.  This  would  appear  from  the  context  to  be 
a  very  remote  region.  It  is  mentioned  after  the 
north'  and  the  west,  and  would  seem  to  be  in  a 
southern  or  eastern  direction.  Sin  is  certainly  not 
remote,  nor  is  the  supposed  place  of  the  Sinites  to 
the  north  of  Palestine;  but  the  expression  may  be 
proverliial.  The  people  of  Pelusium,  if  of  Canaanite 
origin,  were  certainly  remote  compared  to  most  of 
the  other  Canaanites,  and  were  s^wrated  by  alien 
peo|iles,  and  it  is  also  noticeable  that  they  were  to 
the  northeast  of  Palestine.  As  the  sea  bordering 
Palestine  came  to  designate  the  west,  as  in  this 
passage,  so  the  land  of  Sinim  may  have  passed  into 
a  proverbial  expression  for  a  distant  and  separated 
country.     See,  however,  Sinitk,  Sinim. 

K.  S.  P. 

SIN,  WILDERNESS  OF    ('J"'p-"i21?p: 
epij/xoy   5iV    [Vat.    2etv]'-    destrium    Sin).      The 

very  insufflcient  map.  In  M.  Linant's  map  we  vanm» 
discover  Aboo-Kheeyar  (Percemeni  de  V Islhme  dc  ciuez 
Alias,  Carte  Topographique). 


STN-OFFERING 

rame  of  a  tract  of  the  wilderness  which  the  Israel- 
ites reached  after  leaving  the  encampment  by  the 
Red  Sea  (Num.  xxxiii.  11,  12).  Tlieir  next  halt- 
ing-place {Kx.  xvi.  1,  xvii.  1)  was  Rephidim,  prolj- 
ahiy  the  Wncli/  Ftirdn  [Kkphidim]  ;  on  which 
supposition  it  would  follow  that  Sin  nnist  lie  be- 
tween that  wadj  and  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez, 
and  of  course  west  of  Sinai.  Since  they  were  by 
this  time  gone  more  than  a  month  from  Egypt,  the 
locality  must  be  too  far  towards  the  S.  E.  to  receive 
its  name  from  the  Egyptian  Sin  of  Ez.  xxx.  15, 
called  Sai's  by  the  LXX.,  and  identified  with  Pelu- 
eiuoi  (see  previous  article).  In  the  wilderness  of 
Sin  the  Manna  was  first  gathered,  and  those  who 
adi)pt  the  supposition  that  this  was  merely  the 
natural  product  of  the  t>irja  bush,  find  from  the 
al)Uiidanee  of  that  shrub  in  Wady  es-Slwikli,  S.  E. 
of  IV.  Ghiii-undel,  a  proof  of  local  identity.  [Elim.] 
At  all  events,  that  wady  is  as  probable  as  any 
other."  H.  H. 

SIN-OFFERING  (HSISn:    ^/mpria,  rh 

rrjs  afj-apTias,  irepl  afxapTias-  pro  peccato).  The 
sin-oHeriug  among  the  Jews  was  the  sacrifice  in 
which  the  ideas  of  propitiation  and  of  atonement 
for  sin  were  most  distinctly  marked.  It  is  first 
directly  enjoined  in  Lev.  iv.,  whereas  in  cc.  i.-iii. 
the  burnt-offering,  meat  offering,  and  peace-offering 
are  taken  for  granted,  and  the  object  of  the  Law  is 
to  regulate,  not  to  enjoin  the  presentation  of  them 
to  the  Lord.  Nor  is  the  word  clmtldlh  applied  to 
any  sacrifice  in  ante-^Iosaic  times.*  It  is  there- 
fore peculiarly  a  sacrifice  of  the  Law,  agreeing  with 
the  clear  definition  of  good  and  evil,  and  the  stress 
laid  on  the  "  sinfulness  of  sin,"  which  were  the 
main  objects  of  the  Law  in  itself.  The  idea  of 
propitiation  was  no  doubt  latent  in  earlier  sacri- 
fices, but  it  was  taught  clearly  and  distinctly  in 
the  I^evitical  sin-offering. 

The  ceremonial  of  the  sin-offering  is  described  in 
Lev.  iv.  and  vi.  'I'he  animal,  a  young  bullock  for 
the  priest  or  the  congregation,  a  male  kid  or  lamb 
for  a  ruler,  a  female  kid  or  lamb  for  a  private  per- 
son, in  all  cases  without  blemish,  was  brought  by 
the  sacrificer  to  the  altar  of  sacrifice;  his  hand  was 
laid  upon  its  head  (with,  as  we  learn  from  later 
Jewish  authorities,  a  confession  of  sin,  and  a  prayer 
that  the  victim  might  be  its  expiation);  of  the 
blood  of  the  slain  victim,  some  was  then  sprinkled 
seven  times  before  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary,  some 
put  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense,  and  the 
rest  poured  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  of  sacrifice; 
the  fat  (as  the  choicest  part  of  the  flesh)  was  then 
burnt  on  the  altar  as  a  burnt-offering;  the  re- 
mainder of  the  body,  if  the  sin-offering  were  that 
of  the  priest  himself  or  of  tiie  whole  congregation, 
wag  carried  out  of  the  camp  or  city  to  a  "  clean 
place"  and  there  burnt;  but  if  the  offering  were 
that  of  an  individual,  the  flesh  might  be  eaten  by 
the  priests  alone  in  the  holy  place,  as  being  "  most 
holy." 


a  *  Rev.  F.  W.  Holland  {Joinnrtl  of  the.  Roy.  Gensr. 
Society^  vol.  xxxviii.  p.  255)  proposes  to  identity  the 
Wildenie.^s  of  Sin  witti  tlie  plain  of  es-Seyh,  which 
lies  beneath  the  Tih  range.  It  is  rather  a  succession 
of  large  basins  than  one  plain,  and  after  rain  its  fer- 
tility is  great  and  its  water-supply  abundant.  For  an 
abstract  uf  this  important  article  (On  the  Ptninsula  of 
ahiai)  see  the  addition  to  Sinai  (Auier.  ed.).  H 

b  Its  technical  use  in  Gen.  iv.  7  is  asserted,  and 
supported  by  higli  authority,  riut  the  word  here 
l\i2 


SIN  OFFERING 


5049 


The   Tkespass-offering    (Dtt"'S :    ir\7]fxfii- 

\€ia,  rh  TVS  ir\7iij./x.€\eLas:  pro  delicto)  is  closely 
connected  with  the  sin-offering  in  Leviticus,  but  at 
the  same  time  clearly  distinguished  from  it,  being 
in  some  cases  offered  with  it  as  a  distinct  part  of 
the  same  sacrifice ;  as,  for  example,  in  the  cleansing 
of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiv.).  The  victim  was  in  each 
case  to  be  a  ram.  At  the  time  of  ofit^ring,  in  all 
cases  of  damage  done  to  any  holy  thing,  or  to  any 
man,  restitution  was  made  with  the  addition  of  a 
fifth  part  to  the  principal;  the  blood  was  sprinkled 
round  about  upon  the  altar,  as  in  the  burnt-offer- 
ing; the  fat  burnt,  and  flesh  disposed  of  as  in  the 
sin-offering.  The  distinction  of  ceremonial  clearly 
indicates  a  difference  in  the  idea  of  the  two  sacri 
fices. 

The  nature  of  that  difference  is  still  a  subject 
of  great  contro\'er.sy.  Looking  first  to  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  two  words,  we  find  that  nStSH  is  de- 
rived from  St^n,  which  is,  properly,  to  "miss"' 
a  mark,  or  to  "err"  from  a  way,  and  secondarily 
to  "sin,"  or  to  incur  "penalty;"  that  CCt'S  is 

derived  from  the  root  2tt/S,  which  is  properly  to 
"fail,"  having  for  its  "primary  idea  netjliijenr.e, 
especially  in  gait"  (Ges.).  It  is  clear  that,  so  far 
as  derivation  goes,  there  appears  to  be  more  of 
reference  to  general  and  actual  sin  in  the  former, 
to  special  cases  of  negligence  in  the  latter. 

Turning  next  to  the  description,  in  the  book  of 
Leviticus,  of  the  ciroumstarfces  under  which  each 
sliould  be  offered,  we  find  one  important  passage 
(Lev.  V.  1-13)  in  which  the  sacrifice  is  called  first 
a  "trespass-offering"  (ver.  6),  and  then  a  "sin- 
offering"  (vv.  7,  9,  11,  12).  But  the  nature  of 
the  victims  in  ver.  6  agrees  with  the  ceremonial 
of  the  latter,  not  of  the  former ;  the  application  of 
the  latter  name  is  more  emphatic  and  reiterated ; 
and  there  is  at  ver.  1-t  a  formal  introduction  of  the 
law  of  the  trespass-offisring,  exactly  as  of  the  law 
of  the  sin-offering  in  iv.  1.     It  is  therefore  safe  to 

conclude  that  the  word  Cit'S  is  not  here  used  in 
its  technical  sense,  and  that  the  passage  is  to  be 
referred  to  the  sin-offering  onlj- 

We  find,  then,  that  the  siu-offerings  were  — 

A.  Regular. 

1.  Fur  the  ichole  people,  at  the  New  Bloon, 
Passover,  Pentecost.  Feast  of  Trumpets,  and  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  (Num.  xsviii.  15-xxix.  38),  besides 
the  solemn  offering  of  the  two  goats  on  the  Great 
Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.). 

2.  For  the  Priests  and  Levites  at  their  conse- 
cration (Ex.  xxix  10-14,  36);  besides  the  yearly 
sin-offering  (a  bullock)  for  the  high-priest  on  the 
Great  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xvi.).<^ 

B.  Special. 

1.   For   any  sin  of  "  ignorance "   against  thp 


probably  means  (as  in  the  Tulg.  and  A.  V.)  "sin." 
The  fact  that  it  is  never  used  iu  application  to  any 
other  sacrifice  iu  Genesis  or  Exodus,  alone  makes  the 
translation  "sin-offering"  here  Tery  improbable. 

c  To  these  may  be  added  the  sacrifice  of  the  red 
heifer  (conducted  with  the  ceremonial  of  a  sin-oS'ering), 
from  the  ashes  of  which  was  made  the  "  water  of 
separation,"  used  in  certain  cases  of  ceremonial  pollu 
tion.     S''e  Num.  xix. 


8050  SIN-OFFERmG 

sommandment  of  the  Lord,  on  the  part  of  priest, 
people,  ruler,  or  private  mail  (Lev.  iv.). 

2.  Fuv  rvfusnl  to  bear  witness  under  adjuration 
(Lev.  V.  1). 

3.  Fur  certiixmifd  defilement  not  willfully  con- 
tracted (Lev.  V.  2,  3),  under  wliich  may  be  classed 
the  offerings  at  the  puriticatiou  of  women  (xii.  0-8), 
at  the  cleansing  of  leprosy  (xiv.  19,  31),  or  the  ini- 
sleanness  of  men  or  women  (xv.  15,  30),  on  the 
defilement  of  a  Nazarite  (Num.  vi.  G-11)  or  the 
expiration  of  his  vow  (ver.  IG). 

4.  Fur  tlie  breach  vf  a  rash  oath,  the  keeping 
of  which  would  involve  sin  (Lev.  v.  4). 

'i'he  trespass- oflerings,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
always  special,  as  — 

1.  /'((/■  sacrilege  '■'■in  {(jnorance,''''  with  com- 
pensation for  the  harm  done,  and  the  gift  of  a  fifth 
part  of  the  value  besides  to  the  priest  (Lev.  v.  15, 
16). 

2.  For  irjncyrniit  trnnsyression  against  some  defi- 
nite prohibition  of  the  Law  (v.  17-19). 

3.  For  fraud,  suppression  of  the  truth,  or  per- 
jury aoainst  man,  with  compensation,  and  witii 
the  addition  of  a  fifth  part  of  the  value  of  the 
property  in  question  to  the  person  wronged  (vi. 
1-G). 

4.  Fur  rape  of  a  betrothed  slave  (Lev.  xix.  20, 
21). 

5.  At  the  pur  if  cation  of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiv. 
12),  and  the  polluted  Nazarite  (Num.  vi.  12), 
ofii?red  with  the  sin-offering. 

From  this  enumeration  it  will  be  clear  that  the 
two  classes  of  sacrifices,  although  distinct,  touch 
closely  upon  each  other,  as  especially  in  B.  (1)  of 
the  sin-offering,  and  (2)  of  the  trespass-oflTering. 
It  is  also  evident  that  the  sin-oiJering  was  the  only 
regular  and  general  recognition  of  sin  in  the  ab- 
stract, and  accordingly  was  far  more  solemn  and 
symbolical  in  its  ceremonial ;  the  trespass-offering 
was  confined  to  s])ecial  cases,  most  of  which  related 
to  the  doing  of  some  material  damage,  either  to 
the  holy  things  or  to  man,  except  in  (5),  where  the 
trespass-offering  is  united  with  the  sin-offering. 
Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  9,  §  3)  declares  that  the  sin- 
offering  is  presented  by  those  "  who  fall  into  sin  in 
ignorance"  (/car'  ayvotav),  and  the  trespass-offer- 
ing by  "  one  who  has  sinned  and  is  conscious  of 
his  sin,  but  has  no  one  to  convict  him  thereof." 
From  this  it  may  be  inferred  (as  by  Winer  and 
others)  that  the  former  was  used  in  cases  of  known 
Bin  against  some  definite  law,  tlie  latter  in  the  case 
of  secret  sin,  unknown,  or,  if  known,  not  liable  to 
judicial  cognizance.  Other  opinions  have  been  en- 
tertained, widely  diflferent  from,  and  even  opposed 
to  one  another.  Many  of  them  are  given  in 
Winer's  Realw.  "  Schuldopfer."  The  opinions 
which  suppose  one  offering  due  for  sins  of  omis- 
sion, and  the  other  for  sins  of  commission,  have  no 
foundation  in  the  language  of  the  Law.  Others, 
with  more  plausibility,  refer  the  sin-oftering  to  sins 
of  pure  ignorance,  the  trespass-offering  to  those  of 
a  more  sinful  and  deliberate  character;  but  this 
does  not  agree  with  Lev.  v.  17-19,  and  is  con- 
tradicted by  the  solemn  contrast  between  sins  of 
ignorance,  which  miglit  be  atoned  for,  and  "  sins 
of  presumption,"  against  which  death  without 
mercy  is  denounced  in  Num.  .w.  30.  A  third 
opinion  supposes  the  sin-offering  to  refer  to  sins 
for  which  no  material  and  earthly  atonement  could 
be  made,  the  trespass-offering  to  those  for  which 
material  compensation  was  possible.  This  theory 
tuM  gomethnig  to  support  it  in   the  fact  that  in 


SIN-OFFERING 

some  cases  (see  Lev.  v.  15,  16,  vi.  1-6)  compensa- 
tion was  prescribed  as  accessory  to  the  sacrifice 
Others  seek  more  recondite  distinctions,  supix)sin« 
(e.  (J.)  that  the  sin-oflTering  had  for  its  object  the 
cleansing  of  the  sanctuary  or  the  commonwealth, 
and  tlie  trespass-offering  the  cleansing  of  the  indi- 
vidual; or  that  the  ibrmer  referred  to  the  effect 
of  sin  upon  the  soul  itself,  the  latter  to  the  effect 
of  sin  as  the  breach  of  an  external  law.  Without 
attempting  to  decide  so  difficult  and  so  contro- 
verted a  question,  we  may  draw  the  following  con- 
clusions :  — 

First,  that  the  sin-offering  was  far  the  more 
solemn  and  comprehensive  of  the  two  sacrifices. 

Secondly,  that  the  sin-offering  looked  more  to 
the  guilt  of  the  sin  done,  ii-respective  of  its  con- 
sequences, while  the  trespass-offering  looked  to  tha 
evil  consequences  of  sin,  either  against  the  service 
of  God,  or  against  man,  and  to  the  duty  of  atone- 
ment, as  far  as  atonement  was  possible.  Hence  the 
two  might  with  propriety  be  offered  together. 

Thirdly,  that  in  the  sin-offering  especially  we 
find  symbolized  the  acknowledgment  of  sinfulness 
as  inherent  in  man,  and  of  the  need  of  expiation 
by  sacrifice  to  renew  the  broken  covenant  between 
man  and  God. 

There  is  one  other  question  of  some  interest,  aa 
to  the  nature  of  the  sins  for  which  either  sacrifice 
could  be  offered.  It  is  seen  at  once  that  in  th« 
Law  of  Leviticus,  most  of  them,  which  are  nol 
purely  ceremonial,  are  called  sins  of  "  itrnorance  " 
(see  Heb.  ix.  7);  and  in  Num.  xv.  30,  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  that  wiiile  such  sins  can  be  atoned 
for  by  offerings,  "  the  soul  that  doeth  aught  pre- 
suinpiuouahj^'  (Heb.  ivith  a  hiijh  hand)  "shall  lie 
cut  off'  from  among  his  people."  ....  "  His 
iniquity  shall  be  upon  him  "  (comp.  Heb.  x.  26). 
Hut  there  are  sufficient  indications  that  the  sins 
here  called  "  of  ignorance  "  are  more  strictly  those 
of  "  negligence  "  or  "  frailty,"  "  repented  of  by  the 
unpunished  offender,  as  opposed  to  those  of  de- 
lilierate  and  unrepentant  sin.  The  Hebrew  word 
itself  and  its  derivations  are  so  used  in  Ps.  cxix. 
G7  {iirK7ifxfjLi\7i(ra,  LXX.)  ;  1  Sam.  xxvi.  21 
{■r)yv67}Ka)\  I's.  xix.  13  (TTapairTwfxara)',  Job  xix. 
4  (irAavos)-  'fhe  words  ayv6r]fia  and  6,yvoia 
have  a  corresponding  extent  of  meaning  in  the 
N.  T. ;  as  when,  in  Acts  iii.  17,  the  .Jews,  in  their 
crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  are  said  to  have  acted 
Kar  ayvoiav  ;  and  in  Eph.  iv.  18;  1  Pet.  i.  14, 
the  vices  of  heathenism,  done  against  the  light  of 
conscience,  are  still  referred  to  }xyvoia..  The  use 
of  the  word  (like  that  of  ayvoifiovilv  in  classical 
Greek)  is  found  in  all  languages,  and  depends  on 
the  idea  that  goodness  is  man's  true  wisdom,  and 
that  sin  is  the  failing  to  recognize  this  truth.  If 
from  tlie  word  we  tunrto  the  sins  actually  referred 
to  in  Lev.  iv.,  v.,  we  find  some  which  certainly  are 
not  sins  of  pure  ignorance:  they  are  indeed  few 
out  of  the  whole  rani;e  of  sinfulness,  but  they  are 
real  sins.  The  later  .lews  (see  Outram,  De  Sacri- 
fciis)  limited  the  application  of  the  sin-offering  to 
negative  sins,  sins  in  ignorance,  and  sins  in  action 
not  in  thought,  evidently  conceiving  it  to  apply  to 
actual  sins,  but  to  sins  of  a  secondary  order. 

In  considering  this  subject,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  sacrifices  of  the  Law  had  a  temporal, 


a  From  the  root    D2f",   or    HZltt?,    signifying  to 

-  T  '  T   T  ' 

''  err  '"  or  "  wander  out  of  the  way,"  cognate  in  miim 
to  the  root  of  the  word  chaltalk  itself. 


SINA,  MOUNT 

ia  nell  as  a  spiritual  signifi(j;\iice  and  effect.  They 
restoretl  an  offender  to  his  place  in  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel;  they  were  therefore  an  atonement 
to  the  king  of  Israel  for  the  infringement  of  his 
law.  It  is  clear  that  this  must  have  limited  the 
extent  of  their  legal  application;  for  there  are 
crimes  for  which  the  interest  and  very  existence 
of  a  society  demand  that  there  should  be  no  pardon. 
But  so  far  as  the  sacrifices  had  a  spiritual  and 
typical  meaning,  so  far  as  they  were  sought  by  a 
repentant  spirit  as  a  sign  and  means  of  reconcile- 
.iient  witli  God,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  they 
had  a  wider  scope  and  a  real  spiritual  effect  so  long 
u  their  typical  character  remained.      [See  Sacki- 

FICE.] 

For  the  more  solemn  sin-offerings,  see  Day  of 
Atoxejie^'T;  Leprosy,  etc.  A.  B. 

SI'NA,  MOUNT  {rh  6pos  SifS;  [Vat.  Sin. 
Alex,  in  Jud.,  Seii/a:]  mons  Siii'i).  The  Greek 
form  of  the  well-known  name  wiiich  in  the  0.  T. 
universally,  and  as  often  as  not  in  the  Apocr.  and 
N.  T.,  is  given  in  the  A.  V.  Sinai.  Sina  occurs 
Jud.  V.  14;  a  Acts  vii.  30,  38.  G. 

SFNAI  [2syl.]  O^'^D  [j<i(/f/ed,  full  of  clefts, 
Fiirst] :  2ira;  [V^at.i  Sen'a:]  Sin  I'i).  Nearly  in  the 
centre  of  the  peninsula  which  stretches  between  tiie 
horns  of  the  Hed  .Sea  lies  a  wedge  of  granite,  griin- 
stein,  and  porpliyry  rocks,  rising  to  Ijetween  8,000 
and  9,000  feet  above  the  sea.  Its  shape  resembles 
a  scalene  triangle,  with  a  crescent  cut  from  its 
northern  or  longer  side,  on  whicli  border  Kusseg- 
ger's  map  gives  a  broad,  skirting  tract  of  old  red 
sandstone,  reaching  nearly  from  gulf  to  gulf,  and 
traversed  by  a  few  ridges,  rhietiy  of  a  tertiary  for- 
mation, running  nearly  N.  W.  and  S.  E.  On  the 
S.  W.  side  of  this  triangle,  a  wide  alluvial  plain  — 
narrowing,  however,  towards  the  N.  —  lines  the 
2oast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  whilst  that  on  the  eastern 
or  Akal)ah  coast  is  so  narrow  as  almost  to  disap 
pear.  Between  tliese  alluvial  edges  and  the  granitic 
mass  a  strip  of  the  same  sandstone  is  interposed, 
the  two  strips  converging  at  Rih  Moh'immei/,  the 
southern  promontory  of  the  whole.  This  nucleus 
Df  plutonic  rocks  is  said  to  bear  no  trace  of  volcanic 
a<?tio)i  since  the  original  upheaval  of  its  masses 
(Stanley,  pp.  -21,  22).  Laborde  {Travels,  p.  105) 
thoi'ght  he  detected  some,  but  does  not  affirm  it. 
Its  general  configuration  runs  into  neither  ranges 
nor  peaks,  but  is  that  of  a  plateau  cut  across  with 
intersecting  wadies,*  whence  spring  the  cliffs  and 
Qiountain  peaks,  beginning  with  a  very  gradual 
ind  terminating  in  a  very  steep  ascent.  It  has 
been  arranged  (Stanley,  S.  cf  /'.  p.  11)  in  three 
chief  masses  as  follows:  — 

1.  The  N.  W.  cluster  above  iVi«ly  Feirdn ;  its 
{jrsatest  relief  found  in  tlie  five-peaked  ridge  of 
Ser-bil,  at  a  height  of  0,3-12  feet  aliove  the  sea. 
(For  an  account  of  the  singular  natural  basin  into 
which  the  waters  of  this  portion  of  the  mountain 


SINAI 


3051 


mass  are  received,  and  its  probable  connection  with 
Scriptural  topography,  see  Kephidim.  ) 

2.  The  eastern  and  central  one ;  its  highest  point 
the  Jebtl  KiUherin,  at  a  height  of  8,063  (Riippell) 
to  8,108  (llussegger)  feet,  and  includiTig  the  Jebel 
Musii,  the  height  of  which  is  variously  set  (by 
Schubert,  Riippell,  and  Russegger)  at  6,796,  7,033, 
and  7,097  feet. 

3.  The  S.  E.  one,  closely  connected,  however, 
with  2;  its  highest  jwint,  Uni  Shaume?;  being  th^t 
also  of  the  whole. 

The  three  last-named  peaks  all  lie  very  nearly 
in  a  hue  of  aliout  9  miles  drawn  from  the  most 
northerly  of  them,  Miisa,  a  little  to  the  W.  of  S. ; 
and  a  perpendicular  to  this  line,  traced  on  the  map 
westwards  for  about  20  miles,  nearly  traverses  the 
whole  length  of  the  range  of  SerbCil.  These  lines 
show  the  area  of  greatest  relief  for  the  peninsula,^ 
nearly  equidistant  from  each  of  its  embracing  sulfs, 
and  also  from  its  northern  base,  the  range  of  el- 
Tik,  and  its  southern  apex,  the  Jius  Aftihainmed. 

Before  considering  the  claims  of  the  individual 
mountains  to  Scriptural  notice,  there  occurs  a  ques- 
tion regarding  the  relation  of  the  names  Horeb 
and  Sinai.  The  latter  name  first  occurs  as  that 
of  the  limit  on  the  further  side  from  Egypt  of  the 
wiklerness  of  Sin  (Ex.  svi.  1),  and  again  (xix.  1.  2) 
as  the  "  wilderness  ''  or  "  desert  of  Sinai,"  before 
.Uount  Sinai  is  actually  spoken  of.  as  in  ver.  11 
soon  after  we  find  it.  But  the  name  "  Horeb  "  '^ 
is,  in  the  case  of  the  rebuke  of  the  people  by  God 
for  their  sin  hi  making  the  golden  calf,  reintro- 
duced into  the  Sinaitic  narrative  (xxxiii.  6),  having 
.been  previously  most  recently  used  in  the  story  of 
the  niurmuring  at  Rephidim  (.xvii.  6,  "  I  will  stand 
before  thee  there  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb'').  and 
earlier  as  the  name  of  the  scene  of  the  appearance 
of  God  in  the  '-burning  bush"  (iii.  1).  Now, 
since  Rephidim  seems  to  be  a  desert  stage  apart 
from  the  place  whei'e  Israel  "  camped  before  the 
mount  "  (Sinai,  xix.  2),  it  is  not  easy  to  account 
for  a  Horeb  at  Rephidim,  apparently  as  the  specific 
spot  of  a  ijai'ticidar  transaction  (so  that  the  refuge 
of  a  "general"  name  Horeb,  contrasted  with  Sinai 
as  a  special  one,  is  cut  off),  and  a  Horeb  in  the 
Sinaitic  region,  apparently  a  synonym  of  tiie  moun- 
tain whicii,  since  the  scene  of  the  narrative  is  fixed 
at  it,  had  been  called  Sinai.  Lepsius  removes  the 
difficulty  by  making  Sevbal  Sinai,  but  against  this 
it  will  be  seen  that  there  are  even  stronger  oljec- 
tions.  But  a  proper  name  given  from  a  natural 
feature  may  recur  with  that  feature.  Such  is 
"  Horeb,"  properly  signifying  "  ground  left  dry  by 
water  draining  off."  Now  both  at  Rephidim  and 
at  Kadesh  Sleribah,  where  was  the  "  fountain  of 
judgment"  (Gen.  xiv.  7),  it  is  expressly  mentioned 
that  "  tiiere  was  no  water;"  and  the  inference  is 
that  some  ordinary  supply,  expected  to  be  found 
there,  had  failed,  possibly  owing  to  drought.  "  The 
rock   in    Horeb "  was   (Ex.  xvii.  6)  what  Moses 


«  In  this  passage  the  present  Greek  text  of  both 
MSS  ,  reads  ds  66oi/,  not  opo5,  toO  Setro.  But  the 
note  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  of  l^ill  is,  notwith- 
Btanding,  wrong,  —  '■  Greek,  into  the  way  of  the  wilder- 
less  of  Sina  ;  "  that  being  nearer  to  the  Vulg.  destrta 
Sina  montis  occupaverimt. 

b  See  Robinson's  "  Memoir  on  the  Maps  "  (vol.  iii 
Appendix  1,  pp.  32-39),  a  most  important  comment  on 
tlie  (liferent  sources  of  autliority  for  different  portions 
if  the  region,  and  the  weight  due  to  each,  and  con- 
teining  a  just  caution  regarling  the  indications  of 
"Urfeoe  aspect  given  by  Laborde. 


c  Dr.  Stanley  (p.  77)  notices  another  "  very  high 
mountain  S.  \V.  of  Um-Shiim'r,  apparently  calculated 
by  RVipiiell  to  be  the  highest  in  the  peninsula  .  .  . 
possibly  that  called  by  Burckh.ardt  Thommar,  or  eh- 
Koli/.^'  But  this  seems  only  to  effect  an  extension  of 
the  area  of  the  relief  in  the  direction  indicated. 

''  Dr.  Stanley  has  spoken  of  two  of  the  three  pas- 
sages in  Exodus  in  which  Horeb  occurs  (iri.  1,  xvii.  6) 
as  "doubtful,"'  and  of  the  third  (xx.viii.  (5)  as  "am- 
biguous ;  ■'  but  he  does  not  say  on  what  gro'ioV 
(i>.  ^  P.  p.  29,  note). 


3052 


SINAI 


sniole.  It  prohably  stood  on  tlie  exact  spot  where 
the  water  was  expected  to  be,  hut  was  not.  Now 
Lepsius  (Tour,  April  22,  transl.  by  Cottrell,  p.  74) 
found  in  Wady  Fvirchi,  which  he  identifies  with 
Rejihidim,  singular  alluvial  banks  of  earth  which 
may  have  once  formed  the  bottom  of  a  lake  since 
dried."  If  this  was  the  scene  of  the  miracle  [see 
Reihidiji],  the  propriety  of  the  name  Horeli,  as 
ap])lied  to  it,  becomes  clear.  Further,  in  all  the 
places  of  I>eut.  where  Horeb  is  found  [see  Horkis], 
it  seems  to  be  used  in  reference  to  the  people  as 
the  place  where  they  stood  to  receive,  rather  than 
whence  God  appeared  to  give  the  Law,  which  is 
apparently  in  the  same  book  of  Dent,  indicated  by 
fSinai  (xxxiii.  2);  and  in  the  one  remaining  passage 
of  Exod.,  where  Horeb  occurs  in  the  narrative  of 
the  same  events,  it  is  used  also  in  reference  to  the 
people  (xxxiii.  6),  and  probablj' refers  to  what  they 
had  previously  done  in  the  matter  of  the  golden 
calf  (xxxii.  2,  3).  If  this  be  accepted,  there  remains 
in  the  Pentateuch  only  Ex.  iii.  1,  where  Moses  led 
the  flocks  of  Jetliro  "  to  the  mountain  of  God,  to 
Horeb;"  but  this  form  of  speech,  which  seems  to 
identify  two  local  names,  is  sometimes  not  a  strict 
apposition,  but  denotes  an  extension,  especially 
where  the  places  are  so  close  together  that  the 
writer  tacitly  recognizes  them  as  one.*  Thus  Horeb, 
strictly  taken,  may  probalily  be  a  dry  plain,  valley, 
or  bed  of  a  wady  near  the  mountain ;  and  yet 
Mount  Horeb,  on  the  "  vast  green  plain  "  of  which 
was  doubtless  excellent  pasture,  may  mean  the 
mountain  viewed  in  reference  thereto,'^'  or  its  side 
abutting  thereon.  The  mention  of  Horeb  in  later 
books  (e.  //.  1  K.  viii.  9,  xix.  8)  seems  to  show  that 
it  had  then  become  the  designation  of  the  moun- 
tain and  region  generally.  The  spot  where  the 
people  themselves  took  part  in  the  greatest  event 
cf  their  history  would  naturally  become  the  popular 
name  in  later  designations  of  that  event.  "  Thou 
litoodest  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  Horeb  "  was 
a  literal  fact,  and  became  the  great  basis  of  all 
traditions  of  it.  By  this  they  recognized  that  they 
had  been  brought  into  covenant  with  God.  On 
the  contrary,  in  Neh.  ix.  13,  we  read,  "  Thou 
camest  down  upon  Mount  Sinai.''^ 

But  beyond  the  question  of  the  relation  which 
these  names  mutually  bear,  there  remains  that  of 
site.  Sinai  is  clearly  a  summit  distinctly  marked. 
Where  are  we  to  look  for  it  ?  There  are  three 
principal  views  in  answer  to  this  question :  — 

I.  That  of  Lepsius,  above  mentioned,  favored 
also  by  r.urckhardt  {Trav.  p.  609),  that  Ser/xUh 
Sinai,  some  30  miles  distant  westward  from  the 
Jt/jtl  Mush,  but  close  to  the  Wady  Feiran  and  el- 
Hessue,  which  he  identifies,  as  do  most  authorities, 
with  Rephidim  (Lepsius,  p.  74),  just  a  mile  from 
the  old  convent  of  Fardn.     On   this  view  Israel 


o  "  Alluvial  mounds  "  are  visible  at  the  foot  of  the 
modern  Horeb  cliffs  in  the  plain  er-tialie/i;  just  as 
Lep.sius  noticed  others  at  the  Wady  Feiran.  (Comp. 
Stanley,  S.  ^-  P.  p.  40,  Lepsius,  p.  84.) 

b  So  in  Gen.  xiii.  3,  Abram  goes  "  to  Bethel,  unto 
the  place  where  his  tent  had  been  at  the  beginning, 
between  Bethel  and  Hai  ;  "  i.  e.  really  to  Bethel,  and 
somewhat  further. 

c  It  ought  not  to  be  left  unnoticed  that  different 
fribes  of  the  desert  often  seem  to  give  different  names 
to  the  same  mountain,  valley,  etc.,  or  the  same  names 
to  different  mountains,  etc.,  because,  perhaps,  they 
jndi?e  of  them  by  the  way  in  which  leading  features 
fTOup  themselves  to  the  eye,  and  which  varies  with 
^e  tiabitual  point  of  view  (Lepsius,  p.  (34). 


SINAI 

would  have  reached  Sinai  the  same  day  that  thej 
fought  with  Amalek:  "the  decampment  occurred 
during  the  battle"  [ibid.  p.  86)  — an  uidikely  thing, 
since  the  contest  was  evidently  fierce  and  close,  and 
lasted  till  sunset.  Sei'bdl  is  the  most  magnificent 
mountain  of  the  peninsula,  rising  vi'ith  a  crown  of 
five  peaks  from  the  maritime  plain  on  one  side,  and 
from  the  Wot/y  Feiran  on  the  other,  and  showing 
its  full  height  at  once  to  the  eye;  and  Ritter 
( Geogr.  xiv.  734-736 )  has  suggested  f'  that  it  might 
have  been,  before  the  actual  Exodus,  known  as 
"  the  mount  of  God  "  to  the  Amalekite  Arabs,  and 
even  to  the  Egyptians. «  The  earliest  traditions  are 
in  its  favor.  "  It  is  undoubtedly  identified  with 
Sinai  by  Eusel)ius,  Jerome,  and  Cosmas,  that  is, 
by  .all  known  writers  to  the  time  of  Juiitinian,"  a8 
confirmed  by  the  position  "  of  the  episcopal  city  of 
Paran  at  its  foot"  (Stanley.  S.  cf  P.  p.  40). 

But  there  are  two  main  objections  to  tLis:  (1.) 
It  is  clear,  from  Ex.  xix.  2  (comp.  xvii.  1),  that  the 
interval  between  Rephidim  and  Sinai  was  that  of  a 
regular  stage  of  the  march.  The  expressions  in  the 
Hebrew  are  those  constantly  used  for  decamping 
and  encamping  in  the  books  of  Ex.,  Num.,  and 
Dent. ;  and  thus  a  Sinai  within  a  mile  of  Rephidim 
is  unsuitable.  (2.)  There  is  no  plain  or  wady  of 
any  sufficient  size  near  Serbal  to  offer  camping 
ground  to  so  large  a  host,  or  perhaps  the  tenth  part 
of  them.  Dr.  Stewart  {The  Tent  and  the  Khan, 
p.  146)' contends  lor  Serbal  as  the  real  Sinai,  seek- 
ing to  obviate  objection  (1),  by  making  Rephidim 
"no  higher  up  than  Heshmh"  [Rephidiji],  and 
(2),  by  regarding  Wady  Altiai  and  Wady  Rimm 
as  capacious  enough  for  the  host  to  camp  in  {ibid. 
p.  145):  a  very  doubtful  assertion. 

II.  The  second  is  that  of  Ritter,-'"  that,  allowing 
Serbal  the  reverence  of  an  early  sanctuary,  the 
Jebel  Mi'isa  is  Sinai,  and  that  the  Wady  es- 
Sebayeh,  which  its  S.  E.  or  highest  summit  over- 
hangs, is  the  spot  where  the  people  camped  before 
the  mount;  Vmt  the  second  objection  to  Serbal 
apjjlies  almost  in  equal  force  to  this  —  the  want  of 
space  below.  The  wady  is  "  rough,  uneven,  and 
narrow  "  (Stanley,  S.  cf'  P.  p.  76);  and  there  seems 
no  possibility  of  the  people's  "removing  (Ex.  xx. 
18)  and  standing  afar  off,"  and  yet  preserving  any 
connection  with  the  scene.  Further,  this  site  efters 
no  such  feature  as  a  "  brook  that  descended  out  of 
the  mount  "  (Deut.  ix.  21). 

III.  The  third  is  that  of  Robinson,  that  the 
modern  Horeb  of  the  monks  —  namely,  the  N.  W. 
and  lower  face  of  the  .Jebel  Miha,  crowned  with  a 
range  of  magnificent  cliffs,  the  highest  point  called 
li'is  SasdJ'eh,  or  StiJ'gqfeh,a.s  spelled  by  Robinson  — 
overlooking  the  plain  er-Raliah,  is  the  scene  of  the 
giving  of  the  Law,  and  that  peak  the  mountain 
into  which  Moses  ascended.  In  this  view,  also, 
Strauss  appears  to  coincide  (Sinai  and  (lohjntha. 
p.  IIG).  Lepsius  olijects,  but  without  much  force 
(since  he  himself  climbed  it),  that  the  peak  SasaJ'eh 


d  Kobinson.  on  the  other  hand  (i.  78,  79),  suggests 
that  SnrabU  el-Khadim  (or  CItadem),  lying  north  of 
Serbal,  was  a  place  of  pilgrimage  to  the  ancient  Egyp- 
tians, and  a  supposable  object  of  Moses'  proposed 
"  three  days' journey  into  the  wilderness."  But  that 
pilgrimage  was  an  element  in  the  religion  of  ancient 
Egypt  seems  at  least  doubtful. 

e  So  Dr.  Stewart  (The  Tent  and  the  Khan,  p.  147', 
says,  "that  it  was  a  place' of  idohitrous  wor.'ihip  befoM 
the  passage  of  the  children  of  Israel  is  extremely  prob 
able."     He  renders  the  name  by  "  Lord  banl." 

/  Geosr.  xiv.  593. 


SINAI 

is  nearly  inaccessible.  It  is  ri,oie  to  the  purpose  to 
jbserve  that  the  whole  Jebti  Milsii  is,  conipar:i- 
tively  with  adjacent  iiioimiaiiis,  iiisiijnificant;  "its 
prospect  limited  in  tlie  east,  south,  and  west,  by 
higlier  mountains  "  (Riippell,"  quoted  by  Robinson, 
i.  105,  note;  conip.  Seetzen,  7ic«e/(,  vol.  ii.  p.  9.3); 
that  it  is  -'remote  and  almost  concealed."  But 
the  high  ground  of  Serbdl  being  rejected  for  the 
above  reasons,  and  no  voice  ha\iiig  ever  been  raised 
iu  favor  of  tlie  Unt  Sh'iumtr,''  the  highest  point  in 
the  peninsula,  lying  S.  W.  of  tlie  Miisn,  some  such 
secondary  and  oversiiadowed  peak  must  be  assumed. 
The  conjunction  of  mountain  with  plain  is  the 
greatest  feature  of  this  site;  in  choosing  it,  we  lose 
iu  the  mountain,  as  compared  with  Si^rbal^  but  we 
gain  in  the  plain,  of  which  Strbdl  has  nothing. 
Yet  the  view  from  tlie  plain  appears  by  no  means 
wanting  in  features  of  majesty  and  awe  (S.  c/-  P. 
pp.  42,  43).  Dr.  Stanley  remarked  {S.  f  P.  p.  43) 
Bome  alluvial  mounds  at  the  foot  of  the  cliff 
"  which  exactly  answered  to  the  bounds  "  set  to 
restrain  ihe  people.  In  this  long  retiring  sweep  of 
tr-litihah,  the  people  could  "  remove  and  stand 
afar  off;  "  for  it  "  e.xtends  into  the  lateral  valleys," 
and  so  joins  the  IVady  es-Sheykli  (ibid.  p.  74).  Here 
too  JMoses,  if  he  came  down  through  one  of  the 
oblique  gullies  which  flank  the  li  is  ISuga/'ck  on  the 
N  and  S-,  might  not  see  the  camp,  although  he 
might  catch  its  noise,  till  he  emerged  from  the 
[Viidy  ed-Deir,  or  the  Wiuly  Lejd,  on  the  plain 
itself.  In  the  latter,  also,  is  found  a  brook  in  close 
connection  with  the  mountain. 

Still  there  is  the  name  of  the  Jt:bel  Musa  be- 
longing to  the  opposite  or  S.  E.  peak  or  precipice, 
overhanging  es-Sthaijeh.  Lepsius  treats  this  as  a 
monkish  legend  unknown  before  the  convent;  Imt 
there  is  the  name  Wudy  Sliotudb  (\alley  of  Hobab 
or  Jethro,  S.  4'  P-  P-  32),  the  Wudy  Lejd  and 
Jebtl  Fureid  (perhaps  from  tlie  forms  in  Arabic 
legend  of  the  names  of  his  two  daughtei's  Llj'n  and 
Siifaria^  Zipporah),  forming  a  group  of  Mosaic 
tradition.  Is  it  not  possible  that  the  Jebtl  Mas  i, 
or  loftiest  southeastern  peak  of  that  block  of  which 
the  modern  Horeb  is  the  lower  and  opposite  end, 
may  have  been  the  spot  to  which  Moses  retired, 
leaving  the  peoiile  encamped  in  er-linhuli  below, 
from  which  its  ilistance  is  not  above  three  miles  ? 
That  the  sjxit  is  out  of  sight  from  that  plain  is 
hardly  a  ditticulty,  for  "  the  mountain  liurning 
with  fire  to  the  midst  of  heaven  "  was  what  the 
people  saw  (Ueut.  iv.  11);  and  this  would  give  a 
reasonable  distance  for  the  spot,  somewhere  mid- 
way, when  36  the  elders  enjoyed  a  partial  vision  of 
God  (K.K.  xxiv.  9,  10). 

Tradition,  no  doubt  in  this  case  purely  monkish, 
has  fixed  on  a  spot  for  Elijah's  visit  — '■'ilte  cave, 
to  which  he  repaired;  but  one  at  Serbdl  would 
equally  suit  {S.  (.f  P.  p.  49).  That  on  the  Jebei 
Musa  is  called  the  chapel  of  St.  Ellas.  It  has 
beea  thought  possible  that  St.  Paul  may  have  vis- 


SINAI 


3053 


a  It  should  be  added  that  Riippell  (Lepsius,  p.  12) 
'ook  Gebel  Katherin  for  Horeb,  but  that  there  are 
fewer  features  in  its  favor,  as  compared  with  the  his- 
tory, than  almost  any  other  site  (Robiuson,  i.  110). 

ft  Though  Dr.  Stanley  (S.  ^  P.  p.  .39,  note)  states 
that  it  has  oeeu  "  explored  by  Mr.  Hogg,  who  tells  me 
'hat  it  meets  none  of  the  special  requiremeuts." 

c  See  the  work  of  Professor  lieer  of  Leipsic  on  this 
,urious  question.  Mr.  Korster'j  attempt  (  Voice  of 
Israel,  from  the  lioekf  of  Sinai)  fo  regard  them  as 
I  contenii.orary  record  of  the  Exodus  by  the  Israelites 
IDTOlviig  this  auachronism  :   the  events  of  the  fortieth 


ited  Sinai  (Gal.  i.  17),  and  been  familiar  with  the 
name  Hiijar    {y^\^)  as  given  commonly  to  it, 

signifying  "  a  rock."  (Ewald,  Senckchreiben,  p. 
493.) 

It  may  be  added  that,  supposing  Wadt/  Tuyibeh 
to  have  been  the  encampment  "  by  the  sea,"  a.s 
stated  in  >«ura  xxxiii.  10,  three  routes  opened 
there  before  the  Israelites:  the  most  southerly  one 
(taken  liy  Shawe  and  Pococke)  down  the  plain  el- 
Kda  to  Tai' ;  the  most  northerly  (Robinson's)  by 
the  Sdrbut  e(-Khadeiu  (either  of  which  would  have 
left  Serbal  out  of  their  line  of  march);  and  the 
middle  one  by  IVa  /y  Feirdn,  by  which  they  would 
pass  the  foot  of  Serbal,  which  therefore  in  this 
case  alone  could  possibly  be  Sinai  (Stanley,  S.  (/ 
P.  pp.  3t>,  37).  .Just  east  of  the  Jebel  J/us7,  .across 
the  narrow  ravine  named  Slmuuib,  lies  ed-Deii-,  or 
the  convent  mountain,  called  also,  from  a  local 
legend  (Stanley,  p.  46;  Robinson,  i.  98),  '-the 
•Mount  of  tlie  Burning  Bush."  Tradition  has 
also  fixed  on  a  hollow,  rock  in  the  plain  of  the 
IViidy  es-Sheykl),  on  which  the  modern  Moreb 
looks,  as  "  the  (moidd  of  the)  head  of  the  cow," 
L  e.  in  which  the  golden  calf  was  shaped  by  Aaron. 
In  the  ravine  called  Lejd,  parallel  to  Shouuib  on 
the  western  side  of  the  Jebel  Musa,  lies  what  is 
called  the  rock  of  Moses  (see  Rkphidim);  and  a 
iiole  in  the  ground  near,  in  the  plain,  is  called,  by 
manifest  error,  the  "pit  of  Korah,"  whose  catas- 
trophe took  place  far  away  (Robinson,  i.  113;  Le{> 
sius,  p.  19). 

The  middle  route  aforesaid  from  W.  Tinjibeh 
reaches  the  IF.  Feirdn  through  what  is  called  the 
[V.  MulciiUeb,  or  "  written  valley,"  from  the  in- 
scriptions on  the  rocks  which  line  it,''  generally 
considered  to  have  been  the  work  of  Christian 
hands,  but  whether  those  of  a  Christian  people 
localized  there  at  an  unknown  period,  as  Lepsius  '' 
(p.  90)  thinks,  or  of  passing  pilgrims,  as  is  the 
more  general  opinion,  is  likely  to  continue  doubtful. 

It  is  remarkalile  that  the  names  of  the  chief 
peaks  seem  all  borrowed  from  their  peculiarities  of 

vegetation:   thus   Uiii   Shomr''   (y^Aw  i**)  means 

"mother    of    fennel;"    Has    Sasd/'eh     (properly 

SuJ'sa/eh,  iUL»aJl.jsO)  is  "  willow-head,"  a  group 

of  two  or  three  of  which  trees  grow  in  the  recesses 
of  the  adjacent  wady;  so  Serbdl  is  perhaps   from 

(jLjy-u<;  and,  from   analogy,  the  name  "  Sinai," 

now  unknown  amongst  the  Arabs  (unless  Sena, 
given  to  the  point  of  the  Jebel  Fureid,  opposite  to 
the  modern  Horeb  (Stanley,  p.  42),  contain  a  trace 

of  it),  may  be  supposed  derived  from  the  LLw 
and  ULw,  the  tree  of  the  Burning  Bush.     The 


year  —  e.  g.  the  plague  of  fiery  serpents  — are  repre- 
sented as  recorded  close  on  the  same  spot  with  what 
took  place  before  the  people  reaohed  Siuai  ;  and  al- 
though the  route  which  they  took  cannot  be  traced  in 
all  its  parts,  yet  all  the  evidmice  and  all  the  prciiahil- 
ity  of  the  question  is  clearly  against  their  ever  haviug 
returned  from  Kadesh  aud  the  Arabah  to  the  valleys 
west  of  Siuai. 

<'  Arguing  from  the  tiict  that  these  inscriptions  oc- 
cur not  only  on  roads  leading  out  of  Egypt,  but  in  I  he 
most  secluded  spots,  and  on  rocks  lying  quite  out  of 
the  main  roads. 


8054  SINAI 

fegetation  "  of  the  peninsula  is  most  copious  at  el- 
Wady,  near  lYir.  on  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez, 
Lq  the  ]Vady  Feiran  [see  Ukphidiji],  the  two 
oases  of  its  waste,  and  "  in  the  nucleus  of  springs 
in  the  Gebel  Mousa "  (Stanley,  p-  19).  For  a 
fuller  account  of  its  flora,  see  Wilderness  ok 
THE  Wandehing.  As  regards  its  fauna,  Seetzen 
(iii.  20)  mentions  the  following  animals  as  found 
lit  er-liamleh,  near  Sinai:  the  wild  goat,  the  wub- 
ber,  hyena,  fox,  hare,  gazelle,  panther  (rare),  field- 
mouse  (el-Dscliurdy,  like  a  jerboa),  and  a  lizard 
called  el-Dsob,  which  is  eaten.  11.  H. 

*  The  names  Horeb  and  Sinai  are  used  inter- 
changeably. At  the  first  Horeb  had  prec-edence. 
lieing  "the  mountain  of  God  "  to  Moses  prior  to 
the  giving  of  the  Law  (Ex.  iii.  1,  12,  iv.  27,  xvii 
6,  xviii.  5).  Sinai  is  first  mentioned  after  the 
battle  of  Rephidim  (Ex.  xix.  1,  2);  and  this  name 
is  thenceforth  prominent  until  tiie  breaking  up  of 
the  encampment  in  that  wilderness,  as  recorded  in 
Num.  X.  12.  But  in  the  recapitulation  of  this 
journey  by  jMoses,  Horeb  is  spoken  of  as  the  point 
of  departure  (Ueut.  i.  2,  6,  lU).  Horeb  is  named 
as  the  mountain  from  which  "  the  Lord  spake  out 
of  the  midst  of  the  fire,"  and  upon  which  He 
wrote  the  ten  commandments  (L)eut.  iv.  10,  15). 
Horeb  also  was  the  scene  of  the  transgi-ession  in 
the  golden  calf  (Deut.  ix.  8).  The  covenant  was 
made  at  Horeb  (Deut.  xxix.  1).  In  the  books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles  (1  K.  viii.  9,  xix.  3 ;  2  Chr 
V.  10),  Horeb  is  named  as  the  scene  of  the  Law; 
while  in  the  Psalms  both  names  are  used  for  the 
same  jilace;  Sinai  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  8,  17,  and  Horeli 
Ps.  cvi.  19.  INIountains  thus  closely  identified 
with  the  same  series  of  events  could  not  have  been 
far  apart;  and  the  best  solution  of  the  Biblical 
usage  in  respect  of  these  names  appears  to  lie  that 
which  makes  Horeb  the  central  mass  or  ridge,  of 
which  Sinai  was  a  prominent  peak.  See  Hitter, 
siv.  743;  Hengstenberg,  PeJi^o/eHc//,  ii.  325;  Rob- 
inson, i.  5"Jl;  Kurtz,  iii.  79;  Kalisch,  Comm.  on 
Exodus.  Bunsen,  Bibelwtrk,  gives  the  name 
Horeb  to  the  group  of  which  Siifsrifvh  and  Jebd 
Musii  are  peaks,  and  places  Sinai  opposite  to  Suf- 
SdJ'eli,  on  the  northern  side  of  the  plain. 

The  i;ev.  F.  W.  Holland,  Fellow  of  the  Royal 
Geographical  Society,  in  a  ])aper  read  before  the 
Society  in  1808,  gave  an  interesting  account  of  his 
minute  and  cai-efid  exploration  of  ihe  Sinaitic  re- 
gion. A  compendium  of  his  results  will  shed  light 
upon  several  points  hitherto  somewhat  in  doubt  or 
dispute. 

Ftrtilily  of  the  Desert.  —  "  The  lower  portion 
of  Wody  (ihurundel  is  one  of  the  most  fertile  in 
the  whole  peninsula.  It  is  nearly  300  yards  broad 
in  many  places,  and  thickets  of  tamarisks,  palms, 
and  beds  of  bulrushes  and  reeds  al)Ound,  and  wild 
ducks,  with  many  kinds  of  smaller  birds,  frequent 
the  pools,  formed  here  and  there  by  a  clear  stream 
of  running  water,  which  never  fails. 

"  Manna  and  gum  Arabic  appear  to  he  found  in 
very  small  quantities.  The  latter  exudes  from  the 
boughs  of  the  mimosa,  or  shittim-tree,  after  the 
young  shoots  have  been  lopped  oft"  in  spring  to 
feed  the  goats. 

"  ^\'ater  is  not  nearly  so  scarce  in  the  granitic 
district  as  most  travellers  have  supjwsed.  There 
Is  also  a  far  larger  amount  of  vegetation  than  usu- 
ally  described.       [This  was  in  October  and   No 

a  For  a  full  account  of  th>>  climate  and  vegetation, 
Schubert  (K'is4'i,  ii.  351)  may  he  consulted. 


SINAI 

vember.]  The  basins  on  the  summits  of  the 
niountahis  generally  afford  good  pasturage,  and 
even  tlie  mountain  sides,  whicli  look  so  barren 
from  the  wadies  below,  are  often  covered  with 
numerous  plants  on  which  the  goats  delight  to 
feed.  Many  of  the  smaller  wadies,  too,  are  aston- 
ishingly fertile,  and  in  former  days,  when  fairly 
cultivated  by  the  monks,  must  have  yielded  abun- 
dance of  fruit,  vegetaliles,  and  even  corn,  for  I 
found  traces  in  several  spots  of  terraced  plots  evi- 
dently laid  out  for  growing  corn.  I  can  readily 
believe  that  at  one  time  6,000  or  7,000  monks  and 
hermits  lived,  as  we  are  told,  in  these  mountains, 
and  were  eualded  in  great  measure,  perhaps  alto- 
gether, to  support  themselves  by  the  cultivation  of 
the  soil.  In  If.  Jliik  alone,  in  addition  to  a  fine 
grove  of  olives  near  the  ruins  of  an  old  monastery, 
there  is  for  i/iree  miles  a  constant  succession  of 
gardens,  each  garden  having  in  it  two  good  wells 
which  never  fail,  and  producing  olives,  pears,  ap- 
]iles.  vines,  figs,  palms,  nebk,  carroub,  apricot, 
nudberry,  pomegranate,  and  poplar  trees;  while 
above  and  below  these  gardens  runs  a  stream  of 
water  which  affords  here  and  there  a  pool  large 
and  deep  enough  to  swim  in." 

All  this  confirms  the  view  that  die  sustentation 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  was  not  exclusively 
miraculous,  liut  the  resources  of  nature  were  sup- 
plemented by  special  intervention,  from  time  to 
time. 

The  Ama/ekiles.  —  Mr.  Holland  discovered  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Jebel  Iludeed,  "  the  Iron 
Mountain,"  remarkalile  ruins  of  buildings  and 
tombs.  These  were  constructed  of  undressed 
stones,  of  large  size,  laid  together  without  mortar. 
The  buildings  were  apparently  designed  for  store- 
bouses,  having  no  windows;  the  tombs  contained 
human  bones.  From  the  extent  of  these  struc- 
tures, and  their  massive  workmanship,  JNIr.  Hol- 
land concludes  that  they  must  have  been  built  by 
a  large  and  powerful  people ;  and  he  is  disposed  to 
refer  them  to  the  Amalekites. 

The  Trite  Sinai.  —  After  a  careful  exploration 
of  each  point,  Mr.  Holland  rejects  Serbal  and 
Oiljimh  as  the  Biblical  Sinai,  since  "  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  former  thei'e  is  no  phtin,  in  the 
latter  range  there  is  no  one  distinct  mou/iiain." 
He  suggests  as  a  possible  competitor  to  Jebel 
Afits'i,  Jebel  UmAlowee,  "  the  Mother  of  Heights." 
The  road  to  the  two  is  the  same  up  to  the  last  five 
or  six  miles;  both  rise  almost  precipitously  from 
the  pl.ains  beneath  them;  but  J.  Urn  Aloivee  has 
the  advantage  of  much  the  larger  plain  —  Semied, 
which  contains  about  thirty  square  miles  of  good 
camping  ground. 

Jtoute  of  the  Jsroelites. — Jlr.  Holland  is  of 
opinion  that  Ain  Jhilherah,  commonly  identified 
as  llazeroth,  could  not  have  been  one  of  the  sta- 
tions of  the  Israelites,  since  it  lies  in  a  cul-de-sac, 
and  can  be  approached  only  by  a  steep  narrow 
pass.  "  After  crossing  the  Red  Sea  somewhere  in 
the  neisihborhood  of  Suez,  the  Israelites  took  the 
lower  road  down  the  jilain  along  the  coast  as  far 
as  Ain  Szvuiceira,  which  may  possibly  mark  the 
locality  of  Marah.  They  then  turned  inland  to 
F.lim,  which  I  would  place  at  Ain  IJownra.  Their 
next  encampment  was  by  the  sea,  possibly  near  the 
mouth  of  IF.  Ghurnndel,  where  was  abundance 
of  water."  The  wilderness  of  Sin  is  the  ])lain  of 
es-Seyh.  Dofhkah  was  in  the  neii^hborhood  of 
W.  Keveh,  near  Lib-el-chei::  Alush,  at  IT.  tl. 
Ash,  a  broad  wadv  uniting  with   W.  £eiiih,  uol 


^SBB^ 


SINIM 

fu  fix)m  W.  es-Sheikh.  Rephidim,  l\rr.  Holland 
fixes  at  a  point  in  W.  es-Slieikk  about  10  miles 
from  Jeliel  Mns((,  at  the  gorge  of  the  "  Mukad 
Ntbi  Musk,"  the  "seat  of  the  Prophet  Moses." 
This  would  have  given  the  Amalekites  strates;ic 
advantages  for  surprising  the  Israelites  on  their 
march. 

It  was  mainly  at  the  instance  of  JMr.  Holland, 
and  under  the  stimulus  of  his  energetic  example, 
that  a  scientific  corps  was  sent  out  in  ]8GU,  to 
explore  the  peninsula  of  Arabia  l'etra;a.  I'he  re- 
port of  this  expedition  must  give  light  upon  many 
disputed  points,  but  it  caimot  be  obtained  in  time 
foi'  use  in  this  article.  J.  P.  T. 

SINIM  (C'^^'^P:  [nepaai:  ierra  auslmlls]), 
a  people  noticed  in  Is.  xlix.  12,  as  living  at  the 
extremity  of  the  known  world,  either  in  the  south 
or  east.  'I'he  majority  of  the  ear^-  interpreters 
adopted  the  former  view,  but  the  LXX.  in  giving 
Uepaai  favors  the  latter,  and  the  weight  of  modern 
authority  is  thrown  into  the  same  scale,  the  name 
being  identified  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Knobel,  and 
others,  with  the  classical  Hiiue,  the  iidiabitants  of 
the  southern  part  of  C/dna.  No  locality  in  the 
south  equally  commends  itself  to  the  judgment: 
Sin,  the  classical  Pelusium,  which  Hochart  (Phnle;/, 
iv.  27)  suggests,  is  too  near,  and  Syene  (Michaelis, 
S/)iciL  ii.  32)  would  have  been  given  in  its  well- 
known  Hebrew  form.  There  is  no  a  pi-iori  im- 
probability in  the  name  of  the  SiniE  being  known 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Western  Asia  in  the  age  of 
Isaiah;  for  tliough  it  is  not  mentioned  by  the 
Greek  geographers  until  the  age  of  Ptolemy,  it  is 
certain  that  an  inland  commercial  route  connected 
the  extreme  East  with  the  West  at  a  very  early 
period,  and  that  a  traffic  was  maintained  on  the 
frontier  of  China  between  the  Sime  and  the  Scyth- 
ians, in  the  manner  still  followed  by  the  Chinese 
and  the  Russians  at  Kiuclit<i.  If  any  name  for 
these  Chinese  traders  travelled  westward,  it  would 
probably  be  that  of  the  Siuie,  whose  town  Thime 
(another  form  of  the  Sinae)  wa.s  one  of  the  great 
emporiinns  in  the  western  part  of  China,  and  is 
represented  by  the  modern  Tlisiii  or  Tin,  in  the 
province  of  Scliensi.  The  Sin^e  attained  an  inde- 
pendent position  in  Western  China  as  early  as  the 
8th  century  n.  c,  and  in  the  3d  century  b.  c. 
established  their  sway  under  the  dynasty  of  Tsiu 
over  the  whole  of  the  empire.  The  liabbinical 
name  of  China,  Tsin,  as  well  as  "China"  itself, 
was  derived  from  this  dynasty  (Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.). 

W.  L.  B. 

SI'NITE  CT^:  'Ao-ewaZos;  [in  Chr.,  Rom. 
Vat.  omit:]  ZincBvs).  A  tribe  of  Canaanites 
(Gen.  X.  17;  1  Chr.  i.  15),  whose  position  is  to  be 
sought  for  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Lelianon 
district.  Various  locaUties  in  that  district  bear  a 
certain  amount  of  resemblance  to  the  name,  par- 
ticularly Sinna,  a  mountain  fortress  mentioned  by 
Stralw  (xvi.  p.  755);  Siuum  or  Sini,  the  ruins  of 
which  existed  in  the  time  of  .Jerome  (  Qmest.  in 
Gen.  1.  c);  Syn,  a  village  mentioned  in  the  15th 
century  as  near  the  river  Area  (Gesen.  Then.  p. 
948);  and  Dunniyeh,  a  district  near  Trijxili  (Rob- 
inson's Researches,  ii.  4iJ4).  The  Targums  of  On- 
telos  and  Jon.athan  give  Orthosia,  a  town  oi.  the 
joast  to  the  northeast  of  Trijjolis.  W.  L.  B. 

SI'ON,   MOUNT.     I.    (fS'^tp  ~in    [lofiy 

mount]:  Samar.  ^lS''£i7  "lit  :  rb  upo^  tov  'S.ridiV- 
WOW  Sjon).    One  of  the  various  names  of  Mount 


SIPPAI 


3056 


Hermou  which  are  fortunately  preserved,  all  not 
improbably  more  ancient  than  "  Hermon  "  itself. 
It  occurs  in  Deut.  \\.  48  only,  and  is  interpreted 
by  the  lexicographers  to  mean  "  lofty."  Fiirs 
conjectures  that  these  various  appellations  were  the 
names  of  separate  peaks  or  portions  of  the  moun- 
tain. Some  have  supposed  that  Zion  in  Ps.  cxxxiii. 
•3  is  a  variation  of  this  Sion ;  but  there  is  no  war- 
rant for  this  beyond  the  fact  that  so  doing  over- 
comes a  ditiiculty  of  interpretation  in  that  pas- 
sage." 

2.  {rh  ijpos  'S.iMv;  i"  Heb.  S.loiv  lipos-  wons 
^wrt. )  The  Greek  form  of  the  Helirew  name 
Zion  (Tsion),  the  famous  Mount  of  the  Temple 
(1  Mace.  iv.  37,  GO,  v.  54,  vi.  48,  62,  vii.  33,  x.  11,  • 
xiv.  27;  Heb.  xii.  22;  Rev.  xiv.  1).  In  the 
liooks  of  Maccabees  the  expression  is  always  Mount 
Sion.  In  the  other  Apocryphal  Books  the  name 
Sion  is  alone  employed.  Further,  in  the  Macca- 
liees  the  name  unmistakably  denotes  the  mount  on 
which  the  Temple  was  built;  on  which  the  mosque 
of  the  Akga^  with  its  attendant  mosques  of  Omar 
and  the  Mogrebbins,  now  stands.  The  first  of  the 
passages  just  quoted  is  enough  to  decide  this.  If 
it  can  be  established  that  Zion  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment means  the  same  locality  with  Sion  in  the 
books  of  iMaccabees,  one  of  the  greatest  puzzles  of 
.lerusalem  topography  will  be  solved.  This  will  be 
examined  under  Zion.  G. 

*  There  can  be  scarcely  a  question  that  in  the 
passages  abo\e  vjuoted  from  Maccabees,  Sion  is 
synonymous  with  Jerusalem  —  as  in  Isa.  ii.  3: 
"  for  out  of  ZiuH  shall  go  forth  the  law,  and  the 
word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem,"  and  in  Ps. 
cxlvii.  12:  "Praise  the  Lord,  O  Jerusakiii,  praise 
thy  God,  O  Ziu7i '"  —  where  the  words  are  parallel, 
and  each  clause  has  the  same  meaning.  Accepting 
.Sion  in  the  books  of  Maccabees,  as  the  same  local- 
ity with  Zion  in  the  Old  Testament  used  in  this 
general  sense,  we  ha\e  no  great  puzzle  of  .lerusalem 
topography  to  be  solved.  The  examination  pro- 
posed in  the  last  line  was  for  some  reason  not  insti- 
tuted. S.  W. 

SIPH'MOTH  (nSl^Cb  ifruHful  places, 
Fiirst]:  [Rom.  2a(^i;  Vat.]'  Sac^ei!  Alex.  2a(^a- 
jjicos-  Sephiiiiwtli).  One  of  the  places  in  the  south 
of  .ludah  which  David  frequented  during  his  free- 
booting  life,  and  to  his  friends  in  which  he  sent  a 
portion  of  the  spoil  taken  from  the  Amalekites.  It 
IS  named  only  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  28.  It  is  not  named 
by  Eusebius  or  Jerome.  No  one  appears  yet  to 
have  discovered  or  even  suggested  an  identification 
of  it.  G. 

*  In  1  Chr.  xxvii.  27,  Zabdi,  one  of  D.avid's  pur- 
veyors, is  called  the  Shiphmite,  not  improbalil} 
i)ecause  he  belonged  to  Siphmoth.  The  connnuta- 
tion  of  sli  and  s  is  easily  made,  and  a  few  MSS. 
actually  read  Shipnioth  instead  of  Siphmoth  in 
1  Sam.  xxx.  28.  Thenius  suggests  on  this  last 
passage  {Biicher  Saiiitiels),  that  Siphmoth  may  be 
the  same  as  Siiephani  (Num.  xxxiv.  10,  11)  in  the 
east  part  of  Judah.  This  is  a  mere  conjecture, 
though  it  agrees  with  1  Chr.  xxvii.  27,  for  Zabdi'i 
office  would  require  him  to  be  at  no  great  distance 
from  David's  coiu't.  H. 

SIP'PAI  [2  syl.]  C'QD  [thresfwhl,  bowl]: 
2,a((>ovT;  Alex,  ^ecprpi:  Siphd'i).     One  of  the  sons 

a  *  This  supposition,  instead  of"  overrmning  s 
ditiiculty,  only  adds  another  and  greater.  Sue  Hat- 
MON,  vol.  ii.  p.  1047,  uote  a  (Amer.  ed.).  S.  W 


305fi 


SIRACH 


of  the  Rephaim,  or  '*  the  giants,"  slain  by  Sibbe- 
cliai  the  Hushathite  at  Gezer  (1  (Jhr.  xx.  -I).  In 
2  Sam.  sxi.  18  he  is  called  Saph. 

SI'RACH  (2eipax,  2ipax-  Sirach:  in  Rab- 
binic writers,  S'T'D)^  the  father  of  Jesus  (Joshua), 
the  writer  of  the  Hebrew  original  of  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiasticus.  [Ecclesiasticus;  Jesus,  the 
Son   ok   StKACH.]  B.  F.  W. 

SI'RAH  [departure,  nposinsy],  THE  WELL 

OF  (n^Sn  "115 :  rh  <ppiap  Tov  ^mpdfj.,  in 
both  ilSS. :  cislerna  Siva).  The  spot  from  which 
Vbner  was  recalled  by  Joab  to  his  death  at  lIel)ron 
•  (2  Saui.  iii.  26  only).  It  was  apparently  on  the 
northern  road  from  Hebron  —  that  by  which  Abner 
would  naturally  return  through  Bahurim  (ver.  IfJ) 
to  Mahanaim.  There  is  a  sjjring  and  reservoir  on 
the  western  side  of  tlie  ancient  northern  road, 
about  one  mile  out  of  Hebron,  which  is  called  Ain 
S((ra,  and  gives  its  name  to  the  little  valley  in 
which  it  lies  (see  Dr.  Rozen's  paper  on  Hebron,  in 
the  Zeitsdirift  iler  D.  M.  G.  xii.  486,  and  the 
excellent  map  accompanying  it).  This  may  be  a 
relic  of  the  well  of  Sirah.  It  is  mentioned  as  far 
back  as  the  12th  century  by  Kabbi  Betachia,  but 
the  correspondence  of  the  name  with  that  of  Sirah 
seems  to  ha\'e  escaped  notice.  G. 

SIRTON   (]''"]tr',"  i.  e.  Siryon,  in  Deut.,  but 

in  Ps.  xxix.  ]''*'"1tt7,  Shiryon  [see  below] :  Samar. 

]^~1JZ7;  Sam.  Vers.  'J2~' :  ^.aviiop  ;  [Comp.  2a- 
pidi/-]  Siir'wn).  One  of  the  various  names  of 
Mount  Hermon,  that  by  which  it  was  known  to 
the  Zidonians  (Ueut.  iii.  9).     The  word  is  almost 

identical  with  that  (]'^'"iD)  which  in  Hebrew  de- 
notes a  "  breastplate  "  or  "  cuirass,"  and  Gesenius 
therefore  expresses  his  lielief  that  it  was  applied  in 
this  sense  to  the  mountain,  just  as  tlie  name  Thorax 


a  No  variation  from  XD  to  ti7,  or  the  reverse,  is 
noticed  in  D.Jderleiu  and  Meisuer,  on  either  occurrence 
of  the  name.  [It  exists,  however ;  see  Michaelis's 
BM.  Hehr.  on  Deut.  iii.  9.  —  A.] 

''  *  Capt.  W'arreu  reports  some  later  observations 
respecting  Sirion  or  Hermon,  and  corrects  several  minor 
inaccuracies  of  previovis  travellers.  He  makes  the 
heii;ht  of  Hermon  9,0U0  feet  above  the  level  of  the 
Mediterranean,  and  not  10,000  as  in  Murray's  Hand- 
book, ii.  455.  The  curious  line  of  stones  around  the 
southern  peak  of  the  three  summits  is  oval  and  not 
circular,  and  may  have  been  for  the  same  purpose  as 
the  Knaba  at  Mecca.  The  existing  temples  on  Hermon 
probably  were  not  devoted  to  the  older  sun-worship 
(standin;;  in  fact  where  the  sun  is  not  visible  until 
hours  after  it  has  risen),  and  the  entrances  are  not  on 
the  west  so  as  to  bring  the  worshipper's  face  toward 
the  sun-rising  as  to  a  kibieh,  but  all  of  them  open 
toward  the  east.  The  inscriptions  on  the  temples 
about  Hermon  ai-e  mostly  Grecian,  nearly  all  of  them 
so  defaced  that  only  a  few  letters  in  each  line  can  be 
deeipliered.  (Athcno'iim,  Feb.  12,  1870,  and  (.litarterly 
Report  of  the  Pal.  Expl.  Fund,  No.  iv.,  18G9.)       H. 

c  Gesenius  {Lex.  s.  v.),  by  comparison  with  the 
Syriac,  interprets  the  name  as  "  battle-array."  Fiirst, 
on  the  other  hand  (Handwb.  ii.  279),  gives  as  its 
equivalent  PVr/n/^f^/oig-,  the  nearest  approach  to  which 
is  perhaps  "lieutenant."  Asa  Canaanite  word  its  real 
BJgnifica.iwi  is  probably  equally  wide  of  either. 

d  The  site  of  Haroshetu  has  not  yet  been  identified 
with  certainty.  IJut  since  the  publication  of  vol.  i. 
iie  writer  observes  that  Dr,  Thomson  (Lam I  aivl  Book, 
)b.  ixix.)  has  suggested  a  site  which  seems  possible, 


SISERA 

(which  has  the  same  meaning)  was  given  to  s 
mountain  in  Magnesia.  This  is  not  supported  bj 
tlie  Samaritan  Version,  the  renderin*  in  which  — 
Rabbnn — seems  to  be  equivalent  to  Jebd  esh- 
Sliei/kh,  the  ordinary,  though  not  the  only  modern 
name  of  the  mountain.  [HEKMO^',  vol.  ii.  p 
1048.] 

The  use  of  the  name  in  Ps.  xxix.  6  (slightly 
altered  in  the  original — •  Shirion  instead  of  Sirion) 
is  remarkalile,  though,  bearing  in  mind  the  occur- 
rence of  Shenir  in  Solomon's  Song,  it  can  hardly 
be  used  as  an  argument  for  the  antiquity  of  the 
psalm.''  G- 

SIS'AMAI  [3  syl.]  C^^DD  {distingiRshed, 
Fiirst]  :  2o(ro/xa'i' :  Huaindl).  A  descendant  of 
Sheshan  in  the  line  of  Jerahmeel  (1  Chr.  ii.  40). 

SIS'ERA  (Snp^'pc  [perh.  battle-army, 
Ges.]  :  2€i(rapa,  2io'apa  ;  Joseph,  o  2i(rc£pr)s  : 
Sisnra).  Captain  (^ti?)  of  the  army  of  Jabin 
king  of  Canaan  who  reigned  in  Hazor.  He  him- 
self resided  in  Harosheth  </  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
particulars  of  the  rout  of  Megiddo  and  of  Sisera's 
flight  and  death  are  drawn  out  under  the  heads  of 
Bakak,  Debouah,  Jael,  Kemtes,  Kishon, 
Mantle,  Tent.  They  have  been  recently  elabo- 
rated, and  combined  into  a  living  whole,  with  great 
attention  to  detail,  yet  without  any  sacrifice  of 
force,  by  Professor  Staidey,  in  his  Lectures  on  the 
flist.  of  tlie  Jewisli  Cliurcli,  Lect.  xiv.  To  that 
accurate  and  masterly  picture  we  refer  our  readers. 

The  army  was  mustered  at  the  Kishon  on  the 
plain  at  the  foot  of  the  slopes  of  Lejjun.  Partly 
owing  to  the  furious  attack  of  Barak,  partly  to  the 
impa.ssable  condition  of  the  plain,  and  partly  to  the 
unwieldy  nature  of  the  host  itself,  which,  amongst 
other  impediments,  contained  000  «  iron  chariots  — 
a  horrible  confusion  and  rout  took  jilace.  Sisera 
deserted  his  troops  and  fled  off  on  foot.      He  took 


and  invites  further  examination.  This  is  a  Tell  or 
mound  on  the  north  side  of  the  Kishon,  in  the  S.  E. 
corner  of  the  plain  of  Akka,  just  behind  the  hills  which 
sepai-ate  it  from  the  larger  plain  of  .Jezreel.  The  Tell 
advances  close  to  the  foot  of  Carmel,  and  allows  only 
room  for  the  passage  of  the  river  l)etween  tliem.  Its 
name  is  variously  given  as  Huroth'ieh  (Thomson), 
Harlhijjeli  (Schulz).  Hiirshiyeh  (Robinson),  Hnrti  (Vau 
de  Velde),  and  fl-Hartiyelt.  The  latter  is  the  form 
given  in  the  official  list  made  for  the  writer  in  1861  by 
Consul  Rogers,  and  is  probably  accurate.  Dr.  Thom- 
son —  apparently  the  only  traveller  who  has  examined 
the  spot  —  speaks  of  the  Tell  as  "  covered  with  the 
remains  of  old  walls  and  buildings,''  in  which  he  sees 
the  relics  of  the  ancient  castle  of  Sisera.  [Harosheth, 
Amer.  ed.] 

e  The  number  of  Jabiu's  standing  army  is  given  by 
Josephus  {Ant.  v.  5,  §  1)  as  300,000  footmen,  10,000 
horsemen,  and  3.000  chariots.  These  numbers  are 
large,  but  they  are  nothing  to  those  of  the  Jewish 
legends.  Sisera  "  had  40.000  generals,  every  one  of 
whom  had  100,000  men  under  him.  He  was  thirty 
years  old,  and  had  conquered  the  whole  world :  and 
there  was  not  a  place  the  walls  of  which  did  not  fall 
down  at  his  voice.  When  he  shouted  the  very  beasts 
of  the  field  were  riveted  to  their  places.  900  horses 
went  in  his  chariot'"  (  Jnlkut  ad  loc).  "  Thirty -one 
kings  (comp.  Josh.  xii.  '24)  went  with  Sisera  and  wer« 
killed  with  him.  They  thirsted  after  the  wafers  of 
the  land  of  Israel,  and  they  asked  and  prayed  Sisera 
to  take  them  with  him  without  further  reward ' 
(comp.  Judg.  V.  19i.  {Ber.  Rab.  ch.  23.)  The  writei 
is  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Oeutscb  for  thes* 
extracts 


SISINNES 

a,  northeast  direction,  possibly  throuyti  Nazareth 
and  Safed,  or,  if  tliat  direct  road  was  closed  to  him, 
stole  aloni;  by  more  circuitous  routes  till  he  found 
himself  before  the  tents  of  lieber  the  Ivenite,  near 
Kedesh,  on  the  high  <,fround  overlooking  the  upper 
basin  of  the  Jordan  Valley.  Here  he  met  his  death 
fi'ora  the  hands  of  Jael,  Ueber  s  wife,  who,  although 
"  at  peace  "  with  him,  was  under  a  much  more 
Btringent  relation  with  the  house  of  Israel  (-'udg. 
iv  i-i-l,  V.  2i),  2ii,  '28,  aU).  [IviiNiTKs,  vol.  ii.  p. 
1530.]  His  name  long  sur\ived  as  a  word  of  fear 
and  of  exultation  in  the  mouths  of  prophets  and 
psalmists  (1  Sam.  xii.  9;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  !J) 

It  is  remarkable  that  from  this  enemy  of  the 
Jews  should  have  sprung  one  of  their  most  eminent 
characters.  The  great  Habbi  Akiba,  whose  fatlier 
was  a  Syrian  proselyte  of  justice,  was  descended 
from  Sisera  of  Harosheth  (IJartolocci,  iv.  272). 
The  part  which  he  took  in  the  Jewish  war  of  in- 
dependence, when  he  was  standard-bearer  to  Bar- 
eocba  (Otho,  //ist.  duct.  Misii.  13-i  note),  shows 
that  the  warlike  force  still  remained  in  the  blood 
of  Sisera. 

2.  (Siffapa,  S'trapafJ;  Alex.  Sitrapaa,  Sficapafl; 
[in  Ezr.,  Vat.  omits;  in  Xeh.,  Vat.  i".\  2,€creif>a9]-) 
Aft^r  a  long  interval  the  name  reappears  in  the 
lists  of  the  Netliinim  who  returned  from  the  Cap- 
tivity with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  53;  Neh.  vii.  55). 
The  number  of  foreign,  non-Israelite  names  "  which 
occur  in  these  invalualile  lists  has  been  already 
noticed  under  AIiinuxi.MS  (iii.  1875).  Sisera  is 
another  example,  and  doubtless  tells  of  Canaanite 
captives  devoted  to  the  lowest  offices  of  the  Temi>le, 
even  though  the  Sisera  from  whom  the  family  de- 
ri\ed  its  name  were  not  actually  the  same  person 
as  the  defeated  general  of  .labiii.  It  is  curious 
that  it  should  occur  in  close  companionship  with 
the  name  liarsha  (ver.  52)  which  irresistibly  recalls 
Harosheth. 

In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Esdr.  v.  32  Sisera  is 
given  as  Asekek.  G. 

SISIN'NES  fSKTiVcrjy:  Sisennes).  A  governor 
of  Syria  and  Phienicia  under  Darius,  and  a  cou 
temporary  of  Zerubiialiel  (1  Esdr.  vi.  3).  He  at- 
tempted to  stop  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  but 
was  ordai-ed  liy  Darius,  after  consulting  the  archives 
of  Cyrus's  reign,  to  adopt  the  opposite  course,  and 
to  forward  tlie  plans  of  Zerubbal)el  {Ujtd.  vi.  7, 
vii.  1).     In  Ezva,  he  is  called  Tatnai. 

*  SISTER'S  SON.  'Aue^pios,  so  translated 
Col.  iv.  10  (A.  v.),  should  be  rendered  ''cousin" 
in  accordance  with  its  use  both  in  the  LXX.  and 
in  classic  Greek.     See  Num.  xxxvi.  11,  and  LXX. 

(Heb.  nni  ^3?). 

It  has  been  suggested  (EUicott,  Col.  iv.  10, 
Trnnsl.)  that  the  term  ''sister's  son"  in  the 
A.  V.  may  be  an  archaism,  as  having  been  formerly 
used  like  the  German  Gtscltwistevkind,  in  tiie  sense 
of  "cousin."  Similarly  the  word  nephew  where- 
2ver  it  occurs  in  the  A.  V.   (J udg.  xii.    14;  Job 


SLAVE 


8057 


I 


«  MEnuNiM,  NEpniisiM,  Harsha,  Rezin. 

ft  In  tlie  A.  V.  of  vv.  20,  21,  two  entirely  distinct 
lebrew  worJs  are  each  reudered  "stride." 

<■  *  The  word  "  slave  "  occurs  in  the  English  Bible 
tnly  in  Jer.  ii.  1-i,  and  Rev.  xviii.  13,  and  four  times 
vu  the  Apocrypha.  As  the  word  was  not  uncomuiou 
b  writers  of  the  epoch  to  which  our  version  belongs, 
ihere  seems  to  have  been  a  siiecial  reason  for  this  ex- 
siusiou.  Trench  suggests  {Aalkorized  Version,  p.  104) 
that  tbe  traaslators  may  have  felt  that  the  modern 


xviii.  19;   Is.  xiv.  22;   1  Tim.  v.  4),  is  used  in  the 

now  obsolete  sense  of  yrandchlld,  descendant. 

D.  S.  T. 

SIT'NAH  (n3^tt7  [accusation,  strife]:  e'x 
Opia;  Joseph.  SiTej/j/i:  Iniiniciliee).  The  second  oi 
tlie  two  wells  dug  by  Isaac  in  the  valley  of  Ger.ar, 
and  tlie  possession  of  which  the  herdmen  of  the 
valley  disputed  with  him  (Gen.  xxvi.  21).  Like 
liie  first  one,  Esek,  it  received  its  name  from  the 
dis[)utes  which  took  place  over  it,  Silnak  meaning, 
as  is  staled  in  the  margin,  "hatred,"  or  more 
accurately  "accusation,"  Imt  the  play  of  expressieu 
lias  not  been  in  this  instance  pre.served  in  the  He- 
brew.''    The    LXX.,  however,  have  attempted  it: 

iKpivovTO  ....  ix^p'^"-  ^'^'®  ™''''  '*^"  '■''^  name 
is  the  same  as  that  of  Satan,  and  this  has  been 
taken  advantage  of  by  Aquila  and  Synnnachus, 
who  render  it  respectively  auTiKeifxevt]  and  eVav- 
Tiwais.  Of  the  situation  of  Esek  and  Sitnali 
nothing  whatever  is  known.     [Geuai:.]  G. 

SIVAN.     [Month.] 

*  SKIN.   [Badgek  Skins;  B(rrTLE;  Leatii- 

EE.] 

*  SKIRTS,  Ts.  cx.xxiii.  2.  See  Oixtmeni, 
vol.  iii.  p.  2214  b. 

SLAVE.*-"  The  institution  of  slavery  was  rec- 
ognized, though  not  established,  by  the  Mosaic  Law 
with  a  view  to  mitigate  its  hardships  and  to  secure 
to  e\ery  man  his  ordinary  rights.  Ilepugnant  as 
the  notion  of  slavery  is  to  our  minds,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  it  can  be  dispensed  with  in  certain 
phases  of  society  without,  at  all  events,  entailing 
severer  evils  than  those  which  it  produces.  Ex- 
clusiveness  of  race  is  an  instinct  that  gains  strength 
in  proportion  as  social  order  is  weak,  and  the  rights 
of  citizenship  are  regarded  with  peculiar  jealousy 
in  communities  which  are  exposed  to  contact  with 
aliens.  In  the  case  of  war,  carried  on  for  conquest 
or  revenge,  there  were  but  two  modes  of  dealing 
with  the  captives,  namely,  putting  them  to  death 
or  reducing  them  to  slavery.  The  same  may  be 
said  in  regard  lo  such  acts  and  outrages  as  dis- 
qualified a  person  for  the  society  of  his  fellow- 
citizens.  Again,  as  citizenship  involved  the  con- 
dition of  freedom  and  independence,  it  was  almost 
necessary  to  offer  the  alternative  of  disfranchisement 
to  all  who  through  poverty  or  any  other  contin- 
gency were  unable  to  support  themselves  in  inde- 
pendence. In  all  these  ca.ses  slavery  was  the  mildest 
of  the  alternatives  that  offered,  and  may  hence  iie 
regarded  as  a  blessing  rather  than  a  curse.  It 
should  further  be  noticed  that  a  laboring  class,  in 
our  sen.se  of  the  term,  was  almost  unknown  to  the 
nations  of  antiquity:  hired  service  was  regarded  as 
incompatil)le  with  freedom ;  and  hence  the  slave  in 
many  ca.ses  occupied  the  same  social  {X)sition  as 
the  servant  or  laborer  of  modern  times,  though 
differing  from  him  in  regard  to  political  status. 
The  Hebrew  designation  of  the  slave  shows  that 
service  was  the  salient  feature  of  his  condition ;  for 
the  term  ebed,<^  usually  applied  to  him,  is  derived 

term  conveys  an  idea  of  degradation  and  contempt 
which  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  equivalents  do  not  con- 
vey as  applied  to  the  ancient  system  of  servitude. 
Slare  (softened  from  sklave)  was  originally  a  national 
appellation,  Sktavonic  or  !<clavonir.  On  the  etymology 
of  the  word  see  Schmitthenner's  Wiirterh.  fiir  Kii/mitl- 
oii'ie,  etc.,  p.  447,  and  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fa  I  of  I  lit 
Roman  Empire,  ch.  It.  jl- 


3058  SLAVE 

from  a  verb  sii,'i)ifyiiig  "  to  work,"  and  the  very 
same  term  is  used  in  reference  to  otlices  of  high 
trust  held  by  free  men.  In  short,  service  and 
Kliuery  would  have  been  to  the  ear  of  the  Hebrew 
equivalent  terms,  though  he  fully  recognized  grades 
of  ser\itude,  according  as  the  servant  was  a  He- 
brew or  a  non-Hebrew,  and,  if  the  latter,  according 
as  he  was  bought  with  money  (Gen.  xvii.  12;  lix. 
xii.  44)  or  born  in  the  house  (Gen.  xiv.  14,  xv.  3, 
xvii.  23).  We  shall  proceed  to  describe  the  con- 
dition of  these  classes,  as  regards  their  original 
reduction  to  slavery,  the  methods  by  which  it  might 
be  terminated,  and  their  treatment  while  in  that 
state. 

I.  Hebrew  Slaves. 

1.  The  circumstances  luider  which  a  Hebrew 
might  be  reduced  to  servitude  were —  (1)  poverty; 
(2)  the  conmiission  of  theft;  and  (3)  the  exercise 
of  paternal  authority.  In  the  first  case,  a  man  who 
had  mortgaged  his  property,  and  was  unable  to 
support  his  family,  might  sell  himself  to  another 
Hebrew,  with  a  view  lioth  to  obtain  maintenance, 
and  perchance  a  surplus  sufficient  to  redeem  his 
property  (Lev.  xxv.  2.3,  39).  It  has  been  debated 
whether  under  this  law  a  creditor  could  seize  his 
delitor  and  sell  him  as  a  slave:  "  the  words  do  not 
warrant  such  an  inference,  for  the  poor  man  is  said 
in  Lev.  xxv.  39  to  sell  hiniself  (not  as  in  the  A.  V., 
"be  sold;"  see  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  787),  in  other 
words,  to  enter  into  vidunUiry  servitude,  and  this 
under  the  pressure  not  of  debt,  but  of  2"^'verty. 
The  instances  of  seizing  the  children  of  debtors  in 
2  Iv.  iv.  1  and  Neh.  v.  5  were  not  warranted  by 
law,  and  must  be  regarded  as  the  outrages  of  law- 
less times,  while  the  case  depicted  in  the  parable  of 
the  unmerciful  servant  is  probably  boriowed  from 
Roman  usages  (Matt,  xviii.  2.5).  The  words  in  Is. 
1.  1,  "  Which  of  my  creditors  is  it  to  whom  I  have 
sold  you?"  have  a  prima  Jac'ie  bearing  upon  the 
question,  but  in  reality  apjjly  to  one  already  in  the 
condition  of  slavery.  (2.)  The  commission  of  theft 
rendered  a  person  liable  to  servitude,  whene\er  res- 
titution could  not  be  made  on  the  scale  prescribed 
by  the  Law  (ICx.  xxii.  1,  3).  The  thief  was  liound 
to  work  out  the  value  of  his  restitution  money  in 
the  service  of  him  on  whom  the  tlieft  had  lieen 
committed  (for,  according  to  .losephus.  Ant.  xvi.  1, 
§  1,  there  was  no  power  of  selling  the  jierson  of  a 
thief  to  a  foreigner);  when  this  had  been  effected 
he  would  lie  free,  as  implied  in  the  expression  '-sold 
for  his  theft,'"  i.  e.  for  the  (unininl  of  his  thett. 
'J'his  law  contrasts  favorably  with  tliat  of  the  Ito- 
nians.  under  which  a  thief  became  the  actual  prop- 
erty of  his  master.  (3.)  The  exercise  of  paternal 
authority  was  limited  to  the  sale  of  a  daughter  of 
tender  a2;e  to  be  a  maid-servant,  with  the  ulterior 
view  of  her  becoming  a  concul)ine  of  the  purchaser 
(Ex.  xxi.  7).  Such  a  case  can  peihaps  hardly  be 
rei^arded  as  implying  servitude  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  term. 

2.  The  servitude  of  a  Hebrew  might  be  termi- 
nated in  three  ways:  (1)  liy  the  satisfaction  or  the 
remission  of  all  claims  against  him ;  *  (2)  by  the 
recuiTence  of  the  year  of  Jubilee  (Lev.  xxv.  40), 


o  Michaells  (.Comment,  iii.  9,  §  123)  decides  in  the 
affirmative. 

b  This  is  implied  in  the  statement  of  the  cases  which 
gave  rise  to  the  servitude :  indeed  without  such  an 
Msuuiption  the  words  "for  his  tlieft"' (Ex.  xxii.  3) 
iTOuld  t>e  uuuieuning.  The  Itibbinists  gave  tlieir  sunc- 
fion  to  suoh  a  view  (Maioion.  Abad.  2,  §§  8,  11). 


SLAVE 

which  might  airi\e  at  any  period  of  bis  servitude. 
and  (3),  failing  either  of  these,  the  expiration  of 
six  3ears  from  the  time  that  his  servitude  com 
menced  (Ex.  xxi.  2;  Deut.  xv.  12).  There  can  bt 
no  doubt  that  this  last  regulation  applied  equally 
to  the  cases  of  poverty  and  theft,  though  i;al)liinical 
writers  have  endeavored  to  restrict  it  to  the  former. 
I'he  period  of  seven  years  has  reference  to  the  Sab- 
batical principle  in  general,  but  not  to  the  Sabbat- 
ical year,  for  no  regulation  is  laid  down  in  reference 
to  the  manumission  of  servants  in  that  year  (Lev. 
xxv.  1  ff. ;  Deut.  XV.  1  ft").  We  have  a  single  in- 
stance, indeed,  of  the  Sabbatical  year  being  cele- 
brated by  a  general  manumission  of  Hebrew  sla\es, 
but  this  was  in  consequence  of  the  neglect  of  the 
law  relating  to  such  cases  (.Jer.  x.xxiv.  14'^).  (4.) 
To  the  above  modes  of  obtaining  liljerty  the  Rab- 
l)inists  added  as  a  fourth,  the  death  of  the  master 
without  leaving  a  son,  there  being  no  power  of 
claiming  the  slave  on  the  part  of  any  heir  except  a 
son  (Jiaimon.  Abad.  2,  §  12;. 

If  a  servant  did  not  desire  to  avail  himself  of  tb.- 
opportunity  of  leaving  his  service,  he  was  to  signif/ 
his  intention  in  a  formal  manner  before  the  judges 
(or  more  exactly  at  the  place  of  jiK/i/menf],  and 
then  the  master  was  to  take  him  to  the  door-pfcst, 
and  to  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl  (Ex.  xxi. 
b),  driving  the  awl  into  or  "unto  the  door,"  as 
stated  in  Deut.  xv.  17,  and  thus  fixing  the  servant 
to  it.  Whether  the  door  was  that  of  the  master's 
house  or  the  door  of  the  sanctuary,  as  Ewald  {Al- 
tertli.  p.  24.5)  infers  from  the  expression  el  hadoliini, 
to  which  attention  is  drawn  aliove,  is  not  stated; 
but  the  significance  of  the  action  is  enhanced  by 
the  former  view;  for  thus  a  comiection  is  estab- 
lished between  the  servant  and  the  house  in  which 
he  was  to  serve.  The  boring  of  the  ear  was  prob- 
ably a  token  of  subjection,  the  ear  being  the  organ 
throui^h  which  connnands  were  received  (I's.  xl.  6). 
A  similar  custom  ])revailed  among  the  iSIesopota- 
mians  (.luv.  i.  104),  the  J^ydians  (Xen.  Aii/ib.  iii. 
1,  §  31),  and  other  ancient  nations.  A  servant 
who  had  sulimitted  to  this  operation  remained,  ac- 
cording to  the  words  of  the  Law,  a  servant  "for 
ever"  (I'^x.  xxi.  G).  These  words  are,  howeve!", 
interpreted  by  .losepbus  (Ant.  iv.  8,  §  28)  and  by 
the  liabbinists  as  meaning  until  the  year  of  Jubi- 
lee, partly  from  the  universality  of  the  freedom  that 
was  then  proclaimed,  and  ])artly  perhaps  because  it 
was  necessary  for  the  servant  then  to  resume  the 
cultivation  of  his  recovered  iidieritanoe.  The  lat- 
ter point  no  doubt  presents  a  difficulty,  but  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  words  "for  ever"  in  any  other 
than  their  obvious  sense  presents  still  greater  diffi- 
culties. 

3.  The  condition  of  a  Hebrew  servant  was  by  no 
means  intolerable.  His  master  was  admonished  to 
treat  him,  not  "  as  a  bond-servant,  but  as  Hu  hired 
servant  and  as  a  sojourner,"  and,  again,  "  not  to 
rule  over  him  with  rigor"  (Lev.  xxv.  39,  40,  43). 
The  Kalibinists  specified  a  variety  of  duties  as  com 
ing  under  tliese  general  precepts:  for  instance,  com- 
pensation for  personal  injury,  exemption  from  me- 
nial duties,  such  as  unbinding  the  master's  sandals 


c  The  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  "  at  the  end  of  seven 
years  "  in  this  passage  is  not  wholly  correct.  The 
meaning  rather  is  "  at  the  end  of  a  Sabbatical  period 
of  _\  ears,"  the  whole  of  the  seventh  year  ttmg  regarded 
as  the  end  of  the  period- 

<'  C^n  7Sn"7S;  7rp6?  TO  (tpiTTJpi  ''y,  LXX. 


SLAVE 

or  caiTjing  him  in  a  litter,  tlie  use  of  gentle  lan- 
guao:e  on  the  part  of  the  master,  and  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  servants  wife  and  children,  though 
the  master  was  not  allowed  to  exact  work  Irom 
them  (JMIel/.iner,  Sklave?i  b(ii  dtii  Ihbr.  p.  31).  At 
the  termination  of  his  servitude  the  master  was  en- 
joined not  to  '•  let  him  go  away  empty,"  but  to  re- 
munerate him  liberally  out  of  his  fiock,  his  floor. 
and  his  wine-press  (Ueut.  xv.  13,  14).  Such  a  cus- 
tom would  stimulate  the  servant  to  fiiithful  service, 
inasmuch  as  the  amount  of  the  gift  was  left  to  the 
master's  discretion ;  and  it  would  also  provide  him 
with  means  wherewith  to  start  in  the  world  afresh. 

In  the  event  of  a  Hebrew  becoming  the  servant 
of  a  "stranger,"  meaning  a  non-Hebrew,  the  ser- 
vitude could  be  terminated  only  in  two  ways, 
namely,  by  the  arrival  of  the  year  of  Jubilee,  or  by 
the  repayment  to  tlie  master  of  the  purchase-money 
paid  for  the  ser\ant,  after  deducting  a  sum  for  the 
value  of  his  services  proportioned  to  the  length  of 
his  servitude  (Lev.  xxv.  -IT-.Jo).  The  servant  might 
be  redeemed  either  by  himself  or  by  one  of  his  re- 
lations, and  the  olject  of  this  regulation  ap|)ears  to 
have  been  to  impose  upon  relations  the  obligation  " 
of.  eifecting  the  redemption,  and  thus  putting  an 
end  to  a  state  which  must  have  been  peculiarly 
galling  to  the  Hebrew. 

A  Hebrew  woman  might  enter  into  voluntary 
servitude  on  the  score  of  poverty,  and  in  this  case 
she  was  entitled  to  her  freedom  aiter  six  years'  ser- 
vice, together  with  the  usual  gratuity  at  leaving, 
just  as  in  the  case  of  a  man  (Deut.  xv.  12,  13). 
According  to  Itabbinical  tradition  a  woman  could 
not  be  condemned  to  servitude  for  theft;  neither 
could  she  bind  herself  to  perpetual  servitude  by 
having  her  ear  bored  (Mielziner,  p.  43). 

Thus  far  vie  have  seen  little  that  is  olijectionable 
in  the  condition  of  Hebrew  servants.  In  respect 
to  marriage  there  were  some  peculiarities  wliich, 
to  our  ideas,  would  lie  regarded  as  hardsiiips.  A 
master  might,  for  instance,  give  a  wife  to  a  He- 
brew servant  for  the  time  of  his  servitude,  the  wife 
being  in  this  case,  it  must  be  remarked,  not  only  a 
Blave  but  a  non-Hebrew.  .Should  he  leave  when 
his  term  has  expired,  his  wife  and  children  would 
remain  the  absolute  property  of  the  master  (Ex. 
xxi.  4,  5).  The  reason  for  this  regulation  is,  evi- 
dently, that  the  ciiildren  of  a  female  heathen  slave 
were  slaves;  they  inherited  the  mother's  disqualifi- 
cation. Such  a  condition  of  marr\  ing  a  slave  would 
be  regarded  as  an  axiom  by  a  Hebrew,  and  the 
case  is  only  incidentally  noticed.  Again,  a  father 
might  sell  his  young  daughter*  to  a  Hebrew,  with 
a  view  either  of  [his]  marrying  her  himself,  or  of 
[his]  giving  her  to  his  son  (Ex.  xxi.  7-'J).  It  di- 
minishes the  apparent  harshness  of  this  proceeding 
if  we  look  on  the  purchase-money  as  in  the  light  of 
a  dowry  given,  as  was  not  unusual,  to  the  parents 
of  the  bride;  still  more,  if  we  accept  the  Kabbin- 
ical  view  (which,  howe\er,  we  consider  very  doubt- 
ful) that  the  consent  of  the  maid  was  required  be- 
fore the  marriage  could  take  place.  But  even  if 
this  consent.were  not  olitained,  the  jiaternai  author- 
ity would  not  appear  to  be  violently  strained ;  for 


a  In  the  A.  V.  the  sense  of  obligation  is  not  con- 
reyed  ;  instead  of  "may  "  in  vv  48,  49.  shall  ought 
5o  be  substituted. 

fc  The  female  slave  was  in  this  case  termed  n^S 

T    T 

U    dislia-.t    from  HnStt?,  applied    to  the   ordinary 


SLAVE  8059 

among  ancient  nations  that  authority  was  generally 
held  to  extend  e\en  to  the  life  of  a  child,  much 
more  to  the  giving  of  a  daughter  in  marriage. 
The  position  of  a, maiden  thus  sold  by  her  father 
was  suiiject  to  the  following  regulations:  (1.)  She 
could  not  "  go  out  as  the  men-servants  do,"  i.  e. 
she  could  not  leave  at  the  termination  of  six  years, 
or  in  the  year  of  Jubilee,  if  (as  the  regulation  as- 
sumes) lier  master  was  willing  to  fulfill  the  object 
for  which  he  had  purchased  her.  (2.)  Should  he 
not  wish  to  marry  her,  he  should  call  upon  her 
friends  to  procure  her  release  by  the  repayment  of 
the  purchase-money  (perhaps,  as  in  other  cases, 
with  a  deduction  for  the  value  of  her  services). 
(3.)  If  he  betrothed  her  to  his  son,  he  was  bound 
to  make  such  provision  for  her  as  he  woiUd  for  one 
of  his  own  daughters.  (4  )  If  either  he  or  his  son, 
having  married  her,  took  a  second  wife,  it  should 
not  be  to  the  prejudice  of  the  first.  (5.)  If  neither 
of  the  three  first  specified  alternatives  took  place, 
the  maid  was  entitled  to  immediate  and  gratuitous 
Uberty  (Ex.  xxi.  7-11). 

The  custom  of  reducing  Hebrews  to  servitude 
appears  to  have  fallen  into  disuse  sulisequently  to 
the  Habylonish  Captivity.  The  attempt  to  enforce 
it  in  Nehemiah's  time  met  with  decided  resistance 
(Neh.  v.  5),  and  Herod's  enactment  that  thieves 
should  l>e  sold  to  foreigners,  roused  the  greatest 
animosity  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  1,  §  1).  Vast  num- 
bers of  Hebrews  were  reduced  to  slavery  as  war- 
captives  at  difFerent  periods  by  the  Phoenicians 
(Joel  iii.  6),  the  Philistines  (Joel  iii.  6:  Am.  i.  6), 
the  Syrians  (1  Mace.  iii.  41;  2  Mace.  viii.  11),  the 
I'^gyptians  (Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  2,  §  3),  and,  above 
all,  by  the  Romans  (Joseph.  B.  J.  vi.  9,  §  3).  We 
may  form  some  idea  of  the  numbers  redujed  to 
sluvei'y  by  war  from  the  single  fact  that  Nicanor 
calculated  on  realizing  2,000  talents  in  one  cam- 
paign, by  the  sale  ot  captives  at  the  rate  of  90  for  a 
talent  (2  Mace.  viii.  10,  11),  the  number  required 
to  fetcli  the  sum  being  180,000.  The  Phoenicians 
were  the  most  active  slave-dealers  of  ancient  times, 
purchasing  of  the  Philistines  {Xm.  i.  9),  of  the 
Syrians  (2  Mace.  viii.  11),  and  even  of  the  tribe? 
on  the  shores  of  the  Euxine  Sea  (Ez.  xxvii.  13), 
and  selling  them  wherever  they  could  find  a  mar 
ket  about  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  and 
particularly  in  Joel's  time  to  the  people  of  .lavau 
(Joel  iii.  G),  it  being  uncertain  whether  that  name 
represents  a  place  in  South  Arabia  or  the  Greeks 
of  Asia  iMinor  and  the  peninsula.  It  was  probably 
through  tlie  Tyriaiis  that  Jews  were  transported 
in  Obadiah's  time  to  Sepharad  or  Sardis  (Ob.  20). 
At  Pome  vast  numljers  of  Jews  emerged  from  the 
state  of  slavery  and  became  freedmen.  The  price 
at  which  the  slaves  were  oflered  by  Nicanor  was 
consideraldy  below  the  ordinary  value  either  in 
Palestine  or  Greece.  In  the  former  country  it 
stood  at  30  shekels-  (=  about  .£3  8s.),  as  stated 
below,  in  the  latter  at  about  li  minas  (=  about 
£b  l.s.  6(/.),  this  being  tiie  mean  between  the  ex- 
tremes stated  liy  Xenophon  {.Utm.  ii.  5,  §  2)  as 
the  ordinary  price  at  Athens.  The  price  at  which 
Nicanor  offered  them  was  only  ^£2  lbs.  2'/.  a  heatl. 


houiehold  slave.  The  distinction  is  marked  in  regard 
to  lliigar,  who  is  described  by  the  latter  term  before 
the  birth  of  Ishniael,  and  by  the  former  attHr  thai 
event  (comp.  Gen  xvi.  1,  xxi.  10).  The  relative  valu« 
of  the  terms  is  expressed  in  Abigails  address,  "  Ijut 
thine  handmaid  {amah)  be  a  servant  (s/i(/i/jc/i(i/ij  to 
wash,"  etc.  (1  Sajj>.  xxv.  41). 


3060  SLAVE 

Occasional!}'  slaves  were  sold  as  high  as  a  talent 
(£■2-13  lbs.)   each   (Xeii.  I.   c. ;  Joseph.   Ant.   xii. 

i,  §'J). 

11.  Nun-IJebrew  Slaves. 

1.  The  majority  of  non-Hebrew  slaves  were  war- 
captives,  either  the  Canaanites  who  had  survived 
the  general  exteriuinatioii  of  their  race  under  Joshua, 
or  such  as  were  conquered  from  the  other  stirround- 
uig  nations  (Num.  xxxi.  20  ft'.).  Besides  these, 
many  were  obtained  by  purchase  from  foreign  slave- 
dealei-s  (Lev.  xxv.  44,  45);  and  others  may  have 
been  resident  foreigners  who  were  reduced  to  this 
state  either  by  poverty  or  crime.  The  Eabbinists 
further  deemed  that  any  person  who  performed  the 
services  of  a  slave  became  ipso  facto  a  slave  (Mishn. 
Kcdiish.  1,  §  3).  Tlie  children  of  slaves  remained 
slaves,  being  the  class  described  as  "•  born  m  the 
house"  ((jlen.  xiv.  14,  xvii.  •12;  Eccl.  ii.  7),  and 
hence  the  number  was  likely  to  increase  as  time 
went  on.  The  only  statement  as  to  their  number 
applies  to  the  post-Babylonian  period,  when  they 
amounted  to  7,3-37,  or  about  1  to  0  of  the  free  pop- 
ulation (Kzr.  ii.  65).  We  have  reason  to  believe 
that  the  lunnber  diminished  subsequently  to  this 
period,  the  Pharisees  in  particular  being  opposed  to 
the  system.  The  average  value  of  a  slaxe  appears 
to  have  been  thirty  shekels  (Ex.  xxi.  32),  varying 
of  course  according  to  age,  sex,  and  capabilities. 
The  estimation  of  persons  given  in  Lev.  xxvii.  2-8 
probably  applies  to  war-captives  who  had  been  ded- 
icated to  tlie  Lord,  and  the  price  of  their  redemp- 
tion would  in  this  case  represent  the  ordinary  value 
of  such  slaves. 

2.  That  the  slave  might  be  manumitted,  appears 
from  Ex.  xxi.  2G,  27;  Lev.  xix.  20.  As  to  the 
methods  by  which  this  might  be  effected,  we  are 
told  nothing  in  the  Bible;  but  the  Kabbinists  spe- 
cify the  following  four  methods:  (1)  redemption 
by  a  money  payment,  (2)  a  bill  or  ticket  of  free- 
dom, (3)  testamentary  disposition,  or,  (4)  any  act 
that  implied  manumission,  such  as  making  a  slave 
one"s  heir  (Mielziner,  pp.  65,  66). 

3.  The  slave  is  descrilied  as  the  "  po.ssession"  of 
his  master,  apparently  with  a  special  reference  to 
the  power  which  the  latter  had  of  disposing  of  him 
to  his  heirs  as  he  would  any  other  article  of  per- 
sonal proiierty  (Lev.  xxv.  45,  46);  the  slave  is  also 
described  as  his  njaster's  "money  "  (Ex.  xxi.  21), 
i.  e.  as  representing  a  certain  money  value.  Such 
expressions  show  that  he  was  regarded  very  much 
in  the  light  of  a  mancipium  or  chattel.  But  on 
the  other  hand,  provision  was  made  for  the  protec- 
tion of  his  person  :  willlul  murder  of  a  slave  entailed 
the  same  punishment  as  in  the  case  of  a  free  man 
(Lev.  xxiv.  17,  22).  So  again,  if  a  master  inflicted 
BO  severe  a  punishment  as  to  cause  the  death  of  his 
gervant,  he  was  lialile  to  a  penalty,  the  amount  of 
which  probalily  depen<led  on  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  for  the  Ralibinical  view  that  the  words 
"  b3  shall  be  surely  punished,"  or,  more  correctly, 
"  it  is  to  be  avenged,"  imply  a  sentence  of  death, 
is  wholly  untenable  (Lx.  xxi.  20).  No  punishment 
at  all  was  imposed  if  the  slave  survived  the  punish- 
ment by  a  day  or  two  (Ex.  xxi.  21),  the  loss  of  the 
slave"  ijeing  regarded  as  a  sufficient  punishment  in 
this  case.  A  minor  personal  injury,  such  as  the 
loss  of  an  eye  or  a  tooth  was  to  be  recompensed  by 
giving  the  servant  his  liberty   (Kx.  xxi.  26,  27). 


SLIME 

The  general  treatment  of  slaves  appears  to  h«v« 
been  gentle  —  occasionally  too  gentle,  as  we  infei 
from  Solomon's  advice  (Prov.  xxix.  19,  21),  nor  do 
we  hear  more  than  twice  of  a  slave  running  away 
from  his  master  (1  Sara.  xxv.  10;  1  K.  ii.  39). 
The  slave  was  considered  by  a  conscientious  mastei 
as  entitled  to  justice  (Job  xxxi.  13-15)  and  honor- 
able  treatment  (I'rov.  xxx.  10).  A  slave,  according 
to  the  Kabbinists,  had  no  power  of  acquiring  prop- 
erty for  himself;  whatever  he  might  become  entitled 
to,  e\eu  by  way  of  compensation  for  personal  injury, 
reverted  to  his  master  (Mielziner,  p.  55).  On  the 
other  hand,  the  master  might  constitute  him  his 
heir  either  wholly  ((ien.  xv.  3),  or  jointly  with  his 
children  (I'rov.  xvii.  2);  or  again,  he  might  give 
him  his  daughter  in  marriage  (1  Chr.  ii.  35). 

The  position  of  the  slave  in  regard  to  religious 
privileires  was  favoralile.  He  was  to  be  circum- 
cised (Gen.  xvii.  12),  and  hence  was  entitled  to 
partake  of  the  Paschal  sacrifice  (Ex.  xii.  44),  as 
well  as  of  tlie  other  religious  festivals  (Deut.  xii. 
12,  18,  xvi.  11,  14).  It  is  implied  that  every  slave 
nmst  have  been  previously  brought  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  true  God,  and  to  a  willing  acceptance 
of  the  tenets  of  Judaism.  This  would  naturally 
be  the  case  with  regard  to  all  who  were  "  born  in 
the  house,"  and  who  were  to  be  circumcised  at  the 
usual  age  of  eight  days;  but  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand how  those  who  were  "  bought  with  money," 
as  adults,  could  be  always  induced  to  change  their 
creed,  or  how  they  could  be  circumcised  without 
having  changed  it.  The  Mosaic  Law  certainly  pre- 
supposes an  universal  acknowledgment  of  Jehovah 
within  the  limits  of  the  Promised  Land,  and  would 
therefore  enforce  the  dismissal  or  extermination  of 
slaves  who  persisted  in  heathenism. 

The  occupations  of  slaves  were  of  a  menial  char- 
acter, as  implied  in  Lev.  xxv.  39,  consisting  partly 
in  the  work  of  the  house,  and  partly  in  personal 
attendance  on  the  master.  Eemale  slaves,  for  in- 
stance, ground  the  corn  in  the  handmill  (Ex.  xi.  5; 
Job  xxxi.  10;  Is.  xlvii.  2),  or  gleaned  in  the  har- 
vest field  (Ruth  ii.  8).  They  also  baked,  washed, 
cooked,  and  nursed  the  children  (Mishn.  Cethub. 
5,  §  5).  The  occupations  of  the  men  are  not 
specified;  the  most  trustworthy  held  confidential 
posts,  such  as  that  of  steward  or  major-domo  (Gen. 
XV.  %  xxiv.  2),  of  tutors  to  sons  (Prov.  xvii.  2), 
and  of  tenants  to  persons  of  large  estate,  for  such 
apiiears  to  have  been  the  position  of  Zilia  (2  Sam. 
ix   2,-10).  W.  L.  B. 

*  For  a  translation  of  ihe  work  of  Mielziner 
(Copenhagen,  1859)  referred  to  in  this  article,  see 
Amtr.  Tlieol.  Jieview  for  April  and  July,  1861 
(vol.  iii.);  compare  SaaLschiitz's  £>ns  Mosnisclie 
Jitfcht  (Berl.  1853),  ch.  101,  translated  by  Dr.  E. 
P.  Barrows  in  the  Bibl.  Sac7-a  for  Jan.  1862,  and 
an  art.  by  Dr.  Barrows,  Tlie  Bible  and  Slavenj, 
il)id.  July,  18G2.  See  also  Albert  Barnes,  Impdry 
into  the  Scriptural  Views  of  Slavery,  Phila.  1846; 
G.  B.  Cheever,  fjislorical  and  Legal  Judgment  of 
tlie  0.  T.  against  Slivery,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for 
Oct.  1855,  and  Jan.,  April,  and  July,  1856  (one- 
sided); and  .1.  B.  Bitti-i'ger,  Hebrew  Servitude,  ir 
the  New  Kwjlander  for  May,  1860.  A. 

SLIME.     The  rendering  in  the  A.  V.  of  th 

Heb.  "I^n,  cliemdr,  the   w^ia-   (Hommar)  if  th« 


a  There  is  an  apparent  disproportion  between  tliis 
ind  the  following  regulation,  ari.-iug  probably  out  of 
Jie  different  circumstances   under  which   the  injury 


was  effected.  In  this  case  the  law  is  speakiug  of  1* 
gitimate  punishment  "  wi'Ji  a  rod  ;  "  in  tha  mxt  of 
violent  assault. 


SLTME 

Arjkbs,  translated  &a(paXros  by  the  LXX.,  and 
bitumen  in  the  Vulgate.  That  oui'  translators 
unflerstood  by  this  wunl  the  substance  now  known 
as  bitumen,  is  evident  from  the  following  passages 
ui  Holland's  Pliny  (ed.  ]634):  '-The  very  clammy 
slime  Bitumen,  which  at  certaine  times  of  the  yere 
floteth  and  swimmeth  upon  the  lake  of  Sodom, 
called  Asphaltites  in  Jury"  (vii.  15,  vol.  i.  p. 
lOo).  "The  Bitumen  whereof  I  speake,  is  in 
some  places  in  manner  of  a  muddy  slime ;  in 
others,  very  earth  or  minerall  "  (xxsv.  15,  vol.  ii. 
p.  557). 

The  three  instances  in  which  it  is  mentioned  in 
the  O.  T.  are  abundantly  illustrated  by  travellers 
and  historians,  ancient  and  modern.  It  is  first 
spoken  of  as  used  for  cement  by  the  builders  in  the 
plain  of  Shinar,  or  Babylonia  (Gen.  xi.  .'3).  The 
bitumen  pits  in  the  vale  of  Siddim  are  mentioned 
in  the  ancient  fragment  of  Canaanitish  history 
(Gen.  xiv.  10);  and  the  ark  of  papyrus  in  which 
Moses  was  placed  was  made  imper\iuus  to  water  by 
a  coating  of  bitumen  and  pitch  (Ex.  ii.  3). 

Herodotus  (i.  179)  tells  us  of  the  bitumen  found 
at  Is,  a  town  of  Babylonia,  eight  days'  journey  from 
Babylon.  The  captive  Eretrians  (Her.  vi.  119) 
were  sent  !jy  Darius  to  collect  asphaltum,  salt,  and 
oil  at  Ardericca,  a  place  two  hundred  and  ten 
stadia  from  Susa,  in  the  district  of  Cissia.  The 
town  of  Is  was  situated  on  a  river,  or  small  stream, 
of  the  same  name,  which  flowed  into  the  Euphrates, 
and  carried  down  with  it  the  lumps  of  bitumen, 
which  was  used  in  the  buikUng  of  Baltylon.  It  is 
probably  the  bitumen  springs  of  Is  which  are  de- 
scribed in  Strabo  (xvi.  743).  Eratosthenes,  whom 
he  quotes,  says  that  the  liquid  bitumen,  which  is 
called  naphtha,  is  found  in  Susiana,  and  the  dry  in 
Babylonia.  Of  the  latter  there  is  a  spring  near 
the  Euphrates,  and  when  the  river  is  flooded  by 
the  melting  of  the  snow,  the  spring  also  is  filled 
and  overflows  into  the  river.  The  masses  of  bitu- 
men thus  produced  are  fit  for  buildings  which  are 
made  of  baked  brick.  Diodorus  Siculus  (ii.  12) 
Bpeaks  of  the  abundance  of  bitumen  in  Babylonia. 
It  proceeds  from  a  spring,  and  is  gathered  by  the 
people  of  the  country,  not  only  for  building,  but 
when  dry  for  fuel,  instead  of  wood.  Ammianus 
JIarcellinus  (xxiii.  6,  §  23)  tells  us  that  Babylon 
was  built  with  bitumen  by  Semiramis  (comp.  Plin. 
XXXV.  51;  Berosus,  quoted  by  Jos.  Anl.  x.  11,  §  1, 
c.  Apioii.  I.  19;  Arrian,  Exp.  Al.  vii.  17,  §  1,  &c.). 
The  town  of  Is,  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  is  with 
out  doubt  the  modern  Hit  or  //ee/,  on  the  west  or 
right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  and  four  days"  jour- 
ney, N.  \V.,  or  rather  W.  N.  W.,  of  Bagdad  (Sir 
Ii.  Ker  Porter's  Trav.  ii.  361,  ed.  1822).  The 
principal  bitumen  pit  at  Heet,  says  J\Ir.  Rich  { Me- 
moir on  the  Ruins  (if'  B  ibyton,  p.  63,  ed.  1815), 
has  two  sources,  and  is  divided  by  a  wall  in  the 
centre,  on  one  side  of  which  the  bitumen  bubbles 
up,  and  on  the  other  the  oil  of  naphtha.  Sir  K. 
K.  Porter  (ii.  315)  observed  "that  bitumen  was 
chiefly  confined  by  the  Chaldaean  builders,  to  the 
foundations  and  lower  parts  of  their  edifices;  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  the  ill  eff"ects  of  water." 
"  With  regard  to  the  use  of  bitumen,"  he  adds, 
"  I  saw  no  vestige  of  it  whatever  on  any  renuiant 
of  liuildir.g  01.  the  higher  ascents,  and  therefore 
rlrier  regions."  'Ibis  view  is  indirectly  coti firmed 
by  Mr.  Uich,  who  says  that  the  tenacity  of  bitumen 
(ears  no  proportion  to  that  of  mortar.  The  use 
*f  bitumen  appears  to  have  been  confined  to  the 
iabvloniuns,  for  at  Nineveh,  Mr.  Layard  observes 


SJ.IME  3061 

{Xin.  ii.  278),  "bitumen  and  reeds  were  not  em- 
ployed to  cement  the  layers  of  bricks,  as  at  Baby- 
lon ;  although  both  materials  are  to  be  found  ir, 
abundance  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  city.'' 
At  Nimroud  bitumen  was  found  under  a  pavement 
{Nin.  i.  20),  and  "the  sculpture  rested  simply 
upon  the  platform  of  sun-dried  bricks  without  any 
other  substructure,  a  mere  layer  of  bitumen,  about 
an  inch  thick,  having  been  placed  under  the  plinth" 
(Nin.  if  Brd).  p.  208).  In  his  description  of  the 
firing  of  the  bitumen  pits  at  Nimroud  by  his  Arabs, 
Mr.  Layard  falls  into  the  language  of  our  trans- 
lators. "  Tongues  of  flame  and  jets  of  gas,  driven 
from  the  burning  pit,  shot  through  the  murky 
canopy.  As  the  fire  brightened,  a  thousand  fan- 
tastic forms  of  light  played  amid  the  smoke.  To 
Ijreak  the  cindered  crust,  and  to  bring  fresh  slime 
to  the  surface,  the  Arabs  threw  large  stones  into 

the  spring In  an  hour  the  bitumen 

was  exhausted  for  the  time,  the  dense  snjoke  grad- 
ually died  away,  and  the  pale  light  of  the  moon 
again  shone  over  the  black  slime  pits "  (JVin.  <("• 
Bub.  p.  202). 

The  bitumen  of  the  Dead  Sea  is  described  by 
Strabo,  Josephus,  and  Pliny.  Strabo  (xvi.  763) 
gives  an  account  of  the  volcanic  action  by  which 
tlie  bottom  of  the  sea  was  distm'bed,  and  the 
bitumen  thrown  to  the  surface.  It  was  at  first 
liquefied  by  the  heat,  and  then  changed  into  a 
thick  viscous  substance  by  the  cold  water  of  the 
sea,  on  the  surface  of  which  it  floated  in  lumps 
(/SuJAoi).  These  lumps  are  described  by  Josephus 
{B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  -1)  as  of  the  size  and  shape  of  a 
headless  ox  (conq).  Plin.  vii.  13).  The  semi-liquid 
kind  of  bituujen  is  that  which  Pli)iy  says  is  found 
in  the  Dead  Sea,  the  earthy  in  Syria  about  Sidon. 
Liquid  bitumen,  such  as  the  Zacynthian,  the  Baby- 
lonian, and  the  ApoUoniatic,  he  adds,  is  known  by 
the  Greeks  by  the  name  of  pis-asphaltnm  (comp. 
Ex.  ii.  3,  LXX.).  He  tells  us  moreover  that  it  was 
used  for  cement,  and  that  bronze  vessels  and  statues 
and  the  heads  of  nails  were  covered  with  it  (Plin. 
XXXV.  51).  The  bitumen  pits  by  the  Dead  Sea  are 
described  by  the  monk  Brocardus  (Descr.  Ten: 
Siinct.  c.  7,  in  L'golini,  vi.  1044).  The  Arabs  of 
the  neighborhood  have  perpetuated  the  story  of  its 
formation  as  given  liy  Strabo.  "  They  say  that  it 
forms  on  the  rocks  in  the  depths  of  the  sea,  and 
by  earthquakes  or  otiier  submarine  concussions  is 
broken  oft'  in  large  masses,  and  rises  to  the  sur- 
face "  (Thomson,  Ltml  fti>d  Book,  p.  223).  They 
told  Burckhardt  a  similar  tale.     "  The  asphaltuiu 

(^♦^),  Hommar,  which  is  collected  by  the  Arabs 

of  the  western  shore,  is  said  to  come  from  a  moun- 
tain which  blocks  up  the  passage  along  the  eastern 
Ghor,  and  which  is  situated  at  about  two  hours 
south  of  Wiuly  Mojeb.  The  Arabs  pretend  that 
it  oozes  up  from  fissures  in  the  cliff,  and  collects  in 
large  pieces  on  the  rock  below,  wheie  the  mass 
gradually  increases  and  hardens,  until  it  is  renl 
asunder  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  with  a  loud  explo- 
sion, and,  fl\lli)ig  into  the  sea,  is  carried  by  the 
waves  in  coi)sideral)le  quantities  to  the  opposi.e 
sliores"  (Tr'iv.  in  ''^yri'i,  p.  394).  Dr.  Thomson 
tells  us  that  the  Aralia  still  call  these  pits  by  the 
name  biuret  hiimni'ir,  which  strikingly  resemble^ 
the  Ilel).  bein'ith  diemdr  of  Gen.  xiv.  10  (Lunc 
anil  Book,  p.  224).  | 

Strabo  says  that  in  Babylonia  boats  were  made 
of  wicker-work,  and  tlien  covtred  with   bitumen  tn 


80G2 


SLING 


keen  out  the  water  (xvi.  p.  743).  In  the  same 
way  the  ark  of  rushas  or  papyrus  in  which  JMoses 
was  [ilaced  was  plastered  over  with  a  mixture  of 
bitumen  and  pitcli  or  tar.  Dr.  Thomson  remarks 
(p.  2-2-1):  "Tins  is  doubly  interesting,  as  it  reveals 
the  process  by  which  they  prepared  the  bitumen. 
riie  mineral,  as  found  in  this  country,  melts  readily 
enough  by  itself;  but  then,  when  cold,  it  is  as 
brittle  as  glass.  It  must  be  mixed  with  tur  while 
melting,  and  in  that  way  forms  a  h.nrd,  wlossy  wax, 
perfectly  impervious  to  water."  We  know  from 
iStrabo  (xvi.  p.  764)  that  the  Kgyi)tians  used  the 
bitumen  of  the  Dead  Sea  in  tlie  process  of  em- 
balming, and  Pliny  (vi.  35)  mentions  a  spring  of 
the  same  nuneral  at  Corambis  in  Ethiopia. 

^\^  A.  w. 

SLIXG  (27^17. :  (T<p(vUvri  ■■  fuHch ).  The  sling 
lias  been  in  all  ages  the  favorite  weapon  of  the 
shepherds  of  S\ria  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40;  Burckhardts 
Nutes,  i.  57),  and  hence  was  adopted  by  the  Israel- 
itish  army,  as  the  most  effective  weapon  for  light- 
armed  troops.  The  JJenjamites  were  particularly 
expert  in  their  use  of  it:  e\en  the  left-handed  could 
"sling  stones  at  an  hair  and  not  miss  "  (Judg.  xx. 
16;  comp.  1  Chr.  xii.  2).  According  to  the  Tar- 
gum  of  iloiiathan  and  the  Syriac,  it  was  the  weapon 
of  the  Cherethites  and  I'elethites.  It  was  advan- 
tageously used  in  attacking  and  defending  to\v}is 
(2  K.  iii.  25;  Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  1,  §  3),  and  in 
skirmishing  {B.  J.  ii.  17,  §  5).  Other  ea.stern 
nations  availed  themselves  of  it,  as  the  Syrians  (1 
JIacc.  ix.  11),  who  also  invented  a  kind  of  artificial 
sling  (1  Mace.  vi.  51);  the  Assyrians  (.hid.  ix.  7; 
Layard's  Nin.  ii.  344);  the  Egyptians  (Wilkinson, 
i.  357);  and  the  Persians  (Xen.  Awib.  iii.  3,  §  18). 
The  construction  of  the  weapon  hardly  needs  de- 
scription:    it  consisted  of  a   cou|ile    of  strini;s  of 


Egyptian  Slingers.     (Wilkinson.) 

I  3ew  or  some  fibrous  substance,  attached  to  a 
U-athern  receptacle  for  the  stone  in  the  centre, 
which  was  termed  the  capli,"  i.  e.  pan  (1  Sam.  xxv. 
20):  the  sling  was  swung  once  or  twice  round  the 
head,  and  the  stone  wis  tiien  discharged  by  letting 
go  one  of  the  strings.  Sling-stones ''  were  selected 
for  their  smoothness  (1   Sam.  xvii.  40),  and  were 


n?. 


r^P-^32S\  c  n722-ll2. 


''  Other  words  besides  those  mentioned  in  vol.  ii.  p. 
(RTi  t,  are:  — 

1.  ^2p^  ^  6  (TvyiiKeiiov :  diisor  (2  K.  xxiv.  14), 
Inhere  cliarnsh  i.s  also  useil.  thue  deuotiug  a  workman 
if  an  inferior  kind. 


SMYRNA 

recognized  as  one  of  the  ordinary  munitions  of  wai 
(2  Chr.  xxvi.  14).  In  action  the  stones  were  eithei 
carried  in  a  bag  round  the  neck  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40), 
or  were  heaped  up  at  the  feet  of  the  combatant 
(Layard's  Nin.  ii.  344)  The  violence  with  which 
the  stone  was  projected  supplied  a  vivid  image  of 
sudden  and  forcil)le  removal  (Jer.  x.  18).  The 
rapidity  of  the  whirling  motion  of  the  sling  round 
the  head,  was  emblematic  of  inquietude  (1  Sam. 
xxv.  29,  "  the  souls  of  thine  enemies  shall  he  whirl 
round  in  the  midst  of  the  pan  of  a  sling  ");  while 
the  sling-stones  represented  the  enemies  of  God 
(Zech.  ix.  15,  "they  shall  tread  under  foot  the 
sling-stones").  The  term  mnrgemAh<:  in  Prov. 
xxvi.  8  is  of  doubtful  meaning;  Gesenius  (T/ies. 
p.  1263)  explains  of  "a  heap  of  stones,"  as  in 
the  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  the  LXX. ;  Ewald,  and 
Hitzig,  of  "a  sling,"  as  in  the  text.     W.  L.  B. 

*  SLUICES.  The  word  so  translated  (Ipb) 
in  Is.  xix  10  seems  to  have  been  entirely  misap- 
prehended by  our  liinglish  translators,  after  the 
example  of  some  of  the  ancient  versions.  It  means 
/(/;•('.  Wfif/es,  and  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  should 
be  rendered,  "and  all  those  who  work  for  wages 
shall  be  of  a  sad  heart."  On  the  origin  of  the 
error  and  the  true  meaning,  see  Gesenius  ( Comm. 
ii.  iltn  Jesain,  in  loc.).  R.  D.  C.  R. 

SMITH.f'  The  work  of  the  smith,  together 
with  an  account  of  his  tools,  is  explained  le 
Haxdickaft,  vol.  ii.  p.  992  f.  A  description  of 
a  smith's  workshop  is  given  in  Ecclus.  xx.xviii.  28 

H.  W.  P. 

SMY'R''N A  ['XfMvpva,  my >'rh:  Sniyrnri].  The 
city  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  Itevelation  ii. 
8-11,  was  founded,  or  at  least  the  design  of  found- 
ing it  was  entertained,  by  Alexander  the  Great  soon 
alter  the  battle  of  the  Grunicus,  in  consequence  of 
a  dream  when  he  bad  lain  down  to  sleep  after  the 
fatigue  of  hunting.  A  temple  in  which  two  god- 
desses were  worshipped  under  the  name  of  Nemeses 
stood  on  the  hill,  on  the  sides  of  which  the  new 
town  was  built  under  the  auspices  of  Aatigonus 
and  Eysimachus,  who  carried  out  the  design  of  the 
conqueror  after  his  death.  It  was  situated  twenty 
stades  from  the  city  of  the  same  name,  which 
after  a  long  series  of  wars  with  the  Lydians  had 
been  finally  taken  and  sacked  by  Ilalyattes.  The 
rich  lands  hi  the  neighborhood  were  cultivated  by 
the  inhabitants,  scattered  in  villages  about  the 
country  (like  the  .lewish  population  between  the 
times  of  Zedekiah  and  ICzra),  for  a  period  which 
Strabo,  speaking  roundly,  calls  400  years.  The 
descendants  of  this  population  were  reunited  in  the 
new  Smyrna,  which  soon  became  a  wealthy  and 
important  city.  Not  only  was  the  soil  in  the 
neighborhood  eminently  productive — so  that  the 
\ines  were  even  said  to  have  two  crops  of  grapes  - 
but  its  position  was  such  as  to  render  it  the  natural 
outlet  for  the  produce  of  the  whole  valley  of  the 
Hermus.  The  Pramnean  wine  (which  Nestor  in 
the  Iliad,  and  Circe  in  the  Odyssey,  are  represented 
as  mixing  with  honey,  cheese,  and  meal,  to  make  a 


2.  Jt'tST  /  :  cr^upoKOTTOs :  malteator:  a  hammeren 
a  term  applied  to  Tubal- Cain,  Gen.  Iv.  22  (Ges.  pp 
530,   755;    Saalschiitz,    Anh.    Htb.  i.  143).     [Tubai 

Cain.] 

3.  U_?  in  :     6   TVTTTtOV 

^^2,  OT^Opa,  incus).  Is. 


he  that  smites  (the  anvil 
xli.  7. 


SMYRNA 

kind  of  salad  dressing)  grew  even  down  to  the  time 
of  Fliny  in  the  immediate  neigliborhood  of  tlie 
temple  of  the  Mother  of  the  gods  at  Smyrna,  and 
doubtless  played  its  part  in  the  orgiastic  rites  both 
of  that  deity  and  of  Dionysus,  each  of  whom  in 
the  times  of  Imperial  Itome  possessed  a  guild  of 
worshippers  frequently  mentioned  in  the  inscrip- 
tions as  the  iepa  crvvoSos  /nvarciiv  fxrjTphs  Sittu- 
Ar/i'Tjj  and  the  lipa  (TvvoSos  ixvcttSiv  koL  Texvi-Toov 
Aiovvcrov.  One  of  tiie  most  reniarkable  of  the 
chefs  cVceuvre  of  Myron  which  stood  at  Smyrna, 
representing  an  old  woman  intoxicated,  illustrates 
the  prevalent  habits  of  the  population. 

The  inhabitants  of  New  Smyrna  appear  to  have 
possessed  the  talent  of  successfully  divining  the 
course  of  events  in  the  troublous  times  through 
which  it  was  their  destiny  to  pass,  aiwl  of  habitu- 
ally securing  for  themselves  the  favor  of  the  victor 
for  the  time  being.  Their  adulation  of  Seleucus 
and  his  son  Antiochus  was  excessive.  The  title  5 
dehs  Koi  awTTip  is  given  to  the  latter  in  an  extant 
inscription ;  and  a  temple  dedicated  to  his  mother 
Stratonice,  under  the  title  of  'A(ppodirri  2,TpaT0- 


SMYUNA  8063 

VLKis,  was  not  only  constituted  a  sanctuary  itself, 
but  the  same  right  was  extended  in  virtue  of  it  to 
the  whole  city.  Yet  when  the  tide  turned,  a  tem- 
ple was  ei'ected  to  the  city  Rome  as  a  divinity  in 
time  to  save  the  credit  of  the  Smyrnsans  as  zeal- 
ous friends  of  the  Roman  people.  Indeed,  though 
history  is  silent  as  to  the  particulars,  the  existence 
of  a  coin  of  Smyrna  with  the  head  of  Mithridates 
upon  it,  indicates  that  this  energetic  prince  also,  for 
a  time  at  least,  must  have  included  Smyrna  within 
the  circle  of  his  dependencies.  However,  during 
the  reign  of  Tiberius,  the  reputation  of  the  Smyr- 
naeans  for  an  ardent  loyalty  was  so  unsullied,  that 
on  this  account  alone  they  obtained  permission  to 
erect  a  temple,  in  behalf  of  all  the  Asiatic  cities,  to 
the  emperor  and  senate,  the  question  having  been 
for  some  time  doubtful  as  to  whether  their  city  or 
Sardis  [Sakdis]  — the  two  selected  out  of  a  crowd 
of  competitors  —  should  receive  this  distinction. 
The  honor  which  had  been  obtained  with  such  dif- 
ficulty, was  requited  with  a  proportionate  adulation. 
Nero  appears  in  the  inscriptions  as  aoor^p  mi 
ffvuTravros  avdponrnuv  yeyovs. 


J^- 


""fW, 


The  Castie  and  Port  of  Smyrna.     (Laborde.) 


It  seems  not  impossible,  that  just  as  St.  Paul's 
illustrations  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  are 
derived  from  the  Isthmian  games,  so  the  message 
to  the  Church  in  Smyrna  contains  allusions  to  the 
ritual  of  the  pagan  mysteries  which  prevailed  in 
thi»t  city.  The  story  of  the  violent  death  and  re- 
viviscence  of  Dionysus  entered  into  these  to  such 
an  extent,  that  Origen,  in  his  argument  against 
Celsus,  does  not  scruple  to  quote  it  as  generally  ac- 
cepted by  the  Greeks,  although  by  them  interpreted 
metaphysically  (iv.  171,  ed.  Spencer).  In  this  view, 
the  words  6  ■KpSnos  koX  o  e(r;taTOS',  ts  iyevero 
vfKphs  Kal  i^r)CTiv  (Kev.  ii.  8)  would  come  with 
peculiar  force  to  ears  perhaps  accustomed  to  hear 
them  ir.  a  very  different  application."  The  same 
may  be  said  of  Scicco  croi  rhv  arfcpavov  rrjs  ((^rjs, 
it  having  been  a  usual  practice  at  Smyrna  to  pre- 
sent a  crown  to  the  priest  who  superintended  the 
religious  ceremonial  at  the  end  of  his  year  of  office 
Several  persons  of  both  sexes  have  the  title  of  aT^ 


cpavri(p6poi  in  the  inscriptions;  and  the  context 
shows  that  they  possessed  great  social  consider- 
ation. 

In  the  time  of  Strabo  the  ruins  of  the  Old 
Smyrna  still  existed,  and  were  partially  inhabited, 
but  the  new  city  was  one  of  the  most  beautiful  in 
all  Asia.  The  streets  were  laid  out  as  near  aa 
might  he  at  right  angles;  but  an  unfortunate  over- 
sight of  the  architect,  who  forgot  to  make  under- 
ground drains  to  carry  off'  the  storm  rains,  occa- 
sioned the  flooding  of  the  town  with  the  filth  and 
refuse  of  the  streets.  There  was  a  large  public  li- 
brary there,  and  also  a  handsome  buililing  sur- 
rounded with  porticoes  which  served  as  a  museum. 
It  was  consecrated  as  a  heroUra  to  Homer,  whom 
the  Smyrnseans  claimed  as  a  countryman.  Tliere 
'  was  also  an  Odeum,  and  a  temple  of  the  Olympian 
Zeus,  with  whose  cult  that  of  the  Roman  emperors 
}  was  associated.  Olympian  games  were  celebrated 
I  here,  and  excited  great  interest.     On  one  of  these 


*  This  is  the  more  likely  from  the  superstitious  re-  Sovuiv  iepov  just  above  the  city  outside  the  walls,  Id 
pird  iu  which  the  Smyrnaeans  held  chauce  phrases  which  this  mode  of  divination  was  the  ordinary  om 
•iAi){o>'rt)  as  a  material  for  augury.     They  had  a  kAi)-    (Pausauiati,  Ix.  11,  §  7). 


3064 


SMYRNA 


SNOW 


Dceasions  (in  the  year  a.  d.  68)  a  Rhodian  youth  |  the  Revelator's  message  to  the  Church  at  SmjTnJi 
of  the  name  of  Arteniidoriis  obtained  greater  dis- 
tinctions than  any  on  record,  under  pecuHar  cir- 
cumstances, which  Pausanias  relates.  He  was  a 
pancratiast,  and  not  long  before  had  been  beaten 
Rt  Ells  from  deficiency  in  growth.  But  when  the 
Sniyrnsean  Olympia  next  came  round,  his  bodily 
strength  had  so  developed  that  he  was  victor  in 
three  trials  on  the  same  day,  the  first  against  his 
former  comiietitors  at  the  Pelo[)onnesiaii  Olyuipia, 
the  second  with  the  youtiis,  and  the  third  with  the 
men ;  the  last  contest  having  Ijeen  provoked  by  a 
taunt  (Pausanias,'  v.  U,  §  4).  The  extreme  inter- 
est excited  by  the  games  at  Smyrna  may  perhaps 
account  for  the  remarkable  ferocity  exhibited  by 
the  population  against  the  aged  bishop  Polycarp. 
It  was  exactly  on  such  occasions  that  what  the  pa- 
gans regarded  as  the  unpatriotic  and  anti-social 
spirit  of  the  early  Christians  became  most  apparent; 
and  it  was  to  the  violent  demands  of  the  people  as- 
sembled in  the  stadium  that  the  Poman  proconsul 
yielded  up  the  martyr.  The  letter  of  the  Smyr- 
naeans,  in  which  the  account  of  his  martyrdom  is 
contained,  represents  the  Jews  as  taking  part  with 
tiie  Centile.s  in  accusing  him  as  an  enemy  to  the 
state  leligion,  —  conduct  which  would  be  inconceiv 
able  in  a  sincere  Jew,  but  which  was  quite  natural 
in  those  whom  the  sacred  writer  characterizes  as 
•'a  synagogue  of  Satan  "  (Pev.  ii.  9). 

Smyrna  under  the  Pomans  was  the  seat  of  a  con- 
ventus  juridiais,  whither  law  cases  were  brought 
from  the  citizens  of  Magnesia  on  the  Sipylus,  and 
also  from  a  JNLacedonian  colony  settled  in  the  same 
country  under  the  name  of  Hyrcani.  The  last  are 
probably  the  descendants  of  a  military  body  in  the 
service  of  Seleucus,  to  whom  lands  were  gi\en  soon 
after  the  building  of  New  Sm3rna,  and  who,  to- 
gether with  the  Magnesians,  seem  to  have  had  the 
lSmyrna?an  citizenship  then  bestowed  upon  them. 
The  decree  containing  the  particulars  of  this  ar- 
rangement is  among  the  marbles  in  the  University 
of  Uxford.  The  Ponians  continued  the  system 
which  they  found  existing  when  the  country  passed 
over  into  their  hands. 

(Strabo,  xiv.  183  ff.;  Herodotus,  i.  16 ;  Tacitus, 
Annal.  iii.  63,  iv.  56;  Pliny,  //.  .V.  v.  29;  Boeckh, 
Jnscripi.  Grcec.  "  Smyrnaean  Inscriptions,"  espe- 
cially Nos.  3163-3176;  Pausanias,  Loca  cit.,  and 
iv.  '21,  §  5;  Macrobius,  Saturwdlt^  i.  18;  [Prof. 
G.  M.  Lane,  art.  Smyrna,  in  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Jan. 
1858.])  J.  W.  B. 

*  Smyrna  is  about  40  miles  from  Ephesus,  and 
now  connected  with  it  by  a  railroad.  [Ephesus, 
Amer.  ed.]  The  Apostle  John  must  often  have 
passed  between  the  two  places  during  his  long  life 
at  Ephesus.  Paul's  ministry  at  I'-phesus  (Acts  xx. 
31)  belongs  no  doubt  to  an  earlier  period,  before  the 
gospel  had  taken  root  in  the  other  city.  The  spot 
where  Polycarp  is  supposed  to  have  l)een  burnt  at 
the  stake  is  near  the  ruins  of  a  sUidium  on  the  hill 
nehind  the  present  town.  It  may  be  the  exact  spot 
or  certainly  near  there,  for  it  is  the  place  where  the 
people  were  accustomed  to  meet  for  public  specta- 
cles. Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  touched  at 
Sniyrna  on  his  voyage  to  Pome,  where  he  was 
thrown  to  wild  beasts  in  the  amphitheatre,  aliout 
A.  I).  108.  Two  of  his  extant  letters  were  addressed 
to  Polycarp  and  to  the  Smyrnfeans.  Smyrna  is  the 
only  one  of  the  cities  of  the  seven  churches  which 
retains  any  importance  at  the  present  day.  Its 
population  is  stated  to  be  150,000,  nearly  one  half 


may  be  mentioned  Stier's  Sujip/imenl  to  his  iJe 
dtn  Jesu,  pp.  129-137,  and  Archbishop  Trench's 
Cummentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven 
C/nirc/ies,  pp.  132-152  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 

SNAIL.     The  representative  in  the  A.  V.  of 

the  Hebrew  words  shablul  and  clwmet. 

1.  Shablul  {p^l'IlW:  KfipSi;  ivTipov,  Aq.; 
xipi-ov,  Sym.:  cera)  occurs  only  in  Ps.  Iviii.  9 
(8,  A.  v.):  "As  a  shablul  wAnch  melteth  let  (the 
wicked)  pass  away."  There  are  various  opinions 
as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word,  the  most  curious, 
perhaps,  being  that  of  Symmachus.  The  LXX. 
read  "  melted  wax,"  similarly  the  Vulg.  The  ren- 
dering of  the  A.  V.  ("  snail  ")  is  supported  by  the 
authority  of  many  of  the  Jewish  Doctors,  and  is 
probably  correct.     The  Chaldee  Paraphr.  explains 

shablul  hy  ihiblala  (S772"*jn),  i.  e.  "a  snail  or  a 
slug,"  which  was  supposed  liy  the  Jews  to  con- 
sume away  and  die  by  reason  of  its  cotistantly 
emitting  slime  as  it  crawls  along.  See  Schol.  ad 
Gem.  A/oed  Katvn,  1,  fol.  6  B,  as  quoted  by  Bo- 
chart  (Hiervz.  iii.  560)  and  Gesenius  {Tlies.  p 
212).  It  is  needless  to  observe  that  this  is  not  a 
zoilogical  fact,  though  perhaps  generally  believed 
by  the  Orientals,  i  he  term  shablul  would  denote 
either  a  Umax  or  a  helix,  which  are  particularly 
noticeable  lor  the  slimy  track  they  leave  behind 
them.    ■ 

2.  C/wmet  (iTpn  :  aavpa'  lacertn)  occurs  only 
as  the  name  of  some  unclean  animal  in  Lev.  xi.  30. 
The  LXX.  and  ^'lllg.  understand  some  kind  of 
lizard  by  the  term;  the  A.rabic  versions  of  Er- 
penius  and  Saadias  give  the  chameleon  as  the  ani- 
mal intended.  The  Veneto-Greek  and  the  Rab- 
bins, with  whom  agrees  the  A.  V.,  render  the 
Heb.  term  by  "  snail."  Bochart  {Hiervz.  ii. 
500)  has  endeavored  to  show  that  a  species  of 
small  sand  lizard,  called  chulacn  by  the  Arabs,  is 
denoted ;  but  his  argument  rests  entirely  upon 
some  suiiposed  etymological  foundation,  and  proves 
nothing  at  all.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that 
there  is  no  evidence  to  lead  us  to  any  conclusion ; 
perhaps  some  kind  of  lizard  may  be  intended,  as 
the  two  most  important  old  versions  conjecture. 

W.  H. 
*  SNARES   OF  DEATH.     The  rendering 
of  the  A.  V.  in  2  Sam.  xxii.  6;   Ps.  xviii.  5,  "  The 
sorrows  of  hell  compassed  me  about,  the  snares  of 
death  prevented  me,"  needs  coiTection  and  expla- 
nation.    The  passage  may  be  thus  translated:  — 
''  The  cords  of  the  underworld  {Skeol)  were  cast 
around  me ; 
The  suares  of  death  had  caught  me." 

The  psalmist  describes  himself,  in  metaphors  bor- 
rowed from  hunting,  as  caught  in  the  toils  of  hia 
enemies,  and  in  imminent  danger  of  his  life.    .A. 

SNOW  (3^K^  :  x^'!'"-,  Bp6aos  in  Prov.  xxvi.: 
nix).  The  historical  books  of  the  Bil^e  contain 
only  two  notices  of  snow  actually  falling  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  20;  1  Mace.  xiii.  22),  but  the  allusions  in 
the  poetical  books  are  so  numerous  that  there  can 
be  no  doubt  as  to  its  being  an  ordinary  occurrence 
in  the  winter  months.  Thus,  for  instance,  the 
snow-storm  is  mentioned  among  the  ordinary  oper- 
ations of  nature  which  are  illustrative  of  the  ( 're- 
ator's  power  (Ps.  cxlvii.  16,  cxlviii.  8).  We  have 
again,  notice  of  the  beneficial  effect  of  snow  on  thi 


»f  whom  are  Mohammedans.     On  the  import  of  I  soil  (Is.  Iv.  10).     Its  color  is  adduced  as  an  'mage 


SNOW 

of  brilliancy  (Dan.  vii.  9;  Matt,  xxviii.  3;    Rev.  i. 

14),  uf  purity  (Is.  i.  18:  Lam.  iv.  7,  in  reference 
to  the  white  robes  of  the  princes),  and  of  the 
blanching  effects  of  leprosy  (E.i;.  iv.  6;  Nnni.  xii. 
10;  2  K.  V.  27).  In  the  book  of  ,Ioh  we  have  ref- 
erences to  the  supposed  cleansing  eflects  of  snow- 
water (ix.  30),  to  the  rapid  melting  of  snow  under 
the  sun's  rays  (xxiv.  19),  and  the  consequent  flood- 
ing of  the  brooks  (vi.  16).  The  thick  falling  of  the 
flakes  forms  the  point  of  comparison  in  the  obscure 
passage  in  Ps-  Ixviii.  14.  The  snow  lies  deep  in  the 
ravines  of  the  highest  ridge  of  Lebanon  until  the 
.suunner  is  far  advanced,  and  indeed  never  wholly 
disappears  (Robinson,  iii.  531);  the  sunnnit  of  Her- 
mcn  also  perpetually  glistens  with  frozen  snow 
(Robinson,  ii.  437).  From  these  sources  probably 
the  Jews  obtained  their  supplies  of  ice  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cooling  their  beverages  in  summer  (Prov. 
XXV.  13).  The  •'  snow  of  Lebanon  "  is  al.so  used  as 
an  expression  for  the  refreshing  coolness  of  spring 
water,  probably  in  reference  to  the  stream  of  Si- 
loam  (Jer.  xviii.  14).  Lastly,  in  Prov.  xxxi.  21, 
snow  appears  to  be  used  as  a  synonym  for  winter  or 
cold  weather.  The  liability  to  snow  must  of  course 
vary  considerably  in  a  country  of  such  varying  alti- 
tude as  Palestine,  Josephus  notes  it  as  a  peculiar- 
ity of  the  low  plain  of  Jericho  that  it  was  warm 
there  even  when  snow  was  prevalent  in  the  rest  of 
the  country  {B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  3).  At  Jerusalem  snow 
often  falls  to  the  depth  of  a  foot  or  more  in  Janu- 
ary and  February,  but  it  seldom  lies  (Robinson,  i. 
429).  At  Nazareth  it  falls  more  frequently  and 
deeply,  and  it  has  been  observed  to  fall  even  in  the 
maritime  plain  at  Joppa  and  aliout  Carmel  (Kitto, 
Phys.  Hist.  p.  210).  A  comparison  of  the  notices 
of  snow  contained  in  Scripture  and  in  the  works  of 
modern  travellers  would,  however,  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  more  fell  in  ancient  times  than  at  the 
|)resent  day.  At  Damascus,  snow  falls  to  the  depth 
of  nearly  a  foot,  and  lies  at  all  events  for  a  few 
days  (Wortabefs  Syrii,  i.  215,  230).  At  Aleppo 
it  falls,  but  never  lies  for  more  than  a  day  (Russell, 
i.  69).  \V.  L.  B. 

*  The  "time  of  harvest"  (Prov.  xxv.  13)  an- 
swers to  our  summer  rather  than  the  autumn.  At 
Damascus   snow   procured   from   Anti-Lebanon  is 


SO,  3065 

kept  for  sale  in  the  bazaars  during  the  hot  months, 
and  being  mixed  with  the  juice  of  pomegranates, 
with  sherbet  and  other  drinks,  forms  a  favorite  bev- 
erage. "  In  the  heat  of  the  day,"  says  Dr.  Wil- 
son, "  the  Jews  at  JIasbeed,  in  northern  Galilee, 
offered  us  water  cooled  with  snow  from  Jebel  esli- 
Shcikh,  the  modern  Hermon  ''  {Lands  of  the  Bible., 
ii.  186).  "Countless  loads  of  snow,"  says  Dr. 
Schulz  (Jerusalem,  eine  Vorlesunt/,  p.  10),  "  are 
brought  down  to  Beirui  from  the  sides  of  Snnnin, 
one  of  tiie  highest  peaks  of  Lebanon,  to  freshen  the 
water,  otherwise  hardly  fit  to  drink."  (See  also 
Volney,  Voyage  en  Egypte  et  en  Syrie,  p.  262.) 
The  practice  of  using  snow  in  this  manner  existed 
also  among  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans.  The 
comparison  in  the  proverb  therefore  is  very  signif- 
icant. I'he  prompt  return  of  the  messenger  with 
good  tidings  refreshes  the  heart  of  the  anxiously- 
expectant  like  a  cooling  draught  in  the  heat  of 
sunnner.  ,  H. 

*  *NUFF-DISH.  [Censek;  Fii:e-p.\n.] 
SO  (SID  [Egypt-  Sevech  or  Serec,  an  Egyptian 
deity,  Furst] :  'S.riywp;  [Ales.  2coa;  Comp.  2oua:] 
Sun).  "  So  king  of  Egypt"  is  once  mentioned  in 
the  Bible.  Hoshea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,  evi- 
dently intending  to  become  the  vassal  of  Egypt, 
sent  messengers  to  him,  and  made  no  present,  as 
had  been  the  yearly  custom,  to  the  king  of  As- 
syria (2  K.  xvii.  4).  The  consequence  of  this 
step,  which  seems  to  have  been  forbidden  Ijy  the 
prophets,  who  about  this  period  are  constantly 
warning  the  people  against  trusting  in  l'"gyi)t  and 
Ethiopia,  'was  the  imprisonment  of  Hoshea,  the 
taknig  of  Samaria,  and  the  carrying  captive  of  the 
ten  tribes. 

So  has  been  identified  by  different  writers  with 
the  first  and  second  kings  of  the  Ethiopian  XX\'th 
dynasty,  called  by  Manctho,  Sabakon  and  Sebi- 
chos.  It  will  be  necessary  to  examine  the  chronol- 
ogy of  the  period  in  order  to  ascertain  which  of 
these  identifications  is  the  more  probable.  We 
therefore  give  a  table  of  the  dynasty  (see  below), 
including  the  third  and  last  reign,  that  of  Tirha- 
kah,  for  the  illustration  of  a  later  article.    [I'ik- 

HAKAII.] 


TABLE   OF    DYNASTY    XXV. 


Egyptian  Data. 

Hebrew  Data. 

B.  0. 

Manetho. 

Monuments. 

Correct 
reigns  ? 

B.  0. 

Event$. 

719 
717 
695 

Africanus. 

Yrs. 
1    Sabajcon     8 

2.  Sebichos  14 

3.  Tarkos      18 

Eusebius. 

Yrs. 

1.  Sabakon    12 

2.  Sebichos   12 

3.  Taraltos    20 

Order. 

1.  SUEBEK   . 

2.  SHEBETEK 

3.  TEHARKA 

Highest 
Yr. 

XII. 
XXVI. 

12 
12 
26 

cir.  723  or  703. 
oir.703or683? 

Hoshea's  treaty  wltn 
So 

War  with  Sennacherib. 

The  accession  of  Teharka,  the  Tirhakah  of  Scrip- 
ture, may  be  nearly  fixed  on  the  evidence  of  an 
Apis-tablet,  which  states  that  one  of  the  bulls  Apis 
was  born  in  his  26th  year,  and  died  at  the  end  of 
the  20th  of  Psammetichus  I.  This  bull  lived  more 
than  20  years,  and  the  longest  age  of  any  Apis 
stated  is  26.  Supposing  the  latter  duration,  which 
would  allow  a  short  interval  between  Teharka  and 
193 


Psammetichus  XL,  as  seems  necessary,  the  acces- 
sion of  Teharka  would  be  b.  c.  695.  If  we  assign 
24  years  to  the  two  predecessors,  the  commence- 
ment of  the  dynasty  would  be  B.  c.  719.  But  it 
is  not  certain  that  their  reigns  were  continuous. 
The  account  which  Herodotus  gives  of  the  war  ot 
Sennacherib  and  Sethos  suggests  that  Tirhakah 
was  not  ruling  in  Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  destruc- 


k 


8066 


SOAP 


tion  of  the  Assyrian  army,  so  that  we  may  either 
conjecture,  as  Dr.  Hincks  has  done,  that  the  reign 
3f  Sethos  followed  that  of  Shebetek  and  preceded 
that  of  Tirhakah  o\er  Egypt  {Journ.  Sac.  Lit., 
January,  1853),  or  else  that  Tirhakah  was  king  of 
Ethiopia  while  Shebetek,  not  the  same  as  Sethos, 
ruled  in  Egypt,  the  former  hypothesis  being  far  the 
more  probable.  It  seems  impossible  to  arrive  at 
any  positive  conclusion  as  to  the  dates  to  which 
the  mentions  in  the  Bible  of  So  and  Tirhakah 
refer,  but  it  must  be  remarked  that  it  is  dithcult 
to  overthrow  the  date  of  b.  c.  721,  for  the  taking 
of  Samaria. 

If  we  adopt  the  earlier  dates  So  must  correspond 
to  Shebek,  if  the  later,  perhaps  to  Shebetek ;  but 
if  it  should  be  found  that  the  reign  of  Tirhakah  is 
dated  too  high,  the  former  identification  might  still 
lie  held.  The  name  Shebek  is  nearer  to  the  He- 
brew name  than  Shebetek,  and  if  the  Masoretic 
points  do  not  faithfully  represent  the  oriiriiial  pro- 
nunciation, as  we  might  almost  infer  from  the  con- 
sonants, and  the  name  was  Sewa  or  Seva,  it  is  not 
very  remote  from  Shebek.  We  cannot  account  for 
the  transcription  of  the  LXX. 

From  Egyptian  sources  we  know  nothing  more 
of  Shebek  than  that  he  conquered  and  put  to  death 
Bocchoris,  the  sole  king  of  the  XXIVth  dynasty, 
as  we  learn  from  jManetho's  list,  and  that  he  con- 
tinued the  monumental  works  of  the  Etryptian 
kings.  There  is  a  long  inscription  at  El  Karnak 
in  which  Shebek  speaks  of  tributes  from  "  the  king 
of  the  land  of  Kuala  (Shara),"  supposed  to 
be  Syria.  (Brugsch,  Histoire  d'Efjypte,  i.  244.) 
This  gives  some  slight  confirmation  to  the  identi- 
fication of  this  king  with  So,  and  it  is  likely  that 
the  founder  of  a  new  dyn:isty  would  have  en- 
deavored, like  Shishak  and  Psammetichus  I.,  the 
latter  virtually  the  founder  of  the  XXVIth,  to  re- 
store the  Egyptian  suj)remacy  in  the  neighboring 
Asiatic  countries. 

The  standard  inscription  of  Sargon  in  his  palace 
at  Khursabad  states,  according  to  SI.  Oppert,  that 
after  the  capture  of  Samaria,  Hanon  king  of  Gaza, 
and  Sebech  sultan  of  Egypt,  met  the  king  of  As- 
syria in  battle  at  Kapih,  Kaphia,  and  were  defeated. 
Sebech  disappeared,  but  Hanon  was  captured. 
Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  was  then  put  to  tribute. 
(Les  Inscriptions  Assyriennes  (Its  Surcjonides,  etc 
p.  22.)  This  statement  would  appear  to  indicate 
that  either  Shebek  or  Shebetek,  for  we  cannot  lay- 
great  stress  upon  the  seeming  identity  of  name 
with  the  former,  advanced  to  the  support  of  Hoshea 
and  his  party,  and  being  defeated  fled  into  Ethiopia, 
leaving  the  kingdom  of  Egypt  to  a  native  prince. 
This  evidence  favors  the  idea  that  the  Ethiopian 
kings  were  not  successive.  K.  S.  P. 

SOAP  (n'^"l*2,  ~I2  :  TrSa-  herha,  h.  borith). 
The  Hebrew  term  h&i-ith  does  not  in  itself  bear  the 
specific  sense  of  soap,  but  is  a  general  term  for  any 
•  substance  of  cleansing  qualities.  As,  however,  it 
appears  in  Jer.  ii.  22,  in  contradistinction  to  nei/ier, 
which  undoubtedly  means  "  nitre,"  or  mineral 
alkali,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  borilli  refers  to  Vege- 
table alkali,  or  some  kind  of  potash,  which  forms 
one  of  the  usual  ingredients  in  our  soap.  Numer- 
ous plants,  capalile  of  yielding  alkalies,  exist  in 
Palestine  and  the  surrounding  countries;  we  may 
notice  one  named  Hubcibth  (the  salsola  kali  of 
botanists),  found  near  the  Dead  Sea,  with  glass- 
like leaves,  the  ashes  of  which  are  called  el-Kuti 
from   their   strong  alkaline  properties  (Robinson, 


SOC'»H 

Bibl.  Researches,  i.  505);  the  Ajravi,  (oimA  neai 
Sinai,  which  when  pounded  serves  as  a  substitute 
for  soap  (Robinson,  i.  84);  the  yilloo,  or  "soap 
plant"  of  Egypt  (Wilkinson,  ii.  106);  and  the 
heaths  in  the  neighborhood  of  .loppa  (Kitto's  Phys. 
Hist.  p.  2ti7).  Modern  travellers  have  also  noticed 
the  Sapanaria  officinalis  and  the  Mtseinbryan- 
tliemum  nodiflorum,  both  possessing  alkaline  prop- 
erties, as  growing  in  Palestine.  Prom  these  sources 
large  quantities  of  alkali  have  been  eitracted  ic 
past  ages,  as  the  heajjs  of  ashes  out.side  Jerusalem 
and  Nablus  testify  (Robinson,  iii.  201,  299),  and 
an  active  trade  in  the  article  is  still  prosecuted  .vith 
Aleppo  in  one  direction  (Russell,  i  79),  and  Arabia 
in  another  (Burckhardt.  i.  6G).  We  need  not  as- 
sume that  the  ashes  were  worked  up  in  the  form 
fiimiliar  to  us ;  for  no  such  article  was  known  to  the 
Egyptians  (Wilkinson,  i.  186).  The  uses  of  soap 
among  the  Hebrews  were  twofold  :  (1)  for  cleansing 
either  the  person  (Jer.  ii.  22;  Job  i.x.  30,  where 
for  "  never  so  clean,"  read  "with  alkah  ")  or  the 
clotltts;  (2)  for  purifying  metals  (Is.  i.  25,  where 
for  "  purely,"  read  "  as  through  alkali  " ).  Hitzig 
suggests  that  borWi  should  be  substituted  for  btrilh, 
"covenant,"  in  Ez.  xx.  37,  and  Mai.  iii.  1. 

W.  L.  B. 

SO'CHO  i'^'D'W  [branches]:  'S.a)x<i^v:  Socho), 
1  Chr.  iv.  18.  Probably  the  town  of  Socoh  in 
Judah,  though  which  of  the  two  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained.. It  appears  from  its  mention  in  this  list, 
that  it  was  colonized  by  a  man  or  a  place  named 
Heber.  The  Targum,  playing  on  the  passage  after 
the  custom  of  Hebrew  writers,  interpret.s  it  as  re- 
ferring to  Moses,  and  takes  the  names  Jered,  Soco, 
Jekuthiel,  as  titles  of  him.     He  was  "  the  Rabba 

of  Soco,  because  he  sheltered  ("733)  the  house  of 
Israel  with  his  virtue."  G. 

SO'CHOH  Cnbb  [branches]  :  [Rom.  2«>- 
Xii'i]  "  Alex.  2oxAa> :  Soccho).  Another  form  of 
the  name  which  is  more  correctly  given  in  the  A.  V. 
as  SocoH,  but  which  appears  therein  under  no  less 
than  six  forms.  The  present  one  occurs  in  the  list 
of  King  Solomon's  commissariat  districts  (1  K.  iv. 
10 ),  and  is  therefore  probably,  though  not  certainly, 
the  town  in  the  Shefelah,  that  being  the  great  corn- 
growing  district  of  the  country.     [Socoh,  1.] 

SO'COH  {'pb'^XD  [see  above]).  The  name 
of  two  towns  in  the  tribe  of  Judah. 

1.  {1a(ji>x<ii''  Alex.  Scoxco:  Socko.)  In  the  dis- 
trict of  the  Shefelah  (Josh.  xv.  35).  It  is  a 
memlier  of  the  same  group  with  Jarmuth,  Azekah. 
Shaaraira,  etc.  The  same  relative  situation  is  im- 
plied in  the  other  passages  in  which  tiie  place 
(under  slight  variations  of  form)  is  mentioned.  At 
Ephes-dammini.  between  Socoh  and  Azekah  (1  Sam. 
xvii.  1),  the  Philistines  took  up  their  position  for 
the  memorable  engagement  in  which  their  champion 
was  slain,  and  the  wounded  fell  down  in  the  road 
to  Shaaraim  (ver.  52).  Socho,  AduUam,  Azekah, 
were  among  the  cities  in  Judah  which  Rehoboani 
fortified  after  the  revolt  of  the  northern  tribes 
(2  Chr.  xi.  7),  and  it  is  mentioned  with  others  of 
the  orighial  list  as  being  taken  by  the  Philistines 
in  the  reign  of  .\haz  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  18). 

In  the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  ( Onomad. 
"Soccho")  it  bore  the  name  of  Socchoth,  and  laj 


a  The  text  of  the  Vat.  MS.  is  so  corrupt  as  to  pi» 
vent  any  name  being  recogniied. 


SOD 

Detween  8  and  9  Roman  miles  from  Eleutheropolis, 
on  the  road  to  Jerusalem.  I'aula  passed  through  it 
on  her  road  from  Bethlehem  (?)  to  Egypt  (Jerome, 
Ep.  Paulce,  §  14).  As  is  not  unfrequently  the  case 
in  this  locality,  there  were  then  two  villages,  an 
upper  and  a  lower  {Oiumvist.).  Dr.  Robinson's 
identification  of  Socoh  with  esh-Shmveikeh  "  in  the 
western  part  of  the  mountains  of  Judah  is  very 
probable  {BilA.  Res.  ii.  21).  It  lies  about  1  mile  to 
the  north  of  the  track  from  Beit  Jibrvi  to  Jerusa- 
lem, between  7  and  8  English  ndles  from  the  former. 
To  the  north  of  it  within  a  couple  of  miles  is  Yur- 
rnuk,  the  ancient  .larniuth.  Dtiiniui,  perhaps  Ephes- 
daramim,  is  about  the  same  distance  to  the  east, 
and  although  Azekah  and  Shaaraim  have  not  been 
dentified,  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  were  in  this 
neighborhood.  To  complete  the  catalogue,  the 
ruins  —  which  must  be  those  of  the  upper  one  of 
luisebius's  two  villages  —  stand  on  the  southern 
slope  of  the  Wady  es-Suin/,  wliich  with  great  prob- 
aliiiity  is  the  Valley  of  Elah,  the  scene  of  Goliath's 
death.     (See  Tobler,  3lte   Wandevuny^  p.  122.) 

No  traveller  appears  to  have  actually  visited  the 
spot,  but  one  of  the  few  who  have  approached  it 
describes  it  as  '•  nearly  half  a  mile  above  the  bed 
of  the  ^Vady,  a  kind  of  natural  terrace  covered 
with  green  fields  (in  spring),  and  dotted  with  gray 
ruins"  (Porter,  Flandbk.  p.  249  a). 

From  this  village  probably  came  "  Antigonus  of 
Soco,"'  who  lived  about  the  conmiencement  of  the 
3d  Century  B.  c.  He  was  remarkable  for  being  the 
earliest  Jew  who  is  known  to  have  hail  a  Greek 
name;  for  being  the  disciple  of  the  great  Simon, 
surnanied  the  -lust,  whom  he  succeeded  as  president 
of  the  Sanhedrim ;  for  being  the  master  of  Sadok 
the  reputed  founder  of  the  Sadclucees;  but  most 
truly  remarkable  as  the  author  of  the  following 
saying  which  is  given  in  the  Mishna  {Pirke  Abolli, 
i.  3)  as  the  substance  of  his  teaching,  "  lie  not  ye 
like  servants  who  serve  their  lord  that  they  may 
receive  a  reward.  Hut  be  ye  like  servants  who 
serve  their  lord  without  hope  of  receiving  a  reward, 
but  in  the  fear  of  Heaven  " 

Socoh  appears  to  be  mentioned,  under  the  name 
of  Socliiis,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Nice, 
though  its  distance  from  Jerusalem  as  there  given 
IS  not  sufficient  for  the  identification  proposed  above 
(Keland,  P<d.  p.  1019). 

2.  (Scwx" '  -"^It^x.  'Zcjixoo :  Socotli. )  Also  a  town 
of  Judah,  but  in  the  mountain  district  (Josh.  xv. 
48).''  It  is  one  of  the  first  group,  and  is  named 
in  company  with  Anab,  Jattir,  Eshtemoh,  and 
others.  It  has  been  discovered  by  Dr.  Robinson 
(Bibl.  Res.  i.  494)  in  the  Wady  tl-Kludil,  about  10 
tiiles  S.  W.  of  Hebron;  bearing,  like  the  other 
Socoh,  the  name  of  esh-S/iuweikt/i,  and  with  Anab, 
Stmoa,  'Atiir,  within  easy  distance  of  it.  G. 

*  SOD,  the  preterite  of  seei/ie ;  "  And  Jacob 
Bod  pottage,"  Gen.  xxv.  29;  and  see  also  2  Chr. 
XXXV.  13.  H. 

*  SODDEN,  pa.st  participle  of  "  seethe"  (Ex. 
xii.  19).     [Sod.]  H. 

SO'DI  C^iyD  [a  confidant,  fava)-he]:  2ou5/; 


SODOM 


]06i 


o  Shuweikeh  is  a  diminutive  of  Shaiik'h.  as  Miireikhy 
of  Murkkah,  etc. 

b  The  Keri  to  this  passage  reads  131117,  i.  e.  Soco. 

c  It  is  perhaps  doubtful  whether  the  name  had  not 
ilso  the  form  H^^D,  Sed'imah,  which  appears  in 
B«n.  X   19.     The  sufflx  may  in  this  case  be  only  the 


[Vat.  ^ovSei  ■■]  Sodi).  The  father  of  Gaddiel.  the 
spy  selected  from  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (Num.  xiii. 
10). 

SOD'OM  COIT'  i.  e.  Sedom  [.see  note  be- 
low]:  [ret]  2(<5o/xa;  Jo.seph.  -^  vrdAis  2o5o/xiTir: 
Sodaina.  Jerome  vacillates  between  singular  and 
plural,  noun  and  adjective.  He  employs  all  the 
following  forms,  Sodomam,  in  Sodomis,  Sodomor-uin, 
Sodomce,  Sodoinitce).  One  of  the  most  ancient 
cities  of  Syria,  whose  name  is  now  a  synonym  for 
the  most  disgusting  and  opprobrious  of  vices.  It 
is  commonly  mentioned  in  coimection  with  Gomor- 
rah, but  also  with  Admah  and  Zeboim,  and  on  one 
occasion  ((Jen.  xiv.)  with  Bela  or  Zoar.  Sodom 
was  evidently  the  chief  town  in  the  settlement.  Its 
king  takes  the. lead  and  the  city  is  always  named 
first  in  the  list,  and  appears  to  lie  the  most  im- 
portant. The  four  are  first  named  in  the  ethno- 
logical records  of  Gen.  x.  19,  as  belonging  to  the 
Canaanites:  "The  border  of  the  Canaanite  was 
from  Zidon  towards  Gerar  unto  Azzah :  towards 
Sedom  and  Amorah  and  Admah  and  Tseboim  unto 
Lasha."  The  meaning  of  which  appears  to  be  that 
the  district  in  the  hands  of  the  Canaanites  formed 
a  kind  of  triangle  —  the  apex  at  Zidon,  the  south- 
west extremity  at  Gaza,  the  southeastern  at  Lasha. 
Lasha,  it  may  be  remarked  in  pa.ssing,  seems  most 
probably  located  on  the  Wndy  Zurka  >/(»(«,  which 
enters  the  east  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  about  nine 
miles  from  its  northern  end. 

The  next  mention  of  the  name  of  Sodom  (Gen 
xiii.  10-13)  gives  more  certain  indication  of  th( 
position  of  the  city.  Abram  and  Lot  are  stamlhig 
together  between  Bethel  and  Ai  (ver.  3),  taking:;,  as 
any  spectator  from  that  spot  may  still  do,  a  survey 
of  the  land  around  and  below  them.  Eastward  of 
them,  and  absolutely  at  their  feet,  lay  the  "  circle 
of  Jordan."  It  was  in  all  its  verdant  glory,  that 
glory  of  which  the  traces  are  still  to  be  seen,  and 
which  is  so  strangely  and  irresistibly  attracti\'e  to  a 
spectator  from  any  of  the  heights  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Bethel  —  watered  by  the  copious  supplies 
of  the  Wady  Kelt,  the  Ain  Sultan,  the  Ain  Duk, 
and  the  other  springs  which  gush  out  from  the 
foot  of  the  mountains.  These  abundant  waters 
even  now  support  a  mass  of  verdure  before  they  are 
lost  in  the  light,  loamy  soil  of  the  region.  But  at 
the  time  when  Abram  and  Lot  beheld  them,  they 
were  husbanded  and  directed  by  irrigation,  after 
the  manner  of  Egypt,  till  the  whole  circle  was  one 
great  oasis  —  "  a  garden  of  Jehovah  "  (ver.  10).  In 
the  midst  of  the  garden  the  four  cities  of  Sodom, 
Gomorrah,  Admah,  and  Zeboim  appear  to  have 
been  situated.  To  these  cities  Lot  descended,  and 
retaining  his  nom.ad  habits  amongst  the  more  civ- 
ilized manners  of  the  Canaanite  settlement  "  pitched 
his  tent"  by'  the  chief  of  the  four.  At  a  later 
period  he  seems  to  have  been  living  within  the 
walls  of  Sodom.  It  is  necessary  to  notice  how 
absolutely  the  cities  are  identified  with  the  district.  ' 
In  the  subsequent  account  of  their  destruction 
(Gen.  xix.),  the  topographical  terms  are  employed 
with  all  the  precision  which  is  characteristic  of 
such  early  times.    "  The  Ciccar,'"  the  "  land  of  the 


n  of  motion,  but  the  forms  adopted  by  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  favor  the  belief  that  it  may  be  part  tf  th* 
name. 

<l  The  word  is  IV,  "  at,"  not  "  towards,'  as  in  tui 
A.  V.    Luzzatto,  vtcino  a  ;    LXX    :'<j-K^i'<o<rfv  ep  ioM 

AtOt9. 


3068 


SODOM 


Ciccdr,"  "  Ciivdr  of  Jordan."  recurs  again  and 
again  both  in  chaps,  xiii.  and  xix..  and  "  tlie  cities 
of  the  Ciccdr  '"  is  the  ahiiost  technical  designation 
of  the  towns  wliich  were  destroyed  in  the  catastroplie 
related  in  the  latter  chapter.  The  mention  of  the 
Jordan  is  conclusive  as  to  the  situation  of  the  dis- 
trict, for  the  .Jordan  ceases  wliere  it  enters  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  can  have  no  existence  south  of  that 
point.  But,  in  addition,  there  is  the  mention  of 
the  eastward  direction  from  Bethel,  and  the  fact 
of  the  perfect  manner  in  which  the  district  north  of 
the  Lake  can  be  seen  from  the  central  highlands 
of  the  country  on  which  Abram  and  Lot  were 
standing.  And  there  is  still  further  corrol )oration 
in  Deut.  xxxiv.  3,  where  ''  the  Ciccdr"  is  directly 
connected  with  Jericho  and  Zoar,  coupled  with 
the  statement  of  Gen.  x.  already  quoted,  which  ap- 
pears to  place  Zoar  to  the  north  of  Lasha.  It 
may  be  well  to  remark  here,  with  reference  to  what 
will  be  named  further  on,  that  the  southern  half 
of  the  Dead  Sea  is  invisible  from  this  point;  not 
merely  too  distant,  but  shut  out  by  intervening 
heiiihts. 

We  have  seen  what  evidence  the  earliest  records 
afford  of  the  situation  of  the  five  cities.  Let  us 
now  see  what  they  say  of  the  nature  of  that  catas- 
trophe by  which  they  are  related  to  have  been  de- 
stroyed. It  is  described  in  Gen.  xix.  as  a  shower 
of  brimstone  and  fire  from  Jehovah,  from  the  skies 
—  ''  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom,  and  upon  Go- 
morrah, brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of 
heaven ;  and  he  overthrew  those  cities,  and  all  the 
plain,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities,  and  that 
which  grew  upon  the  ground"  ....  "and  lo! 
the  smoke  of  the  land  went  up  like  the  smoke  of  a 
furnace."  "  It  rained  fire  and  brimstone  from 
Leaven  "  (Luke  xvii.  29).  However  we  may  inter- 
pret the  words  of  the  earliest  narrative  one  thing  is 
certain,  that  the  lake  was  not  one  of  the  agents  in 
the  catastrophe.     Further,  two  words  are  used  in 

Gen.  xix.  to  describe  what  happened:  H'Tllpn, 

to  throw  down,  to  destroy  (vv.  13,  14),  and  "TTpn, 
to  overturn  (21,  25,  29).  In  neither  of  these  is  the 
presence  of  water  —  the  submergence  of  the  cities 
or  of  the  district  in  which  they  stood  —  either 
mentioned,  or  implied.  Nor  is  it  implied  in  any 
of  the  later  passages  in  which  the  destruction  of 
the  cities  is  referred  to  throughout  the  Scriptures. 
Quite  the  contrary.  Those  passages  always  speak 
of  the  district  on  which  the  cities  once  stood,  not 
as  submerged,  but  as  still  visiljle,  though  desolate 
and  uninhabitable.  "  Brimstone,  and  salt,  and 
burning  ....  not  sown,  nor  beareth,  nor  any 
grass  groweth  therein  "  (Deut.  xxix.  23).  "Never 
to  be  inhabited,  nor  dwelt  in  from  generation  to 
generation ;  where  neither  Arab  should  pitch  tent 
nor  shepherd  make  fold  "  (Is.  xiii.  20).  "  No  man 
abiding  there,  nor  son  of  man  dwelling  in  it"  (.ler. 
xlix.  18;  1.  40).  "A  fruitful  land  turned  into 
saltness  "  (Ps.  cvii.  34).  "  Overthrown  and  burnt" 
(Amos  iv.  11).  "  The  breeding  of  nettles,  and 
Baltpits,  and  a  perpetual  desolation  "  (Zeph.  ii.  9). 


SODOM 

"  A  waste  land  that  snioketh,  and  plants  bearing 
fruit  which  never  cometh  to  ripeness"  (VVisd.  x. 
7).  "Land  lying  in  clods  of  pitch  and  heaps  of 
ashes  "  (2  Esdr.  ii.  9).  "  The  cities  turned  into 
ashes  "  (2  Pet.  ii.  6,  where  their  destruction  by  fira 
is  contrasted  with  ihe  Deluge). 

In  agreement  with  this  is  the  statement  of  Jo- 
sephus  (5.  J. a  iv.  8,  §  4).  After  descriliing  the 
lake,  he  proceeds :  "  Adjoining  it  is  Sodomitis,  once 
II  blessed  region  abounding  in  produce  and  in  cities, 
but  now  entirely  burnt  up.  They  say  that  it  was 
destroyed  by  lightning  for  the  impiety  of  its  inhab- 
itants. And  even  to  this  day  the  relics  of  the  Di- 
vine fire,  and  the  traces  of  five  cities  are  to  be  seen 
there,  and  moreover  the  ashes  reappear  even  in  the 
fruit."  In  another  passage  (B.  J.  v.  13,  §  6)  he 
alludes  incidentally  to  the  destruction  of  Sodom, 
contrasting  it,  like  St.  Peter,  with  a  destrui  tion  by 
water.  By  comparing  these  passages  willi  Ani.  i. 
9,  it  appears  that  Josephus  believed  the  vale  of 
Siddim  to  have  been  submerged,  and  to  have  been 
a  distinct  district  from  that  of  Sodom  in  which  the 
cities  stood,  which  latter  was  still  to  be  seen. 

With  this  agree  the  accounts  of  heathen  writers, 
as  Strabo  and  Tacitus;  who,  however  vague  their 
statements,  are  evidently  under  the  belief  that  the 
district  was  not  under  water,  and  that  the  remains 
of  the  towns  were  still  to  be  seen.* 

From  all  these  passages,  though  much  is  obscure, 
two  things  seem  clear. 

1.  That  Sodom  and  the  rest  of  the  cities  of  the 
plain  of  Jordan  stood  on  the  north  of  the  Dead 
Sea. 

2.  That  neither  the  cities  nor  the  district  were 
submerged  by  the  lake,  but  that  the  cities  were 
overthrown  and  the  land  spoiled,  and  that  it  may 
still  be  seen  in  its  desolate  condition. 

\M)en,  however,  we  turn  to  more  modern  views, 
we  discover  a  remarkable  variance  from  these  con- 
clusions. 

1.  The  opinion  long  current,  that  the  five  cities 
were  submertjed  in  the  lake,  and  that  their  remains 
—  walls,  columns,  and  capitals  —  might  be  still  dis- 
cerned below  the  water,  hardly  needs  refutation 
after  the  distinct  statement  and  the  constant  impli- 
cation of  Scripture.  Keland  (Pal.  p.  257)  showed 
more  than  two  centuries  ago  how  baseless  was  such 
a  hypothesis,  and  how  completely  it  is  contradicted 
by  the  terms  of  the  original  narrative.  It  has  suice 
been  assaulted  with  great  energy  by  De  Saulcy. 
Professor  Stanley  (S.  f  P.  p.  289)  has  lent  his 
powerful  aid  in  the  same  direction, «  and  the  theory, 
which  probably  arose  from  a  confusion  between  the 
Vale  of  Siddim  and  the  plain  of  the  Jordan,  will 
doubtless  never  again  be  listened  to.     But 

2.  A  more  serious  departure  from  the  terms  of 
the  ancient  history  is  exhibited  in  the  prevalent 
opinion  that  the  cities  stood  at  the  south  end  of 
the  Lake.  This  appears  to  have  been  tJie  belief 
of  Josephus  and  Jerome  (to  judge  by  their  state- 
ments on  the  subject  of  Zoar).  It  seems  to  have 
l)een  universally  held  by  the  mediaeval  historians 
and  pilgrims,  and  it  is  adopted  by  modem  topog- 


a  Jcseplius  regarded  this  passage  as  his  main  state- 
ment of  the  event.     See  Ant.  i.  11,  §  4. 

>j  These  passages  are  given  at  length  by  De  Saulcy 
(Nan.  i.  448). 

c  "  The  only  expression  which  seems  to  imply  that 
the  rise  of  the  Dead  Se.i  was  within  historical  times,  is 
that  contained  in  Gen.  xiv.  3  —  '  the  Vale  of  Siddim, 
irhich  is  the  Salt  Sea.'     But  this  phrase  may  merely 


mean  that  tlie  region  in  question  bore  both  names  ;  as 
in  the  similar  expressions  (vv.  7  and  17) —  '  En  Mish- 
pat,  which  is  Kadesh  ;  '  '  Shaveh,  which  is  the  King's 
Dale.'  It  should,  however,  be  observed  that  the  word 
'  Emek,'  translated  '  vale,'  is  usually  employed  for  a 
long  broad  valley,  such  as  in  this  connection  would 
naturally  mean  the  whole  length  of  the  Dead  Sea  ' 
(Stanley,  5.  if  P.  p.  289  note!. 


SODOM 

3,  probab.y  without  exception.  In  the  words 
jf  one  of  the  most  able  and  careful  of  modern  trav- 
jllers,  Dr.  Kobinson.  "  The  cities  which  were  de- 
stroyed must  have  been  situated  on  the  south  end 
of  the  lake  as  it  then  existed  "  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  188). 
This  is  also  the  belief  of  AI.  Ue  Saulcy,  except  with 
regard  to  Gomorrah;  and,  in  fact,  is  generally  ac- 
cepted. There  are  several  grounds  for  this  belief; 
but  the  main  point  on  which  Dr.  Kobinson  rests 
his  argument  is  the  situation  of  Zoar. 

(a.)  "  Lot,"  says  he,  in  continuing  the  passage 
just  quoted,  "  fled  to  Zoar,  which  was  near  to 
Sodom ;  and  Zoar  lay  almost  at  the  southern  end 
of  the  present  sea,  probably  in  the  moutli  of  the 
Wady  Ktrak,  where  it  opens  upon  the  isthmus  of 
the  peninsula.  The  fertile  plain,  therefore,  which 
Lot  chose  for  himself,  where  Sodom  was  situated 
...  lay  also  south  of  the  lake  '  as  thou  comest 
mito  Zoar  "  "  (Bibl.  Ees.  ibid.). 

Zoar  is  said  by  Jerome  to  have  been  "  the  key 
of  Moab."  It  is  certainly  the  key  of  the  position 
which  we  are  now  examining.  Its  situation  is  more 
properly  investigated  under  its  own  head.  [Zoah.] 
It  will  there  be  shown  that  grounds  exist  for  be- 
lieving that  the  Zoar  of  Josephus,  Jerome,  and  the 
Crusaders,  which  probably  lay  where  Dr.  Kobinson 
places  it,  was  not  the  Zoar  of  Lot.  On  such  a 
point,  however,  where  the  eviilence  is  so  fragment- 
ary and  so  obscure,  it  is  impossible  to  speak  other- 
wise than  with  e.xtreme  diffidence. 

In  the  mean  time,  however,  it  may  be  observed 
that  the  statement  of  Gen.  xis.  hardly  supports  the 
inference  relative  to  the  position  of  these  two  places, 
whicli  is  attempted  to  be  extorted  from  it.  For, 
assuming  that  Sodom  was  where  all  topographers 
6eem  to  concur  in  placing  it,  at  the  salt  ridge  of 
Usdum,  it  will  be  found  that  the  distance  between 
that  siKit  and  the  mouth  of  the  Wndy  Kerdk; 
where  Dr.  Kobinson  proposes  to  place  Zoar,  a  dis- 
tance which,  according  to  the  narrative,  was  trav- 
ersed by  Lot  and  his  party  in  the  short  twilight  of 
an  eastern  morning  (Gen.  xis.  15,  23),  is  no  less 
than  lb  miles." 

^^'ithout  questioning  that  the  narrative  of  Gen. 
six.  is  strictly  historical  throughout,  we  are  not  at 
present  in  possession  of  sufficient  knowledge  of  the 
topography  and  of  the  names  attached  to  the  sites 
of  this  remarkable  region,  to  enable  any  profitable 
conclusions  to  be  arrived  at  on  this  and  the  other 
kindred  questions  connected  with  the  destruction  of 
the  five  cities. 

{b.)  Another  consideration  in  favor  of  placing  the 
cities  at  the  soutliern  end  of  the  lake  is  the  exist- 
ence of  similar  names  in  that  direction.  Thus,  tlie 
name  Usdum,  attached  to  the  reuiarkable  ridge  of 
salt  which  lies  at  the  southwestern  corner  of  the 
lake,  is  usually  accepted  as  the  representative  of 
Sodom  (Robinson,  Van  de  Velde,  De  Saulcy,  etc., 
etc.).      But  there  is  a  considerable  difference  be- 

tween  the  two  words  D"Tp  and  a  JCww  I ,  and  at 


SODOM 


306S 


a  M.  De  Saulcy  has  not  overlooked  this  coasider- 
ation  {Narrative,  i.  442).  His  own  proposal  to  place 
Zoar  at  Ziiweirak  is  however  inadmissible,  for  reasons 
stated  under  the  head  of  Zoar.  If  Usi/uin  be  Sodom, 
?hen  the  site  which  has  most  claim  to  be  identified 
with  the  site  of  Zoar  is  the  1\U  iim-Zng/ia/,  which 
Itands  between  the  north  end  of  KImshm  Us'tum  and 
Ihe  Lake.  But  Zoar,  the  cradle  of  Moab  and  Ammon, 
Jiust  surely  have  been  on  the  east  side  c.f  the  Lake. 

*  It  "  surely  "  was  for  other  reasons  than  thai  it 


any  rate  the  point  deserves  further  investigation 
The  name  'Ainrah   (s^^x),  which  is  attached  tc 

a  valley  among  the  mountains  south  of  JIasada 
(V^an  de  Velde,  ii.  99,  and  Map),  is  an  almost  ex- 
act equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  of  Gomorrha''  ('Am- 

orah).       The    name    Dra'a  (g^\0),  and    much 

more   strongly  that   of   Zo(jhal    ((J»i.v),   recall 

Zoar. 

(c.)  A  third  argument,  and  perhaps  the  weight- 
iest of  the  three,  is  the  existence  of  the  salt  moun- 
tain at  the  south  of  the  lake,  and  its  tendency  tr 
split  off  in  columnar  masses,  presenting  a  rude  re 
semblance  to  tlie  human  form.  But  with  reference 
to  this  it  may  l>e  remarked  that  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  salt  does  not  exist  at  other  spots  round 
the  lake.  In  fact,  as  we  shall  see  under  the  head 
of  Zoar,  Thietmar  (A.  d.  1217)  states  that  he  say 
the  pillar  of  Lot's  wife  on  the  east  of  Jordan  at 
about  a  mile  from  the  ordniary  ford:  and  wherever 
such  salt  exists,  since  it  doubtless  belongs  to  the 
same  formation  as  the  Klmshin  Usduni,  it  will  pos- 
sess the  habit  of  splitting  into  the  same  shapes  a.s 
that  does. 

It  thus  appears  that  on  the  situation  of  Sodom 
no  satisfactory  conclusion  can  at  present  be  come 
to.  On  the  one  hand  tlie  narrative  of  Genesis 
seems  to  state  positively  that  it  lay  at  the  nortliern 
end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  On  the  other  hand  tlie  long- 
continued  tradition  and  the  names  of  existing  spots 
seem  to  pronounce  with  almost  equal  positiveness 
that  it  was  at  its  southern  end.  How  tlie  geolog- 
ical argmnent  may  aftect  either  side  of  the  propo 
sitioii  cannot  be  decided  in  the  present  condition  cf 
our  knowledge. 

Of  the  catastrophe  which  destroyed  the  city  and 
the  district  of  Sodom  we  can  hardly  hoije  ever  to 
form  a  satisfactory  conception.  Some  catastrophe 
there  undoubtedly  was.  Not  only  does  the  narra 
five  of  Gen.  six.  expressly  state  that  the  cities  were 
miraculously  destroyed,  but  all  the  rel'erences  to  the 
event  in  subsequent  writers  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  bear  witness  to  the  same  fact.  But 
what  secondary  agencies,  besides  fire,  were  employed 
in  the  accomplishment  of  the  punishment,  cannot 
be  safely  determined  in  the  almost  total  absence  of 
exact  scientific  description  of  the  natural  features 
of  the  ground  round  the  lake.  It  is  possilile  that 
when  the  ground  has  been  thoroughly  examined  by 
competent  observers,  something  may  be  discovered 
wliich  may  throw  light  on  the  narrative.  Until 
then,  it  is  useless,  however  tempting,  to  speculate. 
But  even  this  is  almost  too  much  to  hope  for;  be- 
cause, as  we  shall  presently  see,  there  is  no  warrant 
for  imagining  that  the  catastrophe  was  a  geological 
one,  and  in  any  other  case  all  traces  of  action  must 
at  this  distance  of  time  have  vanished. 

It  was  Ibrmerly  supposed  that  the  overthrow  of 
Sodom  was  caused  by  the  convulsion  which  formed 

was  '■  the  cradle "  of  these  tribes.  [Zoar,  .\mer. 
ed.]  S-  ^\'- 

b  The  G  here  is  employed  by  the  Greeks  for  the 
difficult  guttural  aiii  of  the  Hebrens,  which  they  wei-e 
unable  to  pronounce  (comp.  Gothaliah  for  Atlialiah, 
etc.).  This,  however,  would  not  be  the  case  in  Arabic, 
wnere  ,"he  aiii  is  very  common,  and  therefore  De  Saul- 
cy's  Kentification  of  (ioiimran  with  Gomorrah  falls  to 
tile  ground,  as  far  at  least,  as  etymology  is  con. 
cerned. 


3070 


SODOM 


ihe  Dead  Sea.  This  theory  is  stated  by  Dean 
Milman  in  his  History  of  the  Jews  (i.  15,  16)  with 
great  spirit  and  clearness."  "  The  valley  of  tlie 
Jordan,  in  which  the  cities  of  Sodom,  Gomorrah. 
Adma,  and  Tseboim  were  situated,  was  rich  and 
highly  cultivated.  It  is  most  probable  that  the 
river  then  flowed  in  a  deep  and  uninterrupted  chan- 
nel down  a  regular  descent,  and  discharged  itself 
into  the  eastern  gulf  of  the  lied  Sea.  The  cities 
stood  on  a  soil  broken  and  undermined  with  veins 
of  bitumen  and  sulphur.  These  inflammaUe  sub- 
stances, set  on  fire  by  lightning,  caused  a  tremen- 
dous convulsion:  the  water- courses,  both  the  river 
and  the  canals  by  which  the  land  was  extensively 
irrigated,  burst  their  banks;  the  cities,  the  walls 
of  which  were  perhaps  built  from  the  conil)ustible 
materials  of  the  soil,  were  entirely  swallowed  up  by 
the  fiery  inundation ;  and  the  whole  valley,  which 
had  been  compared  to  Paradise,  and  to  the  well- 
watered  cornfields  of  the  Nile,  became  a  dead  and 
fetid  lake."  But  nothing  was  then  known  of  the 
lake,  and  the  recent  discover}'  of  the  extraordinary 
depression  of  its  surface  lielow  the  ocean  level,  and 
its  no  less  extraordinary  depth,  has  rendered  it 
impossible  any  longer  to  hold  such  a  theory.  The 
changes  whicji  occurred  when  the  limestone  strata 
of  Syria  were  split  liy  that  vast  fissure  which  forms 
the  .Jordan  Valley  and  the  basin  of  the  Salt  Lake, 
must  not  oidy  have  taken  place  at  a  time  long 
anterior  to  the  period  of  Abraham,  but  must  have 
been  of  such  a  nature  and  on  such  a  scale  as  to 
destroy  all  animal  life  far  and  near  (Dr.  Buist,  in 
Trans,  of  Boinbuy  Geoyr.  Sue.  xii.  p.  xvi.). 

Since  the  knowledge  of  these  facts  has  rendered 
the  old  theory  untenable,  a  new  one  has  been 
broached  by  Dr.  Eobinson.  He  admits  that  ''  a 
lake  must  have  existed  where  the  Dead  Sea  now 
lies,  into  which  the  .Jordan  poured  its  waters  long 
before  the  catastrophe  of  Sodom.  The  great  de- 
pression of  the  whole  broad  Jordan  Valley  and  of 
the  northern  part  of  the  Arabali,  the  direction  of 
its  lateral  valleys,  as  well  as  the  slope  of  the  high 
western  district  towards  the  north,  all  go  to  show 
that  the  configufation  of  this  region  in  its  main 
features  is  coeval  with  the  present  condition  of  the 
surface  of  the  eartli  in  general,  and  not  the  effect 
of  any  local  catastrophe  at  a  subsequent  period. 
....  In  view  of  the  fact  of  the  necessary  ex- 
istence of  a  lake  before  the  catastrophe  of  Sodom  ; 
the  well-watered  plain  toward  the  south,  in  which 
were  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  not 
far  off  the  sources  of  bitumen ;  as  also  the  peculiar 
character  of  this  part  of  the  lake,  where  alone 
asphaltum  at  the  i)resent  day  makes  its  appearance 
—  I  say,  in  view  of  all  these  fiicts,  there  is  but  a 
step  to  the  obvious  hypothesis,  that  the  fertile  plain 
is  now  in  part  occupied  by  the  southern  bay  lying 
south  of  the  peninsula;  and  that,  by  some  convul- 
sion or  catastrophe  of  nature  connected  with  the 
miraculous  destruction  of  the  cities,  either  the  sur- 
face of  this  plain  was  scooped  out,  or  the  bottom  of 
the  lake  heaved  up  so  as  to  cause  the  waters  to 
overflow  and  cover  permanently  a  larger  tract  than 
formerly  "  (Bibl.  Res.  ii.  188,  189). 


"  Tllis  caunot  be  said  of  the  account  given  bj' 
Fuller  in  his  Pisgah-sigitt  of  Paltslitie  (bk.  2,  ch.  13), 
which  seems  to  combine  every  possible  mi.'stake  witli 
an  amount  of  bad  taste  and  unseemly  drollery  quite 
Mtonishing  even  in  Fuller. 

t  This  is  the  vecouut  of  the  Koran  (.xi.  S4):  "We 


SODOM 

To  this  very  ingenious  theoiy  two  objectiyng 
may  be  taken.  (1.)  The  "plain  of  the  Jordan." 
in  which  the  cities  stood  (as  has  been  stated)  can 
hardly  have  been  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake, 
and  (2.)  The  geological  portion  of  the  theory  does 
not  appear  to  agree  with  the  facts.  The  whole  of 
the  lower  end  of  the  lake,  including  the  plain  which 
borders  it  on  the  south,  has  every  appearance  not 
of  having  been  lowered  since  the  formation  of  the 
valley,  but  of  undergoing  a  gradual  process  of  fill- 
ing up.  This  region  is  in  fact  the  delta  of  the 
very  large,  though  irregular,  streams  which  drain 
the  highlands  on  its  east,  west,  and  south,  and 
have  drained  them  e\er  since  the  valley  was  a  val- 
ley. Xo  report  by  any  observer  at  all  competent 
to  read  the  geological  features  of  the  district  will 
be  found  to  give  countenance  to  the  notion  that 
any  disturliance  has  taken  place  within  the  his 
torical  period,  or  that  anything  occurred  there  since 
the  country  assumed  its  present  general  conforinar 
tion  beyond  the  quiet,  gradual  change  due  to  the 
regular  operation  of  the  ordinary  agents  of  nature, 
which  is  slowly  filling  up  the  chasm  of  the  valley 
and  the  lake  with  the  washings  brought  down  by 
the  torrents  from  the  highlands  on  all  sides.  The 
volcanic  appearances  and  marks  of  fire,  so  often 
mentioned,  are,  so  far  as  we  have  any  trustworthy 
means  of  judging,  entirely  illusory,  and  due  to 
ordinary,  natural  causes. 

But -in  fact  the  naiTative  of  Gen.  xix.  neither 
states  nor  implies  that  any  convulsion  of  the  eartli 
occurred.  The  word  licphac,  rendered  in  the  A.  V 
"  overthrow,"  is  the  only  expression  which  sug- 
gests such  a  thing.  Considering  the  character  of 
the  whole  passage,  it  may  be  inferred  with  almost 
absolute  certainty  that,  had  an  earthquake  or  con- 
vulsion of  a  geological  nature  been  a  main  agent 
in  the  destruction  of  the  cities,  it  would  have  been 
far  more  clearly  reflected  in  the  narrative  than  it 
is.  Compare  it,  for  example,  with  the  forcible 
language  and  the  crowded  images  of  Amos  and 
the  Psalmist  in  reference  to  such  a  visitation.  If 
it  were  possible  to  speculate  on  materials  at  once 
so  slender  and  so  obscure  as  are  furnished  by  that 
narrative,  it  would  be  more  consistent  to  svippose 
that  the  actual  agent  in  the  ignition  and  destruc- 
tion of  the  cities  had  been  of  the  nature  of  a  tre- 
mendous thunderstorm  accompanied  by  a  discharge 
of  meteoric  stones.'' 

Tlie  name  Seduin  has  Vieen  interpreted  to  mean 
"  bimiing  "  (Gesenius,  Tln-^s -p.  939  a).  This  is 
possible,  though  it  is  not  at  all  certain,  since  Ge- 
senius himself  hesitates  between  that  interpretation 
and  one  which  identifies  it  with  a  similar  Hebrew 
word  meaning  "  vineyard,"  and  Fiirst  {Hcindwb.  ii. 
72),  with  equal  if  not  greater  plausibility,  con- 
nects it  with  a  root  meaning  to  inclose  or  for- 
tify. Simonis  again  {Onomast.  p.  363)  renders  it 
"abundance  of  dew,  or  water,"  Hiller  {Onovmst. 
p.  176)  "fruitful  land,"  and  Chytrseus  "mystery." 
In  fact,  like  most  archaic  names,  it  may,  by  a  little 
ingenuity,  be  made  to  mean  almost  anything.  Pro- 
fessor Stanley  {S.  4'  f-  P-  289)  notices  the  first  of 
these  interpretations,  and  comparing  it  with  the 


turned  those  cities  upside  down  and  we  rained  upon 
them  stones  of  baked  clay." 

c  Taking     CTD    =   71^12?,     and   that   as  . 


k 


rfODOM 

"  Phtegrsean  fields"  in  the  Carapagna  at  Rome, 
says  that  "  the  name,  if  not  derived  from  the  sub- 
jequent  catastrophe,  shows  that  the  marks  of  fire 
had  ah'eady  passed  over  the  doomed  valley."  Ap- 
parent "  marks  of  fire  "  there  are  all  over  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Dead  Sea.  They  ha\  e  misled  many 
travellers  into  believing  them  to  be  the  tokens  of 
conflagration  and  volcanic  action;  and  in  the  same 
manner  it  is  quite  possible  that  they  originated  the 
name  Scdom,  for  they  undoulitedly  abounded  on 
the  shores  of  the  lake  long  before  even  Sodom  was 
founded.  But  there  is  no  warrant  for  treating 
those  appearances  as  the  tokens  of  actual  conflagra- 
tion or  volcanic  action.  They  are  produced  by  the 
gradual  and  ordinary  action  of  the  atmosphere  on 
tlie  rocks.  They  are  familiar  to  geologists  in  many 
other  places,  and  they  are  found  in  other  parts  of 
Palestine  where  no  fire  has  ever  been  suspected. 

The  miserable  fate  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  is 
held  up  as  a  warning  in  numerous  passages  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  By  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Jude  it  is  made  "  an  ensample  to  those  that  after 
should  live  ungodly,"  and  to  those  "denying  the 
only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (2 
Pet.  ii.  6;  .Jude,  4—7).  And  our  Lord  himself, 
when  describing  the  fearful  punishment  that  will 
befall  those  that  reject  his  disciples,  says  that  "it 
shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  that  city"  (Mark 
vi.  11:  corap.  Matt.  x.  15). 

The  name  of  the  Bishop  of  Sodom  —  "  Severus 
Sodomorum  "  —  appears  amongst  the  Aral)ian  prel- 
ates who  signed  the  acts  of  the  first  Council  of 
NicEea.  Reland  remonstrates  against  the  idea  of 
the  Sodom  of  the  Bible  being  intended,  and  sug- 
gests that  it  is  a  mistake  for  Zuzumaon  or  Zo- 
raima,  a  see  under  the  metropolitan  of  Bostra 
(Pal.  p.  10-20).  This  M.  De  Sauloy  {Nan:  i.  454) 
refuses  to  admit.  He  explains  it  by  tlie  fiict  that 
many  sees  still  bear  the  names  of  places  whiidi  ha\e 
vanished,  and  exist  only  in  nauje  and  memory, 
such  as  Troy  The  Coptic  version  to  which  he 
refers,  in  the  edition  of  M.  Lenormant,  does  not 
throw  any  light  on  the  point.  G. 

*  The  theory  which  is  propounded  in  this  arti- 
cle respecting  the  catastrophe  of  the  cities  and  the 
submergence  of  the  district,  is  examined  in  the 
articles,  Sea,  The  Salt  (p.  2897  f.)  and  SiDinm, 
The  Vale  of  (p.  .3032  f.,  Amer.  ed.).  The  argu- 
ment which  would  locate  the  cities  north  of  the  sea, 
is  refuted,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  Zoar,  in  the  article 
ZoAR  (Amer.  ed.).  For  the  reason  above  named, 
that  Zoar  is  "  the  key  of  the  position,"  its  site 
determines  that  of  Sodom,  which  was  so  near  it 
that  it  coidd  be  reached  by  flight  between  the  early 
dawn  and  the  broad  daylight  after  the  sun  had 
risen  over  the  mountains,  and  it  was  exposed  to 
the  same  catastrophe,  being  saved  by  special  inter- 
position. If  Zoar  was  in  the  district  in  which 
we  have  placed  it,  Sodom  was  south,  and  not 
north,  of  the  sea.  But  on  this  point  we  oflfer 
further  and  cumulative  evidence  relating  especially 
to  Sodom. 

The  etymological  import  of  the  word  "123  is 
not  settled.  Li  an  able  article  on  "  The  Site  of 
'Nodom  and  Gomorrah,"  published  in  the  Jourwd 
^  Sacred  Liternture,  April.  1806  (pp.  36-57), 
►ieorge  Warington,  p]sq.,  ofters  fjf-oible  reasons 
|br  translating  the  term,  "hollow,"  and  for  apply- 
ing it  to  the  entire  crevasse,  of  which  the  valley 
nf  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea  are  but  a  part. 


SODOM  8071 

In  this  view  he  is  supported  by  the  analogous  facts 
that  t/ie  entire  valley  was  designated  by  .leronie 
and  luisebins  as  the  Aulon  =  the  ravine,  and  that 
it  is  now  called  by  the  Arabs  the  Ghor  =  the  de 
pression. 

The  argument  from  the  Scripture  narrative  (Gen 
xiii.)  given  in  this  article  is,  in  suljstance,  this: 
that  Abraham  and  Lot,  standing  on  some  eminence 
between  liethel  and  Ai,  sur\eyed  the  fruitful  plain 
of  the  Jordan  on  the  east  —  the  region  north  of 
the  sea  being  visible  from  that  point,  while  what 
is  now  the  southern  end  of  the  sea  would  be  in- 
visible; and  that  Lot  selected  the  plain  thus  vi.silile 
below  him  as  his  residence,  and  descending  to  it 
pitched  his  tent  near  Sodom,  one  of  the  cities 
planted  amid  its  verdure. 

The  scene  of  the  conference  between  Abraham 
and  Lot  is  not  stated  by  the  sacred  writer,  but 
would  seem  to  have  been  near  the  spot  above 
named.  The  inference  stated  is  also  natural,  and 
if  there  were  no  special  reason  to  question  it,  it 
would  pass  unchallenged.  But  the  location  of  the 
cities  is  not  so  definitely  given  as  to  compel  us  to 
accept  the  inference.  Nor  is  it  fairly  implied  in 
the  narrative  that  l.,ot"s  \ie\v  took  in  tlie  whole 
valley;  he  surveyed  a  section  of  it,  which  in  its 
fruitfulness  represented  the  whole.  The  argument 
assumes  that  there  has  been  no  essential  change  in 
the  plain  and  the  sea  since  that  day,  except  what 
woukl  result  in  the  former  from  disuse  of  the  arti- 
ficial irrigation  which  then  made  it  so  fruitful. 
But  the  phrase  "before  the  Lord  destroyed,"  etc., 
plainly  indicates  a  marked  change  in  consequence 
of  the  event;  and  there  certainly  is  nothing  in  the 
Scripture  narrative  inconsistent  with  the  general 
lielief  that  the  catastrophe  of  the  cities,  which 
destroyed  also  "the  country,"  wrought  a  great 
and  general  change  in  "  the  land  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,"  thus  turned  "into  ashes."  If  the 
cultivated  plain  or  valley,  with  or  without  a  lake 
of  fresh  water  in  a  part  of  the  present  bed  of  the 
sea,  then  extended  as  far  as  the  present  southern 
limit  of  the  sea  and  adjacent  plain,  and  the  cities 
were  in  that  section  of  it,  the  fact  would  not  con- 
flict with  the  sacred  record.  If  the  passage  cited 
(Gen.  xiii.)  does  not  countenance  this  view,  neitlier 
does  it  contradict  it.  The  host  of  writers,  ancient 
and  modern,  who  have  firmly  held  it,  have  never 
iielt  that  this  passage  offered  any  olijeotion  to  it. 

Of  the  re.asons  which  we  now  oft'er  additional  to 
the  site  of  Zoar,  which  in  itself  is  conclusive,  the 
first  two  are  conceded  above. 

1.  The  names  suggestive  of  identity  with  the 
original  sites  vv'hich  adhere  to  the  localities  around 
the  southern  end  of  the  sea.  and  of  which  we  have 
no  certain  traces  around  the  northern  end. 

2.  The  existence  and  peculiar  features  of  the 
salt  mountain  south  of  the  sea,  with  no  correspond- 
ing object  north  of  it.  which  is  certainly  remark- 
able in  coimection  with  the  sacred  narrative,  and 
irresistibly  associates  the  flight  of  Lot  and  the  fate 
of  his  wife,  with  this  locality. 

3.  The  living  fountains  and  streams  of  fresh 
water  which  flow  into  the  plain  south  of  the  sea, 
correspondent  witii  its  original  features,  if  it  w:\s 
the  southern  extremity  of  the  plain  of  Jordan  which 
Lot  surveyed,  "  well-watered  everywhere,  lieibre  the 
Lord  destroyed  <!>odom  and  (ioniorrah,  even  as  tiie 
garden  of  the  Lord,  like  the  land  of  Kgypt,  as  thou 
comest  unto  Zoar"  (lien.  xiii.  10).  This  is  » 
feature  which  Dr.  IJoliinson  specially  noted  :  "  Kven 
to  the  present  day  mure  livini;  streams  tiuw  into 


3072 


SODOM 


the  Ghor,  at  the  south  end  of  the  sea,  from  wadies 
of  the  eastern  mountains,  than  are  found  so  near 
together  in  all  Palestme  besides "  {Pliys.  Geog. 
p.  234).  Mr.  Tristram's  observations  of  the  soil 
below  the  surface,  both  at  the  foot  of  Jebel  Usdiim 
and  in  the  salt  marsh,  confirm  the  theory  that  the 
whole  region  was  once  fruitful.  He  says:  "We 
collected  specimens  of  the  soil  at  the  depth  of  two 
feet  from  the  surface,  where  it  is  a  rich  greasy 
loam,  but  strongly  impregnated  with  salt.''  "  At 
the  depth  of  eighteen  inches  in  the  plain,  the  soil 
was  a  fat,  greasy  loam"  {Land  of  Israel,  pp.  .322, 
335).  Before  this  rich  alluvial  soil  was  covered 
with  the  saline  incrustation  of  the  marsh  and  water 
of  the  lagoon,  we  have  an  image  of  the  fertili^ty 
and  beauty  of  the  whole  expanse,  in  'Sir.  Tristram's 
description  of  the  present  luxuriance  of  the  oasis  on 
the  eastern  border:  "All  teemed  with  a  prodigality 
of  life.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  reproduction  of  the  oasis 
of  Jericho,  in  a  fai-  more  tropical  climate,  and  with 

yet  more   lavish     sujiply    of  water For 

three  miles  we  rode  through  these  rich  groves, 
revelling  in  the  tropical  verdure  and  swarming 
ornithology  of  its  labyrinths  "  {Ibid.  p.  336). 

4.  The  testimony  of  unbroken  tradition,  ancient 
and  modern.  Strabo,  Josephus,  Tacitus,  Galen, 
Jerome,  Eusebius,  "  medioeval  historians  and  pil- 
grims, and  modern  topographers,  without  excep- 
tion,"—  is  the  formidable  array  which  jMr.  Grove 
proposes  to  turn  aside  by  an  interpretation,  plausi- 
ble in  itself,  of  a  single  passage  of  Scripture, 
which  offers  no  bar  to  their  unanimous  verdict, 
and  which  seems  to  us  even  to  require  it.  (The 
reader  will  find  these  cited  in  the  Bibl.  Sritni, 
XXV.  147. )  The  whole  series,  of  course,  does  not 
amount  to  positive  proof,  but  it  is  so  uni\ersal  and 
unvarying  that  it  has  not  a  little  value  as  cor- 
ro!  orative  evidence. 

5.  There  remains  a  comljined  topographical  and 
historical  ;u-gument  which  to  us  appears  conclusive. 
No  event  has  perhaps  occurred  on  the  globe  more 
fitted  to  leave  a  permanent  scar  on  its  surface  than 
the  conflagration  of  the  cities  of  the  plain  and  the 
plain  together.  Of  no  recorded  occurrence  except 
perhaps  the  Deluge,  might  we  reasonalily  look  for 
clearer  traces.  It  was  a  catastrophe  so  dire  that 
it  became  a  standing  comparison  for  signal  and 
overwhelming  destruction,  and  would  naturally 
leave  a  perpetual  mark  on  the  valley  which  bore 
it.  This  impression,  which  every  reader  would 
receive  from  the  original  narrative,  is  confirmed  by 
every  succeeding  notice  of  it  and  of  the  locality. 
The  event  occurred  aliout  nineteen  centuries  before 
Christ,  and  the  fertile  and  populous  plain  was  at 
once  made  desolate  and  tenantless.  This  is  the 
record :  "  Then  the  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and 
upon  Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord 
out  of  heaven;  and  he  overthew  those  cities,  and 
all  the  plain,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities, 
and  that  which  grew  upon  the  ground  "  (Gen.  xix. 
24,  25).  About  four  and  a  half  centuries  later, 
Moses,  warning  the  Israelites  against  apostasy,  ad- 
monishes them  that  the  judgments  of  God  for 
idolatry  woidfi  make  their  country  so  desolate  that 
a  visitor  woidd  find  its  condition  portrayed  in  these 
words:  "And  the  whole  land  tliereof  is  brimstone 
and  salt  and  burning,  that  it  is  not  sown,  nor 
beareth.  nor  any  grass  groweth  therein;  like  the 
overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Admah  and 
Zeboim,  which  the  Lord  overthrew  in  his  anger  and 
in  his  wrath"  (Deut.  xxix.  23).  The  above  is  a 
picture  of  the  site  o'.  Sodom  as  it  appeared  at 


SODOM 

that  period.  The  testimony  which  exhibits  it  still 
deserted  and  desolate  in  the  subsequent  centuries, 
as  furnished  by  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
and  Zephaniah,  by  the  apocryphal  books  of  I^sdras 
and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  by  the  ancient 
authors,  Strabo,  Josephus,  and  Tacitus,  together 
with  the  New  Testament  allusions,  are  partially 
quoted  above,  and  more  fully  in  Bibl.  Sacj-a,  xxv. 
146-148.  ?so  historic  proof  can  be  more  clear 
and  complete,  than  that  the  site  of  Sodom,  from 
the  time  of  its  destruction  to  the  Christian  era 
and  subsequently,  was  a  blasted  region,  an  utter 
desolation. 

With  these  historical  and  physical  delineations 
before  us,  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  attention  to 
the  aspect  of  the  two  sites  to  settle  the  question 
of  identity.  The  south  end  of  the  sea  and  its 
surroundings  present  at  this  day  such  an  appear- 
ance as  the  Scriptural  statements  would  lead  us  to 
expect.  The  entire  southwest  coast  and  adjacent 
territory  from  above  Sebbe/i.  round  to  the  fertile 
border  of  the  Ghor  es-Sqfieh  on  the  extreme  south- 
east, relieved  at  a  single  point  by  the  verdure  of 
the  small  oasis  of  Zuweirah,  is,  and  has  been,  from 
the  time  of  Sodom's  destruction,  the  iniage  of 
enthroned  desolation.  The  sombre  wildness  and 
desolateness  of  the  whole  scene;  the  tokens  of  vol- 
canic action,  or  of  some  similar  natural  couvul- 
sion;  the  Sodom  mountain,  a  mass  of  crystallized 
salt,  furrowed  into  fantastic  ridges  and  pillars;  the 
craggy  sunburnt  precipices  and  ravines  on  the 
west;  the  valley  below  Usdum,  with  the  mingled 
sand,  sulphur,  and  bitumen,  which  have  been 
washed  down  the  gorges;  the  marshy  plain  of 
the  adjacent  Sabknh,  with  its  briny  drainings, 
"  destitute  of  every  species  of  vegetatiorj ;  "  the 
stagnant  sea,  with  its  border  of  dead  driftwood; 
the  sulphurous  odors;  "the  sterility  and  death- 
like solitude"  (Kobinson);  "desolation,  elsewhere 
partial,  here  supreme;"  '-nothing  in  tlie  Sahara 
more  desolate"  (Tristram);  "the  unuiitigated 
desolation"  (Lynch)  ;  "scorched  and  desolate 
tract"  (W.);  "desolation  which,  perhaps,  cannot 
be  exceeded  anywhere  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  " 
(Grove);  "  utter  and  stern  desolation,  such  as  the 
mind  can  scarcely  conceive"  (I'orter);  these  and 
the  like  features  impress  all  visitors  as  a  fit  me- 
morial of  such  a  catastrophe  as  the  sacred  writers 
have  recorded.  Whether  we  accept  or  not  certain 
localities  as  particular  sites,  the  tout  ensemble  is  a 
most  striking  confirmation  of  the  narrative. 

The  more  detailed  explorations  of  the  region 
confirm  the  impression  which  its  general  appear- 
ance conveys.  Mr.  Tristram,  who  bestowed  npon 
the  whole  locality  a  careful  scientific  examination, 
thinks  that  he  discovered  in  the  deposits  of  t_o 
Wady  Mahnwat,  a  broad  deep  ravine  at  the  north 
end  of  Jebel  Usdum,  traces  of  the  agency  whicB 
destroyed  the  cities.     He  says :  — 

"  There  are  exposed  on  the  sides  of  the  wady, 
and  chiefly  on  the  south,  large  masses  of  bitumen, 
mingled  with  gravel.  These  overlie  a  thin  stratum 
of  sulphur,  which  again  overlies  a  thick  stratum 
of  sand,  so  strongly  impregnated  with  sulphur 
that  it  yields  powerful  fumes  on  being  spnnkled 
over  a  hot  coal.  JIany  great  blocks  of  the  bitu- 
men have  been  washed  down  the  gorge,  and  lie 
scattered  on  Uie  plain  below,  along  with  huge 
botdders  and  8ther  traces  of  tremendous  floods. 
The  phenomenon  conmiences  about  half  a  mile 
from  where  the  wady  opens  up  on  the  plain,  nud 
may  be  traced  at  irregular  intervals  for  nea.iy  a 


SODOM 

aaiie  further  up.  The  bitumen  has  many  small 
water-worn  stones  and  peljbles  eniliedded  ''n  it." 
"Again,  the  bitumen,  unlike  that  which  we  pick 
up  on  tlie  shore,  is  strongly  impregnated  with  sul- 
phur, and  yields  an  overpowering  sulphurous  odor: 
above  all,  it  is  calcined,  and  bears  the  marks  of 
having  been  subjected  to  extreme  heat." 

"  1  have  a  great  dread  of  seeking  forced  cor- 
roborations of  Scriptural  statements  from  ques- 
tionable physical  evidence,  for  the  skeptic  is  apt  to 
imagine  that  when  he  has  refuted  the  wrong  argu- 
ment adduced  in  support  of  a  Scriptural  statement, 
he  has  refuted  the  Scriptural  statement  itself;  but, 
so  far  as  I  can  understand  this  deposit,  if  there  be 
any  physical  evidence  left  of  the  catastrophe  which 
destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  or  of  similar 
occurrences,  we  have  it  here.  The  whole  appear- 
ance points  to  a  shower  of  hot  sulphur  and  an 
irruption  of  bitumen  upon  it,  which  would  nat- 
urally l)e  calcined  and  impregnated  by  its  fumes; 
and  this  at  a  geologic  period  quite  subsequent  to 
all  the  diluvial  and  alluvial  action  of  which  we 
have  such  aliumlaut  evidence.  The  vestiges  remain 
exactly  as  the  last  relics  of  a  snow-di-ift  remain  in 
spring  —  an  atmospheric  deposit.  The  catastrophe 
must  have  lieen  since  the  formation  of  the  wady, 
since  the  deposition  of  the  marl,  and  while  tiie 
water  was  at  its  present  level;  therefore  probably 
during  the  historic  period"  {Land  of  Israel,  pp. 
354-357). 

Our  only  surprise  is,  that  the  intelligent  ob- 
server who  finds  these  probable  tokens  "  of  the 
catastrophe  which  destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah"  in  the  very  locality  near  wliich  on  other 
grounds  we  think  these  cities  nuist  have  stood, 
should  himself  place  them  full  fifty  miles  distant. 
He  has  proved  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the 
staoke  wliich  .\braham  saw  ascended  from  the 
northern  end  of  the  sea;  but  if  his  interesting 
discovery  is  reliable,  there  must  have  been  some 
"smoke,"  as  well  as  "extreme  heat,"  at  the  south- 
ern end.  If  in  these  and  similai-  features  we  have 
not  physical  evidence  of  the  visitation  which  de- 
stroyed Sodom,  we  have  just  such  material  phe- 
nomena as  we  should  naturally  look  for  in  a  terri- 
tory which  had  been  the  theatre  of  such  a  catas- 
trophe, and  whose  subsequent  condition  had  been 
described  in  the  passages  which  have  been  cited." 

We  turn  now  to  the  other  proposed  site,  the 
country  north  of  the  sea,  and  we  find  neither 
names  of  the  places  nor  traces  of  the  events  em- 
braced in  the  Scriptural  record.  Instead  of  a 
territory  scathed  as  by  hot  thunderbolts,  we  find  a 
district  teeming  with  all  the  elements  of  fruitful- 
ness.  In  the  very  year  that  Moses  describes  the 
site  of  the  destroyed  cities  as  brimstone  and  salt 
and  hurtling,  Joshua  brings  the  hosts  of  Israel  to 
the  territory  which  Jlr.  Gi'ove  proposes  as  the  site 
of  these  cities,  and  finds  there  forests  of  palm  and 
fields  of  barley,  "old  corn  and  parched  corn,"  sup- 
plies of  grain  and  fruit  for  the  multitude,  which 
suable  them  to  dispense  with  the  manna.  Through 
the  succeeding  centuries  important  cities  stood  on 
this  territory.  It  was  here  that  the  assembled 
latiou,  with  sacrificial  offerings  and  rejoicings,  in- 
vested Saul  with  the  kingdom  (1  Sam.  xi.  15); 
ind  here  were  gathered  schools  of  the  prophets  (2 
K..  ii.  5,  iv.  38).     Josephus  gives  glowing  descrip- 


SODOMITES 


807a 


a  •  We  have  private  advices  that  Mr.  Tri.stram  has 
iiUD'iuisbel  the  theory  respecting  the  site  of   the 


tions  of  the  exuberant  productiveness  of  this  vetj 
district,  speaks  of  the  variety  of  its  trees  and  herbs, 
and  refers  to  the  revenue  which  it  yielded  (Ant.  xv 
4,  §  2),  describes  it  as  the  garden  of  Palestine, 
and  even  calls  it  a  "divine  region"  {B.  J.  iv.  8, 
§  3).  This  plain  or  valley  is  now  marked  by  a 
belt  of  luxuriant  vegetation  along  tlie  sweet  waters 
of  the  river,  while  the  interval  between  it  and  the 
highlands  on  each  side,  though  arid  in  the  dry 
season  from  the  great  heat,  and  presenting  from 
this  cause  broad,  desolate  strips,  is  yet  susceptible 
of  irrigation  and  high  cultivation.  Not  a  token 
do  we  find  here  either  of  the  awful  catastrophe  in 
which  the  guilty  cities,  with  the  plain  on  which 
they  stood,  were  consumed,  or  of  the  perpetual 
desolation  which  subsequently  brooded  o\er  the 
scene.  We  find  ^e  opposite;  and  in  contrast  with 
the  descriptions  which  we  have  given  of  travellers 
who  have  visited  the  district  south  of  the  sea  we 
quote  the  expression  of  the  latest  visitor  to  the 
district  north  of  it  who  refers  to  "  the  verdant 
meadows  on  each  side"  (Porter,  Bishnn,  p.  112). 

Can  there  be  a  question  which  of  these  two  sitea 
is,  and  which  is  not,  that  of  the  historic  Sodom? 
This  combined  topographical  and  historical  argu- 
ment against  the  pretensions  of  the  new  site,  and 
ill  tavor  of  the  identity  of  the  old,  appears  to  us  as 
conclusive  as  it  well  could  be  with  reference  to  an 
event  which  occurred  nearly  four  thousand  years 
ago,  decisive  in  itself,  and  jointly  with  other  proof* 
potent  enough  to  silence  discussion.  S.  W. 

SOD'OMA  (2o'5o/xa:  Sodonin).  Rom.  ix.  29. 
In  this  place  alone  the  Authorized  Version  has  fol- 
lowed the  Greek  and  Vulgate  form  of  the  well- 
known  name  Sodom,  which  forms  the  subject  of 
the  preceding  article.  The  passage  is  a  quotation 
from  Is.  i.  9.  The  form  employed  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  occasionally  in  the  other  books  of  the 
A.  V.  of  1611  is  Sodonie,  but  the  name  is  now 
universally  reduced  to  Sodom,  except  in  the  one 
passage  quoted  above.  G. 

SOD'OMITES  (ttHH;  U^Wl^^  [see below]: 
scorl'itdf  ejf'emuirttiis).  This  word  does  not  denote 
the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  (except  only  in  2  Esdr. 
vii.  30)  nor  their  descendants;  but  is  employed  in 
the  A.  V.  of  the  Old  Testament  for  those  who 
practiced  as  a  religious  rite  the  abominable  and  un- 
natural vice  from  whicii  the  inhabitants  of  Sodoiu 
and  Gomorrah  have  derived  their  lasting  infamy. 
It  occurs  in  Deut.  xxiii.  17;  1  K.  xiv.  24,  xv.  12, 
xxii.  46;  2  K.  xxiii.  7;  and  Job  xxxvi.  14  (mar- 
gin). The  Hebrew  word  Kadesh  is  said  to  be 
derived  from  a  root  kudash,  which  (strange  as  it 
may  appear)  means  "pure,"  and  thence  "holy." 
The  words  S'fcer  in  Latin,  and  "devoted"  in  our 
language,  have  also  a  double  meaning,  though  the 
subordinate  signification  is  not  so  absolutely  con- 
trary to  the  principal  one  as  it  is  in  the  case  of 
kiidesh.  "  This  dreadful  '  consecration,'  or  ratiiej 
desecration,  was  spread  in  difierent  forms  over  Phce- 
nicia,  Syria,  Phrygia,  Assyria,  Babylonia.  Ash- 
taroth,  the  Greek  Astarte,  was  its  chief  object." 
It  appears  also  to  have  been  established  at  Koine, 
wiiere  its  victims  were  called  Galli  (not  from  tjallia, 
Init  from  the  river  Gallus  in  Bithynia).  There  is 
an  instructive  note  on  the  subject  in  Jerome's 
Coiiini.  on  Hos.  iv.  14. 


citie.s  to  which  he  had  pubUshed  his  assent,  and  r  on 
accepts  the  other  view.  ri.  SS 


3074 


SODOMITISH  SEA 


The  translators  of  the  Septuagint,  with  that 
mxiety  to  soften  and  conceal  obnoxious  expressions, 
which  has  been  often  noticed  as  a  characteristic  of 
■Jieir  version,  have,  in  all  cases  but  one,  a\oided 
rendering  Kiidesh  by  its  ostensible  meaning.  In 
the  first  of  the  passages  cited  above  they  give  a 
double  translation,  iropvevuiv  and  TiAiaKA/xevos 
(initiated).  In  the  second  avvSeafxos  (»  con- 
spiracy, perhaps  reading  ~1K''|'7).  In  the  thiid 
Tas  reXerds  (sacrifices).  In  the  fourth  the  Vat 
M.S.  omits  it,  and  the  Alex,  has  rod  ivSiriWay- 
u€vov-  In  the  fifth  rHv  KaSTjcri^:  and  in  the 
sixth  virh  ayyeXcov. 

Tliere  is  a  feminine  equivalent  to  Kadesh,  name- 
ly, Kadeshah.  This  is  found  in  Gen.  xxxviii.  21. 
■22;  Deut.  xxiii.  17,  and  Hos.  iv.  14.  In  each  of 
these  cases  it  throws  a  new  lignt  on  the  passage 
to  remember  that  these  women  were  (if  the  exjires- 
sion  may  be  allowed)  the  priestesses  of  a  religion, 
not  plying  for  hire,  or  merely  instruments  for  grat- 
ifying passing  lust.  Such  ordinary  prostitutes 
are  called  by  the  name  zonahfl  The  "strange 
women  "  of  Prov.  ii.  IG,  &c.,  were  foreigners,  za- 
roth.  G. 

SOD'OMITISH  SEA,  THE  {.Um-e  Sodo- 
miti<'uiii),  2  Esdr.  v.  7;  meaning  the  Dead  Sea. 
It  is  the  only  instance  in  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  New  Testament,  or  Apocrypha,  of  an 
approach  to  the  inaccurate  modern  opinion  wiiich 
connects  the  s^alt  lake  with  the  destruction  of  Sod- 
om. The  name  may,  however,  arise  here  simply 
from  Sodom  having  been  situated  near  the  lake. 

G. 

*  SOLDIER.     [Arms;  Army.] 

SOL'OMON  (nh'bW,  Shmmdh  [peaceful, 
pacific]  :  '^aXoofx.wv,  LXX. ;  :S,oKo/xciv,  N.  T.  and 
Joseph.:   Salomo). 

I.  Name.  —  The  changes  of  pronunciation  are 
worth  noticing.  We  lo.se  something  of  the  dignity 
of  the  name  when  it  passes  from  the  measured 
Btateliness  of  the  Hebrew  to  the  anapest  of  the 
N.  T.,  or  the  tribrach  of  our  common  speech. 
Such  changes  are  perhaps  inevitable  wherever  a 
name  becomes  a  household  word  in  successive  gen- 
erations, just  as  that  of  Friedereich  (identical  in 
meaning  with  Solomon)  passes  into  Frederick. 
The  feminine  form  of  the  word  (SaAtijurj)  retains 
the  long  vowel  in  the  N.  T.  It  appears,  though 
with  an  altered  sound,  in  the  Arabic  Stdehnaun. 

II.  Maleriids.  —  (1.)  The  comparative  scanti- 
ness of  historical  daUi  for  a  life  of  Solomon  is  itself 
significant.  While  that  of  David  occupies  1  Sam. 
xvi.-xxxi. ;  2  Sam.  i.-xxiv. ;  1  K.  i.,  ii. ;  1  Chr. 
x.-xxix. ;  that  of  Solomon  fills  only  the  eleven 
chapters  1  K.  i.-xi.,  and  the  nine  2  Chr.  i.-ix. 
The  compilers  of  those  books  felt,  as  by  a  true 
inspiration,  that  the  wanderings,  wars,  and  suffer- 
ings of  David  were  better  fitted  for  the  instruction 
of  after  ages  than  the  magnificence  of  his  son.'' 
They  manifestly  give  extracts  only  from  larger 
works  which  were  before  thein,  "  The  book  of  the 
Acts  of  Solomon"   (1  K.  xi.  41);  "The  book  of 


SOLOMOlf 

Xatnan  the  prophet,  the  book  of  Ahijah  the  Shi- 
lonite.  the  visions  of  iddo  the  seer"  (2  Chr.  ix 
2'J).  Those  which  they  do  give,  bear,  with  what 
for  the  historian  is  a  disproportionate  fullness,  on 
the  early  glories  of  his  reign,  and  speak  but  little 
(those  in  2  Chr.  not  at  all)  of  its  later  sins  and 
misfortunes,  and  we  are  consequently  unaijle  to 
follow  the  annals  of  Solomon  step  by  step. 

(2. )  Ewald,  with  his  usual  fondness  for  assigning 
different  portions  of  each  book  of  the  0.  T.  to  a 
series  of  successive  editors,  goes  through  the  pro- 
cess here  with  much  ingenuity,  l)ut  without  any 
very  satisfactory  result  {Gesrhic/ite,  iii.  259-2G3j. 
A  uiore  interesting  inquiry  would  be,  to  which  of 
the  books  above  named  we  may  refer  the  sections 
which  the  compilers  have  put  together.  We  shall 
probably  not  be  far  wrong  in  thinking  of  Nathan, 
far  advanced  in  life  at  the  commencement  of  the 
reign,  David's  chief  adviser  during  the  years  in 
which  he  was  absorbed  in  the  details  of  the  Tem- 
ple and  its  ritual,  himself  a  priest  (1  K.  iv.  5  in 
/A-/).,  conip.  Ewald,  iii.  116),  as  having  written  the 
account  of  the  accession  of  Solomon  and  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  Temple  (1  K.  i.-viii.  06;  2  Chr.  i.- 
viii.  15).  The  prayer  of  Solomon,  so  fully  repro- 
duced, and  so  obviously  precompo.sed,  may  have 
been  written  under  his  guidance.  To  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite,  active  at  the  close  of  the  reign,  alive 
some  tiuie  after  Jerol)oam's  accession,  we  may  as- 
cril)e  the  short  record  of  the  sin  of  Solomon,  and 
of  the  revolution  to  which  he  hin.;ielf  had  so  largely 
contributed  (1  K.  xi.).  From  the  book  of  the  Acta 
of  Solomon  came  probably  the  miscellaneous  facts 
as  to  the  commerce  and  splendor  of  his  reign  (IK. 
ix.  ID-x.  29). 

(3. )  Besides  the  direct  history  of  the  0.  T.  we 
may  find  some  materials  for  the  life  of  Solomon  in 
the  books  that  bear  his  name,  and  in  the  psalms 
which  are  referred,  on  good  grounds,  to  his  time, 
Ps.  ii.,  xlv.,  Ixxii.,  cxxvii.  Whatever  doulits  may 
hang  over  the  date  and  authorship  of  Ecclesiastes 
and  the  .Song  of  Songs,  we  may  at  least  see  in 
them  the  reflection  of  the  thoH<j;hts  and  feelings  of 
his  reign.  If  we  accept  the  latest  dale  which  re- 
cent criticism  has  assigned  to  them,  they  elabo- 
rately' work  up  materials  which  were  accessible  to 
the  writers,  and  are  not  accessible  to  us.  If  we 
refer  them  in  their  substance,  following  the  judg- 
ment of  the  most  advanced  Shemitic  scholars,  to 
the  Solomonic  period  itself,  they  then  come  before 
us  with  all  the  freshness  and  vividness  of  contem- 
porary evidence  (Renan,  Hist,  c/es  Lanyues  Semit. 
p.  131  ).c 

(4. )  Other  materials  are  but  very  scanty.  The 
history  of  Josephus  is,  for  the  most  part,  only  a 
loose  and  inaccurate  paraphrase  of  the  O.  T.  narra- 
tive. In  him,  and  in  the  more  erudite  among  early 
Christian  writers,  we  find  some  fragments  of  older 
history  not  without  their  value,  extracts  from  ar- 
chives alleged  to  exist  at  Tyre  in  tiie  first  century 
of  the  Christian  era,  and  from  the  Phoenician  his- 
tories of  jMenander  and  Dius  (.los.  Ant.  viii.  2,  §  6 
5,  §  3),  from  Eupolemos  (Euseb.  Prcep.  Jivany.  ix. 


n  In  1  K.   xxii.   38  the  word  zonoth  is  renderiHl    the  name  of  Solomon  {infra),  but  having  hardly  any 


"armor."  It  should  be  "  harlots  "  —  "  and  the  bar 
lots  washed  themselves  there  '•  (early  in  the  mornin":, 
as  was  their  custom,  adds  Procopius  of  Gaza).  The 
VXX.  have  rendered  this  correctly. 

''  The  contrast  presented  by  the  Apocryphal  litera- 
ture of  .Jews,  Christians,  Mohammedans,  abounding  in 
Deeudooymous   works  and  legends   gathering  round 


connection  with  David,   Is  at  once  striking  and  in- 
structive. 

c  The  weight  of  Rcuan's  judgment  is  howerer  di 
minished  by  the  fact  that  he  had  previously  assigne* 
Ecclesiastes  to  the  time  of  Alsxamltr  the  (inttt  (Can/ 
dPs  Cant.  p.  102) 


SOLOMON 

JO),  from  Alexander  Pol3histor,  JNlenaiider,  and 
Laitus  (Clem.  Al.  Strom,  i.  21).  Writers  such  as 
these  were  of  course  only  compilers  at  second- 
hand, but  they  probably  had  access  to  some  earlier 
documents  which  have  now  perished. 

(5.)  The  let;ends  of  later  orientiil  literature  will 
claim  a  distinct  notice.  All  that  they  contribute 
to  history  is  the  help  they  ifive  us  in  realizing  the 
impression  made  by  the  colossal  greatness  of  Solo- 
mon, as  in  earlier  and  later  times  by  that  of  Nim- 
rod  and  Alexander,  on  the  minds  of  men  of  many 
countries  and  through  many  ages. 

III.  Education.  ^  {\.)  The  student  of  the  life 
of  Solomon  must  take  as  his  starting-point  the 
circumstances  of  his  birth.  He  was  the  child  of 
David's  old  age,  the  last-born  of  all  his  sons  (1  Chr. 
iii.  5)."  His  mother  had  gained  over  David  a  two- 
fold power:  first,  as  the  object  of  a  passionate, 
though  guilty  love;  and  next,  as  the  one  person  to 
whom,  in  his  repentance,  he  could  make  something 
like  restitution.  The  months  that  preceded  his 
birth  were  for  the  conscience-stricken  king  a  time 
of  self-abasement.  The  birth  itself  of  the  child 
who  was  to  replace  the  one  that  had  been  smitten 
must  have  been  looked  for  as  a  pledge  of  pardon 
and  a  sign  of  hope.  The  feelings  of  the  king  and 
of  his  prophet-guide  expressed  themselves  in  the 
names  with  which  they  welcomed  it.  The  yearn- 
ings of  the  "man  of  war,"  who  "had  shed  much 
blood,"  for  a  time  of  peace  —  yearnings  Vv'hich 
had  shown  themselves  before,  when  he  gave  to  his 
third  son  the  uame  of  Ab-salom  (=  father  of 
peace),  now  led  him  to  give  to  the  new-born  infant 
the  name  of  Solomon  (Shelomoh  =  the  peaceful 
one).  Nathan,  with  a  marked  reference  to  the 
meaning  of  the  king's  own  name  (=tlie  darling, 
the  Ijeloved  one),  takes  another  form  of  the  same 
word,  and  joins  it,  after  the  growing  custom  of  the 
time,  with  the  name  of  Jehovah.  David  had  been 
the  darling  of  his  people.  Jedid-jah  (the  name 
was  coined  for  the  purpose)  should  be  the  darling 
of  the  Lord.  (2  Saui.  ;cii.  24,  25.''  See  Jeoi- 
Di.\H;  and  Ewald,  iii   215.) 

(2.)  The  intiueiices  to  which  the  childhood  of 
Svjlomon  was  thus  exposed  must  have  contributed 
largely  to  determine  the  character  of  his  after" 
years.  The  inquiry,  what  was  the  education  which 
ended  in  such  wonderful  contrasts,  —  a  wisdom 
then,  and  perhaps  since,  unparalleled,  —  a  sensual- 
ity like  that  of  Louis  <^  XV.,  cannot  but  be  instruc- 
tive. The  three  iiiHuences  which  must  have  en- 
tered most  largely  into  that  education  were  those 
of  his  father,  his  mother,  and  the  teaclier  imder 
whose  charge  he  was  placed  from  his  earliest  in- 
fancy (2  Sam.  xii.  26). 

(3.)  The  fact  just  stated,  that  a  [irophet-priest 
was  made  the  special  instructor,  indicates  the 
king's  earnest  wish  that  this  child  at  least  should 
be  protected  against  the  evils  which,  then  and  af- 
terwards, showed  themselves  in  his  elder  sons,  and 
be  worthy  of  the  name  he  bore.  At  first,  ajipar- 
ently,  there  was  no  distinct  purpose  to  make  him 
his  heir.     Absalom  is  still  the  king's  favorite  son 


SOLOMON  3075 

(2  Sam.  xiii.  37,  xviii.  33)  —  is  looked  on   by  th« 
people  as  the  destined   successor  (2  Sam.  xiv.  13, 
XV.  1-6).     The  death  of  .Vbsalom,  when   Solomon 
was  about  ten  years  old,  left  the  place  vacant,  and 
David,  passing  over  the  claims  of  all  his  elder  sons, 
those  by  Bathsheba  included,  guided  by  the  influ- 
ence of  Nathan,  or  by  his  own  discernment  of  the 
gifts  and  graces  which  were  tokens  of  the  love  of 
.Jehovah,  pledged'his  word  in  secret  to  Bathsheba 
that  he,  and  no  other,  should  be  the  heir  (1  K.  i. 
13).     The    words    which   were   spoken    somewhat 
later,  express,  doulitless,  the  purpose  which   guided 
him  throughout  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  9,  20).      His  son's 
life  should  not  be  as  his  own  had  been,  one  of  hard- 
ships and  wars,  dark  crimes  and  passionate  repent- 
ance, but,   from   first   to   last,  be   pure,  blameless, 
peaceful,  fulfilling  the  ideal  of  glory  and  of  right- 
eousness, after  wliich  he  himself  had  vainly  striven. 
The  glorious  visions  of  l*s   Ixxii.  may  be  looked  on 
as  the  prophetic  expansion  of  those   hojies  of  his 
old  age.     So  far,  all  was  well.     But  we   may  not 
ignore  the  fact,  that  the  later  years  of  David's  life 
presented  a  change  for  the  worse,  as  well  as  for  the 
better.      His  sin,  though   forgi\'en,  left   behind  it 
the  Nemesis  of  an  enfeebled  will  and  a  less  gener- 
ous activity      The    liturgical  element  of   religion 
becomes,   after  the  first  passionate  outpouring  of 
l^s.  li.,  unduly  predominant.      He  lives  to  amass 
treasures  anil  materials  for  the  Temple  which  he 
may  not  build  (1  Gin-,  xxii.  5,  14).     He  plans  with 
his  own  hands  all  the  details  of  its  architecture  (1 
Chr.  xxviii.  19).     He  organizes  on  a  scale  of  elab- 
orate magnificence  all  the  attendance  of  the  priest- 
hood and  the  choral  services  of  the  Levites  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.,  XXV.).      But,  meanwhile,  his  duties  as  a  king 
are  neglected.     He  no  longer  sits  in  the  gate  to  do 
judgment  (2  Sam.  xv.  2,  4).     He  leaves  the  sin  of 
Anmon  unpunished,  "  because  he  loved  him,  for  he 
was   his  first-ljorn  "    (LXX.  of  2   Sam.  xiii.  21). 
The  hearts  of  tlie  people  fall  away  from  him.    First 
Aljsalom,  and  then  Sheba,  become  formidable  rivals 
(2  Sam.  XV.  6,  XX.  2).     The  history  of  the  number- 
ing of  the  people  (2  Sam.  xxiv.,  1  Chr.  xxi.)  im- 
plies the  purpose  of  some  act  of  despotism,  a  poll- 
tax,  or  a  conscription  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  9   makes  the 
latter  the  more  probable),  such   as  startled  all  his 
older   and    more   experienced    counsellors.      If,  in 
"  the  last  words  of  David  "  belonging  to  this  period, 
there  is  the  old  devotion,  the  old   hungering  after 
righteousness  (2   Sam.  xxiii.  2-5),  there  is  also  — 
first  generally  {ibid.  6,  7 ),  and  afterwards  resting 
on  individual  offenders   (1   K.   ii.  5-8)  —  a  more 
passionate  desire  to  punish  those  who  hacl  wronged 
him,  a  painful  recurrence  of  vindictive  thoughts  for 
oftenses   which   he  had   once  freely   forgiven,  and 
which  were  not  givater  than  his  own.     We  cannot 
rest  in  the  belief  that  his  influence  over  his  son's 
character  was  one  exclusively  for  good. 

(4.)  In  eastern  countries,  and  under  a  system 
of  polygamy,  the  son  is  more  dependent,  even  than 
elsewhere,  on  the  character  of  the  mother.  The 
history  of  the  .Jewish  monarchy  furnishes  many 
instances  of  that  dependence.     It  recognizes  it  in 


a  The  narrative  of  2  Sam.  xii.  leaves,  it  is  true,  a 
different  impression  On  tUe  other  hand,  the  order  o' 
the  names  in  1  Chr.  iii.  5,  is  otherwise  unaccountable. 
Josephu.^  distinctly  states  it  (Anl.  vii.  14.  §  2). 

b  Aecordiug  to  the  received  interpretation  of  Prov. 
ixxi.  1,  his  mother  also  contributed  an  ideal  name, 
jemuel  (  =  to  God,  Deodatus).  the  dedicated  one  (comp. 
Bwald    Foci    Biith   iv   173).     On  this  hypothesis   the 


reproof  was  drawn  furth  bv  the  king's  intomperanca 
and  sensuality.  lu  contrast  to  what  his  wives  wei^e, 
she  draws  the  picture  of  what  a  pattern  wife  ought  tfl 
be  (Pineda,  i.  4). 

^  H-^re  also  the  epithet  "  le  bien-aime  "  reminds  us, 
no  less  Chan  Jedidiah,  of  the  terrible  irony  of  History 
for  those  who  abuse  gifts  and  forfeit  a  vocitioa. 


^76  SOLOMON 

the  care  with  which  it  records  the  name  of  each 
tLv/iiarch's  mother.  Nothing  that  we  Ivnow  of 
Bathsheba  leads  us  to  think  of  her  as  Hkely  to 
mould  her  son's  mind  and  heart  to  the  higher 
forms  of  goodness.  She  offers  no  resistance  to  the 
king's  passion  (Ewald,  iii.  211).  She  makes  it  a 
stepping-stone  to  power.  Slie  is  a  ready  accom- 
plice in  the  sclieme  by  which  her  shame  was  to 
have  been  concealed.  Doubtless  she  too  was  sor- 
rowful and  penitent  when  the  rebuke  of  Nathan 
was  followed  by  her  child's  death  (2  Sam.  xii.  2-1-), 
but  the  after-history  shows  that  the  grand-daugh- 
ter of^-Vhithophel  [Bathsheba]  had  inherited  not 
a  little  of  his  character.  A  willing  adulteress,  who 
had  become  devout,  but  had  not  ceased  to  be  am- 
bitious, could  hardly  be  more,  at  the  best,  than 
the  Madame  de  Maintenon  of  a  king,  whose  con- 
trition and  piety  were  rendering  him  unlike  his 
former  self,  unduly  passi\%  in  the  hands  of  others. 
(5.)  What  was  likely  to  be  the  influence  of  the 
prophet  to  whose  care  the  education  of  Solomon 
was  confided"?  {Ileb.  of  2  Sam.  xii.  2.5.)  We 
know,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  he  could  speak  bold 
and  faithful  words  when  they  were  needed  (2  Sam. 
vii.  1-17,  xii.  1-14).  But  this  power,  belonging 
to  moments  or  messages  of  special  inspiration,  does 
not  invohe  the  permanent  possession  of  a  clear- 
Bighted  wisdom,  or  of  aims  uniformly  hisjh;  and 
we  in  vain  search  the  later  years  of  David's  reiiin 
for  any  proof  of  Nathan's  activity  for  good.  He 
gives  himself  to  the  work  of  writing  the  annals  of 
David's  reign  (1  Chr.  xxix.  29).  He  places  his 
own  sons  in  the  way  of  being  the  companions  and 
counsellors  of  the  future  king  (1  K.  iv.  5).  The 
absence  of  his  name  from  the  history  of  the  ''  num- 
bering," and  the  fact  that  the  census  was  followed 
early  in  the  reign  of  Solomon  by  heavy  burdens 
and  a  forced  service,  almost  lead  us  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  prophet  had  acquiesced  «  in  a  measure 
which  had  in  view  the  magnificence  of  the  Temple, 
and  that  it  was  left  to  David's  own  heart,  returning 
to  its  better  impulses  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  10),  and  to  an 
older  and  less  courtly  prophet,  to  protest  against 
an  act  which  began  in  pride  and  tended  to  oppres- 
gion.* 

(6.)  Under  these  influences  the  boy  grew  up. 
At  the  ai^e  of  ten  or  eleven  he  nuist  ha\e  passed 
through  the  revolt  of  Absalom,  and  shared  his 
father's  exile  (2  Sam.  xv.  16).  He  would  be 
taught  all  that  priests,  or  Invites,  or  prophets  had 
to  teach :  nnisic  and  song ;  the  Book  of  the  Law 
of  the  Lord,  in  such  portions  and  in  such  forms  as 
were  then  current;  the  "  proverbs  of  the  ancients," 
which  his  father  had  been  wont  to  quote  (1  Sam. 
xxiv.  13);  probaVily  also  a  literature  which  has 
survived  only  in  fragments;  the  Book  of  Jasher, 
the  upritcht  ones,  the  heroes  of  the  people;  the 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord;  the  wisdom,  oral 
or  written,  of  the  sao;es  of  his  own  tribe,  Heman, 
and  Ethan,  and  Calcol,  and  Darda  (1  Chr.  ii.  C), 
who  contriliuted  so  lai'gely  to  the  noble  hynms  of 
this  period  (Ps.  Ixxxviii.,  Ixxxix.),  and  were  incor- 
porated, probably,  into  the  choir  of  the  Tabernacle 
(Ewald,  iii.  35.5).  The  growing  intercourse  of 
Israel  with  the  Phoenicians  would  lead  naturally  to 
a  wider  knowledge  of  the  outlying  world  and   its 


SOLOMON 

wonders  than  had  fallen  to  his  father's  lot.  Ad- 
mirable, however,  as  all  this  was,  a  shepherd-hfe 
like  his  father's,  furnished,  we  may  believe,  a  better 
education  for  the  kinaly  caUing  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  70,  7 1 ). 
Born  to  the  purple,  there  was  the  inevitable  risk  of 
a  selfish  luxury.  Cradled  in  liturgies,  trained  to 
think  chiefl}'  of  the  magnificent  "  palace  "  of  Je- 
hovah (1  Chr.  xxix.  19)  of  which  he  was  to  be  the 
liuilder,  there  was  the  danger,  first,  of  an  aesthetic 
formalism,  and  then  of  ultimate  indifference. 

IV.  Acct^ssion. —  (1.)  The  feebleness  of  David's 
(Jld  age  led  to  an  attempt  which   might   have  de- 
prived Solomon  of  the  throne   his  father  destined 
for  him.     Adonijah,  next  in  order  of  birth  to  Ab- 
salom, like  Absalom  "  was  a  goodly  man  "  (1  K. 
i.  6),  in  full  maturity  of  years,  backed  by  the  oldest 
of  the  king's   friends   and   counsellors,    ,Ioab  and 
Abiathar,  and  by  all  the  sons  of  David,  who  looked 
with  jealousy,  the  latter  on  the  obvious  though  not 
as  yet  declared  preference  of  the  latest-born,  and 
the  former  on  the   growing  influence  of  the  rival 
counsellors   who   were   most   in    the    king's   favor, 
Nathan,  Zadok,  and   Benaiah.     Following  in   the 
steps  of  Absalom,  he  assumed  the  kingly  state  of  a 
chariot  and  a  body-guard ;  and  David,  more  passive 
than  ever,  looked  on  in  silence.     At  last  a  time  was 
chosen   for  openly  proclaiming  him   as   king.     A 
solemn  feast  at  Kn-Rogel  was  to  inaugurate  the 
new  reign.     All  were  invited  to  it  but  those  whom 
it  was  intended  to  displace.     It  was  necessary  for 
those  whose  interests  were  endangered,  backed  ap- 
parently by  two  of  David's  surviving  elder  brothers 
(Lwald,  iii.  20(5;   1  Chr.  ii.  13,  14),  to  take  prompt 
measures.     Bathsheba    and   Nathan   took    counsel 
together.     The  king  was  reminded  of  his  oath.     A 
virtual  abdication  was  pressed  upon  him  as  the  only 
means  by  which   the  succession  of  his  favorite  son 
could  be  secured.     The  whole  thing  was  com|)leted 
with   wonderful   rapidity.      Riding    on    the    mule, 
well-known  as  belonging  to  the  king,  attended  by 
Nathan   the  prophet,  and   Zadok   the  priest,  and 
more  important  still,  by  the  king's  special  company 
of  the  thirty  Gibborim,  or  mighty  men  (1  K.  i.  10, 
33),   and   the  body-guard  of  the  Cherethites  and 
Pelethites  (mercenaries,  and  therefore  not  liable  to 
the  contagion  of  popular  feeling)  under  the  com- 
mand of  Benaiah  (himself,  like  Nathan  and  Zadok, 
of  the  sons  of  Aaron),  he  went  down  to  GuiON,  and 
was  proclaimed  and  anointed  king.«     The  shouts 
of  his  followers  fell  on  the  startled  ears  of  the  guests 
at  Adonijah's  banquet.     Happily  they  were  as  yet 
conmiitted  to  no  o\ert  act,  and  they  did  not  ven- 
ture on  one  now.     One  by  one  they  rose  and  de- 
parted.    The  plot  had  failed.     The  counter  coup 
d'etat  of  Nathan  and  Bathsheba  had  been  success- 
ful.    Such  incidents  are  common   enough   in   the 
history  of  eastern  monarchies.     They  are  usually 
followed    by    a    massacre    of    the    defeated    party. 
Adonijah  expected  such  an   issue,  and  took  refuge' 
at  the  horns  of  the  altar.     In   this  instance,  how- 
ever, the  young  conqueror  used  his  triumph  gener- 
ously.   The  lives  both  of  Adonijah  and  his  partisans 
were  spared,  at  least  for  a  time.     What  had  been 
done  hurriedly  was  done  afterwards  in  more  solemn 
form.     Solomon  was  presented  to  a  great  gathering 
of  all  the  notables  of  Israel,  with  a  set  speech,  in 


a  Josephug,  with  his  usual  inaccuracy,  substitutes 
Nathan  fur  Gad  in  his  narrative  (Ant.  vii   13,  §  2). 

b  We  regret  to  find  ourselves  unable  to  follow  Ewald 
In  his  high  estimate  of  the  old  age  of  David,  and, 
ioneequeutly,  of  Solomon's  education. 


c  According  to  later  Jewish  teaching  a  king  WM 
not  anointed  when  he  succeeded  his  father,  except  ia 
the  case  of  a  previous  usurpation  or  a  disputed  suo 
cession  (Otho,  Lexir.  Rabbin    a.  r.  "Rex"). 


SOLOMOX 

irhich  the  old  king  announced  what  was,  to  hia 
mind,  tlie  programme  of  the  new  reign,  a  time  of 
peace  and  plenty,  of  a  stately  worship,  of  devotion 
to  Jehovah.  A  few  months  more,  and  Solomon 
fomid  himself,  by  his  father's  death,  the  sole  oc- 
cupant of  the  throne. 

(2.)  Tlie  position  to  which  he  succeeded  was 
unique.  Never  before,  and  never  after,  did  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  take  its  place  among  the  great 
monarchies*  of  the  East,  able  to  ally  itself,  or  to 
contend  on  equal  terms  with  Egypt  or  Assyria, 
Btretching  from  the  River  (Euphrates)  to  the  border 
of  Egypt,  from  the  ^lediterranean  to  the  Gulf  of 
Akaba,  receiving  annual  tributes  from  many  sub- 
ject princes.  Large  treasures  accumulated  through 
many  years  were  at  his  disposal. «  The  people,  with 
the  exception  of  the  tolerated  worship  in  high 
places,  were  true  servants  of  Jehovah.  Knowl- 
edge, art,  music,  poetry,  had  received  a  new  im- 
pulse, and  were  moving  on  with  rapid  steps,  to  such 
perfection  as  the  age  and  the  race  were  capable  of 
attaiinng.  We  may  rightly  ask  —  what  manner 
of  man  he  was,  outwardly  and  inwardly,  who  at 
the  age  of  nineteen  or  twenty,  was  called  to  this 
glorious  sovereignty?  We  have,  it  is  true,  no 
direct  description  in  this  case  as  we  have  of  the 
earlier  kings.  There  are,  however,  materials  for 
filling  up  the  gap.  The  wonderful  impression  which 
Solomon  made  upon  all  who  came  near  him  may 
well  lead  us  to  believe  that  with  him,  as  with  Saul 
and  David,  Absalom  and  Adonijah,  as  with  most 
other  favorite  princes  of  eastern  peoples,  there  must 
have  Ijeen  the  fascination  and  the  grace  of  a  noble 
presence.  Whatever  higlier  mystic  meaning  may 
be  latent  in  Ps.  xlv.,  or  the  Song  of  Songs,  we  are 
all  but  compelled  to  think  of  them  as  having  had, 
at  least,  a  historical  starting-point.  They  tell  us 
of  one  who  was,  in  the  eyes  of  the  men  of  his  own 
time,  "fairer  than  the  children  of  men,"  the  face 
"  bright  and  ruddy"  as  his  father's  (Cant.  v.  10; 
1  Sam.  xvii.  42),  bushy  locks,  dark  as  the  raven's 
wing,  yet  not  without  a  golden  glow,*  the  eyes 
soft  as  "  the  eyes  of  doves,"  the  "  countenance  as 
Lebanon,  excellent  as  the  cedars,"  "the  chiefest 
among  ten  thousand,  the  altogether  lovely  "  (Cant. 
9-16).  Add  to  this  all  gifts  of  a  noble,  far-reach- 
ing intellect,  large  and  ready  sympathies,  a  jjlayful 
and  genial  humor,  the  lips  "full  of  grace,"  the 
Boul  "  anointed  "  as  "  with  the  oil  of  gladness  " 
(Ps.  xlv.),  and  we  may  form  some  notion  of  what 
the  king  was  like  in  that  dawn  of  his  golden 
prime.<^ 


SOLOMON 


3077 


a  Tlie  sums  mentioned  are  (1)  the  public  funds  for 
building  the  Temple,  100,000  talents  (kikarim)  of  gold 
and  1,000,000  of  silver:  (2)  David's  private  offerings, 
3,000  talents  of  gold  and  7.000  of  .silver.  Besides  these, 
large  sums  of  unknown  amount  were  believed  to  have 
been  stored  up  in  the  sepulchre  of  David.  3,000  talents 
were  taken  from  it  by  Hyfcauus  (Jus.  Ant.  vii.  15,  § 
3,  xiii.  8,  §  4,  xvi.  7,  §  1>. 

b  Possibly  sprinkled  with  gold  dust,  as  was  the  hair 
of  the  youths  who  waited  on  him  (.los.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3), 
or  dyed  with  henna  (Michaelis,  Not.  in  Lowth,  Proel. 
xxxi.). 

c  It  will  be  seen  that  we  adopt  the  scheme  of  the 
»lder  literalist  school,  Bossuet,  Lowth,  Michaelis.  rather 
thau  that  of  the  more  recent  critics,  Ewald,  Renau, 
Sinsburg.  Ingeniously  as  the  idea  is  worked  out  we 
5;innot  bring  ourselves  to  believe  that  a  drama,  bc- 
onging  to  the  literature  of  the  northern  kingdom,  not 
o  that  of  Judah,  holding  up  Solomon  to  ridicule  as 
%t  once  licentious  and  unsuccessful,  would  have  beeu 


(3. )  The  historical  starting-point  of  the  Song  of 
Songs  just  spoken  of  connects  itself,  in  all  prob 
ability,  w  ith  the  earliest  facts  in  the  history  of  the 
new  reign.  The  narrative,  as  told  in  1  K.  ii.  is 
not  a  little  perplexing.  Bathsheba,  who  had  before 
stirred  up  David  against  Adonijah,  now  appears  as 
interceding  for  him,  begging  that  Abishag  the 
Shunamite,  the  virgin  concul)ine  of  David,  might 
be  given  him  as  a  wife.  Solomon,  who  till  then 
had  professed  the  profoundest  reverence  for  his 
mother,  his  willingness  to  grant  her  anything,  sud- 
denly flashes  into  fiercest  wrath  at  this.  The  peti- 
tion is  treated  as  part  of  a  conspiracy  in  whicli  Joab 
and  Abiathar  are  sharers.  Benaiah  is  once  more 
called  in.  Adonijah  is  put  to  death  at  once.  Joab 
is  slain  even  within  the  precincts  of  the  Tabernacle, 
to  which  he  had  fled  as  an  asylum.  Abiathar  is 
deposed,  and  exiled,  sent  to  a  life  of  poverty  and 
shame  (1  K.  ii.  31-30),  and  the  high  priesthood 
transferred  to  another  fomily  n)ore  ready  than  he 
had  been  to  pass  from  the  old  order  to  the  new, 
and  to  accept  the  voices  of  the  prophets  as  greater 
than  the  oracles  which  had  lielonged  exclusively  to 
the  priesthood  [comp.  Ukim  and  Thuji.mi.m]. 
The  facts  have,  however,  an  explanation.  i\Ir. 
Grove's  ingenious  theory''  identifying  Abishag  with 
the  heroine  of  the  Song  of  Songs  [Shul.\.mitk], 
r(jsting,a9it  must  do,  on  its  own  evidence,  has  this 
further  merit,  that  it  explains  the  phenomena  here. 
The  passionate  love  of  Solomon  for  "the  fairest 
among  women,"  might  well  lead  the  queen-mother 
hitherto  supreme,  to  fear  a  rival  influence,  and  tc 
join  in  any  scheme  for  its  removal.  Tlie  king's 
vehement  abruptness  is.  in  like  manner,  accounted 
for.  He  sees  in  the  request  at  once  an  attemjjt  to 
deprive  him  of  the  woman  he  loves,  and  a  plot  to 
keep  him  still  in  the  tutelage  of  childhood,  to  entrap 
liim  into  admitting  his  elder  brother's  right  to  the 
choicest  treasure  of  his  father's  harem,  and  therefore 
virtually  to  the  throne,  or  at  least  to  a  regency  in 
which  he  would  have  his  own  partisans  as  counsel- 
lors. With  a  keen-sighted  promptness  he  crushes 
the  whole  scheme.  He  gets  rid  of  a  rival,  fulfills 
David's  dying  counsels  as  to  Joab,  and  asserts  his 
own  independence.  Soon  afterwards  an  opportunity 
is  thrown  in  his  way  of  getting  rid  of  one  [.Siiimki], 
who  had  lieen  troublesome  before,  and  "might  be 
troulMesome  again.  He  presses  the  letter  of  a  com- 
pact against  a  man  who  l)y  his  infatu.ated  disregard 
of  it  seemed  given  over  to  destrtiction  «  (1  K.  ii. 
36-46).  There  is,  however,  no  needless  slaughter. 
The  other  "sons  of  David"  are  still  spared,  and 


treasured  iip  by  the  Jews  of  the  Captivity,  and  re- 
ceived by  the  Scribes  of  the  Great  Synagogue  as  by, 
or  at  least,  in  honor  of  Solomon  (comp.  Renan,  La 
Cantiqiie  des  Cai>ti(/iies,  pp.  91,  95).  We  follow  th» 
Jesuit  Pineda  (Dc  »c6h.?  Salom.  iv.  3)  in  applying  the 
language  of  the  Shulamite  to  Solomon's  personal  ap 
pearance,  but  not  in  his  extreme  miauteuess 

d  The  hypothesis  is,  however,  not  altogether  new 
It  was  held  by  some  of  the  literalist  historical  school 
of  Theo(iore  of  Mopsuestia  (not  by  Theodore  himself; 
comp.  his  fragments  in  Migne,  Ixvi.  699),  and  as  such 
is  auathemiitized  by  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  {Prrrf.  in 
Cant.  Ointir.).  The  latter,  beHeving  the  Song  of 
Solomon  to  have  been  supernaturally  dictated  to  Ezra, 
could  admit  no  interpretation  but  the  mystical  (comp. 
Oinsburg,  Sont:  of  So',  p.  66). 

e  An  elaborate  vindication  of  Solomon's  conduct  in 
this  matter  may  be  found  iu  Menthen's  T/ifiaiirus,  1.  • 
Slisser,  Diss,  de  Salom.  processti  contra  Sliimn. 


3078 


SOLOMON 


one  of  them,  Nathan,  becomes  the  head  of  a  dis- 
tinct family  (Zech.  xii.  12),  which  ultimately  fills 
up  the  failure  of  the  direct  succession  (Luke  lii  31). 
As  he  punishes  his  father's  enemies,  he  also  shows 
kindness  to  the  friends  who  had  been  faithful  to 
him.  Chimham,  the  son  of  Barzillai,  apparently 
receives  an  inheritance  near  the  city  of  David,  and 
prolialily  in  the  reii;n  of  Solomon,  displays  his  in- 
herited hospitality  liy  buildino;  a  caravanserai  for 
the  strangers  whom  the  fame  and  vvealtli  of  Sol- 
omon drew  to  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  xix.  31-40;  1  K. 
ii.  7;  Jer.  xli.  17;  Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  274;  Prvph. 
ii.  191). 

V.  Foreiyn  Policy.  —  (1. )  The  want  of  sufficient 
diUa  for  a  continuous  history  has  been  already  no- 
ticed. All  that  we  have  are — (c)  The  duration 
of  the  reign,  40  years"  (1  K  xi.  42).  {b.)  The 
commencement  of  the  Temple  in  the  4th,  its  com- 
pletion in  the  11th  year  of  his  reign  (1  K.  vi.  1,  37, 
38).  (c.)  The  commencement  of  his  own  palace  in 
the  7th,  its  completion  in  the  20th  year  (1  K.  vii. 
1;  2  Chr.  viii.  1).  {d.)  The  conquest  of  Ilamath- 
Zobah,  and  the  consequent  foundation  of  cities  in 
the  region  nortli  of  Palestine  after  the  2()th  year 
(2  Chr.  viii.  1-6).  With  materials  so  scanty  as 
these,  it  Mill  1)6  better  to  group  the  chief  facts  in 
an  order  which  will  best  enable  us  to  appreciate 
their  significance. 

(2  )  /'Jyyp/.  — The  first  act  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
the  new  reign  must  have  lieen  to  most  Israelites  a 
very  startling  one.  He  made  affinity  with  I'iiaraoli, 
king  of  Eirypt.  He  married  Pliaraoh"s  daugliter 
(1  K.  iii.  1).'J  Since  the  time  of  the  Exodus  there 
had  been  no  intercourse  between  the  two  countries. 
David  and  his  counsellors  had  taken  no  steps  to 
promote  it.  Egypt  had  prol)ably  taken  part  in 
assisting  Edom  in  its  resistance  to  David  (1  Chr. 
xi.  23:  Ewald,  iii.  182),  and  had  received  Hadad, 
the  prince  of  Edom,  with  royal  honors.  The  king 
had  given  him  his  wife's  sister  in  marriage,  and 
adopted  his  soti  into  his  own  family  (1  K.  xi.  14- 
20).  These  steps  indicated  a  purpose  to  support 
him  at  some  future  time  more  actively,  and  Sol- 
omon's proposal  of  marriage  was  probaldy  intended 
to  counteract  it.  It  was  at  the  time  so  far  suc- 
cessful, that  wlien  Hadad,  on  hearing  of  the  death 
of  the  drfeaded  leaders  of  the  armies  of  Israel,  David 
and  Joab,  wishefl  to.  seize  the  qjportunity  of  at- 
tacking the  new  king,  the  court  of  Egypt  rendered 
him  no  assistance  (1  Iv.  xi.  21,  22).  The  disturlj- 
ances  thus  caused,  and  not  less  those  in  the  North, 
coming  from  the  foundation  of  a  new  Syrian  king 
dom  at  Damascus   by  Eezon  and  other  fugitives 


«  Josephus,  again  inaccurate,  lengthens  the  reiga 
to  80  years,  and  makes  the  age  at  accession  14  {Ani. 
riii.  7.  §  8). 

b  This  Pharaoh  is  identified  by  Ewald  (iii.  279)  with 
Hsusennes,  the  last  king  of  the  XXlXth  dynasty  of 
Manetho,  which  had  its  seat  in  Lower  Kgypt  at  Tanis 
(but  see  Pharaoh,  iii  2466  f).  Jo.sephus  {Ant.  viii. 
6,  §  2)  only  notes  the  fact  that  he  was  the  last  king 
of  Egyi)t  who  was  known  simply  by  the  title  Pharaoh. 

c  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  7,  §  6),  misled  by  the  position 
of  these  statements,  refers  the  disturbances  to  the  close 
of  Solomon's  reign,  and  is  followed  by  most  later 
writers.  The  dates  given,  however,  in  one  case  after 
the  deatli  of  Joab,  in  the  other  after  David's  conquest 
of  Zobah,  show  that  we  must  think  of  them  as  con- 
tinuing "all  the  days  of  Solomon,''  surmounted  at  the 
tommencement  of  his  reign,  becoming  more  formidable 
tt  its  conclusion 

tJ  Ewald  8e<i8  in  Ps.  ii.   a  great  bymu   of  thanks- 


SOLOMON 

from  Zobah  (1  K.  xi.  23-2.5),  might  well  lead  Sol 
omon  to  look  out  for  a  powerful  support,*^  to  ol>tain 
for  a  new  dynasty  and  a  new  kingdom  a  recognition 
by  one  of  older  fame  and  greater  power.  The  im- 
mediate results  were  proljably  favoraljle  enough.'' 
The  new  queen  brought  with  her  as  a  dowry  the 
frontier-city  of  Gezer,  ai,'ainst  which,  as  threatening 
the  tranquillity  of  Israel,  and  as  still  possessed  by  a 
remnant  of  the  old  Caiiaanites,''  Pharaoh  had  led 
his  armies./  She  was  received  with  all  honor,  the 
queen-mother  herself  attending  to  pl.ice  the  diadem 
on  her  son's  brow  on  the  day  of  his  espousala 
(Cant.  iii.  11).  Gifts  from  the  nobles  of  Israel  and 
from  Tyre  (the  latter  offered  perhaps  b}'  a  T3  rian 
princess)  were  lavished  at  her  feet  (Ps.  xlv.  12). 
.\  separate  and  stately  palace  was  built  for  her 
before  long,  outside  the  city  of  David  (2  Chr.  viii 
ll).w  She  dwelt  there  apparently  with  attendants 
of  her  own  race,  "  the  virgins  that  be  her  fellows," 
proliably  conforming  in  some  decree  to  the  religion 
of  her  adopted  country.  According  to  a  tradition 
which  may  have  son)e  foundation  in  spite  of  its 
exaiTijerated  numliers,  Pharaoh  (Psusennes,  or  as 
in  tlie  story  Vapbres)  sent  with  her  workmeii  to 
help  in  Imilding  the  Temple,  to  the  number  of 
80,000  (Eupolemos,  in  Euseb.  Prcep.  Evamj.  ii. 
30-35).  The  "  chariots  of  Pharaoh,"  at  any  rate, 
appeared  in  royal  procession  with  a  splendor  hitherto 
unknown  (Cant.  i.  ii). 

(3.)  Tiie-  ultimate  issue  of  the  alliance  showed 
that  it  was  hollow  and  impolitic.  There  may  have 
been  a  revolution  in  Egypt,  changing  the  dynasty 
and  transferring  the  seat  of  power  to  Bubastis 
(Ewald,  iii.  389).''  There  was  at  any  rate  a  change 
of  policy.  The  court  of  Egypt  welcomes  the  fugi- 
tive Jeroboam  when  he  is  known  to  have  aspira- 
tions after  kingly  power.  There,  we  ma}'  believe, 
by  some  kind  of  compact,  expressed  or  understood, 
was  jilanned  the  scheme  which  led  first  to  the  re- 
bellion of  the  Ten  Tribes,  and  then  to  the  attack 
of  Shishak  on  the  weakened  and  dismantled  king- 
dom of  the  son  of  Solnnion.  Evils  such  as  these 
were  hardly  counterbalanced  by  the  trade  opened 
by  Solomon  in  the  fine  linen  of  Egypt,  or  the  sup- 
ply of  chariots  and  horses,  which,  as  belonging 
to  aggressive  rather  than  defensive  warfare,  a 
wiser  policy  would  have  led  him  to  avoid  (1  Iv.  s. 
28,  29). 

(4.)  Tyre.  —  The  alliance  with  the  Phoenician 
king  rested  on  a  somewhat  different  footing.  It 
had  been  .part  of  David's  pohcy  from  the  beiiinning 
of  his  reign  Hiram  had  been  "  ever  a  lover  of 
David.''      He,  or  his  grandfather,'  had  helped  him 


giving  for  deliverance  from  these  dangers.  The  evi 
dence  in  favor  of  David's  authorship  seems,  however, 
to  preponderate. 

e  Philistines,  according   to  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  6. 

§!)• 

/  If,  with  Ewald  (iii.  277),  we  identify  Gezer  with 
Geshur,  we  may  see  in  this  attack  a  desire  to  weaken 
a  royal  house  which  was  connected  by  marriage  with 
Absalom  (2  Sam.  xiii.  37),  and  therefore  likely  to  be 
hostile  to  Solomon.     But  comp.  Gezer. 

g  We  may  see  in  this  fact  a  sign  of  popular  dis- 
satisfaction at  least  on  the  part  of  the  Priests  and 
Levites  represented  by  the  compiler  of  2  Chr. 

h  The  singular  addition  of  the  LXX.  to  the  history 
of  Jeroboam  in  1  K.  xi.  makes  this  improbable.  Jero- 
boam, as  well  as  Hadad,  is  received  into  the  king's 
family  by  marriage  with  his  wife's  sister,  and,  in  each 
case,  the  wife's  name  is  given  as  Thekemina 

•  Comp.   the  data   given   in  2  Sam    v.  11 ;  Jowjh 


SOLOMON 

by  supplying  materials  and  vvorivuien  for  his  palace. 
As  soon  as  he  heard  ut'  .Solomon's  accession  he  sent 
embassadors  to  salute  him.  A  correspondence 
passed  between  the  two  kin^s,  which  ended  in  a 
treaty  of  commerce."  Israel  was  to  be  supplied 
from  Tyre  with  the  materials  which  were  wanted 
for  the  Temple  that  was  to  be  the  glory  of  the  new 
reign.  Gold  from  Ophir,  cedar-wood  from  Leba- 
non, probably  also  copper  from  Cyprus  and  tin 
from  Spain  or  Cornwall  (Niebuhr,  Ltd.  on  Anc. 
Hist.  i.  79)  for  the  brass  which  was  so  highly  val- 
ued, purple  from  Tyre  itself,  workmen  from  among 
the  Zidonians,  all  these  were  wanted  and  were  given. 
The  opening  of  Joppa  as  a  port  created  a  new  coast- 
ing-trade, and  the  materials  from  Tyre  were  con- 
veyed to  it  on  floats,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem  (2 
Chr  ii.  16).  The  chief  architect  of  the  Temple, 
though  an  Israelite  on  his  motlier's  side,  belonging 
to  the  tribe  of  Dan  or  Naphtali  [Hiuam],  was  yet 
by  birth  a  Tyrian,  a  namesake  of  the  king.  In  re- 
turn for  these  exports  the  Phoenicians  were  only  too 
glad  to  receive  the  corn  and  oil  of  Solomon's  terri- 
tory. Their  narrow  strip  of  coast  did  not  produce 
enough  for  the  population  of  their  cities,  and  then, 
as  at  a  later  period,  "  their  country  was  nourished" 
by  the  broad  valleys  and  plains  of  Samaria  and 
(jalilee  (Acts  xii.  20). 

(5.)  The  results  of  the  alliance  did  not  end  here. 
Now,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Israel, 
they  entered  on  a  career  as  a  commercial  people. 
They  joined  the  Phoenicians  in  their  Mediterranean 
voyages  to  the  coasts  of  Spain  [Taksiiisii].''  Sol- 
omon's possession  of  the  Kdomite  coast  enabled  him 
to  open  to  his  ally  a  new  world  of  commerce.  The 
ports  of  Elath  and  Ezion-geber  were  filled  with 
siiips  of  Tarshish,  merchant-ships,  i.  e.  for  tlie  long 
vo\ages,  manned  chiefly  Ijy  Phoenicians,  liut  built 
at  Solomon's  expense,  which  sailed  down  the  ^Elan- 
itic  (julf  of  the  Red  Sea,  on  to  the  Indian  Ocean, 
to  lands  which  had  before  been  hardly  known  even 
by  name,  to  Ophiu  and  Shkha,  t«  Arabia  Felix, 
or  Oidia,  or  Ceylon,  and  brought  back,  after  an  ab- 
sence of  nearly  three  _years,  treasures  almost  or  al- 
together new,  gold  and  silver  and  precious  stones, 
nard,  aloes,  sandal-wood,  almug-trees,  and  ivory; 
and,  last  but  not  least  in  the  eyes  of  the  historian, 
new  forms  of  animal  life,  on  which  the  inhabitants 
of  Palestine  gazed  with  wondering  eyes,  "  apes  and 
peacocks."  The  interest  of  Solomon  in  these  en- 
terprises was  shown  by  his  leaving  his  palaces  at 
Jerusalem  and  elsewhere,  and  travelling  to  Elath 
and  Ezion-geber  to  superintend  the  construction  of 
the  fleet  (2  Chr.  viii.  17),  perhaps  also  to  Sidon  for 
a  like  purpose.*^  To  the  knowledge  thus  gained, 
we  may  ascribe  the  wider  thoughts  which  appear 
in  the  Psalms  of  this  and  the  following  periods,  as 
of  those  who  "  see  the  wonders  of  the  deep  and 
occupy  their  business  in  great  waters  "   (Ps.  cvii. 


SOLOMON 


3079 


AlV.  vii.  3,  §  2^viii.  5,  §  3,  c.  Ap.  i.  18.  and  Ewald, 
iii.  287. 

"  The  letters  are  given  at  length  by  Josephus  (AiU. 
vlii.  2,  §  8)  and  Eupolemos  (Euseb.  Prrep.  Ev.  I.  c.). 

''  Ewald  disputes  this  (iii.  345),  but  the  statemenf 
m  2  Chr  ix.  21,  is  explicit  enough,  and  there  are  no 
grounds  for  arbitrarily  setting  it  aside  as  a  blunder. 

c  The  statemeat  of  Justin  Mart.  (Dial.  c.  Trypk.  c. 
Vi),  kv  SiSoivi.  eiSiuAoAaTpei,  receives  by  the  accompa- 
Qying  6ia  yvvalica.  the  character  of  an  extract  from 
some  history  then  «xtant.  The  marriage  of  Solomon 
with  a  daughter  of  the  king  of  Tyre  is  meutioned  by 
Hiuebitie  '  Ptctp.  Evang.  x.  H). 


23-30),  perhaps  also  an  experience  of  the  mort 
liumiliaiing  accidents  of  sea-travel  (Prov.  xxiii.  34, 
35). 

(6.)  According  to  the  statement  of  the  Phoeni- 
cian writers  quoted  by  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  5,  §  3), 
the  intercourse  of  tlie  two  kings  bad  in  it  also 
something  of  the  sportiveness  and  freedom  of 
frien«ls.  They  deliglited  to  perplex  each  other 
with  hard  questions,  and  laid  wagers  as  to  their 
power  of  answering  them.  Hiram  was  at  first  the 
loser  and  paid  his  forfeits;  but  afterwards,  through 
the  help  of  a  sharp-witted  Tyrian  boy,  Abdenion, 
solved  the  hard  problems,  and  was  in  the  end  the 
winner.''  The  singular  fragment  of  history  in- 
serted in  1  K.  ix.  11-14,  recording  the  cession  bv 
Solomon  of  sixteen  [twenty]  cities,  and  Hiram's 
dissatisfaction  with  them,  is  perhaps  connected  with 
these  imperial  wagers.  The  king  of  Tyre  revenges 
liim.self  by  a  Phoenician  bon-mot  [Cahul].  He 
fulfills  his  part  of  the  contract,  and  pays  the  stipu- 
lated price. 

(7.)  These  were  the  two  most  important  alli- 
ances. The  absence  of  any  reference  to  Babylon 
and  Assyria,  and  the  fact  that  the  luiphrates  was 
recognized  as  the  boundary  of  Solomon's  kingdom 
(2  Chr.  ix.  26),  suggest  the  inference  that  th" 
Mesopotamian  monarchies  were,  at  this  time,  com- 
])aratively  feeble.  Other  neighboring  nations  were 
content  to  pay  annual  tribute  in  the  form  of  gifts 
(2  Chr.  ix.  24).  The  kings  of  the  Hittites  and  of 
Syria  welcomed  the  opening  of  a  new  line  of  com- 
merce which  enabled  them  to  find  in  Jerusalem  an 
emporium  where  they  might  get  the  chariots  and 
horses  of  Egypt  (1  K.  ix.  28).  This,  howe\er,  was 
obviously  but  a  small  part  of  the  traffic  organized 
by  Solomon.  Tlie  foundation  of  cities  like  Tadmor 
in  the  wilderness,  and  Tiph.sah  (Thapsacus)  on  the 
Euphrates;  of  others  on  the  route,  each  with  its 
own  special  market  for  chariots,  or  horses,  or  stores 
(2  Chr.  viii.  3-6);  the  erection  of  lofty  towers  on 
Lebanon  (2  Chr.  l.  c. ;  Cant.  vii.  4)  pointed  tc  a 
more  distant  commerce,  opening  out  the  resources 
of  central  Asia,  reaching,  —  as  that  of  Tyre  did 
afterwards,  availitig  itself  of  this  very  route,  — 
to  the  nomad  trilies  of  the  Caspian  and  the  Black 
Seas,  to  Togarmah  and  Jleshech  and  Tubal  (Ez. 
xxvii.  13,  14;  comp.  Milman,  HisC.  of'  the  Jews,  i. 
270). 

(8.)  The  survey  of  the  influence  exercised  by 
Solomon  on  surrounding  nations  would  be  incom- 
plete if  we  were  to  pass  over  that  which  was  more 
directly  personal  —  the  fame  of  his  glory  and  his 
wisdom.  The  legends  which  pervade  the  East  are 
probably  not  merely  the  expansion  of  the  scanty 
notices  of  the  0.  T. ;  but  (as  suggested  above),  like 
those  which  gather  round  the  names  of  Nimrod  and 
Alexander,  the  result  of  the  impi-ession  made  by  the 
personal  presence  of  one  of  the  mighty  ones  of  the 


d  The  narrative  of  Josephus  implies  the  existence  of 
some  story,  more  or  less  humorous,  in  Tyrian  litera- 
ture, iu  which  the  wisest  of  the  liings  of  e.arth  was 
I  baffled  by  a  boy's  cleverness.  A  singular  pendant  to 
this  is  found  in  the  popular  mediajval  story  of  Solo- 
mon and  Morolf.  in  which  the  latter  (an  ugly,  deformed 
dwarf)  outwits  the  former.  A  modernized  version  of 
this  work  may  be  found  in  the  Walh.alla  (Leipzig, 
1844).  Older  copies,  in  Latin  and  Glermau,  of  the  15th 
century,  are  in  the  Brit.  MuB.  Library.  The  Anglo- 
Saxon  Dialogue  of  Solomon  and  Saturn  is  a  mere  cate- 
chism of  Scriptural  knowledge. 


3080 


SOLOMON 


earth."  Wherever  the  ships  of  Tarshish  went,  tliey 
carried  with  theui  the  report,  losing  nothing  iii  its 
passage,  of  wliat  their  crews  had  seen  and  heard. 
The  impression  made  on  tlie  Incas  of  Peru  by  the 
power  and  linowledge  of  the  Spaniards,  offers  per- 
hajjs  tlie  nearest  approach  to  what  falls  so  little 
within  the  limits  of  our  experience,  though  theis 
was  there  no  personal  centre  round  which  the  ad- 
miration could  gather  itself.  The  journey  of  the 
queen  of  Sheba,  though  from  its  circumstances  the 
most  conspicuous,  did  not  stand  alone.  The  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem,  of  the  whole  line  of  country 
between  it  and  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  saw  with  amaze- 
nient  the  "great  train" — the  men  with  their 
swarthy  faces,  the  camels  bearing  spices  and  gold 
and  gems  —  of  a  queen  who  had  come  from  the  far 
South,''  because  she  had  heard  of  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon,  and  connected  with  it  "  the  name  of  Je- 
hovah "  (1  K.  X.  1).  She  came  with  hard  ques- 
tions to  test  that  wisdom,  and  the  words  just 
quoted  niay  throw  light  upon  their  nature.  Not 
riddles  and  enigmas  only,  such  as  the  sportive 
fancy  of  the  East  delights  in,  but  the  ever-old,  ever- 
new  problems  of  life,  such  as,  even  in  that  age  and 
country,  were  vexing  the  hearts  of  the  speakers  in 
the  book  of  Job,'^  were  stirring  in  her  mind  when 
she  communed  with  Solomon  of  "  all  that  was  in 
her  heart"  (2  Chr.  ix.  1).  She  meets  us  as  the 
representative  of  a  body  whom  the  dedication- 
prayer  shows  to  have  been  numerous,  the  stran- 
eers  "  coming  from  a  far  country  "  because  of  .the 
*' great  name"  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  viii.  41),  many  of 
them  princes  themselves,  or  the  messengers  of  kings 
^2  Chr.  ix.  23).  The  historians  of  Israel  delighted 
to  dwell  on  her  confession  that  the  reality  surpassed 
the  fame,  "  tlie  one  half  of  the  greatness  of  thy  wis- 
dom was  not  told  me"  (2  Chr.  ix.  6;  Ewald,  iii. 
353). 

VI.  Internal  Hisiwij.  —  (1.)  We  can  now  enter 
upon  the  reign  of  Solomon,  in  its  bearing  upon  the 
history  of  Israel,  without  the  necessity  of  a  digres- 
sion. The  first  prominent  scene  is  one  which  pre- 
sents his  character  in  its  noblest  aspect.  There  were 
two  holy  places  whicli  divided  the  reverence  of  the 
people,  the  ark  and  its  pro\isional  tabernacle  at  Je- 
rusalem, and  the  original  Tabernacle  of  the  congre- 
gation, which,  after  many  wanderings,  was  now 
pitched  at  Gibeon.  It  was  thought  right  that  the 
new  king  should  offer  solemn  sacrifices  at  both. 
After  those  at  Gibeon ''  there  came  that  vision  of 
the  night  which  has  in  all  ages  borne  its  noble  witt 
iiess  to  the  hearts  of  rulers.  Not  for  riches,  or  long 
life,  or  victory  over  enemies,  would  the  son  of  Uavid, 
then  at  least  true  to  his  high  calling,  feeling  himself 


«  Cities  like  Tadmor  and  Tiphsah  were  not  liliely  to 
have  been  founded  by  a  king  who  had  never  seen  and 
"hosen  the  sites.  2  Chr.  viii.  3,  4,  implies  the  journey 
which  Josephus  speaks  of  {Anl.  viii  6,  §  1),  and  at 
Tadmor  Solomon  was  within  one  day's  journey  of  the 
Euphrates,  and  six  of  Babylon.  (So  Joeephus,  i  c, 
but  tlie  day's  journey  must  have  been  a  long  one.) 

t  Josephus,  again  careless  about  authorities,  makes 
ber  a  queen  of  Egypt  (1)  and  Ethiopia  (Ant.  viii.  6, 
\b).  • 

c  Is  it  possible  that  the  book  itself  came  into  the 
literature  of  Israel  by  the  intercourse  thus  opened  ? 
[ts  Arabic  character,  both  in  language  and  thought, 
dnd  the  obvious  traces  of  its  influence  in  the  book  of 
Proverbs,  have  been  noticed  by  all  critics  worthy  of 
the  name  [comp.  Job]. 

''  Hebron,  in  Josephus,  once  more  blundering  {Ant. 
*m.  2,  §  1) 


SOLOMON 

as  "a  little  child"  in  comparison  with  the  vaslness 
of  his  work,  offer  his  supplications,  but  for  a  •'  wise 
and  understanding  heart,"  that  he  might  judge  the 
people.  The  "  speech  pleased  the  Lord."  There 
came  in  answer  the  promise  of  a  wisdom  "  like  which 
there  had  been  none  before,  like  which  there  should 
be  none  after  "  (1  K.  iii.  5-15).  So  far  all  was  well. 
The  prayer  was  a  right  and  noble  one.  Yet  there  is 
also  a  contrast  between  it  and  the  prajers  of  David 
which  accounts  for  many  other  contrasts.  The  de- 
sire of  David's  heart  is  not  chiefly  for  wisdom,  but 
for  holiness.  He  is  conscious  of  an  oppressing  evil, 
and  seeks  to  be  delivered  from  it.  He  repents,  and 
falls,  and  rejients  again.  Solomon  asks  only  for 
wisdom.  He  has  a  lofty  ideal  before  him,  and  seeks 
to  accomplish  it,  but  he  is  as  yet  haunted  by  no 
deeper  yearnings,  and  speaks  as  one  who  has  "  no 
need  of  repentance." 

(2.)  The  wisdom  asked  for  was  given  in  large 
measure,  and  took  a  varied  range.  The  wide  world 
of  nature,  animate  and  inanimate,  which  the  enter- 
prises of  his  subjects  were  throwing  open  to  him, 
the  lives  and  characters  of  men,  in  all  their  surface- 
weaknesses,  in  all  their  inner  depths,  lay  before  him, 
and  he  took  cognizance  of  all.^  But  the  highest 
wisdom  was  that  wanted. for  the  highest  work,  for 
governing  and  guiding,  and  the  historian  hastens 
to  give  an  illustration  of  it.  The  pattern-instance 
is,  in  all  its  circumstances,  thoroughly  oriental. 
The  king  sits  in  the  gate  of  the  city,  at  the  early 
dawn,  to  settle  any  disputes,  however  strange,  be- 
tween any  litigants,  however  humble.  In  the 
rough  and  ready  test  which  turns  the  scales  of  evi- 
dence, before  so  evenly  balanced,  there  is  a  kind  :>f 
rou;fh  humor  as  well  as  sagacity,  specially  attractive 
to  the  eastern  mind,  then  and  at  all  times  (1  K. 
iii.  10-28). 

(3.)  But  the  power  to  rule  showed  itself  not  in 
judging  only,  but  in  organizing.  The  system  of 
government  which  he  inherited  from  Uavid  received 
a  fuller  expansion.  Prominent  among  the  "  princes  " 
of  his  kinndom,  (.  e.  officers  of  his  own  appointment, 
were  members  of  the  priestly  order  :  /  Azariah  the 
son  of  Zadok,  Zadok  himself  the  high-priest.  Be- 
naiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  as  captain  of  the  host,  an- 
other Azariah  and  Zabud,  the  sons  of  Nathan,  one 
over  the  officers  {Ni/tsdliim)  who  acted  as  purveyors 
to  the  king's  household  (1  K.  iv.  2-5),  the  other  in 
the  more  confidential  character  of  "king's  friend." 
In  addition  to  these  there  were  the  two  scribes 
(Sopherim),  the  king's  secretaries,  drawing  up  his 
edicts  and  the  like  [Sciukks],  Klihoreph  and  Ahiah, 
the  recorder  or  annalist  of  the  king's  reign  ( .l/azcir), 
the  superintendent  of  the  king's  house,  and  house- 


e  Ewald  sees  in  the  words  of  1  K.  iv.  -33,  the  record 
of  books  more  or  less  descriptive  of  n.'itural  history,  the 
ratnlo^iie  raisoniice  of  the  king's  collections,  botanic 
and  zoological  (iii.  358)  ;  to  Kenan,  however  (following 
Josephus),  it  seems  more  in  harmony  with  the  unsci- 
entific character  of  all  Shemitic  minds,  to  think  of 
them  as  looking  on  the  moral  side  of  nature,  drawing 
parables  or  allegories  from  the  things  he  saw  (Hist, 
lies  Langues  Semititjiies,  p.  127).  The  multiplied  allu- 
sions of  this  kind  in  Prov.  xxx.  make  that,  perhaps,  a 
fair  representative  of  this  form  of  Solomon's  wisdom, 
though  not  by  Solomon  himself. 

/  We  cannot  bring  ourselves,  with  Keil  (Comm.  in 
loc.)  and  others,  to  play  fast  and  loose  with  the  word 
Cohen,  and  to  give  it  different  meanings  in  altemat* 
verses.     [Comp  Priests.] 


SOLOMON 

bold  expenses  (Is.  xxii.  15),  including  probabl}-  tlie 
hiireni.  'I'lie  last  in  order,  at  once  the  most  indis- 
pensable and  the  most  hated,  was  Adon!rani,  wlio 
presided  "over  the  tribute,"  that  word  including 
probably  the  personal  service  of  forced  labor  (comp. 
Keil.  Coiniii.  in  loc,  and  Evvald,  Gesch.  iii.  334). 

(4.)  The  last  name  leads  us  to  the  king's  finances. 
The  first  impression  of  the  facts  given  us  is  that  of 
abounding  plenty.  That  all  the  drinking  vessels 
jf  the  two  palaces  should  be  of  pure  gold  was  a 
small  thing,  "  nothing  accounted  of  in  the  days  of 
Solomon"  (1  K.  x.  21)."  •' Silver  was  in  Jeru- 
salem as  stones,  and  cedars  as  the  sycamore-trees  in 
the  vale"  (1  K.  x.  27).  The  people  were  -'eating 
and  drinking  and  making  merry"  (1  K.  iv.  20). 
The  treasures  left  by  Uavid  for  liuilding  the  I'emple 
might  well  seem  almost  ine.xhaustible  ''  (1  Chr.  xxix. 
1-7).  The  large  quantities  of  the  precious  metals 
imported  from  Ophir  and  Tarshish  would  speak,  to 
a  people  who  had  not  learnt  the  les.sons  of  a  long 
experience,  of  a  boundless  source  of  wealth  (1  K.  ix. 
28).  All  the  kings  and  princes  of  the  sulyeet-prov- 
iuces  paid  tribute  in  the  form  of  gifts,  in  money 
and  in  kind  "at  a  fixed  rate  year  by  year  "  (1  K. 
X.  25).  Monopolies  of  trade,  then,  as  at  all  times 
in  the  East,  contributed  to  the  khig's  treasury,  and 
the  trade  in  the  fine  linen,  and  chariots,  and  horses 
of  i'^gypt,  must  have  brought  in  larne  profits  (1  K. 
X.  28,  2\)).  The  king's  domain-lands  were  appar- 
ently let  out,  as  vineyards  or  for  other  purposes,  at 
a  fixed  annual  rental  (Cant.  viii.  II)  Upon  the 
Israelites  (probably  not  till  the  later  period  of  his 
reign)  there  was  levied  a  tax  of  ten  per  cent,  on 
their  produce  (1  Sam.  viii.  15).  All  the  provinces 
of  his  own  kingdom,  grouped  apparently  in  a  special 
order  for  this  purpose,  were  bound  each  in  turn  to 
su|)i)ly  the  king's  enormous  houseiiold  with  pro- 
visions (1  K.  iv.  21-23).  [Comp  Ta.yks.]  The 
total  amount  thus  brought  into  the  treasury  in 
gold,  exclusive  of  all  payments  in  kind,  amounted 
to  Gtjij  talents  (1  K.  x.  14).c 

(5. )  It  was  hariUy  possible,  however,  that  any 
financial  system  could  bear  the  strain  of  the  king's 
passion  for  magnificence.  The  cost  of  the  Temple 
was,  it  is  true,  jjrovided  for  by  David's  savings  and 
the  ort'erings  of  the  people;  but  even  while  that  was 
building,  yet  more  when  it  was  finished,  one  struc- 

a  A  remiuisceuce  of  this  form  of  splendor  is  seen 
in  tlie  fact  tliat  tlie  mediaeval  goldsuiiths  described 
tlieir  earliest  plate  as  "  oeuvre  de  Salomon. "  It  was 
wroU({Ut  iu  higli  relief,  wa.<  eastern  iu  its  origin,  and 
was  known  also  as  Saracenic  (Liber  Custititiariiis,  i.  (51, 
759). 

b  We  labor,  iiowever,  under  a  twofold  uncertainty, 
(1)  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  number.',  (2)  as  to  the 
value  of  the  terms.  Prideau.x,  followed  by  Lewis,  es- 
timates the  amount  at  i;833,000,0i)0.  yet  the  savings 
of  the  later  years  of  David's  lite,  for  one  special  pur- 
pose, could  hardly  have  surpassed  the  uatioual  debt  of 
England  (comp.  Jlilmau's  Hist,  of  Jews,  i.  267). 

c  6t36.  There  is  something  startling  in  thus  find- 
ing in  a  simple  historical  statement  a  number  which 
has  since  become  invested  with  such  a  mysterious 
and  terrible  siguiflcance  (Rev.  xiii.  18).  The  coinci- 
dence can  hardly,  it  is  believed,  be  looked  on  as  casual. 
"  The  Seer  of  the  Apocalypse,"  it  has  been  well  said, 
■lives  entirely  iu  Holy  Scripture.  On  this  territory, 
therefore,  is  the  solution  ot  the  sacred  riddle  to  be 
sought "  (Heugstenberg,  Co  mm.  in  Rtu.  in  loc).  If, 
therefore,  we  find  the  number  occurring  iu  the  0.  T., 
with  any  special  siguificauce,  we  may  well  think  that 
that  furnishes  the  starting-point  of  the  enigma.  And 
there  is  such  a  significance  here.  (1.)  As  the  glory 
194 


SOLOMON 


3081 


ture  followed  on  another  with  ruinous  rapidity. 
A  palace  for  himself,  grander  than  that  which 
Hiram  had  built  for  his  fother,  another  for  Pha- 
raoh's daughter,  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon, 
iu  which  he  sat  in  his  court  of  judgment,  the  pil- 
lars all  of  cedar,  seated  on  a  throne  of  ivory  and 
gJld,  in  which  six  lions  on  either  side,  the  symbols 
of  tlie  tril)e  of  Judah,  appeared  (as  in  the  thrones 
of  A.ssyria,  Cayard's  Nliitreli,  ii.  30)  standing  on 
the  steps  and  supporting  the  arms  q^  the  chair  (1 
K.  vii.  1-12,  X.  18-20),  ivory  palaces  and  ivory 
towers,  used  apparently  for  the  king's  armory  (Ps. 
xlv.  8;  Cant.  iv.  4,  vii.  4);  the  ascent  from  his  own 
palace  to  the  house  or  palace  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  x. 
5),  a  summer  palace  in  Lebanon  (1  K.  ix.  iii; 
Cant.  vii.  4),  stately  gardens  at  Etham,  purndisti 
like  those  of  the  great  eastern  kings  (Eccl.  ii.  5, 
6;  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3;  comp.  Pah.vdise), 
the  foimdatiou  of  something  like  a  stately  school  or 
college,^'  costly  aqueducts  bringing  water,  it  may 
be,  from  the  well  of  Bethlehem,  dear  to  David's 
heart,  to  supply  the  king's  palace  in  Jerusalem 
(Ewald,  iii.  323),  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem 
completed,  those  of  other  cities  begun  (1  K.  ix. 
15-liJ),  and,  above  all,  the  harem,  with  all  the  ex- 
penditure which  it  involved  on  slaves  and  slave- 
dealers,  on  concubines  and  eunuchs  (1  Sam.  viii. 
15;  1  Chr.  xxviii.  1),  on  men-singers  and  women- 
singers  (Eccl.  ii.  8)  —  these  rose  before  the  wonder- 
ing eyes  of  his  people  and  dazzled  them  with  their 
magnificence.  All  the  equipment  of  his  court,  the 
"  apparel  "  of  his  servants,  was  on  the  same  scale. 
If  he  went  from  his  hall  of  judgment  to  the  Temple 
he  inarched  between  two  lines  of  soldiers,  each  with 
a  burnished  shield  of  gold  (1  K.  x.  16,  17;  Ewald, 
iii.  320).  If  he  went  on  a  royal  proirress  to  his 
paradise  at  Etham,  he  went  in  snow-white  raiment, 
riding  in  a  stately  chariot  of  cedar,  decked  with 
silver  and  gold  and  purple,  carpeted  with  the  cost- 
liest tapestry,  worked  by  the  daughters  of  Jeru- 
salem (Cant.  iii.  9,  10).  A  body-guard  attended 
hini,  "  threescore  vali.ant  men,"  tallest  and  hand- 
somest of  the  sons  of  Israel,  in  the  freshness  of  their 
youth,  arrayed  in  Tyrian  purple,  their  long  black 
hair  sprinkled  freshly  every  day  with  gold-dust  [ib. 
iii.  7,  8;  .loseph.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3).  Forty  thou- 
sand stalls  of  horses  for  his  chariots,  and   twelve 

and  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  were  the  representatives 
of  all  earthly  wisdom  and  glory,  so  the  wealth  of 
S83omon  would  be  the  repre.'ientative  of  all  earthly 
Wealth.  (2.)  The  purpose  of  the  visions  of  St.  John 
is  to  oppose  the  heavenly  to  the  earthly  Jerusalem  ; 
the  true  "  offspring  of  David,"  "  the  liou  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah,''  to  all  counterfeits;  the  true  riches  to  the 
false.  (3.)  The  worship  of  the  beast  is  the  worship  of 
the  world's  mammon.  It  may  seem  to  reproduce  the 
glory  and  the  wealth  of  the  old  Jerusalem  in  its 
golden  days,  but  it  is  of  evil,  not  of  God  ;  a  Babylon. 
not  a  Jerusalem.  (4.)  This  reference  does  not  of 
course  exclude  either  the  mystical  meaning  of  the 
number  six,  so  well  brought  out  by  Hengsteuberg  (/. 
c.)  and  ]Mr.  Maurice  (on  the  Apucaly/ise,  p.  251),  or 
even  names  like  Lateinos  and  Nero  Cassar.  The 
greater  tli%  vai-iety  of  thoughts  that  could  be  con- 
nected with  a  single  number,  the  more  would  it  com- 
mend itself  to  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  method  of 
the  Gemntrin  of  the  Jewish  cabbalists. 

''  fiiiedi's  conjecture  (iii.  28)  that  "the  house  with 
seven  pillars,"  '■  the  highest  places  of  the  city,"  of 
I'rov.  ix.  1-3,  had  originally  a  local  reference  is,  at 
least,  plausible  enough  to  be  worth  mentioning.  It  '\i 
curious  to  think  that  there  may  have  been  a  histnriiM' 
"  Solomon's  house,''  like  that  of  the  AVu'  Ailiinl>s 


3082 


SOLOMON 


thousand  horsemen  made  up  the  measure  of  his 
maLtnificenee  (1  K.  iv.  2(i).  If  some  of  the  public 
works  had  the  plea  of  utility,  the  fortitication  of 
Bome  cities  for  purposes  of  defense  —  Millo  (the 
Buburl)  of  Jerusalem),  Hazor,  Megiddo,  the  two 
Beth-horons,  the  foundation  of  others,  Tadmor  and 
Tiphsah,  for  purposes  of  commerce  —  these  were 
Biniply  the  jiomiis  of  a  selfish  luxury,  and  the  peo- 
ple, after  the  first  dazzle  was  over,  felt  that  they 
were  so.  A»  the  treasury  became  empty,  taxes 
multiplied  and  monopolies  became  more  irksome. 
E\en  Israelites,  besides  the  conscription  which, 
lirought  them  into  the  king's  armies  (1  K.  ix.  22), 
were  subject,  though  for  a  part  only  of  each  year, 
to  the  corvee  of  compulsory  labor  (1  K.  v.  13). 
The  revolution  that  followed  had,  like  most  other 
revolutions,  financial  disorder  as  the  chief  among 
its  causes.  The  people  complained,  not  of  the  king's 
idolatry,  but  of  their  burdens,  of  his  "  grievous 
yoke  "  (1  K.  xii.  4).  Their  hatred  fell  heaviest  on 
Adonirani,  who  was  over  the  tribute.  If,  on  the 
one  side,  the  division  of  the  kingdom  came  as  a 
penalty  for  Solomon's  idolatrous  apostasy  from 
Jehovah,  it  was,  on  another,  the  Nemesis  of  a  self- 
ish passion  for  glory,  itself  the  most  terrible  of  all 
idolatries. 

(tj.)  It  remains  for  us  to  trace  that  other  down- 
fall, beloiit;ing  more  visibly,  though  not. more  reullv, 
to  his  religious  life,  from  the  loftiest  height  even  to 
the  lowest  depth.  The  building  and  dedication  of 
the  Temple  are  obviously  the  representatives  of  the 
first.  That  was  the  special  task  which  he  inherited 
from  his  father,  and  to  that  he  gave  himself  with 
all  his  heart  and  strength.  He  came  to  it  with  all 
the  noble  thoughts  as  to  the  meaning  and  grounds 
of  worship  which  his  father  and  Nathan  could  instill 
into  him.  We  have  already  seen,  in  speaking  of 
his  intercourse  with  Tyre,  what  measures  he  took 
for  its  completion.  All  that  can  be  said  as  to  its 
architecture,  proportions,  materitils  [Temple],  and 
the  org.anization  of  the  ministering  Priests  and 
Levites,  will  be  found  el.-iewhere.  Here  it  will  be 
enough  to  picture  to  ourselves  the  feelings  of  the 
men  of  Judah  as  they  watched,  during  seven  long 
years,  the  Cyclopean  foundations  of  vast  stones  (still 
remaining  when  all  else  has  perished,  Ewald,  iii. 
21)7)  gradually  rising  up  and  coverin<r  the  area  of 
the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah,  materials  arriving 
continually  from  Joppa,  cedar,  and  gold  and  silver, 
Ijrass  "  without  weight "'  from  the  foundries  gf 
Succoth  and  Zarethan,  stones  ready  hewn  and 
squared  from  the  quarries.  Far  from  colossal  in 
its  size,  it  was  conspicuous  chiefly  liy  the  lavish 
use,  within  and  without,  of  the  gold  of  Ophir  and 
Parvaim.  It  glittered  in  the  morning  sun  (it  has 
been  well  said)  like  the  sanctuary  of  an  Kl  Dorado 
(Milman,  Hht.  of  J  ties,  i.  2.59).  Throughout  the 
whole  work  the  tranquillity  of  the  kingly  city  was 
unbroken  by  the  sound  of  the  workman's  hammer: 

"  Like  some  tall  palm,  the  noisele-ss  fabric  grew." 

(7.)  We  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  even  now 
there  were  some  darker  shades  in  the  phiture.  Not 
reverence  only  for  the  Holy  City,  but  the  wish  to 
Bhut  out  from  sight  the  misery  he  had  caused,  to 
close  his  ears  against  cries  which  were  rising  daily 
to  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth,  led  him  probably 

«  Ewald's  apology  for  these  acts  of  despotism  (iii. 
292)  presents  a  singular  contrast  to  the  free  spirit 
wliich.  for  the  most  part,  pervades  his  work.  Through- 
out hifi  history  of  David  and  Solomon,  his  sympathy  !  from. 


SOLOMON 

to  place  the  works  connected  with  the  TemiJe  si 

as  great  a  distance  as  possible  from  the  Terapld 
itself.  Forgetful  of  the  lessons  taught  by  the  his- 
tory of  his  own  peofile,  and  of  the  precepts  of  the 
Law  (Ex.  xxii.  21,  xxiii.  9,  et  al.),  following  the  ex- 
ample of  David's  policy  in  its  least  noble  aspect  (1 
Chr.  xxii.  2),  he  reduced  the  "  strangers  "  in  the 
land,  the  remnant  of  the  Canaanite  races  who  had 
chosen  the  alternative  of  conformity  to  the  religion 
of  their  conquerors,  to  the  state  of  helots,  and 
made  their  life  "  bitter  with  all  hard  bondage.'"  « 
[Proselytes.]  Copying  the  Pharaohs  in  their 
magnificence,  he  copied  them  also  in  their  disregard 
of  human  suffering.  Acting,  probably,  under  the 
same  counsels  as  had  jjrompted  that  measure,  on 
the  result  of  David's  census,  he  seized  on  these 
"  strangers "  for  the  weary,  servile  toil  against 
which  the  free  spirit  of  Israel  would  have  rebelled. 
One  hundred  and  fifty-three  thousand,  with  wives 
and  children  in  proportion,  were  torn  from  their 
homes  and  sent  off  to  the  quarries  and  the  forests 
of  Lebanon  (1  K.  v.  15;  2  Chr.  ii.  17,  18).  Even 
the  Israelites,  though  not  reduced  permanently  to 
the  helot  state  (2  Chr.  viii.  9),  were  yet  summoned 
to  take  tlieir  share,  by  rotation,  in  the  same  labor 
(1  K.  V.  13,  14).  One  trace  of  the  special  servitude 
of  "  these  hewers  of  stone"  existed  long  afterwards 
in  the  existence  of  a  body  of  men  attached  to  thn 
Temple,  and  known  as  Solomo:n's  Servants. 

(8  )  After  seven  years  and  a  half  the  work  was 
conjpleted,  and  the  day  came  to  which  all  Israelites 
looked  back  as  the  culminating  glory  of  their  nation. 
Their  viorship  was  now  established  on  a  scale  as 
stately  as  that  of  other  nations,  while  it  yet  retained 
its  freedom  from  all  worship  that  could  possibly 
become  idolatrous.  Instead  of  two  rival  sanctuaries, 
as  betbre,  there  was  to  be  one  only.  The  ark  from 
Zion,  the  Tabernacle  from  Gibeon,  were  both  re- 
moved (2  Chr.  V.  5)  and  brought  to  the  new 
Temple.  The  choirs  of  the  priests  and  Levites  met 
in  their  fullest  force,  arrayed  in  white  linen.  Then, 
it  may  be  for  the  first  time,  was  heard  the  noble 
hymn,  "  Lift  up  your  heads,  O  ye  gates,  and  be  ye 
lift  up,  ye  everlasting  doors,  and  the  King  of  Glory 
shall  come  in"  (.Milman,  Hist,  (if  Jtivs,  i.  263). 
The  trumpeters  and  singers  were  "  as  one  "  in  their 
mighty  Hallelujah  —  "  O  praise  the  Lord,  for  He  is 
good,  for  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever"  (2  Chr.  v. 
13).  'ihe  ark  was  solemnly  placed  in  its  golden 
sanctuary,  and  then  "the  cloud,"  the  "glory  of 
the  Lord,"  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord.  The  two 
tables  of  stone,  associated  with  the  first  rude  begin- 
nings of  the  life  of  the  wilderness,  were  still,  they 
and  they  only,  in  the  ark  which  had  now  so  mag 
nificent  a  shrine  (2  Chr.  v.  10).  They  bore  theii 
witness  to  the  great  laws  of  duty  toward  God  and 
man,  remaining  unchangeable  through  all  the 
changes  and  chances  of  national  or  individual  life, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  growth  of  a 
national  religion.  And  throughout  the  whole  scene, 
the  person  of  the  king  is  the  one  central  object, 
compared  with  whom  even  priests  and  prophets  are 
for  the  time  subordinate.  Abstaining,  doubtless, 
from  distinctively  priestly  acts,  such  as  slaying  the 
victims  and  offering  incense,  he  yet  appe.ars,  even 
more  than  David  did  in  the  bringing  up  the  ark,  in 
a  liturgical  character.     He,  and  not  Zadok,  blesses 


for  the  father's  heroism,  his  admiration  for  the  son's 
magnificence,  seem  to  keep  his  judgment  under  a  fasci- 
nation which  it  is  difficult  for  his  readeis  to  esoap« 


SOLOMON 

Ihe  con2;re!jation,  offers  up  the  solemn  prayer,  deili- 
tates  the  Temple.  He,  and  not  any  member  of  the 
prophetic  order,  is  then,  and  probably  at  other 
times,  the  spokesman  and  •■  preacher  "  of  the  peo- 
ple (Kwald,  iii.  320).  He  takes  at  least  some  steps 
towards  that  far-nff  (Ps.  ex.  1)  ideal  of  "  a  priest 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,"  which  one  of  his 
descendants  rashly  sought  to  fulfill  [Uzziaii],  but 
which  was  to  be  fulfilled  only  in  a  Son  of  Uavid, 
not  the  crowned  leader  of  a  mighty  nation,  but 
despised,  rejected,  crucified.  From  him  came  the 
lofty  prayer,  the  noblest  utterance  of  tlie  creed  of 
Israel,  getting  forth  the  distance  and  the  nearness  of 
the  Eternal  God,  One,  Incomprehensible,  dwelling 
not  in  temples  made  with  hamls,  yet  ruling  men, 
hearing  their  prayers,  giving  them  all  good  things, 
wisdom,  peace,  righteousness." 

(y.)  The  solemn  day  was  followed  by  a  week  of 
festival,  synchronizing  with  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, the  time  of  the  completed  vintage.  Repre- 
sentatives of  all  the  tribes,  elders,  fathers,  captains, 
proselytes,  it  may  be,  from  the  newly  acquired  ter- 
ritories in  Northern  Syria  (2  Chr.  vi.  32,  vii.  8), 
—  all  were  assembled,  rejoicing  in  the  actual  glory 
and  the  bright  hopes  of  Israel.  For  the  king  him- 
self then,  or  at  a  later  period  (the  narrative  of  1  K. 
i.K.  and  2  Chr.  vii.  leaves  it  doubtfid),  there  was  a 
strange  contrast  to  the  glory  of  that  day.  A  crit- 
icism, misled  by  its  own  acuteness,  may  see  in  that 
warning  [irophecy  of  sin,  punishment,  desolation, 
only  a  vaticiniam  ex  even/ti,  added  some  centuries 
afterwards  (Ewald,  iii.  404).  It  is  open  to  us  to 
mainUiin  that,  with  a  character  such  as  Solomon's, 
with  a  religious  ideal  so  far  beyond  his  actual  life, 
Buch  thoughts  were  psychologically  probable,  that 
strange  misgivings,  suggested  by  the  very  words  of 
the  jubilant  hymns  of  the  day's  solemnity,  might 
well  mingle  with  the  shouts  of  the  people  anil  the 
hallelujahs  of  the  Levites.*  It  is  in  harmony  with 
all  we  know  of  the  work  of  the  Divine  Teaoher, 
that  those  misgivings  should  receive  an  interpreta- 
tion, that  the  king  should  be  taught  that  what  he 
had  done  was  indeed  right  and  good,  but  that  it 
was  not  all,  and  might  not  be  permanent.  Obe- 
dience was  l)etter  than  sacrifice.  There  was  a  dan- 
ger near  at  hand. 

(10.)  The  danger  came,  and  in  spite  of  the  warn- 
ing the  king  fell.  Before  long  the  priests  and 
prophets  had  to  grieve  over  rival  teniple.s  to  Moloch, 
Chemosh,  Ashtaroth,  forms  of  ritual  not  idolatrous 
only,  but  cruel,  dark,  impure.  This  evil  came,  as 
the  compiler  of  1  K.  xi.  1-8  records,  as  the  penalty 
uf  another.  Partly  from  policy,  seeking  fresh  alli- 
ances, partly  from  the  terrible  satiety  of  lust  seek- 
ing the  stimulus  of  change,  he  gave  himself  to 
"  strange  women."  He  found  himself  involved  in 
a  fascination  which  led  to  the  worsliip  of  strange 
gods.  The  starting-point  and  the  goal  are  given 
us.  We  are  left,  from  what  we  know  otherwise,  to 
trace  the  process.  Something  there  was  perhaps 
in  his  very  "largeness  of  heart,"  so  far  in  advance 
of  the  traditional  knowledge  of  his  age,  rising  to 
higher  and  wider  thoughts  of  God,  which  predis- 


SOLOMON 


3083 


posed  him  to  it.  His  converse  with  men  of  othet 
creeds  and  climes  might  lead  him  to  anticipate,  in 
this  respect,  one  phase  of  modern  thought,  as  the 
confessions  of  the  Preacher  in  Koheleth  anticipate 
another.  In  recognizing  what  was  true  in  other 
forms  of  faith,  he  might  lose  his  horror  at  what  was 
false,  his  sense  of  the  preeminence  of  the  truth  re- 
vealed to  him,  of  the  historical  continuity  of  the 
nation's  religious  life.  His  worship  might  go  back- 
ward from  .lehovah  to  Elohim,''  from  Klohim  to  the 
'•  Gods  many  and  Lords  many  "  of  the  nations 
round.  Jehovah,  Baal,  Ashtaroth,  Chemosh,  each 
form  of  nature-worship,  might  come  to  seem  equally 
true,  equally  acceptable.  The  women  whom  he 
brought  from  other  countries  might  well  be  allowed 
the  lu.xury  of  their  own  superstitions.  And,  if 
permitted  at  all,  the  worship  must  be  worthy  of  his 
fame  and  be  part  of  his  magnificence.  With  this 
there  may,  as  Ewald  suggests  (iii.  380), '^  have 
mingled  political  motives.  He  may  have  hoped, 
by  a  policy  of  toleration,  to  conciliate  neighboring 
princes,  to  attract  a  larger  traffic.  But  probably 
also  there  was  another  influence  less  commonly 
taken  into  account.  The  wide-spread  belief  of  the 
East  in  the  magic  arts  of  Solomon  is  not,  it  is  be- 
lieved, without  its  foundation  of  truth.  On  the 
one  hand,  an  ardent  study  of  nature,  in  the  period 
that  precedes  science,  runs  on  inevitably  into  the 
pursuit  of  occult,  mysterious  properties.  On  the 
other,  throughout  the  whole  history  of  Judah,  the 
element  of  idolatry  which  has  the  strongest  hold  on 
men's  minds  was  the  thaumaturgic,  soothsaying, 
incantations,  divinations  (2  K.  i.  2;  Is.  ii.  6;  2 
Chr.  xx.xiii.  6,  et  al.).  The  religion  of  Israel  op- 
posed a  stern  prohibition  to  all  such  perilous  yet 
tempting  arts  (Deut.  xviii.  10,  et  <iL).  The  relig- 
ious of  the  nations  round  fostered  them.  Was  it 
strange  that  one  who  found  his  progress  impeded 
in  one  path  should  turn  into  the  other?  So,  at 
any  rate  it  was.  The  reign  which  began  so  glori- 
ously was  a  step  backwards  into  the  gross  daakness 
of  fetish  worship.  As  he  left  behind  him  the  leg- 
acy of  luxury,  selfishness,  oppression,  more  than 
counterbalancing  all  the  good  of  higher  art  and 
wilier  knowledge,  so  he  left  this  too  as  an  ineradi- 
cable evil.  Not  less  truly  than  the  son  of  Nebat 
might  his  name  have  been  written  in  history  as 
Solomon  the  son  of  David  who  "  made  Israel  to 
sin."  0 

(11.)  Disasters  followed  before  long  as  the  nat- 
ural consequence  of  what  was  politically  a  blunder 
as  well  as  religiously  a  sin.  The  strength  of  the 
nation  rested  on  its  unity,  and  its  unity  depenckd 
on  its  faith.  Whatever  attractions  the  sensuous 
ritual  which  he  introduced  may  have  had  for  the 
great  body  of  the  people,  the  priests  and  Levites 
must  have  looked  on  the  rival  worship  with  entire 
disfavor.  The  zeal  of  the  prophetic  order,  dormant 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign,  and  as  it  were,  hin- 
dered  from  its  usual  utterances  by  the  more  daz- 
zling wisdom  of  the  king,  was  now  kindled  into 
active  opposition.  Ahijali  of  Shiloh,  as  if  taught 
by  the  history  of  his  native  place,  was  sent  to  utter 


«  Ewald,  yielding  to  his  one  special  weakuess,  sees 
in  this  prayer  the  rlietorical  addition  of  the  Deuter- 
onomist  editor  (iii.  315). 

''  Ps  cxxxii.  belongs  manifestly  (conip.  vv.  7,  8,  10, 
16,  with  2  Chr.  vi.  41)  to  the  day  of  dedication  ;  and 
f.  12  contiiins  the  condition,  of  which  tlie  vision  of  the 
oight  pre.sents  the  dark  as  the  day  had  oresuutsd  the 
bright  Bidf 


c  It  is  noticeable  that  Elohim,  and  not  Jehovah,  is 
the  Divine  name  u.sed  throughout  Ecclesia.stes. 

''  To  see,  however,  as  Ewald  does,  in  Solomon's  pol- 
icy notliing  but  a  wise  toleration  like  that  of  a  modern 
statesman  in  regard  to  Christian  sects,  or  of  the  Eng- 
lish Government  in  India,  is  surely  to  read  historj 
through  a  reiri<.cting  and  distorting  medium. 


H084 


SOLOMON 


one  of  those  predictions  which  help  to  work  out 
their  own  fulfillment,  fastening  on  thoiiojhts  before 
vat^ue,  pointing  Jerolioam  out  to  himself  ami  to  the 
people  as  the  destined  heir  to  the  larger  half  of  the 
kingdom,  as  truly  called  as  l)avid  had  been  called, 
to  be  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  (1  K.  xi.  28-39). 
The  king  in  vain  tried  to  check  the  current  that 
was  setting  strong  against  him.  If  Jeroboam  was 
driven  for  a  time  into  e.xile  it  wa^nly,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  be  luiited  in  marriage  to  fne  then  reigning 
dynasty,  and  to  come  back  with  a  daughter  of  the 
Pharaohs  as  his  queen  (LXX.  ut  supra).  The  old 
tribal  jealousies  gave  signs  of  renewed  vitality. 
Kphraiui  was  prepared  once  more  to  disjiute  the  su- 
premacy of  Judab,  needing  special  control  (1  K.  xi. 
28).  And  with  this  weakness  within  there  came 
attacks  from  without.  Hadad  and  Hezon,  the  one 
in  Edom,  the  other  in  vSyria,  who  had  been  foiled 
in  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  now  found  no  effectual 
resistance.  The  king,  prematurely  old,"  nnist  have 
foreseen  the  rapid  breaking  u|)  of  the  great  mon- 
archy to  which  he  had  succeeded.  Rehoboam,  in- 
heriting his  faults  without  his  wisdom,  haughty  and 
indiscreet,  was  not  likely  to  avert  it. 

(12.)  Of  the  inner  changes  of  mind  and  heart 
which  ran  parallel  with  this  history,  Scripture  is 
comparatively  silent.  Something  may  be  learned 
trom  the  books  that  bear  his  name,  which,  wdiether 
written  by  him  or  not,  stand  in  the  Canon  of  the 
0.  T.  as  representing,  with  profound,  insfiired  in- 
sight, the  successive  phases  of  his  life;  something 
also  from  the  fact  that  so  little  remains  out  of  so 
much,  out  of  the  songs,  proverbs,  treatises  of  which 
the  historian  speaks  (1  K.  iv.  32,  33).  Legendary 
as  may  be  the  traditions  which  speak  of  Hezekiah  as 
at  one  and  the  same  time,  preserving  some  portions 
of  Solomon's  writings  (Prov.  xxv.  1),  and  destroy- 
ing others,''  a  like  process  of  selection  must  have 
been  gone  through  by  the  unknown  liabbis  of  the 
Gkeax  Synagogue  after  the  return  from  the 
exile.  Slowly  and  hesitatingly  they  received  into 
the  Canon,  as  they  went  on  with  their  unparalleled 


a  Solomon's  age  at  his  death  could  not  hare  been 
much  more  than  fifty-nine  or  sixty,  yet  it  was  not  till 
Le  was  "  old  "  that  his  wives  perverted  him  (1  K.  xi. 
4). 

h  Hezekiah  found,  it  was  said,  formulse  for  the  cure 
dB  dise.ises  engraved  on  the  door-posts  of  the  Temple, 
and  destro\ed  them  because  they  di'ewmen  away  from 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  (Suidas,  s.  v.  'E^exia?)-  Strange 
as  the  history  i.-<,it  lias  a  counterpart  in  the  complaint 
of  the  writer  of  2  Chr.  xvi.  12,  that  Asa  "  souglit  not 
to  the  Lord  but  to  the  physicians."  Was  there  a  ri- 
valry in  the  treatment  of  disease  between  the  priests 
and  prophets  on  the  one  side  (comp.  Is  xxxviii.  21), 
and  idolatrous  thaumaturgists  on  the  other  (comp. 
also2K.  i.  2)? 

c  The  Song  of  Songs,  however,  was  never  read  pub- 
licly, either  in  the  Jewish  or  the  Christian  Church, 
nor  in  the  former  were  young  men  allowed  to  read  it 
at  all  (Theod.  Cyr.  Prcpf.  in  Cant.  Cant. ;  Theod. 
Mops,  p    699  in  Migne). 

d  We  rest  on  this  as  the  necessary  condition  of  all 
deeper  interpretation.  To  argue,  as  many  have  done, 
tiiat  the  mystical  sense  must  be  the  only  one  because 
the  literal  would  be  insupportable,  is  simply  to  "  bring 
1  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean,"'  to  assert  that  the 
Divine  Spirit  would  ch'/ose  £.  love  that  was  lustful  and 
iuipure  as  the  fitting  parable  of  the  holiest.  Much 
rather  may  we  say  with  Herder  (Geisl  der  Ebr.  Foes., 
Dial,  vi.),  that  the  poem,  in  its  hteral  sen.se,  is  one 
which  "  might  have  been  written  in  Paradise."  The 
man  ind  the  woman  are,  as  in  their  primeval  inuo- 


SOLOMON 

work  of  the  expurgation  by  a  people  of  its  own  Ut^ 

erature,  the  two  books  which  have  beei/  the  stum- 
bling-blocks of  commentators,  Ecclesiastes  and  the 
Song  of  Songs  «  {G'mshmg,  Kolitkth,  pp.  1.3-15). 
They  give  excerpta  only  from  the  3,000  Proverbs. 
Of  the  thousand  and  live  Songs  (the  jjrecise  num- 
ber indicates  a  known  collection)  we  know  abso- 
lutely nothing.  They  were  willing,  i.  e.,  to  admit 
Koheleth  for  the  sake  of  its  ethical  conclusion ;  the 
So?ig  of  Songs,  because  at  a  very  early  period,  pos- 
sibly even  then,  it  had  received  a  mystical  interpre- 
tation (Keil,  Einleit.  in  das  Alt.  Test.  §  127),  be- 
cause it  was,  at  any  rate,  the  history  of  a  love  which 
if  passionate,  was  also  tender,  and  pure,  and  true." 
But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  there  are  elements  in  that 
poem,  the  strong  deliijht  in  visible  outward  beauty, 
the  surrender  of  heart  and  will  to  one  overpower- 
ing impulse,  which  might  come  to  be  divorced  from 
truth  and  purity,  and  would  then  be  perilous  in 
proportion  to  their  grace  and  charm.  Such  a  di- 
vorce took  place  we  know  in  the  actual  life  of  Sol  • 
onion.  It  could  not  fail  to  leave  its  stamp  upon 
the  idyls  in  which  feeling  and  fancy  uttered  them- 
selves. The  poems  of  the  Son  of  David  may  have 
been  like  those  of  Hafiz.  The  Scribes  who  com- 
piled the  Canon  of  the  O.  T.  may  have  acted  wisely, 
rightly,  charitably  to  his  fame,  in  excluding  them. 
(13.)  'J'he  books  that  remain  m»et  ns,  as  has 
been  said,  as,  at  aii}-  rate,  rejiresenting  the  three 
stages  of  his  life.  The  Song  of  Songs  brings  befoi  e 
us  the  brightness  of  his  youth,  the  heart  as  yet  un- 
tainted, human  love  passionate  yet  undefile<l,«  and 
therefore  becoming,  under  a  higher  inspiration, 
half-consciously  it  may  be  to  itself,  but,  if  not,  then 
unconsciously  for  others,  the  parable  of  the  soul's 
affections./  [C.\nticles.]  Then  comes  in  the 
book  of  Proverbs,  the  stage  of  practical,  prudential 
thought,  searching  into  the  recesses  of  man's  heart, 
seeing  duty  in  little  things  as  well  as  great,  resting 
all  duty  on  the  fear  of  God,  gathering  from  the 
wide  lessons  of  a  king's  experience,  lessons  which 
mankind  could  ill  afford  to  lose."     The  *poet  has 


cence,  loving  and  beloved,  thinking  no  evil,  "  naked 
and  not  ashamed." 

e  We  adopt  the  older  view  of  Lowth  {Pro'l.  xxx., 
xxxi.)  and  others,  rather  than  that  of  Renan  and 
Ewald,  which  almost  brings  down  a  noble  poem  to 
the  level  of  an  operatic  ballet  at  a  Parisian  theatre. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  {I  c.)  had,  at  least,  placed  it 
on  a  level  with  the  Si/m/iosiinn  of  Plato.  The  theory 
of  Michaelis  (Not.  in  Loict/i,  xxxi.)  that  it  represents 
a  young  husband  and  his  favorite  bride  hindered,  by 
harem  jealousies  or  regulations,  from  free  intercourse 
with  each  other,  seems  to  us  preferable,  and  connects 
itself  with  the  identitication  of  the  Shulamite  with  Abi- 
6hag,  already  noticed. 

/  "The  final  cause  of  Canticles,'"  it  has  been  well 
said,  "  was  that  it  might  be  a  field  in  which  mysticism 
could  disport  itself"  (Bishop  Jebb,  CorrespnnrJ .  rolth 
K)w:c,  i.  305).  The  traces  of  the  "  great  mystery  " 
which  thus  connects  divine  and  human  love,  are  in- 
deed to  be  found  everywhere,  in  the  Targums  of  Rab- 
bis, in  the  writings  of  Fathers,  Schoolmen,  Puritans, 
in  the  poems  of  Mystics  like  Novalis,  Jelaleddin  Rumi, 
Saadi  (comp.  Tholuck,  Morgenldnd.  Mys/ik,  pp.  55, 
227).  It  appears  in  its  highest  form  in  the  Vita  Nii- 
ova  of  Dante,  purified  by  Christian  feeling  from  tha 
sensuous  clement  which  in  eastern  writers  too  readily 
mingles  with  it.  Of  all  strange  assertions,  that  of  Re- 
nan,  that  mysticism  of  this  kind  is  foreign  to  the  She- 
mitic  character,  is  perhaps  about  the  strangest  {Cant, 
lies  Cant.  p.  119). 

g  Both  in  Ecclesiastes  (ii.  3-12)  and  yet  nu.  re  io 


SOLOMOJSr 

Mcome  the  philosopher,  the  mystic  has  passed  into 
ihe  moralist.  But  the  man  passed  through  both 
stages  without  beini;  permanently  the  better  for 
jither.  They  were  to  him  but  phases  of  his  life 
which  he  had  known  and  exhausted  (Eccl.  i.,  ii.). 
And  therefore  there  came,  as  in  the  Confessions  of 
the  Preacher,  the  great  retribution.  The  "  sense 
that  wore  with  time  "  avenged  '•  the  crime  of  sense." 
There  fell  on  him,  as  on  other  crowned  voluptua- 
ries," the  weariness  which  sees  written  on  all  things, 
Vanity  of  Vanities.  Slowly  only  could  he  recover 
from  that  "vexation  of  spirit,"  and  the  recovery 
was  incomplete.  It  was  not  as  the  stronsr  burst  of 
j)enitence  that  brought  to  his  father  David  the  as- 
surance of  forgiveness.  He  could  not  rise  to  the 
height  from  which  he  had  fallen,  or  restore  the 
freshness  of  his  first  love.  The  weary  soul  could 
only  lay  again,  with  slow  and  painful  relapses,  the 
foundations  of  a  true   morality  [comp.   Ecclesi 

ASTKS]. 

(14.)  Here  our  survey  must  end.  We  may  not 
«nter  into  the  things  within  the  vail,  or  answer 
either  way  the  doubting  question,  Is  there  any 
hope?  Others  have  not  shrunk  from  debating  that 
question,  deciding,  according  to  their  formulie,  that 
he  did  or  did  not  fulfill  the  conditions  of  salvation 
so  as  to  satisfy  them,  were  they  to  be  placed  upon 
the  jndL;raent-seat  It  would  not  be  profitalile  to 
give  references  to  the  patristic  and  other  writers 
who  have  dealt  with  this  sulyect.  They  have  been 
elaborately  collected  by  Calmet  {Dictionn.  s.  v. 
Salomon.  Noiivdl.  Dissert.  De.  la  salut  da  Sol.). 
It  is  noticeable  and  characteristic  that  Chrysostoni 
and  the  theologians  of  the  Greek  Church  are,  for 
the  most  part,  favorable,  Augustine  and  those  of 
the  Latin,  for  the  most  part,  ad\'erse  to  his  chances 
of  salvation.* 

VII.  Ler^ids. —  (1.)  The  impression  made  by 
Solomon  on  the  minds  of  later  generations,  is  shown 
in  its  best  form  by  the  desire  to  claim  the  sanction 
of  his  name  for  even  the  noblest  thoughts  of  other 
writers.  -Possibly  in  Ecclesiastes,  certainly  in 
the  Book  of  Wis'lom,  we  have  instances  of  this, 
free  from  the  vicious  element  of  an  apocryphal  liter- 
ature. Before  long,  however,  it  took  other  forms. 
Round  the  facts  of  tlie  history,  as  a  nucleus,  there 
gathers  a  whole  world  of  fentastic  fables,  Jewish, 
Christian,  ^Mohammedan,  refractions,  colored  and 
distorted,  according  to  the  media  through  which 
they  pass,  of  a  colossal  form.  F.ven  in  the  Targum  of 
P^cclesiastes  we  find  strange  stories  of  his  character. 
He  and  the  Rabbis  of  the  Sanhedrim  sat  and  drank 
wine  together  in  .labne.  His  paradise  was  fiUed 
with  costly  trees  which  the  evil  spirits  brought  him 
from  India.  The  casuistry  of  the  Rabl)is  rested  on 
his  dicta.  Ashmedai,  the  king  of  the  demons,  de- 
prived him  of  his  magic  ring,  and  he  wandered 
through  the  sities  of  Israel,  weeping  and  sayint;, 
1   the  preaches,  was  king  over  Israel   in  Jerusalem 


SOLOMON 


8085 


(Ginsburg,  ^()Ae/e</(,  App.  i.  H. ;  Koran.  .??«•.  38). 
He  left  behind  him  spells  and  charms  to  cure  dis- 
eases and  cast  out  evil  spirits;  and  for  centuries, 
incantations  bearing  his  name  were  the  special 
boast  of  all  the  "vagabond  Jew  exorcists"  who 
swarmed  in  the  cities  of  the  empire  (Jos.  Ant.  viii. 
2,  §  5 ;  J  ust.  Mart.  Respons.  ad  Orlhod.  p.  55 ; 
Urigen,  Comm.  in  Mutt.  xxvi.  3).  His  wisdom 
enabled  him  to  interpret  the  speech  of  beasts  and 
birds,  a  gift  shated  afterwards,  it  was  said,  by  his 
descendant  HiUel  (Ewald,  iii.  407;  Koran,  Sur. 
37).  He  knew  the  secret  virtues  of  gems  and 
herbs  c  (Fabricius,  Codex  Psewlep.  V.  T.  1042). 
He  was  the  inventor  of  Syriac  and  Arabian  alpha- 
bets libiil.  1014). 

(2. )  Arabic  imagination  took  a  yet  wilder  flight. 
After  a  long  struggle  with  the  rebellious  Afreets 
and  -linns,  Solomon  conquered  them  and  cast 
them  into  the  sea  (Lane,  Arabian  Niijhts,  i.  36). 
The  remote  pre-Adamite  past  was  peopled  with  a 
succession  of  forty  Solomons,  ruling  over  ditierent 
races,  each  with  a  shield  and  sword  that  gave  them 
sovereignty  over  the  .linns.  To  Solomon  himself 
belonged  the  magic  ring  which  revealed  to  him  the 
past,  the  present,  and  the  future.  Because  he 
stayed  his  march  at  the  hour  of  prayer  instead  of 
riding  on  with  his  horsemen  God  gave  him  the 
winds  as  a  chariot,  and  the  birds  flew  over  him, 
making  a  perpetual  canopy.  The  demons  in  their 
spite  wrote  books  of  magic  in  his  name,  but  he, 
being  ware  of  it,  seized  them  and  placed  them 
under  his  throne,  where  they  remained  till  his 
death,  and  then  the  demons  again  got  hold  of 
them  and  scattered  them  abroad  (D'Herlielot,  s.  v. 
"  Soliman  ben  Daoud;"  Koran,  Sur.  21).  The 
visit  of  the  (iueen  of  Sheba  fui-nished  some  three  or 
four  romances.  The  Koran  {Sur.  27)  narrates  her 
visit,  her  wonder,  her  conversion  to  the  Islam, 
which  Solomon  professed.  She  appears  under  three 
ditierent  names,  Nicaule  (Calmet,  Diet.  a.  v.),  Bal- 
kis  (D'Herbelot,  s.  v.),  Makeda  (Pineda,  v.  14). 
The  Arabs  claim  her  as  belonging  to  Yemen,  the 
Ethiopians  as  conung  from  Meroe.  In  each  form 
of  the  story  a  son  is  born  to  her,  which  caUs  Solo 
nion  its  tiither,  in  the  Arab  version  JMeilekh,  in  the 
Ethiopian  David,  after  his  grandfather,  the  ancestor 
of  a  long  line  of  Ethiopian  kings  (Ludolf,  Hist. 
yEthiop.  ii.  3,  4,  5).  Twelve  thousand  Hebrews 
accompanied  her  on  her  return  home,  and  from 
them  were  descended  the  Jews  of  Ethiopia,  and  the 
great  Prester  John  (Presbyter  Joannes)  of  medife- 
val  travellers  (D'Herbelot,  I.  c. ;  Pineda,  /.  c; 
Corylus,  Diss,  de  reyina.  Austr.  in  Menthen's 
Thesaurus,  i.).  She  brought  to  Solomon  the 
self-sanie  gifts  which  the  ilagi  afterwards  brought 
to  Christ.  [iNLvGi.]  One  at  least  of  the  hard 
questions  with  which  she  came  was  rescued  from 
olilivion.  Fair  l)oys  and  sturdy  girls  were  dressed 
up  by  her  exactly  alike  so  that  no  eye  could  distin- 


ProT  nlis  (i.  11- U,  vii.  6-23)  we  may  find  traces  of  ex- 
periences gained  in  other  ways.  The  grapliic  picture 
3f  the  life  of  the  rohbei-s  and  the  prostitutes  of  an 
sastern  city  could  hardly  have  been  drawn  but  by 
one  who,  like  Haroun  Alrashid  and  other  oriental 
kings,  at  times  laid  aside  the  trappings  of  royalty,  and 
plunged  into  the  other  extreme  of  social  life,  that  so 
Ue  might  gain  the  excitement  of  a  fresh  sensation. 

o  "  A  taste  for  pleasure  is  extinguished  in  the 
ting's  heart  (Louis  XIV.).  Age  and  devotion  have 
aught  him  to  make  serious  reflections  on  the  vanity 
>f  everything  he  was  formerly  fond  of"  (Mnie.  de 
Hainteuc'n"s  Letters,  p.  20ij). 


h  How  deeply  this  question  entered  into  the  hearts 
of  uiediiBval  thinkers,  and  in  what  way  the  noblest 
of  them  all  decided  it,  we  read  in  the  Divina  Comm''' 
iJia  :  — 

"  Lq  quinta  luce  ch^  tra  noi  piu  bella 
Spira  di  tal  .nmor,  che  tiitto  il  moudo 
Lai;i;lu  ne  gola  di  super  novella." 

Paradiso,  x.  I()9. 
The  "  spira  di  tal  amor  "  refers,  of  course,  to  the  Song 
of  Solomon. 

c  The  n;tnie  of  a  well-known  plant,  SoloniOD's  »e«J 
{Convaliaria  Majalis).  perpetaates  the  old  belief 


3086 


SOLOMON 


guish  them.  The  king  placed  water  before  them 
and  bade  them  wash,  and  then  when  the  boys 
Bcrubbed  their  faces  and  the  girk  strolled  them 
Boftly,  he  made  out  which  were  whicli  (Gljcas, 
Annul,  in  Fabricius,  /.  c).  Versions  of  these  and 
other  legends  are  to  be  found  also  in  Weil,  BiU. 
Legends,  p.  171:  Fiirst,  Perkiischniire,  c.  36. 

(3.)  'l"he  fame  of  Solomon  sjiread  northward 
and  eastward  to  Persia.  At  Shiraz  they  showed 
the  Mtder-Sideiman,  or  tomb  of  Bath-sheba,  said 
that  I'ersepolis  had  been  built  by  the  Jinns  at  his 
command,  and  pointed  to  the  Takht-i-Suleiman 
(S<_)lomon"s  throne)  in  proof.  Through  their  spells 
too  he  made  his  wonderful  journey,  breakfasting  at 
Persepolis,  dining  at  Baal-bec,  supping  at  Jerusa- 
lem (Chardiu,  iii.  135,  113;  Ouseley,  ii.  11,  137). 
Persian  literature,  while  it  had  no  single  life  of 
David,  boasted  of  countless  histories  of  Solomon, 
one,  the  Suleiman-Nameh,  in  eighty  books,  ascribed 
to  the  poet  lirdousi  (L)'Herbelot, /.  c. ;  Chardin, 
iii.  198),  In  popular  belief  he  was  confounded 
witii  the  great  Persian  hero,  Djemschid  (Ouseley, 
ii.  61). 

(1.)  As  might  be  expected,  the  legends  appeared 
in  their  coarsest  and  basest  form  in  Europe,  losing 
all  their  poetry,  the  mere  appendages  of  the  most 
detestable  of  Apocrypha,  Books  of  ^lagic,  a  Hygro- 
manteia,  a  Contradictio  Salomonis  (whatever  that 
may  be)  condemned  by  Uelasius,  Inc.antationes, 
C'lavicula,  and  the  like."  One  pseudonymous  work 
has  a  somewhat  higher  cliaracter,  the  Ps  illtrium 
Sidonwnis,  altogether  without  merit,  a  mei'e  cenio 
from  the  Psalms  of  David,  but  not  otherwise 
offensive  (F.ibricius,  i.  917;  Tregelles,  Jntnid.  to 
N.  T.  p.  151),  and  therefore  attached  sometimes, 
as  in  the  great  Alexandrian  Codex,  to  the  sacred 
volume.  One  strange  story  meets  us  from  the 
omnivorous  Note-book  of  Bede.  Solomon  did  re- 
pent, and  in  his  contrition  he  offered  himself  to 
the  Sanhedrim,  doing  penance,  and  they  scuurged 
him  five  times  with  rods,  and  then  he  travelled  in 
sackcloth  through  the  cities  of  Israel,  saying  as  he 
went.  Give  alms  to  Solomon  (Bede,  de  Salom.  ap. 
Pineda). 

VI II.  New  Testmneni.  —  We  pass  from  this 
wild  farrago  of  Jewish  and  other  fables,  to  that 
which  presents  the  most  entire  contrast  to  them. 
The  teaching  of  the  N.  T.  adds  nothing  to  the 
materials  for  a  life  of  Solon)on.  It  enables  us  to 
take  tiie  truest  measure  of  it.  The  teaching  of 
the  Son  of  JIan  passes  sentence  on  all  that  kingly 
pomp.  It  declares  that  in  tlie  humblest  work  of 
tjod,  in  the  lilies  of  the  field,  tliere  is  a  grace  and 
beauty  inexhaustible,  so  that  even  "  Solomon  in  all 
his  glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these  "  (JVIatt. 
vi,  29),''  It  pi-esents  to  us  the  perfect  pattern  of  a 
growth  in  wisdom,  like,  and  yet  unlike  his,  taking, 
in  the  eyes  of  men,  a  less  varied  range;  but  deeper, 
truer,  purer,  because  united  with  purity,  victory 
over  temptation,  self-sacrifice,  the  true  large-heart- 
edness  of  sympathy  with  all  men.     On  the  lowest 


a  Two  of  these  strange  books  have  been  reprinted 
la  facsimile  by  Scheible  (Klosler^v.).  The  Cku-icuLa 
Salomonis  Nerrnmantica  consists  of  incantations  made 
up  of  Hebrew  words  ;  and  the  mightiest  spell  of  the 
enchanter  is  the  SigiUinn  Salomonis,  engraved  with 
Hfbi-ew  characters,  such  as  might  have  been  handed 
lown  through  a  long  succession  of  Jewish  exorcists, 
t  is  singular  (miless  this  too  was  part  of  the  im- 
posture) that  both  the  boolcs  profess  to  be  published 
with  the  special  "icense  of  Popes  Julius  II   and  Alex- 


SOLOMON'S  SERVANTS 

view  which  serious  thinkers  have  ever  taken  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  they  have  owned  that 
there  was  in  Him  one  "  greater  than  Solomon " 
(Matt,  xii.  12),  The  historical  Son  of  David, 
ideally  a  type  of  the  Christ  that  was  to  come,  wag 
in  his  actual  hfe,  the  most  strangely  contrasted. 
It  was  reserved  for  the  true,  the  later  Son  of  David, 
to  fulfill  the  prophetic  yearnings  which  had  gath- 
ered round  the  birth  of  the  earlier.  He  was  the 
true  Shelomoh,  the  prince  of  peace,  the  true  Jedid- 
jah,  the  well-beloved  of  the  lather,         E.  H,  P. 

*  SOLOMON'S  GARDENS.     [Garden, 
vol.  i.  p.  868.] 

SOLOMON'S  PORCH.     [Palace.] 

SOLOMON'S     SERVANTS    (CHiLDEEJf 

OF).    (nb-b:p  >iiiy_  \3? :  vioi  'Aps^.A/xd, 

Ezr.  ii.  58;  viol  SovAaiu  'SaXoo/j.wv,  Ezr.  ii.  55; 
Xeh.  vii.  57,  GO:  Ji'Ui  servurum  Salomonis.)  The 
persons  thus  named  appear  in  the  lists  of  the  ex- 
iles who  returned  from  the  Captivity.  They  occupy 
all  but  the  lowest  places  in  those  lists,  and  their 
position  indicates  some  connection  with  the  services 
of  the  I'emple.  First  come  the  priests,  then  Le- 
vites,  then  Nethinim,  then  "  the  children  of  Solo- 
mon's servants."  In  the  Greek  of  1  Esdr.  v.  33, 
35,  the  order  is  the  same,  but  instead  of  Nethinim 
we  meet  with  Up6Sov\oi,  "  servants  "  or  •'  minis- 
ters," of  the  Temple.  In  the  absence  of  ai^y 
definite  statement  as  to  their  office  we  are  left  to 
conjecture  and  inference.  (1.)  The  name  as  well 
as  the  order,  implies  inferiority  even  to  the  Ne- 
thinim. They  are  the  descendants  of  the  slaves 
of  Solomon.  The  servitude  of  the  Nethinim, 
"  ffifeii  to  the  Lord,"  was  softened  by  the  idea  of 
dedication.  [Nethinim.]  (2.)  The  starting- 
point  of  their  history  is  to  be  found  probably  in 
1  K.  v.  13,  11,  ix.  20,  21;  2  Chr.  vi#.  7,  8.  Ca- 
naanites,  who  had  been  living  till  then  with  a  cer- 
tain measiu'e  of  freedom,  were  reduced  by  Solomon 
to  the  helot  state,  and  compelled  to  labor  in  the 
king's  stone-quarries,  and  in  building  his  pakces 
and  cities.  To  some  extent,  indeed,  the  change 
had  been  effected  under  David,  but  it  appears  to 
have  been  then  connected  specially  with  the  Tem- 
ple, and  the  servitutle  under  his  successor  was  at 
once  harder  and  more  extended  (1  Chr.  xxii,  2). 
(3,)  The  last  passage  throws  some  light  on  their 
special  office.  The  Nethinim,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Gibeonites,  were  appointed  to  be  hewers  of 
wood  (.losh,  ix,  23),  and  this  was  enough  for  the 
services  of  the  Tabernacle.  For  the  construction 
and  repairs  of  the  Temple  anotheij  kind  of  labor 
was  required,  and  the  new  slaves  were  set  to  the 
work  of  hewing  and  squaring  stones  (1  K.  v.  17, 
18).  Their  descendants  appear  to  have  formed  a 
distinct  onler,  inlieriting  proliably  the  same  func- 
tions and  the  same  skill.  The  prominence  which 
the  erection  of  a  new  Temple  on  their  return  from 
Babylon  would  give  to  their  work,  accounts  for  the 
special  mention  of  them  in  the  lists  of  Ezra  and 


ander  VI.     Was   this   the  form  of  Hebrew  literature 
which  they  were  willing  to  encourage? 

f>  A  pleasant  Persian  apologue  teaching  a  like  les- 
son deserves  to  be  rescued  from  the  mass  of  fables. 
The  king  of  Israel  met  one  day  the  king  of  the  ants, 
took  the  insect  on  his  hand,  and  held  converse  with 
it,  asking,  Oruesus-like,  "Am  not  I  the  mightiest  and 
most  glorious  of  men?"  "Not  so."  replied  the  ant- 
king,  "  Thou  sittest  on  a  throne  of  gold,  but  1  mak« 
thy  hand  my  throne,  and  thus  am  greater  tbau  thou  * 
(Chardiu,  iii.  19$|, 


SOLOMON'S   SOXG 

Neheniiah.  Like  the  Nethiiiim,  they  were  in  the 
position  of  pmselyteg,  outwardly  conforiniiii;  to  tlie 
Jewisli  ritual,  though  lieloni^iiii;  to  the  hated  race, 
and.  even  in  their  namts.  bearing;  traces  of  their 
Brigiii  (Ezr.  ii.  55-58).  Like  them,  too,  the  great 
mass  must  either  have  perished,  or  given  up  their 
position,  or  remained  at  Babylon.  The  39'2  of  Ezr. 
ii.  55  (Nethinim  included)  must  have  been  but  a 
small  fragment  of  the  descendants  of  the  150,000 
employed  by  Solomon  (1  K.  v.  15).  E.  H.  P. 
SOLOMON'S  SONG.     [Canticles.] 

SOLOMON,  WISDOM  OF.  [Wi.sdom, 
Book  of.] 

SON."  The  term  "  son  "  is  used  in  Scripture 
language  to  imply  almost  any  kind  of  descent  or 
succession,  as  hen  slidndh,  "son  of  a  year,"  i.  e.  a 
year  old,  ben  kesketli,  "  son  of  a  bow,"  i.  e.  an 
arrow.  The  word  bar  is  often  found  in  N.  T.  in 
composition,  as  Bar-timseus.      [Childken  ] 

H.  W.  P. 

SON  OF  GOD  (vlhs  deod),''  the  Second 
Person  of  the  ever-blessed  Trinity,  who  is  coequal, 
coeternal,  and  consubstantial  with  the  Father;  and 
who  took  the  nature  of  man  in  the  womb  of  the 
blessad  Virgin  Mary,  and  as  Man  bears  the  name 
of  Jesus,  or  Saviour,  and  who  proved  Himself  to 
be  the  Messiah  or  Chuist,  the  Prophet,  Priest, 
and  King  of  all  true  Israelites,  the  seed  of  faithful 
Aliraham,  the  universal  Church  of  God. 

The  title  Son  of  God  was  tjradually  revealed  to 
the  world  in  this  its  full  and  hii^liest  sijinificance. 
In  the  book   of  Genesis  the   .'erui  occurs   in   the 

plural  numtier,  "Sons  of  God,"  C^H  pS"I"'^D2 
(Gen.  vi.  2,  4),  and  there  the  appellation  is  applied 
to  the  potentates  of  the  earth,  and  to  those  who 
were  set  in  authority  over  others  (accordini;  to  the 
exposition  in  Cyril  Alex.  Adv.  Julian,  p.  2yf),  and 
Adv.  Antliropomorpli.  c.  17),  or  (as  some  have 
held)  the  sons  of  the  family  of  Seth — those  who 
had  been  most  distinguished  by  piety  and  virtue. 
Li  .Job  i.  G,  and  ii.  1,  this  title,  "Sons  of  God," 
is  used  as  a  designation  of  the  Angels.  In  Psalm 
Ixxxii.  6,  "  I  have  said,  ye  are  gods ;  and  ye  are  all 

sons  of  the  Highest "  ('jl'^br  \D2),  the  title  is 
explained  by  Theodoret  and  others  txD  signify  those 
persons  whom  (iod  invests  with  a  portion  of  his 
own  dignity  and  authority  as  rulers  of  his  people, 
and  who  have  clearer  revelations  of  his  will,  as  our 
Lord  intimates  (John  x.  35);  and  therefore  the 
children  of  Israel,  the  favored  peojile  of  God,  are 
specially  called  collectively,  by  God,  his  Son  (Ex. 
iv.  22,  '23;  Hos.  xi.  1). 

But,  in  a  still  higher  sense,  that  title  is  applied 
by  God  to  his  only  Son,  begotten  l)y  eternal  gen- 
erriion  (see  I's.  ii.  7),  as  interpreted  in  tiie  Ejiistle 

to  the  Hebrews  (i.  5,  v.  5)  ;  the  word  3^*rT, 
"  to-day  "  in  that  passage,  being  expressive  of  the 
act  of  Gsd,  with  whom  is  no  yesterday,  nor  to- 
morrow. "  In  seterno  nee  prseteritum  est,  nee 
futuruui,  sed  perpetuum  hodie  "  (Luther).     That 

«  1.  12  :  u'os  :  fill  us  ;  from  r22.  "build  "(see 
Jer.  xxxiii.  7).  [On  the  Biblical  use  of  the  word  "  son,"' 
lee  J.  W.  Gibbs  in  the  Qitar.  Christ.  Spectator,  vl. 
156  ff.  — A.] 

2.   '^2,   from   T^3,    "  pure  "  :    TeKi'oi' :    dilectiis 
Pruv.  xxxi.  2). 
8.    T7^  :    TraiSiov  :  puer. 


SON   OF  GOD 


3087 


text  evidently  refers  to  the  Messiah,  who  is  orowned 
and  anointed  as  King  liy  God  (Ps  ii.  2,  6  >,  although 
resisted  by  men,  Ps.  ii.  1,  3,  compared  with  Acta 
iv.  25-27,  where  that  text  is  applied  i)y  St.  Peter 
to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  and  his  subsequent  ex- 
altation ;  and  the  same  psalm  is  also  referred  to 
Christ  by  St.  Paul,  when  preaching  in  the  .Jewish 
synagogue  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts  xiii.  33); 
whence  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Jews  mii;ht 
have  learnt  from  their  own  Scriptures  that  the 
Messiah  is  in  a  special  sense  the  Son  of  God;  and 
this  is  allowed  by  Maimonides  in  Porta  }fiisii.  ed. 
Pococke,  pp.  100,  239.  This  truth  might  have  been 
deduced  by  logical  infei'ence  from  the  (Ud  Testa- 
ment, but  in  no  passage  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
is  the  Messiah  clearly  and  explicitly  designated  by 
the  title  "  Son  of  God."  The  words,  "  The  forui 
of  tiie  fourth  is  like  the  Son  of  God,"  are  in  the 
Chaldee  portion  of  the  book  of  Daniel  (Dan.  iii. 
25),  and  were  uttered  by  a  heathen  and  idolatrous 
king,  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  cannot  therefore  be  un- 
derstood as  exjiressing  a  clear  appreciation,  on  the 
part  of  the  speaker,  of  the  divinity  of  the  .Messiah 
althoush  we  may  readily  agree  that,  like  Caiaphas 
and  Pilate,  the  king  of  Babylon,  especially  as  he  was 
perhaps  in  habits  of  intercourse  with  Daniel,  may 
have  delivered  a  true  jirophecy  concerning  Christ. 

We  are  now  brouijht  to  the  question,  whether 
the  Jews,  in  our  Lord's  age,  generally  believed  that 
the  jNlessiah,  or  Christ,  was  also  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  namely,  as  a 
Divine  Person,  coequal,  coeternal,  and  consubstan- 
tial with  the  Father? 

That  the  Jews  entertained  the  opinion  that  the 
Messiah  would  lie  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  su/jordinnle 
senses  of  the  term  already  specified  (namely,  as  a 
holy  person,  and  as  invested  with  great  power  by 
God),  cannot  be  doubted;  but  the  point  at  issue 
is,  whether  they  supposed  that  the  iNIessiah  would 
be  what  the  Universal  ('hurch  believes  Jesus  Christ 
to  be?  Did  they  believe  (as  some  learned  persons 
suppose  they  did)  that  the  terms  Messiah  and  Son 
of  God  are  "  equivalent  and  inseparable"? 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Jews  ou(jlU  to  have 
deduced  the  doctrine  of  the  Jlessiah's  divinity  from 
their  own  Scriptures,  especially  from  such  texts  as 
Psalm  xlv.  G,  7,  "  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever 
and  ever;  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right 
sceptre.  Thou  lovest  righteousness  and  hatest 
wickedness;  therefore  (jod,  thy  God,  anointed  Thee 
with  the  oil  of  ijladneas  above  thy  fellows;  "  a  text 
to  which  the  author  of  the  I'^pistle  to  the  Helirews 
ajjpeals  (Heb.  i.  8);  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Mes- 
siah's Godhead  might  also  have  been  inferred  from 
such  texts  as  Isaiah  ix.  6,  "  Unto  us  a  Child  is 
born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given  ....  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Miylit^ 
God ;  "  and  vii.  14,  "  Behold  a  Virgin  shall  con- 
ceive and  bear  a  Son,  and  shall  call  his^iame  Im- 
manuel "  (with  us,  God);  and  from  Jer.  xxiii.  5, 
"  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  1  will 
raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and  a  Kini/ 
shall  reign  and  prosper  ■  •  •  ;  and  this  is  Uie  name 


4.  ^^V^  :   yeViT)jU,a  :  stirps  ;  genits. 

5.  ^'^3:   a-vepfia:  posteri. 

G.    ^13^,  like  a  son,  i.  e.  a  successor. 

''  The  present  article,  in  oonjuuction  with  that  al 
Saviour,  forms  the  supplement  to  the  life  ol  our  l/OiJ 
[See  Jesus  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  1347.] 


3088 


SON   OF  GOD 


whereby  He  shall  be  called,  the  Lord  (Jehovah) 
our  Kigliteousness;  "  and  from  Micah  v.  2,  '•  Out 
of  thee  (Bethlehem  Ephratah)  sliall  He  come  forth 
unto  me  that  Is  to  be  Kuler  in  Israel,  whose  £;oin{;s 
forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting: ''  and 
from  Zech.  xi.  13,  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  nie, 
Cast  it  unto  the  potter:  a  goodly  price  that  I  was 
prised  at  of  them."  '<■ 

But  the  question  is  not,  whether  the  Jews  m'njhi 
not  and  oiKjIit  not  to  have  inferred  the  Divine  Son- 
ghip  of  the  ^lessiah  from  their  own  Scriptures,  but 
whether,  for  the  most  part,  they  really  did  deduce 
that  doctrine  from  those  Scriptures?  They  ought 
doubtless  to  have  been  prepared  by  those  Scriptures 
for  a  sufftfiny  Messiah ;  but  this  we  know  was  not 
the  case,  and  the  Cross  of  ( 'hrist  was  to  them  a 
stumbling-block  (1  Cor.  i.  2.3);  and  one  of  the 
strongest  objections  which  they  raised  against  the 
Christians  was,  that  they  worshipped  a  man  who 
died  a  death  which  is  declared  to  be  an  accursed 
one  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  which  was  delivered  by 
God  himself  (Deut.  xxi.  23). 

May  it  not  also  lie  true,  that  the  Jews  of  our 
Lord's  age  failed  likewise  of  attaining  to  the  true 
sense  of  tlieir  own  Scriptures,  in  the  opposite  direc- 
tion V  May  it  not  also  be  true,  that  they  did  not 
acknowledge  the  fJivine  Sonsliip  of  the  Messiah, 
and  that  they  were  not  prepai-ed  to  admit  the 
claims  of  one  who  asserted  Himself  to  be  the  Christ, 
and  also  affirmed  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
coequal  with  the  Father"? 

In  looking  at  this  question  a  priori,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  Helirew  Scriptures  declare  in 
the  strongest  and  most  explicit  terms  the  Divine 
Unity.  "  Hear,  0  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  owe 
Lord  "  (Deut.  vi.  4),  this  is  the  solenm  declaration 
which  the  Jews  recite  daily,  morning  and  evening 
(see  Mishnah,  Beriic/i<it/i,  chap.  i.).  They  regarded 
themselves  as  set  apart  from  aU  the  nations  of 
earth  to  be  a  witness  of  God's  unity,  and  to  protest 
against  the  polytheism  of  the  rest  of  mankind. 
And  having  suffered  severe  chastisements  in  the 
Babylonish  Captivity  for  their  own  idolatries,  they 
shrunk  —  and  still  shrink  —  with  fear  and  abhor- 
rence, from  everything  that  might  seem  in  any  de- 
gree to  trench  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  unicy  of 
the  Godhead. 

To  this  consideration  we  must  adil,  a  posteriori, 
the  external  evidence  derived  from  the  testimony  of 
accient  writers  who  lived  near  to  our  Lord's  age. 

Tryplio,  the  learned  Jew,  who  debated  with 
Justin  Martyr  at  Ephesus  about  a.  d.  150,  on  the 
Ifoints  of  controversy  between  the  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, expressly  states,  "  that  it  seems  to  him  not 
only  paradoxical  but  silly  (fxup6u),  to  say  that  the 
Messiah,  or  Christ,  preiixisted  from  eternity  5s 
God,  and  that  He  condescended  to  be  born  as  man, 
and  "  —  Trypho  explodes  the  notion  —  that  Christ 
is  '•  not  ilfen  begotten  of  man  "  (Justin  M.  Dialog. 
c.  Tryplwn.  §  48,  vol.  ii.  p.  154,  ed.  Otto,  Jen. 
1842).  Here  is  a  distinct  assertion  on  the  part  of 
the  Jew  that  the  Messiah  is  merely  man  ;  and  here 
also  is  a  denial  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  that  He 
is  God,  preexisting  from  eternity,  and  took  the 
nature  of  man.  In  the  same  Dialogue  the  Jewish 
interlocutor,  Trypho,  approves  the  tenets  of  the 
Ebionite  heretics,  who  asserljd  that  the  Christ  was 
a  mere  man  {\\ii\hs  &v6pcotros),  and  adds  this  re- 


«  *  On  these  passagies  and  on  the  general  subject, 
ym,  on  the  one  hand,  Heugstenberg's  Cliristology  nf 
he  Old  Test.;  on  the  other,  three  articles  by  Dr.  O. 


SON   OF  GOD 

markable  declaration :  "  all  we  (Jews)  expect  iiai 
the  Jlessiah  will  come  as  a  man  from  man  (i.  •. 
from  human  parents),  and  that  Elias  will  anoint 
Him  when  He  is  come"  (irdj/Tes  riixels  rhf 
XP  I-  cr  rh  V  a.vQpwKot'  e|  afdp  wtt  w  u  Trpotr- 
SoKaj/xiv  yivi]ffi<jQai,  Koi  rhv  'HAi'ai/  XP'<''«» 
avrhv  iKBovTa,  Trypho  Judaeus,  ap.  Justin  M. 
Dialo;j.  §  49,  p.  15G).  And  in  §  54,  St.  Justin 
JIartyr,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Christian  be- 
lievers, combats  that  assertion,  and  atErms  that  the 
Hebrew  prophecies  themselves,  to  which  he  appeals, 
testify  that  the  Messiah  is  not  a  man  born  of  man, 
according  to  the  ordinary  manner  of  human  gen- 
eration, avOpWTvos  e'l  avQpwiroiv  Kara  rh  Koiuh* 
raiv  avOpiinouv  yevvTidils.  And  there  is  a  remark- 
able passai^e  in  a  subsequent  portion  of  the  same 
dialogue,  where  Justin  says,  '•  //',  0  Try])ho,  ye 
understood  who  He  is  that  is  sometimes  called  the 
Messenger  of  mighty  counsel,  and  a  JIan  by  Ezekiel, 
and  designated  as  the  Son  of  IMan  by  Daniel,  and 
as  a  Child  by  Isaiah,  and  the  Jlessiah  and  God  by 
Daniel,  and  a  Stone  by  many,  and  \A'isdom  by 
Solomon,  and  a  Star  by  Moses,  and  the  Day-spring 
Ijy  Zechariah,  and  who  is  represented  as  sufterinif, 
by  Isaiah,  and  is  called  by  him  a  Kod,  and  a  Hower 
and  Corner  Stone,  and  the  Son  of  Gotl,  you  \*ould 
not  have  spoken  blasphemy  against  Him,  who  is 
already  come,  and  who  has  been  born,  and  has 
suffered,  and  has  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  will 
come  again  ".'  (.lustin  M.  c.  Tryphon.  §  126,  p. 
409);  and  Justin  affirms  that  he  has  pr(>ved,  against 
the  Jews,  that  "  Christ,  who  is  the  Lord  and  God, 
and  Son  of  God,"  appeared  to  their  Lnthers,  the 
Patriarchs,  in  various  forms,  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation (§  128,  p.  425).  Compare  the  authorities 
in  Dorner,  On  the  Person  of  Christ,  i.  pp.  2t!5- 
271,  Engl,  transl. 

In  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  Origen  wrote 
.his  apologetic  work  in  defense  of  Christianity 
agaiijst  Celsus,  the  ICpicurean,  and  in  various  places 
of  that  treatise  he  recites  the  allegations  of  the 
Jews  against  the  Gospel.  In  one  passage,  when 
Celsus,  speaking  in  the  person  of  a  Jew,  had  said 
that  one  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  had  predicted  that 
the  Son  of  (iod  would  come  to  judge  the  righteous 
and  to  pmiish  the  wicked,  Origen  rejoins,  that  such 
a  notion  is  most  improjierly  ascribed  to  a  Jtw ; 
inasmuch  as  the  Jews  did  indeed  look  for  a  Messiah, 
but  not  as  the  Son  of  God.  "No  Jew,''  he  says, 
would  allow  that  any  prophet  ever  said  that  a  Son 
of  God  would  come;  but  what  the  Jews  do  say,  is, 
that  the  Christ  of  God  will  come;  and  they  often 
dispute  with  us  Christians  as  to  this  very  question, 
for  instance,  concerning  the  Son  of  (iod,  on  the 
plea  that  no  such  Person  exists  or  was  ever  fore- 
told "  (Origen,  Ado.  Cels.  i.  §  49,  vol.  i.  p.  305, 
B. ;  see  p.  38  and  p.  79,  ed.  Spencer,  and  other 
places,  e.  g.  pp.  22,  30,  51,  62,  71,  82,  110,  136). 

In  the  4th  century  Eusebius  testified  that  the 
Jews  of  that  age  would  not  accept  the  title  Son  of 
God  as  applicable  to  the  Messiah  (Euseb.  Deni. 
Evang.  iv.  1),  and  in  later  days  they  charge  Chris- 
tians with  impiety  and  blasphemy  for  designating 
Christ  by  that  title  (Leoutius,  Cone.  Niccn.  ii. 
Act.  iv.). 

Lastly,  a  learned  Jew,  Orobio,  in  the  17th  cen- 
tury, in  his  conference  with  Limborch,  affirms  thai 
if  a  prophet,  or  even,  if  it  were  possible,  tiie  Messiah 


R.  Noyes  in   the  Clirislian  Exammer  fi  r  Jan.,  Maj 
and  July,  1836.  A. 


SON   OF   GOD 

himself,  were  :o  work  miracles,  and  yet  la)-  claim 
to  diriiiity,  he  ouglit  to  be  put  to  death  by  stoiiiiiu, 
as  one  guilty  of  blasphemy  {Oivblo  ap.  Limborch, 
Aiiiicn  CoUatio,  p.  295,  ed.  Goud.  1G88). 

Hence,  therefore,  on  the  whole,  there  seems  to 
be  sutticient  reason  for  concludin;;-  (with  Basnage, 
His/oirt:  lies  Jui/s,  iv.  c.  24),  that  although  the 
Jews  of  our  Lord's  age  might  have  inferred,  and 
ought  fo  have  inferred,  from  their  own  Scriptures, 
that  the  Messiah,  or  Cln-ist,  would  lie  a  Divine 
Person,  and  the  Sou  of  God  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  term;  and  although  some  among  them, 
who  were  more  enlightened  than  the  rest,  enter- 
tained that  opinion:  yet  it  was  not  the  popular 
and  generally  received  doctrine  among  the  Jews 
that  the  Messiah  would  be  other  than  a  man,  born 
of  human  parents,  and  not  a  Divine  Being,  and  Son 
of  God. 

This  conclusion  reflects  much  light  upon  certain 
important  questions  of  the  Gospel  History,  and 
clears  up  several  difficulties  with  regard  to  the  evi- 
dences of  Christianity. 

1.  It  supplies  an  answer  to  the  question,  "  Why 
was  Jesus  Christ  put  to  death  V  "  Me  was  accused 
by  the  Jews  before  Pilate  as  guilty  of  sedition  and 
rebellion  against  the  power  of  Itome  (Luke  xxiii. 
1-5;  cf.  John  xix.  12);  but  it  is  hardly  necessary 
to  observe  that  this  was  a  mere  pretext,  to  which 
the  Jews  resorted  for  the  sake  ^^'f  exasperating  the 
Roman  governor  against  Him,  and  even  of  com- 
pelling Pilate,  against  his  will,  to  condemn  Him,  in 
wder  that  he  might  not  lay  himself  open  to  the 
charge  of  "  not  being  Caesar's  friend  "  (<John  xix. 
12);  whereas,  if  our  Lord  had  really  announced  an 
intention  of  emancipating  the  Jews  from  the  Ro- 
man yoke,  He  would  have  procured  for  Himself 
the  favor  and  support  of  the  Jewish  rulers  and 
people. 

Nor  does  it  appear  that  Jesus  Christ  was  put  to 
death  because  He  claimed  to  be  the  Christ.  The 
.'ews  were  at  that  time  anxiously  looking  for  the 
Alessiah;  the  Phari.sees  asked  the  Baptist  whether 
he  was  the  Christ  (John  i.  20-25):  '-and  ;dl  men 
mused  in  their  hearts  of  John  whether  he  were  the 
Christ  or  not  "  (Luke  iii.  15). 

On  this  it  may  be  observed,  in  passing,  that  the 
people  well  knew  that  .lohn  the  Baptist  was  the  son 
Df  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth;  they  knew  him  to  be 
a  iiwre  win,  born  after  the  ordinary  manner  of  hu- 
man generation;  and  yet  tiiey  all  thought  it  prob- 
alile  that  he  might  be  the  Christ. 

This  circumstance  proves,  that,  according  to 
their  notions,  the  Christ  was  not  to  be  a  Divine 
Person;  certainly  not  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  Chris- 
tian sense  of  the  term.  The  same  conclusion  may 
be  deduced  from  the  circumstance  that  the  .lews  of 
that  au;e  eagerly  welcomed  the  appearance  of  those 
false  Chrisis  (Matt.  xxiv.  24),  who  pi-omised  to  de- 
liver them  from  the  Roman  yoke,  and  whom  they 
knew  to  be  mere  men,  and  who  did  not  claim  Di- 
vine origin,  which  they  certainly  would  have  done, 
if  the  Christ  was  generally  expected  to  be  the  Son 
of  God. 

We  see  also  that  after  the  miraculous  feeding, 
the  people  were  desirous  of  "making  Jesus  a  [sing  " 
(.lohn  vi.  15);  and  after  the  raising  of  Lazarus  at 
Bethany  they  met  Him  with  enthusiastic  acclama- 
tions, "  llosanna  to  the  Son  of  iVvid;  blessed  is 
\ie  tiiat  Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Matt. 
ixi.  0:  Mark  xi.  9;  John  xii.  13).  And  the  eiger 
|!jd  restless  facility  with  which  the  Jews  admitted 
hs  pretensions  of  almost  erery  fimatical  adventurer 


SON   OF   GOD 


3089 


who  professed  to  be  the  Messiah  at  that  period, 
seems  to  show  that  they  would  have  willingly  al- 
lowed the  claims  of  one  who  "  wrought  mai  y  mir- 
acles," as,  even  by  the  confession  of  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  did  (John  xi.  47), 
if  He  had  lieen  content  with  such  a  title  as  the 
.lews  assigned  to  their  expected  Messiah,  namely, 
that  of  a  great  Prophet,  distinguished  by  mighty 
works. 

We  find  that  when  our  Lord  put  tc  the  Phari- 
sees this  question,  "  What  think  ye  of  Christ,  whose 
Son  is  He?  ''  their  answer  was  not,  "  He  is  the  Son 
of  God,"'  but  "  He  is  the  Son  of  David;  "  and  they 
could  not  answer  the  second  question  which  He  next 
propounded  to  them,  "  How  theTi  doth  David,  speak- 
ing in  the  Spirit,  call  Him  Lord?  "  The  reason 
was,  l)ecause  the  Pharisees  did  not  expect  the  Mes- 
siah to  be  the  Son  of  God ;  and  when  He,  who  is 
the  Messiah,  claimed  to  be  God,  they  rejected  his 
claim  to  be  the  Christ. 

The  reason,  therefore,  of  his  condemnation  by 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  and  of  his  delivery  to  Pi- 
late for  crucifixion,  was  not  that  He  claimed  to  be 
the  Messiah  or  Christ,  but  because  He  asserted 
Himself  to  be  much  more  than  that:  in  a  woi-d, 
because  He  claimed  to  be  the  Sun  of  God,  and  to 
be  Hod. 

This  is  further  evident  from  the  words  of  the 
Jews  to  Pilate,  "  We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law 
He  oui^ht  to  die,  because  He  made  Himself  the  Sod 
of  God  "  (John  xix.  7):  and  from  the  previous  res- 
olution of  the  .Jewish  Sanhedrim,  "  Then  said  they 
all.  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God  ?  And  He  said 
unto  them.  Ye  say  that  I  am.  And  they  said, 
What  need  we  any  turther  wittiess '?  for  we  our- 
selves have  heard  of  his  own  mouth.  And  the 
whole  multitude  of  them  arose  and  led  Him  unto 
Pilate"  (Luke  xxii.  70,  71,  xxiii.  1). 

In  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  the  question  of  the 
high-priest  is  as  follows:  "1  adjr.re  thee  by  the 
living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  (iod"  (Matt.  xxvi.  03).  This 
question  does  not  intimate  that  in  the  opinion  of 
the  high-priest  the  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God, 
but  it  siiows  that  Jesus  claimeil  both  titles,  and  in 
claiming  them  for  Himself  asserted  that  the  Christ 
was  the  Son  of  God ;  but  that  this  was  not  the 
popular  opinion,  is  evident  from  the  considerations 
abo\e  stated,  and  also  from  ids  words  to  St.  Peter 
when  the  Apostle  confessed  Him  to  be  the  "Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God  "  (Matt.  xvi.  16);  He 
declared  that  Peter  had  received  this  truth,  not 
from  hiunan  testimonj',  Vmt  by  extraordinary  reve- 
lation:  "Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona:  for 
flt-sh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven''  (Matt.  xvi.  17). 

It  was  the  claim  which  He  put  forth  to  be  the 
Christ  and  Son  of  God,  that  led  to  our  Lord's  con- 
demnation by  the  unanimous  verdict  of  th#Sanhe- 
drini:  "  They  all  condemned  Him  to  be  guilty  of 
death"  (Mark  xiv.  64;  Matt.  xxvi.  03-60);  and 
the  sense  in  which  He  claimed  to  be  Son  of  God  is 
clear  from  the  narrative  of  John  v.  15.  The  Jews 
sought  the  more  to  kill  Him  because  He  not  only 
had  broken  the  ^abhatii,  but  said  also  th.at  God  was 
his  own  Father  (nar^pa  Wiou  iXcye  rhv  6(6v), 
making  Himself  "  eqii.al  unto  (Sod  ;  "  and  when  He 
claimed  |)ivine  preiixistence,  saying,  "  Before  Alira- 
j  ham  was  (e-yeVfro),  I  am,  then  took  they  uji  stoiiea 
to  cast  at  Him"  (John  viii.  58,  59);  and  when  He 
asserted  his  own  unity  with  God,  "  I  and  the  Fa- 
ther are  one  "  — one  suljstance  (eV),  not  onv.  pt  rum 


8000 


SON   OF   GOD 


(«»j)  — "  tben  the  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to 
Btone  Him"  (Jolm  x.  oO,  31);  and  this  is  evident 
again  from  tiieir  own  words,  "  P'or  a  good  worlv  we 
stone  tliee  not,  but  for  blasphemy;  and  Ijecause 
that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God  " 
(John  X.  33). 

Accordingly  we  find  that,  after  the  Ascension, 
the  Apostles  labored  to  bring  the  Jews  to  acknowl- 
edge that  Jesus  was  not  only  the  C/n-ist,  but  was 
also  a  Divine  Person,  even  the  Lord  Jehovah. 
Thus,  for  example,  St.  Peter,  after  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost  by 
Christ,  says,  "  T/iereJbre  let  all  the  house  of  Israel 
know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  that  same 
Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  botli  Loud  (Kvpiov, 
Jehovah)  and  Christ  "  (Acts  ii.  30)." 

2.  This  conclusion  supplies  a  convincing  proof 
of  Christ's  Godhead.  //'  He  is  not  the  Son  of 
God,  equal  with  God,  then  there  is  no  other  alter- 
native but  that  He  was  guilty  of  lilasphemy;  for 
He  claimed  "  God  as  his  own  Father,  making 
Himself  equal  with  God,"'  and  by  doing  so  He  pro- 
posed Himself  as  an  olject  of  Divine  worship.  And 
in  that  case  He  would  have  rightly  been  put  to 
death;  and  the  Jews  in  rejecting  and  killing  Him 
would  have  been  acting  in  obedience  to  the  Law 
of  God,  which  commanded  them  to  put  to  death 
any  prophet,  however  distinguished  he  might  be 
by  tlie  working  of  miracles,  if  he  were  guilty  of 
blasphemy  (Ueut.  xiii.  1-11);  and  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  would  have  been  an  act  of  pious  zeal  on 
their  part  for  the  honor  of  God,  and  would  have 
commended  them  to  his  favor  and  protection, 
whereas  we  know  that  it  was  that  act  which  filled 
the  cup  of  their  national  guilt,  and  has  made  them 
outcasts  from  God  to  this  day  (Matt,  xxiii.  32-38; 
Luke  xiii.  33-35;  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16;  James 
V.  6). 

When  they  repent  of  this  sin,  and  say,  "  Blessed 

(ev\o-yri/xevos)  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 

fcthe   Lord,"   and  acknowledge  Jesus  to  l;e  Christ 

and  the  Son  of  God,  coequal  with  God,  then  Israel 

shall  be  saved  (liom.  xi.  2ij). 

3.  This  conclusion  also  explains  the  fact  —  which 
might  otherwise  ha\e  perplexed  and  staggered  us 
—  that  the  fuiracles  wliich  Jesus  wrouj;ht,  and 
which  the  Jews  and  their  rulers  acknowledged  to 
have  been  wrought  by  Him,  did  not  have  their 
due  influence  upon  then) ;  those  mighty  and  mer- 
ciful works  did  not  produce  the  effect  upon  them 
which  they  ought  to  ha\e  produced,  and  which 
those  works  would  have  jiroduced,  if  tiie  Jews  and 
their  rulers  had  been  prepared,  as  they  ought  to 
have  been,  by  an  intelligent  study  of  their  own 
Scriptures,  to  regard  their  expected  Messiah  as  the 
Son  of  God,  coequal  with  God. 

Not  being  so  prepared,  tliey  applied  to  those 
miracles  the  test  supplied  by  their  own  Law,  which 
enjoined  that,  if  a  prophet  arose  among  them,  and 
worked  miracles,  and  endeavored  to  draw  them 
away  from  the  worship  of  the  true  (iod,  those  mir- 
acles were  to  be  regarded  as  trials  of  their  own  stead- 
fastness, and  were  not  to  be  accepted  as  proofs  of  a 
Divine  mission,  "but  the  prophet  himself  was  to  be 


a  *■  In  ascribing  to  St.  Peter  the  remarkable  prop- 
osition tbat  "  God  hath  7>iade  Jesus  Jehovah,"  the 
writer  of  thi.<i  article  appears  to  have  overlooked  the 
'ai't  that  Kvpiov  (''  Lord'")  in  Acts  ii.  .Stj  refers  to  rif 
-vpio)  ixov  C  my  LOr<l  ")  in  ver.  34,  quoted  from  Ps. 
»K.  1,  wliere  the  Ue'irew  correspondent  is   not  Jeho- 

rah,  but   ^TTS,  a/J!j\(,  the  common  word  for  "  lord  " 


SON   OF  GOD 

put  to  death  "  (Deut.  xiii.  1-11).  The  Jews  tried 
our  Lord  and  his  miracles  by  this  law.  Some  of 
the  Jews  ventured  to  say  that  "Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  specially  in  the  mind  of  the  Divine  Lawgiver 
when  He  framed  that  law"  (see  Fagius  on  the 
Chaldee  Parapiirase  of  Deut.  xiii.,  and  his  note  on 
Deut.  xviii.  15),  and  that  it  was  provided  expressly 
to  meet  his  case.  Indeed  they  do  not  hesitate  to 
say  that,  in  the  words  of  the  Law,  "  if  thy  brother, 
the  soil  (if  thy  mother^  entice  thee  secretly" 
(Deut.  xiii.  6),  there  was  a  jjrophetic  reference 
to  the  case  of  Jesus,  who  ' '  said  that  He  bad  a 
human  mother,  but  not  a  human  father,  but 
was  the  Son  of  God  and  was  God  "  (see  Fagius, 
I.  c). 

Jesus  claimed  to  he  the  Messiah ;  but,  according 
to  the  popular  view  and  preconceived  notions  of 
the  Jews,  the  Messiah  was  to  be  merely  a  human 
personage,  and  would  not  claim  to  be  God  and  to 
1)6  entitled  to  Divine  power.  Therefore,  though 
they  admitted  his  miracles  to  be  really  wrought. 
yet  they  did  not  acknowledge  the  claim  grounded 
on  those  miracles  to  be  true,  but  rather  regarded 
those  miracles  as  trials  of  their  loyalty  to  the 
One  True  God,  whose  prerogatives,  they  thought, 
were  infringed  and  invaded  by  Him  who  wrought 
those  miracles ;  and  they  even  ascribed  those  mira- 
cles to  the  agency  of  the  Prince  of  the  Devils 
(Matt.  xii.  24,  27;  Mark  iii.  22;  Luke  xi.  15), 
and  said  that  He,  who  wrought  those  miracles, 
had  a  devil  (.lohn  vii.  20,  viii.  48),  and  they 
called  Him  Beelzebub  (Matt.  x.  25),  because  they 
thought  that  He  was  setting  Himself  in  opposition 
to  God. 

4.   "  They  all  condemned  Him  to  be  guilty  of 
death"   (Mark    xiv.    G4).       The    Sanhedrim    was 
unanimous  in  the  sentence  of  condemnation.     This 
is  remarkable.     We  cannot  suppose  tbat  tliere  were 
not  .some  conscientious  persons  in  so  numerous  a 
I  body.     Indeed,  it  may  readily  be  allowed  that  many 
1  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  actuated  by 
I  an  earnest  zeal  for  the  honor  (if  (jod   when  they 
condemned  Jesus  to  death,  and  tliat  they  did  what 
j  they  did  with  a  view  to  God's  glory,  wliicli  they 
supposed  to  lie  disparaged   l)y  onr   Lord's  preten- 
sions: and  tliat  they  were  guided  by  a  desire  to 
comply  with  God's  law,  which  required  them  to  put 
to  death  every  one  who  was  guilty  of  blasphemy  in 
arrogating  to  himself  the  power  which  belonged  to 
God. 

Hence  we  may  explain  oui-  Lord's  words  on  the 
cross,  "  Fatlier,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  vol 
what  they  do"  (Luke  xxiii.  34),  "Father,  they  are 
not  aware  that  He  whom  they  are  crucifying  is 
thy  Son ;  "  and  St.  Peter  said  at  Jerusalem  to  the 
Jews  after  the  crucifixion,  "  Now,  brethren,  I  wot 
that  throti(jli  iynoranct  ye  did  it  (i.  e.  rejected  and 
crucified  Christ),  as  did  also  your  rulers  "  (Acts  iii. 
17);  and  St.  Paul  declared  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  "  they  that  dwell  at 
Jerusalem,  and  their  rulers,  because  they  knew  Him 
not,  nor  yet  the  voices  of  the  prophets,  which  are 
read  every  Sabbath-day,  have  fulfilled  them  in  con- 
demning Him"  (Acts  xiii.  27). 

or  "master  "  St.  Peter's  meaning  here  may  be  illus- 
trated by  his  language  elsewhere ;  see  Acts  v.  31 ; 
1  Pet,  i.  21.  iii.  22  ;  and  comp.  Eph.  i  20-22,  Phil.  ii. 
9-11.  On  the  N.  T.  use  of  icvpio;  see  \Viner,  De  sensn 
vnciim  Kijpios  et  6  KtJpios  "i  Actis  el  Epp  Apnst.,  Er 
lang.  1828;  Prof.  Ptuart  iu  tlie  Bihl.  R'pns.  for  Octo. 
ber,  1831,  pp.  733-77(5 .  and  Creniers  Bibi  t/iers 
WUrterb.  d.  neulest.  Gracital  (1866),  p.  340  f.  A. 


SON   OF   GOD 

Hence  it  is  evident  th'.t  tlie  predictions  of  Holy 
Bcripture  may  be  accomplished  before  the  eyes  of 
men,  wiiile  they  are  unconscious  of  that  fulfillment; 
and  that  the  prophecies  may  be  even  accomplished 
by  persons  who  have  the  propiiecies  in  their  hands, 
and  do  not  know  that  they  are  fulfilling  them. 
Hence  also  it  is  clear  that  men  may  be  ^'uilty  of 
enormous  sins  when  they  are  acting  according  to 
their  consciences  and  with  a  view  to  God's  glory, 
and  while  they  hold  the  Bil)]e  in  their  hands  and 
hear  its  voice  sounding  in  their  ears  (Acts  xiii.  27): 
and  that  it  is  therefore  of  unspeakable  iuiportance 
not  only  to  bear  thz  words  of  the  Scrifjtures,  but 
to  mark,  iearn,  and  inwardly  digest  tliem,  witii 
humility,  docility,  earnestness,  and  prayer,  in  order 
to  understand  their  true,  mtuning. 

'i'berefbre  the  Christian  student  has  great  reason 
to  thank  God  that  He  has  given  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament a  divinely-inspired  interpretation  of  the  Old 
1'estament,  and  also  has  sent  tlie  Holy  Spirit  to 
teach  the  Apostles  all  things  (John  xiv.  26),  to 
abide  forever  with  his  Church  (John  xiv.  IC), 
the  body  of  Christ  (Col.  i.  2-t),  which  He  has 
made  to  be  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth  (1  Tim. 
iii.  15),  and  on  whose  interpretations,  embodied  in 
the  creeds  generally  recei\ed  among  Christians,  we 
may  safely  rely,  as  declaring  the  tf2ie  sense  of  the 
Liilile. 

If  the  Jews  and  their  rulers  had  not  been  swayed 
by  prtjudice,  but  in  a  careful,  candid,  and  humble 
Bpirit  had  considered  the  evidence  before  them,  tliey 
would  have  known  that  their  promised  Messiah  was 
to  be  the  Son  of  God,  coequal  with  God,  and  that 
He  was  revealed  as  such  in  their  own  Scriptures, 
and  tlius  his  miracles  would  have  had  their  due 
effect  upon  their  minds. 

5.  Those  persons  who  now  deny  Christ  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  coequal  and  coeternal  with  the  Father, 
are  followers  of  the  Jews,  who,  on  the  plea  of  zeal 
for  the  divine  Unity,  rejected  and  crucified  Jesus, 
who  claimed  to  be  God.  Accordingly  we  find  that 
the  Kbionites,  Cerinthians,  Nazarenes,  Photinians, 
and  others  who  denied  Christ's  divinity,  arose  from 
the  ranks  of  Judaism  (cf.  Waterland,  U'or/rs,  v. 
240,  ed.  Oxf.  182;^:  on  these  heresies  the  writer 
of  this  article  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to  refer  to 
his  Intruduction  to  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John, 
in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament).  It  has 
been  well  remarked  by  tlie  late  Professor  Blunt  that 
tLe  arguments  by  which  the  ancient  Christian 
Apologists,  such  as  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and 
others,  confuted  the  Jews,  afford  the  strongest 
armor  against  the  modern  Socinians  (see  also  the 
remark  of  St.  Athanasius,  Orat.  ii.  adv.  Arianos, 
pp.  377-383,  where  he  compares  the  Arians  to  the 
Jews). 

The  Jews  sinned  against  the  comparatively  dim 
light  of  the  OW  Testament:  they  who  have  fallen 
into  their  error  reject  the  evidence  of  both  Testa- 
ments. 

0.  La.stly,  the  conclusion  stated  in  this  article 
supplies  a  strong  argument  for  the  Divine  origin 
and  truth  of  Christianity.  The  doctrine  of  Christ, 
the  Son  of'  God  as  well  as  Son  oj'  Man,  reaches  from 
the  }dyh est  pole  of  Divme  (jlory  to  tlie  lowest  pole 
vf  liumtin  suffering.  No  kuiiuin  mind  could  ever 
fcafe  devised  such  a  schetne  as  that:  and  when  it 
Vas  presented  to  tlie  mind  of  the  Jews,  tiie  favored 
;ieople  of  God,  they  coulil  not  reach  to  either  of 
ilieie  two  poles ;  they  could  not  mount  to  tlie 
Leight  of  the  Divine  e.xaltation  in  Christ  the  Son 
■jf  God,  nor  descend  to  the  depth  of  human  suf- 


SON    OF   MAN 


8091 


fering  in  Christ  the  Son  oJ  Man.  They  invented 
the  theory  of  two  Messiahs,  in  order  to  escape  from 
the  imaginary  contradiction  between  a  suffering 
and  triumphant  Christ;  and  they  rejected  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  Godhead  in  order  to  cling  to  a 
defective  and  unscriptural  Monotheism.  They 
failed  of  grasping  the  true  sense  of  their  own 
Scriptures  in  both  respects.  But  in  the  Gospel, 
Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man,  reaches 
from  one  pole  to  the  other,  and  flleth  all  in  all 
(Kph.  i.  23).  The  Gospel  of  Christ  ran  counter 
to  the  Jewish  zeal  for  Monotheism,  and  incurred 
the  charge  of  Polytheism,  by  preaching  Christ  th« 
Son  of  God,  coequal  with  the  Father;  and  also 
contravened  and  challenged  all  the  complex  ana 
dominant  systems  of  Gentile  Polytheism,  liy  pro- 
claiming the  Divine  Unity.  It  boldly  confronted 
the  World,  and  it  has  conquered  the  World;  be-' 
cause  "  the  excellency  of  the  power  of  the  Gospel 
is  not  of  man,  but  of  God  "  (2  Cor.  iv.  7). 

The  author  of  the  above  article  may  refer  for 
further  confirmation  of  his  statements,  to  an  ex- 
cellent work  by  the  Kev.  W.  Wilson,  B.  D.,  and 
Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  entitled 
An  Illustration  of  the  Method  of  explaining  the 
New  Testament  by  the  early  Opinions  of  Jews  ana 
Christians  concerning  Clirist,  Cambridge,  1797 
[new  ed.  1838J;  and  to  Dr.  J.  A.  Dorner's  His- 
tory of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine  if  the 
Person  if  Christ,  of  which  an  English  translation 
has  been  printed  at  Edinburgh,  1861,  2  vols.;  and 
to  Han;enbach,  Dogmengeschichte,  §§  4:2,  65.  66, 
4te  AuHage,  Leipz.  1857.  C.  W. 

*  On  the  use  and  meaning  of  the  name  "  Son 
of  God,"  see  C.  D.  Ugen,  De  notione  tiluli  Filii 
Dei,  lUessice  in  Libris  sac.  tributi,  in  Paulus's 
Mcmorab.  1795,  St.  vii.  pp.  119-198;  two  arts,  in 
the  General  Repos.  and  Review  (Cambridge)  for 
Oct.  1812  and  April  1813  (by  lulward  Everett); 
Horn,  L'eb.  d.  versdiied.  Sinn,  in  welch.  Christus 
im  N.  T.  Gottes  Sohn  genannt  wird,  in  Rbhtls 
Mag.  f  chrisil.  Prediger,  1830,  Bd.  iii.  Heft  2, 
Prof.  Stuart's  Pxcursus  on  Eom.  i.  4,  in  hia 
Comm.  on  the  Ep.'to  the  Romans  (2d  ed.  1835); 
Dr.  Lewis  Mayer,  in  the  Amer.  Bibl.  Repos.  for 
Jan.  1840;  W.  Gass,  De  utroque  Jesu  Chrisli 
Nomine  in  N.  T.  obvio,  Dei  Filii  e.t  Ilominis, 
Vratisl.  1840;  Neander,  ]Jfe  of  Jesus,  p.  94  ff. 
(.Amer.  trans.);  Schumann,"  Christus  (1852),  i.  254 
ff.,  324  ff.,  and  elsewhere;  Ewald,  Geschichte  Chris- 
tus', 3«  Ausg.,  p.  150  ff.  (2'^  A.  p.  94  ff.) ;  W.  S.  Ty 
ler,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct.  1865;  and  Crenier, 
Blbl.-tlitol.  Worterb.  d.  neutest.  Grdcildt  (1866), 
art.  vi6s-  The  subject  is  of  course  discussed  in 
the  various  works  on  Biblical  and  dogmatic  the- 
ology. A. 

SON   OF  MAN  (D"J^J"]?,  and  in  Chaldee 

tL  Jr<  ill  :  S  ulhs  Tov  avdpanrov,  or  ulhs  avOpci- 
TTOu),  the  name  of  the  Second  Person  of  the  ever- 
bles.sed  Trinity,  the  Eternal  Word,  the  Everlasting 
Son,  becoming  Incarnate,  and  so  made  the  Son  of 
Man,  the  second  xVdani,  the  source  of  all  grace  to 
all  men,  united  in  his  mystical  body,  the  Christian 
Church. 

1.  In  a  general  sense  every  descendant  of  .\<lain 
bears  the  name  "  Son  of  Man  "  in  Holy  Scripture, 
as  in  Job  xxv.  6;  Ps.  cxliv.  3,  cxlvi.  3;  Is.  li.  12, 
hi.  2.  But  in  a  more  restricted  signification  it  is 
api)lied  by  way  of  distinction  to  particular  persons. 
Thus  the  prophet  Ezekiel  is  addressed  by  .4  Imiichtj 
God  as  Ben-Adam,  or  "  S  n  of  M:ui,"  about  eight! 


S092 


SON   OF   MAN 


times  in  his  i)roplieeies  This  title  appears  to  be 
assigned  to  P'zekiel  as  a  memento  imm  God  — 
(f/.e/j.vT}ao  avSpcowos  iliv)  —  in  order  that  the  proph- 
et, who  had  lieen  permitted  to  behold  the  glo- 
rious inaiiifestatioi)  of  the  Godhead,  and  to  hold 
converse  with  the  Almighty,  and  to  see  visions  of 
futurit}',  should  not  be  ''  exalted  above  measure  iiy 
the  abundance  of  his  re\  elations,"  but  shoidd  re- 
member his  own  weakness  and  mortality,  and  not 
impute  his  prophetic  knowledge  to  himself,  but  as- 
cribe all  the  glory  of  it  to  God,  and  be  ready  to 
execute  with  meekness  and  alacrity  the  duties  of 
his  prophetic  office  and  mission  from  God  to  his 
fellow -men. 

2.  In  a  still  more  emphatic  and  distinctive  sense 
the  title  "  Son  of  Man "  is  applied  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  ^Messiah.  And,  inasmuch  as  the 
Messiah  is  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
Divine  Person  and  the  Son  of  God  (Ps.  ii.  7,  Ixxxix. 
27;  Is.  vii.  14,  ix.  6),  it  is  a  prophetic  pre-an- 
nouncement  of  his  incdrnaiion  (compare  Ps.  viii. 
4  with  Hel).  ii.  6,  7,  8,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  27). 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  Messiah  is  designated 
by  this  title,  "  Son  of  ^lan,"  in  his  royal  and 
judicial  character,  ])articularly  in  the  prophecy  of 
Dan.  vii.  13:  "Behold  One  like  the  Sm  of  Mkh 
came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the 
Ancient  of  I  )ays  ....  and  there  was  given  Him 
dominion  :nid  glory  ....  His  dominion  is  an 
everlastinu  dominion."  Here  the  title  is  not  Btn- 
ish,  or  Bi  i>-A(/niJi,  but  Bnr-enosli,  which  represents 
humanity  in  its  greatest  frailty  and  humility,  and 
is  a  siixniticant  declaration  that  the  exaltation  of 
Christ  in  his  khigly  and  judicial  office  is  due  to  his 
previous  condescension,  obedience,  self-humiliation, 
and  suffering  in  his  human  nature  (comp.  Phil.  ii. 
5-11). 

The  title  "  Son  of  Man,"  derived  from  that  pas- 
sage of  Daniel,  is  applied  by  St.  Stephen  to  Christ 
in  his  heavenly  exaltation  and  royal  majesty: 
"  Uehold  I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of 
Man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  tlod  "  (Acts 
vii.  56 ).  This  title  is  also  applied  to  Christ  by  St. 
John  in  the  Apocalypse,  describing  our  Lord's 
priestly  office,  which  He  executes  in  heaven  (Kev. 
i.  13):  "  In  the  midst  of  the  seven  golden  candle- 
sticks "  (or  golden  lamps,  which  are  the  emblems 
of  the  churches,  i.  20 1,  "  one  like  the  .Son  of  Man 
clothed  with  a  garment  down  to  the  foot "  (his 
priestly  attire);  "his  head  and  his  haii-s  were 
white  like  wool,  as  white  as  snow  "  (attributes  of 
divinity;  comp.  Dan.  vii.  9).  St.  John  also  in 
the  Apocalypse  (xiv.  14)  ascribes  the  title  >'  Son  of 
Man  "  to  Christ  when  he  displays  his  kingly  and 
judicial  office:  "  I  looked  and  beheld  a  wdiite  cloud, 
and  upon  the  cloud  One  s.at  like  unto  the  Son  of 
Man,  having  on  his  head  a  golden  crown,  and  in 
his  hand  a  sharp  sickle  "  —  to  reap  the  harvest  of 
,;he  earth. 

3.  It  is  observable  that  Ezekiel  never  calls  liim- 
self  "  Son  of  Man;"  and  in  the  Gospels  Christ 
is  never  called  "  Son  of  Man  "  liy  the  Evangelists; 
but  wherever  that  title  is  applied  to  Him  there,  it 
is  applied  by  Himself. 

The  only  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where 
Christ  is  called  '•  Son  of  JIan  ""  by  any  one  except 
Himself,  are  those  just  cited,  and  they  relate  to 
Him,  not  in  his  humiliation  upon  earth,  but  in 
fais  heavenly  exaltation  consequeiit  upon  that  lui- 
iiiliation.  The  passage  in  John  xii.  34,  "  Who  is 
thld  Son  of  Man?"  is  an  inquiry  of  the  people 
WDceruing  Hiui  who  applied  this  title  to  Himself. 


SON   OF  MAN 

The  reason  of  what  has  been  above  remarked 
seems  to  be,  that,  as  on  the  one  hand  it  was  expe- 
dient for  Ezekiel  to  be  reminded  of  his  own  hu- 
manity, in  order  that  he  should  not  be  elated  by 
his  revelations ;  and  in  order  that  the  readers  of 
his  prophecies  might  bear  in  mind  that  the  revela- 
tions in  them  are  not  due  to  Ezekiel,  but  to  God 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  spake  by  him  (see  2  Pet.  i. 
21);  so,  on  the  other  liand,  it  was  necessary  that 
they  who  saw  Christ's  miracles,  the  evidences  of 
his  divinity,  and  they  who  read  the  evangelic  his- 
tories of  them,  might  indeed  adore  Him  as  God, 
hut  might  never  forget  that  He  is  Man. 

4.  The  two  titles  "  Son  of  God  "  and  "  Son  of 
Man,"  declaring  that  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ 
there  are  two  natures,  the  nature  of  God  and  the 
nature  of  man,  joined  together,  but  not  confused, 
are  presented  to  us  in  two  memorable  passages  of 
the  Gospel,  which  declare  the  will  of  Christ  that 
all  men  should  confess  Him  to  be  God  and  man, 
and  which  proclaim  the  blessedness  of  this  con- 
fession. 

(1.)  "  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of 
Man,  am  ?  "  was  our  Lord's  question  to  his  Apos- 
tles; and  "  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am '?  Simon  Peter 
answered  and  said,  Tliou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God."  Our  Lord  acknowledged  this 
confession  to  be  true,  and  to  have  been  revealed 
from  heaven,  and  He  blessed  him  who  uttered  it: 
"Blessed  art.  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona  .  .  .  ."  — 
"  Thou  art  son  of  Jonas,  Bar-jona  (comp.  John 
x.xi.  15);  and  as  truly  as  thou  art  Bar-jona,  so 
truly  am  I  Bar-enosh,  Son  of  Man,  and  Ben- 
Elohiin,  Son  of  God ;  and  My  Father,  who  is 
in  heaven,  hath  revealed  this  truth  unto  thee. 
Blessed  is  every  one  who  holds  this  faith;  for  I 
myself,  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  JIan,  am  the  liv- 
ing Rock  on  which  the  Church  is  built;  and  he 
who  holds  this  faith  is  a  genuine  Petros,  a  lively 
stone,  hewn  out  of  me  the  Divine  Petra,  the  Ever- 
lasting Rock,  and  built  upon  me"  (see  the  author- 
ities cited  in  the  note  on  Matt.  xvi.  18,  in  the 
present  writer's  edition). 

(2.)  The  other  passage  where  the  two  titles 
(Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man)  are  found  in  the 
Gospels  is  no  less  significant.  Our  Lord,  standing 
before  Caiaphas  and  the  chief  priests,  was  interro- 
gated hy  the  high-priest,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God'?"  (Matt.  xxvi.  63;  comp.  Mark 
xiv.  61).  "Art  thou  what  thou  claimest  to  be, 
the  Messiah.?  ami  art  thou,  as  thou  professest  to 
be,  a  Divine  Person,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Son  of 
the  Blessed?"  "Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Thou 
sayest  it;  I  am  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  64;  Mark  xiv.  62). 

But,  in  order  that  the  high-prie.st  and  the  coun- 
cil might  not  suppose  Him  to  be  a  Divine  Person 
only,  and  not  to  be  also  really  and  truly  ^fan,  our 
Lord  added  of  Ids  own  accord,  "  Nevertheless  " 
{irKi\v,  besides,  or,  as  St.  Mark  has  it,  Kai,  also^ 
in  addition  to  the  avowal  of  my  divinity)  "  I  say 
unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  Man 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  64;  Mark  xiv. 
62).  That  is,  "I  am  indeed  the  Son  of  God,  but 
do  not  fortret  that  I  am  also  the  Son  of  Man. 
Believe  and  confess  the  true  faith,  that  I,  who 
claim  to  be  the  Christ,  am  Very  God  and  Very 
Man." 

5.  The  Jews,  in  our  Lord's  age,  were  not  dis> 
posed  to  receive  either  of  the  truths  expressed  in 
those  words.  They  were  so  tenacious  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Divine  Unity  (as  they  undeistood  it. 


SON  OF  MAN 

that  they  were  not  willing  to  accept,  the  assertiuii 
that  C/irisi  is  the  "Son  of  God,"  Very  God  of 
Very  God  (see  above,  article  Son  of  God),  and 
they  were  not  disposed  to  admit  that  God  could 
become  Incarnate,  and  that  the  Son  of  God  could 
be  also  the  Son  of  Man  (see  the  remarks  on  this 
subject  by  Dorner,  Un  the  Person  of  Christ,  In- 
troduction, throun'hout). 

Hence  we  find  that  no  sooner  had  our  Lord  as- 
serted these  truths,  than  "  the  higli-priest  rent  his 
clothes,  saying.  He  hath  spoken  bhisplieniy.  What 
think  ye?  and  they  all  condenn  ed  Him  to  be  guilty 
of  death"  (Matt,  sxvi  65,61);  Mark  xiv.  6-3,  6-t). 
And  when  St.  Stephen  had  said,  "  Behold,  I  see 
the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing 
on  the  rioht  hand  of  God,"  then  they  "cried  out 
with  a  loud  voice,  and  stopped  their  ears,  and  ran 
upon  him  with  one  accord,  and  cast  him  out  of 
the  city,  and  stoned  him"  (.\.cts  vii.  57,  58). 
They  could  no  longer  restrain  their  rage  against 
him  as  guilty  of  blasphemy,  because  he  asserted 
that  .lesus,  who  had  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  and  who  had  been  put  to  death  liecause  He 
made  this  assertion,  is  also  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
was  tlien  glorified ;  and  that  therefore  they  were 
niisUiken  in  looking  for  another  Christ,  and  that 
they  had  been  guilty  of  putting  to  death  the  Mes- 
siah. 

6.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  clear  view  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  the  Gospel  had  to  overcome,  in  pro- 
claiming Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  and  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,  and  to  be  the  Son  of  Man ;  and  in  the 
building  up  of  the  Christian  Church  on  this  foun- 
dation. It  had  to  encounter  the  prejudices  of  the 
whole  world,  both  Jewish  and  Heathen,  in  this 
work.  It  did  encounter  them,  and  has  triumphed 
over  them.     Here  is  a  proof  of  its  Divine  origin. 

7.  If  we  proceed  to  analyze  the  various  passages 
in  the  Gospel  where  Christ  speaks  of  Himself  as 
the  Son  of  Man,  we  shall  find  that  they  not  only 
teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son 
of  God  (and  thus  afford  a  prophetic  protest  against 
the  heresies  which  afterwards  impugned  that  doc- 
trine, such  as  the  heresy  of  the  Docette,  Valentinus, 
and  Marcion,  who  denied  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
Come  in  the'flesh,  see  on  1  John  iv.  2,  and  2  John 
7),  but  they  also  declare  the  consequences  of  the 
Incarnation,  both  in  regard  to  Christ,  and  in  re- 
gard also  to  all  mankind. 

The  consequences  of  Christ's  Incarnation  are 
described  in  the  Gospels,  as  a  capacity  of  being  a 
perfect  pattern  and  e.xample  of  godly  life  to  men 
(fhil.  ii.  5;  1  Pet.  ii.  21);  and  of  suffering,  of 
dying,  of  "  giving  his  life  as  a  ransom  for  all,"  of 
being  "  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world"  (1  John  ii.  2,  iv.  10),  of  being  the  source 
of  life  and  grace,  of  Divine  Sonship  (John  i.  12), 
of  Resurrection  and  Immortality  to  all  the  family 
of  Mankind,  as  many  as  receive  Him  (John  iii.  16, 
36,  xi.  25),  and  are  engrafted  into  his  body,  and 
ijleave  to  Him  by  fiiith  and  love,  and  participate  in 
the  Christian  sacraments,  which  derive  their  virtue 
and  efficacy  from  his  Incarnation  and  Death,  and 
which  are  the  appointed  instruments  for  conveying 
and  imparting  tlie  benefits  of  his  Incarnation  and 
i'eath  to  us  (conip.  John  iii.  5,  vi.  53),  who  are 
■'  made  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature  "  (2  I'et.  i. 

),  by  virtue  of  our  union  with  Him  who  is  God 
ind  .Man. 

The  infinite  value  and  universal  a])plicability  of 
'he  benefits  derivalJt  from  the  Incarnation  and 
vtcriiice  of  the   Son   of  God   are   dijscribed  by  our 


SON  OF  MAN 


S093 


Lord,  declaring  the  perfection  of  the  uuicn  of  the 
two  natures,  the  human  nature  and  the  L»iviue,  in 
his  own  person.  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven  but  He  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even 
the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven ;  and  as  Closes 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so 
must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up:  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
life;  for  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He  gave  his 
only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life;  foi 
God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn 
the  world;  but  that  the  world  through  Him  might 
be  saved"  (John  iii.  13-17);  and  again,  "  What 
and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up  where 
He  was  before?"  (John  vi.  62,  compared  with 
John  i.  1-3.) 

8.  By  his  perfect  obedience  in  our  nature,  ano 
by  his  voluntary  submission  to  death  in  that  nat'vre, 
Christ  acquired  new  dignity  and  glory,  due  to  his 
oljedience  and  sufferings.  This  is  the  dignity  and 
glory  of  his  mediatorial  kingdom ;  that  kingdom 
which  He  has  as  God-man,  "  the  only  Mediator 
between  God  and  man  "  —  (as  partaking  perfectly 
of  the  nature  of  both,  and  as  making  an  Ai-one- 
nient  between  them),  "the  Man  Christ  Jesus" 
(1  Tim.  ii.  5;  Heb.  ix.  15,  xii.  24). 

It  was  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  humbled  Himself, 
it  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  is  exalted;  it  was  as 
Son  of  Man,  born  of  a  woman,  that  He  was  made 
under  the  Law  (Gal.  iv.  4),  and  as  Son  of  Man 
He  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath-day  (Matt.  xii.  8); 
as  Son  of  Man  He  suffered  for  .sins  (Matt.  xvii.  13; 
Mark  viii.  31),  and  as  Son  of  Man  He  has  au- 
thority on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (Matt.  ix.  6).  It 
was  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  had  not  where  to  lay 
his  head  (JIatt.  viii.  20;  Luke  ix.  58),  it  is  ;is  .Son 
of  Man  that  He  wears  on  his  head  a  golden  crown 
(l!ev.  xiv.  14);  it  was  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  was 
betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinful  men,  and  suffered 
many  things,  and  was  rejected,  and  condemned,  and 
crucified  (.see  Matt.  xvii.  22,  xx.  18,  xxvi.  2,  24; 
Mark  viii.  31,  ix.  31,  x.  33;  I^uke  ix.  22,  44,  xviii. 
31,  xxiv.  7),  it  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  now  sits 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  as  Son  of  Man  lie 
will  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and 
great  glory,  in  his  own  glory,  and  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father,  and  all  his  holy  angels  with  Him,  and 
it  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  will  "  sit  on  the  throne 
of  his  glory,"  and  "before  Him  will  be  gathered 
all  nations"  (Matt.  xvi.  27,  xxiv.  30,  xxv.  31,  32; 
]\Iark  xiv.  62;  Luke  xxi.  27);  and  He  will  send 
forth  his  angels  to  gather  his  elect  from  the  foui 
winds  (Matt.  xxiv.  31),  and  to  root  up  the  tare* 
from  out  of  his  field,  which  is  the  world  (JIatt. 
xiii.  38,  41);  and  to  bind  them  in  bundles  to  liurn 
them,  and  to  gather  his  wheat  into  his  barn  (Matt, 
xiii.  30).  It  is  as  Son  of  Man  that  He  will  call  all 
from  their  graves,  and  summon  them  to  his  judg- 
ment-seat, and  pronounce  their  sentence  for  ever- 
lasting bliss  or  woe;  "for,  the  F(tl her  jiidgeth  no 
man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 
Sun ;  .  .  .  .  and  hath  given  Him  authority  to 
execute  judgmer.t  also,  because  He  is  the  Son  of 
Man"  (.lohn  v.  22,  27).  Only  "the  pure  in  heart 
will  see  God"  (M^.att.  v.  8;  Heb.  xii  14);  but  the 
evil  as  well  as  the  good  will  see  their  Judge:  "  every 
eye  shall  see  Him  "  (llev.  i.  7).  This  is  fit  and 
equitable:  and  it  is  also  fit  and  equitable  that  He 
wiio  ;is  Son  of  Man  was  judged  l)y  the  world, 
should  also  judge  the  world:  and  that  He  who  wag 
rejected  openly,  and   suliered   death   for  all.  ghoiiU' 


5094 


SON  OF  MAN 


be  openly  glorified  b}-  all.  and   be   exalted   in  the 
ejes  of  al.,  as  Kiny  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords. 

'J.  Christ  is  represented  in  Scripture  as  the 
second  Adam  (1  Cor.  xv.  45,  47;  conip.  Kom.  v. 
14),  inasmuch  as  He  is  the  Father  of  the  new  race 
of  mankind;  and  as  we  are  all  by  nature  in  Adam, 
so  are  we  by  grace  in  Christ;  and  "as  in  Adam 
flll  die,  even  so  in  Christ  all  are  made  alive"  (1  Cor. 
XV.  •2.2);  and  "if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a 
new  creature  "  (2  Cor.  v.  17;  Eph.  iv.  24);  and 
He,  who  is  the  iSti?(,  is  also  in  this  respect  a  Father ; 
and  therefore  Isaiah  joins  both  titles  in  one,  "  To 
us  a  Son  is  given  .  .  .  and  his  name  shall  be  called 
the  iMighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Futhtr"  (Is.  ix. 
6).  Christ  is  the  second  Adam,  as  the  Fatlier  of 
the  new  race;  l)ut  in  another  respect  He  is  unlike 
Adam,  because  Adam  was  formed  in  mature  man- 
hood _/row  the  earth  ;  but  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
is  Ben- Adam,  the  Son  of  Adam;  and  therefore  St. 
Luke,  writing  specially  for  the  Gentiles,  and  desir- 
ous to  siiow  tlie  universality  of  the  redemption 
wrought  by  Christ,  traces  his  genealogy  to  Adam 
(Luke  iii.  23-38).  He  is  Son  of  Man,  inasmuch 
as  he  was  the  Promised  Seed,  and  was  conceived 
in  the  womh  of  Whe  Virgin  Alary,  and  took  our 
nature,  the  nature  of  us  all,  and  became  "  Em- 
manuel, God  with  us  "  (Matt.  i.  23),  "  God  man- 
ifest in  the  Hesh  "  (1  Tim.  iii.  16).  Thus  the  new 
Creation  sprung  out  of  the  old ;  and  He  made 
"all  things  new  "  (Rev.  xxi.  5).  The  Son  of  God 
in  Eternity  became  the  Son  of  Man  in  Tinie.  He 
turned  back,  as  it  were,  the  streams  of  pollution 
and  of  death,  flowing  in  the  im,umerable  channels 
of  the  human  family,  and  introduced  into  them 
a  new  element,  the  element  of  life  and  health,  of 
l)ivine  incorruption  and  immortality:  which  would 
not  have  been  the  case,  if  He  bad  been  merely  like 
Adam,  having  an  independent  oriifin,  springing  by 
a  separate  efflux  out  of  the  earth,  and  had  not  been 
Ben-Adniu  as  well  as  Ben-Elohiin,  the  S<in  of 
Adam,  as  well  as  the  Sun  of  God.  And  this  is 
what  St.  I'aul  observes  in  his  comparison  —  and 
contrast  —  between  Adam  and  Christ  (Itoni.  v.  IS- 
IS), '■'■Not,  as  was  the  transgression  (in  Adam)  so 
likewise  was  the  free  gift  (in  Christ).  For  if  (as  is 
the  fact)  the  many  (/.  e.  all)  died  by  the  tran.sgres- 
sion  of  the  one  (Adam),  much  more  the  grace  of 
(iod,  and  the  gift  by  the  grace  that  is  of  the  one 
Man  Jesus  Christ,  overflowed  to  the  many;  and 
not,  as  by  one  who  sinned,  so  is  the  gift;  for  the 
judgment  came  from  one  man  to  condemnation, 
but  the  free  gift  came  forth  from  many  transgres- 
sions to  their  state  of  justification.  For  if  by  the 
transgression  of  the  one  (Adam),  Death  reigned  by 
means  of  the  one,  mucli  more  they  wlio  receive  the 
aliundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness 
will  reign  in  life  through  tlie  one,  .lesus  Christ  .  .  . 
lluis.  where  Sin  abounded,  Grace  did  much  more 
abound  (Kom.  v,  20);  for,  as,  by  the  disoliedience 
of  the  one  man  (Adam),  the  many  were  made  sin- 
ners, so  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  (Christ),  the 
many  were  made  righteous.  ..." 

10.  The  benefits  accruing  to  mankind  from  the 
Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  are  obvious  from 
these  considerations :  — 

\Ve  are  not  so  to  conceive  of  Christ  as  of  a  De- 
liverer external  to  hum.anity,  but  as  incorporating 
humanity  in  Himself,  and  uniting  it  to  God :  as 
rescuing  our  nature  from  Sin,  Satan,  and  Death; 
tnd  as  carryino;  us  tlirouyh  the  sjirave  and  gate  of 
death  to  a  tjlorious  innnortality;  and  liearing  man- 
tind,  his  lost  slieep,  on  his  shoulders ;  as  bearing 


SON  OF  MAN 

us  and  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree  (1  P«t 
ii.  24);  as  bringing  us  through  suffering  to  g-ory; 
as  raising  our  nature  to  a  dignity  higher  than  thai 
of  angels;  as  exalting  us  by  his  Ascension  into 
heaven ;  and  as  making  us  to  "  sit  together  with 
Himself  in  heavenly  places"  (Eph.  ii,  6),  even  at 
the  right  hand  of  God.  "  To  him  that  overcometh," 
He  says,  "  will  I  grant  to  sit  with  me  on  my 
throne,  even  as  I  also  o\ercame  and  am  set  down 
with  my  Father  on  his  throne"  (Kev.  iii.  21). 
These  are  the  hopes  and  privileges  which  we  derive 
from  the  Incarn,ation  of  Christ,  who  is  the  Life 
(•John  i.  4,  xi.  2.5,  xiv.  6;  1  John  i.  2):  from  our 
filial  adoption  by  (lod  in  Him  (.lohn  i.  12;  1  John 
iii,  1,  2);  and  from  our  consequent  capacity  of  re- 
ceiving the  Spirit  of  adoption  in  our  hearts  (Gal, 
iv.  6);  and  from  our  membership  and  indwelling 
in  Him,  who  is  the  Son  of  God  from  all  eternity, 
and  who  became,  for  our  sakes  and  for  our  salva- 
tion, the  Son  of  Man,  and  submitted  to  the  weak- 
ness of  our  hun)anity,  in  order  that  we  might  par- 
take in  the  glory  of  his  innnortality. 

11,  These  conclusions  from  Holy  Scripture  have 
been  stated  clearly  by  many  of  the  ancient  Fathers, 
among  whom  it  may  sufflce  to  mention  St.  Irena-us 
{Adc.  /Aereses,  iii,  20,  p.  247,  Grabe):  jji/wcfv 
(XpicTTOs)  ixvdpconov  t<S  ©eo)*  el  yap  fx))  &vdpwjro% 
eviKi)(Tev  rhv  avTiiraKov  Tov  avdpwirov,  OUK  av 
SiKaiws  ii>iK-(jdr]  6  f^flpf^S"  ttccAij/  t6  6(  /x)]  6  @ihs 
iSaip'r](TaTO  t7;c  (Tccrriplav,  ovk  &C  0e^aiws  fcrxo- 
fxev  avT-fjv  koI  fl  /j,^  cvvrjvddr]  6  &v  Q  p  ai- 
TT  0  s  TO)  @  i  u,  OVK  Uv  r\5vvr]6i)  fieraaxf^f  t  t)  s 
afpOapffias'  eSei  yap  rhf  fxeairr)v  ©eoC  re 
Ka\  avdptii-Kov,  5ia  tt)^,  ISias  nphs  (KaTepovs  oi- 
KeioTTjTos  els  (piKiav  Kal  o/jLoyoiav  eKaTepou! 
(TvvayayeTv.  And  iii.  21,  p.  2.30:  "Hie  igitur 
Filius  Dei,  existens  Verbum  Patris  .  .  .  quoniani 
ex  Maria  factus  est  Filius  hominis  .  .  .  primitias 
resurrectionis  homini.s  in  Seipso  faciens,  utquemad- 
modum  Caput  resurrexit  a  mortuis,  sic  et  reliquum 
corpus  omnis  hominis,  qui  invenitur  in  vita  .  .  . 
resurgat  per  compagines  et  conjunctiones  coalesccns, 
et  confirmatum  augmento  Dei"  (Eph.  iv.  16). 
And  St  Cyprian  {De  Idolorum  Vanitnte.  p.  538, 
ed.  Venet.  1758):  "  Hujus  gratiae  diseiplina;que 
arbiter  et  magister  Sermo  {hSyos)  et  Filius  Dei 
mittitur,  qui  per  prophetas  omnes  retro  Illuminate  r 
et  Doctor  huniani  generis  prsedicabatur.  Hie  est 
virtus  L)ei  .  .  .  carnem  Spiritu  Sancto  coi  perante 
induitur  .  ,  .  Hie  Deus  noster.  Hie  Christus  est, 
qui  Mediator  duoTum  hominem  induit,  quern  jier- 
ducat  a<l  Patrem.  <^uod  homo  est,  esse  Christus 
voluit,  ut  et  homo  possit  esse,  quod  Christus  est." 
And  St.  Augustine  (Serm.  121):  "  Filius  Dei  factus 
est  F'ilius  hominis,  ut  vos,  qui  eratis  filii  hominis, 
efficeremini  filii  Dei."  C.  W. 

*  On  the  title  "  Son  of  Man  "  as  applied  to 
Christ,  see  the  works  of  Gass,  Neander,  and  Cremer, 
as  referred  to  at  the  end  of  the  art.  Son  of  GoD  : 
also  Scbolten,  De  Appell.  tov  vlov  tov  avdpdoToi^ 
qua  Jesus  se  Messiam  professus  est,  Traj.  ad  Khen, 
1809;  C,  F,  Bohme,  Versuch  d.  Geheimniss  d. 
iMenschensohnes  zu  enthiiUen,  Neust.  a.  d.  0.,  1839; 
F.  C.  Baur  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeiischr.f.  wiss.  Theol 
for  1860,  iii.  274-292,  comp.  his  Neutest.  Theol. 
(1864),  pp.  75-83;  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  Zeilschrift, 
etc,  1863,  p.  327  ff. ;  Strauss's  Leben  Jesu  f.  d 
deutsch'e  Volk  (1864),  §  37;  Weizsiicker,  Unters. 
lib.  d.  evany.  Geschichle  (1864),  p.  426  AT.;  F^wald, 
Geschichle  Christus',  3*^  Ausg.,  p.  304  fF. ;  and  es- 
pecially Holtzmann,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.  f 
wiss.  Theol.  1865,  viii.  212-237,  who  reviews  tin 


SONG 

more  rewiit  literature.  See  further  W.  S.  Tyler, 
in  BiliL  Sacra  for  Jan.  180-3,  Beyschla;^,  Chris- 
liilogie  <ki<  y.  T.  (18GG),  pp.  9-34,  and  the  writers 
on  Biblical  TheoloL^y  in  p;eneral,  as  Von  Coelln, 
Keuss,  Lutz,  Schmid,  and  Weiss;  also  the  com- 
mentators on  IMatt.  viii.  20  and  John  i.  52.  For 
the  older  literature,  see  Hase's  Lehen  Jesii,  4e  Aufi. 
§  (54,  note./'.  "  Son  of  Man  "  is  a  frequent  desig- 
nation of  the  Messiah  in  the  apocryphal  Book  of 
Enoch,  but  the  date  of  this  book  is  uncertain. 
[L>'oCH,  Book  of.]  A. 

*  SONG.     [Hymn;  Poetry,  Hebrew.] 

*  SONGS  OF  DEGREES.  [Degrees, 
Songs  ok.] 

*  SONG    OF     THE     THREE     HOLY 

CHILDREN.  [Daniel,  Apocryphal  Ad- 
ditions TO.] 

*  SONS  OF  THUNDER.     [Boanerges.] 
SOOTHSAYER.     [Divination.] 

*  SOP.     [Lord's  Supper,  vol.  ii.  p.  1681  a.] 
SOP'ATER    (SaSTrarpos:    SopaUr).      Sopater 

the  son  of  Pyrrhus  of  Beroea  was  one  of  the  com- 
panions of  St.  Paul  on  his  return  from  Greece  into 
Asia,  as  he  came  back  from  his  third  missionary 
journey  (Acts  xx.  4).  Whether  he  is  the  same 
with  Sosipater,  mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi  21,  cainiot 
be  positively  determined.  The  name  of  his  father, 
I'yrrhus,  is  omitted  in  the  received  text,  though  it 
has  the  authority  of  the  oldest  MSS.,  A,  B,  D,  E, 
and  the  recently  discovered  Codex  Sinaiticus,  as 
well  as  of  the  Vnli^ate,  Coptic,  Sahidic,  Philoxenian- 
Syriac,  Armenian,  and  Slavonic  versions  Mill  con- 
demns it,  apparently  without  reason,  as  a  tradi- 
tional gloss.     [Pykriius,  Amer.  ed.] 

W.  A.  W. 

SOPHE'RETH  (H^DD  [writer,  srrihe]: 
26(/)r)pa,  ^acpapdr,  [Vat.  Aa^cpripad,  2a0opa6: 
F.\.  in  N.  ^a(papadi:]  Alex.  Aaecpopad,  ^atpapad'- 
Siiplieret,  iSiip/itre/li).  '•  I'he  children  of  Sopiie 
reth  "'  were  a  family  who  returned  from  Babylon 
with  Zerubbabel  among  the  descendants  of  Sol- 
omon's servants  (Kzr.  ii.  5-5;  Neh.  vii.  57).  Called 
AzAPHio.N  in  1  Esdr.  v.  33. 

SOPHONI'AS  {Sophonias).  The  Prophet 
Zepkaniah  (2  Esdr.  i.  40). 

SORCERER.     [Divination.] 

SO'REK,    THE    VALLEY     OF    (bn3 

pl^^ti?  [see  below]:  " '  AAaaip-nx'''  -"^1^^-  X^'i""?' 
povs  Scoprjx'  y"llis  Sorec).  A  wady  (to  use  the 
modern  .A.raliic  term  which  precisely  answers  to  the 
Hebrew  naclwl),  in  which  lay  the  residence  of 
Delilah  (Judg.  xvi.  4).  It  appears  to  have  been  a 
Philistine  place,  and  possibly  was  nearer  (iaza  than 
any  other  of  the  chief  l^hilistine  cities,  since  thither 
Samson  was  taken  after  his  capture  at  Delilah's 
house.  Beyond  this  there  are  no  indications  of  its 
position,  nor  is  it  mentioned  again  in  the  Bible. 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onomast.  ^cbprfx)  state  that 
a  village  named  Capharsorech  was  shown  in  their 
day  "  on  the  north  of  Eleutheropolis,  near  the  town 
Df  Saar  (or  Saraa),  i.  e.  Zorah,  the  native  place  of 
Samson."  Zorah  is  now  supposed  to  have  been 
fully  10  miles  N.  of  Beit-Jibrin,  the  modern  repre- 


SOSTHENBS 


3095 


"  The  AA  is  no  doul»t  the  last  relic  of  NaxaA  :  comp. 
Ui-A£AR[m;  and  Kanau,  RtvER. 

t>  a.  Van  de  Velde  {Mem.  350)  propose*  the  Wai/ij 


sentative  of  Eleutheropolis,  though  it  is  uot  itnpos- 
silile  that  there  may  have  been  a  second  furthei 
south.  No  trace  of  tiie  name  of  Sorek  has  been 
yet  discovered  either  in  the  one  position  or  the 
other.*  But  the  district  is  comparatively  unex- 
plored, and  doubtless  it  will  ere  long  be  discovered. 

The  word  Sorek  in  Hebrew  signifies  a  peculiarly 
choice  kind  of  vine,  which  is  said  to  have  derived 
its  name  from  the  dusky  color  of  its  grapes,  tliat 
perhaps  being  the  meaning  of  the  root  (tjj^senius. 
'i'/ies.  p.  1542).  It  occurs  in  three  passages  of  the 
Old  Test.  (Is.  V.  2;  Jer.  ii.  21;  and,  with  a  mod- 
ification, in  'Gen.  xlix.  '^  11).  It  appears  to  be  used 
in  modern  Arabic  for  a  certain  purple  grape,  grown 
in  Syria,  and  highly  esteemed;  which  is  noted  for 
its  small  raisins,  and  minute,  soft  pips,  and  pro- 
duces a  red  wine.  This  being  the  case,  the  valley 
of  Sorek  may  have  derived  its  name  from  the  growth 
of  such  vines,  though  it  is  hardly  safe  to  atfirm  tlie 
fact  in  the  unquestioning  manner  in  which  Gesenius 
{Tilts,  ibid.)  does.  Ascalon  was  celebrated  among 
tlie  ancients  for  its  wine;  and  though  not  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Zorah,  was  the  natural  port  by 
which  any  of  tiie  productions  of  that  disti-ict  would 
1)6  exported  to  the  west.  G. 

SOSIP'ATER  (SoxriVaTpos:  Sosipater).  1. 
A  general  of  Judas  Maccabseus,  who  in  conjunction 
witli  Dositheus  defeated  Timotheus  and  took  him 
prisoner,  c.  b.  o.  104  (2  Mace.  xii.   19-24). 

2.  Kinsman  or  fellow  tribesman  of  St.  Paul, 
mentioned  in  the  salutations  at  the  end  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  21).  He  is  probably 
the  same  person  as  Sopater  of  Beroea.  B.  E.  W. 

SOS'THENES  (Scoo-eeVrjs  [presei-ver  of 
sl}-eii'jtli] :  Sogtin-nes)  was  a  Jew  at  Corinth,  who 
was  seized  and  beaten  in  the  presence  of  Gallio,  on 
the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  entertain  the  charge  of 
heresy  wliieh  the  Jews  alleged  against  the  Apostle 
Paul  (see  Acts  xviii.  12-17).  His  precise  connec- 
tion with  that  aftair  is  left  in  some  doubt.  Some 
have  thought  that  he  was  a  Christian,  and  was 
maltreated  thus  by  his  own  countrymen,  because 
he  was  known  as  a  special  friend  of  Paul.  But  it 
is  improbable  if  Sustlienes  was  a  believer,  that  Luke 
would  mention  him  merely  as  "  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue"  (apxicrvvdycoyos)-  without  any  allu- 
sion to  his  change  of  faith.  A  better  view  is,  that 
Sosthenes  was  one  of  the  bigoted  Jews;  and  that 
"  the  crowd  "  (ircti'Tes  simply,  and  not  -jravres  ol 
"EAATjj'fs,  is  the  true  reading)  were  Greeks  who, 
taking  advantage  of  the  indifference  of  Gallio,  and 
e\er  ready  to  show  their  contempt  of  the  Jews, 
turned  their  indignation  against  Sosthenes.  In  this 
case  he  must  have  been  the  successor  of  Crispus, 
(Acts  xviii.  8)  as  chief  of  the  synagogue  (possibly 
a  colleague  with  him,  in  the  looser  sense  of  apxi- 
crvvayosyoi,  as  in  Mark  v.  22),  or,  as  Biscoe  con- 
jectures, may  have  belonged  to  some  other  sytia- 
gogue  at  Corinth.  Chrysostom's  notion  that  Crispus 
and  Sosthenes  were  names  of  the  same  person,  is 
arl)itrary  and  unsupported. 

Paul  wrote  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthian? 
jointly  in  his  own  name  and  that  of  a  certain  Sos 
thenes  whom  he  terms  "the  brother"  (1  Cor.  i.  1,. 
The  mode  of  designation  implies  that  he  was  well 
known  to  the  Corinthians;  and  some  have  held 
tliat  he  was  identical  with  the  Sosthenes  mentioned 


Si)n.Hm,  which  runs  from  near  Beit  Jibrin  to  Askul&n ; 
but  this  he  admits  to  be  mere  conjecture. 

c  The  Arabic   versions  of  this  passige  retain   tbt 
term  Sorek  as  a  proper  name. 


3096 


SOSTRATUS 


in  the  Acts.  If  this  be  so,  he  must  have  been  con-  i 
verted  at  a  later  period  (Wetstein,  N.  Test.  vol.  ii. 
p.  576),  and  have  been  at  Ephesus  and  not  at  Cor- 
inth, when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
name  was  a  common  one,  and  but  little  stress  can 
be  laid  on  that  coincidence.  Eusebius  says  (//.  E. 
i.  1-2,  §  1)  that  this  Sosthenes  (1  Cor.  i.  1)  was 
one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  and  a  later  tradition 
adds  that  he  became  bishop  of  the  church  at  Colo- 
phon in  Ionia.  H.  B.  H. 

SOS'TRATUS  {-XwvrpaTos  \saviour  of  the 
jriiiy] :  Sostratus),  a  commander  of  the  Syrian 
garrison  in  the  Acra  at  Jerusalem  (6  rris  aKponS- 
\eoos  eTrapxos)  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
(c.  B.  c.  172:  2  Mace.  iv.  27,  29).         B.  ¥.  W. 

SO'TAI  [2  syl]  C^^'lD  [me  u-lio  turns  aside]  : 
Stora'i,  XovTfi;  Alex.  lovTiei  inNeh.:  Sotd'i,  So- 
ihn'i).  The  children  of  Sotai  were  a  family  of  the 
descendants  of  Solomon's  servants  who  returned 
with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  55;  Neh.  vii.  57). 

*  SOUTH,  QUEEN  OF  THE.   [Sheba.] 

SOUTH  RA'MOTH  (2;?.3  r\M2r\:  iy 
"Pafxq.  v6tov\  Alex.  fi>  pa/xaO  v.-  H'lmoth  ad  me- 
rhlie'iii).  One  of  the  places  frequented  by  David 
and  his  band  of  outlaws  during  the  latter  part  of 
Saul's  life,  and  to  his  friends  in  which  he  showed 
his  gratitude  when  opportunity  offered  (1  Sam. 
XXX.  27).  The  towns  mentioned  with  it  show  that 
Kamoth  must  have  been  on  the  southern  confines 
of  the  country  —  the  very  border  of  the  desert 
Bethel,  in  ver.  27,  is  almost  certainly  not  the  well- 
known  sanctuary,  but  a  second  of  the  same  name, 
and  Heliron  was  probably  the  most  northern  of  all 
the  places  in  the  list.  It  is  no  doubt  identical 
with  liAMATH  OF  THK  SouTH,  a  name  the  same 
ill  every  respect  except  that  by  a  dialectical  or 
other  change  it  is  made  ))lural,  Kamoth  instead  of 
Ramath.  G. 

SOW.  [Swine.] 

SOWER,  SOWING.  The  operation  of  sow- 
ing with  the  hand  is  one  of  so  simple  a  character, 
as  to  need  little  description.  The  Egyptian  paint 
ings  furnish  many  illustrations  of  the  mode  in 
which  it  was  conducted.  The  sower  held  the  ves- 
sel or  basket  containing  the  seed,  in  bis  left  hand, 
while  with  his  right  he  scattered  the  seed  broad- 
cast (Wilkinson's  Anc.  Kg.  ii.  12,  18,  39;  see 
Ageicultuke  for  one  of  these  paintings).  The 
"drawing  out"  of  the  seed  is  noticed,  as  the  most 
characteristic  action  of  the  sower,  in  Ps.  cxxvi.  6 
(A.  V.  "precious  ")  and  Am.  ix.  1-3:  it  is  uncer- 
tain whether  this  expression  refers  to  drawing  out 
the  handful  of  seed  from  the  basket,  or  to  the 
dispersion  of  the  seed  in  regular  rows  over  the 
ground  (Gesen.  Thes.  p.  827).  In  some  of  the 
Egyptian  paintings  the  sower  is  represented  as  pre- 
ceding the  plough:  this  maybe  simply  the  result 
of  liad  perspective,  hut  we  are  told  that  such  a 
practice  actually  prevails  in  the  East  in  the  case  of 
sandy  soils,  the  plough  serving  the  purpose  of  the 
harrow  for  covering  the  seed  (Pussell's  Aleppo,  i. 
74).     In  wet  soils  the  seed  was  trodden  in  by  the 


a  *  Ploughs  in  the  East,  at  present,  often  have  a 
quiver  or  tunnel  attached  to  the  front  of  them,  espe- 
cially when  the  soil  is  nicllow  and  easily  broken, 
through  which  the  grain  is  dropped,  and  then  covered 
up  by  the  earth  as  turned  aside  in  the  furrow.  It 
Bay  lie  stated  here  tha*-  plnujrhs  in  Palestine  have 
juite  iu'ariiiblv   but  ou"   handle,    which   the   driver 


SPAIN 

feet  of  animals  (Is.  xxxii.  20),  as  represented  in 
Wilkinson's  Anc.  Eg.  ii.  12."  The  sowing  season 
commenced  in  October  and  continued  to  the  end  of 
Eeliruary,  wheat  being  put  in  before,  and  barley 
after  the  beginning  of  January  (Russell,  i.  74). 
The  Mosaic  law  prohibited  the  sowing  of  mixed 
seed  (Lev.  xix.  19;  Dent.  xxii.  9):  Josejihus  {Ant. 
iv.  8,  §  20)  supposes  this  prohibition  to  be  based 
on  tiie  repugnancy  of  nature  to  intermixture,  but 
there  would  appear  to  he  a  further  object  of  a  moral 
character,  namely,  to  impress  on  men's  minds  the 
general  lesson  of  purity.  The  regulation  offered  a 
favorable  opportunity  for  Rabl)inical  refinement,  the 
results  of  which  are  embodied  in  the  treatise  of  the 
Mishna.  entitled  Kilniiii,  §§  1-.3.  That  the  an- 
cient Hebrews  did  not  consider  themselves  prohib- 
ited from  planting  several  kinds  of  seeds  in  the 
same  field,  appears  from  Is.  xxviii.  25.  A  distinc- 
tion is  made  in  Lev.  xi.  -37,  38,  between  dry  and 
wet  seed,  in  respect  to  contact  with  a  corpse;  the 
latter,  as  being  more  susceptilile  of  contamination, 
would  be  rendered  unclean  thereby,  tlie  former 
would  not.  The  analogy  between  the  germination 
of  seed  and  the  effects  of  a  principle  or  a  course  of 
action  on  the  human  character  for  good  or  for  evil 
is  frequently  noticed  in  Scripture  (Prov.  xi.  18: 
Matt.  xiii.  19,  24;  2  Cor.  ix.  6;  Gal.  vi.  7). 

AV.  L.  B. 
SPAIN  Unaula:  Hispania).  The  Hebrews 
were  acquainted  with  the  position  and  the  mineral 
wealth  of  Spain  from  the  time  of  Solomon,  whose 
alliance  with  tlie  Plioenicians  enlarged  the  circle  of 
their  geograpliiral  knowledge  to  a  very  ereat  extent. 
[Tai;smisii.]  The  local  designation,  Tarshish,  rep- 
resentini;  the  Tartessus  of  the  Greeks,  probably 
prevailed  until  the  fame  of  the  Roman  wars  in  that 
country  reached  the  East,  when  it  was  superseded 
by  its  classical  name,  which  is  traced  back  by  Bo- 
chart  to  the  Shemitic  tsaphan,  "  rabbit,"  and  liy 
Huml'oldt  to  tiie  Piasque  Ezpaila,  descriptive  of  its 
position  on  the  edge  of  the  continent  of  Europe 
{Diet,  of  Geog.  i.  1074).  The  Latin  form  of  this 
name  is  represented  by  the  'Io-7rai/i'a  of  1  Mace, 
viii.  3  (where,  however,  some  copies  exhiliit  the 
Greek  form),  and  the  Greek  by  the  'S.Travia  of  Rom. 
XV.  24,  28.  The  passages  cited  contai)i  all  the 
Biiilical  notices  of  Spain:  in  the  former  the  con 
quests  of  the  Romans  are  described  in  somewhat 
exaggerated  terms;  for  though  the  Carthaginians 
were  expelled  as  early  as  b.  c.  206,  the  native  tribes 
were  not  finally  subdued  until  b.  c.  25,  and  not 
until  then  coidd  it  be  said  with  truth  that  "  thej 
had  conquered  all  the  place'"  (1  Mace.  viii.  4).  Ii;i 
the  latter,  St.  Paul  announces  his  intention  of  vis- 
iting Spain.  Whether  he  carried  out  this  inten- 
tion is  a  disjjuted  point  connected  with  his  personal 
history.  [Paul.]  The  mere  intention,  however, 
implies  two  interesting  facts,  namely,  the  estalilish- 
ment  of  a  Christian  comnuniity  in  that  country, 
and  this  liy  means  of  Hellenistic  Jews  resident  there. 
We  have  no  direct  testimony  to  either  of  these 
facts;  but  as  the  Jews  had  spread  along  the  shores 
of  the  INIediterranean  as  far  as  Cyrene  in  Africa  and 
Rome  in  Europe  (Acts  ii.  10),  there   would  be  no 


holds  by  one  hand,  while  he  carries  his  long  goad  in 
the  other.  This  peculiarity  makes  the  Saviour's  ex- 
pression precisely  accurate:  "He  tliat  putteth  hit 
hand  to  the  plough,"  etc.  (Luke  ix.  62)  ;  whereas,  with 
the  plough  constructed  as  among  us,  the  plural  would 
be  more  natural  than  the  singular.  H. 


SPAN 

difficulty  in  assuming  that  they  were  also  found  in 
the  commercial  cities  of  the  eastern  coast  of  Si)aiii. 
The  early  introduction  of  Christianity  into  that 
country  is  attested  by  Irenteus  (i.  3)  and  Tertullian 
{ii(h\  J  lid.  7).  An  inscription,  purportini;  to  record 
a  persecution  of  the  Spanish  Christians  in  the  reign 
of  Nero,  is  probably  a  forgery  (Gieseler's  A'cc^. 
Hist.  i.  82,  note  5).  W.  L.  B. 

*  SPAN.  [Weights  aivd  Measukes,  H. 
1.  (I.)] 

SPARROW  (11Q?,  tslppor:  Spueov,  opvlS- 
lov.  rh  ireretySv,  arpovBloy:  -x^iixapos  i'l  Neh.  v. 
i8,  where  LXX.  probably  read  "l^D^  :  ncis,  volu- 
cris,  passer).  The  above  Heb.  word  occurs  up- 
wards of  forty  times  in  the  O.  T.  In  all  passages 
excepting  two  it  is  rendered  by  A.  V.  inditijerently 
"  bird  "  or  "  fowl."  In  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  and  Vs.  cii. 
7,  A.  V.  renders  it  "  sparrow."  The  Greek  crrpou- 
Oioi/  ("sparrow,"  A.  V.)  occurs  twice  in  N.  T., 
Matt.  X.  29,  Luke  xii.  6,  7,  where  the  Vulg.   has 

passeres.  Tzippor  (T121*),  from  a  root  signify- 
ing to  "chirp  "  or  "  twitter,"  appears  to  be  a  pho- 
netic representation  of  the  call  note  of  any  passer- 
ine bird."     Similarly  the   modern  Arabs  use  the 

term  ,  tw.lx  (zaoush)  for  all  small  birds  which 
chirp,  and  \*\\'\  (zerzour)  not  only  for  the  star- 
ling, but  for  any  other  bird  with  a  harsh,  shrill 
twitter,  both  these  being  evidently  phonetic  names. 

Tzippor  is  therefore  exactly  translated  liy  the 
LXX.  (rrpov9iou,  explained  by  Moschopulus  to. 
/jLiKpa  Tcii'  opvidoiv,  although  it  may  sometimes 
have  been  used  in  a  more  restricted  sense.  See 
Athen.  Dnpa.  ix.  391,  where  two  kinds  of  arpov- 
gia  iu  the  more  restricted  signification  are  noted. 

It  was  reserved  for  later  naturalists  to  discrim- 
inate the  immense  variety  of  the  smaller  birds  of 
the  passerine  order.  Excepting  in  the  cases  of  the 
thrushes  and  the  larks,  the  natural  liistory  of  Aris- 
totle scarcely  comprehends  a  longer  catalogue  than 
that  of  -Moses. 

Yet  in  few  parts  of  the  world  are  the  species  of 
passerine  birds  more  numerous  or  more  abundant 
than  in  Palestine.  A  very  cursory  survey  has  sup- 
pUed  a  list  of  above  100  different  species  of  this 
order.  See  Ibis,  vol.  i.  p.  26  ff.  and  vol.  iv.  p. 
277  ff. 

But  although  so  numerous,  they  are  not  gener- 
ally noticeable  for  any  peculiar  brilhancy  of  plum- 
age beyond  the  birds  of  our  own  climate.  In  fact, 
with  the  exception  of  the  denizens  of  the  mighty 
forests  and  fertile  alluvial  [tlains  of  the  tropics,  it 
is  a  popular  error  to  suppose  that  the  nearer  we 
approach  the  equator,  the  moi'e  gorgeous  neces- 
sarily is  the  coloration  of  the  birds.  There  are 
certain  tropical  families  with  a  brilliancy  of  plum- 
age which  is  unrivalled  elsewhere;  but  any  out- 
lying members  of  these  groups,  as  for  instance  the 
kingfisher  of  Britain,  or  the  bee-eater  and  roller  of 
Europe,  are  not  surpassed  in  brightness  of  dress  by 
.any  of  their  southern  relations.  Ordinarily  in  the 
warmer  temperate  regions,  especially  in  those  which 
like  Palestine  possess  neither  dense  forests  nor 
morasses,  there  is  nothing  in  the  brilliancy  of  plum- 


SPARROW 


3097 


•J       ,      o     , 

a  Comp.    the  Arabic  . ,  o  >>^  ^  ('a.^?-),  a  a  spar- 


ic  *«„ft,OA  (."-V 


ace  which  especially  arrests  the  attention  of  the 
unobservant.  It  is  therefore  no  matter  for  surprise 
if,  in  an  unscientific  age,  the  smaller  birds  were 
generally  grouped  indiscriminately  under  the  term 
tzippur,  opviSiov  or  ^jn.sser.  The  proportion  of 
Imght  to  obscure  colored  birds  is  not  greater  in 
Palestine  than  in  England;  and  this  is  especially 
true  of  the  southern  portion,  Judfea,  where  the  wil- 
derness with  its  bare  hills  and  arid  ravines  atibrds 
a  home  chiefly  to  those  species  which  rely  for  safety 
and  concealment  on  the  modesty  and  inconspic- 
uousness  of  their  plumage. 

Altliough  the  conunon  sparrow  of  England  {Pa.t- 
ser  (.l<ime»tic/is,  L.)  does  not  occur  in  the  Holy 
Land,  its  place  is  alumdantly  supplied  by  two  very 
closely  allied  Southern  species  (Passer  sallcicoln, 
Vieill.  and  Passer  cisalpinn.  Tern.).  Our  English 
Tree  Sparrow  (Passer  montanus,  L.)  is  also  very 
common,  and  may  be  seen  in  numViers  on  Mount 
Olivet,  and  also  about  the  sacred  inclosure  of  the 
mosque  of  Omar.  This  is  perhaps  the  exact  spe- 
cies referred  to  in  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  3,  "  Yea,  the  sparrow 
hath  found  an  house." 

Though  in  Britain  it  seldom  frequents  houses, 
yet  in  China,  to  whicli  country  its  eastward  range 
extends,  Mr.  Svviidioe.  in  his  Ornitliolngy  ifAiimy, 
informs  us  its  habits  are  precisely  those  of  our 
familiar  house  sparrow.  Its  shyness  here  may  be 
the  result  of  persecution ;  but  in  the  East  the  Mus- 
sulmans hold  in  respect  any  bird  which  resorts  to 
their  houses,  and  in  reverence  such  as  build  in  or 
about  the  mosques,  considering  them  to  l)e  under 
the  Divine  protection.  This  natural  veneration 
has  doubtless  been  inherited  from  antiquity.  We 
learn  from  ^^lian  {Var.  Hist.  v.  17)  that  the  Athe- 
nians condemned  a  man  to  death  for  molesting  a 
sparrow  in  the  temple  of  ^-Esculapius.  The  story 
of  .-Vristodicus  of  Cyme,  who  rebuked  the  cowardly 
advice  of  the  oracle  of  Branchidfe  to  surrender  a 
suppliant,  by  his  symbolical  act  of  driving  the  spar- 
rows out  of  the  temple,  illustrates  the  same  senti- 
ment (Herod,  i.  159),  which  was  proljably  shared 
by  David  and  the  Israelites,  and  is  alluded  to  in 
the  psalm.  There  can  be  no  difficulty  in  inter- 
preting mnS^^,  not  as  the  altar  of  sacrifice  ex- 
clusively, but  as'  the  place  of  sacrifice,  the  sacred 
inclosure  generally,  t6  refxev-os.  "  fauuni."  The 
interpretation   of  some  commentators,   who  would 

explain  "112^  in  this  passage  of  certain  sacred 
birds,  kept  and  preserved  by  the  priesta  in  the 
temple  like  the  Sacred  Ibis  of  the  Egyptians,  seems 
to  be  wholly  without  warrant.  See  Bochart,  iii. 
21,  22. 

Most  of  our  commoner  small  birds  are  found  in 
Palestine.  The  starling,  chaffinch,  greenfinch, 
linnet,  goldfinch,  corn  bunting,  pipits,  blackbird, 
song  thrush,  and  the  various  species  of  wagtail 
abound.  The  wood  lark  {Akmda  arborea,  L.), 
crested  lark  {Galerida  crislala,  Boie.),  Calandra 
lark  {.Melanocorypha  calandra,  Bp.),  short-toed 
lark  {<Jnl  indrella  brachydactyla,  Kaup.),  Isabel 
lark  [Al'inda  deserii,  Licht.),  and  various  other 
desert  species,  which  are  sn.ared  in  great  numbers 
for  the  markets,  are  far  more  numerous  on  tii>' 
southern  plains  than  the  skylark  in  England.  In 
the  olive-yards,  ami  among  the  brushwood  of  the 
hills,  the  Ortolan  bunting  (/iinberiza  hortulnna 
L.),  and  especially  Cretzschniaer's  bunting  {Enibt 
riza  aesia,  Cretz.),  take  the  place  of  our  common 
yellow-hannner,  an  exclusively  northern  species, 
indeed,  the  second  is  seldom  out  of  the  traveller'! 


196 


3098 


SPARROW 


Bight,  ho])ping  before  him  from  bougli  to  bough 
with  Its  simple  but  not  unpleasing  note.  As  most 
of  our  warblers  {tSylrimhe)  are  sunmier  migrants, 
and  have  a  wide  eastern  range,  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  they  should  occur  in  Syria;  and  accordingly 
upwards  of  twenty  of  those  on  the  British  list  have 
6een  noted  there,  including  the  robin,  redstart, 
whitethroat,  blackcap,  nightingale,  willow  -  wren, 
I'artford  warlder,  whinchat.  and  stonechat.  Be- 
sides' these,  the  Palestine  lists  contain  fourteen 
others,  more  southern  s])ecies,  of  which  the  most 
interesting  are  perhaps  the  little  fantail  {Cistiaila 
eclnenlada,  Bp.),  the  orphean  (Curruca  orplimi. 
Hole. )  and  the  Sardinian  \mh\ev  {Sylvia  m  tin  no- 
cep/i'il/i^  Lath.), 

The  chats  (Snxicolce),  represented  in  Britain  by 
the  wheatear,  whinchat,  and  stonechat,  are  very 
numerous  in  the  southern  parts  of  the  country.  At 
least  nine  species  have  been  observed,  and  by  their 
lively  motions  and  the  striking  contrast  of  black 
and  white  in  the  plumage  of  most  of  them,  they  are 
the  most  attractive  and  conspicuous  bird-inhab- 
itants which  catch  the  eye  in  the  hill  country  of 
Judsea,  the  favorite  resort  of  the  genus.  Yet  they 
are  not  recognized  among  the  Bedouin  inhabitants 
oy  any  name  to  distinguish  them  from  the  larks. 
'  The  rock  sparrow  {Petro7ua  stulta,  Strickl.)  is  a 
common  bird  in  the  barer  portioBS  of  Palestine, 
eschewing  woods,  and  generally  to  be  seen  perched 
alone  on  the  top  of  a  rock  or  on  any  large  stone, 
l-rom  this  habit  it  has  been  conjectured  to  be  the 
bird  alluded   to  in  l^s.  cii.  7,  as  "  the  sparrow  that 


Petrocossj/phus  cyaneus. 

sitteth  alone  upon  the  housetop;  "  but  as  the  rock 
epaiTow,  though  found  among  ruins,  never  resorts 
to  inliabited  buildings,  it  seems  more  probable  that 
the  liird  to  which  the  psalmist  alludes  is  the  blue 
thrush  (Petrucossyplius  cyaneus,  Boie. ),  a  bird  so 
conspicuous  that  it  cannot  fail  to  attract  attention 
by  its  dark-blue  dress  and  its  plaintive  monotonous 
note;  and  which  may  frequently  be  observed 
perched  on  houses  and  especially  on  outbuildings  in 
the  villages  of  Judaea.  It  is  a  solitary  bird,  es- 
"ibewini;  the  society  of  its  own  species,  and  rarely 
(liore  than  a  pair  are  seen  together.  Certainly  the 
illusion  of  the  psalmist  will  not  apply  to  the  so- 
9!«bje  and  garrulous  house  or  tree-sparrows. 

Ar;tonK  the  most  conspicuous  of  the  small  birds 


SPARROW 

of  Palestine  are  the  shrikes  (Lanii),  of  which  tha 
red-l)acked  shrike  {Lanius  coUwio,  L.)  is  a  familiar 
example  in  the  south  of  England,  but  there  repre- 
sented by  at  least  five  species,  all  abundantly  and 
generally  distributed,  namely,  Enneoctoniis  rufus^ 
Bp.,  the  woodchat  shrike,  Lanius  meridionalis,  L. ; 
L.  minor,  L. ;  L.  ptrsu7uttus,  Tem. ;  and  Ttlepk- 
vnus  cucullatus,  Gr. 

There  are  but  two  allusions  to  the  singing  of 
birds  in  the  Scriptures,  Eccl.  xii.  4  and  Ps.  civ.  12, 

"  By  them  shall  the  fowls  (^^37)  of  the  heaven  have 
their  habitation,  which  sing  among  the  branches." 
As  the  psalmist  is  here  speaking  of  the  sides  of 
streams  and  rivers  {"  By  them  "),  he  probably  had 

in  his  mind  the  bulbul  ((JolXj)  of  the  country,  or 
Palestine  nightingale  {Jxos  xanlhopyyius.HempT.], 
a  bird  not  very  far  removed  from  the  thrush  tribe, 
and  a  closely  allied  species  of  which  is  the  true 
bulbul  of  Persia  and  India.  This  lovely  songster, 
whose  notes,  for  volume  and  variety,  surpass  those 
of  the  nightingale,  wanting  only  the  final  cadence, 
abounds  in  all  the  wooded  districts  of  Palestine,  and 
especially  by  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  where  in  the 
early  morning  it  fills  the  air  with  its  music. 

In  one  passage  (Ez.  xxxix.  4),  tzippvr  is  joined 

with  the  epithet  ^'^V  (ravenous),  which  may  very 
well  describe  the  raven  and  the  crow,  both  passerhie 
birds,  yet  •  carrion  feeders.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to 
stretch  the  interpretation  so  as  to  include  raptorial 
birds,  which  are  distinguished  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic 
by  so  many  specific  appellations. 

With  tlie  exception  of  the  raven  tribe,  there  is  no 
prohibition  in  the  Levitical  law  against  any  pas- 
serine birds  being  used  for  food;  while  the  wanton 
destruction  or  extirpation  of  any  species  was 
guarded  against  by  the  humane  provision  in  Ueut. 
xxii.  6.  Small  birds  were  therefore  probably  as 
ordinary  an  article  of  consumption  among  the  Is- 
raelites as  they  still  are  in  the  markets  both  of  the 
Continent  and  of  the  East.  The  inquiry  of  our 
Lord,  "  Are  not  five  sparrows  sold  for  two  far- 
things V"  (Luke  xii.  6),  "Are  not  two  sparrows 
sold  tor  a  farthing':'  "  (Matt.  x.  29),  points  to  their 
ordinary  exposure  for  sale  in  his  time.  At  the  pres- 
ent day  the  markets  of  Jerusalem  and  Jaffa  are  at- 
tended by  many  "  ibwlers  "  who  ofTer  for  sale  long 
strings  of  little  birds  of  various  species,  chiefly  spar- 
rows, wagtails,  and  larks.  These  are  also  frequently 
sold  reatl}'  plucked,  trussed  in  rows  of  about  a  dozen 
on  slender  wooden  skewers,  and  are  cooked  and 
eaten  like  kabobs. 

It  may  well  excite  surprise  how  such  vast  num- 
bers can  be  taken,  and  how  they  can  be  vended  at 
a  price  too  small  to  have  purchased  the  powder  re- 
quired for  sliooting  tliem.  But  the  gun  is  never 
used  in  their  pursuit  The  ancient  methods  of 
fowling  to  which  we  find  so  many  allusions  in  the 
Scriptures  are  still  pursued,  and,  though  simple, 
are  none  the  less  effective.  The  art  of  fowling  is 
spoken  of   no  less  than  seven  times  in  connection 

with  mS^,  e.  (J.  "  a  bird  caught  in  the  snare," 
"bird  hasteth  to  the  snare,"  "fall  in  a  snare," 
"  escaped  out  of  the  snare  of  the  fowler."  There  is 
also  one  still  more  precise  allusion,  in  Ecclus.  xi.  .30, 
to  the  well-known  practice  of  using  decoy  or  call- 
birds,  TTfpSt^  dripevr^s  eV  Kap'^dWCfj-  The  refer, 
ence   in  Jer  v.  27,  "  As   a  cage  is  full  of  birds  " 

(CD'^37),  is  probably  t(  the  same  mode  of  sauing 
birds 


SPARROW 

There  are  four  or  five  simple  methods  of  fowling 
practiced  at  this  day  in  Palestine  which  are  prob- 
»bly  identical  with  those  alluded  to  in  the  O.  T. 
The  simplest,  but  by  no  means  the  least  successful, 
Rmong  the  dexterous  Bedouins,  is  fowling  with  the 
throw-stick.  The  only  weapon  usetl  is  a  short  stick, 
about  18  inches  long  and  half  an  inch  in  diameter, 
and  the  chase  is  conducted  after  the  fashion  iu 
which,  as  we  read,  the  Australian  natives  pursue 
the  kangaroo  with  their  boomerang.  When  the 
game  has  been  discovered,  which  is  generally  the 
red-legged  great  partridge  ( (Jaccubis  stixatiUs, 
Mey.),  the  desert  partridge  (Amnuiptrilix  Uttji^ 
Gr.),  or  the  little  bustard  [Oils  tctrax,  L. ),  the 
stick  is  hurled  with  a  revolving  motion  so  as  to  strike 
the  legs  of  the  bird  as  it  runs,  or  sometimes  at  a 
rather  higher  elevation,  so  that  when  the  victim, 
alarmed  by  the  approach  of  the  weapon,  begins  to 
rise,  its  wings  are  struck  and  it  is  slightly  disabled. 
The  fleet  pursuers  soon  come  up,  and  using  their 
burnouses  as  a  sort  of  net,  catch  and  at  once  cut 
the  throat  of  the  game.  The  JMussulmans  rigidly 
observe  the  Mosaic  iry unctions  (Lev.  xvii.  13)  to 
spill  the  blood  of  every  slain  animal  on  the  ground. 
'J'his  primitive  mode  of  fowling  is  confined  to  those 
birds  wliich,  like  the  red-legged  partridges  and  bus- 
tards, rely  for  safety  chiefly  on  their  running  powers, 
and  are  with  difficulty  induced  to  take  flight.  The 
writer  once  witnessed  the  capture  of  the  little  desert 
partridge  {Amiiwptrdix  Ihyi)  by  this  method  in 
the  wilderness  near  Hebron :  an  interesting  illustra- 
tion of  the  expression  in  1  Sara.  xxvi.  20,  "as  when 
one  doth  hunt  a  partridge  in  the  mountains." 

A  more  scientific  method  of  fowlitig  is  that  al- 
luded to  in  Ecclus.  xi.  30,  by  the  use  of  decoy- 
birds.  The  birds  employed  for  this  purpose  are 
very  carefully  trained  and  perfectly  tame,  that  they 
may  utter  their  natural  call-note  witliout  any  alarm 
from  the  neighborhood  of  man.  Partridges,  quails, 
larks,  and  plovers  are  taken  by  this  kind  of  fowl- 
ing, especially  the  two  former.  The  decoy-bird,  in 
a  cage,  is  placed  in  a  concealed  position,  while  the 
fowler  is  secreted  in  the  neighborhood,  near  enough 
to  manage  his  gins  and  snares.  For  game-birds, 
a  counuou  method  is  to  construct  of  brushwood  a 
narrow  run  leading  to  the  cage,  sometimes  using 
a  sort  of  bag-net  within  the  brushwood.  This  has 
a  trap-door  at  the  entrance,  and  when  the  dupe  has 
entered  tbe  run,  the  door  is  dropped.  Gi-eat  num- 
bers of  quail  are  taken  in  this  manner  in  spring, 
yometimes,  instead  of  the  more  elaborate  decoy  of  a 
run,  a  mere  cage  with  an  open  door  is  placed  in 
front  of  the  decoy-bird,  of  course  well  concealed  by 
grass  and  herbage,  and  the  door  is  let  fall  by  a 
string,  as  in  the  other  method.  For  larks  and 
other  smaller  birds  the  decoy  is  used  in  a  somewhat 
different  manner.  The  cage  is  placed  without  con- 
cealment on  the  ground,  and  springes,  nets,  or  horse- 
hair nooses  are  laid  round  it  to  entangle  the  feet  of 
those  whom  curiosity  attracts  to  the  stranger;  or 
a  net  is  so  contrived  as  to  be  drawn  over  them,  if 
the  cage  be  placed  in  a  thicket  or  among  brushwood, 
hnmense  numbers  can  be  taken  by  this  means  in  a 
very  sliort  space  of  time.  Traps,  the  door  of  which 
overbalances  by  the  weight  of  the  bird,  exactly  like 
the  traps  used  by  the  shepherds  on  the  Sussex 
downs  to  take  wheatears  and  larks,  are  constructed 
by  the  Bedouin  boys,  and  also  the  horse-hair 
springes  so  familiar  to  all  English  school-boys, 
tliough  these  devices   are  not  wholesale  enough  to 


SPARROW 


3099 


"  The  snare  is  broken  and  we  are  escaped."  In  the 
towns  and  gardens  great  numbers  of  birds,  starUngs 
and  others,  are  taken  for  the  markets  at  night  by 
means  of  a  large  loose  net  on  two  poles,  and  a 
lanthorn,  which  startles  the  birds  from  then-  perch, 
when  they  fall  into  the  net. 

At  the  season  of  migration  immense  numbers  of 
l)irds,  and  especially  quails,  are  taken  by  a  yet  more 
simple  method.  When  notice  has  been  given  of 
the  arrival  of  a  flight  of  quails,  the  whole  village 
turns  out.  The  birds,  fatigued  by  their  long  flight, 
generally  descend  to  rest  in  some  open  space  a  few 
acres  in  extent.  The  fowlers,  perhajis  twenty  or 
thirty  in  number,  spread  themselves  in  a  circle 
round  them,  and,  extending  their  loose  large  bur- 
nouses with  both  arms  before  them,  gently  advance 
toward  the  centre,  or  to  some  spot  where  they 
tidie  care  there  shall  be  some  low  brushwood.  The 
birds,  not  seeing  their  pursuers,  and  only  slightly 
alarmed  by  the  cloaks  spread  liefore  them,  begin  to 
run  together  without  taking  flight,  until  they  are 
hennned  into  a  very  small  space.  At  a  given  signal 
the  whole  of  the  pursuers  make  a  din  on  all  sides, 
and  the  flock,  not  seeing  any  mode  of  escape,  rush 
huddled  together  into  the  bushes,  when  the  bui. 
nouses  are  thrown  over  them,  and  the  whole  are 
easily  captured  by  hand. 

Although  we  ha\'e  evidence  that  dogs  ^^■ere  used 
liy  the  ancient  Egyptians,  Assyrians,  and  Indians 
in  the  chase,  yet  tiiere  is  no  allusion  in  Scripture  to 
their  being  so  employed  among  the  Jews,  nor  does 
it  appear  that  any  of  the  ancients  employed  the 
sagacity  of  the  dog,  as  we  do  that  of  the  pointer  and 
setter,  as  an  auxiliary  in  the  chase  of  winiied  game. 
At  the  present  day  the  Bedouins  of  Palestine  em- 
ploy, in  the  pursuit  of  larger  game,  a  very  valuable 
race  of  greyhounds,  equalling  the  Scottish  stag- 
hound  in  size  and  strength ;  but  the  inhabitants  of 
the  towns  have  a  strong  prejudice  against  the  un- 
clean animal,  and  never  cultivate  it^i  instinct  for 
any  further  purpose  than  that  of  protecting  their 
houses  and  flocks  (Is.  Ivi.  10;  Job  xxx.  1),  and  of 
removing  the  offal  from  their  towns  and  villages. 
No  Wonder,  then,  that  its  use  has  been  neglected 
tor  purposes  which  would  have  entailed  the  constant 
danger  of  defilement  from  an  unclean  animal,  lie- 
sides  the  risk  of  being  compelled  to  reject  as  food 
game  which  might  be  torn  by  the  dogs  (cf.  Ex.  xxii. 
31;   Lev.  xxii.  8,  &c.). 

Whether  falconry  was  ever  employed  as  a  mode 
of  fowling  or  not  is  by  no  means  so  clear.  Its 
antiquity  is  certainly  much  greater  than  the  intro- 
duction of  dogs  in  the  chase  of  birds;  and  from  the 
statement  of  Aristotle  {Aniin.  Hist.  ix.  24),  "  In 
tlie  city  of  Thrace,  formerly  called  Cedropolis,  men 
hunt  birds  in  the  marshes  with  the  help  of  hawks," 
and  from  the  allusion  to  the  use  of  falconry  in  In- 
dia, according  to  Photius'  abridgment  of  Ctesias,  we 
may  presume  that  the  art  was  known  to  the  neigh- 
bors of  the  ancient  Israelites  (see  also  .£lian.  Hist. 
An.  iv.  2G,  and  Pliny,  x.  8).  Falconry,  however, 
requires  an  open  and  not  very  rugged  country  for 
its  successful  pursuit,  and  Palestine  west  of  the  Jor- 
dan is  in  its  whole  extent  ill  adapted  for  this  species 
of  chase.  At  the  present  day  falconry  is  practiced 
witii  much  care  and  skill  by  the  Arab  inhabitants 
of  Syria,  though  not  in  Jud^a  proper.  It  is  indeed 
the  favorite  auuisement  of  all  the  Bedouins  of  Asia 
and  Africa,  and  esteemed  an  exclusively  noble  sport, 
only  to  lie  indulired  in  by  wealthy  sheiks.  The 
repay  the  professional  fowler.  It  is  to  the  noose  on  I  rarest  and  most  valuable  species  of  hunting  falcon 
the  (ground  that  reterence  is  made  in  I's.  cxxiv.  7,  I  {Falco  Lawiiius,  L.),  the  Lanner,  is  a  native  of  tk« 


3100 


SPARTA 


Lebanon  and  of  the  northern  liills  of  Palestine.  It 
18  highly  prized  by  the  inhabitants,  and  the  yonng 
are  taken  from  the  nest  and  sold  for  a  consideralile 
price  to  the  chieftains  of  the  Hauran.  Forty  ponnds 
Bterling  is  nonnconinion  price  for  a  well-trained  fal- 
con. A  description  of  falconry  as  now  practiced 
among  the  Arabs  would  be  out  of  place  here,  as 
there  is  no  direct  allusion  to  the  subject  in  the  0. 
T.  or  N.  r.  H.  B.  T. 

SPARTA  {■Sirdprv  [cord,  stramr],  1  Maec. 
xiv.  16;  AaKeSaiiJ.6vi.oi,  2  Mace.  v.  9:  A.  Y. 
"  Lacedaemonians  ").  In  the  history  of  the  Macca- 
bees mention  is  made  of  a  remarkable  correspond- 
ence between  the  Jews  and  the  Spartans,  which  has 
been  the  subject  of  much  discussion.  The  alleged 
facts  are  briefly  these.  When  Jonathan  endeav- 
ored to  strengthen  his  government  by  foreign  alli- 
ances (cir.  B.  c.  144),  he  sent  to  Sparta  to  renew  a 
friendly  intercourse  which  had  been  begun  at  an 
earlier  time  between  Areus  and  Onias  [A reus; 
Onias],  on  the  ground  of  their  common  descent 
from  Abraham  (1  Mace.  xii.  5-23).  The  embassy 
was  favorably  received,  and  after  the  death  of  Jona- 
than "the  friendship  and  league"  was  renewed 
with  Simon  (1  Mace.  xiv.  16-2;3).  No  results  are 
deduced  from  this  correspondence,  which  is  recorded 
in  the  narrative  without  comment;  and  imperfect 
copies  of  the  official  documents  are  given  as  in  the 
case  of  similar  negotiations  with  the  Romans. 
Several  questions  arise  out  of  these  statements  as 
to  (1)  the  people  described  under  the  name  Spar- 
tans, (2)  the  relationship  of  the  Jews  and  Spar- 
tans, (3)  the  historic  character  of  the  events,  and 
(4)  the  persons  referred  to  under  the  names  Onias 
and  Areus. 

1.  The  whole  context  of  the  passage,  as  well  as 
the  independent  reference  to  the  connection  of  the 
"  Lacedaemonians"  and  Jews  in  2  Mace.  v.  9,  seem 
to  prove  clearly  that  the  reference  is  to  the  Spar- 
tans, properly  so  called ;  Josephus  evidently  under- 
stood the  records  in  this  sense,  and  the  other 
interpretations  which  have  been  advanced  are 
merely  conjectures  to  avoid  the  supposed  difficul- 
ties of  the  literal  interpretation.  Thus  Michaelis 
conjectured  that  the  words  in  the  original  text  were 

IIDD,  D''T1!:D  (Obad.  ver.  20;  Ges.  Tlies. 
s.  v.),  which  the  translators  read  erroneously  as 
t^IDD,  D"'T2~l2D,  and  thus  substituted  Sparta 
for  Si'pharad  [Sephakad].  And  Frankel,  again 
(Mvnatsschrift,  1853,  p.  450),  endeavors  to  show 
that  the  name  SparUms  may  have  been  given  to 
the  Jewish  settlement  at  Nisibis,  the  chief  centre  of 
the  Armenian  Dispersion.  But  against  these  hy- 
potheses it  may  be  urged  conclusively  that  it  is  in- 
credible that  a  Jewish  colony  should  have  been  so 
completely  separated  from  the  mother  state  as  to 
need  to  be  reminded  of  its  kindred,  and  also  that 
the  vicissitudes  of  the  goverimient  of  this  strange 
city  (1  Mace.  xii.  20,  /3ao-iA.euir ;  xiv.  20,  'dpxov- 
rey  Kal  t]  ttJAis)  should  have  corresponded  with 
those  of  Sparta  itself. 

2.  The  actual  relationship  of  the  Jews  and 
Spartans  (2  Mace.  v.  9,  cvyyfveia)  is  an  ethno- 
logical error,  which  it  is  difficult  to  trace  to  its 
origin.  It  is  possible  that  the  Jews  regarded  the 
Spartans  as  the  representatives  of  the  Pelasgi,  tiie 
supposed  descendants  of  Peleg  the  son  of  Eber 
(Stillingfleet,  Oriyines  Sacrai,  iii.  4,  15;  Ewald, 
Gtsch.  iv.  277,  note),  just  as  in  another  place  the 
Pergaraenes   trace  back  their  friendship  with  the 


SPARTA 

Jews  to  a  connection  in  the  time  of  Abraham  (Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xiv.  10,  §  22);  if  this  were  so,  thej 
might  easily  spread  their  opinion.  It  is  certain, 
from  an  independent  passage,  that  a  Jewish  colony 
existed  at  Sparta  at  an  early  time  (1  Mace.  xv.  23), 
and  the  important  settlement  of  the  Jews  in  Gyrene 
may  have  contributed  to  favor  the  notion  of  some 
intimate  connection  between  the  two  races.  The 
belief  in  this  relationship  appears  to  have  continued 
to  later  times  (Joseph.  B.  J.  i.  26,  §  1),  and,  how- 
ever mistaken,  may  be  paralleled  by  other  popular 
legends  of  the  eastern  origin  of  Greek  states.  The 
various  hypotheses  proposed  to  support  the  truth  oi 
the  statement  are  examined  by  Wernsdorff  (Dejicle 
Lib.  Mace.  §  94),  but  probably  no  one  now  would 
maintain  it. 

3.  The  incorrectness  of  the  opinion  on  which  the 
intercoui'se  was  based  is  obviously  no  objection  to 
the  fact  of  the  intercourse  itself;  and  the  very  ob- 
scurity of  Sparta  at  the  time  makes  it  extremely 
unlikely  that  any  forger  would  invent  such  an  inci- 
dent. But  it  is  urged  that  the  letters  said  to  have 
been  exchanged  are  evidently  not  genuine,  since 
they  betray  their  fictitious  origin  negatively  by  the 
absence  of  characteristic  forms  of  expression,  and 
positively  by  actual  inaccuracies.  To  this  it  may 
be  replied  that  the  Spartan  letters  (1  Mace.  xii.  20- 
23,  xiv.  20-23)  are  extremely  brief,  and  exist  only 
in  a  translation  of  a  translation,  so  that  it  is  unrea- 
sonable to  e.-jpect  that  any  I  feric  peculiarities  should 
have  been  preserved.  The  Hellenistic  translator  oi 
the  Hebrew  original  would  naturally  render  the  text 
before  him  without  any  regard  to  what  might  ha\'e 
been  its  original  form  (xii.  22-25,  eJp-i^pr],  Krrii/ri- 
xiv  20,  aSe\(poi)-  On  the  other  hand  the  absence 
of  the  name  of  the  second  king  of  Sparta  in  the 
first  letter  .(1  Jlacc.  xii.  20),  and  of  both  kings,  in 
the  second  (1  Mace.  xiv.  20),  is  probably  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  political  circumstances  under  which 
the  letters  were  written.  The  text  of  the  first  letter, 
as  given  by  Josephus  {Ant.  xii.  4,  §  10),  contains 
some  variations,  and  a  very  remarkable  additional 
clause  at  the  end.  The  second  letter  is  apparently 
only  a  fragment. 

4.  The  difficulty  of  fixing  the  date  of  the  first 
correspondence  is  increased  by  the  recurrence  of  the 
names  involved.  Two  kings  bore  the  name  Areus, 
one  of  whom  reigned  b.  c.  309-265,  and  the  other, 
his  grandson,  died  b.  c.  257,  being  only  eight  years 
old.  The  same  name  was  also  borne  by  an  ad- 
venturer, .who  occupied  a  prominent  position  at 
Sparta,  cir.  B.  c.  184  (Polyb.  xxiii.  11,  12).  In 
Judsea,  again,  three  high-priests  bore  the  name 
Onias,  the  first  of  whom  held  ofBce  b.  c.  330-309 
(or  300) ;  the  second,  b.  c.  240-226 ;  and  the  third, 
cir.  B.  C.  198-171.  Thus  Onias  I.  was  for  a  short 
time  contemporary  with  Areus  I.,  and  the  corre- 
spondence has  been  commonly  assigned  to  them 
(Palmer,  Be  Episl.  etc.,  Darmst.  1828;  Grimm,  orj 
1  Mace.  xii.).  But  the  position  of  Judaea  at  that 
time  was  not  such  as  to  make  the  contraction  of 
foreign  alliances  a  likely  occurrence;  and  the  spe- 
cial circumstances  which  are  said  to  have  directed 
the  attention  of  the  Spartan  king  to  the  Jews  as 
likely  to  effect  a  diversion  against  Demetrius  Poll 
orcetes  when  he  was  engaged  in  the  war  with  Cas- 
sander,  b.  c.  302  (Palmer,  quoted  by  Grimm,  I.  c), 
are  not  completely  satisfactory,  even  if  the  priest- 
hood of  Onias  can  be  extended  to  the  later  date." 


a  Ewald  (Gesch.  iv.  276,  277,  note)  supposes  tha» 
the  letter  was  addressed   to  Onias  II.  during  his  tsA 


SPEAR 

rhiB  beiiit;  so,  Josephus  is  proiiably  correct  in  fix- 
ing the  event  in  the  time  of  Onias  III.  {Ani.  xii.  4, 
§  10).  The  last-named  Areus  may  have  assumed 
the  royal  title,  if  that  is  not  due  to  an  exaggerated 
translation,  and  tlie  absence  of  tlie  name  of  a  second 
king  is  at  once  explained  (L'ssher,  An?uiU'.%  a.  c. 
183;  Herzfeld,  Gesch.  d.  V.  hi:  i.  21.5-218).  At 
the  time  when  Jonathan  and  Snnon  made  negotia- 
tions with  Sparta,  the  succession  of  liinL;s  had 
ceased.  The  last  absolute  ruler  was  Nabis,  who 
was  assassinated  in  b.  c.  192.  (WernsdorfT,  De 
fidt  Lib.  Mace.  §§  93-112;  Grimm,  l.  c. ;  Herzfeld, 
I.  c.  The  early  literature  of  the  subject  is  given 
by  "WernsdorfT. )  B.  F.  W. 

SPEAR.     [Arms.] 

SPEARMEN  (Se^ioAd^oi).  The  word  thus 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  of  Acts  xxiii.  23  is  of  very 
rare  occurrence,  and  its  meaning  is  extremely  ob- 
scure. Our  translators  follov\ed  the  luricearii  oi' 
the  Vulgate,  and  it  seems  provable  that  their  ren- 
dering approximates  most  nearly  to  the  true  mean- 
ing. The  reading  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  is 
Se^ioP6\ovs,  which  is  literally  followed  by  the  i'e- 
shito-Syriac,  where  the  word  is  translated  "darters 
with  the  right  hand."  Lachmann  adoiits  this  read- 
ing, which  appears  also  to  have  been  that  of  (lie 
Arabic  in  Walton's  Polyglot.  Two  hundred  5e|i- 
o\a.0oi  formed  part  of  the  escort  which  accompa- 
nied St.  Paul  in  the  night-march  from  .Jerusalem 
to  Csesarea.  They  are  clearly  distinguished  both 
from  the  cTTpariQ>Tai,  or  heavy-armed  legionaries, 
who  oidy  went  as  far  as  Antipatris,  and  from  the 
t7nre7y,  or  cavalry,  who  continued'  the  journey  to 
Cassarea.  As  nothing  is  said  of  the  return  of  the 
B6|ioA.a/8ot  to  Jerusalem  after  their  arrival  at  Antip- 
atris, we  may  infer  that  they  accompanied  the  cav- 
alry to  Csesarea,  and  this  strengthens  the  supposi- 
tion that  they  were  irregular  light-armed  troops,  so 
lightly  armed,  indeed,  as  to  be  able  to  keep  pace  on 
the  march  with  mounted  soldiers.  Meyer  {Koin- 
vientar.  ii.  3,  s.  404:,  2'e  Aufi.)  conjectures  that 
they  were  a  particular  kind  of  light-armed  troops 
(called  by  the  Romans  Valilts,  or  Rorarii),  proba- 
bly either  javelin-men  or  slingers.  In  a  passage 
quoted  by  the  Emperor  Constantine  Porphyrogen- 
iieta  {Them.  i.  1)  from  John  of  Philadelphia,  they 
are  distinguished  both  from  the  archers  and  from 
the  peltasts,  or  targeteers,  and  with  these  are  de- 
scribed as  forming  a  body  of  light-armed  troops, 
who  in  the  10th  century  were  under  the  command 
of  an  officer  called  a  tunnnrch.  Grotius,  however, 
was  of  opinion  that  at  this  late  period  the  term 
had  merely  been  adopted  from  the  narrative  in  the 
Acts,  and  that  the  usage  in  the  10th  century  is  no 
safe  guide  to  its  true  meaning.  Others  regard 
them  as  body-guards  of  the  governor,  and  JNIeursius, 
in  his  Glossnrium  Grceco-barbai-um.  su^wses  them 
to  have  been  a  kind  of  military  lictors,  who  had 
the  charge  of  arresting  prisoners;  but  the  great 
number  (200)  employed  is  against  both  these  sup- 
positions. In  Suidaa  and  the  Etymi'loc/icuia  Mny- 
niuii  irapa(pv\a^  is  givec  *s  the  equi\alent  of  Se^i- 
o\d0oi.  Ihe  word  occurs  again  in  one  of  the 
Byzantine  historians,  Theoph\  lactus  Simocatta  (iv. 
1),  and  is  used  by  him  of  soldiers  who  were  em- 
ployed on  skirmishing  duty.  Tt  is  probable,  there- 
fore, that  the  5e|toAa/3oi  were  light-armed  troops 
jf  some  kind,  but  nothing  is  certainly  known  about 
iera.  W.  A.  W. 


SPICE 


3101 


cority  (B.  0.  290-240),  In  the  course  of  the  wars  with 
Demetrius. 


*  SPED,  Judg.  V.  30  (from  the  A.-S.  speditn) 
means  "succeeded,"  i.  e.  as  a  warrior  in  battle. 
The  Bishops'  Bible  has  in  that  place  "  found,"  i.  e 

booty,  hence  literally  =  ^StJp.  H 

*  SPELT.     [Rye.] 

SPICE,  SPICES.  Under  this  head  it  will 
be  desirable  to  notice  the  following  Hebrew  words, 
ids((//j,  necolh,  and  saminin. 

1.   Bdsdm,  bestm,  or  bosem  (Ctpil,   C??72,  or 

Dti?2  :  TjSvff fxara,  OvfjuafiaTa:  m-omnia).  The 
first-named  form  of  the  Hebrew  term,  which  occurs 
only  in  Cant.  v.  1,  "  I  have  gathered  my  myrrh 
with  my  spice,"  points  apparently  to  some  definite 
substance.  In  the  other  places,  with  the  exception 
perhaps  of  Cant.  i.  13,  vi.  2,  the  words  refer  more 
generally  to  sweet  aromatic  odors,  the  principal  of 
which  was  that  of  the  balsam,  or  balm  of  Gilend ; 
the  tree  which  yields  this  substance  is  now  gen- 
erally admitted  to  be  the  Amyris  {Bals'imoden- 
dron)  opobilsa/mim ;  though  it  is  probable  that 
other  species  of  AmyriddctiB  are  included  under 
the   terms.      The    identity  of  the    Hebrew  name 

with    the   Arabic   Bashmn  (aLawo)  or    Balasan 


(j^Lwwi.A«3)  leaves  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 

substances   are  identical.     The  Amyris  ojjobnhn- 
mum  was  observed  by  Forskal  near  Mecca;  it  WM 


Balsam  of  Gilead  {Amyris  Gileaden^ts). 

called  by  the  Arabs  Abuschnm,  i.  e.  "  very  odor- 
ous." But  whether  this  was  the  same  plant  that 
was  cultivated  in  the  plains  of  Jericho,  and  cele- 
brated throughout  the  world  (Pliny,  //.  N.  xii 
25;  Theophrastns,  Tlist.  Plant,  ix.  6;  Josephus, 
Ant.  XV.  4,  §  2;  Strabo,  xvi.  3G7;  Ac.),  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine;  but  being  a  tropical  plant,  ii 


3102  SPICE 

cannot  be  supposed  to  have  s;rown  except  in  the 
warm  valleys  of  the  S.  of  Palestine.  The  shrub 
mentioned  Ijy  Burckhardt  {Trm:  p.  323)  as  grow- 
ing in  gardens  near  Tiberias,  and  which  he  was 
informed  was  the  balsam,  cannot  have  been  the 
tree  in  question.  The  A.  V.  never  renders  Basdm 
by  "  balm  " :  it  gives  this  word  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Hebrew  tzeri,  or  izoii  [Halm].  The 
form  Beseni  or  Bosem,  which  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  0.  T.,  may  well  be  represented  by  the 
general  term  of  "spices,"  or  "sweet  odors,"  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  renderings  of  the  T>XX.  and 
Vulg.  The  balm  of  Gilead  tree  grows  in  some 
parts  of  Arabia  and  Africa,  and  is  seldom  more 
than  fifteen  feet  hi^h,  with  straggling  branches  and 
scanty  foliage.  The  balsam  is  chiefly  obtained 
from  incisions  in  the  bark,  but  the  substance  is 
procured  also  from  the  green  and  ripe  berries.  The 
balsam  orchards  near  .Jericho  appear  to  have  ex- 
isted at  the  time  of  Titus,  liy  whose  legions  they 
were  taken  formal  possession  of,  but  no  remains  of 


Astragalus  Tragacantha. 


this  celebrated  plant  are  now  to  be  seen  in  Pales- 
tine.     (See  Scripture  Herbal,  p.  33.) 

2.  Necolh  (nSDS  :  ev/xiafxa--  aromata).  The 
company  of  Ishniaelitish  merchants  to  whom  Joseph 
was  sold  were  on  their  way  from  Gilead  to  Egypt, 
with  their  camels  bearing  vecolli,  fzeri  [Balm], 
and  Hit  (laihnnim)  (Gen.  xxxvii.  25);  this  same 
substance  was  also  among  the  presents  which  Jacob 
sent  to  Joseph  in  Egypt  (see  Gen.  xliii.  11).  It  is 
probable  from  both  these  passages  that  necotJi,  if  a 
name  for  some  definite  substance,  was  a  product  of 
Palestine,  as  it  is  named  with  other  "  best  fruits 
of  the  land."  the  lot  in  the  former  passage  being 
the  gum  of  the  Cistus  cretictis,  and  not  "  myrrh," 
IS  the  A.  V.  renders  it.  [Mykkh.]  A'arious 
opinions  have  been  formed  as  to  what  7ilc(jili  denotes, 
for  which  see  Celsius.  Nteroh.  i.  548,  and  Kosen- 
miiller,  Scliol.  in   Gen.   (1.  c.);  the  most  probable 

isplanation  is  that  which  refers  the  word  to  the 
0  -    -  .- 

knhic  nakcCat  (jSjSS),  i-  e.  "  the  gum  obtained 


SPIDER 

from  the  tragacanth  "  (Astra (/alus),  three  or  fool 
species  of  which  genus  are  enumerated  as  occuiring 
in  Palestine:  see  Str.and's  Flora  Palcestina,  No 
413-41G.  The  gum  is  a  natural  exudation  fron: 
the  trunk  and  branches  of  the  plant,  which  on 
being  "  exposed  to  the  air  grows  hard,  and  is  formed 
either  into  lumps  or  slender  pieces  curled  and 
winding  like  worms,  more  or  less  long  according 
as  matter  offers"  (Touniefort,  Voyage,  i.  59,  ed. 
Lond.  1741). 

It  is  uncertain  whether  the  word  •1*^33  in  2  K. 
XX.  13;  Is.  xxxix.  2,  denotes  spice  of  any  kind. 
The  A.  V.  reads  in  the  text  "  the  house  of  his 
precious  things,"  the  margin  gives  "  spicery." 
which  has  the  support  of  the  Vulg.,  Aq.,  and  Synmi. 
It  is  clear  from  the  passages  referred  to  tiiat  Heze- 
kiah  possessed  a  house  or  treasury  of  precious  and 
useful  vegetable  productions,  and  that  vacoth  may 
in  these  places  denote,  though  perhaps  not  ex- 
clusively, tragacanth  gum.     Keil  {Comment.  \.  c) 

derives  the  word  from  an  unused  root  (H^S,  "  im- 
plevit  loculum  "),  and  renders  it  by  "treasure." 

3.  Sammim  (D'^ffiD  :  jjSiKT/ia,  r]Svff/j.6s,  &pa>fia, 
Bvfjiiafxa'  suave  fragrans.1  boniodorh.  (jrathslmus 
aromnta).  A  general  term  to  denote  those  aromatic 
suljstances  which  were  used  in  the  preparation  of 
the  anointing  oil,  the  incense  oflferings,  etc  The 
root  of  the  word,  according  to  Gesenius,  is  to  be 
referred  to  the  Araljic  Summ,  "  olfecit,"  whence 
Samt'iin,  "  an  odoriferous  substance."  For  more 
particular  information  on  the  various  aromatic  sub- 
stances mentioned  in  the  Bible,  the  reader  is  re- 
fei'red  to  the  articles  which  treat  of  the  different 
kinds  :  Ekankinclxse,  Galbanum,  Myerh, 
Spikenard,  Cinnamon,  etc. 

The  spices  mentioned  as  being  used  by  Nico- 
demus  for  the  preparation  of  our  Lord's  body  (John 
xix.  39,  40)  are  "myrrh  and  aloes,"  by  which  latter 
word  must  be  understood,  not  the  aloes  of  medicine 
(Aloe),  but  the  highly-scented  wood  of  the  Aqiii- 
l-iria  aijallocimm  (but  see  Aloks,  i.  71  f.).  The 
enormous  quantity  of  100  lbs.  weight  of  which  St. 
•lohn  speaks,  has  excited  the  incredulity  of  some 
authors.  Josephus,  however,  tells  us  that  there 
were  five  hundred  spiceiiearers  at  Herod's  funeral 
(Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  3),  and  in  the  Talmud  it  is  said 
that  80  lbs.  of  opobalsamum  were  employed  at  the 
funeral  of  a  certain  Kabbi;  still  there  is  no  reason 
to  conclude  that  100  lbs.  weiirht  of  pure  myrrh  and 
aloes  was  consumed ;  the  words  of  the  Evangelist 
imply  a  i)repiration  (^i-y^a)  in  which  j)erhaps  the 
m\rrh  and  aloes  were  the  principal  or  most  costly 
aromatic  ingredient'::  again,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  Nicodemus  was  a  rich  man,  and  perhaps 
was  the  owner  of  large  stores  of  precious  sub- 
stances: as  a  constant  though  timid  disciple  of  our 
Lord,  he  probalily  did  not  scruple  at  any  sacrifice 
so  that  he  could  show  his  respect  for  Him. 

W.  H. 

SPIDER.     The  representative  in  the  A.  V.  of 

the  Helirew  words  '(icca/nsh  and  semamith. 

1.  'Acrahhli  (£'^33^:  apaxvri'  aranea)  oc- 
curs in  Jol)  viii.  14,  where  of  the  ungodly  (A.  V. 
hypocrite)  it  is  said  his  "  hope  shall  be  cut  off,  and 
his  trust  shall  be  the  house  of  an  'accdbish,"  and 
in  Is.  lix.  5,  where  the  wicked  Jews  are  allegorically 
said  to  "  weave  the  web  of  the  'accabish."  There 
is  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  our  translation  ia 
rendering  this  word  "spider."     In  the  two   pas- 


SPIKENA.RD 

Higeg  quoted  a'love,  allusion  is  made  to  the  fragile 
nature  of  tlie  spider's  web,  which,  thouifh  adniiraMy 
Buited  to  lidtill  all  the  requirements  of  the  animal, 
is  yet  must  easily  torn  l)y  any  violence  that  may 
be  offered  to  it.  In  tiie  passage  in  Is.  (/.  c. ),  how- 
ever, there  is  prolialjly  allusion  also  to  the  lurking 
habits  of  the  spider  for  his  ])rey :  "  The  wicked 
hatch  viper's  eggs  and  weave  the  spider's  wel)  .  .  . 
their  works  are  works  of  iniquity,  wa--ting  and  de- 
struction are  in  their  paths."  We  have  no  infor- 
mation as  to  the  species  of  Arnne/de  that  joccur  in 
I'alestine,  but  doubtless  this  order  is  abundantly 
represented. 

2.  Semdmith  (n*'?pJ2ti?  :  /caAa^&jrrjs'-  ittUio), 
wrongly  translated  by  the  A.  V.  '■  spider"  in  I'rov. 
XXX.  28,  the  only  passage  where  tlie  word  is  found, 
has  reference,  it  is  probable,  to  some  kind  of  lizard 
(Bochart,  flu-roz.  ii.  510).  The  seindnnlli  is  men- 
tioned by  Solomon  as  one  of  the  four  things  that 
are  exceeding  clever,  though  they  be  little  upon 
earth.  "  The  semdmith  taketh  hold  witii  her  hands, 
and  is  in  kings'  palaces."  This  term  exists  in  the 
modern  Greek  language  under  the  form  aaixidfjuv- 
6os.  "  Quem  Groeci  hodie  aafjud/uivdov  vocant, 
antiquse  Graecise  est  aaKa\a^a>T7]s,  id  est  stellio  — 
qua3  vox  pura  Hebraica  est  et  reperitur  in  Prov. 

cap.  XXX.  28,  rT'D^P"  (Salmasii  Pli/i.  Kxtrc'tt. 
p.  817,  b.  G.).  The  lizard  indicated  is  evidently 
some  species  of  Gecko,  some  notice  of  which  genus 
of  animals  is  given  under  the  article  Lizahu,  where 
the  Letdih  was  referred  to  the  Ptyoditctykis  Gecko. 
The  seiiidiidUi  is  perhaps  another  species. 

W.  H. 

SPIKENARD  C=T"13,  nerd:  vdpSos:  nardus). 
We  are  much  indebted  to  the  late  lamented  Dr. 
Royle  for  helping  to  clear  up  the  doubts  tiiat  had 
long  existed  as  to  what  particular  plant  furnished 
the  aromatic  substance  known  as  "  spikenard." 
Of  this  substance  mention  is  made  twice  in  the 
O.  T.,  namely,  in  Cant.  i.  12,  where  its  sweet  odor 
is  alluded  to,  and  in  iv.  13,  14,  where  it  is  enumer- 
ated with  various  other  aromatic  substances  which 
wei'e  imported  at  an  early  age  from  Arabia  or 
India  and  the  far  East.  The  ointment  with  which 
our  Lord  was  anointed  as  He  sat  at  meat  in  Simons 
house  at  Bethany  consisted  of  this  precious  siib- 
Btance,  the  costliness  of  which  may  be  inferred  from 
the  indignant  surprise  manifested  by  some  of  the 
witnesses  of  the  transaction  (see  Mark  xiv.  3-5 ; 
John  xii.  3-5).  With  this  may  be  compared 
Horace,  4  Carm.  xii.  16,  17  — 

"  Nardo  vina  merebei-e. 
Nardi  parvus  onyx  eliciet  cadum." 

Dioscorides  speaks  of  several  kinds  of  j/ap5o?, 
and  gives  the  names  of  various  substances  which 
composed  the  ointment  (i.  77).  The  Hebrew  ne/(/, 
according  to  Gesenius,  is  of  Indian  origin,  and  sig- 
nifies the  stidk  of  a  plant;  hence  one  of  the  Arabic 
names  given  l)y  Avicemia  as  the  equivalent  of  nard 
is  simbul,  "spica;  "  conip.  the  Greek  vapS^arax'J'ij 
Rnd  our  "  spikennrd.'^     But  whatever  may  be  the 

derivation  of  the  Heb.  "^^3,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
tunind  is  by  Arabian  authors  used  as  th;  represent- 
ative of  the  (ireek  n"rd<>s,  as  Sir  Wm.  Jones  has 
Bhown  (Adrd.  lies.  ii.  416).  It  appears,  however, 
Uiat  this  great  oriental  scholar  was  unable  to  ol)tain 
the  plan'  from  which  the  drug  is  procured,  a  wrong 
plant  hanng  been  sent  liim  by  Roxburgh.  Dr. 
■loylejW lien  director  of  the  E.  I.  Company's  botwnic 


SPINNING 


310J. 


garden  at  Saharunpore,  al)Out  30  miles  from  the 
foot  of  the  Himalayan  Jlountains,  having  ascer- 
tained that  the  jutamansee,  one  of  the  Hindu 
synonyms  for  the  sunbul,  was  amiually  brouuht 
from  the  mountains  overhanging  the  Ganges  and 
Jumna  rivers  down  to  the  plains,  purchased  some 
of  these  fresh  roots  and  planted  them  in  the  liotanic 
garden.  They  produced  the  same  plant  which  in 
1825  had  been  described  by  Don  from  specimens 
sent  Iiy  Dr.  Wallich  from  Nepal,  and  named  by 
him  Patrinia  jaUimansi  (see  the  Prodromus  Florae 
Xepalensis,  etc.,  accedtint  jAiintce  a  Wnlltcliio 
nuperius  missce,  Lond.  1825).  ^he  identity  of  the 
jalamnnd  with  the  Sunbul  liindce  of  the  Arabs  is 
estalilished  beyond  a  doulit  by  the  form  of  a  portion 
of  the  rough  stem  of  the  plant,  which  the  Arabs 
describe  as  lieing  like  the  tail  of  an  ermine  (see 
wood-cut).    This  plant,  which  has  been  called  Nar- 


Spikenard. 

doilnchys  jatamansi  by  De  CandoUe,  ia  evidently 
the  kind  of  nnrdos  described  by  Dioscorides  (i.  6 
under  the  name  of  yayyiris,  «•  ?•,  "the  Gauges 
nard."  Dioscorides  refers  especially  to  its  having 
many  shaggy  (ttoKvkS^ovs)  spikes  growing  from 
one  root.  It  is  very  interesting  to  note  that  Dios- 
corides gives  the  same  locality  for  the  plant  as  is 
mentioned  by  Hoyle,  airi  tivos  iroraixov  irapap- 
piovros  Tov  opovs,  rdyyov  uaXovnivov  trap  'h 
cpverai'-  though  he  is  here  speakiiii;  of  lowland 
specimens,  he  also  mentions  plants  obtained  from 
the  mountains.  W.  H. 

SPINNING  (ni^:  yieftv).  The  notices 
of  spinning  in  the  Bible  are  confiued  to  Ex.  xxxv 
25,  26;  Matt.  vi.  28;  and  Prov.  xxxi.  19.  The 
latter  passage  implies  (according  to  the  A.  V.)  the 
use  of  the  same  instruments  which  have  been  in 
vogue  for  hand-spinning  down  to  the  ])resent  day 
namely,  the  distaff  and  spindle.  The  distaff,  how- 
ever, appears  to  have  been  dispensed  with,  and  tlie 
term  "  so  rendered  means  the  spindle  itself,  while 
(hat  rendered  "spindle"*  represents  the  wliiri 
{rerlidllus,  I'liu.  xxxvit.  11)  of  the  spindle,  a  but- 
ton or  circular  rim  which  was  affixed  to  it,  and 
gave  steadiness  to  its  circular  motion.    The  "  whirl " 


l^D^?. 


3104         SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 

of  the  Syrian  women  was  made  of  amlier  in  the 
time  of  Pliny  (I.  c).  The  spindle  was  held  per- 
pendicularly in  the  one  hand,  while  the  other  was 
smployed  in  drawing  out  the  thread.  The  jjrocess 
is  exhibited  in  the  Egyptian  paintings  (Wilkinson, 
ii.  85).  Spinning  was  the  business  of  women,  both 
among  the  Jews  (Ex.  I.  c),  and  for  the  most  part 
among  the  Egyptians  (Wilkinson,  ii.  84). 

W.  L.  B. 

SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY.    In  the  0.  T.  He  is 

L'enenilly  called  C^n'bs  H^l,  or  Tf'^Tl^^  n^-|, 
the  Spirit  of  God«  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah ;  some- 
times the  Holy  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  as  Ps.  Ii.  11: 
Is.  Ixiii.  10,  11 ;  or  the  Good  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  as 
Ps.  cxliii.  10;  Neh.  ix.  20.*  In  the  N.  T.  He  is 
L'enerally  T^  ■Kvevfj.a  rh  aytov,  or  simply  rh  irffd/xa, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit;  sometimes  the  Spirit 
of  God,  of  the  Lord,  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  in  Matt, 
iii.  16 ;  Acts  v.  9 ;  Phil.  i.  19,  &c. 

In  accordance  with  what  seems  to  be  the  general 
rule  of  Divine  Revelation,  that  tiie  knowledge  of 
heavenly  things  is  given  more  abundantly  and  more 
clearly  in  later  ages,  the  person,  attributes,  and 
operations  of  the  Holy  (ihost  are  made  known  to 
us  chiefly  in  the  New  Testament.  And  in  the 
light  of  such  later  revelation,  words  which  when 
heard  by  patriarchs  and  prophets  were  probably  un- 
derstood imperfectly  by  them,  become  full  of  mean- 
ing to  Christians. 

In  the  earliest  period  of  Jewish  history  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  revealed  as  cooperating  in  the  creation 
of  the  world  (Gen.  i.  2),  as  the  Source,  Giver,  and 
Sustainer  of  life  (Job  xxvii.  3,  xxxiii.  4;  Gen.  ii. 
7);  as  resisting  (if  the  common  interpretation  be 
correct)  the  evil  inclinations  of  men  (Gen  vi.  3); 
as  the  Source  of  intellectual  excellence  (Gen.  xli. 
38;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9);  of  skill  in  handicraft  (Ex. 
xxviii.  3,  xxxi.  3,  xxxv.  31 ) ;  of  supernatural  knowl- 
edge and  prophetic  gifts  (Num.  xxiv.  2);  of  valor 
and  those  qualities  of  mind  or  body  which  give  one 
man  acknowledged  superiority  over  others  (Judg. 
iii.  10,  vi.  34,  xi.  29,  xiii.  2.5). 

In  that  period  which  began  with  Samuel,  the 
efFact  of  the  Spirit  coming  on  a  man  is  described 
in  the  remarkable  case  of  Saul  as  change  of  heart 
(1  Sam.  X.  6,  9),  shown  outwardly  by  prophesying 
(1  Sam.  X.  10;  comp.  Num.  xi.  25,  and  1  Sam. 
xix.  20).  He  departs  fnjm  a  man  whom  He  has 
once  changed  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14).  His  de]iarture  is 
the  departure  of  God  (xvi.  14,  xviii.  12,  xxviii.  15). 
His  presence  is  the  presence  of  God  (xvi.  13,  xviii. 
12).  In  the  period  of  the  Kingdom  the  operation 
of  the  Siiirit  was  recognized  chiefly  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  prophets  (see  Witsius,  Miscellanea  Sa- 
rri,  lib.  i.;  J.  Smith's  Select  Discourses,  p.  6, 
Of  Piophecy;  Knobel,  Prophetismus  der  He- 
bi  der).  Separated  more  or  less  from  the  common 
c.ccupations  of  men  to  a  life  of  special  religious 
exercise  (Bp  Bull's  Sermons,  x.  p.  187.  ed.  1840), 
they  were  sometimes  workers  of  miracles,  always 
foretellers  of  future  events,  and  guides  and  advisers 
of  the  social  and  [jolitical  life  of  the  people  who 
were  contemporary  with  them  (2  K.  ii.  9;  2  Chr. 
xxiy.  20;  Neb.  ix.  30,  &c.).  In  their  writings  are 
found  abundant  predictions  of  the  ordinary  opera- 
tions of  the  Spirit  which  were  to  be  most  frequent 
in  later  times,  by  which  holiness,  justice,  peace,  and 
consolation  were  to  be  spread  tliroughout  the  world 
(Is.  xi.  2,  xlii.  1,  Ixi.  1,  &c.). 

Even  after  the  closing  of  the  canon  of  the  O.  T. 
•J»e  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  world  con- 


SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 

tinned  to  lie  acknowledged  by  Jewish  writers  (Wisd 
i.  7,  ix.  17;  Philo,  De  Giyani.  5;  and  see  liidley. 
Moyer  Lectures,  Serm.  ii.  p.  81,  &c.). 

In  the  N.  T.,  both  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord 
and  in  the  narratives  of  the  events  which  preceded 
his  ministry  and  occurred  in  its  course,  the  exist- 
ence and  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  frequently 
revealed,  and  are  mentioned  in  such  a  manner  as 
shows  that  these  facts  were  part  of  the  con}mon 
belief  of  the  Jewish  people  at  that  time.  Theirs 
was,  in  truth,  the  ancient  faith,  but  more  generally 
entertained,  which  looked  upon  prophets  as  inspired 
teachers,  accredited  by  the  power  of  working  signs 
and  wonders  (see  Nitzsch,  Chrisll.  Lelire,  §  84). 
It  was  made  plain  to  the  understanding  of  the  Jews 
of  that  age  that  the  same  Spirit  who  wrought  of 
old  amongst  tbe  jieople  of  God  was  still  at  work. 
"  The  Dove  forsook  the  ark  of  Moses  and  fixed  its 
dwelling  in  the  Church  of  Christ  "  (Bull,  On  Justi- 
fciition.  Diss.  ii.  ch.  xi.  §  7).  The  gifts  of  inira^ 
eles,  prediction,  and  teaching,  which  had  cast  a 
fitful  lustre  on  the  times  of  the  great  Jewish 
prophets,  were  manifested  with  remarkable  vigor  in 
the  iirst  century  after  the  birth  of  Clirist.  Whether 
in  the  course  of  eighteen  hundred  years  miracles 
and  piedictions  have  altogether  ceased,  and,  if  so, 
at  what  definite  time  they  ceased,  are  questions 
still  debated  among  Christians.  On  this  subject 
reference  may  be  made  to  Dr.  Conyers  INIiddleton's 
Free  Knquirjj  into  the  Miraculous  Powers  of  the 
Christian  Church ;  Dr.  Brooke's  Examination  of 
Middlelon's  Free  Encpdry ;  W.  Dodwell's  Letter- 
to  MiddleUm  ;  Bp.  Douglas's  Criterion;  J.  H.  New- 
man's Essay  on  Miracles,  etc.  With  respect  to  the 
gifts  of  teaching  l)estowed  both  in  early  and  later 
ages,  compare  Neander,  Planting  <f  Christianity, 
h.  iii.ch.  v.,  with  Horsley,  Sermons,  xiv..  Potter, 
On  Church  Government,  ch.  v.,  and  Hooker,  Eccl. 
Polity,  V.  72,  §§  5-8. 

The  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Incarnate 
Son  of  God  (see  Oxford  translation  of  '1  reatisesof 
Athanasiiis,  p.  190,  note  d)  is  a  subject  for  reverent 
contemplation  rather  than  precise  definition.  By 
the  S|)irit  tiie  redemption  of  mankind  was  made 
known,  though  imperfectly,  to  the  prophets  of  old 
(2  Pet.  i.  21),  and  through  them  to  the  people  of 
(iod.  And  when  the  time  for  the  Incarnation  had 
arrived,  the  miraculous  conception  of  the  Kedeemer 
(Matt.  i.  18)  was  the  work  of  the  Spirit;  by  the 
Spirit  He  was  anointed  in  the  womb  or  at  baptism 
(Acts  X.  38;  cf.  Pearson,  On  the  Creed,  Art.  ii. 
p.  120,  ed.  Oxon.  1843);  and  the  gradual  growth 
of  his  perfect  human  nature  was  in  the  Spirit 
(Luke  ii.  40,  52).  A  visible  sign  from  heaven 
showed  the  Spirit  descending  on  and  aliiding  with 
Christ,  whom  He  thenceforth  filled  and  led  (Luke 
iv.  1),  cooperating  with  Christ  in  his  miracles 
(Matt.  xii.  18).  The  multitude  of  disciples  are 
taught  to  pray  for  and  expect  the  Spirit  as  the  best 
and  greatest  boon  they  can  seek  (Luke  xi.  13).  ' 
He  inspires  with  miraculous  powers  the  first 
teachers  whom  Christ  sends  forth,  and  He  is  re- 
peatedly promised  and  given  by  Christ  *o  the 
Apostles  (Matt.  x.  20,  xii.  28;  John  xiv.  16,  x\ 
22;  Acts  i.  8). 

Perhaps  it  was  in  order  to  correct  the  grossly 
defective  conceptions  of  the  Holy  Si)irit  which 
prevailed  conmionly  among  the  people,  and  to  teach 
them  that  this  is  the  most  awful  possession  of  the 
heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  our  Lord 
himself  pronounced  the  strong  condenmation  of 
blasphemers  of  the    Holy  Ghost  (Matt.   xii.  31) 


SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 

This  has  roused  in  every  age  the  susceptibility  of 
tender  consciences,  and  has  caused  much  inquiry  to 
be  made  as  to  the  speciiic  character  of  the  sin  so 
denounced,  and  of  the  human  actions  which  fall 
under  so  terrible  a  ban.  On  the  one  hand  it  is 
argued  that  no  one  now  occupies  the  exact  position 
of  the  Pharisees  whom  our  Lord  condenuied,  lor 
they  had  not  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  baptism ;  they  did  not  merely  disobey 
the  Spirit,  but  blasphemously  attributed  his  works 
to  the  devil;  they  resisted  not  merely  an  inward 
motion  but  an  outward  call,  supported  by  the  evi- 
dence of  miracles  wrought  before  their  eyes.  On 
the  other  hand,  a  morbid  conscience  is  (jrone  to 
apprehend  the  unpardonal)le  sin  in  every,  even  un- 
intentional, resistance  of  an  inward  motion  which 
may  proceed  from  the  Spirit.  This  suliject  is  re- 
ferred to  in  Article  XVI.  of  the  Church  of  I''.ng- 
.  land,  and  is  discussed  by  Burnet,  Beveridge,  and 
Harold  Browne,  in  their  Iixposilions  of  the  Arti- 
cles. It  occupies  the  greater  part  of  Athanasius' 
Fourth  Ephtlc  tu  Senipion,  cc.  8-22  (sometimes 
printed  separately  as  a  Treati-se  on  JMatt.  xii.  31). 
See  also  Augustine,  Ep.  ad  Rmn.  Kxpusitio  iii- 
chuata,  §§  14:-23,  torn.  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  933.  Also 
Odo  L'ameracensis  (x.  d.  1113),  Da  Rlaspheniin  in 
Sp.  Sanctuni,  in  JMigne's  Patruloyia  Lnt.  \o\.  163; 
J.  Denison  (a.  d.  1611),  The  Sin  agninst  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  Waterland's  Sermons,  xxvii.  in  Works, 
vol.  V.  p.  706;  Jackson,  On  the  Creed,hk.  viii.  ch. 
iii.  p.  770. 

But  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord  is  marked  (Kph. 
iv.  8;  .John  vii.  39,  &c.)  as  the  commencement  of 
a  new  period  in  the  history  of  the  inspiration  of 
men  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  interval  between 
that  event  and  the  end  of  the  world  is  often  de- 
scribed as  the  Dispensation  of  the  Spirit.  It  was 
not  merely  (as  Uidymus  .\lex.  De  Triiiitnte,  iii. 
34,  p.  431,  and  others  have  suggested)  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  Spirifs  operations  became  more 
general  among  mankind.  It  caimot  be  .allowed 
(though  Bp.  Heber,  Lectures,  viii.  514  and  vii. 
488,  and  Warburton  have  maintained  it)  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  sufficiently  redeemed  his  gracious 
promise  to  every  succeeding  age  of  Christians  onlv 
by  pre.senting  us  with  the  New  Testament.  Some- 
thing more  was  promised,  and  continues  to  be 
given.  Under  the  old  dispensation  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  were  uncovenanted,  not  universal,  in- 
termittent, chiefly  external.  All  this  was  changed. 
Our  Lord,  by  ordaining  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  that 
every  Christian  should  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  indicated  at  once  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity from  that  time  forth  of  a  personal  comiec- 
tion  of  every  believer  with  the  Spirit;  and  (in  .lohn 
xvi.  7-15)  He  declares  the  intei^nal  character  of  the 
Spirit's  work,  and  (in  .Tohn  xiv.  16,  17,  &c.)  his 
permanent  stay.  And  sulisequently  the  Spirit's 
operations  under  the  new  dispensation  are  authori- 
tatively announced  as  universal  and  internal  in  two 
remarkable  passages  (Acts  ii.  16-21;  Heb.  viii. 
8-12).  The  different  relations  of  the  Spirit  to 
lielievers  severally  under  the  old  and  new  dispensa- 
tion are  described  by  St.  Paul  imder  the  imaujes  of 
i  master  to  a  servant,  and  a  father  to  a  son  (Hoin. 
liii.  15);  so  much  deeper  and  more  intimate  is  the 
union,  so  much  higher  the  position  (Matt.  xi.  11) 
Df  a  believer,  in  the  later  stage  than  in  the  earlier 
Isee  -L  G.  Walchius,  Miscellanea  Sacra,  p.  7(53, 
De  Spiritu  Adoptionis,  and  the  opinions  collected 
m  note  H  in  Hare's  Missimi  of  the  Comforter, 
>o\  ii.  p.  433)      The  rite  of  imposition  of  hands, 


SPIKIT,  THE  HOLY        3105 

not  only  on  teachers,  but  also  on  ordinary  Chris- 
tians, which  has  been  used  in  the  Apostolic  (Acts 
vi.  6,  xiii.  3,  xix.  6,  &c.)  and  in  all  sub.sequent 
ages,  is  a  testimony  borne  by  those  who  come  un- 
der the  new  dispensation  to  their  belief  of  the 
reality,  permanence,  and  universality  of  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit. 

Under  the  Christian  dispensation  it  appears  to 
be  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  enter  into  and 
dwell  within  every  believer  (Horn.  viii.  9,  11;  1 
.John  iii.  24).  By  Him  the  work  of  Redemption  is 
(so  to  speak)  appropriated  and  carried  out  to  its 
completion  in  the  case  of  every  one  of  the  elect 
people  of  God.  I'o  believe,  to  profess  sincerely 
the  Christian  faith,  and^o  walk  as  a  Christian,  are 
his  gifts  (2  Cor.  iv.  13;  1  Cor.  xii.  3;  Gal.  v.  18) 
to  each  person  severally;  not  only  does  He  bestow 
tbe  power  and  faculty  of  acting,  but  He  concurs 
(1  Cor.  iii.  9;  Phil.  ii.  13)  in  every  particular  ac- 
tion so  far  as  it  is  good  (see  South's  Sei'inons, 
XXXV.,  vol.  ii.  p.  292).  His  inspiration  brings  the 
true  knowledge  of  all  things  (1  John  ii.  27).  He 
unites  the  whole  multitude  of  l)elievers  into  one 
regularly  organized  body  (1  Cor.  xii.,  and  Eph. 
iv.  4-16).  He  is  not  only  the  source  of  light  to 
us  on  earth  (2  Cor  iii.  6;  lioni.  viii.  2),  but  also 
the  power  by  whom  Goil  raises  us  from  the  dead 
(Horn.  viii.  11).  All  Scripture,  l)y  which  men  in 
every  successive  generation  are  instructed  and  made 
wise  unto  salvation,  is  inspired  by  Him  (Eph.  iii. 
5;  2  Tim.  iii.  10;  2  Pet.  i.  21);  He  cooperates 
with  suppliants  in  the  utterance  of  every  effectual 
prayer  that  ascends  on  high  (Eph.  ii.  18,  vi.  18; 
Kom.  viii.  26);  He  strengtheys  (Eph.  iii.  16), 
sanctifies  (2  Thes.  ii.  13),  and  seals  the  souls  of 
men  unto  tne  day  of  completed  redemption  (Eph 
i.  13,  iv.  30). 

That  this  work'of  the  Spirit  is  a  real  work,  and 
not  a  mere  imagination  of  enthusiasts,  may  be 
shown  (1)  from  the  words  of  Scripture  to  which 
reference  has  been  made,  which  are  too  definite  and 
clear  to  be  explained  away  by  any  such  hypothesis; 
(2)  by  the  experience  of  intelli<rent  Christians  in 
every  aire,  who  are  ready  to  specify  the  marks  and 
tokens  of  his  operation  in  themselves,  and  even  to 
descrilie  the  manner  in  which  they  believe  He 
works,  on  which  see  Barrow's  Sermons,  Ixxvii.  and 
Ixxviii.,  towards  the  end;  Waterland's  Sermons, 
xxvi.,  vol.  v.  p.  680;  (3)  by  the  superiority  of 
(.'hristian  nations  over  heathen  nations,  in  the 
possession  of  those  characteristic  qualities  which  are 
gifts  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  establishment  of  such 
customs,  habits,  and  laws  as  are  agreeable  thereto, 
and  in  tiie  exerci.se  of  an  enlightening  and  purify- 
ing influence  in  the  world.  Christianity  and  civ- 
ilization are  never  far  asunder:  those  nations  which 
are  now  eminent  in  power  and  knowledge  are  all  to 
lie  found  witliin  the  pale  of  Christendom,  not  in- 
deed free  from  national  vices,  yet  on  the  whole 
manifestly  superior  both  to  contemporary  unbe- 
lievers and  to  Paganism  in  its  ancient  palmy  days. 
(See  Hare's  Miitsion  of  the  Comfwter,  Serm.  fi, 
vol.  i.  p.  202;  Porteus  on  the  Beneficial  Effects  oj 
Christianity  on  the  Temporal  Concerns  of  Man- 
kind,  in  Works,  vol.  vi   pp.  375-460.) 

It  has  been  inferred  from  various  passages  of 
Scripture  that  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  not  limited  to  those  persons  who  either  by  cir- 
cumcision or  by  liaptism  have  filtered  into  covenant 
with  God.  Ahimelech  (Gen.  xx.  3),  iNIelcliizedek 
(xiv.  18),  Jethro  (Ex.  xviii.  12),  Balaam  (Num 
xxii.  9),  ana  Job  in  the  0.  T.;  and  th«   Mat;* 


8100        SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 

(Matt.  ii.  12)  and  the  case  of  Cornelius,  with  tbe 
declaration  of  St.  I'eter  (Acts  x.  -35)  thereon,  are 
instances  showing  that  the  Holy  Spirit  bestowed 
his  gifts  of  knowledge  and  holiness  in  some  degree 
even  among  heathen  nations ;  and  if  we  may  go 
beyond  the  attestation  of  Scripture,  it  might  Le 
argued  from  the  virtuous  actions  of  some  heathens, 
from  their  ascription  of  whatever  good  was  in  thein 
to  the  influence  of  a  present  Deity  (see  the  refer- 
ences in  Heber's  Lecturts,  vi.  446),  and  from  their 
tenacious  preservation  of  the  rite  of  animal  sacri- 
fice, that  the  Spirit  whose  name  they  knew  not 
must  have  girded  them,  and  still  girds  such  as  they 
were,  with  secret  blessedness. 

Thus  far  it  has  been  aUempted  to  sketch  biiefly 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  among  men  in  all  ages 
as  it  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible.  ISut  after  the 
closing  of  the  canon  of  the  N.  T.  the  religious 
subtilty  of  oriental  Christians  led  them  to  scru- 
tinize, with  the  most  intense  accuracy,  the  words 
in  which  God  has,  incidentally  as  it  were,  revealed 
to  us  something  of  the  mystery  of  the  IJeing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  would  be  vain  now  to  con- 
demn the  superfluous  and  irreverent  curiosity  with 
which  these  researches  were  sometimes  prosecuted, 
and  the  scandalous  contentions  which  they  caused. 
The  result  of  them  was  the  formation  and  general 
acceptance  of  certain  statements  as  inferences  from 
Holy  Scripture  which  took  their  place  in  the  estab- 
lished creeds  and  in  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church,  and  which  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tians throughout  the  world  continue  to  adhere  to, 
and  to  guard  with  more  or  less  vigilance. 

The  Sadducees  are  sometimes  mentioned  as  pre- 
ceding any  professed  Christians  in  denying  the  per- 
sonal existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Such  was  the 
inference  of  Epiphanius  (Hieres.  xli.),  (Jregory  Xa- 
zianzen  (Oratiu,  xxxi.  §  5,  p.  558,  ed.  Hen.),  and 
others,  from  the  testimony  of  St.  Luke  (.Acts  xxiii. 
8).  But  it  may  be  doubted  wliether  the  error  of 
the  Sadducees  did  not  rather  consist  in  asserting  a 
corporeal  Deity.  I'assing  over  this,  in  the  first 
youthful  age  of  the  Church,  when,  as  Neander  ob- 
serves (Cli.  llUt.  ii.  -Vll,  Bohn's  ed  ),  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  so  mightily  felt  as  a  new 
creative,  transforming  principle  of  life,  the  knowl- 
edge of  this  Spirit,  as  identical  with  the  Essence 
of  God,  was  not  so  thorouL'hlv  and  distinctly  im- 
pressed on  the  understanding  of  Christians.  Simon 
Magus,  the  Montauists,  and  the  Manicheans,  are 
said  to  have  imagineil  that  tbe  promised  Comforter 
was  personified  in  certain  human  beings.  The  lan- 
guage of  some  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  though  its 
deficiencies  have  been  srreatl;'  exaggerated,  occa- 
sionally comes  short  of  a  full  and  complete  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  Divinity  of  the  Spirit.  Their 
opinions  are  given  in  their  own  words,  with  much 
valuable  criticism,  in  Dr.  Burton's  Ttstimonies  (if 
the  Ante-Nicene  Falhers  to  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  nnd  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  G/iust  (1831). 
Valentinus  believed  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  an 
angel.  The  SalieUians  denied  that  He  was  a  dis- 
tinct Person  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  lunio- 
mius,  with  the  Anonuvans  and  the  Arians,  regarded 
Him  as  a  created  Being.  Macedonius,  with  his 
followers  the  Pneumatoniachi,  also  denied  liis  Di- 
vinity, and  regarded  Him  as  a  created  Being  at- 
tending on  the  Son.  His  ]irocession  from  the  Son 
as  well  as  from  the  Father  was  the  great  point  of 
controversy  in  the  Middle  Ages.  In  modern  times 
Vhe  Socinians  and  Spinoza  have  altogether  denied 
tbe  Personality,  and  have  regarded  Him  as  an  in- 


SPIRIT,  THE  HOLY 

fluence  or  power  of  the  Deity.  It  must  suffice  in 
this  article  to  give  the  principal  texts  of  Scriptur? 
in  which  these  erroneous  opinions  are  contradicted, 
and  to  refer  to  the  principal  works  in  which  they 
are  discussed  at  length.  The  documents  in  which 
various  existing  communities  of  Christians  have 
stated  their  belief  are  specified  by  G.  B.  \\'iner 
( Compcirative  Darstelluny  des  Lehrbegrijj's,  etc., 
pp.  41  and  80). 

The  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  proved  by 
the  /act  that  He  is  called  God.  Compare  1  Sam. 
xvi.  13  with  xviii.  12;  Acts  v.  3  with  v,  4;  2  Cor. 
iii.  17  with  Ex.  xxxiv.  34;  Acts  xxviii.  25  with  Is. 
vi.  8;  Matt.  xii.  28  with  Luke  xi.  20;  1  Cor.  iii. 
16  with  vi.  19.  The  attributes  of  God  are  ascribed 
to  Him.  He  creates,  works  m.racles,  inspires 
prophets,  is  the  Source  of  holiness  (see  above),  is 
everlasting  (Heb.  ix.  14),  omnipresent,  and  omnis- 
cient (Bs.  cxxxix.  7;  and  1  Cor.  ii.  10). 

The  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  shown  by 
the  actions  ascribed  to  Him.  He  hears  and  speaks 
(John  xvi.  13;  Acts  x.  19,  xiii.  2,  &c.).  He  wills 
and  acts  on  his  decision  (1  Cor.  xii.  11).  He 
chooses  and  directs  a  certain  course  of  action  (Acts 
XV.  28).  He  knows  (1  Cor.  ii.  11).  He  teaches 
(John  xiv.  26).  He  intercedes  (liom.  viii.  26). 
The  texts  2  Thes.  iii.  5,  and  1  Thes.  iii.  12,  13. 
are  cpioted  against  those  who  confound  the  three 
persons  of  the  Godhe.ad. 

The  procession  of  the  Holj'  Ghost  from  the 
Father  is  shown  from  John  xiv.  26,  xv.  26,  &c. 
The  tenet  of  the  Western  Church  that  He  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Son  is  grounded  on  John  xv.  26, 
xvi.  7;  Kom.  viii.  9;  Gal  iv.  6;  PhiL  i.  19;  1 
I'et.  i.  11;  and  on  the  action  of  our  Lord  recorded 
by  St.  John  xx.  22.  The  history  of  the  long  and 
important  controversy  on  this  point  has  been  writ- 
ten by  PfafF,  by  J.  G.  Walchius,  Historiit  L'ontro- 
versia:  tie  Processione,  1751,  and  by  Neale,  History 
of  the  Eastern  Church,  ii.  1093. 

Besides  the  Expositions  of  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles referred  to  above,  and  Pearson.  On  tlie  Creed, 
art.  viii.,  the  work  of  Barrow  (De  Spiritu  Suncto) 
contains  an  excellent  sunmiary  of  the  virious  here- 
sies and  their  confutation.  The  following  works 
may  be  consulted  for  more  detailed  discussion: 
Athanasius,  l-pistolee  J  V.  ad  Serapimieni ;  Didy- 
mus  Alex.  De  Spiritu  Sanclo ;  Basil  the  Great, 
De  Spiritu  Sancto,  and  Adversus  Eunomium  ; 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  Orationes  de  Tlieoloyin;  Greg- 
ory of  Nyssa,  Contra  Eunomium,  lib.  xiii. ;  Am- 
brose, De  Spiritu  Sancto,  lib.  iii.;  Augustine, 
Contra  Maxindnuni,  and  De  Trinitate ;  Paschasius 
Diaconus,  De  Spiritu  Sancto ;  Isidorus,  Hisp. 
Etymoloyia,  vii.  3,  De  Spiritu  Sancto ;  Katrannuis 
Corbeiensis,  Contra  Grcecorum,  etc.,  lib.  iv. ;  Al- 
cuin,  P.  Damian,  and  Anselm,  De  Processione; 
Aquinas,  Sum.  Theol.  i.  36-43;  Owen,  Treatise 
on  the  Holy  Spirit ;  J.  Howe,  OJfce  and  Works 
of  the  Holy  S2)irit ;  W.  Clagett,  On  the  Operi'i- 
iions  of  the  Spii-it,  1678;  M.  Hole,  On  the  Gifts  and 
Graces  of  the  H.  S.;  Bp.  Warburton,  Doctrine  of 
Grace;  Gl.  Ridley,  iloyer  Lectures  on  the  Divin- 
ity and  Operations  (f  the  H.  S.,  1742;  S-  Ogden, 
Sermons,  pp.  157-176;  Faber,  Practiced  Treatise 
on  the  Ordinary  Operations  of  the  H.  S.,  1813:  Bp. 
Heber,  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Personality,  and 
Office  of  the  Comforter,  1816;  Archd.  Hare,  ,l/(ii- 
si<in  of  the  Conforter,  1846.  W.  T.  B. 

*  Though  this  subject  hardly  comes  within  tbe 
proper  scope  of  the  Dictionary,  a  few  referencei 
may  be  added   to  writers  of   different  theoiogic* 


SPOIL 

echoola.  F.  A.  Lampe,  Diss.  I.-YII.  de  Spiritu 
»aucki,  Breni.  1728-29,  4to.  Lardiier,  First  Post- 
scrijjl  to  his  Lei/er  on  the  Lof/os  (  Works,  x.  117- 
169,  ed.  1829).  (Henry  Ware,)  Use  and  Meaning 
of  the  Phrase  "  Holy  Spirit,'^  iu  tbe  Christ.  Dis- 
ciple (Boston)  for  July,  1819,  i.  2G0  ff.  Biichs- 
enscbi'itz.  La  doctrine  de  I' Esprit  de  Dieu  selon 
I'Anc.  e.t  Nouv.  Test,  Strasb.  18-10.  C.  F.  Fritz- 
Bcbe,  De  Spiritu  s'nicto  Comm.  dogm.  et  exeyvt., 
4  pt.  Halae,  1840  IF.,  reprinted  in  bis  Nova  Opusc. 
Acad.  (1846),  pp.  2;j;3-3;J7.  K.  F.  Kabnis,  Die 
Lehre  vom  heiliyen  Gifiste,  ler  Theil,  Halle,  1847. 
(.\non.,)  Die  biblische  Btdeutunij  des  Wortes  Ovist, 
Gie^sen,  1862  (26-3  pp.).  Kleinert,  Zur  alttest. 
Lehre  vom  Geiste  Gnttes,  in  the  .lahrb.f.  deutsche 
TheoL,  1867.  pp.  3-59.  .1.  B.  Walker,  The  Doc- 
trine of  the  IJoly  Spirit.  Chicago,  1869.  Art. 
irvivaa  in  Cremer's  Bibl.-lhtol.  Wiirterb.  der 
neuttsl.  Gracitdl  (1866),  and  C.  L.  W.  Grimm's 
Lex.  Gr.-Lal.  in  Libros  N.  T.  (1868).  See  also 
Von  Coelln,  Biblische  Theohiyie  (18:i61,  i.  l-'il  ft'., 
456  ft".,  ii.  97  fF.,  256  ft". ;  Neander,  Bisf.  <f  Chris- 
tian Doymas,  i.  171  ft".,  303  ff".,  lijland's  trans. 
(Bohn):  Hagenbach's  I  list,  of  Doctrines,  §§  44, 
93 ;  and  tiie  other  well-known  works  on  Biblical 
and  dogmatic  theology.  A. 

*  SPOIL,  as  a  verb  =  despoil  or  plunder  (Gen. 
xxxiv.  27,  29;  Ex.  iii.  22;  Col.  ii.  8,  &c.),  like 
spoliare  in  l.atin.  H. 

*  SPOlTu^B,  —  plunderer  (Judg.  ii.  14;  Jer. 
vi.  26,  vii.  12,  &c.).     [Spoil.]  H. 

SPONGE  {a-jrSyyos'-  sponyia)  is  mentioned 
only  in  tbe  N.  T.  in  those  passages  which  relate 
the  incident  of  "a  sponge  filled  with  vinegar  and 
IHit  on  a  reed"  (Matt,  xxvii.  48;  Mark  xv.  36), 
or  "on  hyssop"  (John  xix.  29),  being  offered  to 
our  Lord  on  the  cross.  The  commercial  value  of 
the  sjionge  was  known  from  very  early  times;  and 
although  there  appears  to  be  no  notice  of  it  in  the 
( ».  T.,  yet  it  is  probable  that  it  was  used  l)y  tbe 
ancient  Hebrews,  who  could  readily  have  obtained 
it  good  from  tbe  ^Mediterranean.  Aristotle  men- 
tions several  kinds,  and  carefully  notices  those 
which  were  useful  for  economic  purposes  (Hist. 
Aiiim.  V.  14).  His  speculations  on  the  nature  of 
tbe  sponge  are  very  interesting.  W.  H. 

SPOUSE.     [Mahiuage.] 

STA'CHYS  (Xrdxvs  [ear  of  corn]  :  Siachys). 
A  Christian  at  Itome,  saluted  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  9).  Tbe  name  is 
Greek.  '  .According  to  a  tradition  recorded  by 
Nicepborus  Callistus  (//.  P.  viii.  6)  he  was  ap- 
pointed bishop  of  Byzantium  by  St.  Andrew,  held 
the  office  for  sixteen  years,  and  was  succeeded  by 
Onesinius. 

*  STALL.     [Ckib;  Manger.] 

STACTE  C^tpD,  nalaf:  ffraKT-i):  stacte),  the 
name  of  one  of  the  sweet  spices  which  composed 
the  holy  incense  (see  F>x.  xxx.  34).  The  Hebrew 
word  occurs  once  again  (Jol)  xxxvi.  27),  where  it 
is  used  to  denote  simply  "a  drop  "  of  water.  For 
the  various  opiTiions  as  to  what  substance  is  in- 
tended by  nat(\f,  see  Celsius  (Hierob.  i.  529); 
Roseimiiiller  (Bib.  Bol.  p.  164)  identifies  the  nataf 
with  tJie  gum  of  the  storax  tree  (Utijrax  ajficinale); 
the  LXX.  cTaiCTri  (tVom  (rTci(,a),  "to  drop")  is 
the  exact  translation  of  tbe  Hebrew  word.  Now 
Dioscorides  describes  two  kinds  of  ffTaKT-fi'  one 
ig  the  fresh  gum  of  the  myrrh  tree  (Balsamo- 
iendrtm  myrrha)  nnxed  with  water  and  squeezed 


STAR  OF  THE  WISE  MEN    HOT 

out  through  a  press  (i.  74);  tbe  other  kind,  which 
he  calls,  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  prepared, 
(r«a)A7}«(Tr)s  tnvpai,,  denotes  the  resin  of  tbe 
storax  adulterated  with  wax  and  fat.  Tlie  true 
stacte  of  the  Greek  writers  points  to  tbe  distillation 
from  the  myrrh  tree,  of  wliich,  according  to  The- 
opbrastus  (Fr.  iv.  29,  ed.  Schneider),  both  a  nat- 
ural and  an  artificial  kind  were  known;  this  is  the 

moi'  derdr  ("ITT^  'HIQ)  of  Ex.  xxx.  23.  Perhaps 
tbe  ndtdf  denotes  the  stor  ix  gum ;  but  all  that 
is  positively  known  is  that  it  signifies  an  odorous 
distillation  from  some  plant.  For  some  account  of 
the  styrax  tree  see  under  Poplak.  W.  H. 

*  STAFF.     [ScEPTKE.] 

*  STAIRS,  Neb.  ui.  15;  Acts  xxi.  35.  [Je- 
rusalem, vol.  ii.  p.  1331  6.] 

STANDARDS.     [Ensign.] 

*  STARGAZERS.  [Magi;  and  see  the 
next  article.] 

STAR  OF  THE  WISE  MEN.  Until  the 
last  few  years  the  interpretation  of  St.  Matt.  ii. 
1-12,  by  theologians  in  general,  coincided  in  the 
main  with  that  which  would  be  given  to  it  liy  any 
person  of  ordinary  intelligence  who  read  tlie  ac- 
count with  due  attention.  Some  supernatural  light 
resemliling  a  star  iiad  ajipeared  in  some  country 
(possibly  Persia)  far  t«  tbe  east  of  Jerusalem,  to 
men  who  were  versed  in  tbe  study  of  celestial 
phenomena,  conveying  to  their  minds  a  supernat- 
ural impulse  to  repair  to  Jerusalem,  wliere  they 
would  find  a  new-l)0rn  king.  It  supposed  them 
to  he  followers,  and  possibly  priests,  of  the  Zend 
religion,  whereby  tbey  were  led  to  expect  a  Re- 
deemer in  tbe  person  of  the  Jewish  infant.  On 
arriving  at  Jerusalem,  after  diligent  inquiry  and 
consultation  with  tbe  priests  and  learned  men  who 
could  n:iturally  liest  inform  them,  they  are  directed 
to  proceed  to  Bethlehem.  The  star  which  they 
had  seen  in  tbe  east  reappeared  to  them  and  pre- 
ceded them  {-irporiy^v  aiiTovs),  until  it  took  up  its 
station  over  tbe  place  where  the  young  child  was 
(eois  e\6wv  idTad-q  eVai'CO  oo  ^f  rh  naiSiov). 
The  whole  matter,  that  is,  was  supernatiu-al  ; 
forming  a  portion  of  that  divine  prearrangement, 
whereby,  in  bii  deep  humiliation  among  men,  the 
child  .lesus  was  honored  and  acknowledged  by  tbe 
Father,  as  his  beloved  Son  in  whom  He  was  well 
pleased.  Thus  tbe  lowly  shepherds  who  kept  their 
nightly  watch  on  the  bills  near  to  Bethlehem, 
together  with  all  that  remained  of  the  highest  and 
best  philosophy  of  tbe  East,  are  alike  tbe  par- 
takers and  the  witnesses  of  the  glory  of  Him  who 
was  "born  in  the  city  of  David,  a  Saviour  which 
is  Christ  the  Lord."  Such  is  substantially  the 
account  which,  until  the  earlier  part  of  the  jiresent 
century  would  ha\e  been  given  by  orthodox  divines, 
of  the  Star  of  the  Magi.  Latterly,  however,  a 
very  dift'erent  opinion  has  gradually  become  prev- 
alent upon  tbe  subject.  The  star  has  been  dis 
placed  from  tbe  citegory  of  the  supernatural,  and 
has  been  referred  to  the  ordinary  astronomical 
phenomenon  of  a  conjunction  of  the  planets  .lupiter 
and  Saturn.  The  idea  oriiiinated  with  Kepler, 
who,  among  many  other  brilliant  but  nntenalile 
fancies,  sujiposed  that  if  he  coidd  identify  a  con- 
junction of  tbe  above-named  i>lunets  with  tbe  Star 
of  Bethlehem,  he  would  thereby  i)e  alJe  to  de- 
termine, on  tbe  basis  of  certainty,  the  very  difficult 
and  obscure  point  of  the  .Annus  nomini.  Kepler's 
suggestion  was  worked  out  with  great  care  aud  D3 


3108 


STAR   OF   THE  WISE   MEN 


very  great  inaccuracy  by  Dr.  Itleler  of  Berlin,  and 
the  results  of  his  calculations  certainly  do,  on  the 
first  impression,  setm  to  show  a  very  specious  ac- 
cordance with  the  phenomena  of  the  star  in  ques- 
tion. \\  e  purpose,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  state 
what  celestial  phenomena  did  occur  with  reference 
to  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  at  a  date  as- 
suredly not  very  distant  from  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  birth;  and  then  to  examine  how  far  they 
fulfill,  or  fail  to  fulfill,  the  conditions  required  by 
the  narrative  in  St.  Matthew. 

In  the  month  of  May,  b.  c.  7,  a  conjunction  of 
the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn  occurred,  not  far 
from  the  first  point  of  Aries,  the  planets  rising  in 
Chaldsa  about  3^  hours  before  the  sun.  It  is 
said  that  on  astrological  grounds  such  a  conjunc- 
tion could  not  fail  to  excite  the  attention  of  men 
like  the  Magi,  and  that  in  consequence  partly  of 
their  knowledge  of  Balaam's  prophecy,  and  partly 
from  the  uneasy  persuasion  then  said  to  be  prev- 
alent that  some  great  one  was  to  be  born  in  the 
East,  these  jMasji  commenced  their  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem. Supposing  them  to  have  set  out  at  the 
end  of  May  p..  C.  7  upon  a  journey  for  which  the 
circumstances  will  be  seen  to  require  at  least  seven 
months,  the  planets  were  obser\ed  to  separate  slowly 
until  the  end  of  -Inly,  when  their  motions  becom- 
ing retroc;rade,  they  a^ain  came  into  conjunction 
by  the  end  of  Septenilier.  At  that  time  there  can 
be  no  doubt  .lupiter  would  present  to  astronomers, 
especially  in  so  clear  an  atmosphere,"  a  magnificent 
spectacle.  It  was  then  at  its  most  brilliant  appa- 
rition, for  it  was  at  its  neai-est  approach  both  to 
the  sun  and  to  the  earth.  Not  far  from  it  would 
be  seen  its  duller  and  much  less  conspicuous  com- 
panion Saturn.  This  glorious  spectacle  continued 
almost  unaltered  for  sevend  days,  when  the  planets 
again  slowly  separated,  then  came  to  a  halt,  when, 
by  reassuuiing  a  direct  motion,  Jupiter  asjain  ap- 
proached to  a  conjunction  for  the  third  tini'^  with 
Saturn,  just  as  the  Magi  may  be  supposed  to  have 
entered  tlie  Holy  City.  And,  to  conqilete  the  fasci- 
nation of  the  tale,  about  an  hour  and  a  half  after 
8un.set,  the  two  planets  might  lie  seen  from  Jeru- 
salem, hanging  as  it  were  in  the  meridian,  and 
suspended  over  Bethlehem  in  the  distance.  These 
celestial  [ihenomena  thus  described  are,  it  will  be 
seen,  beyond  the  reach  of  question,  and  at  the  first 
impression  they  assuredly  appear  to  fulfill  the  con- 
ditions of  the  Star  of  the  Magi. 

The  first  circumstance  which  created  a  suspicion 
to  the  contrary,  arose  from  an  exairgeration,  unac- 
countable for  any  man  having  a  claim  to  be  ranked 
among  astronomers,  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Ideler  him- 
self, who  described  the  two  planets  as  wearing  the 
appearance  of  one  bright  but  diffused  light  to  per- 
sons Intvinr/  weak  eyes-  '•  So  (hiss  fuv  ein 
schwdclies  Ange  cler  eine  Planet  fast  in  den  Zer- 
stveuwKjskreis  des  andern  irat,  mithin  bekle  als  e'ln 
einziger  Stern  erscheinen  konnien"  p.  407,  vol.  ii. 
Not  only  is  this  imperfect  eyesight  inflicted  upon 
the  Magi,  but  it  is  quite  certain  that  had  they 
possessed  any  remains  of  eyesight  at  all,  they  could 
not  have  failed  to  see,  not  a  single  star,  but  two 
planets,  at  the  very  considerable  distance  of  double 
the  moon's  apparent  diameter.  Had  they  been 
even  twenty  times  closer,  the  duplicity  of  the  two 
stars  must  have  been  apparent:  Saturn,  moreover. 


a  The  atmosphere  in  parts  of  Persia  is  .so  trans- 
parent that  tlie  Magi  may  have  seen  the  satellites  of 
fupiter  with  their  naked  eyes. 


rather  confusiiii,'  than  adding  to  the  brilliance  of  hii 
companion.  This  forced  bleiyling  of  the  two  lights 
into  one  by  Ideler  was  still  further  improved  by 
Dean  Alford,  in  the  first  edition  of  'lis  very  valu- 
able and  suggestive  Greek  Testament,  who  indeed 
restores  ordinary  sight  to  the  Blagi,  but  represents 
the  planets  as  forming  a  single  star  of  surpassing 
brightness,  although  they  were  certainly  at  more 
than  double  the  distance  of  the  sun's  apparent 
diameter.  Exaggerations  of  this  description  in- 
duced the  writer  of  this  article  to  undertake  the 
very  formidable  lalior  of  calculating  afresh  an  ephtm- 
eris  of  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  and  of 
the  sun,  from  May  to  Decendjer  u.  c.  7.  The  re- 
sidt  was  to  confirm  the  fact  of  there  being  three 
conjunctions  during  the  aljove  period,  though  some- 
what to  modify  the  dates  assigned  to  them  by  Dr. 
Ideler.  Similar  results,  also,  have  been  obtained 
by  Encke,  and  the  December  conjunction  has  been 
confirmed  by  the  Astronoiuer-Koyal;  no  celestial 
phenomena,  therefore,  of  ancient  date  are  so  cer- 
taiiuy  ascertained  as  the  conjunctions  in  question. 
We  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  to  what  extent, 
or,  as  it  will  lie  seen,  to  how  slight  an  extent  the 
December  conjunction  fulfills  the  conditions  of  the 
narrative  of  St.  Matthew.  We  can  hardly  avoid 
a  feeling  of  regret  at  the  dissipation  of  so  fascinating 
an  illusion  :  but  we  are  in  quest  of  the  truth,  rather 
than  of  a  picture,  however  beautiful. 

(a.)  The  writer  must  confess  himself  profoundly 
ignorant  of  any  system  of  astrology;  but  su])posing 
that  some  system  did  exist,  it  nevertheless  is  incon- 
ceivable that  solely  on  the  ground  of  astrological 
reasons  men  would  be  induced  to  undertake  a  seven 
months'  journey.  And  as  to  the  widely-spread 
and  prevalent  expectation  of  some  powerfid  person- 
age about  to  show  himself  in  the  East,  the  fact  of 
its  existence  depends  on  the  testimony  of  Tacitus, 
Suetonius,  and  Josephus.  But  it  ought  to  be  very 
carefully  observed  that  all  these  writers  speak  of  this 
ex])ectation  as  applying  to  Vespasian,  in  A.  D.  69, 
which  date  was  seventy-five  years,  or  two  genera- 
tions after  the  conjunctions  in  question !  The  well- 
known  and  often  quoted  words  of  Tacitus  are  '•  eo 
i|iso  tempore;"  of  Suetonius,  "eo  tempore;"  of 
.losephus,  "  Kara  tIv  Kaiphv  iKelvoV,  "  all  pointing 
to  A.  1).  09,  and  not  to  u.  c.  7.  Seeing,  then,  that 
these  writers  refer  to  no  general  uneasy  expectation 
as  prevailing  in  B.  c.  7,  it  can  have  formecl  no 
reason  for  the  departure  of  the  Magi.  And,  further 
more,  it  is  qiute  certain  that  in  the  February  of  B 
c.  6U  (I'ritchard,  in  Trans.  R.  Ast.  Soc.  vol.  xxv. ), 
a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  occurred  in 
the  constellation  Pisces,  closer  than  the  one  on 
December  4,  B.  c.  7.  Tf,  therefore,  astrological 
reasons  alone  impelled  the  Magi  to  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem in  the  latter  instance,  similar  considerations 
would  have  impelled  their  fathers  to  take  the  same 
journey  fifty-nine  years  before. 

(6.)  But  even  supposing  the  Magi  did  undertake 
the  journey  at  the  time  in  question,  it  seems  impos- 
sible that  the  conjunction  of  December,  b.  c.  7  can 
on  any  reasonable  grounds  be  considered  as  fulfill- 
ing the  conditions  in  .St.  Matt,  ii  9.  The  circum- 
stances are  as  follows :  On  I  )ecember  4,  the  sun  set 
at  Jerusalem  at  5  p.  in.  Supposing  the  Mat^i  to 
have  then  commenced  their  journey  to  Bethlehem, 
they  would  first  see  .lupiter  and  his  dull  and  some- 
what distant  companion  Ii  hour  distant  from  the 
meridian,  in  a  S.  E.  direction,  and  decidedly  to  the 
east  of  Bethlehem.  By  the  time  they  can'e  tc 
Rachel's  tomb  (see  Ilobinson'a  Bibl.  Res.  ii.  568 


STATER 

H'e  planets  woukl  lie  due  south  of  them,  on  the 
meridian,  and  no  longer  over  the  bill  of  Bethlehem 
(see  the  maps  of  Van  ie  Velde  and  of  Tobler),  for 
that  village  (see  Uoliiiison,  as  above)  bears  from 
Rachel's  tomb  S.  5°  E.  +  8°  declension  =  S.  13° 
E.  The  road  then  takes  a  turn  to  the  east,  and 
ascends  the  hill  near  to  its  western  extremity;  the 
planets  therefore  would  now  l)e  on  their  right  hands, 
and  a  little  behind  them:  the  "star,"  tlierelbre, 
ceased  altogether  to  go  "  before  them  "  ;is  <t  guide. 
Arrived  on  the  hill  and  in  the  village,  it  became 
physically  impossible  for  the  star  to  st-\nd  over  any 
house  whatever  close  to  them,  seeing  tiiat  it  was 
now  visible  far  away  beyonil  the  hill  to  the  west, 
and  far  off  in  the  heavens  at  an  altitude  of  57°.  As 
they  advanced,  the  star  would  ot  necessity  recede, 
and  under  no  circumstances  could  it  be  said  to 
stand  "over"  ("  eTra^/oi '")  any  house,  unless  at 
the  distance  of  miles  fiora  the  place  where  they 
were.  Tims  the  two  heavenly  bodies  altogether  fail 
to  fulfill  either  of  the  conditions  implied  in  the 
words  ''^TpoTjyev  avTOvs"  or  "  iaTadr]  iwa.vc>M' 
A  star,  if  vertical,  would  appear  to  stand  over  any 
house  or  object  to  which  a  spectator  might  chance 
to  be  near;  but  a  star  at  an  altitude  of  57°  could 
appear  to  stand  over  no  house  or  object  in  the 
iumiediate  neighborhood  of  the  obser\er.  It  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  if  the  Magi  had  left 
the  Jaffa  Gate  before  sunset,  they  would  not  have 
seen  the  planets  at  the  outset:  and  if  they  had  left 
Jerusalem  later,  the  "star"  would  have  been  a 
more  useless  guide  than  before.  'I'hus  the  beauti- 
ful phantasm  of  Kepler  and  Ideler,  which  has  fasci- 
nated so  many  writers,  vanishes  before  the  more 
perfect  daylight  of  investigation. 

A  modern  writer  of  great  ability  (Dr.  Words- 
worth) has  suggasted  the  antithesis  to  Kepler's 
speculation  regarding  the  star  of  the  Magi,  namely, 
that  the  star  was  visible  to  the  ISIagi  alone.  It  is 
difficult  to  see  what  is  gained  or  explained  by  the 
hypothesis.  The  song  of  the  multitude  of  the 
heaveidy  host  was  published  abroad  in  Bethlehem; 
the  journey  of  the  Magi  thither  was  no  secret  whis- 
pereil  in  a  corner.  \\'hy,  then,  should  the  heavenly 
light,  standing  as  a  beacon  of  glory  over  the  place 
where  the  young  child  was,  be  concealed  from  all 
eyes  but  theirs,  and  form  no  part  in  that  series  of 
wonders  which  the  Virgin  Mother  kept  and  pon- 
dered ill  her  heart '? 

The  original  authorities  on  this  question  are 
Kepler,  De  Jesu  Clirkti  veru  nnno  natalitio,  Krank- 
furt,  1614;  Ideler,  Hnndbuch  </er  Chroiiohyie,  ii. 
398;  I'ritchard,   Mtiiioirs   of  Roy  d  Ast.   iiociely, 

vol.  XXV.  C.  P. 

*  See  The  Wise  Men  nfthe  East,  etc.  (by  F.  W. 
Upham,  LL.  D.),  N.  Y.,  18G9,  12mo.  A. 

STATER  ((TTaT-np :  staler :  A.  V.  "  a  piece 
of  money;"  margin,  "stater"). 

1.  The  term  stater,  from  'Iffrrt/xi,  is  held  to  sig- 
nify a  coin  of  a  certain  weight,  but  perhaps  means 
a  standard  coin.  It  is  not  restricted  by  the  Greeks 
to  a  single  denomination,  but  is  applied  to  standard 
coins  of  gold,  electrum,  and  silver.  The  gold  staters 
were  didrachms  of  the  later  Phoenician  and  the 
Attic  talents,  which,  in  this  denominatio.i,  differ 
Duly  about  four  grains  troy.  Of  the  former  talent 
B-eie  the  Uaric  staters  or  Darics  ((TTorrjpes  Aapei/cot, 
^apeiKoi),  the  famous  Persian  gold  pieces,  and  those 


STATER 


3109 


"  U  has  been  supposed  by  some  ancient  and  modem 
oomme^tators  that  tbe  civil  tribute  is  here  referred  to  ; 
but  by  thig  explanation  the  force  of  our  Lord's  reason 


of  Cnesus  (Kpotcriioi),  oi  the  latter,  the  stater  of 
Athens.  The  electrum  staters  were  coined  by  th( 
Greek  towns  on  the  west  coast  of  Asia  Minor;  the 
most  fanioiw  «erc  those  of  Cyzicus  (araTrjpes 
Kv(iK7]voi  t^uCiKYivoi),  which  weigh  about  248 
grains.  I'hey  are  of  gold  and  silver  mixed,  in  the 
proportion,  according  to  ancient  authority  —  for  we 
believe  these  rare  coins  have  not  been  analyzed  — 
of  three  paits  of  gold  to  one  of  silver.  The  goW 
was  alune  reckoned  in  the  value,  for  it  is  said  that 
one  of  these  coins  was  equal  to  28  .Ithenian  silvei 
drachms,  while  the  Athenian  gold  stater,  weighing 
about  132  grains,  was  equal  to  20  (20:  132  :  :  28 
184-(-  or  i  of  a  Cyzieene  stater).  This  stater  was 
thus  of  184-f-  grahis,  and  equivalent  to  a  didrachin 
of  the  iEginetan  talent.  Thus  far  the  stater  is  al- 
ways a  didrachm.  In  silver,  however,  the  term  is 
applied  to  the  tetradrachm  of  Athens,  which  was 
of  the  weight  of  two  gold  staters  of  the  same  cur- 
rency. There  can  therefore  be  no  doubt  that  the 
name  stater  was  applied  to  the  standard  denomina- 
tion of  both  metals,  and  does  not  positively  imply 
either  a  didrachm  or  a  tetradrachm. 

2.  In  the  N.  T.  the  stater  is  once  mentioned,  in 
the  narrative  of  tbe  miracle  of  the  sacred  tril)ute- 
money.  At  Capernaum  the  receivers  of  the  di- 
drachms {oi  TO  SiSpaxfJi-a.  Kaix^avovns)  asked 
St.  Peter  whether  his  master  paiil  the  didrachms. 
The  didrachm  refers  to  the  yearly  tribute  paid  by 
every  Hebrew  into  the  treasury  of  the  Temple." 
The  sum  was  half  a  shekel,  called  by  the  LX.\.  to 
'ij/xtau  Tov  5i^pixfJ-ov-  The  plain  inference  would 
therefore  be,  that  the  receivers  of  sacred  tribute 
took  their  name  from  the  ordinary  coin  or  weight  ol 
metal,  the  shekel,  of  which  each  person  ])aid  half. 
But  it  has  been  supposed  that  as  the  coined  equiva- 
lent of  this  didrachm  at  the  period  of  the  Evangel- 
ist was  a  tetradrachm,  and  the  payment  of  each 
person  was  therefore  a  current  didrachm  [of  ac- 
cunntj,  tlie  term  here  applies  to  single  p.ayments  of 
didrachms.  This  opinion  would  appear  to  receive 
some  support  from  the  statement  of  Josephus,  that 
Vespasian  fixed  a  yearly  tax  of  two  drachms  on 
the  Jews  instead  of  that  they  had  formerly  paid 
into  the  treasury  of  the  Temple  {B.  J.  vii.  (i,  §  tj). 
But  this  passage  loses  its  force  when-we  reniember 
that  the  connnon  current  silver  coin  in  Palestine  at 
the  time  of  Vespasian,  and  that  in  which  the  civi) 
tribute  was  paid,  was  the  denarius,  i/ie  trlmit- 
moni'y,  then  equivalent  to  tl^e  deb.ased  Attic  drachm. 
It  seems  also  most  uidikely  that  the  use  of  the  term 
didrachm  should  have  so  remarkably  changed  in  the 
interval  between  the  date  of  the  LXX.  translation 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  of  the  writing  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel.  To  return  to  the  narrative. 
St.  Peter  was  commanded  to  take  up  a  fish  which 
should  be  found  to  contain  a  stater,  which  he  w.as 
to  pay  to  the  collectors  of  tribute  for  our  Lord  and 
himself  (Matt,  xvii  24-27).  The  stater  must  here 
mean  a  silver  tetradrachm;  and  the  only  tetra- 
drachnis  then  current  in  Palestine  were  of  the  same 
weight  as  the  Hebrew  shekel.  And  it  is  observalile, 
in  confirmation  of  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  Evan- 
iielist,  that  at  this  period  the  silver  currency  in 
Palestine  consisted  of  Greek  imperial  tetradrachms, 
or  staters,  and  Roman  denarii  of  a  quarter  their 
value,  didrachms  having  fallen  into  disuse.  Had 
two  didrachms  been  found  by  St.  Peter  the  receivers 


for  freedom  from  tbe  payment  seems  to  1>e  complctrlj 
missed- 


3110 


STEEL 


of  tribute  would  scarcely  have  taken  them ;  and,  no 
douljt,  the  ordinary  coin  paid  was  tliat  miraculously 
supplied.  R.  S.  P. 

STEEL.  In  all  cases  where  the  word  "  steel  " 
occurs  in  the  A.  V.  the  true  rendering  cf  the  He- 
brew is  "copper."  ^l^'•1^3,  nechiisJidli,  except  in 
2  Sam.  xxii.  3b,  .lob  xx.  2-i,  Ps.  xviii.  34  [35],  is 
always  translated  "brass;"  as  is  the  case  with  the 

cognate  word  iHttTI?,  nechoslief/i,  with  the  two 
exceptions  of  Jer.  xv.  12  (A.  V.  "steel")  and  Ezr. 
viii.  27  (A.  V.  "copper").  Whether  the  ancient 
Hebrews  were  acquainted  with  steel  is  not  perfectly 
certain.  It  has  been  inferred  from  a  passage  in 
Jeremiah  (xv.  12),  that  the  "  iron  from  the  north  " 
there  spoken  of  denoted  a  sujierior  kind  of  meUil, 
hardened  in  an  unusual  manner,  like  the  steel  ob- 
tained from  the  Chalj  bes  of  the  Pontus,  the  iron- 
smiths  of  the  ancient  world.  The  hardening  of 
iron  for  cutting  instruments  was  practiced  in  Pon- 
tus, Lydia,  and  Laconia  (Eustath.  Jl.  ii.  p.  294, 
(ii:,  quoted  in  MiiUer,  llnivl.  d.  Arch.  d.  Kunst, 
§  307,  n.  4).  Justin  (xliv.  3,  §  8)  mentions  two 
rivers  in  Spain,  the  Kilbilis  (the  Salo,  or  Xaloii,  a 
tributary  of  the  Ebro)  and  C'halybs,  the  water  of 
which  was  used  for  hardening  iron  (comp.  Plin. 
xxxiv.  41).  The  same  practice  is  alluded  to  both 
liy  Homer  {Od.  ix.  393)  and  Sophocles  {Aj.  650). 
The  C'eltiberians,  according  to  Diodorus  Siculus 
(v.  33),  had  a  singular  custom.  They  bmied 
sheets  of  iron  in  the  earth  till  the  weak  part,  as 
Diodorus  calls  it,  was  consumed  by  rust,  and  what 
was  hardest  remained.  This  firmer  portion  was 
then  converted  into  weapons  of  different  kinds. 
The  same  practice  is  said  by  Beckmann  (//(i>^  of 
Inc.  ii.  328,  ed.  Bohn)  to  prevail  in  .lapan.  The 
last-mentioned  writer  is  of  oi)inion  that  of  the  two 
methods  of  making  steel,  by  fusion  either  from 
iron-stone  or  raw  iron,  and  by  cementation,  the 
ancients  were  acquainted  only  with  the  former. 

There  is,  however,  a  word  in  Hebrew,  H^ /?, 
P'ddd/i,  which  occurs  only  in  Nah.  ii.  3  [4],  and  is 
there  rendered  "  torches,"  but  which  most  prob- 
ably denotes  steel  or  hardened  iron,  and  refers  to 
the  flashing  scythes  of  the  Assyrian  chariots.     In 

Syriac  and  Arabic  the  cognate  words  (j«    i^. 

poldo,  i^%J\^,/dludh,  (ijl«j,  fuladh)  signify  a 

kind  of  iron  of  excellent  quality,  and  especially 
steel. 

Steel  appears  to  have  been  known  to  the  Egyp- 
tians. The  steel  weapons  in  the  tomb  of  Rameses 
HI.,  says  Wilkinson,  are  painted  blue,  the  bronze 
red  {Anc.  Eg.  iii.  247).  W.  A.  W. 

STEPH'ANAS  (2t€(^oi/Ss:  Stephanas).  A 
rinistian  convert  of  Corinth  whose  household  Paul 
baptized  as  the  "  first  fruits  of  Achaia"  (1  Cor.  i. 
16,  xvi.  15).  He  was  present  with  the  Apostle  at 
I'.phesus  when  he  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  having  gone  thither  either  to  consult 
!iim  .about  matters  of  discipline  connected  with  the 
Corinthian  Church  (Chrysost.  Horn.  44),  or  on 
Some  charitable  mission  arising  out  of  the  "  service 


1  Pasil    of  Seleucia,  Oral,    de    S.    Stephana.     See 

lipsenius  in  voce  ^  v3, 

''   A.  B,  D,  and  most  of  the  versions,  read  ;^aoiTos. 
The  Rce.  Text  retids  niartui. 


STEPHEN 

for  the   saints  "  to  which  he  and   his  family  had 
devoted  themselves  (1  Cor.  xvi.  16,  17). 

W.  L.  B. 

STE'PHEN  {^T4(pavos  {a  crown]  :  Stefih- 
nmis),  the  First  Martyr.  His  Hebrew"  (or  rathei 
Syriac)  name  is  traditionally  said  to  have  been 
Chelil,  or  Cheliel  (a  crown). 

He  was  the  chief  of  the  Seven  (commonly  called 
Deacons)  appointed  to  rectify  the  complaints  in 
the  early  Church  of  .Jerusalem,  made  by  the  Hel- 
lenistic against  the  Hebrew  Christians.  His  Greek 
name  indicates  his  own  Hellenistic  origin. 

His  importance  is  stamped  on  the  narrative  by  a 
reiteration  of  emphatic,  almost  superlative  phrases: 
"  full  of  faith  and  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost "  (.Acts  vi.  5) ; 
"full  of  grace*  and  power"  {i/jid.  8);  irresistible 
"  spirit  and  wisdom  "  {iljid.  10);  "  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  "c  (vii.  55).  Of  his  ministrations  amongst 
the  poor  we  hear  nothing.  But  he  seems  to  have 
been  an  instance,  such  as  is  not  uncommon  in  his- 
t^i-y,  of  a  new  energy  derived  from  a  new  sphere. 
He  shot  far  ahead  of  his  six  companions,  and  far 
aliove  his  particular  office.  L-'irst,  he  arrests  atten- 
tion l)y  the  "  great  wonders  and  miracles  that  he 
did."  Then  begins  a  series  of  disputations  with 
the  Hellenistic  Jews  of  North  Africa,  Alexandria, 
and  Asia  Minor,  his  companions  in  race  and  birth- 
place. The  sul)ject  of  these  disputations  is  not 
expressly  mentioned :  but,  from  what  follows,  it  is 
evident  that  he  struck  into  a  new  vein  of  teaching, 
which  eventually  caused  his  martyrdom. 

Down  to  this  time  the  Apostles  and  the  early 
Christian  community  had  clung  in  their  worship, 
not  merely  to  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Holy  City, 
liut  to  the  holy  place  of  the  Temple.  This  local 
worship,  with  the  Jewish  customs  belonging  to  it, 
he  now  denounced.  So  we  must  infer  from  the 
accusations  brought  against  him,  confirmed  as  they 
are  by  the  tenor  of  his  defense.  The  actual  words 
of  the  charge  may  have  been  false,  as  the  sinister 
and  malignant  intention  which  they  ascribed  to 
him  was  undoulitedly  false.  "Blasphemous" 
(^\da-(pri/iia),  that  is,  "  calumnims "  words, 
"  ai^ainst  Moses  and  against  God"  (vi.  11),  he  is 
not  likely  to  have  used.  But  the  overthrow  of  the 
Temple,  the  cessation  of  the  IMosaic  ritual,  is  no 
more  than  St.  Paul  preached  openly,  or  than  is 
implied  in  Stephen's  own  speech:  "against  this 
holy  place  and  the  Law  "  —  "  that  Jesus  of  Xaza- 
retli  shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall  change  the 
customs  that  Moses  delivered  us  "  (vi.  13,  14). 

For  these  sayings  he  was  arrested  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  the  Hellenistic  .lews,  and  brought  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  where,  as  it  would  seem,  the  Pharisaic 
party  had  just  before  this  time  (v.  34,  vii.  51) 
gained  an  ascendency. 

When  the  chai'ge  was  formally  lodged  against 
him,  his  countenance  kindled  as  if  with  the  vi^w 
of  the  great  prospect  which  was  opening  for  the 
Church;  the  whole  body  even  of  assembled  judges 
was  transfixed  by  the  siirht.  and  "  saw  his  face  as 
it  had  been  the  face  of  an  ani;el  "  (vi.  15). 

For  a  moment,  the  account  seems  to  imply,  the 
judges  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  awed  at  his  presence.'' 
Then  the  high-priest  that  presided  appealed  to  hiro 
(as  Caiaphas  had  in  like  manner  appealed  in  the 


e  Traditionally  he  was  reckoned  amongst  the  Seventh 
disciples. 

''  Well  describod  in  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Lijt  of 
S.  Paul,  i  74  ;  the  poetic  aspect  of  it  beautifully  glva 
io  Tennyson's  Two   Voices. 


STEPHEN 

Great  Trial  in  the  gospel  history)  to  know  his  own 
lentimeiits  on  the  accusations  lirouj;ht  against  him. 
To  this  Stephen  replied  in  a  speech  which  has 
every  appearance  of  being  faithfully  reported.  The 
peculiarities  of  the  st\le,  tlie  variations  from  the 
Old  Testament  histoi-y,  the  abruptness  which,  by 
breaking  off  tlie  argument,  pre\ents  us  from  easily 
doing  it  justice,  are  all  indications  of  its  being 
handed  down  to  us  substantially  in  its  original 
form. 

The  framework  in  which  his  defense  is  cast  is  a 
summary  of  the  history  of  the  .lewish  Church.  In 
this  respect  it  has  only  one  parallel  in  tlie  .V.  '!'., 
the  llth  chapter"  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  — 
a  likeness  that  is  the  more  noticeable,  as  in  all 
probrtliility  the  author  of  that  epistle  was,  like 
Stephen,  a  Hellenist. 

In  the  facts  which  he  selects  from  this  history, 
he  is  guided  by  two  principles — at  first  nj ore  or 
less  latent,  but  gradually  becoming  more  and  more 
apparent  as  he  proceeds.  The  first  is  the  endeavor 
to  prove  that,  even  in  the  previous  Jewish  hLsPory, 
the  presence  and  favor  of  God  had  not  been  con- 
fined to  the  Holy  Land  or  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem. 
This  he  illustrates  with  a  copiousness  of  detail 
which  makes  his  speech  a  summary  almost  as  much 
of  sacretl  geography  as  of  sacred  history  —  the  ap- 
pearance of  God  to  Abraham  ••  in  J/esojxit-iinirt 
befbre  he  dwelt  in  Hnran  "  (vii.  2);  his  successive 
migrations  to  Harm  and  to  Canaan  (vii.  4);  his 
want  of  even  n  i-eslin<j-pliice  for  his  foot  in  Canaan 
(vii.  5);  the  dwelling  of  his  seed  in  a  strmige  lind 
(vii.  6);  the  details  of  the  stay  in  Efjypl  (vii.  -S-l-S); 
the  education  of  Moses  in  Eyyjil  (vii.  20-22);  his 
exile  in  Mhlinn  (vii.  29);  the  appearance  in  Sinai, 
with  the  declaration  that  the  desert  fjnmnd  was 
holy  earth  {yr)  ayia)  (vii.  30-33 ! ;  the  forty  years 
in  the  wikhr-neas  (vii.  36,  44);  the  long  delay 
before  the  preparation  for  the  tabernacle  of 
l)avid  (vii.  45);  the  proclamation  of  spiritual  wor- 
ship even  after  the  building  of  the  Temple  (vii. 
47-50). 

■  The  second  principle  of  selection  is  based  on  the 
attempt  to  show  that  there  w.is  a  tendency  from 
the  earliest  times  toward  the  same  ungrateful  and 
narrow  spirit  that  had  appeared  in  this  last  stage 
of  their  political  existence.  And  this  rigid,  sus])i- 
cious  disposition  he  contrasts  with  tlie  freedom  of 
the  Divine  Grace  and  of  the  human  will,  which 
were  manifested  in  the  exaltation  of  Abraham  (vii. 
4),  loseph  (vii.  10),  and  Moses  (vii.  20),  and  in  the 
jealousy  and  rebellion  of  the  nation  against  these 
their  greatest  benefactors,  as  chiefly  seen  in  the 
bitterness  against  Joseph  (vii.  9)  and  JMoses  (vii. 
27),  and  in  the  long  neglect  of  true  religious 
worship  in  the  wilderness  (vii.  39-43). 

Hoth  of  these  selections  are  worked  out  on  what 
may  almost  be  called  critical  principles.  There  is 
no  allegorizing  of  the  text,  nor  any  forced  con- 
structions. Kvery  passage  quoted  yields  fairly  the 
sense  assigned  to  it. 

Besides  the  direct  illustration  of  a  freedom  from 
local  restraints  involved  in  the  general  argument, 
tiiere  is  also  an  indirect  illustration  of  the  same 
floetrine,  from  his  mode  of  treating  the  subject  in 
detail.    No  less  than  twelve  of  his  references  to  the 

a  Other  verbal  likenesses  to  this  epistle  are  pointed 
»ut  by  Dr.  Hovvson,  1.  77  (quoting  from  Mr.  Humphry, 
Comm.  on  the  Acts). 

b  •  This  is  overstating  the  idea.  The  dative  is  that 
if  opIoioD,  decision,  t.  e.  aoreiot  in  Qod's  view,  hence 


STEPHEN  31  1 1 

Mosaic  history  differ  from  it  either  by  variation  oi 
addition. 

1.  The  call  of  Abraham  before  the  migr<(tion  tc 
Haran  (vii.  2),  not,  as  according  to  Gen.  xii.  1,  in 
Haran. 

2.  The  death  of  his  father  aftei-  the  call  (vii.  4). 
not,  as  according  to  Gen.  xi.  32,  before  it. 

3.  The  75  souls  of  Jacob's  migration  (vii.  14), 
not  (as  according  to  Gen.  xlvi.  27)  70. 

4.  The  godlike  loveliness  {acTTelos  rw  ©eoJ) 
of  Moses*  (vii.  20),  not,  simply,  as  according  to 
Ex.  ii.  2,  the  statement  that  "  he  was  a  goodly 
child." 

5.  His  Egyptian  education  (vii.  22)  as  contrasted 
with  the  silence  on  this  point  in  Ex.  iv.  10. 

6.  The  same  contrast  with  regard  to  his  secular 
greatness,  "  mighty  in  words  and  deeds  "  (vii.  22, 
comp.  Ex.  ii.  10). 

7.  The  distinct  mention  of  the  three  periods  of 
forty  years  (vii.  23,  30,  36)  of  which  only  the  last 
is  specified  in  the  Pentateuch. 

8.  The  terror  of  ^Nloses  at  the  bush  (vii.  32),  not 
mentioned  in  Ex.  iii.  3. 

9.  The  supplementing  of  the  Mosaic  naiTative 
by  the  allusions  in  Amos  to  their  neglect  of  the 
true  worship  in  the  desert  (vii.  42,  43). 

10.  The  intervention  of  the  angels  in  the  giving 
of  the  law  (vii.  53),  not  mentioned  in  Ex.  xix.  16 

11.  The  burial  of  the  twelve  Patriarchs  at 
Shechem  (vii.  16),  not  mentioned  in  Ex.  i.  G. 

12.  The  purchase  of  the  tomb  at  Shechem  by 
Aiir.ibam  from  the  sons  of  Emnior  (vii.  16),  not,  as 
according  to  (Jen.  xxiii.  15,  the  purchase  of  the 
cave  at  Machpelah  from  Ephron  the  Hittite. 

To  which  may  be  addetl 

13.  The  introduction  of  Remphan  from  the  LXX. 
of  Amos  V.  26,  not  found  ni  the  Hel)rew. 

The  explanation  and  source  of  these  variations 
nmst  be  sought  under  the  different  names  to  which 
they  refer;  but  the  general  fact  of  their  adoption 
liy  Stephen  is  significant,  as  showing  the  freedom 
with  which  he  handled  the  sacred  history,  and  the 
comparative  unimportance  assigned  by  him  and  by 
the  sacred  historian  who  records  his  speed),  to 
minute  accuracy.  It  may  almost  be  said  that  the 
will  lie  speech  is  a  protest  against  a  rigid  view  of  the 
mechanical  exactness  of  the  inspired  records  of  the 
O.  r.  "  He  had  regard,"  as  St.  Jerome  says,  "  to 
the  meaning,  not  to  the  words." 

It  would  seem  that,  just  at  the  close  of  his  argu- 
ment, Stephen  saw  a  change  in  the  aspect  of  his 
judges,  as  if  for  the  first  time  they  had  caught  the 
drift  of  his  meaning.  He  broke  off  from  his  calm 
address,  and  turned  suddenly  upon  them  in  an  im- 
passioned attack  which  shows  that  he  saw  what  was 
in  store  for  him.  Those  heads  thrown  back  ou 
their  unbending  necks,  those  ears  closed  against 
any  penetration  of  truth,  were  too  much  for  hia 
patience:  "Ye  stiffnecked  and  uncircumcised  in 
heart  and  ears  I  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost: 
as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye.  Which  of  the 
prophets  did  not  »/o«y  fathers  persecute?  .  .  .  the 
Just  One:  of  whom  ye  are  the  betrayers  and  mur- 
derers." As  he  spoke  they  showed  by  their  faces 
that  their  hearts  (to  use  the  strong  language  of  the 
narrative)  "  were  being  sawn  asunder,"  and  they 

=  "  truly  beautiful :  "  cf  irdAis  fifyaAjj  T<p  Seu,  Jon. 
iii.  3,  in  Sept.  See  Winer's  Gr.  of  the  n'.  T.,"p.  212 
(Thayer'.s  ed),  and  Green's  Gr.  of  tne  N.  T.  p.  272 
It  is  a  form  of  the  Hebrew  superlatire.  B. 


5112 


STEPHEN 


kept  gnashing  their  set  teeth  against  him  ;  but  still, 
though  with  ditficultv,  restraining  themselves.  Me, 
in  this  last  crisis  of  his  fate,  turned  his  face  upwards 
to  the  open  sky,  and  as  he  gazed  the  vault  of  heaven 
seemed  to  him  to  part  asunder  {Sirjvoiyfieuos)-  anil 
the  Divine  Glory  appeared  through  the  rending  of 
the  earthly  veil — the  L)ivine  Presence,  seated  on  a 
throne,  and  on  the  right  hand  the  human  form  of 
"  Jesus,"  not,  as  in  the  usual  representations,  sit- 
ting in  repose,  but  standing  erect  as  if  to  assist  his 
suffering  servant.  Stephen  spoke  as  if  to  himself, 
describing  the  glorious  vision :  and,  in  so  doing, 
alone  of  all  the  speakers  and  writers  in  the  N.  T., 
except  only  Christ  himself,  uses-  the  expressi\e 
phrase,  "the  Son  of  Man.''  As  his  judges  heard 
the  words,  expressive  of  the  Divine  exaltation  of 
Him  whom  they  had  sought  so  lately  to  destrov, 
they  could  forbear  no  lonser.  They  broke  into  a 
loud  3  ell ;  they  clapped  their  hands  to  their  ears,  as 
if  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  any  more  blasphemous 
words,  they  flew  as  with  one  impulse  upon  him, 
and  dragged  him  out  of  the  city  to  the  place  of 
esecutioQ. 

It  lias  licen  questioned  by  what  right  the  San- 
hedrim proceeded  to  this  act  without  the  concur- 
rence of  the  lioman  government;  but  it  is  enough 
to  reply  that  the  whole  transaction  is  one  of  violent 
excitement.  On  one  occasion,  even  in  our  Lord's 
life,  the  .Jews  had  nearly  stoned  Him  even  within 
the  precincts  of  the  Temple  (.John  viii.  59).  "  Their 
vengeance  in  other  cases  was  confined  to  those  sub- 
ordinate punishments  which  were  left  under  their 
own  jurisdiction :  imprisonment,  public  scourgint;- 
in  the  synagogue,  and  excommunication  "  (Mil- 
man's  Hist,  of  Latin  C/iriatifniiti/,  i.  400).  See 
Conybeareand  Hovvson's  St.  Paul,  i.  74. 

On  this  occasion,  however,  they  determined  for 
once  to  carry  out  the  fidl  penalties  enjoined  by  the 
severe  code  of  the  Mosaic  ritual. 

Any  violator  of  the  Law  was  to  be  taken  outside 
the  gates,  and  there,  as  if  for  the  sake  of  giving  to 
each  i/idividual  member  of  the  community  a  sense 
of  his  responsibility  in  the  transaction,  he  was  tb 
be  crushed  l)y  stones,  thrown  at  him  by  all  the 
people. 

Those,  however,  were  to  take  the  lead  in  this 
wild  and  terrible  act  who  had  taken  upon  them- 
selves the  responsibility  of  denouijcing  him  (IJeut. 
xvii.  7;  comp.  .John  viii.  7).  These  were,  in  this 
instance,  the  witnesses  who  had  reported  or  mis- 
reported  the  words  of  Stephen.  They,  according 
to  the  custom,  for  the  sake  of  facility  in  their 
dreadful  task,  stripped  themselves,  as  is  the  eastern 
practice  on  commencing  any  violent  exertion ;  and 
ne  of  the  prominent  leaders  in  the  transaction  was 
deputed  by  custom  to  signify  his  assent"  to  the 
act  by  taking  the  clothes  into  his  custody,  and 
standing  over  them  whilst  the  bloody  work  went 
on.  The  person  who  officiated  on  this  occasion 
was  a  young  man  from  Tarsus  —  one  probably  of 
the  Cilician  Hellenists  who  had  disputed  witii 
Stephen.  His  name,  as  the  narrative  significantly 
adds,  was  SauL 

Everything  was  now  ready  for  the  execution.     It 


«  Comp.  "  I  was  standing  by  and  consenting  to  his 
leath,  and  kept  the  raiment  of  those  that  slew  him  " 
(Acts  xxii.  20). 

tt  The.se  conflicting  versions  are  well  given  in  Cony- 
beare  and  Uowson,  S.  Paul,  i.  80. 

c  The  date  of  Stephen's  death  is  unknown.  But 
tcclAeiaatical  tradition  Gx<"  it  in  the  eame  year  as  the 


STEPHEN 

wa-s  outside  the  gates  of  Jerusalem.  The  earliei 
tradition  *  ^  -.ed  it  at  what  is  now  called  the  Da- 
mascus Gate.  The  later,  which  is  the  present  tra- 
dition, fixed  it  at  what  is  hence  called  St.  Stephen's 
Gate,  opening  on  the  descent  to  the  Mount  of  01- 
i\es ;  and  in  the  red  streaks  of  the  white  limestone 
rocks  of  the  sloping  hill  used  to  be  shown  the  marks 
of  his  blood,  and  on  the  first  rise  of  Olivet,  oppo- 
site, the  eminence  on  which  the  Virgin  stood  to 
support  him  with  her  prayers. 

The  sacred  narrative  fixes  its  attention  only  on 
two  figures  —  that  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  already  no- 
ticed, and  that  of  Stephen  himself. 

As  the  first  volley  of  stones  burst  ujton  him,  he 
called  upon  the  Master  whose  human  form  he  had 
just  seen  in  the  heavens,  and  repeated  almost  the 
words  with  which  He  himself  had  given  up  his  hfe 
on  the  cross,  "  O  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit." 

Another  crash  of  stones  brought  him  on  his 
knees.  One  loud,  piercincr  cry  (e/cpa^e  fifyd\ri 
(paivri) — answering  to  the  loud  shriek  or  yell  with 
which  his  enemies  had  flown  upon  him  —  escaped 
his  dying  lips.  Again  chnging  to  the  spirit  of  his 
Master's  words,  he  cried,  "  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to 
their  charge,"  and  instantlj' sank  upon  the  ground, 
and,  in  the  touching  language  of  the  narrator,  who 
then  uses  for  the  first  time  the  word,  afterwards 
applied  to  the  departure  of  all  Christians,  but  here 
the  more  remarkalile  from  the  bloody  scenes  in  the 
midst  of  which  the  death  took  place  —  eKoi/jLrjdr), 
^'■J'tll  asleep."  •-' 

His  mangled  body  was  buried  liy  the  class  of 
Hellenists  and  proselytes  to  which  he  belonged  (oj 
evae^els),  "ith  an  amount  of  funeral  state  and 
lamentation  exjtressed  in  two  words  used  here  only 
in  the  N.  T.  {crvviKOfjucroLV  and  K0Tm6s)- 

This  simple  expression  is  enlarged  by  \^Titers  of 
the  fifth  century  into  an  elaborate  legend.  The 
high-priest,  it  is  said,  had  uitended  to  leave  the 
corpse  to  be  devoured  by  beasts  of  ])rey.  It  was 
rescued  liy  Gamaliel,  carried  off  in  his  own  chariot 
by  night,  and  buried  in  a  new  tomb  on  his  prop- 
erty at  Caphar  Gamala  (village  of  the  Camel),  8 
leagues  from  .lerusalem.  The  funeral  lamentations 
lasted  for  forty  days.  All  the  Apostles  attended. 
Gamaliel  undertook  the  expense,  and,  on  his  death, 
was  interred  in  an  adjacent  cave. 

This  story  was  probably  first  drawn  up  on  the 
occasion  of  the  remarkable  event  which  occurred  in 
A.  n.  41.5,  inider  the  name  of  the  Invention  and 
Translation  of  the  Kelics  of  St.  Stephen.  Succes- 
sive visions  of  Gamaliel  to  Lucian,  the  parish  priest 
of  Caphar  Gamala,  on  the  3d  and  18th  of  Decem- 
ber in  that  year,  revealed  the  spot  where  the  mar- 
tyr's remains  would  be  found.  Thev  were  identi- 
fied l)y  a  tablet  bearing  his  name  Clieliel,  and  were 
carried  in  state  to  Jerusalem,  amidst  various  por- 
tents, and  buried  in  the  church  on  Mount  Zion,  the 
scene  of  so  many  early  Christian  traditions.  The 
event  of  the  translation  is  celebrated  in  the  Latm 
Church  on  August  3,  probably  from  the  tradition 
of  that  day  being  the  anniversary  of  the  dedication 
of  a  chapel  of  St.  Stephen  at  Ancona. 

The  story  itself  is  encompassed  with  legend,  but 


Crucifixion,  on  the  2tDth  of  December,  the  day  after 
Christmas-day.  Tt  is  beautifully  said  by  Augustine  (in 
allusion  to  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  festivals),  thai 
men  would  not  have  had  the  courage  to  die  for  God 
if  God  had  not  become  man  to  die  for  them  (TUl«mont 
5'.  Etienne,  art.  4). 


STEPHEN 

the  event  is  mentioned  in  all  the  chief  writers  of  the 
time.  I'arts  of  his  remains  were  afterwiirds  trans- 
ported to  different  |)arts  of  the  coast  of  the  ^\'est 
—  iMinorca,  Fortuo;:il,  North  Alrica,  Aiicona,  Con- 
stantino[ile,  —  and  in  460  what  were  still  leltat  Jeru- 
salem were  translated  liy  the  Empress  iMulocia  to  a 
splendid  church  c:dled  by  his  name  on  the  supposed 
scene  of  his  martyrdom  ( rilleinont,  S.  Edenue, 
art.  5-9,  where  all  the  authorities  are  quoted). 

The  importance  of  Stephen's  career  may  be  briefly 
summed  up  under  three  heads:  — 

I.  He  was  the  first  great  Christian  ecclesiastic. 
The  appointment  of  "the  Seven,"  commonly 
(though  noOin  the  Bilile)  called  Deacons,  formed 
the  first  direct  institution  of  the  nature  of  an  or- 
ganized Christian  ministry,  and  of  tliese  Stephen 
was  the  head,  —  "  the  Archdeacon,"  as  he  is  called 
in  the  Eastern  Church,  —  and  in  this  capacity  rep- 
resented as  the  companion  or  jirecursor  of  Lau- 
rence, Archdeacon  of  Kome  in  the  Western  Church. 
In  this  sense  allusion  Is  made  to  him  in  the  Angli- 
can Ordination  of  Deacons. 

II.  He  is  the  first  murtyr  —  the  proto-martyr. 
To  him  the  name  "  martyr  '  is  first  applied  (Acts 
xxii.  "20).  He,  first  of  tlie  Christian  Cliurch,  bore 
witness  to  the  truth  of  his  convictions  by  a  violent 
and  dreadful  death  The  veneration  which  has  ac- 
crued to  his  name  in  consequence  is  a  testimony  of 
the  Bible  to  the  saeredness  of  trutli,  to  the  noble- 
ness of  sincerity,  to  the  wickedness  and  the  ioWy 
of  persecution.  It  also  contains  the  first  L'erms  of 
the  reverence  for  the  character  and  for,  the  relics  of 
martyrs,  which  afterwards  grew  to  a  height  now 
regarded  by  all  Christians  as  excessive.  A  lieauti- 
ful  hymn  by  Keginald  Heber  commemorates  this 
side  of  Stephen's  character. 

III.  He  is  the  forerunner  of  St.  Paul.  So  he 
was  already  regarded  in  ancient  times.  XlavKov 
6  5iSd.<TKa\os  is  the  expression  used  for  him  by 
Basil  of  Seleucia.  But  it  is.  an  aspect  that  has 
been  much  more  forcibly  drawn  out  in  modern 
times.  Not  only  was  his  martyrdom  (in  all  prob- 
ability) the  first  means  of  converting  St.  Paul,  his 
prayer  for  his  murderers  not  only  was  fulfilled  in 
the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  —  the  blood  of  the  first 
martyr  the  seed  of  the  greatest  Apostle,  the  pangs 
of  remorse  for  his  death  amongst  the  stings 
of  conscience  against  which  the  Apostle  vainly 
writhed  (Acts  ix.  5)  —  not  oidy  thus,  but  in  his 
doctrine  also  he  was  the  anticipator,  as,  had  he 
lived,  he  would  have  been  the  ])ropagator,  of  the 
new  phase  of  Christianity,  of  which  St.  Paul  be- 
came the  main  support.  His  denunciations  of  local 
worship,  the  stress  which  he  lays  on  the  spiritual 
side  of  the  Jewisii  history,  his  freedom  in  treating 
that  history,  the  very  turns  of  expression  that  he 
uses,,  are  all  Pauline. 

The  history  of  the  above  account  is  taken  from 
Acts  (vi.  1-viii.  2;  xxii.  19,  20):  the  legends  from 
Tillemont  (ii.  1-2-t);  the  more  general  treatment 
from  Nea'ider's  PlantiiKj  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  from  Howsou  and  Conybeare  in  The  LiJ'k  of 
St.  Paul,  ch.  2.  A.  P.'S. 

*  It  is  impossible  that  all  the  facts  in  regard  to 
the  Divine  dealings  with  man  can  have  been  pre- 
.served  in  the  sacred  records.  The  memory  of 
many  circumstances,  additional  to  the  original  rec- 
ord, must  have  been  long  kept  alive  by  tr.adition; 
and,  altiiough  gradually  overlaid  by  a  mass  of  hu- 
man fictions,  later  writers  have  frequontly  rescued 
the  facts  from  such  inventions  and  transii::*.ted 
tbem  to  us  iu  a  truthful  forui.  For  examples  of 
198 


STEFHKJST 


3113 


this,  see  Ps.  cv.  18;  2  Tim.  iii.  8;  2  Pet.  ii.  7,  8; 
(ial.  iii.  I'J;  Heb.  ii.  2;  Deut.  xxxiii.  2;  Acts  xx. 
35,  &c.  [TR.\i>rnoN,  Amer.  ed.]  It  is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  to  find  St.  Stephen  mention- 
ing some  minor  details,  evidently  already  familiar 
to  his  autlieiice,  not  recorded  in  the  Mosaic  narra- 
tive. Our  Lord's  promise  to  his  disciples  (.lolin 
xiv.  20^,  when  placed  hi  the  situation  of  Stephen, 
warrants  us  in  trusting  to  the  accuracy  of  such  sup- 
plementary information. 

Stephen's  speech,  however,  contains  some  appar- 
ent valuations  from  the  Mosaic  narrati\e,  (lointed 
out  in  the  preceding  article,  of  a  different  kind,  and 
worthy  of  a  closer  examination.  One  of  these  re- 
lates to  the  time  of  Abram's  call,  represented  by 
Stephen  as  occurring  in  Mesopotanua,  before  the 
sojourn  in  Haran.  The  alleged  inconsistency  does 
not  appear  in  Gen.  xii.  1,  according  to  the  A.  V,; 
for  the  \erb  is  very  properly  rendered  as  pluperfect 
and  not  as  perfect.  The  Hebrew  \erb  has  in  fact 
no  specific  form  for  the  pluperfect;  and  the  form 
in  Gen.  xii.  1  supplies  the  place  of  several  tenses  of 
our  western  tongues.  For  other  instances  of  the 
same  form  of  this  verb  as  pluperfect  (necessarily, 
^  "  had  said"),  see  Ex.  xxxiii  5;  IK.  xxi.  4;  Is. 
xxxviii.  21,  22.  The  same  remark  applies  of  course 
to  the  corresponding  forms  of  other  Hebrew  verbs. 
The  truth  in  this  matter,  therefore,  must  depend 
not  on  the  Helirew  tense,  but  the  context,  and 
other  Scripture  notices. 

The  most  probalile  reason  for  the  migration  of 
Terah  and  his  fanuly  is  the  one  assigned  by  Ste- 
phen —  the  Divine  command  made  known  to 
Abram  in  Ur."  We  are  not  left,  however,  to  mere 
conjecture  here;  but  have  explicit  statements,  both 
in  the  Mosaic  narrative,  and  in  other  parts  of 
Scripture.  "  I  am  the  Lortl  that  brought  thee 
out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  (Gen.  xv.  7);  "I  took 
your  father  Abraham  from  tin  other  side  of  the 
food  "  (Josh.  xxiv.  3) ;  "  who  didst  choose  Abram, 
and  liroughtest  him  forth  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chal- 
dees "  (Nell.  ix.  7).  The  positive  assertions  so 
oftftn  made  that  according  to  Gen.  xii.  1,  and  xi.  32, 
the  call  of  Abram  was  not  before  his  migration  to 
Haran,  and  not  before  the  death  of  his  father,  are 
utterly  ixratuitous.  They  are  founded  upon  an  un- 
justifiable limitation  of  the  Hebrew  tense,  and  are 
contradictory  to  other  parts  of  the  narrative.  View- 
ing Stephen  simply  as  a  pious  Jew,  evidently  a  man 
of  al>ility,  addressing  .lews  familiar  with  tlieir  own 
history,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  have 
blundered  so  grossly  in  the  facts  of  that  history 
and  the  meaning  of  words  in  the  sacred  laiiiiuage 
of  his  nation,  as  to  be  open  to  correction  at  th« 
distance  of  1,800  years  by  men  of  another  tongue. 

Another  difficulty  is  alwut  the  age  of  Abram's 
f;ither  at  the  time  of  his  nativity.  Gen.  xi.  26 
asserts:  "Terah  lived  75  years  and  begat  Abram, 
Nahor,  and  Haran ;  "  Gen.  xii.  4,  "  Abram  was 
75  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of  Haran;" 
Gen.  xi.  32,  Terah  died  at  the  age  of  205  year? 
and  Aliram  remo\ed  from  Haran  after  the  death 
of  his  father  (Acts  vii.  4).  Now  since  20.")  —  75 
=  130,  either  Alirara,  in  contradiction  to  Steplicn's 
statement,  must  have  left  Haran  before  the  death 
of  his  father,  or  else — as  was  really  the  case — 
Terah  must  have  been  at  least  130  at  the  time  of 
his  birth.      It  is  neither  to  be  assumed  that  Terah's 


a  *  For  tlie  expres.sion  of  tliis  view  by  Fhilo,  aud 
by  the  Cbristian  fathers,  see  the  r<  Terences  giTen  bv 
Wordsworth  iu  loco. 


3114 


STEPHEN 


three  sons  were  all  born  in  one  year,  nor  that 
Abrani  was  the  eldest  because  his  name  is  men- 
tioned first.  In  a  parallel  case,  Gen.  v.  32,  it  is 
said  "  Noah  was  500  years  old,  and  Noah  begat 
Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth;  but  in  (ien.  x.  21,  it  is 
expressly  said  that  Japheth  was  older  than  Shem, 
and  by  comparing  v.  32  with  vii.  11  and  xi.  10, 
we  see  that  Noah  was  at  least  502  at  Shem's  birth. 
In  both  cases  all  the  sons  are  mentioned  together 
in  connection  with  the  birth  of  the  eldest;  and  that 
one  is  mentioned  first  from  whom  the  Jews  were 
descended.  It  is  nowhere  stated  in  terms  that 
Abram  was  the  younger  brother,  but  the  iacts  of 
the  narrative  show  that  he  must  have  been  very 
much  the  younger.  Nahor  married  the  daughter 
of  Haran  ((ien.  xi.  29),  and  was  therefore  probably 
many  years  his  junior;  Isaac,  Abraham's  son,  mar- 
ried Kebecca,  the  (/ramldauijhttfoi  Nahor  through 
Bethuel  the  youngest  of  his  eight  sons  ((len.  xxii. 
20-23).  This  would  make  Abram  — notwitlistand- 
ing  his  advanced  age  at  the  birth  of  Isaac  —  much 
younger  than  Nahor,  as  he  in  turn  was  much 
younger  than  Haran.  These  facts  put  together 
imply  that  Abram  was  at  least  the  sixty  years 
younger  than  Haran  required  by  the  facts  men- 
tioned at  the  outset,  and  hence  that  Terah  was  at 
least  130  years  old  at  his  biith.  In  accordance 
with  this  was  the  Jewish  tradition  (mentioned  by 
Lightfoot,  llor.  Ileb.  in  Acts  vii.  4,  II.)  that 
Abrani  was  the  youngest  of  the  brothers.  In  ac- 
cordance with  this,  also,  is  the  fact  that  Haran, 
already  the  fether  of  a  family  (Gen.  xi.  29,  31), 
died  liefore  his  father  left  Ur  (xi.  28),  while  Abram 
must  have  been  still  a  comparatively  young  man. 

Again,  Stephen  puts  the  number  who  went  down 
into  Egypt  at  75,  in  accordance  with  the  LXX.; 
but  whether  he  took  this  number  from  the  LXX., 
or  the  text  of  that  version  has  been  altered  to  cor- 
respond with  his  speech,  does  not  matter.  In  Gen. 
xlvi.  20,  tlie  number  is  given  as  (i6,  and  again  in 
the  following  verse  as  70.  All  these  statements 
are  the  result  of  looking  at  the  same  facts  from  dif- 
ferent points  of  view.  Now,  Jacob  himself  and  Jo- 
seph with  his  two  sons  already  in  I'-gypt  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  number  to  make  00 ;  now  they  are 
included  to  make  70;  and  now  with  them  are  also 
included  (as  in  the  LXX.)  the  children  of  Joseph's 
sons  —  the  sons  themselves  having  been  taken  for 
heads  of  tribes  —  to  make  75.  Obviously  by  in- 
cluding the  wives,  and  in  other  ways,  still  other 
numbers  might  be  obtained.  Stephen,  not  stop- 
j)ing  to  discuss  the  matter,  merely  gives  the  reck- 
oning then  in  most  common  use. 

The  ]'>gyptian  education  of  Moses  is  surely  a 
necessary  consequence  of  his  being  the  adopted  son 
of  Pharaoh's  daughter  (Kx.  ii.  10);  while  the 
statement  that  he  was  "  mighty  in  words  and 
deeds  "  manifestly  refers  to  the  whole  life  and  char- 
acter of  Moses,  and  there  is  no  man  in  history  of 
whom  it  could  more  truly  be  affirmed.  AVe  know 
that  his  entire  age  was  120  years,  during  the  last 
forty  of  which  he  was  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of 
his  people.  At  exactly  what  age  he  fled  from  the 
court  of  Pharaoh  is  not  recorded.  Probability 
would  point  to  the  age  of  about  forty,  according  to 
the  tradition,  thus  making  the  three  periods  men- 
tioned by  Stephen  (vii.  23,  30,  36).  The  same 
tradition  a])pears  to  have  kept  alive  the  memory  of 
his  fear  at  the  bush  (ver.  32),  as  similar  fear  at 
Mount  Sinai  is  elsewhere  recorded  (Meb.  xii.  21). 
As  Stephen  does  not  profess  to  confine  himself  to 
the  Mosaic  narrative  he  was  rjuite  free  to  make  use 


STEPHEN 

of  what  was  true  in  tliese  traditi  fis,  as  well  as  t< 
emliody  in  his  speech  any  additional  iiiformatiou 
contained  in  the  prophetic  writings  (Am.  v.  2o,  26), 
or  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  such  as  "  the  inter- 
vention of  angels  in  the  giving  of  the  law"  men- 
tioned in  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  and  well  known  to  the 
Jews,  as  appears  from  (ial.  iii.  19,  and  Heb.  ii.  2. 
The  burial  of  ( —  not  explicitly,  "  the  twelve  patri- 
archs," but  of — )  "our  fathers"  at  Siiechem 
must  have  been  a  fact  within  the  knowledge  of 
every  Jew  at  the  time,  and  in  regard  to  one  of 
them,  Joseph,  we  have  the  express  record  of  it  in 
Josh.  xxiv.  32. 

The  only  point  in  Stephen's  speech  rhat  involves 
any  real  difficulty  is  the  purchase  of  the  tomb  at 
Shechem  by  Abralinm  of  the  sons  of  Kmmor  (Acts 
vii.  10).  The  facts  recorded  are,  that  Abraham 
Iwught  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  with  the  adjoining 
field,  "  for  a  possession  of  a  burying-place  of  the 
sons  of  E])hron  the  Hittite  "  (Gen.  xxiii.  3-20), 
and  that  Jacob  also  bought  a  field  near  Shechem 
of  the  sons  of  Emmor  (xxxiii.  18,  19).  These 
purchases  were  made  at  some  distance  of  time  from 
each  other,  and  were  made  by  diflferent  persons  of 
different  parties.  In  the  former  Jacob  was  buried 
(1.  13);  in  the  latter  Joseph  (Josh.  xxiv.  32).  and 
according  to  constant  tradition,  Jewish  as  well  as 
Christian,  also  his  brothers.  Is  it  possible  that 
Stejihen  can  have  confused  the  two  .places  and 
transactions,  together?  On  the  supposition  that 
he  makes  one  common  statement  in  regard  to  the 
burial-place  of  Jacob  and  his  sons,  and  that  he 
refers  to  the  purchases  mentioned  above,  the  diffi- 
culty is  palpable.  As  to  the  first,  his  words  are: 
"  So  .lacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  died,  he 
and  our  fathers,  and  were  carried  over  into  Sychem 
and  laid  in  the  sepulchre,"  etc.  (Acts  vii.  15,  16). 
The  sentence  may,  in  itself,  be  understood  in  either 
of  two  ways:  either  as  referring  throughout  to 
both  Jacob  and  the  patriarchs;  or  as,  in  the  num- 
lier  of  its  clauses,  dropping  out  Jacob  from  the 
latter  ones,  and  predicating  them  only  of  "  our 
fathers."  In  the  original  this  is  much  plainer; 
indeed,  by  placing  a  period  after  Trarepej  rj/j.S>v, 
the  foUovvini;  ij.fT(T4dr)aav  and  irfB-qffav  would 
naturally  take  irarepes  for  their  nominative,  and 
the  meaning,  if  at  all  dou1)tful  in  the  written  text, 
would  have  been  clear  when  spoken  by  the  living 
voice.  There  was,  too,  the  less  need  of  explicit- 
ness  because  the  burial-places  were  so  familiarly 
known  to  every  one  in  the  audience.  In  this 
therefore  there  is  no  real  difficulty.  But  Stephen 
continues,  "in  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bouLjht 
for  a  sum  of  money  of  the  sons  of  Emmor  the 
fdtlier  of  Sychem."  It  is  certain  that  this  does 
not  refer  to  the  cave  of  Machjielah  which  was  pur- 
chased of  E|ihron,  and  where  the  twelve  patriarch? 
were  not  buried.  A  conjectural  emendation  of  the 
text,  substituting  the  name  of  Jacob  for  that  of 
Abraham  has  been  suggested,  but  is  not  necessary, 
since  the  same  result  follows  from  the  supposition 
that  Abraham  did  actually  purchase  this  field, 
which,  being  reclaimed  by  the  Shechemites,  was 
afterwards  purchased  ai;aiu  by  Jacob;  and  there 
is  some  ground  for  this  supposition.  Erom  (jen. 
xii.  6,  7,  we  learn  that  there  God  appeared  to 
Abram,  and  there  he  "  builded  an  altar  unto  the 
Lord."  Now  while  he  might  have  done  this  with- 
out hesitation  in  an  uninhabited  place  (as  Jacob 
afterwards  did  at  Bethel,  Gen.  xxviii.  11-22,  xxxv. 
1),  it  is  unlikely  that  one  so  scrupulous  in  matterj 
of  property  (see  e.  g.  xiv.  23)  would  have  done  M 


STOCKS 

without  purchase  in  an  iiihaliited  region,  where 
rights  of  property  ah-eady  existed.  'I'hat  tliis  was 
the  case  at  8ychem  appears  from  tlie  statement 
(xii.  6),  '-the  Canaanite  was  then  in  tlie  land,"' 
Mid  from  the  subsequent  purchase  by  Jacob  in  tliis 
very  locality,  and  apparently  for  the  same  purpose 
(xxxiii.  18-20).  It  is  in  itself,  therefore,  not  un- 
lilcely  that  Abraham  did  make  a  purchase  there. 
Again,  this  probability  is  increased  by  the  fact  of 
Jacob's  purchase.  For  in  the  prolonged  absence 
tif  Aliram  and  his  descendants,  the  field  would 
almost  certainly  have  been  reoccupied  by  the  She- 
themites,  just  as  the  Philistines  stopped  the  wells 
dug  by  Abraham  (Gen.  xxvi.  15,  18).  And  just 
bs  lovitic  reopened  those  wells  (ver.  18),  so  Jacob 
would  have  desired  to  repossess  the  field  and  to 
rebuild  the  altar  of  his  grandfather.  A  reason  is 
thus  found  for  his  purchase  of  this  particular 
locality;  and  it  is  not  probable  that  he  would  have 
built  another  altar  there  if  Abram's  remained  un- 
disturbed. Further,  if  in  Acts  vii.  16  we  translate 
Recording  to  the  all  but  universal  Greek  usage  (in 
the  N.  T.  quite  universal),  we  must  read,  not 
"  Enniior  the  Jht/ier,"  but  "  Emmor  the  son  of 
Sychem."  Of  course  it  is  possible  that  Hanior's 
father  and  son  may  both  have  been  named  Sychem, 
but  it  is  more  likely  that  a  different  Hamor  is 
referred  to;  if  so,  then  it  is  evident  that  Stephen 
had  ill  mind  distinctly  a  purchase  made  by  Abram 
of  the  sons  of  one  Hamur,  quite  distinct  from  the 
subsequent  repurchase  by  Jacob  of  the  same  field 
from  tlie  sons  of  another  Hamor.  Such  repetitions 
of  names  are  of  no  uncommon  occurrence  in  orien- 
tal—  or  for  that  matter,  in  occidental — genealo- 
gies. On  the  whole,  then,  it  seems  that  while, 
negatively,  there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  deny  the 
previous  purcliase  of  this  field  by  Abraham,  there 
is  positively  no  inconsiderable  reason  in  favor  of 
the  supposition. 

Thus  in  Stephen's  speech  we  find  no  loose  and 
inaccurate  references  to  the  Mosaic  narrative;  Imt 
rather  a  most  careful  and  conscientious,  as  well  as 
able,  use  of  the  facts  in  the  ancient  history  of  his 
peo[)ie.  Some  of  these  facts,  Init  for  Stephen,  might 
lia\e  been  lost  to  us;  preserved  as  they  are,  they 
lead  to  still  further  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the 
patriarchal  story.  F.  G. 

STOCKS  (npSn.:?,  TD:  ^i\oy).  The 
term  "  stocks  "  is  applied  in  the  A.  V.  to  two  dif- 
ferent articles,  one  of  which  (the  Hebrew  mahpe- 
celk )  answers  rather  to  our  pillory,  inasmuch  as  its 
name  implies  that  the  body  was  placed  in  a  bttU 
position  by  the  confinement  of  the  neck  and  arms 
as  well  as  the  legs;  while  the  other  (sud)  answers 
to  our  "  stocks,"  the  feet  alone  being  confined  in  it. 
The  former  may  be  compared  with  the  (ireek  kv- 
tfxai/,  as  described  in  the  Scholia  ad  Aristoph.  Plat. 
476:  the  latter  with  the  IJomau  nervus  (Plant. 
Asia.  iii.  2,  5;  C'lpt.  v.  3,  40),  which  admitted, 
however,  of  being  converted  into  a  species  of  tor- 


STOICS 


B115 


a  *  The  term  in  Acta  xvi.  24  is  ^v\ov.  The  writer 
was  told  at  Kavatla  (Neapolis),  that  this  is  still  a  coai- 
mon  mode  of  punishment  in  that  part  of  Greece. 

H. 

6  E.  g.  Seneca,  De  Clem.  §  5  :  "  Peecavimus  om- 
nes  .  .  .  nsi'.  deliquimus  tantum  sed  ad  extreuium 
pvi  delinquemus.'-'  Rom.  iii.  23  :  "  Pe.ccaverunt  oin- 
res  "   .   .  .  . 

Ep.  i.  :  "  Quem  mihi  dabis  ....  qui  intelligat  se 
Hwlidie  mori?"     Rom.  XT.  31:   "Quotiilie  manor  ^^ 

ZU   Vit.  beata.,  §  12:   "  Laudaut  euim  [Epicur«i]  ea 


ture,  as  the  legs  could  be  drawn  asunder  at  the  will 
of  the  jailer  (Biscoe  un  Acts,  p.  229).  The  prophet 
Jeremiah  was  confined  in  the  first  sort  (Jer.  xx. 
2),  which  appears  to  have  been  a  common  mode  of 
punishment  in  his  day  (Jer.  xxix.  26),  as  the  pris- 
ons contained  a  chamber  lor  the  special  purpose, 
termed  "  the  house  of  the  pillory  "  (2  Chr.  xvi. 
10;  A.  V.  "prison-house").  The  stocks  {snd) 
are  noticed  in  Job  xiii.  27,  xxxiii.  11,  and  Acts 
xvi.  24."  The  term  used  in  Prov.  vii.  22  (A.  V. 
"stocks")  more   properly  means  a  fetter. 

W.  L.  B. 

STOICS.  The  Stoics  and  Epicureans,  who  are 
mentioned  together  in  Acts  xvii.  18,  represent  the 
two  opposite  schools  of  practical  philosophy  which 
survived  the  fall  of  higher  speculation  in  Greece 
[Philosophy].  The  Stoic  school  was  founded 
by  Zeno  of  Citium  (cir.  B.  c.  280),  and  derived  its 
name  from  the  painted  portico  (r;  irotKiAT]  trroa, 
Diog.  L.  vii.)  in  which  he  taught.  Zeno  was  fol- 
lowed by  Cleanthes  (cir.  B.  c.  260),  Cleanthes  by 
Chrysippus  (cir.  b.  c.  240),  who  was  regarded  as 
the  intellectual  founder  of  the  Stoic  system  (Uiog. 
L.  vii.  IS^i).  Stoicism  soon  found  an  entrance  at 
Home.  Diogenes  Babylonins,  a  scholar  of  Chry- 
sippus, was  its  representative  in  the  famous  em- 
bassy of  philosophers,  b.  c.  161  (Aulus  Gellius, 
;V.  .4.  vii.  14);  and  not  long  afterwards  Panwtius 
was  the  friend  of  Scipio  Africanus  the  younger,  and 
many  other  leading  men  at  Rome.  His  successor 
Posidonius  numbered  Cicero  and  Pompey  among 
his  scholars;  and  under  the  empire  stoicism  was 
not  unnaturally  connected  with  republican  virtue 
Seneca  (tA.  r>.  65)  and  Mu.sonius  (Tac.  Jlisl.  iii. 
81)  did  much  to  popularize  the  ethical  teaching  of 
the  school  by  their  writings;  but  the  true  glory  of 
the  later  Stoics  is  Epictetus  (fcir.  A.  d.  115),  the 
records  of  whose  doctrine  form  the  noblest  mon- 
ument of  heathen  morality  (iLpidctem  Philus. 
Miynum.  ed.  Schweighiiuser,  1799).  The  precepts 
of  Epictetus  were  adopted  by  Marcus  Aurelius 
(a.  d.  121-180)  who  endeavored  to  shape  his  pub- 
lic life  by  their  guidance.  With  this  kst  effort 
stoicism  reached   its  climax  and  its  end.      [Phi- 

LO.SOPHY.] 

The  ethical  system  of  the  Stoics  has  been  com- 
monly supposed  to  have  a  close  connection  with 
Christian  inorality  (Gataker,  Antoninus,  Prcef. ; 
Meyer,  Sluic.  Eth.  c.  Christ,  compar.,  1823),  and 
the  outward  similarity  of  Isolated  precepts  is  very 
close  and  worthy  of  notice.''  But  the  morality  of 
stoicism  is  essentially  based  on  pride,  that  of  Chris- 
tianity on  humility;  the  one  upholds  individu;d  in- 
dependence, the  other  absolute  faith  in  another;  the 
one  looks  for  consolation  in  the  issue  of  fate,  the 
other  ill  Providence;  the  one  is  limited  by  periods 
of  cosmical  ruin,  the  other  is  consummated  in  a 
personal  resurrection  (Acts  xvii.  18). 

But  in  spite  of  the  fuiidanient;il  error  of  stoicism, 
which  lies  in  a  supreme  egotism,'-'  the  teaching  o£ 


quibus  erubescebant  et  vitio  gloriantur."  Phil.  iii. 
19:  "Quorum   ....  gloria  in  cont'usione  eorum." 

Ibid.  §  15  :  "  In  regno  nati  sumus  :  Deo  parere  lib- 
ertas  est." 

Kpict.  Diss.  ii.  17,  22  :  oTrXis  fkri&iv  oAAo  Se'Ae  t)  a  6 
9eb?  SeAcu 

Anton,  vii.  74  :  njj  ovv  K6.iJ.ve  w<J)eAoi5fAei'o?  iv  <^ 
u*(/)eAec9. 

c  Seneca,  Df  Vit.  beata,  §  8  :  "  Incorruptus  vir  Bit 
exteruis  et  insupenibilis  miralorijue  tantum  sui,  fldenf 
auimo  atque  iu  utruuique  paratus  urtilex  viC»." 


B116 


STOMACHER 


this  school  gave  a  wide  currency  to  the  nolile  doc- 
trines of  (he  Fatherhood  of  (iod  (Cleaiithes,  Hymn. 
31-38;  conip.  Acts  xvii.  28),  the  common  bonds 
of  mankind  (Anton,  iv.  4),  tlie  sovereignty  of  the 
soul.  iS'or  is  it  to  be  forgotten  that  tlie  earlier 
Stoics  were  very  closely  connected  with  the  East, 
from  which  much  of  the  form,  if  not  of  the  essence, 
of  their  doctrines  seems  to  have  Ijeeii  derived.  Zeno 
himself  was  a  native  of  Citiuni,  one  of  the  oldest 
Phoenician  settlements.  [Chittui.]  His  successor 
Ciirysippus  came  from  Soli  or  Tarsus ;  and  Tarsus 
is  mentioned  as  the  birthplace  of  a  second  Zeno  and 
Antipater.  Diogenes  came  from  Seleucia  in  Baby- 
lonia, Posidonius  from  Apamea  in  S}ria,  and  Epic- 
tetus  from  the  Phrygian  Hierapolis  (comp.  Sir  A. 
Grant,  The  Ancient  Stoics,  Ox/'wd  £ssays,  1858, 
p.  8-2). 

The  chief  authorities  for  the  opinions  of  the 
Stoics  are  Diog.  Laert.  vii. ;  Cicero,  Be  Fin. ; 
Plutarch,  Be  Stoic,  repugn.  ;  Be  plac.  Philos. 
adv.  Stoic. ;  Sextus  Empiricus ;  and  the  remains 
of  Seneca,  Epictetus,  and  Marcus  Aurelius.  Gat- 
aker,  in  his  edition  of  the  Meditaiiims  of  M.  Au- 
relius, has  traced  out  witii  the  greatest  care  the 
parallels  which  they  ofler  to  Christian  doctrine. 

B.  F.  W. 

*  See  Merivale,  nistory  of  the  Romans  (vi.  190- 
233),  for  an  account  of  the  Stoics  and  their  prin- 
ciples. Some  ha\e  supposed  that  Seneca  may  have 
lieeu  one  of  the  members  of  the  emperor's  house- 
hold, to  whom  Paul  refers  in  l^hil.  iv.  22.  On 
this  question  of  the  possibility  of  an-  acquaintance 
between  the  Apostle  and  the  philosopher  during 
Paul's  captivity  at  Eome,  Professor  Lightfoot  has 
an  extended  Bissertation  in  his  Comiiienl'iry  on 
Philippians  (pp.  268-331).  The  discussion  in- 
volves an  elaborate  examination  of  the  spirit  and 
teachings  of  Stoicism  as  compared  with  those  of  the 
Gospel.  The  fourteen  letters  said  to  be  written  by 
Seneca  to  St.  Paul  are  undoubted  forgeries.     H. 

STOMACHER  (b'^rn?).  The  Heb.  pelh- 
ny{^  descrilies  some  article  of  female  attire  (Is.  iii. 
2i).  the  character  of  which  is  a  mere  matter  of 
conjecture.  'J'he  LXX.  describes  it  as  a  variegated 
tunic  {xiT(i>v  /xeaoTTopcpvpos);  the  Vulg.  as  a  spe- 
cies of  girdle  {fiscin  pectoralis).  The  word  is 
evidently  a  compound,  but  its  elements  are  uncer- 
tain.    Gesenius  {T/ies.  p.   1137)    derives  it  from 

V"*!!   Tf^iHQ,  with  very  much  the  same  sense  as  in 

the  LXX.;  Saalschiitz  {Archdol.  i.  30)  from '^nS 

V"*!!,  with  the  sense  of  "undisguised  lust,"  as  ap- 
plied to  some  particular  kind  of  dress.  Other 
explanations  are  given  in  Gesen.  Tlies.  1.  c. 

W.  L.  B. 

STONES  Cj?^).  The  uses  to  which  stones 
were  applied  in  ancient  Palestine  were  very  various. 
(1.)  They  were  used  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of 
building,  and  in  this  respect  the  most  noticeable 
point  is  the  very  large  size  to  which  they  occasion- 
ally run  (Mark  xiii.  1).  Robinson  gives  the  di- 
mensions of  one  as  24  feet  long  by  6  feet  broad 
and  3  feet  high  {Res.  i.  233;  see  also  p.  284,  note). 
For  most  public  edifices  hewn  stones  were  used :  an 
exception  was  made  in  regard  to  altars,  which  were 
to  ho  built  of  unhewn  stone  (Ex.  xx.  25;  Deut. 
ixvii.  5;  Josh.  viii.  31),  probably  as  being   in  a 


•  -|.1!J  01  -1!J. 


STONES 

more  natural  state.  The  Phoenicians  were  pajtio- 
ularly  fiimous  for  their  skill  in  hewing  stone  (2 
Sam.  V.  11 ;  1  K.  v.  18).  Stones  were  selected  o( 
certain  colors  in  order  to  form  oinamental  string- 
courses: in  1  Chr.  xxix.  2  we  tjnd  enumerated 
'•  onyx  stones  and  stones  to  be  set,  ghstering  stones 
(lit.  stones  of  eye-pdini),  and  of  divers  colors  (i.  e. 
streaked  with  veins),  and  all  manner  of  precious 
stones,  and  marble  stones"  (comp.  2  Chr.  iii.  6). 
They  were  also  employed  for  pavements  (2  K.  xvi. 
17;  comp.  Esth.  i.  U).  (2.)  Large  stones  were 
used  for  closing  the  entrances  of  caves  (Josh.  x. 
18;  Uan.  vi.  17),  sepulchres  (Matt,  xxvii.  60; 
John  xi.  38,  xx.  1),  and  springs  (Gen.  xxix.  2). 
(3. )  Flint  stones  "  occasionally  served  the  purpose 
of  a  knife,  particularly  for  circumcision  and  similar 
olijects  (Ex.  iv.  25;  Josh.  v.  2,  3;  comp.  Herod,  ii. 
80;  Plutarch,  Nicias,  p.  13;  CatuU.  Carin.  Ixii.  5). 
(4.)  Stones  were  further  used  as  a  munition  of 
war  for  slings  (1  Sam.  xvii.  40,  49),  catapults  (2 
Chr.  xxvi.  14),  and  bows  (Wisd.  v.  22;  comp.  1 
Mace.  vi.  51);  as  boundary  marks  (Deut.  xix.  14, 
xxvii.  17;  Job  xxiv.  2;  Prov.  xxii.  28,  xxiii.  10); 
such  were  probably  the  stone  of  Bohan  (Josh.  xv. 
6,  xviii.  17),  the  stone  of  Abel  (1  Sam.  vi.  15,  18), 
the  stone  Ezel  (1  Sam.  xx.  19),  the  great  stone  by 
Gibeon  (2  Sam.  xx.  8),  and  the  stone  Zoheleth  (1 
Iv.  i.  9):  as  weights  for  scales  (Deut.  xxv.  13; 
Prov.  xvi.  11);  and  for  mills  (2  Sam.  xi.  21).  (5.) 
Large  stonea  were  set  up  to  commemorate  any  re- 
markable events,  as  by  Jacob  at  Bethel  after  his 
interview  with  Jehovah  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxv.  14), 
and  again  when  he  made  the  covenant  with  l.aban 
(Gen.  xxxi.  45);  by  Joshua  after  the  passage  of  the 
Jordan  (Josh.  iv.  9);  and  by  Samuel  in  token  of 
his  victory  over  the  I'hilistines  (1  Sam.  vii.  12). 
Similarly  the  Egyptian  monarchs  erected  their  sle- 
ke  at  the  farthest  point  they  reached  (Herod,  ii. 
106).  Such  stones  were  occasionally  consecrated 
by  anointing,  as  ii  stanced  in  the  stone  erected  at 
Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  18).  A  similar  practice  ex- 
isted in  heathen  countries,  and  by  a  singular  coin- 
cidence the.se  stones  were  described  in  Phcenicia  by 
a  name  very  similar  to  Bethel,  namely,  bmlylin 
(^aiTvAia),  wiience  it  has  been  surmised  that  the 
heathen  name  was  derived  from  the  Scriptural  one, 
or  vice  versa  (Kalisch's  Coinm.  in  Lien.  1.  c.). 
But  neither  are  the  names  actually  identical,  nor 
are  the  associations  of  a  kindred  nature;  the  Oce- 
lylia  were  meteoric  stones,  and  derived  their  sanc- 
tity from  the  belief  that  they  had  fallen  from  heaven, 
whereas  the  stone  at  Bethel  was  simply  commemo- 
rative. [Bethkl;  Idol.]  The  only  point  of  re- 
semblance between  the  two  consists  in  the  custom 
of  anointing  —  the  anointed  stones  (A1601  AiTrapoOj 
which  are  frequently  mentioned  by  ancient  wi'iters 
as  objects  of  divine  honor  (Arnob.  adv.  Gent.  i.  39; 
Euseb.  Prcep.  Evnn.  i.  10,  §  18;  Phn.  xxxvii.  51), 
being  probalily  aiirolites.  (6.)  That  the  worship  of 
stones  prevailed  among  the  heathen  nations  sur- 
rounding Palestine,  and  was  borrowed  from  them 
by  apostate  Israelites,  appears  from  Is.  Ivii.  6,  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinary  rendering  of  the  passage; 
but  the  original  >>  admits  of  anotlier  sense,  "  in  the 
smooth  (clear  of  wood)  places  of  the  valley,"  and 
no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  a  peculiar  term  intro- 
duced partly  for  the  sake  of  alliteration.  The  eben 
masciili,''  noticed  in  Lev.  xxvi.  1  (A.  V.  "image  of 
stone  "),  has  again  been  identified  with  the  bcetylia, 


*  "nn^n  bnr'^nVc's. 


n^sipp  PJ5. 


STONES,  PRECIOUS 

ie  doubtful  term  mnscU/i  (conip.  Num.  xxxiii.  52, 
■'picture";  Kz.  viii.  12,  "  imagery ")  beiiit;  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  devices  engraven  on  the  stone. 
[Idol.]  The  statue  {nuUslsebah  «)  of  Bail  is  said 
to  have  been  of  stone  and  of  a  conical  shape  (Movers, 
Phaen.  i.  G73),  but  this  is  hardly  reconcilable  with 
the  statement  of  its  being  burnt  in  2  K.  x.  2(5  (the 
correct  reading  of  which  would  be  7n(iistsi^bah,  and 
not  mat^iseboth).  (7.)  Heaps  of  stones  were  piled 
up  on  various  occasions,  as  in  token  of  a  treaty 
(Gen.  xxxi.  46),  in  which  case  a  certain  amount  of 
sanctity  probably  attached  to  them  (cf.  Houi.  Od. 
xvi.  471);  or  over  the  grave  of  some  notorious  of- 
fender (.losh.  vii.  20,  viii.  29;  2  Sam.  xviii.  17;  see 
Propert.  iv.  5,  75,  for  a  similar  custom  among  the 
Romans).  The  size  of  some  of  these  heaps  becomes 
very  great  from  the  custom  prevalent  among  the 
Arabs  that  each  passer-by  adds  a  stone;''  Burck- 
hardt  mentions  one  near  Damascus  20  ft.  long,  2  ft. 
high,  and  -3  ft.  broad  {Sijiia,  p.  4G).  (8.)  The 
'■  white  stone  "  noticed  in  Ilev.  ii.  17  has  been  va- 
riously regarded  as  referring  to  the  pebble  of  acquit- 
tal u.sed  in  the  Greek  courts  (Ov.  Met.  xv.  41);  to 
the  lot  cast  in  elections  in  Greece:  to  both  these 
combined,  the  )cliUe  conveying  tlie  notion  of  acquit- 
tal, tlie  stone  that  of  election  (Bengel,  Gnuiu.):  to 
the  stones  in  the  high-priest's  breastplate  (Zlillig); 
to  tlie  tickets  presented  to  the  victors  at  the  public 
games,  securing  them  maintenance  at  the  public 
expense  (Hanunond);  or,  lastly,  to  the  custom  of 
writing  on  stones  (.-Vlford  in  I.  c).  {[).)  The  use 
of  stones  for  (ablets  is  aUuded  to  in  Ex.  xxiv.  12, 
and  Josh.  viii.  32.  (10.)  Stones  for  striking  fire 
are  mentioned  in  2  Mace.  x.  3.  (11.)  Stones  were 
prejudicial  to  the  operations  of  husbandry :  hence  the 
custom  of  spoiling  an  enemy's  field  by  throwing 
quantities  of  stones  upon  it  (2  K.  iii.  lU,  2-5),  and, 
again,  the  necessity  of  gathering  stones  previous  to 
cultivation  (Is.  v.  2):  allusion  is  made  to  both  the.se 
practices  in  Eccl.  iii.  5  ("a  time  to  cast  away 
stones,  and  a  time  to  gather  stones  ").  (12.)  The 
notice  in  Zech.  xii.  3  of  the  "  burdensome  stone  "  is 
referred  by  .Jerome  to  the  custom  of  lilting  stones 
as  an  exercise  of  strength,  which  he  describes  as 
being  practiced  in  Judaia  in  his  day  (comp.  Kcclus. 
vi.  21);  but  it  may  equally  well  be  explained  of  a 
large  corner-stone  as  a  symbol  of  strength  (Is. 
xxviii.  16). 

Stones  are  used  metaphorically  to  denote  hard- 
ness or  insensibility  (1  Sam.  xxv.  37;  Ez.  xi.  19, 
xxxvi.  26),  as  well  as  firmness  or  strength,  as  in 
Gen.  xlix.  24,  where  "  the  stone  of  Israel  "  is  equiv- 
alent to  "the  rock  of  Israel  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  3;  Is. 
Kxx.  29).  The  members  of  the  Church  are  called 
"  living  stones,"  as  contributing  to  rear  that  living 
temple  in  which  Christ,  himself  '-a  living  stone,'' 
is  the  chief  or  head  of  the  corner  (Kph.  ii.  20-22; 
1  Pet.  ii.  4-8).  W.  L.  B. 

STONES,  PRECIOUS.  The'  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  separate  articles,  such  as  Agate, 
Cakuuncle,  Saudonyx,  etc.,  for  such  informa- 
tion as  it  has  been  possible  to  obtain  on  the  various 
yams  mentioned  in  the  Bible.     The  identification 


T    ••    - 

f>  A  reference  to  this  practice  is  supposed  by  Gese- 
I'us  to  be  coiitained  in  Prov.  x.wi.  8,  wliich  he  ren- 
ters "  as  a  b.ig  of  gems  in  a  heap  of  stones  "  ( 7'/it,s- 
.).  12(33).  The  Vulgate  h.as  a  curious  version  of  this 
paRsage  :  "  Sicut  qui  mittit  lapidem  in  acervuui  Mer 
»uri*." 


STONES,  PRECIOUS        3117 

of  many  of  the  Hebrew  names  of  precious  stones 
is  a  task  of  considerable  difficulty:  sometimes  we 
have  no  further  clew  to  aid  us  in  the  determination 
of  a  name  than  the  mere  derivation  of  the  word, 
which  derivation  is  always  too  vague  tc  be  of  any 
service,  as  it  merely  expresses  some  quality  often 
common  to  many  precious  stones.  As  lar,  how- 
ever, as  regards  the  stones  of  the  high-priest's 
breastplate,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  au- 
thority of  Josephus,  who  had  frequent  opportuni- 
ties of  seeing  it  worn,  is  preferable  to  any  other. 
The  Vulgate  agrees  with  his  nomenclature,  and  in 
.Jerome's  time  the  breastplate  was  still  to  be  in- 
spected in  the  Temple  of  Concord:  hence  this 
agreement  of  the  two  is  of  great  weight.*^  The 
modern  Arabic  names  of  the  more  usual  gems, 
which  have  probalily  remained  fixed  the  last  2,000 
years,  aflbi'd  us  also  some  approximations  to  the 
Hebrew  nomenclature;  still,  as  it  was  intimated 
above,  there  is  much  that  can  only  be  regarded  as 
conjecture  in  attempts  at  identification.  Precious 
stones  are  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures; they  were  known  and  very  hit;lily  valued  in 
the  earliest  times.  The  onyx-stone,  &ie  specimens 
of  which  are  still  of  great  value,  is  expressly  men- 
tioned hy  Moses  as  being  found  in  the  land  of 
Havilah.  The  sard  and  sardonyx,  the  amethyst 
or  rose- quartz,  with  many  agates  and  other  varie- 
ties of  quartz,  were  doubtless  the  best  known  and 
most  readily  procured.  "  Onyx-stones,  and  stones 
to  be  set,  glistering  stones  and  of  divers  colors, 
and  all  manner  of  precious  stones  "  were  among 
the  articles  collected  by  David  for  the  temple  (1 
Chr.  xxix.  2).  The  Tyriaiis  traded  in  precious 
stones  supplied  by  Syria  (Ez.  xxvii.  16),  and  the 
robes  of  their  king  were  covered  with  the  most 
brilliant  gems.  The  merchants  of  Sheba  and 
Raamah  in  South  Arabia,  and  doubtless  India  and 
Ceylon,  supplied  the  markets  of  Tyre  with  various 
precious  stones. 

The  art  of  engraving  on  precious  stones  was 
known  from  the  very  earliest  times.  Sir  G.  Wil- 
kinson says  {Anc.  K<jypt.  ii.  67,  Lond.  1854), 
"  The  Israelites  learnt  the  art  of  cutting  and  en- 
graving stones  from  the  Egyptians."  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  they  did  learn  much  of  the  art 
from  this  skillful  nation,  but  it  is  probable  that  it 
was  known  to  them  long  before  their  sojourn  in 
Egypt;  for  we  read  in  (ien  xxxviii.  18,  that  when 
Tainar  desired  a  pledge  Judah  gave  her  his  signet, 
which  we  may  safely  conclude  was  engraved  with 
some  device.  The  twelve  stones  of  the  breastplate 
were  engraved  each  one  with  the  name  of  one  of 
the  tribes  (Ex.  xxviii.  17-21).  The  two  onyx  (or 
sardonyx)  stones  which  formed  the  high-priest's 
shoulder-pieces  were  entjraved  with  the  names  of 
the  twelve  tribes,  six  on  one  stone  and  six  on  the 
other,  "  with  the  work  of  an  engraver  in  stone  like 
the  engrdvinjjs  of  a  siytiet."  See  also  ver.  36, 
"  like  the  engravings  of  a  signet."  It  is  an  unde- 
cided question  whether  the  diamond  was  known  to 
the  early  nations  of  antiquity.     The  A-  V.  gives 

it  as  the  rendering  of  the  Heb.  Yahdloia.  l2  7n^), 


c  The  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  .lo.'iephu.s,  are  all  agreed 
as  to  the  names  of  the  stones ;  there  is,  liowever, 
some  little  ditTerence  as  to  their  relative  positions  in 
the  breastplate:  thus  the  lao-nis,  which,  according  to 
Josephus,  occupies  the  second  place  in  the  third  row, 
is  by  the  I.X.V.  and  Vulg.  put  in  the  third  place; 
%  similar  transposition  occurs  with  respect  to  tlM 
imidvaro';  and  the  oyaTTjs  i'    the  third  row. 


m 


3118       STONES,  PRECIOUS 

DUt  it  is  probable  that  the  jasper  is  intended.  Sir 
G.  Wilkinson  is  of  opinion  that  the  ancient  Egyp- 
tians were  acquainted  with  the  diamond,  and  used 
it  for  engraving  (ii.  C7).  Ijeckmann,  on  the  other 
band,  maintains  that  the  use  of  the  diamond  was 
unknown  even  to  the  Greeks  and  liomans:  "1 
must  confess  that  I  have  found  no  proofs  that  the 
ancients  cut  glass  with  a  diamond''  {Hist,  of 
Inventions,  ii.  87,  Bohn's  ed.).  The  substance 
used  for  polishing  precious  stones  by  the  ancient 
Hebrews  and  Egyptians  was  emery  powder  or  tlie 
Buiery  stone  {Corundum),  a,  mineral  inferior  only 
to  the  diamond  in  hardness  [AdajiantJ.  There 
is  no  proof  that  the  diamond  was  known  to  the 
ancient  Orientals,  and  it  certainly  must  be  l)anished 
Irom  the  list  of  tnyravtd  stones  which  made  the 
sacerdotal  breastplate;  for  the  diamond  can  be  cut 
only  by  abrasion  with  its  own  powder,  or  by  friction 
with  another  diamond;  and  this,  even  in  the  hands 
of  a  well-practiced  artist,  is  a  work  of  most  patient 
labor  and  of  considerable  difficulty;  and  it  is  not 
likely  that  the  Hebrews,  or  any  other  oriental 
people,  weie  able  to  engrave  a  name  upon  a  dia- 
mond as  upon  a  signet  rhig.'^  Again,  .Josephus  tells 
Us  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §  5)  that  the  twelve  stones  of  the 
breastplate  were  of  great  size  and  extrao.i'dinary 
beauty.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  their 
size;  probably  they  were  nearly  an  inch  square; 
at  any   rate  a  diamond   only  half  that  size,  with 

the  five  letters  of  )vl^T  (Zebulun)  engraved  on 
it  —  for,  as  he  was  the  sixth  son  of  Jacob  (Gen. 
XXX.  20),  his  name  would  occupy  the  third  place 
in  the  second  row  —  is  quite  out  of  the  question, 
and  cannot  possibly  be  the  Yaltdloin  of  the  breast- 
plate. 

Perhaps  the  stone  called  "ligure  "  by  the  A.  V. 
has  been  the  subject  of  more  discussion  than  any 
other  of  the  precious  stones  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 
In  our  article  on  that  subject  we  were  of  opinion 
that  the  stone  denoted  was  probably  tounnulini:. 
We  olijected  to  the  "  hyacinth  stone"  representing 
the  lyncufiiua  of  the  ancients,  because  of  its  not 
possessing  attractive  powers  in  any  marked  degree, 
as  we  supposed  and  had  been  informed  by  a  well- 
known  jeweler.  It  appears,  however,  from  a  com- 
munication kindly  made  to  us  by  IMr.  King,  that 
the  Injacuiili  {zircon")  is  highly  electric  when 
rubbed.  He  states  he  is  practically  convinced  of 
this  fact,  although  he  allows  that  liighly  electric 
powers  are  not  usually  attributed  to  it  by  mineralo- 
gists. Mr.  King  asserts  that  our  liyacintk  {jacintli, 
zircon)  was  greatly  used  for  engraving  on  by 
Greeks,  Romans,  and  Persians,  and  that  numerous 
hitaglios  in  it  exist  of  the  age  of  Theophrastus. 
The  undent  Iryacinthus  was  our  sajjjj/iirt,  as 
Solinus  shows. 

Precious  stones  are  used  in  Scripture  in  a  figu- 
rative sense,  to  signify  value,  beauty,  durability, 
etc.,  in  those  objects  with  which  they  are  com- 
pared (see  Cant.  v.  14;  Is.  liv.  11,  ]2;  Lam.  iv. 
7;  Key.  iv.  3,  xxi.  10-21).  As  to  the  precious 
stones  in  the  breastplate  of  the  high-priest,  see 
Josejihus,    Ant.   iii.  7,  §  5;   Epiphanius,  irepl  toiv 

1/8'   ki6iiOV    T<ilV    WTCCV    ev     T-     CTTOA.     T.     ^hapdiv, 

in  Ki)iphanii  Opusc.  ed.  Petavius,  ii.  225-2o2, 
Cologne,  1682  (this  treatise  has  been  edited  sepa- 
rately by  Conr.  Gesner,  Ue  wnni  rerum  J'ossit. 
yt/iert,  etc.,   Tiguri,  1565;    and  by  Mat.   Hiller, 


a  "  The   artists   of   the   Renaissance  actually   suc- 
ceeded in  ODgravirig  on  the  diaiuoud :  the  discovery  is 


STORK 

the  author  of  the  Hierophyticon,  in  his  Syntag- 
mata Htrmentuticn,  p.  83,  Tubing.  1711);  Brauii, 
De  Vestitu  Sticerdotuni  Hebrccorum  (Amstel.  1680 
and  2d  ed.  1698),  lib.  ii.  caps.  7  and  8;  Beller- 
mann,  JJie  Urim  und  Tliummini  die  Aeitesten 
Gemnien,  Berlin,  182i;  liosenmiiller,  "The  Min- 
eralogy of  the  Bible,"  Biblical  Cabinet,  vol.  xxvii 

W.  H. 

*  STONE-SQUARERS.    [Giblites.] 
STONING.    [PuKisioiEi,-TS.] 

*  STOOL.    [Midwife.] 

*  STORE-CITIES  (n"l33ptt  "^^3,  LXX 
tt6\(is  oxvpai,  A.  V.  "  treasure-cities  "  once,  Ex. 
i.  11).    i~n33pQ  occurs  alone  in  2  Clir.  xxxii.  28 

(A.  V.  "  store-houses  "),  and  is  followed  by  "^^^l? 
in  2  Cbr.  xvi.  4  (A.  V.  incorrectly  "  store-cities"). 

The  rendering  store-houses  for  ^^330^  seems 
therefore  more  appropriate  than  stores.  According 
to  2  Chr.  xxxii.  28,  they  were  for  the  products  of 
the  soil.  But  whether  the  provisions  thus  stored 
up  were  designed  chiefly  for  purposes  of  trade 
(Ewald,  dt.tch.  d.  V.  Jsrael,  ii.  p.  16),  or  for  the 
benefit  of  travellers  and  their  beasts  (Bertheau  on 
2  Chr.  viii.  4,  6),  or  for  times  of  need  (Knol>el  on 
Ex.  i.  ll;Thenius  on  1  K.  ix.  19),  or  for  purposes 
of  war  (Bush  on  Ex.  i.  11;  Kurtz,  Gesch.  d.  A. 
Bundes,  ii.  -167),  and,  if  for  the  latter  purpose, 
whether  fortified  (LXX.  Bush,  I.  c. ;  Hengstenberg, 
Die  Biiclier  Muse's  u.  yEyypten,  p.  46;  Hawks, 
Eyypt  and  its  Jlonunienis,  p.  178)  or  not  (Kurtz, 
/. c.,and  Keil  on  Ex.  i.  11),  is  disputed,  ''he  con- 
jecture that  the  store  cities  had  a  military  ol  ject, 
is  favored  by  the  position  of  Pithom  and  Kaajnises, 
Ex.  i.  11,  and  of  Hamath,  1  K.  ix.  19,  2  Cbr. 
viii.  4;  and  by  the  mention  of  the  building  of  store- 
cities  in  coimection  with  that  ol  fortresses,  as  illus- 
trating Jehoshaphat's  greatness,  2  Cbr.  xvii.  12. 

C.  M.  M. 

STORK  (ni^'pn,  chasWih:  translated  in- 
differently by  LXX.  aaiSa,  tvo\j/,  ipcoSios,  TriXiKav- 
\u\g.  Iierodio,  herodivs,  viilvus :  A.  V.  ''stork," 
except  in  Job  xxxix.  13,  where  it  is  translated 
"wing"  ('-stork"  in  the  margin).  But  there  is 
some  question  as  to  the  correct  reading  in  this 
passage.  The  LXX.  do  not  seem  to  have  recog- 
nized the  stork  under  the  Hebrew  terra  m"*pn ; 
otherwise  they  could  scarcely  have  missed  the  ob- 
vious rendering  of  TnXapyos,  or  have  adopted  in 
two  instances  the  phonetic  representation  of  the 
original,  aaiSa  (whence  no  doubt  Hesycb.  &ais, 
elSos  opvfov)-  It  is  singular  that  a  bird  so  con- 
spicuous and  familiar  as  the  stork  must  have  been 
both  in  Egypt  and  Palestine  should  have  escaped 
notice  by  the  LXX.,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
the    correctness   of  the  rendering  of  A.  V.      Th^; 

Heb.  term  is  derived  from  the  root  TpH,  whence 

^p^,  "  kindness,"  from  the  maternal  and  filial 
affection  of  which  this  bird  has  been  in  all  ages  the 
type). 

The  White  Stork  {Ciconia  alba,  L.)  is  one  of 
the  largest  and  most  conspicuous  of  land  birds 
standing  nearly  four  feet  high,  the  jet  black  of  its 
wings  and  its  bright  red  beak  and  legs  contrasting 


assigned  to  Clement  Birago,  by  others  to  J.  da  Treno 
Philip  Il.'s  eagraver."  C.  W.  Kbo. 


STORK 

5nely  with  the  pure  white  of  its  plumage  (Zech.  v. 

3, ,"  I'liey  had  wings  like  the  wings  of  a  storli  "). 
It  is  pliiced  by  naturalists  near  the  Heron  tribe, 
with  which  it  has  some  atfinity,  forming  a  connect- 
ing link  between  it  and  the  spoonbill  and  ibis,  like 
all  of  wliich,  the  stork  feeds  on  fish  and  reptiles, 
especially  on  the  latter.  In  tlie  neighborhood  of 
uian  it  devours  readily  all  kinds  of  ottiil  and  garb- 


STORK 


3119 


AVliite  Stork  {Ciconia  alba). 

age.  For  this  reason,  doubtless,  it  is  placed  in  the 
list  of  unclean  birds  by  the  Mosaic  law  (Lev.  xi.  19; 
Deut  xiv.  18).  The  range  of  the  white  stork  ex- 
tends over  the  whole  of  l'>urope,  except  the  British 
isles,  where  it  is  now  only  a  rare  visitant,  and  over 
Nortliern  Africa  and  Asia,  as  far  at  least  as  Bur- 
mah. 

The  Black  Stork  {Cicon'ui  niyra,  L.),  fhouoh 
less  abundant  in  places,  is  scarcely  less  widely  dis- 
tributed, but  has  a  more  easterly  range  than  its 
congener,  iioth  species  are  very  numerous  in  Pal- 
estine, tlie  white  stork  being  univers.ally  distributed, 
generally  in  pairs,  oveiithe  whole  country,  the  black 
stork  living  in  large  flocks  .after  the  fashion  of 
herons,  in  the  more  secluded  and  marshy  districts. 
The  writer  met  with  a  flock  of  upwards  of  fifty 
i>lack  storks  feeding  near  the  west  shore  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  They  are  still  more  abundant  by  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  where  also  the  wliite  stork  is  so 
nmnerous  as  to  be  gregarious;  and  in  the  swamps 
round  the  waters  of  Merom. 

Wiiile  the  black  stork  is  never  found  about 
buildings,  but  prefers  marshy  places  in  forests,  and 
iii'eeds  on  the  tops  of  the  loftiest  trees,  where  it 
heaps  up  its  ample  nest  far  from  the  iiaunts  of  man  ; 
the  wliite  stork  attaclies  itself  to  him,  and  lor  tlie 
service  which  it  renders  in  the  destruction  of  rep- 
tiles and  the  removal  of  offiil  has  been  repaid  from 
he  earliest  times  by  protection  and  reverence 
This  is  especially  the  case  in  the  countries  wliere  it 
oreeds.  In  the  streets  of  towns  in  Holland,  in  the 
illages  of  Denmark,  and  in  tlie  bazaars  of  Syria 
and  Tunis,  it  may  be  seen  stalking  gravely  among 
i,he  crowd,  and  woe  betide  the  straiiser  either  in 
Holland  or  in  Palestine  who  should  dare  to  molest 
t.     The  claim  of  the  stork  to  protection  seems  to 


have  been  equally  recognized  by  the  ancients 
Senipr.  Itiifus,  who  first  ventured  to  bring  young 
storks  to  table,  gained  the  following  epigram,  ou 
the  failure  of  his  candidature  for  the  prajtorship :  — 

"  Quanquam  est  duobus  elegantior  Plancis 
SuttVagiorum  puncta  nou  tulit  septem. 
Cicouiarum  popuhis  ultus  est  uiortcm." 

Horace  contemptuously  alludes  to  the  same  sacrilege 
in  the  lines 

"  Tutoque  ciconia  uido. 
Donee  vos  auctor  docuit  praetorius  "  {Sat.  ii.  2,  49). 

Pliny  {Nnt.  Hist.  x.  21)  tells  us  that  in  Thessaly 
it  was  a  capital  crime  to  kill  a  stork,  and  that  they 
were  thus  valued  equally  with  human  life,  in  con- 
sequence of  their  warfare  against  serpents.  They 
were  not  less  honored  in  Kgypt.  It  is  said  that  at 
Fez  in  Morocco,  there  is  an  endowed  hospital  for 
the  purpose  of  assisting  and  nursing  sick  cranes 
and  storks,  and  of  burying  them  when  dead.  Tlie 
Marocains  hold  that  storks  are  human  beings  in 
that  form  from  some  distant  islands  (see  note  to 
Brown's  Psew/.  Kpid.  ill.  27,  §  3).  The  Turiis  in 
Syria  point  to  the  stork  as  a  true  follower  of  Islam, 
from  the  preference  he  always  shows  for  the  rnrkish 
and  Arab  over  the  Christian  quarters.  For  this 
undoubted  fact,  however,  there  may  be  two  otlier 
reasons — the  greater  amount  of  otfal  to  l)e  found 
about  the  Moslem  houses,  and  the  persecutions 
suffered  from  the  skeptical  Greeks,  who  rob  tlie 
nests,  and  show  none  of  the  gentle  consideration 
towards  the  lower  animals  which  often  redeems  the 
Turkish  character.  Strickland,  Mvm.  and  Papers, 
vol.  ii.  p.  227,  states  tliat  it  is  said  to  have  quite 
deserted  (ireece,  since  the  expulsion  of  its  Moham- 
medan protectors.  The  oiiservations  of  the  writer 
corroliorated  this  remark.  Similarly  the  roolcs  were 
said  to  be  so  attached  to  the  old  recjime,  that  most 
of  them  left  France  at  the  Revolution ;  a  true  state- 
ment, and  accounted  for  by  the  clearini:^  of  most 
of  the  fine  old  timber  which  used  to  surround  tlie 
chateaux  of  the  noblesse. 

The  derivation  of  ^'7'^?C3  points  to  the  paternal 
and  filial  attachment  of  which  the  stork  seems  to 
have  been  a  type  among  the  Hebrews  no  less  than 
the  Greeks  and  Romans.  It  was  believed  that  the 
young  re|iaid  the  care  of  their  parents  liy  attaching 
tliemselves  to  them  for  life,  and  tending  them  in 
old  age.  Hence  it  was  commonly  called  among  the 
Latins  "  avis  pia.''  (See  Laburnus  in  Petronius 
Arbiter;  Aristotle,  IIUl.  Anim.  vs..  14;  and  Pliny, 
Nat.  Hist.  X.  32.) 

Pliny  also  notices  their  habit  of  alw.ays  returning 
to  the  same  nest.  Probalily  there  is  no  foundation 
for  the  notion  that  the  stork  so  far  differs  from 
other  birds  as  to  recognize  its  parents  after  it  has 
become  mature;  l)Ut  of  the  fact  of  these  birds  re 
turning  year  after  year  to  the  same  spot,  there  is 
no  question.  Unless  when  molested  liy  man,  storks' 
nests  all  over  the  world  are  rebuilt,  or  ratlier  re- 
paired, for  generations  on  the  same  site,  and  in 
Holland  the  same  individuals  have  been  recogiiizeil 
for  many  years.  That  the  parental  attachment  of 
the  stork  is  very  strong,  has  lieen  proved  on  many 
occasions.  The  tale  of  the  stork  which,  at  the 
burning  of  the  town  of  Delft,  vainly  endeavored  to 
carry  oft"  her  young,  and  at  length  sacriliced  her 
lite  with  theirs  rather  than  desert  them,  has  been 
often  re^oated,  and  seoins  corroborated  liy  iinques- 
tionalile  evidence.  Its  watchfulness  over  its  young 
is  unremitting,  and  often  shown  in  a  "muewhal 
droll  maimer.     The  writer  was  once  in  caiup  ne<a 


3120  STORK 

jn  old  ruined  tower  in  tlie  plain  of  Zana,  south  of 
the  Atlas,  where  a  pair  of  storks  had  their  nest. 
The  four  young  might  often  be  seen  from  a  little 
distance,  surveying  the  prospect  from  their  lonely 
height;  but  whenever  any  of  the  human  party  hap- 
pened to  stroll  near  the  tower,  one  of  the  old  storks, 
invisible  before,  would  instantly  appear,  and,  light- 
ini;  on  the  nest,  put  its  foot  gently  on  the  necks  of 
all  the  young,  so  as  to  hold  them  down  out  of  sight 
till  the  stranger  had  passed,  snapping  its  bill  mean- 
while, and  assuming  a  grotesque  air  of  indifference 
and  unconsciousness  of  there  being  anytliing  under 
its  charge. 

Few  migratory  birds  are  more  punctual  to  the 
time  of  their  reappearance  than  the  white  stork,  or 
at  least,  from  its  familiarity  and  conspicuousness, 
its  migrations  have  been  more  accurately  noted. 
"  The  stork  in  the  heaven  knoweth  her  appointed 
times  "  (see  Virgil,  Georg.  ii.  319,  and  Petron. 
Sat.).  I'liny  states  that  it  is  rarely  seen  in  Asia 
Minor  after  the  middle  of  August.  This  is  prob- 
ably a  slight  error,  as  the  ordinary  date  of  its  ar- 
rival in  Holland  is  the  second  week  in  April,  and 
it  remains  until  October.  In  Denmark  Judge  Boie 
noted  its  arrival  from  1820  to  1847.  The  earliest 
date  was  the  2Gth  March,  and  the  latest  the  12th 
x4pril  (KjaerboUing,  Diinimtrks  Fu;jle,  p.  262).  In 
Palestine  i-t  has  been  observed  to  arrive  on  the  22d 
March.  Innnense  flocks  of  storks  may  be  seen  on 
the  banks  of  the  Upper  Nile  during  winter,  and 
some  few  further  west,  in  the  Sahara;  but  it  does 
not  appear  to  migrate  vei'y  far  south,  unless  indeed 
the  birds  that  are  seen  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope 
in  December  be  the  same  which  visit  Europe. 

The  stork  has  no  note,  and  the  only  sound  it 
emits  is  that  caused  by  the  sudden  snapping  of 
its  long  mandibles,  well  exj)ressed  by  the  epithet 
"  crotalistria "  in  Petron.  (quasi  KpoTaXi^ai,  to 
rattle  the  castanets).  From  the  absence  of  voice 
probaVily  arose  the  error  alluded  to  by  Pliny,  "  Sunt 
qui  ciconiis  non  inesse  linguas  confirment." 

Some  unnecessary  difficulty  has  been  raised  re- 
specting the  expression  in  Ps.  civ.  17,  "  As  for  the 
Btork,  the  fir-trees  are  her  house."  In  the  west  of 
Europe  the  home  of  the  stork  is  connected  with 
the  dwellings  of  man,  and  in  the  East,  as  the  eagle 
is  mentally  associated  with  the  most  sulilime  scenes 
in  nature,  so,  to  the  traveller  at  least,  is  the  stork 
witli  the  ruins  of  man's  noblest  works.  Amid  the 
desolation  of  his  fallen  cities  tln-ougliout  Eastern 
Europe  and  the  classic  portions  of  Asia  and  Africa, 
we  are  sure  to  meet  with  them  surmounting  his 
temples,  his  theatres  or  baths.  It  is  the  same  in 
Palestine.  A  p.air  of  storks  have  possession  of  the 
only  tall  piece  of  ruin  in  the  plain  of  Jericho;  they 
are  the  only  tenants  of  the  noble  tower  of  Richard 
('(eur  de  Lion  at  Lydda;  and  they  gaze  on  the 
piain  of  Sharon  from  the  lofty  tower  of  Ilamleh 
(tiie  ancient  Arimathea).  So  they  have  a  pillar  at 
TiVierias,  and  a  corner  of  a  ruin  at  Nebi  Jlousseh. 
And  no  doubt  in  ancient  times  the  sentry  shared 
the  watch-tower  of  Samaria  or  of  Jezreel  with  the 
cherished  storks.  But  the  instinct  of  the  stork 
Beemg  to  be  to  select  tiie  hiftiest  and  most  con- 
spicuous spot  he  can  find  where  his  huge  nest  may 
be  supported;  and  whenever  he  can  combine  this 
aste  with  his  instinct  for  the  society  of  man,  he 
naturally  selects  a  tower  or  a  roof.  In  lands  of 
ruins,  wiiich  from  their  neglect  and  want  of  drain- 
age supply  him  with  abundance  of  food,  he  finds  a 
oolumn  or  a  solitary  arch  the  most  secure  position 
"or  bis  uest;  but  where  neither  towers  nor  ruini 


STRAIN   AT 

abound  he  does  not  hesitate  to  select  a  tall  treo,  an 
both  storks,  swallows,  and  nuny  other  birds  mnsi 
have  done  before  they  were  tempted  by  the  artificial 
conveniences  of  man's  buildings  to  desert  their 
natural  places  of  nidificatipn.  [Nest,  Amer.  ed.] 
Thus  the  golden  eagle  builds,  according  to  circum- 
stances, in  cliffs,  on  trees,  or  even  on  the  ground ; 
and  the  common  heron,  which  generally  associates 
on  the  tops  of  the  tallest  trees,  builds  in  West- 
moreland and  in  Gahvay  on  bushes.  It  is  therefore 
needless  to  interpret  the  text  of  the  stork  merely 
perchini/  on  trees.  It  probalily  was  no  less  numer- 
ous in  Palestine  when  I)avid  wrote  than  now;  but 
the  number  of  suitable  towers  must  have  been  far 
fewer,  and  it  would  therefore  resort  to  trees. 
Though  it  does  not  frequent  trees  in  South  Judaea, 
yet  it  still  builds  on  trees  by  the  .Sea  of  Galilee, 
according  to  several  travellers;  and  the  writer  may 
remark,  that  while  he  has  never  seen  the  nest  ex- 
cept on  towers  or  pillars  in  that  land  of  ruins,  Tunis, 
the  only  nest  he  ever  saw  in  Morocco  was  on  a  tree. 
Varro  {lie  Rustica,  iii.  5)  olicerves,  "  Ad  venae 
volucres  pullos  faciunt,  in  agro  cicoiiice,  in  tectft 
hirundines."  All  modern  authorities  give  instances 
of  the  white  stork  building  on  trees.  Degland 
mentions  several  pairs  which  still  breed  in  a  marsh 
near  Chulons-sur-Marne  {Orn.  Kurop.  ii.  1.53). 
KjaerboUing  makes  a  similar  statement  with  re- 
spect to  Denmark,  and  Nillson  also  as  to  Sw^eden. 
Padeker  observes  "that  in  Germany  the  white 
stork  builds  in  tiie  gables,  etc.,  and  in  trees,  chiefly 
the  tops  of  poplars  and  the  strong  upper  branches 
of  the  oak,  binding  the  branches  together  with 
twigs,  turf,  and  earth,  and  covering  the  fiat  surface 
witli  straw,  moss,  and  feathers"  {l:itr  Kur.  pi. 
xxxvi.). 

The  black  stork,  no  less  connnon  in  Palestine, 
has  never  relinquished  its  natural  habit  of  liuilding 
upon  trees.  This  species,  in  the  northeastern 
portion  of  the  land,  is  the  most  almndant  of  the 
two  (Harmer's  Obs.  iii.  323).  Of  eitlier,  how- 
ever, the  expression  may  be  taken  literally,  that 
"  the  fir-trees  are  a  dwelling  for  the  stork." 

H.  B.  T. 

*  STORY,  2  Chr.  xiii.  22,  xxiv.  27,  is  used  in 
the  sen.se  of  hhtory  (Ital.  slorin).  So  "story- 
writer  "  for  hhtoriiin,  1  Esdr.  ii.  17.  A. 

STRAIN  AT.  The  A.  V.  of  1611  renders 
Matt,  xxiii.  21,  "  Ye  blind  gifldes !  which  strain  at 
a  gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel."  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  as  Dean  Trench  has  supposed,  that  this  ob- 
scure phrase  is  due  to  a  printer's  error,  and  that 
the  true  reading  is  "  strain  out."  Such  is  the 
sense  of  the  Greek  SiOAi^eif,  as  used  by  Plutarch 
( Op.  Mm:  p.  692  D,  Synip.  ProbL  vi.  7,  §  1 )  and 
Dioscorides  (ii.  86),  namely,  to  clarify  by  passing 
through  a  strainer  ivMcTi^p)-  "  Strain  out  "  is 
the  reading  of  Tyndale's  (1.5-39),  Cranmer's  (1539), 
the  Bishops'  (1568),  and  the  Geneva  (1557)  Bibles, 
and  "  strain  a^,"  which  is  neither  correct  nor  in- 
telligible, could  only  have  crept  into  our  A.  V., 
and  been  allowed  to  remain  there,  by  an  oversight. 
Dean  Trench  gives  an  interesting  illustration  of  the 
passage  from  a  private  letter  written  to  him  by  a 
recent  traveller  in  North  Africa,  who  says:  "  In  a 
ride  from  Tangier  to  Tetuan,  I  observed  that  a 
JNIoorish  soldier  who  accompanied  me,  vvlien  ha 
drank,  always  unfolded  the  end  of  his  turlian  and 
placed  it  over  the  mouth  of  his  (f«)/!a,  drinking 
through  the  muslin,  to  stniin  out  the  unals,  whose 
larvffi  swarm  in  the  water  of  that  country  "  (  On  tli/ 
Auih.  Ve-t.  of  the  N.  T.  pp.  172, 173j.    If  one  oiigh 


STRAITLY 

coiijocture  the  cause  which  led,  even  erroneously,  to  | 
the  substitution  of  at  for  uut^  it  is  perhaps  to  he 
found  in  the  marginal  note  of  the  Geneva  Version, 
which  explains  the  verse  thus:  "  Ye  sta}-  at  that 
wliich  is  nothing,  and  let  pass  that  which  is  of 
f'reater  importance." 

*  STRAITLY  is  often  used  in  the  A.  V.  in 
the  now  obsolete  senses  of  closely  (Josh.  vi.  1 ;  Wisd. 
xvii.  10;  Gen.  xliii.  7);  and  strictly  (Matt.  i.\.  30; 
Acts  V.  28,  etc.).  A. 

*  STRANGE,  as  used  for  foreign,  in  some 
passages  of  the  A.  V.  maj  not  be  understood  by  all 
readers;  e.  ff.  ^^  strange  vanities,"  Jer.  viii.  19,  for 
"  foreign  idols."  The  '■^strange  woman"  in  Prov. 
ii.  l(i  is  so  designated  as  being  the  wife  of  anotlier 
(ver.  17),  or  at  least,  as  one  who  has  no  business 
with  the  person  whom  she  tempts.  A. 

STRANGER  ("1.2,  3^1).  A  "stranger" 
in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term  may  be  defined  to 
be  a  person  of  foreign,  i.  e.  non-Israelitish,  extrac- 
tion, resident  within  the  limits  of  the  promised  land. 
He  was  distinct  from  the  proper  "foreigner,"" 
inasnuich  as  the  latter  still  belonged  to  another 
country,  and  would  only  visit  Palestine  as  a  travel- 
ler: he  was  still  more  distinct  from  the  "  nations,"  ^ 
or  non-Israelite  peoples,  who  held  no  relationship 
with  the  chosen  people  of  God.  The  term  answers 
most  nearly  to  the  Greek  jxeroiKos,  and  may  be 
compared  with  our  expression  "  naturalized  for- 
eigner," in  as  far  as  this  implies  a  certain  political 
st  'ins  in  the  country  where  the  Ibreigner  resides:  it 
is  opposed  to  one  "  born  in  the  land,"  '^  or.  as  the 
term  more  properly  means,  "  not  transplanted,"  in 
the  sanje  way  that  a  naturalized  foreigner  is  opposed 
to  a  native.  The  terms  applied  to  the  "  stranger  " 
nave  special  reference  to  tlie  fact  of  his  residing  '<  in 
the  land.  The  existence  of  such  a  class  of  persons 
auiotig  the  Israelites  is  easily  accounted  for:  the 
"  mixed  multitude  "  that  accompanied  them  out  of 
Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  38}  formed  one  element;  the  Ca- 
naanitish  population,  which  was  never  wholly  extir- 
pated from  their  native  soil,  formed  another  and  a 
still  more  important  one;  captives  taken  in  war 
formed  a  third  ;  fugitives,  hired  servants,  merchants, 
etc.,  formed  a  fourth.  The  number  from  these  va- 
rious sources  must  have  been  at  all  times  very  con- 
siderable; the  census  of  them  in  Solomon's  time 
gave  a  return  of  1.53,600  males  (2  Chr.  ii.  17),  which 
was  equal  to  about  a  tenth  of  the  whole  population. 
The  enactments  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  wiiich  regu- 
lated the  political  and  social  position  of  resident 
strangers,  were  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  great  liber- 
ality. With  the  exception  of  the  Moabites  and  Am- 
monites (Ueut.  xxiii.  3),  all  nations  were  admissible 
to  the  rights  of  citizenship  under  certain  conditions. 
It  would  appear,  i?ideed,  to  be  a  consequence  of  the 
prohibition  of  intermarriage  with  the  Canaanites 
(l)eut.  vii.  3),  that  these  would  be  excluded  from 
the  rights  of  citizenship;  but  the  Rabbinical  view 
that  this  exclusion  was  superseded  in  the  case  of 
proseijtes  seems  highly  probable,  as  we  find   Uoeg 


STRANGER 


3121 


■^-133. 


b   C^12. 


nnrs. 


''  *^3,  ^ty^rn.  These  terms  appear  to  describe, 
^ot  two  different  classes  of  strangers,  but  the  straOj^er 
luder  two  diU'erent  aspects,  gcr  rather  iiaplyinj;  liis 
')reign  oiigiu,  or  the  fact  of  his  havinj;  turned  nsii/e 
o  abide  with  another  people,  tos/iub  implying  his  p'n-- 
nanent  residence  in  the  laud  of  his  adoption.  Wmcr 
Rtalvib.  "  Fresnde  '■ )  regards  the  latter  as  equivalent 


:he  Edomite  (1  Sam.  xxi.  7,  xxii.  9),  Uriah  the 
llittite  (2  Sam.  xi.  6),  and  Araunah  the  .Jebusite 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  18),  enjoying  to  all  appearance  tht 
full  rights  of  citizenship.  Whether  a  stranger  could 
ever  become  legallj-  a  landowner  is  a  question  about 
which  tiiere  may  lie  doulit.  Theoretically  the  whole 
of  the  soil  was  portioned  out  among  the  twelve  tribes, 
and  Ezekiel  notices  it  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  division 
which  he  witnessed  in  vision,  that  the  strangers 
were  to  .share  the  inheritance  with  the  Israelites, 
and  should  thus  liecomeas  those  "born  in  the  coun- 
try "  (Ez.  xlvii.  22).  Indeed  the  term  "stranger" 
is  more  than  once  applied  in  a  pointed  manner  to 
signify  one  who  was  not  a  landowner  (Gen.  xxiii.  4; 
Lev.  xxv.  23):  while  on  the  other  hand  ezracli  (A. 
V.  "liorn  in  the  land  ")  may  have  reference  to  the 
possession  of  the  soil,  as  it  is  borrowed  from  the 
image  of  a  ti-ee  not  triDisplniiled,  and  so  occupying 
its  native  soil.  The  Israelites,  however,  never  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  possession  of  the  whole,  and  it 
is  possible  tliat  the  Canaanitish  occupants  may  in 
course  of  time  have  been  recognized  as  ".strangers," 
and  had  the  riijht  of  retaining  their  land  conceded 
to  them.  There  was  of  course  nothing  to  prevent  a 
Canaanite  from  becouiins'  the  mort<;agee  in  posses- 
sion of  a  plot,  but  this  would  not  constitute  him  a 
proper  landowner,  inasnmcL  "s  he  would  lose  all 
interest  in  the  ])roperty  when  '^he  year  of  Jubilea 
came  round.  That  they  possessed  land  in  one  of 
these  two  capacities  is  clear  from  the  case  of  Arau- 
nah above  cited.  The  stranger  appears  to  have 
been  eligible  to  all  civil  offices,  that  of  king  excepted 
(Dent.  xvii.  15).  In  regard  to  religion,  it  was  aUso- 
lutely  necessary  that  the  stranger  should  not  in- 
fringe any  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Israelitish 
state:  he  was  forbidden  to  blas])henie  thr  name  of 
Jehovah  (Lev.  xxiv.  16),  to  work  on  tht.  Sabbath 
(Ex.  XX.  10),  to  eat  leavened  bread  at  the  time  of 
the  Passover  (Ex.  xii.  19),  to  commit  any  breach  of 
the  luarriage  laws  (Lev.  xviii.  26),  to  worship  JMo- 
lech  (Lev.  xv.  2),  or  to  eat  blood  or  the  flesh  of 
any  animal  that  had  died  otherwise  than  by  the 
hand  of  man  (Lev.  xvii.  10,  15).  He  was  required 
to  release  a  Hebrew  servatit  in  the  year  of  Jubilee 
(Lev  xxv.  47-54),  to  observe  the  day  of  atonement 
(Lev.  xvi.  2:)),  to  perforin  the  rites  of  purification 
when  necessary  (Lev.  xvii.  15;  Num.  xix.  10),  au(? 
to  offer  sin-offerings  after  .sins  of  ignorance  (Num. 
XV.  2!t).  If  the  stranger  was  a  bond.sinan  he  was 
obliged  to  submit  to  circumcision  (Ex.  xii.  44);  if 
iie  was  independent,  it  was  optional  with  him;  but 
if  he  remained  uncircumcised,  he  was  prohibited 
from  partaking  of  the  Passover  (i'.x.  xii.  48),  and 
could  not  be  regarded  as  a  full  citizen.  Liberty 
was  also  given  in  regard  to  the  use  of  prohibited 
food  to  an  uncircumcised  stranger;  for  on  this 
groimd  alone  can  we  harmonize  the  statements  in 
Dent.  xiv.  21  and  Lev.  xvii.  10,  15.  Assuming, 
however,  that  the  stranger  was  circumcised,  no  dis- 
tinction existe<l  in  regard  to  legal  rights  between 
the  stranger  and  the  Israelite:  "one  law"  for  both 
classes  is  a  princiiile  affirmed  in  respect  to  religious 

to  hireling.  Jahn  (Arrlirr,ol.  i.  11,  §  181)  explains 
tOsliab  of  one  who,  whether  Hebrew  or  foreigner,  was 
destitute  of  a  home.  We  see  no  evidence  for  either  of 
these  opinions.  In  the  LXX.  these  terms  are  most  , 
frequently  rendered  by  n-apoiicos,  the  Alexiuidrian  sub- 
stitute for  the  classical  jueToi/co?.  Sometimes  irpocn)- 
Autos  is  u.«ed,  and  in  two  passages  (Ex.  xii.  19;  !». 
xiv.  1)  yeiwpas,  as  rejireseuting  the  ('haldee  form  o) 
the  v/ovigfr. 


3122  STRAW 

Dbservances   (Ex.  xil.  49;  Num.   xv.    16),  and   to 
legal   proceedings  (Lev.  xxiv.  22),  and  the  judges 
are  strictly  warned  against  any  partiality  in  their 
decisions  (Deut.  i.  16,  xxiv.  17,  18).     The  Israel- 
ite is  also  enjoined  to  treat  him  as  a  Drother  (Lev. 
xix.  34;  Deut.  x.  19),  and  the  precept  is  enforced 
in  each  case  by  a  reference  to  his  own  state  in  tiie 
land  of  Egypt.     Sucli  precepts  were  needed  in  or- 
der to  counteract  the  natural  tendency  to  treat  jjer- 
Bons  in  the  position  of  strangers  witli  rigor.     For, 
though  there  was  the  possibility  of  a  stranger  ac- 
quiring wealth  and  becoming  the  owner  of  Hebrew 
slaves  (Lev.  xxv.  47),  yet  his  normal  state  was  one 
of  poveity,  as  implied  in  the  numerous   passages 
where  he  is  coupled  with    the  fatherless  and  the 
widow   (e.  g.  Ex.  xxii.  21-23;   Deut.  x.  18,  xxiv. 
17),   and  in  the  special   directions    respecting  his 
having  a  share  in  the  feasts  that  accompanied  cer- 
tain religious  festivals  (Deut.  xvi.  11,  14,  xxvi.  11), 
in  the  leasing  of  the  cornfield,  the  vineyard,  and 
the  olive-yard  (Lev.  xix.  10.  xxiii.  22;  Deut.  xxiv. 
20),  in  the  produce  of  the   triennial   tithe   (Deut. 
xiv.  28,  29),  in  the  forgotten  sheaf  (Deut.  xxiv.  19), 
and  in  the  .spontaneous  production  of  the  soil  in  the 
sabbatical  year  (Lev.  xxv.  6).      It  also  appears  that 
the  "  stranger"  formed  the  class  whence  the  hire- 
lings were  drawn:  the  terms  being  coupled  togetiier 
in  Ex.  xii.  45 ;  Lev.  xxii.  10,  xxv.  6,  40.     Such  la- 
borers were  engaged  either  by  the  day  (Lev.  xix. 
13;   Deut.  xxiv.  15),  or  i)y  the  year  (Lev.  xxv.  58), 
and  appear  to  have  lieen  considerately  treated,  for 
the  conilition  of  the  Hebrew  slave  is  favorably  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  hired  servant  and  the   so- 
journer in  contradistinction  to  the  bondman   (Lev. 
xxv.  39,  4t)).     A  le.ss  fortunate  class  of  .strangers, 
probably  captives  in  war  or  for  delit,  were  reduced 
to  slavery,  and  were  sulject  to  be  bought  and  sold 
(Lev.  xxv.  45),  as  well  as  to  be  put  to  task-work,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  Gibeonites  (.losh.  ix.  21)  and 
with  those  whom   Solomon  employed  in  the  build- 
ing of  the   Temple   (2    Chr.  ii.  18).     The  lileral 
spirit  of  the  Mosaic  regulations  respecting  stranuers 
presents  a  stroi;g  contrast  to  tlie  rigid  exclusiveness 
of  tlie  .lews  at  the  commencement  of  the  Christ'an 
era.     The  growth  of  tliis  spirit  dates  from  the  time 
of  the  Baijylonish  Captivity,  and  originated  partly 
in  the  outrages  which   the  .lews   suffered  at  the 
hands  of  foreigners,  and  partly  through  a  fear  lest 
their   nationality   should   be  swamped   by  constant 
admixture  with  foreigners:  the  latter  motive  appears 
to  have  dictated  the  stringent  measures  adopted  by 
Nefieniiah  (Neh.  ix.  2,  xiii.  3).     Our  i>ord  condemns 
this  exclusive  spirit  in  the  parable  of  the  gimd  Sa- 
maritan, where  He  defines  the  term   "  neighbor  " 
in   a  sense  new  to  his  hearers  (Luke  x.  36).     It 
should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  proselyte  " 
of  the  New  Testament  is  the  true  representative  of 
the  stranger  of  tiie  Old   Testament,  and  towards 
this  class  a  cordial  feeling  w.as  manifested.    [I'uos- 
KLYTK.]     The  term  "stranger"   (IcVos)  is  gen- 
erally used  in  the  New  Testament  in   the  general 
sense  of  foreiynev,  and  occasionally  in    its  more 
technical  sense  as  opposed   to  a  citizen    (I'^ph.  ii. 
19).  6  W.  L.  B. 

STRAW  05^,  teben:  &xvpov:  pnlea).    Both 

wheat  and   barley  straw  were  used  by  the  ancient 

■  Helirews  chiefly  as  fodder  for  tlieir  horses,  cattle. 


n  The  term  Trpoo^Xuros  occurs  iu  the  LXX.  a.«  = 
12   in  Ex.  xii.  19,  xx.  10,  xxii.  21,  x.xiii.  9. 
6  •  "  Strangers   of    Rome  "   (oi  eTriiijjioiJi'Tes  'Pw 


STREET 

and  camels  (Gen.  xxiv.  25;  1  K.  iv.  28;  Is.  xi.  7 
Ixv.  25).  The  straw  was  probably  often  chopped 
and  mixed  with  barley,  beans,  etc.,  for  provender 
(see  Harmer's  Observalions,  i.  423,  424;  Wilkin- 
son, Aiic.  /■-'f/ypt.  ii.  48,  Lond.  1854).  There  is  no 
intimation  that  straw  was  used  for  litter;  Harmei 
thinks  it  was  not  so  employed ;  the  litter  the  people 
now  use  in  those  count'-ies  is  the  animals'  dung, 
dried  in  the  sun  and  bruised  between  their  hands, 
which  they  heap  up  again  in  the  morning,  sprink- 
ling it  in  the  summer  with  fresh  water  to  keep  it 
froni  corrupting  (Olis.  p.  424,  Lond.  1797).  Straw 
was  employed  by  the  Egyptians  for  making  bricks 
(Ex.  V.  7,  16);  it  was  chopped  up  and  mixed  with 
the  clay  to  make  them  more  compact  and  to  prevent 
their  cracking  (Aiic.  E(j>jpt.  ii.  194).  [Bkicks.] 
The  ancient  Egyptians  reaped  their  corn  close  to 
the  ear,  and  tifterwards  cut  the  straw  close  to  the 
ground  {ibid.  p.  48)  and  laid  it  by.  This  was  the 
straw  that  Pharaoh  refused  to  give  to  the  Israelites, 
who  were  therefore  compelled  to  gather  "  stubble  " 

(lt'|7,  Ki(sli)  instead,  a  matter  of  considerable  diffi- 
culty, seeing  that  the  straw  itself  bad  been  cut  off 
near  to  the  ground.  The  stubble  frequently  al- 
luded to  in  the  Scriptures  may  denote  either  the 
short  standing  straw,  mentioned  above,  which  was 
commonly  set  on  fire,  hence  the  allusions  in  Is.  v. 
24;  -Joel  ii.  5,  or  the  small  fr.agments  that  would  be 
left  behind  after  the  reapings,  hence  the  expression, 
"  as  the  kdsh  before  the  wind  "  (Ps.  Ixxxiii.  13;  Is. 
xii.  2:  Jer.  xiii.  24).  W.  H. 

STREAM  OF  EGYPT  (0']^^''?  ^H^ : 
"?ivoK6povpa  (pi.):  lom-ns  ^Enypti]  once  occurs 
in  the  A.  V.  instead  of  "  the  river  of  Egypt,"  ap- 
parently to  avoid  tautology  (Is.  xxvii.  12).  It  is 
the  best  translation  of  this  doubtful  name,  for  it  ex- 
presses the  sense  of  the  Helirew  while  retaining  the 
vagueness  it  has.  so  long  as  we  cannot  decide  whether 
it  is  applied  to  the  Pelusian  lirnnch  of  tlie  Nile  or 
the  .stream  of  the  Wacli-l-Aictsh.  [Uiver  of 
Egyi't;  Nile.]  P.  S.  P. 

STREET  (V^n,  nin^,  p^a?:  TrAarera, 
bviJLT])-  The  streets  of  a  modern  oriental  town  pre- 
sent a  great  conti'ast  to  those  with  which  we  are 
familiar,  beiuK  generally  narrow,  tortuous,  and 
gloomy,  even  in  the  best  towns,  such  as  Cairo 
(Lane,  i.  25),  Damascus  (Porter,  i.  30),  and 
Aleppo  (Russell,  i.  14).  Their  chai'acter  is  mainly 
fixed  by  the  climate  and  the  style  of  architecture, 
the  narrowness  being  due  to  the  extreme  heat,  and 
the  gloominess  to  the  circumstance  of  the  windows 
looking  for  the  most  part  into  the  inner  court.  As 
these  same  influences  existed  in  ancient  times, 
we  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  the  streets 
were  much  of  the  same  chai'acter  as  at  present 
The  opposite  o])inion  has,  indeed,  been  niahitained 
on  account  of  the  Helirew  term  recliob,  frequently 
a]iplied  to  streets,  and  properly  meaning  a  wide 
place.  The  specific  signification  of  this  term  is 
rather  a  court -yard  or  square :  it  is  applied  in  this 
sense  to  the  broad  open  space  adjacent  to  the  gate 
of  a  town,  where  public  business  was  transacted 
(Deut.  xiii.  16),  and.  again,  to  the  court  before  the 
Temple  (Ezr.  x.  9)  or  belbre  a  palace  (I'^sth.  iv.  6). 
Its  application  to  the  street  may  point  to  the  com- 
pavdtive  width  of  the  main  street,  or  it  may  per- 

juaioiji  Acts  ii.  10,  are  literally  "  Romans  who  art 
sojourners,"  i.  e.  as  the  subjoined  apposition  showa, 
"Jews  and  pro.selytes"  who  hud  coiue  to  Jerusalom 
from  Home.  B 


STKTKING  THE  MOUTH 

haps  convey  the  idea  of  puUicily  rather  than  or 
wiiltli,  a  sense  well  adapted  to  the  passages  in 
which  it  occurs  (e.  y.  Gen.  xix.  2;  Judg.  xix.  15: 
2  Sam.  xxi.  12).  The  street  called  "  Straight,"  in 
Damascus  (Acts  ix.  11),  was  an  exception  to  the 
rule  of  narrowness:  it  was  a  noble  thoroughfare, 
100  feet  wide,  divided  in  the  Roman  age  by  colon- 
nades into  three  avenues,  the  central  one  for  foot 
passengers,  the  side  passages  for  vehicles  and  horse- 
men going  in  different  directions  (Porter,  i.  47). 
The  shops  and  warehouses  were  probably  collected 
together  into  bazars  in  ancient  as  in  modern  times: 
we  read  of  the  bakers'  bazar  (Jer.  xxxvii.  21),  and 
of  the  wool,  brazier,  and  clothes  bazars  (ayopd)  in 
Jerusalem  (Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  8,  §  1),  and  perhaps 
the  agreement  between  Benhadad  and  Ahab,  that 
the  latter  should  "  make  streets  in  Damascus  "  (1 
K.  XX.  ;3-t),  was  in  reference  rather  to  bazars  (the 
term  chuts  here  used  being  the  same  as  in  Jer.  xxxvii. 
21),  and  thus  amounted  to  the  establishment  of  a 
jus  coiiimercii.  A  lively  description  of  the  bazars 
at  Damascus  is  furnished  us  by  Porter  (i.  58-60). 
The  broad  and  narrow  streets  are  distinguished  un- 
der the  terms  recliob  and  chuts  in  tiie  following  pas- 
sages, though  the  point  is  frequently  lost  in  the  A. 
\.  by  rendering  the  latter  term  "abroad"  or  "with- 
out": Prov.  v.  16,  vii.  12,  xxii.  13;  Jer.  v.  1,  ix. 
21;  Am.  v.  16;  Nah.  ii.  4.  The  same  distinction  is 
apparently  expressed  by  the  terms  rediob  and  shuk 
in  Cant.  iii.  2,  and  by  irkaT^'ia  and  pvfxri  in  Luke 
xiv.  21:  but  the  etymological  sense  of  sliiik  points 
rather  to  a  place  of  concourse,  such  as  a  market- 
place, while  pvfur}  is  applied  to  the  "  Straiglit  "  street 
of  Damascus  (Acts  ix.  11),  and  is  also  used  in  ref- 
erence to  the  Pharisees  (Matt.  vi.  2)  as  a  place  of 
the  greatest  publicity:  it  is  therefore  doubtful 
whether  the  contrast  can  be  sustained;  Jusephus 
describes  the  alleys  of  .lerusalem  under  the  term 
oTevcctroi  {S.  J.  v.  8,  §  1).  The  term  shuk  oc- 
curs elsewhere  only  in  I'rov,  vii.  8 ;  Keel.  xii.  4,  5. 
The  term  clit'ds,  already  noticed,  applies  generally 
to  that  which  is  outside  the  residence  (as  in  Prov. 
vii.  12,  A.  V.  "she  is  without"),  and  hence  to 
otlier  places  than  streets,  as  to  a  pasture-ground 
(.lob  xviii.  17,  where  the  A.  V.  requires  emenda- 
tion). That  streets  occasionally  had  names  ap- 
pears from  Jer.  xxxvii.  21;  Acts  ix.  11.  That 
they  were  generally  uupaved  may  be  inferred  from 
the  notices  of  the  pavement  laid  by  Herod  tlie 
(.ireat  at  Antioch  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  5,  §  3),  and 
by  Herod  Agrippa  J  I.  at  Jerusalem  {Ant.  xx.  9, 
§  7).  Hence  pavement  forms  one  of  tlie  peculiar 
features  of  the  ideal  Jerusalem  (Tob.  xiii.  17;  Kev. 
xxi.  21).  Each  street  and  bazar  in  a  modern  town 
is  locked  up  at  night  (Lane,  i.  25;  Russell,  i.  21), 
.iiid  hence  a  person  caimot  pass  without  being  ob- 
served by  the  watchman :  the  same  custom  appears 
to  have  prevailed  in  ancient  times  (Cant.  iii.  3). 

\V.  L.  U. 
*  STRIKING  THE  MOUTH.    [Pumsh 
MKNTS,  Auier.  ed.J 


SUCCOTH 


8123 


a  D''3pT,  A.  V.  "  elders."  The  word  has  exactly 
the  signification  of  the  Arabic  S/ieihh,  an  old  man, 
and  hence  the  head  of  a  tribe. 

''  *  (iideon  as  lie  was  pui'suiug  Zebah  and  Ziil- 
munna,  kings  of  Midiau,  threatened  to  "  tear  the  tle.sh 
of  the  princes  of  Succotli,"  because  tliey  refused  to 
supply  his  men  with  bread  (Judg.  viii.  8  tf. ).  On  re- 
turning from    his  victory  he  executed   that   menace. 

He  took  the  elders  of  the  city  and  thorns  of  the 
vUdemese  and  bhu.rs,  aud  with  them  he  taugUt  (puu- 


STRIPES.     [Punishments.] 

SU'AH  (no  [/////]:  2oi/e;  [Vat.  corrupt:] 
Sue).  Son  of  Zophah,  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii. 
30). 

SU'BA  (2a3.^;  [Vat.]  Alex.  :S,ovl3as:  Svbn). 
The  sons  of  Suba  were  among  the  sons  of  Solo- 
mon's servants  who  returned  with  Zerubbaliel 
(1  Esdr.  V.  34).  There  is  nothing  corresponding 
to  the  name  in  the  Hebrew  lists  of  Ezra  and  Ne- 
hemiah. 

SU'BAI  (2u;3af;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Su^aei:  Obai) 
=  Sh.\i.mai  (1  Esdr.  v.  30;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  40). 

*  SUBURBS,  as  the  composition  of  the 
word  {sub  and  iirbs)  would  imply,  designates  any- 
thing, as  laud  or  buildings,  under  the  walls  of  a 
town,  i.  e.  lying  close  around  it.  In  several  O.  T. 
passages  it  designates  land  given  to  the  Lev  ites  ia 
connection  with  tiieir  cities  as  pasturage  for  their 
animals  and  for  other  purposes.  See  Lev.  xxv.  34; 
Num.  XXXV.  3  ff.  and  elsewhere.  Num.  xxxv.  5 
gives  the  extent  of  the  territory  designated  as  sub 
urbs.  The  usual  Hebrew  term  denoting  such  de- 
pendencies is  tfl^J^,  properly  a  place  whither 
docks  and  herds  are  driven.  R.  D.  C.  R. 

SUCCOTH  (n"l3D  [boot/is]  :  S.K-nva'i  in  Cen. 
[and  Ps.,]  elsewhere  5-o«X'«'^)  2okx"^'^'  [N'at.  in 
2  Chr.  iv.  17,]  SexX"^^'  ^^^^^-  2okx'«'6.  ["'  J"*l>- 
xiii.  27,  Soixw-J  '"  (jen.  Socoth,  id  est,  tnbtrudc- 
ula;  [Socol/i,]  Succotli,  [Socholli,  Sochot]).  A 
town  of  ancient  date  in  the  Holy  Land,  which  is 
first  heard  of  in  the  account  of  the  homeward 
journey  of  Jacob  from  Padan-aram  ^Lien.  xxxiii. 
17).  The  name  is  fancifully  derivetl  from  the  fact 
of  Jacob's  having  there  put  up  '•  booths  "  {SuccOt/i, 

n3D)  for  his  cattle,  as  well  as  a  house  for  him- 
self. W'hether  that  occurrence  originated  the  name 
of  Succotli  (and,  following  the  analogy  of  other 
history,  it  is  not  probable  tliat  it  did),  the  nieution 
of  the  house  and  the  booths  in  contrast  to  the 
"tents"  of  the  wandering  life  indicates  that  the 
Patriarch  made  a  lengthened  stay  there  —  a  fact 
not  elsewhere  alluded  to. 

From  the  itinerary  of  Jacob's  return  it  seems 
that  Succoth  lay  between  Penieu,  near  the  ford  of 
the  torrent  Jabliok,  and  Shechem  (coinp.  xxxii.  30, 
and  xxxiii.  18,  which  latter  would  lie  more  accu- 
rately rendered  "Came  safe  to  the  city  Sliecheui"). 
In  accordance  with  this  is  the  mention  of  Succoth 
in  the  narrative  of  Gideon's  pursuit  of  Zebali  and 
Zalmunna  (Judg.  viii.  5-17).  His  course  is  east- 
ward —  the  reverse  of  .laoot)'s  —  and  he  conies  first 
to  Succoth,  and  then  to  Penuel,  the  latter  being 
further  up  the  mountain  than  the  former  (ver.  3, 
"  went  up  thence  ").  Its  importance  at  this  time 
is  shown  by  the  organization  and  number  of  its 
seventy-seven  head-men  —  chiefs  and  "  sheikhs  — 
and  also  by  the  defiance  with  which  it  treated 
Gideon  on  his  first  application.'' 


ished)  the  men  of  Succoth."  Tlie  Egyptians  in  like 
manner  sentenced  certain  criminals  "  to  be  lacerated 
with  sharpened  reeds,  aud  after  tiein^  thrown  on 
thorns  to  be  burnt  to  death  "  (Wilkinson,  Anrifnt 
E:;i/I)tiatis,  ii.  209).  Dr.  Robinson  found  almost  a 
forest  of  thistles  at  Sakhl  (Succoth)  sometimes  so  high 
as  to  overtop  the  rider's  head  on  horseback  ( Lalei 
RfS.,  p.  313).  Such  thickets  however  are  by  nc 
means  peculiar  to  any  oue  localitv  in   Paae«Une. 


3124        ^     succoTH 

It  would  appear  from  this  passage  tliat  it  lay  on 
the  east  of  Jordan,  wliicli  is  corroborated  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Gad  (Josh. 
xiii.  27).  In  the  account  of  Jacob's  journey,  all 
mention  of  the  Jordan  is  omitted. 

Succoth  is  named  once  again  after  this  —  in  1 
K.  \ii.  46 ;  2  Chr.  iv.  17  —  as  marlving  the  spot 
at  wliich  the  brass  foundries  were  placed  for  cast- 
ing the  metal-work  of  the  Temple,  "  in  the  district 
of  Jordan,  in  the  fet  or  soft  ground  between  Suc- 
coth and  Zarthan."  But,  as  the  position  of  Zar- 
than  is  not  yet  known,  this  notice  has  no  topo- 
grapliical  value  beyond  the  mention  of  the  .Jordan. 

It  appears  to  have  been  known  in  the  time  of 
Jerome,  who  says  (  Quasi,  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  16 )  that 
there  was  then  a  town  named  .Sochoth  beyond  the 
Jordan  (trans  Jord(i7iem)^  in  the  district  (parte) 
of  Scytliopolis.  Notiiing  more,  however,  was  heard 
of  it  till  Burckhardfs  journey.  He  mentions  it  in 
a  note  to  p  345  (July  2).  He  is  speaking  of  the 
places  about  the  Jordan,  and,  after  naming  three 
ruined  towns  "  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  to  the 
north  of  Bysan,"  he  says:   "  Near  where  we  crossed 

to  the  south  are  the  ruins  of  Sukkot  (J^iLww)-  On 
the  western  bank  of  the  river  tliere  are  no  ruins 
between  Ain  Sultan  (which  he  has  just  said  was 
the  southernmost  of  the  three  ruined  places  north 
of  Bysan)  and  Hieha  or  Jericho."'  Tliere  can, 
therefore,  be  no  doubt  that  the  Sukkot  of  Burck- 
hardt  was  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  The  spot 
at  which  he  crossed  he  has  already  stated  (pp.  343, 
344)  to  iiave  been  -'two  hours  from  Bysan,  which 
bore  N.  N.^\^" 

Dr.  Robinson  (BiU.  Res.  iii.  309,  &c.)  and  Mr. 
Van  de  Velde  [Syr.  and  Pal.  ii.  343)  have  discovered 

a  place  named  SdktU  (cy  aJ  Lw),  evidently  en- 
tirely distinct  both  in  name  and  position  from  that 
of  Burckhardt.  In  the  accounts  and  maps  of  these 
tra\el!ers  it  is  placed  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jor- 
dan, less  than  a  mile  from  the  river,  and  about  10 
miles  south  of  Beisan.  A  fine  spring  l)ubliles  out 
on  the  east  side  of  the  low  blufTon  which  the  ruins 
stand.  The  distance  of  SiHut  from  Beisan  is  too 
great,  even  if  it  were  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Jordan,  to  allow  of  its  being  the  place  referred  to 
by  Jerome.  The  Su/ckut  of  Burckhardt  is  more 
suitable.  But  it  is  doubtful  wliether  either  of 
them  can  be  the  Succoth  of  the  Old  Test.  For 
the  events  of  Gideon's  story  the  latter  of  tlie  two 
is  not  unsuitable.  It  is  in  the  line  of  flight  and 
pursuit  wliich  we  may  suppose  the  Midianites  and 
Gideon  to  have  taken,  and  it  is  also  near  a  ford. 
SakUt,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  too  far  south,  and 
is  also  on  the  west  of  tlie  river.  But  botli  ajipear 
too  far  to  the  north  for  the  Succoth  of  .Iaeol>,  lying 
as  that  did  between  the  Jalibok  and  Shechem,  es- 
pecially if  we  place  the  IVudy  Zerhi  (usually  iden- 
tified with  the  .labbok)  further  to  tlie  south  than  it 
is  placed  in  Van  de  Velde's  map,  as  Mr.  Beke  « 
proposes  to  do.  .lacob's  direct  road  from  the  Wwly 
Zerka  to  Shechem  would  have  led  him  by  the 
Wady  Ferrah,  on  the  one  hand,  or  through  Ya- 
nil7i,  on  the  other.     If  he  went  north   as   far  as 


n  This  gentleman,  an  old  and  experienced  traveller, 
1.  IS  lately  returned  from  a  journey  between  Damascus, 
the  \Va//i/  Zer/ca,  and  Nablus.  It  was  undertaken 
with  the  view  of  testing  liis  theory  that  Uarau  was  in 
he  neighborhood  of  Damascus  [Uar.^n,  Anier.  ed.]. 
(Vithuut  going  into  that  question,  all  that  concerng 


SUCCOTH 

Sakiit.,  he  must  have  ascended  by  the  Wady  yfaleh 
to  'J'eyas'ir,  and  so  through  Tubas  and  the  IVady 
Bidan.  Perhaps  his  going  north  was  a  inse  to 
escape  the  dangerous  proximity  of  Esau ;  and  if  he 
made  a  long  stay  at  Succoth,  as  suggested  in  the 
outset  of  this  article,  the  detewr  from  the  direct 
road  to  Shechem  would  be  of  little  importance  to 
him. 

Until  the  position  of  Succoth  is  more  exactly 
ascertained,  it  is  impossible  to  say  what  was  th( 
Valley  of  Succoth  mentioned  in  Ps.  Ix.  6  and 
cviii.  7.  The  word  rendered  •'  Valley  "  is  'emek  in 
both  cases  (tj  KoiXas  twi/  aK7}vaiv  '■  Vallis  Soccoth ). 
The  same  word  is  employed  (Josh.  xiii.  27)  in 
specifying  the  position  of  the  group  of  towns 
amongst  which  Succoth  occurs,  in  describing  the 
allotment  of  tiad.  So  that  it  evidently  denotes 
some  marked  feature  of  the  country.  It  is  not 
probable,  however,  that  the  main  valley  of  the 
Jordan,  the  Gliih\  is  intended,  that  being  always 
designated  in  the  Bible  by  the  name  of  "  the  Ara 
bah."'  G. 

SUCCOTH  (rS'3D  [boot/is]:  ^oKxdod;  [ex. 
xii.  37,  V.at.  ^oKxooOa'-]  b"Colli,  Succcth,  "  booths," 
or  "tents  "),  the  first  camping-place  of  the  Israel- 
ites when  they  left  Egypt  (Ex.  xii.  37,  xiii.  20; 
Num.  xxxiii.  5,  6).  This  place  was  apparently 
reached  at  the  close  of  the  first  day's  march.  It 
can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  each  of  the  first  three 
stations  marks  the  end  of  a  single  journey.  Ka- 
meses,  the  starting-place,  we  ha\e  shown  was  ])ruba- 
bly  near  the  western  end  of  the  Wddi-t-Tunuylal. 
We  have  calculated  the  distance  traversed  in  each 
day's  journey  to  have  been  about  fifteen  miles,  and 
as  Succoth  was  not  in  the  desert,  the  next  station,* 
liltham,  being  "  in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness" 
(Ex.  xiii.  20;  Num.  xxxiii.  6),  it  must  have  been 
in  the  valley,  and  consequently  nearly  due  east  of 
Eameses,  and  fifteen  miles  distant  in  a  straight 
line.  If  Ranieses  may  be  supposed  to  have  been 
near  the  mound  called  /il-Abbdseeyeh,  the  position 
of  Succoth  can  be  readily  determined  within  mod- 
erate limits  of  uncertainty.  It  was  probably,  to  judge 
from  its  name,  a  resting-place  of  caravans,  or  a  mili- 
tary station,  or  a  town  named  from  one  of  the  two. 
We  find  similar  names  in  Seenas  Rlandrae  (/tin. 
Ant.),  Scenoe  jMandrorum  (Not.  Diyn.)  or  '2,K7\v^ 
^av^pitiv  (Not.  Grtec.  L'pisc<ijjalu2un),Scenai\eteT- 
anorum  (Jt.  Ant.  Nat.  JJifjn.),  and  Hceuce  extra 
Uerasa  (sic;  Not.  Diijn.).  See,  for  all  these  places, 
Parthey,  Zitr  Erdkunde  des  alten  yii(/yptens,  p. 
535.  It  is,  however,  evident  that  such  a  name 
would  be  easily  lost,  and  even  if  preserved,  hard  to 
recognize,  as  it  miiiht  be  concealed  under  a  corre- 
sponding name  of  similar  signification,  though  verv 
different  in  sound,  as  that  of  the  settlement  of 
Ionian  and  L'arian  mercenaries,  called  to,  Srpo- 
r6ireSa  (Herod,  ii.  154). 

We  must  here  remark  upon  tlie  extreme  careless- 
ness witli  which  it  has  been  taken  for  granted  that 
the  whole  journey  to  the  Red  Sea  was  through  the 
desert,  and  an  argument  against  the  authenticity 
of  the  sacre<l  narrative  liased  upon  evidence  which 
it  not  only  does  not  state  but  contradicts.  For, 
as  we  have  seen,  Etham,  the  second  camping-place, 


us  here  is  to  say  that  he  has  fixed  the  latitude  of  the 
niduth  of  the  iVnity  Ze-ka  at  32°  l*',  or  more  than 
ten  miles  south  of  its  position  in  Van  de  Velde's  map 
Mr.  IJoke's  paper  aud  map  will  be  published  in  tlM 
Journal,  of  the  II.  Geogr.  Society  tor  1863. 


SUCCOTH-BENOTH 


SUN 


3125 


jras  "in  the  eclge  of  the  wilderness,"  and  the 
jountry  was  once  cultivated  along  the  valley 
.lirough  which  passed  the  canal  of  the  Red  Sea. 
The  demand  that  Moses  was  commissioned  to 
make,  that  the  Israelites  might  take  "  three  days' 
iourney  into  the  wilderness"  (Ex.  iii.  18),  does 
not  imply  that  the  journey  was  to  be  of  three  days 
through  the  wilderness,  but  rather  that  it  would  be 
necessary  to  make  three  days"  journey  in  order  to 
sacrifice'in  the  wilderness.  [Ivvodus,  Tiii-:;  Ked 
Sea,  Passage  ok.]  R-  ^-  3^- 

SUCCOTH-BE'NOTH      (ni2?"ni3D 
[ho,'tlis  of  dauijhtersy.  -Zoikx^O  Bei/ifl  [Vat.  Pox" 
ya,e  ^aiv^i^ii,  Alex.  :S.oKx<^ti  B^viH^i'l  ■   Soclwih- 
btnoth)   occurs  only  in   2    K.   xvii.  30.  where  the 
Babylonish  settlers  in  Samaria  are  said  to  have  set 
up  the  worship  of  Succoth-lienoth  on  their  arrival 
in  that  country.     It  has   generally  been   supposed 
that  this  term  is  pure   Hebrew,  and   signifies   the 
"tents  of    daughters;"    which    some  explam    as 
»  the  booths  in  which  the  daughters  of  the  Haby- 
lonians   prostituted   themselves   in   honor  of  their 
idol,'"  others  as  "small  taljernacles  in  which  were 
contained  images  of  female  deities"  (compare  Ge- 
senius  and  S.  Newman,  ad  roc.   HSD  ;   Whier, 
Rtahcdrterbuch,    n-   543;    Calmet,    Commentaire 
Liftei-'il,  ii.  897).     It  is  a  strong  objection  to  both 
these  explanations,  that  Succoth-benoth,  which  in 
the  passage  in  Kings  occurs  in  the  same  construc- 
tion with"  Nergal  and  various  other  gods,  is  thus 
not  a  deity  at  all,  nor,  strictly  speaking,  an  oliject 
of  worship.     Perliaps   therefore  the  suggestion  of 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  against  which  this  objection  does 
not  lie,  may  be  admitted  to  <leserve  some  attention. 
this  writer  thinks  that  Succoth-lienoth  represents 
the  Chahlfeaii  goddess  Zir-banit,  the  wife  of  Me- 
rodach,  who  was  especially  worshipped  at  Babylon, 
in  conjunction  with  her  husband,  and  who  is  called 
the  »  queen  "  of  the  place.     Succoih  he  supposes 
to  be  either  "  a  Hamitic  term  equivalent  to  Zii-;' 
or   possibly  a  Shemitic  mistranslation  of  the  term 
—  i^HYf/,  "  supreme,"  being  confounded  with  Zn- 
yat,  "tents."      (See  the  kssay  of  Sir  H.  Rawlin- 
son in  Rawlinson's  Ileroilotus,  vol.  i.  p.  630.) 

G.  R. 

SU'CHATHITES  (D\1^^t27  [patr.  whence 
unknown]:  [Scoxafli/x;  Vat.  Alex.]  ScowSieiAi- i« 
Uibernaculis  comrnorantes).  One  of  the  fiunilies 
of  scribes  at  Jabez  (1  Chr.  ii.  55). 

SUD  (2oy5:  >Wi).  A  river  in  the  immediate 
neic'hborhood  of  Babylon,  on  the  banks  of  which 
.Jewish  exiles  lived  (Bar.  i.  4).  No  such  river  is 
known  to  geographers:  but  if  we  assume  that  the 
first  part  of  the  book  of  Banich  was  written  in 
Hebrew,  the  original  text  may  Lave  been  Sur,  the 
final  "^  having  been  changed  into  "T.  In  this 
case  the  name  would  represent,  not  the  town  of 
Sora,  as  suggested  by  Boch.art  {Plinler/,  i.  8),  but 
the  river  Euphrates  itself,  whicli  is  always  named 
by  Arab  geographers  "  the  river  of  Sura,"  a  cor- 
ruption probably  of  the  "  Sippara  "  of  the  inscrip- 
tions (Rawlinson's  lleivd.  i.  Gil,  note  4). 

SUD  (SouSa;  [Vat.  2')ua;]  Alex,  ^oucra; 
""Aid.  2oi^5:]  Stt)  =  SiA.  or  Siaha  (1  Esdr.  v. 
E9;  comp.  Neh.  vii.  47;  Ezr.  ii.  44). 

SUDI'AS  (lovBlas  ■■  Sercbi'is  et  Edi<is)  = 
HoDAViAii  3  and  HoDEVAH  (1  Esdr.  v.  26; 
wm».  Ezr.  iii.  40:   Neh.  vii.  43). 


SUK'KIIMS  (C*??  [Ijooth-<.lu:ellers] ;  [Rom. 
Vat.  Tpcyodirai;  Alex.]  Tpc^yAoSurai-  Tro.jlo. 
dlta),  a  nation  mentioned  ("2  Chr.  xii.  3;  with  the 
Lubira  and  Cushim  as  supplying  part  of  the  army 
which  came  with  Shishak  out  of  Egypt  when  he 
invaded  Judah.  Gesenius  {Lex.  s.  v.)  suggests 
that  their  name  signifies  "  dwellers  in  tents,  in 
which  case  it  might  perhaps  be  better  to  suppose 
them  to  have  been  an  Arab  tribe  Uke  the  Scenita;, 
than  Ethiopians.  If  it  is  borne  in  mmd  that 
Zerah  was  apparently  allied  with  the  Aral)S  south 
of  Palestine  [Zeuah],  whom  we  know  Shishak  to 
have  subdued  [Shishak],  our  conjecture  does  not 
seem  to  be  improbable.  The  Sukkiims  may  cor- 
respond to  some  one  of  the  shepherd  or  wandering 
races  mentioned  on  the  Egyptian  monuments,  but 
we  have  not  found  any  name  in  hieroglyphics  re- 
sembling their  name  in  the  Bible,  and  this  some- 
what favors  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  Sheniitic  ap- 
pellation. 1^-  '^^  '^'■ 

*  SUMMER.      [Agriculture,    p.   40   6  ; 
Palestlne,  p.  2317 ;  Rain.] 

*  SUMMER-PARLOR.  [House,  p.  llOS.j 
SUN  (tt^T????^).      In  the  Instory  of  the  creatior 

the  sun  is  described  as  the  "greater  light"  in  con 
tradistinction  to  the   moon  or  "lesser  light,"  ii 
conjunction  with  which  it  was  to  serve  "  for  signs 
and  for  seasons,    and    for  days,   and    for  years,' 
while  its  special  office  was  "  to  rule  the  day  "  (Gen 
i.  14-16).     The  "signs"  referred  to  were   prob- 
ably   such    extraordinary  phenomena    as   eclipses 
which  were  regarded  as  conveying  premonitions  of 
coming  events(.Ier.  x.  2;  Matt.  xxiv.  2it,.  with  Lukt 
xxi.  25).     The  joint  influence  assigned  to  the  sun 
and   moon    in   deciding  the   "seasons,"   both   lor 
ao-ricultural  operations  and  for  religious  festivals, 
and  also  hi  regulating  the  length  and  subdivisions 
of  the  "years,"  correctly  describes  the  combina- 
tion of  the  lunar  and  sol.ar  year,  which  prevailed 
at  all  events  subsequently  to  the  Mosaic  period  — 
the  moon  being  the  menmnr  {naT    eioxV")  of  the 
lapse  of  time  by  the  subdivisions   of  months  and 
weeks,  while  the  sun   was  the  ultimate  reyul'ilur 
of  the  leni:th  of  the  year  by  means  of  the  recur- 
rence of  the  feast  of  I'entecost  at  a  fixed  agricul- 
tural season,  namely,  when  the  corn  became  ripe. 
The  sun  "ruled  the  day"  alone,  sharing  the  do- 
minion of  the  skies  with  the  moon,  the  brilliaiicy 
and   utihty  of  which  for  journeys  and  other  pur- 
poses enhances  its  value  in  eastern  countries.      It 
"ruled  the  day,"  not  only  in  reference  to  its  pow- 
erful influences,  but  also  as  deciding  the  length  of 
the  day  and   supplying   the  means  of  calculating 
its  progress.     Sun-rise  and   sun-set  are   the  only 
defined" points  of  time  in  the  absence  of  artificial 
contrivances  for  telling  the  hour  of  the  day :  and 
as  these  points  are  less  variable  in  tiie  latitude  of 
Palestine  than  in  our  country,  they  served  the  pur 
pose  of  markiivg  the  commencement  and  conclu- 
sion   of   the    working    day.      Between    these    two 
points  the  .Jews  recognized  three  periods,  namely, 
when  the  sun  became  hot,  about  9  A.  M.  (1  Sam. 
xi.  9;  Neh.  vii.  3);  the  double  light  or  noon  (Gen. 
xliii.'lG;  2  Sam.  iv.  5),  and  "  the  cool  of  the  day" 
shortly  before  sunset  (Gen.  iii.  8).     The  sun  also 
served  to  fix  the  (piarters  of  the  hemisphere,  east. 
west,    north,  and    south,   wliich  were  reiiresented 
respectivelv  bv  the  rising  sun,  «ie  setting  sun  (Is. 
xlv.  6:  Ps-  1.1),  the  dark  quarter  (Geti.  xiii.  14 
Joel  ii.  20).  and  the  brilliant  quarter  (Deut.  xixii' 


3126 


SUN 


23;  Job  xxxvii.  17:  Ez.  xl.  2-4);  or  otherwise  by 
their  position  relative  to  a  person  facing  tlie  rising 
sun  —  before,  beliind,  on  tlie  left  hand,  and  on  the 
rii;lit  hand  (Job  xxiii.  8,  9).  The  apparent  motion 
of  tlie  sun  is  frequently  referred  to  in  terms  that 
Would  imply  its  reality  (Josh.  x.  13;  2  K.  xx.  11; 
I's.  xix.  G;  Keel  i.  5;  Hab.  iii.  11).  'J'he  ordinary 
name  for  the  sun,  sliemesh,  is  supposed  to  refer  to 
the  extreme  brilhancy  of  its  rays,  producing  stiipoi- 
or  astonis/iment  in  the  mind  of  the  beholder;  the 
poetical  names,  c/iammdh"  (Job  xxx.  28;  Cant, 
vi  10;  Is.  xxx.  2G),  and  clieres^  (Judg.  xiv.  18; 
Job  ix.  7)  have  reference  to  its  heat,  the  beneficial 
effects  of  which  are  duly  connnemorated  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  14;  Ps.  xix.  6),  as  well  as  its  baneful  hiflu- 
ence  when  in  excess  (Ps.  cxxi.  6;  Is.  xlix.  10;  Jon. 
iv.  8;  Ecclus.  xliii.  3,  4).  The  vigor  with  which 
the  sun  traverses  the  heavens  is  compared  to  that 
of  a  "bridegroom  coming  out  of  his  chamber," 
and  of  a  "giant  rejoicing  to  run  his  course"  (Ps. 
xix,  5).  The  speed  with  which  the  beams  of  the 
rising  sun  dart  across  the  sky,  is  expressed  in  the 
term  "wings"  applied  to  them  (Ps.  cxxxix.  9; 
Mai.  iv.  2).' 

The  worship  of  the  sun,  as  the  most  prominent 
and  powerful  agent  in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  was 
widely  diffused  throughout  the  countries  adjacent 
to  Palestine.  The  Araliians  appear  to  have  paid 
direct  worship  to  it  without  the  intervention  of  anj' 
statue  or  symbol  (Job  xxxi.  26,  27;  Strab.  xvi. 
p.  784),  and  this  simple  style  of  worship  was  prob- 
aljly  familiar  to  the  ancestors  of  the  Jews  in 
Chaldrea  and  Mesopotamia.  In  Egypt  the  sun 
was  worshipped  under  the  title  of  He  or  Ka,  and 
not  as  was  supposed  by  ancient  writers  under  the 
form  of  Osiris  (Uiod.  Sic.  i.  11;  see  Wilkinson's 
Arte.  Kg.  iv.  289):  the  name  came  conspicuously 
forward  as  the  title  of  the  kings,  Pliaraoh,  or  rather 
I'hra,  meaning  "the  sun"  (Wilkinson,  iv.  287). 
The  Helirews  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with 
the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  sun  during  the  Cap- 
tivity in  Egypt,  both  from  the  contiguity  of  On, 
the  chief  seat  of  the  worship  of  the  sun  as  implied 
in  the  name  itself  (On  =  the  Hebrew  Beth-she- 
mesh,  "house  of  the  sun,"  Jer.  xliii.  13),  and  also 
from  the  connection  between  Joseph  and  Poti- 
pherah  ("  he  who  belongs  to  Ka"),  the  priest  of 
On  (Gen.  xli.  45).  After  their  removal  to  Canaan, 
the  Hebrews  came  in  contact  with  various  forms  of 
idolatry,  which  originated  in  the  worship  of  the 
sun;  such  as  the  Baal  of  the  Phoenicians  (Movers, 
PhCm.  i.  180),  the  Molech  or  Milcom  of  the  Am- 
monites, and  the  Hadad  of  the  Syrians  (Plin.  xxxvii. 
71).  These  idols  were,  with  the  exception  of  the 
last,  introduced  into  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  at 
various  periods  (Judg.  ii.  11;  1  K.  xi.  5);  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  the  object  symbolized  by  them 
was  known  to  the  Jews  themselves.  If  we  have 
any  notice  at  all  of  conscious  sun-worship  in  the 
early  stages  of  their  history,  it  exists  in  the  doubt- 
ful term  chammanhn<^  (Lev.  xxvi.  30;  Is.  xvii.  8, 
&c. ),  which  was  itself  significant  of  the  sun,  and 
prohalily  described  the  stone  pillars  or  statues 
under  which  the  solar  Baal  (Baal-Haman  of  the 
I'unic  inscriptions,  Gesen.  Thus.  i.  489)  was  wor- 
shipped at  Baal-Hamon  (Cant.  viii.  11)  and  other 
places.  Pure  sun-worship  appears  to  have  been 
introduced  by  the  Assyrians,  and  to  have  become 
brmally  established  by  Manasseh  (2  K.  xxi.  3,  5), 


» Tvir 


b  D-in. 


SUE 

in  contravention  of  the  prohibitions  of  Moses'(Deat 
iv.  19,  xvii.  3).  Whether  the  practice  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  Sejiharvites  of  Samaria  (2  K.  xvii. 
31),  whose  gods  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech 
are  supposed  to  rejjresent  the  male  and  female  sun, 
and  whose  original  residence  (the  Ileliopolis  of 
Berosus)  was  the  chief  seat  of  the  worship  of  the 
sun  ill  Babylonia  (Kawlinson's  Ihrod.  i.  Oil),  or 
whether  the  kings  of  Judah  drew  their  model  of 
worship  more  immediately  from  the  east,  is  uncer- 
tain. The  dedication  of  chariots  and  horses  to 
the  sun  (2  K.  xxiii.  11)  was  perhaps  borrowed  from 
the  Persians  (Herod,  i.  189;  Curt.  iii.  3,  §  11; 
Xen.  Cyrop.  viii.  3,  §  24),  who  honored  the  suil 
under  the  form  of  Jlithras  (Strab.  xv.  p.  732).  At 
tlie  same  time  it  should  be  observed  tliat  the  horse 
was  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  sun  in  other 
countries,  as  among  the  Massagetae  (Herod,  i.  216), 
and  the  Armenians  (Xen.  Awib.  iv.  5,  §  3.5),  both 
of  whom  used  it  as  a  sacrifice.  To  judge  from 
the  few  notices  we  have  on  the  subject  in  the 
Bible,  we  should  conclude  that  the  Jews  derived 
their  mode  of  worshipping  the  sun  from  several 
quarters.  The  practice  of  burning  incense  on  the 
house-tops  (2  K.  xxiii.  5,  12;  Jer.  xix.  13;  Zepb. 
i.  5)  might  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Arabians 
(Strab.  xvi.  p.  784),  as  also  the  simple  act  of  adora- 
tion directed  towards  the  rising  sun  (Ez.  viii.  16 ; 
conip.  Job  xxxi  27).  On  the  other  hand,  the  use 
of  the  chariots  and  horses  in  the  processions  on 
festival  days  came,  as  we  have  observed,  from  Per- 
sia; and  so  al>o  the  custom  of  "putting  the  branch 
to  the  nose"  (Ez.  viii.  17),  according  to  the  gen- 
erally received  explanation,  which  identifies  it  with 
the  Persian  practice  of  hokling  in  the  left  hand 
a  bundle  of  twigs  called  Bersam  while  worshipping 
the  sun  (Strab.  XV.  p.  733 :  Hyde,  ltd.  Ptrs.  p. 
345).  This,  however,  is  very  doubtful,  the  expres- 
sion being  otherwise  understood  of  "  putting  the 
knife  to  the  no.se,"  i.  e.  producing  self-mutilation 
(llitzig.  On  Eztk.).  An  objection  lies  against 
the  former  view  from  the  fact  that  the  Persians  are 
not  said  to  have  held  the  branch  to  the  nose.  The 
importance  attached  to  the  worship  of  the  sun  by 
the  Jewish  kings,  may  be  inferred  Irom  the  fact  that 
tlie  horses  were  stalled  within  the  precincts  of  the 
temiile  (the  term  pcrvny''  meaning  not  "suliurb" 
as  in  the  A.  V.,  but  either  a  portico  or  an  out- 
building of  the  tenijile).  They  were  removed  thence 
by  Josiah  (2  K.  xxiii.  11). 

In  the  metaphorical  language  of  Scripture  the 
sun  is  emblematic  of  the  law  of  God  (Ps.  xix.  7), 
of  the  cheering  presence  of  God  (Ps.  Ixxxiv.  11), 
of  the  person  of  the  Saviour  (John  i.  9;  Mai.  iv. 
2),  and  of  the  glory  and  purity  of  heavenly  beings 
(Kev.  i.  16,  X.  1,  xii.  1).  W.  L.  13. 

*  SUN-DIAL.     [Dial.] 

*  SUPPER.     [Lord's  Supper;  Meals.] 

*  SUPPER,  THE  LAST.   [PASsovKR,iii.]. 
SUR  (2oi^p;  [Vat.iAo-o-oup:  Sin.Toi/p:]  Vulg, 

omits).  One  of  the  places  on  the  sea-coast  of  Pal- 
estine, which  are  named  as  having  been  disturbec. 
at  the  appro.ach  of  Holofernes  with  the  Assyian 
army  (Jud.  ii.  28).  It  cannot  be  Tyre,  the  n.od- 
ern  Si'ir,  since  that  is  mentioned  immediately  be- 
fore. Some  have  suggested  Dor,  others  a  place 
named  Sora,  mentioned  by  Steph.  Byz.  as  in 
Phoenicia,  which  they  would  identify  with  AthlU, 


c  n"'3!2n. 


T  t  - 


SURETISHIP 

atlierg,  again,  Sura/end.  But  none  of  these  are 
satisfactory. 

SURETISHIP.  (1.)  The  A.  V.  renderiui; 
for  idke'iiii,'^  lit.  in  marw.  '•  those  tliat  strike 
(hands)."  (2.)  The  phrase*  texumelh  yd'/,  "  de- 
positinii;  in  tlie  hand,"'  i.  e.  giving  in  pledge,  may 
be  understood  to  apply  to  the  act  of  pledging,  or 
virtual  though  not  personal  suretiship  (Lev.  vi.  2, 
in  Heb.  v.  21).  In  the  entire  absence  of  connnerce 
the  Law  laid  down  no  rules  on  tiie  subject  of  sure- 
tiship, but  it  is  evident  that  in  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon commercial  dealings  had  become  so  multiplied 
that  suretiship  in  the  commercial  sense  was  com- 
mon (I'rov.  vi.  1,  xi.  15,  xvii.  18,  xx.  16,  xxii.  26, 
xxvii.  l.i).  But  in  older  times  the  notion  of  one 
man  becoming  a  surety  for  a  service  to  lie  dis- 
charged liy  another  was  in  full  force  (.see  Gen.  xliv. 
32),  and  it  is  probable  that  the  same  form  of  un- 
dertaking existed,  namely,  the  giving  the  hand  to 
(striking  hands  with),  not,  as  JMichaelis  represents, 
the  person  who  was  to  discharge  the  service  —  in 
the  conmiercial  sense  the  debtor  —  but  the  person 
to  whom  it  was  due,  the  creditor  (.lol)  xvii.  .3; 
Prov.  vi.  1;  Michaelis,  L'lics  (>/'  Moses,  §  1-51,  ii. 
322,  ed.  Smith).  The  surety  of  course  became 
liable  for  his  client's  debts  in  case  of  his  failure. 
In  later  Jewish  times  the  system  had  become  com- 
mon, and  caused  much  distress  in  many  instances, 
jet  the  duty  of  siu'etiship  in  certain  cases  is  recog- 
nized as  valid  (Ecchis.  viii.  13,  xxix.  14,  15,  16, 
18,  19).     [Loan.]  H.  \V.  P. 

*  SURETY.     [Suretiship;  Pledge.] 
SUSA    {[Zovcra'-]   Susan).     Esth.   xi.  3,   xvi. 
18.     [Sjiushan.] 

SU'SANCHITES  (S^D2tt'm'  [see  below]: 
2opaavaxa'ioi;  [Vat.  31. -o-y»'- :]  Siisam-cluei)  is 
found  once  only  —  in  Ezr  iv.  9,  where  it  occurs 
among  the  list  of  the  nations  whom  the  Assyrians 
had  settled  in  Samaria,  and  whose  descendants  still 
occupied  the  country  in  the  reign  of  the  I'seudo- 
Snierdis.     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  designates 

either  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  Susa  (]tr-1lZ7),  or 
tiiose  of  the  country  —  Susis  or  Susiana  —  where- 
of Susa  Wiis  the  capital.  Perhaps  as  the  Islamites 
are  mentioned  in  the  same  passage,  and  as  Daniel 
(viii.  2)  seems  to  call  the  country  Klani  and  the 
city  Shushan  (or  Susa),  the  former  explanation  is 
preferable.     (See  Shushan.)  G.  K. 

SUSAN'NA  ([Theodot.]  ^coaduya,  [Alex.] 
l,ov(Tavva;  [LXX.  -Sovo-duya-l  «•  e.  n2tt?1tt?,  "a 
lily").  1.  The  heroine  of  the  story  of  the  Judg- 
ment of  Daniel.  [Daniel,  Apockyphal  Ad- 
ditions TO.]  The  name  occurs  in  Diod.  Sic.  as 
that  of  the  daughter  of  Ninus  (ii.  6),  and  Sheshan 
(1  Ciir.  ii.  31,  34,  35)  is  of  the  same  origin  and 
meaning  (Ges.  Thes.  s.  v.). 

2.  One  of  the  women  who  ministered  to  the  Lord 
(Luke  viii.  3).  B.  K.  W. 

SU'SI  C'P-ID  :  ^ova-l  [Vat.  -o-et] :  Svsi).  The 

6ither  of  Gaddi  the  Manassite  spy  (Num.  xiii.  11). 

SWALLOW,  "iStt,  deror,  !md'^^2V,di/th; 

t)oth  thus  translated  in  A.  V.  "ITT^  occurs  twice, 
?s.  Ixxxiv.  3,  and  Prov.  xxvi.  2:  transl.  by  LXX. 
oaiywi    and  aTpov66s;  Vulg.  tuvtur  and  passer. 

a  D"'37|7in  :  Vulg.  laqueos :  from  27f2n, "  strike  " 
Ctoi  p.  16lV). 


SWALLOW 


3127 


"^^2V  also  twice.  Is.  xxxviii.  14,  and  Jer.  viii.  7, 

both  times  in  conjunction  with  D^D  or  '0^'D, 
and  rendered  by  LXX.  TreptaTspd  and  aTpov&Lv^ 
Vulg.  "coluniba''  and  "ciconia."    In  each  passage 

D'^P  is  rendered,  probably  correctly,  by  LXX.  ^^e- 
Mhiiv  (swallow),  A.  V.  crane  [Chane],  which 
is  more  probably  the  true  signification  of  "1^3^. 
D"T'  is  perhaps,  connected  with  Arab.    ^aai.A.av-0 

{'msissi),  applied  to  many  warbling  birds. 

The  rendering  of  A.  V.  for  "11"!"^   seems  leas 

open  to  question,  and  the  original  (quasi  "^l"!"^, 
"  freedom  ")  may  include  the  swallow  with  other 
swiftly  flying  or  free  birds.  The  old  commentators, 
except  Bochart,  who  renders  it  "  columba  fera," 
apply  it  to  the  swallow  from  the  love  of  freedom  in 
this  bird,  and  the  impossibility  of  retaining  it  in 
captivity. 

Whatever  be  the  precise  tendering,  the  characters 
ascribed  in  the  several  passages  where  the  names 
occur,  are  strictly  a[iplicable  to  the  swallow,  namely, 
its  swiftne.ss  of  Higbt,  its  nesting  in  the  buildings 
of  the  Temple,  its  ujouniful,  garrulous  note,  and  its 
regular  migration,  shared  indeed  in  common  with 
several  others.     But  the  turtle-dove,  for  whicli  the 

LXX.  have  taken  ~m^,  was  scarcely  likely  to  lie 
a  familiar  resident  in  the  Temple  Inelosure.  On 
Is.  xxxviii.  14,  "  Like  a  swallow,  so  did  I  chatter," 
we  may  observe  that  the  garrulity  of  the  swallow 
was  proverbial  among  the  ancients  (see  Noun. 
Diorys  ii.  133,  and  .\ristoph.  Balr.  93).  Hence 
its  epithet  /ccoriAas,  "  the  twitterer,"  KWTi\dSas 
Sf  ras  x^'^'Stii'as,  .Vthen.  p.  622.  See  Aiiair. 
104,  and  opdpoy^^rj,  Hes.  Oj).  566  ;  and  \'irg. 
Utvr;/.  iv.  306. 

Although  Aristotle  in  his  "  Natural  History," 
and  Pliny  following  him,  have  given  currency  to  the 
fable  that  many  swallows  bury  themselves  during 
winter,  yet  the  regularity  of  their  migration  alluded 
to  by  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  was  familiarly  recog. 
nized  by  the  ancients.  See  Anacreon  {Od.  xxxiii.). 
The  ditty  quoted  by  .Vthen.  (p.  360)  from  The- 
ognis  is  well  known  — 

'HA8'  ^K6e  xeAiSuJi/,  KoAa5  wpas  ayovao., 
icaAovs  iviavTovs ,  evrl  yatrripa  Afu/ca,  irrl   fmra 
fxeKaiva. 

So  Ovid  (Fast.  ii.  853),  "  Prtenuntia  veris  hi- 
rundo." 

JMany  species  of  swallow  occur  in  Palestine.  All 
those  familiar  to  us  in  Britain  are  found.  The 
swallow  (/Jiriindo  ruslica,  L.,  var.  Cn/nrica, 
Lichst.),  martin  (C/ielidoii  urbica,  L.),  sand  martin 
(Colyle  ripiivid,  L. )  abound.  Besides  tliese  the 
eastern  swallow  {flir.  rv/ida,  Teni.),  which  nestles 
generally  in  fissures  in  rocks,  and  the  crag  martin 
{Cotyle  rupestn's,  L.),  which  is  confined  to  inoun 
tain  gorges  and  desert  districts,  are  also  connnon 
See  Ibis,  vol.  i.  p.  27,  vol.  ii.  p.  386.  The  crag 
martin  is  the  only  member  of  the  genus  which 
does  not  migrate  from  Palestine  in  winter.  Of  the 
genus  Cypseliis  (swift),  our  swift  ( Cypsdus  npus,  L.) 
is  common,  and  the  splendid  alpine  swift  ( Cyps. 
mtlba,  L.)  may  be  seen  in  all  suitable  localities 
A  third  species,  peculiar,  so  far  as  is  yet  known 


6  T^  na^tt'ri :  ,r«po*,<c» 


3128 


SWAN 


to   the  northeast  of  Palestine,    has  recently   been 
described  under  the  name  of  Cypschis  (iciikensls. 

Whatever  be  the  true  appellation  for  the  s\Yallow 
tribe  in  Hebrew,  it  would  perhaps  include  the  bee- 
eaters,  so  similar  to  many  of  the  swallows,  at  least 
in  the  eyes  of  a  cursory  observer,  in  flight,  note, 
and  habits.  Of  this  beautiful  genus  three  species 
occur  in  Palestine,  Merops  apinslei-,  L.,  Memps 
Perslcm.  L.,  and  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  onlij, 
the  eastern  sub-tropical  form  Aferaps  viiidis,  L. 

H.  B.  T. 

SWAN  (n?;?B?3ri,  Unskemetli).  Thus  ren- 
dered by  A.  V.  in  Lev.  xi.  18;  Deut.  xiv.  16,  where  it 
occurs  in  the  list  of  unclean  birds ;  LXX.  iropcpvpiwv, 
i&is;  Vulg.  porphyrio,  ibis.  Bochart  {/Jitroe.  ii. 
2U0)  exiilains  it  voctua  (owl),  and  derives  the  name 

from   C^ti.',   "  to   astonish,"  because   other  birds 
are  startled  at  the  apparition  of  the  owl.     Gesenius 
suggests  the ^^efo'cfm,  from  CK'3,  "to    breathe,  to 
puff',"'  with  reference  to  the  inflation  of  its  pouch. 
>Miatever  may  have    been   the    bird    intended   l)y 
Moses,  these  conjectures  cannot  be  admitted  as  sat- 
isfactory, the  owl  and  pelican  being  both  distinctly 
expre.ssed  elsewhere  in   the  catalogue.     Nor  is   the 
A.  V.  translation  likely  to  be  correct.     It  is  not 
probable  that  the  swan  was  known  to  Moses  or  the 
Israelites,  or  at  least  that  it  was  sufficiently  famil- 
iar to  have  obtained  a  place  in   this  list.      Hassel- 
quist  indeed  mentions  his   having  seen  a  swan  on 
the  coast  of  Damietta,  but  though  a  regular  winter 
visitant  to  Greece,  only  accidental  stragglers  wan- 
der so  far  south  as  the  Nile,  and   it  has  not  lieen 
oliserved  by  recent  naturalists  either  in   Palestine 
or  Egypt.     Nor,  if  it  had  been  known  to  the  Isiael- 
ites,  is  it  easy  to  understand  why  the  swan  should 
have  been  classed  among  the  unclean  birds.     The 
renderings  of  the  LXX.,  "porphjrio  "  and  "  ibis," 
are  either  of  them  more  probable.     Neither  of  these 
birds  occur  elsewhere  in  the  catalogue,  both  would 
be  familiar  to  residents  in  Egypt,  and  the  original 
seems  to  point  to  some  water-low  1.     The  Samaritan 
Version   also   agrees  with  the  LXX.     Tlop(pvpi(»y, 
piiipliyrio  antiqwiruiii,  lip.,  the  purple  water-hen,  is 
mentioned  by  Aristotle  (/Jist.  An.  viii.  8),  Aristoph- 
anes (Av.  707),    Phny    {Nal.     Hist.   x.  63),    and 
more  fully  descriiied  by  Athen»us  {IMipn.  ix.  388). 
It  is  allied  to  our  corn-crake  and  water-hen,  and  is 
the  larstest  and  most  beautiful  of  the  family  R<dlidie, 
being  larger  than  the  domestic   fowl,  with  a  rich 
dark-blue  plumage,  and  brilliant  red  l)eak  and  legs. 
From  the  extraordinary  length  of  its  toes  it  is  en- 
abled, lightly  treading  on  the  flat  leaves  of  water- 
plants,    to  support    itself  without  immersion,  and 
apparently  to  run  on   tiie  surface  of  the  water.     It 
frequents  marshes  and  the  sedge  by  the  banks  of 
rivers  in  all  the  comitries  bordering  on  the  i\Iedi- 
terranean,  and  is  abundant  in  Lower  Egypt.    Athe- 
nasus  has  correctly  noted  its  singular  habit  of  grasp- 
ing   its  food    with  its    very  long    toes,    and    thus 
conveying  it  to  its  mouth.     It  is  distinguished  from 
all  the  other  species  of  Udlluhe  by  its  short  powerful 
mandibles,  with  which  it  crushes  its  pi"ey,  consisting 
often   of  reptiles  and    young    birds.     It   will  fre- 
quently seize  a  young  duck  with  its  long  feet,  and 
At  once  crunch  the  head  of  its  victim  with  its  beak. 
It  is  an  omnivorous  feeder,  and  from  the  miscel- 
laneous character  of  its  food,  might  reasonably  find 
»  place  in  the  catalogue  of  unclean  birds.     Its  flesh 
.s  rank,  coarse,  and  very  dark-colored.     H.  B.  T. 
SWEARING      [Oath.] 


SWEAT,  BLOODY 

SWEAT,  BLOODY.  One  of  the  physiciU 
pliencmena  attending  our  Lord's  agony  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane  is  described  by  St.  Luke 
(xxii.  4-1);  "  His  sweat  was  as  it  were  great  droits 
(lit.  clots,  ep6/xl3oi)  of  bloo(t  falling  down  to  the 
ground."  The  genuineness  of  this  verse  and  of  the 
preceding  has  been  doubted,  Ijut  is  now  generally 
acknowledged.     They  are  omitted  in  A  and  B,  but 

are  found  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  (H),  Codex  Bezse, 
and  others,  and  in  the  Peshito,  Philoxenian,  and 
Curetonian  Syriac  (see  Tregelles,  Greek  New  Test.  ; 
Scrivener,  Introd.  to  the  Cril.  of  the  N.  T.  p.  434), 
and  Tregelles  points  to  the  notation  of  the  section 
and  canon  in  ver.  42  as  a  trace  of  the  existence  of 
the  verse  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus. 

Of  this  malady,  known  in  medical  science  by  the 
term  dinpedesis,  there  have  been  examples  recorded 
both  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  Aristotle  was 
aware  of  it  (l>e  Fart.  Ainm.  iii.  5).  The  cause 
assigned  is  generally  violent  mental  emotion. 
"  Kannegiesser,"  quoted  by  Dr.  Stroud  (P/iys. 
Cause,  of  the  Death  of  Clirist,  p.  86),  "remarks, 
'  Violent  mental  excitement,  whether  occasioned  by 
uncontrollaMe  anger  or  vehement  joy,  and  in  like 
manner  sudden  terror  or  intense  fear,  forces  out  i 
sweat  accompanied  with  signs  either  of  anxiety  or 
hilarity.'  After  ascribing  this  sweat  to  the  unequal 
constriction  of  some  vessels  and  dilatation  of  otiiers, 
he  further  observes:  '  If  the  mind  is  seized  with  a 
sudden  fear' of  death,  the  sweat,  owing  to  the  exces- 
sive degree  of  constriction,  often  becomes  bloody.'  " 
Dr.  Millingen  {Curiosities  of  Mediad  A'aperieiire, 
p.  489,  2d  ed.)  gives  the  following  explanation  of 
the  phenomenon :  "  It  is  proliable  that  tliis  strange 
disorder  arises  from  a  violent  commotion  of  the 
nervous  system,  turning  the  streams  of  l>lood  out 
of  their  natural  course,  and  forcing  the  red  particles 
into  tlie  cutaneous  excretories.  A  mere  relaxation 
of  the  fibres  could  not  produce  so  powerful  a  re- 
vulsion. It  may  also  arise  in  cases  of  extreme  de- 
bility, in  connection  with  a  thinner  condition  of  the 
blood." 

The  following  are  a  few  of  the  instances  on  record 
which  have  been  collected  by  Cahnet  {Diss,  siir  la 
Smur  du  Snni/),  Millingen,  Stroud,  Trusen  {Die 
Sitten,  (Jebrduche,  und  Kranklieilen  d.  alt.  Ilebr., 
Breslau,  1853).  Schenkius  {Obs.  Med.  lib.  iii. 
p.  458)  mentions  the  case  of  a  nun  who  was  so  ter- 
fied  at  falling  into  the  hands  of  soldiers  that  blood 
oozed  from  all  the  pores  of  her  body.  The  same 
writer  saj's  that  in  the  plague  of  Miseno,  in  1554, 
a  woman  \\ho  was  seized  sweated  blood  for  three 
days.  In  1552,  Conrad  Lycosthenes  {de  Prodi(/iis, 
p.  023,  ed.  1557)  reports,  a  woman  sick  of  the  plague 
sweated  blood  from  the  upper  part  of  her  body. 
Maldonato  {Comm.  in  Jivan (j. )  g\\es  an  instance, 
attested  by  eye-witnesses,  of  a  man  at  Paris  in  fuL 
health  and  vigor,  who,  hearing  the  sentence  of 
death,  was  covered  with  a  bloody  sweat.  Accord- 
ing to  De  Thou  (lib.  xi.  vol.  i.  p.  320,  ed.  1626), 
the  governor  of  Montemaro,  being  seized  by  strata- 
gem and  threatened  with  death,  was  so  moved 
tliereat  that  he  sweated  blood  and  water.  Another 
case,  recorded  in  the  same  historian  (lib.  Ixxxii. 
vol.  iv.  p.  44),  is  that  of  a  ITorentine  youth  who  was 
unjustly  condeumed  to  death  by  Pope  Sixtus  V. 
The  death  of  Charles  IX.  of  France  was  attended  by 
the  same  phenomenon.  Mezeray  (Hist,  de  France, 
ii.  1170,  ed.  1646)  says  of  his  last  moments 
"  II  s'agitoit.  et  se  remuoit  sans  cesse,  et  le  «u\\o 
luy  jaillissoit  par  tous  les  conduits  mesme  par  lea 


SWIXE 

pores,  de  sorte  qu'on  le  trouva  une  fois  qui  baign- 
oit  iledajis.  '  A  sailor,  during  a  fearful  storm,  is 
said  to  have  fallen  with  terror,  and  when  takgi  up 
■  Uis  wliole  body  was  covered  with  a  bloody  sweat 
(Millingen,  p  488).  In  the  .\fal'in;j,s  d'UUtuire 
(iii.  179),  by  Uom  Bonaventure  d'Argonne,  the  case 
is  given  of  a  woman  who  sutlered  so  much  from  this 
malady  that,  after  her  death,  no  blood  was  Ibund 
in  her  veins.  Another  case,  of  a  girl  of  18  who 
suffered  in  the  same  way,  is  reporterl  by  .Mesaporiti." 
a  physician  at  Genoa,  accompanied  by  tiie  observa- 
tions of  Vallisneri,  Professor  of  Medicine  at  Padua. 
It  occurred  in  170:5  {Phil.  Trans.  No.  ;j(i;j,  p. 
21-14).  There  is  still,  however,  wanted  a  well- 
authenticated  instance  in  modem  times,  observed 
with  all  the  care  and  attested  by  all  the  exactness 
of  later  medical  science.  That  given  in  Caspar's 
Wudieiischrifl,  1848,  as  having  been  observed  by 
Dr.  Schneider,  appears  to  be  the  most  recent,  and 
resembles  the  [ihenomenon  mentioned  by  'I'heo- 
phrastus  {London  .\[i:d.  G"2.,  1848,  vol.  ii.  p.  'J53). 
For  furtlier  reference  to  authorities,  see  Copland's 
Diet,  of  Medicine,  ii.  72.  W.  A.  \Y. 

SWINE  (~l"^yn,  clidzir:  1$,  vetos,  (Tvs;  x"^P'>s 
in  N.  T.:  sns,  uper).  Allusion  will  lie  found  in  the 
Biole  to  these  animals,  lioth  (1)  in  their  domestic 
and  (2)  in  their  wild  state. 

(1.)  The  nesli  of  swine  was  forbidden  as  food  by 
the  l.e\itical  law  (Lev.  xi.  7;  i>eut.  xiv.  8);  the 
abhorrence  which  the  Jews  as  a  nation  had  of  it 
may  be  inferred  from  Is.  Ixv.  4,  where  some  of  the, 
idolatrous  people  are  represented  as  "  eating  swine's 
flesh,"  and  as  having  the  "  broth  of  abominable 
things  in  their  vessels;  "  see  also  Ixvi.  3,  17,  and  2 
Mace.  vi.  18,  19,  in  which  passage  we  read  that  Elea- 
zar,  an  aged  scribe,  when  comiielled  by  Antiochus 
to  receive  in  his  mouth  swine's  flesh,  "spit  it  forth, 
choosing  rather  to  die  gloriously  than  to  live  stained 
with  such  an  abomination."  The  use  of  swine's 
flesh  was  forbidden  to  the  Egyptian  priests,  to 
whom,  says  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  {Anc.  lujyjd.i.  322), 
"above  all  meats  it  was  particularly  obnoxious" 
(see  Herodotus,  ii.  47;  .£lian,  de  Not.  Aiiim.  x. 
16;  .lo.seplnis,  Conlr.  Apion.  ii.  14),  tiiough  it  was 
occasionally  eaten  by  the  people.  The  Arabians  also 
were  disallowed  the  use  of  swine's  flesh  (see  Pliny, 
viii.  //.  A'.  52;  Koran,  ii.  175),  as  were  also  the 
Phoenicians,  Jithiopians,  and  other  nations  of  the 
East. 

IS'o  other  reason  for  the  command  to  abstain  from 
f  swine's  flesh  is  given  in  the  Law  of  Moses  beyond 
the  general  one  which  forbade  any  of  the  mamma- 
lia as  food  which  did  not  literally  fulfill  the  terms 
of  the  definition  of  a  "clean  animal,''  namely,  that 
it  was  to  be  a  cloven-footed  ruminant.  The  pig, 
therefore,  though  it  divides  tne  hoof,  but  does  not 
chew  the  cud,  was  to  be  considered  unclean;  and 
consequently,  inasmuch  as,  unlike  the  ass  and  the 
horse  in  the  time  of  the  Kings,  no  use  could  be 
made  of  the  animal  when  alive,  the  Jews  did  not 
bleed  swine  (Lactant.  Jnatit.  iv.  17).  It  is,  how- 
ever, probable  that  dietetical  con.siderations  may 
have  influenced  Moses  in  his  prohiliition  of  swine's 
flesh ;  it  is  generally  believed  that  its  use  in  hot 
countries  is  liable  to  induce  cutaneous  disorders; 
lience  in  a  people  liable  to  leprosy  the  necessity  'for 
the  observance  of  a  strict  rule.  "  The  reason  of 
the  meat  not  being  eaten  was  its  unwholesomeness. 


SWINE 


3129 


on  which  account  it  was  forbidden  to  the  i  ews  and 
Moslems  "  (Sir  G.  Wilkinson's  note  in  Pawlinson's 
Herodotus,  ii.  47).  Ham.  Smith,  however  (Kitto's 
Cyd.  art.  *' Swine"),  maintains  that  this  reputed 
unwliole-someness  of  swine's  flesh  has  been  much 
exaggerated ;  and  recently  a  writer  in  Colburn's 
Ne'io  Monthly  Mayazine  (July  1,  18t!2,  p.  200) 
has  endorsed  this  opinion.  Other  conjectures  lor 
the  reason  of  the  prohiliition,  which  are  more  curi- 
ous than  valuable^may  be  .seen  in  liochart  (Hiemz. 
i.  806,  f.).  Callistratus  (apud  Plutarch.  Sywpos. 
iv.  5)  suspected  that  the  Jev;s  did  not  use  swine's 
flesh  for  the  same  reason  which,  he  says,  influenced 
the  Egyptians,  namely,  that  this  animal  was  sacred,  ■ 
inasmuch  as  by  tm-ning  up  the  earth  with  its  snout 
it  first  taught  men  the  art  of  ploughing  (see  Bo- 
chart,  Hieroz.  i.  81)0,  and  a  dissertation  by  Cassel, 
entitled  De  Judaonim  odio  et  obslinentia  n  porcina 
ejn.tque  causis,  Magdel). ;  also  Michaelis,  Comment, 
on  the  Lows  of  Moses,  art.  203,  iii.  230,  Smith's 
transL).  Although  the  Jews  did  not  breed  swine, 
during  the  greater  period  of  their  existence  as  a 
nation,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  heathen 
nations  of  Palestine  used  the  flesh  as  food. 


a  So    the    name    is   given    in    tlie   P/iilos.    Trnns 
Calmet  writes  it  "  M.  Saporitius." 
197 


Wild  Boar. 

At  the  time  of  our  Lord's  ministry  it  would  ap- 
pear that  the  Jews  occasionaly  violated  tlie  law  of 
Moses  with  respect  to  swine's  flesh.  Wbethrr 
"the  herd  of  swine"  into  which  the  devils  were 
allowed  to  enter  (Matt.  viii.  32;  Mark  v.  13)  were 
the  property  of  the  Jewish  or  Gentile  inhabitants 
of  Gadara  does  not  appear  from  the  sacred  narra- 
tive; but  that  the  practice  of  keeping  swine  did 
exist  amongst  some  of  the  Jews  seems  clear  from 
the  enactment  of  t!ie  law  of  Hyrcaniis,  "  ne  cui 
porcum  alere  liceret"  (Grotius,  Annot.  ad  Moll.  1. 
c.).  Allusion  is  made  in  2  Pet.  ii.  22  to  the  fond- 
ness which  swine  have  for  "  wallowing  in  the  mire; ' 
this,  it  appears,  was  a  ])roverl)ial  expression,  with 
which  may  be  compared  the  "  amica  Into  sus  "  of 
Horace  (A/;,  i.  2,  20).  Solomon's  comparison  of  a 
"jewel  of  gold  in  a  swine's  snout"  to  a  "fair 
woman  without  discretion"  (Prov.  xi.  22),  and 
the  expression  of  our  Lord,  "  neither  cast  ye  youi 
jiearls  lefore  swine.''  are  so  obviously  intelligilile  as 
to  render  any  remarks  unnecessary.  The  transac- 
tion of  the  destruction  of  the  herd  of  swine  already 
alluded  to,  like  the  cursing  of  the  b.arren  fig-tree, 
has  been  the  subject  of  most  unfair  cavil:  it  is  well 
answered  by  Trench  {.]Iir(icles,  p.  173),  who  ol>- 
serves  that  "  a  man  is  of  more  value  than  many 
swine  ;  "  besides  which  it  must  be  reniemhered 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  our   Lord 


3130 


SWORD 


ient  the  devils  into  tiie  swine.  He  merely  pennit- 
ted  them  to  go,  as  Aquinas  says,  "  quod  auteni 
porci  in  mare  prscipitati  sunt  non  fuit  operatio  di- 
vini  miraculi,  sed  operatio  dajuionum  e  perniissione 
diviua;  "  and  if  these  Gadarene  villagers  were  Jews 
and  owned  the  swine,  they  were  rightly  punished 
by  the  loss  of  that  which  they  ought  not  to  have 
had  at  all. 

(2.)  The  wild  boar  of  the  wood  (Ps.  Ixxx.  13) 
is  the  connnon  Sus  scrofa  which  is  frequently  met 
with  in  the  woody  parts  of  Palestine,  especially  in 
Mount  Tabor.  The  allusion  in  the  psalm  to  the 
injury  the  wild  boar  does  to  the  vineyards  is  well 
borne  out  by  fact.  ''  It  is  astonishing  what 
ha\oc  a  wild  boar  is  capalile  of  effecting  during  a 
single  night;  what  with  eating  and  trampling  un- 
der foot,  lie  will  destroy  a  vast  quantity  of  grapes  " 
(Hartley's  Researclies  in  Greece^  p.  234). 

W.  H. 

SWORD.     [Arms.] 

SYCAMINE  TREE  (avKatxLvos-  morm)  \i 
mentioned  once  only,  namely,  in  Luke  xvii.  6,  "  If 
ye  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  ye  might 


"^ 


V' 


Moms  nigra  (Mulberry). 
Bay  to  this  sycamine  tree,  Pe  thou  plucked  up," 
etc.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  crvKa- 
utvos  is  distinct  from  the  a-vKofj.wpaia  of  the  same 
Evangelist  (xix.  4)  [Sycamore],  although  we  learn 
from  Dioscorides  (i.  180)  that  this  name  was  some- 
times given  to  the  avKS/iiopos-  The  sycamine  is 
the  mullierry  tree  {^forvs),  as  is  evident  from  Di- 
jscorides,  Theophrastus  (//.  P.  i.  6,  §  1;  10.  §  10; 
13,  §  4,  &c.),  and  various  other  Greek  writers;  see 
Celsius,  Hieruh.  i.  288.  A  form  of  the  same  word, 
7vKafir)vrjd.,  is  still  one  of  the  names  for  the  niul- 


o  •  The  size  of  this  tree  made  it  a  fitting  emblem 
for  the  Saviours  use  (Luke  xvii.  6).  "  Its  ample 
girth,  its  wide-spread  arms  branching  off  fi-om  the  par- 
»nt  trunk  only  a  few  feet  from  the  ground,  its  enor- 
mous roots,  as  thick,  as  numerous,  and  as  wide-spread 
niuO  the  deep  soil  below  as  the  branches  extend  into 
v,.c  air  above,  made  it  the  very  best  type  of  invinci- 
ble steadfastness"  (Thomson,  Lnnii  ami  Booh,  i.  24). 


SYCAMORE 

lierry  tree  in  Greece  (see  Heldreich  s  Niitzpfanzen 
Gritclienlamh,  Athen.  1862,  p.  19.  "  Morus  alba 
L.  und  M.  nigra  L.  •^  Mopyd,  Movpyrid,  und  Moi>- 
pr]d,  auch  'SiVKa^.rjvrjd — pelajsg.  mure, —  ed."). 
Both  black  and  white  mulberry  trees  are  connnon 
in  Syria  and  Palestine,  aiid  are  largely  cultivated 
there  for  the  sake  of  supplying  food  to  the  caterpil- 
lars of  the  silk- worm,  which  are  bred  in  great  nuni- 
liers.  The  mulberry  tree  is  too  well  known  to  ren- 
der further  remarks  necessary.  W.  H. 

SYCAMORE  {'n'r^p^\  sMMmah:  ffuxd- 
fiivos-  avK0fj.a)p4a  or  avKOfxcapaia,  in  the  N.  T. : 
si/camwus,  morus.  Jicetum).  The  Hebrew  word 
occurs  in  the  0.  T.  only  in  the  plural  form  masc. 
and  once  fem.,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  47  ;  and  it  is  in  the 
LXX.  always  translated  by  the  Greek  word  crvKd- 
fxivos.  The  two  Greek  words  occur  only  once  each 
in  the  N.  T  ,  (TuKdfj.ivos  (Luke  xvii.  6),  and  (xvK(y- 
txciipea  (Luke  xix.  4).  Although  it  may  be  admit- 
ted that  the  sycamine  is  properly,  and  in  Luke 
xvii.  6,  the  mulberry^  and  the  sycamort  the  Jiij- 
tnuUjerrij,  or  sycamore-fig  {Fiats  sycoiiwms),  yet 
the  latter  is  the  tree  generally  referred  to  in  the  0. 
T.,  and  called  by  the  I^XX.  si/caniine,  as  1  K.  x. 
27;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  28;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  47;  Am.  vii.  14. 
Dioscorides  expressly  says  ^vK6/j.opov,  tvioi  Se  koI 
Toxno  crvKdjjiivov  Kiyovcri,  lib.  i.  cap.  180.  Com- 
pare Gesenius,  Tlmsiurus  Heb.  p.  1470  b;  AViner, 
Ricb.  ii.  (3.5  ff. ;  Kosennuiller,  Allerthumskunde,  B. 
iv.  §  281  ff.;  Celsius,  Hierob.  i.  310. 

The  sycamore,  or  fy-mulbtrry  (from  (tvkov, 
Jly,  and  fidpov,  mulberry),  is  in  Egypt  and  Pales- 
tine a  tree  of  great  importance  and  very  extensive 
use.  it  attains  the  size  of  a  walnut  tree,  has  wide- 
spreading  branches,  and  affords  a  delightful  shade." 
On  this  account  it  is  frequently  planted  by  the 
waysides.  Its  leaves  are  heart-shaped,  downy  on 
the  under  side,  and  fragrant.  The  iruit  grows  di- 
rectly from  the  trunk  itself  on  little  sjjrigs,  and  in 
clusters  like  the  grape.  To  make  it  eatable,  each 
fruit,  three  or  four  days  before  gathering,  must,  it 
is  said,  be  punctured  with  a  sharp  instruuient  or 
the  finger  nail.  Comp.  Theophrastus,  De  Cons. 
Plant,  i.  17,  §  9 ;  Hist.  PL  iv.  2,  §  1 ;  Pliny,  H. 
iV.  xiii.  7;  ForskaL  Dcscr.  Phint.  p.  182.  This 
was  the  original  employment  of  the  prophet  Amos, 
as  he  says,  vii.  14.*  Hasselqnist  (Trav.  p.  260: 
Loud.  1766)  says,  "The  fruit  of  this  tree  tastes 
pretty  well  ;  when  quite  ripe  it  is  soft,  watery, 
somewhat  sweet,  with  a  very  little  portion  of  an 
aromatic  taste."  It  appears,  howe\'er,  that  a 
species  of  gall  insect  {Cynips  sycomori)  often  spoils 
much  of  the  fruit.  "  The  tree,"  Hasselquist  adds, 
"  is  wounded  or  cut  by  the  inhabitants  at  the  time 
it  buds,  for  without  this  precaution,  as  they  say,  it 
will  not  bear  fruit"  (p.  261).  In  form  and  smell 
and  inward  structure  it  resembles  the  fig,  and  hence 
its  name.  The  tree  is  always  verdant,  and  beaig 
fruit  several  times  in  the  year  without  being  con- 
fined to  fixed  seasons,  and  is  thus,  as  a  permanent 
food-bearer,  invaluable  to  the  poor.  The  wood  of 
the  tree,  though  very  porous,  is  exceedingly  durable. 
It  suffers  neither  from  moistuje  nor  heat.     The 


This  writer  supposes  the  sycaminf-  and  sycamore  tree 
to  be  one  and  the  same.  U. 

b  Amos  saj-s  of  himself  he  was  □"^TSplC  Dv12  ' 
LXX.  Kvl^iov  (TUKaixiva  :  Vulg.  vKlicans  sycamhta  ;  i.  t 
a  cutter  of  the  fruit  for  the  purpose  of  ripening  V 
KriiV)  is  the  very  word  used  ^y  Theophrastus. 


SYCHAR 

Egyptian  mummy  coffins,  which  are  made  of  it,  are 
still  perfectly  sound  after  an  entombment  of  thou- 
sands of  years.  It  was  much  used  for  doors,  and 
lar^e  furniture,  such  as  sofas,  tables,  and  chairs." 
So  great  was  the  value  of  these  trees,  that  David 
appointed  for  them  in  his  kingdom  a  special  over- 
seer, as  he  did  for  the  olives  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  28); 
and  it  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  heaviest  of  Egypfs 
calamities,  that  her  sycamores  were  destroyed  by 
hailstones  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  47).  That  which  is  called 
sycamore  in  N.  America,  the  Occidental  pi  me  or 
'button-wood  tree,  has  no  resemblance  whatever  to 
the  sycamore  of  the  Bilile;  the  name  is  also  applied 
to  a  species  of  maple  (the  Acer  pseiido-pl'itnmut  or 
Fnlse-phme),  which  is  much  used  by  turners  and 
millwrights.''  <'•  1'-   ^- 


Av 


SYCHAR 


3131 


Picas  sycomorus. 


SY'CHAR  (S^xap  in  S  A  C  D;  but  Eec. 
Text  'S.ix'^P  ^^''*^'^  ^'  Sichnr ;  but  Codd.  Am.  and 
Fuld.    Sychar :   Syriac,   Socar).     A   place  named 


«  See  Wilkinson's  Anciftit  Egyptians,  ii.  110,  Lend. 
1854.  "  For  coffins,  boxes,  tables,  doors,  and  other 
objects  wliicb  required  large  and  thick  planks,  for  idols 
Hind  wooden  statues,  the  sycamore  was  principally  em- 
ployed ;  and  from  the  quantity  discovered  in  the  tombs 
alone,  it  is  evident  that  the  tree  was  cultivated  to  a 
^eat  extent."  Don,  however,  believed  that  the  mum- 
aiy-cases  of  the  Egyptians  were  made  of  the  wood  of 
the  Conlia  myxa,  a  tree  which  furnishes  the  Sebesten 
plums.  There  can  be  no  doubf,  however,  that  the 
wood  of  the  Ficits  si/enmnru.i  was  extensively  used  in 
Ancient  days.  The  dry  climate  of  Egypt  might  have 
helped  to  have  preserved  the  timber,  which  must  have 
tieen  valuable  in  a  country  where  large  timber-trees 
»re  scarce. 


only  in  John  iv.  5.  It  is  specified  as  a  city  of 
Samaria,  called  Sychar,  near  the  ground  which 
Jacob  gave  to  Joseph  his  son;  and  there  was  the 
well  of  Jacob." 

Jerome  believed  that  the  name  was  merely  a 
copyist's  error  for  Sychem ;  but  the  unanimity  of 
the  JNISS.  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  this  supposition. 

Sychar  was  either  a  name  applied  to  the  town  of 
Shechem,  or  it  was  an  independent  place.  1.  The 
first  of  these  alternatives  is  now  almost  univers.dly 
accepted.  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Robinson  ( B(bL  A'cs. 
ii.  2L'0),  "  In  consequence  of  the  hatred  which  ex 
isted  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  and  in 
allusion  to  their  idolatry,  the  town  of  Sichera  re- 
ceived, among  the  Jewish  common  people,  the  by- 
name Sychar.''  This  theory  may  be  correct,  but 
the  only  support  which  can  be  found  for  it  is  the 
\ery  imperfect  one  afforded  by  a  passage  in  Isaiah 
(\x\iii.  1,  7),  in  which  the  prophet  denounces  tlie 
l'4ihraimites  &s  s/iicconm — ''drunkards;"  and  by 
a  passage  in  Habakkuk  (ii.  18)  in  which  the  words 
inoreli  shekel;  "  a  teacher  of  lies,"  are  su])posed  to 
contain  an  allusion  to  Moreh,  the  original  name  of 
the  district  of  Shechem,  and  to  the  town  itself. 
But  this  is  surely  arguing  in  a  circle.  And  had 
such  a  nickname  been  applied  to  Shechem  so  habit- 
ually as  its  occurrence  in  St.  John  would  seem  to 
imply,  there  would  be  some  trace  of  it  in  tho.se 
passages  of  the  Talmud  which  refer  to  the  Samari- 
tans, and  in  which  every  term  of  opprobrium  and 
ridicule  that  can  be  quoted  or  invented  is  heaped 
on  them  It  may  be  affirmed,  however,  with  cer- 
tainty that  neither  in  Targum  nor  Talmud  is  there 
any  mention  of  <uch  a  thing.  Lightfoot  did  not 
know  of  it.  The  numerous  treatises  on  the  Sa- 
maritans are  silent  about  it,  and  recent  close  search 
has  failed  to  disco\er  it. 

Presuming  that  Jacob's  well  was  then,  where  it 
is  now  shown,  at  the  entrance  of  the  valley  of 
Ndblus,  Shechem  woidd  be  too  distant  to  answer 
to  the  words  of  St.  John,  since  it  must  have  been 
more  than  a  mile  off. 

"  A  city  of  Samaria  called  Sychar,  near  to  the 
plot  of  ground  which  Jacob  gave  to  Joseph  "  — 
surely  these  are  hardly  the  terms  in  which  such  a 
place  as  Shechem  would  be  descrilied ;  for  though  it 
was  then  perhaps  at  the  lowest  ebb  of  its  fortunes, 
yet  the  tenacity  of  places  in  Syria  to  name  and 
fame  is  almost  proverbial. 

There  is  not  much  force  in  the  argument  that 
St.  Stephen  uses  the  name  Sychem  in  spe.aking  of 
Shechem,  for  he  is  recapitulating  the  ancient  his 
tory,  and  the  names  of  the  Old  Testament  narrative 
(in  the  LXX.  form)  would  come  most  naturally  to 
his  mouth.  But  the  earliest  Christian  tradition,  in 
the  persons  of  Eusebius  and  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim 
—  both  in  the  early  part  of  the  4th  century  — 
discriminates  Shechem  from  Sychar.  Eu.sebius 
{Onoi/inst.   Suxap  'i'"!  Aou^d)  says  that  Sychar 

*  *  Trench  states  after  Robinson  (see  Bibl.  7?''s.  ii. 
290),  that  "  There  are  no  sycamores  now  in  the  Plain 
of  Jericlio  "  (Studies  in  the  Gnspels,  p.  264,  Amer.  cd.). 
But  Tristram  (Land  of  Ifrael,  p.  509)  says:  "Here 
(near  Jericho)  was  a  fine  old  sycamore  fig-tree,  perhaps 
a  lineal  descendant,  and  nearly  the  last,  of  tiiat  into 
which  Z;icchTOUs  climbed."  In  Ills  Nal.  Hist,  of  the 
B  hie,  p.  399,  he  says  that  this  tree  "  is  very  easy  to 
climb,  with  its  short  trunk  and  its  wide  lateral 
branches  forking  out  in  all  dii-ections  ;  and  would 
naturally  bo  selected  by  Zacchajus  (Luke  xix.  4)  aa 
the  most  accessible  position  from  which  to  obtain  • 
view  of  our  Lord  as  he  passed  "  H 


3182 


SYCHAK 


was  in  front  of  the  city  of  Neapolis;  and,  again, 
that  it  lay  ly  the  side  of  Luza,  which  was  « three 
miles  from  Neajjolis.  Sycheni,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  places  in  the  snburlis  of  Neapolis  by  the  tomb 
of  Joseph.  The  Bordeaux  Pilgrim  describes  Se- 
ehim  as  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  and  as  con- 
taining Joseph's  monument''  and  plot  of  ground 
{villa).  And  he  then  proceeds  to  say  that  a  thou- 
sand paces  thence  was  the  place  called  Sechar. 

And  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  of 
the  predilection  of  Orientals  for  the  water  of  certain 
springs  or  wells  (Porter,  H(in<!b<iok\  p.  342),  it  does 
appear  remarkable,  when  the  very  large  nimiber  of 
sources  in  Nublus  itself  is  renieml)ered,  that  a 
woman  should  liave  left  them  and  come  out  a  dis- 
tance of  more  than  a  mile.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  need  not  suppose  that  it  was  her  habit  to  do  so; 
it  may  have  been  a  casual  visit. 

2.  fn  favor  of  Sychar  havinrj  l)een  an  independ- 
ent place  is  the  fact  that  a  village   named  \Askiir 

(yjCwA^)  still   e,\ists  «■  at  the   southeast  foot  of 

F.bal,  about  northeast  of  the  Well  of  Jacob,  and 
al>out  half  a  mile  from  it.  Whether  this  is  the 
villatce  alluded  to  by  Eusebius,  and  .lerome.  and  the 
Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  it  is  impossilile  to  tell.  The 
earliest  notice  of  it  which  the  writer  has  been  able 
to  discover  is  in  Quaresmius  (h'hi'-idi'tin,  ii.  808  b). 
It  is  uncertain  if  he  is  speaking  of  himself  or 
quothig  Brocardus.  'If  the  latter,  he  had  a  different 
copy  from  that  which  is  publislied.f'  It  is  an  im- 
portant point,  because  there  is  a  difference  of  more 
than  four  centuries  between  the  two,  Brocardus 
baving  written  about  1280,  and  (^)uaresmius  alwut 
,G30.  The  statement  is,  that  "  on  the  left  of  the 
well,"  i.  e.  on  the  north,  as  Gerizim  has  just  lieen 
spoken  of  as  on  the  right,  "  is  a  Inrge  city  {(rppidvm 
nviynum),  but  deserted  and  in  ruins,  which  is  be- 
lieved to  have  been  the  ancient  Sichem.  .  .  .  The 
natives  told  me  that  they  called  the  ])lace  Istnr." 

A  village  like  ^Asknr'^  answers  much  more  ap- 
propriately to  the  casual  description  of  St.  John 
than  so  large  and  so  \enerable  a  place  as  Shechem. 
On  the  other  hand  there  is  an  etymological  dif- 
ficulty in  the  way  of  this  identification.  'Afkar 
begins  with  the  letter  'Ain.  which  Sychar  does  not 
appear  to  have  contained ;  a  letter  too  stubborn  and 
enduring  to  lie  easily  either  dropped  or  assumed  in 
a  name.      [But  see  p.  2979  «,  {b.)  —  A.] 

In  favor  of  the  theory  that  Sychar  was  a  "  nick- 
name "  of  Shechem,  it  should  not  lie  overlooked 
that  St.  John  a]ipears  always  to  use  the  expression 
K€yu/j.evos,  "called,"  to  denote  a  soubriquet  or 
title  borne  by  place  or  person  in  addition  to  the 
name,  or  to  attach  it  to  a  place  remote  and  little 
known.  Instances  of  the  former  practice  are  xi. 
16,  XX.  24,  xix.  13,  17 ;  of  the  latter,  xi.  54. 

These  considerations  h.ave  been  stated  not  so 
much  with  the  hope  of  leading  to  any  conclusion 
on  the  identity  of  Sychar,  which  seems  hopeless,  as 
with  the  desire  to  show  that  the  ordinary  explaiia- 


a  The  text  of  Eusebius  reajs  6  =  9  miles  ;  but  this 
is  corrected  by  Jei'ome  to  3. 

6  The  tomb  or  monument  alluded  to  in  these  two 
passages  must  have  occupied  the  place  of  the  Moslem 
tomb  of  Ytisii/,  now  shown  at  the  foot  of  Gerizim,  not 
far  from  the  east  gate  of  NahlKS. 

'•  Dr  Rosen,  in  Zeitsrhrift  dtr  D  M  G.  xiT.  GSi. 
Van  de  Velde  (S.  ^  P.  ii.  SSS)  proposes  ^Askar  as  the 
Dative  place  of  Judas  Iscariot. 

(I  Perhaps  this  is  one  of  the  variations  spoken  of  by 
Robinaon  (ii.  539). 


SYENE 

tion  is  not  nearly  so  obvious  as  it  is  usually  assumed 
to  be.     [Shechem,  at  the  end.]  G. 

SY'CHEM  (2i;xfM=  Sichem;  Cod.  Amiat. 
Syrhein).  The  Greek  form  of  the  word  Shechem, 
the  name  of  the  well-known  city  of  Central  Pales- 
tine. It  occurs  in  Acts  vii.  16  only.  The  main 
interest  of  the  pass.age  rests  on  its  containing  two 
of  those  numerous  and  singular  variations  from  the 
early  history,  as  told  in  the  Pentateuch,  with  which 
the  speech  of  St.  Stephen/ abounds.  [Stephen.] 
'i'his  single  verse  exhibits  an  addition  to,  and  a 
discrepancy  from,  the  earlier  account.  (1.)  The 
patriarchs  are  said  in  it  to  have  been  buried  at 
Sychem,  whereas  in  the  O.  T.  this  is  related  of  the 
bones  of  Joseph  alone  (Josh.  xxiv.  32).  (2.)  The 
se])ulchre  at  Sycheni  is  said  to  have  been  bought 
from  Emmor  by  Abraham ;  whereas  in  the  p.  T. 
it  was  the  cave  of  Machpelah  at  Kirjath-arlia  which 
Abraham  bought  and  made  into  his  sepulchre,  and 
Jacob  who  bought  the  plot  of  ground  at  Shechen) 
from  Hamor  (Gen.  xxxiii.  19).  In  neither  of  these 
cases  is  there  any  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
present  Greek  text,  nor  has  any  ex])lanation  been 
put  forward  which  adequately  meets  the  dithculty 

—  if  difficulty  it  be.  That  no  attempt  should  have 
lieen  made  to  reconcile  the  numerous  and  obvious 
discrepancies  contained  in  the  speech  of  St.  Stephen 
by  altering  the  MSS.  is  remarkable,  and  a  cause  of 
great  thankfulness.  Thankfulness  because  we  are 
thus  permitted  to  possess  at  once  a  proof  that  it  is 
possible  to  be  as  thoroughly  inspired  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  as  was  Stephen  on  this  occasion,  and  yet 
have  remained  ignorant  or  forgetful  of  minute  facts. 

—  and  a  broad  and  conspicuous  seal  to  the  unim- 
portance of  such  slight  variations  in  the  different 
accounts  of  the  sacred  history,  as  long  as  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  the  whole  remains  harmonious. 

A  bastard  variation  of  the  name  Sycheni,  namely, 
SiCHEJi,  is  found,  and  its  people  are  mentioned 
as  — 

SY'CHEMITE,  THE  {rlv  2uxfV=  ffn-cevs), 
in  Jud.  v.  16.  This  passage  is  remarkable  for  giving 
the  inhabitants  of  Shechem  an  independent  place 
among  the  tribes  of  the  country  who  were  dispos-' 
sessed  at  the  conquest.  G. 

*  SYCOMORE,  originally  and  properly  so 
written  in  the  A.  V.     [Sycamore.]  II. 

SYE'LUS  {■S,vri\os;  [Vat.  tj  (tvvoSo^;]  Alex. 
U(Tv/i\os-  oni.  hi  Vulg.)  =  Jehiel  3  (1  Esdr.  i.  8; 
comp.  2  Chr.  xxxv.  8).  [The  A.  V.  ed.  1611  reads 
"  S/elus."] 

SYE'NE;  properly  Seveneii  (H^^P  [see  be- 
low]:  ^vfivrj;  [Alex,  ^otivt),  'S.outjuti--]  Syene),  a 
town  of  Egypt  on  the  frontier  of  Cush  or  Ethiopia- 
The  prophet  Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  desolation  of 
Egypt  "  from  Migdol  to  Seveneh,  even  unto  ths 
liorder  of  Cush  "  (xxix.  10),  and  of  its  people  beino 
slain  "  from  Migdol  to  Seveneh  "  (xxx.  6).  Migdol 
was  on  the  eastern  border  [IMigpol],  and  Seveneh 
is  thus  rightly  identified  with  the  town  of  Syene, 
which  was  always  the  last  town  of  Egypt  on  the 


e  The  identity  of  Askar  with  Sychar  is  supported 
by  Dr.  Thomson  {Land  and  Book,  ch.  xxxi.),  and  by 
Ut.  Williams  in  the  Dkt.  of  Geogr.  (ii.  412  A).  [So 
Ewald,  Gesch.  iv.  284,  v.  348.  3e  Ausg.  ;  Neubauer 
Gcog.  (Ill  Talmuil  (1868),  p.  169  f.  ;  Caspari,  Chron.- 
geog.  Einleiti/ng  (1869),  p.  106  f.  ;  comp.  Raumer, 
Prd  p.  162  f.  —  A.] 

f  These  are  examined  at  great  length,  and  elab- 
orately reconciled,  in  the  New  Teslay^ent  of  Canoi 
Wordsworth,  1860,  pp.  65-69. 


SYNAGOGUE 

f>och,  though  at  one  time  included  in  the  nome 
Nuliia.  Its  ancient  Egyptian  name  is  SUN 
(Brugsch,  Uto)jr.  InsckriJ't.  i.  155,  tab.  i.,  No.  55), 
preserved  in  the  Coptic  COT^-Jl,  CeJlOft, 
and  the  Arabic  Asu^tin.  The  modern  town  is 
slightly  to  the  north  of  the  old  site,  which  is  marked 
by  an  interesting  early  Arab  burial-ground,  covered 
with  remarkable  tombstones,  having  inscriptions 
in  the  Cufic  character.  Champollion  suggests  the 
derivation  C<J,,  causative,  OTHJt,  OTGIt, 
"  to  open,"  as  though  it  signified  tiie  opening  or  key 
of  Egypt  {VEiiyide,  i.  161-lGG),  and  this  is  the 
meaning  of  the  hieroglyphic  name.  R.  S.  P. 

SYNAGOGUE  {-^waywyi):  Sijiuiffogn).  It 
may  be  well  to  note  at  the  outset  the  points  of  con- 
tact between  the  history  and  ritual  of  the  syna- 
gogues of  tiie  .lews,  and  the  facts  to  which  the 
inquiries  of  the  Biblical  student  are  principally 
directed.  (1.)  They  meet  us  as  the  great  charac- 
teristic institution  of  the  later  ph.nse  of  .Judaism. 
More  even  than  the  .Temple  and  its  services,  in  the 
time  of  which  the  N.  T.  treats,  they  at  once  re])re- 
sented  and  determined  the  reliijious  life  of  tlie 
people.  (2.)  We  cannot  separate  tliem  from  the 
most  intimate  connection  with  our  Lord's  life  and 
ministry.  In  them  He  worshipped  in  his  youth, 
and  in  his  manhood.  Whatever  we  can  learn  of 
the  ritual  whicli  then  pre\ailed  tells  us  of  a  worship 
which  He  recognized  and  sanctioned ;  which  for 
that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  though,  like  tiie  state- 
lier services  of  the  Temple,  it  was  destined  to  pass 
away,  is  worthy  of  our  respect  and  honor.  They 
were  the  scenes,  too,  of  no  small  portion  of  his 
work.  In  them  were  wrought  some  of  his  mightiest 
works  of  healing  (Mark  i.  23 ;  Matt.  xii.  9 ;  Luke 
xiii.  11).  In  them  were  spoken  some  of  tiie  most 
glorious  of  his  recorded  words  (Luke  iv.  IG;  ,lohn 
vi.  59 ) ;  many  more,  beyond  all  reckoning,  which 
are  not  recorded  (Matt.  iv.  2-3,  xiii.  54;  John  xviii. 
20,  etc.,  etc.).  (3.)  There  are  the  questions,  lead- 
ing us  back  to  a  remoter  past:  In  what  did  the 
worsliip  of  the  synagogue  originate?  what  type  was 
«it  intended  to  reproduce?  what  customs,  alike  in 
nature,  if  not  in  name,  served  as  tlie  starting-point 
for  it?  (4.)  The  synagogue,  with  all  that  be- 
longed to  it,  was  connected  with  the  future  as  well 
as  with  the  past.  It  was  the  order  with  which  the 
first  ("hristian  believers  were  most  familiar,  from 
which  they  were  most  likely  to  take  the  outlines, 
or  even  the  details,  of  the  worship,  organization, 
government  of  their  own  society.  \Videly  divergent 
as  the  two  words  and  the  things  they  represented 
afterwards  became,  the  Ecclesia  had  its  starting- 
point  in  the  Synagosue. 

Keeping  these  points  in  view,  it  remains  to  deal 
with  the  suliject  in  a  somewhat  more  formal  manner. 

I.     Xame.  —  (1.)     The     Aramaic     equivalent 

SnJZ73I3  first  appears  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos 

as  a  substitute  for  the  Hebrew  n"TV  (  =  congre- 
gation) in  the  Pentateuch  (Leyrer,  lU  wfr.).  The 
more  precise  local  designation,  np!l3rT  i"T*3 
[Beth  kii- Cenneseth  =  House  of  gathering),  lie- 
longs  to  a  yet  later  date.  This  is,  in  itself,  tolerably 
;trong  evidence  that  nothing  precisely  answering 
to  the  later  synagogue  was  recognized  before  the 
Exile.  If  it  had  lieen,  the  name  was  quite  as  likely 
to  have  been  perpetuated  as  the  thing. 

(2.)  Tlie  word  auvaywyfj,  not  unknown  in  clas- 
tcal  Greek  (Tliuc.   ii.    18,   Plato,  Rqmbl.  52G  u.), 


SYNAGOGUE 


3133 


became  prominent  in  that  of  the  Hellenists.  It 
appears  in  the  LXX.  as  the  translation  of  not  less 
than  twenty-one  Hel)rew  words  in  which  the  idea 
of  a  gathering  is  implied  (Tromm.  Conconhuil.  s.v. ). 
With  most  of  these  we  have  nothing  to  do.  Two 
of  them  are  more  noticeable.     It  is  used  130  times 

for  m^,  where  the  prominent  idea  is  that  of  an 
(ippoinled  meeting  (Gesenius,  s.  v.),  and  25  times 
for  vHp,  a  meeting  called  together,  and  therefore 
more  eonnnonly  translated  in  the  LXX.  by  e/c- 
K\riaia.  In  one  memorable  passage  (Prov.  v.  14), 
the  two  words,  eKKKriala  and  awaywyi],  destined 
to  have  such  divergent  iiistories,  to  lie  representa- 
tives of  such  contrasted  systems,  appear  in  close 
juxtaposition.  In  the  books  of  tlie  Apocrypha  the 
word,  as  in  those  of  the  O.  T..  retains  its  general 
meaning,  and  is  not  used  specifically  for  any  recog- 
nized place  of  worship.  For  this  the  I'eceived  phrase 
seems  to  be  t6wos  irpoaevxvs  (1  Mace.  iii.  46, 
3  Mace.  vii.  20).  In  tlie  N.  T.,  however,  the  local 
meanini:  is  the  dominant  one.  Sometimes  the  word 
is  applied  to  the  tribunal  which  was  connected  with 
or  .sat  in  the  synagogue  in  the  narrower  sense 
(Matt.  X.  17,  xxiii.  34;  Mark  xiii.  9;  Luke  xxi.  12, 
xii.  11).  Within  the  limits  of  the  Jewish  Church 
it  perhaps  kept  its  ground  as  denoting  the  /duct  of 
meeting  of  the  Christian  brethren  (.las.  ii.  2).  It 
seems  to  have  been  claimed  by  some  of  the  pseudo- 
Judaizing,  half-(inostic  sects  of  the  Asiatic  churches 
for  their  meetings  (Kev.  ii.  9;.  It  was  not  alto- 
gether obsolete,  as  applied  to  Christian  meetings, 
in  the  time  of  Ignatius  (Ep.  ad  Trail,  c.  5.  nd 
Poli/c.  c.  3).  Even  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  the 
two  words  appear  united  as  they  had  done  in  the 
LXX.  (eV!  rrjv  ffvvayooyriv  iKKXT]ffias,  S/roin.  vi. 
p.  633).  Afterwards,  when  the  chasm  between  .lu- 
daism  and  Chriscianity  became  wider,  Christian 
writers  were  fond  of  dwelling  on  the  meanings  of 
the  two  words  which  practically  represented  them, 
and  showing  how  far  the  Synagogue  was  excelled 
by  the  Ecclesia  (August.  Ena/n\  in  Ps.  Ixxx. ; 
Trench,  S/jmmyms  of  N.  T.  §  i.).  The  cognate 
word,  however,  (rui/a|is,  was  formed  or  adopted  in 
its  place,  and  applied  to  the  highest  act  of  worship 
and  communion  for  which  Chi'istians  met  (Suicer, 
Thes.  s.  v.;   [Sophocles,  Gr.  Lex.  s.  v.]). 

II.  History.  —  (1.)  Jewish  writers  have  claimed 
for  their  synagogues  a  very  remote  antiquity.  In 
well-nigh  every  place  where  the  phrase  "  before  the 
Lord "  appears,  they  recognize  in  it  a  known 
sanctuary,  a  fixed  place  of  meeting,  and  thereftn'e 
a  syn.agogue  (Vitringa,  De  Synof/.  pp.  271  et  iter/.). 
The  Targum  of  Onkelos  finds  in  Jacol)'s  "  dwelling 
in  tents  "  (Gen.  xxv.  27)  his  attendance  at  a  syna- 
gogue or  house  of  prayer.  That  of  .lonathan  finds 
them  in  .ludg.  v.  9,  and  in  "  the  calling  of  assem- 
blies "  of  Is.'i.  13  (Vitringa,  pp.  271-315). 

(2.)  Apart  from  these  far-fetched  interpretations, 
we  know  too  little  of  the  life  of  Israel,  both  before 
and  under  the  monarchy,  to  be  able  to  say  witii 
certainty  whether  there  was  anything  at  all  corre- 
S[)ondinL,'  to  the  synagogues  of  later  date.  On  tlia 
one  hand,  it  is  probable  that  if  new  moons  and 
Sabbaths  were  observed  at  all,  they  must  have  been 
attended  liy  some  celebration  apart  from,  as  well  as 
at,  the  Taliernacle  or  the  Temple  (1  Sam.  xx.  5; 
2  K.  iv.  23).  On  the  other,  so  far  as  we  find 
traces  of  such  local  worship,  it  seems  to  liave  fdlen 
too  readily  intx.)  a  fetich-religion,  .sacrifices  to  eiihoils 
and  teraiiliim  (Judg.  viii.  27,  xvii.  5)  in  groves  and 


5134 


SYNAGOGUE 


Dn  high-places,  offering  nothing  but  a  contrast  to 
the  "  reasonable  Bervice."  the  prayers,  ps.ilnis,  in- 
struction in  the  Law,  of  the  later  synagogue.  The 
special  mission  of  the  Priests  and  l.evites  under 
Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xvii.  7-9)  shows  that  there 
was  no  regular  provision  for  reading  the  "  book  of 
the  law  of  the  Lord  "'  to  the  people,  and  makes  it 
pnibable  that  even  the  rule  which  prescribed  that  it 
should  be  read  once  every  seven  jears  at  tlie  feast 
of  Tabernacles  had  fallen  into  disuse  (Dent.  xxxi. 
10).  With  the  rise  of  the  prophetic  order  we 
trace  a  more  distinct  though  still  a  partial  approxi- 
mation. Wherever  there  was  a  company  of  such 
prophets  there  must  have  been  a  life  analogous  in 
many  of  its  features  to  that  of  the  later  Essenes 
and  Therapeutse,  to  that  of  the  coinobia  and  mon- 
asteries of  Christendom.  In  the  abnormal  state  of 
the  polity  of  Israel  under  Sanmel,  they  appear  to 
have  aimed  at  purifying  the  worship  of  the  high- 
places  from  idolatrous  associations,  and  met  on 
fixed  days  for  sacrifice  and  psalmody  (1  Sam.  ix. 
12,  X.  5).  The  scene  in  1  Sam.  xix.  20-2-i  indi- 
cates that  the  meetings  were  open  to  any  worship- 
pers who  might  choose  to  come,  as  well  as  to  "  the 
sons  of  the  prophets,"  the  brothers  of  the  order 
themselves.  Later  on  in  the  time  of  Llisha.  the 
question  of  the  Sbunammite's  husband  (2  K.  iv.  2-3), 
"  \\'herefore  wilt  thou  go  to  him  (the  prophet)  to- 
day V  It  is  neither  ne.v  moon  nor  sabbath,''  implies 
frequent  periodical  gatherings,  instituted  or  perhaps 
revived  by  Elijah  and  his  successors,  as  a  means  of 
sustaining  the  religious  life  of  the  northern  king- 
dom, and  counteracting  the  prevalent  idolatry.  'I'he 
date  of  Ps.  Ixxiv.  is  too  uncertain  for  us  to  draw  any 
inference  as  to  the  nature  of  the  "  synagogues  of 

God"  ( /S  ^^171?2,  meeting-places  of  God),  which 
the  invaders  are  represented  as  destroying  (v.  8). 
It  may  have  belonired  to  the  time  of  the  Assyrian 
or  Chaldsean  invasion  (Vitringa,  l:<ijn(i(/.  pp.  .SliG- 
405).  It  has  lieen  referred  to  that  of  the  JMacca- 
bees  (De  \\'ette,  Psnlmcii,  in  loc. ),  or  to  an  inter- 
mediate period  when  Jerusalem  was  taken  and  the 
land  laid  waste  by  the  army  of  Bagoses,  under  Ar- 
taxerxes  II.  (Ewald,  Poet.  Biicli.  ii.  358).  The 
"assembly  of  the  elders,"  in  Ps.  cvii.  32,  leaves  us 
in  like  uncertainty. 

(3.)  Uuring  the  exile,  in  the  abeyance  of  the 
Temple  -  worslii]!,  the  meetings  of  devout  Jews 
prolialily  became  more  systematic  (Vitringa,  De 
Sy7ifi(/.  pp.  413-42'J:  Jost,  Judentlntm,  i.  1G8; 
Bornitius,  De  Synaf/oy.  in  Ugolini,  T/ies.  xxi.), 
and  must  have  helped  forward  the  change  which 
appears  so  conspicunusly  at  the  time  of  the  lieturn. 
The  repeated  mention  of  gatherings  of  the  elders 
of  Israel,  sitting  before  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  and 
hearing  his  word  (Kz.  viii.  1,  xiv.  1,  xx.  1,  xxxiii. 
31),  implies  the  transfer  to  the  land  of  the  captiv- 
ity of  the  custom  that  had  originated  in  the  schools 
of  the  prophets.  One  remarkable  passage  may 
possiiily  contain  a  more  distinct  reference  to  them. 
Those  who  still  remained  in  .Jerusalem  taunted  the 
prophet  and  his  companions  with  their  exile,  as 
outcasts  from  the  blessings  of  the  sanctuary.    "  Get 


o  The  passage  is  not  without  its  difficulties.  The 
interpretiifion  given  above  is  supported  by  the  LXX., 
Vulg.,  and  A.  V.  It  is  confiruieil  by  the  general  cnn- 
ensui  of  Jewish  interpreters  (Vatablus,  in  Crit.  Sac. 
iu  loco,  Calmet,  s.  v  Synaso'^iie).  The  other  render- 
iDijs  (eonip.  Ewald  and  Rosenui idler,  in  loc),  "  I  will 
t*  to  them  a  sanctuary,  for  a  little  time,"  or  "  iu  a 
'ittle  measure,"  give  a  less  satisfactory  meaning.    The 


SYNAGOGUE 

ye  far  from  the  Lord ;  unto  us  is  this  land  gi^en  ir 
a  possession."  The  prophet's  answer  is,  that  it 
was  not  so.  Jehovah  was  as  truly  with  them  in 
their  "  little  sanctuary  "  as  He  had  been  in  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem.  His  presence,  not  the  out- 
ward glory,  was  itself  the  sanctuary  (I'^z.  xi.  15 
16  ).'^  The  whole  history  of  Ezra  presupposes  the 
haljit  of  solemn,  proliably  of  periodic  meetings 
(Ezr.  viii.  15;  Neh.  viii.  2,  ix.  1;  Zech.  vii.  5). 
To  that  period  accordingly  we  may  attrilnite  the 
revival,  if  not  the  institution  of  synagogues.  The 
"  ancient  days  "  of  which  St.  James  speaks  (Acts 
XV.  21)  may,  at  least,  go  back  so  far.  Assuming 
Ewald's  theory  as  to  the  date  and  occasion  of  Ps. 
Ixxiv.,  there  nmst,  at  sonie  subsequent  ])eriod,  have 
been  a  great  destruction  of  the  buildings,  and  a 
consequent  suspension  of  the  services.  It  is,  at 
any  rate,  striking  that  they  are  not  in  any  way 
prominent  in  the  i\laccalia;an  history,  either  as  olj- 
jects  of  attack,  or  rallying  points  of  defense,  nidess 
we  are  to  see  in  the  gathering  of  the  persecuted 
Jews  at  JMaspha  (Mizpah)  as  at  a  "  place  where 
they  prayed  aforetime  in  Israel"'  (1  Mace.  iii.  46), 
not  only  a  reminiscence  of  its  old  glory  as  a  holy 
place,  but  the  continuance  of  a  more  recent  custom. 
When  that  struggle  was  over,  there  appears  to  have 
been  a  freer  development  of  what  may  be  called  the 
synagogue  parochial  system  among  the  Jews  of 
Palestine  and  other  countries.  The  influence  of 
John  Hyroanus,  the  growing  power  of  the  Phari- 
sees, the  authority  of  the  Scriljes,  the  example, 
probably,  of  the  Je\^s  of  the  "  dispersion "  (Vi- 
tringa. p  426),  woidd  all  tend  in  the  same  direction. 
Well-nigh  every  town  or  village  had  its  one  or 
more  synagogues.  Where  the  Jews  were  not  in 
sufficient  numbers  to  be  al)le  to  erect  and  fill  a 
building,  there  was  the  irpoaevxhi  or  place  of 
prayer,  sometimes  open,  sometimes  covered  in, 
commonly  by  a  running  stream  or  on  the  sea-shore, 
in  which  devout  .lews  and  proselytes  met  to  wor- 
ship, and,  perhaps,  to  read  (Acts  xvi.  13 ;  Jos. 
Aiil.  xiv.  10,  23;  Juven.  Snt.  iii.  296).*  Some- 
times the  term  Trpotrevx')  (  =  i^"  t^  ^*^'"?)  was 
apidied  even  to  an  actual  synagogue  (Jos.  Vit.  c* 
54). 

(4.)  It  is  hardly  possible  to  overestimate  the 
influence  of  the  system  thus  developed.  To  it  we 
may  ascribe  the  tenacity  with  which,  after  the 
Maccabaean  struggle,  the  .lews  adhered  to  the  re- 
ligion of  their  fathers,  and  never  again  relapsed 
into  idolatry.  The  people  were  now  in  no  danger 
of  forgetting  the  Law,  and  the  external  ordinances 
that  hedged  it  round.  If  pilgrimages  were  still 
made  to  Jerusalem  at  the  great  leasts,  the  haliitua! 
religion  of  the  Jew%in,  and  yet  more  out  of  Pales- 
tine, was  connected  much  more  intimately  with 
the  synaiTorrue  than  with  the  Temple.  Its  simple, 
edifying  devotion,  in  which  mind  and  heart  could 
alike  enter,  attracted  the  heathen  proselytes  who 
might  ha^•e  lieen  repelled  by  tlie  bloody  sacrifices  oi 
the  Temple,  or  would  certainly  have  been  driven 
from  it  unless  they  could  make  up  their  minds  to 
submit    to    circumcision    (Acts    xxi.    28;    conip. 


language  of  the  later  .lews   applied   the  term  "  sanc- 
tuary '"  to  the  ark-end  of  the  synagogue  (infra). 

t>  We  may  trace  perhaps  in  this  selection  of  locali- 
ties, like  the  "  sacri  fontis  nfmii.t"  of  Jut.  Sat.  iii. 
13.  the  reappearance,  freed  from  its  old  abominations, 
of  the  attachment  of  the  Jews  to  the  worship  of  the 
groves,  of  the  charm  which  led  them  to  bow  dowo 
under  "  every  green  tree  "   i,Is   Ivii.  5  ;  Jer.  i  .  20). 


SYNAGOGUE 

PB>ssLTrES).  Here  too,  as  in  the  cognate  order 
of  the  Scribes,  there  was  an  influence  tending  to 
diminish  and  nltiniately  ahnost  to  destroy  the 
authority  of  the  iiereditary  priesthood.  The  ser- 
vices of  the  synagogue  required  no  sons  of  Aaron ; 
gave  them  nothing  more  than  a  complimentary 
precedence.  [PKiiisTs;  Scribes.]  The  way  was 
silently  prepared  for  a  new  and  higlier  order,  which 
should  rise  in  "  the  fullness  of  time  "  out  of  the 
decay  and  abolition  of  both  the  priesthood  and  the 
Temple.  In  another  way  too  the  synagogues  every- 
where prepared  the  way  for  that  order.  Not 
"  Moses  "  only,  but  "  the  Prophets  "  were  read  in 
them  ex'ery  Sabbatli-day,  and  thus  the  Messianic 
hopes  of  Israel,  the  expectation  of  a  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  were  universally  diffused. 

III.  Structure.  —  (1.)  The  size  of  a  synagogue, 
like  that  of  a  church  or  chapel,  varied  with  the 
population.  We  have  no  reason  for  believing  that 
there  were  any  fixed  laws  of  proportion  for  its  di- 
mensions, like  those  which  are  traced  in  the  Taber- 
nacle and  the  Temple.  Its  position  was,  however, 
determinate.  It  stood,  if  possible,  on  the  highest 
ground,  in  or  near  the  city  to  which  it  belonged. 
Failing  this,  a  tall  pole  rose  from  the  roof  to  render 
it  conspicuous  (Leyrer,  s.  v.  ^i/mitj.  in  Iftrzog's 
R(i(il^ Encykl.).  And  its  direction,  too,  w;is  fixed. 
Jerusalem  was  the  Kibkh  of  .lewish  de\otion.  The 
synagogue  was  so  constructed,  that  the  worshippers 
as  they  entered,  and  as  they  prayed,  looked  toward 
it"  (Vitringa,  pp.  178,  457).  The  building  was 
commonly  erected  at  the  cost  of  the  district, 
whether  by  a  church-rate  levied  for  the  purpose, 
or  by  free  gifts,  must  remain  uncertain  (Vitringa, 
p.  229).  Sometimes  it  was  built  by  a  rich  .lew, 
or  even,  as  in  Luke  vii.  5,  by  a  friendly  prosehte. 
In  the  later  stages  of  eastern  .Judaism  it  was  often 
erected,  like  the  mosques  of  Mohannnedans,  near 
the  tombs  of  famous  Kabbis  or  holy  men.  When 
the  building  was  finished  it  was  set  apart,  as  the 
Temple  had  been,  by  a  special  prayer  of  dedication 
From  that  time  it  had  a  consecrated  character. 
The  common  acts  of  life,  eating,  drinking,  reckon- 
ing up  accounts,  were  forbidden  in  it.  No  one 
was  to  pass  through  it  as  a  short  cut.  Even  if  it 
ceased  to  be  useil,  the  building  was  not  to  be  a])- 
plied  to  any  base  purpose  —  might  not  be  turned, 
e.  <j.  into  a  bath,  a  laundry,  or  a  tannery.  A 
Bcraper  stood  outside  the  door  th*t  men  might  rid 
themselves,  before  they  entered,  of  anything  that 
would  be  defiling  (Leyrer,  I.  c,  and  Vitringa). 

(2.)  In  the  internal  arrangement  of  the  syna- 
gogue we  trace  an  obvious  analogy,  mutatis  mu- 
tandis,  to  the  type   of  the    Tabernacle.     At    the 


SYNAGOGUE 


3135 


a  The  practice  of  a  fixed.  Kibleh  (  =  direction)  in 
prayer  was  clearly  very  ancient,  and  commended  itself 
to  some  sp"cl  d  necessities  of  the  eastern  character. 
Ir.  Ps.  xxviii.,  ascribed  to  David,  we  have  probably 
th'.'  earliest  trace  of  it  (De  Wette,  in  loc).  It  is  recog- 
niztj  in  the  dedication  prayer  of  Solomon  (1  K  viii. 
29,  et  at.).  It  appears  as  a  fixed  rule  in  the  devotions 
of  Daniel  (Dan.  vi.  10).  It  was  adopted  afterwards 
ty  Mohammed,  and  the  point  of  the  Kibleh,  after 
some  lingering  reverence  to  the  Holy  City,  transferred 
from  .lerusiilem  to  the  Kaabi  of  Mecca.  The  eirly 
Christian  practice  of  praying  toward  the  east  indi- 
cates a  like  feeling,  and  prohably  originated  in  the 
ftdoptiou  by  the  churches  of  Europe  and  Africa  of 
the  structure  of  the  synagogue.  The  position  of  the 
iltar  in  those  churches  rested  on  a  like  annlogy.  The 
rble  of  the  Lord,  bearing  witness  of  the  blood  of  the 
.Vew  ("iovenaut,  took  the  place  of  the  Ark  which  con- 
laiued  the  Law  that  was  the  groundwork  of  the  Old- 


npjier  or  .Jerusalem  end  stood  the  .\rk,  the  chest 
which,  Uke  the  older  and  more  sacred  .\rk,  con- 
tained the  Book  of  the  Law.     It  gave  to  that  enil 

the  name  and  character  of  a  sanctuary   (73"*n). 

The  same  thought  w.as  sometimes  expressed  by  its 
being  called  after  the  name  of  Aaron  (Buxtorf, 
Synuff.  Jud.  ch.  s.),  and  was  developed  still  further 
in  the  name  of  Copliireth,  or  Mercy-seat,  gi\en  to 
the  lid,  or  door  of  the  chest,  and  in  the  Veil  which 
hung  before  it  (Vitringa,  p.  181).  This  part  of 
the  synagogue  was  naturally  the  place  of  honor. 
Here  were  the  -wpuTOKadeSpiai,  after  which  Phari- 
sees and  Scribes  strove  so  eagerly  (Matt,  xxiii.  ti ), 
to  which  the  wealthy  and  honored  worshipper  was 
invited  (.James  ii.  2,  3).  Here  too,  in  front  of  the 
Ark.  still  reproducing  the  type  of  the  Tabernacle, 
was  the  eight-branched  lam|),  lighted  only  on  the 
greater  festivals.  Besides  this,  there  was  one  lamp 
kept  burning  perpetually.  Others,  brought  by  de- 
vout worshippers,  were  lighted  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Sabbath,  i.  e.  on  Friday  evening  (Vitringa,  p. 
lyS).''  A  little  further  toward  the  middle  of  the 
building  was  a  raised  platform,  on  which  several 
persons  could  stand  at  once,  and  in  the  middle  of 
this  rose  a  pulpit  in  which  the  Header  stood  to 
read  the  lesson,  or  sat  down  to  teach.  The  con- 
gregation were  divided,  men  on  one  side,  women  on 
the  other,  a  low  jjartition,  five  or  six  feet  high, 
running  between  them  (Philo,  De  ]'it.  Contciupl. 
ii.  470).  The  arrangements  of  modern  synagogues, 
for  many  centuries,  have  made  the  separation  more 
complete  by  placing  the  women  in  low  side-galleries, 
screened  off  by  lattice-work  (Leo  of  Alodena,  in 
Picart,  Cerem.  Rvliy.  i.).  Within  the  Ark,  as 
aliove  stated,  were  the  rolls  of  the  sacred  books. 
The  rollers  round  which  they  were  wotmd  were 
often  elaborately  decorated,  the  cases  for  them  em- 
broidered or  enameled,  according  to  their  material. 
Sucii  cases  were  customary  offerings  from  the  rich 
when  they  brought  their  infant  children  on  the 
first  anniversary  of  their  birthday,  to  be  blessed 
by  the  Kablii  of  the  synagogue.''  As  part  of  the 
fittings  we  have  also  to  note  (1),  another  chest  for 
tlie  fJaphtarulh,  or  rolls  of  the  prophet-i.  (2  ) 
Alms-ljoxes  at  or  near  the  door,  after  the  pattern 
of  those  at  the  Temple,  one  for  the  poor  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  other  for  local  charities.''  (3.)  Notice- 
boards,  on  which  were  written  the  names  of  offend- 
ers who  had  been  "  put  out  of  the  Synagogue." 
(4.)  A  chest  for  trumpets  and  other  musical  instru- 
ments, used  at  the  New  Years,  Sabbaths,  and  other 
festivals  (Vitringa,  Leyrer,  l.  c.).« 

IV.    Ojficers.  —  (1.)  In  smaller  towns  there  w.as 

b  Here  also  the  customs  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
the  votive  silver  lamps  liangiug  before  the  shrines 
and  holy  places,  bring  the  old  practice  vividly  before 
our  eyes. 

c  The  custom,  it  may  be  noticed,  connects  itself 
with  the  memorable  history  of  those  who  •'  broug.it 
young  children  "  to  Jesus  that  He  should  touch  them 
(Mark  x.  13). 

d  If  this  priictico  existed,  as  is  probable,  in  the  first 
century,  it  throws  light  upon  the  special  stress  laid 
by  St.  Paul  on  the  collection  for  the  "  poor  saints  '' 
in  .leru.salem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  &c.).  The  Christjaa 
Churches  were  not  to  be  behind  the  .lewish  Syna- 
gogues in  their  coutiibutions  to  the  Palesliue  Relief 
Fund. 

e  *  For  remains  of  ancient  synagogues  iu  Galilea. 
see  iVo'f.v  on  Jewish  Syna^o^es,  by  Capt.  C.  \V.  Wil- 
son ((.Imrtertii  Sintemenl  q/  Ike  Palestine  Ej^j'I}'  itf.i 

Fund,  No.  ii,'  i8(3y).  a. 


3136 


SYNAGOGUE 


often  but  one  Kabhi  (Vitringa,  p.  549).  Where  a 
fuller  organization  was  possible,  there  was  a  college 

of  Elders  (CDpT  =irpe(T^vrepot,  Luke  vii.  3)  pre- 
sided over  by  one  who  was  kut'  i^oxhv,  <5  apx'" 
awaywyos  (Luke  viii.  41,  49,  xiii.  14;  Acts  xviii. 
8,  17).  To  these  elders  belonged  a  vapety  of  syn- 
onyms, each    with  a   special    significance.      They 

were  C"^D3~lD  (Parnasim  =  Trot/j.fves,  Eph.  iv. 
11),  watching  over  their  flock,  irpoeaToires,  iiyov- 
fievoi,  as  ruling  over  it  (1  Tim.  v.  17 ;  Heb.  xiii. 
7).  With  their  head,  they  formed  a  kind  of  Chap- 
ter, managed  the  affairs  of  the  synagogue,  possessed 
the  power  of  excommunicating  (Vitringa,  pp.  549- 
621,  727). 

(2.)  The  most  prominent  functionary  in  a  large 

sj'nagogue  was  known  as  the  Fl'^/W  {Slieliach=^ 
legatus),  the  officiating  minister  who  acted  as  the 
delegate  of  the  congregation,  and  was  therefore  the 
chief  reader  of  pra\ers,  etc.,  in  their  name.  The 
conditions  laid  down  for  this  office  remind  us  of  St. 
Paul's  rule  for  the  choice  of  a  bishop.  He  was  to 
be  acti\e,  of  full  age,  the  father  of  a  family,  not  rich 
or  engaged  in  business,  possessing  a  good  voice,  apt 
to  teach  (comp.  1  Tim.  iii.  1-7;  Tit.  i.  6-9).  In 
him  we  find,  as  the  name  might  lead  us  to  expect, 
the  prototype  of  the  ayy e\os  iKKArjaias  of  Kev.  i. 
20,  ii.  1,  &c.  (Vitringa,  p.  934). 

(3.)  The  Chazzan  (]'fn),  or   uirrjpeTrjs  of  the 

synagogue  (Luke  iv.  20)  had  duties  of  a  lower  kind 
resembling  those  of  the  Christian  deacon,  or  sub- 
deacon.  He  was  to  open  the  doors,  to  get  the 
building  ready  for  service.  For  him  too  there  were 
conditions  like  those  for  the  Uyatus.  Like  the  le- 
gnluii  and  the  tlders,  he  was  appointed  by  the  im- 
position of  hands  (\'itringa,  p.  8'i6).  Practically 
he  often  acted  during  the  week  as  school-master  of 
the  town  or  village,  and  in  this  way  came  to  gain 
a  prominence  which  placed  him  nearly  on  the  same 
level  as  the  le(j(tius." 

(4.)  Besides  these  there  were  ten  men  attached 
to  every  synagogue,  whose  functions  have  been  the 
Bulject-matter  of  voluminous  controversy.''      They 

were  known  as  the  Batlanim  (C"*37I^!2  =^Otiosi), 
and  no  synagogue  was  complete  without  tbem. 
They  were  to  be  men  of  leisure,  not  oljliged  to  la- 
bor for  their  livelihood,  able  therefore  to  attend  the 
week-day  as  well  as  the  Sabbath  services.  By  some 
(Lightfoot,  Hoi:  Ihb.  in  Afatt.  iv.  23,  and,  in  part, 
Vitringa,  p.  532)  they  have  been  identified  with 
the  above  officials,  with  the  addition  of  the  ahns- 
coUectors.c    Ehenferd,  however  (Ugolini,  Tln:s.  vol. 


«  *  With  the  account  here  given  of  the  functions  of 
the  Skel'mcli  or  legatus,  and  of  the  Clinzzaii,  should 
be  compared  the  more  detailed  statements  of  Dr.  Gins- 
burg  in  his  valviable  and  elaborate  art.  Sy)iagogue,  in 
the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Lit.  lie  makes  the 
office  of  the  Chazzan  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  for  sev- 
eral centui'ies  later,  more  like  that  of  the  sexton  or 
beadle  in  our  churches,  than  that  of  deacon,  and  de- 
nies that  either  he  or  the  legatus  was  appointed  by 
the  imposition  of  hands.  The  function  of  the  legatus, 
he  sa^s,  "  was  not  permanently  vested  in  any  individ- 
ual oi'dained  for  this  purpose,  but  was  alternately  con- 
ferred upon  any  lav  member  who  was  supposed  to 
possess  the  qualificatious  necessary  for  offering  up 
prayer  in  the  name  of  the  congregation."  A. 

>>  I'lie  two  treatises  De  (decern  Otin.\is,  by  Rhenferd 
und  Vitringa  in  Ugolini's  Thesaurus,  vol.  xxi.,  occupy 
more  than  700  folio  pages.     The  present  writer  has 


SYNAGOGUE 

xxi. ),  sees  in  them  simply  a  body  of  men ,  perm» 
nently  on  duty,  making  up  a  congregation  (ten 
being  the  minimum  number  ''),  so  that  there  migh* 
be  no  delay  in  beginning  the  service  at  the  pro{>er 
hours,  and  that  no  single  worshipper  might  go 
away  disappointed.  The  latter  hypothesis  is  sup- 
ported by  the  fact  that  there  was  a  like  body  of 
men,  the  Stationarii  or  Viri  Stationis  of  Jewish 
Archffiologists,  appointed  to  act  as  permanent  rep- 
resentatives of  the  congregation  in  the  services  of 
the  Temple  (Jost,  Gesch.  Judenth.  i.  1G8-172)  It 
is  of  course  possible  that  in  many  eases  the  same 
persons  may  have  united  both  characters,  and  been, 
e.  g.,  at  once  Olhisi  and  alms-collectors. 

(5.)  It  will  be  seen  at  once  how  closely  the  or- 
ganization of  the  synagogue  was  reproduced  in  that 
of  the  Ecclesia.  Here  also  there  was  the  single 
presbyter-bishop  [Bishop]  in  small  towns,  a  council 
of  presbyters  under  one  bead  in  large  cities.  The 
Iffjiitus  of  the  synagogue  ajjjiears  in  the  &yye\os 
(Rev.  i.  20,  ii.  1),  perhaps  also  in  the  airoffroXos 
of  the  Christian  Church.  To  the  elders  as  such 
is  given  the  name  of  Shepherds  (Eph.  iv.  11;  1 
Pet.  V.  1).  They  are  known  also  as  rjyovfxeyoi 
(Ileb.  xiii.  7).  Even  the  transfer  to  the  Christian 
proselytes  of  the  onoe  distinctively  sacerdotal  name 
of  Upevs,  foreign  as  it  was  to  the  feelings  of  the 
Christiane  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  was  not  without 
its  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  synagogue.  Sceva, 
the  exorcist  .Jew  of  Ephesus,  was  probably  a  "  chief 
priest  "  in  this  sense  (Acts  xix.  14).  In  the  edicts 
of  the  later  Roman  emperors,  the  terms  apx'^pf"^ 
and  hpfvs  are  repeatedly  applied  to  the  rulers  of 
synagogues  (Cod.  Theodos.  De  Jud.,  quoted  by 
Vitringa,  i^e  decent  Gliosis,  in  Ugolini,  Thes.xxL). 
Possibly,  however,  this  may  have  been,  in  part, 
owing  to  the  presence  of  the  scattered  priests,  after 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  as  the  Ral)bis  or 
elders  of  what  was  now  left  to  them  as  their  only 
sanctuary.  To  them,  at  any  rate,  a  certain  prece- 
dence was  given  in  the  synagogue  services.  They 
were  invited  first  to  read  the  lessons  for  tlie  day. 
The  benediction  of  Num.  vi.  22  was  reserved  for 
them  alone. 

V.  Worship.  —  (1.)  The  ritual  of  the  syna- 
gogue was  to  a  large  extent  the  reproduction  (here 
also,  as  with  the  fabric,  with  many  inevitalile 
changes)  of  the  jtatelier  liturgy  of  the  Temple. 
This  is  not  the  place  for  an  examination  of  the 
principles  and  stnicture  of  that  liturgy,  or  of  the 
baser  elements,  wild  Talmudic  legends,  curses 
against  Christians  under  the  name  of  Epicureans,* 
and  other  extravagances  which  have  mingled  with 
it  (McCaul,  Old  Paths,  eh.  xvii.,  xix.).     It  will  be 


not  read  them  through.     Is  there  any  one  living  who 

has? 

c  Lightfoot's  classification  is  as  follows.  The  Ten 
consisted  of  three  Judges,  the  Legatus,  whom  this 
writer  identifies  with  the  Chazzan,  three  Parnasim, 
whom  he  identifies  with  alms-collectors  and  compares 
to  the  deacons  of  the  church,  the  Targumist  or  inter- 
preter, the  school-master  and  his  assistant.  The  whole 
is,  however,  very  conjectural. 

d  'J'his  was  based  on  a  fantastic  inference  from  Num 
xiv.  27-  The  ten  unfaithful  spies  were  spoken  of  as 
an  "  evil  congregation."  Sanhtdr.  iv.  6,  in  Lightfoot, 
/.  c. 

e  *  Dr.  Ginsburg.  art.  Synagogue  in  the  Sd  ed.  ol 
Kitto"s  Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Lit.,  iii.  907,  note,  denies  that 
the  Jewish  prayers  contain  "  curses  against  Christiius 
under  the  name  of  Epicureans."  His  account  of  th* 
Jewish  hturgy  is  very  full  and  interesting.  A. 


SYNAGOGUE 

ftoough,  in  this  place,  to  notice  in  wliat  way  tlie 
ritual,  no  less  than  the  orijanizatioii,  was  connected 
with  the  facts  of  the  N.  T.  history,  and  with  the 
life  and  order  of  the  Christian  Cliurcli.  Here  too 
we  meet  with  multiplied  coincidences.  It  would 
hardly  \<e  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  worship 
of  the  Church  was  identical  with  that  of  tiie  Syna- 
gogue, modified  (1)  by  the  new  truths,  (2)  by  the 
new  institution  of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  (3)  by 
the  spiritual  Cliarismaln. 

(2)  From  the  synagogue  came  the  use  of  fixed 
forms  of  prayer.  To  that  the  first  disciples  had 
been  accustomed  from  their  youth.  They  had  asked 
their  Master  to  give  them  a  distinctive  une,  and  He 
had  complied  with  their  request  (Luke  xi.  1),  as 
tiie  Baptist  had  done  before  for  his  disciples,  as 
every  Kabbi  did  for  his.  The  forms  miglit  be  and 
were  abused.  The  Pharisee  migiit  in  synagogues, 
or,  when  Lhe  synagogues  were  closed,  in  the  open 
street,  recite  aloud  the  devotions  appointed  for 
hours  of  prayer,  might  gabble  through  the  Slitina 
("  Hear  0  Israel,"  etc  ,  from  Deut.  vi.  4),  his  Kad- 
dish,  his  Sheiiwiicli  F.sn'.h,  the  eighteen  Bmic/ioth 
or  blessings,  with  the  "  vain  repetition  "  which  has 
reappeared  in  Christian  worship.  But  for  the  dis- 
ciples this  was,  as  yet,  the  true  pattern  of  devo- 
tion, and  their  ALister  sanctioned  it.  To  their 
minds  there  would  seem  nothing  inconsistent  with 
true  heart  worship  in  the  recuirence  of  a  fixed  order 
{hara  rd^iv,  1  Cor.  xiv.  40),  of  the  same  prayers, 
hynjns,  doxologies,  such  as  all  liturgical  stuily  leads 
us  to  think  of  as  existing  in  the  ApostoHc  Age.  If 
the  gifts  of  utterance  which  characterized  tlie  first 
period  of  that  age  led  for  a  time  to  greater  freedom, 
to  unpremetlitated  prayer,  if  that  was  in  its  turn 
succeeded  by  tlie  renewed  predominance  of  a  formal 
fixed  order,  the  alternation  and  the  struggle  which 
have  reappeared  in  so  many  periods  of  the  history 
of  the  Church  were  not  without  their  parallel  in 
that  of  Judaism.  There  also,  was  a  protest  against 
the  rigidity  of  an  unbending  form.  Eliezer  of 
Lydda,  a  contemporary  of  the  second  Gamaliel 
(circ.  A.  1).  80-115),  taught  that  the  U(/<Uns  of  the 
synagogue  should  discard  even  the  Shtnwneh  Ks- 
reli,  the  eighteen  fixed  prayers  and  benedictions  of 
the  daily  and  Salibath  services,  and  sliould  pray  as 
bis  hear:  prompted  him.  The  offense  against  the 
formalism  into  which  Judaism  stiffened,  was  appar- 
ently too  great  to  lie  forgiven.  He  was  exconnnu- 
nicated  (not,  indeed,  avowedly  on  this  ground),  and 
died  at  Ccesarea  (Jost,  Gesdi.  Judent/i.  ii.  ;JU,  4.5). 

(3.)  The  large  admixture  of  a  didactic  element 
in  Christian  worship,  that  by  which  it  was  distin- 
guished from  all  Gentile  forms  of  adoration,  was 
derived  from  the  older  order.  "Moses"  was  v  read 
in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbatli-day  "  (.\ots  xv. 
21),  the  whole  i^aw  being  read  consecutively,  so  as 
to  be  completed,  according  to  one  cycle,  in  three 
years,  according  to  tliat  which  ultimately  prevailed 
and  determined  the  existing  divisions  of  the  He- 
brew text  (Bible,  and  Leyrer,  l.  c. ),  in  the  52 
veeks  of  a  single  year.  The  writings  of  the  I'ropli- 
fts  were  read  as  second  lessons  in  a  corresponding 
arder.  I'hey  were  followed  by  the  Dcras/i,  tiie 
kSjos  TrapaK\7)<recas  (.A.cts  xiii.  15),  tlie  exposition, 
tlie  sermon  of  tlie  synagogue.  The  first  Ciiristian 
jnagogues,  we  must  believe,  followed  this  order 
with  but  little  deviation.  It  remained  for  them 
Defore  long  to  add  "the  other  Scri[)tures  "  which 
ihey  had  learned  to  recognize  as  more  precious  even 
than  the  Law  itself,  the  "  prophetic  word  "  of  the 
New  Te>itauient,  which  not  less  truly  than  that  of 


SYNAGOGUE 


o  lot 


the  Old,  came,  in  epistle  or  in  narrative,  fi'om  the 
same  Spirit  [Sckiptuke].  The  .synagogue  use  of 
Psalms  again,  on  the  plan  of  selecting  those  which 
had  a  special  fitness  for  special  times,  answered  to 
tliat  which  appears  to  have  prevailed  in  the  Church 
nf  the  first  three  centuries,  and  for  which  the  sim- 
ple consecutive  repetition  of  the  whole  Psalter,  in  a 
I  lay  as  in  some  Eastern  monasteries,  in  a  week  as 
in  the  Latin  Church,  in  a  month  as  in  the  English 
Prayer-book,  is,  perhaps,  a  less  satisfiictory  substi- 
tute. 

(4.)  To  the  ritual  of  the  synagogue  we  may 
probabl}'  trace  a  practice  which  has  sometimes  been 
a  stumbling-block  to  the  student  of  Christian  an- 
tiquity, the  subject-matter  of  fierce  debate  among 
Christian  controversialists.  Whatever  account  may 
lie  uiveii  of  it,  it  is  certain  that  Prayers  for  the 
Head  appear  in  the  Church's  worship  as  soon  as  we 
liave  any  trace  of  it  after  the  immediate  records  of 
the  .Vpostolic  a^e.  It  haf  well  been  described  by  a 
writer,  whom  no  one  can  suspect  of  Romish  ten- 
dencies, as  an  "  immemorial  practice."  Though 
'•  Scripture  is  silent,  yet  antiquity  plainly  speaks." 
The  prayers  "  have  found  a  place  in  every  early 
liturgy  of  the  world "  (Ellicott,  Destiny  of  the 
Crtntare,  Serm.  vi.).  How,  indeed,  we  may  ask, 
could  it  have  been  otherwise?  The  strong  feeling 
shown  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  that  it  was 
not  "superfluous  and  vain"  to  pray  for  the  dead 
(2  .Mace.  xii.  44),  was  sure,  under  the  influence  of 
the  dominant  Pharisaic  Scribes,  to  show  itself  in 
the  devotions  of  the  synagogue.  So  far  as  we  trace 
liack  these  devotions,  we  may  say  that  there  also 
the  practice  is  "  immemorial,"  as  old  at  least  as 
the  traditions  of  the  Riibbinic  fathers  (Buxtorf,  />e 
Sijnaf/.  pp.  709,  710  ;  McCaul,  Old  Paths,  ch. 
xxxviii.).  There  is  a  proliability  indefinitely  great 
that  prayers  for  the  departed  (the  Kaddish  of  later 
.ludaism)  were  familiar  to  the  synagogues  of  Pales- 
tine and  other  countries,  that  the  early  Christian 
believers  were  not  startled  by  tiiera  as  an  innova- 
tion, that  they  passed  uncondeinned  even  by  our 
Lord  himself.  The  writer  already  quoted  sees  a 
proliable  reference  to  them  in  2  Tim.  i.  18  (EUi- 
cott,  Piist.  J'-^pistles,  in  loc).  St.  Paul  remember- 
ing Onesiphorus  as  one  whose  "  house"  had  been 
bereaved  of  him,  prays  that  he  may  find  mercy  of 
the  Lord  "  in  that  day."  Prayers  for  the  dead 
can  hardly,  therefore,  be  looked  upon  as  anti-Scrip- 
tural. If  the  luiglish  Church  has  wLsely  and 
rigiitly  eliminated  them  from  her  services,  it  is  not 
because  Scripture  says  nothing  of  them,  or  that 
their  antiquity  is  not  primitive,  but  because,  in 
such  a  matter,  experience  is  a  truer  guide  than  the 
silence  or  the  hints  of  Scripture,  or  than  the  voice 
of  the  most  primitive  antiquity. 

(5.)  The  conformity  extends  also  to  the  times 
of  prayer  In  the  hours  of  service  this  was  obvi- 
ously the  case.  The  third,  sixth,  and  ninth  hours 
were,  in  the  times  of  the  N.  T.  (.\cts  iii.  1.  x.  3, 
9),  and  had  been,  probalily,  for  some  time  before 
(Ps.  Iv.  17;  Dan.  vi.  10),  the  fixed  times  of  devo- 
tion, known  then,  and  still  known,  respectively  as 
tiie  Shnchdrll/i,  the  Mlncha,  and  the  '  Ardbith  ; 
they  had  not  only  the  preslirje  of  an  authoritative 
tradition,  but  were  connected  respectively  with  the 
names  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  .Jacob,  to  whom,  as 
to  the  first  originators,  their  institution  was  ascribed 
(hu.'itorf,  Syii(((j.  p.  280).  The  same  hours,  it  is 
well  known,  were  recognized  in  the  Church  of  the 
second,  probably  in  that  of  the  first  century  -ilsw) 
(Clem.  Al.  iili'oin.  1.  c. ;  TertuU.  De  Oral.  c.  xt\.). 


3138 


SYNAGOGUE 


The  sacred  clays  belonging  to  the  two  systems 
Beem,  at  first,  to  present  a  contrast  ratlier  than  a 
resenililance;  hut  here,  too,  tliere  is  a  symmetry 
which  points  to  an  original  connection.  The  sol- 
smn  days  of  the  synagogue  were  the  second,  the 
fifth,  and  the  seventh,  the  last  or  Sabbath  being 
the  conclusion  of  the  whole.  In  whatever  way  the 
change  was  brought  about,  the  transfer  of  the 
sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Lord's  Day  involved 
a  corresponding  change  in  the  order  of  the  week, 
and  the  first,  the  fourth,  and  the  sixth  became  to 
the  Christian  society  what  the  other  days  had  been 
to  the  Jewish. 

(6.)  Tlie  following  suggestion  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  this  transfer  was  effected,  involves,  it  is  be- 
lieved, fewer  arbitrary  assumptions  than  any  other 
[comp.  Lokd"s  Day,  Sabbath],  and  connects  it- 
self with  another  interesting  custom,  connnon  to 
the  Church  and  the  Synagogue.  It  was  a  Jewish 
custom  to  end  the  Sabbath  with  a  feast,  in  which 
they  did  honor  to  it  as  to  a  parting  king.  The 
feast  was  held  in  the  synagogue.  A  cup  of  wine, 
over  which  a  special  blessing  had  lieen  spoken,  was 
handed  round  (Jost,  Gesc/i.  .Iwh'nth.  i.  180).  It 
is  obvious  that,  so  long  as  the  .Apostles  and  their 
followers  continued  to  use  the  Jewish  mode  of 
reckoning:,  so  long,  /.  c.  as  they  fraternized  with 
their  brethren  of  the  stock  of  Abraham,  this  would 
coincide  in  point  of  time  with  their  hilirvov  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  A  supper  on  what  we 
should  call  Sunday  evening  would  have  been  to 
them  on  the  second.  By  degrees,  as  has  been 
shown  elsewhere  [Lord's  Supi'ek],  the  time  be- 
came later,  passed  on  to  midnisiht,  to  the  early 
dawn  of  the  next  day.  So  the  fiord's  Supper 
ceased  to  be  a  supper  really.  So,  as  the  Church 
rose  out  of  -ludaism,  the  supper  //'ire  its  hohness 
to  the  coming,  instead  of  dtiicimj  it  from  the  de- 
parting day.  The  day  came  to  be  KvpiaKT],  because 
it  began  with  the  dsiTrvov  KuptaKSv."  (iradually 
the  Sabbath  ceased  as  such  to  be  observed  at  all. 
The  practice  of  observing  both,  as  in  the  Church 
of  Home  up  to  the  fifth  century,  gives  us  a  trace 
of  the  transition  period. 

(7.)  From  the  synagogue  lastly  came  many  less 
conspicuous  practices,  which  meet  us  in  the  litur- 
gical life  of  the  first  three  centuries.  Ablution, 
entire  or  partial.  l)efore  enterint;  the  place  of  meet^ 
ing  (Hel).  x.  22;  John  xiii.  1-15;  Tertull.  De  Omt. 
cap.  xi. ) ;  standing  and  not  kneeliuL'.  as  the  attitude 
of  pr.ayer  (Luke  xviii.  11;  Tertull.  ihi'd.  cap.  xxiii.); 
the  arms  stretched  out  (Tertull  iOid.  cap.  xiii.); 
the  face  turned  toward  the  Kiblch  of  the  East 
(Clem.  Al.  Strom.  1.  e. );  the  responsive  AmeTi  of 
the  congregation  to  the  prayers  and  benedictions 
of  the  elders  (1  Cor.  xiv.  16).*  In  one  strange  ex- 
ceptional custom  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  we 
trace  the  wilder  type  of  Jewish,  of  oriental  devotion. 
There,  in  the  closing  responsive  chorus  of  the  prayer, 


SYNAGOGUE 

the  worshippers  not  only  stretched  out  their  necki 
and  lifted  up  their  hands,  but  leapt  up  with  wild 
gestures  (tovs  re  Tr6Sas  fweyeipoixep),  as  if  they 
would  fain  rise  with  their  prayers  to  heaven  itself 
(Clem.  Al.  Sti-om.  vii.  40).°  This,  too,  reproduced 
a  custom  of  the  synagogue.  Three  tin}es  did  the 
whole  body  of  worshippers  leap  up- simultaneou.sly 
as  they  repeated  the  great  Ter-sanctus  hymn  of 
Isaiah  vi.  (Vitringa,  p.  1100  AT.;  Buxtorf,  cap.  x.). 

VI.  .Judicial  Functions.  —  (1.)  The  language  of 
the  N.  T.  shows  that  the  officers  of  the  synagogue, 
exercised  in  certain  cases  a  judicial  power.  The 
synagogue  itself  was  the  place  of  trial  (Luke  xii. 
11,  xxi.  12):  even,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  of  the 
actual  punishment  of  scourging  (Matt.  x.  17;  JIark 
xiii.  9).  They  do  not  appear  to  have  had  the  right 
of  inflicting  any  severer  penalty,  unless,  under  this 
head,  we  may  include  that  of  excommunication,  or 
"  puttinir  a  man  out  of  the  synagogue"  (John  xii. 
42.  xvi.  2),  placing  him  under  an  anathema  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  22;  Gal.  i.  8,  9),  "delivering  him  to  Satan  " 
!\  Cor.  V.  5;  1  'i"im.  i.  20).  (Meyer  and  Stanley, 
in  loc.)  In  some  cases  they  exercised  the  right, 
even  outside  the  limits  of  Palestine,  of  seizing  the 
persons  of  the  accused,  and  sending  them  in  chains 
to  take  their  trial  before  the  Supreme  Council  at 
Jerusalem  (Acts  ix.  2,  xxii.  5). 

(2.)  It  is  not  quite  so  easy,  however,  to  define 
the  nature  of  the  trilmnal,  and  the  precise  limits  of 
its  jurisdiction.  In  two  of  the  passages  referred  to 
(.Matt.  X.  17;  Mark  xiii.  9)  they  are  carefully  dis- 
tinguished from  the  crvveSpia,  or  councils,  yet  both 
appear  as  instruments  by  which  the  s]>irit  of  re- 
ligious persecution  might  fasten  on  its  victims. 
The  explanation  commonly  given  that  the  council 
sat  in  the  synagogue,  and  was  thus  identified  with 
it,  is  hardly  satisfactory  (Leyrer,  in  Herzog's  Reol- 
Encylc.  "  Synedrien  ").  It  seems  more  probable 
that  the  council  was  the  larger  tribunal  of  2-i,  which 
sat  in  every  city  [(/ouncil],  identical  with  tliat 
of  the  seven,  with  two  Levites  as  assessors  to  each, 
which  .losephus  describes  as  actin<r  in  the  smaller 
provincial  towns  [Ant.  iv.  8,  §  1-1:  li.  ./.  ii.  20, 
§  5),''  and  that  under  the  term  synairogue  we  are 
to  understand  a  smaller  court.  pr()l)ably  that  of  the 
Ten  judges  mentioned  in  the  Tahnud  (Gem.  Ilieros. 
Siinhedr.  1.  e.),  consisting  either  of  the  elders,  the 
chazzan,  and  the  legatus,  or  otherwise  (as  Herzfeld 
conjectures,  i.  392)  of  the  ten  Batlanim,  or  Otiusi 
(see  above,  IV.  4). 

(3.)  Here  also  we  trace  the  outline  of  a  Christian 
institution.  The  e/c/cAr/cia,  either  by  itself  or  l)y 
appointed  delegates,  w'as  to  act  as  a  Court  of  -Arbi- 
tration in  all  disputes  among  its  memtiers.  The 
elders  of  the  Church  were  not,  however,  to  descend 
to  the  trivial  disputes  of  daily  life  (ra  ^iootiko.)- 
For  these  any  men  of  common  sense  and  fairness, 
however  destitute  of  official  honor  and  position  (oi 
i^uv6evi]/.Ui'0i)  would  be  enough   (1  Cor.  vi.  1-8). 


o  It  has  always  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  word 
was  obviously  coluecl  for  the  purposes  of  Christian  life, 
rinJ  is  apphed  in  the  tirst  instance  to  the  supper  (ICor. 
si.  20),  afterwards  to  the  day  (Ilev.  i.  10). 

''  One  point  of  contrast  is  as  striliing  as  these  points 
i>f  reseuiblance.  The  Jew  prayed  with  his  head  cov- 
sred,  with  tlie  Tallitfi  drawn  over  his  ears  and  reach- 
ng  to  the  shoulders.  The  Greek,  however,  habitually 
.s  worship  as  in  other  acts,  wet>  bare-headed  ;  and 
Itie  Apostle  of  the  Gentile  churclies.  renouncing  all 
larly  prejudices,  recognizes  this  as  more  fitting,  more 


natural,  more  in  harmony  with  the  right  relation  of 
the  sexes  (1  Cor.  xi.  4). 

c  The  same  curious  practice  existed  in  the  17th 
century,  and  is  perhaps  not  yet  extinct  in  the  Church 
of  Ibyssiuia,  in  this,  as  in  other  things,  pieser^iug 
more  than  any  ether  Christian  society,  the  type  of 
Judaism  (Ludolf,  Hisi.  .Mlliiop.  iii.  6  ;  Stanley,  Eastftn 
Chiircli,  p.  12). 

rt  The  identificatinn  of  these  two  is  due  to  an  in- 
genious conjecture  by  Grotiut  (on  Matt.  v.  21).  Tht 
addition  of  two  scribes  or  secretaries  makes  the  DUiu 
her  in  both  cases  equal. 


SYNAGOGUE 

For  thf  fillers,  as  for  those  of  the  synasiooriie.  were 
reserv  M  the  t;raver  offenses  against  religion  and 
monls.  In  such  cases  tliey  had  power  to  exconi- 
niiinieate,  to  "  put  out  of  the  ICcclesla,  which  had 
taken  the  place  of  the  synagogue,  sometimes  by 
their  own  authority,  sometimes  with  the  consent 
of  the  whole  society  (1  Cor.  v.  4).  It  is  worth  men- 
tioning that  Hammond  and  other  commentators 
have  seen  a  reference  to  these  judicial  functions  in 
James  ii.  2-4.  The  special  sin  of  those  who  fawned 
uiwn  the  rich  was,  on  this  view,  that  they  were 
'■'jwhjes  of  evil  thoughts,''  carrying  respect  of  per- 
sons into  their  administration  of  justice.  The  in- 
terpretation, however,  though  ingenious,  is  hardly 
Butticiently  supported.  E.  H.  P. 

*  Syniigoyuvs  as  relnled  ta  the  Spread  of  Chris- 
tiiuiily. — That  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel 
made  nuicli  use  of  the  synagogues  in  spreading  the 
new  faith  is  evident  from  many  passages  in  the 
book  of  Acts.  Thus  Paul  in  Damascus  (i.\.  20),  im- 
mediately after  his  conversion,  "  preached  Christ  in 
the  synagogues,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God."  So 
Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Salamis  in  Cyprus  (xiii.  5) 
"  preached  the  word  of  (iod  in  the  synagogues  of 
the  Jews; ''  and  so  again  at  .Vntioch  in  Pisidia  (xiii. 
14-16);  and  yet  again  at  Iconium  (xiv.  1).  When 
Paul  and  Silas  had  come  to  Amphipolis  (xvii.  1,  2), 
"where  was  a  synagogue  of  the  Jews,"  it  is  stated 
that  "  Paul,  as  his  manner  tvas,  went  in  unto  them, 
and  three  sabbath-days  reasoned  with  them  out  of 
the  Scriptures."  Coming  thence  to  Berea  (xvii.  10 1, 
they  ''went  into  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews."  At 
Athens  (xvii.  16,  17),  while  Paul  was  waiting  for 
his  companions,  "  he  disputed  in  the  synagogue  with 
the  Jews,  and  with  the  devout"  [Greeks].  At 
Corinth  (xviii.  4),  •' he  reasoned  in  the  synagogue 
every  sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  .lews  and  the 
tireeks."  At  Kphesus  (xviii.  19)  "he  himself 
entered  into  the  synagogue,  and  reasoneil  with  the 
Jews."  In  like  manner,  ApoUos  at  Kphesus  (xviii. 
26)  "  began  to  speak  boldly  in  the  synagogue;  "  and 
when,  in  .Achaia  (xviii.  28),  "  he  mightily  convinced 
the  -lews,  and  that  publicly,  showing  by  the  Scrip- 
tures that  Jesus  was  Christ,"  it  was,  doubtless,  m 
•he  synagogues  that  he  did  so.  That  this  use 
of  the  place  was  sometimes  long  continued  is  seen 
in  the  .statement  of  xix.  8,  that  in  Kphesus  Paul 
'■  went  into  the  synagogue,  and  spake  boldly  for  the 
space  of  three  montlis,  disputing  and  persuading 
.',he  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God." 

These  passages  are  more  than  sufficient  to  show 
that  in  the  early  diffusion  of  Christianity  the  syna- 
gogues bore  a  very  important  part.  To  its  first 
preachers  they  afforded  a  pulpit  and  an  audience,  — 
a  place  where  they  could  .set  forth  their  new  doctrine, 
and  an  assembly  prepared  to  hear  it.  In  the  free 
and  pliable  order  of  the  synagoi^aie  service,  an  oppor- 
tunity of  Scripture-readinL:,  exposition,  or  exhorta- 
tion seems  to  have  lieen  offered  to  any  who  wished 
it.  Of  such  opportunities  our  Lord  had  made 
hal)itual  use  (Matt.  iv.  23,  xiii.  54;  ftlark  i.  21; 
Johnvi.  .5J;  "lever  taught  in  the  synagogues," 
John  xviii.  20).  In  I^uke  iv.  16,  it  is  said  of 
Jesus  at  Nazareth,  that,  '•  ff« /(is  custom  mas,  he 
went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  sabliath-day,  and 
stood  Uj)  to  read."'  and  after  the  reading  began  an 
\ddress  to  the  people.  When  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts  xiii.  15),  it  is 
.Sated  tiiat,  "after  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  the  riders  of  the  sywif/oyiie  sent  unto 
litiii,  saying.  Ye  men  and  brethren,  if  ye  have  any 
word  of  exh'jitation  for  the  people,  say  on."     The 


SYNAGOGUE,  THE  GREAT     313P 

opposition  of  the  Jews  to  Christianity  was  not  foi 
some  time  so  develo|)ed  that  its  apostles  were  ex- 
cluded from  this  privilege  of  the  synagogue.  Ii> 
every  Jewish  comnuniity  (and  one  was  found  in 
almost  every  city  of  the  civilized  world)  there  were 
persons  ready  to  hear  and  receive  a  faith  which 
offered  itself  as  the  necessary  complement  of  the 
Jewish  religion  and  scriptures.  But  the  syna- 
gogues brought  together  many  Gentiles,  who  had 
either  become  members  of  the  Jewish  body  by  cir- 
cumcision, or  had  adopted  the  belief  and  worship 
of  the  Jews  without  submitting  to  the  ritual  law 
[PkoselytesJ.  The  latter  class  were,  doulitless, 
more  open  than  the  Jews  themselves  to  the  truths 
and  principles  of  Christianity. 

It  was  under  the  influences  of  the  synagogue  that 
the  Greek  language  assumed  the  peculiar  character 
which  fitted  it  to  be  the  vehicle  for  ( 'hristian  teach- 
ing. That  process  of  translating  Jewish  ideas  into 
Greek  words,  which  we  -see  first  in  the  Septuagint. 
must  have  gone  on  wherever  Jewish  worship  was 
conducted  in  the  Greek  language;  that  is,  in  most 
synagogues  out  of  Palestine,  and,  to  some  extent 
certainly,  in  those  of  Palestine  itself.  [Lanouagk 
OK  THE  New  Testament.]  Hence  arose  the 
idiom  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  colored  by 
Semitic  forms  of  speech,  and  thoroughly  impreg- 
nated with  the  religious  conceptions  common  to 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  posses- 
sion of  such  an  idiom,  fully  developed  and  widely 
understood,  was  an  important  advantage  to  the  first 
preachers  of  Christianity.  Many  new  words  must 
be  formed,  many  old  words  taken  in  new  connec- 
tions and  senses,  before  the  language  of  Xenophon 
could  express  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  But  changes 
hke  tiiese  require  time  for  their  accomplishment: 
if  it  had  been  left  for  the  apostles  to  make  and  in- 
troduce them,  the  spread  of  the  new  religion  must 
have  been  seriously  retarded. 

It  is  not  easy  to  overestimate  the  value  of  these 
preparations  and  opportunities  for  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel.  Unquestionably,  they  had  much  to  do 
with  its  immediate  and  rapid  progress.  The  New 
Testament  accounts  of  this  progress  will  not  seem 
incredible  to  any  one  who  duly  appreciates  these 
favoring  influences.  Among  the  causes  which  liy 
divine  arrangement  paved  the  way  for  the  spread 
of  Christianity,  we  may  claim  as  high  a  ])lace  for 
the  general  planting  of  the  Jewish  synagogues,  as 
for  the  universal  diffusion  of  the  Greek  language, 
or  the  unifying  conquests  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

J.  H. 

SYNAGOGUE,   THE   GREAT    (H^.p? 

n^"l"T2n).  The  institution  thus  described,  though 

not  Biblical  in  the  sense  of  occurring  as  a  word  in 
the  Canonical  Scriptures,  is  yet  too  closely  con- 
nected with  a  large  number  of  Biblical  facts  and 
names  to  l)e  passed  over.  In  the  absence  of  direct 
historical  data,  it  will  be  best  to  put  together  the 
traditions  or  conjectures  of  Rabbinic  writers. 

(1.)  On  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Baliylon,  a 
great  council  was  appointed,  according  to  these 
traditions,  to  reorganize  the  religious  life  of  the 
people.  It  consisted  of  120  members  (Mi^</ilh)th, 
17  h,  18  c),  and  these  were  known  as  the  men  of 
the  Great  Synagogue,  tiie  successoi-s  of  the  prophets, 
themselves,  in  their  turn,  succeeded  liy  scrilies 
prominent,  individually,  as  teachers  (Pirke  Ahath. 
i  i.  1).  Kzra  was  recognized  as  president,  .\moug 
I  the  other  members,  in  part  together,  in  ])art  suc- 
cessively, vvere  Joshua,  the  high-priest,  Zerubbsbel, 


3140  SYNTYCHE 

»nd  their  companions,  Daniel  and  the  tln-ee  "  chil- 
dren." the  prophets  Hasirai,  Zechariah,  JNIalachi, 
the  rulers  Neheniiah  and  Mordecai.  Their  aim  was 
to  restore  again  the  croicii  or  glory  of  Israel,  i.  e. 
to  reinstate  in  its  majesty  the  name  of  God  as 
Great,  Jlighty,  Terril)le  (Deut.  vii.  21,  x.  17:  Neh. 
i.  5,  ix.  32:  Jer.  xxxii.  18:  Dan.  ix.  4).  To  this 
end  the.y  collected  all  the  .sacred  \vritinr;s  of  former 
atjes  and  their  own,  and  so  completed  the  canon  of 
the  0.  T.  Their  work  included  the  revision  of  the 
text,  and  this  was  settled  by  the  introduction  of 
the  vowel  points,  which  have  been  handed  down  to 
us  by  the  Masoretic  editors.  They  instituted  the 
feast  of  Purim.  Thev  orijanized  the  ritual  of  the 
synacoirue,  and  gave  tlieir  sanction  to  the  Slieini'inc/i 
Ksreli,  the  eighteen  solemn  benedictions  in  it 
(Kwald,  Gcscli.  iv.  193).  Their  decrees  were  quoted 
afterwards  as  those  of  the  elders  (the  irpea^vrepoi 
of  M.ark  vii.  3,  the  apxaToi  of  Matt.  v.  21.  27,  33), 
the  Dibre  Sopherhn  (  =  words  of  the  scribes),  which 
were  of  more  authority  than  the  Law  itself.  They 
left  lieliind  them  the  characteristic  sayinr;-.  handed 
down  l)y  Simon  the  Jiigh-priest,  the  last  member 
of  the  order,  "  Be  cautious  in  judging;  train  up 
many  scholars;  set  a  hedge  about  the  Law"  (Pirke 
Abvth,  i.  1).     [ScKiBEs.] 

(2.)  JIuch  of  this  is  evidently  uncertain.  The 
absence  of  any  historical  mention  of  such  a  Iiody, 
not  only  in  tlie  O.  T.  and  the  .Apocrypha,  but  in 
Josephus,  I'hilo.  and  the  Seller  Ul-nn,  so  that  the 
earliest  record  of  it  is  found  in  the  Pirke  Ali<iili, 
circ.  the  second  century  after  Christ,  had  led  some 
critics  (e.  //.  I^e  Wette,  .T.  D.  Micli.aelis)  to  reject 
the  whole  statement  as  a  Rabbinic  invention,  rest- 
ing on  no  other  foundation  than  the  existence,  after 
the  e^ile,  of  a  Saidiedrim  of  71  or  72  members, 
charged  with  supreme  executive  functions.  Evvald 
{Oesch.  Isr.  iv.  192)  is  disjwsed  to  adopt  this  view, 
and  looks  on  the  numlier  120  as  a  later  element,  hi- 
troduced  for  its  symbolic  significance.  .lost  ( uesc/i. 
des  Ju<l.  i.  41)  maintains  that  the  (ireek  origin  of 
the  word  Sanhedrim  points  to  its  later  date,  and 
that  its  functions  were  prominently  judicial,  while 
those  of  the  so-called  Great  Synaiiogue  were  prom- 
inently legi.slative.  He  recoijnizes,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  probability  that  120  was  used  as  a  round 
number,  never  actually  made  up,  and  thinks  that 
the  germ  of  the  institution  is  to  be  found  in  the 
85  names  of  those  who  are  recorded  as  having 
joined  in  the  solemn  league  and  covenant  of  Neh. 
X.  1-27.  The  narrative  of  Neh.  viii.  13  clearly 
implies  the  existence  of  a  body  of  men  acting  as 
counsellors  under  the  presidency  of  Ezra,  and  these 
may  have  lieen  (.as  Jost.  following  the  idea  of  an- 
other Jewish  critic,  suggests)  an  asseml)ly  of  dele- 
gates from  all  provincial  synagogues — a  synod  (to 
use  the  terminology  of  a  later  time)  of  the  National 
Church.  The  Pirke  Aboth,  it  should  be  men- 
tioned, speaks  of  the  Great  Synagosue  as  ceasing 
to  exist  before  the  historical  oritrin  of  the  San- 
hedrim (x.  1),  and  it  is  more  prolialile  that  the  lat- 
ter rose  out  of  an  attempt  to  reproduce  the  former 
than  that  the  former  was  onlv  the  mythical  trans- 
fer of  the  latter  to  an  earlier  time.  (( 'onip.  Leyrer, 
g.  V.  Hyn'Kjoye,  die  yvosse,  in  Herzog's  Enci/k/op.) 

E.  h!  p. 

SYN'TYCHE  {SvPTixV  ["ccidevt,  event]: 
Syiitiiclie),  a  female  member  of  the  Church  of 
Philippi,  mentioned  (Phil.  iv.  2.  3)  along  with  an- 
.)ther  named  Euodias  (or  rather  Kuodia).  To 
i?hat  has  lieen  said  under  the  latter  head  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  added.     The  Apostle's  injunction 


SYRACUSE 

to  these  two  women  is,  that  they  should  live  in 
harmony  with  one  another:  from  which  we  infei 
that  they  had,  more  or  less,  failed  in  this  respect. 
Such  harmony  was  doubly  important,  if  they  held 
an  office,  as  deacoimesses,  in  the  church :  and  it  is 
highly  probable  that  this  was  the  case.  They  had 
afforded  to  St.  Paul  active  coi'iperation  under  dif- 
ficult circumstances  (4v  tw  evayyeKioj  (Tvv7]dX-i)(Tav 
fjLOi,  ver.  2),  and  perhaps  there  were  at  Philippi 
other  women  of  the  same  class  {ahiv^s,  ibid.).  At 
all  events  this  ]5assage  is  an  illustration  of  wliat  the 
Gospel  did  for  women,  and  women  for  the  Gospel, 
in  the  Apostolic  times:  and  it  is  the  more  interest- 
ing, as  having  reference  to  that  church  which  was 
the  first  founded  by  St.  Paul  in  Europe,  and  the 
first  member  of  which  was  Lydia.  Some  thoughts 
on  this  sul  ject  will  be  found  in  Rilliet,  Cornin.  siir 
iEpHre  mix  Philipp.  pp.  311-314.         J.  S.  H. 

SYR'ACUSE  {'Zvpa.Kovffai:  Syracusn).  The 
celelirated  city  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Sicily.  St. 
Paul  arrived  thither  in  an  Alexandrian  ship  from 
Melita,  on  his  voyage  to  Rome  (Acts  xxviii.  12). 
The  magnificence  which  Cicero  describes  as  still  re- 
maining in  his  time,  was  then  no  doubt  greatly  im- 
jjaired.  The  whole  of  the  resources  of  Sicily  had 
lieen  exhausted  in  the  civil  wars  of  Csesar  and 
Pompey,  and  the  piratical  warfare  which  Sextus 
Pompeius,  the  youngest  son  of  the  latter,  subse- 
quently carried  on  against  the  triumvir  Octavins. 
Augustus  restored  Syracuse,  as  also  Catana  and 
Centoripa.  which  last  had  contributed  much  to  the 
successful  issue  of  his  struggle  with  Sextua  Pompeius. 
Yet  the  island  Ortygia,  and  a  very  small  portion  of 
the  mainland  adjoining,  sufficed  for  the  new  colo- 
nists and  the  remnant  of  the  former  population. 
But  the  site  of  Syracuse  rendered  it  a  convenient 
|)lace  for  the  .\frican  corn-ships  to  touch  at,  for  the 
harbor  was  an  excellent  one,  and  the  fountain  Are- 
thusa  in  the  island  furnished  an  unfailing  sujiply  of 
excellent  water.  The  prevalent  wind  in  this  part  of 
the  Mediterranean  is  the  W.  N.  W.  This  would 
carry  the  vessels  from  the  corn  region  lying  east 
ward  of  Cape  Bon,  round  the  southern  point  of 
Sicily,  Cape  Pachynus,  to  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
island.  Creeping  up  under  the  shelter  of  this,  they 
would  lie  either  in  the  harbor  of  Messana,  or  at 
KlieL^ium,  until  the  wind  changed  to  a  southern 
point  and  enabled  them  to  fetch  the  Campanian 
harbors,  Puteoli  or  Gaeta,  or  to  proceed  as  far  as 
Ostia.  In  crossing  from  Africa  to  Sicily,  if  the 
wind  was  excessive,  or  varied  two  or  three  points 
to  the  northward,  they  would  naturally  bear  up  for 
Malta,  —  and  this  had  probably  been  the  case  with 
the  "  Twins,"  the  ship  in  which  St.  Paul  found  a 
passage  after  his  shipwreck  on  the  coast  of  that  isl- 
and. Arrived  in  Malta,  they  watched  for  the  op- 
portunity of  a  wind  to  take  them  westward,  and 
with  such  a  one  they  readily  made  Syracuse.  To 
proceed  further  while  it  continued  blowing  would 
have  exposed  them  to  the  dangei's  of  a  lee-shore,  and 
accordingly  they  remained  ''  three  days."  They 
then,  the  wind  having  prob.ably  shifted  into  a  west- 
erly quarter  so  as  to  give  them  smooth  water, 
coasted  the  shore  and  made  (TrfpL€\96vTes  Karriu- 
T-ficra/xev  els)  Rhegiuiu.  After  one  day  there,  the 
wind  got  round  still  more  and  blew  from  the  south ; 
they  therefore  weighed,  and  arrived  at  Puteoli  in  the 
course  of  the  second  day  of  the  run  (Acts  xxviii. 
12-14). 

In  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  voyage,  Sicily  did  not 
Bup])ly  tlie  K'omans  with  corn  to  tlie  extent  it  had 
done  in  the  time  of  King  Hiero,  and  in  a  less  degree 


SYRIA 

fM  late  »s  the  time  of  Cicero.  It  is  an  error,  how- 
aver,  to  suppose  that  the  soil  was  exhausted ;  for 
Strabo  expressly  says,  that  for  carti,  and  some  other 
productions,  Sicily  even  surpassed  Italy.  But  the 
country  had  become  de|Mipul;ited  by  the  long  series 
of  wars,  and  when  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  Rome, 
her  great  nobles  turned  \ast  tracts  into  pasture. 
In  the  time  of  Augustus,  tlie  whole  of  the  centre 
of  the  island  was  occupied  in  this  niam)er.  and 
among  its  exports  (except  from  the  neighborhood 
of  the  volcanic  region,  where  excellent  wine  was 
producer!),  fat  stock,  liides,  and  wool  appear  to  have 
been  the  prominent  articles.  1  liese  grazing  and 
horse-breeding  farms  were  Ivept  up  by  slave  labor; 
and  this  was  the  reason  that  tlie  whole  island  was 
in  a  chronic  state  of  disturbance,  owing  to  the 
slaves  continually  running  away  and  forming  bands 
of  brigands.  Sometimes  these  became  so  fbrno- 
dable  as  to  retpnre  tlie  aid  of  regidar  military  t)pera- 
tions  to  put  tliem  down ;  a  circumstance  of  which 
Tiberius  ijracchus  made  use  as  an  argument  in 
favor  of  his  measure  of  an  Agrari;in  law  (Appian, 
B.  C.  i.  a),  which  would  have  reconverteil  the  spa- 
cious grass-lands  into  small  arable  iarm.s  cultivated 
by  Koinan  freemen. 

In  the  time  of  St.  Paul  there  were  only  five  Ro- 
man colonies  in  Sicily,  of  wliich  Syracuse  was  one. 
'I'he  others  were  L'atuna,  Tauromenium  ThermtB, 
and  Tyndaris.  iMessana  too,  although  not  a  colony, 
was  a  town  tilleil  with  a  Roman  population.  Prob- 
ably its  inhabitants  were  mercliants  connected  with 
the  wine  trade  of  the  neighborhood,  of  which  Mes- 
sana  was  tlie  shipping-port.  Syracuse  and  I'aiior- 
nius  were  important  as  strategical  points,  and  a 
Roman  force  was  kept  up  at  each.  Sicels,  Sicani, 
Morgetes,  and  llieres  (aboriginal  inhabitants  of  the 
island,  or  very  early  settlt-rs),  still  existed  in  the 
interior,  in  what  exact  political  condition  it  is  im- 
possible to  say;  but  most  likely  in  that  of  villeins. 
Some  few  towns  are  mentioned  by  Fliny  as  having 
the  Latin  franchise,  and  some  as  paying  a  fixed 
tribute;  but  with  tbe  exception  of  the  five  colonies, 
the  owners  of  the  soil  of  the  island  were  mainly 
great  absentee  proprietors,  and  almost  all  its  prod- 
uce came  to  Rome  (Strabo,  vi.  c.  2;  Appian,  B.  C. 
iv.  84  ff.,  V.  15-118;  Cicero,  Vtrr.  iv.  5-3;  Plin. 
H.  N.  ii.  8).  J.  W.  R. 

SYR'IA  (Q^t'.:  Supi'a:  Syria)  is  the  term 
used  throughout  our  version  for  the  Hebrew  Anun, 
as  well  as  for  the  Greek  Supia-  'he  Greek  writers 
generally  regarded  it  as  ^  contraction  or  corruption 
of  Assyria  (Herod,  vii.  0^;  Scyiax,  PtripL  p.  80; 
Dionys.  Perieg.  970-075;  liustath.  Comment,  ad 
loc,  etc.).  But  this  derivation  is  exceedingly  doubt- 
ful. Most  probably  Syria  is  for  Tsyria,  the  coun- 
try about  Tsur  (~1^-),  or  Tyre,  which  was  the  first 
of  the  Syrian  towns  known  to  the  Greeks.     The 

resemblance  to  Assyria  (1^t27S)  is  thus  purely  ac- 
cidental; and  the  two  words  must  be  regarded  .as 
in  reality  completely  distinct. 

1.  Geoijrnphicitl  Extent. —  It  is  very  diflScult  to 
fix  the  limits  of  Syria.  The  Hebrew  Aram  seems 
to  commence  on  tlie  northern  fron'ier  of  Palestine, 
and  to  extend  thence  northward  to  the  skirts  of 
Taurus,  westward  to  the  .Mediterranean,  and  east- 
«vard  piobably  to  the  Khabour  River.  Its  chief 
livisions  ars  Aram-Dammesek,  or  "  Syria  of  Da- 
mascus," Aram-Zoliah,  or  "  Syria  of  Zobah,"  Aram- 
Naharaim,  "  Mesopotamia,"  or  "  Syria  of  the  Two 
iiver^  "  and    Padan-.Aram,  "  the   plain   Syria,"  or 


SYRIA 


8141 


"  tlie  plain  at  the  foot  of  the  mountains.'  Of  thest 
we  cannot  be  mistaken  in  identifying  the  lirst  with 
the  rich  country  about  Iiamascus,  l}ing  Ijetween 
Anti-Libanus  and  the  desert,  and  the  last  with  the 
district  about  Harran  and  Orfah,  the  flat  country 
stretching  out  from  the  western  extremity  of  iMoiis 
JNIasius  toward  the  true  source  of  the  Khabour  at 
Rds  el-Ain.  Aram-Naharaim  seems  to  be  a  term 
including  this  last  tract,  and  extending  beyond  it, 
though  how  far  beyond  is  doubtful.  The  "  two 
rivers  "  intended  are  probably  the  Tigris  and  the 
Euphrates,  which  approach  very  near  each  other  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Uiarbekr;  and  Aram-Naha- 
raim  may  have  originally  been  applied  especially  to 
the  mountain  tract  which  here  separates  them.  If 
so,  it  no  doubt  gradually  extended  its  meaning;  for 
in  Gen.  xxiv.  10  it  clearly  includes  the  district 
about  Harran,  the  Padan-Aram  of  other  places. 
Whether  the  Scriptural  meaning  ever  extends  much 
beyond  this  is  uncertain.  It  is  perhaps  most  prob- 
able that,  as  the  Mesopotamia  of  the  later  Greelis, 
so  the  Aram-Naharaim  of  the  Hebrews  was  limited 
to  the  northwestern  portion  of  the  country  con- 
tained between  the  two  great  streams.  [See  Mksu- 
POTAJIIA.]  Aram-Zobah  seems  to  be  the  tract 
between  the  I'^uphrates  and  Coele-Syria;  since,  on 
the  one  hand,  it  reaches  down  to  the  Great  River 
('1  Sam.  viii.  3.  x.  IG),  and  on  the  other  excludes 
Hamath  (2  Sam.  viii.  9,  10).  The  other  divisions 
of  Aram,  such  as  Aram-Maachah  and  Aram-beth- 
Rechob,  are  more  dithcult  to  locate  with  any  cer- 
tainty. Probably  they  were  portions  ot  the  tract 
intervening  between  Anti-Libanus  and  the  desert. 

The  Greek  writers  used  the  term  Sjria  still  more 
vaguely  than  the  Hebrews  did  Aram.  On  tlie  one 
hand  they  extended  it  to  the  Euxine,  including  in 
it  Cappadocia,  and  even  Bithynia  (Herod,  i.  72,  76, 
ii.  1U4:  Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  2;  Dionys.  Perieg.  972); 
on  the  other  they  carried  it  to  the  borders  of  Egypt, 
and  made  it  comprise  Philistia  and  Kdom  (Herod, 
iii.  5;  Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  2).  Again,  through  the 
confusion  in  their  minds  between  the  Syrians  and 
the  Assyrians,  they  sometimes  included  the  country 
of  the  latter,  and  even  its  southern  neighlior  Haby- 
lonia,  in  Syria  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  2).  Still  they  seem 
always  to  ha\e  had  a  feeling  tliat  Syria  Proper  was 
a  naiTower  region.  Herodotus,  while  he  calls  the 
Cappadocians  and  the  Assyrians  Syrians,  gives  the 
name  of  Syria  only  to  the  country  lying  on  the  Med- 
iterranean between  Cilicia  and  Egypt  (ii.  106,  157, 
159,  iii.  6,  91 ).  Dionj'sius,  who  speaks  of  two  Syrias, 
■Ml  eastern  and  a  western,  assigns  the  first  place 
to  the  latter  {Paiey.  895).  Str.abo,  like  Herod- 
otus, has  one  Syria  only,  which  he  defines  as  the 
maritime  tract  between  I'^gypt  and  the  Gulf  of  Issus. 
The  ordinary  use  of  the  term  Syria,  by  the  LXX. 
and  New  Testament  writers,  is  even  more  restricted 
than  this.  They  distinguish  Syria  from  Phoenicia 
on  the  one  hand,  and  from  Samaria,  ,luda;a,  Idu- 
nifea,  etc.,  on  the  other.  In  the  present  article  it 
seems  best  to  take  the  word  in  this  narrow  sense, 
and  to  regard  Syria  as  bounded  by  Amanus  and 
Taurus  on  the  north,  by  the  Euphrates  and  tlie 
Arabian  desert  on  the  east,  by  Palestine,  or  the 
Holy  Land,  on  the  south,  by  the  Mediterranean 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Orontea,  and  then  by  Pho» 
nicia  upon  the  west.  The  tract  thus  circumscril  ed 
is  about  .300  miles  long  from  north  to  south,  and 
from  50  to  150  miles  broad.  It  contahis  au  area 
of  about  30,000  square  miles. 

2.  UeiifT'tl  Pliijgicnt  Features.  —  The  general 
character  of  the  tract   ia  mountainous,  as  the  He 


3142  SYRIA 

brew  name  Aram  (trom  a  root  signifying  •'  lieiyht "') 
sutticiently  implies.  On  the  west,  two  longitudinal 
chains,  runninr;  parallel  with  the  coast  at  no  great 
distance  from  one  another,  extend  along  two  thirds 
of  the  length  of  Syria,  from  the  latitude  of  Tyre  to 
that  of  Antioch.  These  chains,  toward  the  south, 
were  known  respectively  as  Libanus  and  Anti- 
Libanus,  alter  which,  about  lat.  35°,  the  more 
western  chain,  Libaiius,  became  Hargylus,  while  the 
eastern,  sinking  into  comparative  insignificaiice, 
was  without  any  special  appellation.  In  the  lati- 
tude of  Antioch  the  longitudinal  chains  are  njet  by 
the  chain  of  Amanus,  an  outlying  barrier  of  Taurus, 
having  the  direction  of  that  range,  which  in  this 
part  is  from  southwest  to  northeast.  From  this 
point  northward  to  the  true  Taurus,  which  here 
bounded  Syria,  and  eastward  to  the  Euphrates 
about  Bircli-jik  and  Sumaisal,  the  whole  tract  ap- 
pears to  consist  of  mountains  infinitely  ramified; 
below  which,  toward  Snjiir  and  Aleppo,  are  some 
elevated  plains,  diversified  with  ranges  of  hills,  while 
south  of  these,  in  about  lat.  30°,  you  enter  the 
desert.  'J'he  most  fertile  and  valuable  tract  of 
Syria  is  the  long  valley  inter\ening  between  Li- 
banus  and  Anti-Liljanus,  which  slopes  southward 
from  a  point  a  little  north  of  Haalbek,  and  is  there 
diained  by  the  Litmiy  ;  while  above  that  point  the 
slope  is  northward,  and  the  streams  form  the 
Orontes,  whose  course  is  in  that  direction;  The 
northern  mountain  region  is  also  fairly  productive; 
but  the  soil  of  the  plains  about  Aleppo  is  poor,  and 
the  eastern  Hank  of  the  Anti-Libanus,  except  in  one 
place,  is  peculiarly  sterile.  The  e.xceiition  is  at  the 
lower  or  southern  extremity  of  the  chain,  where 
the  stream  of  the  Barada  forms  the  rich  and  de- 
lightful tract  already  described  under  the  head  of 
Dajiascus. 

3.  Tlie  Mouni'dn  RarKjes.  —  (a.)  Lebanon.  Of 
the  various  mountain  ranges  of  Syria,  Lebanon 
possesses  the  greatest  interest.  It  extends  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Litany  to  A/hi,  a  distance  of  nearly 
100  uiiles,  and  is  composed  chiefly  of  .Jura  lime- 
Btone,  but  varied  with  sandstone  and  basalt.  It 
cuhniiiates  toward  its  northern  extremity,  half-way 
between  Tripoli  and  Beyrut,  and  at  this  point  at- 
tains an  elevation  of  nearly  10,000  feet  (Kobinson, 
BM.  Ec'searc/ies,  iii.  547).  Anciently  it  was 
thickly  wooded  with  cypresses,  cedars,  and  firs;  but 
it  is  now  very  scantily  clothed.  As  a  minute  de- 
scription of  its  present  condition  has  been  already 
given  in  the  proper  place,  it  is  unnecessary  to  pro- 
long the  present  account.  [Lebanon.]  (A.)  Anti- 
Libanus.  This  range,  as  the  name  impUes,  stands 
over  against  Lebanon,  ruiming  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, i.  e.  nearly  north  and  south,  and  extending 
the  same  length.  It  is  composed  of  .lura  limestone, 
oolite,  and  Jura  dolomite.  The  cuhninating  point 
is  Hermon,  at  the  southern,  or  rather  the  south- 
eastern end  of  the  chain;  for  Anti-Libanus,  unlike 
Libanus.  biftircates  at  its  lowest  extremity,  dividing 
into  two  distinct  ridges,  between  which  flows  the 
stream  of  the  IJiisOeyii.  Hermon  is  thought  to  ex- 
ceed the  height  of 'J,000  feet.  (c.jBargylus.  Mount 
jJargylus,  called  now  Jtltel  Nosairl  toward  the 
south,  and  toward  the  north  ./ebel  Kraad.  extends 
bom  the  mouth  of  the  Nahr  d-Kebir  (Eleutherus), 
learly  opposite  Hems,  to  the  vicinity  of  Antioch,  a 
distance  of  rather  more  than  100  miles.  It  is 
separated  from  Lebanon  by  a  comparati\ely  level 
tract,  15  or  '20  miles  broad  (el-Biik-evn),  through 
which  flows  the  stream  called  el-KMv.  IMount 
Bargylus  is  broader  than  Lebanon,  and  throws  out 


SYRIA 

a  number  of  short  s|iurs  east  and  west  both  towai'd 
the  sea  and  toward  the  valley  of  the  Orontes. 
One  of  the  western  spurs  terminates  in  a  rennrk- 
able  headland,  known  to  the  ancients  as  Mount 
Casius,  and  now  called  Jtbel  tl-Akra,ov  the  "  Bald 
JNIountain,''  which  rises  abruptly  from  the  sea  to  a 
height  exceeding  5,000  feet.  At  the  nortliern  ex- 
tremity of  Bargylus,  where  it  overhangs  the  lower 
course  of  the  Orontes,  was  Daphne,  the  delicious 
suburb  of  Antioch,  and  the  favorite  haunt  of  its 
luxurious  populace.  (</.)  Amanus.  North  of  ths 
mouth  of  the  Orontes,  between  its  course  Knd  the 
eastern  shore  of  the  Gulf  of  Issus  (Jikiitn/erun), 
lies  the  range  of  Amanus,  which  extends  from  the 
southwest  end  of  the  gulf,  in  a  northeasterly  di- 
rection, a  distance  of  85  or  90  miles,  and  finally 
forms  a  junction  with  Taurus  in  about  long.  36° 
25'.  Amanus  divides  Syria  from  Cilicia,  and  is  a 
stony  range  with  bold  rugged  peaks  and  conical 
summits,  formed  of  serpentines  and  other  secondary 
rocks  supporting  a  tertiary  formation.  Us  average 
elevation  is  5,000  feet,  and  it  terminates  abiuptly  at 
Ji<rn  tl-Kliaiizu\  hi  a  high  cliff  overhanging  the  sea. 
There  are  only  two  or  three  passes  across  it;  and 
one  alone,  that  of  B<:Uin>,  is  tolerably  conmiodious. 
Amanus,  like  Anti-Libanus,  bifurcates  at  its  .south 
western  extremity,  having,  besides  its  termination 
at  the  Jins  el-K/ionzir,  another,  now  called  J/tisn 
jL>ii(/fi,  which  approaches  within  about  six  miles  of 
the  mouth'  of  the  Orontes,  and  seems  to  be  the 
Pieria  of  Strabo  (xvi.  2,  §  8).  This  spur  is  of 
limestone  formation.  The  flanks  of  Amanus  are 
well  clothed  with  forests  of  pine,  oak,  and  larch,  or 
copses  of  myrtle,  arbutus,  oleander,  and  other 
shrubs.  The  range  was  well  known  to  the  Assyrians, 
who  called  it  Khumnnn,  and  not  unfreqiiently  cut 
timber  in  it,  which  was  conveyed  thence  to  their 
capital. 

4.  Tlie  Hirers. — The  principal  rivers  of  Syria 
are  the  Litany  and  the  Orontes.  The  Litany  .springs 
from  a  snjall  lake  situated  in  the  middle  of  the 
Coele-Syrian  valley,  about  six  miles  to  the  south- 
west of  Baalbek.  Hence  it  descends  the  valley 
called  el-Bukfifi,  with  a  course  a  little  west  of 
south,  sending  out  on  each  side  a  numlier  of  eanala 
for  irrigation,  and  receiving  rills  from  the  opposite 
ranges  of  Libanus  and  Anti-Libanus,  which  com- 
pensate for  the  water  given  off.  The  chief  of  these 
is  called  tl-Bw-dcny,  and  descends  from  Lelianon 
near  Zalileli.  The  Bukaa  narrows  as  it  proceeds 
southward,  and  terminates  in  a  gorge,  through 
which  the  Litany  forces  itself  with  a  course  which 
is  still  to  the  southwest,  flowing  deep  between  high 
precipices,  and  spanned  by  a  bold  bridge  of  a  single 
arch,  known  as  the  Jkr  Buryhus.  Having  emerged 
from  the  ravine,  it  flo\vs  first  southwest  by  west, 
and  then  nearly  due  south,  till  it  reaches  the  lati- 
tude of  Tyre,  when  meeting  the  mountains  of  Upper 
Galilee,  it  is  forced  to  bend  to  the  west,  and,  pass- 
ing with  many  windings  through  the  low  coast 
tract,  enters  the  sea  about  5  miles  north  of  the 
great  Phoenician  city.  'l"he  entire  course  of  the 
stream,  exclusive  of  small  windings,  is  about  80 
miles.  The  source  of  the  Orontes  is  but  about  15 
miles  from  that  of  the  Litany.  A  little  north  of 
Baalbek,  the  highest  point  or  water-shed  of  the 
Coele-Syrian  valley  is  reached,  and  the  ground  be- 
gins to  descend  northward.  A  small  rill  breaks 
out  from  the  foot  of  Anti-Libanus,  which,  after 
flowing  nearly  due  north  for  15  miles  across  the 
plain,  meets  another  greater  source  given  cut  by 
Lebanon  in  kt.  34°  22',  which  i«  now  conaidere^ 


SYRIA 

l:be  tTue  "head  of  the  stream."  The  Orontes  from 
this  point  flows  down  the  valley  to  the  northeast, 
and  passing  through  the  Bahr  el-Kurks  —  a  lake 
about  6  miles  long  and  2  Inroad  —  approaches  //ems 
(Emesa),  which  it  leaves  on  its  right  hank.  It 
then  flows  for  20  miles  nearly  due  north:  after 
which,  on  approaching  //aiiiiiii  (Hamath),  it  makes 
a  slight  bend  to  the  east  round  the  base  of  the 
Jebal  Erbayn,  and  then,  entering  the  rich  pasture 
country  of  tl-(!hnb,  runs  northwest  and  north  to 
Jisr  Undid.  The  tributaries  which  it  receives  in 
this  part  of  its  course  are  many  but  small,  the  oidy 
one  of  any  importance  being  the  IVm/y  tl-Srir/iJ, 
wliich  enters  it  from  the  west  a  little  below  Hamath. 
At  Jisr  Hddid,  or  "  the  Iron  Britlge,"  the  course 
of  the  Orontes  suddenly  changes.  Prevented  liy 
the  range  of  Amanus  from  flowing  any  further  to 
the  north,  it  sweeps  round  boldly  to  the  west,  and 
receiving  a  large  tributary  —  the  Kai'a-Su  —  from 
the  northeast,  the  volume  of  whose  water  exceeds 
its  own,  it  enters  the  broad  valley  of  Antioch, 
"  doubling  back  here  upon  itself,  and  flowing  to 
the  southwest."  In  this  part  of  its  course  the 
Orontes  has  been  compared  to  the  Wye  (Stanley, 
ISintii  iind  Paltsline,  p.  409).  The  entire  length 
of  the  stream  is  estimated  at  aliove  200  miles. 
Its  modern  name  is  the  Nn/ir  el-Asi,  or  >'  Kebel 
Stream,"  an  appellation  given  to  it  on  account  of 
its  violence  and  impetuosity  in  many  parts  of  its 
course. 

The  other  Syrian  streams  of  some  consequence, 
besides  the  Litany  and  the  Orontes,  are  the  Ba- 
rada,  or  River  of  Damascus,  the  Kowei/i,  or  River 
of  Aleppo,  and  the  S<iju/\  a  tributary  of  the  Eu- 
phrates. The  course  of  the  Bai-ndu  has  already 
been  described  imder  the  head  of  Damascus.  [D.v- 
JiAscus.]  The  Koictik  rises  in  the  highlands 
south  of  Aiii^T/i/j,  from  two  sources,  one  of  \vhich 
is  known  as  the  B<ilMu-Su,  or  "  Fish- River."  It 
seems  to  be  the  Chalus  of  Xenopiion  {Annb.  i.  4, 
§  'J).  Its  course  is  at  first  east,  but  soon  becomes 
south,  or  a  little  west  of  south,  to  Alepijo,  alter 
which  it  meanders  considerably  through  the  high 
plain  south  of  that  city,  finally  terminating  in  a 
marsh  known  as  e^.l/r(?A7/.  The  Unjur  rises  a 
little  further  to  the  north,  in  the  mountains  north 
o(  Ain-Tub.  Its  course  for  the  first  25  miles  is 
southeast,  after  which  it  runs  east  for  15  or  20 
miles,  finally  resuming  its  first  direction,  and  flow- 
ing by  the  town  of  Hajuv  into  the  Euphrates.  It 
is  a  larger  river  than  the  Kuwei/c,  though  its  course 
is  scarcely  so  long. 

5.  Tlie  La/ces.  —  The  principal  lakes  of  Syria 
are  the  Agh-Dengiz,  or  Lake  of  Antioch;  the  Sn- 
biikha/i.  or  Salt  Lake,  between  Aleppo  and  lialis; 
the  B(dir  el-Kades,  on  the  Upper  Orontes;  and 
the  Bidir  el-Merj,  or  Lake  of  Damascus.  ('(. )  The 
Lake  of  Antioch  is  an  olilong  fresh-water  basin,  10 
miles  long  by  7  broad,  situated  to  tlie  north  of  the 
Orontes,  where  it  sweeps  round  through  the  plain 
of  Uiiik,  lielbre  receiving  the  Km-a-Su.  It  is 
formed  by  the  waters  of  three  large  streams  —  the 
K<ira-Su,  the  Afrin,  and  the  Aswml  —  which  col- 
lect the  drainage  of  the  great  mountain  tract  lying 
northeast  and  east  of  Antioch,  between  the  3Gth 
and  37th  parallels.  It  has  been  argued,  from  the 
silence  of  Xenophon  and  Strabo,  that  this  lake  did 
not  exist  in  ancient  times  (liennell,  Jlliistrnliuns  nf 
die  Kxpediliiiii  of  Cyrus,  p.  65),  but  modern  inves- 
'.igations  pursued  u|)on  the  spot  are  thought  to  dis- 
prove this  theory  (.\insworth,  Rcse'irclies  in  .1/tS"- 
\'Otaiina,  p  299).    The  waters  flow  into  the  lake  on 


SYRIA 


3143 


the  east  and  north,  and  flow  out  of  it  at  its  south- 
west angle  by  a  broad  and  deep  stream,  known  aa 
the  Kai-a-Su,  which  falls  into  the  Orontes  a  few 
miles  above  Antioch.  (6.)  The  Sabak/ifdi  is  a  sah 
lake,  into  which  only  iii-siiiiiificant  streams  flow, 
and  which  has  no  outlet.  It  lies  midway  between 
Balis  and  Aleppo,  the  route  between  tiiese  places 
passing  along  its  northern  shore.  It  is  longer  than 
the  Lake  of  Antioch,  but  narrower,  being  about  13 
miles  from  east  to  west,  and  4  miles  only  from 
north  to  south,  even  where  it  is  widest,  (c.)  The 
B(dn-  el-K(idcs  is  smaller  than  either  of  the  forego- 
ing lakes.  It  has  been  estimated  at  8  miles  long 
and  3  broad  (Pococke,  Bescriplion  of  t/ie  L'list.  i. 
140),  and  again  at  6  miles  long  and  2  broad  (C'hes- 
ney,  Kuplirates  Exp.  i.  394),  but  has  never  been 
accurately  measured.  Pococke  conjectures  that  it, 
is  of  recent  formation;  but  his  only  reason  seems  to 
be  the  silence  of  ancient  writers,  which  is  scarcely 
sufficient  to  prove  the  point.  ((/.)  The  Ba/n-  tl- 
Merj,  like  the  piece  of  water  in  which  the  Koictik 
or  River  of  Aleppo  ends,  scarcely  deserves  to  be 
called  a  lake,  since  it  is  little  better  than  a  large 
marsh.  The  length,  according  to  Colonel  Ohesney, 
is  9  miles,  and  the  breadth  2  miles  {/■Aiplirai.  Exp. 
i.  503);  but  the  size  seems  to  vary  with  the  seasons, 
and  with  the  extent  to  which  irrigation  is  used 
alonsi  the  course  of  the  Bnrndn.  A  recent  travel- 
ler, who  traced  the  Bnrndn  to  its  termination, 
found  it  divide  a  few  miles  below  Damascus,  and 
oliserved  that  each  branch  termiiuited  in  a  marsh 
of  its  own ;  while  a  neighboring  stream,  the 
AivttdJ,  conimoidy  regarded  as  a  tributary  of  the 
Barndn,  also  lost  itself  in  a  third  marsh  separate 
from  the  other  two  (Porter  in  Geoyrap/i.  Journ. 
xxvi.  43-4(i). 

6.  T/ie  Great  Vnlky.  —  By  far  the  most  im- 
portant [lart  of  Syria,  and  on  the  whole  its  most 
striking  feature,  is  the  great  valley  which  reaches 
from  the  plain  of  Uink,  near  Antioch,  to  the  nar- 
row gorge  on  which  the  Litany  enters  in  aliout  lat. 
33°  30'.  This  valley,  which  runs  nearly  parallel 
with  the  Syrian  coast,  extends  the  length  of  230 
miles,  and  has  a  width  varying  from  G  or  8  to  15 
or  20  miles.  The  more  southern  portion  of  it  was 
known  to  the  ancients  as  Coele-Syria,  or  "  the 
Hollow  Syria,"  and  has  been  already  described. 
[C<KLESYiiiA.]  In  length  this  portion  is  rather 
more  than  100  miles,  terminating  with  a  screen  of 
hills  a  little  south  of  Hems,  at  which  point  the 
northeastern  direction  of  the  valley  also  ceases, 
and  it  begins  to  bend  to  the  northwest.  The  lower 
valley  from  Ilems  downward  is  broader,  generally 
speaking,  and  richer  than  the  upper  portion.  Here 
was  "  Hamath  the  Great "  (Am.  vi.  2),  now 
Hnmn/i ;  and  here  too  was  Apameia,  a  city  but 
little  inferior  to  Antioch,  surrounded  by  rich  pas- 
tures, where  Seleucus  Nicator  was  wont  to  feed  500 
elephants,  300  stallion  horses,  and  30,000  mares 
(Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  10).  The  whole  of  this  region  is 
fertile,  being  watered  not  oidy  by  tlie  Orontes,  but 
by  the  numerous  affluents  which  flow  into  it  from 
the  mountain  ranges  inclosing  the  valley  on  either 
side. 

7.  T/ie  Ncn-tliern  Iligldnnds. —  Northern  Syria, 
especially  the  district  called  Commnyenc,  between 
Taurus  and  the  Euphrates,  is  still  very  insufli- 
ciently  explored.  It  seems  to  be  altogether  an  ele- 
vated tract,  consisting  of  twisted  spurs  from  'i'aurua 
and  Amanus,  with  narrow  valleys  between  them, 
which  open  out  into  bare  and  sterile  |)lain.s.  The 
valleys  themselves  are  not  very  fertile.     They  are 


3144 


SYllIA 


watered  liy  small  streams,  producing  often  alaiii- 
daiit  fisli,  and,  for  the  most  part,  t^owiiii;  into  tiie 
Orontes  or  the  Euphrates.  A  certain  numher  of 
tlie  more  central  ones,  however,  unite,  and  consti- 
tute tlie  "  river  of  Aleppo,"  which,  unable  to  reach 
eitlier  of  the  oceanic  streams,  forms  (as  we  have 
Been)  a  lake  or  marsh,  wheiein  its  waters  evaporate. 
Along  the  course  of  the  Euphrates  there  is  rich  land 
and  aliimdant  vegetation;  l)Ut  the  character  of  the 
countrv  thence  to  the  valley  of  the  (Jrontes  is  bare 
i.iid  woodless,  except  in  the  vicinity  of  the  towns, 
where  fruit-trees  are  cultivated,  and  orchards  and 
gardens  make  an  agreealile  appearance.  JMost  of 
this  region  is  a  mere  sheep-walk,  which  grows  more 
and  more  harsh  and  repulsive  as  we  approach  the 
Bouth,  where  it  gradually  mingles  with  the  desert. 
The  highest  elevation  of  the  ])lateau  between  the 
rwo  rivers  is  1500  feet;  and  this  height  is  reached 
soon  aftc-r  leaving  the  Euphrates,  while  toward  the 
west  the  decline  is  gradual. 

8.  Tlid  Eastern  Destrt.  —  East  of  the  inner 
mountain-chain,  and  south  of  the  cultivable  ground 
aliout  Aleppo,  is  the  great  Syrian  Desert,  an  "ele- 
vated dr5'  upland,  for  the  most  part  of  gypsum  and 
marls,  producing  nothing  but  a  few  spnre  liushes  of 
wormwood,  and  the  usual  aromatic  plants  of  the 
wilderness."  Here  and  there  bare  and  stony  ridges 
of  no  great  height  cross  this  arid  region,  Imt  fail  to 
draw  water  from  the  sky,  and  have,  consequently, 
no  streams  flowing  from  them.  A  few  wells  su])- 
ply  the  nomad  po])ulation  with  a  I  rackish  fluid. 
'Ihe  region  is  traversed  with  difficulty,  and  has 
never  been  accurately  survejed.  The  most  remark- 
able oasis  is  at  Palmyra,  where  -there  are  several 
small  streams  and  abundant  palm-trees.  [SeeTAO- 
Biuj;.]  Toward  the  more  western  part  of  the  re- 
gion along  the  foot  of  the  mountain  range  which 
there  bounds  it,  is  likewise  a  good  deal  of  tolerably 
fertile  country,  watered  by  the  streams  which  flow 
eastward  from  the  range,  and  alter  a  longer  or  a 
shorter  course  are  lost  in  the  desert.  The  best  known 
and  the  most  productive  of  these  tracts,  which  seem 
stolen  from  the  desert,  is  the  famous  plain  of  l)a- 
njascus  —  the  el-Gliula/i  and  el-Mirj  of  the  Arabs 
—  already  described  in  the  account  given  of  that  city. 
[l)AJiAb(US.]  No  rival  to  this  "earthly  paradise" 
is  to  be  foimd  along  the  rest  of  the  chain,  since  no 
other  stream  flows  down  from  it  at  all  comparable 
to  the  Barada;  but  wherever  the  eastern  side  of  the 
chain  has  been  visited,  a  certain  amount  of  cultiva- 
ble teiritory  has  been  found  at  its  foot;  corn  is 
grown  in  places,  and  olive-trees  are  abundant 
(15urckhardt,  Travels  in  Syria,  pp.  ]-24-129;  I'o- 
cocke.  Description  f)/'  f/ie  An st,  ii.  140).  Further 
from  the  hills  all  is  bare  and  repulsive;  a  dry,  hard 
desert  like  that  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  with  a 
soil  of  marl  and  gravel,  only  rarely  diversified  with 
Band. 

9.  Chief  Divisions.  —  According  to  Strabo,  Syria 
Proper  was  divided  into  the  following  districts: 
(1.)  Comma f/ene ;  (2.)  Cyrr/ieslica  ;  (3.)  ISt/eucis  ; 
(4.)  Cale-Sijria  ;  and  (.5.)  Damascene.  If  we  take 
its  limits,  however,  as  laid  down  above  (§  1),  we 
must  add  to  these  districts  three  others:  Chalybu- 
lilis,  or  the  country  about  Aleppo;  Chalcis  or 
Chalcidice,  a  small  tract  south  of  this,  about  the 
ake  in  which  the  river  of  Alepjio  ends;  and  Pal- 
myrene,  or  the  desert  so  far  as  we  consider  it  to 
nave   been    Syrian,     {a.)  Commayene"  lay  to  the 


a  The  root  of  this  name  appear.'  in  the  early  Assyr- 
ian inprription*  i-  that  of  a  people,  the  Qummukh,  or 


SYRIA 

I  north.  Its  capital  was  Samo.sata  or  Swneisit 
ihe  territory  is  said  to  have  been  fairly  fertile,  hut 
small;  and  from  this  we  njay  gather  that  it  did  not 
descend  lower  than  ahowi^  Ain-Tab.  (b.)  From  Ain- 
Tab,  or  perhaps  from  a  point  higher  up,  commenced 
Cirrheslica  or  Cyristica.  It  was  bounded  on  the 
north  by  Comma rjene,  on  the  northwest  by  Ama- 
mis,  on  the  west  and  southwest  bv  Sekncis,  and 
on  the  south  by  Chalybonitis  or  the  region  of  Chal- 
ybon.  Both  it  and  Comma r/ene  reached  eastward 
to  the  Euphrates.  Cyrr/iestica  was  so  called  from 
its  capital  (,'yrrhus.  which  seems  to  be  the  modern 
O'rMs.  It  included  Hierapolis  [Bambnk],  Batnse 
(Daliabf).  nv(\  Gindiirns  (Gimlaries).  (c.)  Chal- 
ybonitis adjoined  Cyrrhestica  on  the  south,  lying 
between  that  region  and  the  de.sert.  It  extended 
probalily  from  the  iMiphrates,  about  Balis,  to  Mount 
St.  Simeon  (Amyvli  Da<jh).  Like  Cyrrhestica,  it' 
derived  its  name  from  its  capital  city,  which  was 
Chalybon.  now  corruj)ted  into  Haleb  or  Aleppo. 
{(L)  Clialcidice  was  south  of  the  more  western  por- 
tion of  ( 'halybonitis,  and  was  named  from  its  capi- 
tal, Chalcis,  which  seems  to  be  marked  by  the  mod- 
ern Kc/niiisserin,  a  little  south  of  the  lake  in  which 
the  Piver  of  Aleppo  ends  (Pococke,  Travels,  ii.  149). 
(e. )  Seleucis  lay  between  Cyrrhestica,  Chalybonitis, 
and  Chalcis  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Meiliterranean 
on  the  other.  It  was  a  large  province,  and  con- 
tained four  important  subdivisions:  (1)  Seleucis 
Proper  or  Pleria,  the  little  corner  between  Amanus 
and  the  Orontes,  with  its  capital,  Selencia,  on  the 
coast,  above  the  mouth  of  the  Orontes;  (2)  Anti- 
ochis,  the  region  about  Antioch;  (.3)  Paodicene, 
the  coast  tract  between  the  mouth  of  the  Orontes 
and  Ph(enicia,  named  after  its  capital,  Laodiceia 
(still  called  Ladikiyeh),  which  was  an  excellent 
port,  and  situated  in  a  most  fertile  district  (Strab. 
xvi.  2.  §  9);  and  (4)  Apamem^,  consisting  of  the 
valley  of  the  Orontes  from  Jisr  IJadid  to  IJamali. 
or  perhaps  to  Hems,  and  having  Ajiameia  (now  Fa- 
mieli)  for  its  chief  city,  (f.)  CVele-Syria  lay  south 
of  Apameia,  being  the  continuation  of  the  Great 
Valley,  and  extending  from  IJeii/s  to  the  gorge  in 
which  the  valley  ends.  The  chief  town  of  tliis 
region  was  Heliopolis  (Baalbek),  {ij.)  Damascene 
included  the  whole  cultivable  tract  between  the 
bare  range  which  breaks  away  from  Anti-Libanus 
in  lat.  33°  30',  and  the  hills  which  shut  in  the 
valley  of  the  Aicaj  on  the  south.  It  lay  east  of 
Coele-Sj'ria  and  southwest  of  Palmyren^.  [h.) 
Palmyren^  was  the  name  applied  to  the  whole 
of  the  Syrian  Desert.  It  was  bounded  on  the  east 
by  the  Euphrates,  on  the  north  by  Chalylionitis 
and  Chalcidic^,  on  the  west  by  Apamen^  and 
Ccele-Syria,  and  on  the  south  by  the  great  desert  of 
Arabia. 

10.  Principal  Towns.~T\\e  chief  towns  of  Syria 
may  be  thus  arranged,  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the 
order  of  their  importance:  1.  Antioch;  2.  Damas- 
cus ;  3.  Apameia ;  4.  Selencia ;  5.  Tadmor  or 
i'almyra;  6.  Laodiceia;  7.  Epiphaneia  (Hamath); 
8.  Saraosata;  9.  Hierapolis  (Mabog);  10.  Chaly- 
bon; IL  Emesa ;  12.  Heliopolis;  13.  Laodiceia 
ad  Libanum  ;  14.  Cyrrhus  ;  15.  Chalcis  ;  16 
Poseideium  ;  17.  Heracleia ;  18.  Gindarus  ;  19 
Zeugma  ;  20.  Thapsacus.  Of  these,  Samosata 
Zeugma,  Thapsacus,  are  on  the  Euphrates ;  Seleucia, 
Laodiceia,  Poseideium,  and  Heracleia,  on  the  sea- 
shore; Antioch,  Apameia,  Epiphaneia,  and  Eme.sa 


(himmuhkl.     They   dwell,  however,  east  of  the  ^tt 
pUrates,  between  Sunifisat  and  Diarhekr 


SYRIA 

{llein»)  oil  the  Orontes;  Heliojiolis  and  Laodiceia 
ad  libaiuiin,  in  Coele-Sjria;  Hierapolis,  Cluilylioii, 
Cyrrhus,  Clialcis,  and  Gindarus,  in  the  northern 
highlands;  Damascus  on  the  skirts,  and  Palmyra 
in  the  centre  of  the  eastern  desert. 

11.  History.  —  Tlie  first  occupants  of  Syria  ap- 
pear to  have  been  of  Haraitic  descent.  Tlie  Ca- 
naanitish  races,  tlie  Hittitfis,  Jebusites,  Amorites, 
etc.,  are  oonnected  in  Scripture  with  Egypt  and 
Ethiopii ,  Cush  and  Mizraim  (Gen.  x.  6  and  15-18); 
and  even  independently  of  this  evidence,  there  seems 
to  be  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  the  races 
in  question  stood  in  close  ethnic  connection  witii 
the  Cushite  stock  (Kawlinson's  Herodotus,  iv.  213- 
245).  These 'tribes  occupied  not  Palestine  only, 
but  also  Lower  Syria,  in  very  early  times,  as  we 
may  gather  from  the  fact  tha/  Hamath  is  assigned 
to  them  in  Genesis  (x.  18).  .Afterwards  they  seem 
to  have  become  possessed  of  Upper  Syria  also,  for 
when  the  Assyr;fins  first  push  their  conquests  be- 
yond the  Euphrates,  they  find  the  Hittites  (Khmti) 
established  in  strength  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Great  Kiver.  After  a  while  the  first  comers,  who 
were  still  to  a  great  extent  nomads,  received  a 
Shemitic  infusion,  which  most  jjrobably  came  to 
them  from  the  southeast.  The  fiimily  of  Abraham, 
whose  original  domicile  was  in  Lower  Babylonia, 
may,  perhaps,  be  best  regarded  as  furnishing  us 
with  a  specimen  of  the  migratory  movements  of  the 
period. '  Another  example  is  that  of  Chedorlaonier 
with  his  confederate  kings,  of  whom  one  at  least  — 
Amraphel  —  must  have  been  a  Shemite.  The  move- 
ment may  have  begun  before  the  time  of  Abraham, 
and  hence,  perhaps,  the  Shemitic  names  of  many  of 
the  inhabitants  when  Abraham  first  comes  into  the 
country,  as  Abimelech,  Jlelchizedek,  P-liezer,  etc." 
The  only  Syrian  town  whose  existence  we  find  dis- 
tinctly marked  at  this  time  is  Damascus  (Gen.  xiv. 
15,  XV.  2),  which  appears  to  have  been  already  a 
place  of  some  importance.  Indeed,  in  one  tradition, 
Abraham  is  said  to  have  been  king  of  Damascus 
for  a  time  (Nic.  Dam.  Fr.  30);  but  tiiis  is  quite 
unworthy  of  credit.  Next  to  Damascus  must  be 
placed  Hamath,  which  is  mentioned  by  Moses  as  a 
well-known  place  (Num.  xiii.  21,  xxxiv.  8),  and 
appears  in  Egyptian  papyri  of  the  time  of  the 
■eighteenth  dynasty  (Coinbridi/e  Essiys,  1858,  p. 
268).  Syria  at  this  time,  and  for  many  centuries 
afterwards,  seems  to  iiave  been  l)roken  up  among  a 
nunil)er  of  petty  kingdoms.  Several  of  these  are 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  as  Damascus,  Kehob, 
Ma.achah,  Zobah,  Geshur,  etc.  We  also  hear  oc- 
casionally of  "  the  kings  of  Syria  and  of  the  Hit- 
tites "  (1  K.  X.  29;  2  K.  vii.  6^  —  an  expression 
indicative  of  that  extensive  subdivision  of  the  tract 
among  numerous  petty  chiefs  which  is  exhibited  lo 
us  very  clearly  in  tlie  early  Assyrian  inscriptions. 
At  various  times  ditterent  states  had  the  preiimi- 
nence;  but  none  was  ever  strong  enough  to  estab- 
lish an  authority  over  the  others. 

The  ,Iews  first  come  into  hostile  contact  with  the 
Syrians,  under  that  mime,  in  the  time  of  David. 
The  wars  of  Joshua,  however,  must  have  often  been 
with  Syrian  chiefs,  with  whom  he  disputed  the 
possession  of  the  tract  about  Lelianon  and  Hermon 
(Josh.  xi.  2-18).  After  his  time  tlie  Syrians  were 
apparently  undisturbed,  until  David  began  his  ag- 
gressive wars  upon  them.  Claiming  the  frontier  of 
the  I'^uphrates,  which  God  had  promised  to  Aliraham 


o  It  Is  possible,  however,  that  these  names  may  be 
tlM  Shemitic  equivalents   of  the   real  names  of  these 
198 


SYRIA  3145 

(Gen.  XV.  18),  David  made  war  on  Hadadezer,  king 
of  Zoliah,  whom  he  defeated  in  a  great  battle,  kill- 
ing 18,000  of  his  men,  and  taking  from  him  1,000 
chariots,  700  horsemen,  and  20,000  footmen  (2  Sam. 
viii.  3,  4,  13).  The  Damascene  Syrians,  having 
endeavored  to  succor  their  kinsmen,  were  likewise 
defeated  with  great  loss  {ibid.  ver.  5);  and  the 
blow  so  weakened  them  that  they  shortly  afterwards 
suljmitted  and  became  David's  subjects  (ver.  6). 
Zobah,  however,  was  far  from  being  subdued  as 
yet.  When,  a  few  years  later,  the  Ammonites  de- 
termined on  engaging  in  a  war  with  David,  and 
applied  to  the  Syrians  for  aid,  Zobah,  together  with 
Beth-Rehob,  sent  them  20,000  footmen,  and  two 
other  Syrian  kingdoms  furnished  13,000  (2  Sam. 
X.  G).  This  army  being  completely  defeateil  by 
Joab,  Hadadezer  obtained  aid  from  IMesopotainia 
{itjid.  ver.  10),  and  tried  the  chance  of  a  third  bat- 
tle, which  likewise  went  against  him,  and  produced 
the  general  submission  of  Syria  to  the  Jewish 
monarch.  The  submission  thus  begun  continued 
under  the  reign  of  Solomon,  who  "  reigned  over 
all  the  kingdoms  from  the  river  (Euphrates)  unto 
the  land  of  the  Philistines  and  unto  the  border  of 
Egypt;  they  brought  presents  and  served  Solomon 
all  the  days  of  his  life"  (1  K.  iv.  21).  The  only 
part  of  Syria  which  Solomon  lost  seems  to  have 
been  Damascus,  where  an  independent  kingdom 
was  set  up  by  Kezon,  a  native  of  Zoljali  (1  K.  xi. 
23-25).  On  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms, 
soon  after  the  accession  of  Rehoboam,  the  remainder 
of  Syria  no  doubt  shook  otf  the  yoke.  Damascus 
now  became  decidedly  the  leading  state,  Hamath 
being  second  to  it,  and  the  northern  Hittites, 
whose  capital  was  Carchemish  near  Bmiibuk,  tliinh 
[Oakchkmisii.]  The  wars  of  this  period  fall  most 
properly  into  the  history  of  Damascus,  and  have 
already  been  descrilied  in  the  account  given  of  that 
city.  [Dam.\scu.s.]  Their  result  was  to  attach 
Syria  to  the  great  .\ssyrian  empire,  from  which  it 
passed  to  the  Babylonians,  after  a  short  attempt 
on  the  part  of  Egypt  to  iiokl  possession  of  it,  which 
was  frustrated  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  From  the 
Babylonians  Syria  passed  to  the  Persians,  under 
whom  it  formed  a  satrapy  in  conjunction  with 
Judaja,  Phoenicia,  and  Cyprus  (Herod  iii.  91).  Its 
resources  were  still  great,  and  probaljly  it  was  hi" 
confidence  in  them  which  encouraged  the  Syrian 
satrap,  Megabazus,  to  raise  the  standard  of  revolt 
against  .-Vrtaxerses  Longimanus  (b.  c.  417).  After 
this  we  hear  little  of  Syria  till  the  year  of  the  battle 
of  issus  (u.  c.  333),  when  it  submitted  to  Alex- 
ander without  a  struggle. 

Upon  the  death  of  Alexander  Syria  became,  for 
the  first  time,  tiie  head  of  a  great  kingdom.  On 
the  division  of  the  provinces  among  his  s^enerals 
(B.  c.  321),  Seleucus  NTicator  received  Rlesopotaniia 
and  Syria;  and  though,  in  the  twenty  years  of 
struggle  which  followed,  this  country  was  lost  and 
won  repeatedly,  it  remained  finally,  with  tlie  es 
ceptioii  of  Coele-Syria,  in  the  hands  of  the  prince 
to  whom  it  was  originally  assigned.  I'hat  prince, 
whose  dominions  readied  from  the  Mediterranern 
to  the  Indus,  and  from  tlie  Oxus  to  the  Soiithtin 
Ocean,  having,  as  he  believed,  been  exposed  to 
great  dangers  on  account  of  the  distance  from 
tireece  of  his  original  capital,  Babylon,  resolved 
immediately  upon  his  victory  of  Ipsus  (n.  c.  301) 
to  fix  his  metropolis  in  the  West,  and  settled  upon 

persons,  which  names  might  in  that  case  hare  been 
Uamitic 


3146 


SYRIA 


Syria  as  the  fittest  j/lace  for  if.  Antioch  was  lie- 
gun  in  B.  c.  300,  and,  being  finished  in  a  few  years, 
was  made  the  capital  of  Seleucus'  kingdom.  The 
whole  realm  was  thenceforth  ruled  from  this  centre, 
and  Syria,  which  had  long  been  the  prey  of  stronger 
countries,  and  had  l)een  exhausted  by  their  ex- 
actions, grew  rich  with  the  wealth  which  now  flowed 
into  it  on  all  sides.  The  luxury  and  magnificence 
of  Antioch  were  extraordinary.  Broad  straight 
streets,  with  colonnades  from  end  to  end,  temples, 
statues,  arches,  bridges,  a  royal  palace,  and  various 
Other  public  buildings  dispersed  throughout  it, 
made  tlie  Syrian  capital  by  far  the  most  splendid 
of  all  the  cities  of  the  East.  At  the  same  time,  in 
the  provinces,  other  towns  of  large  size  were  grow- 
ing up.  Seleucia  in  Pieria,  Apameia,  and  both 
Laodicei;is  were  foundations  of  the  Seleucidse,  as 
their  names  sufficiently  indicate.  Weak  and  in- 
dolent as  were  many  of  these  monarchs,  it  would 
seem  that  they  had  a  hereditary  taste  for  building : 
and  so  each  aimed  at  outdoing  his  predecessors  in 
the  number,  beauty,  and  magnificence  of  his  con- 
structions. As  the  history  of  Syria  under  the 
Seleucid  princes  has  been  already  given  in  detail, 
in  the  articles  treating  of  each  monarch  [Anti- 
OCHUS.  Demetrius,  Seleucus,  etc.],  it  will  be 
unnecessary  here  to  do  more  than  sum  it  up  gen- 
erally. The  most  flourishing  period  was  the  reign 
of  the  founder,  Nicator.  The  empire  was  then  al- 
most as  large  as  that  of  the  Acha?menian  Persians, 
for  it  at  one  time  included  Asia  Minor,  and  thus 
reached  from  the  /Egean  to  India.  It  was  organized 
into  satrapies,  of  which  the  number  was  72.  Trade 
flourished  greatly,  old  lines  of  traffic  being  restored 
and  new  ones  opened.  The  reign  of  Nicator's  son, 
Antiochus  I.,  called  Soter,  was  the  beginning  of 
the  decline,  which  was  jirogressive  from  his  date, 
with  only  one  or  two  slight  interruptions.  Soter 
lost  territory  to  the  kingdom  of  Pergamus,  and 
failed  in  an  attempt  to  subject  Bithynia.  He  was 
also  unsuccessful  against  Egypt.  Under  his  son, 
Antiochus  II.,  called  @e6?,  or  "  the  tiod,'"  who 
ascended  the  throne  in  u.  c.  201,  the  disintegration 
of  the  empire  proceeded  more  rapidly.  The  revolt 
(if  Parthii  in  n.  c.  2-56,  followed  by  that  of  Bactria 
in  B.  C.  254,  deprived  the  Syrian  kingdom  of  some 
of  its  best  provinces,  and  gave  it  a  new  enemy 
which  shortly  became  a  rival  and  finally  a  superior. 
At  the  same  time  the  war  with  Egypt  was  prose- 
cuted without  either  advantage  or  glory.  Eresh 
losses  were  suflTered  in  the  reign  of  Seleucus  II. 
(t'allinicusl,  Antiochus  the  Second's  successor. 
While  Callinicus  was  engaged  in  Egypt  against 
Ptolemy  Euergetes,  Eumenes  of  Pergamus  obtained 
possession  of  a  great  part  of  Asia  Minor  (b.  c.  242); 
and  about  the  same  time  Arsaces  II.,  king  of 
Parthia,  conquered  Hyrcania  and  annexed  it  to 
his  dominions.  An  attempt  to  recover  this  latter 
province  cost  Callinicus  his  crown,  as  he  was  de- 
feated and  made  prisoner  by  the  Parthians  (b.  c. 
22ti).  In  the  next  reign,  that  of  Seleucus  III. 
((".eraunus),  a  slight  reaction  set  in.  Most  of  Asia 
Minor  was  recovered  for  Ceraunus  by  his  wife's 
nephew,  Achreus  (b.  c.  224),  and  he  was  preparing 
to  invade  Pergamus  when  he  died  poisoned.  His 
successor  and  brother,  Antiochus  111.,  though  he 
gained  the  surname  of  Great  from  the  grandeur  of 
his  expeditions  and  the  partial  success  of  some  of 
them,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  really  done  any- 
thing toward  raising  the  empire  from  its  declining 
sondition,  since  his  conquests  on  the  side  of  Egypt, 
oiiDUstmg  of  Ceele-SKia,  Phoenicia,  and  Palestine. 


SYRIA 

formed  no  sufficient  compensation  for  the  low  ftf 
Asia  Minor,  which  he  was  forced  to  c.;de  to  Home 
for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  rival  kingdom  (f 
Pergamus  (b.  c.  190).  Even  had  the  territorial 
balance  been  kept  more  even,  the  ill  policy  of  making 
Home  an  enemy  of  the  Syrian  kingdom,  with  which 
Antiochus  the  Great  is  taxable,  would  have  neces- 
sitated our  placing  him  among  the  princes  to  whom 
its  ultimate  ruin  was  mainly  owing.  Toward  the 
East,  indeed,  he  did  something,  if  jiot  to  thrust 
back  the  Parthians,  at  any  rate  to  protect  his  em- 
pire from  their  aggressions.  But  the  exhaustion 
consequent  upon  his  constant  wars  and  signal  de- 
feats —  more  especially  those  of  Haphia  and  Mag- 
nesia —  left  Syria  far  more  feeble  at  his  death  than 
she  had  been  at  any  former  period.  The  almost 
eventless  reign  of  Seleucus  IV.  (Philopator),  his  son 
and  successor  (b.  c.  187-175),  is  sufficient  proof 
of  this  feebleness.  It  was  not  till  twenty  years  of 
peace  had  recruited  the  resources  of  Syria  in  nwH 
and  money,  that  Antiochus  IV.  (Epiphanes),  brother 
of  Philopator,  ventured  on  engaging  in  a  great  war 
(b.  c.  171)  —  a  war  for  the  conquest  of  l-gypt.  At 
first  it  seemed  as  if  the  attempt  would  succeed. 
Egypt  was  on  the  point  of  yielding  to  her  foe  of  .so 
many  years,  when  Kome,  following  out  her  tradi- 
tions of  hostility  to  Syrian  power  and  influence, 
interposed  her  mediation,  and  deprived  Epiphanes 
of  all  tfie  fruits  of  his  victories  (b.  c.  108).  A 
greater  injury  was,  about  the  same  time  (b.  c.  167), 
inflicted  on  Syria  by  the  folly  of  Epiphanes  him- 
self. Not  content  with  replenishing  his  treasury  by 
the  plunder  of  the  .Jewish  temple,  he  mailly  ordered 
the  desecration  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  thus 
caused  the  revolt  of  the  Jews,  which  proved  a  per- 
manent loss  to  the  empire  and  an  aggravation  of 
its  weakness.  After  the  death  of  Epiphanes  the 
empire  rapidly  verged  to  its  fall.  The  regal  jjower 
fell  into  the  hands  of  an  infant,  Antiochus  V. 
(Eupator),  son  of  Epiphanes  (b.  c.  164);  llie  nobles 
contended  for  the  regency;  a  pretender  to  the  crown 
started  up  in  the  person  of  Demetrius,  son  of 
Seleucus  IV.;  Kome  put  in  a  claim  to  administei 
the  government;  and  amid  the  troubles  thus  c-aused, 
the  Parthians,  under  Mithridates  I.,  overran  the 
eastern  provinces  (b.  c.  104),  conquered  Media, 
Persia,  Susiana,  Baliylonia,  etc.,  and  advanced  their 
frontier  to  the  Euphrates.  It  was  in  vain  that 
Demetrius  II.  (Nicator)  made  an  attempt  (b.  c 
142)  to  recover  the  lost  territory;  his  boldness  cost 
him  his  liberty;  while  a  similar  attempt  on  tht 
part  of  his  successor,  Antiochus  VII.  (Sidet«s),  co-st 
that  monarch  his  life  (b,  c.  128).  Meanwhile,  in 
the  shorn  Syrian  kingdom,  disorders  of  every  kind 
were  on  the  increase;  Commaggn^  revolted  and 
established  her  independence;  civil  wars,  murders 
nmtinies  of  the  troops,  rapidly  succeeded  one  an- 
other; the  despised  Jews  were  called  in  by  both 
sides  in  the  various  struggles;  and  Syria,  in  the 
space  of  about  ninety  years,  from  b.  c.  154  to  b;  c. 
64,  had  no  fewer  than  ten  sovereigns.  All  the 
wealth  of  the  country  had  been  by  this  time  dis- 
sipated ;  much  had  flowed  Romewards  in  the  shape 
of  bribes;  more,  probably,  had  been  spoit  on  the 
wars;  and  still  more  had  been  wasted  by  the  kings 
in  luxury  of  every  kind.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  Romans  showed  no  eagerness  to  occupy  the 
exhausted  region,  which  passed  under  the  power  of 
Tigranes,  king  of  Armenia,  in  b.  c.  83,  and  was 
not  made  a  province  of  the  Roman  Empire  till  after 
Pompey's  complete  defeat  of  Mitbridates  and  hit 
ally  Tigranes,  b.  c.  64. 


SYRIA 

The  clironolog}'  of  this  period  has  been  well 
fforke<l  out  by  Clinton  {F.  H.  vol.  iii.  pp.  308- 
346),  from  whom  the  following  table  of  the  kings, 
»¥ith  the  dates  of  their  accession,  is  taken  :  — 


SYRIA 


3147 


Kings. 

Leug 

thof 

Date  of 

Reign. 

Accession. 

1.  Seleucus  Nicator     .     .     . 

32  years. 

Oct.   312 

2.  Antiochus  Soter     .     .     . 

19 

Jan.  280 

3.  Antiochus  Theus    .     .     . 

15 

Jan.  261 

4.   Seleucus  Callinicus 

20 

Jan.  246 

6.  Seleucus  Cerauuus 

3 

Aug.  226 

6.  Antiochus  Magnus 

36 

Aug.  223 

7.  Seleucus  Philopator    . 

12 

Oct.   187 

8.  Antiochus  Epiphanes 

11 

Aug.  175 

9    Antiochus  Eupator 

2 

Dec.  164 

10    Demetrius  Soter 

12 

Nov.  162 

11    Alexander  Bala 

6 

Aug.  1.50 

12.  Demetrius  Nicator  (1st  reign) 

9 

Nov.  146 

13.   Antiochus  Sidetes    . 

9 

Feb.  137 

14.  Demetrius  Nicator  (2d  reign) 

3 

Feb.  128 

15.  Antiochus   Grypus 

13 

Aug  125 

16.  Antiochus  Cyzicenus 

18 

113 

17.  Antiochus    Eusebes    and    ) 
Philippus ) 

12 

95 

18.  Tigranes 

14 

83 

19    Antiochus  Asiaticus     . 

4 

69 

As  Syria  holds  an  important  place,  not  only  in 
the  Old  Testament,  but  in  the  New,  some  account 
of  its  condition  under  the  Romans  must  now  be 
given.  That  condition  was  somewhat  peculiar. 
While  the  country  generally  was  formed  into  a  Ro- 
man province,  under  governors  wlio  were  at  first 
propraetors  or  quaestors,  then  proconsuls,  and  finally 
legates,  there  were  exempted  from  the  direct  rule 
of  the  governor,  in  the  first  place,  a  number  of 
"  free  cities,"  whicli  retained  the  administration  of 
their  own  afliiirs,  sidiject  to  a  triliute  levieii  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  principles  of  taxation ;  and  2dly, 
a  number  of  tracts,  which  were  assigned  to  petty 
princes,  commonly  natives,  to  be  ruled  at  their 
pleasure,  sulject  to  the  same  obligations  with  the 
free  cities  as  to  taxation  (Appian,  Syr.  50).  The 
free  cities  were  Antioch,  Seleucia,  Apameia,  I'^pi- 
plianeia,  Trijiolis,  Sidon,  and  Tyre;  the  principali- 
ties, Connnagen^,  Chalcis  ad  Lielum  (near  Bunl- 
bfk),  Arethusa,  Abila  or  Abilen^,  Palmyra,  and 
Damascus.  The  principalities  were  sometimes 
called  i<ingdoms,  sometimes  tetrarchies.  They 
were  establislied  where  it  was  thouglit  that  the  na- 
tives were  so  inveterately  wedded  to  their  own  cus- 
toms, and  so  well  disposed  for  revolt,  that  it  was 
necessary  to  consult  their  feelings,  to  flatter  the 
national  vanity,  and  to  give  them  the  semblance 
without  the  substance  of  freedom,  {(i.)  Comma- 
gem''  was  a  kingdom  {i-eynwn).  It  had  broken  off 
from  Syria  during  the  later  troubles,  and  become  a 
separate  state  under  the  government  of  a  liranch  of 
the  Seleucidte,  who  affected  the  nauies  of  Antiochus 
and  Mithridates.  The  Romans  allowed  this  con- 
dition of  tilings  to  contimie  till  a.  d.  17,  when, 
upon  the  death  of  Antiochus  III.,  they  made  Com- 
niagen^  into  a  province;  in  which  condition  it  con- 
tinued till  A.  1).  38,  when  Caligula  gave  the  crown 
to  Antiochus  IV.  (Epiphanes),  the  son  of  Anti- 
ochus HI.  Antiochus  IV.  continued  king  till  \. 
D.  72,  wlien  he  was  deposed  by  Vespasian,  and 
'Jonnnagene  was  finally  al)Sorbed  into  the  Emi)ire. 
He  had  a  son,  called  also  Antiochus  and  Epiphanes, 
who  was  betrothed  to  Urusilla,  the  sister  of  "  King 


Agrii)pa,"  and  afterwards  the  wife  of  Felix,  the 
procurator  of  Judaea,  (b.)  Chalcis  "ad  Belum  " 
was  not  the  city  so  called  near  Aleppo,  which  gave 
name  to  the  district  of  Cnalcidice,  but  a  town  ol 
less  importance  near  Heliopolis  {Baalbek)^  whence 
proliably  the  suffix  '■  ad  Belum."'  It  is  mentioned 
in  this  connection  by  Strabo  (xvi.  2,  §  10),  and 
Josephus  says  that  it  was  under  Lebanon  {Ant.  xiv. 
7,  §  4),  so  that  there  cannot  be  much  doubt  as  to 
its  position.  It  nuist  have  been  in  the  "  Hollow 
Syria"  —  the  modern  Bukaa  —  to  the  south  of 
Baalbek  (.Joseph.  B.  J.  i.  9,  §  2),  and  therefore 
probably  at  Anjar,  where  there  are  large  ruins 
(Uobinson,  Bibl.  Jits.  iii.  496,  497).  This  too  was 
generally,or  perhaps  always,  a  "  kingdom."  Pom- 
pey  found  it  under  a  certain  Ptolemy,  "the  son  ot 
Menuijeus,"  and  allowed  him  to  retain  possession  of 
it,  togetlier  with  certain  adjacent  districts.  From 
him  it  passed  to  his  son,  Lysanias,  who  was  put  to 
deatli  by  Antony  at  the  instigation  of  Cleopatra 
(ab.  B.  c.  34),  after  which  we  find  its  revenues 
farmed  by  Lysanias"  steward,  Zenodorus,  the  roy- 
alty being  in  abeyance  (Joseph.  Anl.  xv.  10,  §  1). 
In  B.  c.  22  Chalcis  was  added  by  Augustus  to  the 
dominions  of  Herod  the  Great,  at  whose  death  it 
probably  passed  to  his  son  Philip  (ibid.  xvii.  11,  § 
4).  Philip  died  a.  d.  34;  and  then  we  lose  sight 
of  Chalcis,  until  Claudius  in  his  first  year  (a.  d. 
41)  bestowed  it  on  a  Herod,  the  brother  of  Herod 
Agrippa  I.,  still  as  a  "  kingdom."  From  this 
Herod  it  passed  (a  d.  49)  to  his  nephew,  Herod 
Agrippa  II.,  who  held  it  only  three  or  four  years, 
being  promoted  from  it  to  a  better  government 
{i.bii/.  XX.  7,  §  1).  Chalcis  then  fell  to  Agrippa'g 
cousin  Aristobulus,  son  of  the  first  Herodian  king, 
under  whom  it  remained  till  A.  u.  73  (.loseph.  B. 
J.  vii.  7,  §  1).  About  this  time,  or  soon  after,  it 
ceased  to  be  a  distinct  government,  being  finally 
absorbed  into  the  Roman  province  of  Syria,  (c.) 
Arethusa  (now  JicsUin)  was  for  a  time  separated 
from  Syria,  and  governed  by  piiylarclis.  The  city 
lay  on  the  riglit  liank  of  the  Oroiites  between  Ha- 
niah  and  Hems,  rather  nearer  to  the  former.  In 
the  government  were  included  the  Emiseiii,  or  peo- 
ple of  Hems  (Emesa),  so  that  we  may  regard  it  as 
comprising  the  Orontes  valley  from  the •./tbel  Kr- 
b<iy>i,  at  least  as  high  as  the  Ba/ir  el-Kadvs,  or 
B'lkeiret-lh-ins,  the  lake  of  Hems.  Only  two  gov- 
ernors are  known,  Sampsiceramus,  and  Jambliclius, 
his  son  (Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  10).  Probably  this  prin- 
cipality was  one  of  the  first  absorbed.  ((/. )  Abilein^, 
so  called  from  its  capital  .\bila,  was  a  "  tetrarchy."' 
It  was  situated  to  the  east  of  Anti-Lil)anus,  on  the 
route  between  B:mlbek  and  Damascus  (Ilin.  Anl.). 
Ruins  and  inscriptions  mark  the  site  of  the  capital 
(Robinson,  Bibl.  lies.  iii.  479-482),  which  was  at 
the  village  called  el-Stik,  on  the  ri\er  Barada,  just 
where  it  breaks  fortli  from  the  mountains.  Tlie 
limits  of  the  territory  are  uncertain.  We  first  hear 
of  this  telrarcliy  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel  (iii.  1),  where 
it  is  said  to  iiave  been  in  the  possession  of  a  certain 
Lysanias  at  the  commencement  of  St.  Jolin"s  min- 
istry, which  was  probably  A.  D.  27.  Of  this  Ly- 
sanias notliiug  more  is  known;  he  certainly  cannot 
be  the  Lysanias  who  once  held  Chalcis;  since  that 
Lysanias  died  above  sixty  years  previously.  Eleven 
years  after  tiie  date  mentioned  by  St.  Luke,  A.  ii. 
38,  tlie  heir  of  Caligula  bestowed  "  the  tetrarchy  ot 
Lysanias,"  by  wliich  Abilene  is  no  doubt  intended, 
on  tlie  elder  .\grippa  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  10); 
and  four  years  later  Claudius  confirmeil  tiie  same 
prince  in  the  possession  of  tlie  "  /  rih  of  Lj.saiu»j  ' 


oll3  SYRIA 

{ibid.  xix.  5,  §  1).  Finally,  in  A.  D.  53,  Claudius, 
among  other  grants,  conferred  on  the  younger 
Agrippa  "  Abila,  which  had  been  the  tetrarchy  of 
Lysanias  "  {ibiil.  xx.  7,  §  1).  Abila  was  taken  by 
Placidus,  one  of  the  generals  of  Vespasian,  in  is.  c. 
69  (Joseph.  Bell  Jud.  iv.  7,  §  6),  and  thenceforth 
was  annexed  to  Syria.  (e.)  Palmyra  appears  to 
ha^e  occupied  a  different  position  from  the  rest  of 
the  Syrian  principalities.  It  was  in  no  sense  de- 
pendent upon  Rome  (Plin.  H.  N.  v.  2.5),  but  rely- 
ing on  its  position,  claimed  and  exercised  the  right 
of  self-government  from  the  breaking  up  of  the 
Syrian  kingdom  to  the  reign  of  Trajan.  Antony 
made  an  attempt  against  it,  b.  c.  41,  but  failed. 
It  was  not  till  Trajan's  successes  against  the  Par- 
thians,  between  A.  d.  ,114  and  a.  d.  116,  that 
Palmyra  was  added  to  the  luiipire.  {f.)  Damas- 
cus is  the  Last  of  the  principalities  which  it  is  nec- 
essary to  notice  here.  It  appears  to  have  been  left 
by  Pompey  in  the  hands  of  an  Arabian  prince, 
Aretas,  who,  however,  was  to  pay  a  tribute  for  it, 
and  to  allow  the  Romans  to  occupy  it  at  their  pleas- 
ure with  a  garrison  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  5;  5, 
§  1;  11,  §  7).  This  state  of  things  continued 
most  likely  to  the  settlement  of  the  Empire  by  Au- 
gustus, when  Damascus  was  attached  to  the  prov- 
ince of  Syria.  During  the  rest  of  Augustus'  reign, 
and  during  the  entire  reign  of  Tiberius,  this  ar- 
rangement was  in  force;  but  it  seems  probable  that 
Caligula  on  his  accession  separated  Damascus  from 
Syiia,  and  gave  it  to  another  Aretas,  who  was  king 
of  Petra,  and  a  relation  (son  V)  of  tlie  former.  [See 
Aretas.]  Hence  the  fact,  noted  by  St.  Paul  (2 
Cor.  xi.  32),  that  at  the  time  of  his  conversion 
Damascus  was  held  by  an  "  ethnarch  of  king  Are- 
tas."' The  semi-independence  of  Damascus  is 
thought  to  have  continued  through  the  reigns  of 
Caligula  and  Claudius  (from  a.  d.  37  to  A.  D.  54), 
but  to  have  come  to  an  end  under  Nero,  when  the 
district  was  probably  reattached  to  Syria. 

The  list  of  the  governors  of  Syria,  from  its  con- 
quest by  the  Romans  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, has  been  made  out  with  a  near  approach  to 
accuracy,  and  is  as  follows :  — 


SYRIA 


Date  of 

Date  of 

Names. 

Titles  of  office 

entering 

Quitting 

office. 

office. 

M.  ^milius  Scaurus  . 

(  Quaestor  pro 

t      praBtore  .  B.  c.  62  . 

B.  C.  61 

L.  Marcius  Philippus  . 

.  Proprajtor 

.      .  61 

.      .   59 

Lentulus   Marcelliuus 

.  Propraetor 

.     .  59 

.      .   57 

Gabinius   .     .     . 

.  Proconsul 

.     .  56 

.     .  55 

Crassus     .     .     . 

.     .  55 

.     .  53 

Oassiua 

.  Quaestor . 

.     .  53 

.     .  51 

M.  Calpurnius  Bibului' 

.  Proconsul 

.      .  51 

.     .  47 

Sext.  Julius  Ctesar  ■  . 

.     .  47 

.     .  46 

Q.  Caecilius  Bassua     . 

.  Praetor    . 

.     .  46 

.     .  44 

(Q.  Cornificius  . 

(  received  authority  from   the 

(Ij.  Stiitius  Murcus 

\      Senate  to  dispossess 

Bassus, 

(Q.  Marcius  Crispus    . 

(      but  failed.) 

C.  Cassius  Longinus    . 

.  Proconsul 

B.  c.  43 

B.  c.  42 

L.  Decidius  Saxa   .     . 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  41 

.     .  40 

P.  VentiJius  Bassus    . 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  40 

.     .  38 

C    Sosius      .... 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  38 

.     .  35 

L.  Munatius  Plancus  . 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  35 

.     .  32 

L.  Calpurnius  Bibulus 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  31 

.     .  31 

Q.  Didius     .... 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  30 

M    ^'alerius  Messalla  . 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  29 

.     .  29 

VaiTO  .... 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  24 

M.  Vipsanius  Agrippa 

.   Legatus  . 

.     .  22 

.     .  20 

M.  TuUius  .... 

.   Legatus  . 

.     .  19(?) 

M.  Vipsanius  Agrippa 

.   Legatus  . 

.     .  15 

M.  Titius     .... 

.   Legatus 

.     .  11 

.     .     7 

C    Sentius  Saturninus 

.   Legatus  . 

.     .    7 

.     .    3 

P.  Ouintiliiis  Varus    . 

.    liSgUtUS  . 

8 

.  A.  D.  6 

Date  of 

Date  of 

Names. 

Titles  of  office. 

entering 

quittiog 

office. 

office. 

P.  Sulplclus  Quirinus 

.  Legatus  . 

A.  D.   5 

Q.     Caecilius    Metellus 

}  Legatus  . 

Creticus  Silauus     . 

17 

M.  Calpurnius  Piso    . 

.  Legatus  . 

.      .   17 

.    .  19 

Cn.  Sentius  Saturninus 

.  Prolegatus 

.      .   19 

L.  Pouipouius  f  laccus 

.  Propraetor 

.     .  22 

.     .  33 

L.  Vitellius  .... 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  35 

.     .  39 

P.  Petronius     .     .     . 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  39 

.     .  42 

Vibius  Marsus  .     .     . 

.  Legatus  . 

.  42 

.     .  48 

C.  Cas.sius  Longinus  . 

.  Legatus 

.     ,  48 

.     .  51 

T.  Numidius  '  Quadratus  Legatus  . 

.  51 

.     .  60 

Domitius   Corbulo 

.  Legatus  . 

60 

.     .  68 

Cincius 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  63 

C.  Cestius  Gallus  .     . 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  65 

.     .  «7 

P.  Licinius   Mucianus 

.  Legatus  . 

.     .  67 

69 

The  history  of  Syria  during  this  period  may  be 
summed  up  in  a  few  words.  Down  to  the  battle 
of  Pharsalia,  Syria  was  fairly  tranquil,  the  only 
troubles  being  with  the  Arabs,  who  occasionally  at- 
tacked the  eastern  frontier.  The  Roman  governors 
labored  hard  to  raise  the  condition  of  the  province, 
taking  great  pains  to  restore  the  cities,  which  had 
gone  to  decay  under  the  later  Seleucidae.  Gabinius, 
proconsul  in  the  years  56  and  55  b.  c,  made  him- 
self particularly  conspicuous  in  works  of  this  kind. 
After  Pharsalia  (b  c.  46)  the  troubles  of  Syria  were 
renewed.  Julius  Caesar  gave  the  province  to  his 
relative  Sextus  in  b.  c.  47 ;  but  Pompey's  party 
was  still  s(5  strong  in  the  east,  that  in  the  next 
year  one  of  bis  adherents,  Cfficilius  Bassus,  put 
Sextus  to  death,  and  established  himself  in  the 
government  so  firmly  that  he  was  able  to  resist  for 
three  years  three  proconsuls  appointed  by  the  Senate 
to  dispossess  him,  and  only  finally  yielded  upon 
terms  which  he  himself  offered  to  his  antagonists. 
Many  of  the  petty  princes  of  Syria  sided  with  hiui, 
and  some  of  the  nomadic  Aral)s  took  his  pay  and 
fought  under  his  banner  (Strab.  xvi.  2,  §  10). 
Bassus  had  but  just  made  his  submission,  when, 
upon  the  assassinatioi^  of  Cffsar,  Syria  was  disputed 
between  Cassius  and  Dolabella,  tlie  friend  of  An- 
tony, a  dispute  terminated  by  the  suicide  of  Dola- 
bella, B.  c.  43,  at  Laodiceia,  where  he  was  besieged 
by  Cassius.  The  next  year  Cassius  left  his  province 
and  went  to  Philippi,  where,  after  the  first  unsuc- 
cessful engagement,  he  too  committed  suicide. 
Syria  then  fell  to  Antony,  who  appointed  as  hia 
legate  L.  Decidius  Saxa,  in  b.  C.  41.  Tlie  troubles 
of  the  empire  now  tempted  the  Parthians  to  seek 
a  further  extension  of  their  dominions  at  the  ex- 
pense of  Rome,  and  Pacorus,  the  crown-prince,  son 
of  Arsaces  XIV.,  assisted  by  the  Roman  refugee, 
Labienus,  overran  Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  defeating 
Antony's  generals,  and  threatening  Rome  with  the 
loss  of  all  her  Asiatic  possessions  (b.  c.  40-39). 
Ventidius,  however,  in  b.  c.  38,  defeated  the  Par- 
thians, slew  Pacorus,  and  recovered  for  Rome  her 
former  boundary.  A  quiet  time  followed.  Frqia 
b.  c.  38  to  B.  c.  31  Syria  was  governed  peaceably 
by  the  legates  of  Antony,  and,  after  his  defeat  at 
Actium  and  death  at  Alexandria  in  tliat  year,  by 
those  of  Augustus.  In  b.  c.  27  took  place  that 
formal  division  of  the  provinces  between  Augustus 
and  the  Senate,  from  which  the  imperial  adminis- 
trative system  dates ;  and  Syria,  being  from  its  ex- 
posed situation  among  the  provincim  principis, 
continued  to  be  ruled  by  legates,  who  were  of 
consular  rank  (cwisulares)  and  bore  severally  tha 


1  CaUed  "  Viadius  "  by  Xacitiu 


SYKIA 

(iiU  title  of  "  Legatus  Augusti  pro  prajtore."  Dur- 
ing the  whole  ot  this  period  tlie  province  enlarged 
or  contracted  its  limits  according  as  it  pleased  the 
reigning  euiperor  to  bestow  tracts  of  land  on  the 
native  princes,  or  to  resume  them  and  place  them 
under  his  legate.  Judjea,  when  attached  in  this 
way  to  Syria,  occupied  a  peculiar  position.  Partly 
perhaps  on  account  of  its  remoteness  from  the  Syr- 
ian capital,  Antioch,  partly  no  douljt  hecause  of 
the  peculiar  character  of  its  people,  it  was  thought 
fiest  to  make  it,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  separate  gov- 
ernment. A  special  procurator  was  therefore  ap- 
pointed to  rule  it,  who  was  subordinate  to  the 
governor  of  Syria,  but  witiiin  his  own  pro\ince  had 
the  power  of  a  legatus.  [See  Jud.ka.]  Syria 
contiimed  without  serious  disturbance  from  the 
expulsion  of  ,he  Partliians  (b.  (. .  38)  to  the  break- 
ing out  of  the  Jewish  war  (a.  d.  6G).  In  b.  c. 
19  it  was  visited  by  Augustus,  and  in  A.  v.  18-10 
by  Germanicus,  who  died  at  Antioch  in  the  last- 
named  year.  In  A.  D.  44-47  it  was  the  scene  of 
a  severe  famine.  [See  Agabus.]  A  little  earlier 
Christianity  had  begun  to  spread  into  it,  partly  by 
means  of  those  who  "  were  scattered  "  at  the  time 
of  Stephen's  persecution  (Acts  xi.  19),  partly  by 
the  exertions  of  St.  Paul  (Gal.  i.  21).  The  Syrian 
Church  soon  grew  to  be  one  of  tlie  most  flourisliing 
(.\cts  xiii.  1,  XV.  23,  35,  41,  ifec).  Here  the  name 
of  "  Christian  "  first  arose  —  at  the  outset  no  doubt 
a  gibe,  but  thenceforth  a  glory  and  a  boast. 
.-Vntioch,  the  capital,  became  as  early  probably  as 
A.  D.  44  tlie  see  of  a  bishop,  and  was  soon  recog- 
nized as  a  patriarchate.  The  Syrian  Church  is  ac- 
*cased  of  laxity  botli  in  faith  and  morals  (Newman, 
Arians,  p.  10);  but,  if  it  must  admit  the  disgrace 
of  having  given  birth  to  Luciau  and  Pauhis  of 
Samosata,  it  can  claim  on  the  otiier  hand  the  glory 
of  such  names  as  Ignatius,  Theophilus,  Kphraem, 
and  Babylas.  It  suffered  without  shrinking  many 
grievous  persecutions;  and  it  helped  to  make  that 
emphatic  protest  against  worldliness  and  luxiirious- 
ness  of  living  at  whicli  monasticism,  according  to 
its  original  conception,  must  be  considered  to  have 
aimed.  The  Syrian  monks  were  among  the  most 
earnest  and  most  self-denying;  and  the  names  of 
Hilarion  an;l  Simon  Stylites  are  enough  to  prove 
tliat  a  most  important  part  was  played  by  Syria  in 
the  ascetic  movement  of  the  4th  and  5th  centuries. 

(For  the  geography  of  Syria,,  see  Pococlce's  £>c- 
scri/)twn  (if'  llie  Last,  vol.  ii.  pp.  88-209;  Burck- 
hardt's  Travtls  in  Syria  and  (lie  Holy  Land,  pp. 
1-309 ;  Robinson's  Lntev  BibLicaL  Jiestarc/ies,  pp. 
419-625 ;  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  40-3- 
414;  Porter's  Five  Years  in  Bainasciig ;  Aius- 
worth's  Travels  in  the  Track  oj'  tlie  Ten  Thousand, 
pp.  57-70;  Researches,  etc.,  p.  290  ff  For 
the  history  under  the  Seleucidte,  see  (besides  the 
original  sources)  (,'linton's  Fasti  llellenici,  vol.  iii. 
Appendix  iii.  pp.  308-340;  Vaillant's  Imperiiim 
Seleueidarum,  aiul  Frolich's  Ann((les  Iterum  tl 
Iteijuin  Syrue.  For  the  history  under  the  Komans, 
gee  Norisius,  Cenotaphia  Pisana,  Op.  vol  iii.  pp. 
424-531.)  G.  K. 

*  For  a  table  of  Meteorological  Observations 
taken  at  Beirut  from  Nov.  1808  to  July  1809,  see 
Quarterly  Statement  (if  the  Palestine  Fxploration 
fi^und,  No.  iii.,  18G9.  The  two  articles  on  Mount 
I^ebanon,  in  the  Ltibl.  Sacra,  xxvi.  541-571,  and 
)73-713,  by  Kev.  T.  Laurie,  I).  I).,  treat  some- 
Irhat  fully  of  the  topography  and  antiquity  of 
Northern  Syria.  For  a  grapliic  description  of 
Ikele-Syria  (the  modern  Baka'a),  the  great  military 


SYRO-PHCEjSflCIAN 


3149 


road  of  the  ancient  invaders  of  Palestine,  see  Raw- 
linsoii's  Ancient  Monarchies,  iii.  244  fF.  H. 

*  SYR'IAC,  Dan.  ii.  4.     [Syrian.] 
SYRIAC  VEKSIONS.     [Veksions,  Syb- 

lAC] 

*  SYK'IAN  O'S'^W.:  Ilpos-  Syrus),  a  na- 
tive or  inhabitant  of  Syria  (Gen.  xxv.  20,  xxviii.  5, 
xxxi.  20,  24;  Deut.  xxvi.  5;  2  K.  v.  20).  The 
plural,  "  Syrians,"  is  commonly  the  translation  of 

C~IS,  Aram;  e.  g.  2   Sam.  viii.  5-13,  x.  6-19, 

&c. ;  but  of  D"^^1W,  2  K.  viii.  28,  29,  ix.  15 ; 
eoinp.  2  Chr.  xxii.  5.  "  In  the  Syrian  language  '' 
or  "tongue,"  2  K.  xviii.  26;  Is.  xxxvi.  11;  Ezr.  iv. 

7;  or  "in  Syriac,"  Dan.  ii.  4,  is  iT^^'^W  (2ypi- 
ffri'-  Syriace,  Syra  lingua,  serinone  Syro);  in  2 
Mace.  XV.  36,  Trj  livpMKfj  (pwvrj,  voce  Syrlacn 

A. 

*  SYR'IA-MA'ACHAH,  1  Chr.  xix.  6. 
[Aram:  JNIaachaii,  2]. 

SY'RO-PHCENIC'IAN  (:S,upo(t>oiulKia(Ta 
[Lachni.,  Tisch.,  8th  ed.],  2vpo(poiviaffa  [Hec. 
Text:  'S.vpa  ^otv'iKiaaa  or  2,upa<p.,  Griesb.,  Tisch. 
7th  ed.,  Treg.],  or  2,vpa  ^oiviaaa  {"o  good  MS.] : 
Syro-Plvznissa)  occurs  only  in  Mark  vii.  26.  Tlie 
coinage  of  the  words  "  Syro-Phoenicia,"  and  "  Sy- 
ro-Phcenicians,"  seems  to  have  been  the  work  of 
the  Pomaiis,  though  it  is  difficult  to  say  exactly 
what  they  intended  by  the  expressions.  It  has 
generally  been  supposed  that  they  wished  to  dis- 
tinguish the  Phcenicians  of  Syria  from  those  of 
Africa  (the  Carthaginians);  and  the  term  "  Syro- 
phujiiix  "  has  been  regarded  as  the  exact  converse 
to  "  Libyphoenix  "  (Alford,  in  foe).  But  tiie  Liby- 
phoinices  are  not  the  Phoenicians  of  .Africa  gen- 
erally —  they  are  a  peculiar  race,  half- .African  and 
half-Phoenician  ("mixtum  Punicum  .\fris  genus," 
Liv.  xxi.  22).  The  Syro-Phcenici.ins,  therefore, 
should,  on  this  analogy,  be  a  mixed  race,  half-Piioe- 
nicians  and  half-Syrians.  This  is  probably  the 
sense  of  the  word  in  the  satirists  Lucilius  (ap.  Non. 
Marc.  De  proprietat.  semi.  iv.  431)  and  Juvenal 
{Sat.  viii.  159),  who  would  regard  a  mongrel 
Oriental  as  peculiarly  contemptible. 

In  later  times  a  geogr.aphic  sense  of  the  terms 
superseded  the  ethnic  one.  The  Emperor  Hadrian 
divided  Syria  into  three  parts,  Syria  Proper,  Syro 
Phcenice,  and  Syria  Palsestina;  and  hencefortli  a 
Syro-Phoenician  meant  a  native  of  this  sub-prov- 
ince (Lucian, />t!  Cone.  Deor.  §  4),  which  included 
Phoenicia  Proper,  Damascus,  and  Palmyren^. 

As  the  geographic  sense  had  not  come  into  use 
in  St.  Mark's  time,  and  as  the  ethnic  one  would  be 
a  refinement  unlikely  in  a  sacred  writer,  it  is  per- 
h;ips  most  probable  that  he  really  wrote  Si'pa 
^oiviffffa,  "  &  Phcenician  Syrian,"  which  is  found 
in  some  copies,  [file  reading  :S,vpa  ^oiviKtaaa  is 
much  better  supported.  —  .-V.] 

St.  Matthew  uses  "  Canaanitish"  {Xavavaia) 'n\ 
the  place  of  St.  Mark's  "  Syro-Phoenician,''  or 
"  PhaMiician  Syrian,''  on  the  same  ground  that  tlie 
LXX.  translate  Canaan  by  Phoenicia  (<|>oi:/i«rj). 
The  terms  Canaan  and  Phoenicia  had  succeeiled 
one  another  as  geographical  names  in  the  same 
country;  and  Phoenicians  were  called  "Canaan- 
ites,"  just  as  Englishmen  are  called  "  Britons." 
No  conclusion  as  to  the  identity  of  the  Canaanite* 
with  the  Pha'iiicians  can  pro|)erly  be  drawn  from 
the  indifferont  use  of  the  two  terms.  (See  Kawlin 
son's  Herodotus,  vol.  iv.  pp.  243-245.)        G.  K. 


ai5o 


SYKTIS 


♦  SYR'TIS.     [Quicksands.] 

*  SYZ'YGUS  or  BYN'ZYGUS,  Phil.  iv. 
i.     [Yoke-fellow,  Amer.  ed.] 


TA'ANACH  (TT^l^I^  [perh.  caslle,  Dietr.] : 
Zaxo-K  [Vat.  Za/caw],  Qava-X^  Qavadx,  [Waayax, 
Vat.  corrupt;]  Alex.  Qavax,  Tauax,  eKdavaad, 
Q^vvax,  ®o."'''°-X''  [Tlunac,]  Thtnuic,  Tlianacit). 
An  ancient  C'anaanitish  city,  whose  kini;  is  enum- 
erated amongst  the  thirty -one  conquered  by  .Joshna 
(Josh.  xii.  21).  It  came  into  the  hands  of  the  half 
tribe  of  Manasseh  (Josh.  xvii.  11,  xxi.  2.5 ;  1  Chr.  vii. 
29),  though  it  would  appear  to  have  lain  outside 
their  boundary  and  within  the  allotment  of  either 
Issachar  or  Asher  (Josh.  xvii.  11),  probably  the 
former.  It  was  bestowed  on  the  Kohathite  Levites 
(Josh.  xxi.  25).  Taauach  was  one  of  the  places 
in  which,  either  from  some  strength  of  position,  or 
from  the  ground  near  it  being  favorable  for  their 
mode  of  fighting,  the  Aborigines  succeeded  in  mak- 
ing a  stand  (Josh.  xvii.  12;  Judg.  i.  27);  and  in 
the  great  struggle  of  the  Canaanites  under  Sisera 
against  Deborah  and  Barak,  it  appears  to  have 
formed  the  head-quaiters  of  their  army  (Judg.  v. 
19).  After  this  defeat  the  Canaanites  of  Taanach 
were  probably  made,  like  tiie  rest,  to  pay  a  tribute 
(Josh.  xvii.  1.3;  Judg.  i.  28),  liut  in  the  town  they 
appear  to  have  remained  to  the  last.  Taanach  is 
almost  always  named  in  company  with  Wegiddo, 
and  they  were  evidently  the  chief  towns  of  that 
fine  rich  district  which  forms  the  we.stern  portion 
of  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon  (1  K.  iv.  12). 

There  it  is  still  to  be  found.  The  identification 
of  Tii'anuuk  with  Taanach,  may  be  taken  as  one  of 
the  surest  in  the  whole  Sacred  Topography.  It  was 
known  to  Eusebius,  who  ujentions  it  twice  in  the 
Oiioinosticoii  {Qaavdx  ^"d  Qavarj)  as  a  "very 
large  village,"  standing  between  3  and  4  Roman 
miles  from  Legio  —  the  ancient  Megiddo.  It  was 
known  to  hap-Parchi,  the  Jewish  mediaeval  travel- 
ler, and  it  still  stands  about  4  miles  southeast  of 
LifJJuii,  retaining  its  old  name  with  hardly  the 
change  of  a  letter.  The  ancient  town  was  planted 
on  a  large  mound  at  the  termination  of  a  long 
spur  or  promontory,  which  runs  out  northward 
from  the  hills  of  Manasseh  into  the  plain,  and 
leaves  a  recess  or  bay,  subordinate  to  the  main 
plain  on  its  north  side  and  between  it  and  Lvjjuii. 
The  modern  hamlet  clings  to  tiie  S.  W.  base  of 
the  mound  (Rob.  ii.  316,  329;  Van  de  Velde,  i. 
358;  Stanley,  .Itwisli  Church,  pp.  321,  322). 

In  one  passage  the  name  is  slightly  changed  both 
in  [the]  original  and  A.  V.      [Tanach.]         G. 

TA'ANATH-SHI'LOH  (nbtt?  H^S.ri 
[circle  of  Shiluh,  Fiirst]  :  «  @i)vacra.  Koi  'S.i\Kr]s 
[Vat.  26AA-)7(ra];  Alex.  T7jra9  ay)\w:  Timnlh- 
Selo).  A  place  named  once  only  (Josh.  xvi.  6)  as 
one  of  the  landmarks  of  the  boundary  of  Ephraim, 
but  of  which  boundary  it  seems  impossible  to  as- 
certain. All  we  can  tell  is,  that  at  this  part  the 
enumeration  is  from  west  to  east,  Janohah  being 
east  of  Taanath  Shiloh.  With  this  agrees  the 
itatement  of  Eusebius   (Onomosiicon),  who  places 


TABEAL 

.Janohah  12,  and  Thenath,  or  as  it  was  then  called 

Tliena,''  10  Roman  miles  east  of  Neapolis.  Jano- 
hah has  been  identified  with  some  probability  at 
Yanun,  on  the  road  from  Ndblus  to  the  Jordan 
Valley.  The  name  Tana,  or  Ain  Tana,  seems  to 
exist  in  that  direction.  A  place  of  that  name  wa.<< 
seen  by  Robinson  N.  E.  of  Mejdel  (Bibl.  Bes.  iii. 
295),  and  it  is  mentioned  by  Barth  (Ritter,  Jmrlan, 
p.  471),  but  without  any  indication  of  its  position. 
Much  stress  cannot  however  be  laid  on  Eusebius'a 
identification. 

In  a  list  of  places  contained  in  the  Talmud 
(Jerumlem  Meyillah  i.),  Taanath  Shiloh  is  said  to 
be  identical  with  Shiloh.  This  has  been  recently 
revived  by  Kurtz  (Gesch.  des  All.  Bundles,  ii.  70^. 
Mis  view  is  that  Taanath  was  the  ancient  Canaar.ite 
name  of  the  place,  and  Shiloh  the  Hebrew  name., 
conferred  on  it  in  token  of  the  "  rest "  which  al- 
lowed the  Tabernacle  to  be  established  there  after 
the  conquest  of  the  country  had  been  completed. 
This  is  ingenious,  but  at  present  it  is  a  mere  con- 
jecture, and  it  is  at  variance  with  the  identification 
of  Eusebius,  with  the  position  of  Janohah,  and,  as 
tar  as  it  can  be  inferred,  of  JNIichmethath,  which  is 
mentioned  with  Taanath  Shiloh  in  Josh.  xvi.  6. 

G. 

TAB'AOTH  (Ta/3awe;  Alex.  Ta;8a,0:  Tob 
loch).     Tabijaoth  (1  {•:sdr.  v.  29). 

TAB'BAOTH  (n"ir2^  [rings,  Ges.'\  :  Ta0 
atiiO;     [Vat.    Ta;8aje,   Ta8aa)9;]    Alex.  Ta/83aa)0 
Tabbaoth,  Tebbaoth).     The  children  of  Tabbaoth 
were  a  family  of  Nethinim  who  returned  with  Ze- 
rubbabel   (li^r.  ii.  43;  Neh.  vii.  46).     The   name* 
occurs  in  the  form  Tabaoth  in  1  Esdr.  v.  29. 

TAB'BATH  (n2^  [perh.  celebrated] :  Ta- 
$dd;  Alex.  ra/3a0:  Tebbath).  A  place  mentioned 
only  in  .Indg  vii.  22,  in  describing  the  flight  of 
the  Midianite  host  after  Ciideon's  night  attack. 
The  host  fled  to   Beth-shittah,  to  Zererab,  to  the 

brink  of  Abel-meholah  on  (hv)  Tabbath.  Beth- 
shittah  may  be  Shuiiah,  which  lies  on  the  open 
plain  between  Jebel  FuJciln  and  Jebel  Dnhy,  4 
miles  east  of  Ain  Jalud,  the  probable  scene  of 
Gideon's  onslaught.  Abel-meholah  was  no  doubt 
in  the  Jordan  Valley,  though  it  may  not  have  been 
so  nnich  as  8  miles  south  of  Beth-shean,  where 
Euseliius  and  Jerome  would  place  it.  But  no 
attempt  seems  to  have  been  made  to  identify  Tab- 
bath,  nor  does  any  name  resembling  it  appear  in 
the  books  or  maps,  uidess  it  be  Tubukhat-Fahil, 
i.  e.  "  Terrace  of  Fahil."  This  is  a  very  striking 
natural  bank,  600  feet  in  height  (Rob.,  iii.  325), 
wjth  a  long,  horizontal,  and  apparently  flat  top, 
which  is  embanked  against  the  western  face  of  the 
mountains  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  descends  with  a 
very  steep  front  to  the  river.  It  is  such  a  remark- 
able oliject  in  the  whole  view  of  this  part  of  the 
Jordan  Valley  that  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  it 
did  not  bear  a  distinctive  name  in  ancient  as  well  aa 
modern  times.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  doubt 
that,  whether  this  Tubukah  represents  Tabbath  or 
not,  the  latter  was  somewhere  about  this  part  of 
the  Ghor.  G. 

TAB'EAL  (^S?^  [Godisgo<}d]:  Ta/SeijA: 
Tabeel).  Properly   "  Tabeel,"   the  paihach    being 


o-  *  Dietrich  resolves  the  name  into  Taanath  by 
?hiloh  (Ges.  Hebr.  Lex.  p.  906,  6te  Aufl.).  H. 

i  Ptolemy  names  Thena  and  Neapolis  as  the  two 


chief  towns  of  the  district  of  Samaria  (cap.  16,  quoted 
in  Reland,  Pai.  p.  461). 


TABEEL 

due  to  the  pause  (Gesen.  Lehrg.  §  52,  1  6  ,•  [Tib.  Cr. 
\  29.  4  c).  The  son  of  Tabeal  was  api)areiitl\  an 
Ephiaimit*  in  the  army  of  Pekah  the  son  of  Hfina- 
liah.  or  a  Syrian  in  the  army  of  Itezin,  when  they 
went  up  to  besiege  Jerusalem  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz 
(Is.  vii.  G).  Tlie  Aramaic  form  of  the  name  tavors 
the  latter  supposition  [comp.  TabrihimonJ.  Tlie 
Targum  of  Jonatlian  renders  the  name  as  an  appel- 
hative,  "  and  we  will  make  king  in  the  midst  of  her 

him  who  seems  good  to  us"   ("1^3^    ^P    i'T' 

S3  7).  Rashi  by  Gematria   turns    the  name   into 

W7t2"1,  Rimla,  by  which  apparently  he  would  un- 
derstand RemaUah. 

TAB'EEL  (bW5p  [see  above]:  TaSerJA: 
TIaibeel).  An  officer  of  the  Persian  govennnent 
in  Samaria  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  (]*".zr.  iv.  7). 
His  name  appears  to  indicate  that  he  was  a  Sjrian, 
for  it  is  really  the  same  as  that  of  the  Syrian  vassal 
of  Itezin  who  is  called  in  our  A.  V.  '*  Tabael."  Add 
to  this  that  tlie  letter  which  he  and  his  companions 
wrote  to  the  king  was  in  the  Syi'iaii  or  Aramaean 
language.  Gesenius,  however  (./es.  i.  280),  thinks 
that  he  may  have  been  a  Samaritan.  He  is  called 
T.\p.ELLiOS  in  1  Esdr.  ii.  16.  The  name  of  Tobiel 
the  father  of  Tobit  is  probably  the  same. 

W.  A.  W. 

TABEL'LIUS  (Ta^fAAios:  Sabellim)  1  Esdr. 
ii.  IG.     [Taueel.] 

TAB'ERAH  {TinV'^n  [a  burning] :  4uTrv- 
ptijfxds)-  The  name  of  a  place  in  the  wilderness  of 
Paran,  given  from  the  fact  of  a  •'  burning  "  among 
the  people  by  the  "  fire  of  the  Lord  "  which  theie 
took  place  (Num.  xi.  3,  Deut.  ix.  22).  It  has  not 
been  identified,  antl  is  not  mentioned  among  the  list 
(if  encampments  in  Num.  xxxiii.  H.  H. 

TABERING  (HlCCriP  :  cpe€yy6iJLevai: 
murinurantus).  The  oljsolete  word  thus  used  in 
the  A.  V.  of  Nah.  ii.  7  requires  some  explanation. 

The  Hebrew  word  connects  itself  with  ^1^1,  *'  a 
timlirel,'"  and  the  image  which  it  brings  before  us 
in  this  p.assage  is  that  of  the  women  of  Nineveh,  led 
away  into  captivity,  mourning  with  the  plaintive 
tones  of  doves,  and  beating  on  their  breasts  in  an- 
guish, as  women  beat  upon  their  timbrels  (eomp. 
Ps.  Ixviii.  25  [20],  where  the  same  verb  is  used). 
The  LXX.  and  Vulg.,  as  above,  make  no  attempt 
at  giving  the  exact  meaning.  The  'iargum  of 
Jonathan  gives  a  word  which,  like  the  Hebrew,  has 
the  meaning  of  "  tympanizantes."  The  A.  V.  in 
like  manner  reproduces  the  original  idea  of  the 
words.  The  "  taliour  "  or  "  tabor  "  was  a  musical 
instrument  of  the  drum  type,  which  with  the  pipe 
formed  the  liand  of  a  country  village.  We  retain 
a  trace  at  once  of  the  word  and  of  the  thing  in  the 
"  tabourine  "  or  "  tambourine  "  of  modern  music, 
in  the  "  tabret "  of  the  A.  V.  and  older  Englisli 
;vriters.  To  "  labour,"  accordingly,  is  to  beat  with 
'oud  strokes  as  men  beat  upon  such  an  instrmiiuMt. 
The  verb  is  found  in  this  sense  in  Beaumont  uiid 
Fletcher,  The  Turner  Tamed  ("  I  would  tabor 
her"),  and  answers  with  a  singular  felioity  to  the 
\xact  meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  E-  H.  P. 

TABERNACLE  C||lt?'0,  ^H^-  (tkvi^: 
taberniic^duin).  The  description  of  the  Tabernacle 
and  its  materials  will  be  found  under  Temi-ee. 
The  writer  of  that  article  holds  that  he  cannot  deal 
atisfactorily  with  the  structural  order  and  propor- 


TABERNACLE 


J151 


ti(ins  of  the  one  without  discussing  also  those  of  the 
otlier.  Mere,  therefore,  it  remains  for  us  to  treat  — 
(1)  of  the  word  and  its  synonyms;  (2)  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Taliernacle  itself;  (3)  of  its  lelation  to 
the  religious  liie  of  Israel;  (4)  of  the  theories  ot 
later  times  respecting  it. 

I.    T/ie   Word  and  its    Synonyms.  —  (1.)     The 

first  word  thus  used  (Ex.  xxv.  9)  is  ]3ii'P   (Mish- 

cdii),  formed  from  'JSt'^^^to  settle  down  or  dwell, 
and  thus  itself  =  dwelling.  It  connects  itself  with 
the  Jewish,  though  not  Scriptural,  word  Shechinah, 
as  descriliing  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Divine  Glory. 
It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  it  is  not  applied  in 
prose  to  the  common  dwellings  of  men,  the  tents  ot 
tile  Patriarchs  in  Genesis,  or  those  of  Israel  in  the 
wilderness.  It  seems  to  belong  rather  to  the  speech 
of  poetry  (Ps.  Ixxxvii.  2;  Cant.  i.  8).  The  loftier 
character  of  the  word  may  obviously  ha\e  helped  to 
determine  its  rehgious  use,  and  justifies  translators 
who  have  the  choice  of  synonyms  like  '» tabenuicle  " 
and  "  tent  "  in  a  like  preference. 

(2.)     Another  word,  however,  is  also  used,  more 

connected  with  the  common  life  of  men ;  7ijS 
(o/;e/),the  "  tent  "  of  the  Patriarchal  age,  of  Alira- 
hani,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob  (Gen.  ix.  21,  &c.). 
I'orthe  most  part,  as  needing  something  to  raise  it, 
it  is  used,  when  applied  to  the  Sacred  lent,  with 
some  distinguishing  epithet.  In  one  passage  only 
(1  K.  i.  39)  does  it  appear  with  this  meaning  by 
itself.  The  LXX.  not  distinguishing  between  the 
two  words    gives    ffKr}vi]    for  both.     The   original 

difti?rence  appears  to  have  been  that  ^HS  repre- 
sented the  outermost  covering,  the  black  goat's  hair 

curtains;  TStfTl,  the  inner  coverins,  the  curtains 
which  rested  on  the  boards  (Gesenius,  s.  v.).  The 
two  words  are  accoi'dingly  sometimes  joined,  as  in 
Ex.  xxxix.  32,  xl  2,  6,  29  (A.  V.  "  the  tabernacle 
of  the  tent  ").  E\en  here,  however,  the  LXX. 
gives  aK7]vi]  only,  with  the  exception  of  the  var. 
led.  of  ri  aK7)v)}  t^s  cr/ceTr^x  in  Ex.  xl.  29. 

(3.)  n^2  (Baith):  oTkos-  duimis,  is  applied  to 
the  Tabernacle  in  Ex.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  26 ;  Josh.  vi. 
24,  ix.  23;  Judg.  xviii.  31,  xx.  18,  as  it  had  been, 
apparently,  to  the  tents  of  the  Patriarchs  (Gen. 
xxxiii.  17).  So  far  as  it  differs  from  the  two  pre- 
ceding words,  it  expresses  more  definitely  the  idea 
of  a  fixed,settled  haliitation.  It  was  therefore  fitter 
for  the  sanctuary  "of  Israel  after  the  people  were 
settled  in  Canaan,  than  during  their  wanderings. 
For  us  the  chief  interest  of  the  word  lies  in  its  hav- 
ing descended  from  a  yet  older  order,  the  first  word 
e\er  applied  in  the  O.  T.  to  a  local  sanctuary, 
'■  Betii-el,"  "  the  house  of  God  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  17, 
22),  keeping  its  place,  side  by  side,  with  otlier 
words,  tent,  taliernacle,  palace,  temple,  synagogue, 
and  at  last  outliving  all  of  them,  rising,  in  the 
Christian  Ecclesia,  to  yet  higher  uses  (1  Tim.  iii, 
15). 

(4.)  Wl'p  (Kda^-.^h),  tt'^i7p  (MiMash):  ^yi- 
arr/^a,  ayia(ni\piov,  rh  ayiou,  to,  a,yia'-  sniiclun' 
rium,  the  holy,  consecrated  place,  and  therefore  ap- 
plied, according  to  the  graduated  scale  of  holiness 
of  which  the  Tabernacle  bore  witness,  sonietimos  to 
the  whole  structure  (Ex.  xxv.  8:  Lev.  xii.  4),  some- 
times to  the  court  into  which  none  but  the  prieHt* 
might  enter  (Lev.  iv.  G;  Num.  iii.  38,  iv.  12), 
sometimes  to  the  innermost  sanctuarv  of  all,  the 
IJoL  of  Holies  (Lev.  iv.  GV).     Here  i»lw  the  word 


3152 


TABERNACLE 


had  an  earlier  starting-point  and  a  far-reaching  his- 
tory. En-Mishpat,  tlie  city  of  judgment,  the 
seat  of  some  old  oracle,  had  been  also  Kadesh, 
the  sanctuary  (Gen.  xiv.  7 ;  Ewald,  Gescli.  Jsr.  ii. 
307).  The  name  el-Khucls  clings  still  to  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem. 

(5.)  ^3*^71  (Hecdl):  yaSs-  ^imphim,  as  mea,mng 
the  stately  building,  or  palace  of  Jehovah  (1  Chr. 
xxix.  1,  19),  is  applied  more  commonly  to  the 
Temple  "  (2  K.  xxiv.  13,  etc.),  but  was  used  also 
(probably  at  the  period  when  the  thought  of  the 
'I'emple  had  attected  the  religious  nomenclature  of 
the  time)  of  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh  (1  Sam.  i.  9, 
iii.  .3)  and  .lerusalem  (Ps.  v.  7).  In  either  case  the 
tliought  which  the  word  emliodies  is,  that  the 
"tent,"  the  "house,"  is  royal,  the  dwelling-place 
of  the  great  king. 

(6.)  The  two  words   (1)  and  (2)  receive  a  new 

meaning  in  combination  (a)  with  ^5?^^  (mo'cd), 
and  (A)  with  n^"T37n,  lia'edulli.  To  understand 
the  full  meaning  of  the  distinctive  titles  thus  formed 
is  to  possess  the  key  to  the  signiticance  of  the  whole 

Tabernacle,    (a.)  The  primary  force  of  ^^"'  is  "  to 

meet  by   appointment,"    and    the    phrase     ^HW 

^5?^^  lias  therefore  the  meaning  of  "  a  place  of  or 
for  a  fixed  meeting."  Acting  on  the  belief  that 
the  meeting  in  this  case  was  that  of  the  worship- 
pers, the  A.  V.  has  uniformly  rendered  it  by  •'  tab- 
ernacle of  the  congregation  "  (so  Seb.  Schmidt, 
"tentorium  conventiis;  "  and  Luther,  "  Stifts- 
hiitte"  in  which  Stift=  Pfarrkirche),  while  the 
LXX.  and  Vulg.  confounding  it  with  the  other 
epithet,  have  rendered  both  by  ij  crierivii  rod  uap- 
rvpiov,  and  "  tabernaculum  testimonii."  None  of 
these  renderings,  however,  bring  out  the  real  mean- 
ing of  the  word.  This  is  to  be  found  in  what  may 
be  called  the  locus  classicus,  as  the  interpretation 
of  all  words  coimected  with  the  Tabernacle.  "  This 
shall  be    a  continual    burnt-oftering  ...    at    the 

door  of  the  tabernacle  of  meedng  ("T171D)  where 
I  will  meet  you  ("I^^^^,    yvwaOriao/xai)   to   speak 

there  unto  thee.  And  there  will  I  !;ie«/  (^i^'1^3, 
id^oixai)  with  the  children  of  Israel.  And  I  will 
siniclifij  C'i^itp'^fp)  the  tabernacle  of  meeting  .  .  . 

and  I  will  dwell  (''FlIlpK.'')  among  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  will  be  their  God.  And  they  shall 
know  that  I  am  the  Lord  their  God  "  (Ex.  xxix. 
42-4G).  The  same  central  thought  occurs  in  Ex. 
XXV.  22,  "There  I  will  meet  with  thee"  (comp.  also 
Ex.  XXX.  G,  3G;  Num.  xvii.  4).  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that  "  congregation  "  is  inadetpiate.  Not  the 
gathering  of  the  worshippers  only,  Imt  the  meeting 
of  God  with  his  people,  to  commune  with  them,  to 
make  himself  known  to  them,  was  what  the  name 
eml>odied.  Ewald  has  accordingly  suggested  Offelt- 
^  -i-Hjujszdt  =  Tent  of  Revelation,  as  the  best  equiv- 


a  *  In  Acts  vii  46,  "  labernacle "  in  the  A.  V.  is 
.anachronistic.  It  should  be  "  habitation  •'  or  "  place 
ef  abode  '"  fsee  Scholefiekrs  «/,(„  f„r  the  Improvement 
o^ihe  A  K.,  p.  40)  David  desire,!  to  build  a  Temple 
tor  .leliovah  ;  the  Tabernacle  had  already  existed  for 
^HUtunes.  jj 

•  An  ii]teivsUii{4  parallel  is  found  in  tlila  preparations 
for  the  Temple.  There  also  tlie  extrem^t  minuti« 
«ro  ainouit  the  things  which  the  Lord  ni^le  David 


TABEKNACLE 

alent  [AlteHhiiiiier,  p.  130).  This  made  the  pJsice 
a  sanctuary.  Thus  it  was  that  the  tent  was  thij 
dwelliny,  the  house  of  God  (Biihr,  Symbolilc,  i.  81). 

(7.)  The   other   compound    phrase,   (b.)    VJl'S 

^'!3?^>  as  connected  with  "VCS  {=  to  bear  wit- 
ness), is  rightly  rendered  by  7}  o-ktjvtj  rov  fiap'vpiov, 
tabernaculum  testimonii,  die  Wulmunij  des  Zeuy- 
nisses,  "  the  tent  of  the  testimony  "  (Num.  ix.  15), 
"the  tabernacle  of  witness"  (Num.  xvii.  7,  xviii. 
2).  In  this  case  the  tent  derives  its  name  from 
that  which  is  the  centre  of  its  holinees.  The  two 
tables  of  stone  within  the  ark  are  emphatically  the 
testimony  (Ex.  xxv.  IG,  21,  xxxi.  18).  They  were 
to  all  Israel  the  abiding  witness  of  the  nature  and 
will  of  God.  The  tent,  by  virtue  of  its  relation  to 
them,  became  the  witness  of  its  own  significance  as 
the  meeting-place  of  God  and  man.  The  probable 
connection  of  the  two  distinct  names,  in  sense  as 
well  as  in  sound  (Biihr,  Syinb.  i.  83;  Ewald,  Alt. 
p.  230).  gave,  of  course,  a  force  to  each  which  no 
translation  can  represent. 

II.  History.  —  (1.)  The  outward  history  of  the 
Tal  ernacle  begins  with  Ex.  xxv.  It  comes  after 
the  first  great  group  of  Laws  (xix.-xxiii.),  after  the 
covenant  with  the  people,  after  the  vision  of  the 
Divine  Glory  (xxiv.).  For  forty  days  and  nights 
Moses  is  in  the  mount.  Before  him  there  lay  a 
problem,  as  measured  by  human  judgment,  of  gi- 
gantic difficulty.  In  what  fit  symbols  was  he  to  em- 
body the  great  truths,  without  w^hich  the  nation 
would  sink  into  brutality?  In  what  way  could 
those  symliols  be  guarded  against  the  evil  which  he 
had  seen  in  Egypt,  of  idolatry  the  most  degrading? 
He  was  not  left  to  solve  the  jiroblem  for  himself. 
There  rose  before  him,  not  without  points  of  con- 
tact with  previous  associations,  }et  in  no  degree 
formed  out  of  them,  the  "  pattern  "  of  the  Tal  er- 
nacle. The  lower  analogies  of  the  painter  and  the 
architect  .seeing,  with  their  inward  e.\e,  their  com- 
pleted work,  before  the  work  itself  begins,  may  help 
us  to  understand  how  it  was  that  the  vision  on  the 
mount  included  all  details  of  form,  measurement, 
materials,  the  order  of  tlie  ritual,  the  apparel  of  the 
priests.''  He  is  directed  in  his  choice  of  tiie  two 
chief  artists,  Bezaleel  of  thetrilje  of  Judah,'"  Aholiab 
of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (xxxi.).  The  sin  of  the  golden 
calf  apparently  postpones  the  execution.  For  a 
moment  it  seems  as  if  the  people  were  to  be  left 
without  the  Divine  Presence  itself,  without  any 
recognized  symbol  of  it  (Ex.  xxxiii.  3).  As  in  a 
transition  period,  the  whole  future  depending  on  the 
penitence  of  the  people,  on  the  intercession  of  their 
leader,  a  tent  is  pitched,  probably  that  of  Moses 
himself,  outside  the  camp,  to  be  provisionally  the 
Tabernacle  of  Meeting.  There  the  mind  of  the 
Lawgi\er  enters  into  ever-closer  fellowship  with  the 
mind  of  God  (Ex.  xxxiii.  11),  learns  to  think  of 
Him  as  "merciful  and  gracious"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6), 
in  the  strength  of  that  thought  is  led  back  to  the 
fulfillment  of  the  plan  which  had  seemed  likely  to 
end,  as  it  began,  in  vision.     Of  this  provisional 


"  to  understand  in  writing  by  his  hand  upon  him,'' 
?'.  e.  by  an  inward  illumination  which  seemed  to  ex- 
clude the  slow  process  of  deliberation  and  decision  (1 
Chr.  xxviii.  19). 

c  The  prominence  of  artistic  power  in  tlie  geneal- 
ogies of  the  tribe  of  Judah  is  worth  noticing  (1  Chr 
iv.  4,  14,  21,  23).  Dan,  also,  in  the  person  of  lliram.  ii 
afterwards  conspicuous  (2  Chr.  ii  14  ;  conip.  1  K.  T& 
13, 14). 


TABER^  aCLE 

Idbernacle  it  has  to  be  noticed,  that  there  was  as 
yet  no  ritual  and  no  iiriesthood.  The  people  went 
jut  to  it  as  to  an  oracle  (Ex.  xsxiii.  7).  Josluia, 
though  of  the  tribe  of  Ephrahii,  had  free  access  to 
it  (I'-x.  xxxiii.  11). 

(2.)  Another  outline  Law  was,  however,  given ; 
another  period  of  solitude,  like  the  first,  followed. 
The  work  could  now  he  resumed.  The  people 
oflt?red  the  necossar^'  materials  in  excess  of  what 
was  wanted  (Ex.  xxxvi.  5,  6).  Other  workmen 
(Ex.  xxxvi.  2)  and  work-women  (Ex.  xxxv.  25) 
placed  themselves  under  the  direction  of  Bezaleel 
and  Aholiah.  The  parts  were  completed  sepa- 
rately, and  then,  on  the  first  day  of  the  second 
\ear  from  the  Exodus,  the  Tabernacle  itself  was 
erected  and  the  ritual  appointed  for  it  bei'un  (Ex. 
xl.  2). 

(3.)  The  position  of  the  new  tent  was  itself  sig- 
nificant. It  stood,  not,  like  the  provisional  J  aber- 
nacle,  at  a  distance  from  the  camp,  but  in  its  very 
centre.  The  multitutle  of  Israel,  hitherto  scattered 
with  no  fixed  order,  were  now,  within  a  njonth  of 
its  erection  (Num.  ii.  2),  grouped  round  it,  as 
around  the  dwelling  of  the  unseen  Captain  of  the 
Host,  in  a  fixed  order,  according  to  their  tribal  rank. 
The  Priests  on  the  east,  the  other  tliree  fan] Hies  of 
the  Levites  on  the  other  sides,  were  closest  in  at- 
tendance, the  "  body-guard  "  of  the  Great  King. 
[Levites.]  In  the  wider  square,  .ludah,  Zebuluii, 
Issachar,  were  on  the  east;  Ephraim,  iManasseh, 
Benjamin,  on  the  west;  the  less  conspicuous  tribes, 
Dan,  Asher,  Xaphtali,  on  the  nortli;  Reuben,  Sim- 
eon, Gad,  on  the  south  side.  When  the  army  put 
itself  in  order  of  marcli,  tlie  position  of  the  'i'aber 
nacle,  carried  by  the  Levites,  \\'as  still  central,  the 
tribes  of  the  east  and  south  in  front,  those  of  tlie 
north  and  west  in  the  rear  (Num.  ii.).  Upon  it 
there  rested  the  syniliolic  cloud,  dark  by  day,  and 
fiery  red  by  night  (Ex.  xl.  yS).  When  the  cloud 
removed,  the  host  knew  that  it  was  the  signal  for 
them  to  go  forward  (Ex.  xl.  30,  37;  Num.  ix.  17). 
As  long  as  it  remained,  whether  for  a  day,  or 
month,  or  year,  they  continued  where  they  were 
(Num.  ix.  15-23).  Each  march,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, involved  the  breaking  up  of  tlie  whole 
structure,  all  the  parts  being  carried  on  wagons 
by  the  three  Levite  families  of  Kohath,  Gerslion, 
and  ilerari,  whib  the  "  sons  of  Aaron  "  prepared 
for  the  removal  by  covering  everything  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies  with  a  purple  cloth  (Num.  iv.  6- 
15). 

(4.)  In  all  special  facts  connected  with  the  Tab- 
ernacle, the  original  tiiought  reapj)ears.  It  is  the 
place  where  man  iiitits  with  (iod.  There  the  Spirit 
''comes  upon  "  the  seventy  Elders,  and  they  proph- 
esy (Num.  xi.  24,  25).  Thitlier  Aaron  and  Mir- 
iam are  called  out,  when  they  rebel  against  the 
servant  of  the  Lord  (Num.  xii.  4).  Tiiere  tiie 
"  glory  of  the  Lord  "  appears  after  the  unfaithful- 
ness of  the  twelve  spies  (Num.  xiv.  10),  and  the 
relielliou  of  Ivorah  and  his  com[)any  (Num.  xvi.  19, 
i-2),  and  the  sin  of  JNleribah  (Num.  xx.  6).  Tliither, 
when  there  is  no  sin  to  punish,  but  a  difficulty  to 
':ie  met,  do  the  daughte"-s  of  Zelopliehad  come  to 
hring  their  cause  ■'  before  the  Lord  "  (Num.  xxvii. 
2).     There,  when  the  death  of  Moses  tlraws  near. 


"  The  occurrence  of  tho  same  distinctive  word  in 
Ex.  xxxviii.  8,  implies  a  recOtjuized  dedicatiou  of  some 
lind,  by  vrhiy'.i  women  bound  tlieiuselves  to  tlie  .ser- 
nce  of  tae  /aberaacle,  probably  as  singers  and  dan- 
r«w.     Whaf:  we  fiaJ   unde."  Kli  was  the  corruption  of 


TABERNACLE  3153 

is    the  solemn    "charge"    given   to  his  saccessoi 
(Ueut.  xxxi.  14). 

(5.)  As  long  as  Canaan  remained  unconquered, 
and  the  people  were  still  therefore  an  army,  the 
Fabernacle  was  probably  moved  from  place  to  place, 
wherever  the  host  of  Israel  was,  for  the  time,  en- 
camped, at  Gilgal  (Josh.  iv.  19),  in  the  valley  be- 
tween Ehal  and  Gerizim  (.losh.  viii.  30-35);  again, 
at  the  headquarters  of  Gilgal  (Josh.  ix.  G,  x.  15, 
43);  and,  finally,  as  at  "the  place  which  the  Lord 
iiad  chooen,"  at  Shiloh  (Josh.  ix.  27,  xviii.  1).  The 
reasons  of  the  choice  are  not  given.  Partly,  per- 
haps, its  central  position,  partly  its  belonging  to 
the  powerful  trilie  of  Ephraim,  the  tribe  of  the 
great  captain  of  the  host,  may  have  determined  the 
preference.  Tliere  it  continued  during  tlie  whole 
pei-iod  of  the  Judges,  the  gathering-point  for  "  the 
lieads  of  the  fathers"  of  the  tribes  (Josh.  xix.  51), 
for  councils  of  peace  or  war  (Josh.  xxii.  12;  Judg. 
xxi.  12),  for  annual  solemn  dances,  in  which  the 
women  of  Shiloh  were  conspicuous  (Judg.  xxi.  21). 
Tliere,  too.  as  the  religion  of  Israel  sank  towards 
the  level  of  an  orgiastic  heathenism,  troops  of 
women  assembled,"  shameless  as  those  of  Midian. 
worshippers  of  Jehovah,  and,  like  the  Up65ou\ot 
of  heathen  temples,  concubines  of  his  priests  (1 
Sam.  ii.  22).  It  was  far,  however,  from  being 
what  it  was  intended  to  be,  the  one  national  sanc- 
tuary, the  witness  against  a  localized  and  divided 
worship.  The  old  religion  of  the  high  places  kept 
its  ground.  Altars  were  erected,  at  first  under  pro- 
test, and  with  reserves,  as  being  not  for  sacrifice 
(Josh.  xxii.  20),  afterwards  freely  and  without 
scruple  (Judg.  vi.  24,  xiii.  19).  Of  the  names  by 
which  the  one  special  sanctuary  was  known  at  this 
period,  those  of  the  "House,"  or  the  "  Temple," 
of  Jehovah  (1  Sam.  i.  9,  24,  iii.  3,  15)  are  most 
prominent. 

(G.)  A  state  of  things  which  was  rapidly  assim- 
ilating the  worship  of  Jehovah  to  that  of  Ashta- 
roth,  or  Mylitta,  needed  to  be  broken  up.  The 
Ark  of  God  was  taken  and  the  sanctuary  lost  its 
glory;  and  the  Tabernacle,  though  it  did  not  per- 
ish, never  again  recovered  it*  (1  Sam.  iv.  22). 
Samuel,  at  once  the  Luther  and  the  Alfred  of  Is- 
rael, who  had  grown  up  within  its  precincts,  treats 
it  as  an  abandoned  slu'ine  (so  Ps.  Ixxviii.  GO),  and 
sacrifices  elsewhere,  at  Mizpeh  (1  Sam.  vii.  9),  at 
Kamali  (ix.  12,  x.  13),  at  Gilgal  (x.  8,  xi.  15).  It 
probably  became  once  again  a  movable  sanctuary, 
less  honored  as  no  longer  possessing  the  symbol  of 
the  Divine  Presence,  3et  cherished  by  the  priest- 
liood,  and  some  portions,  at  least,  of  its  ritual  kept 
up.  I'or  a  time  it  seems,  under  Saul,  to  have 
been  settled  at  Nob  (1  Sam.  xxi.  1-G),  which  thus 
became  what  it  had  not  been  before  —  a  priestly 
city.  The  massacre  of  the  priests  and  the  tligiit  of 
.\biathar  must,  however,  have  robbed  it  yet  furtiier 
of  its  glory.  It  had  before  lost  the  .Vrk.  It  now 
lost  tile  presence  of  tiie  High-Priest,  and  with  it 
the  oracular  e[)hod,  the  Uki.m  and  the  Thum.mim 
(1  Sam.  .xxii.  20,  xxiii.  G).  What  change  of  for 
time  then  followed  we  do  not  know.  The  fact 
tiiat  all  Israel  was  encamped,  in  tlie  last  days  of 
Saul,  at  (jilboa,  and  that  there  Saul,  tiiough  with- 
out success,  inquired  of  the  Lord  by  Urini  (1  Sam. 


the  original  practice  (comp.  Ewald,  AUerth.  297).  Ic 
the  dances  of  Judg.  xxi.  21,  we  have  a  stage  of  tran- 
sition. 

b  Ewald  (Geschichte,  ii.  540)  infers  that  ShUch    tacU 
was  coutiuered  and  laid  waste. 


3154 


TABERNACLE 


xxviii.  4-6)  makes  it  probable  that  the  Tabernacle, 
as  of  old,  was  hi  the  encampment,  and  that  Abia- 
thar  had  returned  to  it.  In  some  way  or  other,  it 
found  its  way  to  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  xvi.  39).  The 
»noinalous  separation  of  the  two  thintjs  which,  in 
the  original  order,  had  been  joined,  brought  about 
yet  greater  anomalies;  and,  while  the  ark  remained 
at  Kirjath-jearim,  the  Tabernacle  at  Gibeon  con- 
nected itself  with  the  worship  of  the  high-places 
(1  K.  iii.  4).  The  capture  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
erection  there  of  a  new  Tabernacle,  with  the  ark,  of 
which  the  old  had  been  deprived  (2  Sam.  vi.  17;  1 
Chr.  XV.  1),  left  it  little  more  than  a  traditional, 
historical  sanctity.  It  retained  only  the  old  altar 
of  burnt-offerings  (1  Chr.  xxi.  29).  Such  as  it 
was,  however,  neither  king  nor  people  could  bring 
themselves  to  sweep  it  away.  The  double  service 
went  on ;  Zadok,  as  high-priest,  officiated  at  Gib- 
eon (1  Chr.  xvi.  39):  the  more  recent,  more  pro- 
phetic service  of  psalms  and  hymns  and  music, 
under  Asaph,  gathered  round  the  Tabernacle  at 
Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  xvi.  4,  37).  The  divided  wor- 
ship continued  all  the  days  of  David.  The  sanc- 
tity of  both  places  was  recognized  by  SoLOSiox  on 
his  accession  (1  K.  iii.  15:  2  Chr.  i.  3).  But  it 
was  time  that  the  anomaly  should  cease.  As  long 
as  it  was  simply  Tent  against  'I'ent,  it  was  difficult 
to  decide  between  them.  The  purpose  of  Da\id 
fulfilled  by  Solomon,  was  that  the  claims  of  both 
should  merge  in  the  higher  glory  of  the  Temple. 
Some,  Abiathar  probalily  among  them,  clung  to  the 
old  order,  in  this  as  in  other  things  [Solomon; 
Uhiji  and  Thu.msii.m],  but  the  final  day  at  last 
came,  and  the  Tabernacle  of  Meeting  was  either 
taken  down,"  or  left  to  perish  and  be  forgotten. 
So  a  page  in  the  religious  history  of  Israel  was 
closed.  So  the  disaster  of  Shiloh  led  to  its  natural 
consunmiation. 

III.  lielnliun  to  the  Rdiyious  Life  of  hrad.  — 
(1.)  Whatever  connection  njay  be  traced  between 
other  parts  of  the  ritual  of  Israel  and  that  of  the 
nations  with  which  Israel  had  been  brought  into 
contact,  the  thought  of  the  Tabernacle  meets  us  as 
entirely  new.''  'I'he  "hou.se  of  (iod  "  [Bettikl] 
of  the  Patriarchs  had  been  the  large  "  pillar  of 
stone"  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  19),  bearing  record  of 
some  high  spiritual  experience,  and  tending  to  lead 
men  upward  to  it  (Biiiir,  ^Symbol,  i.  93),  or  the 
gro\e  which,  with  its  dim,  doul)tful  light,  attuned 
the  souls  of  men  to  a  divine  awe  (Gen.  xxi.  33) 
The  tem[)les  of  I'.gypt  were  stately  and  colossal, 
hewn  in  the  solid  rock,  or  built  of  huge  blocks  of 
granite,  as  unlike  as  possible  to  the  sacred  tent  of 
Israel.  The  command  was  one  in  which  we  can 
trace  a  special  fitness.  The  stately  temples  be- 
longed to  the  house  of  bondage  which  they  were 
leaving.  The  sacred  places  of  their  fathers  were  in 
the  land  toward  which  they  were  journeying.  In 
the  meat,  while  they  were  to  be  wanderers  in  the 
wilderness.  To  have  set  up  a  Bethel  after  the  old 
pattern  would  have  been  to  make  that  a  resting- 
place,  the  object  then  or  afterwards  of  devout  pil- 


TABERNavJLE 

primage;  and  the  multiplication  of  such  places 
at  the  diflPerent  stages  of  their  march  would  have 
led  inevitably  to  polytheism.  It  would  have  failed 
utterly  to  lead  them  to  the  thought  which  they 
needed  most  —  of  a  Divine  Presence  never  ab- 
sent from  them,  protecting,  ruling,  judging.  A 
sacred  tent,  a  moving  Bethel,  was  the  fit  sanctu- 
ary for  a  people  still  nomadic. c  It  was  capable  of 
being  united  afterwards,  as  it  actually  came  to  be, 
with  "  the  grove"  of  the  older  cullus  (Josh.  xxiv. 
20). 

(2. )  The  structure  of  the  Tabernacle  was  obvi- 
ously determined  by  a  complex  and  profound  syni-- 
holism;  but  its  meaning  remains  one  of  the  things 
at  which  we  can  but  dimly  guess.  No  interpreta- 
tion is  given  ii,  the  Law  itself.  The  explanations 
of  Jewish  writers  long  afterwards  are  manifestly 
wide  of  the  mark.  That  \\hich  meets  us  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  application  of  the  types 
of  the  Tabernacle  to  the  mysteries  of  Kedemptioii, 
was  latent  till  those  mysteries  were  made  known. 
And  yet  we  cannot  but  believe  that,  as  each  por- 
tion of  the  wonderful  order  rose  before  the  inward 
eye  of  the  lawgiver,  it  nmst  have  embodied  dis- 
tinctly manifold  truths  which  he  apprehended 
hrmself,  and  sought  to  communicate  to  others.  It 
entered,  indeed,  into  the  order  of  a  divine  educa- 
tion for  Moses  and  for  Isi'ael:  and  an  education  by 
means  of  symbols,  no  less  than  by  means  of  words, 
presupposes  an  existing  language.  So  far  from 
lirinking,  therefore,  as  men  have  timidly  and  un- 
wisely shrunk  (^Vitsius,  ^ijyptiaca,  hi  Ugolini, 
Tlies.  vol.  i.)  from  asking  what  thoughts  the  Egyp- 
tian education  of  IMoses  would  lead  him  to  connect 
with  the  symbols  he  was  now  taught  to  use,  we 
may  see  in  it  a  legitimate  method  of  inquiry  —  al- 
most the  only  method  possible.  Where  that  fails, 
the  gap  may  be  filled  up  (as  in  Biihr,  Symbol  pas- 
i<!m)  from  the  analogies  of  other  nations,  indicating, 
where  they  agree,  a  wide-spread  primeval  symbol- 
ism. So  far  from  laboring  to  prove,  at  the  price 
of  ignoring  or  distorting  facts,  that  everything  was 
till  tlien  unknown,  we  shall  as  little  expect  to  find 
it  so,  as  to  see  in  Helirew  a  new  and  heaven-born 
language,  spoken  for  the  first  time  on  Sinai,  writ- 
ten for  the  first  time  on  the  Two  Tables  of  the  Cov- 
enant. 

(3. )  The  thought  of  a  graduated  sanctity,  like 
that  of  the  outer  court,  the  Holy  Place,  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  had  its  counterpart,  often  the  same  ^jumber 
of  stages,  in  the  structure  of  Egyptian  temples 
(Bahr,  i.  216).  The  interior  Adytum  (to  proceed 
from  the  innermost  recess  outward)  was  small  in 
proportion  to  the  rest  of  the  building,  and  com- 
monly, as  in  the  Tabernacle  (Joseph.  Ant.  ii.  6, 
§  3),  was  at  the  western  end  (Spencer,  iii.  2),  and 
was  unlighted  from  without. 

In  the  Adytum,  often  at  lea.st,  was  the  sacred 
Akk,  the  culuiinating  point  of  holiness,  containing 
the  highest  and  most  mysterious  symbols,  winged 
figures,  generally  like  those  of  the  cherubim  (\\'il- 
kinson,   Anc.   Eyypt.   v.  275;  Kenrick,   I^ijypt,  i. 


"  The  language  of  2  Chr.  v.  6,  leaves  it  doubtful 
whether  the  Tabernacle  there  referred  to  was  that 
at  .lerusalem  or  Gibeon.     (But  Bee  Joseph.  Ant.  viii. 

t,  §  M 

b  Spencer  (D«  leg.  Hebrtpor.  iii.  3)  labors  hard,  but 
not  suecessfully,  to  prove  that  the  tabernacles  of  Mo- 
loch of  Amos  V.  26,  were  the  prototypes  of  the  Tent  of 
Meeting.  It  has  to  be  remembered,  however,  (1)  that 
the  word  used  in  Amos  (siccdth]  is  never  used  of  l/.e 
Taberruicle,  and  ueaos  something  very  different ;  ar  i 


(2)  that  the  Moloch-worship  represented  a  defection  of 
the  people  subsfyiient  to  the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle. 
On  these  grounds,  then,  and  not  from  any  abstract  re- 
pugnance to  the  idea  of  such  a  transfer,  I  abide  by  the 
statement  iu  the  text. 

c  Analogies  of  like  wants  met  in  a  like  way,  with  no 
ascertainable  historical  connection,  are  to  be  found 
among  the  Gsetulians  and  other  tribes  of  northern 
Africa  (Sil.  Ital.  iii.  289),  and  in  the  Sacred  Tent  -f  tb« 
OartlU'giaiau  encampments  (Diod.  Sic.  xs..  65). 


TABERNACLE 

460),  the  fcinblenis  of  stability  and  life.  Here  were 
outward  points  of  resemblance  Of  all  elements  of 
Egyptian  worship  this  was  one  which  could  be 
transferred  with  least  hazard,  with  most  gain.  No 
one  could  think  that  the  Ark  itself  was  the  likeness 
of  the  (iod  he  worshipped.  When  we  ask  what 
gave  the  Ark  its  holiness,  we  are  led  on  at  once  to 
the  infinite  difference,  the  great  gulf  between  the 
two  systems.  That  of  Egypt  was  predominantly 
cusmical,  starting  from  the  productive  powers  of 
nature.  The  symbols  of  those  powers,  though  not 
originally  involving  what  we  know  as  impurity, 
tended  to  it  fatally  and  rapidly  (Spencer,  iii.  1 ; 
Warburton,  Dieine  Leyat'ton,  II.  4  note).  That  of 
Israel  was  predominantly  ethical.  _  The  nation  was 
taught  to  think  of  God,  not  chiefly  as  revealed  in 
natiu'e,  but  as  manifesting  himself  in  and  to  the 
spirits  of  men.  In  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  as  the 
highest  revelation  then  possible  of  the  Divine  Na- 
ture, were  the  two  tallies  of  stone,  on  which  were 
graven,  by  the  teaching  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and 
therefore  by  "  the  finger  of  God,"  "  the  great  un- 
changing laws  of  human  duty  which  had  been  pro- 
claimed on  Sinai.  Here  the  lesson  taught  was 
plaui  enough.  The  highest  knowledge  was  as  the 
simplest,  the  esoteric  as  the  exoteric.  In  the  depths 
of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  for  the  high-priest  as  for 
all  Israel,  there  was  the  revelation  of  a  righteous 
\\'ill  requiring  righteousness  in  man  (Saalschhtz, 
Archuol.  0.  77).  And  over  the  Ark  was  the  Coph- 
ereth  (Meijcy-Seat),  so  called  with  a  twofold  ref- 
erence to  the  root-meaning  of  the  word.  It  covered 
the  Ark.  It  was  the  witness  of  a  mercy  cuvtring 
sins.  As  the  "  footstool  "  of  God,  the  "  throne  '' 
of  the  Divine  Glory,  it  declared  that  over  the  Law 
which  seemed  so  rigid  and  unbending  there  rested 
the  compassion  of  One  forgiving  "  iniquity  and 
transgression."''  And  over  the  Mercy  seat  were 
the  Chekubi.m,  reproducing,  in  part  at  least,  the 
syinbolisni  of  the  great  Hamitic  races,  forms  famil- 
iar to  Moses  and  Israel,  needing  no  description  for 
them,  interpreted  for  us  by  the  fuller  vision  of  the 
later  prophets  (Ez.  i.  5-I-i,  x.  8-15,  xli.  IS)),  or  by 
the  winged  forms  of  the  imagery  of  Egypt.  Kep- 
resenting  as  they  did  the  manifold  powers  of  na- 
ture, created  life  in  its  highest  form  (Hjihr,  i.  341), 
their  "overshadowing  wings."  "meeting"  as  in 
token  of  perfect  harmony,  declared  that  nature  as 
well  as  man  found  its  highest  glory  in  subjection  to 
a  Divine  Law,  that  men  might  take  refuge  in  that 
Order,  as  under  "  the  shadow  of  the  winigs "  of 
God  (Stanley,  Jewish  Church,  p.  98).  Placed 
where  those  and  other  like  figures  were,  in  the  tem- 


«  The  equivalence  of  tlie  two  ptirases,  "  by  tlie 
Spirit  of  God,"  and  "  by  tlie  finger  of  God,"  is  seen 
by  Lomp.arinj;  Matt.  xii.  28  and  Luke  .\i.  20.  Comp. 
also  the  language  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  vi. 
§  1.33)  aud  the  use  of  '•  the  hand  of  the  Lord  "  in  1 
k.  xviii.  46;  2  K.  iii.  15;  Ez.  i.  3,  iii.  14;  1  Chr. 
xxviii.  19. 

b  Ewald,  giving  to  ^23,  the  root  of  Cipherelh,  tlie 
meaning  of  "  to  scrape,"  "  erase,"  derives  fiom  that 
meimiug  the  idea  Implied  in  the  LXX.  iAa<rr>^  otov,  and 
denies  that  the  word  ever  signified  eTrifle/aa  {Allertti. 
op.  128,  129). 

<•  A  full  discu.ssion  of  the  -subject  is  obviou.'ily  im- 
possible here,  but  it  may  be  useful  to  exhibit  briefly 
the  chief  thoughts  which  have  been  joniiected  with 
the  numbers  that  are  most  prominent  in  the  language 
*f  symboiism.  Arbitrary  us  .some  of  them  may  seem, 
\  sufficient  inauction  to  establish  each  will  be  found 
i&  ISiihr's  elab(^rate  diisertatiou,  i.  128-2.55.  t,nd  other 


TABERNACLE 


3155 


pies  of  Egypt,  they  might  be  hindrances  and  not 
helps,  might  sensualize  instead  of  purifying  the 
worship  of  the  people.  But  it  was  part  of  the  wis- 
dom which  we  may  reverently  trace  in  the  order  of 
the  Tabernacle,  that  while  Egyptian  symbols  are 
retained,  as  in  the  Ark,  the  Cherubim,  the  Urim 
and  the  Thummim,  their  place  is  changed.  They 
remind  the  high-priest,  the  representative  of  the 
whole  nation,  of  the  truths  on  which  the  order  rests. 
The  people  cannot  bow  down  and  worship  that 
which  they  never  see. 

The  material  not  less  than  the  forms,  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies  was  significant.  The  acacia  or 
shittim-wood,  least  liable,  of  woods  then  accessible, 
to  decay,  might  well  represent  the  imperishable- 
ness  of  Divine  Truth,  of  the  Laws  of  Duty  (Biihr, 
i.  28G).  Ark,  mercy-seat,  cherubim,  the  very 
walls,  were  all  overlaid  with  gold,  the  noblest  of  all 
metals,  the  symbol  of  light  and  purity,  sun-light 
itself  as  it  were,  fixed  and  embodied,  the  token  of 
the  incorruptible,  of  the  glory  of  a  great  king 
(Biihr,  i.  282).  It  was  not  without  meaning  that 
all  this  lavish  expenditure  of  what  was  most  costly 
was  placed  where  none  might  gaze  on  it  The  gold 
thus  offered  taught  man,  that  the  noblest  acts  of 
l)eneficence  and  sacrifice  are  not  those  which  are 
done  that  they  may  be  seen  of  men,  but  those 
which  are  known  only  to  Him  who  "  seetli  in 
secret"  (Matt.  vi.-4).  Dimensions  also  had  their 
meaning.  Difficult  as  it  may  be  to  feel  sure  that 
we  have  the  key  to  the  enigma,  there  can  be  but 
little  doubt  that  the  older  religious  systems  of  the 
world  did  attach  a  mysterious  significance  to  each 
separate  number;  that  the  training  of  Moses,  as 
afterwards  the  far  less  complete  initiation  of  Pythag- 
oras in  the  symbolism  of  Egypt,  must  have  made 
that  transparently  clear  to  him,  which  to  us  is 
almost  impenetrably  dai'k.<^  To  those  who  think 
over  the  words  of  two  great  teachers,  one  heathen 
(Plutarch,  Dt  1$.  et  Os.  p.  411),  and  one  Christian 
(Clem.  Al.  Siroin.  vi.  pp.  84-87),  who  had  at  least 
studied  as  far  as  they  could  the  mysteries  of  the 
religion  of  Egypt,  and  had  inherited  part  of  the  old 
system,  the  precision  of  the  numbers  in  the  plan  of 
the  Tabernacle  will  no  longer  seem  unaccountable. 
If  in  a  cosmical  system,  a  rightant;led  triangle 
with  the  sides  three,  four,  five,  represented  the  triad 
of  Osiris,  Isis,  Orus,  creative  force,  receptive  matter, 
the  uiuverse  of  creation  (Plutarch,  I.  c),  the  perfect 
cube  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  the  constant  recurrence 
of  the  numbers  4  and  10,  may  well  be  accepted  as 

works.  Comp.  Wilkinson,  Anc.  E^.  iv.  190-199 , 
Leyrer  in  Herzog's  Encydop.  "  Stiftshiitte." 

OxE — The  Godhead,  Eternity,  Life,  Creative  Force 
the  SuD,  Man. 

Two  —  Matter,  Time,  Death,  Receptive  Capacity,  thu 
Moon,  Woman. 

Three  (as  a  number,  or  in  the  triangle)  —  The 
Universe  in  connection  with  God,  the  Abso- 
lute in  itself,  the  Unconditioned,  God. 

FoDR  (the  number,  or  in  the  square  or  cube)  —  Con- 
ditioned Existence,  the  World  as  created. 
Divine  Order,  Revelation 

Sevsn  (as  =  3  -|-  4)  —  The  Union  of  the  World  and 
God,  Rest  (as in  the  Sabbath),  Peace,  Blessing, 
Purification. 

Ten  (aa  =  1  -f-  2  -|-  3  -|-  4j  —  Completeness,  moral 
and  physical.  Perfection. 

Five — Perfection  half  attained,  Incompfefeness. 

Twelve  —  The  Signs  of  the  Zodiac,  the  Cyrle  of  th« 
Seasons  ;  in  Israel  the  ideal  uumber  of  tlM 
people,  of  the  Covenant  of  God  with  them. 


3156  TABERNACLE 

lymbolizing  order,  stability,  perfection  (Biilir,  i. 
225 ).« 

(4.)  Into  tlie  inner  snnctuary  neither  people  nor 
the  priests  as  a  body  ever  entered.  Strange  as  it 
U5ay  seeni,  that  ii;  which  everything  represented 
light  and  life  was  left  in  utter  darkness,  in  pro- 
found solitude.  Once  only  in  the  year,  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  might  the  high-priest 
enter.  The  strange  contrast  has,  however,  its 
parallel  in  the  spiritual  life.  Death  and  life,  light 
and  darkness,  are  wonderfully  united.  Only 
through  death  can  we  truly  li\e.  Only  by  passing 
into  the  "  thick  darkness  "  where  God  is  (Ex.  xx. 
21;  1  K.  viii.  12),  can  we  enter  at  all  into  the 
"  light  inaccessible,"  in  which  He  dwells  everlast- 
ingly. The  solenni  annual  entrance,  like  the  with- 
drawal of  symbolic  forms  from  the  gaze  of  the 
people,  was  itself  part  of  a  wise  and  divine  order. 
Intercourse  with  Kgypt  had  shown  how  easily  the 
symbols  of  Truth  might  become  common  and 
familiar  things,  yet  without  symbols,  the  truths 
themselves  might  be  forgotten.  Both  dancrers  were 
met.  To  enter  once,  and  once  only  in  the  year, 
into  the  awful  darkness,  to  stand  before  the  Law 
of  Duty,  before  the  presence  of  the  God  who  gave 
it,  not  in  the  stately  robes  that  became  the  repre- 
sentative of  (iod  to  man,  but  as  representing  njan 
in  his  humiliation,  in  the  garb  of  the  lower  priests, 
bare-footed  and  in  the  linen  ephod,  to  confess  his 
own  sins  and  the  sins  of  the  people,  this  was  what 
connected  the  Atonement-day  ( C'()j/«/r)  with  the 
Mercj'-seat  (Coji/iertt/i).  And  to  come  therewith 
blood,  the  symbol  of  life,  touching  with  that  blood 
the  mercy-seat,  v^ith  incense,  the  symbol  of  adora- 
tion (Lev.  xvi.  12-14),  what  did  that  express  but 
the  truth:  (l)that  m.an  must  draw  near  to  the 
righteous  God  with  no  lower  offering  than  the  pure 
worship  of  the  heart,  with  the  living  sacrifice  of 
body,  soul,  and  spirit;  (2)  that  could  such  a 
perfect  sacrifice  be  found,  it  would  have  a  myste- 
rious power  working  beyond  itself,  in  proportion  to 
its  perfection,  to  cover  the  multitude  of  sins  ? 

(5.)  From  all  others,  from  the  high-priest  at  all 
other  times,  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  shrouded  by  the 
double  Veil,  bright  with  many  colors  and  strange 
forms,  even  as  curtains  of  golden  tissue  were  to  be 
seen  hanging  before  the  Adytum  of  an  Egyptian 
tem|)le,  a  strange  contrast  often  to  the  ijestial  form 
behind  them  (Clem.  Al.  Peed.  iii.  4).  In  one 
memorable  instance,  indeed,  the  veil  was  the  wit- 
ness of  higher  and  deeper  thoughts.  On  the  shrine 
of  Isis  at  Sais,  there  were  to  be  read  words  which, 
though  pointing  to  a  pantheistic  rather  than  an 
ethical  religion,  were  yet  wonderful  in  their  lofti- 
ness, "  I  am  all  that  has  been  {way  rh  'yeyov6s), 
and  is,  and  shall  be.  and  my  veil  no  mortal  hath 
withdrawn "  {a-n-eKoAv^pei')  i-De  Js.  tt  Osir.  p. 
394).  Like,  and  yet  more,  unlike  the  truth,  we 
feel  that  no  such  words  could  have  appeared  on  the 
veil  of  the  Tabernacle.  In  that  identification  of 
the  world  and  God,  all  idolatry  was  latent,  as  in 
the  faith  of  Israel  in  the  I  AM,  all  idolatry  was 
cxcludetl.''  In  that  despair  of  any  withdrawal  of 
the  veil,  of  any  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will,  there 
were  latent  all  the  arts  of  an  unbelieving  priestcraft, 
substituting  symbols,  pomp,  ritual  for  such  a  revela- 


u  The  symbol  reappear?  in  the  most  startling  form 
in  the  closing  visions  of  the  Apocalypse.  There  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem  is  described,  in  woi-ds  which 
ibsolufelj'  exclude  the  literalism  which  has  sometimes 
bean    blindly    applied    to  it,   as   a   city  fo^r-square, 


lAUKKNAOLE 

tion.  Bui  rtnat  then  was  the  meaning  of  the  veiJ 
which  met  the  gaze  of  the  priests  as  they  did 
.service  in  the  sanctuary?  Colors  in  the  art  of 
Egypt  were  not  less  significant  than  number,  and 
the  four  bright  colors,  probably,  after  the  fashion 
of  that  art,  in  parallel  bands,  blue  symbol  of 
heaven,  and  piirijle  of  kingly  glory,  and  crimson  of 
life  and  joy,  and  white  of  light  and  purity  (Bahr,  i. 
305-330),  formed  in  their  combination  no  remote 
similitude  of  the  rainbow,  which  of  old  had  been 
a  symbol  of  the  Divine  covenant  with  man,  the 
pledge  of  peace  and  hope,  the  sign  of  the  Divine 
Presence  (Ez.  i.  28;  Ewald,  Alterth.  p.  333). 
Within  the  veil,  light  and  truth  were  seen  in  their 
unity.  The  veil  itself  represented  the  infinite 
variety,  the  ttoAuttoikiAos  (ro(pia  of  the  divine 
order  in  Creation  (Epb.  iii.  10).  And  there  again 
were  seen  copied  upon  the  veil,  the  mysteiious  forms 
of  the  cherubim;  bow  many,  or  in  what  attitude, 
or  of  what  size,  or  in  what  material,  we  are  not 
told.  The  words  "  cunning  work  "  in  Ex.  xxxvi. 
35,  applied  elsewhere  to  combinations  of  embroidery 
and  metal  (Ex.  xxviii.  15,  xxxi.  4),  justify  perhaps 
the  conjecture  that  here  also  they  were  of  gold.  In 
the  absence  of  any  other  evidence  it  would  have 
been,  perhaps,  natural  to  think  that  they  repro- 
duced on  a  larger  scale,  the  number  and  the 
position  of  those  that  were  over  the  mercy-seat. 
The  visions  of  Ezekiel,  however,  reproducing,  as 
they  obviou.'^ly  do,  the  forms  with  which  his  priestly 
life  had  made  him  familiar,  indicate  not  less  than 
four  (c.  i.  and  x. ),  and  those  not  all  alike,  having 
severally  the  faces  of  a  man,  a  lion,  an  ox,  and  an 
eagle,  strange  symbolic  words,  which  elsewhere  we 
should  have  identified  with  idolatry,  but  which  here 
were  bearing  witness  against  it,  emblems  of  the 
manifold  variety  of  creation  as  at  once  manifesting 
and  concealing  God. 

(6.)  The  outer  sanctuary  was  one  degree  less 
awful  in  its  holiness  than  the  inner.  Silver,  the 
type  of  Human  Purity,  took  the  place  of  gold,  the 
type  of  the  Divine  Glory  (Biihr,  i.  284).  It  was  to 
be  trodden  daily  by  the  priests,  as  by  men  who  lived 
in  the  perpetual  consciousness  of  the  nearness  of 
God,  of  the  mystery  behind  the  veil.  Barefooted 
and  in  garments  of  white  linen,  like  the  priests  of 
Isis  [PitiESTs],  they  accomplished  their  ministra- 
tions. And  here,  too,  there  were  other  emblems 
of  Divine  realities.  With  no  opening  to  admit 
light  from  without,  it' was  illumined  only  by  the 
golden  LAJiP  with  its  seven  lights,  one  taller  than 
the  others,  as  the  Sabbath  is  more  sacred  than  the 
other  days  of  the  week,  never  all  extinguished 
together,  the  perpetual  symbol  of  all  derived  gifts 
of  wisdom  and  holiness  in  man,  reaching  their 
mystical  perfection  when  they  shine  in  God's  sanc- 
tuary to  his  glory  (Ex.  xxv.  31,  xxvii.  20;  Zech. 
iv.  1-14).  The  SHEW-iii!EAD,  the  "bread  of 
faces,"  of  the  Divine  Presence,  not  unlike  in  outr 
ward  form  to  the  sacred  cakes  which  the  Egyptians 
placed  before  the  shrines  of  their  gods,  served  as  a 
token  that,  though  there  was  no  form  or  likeness 
of  the  Godhead,  He  was  yet  there,  accepting  all 
offerings,  recognizing  in  particular  that  special 
offering  which  represented  the  life  of  the  nation  at 
once  in   the  distinctness  of  its   tribes   and  iu  its 


12,000   furlongs  in  length   and   breadth   and   height 
(Kev.  xxi.  16). 

b  The  name  Jehovah,  it  has  been  well  said,  wa» 
"  the  rending  asunder  of  the  veil  of  Sais.''  (Stanlev 
Jewish  CImrcli,  p.  110.) 


TASERNACLE 

anity  as  a  people  (Ewald,  Alterth.  p.  120).  The 
meaning  of  the  Altak  of  Incense  was  not  less 
ol>\ious.  The  cloud  of  fragrant  smoke  was  the 
natural,  almost  the  universal,  emblem  of  the 
heart's  adoration  (Ps.  cxli.  2).  The  incense 
sprinkled  on  the  shew-bread  and  the  lamp  taught 
men  that  all  other  offerings  needed  the  inter- 
mingling of  that  adoration.  Upon  that  altar  no 
"  strange  fire  "  was  to  be  kindled.  When  fresh 
fire  was  needed  it  was  to  be  taken  from  the  Altak 
UK  BuKNT-OFFERi.NG  in  the  outer  court  (Lev.  ix. 
24,  X.  1).  Very  striking,  as  compared  with  what 
is  to  follow,  is  the  sulilimity  and  the  purity  of 
these  symbols.  It  is  as  though  the  priestly  order, 
already  leading  a  consecrated  life,  were  capable  of 
understanding  a  higher  language  which  had  to  be 
translated  into  a  lower  for  those  that  were  still 
without  (Saalschiitz,  Arc/idol.  §  77). 

(7.)  Outside  the  tent,  but  still  within  the  con- 
secrated precincts,  was  the  Coukt,  fenced  in  by  an 
encl-jsure,  yet  open  to  all  the  congregation  as  well 
as  to  the  l.evites,  those  only  excepted  who  were 
ceremonially  unclean.  No  Gentile  might  pass 
lieyoi.vl  the  curtains  of  the  entrance,  but  every 
member  of  the  priestly  nation  might  thus  far 
"draw  near"  to  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  Here 
therefore  stood  the  Altar  of  Buknt-offerings, 
at  which  Sacrifices  in  all  their  varieties  were 
offered  by  penitent  or  thankful  worshippers  (Ex. 
xxvii.  1-8,  xxxviii.  1),  the  brazen  Lavek  at  which 
those  worshippers  purified  themselves  before  they 
sacrificed,  the  priests  before  they  entered  into  the 
sanctuary  (Ex.  xxx.  17-21).  Here  the  graduated 
scale  of  holiness  ended.  What  Israel  was  to  the 
world,  fenced  in  and  set  apart,  that  the  Court  of 
the  Fabernacle  was  to  the  surrounding  wilderness, 
just  as  the  distir/jtion  between  it  and  the  sanc- 
tuary answered  to  that  between  the  sons  of  Aaron 
and  other  Israelites,  just  as  the  idea  of  holiness  cul- 
minated personally  in  the  high-priest,  locally  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies. 

IV.  Tlitf07-ies  of  Later  Times.  —  (1.)  It  is  not 
proljable  that  the  elaborate  symbolism  of  such  a 
structure  was  understood  by  the  rude  and  sensual 
multitude  that  came  out  of  Egypt.  In  its  fullness 
perhaps  no  mind  but  that  of  the  lawgiver  himself 
ever  entered  into  it,  and  even  for  him,  one  half,  and 
that  the  highest,  of  its  meaning  nui.st  have  been 
altogether  latent.  Yet  it  was  not  the  less,  was 
perhaps  the  more  fitted,  on  that  account  to  be  an 
instrument  for  the  education  of  the  people.  To 
the  most  ignorant  and  deliased  it  was  at  least  a 
witness  of  the  nearness  of  the  Divine  King.  It 
met  the  craving  of  the  human  heart  which  prompts 
to  worship,  with  an  order  which  was  neither  idol- 
atrous nor  impure.  It  taught  men  that  their  fleshly 
nature  was  the  hindrance  to  worship;  that  it  ren- 
dered them  unclean  :  that  only  by  subduing  it,  kill- 
ing it,  as  they  killed  the  bullock  and  the  goat, 
could  they  offer  up  an  acceptable  sacrifice  ;  that 
such  a  sacrifice  was  the  condition  of  forgiveness,  — 
a  higher  sacrifice  than  any  they  could  offer  the 
ground  of  that  forgiveness.  The  sins  of  the  p.ast 
were  considered  as  l>elonging  to  the  fleslily  nature 
which  was  slain  and  offered,  not  to  the  true  inner 
self  of  the  worshipper.  RIore  thoughtful  minds 
jvere  led  inevitably  to  hiirher  truths.  They  were 
not  slow  to  see  in  the  Tal)ernacle  the  parable  of 
liod's  presence  manifested  in  Creation.     Darkness 


a  It  is  curious  to  note  how  in  Clement  of  Alexan- 
Iria  tb«t  two  avHtema  of  interpretation  cross  each  other. 


TABERNACLE  3157 

was  as  his  pavilion  (2  Sam.  xxii.  12).  He  has 
made  a  Tabernacle  for  the  Sun  (Ps.  xix.  4).  n  The 
heavens  were  spread  out  like  its  curtains.  The 
beams  of  his  chambers  were  in  the  mighty  waters 
(Ps.  civ.  2,  3;  Is.  xl.  22;  Lowth,  De  Sac.  Pues. 
viii.).  The  majesty  of  God  seen  in  the  storm  and 
tempest  was  as  of  one  who  rides  upon  a  cherub  (2 
Sam.  xxii.  11).  If  the  words,  "  He  that  dwelleth 
between  the  cherubim,"  spoke  on  the  one  side  of  a 
special,  localized  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Pres- 
ence, they  spoke  also  on  the  other  of  that  Presence 
as  in  the  heaven  of  heavens,  in  the  light  of  setting 
suns,  in  the  blackness  and  the  flashes  of  the  thun- 
der-clouds. * 

(2.)  The  thought  thus  uttered,  essentially  poet- 
ical in  its  nature,  had  its  fit  place  in  the  psalmi 
and  hyunsof  Israel.  It  lost  its  beauty,  it  led  men 
on  a  false  track,  when  it  was  formalized  into  a  sys- 
tem. At  a  time  when  Judaism  and  Greek  phil- 
osophy were  alike  effete,  when  a  feeble  physical 
science  which  could  read  nothing  but  its  own 
thoughts  in  the  symbols  of  an  older  and  deeper 
system,  was  after  its  own  fashion  rationalizing 
the  mythology  of  heathenism,  there  were  found 
Jewish  writers  willing  to  apply  the  same  principle 
of  interpretation  to  the  Tabernacle  and  its  order. 
In  that  way,  it  seemed  to  them,  they  would  secure 
the  respect  even  of  the  men  of  letters  who  could 
not  bring  themsehes  to  be  Proselytes.  The  result 
appears  in  Josepiuis  and  in  Philo,  in  part  also  in 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen.  Thus  inter- 
preted, the  entire  significance  of  the  Two  Tables  of 
the  Covenant  and  their  place  within  the  ark  disap- 
peared, and  the  truths  which  the  whole  order  rep 
resented  I  ecanie  cosmicul  instead  of  ethical.  If 
the  special  idiosyncrasy  of  one  writer  (Philo,  De 
Prnftiij.)  led  him  to  see  in  the  Holy  of  Holies 
and  the  Sanctuary  that  which  answered  to  the  Pla- 
tonic distinction  between  the  visible  (aladrird)  and 
the  spiritual  (j/otjtci),  the  coarser,  less  intelligent 
Josephus  goes  still  more  completely  into  the  new 
system.  The  Holy  of  Holies  is  the  visilde  firma- 
ment in  which  God  dwells,  the  Sanctuary  as  the 
earth  and  sea  which  men  inhabit  {Ant.  iii.  6,  §  4, 
7;  7,  §  7).  The  twelve  loaves  of  the  shew-bread 
represented  the  twelve  months  of  the  year,  the 
twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac.  The  seven  lamps  were 
the  seven  planets.  The  (our  colors  of  the  veil  were 
the  four  elements  {aroix^^o-'l^  •'*'"'■  ^•''^1  "^ter.  earth. 
Even  the  wings  of  the  eheruliim  were,  in  the  ej'ea 
of  some,  the  two  hennspheres  of  the  universe,  or 
the  constellations  of  the  Greater  and  the  Lesser 
Be.ars!  (Clem.  Alex.  -S7co;h.  v.  §  35).  The  table 
of  shew-bread  and  the  altar  of  incense  stood  on  the 
north,  because  north  winds  were  most  fruitful,  the 
lamp  on  the  south  because  the  motions  of  the  plan- 
ets were  southward  {/'bid.  §§  34,  3.5).  We  need  not 
follow  such  a  system  of  interpretation  further.  It 
was  not  unnatural  that  the  authority  with  which  it 
started  should  secure  for  it  consideralile  respect. 
We  find  it  reappearing  in  some  Christian  writers, 
Chrysostom  {Horn  in  Jonnii.  Bnpt.)  and  Theodo- 
ret  {QiKKSt.  in  Exod.)  —  in  some  Jewish,  Ben 
Uzziel,  Kimchi,  Abarbanel  (Biilir,  i.  103  f ).  It 
was  well  for  Christian  thought  that  the  Church 
had  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hel)rews  and  the  Apoc- 
alypse of  St.  John  that  which  heljjed  to  save  it 
from  the  pedantic  puerilities  of  this  physico-the- 
ology." 


leading  sometimes  to  extravagances  like  those  in  tli* 
text,  sometimes  to   thoughts  lit  cuce   <ofty  and  tru' 


B158 


TABERNACLE 


(3).  It  will  have  been  clear  from  all  that  has 
heen  said  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Ilelirews  has  not 
been  looked  on  as  designed  to  limit  our  inquiry 
into  the  ineaiiins;  of  the  syniliolism  of  the  Taher- 
nacle,  and  that  there  is  consequently  no  ground  for 
adopting  the  system  of  interpreters  who  can  see  ni 
it  nothing  but  an  aggregate  of  types  of  Christian 
mysteries.  Such  a  system  has.  in  fact,  to  choose 
betweeti  two  alternatives.  Either  the  meaning  was 
made  clear,  at  least  to  the  de\out  worshippers  of 
nld,  and  then  it  is  no  longer  true  that  the  mystery 
was  hid  "from  ages  and  generations,"  or  else  the 
mystery  was  concealed,  and  then  the  whole  order 
was  voiceless  an(f  unmeaning  as  long  as  it  lasted, 
then  only  beginning  to  be  instructive  when  it  w.as 
'•  ready  to  vanish  away."  Rightly  viewed  there  is. 
it  is  believed,  no  antagonism  between  the  interpre- 
tation which  starts  from  the  idea  of  symbuls  of 
(ireat,  Eternal  Truths,  and  that  which  rests  on  the 
idea  of  li/pes  foreshadowing  Christ  and  his  Work, 
and  his  Church.  If  the  latter  were  the  highest 
manifestation  of  the  former  (and  this  is  the  key- 
note of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  then  the  two 
systems  iim  parallel  with  each  other.  The  type 
may  help  us  to  understand  the  symbol.  The  .sym- 
bol may  guard  us  against  misinterpreting  the  type. 
That  the  same  things  were  at  once  symbols  and 
types  may  take  its  place  among  the  proofs  of  an  in- 
sight and  a  foresight  more  than  human.  Not  the 
veil  of  nature  only  but  the  veil  of  the  flesh,  tlie 
humanity  of  Christ,  at  once  conceals  and  manifests 
the  EternaTs  Glory.  The  rendintr  of  that  veil  en- 
abled all,  who  had  e3'es  to  see  and  hearts  to  believe, 
to  enter  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  into  the  I>ivine 
Presence,  and  to  see,  not  less  clearly  than  the  Hirrh 
Priest,  as  he  looked  on  the  ark  and  the  Jlercy  Seat, 
that  Kighteousness  and  Love,  Truth  and  Mercy 
were  as  one.  Blood  had  lieen  shed,  a  life  had  been 
offered  which,  through  the  infinite  power  of  its 
Love,  was  able  to  atone,  to  satisfy,  to  purify." 

(4. )  We  cannot  here  fciUow  out  that  strain  of  a 
higher  mood,  and  it  would  not  be  profitalile  to  enter 
into  the  speculations  wliich  later  writers  have  en- 
prafted  on  the  first  great  thought.  Those  who  wish 
to  enter  upon  that  line  of  inquiry  may  find  materi- 
als enough  in  any  of  the  greater  commentaries  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (Owen's,  Stuart's  Bleek's, 
'I'boluck's,  Delitzsch's,  Alford's),  orin  special  treat- 
ises, such  as  those  of  Van  Till  {iJe  Tahernnc.  in 
l's;olini,  Tlies.  viii.):  Bede  {Kxpositio  Mystica  et 
Moirilis  Mos'iici  TribernacuU):  Witsius  {De  Tob- 
cni.  Lerii.  .\fyMmis,  in  Miscell.  Sacr.).  Strange, 
outluns:  hallucinations,  like  those  of  ancient  Kab- 
bis,  inferring,  from  "the  pattern  showed  to  Moses 
ill  the  Mount,"  the  permanent  existence  of  a  heav- 
enly Taliernacle,  like  in  form,  structure,  proportions 
to  that  which  stood  in  the  wilderness  (Leyrer,  I.  c. ), 
or  of  later  writers  who  have  seen  in  it  (not  in  the 
sjiiritual  but  the  anatomical  sense  of  the  word)  a 
lyjie  of  humanity,  representing  the  outer  bodily 
lianiework,  the  inner  vital  organs  (Eriederich, 
Syiiib.  ilfv  Mos.  Stifteshiltte,  in  Leyrer,  I.  c. ;  and 
Ewald,  Alt.  p.  338),  may  be  dismissed  with  a  sin- 
gle glance  :  — 


Souie  of  these  hare  been  already  noticed.  Others,  not 
to  b«  passed  over,  are,  that  the  seven  lamps  set  forth 
tlie  laried  degrees  and  forms  (jroAv/icpus  xai  TroAvrpo- 
Ttus)  of  Gods  Revelation,  the  form  and  the  attitude  of 
ihe  Cherubim,  the  union  of  active  ministry  and  grate- 
ul,  ceaseless  contemplation  (Strom.  \.  §§  .36.  37). 
a  'lb«  alluBions  to  the  Tabernacle  in  the  Apocalypse 


TABERNACLE 

"  Non  ragioniam  di  lor,  ma  guarda  e  pagsa." 
(5.)  It  is  not  quite  as  open  to  us  to  ignore  a 
speculative  hypothesis  which,  though  in  itself  un- 
substantial enough,  has  been  lately  re^■ived  under 
circumstances  which  have  given  it  prominence.  It 
has  been  maintained  by  Yon  Bohlen  and  Vatke 
(Bahr,  i  117,  273)  that  the  commands  and  the  de- 
scriptions relating  to  the  Tabernacle  in  the  Books 
of  Closes  are  altogether  unhistorical,  the  result  of 
the  eflbrt  of  some  late  comjiiler  to  ennoble  the  cra- 
dle of  his  people's  history  by  transferring  to  a  re- 
mote antiquity  what  he  found  actually  existing  in 
the  Temple,  modified  only  so  far  as  was  necessary 
to  fit  it  in  to  the  theory  of  a  migration  and  a  wan- 
dering. The  structure  did  not  belong  to  the  time 
of  the  Exodus,  if  indeed  there  ever  was  an  Exodus. 
The  Tabernacle  thus  becomes  the  mythical  after- 
growth of  the  Temple,  not  the  Temple  the  histor- 
ical sequel  to  the  Taliernacle.  It  has  lately  been 
urged  as  tending  to  the  same  conclusion  that  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  Tabernacle  in 
the  Pentateuch  are  manifestly  unhistorical.  The 
whole  congregation  of  Israel  are  said  to  meet  in  a 
court  which  could  not  have  contained  more  than  a 
few  hundred  men  (Colenso,  Pentateuch  and  Bonk 
of  Joshua,  P.  I.  c.  iv.,  v.).  The  number  of  priests 
was  utterly  inadequate  for  the  services  of  the  Taber- 
nacle (ibid.  c.  XX. ).  The  narrative  of  the  head- 
money  collection,  of  the  gifts  of  the  people,  is  full 
of  anachronisms  (ibitl.  c.  xiv.). 

(6.)  Some  of  these  objections  —  those,  e.  g.  as 
to  the  numlier  of  the  first-born,  and  the  disprojMr- 
tionate  smallness  of  the  priesthood,  have  been  met 
by  anticipation  in  remarks  under  Priests  and  Le- 
viTEs,  written  some  months  before  the  objections, 
in  their  present  form,  appeared.  Others  liearing 
upon  the  general  veracity  of  the  Pentateirch  his- 
tory it  is  impossible  to  discuss  here.  It  will  be 
sufficient  to  notice  such  as  bear  immediately  upon 
the  subject  of  this  article.  (1.)  It  may  be  .said 
that  this  theory,  like  other  similar  theories  as  to  the 
history  of  Christianity,  adds  to  instead  of  dimin- 
ishing difficulties  and  anomalies.  It  may  be  po.s- 
sible  to  make  out  plausilily  that  what  purports  to 
be  the  first  period  of  an  institution,  is,  with  all  its 
doc:iTi  ents.  the  creation  of  the  second :  but  the 
quesiion  then  comes  how  we  are  to  explain  the  ex- 
istence of  the  second.  The  world  rests  upon  an 
elephant,  and  the  elephant  on  a  tortoise,  t)Ut  the 
footing  of  the  tortoise  is  at  least  somewhat  inse- 
cure. (2.)  Whatever  may  )ie  the  weight  of  the 
argument  drawn  from  the  alleged  presence  of  the 
whole  congregation  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle 
tells  with  equal  force  against  the  historical  exist- 
ence of  the  Temple  and  the  narrative  of  its  dedica- 
tion. There  also  when  the  population  numbered 
some  seven  or  eicht  millions  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  9),  •'  all 
the  men  of  Israel"  (1  K.  viii.  2),  all  "the  congre- 
gation "  (ver.  .5),  all  the  children  of  Israel  (ver.  6?) 
were  assembled,  and  the  king  "  blessed  "  all  the 
congregation  (vv.  14,  55).  (3.)  There  are,  it  is 
believed,  undesigned  touches  indicating  the  nomad 
life  of  the  wilderness  1  he  wood  employed  for  the 
Tabernacle  is  not  the  sycamore  of  the  valleys  nor 


are,  as  might  be  expected,  full  of  interest.  As  in  a 
vision,  which  loses  .sight  of  all  time  limits,  the  Temple 
of  the  Tabernacle  is  .'cen  in  heaven  (Rev.  xv.  5),  and 
yet  in  the  hetivenly  .Ieru.<;alem  there  is  no  Temple  seen 
(xxi.  22).  And  in  the  heavenly  Temple  there  is  nc 
longer  any  veil  ;  it  is  open,  and  the  ark  of  the  oo» 
enant  is  clearly  seen  (xi.  19). 


TABERNACLE 

the  cedar  of  Lebanon,  as  afterwards  in  the  Temple, 
but  the  shittim  of  the  Sjnaitic  peiiiusida.  [Snir- 
TAH  Tkee,  Shittisi.]  The  abundance  of  tine 
linen  points  to  Egypt,  the  seal  or  dolphin  skina 
("  badgers "    in   A.    V.    but   see   Gesenius   s.    v. 

E7nri)  to  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea.  [Badgek- 
Skins.]  The  Levites  are  not  to  enter  on  their 
office  till  the  age  of  thirty,  as  needing  for  their 
work  as  bearers  a  man's  full  strength  (Num.  iv. 
2-J,  30).  Afterwards  when  their  duties  are  chiefly 
those  of  singers  and  gate-keepers,  tiiey  were  to  be- 
cin  at  twenty  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  2-1).  Would  a  later 
history  again  have  excluded  the  priestly  tribe  from 
all  share  in  the  structure  of  the  TaberMacle,  and 
left  it  in  the  hands  of  mythical  persons  belonging 
to  Judah,  and  to  a  trifje  then  so  little  prominent 
as  that  of  Dan?  (4.)  There  remains  the  strong 
I-gyptian  stamp  ini])ressed  upon  well-nigh  every 
part  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  ritual,  and  iuiplied 
in  other  incidents  (Comp.  Prii-.-sts,  [>evitks, 
Ukim  and  Thummim,  Brazen  Serpent.] 
\Vhatever  bearing  tliis  may  have  on  our  views  of 
tlie  things  themselves,  it  points,  beyond  all  doubt, 
to  a  time  when  the  two  nations  had  been  brought 
into  close  contact,  when  not  jewels  of  silver  and 
gold  only,  lint  treasures  of  wisdom,  art,  knowledge 
were  "  borrowed  "  by  one  people  from  the  otiier. 
To  what  other  period  in  the  history  before  Samuel 
than  that  of  the  Exodus  of  the  Pentateuch  can  we 
refer  that  intercourse?  When  was  it  likely  that  a 
wild  trilie,  with  difficulty  keeping  its  ground  against 
neighboring  nations,  would  have  adopted  such  a 
complicated  ritual  from  a  system  so  alien  to  its  own  ? 
So  it  is  that  the  wheel  comes  full  circle.  The  facts 
which  when  urged  by  Spencer,  with  or  without  a 
hostile  purpose,  were  denounced  as  daring  and  dan- 
gerous and  unsettling,  are  now  seen  to  be  witnesses 
to  the  antiquity  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  and  so  to 
the  substantial  truth  of  the  Mosaic  history.  Tliey 
are  used  as  such  by  theologians  who  in  various  de- 
grees enter  their  protest  against  the  more  destruc- 
tive criticism  of  our  own  time  (Hengstenberg, 
Kfiypt  and  the  Books  of  Afosts ;  Stanley,  Jewish 
Church,  lect.  iv.).  (5.)  We  may,  for  a  moment, 
put  an  imaginary  case.  Let  us  suppose  that  the 
records  of  the  0.  T.  had  given  us  in  1  and  2  Sam. 
a  history  like  that  which  men  now  seek  to  substi- 
tute for  what  is  actually  given,  had  represented 
Samuel  as  the  first  great  preacher  of  the  worship  of 
Elohim,  Gad,  or  some  later  prophet  as  introducing 
for  the  first  time  the  name  and  worship  of  Jehovah, 
and  that  the  0.  T.  began  with  this  (Colenso,  P.  H. 
c.  xxi.).  Let  us  then  suppose  that  some  old  papy- 
rus, fVeshly  discovered,  slowly  deciphered,  ga\e  us 
the  whole  or  the  greater  part  of  what  we  now  find 
in  Exodus  and  Numbers,  that  there  vi'as  thus  given 
an  explanation  both  of  the  actual  condition  of  the 
people  and  of  the  Egyptian  element  so  largely  in- 
termingled with  their  ritual.  Can  we  not  imagine 
with  what  jubilant  zeal  the  books  of  Samuel  would 
tiien  have  been  "critically  examined,"  what  incon 
sistencies  would  have  been  detected  in  them,  how 
I'aL'er  men  would  have  been  to  prove  that  Samuel 
had  had  credit  given  him  for  a  work  which  was  not 


TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF    3159 

his,  that  not  he,  but  Jloses,  was  the  founder  of  thfi 
polity  and  creed  of  Israel,  that  the  Tabernacle  on 
Zion,  instead  of  coming  fresh  from  David's  creative 
mind,  had  been  preceded  by  the  humbler  Taber- 
nacle in  the  Wilderness  ?  E.  H.  P. 

TABERNACLES,  THE  FEAST  OF 
(ni2pn  yn  :  eopr-fi  crKrivwv-  fcrim  tabernac- 
ulorum  :  rjDSrf  ^IH,  Ex.  xxiii.  IG,  "  the  feast  of 
ingathering:  "  aK-nvoiz-qyla,  John  vii.  2;  Jos.  Ant. 
viii.  4,  §  5 :  aKTivai,  Philo,  De  Sept.  §  2-i ;  ^  (TKr\vr), 
Pint  Sympos.  iv.  62),  the  third  of  the  three  great 
festivals  of  the  Hebrews,  which  lasted  from  the  15th 
till  the  22d  of  Tisri. 

I.  The  following  are  the  principal  p;issag«s  ia 
the  Pentateuch  which  refer  to  it:  Ex.  xxiii.  16, 
where  it  is  spoken  of  as  the  Eeast  of  .iigathering, 
and  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  other  fes- 
tivals under  their  agricultural  designations,  the 
Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  and  the  Eeast  of  Harvest ; 
Lev.  xxiii.  34-3G,  39-43,  where  it  is  mentioned  as 
commemorating  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through 
the  desert;  Deut.  xvi.  13-15,  in  which  there  is  no 
notice  of  the  eighth  day,  and  it  is  treated  as  a 
thanksgiving  for  the  harvest;  Nuui.  xxix.  12-38, 
where  there  is  an  enumeration  of  the  sacrifices 
which  belong  to  the  festival;  Deut.  xxxi.  10-13, 
where  the  injunction  is  given  for  the  public  reading 
of  the  Law  in  the  Sabbatical  year,  at  the  Eeast  of 
Tabernacles.  In  Neh.  viii.  there  is  an  account  of 
the  observance  of  the  feast  by  Ezra,  from  which 
several  additional  particulars  respecting  it  may  be 
gathered. 

II.  The  time  of  the  festival  fell  in  the  autumn, 
when  the  whole  of  the  chief  fruits  of  the  ground, 
the  corn,  the  wine,  and  the  oil,  were  gathered  in 
(Ex.  xxiii.  16;  Lev.  xxiii.  30;  E)eut.  xvi.  13-1.5). 
Hence  it  is  spoken  of  as  occurring  "  in  the  end  of 
the  year,  when  thou  hast  gathered  in  thy  labors 
out  of  the  field."  Its  duration  was  strictly  only 
seven  days  (Deut.  xvi.  13;  Ez.  xlv.  25).  13ut  it 
was  followed  by  a  day  of  holy  convocation,  distin- 
guished by  sacrifices  of  its  own,  which  was  some- 
times spoken  of  as  an  eighth  day  (Lev.  xxiii.  36; 
Neh.  viii.  18). 

During  the  seven  days  the  Israelites  were  com- 
manded to  dwell  in  booths  or  huts  "  formed  of  the 
boughs  of  trees.  These  huts,  when  the  festival  was 
celebrated  in  Jerusalem,  were  constructed  in  the 
courts  of  houses,  on  the  roofs,  in  the  court  of  the 
Temple,  in  the  street  of  the  Water  Gate,  and  in 
the  street  of  the  Gate  of  Ephraim.  The  boughs 
were  of  the  olive,  palm,  pine,  myrtle,  and  other 
trees  with  thick  foliage  (Neh.  viii.  15,  16).  The 
command  in  Lev.  xxiii.  40  is  said  to  have  been  so 
understood,''  that  the  Israelites,  from  the  first  day 
of  the  feast  to  the  seventh,  carried  in  their  hands 
"  the  fruit  (.as  ia  the  margin  of  tlie  A.  V.,  not 
hninches,  as  in  the  text)  of  goodly  trees,  with 
branches  of  palm  trees,  boughs  of  thick  trees,  iuid 
willows  of  the  brook." 

According  to  Rabbinical  tradition,  each  Israelite 
used  to  tie  the  branches  into  a  bunch,  to  be  carried 
in  his  hand,  to  which  the  name  (ulafj  ^  was  given. 


a  The  word  PTSD  means  '■  a  hut,"  and  is  to  be 
T  •-. 

Aistlnguished  from  vPtS,  ''  a  tent  of  skina  or  cloth," 

ifhicb  is  the  term  applied  to  the  Tabernacle  of  the 

congregation.     See  Qesen.  s.  f. 

6  This  U  the  rlew  of  tUe  Bahbinista,  which  appears 


to  be  countenanced  by  a  comparison  of  v.  40  with  y 
42.  But  the  Karaites  held  that  the  boughs  here  men- 
tioned were  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  cover  th« 
huts,  and  that  the  willow  branches  were  meroW  fur 
tying  the  parts  of  the  huts  together. 

c  The  word   3 V^V   strictly  meana  (iniplj  •  p*lM 


3160 


TABERNACLES,  THE  FEAST  OF 


The  "  fruit  of  goodly  trees"  is  generally  taken  by 
the  Jews  to  mean  the  citron."  But  .loseplius  (.-In^. 
iii.  10,  §  4)  says  that  it  was  the  fruit  of  the  peisen, 
n  tree  said  by  Pliny  to  have  been  con\eyed  from 
Persia  to  Egypt  (Hist.  Nat.  xv.  13),  and  which  some 
have  identified  with  the  peach  {.Mnlus  persicn). 
The   boughs   of  thick    trees   were    understood   by 

Onkelos  and  others  to  be  myrtles  (C'^D'in),  but 
that  no  such  limitation  to  a  single  species  coultl 
have  been  intended  seems  to  be  proved  by  the 
boughs  of  thick  trees  and  myrtle  branches  being 
mentioned  together  (Neh.  viii.  15). 

'I'he  burnt-ofterings  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
were  by  far  more  numerous  than  those  of  any  other 
festival.  It  is  said  that  the  services  of  the  priests 
were  so  ordered  that  each  one  of  the  courses  was 
employed  during  the  seven  days  [Svcaih,  v.  6). 
There  were  offered  on  each  day  two  rams,  fourteen 
lambs,  and  a  kid  for  a  sin-oflering.  But  what  was 
most  peculiar  was  the  arrangement  of  the  sacrifices 
of  bullocks,  in  all  amounting  to  seventy.  'J'hirteen 
were  offered  on  the  first  day,  twelve  on  the  second, 
eleven  on  the  third,  and  so  on,  reducing  the  num- 
ber liy  one  each  day  till  the  seventh,  when  seven 
oullocks  only  were  offered  (Num.  xxix.  12-38). 

The  eighth  day  was  a  day  of  holy  convocation 
jf  peculiar  solemnity,  and,  with  the  seventh  day  of 
the  Passover,  and  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  desig- 
nated ri"1^17  [Passover,  iii.  2343,  note  a].  We 
are  told  that  on  the  morning  of  this  day  the  He- 
Drews  left  their  huts  and  dismantled  them,  and  took 
up  their  abode  again  in  their  houses.  The  special 
offerings  of  the  day  were  a  bullock,  a  ram,  seven 
lambs,  and  a  goat  for  a  sin-offering  (Num.  xxix. 
36-38).'' 

When  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  fell  on  a  Sab- 
batical year,  portions  of  the  Law  were  read  each  day 
in  public,  to  men,  women,  children,  and  strangers 
(Deut.  xxxi.  10-13).  It  is  said  that,  in  the  time 
of  the  Kings,  the  king  himself  used  to  read  from  a 
wooden  pulpit  erected  in  tlie  court  of  the  women, 
and  that  the  people  were  sunnuoned  to  assemble  by 
sound  of  trum|)et-^  Whether  the  selections  were 
made  from  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  only,  or  from 
the  other  books  of  the  Law  also,  is  a  question.  But 
according  to  the  Jlishna  {Sotn,  vi.  8,  quoted  liy 
Keland)  the  portions  read  were  Deut.  i.  1-vi.  4,  xi. 
13-xiv.  22,  xiv.  23-xvi.  22,  xviii.  1-14,  xxvii.  1- 
xxviii.  68  (see  Fagius  and  Kosenmiiller  on  Deut. 
xxxi.  11;  Lightfoot,  Temple  Seifice,  c.  xvii.).  We 
find  Ezra  reading  the  Law  during  the  festival  "  day 
by  day,  from  the  first  day  to  the  last  day  "  (Neh. 
viii.  18)."' 

III.  There  are  two  particulars  in  the  observance 
of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  which  appear  to  be  re- 
ferred to  in  the  New  Testament,  but  are  not  noticed 


branch.     Buxt.   Lex.  Talm.  o.   1143  ;  Carpzov,  App. 
Cm.  p.  416  ;  Drusius,  Not.  Maj.  in  Lev.  xxiii. 

"   2^~1jnS.     So  Onkelos,   Jonathan,   and    Succa/i. 

See  Buxt.  Lex.  Talm.  sub  2nn. 

''  The  notion  of  Miinster,  Godwin,  and  others,  that 
tlie  eighth  day  was  called  "  the  day  of  palms,"  is 
utterly  without  foundation.  No  trace  of  such  a  desig- 
nation is  found  in  any  Jewish  writer.  It  probably 
resulted  from  a  theory  that  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
must,  like  the  Passover  and  Pentecost,  have  a  festival 
to  answer  to  it  in  the  calendar  of  the  Christian  Church. 
»nd  that  "  the  day  of  palms  "  passed  into  Palm  Sun- 


in  the  Old.  These  were,  the  ceremony  of  pourins 
o\it  some  water  of  the  pool  of  Siloam,  and  the 
display  of  some  great  lights  in  the  court  of  the 
women. 

We  are  told  that  each  Israelite,  in  holiday  attire, 
having  made  up  his  lulab,  before  he  broke  his  fast 
(Fagius  in  Lev.  xxiii.),  repaired  to  the  Temple  with 
the  lu!a/j  in  one  hand  and  the  citron  in  the  other, 
at  the  time  of  the  ordinary  morning  sacrifice.  The 
parts  of  the  victim  were  laid  upon  the  altar.  One 
of  the  priests  fetched  some  water  in  a  golden  ewer 
from  the  pool  of  Siloam,  which  he  brought  into  the 
court  through  the  Water  Gate.  As  he  entered  the 
trumpets  sounded,  and  he  ascended  the  slope  of 
the  altar.  At  the  top  of  this  were  fixed  two  silver 
basins  with  small  openings  at  the  bottom.  Wine 
was  poured  into  that  on  the  eastern  side,  and  the 
water  into  that  on  thfi  western  side,  whence  it  was 
conducted  by  pipes  into  the  Kedron  (Maimon.  ap. 
Carpzov.  p.  419).  The  linllel  \wa.s  then  sung,  and 
when  the  singers  reached  the  !irst  verse  of  Ps. 
cxviii.  all  the  company  shook  their  lulabs.  This 
gesture  was  repeated  at  the  25th  verse,  and  again 
when  they  sang  the  29th  verse.  The  sacrifices 
which  belonged  to  the  day  of  the  festival  were  then 
offered,  and  special  passages  from  the  Psalms  were 
chanted. 

In  the  evening  (it  would  seem  after  the  day  of 
holy  convocation  with  which  the  festival  had  com- 
menced had  ended),  both  men  and  women  assembled 
in  the  court  of  the  women,  expressly  to  hold  a 
rejoicing  for  tlie  drawing  of  the  water  of  Siloam. 
On  this  occasion,  a  degree  of  unrestrained  hilarity 
was  permitted,  such  as  would  l>ave  been  unbecoming 
while  the  ceremony  itself  was  going  on,  in  the 
presence  of  the  altar  and  in  connection  with  the 
offering  of  the  morning  sacrifice  {Succnh,  iv.  9,  v. 
1,  and  the  passages  from  the  Gem.  given  by  Light- 
foot,   Ti-iiiple  Service,  §  4). 

At  the  same  time  there  were  set  up  in  the  court 
two  lofty  stands,  each  supporting  four  great  lamps. 
These  were  lighted  on  each  night  of  the  festival. 
It  is  said  that  they  cast  their  light  over  nearly  the 
whole  compass  of  the  city.  The  wicks  were  fur- 
nished from  the  cast-off  garments  of  the  priests, 
and  the  supply  of  oil  was  kept  up  by  the  sons  of 
the  priests.  Many  in  the  assembly  carried  flam- 
beaux. A  body  of  Levites,  stationed  on  the  fifteen 
steps  leading  up  to  the  women's  court,  played  in- 
struments of  music,  and  chanted  the  fifteen  psalms 
which  are  called  in  the  A.  V.  Songs  of  Degrees 
(Ps.  cxx.'-cxxxiv.).  Singing  and  dancing  were 
afterwards  continued  for  some  time.  The  same 
ceremonies  in  the  day,  and  the  same  joyous  meet- 
ing in  the  evening,  were  renewed  on  each  of  the 
seven  days. 

It  appears   to  be  generally  admitted  that  the 


c  A  story  is  told  of  Agrippa,  that  when  he  was  onc.e 
performing  this  ceremony,  as  he  came  to  the  words 
"  thou  may'st  not  set  a  stranger  over  thee  which  is 
not  thy  brother,"  the  thought  of  his  foreign  blood 
occurred  to  him,  and  he  was  affected  to  tears.  Bui 
the  bystanders  encouraged  him,  crying  out  "  Fear  not 
Agrippa  I  Thou  art  our  brother."  Lightfoot,  T.  S.  c 
xvii. 

d  Dean  Alford  considers  that  there  may  be  a  refer 
ence  to  the  public  reading  of  the  Law  at  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  John  vii  19  —  "  Did  not  Mose-s  give  you 
the  law  ?  and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth  the  law  "  — 
even  if  that  year  was  not  the  Sabbatical  year,  and  tb« 
observance  did  not  actually  take  place  at  the  titan 


TABERNACLES,   THE   FEAST   OF 


3161 


«K>rds  of  our  Saviour  (John  vii.  37,  331  —  "  If  any 
man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink.  He 
that  beUeveth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said, 
out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water  "  — 
were  suggested  bj-  the  pouring  out  of  the  water  of 
Siloam.  The  Jews  seem  to  have  regarded  the  rite 
aa  symbolical  of  the  water  miraculously  su]iplied  to 
their  fathers  from  the  rock  at  Jleribah.  But  they 
also  gave  to  it  a  more  strictly  spiritual  signification, 
ill  accordance  with  the  use  to  which  our  Lord  ap- 
pears to  turn  it.  Maimoiiides  (note  in  Siiccih) 
applies  to  it  the  very  passage  which  apjiears  to  be 
referred  to  by  our  Lord  (Is.  xii.  3) — '-Therefore 
with  joy  shall  ye  draw  water  out  of  the  wells  of 
salvation."  The  two  meanings  are  of  course  per- 
fectly harmonious,  as  is  shown  by  the  use  which 
St.  Paul  makes  of  the  historical  fact  (1  Cor.  x.  4) 
—  "  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed 
them:  and  that  rock  was  Christ." 

But  it  is  very  doubtful  what  is  meant  by  "  the 
last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast."  It  would 
seem  that  either  the  last  day  of  the  fe,ast  itself,  that 
is  the  seventh,  or  tlie  List  day  of  the  religious  ob- 
servances of  the  series  of  annual  festivals,  the  eighth, 
must  be  intended.  But  there  seems  to  have  been 
nothing,  according  to  ancient  testimony,  to  distin- 
guisli  tlie  seventh,  as  a  great  day,  compared  with 
the  othjr  days;  it  was  decidedly  inferior,  in  not 
being  a  day  of  holy  convocation,  and  in  its  number 
of  sacrifices,  to  the  first  day.«  On  the  other  hand, 
It  is  nearly  certain  that  the  ceremony  of  pouring 
out  the  water  did  not  take  place  on  the  eighth 
day,*  though  the  day  might  have  been,  by  an  easy 
license,  called  the  great  day  of  the  feast  ('2  Mace. 
X.  6;  Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  10,"^  §  4;  I'hilo,  D,i  Sejjt. 
§  24).  De;in  Alford  reasonably  supposes  that  the 
eighth  day  may  be  meant,  and  that  the  reierence 
of  our  Lord  was  to  an  ordinary  antl  well-known 
observance  of  the  feast,  though  it  was  not,  at  the 
very  time,  going  on. 

We  must  resort  to  some  such  explanation,  if  we 
adopt  the  notion  that  our  Lords  words  (.lohn  viii. 
12)  —  "  I  am  the  light  of  the  world  "  — refer  to  the 
qreat  lamps  of  the  festival.  The  suggestion  must 
have  arisen  in  the  same  way,  or  else  from  the 
apparatus  for  lighting  not  being  removed,  although 
tiie  festival  had  come  to  an  end.  It  shouhl,  how- 
ever, be  remarked  that  Bengel,  Stier,  and  some 
others,  think  that  the  words  refer  to  the  light  of 
morning  which  was  then  dawning.  The  view  that 
may  be  taken  of  the  genuineness  of  John  viii.  1-11 
will  modify  the  probability  of  the  latter  interpre- 
tation. 

IV.  There  are  many  directions  given  in  the 
Mishna  for  the  dimensions  and  construction  of  the 
huts.  They  were  not  to  be  lower  than  ten  ji;dms, 
nor  higher  than  twenty  cubits.  They  were  to  star.d 
by  themselves,  and  not  to  rest  on  any  external  sup- 
povt,  nor  to  be  under  the  shelter  of  a  larger  build- 
ing, or  of  a  tree.  They  were  not  to  be  covered 
with  skins  or  cloth  of  any  kind,  but  only  with 
boughs,  or,  in  part,  with  reed  mats  or  laths.  They 
were  to  be  constructed  expressly  for  the  festival,  out 


of  new  materials.  Their  forms  might  vary  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  taste  of  the  owners.'^  According 
to  some  authorities,  the  Israelites  dwelt  in  them 
during  the  whole  period  of  the  festival  (Sifri,  in 
Reland).  but  others  said  it  was  sufficient  if  they  ate 
fourteen  meals  in  them,  that  is,  two  on  each  day 
{Succ'ih,  ii.  6).  Persons  engaged  in  religious  ser- 
vice, the  sick,  nurses,  women,  slaves,  and  minors, 
were  excepted  altogether  from  the  obligation  of 
dwelling  in  them,  and  some  indulgence  appears  to 
have  been  given  to  all  in  very  tempestuous  weather 
(Succa/i,  i.  ii.;  Miinster  on  Lev.  x.xiii.  40;  Buxt. 
Syn.  Jiul.  c.  xxi.). 

The  furniture  of  the  huts  was  to  be,  according  to 
most  authorities,  of  the  plainest  description.  There 
was  to  be  nothing  which  was  not  fairly  necessary. 
It  would  seem,  however,  that  there  was  no  strict 
rule  on  this  point,  and  that  there  was  a  consider- 
able difference  according  to  the  habits  or  circum- 
stances of  the  occupant''  (Carpzov,  p.  415;  Bust. 
Syn.  Jua.  p.  4.51 ). 

It  is  said  that  the  altar  w.as  adorned  throughout 
the  seven  days  with  sprigs  of  willows,  one  of  which 
each  Israelite  who  came  into  the  court  brought 
with  him.  The  great  number  of  the  sacrifices  has 
lieen  already  noticed.  The  number  of  public  vic- 
tims oftered  on  the  first  day  exceeded  those  of  any 
da}'  in  the  year  {.Uoiach.  xiii.  5).  But  besides 
these,  the  Chagigahs  or  private  peace-ofTerings 
[Passover,  iii.  2346  f.]  were  more  abundant  than 
at  any  other  time :  aiwi  there  is  reason  to  believe 
tiiat  the  whole  of  the  sacrifices  nearly  outnumbered 
all  those  oflpered  at  the  other  festivals  put  together. 
It  belongs  to  the  chai-acter  of  the  feast  that  on  each 
day  the  trumpets  of  the  Temple  are  said  to  have 
sounded  twenty-one  times. 

V.  Though  all  the  Helirew  aimual  festiv.als  were 
seasons  of  rejoicing,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was, 
in  this  respect,  distinguished  aljove  them  all.  The 
huts  and  the  lat  (bs  must  have  made  a  gay  and 
striking  spectacle  over  the  city  by  day,  and  the 
lamps,  the  flambeaux,  the  music,  and  the  joj'ous 
gatherings  in  the  court  of  the  Temjjle  must  have 
given   a  still  more  festive  character  to  the  night. 

Hence,  it  was  called  by  the  Rabbis  ^H,  the  festi- 
I'ld,  Kar  e^oxv^'-  There  is  a  proverb  in  Succih 
(v.  1 ),  '•  He  who  has  never  seen  the  rejoicing  at  the 
pouring  out  of  the  water  of  Siloam  has  never  seen 
rejoicing  in  his  life."  Maimonides  says  that  he 
who  failed  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  contrib- 
uting to  the  public  joy  according  to  his  means, 
incurred  especial  guilt  (Carpzov,  p.  419).  The 
feast  is  designated  by  Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  4,  §  1) 
topr}]  ayioiTaTT)  koX  fxey'icTTri,  and  by  Philo,  |op- 
Twv  fxeyiffTT).  Its  thoroughly  festive  nature  is 
shown  in  the  accounts  of  its  observance  in  Josephus 
{Ant.  viii.  4,  §  1,  sv.  33),  as  well  ;is  in  the  accounts 
of  its  celebration  by  Solomon,  Ezra,  and  Judas 
Maccalifeus.  From  this  fact,  and  its  connection 
with  the  ingathering  of  the  fruits  of  the  year,  es- 
pecially the  vintage,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  Plu- 
tarch should  have  likened  it  to  the  Dionysiac  fes- 
tivals,  calling    it  6vp(To<f>ppia   and  KpaTripo<popia 


a  But  Baxtorf,  who  contends  that  St.  John  speaks    poured  out  on  eight  days.     {SiiccaJi,  iv.  9,  with  Bar 
of  the  seventh  day,  says  that  the  modern  Jews  of  his    tenora's  note.) 

time  called   that  day  "  the  Great  Ilosauna,"  and  dis-        <•  Tliere  are  some  curious  figures  of  different  forms 
tin^^uished  it   by  a  greater  atteutioa   than   usual   to  |  of  huts,  and  of  the  great  lights  ol  the  Feast  of  TaberQa- 
their  personal  appearance,  and  by  performing  certain  Icles.  in  Sui-euhusius'  Mishna,  vol.  ii. 
peculiar  rites  in  the  synagogue  {Sijn.  Jnil.  xxi).  '   ''  There  \»  a  lively  description  of  some  of  the  hutJ 

6  B.  J>huda,   however,   said    that    the   water   was  ;  u-sed  by  the  .lews  in  modern  times  in  La  Vie  Juive  tm 

'  Alfacf,  p.  170,  &c. 
199 


3162    TABERNACLES,   FEAST   OF 

{Syiiqjos.  iv.).  The  account  which  he  gives  of  it  is 
curious,  hut  it  is  not  much  to  our  purpose  here.  It 
contains  about  as  much  truth  as  the  more  famous 
passage  on  the  Helirew  nation  in  the  fifth  book  of 
the  History  of  Tacitus. 

YI.  The  main  purposes  of  the  Feast  of  Talter- 
nacles  are  plainly  set  forth  (Ex.  xxiii.  16,  and  Lev. 
xxiii.  43).  It  was  to  be  at  once  a  thanksgiving  for 
the  harvest,  and  a  commemoration  of  the  time  when 
the  Israelites  dwelt  in  tents  during  their  passage 
through  the  wilderness.  In  one  of  its  meanings,  it 
stands  in  connection  with  the  Passover,  as  the 
Feast  of  Abib,  the  month  of  green  ears,  when  the 
first  sheaf  of  barley  was  offered  before  the  Lord ; 
and  with  Pentecost,  as  the  feast  of  harvest,  when 
the  first  loaves  of  the  year  were  waved  before  the 
altar :  in  its  other  meaning,  it  is  related  to  the  Pass- 
over as  the  great  yearly  memorial  of  the  deliverance 
from  the  destroyer,  and  from  the  tyranny  of  Egypt. 
The  tents  of  the  wilderness  furnished  a  home  of 
freedom  compared  with  the  house  of  bondage  out 
of  which  they  had  been  brought.  Hence  the 
Divine  Word  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  command 
that  they  should  dwell  in  huts  during  the  festival, 
■•  that  your  ge)ierations  may  know  that  I  made 
the  children  of  Israel  to  dvvell  in  booths,  when  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt "  (Lev. 
xxiii.  4-3). 

l!ut  naturally  connected  with  this  exultation  in 
their  regained  freedom,  was  the  rejoicing  in  the 
more  perfect  fulfillment  of  God's  promise,  in  the 
settlement  of  his  people  in  the  Holy  Land.  Hence 
the  festival  became  an  expression  of  thanksgiving 
for  the  rest  and  blessing  of  a  settled  abode,  and,  as 
connected  with  it,  for  the  regular  annual  cultivation 
of  the  ground,  with  the  storing  up  of  the  corn  and 
the  wine  and  the  oil,  by  which  the  prosperity  of  the 
nation  was  promoted  and  the  fear  of  famine  put  into 
a  remoter  distance.  Thus  the  agricultural  and  tlie 
historical  ideas  of  the  feast  became  essentially  con- 
nected with  each  other. 

But  besides  this,  Philo  saw  in  this  feast  a  wit- 
ness for  the  original  equality  of  all  the  members  of 
the  chosen  race.  All,  during  the  week,  poor  and 
rich,  the  inhabitant  alike  of  the  palace  or  the  hovel, 
lived  in  huts  which,  in  strictness,  were  to  be  of  the 
plainest  and  most  ordinary  materials  and  construc- 
tion." From  this  point  of  view  the  Israelite  would 
be  reminded  with  still  greater  edification  of  the  per- 
ilous and  toilsome  march  of  his  forefathers  through 
the  desert,  when  the  nation  seemed  to  be  more  im- 
mediately dependent  on  God  for  food,  shelter,  and 
protection,  while  the  completed  harvest  stored  up 
for  the  coming  winter  set  before  him  tlie  benefits  he 
bad  derived  from  the  possession  of  the  land  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey  which  had  been  of  old  prom- 
iaed  to  his  race. 

But  the  culminating  point  of  this  blessing  was 
the  establishment  of  the  central  spot  of  the  national 


«  Some  Jewish  authorities  and  others  connect  with 
inia  the  fact  that  iu  the  month  Tisri  the  weather  be- 
comes rather  cold,  and  hence  there  was  a  degree  of 
wlf-denial,  at  least  for  tlje  rich,  in  dwelUng  in  huts 
(Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  10,  §  4  ;  Buxt.  Syn.  Jud.  p.  447  ; 
Bel.  Ant.  iv.  5).  They  see  in  this  a  reason  why  the 
couimemoration  of  the  journey  through  the  desert 
should  have  been  fixed  at  this  season  of  the  year. 
The  notion  seems,  however,  not  to  be  in  keeping  with 
tile  general  character  of  the  feast,  the  time  of  which 
ajipears  to  have  been  determined  entirely  on  agricul- 
tural grounds,  lleuce  the  appropriateness  of  the  lau- 
g'jAge  of  the  prophet,  Zech.  xiv.  16,  17  ;  oomp.  i>x. 


TABITHA 

worship  in  the  T'emple  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  it 
was  evidently  fittiftg  that  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
should  be  kept  with  an  unwonted  degree  of  observ- 
ance at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple  (1  K. 
viii.  2,  65;  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  4,  §  5),  again,  aft€r 
the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  by  Ezra  (Neh.  viii. 
13-18),  and  a  third  time  by  Judas  Maccabaeus 
when  he  had  driven  out  the  Syrians  and  restored 
the  Temple  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (2  Mace. 
X.  5-8). 

The  origin  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  is  by 
some  connected  with  Succoth,  the  first  halting- 
place  of  the  Israelites  on  their  march  out  of 
Egypt;  and  the  huts  are  taken  not  to  commem- 
orate the  tents  in  the  wilderness,  but  the  leafy 
booths  {succoth)  in  which  they  lodged  for  the  last 
time  liefore  they  entered  the  desert.  The  feast 
would  thus  call  to  mind  the  transition  from  settled 
to  nomadic  life  (Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  Ap- 
pendix, §  89). 

Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  p.  414;  Biihr,  Symbolik,  ii. 
624;  Buxt.  Syn.  Jud.  c.  xxi. ;  Keland,  Ant.  iv.  5; 
Lightfoot,  Temple  Service,  xvi.  and  A'xercit.  in 
Joan.  vii.  2,  37;  Otiio,  J.ex.  Rab.  p.  230;  the 
treatise  Succah,  in  the  Mishna,  with  Surenhusius" 
Notes;  Hupfeld,  De  Fest.  Hebr.  part  ii.  Of  the 
monographs  on  the  subject  the  most  important 
appear  to  be,  Ikenius,  De  Libaiione  Aquce  in 
Fest.  Tab.  ;  Groddek,  JJe  Ceremonia  Palniarmn 
in  Fest.  T.nb.  (in  Ugolini,  vol.  xviii.),  with  the 
Notes  of  Dachs  on  Succn/i,  in  the  Jerusalem  Ge- 
mara.  S.  C. 

TAB'ITHA  (Taxied  [fjazelle]  :  Tabitlia),  also 
called  Dorcas  (AopKas)  by  St.  Luke:  a  female  dis- 
ciple of  Joppa,  "  full  of  good  works,"  among  which 
that  of  making  clothes  for  the  poor  is  specifically 
mentioned.  While  St.  Peter  was  at  the  neighbor- 
ing town  of  Lydda,  'Tabitha  died,  upon  which  the 
disciples  at  Joppa  sent  an  urgent  message  to  the 
Apostle,  begging  him  to  come  to  them  without  de- 
lay. It  is  not  quite  evident  from  the  narrative 
wliether  they  looked  for  any  exercise  of  miraculous 
power  on  his  part,  or  whether  they  simply  wished 
lor  Christian  consolation  under  what  they  regarded 
as  the  conmion  calamity  of  their  Church ;  but  the 
miracle  recently  performed  on  Eneas  (Acts  ix.  34), 
and  tlie  expression  in  ver.  38  {Sie\6(lu  ices  rifiwy), 
lead  to  the  former  supposition.  Upon  his  arrival 
Peter  found  the  deceased  already  prepared  for  bur- 
ial, and  laid  out  in  an  upper  chamber,  where  she 
was  surrotnided  by  the  recipients  and  the  tokens  of 
her  charity.  After  the  example  of  our  Sa^iour  in 
the  house  of  Jairus  (Matt.  ix.  25;  Mark  v.  401, 
"  Peter  put  them  all  forth,"  prayed  f'T  tlie  Divine 
assistance,  and  then  commanded  Tuoillia  to  arise 
(comp.  Mark  v.  41;  Luke  viii.  54).  She  opened 
lier  e^es  and  sat  up,  and  then,  assisted  by  the  Apos- 
tle, rose  from  her  conch.  This  great  miracle,  as  we 
are  further  told,  produced  an  extraordinary  effect  iji 


xxiii.  16  ;  Deut.  xvi.  13-17.  As  Httle  worthy  of  more 
than  a  passing  notice  is  the  connecting  the  fall  ot 
Jericho  with  the  festival  (Godwyn,  p.  72  ;  Reland,  iv. 
5),  and  of  the  seventy  bullocks  offered  durin,';  the 
seven  days  being  a  symbol  of  the  seventy  Gentile  na- 
tions (Reland,  iv.  5;  Bochart,  P/ialeg,  i.  15).  But  ol 
somewhat  more  interest  is  the  older  notion  found  in 
Onkelns,  that  the  shade  of  the  branches  represented 
the  cloud  by  day  which  sheltered  the  Israelites.  He 
renders  the  words  in  Lev.  xxiii.  43  —  "  that  1  madft 
the  childreu  of  Israel  to  dwell  under  the  shadow  of  ■ 
cloud." 


TABLE 

Joppa,  and  was  the  occasion  of  many  conversions 
there  (Acts  ix.  30-42). 

'I'lie    name    of    "  Tabitlia "    (SH^^^)  is    the 

Aramaic  form  answering  to  tlie  Hebrew  71*2^, 
o  T  •  :  ' 

ft  "  female  gazeile,"  tlie  gazelle  being  regai'ded  in 
the  East,  among  both  Jews  and  Arabs,  as  a  stand- 
ard of  beauty,  —  indeed,  the  word  ^3^  properly 
means  "  beauty."  St.  Luke  gives  "  Dorcas  "  as 
the  Greek  equivalent  of  the  name.     Similarly  we 

find  SopKas  as  the  LXX.  rendering  of  ''IlV  in 
Deut.  xii.  1-5,  22;  2  Sam.  ii.  18;  Prov.  vi.  5.  It 
has  been  inferred  from  the  occurrence  of  the  two 
names,  that  Tabitha  was  a  Hellenist  (see  WMiitby, 
in  loc. ).  This,  however,  does  not  follow,  even  if  we 
suppose  that  the  two  names  were  actually  borne  by 
her,  as  it  would  seem  to  have  been  the  practice  even 
of  the  Hebrew  Jews  at  this  period  to  have  a  Gentile 
name  hi  addition  to  their  Jewish  name.  But  it  is 
by  no  means  clear  ti'om  the  language  of  St.  Luke 
that  Tabitha  actually  bore  the  name  of  Dorcas.  All 
he  tells  us  is  that  the  name  of  ral)itha  means  "ga- 
zelle "  (5o/3/coj),  and,  for  the  benefit  of  his  Gentile 
readers,  be  afterwards  speaks  of  her  by  the  Greek 
equivalent.  At  the  same  tinie  it  is  very  possible 
that  she  may  have  been  known  by  both  names;  and 
we  learn  from  Josephus  {B.  J.  iv.  3,  §  5)  that  the 
name  of  Dorcas  was  not  unknown  in  Palestine. 
Among  the  Greeks,  also,  as  we  gather  from  Lucret. 
iv.  115-i,  it  was  a  term  of  endearment.  Other  ex- 
amples of  the  use  of  the  name  will  be  found  in 
Wetstein,  in  loc.  W.  B.  J. 

*  TABLE.  See  under  other  heads  for  impor- 
tant information  connected  with  this  word  [Mkals; 
Moxey-Changkks;  Shew  Bread;  Taberna- 
cle].    The  earliest  Hebrew  term  may  have  been 

sliulchan  (from  H^'K'"',  to  stretch  out),  being 
simply  a  piece  of  leather  or  cloth  spread  on  the 
ground  on  which  the  food  was  placed.  The  word 
naturally  passed  to  other  applications  so  as  to  de- 
note a  table  of  any  kind.  We  read  in  Judg.  i.  7 
that  the  vassals  of  Adoni-bezek  (which  see)  "  gath- 
ered their  meat  under  his  table,"  apparently  there- 
fore a  raised  cushion  or  ii-iclinium  at  that  early 
period.  .A.  table  formed  part  of  the  furniture  of 
the  prophet  Elisha's  chamber  (2  K.  iv.  10).  The 
table  and  its  entertainments  stand  figuratively  for 
the  soul's  food  which  God  provides  for  his  people 
(Ps.  xxiii.  5,  Ixix.  22);  and  also  for  the  enjoy- 
ments of  Christ's  perfected  kingdom  in  heaven 
(Matt.  viii.  11;  Luke  xiii.  29).  I'o  "  serve  tables  " 
(.A.cts  vi.  2)  meant  to  provide  food,  or  the  means 
of  purchasing  it,  for  the  poor,  as  arranged  in  the 
primitive  Church  at  Jerusalem.  The  '-table  of  the 
Lord,"  1  Cor.  x.  21,  designates  the  Lord's  Supjjer 
as  opposed  to  the  "  talile  of  demons  "  {^atfjLovidiv) 
or  feasts  of  heathen  revelling.  The  "  writing-ta- 
ble "  on  which  Zacharias  wrote  the  name  of  John 
(Luke  i.  03)  was  no  doubt  a  "tablet"  {-jrivaKi- 
Siov)  covered  with  wax,  on  which  the  ancients 
wrote  with  a  stylus.  As  TertuUian  says:  "Zach- 
arias loquitur  in  stylo,  auditur  in  cera." 

In  i\Iark  vii.  4  "  tables  "  is  a  mistranslation  for 
"beds"  or  "couches."  The  same  Greek  tertn 
(kAiVoi^  is  rendered  "  bed  "  in  the  nine  other  pas- 
sages where  it  occurs  (Matt.  ix.  2,6;  Mark  iv.  21, 


«  The  full  form  occurs  in  Judg.  iv.  6,  12,  14  ;  that 
of  Tabor  only,  in  Josh.  xix.  22  ;  Judg.  Tiii.  18  ;  Ps. 
liy>:li.  12  •  Jer.  xlvi.  18  ;  Hos.  v.  1. 


TABOR  AND  MOUNT  TABOR     3163 

vii.  30;  Luke  v.  18,  viii.  16,  xvii.  34;  Acts  v.  15; 
l!ev.  ii.  22),  and  should  be  so  rendered  here.  No! 
beds  of  every  sort  are  intended  in  Mark  vii.  4,  but 
as  Meyer  observes  {in  loc),  "table-beds"  {Speisa- 
ln(jtr),  which  might  be  defiled  by  the  leprous,  the 
menstruous,  or  others  considered  unclean,  for  the 
entire  context  relates  to  the  act  of  eating.  This  ii 
made  reasonably  certain  by  the  manifest  relation  of 
the  passage  to  Lev.  xv.  4,  where  the  same  rule  is 
enjoined,  and  where  the  language  is:  "  Every  bed 
whereon  he  lieth  that  hath  the  issue,  is  unclean; 
and  everything  whereon  he  sitteth  shall  be  un- 
clean." I'hey  were  couches  or  raised  sofas  on 
which  the  ancients  reclined  at  meals,  or  on  ordi- 
nary occasions  may  have  been  little  more  than 
cushions  or  rugs  (see  Matt.  ix.  6;  Acts  v.  15). 
This  washing  of  such  articles  was  something  v  Inch 
the  Pharisees  weie  always  careful  to  have  done 
after  the  couches  had  been  used,  before  they  them- 
selves would  run  the  risk  of  any  defilement.  It 
should  lie  added  tliat  Tischendorf  rejects  K\ivai 
from  Mark  vii.  4,  but  against  adequate  testimony 
for  it.  '  H. 

TA'BOR  and  MOUNT"    TABOR    (^H 

Tl^Fl,  probably  =  "  height,"  as  in  Simonis' 
OnoiHdxIicon,  p.  300:  TaiO^wp  [Alex.  Ta<^a)0], 
upas  ©a^cip,  Qa^wp,  but  rh  'lTal3vptoy  in  Jer. 
and  Hosea,  and  in  .losephus.  who  has  also  'Arap- 
^vpiov-  Tliuoor),  one  of  the  most  interesting  .and 
remarkable  of  the  single  mountains  in  Palestine. 
It  was  a  Kabbinic  saying  (and  shows  the  Jewish 
estimate  of  the  attractions  of  the  locality),  that  the 
Temple  ought  of  right  to  have  been  built  here,  but 
was  required  by  an  express  re\elation  to  be  erected 
on  Mount  Moriah.  It  rises  abruittly  from  the  north- 
eastern arm  of  the  plain  of  I'^sdraelon,  and  stands 
entirely  insulated,  except  on  the  west,  where  a  nar- 
row ridge  connects  it  with  the  hills  of  Nazareth. 
It  presents  to  the  eye,  as  seen  from  a  distance,  a 
beautiful  appearance,  being  so  synnnetrical  in  its 
proportions,  and  rounded  oflT  like  a  hemisphere  or 
the  segment  of  a  circle,  yet  varying  somewhat  as 
viewed  from  dift'erent  directions.  The  body  of  the 
mountain  consists  of  the  peculiar  limestone  of  the 
country.  It  is  studded  with  a  comparatively  dense 
forest  of  oaks,  pistacias,  and  other  trees  and  bushes, 
with  the  exception  of  an  occasional  opening  on  the 
sides,  and  a  small  uneven  tract  on  the  sunnnit. 
The  coverts  afford  at  present  a  shelter  for  wolves, 
wild  boars,  lynxes,  and  various  reptiles.  Its  height 
from  the  base  is  estimated  at  1,000  feet,  but  may  be 
somewhat  more  rather  than  less.**  Its  ancient  name, 
as  already  suggested,  indicates  its  elevation,  though 
it  does  not  rise  much,  if  at  all,  above  some  of  the 
other  summits  in  the  vicinity.  It  is  now  called 
Ji:bd  cl-Tih:  It  lies  about  six  or  eight  miles  al- 
most due  east  from  Nazareth.  The  wi'iter,  in  re- 
turning to  that  village  toward  the  close  ot  the  day 
(May  3,  18.")2),  found  the  sun  as  it  went  down  in 
the  west  shining  directly  in  his  face,  with  hardly 
any  deviation  to  the  right  hand  or  the  left  by  a 
single  turn  of  the  path.  The  ascent  is  usually 
made  on  the  west  side,  near  the  little  village  of  De- 
huricli,  prob.ably  the  ancient  Daberath  (Josh.  xix. 
12),  thouijh  it  can  be  made  with  entire  e;ise  in  othei 
places.  It  requires  three-quarters  of  an  hour  or  an 
liour  to  reach  the  top.     The  path  is  circuitous  aud 


ft  *  Tristram  (LnntJ  of  Israel,  p.  499)  says  1.300  feet 
from  tile  base,  aud  l,8t)0  from  the  sea-level.  7 he  latuw 
is  Vau  du  Veldu's  estimate  U 


3164 


TABOR  AND   MOUNT   TABOR 


at  times  steep,  but  not  so  much  so  as  to  render  it 
difficult  to  ride  the  entire  way.  The  trees  and 
bushes  are  generally  so  thick  as  to  intercept  the 
prospect;  but  now  and  then  the  traveller  as  he  as- 
cends conies  to  an  open  spot  which  reveals  to  him 
a  magnificent  view  of  the  plain.  One  of  the  most 
pleasing  aspects  of  the  landscape,  as  seen  from 
such  points,  in  the  season  of  the  early  harvest,  is 
that  presented  in  the  diversified  appearance  of  the 
fields.  The  different  plots  of  ground  exhibit  vari- 
ous colors,  according  to  the  state  of  cultivation  at 
the  time.  Some  of  them  are  red,  where  the  land 
has  been  newly  plowed  up,  owing  to  the  natural 
properties  of  the  soil;  others  j-ellow  or  white,  where 
the  harvest  is  beginning  to  ripen  .or  is  already  ripe; 
and  others  green,  beinsj  covered  with  grass  or  spring- 
ing grain.     As  they  are  contiguous  to  each  other. 


The  top  of  Tabor  consists  of  an  irregular  platform, 
embracing  a  circuit  of  half  an  hour's  walk,  and 
commanding  wide  views  of  tlie  subjacent  plain 
from  end  to  end.  A  copious  dew  falls  here  dur- 
ing the  warm  months.  Travellers  who  have 
spent  the  night  there  have  found  their  tents  as 
wet  in  the  morning  as  if  they  had  been  drenched 
with  rain. 

It  is  the  universal  judgment  of  those  who  have 
stood  on  the  spot  that  the  panorama  spread  before 
them  as  they  look  from  Talior  includes  as  great  a 
variety  of  objects  of  natural  beauty  and  of  sacred 
and  historic  interest  as  any  one  to  be  seen  from 
any  position  in  the  Holy  Land.  On  the  east  tlie 
waters  of  the  Sea  of  Til^erias,  not  less  than  fifteen 
miles  distant,  are  seen  glittering  through  the  cleiir 
atmosphere  in  the  deep  bed  where  they  repose  so 


or  intermixed,  these  parti  colored  plots  present,  as  quietly.  Though  but  a  small  portion  of  the  surface 
looked  down  upon  from  above,  an  appearance  of  of  the  lake  can  lie  distinguished,  the  entire  outline 
gay  checkered  work  which  is  sinirularlv  beautiful,    of  its  basin  can  be  traced  on  every  side.     In  the 


View  of  Mount  Tabor  from  the  S.  W.,  from  a  sketch  taken  in  1842  by  \V.  Tipping,  Esq.,  and  engraved  by  his 

permission. 


same  direction  the  eye  follows  the  course  of  the 
Jordan  for  many  miles;  while  still  further  east  it 
rests  upon  a  boundless  perspective  of  hills  and 
valleys,  embracing  the  modern  Hauran,  and 
further  south  the  mountains  of  the  ancient  Gilead 
and  Hashan.  The  dark  line  which  skirts  the 
horizon  on  the  west  is  the  Jlediterranean ;  the  rich 
plains  of  (ialijee  fill  up  the  intermediate  space  as 
tar  as  the  foot  of  Tabor.  The  ridge  of  Carmel 
lifts  its  head  in  the  northwest,  though  the  portion 
which  lies  directly  on  the  sea  is  not  distinctly 
visiiile.  On  the  north  and  northeast  we  behold 
tlie  last  ranges  of  I^banon  as  they  rise  into  the 
hills  about  Safed,  overtopped  in  the  rear  by  the 
snow-capped  Hermon,  and  still  nearer  to  us  the 
Horns  of  Hattin,  the  reputed  Mount  of  the  Beati- 
tudes. On  the  south  are  seen,  first  the  summits 
of  Gilboa,  which  David's  touching  elegy  on  Saul 
aid  .lonathar  has  fixed  forever  in  the  memory  of 
Oiajikiiid   and  furthei   onward  a  confused  view  of 


the  mountains  and  valleys  which  occupy  the 
central  part  of  Palestine.  Over  the  heads  of  I  'iihy 
and  Gilboa  the  spectator  looks  into  the  valley  of 
the  .lordan  in  the  neighborhood  of  IJeisan  (itself 
not  within  sight),  the  ancient  Beth-shean,  on  whose 
walls  the  rhilistines  hung  up  the  headless  trunk 
of  Saul,  after  their  victory  o\er  Israel.  Looking, 
across  a  branch  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  we 
behold  Endor,  the  abode  of  the  sorceress  whom  the 
king  consulted  on  the  night  before  his  fatal  liattle. 
Another  little  village  cHngs  to  the  hill-side  of 
another  ridge,  on  which  we  gaze  with  still  deeper 
interest.  It  is  Nain,  the  village  of  that  name  in 
the  New  Testament,  where  the  Saviour  touched 
the  bier,  and  restored  to  life  the  widow's  son.  The 
Saviour  nuist  have  passed  often  at  the  foot  of  this 
mount  in  the  course  of  his  journeys  in  different 
parts  of  (Jalilee.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the 
Hebrews  looked  up  with  so  much  admiration  to 
this  glorious    work  of   the   Creator's    bvid.     Thi 


TABOR  AND   MOUNT   TABOR 


3165 


janie  lieanty  rests  upon  its  brow  to-day,  flie  same 
richness  of  verdure  refreshes  the  eye,  in  contrast 
with  the  bleaker  aspect  of  so  many  of  the  adjacent 
mountains.  'J"he  Cliristiaii  traveller  yields  sponta- 
neously to  the  impression  of  wonder  and  devotion, 
and  aijpropriates  as  his  own  the  language  of  the 
psalmist  (Ixxxix.  11,  1-2) :  — 

"  The  heavens  are  thine,  the  earth  also  is  thine ; 
The  world  and  the  fullness  thereof,  thou  hast  found- 
ed them. 
The  north  and  tlie  south  thou  hast  created  them  ; 
Tabor  and  Hermon  shall  rejoice  in  thy  name." 

Tabor  does  not  occur  in  the  New  Testament, 
hut  makes  a  prominent  ficn-'-re  in  the  Old.  The 
book  of  Joshua  (xix.  22  mentions  it  as  the 
i'oundary  between  Issachai  and  Zeliuloii  (see  ver. 
12).  Harak,  at  the  command  of  Deliorah,  assem- 
bled his  forces  on  Tabor,  and,  on  the  arrival  of  the 
opportune  moment,  descended  thence  with  "  ten 
thousand  men  after  him  "  into  the  plain,  and  con- 
quered ISisera  on  the  banks  of  the  Kishon  (.luds;. 
iv.  6-15).  'I'he  brothers  of  Gideon,  each  of  whom 
"resemliled  the  children  of  a  king,''  were  murdered 
here  by  Zebah  and  Zalniunna  (■Indt!;.  viii.  18,  19). 
Some  writers,  after  Herder  and  others,  think  that 
Tabor  is  intended  when  it  is  said  of  Issachar  and 
Zebulon  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  19,  that  "  they  shall  call 
the  people  unto  the  mountain ;  there  they  shall 
ofter  sacrifices  of  righteousness."  Stanley,  who 
adopts  this  view  {Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  •3.51), 
remarks  that  he  was  struck  with  the  asiiect  of  the 
open  glades  on  the  summit  as  specially  fitted  for 
the  convocation  of  festive  assemblies,  and  could 
well  l)elieve  that  in  some  remote  age  it  may  have 
been  a  sanctuary  of  the  northern  tribes,  if  not  of 
the  whole  nation.  The  prophet  in  Hos.  v.  1,  re- 
proaches the  priests  and  royal  family  w^th  ha\-ing 
"  been  a  snare  on  Mispah  and  a  net  spread  upon 
Tabor."  The  charire  against  them  probalily  is 
that  they  had  set  up  idols  and  practiced  heathenish 
rites  on  the  high  places  which  were  usually  selected 
for  such  worship.  The  comparison  in  .ler.  xlvi. 
18,  "  as  Tabor  is  among  the  mountains  and  ( 'arniel 
by  the  sea,"  imports  apparently  that  these  heights 
were  proverbial  for  their  conspicuousness,  beauty, 
and  strength. 

Dr.  llobinson  (Researches,  ii.  •'lo-S)  has  thus 
descrilied  the  ruins  which  are  to  be  seen  at  [jresent 
on  the  summit  of  Tabor.  "  All  around  the  top  are 
the  foundations  of  a  thick  wall  built  of  laru'e  stones, 
some  of  which  are  lieveled,  showing  that  the  entire 
wall  was  perhaps  originally  of  that  character.  In 
several  parts  are  the  remains  of  towers  and  bastions. 
The  chief  remains  are  upon  the  ledge  of  rocks  on 
the  south  of  the  little  basin,  and  especially  towards 
its  eastern  end ;  here  are  —  in  indiscriminate  con- 
fusion —  walls,  and  arches,  and  foundations,  ap- 
parently of  dwelling-houses,  as  well  as  other  build- 
ings, some  of  hewn,  and  some  of  large  lie\eled 
stones.  The  walls  and  traces  of  a  fortress  are 
seen  here,  and  further  west  along  the  southern 
brow,  (if  whicii  one  tall  pointed  arch  of  a  Saracenic 
gateway  is  still  standing,  and  bears  the  name  of 
Bab  el-fl(iwa,  '  Gat«  of  the  Wind.'  Connected 
with  it  are  loopholes,  and  others  are  seen  near  by. 


«  Professor  Stanley,  in  his  Notices  of  Localities 
visitffJ  witk  tlie  Prince  of  Wales,  has  mentioned  .some 
particulars  attached  to  the  modern  liistory  of  Tabor 
^hich  appear  to  liare  escaped  former  travellers 
•'  The  fortress  of  which  the  ruins  crown  the  sununit, 
bfid  evidently  four  gateways,  like  those  by  which  the 


These  latter  fortifications  belong  to  the  era  of  the 
Crusades ;  but  the  large  beveled  stones  we  refer  to 
a  style  of  architecture  not  later  than  the  times  nf 
the  Romans,  liefore  which  period,  indeed,  a  town 
and  fortress  already  existed  on  JMount  Tabor.  In 
the  days  of  the  crusaders,  too,  and  earlier,  there 
were  here  churches  and  monasteries.  The  summit 
has  many  cisterns,  now  mostly  dry."  The  same 
wiiter  found  the  thermometer  here  at  10  a.  m. 
(June  18th)  at  98°  F.,  at  sunrise  at  61°,  and  at 
sunset  at  74°.  The  Latin  Christians  have  now  an 
altar  here,  at  which  their  priests  from  Nazareth 
perform  an  annual  mass.  The  Greeks  also  have 
a  chapel,  where,  on  certain  festivals,  they  assemble 
for  the  celebration  of  religious  rites." 

Jlost  travellers  who  have  visited  Tabor  in  recent 
times  have  found  it  utterly  solitary  so  far  as  re;:ards 
the  presence  of  human  occupants.  It  happened  to 
the  writer  on  his  visit  here  (18.")2)  to  meet,  un- 
expectedly, with  four  men  who  had  taken  up  tlieir 
al)ode  in  this  retreat,  so  well  suited  to  encourage 
the  devotion  of  religious  de\otees.  One  of  them 
was  an  aged  priest  of  the  Greek  Church,  a  native 
of  Wallachia,  named  Erinna,  accordintr  to  his  own 
account  more  than  a  hundred  years  old,  who  had 
come  here  to  await  the  final  advent  of  Christ. 
Dean  Stanley  found  the  old  hermit  still  living  in 
1862.  According  to  his  own  story,  Erinna  "in  his 
early  years  received  an  intimation  in  his  sleep  that 
he  was  to  build  a  chm-ch  on  a  mountain  shown  to 
him  in  his  dream.  He  wandered  through  maii-y 
countries,  and  found  his  mountain  at  last  in  Tabcir. 
There  he  lived  and  collected  money  from  pilgrims, 
which  at  his  death,  a  few  years  ago,  amounted  to 
a  sufficient  sura  to  raise  the  church,  whicli  is 
a|>proaching  completion.  He  was  remarkal)le  for 
his  long  beard  and  for  a  tame  panther,  which,  like 
the  ancient  hermits,  he  made  his  constant  com- 
panion"' (Sernii>ns  in  the  I'lasl,  p.  191  f.).  He 
was  a  man  of  huge  jjhysical  proportions,  and  stf«iil 
forth  as  a  good  witness  for  the  efficacy  of  the  diet 
of  milk  and  herbs,  on  which,  accoi'ding  to  liis  own 
account,  he  subsisted.  I'he  other  three  men  were 
natives  of  the  same  jirovince.  Two  of  them,  havii.g 
iieen  to  Jerusalem  and  the  .lordan  on  a  pilgriniau'e 
had  taken  I'abor  in  their  way  on  their  return 
homeward,  where,  fi}iding  unexpectedly'  the  priest, 
whom  they  happened  to  know,  they  resohed  to 
remain  with  him  for  a  time  One  of  them  was 
deliberating  whether  he  should  not  take  up  his  per- 
manent abode  there.  The  fourth  jjerson  was  a 
young  man,  a  relative  of  the  priest,  who  seemed  to 
have  taken  on  himself  the  filial  office  of  caring  for 
his  aged  friend  in  the  Last  extremity.  In  the 
monastic  ages  Tabor,  in  consequence,  partly,  of  a 
belief  that  it  was  the  scene  of  the  Saviour's  trans- 
figuration, was  crowded  with  hermits.  It  was  one 
of  the  shrines  from  the  earliest  period  which  pilgrims 
to  the  Holy  Land  regarded  it  as  a  sacred  duty  to 
honor  with  their  i)resence  and  their  ])rayei-s. 
.lerome,  in  his  Itinerary  of  I'aula.  writes,  '•  Scan- 
debat  monteni  Thalior,  in  quo  transHguratus  est 
Domiims;  aspiciebat  procul  Hermon  et  Ilernionim 
et  campos  latLssimos  Galila'Oi  (Jesreel),  in  quibus 
Sisara  pi-ostratus  est.     Torrens  Cison  qui  niediam 

great  Konian  camps  of  ou  '  own  country  were  entered. 
By  one  of  these  gateways  my  attention  was  called  to 
an  Arabic  inscription,  said  to  be  the  only  one  on  th« 
mountain."'  It  records  the  bnikling  or  rebuilding  of 
"  this  blessed  forrress  "  by  the  order  of  the  Sult;iu  Abo 
Bekr  ou  his  return  from  the  Vast  a.  a   ii07. 


3166 


TABOR 


plaiiitiera  divklelat,  et  oppidum  justa,  N'aim,  mon- 
straliaiitur." 

This  idea  that  our  Saviour  was  transfigured  on 
Tabor  prevailed  extensively  among  such  of  tlie 
>  sarly  Christians  as  adopted  legends  of  this  nature 
(though  not  earlier  than  the  6th  century),  and  re- 
appears often  still  in  popular  religious  works.  If 
one  might  choose  a  place  which  he  would  deem 
peculiarly  fitting  for  so  subUnie  a  transaction,  there 
is  none  certainly  which  would  so  entirely  satisfy 
our  feelings  in  this  respect  as  the  lofty,  majestic, 
beautiful  Talior.  It  is  impossible,  however,  to 
acquiesce  in  the  correctness  of  this  opinion.  It  is 
susce|)tible  of  proof  from  the  Old  Testament,  and 
from  later  history,  that  a  fortress  or  town  existed 
on  Tabor  from  very  early  times  down  to  b.  c.  50 
or  53;  and  as  Josephus  says  {BM.  Jud.  iv.  1,  §  8) 
that  he  strengthened  the  fortifications  of  a  city 
there,  about  .\.  i>  GO,  it  is  morally  certain  that 
Tabor  nnist  have  been  inhabited  during  the  inter- 
vening period,  that  is,  in  the  days  of  Christ. 
Tabor,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  the  Mount 
of  Transfiguration;  for  when  it  is  said  that  .Jesus 
took  his  disciples  "  up  into  a  high  mountain  apart 
and  was  transfigured  before  them"  (Matt.  xvii.  1, 
2),  we  nuist  understand  that  He  brought  them  to 
the  summit  of  the  mountain,  where  they  were  alone 
by  themselves  {Kar  Ibiav)-  It  is  impossible  to 
ascertain  with  certainty  what  place  is  entitled  to 
the  glory  of  this  marvelous  scene.  The  evan- 
gelists record  the  event  in  connection  with  a  jour- 
ney of  the  Saviour  to  Caisarea  Pliilipi)i,  near  the 
sources  of  the  Jordan.  It  is  conjectured  that  the 
Transfiguration  niaj'  have  taken  place  on  one  of  the 
summits  of  Mount  Hernion  in  that  vicinity.  [Hek- 
Mox,  Amer.  ed.]  See  liitter's  t'rdkuiult,  xv.  o'Ji 
ff. ;  and  Lichtenstein's  Leben  ./csm,  p.  .309.  For 
the  history  of  the  tradition  which  connects  Tabor 
with  the    Transfiguration,  consult  Koliinson's  Re- 

^  se'nx/its,  ii.  358,  359.    [Thansfigukatiox,  Amer. 

^  ed.]  H.  B.  H. 

TA'BOR  (~l'l3ri  [/H'»y(<] :  [Vat.]  0axxf'«; 
[Kom.]  Alex.  @al3aip:  Tliabor)  is  mentioned  in 
the  lists  of  1  Chr.  vi.  as  a  city  of  the  jMerarite  Le- 
vites,  in  the  tribe  of  Zebuluii  (ver.  77).  The  cata- 
logue of  Levitical  cities  in  Josh.  xxi.  does  not  con- 
tain any  name  answering  to  this  (comp.  vers.  34, 
35).  13ut  the  list  of  the  towns  of  Zebulun  (ib. 
six.)  contains  the  name  of  Chisloth-Tabok  (ver. 
12).  It  is,  therefore,  possible,  either  that  Chisloth- 
Tabor  is  abbreviated  into  Taljor  by  the  chronicler, 
or  that  by  the  time  these  later  lists  were  compiled, 
the  Alerarites  had  established  themselves  on  the 
Bacred  mountain,  and  that  Tabor  is  Mount  Taljor. 

G. 

TA'BOR,  THE  PLAIN  OF  (~l'"13ri  V"^^*;? 
[oak  of  the  heiyhi]:  rj  Spus  Qa^wp'  que7'cus  Tha- 
bor).  It  has  lieen  already  pointed  out  [see  Plain, 
iii.  254:7  f.],  that  this  is  an  incorrect  translation, 
and  should  Ije  the  Oak  of  Tabok.  It  is  men- 
tioned in  1  Sam.  x.  3,  only  as  one  of  the  points  in 
the  homeward  journey  of  Saul  after  his  anointing 
by  Samuel.  It  was  the  next  stage  in  the  journey 
after  "  Kachel's  sepulchre  at  Zelzach."  But  un- 
forttmately,  like  so  many  of  the  other  spots  named 
in  this  interesting  passage,  the  position  of  the  Oak 
»f  Tabor  has  not  yet  been  fixed. 

Ewald  seems  to  consider  it  certain  (fjewiss)  that 
Tabor  and  Deborah  are  merely  difTerent  modes  of 
pronouncing  the  same  name,  and  he  accordingly 
wieatifies  the  Oak  of  Tabor  with  the  tree  under 


TACHMONITE,  THE 

which  Deborah,  Rachel's  nurse,  was  buried  (Gen. 
xxxv.  8),  and  that  again  with  the  palm,  under 
which  Deborah  the  prophetess  delivered  her  oracles 
{Gescli.  iii.  29,  i.  390,  ii.  489),  and  this  again  with 
the  Oak  of  the  old  Prophet  near  Bethel  (ib.  iii. 
444).  But  this,  though  most  ingenious,  can  only 
be  received  as  a  conjecture,  and  the  position  on 
which  it  would  land  us  —  "  between  Kamah  and 
Bethel"  (Judg.  iv.  5),  is  too  far  from  Kachel's 
sepulchre  to  fall  in  with  the  conditions  of  the  nar- 
rative of  Saul's  journey,  as  long  as  we  hold  that  to 
be  the  traditional  sepulchre  near  Bethlehem.  A 
further  opportunity  for  examining  this  most  puz- 
zling route  will  occur  under  Zelzah  ;  but  the 
writer  is  not  sanguine  enough  to  hope  that  any 
light  can  be  thrown  on  it  in  the  present  state  of 
our  knowledge.     [See  Ramah,  Amer.  ed.]     G. 

TABRET.     [Timbrel.] 

TAB'RIMOX  (]b-i:?^:  Ta&epe/xd;  Alex. 
Ta^evpaT]fj.a'  Tahrtmon).  Properly,  Tabriraraon, 
i.  e.  "good  is  Rimmon,"  the  Syrian  god;  compare 
the  analogous  forms  Tobiel,  Tobiah,  and  the  Phoe- 
nician Tab-aram  (Gesen.  Mon.  Plicen.  p.  450). 
The  father  of  Benhadad  I.,  king  of  S}Tia  in  the 
reign  of  Asa  (1  K.  xv.  18). 

TACHE  P;7i7.:  kp'ikos-  circulus.fibula).  The 
word  thus  rendered  occurs  only  in  the  description 
of  the  structure  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  fittings 
(Ex.  xxvi.  6,  11,  33,  xxxv.  11,  xxxvi.  13,  xxxix. 
33),  and  appears  to  indicate  the  small  hooks  by 
which  a  curtain  is  suspended  to  the  rings  from 
which  it  hangs,  or  connected  vertically,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  \eil  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  with  the 
loops  of  another  curtain.  The  history  of  the  Eng- 
lish word  is  philologically  interesting,  as  presenting 
points  of  contact  with  many  different  languages. 
The  Gaelic  and  Breton  branches  of  the  Keltic  fam- 
ily give  tnc,  or  iach,  in  the  sense  of  a  nail  or  hook. 
The  latter  meaning  appears  in  the  attnccire,  sfac- 
cnre,  of  Italian,  in  the  aflacltei;  detacher,  of  French. 
On  the  other  h.«.nd,  in  the  tak  of  Dutch,  and  the 
Zacke  of  German,  we  have  a  word  of  like  sound 
and  kindred  meaning.  Our  Anglo-Saxon  iaccan 
and  English  take  (to  seize  as  with  a  hook '?)  are 
probably  coimected  with  it.  In  later  use  the  word 
has  slightly  altered  both  its  form  and  meaning,  and 
the  tack  is  no  longer  a  hook,  but  a  small  flat-headed 
nail  (comp.  Diez,  Roman.  Worteb.  s.  v.  Tacco). 

E.  H.  P. 

TACHMONITE,  THE  C^Dbiq^D  [see 
below]  :  6  'S.avavaios  \  [Comp.  6  mhs  ©eK^jxavi :] 
S(ipientissimus).  "  The  Tachmonite  (properly, 
Tachcemonite)  that  sat  in  the  seat,"  chief  among 
David's  captains  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  8),  is  in  1  Chr. 
xi.  11  called  "Jashobeam  an  Hachmonite,"  or,  aa 
the  mai'gin  gives  it,  -'son  of  Hachmoni."  The 
Geneva  version  has  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8,  "  He  that 
sate  in  the  seate  of  wisedome,  being  chiefe  of  the 
princes,  was  Adino  of  Ezni,"  regardinr  "  Tach- 
monite"  as  an  adjective  derived  from  —'9'7)  '^'''*" 
cam,  "  wise,"  and  in  this  derivation  following 
Kimchi.  Kennicott  has  shown,  vi'ith.  much  ap- 
pearance   of   probability,  that    the    words     3ti7^ 

n^'-^?)  yi'isheb  basshebeih,  "  he  that  sat  in  the 
seat,"  are  a  corruption  of  Jashobeam,  the  true 
name  of  the  hero,  and  that  the  mistake  arose 
from  an   error  of  the  transcriber,   who    carelesslj* 

inserted  HQ*^''!!  from  the  previous  verse  where  it 


TACKLING 

sccurs.  Flo  further  considers  "  the  Tachnionite  " 
tt  corruption  of  the  appellation  in  Cijronicles,  "  son 
of  Ha<;hnioni,"  whicli  was  the  family  or  local  name 
of  Jashobeam.     "  The  name   here  in  Samuel  was 

at  first  ''D^Dnn,  the  article  H  at  the  beginning 

having  been  corrupted  into  a  H;  for  the  word  I'D, 
in  Chronicles  is  regularly  supplied  in  Samuel  by 
that  article  "  (Distserl.  p.  82).  Therefore  he  con- 
cludes "Jashobeam  the  Hachmonite"  to  have  been 
tlie  true  reading.  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  4) 
calls  him  'leVcro/ioy  vihs  'Ax^/J-aiou,  which  favors 
Kennicott's  emendation.  ^\^  A.  W. 

*  TACKLING.  For  this  nautical  term  in 
Acts  xsvii.  17,  see  Ship  (G).  It  occurs  also  Is. 
xxxiii.    23,    where   in    the    prophet's    allegory    it 

(72n)  refers  to  the  ropes  connected  with  the  ves- 
sel's mast  and  sails.  H. 

TAD'MOR  ("ibiri  [prob.  city  of  palms]: 
[in  1  K.  ix.  18,  Horn.  Vat.  omit,  Alex.  Oepfiad;  in  2 
Chr.,  Kom.]  Qo^Sfiop,  [Vat.  QoeSo/uop,  Alex.  @eS- 
jtiop:]  Pulmird),  called  '•  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness  " 
(2  Chr.  viii.  4).  There  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
this  city,  said  to  have  been  built  by  Solomon,  is  the 
same  as  the  one  known  t«  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
and  to  modern  Europe  by  the  name,  in  some  form 
or  other,  of  Palmyra  (TlaA/j-vpa.,  naKfiipd,  Pal- 
mira). The  identity  of  the  two  cities  results  from 
the  following  circumstances :  1st,  The  same  city  is 
specially  mentioned  by  .Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  6,  §  1) 
as  bearing  in  his  time  the  name  of  Tadmor  among 
the  Syrians,  and  Palmyra  among  the  Greeks;  and 
in  his  Latin  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  Je- 
rome translates  Tadmor  by  Palmira  (2  Chr.  viii.  4). 
2dly,  The  modern  Arabic  nanje  of  Palmyra  is 
substantially  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  word,  being 
Tadmur  or  Tathmur.  3dly,  The  word  Tadmor 
has  neaily  the  same  meaning  as  Palmyra,  signifying 
probably  the  "  City  of  Palms,"  from  Taraar,  a  palm ; 
and  tills  is  contirmed  by  the  Arabic  word  for  Palma, 
a  Spanish  tow!i  on  the  Guadalquivir,  which  is  said 
to  be  called  Tadniir  (see  Gesenius  in  his  Tkes'iicrus, 
p.  345).  4thly,  The  name  Tadmor  or  Tadmor 
actually  occurs  as  tlie  name  of  the  city  in  Aramaic 
and  Greek  inseri[)t!ons  which  have  been  found 
there.  Sthly,  In  the  Chronicles,  the  city  is  men- 
tioned as  having  been  built  by  Solomon  after  his 
co?)quest  of  Hamath  Zobah,  and  it  is  named  in 
conjunction  with  "all  the  store-cities  which  he 
built  in  Hamath."  This  accords  fully  with  the 
situation  of  Palmyra  [HA:M.\Tn];  and  there  is 
no  other  known  city,  either  in  the  desert  or  not  in 
the  desert,  which  can  lay  claim  to  the  name  of 
Tadmor. 

In  addition  to  the  passage  in  the  Chronicles, 
there  is  a  passage  in  the  book  of  Kings  (1  K.  ix. 
18)  in  which,  according  to  the  marginal  reading 
(ATej'j),  the  statement  that- Solomon  built  Tadmor 
likewise  occurs.  lint  on  referring  to  the  original 
text  {CUldh),  the  word  is  found  to  be  not  Tadmor, 
but  Tamar.  Now,  as  all  the  other  towns  men- 
tioned in  this  pa,ssage  with  Tamar  are  in  I'alestine 
(Gezer,  Beth-horon,  Baalath),  as  it  is  said  of 
Tamar  that  it  was  "  in  the  wilderness  //*  the  Ian'/" 
and  as,  in  Ezekiel's  prophetical  description  of  the 


TADMOR 


3167 


n  A  misunderstanding  of  this  passage  has  counte- 
nanced the  ideas  of  those  who  believe  in  a  future  sec- 
smd  return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine.  This  belief  may, 
tndvr  peculiarly  favorable  circumstances,  lead  here-  '  any  Hebrew  prophet. 


Holy  Land,  there  is  a  Tamar  mentioned  as  one  of 
the  borders  of  the  land  on  the  south  (Ez.  xlviii 
I'J),  wliere,  as  is  notorious,  there  is  a  desert,  it  it 
probal)le  that  the  author  of  the  book  of  Kings  did 
not  really  mean  to  refer  to  Palmyra,  and  that  the 
marginal  reading  of  "  Tadmor  "  was  founded  on  the 
passage  in  the  Chronicles  (see  Theuius,  £xe(/ttisekes 
Handbuch,  1  K.  ix.  18). 

If  this  is  admitted,  the  suspicion  naturally  sug- 
gests itself,  that  the  compiler  of  the  Chronicles  may 
have  misapprehended  the  original  passage  in  the 
book  of  Kings,  and  may  have  incorrectly  written 
"  Tadmor  "  instead  of  "  'himar."   On  this  hypothe- 
sis there  would  have  been  a  curious  circle  of  mis- 
takes; and  the  final  result  would  be,  that  any  sup- 
posed connection   between   Solomon  and  the  foun- 
dation of    Palmyra    must   be    regarded  as  furtly 
iniaginary.     This  conclusion  is  not  necessarily  in- 
correct or  um'easonable,  but  there  are  not  sufficient 
reasons  for  adojiting   it.     In   the  first   place,  the 
Tadmor  of    the   Chronicles    is    not  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  same  cities  as  the  Tamar  of 
the  Kings,  so  there  is  nothing  cogent  to  suggest 
the  inference  that  the  statement  of  the  Chronicles 
was  cojiied  from  the  Kings.     Secondly,  admitting 
the  historical  correctness  of  the  statement  that  the 
kingdom  of  Solomon  extended  from  Gaza,  near  the 
Mediterranean    Sea,  to  Tiphsidi   or  Thapsacus,  on 
the  Euphrates  (1  K.  iv.  24;  comp.  Ps.  Ixxii.  8,  0), 
it  would  be  in  the   highest  degree  probable  that 
Solomon  occupied  and  garrisoned  such  a  very  im- 
portant station  for  Connecting  different  parts  of  hia 
dominions  as  Palmyra.     And,  even  without  refer- 
ence  to    military  and    political   considerations,   it 
would  have  been  a  masterly  policy  in  Solomon  to 
have  secured    Palmyra  as  a  point  of  commercial 
communication  with  the   Euphrates,  Babylon,  and 
the  Persian  Gulf.     It  is  evident  that  Solomon  had 
largi.  views  of  commerce;  and  as  we  know  that  he 
availed  himself  of  the  nautical  skill  of  the  Tyrians 
by  causing  some  of  his  own  subjects  to  accompany 
them   in  distant  voyages  from  a  port  on  the  Ked 
Sea  (1  K.  ix.  26,  27,  28,   x.  22),  it  is  unlikely  that 
he  should  have  neglected  trade  by  land  with  such 
a   centre  of   wealth  and  civilization   as    Babylon. 
But  that  gi-eat  city,  though  so  nearly  in  the  same 
latitude  with  Jerusalem  that   there  is  not  the  dif- 
ference of  even  one  degree  between  them,  was  sei> 
arated   from   Jerusalem  by  a  great  desert,  so  that 
regular   direct    communication    between    the   two 
cities  was  impracticable.     In  a  celebrated  passage, 
indeed,   of   Isaiah    (xl.   3),   connected    with    "the 
voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,"  imagea 
are   introduced   of  a  direct  return   of  the  Jewish 
exiles  from  Babylon  through   the  desert.     Such  a 
route  was   known  to  the   Bedawin  of  the   desert; 
and   may  have   been  exceptionally  passed  over   by 
others;  but  e\idently  these  images  are  only  poetical, 
and  it  may  be  deemed  indisputable  that  the  sue 
cessive  caravans  of  .lews  who  returned  to  their  own 
land  from  Babylon  arrived  from  the  same  quarter 
as  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  Chaldaians  (Jer.  i.  14 
15.  x.  22,  XXV.  9),  namely,  from  the  North.    In  fact, 
Babylon  thus  became  so  associated  with  the  North 
in  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  tiiat  in  one  passage  of 
Jeremiah"  (xxiii.  8)  it  is  called  "the  North  coun- 
try," and  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  many 

after  to  its  own  realization.  It  has  not,  however,  beec 
hitherto  really  proved  that  a  second  ji.spersiou  or  » 
second  return  of  the  Jews  was  ever  cos; '  em  plated  bj 


3168  TADMOK 

of  the  Jews  may  have  been  ignorant  that  Babylon 
was  nearly  due  east  from  Jerusalem,  althouuh 
somewhat  more  than  600  miles  distant.  Now,  the 
way  in  which  Palmyra  would  have  l)een  useful  to 
Solomon  in  trade  between  Babylon  and  the  west 
is  evident  from  a  glance  at  a  good  map.  By 
merely  following  the  road  up  the  stream  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  the  traveller  goes  in 
a  northwesterly  direction,  and  the  width  of  the 
desert  becomes  proportionally  less,  till  at  length, 
from  a  point  on  the  Euphrates,  there  are  only 
about  120  miles  across  the  desert  to  Palmyra," 
and  thence  aliout  the  same  distance  across  the 
deseit  to  Damascus.  From  Damascus  there  were 
ultimately  two  roads  into  Palestine,  one  on  each  I 
side  of  the  Jordan;  and  there  was  an  easy  com- 
munication with  Tyre  by  Paneias,  or  Caesarea 
Philippi,  now  Ban'ms.  It  is  true  that  the  Assyrian 
and  L'haldee  armies  did  not  cross  tlie  desert  by 
Palmyra.  Ijut  took  the  more  circuitous  road  by 
Hamath  on  the  Orontes:  but  this  was  doubtless 
Dwincr  to  the  greater  facilities  which  that  route 
jflbrded  for  ths  subsistence  of  the  cavalry  of  which 


TADMOil 

those  armies  were  mainly  composed.  For  me»« 
purposes  of  tra('.:^  the  shorter  road  by  Palmyra 
had  some  decided  advantages,  as  long  as  it  wag 
thoroughly  secure.  See  Movers,  Bus  Phonizischi 
Alterthum,  .Ster  Theil,  p.  243,  &c. 

Hence  theie  are  not  sufficiently  valid  reasons  for 
denying  the  statemei  t  in  the  Chronicles  that  Solo- 
mon built  Tadmor  i>i  the  wilderness,  or  Palmyra. 
As,  however,  the  city  is  nowhere  else  mentioned  in 
the  whole  Bible,  it  would  be  out  of  place  to  enter 
into  a  long,  detailed  history  of  it  on  the  present 
occasion.  The  following  leading  facts,  however, 
may  be  mentioned.  The  first  author  of  antiquity 
who  mentions  Palmyra  is  Pliny  the  Elder  {HiU 
Nat.  1.  2fi),  who  says,  "  P.dmira  nobilis  urbs  situ, 
divitiis  soli  et  aquis  amoenis  vasto  undique  ambitu 
arenis  includit  auros;  "  and  tlien  proceeds  to  speak  of 
it  as  placed  apart,  as  it  were  between  the  two  em- 
pires of  the  liomans  and  the  Parthians,  and  as  the 
first  object  of  solicitude  to  each  at  the  commence- 
ment of  war.  Afterwards  it  was  mentioned  by  Ap- 
pian  (De  J3dl.  Ciril.  v.  9),  in  reference  to  a  still 
earlier  period  of  time,  in  connection  with  a  desigD 


t\um-  of  1  I  Inior  oi  Piluiju 


of  J I  ark  Antony  to  let  his  cavalry  jibnider  it.  The 
inhaliitants  are  said  to  have  withdrawn  themselves 
Rnd  their  effects  to  a  strong  position  on  the  lui- 
phrates — and  the  cavalry  entered  an  empty  city. 
In  the  second  century  a.  d.  it  seems  to  have  been 
beautified  l)y  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  as  may  be  in- 
ferred from  a  statement  of  Stephanus  of  Byzantium 
as  to  the  name  of  the  city  having  been  changed  to 
Hadrianopolis  (s.  v.  HaAjuupa).  In  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  A.  D.  it  became  a  lioman 
colony  under  Caracalla  (211-217  A.  d.),  and  re- 
ceived the  jus  Italicum.  Subsequently,  in  the  reign 
of  Gallienus,  the  Roman  Senate  invested  Odena- 
thus,  a  senator  of  Palmyra,  with  the  regal  dignity, 
on  accoimt  of  his  services  in  defeating  Sapor  king 
of  Persia.  On  the  assassination  of  Odenathus,  his 
celebrated  wife  Zenobia  seems  to  have  conceived 
the  design  of  erecting  Palmyra  into  an  iiide|iendent 
monarchy;  and  in  prosecution  of  tliis  object,  she 
for  a  while  successfully  resisted  the  Roman  arms. 

a  The  exact  latitude  and  longitude  of  Palmyra  do 
jot  seem  to  hafe  beeu  scientifically  taken.  Mr.  Wood 
luentious  that  his  party  had  uo  riuadraut  with  them, 


She  was  at  length  defeated  and  takei  captive  bj 
the  Emperor  Aurelian  (A.  d.  27-3),  who  left  a 
Roman  garrison  in  Palmyra.  This  garrison  was 
massacred  in  a  revolt;  and  Aurelian  punished  the 
city  by  the  execution  not  only  of  those  who  were 
taken  in  arms,  but  likewise  of  common  peasants,  of 
old  men,  women,  and  children.  From  this  blow 
Palmyra  never  recovered,  though  there  are  proo.'J! 
of  its  having  continued  to  be  inhabited  until  t'"» 
downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  There  is  a  frag 
ment  of  a  building,  with  a  Latin  inscription,  bear- 
ing the  name  of  Diocletian ;  and  there  are  existing 
walls  of  the  city  of  the  age  of  the  Emperor  Justinian. 
In  1172,  Benjamin  of  Tudela  found  4,000  Jews 
there;  and  at  a  later  period  Abulfeda  mentioned  it 
as  full  of  splendid  ruins.  Subsequently  its  very 
existence  had  become  unknown  to  modern  Europe, 
when,  in  1G91  A.  d.,  it  was  visited  by  some  mer- 
chants from  the  EngUsh  Aictory  in  Aleppo;  and  an 
account  of  their  discoveries  was  pubhshed  in  1695 


and  there  is  a  disagreement  between  various  inapi 
and  geofrraphical  works.  According  to  J^r.  Johnston 
the  position  is.  lat.  34''  18'  X.,  and  long  38°  13/  S. 


TAHAN 

in  the  Plnlusophical  Trans  tctiuns  (vol.  six.  No. 
2ir,  p.  83,  No.  218,  p.  129).  In  1751,  Kobert 
\\'oocl  took  drawinj;.s  of  the  ruins  on  a  very  large 
scale,  which  he  published  in  1753,  in  a  splendid  folio 
work,  under  the  title  of  Tlie  Ruins  of  Ptdinyrd, 
otherwise^  Tndmvr  in  the  J)tsti-t.  This  work  still 
continues  to  be  the  best  on  I'almyra;  and  its  valu- 
able engravings  fully  justify  the  powerful  impression 
which  the  ruins  make  on  every  intelligent  traveller 
who  crosses  the  desert  to  visit  them.  The  colon- 
nade and  individual  temples  are  inferior  in  beauty 
and  majesty  to  those  which  may  be  seen  elsewhere 
—  such,  for  example,  as  the  Parthenon,  and  the  re- 
mains of  the  Temple  of  .lupiter,  at  Atiiens:  and 
there  is  evidently  no  one  temple  equal  to  the  Temple 
of  the  Sun  at  Baalbek,  which,  as  built  both  at  about 
tiie  same  period  of  time  and  in  the  same  order  of 
architecture,  suggests  itself  most  naturally  as  an 
object  of  comparison.  But  the  long  lines  of  Corin- 
thian columns  at  Palmyra,  as  seen  at  a  distance, 
are  peculiarly  imposing;  and  in  their  geneial  effect 
and  apparent  vastness,  tliey  seem  to  surpass  all 
other  ruins  of  the  same  kind.  All  the  buildings  to 
which  these  columns  belonged  were  probably  erected 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries  of  our  era.  Many 
inscriptions  are  of  later  date,  but  no  inscription 
earlier  than  the  second  century  seems  yet  to  have 
been  discovered. 

For  further  information  consult  the  original  au- 
thorities for  the  history  of  Palmyra  in  the  ISeiip- 
iurts  HisloricB  Aii^tistie,  Triyiiita  Tyi'unni,  xiv., 
Divus  Aurelianus,  xxvi. ;  Kutropius,  ix.  cap.  10, 
11,  12.  In  1696  A.  D.,  Abraham  Seller  published 
a  most  instructive  w^ork  entitled,  The  Antiquities 
of  PiiLnyra,  conictininij  the  llistury  of  the  L'ity  und 
its  Emperors^  which  contains  several  Greek  inscrip- 
tions, with  translations  and  explanations.  The 
Preface  to  Wood's  work  likewise  contains  a  detailed 
history  of  the  city;  and  Gibbon,  in  the  11th  chap- 
ter of  the  Decline  and  Fall,  has  gi\en  an  account 
of  Palmyra  with  his  usual  vigor  and  accuracy.  For 
an  interesting  account  of  the  present  state  of  tlie 
ruins  see  Porter's  Uandbouk  for  Syiin  and  P<des- 
tine,  pp.  5-13-54:9,  and  Beautort's  Egyptian  Sepul- 
chres, etc.,  vol.  i.  E.  T. 

TA'HAN  Cjni^  [tent-place,  encamjmwntl : 
Tavdxi  &aev'  Thelien,  Thaun).  A  descendant  of 
Epbraim,  but  of  what  degree  is  uncertain  (Num. 
xxvi.  35).  In  1  Chr.  vii.  25  he  appears  as  the  son 
of  Telah. 

TA'HANITES,  THE  C^^nriri  [patr.] :  6 
Tavax'-  [Vat.  -^ei]  '•  Thehenitie).  The  descend- 
ants of  the  preceding,  a  branch  of  the  tribe  of  Eph- 
raim  (Num.  xxvi.  35). 

*  TAHAP'ANES.     [T.mipaxhes.] 
TA'HATH  (nnri    {place,   station]:    Qadd; 
[Vat.  in  ver.  2i,  KaaS:]    Thahath).     1.   A  Koha- 
thite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Samuel  and  Heman  (1  Chr. 
/i.  24,  37  [9,  22]). 

2.  (0aaS;  [Vat.  omits;]  Alex.  0oa0.)  Ac- 
cording to  the  present  text,  son  of  Bered,  and  great- 
grandson  of  Ephraim  (1  Chr.  vii.  20).  Burring- 
ton,  however  (Ge)ieal.  i.  273),  identifies  Tahath 
with  Tahan,  the  son  of  Ephraim. 

3.  (2aa0;  [Vat.  Noo^e;]  Alex.  NoAiee-)  Grnnd- 
wn  of  the  preceding,  us  the  text  now  stands  (I  Chr. 
rii.  20).  But  Burrington  considers  him  as  a  son 
Df  Ephraim  (ii.  tab.  xix.).  In  this  case  Tahath 
iraa  one  of  the  sons  of  Epliraim  who  were  slain  by 
the  men  of  Gath  in  a  raid  made  upon  their  cattle. 


TAHPANHES 


3169 


TA'HATH  (nnri  [see  Mow] :  KaradO  : 
[Thahath]).  The  name  of  a  desert-station  of  the 
Israelites  between  iMakheloth  and  Tarah  (Num. 
xxxiii.  26).  The  name,  signifying  "under"  or 
"below,"  may  relate  to  the  level  of  the  ground. 
The  site  has  not  been  identified. 

Tachta,  from  the  same  root,  is  the  common  word 
employed  to  designate  the  lower  one  of  the  double 
villages  so  common  in  Syria,  the  upper  one  being 
fikn.  Thus  Beitur  el-fuku  is  the  upper  Beth- 
horon,  Beitur  el-tachta  the  lower  one.         H.  H. 

TAHPANHES,         TEHAPH'NEHES, 

TAHAP'ANES    (Dnp^nn,    Dji:??nip, 

D39ni^,  the  last  form  in  text,  but  Keri  has  first 
[see  below]:  'Vd<pvas,'Td(bi'ai.'-  Tiiphnis,  Taphne). 
A  city  of  l\gypt,  of  importance  in  the  time  of  the 
prophets  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  The  name  is  evi 
dently  Egyptian,  and  closely  resembles  that  of  the 
Egyptian   queen  Tahpenes.     The    Coptic    name 

of  this  place.  X^cbJt<J-Cj  (Quatrem6re,  Mem. 
Geofj.  el  Hist.  i.  297,  298),  is  evidently  derived  from 
the  LXX.  form :  the  Gr.  and  Lat.  forms,  Adcpvai, 
Hdt.,  Aa.(pi'r},  Steph.  Byz.,  Dafno,  Itin.  Ant.,  are 
perhaps  nearer  to  the  Egyptian  original  (see  Par- 
they,  Zur  Krdicunde  des  Alteii  Ai^yypttns,  p.  528). 

Tahpanhes  was  evidently  a  town  of  Lower  Egynt 
near  or  on  the  eastern  border.  When  .Johanan  and 
the  other  captains  went  into  Egypt  "  they  came  to 
Tahpanhes"  (.Jer.  xliii.  7).  Here  Jeremiah  proph- 
esied the  conquest  of  the  country  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar (8-13).  Ezekiel  foretells  a  battle  to  be 
there  fought  aijparently  by  the  king  of  Babylon 
just  mentioned  (xxx.  18).  The  Jews  in  Jeremiah's 
time  remained  here  (.ler.  xliv.  1).  It  was  an  im- 
portant town,  being  twice  mentioned  by  the  latter 
prophet  with  Noph  or  Memphis  (ii.  16,  xlvi.  14), 
as  well  as  in  the  passage  last  previously  cited.  Here 
stood  a  house  of  Pharaoh  Hophra  before  which 
Jeremiah  hid  great  stones,  where  the  throne  of 
Nelmchadnezzar  would  afterwards  be  set,  and  his 
pavilion  spread  (xliii.  8-10).  It  is  mentioned  with 
"Kamesse  and  all  the  land  of  Gesen  "  in  Jud.  i.  9. 
Herodotus  calls  this  place  Daphna;  of  Pelusium 
{Aacpvai  ai'nr)Kov(jiai^:,  and  relates  that  Psammet- 
ichus  I.  here  had  a  garrison  against  the  Arabians 
and  Syrians,  as  at  Elephantine  against  the  Ethio- 
pians, and  at  Marea  against  Libya,  adding  that  in 
his  own  time  the  Persians  had  garrisons  at  Daph- 
na;  and  Elephantiiw  (ii.  30).  Daphnae  was  there- 
fore a  very  important  post  under  the  XXVIth 
dynasty.  According  to  Stephanus  it  was  near 
Pelusium  (s.  v.). 

In  the  Itinerary  of  Antoninus  this  town,  called 
Difno,  is  placed  16  Konian  miles  to  the  southwest 
of  Pelusium  (ap.  Parthey,  JNIap  vi.,  where  observe 
that  the  name  of  Pelusium  is  omitted).  This  po- 
sition seems  to  agree  with  that  of  Tel-Defenueh, 
which  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  supposes  to  mark  the 
site  of  Daphn*  {.)fo(tern  Kijypt  <ind  Thebes,  i.  447, 
448).  This  identification  favors  the  inland  posi- 
tion of  the  site  of  Pelusium,  if  we  may  trust  to  the 
distance  stated  in  the  Itinerary.  [Sin.]  Sir  ti. 
\\'ilkinson  (/.  c.)  thinks  it  was  an  outpost  of  Pelu- 
sium. It  may  be  observed  that  tiie  Camps,  toi 
STpaTf^TTeSa,  the  fixed  garrison  of  lonians  and  Ca 
rians  cstalilished  by  Psammeticiuis  I.,  may  possi 
bly  have  been  at  Daiihnai.  Can  the  name  be  ol 
(ireek  origin  V  If  tlie  Haxes  inentio:;ed  by  Isaiah 
(xxx.  4)  be  the  same  as  Tahpnuhes,  ivs  we  havt 


3170 


TAHPENES 


suggested  (s.v.),  this  conjecture  must  lie  dismissed. 
No  satisfactory  Egyptian  etymokigy  of  this  name  has 

been   suggested,    Jablonski's     T^cb66Jl6^j 

"the  head  "  or  "beginning  of  the  age"  {Opusc.  i. 
343),  being  quite  untenable,  nor  has  any  Egyptian 
name  resembling  it  been  discovered."  The  name 
of  Queen  Tahpenes  throws  no  light  upon  this 
matter.  R.  S.  P. 

TAH'PENES  (D'^a^pn  [see  above] :  Ge^e- 
^liva;  [Yat. -^et-;  Comp.  0eK6(^eV7js:]  Taplinvs)^ 
a  proper  name  of  an  Egyptian  queen.  Slie  was 
wile  of  the  Pharaoh  who  received  Hadad  the  Edom- 
ite,  and  who  gave  him  her  sister  in  marriage  (1  K. 
xi.  18-20).  In  the  LXX.  the  latter  is  called  the 
elder  sister  of  Thekemina,  and  in  the  addition  to 
ch.  xii.  Shishak  (Susakim)  is  said  to  have  given 
Ano,  the  elder  sister  of  Thekemina  his  wife  to  .ler- 
oboam.  It  is  obvious  that  this  and  the  earlier 
statement  are  irreconcilable,  even  if  the  evidence 
from  the  probable  repetition  of  an  elder  sister  be 
set  aside,  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that 
the  name  of  Shishak's  chief  or  only  wife,  KARAA- 
MAT,  does  not  support  the  LXX.  addition.  [Shi- 
shak.] There  is  therefore  but  one  Tahpenes  or 
Thekemina.  At  the  time  to  which  the  narrative 
refers  there  were  probably  two,  if  not  three,  lines 
ruling  in  Egypt,  the  Tanites  of  the  XXIst  dynasty 
in  the  lower  country,  the  high-priest  kings  at 
Thebes,  but  possibly  they  were  of  the  same  line, 
and  perhaps  o'ne  of  the  la.st  faineants  of  the  Ranie- 
ses  ftinjily.  To  the  Tanife  line,  as  apparently  then 
the  most  i)owerful,  and  as  holding  the  territory 
nearest  Palestine,  the  Pharaoh  in  question,  as  well 
as  the  father-in-law  of  .Solomon,  proI)ab]y  belonged. 
If  Manetho's  list  be  correct  he  may  be  conjectured 
to  have  been  Psusennes.  [Phakaoh.]  No  name 
that  has  any  near  resemblance  to  either  Tahpenes 
or  Thekemina  has  yet  been  found  among  those  of 
the  period  (see  Lepsius,  Koniysbuch).     R.  S.  P. 

TAHRE'A  (^'^'7^  \cvaft,  cunnin;,]  :  0a- 
paX'i  -Ale^-  &apa\  [Comp.  Aid.  0apaa:]  Tluiraii). 
Son  of  j\Iicah,  and  grandson  of  Mephibosheth  (1 
Chr.  ix.  41).  In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Chr.  viii.  35 
bis  najne  appears  as  Takea. 

TAH  TIM  HOD'SHI,  THE  LAND  OF 

(*tLnn  C^'^nri  VT^i^  [see  below]  :  els  7V  ©a- 
$aawv  f;  icmu 'A0aaai  [Vat.  Na;3.] ;  Alex,  yrji/ 
edaui/ aSaaai-  lei'ra  inj'vrini'  Iloihi).  One  of  the 
places  visited  by  Joab  during  his  census  of  the  laud 
of  Israel.  It  occurs  between  Gilead  and  Dan-jaan 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  6).  The  name  has  puzzled  all  the 
interpreters.  The  old  versions  throw  no  light  upon 
it.  Fiirst  {Ilandwb.  i.  380)  proposes  to  separate 
the  "  Land  of  the  Tachtim  "  from  "  Hodshi,"  and 
to  read  the  latter  as  Harshi  —  the  people  of  Haro- 
sheth  (comp.  .ludg.  iv.  2).  Thenius  restores  the 
text  of  the  LXX.  to  read  "the  Land  of  Liashan, 
which  is  Edrei."  This  in  itself  is  feasilile,  although 
it  is  certainly  very  difficult  to  connect  it  with  the 
Hebrew.  Ewald  {Gescli.  iii.  207)  proposes  to  read 
Hermon  for  Hodshi;  and  Gesenius  {7 lies.  p.  450  a) 
dismisses  the  passage  with  a  vix  pro  sano  haben- 
dum. 

There  is  a  district  called  the  Ard  el-(alita,  to 
the  E.  X.  E.  of  Damascus,  which   recalls   the  old 


«  Dr.  Brugsch,  following  Mr.  Heath  (ExaJm  Pa- 
jrvri,  p.  174),  identifies  the  fort  TeBNeT  with  Tahpan- 
bee  i  but  this  name  does  not  seem   to   us  sufficiently 


TALMON 

nnme  —  but  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  any  !«• 
raelite  was  living  so  tar  from  the  Holy  Land  in  the 
time  of  David.  G. 

TALENT  C^SS  :  rdXavTov  •■  iaknium),  the 
greatest  weight  of  the  Hebrews.  Its  Hebrew  name 
properly  signifies  "a  circle"  or  "  globe,"  and  waa 
perhaps  given  to  it  on  account  of  a  form  in  which 
it  was  anciently  made.  I'he  Assyrian  name  of  the 
talent  is  tihin  according  to  Dr.  Hincks. 

The  subject  of  the  Hebrew  talent  will  be  fully 
discussed  in  a  later  article  [Weights]. 

R.  S.  P. 

TAL'ITHA  OU'MI  {raMea  Kodfxt  : 
i^::£><Xa  J  Ka!^^).  Two  Syriac  words  (Mark 
v.  41),  signifying  "  Damsel,  arise." 

The  word  STT^VlD  occurs  in  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase of  Prov.  ix.  3,  where  it  signifies  a  girl;  and 
Lightfoot  {Huixe  Ihb.  JMark  v.  41)  gives  an  in- 
stance of  its  use  in  the  same  sense  by  a  Rabbinical 
writer.      Gesenius  (T/iesaurus,  p.  550)  derives  it 

from  the  Hebrew  H  vtO,  a  lamb.  The  word  ^^Ip 
is  both  Hebrew  and  Syriac  (2  p.  fern.  Imperative, 
Kal,  and  Peal),  signifying  stand,  arise. 

As  might  be  expected,  the  last  clause  of  this 
verse,  after  Cumi,  is  not  found  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion. 

Jerome  (Ep.  Ivii.  ad  Pajnmachium,  Op2').  torn.  i. 
p.  308,  ed.  Vallars.)  records  that  St.  ISIark  was 
blamed  for  a  false  translation  on  account  of  the  in- 
sertion of  the  words,  "  I  say  unto  thee;  "  but  .Je- 
rome points  to  this  as  an  instance  of  the  superiority 
of  a  free  over  a  literal  translation,  inasmuch  as  the 
words  inserted  serve  to  show  the  emphasis  of  our 
Lord's  manner  in  giving  this  command  on  his  own 
personal  authority.  W.  T.  B. 

TAL'MAI  [2  syl.]  (*'^^iZl  [furrowed] :  0e- 
\a/xi,  OoAoyUi,  &o\fil',  [Vat.  @e\afj.et,  @oa\fj.€i, 
©oAjaeif  ;]  Alex.  @e\a/j.eiv,  QoK/jlui,  Qa/Liei: 
Tlioliiiu'i).  1.  One  of  the  three  sons  of  '■  the 
Anak,"  who  were  driven  out  from  their  settlement 
in  Kirjath-Arba,  and  slain  by  the  men  of  Judah, 
under  the  command  of  Caleb  (Num.  xiii.  22;  Josh 
XV.  14:   .ludg.  i.  10). 

2.  (.@o\fj.i  [Vat.  ©oXfxei,  QoA/xatA-n/j.]  ui  2  Sam., 
QoAfxai  [Vat.  ©oa^oi]  in  1  Chr. ;  Alex.  ©oA^ei, 
QoKo/xa'i,  &o\/j.a.'r.  TlioliiKii,  T/wloinai.)  Son  of 
.Vnmrihnd,  king  of  Geshur  (2  Sam.  iii.  3,  xiii.  37; 
1  Chr.  iii.  2).  His  daughter  iMaachah  was  one  of 
the  wives  of  David  and  mother  of  Absalom.  He 
was  probably  a  petty  chieftain  dependent  on  David, 
and  his  wild  retreat  in  liashan  afforded  a  shelter  to 
his  grandson  after  the  assassination  of  Anmon. 

TAL'MON  (V''^^^  [oppressed]  :  TeA/adiv, 
but  TeAaui'i/  in  Neh.  xi.  I'J;  [in  1  Chr.,  Vat.  Ta/x- 
jxa/j.;  in  Neh.  .xi.  19,  Vat.  F.-V.  TeXa/xccV,  xii.  2.?, 
liom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.^  omit,  VA.-^  TaXfxwV,]  Alex. 
TeA/xaj/,  ToAixaiv,  TeAa/xeiu  :  Telinon).  The 
head  of  a  family  of  doorkeepers  in  the  Temple, 
"  the  porters  for  the  camps  of  the  sons  of  Levi  " 
(1  Chr.  ix.  17;  Neh.  xi.  19).  Some  of  his  de- 
scendants returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  42; 
Neh.  vii.  45).  and  were  employed  in  their  heredi- 
tary office  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra  (Xeh 
xii.  25),  for  the  proper  names  in  this  passage  must 
be  considered  as  the  names  of  families. 


near  either  to  the   Hebrew  or   to   the   Greek   {ItiO^ 
liisdir.  i.  300.  301;T^f-  l^i.  uv  1728). 


TALMUD 

*  TAL'MUD.  [Phakiseks,  iii.  2472  f.,  and 
lote  b  ;  Scribes,  p.  2867,  and  note  6.] 

TAL'SAS  (2aA((as;  [Vat.  SaXdai;  Wechel 
raAtrcis:]    Tkahis).     Elasaii  (1  Esdr.  ix.  22) 

TA'MAH  (npn  [prob.  Viwjhter]  :  ev/xd: 
[Vat]  FA.  H^afi:  Tliema).  The  cliiklren  of  Ta- 
iiiah,  or  Tn.VMAH  (Ezr.  ii.  53),  were  anioiij^  the 
Nethinim  who  returned  with  Zerubbaljel  (Xeh.  vii. 
55). 

TA'MAR  (19^  =  "pahn-tree").  The 
name  of  three  women  remarkable  in  the  lilstory  of 
Israel. 

3.  {&a.fjLap'  Thmnfir.)  The  wife  successively  of 
the  two  sons  of  .Tudah,  Er  and  On.\n  (Gen.  xxxviii. 
6-30).  Her  importance  in  the  sacred  narrative 
depends  on  the  threat  anxiety  to  keep  up  the  lineaije 
of  .ludah.  It  seemed  as  if  the  family  were  on  the 
point  of  extinction.  Er  and  Onan  had  succes- 
sively perislied  suddenly.  Judah's  wife  Bathshnah 
died  ;  and  there  only  remained  a  cliild  Shelah, 
whom  .ludah  was  unwilling  to  trust  to  the  danger- 
ous union,  as  it  appeared,  with  Taniar,  lest  he 
slioukl  meet  with  the  same  fate  as  his  brothers. 
That  he  should,  however,  marry  her  seeni«  to  liave 
been  regarded  as  part  of  the  fixed  law  of  the  tribe, 
whence  its  incorporation  into  the  Mosaic  Law  in 
after  times  (Ueut.  xxv.  5;  Matt.  xxii.  24);  and,  as 
such,  'I'amar  was  determined  not  to  let  the  oppor- 
tunity escape  through  Judah's  parental  anxiety. 
Accor(lint,dy  she  resorted  to  the  desperate  ex[)edient 
of  entrapping  the  father  himself  into  the  union 
which  he  teared  for  his  son.  He,  on  the  first  emer- 
gence from  liis  mourning  for  his  wife,  went  to  one 
of  the  festivals  often  mentioned  in  .lewish  history  as 
attendant  on  sheep-shearing  He  wore  on  iiis  fin- 
ger the  I'ing  of  his  chieftainship ;  he  carried  his  staff 
in  his  hand ;  he  wore  a  collar  or  necklace  round  his 
neck.  He  was  encountered  by  a  veiled  woman 
on  the  road  leading  to  Timuath,  the  future  birth- 
place of  Samson,  amongst  the  hills  of  Dan.  He 
took  her  for  one  of  the  unfortunate  women  who 
were  consecrated  to  the  impure  rites  of  the  ( 'anaan- 
ite  worship.  [SoDoiMiTES.]  He  promised  her, 
as  the  price  of  his  intercourse,  a  kid  from  the  Hooks 
to  which  he  was  going,  and  left  as  his  pledge  his 
ornaments  and  his  staff.  The  kid  lie  sent  back  by 
his  shepherd  (LXX.),  Hirah  of  AduUam.  The 
woman  could  nowhere  be  found.  Months  after- 
wards it  was  discovered  to  be  his  own  daughter-in- 
law  Tamar  who  had  thus  concealed  herself  under 
the  veil  or  mantle,  which  she  cast  off  on  her  return 
home,  where  she  resumed  the  seclusion  and  dress  of 
a  widow.  She  was  sentenced  to  be  burned  alive, 
and  was  only  saved  by  the  discovery,  through  the 
pledges  which  Judah  had  left,  that  her  seducer  was 
no  less  than  the  chieftahi  of  the  tribe.  He  had  the 
magnanimity  to  recognize  that  she  had  been  driven 
into  this  crime  by  his  own  neglect  of  his  promise  to 
e;ive  her  in  marriage  to  his  youngest  son.  "  She 
hath  been  more  righteous  than  I  .  .  .  .  and  he 
knew  her  again  no  more  "  (Gen.  xxxviii.  2(>).  The 
fruit  of  this  intercourse  were  twins,  Fiiahkz  and 
Zakah,  and  through  Ph.arez  the  sacred  line  was 
continued.  Hence  the  prominence  given  to  Tamar 
111  the  nuptial  '^iiediction  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
(Kuth  iv.  12),  and  in  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord 
(Matt.  i.  .3). 

The  story  is  important  (1)  as  showing  the  sig- 
nificance, from  early  times,  attached  to  the  contin- 
Itcoe  of  the  line  of  Judah;  (2)   as   a  glimpse  into 


TAMAR 


31T1 


the  rough  manners  of  the  patriarchal  time;   (3)  m 
tlie  germ  of  a  famous  Mosaic  law. 

2.  (0r)Map;  Alex,  ©afxap  [exc.  1  Chr.  ©TOfJuapVi 
Joseph.  @«.ij.dpa'  Tliaiiuty.)  Daughter  of  David 
and  Jlaachah  the  Geshurite  princess,  and  thus  sis- 
ter of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xiii.  1-32;  1  Chr.  iii.  9 
Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  8,  §  1).  She  and  her  brothei 
were  alike  remarkable  for  their  extraordinary  lieauty. 
Her  name  (''Palm-tree")  may  have  been  given 
her  on  this  account.  This  fatal  beauty  insiiired  a 
frantic  passion  in  her  half-brother  Amnon,  the  eld- 
est son  of  David  by  Ahinoam.  He  wasted  away 
from  the  feeling  that  it  was  impossible  to  gratify 
his  desire,  "  for  she  was  a  virgin  " —  the  narrative 
leaves  it  uncertain  whether  from  a  scruple  on  hia 
part,  or  from  the  seclusion  in  which  in  her  unmar- 
ried state  she  was  kept.  Moiiiing  by  morning,  as 
he  received  the  visits  of  his  friend  Jonai).\b,  he  is 
paler  and  thinner  (Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  8,  §  1).  Jona- 
dab  discovers  the  cause,  and  suggests  to  him  the 
means  of  accomplishing  his  wicked  purpose.  He 
was  to  feign  sickness.  The  king,  who  appears  to 
have  entertained  a  considerable  affection,  almost 
awe,  for  him,  as  the  eldest  son  (2  Sam.  xiii.  5,  21: 
LXX. ),  came  to  visit  him ;  and  Amnon  entreated 
the  presence  of  Tamar,  on  the  pretext  that  she 
alone  could  give  him  food  that  he  would  eat.  What 
follows  is  curious,  as  showing  the  simplicity  of  the 
royal  life.  It  would  almost  seem  that  Tamar  was 
supposed  to  have  a  peculiar  art  of  baking  palatable 
cakes.  She  came  to  his  house  (for  each  prince  ap- 
pears to  have  hail  a  separate  establishment),  took 
the  dough  and  kneaded  it,  and  then  in  his  presence 
(for  this  was  to  be  a  part  of  his  fancy,  as  though 
there  were  something  exquisite  in  the  manner  ot 
her  performing  the  work)  kneaded  it  a  second  time 
into  the  form  of  cakes.  The  name  given  to  these 
cakes  (^i'i«6((/0,  "  heart  cakes,"  has  been  variously 
explained:  "hollow  cakes"  —  "cakes  with  some 
stimulating  spices  "  (like  our  word  cordhil)  — cakes 
in  the  shape  of  a  heart  (like  the  Moravian  (jertilirle 
Htrzen,  Thenius,  ad  lac.)  —  cakes  "the  delight  of 
the  heart."  Whatever  it  be,  it  implies  something 
special  and  peculiar.  She  then  took  the  pan.  in 
which  they  had  been  baked,  and  poured  them  all 
out  in  a  lieap  before  the  prince.  This  ojieration 
seems  to  have  gone  on  in  an  outer  room,  on  which 
Anmon's  bedchamber  opened.  He  caused  his  at- 
tendants to  retire  —  called  her  to  the  inner  room» 
and  there  accomplished  his  de.sigii.  In  her  touch- 
ing remonstrance  two  points  are  remarkable.  First, 
the  expression  of  the  infamy  of  such  a  crime  "in 
/sriiel,''  implying  the  loftier  standard  of  morals 
that  prevailed,  as  compared  with  other  countries  at 
that  time;  ar^,  secondly,  the  belief  that  even  this 
standard  might  be  overborne  lawfully  by  royal  au- 
tiiority  —  "  Speak  to  the  king,  for  he  will  not  with- 
hold me  from  thee."  This  expression  has  led  to 
much  needless  explanation,  from  its  contradiction  to 
Lev.  xviii.  9,  XX.  17;  Deut.  xxvii.  22:  is,  e.  ij., 
that,  her  mother  Maachah  not  lieing  a  Jewess, 
there  was  no  proper  legal  relationship  between  her 
and  .\mnon;  or  that  she  w:is  ignorant  of  the  law; 
or  that  the  Mosaic  laws  were  not  then  in  existence. 
(  Thenius,  (-'(//oc.)  It  is  enough  to  suppose,  what 
evidently  her  whole  speech  implies,  that  the  king 
had  a  dispensing  power,  which  was  conceived  Xc 
cover  even  extreme  cases. 

The  brutal  hatred  of  .\mnon  succeeding  to  his 
brutal  passion,  and  the  indignation  of  Taniar  at 
his  barbarous  ii'siilt,  even  surpassing  her  indigna- 
tion at  his  shamefi:'  outrage,  are  ptlheticaliy  and 


3172  TAMAR 

erRpIiicallj  told,  and  in  the  narrative  anotlier 
glimpse  is  given  us  of  the  manners  of  the  royal 
household.  'J'he  unmarried  princesses,  it  seems, 
Were  distinguished  by  roljes  or  gowns  with  sleeves 
(so  the  LXX.,  Josephus,  etc.,  take  the  word  trans- 
lated in  the  A.  V.  "divers  colors'').  Such  was 
the  dress  worn  by  Taniar  on  the  present  occasion, 
and  when  the  guard  at  Amnon's  door  had  thrust 
her  out  and  closed  the  door  after  her  to  prevent  her 
return,  she,  in  her  agony,  snatched  hantlfuls  of 
ashes  from  the  ground  and  threw  them  on  her  hair, 
then  tore  off"  her  royal  sleeves,  and  clasped  her  bare 
hands  upon  her  head,  and  rushed  to  and  fro  through 
the  streets  screaming  aloud.  In  this  state  .she  en- 
countered her  brother  Absalom,  who  took  her  to 
his  house,  where  she  remained  as  if  in  a  state  of 
widowhood.  The  king  was  afraid  or  unwilling  to 
interfere  with  the  heir  to  the  throne,  but  she  was 
avenged  by  Absalom,  as  Dinah  had  been  by  Simeon 
and  Levi,  and  out  of  that  vengeance  grew  the  series 
of  calamities  which  darkened  the  clo.se  of  David's 
reign. 

The  story  of  Taniar,  revolting  as  it  is,  has  the 
interest  of  revealing  to  us  the  interior  of  the  royal 
household  beyond  that  of  any  other  incident  of 
those  times.  (1.)  The  estalilishments  of  the  princes. 
(2.)  The  simplicity  of  the  royal  employments.  (3.) 
The  dress  of  the  princesses.  (4. )  The  relation  of 
the  king  to  the  princes  and  to  the  law. 

3-  {@rifj,dp;  Alex,  ©afiap'  Tlwiiinv.)  Daughter 
of  Absalom,  called  probably  after  her  lieautiful  aunt, 
and  inheriting  the  beauty  of  both  aunt  and  father 
(2  Sam.  xiv.  ^27).  She  was  the  sole  survivor  of  the 
house  pf  Absalom :  and  ultimately,  by  her  mar- 
riage with  Uriah  of  Gilieah,  became  the  mother  of 
Maachah,  tlie  future  queen  of  Judah,  or  wife  of 
Abijah  (1  K.  xv.  2),  JNIaaehah  being  called  after 
her  great-grandmother,  as  Taniar  after  her  aunt. 

A.  F.  S. 

TA'MAR  (~"?A^  [prilm-tree']  :  eat/xdv «  in 
both  MSS. :  Tlt<tin(ir).  A  spot  on  the  .south- 
eastern frontier  of  .Judah,  named  in  Ez.  xlvii.  19, 
xlviii.  28  only,  evidently  called  from  a  palm-tree. 
If  not  Uitzdzon  Tnuiar,  the  old  name  of  En-gedi,  it 
may  lie  a  place  called  Thdiiutr  in  the  Ommvisticon 
('•  Hazazon  Taniar"),  a  day's  journey  south  of 
Heliron.  The  I'eutini^er  Tallies  give  Thamar  in  the 
^ame  direction,  and  Kobinson  {Bibl.  R<-s.  ii.  198,  201) 
identifies  the  place  with  the  ruins  of  an  old  fortress 
at  Kurnnh.  De  Saulcy  (Nnrr.  i.  ch.  7)  endeavors 
to  establish  a  connection  between  Tamar  and  the 
Kiiliat  embarrhcrj,  at  the  mouth  of  the  ravine  of 
that  name  on  the  S.  W ■  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  on 
the  ground  (amongst  others)  that  the  names  are 
similar.  But  this,  to  say  the  least,  is  more  than 
doubtful.  A.  P.  S. 

TAM'MUZ  (T^^rin  [see  below]  :  b  ©afxr 
fioli^'-  Adonis).  [Kz.  viii.  14.]  Properly  "the 
Tanmiuz,"  the  article  indicating  that  at  some  time 
or  other  the  word  had  been  regarded  as  an  appel- 
lative, though  at  the  time  of  its  occurrence  and 
suljsequently  it  may  have  been  applied  as  a  proper 
name.  As  it  is  found  once  oidy  in  the  O.  T.,  and 
then  in  a  passage  of  extreme  oljscurity.  it  is  not 
surprising  that  many  conjectures  have  been  formed 
wiicerniiig  it;  and  as  none  of  the  opinions  which 
have  been  expressed  rise  above  the  importance  of 


a  Ez.  xlvii.  19  contains  an  instance  of  the  double 
traiwlation  not  infrequent  in  the  present  tt\t  of  tlie 
liXX...  iiro  Qaiitat'  Kal  4>oii't/cuifOf. 


TAjMMUZ 

conjecture,  it  will  be  the  object  of  this  articL  to  set 
them  forth  as  clearly  as  possible,  and  to  give  at 
least  a  history  of  what  has  been  said  upon  the 
subject 

In  tlie  sixth  year  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin, 
in  the  sixth  month,  and  on  the  fifth  day  of  the 
month,  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  as  he  sat  in  his  house 
surrounded  by  the  elders  of  Judah,  was  transported 
ill  spirit  to  the  far  distant  Temple  at  Jerusalem. 
The  hand  of  the  Lord  God  was  upon  him,  and  led 
him  "  to  the  door  of  the  gate  of  the  house  of  Je- 
hovah, which  was  towards  the  north;  and  behold 
there  the  women  sitting,  weeping  for  the  Tammuz.'' 
Some  translate  the  last  clause  "  causing  the  Tam- 
muz to  weep,"  and  the  influence  which  this  ren- 
dering has   upon   the  interpretation  will  be  seen 

hereafter.    If  T^^iTI  be  a  regularly  formed  Hebrew 

word,  it  must  be  derived  either  from  a  root  Ttt3 

or  TJSri  (comp.  the  forms  ^^-iVs,  ^^SH),  which 
is  not  known  to  exist.  To  remedy  this  defect  Eiirst 
{Handwb.  s.  v.)  invents  a  root  to  which  he  givea 
the  signification  "  to  be  strong,  mighty,  victorious," 
and  transitively,  "  to  overpower,  annihilate."  It  is 
to  be  regretted  that  this  lexicographer  cannot  be 
contented  to  confess  his  ignorance  of  what  is  un- 
known.    Koediger  (in  Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.)  suggests 

the  derivation  from  a  root,*  DD!2  =  TT^;  accord- 

ing  to  which  T^SFl  is  a  contraction  of  T^TJ2F1, 
and  signifies  a  melting  away,  dissolution,  departure, 
and  so  the  a(pavta/u.hs  'ASdvidoi,  or  disappearance 
of  Adonis,  which  was  mourned  by  the  Phoenician 
women,  and  after  them  by  the  Greeks.  But  the 
etymology  is  unsound,  and  is  evidently  contrived 
so  as  to  connect  the  name  Tammuz  with  the  gen- 
eral tradition  regarding  it. 

The  ancient  versions  supply  us  with  no  help. 
The  LXX.,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel, 
the  Peshito  Syriac.  and  the  Aral>ic  in  ^^'altoI^s 
Polyglot,  merely  reproduce  the  Helirew  word.  The 
Vulgate  alone  gives  A'/tmlg  as  a  modern  equivalent, 
and  this  rendering:  has  been  eairerlv  adopted  by 
subsequent  couiiiientators,  with  but  few  exceptions. 
It  is  at  least  as  old,  therefore,  as  Jerome,  and  the 
fact  of  his  having  adopted  it  shows  that  it  must 
have  embodied  the  most  credible  tradition.  In  his 
note  upon  the  passa<;e  he  adds  that  since,  accord- 
ing to  the  Gentile  fable,  Adonis  had  been  slain  in 
the  month  of  June,  the  Syrians  give, the  name  of 
Tammuz  to  this  month,  when  they  celebrate  to  him 
an  anniversary  solemnity,  in  which  he  is  lamented 
by  the  women  as  dead,  and  afterwards  coming  to 
life  again  is  celebrated  tvith  songs  and  praises.  In 
another  passage  (ad  Paulinum.  Op.  i.  p.  102,  ed. 
Basil.  1505)  he  laments  that  Bethlehem  was  over- 
shadowed liy  a  Lrrove  of  Tammuz,  that  is,  of  Adonis, 
and  that  "  in  the  cave  where  the  infant  Christ  once 
cried,  the  lo\er  of  Venus  was  bewailed."  Cyril' of 
.Alexandria  (in  Oseuin,  Qp.  iii.  "9,  ed.  Paris,  1G38), 
and  Theodoret  [in  J-Jzich.),  give  the  same  exjilana- 
tioii,  and  are  followed  by  the  author  of  the  (Jhronicon 
Paschale.  The  only  exception  to  this  uniformity 
is  in  tiie  Syriac  translation  of  Melito's  Apology, 
edited  by  Dr.  Cureton  in  his  Spicile'/iuiu  Syriacum. 
The  date  of  the  translation  is  unknown  ;  the  original 
if  genuine  must  belong  to  tiie  second  century.  The 
following  is  a  literal  rendering  of  the  Syriac:  "  Th« 
sons  of  Phoenicia  worshipped  Balthi.  the  queen  of 
Cvprus.  For  she  loved  Taniuzo,  the  son  of  Ctithai 
the  king  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  forsook  her  king- 


TAMMUZ 

Jom,  ard  came  and  dwelt  in  (iebal,  a  fortress  of 
the  I'h(enicians.  And  at  that  time  she  made  all 
the  villa;;es"  subject  to  C'uthar  the  king.  For  be- 
fore Tamuzo  she  had  loved  Ares,  and  committed 
adultery  with  him,  and  Hephwstus  her  husband 
caught  her,  and  was  jealous  of  her.  And  he  (i.  e. 
Ares)  came  and  slew  Tamuzo  on  Lebanon  while  he 
made  a  hunting  among  the  wild  boars.''  And  from 
that  time  Balthi  remained  in  Gebal,  and  died  in 
the  city  of  Aphaca,  where  Tamuzo  was  buried  " 
(p.  20  of  the  Syriac  text).  We  have  here  very 
clearly  the  Greek  legend  of  Adonis  reproduced  witli 
a  simple  change  of  name.  Whether  this  change 
is  due  to  the  translator,  as  is  not  improbable,  or 
whether  he  found  "  Tammuz  "  in  the  original  of 
Jlelito,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
the  tradition  embodied  in  the  passage  quoted  is 
probalily  as  valuable  as  that  in  the  same  author 
which  regards  Serapis  as  the  deification  of  .Joseph. 
The  Syriac  lexicographer  Bar  Bahlul  (10th  cent.) 
fjives  the  legend  as  it  had  come  down  to  his  time. 
'•  Tonnizo  was,  as  they  say,  a  hunter  shepherd  and 
chaser  of  wild  l)easts;  who  when  Belathi  loved  him 
took  her  away  from  her  husband.  And  when  her 
husliand  went  forth  to  seek  her  I'omuzo  slew  him. 
And  with  regard  to  Tomuzo  also,  there  met  him 
in  the  desert  a  wild  boar  and  slew  him.  And  his 
father  made  for  him  a  great  lamentation  and  weep- 
ing in  the  month  Tonuiz  :  and  Belathi  his  wife, 
slie  too  made  a  lamentation  and  mourning  over 
nim.  .And  this  tradition  was  handed  down  among 
the  heathen  people  during  her  lifetime  and  after 
her  death,  which  same  tradition  the  .lews 'received 
with  the  rest  of  the  evil  festivals  of  the  jieople,  and 
in  that  month  Toniuz  used  to  make  for  him  a 
great  feast.  Tomuz  also  is  the  name  of  one  of  the 
months  of  the  Syrians."  '^  In  the  next  century  the 
legend  assumes  for  tlie  first  time  a  different  form 
in  the  hands  of  a  liabbinical  commentator.  Habbi 
Solomon  Isaaki  (llashi)  has  the  following  note  on 
the  piissai^e  in  Kzekiel.  "  .\n  image  which  the 
wiiMieii  made  hot  in  the  inside,  and  its  eyes  were 
of  lead,  and  they  melted  by  reason  of  the  iieat  of 
the  burning,  and  it  seemed  as  if  it  wept;  and  they 
(the  women)  stiid.  He  asketh  for  offerings.  Tam- 
muz   is    a   word    signifying    burning,   as  ''"^   727 

r^i^Tjs^  r\;tr]  (Dan.  iii.  lo),  and  nrs  S3nns 

n~1'*ri^  (ibid.  ver.  22)."  And  instead  of  render- 
ing "  weeping  for  the  Tammuz,"  he  gives,  what 
appears  to  be  the  equivajpnt  in  French,  "  faisantes 
pleurer  I'echautfi?."  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
Hashi  regards  Tammuz  as  an  appellative,  derived 

from  the  Chaldee  root  N^S,  dzd,  "to  make  hot.'' 
It  is  equally  clear  that  his  etymology  cannot  be 
defended  for  an  instant.  In  the  r2th  century 
(a.  D.  IIGI),  Solomon  ben  .\braham  Farchon  in 
his  Lexicon,  compiled  at  Salerno  from  the  works  of 
Jehuda  Chayug  and  .Vbulwalid  Merwan  ben  Gan- 
nach,  has  the  following  observations  upon  Tamnniz. 
"  It  is  the  likeness  of  a  reptile  which  thev  make 
U])nn  the  water,  and  the  water  is  collected  in  it 
and  flows  through  its  holes,  and  it  seems  as  if  it 
vept.  But  the  month  called  Tainninz  is  Persian, 
wid  so  are  all  our  months;  none  of  them  is  fwiii 


TAMMUZ 


)-|  7 


o  No'i  '■  Cyprians,"  as  Dr.  Cureton  translates. 
''  Ur.  Oureton's  emendation  of  tliis  corrupt  pa.<isage 
•rams  th*  v,iily  one  which  can  be  adopted, 
c  la  this  tranglation  I  have  followed  the  MS.  of  Bar 


the  sacred  tongue,  though  they  are  wiitten  in  the 
Scripture  tliey  are  Persian ;  but  in  the  sacred  tongue 
the  first  month,  the  second  month,"  etc.  At  the 
close  of  tills  century  we  meet  for  the  first  time  with 
an  entirely  new  tradition  repeated  by  K.  David 
Kimchi,  both  in  his  Lexicon  and  in  his  Com- 
mentary, from  the  Mnreh  iVt^i/c/iH/i  of  Maimonides. 
"  In  the  month  Tanimuz  they  made  a  feast  of  an 
idol,  and  the  women  came  to  gladden  him;  and 
some  say  that  by  crafty  means  they  caused  tlie  water 
to  come  into  the  eyes  of  the  idol  which  is  called 
Tammuz,  and  it  wept,  as  if  it  asked  them  to  worship 
it.  And  some  interpret  Tammuz  '  the  burnt  one,' 
as  if  from  Dan.  iii.  19  (see  above),  i.  e.  they  wept 
over  him  because  he'was  burnt;  for  they  used  to 
burn  their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire,  and 
the  women  used  to  weep  over  them.  .  .  .  But  the 
Rab,  the  wise,  the  great,  our  Rabbi  Moshe  bar 
Maimon,  of  blessed  memory,  h.as  written,  that  -t  is 
found  written  in  one  of  the  ancient  idolatrous  books, 
that  there  was  a  man  of  the  idolatrous  prophets, 
and  his  name  was  Tammuz.  And  he  called  to  a 
certain  king  and  commanded  him  to  sene  the 
seven  planets  and  the  twelve  signs.  And  that  king 
])ut  him  to  a  violent  death,  and  on  the  nii;ht  of  his 
death  there  were  gathered  toijether  all  the  imagei 
from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  the  temple  of  Babe", 
to  the  golden  image  which  was  the  image  of  the 
sun.  Now  tlii.s  image  was  suspended  betwecTi 
heaven  and  earth.,  and  it  fell  down  hi  the  midst  o'' 
the  temple,  and  the  images  likewise  '(fell  down) 
round  about  it.  and  it  told  them  what  had  befallen 
Tammuz  the  propiiet.  And  the  images  all  of  them 
wept  and  lamented  all  the  night:  and,  as  it  can  e 
to  pass,  in  the  morning  all  the  images  flew  aw?y 
to  their  own  temples  in  the  ends  of  the  earth.  And 
this  was  to  them  for  an  everlasting  statute;  at  the 
beginning  of  the  first  day  of  the  inontli  Tammuz 
each  year  they  lamented  and  wept  over  Tammuz. 
.\nd  some  interpret  Tammuz  as  the  name  of  an 
animal,  for  they  used   to  worship  an  image  which 

they  had,  and  the  TarL^uin  of  (the  passage)  lkZ7D21 

Q^^S  nS  n"^"*!i  (Is.  xxxiv.  14)  is  ]T-13?-I2?^T 

Vbinnn  "|"^Tinn.  But  in  most  copies  "jnijsr 

is  written  with  two  vaws."  The  book  of  the  an- 
cient idolaters  from  which  ISIaimonides  quotes,  is 
the  now  celebrated  work  on  the  Agricnlf  ure  of  the 
Nabatheans,  to  which  reference  will  be  made  here- 
after. Ben  Melech  gives  no  help,  and  Abendana 
merely  quotes  the  explanations  given  by  Rashi  and 
Kimchi. 

The  tradition  recorded  by  Jerome,  which  identi- 
fies Tammuz  with  Adonis,  has  been  followed  by 
most  subsequent  commentators:  among  others  by 
Vatablus,  Castellio,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Osiander, 
Caspar  Sanctius,  Lavater,  Villalpandus.  Seldeii, 
.Simonis,  Calmet,  and  in  later  times  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Ben  Zeb,  Rosenmiiller,  JMaurer, 
Fwald,  Hiivernick,  Hitzig,  and  Movers.  Luther 
and  others  regarded  Tammuz  as  a  name  of  Bacchus. 
That  Tammuz  was  the  ICgyptian  Osiris,  and  that 
his  worship  was  introduced  to  Jerusalem  from 
Isgypt,  was  held  by  Calvin,  Piscator,  .lunius, 
Leusden,  and  Pfeiffer.  This  view  de[)ends  chiefly 
upon  a  false  etymology  proposed  by  Kircher,  which 


Bahlul  in  the  Jambridge  University  Library,  the  read- 
ings of  which  seem  preferable  in  many  respects  to  those 
in  the  extract  furnished  by  Beru8t«in  to  Obwolsolu 
{Die  Usahier,  etc.  U.  206) 


8174 


TAMMUZ 


eonnects  the  word  Tammuz  with  the  Coptic  inmiit, 
to  hide,  and  so  makes  it  signify  the  liidden  or  con- 
cealed one;  and  therefore  Osiris,  the  Egyptian  king 
slain  by  Typho,  whose  loss  was  commanded  by  Isis 
to  be  yearly  lamented  in  Egypt.  The  women  weep 
ing  for  Tammuz  are  in  this  case,  according  to 
Junius,  the  priestesses  of  Isis.  The  Egyptian  origin 
of  tlie  name  Tanmiuz  has  also  been  defended  by  a 
reference  to  the  god  Amuz,  mentioned  by  Plutarch 
and  Herodotus,  who  is  identical  with  Osiris.  'J'here 
is  good  reason,  howe\er,  to  believe  that  Amuz  is  a 
mistake  for  Amun.  That  something  corresponding 
to  Tammuz  is  found  in  Egyptian  pioper  names,  as 
they  appear  in  Greek,  cannot  be  denied.  Tafxws, 
an  Egyptian,  appears  in  Thucydides  (viii.  31)  as  a 
Persian  officer,  in  Xenophon  {Awib.  i.  4,  §  2)  as 
an  admiral.  The  Egyptian  pilot  wlio  heard  the 
mysterious  voico  bidding  him  proclaim.  ■'  Great  Fan 
is  dead,"  was  called  Qa/xovs  (Plutarch,  Dt  Dvfcct. 
Orac.  17).  The  names  of  the  Egyptian  kings, 
@ovfj.fxwais,  Tidij-waris,  and  @/j.u(tis,  mentioned  by 
]\lanetlio  (Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  14,  15),  have  in  turn  been 
com]iared  with  Tammuz;  but  unless  some  more 
certain  evidence  be  brought  forward  than  is  found 
iu  these  apparent  resemblances,  there  is  little  reason 
to  conclude  that  the  worship  of  Tammuz  was  of 
Egyptian  origin. 

It  seems  perfectly  clear,  from  what  has  been  said, 
that  tlie  name  Tammuz  affords  no  clew  to  the 
identification  of  the  deity  whom  it  designated.  The 
slight  hint  given  by  the  prophet  of  the  nature  of 
the  worship  and  worshippers  of  Tamnuiz  has  been 
sufficient  to  cormect  them  with  the  yearly  mourn- 
ing for  Adonis  by  the  Syrian  damsels.  Beyond 
this  we  can  attach  no  especial  weight  to  the  expla- 
nation of  Jerome.  It  is  a  conjecture  and  nothing 
more,  and  does  not  appear  to  represent  any  tradi- 
tion. All  that  can  be  said  therefore  is  that  it  is 
not  impossible  that  Tammuz  may  be  a  name  of 
Adonis  the  sun-god,  but  that  there  is  nothii  g  to 
prove  it.  The  town  of  Byljlos  in  Phoenicia  was  the 
headquarters  of  the  Adonis-worship  "  The  feast  in 
his  honor  was  celebrated  each  year  in  the  temple  of 
Aphrodite  on  the  Lebanon*  (Lucian,  De  Bed  i'ytJ, 
§  tj),  with  rites  partly  sorrowful,  partly  joyful. 
The  Emperor  Juliati  was  present  at  Antioch  when 
the  same  festival  was  held  (Annn.  Marc.  xxii.  9, 
§  1-3).  It  lasted  seven  days  (Anim.  iMarc.  xx.  1), 
the  period  of  niourning  among  the  Jews  (Ecclus. 
xxii.  12;  Gen.  1.  10;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  13;  Jud.  xvi. 
24),  the  Egyptians  (Heliodor.  ^Jth.  vii.  11),  and 
the  Syrians  (Lucian,  Be  Dea  Syid,  §  52),  and  be- 
gan with  the  disappearance  {a<pavi(7/j.6s)  of  Adonis. 
Then  followed  the  search  {(ifTriais)  made  by  the 
women  after  him.  His  body  was  represented  by  a 
wooden  image  placed  in  the  so-called  "  gardens  of 
Adonis"  ('ASccviSoi  /crJTroi),  which  were  earthen- 
ware vessels  filled  with  mould,  and  planted  with 
wheat,  barley,  lettuce,  and  fennel.  They  were  ex- 
posed by  the  women  to  the  heat  of  the  sun,  at  the 
house-tloors  or  in  the  "porches  of  Adonis;"  and 
the  witliering  of  the  plants  was  regarded  as  symbol- 
ical of  the  slaughter  of  the  youth  by  the  fire-god 
Mars.  In  one  of  these  gardens  Adonis  was  found 
again,  whence  the  fable  says  he  was  slain  by  the 
Voar  in  the  lettuce  {a(pa.Kri  =  Aphaca?),  and  was 
there  found  by  Aphrodite.     The  tinding  again  (ev- 

a  There  was  a  temple  at  Amathus,  in  Cyprus, 
(bared  by  Adonis  and  Aphrodite  (Pans  ix.  41,  §  2) ; 
ind  the  worship  of  Adonis  is  said  to  have  come  from 
3ypra»  lo  Athens  in  the  time  of  the  Persian  War. 


TAMMUZ 

peffis)  was  the  commencement  of  a  wake,  accompa- 
nied by  all  the  usat^es  which  in  the  East  attend 
such  a  ceremony  —  prostitution,  cutting  oft' the  hair 
(comp.  Lev.  xix.  28,  29,  xxi.  5;  Deut.  xiv.  1),  cut- 
ting the  breast  with  knives  (Jer.  xvi.  6),  and  play- 
ing on  pipes  (comp.  Matt.  ix.  23).  The  in;age  of 
Adonis  was  then  washed  and  anointed  with  spices, 
placed  in  a  coffin  on  a  bier,  and  the  wound  made 
by  the  Ijoar  was  sho'mi  on  the  figure.  The  people 
sat  on  the  ground  round  the  bier,  with  their  clothes 
rent  (comp.  I'p.  of  Jei:  31,  32  [or  Bar.  vi.  31, 
32] ),  and  the  women  howled  and  cried  aloud.  The 
whole  terminated  with  a  sacrifice  for  the  dead,  and 
the  burial  of  the  figure  of  Adonis  (see  Movers,  P/io- 
nizier,  i.  c.  7).  According  to  Lucian,  some  of  the 
inhaliitants  OT  Byblos  maintained  that  the  Egyp- 
tian Osiris  was  buried  among  them,  and  that  the 
mourning  and  orgies  were  in  honor  of  him,  and 
not  of  Adonis  (Z)e  Dea  Syra,  §  7).  This  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  legend  of  Osiris  as  told  by  Plu 
tarch  {De  Is.  et  Os.).  Lucian  further  relates  that, 
on  the  same  day  on  which  the  women  of  Byblog 
every  year  mourned  for  Adonis,  the  inhabitants  of 
Alexandria  sent  them  a  letter,  inclosed  in  a  vessel 
which  was  wrapped  in  rushes  or  papyrus,  announ- 
cing that  Adonis  was  found.  The  vessel  was  cast 
into  the  sea,  and  carried  by  the  current  to  Byblos 
(Procopius  on  Is.  xviii.).  It  is  called  by  Lucian 
^v^\iur)y  Ki(paXr\v,  and  is  uaid  to  have  traversed 
the  distance  lietween  Alexandria  and  Byblos  in  seven 
days.  Another  marvel  related  by  the  same  narra- 
tor is  that  of  the  river  Adonis  {Nahr  Ihriihim), 
which  flows  down  from  the  Lebanon,  and  once  a 
year  was  tinged  with  blood,  which,  according  to  the 
legend,  came  from  the  wounds  of  Adonis  (comp. 
^lihon,  P.  L.  i.  460);  but  a  rationalist  of  Byblos 
gave  him  a  different  exiilanation,  how  that  the  soil 
of  the  Leiianon  was  naturally  very  red-colored,  and 
wf.s  carried  down  into  the  river  by  violent  winds, 
and  so  gave  a  bloody  tinge  to  the  water;  and  to 
this  day,  says  iNIr.  Porter  {Hawlb.  p.  187),  "after 
every  storm  tliat  breaks  upon  the  brow  of  Lebanon, 
the  AdoTiis  still  '  runs  purple  to  the  sea.'  The 
rushing  waters  tear  from  the  banks  red  soil  enough 
to  give  them  a  ruddy  tinge,  which  poetical  fancy, 
aided  by  popular  credulity,  converted  into  the  blood 
of  Thammuz." 

The  time  at  which  these  rites  of  Adonis  were 
celebrated  is  a  subject  of  much  dispute.  It  is  not 
so  important  with  regard  to  the  passage  in  Ezekiel, 
for  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  reason  tor  suj)- 
posing  that  the  time  of«  the  prophet's  vision  was 
coincident  with  the  time  at  which  Tammuz  wag 
worshipped.  Movers,  who  maintained  the  contrary, 
endeavored  to  prove  that  the  celebration  was  in  the 
late  autumn,  the  end  of  the  Syrian  year,  and  cor- 
responded with  the  time  of  the  autumnal  equinox. 
He  relies  chiefly  for  his  conclusion  on  the  account 
given  by  Amniianus  Marcellinus  (xxii.  9,  §  13)  of 
the  feast  of  Adonis,  which  was  being  held  at  An'ti- 
och  when  the  Emperor  Julian  entered  the  city.  It 
is  clear,  from  a  letter  of  the  emperor's  (£)?.  Jul. 
52),  that  he  was  in  Antioch  ijefore  the  first  of  Au- 
gust, and  his  entry  may  therefore  have  taken  place 
in  July,  the  Tammuz  of  the  Syrian  year.  This 
time  agrees  moreover  with  the  explanation  of  the 
symbolical  meaning  of  the  rites  given  by  Ammia- 
nus  Marcellinus  (xxii.  9,  §  15),  that  they  were  a 
token  of  the  fruits  cut  down  in  their  prime.     Now 


b  Said   to  have  been  founded  by  Kinyr»s,  tb«  r» 
puted  father  of  Adonis. 


TAMMUZ 

»t  Aleppo  (Russell,  Aleppo,  i.  72)  the  harvest  is  all 
over  before  the  end  of  June,  and  we  may  fairly  con- 
cluae  that  the  same  was  the  case  at  Antioch.     Add 

to  this  that  in  Hebrew  astronomical  works  ilDTpjl 

tlDH,  tekuphath  Tammuz,  is  the  "summer  sol- 
stice," and  it  seer/is  more  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  the  Adonis  ttjast  of  the  Phoenicians  and  Syr- 
ians was  celebrated  rather  as  the  summer  solstice 
than  as  the  autumnal  equinox.  At  this  time  the 
sun  begins  to  descend  among  the  wintry  signs  (Iven- 
rick,  /'liieuicia,  p.  310). 

The  identification  of  Tammuz  with  an  idolatrous 
prophet,  which  has  already  been  given  in  a  quota- 
tion from  ilaimonides,  who  himself  quotes  from  the 
Ayriculture  of  the  N'ibiithmiins,  has  been  recently 
re\uved  by  Professor  Chwolsuhn  of  St.  Petersliurg 
{Ui:ber  Tammuz,  etc.  ISfJO).  An  Arab  writer  of 
the  10th  century,  En-Nedim,  in  his  hook  called 
Filnist  el-' Ului/i,  says  (quoting  from  Abii  Sa  id 
Wahl)  ben  Il)rahim)  that  in  the  middle  of  the 
month  Tammuz  a  feast  is  held  in  honor  of  the  god 
Ta'uz.  The  women  bewailed  him  because  his  lord 
Blew  him  and  ground  his  Itones  in  a  mill,  and  scat- 
tered them  to  the  winds.  In  consequence  of  this 
the  women  ate  nothing  during  the  feast  that  had 
been  ground  in  a  mill  (Chwolsohn,  JJie  Ssubier,  etc. 
ii.  27).  Professor  Chwolsohn  regards  Ta-'ilz  as  a 
corruption  of  Tammuz;  but  the  most  important 
passage  in  his  eyes  is  from  the  old  Babylonian  book 
called  the  Agriculture  of  the  Naballimmis,  to  which 
he  attributes  a  fabulous  antiquity.  It  was  written, 
he  maintains,  by  one  Qut'ami,  towards  the  end  of 
the  14th  century  b.  c.,  and  was  translated  into 
Arabic  by  a  descendant  of  the  ancient  Chaldneans, 
whose  name  was  Ihn  Washiyyah.  As  Professor 
Chwolsohn's  theory  has  been  strongly  attacked,  and 
as  the  chief  materials  upon  which  it  is  founded  are 
ijot  yet  before  the  public,  it  would  be  equally  prem- 
ature to  take  him  as  an  authority,  or  to  pronounce 
positively  against  his  hypothesis,  though,  judging 
from  present  evidence,  the  writer  of  this  article  is 
more  than  skeptical  as  to  its  truth.  Qiifami  then, 
in  that  dim  antiquity  from  which  he  speaks  to  us, 
tells  the  same  story  of  the  prophet  Tammuz  as  has 
already  been  given  in  the  quotation  from  Kimchi. 
It  was  read  in  the  temples  after  prayers,  to  an  au- 
dience who  wept  and  wailed ;  and  so  great  was  the 
magic  influence  of  the  tale  that  Qut'ami  himself, 
though  incredulous  of  its  truth,  was  unable  to  re- 
strain his  tears.  A  part,  lie  thought,  might  be 
true,  but  it  referred  to  an  event  so  tar  removed. by 
time  from  the  age  in  which  he  lived  that  he  was 
compelled  to  be  skeptical  on  many  points.  His 
translator,  Ilm  Washiyyah,  adds  that  lammuz  be- 
longed neither  to  the  Chaldajans  nor  to  the  Ca- 
iiaanites,  nor  to  the  Hebrews,  nor  to  the  Assyrians, 
but  to  the  ancient  people  of  Janban.  This  last, 
Chwolsohn  conjectures,  may  be  the  Shemitic  name 
given  to  the  gigantic  Cushite  aborigines  of  Chal- 
dsea,  whom  the  iShemitic  Nabathwans  found  when 
they  first  came  into  the  country,  and  from  wliom 
they  adopted  certain  elements  of  their  worslii[). 
Thus  Tammuz,  or  Tammuz),  belongs  to  a  religious 
epoch  in  Babylonia  which  preceded  the  Shemitic 
(Chvpolsohn,  Ueberreste  d.  Altbabyl.  Lit.  p.  1!J). 
Ibn  Washiyyah  says  moreover  that  all  the  Sabians 
of  his  time,  both  those  of  Babylonia  and  of  Harran, 
wept  and  wailed  for  Tammuz  in  the  month  which 
was  named  after  iiim,  but  that  none  of  them  pre- 
served any  tradition  of  the  origin  of  the  worship. 
Xhii  1^1  alone  appears  to  militate  strongly  agaiust  I 


TANNER 


3175 


the  truth  of  Ibn  Washiyyah's  story  as  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  discovered  the  works  he  professed 
to  translate.  It  has  been  due  to  Professor  Chwol- 
sohn's reputation  to  give  in  brief  the  substance  of 
his  explanation  of  Tammuz ;  but  it  must  be  ceii 
fessed  that  he  throws  little  light  upon  the  obscu- 
rity of  the  subject. 

In  the  Targura  of  Jonathan  on  Gen.  viii.  5, 
"  the  tenth  month "  is  translated  "  the  month 
Tammuz."  According  to  Castell  {Lex.  Uept.), 
taiiiuz  is  used  in  Arabic  to  denote  "  the  heat  of 
summer;  "  and  Tainuzi  is  the  name  given  to  the 
Pharaoh  who  cruelly  treated  the  Israelites. 

W.  A.  W. 

TA'NACH  {'^\y3r\  [perh.  castle,  Dietr.] :  ^^ 
Tavax'i  Alex,  -q  Qaavax'  Thannch).  A  slight 
variation,  in  the  vowel-points  alone,  of  the  name 
TaAjNACH.     It  occurs  in  Josh.  xxi.  25  only.    G. 

TANHU'METH  (riTpn^ijl  [confort]  :  @ay 
a/Lid6,  ©auae/x^d;  [Vat.  Qavefxad,  ©avae^aifl;] 
Alex.  Qav^fxav  in  2  K. :  Thanehumeth).  The  fa- 
ther of  Seraiah  in  the  time  of  Gedaliah  (2  K.  xxv. 
23;  Jer.  xl.  8).  In  the  former  passage  he  is  called 
"  the  Netophathite,"  but  a  reference  to  the  parallel 
narrative  of  Jeremiah  will  show  that  some  words 
have  dropped  out  of  the  text. 

TA'NIS  (Tavis),  Jud.  i.  10.     [Zoan.] 

*  TANNER.  This  was  Simon's  occupation 
with  whom  Peter  lodged  at  Joppa  at  the  time  of 
his  vision  on  the  house-top,  and  of  the  arrival  of 
the  messengers  from  Cornelius  (Acts  x.  5).  He  is 
termed  jSupcrevs,  for  which  the  more  descriptive 
equivalent  is  0upffode\p7]s  (from  ^vpaa,  «  skin,  and 
Se\pu),  to  SI f ten,  make  supple):  while  tr/cuToSe'il'Tjs 
(Irom  cTKvTos,  "  dressed  hide.)  designates  the  oper- 
ation with  reference  to  its  result  or  product. 
Among  the  Jews,  as  well  as  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans, the  tanning  process  included  the  removal  of 
the  hair  of  the  skins,  and  also  the  making  of  the 
skins  smooth  and  soft.  (For  the  manipulations  of 
the  art  and  the  depilatory  astringents  used,  see  es- 
pecially Walcli's  Dissertationes  in  Acta  Aposlulo- 
ruin,  ii.  91-128.)  Skins  tanned  and  dyed  were 
used  for  covering  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxv.  5,  xxvi. 
14).  [Badgek]  The  occupation  of  the  tanner 
was  in  ill-repute  among  all  the  ancient  nations,  es- 
pecially the  Jews.  I'he  Jews  considered  the  enter- 
ing into  this  business  and  concealing  the  fact  before 
marriage,  or  the  entering  into  it  after  marriage,  a 
sufficient  cause  for  divorce.  It  was  also  one  of  the 
few  interdicted  trades  from  which  they  held  that  no 
one  could  be  taken  for  the  office  of  high-priest  or 
king.  For  other  reasons  as  well  as  the  disrepute  of 
the  business,  tanners  were  required  to  live,  or  at 
least  to  carry  on  their  work,  outside  of  the  cities. 
The  Greeks  and  Romans  made  it  a  law  that  they 
should  remove  their  houses  and  workshops  out  of 
the  towns,  and  establish  themselves  near  streams  or 
other  bodies  of  water.  "  Apud  veteres  coriarii  ple- 
nnnque  extra  urbes,  prope  flumina,  officinas  et 
domos  suas  habuerant,  non  solum  ob  mortua  ani- 
nialia,  (piorum  usum  ipsa  eorum  opificii  ratio  ef- 
flagitabat;  sed  etiam  ob  foetidos  in  eorum  officinis 
et  rediljus  odores  et  sordes;  tum  veio,  quod  aqua 
hi,  coria  pra-parantes,  nuUo  fere  pacto  carere  pote- 
rant  "  (Walch).  Vet  such  restrictions,  from  the 
nature  of  tlie  case,  would  be  more  or  less  severe  ill 
(Mtierent  ])lace3,  and  in  the  same  pbicc  be  enforced 
or  relaxed  very  much  as  a  variable  ])ublic  feeling 
might  dictate.     Generally  Lu  the  iijMt.  at  preacut 


3176 


TAPHATH 


"  such  estaljlislinients  are  removed  to  a  distance  be- 
yond the  walls,  hecause  they  are  ofTeiisive  as  well  as 
prejudicial  to  health  "  (Thomson,  Lmid  caul  Book, 
ii.  281).  Yet  even  at  Jerusalem  a  tannery  is  toler- 
ated, near  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  a 
nuisance  and  offense  to  all  the  neighborhood  (Tobler, 
JhnkLCiiidiijkiiUn  cks  Jei-us.  p.  2i2).  Peter  in 
being  the  guest  of  Simoti  may  have  been  less  scru- 
pulous than  most  of  the  Jews.  According  to  the 
Talmud  the  house  of  a  tanner  was  considered  like 
that  of  a  heathen.  It  has  been  suggested  that  as 
both  the  host  and  the  guest  bore  the  name  of  Simon 
they  may  have  been  related  to  each  other,  and  that 
Peter  acted  the  more  freely  on  that  account.  It 
certainly  was  not  this  relationship  that  brought 
Peter  to  Joppa  from  Lydda,  but  information  of  the 
death  of  Dorcas  (Acts  ix.  38).  The  two  places 
{uowJaffii  and  Li'ul)  are  within  sight  of  each  otlier. 

The  house  of  Simon  was  '•  by  the  sea-side  " 
(Acts  X.  0),  and  though  Peter  is  said  to  have  dwelt 
with  him  •'  in  Joppa  "  (Acts  ix.  4-3),  we  may  uiider- 
Btand  this  expression  of  the  suburlis  as  well  as  of 
the  town  itself.  Stanley  seriously  thinks  that  the 
bouse  at  Joffa  now  shown  as  Simon's  may  occupy 
the  original  site.  It  is  "  close  on  the  sea-shore : 
the  waves  beat  against  the  low  wall.  In  the  court- 
yard is  a  spring  of  fresh  water,  such  as  must  always 
have  been  needed  for  the  purposes  of  tanning.  .  .  . 
There  is  a  tradition  which  descriljes  the  premises 
to  have  been  long  employed  as  a  tannery"  {Sin. 
mid  Fid.  p.  26Lt)."  Sepp  suggests  with  more  prob- 
ability that  it  may  have  been  further  out  of  the 
town,  though  at  no  very  great  distance  from  it, 
near  the  mouth  of  a  brook  where  there  are  now 
four  tanneries  still  in  operation  {Jerus.  u.  dus  InU. 
Land,  i.  11).  11- 

TA'PHATH  (nplD  [drop,  ornament] :  Te- 
(pde;  Ahx.TacpaTa--  Tiiphdh).  The  daughter  of 
Solomon,  who  was  married  to  Hen-Abinadali,  one 
of  the  king's  twelve  commissariat  officers  (1  K.  iv. 
11). 

*  TAPH'NES  (Ta^i/as),  Jud.  i.  9.     [Tah- 

PAXHES.]  H. 

TA'PHOX  (^  Tt^wv\  Joseph.  Toxica  or  To- 
Xoav"'-  Tliopu;  Syr.  Tefus).  One  «♦' the  cities  in 
Juda;a  fortified  by  Hacchides  (1  Mace.  ix.  50).  It 
is  probably  the  UicTH-TAPruAH  of  the  Old  Test, 
which  'ay  near  Hebron.  The  form  given  by  Jo.se- 
phus  suggests  Tnkoii,  but  Orinnn  {Exeg.  Hand- 
Luch)  has  pointed  out  that  his  equivalent  for  that 
name  is  ©e/coie;  and  there  is  besides  too  much 
unanimity  among  the  Versions  to  allow  of  its  being 
accepted.  G. 

TAPPU'AH  (n^SjH  [apple,  apple-tree]  :  [in 
Josh.  xii.  17,  Ta(f)ovT,  Alex.  Qa<p<pojx\  m  xv.  31,J 
I.XX.  omits  in  both  MSS.  [but  Corap.  Aid.  Ta(p- 
(povi.-]  Taphhua).  1.  A  city  of  Judah,  in  the 
district  of  the  Sheftlali,  or  lowland  (Josh.  xv.  34). 
It  is  a  member  of  the  group  which  contains  Zoreah, 
Zanoah,  and  Jarmuth;  and  was  therefore  no  doubt 
situated  on  the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountains  of 
the  N.  W.  portion  of  Judah,  about  1'2  miles  \V.  of 
Jerusalem,  where  these  places  have  all  been  identi- 
fied with  tolerable  probability.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  name  should  lie  omitted  in  both  MSS.  of 
the    LXX.      The    Syriac    Peshito   has   Pathuch, 


TAREA 

which,  when  connected  with  the  Enam  that  fol- 
lows it  in  the  list,  recalls  the  Pat/ntc/i-enayim  ol 
Gen.  xxxviii.  14,  long  a  vexed  place  with  the  com- 
mentators. [See  Enaji,  i.  7-32.]  Neither  Tap- 
puah  nor  Pathuch  have  however  been  encountered. 
This  Tappuah  must  not  be  confounded  either  with 
the  Beth-Tappuah  near  Hebron,  or  with  the  Land 
of  Tappuah  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim.  It  is  un- 
certain which  of  the  three  is  named  in  the  list  of 
the  thirty-one  kings  in  Josh.  xii. 

2.  (rd<pov,  Qarped;  Alex.  Ecpcpovf,  @a(pdwe; 
[Comp.  QaTTcpove-]  Tnpliua.)  A  place  on  the 
boundary  of  the  "children  of  Joseph  "  (Josh.  svi. 
8,  xvii  8).  Its  full  name  was  probalJy  Eii-tap- 
puah  (xvii.  7),  and  it  had  attached  to  it  a  district 
called  the  Land  of  Tappuah  (xvii.  8).  This  docu- 
ment is  evidently  in  so  imperfect  or  confused  a  state 
that  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  from  it  the  situa- 
tion of  the  places  it  names,  especially  as  compara- 
tively few  of  them  have  been  yet  met  with  on  the 
ground.  Put  from  the  apparent  connection  be- 
tween Tappuah  and  the  Isachal  Kanah,  it  seems 
natural  to  look  foi-  the  former  somewhere  to  the 
S.  \\ .  of  Nablus,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Wndy 
Fidaik,  the  most  likely  claimant  for  the  Kanah. 
We  must  await  further  investigation  in  this  hith- 
erto unexplored  region  before  attempting  to  form 
any  conclusion.  G. 

TAPPU'AH  (npn  [apple]:  [Rom.  0a7r- 
(l>ovs\  Vat.]  &airovs;  Alex.  Qacpcpou;  [Comp.  ©a- 
<povd'-]  Taphuu).  One  of  the  sons  of  Hebron,  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  43).  It  is  doubtless 
the  same  as  Beth-Tappuah,  now  Tiffuh,  near* 
Hebron;  and  the  meaning  of  the  record  is  that 
Tappuah  was  colonized  by  the  men  of  Hebron. 

G. 

TAPPU'AH,  THE    LAND    OF    (V"'?'? 

n^2i^  [hind  of  the  apple']:  Vat.  omits;  [so  also 
Rom.  Alex.:]  terra  Taphuoi).  A  district  named 
in  the  specification  of  the  boundary  between  Eph- 
raim and  Manasseh  (Josh.  xvii.  8).  It  apparently 
lay  near  the  torrent  Kanah  (probably  the  Wady 
Faltik^,  but  the  name  has  not  yet  been  met  with 
at  all  in  the  central  district  of  Palestine.  G. 

TA'RAH  (n^^in  [turning  or  wandering] : 
TapdO ;  [Alex.  0apa(9:  Thare,]  Num.  xxxiii.  27). 
A  desert-station  of  the  Israelites  between  Tahath 
and  Mithcah,  not  ^et  identified  with  any  known 
site.  H.  H. 

TAR'ALAH  (n^S"}ri  [reeling,  drunkenness^ 
Ges.,  Fiirst]:  ©apsrjAct;  Alex.  0apa,\a  •  Tharela). 
One  of  the  towns  in  the  allotment  of  Benjamin 
(Josh,  xviii.  27,  only).  It  is  named  between  Iipeel 
and  Zelah;  but  nothing  certahi  is  known  of  the 
position  of  either  of  those  places,  and  no  name  at 
all  resembling  Tnralali  has  yet  been  discovered. 
Schwarz's  ident.ficalinn  (with  "  Thaniel  "  Damyd), 
near  Lydd,  is  far-fetched  in  etymology,  and  unsuit- 
able as  to  position ;  for  there  is  nothing  to  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  Benjamites  had  extended 
themselves  so  far  to  the  west  when  the  lists  of 
Joshua  were  drawn  up.  G 

TARE'A  (Pr^'^  [fiiglit,YuTiiy.  Qapdx! 
[Vat.  ©epee;]    Ale.x'.  ©apee:    Tharaa).    The  same 


a.  It  Is  probalile  that  the  p  is  the  sign  of  the  accu- 
»ative  ca.«e.  .lerirho,  Eiumaus,  ami  Hethel,  in  the 
wme  paragraph,  arc  cer'aiuly  io  the  accusative. 


b  The  principal  valley  of  the  town  of  Hebron  1» 
called  Waily  Tiiffah  (Map  to  Kosen'g  paper  in  ZeitfX 
Ii.  U.  G.  xii.  and  p.  481). 


TAKES 


TAIIPELITES,  THE 


3177 


'I'lJirea.  the  son  of  Micah  (1  Chr.  viii.  35),  the  i  tall  green  stalks,  still  called   by  the  Aralis  zuiodn 


Hebrew  letters  N  and  H  being  interchanged,  a 
phenomenon  of  rare  occurrence  (Gesen.  Thes.  p.  2). 
TARES  ((i(di'ia'  zizania).  There  can  be  lit- 
tle doubt  that  the  ^i^dvta  of  the  parable  (Matt, 
xiii.  25)  denote  tbe  weed  called  "  darnel  "  (Lulium 
lemulenium),  a  widely  distributed  ^rass,  and  the 
only  species  of  the  order  that  has  deleterious  prop- 
erties. The  word  used  by  the  Evangelist  is  an 
Oriental,  and  not  a  Greek  term.     It  is  the  Arabic 

zawdn  (/o'?'))'  ^^^  ^^^  zonin  (]''3'^T)  of  the 
Talmud  (Buxtorf,   Lex.  Talm.  s.  v.).     The  deri- 

s    ^ 
ration    Df   the   Arabic  word,    from    zan     {,,y\), 

"  nausea,"  is  well  suited  to  the  character  of  the 
plant,  the  grains  of  which  produce  vomiting  and 
purging,  convulsions,  and  even  death.  Volney 
( Trav.  ii.  300 )  experienced  the  ill  effects  of  eating 
its  seeds;  and  the  "  whole  of  the  inmates  of  the 
Sheffield  workhouse  were  attacked  some  years  ago 


Bearded  Darnel. 

with  symptoms  supposed  to  be  produced  by  their 
oatmeal  having  been  accidentally  adulterated  with 
lolmni"  {Encjl.  Cyc.  s.  v.  Lolium)."  The  darnel 
•before  it  comes  into  ear  is  very  similar  in  appear- 
ance to  wheat;  hence  the  command  that  the  zizania 
should  be  left  to  the  harvest,  lest  while  men  plucked 
up  the  tares  "  they  should  root  up  also  the  wlieat 
with  them."  Prof.  Stanley,  however  (S.  if  P.  p. 
426),  speaks  of  women  and  children  picking  out 
from  the  wheat  in    the  cornfields  of  Samaria  the 


I  "  These  stalks,"  he  continues,  "  if  sown  design- 
edly throughout  the  fields,  would  be  inseparable 
from  the  wheat,  from  which,  even  when  growing 
natin-ally  and  by  chance,  they  are  at  first  sight 
hardly  distinguishable."  See  also  Thomson  {Lnnd 
and  Book,  p.  420):  "The  grain  is  just  in  the 
proper  stage  to  illustrate  the  parable.  In  those 
parts  where  the  grain  has  headed  out,  the  tares 
have  done  the  same,  and  then  a  child  cannot  mis- 
take them  for  wheat  or  barley;  but  where  both  are 
less  developed,  the  closest  scrutiny  will  often  fail 
to  detect  tiiein.  Even  the  farmers,  who  in  this 
country  generally  ivied  their  fields,  do  not  attempt 
to  separate  the  one  from  the  other."  The  grain- 
growers  in  Palestine  believe  that  the  zuivdn  is 
merely  a  degenerate  wheat:  that  in  wet  seasons 
the  wheat  turns  to  tares.  Dr.  Thomson  asserts  that 
this  is  their  fixed  opinion.  It  is  curious  to  observe 
the  retention  of  the  fallacy  through  many  ages. 
"  Wheat  and  eunin,"  says  Lightfoot  {f/or.  Heb.  on 
Matt.  xiii.  25),  quoting  from  the  Talmud,  "  are  not 
seeds  of  different  kinds."     See  also  Buxtorf  {Lex. 

Talm.  s.  v.  ^"'^IT)  :  "  Zizania,  species  tritici 
degeneris,  sic  dicti,  quod  scortando  cum 
bono  tritico,  in  pejorem  naturam  degenerat." 
The  Iioman  writers  appear  to  have  enter- 
tained a  similar  opinion  with  respect  to  some 
of  the  cereals:  thus  Pliny  (//.  N.  xviii.  17), 
borrowing  probably  from  Theophrastus,  assert* 
that  "  barley  will  degenerate  into  the  oat." 
The  notion  that  the  zizania  of  the  parable 
are  merely  diseased  or  degenerate  wheat  has 
been  defended  by  P.  Brederod  (see  his  letter 
to  Schultetus  in  Exercil.  Evany,  ii.  cap.  05), 
and  strangely  adopted  by  Trench,  who  {Nottt 
on  the  Parables,  p.  91,  4th  ed.)  regards  the 
distinction  of  these  two  plants  to  be  "  a 
falsely  assumed  fact."  If  the  zizania  of  the 
parable  denote  the  Lolium  iemulenium,  and 
there  cannot  be  any  reasonable  tloubt  about  it, 
the  plants  are  certainly  distinct,  and  the  L. 
iemulenium  has  as  much  right  to  specific 
distinction  as  any  other  kind  of  grass. 

^  W.  H. 

*  TARGET.     [Arms,  I.  2.  0 ;  II.  5.  b  ; 
Akmokv.] 

TARGUMS.  [Veksioxs,  Ciialdee.] 
TAR'PELITES,  THE  (S;ibp"ll? : 
Tap^aKatoi;  Alex.  TapcpaWaloi-  Thar- 
phaliei).  A  race  of  colonists  who  were  planted 
in  the  cities  of  Samaria  after  the  captivity  of 
the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel  (Ezr.  iv.  9). 
They  have  not  been  identified  with  any  cer- 
tainty. Junius  and  others  have  found  a  kind 
of  resemblance  in  name  to  the  Tarpelites  in 
the  Tapyri  {Tairovpoi)  of  Ptolemy  (vi.  2, 
§  6),  a  tribe  of  Media  who  dwelt  eastward  of  Ely- 
mais,  but  the  resemblance  is  scarcely  more  than 
apparent.  They  are  called  by  Strabo  Ta7ri;poi  (xi. 
514,  515,  520,  523).  Others,  with  as  little  proba- 
bility, have  sought  to  recognize  the  Tarpelites  in  the 
Tarpetes  (TapTr^res,  Strab.  xi.  495),  a  Maiotic  race. 
In  the  Peshito-Syriac  the  resemblance  is  greater,  foi 
they  are  there  called  Tarp'iyr.  Fiirst  (Handivb.) 
says  in  no  case  can  Tai-pel,  the  country  of  the  Tar- 
pelites, be  the  Phoenician  Tripolis.        W.  A.  W. 


o  •  The  ^itdfcoi'  13  described  in  the  Geoponica  (ii. 
e.  13)  as  a   plant   which  "  destroys   the  wheat,  and 
irben  mixed  with  bread  produces  blindness  in  those 
200 


who  eat  it ;  "  to  ^i^aviov,  to  Keyoit-evov  alpa,  <j>8tij>*i 
TOf  triTov,  apTois  Se  f».yw/xeV7)  trieoTol  tous  «<r6ioiTa« 
Comp.  lib.  \\v.  0.  1,  |  >;  c.  7,  §  3.  4 


3178 


TARSHISH 


TAK'SHISH  {Ui^W'tJ^  [prob.  furtress, 
Dietr.] :  [generally]  ©opcreis  [or  ©opcris;  in  Is"- 
xxiii.  Kaf)xv5d}u;  in  Ez.  Kapxv^ovioi,  exc.  Alex, 
hi  Ez.  xxxviii.  13,  xa^Kr)Su>v\  LXX.  in  Is.  ii.  IG, 
6d\a<Tffa'-]  T/iKrsis,  [in  Is.  xxiii.,  Ix.,  Ixvi.,  and 
Ez.  xxvii.  25,  xxxviii.  13,  mare  ;  in  Ez.  xxvii.  12, 
tJarthcKjinenses,']  Gen.  x.  4).  1.  Probably  Tar- 
tessus;  dr.  TapTr](T(T6s-  A  city  and  emporium  of 
tlie  I'hoenicians  in  the  south  of  Spain.  In  psalm 
Ixxii.  10,  it  seems  applied  to  a  large  district  of 
country;  perhajjs,  to  that  portion  of  Spain  which 
was  known  to  the  Hebrews  when  that  psalm  was 
written.  And  the  word  may  have  been  likewise 
used  in  this  sense  in  Gen.  x.  4,  where  Knobel  (  VoL- 
ktrUifel  dev  Gtnesis,  Giessen,  1850,  ad  luc.)  ap- 
plies it  to  the  Tuscans,  though  he  agrees  with  nearly 
aU  Biblical  critics  in  regarding  it  elsewhere  as  sy- 
nonymous with  Tartessus.  The  etymology  is  un- 
certain. 

With  three  exceptions  in  the  book  of  Chronicles, 
which  will  be  noticed  separately  (see  below,  No.  2), 
the  following  are  references  to  all  the  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament,  in  which  the  word  "  Tarshish  " 
occurs;  conmiencing  with  the  passage  in  the  book 
of  Jonah,  which  shows  that  it  was  accessible  from 
Yapho,  Yafa,  or  Joppa,  a  city  of  Palestine  with  a 
well-known  harbor  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea  (Jon. 
i.  3,  iv.  2;  Gen.  x.  4;  1  Chr.  i.  7;  Is.  ii.  10,  xxiii. 
1,  6,  10,  14,  Ix.  0,  Ixvi.  19 ;  Jer.  x.  9  ;  Ez.  xxvii.  12, 
25.  xxxviii.  13;  1  K.  x.  22,  xxii.  48  [49] ;  [in  1  K., 
A.  V.  Thakshish;]  Ps.  xlviii.  7,  Ixxii.  10).  On 
a  review  of  these  passages,  it  will  be  seen  that  not 
one  of  them  furnishes  direct  proof  that  Tarshish 
and  Tartessus  were  the  same  cities.  But  their 
identity  is  rendered  highly  proliable  by  the  follow- 
ing circumstances.  1st,  There  is  a  very  close  simi- 
larity of  name  between  them,  Tartessus  being  merely 
Tarshish  in  the  Aramaic  form,  as  was  first  pointed 
out  by  Bochart  (Plinltt/,  Ub.  iii.  cap.  7).  Thus 
the  Hebrew  word  Aslishur  =  Assyria,  is  in  the 
Aramaic  form  At/nii;  Atlur,  and  in  tireek  'ATovpla 
(Strabo,  xvi.  1,  2),  and  ' Arvpia  (Dion  Cass.  Ixviii. 
26 )  —  though,  as  is  well  known,  the  ordinary  Greek 
form  was  'Acro-upia.  Again,  the  Hebrew  word 
Bashan,  translated  in  the  same  Ibrnvin  the  A.  V. 
of  the  Old  Testament,  is  Bathan  or  Builnian  in 
Aramaic,  and  'Baravaia  in  Greek;  whence  also  Ba- 
tansea  in  Latin  (see  Buxtorfii  Lexkvn  Chaldaicuiii 
Talinudicum  ei  JinOlilnicuin,  s.  vv.).  Moreover, 
there  are  numerous  changes  of  the  same  kind  in 
common  words;  such  as  the  Aramaic  numerals, 
tamnei,  which  con^esponds  with  the  Hebrew  word 
shemondi. ;  and  teliig,  the  Aramaic  word  for 
•'snow,"  which  is  the  same  word  as  the  Hebrew 
theleg  (see  Gesenius,  Tliesaunis,  p.  1344).  And 
it  is  likely  that  in  some  way  which  cannot  now  be 
explained,  the  Greeks  received  the  word  "  Tarshish  " 
from  the  Phoenicians  in  a  partly  Aramaic  form,  just 
as  they  received  in  that  form  many  Helirew  letters 
of  the  alphabet.  The  last  sh  of  Tarshish  «  would 
naturally  be  reprefiented  by  the  double  s  in  the 
Greek  ending,  as  tne  sound  and  letter  sh  was  un- 
known to  the  G'.eek  language.  [Shibboleth.] 
2dly,  There  seems  to  have  been  a  special  relation 
between  Tarshi.ih  and  Tyre,  as  there  was  at  one 
time  between  Tartessus  and  th.;  Phoenicians.  In 
the  23d   chapter  of  Isaiah,  there  is   something  like 


TARSHISH 

an  appeal  to  Tarshish  to  assert  its  independence  (tM 
the  notes  of  Eosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  and  J'^wald,  on 
verse  IS).  And  Arrian  (De  Exped.  Akxandri,u.. 
16,  §  3)  expressly  states  that  Tartessus  was  founded 
or  colonized  by  the  Phoenicians,  saying,  ^oiv'iKwv 
KTicfxa  -q  TapTTjffffSs.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
this  is  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  Arrian,  because 
Diodorus  (xxvi.  14)  represents  Hamikar  as  defeat- 
ing the  Iberians  and  Tartesdiins,  which  has  been 
thought  to  imply  that  the  latter  were  not  Phceni- 
cians.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  there  was  a 
river  in  Hispania  Bajtica  called  Tartessus,  as  well  aa 
a  city  of  that  name  (Strabo,  iii.  148),  and  it  luav 
easily  have  been  the  case  that  tribes  which  dweit  on 
its  banks  may  have  been  called  Tartessians,  and  may 
have  been  mentioned  mider  this  name,  as  defeated 
by  Hamilcar.  Still,  this  would  be  perfectly  com- 
patible with  the  fact,  that  the  Phoenicians  estab- 
lished there  a  fiictory  or  settlement  called  Tartessus, 
which  had  dominion  for  a  while  over  the  adjacent 
territory.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  muid,  likewise,  that 
Arrian,  who  must  be  pronounced  on  the  whole  to 
be  a  judicious  writer,  had  access  to  the  writings  of 
Menander  of  Ephesus,  who  translated  some  of  the 
Tyrian  archives  into  Greek  (Joseph.  A/)J  ix.  14, 
§  2),  and  it  may  be  presumed  Arrian  consulted 
those  writings  when  Le  inidertook  to  give  some  ac- 
count of  Tyre,  in  reference  to  its  celebrated  siege 
by  Alexander,  in  connection  with  which  he  makes 
his  statement  respecting  Tartessus. 

3dly.  The  articles  which  Tarshish  is  stated  by 
the  prophet  Ezekiel  to  have  supplied  to  Tyre  are 
precisely  such  as  we  know  through  classical  writers 
to  have  been  productions  of  the  Spanish  Peninsula. 
Ezekiel  sjjecifies  silver,  iron,  lead,  and  tin  (Ez.  xxvii. 
12),  and  in  regard  to  each  of  these  metals  as  con- 
nected with  Spain,  there  are  the  following  au- 
thorities. As  to  silver,  Diodorus,  who  (v.  35) 
speaks  of  Spain  aa  possessing  this  metal  in  the 
greatest  abundance  and  of  the  greatest  beauty 
(cx^Sdv  Ti  irXelcTTov  Kol  KciWtaTOv),  and  par- 
ticularly mentions  that  the  Phoenicians  made  a 
great  profit  by  this  metal,  and  established  colonies 
in  Spain  on  its  account,  at  a  time  when  the  mode 
of  working  it  was  unknown  to  the  natives  (comp. 
Aristot.  de  Minib'd.  c.  135,  87).  This  is  confirmed 
by  Pliny,  who  says  {Hist.  Nat.  xxxiii.  31),  "Ar- 
gentum  reperitur  —  in  Hispania  pulcherrimum ;  id 
quoque  in  sterili  solo,  atque  etiam  montibus;  "  and 
he  proceeds  to  say  that  wherever  one  vein  has  been 
found,  another  vein  is  found  not  far  off.  With  re- 
gard to  iron  and  lead,  Pliny  says,  "  metallis  plumbi, 
ftrri,  seris,  argenti.  auri  tota  ferme  Hispani.i 
scatet"  {/list.  Nat.  iii.  4).  And  as  to  lead,  more 
especially,  this  is  so  true  even  at  present,  that  a 
writer  on  Mines  and  Mining  in  the  last  edition  j( 
the  Encyc.  Britaiinicn,  p.  242,  states  as  follows: 
"  Spain  possesses  numerous  and  valuable  lead 
mines.  The  most  important  are  those  of  Linares, 
which  are  situated  to  the  east  of  Bailen  near  the 
Sierra  Morena.  They  have  been  long  celebrated, 
and  perhaps  no  known  mineral  field  is  naturally  so 
rich  in  lead  as  this."  And,  lastly,  in  regard  to 
tin,  the  trade  of  Tarshish  in  this  metal  is  peculiarly 
significant,  and  taken  in  conjunction  with  similaritj 
of  name  and  other  circumstances  already  men- 
tioned, is  reasonably  conclusive  as  to  its  identity 


3  It  is  unsafe  to  lay  any  stress  on  Tarseium  (Tap- 
ir^toi'),  which  Stephanus  of  Byzantium  says  {s.  v-i  was 
a  city  near  the  Coluiuus  of  Hercules.  Stephanus  was 
probably  misled  by  a   p.issage  to  which  he  refers  in 


Polybius,  iii.  24.  The  Topo^toj'  of  Polybius  could 
scarcely  have  been  very  far  from  the  Pulchrum  Pro 
montorium  of  Carthage. 


TARSHISH 

irith  Tartessus.  For  even  now  the  countries  in 
Europe,  or  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
where  tin  is  found  are  very  few:  and  in  reference 
to  ancient  times,  it  would  be  ditficult  to  name  any 
Bucli  countries  except  Iberia  or  Spain,  Lusitania, 
which  was  somewhat  less  in  extent  than  Portugal 
and  Cornwall  in  Great  Britain.  Now  if  the  Pho3- 
iiicians,  for  purposes  of  trade,  really  made  coastinj. 
voyages  on  tie  Atlantic  Oce:ui  as  far  as  to  Great 
Britain,  no  emporium  was  more  favorably  situated 
for  such  voyages  than  Tartessus.  If,  however,  in 
accordance  with  the  views  of  Sir  G.  Gornewall 
Lewis,  it  is  deemed  unhlvely  that  Phoenician  ships 
made  such  distant  voyages  {llisturiod  tiurvnj  af 
the  Astronomy  of  the  Ancients,  p.  455),  it  may  be 
lidded,  that  it  is  improbable,  and  not  to  be  admitted 
as  a  fact  without  distinct  proof,  that  nearly  600 
years  before  Christ,  when  ICzeliiel  wrote  his  proph- 
ecy against  Tyre,  they  should  have  supplied  the 
nations  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  with 
British  tin  obtained  by  tlie  mouths  of  the  lihone. 
Diodorus  indeed  mentions  (v.  ;J8),  that  in  his  time 
tin  was  imported  into  Gaul  from  Britain,  and  was 
then  cornered  on  horsel)ack  by  traders  across  Gau, 
to  Massilia,  and  the  Roman  colony  of  Narbo.  But 
it  would  be  a  very  different  thing  to  assume  that 
this  was  the  case  so  many  centuries  earlier,  when 
Rome,  at  that  time  a  small  and  insignificant  town, 
did  not  possess  a  foot  of  land  in  Gaul;  and  when, 
accor(Ung  to  the  received  sjstems  of  chronology,  the 
settlement  of  Massilia  had  only  just  been  founded 
by  the  Phocajans.  As  countries  tlien  from  which 
Tarshish  was  likely  to  obtain  its  tin,  there  remain 
only  Lusitania  and  Spain.  And  in  regard  to  both 
of  these,  the  evidence  of  Pliny  the  Elder  at  a  time 
when  they  were  flourishhig  provinces  of  the  Konian 
empire,  remains  on  record  to  show  that  tin  was 
found  in  each  of  them  (Hisf.  yi(t.  xxxiv.  47).  After 
mentioning  that  there  were  two  kinds  of  lead, 
namely,  black  lead  and  white  lead,  the  latter  of 
which  w.as  called  "  (,'assiteros  "'  by  the  Greeks,  and 
was  fabulously  reported  to  lie  obtained  in  islands  of 
the  Atlantic  Sea,  Pliny  proceeds  to  say,  '•  Nunc  cer- 
ium est  in  Lusitania  gigni,  et  in  Gallsecia;  "  and 
he  goes  on  to  describe  where  it  is  found,  and  the 
mode  of  extracting  it  (compare  Pliny  himself,  iv. 
34,  and  Diodorus,  L  c.  as  to  tin  in  Spain).  It  may 
be  added  that  Strabo,  on  the  authority  of  Posei- 
donius,  had  made  previously  a  similar  statement 
(ill.  147),  though  fully  aware  that  in  his  thne  tin 
was  likewise  brought  to  the  Mediterranean,  through 
Gaul  by  Massilia,  from  the  supposed  Cassiterides  or 
Tin  Islands.  Moreover,  as  confirming  the  state- 
laent  of  Strabo  and  Pliny,  tin  mines  now  actually 
sxist  in  Portugal;  both  in  parts  which  belonged 
to  ancient  Lusitania,  and  in  a  district  which  formed 
part  of  ancient  Galliecia."  And  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind  that  .Seville  on  the  Guadalquivir,  which  has 
free  communication  with  the  sea,  is  only  about  80 
miles  distant  from  the  Portuguese  frontier. 

Subsequently,  when  Tyre  lost  its  independence, 
the  relation  between  it  and  Tarshish  was  probably 
altered,  and  for  a  while,  the  exhortation  of  Isaiah 
(xxiii.  10)  may  have  been  realized  by  the  inhabitants 
passing  through  their  land,  free  as  a  river.  This 
independence  of  Tarshish,  combined  with  the  over- 
shadowing growth  of  tlie  Carthaginian  power, 
would  explain  why  in  after  times  the  learned  Jews 
do  not  seem  to  have  known  where  Tarsliish  was. 


n  Namely,  in  the  provinces  of  I'orto.  Beini,  and 
bragaai^a.  Spucimeus  were  in  tUe  Interuatiouul  Ex- 
bibitioa  of  lSt32. 


TARSHISH  3179 

Tints,  although  in  the  Septuagint  translation  of 
the  Pentateuch  the  Hebrew  word  was  as  closelj 
followed  as  it  could  be  in  Greek  (@d.pasis,  in  which 

the  d  is  merely  H  without  a  point,  and  ei  is  equiv- 
alent to  I,  according  to  the  proimnciation  in  modern 
Greek),  the  Septuagint  translators  of  Isaiah  and 
luekiel  transhite  the  word  by  "  Carthage "  and 
"the  Carthaginians"  (Is.  xxiii.  1,  10,  14;  Ez. 
xxvii.  12,  xxxviii.  13);  and  in  the  Targum  of  the 
iiook  of  Kings  and  of  Jeremiah,  it  is  translated 
'•  .Africa,"  as  is  pointed  out  by  Gesenius  (1  K.  xxii. 
48;  Jer.  x.  9).  In  one  passage  of  the  Septuagint 
(Is.  ii.  10),  and  in  others  of  the  Targum,  the  word 
is  translated  sea ;  which  receives  apparently  some 
countenance  from  Jerome,  in  a  note  on  Is.  ii.  16, 
wherein  he  states  that  the  Hebrews  believe  that 
Tharsis  is  the  name  of  the  sea  in  their  own  lan- 
guage. And  Josephus,  misled,  apparently,  by  the 
Septuagint  translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  he 
misinterpreted,  regarded  Tharsis  as  Tarsus  in  Cilicia 
{Ant.  i.  6,  §  1),  in  which  he  was  followed  by  other 
Jews,  and  (using  Tarsus  in  the  sense  of  all  Cilicia) 
by  one  learned  writer  in  modern  times.  See  Hart- 
manns  Aufklarunyen  iiber  Asien,  vol.  \.  p.  69,  ai 
([uoted  by  Winer,  s.  v. 

It  tallies  with  the  ignorance  of  the  Jevrs  resjject- 
ing  Tarshish,  and  helps  to  account  for  it,  that  in 
Strabo's  time  the  emporium  of  Tartessus  had  long 
ceased  to  exist,  and  its  precise  site  had  become  a 
suliject  of  dispute.  In  the  absence  of  positive  proof, 
we  may  acquiesce  in  the  statement  of  Stralio  (iii 
148),  that  the  river  B.'etis  (now  the  Guadal- 
quivir) was  formerly  called  Tartessus,  that  the  city 
I'artessus  was  situated  between  the  two  arms  by 
which  the  river  flowed  into  the  sea,  and  that  the 
adjoining  country  was  called  Tartessis.  But  there 
were  two  other  cities  which  some  deemed  to  have 
been  Tartessus  ;  one,  Gadir,  or  Gadira  (Cadiz) 
(Sallust,  Fnujm.  lib.  ii. ;  Pliny,  Hist.  Nut.  iv.  36, 
and  Avieniis,  Descript.  Orb.  Terr.  p.  614);  and 
the  other,  Carteia,  in  the  bay  of  Gibraltar  (Strabo, 
iii.  151;  Ptolem.,  ii.  4;  Pliny,  iii.  3;  ^lela,  ii.  6). 
Gf  the  three,  (Jarteia,  which  has  founrl  a  learned 
siqjporter  at  the  present  day  (Erscli  and  Gruber'a 
Kncycbpcidie,  s.  v.),  seems  to  have  the  weakest 
claims,  for  in  the  earliest  Greek  prose  work  extant, 
Tartessus  is  placed  beyond  the  Columns  of  Hercules 
(Herodotus,  iv.  152);  and  inastill  earlier  fragment 
of  Stesichorus  (Strabo,  iii.  148),  mention  is  made 
of  the  river  Tartessus,  whereas  there  is  no  stream 
near  Carteia  (  =:  Kl  Koccadillo)  which  deserves  to 
be  called  more  than  a  rivulet.  Strictly  speaking, 
the  same  objection  would  apply  to  Gadir;  but,  for 
poetical  uses,  the  Guadalquivir,  which  is  only  20 
miles  distant,  would  be  sufficiently  near.  It  was, 
perhaps,  in  reference  to  the  claim  of  Gadir  that 
Cicero,  in  a  letter  to  Atticus  (vii.  3),  jocosely  calls 
Balbus,  a  native  of  that  town,  "  Tartessiuni  istum 
tuum."'  But  Tartessius  was,  likewise,  used  by 
poets  to  express  the  extreme  west  where  the  sun 
set  (Ovid,  }[ttani.  xiv.  416;  Silius  Italicus,  x. 
358;  conqiare  Sil.  Ital.  iii.  399). 

Literttture.  —  For  Tarshish,  see  Bochart,  Phaleg, 
lib.  iii.  cap.  7;  Winer,  Biblisches  Renlworterbitch, 
s.  V. ;  and  Gesenius,  Thesnuitts  Liny.  Ilebr.  et 
Clitild.  s.  v.  For  Tartessus,  see  a  learned  Pajier  ot 
Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis,  Notes  and  Queues,  2d 
Series,  vol.  vii.  pp.  189-191. 

2.  If  the  lKK)k  of  C'hronicles  is  to  be  followed, 
there  would  seem  to  have  been'a  Tarshish,  acces- 
sible from  the  Ked  Sea,  iu  addition  to  the  Tarshish 


3180  TARSHISH 

of  the  south  of  Spain.  Thus,  with  regard  to  the 
iliips  of  Tarshish,  which  Jehosliaphat  caused  to  be 
constructed  at  Ezion-geber  on  the  ^^^lanitic  Gulf  of 
the  Ked  Sea  (1  K.  xxii.  48),  it  is  said  in  the 
L'hronicles  (2  Chr.  xx.  ^Mi)  that  they  were  made  to 
go  to  Tarsliish;  and  in  like  maimer  the  navy  of 
snips  which  Solomon  had  previously  made  in  I'^zion- 
g;el)er  (1  K.  ix.  26)  is  said  in  the  Chronicles 
(■2  Chr.  ix.  21)  to  have  gone  to  Tarshish  with  the 
servants  of  Hiram.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  author  of  these  passages  in  the  Chronicles  con- 
templated a  voyage  to  Tarshish  in  the  south  of 
Spain  by  going  round  what  has  since  been  called 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis 
(N'otes  and  Queries,  2d  series,  vol.  vi.  pp.  G1-G4, 
81-83)  has  shown  reasons  to  doubt  whether  the 
sircumnavigation  of  Africa  was  ever  etiected  by  the 
Phcenicians,  even  in  the  celebrated  voyage  which 
Herodotus  says  (iv.  42)  they  made  by  Neco's  orders; 
but  at  any  rate  it  cannot  be  seriously  supposed 
that,  according  to  the  Chronicles,  this  great  voyage 
was  regulai'ly  accomplished  once  in  three  years  in 
the  reign  of  Solomon.  Keil  supposes  that  the 
vessels  built  at  Ezion-geber,  as  mentioned  in  1  K. 
xxii.  49,  50,  were  really  destined  for  the  trade  to 
Tarshish  in  Spain,  but  that  they  were  intended  to 
l)e  transported  across  the  isthnms  of  Suez,  and  to  be 
launched  in  one  of  the  havens  of  Palestine  on  the 
Blediterranean  Sea.  (See  his  Notes  ad  locum, 
Engl,  transl.)  But  this  seems  improbable;  and 
the  two  alternatives  from  which  selection  should  be 
made  seem  to  be,  1st,  that  there  were  iwo  emporia 
or  districts  called  Tarshish,  namely,  one  in  the  south 
of  Spain,  and  one  in  the  Indian  Ocean;  or,  2dly, 
that  the  compiler  of  the  Chronicles,  misapprehend- 
ing the  expression  "ships  of  Tarshish,"'  supposed 
that  they  meant  ships  destined  to  go  to  Tarshish ; 
whereas,  although  this  was  the  original  meaning, 
the  words  had  come  to  signify  large "  Phoenician 
ships,  of  a  particular  size  and  description,  destined 
for  long  voyages,  just  as  in  English  "  East  India- 
man  "  was  a  general  name  given  to  vessels,  some 
of  which  were  not  intended  to  go  to  India  at  all. 
The  first  alternative  was  adopted  by  liochart,  Pha- 
leg,  lib.  iii.  c.  7,  and  has  probably  been  the  ordinary 
view  of  those  who  have  perceived  a  difficulty  in  the 
passages  of  the  Chronicles;  but  the  second,  which 
was  first  suggested  by  Vitringa,  has  been  adopted 
by  the  acutest  Biblical  critics  of  our  own  time, 
Buch  as  De  Wette,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, Parker's  translation,  Boston,  1843,  p.  267, 
vol.  ii. ;  Winer,  BMisches  Realworterbuch,  s.  v.; 
Gesenius,  Thesaurus  Lingvo  Heb.  et  Chald.  s.  v., 
and  Ewald,  Geschichle  des  Volkes  Israel,  vol.  iii. 
1st  ed.  p.  76;  and  is  acknowledged  by  Movers, 
Ueher  die  bibl.  Chranik.  1834,  254,  and  Havernick, 
Spezielle  Kinleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1839, 
vol.  ii.  p.  237.  This  alternative  is  in  itself  by  far 
the  most  probable,  and  ought  not  to  occasion  any 
surprise.  The  compiler  of  the  Chronicles,  who 
probably  lived  in  the  time  of  Alexander's  succes- 
sors, had  the  book  of  Kings  before  him,  and  in 
copying  its  accounts,  occasionally  used  later  and 
more  common  words  for  words  older  and  more  un- 
isual  (Ue  Wette,  I.  c.  p.  266).  It  is  probable  that 
juring  the  Persian  domination  Tartessus  was  in- 


TARSHISH 

dependent  (Herodotus  i.  163);  at  any  rate,  when 
first  visited  by  the  Greeks,  it  appears  to  have  had 
its  own  kings.  It  is  not,  therefore,  by  any  means 
unnatural  that  the  old  trade  of  the  Phoenicians 
with  Tarshish  had  ceased  to  be  understood;  and 
tlie  compiler  of  the  Chronicles,  when  be  read  of 
"  ships  of  Tarshish,"  presuming,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  they  were  destined  for  Tarshish,  con- 
sulted, as  he  thought,  the  convenienc^f  his  readers 
by  inserting  the  explanation  as  part  *  the  text. 

Although,  however,  the  point  to  vhich  the  fleet 
of  Solomon  and  Hiram  went  once  in  three  years  did 
not  bear  the  name  of  Tarshish,  the  question  here 
arises  of  what  that  point  was,  however  it  wag 
called  ?  And  the  reasonable  answer  seems  to  bt 
India,  or  the  Indian  islands.  This  is  shown  by  the 
nature  of  the  imports  with  which  the  fleet  returned, 
which  are  specified  as  "  gold,  silver,  ivory,  apes, 
and  peacocks'''  (1  K.  x.  22).  The  gold  might 
possibly  have  been  obtained  from  Africa,  or  from 
Ophir  in  Arabia  [Oi'Iiik],  and  the  ivory  and  the 
apes  might  likewise  have  been  imported  from 
Africa;  but  the  peacocks  point  conclusively,  not  to 
Africa,  but  to  India.  One  of  the  English  transla- 
tors of  Cuvier's  Animul  Kingdom,  London,  1829, 
vol.  viii.  p.  136,  says,  in  reference  to  this  bird: 
"  It  has  long  since  been  decided  that  India  was  the 
cradle  of  the  peacock.  It  is  in  the  countries  of 
Southern  Asia,  and  the  vast  archipelago  of  the 
Eastern  Ocean,  that  this  bird  appears  to  have  fixed 
its  dwelUng,  and  to  live  in  a  state  of  freedom.  All 
travellers  who  have  visited  these  countries  make 
mention  of  these  l)irds.  Thevenot  encountered 
great  numbers  of  them  in  the  province  of  Guzzerat; 
Tavernier  throughout  all  India,  and  Payrard  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Calcutta.  Labillardiere  tells  us 
that  peacocks  are  common  in  the  island  of  Java." 
To  this  may  be  added  the  statement  of  Sir  "William 
.lardine.  Naturalist's  Library,  vol.  xx.  p.  147- 
There  are  only  two  species  "known;  both  inhabit 
the  continent  and  islands  of  India  "  —  so  that  the 
mention  of  the  peacock  seems  to  exclude  the  possi- 
bility of  the  \oyage  having  been  to  Africa.  Mr. 
Crawfurd,  indeed,  in  his  excellent  Descriptive  Dic- 
tionary (if'  the  Indian  Islands,  p.  310,  expresses  an 
opinion  that  the  birds  are  more  likely  to  have  been 
parrots  than  peacocks;  and  he  objects  to  the  pea- 
cock, that,  independent  of  its  great  size,  it  is  of 
delicate  constitution,  which  would  make  it  nearly 
impossible  to  convey  it  in  small  vessels  and  by  a 
long  sea  voyage.  It  is  proper,  however,  to  mention, 
on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Gould,  whose  splendid 
works  on  birds  are  so  well  known,  that  the  peacock 
is  by  no  means  a  bird  of  delicate  constitution,  and 
that  it  would  bear  a  sea  voyage  very  well.  Mr. 
Go.uld  observes  that  it  might  be  easily  fed  duiing  a 
long  voyage,  as  it  lives  on  grain ;  and  that  it  would 
merely  have  been  necessary,  in  order  to  keep  it  in 
a  cage,  to  have  cut  off  its  train;  which,  it  is  to  lie 
observed,  falls  off  of  itself,  and  is  naturally  renewed 
once  a  year. 

The  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  importation 
of  peacocks  is  confirmed  by  the  Hebrew  name  for 
the  ape  and  the  peacock.  Neither  of  these  names 
is  of  Hebrew,  or  even  Shemitic  origin ;  and  each 
points  to  India.''   Thus  the  Hebrew  word  for  ape  is 


a  Sir  Emerson  Tennent  has  pointed  out  and  trans- 
Ikted  a  very  instructive  passage  in  Xenophon,  CEconom. 
cap.  viii.,  in  wliicli  there  is  a  detailed  description  of  a 
large  Phoenician  vessel,  to  fxeya.  ttAoioi'  to  'J'oii'iko;'. 
thifi  q«ieiu!)  to  har»  struck  Xeuophoa  with  the  same 


kind  of  admiration  which  every  one  feel.i  who  b» 
comes  acquainted  for  the  first  time  with  the  arrange- 
ments of  an  English  man-of-war.  See  Encycl.  Bri 
taiuiira,  8th  ed.  s.  v.  "  Tarshish." 

b  The    word    "  skenkabbim  "  =  ivory,   is   likewia* 


TARSHISH 

Kdph,  wliile  tlie  Sanskrit  word  is  kapi  (see  Gese- 
aiug  and  Fiirst,  «.  v ,  and  Max  Miiller,  On  the  Sci- 
ence iif  Lanijuaye,  \).  VM).  Again,  the  Hebrew 
word  for  peacock  is  tuLki,  wliioli  cannot  be  ex- 
plained in  Hebrew,  but  is  akin  to  tuka  in  the  Tamil 
language,  in  which  it  is  hkewise  capaMe  of  expla^ 
nation,  'llius,  the  l!ev.  Dr.  R.  Caldwell,  than  whom 
there  is  no  greater  iuthority  on  the  Taini]  language, 
writes  as  lolWs  from  I'alauicottah,  Madras,  .lune 
12.  1862:  "  Toka"  is  a  well  recognized  Tamil  word 
for  peacock,  though  now  used  only  in  poetry.  The 
Sanskrit  sikki  refers  to  the  peculiar  crest  of  the 
peacock,  and  means  (avis)  crisl'itu  ;  the  Tamil  tuhi 
referij  to  the  other  and  still  mure  marked  |)eculiarity 
of  the  peacock,  its  tail  (i.  e.  its  train),  and  means 
(avis)  caud'Ud..  The  Tamil  tuka  signifies,' accord- 
hig  to  the  dictionaries,  '  plumage,  the  peacock's  tail, 
the  peacock,  the  end  of  a  skirt,  a  flag,  and,  lastly,  a 
woman  '  (a  comparison  of  gayiy-dressed  women  with 
peacocks  being  implied).  The* explanation  of  all 
these  meanings  is,  that  toka  literally  means  that 
which  hangs  ~  a  hanging.  Hence  tokhai,  another 
form  of  the  same  word  in  provincial  use  in  Tamil 
(see  also  the  t^ii/ai  of  Kcldiger  in  Gesenius's  J'/(e- 
scurus,  p.  1502),  means  'skirt,'  and  in  Telugu, 
toKci  means  a  tail."  It  is  to  be  observed,  however, 
that,  if  there  was  any  positive  evidence  of  the 
voyage  having  been  to  Africa,  the  Indian  origin  of 
the  Hebrew  name  for  ajje  and  peacock  would  not  be 
of  much  weight,  as  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the 
Hebrews  first  became  acquainted  with  the  names  of 
these  animals  through  Solomon's  naval  expeditions 
from  Ezion-gelier.  Still,  this  Indian  origin  of 
those  names  must  be  regarded  as  important  in  the 
absence  of  any  evidence  in  favor  of  Africa,  and  in 
conjunction  with  the  fact  that  the  peacock  is  an 
Indian  and  not  an  African  bird.'' 

It  is  only  to  be  added,  that  there  are  not  suf- 
ficient data  for  determining  what  were  the  ports  in 
India  or  the  Indian  islands  which  were  reached  by 
the  fleet  of  Hiram  and  Solomon.  Sir  Emerson 
Tennent  has  made  a  suggestion  of  Point  de  Gidle, 
in  Ceylon,  on  the  ground  that  from  three  centuries 
before  the  Christian  era  there  is  one  unbroken 
chain  of  evidence  down  to  the  present  time,  to 
prove  that  it  was  the  grand  emporium  for  the  com- 
merce of  all  nations  east  of  the  Red  Sea.  [See 
article  Takshisii,  above.]  But  however  reasonable 
this  suggestion  may  be,  it  can  only  be  received  as 
a  pure  conjecture,  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  evidence 
that  any  emiiorium  at  all  was  in  existence  at  the 
Point  de  Galle  700  years  earlier.  It  can  scarcel)' 
be  doubted  that  there  will  always  henceforth  be  an 
emporium  at  Singapore;  and  it  might  seem  a  spot 
marked  out  by  nature  lor  the  commerce  of  nations ; 
yet  we  know  how  fallacious  it  would  be,  under  any 
circumstances,  to  ari;ue  2,000  years  hence  that  it 
must  have  been  u  great  emporium  in   the  twelfth 


nsually  regarded  as  of  Indian  origin,  "  ibha  "  being 
In  Sanskrit,  "  elephant."  But  "  shenhabbim,''  or 
"  shenhavim,"  as  the  word  would  be  without  points. 
Is  nowhere  used  for  ivory  except  in  connection  witl> 
this  voyage,  tlie  usual  word  for  ivory  being  shen  by 
tself.  The  conjecture  of  Rodiger  in  Ge.<euius"s  The- 
}aurus,  8.  V.  is  very  probable,  that  the  correct  reading 

Ift  D"^32n  3tt',  ivory  (and)  ebony  =  shen  habnim, 
which  is  remarkiib'y  confirmed  by  a  passage  in  Kze- 
kiel  (xxvii.  1.51,  wliere  lie  speaks  of  the  men  of  Dedau 
ftavinjT   brought   to  Tyre  horns  of  ivory  and  ebony. 


TARSUS  3181 

century,  or  even  previous  to  the  nineteenth  'aenturj 
of  the  Christian  era.  E.  T. 

*  In  addition  to  the  two  cities  in  the  extreme 
East  and  West,  there  were  others  called  Tarshish 
One  of  these,  Tarsus  of  Cilicia,  has  a  fair  claim  tc 
recognition  as  mentioned  in  the  O.  T.  as  well  as 
the  N.  T.    That  the  name  is  the  same  is  shown  on 

the  one  hand  by  the  Sept.  rendering  of  ti7^ti7"^Fl 
in  Gen.  x.  4,  Jon.  i.  3,  ©apoets,  and  by  the  same 
rendering  by  other  (Jreek  interpreters  in  other 
passages  (Is.  ii.  16,  xxiii.  10;  Ez.  xx.xviii.  13);  and 
on  the  other  hand,  by  the  fact  that  in  the  N.  T. 
the  Greek  Tapa-Ss  is  uniformly  rendered  in  the 
ancient  Syriac  of  Acts  is.  11,  30,  xi.  25,  xxi.  39, 

xsii.  3,  *.CCQ.COi.J.^  and  hi  the  modern  Hebrew 
IC^tp'nn.    Now  Tarsus  of  Cilicia  is  said  to  have 

been  founded  by  the  Assyrian  king  Sardanapahia 
(Smith's  Diet,  of  Greek  ari'l  Hum.  Geoyv.  s.  v. ), 
and  therefore  in  the  time  of  Jonah  would  naturally 
have  been  in  active  communication  with  Nineveh. 
If  then  we  may  suppose  Tarsus  of  Cilicia  to  be  the 
Tarshish  of  the  book  of  Jonah,  we  readily  see  how 
the  prophet  ndght  have  found  at  Joppa  a  vessel 
bound  for  this  port.  The  prophet's  story,  carried 
by  the  ship's  crew  to  Tarsus,  would  thence  have 
gone  on  before  him  to  Nineveh,  and  would  have 
prepared  the  city  to  receive  liLs  preaching.  It  is 
interesting  to  think  of  this  city  as  thus  possibly 
connected  with  the  ancient  prophet  sent  to  the 
heathen,  and  with  the  Christian  Apostle  sent  to  tbe 
Gentiles.  F.  G. 

TAR'SUS  (TapaSs)-  The  chief  town  of  CiLi 
CIA,  "  no  mean  city  "  in  other  respects,  but  illus 
trious  to  all  time  as  the  birthplace  and  earl} 
residence  of  the  Apostle  Paul  (Acts  i.x.  11,  xxi. 
39,  xxii.  3).  It  is  simply  in  this  point  of  view  that 
the  place  is  mentioned  in  the  three  passages  just 
referred  to.  And  the  only  other  passages  in  which 
the  name  occurs  are  Acts  ix.  30  and  xi.  25,  which 
give  the  limits  of  that  residence  in  his  native  town 
which  succeeded  the  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after 
his  c(jnversion,  and  preceded  his  active  ministerial 
work  at  Antioch  and  elsewhere  (compare  Acts  xxii. 
21  and  (ial.  i.  21).  Though  Tarsus,  however,  is 
not  actually  mentioned  elsewhere,  there  is  little 
doubt  tiiat  St.  Paul  was  there  at  the  beginning  of 
his  .second  and  third  missionary  journeys  (Acts  xv 
•11,  xviii.  23). 

Even  in  the  flourishing  period  of  Greek  history 
it  was  a  city  of  some  considerable  consequence  (Xeii. 
Aniib.  1.  2,  §  23).  After  Alexander's  conquests  had 
swept  this  way  (Q.  Curt.  iii.  5),  and  the  Seleucid 
kingdom  was  estalilished  at  Antioch,  Tarsus  nsually 
belonged  to  that  kingdom,  though  for  a  time  it  was 
under  the  Ptolemies.     In  the  civil  wars  af  lionie 

«  The  Greeks  received  the  peacock  through  the 
Persians,  as  is  shown  by  the  Greek  name  taos,  raoit 
which  is  nearly  identical  with  the  Persian  name  taiis, 

I  uu  •  L^ .      The  fact  that  the  peacock  is  mentioned 

for  the  first  time  in  Aristophanes,  Aves,\(y2,  269  (being 
unknown  to  the  Homeric  poems),  agrees  with  this 
Persian  origin. 

''  ♦  When  it  is  said  (2  Chr.  ix.21)  that  "  once  eTory 
thi"ee  year.s  came  the  ships  of  Tarshish,''  it  is  fairly 
implied  that  tlie  length  of  a  voyage  corresponded  in 
some  measure  with  the  interval  of  time  at  which  if 
was  repeated.  This  accords  very  well  with  a  Tarslii)!: 
in  India,  but  not  with  a  Tur-shish  in  8(>ain.      F.  G. 


3182 


TARTAK 


It  took  Csesar's  side,  and  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit 
from  him  had  its  name  changed  to  Juliopolis  (Gees. 
Bell.  Alex.  66;  Dion  Cass,  xlvii.  26).  Au^^ustus 
made  it  a  •'  free  city."  We  are  not  to  suppose 
;hat  St.  Paul  had,  or  could  have,  his  Roman  citizen- 
ship from  this  circumstance,  nor  vpould  it  be  neces- 
sary to  mention  this,  but  that  many  respectable 
commentators  have  fallen  into  this  error.  We 
ought  to  note,  on  the  other  hand,  the  circumstances 
in  the  social  state  of  Tarsus,  which  had,  or  may  be 
conceived  to  have  had,  an  influence  on  the  Apostle's 
trainint;  and  character.  It  was  renowned  as  a 
place  of  education  under  the  early  Roman  emperors, 
ytrabo  compares  it  in  this  respect  to  Athens  and 


TARTAN 

Alexandria,  giving,  as  regards  the  zeal  for  I'aminjj 
showed  by  the  residents,  the  preference  to  Tarsus 
(xiv.  673).  Some  eminent  Stoics  resided  here, 
among  others  Athenodorus,  the  tutor  of  Augustus, 
and  Xestor,  the  tutor  of  Tiberius.  Tarsus  also  was 
a  place  of  much  commerce,  and  St.  Basil  describes 
it  as  a  point  of  union  for  SjTians,  Ciliciaii;*,  Isaur- 
ians,  and  Cappadocians  (Basil,  Ep.  Euseb.  Samos. 
Ephc. ). 

Tarsus  was  situated  in  a  wide  and  fertile  plain 
on  the  banks  of  the  Cydnus,  the  waters  of  which 
are  famous  for  the  dangerous  fever  caught  by  Alex- 
ander when  bathinjr,  and  for  the  meeting  of  Antony 
and  Cleopatra.    This  part  of  Cilicia  was  intersected 


In  Roman  times  by  good  roads,  especially  one  cross- 
ing the  Tarsus  northwards  by  the  "  Cilician  Gates" 
to  the  neighborhood  of  Lystra  and  Iconium,  the 
other  joinins  Tarsus  with  Antioch,  and  passing 
eastwards  by  the  "  Amanian"  and  "  Syrian  Gates." 
No  ruins  of  any  importance  remain.    The  following 


Coin  of  Tarsus. 


tulhorities  may  be  consulted:  Belley  in  vol.  xxvii. 
of  the  Aciirlemie  des  hiscnpt. ;  Beaufort's  Knra- 
mnnin,  p.  275;  Leake's  Asia  Mimv,  p.  214; 
Barkers  Lares  and  Penates,  pp.  31,  173,  187. 

J.  S.  H. 

TAR'TAK  (pri'iri  [see  below]  :  @ap0dK  : 
Tharthac).  One  of  the  gods  of  the  Avite,  or  Av- 
rite,  colonists  who  were  planted  in  the  cities  of 


Samaria  after  the  removal  of  the  trilies  by  Shal- 
maneser  (2  K.  xvii.  31).  According  to  Kabhinical 
tradition.  Tartak  is  said  to  have  been  worshipped 
under  the  form  of  an  ass  (Talm.  Babl.  Sanhediin, 
fol.  6-3  b).  From  this  it  has  been  conjectured  that 
this  idol  was  the  Egyptian  Typho,  but  though  in 
the  hieroglyphics  the  ass  is  the  symbol  of  Typho, 
it  was  so  far  from  being  regarded  as  an  object  of 
worship,  that  it  was  considered  absolutely  unclean 
(Plut.  Js.  et  Os.  c.  14).  A  Persian  or  PehKi 
oricrin  has  been  su2;gested  for  Tartak,  according  to 
which  it  sii,'iiifies  either  '-intense  darkness,"  or 
"  hero  of  darkness,"  or  the  underworld,  and  so 
perhaps  some  planet  of  ill-luck  as  Saturn  or  Mars 
(Ges.  Thes.;  Fiirst,  Hundwh.).  The  Carmanians, 
a  warlike  race  on  the  Persian  Gulf,  worshipped 
Mars  alone  of  all  the  gods,  and  sacrificed  an  ass 
in  his  honor  (Stra!)0,  xv.  727).  Perhaps  some 
trace  of  this  worship  may  have  given  rise  to  the 
Jewish  tradition.  W.  A.  W. 

TAR'TAN  i^PHB  [see  below]  :  &ap6di> 
[Vat.  @aveav],  TaviQavx  [in  Is.,  Vat.'-^  Siiu  Alex. 
Naflai':]  Thnrthan),  which  occurs  only  in  2  K. 
xviii.  17,  and  Is.  xx.  1,  has  been  generally  regarded 
as  a  proper  name.  (Gesen.  Lex.  Ihb.  s.  v. ;  Winer 
Rerdwdrierbuvh  ;    Kitto     Bibl.     Cyclojxed.,     etc. 


TATNAI 

Winer  assumes,  on  account  of  the  identity  of  name, 
that  the  same  person  is  intended  in  the  two  places. 
Kitto,  with  more  caution,  notes  that  this  is  uncer- 
tain. Kecent  discoveries  make  it  probable  that  in 
Tartan,  as  in  Kalisaris  and  Kabshakeh,  we  have  not 
a  proper  name  at  all,  but  a  title  or  official  de.si<,'na- 
tion,  like  Phai-aoh  or  Surena."  The  Assyrian  Tiir- 
tnn  is  a  general,  or  commander-in-chief.  It  seems 
as  if  the  (ireek  translator  of  2  Kings  had  an  inklino; 
of  the  truth,  and  therefore  prefixed  the  article  to 
all  three  names  (aTreo-reiAe  ^a<n\€vs  'Aaaopiwv 
rhv  @ap6av  koI  rh  v  'Pa<ph  (  V )  Ka\  rh  v  'Pa\l/d- 
KTjv  Trphs  rbu  ^acriKea  'E^'e/ciai'),  which  he  very 
rarely  prefixes  to  the  names  of  persons  where  they 
we  first  mentioned. 

If  this  be  the  ti-ue  account  of  the  term  Tardin, 
we  must  understand  m  2  K.  xviii.  17,  that  Sen- 
nacherib sent  "  a  general,"  together  with  his  "  chief 
eunuch  "  and  '•  chief  cup-bearer,"  on  an  embassy 
to  Hezekiah,  and  in  Is.  ^x.  1  that  "  a  general  "  — 
probalily  a  different  person  —  was  employed  by 
Sargon  against  Ashdod,  and  succeeded  in  taking 
the  city.  G.  R. 

TAT'NAI  [2  syl.]  0^1^^  [perh.  </ift]  : 
Qavdaifai;  [Vat.  @avavai,  QavOavas,  TavOauail] 
Alex.   QaOeavai,     [Qaddai/ais:]     Tlmtlumai :     Si- 

Qionis,  Gesenius,  Fiirst),  Satrap  (nn3)  of  the  prov- 
ince west  of  the  Euphrates  in  the  time  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  and  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  v.  3,  6,  vi.  6,  1-3). 
[Shktiiau-Uoznai.]  The  name  is  thought  to  be 
Persian.  A.  C   H. 

*  TAU  or  TAV,  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters. 

[WlUTING.]  H. 

TAVERNS,  THE  THREE.  [Thhee 
Taverns.] 

TAXES.  In  the  history  of  Israel,  as  of  other 
nations,  the  student  who  desires  to  form  a  just 
estimate  of  the  social  condition  of  the  people  nuist 
take  into  account  the  taxes  which  they  hail  to  pay. 
According  as  these  are  light  or  heavy  may  vary  the 
happiness  and  prosperity  of  a  nation.  To  them, 
though  lying  in  the  background  of  history,  may 
often  be  traced,  as  to  the  true  motive-power,  many 
political  revolutions.  Within  the  limits  of  the 
present  article,  it  will  not  be  possible  to  do  more 
than  indicate  the  extent  and  form  of  taxation  in 
the  several  periods  of  Jewish  history  and  its  influ- 
ence on  the  life  of  the  people. 

I.  Under  the  .Judges,  according  to  the  theocratic 
govenmient  contemplated  by  the  law,  the  only  pay- 
ments obligatory  upon  the  people  as  of  permanent 
obligation  were  the  Tithes,  the  Finsr  Fuuits, 
the  Rede:«pi'ion-money  of  the  first-born,  and 
other  offerings  as  belonging  to  special  occasions 
[Priests].  The  payment  l)y  each  Israelite  of  the 
lalf-shekel  as  '•  atonement-money,"  for  the  service 
of  the  Tabernacle,  on  taking  the  census  of  the  people 
(Ex.  XXX.  13),  does  not  appear  to  have  had  the 
character  of  a  recurring  tax,  but  to  have  been  sup- 
plementary to  the  free-will  ofiiirings  of  Ex.  xxv. 
1-7,  levied  for  the  one  purpose  of  the  construction 
of  the  sacred  tent.  In  later  times,  indeed,  after  the 
return  from  Babylon,  there  was  an  annual  payment 


«  Sureua,  the  Parthian  term  for  "  a  general,"  was 
Dften  niisfciken  for  a  proper  name  by  tlie  cl;issical 
writers.  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  23  ;  Appian,  Beit.  Parlli.  p, 
140  ;  Dion  Cas.«.  xl.  16  ;  Plut.  Crass,  p.  501,  K,  eto.) 
Tacitus  ig  the  first  au'hor  who  seems  to  be  awure  that 
It  is  a  title  iAna.  vi.  42}. 


TAXES  3183 

for  maintaining  the  fabric  and  services  of  the 
Temple;  but  the  fact  that  this  begins  by  the  vol- 
untary compact  to  pay  one  third  of  a  shekel  (Neh 
X.  32)  shows  that  till  then  there  was  no  such  pay- 
ment recognized  as  necessary.  A  little  later  the 
third  became  a  half,  and  under  the  name  of  tlie 
dklrachiiia  (Matt.  xvii.  21)  was  paid  by  every  Jew, 
in  whatever  part  of  the  world  he  might  lie  living 
(Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  9,  §  1).  Large  sums  were  thus 
collected  in  Babylon  and  other  eastern  cities,  and 
were  sent  to  Jerusalem  under  a  special  escort  (Jos. 
Ant.  1.  c. ;  Cic.  pro  Flucc.  c.  28).  We  have  no 
trace  of  any  further  taxation  than  this  during  the 
period  of  the  Judges.  It  was  not  in  itself  heavy: 
it  was  lightened  by  the  feeling  that  it  was  paid  as 
a  religious  act.  In  return  for  it  the  people  secured 
the  celebration  of  their  worship,  and  the  ])resence 
among  them  of  a  body  of  men  acting  more  or  less 
efficiently  as  priests,  judges,  teachers,  perhaps  also 
as  physicians.  [Priests.]  We  caimot  wonder 
that  the  people  should  afterwards  look  back  to  the 
good  old  days  when  they  had  been  so  lightly  bur- 
dened. 

II.  The  kingdom,  with  its  centralized  govern- 
ment and  greater  magnificence,  involved,  of  course, 
a  larger  expenditure,  and  therefure  a  heavier  taxa- 
tion. This  may  have  come,  during  the  long  his- 
tory of  the  monarchy,  in  many  different  forms, 
according  to  the  financial  necessities  of  the  times. 
The  chief  burdens  appear  to  have  been  :  ( 1. )  A  tithe 
of  the  pi-oduce  both  of  the  soil  and  of  live  stock, 
making,  together  with  the  ecclesiastical  tithe,  20 
jjer  cent,  on  incomes  of  this  nature  (1  Sam..viii. 
15,  17).  (2.)  Forced  military  service  for  a  month 
every  year  (1  Sara.  viii.  12;  1  K.  ix.  22;  1  Chr. 
xxvii.  1).  (3.)  Gifts  to  the  king,  theoretically  free, 
hke  the  old  Benevolences  of  English  ta.xation,  but 
expected  as  a  thing  of  course,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  a  reign  (1  Sam.  x.  27)  or  in  time  of  war 
(comp.  the  gifts  of  Jesse,  1  Sam.  xvi.  20,  xvii.  18). 
In  the  case  of  subject-princes  the  gifts,  still  made 
in  kind,  armor,  horses,  gold,  silver,  etc.,  appear  to 
have  been  regularly  assessed  (1  K.  x.  25;  2  Chr. 
ix.  21).  Whether  this  was  ever  the  case  with  the 
presents  from  Israelite  subjects  must  remain  uncer- 
tain. (4.)  Import  duties,  chiefly  on  the  produce 
of  the  spice  districts  of  Arabia  (1  K.  x.  15).  (5.) 
The  monopoly  of  certain  branches  of  commerce,  as, 
for  example,  that  of  gold  (1  K.  ix.  28,  xxii.  48), 
tine  linen  or  byssus  fi-om  Egypt  (1  K.  x.  28),  and 
horses  {ibid.  ver.  29).  (6.)  The  appropriation  to 
the  king's  use  of  the  early  crop  of  hay  (Am.  vii.  1). 
This  may,  however,  have  been  peculiar  to  the 
northern  kingdom  or  occasioned  by  a  special  emer- 
gency (Ewald,  Propli.  in  loc.).* 

It  is  obvious  that  burdens  such  as  these,  con\ing 
upon  a  people  pre\iously  unaccustomed  to  tiieni, 
must  have  been  almost  intolerable.  Even  under 
Saul  exemption  from  taxes  is  looked  on  as  a 
sufficient  reward  for  great  military  services  (1 
Sara.  xvii.  25).  Under  the  outward  splendor  and 
prosperity  of  the  reign  of  Solomon  there  lay  the 
deep  discontent  of  an  over-taxed  poojilo,  and  it 
contributed  largely  to  the  re\olution  that  foUowoJ. 
The  people  comi)lain  not  of  Solomon's  idolatry 
but  of  theiv  taxes  (1  K.  xii.  4).  Of  all  the  king's 
officers  he  whom  they  hate  most  is  Adoram  or 


n  The  history  of  the  drought  in  the  roigu  of  .4hab 
(1  K.  xviii.  5)  .shfiH-.s  that  iu  such  cases  a  power  llkt 
this  nuist  have  been  esseutial  to  tue  support  of  thk 
cavalry  of  the  rojal  aruiy. 


8184 


TAXES 


Adoniram,  who  was  "over  the  tribute"  (1  K. 
rii.  18).  At  times,  too,  in  the  history  of  both 
the  kint^doms  there  were  special  burdens.  A  trib- 
ute of  50  sliekels  a  head  had  to  be  paid  by  JNIeiia- 
hem  to  the  Assyrian  king  (2  K.  xv.  20),  and 
uirder  his  successor  Hoshea,  this  assumed  the  form 
of  an  annual  tribute  (2  K.  xvii.  4;  amount  not 
stated).  After  the  defeat  of  Josiah  by  I'haraoh- 
Necho,  in  like  manner  a  heavy  income-tax  had  to 
be  iuiposed  on  the  kingdom  of  .Judah  to  pay  the 
tribute  demanded  by  Egypt  (2  K.  xxiii.  35),  and 
the  change  of  masters  consei}uent  on  the  battle  of 
Carchemish  brought  in  this  respect  no  improve- 
ment (Jos.  Aiil.  X.  9,  §§  1-3). 

III.  Under  the  Persian  empire,  the  taxes  paid 
by  the  Jews  were,  in  their  broad  outlines,  the 
same  in  kind  as  tiiose  of  other  subject  races.  The 
financial  system  which  gained  for  Darius  Hystaspis 
the  name  of  the  "shopkeeper  king"  (waTrTjAos, 
Herod,  iii.  80),  involved  the  payment  by  each 
satrap  of  a  fixed  sum  as  the  tribute  due  from  his 
province  {ibiiL),  and  placed  him  accordingly  in  the 
position  of  a  pulAicunus,  or  farmer  of  the  revenue, 
exposed  to  all  the  temptation  to  extortion  and 
tyranny  inseparable  from  such  a  system.  Here, 
accorilingly,  we  get  glimpses  of  taxes  of  many 
kinds.  In  Judsea,  as  in  other  provinces,  the  in- 
habitants had  to  provide  in  kind  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  governor's  household  (comp.  the  case 
of  Themistocles,  Thuc.  i.  138,  and  Herod,  i.  192, 
ii.  98),  besides  a  money-payment  of  40  shekels  a 
day  (Neh.  v.  14,  15).  "in  Ezr.  iv.  13,  20,  vii.  24. 
we  get  a  formal  enumeration  of  the  three  great 

branches  of  the  revenue.  (1.)  The  H'^p,  fixed, 
vieasured  payment,  probably  direct  taxation  (Gro- 
tius).     (2.)   ^72,  the  excise  or  ociyui  on  articles 

of  consuinpiion  (Gesen.  s.  v.).  (3.)  T[^n,  prob- 
ably the  toll  payable  at  bridges,  fords,  or  certain 
stations  on  the  high  road,  the  influence  of  Ezra 
secured  for  the  whole  ecclesiastical  order,  IVom  the 
priests  down  to  the  Nethinim,  an  immunity  from 
all  three  (Ezr.  vii.  24);  but  the  burden  pressed 
heavily  on  the  great  body  of  the  people,  and  they 
complained  bitterly  both  of  this  and  of  the  07- 
■yap'k'Cov,  or  forced  service,  to  which  they  and  their 
cattle  were  liable  (Neh.  ix.  37).  They  were  com- 
pelled to  mortgage  their  vineyards  and  fields,  lior- 
rowing  money  at  12  per  cent.,  the  interest  being 
payable  apparently  either  in  money  or  in  kind 
^Neh.  V.  1-11).  Eaihng  payment,  the  creditors 
exercised  the  power  (with  or  without  the  mitiga- 
tion of  the  year  of  Juiulke)  of  seizing  the  per- 
eons  of  the  debtors  and  treating  them  as  slaves 
(Neh.  V.  5;  comp.  2  K.  iv.  1).  Taxation  was 
leading  at  Jerusalem  to  precisely  the  same  evils  as 
those  which  appeared  from  like  causes  in  the  early 
history  of  Rome.  To  this  cause  may  probably 
be  ascribed  the  incomplete  payment  of  tithes  or 
offerings  at  this  period  (Neh.  xiii.  10,  12;  Mai. 
iii.  8),  and  the  consequent  necessity  of  a  special 
poll-tax  of  the  third  part  of  a  sliekel  for  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Temjtle  (Neh.  x.  32).  What  could  be 
done  to  mitigate  the  evil  was  done  by  Nehemiah, 
but  the  taxes  continued,  and  oppression  and  injus- 
tice marked  the  government  of  the  provmce  accord- 
ingly (Fxcl.  v.  8).« 

IV.  Under  the  Egyptian  and  Syrian  kings  the 


c  The  later  date  of  the  book  is  assumed  in  this 
reference.     Cump.  Ecclesiasies. 


TAXES 

taxes  paid  by  the  Jews  became  yet  heavier.  'ITm 
"  farming  "  system  of  finance  was  adopted  in  its 
worst  form.  The  Persian  governors  had  had  to 
pay  a  fixed  sum  into  the  treasury.  Now  the  taxes 
were  put  up  to  auction.  The  contract  sum  foi 
those  of  Phoenicia,  Juda;a,  Samaria,  had  been  es- 
timated at  about  8,000  talents.  An  unscrupulous 
adventurer  (e.  //.  Joseph,  under  Ptolemy  Euergetes/ 
would  bid  doulile  that  sum,  and  would  then  gc 
down  to  the  province,  and  by  violence  and  cruelty 
like  that  of  Turkish  or  Hindoo  collectors,  squeeze 
out  a  large  margin  of  profit  for  himself  (Jos.  Ant 
xii.  4,  §  1-5). 

Under  the  Syrian  kings  we  meet  with  an  ingen- 
ious variety  of  taxation.  Direct  tribute  {(p6poi\ 
an  excise  duty  on  salt,  crown-taxes  (crTitpavo.. 
golden  cr(  wns,  or  their  value,  sent  yearly  to  the 
king),  one  half  the  produce  of  fruit  trees,  one  third 
that  of  corn  land,  a  tax  of  some  kind  on  cattle: 
these,  as  the  heaviest  burdens,  are  ostentatiously 
enumerated  in  the  decrees  of  the  two  Demetriuses 
remitting  them  (1  Mace.  x.  29,  -30,  xi.  35).  Even 
after  this,  however,  the  golden  crown  and  scarlet 
robe  continue  to  be  sent  (1  Mace.  xiii.  .39).  The 
proposal  of  the  apostate  Jason  to  farm  the  revenues 
at  a  rate  above  the  average  (4G0  talents,  while 
Jonathan  —  1  Mace.  xi.  28  —  pays  300  only),  and 
to  pay  150  talents  more  for  a  license  to  open  a 
circus  (2  JIacc.  iv.  9),  gives  us  a  gliujpse  of 
another  source  of  revenue.  The  exemption  given 
by  Antiociuis  to  the  priests  and  other  ministers, 
with  the  deduction  of  one  third  for  all  the  resident* 
in  Jerusalem,  was  apparently  only  temporary  (Jos. 
Ant.  xii.  3,  §  3). 

V.  The  pressure  of  Roman  taxation,  if  not 
absolutely  heavier,  was  probably  more  galluig,  as 
being  more  thorough  and  systematic,  more  dis- 
tinctively a  mark  of  bondage.  The  capture  of 
Jerus.alem  by  i'onipey  was  followed  innnediately 
by  the  imi^sition  of  a  tribute,  and  within  a  short 
time  the  sum  thus  taken  from  the  resources  of  the 
country  amounted  to  10,000  talents  (Jos.  -4;;/.  xiv. 
4,  §§  4.  5).  The  decrees  of  Julius  Caesar  showed 
a  characteristic  desire  to  lighten  the  burdens  that 
pressed  upon  the  sulgects  of  the  republic.  The 
tribute  was  not  to  be  farmed.  It  was  not  to  be 
levied  at  all  in  the  Sabbatic  year.  One  fourih 
only  was  demanded  in  the  year  that  followed  (Jos. 
Ant.  xiv.  10,  §§  5,  0).  The  people,  still  under  the 
government  of  Hyrcanus,  were  thus  protected 
against  their  own  rulers.  The  struggle  of  the 
republican  party  after  the  death  of  the  Dictator 
brought  fresh  burdens  upon  the  whole  of  Syria, 
and  Cassius  levied  not  less  than  700  talents  from 
Judfea  alone.  Under  Herod,  as  might  l)e  expected 
from  his  lavish  expenditure  in  public  buildings, 
the  taxation  became  heavier.  Even  in  years  of 
famine  a  portion  of  the  produce  of  the  soil  wa« 
seized  for  the  royal  revenue  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  9,  §  1), . 
and  it  was  not  till  the  discontent  of  the  people 
became  formidable  that  he  ostentatiously  dimin- 
ished this  by  one  third  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  10,  §  4).  It 
was  no  wonder  that  when  Herod  wished  to  found  a 
new  city  in  Traehonitis,  and  to  attract  a  population 
of  residents,  he  found  that  the  most  effective  bait 
was  to  promise  innnunity  from  taxes  (Jos.  Ant. 
xvii.  2,  §  1),  or  that  on  his  death  the  people  should 
be  loud  in  their  demands  that  Archelaus  .should 
release  them  from  their  burdens,  compla'iiing  spe- 
cially of  the  duty  levied  on  all  sales  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii. 

8,  §'4)- 

When  Judaea  became  formally  a  Roman  pro^ 


TAXING 

nee,  the  whole  financial  system  of  the  Empire  ?ame 
as  a  natural  consequence.  I'he  taxes  were  sys- 
tematically fanned,  and  the  publicans  appeared  as 
ft  new  curse  to  the  country.  [Puhlicans.]  The 
I'ortoria  were  levied  at  harljors,  piers,  and  the  gates 
of  cities.  These  were  the  reAT)  of  Matt.  xvii.  '24: 
Kom.  xiii.  7.  In  addition  to  this  there  was  the 
Krjyaoi  or  poll-tax  (Cod.  D.  gives  iiriKecpcxKaiov  in 
Alark  xii.  Jo)  paid  by  every  .Jew,  and  lookeil  upon, 
for  tiiat  reason,  as  the  special  badge  of  servitude. 
It  was  about  the  lawfuhiess  of  this  payment  that 
the  Habbis  disputed,  while  they  were  content  to 
acquiesce  in  the  payment  of  the  customs  (Matt. 
xxii.  17;  Mark  xii.  lo:  Luke  xx.  20).  It  was 
against  this  apparently  that  the  struggles  of  .Judas 
of  Galilee  and  his  folhjwers  were  chieHy  directed 
(Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  6:  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  1).  United 
with  this,  as  part  of  the  same  system,  there  was 
also,  in  all  probaliility,  a  property-tax  of  some 
kind.  Quirinus,  after  the  deposition  of  Archelaus, 
was  sent  to  Syria  to  complete  the  work  —  begun, 
probably,  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  birth  —  of 
valuing  and  registering  property  [Cyki'Jnius,  Ta.v- 
ing],  and  this  would  hardly  have  been  necessary 
for  a  mere  poll-tax.  The  influence  of  Joazar  the 
high-priest  led  the  people  generally  (the  followers 
of  Judas  and  the  Pharisee  Sadduc  were  the  oidy 
marked  exceptions)  to  acquiesce  in  this  measure 
and  to  make  the  required  returns  (.los.  Ant.  xviii. 
1,  §  1);  but  their  discontent  still  continued,  and, 
under  Tiberius,  they  applied  for  some  alleviation 
(Tac.  Ann.  ii.  42).  In  addition  to  these  general 
taxes,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  were  subject  to 
a  special  house-duty  about,  this  period ;  Agri[)pa,  in 
his  desire  to  reward  the  good-will  of  the  people,  re 
mitted  it  (.los.  Ant.  xix.  0,  §  -3). 

It  can  hardly  lie  doubted  that  in  this,  as  in  most 
other  cases,  an  oppressive  taxation  tended  greatly 
to  demoralize  the  people.  Many  of  the  most  glar- 
ing faults  of  the  .lewish  character  are  distinctly 
traceable  to  it.  The  fierce,  vindictive  cruelty  of 
the  Galilseans,  the  Zealots,  the  Sicarii,  was  its 
natural  fruit.  It  was  not  the  least  striking  jjroof 
that  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  was 
more  than  the  natural  outrush  of  popular  feeling, 
that  it  sought  to  raise  men  to  the  higher  region  in 
which  all  such  matters  were  regarded  as  things 
indifferent;  and,  instead  of  expressing  the  popular 
impatience  of  taxation,  gave,  as  the  true  counsel, 
the  precept  "  Render  unto  Csesar  the  things  that 
are  Caesar's,"  "  triliute  to  whom  tribute  is  due, 
custom  to  whom  custom."  E.  H.  P. 

TAXING.  I.  {ri  o.iroyptKpi} :  descnptio.  Luke 
ii.  2;  pr(>f'essio,  Acts  v.  37)  The  cognate  verb 
anoypdcjxaOai  in  like  manner  is  rendered  by  ''  to 
be  taxed  "  in  the  A.  V.."  while  the  Vulgate  em- 
ploys "  ut  describeretnr  universus  orbis  "  in  Luke 
ii.  1,  and  "  ut  profiterentur  singuli  "  in  ver.  -3. 
lioth  the  Latin  words  thus  used  are  found  in  class- 
ical writers  with  the  meaning  of  a  registration  or 
formal  return  of  population  or  property  (Cic.  Verr. 
ii.  3,  §  47;  da  Of.  i.  7;  Sueton.  fiber,  p.  .30). 
The  English  word  conveys  to  us  more  distinctly 
the  notion  of  a  tax  or  tribute  actually  levied,  but 
it  appears  to  have  been  used  in  the  KUh  century 
for  the  simple  assessment  of  a  subsidy  upon  the 
property  of  a  given  county  (Bacon,  Hen.  VI I.  p. 
87),  or  the  registration  of  the  people  for  the  pur- 


TAXING 


318; 


**  In  Heb.  xii.  23  {nfnaTuroKtiiV  anoyeypaixtjLevtDV  ev 
vftavoU),  where  the  idea  i.s  that  of  the  registration 
»f  the  tirst-born   as  citizens   of   tt«   Ueaveuly  Joru- 


pose  of  a  poll-tax  (Camden,  Hist,  of  Ehz.).  This 
may  account  for  the  choice  of  the  word  by  Tindal 
hi  lieu  of  "description"  and  "profession,"  which 
W'ickliffe,  following  the  Vulgate,  had  given.  Since 
then  ■'  taxing  "  has  kept  its  ground  in  most  Eng- 
lish versions  with  the  exception  of  "tribute"  in 
the  Geneva,  and  "  enrolment  "  in  the  Hhemish  of 
.\cts  V.  37.  The  word  airoypa(p7]  by  itself  leaves 
the  question  whether  the  returns  made  were  of 
population  or  property  undetermined.  Josephus, 
using  the  words  r)  wKOTiix-qaLs  rciiv  oi/crtwv  {Ant. 
xviii.  1,  §  1)  as  an  equivalent,  shows  that  .'■^  the 
taxing  "  of  which  Gamaliel  speaks  included  both. 
That  connected  with  the  nativity,  the  first  step 
toward  the  complete  statistical  returns,  was  prob- 
ably limited  to  the  former  (Greswell,  Harmony,  i. 
542).  In  either  case  "census"  would  have  seemed 
the  most  natural  Latin  equivalent,  but  in  the  Greek 
of  the  N.  T.,  and  therefore  probably  in  the  familiar 
Latin  of  the  period,  as  afterwards  in  the  Vulg., 
that  word  slides  off  into  the  sense  of  the  tribute 
actually  paid  (Matt.  xvii.  24,  xxii.  17). 

II.  'I wo  distinct  registrations,  or  taxings,  are 
mentioned  in  the  N.  T.,  both  of  them  by  St.  Luke. 
The  first  is  said  to  have  been  the  result  of  an  edict 
of  the  emperor  .luyustus,  that  "  all  the  world  ((.  e. 
the  Koman  empire)  should  be  taxed  {aTroypd- 
(pecrdai  Trarrav  Tr]v  olKovixfvqv)  (Luke  ii.  1),  and 
is  connected  by  tlie  Iwangelist  with  the  name  of 
Cyrenius,  or  Quirinus.  The  second,  and  more  im- 
portant (r)  aTToypacpri,  Acts  v.  37),  is  referred  to  in 
the  report  of  tiamaliel's  speech,  and  is  there  dis- 
tinctly associated,  in  point  of  time,  with  the  revolt 
of  Judas  of  Galilee.  The  account  of  Josephus  {Ant. 
xviii.  1,  §  1;  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  1)  brings  together  the 
two  names  which  St.  Luke  keeps  distinct,  with  an 
interval  of  several  years  between  them.  Cyrenius 
comes  as  governor  of  Syria  after  the  deposition  of 
Archelaus,  accompanied  by  Coponius  as  procurator 
of  Judasa.  He  is  sent  to  make  an  assessment  of 
the  value  of  property  in  Syria  (no  intimation  being 
given  of  its  extension  to  the  olKou/jLevrj),  and  it  ia 
this  which  rouses  -hulas  and  his  followers  to  their 
rebellion.  The  chronological  questions  presented 
by  these  apparent  discrepancies  have  been  discussed, 
so  far  as  they  are  connected  with  the  name  of  the 
governor  of  Syria,  under  Cykenius.  An  account 
of  the  tumults  caused  by  the  taxing  will  be  found 
under  Judas  of  Galilee. 

III.  There  are,  however,  some  other  questions 
connected  with  the  statement  of  Luke  ii.  1-3,  which 
call  for  some  notice. 

(1.)  The  truth  of  the  statement  has  been  ques- 
tioned by  Strauss  {LeOen  Jesu,  i.  28)  and  De  \A'ette 
{Cimim.  in  foe),  and  others,  on  the  ground  that 
neither  Josephus  nor  any  other  contemporary  writer 
mentions  a  census  extending  over  the  whole  euipire 
at  this  period  (a.  u.  C.  750).  An  edict  like  this, 
causing  a  general  movement  from  the  cities  where 
men  resided  to  those  in  which,  for  some  rea.son  or 
other,  they  were  to  be  registered,  must,  it  is  said, 
have  been  a  conspicuous  fact,  such  as  no  historian 
would  pass  over.  (2.)  Palestine,  it  is  urged  further, 
was,  at  this  time,  an  independent  kingdom  under 
Herod,  and  therefore  would  not  have  come  under 
the  operation  of  an  imperial  edict.  (3. )  If  such  a 
measure,  involving  the  recognition  of  Koman  sov- 
ereignty, had  been  attempted  under  Herod,  it  would 


salem,   tlie  A.  V.   has  simply   "  written,"  tl>*  Vulg 
'■  qui  conscript!  sunt." 


3186 


TAXING 


hiive  roused  the  same  resistance  as  the  undisputed 
census  under  Quirinus  did  at  a  later  period.  (4.) 
The  statement  of  St.  Luke  that  "  all  went  to  be 
taxed,  every  one  into  his  own  city,"  is  said  to  be 
inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  the  Koman  census, 
which  took  coLjnizance  of  the  place  of  residence  only, 
not  of  the  place  of  birth.  (5.)  Neither  in  the 
Jewish  nor  the  Koman  census  would  it  have  been 
necessary  for  the  wife  to  travel  with  her  husband 
in  order  to  appear  personally  before  the  registrar 
(censitor).  Tlie  conclusions  from  all  these  objec- 
tions are,  that  this  statement  belongs  to  legend,  not 
to  history ;  that  it  was  a  contrivance,  more  or  less 
ingenious,  to  account  for  the  birth  at  Bethlehem 
(that  being  assumed  in  popular  tradition  as  a  pre- 
conceived necessity  for  the  Messiah)  of  one  whose 
kindred  lived,  and  who  himself  had  grown  up  at 
Nazareth:  that  the  whole  narrative  of  the  Infancy 
of  our  Lord,  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  is  to  be  looked 
on  as  mythical.  A  sufficient  defense  of  that  narra 
tive  may,  it  is  believed,  be  presented  within  com- 
paratively narrow  limits. 

(1.)  It  must  be  reuiembered  that  our  history  of 
this  portion  of  the  reign  of  Augustus  is  defective. 
Tacitus  liegins  his  Annals  with  the  emperor's  death. 
Suetonius  is  gossiping,  inaccurate,  and  ill-arranged. 
Uion  Cassius  lea\es  a  gap  from  A.  u.  c.  748  to  756. 
with  hardly  anj'  incidents.  Josephus  does  not  pro- 
fess to  give  a  history  of  the  empire.  It  might  easily 
be  that  a  general  census,  cir.  A.  u.  c.  749-750, 
should  remain  unrecorded  by  them.  If  the  measure 
was  one  of  frequent  occurrence,  it  would  be  all 
the  more  likely  to  be  passed  over.  The  testimony 
of  a  writer,  like  St.  Luke,  obviously  educated  and 
well  informed,  giving  many  casual  indications  of  a 
study  of  chronological  data  (Luke  i.  5,  iii.;  Acts 
xxiv.  27),  and  of  acquaintance  with  the  Herodian 
family  (Luke  viii.  3,  xxiii.  8;  Acts  xii.  20,  xiii.  1) 
and  other  official  people  (Acts  xxiii. -xxvi.),  recog- 
nizing distinctly  the  later  and  more  conspicuous 
awoypacpTi,  must  be  admitted  as  fair  presumptive 
evi<lence,  hardly  to  lie  set  aside  in  the  absence  of 
any  evidence  to  the  contrary.  How  hazardous  such 
an  inference  from  the  silence  of  historians  would  be, 
we  may  judge  from  the  fact  that  there  was  un- 
doubtedly a  geometrical  survey  of  the  empire  at 
some  period  in  the  reign  of  Augustus,  of  which 
none  of  the  above  writers  take  any  notice  (comp. 
the  extracts  from  the  Kei  Agrarise  Scriptores  in 
GresvveU,  Harinony,  i.  537).  It  has  been  argued 
further  that  the  whole  policy  of  Augustus  rested  on 
a  perpetual  communication  to  the  central  govern- 
ment of  the  statistics  of  all  parts  of  the  empire. 
The  inscription  on  the  monument  of  Ancyra  (tiru- 
ter,  Corpus  Inscripl.  i.  230)  names  three  general 
censuses  in  the  years  A.  u.  c.  72G,  740,  767  (comp. 
Sueton.  Octav.  c.  28;  (ireswell,  Harm.  i.  535). 
Dion  Cass.  (Iv.  13)  mentions  another  in  Italy  in 
A.  u.  C.  757.  Others  in  Gaul  are  assigned  to  A. 
U.  C.  727,  741,  767.  Strabo  (vi.  4,  §  2)  writing 
early  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  speaks  of  /nia  rwv 
Had'  r]ij.as  rifjLT)fffwv,  as  if  they  were  common 
things.  In  a.  u.  c.  726,  when  .\ugustus  offered  to 
resign  his  powei-,  he  laid  before  the  senate  a  "  ratio- 
narium  imperii "  (Sueton.  Octnv.  c.  28).  After 
Ins  death,  iu  like  manner,  a  "  breviarium  totius 
imjierii "  was  produced,  containing  full  returns  of 
the  population,  wealth,  resources  of  all  parts  of  the 


a  The  fullness  with  which  .T'lsephus  dwells  on  the 
hlitory  of  David's  census  and  tlie  tone  in  which  he 
ipMlu  of  it  {Ant.  vii.  13)  make  it  probable  that  there 


TAXING 

empire,  a  careful  digest  apparently  of  facts  collectod 
during  the  labors  of  many  years  (Sueton.  Octav.  c. 
101;  DionCass.lv.;  Tacit.  Ann.  i.  11).  It  will 
hardly  seem  strange  that  one  of  the  routine  official 
steps  in  this  process  should  only  be  mentioned  bj 
a  writer  who,  like  St.  Luke,  had  a  special  reason 
for  noticing  it.  A  census,  involving  property-re- 
turns, and  the  direct  taxation  consequent  on  them 
might  excite  attention.  A  mere  awoypacpit  would 
have  little  in  it  to  disturb  men's  minds,  or  force 
itself  upon  a  writer  of  history. 

There  is,  however,  some  evidence,  more  or  less 
circumstantial,  in  confirmation  of  St.  Luke's  state- 
ment. (1.)  The  inference  drawn  from  the  silence  of 
historians  may  be  legitimately  met  by  an  inference 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  objectors.  It  never  oc- 
curred to  Celsus,  or  Lucian,  or  Poiphyry,  question- 
ing all  that  they  could  in  the  Gospel  history,  to 
question  this.  (2.)  A  remarkable  passage  in  Sui- 
das  {s.  V.  airoypacpT])  mentions  a  census,  obviously 
dittering  from  the  three  of  the  Ancyran  monument, 
and  agreeing,  in  some  respects,  with  that  of  St. 
Luke.  It  was  made  by  Augustus  not  as  censor, 
but  by  his  own  imperial  authority  {S6(av  aurcf', 
comp.  e|f;A06  56y/xa,  Luke  ii.  1).  The  returns 
were  collected  by  twenty  commissioners  of  high 
rank.  They  included  property  as  well  as  popula- 
tion, and  extended  over  the  whole  empire.  (3.) 
Tertullian,  incidentally,  writing  controversially,  not 
against  a  lieathen,  but  against  iMarcion,  appeals  to 
the  returns  of  the  census  for  Syria  under  Sentius 
Saturninus  as  accessible  to  all  who  cared  to  search 
them,  and  proving  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  the  city  of 
David  (Tert.  cidv.  .Marc.  iv.  19).  \Miatever  diffi- 
culty the  difference  of  names  may  present  [comp 
CykenKjS],  here  is,  at  any  rate,  a  strong  indica 
tion  of  the  fact  of  a  census  of  population,  cir.  A.  u. 
C.  749,  and  therefore  in  harmony  with  St.  Luke's 
narrative.  (4.)  Greswell  {[larm.  i.  476.  iv.  6)  has 
pointed  to  some  circumstances  mentioned  by  Jose- 
phus in  the  last  year  of  Herod's  life,  and  tiierefore 
coinciding  with  the  time  of  the  Nativity,  which  im- 
ply some  special  action  of  the  lioman  government 
in  Syria,  the  nature  of  which  the  historian  care- 
lessly or  deliberately  supiiresses."  \\"hen  Herod 
attends  the  council  at  Berytus  there  are  mentioned 
as  present,  liesides  Saturninus  and  the  Procurator, 
ol  ir€p]  UeSdi'ioi'  irpfcr^fis.  as  though  the  officer 
thus  named  had  come,  accompanied  by  other  com- 
missioners, for  some  purpose  which  gave  him  for 
the  time  almost  coordinate  influence  with  the  gov- 
ernor of  Syria  himself  {B.  J.  i.  27.  §  2).  Just  after 
this  again,  Herod,  for  some  unexplained  reason, 
found  it  necessary  to  administer  to  the  whole  peo- 
ple an  oath,  not  of  allegiance  to  himself,  but  ol 
good-will  to  the  emperor;  and  this  oath  6,000  of  the 
Pharisees  refused  to  take  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  2,  §  4; 
B.  J.  i.  29,  §  2).  This  statement  implies,  it  is 
urged,  some  disturbing  cause  afflicting  the  public 
tranquillity,  a  formal  appearance  of  all  citizens  be- 
fore the  king's  officers,  and  lastly,  some  nieasura 
specially  distasteful  to  the  Pharisees.  The  narra- 
tive of  St.  Luke  offers  an  undesigned  explanatioi: 
of  these  phenomena. 

(2.)  The  second  objection  admits  of  as  satisfac- 
tory an  answer.  The  statistical  document  already 
referred  to  included  subject-kingdoms  and  allies, 
no  less    than  the    provinces    (Sueton.   /.  c).      II 


may  have  been  a  superstitious  unwillingness  to  speak 
of  this  population  census,  which  would  not  upply  t< 
the  property  assossuieut  of  Quiriuus. 


TAXING 

A.ugTistus  had  any  desire  to  know  the  resources  of 
ludsea,  the  position  of  Herod  made  him  neither 
willing  nor  aide  to  resist.  From  first  to  last  we 
meet  with  repeated  instances  of  subservience.  He 
does  not  dare  to  try  or  punish  his  sons,  but  refers 
their  cause  to  the  emperor's  cognizance  (.loseph. 
Ant.  xvi.  4,  §  1,  xvii.  5,  §  8).  He  holds  his  king- 
dom on  condition  of  paying  a  fixed  tribute.  Per- 
mission is  ostentatiously  given  him  to  dispose  of 
the  succession  to  his  tin-one  as  he  likes  best  (.loseph 
Anf.  xvi.  4,  §  5).  He  binds  his  people,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  emperor  (.!o- 
sepli.  Ant.  xvii.  2,  §  4).  'I'he  threat  of  Augustus 
that  he  would  treat  Herod  no  longer  as  an  ally  but 
as  a  subject  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  9,  §  3)  would  be 
followed  naturally  enough  by  some  such  step  as 
this,  and  the  desire  of  Herod  to  regain  his  favor 
would  lead  him  to  acquiesce  in  it. 

(o.)  We  need  not  wonder  that  the  measure 
should  have  been  carried  into  effect  without  any 
popular  outbreak.  It  was  a  return  of  tlie  popula- 
tion only,  not  a  valuation  of  property;  there  was 
no  immediate  taxation  as  the  consequence.  It 
might  offend  a  party  like  the  Pharisees.  It  was 
not  likely  to  excite  the  multitude.  Even  if  it 
ieemed  to  some  the  prognostication  of  a  coming 
chanoje,  and  of  direct  government  by  tlie  Konian 
emperor,  we  know  that  tliere  was  a  large  and  influ- 
ential party  ready  to  welcome  that  cliange  as  the 
best  thing  that  could  happen  for  their  country  (.Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xvii.  11,  §  2). 

(4.)  The  alleged  inconsi.stency  of  what  St.  Luke 
narrates  is  precisely  v,  Ijat  might  be  expected  under 
the  known  circumstances  of  the  case.  The  census, 
though  li'oman  in  origin,  was  effected  by  Jewisli 
instrumentality,  and  in  harmony  therefore  with 
.lewish  customs.  The  alleged  practice  is,  however, 
doubtful,  and  it  has  been  maintained  (Huschke, 
iihur  den  Census,  etc.  in  Winer  "  Schatzung "') 
that  the  inhabitants  of  the  provinces  were,  as  far 
as  possible,  registered  in  their  furuni  oriijinis  — 
not  in  the  place  in  which  they  were  only  residents. 
It  may  be  noticed  incidentally  that  the  journey 
from  Nazareth  to  Betlileheni  belongs  to  a  time  when 
Galilee  and  Judaja  were  under  the  same  ruler,  and 
woidd  therefore  have  been  out  of  the  question  (as 
the  subject  of  one  prince  would  certainly  not  be 
registered  as  belonging  to  another)  after  the  death 
of  Herod  the  Great.  The  circumstances  of  the 
Nativity  indicate,  if  they  do  not  prove,  that  Josepii 
went  there  only  for  personal  enrollment,  not  because 
be  was  the  possessor  of  house  or  land. 

(5.)  The  last  objection  as  to  the  presence  of  the 
Virgin,  where  neither  .Jewish  nor  Poman  practice 
would  have  required  it,  is  perhaps  the  most  fri\olons 
and  ve.xatious  of  all.  If  JMary  were  herself  of  the 
house  and  lineage  of  David,  there  may  have  been 
s|)ecial  reasons  for  her  appearance  at  Betlileheni. 
In  any  case  the  .Scripture  narrative  is  consistent 
with  itself.  Nothing  could  lie  mure  natural,  look- 
ing to  the  unsettled  state  of  Palestine  at  this  period, 
than  that  Joseph  should  keep  his  wife  under  his 
own  protection,  instead  of  leaving  her  by  herself 
in  an  obscure  village,  exiiosed  to  daiiijer  and  re- 
proach. In  proportion  to  the  hopes  he  had  been 
taught  to  cherish  of  the  birth  of  a  Son  of  David, 
in  [iroportion  also  to  his  acceptance  of  the  popular 
lieliet  tnat  the  Christ  was  to  be  born  in  the  city  of 
l)avid  (Matt.  ii.  5;  John  vii.  42),  would  be  his 
lesire  ut  guard  against  the  accident  of  birth  in  the 
despised  Nazareth  out  of  which  •'  no  good  thijig "' 
»uld  come  (.John  i.  46). 


TAXING 


3187 


The  literature  connected  with  this  sulject  is,  «f 
might  be  expected,  very  extensive.  Every  co.n- 
mentary  contains  something  on  it.  Meyer,  Words- 
worth, and  Altord  may  be  consulted  as  giving  the 
latest  summaries.  Good  articles  will  be  found  un- 
der "  Schatzung  "  in  Winer,  Realwb. ;  and  Hor- 
zog's  Real-Encijklop.  A  very  full  and  exhaustive 
discussion  of  all  points  connected  with  the  subject 
is  given  by  Spanheim,  Dubia  Evany,  ii.  3-'J ;  and 
Ilichardus,  Diss,  de  Censu  Awjusti,  in  Menthen'g 
Thesituvus,  ii.  428;  comp.  also  EUicott,  Halsean 
Lectures,  p.  57.  E.  H.  P. 

*  The  exact  nature  of  the  census  at  the  time  of 
our  Lord's  birth  cannot  be  ascertained,  as  we  know 
nothing  of  the  census  itself  except  what  Luke  tellj 
us.  That  all  the  provinces  were  subjecteil  to  an 
aTToypa(pr\  indicates  nothing,  since  this  might  Ije 
on  one  plan  in  Syria  and  Jud^a,  and  on  another  in 
Gaul.  At  that  age  of  Pome  it  was  still  the  policy 
not  to  smooth  down  all  the  differences  in  the  em- 
pire. A.  W.  Zumpt  in  his  recent  work,  D  ts  Ge~ 
buftsjihr  Cliristi  (Ixipz.  1869),  strives  to  show 
that  the  a,Troypa<pi)  was  held  for  the  purpose  of 
levying  a  capitation  tax.  For  had  it  been  of  the 
same  kind  with  the  census  of  Quirinius,  in  A.  d. 
6,  when  property  in  land  was  certainly  registered 
and  assessed,  we  might  expect,  Zumpt  thinks,  to 
have  mention  made  of  it  by  Josephus,  and  to  hear 
of  commotions  sui;h  as  occurred  owing  to  that  cen- 
sus. Put  if  tvljutuni  capitis  included  only  a  poll- 
tax,  of  equal  amount  for  all,  what  need  to  send 
the  population  to  the  ancestral  abodes  of  their 
tribes,  families,  and  smaller  subdivisions  ?  If  how- 
ever this  tax  included  also  a  levy  upon  movable 
property  (see  Peiii,  in  Pauly  v.  tribulum,  JNIarquardt 
in  15ckker-Marq.  iii.),  there  would  be  more  need  to 
make  a  registration  at  the  places  where  the  holders 
of  property  had  been  gathered  for  this  purpose  in 
earlier  times. 

This  census  then  cannot  be  shown  to  be  a  mere 
enumeration  of  inhabitants.  The  popidation  of 
the  provinces  does  not  appear  to  have  been  counted 
except  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  taxable 
capacity.  It  has  been  said  that  the  Breviarium  of 
.Augustus  contained  lists  of  the  population  of  the 
empire,  but  tlie  passages  (Tac.  Annul,  i.  11;  Suet. 
Auijust.  sub  fin.,  Dion  Cass.  Ivi.  §  33,  ed.  Sturz) 
show  only  that  Augustus  had  prepared  a  brief 
statement  of  the  resources  of  the  empire  in  money 
and  troops  together  with  the  expenses.  Pliny  the 
elder,  although  often  referring  to  measurements  of 
listances  made  under  the  supervision  of  Agrippa 
gives  no  sufficient  proof  that  he  was  acquainted 
with  general  tables  of  population.  A  passage  of 
the  lexicographer  Suidas,  under  the  word  Augustus, 
does  indeed  speak  of  an  enumeration,  but  all  schol- 
ars admit,  we  believe,  that  the  fact  to  which  he  re- 
fers is  to  be  restricted  to  the  number  of  Ponian 
citizens.  In  the  other  passage  spt)kcn  of  on  page 
3186,  it  is  clearly  implied  that  tribute  was  the  ob- 
ject of  the  airoypapT],    Ihis  passage,  notwithstaiid 

its  errors  and  its  derivation  from  a  Christian 
writer,  who  had  Luke  ii.  in  his  mind,  isthonirla  by 
\.  W.  Zumpt  and  Marquardt,  two  of  the  leadim; 
archftiologists  of  our  day,  to  contain  substantial  truth 
(Zumpt,  u.  s.,  p.  160;  Bekker-Marq.  iii.  2.  liiS). 
The  difficidty  found  by  some  in  a  census  of 
ludrea,  when  Herod  was  king  there,  is  best  met  bj 
Wieseler,  in  his  recent  Beilrdije  ((iotha,  1861t),  a 
supplement  to  his  Synojj.'Se.  Herod  had  very  limited 
powers.  He  could  not  make  w'ar  on  his  own  account, 
nor  even  coin  money  in  gold  and   silver.     Judxa 


gl88  TEBAH 

tad  been  subject  to  tribute  from  Pompey's  time 
Jowu  to  the  appointnieiit  of  Herod  as  king,  and 
there  are  indications  that  this  subjection  to  Konian 
taxation  did  not  cease  at  his  accession.  Conip. 
VVieseler,  u.  s.,  pp.  67,  69  ff.  If  made  under  the  di- 
rection of  the  president  of  Syria  by  Jewisli  officers, 
it  would  not  greatly  differ  from  a  similar  rei,'istra- 
tion  made  by  Herod,  nor  need  it  have  alarmed  the 
Jews,  if  carefully  managed. 

Some  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  .loseph,  if  living 
at  Nazareth,  could  be  obliged  to  go  to  Bethlehem 
to  be  registered.  We  are  Ibrced  to  say  that  noth- 
ing is  known  of  the  relations  of  men  to  the  tribes 
and  towns  of  their  fathers  at  this  period  of  Jewish 
history.  The  difficulty  here  is  an  argument  from 
our  ignorance  and  cannot  be  removed.  Tertullian, 
a  lawyer  of  no  mean  learning,  accepted  the  state- 
ment. If  it  be  called  mythical,  we  can  fairly  say 
that  the  myth  does  not  invent  new  usages  but 
grows  up  around  old  ones.  So,  then,  if  the  history 
of  our  Lord's  birth  were  a  myth,  this  passage  it- 
eelf  would  prove  that  Joseph  might  have  gone  to 
Bethlehem  to  be  registered,  consistently  with  pre- 
vailing usage  in  Judaea.  Add  to  this  that  family 
genealogies  were  still  kept  up,  as  is  shown  liy  the 
cases  of  Zacharias,  father  of  John,  of  Anna, 
daughter  of  I'hanuel  (Luke  ii.  36),  though  belong- 
ing to  one  of  the  ten  trilies,  of  our  Lord's  family 
(Euseb.  IJist.  iii.  20),  and  by  the  family  registers 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  at  least  show  that  it 
was  then  supposed  that  descent  might  be  and  ought 
to  be  traced  a  good  way  backwards. 

One  more  remark;  in  the  discussions  on  the 
taxing  and  some  other  historical  difficulties,  Luke 
is  brought  to  the  stand  liy  a  certain  class  of  writ- 
ers, as  if  he  had  no  -ndependent  authority  in  him- 
self. But  this  is  unfair.  Luke's  honesty  is  more 
clear  than  that  of  Josephu^i,  and  his  accuracy  in 
many  respects  is  shown  by  modern  research  to  lie 
great.  If  one  puts  against  a  statement  of  his  the 
absence  of  all  mention  by  Josephus,  or  other  his- 
torians, this  is  unfair,  and  proceeds  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  there  is  a  great  balance  of  proba- 
bility against  the  truth  of  the  Gospels.  Such  a 
one  should  also  remember  too,  that  Josephus  de- 
spatches the  whole  reign  of  Archelaus  in  a  few 
passages;  that  Dion  Cassius  is  defective  just  where 
we  want  his  testimony,  and  that  Tacitus  begins  his 
annals  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  notices  only 
that  which  is  politically  important  to  Kome. 

T.  U.  W. 

TE'BAH  (natp  [slaughter]:  Ta^tK-  Tabee). 
Eldest  of  the  sons  oi'  Nahor,  by  his  concubine  Reu- 
mah  (Gen.  xxii.  24).  Josephus  calls  him  Ta&uios 
{Ant.  i.  6,  §  5). 

TEBALI'AH  (^n^V^tp  [Jehovah  immerses 
or  purijies,  Ges.]:  TaySAai';  Alex.  Ta^e\ias-  Ta- 
beliaey  Third  son  of  Hosah  of  the  children  of 
Merari  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 

TE'BETH.     [Month.] 

*  TEHAPH'NEHES,  Ez.  xxx.  18.     [Tah- 

PAMHES.] 

TEHIN'NAH  (naniTI  [cry  for  mercy, 
mercy]:  Qai/j-dv;  Alex.  Qava',  [Comp.  @eivva.:] 
Tehinnn).  The  father  or  founder  of  Ir-Nahash, 
the  city  of  Nahash,  and  son  of  Eshton  (1  Chr.  iv. 
12).  His  name  only  occurs  in  an  obscure  geneal- 
igv  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  among  those  who  are 
tailed  "  the  men  of  Kechah." 


TEKOA 
TEIL-TREE.     [Oak.] 
TEKOA   and   TEKO'AH  (l^Spri,  but  it 

2  Sam.  xiv.  2  only,  HPipp  [see   below]:  06Kui)< 

and  QeKuve;  Joseph,  ©e/cwe,  &€Kcia:  Thecwr, 
Tlieme),  a  town  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xi. 
6,  as  the  associated  places  show),  on  the  range  of 
hills  which  rise  near  Hebron,  and  stretch  eastward 
toward  the  Dead  Sea.  These  hills  bound  the 
view  of  the  spectator  as  he  looks  to  the  south  from 
the  summit  of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Jerome  {in 
Amos,  Frocem.)  says  that  Tekoa  was  six  Roman 
miles  from  Bethlehem,  and  that  as  he  wrote  {in 
Jertiii.  vi.  1)  he  had  that  village  daily  before  his 
eyes  {Tliekoam  quotidie  ocidis  cernimus).  In  his 
Uiiomasticon  (art.  Elthece,  ^E\6eKci)  he  lepresents 
Tekoa  as  nine  miles  only  from  Jerusalem;  but  else- 
where he  agrees  with  Eusebius  in  making  the  dia- 
tance  twelve  miles.  In  the  latter  case  he  reckons 
by  the  way  of  Bethlehem,  the  usual  course  in  going 
from  the  one  place  to  the  other;  but  there  may 
have  been  also  another  and  shorter  way,  to  which 
he  has  reference  in  the  other  computation.  Some 
suggest  (Bachiene,  I'liUhtiiin,  ii.  60)  that  an  error 
may  have  crept  into  Jerome's  text,  and  that  we 
should  read  twelve  there  instead  of  nitie.  In  2 
Chr.  XX.  20  (see  also  1  Mace.  ix.  33),  mention  is 
made  of  "  the  wilderness  of  Tekoa,"  which  nuist  be 
understood  of  the  adjacent  region  on  the  east  of 
the  town  {seeiiij'ni),  which  in  its  physical  charac- 
ter answers  so  entirely  to  that  designation.     It  is 

evident  from  the  name  (derived  from  "^il^  '•  to 
strike,"  said  of  driving  the  stakes  or  pins  into  the 
ground  for  securing  the  tent),  as  well  as  from  the 
manifest  adaptation  of  the  region  to  pastoral  pur- 
suits, that  the  people  who  lived  here  must  have 
been  occupied  mainly  as  shepherds,  and  that  Tekoa 
in  its  best  days  could  have  been  little  more  than  a 
cluster  of  tents,  to  which  the  men  returned  at  in- 
tervals from  the  neighboring  pastures,  and  in  which 
their  families  dwelt  during  their  absence. 

The  Biblical  interest  of  Tekoa  arises,  not  so  much 
from  any  events  which  are  related  as  having  oc- 
curred there,  as  from  its  connection  with  various 
persons  who  are  mentioned  in  Scripture.  It  is  not 
enumerated  in  the  Hebrew  catalogue  of  towns  in 
Judah  (Josh.  xv.  49),  but  is  inserted  in  that  pas- 
sage of  the  Septuagint.  The  "  wise  woman  ''  whom 
Joab  employed  to  effect  a  reconciliation  between 
David  and  Absalom  was  obtained  from  this  place 
(2  Sam.  xiv.  2).     Here  also,  Ira,  the  son  of  Ikkesli, 

one  of  David's  thirty  "  mighty  men  "  (C^"^33) 
was  born,  and  was  called  on  that  account  "the  Te- 
koite  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  20).  It  was  one  of  the  places 
which  Rehoboam  fortified,  at  the  beginning  of  his 
rein^n,  as  a  defense  against  invasion  from  the  south 
(2  Chr.  xi.  6).  Some  of  the  people  from  Tekoa ■ 
took  part  in  building  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  after 
the  return  from  the  Captivity  (Neh.  iii.  5,  27).  In 
Jer.  vi.  1  the  prophet  exclaims,  "  Blow  the  trum- 
pet in  Tekoa  and  set  up  a  sign  of  fire  in  Beth-IIac- 
cerem  "  —  the  latter  probably  the  "  Frank  Rloun- 
tain,"  the  cone-shaped  hill  so  conspicuous  from 
Bethlehem.  It  is  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  as  a 
warning  of  the  approach  of  enemies,  and  a  signal- 
fire  kindled  at  night  for  the  same  purpose,  which 
are  described  here  as  so  appropriately  heard  and 
seen,  in  the  hour  of  danger,  among  the  mountains 
of  .ludah.  I-'ut  i'ekoa  is  chiefly  memorable  as  the 
birthplace  of  the  prophet  Amos,  who  was  here  called 


TEKOA 

by  a  special  voice  from  heaven  to  leave  Lis  occupa- 
tion as  "a  herdaiaii  "  and  "a  jjatherer  of  wild 
figs,  '  and  was  sent  forth  thence  to  Betliel  to  testify 
against  the  sins  of  tlie  kingdom  of  Israel  (Amos  vii. 
14).«  Accustomed  as  Amos  was  to  a  sheplierd's 
life,  he  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  solitude 
of  the  desert,  and  with  the  dangers  tliere  incident 
to  such  an  occupation.  Some  eftect  of  his  peculiar 
training  amid  such  scenes  may  be  traced,  as  critics 
think  (Ue  Wette,  Eiiil.  ins  Alta  Test.  p.  356),  in 
the  contents  and  style  of  his  prophecy.  Jerome 
{(td  Am.  i.  2)  says,  "  .  .  .  .  eliam  Amos  proph- 
etam  qui  pastor  de  pastoribus  fuit  et  pastor  non  in 
locis  cultis  et  arboribus  ac  vineis  consitis,  aut  certe 
inter  sylvas  et  prata  virentia,  sed  in  lata  eremi  vas- 
titate,  in  qua  versatur  leouum  feritas  et  interfectio 
pecorum,  artls  sikb  iisum  esse  sermumbus."  "The 
imagery  of  his  visions,"  says  Stanley,  "is  full  of 
his  country  life,  whether  in  Judoea  or  Ephraini. 
The  locusts  in  the  royal  meadows,  the  basket  of 
fruit,  vineyards  and  fig-trees,  the  herds  of  cows 
rushing  heedlessly  along  the  hill  of  Samaria,  the 
Bliepherds  fighting  with  lions  for  their  prey,  the 
lion  and  the  bear,  the  heavy-laden  wagon,  the  sift- 
ing of  corn,  —  these  are  his  figures"  {Jewish 
Church,  i.  3!)9,  Amer.  ed.).  See,  also,  the  striking 
remarks  of  Dr.  Pusey  {JnlrocL  to  Amos).  Compare 
Am.  ii.  13,  iii.  4,  12,  iv.  1,  vi.  12,  vii.  1,  <fec. 

In  tlie  genealogies  of  ,Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  24,  and 
iv.  5),  Ashur,  a  posthumous  son  of  Hezron  and  a 
brother  of  Calel),  is  mentioned  as  the  lather  of 
Tekoa,  wliich  appears  to  mean  that  he  was  the 
founder  of  Tekoa,  or  at  least  the  owner  of  that  vil- 
lage. (See  Koediger  in  Gesen.  T/ies.  iii.  1518.) 
If  he  was  the  owner  of  the  village,  it  was  of  course 
in  his  capacity  as  tlie  prince  or  sheik  of  Tekoa 
(Bertheau,  Biicher  ikr  Chr.  p.  17). 

Tekoa  is  known  still  as  TekiVn,  and,  though  it 
lies  somewhat  aside  from  tlie  ordinary  route,  has 
been  visited  and  described  by  several  recent  travel- 
lers. The  writer  was  there  on  the  21st  of  April, 
1852,  during  an  excursion  from  .Jerusalem  by  the 
way  of  Bethlehem  and  Urlas.  Its  distance  from 
Bell  Liihm  agrees  precisely  with  that  assigned  by 
the  early  writers  as  the  distance  l)etween  Tekoa 
and  Bethlehem.  It  is  within  sight  also  of  the 
"  Frank  Mountain,"  beyond  question  the  famous 
Herodium,  or  site  of  Herod's  Castle,  which  Jose- 
phus  (fl.  J.  iv.  9,  §  5)  represents  as  near  the  an- 
cient Tekoa.  It  lies  on  an  elevated  hill,  which 
spreads  itself  out  into  an  irregular  plain  of  mod- 
erate extent.  Its  "  liigh  position"  (Robinson, 
Bibl.  Rts.  i.  486)  "gives  it  a  wide  prosiiect.  To- 
ward the  northeast  the  land  slopes  down  toward 
Wtulij  Kliureiu'in  ;  on  the  other  sides  the  hill  is 
surrounded  by  a  belt  of  level  table-land;  beyond 
which  are  valleys,  and  then  other  higher  hills.  On 
the  south,  at  some  distance,  another  deep  valley 
runs  off  southeast  toward  the  Dead  Sea.  The  view 
in  this  direction  is  Iwunded  only  by  the  level  moun- 
tains of  Moab,  with  frequent  bursts  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  seen  through  openings  among  the  rugged  and 
desolate  intervening  mountains."  Tlie  scene,  on 
the  occasion  of  the  writer's  journey  above  referred 
to,  was  eminently  a  pastoral  one,  and  gave  back  no 
doubt  a  faithful  image  of  the  olden  times.     There 


TEKOA 


3189 


a  •  It  was  a  journey  C|f  6  or  7  hours  only,  being 
fiitt  the  same  distance  (12  miles)  north  of  Jerusalem 
that  Tekoa  was  south  of  it.  li- 

fe •  A  stillness  almost  fearful  hangs  over  the  deep 
hum.     11.  yon  Schubert  tells  us  in  his  ch&racteris- 


were  two  encampments  of  shepherds  tnere,  consist- 
ing of  tents  covered  with  the  black  goat-skins  so 
conmionly  used  for  that  purpose;  they  were  sup- 
ported on  poles  and  turned  up  in  part  on  one  side, 
so  as  to  enalile  a  person  without  to  look  into  the 
interior.  Flocks  were  at  pasture  near  the  tent? 
and  on  the  remoter  hill-sides  ip  every  direction. 
There  were  horses  and  cattle  and  camels  also, 
though  these  were  not  so  numerous  as  the  sheep 
anil  goats.  A  well  of  living  water,  on  the  outskirts 
of  the  village,  was  a  centre  of  great  interest  and 
activity;  women  were  coming  and  goictr  with  their 
pitchers,  and  men  were  filling  the  troughs  to  water 
the  animals  which  they  had  driven  thither  for  that 
purpose.  The  general  aspect  of  the  region  was 
sterile  and  unattractive;  though  here  and  there 
were  patches  of  verdure,  and  some  of  the  fields, 
which  had  yielded  an  early  crop,  had  been  recently 
ploughed  up  as  if  for  some  new  species  of  cultiva- 
tion. Fleecy  clouds,  white  as  the  driven  snow, 
were  floating  toward  the  Dead  Sea,  and  their  shad- 
ows, as  they  chased  each  other  over  the  landscape, 
seemed  to  be  fit  emblems  of  the  changes  in  the  des- 
tiny of  men  and  nations,  of  which  there  was  so 
much  to  remind  one  at  such  a  time  and  in  such  a 
place.  Various  ruins  exist  at  Tekoa,  such  as  the 
walls  of  houses,  cisterns,  broken  columns,  and  heaps 
of  building-stones.  Some  of  these  stones  have  the 
so-called  "  beveled  "  edges  which  are  supposed  to 
show  a  Heljrew  origin.  There  was  a  convent  here 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Gth  century,  and  a  Chris- 
tian settlement  in  the  time  of  the  Crusaders;  and 
undoubtedly  most  of  these  remains  belong  to  mod- 
ern times  rather  than  ancient.  Among  these  should 
be  mentioned  a  baptismal  font,  sculptured  out  of  a 
rimestone  block,  three  feet  and  nine  inches  deep, 
with  an  internal  diameter  at  the  top  of  four  feet, 
and  designed  evidently  for  baptism  as  administered 
in  the  Creek  Church.  It  stands  in  the  open  air, 
like  a  similar  one  which  the  writer  saw  at  Jufnn, 
near  Btitiii,  the  ancient  Bethel.  [Ophni,  Amer. 
ed.]  See  more  fully  in  the  Christian  Review  (New 
\^ork,  1853,  p.  51'J). 

Near  Tekua,  among  the  same  mountains,  on 
the  brink  of  a  frightful  precipice,'^  are  the  ruins  oj 
Khureitun,  which  some  have  thought  may  be  a 
corruption  of  Kerioth  (Josh.  xv.  25),  and  in  that 
case  perhaps  the  birthplace  of  Judas  the  traitor, 
who  was  thence  called  Iscariot,  i.  e.  •'  man  of  Keri- 
oth." It  is  imposailile  to  survey  the  scenery  of  the 
place,  and  not  feel  that  a  dark  spirit  would  find  it- 
self in  its  own  element  amid  the  seclusion  and  wild- 
ness  of  sucli  a  spot.  High  up  from  the  bottom  of 
the  ravine  is  an  opening  in  the  face  of  the  rocks 
which  leads  into  an  immense  subterranean  laby- 
rinth, which  many  su[)|)Ose  may  have  been  the 
Ca\e  of  Adullam,  in  which  David  and  his  followcrg 
sought  refuge  from  the  pursuit  of  Saul.  [Adul- 
i^AM.]  It  is  large  enough  to  contain  hundreds  of 
men,  and  is  capaide  of  defense  against  almost  any 
attack  tliat  could  be  made  upon  it  from  without. 
When  a  party  of  the  Turks  fell  upon  Tcku'a  and 
sacked  it,  a.  n.  1138,  most  of  the  inlialiitants,  an- 
ticipating tlie  danger,  fled  to  this  cavern,  and  thus 
saved  their  lives.  It  is  known  among  the  Arabs 
as  the  "Cave  of  Refuge."     It  may  be  questioned 


tic  way  how  he  was  impressed  there.  His  first  im 
pulse  on  reaching  tts  place  was  to  fire  his  carbine  and 
wake  the  echoes,  but  the  uext  moment  he  was  so  awed 
that  he  dared  uot  disturb  the  silence  (Rfise  in  dot 
Morgenlanii,  iii.  2U).  S 


8190 


TEKOA 


'Robinson,  i.  481)  whether  this  was  the  actual 
place  of  David's  retreat,  but  it  illustrates,  at  all 
events,  that  peculiar  geological  formation  of  the 
country,  which  accounts  for  such  frequent  allusions 
to  "dens  and  caves"  in  the  narrations  of  the  Bi- 
ole.  The  writer  was  told,  as  a  common  opinion  of 
the  natives,  that  some  of  the  passages  of  this  par- 
ticular excavation  extended  as  far  as  to  Hebron, 
several  miles  distant,  and  that  all  the  curd  at  Jeru- 
salem would  not  be  sufficient  to  serve  as  clew  for 
traversing  its  windings.  [Odollaji.]  'Jobler,  in 
his  exploration  of  the  cave,  found  a  number  of  sar- 
cophagi and  some  Phoenician  inscriptions. 

One  of  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  in  Christian  times 
seems  to  have  borne  the  name  of  Tekoa.  Arculf, 
at  any  rate,  mentions  the  "  gate  called  'I'ecuitis  " 
in  his  enumeration  of  the  gates  of  the  city  (a.  i>. 
700).  It  appears  to  have  led  down  into  the  valley 
of  the  Kedron,  probably  near  the  southern  end  of 
the  esist  wall.  (See  Tobler's  Topoyr.  von  Jericsn- 
Icm,  p.  1G.5.)  Fiut  his  description  is  not  very  clear. 
Can  it  be  to  this  that  St.  Jerome  alludes  in  the 
singular  expression  in  the  J:pU.  Paiike  (§  12), 
....  reverlar  J erosolymnm  et  per  Thecuam  at- 
que  Amos,  rulihintem  montis  Oliveti  Crucem  aspi- 
ciam.  The  Church  of  the  Ascension  on  the  sum- 
mit of  Olivet  would  be  just  opposite  a  gate  in  the 
east  wall,  and  the  ''glittering  cross"  would  be  par- 
ticularly conspicuous  if  seen  from  beneath  its 
shadow.  There  is  no  more  prima  facie  impi-olia- 
bility  in  a  Tekoa  gate  than  in  a  Hethlehem,  .lartii, 
or  Damascus  gate,  all  which  still  exist  at  Jerusalem. 
But  it  is  strange  that  the  allusions  to  it  should  be 
so  rare,  and  that  the  circumstances  which  made 
Tekoa  prominent  enough  at  that  [jeriod  to  cause  a 
gate  to  he  named  after  it  should  ha\e  escaped  pres- 
ervation. H.  B.  H. 

TEKO'A  (P'^p^  [strikin(/,pitcliiiiff  of  tents]: 
QfKoie:  Tliecv.n).  A  name  occurring  in  the  gene- 
alogies of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  24,  iv.  5),  as  the  son 
of  Ashur.  There  is  little  doubt  that  the  town  of 
Tekoa  is  meant,  and  that  the  notice  implies  that 
the  town  was  colonized  or  founded  by  a  man  or  a 
town  of  the  name  of  AsuuR.  G. 

T  E  K  01 T  E,    THE     0 VP^.H ;   in  Chr. 

"^rhpi^n  [patr.]:  &  QsKwlrns  [Vat.  Alex. -et-]) 
b  @€Kccl  [Vat.  FA.  0e/cto],  6  ©eKwfrijs  [Vat.  -vei-; 
in  Keh.,  ol  QeKcoifx,  Vat.  -etv,  Alex,  -ei^,  FA. 
-61/i, -ei^:]  cle  Theciut,  [Thecuites,  Tiiecuenus]). 
Ika  ben-Ikkesh,  one  of  David's  warriors,  is  thus 
designated  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  26;  1  Chr.  xi.  28,  xxvii. 
9),  The  common  people  among  the  Tekoites 
displayed  great  activity  in  the  repairs  of  the  wall 
of  Jerusalem  under  Neheniiah.  They  undertook 
two  lengths  of  the  rebuilding  (Neb.  iii.  5,  27). 
It    is    however    specially    mentioned    that    their 

'lords"  (Cn''3"TS)  took  no  part  in  the  work. 

G. 

TEL-A'BIB  (n'^DS"bn  [Chald.  corH-hill] : 

uerfcopos'-  nd  acervum  novnrum  frugum)  [Ez.  iii. 

15]  was  probably  a  city  of  Chaldsea  or  Babylonia, 

not  of  Upper  Mesopotamia,  as  generally  imagined. 


TELASSAR 

(See  Calmet  on  Ez.  iii.  15,  and  Winer,  nd  roc.) 
The  whole  scene  of  Ezekiel's  preaching  and  visions 
seems  to  have  been  Chaldrea  Proper;  and  the  rivei 
Chebar,  as  already  observed  [see  Chebak],  was 
not  the  Khabmir,  but  a  branch  of  tlie  Euphrates. 
Ptolemy  has  in  this  region  a  Thel-beiicane  and  a 
Thal-atha  {Geogrnj^li.  v.  20);  but  neither  name 
can  be  identified  with  Tel-abib,  unless  we  suppose 
a  serious  corruption.  The  element  '•  Tel  "  in  Tel- 
abib,  is  undoubtedly  "  hill."  It  is  a|i])lied  in  mod- 
ern times  by  the  Arabs  especially  to  the  mounds  or 
heaps  which  mark  the  site  of  ruined  cities  all  over 
the  JNIesopotamian  plain,  an  application  not  very 
remote  from  the  Hebrew  use,  according  to  which 
"  Tel  "  is  "  especially  a  heap  of  stones  "  (Gesen. 
ad  voc).  It  thus  forms  the  first  syllable  in  many 
modern,  as  in  many  ancient  names,  throughout 
Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Syria.  (See  Assemann, 
Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  784.) 

The  LXX.  have  given  a  translation  of  the  term, 
by  which  we  can  see  that  they  did  not  regard  it  a8 
a  proi>er  name,  but  which  is  quite  inexplicable. 
The  Vulgate  likewise  translates,  and  correctly 
enough,  so  far  as  Hebrew  scholarship  is  concerned ; 
but  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
word  is  really  a  proper  name,  and  therefore  ought 
not  to  be  translated  at  all.  G.  K. 

TE'LAH  (nbjTI  [hrearhy.  @a\ees;  Alex. 
©aAe:  T)uile).  A  descendant  of  Kpbraim,  and 
ancestor  of  Joshua  (1  Chr.  vii.  25). 

TEL'AIM  (CSbtSn,  with  the  article 
[lainhs] :  iu  TaXyaXois  in  both  INISS.,  and  so  also 
Josephus:  quasi  oi/nos).  The  place  at  which  Saul 
collected  and  numbered  his  forces  before  his  attack 
on  Amalek  (1  Sam  xv.  4,  only).  It  may  be  iden- 
tical with  Tei.eji,  the  southern  position  of  which 
would  be  suitalJe  for  an  expedition  against  Ama- 
lek; and  a  certain  support  is  given  to  this  liy  the 
mention  of  the  name  ('i'hailam  or  Tlielam)  in 
the  LXX.  of  2  Sam.  iii.  12.  On  the  other  hand 
the  reading  of  the  LXX.  in  1  Sam.  xv.  4  (not  only 
in  the  Vatican  MS.,  but  also  in  the  Alex.,  usually 
so  close  an  adherent  of  the  Hebrew  text),  and  of 
Jose|)hus  (Ant.  vi.  7,  §  2),  who  is  not  given  to  fol- 
low "  the  LXX.  slavishly  —  namely,  Gilgal,  is  re- 
markable; and  when  the  frequent  connection  of  that 
sanctuary  with  Saul's  history  is  recollected,  it  is  al- 
most sufficient  to  induce  the  belief  that  in  this  case 
the  LXX.  and  Josephus  have  preserved  the  right 
name,  and  that  instead  of  Telaim  we  should,  with 
them,  read  Gilgal.  It  should  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  the  Hebrew  MSS.  exhibit  no  variation 
in  the  name,  and  that,  excepting  the  LXX.  and  the 
Targum,  the  Versions  all  agree  with  the  Heljrew. 
The  Targum  renders  it  "lambs  of  the  Passover," 
according  to  a  curious  fancy,  mentioned  elsewhere 
in  the  Jewish  books  {Ynlkut  on  1  Sam.xv.  4,  itcl, 
that  the  army  met  at  the  Passover,  and  that  tlie 
census  was  taken  by  counting  the  lambs.*  This 
is   partly  indorsed  by  Jerome  in  the    Vulqute. 

G. 

TELAS'SAR  (ItS'^r]  [Assyrian  hill]: 
Qaeadfv,     Qee/xdid;    [.A.lex.    (r)a\a<T(rap,    Qai/u-aS, 


o  Ic  this  instance  his  rendering  is  more  worthy  of 
notice,  because  it  v,  auld  have  been  easy  for  him  to 
■jare  interpreted  the  name  as  the  Rabbis  do,  with 
whose  traditions  he  was  well  acquainted. 

b  A  similar  fancy  in  reference  to  tiie  n.anie  Bf.zek 
ll  '^^m.  xl.  8)  is  found  in   the   Midrash.     U  is   tukea 


literally  as  meaning  "  broken  pieces  of  pottery."  by 
which,  as  by  counters,  the  numbering  was  effected. 
Bezel?  and  Telaim  are  considered  by  the  Talmurtisti 
as  two  of  the  ten  numberings  of  Israel,  past  a,ni 
future. 


TELEM 


TEMA 


3191 


8lc.   In   Is.,    Qfefia-]     Tktlasn'^ir,    Thnlassar]  U  :  is  probibly  the  same  as  Talmon  in  Neh.  xii.  35 


mentioned  in  2  K.  xix.  12  and  m  Is.  xxxvii.  12  as 
ft  city  inhabited  by  "  the  children  of  Eden,"'  which 
had  been  con([uered,  and  was  held  in  the  time  of 
Sennacherib  by  the  Assyrians.  In  the  former  pas- 
sage the  name  is  rather  differently  given  both  in 
Hebrew  and  English.  [Tiiki.asak.]  In  both 
it  is  connected  with  Gozan  (Gauzanitis),  Haran 
(Carrhffi,  now  Hnrran),  and  Kezeph  (the  Ruzappa 
of  the  Assyrian  Inscriptions),  all  of  which  belong 
to  the  hill  country  above  the  Upper  Mesopotamian 
plain,  the  district  from  which  rise  the  Kluibur  and 
Belik  rivers.  [See  Mesoputa.mia,  Gozan,  and 
Haran.]  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  indi- 
cations of  locality  which  arise  from  this  connection, 
to  find  Eden  joined  in  another  passage  (Ez.  xxvii. 
23)  with  Haran  and  Asshur.  Telassar,  the  chief 
city  of  a  tribe  known  as  the  Beni  luleii^  must  have 
been  in  Western  Mesopotamia,  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Harran  and  Orfa.  It  would  be  uncritical  to 
attempt  to  fix  the  locality  more  exactly.  The  name 
is  one  which  might  ha\e  been  given  by  the  Assyr- 
ians to  any  place  where  they  liad  built  a  temple  j  ©ep^eXeg:]  Thuliauli)  is  joined  with  Tel-Harsa 
to  Asshur,"  and  hence  perhaps  its  application  by   and  Cherub  in  the  two  passages  already  cited  under 


the  name  being  that  of  a  family  rather  than  of 
an  individual.     In  1  Esdr.  ix.  25  he  is  called  Tob- 

BANES. 

TEL-HARSA,     or     TEL-HAR'ESHA 

(Stl!7"in"7ri  [see  below]:  06Aaprj(ra;  [in  Ezr., 
Vat.  corrupt;  in  Neh.,  Vat.  FA  hpy}cra,  Alex. 
©eAapiTo:]  Thelh(trsn)  was  one  of  the  Babylonian 
towns,  or  villages,  from  which  .some  Jews,  who 
"  could  not  show  their  father's  house,  nor  their 
seed,  whether  they  were  of  Israel,"  returned  to 
Judaea  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  59;  Neh.  vii.  61). 
Gesenius  renders  the  term  "  Hill  of  the  Wood  " 
(Lea;,  ad  voc).  It  was  probably  in  the  .low  coun- 
try near  the  sea,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Tel-!\Iela!i 
and  Cherub;  but  we  cani'ot  identify  it  with  ary 
known  site.  G.  R. 

TEL-ME'LAH  (nbT^'bri  [hill  of  sah]: 
©fX^ueAe'x,  @e\iJ.f\ee;  [Vat.  m  Etr.,  ©tp/xfAeB- 
da;   Alex.   ©eA/xexf-^.   ©eA^usAex^   1'-^-   '"   ^"^h., 


the  Targums  to'  the  Kesen  of  Gen.  x.  12,  which 
must  have  been  on  the  Tigris,  near  Nineveh  and 
Calah.      [liESEN.]  G.  K. 

TE'LEM  (D!?^  [o/^pression]  :  Uaii'a.iJ.;'' 
Alex.  TeAe/x:  Telem).  One  of  the  cities  in  the 
jxtreme  south  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  24).  It  occurs 
between  Zipn  (not  the  Ziph  of  David's  escape)  and 
Bealoth:  but  has  not  been  identified.  The  name 
Dkullaiii  is  found  in  Van  de  Velde's  map,  attached 
to  a  district  immediately  to  the  north  of  the  Kub- 
bet  d-Biiul,  south  of  el-Milk  and  Ar'arah — a 
position  very  suitable ;  but  whether  the  coincidence 
of  the  name  is  merely  accidental  or  not,  is  not  at 
present  ascertainable.  Telem  is  identified  by  some 
with  I'elaim,  which  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  text  of 
1  Sam.  XV.  4;  but  there  is  nothing  to  say  either 
for  or  against  this. 

The  LXX.  of  2  Sam.  iii.  12,  in  both  MSS.,  ex- 
hibits a  singular  variation  from  the  Hebrew  text. 

Instead  of  "on  the  spot"  (VFinri,  A.  V.  incor- 
rectly, "on  his  behalf")  they  read  "to  Thailam  (or 
Thelam)  where  he  was."  If  this  variation  should 
be  su!)stantiated,  there  is  some  probability  that 
Telem  or  Telaim  is  intended.  David  was  at  the 
time  king,  and  quartered  in  Hebron,  but  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  had  relinquished  his 
marauding  habits;  and  the  south  country,  where 
Telem  Lay,  had  formerly  been  a  favorite  field  for 
his  ex[ieditions  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  8-11). 

The  Vat.  LXX.  in  Josh.  xix.  7,  adds  the  name 
©aXy*)  i'etween  Remmon  and  Ether,  to  the  towns 
of  Simeon.  This  is  said  by  Eusebius  {Uiionmst.) 
and  Jerome  to  have  been  then  existing  as  a  very 
large  village  called  Thella,  10  miles  south  of  Eleu- 
theropolis.  It  is  however  claimed  as  equivalent  to 
ToCHEN.  G. 

TE'LEM  (C?^  [oppression]:  Tf\iJ.i)v\  [Vat. 
reAr?/t;  FA  ]  Alex'  TeAArjjti:  Telem).  A  porter 
■ir  doorkeeper  of  the  Temi)le  in  the  time  of  Ezra, 
who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr.'x.  2-1).      He 


Tel-Haksa.  It  is  perhaps  the  Thelme  of  Ptolemy 
(v.  20),  which  some  wrongly  read  as  Theame 
(©EAMH  for  ©EAMH),  a  city  of  the  low  salt  tract 
near  the  I'ersian  Gulf,  whence  proliably  the  name, 
which  means  "  Hill  of  Salt "  (Gesen.  Lex.  Ileb. 
sub  voc).  Cherub,  which  may  be  pretty  surely 
ideiftified  with  Ptolemy's  Chiripha  {XipKpd),  was 
in  the  same  region.  G.  R. 

TE'MA  (S12"^ri  [on  ike  right,  smith] :  Qatfidv. 
Themn,  [tei-ra  Austri]).  The  ninth  .son  of  Ish- 
mael  (Gen.  xxv.  15;  1  Chr.  i.  30);  whence  the 
tribe  called  after  him,  mentioned  in  Job  vi.  19, 
"The  troops  of  Tenia  looked,  the  companies  of 
Sheba  waited  for  them,"'  and  by  Jeremiah  (xxv. 
23),  "  Dedan,  Tenia,  and  Buz;  "  and  also  the  land 
occupied  by  this  tribe:  "The  burden  upon  Arabia. 
In  the  forest  in  Arabia  shall  ye  lodge,  O  ye  trav- 
elling companies  of  Dedanim.  The  inhabitants  of 
the  land  of  Tenia  brought  water  to  him  that  was 
thirsty,  they  prevented  with  their  bread  him  that 
fled  "(Is.  xxi.  1.3,  14). 

The  name  is  identified  satisfactorily  witli  Teymd, 

tLfAJ,  a  small  town  on  the  confines  of  Syria, 
between  it  and  Wadi  el-Kura,  on  the  road  of  the 
Damascus  pilgrim-caravan  (Mardsit/,  s.  v.).  It  is 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Doumnt  el-./eiulet,  which 
agrees  etymologically  and  by  tradition  with  the 
Ishm.aelite  Dumah,  and  the  country  of  Keydur, 
or  IvEDAR.  Teyind  is  a  well-known  town  and 
district,  and  is  appropriate  in  every  [wint  of  view 
as  the  chief  settlement  of  Ishmael's  son  Tenia.  It 
is  commanded  by  the  castle  called  el-Ablnk  (or 
el-Ablitk  el-Fard),  of  Es-Seniiiw-al  (S;imuel)  Ibn- 
'Adiya  the  Jew,  a  contemporary  of  Inn:i  el-Key« 
(a.  1).  550  cir.);  but  according  to  a  tradition  it 
was  l)uilt  by  Solomon,  which  points  at  any  rate  to 
its  antiqifity  (comp.  el-Bekree,  in  Afarcisid,  iv.  23); 
now  in  ruins,  described  as  being  built  of  rubble 
and  crude  bricks,  and  said  to  be  named  el-Abhtk 
from  having  whiteness  and  redness  in  its  stru"tur« 


a  \t  would  signify  simply  "  the  Hill  of  Asshur." 
Compare  Tel-ane,  "  the  Hill  of  Ana,"'  a  name  which 
leenis  to  liave  been  applied  in  later  times  to  the  city 
«l)ed  by  the  Assyrians  "  Asshur."'  and  marked  by  the 
rnins  at  Kileh  Slur^hal     (Steph.  Byz.  ad  voc.  TeAoiiTj.) 


b  The  passage  is  in  such  confusion  in  the  Vaticai 
MS.,  that  it  is  ditflcult  rightlv  to  a.«si)rn  the  wonto 
and  impossible  to  Infer  anything  from  the  sqnlT 
alenta. 


3192  TEMAN 

{Mnrdsid,  s.  v.  Ablnk).  This  fortress  seems,  like 
that  of  Doomnt  el-.lendel^  to  be  one  of  the  stroiii;- 
holds  that  must  have  protected  the  caravan  route 
Along  the  northern  frontier  of  Arabia:  and  they 
recall  the  passage  following  the  enumeration  of  the 
Bons  of  Ishmael :  "  These  [are]  the  sons  of  Ishmael, 
and  these  [are]  their  names,  by  their  lowns,  and 
by  their  caMks ;  twelve  princes  according  to  their 
nations'"  (Gen.  xxv.  16). 

Teymd  signifies  "a  desert,"  "an  unfilled  dis- 
trict," etc.  Freytag  {s.  v.)  writes  the  name  with- 
out a  long  final  alij\  but  not  so  the  Afnrdsid. 

Ptolemy  (xix.  6)  mentions  0(fj.iu.rj  in  Arabia  De- 
serta,  which  may  be  the  same  place  as  the  existing 
Teymd.  The  LXX.  reading  seems  to  have  a  refer- 
ence to  Teman,  which  see.  E.  S.  P. 

*  "The  troops  of  Tenia,"  "the  companies  of 
Sheba"  (Job  vi.  19),  elsewhere  referred  to  as 
"predatory  bands"  [Sheba],  were,  probably, 
companies  of  travellers,  or  caravans,  crossing  the 
wilderness  in  the  dry  season.  Parched  with  thirst, 
they  pressed  forward  with  eager  ho])e  to  the  re- 
membered beds  of  winter-streams,  only  to  find  that 
under  the  extreme  heat  the  winding  "  brook  "  had 
disappeared — evaporated  and  absorlted  in  the  sands 
—  leaving  its  ciiannel  as  dry  as  the  contiguous 
desert.  Their  keen  disappointment  was  a  lively 
image  of  the  experience  of  Job,  when  in  his  deep 
affliction  he  looked  for  sympathy  from  his  brethren, 
and  listened  to  censure  instead  of  condol^ice. 
The  simile,  poetic  and  vivid,  is  scarcely  less  forci- 
ble in  its  broader  application  to  the  illusiveness  of 
tiie  fairest  earthly  promises  and  to  the  fading  hopes 
of  mortals.  [Deceitfully,  Amer.  ed. ;  River, 
2.]  S.  W. 

•TE'MAN  (]^"^ri  [on  the  right  hand,  south] : 
&atu.(iv-  Theman).  1.  A  son  of  Eliphaz,  son  of 
Esau  by  Adah  (Gen.  xxxvi.  11;  1  Chr.  i.  36,  53), 
afterwards  named  as  a  duke  (phylarch)  of  Edom 
(ver.  15),  and  mentioned  again  in  the  separate  list 
(vv.  40-43)  of  "the  names  of  the  rulers  [that 
came]  of  Esau,  according  to  their  families,  after 
their  places,  by  their  names;  "  ending,  "these  be 
the  dukes  of  lulom,  according  to  their  habitations 
in  the  land  of  their  possession :  he  [is]  Esau  the 
father  of  the  Edomites." 

2.  [Rom.  Vat.  Qafiav,  Am.  i.  12;  FA.  and  Sin. 
©ejuai/,  Jer.  xlix.  7,  Ob.,  Hab. :  Theman,  avster, 
meri<lie$.]  A  country,  and  probably  a  city,  named 
after  tiie  Edomite  phylarch,  or  from  which  the 
phylarch  took  his  name,  as  may  lie  perhaps  inferred 
from  the  verses  of  Gen.  xxxvi.  just  quoted.  The 
Hebrew  signifies  "south,"  etc.  (see  Job  ix.  9;  Is. 
xliii.  6;  besides  the  use  of  it  to  mean  the  south 
Bide  of  the  Taljernacle  in  Ex.  xxvi  and  xxvii.,  etc.); 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  land  of  Teman  was  a 
Bouthern  portion  of  the  land  of  Kdom,  or,  in  a 
wider  sense,  that  of  the  sons  of  the  East,  the 
Bene-kedem.  Teman  is  mentioned  in  five  places  by 
the  Prophets,  in  four  of  which  it  is  connected  with 
Edom,  showing  it  to  be  the  same  place  as  that  in- 
licated  in  the  list  of  the  dukes ;  twice  it  is  named 
(Vith  Dedan. 

"  Concerning  Edom,  thus  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts:  [Is]  wisdom  no  more  in  Teman?  is  counsel 
perished  from  the  prudent?  is  their  wisdom  van- 


a  •  In  .some  of  the  topographical  allusions  in  this 
article,  the  reader  will  recognize  the  author's  peculiar 
%x\(i  unsupported  theory  respecting  the  topography  of 
lerusalem,  which   we   hare   examined   In   the   article 


TEMPLE 

ished  ?  Flee  ye,  turn  back,  dw  ell  deep,  O  inhsb" 
itants  of  Dedan"  (Jer  xhx.  7,  8);  and  "I  will 
make  it  [P^dom]  desolate  from  Teman;  and  they 
of  Dedan  shall  fall  by  the  sword"  (Ez.  xxv.  13) 
This  connection  with  the  great  Keturahite  tribe 
of  Dedan  gives  additional  importance  to  Teman, 
and  helps  to  fix  its  geographical  position.  This  is 
further  defined  by  a  passage  in  the  chajiter  of  Jer. 
already  cited,  vv.  20,  21,  where  it  is  said  of  Edom 
and  Teman,  "  The  earth  is  moved  at  the  noise  of 
their  fall ;  at  the  cry  the  noise  thereof  was  heard 
in  the  Red  Sea  {yam  Suf).'"  In  the  sublime 
prayer  of  Habakkuk,  it  is  written,  "  God  came 
from  Teman,  and  the  Holy  One  from  Mount  Paran  " 
(iii.  3).  Jeremiah,  it  has  been  seen,  speaks  of  the 
wisdom  of  Teman ;  and  the  prophecy  of  Obadiab 
implies  the  same  (vv.  8,  9),  "  Shall  I  not  in  that 
day,  saith  the  Lord,  even  destroy  the  wise  (men; 
out  of  Edom,  and  understanding  out  of  the  mount 
of  Esau?  And  thy  [mighty]  men,  O  Teman,  shall 
be  dismayed."  In  wisdom,  the  descendants  of 
Es.au.  and  especially  the  inhabitants  of  Teman, 
seem  to  have  been-  preeminent  among  the  sons  of 
the  East. 

In  common  with  most  Edomite  names,  Teman 
appears  to  have  been  lost.  The  occupation  of  the 
country  by  the  Nabathteans  seems  to  have  oblit- 
erated almost  all  of  the  traces  (always  obscure  I  of 
the  migratory  tribes  of  the  desert.  It  is  not  likely 
that  much  can  ever  be  done  by  modern  research  to 
clear  up  the  early  history  of  this  part  of  the  "  east 
country."  True,  Eusebius  and  Jerome  mention 
Teman  as  a  town  in  their  day  distant  15  mile.", 
(according  to  Eusebius)  from  Petra,  and  a  Roman 
post.  The  identification  of  the  existing  Maan  (see 
Burckhardt)  with  this  Teman  may  be  geograph- 
ically correct,  but  it  cannot  rest  on  etymological 
grounds. 

The  gentilic  noun  of  Teman  is  ^3tt"^j|n  (Job  ii. 
11;  xxii.  1),  and  Eliphaz  the  Temanite  was  one 
of  the  wise  men  of  lulom.  The  gen.  n.  occurs 
also  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  34,  where  the  land  of  Temani 
(so  in  the  A.  V.)  is  mentioned.  E.  S.  P. 

TE'MANI.     [Teman.] 

TE'MANITE.     [Teman.] 

TEM'ENI  03^^i?1  [patr.]:  @atij.<iv:  The- 
mam).  Son  of  Ashur,  the  father  of  Tekoa,  by  his 
wife  Naarah  (1  Chr.  iv.  6).      [Tkkoa.] 

*  TEMPERANCE  (A.  V.  Acts  xxiv.  25. 
(jal.  v.  23;  2  Pet.  i.  6)  is  the  rendering  of  the 
Greek  iyKpareia,  which  signifies  "self-control," 
the  restraint  of  all  the  appetites  and  passions. 
"  Temperate  "  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  a  correspond- 
ing sense.  A. 

TEMPLE."  There  is  perhaps  no  building  of 
the  ancient  world  which  has  excited  so  nmch  at- 
tention since  the  time  of  its  destruction  as  the 
Temple  which  Solomon  built  at  Jerusalem,  a^)d  its 
successor  as  rebuilt  by  Herod.  Its  spoils  were 
considered  worthy  of  forming  the  principal  illus- 
tration of  one  of  the  most  beautiful  of  Roman 
triumphal  arches,  and  Justinian's  highest  archi- 
tectural ambition  was  that  he  might  surpass  it. 
Throughout  the  ISIiddle  Ages  it  influenced  to  a 
considerable  degree  the  forms  of  Christian  churches, 

JERUS.U.EM  (ii.  1380  fT.,  Amer.  ed.),  and  which  we  pasi 
without  comment  here,  as  not  uflectiug  his  rea.soniugi 
respecting  this  edifice  —  its  history,  its  form,  dimeih 
Bions,  etyle  of  architecture,  etc.  S.  U'. 


TEMPLE 

tnd  Its  peculiarities  were  the  watchwords  and  rally- 
ing points  of  all  associations  of  builders.  Since 
the  revival  of  learninsf  in  the  10th  century  its 
arraiif^ements  have  employed  tlie  pens  of  number- 
less learned  antiquarians,  and  architects  of  every 
country  have  wasted  their  science  in  trying  to  re- 
produce its  forms. 

But  it  is  not  only  to  Christians  that  the  Temple 
of  Solomon  is  so  interesting:  the  wliole  Moham- 
medan world  look  to  it  as  the  foundation  of  all 
arcliitectural  knowledge,  and  the  Jews  still  recall 
its  glories  and  sigh  over  their  loss  with  a  constant 
tenacity,  unmatched  by  that  of  any  other  people 
to  any  other  building  of  the  ancient  world. 

With  all  this  interest  and  attention  it  might 
fairly  be  assumed  that  there  was  nothing  more  to 
be  said  on  such  a  subject  —  that  every  source  of 
inforuiation  had  been  ransacked,  and  every  form  of 
restoration  long  ago  exhausted,  and  some  settlement 
of  the  disputed  points  arrived  at  which  had  been 
generally  accepteti.  This  is,  however,  far  from 
being  the  case,  and  few  things  would  be  more  curi- 
ous than  a  collection  of  the  various  restorations 
that  have  been  projwsed,  as  showing  what  different 
meanings  may  be  applied  to  the  same  set  of  simple 
architectural  terms. 

The  most  important  work  on  this  subject,  and 
tliat  whicli  was  principally  followed  by  restorers 
in  the  17tii  and  18th  centuries,  was  that  of  the 
brothers  I'radi,  Spanish  .Jesuits,  better  known  as 
Villalpandi.  Their  work  was  published  in  folio  at 
Rome,  I5yfl-1GU4,  superbly  illustrated.  Their  idea 
of  Solouion's  Temple  was,  that  both  in  diuiensions 
u,nd  arrangement  it  was  very  like  the  Kscurial  in 
Spain.  But  it  is  by  no  means  clear  whether  the 
Escurial  was  being  liuilt  while  their  book  was  in 
the  press,  in  order  to  look  like  the  Temple,  or 
whether  its  authors  took  their  idea  of  the  remple 
from  the  [wlace.  At  all  events  their  design  is  so 
much  the  more  beautiful  and  commodious  of  the 
two,  that  we  cainiot  but  regret  that  llerrera  was 
not  employed  on  the  book,  and  the  Jesuits  set  to 
build  the  palace. 

When  the  French  exi^edition  to  Egypt,  in  the 
fii-st  years  of  this  century,  had  made  the  world 
familiar  with  the  wonderful  architectural  remains 
of  that  country,  every  one  jumped  to  the  conclusion 
that  Solomon's  Temple  must  have  been  designed 
after  an  Egyptian  model,  forgetting  entirely  how 
hateful  that  land  of  bondage  was  to  the  Israelites, 
and  how  completely  all  the  ordinances  of  their 
religion  were  Ojiposed  to  the  idolatries  they  had 
escaped  from —  forgetting,  too,  the  centuries  which 
had  elapsed  since  the  Exode  before  the  Temple  was 
erected,  and  how  little  communication  of  any  sort 
there  had  been  between  the  two  countries  in  the 
interval. 

The  Assyrian  discoveries  of  Botta  and  Layard 
have  witliin  the  last  twenty  years  given  an  entirely 
new  direction  to  the  researches  of  the  restorers,  and 
this  time  with  a  very  considerable  prospect  of  suc- 
cess, for  the  analogies  are  now  true,  and  whatever 
can  !«  brought  to  bear  on  the  sulyect  is  in  the 
right  direction.  The  original  seats  of  the  progen- 
itors of  the  Jewish  races  were  in  Jlesopotamia. 
Their  language  was  practically  the  same  as  that 
spoken  on  the  Ijanks  of  the  Tigris.  Their  historical 
traditions  were  consentaneous,  and,  so  far  as  we  can 
judge,  almost  all  tlie  outward  symbolism  of  tlieir 
religions  was  the  same,  or  nearly  so.  Unfortunately, 
however,  no  Assyrian  temple  lias  yet  been  ex- 
humed of  a  nature  to  throw  much  light  on  this 
2D1 


TEMPLE 


;193 


sulyect,  and  we  are  still  forced  to  have  recourse  to 
the  later  buildings  at  Persepolis,  or  to  general  de- 
ductions from  the  style  of  the  nearly  contemporary 
secular  buildings  at  Nineveh  and  elsewhere,  for 
such  illustrations  as  are  available.  These,  however, 
nearly  suffice  for  all  that  is  required  for  Solomon's 
Temple.  For  the  details  of  that  erected  by  Herod 
we  must  look  to  Rome. 

Of  the  intermediate  Temple  erected  by  Zerub- 
babel  we  know  very  little,  but,  from  the  circum- 
stance of  its  ha\ing  lieen  erected  under  Persian 
influences  conteniix)raneously  with  the  buildings  at 
Persepolis,  it  is  perhaps  the  one  of  which  it  would 
be  most  easy  to  restore  the  details  with  anything 
like  certainty. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  to  investigate  the 
arrangements  of  the  Temple,  it  is  indispensable 
first  carefully  to  determine  those  of  the  Tabernacle 
which  Jloses  caused  to  be  erected  in  the  Desert  of 
Sinai  inmiediately  after  the  promulgation  of  the 
Law  from  that  mountain.  For,  as  we  shall  pres- 
ently see,  the  'Temple  of  Solomon  was  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  an  exact  repetition  of  that  earlier 
Temple,  diflfering  only  in  being  erected  of  more 
durable  materials,  and  with  exactly  double  the 
dimensions  of  its  prototype,  but  still  in  every  essen 
tial  respect  so  identical  that  a  knowledge  of  the 
one  is  indispensable  in  order  to  understand  the 
other. 

Tabern.vcle. 

The  written  authorities  for  the  restoration  of  the 
Tabernacle  are,  first,  the  detailed  account  to  be 
found  in  the  20th  chapter  of  F^xodus,  and  rei^eated 
in  the  30th,  verses  8  to  .38,  without  any  variation 
beyond  the  slightest  possible  abridgment.  Sec- 
ondly, the  account  given  of  the  building  by  .Josephui 
{AiiL  iii.  6),  which  is  so  nearly  a  repetition  of  the 
account  found  in  the  Bible  that  we  may  feel  assured 
that  he  had  no  really  important  authority  before 
him  except  the  one  which  is  equally  accessible  to 
us.  Indeed  we  might  almost  put  his  account  on 
one  side,  if  it  were  not  that,  being  a  Jew,  and  so 
much  nearer  the  lime,  he  may  have  had  access  to 
some  traditional  accounts  which  may  have  enabled 
him  to  realize  its  appearance  more  readily  than  we 
can  do,  and  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  technical 
terms  may  have  enabled  him  to  understand  what 
we  might  otherwise  be  unable  to  explain. 

The  additional  indications  contained  in  the  Tal- 
mud and  in  Philo  are  so  few  and  indistinct,  and 
are  besides  of  such  doubtful  authenticity,  that  they 
practically  add  nothing  to  our  knowledge,  and  may 
safely  be  disregarded. 

For  a  complicated  architectural  building  these 
written  authorities  probably  would  not  suffice  with- 
out some  rem.ains  or  other  indications  to  supple- 
ment them;  but  the  arrangements  of  the  Talier- 
nacle  were  so  simple  that  they  are  really  all  that 
are  required.  livery  important  dimension  was  either 
5  cubits  or  a  multiple  of  5  cubits,  and  all  the 
arrangements  in  plan  were  either  squares  or  doulrle 
squares,  so  that  there  re;illy  is  no  difficulty  in  put- 
ting the  whole  together,  and  none  would  ever  have 
occurred  were  it  not  that  the  dimensions  of  the 
sanctuary,  as  obtained  from  the  "boards"  thai 
formed  its  walls,  ap])ear  at  first  sight  to  be  one 
thing,  while  those  obtained  from  the  dimensii>nfl 
of  the  curtains  which  covered  it  appear  to  give 
anotlier,  and  no  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  recon- 
ciling tliese  with  one  another  or  with  the  text  of 
Scripture.  The  apparent  discrepancy  is,  iiowever 
easily  explained,  as  we  shall  presently  see.  uid  nevei 


3194 


TEMPLE 


would  have  occurred  to  any  one  who  had  lived  long 
under  canvas  or  was  familiar  with  the  exi£;encie8 
of  tent  architecture. 

Outer  Inckmire.  —  The  court  of  the  Tabernacle 
was  surrounded  by  canvas  screens  —  in  the  East 
called  Kannauts  —  and  still  uni\-ersally  used  to  in- 
close the  private  apartments  of  important  person- 
ages. Those  of  the  Tabernacle  were  5  cubits  in 
height,  and  supported  by  pillars  of  lirass  5  cubits 
apart,  to  which  the  curtains  were  attached  by  hooks 
and  fillets  of  silver  (Ex.  xxvii.  9,  &c.).  This  in- 
closure  was  only  bi-oken  on  the  eastern  side  Viy  the 
entrance,  which  was  20  cubits  wide,  and  closed  by 
curtains  of  fine  twined  Unen  wrought  with  needle- 
work, and  of  the  most  gorgeous  colors. 


^  LI  , 

I 

— 

i  1  1 

1 

L 

- 

|i|l!!:;ii; 

.[l|[|„   !{l 

ill'lil!i![il'nilllWi 

— 

.  _. 

■■••:'•"  ■    '     ', 

'■  '''1 

. 

1 

„.  «'jlj 

'III 

■ 

— -^ 

"'II 

— • 

— 

1 ' 

:!i 

— 

,,,.„™i„r,.„,„„ 

, . 

'li 

:j\ 

.   _ 

"lira 

miijiii 

— . 

liiiiiii 

itiiiii 

— 

— 

S       10  20  30  40  50  CubUs. 

-^—^ 1 ^ i ^ 

10         20         30        410        30         60        70    75  Feet. 
No.  1.  —  Plan  of  the  Outer  Court  of  the  Tabernacle. 

n  The  cubit  used  throughout  this  article  is  assumed 
to  be  the  ordinary  cubit,  of  the  length  of  a  man's  fore- 
arm from  the  elbow-joint  to  the  tip  of  the  middle 
finger,  or  18  Greek  inches,  equal  to  18^  English  inches. 
There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  but  that  the  Jews  also 
used  occasionally  a  shorter  cubit  of  5  handbreadths,  or 
15  inches,  but  only  (in  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained)  in 
speaking  of  vessels  or  of  metal  work,  and  never  applied 
it  to  buildings.  After  the  Babylonish  Captivity  they 
seem  also  occasionally  to  have  employed  the  Baby- 
lonian cubit  of  7  handbreadths,  or  21  inches.  This, 
bowever,  can  evidently  have  no  application  to  the 
Tabernacle  or  Solomon's  Temple,  which  was  erected 
Im^k  the  Caotivitv  ;   nor  can  it   be  available  to  ex- 


TEMPLE 

Tiie  space  inclosed  within  these  screens  was  9 
double  square,  50  cubits,  or  75  feet  north  "  and 
south,  and  100  cubits  or  150  ft.  east  and  west.  In 
the  outer  or  eastern  half  was  placed  the  altar  of 
burnt-ofl^erings,  descrilied  in  Ex.  xxvii.  1-8,  and  be- 
tween it  and  tlie  Tabernacle  the  laver  {Ant.  iii.  6, 
§  2),  at  which  the  priests  washed  their  hands  and 
feet  on  entering  the  Temple. 

In  the  square  towards  the  west  was  situated  the 
Temple  or  Tabernacle  itself.  The  dimensions  in 
plan  of  this  structure  are  easily  ascertained.  Jo- 
sephus  states  them  {Ant.  iii.  6,  §  3)  as  30  cubits 
long  by  10  broad,  or  45  feet  by  15,  and  the  Bible 
is  scarcely  less  distinct,  as  it  says  that  the  north 
and  south  walls  were  each  composed  of  twenty  up- 
right boards  (Ex.  xxvi.  15,  &c.),  each  board  one 
cubit  and  a  half  in  width,  and  at  the  west  end 
there  were  six  boards  equal  to  9  cubits,  which,  with 
the  angle  boards  or  posts,  made  up  the  10  cubits 
of  Josephus. 

Each  of  these  boards  was  furnished  with  two 
tenons  at  its  lower  extremity,  which  fitted  into 
silver  sockets  placed  on  the  ground.  At  the  top 
at  least  they  were  jointed  and  fastened  together  by 
bars  of  shittim  or  acacia  wood  run  through  rings 
of  gold  (Ex.  xxvi.  26).  Both  authorities  agree  that 
there  were  fi\e  bais  for  each  side,  but  a  little  dif- 
ficulty arises  from  the  Bible  describing  (ver.  28)  a 
middle  Isar  which  reached  from  end  to  end.  As 
we  shall  presently  see,  this  bar  was  probably  ap- 
plied to  a  totally  ditFerent  purpose,  and  we  may 
therefore  assume  for  the  present  that  Josephus' 
description  of  the  mode  in  which  they  were  applied 
is  the  correct  one:  "  Every  one,"  he  says  {Aiit.  iii. 
6,  §  3),  "  of  the  pillars  or  boards  had  a  ring  of  gold 
affixed  to  its  front  outwards,  into  which  were  in- 
serted bars  gilt  with  gold,  each  of  them  5  cubits 
long,  and  these  bound  together  the  boards ;  the 
head  of  one  bar  running  into  another  after  the 
manner  of  one  tenon  inserted  into  another.  But 
for  the  wall  behind  there  was  only  one  bar  that 
went  through  all  the  boards,  into  which  one  of  the 
ends  of  the  bars  on  both  sides  was  inserted." 

So  far,  therefore,  everything  seems  certain  and 
easily  understood.  The  Taljernacle  was  an  oblong 
rectangular  structure,  30  cubits  long  by  10  broad, 
open  at  the  eastern  end,  and  divided  internally  into 
two  apartments.  The  Holy  of  Holies,  into  which 
no  one  entered  —  not  even  the  priest,  except  on 
very  extraordinary  occasions  —  was  a  cube,  10  cubits 
square  in  plan,  and  10  cubits  high  to  the  top  of 
the  wall.  In  this  was  placed  the  Mercy-seat,  sur- 
mounted by  the  cherubim,  and  on  it  was  placed 
the  Ark, ''  containing  the  tables  of  the  Law.  In 
front  of  these  was  an  outer  chamber,  called  tha 
Holy  Place  —  20  cubits  long  by  10  bread,  and  10 
high,  appropriated  to  the  use  of  the  priests.     In  it 


plain  the  peculiarities  of  Herod's  Temple  its  JosephiU 
who  is  our  principal  authority  regarding  it,  most  cer- 
tainly did  always  employ  the  Greek  cubit  of  18  inches, 
or  400  to  1  stJidium  of  600  Greek  feet  ;  an  1  the  Tal- 
mud, which  is  the  only  other  authority,  always  gives 
the  same  number  of  cubits  where  we  can  be  certain 
they  are  speaking  of  the  same  thing  ;  so  that  we  may 
feel  perfectly  sure  they  both  were  using  the  same 
measure.  Thus,  whatever  other  cubits  the  JewH  may 
have  used  for  other  purposes,  we  may  rest  a.ssured 
that  for  the  buildings  referred  to  in  this  article  tbi 
cubit  of  18  inches,  and  that  only,  was  the  one  em 
ployed. 

b  *  The  Mercy-seat  was  on  or  over  the  Ark.     A. 


TEMPLE 

Itert  placer!  the  golden  candlesti.  k  on  one  side,  the 
table  of  sliew-bread  opposite,  and  between  them  in 
the  centi:e  the  altar  of  incense. 


TEMPLE 


519.^ 


No.  2.  —  The  Tabernacle,  showing  one  half  ground 
plan  and  one  half  as  covered  by  the  curtains. 

Tlie  roof  of  the  Tabernacle  was  formed  by  3,  or 
rather  4,  sets  of  curtains,  the  dimensions  of  two  of 
which  are  given  with  great  minuteness  both  in  the 
Bible  and  l>y  Josephus.  The  innermost  (Kx.  xxvi. 
1,  &c. ),  of  fine  twined  linen  according  to  our  trans- 
lation (Josephus  calls  them  wool:  epiwv,  Ant.  iii. 
6,  §  4),  were  ten  in  number,  eacli  4  cubits  wide 
and  28  cubits  loTig.  These  were  of  various  colors, 
and  ornamented  with  cherubim  of  "cunning  work." 
Five  of  these  were  sewn  together  so  as  to  form 
larger  curtains,  each  20  cubits  by  28,  and  these 
two  again  were  joined  together,  when  used,  by  fifty 
gold  buckles  or  clasps. 

Above  tliese  were  placed  curtains  of  goats'  hair 
each  4  cubits  wide  by  30  cubits  long,  but  eleven  in 
number;  these  were  also  sewn  together,  six  into 
uue  curtain,  and  five  into  the  other,  and,  when 
ased,  wera  likewise  joined  together  by  fifty  gold 
buckles. 

Over  these  again  was  thrown  a  curtain  of  rams' 
skins  with  the  wool  on,  dyed  red,  and  a  fourth 
covering  is  also  specified  as  being  of  badgers'  skins, 
so  named  in  the  A.  V.,  but  whicli  probably  really 
consisted  of  seal-«kins.  [B.vdgek-Skins,  vol.  i. 
p.  224  f.J  This  did  not  of  course  cover  the  rams' 
skins,  but  most  probably  was  only  used  as  a  cop- 
ing or  ridge  piece  to  protect  the  junction  of  the  two 
curtains  of  rams'  skins  whicli  were  laid  on  each 
ilope  of  the  roof,  and  probably  only  laced  together 
at  the  top. 

The  question  which  has  hitherto  proved  a  stum- 
bling block  to  restorers  is,  to  know  iiow  these  cur- 
tains were  applied  as  a  covering  to  the  Tabernacle. 
Strange  to  say,  this  has  appeared  so  difficult  that, 
frith  hardly  an  exception,  they  have  been  content 
o  assume  that  they  were  thrown  over  its  walls  as  a 


j>all  is  thrown  over  a  coffin,  and  they  have  thus  cut 
the  tiordian  knot  in  defiance  of  all  probabilities, 
as  well  as  of  the  distinct  specification  of  the  Pen 
tateuch.  To  this  view  of  the  matter  there  are  sev- 
eral important  objections. 

First.  If  the  inner  or  ornamental  curtain  was  so 
used,  only  about  one  third  of  it  would  be  seen;  9 
cubits  on  each  side  would  be  entirely  hidden  be- 
tween the  walls  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  goats'- 
hair  curtain.  It  is  true  that  Biihr  (i<ymbuUk  cies 
Miisni.^clien  Cvllus),  Neumann  {Der  StiJ'Is/iutte, 
1801),  and  others,  try  to  avoid  this  difficulty  by 
banging  this  curtain  uoas  to  drape  the  walls  inside; 
but  for  this  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  authority,  and 
the  furm  of  the  curtain  would  be  singularly  awk- 
ward and  unsuitable  for  this  purpo.se.  If  such  a 
thing  were  intended,  it  is  evident  that  one  curtaui 
would  have  been  used  as  wall-hangings  and  another 
as  a  ceiling,  not  one  great  range  of  curtains  all 
joined  the  same  way  to  hang  the  walls  all  round 
and  form  the  ceiling  at  the  same  time. 

A  .second  and  more  cogent  objection  will  strike 
any  one  who  has  ever  lived  in  a  tent.  It  is,  that 
every  drop  of  rain  that  fell  on  the  Tabernacle  would 
fall  through ;  for,  however  tightly  the  curtains  might 
be  stretched,  the  water  could  never  run  over  the 
edge,  and  the  sheep-skins  would  only  make  the  mat- 
ter worse,  as  when  wetted  their  weight  would  de- 
press the  centre,  and  probably  tear  any  curtain  that 
could  be  made,  while  snow  lying  on  such  a  roof 
would  certainly  tear  the  curtains  to  pieces. 

lint  a  third  and  fatal  objection  is,  that  this  ar- 
rangenjent  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Scripture. 
We  are  there  told  (Fx.  xxvi.  9)  that  half  of  one  of 
the  goats'-hair  curtains  shall  be  doubled  liack  in 
front  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  only  the  half  of  another 
(ver.  12)  hang  down  behind;  and  (ver.  13)  that 
one  cubit  shall  hang  down  on  each  side  —  whereas 
this  arrangement  makes  10  cubits  hang  down  all 
round,  except  in  front. 

The  solution  of  the  difficulty  appears  singularly 
obvious.  It  is  simply,  that  the  tent  had  a  ridge, 
as  all  tents  ha\e  had  from  the  days  of  JNIoses  down 
to  the  present  day;  and  we  have  also  very  little 
difficulty  in  predicating  tiiat  the  angle  formed  by 
the  two  sides  of  the  roof  at  the  ridge  was  a  right 
angle  —  not  only  because  it  is  a  reasonable  and 
usual  angle  for  such  a  roof,  and  one  that  would 
most  likely  be  .adopted  in  so  regidar  a  building,  but 
because  its  adoption  reduces  to  harmony  the  only 
.abnormal  measurement  in  the  whole  building.  As 
mentioned  above,  the  principal  curtains  were  only 
28  cubits  in  length,  and  consequently  not  a  nnil- 
t\\>\e  of  5 ;  but  if  we  assume  a  right  angle  at  the 
ridge,  e.ach  side  of  the  slope  was  14  cubits,  and 
14'^  -f-  I'i'^  =  392,  and  202  =  40O,  two  numbers 
which  are  practically  identical  in  tent-building. 
The  base  of  the  triangle,  therefore,  formed  by  th^' 
loof  was  20  cubits,  or  in  other  words,  the  roof  d 
the  Tabernacle  extended  5  cubits  beyond  the  w^lls, 
not  only  in  front  and  rear,  but  on  both  sid,eS;  and 
it  may  be  added,  that  the  width  of  the  T/(bernacle 
thus  became  identical  with  the  width  vif  the  en- 
trance to  tiie  enclosure;  which  but  for  this  circum- 
stance would  appear  to  have  been  disj^roportionately 
large. 

With  tliese  data  it  is  easy  to  explain  all  the  other 
difficulties  which  have  met  previons  restorers. 

I'irst.  The  Holy  of  Holies  was  divided  from  th« 
Holy  Place  by  a  screen  of  four  pillars  supporting 
curtains  which  no  one  was  .allowed  to  ])x«8.  But 
strange  to  say,  in  the  antra- ce  there  wer<»  Jive  pil 


3196 


TEMPLE 


*r8  in  a  similar  space.  Now,  no  one  Would  put 
a  pillar  in  the  centre  of  an  entrance  without  a 
motive;  but  the  moment  a  ridge  ia  assumed  it  be- 
comes indispensable. 


,5  CUBITS 


No.  3.—  Diagram  of  the  Dimensions  of  tlie  Tabernucle 
in  Section. 

It  may  be  assumed  that  all  the  five  pillars  ^^ere 
sp;iced  within  the  limits  of  the  10  cubits  of  the 
breadth  of  the  Tal)eniacle,  namely,  one  in  the 
centre,  two  opposite  the  two  ends  of  the  walls,  und 
the  other  two  between  them ;  but  the  probabilities 
are  so  infinitely  greater  that  those  two  last  were 
beyond  those  at  the  angles  of  the  tent,  that  it  is 
hardly  worth  while  considering  the  first  hypothesis. 
By  the  one  here  adopted  the  pillars  in  front  would, 
liiie  everything  else,  be  spaced  exactly  5  cubits 
apart. 

Secondly.  Josephus  twice  asserts  (Anl.  iii.  6, 
§  4)  that  the  Tabernacle  was  divided  into  three 
parts,  though  he  specifies  only  two  —  the  Adytum 
and  the  Pronaos.  'J"he  third  was  of  course  the 
porch,  5  cubits  deep,  which  stretched  across  the 
width  of  the  bouse. 

Thirdly.  In  speaking  of  the  western  end,  the 
r>ible  always  uses  the  plural,  as  if  there  were  two 
%ides  there.  There  was,  of  course,  at  least  one  pil- 
lar  in  the  centre  beyond  the  wall,  —  there  may 
have  been  five,  —  so  that  there  practically  were  two 
sides  there.  It  may  also  be  remarked  that  the 
Pentateuch,  in  speaking  (Ex.  xxvi.  12)  of  this  after 
part  calls  it  Mishccn,  or  the  dwelling,  as  contradis- 
tinguished from  OInl,  or  the  tent,  vvhich  applies  to 
the  whole  structure  covered  by  tlie  cuitains. 

Fourthly.  We  now  understand  why  there  are  10 
breadths  in  the  under  curtains,  and  11  in  the 
upper.  It  was  that  they  might  break  joint  —  in 
other  words,  that  the  seam  of  the  one,  and  espe- 
cially the  great  joining  of  the  two  divisions,  might 
be  over  the  centre  of  the  lower  curtain,  so  as  to 
prevent  the  rain  penetrating  through  the  joints.  It 
may  also  be  remarked  that,  as  the  two  cubits  which 
were  in  excess  at  the  west  hung  at  an  angle,  the 
aepth  of  fringe  would  be  practically  about  the  same 
as  en  the  sides. 

With  these  suggestions,  the  whole  description  in 
the  Book  of  Exodus  is  so  easily  undeistood  that  it 
is  not  necessary  to  dilate  further  upon  it;  there  are, 
however,  two  points  which  remain  to  be  noticed, 
liut  more  witli  reference  to  the  Temple  which  suc- 
ceeded it  than  with  regard  to  the  Tabernacle  itself 

The  first  is  the  disposition  of  the  side  bars  of 
shittim-wood  thai  joined  the  boards  together.  At 
first  sight  it  would  appear  that  there  were  four  short 
and  one  long  l)ar  on  each  side,  but  it  seems  impos- 
iilile  to  see  how  these  could  lie  arranged  to  accord 
with  the  usual  interpvetation  of  the  text,  and  very 


TEMPLE 

improbable  that  the  Israelites  would  have  carried 
about  a  bar  45  feet  long,  when  5  or  6  bars  would 
have  answered  the  puri)ose  equally  well,  and  5  rows 
of  bars  are  quite  unnecessary,  besides  being  in  op- 
position to  the  words  of  the  text. 

The  explanation  hinted  at  above  seems  the  most 
reasonalile  one  —  that  the  five  bars  named  (vers.  26 
and  27)  were  joined  end  to  end,  as  .losepbus  asserts, 
and  the  bar  mentioned  (ver.  28)  «as  the  ridge-pole 
of  the  roof.  The  words  of  the  Helirew  text  will 
equally  well  bear  the  translation  —  "  and  the  mid- 
dle bar  which  is  be/weeti,'^  instend  of''  in  the  midst 
(//'the  boards,  shall  reach  from  end  to  end."  This 
would  appear  a  perfectly  reasonable  solution  but  for 
the  mechanical  ditficulty  that  no  pole  could  be 
made  stiff"  enough  to  bear  its  own  weitcht  and  that 
of  the  curtains  over  an  extent  of  45  feet,  without 
intermediate  supports.  A  ridge-rope  could  easily  be 
stretched  to  twice  that  distance,  if  required  for  the 
purpose,  though  it  too  would  droop  in  the  centre. 
A  pole  would  be  a  much  more  appro])riate  and 
likely  architectural  arrangement —  so  much  so.  that 
it  seems  more  than  probable  that  one  was  employed 
with  supports.  One  pillar  in  the  centre  where  the 
curtains  were  joined  would  be  amply  sntticient  tor 
all  practical  purj)0ses;  and  if  the  centre  board  at 
the  back  of  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  15  cnliits  high 
(which  there  is  nothing  to  contradict),  the  whole 
would  be  easily  constructed.  Still,  as  no  internal 
supports  are  mentioned  either  by  the  Bible  or  Jo- 
sephus, the  question  of  how  the  ridge  was  formed 
and  supported  must  remain  an  open  one,  incapable 
of  proof  with  our  present  knowledge,  but  it  is  one 
to  which  we  shall  have  to  revert  presently. 

The  other  question  is  —  were  the  sides  of  the 
Verandah  which  surrounded  the  Sanctuary  closed 
or  left  open  V  The  only  hint  we  have  that  this  was 
done,  is  the  mention  of  the  western  sidts  always  in 
the  plural,  and  the  eniployment  of  Mishcan  and 
Ohel  throughout  this  chapter,  apparently  in  opposi- 
tion to  one  another,  Mishcan  always  seeming  to 
apply  to  an  inclosed  space,  which  was  or  might  be 
dwelt  in,  Ohtl  to  the  tent  as  a  whole  or  to  the 
covering  only;  though  here  again  the  point  is  by 
no  means  so  clear  as  to  be  decisive. 

The  only  really  tangible  reason  for  supposing  the 
sides  were  inclosed  is,  that  the  Temple  of  Solomon 
was  surrounded,  on  all  sides  but  the  front,  by  a 
range  of  small  cells  five  cubits  wide,  in  which  the 
priests  resided  who  were  specially  attached  to  the 
service  of  the  Temjile. 

It  would  have  been  so  easy  to  have  done  this  in 
the  Tabernacle,  and  its  convenience  —  at  night  at 
least  —  so  great,  that  I  cannot  help  suspecting  it 
was  the  case. 

It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain,  with  anything  Kke 
certainty,  at  what  distance  from  the  tent  the  tect- 
pegs  were  fixed.  It  could  not  be  less  on  the  sr'.es 
than  7  cubits,  it  may  as  probably  have  been  10 
In  front  and  rear  the  central  peg  could  hardly  have 
been  at  a  less  distance  than  20  cubits ;  so  that  it 
is  by  no  means  improbable  that  from  the  front  tc 
rear  the  whole  distance  may  have  been  80  cubits, 
and  from  side  to  side  40  cubits,  measured  from 
peg  to  peg;  and  it  is  this  dimension  that  seems  to 
have  governed  the  pegs  of  the  inclosures,  as  it  would 
just  allow  room  for  the  fastenings  of  the  inclosure 
on  either  side,  and  for  the  altar  and  layer  in  front. 
It  is  scarcely  worth  while,  howe\er,  insisting 
strongly  on  these  and  some  other  minor  points. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  explain  with  the  wood- 
cuts all  the  main  points  of  the  proposed  restoration 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


3197 


and  to  show  that  it  is  possible  to  reconstruct  the  ,  time  to  show  that  the  Tabernacle  was  •  reasonabk 
Tabernacle  in  strict  conformity  with  every  word  and  tent-like  structure,  admirably  adapted  to  tiie  vur- 
every  indication  of  the  sacred  text,  and  at  the  same  |  poses  to  which  it  was  applied. 


No.  4.  —  Southeast  Viewpof  the  Ta,beruacle,  as  restored. 


SoLOM<tN'S    TeJII'LE, 

The  Taternacle  accompanied  tlie  Israelites  in  all 
their  wanderings,  and  remained  their  only  Holy 
Place  or  Temple  till  David  obtained  [wssession  of 
Jerusalem,  and  elected  an  altar  in  the  threshing- 
floor  of  Araunali,  on  the  sixjt  where  the  altar  of 
the  Temple  always  afferwaids  stood.  He  also 
brought  the  Ark  out  of  Iviijath-jearim  (2  Sam.  vi. 
2;  1  Chr.  xiii.  G)  and  prepared  a  taliernacle  for  it 
in  the  new  city  wliieh  he  called  after  his  own  name. 
Both  these  were  l)rought  up  thence  by  Solomon 
(2  Chr.  V.  5);  the  Ark  placed  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  but  the  Tabernacle  seems  to  have  been  put 
on  one  side  as  a  relic  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  32).  AVe  have 
no  account,  however,  of  the  removal  of  the  original 
Tabernacle  of  Sloses  from  Gibeon,  nor  anything 
that  would  enable  us  to  coimect  it  with  that  one 
which  Solomon  removed  out  of  tiie  City  of  David 
(2  Ciir  V.  5).  In  fact,  from  the  time  of  the  build- 
ing of  the  Temple,  we  lose  sight  of  the  Tabernacle 
altogether.  It  was  David  who  first  proposed  to  re- 
place the  Tabernacle  by  a  more  permanent  building, 
but  was  forbidden  for  the  reasons  assigned  l)y  the 
prophet  Nathan  (2  Sam.  vii.  5,  &c.),  and  though 
he  collected  materials  and  made  arrangements,  the 
execution  of  the  task  was  left  for  his  son  Solomon. 

He,  with  the  assistance  of  Hiram  king  of  Tyre, 
eomivenced  tliis  great  uiulertaking  in  the  fourth 
ye;vr  of  his  reign,  and  completed  it  in  seven  years, 
fcbout  IWb  IS  c.  according  to  the  received  chro- 
colog<- 

(Jn  comparing  tiie  Temple,  as  descriljed  in  1 
K  ihge  vi.  and  2  ( 'hronicles  iii.  and  by  Jose[)hus 
vii.  3,  with  ths  Tabernacle,  as  just  ex|)lained,  tlie 
first  Ihuig  that  strikes  us  is  tliat  all  the  arrange- 
tuents  were  identical,  and  the  dimensions  of  every 
part  were  exactly  double  those  of  tlie  preceding 
itructure.  Thus  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  tlie  Taber- 
nacle was  a  cube,  10  cubits  each  way;  in  the  Tem- 
ple it  was  2U  cubits.  The  Holy  Place,  or  outer 
ball  was  10  cubits  wide  by  20  long  and  10  high  in 
felie  Tabernacle,  In  the  Temple  all  these  dimen- 
lions  were  exactly  double.  The  [lorch  in  the 
rabeniacle  was  5  cubits  deep,  in  the  Temple  10; 
its  width  in  both  instances  being  the  width  of  the 


house.  The  chamliers  round  the  House  and  the 
Taliernacie  were  each  5  cubits  wide  on  the  ground- 
floor,  the  difference  being  that  in  the  Temple  the 
two  walls  taken  together  made  up  a  thickness  of 
5  cubits,  thus  making  10  cubits  for  the  chambers. 

Taking  all  these  parts  together,  the  ground-plan 
of  the  Temple  measured  80  cubits  by  40 ;  that  of 
the  Tabernacle,  as  we  have  just  seen,  was  40  by  20; 
and  what  is  more  striking  than  even  this  is  that 
tlioiigh  the  walls  were  10  cubits  high  in  the  one 


No.  6.  —  Plan  of  Soliimon's  'reuipli',  showiuu  the    Jia 
po6itiou  of  the  chambers  iu  two  stories. 

and  20  cubit*  in  the  other,  the  wliole  height  of  the 
Tal)ernacle  was  15,  that  of  the  Temple  30  cul.'its; 
the  one  roof  rising  5.  the  other  10  cubits  abovo  the 
height  of  the  internal  walls."  So  exact  indeed  is  thin 

"  Tn  the  Apocrypha  there  is  a  passage  which  hr.v* 
curiouiily  and  distinctly  on  this  subject.     In  Wild  U. 


!198 


TEMPLE 


coincidence,  that  it  not  onl_y  confirms  to  the  fullest 
extent  the  restoration  of  the  Tabernacle  which  has 
ju8t  been  explained,  but  it  is  a  singular  confirma- 
tion of  the  minute  accuracy  which  characterized  the 
writers  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  books  of  Kinrjs 
and  Chronicles  in  this  matter:  for  not  only  are  we 
able  to  check  the  one  by  the  other  at  this  distance 
of  time  with  perfect  certainty,  but,  now  that  we 
know  the  system  on  which  they  were  constructeil, 
we  might  almost  restore  both  edifices  from  Jose- 
phus'  account  of  the  Temple  as  reerected  by  Herod, 
of  which  more  hereafter. 
The  proof  that  the  Temple,  as  built  by  Solomon, 


TEMPLE 

was  only  an  enlars^ed  copy  of  the  Tabernacle,  i;oes 
far  also  to  change  the  form  of  another  important 
question  wliich  has  been  long  agitated  by  the  stu- 
dents of  Jewish  antiquities,  inasmuch  as  the  in- 
quiry as  to  whence  the  Jews  derived  the  plan  and 
design  of  the  Temple  must  now  be  transferred  to 
the  earlier  type,  and  the  question  thus  stands, 
Wiience  did  they  derive  the  scheme  of  the  Taber- 
nacle ? 

From  Egypt? 

There  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  the  Egyptians 
ever  used  a  niovalile  or  tent-like  temple;  neither  the 
pictures  in  their  temples  nor  any  historical  retitrd* 


No.  6.  —  Tomb  of  Darius  near  Persepolis. 


pomt  to  such  a  form,  nor  has  any  one  hitherto  ven- 
tured to  suggest  such  an  origin  for  that  structure. 

From  Assyria? 

Here  too  we  are  equally  devoid  of  any  authority 
or  tangible  data,  for  though  the  probabilities  cer- 
tainly are  that  the  Jews  would  rather  adopt  a  form 
from  the  kindred  Assyrians  than  from  the  hated 
strangers  whose  land  they  had  just  left,  we  have 
nothing  further  to  justify  us  in  such  an  assumption. 

R,  it  is  said,  "  """hou  hast  commanded  me  (t.  e.  Solo- 
Bou)  to  build  a  Temple  in  Thy  Holy  Mount,  and  an 
iltar  in  the  city  whTein  Thou  dwellest.  a  resemblance 


From  Arabia? 

It  is  possible  that  the  Arabs  may  have  used 
movable  tent-like  temples.  They  were  a  peopU 
nearly  allied  in  race  with  the  Jews.  Moses'  father- 
in-law  was  an  Arab,  and  something  he  may  have 
seen  there  may  have  suggested  the  form  he  adopted. 
But  beyond  this  we  cannot  at  present  go." 


of   the   Holy  Tabernacle  which   Thou  hast  prepared 
from  the  beginning." 

a  The  only  thing  resembling  it  we  know  of  is  the 
Holy  Tent  of  the  Carthaginians,  mentioned  by  Diod- 
orus    Siculus,   xx    65,   which,   in  consequeuc«    of   • 


TEMPLE 

For  the  present,  at  least,  it  must  suffice  to  know 
that  the  form  of  the  Temple  was  copied  from  the 
Tabernacle,  and  that  any  architectural  ornaments 
that  may  have  been  added  were  such  as  were  usu- 
ally employed  at  that  time  in  Palestine,  and  more 
especially  at  Tyre,  whence  most  of  the  artificers 
were  obtained  who  assisted  in  its  erection. 

So  far  as  the  dimensions  above  quoted  are  con- 
cerned, everything;  is  as  clear  and  as  certain  as  any- 
thing that  can  be  predicated  of  any  building  of 
Vhich  no  remains  exist,  but  beyond  this  there  are 
certain  minor  problems  by  no  means  so  easy  to 
resolve,  but  fortunately  they  are  of  much  less  im- 
nortaiice.     The  first  is  the  — 

Jltighl.  —  That  given  in  1  K.  vi.  2  —  of  30  cubits 
—  is  so  reasonable  in  proportion  to  the  other  di- 
onensious,  tbnt  the  matter  might  be  allowed  to  rest 
there  were  it  not  for  the  assertion  (2  Chr.  iii.  4) 
that  the  height,  though  apparently  only  of  the 
porch,  was  120  cubits  =  180  feet  (as  nearly  as  may 
be  the  height  of  the  steeple  of  St.  Martin's  in  the 
Fields).  This  is  so  unlike  anything  we  know  of  in 
ancient  architecture,  that,  having  no  counterpart  in 
the  Tabernacle,  we  might  at  first  sight  leel  almost 
justified  in  rejecting  it  as  a  mistake  or  interpolation, 
but  for  the  assertion  (2  Chr.  iii.  9)  that  Solomon 
overlaid  the  upper  chambers  with  gold,  and  2  K. 
xxiii.  12,  where  the  altars  on  the  top  of  the  upper 
chambers,  apparently  of  the  Temple,  are  mentioned. 
In  addition  to  this,  both  Josephus  and  the  Talmud 
persistently  assert  that  there  was  a  superstructure 
on  the  Temple  equal  in  height  to  the  lower  part, 
and  the  total  height  they,  in  accordance  with  the 
book  of  Chronicles,  call  120  cubits  or  180  feet 
{Ant.  viii.  3,  §  2).  It  is  evident,  however,  that  he 
obtains  these  dimensions  first  by  doubling  the 
height  of  the  lower  Temple,  making  it  60  instead 
of  30  cubits,  and  in  like  manner  exaggerating 
every  other  dimension  to  make  up  this  quantity. 
Were  it  not  for  these  authorities,  it  would  satisfy 
all  the  real  exigencies  of  the  case  if  we  assumed 
that  the  upper  chamber  occupied  the  space  between 
the  roof  of  the  Holy  Place  and  the  roof  of  the 
Temple.  Ten  cubits  or  15  feet,  even  after  deduct- 
ing the  thickness  of  tlie  two  roofs,  is  sufficient  to 
constitute  such  an  apartment  as  history  would  lead 
us  to  suppose  existed  there.  But  the  evidence  that 
there  was  something  beyond  this  is  so  strong  that 
it  cannot  be  rejected. 

In  looking  through  the  monuments  of  antiquity 
for  something  to  suggest  what  this  might  be,  the 
only  thing  that  occurs  is  the  platform  or  Talar  that 
existed  on  the  roofs  of  tlie  Palace  Temples  at  Per- 
sepolis  —  as  shown  in  Wood-cut  No.  G,  which  rep- 
resents the  Tomb  of  Darius,  and  is  an  exact  repro- 
duction of  the  fafade  of  the  Palace  shown  in  plan. 
Wood-cut  No.  9.  It  is  true  these  were  erected  five 
centuries  after  the  building  of  Solomon's  Temple; 
but  they  are  avowedly  copies  in  stone  of  older  As- 
syrian forms,  and  as  such  may  represent,  with  more 
or  less  exactness,  contemporary  buildings.  Notiiing 
in  fact  could  represent  more  correctly  "  the  altars 
on  the  top  of  the  upper  chambers  "  which  Josiah 
beat  down  (2  K.  xxiii.  12)  than  this,  nor  could  any- 
thing more  fully  meet  all  the  architectural  or  de- 
votional exigencies  of  the  case ;  but  its  height  never 

Budden  change  of  wind  at  night  blowing  the  flames 
from  which  victims  were  being  sacrificed,  towards  ttji' 
UfiCiV  <rK-t\vriv,  took  fire,  a  circuni.staiice  whicli  spreiid 
lucti  consternation  througho-"^.  the  army  as  to  lead  to 
Us  destruction. 


TEMPLE  3199 

could  have  been  60  cubits,  or  even  30,  but  it  might 
very  probably  be  the  20  cubits  which  incidentally 
Josephus  (.XV.  11,  §  3)  mentions  as  "sinking  down 
in  the  failure  of  the  foundations,  but  was  so  left  till 
the  days  of  Nero."  There  can  be  little  doubt  but 
that  tiie  part  referred  to  in  this  paragraph  was 
some  such  superstructure  as  that  shown  in  the  last 
wood-cut;  and  the  incidental  mention  of  20  cubits 
is  much  more  to  be  trusted  than  Josephus'  heights 
generally  are,  which  he  seems  systematically  to  hav? 
exaggerated  when  he  was  thinking  about  them. 

Jachiit,  and  Boas.  —  There  are  no  features  con 
nected  with  the  Temple  of  Solomon  which  have 
given  rise  to  so  much  controversy,  or  been  so  ditfi  - 
cult  to  explain,  as  the  form  of  the  two  pillars  of 
brass  which  were  set  up  in  the  porch  of  the  house. 
It  has  even  been  suppo.sed  that  they  were  not  pillars 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  but  obelisks;  for 
this,  however,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  au- 
thority. The  porch  was  30  feet  in  width,  and  a 
roof  of  that  extent,  even  if  composed  of  a  wooden 


® 


/S^^  'SJJN   /w\   r^\  -<^J?>»   /T^ 


© 


No.  7.  —  Cornice  of  lily-work  at  1  orsepohs. 

beam,  would  not  only  look  painfully  weak  without 
some  support,  but  be, in  fact,  almost  impossible  to 
construct  with  the  imperfect  science  of  these  daj's. 
Another  difficulty  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
book  of  Chronicles  nearly  doubles  the  dimensions 
given  in  Kings;  but  this  ari.ses  from  tlie  system- 
atic reduplication  of  the  height  which  misled  Jose- 
phus; and  if  we  assume  the  Temple  to  have  been 
60  cubits  high,  the  heiglit  of  the  pillars,  as  given  in 
the  book  of  Chronicles,  would  be  appropriate  to 
support  the  roof  of  its  porch,  as  tiiose  in  Kings  are 
the  proper  height  for  a  temple  30  cubits  high, 
which  tliere  is  every  reason  to  Ijelieve  was  the  true 
dimension.  According  to  1  K.  vii.  15  ft'.,  the  pil- 
lars were  18  cubits  high  and  12  in  circumference, 
with  capitals  five  cubits  in  height.  Above  this 
was  (ver.  ID)  another  n'ieml>er,  called  also  chapiter 
of  lily-work,  four  cubits  in  height,  but  which  from 

The  Carthaginians  were  s  Sheniitic  people,  and  seem 
to  have  carried  their  Holy  Tent  about  with  their  ar- 
mies, and  to  have  performed  saerilccs  iu  front  of  It 
pre'usely  as  was  done  by  the  J'  ws,  excepting,  of 
course,  the  nature  of  the  victims. 


;^ 


8200  TEMPLE 

ihe  second  mention  of  it  in  ver.  22  seems  more 
probably  to  have  been  an  entablature,  which  is  ne- 
cessary to  complete  the  order.  As  these  members 
make  out  27  cubits,  leaving  3  cubits  or  4^  feet  for 
the  slope  of  the  roof,  the  whole  design  seems  rea- 
sonable and  proper. 

If  this  conjecture  is  correct,  we  have  no  great 
difficulty  in  suggesting  that  the  lily-work  must 
have  been  something  like  the  Persepolitan  cornice 
(NVood-eut  No.  7),  which  is  probably  nearer  in  style 
to  that  of  the  buildings  at  Jerusalem  than  anything 
else  we  know  of. 

It  seems  almost  in  vain  to  try  and  speculate  on 
what  was  the  exact  form 
of  the  decoration  of  these 
celebrated  pillars.  The 
nets  of  checker-work  and 
wreaths  of  chain-work, 
and  the  pomegranates, 
etc.,  are  all  features  ap- 
plicaljle  to  metal  archi- 
tecture; and  though  we 
know  that  the  old  Tartar 
races  did  use  metal  archi- 
tecture everywhere,  and 
especially  in  bronze,  from 
the  very  nature  of  the 
material  every  specimen 
has  perished,  and  we  have 
now  no  representations 
from  which  we  can  restore 
them.  The  styles  we  are 
familiar  with  were  all  de- 
rived more  or  less  from 
wood,  or  from  stone  with 
wooden  ornaments  re- 
peated in  the  harder  ma- 
terial. Even  at  Persepo- 
lis,  though  we  may  feel 
certain  that  everything 
we  see  there  had  a  wooden 
prototype,  and  may  sus- 
pect that  much  of  their 
wooden  ornamentation 
was  derived  from  tlie  ear- 
lier metal  forms,  still  it  is 
so  far  removed  from  the 
original  source  that  in 
the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge,  it  is  danger- 
ous to  insist  too  closely 
on  any  point.  Notwith- 
standing this,  the  pillars 
at  Persepolis,  of  which 
Wood-cut  No.  8  is  a  type, 
are  proliably  more  like 
Jachin  and  Boaz  than  any 
other  pillars  which  have 
40  feet  reached  us  from  antiquity, 
and  give  a  better  idea  of 
the  immense  capitals  of 
%orHeo  at'pel^;''o'^s."°  these  columns  than  we  ob- 
tain  from  any  other  ex- 
amples; but  being  in  stone,  they  are  far  more  sim- 
ple and  less  ornamental  than  they  would  have  been 
iu  wood,  and  infinitely  less  so  than  their  metal 
prototypes. 

Internal  Supports.  —  The  existence  of  these  two 
pillars  in  the  porch  suggests  an  inquiry  which  has 
hitherto  been  entirely  overlooked:  \Vere  there  any 
pillars  in  tiie  interior  of  the  Temple  ?  Considering 
'iiat  the  clear  space  of  the  roof  was  20  cubits,  or 


\m$ 


TEMPLE 

30  feet,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  no  oodai 
beam  could  be  laid  across  this  without  sinking  in 
the  centre  by  its  own  weight,  unless  trussed  or  sup- 
ported troni  below.  There  is  no  reason  whatever 
to  suppose  that  the  Tyrians  in  those  days  were 
acquainted  with  the  scientific  forms  of  carpentry 
implied  in  the  first  suggestion,  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  they  should  have  resorted  to  them  even 
if  they  knew  how;  as  it  cannot  be  doubted  but 
that  architecturally  the  introduction  of  pillars  in  the 
interior  would  have  increased  the  apparent  size  and 
improved  the  artistic  effect  of  the  building  to  a  very 
considerable  degree. 

If  they  were  introduced  at  all,  there  must  have 
been  four  in  the  sanctuary  and  ten  in  the  hall,  not 
necessarily  equally  spaced,  in  a  transverse  direction, 
but  probably  standing  G  cubits  from  the  walls, 
leaving  a  centre  aisle  of  8  cubits. 

The  only  building  at  Jerusalem  whose  construc- 
tion throws  any  light  on  this  subject  is  the  House 
of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon.  [Palace.]  There  the 
pillars  were  an  inconvenience,  as  the  purposes  of 
the  hall  were  state  and  festivity ;  but  though  the 
pillars  in  the  palace  had  nothing  to  support  above 
the  roof,  they  were  spaced  probably  II),  certainly 
not  more  than  12J,  cubits  apart.  If  Solomon  had 
been  able  to  roof  a  clear  space  of  20  cubits,  he  cer- 
tairdy  would  not  have  neglected  to  ilo  it  there. 

At  Persepolis  there  is  a  small  building,  called 
the  Pal.ace  or  Temple  of  Darius  (Wood  cut  No.  9), 
which  more  closely  resembles  the  Jewish  Temple 
than  any  other  building  we  are  acquainted  with. 
It  has  a  porch,  a  central  hall,  an  adytum  —  the  plan 
of  which  cannot  now  be  made  out  —  and  a  ran^e 
of  small  chambers  on  either  side.  The  principal 
difference  is  that  it  has  four  pillars  in  its  porch  in- 
stead of  two,  and  consequently  four  rows  in  its  in 
terior  hall  instead  of  half  that  number,  as  suggested 
above.  All  the  buildings  at  Persepolis  have  their 
floors  equally  crowded  with  pillars,  and,  as  there  is 
no  doubt  but  that  they  borrowed  this  peculiarity 
from  Nineveh,  there  seems  no  a.  prm-i  reason  why 
Solomon  should  not  have  adopted  this  expedient  to 
get  over  what  otherwise  would  seem  an  insuperable 
constructive  difficulty. 

The  question,  in  fact,  is  very  much  the  same 
that  met  us  in  discussing  the  construction  of  the 
Tabernacle.  No  internal  supports  to  the  roofs  ol 
either  of  these  buildings  are  mentione<l  anywhere. 
But  the  difficulties  of  construction  without  ihem 
would  have  been  so  enormous,  and  their  introduc- 
tion so  usual  and  so  entirely  unoljectiouable,  that 
we  can  hardly  understand  their  not  being  employed. 
Either  building  was  possible  without  them,  but 
certainly  neither  in  the  least  degree  probable. 

It  may  perhaps  add  something  to  the  probability 
of  their  arrangement  to  mention  that  the  ten  bases 
for  the  lavers  which  Solomon  made  would  stand 
one  within  each  inter-column  on  either  hand,  where 
they  would  be  beautiful  and  appropriate  ornaments. 
Witliout  some  such  accentuation  of  the  space,  it 
seems  difficult  to  understand  what  they  were,  and 
why  ten. 

Chambers.  —  The  only  other  feature  which  re- 
mains to  be  noticed  is  the  application  of  three  tiers 
of  small  chamliers  to  the  walls  of  the  Temple  exter- 
nally on  all  sides,  except  that  of  the  entrance. 
Though  not  expressly  so  stated,  these  were  a  sort  of 
monastery,  appi-opriated  to  the  residence  of  the 
priests  who  were  either  jjermanently  or  in  turn  de- 
voted to  the  service  of  the  Temple.  The  lowest 
story  was  only  5  cubits  ui  width,  the  next  6,  and 


TEMPLE 

the  upper  7.  allowing  an  offset  of  1  cubit  oti  the 
side  of  the  I'eiiiple,  or  of  9  inches  on  each  side,  on 
which  the  flooring  joists  rested,  so  as  not  to  cut 
into  the  walls  of  the  Temple.  Assuming  the  wall 
of  the  Temple  at  the  level  of  the  upper  chambers  to 
have  been  2  cubits  thick,  and  the  outer  wall  one_,  — 
it  could  not  well  have  been  less,  —  this  would  ex- 
actly make  up  the  duplication  of  the  dimension 
found  as  before  mentioned  for  the  verandah  of  the 
Tabernacle. 

It  is,  again,  only  at  Persepolis  that  we  find  any- 
thing at  all  analogous  to  this ;  but  in  the  plan  last 
quoted  as  that  of  the  Palace  of  Darius,  we  find  a 
similar  range  on  either  hand.  The  palace  of  Xerxes 
possesses  this  feature  also;  but  in  the  great  hall 
there,  and  its  counterpart  at  Susa,  the  place  of 
these  chambers  is  supplanted  by  lateral  porticoes 
outside  the  walls  that  surrounded  the  central  pha- 
lanx of  pillars.  Unfortunately  our  knowledge  of 
.Assyrian  temple  architecture  is  too  limited  to  en- 
able us  to  say  whether  this  feature  was  common 
elsewhere,  and  though  somethiug  very  hke  it  occurs 


No.  9.  —  Palace  of  Darius  at  Persepolis.  Scale  of  50  feet  to  1  inch. 

in  Buddhist  Viharas  in  India,  these  latter  are  com- 
paratively so  modern  that  their  disposition  hardly 
bears  on  the  inquiry. 

Outer  Court.  —  The  inclosure  of  the  Temple 
consisted,  according  to  the  Bible  (1  K.  vi.  36),  of 
a  low  wall  of  three  courses  of  stones  and  a  row  of 
cedar  beams,  both  jjrobably  highly  ornamented.  As 
it  is  more  than  probalile  that  the  sauie  duplication 
of  dimensions  took  place  in  this  as  in  all  the  other 
features  of  the  Tabernacle,  we  may  safely  assume 
that  it  was  10  cubits,  or  15  feet,  in  height,  and 
aluiost  certainly  100  cubits  north  and  south,  and 
2(10  east  and  west. 

There  is  no  mention  in  the  Bible  of  any  porti- 
coes or  gateways  or  any  architectural  ornaments  of 
this  inclosure,  for  though  names  wiiich  were  after- 
wards transferred  to  the  gates  of  tiie  Temple  do  oc- 
cur in  i  Chr.  ix  ,  xxiv.,  and  xxvi.,  this  was  belbre 
the  Temple  itself  was  built;  and  although  .losephus 
does  mention  such,  it  must  be  recollected  th.at  he 
was  writing  five  centuries  after  its  total  destruction, 
und  he  was  too  apt  to  confound  the  past  and  the 
present  in  his  descriptions  of  buildings  which  did 
not  then  exist.  There  was  an  eastern  porch  to 
Herod's  Temple,  which  was  called  Solomons  Porch, 
Uid  .Josephus  tells  us  that  it  was  built  by  that 
»aonarch ;  but  of  this  there  is  absolutely  no  proof. 


TEMPLE  3201 

and  as  neither  in  the  account  of  Solomon's  building 
nor  in  any  subsequent  repairs  or  incidents  is  any 
mention  made  of  such  buildings,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  they  did  not  exist  before  the  time  of 
the  great  rebuilding  immediately  preceding  the 
Christian  era. 

Temple  of  Zehubbabel. 

We  ha^•e  very  few  particulars  regarding  the 
Temple  which  the  Jews  erected  after  their  return 
from  the  Captivity  (cir.  520  u.  C),  and  no  de- 
scription that  would  enable  us  to  realize  its  appear- 
ance. But  there  are  some  dimensions  given  in  the 
Bible  and  elsewhere  which  are  extremely  interest- 
ing as  afifording  points  of  comparison  l)etween  it 
and  the  temples  which  preceded  it,  or  were  erected 
after  it. 

The  first  and  most  authentic  are  those  given  in 
the  book  of  lizra  (vi.  3),  when  quoting  the  decree 
of  Cyrus,  wherein  it  is  said,  "  I^t  the  house  be 
builded,  the  place  where  they  offered  sacrifices,  and 
let  the  foundations  thereof  be  strongly  laid;  the 
height  thereof  tln-eescore  cubits,  and 
I  the  breadth  thereof  threescore  culiits, 
w  ith  three  rows  of  great  stones  and  a 
low  of  new  timber."  Josephus  quotes 
tills  passage  almost  literally  (xi.  4, 
^  G),  but  in  doing  so  enables  us  with 
certainty  to  translate  the  word  here 
called  row  as  "story"  (StJ^oj) — as 
mdeed  tlie  sense  would  lead  us  to  infer 
—  tor  it  could  only  apply  to  the  three 
stories  of  chambers  that  surrounded 
SolomoiTs,  and  afterwards  Herod's 
Temple,  and  with  this  again  we  come 
to  the  wooden  Talar  which  sur- 
mounted the  Temple  and  formed  a 
fourth  story.  It  may  be  remarked 
ui  i)assing,  that  this  dimension  of  60 
cubits  in  height  accords  perfectly 
with  the  words  which  Josephus  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Herod  (xv.  11,  §  1) 
when  he  makes  him  say  that  the 
lemple  built  after  the  "Captivity 
w.iited  60  culiits  of  the  heiglit  of 
that  of  bolomon.  For  as  he  had  adopted,  as  we 
have  seen  above,  tlie- height  of  120  cubits,  us  writ- 
ten in  the  Clironicles,  for  that  Temple,  this  one  re- 
mained only  GO. 

Tlie  other  dimension  of  GO  cubits  in  breadth  is 
20  cubits  in  excess  of  tliat  of  Solomon's  Temple, 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  its  correctness,  for 
we  find  both  from  Josejihus  and  the  Talmud  that 
it  was  the  dimension  ado])ted  for  the  Temple  when 
rebuilt,  or  rather  repaired,  by  Herod.  At  the  same 
time  we  have  no  authority  for  assuming  that  any 
increase  was  made  in  the  dimensions  of  either  the 
Holy  Place  or  tlie  Holy  of  Holies,  since  we  find 
that  these  were  retained  in  Ezekiel's  description  of 
an  ideal  Temple  —  and  were  afterwards  those  ol 
Herod's.  .'Viid  as  this  Temple  of  Zerubbabel  was 
still  standing  in  Herod's  time,  and  was  more  strictly 
speaking  repaired  than  rebuilt  by  him,  we  cannot 
conceive  that  any  of  its  dimensions  were  then  di- 
minishal.  We  are  left  therefore  with  the  alterna- 
tive of  assuming  that  the  porch  and  the  chambers 
all  round  were  20  cubits  in  width,  including  tiie 
thickness  of  tlie  walls,  inste.-id  of  10  cubits,  as  in 
the  earlier  building.  Tills  may  perhaps  to  some  e«- 
tent  be  accounted  for  by  the  intnvluction  of  a  jmw- 
sage  between  the  Temple  and  the  rooms  of  the 
priest's  loilgingg  instead  of  each  beiug  a  thorough- 


3202 


TEMPLE 


fare,  as  must  certainly  have  been  the  case  in  Solo- 
mon's Temple. 

This  alteration  in  the  width  of  the  Pteromata 
made  the  Temple  100  culiits  in  length  by  60  in 
breadth,  with  a  height,  it  is  said,  of  60  cubits,  in- 
eluding  the  upper  room  or  Talar,  tiiough  we  cannot 
help  suspecting  that  this  last  dimension  is  some- 
what in  excess  of  the  truth." 

The  only  other  description  of  this  Temple  is 
found  in  llecatffius  the  Abderite,  who  wrote  shortly 
after  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great.  As  quoted 
by  Josephus  (amf.  Ap.  i.  22),  he  says,  that  "  In  Je- 
rusalem towards  the  middle  of  the  city  is  a  stone 
walled  inclosure  about  500  feet  in  length  (ois  irev- 
TOLirXidpos)'  and  100  cubits  in  width,  with  double 
gates,"  in  which  he  describes  the  Temple  as  being 
situated. 

The  last  dimension  is  exactly  what  we  obtained 
above  by  doubling  the  width  of  the  Tabernacle  in- 
closure as  applied  to  Solomon's  Temple,  and  may 
therefore  lie  accepted  as  tolerably  certain,  but  the 
500  feet  in  length  exceeds  anything  we  have  yet 
reached  by  200  feet.  It  may  be  tliat  at  this  age  it 
was  found  necessary  to  add  a  court  for  the  women 
or  the  Gentiles,  a  sort  of  Narthex  or  Galilee  for 
those  who  could  not  enter  the  Temple.  If  this  or 
t^iese  together  were  100  cubit.s  square,  it  would 
make  up  the  "  nearly  5  plethra  "  of  our  author. 
Hecataeus  also  mentions  that  the  altar  was  20  cu- 
bits square  and  10  hiiih.  And  although  he  men- 
tions the  Temple  itself,  he  unfortunately  does  not 
supply  us  with  any  dimensions. 

From  these  dimensions  we  gather,  that  if  "  the 
Priests  and  Levites  and  Elders  of  families  were  dis- 
consolate at  seeing  how  much  more  sumptuous  the 
old  Temple  was  than  the  one  which  on  account  of 
l'>eir  poverty  they  had  just  been  able  to  erect" 
(Ezr  iii.  12;  Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  4,  §  2),  it  certainly 
was  noi  because  it  was  smaller,  as  almost  every  di- 
mension hat,  '^een  increased  one  third;  but  it  may 
have  lieen  that  t.  ■  Tving  and  the  gold,  and  other 
ornaments  of  Solombn'  Temple  lar  surpassed  this, 
and  the  pillars  of  the  polvi.-o  and  the  veils  may  all 
have  been  far  more  splendid,  a\'  also  probably  were 
the  vessels;  and  all  this  is  what  a  Jev,  .  .ild  mourn 
over  far  more  than  mere  architectural  spleiiav."  In 
speaking  of  these  t«mples  we  must  always  bear  in 
mind  that  their  dimensions  were  practically  very  far 
inferior  to  those  of  the  heathen.  Even  that  of  Ezra 
is  not  larger  than  an  average  parish  church  of  the 
last  century —  Solomon's  was  smaller.  It  was  the 
lavish  display  of  the  precious  metals,  the  elabora- 
tion of  carved  ornament,  and  the  beauty  of  the  tex- 
tile fabrics,  which  made  up  their  splendor  and  ren- 
dered them  so  precious  in  the  eyes  of  the  people, 
and  there  can  consequently  be  no  greater  mistake 
than  to  judge  of  them  by  the  number  of  cubits  they 
measured.  They  were  temples  of  a  Shemitic,  not 
of  a  Celtic  people. 

Temple  of  Ezekikl. 
The  vision  of  a  Temple  which  the  prophet  Eze- 
kiel  saw  while  residing  on  the  banks  of  the  Chebar 
in  Babylonia  in  the  25th  year  of  the  Captivity,  does 
not  add  much  to  our  knowledge  of  the  subject.  It 
is  not  a  description  of  a  Temple  that  ever  was  built 


a  In  recounting  the  events  narrated  by  Ezra  (x  9), 
Joseplius  says  (Ant.  xi.  5,  §  4)  that  the  assembly  there 
referred  to  took  place  in  the  upper  room,  ei/  tuI  unepojw 
roO  icpoO,  which  would  be  a  very  curious  illustration 
of  the  use  of  that  apartment  if  it  could   be  depended 


TEMPLE 

or  ever  could  be  erected  at  Jerusalem,  and  can  con- 
sequently only  be  considered  as  the  beau  ideal  ol 
what  a  Shemitic  temple  ought  to  be.  As  such  it 
would  certainly  be  interesting  if  it  could  be  cor- 
rectly restored,  but  unfortunately  the  difficulties  of 
making  out  a  complicated  plan  from  a  mere  verbal 
description  are  very  great  indeed,  and  are  enhanced 
in  this  instance  by  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  Heljrew  architectural  terms, 
and  it  may  also  be  from  the  prophet  describing  not 
what  he  actually  knew,  but  only  what  he  saw  in  a 
vision. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  we  find  that  the  Temple  itself 
was  of  the  exact  dimensions  of  that  built  by  Solo- 
mon, namely,  an  adytum  (Ez.  xl.  1-4),  20  cubits 
square,  a  naos,  20x40,  and  surrounded  by  cells  of 
10  cubits'  width  including  the  thickness  of  the 
walls,  the  whole,  with  the  porch,  making  up  40  cu- 
bits by  80,  or  very  little  more  than  one  four-thou- 
sandth part  of  the  whole  area  of  the  Temple:  the 
height  unfortunately  is  not  given.  Beyond  this 
were  various  courts  and  residences  for  the  priests, 
and  places  for  sacrifice  and  other  ceremonies  of  the 
Temple,  till  he  comes  to  the  outer  court,  which 
measiu'ed  500  reeds  on  each  of  its  sides;  each  reed 
(Ez.  xl.  5)  was  6  Baliylonian  cubits  long,  namely, 
of  cubits  each  of  one  ordinary  cubit  and  a  hand- 
breadth,  or  21  inches.  The  reed  was  therefore  10 
feet  0  inches,  and  the  side  consequently  5,250  Greek 
feet,  or  within  a  few  feet  of  an  English  mile,  con- 
siderably more  than  the  whole  area  of  the  city  of 
Jerusalem,  Temple  included ! 

It  has  been  attempted  to  get  over  this  difficulty 
by  saying  that  the  prophet  meant  cubits,  not  reeds ; 
but  this  is  quite  untenable.  Nothing  can  be  more 
clear  than  the  specification  of  the  length  of  the  reed, 
and  nothing  more  careful  than  the  mode  in  which 
reeds  are  distinguished  from  cubits  throughout;  as 
for  instance  in  the  two  next  verses  (6  and  7)  where 
a  chamber  and  a  gateway  are  mentioned,  each  of 
one  reed.  If  cubit  were  substituted,  it  would  be 
nonsense. 

Notwithstanding  its  ideal  character,  the  whole  is 
extremely  curious,  as  showing  what  wjre  the  aspi- 
rations of  the  Jews  in  this  direction,  and  how  dif- 
ferent they  were  from  those  of  other  nations ;  and 
it  is  interesting  here,  inasmuch  as  there  can  be 
little  doubt  but  that  the  arrangements  of  Herod's 
Temple  were  in  a  great  measure  influenced  by  the 
description  here  given.  The  outer  court,  for  in- 
stance, with  its  porticoes  measuring  400  cubits  each 
wa}',  is  an  exact  counterpart  on  a  smaller  scale  of 
the  outer  court  of  Ezekiel's  Temple,  and  is  not 
found  in  either  Solomon's  or  Zerubbabel's;  and 
so  too,  evidently,  are  several  of  the  internal  ar- 
rangements. 

Temple  of  Herod. 

For  our  knowledge  of  the  last  and  greatest  of  the 
Jewish  Temples  we  are  indebted  almost  wholly  to 
the  works  of  Josephus,  with  an  occasional  hint 
from  the  Talmud. 

The  Bible  unfortunately  contains  nothing  to  as- 
sist the  researches  of  the  antiquary  in  this  respect. 
With  true  Shemitish  indiflference  to  such  objects, 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  do  not  furnish 


upon,  but  both  the  Hebrew  and  LXX.  are  so  clear  that 
it  was  in  the  "  street,"  or  "  place  "  of  the  Temple,  that 
we  cacuot  b.ose  any  argument  upon  it,  though  it  ia 
curious  as  indicating  what  was  passing  in  thf  mind  oi 
Josephus. 


TEMPLE 

ft  single  hint  which  would  enaljle  us  to  ascertain 
either  what  the  situation  or  the  dimensions  of  the 
Temple  were,  nor  any  characteristic  feature  of  its 
architecture.  But  Josephus  knew  the  spot  per- 
Ronally,  and  his  horizontal  dimensions  are  so  mi- 
nutely accurate  that  we  almost  suspect  he  had  Ije- 
fore  his  eyes,  when  writing,  some  ground-plan  of  the 
huilding  prepared  in  the  quartermaster-general's  de- 
partment of  Titus"s  army.  They  ibrm  a  strange  con- 
trast with  his  dimensions  in  height,  which,  with 
scarcely  an  exception,  can  be  shown  to  be  exagger- 
ated, generally  doubled.  As  the  buildings  were  all 
thrown  down  during  the  siege,  it  was  impossible  to 
convict  him  of  error  in  respect  to  elevations,  but  as 
regards  plan  he  seems  always  to  have  had  a  whole- 
lome  dread  of  the  knowledge  of  those  among  whom 
le  was  livincc  and  writing. 


TEMPLE  3208 

The  Temple  or  naos  itself  was  in  dimensions  and 
arrangement  very  similar  to  that  of  Solomon,  oi 
rather  that  of  Zerubbabel  —  more  like  the  latter; 
but  this  was  surrounded  by  an  inner  inclosure  of 
great  strength  and  magnificence,  measuring  as 
nearly  as  can  be  made  out  180  cubits  by  2-i(),  and 
adorned  by  porches  and  ten  gateways  of  great 
masrnificence;  and  beyond  this  again  was  an  outer 
inclosure  measuring  externally  400  cul)its  each 
way,  which  was  adorned  with  porticoes  of  greater 
splendor  than  any  we  know  of  attached  to  any 
temple  of  the  ancient  world:  all  showing  hovr 
strongly  Roman  influence  was  at  work  in  envelop- 
ing with  heathen  magnificence  the  simple  templar 
arrangements  of  a  Shemitic  people,  which,  how- 
ever, remained  nearly  unchanged  amidst  all  this 
external  incrustation. 


No.  10.  —  Temple  of  Uerod  restored      Scale  of  200  feet  to  1  inch. 


It  has  already  been  pointed  out  [Jerusalem, 
vol.  ii.  pp  1313-1-1]  that  the  Temple  was  certainly 
gituated  in  the  S.  W.  angle  of  the  area  now  known 
as  the  Haram  area  at  Jerusalem,  and  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  repeat  here  the  arguments  there  ad- 
duced to  prove  that  its  dimensions  were  what 
Josephus  states  them  to  be,  400  cubits,  or  one  sta- 
dium, each  way. 

At  the  time  when  Herod  rebuilt  it  he  inclosed  a 
ipace  "twice  as  large  "  as  tiiat  before  occupied  by 
the  Temple  and  its  courts   {B.  J.  i.  21,  §  1),  an 


«  *  Since  tlie  writer's  note  at  the  commencement 
of  this  article  was  sent  to  press,  the  report  of  Lieut. 
Warren's  latest  e.xcavations  about  the  south  wall  of 
the  Haram  area  has  couie  to  hand,  containing,  he 
thinks,  "  as  much  information  with  regard  to  this 
portion  of  Ihe  Uaram  Wall,  as  we  are  likely  to  be 
»ble  to  obtain."  His  conclu-sions  are  adverse  to  the 
Jieory  given  abov».  Of  this  massive  wall,  he  thinks 
tbat  the  600  ttiet  east  of  the  Doubh  Gate  is  of  a  dif- 


expression  that  probably  must  not  be  taken  toe 
literally,  at  least  if  we  are  to  depend  on  the  meas- 
urements of  Hecatwus.  According  to  them  the 
whole  area  of  Herod's  Temple  was  between  four 
and  five  times  greater  than  tliat  wiiich  preceded  it. 
What  Herod  did  apparently  was  to  take  in  the 
whole  space  between  the  Temple  and  the  city  wall 
on  its  eastern  side,  and  to  add  a  considerable  spaca 
on  the  nortli  ami  south  to  support  the  porticoes 
which  he  added  there."  [See  Palestine,  vol.  iii 
p.  2303,  note,  Anier.  ed.] 


fcrent  construction  from  the  300  feet  west  of  it,  and 
more  ancient.  It  is  built  up  with  beveled  stones  from 
the  rock,  and  on  some  of  tlie  stones  at  the  S.  E  an- 
gle were  found  signs  and  characters  (supposed  to  b« 
Phoenician)  which  had  been  cut  before  the  stones  wero 
laid  (Pal.  Expl.  Fiiii't,  Warren's  Letters,  XLV.).  ue 
jei'ting  Mr.  Fergusson's  theory,  that  the  S.  W  angle 
of  the  area  was  tlie  site  of  the  Temple,  Lieat.  Wairen 
is  undecided  between  three  points,  which  present,  h« 


8204 


TEMPLE 


As  the  Temple  terrace  thus  became  the  prine'ipal 
defense  of  the  city  on  the  east  side,  there  were  no 
gates  oropenini,'s  in  that  direction,"  and  being  situ- 
ated on  a  sort  of  rocky  brow  —  as  evidenced  from 
its  appearance  in  the  vaults  that  bound  it  on  this 
side  —  it  was  at  all  future  times  considered  unat- 
tackable  from  the  eastward.  The  north  side,  too, 
where  not  covered  by  the  fortress  Antonia,  became 
part  of  tlie  defenses  of  the  city,  and  was  likewise 
without  external  gates.  But  it  may  also  have  been 
that,  as  the  tombs  of  the  kings,  and  indeed  the 
general  cemetery  of  Jerusalem,  were  situated  im- 
mediately to  the  northward  of  tiie  Temple,  there 
was  some  religious  feeling  in  preventing  too  ready 
access  from  the  Temple  to  the  burying-places  (Ez. 
xliii.  7-9). 

On  the  south  side,  which  was  inclosed  by  the 
wall  of  Ophel,  there  were  double  gates  nearly  in 
the  centre  (Ani.  xv.  11,  §  5).  These  gates  still 
exist  at  a  distance  of  about  -365  feet  from  the 
southwestern  angle,  and  are  perhaps  the  only 
architectural  features  of  the  Temple  of  Herod 
which  remain  in  si/u.  This  entrance  consists  of 
a  doulile  archway  of  Cyclopean  architecture  on  the 
level  of  the  ground,  opening  into  a  square  vestibule 
measuring  40  feet  e;ieh  way.  In  the  centre  of  this 
is  a  pillar  crowned  by  a  capital  of  the  Greek  — 
ratlier  than  Roman  —  Corinthian  order  (Wood-cut 
No.  11);  the  acanthus  alternating  with  the  water- 
leaf,  as  in  the  Tower  of  the  ^\'inds  at  Athens,  and 
other  Greek  examples,  but  which  was  an  arrange- 
ment abandoned  by  the  Romans  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Augustus,  and  ne\er  afterwards  employed.'' 
I'lom  this  pillar  spring  four  flat  segmental  arches, 
and    the   spaee    between    these    is    roofed   by   flat 


No   11.  —  Capital  of  Pillar  in  Vestibule  of  southern 
entrance. 

domes,  constructed  apparently  on  the  horizontal 
principle.  The  walls  of  this  vestibule  are  of  the 
same  beveled  masonry  as  the  exterior;  but  either 
at  tiie  time  of  erection  or  sulisequently,  the  pro- 
jections seem  to  have  been  chiseled  off  in  some 
parts  *D  as  to  form  pilasters.  From  this  a  double 
tunnel,  nearly  200  feet  in   length,  leads  to  a  flight 


thinks,  about  equal  claims  —  namely,  the  present 
Dome  of  the  Rock  platform,  a  space  east  of  it  reach- 
ing to  the  east  wall,  and  the  S.  E.  angle  of  the  area. 
Further  examination  and  evidence  will  be  necessary, 
to  8ha.ke  the  traditional  belief  in  the  first-named  site. 

S.  W. 
a  The  Talmud,  it  is  true,  does  mention  a  gate  as 
existing  in  the  eastern  wall,  but  its  testimony  on  this 
point  is  so  unsatisfactory  and  in  such  direct  opposition 
to  Josephus  and  the  probabilities  of  the  case,  that  it 
iiay  safely  be  disregarded. 


TEMPLE 

of  steps  which  rise  to  the  surface  in  the  oomt  td 

the  Temple,  exactly  at  that  gateway  of  the  inuer 
Temple  which  led  to  the  altar,  and  is  the  one  of 
the  four  gateways  on  this  side  liy  which  any  one 
arriving  from  Ophel  would  naturally  wish  to  entei 
the  inner  inclosure.  It  seems  to  have  been  this 
necessity  that  led  to  the  external  gateway  being 
placed  a  little  more  to  the  eastward  than  the  exact 
centre  of  the  inclosure,  where  naturally  we  should 
otherwise  have  looked  for  it. 

"We  leain  from  the  Talmud  (Mid.  ii.  6),  that  the 
gate  of  the  inner  Temple  to  which  this  passage  led 
was  called  the  "Water  Gate;  "  and  it  is  interestini^ 
to  be  able  to  identify  a  spot  so  prominent  in  the  de- 
scription of  Nehemiah  (xii.  37).  The  Water  Gate 
is  more  often  mentioned  in  the  medieval  references 
to  the  Temple  than  any  other,  especiall}"  by  INIo- 
hanunedan  authors,  though  by  them  frequently 
confounded  with  the  outer  gate  at  the  other  end  of 
this  passage. 

Towards  the  westward  there  were  four  gateways 
to  the  external  inclosure  of  the  Temple  (Ant.  xv. 
11,  §  .5),  and  tlie  positions  of  three  of  these  can 
still  be  traced  with  ceitainty.  The  firet  or  most 
southern  led  over  the  bridge  the  remains  of  which 
were  identified  by  Dr.  Roliinson  (of  which  a  view 
is  given  in  art.  ,Iekus.\le:m,  vol.  ii.  p.  1-313),  and 
joined  the  Stoa  ISasilica  of  the  Tem[ile  with  the 
royal  palace  (A»/.  ibid.).  The  second  was  that 
discovered  .by  Dr.  IJarclay,  270  feet  from  the  S.  W. 
angle,  at  a  level  of  17  feet  below  that  of  the  south- 
ern gates  just  described.  The  site  of  the  third  is 
so  completely  covered  by  tlie  buildings  of  the 
IMeckme  that  it  has  not  yet  been  seen,  but  it  will 
be  found  between  200  and  250  feet  from  the  N.  W. 
angle  of  the  Temple  area;  for,  owing  to  the  greater 
width  of  the  southern  portico  beyond  that  on  the 
northern,  the  Temple  itself  was  not  in  the  centre 
of  its  inclosure,  but  situated  more  towards  the 
north.  'I'he  fourth  was  that  which  led  over  the 
causeway  which  still  exists  at  a  distance  of  600 
feet  from  the  southwestern  angle. 

In  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  until  the  aiea  was 
enlarged  by  Herod,  the  ascent  from  the  western 
valley  to  the  Temple  seems  to  have  been  by  an 
external  flight  of  stairs  (Neh.  xii.  37;  IK.  x.  5, 
&c.),  similar  to  those  at  Persepolis,  and  Itke  them 
probably  placed  laterally  so  as  to  form  a  part  of 
the  architectural  design.  When,  however,  the 
Temple  came  to  be  fortified  "  modo  arcis  "  (Tacit.  ^ 
H.  V.  12J,  the  causeway  and  the  bridge  were  es- 
tablished  to  afford  communication  with  the  upper 
city,  and  the  two  intermediate  lower  entrances  t/i 
lead  to  tiie  lower  city,  or,  as  it  was  originally  called, 
"  the  city  of  David." 

Cloisters The   most  magnificent  part  of  the 

Temple,  in  an  architectural  point  of  view,  seems 
certainly  to  have  been  the  cloisters  which  were 
added  to  the  outer  court  when  it  was  eidarged  by 
Herod.  It  is  not  quite  clear  if  there  was  not  .■in 
eastern   porch  liefore  this  time,  and  if  so,  it  may 


b  Owing  to  the  darkness  of  the  place,  blocked  up 
as  it  now  is,  and  the  ruined  state  of  the  capital,  it  is 
not  easy  to  get  a  correct  delineation  of  It.  This  is  to 
be  regretted,  as  a  considerable  controversy  has  arisen 
as  to  its  exact  character.  It  may  therefore  be  interest- 
ing to  mention  that  the  drawing  made  by  the  archi- 
tectural draughtsui.iu  who  accompanied  M.  Reuan  in 
his  late  scientific  expedition  to  Syria  coufiruis  to  the 
fullest  extent  the  character  of  the  architecture,  at 
shown  in  the  view  given  above  from  Mr.  Arun  lale's 
drawing. 


TEMPLE 

h»Te  been  nearly  on  the  site  of  that  suVisequeiitly 
erected;  but  on  the  three  other  sides  tlje  reinple 
area  was  so  extendtd  at  the  last  rehuildinL;  tliat 
there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  from  the  verv 
foundations  the  terrace  walls  and  cloisters  belonged 
wholly  to  the  last  period. 

The  cloisters  in  the  west,  north,  and  east  side  were 
composed  of  double  rows  of  Coriiitiiian  columns,  25 
cubits  or  37  feet  6  inches  in  heii^ht  {B.  J.  v.  5,  §  2), 
with  flat  roofs,  and  restinn;  af;aiii.st  the  outer  wall 
of  the  Temple.  These,  however,  were  iminensurably 
surpassed  in  magnificence  by  the  ro\al  porch  or  Stoa 
basilica  which  overhung  the  southern  wall.  This 
is  so  minutely  descrilied  1>y  Josephus  {Ant.  xv.  11, 
§  5)  that  tiiere  is  no  difficulty  in  understanding  its 
arrangement  or  ascertaining  its  dimensions.  It 
consisted  (in  the  language  of  Gothic  architecture) 
of  a  nave  and  two  aisles,  that  towards  the  Temple 
being  open,  that  towards  the  country  closed  by  a 
wall.  The  breadth  of  the  cerjtre  aisle  was  45  feet; 
of  the  side  aisles  30  from  centre  to  centre  of  the 
pillars;  their  height  51)  feet,  and  that  of  the  centre 
aisle  100  feet.  Its  section  was  thus  something  in 
excess  of  that  of  York  Cathedral,  while  its  total 
length  was  one  sfailiuni  or  600  tireek  feet,  or  100 
feet  in  exce.ss  of  Yoik,  or  our  largest  Gothic  ca- 
thedrals. This  magnificent  structure  was  sup- 
ported by  162  Corinthian  columns,  arranged  in 
four  rows,  forty  in  each  row  —  the  two  odd  pillars 
forming  apparently  a  .screen  at  the  end  of  the  bridge 
leading  to  tlie  palace,  whose  axis  was  coincident 
with  th.at  of  the  Stoa,  which  thus  formed  the 
principal  entrance  from  the  city  and  palace  to  the 
Temple. 

At  a  short  distance  from  the  front  of  these 
cloisters  was  a  marljle  screen  or  inclosure,  3  cubits 
in  height,  beautifully  ornamented  with  carving,  but 
bearing  inscriptions  in  Greek  and  Roman  characters 
forbidding  any  Gentile  to  pass  witiiin  its  bounda- 
ries. Again,  at  a  short  distance  within  this  was  a 
flight  of  steps  supporting  the  terrace  or  platform 
on  which  the  Temple  itselt  stood.  According  to 
Josephus  {B.  J.  V.  5,  §  2)  this  terrace  was  15 
cubits  or  22J  feet  high,  and  was  approached  first 
by  fourteen  steps,  each  we  may  assume  about  one 
foot  in  height,  at  the  top  of  which  was  a  berm  or 
platfoi^i,  10  cubits  wide,  called  the  Chel;  and 
there  were  again  in  the  depth  of  the  gateways 
five  or  si.K  8te|)s  more  leading  to  the  inner  court 
of  the  Temple,  thus  making  20  or  21  steps  in  the 
whole  height  of  22^  feet.  To  the  eastward,  where 
the  court  of  the  women  was  situate<l,  this  arrange- 
ment was  reversed;  five  steps  led  to  the  Chel,  and 
fifteen  from  that  to  the  couit  of  the  Temple. 

The  court  of  the  Temple,  as  mentioned  above, 
was  very  nearly  a  square.  It  may  have  been  ex- 
actly so,  for  we  have  not  all  the  details  to  enable 
us  to  feel  quite  certain  about  it.  The  Middotli 
gays  it  was  187  cubits  P>.  and  W.,  and  137  N.  and 
S.  (ii.  6 ).     But  on  the  two  last  sides   there  were 


TEMPLE 


3205 


«  It  doe.s  not  appear  difficult  to  account  for  this  ex- 
traordinary excess.  Tlie  Itabbis  adopted  the  sacred 
oumber  of  E^ekiel  of  500  for  their  external  dimeusious 
of  the  Temple,  without  caring  much  whether  it  meant 
reeds  or  cubits,  and  though  the  commentators  say 
that  they  only  meant  the  smaller  cubit  of  15  inches, 
V  625  feet  in  all,  this  explanation  will  not  hold  good, 
kg  all  their  other  measurements  agree  so  closely  with 
those  of  Josephus  that  they  evidently  were  using  the 
eame  cubit  of  18  inches.  The  fact  seems  to  be,  that 
baviQK  erroneously  adopted  500  cuoits  instead  of  400 


the  gateways  with  their  exhedrse  and  chambers. 
which  may  have  matle  up  25  cubits  each  way, 
though,  with  such  measurements  as  we  have,  it 
appears  they  were  something  less. 

To  the  eastward  of  this  was  the  court  of  the 
women,  the  dimensions  of  which  are  not  given  by 
Josephus,  but  are  in  the  Mlddvlh,  as  137  cubits 
square  —  a  dimension  we  may  safely  reject,  first, 
from  the  extreme  improbability  of  the  Jews  allot- 
ting to  the  women  a  space  more  than  ten  times 
greater  than  that  allotted  to  the  men  of  Israel  or 
to  tiie  Levites,  whose  courts,  according  to  the  same 
authority,  were  respectively  137  by  11  cubits;  but, 
more  than  this,  from  the  impossil)ility  of  finding 
room  for  such  a  court  while  adhering  to  the  other 
dimensions  given."  If  we  assume  that  the  inclosure 
of  the  court  of  the  Gentiles,  or  the  Chel,  was  nearly 
equidistant  on  all  four  sides  from  the  cloisters,  ita 
dimension  must  have  been  about  37  or  40  cubit? 
east  and  west,  most  probably  the  former. 

The  great  ornament  of  these  inner  courts  seema 
to  have  been  their  gateways,  the  three  especially 
on  the  north  and  south  leading  to  the  Temple 
court.  These,  according  to  Josephus,  were  of  great 
height,  strongly  fortified  and  ornamented  with  great 
elaboration.  But  the  wonder  of  all  was  the  great 
eastern  gate  leading  from  the  court  of  the  women 
to  the  upper  court.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
pride  of  the  Temjile  area — covered  with  carving, 
richly  gilt,  having  apartments  over  it  [Ant.  xv. 
11,  §  7),  more  like  the  Gopura  *  of  an  Indian  tem- 
ple than  anything  else  we  are  acquainted  with  in 
architecture.  It  was  also  in  all  probability  the  one 
called  the  "Beautifid  Gate''  in  the  New  Testament. 

Immediately  within  this  gateway  stood  the  altar 
of  burnt-ofterings,  according  to  Josephus  {B.  J.  v. 
5,  §  6),  50  cubits  square  and  15  cubits  high,  with 
an  ascent  to  it  Ijy  an  inclined  plane.  The  Talmud 
reduces  this  dimension  to  32  culiits  (}fi.ddolli,  ill. 
1),  and  adds  a  numlier  of  particulars,  whicli  make 
it  appear  that  it  must  have  been  like  a  model  of 
the  Babylonian  or  otiier  Assyrian  temples.  On  the 
north  side  were  the  rings  and  stakes  to  which  the 
victims  were  attached  which  were  brou;,'ht  in  to  be 
sacrificed ;  and  to  the  south  an  inclined  [ilane  led 

down,  as  before  mentioned,  to  the  Water  Gate 

so  called  because  iuniied  lately  in  front  of  it  was  the 
great  cistern  excavated  in  the  rock,  first  explored 
and  described  by  Dr.  Barclay  ( CtV?/ o/' ('//e  Great 
Kincj,  p.  526),  from  which  water  was  supplied  to 
the  Altar  and  the  Temple.  And  a  little  beyond 
this,  at  the  S.  W.  angle  of  the  .\Itar  was  an  open- 
ing (Middotli,  iii.  3),  through  which  the  blood  of 
the  victims  flowed  '^  westward  and  southward  to  (ha 
king's  garden  at  Siloam. 

I5oth  the  Altar  and  the  Temple  were  inclosed  by 
a  low  parapet  one  cubit  in  height,  placed  so  as  to 
keep  the  people  separate  from  the  priests  while  the 
latter  were  performing  their  functions 

AVithin  this  last  inclosure  towards  the  westward 


for  the  external  dimensions,  they  had  100  cubits  to 
spare,  and  introduced  them  where  no  authority  ex- 
isted to  show  they  were  wrong. 

b  Handbook  of  Architecture ,  p.  93  ff. 

o  A  channel  exactly  corresponding  to  that  described 
in  the  Talmud  has  been  discovered  by  Signer  I'ierotti, 
running  towards  the  southwtst.  In  his  published  ac- 
counts he  mistakes  it  for  one  flov^ing  northntnt.  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  Talmud,  vliich  in  our  unit 
authority  on  the  .subject 


3-206 


TEMPLE 


stood  the  Temi)le  itself.  As  before  mentioned,  its 
internal  dimensions  were  the  same  as  those  of  tlie 
Temple  of  Solomon,  or  of  that  seen  by  the  prophet 
in  a  vision,  namely,  20  cubits  or  30  feet,  by  60 
cubits  or  90  feet,  divided  into  a  cubical  Holy  of 
Holies,  and  a  holy  place  of  2  cubes;  and  there  is 
no  reason  whatever  for  doubting  but  that  the  Sanc- 
tuary always  stood  on  the  identically  same  spot  in 
which  it  had  been  placed  by  Solomon  a  thousand 
years  before  it  was  rebuilt  by  Herod. 

Although  the  internal  dimensions  remained  the 
same,  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that 
the  whole  plan  was  augmented  by  the  Pteromata 
or  surrounding  parts  being  increased  from  10  to 
20  culiits,  so  that  the  third  Temple  like  the  second, 
measured  60  cubits  across,  and  100  cubits  east  and 
west.  The  width  of  the  fa(;ade  was  also  augmented 
by  wings  or  shoulders  {B.  J.  v.  5,  §  -1)  projecting 
20  cubits  each  way,  making  the  whole  breadth  100 
cubits,  or  equal  to  the  length.  So  far  all  seems 
certain,  but  when  we  come  to  the  height,  every 
measurement  seems  doubtful.  Both  .Josephus  and 
the  Talmud  seem  delighted  with  the  truly  Jewish 
idea  of  a  building  which,  without  being  a  cube, 
was  100  cubits  long,  100  broad,  and  100  high  — 
and  everything  seems  to  be  made  to  bend  to  this 
simple  ratio  of  proportion.  It  may  also  be  partly 
owing  to  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  heights  as 
compared  with  horizontal  dimensions,  and  the  ten- 
dency that  always  exists  to  exaggerate  these  latter, 
that  may  have  led  to  some  confusion,  but  from 
whate\er  cause  it  arose,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
believe  that  the  dimensions  of  the  Temple  as  re- 
gards height,  were  what  they  were  asserted  to  be 
by  Josephus,  and  specified  with  such  minute  detail 
in  the  Middclli  (iv.  6).  This  authority  makes  the 
height  of  the  floor  6,  of  the  hall  40  cubits;  the 
roofing  5  cubits  in  thickness;-  then  the  coenaculum 
or  upper  room  40,  and  the  roof,  parapet,  etc.,  9 !  — 
all  the  parts  being  named  with  the  most  detailed 
particularity. 

As  the  adytum  was  certainly  not  more  than  20 
cul)its  high,  the  first  40  looks  very  like  a  duplica- 
tion, and  so  does  the  second ;  for  a  room  20  cubits 
wide  and  40  high  is  so  absurd  a  proportion  that  it 
is  impossible  to  accept  it.  In  fact,  we  cannot  help 
suspecting  that  in  tliis  instance  Josei)hus  was  guilty 
of  systematically  doubling  the  altitude  of  the  build- 
ing he  was  describing,  as  it  can  be  proved  he  did 
in  some  other  instances." 

From  the  above  it  would  appear,  that  in  so  far 
as  the  horizontal  dimensions  of  the  various  parts 
of  this  celebrated  building,  or  their  arrangement  in 
plan  is  concerned,  we  can  restore  every  part  with 
very  toleral)le  certainty;  and  there  does  not  appear 
either  to  be  very  nuich  doubt  as  to  their  real  height. 
But  when  we  turn  from  actual  measurement  and 
try  to  realize  its  appearance  or  the  details  of  its 
nrchitecture,  we  launch  into  a  sea  of  conjecture 
with  very  little  indeed  to  guide  us,  at  least  in  re- 
gard to  the  appearance  of  the  'I'emple  itself. 

We  know,   however,   that   the   cloisters   of  the 


n  As  it  Is  not  easy  always  to  realize  figured  dimen- 
Bions,  it  ma\'  assist  tliose  who  are  not  in  ttie  habit  of 
doing  so  to  state  that  the  we.stern  fajade  and  nave  of 
Lincoln  Cathedral  are  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  Her- 
)d"s  Temple.  Thus,  the  facade  with  its  shoulders  is 
about  100  cubits  wide.  The  nave  is  60  cubits  wide 
»nd  60  high,  and  if  you  divide  the  aisle  into  three 
itories  you  can  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  chamljers  ; 
»nd  if  the  nave  with  its  clerestory  were  divided  by  a 


TEMPLE 

outer  court  were  of  the  Corinthian  order,  and  frcm 
the  appearance  of  nearly  contemporary  cloisteis  at 
Palmyra  and  Baalbec  we  can  judge  of  their  i-ffect. 
There  are  also  in  the  flaram  area  at  Jerusalem  a 
number  of  pillars  which  once  belonged  to  these 
colonnades,  and  so  soon  as  any  one  will  take  the 
trouble  to  measure  and  draw  them,  we  may  restore 
the  cloisters  at  all  events  with  almost  absolute  cer- 
tainty. 

W^e  may  also  realize  very  nearly  the  general  ap- 
pearance of  the  inner  fortified  inclosure  with  its 
gates  and  their  accompaniments,  and  we  can  also 
restore  the  Altar,  but  when  we  turn  to  the  Temple 
itself,  all  is  guess  work.  Still  the  speculation  is  so 
interesting,  that  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  say 
a  few  words  regarding  it. 

In  the  first  place  we  are  told  {Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5) 
that  the  priests  Iniilt  the  Temple  itself  in  eighteen 
months,  while  it  took  Herod  eight  years  to  com- 
plete his  part,  and  as  only  priests  apparently  were 
employed,  we  ma}'  fairlj'  assume  that  it  was  not  a 
rebuilding,  but  only  a  repair  —  it  may  be  with 
additions  —  which  they  undertook.  We  know  also 
from  Maccabees,  and  from  the  unwillingness  of  the 
priests  to  allow  Herod  to  undertake  the  rebuilding 
at  all,  that  the  Temple,  though  at  one  time  dese- 
crated, was  never  destroyed ;  so  we  may  fairly  as- 
sume that  a  great  part  of  the  Temple  of  Zerubbabel 
was  still  standing,  and  was  incorporated  in  the 
new. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  case  with  tne 
Temple  of  Solomon,  it  is  nearly  certain  that  the 
style  of  the  second  Temple  must  have  been  iden- 
tical with  that  of  the  buildings  we  are  so  familiar 
with  at  Persepolis  and  Susa.  In  fact  the  M'ood- 
cut  No.  6  correctly  represents  the  second  Temple 
in  so  far  as  its  details  are  concerned ;  for  we  must 
not  i)e  led  away  with  the  modern  idea  that  diflferent 
people  built  in  different  styles,  which  they  kept  dis- 
tinct and  practiced  only  within  their  own  narrow 
limits.  The  .lews  were  too  closely  connected  with 
the  Persians  and  Babylonians  at  this  ])eriod  to 
know  of  any  other  style,  and  in  fact  their  Temple 
was  built  under  the  superintendence  of  the  very 
])arties  who  were  erecting  the  contemporary  edifices 
at  Persepolis  and  Susa. 

The  question  still  remains  how  much  "of  this 
building  or  of  its  details  were  retained,  or  how 
much  of  Roman  feeling  added.  We  may  at  one? 
dismiss  the  idea  that  anything  was  borrowed  from 
Egypt.  That  country  had  no  influence  at  this 
period  beyond  the  limits  of  her  own  narrow  valley, 
and  we  cannot  trace  one  vestige  of  her  taste  or  feel- 
ing in  anything  found  in  Syria  at  or  about  this 
epoch. 

Turning  to  the  building  itself,  we  find  that  the 
only  things  that  were  added  at  this  period  were  the 
wings  to  the  fanade,  and  it  may  consequently  be 
svu'mised  that  the  facade  was  entirely  remodeled 
at  this  time,  especially  as  we  find  in  the  centre  a' 
great  arch,  which  was  a  very  Roman  feature,  and 
very  unlike  anjthing  we  know  of  as  existing  before. 


floor,  they  would  correctly  represent  the  dimensions 
of  the  Temple  and  its  upper  rooms.  The  nave,  how- 
ever, to  the  transept,  is  considerably  more  than  100 
cubits  long,  while  the  fafade  is  only  between  50  and 
60  cubits  high.  Those,  therefore,  who  adhere  to  the 
written  text,  must  double  its  height  in  imagination  to 
realize  its  appearance,  but  my  own  conviction  is  that 
the  Temple  was  not  higher  in  reality  than  the  fa(iMk 
of  the  cathedral. 


TEMPLE,  CAPTAIN  OF  THE 

rhi«,  Josephus  says,  was  25  cubits  wide  and  70 
high,  wliicli  is  so  monstrous  in  proportion,  and, 
being  wider  than  the  Temple  itself,  so  unlikely,  that 
it  may  safely  be  rejected,  and  we  may  adopt  in  its 
Btead  the  more  moderate  dimensions  of  the  Miildoth 
(iii.  7),  wliich  makes  it  20  cubits  wide  by  40  high, 
which  is  not  only  more  in  accordance  with  the 
dimensions  of  the  building,  but  also  with  the  pro- 
portions of  Roman  architecture.  This  arch  occu- 
pied the  centre,  and  may  easily  lie  restored ;  but 
what  is  to  be  done  with  the  ^57  cubits  on  either 
hand  ?  Were  they  plain  like  an  unfinished  Egyp- 
tian propylon,  or  covered  with  ornament  like  an 
Indian  Gopura?  My  own  impression  is  that  the 
fai;ade  on  either  hand  was  covered  with  a  series  of 
small  arches  and  panels  four  stories  in  height,  and 
more  like  the  Tak  Kesra  at  Ctesiphon  "  than  any 
other  building  now  existing.  It  is  true  that  nearly 
five  centuries  elapsed  between  the  destruction  of  the 
one  building  and  the  erection  of  the  other.  But 
Herod's  Temple  was  not  the  last  of  its  race,  nor 
was  Nushirvan's  the  first  of  its  class,  and  its  pointed 
arches  and  clumsy  details  show  just  such  a  degra- 
dation of  style  as  we  should  expect  from  the  in- 
terval which  had  elapsed  between  them.  We  know 
80  little  of  the  architecture  of  this  part  of  Asia  that 
it  is  impossible  to  si^eak  with  certainty  on  such  a 
subject,  but  we  may  yet  recover  many  of  the  lost 
links  which  comiect  the  one  with  the  other,  and  so 
restore  the  earlier  examples  with  at  least  proximate 
certainty. 

Whatever  the  exact  appearance  of  its  details  may 
have  been,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  the  triple 
Temple  of  Jerusalem  —  the  lower  court,  standing 
on  its  magnificent  terraces  —  the  inner  court,  raised 
on  its  platform  in  the  centre  of  this  —  and  the 
Temple  itself,  rising  out  of  this  group  and  crown- 
ing the  whole  —  must  have  formed,  when  combined 
with  the  beauty  of  its  situation,  one  of  the  most 
splendid  architectural  combinations  of  the  ancient 
world.  J.  F. 

*  On  this  subject  one  may  also  consult  the  Ap- 
pendix to  Dr.  James  Strong's  Nno  Harmony  and 
Expos,  of  the  Gospels  (N.  Y.  1852),  pp.  24-37; 
T.  0.  Paine,  Solomon's  Temple,  etc.,  Boston,  1861 
(21  plates);  Merz's  art.  Tempel  zu  Jerusulem,  in 
ilerzog's. lieril-EncyU.  xv.  500-516;  and  the  liter- 
ature referred  to  under  Ezekiel,  vol.  i.  p.  801  b. 

A. 
«  TEMPLE,  CAPTAIN  OF  THE.   [Cap- 
tain.] 

*  TEMPT  (Lat.  temptnre,  (entare.)  is  very 
often  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  the  sense  of  "to  try," 
"put  to  the  test."  Thus  God  is  said  to  have 
"  tempted  "  Abraham  when  he  tried  his  faith  by 
commanding  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  1). 
The  Israelites  ''  tempted  God  ' '  in  the  wilderness 
when  they  put  his  patience  and  forbearance  to  the 
oroof  by  murmuring,  distrust,  and  disobedience 
[Kxod.  xvii.  2,  7;  Num.  xiv.  22;  Deut.  vi.  16; 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  18,  41,  56,  xcv.  9,  cvi.  14).  The  lawyer. 
is  said  to  have  "  tempted  "  Christ  when  he  asked 


TEN  COMMANDMENTS      3207 

him  a  question  to  see  how  he  would  answer  it 
(Matt.  xxii.  35;  Luke  x.  25).  So  the  word  is 
used  in  reference  to  the  ensnaring  questions  of  the 
Pharisees  (Matt.  xvi.  1,  xix.  3;  Mark  xii.  15;  Luke 
XX.  23).     [Temptation.]  A. 

*  TEMPTATION  is  often  used  in  the  A.  V. 
in  its  original  sense  of  "trial"  (e.  ff.  Luke  xxii. 
28;  Acts  XX.  19;  James  i.  2,  12;  1  Pet.  i.  0; 
Rev.  iii.  10).  The  plagues  of  P^gypt  are  called 
"temptations  ''  (Deut.  iv.  34,  vii.  19,  xxix.  3),  be- 
cause they  tested  the  extent  to  which  Pharaoh 
would  carry  his  obstinacy.      [Tempt.]  A. 

TEN  COMMANDMENTS.  (1.)  The  pop- 
ular name  in  this,  as  in  so  many  instances,  is  not 
that  of  Scripture.    There  we  have  the  "  ten  words  " 

(D'^n^'^n  PQTpV:  ra  SfKa  ^ri/xara'-  verhn 
decern),  not  the  Ten  Connnandments  (Ex.  xxxiv. 
28;  Deut.  iv.  13,  x.  4,  Heb.).  The  difference  is 
not  altogether  an  unmeaning  one.  The  word  of 
God,  the  "  word  of  the  Lord,"  the  constantly  re 
curring  term  for  the  fullest  revelation,  was  higher 
than  any  [thrase  expressing  merely  a  command,  and 
carried  with  it  more  the  idea  of  a  self-fulfilling 
power.  If  on  the  one  side  there  was  the  special 
contrast  to  which  our  Lord  refers  between  the  com- 
mandments of  God  and  the  traditions  of  men 
(Matt.  XV.  3),  the  arrogance  of  the  Rabbis  showed 
itself,  on  the  other,  in  placing  the  words  of  the 
Scribes  on  the  same  level  as  the  words  of  God. 
[Comp.  ScHiBES.]  Nowhere  in  the  later  books 
of  the  0.  T.  is  any  direct  reference  made  to  their 
number.  The  treatise  of  Philo,  however,  irep]  rwv 
SfKa  \oyiuiu,  shows  that  it  had  iixed  itself  on  the 
Jewish  mind,  and  later  still,  it  gave  occasion  to  the 
formation  of  a  new  word  ("  The  Decalogue "  rj 
SeKaAoyos,  first  in  Clem.  Al.  Peed.  iii.  12),  which 
has  perpetuated  itself  in  modern  languages.  Other 
names  are  even  more  significant.  I'hese,  and  these 
alone,  are  "  the  Mords  of  the  covenant,"  the  un- 
changing ground  of  the  union  between  Jehovah  and 
his  people,  all  else  being  as  a  superstructure,  acces- 
sory and  subordinate  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28).  They  are 
also  the  Tables  of  Testimony,  sometimes  simply 
"  the  testimony,"  the  witness  to  men  of  the  Divine 
will,  righteous  itself,  denianding  righteousness  in 
man  (Ex.  xxv.  16,  xxxi.  18,  &c. ).  It  is  by  virtue 
of  their  presence  in  it  that  the  Ark  becomes,  in  its 
turn,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  (Num.  x.  33,  &c. ), 
that  the  sacred  tent  became  the  Tabernacle  of 
Witness,  of  Testimony  (Ex.  xxxviii.  21,  &c.). 
[Tabernacle.]  They  remain  there,  throughout 
the  glory  of  the  kingdom,  the  primeval  relics  of  a 
hoar  antiquity  (1  K.  viii.  9),  their  material,  the 
v\'riting  on  them,  the  sharp  incisive  character  of  the 
laws  themselves  presenting  a  striking  contrast  to 
the  more  expanded  teaching  of  a  later  time.  Not 
less  did  the  commandments  themselves  speak  of 
the  earlier  age  when  not  the  silver  and  the  gold, 
but  the  ox  and  the  ass  were  the  great  representa- 
tives of  wealth  ''  (comp.  1  Sam.  xii.  3). 

(2.)  The  circumstances  in  which  the  Ten  great 


«  Handbook  of  Architecture,  p.  375. 

5  Ewald  is  disposed  to  think  tliat  even  in  the  form 
in  which  we  have  the  Commanduieuts  there  are  some 
addition.^  made  at  a  later  period,  and  that  the  second 
*nd  the  fourth  commaudments  were  origioally  as 
briefly  imperative  as  the  sixth  or  seventh  {Gesch.  1st. 
ii.  206).  The  difference  between  the  reason  given  in 
tx.  XX.  11  for  the  fourth  commaudment,  and  that 
•tatvd   to   hare    l>eeD   given  in   Deut.   t.  15,   makes. 


perhaps,  such  a  conjecture  possible.  Scliolia  which 
modern  auuotators  put  into  the  margin  are  in  the 
existing  state  of  the  0.  T.  incorporated  into  the  text. 
Obviously  both  forma  could  not  have  appeared  written 
on  the  two  Tables  of  Stone,  yet  Deut.  v.  16,  22  not 
ouly  states  a  different  reason,  but  aflimis  that  "  all 
these  words"  were  thus  writteu.  Keil  (Co»im.  on 
Ex.  XX.)  seems  ou  tbis  poi  tt  dispoaed  to  agree  witta 
Ewald. 


8203    TEN  COMMANDMENTS 

TVonIs  were  first  given  to  the  peo|ile  surrounded 
them  with  an  awe  which  attachetl  to  no  otlier  |3re- 
cept.  In  the  mitlst  of  the  cloud,  and  the  darkness, 
and  the  flashing;  lightning,  and  the  fiery  smoke, 
and  tlie  thunder,  like  the  voice  of  a  trumpet,  Moses 
was  called  to  receive  the  Law  without  wliich  the 
people  would  cease  to  be  h  holy  nation.  Here,  as 
elsewhere,  Scripture  unites  two  facts  which  men 
BeiMirate.  God,  and  not  man,  was  speaking  to  the 
Israelites  in  those  terrors,  and  yet  in  the  language 
of  later  inspired  teachers,  other  instrumentality  was 
not  excluded."  The  law  was  "ordained  by  angels  '" 
(Gal.  iii.  19),  "  spoken  by  angels  "  (Heb.  ii.  2),  re- 
ceived as  the  ordinance  of  angels  (Acts  vii.  53). 
The  agency  of  those  whom  the  thouglits  of  the 
Psalmist  connected  with  the  winds  and  the  flaming 
fire  (Ps.  civ.  4;  Heb.  i.  7)  was  present  also  on 
Sinai.  And  the  part  of  Moses  himself  was,  as  the 
language  of  St.  Paul  (Gal.  iii.  19)  affirms,  that  of 
"  a  mediator."  He  stood  *•  between  "  the  people 
and  the  Lord,  "  to  show  them  the  word  of  the 
Lord"  (Deut.  v.  5),  while  they  stood  afar  oft"  to 
give  form  and  distinctness  to  what  would  else  have 
been  terrible  and  overwhelming.  The  "  voice  of 
tne  Lord  "  which  they  heard  in  the  thunderings 
and  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  "  full  of  majesty," 
"  dividing  the  flames  of  fire  "  (I's.  xxix.  3-9),  was 
for  him  a  Divine  tcord,  the  testimony  of  an  Eternal 
will,  just  as  in  the  parallel  instance  of  John  xii.  29, 
a  like  testimony  led  some  to  say,  "  it  thundered," 
A'hile  others  received  the  witness.  No  other  words 
were  proclaimed  in  like  manner.  The  people  sinank 
even  from  this  nearness  to  the  awful  presence,  e\eu 
from  the  very  echoes  of  the  Divine  voice.  And  the 
record  was  as  exceptional  as  the  original  revelation. 
Of  no  other  words  could  it  be  said  that  they  were 
written  as  these  were  written,  engraved  on  the 
Tables  of  Stone,  not  as  originating  in  man's  con- 
trivance or  sagacity,  but  by  the  power  of  the  Eternal 
Spirit,  by  the  "  finger  of  God  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  18,  xxxii. 
16;  coiTlp.  note  on  Tabehnaclk). 

(3.)  The  number  Ten  was,  we  can  hardly  doubt, 
itself  significant  to  JMoses  and  the  Israelites.  The 
received  symbol,  then  and  at  all  times,  of  complete- 
ness (BJihr,  SyiitMik,  i.  175-183),  it  tauglit  the 
people  that  the  Law  of  Jehovah  was  perfect  (Ps. 
xix..  7 ).  The  fact  that  they  were  written  not  on 
one,  but  on  two  tables,  probably  in  two  groups  of 
five  each  {infra),  taught  men  (though  with  some 
variations,  from  the  classification  of  later  ethics)  the 
great  division  of  duties  toward  God,  and  duties 
toward  our  neighbor,  which  we  recognize  as  the 
groundwork  of  every  true  moral  S3stem.  It  taught 
them  also,  five  being  the  symbol  of  imperfection 
(Biihr,  i.  183-187),  how  incomplete  each  set  of 
duties  wouldMje  when  divorced  from  its  companion. 
The  recurrence  of  these  numl  ers  in  the  Pentateuch 
is  at  once  frequent  and  striking.  Ewald  ( Gesdi.  Jsr. 
ii.  212-217)  has  shown  by  a  large  induction  how 
continually  laws  and  precepts  meet  us  in  groups 
of  five  or  ten.  The  numlters,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, meet  us  again  as  the  basis  of  all  the  propor- 
tions of  the  Tabernacle.  [Tempi, e.]  It  would 
show  an  ignorance  of  all  modes  of  Hebrew  thought 


a  Buxtorf,  it  is  true,  asserts  that  Jewish  interpreters, 
*ith  hardly  an  exception,  maintain  that  "Deum  verba 
Decalogi  per  se  immediate  locutum  esse"  (Diss,  r/e 
Decal.).  The  language  of  Josephus,  however  {Atil.  xv. 
B,  §  3),  not  less  than  that  of  the  N.  T.,  show.'s  that  at 
one  time  the  traditions  of  the  Jewish  sclumU  poiut^l 
tr  the  opposite  conclusion 


TEN  COMMANDMENTS 

to  exclude  this  symbolic  aspect.  We  need  n  t, 
however,  shut  out  altogether  that  which  some 
writers  (e.  g.  Grotius,  Be  Decnl.  p.  36)  have  sub. 
stituted  for  it,  the  comiection  of  the  Ten  Words 
with  a  decimal  systeii.  rf  numeration,  with  the  ten 
fingers  on  which  a  man  counts.  Words  which 
were  to  be  the  rule  of  life  for  the  poor  as  well  as  the 
learned,  the  groundwork  of  education  for  all  chil- 
dren,  might  well  be  connected  with  the  simplest 
facts  and  processes  in  man's  mental  growth,  and 
thus  stamped  more  indelilily  on  the  memory.* 

(4.)  In  what  way  the  Ten  Conmiandments  were 
to  be  divided  has,  however,  been  a  matter  of  much 
controversy.  At  least  four  distinct  arrangements 
present  themselves. 

(ft.)  In  the  received  teaching  of  the  Latin  Church, 
resting  on  that  of  St.  Augustine  {Qu.  in  /-..r.  71, 
Ep.  nd  Janunr,  c.  xi.,  De  Decal.  etc.,  etc.),  the  first 
Table  contained  three  commandments,  the  second 
the  other  seven.  Partly  on  mystical  grounds,  be- 
cause the  Tables  thus  syndjolized  the  Trinity  of 
Divine  Persons,  and  the  Eternal  Sabbath,  partly  as 
seeing  in  it  a  true  ethical  division,  he  adopted  this 
classification.  It  involved,  however,  and  in  part  jiro- 
ceeded  from  an  alteration  in  the  received  arrange- 
ment. What  we  know  as  the  first  and  second  were 
united,  and  consequently  the  Sabbath  law  appeared 
at  the  close  of  the  I-irst  Table  as  the  third,  not  as 
the  fourth  commandment.  The  completeness  of 
the  number  was  restored  in  the  Second  Table  by 
making  a;  separate  (the  ninth)  command  of  the 
precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
wife,"  which  with  us  forms  part  of  the  tenth.  It 
is  an  almost  fatal  objection  to  this  order  that  in  the 
First  Table  it  confounds,  where  it  ought  to  distin- 
guish, the  two  sins  of  polytheism  and  idolatry:  and 
that  in  the  Second  it  introduces  an  arbitrary  and 
meaningless  distinction.  The  later  theology  of  the 
Church  of  Pome  apparently  adopted  it  as  seeming 
to  prohibit  image-worship  only  so  far  as  it  accom- 
panied the  acknowledgment  of  another  God  (  C'atec/i. 
Trident,  iii.  2,  20). 

{h.)  The  fan)iliar  division,  referring  the  first  four 
to  our  duty  toward  God,  and  the  six  remaining  to 
our  duty  toward  n)an,  is,  on  ethical  grounds,  simple 
and  natural  enough.  If  it  is  not  altogether  satisfy- 
ing, it  is  because  it  fails  to  recognize  the  symmetry 
which  gives  to  the  number  five  so  great  a  promi- 
nence, and,  perhaps  also,  because  it  looks  on  the  duty 
of  the  filth  commandment  from  the  point  of  view 
of  modern  ethics  rather  than  from  tiiat  of  the  an- 
cient Israelites,  and  the  first  disciples  of  Christ 
(infra). 

(c.)  A  modification  of  {a)  has  been  adopted  br 
later  Jewish  writers  (Jonathan  ben  Uzziei.  Aoen 
Ezra,  Moses  ben  Nachman,  in  Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v. 
SeKaAoyoy).  Retaining  the  combination  of  the 
first  and  second  commandments  of  the  common 
order,  they  have  made  a  new  "  word  "  of  the  open- 
ing declaration,  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  which 
brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the 
house  of  bondage,"  and  so  have  avoided  the  neces- 
sity of  the  subdivision  of  the  tenth.  The  oljection 
to  this  division  is,  (1)  that  it  rests  on  no  adequate 


b  Bahr,  absorbed  in  symbolism,  has  nothing  for  thia 
natural  suggestion  but  two  notes  of  admiration  (.1). 
The  analogy  of  Ten  Great  Conmiandments  in  the  moral 
law  of  Buddhism  might  have  shown  him  how  naturally 
men  crave  for  a  number  that  thus  helps  them.  A  tru* 
system  was  as  little  likely  to  ignore  the  natural  craving 
a?  a  false.     (Comp.  note  in  Ewald,  Gesck.  1st.  ii.  207  . 


TEN  COMMANDMENTS 

authority,  and  (2)  that  it  turns  into  a  single  precejit 
wiiat  is  evidently  given  as  the  groundwork  ot  the 
whole  bfHJy  of  laws. 

(c/.)  Rejecting  these  three,  there  remains  that 
recognized  liy  tlie  older  Jewish  writers,  Josejjhus 
(iii.  6,  §  0)  and  Philo  {Da  Bead,  i.),  and  sup- 
ported ably  and  thoughtfully  by  Ewald  ( (Jtscli.  Isr. 
ii.  2;)8),  which  places  five  conuuandinents  in  each 
Table;  and  thus  preserves  the  jm-h/ikI  and  dtcad 
grouping  which  pervades  the  whole  coile.  A 
modern  jurist  would  perhaps  object  that  this  places 
the  fifth  connnanduieut  in  a  wrong  position,  that  a 
duty  to  pai'ents  is  a  duty  toward  our  neighbor. 
From  the  Jewish  point  of  view,  it  is  believed,  the 
place  thus  given  to  that  connnandnient  was  essen- 
tially the  right  one.  Instead  of  duties  toward  God, 
and  duties  toward  our  neighbors,  we  must  think  of 
the  First  Table  as  contaiiang  all  that  belonged  to 
the  Eiitre'iSeia  of  the  Greeks,  to  the  Pietits  of  the 
Ko)uans,  duties  L  e.  with  no  corresponding  rights, 
while  the  second  deals  with  duties  which  involve 
rights,  and  come  tlierefore  under  the  head  oi  Jus- 
tiitii.  The  duty  of  honoring,  i.  e.  supp(jrting,  par- 
ents came  luider  the  former  head.  As  soon  as  the 
son  was  capable  of  it,  and  the  parents  required  it, 
it  was  an  absolute,  unconditional  duty.  His  right 
to  any  maintenance  from  them  had  ceased.  He 
owed  them  reverence,  as  he  owed  it  to  ins  I'ather  in 
heaven  (Heb.  xii.  0).  He  was  to  show  piety  (euo-f- 
fie7y)  to  them  (1  Tim.  v.  4).  What  made  the 
'  Corlian  '"  casuistry  of  the  scribes  so  specially  evil 
was,  that  it  was,  in  this  way,  a  sin  against  the  piety 
of  the  First  Table,  not  merely  against  the  lower 
obligations  of  the  second  (ilark  vii.  11  ;  comp. 
Piety).  It  at  least  harmonizes  with  this  division 
that  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  command- 
ments, all  stand  on  the  same  footing  as  having  spe- 
cial sanctions  attaching  to  them,  while  the  others 
that  follow  are  left  in  their  simplicity  by  themselves, 
as  though  the  reciprocity  of  lights  were  in  itself  a 
sufficient  ground  for  obedience. « 

(5.)  To  these  'i'en  Commandments  we  find  in 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  an  eleventh  added:  — 
"  But  when  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  have  brought 
thee  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  whither  thou  goest  to 
possess  it,  thou  shalt  set  thee  up  two  great  stones, 
and  shalt  plaister  them  with  plaister,  and  shalt 
write  upon  these  stones  all  the  words  of  this  Law. 
Moreover,  aft«r  thou  shaft  have  passed  over  Jordan, 
thou  shalt  set  up  those  stones  which  I  command 
thee  this  day,  on  iMount  Gerizim,  and  thou  shalt 
build  there  an  altar  to  the  Lord  thy  God,  an  altar 
of  stones:  tliou  shalt  not  lift  up  any  iron  thereon. 
Of  unhewn  stones  shalt  thou  liuild  that  altar  to  the 
Lord  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  ofli;r  on  it  burnt- 
ofFei  ings  to  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt  sacri- 
fice peace-offerings,  and  shalt  eat  them  there,  and 
thou  shalt  rejoice  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  that 
mountain  beyond  Jordan,  by  the  way  where  the 
sun  goeth  down,  in  the  land  of  the  Canaanite  that 
dwelloth  in  the  plain  country  over  against  Gilgal, 
by  the  oak  of  Moreh,  towards  Sichem  "  (Walton, 
BibL  Poly(jloU.).  In  the  absence  of  any  direct 
evidence  we  can  only  guess  as  to  the  history  of  this 
remarkable  addition.  (1.)  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
whole  passage  is  made  up  of  two  which  are  found 
in  the  Flebrew  text  of  Dent,  xxvii.  2-7,  and  xi.  30, 
with  the  substitution,  in  the  former,  of  Gerizim  for 


a  A  further  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  this  division 
Is  found  in  Rom.  xiii.  9.     St,  Paul,  summiag  up  the 
duties  "  briefly  comprehended  "'  in  tht>  one  great  Law, 
202 


TEN  COMMANDMENTS.     3209 

Ebal.  (2.)  In  the  absence  of  confirmation  from  .any 
other  version,  lObal  must,  as  far  as  textual  critici.-sm 
is  concerned, 'be  looked  upon  as  the  true  reading, 
Gerizim  as  a  falsification,  casual  or  deliberate,  of 
the  text.  (3.)  Probalily  the  choice  of  Gerizim  as 
the  site  of  the  Samaritan  temple  was  determined  by 
the  fact  that  it  had  been  the  Mount  of  Blessings, 
Fbal  that  of  Curses.  Possibly,  as  Walton  suggests 
{ProU-yiiin.  c.  xi.),  the  difficulty  of  understanding 
how  the  latter  should  have  been  chosen  instead  of 
the  former,  as  a  place  tor  sacrifice  and  offering,  may 
have  led  tliem  to  look  on  the  reading  Ebal  as  er- 
roneous, i  hey  were  unwilling  to  expo.-ie  themselves 
to  the  taunts  of  their  Judffian  enemies  by  building 
a  temple  on  the  Mill  of  Curses.  The)'  would  claim 
the  inheritance  of  the  blessings.  I'iiey  uould  set 
the  authority  of  their  te.^t  against  that  of  the 
scribes  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  One  was  as  likely 
to  be  accepted  as  the  other.  The  "  Hebrew  verity  ' 
was  not  then  acknowledged  as  it  has  lieen  since. 
(4.)  In  otiier  repetitions  or  transfers  in  the  Samar- 
itan Pentateuch  we  may  perhaps  admit  the  plea 
which  Walton  makes  in  its  belialf  (/.  c),  that  in 
the  first  formation  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  Codex, 
the  transcribers  had  a  large  number  of  sepur.ite 
documents  to  copy,  and  that  consequently  much 
was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  individual  scribe. 
Here,  however,  that  excuse  is  hardly  admissible. 
The  interpolation  has  every  mark  of  being  a  bold 
attempt  to  claim  for  the  schismatic  worship  on  Ger- 
izim the  solemn  sanction  of  the  voice  on  Sinai,  to 
place  it  on  the  san>e  fbot.ng  as  the  Ten  great 
Words  of  God.  The  guilt  of  the  interpolation  be- 
longed of  course  only  to  the  first  contrivers  of  it. 
The  later  Samaritans  migiit  easily  come  to  look  on 
their  text  as  the  true  one,  on  that  of  the  Jews  as 
corrupted  by  a  fraudulent  omission.  It  is  to  the 
credit  of  the  Jewish  scribes  that  they  were  not 
tempted  to  retaliate,  ami  that  their  reverence  for 
the  sacred  recoriis  pre^■ented  them  from  s^|)pressing 
the  history  which  connected  the  rival  sanctuary 
with  the  ble.ssings  of  Gerizim. 

(tj.)  The  treatment  of  the  Ten  Commandments 
in  the  Targum  of  Jouath.an  ben  Uzziel  is  not  with- 
out interest.  There,  as  noticed  above,  the  first  and 
second  commandments  are  united,  to  make  up  the 
second,  and  the  words  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  (iud,"' 
etc.,  are  given  as  the  first.  More  remarkal)le  is  the 
addition  of  a  distinct  reason  for  the  last  five  com- 
mandments no  less  than  for  the  first  five:  '■  Thou 
shalt  commit  no  murder,  for  because  of  the  sins  of 
murderers  the  sword  goeth  forth  upon  the  world." 
.So  in  like  manner,  and  with  the  same  fornuda, 
"  de.ath  goeth  forth  upon  the  world  "  as  the  punish- 
ment of  adultery,  famine  as  that  oii|thelt,  drought 
as  that  of  false  witness,  invasion,  plunder,  captivity 
as  that  of  covetousness  (Walton,  Bihl.  J'uhjf/lott.). 

(7.)  The  absence  of  any  distinct  reference  to  the 
Ten  Commandments  as  such  in  the  Pirka  Aboth 
(=  JIaxims  of  the  Fathers)  is  both  strange  and 
significant.  One  chapter  (ch.  v.)  is  expressly  given 
to  an  emnneration  of  all  the  Scriptural  facts  which 
may  be  iirouped  in  decades,  the  ten  woi-ds  of  Cre- 
ation, the  ten  generations  from  Adam  to  Xoah,  and 
from  Xoah  to  .Vlir.iham,  the  ten  trials  of  .Aliraham, 
the  ten  plagues  of  Egypt,  and  the  like,  but  the  ten 
Divine  words  find  no  place  in  the  list.  With  all 
their  ostentation  of  profound  reverence  for  the  Law, 


"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  enumemtei 
the  last  five  commandments,  but  makes  no  mention  cti 
the  fifth. 


8210 


TENDER 


tlie  teaching  of  the  Rabbis  turned  on  other  points 
than  the  great  laws  of  duty.  In  this  way,  as  in 
others,  they  made  void  the  commandments  of  God 
that  they  might  keep  their  own  traditions.  —  Com- 
pare Staiiley,^e;c/jj/(  Clivrch,  Lect.  vii.,  in  illustration 
of  many  of  the  points  here  noticed.        E.  H.  F. 

*  TENDER,  as  a  verb,  is  used  in  2  Mace.  iv.  2 
(A.  V. )  in  the  sense  of  "  to  care  for."  For  similar 
examples,  see  Richardson's  Dictionary.  A. 

TENT."  Among  the  leading  characteristics  of 
the  nomad  races,  those  two  have  always  been  num- 
bered, whose  origin  has  been  ascribed  to  Jabal  the 
son  of  Lamech  (Gen.  iv.  20),  namely,  to  be  tent- 
dwellers  and  keepers  of  cattle.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  forefathers  of  the  Hebrew  race;  nor  was 
it  until  the  return  into  Canaan  from  Egypt  that 
the  Hebrews  became  inhabitants  of  cities,  and  it 
may  be  remarked  that  the  tradition  of  tent-usage 
survived  for  many  years  later  in  the  Tabernacle  of 


TENT 

Shiloh,  which  consisted,  as  many  Arab  tents  still 
consist,  of  a  walled  inclosure  covered  with  curtains 
(ilishna,  Ztbacldm,  xiv.  0;  Stanley,  *S.  cf  P.  p. 
2-3.3).  Among  tent-dwellers  of  the  present  day 
must  be  reckoned  (1)  the  great  Mongid  and  Tar- 
tar hordes  of  central  Asia,  whose  tent-dwellings  are 
sometimes  of  gigantic  dimensions,  and  who  exhibit 
more  contrivance  both  iu  the  dwellings  themselves 
and  m  their  method  of  transporting  them  from 
place  to  place  than  is  the  case  with  the  Arab  races 
(Marco  Polo,  Trav.  pp.  128,  135,  211,  ed.  Bohn; 
Hor.  3  Oil.  xxiv.  10;  Gibbon,  c.  xxvi.,  vol.  iii.  298, 
ed.  Smith).  (2.)  The  Bedouin  Arab  triljes,  who 
inhabit  tents  which  are  probably  constructed  on  the 
same  plan  as  those  which  were  the  dwelling-places 
of  Abraham  and  of  Jacob  (Heb.  xi.  9).  A  tent  or 
pavilion  on  a  magnificent  scale,  constructed  for 
rtolemy  Philadelphus  at  Alexandria,  is  described 
by  Athenwus,  v.  196,  foil. 

An  Arab  tent  is  nnnutely  described   by  Burck- 


Arab  Teut  (Layard). 


liardt.  It  is  called  beit.,  "house;"  its  covering 
consists  of  stuff,  about  three  quarters  of  a  yard 
I  road,  made  of  black  goats'-hair  (Cant.  i.  5;  Shaw, 
Trav.  p.  220),  laid  parallel  with  the  tent's  length. 
This  is  sufficient  to  resist  the  heaviest  rain.  The 
tent-poles,  calkd  amud,  or  columns,  are  usually 
nine  in  numbed  placed  in  three  groups,  but  many 
tents  have  only  one  pole,  others  two  or  three.  The 
ropes  which  hold  the  tent  in  its  place  are  fastened, 
not  to  the  tent-cover  itself,  but  to  loops  consisting 
of  a  leathern  thong  tied  to  the  ends  of  a  stick, 
round  which  is  twisted  a  piece  of  old  cloth,  which 
is  itself  sewed  to  the  tent-cover.  The  ends  of  the 
tent-ropes  are  fastened  to  short  sticks  or  pins,  called 
iced  or  (loutad,  which  are  driven  into  the  ground 


"  1-  vrrSt  oIkos,  <r  rji'ij  :  tabernacidwn ,  tentorium : 
nften  in  A.  V.  "  tabernacle." 

2.   "Jitt'H:   cr/cryi/rj :  tentorium:  opposed  to  JH'^S, 
"'  house  " 

3    niTD  (succah),  only  once  "tent"  (2  Sam.   xi. 
Hi.       '  "* 


with  a  mallet  (Judg.  iv.  21).  [Pin.]  Round  the 
back  and  sides  of  the  tents  runs  a  piece  of  stuff  re- 
movable at  pleasure  to  admit  air.  The  tent  is  di- 
vided into  two  apartments,  separated  by  a  carpet 
partition  drawn  across  the  middle  of  the  tent  and 
fastened  to  the  three  middle  posts.  The  men's 
apartment  is  usually  on  the  right  side  on  entering, 
and  the  women's  on  the  left;  but  this  usage  varies 
in  different  tribes,  and  in  the  Mesopotaniian  tribes 
the  contrary  is  the  rule.  Of  the  three  side  posts 
on  the  men's  side,  the  first  and  third  are  called  i/ed 
(hand);  and  the  one  in  the  middle  is  rather  highei 
than  the  other  two.  Hooks  are  attached  to  these 
posts  for  hanging  various  articles  (Gen.  xviii.  10; 
Jud.  xiii.  6;  Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  187;  Layard,  Nin. 
mid  Bah.  p.  2G1).  [Pillar.]  Few  Arabs  have 
more  than  one  tent,  unless  the  family  be  augmented 


4.  nSp  :  KOMtvos:  lupanar :  kra.  >  '<kj3  : 
whence,  with  art.  prefixed,  comes  alcoba  (Span.)  and 
"  alcove "  (Russell,  Aleppo.,  i.  30) :  only  once  us*(i 
(Num.  xxT.  8) 


TENT 

by  the  families  of  a  son  or  a  deceased  lirotlier.  or 
In  case  the  wives  disagree,  whfeii  the  master  pitches 
it  tent  for  one  of  them  adjoining  liis  own.  The 
separate  tents  of  Sarah,  Leali,  Rachel,  Zilpah,  and 
Bilhah,  may  thus  have  been  either  separate  tents 
or  apartments  in  the  principal  tent  in  each  case 
(Gen.  xxiv.  67,  xxxi.  33).  ^Yhen  the  pasture  near 
an  encampment  is  exhausted,  the  tents  are  taken 
down,  packed  on  tamels  and  removed  (Is.  xxxviLi. 
12;  Gen.  xxvi.  17,  22,  25).  The  beauty  of  an 
Arab  encampment  is  noticed  by  Shaw  {Trav.  p. 
221;  see  Num.  xxiv.  5).  Those  who  cannot  afford 
more  complete  tents,  are  content  to  hang  a  cloth 
from  a  tree  l)y  way  of  shelter.  In  choosinif  places 
for  encampment,  Arabs  prefer  the  neighborhood  of 
trees,  for  the  sake  of  the  shade  and  coolness  which 
they  afford  (Gen.  xviii.  4,  8;  Niebuhr,  l.  c).  In 
observing  the  directions  of  the  Law  respecting  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  the  Kabbinical  writers  laid 
down  as  a  distinction  between  the  ordinary  tent 
and  the  booth,  succali,  that  the  latter  must  in  no 
case  be  covered  by  a  cloth,  but  be  restricted  to 
boughs  of  trees  as  its  shelter  (Succali,  i.  3).  In 
hot  weather  the  Arabs  of  ^Mesopotamia  often  strike 
their  tents  and  betake  themsehes  to  sheds  of  reeds 
and  grass  on  the  bank  of  the  river  (Layard,  Nine- 
vnh,  i.  123 ;  Burckhardt,  Nutes  on  Bed.  i.  37,  46 : 
Voliiey,  Trav.  i.  3'J8;  Layard,  Nin.  and  Bub.  pp. 
171,  175;  Niebuhr,   Voy.  i.  /.  c).  H.  W.  P. 

*  As  we  might  expect,  the  use  of  tents  by  the 
Hebrews,  and  their  famiharity  with  nomadic  life, 
becauic  a  fruitful  source  of  illustration  to  the  sacred 
writers.  The  pitching  of  the  tent  at  night,  the 
stretching  out  of  the  goat-skin  roof,  the  driving  of 
the  pins  or  stakes,  and  fastening  the  cords,  furnish 
the  imagery  of  numerous  passages.  Isaiah,  refer- 
ring to  God  as  the  Creator,  says :  "  He  stretcheth 
out  the  iieavens  as  a  curtain,  and  spreadeth  them 
out  as  a  tent  to  dwell  in"  (Is.  xl.  22).  The 
prophet,  as  he  looks  forward  to  a  happier  day  for 
the  people  of  God,  says:  "  Thine  eyes  shall  see  Je- 
rusalem a  quiet  habitation,  a  tabernacle  that  shall 
not  be  taken  down;  not  one  of  the  stakes  thereof 
shall  ever  be  removed,  neither  shall  any  of  the 
cords  thereof  be  broken"  (Is.  xxxiii.  20).  Again, 
in  anticipation  of  accessions  to  their  number,  he 
exclaims  :  "  Enlarge  the  place  of  thy  tent,  and 
stretch  forth  the  curtains  of  thy  habitations ;  spare 
not,  lengthen  thy  cords  and  strengthen  thy  stakes; 
for  thou  shalt  break  forth  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
the  left"  (Is.  liv.  2).  The  taking  down  as  well  as 
putting  up  of  the  tent  suggested  instructive  analo- 
gies to  the  Hebrew  pilgrim.  The  traveller  in  the 
Kast  erects  his  temporary  abode  for  the  night,  takes 
it  down  in  the  morning,  and  journeys  onward.  The 
shepherds  of  the  country  are  constantly  moving 
from  one  place  to  another.  The  brook  fails  on 
whi^h  they  had  relied  for  water,  or  the  grass  re- 
quired for  tiie  support  of  their  flocks  is  consumed, 
and  they  wander  to  a  new  station.  "  There  is 
something  very  melancholy,"  writes  Lord  Lindsay, 
"in  our  morning  flittings.  The  tent-pins  are 
plucked  up,  and  in  a  few  minutes  a  dozen  holes,  a 
heap  or  two  of  ashes,  and  the  marks  of  the  camels' 
knees  in  the  sand,  soon  to  be  obliterated,  are  the 
only  traces  left  of  what  has  been,  for  a  while,  our 
home"  (Letters  from  the  Holy  Land,  p.  165). 
Hence,  this  rapid  change  of  situation,  this  removal 
from  one  spot  to  another,  without  being  alile  to 
foresee  to-day  where  the  wanderer  will  rest  to-mor- 
row, atr<irds  a  striking;  iMia'.:e  of  man's  life — so 
^rief,   tieeting,  uncertain.      Thus    llezekiah   felt  in 


TERAH 


3211 


the  near  prospect  of  death :  "  Mine  age  is  departed, 
and  is  removed  from  me  as  a  shepherd's  tent "  (Is. 
.xxxviii.  12).  Jacob  calls  his  life  a  pilgrimage 
(Gen.  xlvii.  9),  with  reference  to  the  same  expres- 
si\e  idea.  The  body,  as  the  temporary  home  of 
the  soul,  is  called  a  "  tent  "  or  "  tabernacle,"  be- 
cause it  is  so  frail  and  perishable.  Thus  Paul  says, 
in  2  Cor.  v.  1 :  "  For  we  know  that  if  our  earthly 
house  of  this  tabernacle  (oiKia  rov  aKT)vovs,  lent- 
house)  were  dissolved"  ("taken  down"  is  more 
correct),  "we  have  a  building  of  God.  an  house  not 
mniie  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens."  The 
.Vpostle  Peter  employs  the  same  figure:  "Yea,  I 
think  it  meet,  as  long  as  I  am  in  this  tabernacle 
((TK-r]v()ijxa),  to  stir  you  up,  by  putting  you  in  re- 
membrance; knowing  that  shortly  I  nnist  put  oti 
this  my  tabernacle,  even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
hath  showed  me  "  (2  Pet.  i.  13). 

The  A.  V.  obscures  many  of  the  references  to  the 
tent-life  of  the  patriarchs.  Thus  in  Gen.  xii.  1), 
wliere  it  is  said,  "  Abraham  journeyed,  going  on 
still,"  a  stricter  translation  would  be,  "  He  jiulled 
up,"  namely,  his  tent-pins,  "going  and  pulling 
up,''  as  he  advanced  from  one  station  to  another. 
So,  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  12,  instead  of  "  Let  us  take  our 
journey  and  go,"  it  is  literally,  "  Let  us  pull  up 
the  pins  of  our  tents  and  let  us  go."  See,  also, 
Gen.  XXXV.  21,  xlvi.  1;  Ex.  xiii.  20.  For  the  "  tents 
of  Kedar,"  see  Kedak.  H. 

*  TENT-MAKERS  (cTK-nvoiroioi).  Accord- 
ing to  the  custom  of  his  age  and  nation,  that  every 
ujale  child  should  be  taught  some  trade,  the  Apos- 
tle P.aul  h.ad  learned  that  of  a  tent-maker  (.\cls  xviii. 
3).  It  was  not  the  weaving  of  the  fabric  of  goats"- 
hair,  which,  for  the  most  part,  was  j)rol)ably  done 
l)y  women  in  his  native  Cilicia,  but  tiie  construc- 
tion of  the  tents  themselves  from  the  cloth.  Yet 
we  need  not  suppose  that  Paul  confined  himself  to 
the  use  of  this  particular  fabric;  for,  in  that  case, 
he  would  not  have  found  ready  occupatibn  in  all 
places  (see  Hemsen's  Uer  Aposltl  Paulus,  p.  5  f. ). 
[Paui-.J  This  was  the  occupation  also  of  Aquila, 
willi  whom  Paul  worked  at  Corinth,  as  a  means  of 
support  (.lets  xviii.  3).  E.  1).  C.  K. 

TE'RAH  (n~ri  :  &dppa,  edpa  in  Josh.; 
.\lex.  0apa,  exc.  Gen.  xi.  28:  T/iare).  The  fiUher 
of  Abram,  Nahor,  and  Haran,  and  through  them 
tiie  ancestor  of  the  great  families  of  tiie  Israelites, 
Ishmaelites,  Midianites,  Mo.abites,  and  .Vninionites 
(Gen.  xi.  24-32).  The  account  given  of  him  in 
the  0.  T.  narrative  is  very  brief.  We  learn  from 
it  simply  that  he  was  an  idolater  (Josh.  xxiv.  2), 
that  he  dwelt  beyond  the  Euphrates  in  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees  (Gen.  xi.  28),  and  that  in  fjie  southwest- 
erly migration,  which  from  some  unexplained  cause 
he  undertook  in  his  old  age,  he  went  with  his  son 
.\brani,  his  daughter-in-law  Sarai,  and  his  grand- 
son Lot,  ''  to  go  into  tlie  land  of  Canaan,  and  tliey 
came  unto  Haran,  and  dwelt  there  "  (Gen.  xi.  31). 
.Villi  finally,  "  tlie  days  of  Terah  were  two  hundred 
and  five  years:  and  Terah  died  in  Haran''  (Gen. 
xi.  32).  In  connection  with  this  last-mentioned 
event  a  chronological  difficulty  has  arisen  which 
may  be  noticed  here.  In  the  speech  of  Stephen 
(.Vets  vii.  4)  it  is  said  that  the  further  migration 
of  Aliram  from  Haran  to  the  land  of  t^ana;m  did 
not  take  place  till  after  his  father's  death.  Now  m 
Teraii  w;is2()5  vears^old  when  he  died,  and  Abram 


"  Tlie  Sum.  text  ami  version  make  lim  It.'i,  aod  •« 

;lTniJ  tiiis  (lillicultv. 


3212  TERAH 

iras  75  when  he  left  Ilaran  (Gen.  xii.  4\  it  follows 
Ihat,  if  the  speech  of  Stephen  \e  correct,  at  Abram's 
birth  'I'erah  must  have  been  130  years  old;  and 
therefore  that  the  order  of  his  sons  —  Abram,  Na- 
hor,  Haran  —  given  in  Gen.  xi.  26,  27,  is  not  their 
order  in  point  of  age.  [See  Lot,  ii.  1085,  note  «.] 
Lord  Arthur  Ilervey  says  {Geneal.  pp.  82,  83), 
"  The  difiiculty  is  easily  got  over  by  supposing  that 
Abram,  though  named  first  on  account  of  his  dig- 
nity, was  not  the  eldest  son,  but  probalily  the 
youngest  of  the  three,  born  when  his  father  was  130 
years  old  —  a  supposition  with  which  the  marriage 
of  Xahor  with  his  elder  brother  Haran's  daughter, 
Milcah,  and  the  apparent  nearness  of  age  between 
Abram  and  Lot,  and  the  three  generations  from 
Nahor  to  liebecca  corresponding  to  only  two  from 
Abraham  to  Isaac,  are  in  perfect  harmony."  From 
the  simple  facts  of  Terah's  life  recorded  in  the  0. 
T.  has  been  constructed  the  entire  legend  of  Abram 
which  is  current  in  Jewish  and  Arabian  traditions. 
Terah  the  idolater  is  turned  into  a  maker  of  images, 
and  ••  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  is  the  origin.al  of  the 
"furnace"  into  which  Abram  was  cast  (comp.  Ez. 
V.  2).  Rashi's  note  on  Gen.  xi.  28  is  as  follows  : 
"  '  In  the  presence  of  Terah  his  father:  '  in  the  life- 
time of  his  fiither.  And  the  Midrash  Hagada  says 
that  he  died  beside  his  father,  for  Terah  had  com- 
plained of  Abram  his  son,  before  Ninu'od,'that  he 
had  broken  his  images,  and  he  cast  him  into  a  fur- 
nace of  fire.  And  Haran  was  sitting  and  saying 
in  his  heart,  If  Abram  overcome  I  am  on  his  side, 
and  if  Ninn-od  overcome  I  am  on  his  side.  And 
when  Abram  was  saved  they  said  to  Haran,  On 
whose  side  art  thou  V  He  said  to  them,  I  am  on 
Abram's  side.  So  they  cast  him  into  the  furnace 
of  fire  and  he  was  burned ;  and  this  is  [what  is 
meant  by]  Ur  CWw//»i  (Ur  of  the  Chaldees)."  In 
Bei\'shith  liahha  (Par.  17)  the  story  is  told  of 
Abram  being  left  to  sell  idols  in  his  father's  stead, 
which  is  repeated  in  Weil's  Biblical  Legends,  p. 
49.  The  whole  legend  depends  upon  the  ambigu- 
ity of  the  word  ^2^,  which  signifies  "  to  make  " 
and  "to  serve  or  worship,"  so  that  Terah,  who  in 
the  Biblical  narrative  is  only  a  worshipper  of  idols, 
is  in  the  Jewish  tradition  an  image-maker;  and 
about  this  single  point  the  whole  story  has  grown. 
It  certainly  was  unknown  to  Josephus,  who  tells 
nothing  of  Terah,  except  that  it  was  grief  for  the 
death  of  his  son  Haran  that  induced  him  to  quit 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees  {Ant.  i.  6,  §  6). 

In  the  Jewish  traditions  Terah  is  a  prince  and  a 
great  man  in  the  palace  of  Ninirod  (Jellinek,  Bet 
Iiam-Midrasli,  p.  27),  the  captain  of  his  army  (Se- 
plier  Hnyyashar),  his  son-in-law  according  to  the 
Arabs  (Beer,  Lebi-n  Abrahams,  p.  !)7).  His  wife 
is  called  in  the  Talmud  (Baba  Bnthra,  fol.  91  a) 
Amtelai,  or  Enitelai,  the  daughter  of  Carnebo.  In 
the  book  of  the  Jul)ilees  siie  is  called  Edna,  the 
daughter  of  Arem,  or  Aram;  and  by  the  Arabs 
Adt-a  (D'Herbelot,  art.  Abraham;  Beer,  p.  97). 
According  to  D'Herbelot,  the  name  of  Abraham's 
father  was  Azar  in  the  Arabic  traditions,  and  Te- 
rah was  his  grandfather.  Elmakin,  quoted  by 
Hottinger  {Smer/ma  Orieniale,  p.  281),  says  that, 
after  the  death  of  Yuna,  Abraham's  mother,  Terah 
took  another  wife,  who  bare  him  Sarah.  He  adds 
that  in  the  days  of  Terah  the  king  of  Baliylon  made 
war  upon  the  country  in  which  he  dwelt,  and  that 
Hazrun,  the  brother  of  Terah,  went  out  against 
tim  and  slew  him;  and  the  kingdom  of  Babylon 
cas  transferred  to  Nineveh   and  Mosul.      For  all 


TERTIUS 

these  traditions,  see  the  book  of  Jashar,  auJ  the 
works  of  Hottinger,  D'Herbelot,  Weil,  and  Beei 
above  quoted.  Philo  {De  Homniis)  indulges  in 
some  strange  speculations  with  regard  to  Terah's 
name  and  his  migration.  W.  A.  W. 

TER'APHIM  (a'^D'^li'P  :  e^pa^plu,  rh  Bepa- 
(peiv,  TO,  6epa<piv,  Kevordcpia,  uSw\a,  •yKvirrd, 
SrjKoi,  aTTO(pt)eyy6iJ.€uoi''  thtrapliim,  sttitaa,  idula, 
simidiicrn,  Jiyurai  idolorum,  idololatrin),  only  in 
plural,  images  comiected  with  magical  rites.  The 
suliject  of  terapliim  has  been  fully  discussed  in  art. 
Magic  (iii.  1743  ft'.),  and  it  is  therefore  unneces- 
sary here  to  do  more  than  repeat  the  results  ther<s 
stated.  The  derivation  of  the  name  is  oliscure.  h\ 
one  case  a  single  statue  seems  to  be  intended  by  the 
plural  (1  Sam.  xix.  13,  16).  The  teraphim  carried 
away  from  Laban  by  Kachel  do  not  seem  to  have 
been  very  small  ;  and  the  image  (if  one  be  in- 
tended), hidden  in  David's  bed  by  Michal  to  deceive 
Saul's  messengers,  was  probably  of  the  size  of  a 
man,  and  perhaps  in  the  head  and  shoulders,  if  not 
lower,  of  human  or  like  form;  but  David's  sleep- 
ing-room may  have  been  a  mere  cell  without  a  win- 
dow, opeu'ng  from  a  large  apartnjent,  which  would 
render  it  necessary  to  do  no  more  than  fill  the  bed. 
Laban  regarded  his  teraphim  as  gods;  and,  as  he 
was  not  ignorant  of  the-  true  God,  it  would  there- 
fore appear  that  they  were  used  by  those  who  added 
corrupt  practices  to  the  patriarchal  religion.  Ter- 
aphim again  are  included  among  Micah's  images, 
which  were  idolatrous  olyects  connected  with  heret- 
ical corruptions  rather  than  with  heathen  worship 
(Judg.  xvii.  3-5,  xviii.  17,  18,  20).  Teraphim 
were  consulted  for  oracular  answers  by  the  Israel- 
ites (Zech.  X.  2;  comp.  Judg.  xviii.  5,  6;  1  Sam. 
XV.  22,  23,  xix.  13,  16,  LXX.;  and  2  K.  xxiiL 
24),  and  by  the  ISabylonians,  in  the  case  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar (Ez.  xxi.  19-22).  There  is  no  evidence 
that  they  w-ere  ever  worshipped.  Though  not  fre- 
quently mentioned,  we  find  they  were  used  by  the 
Israelites  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  of  Saul, 
and  until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  who  put  tbeni  away 
(2  K.  xxiii.  24),  and  apparently  again  after  the 
Captivity  (Zech.  x.  2).  R   S.  P. 

TE'RESH  (tt'li?)  [Pers.  severe,  austere, 
Ges.]  :  om.  in  Vat.  and  Alex. ;  FA.  third  hand  has 
Qdpas,  &dppas-  Thares).  One  of  the  two  eu- 
nuchs who  kept  the  door  of  the  palace  of  Ahasue- 
rus,  and  whose  plot  to  assassinate  the  king  was  dis- 
covered by  Mordecai  (Esth.  ii.  21,  vi.  2).  He  was 
hanged.  Josephus  calls  him  Theodestes  ( Ant.  xi. 
6,  §  4),  and  says  that  the  conspiracy  was  detected 
by  Barnabazus,  a  servant  of  one  of  the  eunudis, 
who  was  a  Jew  by  birth,  and  who  revealed  it  ta 
Mordecai.  According  to  Josephus,  the  conspirat/jra 
were  crucified. 

TER'TIUS  (Te'pTios:  Tertiiis)  w.as  the  aman- 
uensis of  Paul  in  writing  the  ]'4)istle  to  the  Romans 
(Rom.  xvi.  22).  He  was  at  Corinth,  therefore,  and 
Cenchrefe,  the  port  of  Corinth,  at  the  time  when 
the  Apostle  wrote  to  the  Church  at  Rome.  It  ia 
notieealile  that  Tertius  interrupts  the  message  which 
Paul  sends  to  the  Roman  Christians,  and  inserts  a 
greeting  of  his  own  in  the  first  person  singular 
(do-TTa^O/uoi  iylb  Tipnos).  Both  that  circumstance 
and  the  frequency  of  the  name  among  the  Romans 
may  indicate  that  Tertius  was  a  Roman,  and  was 
known  to  those  whom  Paul  salutes  at  the  close  of 
the  letter.  Secundus  (Acts  xx.  4)  is  another  in- 
stance of  the  familiar  usage  of  the  Latin  ordinals 


TERTULLUS 

smployed  as  proper  names.  The  idle  pedantry 
which  would  make  him  and  Silas  the  same  person 

because  iertius  and  ^tt''^^tt?  mean  the  same  in 
Latin  and  Hebrew,  hardly  deserves  to  be  mentioned 
(see  Wolf,  Cune  Phdoloyicie,  torn.  iii.  p.  295). 
In  regard  to  the  ancient  practice  of  writing  letters 
from  dictation,  see  Becker's  G'uUtts,  p.  180.  [Kpis- 
TLE.]  Nothing  certain  is  known  of  Tertius  apart 
from  this  passage  in  the  Romans.  No  credit  is 
due  to  the  writers  who  speak  of  him  as  bishop  of 
iconium  (see  i'abricius,  Lius  Evanytlica,  p.  117). 

H.  B.  H. 

TERTUL'LUS  [TiprvWos,  a  diminutive 
form  from  the  Homan  name  Tertius,  analogous  to 
Lucullus  from  Lucius,  Fabullus  from  Fa/jiti.<,  etc.), 
"a  certain  orator"  (Acts  xxiv.  1)  who  was  re- 
tained by  the  high-priest  and  Sanhedrim  to  accuse 
the  Apostle  Paul  at  C'ffisarea  before  the  Koman 
Procurator  Antonius  Felix.  [Paul.]  He  evi- 
dently belonged  to  the  class  of  professional  orators, 
multitudes  of  whom  were  to  be  found  not  oidy  in 
Rome,  but  in  other  parts  of  the  empire,  to  which 
they  had  betaken  themselves  in  the  hope  of  finding 
occupation  at  the  tribunals  of  the  provincial  magis- 
trates. Both  from  his  name,  and  from  the  great 
probability  that  the  proceedings  were  conducted  in 
Latin  (see  especially  Milman,  Bam/dun  Lectures  for 
1827,  p.  185,  note),  w-e  may  infer  that  Tertullus 
was  of  Roman,  or  at  all  events  of  Italian  origin. 
The  Sanhedrim  would  naturally  desire  to  secure  his 
services  on  account  of  their  own  ignorance  both  of 
the  Latin  language  and  of  the  ordinary  procedure 
of  a  Roman  law-court. 

'I'he  exordium  of  his  speech  is  designed  to  con- 
ciliate the  good  will  of  the  Procurator,  and  is  ac- 
cordingly overcharged  with  flattery.  Tliere  is  a 
strange  contrast  between  the  opening  clause  —  7ro\- 
Kqs  elpijvris  TV'yx''-''OVTes  5ia  aov  —  and  the  briet 
summary  of  the  Procurators  administration  given 
by  Tacitus  {Hist.  v.  9 ) :  "  .\ntonius  Felix  per  omnem 
sajvitiam  ac  libidinem,  jus  regium  servili  ingenio 
exercuit"  (comp.  Tac.  Ann  xii.  54).  But  the 
connuendations  of  Tertullus  were  not  altogether 
unfounded,  as  Felix  had  really  svicceeded  in  putting 
down  several  seditious  movements.  [Fklix.]  It 
is  not  very  easy  to  determine  whether  St.  Luke  has 
preserved  the  oration  of  Tertullus  entire.  I  )n  the 
one  hand  we  have  the  elaliorate  and  artificial  open- 
ing, which  can  hardly  be  other  than  an  accurate 
report  of  that  part  of  the  speech  ;  and  on  the  other 
hand  we  have  a  narrative  wliieli  is  so  very  dry  and 
concise,  that  if  there  were  nothing  more,  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  why  the  orator  should  have  been  called 
in  at  all.  The  difficulty  is  increased  if,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  greatly  preponderating  weight  of  ex- 
ternal authority,  we  omit  the  words  in  vv.  0-8,  koI 
icara  rhv  rjfierepov  •  •  •  ,  tpxfo^6at  inl  erf.  On 
the  whole  it  seems  most  natural  to  conclude  that 
tlie  historian,  who  was  almost  certainly  an  ear-wit- 
i.e.ss.  merely  gives  an  abstract  of  the  speecii,  giving 
however  in  full  the  most  salient  points,  and  those 
vvhicli  had  the  most  forcibly  impressed  themselves 
upon  him,  such  as  the  exordium,  and  the  character 
jscribed  to  St.  Paul  (ver.  5). 

The  douliUiU  reading  in  vv.  G-8.  to  which  refer- 
ence has  already  been  made,  seems  likely  to  remain 
an  unsolved  difficulty.  Against  the  external  evi- 
dence there  would  be  nothing  to  urge  in  favor  of  the 
disputed  passage,  were  it  not  th.it  the  statement 
whicli  remains  after  its  removal  is  not  merely  ex- 
ffemely  briel  (its  brevity  may  be  accounted  for  in 


TETRARCH  3213 

the  mantier  already  suggested),  but  abiupt  and 
awkward  in  point  of  construction.  It  may  be 
added  that  it  is  easier  &  refer  Trap'  ou  (ver.  8 )  to 
the  Tribune  Lysias  than  to  Paul.  For  arguments 
founded  on  the  words  koI  Kara  ....  koIvhv 
(ver.  G)  —  arguments  which  are  dependent  on  the 
genuineness  of  the  disputed  words  —  see  Lardner, 
Credibility  of  f lie  Gospel  History,  b.  i.  ch.  2;  Bis 
coe,  Un  the  Acts,  ch.  vi.  §  16. 

We  ought  not  to  pass  over  without  notice  a 
strange  etymology  for  the  name  Tertullus  proposed 
by  Calmet,  in  the  place  of  which  another  has  been 
suggested  by  his  KTiglish  editor  (ed.  1830),  who 
takes  credit  for  having  rejected  "  fimciful  and  ini- 
probalile"  etymologies,  and  substituted  improve- 
ments of  his  own.  Whether  the  suggestion  is  an 
improvement  in  this  case  the  reader  will  judge 
"Tertidlus,  Tepri/AAos,  '""',  impostur,  from  r^pa- 
To\6yos,  rt  teller  of  stories,  a  cheat.  [Qy.  was  his 
true  appellation  Ter-  Tullius,  » thrice  Tully,'  that 
is,  extremely  eloquent,  varied  by  Jewish  wit  int<.) 
Tertullus  ?J"  W.B.J. 

*  TESTAMENT.  As  H""!?  denotes  not 
only  a  covenant  between  two  parties,  but  also  the 
promise  made  by  the  one  (Gen.  ix.  9),  or  the  pre- 
cept to  be  observed  by  the  other  (Ueut.  iv.  13),  and, 
in  a  wider  sense,  a  religious  dispensation,  economy 
(Jer.  xxxi.  33);  so,  in  the  LXX.  and  the  N.  T., 
its  equivalent  SiadTjKti.  In  the  Vulgate,  although 
in  the  0.  T.  pactum  or  Jhedus  is  more  often  used  for 

n^"n2,  yet  testamentum  is  not  unfrequently  em- 
ployed, especially  in  the  Psalms,  where  the  word 
has  the  looser  signification  of  jjronuse  or  dis- 
pensation (cf.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  (Ixxiii. )  20,  JNIal.  iii.  1); 
while  in  the  N.  T.  it  uniformly  stands  for  SiaOrturj. 
This  use  of  testamentum  for  an  authoritative,  sol- 
emn decree  or  document  is  found  also  in  the  latei 
Latin  (cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossariuni  num.  ad  scriptores 
nied.  et  inf.  Latinitatis).  In  the  classical  sense  of 
will,  it  may  be  understood  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  17,  as 
SiadriKT]  has  there  apparently  the  same  meaning  (as 
ofien  in  classical  Greek,  though  not  elsewhere  in 
the  liible).  Compare,  on  this  passage,  Hofmann, 
Schriflheiveis,  ii.  1,  p.  420  f. ;  Stuart,  Ltinemann, 
Kbrard. 

The  use  of  testament  for  the  books  containing  the 
records  of  the  two  dispensations,  arose  by  an  easy 
metonymy,  suggested  by  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  and  had 
become  common  as  early  as  the  time  of  Tertullian 
[Biblk].  See  Guericke,  Neutcstamentliche  ha- 
yoyik,  p.  4;  Bertholdt,  Einleitunq  indie  Schriflen 
des  Altenu.  Neuen  Testaments,  §  19;  an^especially 
J.  (j.  RosenmiiUer,  DissevUdio  de  vocabuh  Stafl/jKjj, 
in  Commentationes  Theoloyicce,  vol.  ii. 

C.  M.  JI. 

TESTAMENT,  NEW.  [New  Testa- 
ment.] 

TESTAMENT,     OLD.        [Old     Test.v- 

JIEXT.] 

TE'TA  (Vat.  omits;  [Rom.]  Alex.  Attjto; 
[.\ld.  TTjTa:]  Topa).  The  form  under  which  the 
name  1L\tit.\,  one  of  the  doorkeepers  of  the  Tem- 
ple, appears  in  the  lists  of  1  Ksdr.  v.  28. 

TETRARCH  {rirpipxf)^).  Properly  the 
sovereign  or  governor  of  the  fourth  part  of  a  coun- 
try. On  the  use  of  the  title  in  T\iessaly,  (ialatia, 
and  Syria,  consult  the  Dictiimary  of  Greek  ami 
Roman  Antifpiilies,  "  Tetrarcha,"  and  the  authori- 
ties there  referred  to.     '•  In  the  later  period  of  the 


3214 


TETRARCH 


THANK-OFFERING 


republic  and  under  the  empire,  the  Romans  seem  i  pas  and  Phihp  were  regarded  as  constitutinp;  each 


to  have  used  the  title  (as  also  those  of  tthnnrch  and 
phylarch)  to  designate  tl«se  tributary  princes  who 
were  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  l)e  called 
kings."  In  the  New  Testament  we  meet  witli 
the  designation,  either  actually  or  in  tlie  form 
of  its  derivative  rerpapx^'i'',  applied  to  three  per- 
sons :  — 

1.  Herod  Antipas  (Matt.  siv.  1;  Luke  iii.  1, 19, 
is.  7;  Acts  xiii.  1),  who  is  commoidy  distinguished 
as  "  Herod  the  tetrarch,"  although  the  title  of 
"  king  "  is  also  assigned  to  him  both  by  St.  Mat- 
thew (xiv.  9)  and  by  St.  Mark  (vi.  14,  22  ft'.).  St. 
Luke,  as  might  be  expected,  invariably  adheres  to 
the  formal  title,  which  would  be  reco^iiized  by 
Gentile  readers.  Ilerod  is  described  by  the  last- 
named  Evangelist  (ch.  iii.  1)  as  '-tetrarch  of  Gali- 
lee: "  but  his  dominions,  which  were  bequeathed 
to  him  by  his  father  Hei'od  the  Great,  embraced  the 
district  of  I'ersea  beyond  the  Jordan  (.Joseph.  Ant. 
xvii.  8,  §  1):  this  bequest  was  confirmed  by  Au- 
gustus (Jo.seph.  B.  ,/.  ii.  0,  §  3).  After  the  dis- 
grace and  Ijanishment  of  Antipas,  his  tetrarchy 
was  added  by  Caligula  to  the  kingdom  of  Llerod 
Agrippa  L   {Ant.  xviii.  7,  §  2).     [Hekod  A>"ri- 

PAS.] 

2.  Herod  Philip  (the  son  of  Herod  the  Great 
and  Cleojiatra,  7iiit  the  husband  of  Herodias),  who 
is  said  by  St.  Luke  (iii.  1 )  to  have  been  "  tetrarch 
of  Ituraea,  and  of  the  region  of  Trachonitis."  Jo- 
sephus  tells  us  that  his  father  bequeathed  to  him 
Gaulonitis,  Trachonitis,  and  Paneas  (Ant.  xvii.  8, 
§  1„  and  that  his  father's  bequest  was  confirmed 
by  Augustus,  who  assigned  to  him  Batansa,  Trach- 
onitis, and  Auranitis,  with  certain  parts  about 
Jamnia  belonging  to  the  "house  of  Zenodorus " 
(B.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3).  Accordingly  the  territories  of 
Philip  extended  eastward  from  the  Jordan  to  the 
wilderness,  and  from  the  borders  of  Peroea  north- 
wards to  Lebanon  and  the  neighborhood  of  Da- 
mascus. After  the  death  of  Philip  his  tetrarchy 
was  added  to  the  province  of  Syria  by  Tiberius 
(Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  G),  and  subsequently  conferred  by 
Caligula  on  Herod  Agrippa  L,  with  the  title  of 
king  (Ant.  xviii.  G,  §  10).  [Hekod  Philip  L; 
Herod  Agrippa  I.] 

3.  Lysanias,  who  is  said  (Luke  iii.  1)  to  have 
been  "  tetrarch  of  Abilene,"  a  small  district  sur- 
rounding the  town  of  Abila,  in  the  fertile  valley  of 
the  Barada  or  Chrysorrhoas,  between  Damascus 
and  the  mountain-range  of  Anti-Libanus.  [Abi- 
lene.] There  is  some  difficulty  in  fixing  the 
limits  of  this  tetrarchy,  and  in  identifying  the 
person  of  •le  tetrarch.  [Lysanias.]  We  learn, 
however,  from  Joscphus  (Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  10,  xix. 
5,  §  1)  that  a  Lysanias  had  been  tetrarch  of  Abila 
before  the  time  of  Caligula,  who  added  this  tet- 
rarchy to  the  dominions  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.  — 
an  addition  which  was  confirmed  by  the  emperor 
Claudius. 

It  remains  to  inquire  whether  the  title  of  te- 
trarch, as  applied  to  these  princes,  had  any  refer- 
ence to  its  etymological  signification.  We  have 
seen  that  it  was  at  this  time  probably  applied  to 
jetty  princes  without  any  such  determinate  mean- 
mg.  But  it  appears  from  Josephus  (Ant.  xvii.  11, 
§  4;  B.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3)  that  the  tetrarchies  of  Anti- 


a  fourth  part  of  their  father's  kingdom.  For  we 
are  told  that  Augustus  gave  one  half  of  Herod's 
kingdom  to  his  son  Archelaus,  with  the  appellation 
of  ethnarch,  and  with  a  promise  of  the  regal  title; 
and  that  he  di\ided  the  remainder  into  the  two  tet- 
rarchies. iMoreover,  the  revenues  of  Archelaus, 
drawn  from  his  territory,  which  included  Judaea, 
Samaria,  and  Idunioea,  amounted  to  400  talents, 
the  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  Antipas  producing  200 
talents  each.  We  conclude  that  in  these  two  cases, 
at  least,  the  title  was  used  in  its  strict  and  literal 
sense.  W.  B.  J. 

THADD^'US  (0a55aroy:  Thaddceai),  a 
name  in  St.  Mark's  catalogue  of  the  twelve  Apos- 
tles (Mark  iii.  18)  in  the  great  majority  of  MSS. 
In  St.  Matthew's  catalogue  (Matt.  x.  3)  tiie, cor- 
responding place  is  assigned  to  @a?iSa7os  by  the 
Vatican  MS.  (Li),  and  to  Ae^jSaios  by  the  Codex 
Bezai  (D).  The  Received  Text,  following  the  first 
correction  of  the  Codex  Ephraemi  (C)  —  where  the 
original  reading  is  doubtful  —  as  well  as  several 
cursive  MSS.,  reads  AeiS/Saios  o  €wiK\rie€]s  0a5- 
Sdios.  We  are  proliably  to  infer  that  Ae3/8a?os, 
alone,  is  the  original  reading  of  Matt.  x.  3,  and  . 
@aS5aios  of  JMark  iii.  18."  By  these  two  Evan- 
gelists the  tenth  place  among  the  Apostles  is  given 
to  Lebba;us  or  Tiiaddteus,  the  eleventh  place  being 
given  to  Simon  the  Canaanite.  St.  Luke,  in  both 
his  catalogues  (Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13),  places 
Simon  Zelotes  tenth  among  the  Apostles,  and  as- 
signs the  eleventh  place  to  ']ov5as  'laKu>Bov.  As 
the  other  names  recorded  by  St.  Luke  are  identical 
with  those  which  appear  (though  in  a  dift'erent 
order)  in  the  first  two  Gospels,  it  seems  scarcely 
possilile  to  doubt  that  the  three  names  of  Judas, 
Lebbieus,  and  Thaddteus  were  borne  by  one  and 
the  same  person.      [Jude;   Lebb.eus.] 

W.  B.  J 

THA'HASH  (tt'nri  [badf/ei-  or  seal]:  To- 
xds'  Tk'ilins).  Son  of  Nahor  by  his  concubine 
Reumah  (Gen.  xxii.  24).  He  is  called  Tavaos  by 
Josephus  (Ant.  i.  6,  §  5). 

THA'MAH  {r\T2>n  [^&m^v.Unujhte7-']:@^fj,<i.: 
The  inn).  "  The  children  of  Thamah  "  were  a  fam- 
ily of  Nethinim  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr. 
ii.  53).  The  name  elsewhere  appears  in  the  A.  V. 
as  Tariah. 

THA'MAR  (Qiifxap:  Thmnar).  Tamar  1 
(Matt.  i'.  3). 

THAM'NATHA  (,',  @a,xva.ed:  Thamnata). 
One  of  the  cities  of  Jud£ea  fortified  by  Bacchides 
after  he  had  driven  the  JMaccabees  over  the  Jordan 
(1  Mace.  ix.  50).  Thamnatha  no  doubt  represents 
an  ancient  Timnatii,  possibly  the  present  Tib' 
7ielt,  half-way  between  Jerusalem  and  the  INIediter- 
ranean.  Whether  the  name  should  be  joined  to 
Pharathoni,  which  follows  it,  or  wiiether  they 
should  be  independent,  is  matter  of  doubt.  [Phar- 
athoni.] 

THANK-OFFERING,  or  PEACE-OF 
FERING  (n'^d^W  n?^  or  simply  C^T^br, 

and  in  Amos  v.  22,  D^^' :  Oucrla  aonripiov,  (tw 
TTipiou,  occasionally  elpr]viK^:  lioslia  pacificorum, 


a  *  Jo  Mark  iii.  18  the  reading  of  D  is  Ae^lSaios, 
uid  in  Matt.  x.  3,  S  concurs  with  B  in  reading  ©a6- 
kuot.     The  conclu.<ions  given  above  as  to  the  true 


reading  in  both  places  are  sustained  by  Tischeudorf  ia 
his  eighth  edition  of  the  Greek  Neu  Testament. 

V    G- 


THARA 

t>fTC[ficn),  the  properly  eucharistic  offeriiij  anionj:; 
the  Jews,  ill  its  theory  reseinbliiig  tlie  Mkat-of- 
FEUING,  and  therefore  indicatiiiif  that  tlie  otFerer 
was  aheady  reconciled  to,  and  in  covenant  with, 
God.  Its  ceremonial  is  described  in  I^v.  iii.  The 
nature  of  the  victim  was  left  to  the  sacrificer:  it 
might  be  male  or  female,  of  the  flock  or  of  the 
herd,  provided  that  it  was  unblemished ;  the  hand 
of  the  sacrificer  was  laid  on  its  head,  the  fat  burnt, 
and  the  blood  sprinkled,  as  in  tlie  burnt-otfering; 
of  the  flesh,  the  breast  and  rinlit  shoulder  were 
given  to  the  priest;  the  rest  belonged  to  the  sacri- 
ficer, to  be  eaten,  either  on  tlie  day  of  sacrifice,  or 
on  the  next  day  (Lev.  vii.  11-18,  29-3-1),  except  in 
the  case  of  the  firstlings,  whicii  belont;ed  to  the 
priest  alone  (xxiii.  '2U).  Tlie  eating  of  the  flesh  of 
the  meat-offering  was  considered  a  partaking  of  the 
"  tal)le  of  the  I^ord;  "  and  on  solenin  <.<"casions,  as 
at  the  deiiicatioii  of  the  Temple  of  Solonion,  it  was 
coixlucted  on  an  enormous  scale,  and  became  a  great 
national  feast. 

The  peace-offerinirs,  unlike  other  sacrifices,  were 
not  orclaiiie<l  to  be  offered  in  fixed  and  regular 
course.  The  meat-offering  was  regularly  ordained 
as  the  eiichari-stic  s-icrifice;  and  the  only  constantly 
recurring  peace-ofFering  appear.s  to  have  been  that 
of  the  two  firstling  lambs  at  Pentecost  (Lev.  xtiii. 
I'J).  The  general  principle  of  the  peaceofl^ering 
seems  to  have  been,  that  it  sliould  be  entirely  spon- 
taneous, offered  as  occasion  sliould  arise,  from  the 
feeling  of  the  sacrificer  himself  "  If  ye  offer  a 
sacrifice  of  peace-(iffi?rings  to  the  Lord,  je  shall 
offer  it  at  your  muii  will"  (Lev.  xix.  5).  On  the 
first  institution  (Lev.  vii.  11-17),  peace-offerings 
are  divided  into  ''  offerings  of  thanksgiving,"  and 
"vows  or  free-will  otterinijs;  "  of  which  latter  class 
the  offering  by  a  Nazarite,  on  the  completion  of 
his  vow,  is  tiie  most  remarkable  (Num.  vi.  14). 
The  very  names  of  botli  divisions  imply  complete 
freedom,  and  .siiow  that  this  sacrifice  differed  irom 
others,  in  being  considered  not  a  duty,  but  a  priv- 
ilege. 

We  find  accordingly  pe.ice-offeriiigs  offered  for 
the  people  on  a  great  scale  at  periods  of  unusual 
eolemnity  or  rejoicing;  as  at  the  first  inauguration 
of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xxiv.  5),  at  the  first  coiise 
cratioii  of  Aaron  and  of  the  Tabernacle  (Lev.  ix. 
18),  at  the  solemn  reading  of  the  Law  in  Canaan 
by  Joshua  (Josh.  viii.  31),  at  the  accession  of  Saul 
(1  Sam.  xi.  15),  at  the  bringing  of  the  ark  to 
Mount  Zi^n  by  D.avid  (2  Sam.  vi.  17 ),  at  the  con- 
secration of  the  Temple,  and  thrice  every  year 
afterwards,  by  Solomon  (1  K.  viii.  63,  ix.  25),  and 
at  the  great  pas.sover  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxx.  22). 
In  two  cases  only  (.Fudg.  xx.  2i.i;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25) 
peace-offerings  are  mentioned  as  offered  witli  burnt- 
otferings  at  a  time  of  national  sorrow  and  iast- 
i«ig.  Mere  tlieir  force  seems  to  have  been  prec- 
atory rather  than  eucharistic.      [See  Sackjfice.] 

A.  IJ. 

Terah  the  father 


THEATRE 


3215 


THA'RA  {Qdpa:  Thave). 
of  Abraham  (Luke  iii.  Si). 

THAR'RA  (Tlumi),  Esth.  xii.  1. 
form  of  the  name  Tekesh. 


THAR'SHISH  (t2?"'t»"ir!  [prob.  forlress, 
Dietr.]:  [Rom.  Qapcri's;  Vat.  Alex.]  Qapaeis' 
Tliiirsis).  1.  In  this  more  accurate  form  the 
Iranslators  of  the  A.  V.  have  given  in  two  p.as- 
•ages  (1  K.  X.  22,  xxii  48)  the  name  elsewhere 
wesented  as  Taksiiisii.     In  the  second  passage 


the  name  is  omitted  in  both  MSS.  of  the  LXX., 
while  the  Vulgate  has  in  marl. 

2.  ([Kom.  Qapai;  Vat.]  Pa/xea-irai:  Alex.  &ao- 
creis:  Tliarsis.)  A  Benjamite,  one  of  the  family 
of  Hilhan  and  the  house  of  Jediael  (1  Chr.  vii.  10 
only).     The  variation  in  the  Vatican  LXX.  (Mai) 

very  remarkable.  G. 

THAS'SI  {Qaaai;  [Sin.  Qaacrei:  Alex.]  Qaa- 
s:  Thasi,  Nassii:  Syr.  o.CD»L).  The  sur- 
name of  Simon  the  son  of  Mattathias  (1  Mace,  ii 
3).  [Maccabees,  vol.  ii.  p.  1711.]  The  deri- 
vation of  the  word  is  uncertain.  Michaelis  sug- 
gests "^tp'rr),  Chald.  "the  fresh  grass  springs  up," 
i  e.  "the"  spring  is  come,"  in  reference  to  the 
tranquillity  first  secured  during  the  supremacy  cf 
Simon  ((iriinm,  <((/  I  Mace.  ii.  3).  This  seems 
very  far-fetched.     Winer  {Rtnlwb.  "  Simon  ")  sug 

gests  a  connection  with  DDFI,  JWvere,  as  Grotius 
('('/  Inc.)  seems  to  have  done  before  him.  In  Joso- 
phus  {AnI.  xii  6,  §  1)  the  surname  is  written 
M.ard7is,  with  various  readings  0a5i^s,  @adi}s. 

B.  F.  W. 

THEATRE  {OiaTpoV-  ilientron).  For  the 
general  subject,  see  fJlct.  of  Ant.  pp.  995-01)8. 
For  the  explanation  of  the  Biblical  allusions,  two 
or  three  points  only  require  notice.  The  Greek 
term,  like  the  corresponding  English  term,  denotes 
the  place  where  dramatic  performances  are  ex- 
hil)ited,  and  also  the  scene  itself  or  spectacle  which 
is  witnessed  there.  It  occurs  in  the  first  or  local 
sense  in  Acts  xix.  29,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
multitude  at  Ephesus  rushed  to  the  theatre,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  excitement  stirred  up  against  Paul 
and  his  associates  by  Demetrius,  in  order  to  con- 
sider what  should  be  done  in  reference  to  the 
charges  against  them.  It  may  be  remarked  also 
(although  the  word  does  not  occur  in  the  original 
text  or  in  our  English  version)  that  it  was  in  the 
theatre  at  Ciesarea  that  Herod  Agrippa  I.  nave 
audience  to  the  Tyrian  deputies,  and  was  him.self 
struck  with  death,  because  he  heard  so  gladly  the 
iuqiious  acclamations  of  the  people  (Acts  xii. 
21-23).  See  the  remarkably  confirmatory  account 
of  this  event  in  Josephus  (Ant.  xix.  8,  §  2).  Such 
a  use  of  the  theatre  for  public  assemblies  and  tlie 
transaction  of  public  business,  though  it  was  hardly 
known  among  the  Kom.ans,  was  a  common  practice 
among  tlie  Greeks.  Thus  Valer.  Max.  ii.  2:  "  Le- 
gati  in  theatrum,  ut  est  consuetudo  Griecife,  iiitro- 
ducti."  Justin  xxii.  2  :  "  Veluti  reipublicaj  statum 
formaturus  in  theatrum  ad  contiouem  vocari  jus- 
sit."  Corn.  Nep.  Tiniol.  4,  §  2:  "  Veniebat  in  thea^ 
truin,  cum  ibi  concilium  plebis  h.aberetur." 

The  other  sense  of  the  term  "  theatre  "  occurs 
in  1  Cor.  iv.  9,  where  the  Common  A'ersion  ren- 
ders: "God  hath  set  forth  us  the  Apostles  la.st, 
as  it  were  appointed  to  death;  for  we  are  made 
(rather,  loei-e  made,  ddarpov  iyivi)driixiv)  a  spec- 
lacle  unto  the  world,  and  to  angels,  and  to  men." 
Instead  of  "spectacle"  (so  also  Wickliffe  and  the 
A  corrupt  Riiemish  translators  after  the  Vulgate),  some  miglit 
prefer  the  more  energetic  Saxon,  "  gazing-stocli," 
as  in  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  the  Geneva  version. 
But  the  latter  would  lie  now  in.'i|)propriate,  if  it 
includes  the  idea  of  scorn  or  exultation,  since  the 
angels  look  down  upon  the  surtl-riiigs  of  the  mar- 
tyrs with  a  very  different  interest.  Whetlier 
"  tiieatre"  denotes  more  here  than  to  be  an  object 
of  earnest  attention  i,yeap.a),  ir  refers  at  tlie  samfi 


3216 


THEBES 


time  to  the  theatre  as  the  place  where  criminals 
were  sometimes  brought  forward  for  punishment, 
is  not  agreed  among  interpreters.  Paul's  rh 
axVfJ^a  rod  KSa/j-ou  in  1  Cor.  vii.  31,  where  some 
find  an  allusion  to  the  stage,  is  too  doubtful  to  be 
reckoned  here.  In  Heb.  x.  33  the  A.  V.  renders 
6eaTpi(6ij.£V0i,  not  inaptly,  "men  made  a  gazing- 
stock,"'  shice  Christians  in  that  passage  are  held 
up  to  view  as  objects  of  the  world's  scorn  and 
derision.  In  Hel).  xii.  1,  where  the  writer  speaks 
of  our  having  around  us  "  so  great  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses "  {tocovtov  txovTes  irepLKiifjievov  rifxiv 
ve<f>os  /jiaprvpaiy),  he  has  in  mind  no  doubt  the 
agonistic  scene,  in  which  Christians  are  -viewed  as 
running  a  race,  and  not  the  theatre  or  stage  where 
the  eyes  of  the  spectators  are  fixed  on  them. 

H.  B.  H. 

*  The  taste  for  theatrical  annisenients  was  never 
strongly  dexeloped  among  the  .lews,  though  some 
of  their  later  rulers,  especially  the  Herods,  favored 
them,  and  established  theatres  in  Palestine.  Herod 
the  Great  introduced  (jreek  actors  at  his  court  in 
Jerusalem,  greatly  to  the  .scandal  of  the  Jews,  and 
built  a  theatre  and  an)phitheatre  at  Caesarea  (see 
2  Mace.  iv.  14;  Jos.  J.  B.  xv.  8,  §§  1,  2;  xx.  9, 
§  4).  H. 

THEBES  ("|'lJ2S\S^3 :  e^^ai,  Ai6inroKis, 
u€pls  'Aix/xivv;  in  Jer.  rhv  ^A/j./j.wv  rhv  vihv 
auTTis-  Alexandria,  Al.  populovuin,  iwitultus  Altx- 
andrice,  No-Amon:  A.  V.,  No,  the  multitude  of 
No,  pnjmUms  No).  A  chief  city  of  ancient  Egypt, 
long  the  capital  of  the  ujiper  country,  and  the  seat 
of  the  Diospolitan  dynasties,  that  ruled  over  all 
Egypt  at  the  era  of  its  highest  splendor.  Upon 
the  monuments  this  city  bears  three  distinct  names 

—  that  of  the  Nome,  a  sacred  name,  and  the  name 
by  which  it  is  commonly  known  in  profane  history. 
Of  the  twenty  Nomes  or  districts  into  which  Upper 
Egypt  was  divided,  the  fourth  in  order,  proceeding 
northward  from  Nubia,  was  designated  in  the  hiero- 
glyphics  as  Za'm  —  the  Phathyrite  of  the  Greeks 

—  and  Thebes  appears  as  the  "  Z(i'?«-city,''  the 
principal  city  or  metropolis  of  the  Zn'm  Nome. 
In  later  times  the  name  Za^m  was  applied  in  com- 
mon speech  to  a  particular  locality  on  the  western 
side  of  Thebes. 

The  sacred  name  of  Theljes  was  P-amen,  "  the 
abode  of  Anion,"  which  the  Greeks  reproduced  in 
their  Diospolis  (Atbs  TrdAis),  especially  with  the 
addition  the  Great  (rj  /j.eyd.\-n),  denotuig  that  this 
was  the  chief  seat  of  Jupiter-Ammon,  and  dis- 
tinginshing  it  from  Biosjxdis  the  Less  {rj  /xiKpd)- 
No-Amon  is  the  name  of  Thebes  in  the  Hel)rew 
Scriptures  (Jer.  xlvi.  25;  Nah.  iii.  8).  Ezekiel 
uses  A''o  simply  to  designate  the  Egyptian  seat  of 
Amnion,  which  the  Septuagint  translates  by  Dios- 
polis (Ez.  XXX.  14,  IG).  Gesenius  defines  this  name 
by  the  phrase  -'portion  of  Amnion,"  i.  e.  the  pos- 
session of  the  god  Animon,  as  the  chief  seat  of  his 
worship. 

The  name  of  Thebes  in  the  hieroglyphics  is  ex 
plained  under  No-Ajion. 

The  origin  of  the  city  is  lost  in  antiquity. 
Niebuhr  is  of  oi)inion  that  Thebes  was  much 
older  than  Memphis,  and  that  "  after  the  centre 
of  EL'vptian  life  was  transferred  to  Lower  Egypt, 
Memphis  acquired  its  greatness  through  the  ruin 
of  Thebes"  {Lectures  on  Ancient  History,  Led. 
vii.).  Other  authorities  assign  priority  to  Mem- 
phis. But  both  cities  date  from  our  earliest  au- 
thentic knowledge  of  Egyptian  history.     The  first 


THEBES 

allusion  to  Thebes  in  classical  literature  is  the  f* 
miliar  jiassage  of  the  Iliad  (ix.  381-385);  "  Egyp- 
tian Theljes,  where  are  vast  treasures  laid  up  in 
the  houses;  where  are  a  hundred  gates,  and  from 
each  two  hundred  men  go  forth  with  horses  and 
chariots."  Homer — speaking  with  a  poet's  license, 
and  not  with  the  accuracy  of  a  statistician — no 
doubt  incorporated  into  his  verse  the  glowing  ac- 
counts of  the  Esryptian  capital  current  in  his  time. 
Wilkinson  thinks  it  conclusive  against  a  Hteral 
understanding  of  Homer,  that  no  traces  of  an 
ancient  city-wall  can  be  found  at  Thebes,  and 
accepts  as  probable  the  suggestion  of  Diodorus 
Siculus  that  the  "gates"  of  Homer  may  havo 
been  the  propylsea  of  the  temples:  "  Non  centum 
portas  habuisse  urbem,  sed  multa  et  ingentia  tcm- 
plorum  vestibula "  (i.  45,  7).  In  the  time  of 
Diodorus,  the  city-wall,  if  any  there  was,  had 
already  disappeared,  and  the  question  of  its  exist- 
ence in  Homer's  time  was  in  dispute.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  regard  the  "  gates  "  of  Homer 
as  temple  porches  is  to  make  these  the  barracks  of 
the  army,  since  from  these  gates  the  horsemen  and 
chariots  issue  forth  to  war.  The  almost  universal 
custom  of  walling  the  cities  of  antiquity,  and  the 
poet's  reference  to  the  gates  as  pouring  forth 
troops,  point  strongly  to  the  supposition  that  the 
vast  area  of  Thebes  was  surrounded  with  a  wall 
having  many  gates. 

Homer's  allusion  to  the  treasures  of  the  city,  and 
to  the  size  of  its  standing  army,  numbering  20,000 
chariots,  shows  the  early  repute  of  Thebes  for 
wealth  and  jiower.  Its  fame  as  a  great  capital  had 
crossed  the  sea  when  Greece  was  yet  in  its  infancy 
as  a  nation.  It  has  been  questioned  whether  He- 
rodotus visited  Upper  Egypt  (see  Diet,  of  Greek 
and  Rom.  Geog.  art.  "  Thebes"),  but  he  says,  "I 
went  to  Heliopolis  and  to  Thebes,  expressly  to  try 
whether  the  priests  of  those  places  would  agree 
in  their  accounts  with  the  priests  at  Memphis" 
(Herod,  ii.  3).  Afterwards  he  describes  the  fea- 
tures of  the  Nile  valley,  and  the  chief  points  and 
distances  upon  the  river,  as  only  an  eye-witness 
would  be  likely  to  record  them.  He  informs  us 
that  '■  from  Heliopolis  to  Thebes  is  nine  days'  sail 
up  the  river,  the  distance  4,800  .stadia  ....  and 
the  distance  from  the  sea  inland  to  Thebes  6,120 
stadia  "  (Herod,  ii.  8,  9).  In  chap.  29  of  the  same 
book  he  states  that  he  ascended  the  Nile  as  high 
as  Elephantine.  Herodotus,  however,  gives  no  par- 
ticular account  of  the  city,  which  in  hi^  time  had 
lost  much  of  its  ancient  grandeur.  He  alludes  to 
the  tenq)le  of  Jupiter  there,  with  its  ram-headed 
image,  and  to  the  fact  that  goats,  never  sheep, 
were  offered  in  sacrifice.  In  the  1st  century  before 
Christ,  Diodorus  visited  Thebes,  and  he  devotes 
several  sections  of  his  general  work  to  its  history 
and  appearance.  Though  he  saw  the  city  when  it 
had  sunk  to  quite  secondary  importance,  he  pre- 
serves the  tradition  of  its  early  grandeur  —  its  cir- 
cuit of  140  stadia,  the  size  of  its  public  edifices, 
the  magnificence  of  its  temples,  the  number  of  its 
monuments,  the  dimensions  of  its  private  houses, 
some  of  them  four  or  five  stories  high  —  all  giving 
it  an  air  of  grandeur  and  beauty  surpassing  not 
only  all  other  cities  of  Egypt,  but  of  the  world. 
Diodorus  deplores  the  spoiling  of  its  buildings  and 
monuments  by  Cambyses  (Diod.  i.  45,  40).  Strabo, 
who  visited  Egypt  a  little  later  —  at  about  the  be- 
(jinning  of  the  Christian  ei-a — thus  describes  (xvii. 
810)  the  city  under  the  name  Diospolis:  "  Vestige* 
of  its  magnitude  still  exist  which  extend  80  stad'u 


THEBES 

In  length,  'ihere  are  a  great  iiiimber  of  temples, 
many  of  which  Cauibjses  inutilated.  The  spot  is 
at  present  occupied  by  villages.  One  part  of  it,  in 
which  is  the  city,  lies  in  Arabia;  anotlier  is  in  the 
country  on  the  otlier  side  of  the  river,  where  i-; 
the  Memnoniuni."  Stral)o  here  makes  the  Nile 
the  dividing  line  between  Libya  and  Anibia.  The 
temples  of  Kariiak  and  Luxor  are  on  the  eastern 
side  of  the  river,  where  was  probably  the  main 
part  of  the  city.  Strabo  gives  the  fullowini;  de- 
scription of  the  twin  colossi  still  standing  upon  the 
western  plain:  "  Here  are  two  colossal  figures  near 
one  another,  each  consisting  of  a  single  stone.  One 
is  entire;  the  upper  parts  of  the  other,  from  the 
chair,  are  fallen  down  —  the  efti^ct,  it  is  said,  of  an 
eartiiquake.  It  is  believed  that  once  a  day  a  noise, 
as  of  a  sli<;ht  blow,  issues  from  the  part  of  the 
statue  which  remains  in  the  seat,  and  on  its  base. 
When  I  was  at  those  places,  with  JFAim  Gallus, 
and  numerous  friends  and  soldiers  about  him,  I 
heard  a  noise  at  the  first  hour  of  the  da^,  but 
wlietber  proceeding  from  the  base,  or  from  the 
colossus,  or  produced  on  purpose  by  some  of  those 
standing  around  the  base,  I  cannot  confidently  as- 
sert. For,  troni  the  uncertainty  of  the  cause,  1 
'am  inclined  to  believe  anything  rather  than  that 
6t<jnes  disposed  in  that  manner  could  send  forth 
sound"  (xvii.  §  46).  Simple,  honest,  skeptical 
Strabo  1  Eighteen  centuries  later,  the  jiresent 
writer  interrogated  these  same  stones  as  to  tlie 
ancient  mystery  of  sound;  and  not  at  sunrise,  but 
in  the  glaring  noon,  the  statue  emitted  a  sharp, 
clear  sound  like  the  ringing  of  a  disc  of  brass 
under  a  sudden  concussion.  This  was  produced 
by  a  ragged  urchin,  wlio,  for  a  few  piastres,  clam- 
bered up  the  knees  of  the  "vocal  Memnon,"  and 
there  eflectually .concealing  himself  from  oliserva- 
tion,  struck  with  a  hanuiier  a  sonorous  stone  in 
the  lap  of  the  statue.  Wilkinson,  who  was  one 
of  tlie  first  to  describe  this  sounding  stone,  con- 
jectures that  the  priests  had  a  secret  chamber  in 
the  body  of  the  statue,  from  which  tiiey  could 
strike  it  unobserved  at  the  instant  of  sunrise:  thus 
producing  in  the  credulous  multitude  the  notion 
of  a  supernatural  |ihenomenon.  It  is  ditficult  to 
conceive,  however,  that  such  a  trick,  performed  in 
open  day,  could  have  e.scaped  detection,  and  we  .are 
therefore  left  to  share  the  mingled  wonder  and 
skepticism  of  Strabo  (see  Wilkinson;  aUo  Thomp- 
gon's  P/ioto(/riipliic  Views  (if'  Juiypt,  P'ist  uml 
J'resenl,  p.  156). 

Pliny  speaks  of  Thebes  in  E^jpt  as  known  to 
hme  as  "  a  hanging  city,"  i.  e.  built  upon  arches, 
so  that  an  army  could  be  led  forth  from  1  eneath 
the  city  while  the  inhabitants  above  were  wholly 
unconscious  of  it.  He  men' ions  also  that  the  river 
Hows  through  the  middle  of  the  city,  liut  he 
questions  the  story  of  the  arches,  because,  "  if  this 
had  really  lieen  the  case,  there  is  no  doulit  tliat 
Homer  would  have  mentioned  it,  seeing  that  he 
iias  celebrated  the  hundred  gates  of  Theltes.''  l>o 
not  the  two  stories  possibly  exi>lain  eacli  other  V 
May  there  not  have  been  near  the  ri\er-line  arched 
liuildings  used  as  barracks,  from  whose  gateways 
Lssued  forth  20,000  chariots  of  war? 

Hut,  in  the  uncertainty  of  these  historical  allu- 
lions,  the  muuumenls  of  Thebes  are  the  most  relia- 
ble witnesses  for  the  ancient  grandeur  of  the  city. 
These  are  found  in  almost  equal  proportions  upon 
\)0th  sides  of  the  river.  The  parallel  ridges  wliich 
Airt  the  narrow  Nile  valley  upon  the  east  and  west 
iToiu  the  northern  limit  of  Up[«r  ligypt,  here  sweep 


THEBES  3217 

outward  upon  either  side,  forming  a  circuUr  i>lain 
whose  diameter  is  nearly  ten  miles.  Through  the 
centre  of  this  plain  flows  the  river,  usually  at  this 
point  aliout  half  a  mile  in  width,  but  at  the  inun- 
dation overflowing  the  plain,  especially  upon  the 
western  bank,  for  a  breadth  of  two  or  more  miles. 
Thus  the  two  colossal  statues,  which  are  several 
hundred  yards  from  the  bed  of  the  low  Nile,  have 
accumulated  about  their  bases  alluvial  deposit  to 
the  depth  of  seven  feet. 

The  plan  of  the  city,  as  indicated  by  the  principal 
monuments,  was  nearly  quatlrangular,  measuring 
two  miles  from  north  to  south,  and  four  from  east 
to  west.  Its  four  gi-eat  landmarks  were,  Karnal 
and  Luxor  upon  the  eastern  or  Arabian  side,  and 
tioornah  and  iledeenet  Haboo  upon  the  western  oi 
l.iliyan  side.  There  are  indications  that  e.ach  of 
these  temples  tiiay  have  been  connected  witli  tho.se 
facing  it  upon  two  sides  by  grand  dromoi,  lined 
with  sphnixes  ami  other  colossal  figures.  Upon  the 
western  bank  there  was  almost  a  continuous  line 
of  temples  and  pu  Mic  edifices  for  a  distance  of  two 
miles,  from  Qoornah  to  Medeenet  Halioo;  and  Wil- 
kinson conjectures  that  from  a  point  near  the  latter, 
perhaps  in  the  line  of  the  colossi,  the  '•  Royal 
Street  "  ran  down  to  the  river,  which  was  crossed 
by  a  lerry  terminatmg  at  Luxor  on  the  eastern 
side.  riie  recent  excavations  and  discoveries  of 
.AL  Mariette,  now  in  course  of  publication  (18631, 
may  enable  us  to  restore  the  ground-plan  of  the 
city  and  its  principal  edifices  with  at  least  proxi- 
mate accuracy. 

It  does  not  enter  into  the  design,  nor  would  it 
liiU  within  the  limits  of  this  article,  to  give  a  mi- 
nute description  of  these  stupendous  monuments. 
Not  only  are  verbal  descriptions  everywhere  ac- 
cessible through  the  pages  of  Wilkinson,  Kenrick, 
and  other  standard  writers  upon  Egypt,  but  the 
magnificently  illustrated  work  of  Lepsius,  already 
eonqjleted,  the  companion  work  of  AI.  Mariette, 
just  referred  to,  and  multi|jl.ed  photographs  of  the 
pr.ncipal  ruins,  are  within  easy  reach  of  the  scholar 
through  the  munificence  of  public  lil)raries.  A  mere 
outline  of  the  groups  of  ruins  must  here  suffice. 
Beginning  at  the  northern  extremity  on  the  western 
bank,  the  first  consjiicuous  ruins  are  those  of  a 
palace  temple  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty,  and  there- 
fore belonging  to  the  middle  style  of  Egyptian 
arch  tectiu'e.  It  bears  the  name  Manephliithin, 
suggested  by  Champollion  because  it  aiipears  to 
have  been  founded  by  JMenephthah  (the  Osirei  of 
Wilkinson),  though  built  principally  by  his  son, 
the  great  Kameses.  The  plan  of  the  building  is 
much  obscured  by  mounds  of  rulibish,  but  some 
of  the  bas-reliefs  are  in  a  fine  state  of  preservation. 
I  here  are  traces  of  a  dromos,  128  feet  in  length, 
with  sphin.xes,  whose  fragments  here  and  there 
remain.  This  building  stands  ujion  a  slight  ele- 
vation, nearly  a  mile  from  the  river,  in  the  now 
deserted  village  of  oltl  Qoornah. 

Nearly  a  mile  southward  I'rom  the  Menephtheion 
are  the  remains  of  the  combined  palace  and  temple 
known  since  the  days  of  Strabo  as  the  Jlemnonium. 
.\n  examination  of  its  sculptures  shows  that  this 
name  was  inaccurately  applied,  since  the  building 
was  clearly  erected  by  Kameses  II.  Wdkinson 
suiigests  that  the  title  IMianuni  attached  to  the 
namt  jf  this  king  misled  Strabo  in  his  (lesii;nation 
of  the  building.  The  general  form  of  the  .Mem- 
nonium  is  that  of  a  parallelogram  in  thret^  main 
sections,  the  interior  areas  being  successively  nar- 
rower  than    the    first  court,   and    the  whole  ter 


3218 


THELES 


niinatiiig  in  a  series  of  sacred  chambers  beautifully 
sculptured  and  onianieuted.  The  proportions  of 
this  buildiii"  are  remarkably  fine,  and  its  remains 
are  in  a  sufficient  state  of  preservation  to  enable 
one  to  reconstruct  its  plan.  From  the  first  court 
or  area,  nearly  180  feet  square,  there  is  an  ascent 
by  steps  to  the  second  court,  140  feet  by  170. 
Upon  three  sides  of  this  area  is  a  double  colonnade, 
and  on  the  south  side  a  single  row  of  Osiride 
pillars,  facing  a  row  of  like  pillars  on  the  north, 
the  other  columns  being  circular.  Another  ascent 
leads  to  the  hall,  100  -(- 133,  which  originally 
had  48  huge  columns  to  support  its  solid  roof. 
'.«;yond  the  hall  are  the  sacred  chambers.  'J'he 
historical  sculptures  upon 
the  walls  and  culunms  of 
the  IMemnonium  are  among 
the  most  finished  and  legi- 
ble of  the  Egyptian  mon- 
uments. But  the  most  re- 
markable featiu'e  of  these 
ruins  is  the  gigantic  statue 
of  Hameses  II.,  once  a  sin- 
gle block  of  syenite  carved 
t«  represent  the  king  upon 
his  throne,  but  now  scat- 
tered in  fragments  upon  the 
floor  of  the  first  hall.  The 
weight  of  this  statue  has 
ijeen  computed  at  887  tons, 
and  its  height  at  75  feet. 
By  measurement  of  the  frag- 
ments, the  writer  found  the 
body  51  feet  around  the 
shoulders,  the  arm  1 1  feet  6 
inches  from  shoulder  to  el- 
bow, and  the  foot  10  feet 
10  inches  in  length,  by  4  feet 
8  inches  in  breadth.  This 
stupendous  monolith  must  have  been  transported 
at  least  a  hundred  miles  from  the  quarries  of 
Assouan.     About  a  third  of  a  mile   further  to  th'e 


Plan  of  Memnonium. 


Hall  of  Columns  in  the  Memnonium. 


ioufh  are  the  two  colossal  statues  already  referred 
in,  one  of  which  is  familiarly  known  as  "  the  vocal 
Meunion."  The  height  of  each  figure  is  about  53 
feet  above  the  plain. 

Proceeding  again  toward  the  south  for  about  the 
same  distance,  we  find  at  Mukentt  llaboo  ruins 
upon  a  more  stupendous  scale  than  at  any  other 
point  upon  the  western  bank  of  Theljes.  These 
consist  of  a  temple  founded  by  Thotlmies  I.,  but 
which  also  exiiiljits  traces  of  the  Btolemaic  archi- 
iecture  in  the  shape  of  pyramidal  towers,  gate- 
ways, colonnades,  and  vestiliules,  inscribed  with  the 
tneniorials  of  the  Konian  era  in  Egypt.  This 
lemrjle,  even  with  all  its  additions,  is  compara- 
ively  small;  but  adjacent  to  it  is  the  magnificent 


THEBES 

twin  known  as  the  southern  Rameseion  the  palace- 
temple  of  Rameses  III.  The  general  plan  of  this 
building  corresponds  with  those  above  described ; 
a  series  of  grand  courts  or  halls  adorned  with 
columns,  conducting  to  the  inner  pavilion  of  the 
king  or  sanctuary  of  the  god.  The  second  court 
is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  Egypt  for  the 
niassiveness  of  its  columns,  which  measure  24  feet 
in  height  by  a  circumference  of  nearly  23.  Within 
this  area  are  the  fallen  columns  of  a  Christian 
church,  which  once  established  the  worship  of  the 
true  God  in  the  very  sanctuary  of  idols  and  amid 
their  sculptured  images  and  symbols.  This  temple 
]iresents  some  of  the  grandest  etfects  of  the  old 
Egyptian  architecture,  and  its  battle-scenes  are  a 
valuable  eontriliution  to  the  history  of  Rameses  111. 
Behind  this  long  range  of  temples  and  palaces 
are  the  Lil)yan  hills,  which,  for  a  distance  of  five 
miles,  are  excavated  to  the  depth  of  several  hun- 
dred feet  for  sepulchral  chambers.  Some  of  these 
are  di  vast  extent  —  one  tomb,  for  instance,  having 
a  total  area  of  22,217  square  feet.  A  retired  valley 
in  the  mountains,  !iow  known  as  Bteban-tl- M ihnik, 
seems  to  have  been  appropriated  to  the  sepulchres 
of  kings.  Some  of  these,  in  the  number  and  variety 
of  their  chambers,  the  finish  of  their  sculptures, 
and  the  beauty  and  freshness  of  their  frescoes,  are 
among  the  most  I'emarkable  monuments  of  Euiyptian 
grandeur  and  skill.  It  is  from  the  tombs  especially 
that  we  learn  the  manners  and  customs  of  domestic 
life,  as  from  the  temples  we  gather  the  record  of 
dynasties  and  the  history  of  battles.  The  preserva- 
tion of  these  sculptured  and  pictorial  records  is  due 
mainly  to  the  dryness  of  the  climate.  The  sacred- 
ness  with  which  the  Egyptians  regarded  their  dead 
preserved  these  mountain  catacombs  from  molesta- 
tion during  the  long  succession  of  native  dynasties, 
and  the  sealing  up  of  the  entrance  to  the  tomb  for 
the  concealment  of  the  sarcophagus  from  human 
observation  until  its  munnnied  occupant  should  re- 
sume his  long-suspended  life,  lins  largely  .secured 
i  the  city  of  the  dead  from  the  violence  of  invaders 
and  the  ravaires  of  time.  It  is  from  the 
adornments  of  these  subterranean  tombs, 
often  di.stinct  and  fresh  as  when  prepared 
l>y  the  hand  of  the  artist,  that  we  derive 

Vi^vl    '   I; J I  I    our    principal    knowledge  of   the    manners 

^1  'i  l-T^l  —  and  customs  of  the  Egyptians.  Herodotus 
m  himself  is  not  more  minute  and  graphic, 
than  these  silent  but  most  descriptive  walls. 
The  illustration  and  confirmation  which 
they  bring  to  the  sacred  narrative,  so  we".! 
discussed  by  Ilengstenberg,  Osborn,  I'oole, 
and  others,  is  capalde  of  much  ampler 
treatment  than  it  has  yet  received.  Every 
incident  in  the  pastoral  and  agricultural 
life  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  and  in  the 


exactions  of  their  servitude,  every  art  employed  in 
the  fabrication  of  the  talaernacle  in  the  wilderness, 
every  allusion  to  Egyptian  rites,  customs,  laws, 
finds  some  counterpart  or  illustration  in  this  pic- 
ture-history of  Egypt;  and  whenever  the  Thelian 
cemetery  shall  be  thorouglily  explored,  and  its  sym- 
bols and  hieroglyphics  fully  interpreted  by  science, 
we  shall  have  a  commentary  of  unrivaled  interest 
and  value  upon  the  books  of  Exodus  and  Leviticus, 
as  well  as  the  later  historical  books  of  the  Helirew 
Scriptiu-es.  1  lie  art  of  photography  is  already 
contributing  to  this  result  by  furnishing  scholars 
with  materials  for  the  leisurely  study  of  the  pic- 
torial and  .nonumental  records  of  Egypt. 

The  eastern  side  of  the  river  is  distinguished  bj 


THEBES 

the  leniains  of  Luxor  and  Karnak.  the  latter  being 
oi  itself  a  city  of  temples.  The  main  colonnade  of 
Luxor  faces  the  river,  but  its  principal  entrance 
looks  northward  towards  Karnak,  with  which  it 
was  originally  c(innected  by  a  drouios  G,()00  feet  in 
length,  lined  on  either  side  with  sphinxes.  At  this 
sntrance  are  two  gigantic  statues  of  Raineses  IL,  one 
upon  each  side  of  the  grand  gateway;  and  in  front 
of  these  ibrmerly  stood  a  pair  of  beautifully  wrought 
Dlpelisks  of  red  granite,  one  of  wdiich  now  graces  the 
I'bce  de  la  Concorde  at  Paris. 
The  approach  to  Karnak  from  the  south  is  marked 
by  a  series  of  majestic  gate- 
X2*i^  I  '^'—'  \va)s  and  towers,  wliich  were 
the  appendages  of  later  times 
to  the  orighial  structure. 
'J"he  temple  properly  faces 
the  river,  i.  e.  toward  the 
northwest.  The  courts  and 
prop}la;a  connected  with  this 
sti'ucture  occupy  a  space 
nearly  ],8')()  feet  Siiuare,  and 
the  buildings  represent  al- 
most every  dynasty  of 
Egypt,  from  Sesortasen  L 
to  l^tulemy  Euergetes  L 
Courts,  pylons,  obelisks, 
statues,  pillars,  everything 
pertaining  to  Karnak,  are  on 
the  grandest  scale.  Near- 
est the  river  is  an  area 
measuring  275  feet  by  329, 
which  once  had  a  covered 
Figure  of  Rameses  II.  corridor  on  either  side,  and 
a  double  row  of  columns 
through  the  centre,  leading  to  the  entrance  of 
the  hypostyle  hall,  the  most  wonderful  monument 


THEBES 


8219 


Sculptured  Gateway  at  Karuak. 

of  Egyptian  architecture.  This  grand  hall  is  a 
forest  of  sculptured  columns;  in  tiie  central  avemie 
are  twelve,  measuring  each  GO  feet  in  height  by  12 
in  diameter,  which  formerly  supiwrted  the  most 
elevated  portion  of  the  roof,  answei-ing  to  the  clere- 
story in  Gothic  architecture;  on  either  side  of 
these  are  seven  rows,  each  cohnnn  nearly  42  feet 
high  by  9  in  diameter,  making  a  total  of  134  jiillars 
io  an  area  measuring  170  feet  by  .3-)0.  lAIost  of 
the  pillars  are  yet  standing  in  their  original  site, 
>liouL'li  in  many  places  tlie  roof  has  fallen  in.  .\ 
\iOonlight  view  of  this  liall  is  the  most  weird  and 


impressive  scene  to  be  witnessed  among  all  the  ruini? 
of  antiquity  —  the  Coliseum  of  Rome  not  excepted. 
Witli  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  mechanic  arts 
among  the  Egyptians,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive 
how  the  outer  wall  of  Karnak  —  forty  feet  in  thick- 
ness at  the  base,  and  nearly  a  hundred  feet  high  — 
was  built;  how  single  blocks  weighing  several  hun- 
dred tons  were  lifted  into  tlieir  place  in  the  wall, 
or  hewn  into  obelisks  and  statues  to  adorn  its  gates; 
how  the  majestic  colunnis  of  the  Grand  Hall  were 
quarried,  sculptured,  and  set  up  in  mathematical 
order;  and  how  the  whole  stupendous  structure 
was  reared  as  a  fortress  in  whicli  the  most  ancient 
civilization  of  the  world,  as  it  wei'e  petrified  or 
fossilized  in  the  very  flower  of  its  strength  and 
beauty,  might  defy  the  desolations  of  war,  and  the 
decay  of  centuries.  The  grandeur  of  l%ypt  is  here 
hi  its  architecture,  and  ahnost  every  pillar,  obelisk, 
and  stone  tells  its  historic  legend  of  her  greatest 
nionarchs. 

We  have  alluded,  in  the  opening  of  this  article, 
to  the  debated  question  of  the  iiriority  of  Thebes  to 
JMemphis.  As  yet  the  data  are  not  sufficient  for 
its  satisfactory  solution,  and  Egyptologists  are  not 
agreed.  Upon  the  whole  we  may  conclude  that 
Ix'fore  the  time  of  ^lenes  there  was  a  local  sove- 
reignty in  the  Theliaid,  but  the  historical  nationality 
of  Egypt  dates  from  the  founding  of  i\Iemphis. 
"  It  is  proliable  that  the  priests  of  Memphis  and 
Thebes  differed  in  their  representations  of  early 
history,  and  that  each  sought  to  extol  the  glory  of 
their  ovnu  city.  The  history  of  Herodotus  turns 
aljout  Memphis  as  a  centre;  he  mentions  Thebes 
only  incidentally,  and  does  not  describe  or  allude  to 
one  of  its  niomnnents.  Diodorus,  on  the  contrary, 
is  full  in  his  description  of  Thebes,  and  .says  little 
of  Memphis.  But  the  distinction  of  Upper  and 
Lower  Egypt  exists  in  geological  structure,  in  lan- 
guage, iri  religion,  and  in  historical  tradition"  (Ken- 
rick).  A  careful  digest  of  the  Egyptian  and  Greek 
authorities,  the  I'urin  papyrus,  and  the  monumental 
talilets  of  Abydos  and  Karnak,  gives  this  general 
outline  of  the  early  history  of  I'^gypt:  That  before 
Memphis  was  built,  the  nation  was  mainly  confined 
to  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  and  subdivided  politically 
into  several  sovereignties,  of  which  Thebes  was  one ; 
that  iMenes,  who  was  a  native  of  IViis  in  the  The- 
baid,  centralized  the  government  at  Memphis,  and 
united  the  upper  and  kiwer  countries;  that  Mem- 
phis retained  its  preiiminenee,  even  in  tlie  hereditary 
succession  of  sovereigns,  until  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
teenth dynasties  of  JIanelho,  wiien  Diospolitan  kings 
appear  in  his  lists,  who  brought  Tliebes  into  proin- 
ineuce  as  a  royal  city;  that  when  tlie  Siieiiherds 
or  Hyksos,  a  nomadic  race  from  the  east,  invaded 
I'-gypt  and  fixed  their  capital  at  Memphis,  a  native 
Egyptian  dynasty  was  maintained  at  Thebes,  at 
times  triiiutary  to  the  llyksos,  and  at  times  in 
military  alliance  with  Ethiopia  against  the  invaders; 
until  at  lengti).  by  a  general  uprising  of  the  The- 
liaid, the  Hyksos  were  expelled,  and  Thebes  became 
the  capital  of  all  Egypt  under  the  resplendent 
eighteenth  dynasty.  This  was  the  golden  era  of 
the  city  as  we  have  already  descrilied  it  from  its 
monuments.  The  names  and  deeds  of  tlio  Thothmes 
and  the  Rameses  then  figure  upon  its  temples  and 
palaces,  representing  its  wealth  and  grandeur  in 
architecture,  and  its  jirowess  in  arms.  'Jlien  it  was 
tliat  Thebes  extended  her  sceptre  over  Liliya  and 
l'.thi<ipia  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  otiier  over 
Syria,  Media,  and  Persia;  so  that  the  walls  of  hei 
palaces  and  temples  are  crowded  with  ba".ie-sewift 


3220 


THEBES 


in  wliicli  all  contiguous  Mations  appear  as  ;aptives 
')!•  as  suppliants.  This  supremacy  continued  until 
the  close  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty,  or  for  a  period 
of  more  than  five  hujidred  years;  but  under  the 
twentieth  dynasty — the  Diospolitan  house  of  Kanie- 
ses  nuniliering  ten  kings  of  that  name  —  the  glory 
of  Theljes  Ijegan  to  decline,  and  after  the  close  of 
that  dynasty  her  name  no  more  appears  in  the  lists 
of  kings.  kStill  the  city  was  retained  as  the  capital, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  and  the  achievements  of  Shi- 
shouk  the  Bubastite,  of  Tirhakah  the  Ethiopian, 
and  other  nionarchs  of  celebrity,  are  recorded  upon 
its  walls.  The  invasion  of  Palestine  by  Shishonk 
is  graphically  depicted  upon  the  outer  wall  of  the 
grand  hall  of  Karnak,  and  the  names  of  several 
towns  in  Palestine,  as  well  as  the  general  name  of 
'•  the  land  of  the  king  of  .Judah,"  have  been  de- 
ciphered from  the  hieroglyphics.  At  the  later  in- 
vasion of  ,Iuda;a  by  Sennacherib,  we  find  Tirhakah, 
the  ICthiopian  monarch  of  the  Thebaid,  a  powerful 
ally  of  the  Jewish  king.  But  a  century  later, 
Ezekiel  proclaims  the  destruction  of  Thebes  by  the 
arm  of  Babylon :  "  I  will  execute  judgments  in 
No;  "  "  I  will  cut  off  the  mtdtitude  of  No;  "  "  No 
shall  be  rent  asunder,  and  Noph  [iMeuiphis]  shall 
have  distresses  daily"  (Ez.  xxx.  14-10);  and  Jere- 
miah, predicting  the  same  overthrow,  says,  "  The 
Lord  of  Hosts,  the  God  of  Israel  saith.  Behold,  I 
will  punish  the  multitude  of  No,  and  Pharaoh,  and 
Egypt,  with  their  ijods  and  their  kings."  The  Per- 
sian invader  completed  the  destruction  that  the 
Babybinian  had  begun;  the  hammer  of  Cambyses 
leveled  the  proud  statue  of  Hameses,  and  his  torch 
consumed  the  temples  and  palaces  of  the  city  of 
the  hundred  gates.  No-Ammon,  the  shrine  of  the 
Egyptian  .Jupiter,  "that  was  situate  among  the 
ri\ers,  and  whose  rampart  was  the  sea,"  sank  from 
its  metropolitan  splendor  to  the  position  of  a  mere 
provincial  town;  and,  notwithstanding  the  spas- 
modic efforts  of  the  Ptolemies  to  revive  its  ancient 
gli/ry,  liecame  at  last  only  the  desolate  and  ruined 
sepulchre  of  the  empire  it  had  once' embodied.  It 
lies  to-day  a  nest  of  Arab  hovels  amid  crumbling 
colunnis  and  drifting  sands. 

*  Three  names  of  Thebes  are  made  prominent 
in  the  hieroglyphic  monuments  of  the  city.  The 
first  is  the  SAcerdotal  na,me  Pi-cimwi — the  abode 
of  Amnion.  The  expression  No-amim,  which  cor- 
responds e\en  more  exactly  with  the  Greek  Aiocr- 
TtoKis,  is  found  in  the  .SaUier  Papyrus,  No.  III., 
showing  that  the  Hebrew  prophets  used  a  well- 
known  designation  of  the  city.  At  Thebes  Anmion 
was  worshipped  preeminently  under  the  type  of  the 
sun. 

A  second  designation  of  Thebes  was  the  city  of 
Apelu  or  AjM.  Some  have  attempted  to  derive 
the  name  Thebes  from  this  title,  thus:  Ta-Ajtttu, 
or  more  simply  Ta-npe,  by  contraction  Tape,  which 
the  Greeks  sol'tened  into  &7i$rj.  But  this  deriva- 
lioa  is  hypothetical,  and  at  best  it  seems  plain  from 
the  hieroglyphics  that  the  name  Aptlu  was  given 
to  but  a  single  quarter  of  ancient  Thebes.  —  a  sec- 
tion of  the  eastern  bank  embracing  the  great  temple 
of  Karnak.  The  name  Apeiii  has  not  been  found 
upon  any  monument  of  the  old  empire. 

There  is  a  third  designation,  or  perhaps  more 
properly  a  representation,  of  the  eitj*  in  the  hiero- 
glyphics, from  which  it  is  conjectured  that  the 
Greeks  derived  its  name.  This  capital  is  pictured 
IS  a  martial  city,  thoroughly  equipped,  and  armed 
n\t\\  divine  power  for  dominion  over  all  nations. 
These  symbols  gi\  e  the  nan  e  OOe,  which  with  the 


THE13EZ 

feminine  article  becomes  Tobe  or  Tebe,  which  ap- 
pears in  the  Greek  form  @r}Pr]-  Tebi  and  nol 
Apeiu  was  the  city  of  Amnion,  who  there  dwelt  in 
Aptlii,  which  was  probably  the  great  temple  of 
Karnak. 

The  foregoing  is  the  substance  of  a  monograph 
by  Mons.  F.  Chabas,  entitled  liecherclies  sur  le 
iioni  egijptien  de  Thebes,  and  is  the  latest  contri 
bution  to  the  literature  of  the  suliject. 

The  explorations  of  M.  Mariette-Bey,  M.  Dli- 
michen,  and  others,  have  brought  to  light  some 
curious  memorials  of  Thebes  that  serve  to  illustrate 
its  ancient  history  and  renown,  and  to  verify  the 
surviving  fragments  of  its  literature.  The  Abbott 
papyrus  relates  to  the  conviction  and  punishment 
of  a  band  of  robbers  that  in  the  reign  of  L'ameses  , 
IX.  spoiled  the  necropolis  of  Thelies  of  treasures 
deposited  in  tombs  of  the  priestesses  of  .Vmmon 
and  in  the  royal  sepulchres.  In  the  vicinity  of 
Gournah,  M.  Mariette  has  identified  three  of  ten 
royal  tombs  named  in  the  papyrus.  This  fixes 
definitely  the  quarter  of  the  city  referred  to  in  the 
papyrus. 

M.  Mariette's  excavations  within  the  temple  of 
Karnak  have  restored  to  the  eye  of  scholars  valuable 
inscriptions  that  had  long  been  hidden  under  the 
sand.  In  particular  he  has  restored  as  far  as  pos- 
sible the  famous  Annals  of  Thothmes  III.,  from 
the  sanctuary  which  that  monarch  built  in  the 
centre  of  the  great  temple  as  a  memorial  of  his 
victories.  Under  the  date  of  each  year  of  this  in^ 
scription  follows  a  narrative  of  the  warlike  expedi- 
tions of  the  year,  which  is  followed  by  an  enumera- 
tion of  the  spoils.  The  minute  accuracy  of  these 
returns  may  be  judiied  by  an  example  of  the  tribute 
paid  by  Cush:  gold,  1.54  pounds  2  ounces;  slaves, 
male  and  female,  13-4;  beef-cattle,  young,  114; 
bulls,  -305;  total  419,  etc.  These  ai  nals  shed  light 
upon  ancient  geography,  and  upon  the  Bililical  and 
other  accounts  of  the  wars  of  I'.gypt  in  the  East. 
From  one  hundred  and  fifteen  names  we  instance 
Arabia,  Cush,  Eglon,  (iaza,  jNIageddo,  Mesopotamia, 
Nineveh,  Taanak,  in  the  list  of  battles  or  conquest. 
In  one  inscription  it  is  stated  that  the  king  set  up 
a  monument  in  Mesopotamia  to  mark  the  eastern 
boundary  of  Egypt. 

The  commerce  of  antiquity  is  also  illustrated 
by  these  inscriptions.  Cush  returns  a  tribute  of 
gold,  silver,  and  cattle;  the  Rotennou,  ivory,  cattle, 
horses,  goats,  metals,  armor,  precious  woods:  the 
Syrians,  silver,  iron,  lapis-lazuli,  and  leather;  an 
unknown  people,  precious  vases,  dates,  honey,  wine, 
farina,  perfumes,  asses,  and  instruments  of  iron. 
Mention  is  made  also  of  chariots  ornamented  with 
silver,  and  of  shiploads  of  ivory,  ebony,  leopard- 
skins,  etc.  All  this  confirms  the  story  of  Herodotus 
touching  the  immense  wealth  and  the  vast  military 
power  of  Thelies.  Fifteen  successive  campaigns  are 
here  recorded  in  which  the  monarch  himself  carried ' 
his  triumphant  arms  to  the  very  heart  of  Asia.  In 
some  of  these  campaigns  he  marched  through  Coele- 
Syria,  and  subdued  the  region  of  Lebanon.  The 
entire  inscription  of  Thothmes  III.  is  translated 
in  the  Revue  Archeologique,  Nouvelle  S^rie,  vol.  ii. 

The  inscription  of  Shishak  upon  the  outer  wall 
of  Karnak  in  the  same  way  illustrates  the  power 
and  grandeur  of  Thebes,  even  when  bordering  upon 
its  decline.  J.  P.  T. 

THE'BEZ  (V?^  [brujhtness]  :  ©^^tjs, 
@afj.affi;  Alex.  @ai$ais,  Qa/mairei  '■  Thebes).  A 
place  memorable  for  ^he  daath  of  the  bravo  Abinie- 


THECOE,  WILDERNESS  OF 

lech  (Judi;.  ix.  50  ")•  After  suffocating  a  thousand 
of  the  Slieclieiiiites  in  the  hold  of  Baal-berith  by 
tlie  sniukc  of  green  wood  —  an  exploit  which  recalls 
the  notorious  feat  of  a  modern  French  general  in 
Algeria  (Kccl.  i.  9,  10)  —  he  went  off  with  his  band 
to  Thebez.  The  town  was  soon  taken,  all  but  one 
tower,  into  which  the  people  of  the  place  crowded, 
and  which  was  strong  enough  to  hold  out.  To  this 
he  forced  his  way,  and  was  about  to  repeat  the 
barbarous  stratagem  which  had  succeeded  so  well 
at  Shechem,  when  the  fragment  of  millstone  de- 
Bcended  and  put  an  end  to  his  turbulent  career. 
The  story  was  well  known  in  Israel,  and  gave  the 
point  to  a  familiar  maxim  in  the  camp  (2  Sam.  xi. 
21). 

Thebez  is  not  mentioned  again  in  the  Bible.  But 
it  was  known  to  Eusel)ius  and  Jerome.  In  tlieir 
day  the  village  still  bore  its  old  name,  and  was 
situated  "in  the  district  of  Neapolis,"  13  Roman 
miles  therefrom,  on  the  road  to  Scythopolis  ( Ommi. 
@ril37ii)-  There  it  still  is;  its  name —  Tuhas  — 
hardly  changed ;  the  village  on  a  rising  ground  to 
the  left  of  the  road,  a  tliriving,  compact,  and  strong- 
looking  place,  surrounded  by  immense  woods  of 
olives,  and  by  perhaps  tlie  best  cultivated  land  in 
all  Palestine.  It  was  known  to  hap-1'archi  in  the 
13th  century  (Zunz's  Benjamin,  ii.  420),  and  is 
mentioned  occasion;dly  by  later  travellers.  But  I  )r. 
Koljinson  apj^ears  to  have  been  the  first  to  recog- 
nize its  identity  with  Thebez  {BifA.  Res.  iii.  305). 

G. 

THECOE,    THE    WILDERNESS   OF 

{r))v  i(>r\jjLOvQ€K(t)e- desertuDi  Thecuce).  The  wild, 
uncultivated  pastoral  tract  lying  around  the  town 
of  Tekoa,  more  especially  to  the  east  of  it  (1  Mace, 
ix.  33).  In  the  Old  Test.  (2  Chr.  xx.  20)  it  is 
mentioned  by  the  term  Midbnr,  which  answers  to 
the  Greek  eprj/xo?. 

Thecoe  is  merely  the  Greek  form  of  the  name 
Tekoa.  "  G. 

THELA'SAR  ("Iffi'Sbr]  [hiU  of  Assyria, 
Ges.,  Fiirst]:  QaeaOev;  Alex.  Qakaffcrap-  Tlidas- 
sar).  Another  form  of  the  name  examined  under 
Tei^assar.  It  occurs  2  K.  xix.  12.  The  A.  V. 
is  unfortunate  iji  respect  of  this  name,  for  it  has 
contrived  to  give  the  contracted  Hebrew  form  in 
the  longest  English  shape,  and  vice  versa.        G. 

THELER'SAS  {QiKeptris;  [Alex.  06A(ras:] 
Theihnrsa),  1  Esdr.  v.  36.  The  Greek  equivalent 
of  the  name  Tel-haksas. 

THE'MAN  {©ai/xdv.  Thtman),  Bar.  iii.  22, 
23.     [Tkman.] 

THEOCA'NUS  {@iWKav6s\  [Vat.  &oKams-:\ 
kXesL.  QwKavos:  Thecain).  TiKV All  the  father  of 
Jahaziah  (1  Esdr.  ix.  14). 

THEOD'OTUS  (,Qe6SoTos  [fp'ven  by  God] : 
Theodolius,  Theodvrus).  An  envoy  sent  by  Nicanor 
to  Judas  Mace.  c.  b.  c.  1G2  (2  Maco.  xiv.  19). 

B.  F.  AV. 

THEOPH'ILUS  (@^6<f>i\os  [friend  of 
Goil]).  1.  The  person  to  whom  St.  Luke  inscribes 
lis  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (Luke  i.  3; 
Acts  i.  .1).  The  important  part  played  liy  The- 
Dphilus,  as  having  immediately  occasioned  the  com- 
position of  these  two  books,  together  with  the 
lUence  of  Scripture  concerning  him,   has  at  once 


THEOPHILUS 


J5221 


o  In  the  Hebrew  text  Thebez  occurs  twice  in  the 
rrrse.  bot  iu  the  LXX   it  stands  thus,  "  And  Abime- 


stimulated  conjecture,  and  left  the  field  clear  for  it. 
Accordingly  we  meet  with  a  considerable  number 
and  variety  of  theories  concerning  him. 

(1.)  Several  commentators,  especially  among  the 
Fathers,  have  been  disposed  to  doubt  the  personality 
of  Theophilus,  regarding  the  name  either  as  that  of 
a  fictitious  person,  or  as  applicable  to  every  Chris- 
tian reader.  Thus  Origen  {flom.  i.  in  Luc.)  raises 
the  question,  but  does  not  discuss  it,  his  object  A 

being  merely  practical.  He  says  that  all  who  are 
beloved  of  (jod  are  Theophili,  and  may  therefore 
nppiopriate  to  themselves  the  Gospel  which  was 
addressed  to  Theophilus.  Epiphanius  {//tens.  li. 
p.  429)  speaks  doubtfully:  elr'  oiiv  rivl  &eo(pi\(f, 
rSre  ypaipuiv  eAe-yei/,  -^  ttuvtI  avdpwirrc  @ihv 
ayairwvTi.  Salvianus  (l-'.pist.  ix.  ad  Salonitnii)  i\\t- 
parently  assumes  that  Tlieophilus  had  no  historical 
existence.  He  justifies  the  composition  of  a  woik 
addressed  "  Ad  Ecclesiam  Catholicam,"  under  the 
name  of  Timotheus,  by  the  example  of  the  Evan- 
gelist St.  Luke,  who  addressed  his  Gospel  nomi- 
nally to  a  particular  man,  but  really  to  "the  love 
of  God;"  "nam  sicut  Theophili  vocabulo  amor, 
sic  Timothei  honor  divinitatis  expriraitur."  Even 
Theophylact,  who  believes  in  the  existence  of  The- 
ophilus, takes  the  opportunity  of  moralizing  upon 
his  name:  koI  nas  5e  avdpwjros  9  e  o  <p  i  \r]  s,  Kal 
K  p  dr  o  s  Kara  rwy  iradiiiv  duaSei^diJ.evos,  0  f- 
6  <p  I  \  6  s  idri  KpdriaTOs,  bs  Kal  'dfios  t'c 
dun  iarlv  UKOveip  rod  .Eiiayyi\iov  {Ari/iiin.  in 
Luc).  Among  modern  connnentators  Hammond 
and  Leclerc  accept  the  allegorical  view:  Erasmus 
is  doubtful,  but  on  the  whole  believe.s  Theophilus 
to  have  had  a  real  existence. 

(2.)  From  the  honoraljle  epithet  Kpanffre,  ap- 
plied to  Theophilus  in  Luke  i.  3,  compared  with 
the  use  of  the  same  epithet  as  applied  by  Claudius 
Lysias  and  Tertullus  severally  to  Felix,  and  by  St. 
Paul  to  Festus  (Acts  xxiii.  26,  xxiv.  3,  xxvi.  25), 
it  has  been  argued  with  much  probability,  but  not 
quite  conclusively,  tliat  he  was  a  person  in  high 
official  position.  Thus  Theophylact  {Arc/urn.  in 
Luc.)  conjectures  that  he  was  a  Roman  governor, 
or  a  person  of  senatorial  rank,  grounding  his  con- 
jecture expressly  on  the  use  of  Kpdrtcnf.  (Ecu- 
menius  {ad  Act.  Aposl.  i.  1 )  fells  us  that  be  was  a 
governor,  but  gives  no  authority  for  the  assertion. 
The  traditional  connection  of  St.  Luke  with  Antioch 
has  disposed  some  to  look  upon  Antioch  as  the 
abode  of  Theophilus,  and  possibly  as  the  seat  of  his 
government.  Bengel  believes  him  to  have  been  an 
inhabitant  of  Antioch,  "  ut  veteres  testantur."  The 
belief  may  partly  have  grown  out  of  a  story  in  flu 
so-called  Recoijnitions  if  Si.  Clement  (lib.  x.),  which 
represents  a  certain  nobleman  of  Antioch  of  tliat 
name  to  have  been  converted  by  the  preaching  of 
St.  Peter,  and  to  have  dedicated  his  own  house  as 
a  church,  in  which,  as  we  >are  told,  the  Apostle  fixed 
his  episcopal  seat.  Bengel  thinks  that  the  omission 
of  K  par  tare  in  Acts  i.  1  proves  that  St.  Luke  was 
on  more  familiar  terms  with  Theophilus  than  when 
he  composed  his  Gospel. 

(3.)  In  the  Syriac  Lexicon  extracted  from  the 
Lexicon  JJejit  '(/lollan  of  Castell,  and  edited  by 
Micbaelis  (p.  948),  the  following  description  of 
Theophilus  is  quoted  from  Bar  Bahlul,  a  Syrian 
lexicographer  of  the  lOtli  century:  "  Theophihis, 
prinuis  credentium   et  celeberriuuis  apud  Alexan- 


lech  went   out  of  Bethelberith  (Vulg.   irt'lel  and  fell 
upon  Thebes."  etc. 


3222 


THEOPHILUS 


irienses,  qui  cum  aliis  ^Egyptiis  Lucam  rogabat, 
ut  tis  P'.vangelium  scrilieret."  In  the  inscription 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Lulte  in  tlie  Syriac 
version  we  are  told  that  it  was  published  at  Alex- 
andria. Hence  it  is  inferred  by  Jacob  Hase  {Bibl. 
Bremensis  Cl'iss.  iv.  Fasc.  iii.  Diss.  4,  quoted  by 
Michaelis,  Introd.  to  the,  N.  T.,  vol.  iii.  ch.  vi.  §  4, 
ed.  Marsh)  and  by  Bengal  {Ordo  Teinporio/i,  p. 
A  196,  ed.  2),  that  Theophilus  was,   as  asserted   liy 

Bar  Bahlul,  a  convert  of  Alexandria.  This  writer 
ventures  to  advatice  the  startling  opinion  that  The- 
oiihilus,  if  an  Alexandrian,  was  no  other  than  the 
celebrated  Philo,  who  is  said  to  have  borne  the  He- 
brew name  of  Jedidiah  (n"^'7'^"T%  i.  e.  @e6(pt\os)- 
»  ft  hardly  seems  necessary  to  refute  this  theory,  as 
Michaelis  has  refuted  it,  by  chronological  argu- 
ments. 

(4.)  Alexander  Morus  (Ad  qucedam  locn  Nov. 
Feed.  Xutie  :  ad  Luc.  i.  1)  makes  the  rather  hazard- 
ous conjecture  that  the  Theophilus  of  St.  Luke  is 
identical  with  the  person  who  is  recorded  by  Tacitus 
(Ann.  ii.  5.5)  to  have  been  condemned  for  fraud  at 
Athens  by  the  court  of  the  Areopagus.  Grotins 
also  conjectures  that  he  was  a  maffistrate  of  Achaia 
baptized  by  St.  Luke  The  conjecture  of  Grotius 
must  rest  upon  the  assertion  of  .lerome  (an  asser- 
tion which,  if  it  is  received,  renders  that  of  Alex. 
Morns  possible,  thousili  certainly  most  improbable), 
namely,  that  Luke  pulilished  his  Gospel  in  the  parts 
of  Acliaia  and  ISceotia  (.Jerome,  Coiiuii.  in  Matt. 
I'rooem.). 

(5.)  [t  is  obvious  to  suppose  that  Theophilus  was 
a  Christian.  But  a  different  view  has  been  enter- 
tained. In  a  series  of  Dissertations  in  the  Blb- 
liollncu  Bre/iiensis,  of  which  Michaelis  gives  a 
resume  in  the  section  already  referred  to,  the  notion 
that  he  was  not  a  Christian  is  maintained  by  dif- 
ferent writers,  and  on  different  grounds.  Heuniann, 
one  of  the  contributors,  assuming  that  he  was  a 
Eoman  governor,  argues  that  he  could  not  be  a 
Christian,  because  no  Christian  would  be  likely  to 
have  such  a  charge  entrusted  to  him.  Another 
writer.  Theodore  Hase,  believes  that  the  Theophilus 
of  Luke  was  no  other  than  the  deposed  high-priest 
Theophilus  the  son  of  Ananus,  of  whom  more  will 
be  said  presently.  Michaelis  himself  is  inclined  to 
adopt  this  theory.  He  thinks  that  the  use  of  the 
word  Karrix^Qi)^  '"  Luke  i.  4,  proves  that  The- 
ophilus had  an  im]jerfect  acquaintance  with  the 
facts  of  the  Gospel  (an  argument  of  which  Bishop 
Marsh  very  properly  disposes  in  his  note  upon  the 
passage  of  Michaelis),  and  further  contends,  from 
the  eV  riixlv  of  Luke  i.  1,  that  he  was  not  a  member 
of  the  Christian  conmmnity.  He  thinks  it  prob- 
able that  the  Evangelist  wrote  bis  Gospel  during 
the  imprisonment  of  St.  Paul  at  Cfesarea,  and  ad- 
dressed it  to  Theophilus  as  one  of  the  heads  of  the 
Jewish  nation.  According  to  this  view,  it  would 
be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  historical  apology  for  the 
Christian  faith. 

In  surveying  this  series  of  conjectures,  and  of 
traditions  which  are  nothing  more  than  conjectures, 
we  find  it  easier  to  determine  what  is  to  be  re- 
jected than  what  we  are  to  accept.  In  the  first 
nlace,  we  may  safely  reject  the  Patristic  notion  that 
Theophilus  was  either  a  fictitious  person,  or  a  mere 
personification  of  Christian  love.  Such  a  personifi- 
cation is  alien  from  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  and  the  epithet  Kpariare  is  a  sufficient 
evidence  of  the  historical  existence  of  Tbeopliihis. 
[t  does  not,  indeed,  prove  that  he  was  a  governor, 


THESSALONI  A.NS 

but  it  makes  it  most  probaljle  that  he  was  a  person 
of  high  rank.  His  supposed  connection  with  An- 
tioch,  Alexandria,  or  Achaia,  rests  on  too  slendei 
evidence  either  to  claim  acceptance  or  to  need  refu- 
tation; and  the  view  of  Theodore  Hase,  although 
endorsed  by  Michaelis,  appears  to  be  incontestably 
negatived  by  the  Gentile  complexion  of  the  Third 
Gospel.  The  grounds  alleged  by  Heumann  frr  his 
hypothesis  that  Theophilus  was  not  a  Christian  are 
not  at  all  trustworthy,  as  consisting  of  two  very 
disputable  premises.  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is 
not  at  all  evident  that  Theophilus  was  a  Roman 
governor;  and  in  the  second  place,  even  if  we  as- 
sume that  at  that  time  no  Christian  would  be  ap- 
pointed to  such  an  office  (an  assumption  which  we 
can  scarcely  venture  to  make),  it  docs  not  at  all 
follow  that  no  person  in  that  position  would  become 
a  Christian.  In  fact,  we  have  an  example  of  such 
a  conversion  in  the  case  of  Sergius  Paulus  (Acta 
xiii.  12).  In  the  article  on  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
[vol.  ii.  p.  1697  rt],  reasons  are  given  for  tielieving 
that  Theophilus  was  "  not  a  native  of  Palestine.  .  .  . 
not  a  Macedonian,  nor  an  Athenian,  nor  a  Cretan. 
But  that  he  was  a  native  of  Italy,  and  perhaps  an 
inhabitant  of  Home,  is  probable  from  similar  data." 
All  that  can  be  conjectured  with  any  degree  of 
safety  concerning  him,  comes  to  this,  that  he  was 
a  Gentile  of  rank  and  consideration,  who  came 
under  the  influence  of  St.  Luke,  or  (not  improliably ) 
under  tlint  of  St.  Paul,  at  Rome,  and  was  converted 
to  the  Christian  faith.  It  has  been  observed  that 
the  Greek  of  St.  Luke,  which  elsewhere  approaches 
more  nearly  to  the  classical  type  than  that  of  the 
other  Evangelists,  is  purer  and  more  elegant  in  the 
dedication  to  Theophilus  than  in  any  other  part  of 
his  Gospel. 

2.  A  Jewish  high-priest,  the  son  of  Annas  or 
Ananus,  brother-in-law  to  Caiaphas  [Annas;  Ca- 
lAPHAs],  and  brother  and  inmiediate  successor  of 
.lonathan.  The  Roman  Prefect  Vitellius  came  to 
.lerusalem  at  the  Passover  (A.  D.  37),  and  deposed 
Caiaphas,  appointing  Jonathan  in  his  place.  In 
the  same  year,  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  he  came  to 
.lerusalem,  and  deprived  Jonathan  of  the  high- 
priesthood,  which  he  gave  to  Theophilus  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  3,  xviii.  5,  §  3).  'Theophilus  was  re- 
moved from  his  post  by  Herod  Agrippa  I.,  after  the 
accession  of  that  prince  to  the  government  of  Jud*a 
in  A.  D.  41,  so  that  he  must  have  contimied  in 
office  about  five  years  (Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  6.  §  2). 
Theophilus  is  not  mentioned  by  name  in  the  New 
Testament;  but  it  is  most  probalde  that  he  was  the 
high-priest  who  granted  a  commission  to  Saul  to 
proceed  to  Damascus,  and  to  take  into  custody  any 
believers  whom  he  might  find  there.       W.  B.  J. 

THE'RAS  (0e'pa;  [in  ver.  41,  Vat.  omits:] 
Thin;  Syr.  Tlianm).  The  equivalent  in  1  Esdr. 
viii.  41,  61,  for  the  Ahava  of  the  parallel  passage  in 
Ezra.     Nothing  whatever  appears  to  be  known  of  It. 

THER'MELETH  {@fpfx^\46:  Thdmela),  1 
Esdr.  V.  36.  The  Greek  equivalent  of  the  name 
Tei^jielaii. 

THESSALO'NIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE 
TO  THE.  1.  'I'he  dale  of  the  epistle  is  made 
out  ajjpproximately  in  the  following  way.  During 
the  course  of  his  second  missionary  journey,  prob- 
ably in  the  year  52,  St.. Paul  founded  the  Church 
of  Thessalonica.  Leaving  'Thessalonica  he  passed 
on  to  Bercea.  From  Beroea  he  went  to  Athens, 
and  from  .Athens  to  Corinth  (Acts  xvii.  1-xviii.  18) 
With  this  visit  to  Corinth,  which  extends  over  a 


THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


322b 


period  of  two  years  or  thereabouts,  his  second  riiis- 
Bionar}'  journey  closed,  for  from  Corinth  he  returned 
to  Jerusalem,  payinij  only  a  brief  visit  to  Ephesus 
on  the  way  (xviii.  20,  21).  Now  it  appears  that, 
when  this  epistle  was  written,  Silvanus  and  Tinio- 
theus  were  in  the  Apostle's  company  (1  Tiiess.  i.  1; 
;onip.  2  Thess.  i.  1)  —  a  circumstance  which  con- 
fines the  date  to  the  second  missionary  journey,  for 
though  Timotheus  was  with  him  on  several  occa- 
sions afterwards,  the  name  of  Silvanus  appears  for 
the  last  time  in  connection  witlj  St.  Paul  during 
this  visit  to  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  5;  2  Cor.  i.  lU) 
Tlie  epistle  then  must  have  been  written  in  the  in- 
terval between  St.  Paul's  leaving  Thessalonica  and 
the  cl().se  of  his  residence  at  Corinth,  i.  e.  according 
to  the  received  chronology  within  the  years  52-54. 
The  following  considerations  howe\er  narrow  the 
limits  of  the  possible  date  still  more  closely.  (1.) 
AVhen  St.  Paul  wrote,  he  had  already  visited,  and 
probably  left  Athens  (1  Thess.  iii.  1).  (2.)  Hav- 
ing made  two  unsuccessful  attempts  to  revisit, 
Thessalonica,  he  had  dispatched  Timothy  to  obtain 
tidings  of  his  converts  there.  Timothy  h.ad  re- 
turned before  the  .Apostle  wrote  (iii.  2,  6).  (3  ) 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Thessalonians  as  "ensamples 
to  all  that  believe  in  IMacedonia  and  Achaia,"  add- 
ing that  "  in  e\ery  place  their  faith  to  Godward 
was  spread  abroad"  (i.  7,  8)  —  language  prompted 
indeed  by  the  overflowing  of  a  grateful  heart,  and 
therefore  not  to  be  rigorously  pressed,  but  still  im- 
plying some  lapse  of  time  at  least.  (4.)  There  are 
several  traces  of  a  growth  and  progress  in  the  con- 
dition and  circumstances  of  the  Thessalonian 
Church.  Perhaps  the  mention  of  "  rulers  "  in  the 
clnn-ch  (v.  12)  ought  not  to  be  adduced  as  proving 
this,  since  some  organization  would  be  necessary 
from  the  very  beginning.  But  there  is  other  evi- 
dence besides.  Questions  had  arisen  relating  to 
the  state  of  those  who  had  fallen  asleep  in  .Christ, 
BO  tliat  one  or  more  of  tiie  '1  hessalonian  converts 
must  have  died  in  the  interval  (iv.  1.3-18).  The 
storm  of  persecution  which  the  Apostle  had  dis- 
cerned gatiiering  on  tlie  horizon  had  already  burst 
upon  the  Christians  of  Thessalonica  (iii.  4,  7).  Ir- 
regularities had  crept  in  and  sullied  the  infant 
purity  of  the  church  (iv.  4,  v.  14).  The  lapse  of 
a  few  months  however  would  account  for  these 
changes,  and  a  nmch  longer  time  cannot  well  be  al- 
lowed. For  (5)  the  letter  was  evidently  written  by 
St.  Paul  immediately  on  tlie  return  of  Timothy,  in 
the  fullness  of  his  gratitude  for  the  joyful  tidings 
(iii.  6).  Moreover,  (6)  the  second  epistle  also  was 
written  before  he  left  Corinth,  and  there  must  have 
been  a  sufficient  interval  between  the  two  to  allow 
of  the  growth  of  fresh  difficulties,  and  of  such  com- 
nnmication  between  the  Apostle  and  his  converts  as 
the  case  supposes.  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong 
'berefore  in  placing  the  writing  of  this  epistle  early 
in  St.  Paul's  resideuce  at  Corinth,  a  few  months 
after  he  had  founded  the  church  at  Thessalonica, 
at  the  close  o(  the  year  52  or  the  beginning  of  53. 
The  statement  in  the  subscription  appearing  in  sev- 
eral MSS.  and  versions,  that  it  was  written  "  from 
Athens,"  is  a  suiierficial  inference  from  1  Thess.  iii. 
1.  to  which  no  weiixht  should  be  attached.  Tlie 
views  of  critics  vpho  have  assigned  to  this  epistle 
H  later  date  than  the  second  nnssionary  journey  are 
stated  and  refuted  in  the  Introductions  of  Koch  (p. 
i'-i,  etc.),  and  Liinemann  t§  3). 

2.  The  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  then  (for 
the  second  followed  the  first  after  no  long  interval) 
Ue  the  earliest  of  St.  Paul's  writuigs  —  perhaps  the 


earliest  written  records  of  Christianity.  They  be- 
long to  that  period  which  St.  Paul  elsewhere  stjles 
"the  beginning  of  the  Gospel"  (Phil.  iv.  15). 
They  present  the  disciples  in  the  first  flush  of  love 
and  devotion,  yearning  for  the  day  of  deliverance, 
and  straining  their  e3es  to  catch  the  first  glimpse 
of  their  Lord  descending  amidst  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  till  in  their  feverish  anxiety  they  forget  the 
solier  business  of  life,  absorbed  in  this  one  engross- 
ing thought.  It  will  be  remembered  th;it  a  period 
of  about  five  years  intervenes  beibre  the  second 
group  of  epistles  —  those  to  the  Corinthians,  Gala- 
tians,  and  Romans  —  were  written,  and  about  twice 
that  |jeriod  to  the  date  of  the  epistles  of  the  Itomaa 
cajjtivity.  It  is  interesting  therefore  to  compars 
the  Thessalonian  Epistles  with  the  later  letters,  an  J 
to  note  the  points  of  difference.  These  dift'erences 
are  mainly  threefold.  (1.)  In  the  general  s/^/e  of 
these  earlier  letters  there  is  greater  simplicity  and 
less  e.xuberance  of  language.  The  brevity  of  the 
opening  salutation  is  an  instance  of  this.  "  Paul 
.  ...  to  the  Church  of  the  Thessalonians  in  God 
the  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  grace  and 
peace  to  you  "  (1  Thess.  i.  1;  comp.  2  Thess.  i.  1). 
The  closing  benediction  is  correspondingly  brief:  — 
"  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  (Jhrist  be  with  you  " 
(1  Thess.  v.  28;  comp.  2  Thess.  iii.  18j.  And 
throughout  the  epistles  there  is  much  more  even- 
ness of  style,  words  are,  not  accumulated  in  the 
same  way,  the  syntax  is  less  involved,  parentheses 
are  not  so  frequent,  the  turns  of  thought  and  feel- 
ing are  less  sudden  and  abrupt,  and  altogether  there 
is  less  intensity  and  variety  than  we  find  in  St. 
Paul's  later  epistles.  (2.)  The  /mtayonism  to  St. 
Piiul  is  not  the  same.  The  direction  of  the  attack 
has  changed  in  the  interval  between  the  writing  of 
these  epistles  and  those  of  the  next  group.  Here 
the  opposition  conies  from  Jcics.  The  admission 
of  the  Gentiles  to  the  hopes  and  privileges  of  Mes- 
siah's kingdom  on  any  condition  is  repulsive  to 
them.  They  "forbad  the  Apostle  to  speak  to  the 
Gentiles  that  they  might  be  saved"  (ii.  16).  A 
peiiod  of  five  years  changes  the  aspect  of  the  con- 
ti'oversy.  The  opponents  of  St.  Paul  ai-e  now  no 
lunger  Jews,  so  much  as  Judaiziny  Cliristians 
(Ewald,  Jdlirb.  iii.  24'J;  Sendsclir.,  p.  14).  The 
question  of  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  has  been 
solved  by  time,  for  they  have  "  taken  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  by  storm."  liut  the  antagonism  to  the 
,\postle  of  the  Gentiles,  having  been  driven  from 
its  first  position,  entrenched  itself  behind  a  second 
barrier.  It  was  now  urged  that  though  the  Gen- 
tiles may  be  admitted  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  the 
only  door  of  admission  is  the  Mosaic  covenant-rite 
of  circumcision.  The  language  of  St.  Paul,  sjjeak- 
ing  of  the  Jewish  Christians  iu  this  epistle,  shu'.vi 
that  the  opposition  to  his  teaching  had  not  at  this 
time  assumed  this  second  phase.  He  does  not  yet 
regard  them  as  the  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  thn 
church,  the  false  teachers  who  by  imposing  a  bfjiid- 
age  of  ceremonial  observances  frustrate  the  free 
grace  of  God.  He  can  still  point  to  them  as  ex- 
amples to  his  converts  at  Thessalonica  (ii.  14).  The 
change  indeed  was  imminent,  the  signs  of  the  gath- 
ering storm  had  already  appeared  (Gal.  ii.  11),  but 
hitherto  they  were  faint  and  hidistinct,  and  had 
scarcely  darkened  the  horizon  of  the  Gentile 
churches.  (3.)  It  will  be  no  surprise  that  the 
doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Apostle  does  not  hens 
quite  the  same  aspect  in  these  as  in  the  later 
epistles.  Many  of  the  distinctive  doctrines  of 
Christianity  which  are   insep;u'ut\ly  connected  <*ilh 


3224 


THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


St.  Paul's  name,  though  implicitly  containerl  in  the 
feacliing  of  these  earlier  letters — as  indeed  they 
Tollow  directly  from  the  true  conception  of  the  Per- 
son of  Christ  —  were  yet  not  evolved  and  distinctly 
enunciated  till  the  needs  of  the  church  drew  them 
out  into  prominence  at  a  later  date.  It  has  often 
been  observed,  for  instance,  that  there  is  in  the 
Kpistles  to  the  Thessalonians  no  mention  of  the 
characteristic  contrast  of  '-faith  and  works;"  that 
the  word  "justification  "  does  not  once  occur;  that 
the  idea  of  dying  with  Christ  and  liviiicj  with  Christ, 
80  frequent  in  St.  Paul'.s  later  writin<:s,  is  absent 
in  these.  It  was  in  fact  the  o|)position  of  Judaizing 
Christians,  insisting  on  a  strict  rituidism,  which 
led  tlie  Apostle  somewhat  later  to  dwell  at  greater 
length  on  the  true  doctrine  of  a  saving  faith,  and 
the  true  conception  of  a  godly  life.  Ikit  the  time 
had  not  yet  come,  and  in  the  epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians. as  has  been  truly  observed,  the  Gospel 
preached  is  that  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  rather 
tiian  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  There  are  many  rea- 
sons why  the  subject  of  the  second  advent  should 
occupy  a  larger  space  in  the  earliest  stage  of  the 
Apostolical  teaching  than  afterwards.  It  was 
closely  bound  up  with  the  fundamental  fact  of  the 
Gospel,  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  thus  it 
formed  a  natural  starting-point  of  (Christian  doc- 
trine. It  afforded  the  true  satisfaction  to  those 
Messianic  hopes  which  had  drawn  the  Jewish  con- 
verts to  the  fold  of  Christ.  It  wns  the  best  conso- 
lation and  support  of  the  infant  churcli  under  per- 
secution, which  must  have  been  most  keenly  felt  in 
the  first  abandonment  of  worldly  pleasures  and  in- 
terests. More  especially,  as  telling  of  a  righteous 
Judge  who  would  not  overlook  iniquity,  it  was  es- 
sential to  that  call  to  repentance  which  must  every- 
where precede  the  direct  and  positive  teaching  of 
the  Gospel.  "  Now  He  coramandeth  all  men  every- 
where to  repent,  for  He  hatli  appointed  a  day  in  the 
which  He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  l)y 
that  man  whom  He  hath  ordained,  whereof  He  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men  in  that  He  raised  him 
from  the  dead  "  (Acts  xvii.  30,  31). 

3.  The  occasion  of  this  epistle  was  as  follows: 
St.  Paul  had  twice  attempted  to  revisit  Thessa- 
lonica,  and  both  times  had  lieen  disappointed.  Thus 
prevented  fi'om  seeing  them  in  person,  he  had  sent 
Timothy  to  inquire  and  report  to  him  as  to  tlieir 
condition  (iii.  1-5).  Timothy  returned  with  most 
favorable  tidings,  reporting  not  only  their  progress 
in  Christian  faith  and  practice,  but  also  their  strong 
attachment  to  their  old  teacher  (iii.  6-10).  The 
First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  is  the  outpouring 
of  the  Apostle's  gratitude  on  receiving  this  welcome 
news.  At  the  same  time  the  report  of  Timothy 
was  not  unmixed  with  alloy.  There  were  certain 
features  in  the  condition  of  the  Thessalonian  Church 
which  called  for  St.  Paul's  interference,  and  to 
which  he  addresses  himself  in  his  letter.  (1.)  The 
very  intensity  of  their  Christian  faith,  dwelling  too 
exclusively  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming,  had 
been  attended  with  evil  consequences.  On  the  one 
hand  a  practical  inconvenience  had  arisen.  In 
their  feverish  expectation  of  this  great  crisis,  some 
had  been  led  to  neglect  their  ordinary  business,  as 
though  the  daily  concerns  of  life  were  of  no  account 
in  the  immediate  presence  of  so  vast  a  change  (iv. 
11;  comp.  2  Thess.  ii.  1,  iii.  6,  11,  12).  On  the 
Dther  hand  a  theoretical  difficulty  had  been  felt. 
Certain  members  of  the  church  had  died,  and  there 
was  great  anxiety  lest  they  should  be  excluded  from 
»ny  share  in  the  glories  of  the  Lord's  advent  (iv. 


13-18).  St.  Paul  rebukes  the  irregularitie?  if  the 
former,  and  dissipates  the  fears  of  the  latter  (2.) 
The  flame  of  persecution  had  broken  out,  ai  d  the 
Thessalonians  needed  consolation  and  encouiage- 
ment  under  their  sore  trial  (ii.  14,  iii.  2-4).  (3.| 
An  unhealthy  state  of  feeling  with  regard  to  spirit- 
ual gifts  was  manifesting  itself.  Like  the  Corin- 
thians at  a  later  day,  they  needed  to  be  reminded 
of  the  superior  value  of  "  prophesying,"  compared 
with  other  gifts  of  the  Spirit  which  they  exalted  at 
its  expense  (vv.  1!^,  20).  (4.)  There  was  the  danger, 
which  they  shared  in  common  with  most  Gentile 
churches,  of  relajising  into  their  old  heathen  pnifli- 
gacy.  Against  this  the  Apostle  offers  a  word  in 
season  (iv.  4-8).  We  need  not  suppose  however 
that  Thessaloiiica  was  worse  in  this  respect  than 
other  Gi'eek  cities. 

4.  Yet  notwithstanding  all  the.se  drawbacks,  the 
condition  of  the  Thes.salonian  Church  was  highly 
satisfactory,  and  the  most  cordial  relations  existed 
between  St.  Paul  and  his  converts  there.  This 
honorable  distinction  it  shares  with  the  other  great 
church  of  Macedonia,  that  of  Philippi.  At  all 
times,  and  amidst  every  change  of  circumstance,  it 
is  to  his  Alacedonian  churches  that  the  Apostle 
turns  for  sympathy  and  support.  A  period  of 
about  ten  years  is  interposed  between  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  and  yet  no  two  of  his  letters  more 
closely  resemble  each  other  in  this  respect.  In 
both  he  drops  his  official  title  of  Apostle  in  the 
opening  salutation,  thus  appealing  rather  to  their 
affection  than  to  his  own  authority;  in  both  he 
commences  the  body  of  his  letter  with  hearty  and 
unqualified  commendation  of  his  converts;  and  in 
both  the  same  spirit  of  confidence  and  warm  affec- 
tion breathes  throughout. 

5.  A  comp;u-ison  of  the  narrative  in  the  Acts 
with  the  allusions  in  this  and  the  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Thessaliini.ans  is  instructive.  With  some 
striking  coincidences,  there  is  just  that  degree  of 
divergence  which  might  be  expected  between  a 
writer  who  had  borne  the  principal  part  in  the 
scenes  referred  to,  and  a  narrator  who  derives  his 
information  from  others,  between  the  casual  half- 
expressed  allusions  of  a  familiar  letter  and  the 
direct  account  of  the  professed  historian. 

Passing  over  patent  coincidences,  we  may  single 
out  one  of  a  more  subtle  and  delicate  kind.  It 
arises  out  of  the  form  which  the  accusation  brought 
against  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  at  Thessa- 
lonica  takes  in  the  Acts:  "All  these  do  contrary 
to  the  decrees  of  Caisar,  saying  that  there  is 
another  king,  one  Jesus"  (xvii.  7).  The  allusions 
in  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  enable  us  to 
understand  the  ground  of  this  accusation.  It  ap- 
pears that  the  ldn(jdom  of  Christ  had  entered 
largely  into  his  oral  teaching  in  this  city,  as  it 
does  info  that  of  the  Epistles  themselves.  He  had 
charged  his  new  converts  to  await  the  comirig  pf 
the  Son  of  God  from  hea\en,  as  their  deliverer  (i. 
10).  He  had  dwelt  long  and  earnestly  (TrpoeiVa- 
fifv  KoL  diefjLapTvpdfXfea)  on  the  terrors  of  the 
judgment  which  would  overtake  the  wicked  (iv.  0). 
He  had  even  explained  at  length  the  .signs  which 
would  usher  in  the  last  day  (2  Thess.  ii.  5).  L'.ither 
from  malice  or  in  ignorance  such  language  had 
been  misrepresented,  and  he  was  accused  of  setting 
up  a  rival  .sovereign  to  the  lioman  emperor. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  language  of  these  epistles 
diverges  from  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke  on  two  oi 
three  points  in  such  a  way  as  to  establish  the  md»- 


THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


3225 


peiulenee  of  the  two  accounts,  and  even  to  require 
some  eAiilaiiation.  (1.)  The  first  of  these  relates 
ti)  tlie  ciJiiiposition  of  the  Church  of  Thessalonica. 
Ill  tlie  first  epistle  St.  Paul  adiiresses  his  readers 
flistinctly  as  Gentiles,  who  had  been  converted  from 
idolatry  to  the  Gospel  (i  9,  10).  lit  the  Acts  we 
are  told  that  ''some  (of  the  Jews)  believed  .  .  .  . 
and  of  the  devout  Greeks  (i.  e.  proselytes)  a  great 
multitude,  and  of  the  chief  women  not  a  few" 
(xvii.  4).  If  for  ae^Ofi^vooy  'EWrji/uv  we  read  cre- 
Sofievaiv  Koi  'EKKt^vwv,  "  proselytes  and  Greeks," 
the  difWculty  vanishes;  but  though  internal  prob- 
abiliti?s  are  somewhat  in  favor  of  this  reading,  the 
air..y  of  direct  evidence  (now  reinforced  by  the 
Tod.  SInaiticus,  is  against  it.  But  even  if  wc 
retain  the  common  reading,  the  account  of  St. 
Luke  does  not  exclude  a  number  of  believers  con- 
vertetl  directly  from  heathendom  —  indeed,  if  we 
may  argue  from  the  parallel  case  at  Beroea  (xvii. 
12).  the  "won. en"  were  chiefly  of  this  class:  and, 
if  any  divergence  remains,  it  is  not  greater  than 
might  be  expected  in  two  independent  writers,  one 
of  whom,  not  being  an  eye-witness,  possessed  only 
a  partial  and  indirect  knowledge."  Both  accounts 
alike  convey  the  impression  that  the  Gospel  made 
but  little  proiiress  with  the  .lews  themselves.  (2.) 
In  the  epistle  tlie  persecutors  of  the  Thessalonian 
Christians  are  represented  as  their  fellow-country- 
men, i.  e.  as  heathens  (uirb  twv  tSioiv  ao/j.(pu\eT(ii>, 
ii.  14),  whereas  in  the  Acts  the  -lews  are  re<;arded 
as  the  bitterest  opponents  of  the  faith  (xvii.  b). 
This  is  fairly  met  by  Paley  (/{one  Paul.  ix.  No.  5), 
who  points  out  that  the  .lews  were  the  instigators 
of  the  persecution,  which  however  they  were  pow- 
erless of  themselves  to  carry  out  without  aid  from 
the  lieatheii,  as  may  be  gathered  even  from  the 
narrative  of  St.  Luke.  We  may  add  also,  that  the 
expression  iStoi  (Tvfj.(j>v\iTai  need  not  be  restricted 
to  the  heathen  population,  but  might  include  many 
Hellenist  Jews  who  must  have  been  citizens  of  the 
free  town  of  Thessalonica.  (3.)  The  narrative  of 
St  Luke  appears  to  state  that  St.  Paul  remained 
only  three  weeks  at  Thessalonica  (xvii.  2),  whereas 
in  the  epistle,  though  there  is  no  direct  mention  of 
the  Ieni;tli  of  his  residence  among  them,  the  whole 
language  (i.  4,  ii  4-11)  points  to  a  nnich  longer 
perioil.  The  latter  part  of  the  assertion  seems 
quite  correct;  the  former  needs  to  be  modified.  In 
the  Acts  it  is  stated  simply  that  for  three  Sabbath 
days  (three  weeks)  St.  Paul  taught  in  the  syna- 
gogue. The  silence  of  the  writer  does  not  exclude 
subsequent  labor  among  the  Gentile  population, 
and  indeed  as  much  seems  to  be  implied  in  the 
success  of  his  preaching,  which  exasperated  the 
Jews  against  him.  (4.)  The  notices  of  the  move- 
ments of  Silas  and  Tirnotheus  in  the  two  docu- 
ments do  not  accord  at  first  sight.  In  the  Acts 
St.  Paul  is  con\eyed  away  secretly  from  Beroea  to 
escape  t\vi  Jews.  Arrived  at  Athens,  he  sends  to 
Sihs  and  Timothy,  whom  he  had  left  behind  at 
Pieroea,  urging  them  to  join  him  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble (xvii.  14-16).  It  is  evident  from  the  language 
;f  St.  I  uke  th.at  the  Apostle  expects  them  to  join 


a  *  The  diSaculty  may  be  further  urged,  that  if 
the  church  at  Thessalonica  coutaiDed  both  "a  great 
multitude  "  of  proselytes  and  still  such  an  overpow- 
erinu  uiiijority  of  Gentiles,  that  Vie  address  of  ithe 
epistle  could  take  its  tone  from  the  latter,  a  much 
larger  totjil  number  of  believers  would  be  implied 
than  i?  consistent  with  the  other  circumstances  of  the 
oase.     It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  Apostle,  in  ad- 


him  at  .4thens.  Yet  we  hear  nothing  more  of 
them  for  some  time,  when  at  length,  after  St.  Pan! 
ha<l  passed  on  to  t'orinth,  and  several  iiuidents 
had  occurred  since  his  arrival  there,  we  are  told 
that  Silas  and  Timotheus  came  from  Macedonia 
(xvii.  .5).  From  the  first  epistle,  on  the  other  hand 
we  gather  the  following  facts.  St.  Paul  there  tells 
us  that  they  (rffjifh,  i-  e.  himself,  and  probably 
Silas),  no  longer  able  to  endure  the  suspense, 
"  consented  to  be  left  alone  at  Athens,  and  sent 
Timothy  their  brother  "  to  Thessalonica  (iii.  1,  2). 
Timothy  returned  with  good  news  (iii.  6)  (whether 
to  Athens  or  Corinth  does  not  appear),  and  when 
the  two  epistles  to  the  The.ssalonians  were  written, 
both  Timothy  and  Silas  were  with  St.  Paul  (I 
Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess  i.  1;  comp.  2  Cor.  i.  19). 
Now,  though  we  may  not  be  prepared  with  Paley 
to  construct  an  undesigned  coincidence  out  of  these 
materials,  yet  on  the  other  hand  there  is  no  in- 
soluble difficulty ;  for  the  events  may  be  arranged 
in  two  diffiirent  vvays,  either  of  wdiich  will  bring 
the  narrative  of  the  Acts  into  accordance  with  the 
allusions  of  the  epistle,  (i.)  Timotheus  was  de- 
spatched to  Thessalonica,  not  from  .\thens,  but  from 
Beroea,  a  supposition  quite  consistent  with  the 
Apostle's  expression  of  "  consenting  to  be  left  alone 
at  Athens."'  In  this  case  Timotheus  would  take 
up  Silas  somewhere  in  JMacedonia  on  his  return, 
and  the  two  would  join  St.  Paul  in  company;  not 
however  at  Athens,  where  he  was  expecting  them, 
but  later  on  at  Corinth,  some  delay  having  arisen. 
This  explanation  however  suppases  that  the  plurals 
"  we  consented,  we  sent "'  (fiiSoK7iaaiJ.€v,  iTre/j.^a- 
fj.fv),  can  refer  to  St.  Paul  alone.  The  alternative 
mode  of  reconciling  the  accounts  is  as  follows: 
(ii.)  Timotheus  and  Silas  did  join  the  Apostle  at 
Athens,  where  we  learn  from  the  Acts  that  he 
was  expecting  them.  From  Athens  he  despatched 
Timotheus  to  Thessalonica,  .so  that  he  and  Silas 
{rnueh)  had  to  forego  the  services  of  their  fellow- 
laborer  for  a  time.  This  mission  is  mentioned  in 
the  epistle,  but  not  in  the  Acts.  Subsequently  he 
sends  Silas  on  some  other  mission,  not  recorded 
either  in  the  history  or  the  epistle;  probably  to 
another  Macedonian  church,  Philippi  for  instance, 
from  which  he  is  known  to  have  received  contribu- 
tions about  this  time,  and  with  which  therefore  he 
was  in  communication  (2  Cor.  xi.  9 ;  conip.  Phil, 
iv.  14-16;  see  Koch,  p.  15).  Silas  and  Timotheus 
returned  together  from  Macedonia  and  joined  the 
.Vpostle  at  Corinth.  This  latter  solution,  if  it 
assumes  more  than  the  former,  has  the  advantage 
that  it  preserves  the  proper  sense  of  the  plural 
"  wi'  consented,  ive  sent,"  for  it  is  at  least  doubtful 
whether  St.  Paul  ever  uses  the  plural  of  himself 
alone.  The  silence  of  St.  Luke  may  in  this  case 
be  explained  either  by  his  possessing  only  a  partial 
knowledLte  of  the  circumstances,  or  by  his  passinsr 
over  incidents  of  which  he  was  aware,  as  unim- 
portant- 

6.  This  epistle  is  rather  practical  than  doctrinal. 
It  was  suggested  rather  by  personal  feeling,  than 
by  any  urgent  need,  which  might  have  formed  a 


dressing  proselytes  converted  to  the  Christian  tiiith, 
would  naturally  regard  them  as  having  been  originally 
heathen,  rather  tliau  .lews.  Their  .ludaism  had  bifeu 
but  a  temporary  and  trausitional  stage;  and  thus  the 
address  in  the  epistle  is  altogether  consistent  with  tt.€ 
fact  that  they  had  been  prepared  for  Christianity  t>v 
a  previous  reception  of  Judaism.  f  '* 


3226 


THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


centre  of  unity,  and  iinjiressed  a  distinct  character 
on  the  whole.  Under  tliese  circumstances  we  need 
not  expect  to  trace  unity  of  purpose,  or  a  contin- 
uous argument,  and  any  analysis  must  be  more  or 
less  artificial.  'I'lie  body  of  the  epistle,  however, 
may  conveniently  be  divided  into  two  parts,  the 
former  of  which,  extending  over  the  first  three 
chapters,  is  chiefly  taken  up  with  a  retrospect  of 
the  Apostle's  relation  to  his  Thessalonian  converts, 
and  an  explanation  of  his  present  circumstances 
and  feelings,  while  the  latter,  comprising  the  4th 
and  5th  chapters,  contains  some  seasonable  exhor- 
tations. At  the  close  of  each  of  these  divisions  is 
a  prayer,  commencing  with  the  same  words,  "  May 
God  himself,"  etc.,  and  expressed  in  somewhat 
similar  language. 

The  following  is  a  table  of  contents:  — 

Salutation  (i.  1). 

1.  Narrative  portion  (i.  2-iii.  13). 

(1.)  i.  2-10.  The  Apostle  gratefully  records 
their  convei'sion  to  the  Gospel  and  prog- 
ress in  the  faith. 

(2.)  ii.  1-12.  He  ren)inds  thcTn  how  pure  and 
blameless  his  life  and  ministry  among 
them  had  been. 

(3.)  ii.  1-3-16.  He  repeats  his  thanksgiving 
for  their  conversion,  dwelling  especially 
on  the  persecutions  which  they  had  en- 
dured. 

(4.)  ii.  17-iii.  10.  He  describes  his  own  sus- 
pense and  anxiety,  tlie  consequent  mis- 
sion of  Timothy  to  i'liessalnnica,  and 
the  encouraging  report  which  he  brought 
back. 

(5.)  iii.  11-13.  The  Apostle's  prnyer  for  the 
Thessalonians. 

2.  Hortatory  portion  (iv.  1-v.  24). 

(1.)  iv.  1-8.    Warning  against  impurity. 
(2.)  iv.  9-12.    Exhortation  to  brotherly  love 

and  sobriety  of  conduct. 
(3.)  iv.  13-v.   11.    Touching   the  advent  of 
the  Lord. 
('(.)  The  dead  shall  have  their  place  in  the 

resun-ection,  iv.  13-18. 

(/;.)  The  time  however  is  uncertain,  v.  1-3. 

(c.)  Therefore    all    must    be    watchful,    v. 

4-11. 

(4.)  V.  12-15.    Exhortation   to  orderly  living 

and  the  due  performance  of  social  duties. 

(5.)  v.  16-22.    Injunctions  relating  to  prayer 

and  spiritual  matters  generally. 
(6.)  v.  23,  24.    The  Apostle's  prayer  for  the 
Thessalonians. 
The  epistle  closes  with  personal  injunctions  and 
a  l>enediction  (v.  25-28). 

7.  Tlie  external  evidence  in  favor  of  the  genuine- 
uiff  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  is 
chiefly  negative,  but  this  is  important  enough. 
There  is  no  trace  that  it  was  ever  disputed  at  any 
age  or  iu  any  section  of  the  Clnnxh,  or  even  by 
any  individual,  till  the  present  century.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  allusions  to  it  in  writers  before  the 
close  of  the  2d  century  are  confessedly  faint  and 
uncertain  —  a  circumstance  easily  explained,  when 
we  remember  the  character  of  the  epistle  itself,  its 
comparatively  simple  diction,  its  silence  on  the  most 
important  doctrinal  questions,  and,  generally  speak- 
ing, the  absence  of  any  salient  points  to  arrest  the 
attention  and  provoke  reference.  In  Clement  of 
Home  there  are  some  slight  coincidences  of  lan- 
guage, perhaps  not  purely  accidental  (c.  38,  Kura 


TrdvTa  evx°-pi-<fTi^v  aiira,  comp.  1  Tliess.  v.  78; 
i/jul.  (Tw^ecrdw  ovv  Tjfuv  '6\ov  rh  aoifia  iv  X,  I., 
comp.  1  Thess.  v.  23).  Ignatius  in  two  passages 
{Polyc.  c.  1,  and  Ephes.  c.  10)  seems  to  be  reminded 
of  St.  Paul's  expression  aSiaAeiTrrus  wpoa-evx^cOe 
(1  Thess.  V.  17),  but  in  both  passages  of  Ignatius 
the  word  adiaAeinrais,  in  which  the  similarity 
mainly  consists,  is  absent  in  the  SjTiac,  and  is 
therefore  probably  spurious.  The  supposed  refer- 
ences in  Polycarp  (c.  iv.  to  1  Thess.  v.  17,  and  c. 
ii.  to  1  Thess.  v.  22)  are  also  unsatisfactory.  It  is 
more  important  to  observe  that  the  epistle  wa.s  in- 
cluded in  the  Old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions,  that 
it  is  found  in  the  Canon  of  the  Muratorian  frag- 
ment, and  that  it  was  also  contained  in  that  of 
Marcion.  Towards  the  close  of  the  2d  centurj 
from  Irenseus  downwards,  we  find  this  epistle  di- 
rectly quoted  and  ascribed  to  St.  Paul. 

The  evidence  derived  from  the  character  of  the 
epistle  itself  is  so  strong  that  it  may  fairly  be  called 
irresistible.  It  would  be  impossible  to  enter  into 
the  question  of  slyle  here,  but  the  reader  may  be 
referred  to  the  Introduction  of  Jowett,  who  has 
handled  this  subject  very  fully  and  satisfactorily. 
.\n  equally  strong  argument  may  be  drawn  also 
from  the  iiiaitur  contained  in  the  epistle.  Two  in- 
stiinces  of  this  must  suffice.  In  the  first  i)lace,  the 
fineness  and  delicacy  of  touch  with  which  the 
Apostle's  relations  towards  his  Thessalonian  con- 
verts are  drawn  —  his  yearning  to  see  them,  his 
anxiety  in  the  absence  of  Timothy,  and  his  heart- 
felt rejoicing  at  the  good  news —  are  quite  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  clumsy  forgeries  of  the  early  Church. 
In  the  secon<l  place,  the  writer  uses  language  which, 
however  it  may  he  explained,  is  certainly  colored 
by  the  anticipation  of  the  speedy  advent  of  the 
Lord  —  language  natural  enough  on  the  Apostle's 
own  lips,  but  quite  inconceivable  in  a  forgery 
written  after  bis  death,  when  time  had  disappointed 
these  anticipations,  and  when  the  revival  or  men- 
tion of  them  woidd  serve  no  purpose,  and  might 
seem  to  discredit  the  Apostle.  Such  a  position 
would  be  an  anachronism  in  a  writer  of  the  2d 
century. 

The  genuineness  of  this  epistle  was  first  ques- 
tioned by  Schrader  {Apuskl  Paulus),  who  was  fol- 
lowed by  Baur  (Paulus,  p.  480).  The  latter  writer 
has  elaborated  and  systematized  the  attack.  The 
arguments  which  he  alleges  in  favor  of  his  view 
have  already  been  anticipated  to  a  great  extent. 
They  are  briefly  controverted  by  Liinemann,  and 
more  at  length  and  with  great  fairness  by  Jowett. 
The  following  is  a  summary  of  Baur's  arguments: 
(i.)  He  attributes  great  weight  to  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  epistle,  the  difference  of  style,  and 
especially  the  absence  of  distinctive  Pauline  3oo 
trines  —  a  peculiarity  which  has  already  been  re- 
marked upon  and  explained,  §2.  (ii. )  In  the  men- 
tion of  the  "wrath"  overtaking  the  Jewish  people 
(ii.  IG),  Baur  sees  an  allusion  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  therefore  a  proof  of  the  later  date  of 
the  epistle.  The  real  significance  of  these  words 
will  be  considered  below  in  discussing  the  apocalyp- 
tic passage  in  the  second  epistle,  (iii.)  He  urges 
the  contradictions  to  the  account  in  the  Acts --a 
strange  argument  surely  to  be  brought  forward  by 
Baur,  who  postdates  and  discredits  the  authority  of 
that  narrative.  The  real  extent  and  bearing  of 
these  divergences  has  been  already  considered,  (iv  ) 
He  discovers  references  to  the  Acts,  which  show 
that  the  epistle  was  written  later.  It  has  been 
seen  however  that  the  coincidences  are  subtle  and 


THESSALONIANS,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


3227 


Incidental,  and  the  points  of  divergence  and  prima 
facie  contradictions,  whicli  Uanr  himself  allows, 
and  indeed  insists  upon,  are  so  numerous  as  to  pre- 
clude the  supposition  of  copying.  Schleieruiacher 
(A'iW.  ins  N.  T.  p.  150)  rightly  infers  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  epistle  on  these  grounds,  (v.) 
He  supposes  passages  in  this  epistle  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  the  acknowledged  letters  of  St. 
Paul.  The  resemblances  however  which  he  points 
out  are  not  greater  than,  or  indeed  so  great  as, 
thone  in  other  epistles,  and  bear  no  traces  of  imi- 
tation. 

8.  A  list  of  the  Patristic  commentaries  compris- 
ing the  whole  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  will  be  found 
in  the  article  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ko.mans. 
To  this  list  should  be  added  the  work  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  a  portion  of  which  containing  the 
shorter  epistles  from  Galatians  onward  is  preserved 
in  a  Latin  translation.  'J'he  part  relating  to  the 
Thessalonians  is  at  present  only  accessil)le  in  the 
couipilation  of  Rabanus  Maurus  (where  it  is  quoted 
under  the  name  of  Ambrose),  which  ought  to  be 
read  with  the  corrections  and  additions  given  by 
Dom  Fitra  {Spicil.  Soltsm.  i.  p.  Vi'-i).  This  com- 
mentary is  attributed  by  Pitra  to  Hilary  of  Poi- 
tiers, but  its  true  authorship  was  pointed  out  by 
Hort  {.lournal  of  Class,  and  Sacr.  Pliil.  iv.  p. 
•30'2 ).  The  [jortion  of  Cramer's  Catena  relating  to 
this  epistle  seems  to  be  made  up  of  extracts  from 
Chrysostom,  Severianus,  and  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia. 

For  the  more  important  recent  works  on  the 
whole  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  the  reader  may  again 
be  referred  to  the  article  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans. The  notes  on  the  Thessalonians  in  Meyer's 
Commentary  are  executed  by  Liinemanu  ['-lA  ed., 
18fJ7].  Of  special  annotators  on  the  Thessaloiiian 
epistles,  the  chief  are,  in  Germany,  Flatt  (182!)), 
Pelt  (1830),  Schott  (1834),  and  Koch  (2d  ed.  1855, 
the  First  Epistle  alone),  and  in  England,  Jowett 
(2d  ed.  185Si)  and  EUicott  (2d  ed.  18G2). 

J.   B.   L. 

*  On  the  critical  questions  relating  to  this  epistle 
the  following  writers  deserve  mention:  \V.  Grimm, 
Die  Ec/ithdt  d.  Briefe  an  d.  T/iess.  (against  [Jaurj, 
in  the  Tlieol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  18.50,  pp.  75-i-816 ; 
R.  A.  Lipsius,  Ueber  Ziceck  u.  Veraidassiiiif/  des 
vsten  Thessahnicherbrie/s,  ibid.  1854,  pp.  905- 
934  (comp.  Liinemann's  criticisms,  in  Meyer's 
Komm.,  Abth.  x.  p.  5  ff.,  3^  Aufl.);  F.  C.  Baur, 
Die  beiden  Briefe  an  d.  T/iess.,  Hire  AechUieit  u. 
Bedeutung  f.  d.  Lekre  von  d.  Partisie  Christi,  in 
Baur  and  Zeller's  Tkeol.  Jahrb.  1855,  xiv.  141-109, 
reprinted  in  the  2d  ed.  of  his  Paulus  (18G7),  ii. 
341  ff. ;  Hilgenfeld,  Die  beiden  Biieje  an  d.  T/iess., 
nach  Inhall  u.  Ursprung,  in  his  ZtitschriJ't  f. 
wist.  TheoL,  1862,  v.  225-264;  J.  C.  Laurent, 
Ntutest.  Sticdien,  Gotha,  1860  (several  short  arti- 
cles); Holtzmann  in  Bunsen's  Bibeliva-/c,vm.  429- 
434  (1866);  and  Reuss,  Bleek,  and  Davidson,  in 
their  respective  Introductions.  The  so-called  "  Sec- 
nnd  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  "  is  regarded  by 
Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  Ewald.  Laurent  and  Davidson  as 
the  first  written.  Among  the  recent  Connnenta- 
ries  we  may  name  J.  C.  K.  Hofmann,  Die  lu-il. 
Schrift  N.  T.  zusammenhangend  untersuclit, 
Theil  i.  (1862);  and  C.  A.  Auberlen  and  C.  J. 
Riggenbach,  Die  beulen  Briefe  an  die  Tliess., 
Vheil  X.  of  Lange's  Bibeliuerk  (1864),  translated 
Tith  laru;e  adilitions  by  Dr.  John  Lillie,  in  vol.  viii. 
jf  the  .Vmer.  ed.  of  Lange's   Coinmenlary  (N.  Y. 


1868 ),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for  a  fuller 
view  of  the  literature  pertaining  to  this  epistle. 

A. 
THESSALONIANS,    SECOND    EPIS 
TLE  TO  THE.     (1.)  This  epistle   appears  to 
have  been  written  from  Corinth  not  very  long  after 
the  first,  for  Silvanus  and  Timotheus  were  still  with 
St.  Paul  (i.  1).     In  the  former  letter  we  saw  chiefly 
the  outpouring  of  strong  personal  affection,  occa- 
sioned by  the  renewal  of  the  Apostle's   intercourse 
with  the  Thessalonians,  and  the  doctrinal  and  hor- 
tatory portions  are  there  subordinate.     In  the  sec- 
ond epistle,  on  the  other  hand,  his  leading  motive 
seems  to  have  been  the  desire  of  correcting  errors 
in  the   Church  of  Thessalonica.      \Ve  notice  two 
points  especially  which  call  forth  his  rebuke.    Fii-st, 
it  seems  that  the  anxious  expectation  of  the  I^oi-d's 
advent,  instead  of  subsiding,  had   gained   ground 
since  the  writing  of  the  first  epistle.     They  now 
looked  upon  this  great  crisis  as  iunninent,  and  their 
daily    avocations  were    neglected    in    consequence. 
There  were  expressions  in  the  first  epistle  which, 
taken    by   themselves,   might   seem    to    favor  this 
view;  and  at  all  events    such    was    falsely  repre- 
sented   to    be    the    Apostle's    doctrine.       He  now 
writes  to  soothe  I  his  restless  spirit  and  quell  their 
apprehensions  by  showing  that  many  things  must 
ha[)pen  first,  and  that  the  end  was  not  yet,  refer- 
ring to  his  oral  teaching  at  Thessalonica  in  confir- 
mation of  this  statement  (ii.  1-12,  iii.  0-12).     Stc- 
vndly,  the  Apostle  had  also  a  persomd  ground  of 
complaint.     His  authority  was  not  denied  by  any, 
but  it  was  tampered  with,  and  an  unauthorized  use 
was  made  of  his  name.     It  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
the  exact  circumstances  of  the  case  from  casual  and 
indirect  allusions,  and  indeed  we  may  perhaps  infer 
from  the  vagueness  of  the  Apostle's  own  language 
that  he  himself  was  not  in  possession  of  definite  in- 
formation;    but  at  all   events  his  suspicions  were 
aroused.     Designing  men  might  misrepresent  his 
teaching  in  two  ways,  either  by  suppressing  what 
he  actually  had  written  or  said,  or  by  forging  letters 
and   in  other  ways  representing  him  as   teaching 
what    he  had   not  taught.     St.    Paul's    language 
hints   in   different  places  at  both   these  modfs  of 
false    dealing.       He    seems    to   have    entertained 
suspicions  of  this  dishonesty  even  when  he  wrote 
the  first  epistle.     At  the  close  of  that  e[)istle  he 
binds  the  Thessalonians  by   a   solemn   oath.   "  in 
the  name  of  the  I.,ord,"  to  see  that   the  epistle  is 
read  "  to  all  the  holy  brethren  "  (v.  27)  — a  charge 
unintelligible  in  itself,  and  only  to  be  explained  by 
supposing  some  misgivings  in  the  Apostle's  mind. 
Before  the  second  epistle  is  written,  his  suspicions 
seem  to  have  been  confirmed,  for  there  are  two  pas- 
sages which  allude  to  these  misrepresentations  of 
his  teaching.     In  the  first  of  these  he  tells  them 
in  vague  language,  which  may  refer  equally  well  to 
a  false  interpretation  put  upon  his  own  words  in 
the  first  epistle,  or  to  a  supplemental  letter  forged 
in  his  name,  "  not  to  be  trouliled  either  by  spirit 
or  by  word  or  by  letter,  as  coming  from  us,  as  if 
the  day  of  the  I^ord  were  at  hand."      They  are  not 
to  be  deceived,  he  adds,  by  any  one  whatever  means 
he  employs   {Kara  fir)S4va   Tp6iToi',   ii-  2,  3).     In 
the  second  passage  at  the  close  of  the  epistle  h« 
says,  "  the  salutation  of  Paul  with  mine  own  hand, 
which  is  a  token   in   every  epistle;    so  I  write" 
(ni.  17)  —  evidently  a  precaution  against  forgery. 
With  these  two  passages  should  be  combined  the 
expression  in  iii.  14,  from  which  v.-e  infer  tkat  h« 
now  entertained  a  fear  of  direct  opposition :  "  II 


8228 


THESSALONIANS.  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ail}'  mail  obey  not  our  word  conveyed  by  our 
?l)istle,  note  that  man." 

It  will  be  seen  then  that  the  teaching  of  the 
second  epistle  is  corrective  of,  or  rather  supple- 
mental to,  that  of  the  first,  and  therefore  jiresiip- 
poses  it.  Moreover,  the  first  epistle  bears  on  its 
face  evidence  that  it  is  the  first  outpouring  of  his 
affectionate  yearnings  towards  his  converts  after  his 
departure  from  Thessalonica;  while  on  the  other 
hand  the  second  epistle  contains  a  direct  allusion 
to  a  pre\'ious  letter,  which  may  suitably  be  referred 
to  the  first:  "Hold  fast  the  tradition  which  ye 
were  taught  either  by  word  or  by  letter  from  us  " 
(ii.  15).  We  can  scarcely  be  wrong  therefore  in 
maintaining  the  received  order  of  the  two  epistles. 
It  is  due  however  to  the  great  names  of  Grotius 
and  of  Ewald  [Ja/irb.  iii.  p.  250;  Sendschr.  p. 
16)  to  mention  that  they  reverse  the  order,  placing 
the  second  epistle  before  the  fiist  in  point  of  time 
—  on  different  grounds  indeed,  but  both  equally 
insufficient  to  disturb  the  traditional  order,  sup- 
ported as  it  is  by  the  considerations  already  al- 
leged. 

(2. )  This  epistle,  in  the  range  of  subject  as  well 
as  in  style  and  general  character,  closely  resembles 
the  first;  and  the  remarks  made  on  that  epistle 
apply  for  the  most  part  equally  well  to  this.  The 
structure  also  is  somewhat  similar,  the  main  body 
of  the  epistle  being  divided  into  two  parts  in  the 
same  way,  and  each  part  closing  with  a  prayer 
(ii.  ]G,  17,  iii.  16;  both  commencing  with  avrhs 
5e  6  Kvpios)-  The  following  is  a  table  of  con- 
tents :  — 

The  opening  salutation  (i.  1,  2). 
1.  A  general  expression  of  thankfulness  and  in- 
terest, leading  up  to  the  difficulty  about  the  Lord's 
advent  (i.  3-ii.  17). 

(1.)  rhe  Apostle  pours  forth  his  thanksgiving 
for  their  progress  in  the  faith ;  he  en- 
courages them  to  be  patient  under  per- 
secution, reminding  them  of  the  judg- 
ment to  come,  and  prays  that  they 
may  be  prepared  to  meet  it  (i.  .3-12). 
(2.)  He  is  thus  led  to  correct  the  erroneous 
idea  that  the  judgment  is  imminent, 
pointing  out  that  much  must  happen 
first  (ii.  1-12). 
^  (3.)  He  repeats  his  thanksgiving  and  exhorta- 
tion, and  concludes  this  portion  with 
a. prayer  (ii.  13-17). 

?.   Direct  exhortation   (iii.  1-16). 

(1.)   He  urges  them  to  pray  for  him,  and  con- 
fidently anticipates   their  progress  in 
the  faith  (iii.  1-5). 
(2.)  He  reproves  the  idle,  disorderly,  and  dis- 
obedient, and  charges  the  faithful  to 
withdraw  from  such  (iii.  C-15). 
This  portion  again  closes  with  a  prayer  (iii. 
16). 
Tilt-  epistle  ends  with  a  special  direction    and 
benediction  (iii.  17,  18). 

(3.)  The  external  evidence  in  favor  of  the  sec- 
end  epistle  is  somewhat  more  definite  than  that 
which  can  be  brought  in  favor  of  the  first.  It 
Boems  to  be  referred  to  in  one  or  two  passages  of 
I'olycarp  (iii.  15,  in  Polyc.  c.  II,  and  possibly  i.  4 
ui  the  same  chapter;  cf.  Poljc.  c.  3,  and  see  Gard- 
ner, pt.  ii.  c.  6);  and  the  language  in  which  .Justin 
JNIartyr  (Diiil.  p.  336  i>)  speaks  of  the  Man  of  Sin 
Is  30  similar  that  it  can  scarcely  be  independent  of 


this  epistle.  The  second  epistle,  like  the  first,  li 
found  in  the  canons  of  the  Syriac  and  Old  Laiin 
Versions,  and  in  those  of  the  Muratorian  fragment 
and  of  the  heretic  Marcion ;  is  quoted  expressly 
and  by  name  by  Irena>us  and  others  at  the  close 
of  the  second  century,  and  was  universally  received 
by  the  Church.  The  internal  character  of  the 
epistle  too,  as  in  the  farmer  case,  bears  the  strong- 
est testimony  to  its  Pauline  origin.  (See  Jowett, 
143.) 

Its  genuineness  in  fact  was  never  queslioned 
until  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  Ob- 
jections were  first  started  by  Christ.  Schmidt  (Hnl. 
ins  N.  T.  1804).  He  has  been  followed  by  Schra- 
der  (Apostel  Panlus),  Kern  (Tiibi/ir/.  Ztitschr.  f. 
T/ieoi:  1839,  ii.  p.  145),  and  Baur  (Piiuhis  citr 
Aposiel).  De  AVette  at  first  condemned  this  epistle, 
but  afterward  withdrew  his  condemnation  and 
frankly  accepted  it  as  genuine. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  this  episfle  has  been  re- 
jected by  some  modem  critics  who  acknowledge  the 
first  to  be  genuine.  Such  critics  of  course  attrib- 
ute no  weight  to  arguments  brought  against  the 
first,  such  as  we  have  considered  already.  The  ajwc- 
alyptic  passage  (ii.  1-12)  is  the  great  stunililing- 
block  to  tiiem.  It  has  been  objected  to,  either  as 
alluding  to  events  sulisequeiit  to  St.  Paul's  death, 
the  Neronian  persecution,  for  instance;  or  as  be- 
traying religious  views  derived  from  theMontanism 
of  the  second  century;  or  lastly,  as  contradicting 
St.  Paul's  anticipations  expressed  elsewhere,  espe- 
cially in  the  first  epistle,  of  the  near  approach  of 
the  Lord's  advent.  That  there  is  no  reference  to 
Nero,  we  shall  endeavor  to  show  presently.  That 
the  doctrine  of  an  Antichrist  did  not  start  into 
being  with  Jlontanism,  is  shown  from  the  allusions 
of  Jewisli  writers  even  before  the  Christian  era 
(see  Bertholdt,  Christ,  p  6'J;  Gfrilrer,  J<ihrb.  des 
fhils,  pt.  ii.  p.  257);  and  appears  still  more  clearly 
from  the  passage  of  Justin  JIartyr  referred  to  in  a 
former  paragraph.  That  the  language  used  of  the 
Lord's  coming  in  the  second  epistle  does  not  con- 
tradict, but  rather  supjilement  the  teaching  of  the 
first  —  postpoiung  the  day  indeed,  but  still  antici- 
pating its  approach  as  probable  within  the  Apostle's 
lifetime — may  be  gathered  both  from  expressions 
in  the  passage  itself  (e.  g.  ver.  7,  ''is  already 
working"),  and  from  other  parts  of  the  epistle 
(i.  7,  8).  Other  special  dejections  to  the  epistle 
will  scarcely  command  a  hearing,  and  must  neces- 
sarily be-  passed  over  here. 

(4.)  The  most  striking  feature  in  the  epistle  is 
this  apocalyptic  passage,  announcing  the  revelation 
of  the  "  Man  of  Sin  "  (ii.  1-12);  and  it  will  not  be 
irrelevant  to  investigate  its  meaning,  bearing  as  it 
does  on  the  circumstances  under  which  the  epistle 
was  written,  and  illustrating  this  aspect  of  the 
Apostle's  teaching.  He  had  dwelt  much  on  the 
sul  ject ;  for  he  appeals  to  the  Thessalonians  as  know- 
ing this  truth,  and  reminds  them  that  he  had  told 
them  these  things  when  he  was  yet  with  them. 

(I.)  The  passage  speaks  of  a  great  apostasy  which 
is  to  usher  in  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  great  judg- 
ment. There  are  three  prominent  figures  in  the 
picture,  Christ,  Antichrist,  and  the  Kestrainer. 
Antichrist  is  descrilied  as  the  Man  of  Sin,  the  Son 
of  Perdition,  as  the  .Adversary  who  exalteth  himself 
above  all  that  is  called  God,  as  making  himself  out 
to  be  God.  Later  on  (for  apparently  the  reference 
is  the  same)  he  is  styled  the  "mystery  of  lawless- 
ness," "the  lawless  one."  The  Kestrainer  is  in 
one  place  spoken  of  in  the  niascuhne  as  a  person 


THESSALONIANS,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


3229 


id  'caTex'*"')'  ''^  another  in  the  neuter  as  a  power, 
vn  influence  (rb  Karexov)-  Ihe  "  mystery  of  law- 
jssness  "  is  already  at  work.  At  present  it  is 
shecked  iiy  the  Kestrainer;  but  the  check  will  lie  re- 
moved, and  then  it  will  lireak  out  in  all  its  violence. 
Then  (Jhrist  will  appear,  and  the  enemy  shall  he 
consumed  liy  the  breath  of  his  mouth,  shall  be 
brouiiht  to  naught  by  the  splendor  of  his  presence. 
(11.)  Many  different  explanations  have  been 
offered  of  this  passage.  By  one  class  of  interpreters 
it  has  been  referred  to  circumstances  which  passed 
within  the  circle  of  the  Apostle's  own  exjierience, 
the  events  of  his  own  lifetime,  or  the  period  im- 
mediately followin£j.  Others  ajjain  have  seen  in  it 
the  prediction  of  a  crisis  yet  to  be  realized,  the  end 
of  all  things.  The  former  of  these,  the  Frseterists, 
have  identified  the  "  Man  of  Sin  "  with  divers  his- 
torical characters  —  with  Caligula,  Nero,  Titus, 
Simon  Magus,  Simon  son  of  Giora,  the  high-priest 
Ananias,  etc.,  and  have  sought  for  a  historical  coun- 
terpart to  the  Restrainer  in  like  manner.  The  lat- 
ter, the  Futurists,  have  also  given  various  accounts 
of  the  Antichrist,  the  mysterious  power  of  evil  which 
is  already  working.  To  Protestants,  for  instance, 
it  is  the  Papacy;  to  the  Greek  Church,  Moham- 
medanism. And  in  the  same  way  each  generation 
and  each  section  in  the  Church  has  regarded  it  as 
a  prophecy  of  that  particular  power  which  seemed 
to  them  and  in  their  own  time  to  be  most  fraught 
with  evil  to  the  true  faith.  A  good  account  of 
these  manifold  interpretations  will  be  found  in 
Liinemann's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle,  p.  204; 
Scldussbem.  zu  ii.  1-12.  See  also  Alford,  Prole;/. 
(HI.)  Now  in  arbitrating  between  the  Prseterists 
and  the  Futurists,  we  are  led  by  the  analogy  of 
other  prophetic  aTmouncements,  as  well  as  by  the 
language  of  the  passage  itself,  to  take  a  middle 
coarse.  Neither  is  wholly  right,  and  yet  both  are 
to  a  certain  extent  right.  It  is  the  special  charac- 
teristic of  prophecy  to  speak  of  the  distant  future 
through  the  present  and  immediate.  The  persons 
and  events  falling  within  the  horizon  of  the  proph- 
et's own  view,  are  the  types  and  representatives  of 
greater  fiijures  and  crises  far  otF,  and  as  yet  but 
dimly  disceuned.  Thus  the  older  prophet??,  while 
speaking  of  a  delivery  from  the  temporary  oppres- 
sion of  Egypt  or  Babylon,  spoke  also  of  Messiah's 
kingdom.  Thus  our  Ivord  himself,  foretelling  the 
doom  which  was  even  then  hanging  over  the  holy 
city,  glances  at  the  future  judgment  of  the  world 
as  typified  and  portrayed  in  this ;  and  the  two  are 
so  iiiterwoveii  that  it  is  impossible  to  disentangle 
them.  Following  this  analoijy,  we  may  agree  with 
the  Prseterists  that  St.  Paul  is  referring  to  events 
which  fell  under  his  own  cognizance;  for  indeed 
the  Restrainer  is  said  to  be  restraining  now,  and 
the  mystery  of  iniquity  to  be  already  working:  while 
mt  the  same  time  we  may  accejit  the  Futurist  view, 
that  the  Apostle  is  describing  the  end  of  all  things, 
and  that  therefore  the  prophecy  has  not  yet  received 
Its  most  striking  and  complete  fulfillment.  This 
commingling  of  the  immediate  and  partial  with  the 
final  and  universal  manifestation  of  God's  judg- 
ments, characteristic  of  all  prophecy,  is  rendei'ed 
more  easy  in  St.  Paul's  case,  because  he  seems  to 
have  contemplated  the  end  of  all  things  as  possibly, 
9r  even  probably,  near  at  hand ;  and  therefore  the 
particular  manifestation  of  Antichrist,  which  he 
witnessed  with  his  own  eyes,  would  naturally  be . 
merged  in  and  identified  with  the  final  Antichrist,  i 
'M  which  the  opposition  to  the  Gosi)el  will  cul- 
ciuate.  I 


(IV.)  If  this  view  be  correct,  it  remains  to  in- 
quire what  particular  adversary  of  the  Gospel,  and 
what  particular  restraining  infiuence,  St.  Paul  may 
have  had  in  view.  But,  before  attempting  to  ap- 
proximate to  an  explanation,  we  may  clear  the  waj 
by  laying  down  two  rules.  First.  The  imagery  of 
the  passage  must  be  interpreted  mainly  by  itself, 
and  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time.  The  symbols 
may  be  borrowed  in  some  cases  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament; they  may  reappear  in  other  parts  of  the 
New.  But  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  same  image 
denotes  exactly  the  same  thhig  in  both  cases.  The 
language  describing  the  Man  of  Sin  is  borrowed  to 
some  extent  from  the  representation  of  AiitioMuis 
Epiphanes  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  but  Antiochus 
cannot  be  meant  there.  The  great  adversary  in  the 
Kevelation  seems  to  he  the  Roman  power;  but  it 
may  be  widely  different  here.  There  were  eveii  in 
the  Apostolic  age  "many  Antichrists;''  and  we 
cannot  be  sure  that  the  Antichrist  present  to  the 
mind  of  St.  Paul  was  the  same  with  the  Antichrist 
contemplated  by  St.  John.  Secondly.  In  all  figu- 
rative passages  it  is  arbitrary  to  assume  that  a 
person  is  denoted  where  we  find  a  personification. 
Thus  the  ''  Man  of  Sin  "  here  need  not  be  an  in- 
dividual man ;  it  may  be  a  body  of  men,  or  a  power, 
a  spiritual  influence.  In  the  case  of  the  Restrainer 
we  seem  to  have  positive  ground  for  so  interpreting 
it,  since  in  one  passage  the  neuter  gender  is  used, 
"the  thing  which  restraineth  "  {rh  Karexoj'),  as 
if  synonymous.  (See  Jowett's  Essny  on  the  Jfan 
of  ISin,  i.  178,  rather  for  suggestions  as  to  the 
mode  of  interpretation,  than  for  the  conclusion  he 
arri\'es  ^t. ) 

(V.)  'When  we  inquire  then,  what  St.  Paul  had 
in  view  when  he  spoke  of  the  "  Man  of  Sin  "  and 
the  Restrainer,  we  can  oidy  hope  to  get  even  an 
approximate  answer  by  investigating  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Apostle's  life  at  this  epoch.  Now 
we  find  that  the  chief  opposition  to  the  Gospel,  and 
especially  to  St.  Paul's  preaching  at  this  time, arose 
from  the  .lews.  The  Jews  had  conspired  against 
the  Apostle  and  his  companions  at  Thessalonica, 
and  he  only  saved  himself  by  secret  flight.  Thence 
they  followed  him  to  Beroea,  which  he  hurriedly 
left  in  the  same  way.  At  Corinth,  whence  the  let- 
ters to  the  Thessalonians  were  written,  they  perse- 
cuted him  still  further,  raising  a  cry  of  treason 
against  him,  and  bringing  him  before  the  lioni^ 
proconsul.  These  incidents  explain  the  strong  ex- 
pressions he  uses  of  them  in  these  epistles:  "  They 
slew  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  prophets,  and  perse- 
cuted the  Apostles;  they  are  hateful  to  God;  they 
are  the  common  enemies  of  mankind,  whom  the 
Divine  wrath  (^  opy-fj)  at  length  overtakes  "  (I 
Thess.  ii.  15,  IG).  With  these  fsvcts  in  view,  it 
seems  on  the  whole  probable  that  the  Antichrist  is 
represented  especially  by  Judaism.  With  a  pro- 
phetic insight  the  Apostle  foresaw,  as  he  contem- 
I)lated  the  moral  and  political  condition  of  the  race, 
the  approach  of  a  great  and  overwhelming  catastro- 
phe. And  it  is  not  improbable  that  our  lord's 
predictions  of  the  vengeance  which  threatened  Jeru- 
salem blended  with  the  Apostle's  vision,  and  tjave 
a  color  to  this  passage.  If  it  seem  strange  that 
"lawlessness"  should  be  mentioned  as  the  distin- 
guishing feature  of  those  whose  very  zeal  for  "  the 
L.aw"  stimulated  their  opposition  to  the  (Jospel,  we 
may  appeal  to  our  Ix)rd's  own  words  (Matt,  xxiii. 
28),  describing  the  Jewish  teachers :  "  within  they 
are  full  of  hypocrisy  and  lawlessness  (ai/o/xias)-" 
Corresponding  to  this  view  of  the  Antichrist,  ave 


3230 


THESSALONICA 


mall  probaliiy  be  correct  in  reganlini;  the  Roman 
Empire  as  tlie  restraining  power,  for  so  it  was  taken 
by  many  of  the  Fathers,  thouirh  without  altotjether 
understanding  its  bearing.  It  was  to  Koman  justice 
and  Roman  magistrates  that  the  Apostle  had  re- 
course at  this  time  to  shield  him  from  tlie  enmity 
of  the  Jews,  and  to  check  their  violence.  At 
Philippi,  his  Roman  citizenship  extorted  an  ample 
apology  for  ill-treatment.  At  Thessalonica,  Roman 
law  secured  him  fair  play.  At  Corinth,  a  Roman 
proconsul  acquitted  him  of  frivolous  charges  broui^ht 
by  the  Jews.  It  was  only  at  a  later  date  under 
Nero,  that  Rome  became  the  antagonist  of  Chris- 
tendom, and  then  she  also  in  turn  was  fitly  jior- 
trayed  by  St.  John  as  the  tyjie  of  Antichrist. 
Wiiether  the  Jewish  opposition  to  the  Gospel  entirely 
exhausted  St.  Paul's  conception  of  the  "mastery 
of  lawlessness"  as  he  saw  it  "  already  working  " 
in  his  own  day,  or  whether  other  elements  did  not 
also  combine  with  this  to  complete  the  idea,  it  is 
impossible  to  say.  INIoreover  at  this  distance  of 
time  and  with  our  imperfect  information,  we  cannot 
hope  to  explain  the  exact  bearing  of  all  the  details 
in  the  picture.  But  following  the  guidance  of  his- 
tory, we  seem  justified  in  adopting  this  as  a  prol)- 
able,  though  only  a  partial,  explanation  of  a  very 
difficult  passage.     [AxTicmusr.] 

5.  A  list  of  commentaries  has  been  given  in  the 
article  on  the  First  I'^sistle.  J.  B-  I.- 

THESSALONl'CA  {Qfaa-aXoviK-n)-  The 
oriiiinal  name  of  this  city  was  Therma;  and  that 
part  of  the  Macedonian  shore  on  which  it  was 
situated  ("  Medio  flexu  litoris  sinus  Thermaici," 
Flin.  ff.  jV.  iv.  10)  retained  through  the  Roman 
period  the  designation  of  the  'I'hermaic  Gulf.  The 
history  of  the  city  under  its  earlier  name  was  of  no 
great  note  (see  Herod,  vii.  128  ff. ;  Thucyd.  i.  01, 
\\.  -29;  .-Esch.  De  fnls.  Ley.  p.  31).  It  ro.se  into 
importance  with  the  decay  of  Greek  nationality. 
Cassander  the  son  of  Antipater  rebuilt  and  enlaigecl 
it.  and  named  it  after  his  wife  Thessalonica,  the 
Bister  of  Alexander  the  Great.  The  first  author 
in  which  the  new  appellation  occurs  is  Polyliius 
(xxiii.  4).  The  name  ever  since,  under  various 
Blii;ht  modifications,  has  been  continuous,  and  the 
city  itself  has  never  ceased  to  be  eminent.  Sabnilci 
(though  Adrianople  may  possibly  be  larger)  is  still 
the  most  important  town  of  European  Turkey,  next 
rfter  Constantinople. 

Under  the  Romans,  when  Macedonia  was  di- 
vided into  four  governments,  Thessalonica  was  made 
the  capital  of  the  second  (Liv.  xlv.  29);  afterwards, 
when  the  whole  was  consolidated  into  one  province, 
this  city  became  practically  the  metropolis.  Notices 
of  the  place  now  become  frequent.  Cicero  was  here 
in  his  exile  {jiro  Plane.  4-1),  and  some  of  his  letters 
were  written  from  hence  during  his  journeys  to  and 
from  his  own  province  of  Cilicia.  During  the  first 
Civil  War  it  was  the  headquarters  of  the  Ponipeian 
party  and  the  Senate  (Dion  Cass.  xli.  20).  During 
the  second  it  took  the  side  of  Octavius  (Pint.  Bruf. 
4G;  Appian,  B.  C.  iv.  118),  whence  apparently  it 
reaped  the  honor  and  advantage  of  being  made  a 
"free  city"  (libera  civitas,  Plin.  I.  c),  a  privilesfe 
which  is  commemorated  on  some  of  its  coins. 
Strabo  in  the  first  century  speaks  of  Thessalonica 

a  Timothy  is  not  mentioned  in  any  part  of  the 
lirect  narrative  of  what  happened  at  Thessalonica, 
.hough  he  appears  as  St.  Paul's  companion  before  at 
Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  1-13),  and  afterwards  at  Beroea 
'xTii.  H,  15);  but  from  his  subsequent  mission   to 


THESSALONICA 

as  the  most  pojuilous  city  in  Macedonia  (ndKiCrTo 
Twv  aWaiu  euavSpei),  similar  language  to  whicV 
is  used  by  Lucian  in  the  second  century  {Asiii. 
461. 

Thus  we  are  brought  to  St.  Paul's  visit  (witl 
Silas  and  Timothy)  «  during  his  second  missionary 
journey,  and  to   the  introduction  of  Christianity 
into  Thessalonica.     Three  circumstances  must  here 
be    mentioned,   which   ilhistrate   in   an   important 
manner  this  visit  and   this  journey,  as  well  as  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  which  (he  Apostle 
wrote  from  Corinth  very  soon   after  his  departure 
from  his  new  Macedonian  converts.     (1.)  This  was 
the  chief  station  on  the  great  Roman  Road,  called 
the  Via  KtjiKida,  which  connected  Rome  with  the 
whole  region  to  the  north  of  the  vEgean  Sea.     St. 
Paul  was  on  this  road  at  Nkapolis  (Acts  xvi.  11^ 
and  PiTiMiTi  (xvi.  12-40),  and  his  route  from  the 
latter  place  (xvii.  1)  had  broushl  him  through  two 
of  the  well-known  minor  stations  mentioned  in  the 
Itineraries.     [Ajiphii'olis  ;    Apollojjia.]     (2.) 
Placed  as  it  was  on  this  great  road,  and  in   con- 
nection with  other  important  Roman  ways  ("posita 
in  gremio  imperii  Romani,"  to  use  Cicero's  words), 
Thessalonica  was  an  invahialjle  centre  for  the  spread 
of  the  Gospel.     And  it  must  be  remembered  that, 
besides    its    inland    comnnmication   with   the   rich 
plains  of  Macedonia  and  with  far  more  remote  re- 
gions, its  maritime  position   made  it  a  great  em- 
porium  of.  trade  by  sea.      In  fact  it  was  nearly,  if 
not  quite,  on  a  level  with  Corinth  and  I'2phesus  in 
its  share  of  the  commerce  of  the  Levant.     Thus  we 
see  the  foice  of  what  St.    Paul  says   in  his  first 
epistle,   shortly   after    leaving    Thessalonica  —  ac/>' 
vjxwv  i^rixV'^^  ^  \6yos  rov  Kvpiov  ov  fiSvov  iv 
rfj  MaK^Sovia  koI   eV  t?7   'Axaia,  aAA'   iv  ttuvtI 
T(irrw  (i.  8).      (3.)  The  circumstance  noted  in  Acts 
xvii.  1,  that  here  was  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews 
in  this  part  of  Macedonia,  had  evidently  much  to 
do  with  the  Apostle's  plans,  and  also  doubtless  with 
his  success.     Trade  would  inevitably  bring  Jews  to 
Thessalonica:  and  it  is  remarkable  that,  ever  since, 
they  have  had  a  prominent  place  in  the  annals  of 
the  city.     They  are  mentioned  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury dicing  the  Sclavonic  wars;  and  again  in  the 
twelfth  by  Eustathius  and  Benjamin  of  Tudela.    In 
the  fifteenth  century  there  was  a  great  influx  of 
Spanish  .lews.     At  the  jiresent  day  tiie  numbers 
of  residents  in  the  Jewish  quarter  (in  the  south- 
east part  of  the  town)  are  estimated  at   10,000  or 
20,000,  out  of  an  aggregate  population  of  60,000 
or  70,000. 

The  first  scene  of  the  Apostle's  work  at  Thessa- 
lonica was  the  Synagogue.  According  to  his  custom 
he  began  there,  arguing  from  the  Ancient  Scrip- 
tures (Acts  xvii.  2,  3):  and  the  same  general  results 
followed,  as  in  other  places.  Some  believed,  both 
Jews  and  proselytes,  and  it  is  particularly  adced, 
that  among  these  were  many  influential  women 
(ver.  4);  on  which  the  general  body  of  the  Jews, 
stirred  up  with  jealousy,  excited  the  Gentile  popu- 
lation to  persecute  Paul  and  Silas  (vv.  5-10).  It 
is  stated  that  the  ministrations  among  the  Jews 
continued  for  three  weeks  (ver.  2).  Not  that  we 
are  oliliged  to  limit  to  this  time  the  whole  stay  of 
the  Apostles  at  Thessalonica.    A  flourishing  church 


Thessalonica  (1  Thess.  iii.  1-7  ;  see  Acts  xviii.  5),  and 
the  mention  of  his  name  in  the  opening  salutation  ft 
both  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  we  can  hardij 
doubt  that  he  had  been  with  the  Apostle  throagtt 
out. 


THESSALONICA 

WM  certainly  formed  there:  and  the  epistles  show 
that  its  elements  were  much  more  (Jentile  than 
Jewish.  St.  I'aiil  speaks  of  the  Thessalunians  as 
having  turned  "from  idols;"  and  he  does  not  here, 
as  in  otlier  epistles,  quote  the  Jewisli  Scriptures. 
In  all  respects  it  is  important  to  compare  tliese  two 
letters  with  the  narrative  in  the  Acts;  and  such 
references  have  the  greater  freshness  from  the  short 
interval  which  elapsed  between  visiting  the  Thessa- 
lonians  and  writing  to  them.  Such  expressions  as 
eV  e\i\p€i  TToWfj  (1  Thess.  i.  6),  and  iv  iroXKcS 
aywut  (ii.  2),  sum  up  the  suffering  and  conflict 
which  I'aul  and  Silas  and  their  converts  we)it 
through  at  Thessalonica.  (See  also  1  Thess.  ii.  14, 
15.  iii.  ;J,  4;  2  Thess.  i.  4-7.)  The  persecution  took 
place  through  the  instrumentality  of  wortliless  idlers 
irciv  ayopaiuiv  &i/Spas  rivets  Ttovripovs,  Acts  xvii. 
5),  who,  instigated  by  the  Jews,  rai.sed  a  tumult. 
The  house  of  Jason,  with  whom  the  Apostles  seem 


THESSALONICA 


3231 


to  have  been  residing,  was  attacked ;  they  themselves 
were  not  found,  but  Jason  was  brought  before  the 
authorities  on  the  accusation  that  the  Christiana 
were  trying  to  set  up  a  new  King  in  opposition  to 
the  Emperor;  a  guarantee  {rb  lKav6i')  was  taken 
from  Jason  and  otliers  for  the  maintenaijce  of  the 
peace,  and  Paul  and  Silas  were  sent  away  Ijy  night 
southwards  to  Bekcea  (Acts  xvii.  5-10).  The 
particular  charge  brought  against  the  Apostles  re- 
ceives an  illustration  from  the  epistles,  where  the 
kinijdoiH  of  Christ  is  prominently  mentioned  (I 
Thess  ii.  12;  2  Thess.  i.  5).  So  again,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Hesurrectiou  is  conspicuous  both  in  St.  Luke's 
narrative  (xvii.  3),  and  in  the  first  letter  (i.  10,  iv.  14, 
16 ).  If  we  pass  from  these  points  to  such  as  are  per- 
sonal, we  are  enabled  from  the  epistles  to  complete 
the  picture  of  St.  Paul's  conduct  and  attitude  at 
Thessalonica,  as  regards  his  love,  tenderness,  and 
zeal,  his  care  of  individual  souls,  and  his  disinterest- 


Tbes.°alouica. 


edness  (see  1  Thess.  i.  5,  ii.  1-10).  As  to  this  last 
point,  St.  Paul  was  partly  supported  here  by  con- 
tributions from  Philippi  (Phil.  iv.  15,  16),  partly  by 
the  labor  of  his  own  hands,  which  he  diligently 
practiced  for  the  sake  of  the  better  success  of  the 
Gospel,  and  that  he  might  set  an  exam])le  to  the 
idle  and  saltish.  (He  refers  very  expressly  to  what 
he  had  said  and  dfme  at  Thessalonica  in  regard  to 
this  point.  See  1  Thess.  ii.  9,  iv.  11;  comparing 
2  Thess.  iii.  8-12.)  [Thessalonians,  Ki'isti>es 
TO.]  To  complete  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  con- 
nection with  'Thessalonica,  it  must  be  noticed  that 
he  was  certainly  there  again,  though  the  name  of 
the  city  is  not  specified,  on  his  third  missionary 
journey,  both  in  going  and  returning  (Acts  xx. 
1-3).  Possibly  he  was  also  there  again,  after  his 
dberation  from  his  first  imprisonment.  See  Phil.  i. 
29,  26,  ii.  24,  for  the  hope  of  revisiting  Macedonia, 
entertained  by  the  Apostle  at  Home,  and  1  Tim.  i. 
3;  2  Tim.  iv.  13;  Tit.  iii.  12,  for  subsequent  jour- 
neys ill  the  neighborhood  of  Thessalonica. 


Of  the  first  Christians  of  Tliessalonica,  we  aie 
able  to  specify  by  name  the  above-mentioned  Jason 
(who  may  be  the  same  as  the  Apostle's  own  kins- 
man mentioned  in  Kom.  xvi  21),  Demas  (at  least 
conjecturally ;  see  2  Tim.  iv.  10),  Gains,  who  shareJ 
some  of  St.  Paul's  perils  at  Ephesus  (Acts  six.  2t/), 
Secundus  (who  accomjianied  him  from  Alacedonia 
to  Asia  on  the  eastward  route  of  iiis  third  missionary 
journey,  and  was  probably  concerned  in  the  business 
of  the  collection;  see  Acts  xx.  4),  and  especially 
Aristarchus  (who,  besides  being  mentioned  here 
with  Secundus,  accompanied  St.  Paul  on  his  voyagfe 
to  Pome,  and  had  therefore  probably  been  with  him 
during  the  whole  interval,  and  is  also  specially  re- 
ferred to  in  two  of  the  epistles  written  during  the 
first  Roman  imprisonment.  See  Acts  xxvii.  2; 
Col.  iv.  10;  Philem.  24;  also  Acts  xix.  29.  for  his 
association  with  the  Apostle  at  Ephesus  in  the  ear- 
lier ])art  of  the  third  journey). 

\Ve  must  recur,  however,  to  the  narrative  in  the 
Acts,  for  the  purpose  of  iKticiug  a  siii;^ul.rly  aocu- 


3232 


THESSALONICA 


rate  illustration  which  it  affords  of  the  pohtical 
constitution  of  Thessalonica.  Not  only  is  the  i/i^iius 
mentioned  (rhu  STj/j.oi',  Acts  xvii.  5)  in  harmony 
with  what  has  been  above  said  of  its  being  a  "free 
city,"  but  the  peculiar  title, politarcl/s  {TroAiToipxas, 
ib.  6),  of  the  chief  magistrates.  This  term  occurs 
in  no  other  writing;  but  it  may  be  read  to  this 
day  conspicuously  on  an  arch  of  the  early  imperial 
times,  which  spans  the  main  street  of  the  city. 
From  this  inscription  it  would  appear  that  the 
numlier  of  politarchs  was  seven.  The  whole  may 
be  seen  in  Boeckh,  Corp.  Insc.  No.  1907. 

This  seems  the  right  place  for  noticing  the  other 
remains  at  Thessalonica.  The  arch  first  mentioned 
(called  the  Fa/rWr  gate)  is  at  the  western  extremity 
of  the  town.  At  its  eastern  extremity  is  another 
Roman  arch  of  later  date,  and  probably  commemo- 
rating some  victory  of  Constantine.  The  main 
street,  which  both  these  arches  cross,  and  which 
intersects  the  city  from  east  to  west,  is  undoubtedly 
the  lins  of  the  Via  lupintiit.  Near  the  course  of 
this  street,  and  between  the  two  arches,  are  four 
Corinthian  columns  supporting  an  architrave,  and 
believed  by  some  to  have  belonged  to  the  Hippo- 
drome, which  is  .so  famous  in  connection  with  the 
li.siory  of  Theodosius.  Two  of  the  mosques  ha\e 
been  anciently  he.athen  temples.  The  city  walls  are 
of  late  Creek  construction,  but  resting  on  a  much 
older  Ibundation,   with  hewn    stones  of    immense 


Coin  of  Thessalonica. 

thickness.  The  castle  contains  the  fragments  of  a 
shattered  triumphal  arch,  erected  in  the  reign  of 
Marcus  Aurelius. 

A  word  must  be  said,  in  conclusion,  on  the  later 
ecclesiastical  history  of  'I'hessalonica.  For  during 
several  centuries  this  city  was  the  bulwark,  not 
simply  of  the  later  Greek  Empire,  but  of  oriental 
Christendom,  and  was  largely  instrumental  in  the 
conversion  of  the  Slavonians  and  Bulgarians  Thus 
it  leceivfd  the  designation  of  '-the  Orthodox  City;" 
and  its  struggles  are  very  prominent  in  the  writings 
of  the  Byzantine  liistorians.  Three  conspicuous 
passages  are,  its  capture  by  the  .Saracens,  A.  d.  'J04 
(Jo  Cameniata,  De  Excidio  Thessalunicensi,  with 
Tln;ophanes  Continuatus,  1838);  by  the  Crusaders 
in  1185  (Nicetas  Choniates,  Be  Andron.  Comneno, 
1835 ;  also  Fustath.  L)e  Thessalonicd  a  L'ltinis 
c(ij)l('i,  in  the  same  vol.  with  Leo  Gramniaticus, 
1842):  and  finally  by  the  Turks  under  Aniurath 
II.  in  1430  f.Jo.  Anagnostes,  Ue  Tliessalonlcciisi 
F.xcidio  Narrdtio,  with  Phrantzes  and  Cananus, 
18-38).  The  references  are  to  the  Bonn  editions. 
A  very  large  part  of  the  population  at  the  present 
day  is  Greek;  and  Thessalonica  may  still  be  destined 
to  take  a  prominent  part  in  struggles  connected 
with  nationality  and  religion. 


«  *  The  Notes  upon  the  Geos:raphn  of  Macedonin, 
by  Rev.  E.  M.  Dodd,  Bibl.  Sucra,  xi.  830  ff.,  include 
rhessalonica.  Tliey  describe  step  by  step  Paul's  route 
from  that  city  to  Beroea  (Acts  xvii.  10).  The  .Tews  are 
laid  to  constitute  one  half  of  the  entire  population. 

H. 


THEUDAS 

The  travellers  to  whom  it  is  most  important  to 

refer,  as  having  given  full  accounts  of  this  place, 
are  Clarke  {Travels  in  Europe,  etc.,  1810-1823), 
Sir  H.  Holland  {Travels  in  lite  loniun  Isles,  etc., 
1815),  Cousinery  {Vuyaye  duns  la  Macedoine, 
1831),  and  Feake  {Northern  Greece,  1835).  An 
antiquarian  essay  on  the  subject  by  the  Abb6  Belley 
will  be  found  in  the  Menwires  de  I'Academie  dea 
Inscriptions,  torn  xxxviii.  ISect.  Hist.  pp.  121-146. 
But  the  most  elaborate  work  is  that  of  Tafel,  the 
first  part  of  which  was  published  at  Tiibingen  in 
1835.  This  was  afterwards  reprinted  as  ''  Prole- 
gomena "  to  the  Dissertdiio  dt  lliessalonica  ejusqie 
Ayro  yeograpliico,  Berlin,  1839.  With  this  should 
be  coin]jared  his  work  on  the  Via  Eynatia.'^  7  lie 
Commentaries  on  the  Fpistles  to  the  I'hessalonians 
of  course  contain  useful  compilations  on  the  subject. 
Among  these,  two  of  the  most  copious  are  those  of 
Koch  (Berlin,  1849)  and  Liinemanu  (Gottingec, 
1850).  •  J.  S.  H. 

THEU'DAS  {©evSus:  Theodns:  and  probably 
=  rmrn),  the  name  of  an  insurgent  mentioned  in 
Gamaliel's  speech  before  the  Jewish  council  (Acts  • 
V.  35-39)  at  the  time  of  the  arraignment  of  the 
Apostles.  He  appeared,  according  to  Luke"s  ac- 
count, at  the  head  of  about  four  hundred  men ;  he 
souglit  not  merely  to  lead  the  people  astray  by  false 
doctrine,  but  to  accomplish  his  designs  by  violence 
he  entertained  a  high  conceit  cf  himself  {Keyait 
elvai  TLva  kkiiT6v);  was  slain  at  last  (ai/rj^e'tirj), 
and  his  party  was  dispersed  and  brought  to  nothing 
(SieAufirjcav  Kol  iyivovTo  ei's  ovhiv)-  Josephus 
{Ant.  XX.  5,  §  1)  speaks  of  a  Theudas  who  played  a 
similar  part  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  about  A.  u.  44, 
/.  e.  some  ten  or  twelve  years  at  least  later  than 
the  delivery  of  (iamahel's  speech ;  and  since  Luke 
places  his  Theudas,  in  the  order  of  time,  before 
.Judas  the  Galilean,  who  made  his  appearance  soon 
after  the  dethronement  of  Archelaus,  i.  e.  A.  d.  6  or 
7  (.Jos.  B.  J.  ii.  8,  §  1;  Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  6,  xx.  5, 
§  2 ),  it  has  been  charged  that  the  writer  of  the  Acta 
either  labricated  the  speech  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Gamaliel,  or  has  wrought  into  it  a  transaction 
which  took  place  thirty  years  or  more  alter  the 
time  when  it  is  said  to  have  occurred  (see  Zeller, 
Die  Apostdyescltichte,  pp.  132  fF. ).  Here  we  may 
protest  at  the  outset  against  the  injustice  of 
hastily  imputing  to  Luke  so  gross  an  error;  for 
having  established  his  ch.aracter  in  so  many  deci- 
sive instances  in  which  he  has  alluded,  in  the 
course  of  the  Acts,  to  persons,  places,  customs,  and 
events  in  sacred  and  profane  history,  he  has  a  right 
to  the  presumptit)!!  that  he  was  well  informed  also 
as  to  the  facts  in  this  particular  passage.''  Every 
principle  of  just  criticism  demands  that,  instead  of 
distrusting  him  as  soon  as  he  goes  beyond  our 
means  of  verification,  we  should  avail  ourselves  of 
any  supposition  for  the  purpo.se  of  upholding  his 
credibility  which  the  conditions  of  the  case  will  • 
allow. 

Various  solutions  of  the  difficulty  have  been 
oflfered.  The  two  following  have  been  suggested  as 
especially  commending  themselves  by  their  fulfill 
meiit  of  every  reasonable  requisition,  and  as  ap 


b  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  remind  the  reader  of  soum 
fine  remarks,  in  illustration  of  Luke's  historical  accu- 
racy, in  Tholuck's  Glauhicurr/ig/cfit  der  Ei:ang,  Gt- 
sdiichte,  pp.  161-177.  375-389.  See  also  El  rard.  Evan 
geliiche  Kritih,  pp.  678  fj.  j  and  Lechler,  Daf  Apostiy 
liicke  Zeitaller,  pp   i  ff. 


THEUDAS 

pro/ed  bj  learned  and  judicious  men:  (1.)  Since 
Liii<e  represents  Theudas  as  having  [)receiled  Judas 
the  Galilean  [see  vol.  ii.  p.  1495],  it  is  certain  tliat 
he  could  not  have  appeared  later,  at  all  events, 
than  the  latter  part  of  the  reisrn  of  Herod  the  Great. 
The  very  j'ear,  now,  of  that  monarch's  death  was 
reniarkalily  turbulent;  the  land  was  overrun  with 
belliijereiit  parties,  under  the  direction  of  insurrec- 
tionary chiefs  or  fanatics.  Josephus  mentions  but 
three  of  these  disturbers  by  tuime  ;  he  pas.ses  over 
the  others  with  a  general  allusion.  Among  those 
whom  the  Jewish  historian  has  omitted  to  name, 
may  have  been  the  Theudas  whom  Gamaliel  cites 
as  an  example  of  unsuccessful  inno\ation  and  in- 
Bubordiiiation.  The  name  was  not  an  uncommon 
one  (Winer,  Realivb.  ii.  GOIJ);  and  it  can  excite 
no  surprise  that  one  Theudas,  who  was  an  insur- 
gent, should  have  appeared  in  the  time  of  Augus- 
tus, and  another,  fifty  years  later,  in  the  time  of 
Claudius.  As  analogoife  to  this  supposition  is  the 
(act  that  Josephus  gives  an  account  of  four  men 
named  Slimiii,  who  followed  each  other  within  forty 
years,  and  of  three  named  Judas,  within  ten  jears, 
who  were  all  instigators  of  rebellion.  This  mode  of 
reconciling  Luke  with  Josephus  is  affirmed  by 
hardner  (CrediSili/i/,  vol.  i.  p.  429),  Bengel,  Kui- 
noel,  Olshaiisen,  Anger  {de  Teinj)j>.  in  Act.  Ajjos/. 
Rwiiif,  p.  185),  Winer,  and  others. 

(i.)  Another  explanation  (essentially  different 
only  as  proposing  to  identify  the  person)  is,  that 
Luke's  Theudas  may  have  been  one  of  the  three  in- 
surgents whose  names  are  mentioned  by  Josephus 
in  comiection  with  the  disturbances  which  took  place 
about  the  time  of  Herod's  death.  Sonntag  (  Thtal. 
atud.  u.  Kriiih.  1837,  p.  622,  Ac.)  has  advanced 
this  view,  and  supported  it  with  nuich  learning  and 
ability.  He  argues  that  the  Theudas  referred  to  by 
Gamaliel  is  the  individual  who  occurs  in  Josephus 
under  the  name  of  Simon  {B.  J.  ii.  4,  §  2:  Ant. 
xvii.  10,  §  6),  a  slave  of  Herod,  who  attempted  to 
make  himself  king,  amid  the  confusion  which  at- 
tended the  vacancy  of  the  throne  when  that  mon- 
arch died.  He  urges  the  following  reasons  for  that 
opinion :  first,  this  Simon,  as  h^  was  the  most  noted 
among  those  who  disturbed  the  public  peace  at 
that  time,  would  be  apt  to  occur  to  Gamaliel  as  an 
illustnxtion  of  his  point,  secondly,  he  is  described 
as  a  man  of  the  same  lofty  pretensions  {(Jvai  ix^ios 
iAnicras  irap'  ovtivovv  =  Xiyoiv  eJvai  riva  iau- 
T6y)\  thirdly,  be  died  a  violent  death,  which  Jose- 
phus does  not  mention  as  true  of  the  other  two  in- 
surgents: fourtlily,  be  appears  to  have  had  compar- 
atively few  adherents,  in  conformity  with  Luke's 
aicrel  TeTpaKoaiwvi  and,  lastly,  his  having  lieen 
originally  a  slave  accounts  for  the  tvvofold  appella- 
tion, since  it  was  very  common  among  the  .lews  to 
assume  a  different  name  on  changing  their  occupa 
tion  or  mode  of  life.  It  is  very  possible,  therefore, 
'jiat  Gamaliel  speaks  of  him  as  Theudas,  becau.se, 
having  iiorne  that  name  so  long  at  Jerusalem,  he 
vas  best  known  by  it  to  the  menil)ers  of  the  San- 
hedrim; and  that  Josephus,  on  the  contrary,  who 
wrote  for  FJomans  and  Greeks,  speaks  of  him  as 
Simon,  because  it  was  under  that  name  that  he  set 
himself  up  as  king,  and  in  that  way  acquired  his 
'oreign  notoriety  (see  Tacit,  /fist.  v.  9). 

There  can  lie  no  valid  objection  to  either  of  the 
Soregoing  suppositions:  both  are  reasonable,  and 
doth  must  lie  disproved  before  Luke  can  be  justly 
;harged  with  having  connnitted  an  anach-onism  in 
:'ne  passage  under  consideration.  So  ini])artial  a 
ffituess    ae  Jost,   tlie  historian  of  the  Jews   {Oe- 


thie\':es,  the  two     3233 

sc/iiclite  der  Isntditen,  ii.  Anh.  p.  76),  admits  the 
i-easonableness  of  such  comliinations,  and  holds  ic 
this  ca.se  to  the  credibility  of  Luke,  as  well  as  that 
of  Jo.sephus.  The  considerate  Lanlner  ( Crcdibi/ily, 
vol.  i.  p.  4.33),  therefore,  could  well  say  here,  "  In- 
deed, I  am  surprised  that  any  learned  man  should 
find  it  haid  to  believe  that  there  were  two  impos- 
tors of  the  name  of  Theudas  in  the  compass  of  forty 
years."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  advert  to  other 
modes  of  explanation.  Josephus  was  by  no  means 
infallible,  as  Strauss  and  critics  of  bis  school  may 
almost  be  said  to  take  for  granted ;  and  it  is  possi- 
ble, certainly  (this  is  the  position  of  some),  that  Jo- 
sephus himself  may  have  misplaced  the  time  of 
Theudas,  instead  of  Luke,  who  is  charged  with  that 
oversight.  Calvin's  view  that  Judas  the  (.ialileaii 
appeared  not  iif'ler  but  be/ore  Theudas  (^era  rov- 
Tov  ^  iiisuper  vel  p>-atlerea),  a.\id  that  the  exam- 
ination of  the  Apostles  before  the  Sanhedrim  oc- 
curred in  the  time  of  Claudius  (contrary  to  the 
manifest  chronological  order  of  the  Acts),  deserves 
njenlion  only  as  a  waymark  of  the  progress  which 
has  Lieen  made  in  Biblical  exegesis  since  his  time. 
Among  other  writers,  in  addition  to  those  already 
mentioned,  who  have  discussed  this  question  or 
touched  upon  it,  are  the  following:  Wieseler,  C/n-ii- 
lui/iif/it  dvr  Apusl.  Zeit'dters,  p.  138:  Neander, 
(li-sciiidite  der  Pjinnzuncj,  i.  75,  76;  Guerike, 
Btilrdye  zur  Kinleil.  ins  N.  Test.  p.  90;  A. 
Kiihler,  Herzog's  Jieril-Kncyk.  xvi.  39-41 ;  Baum- 
garten,  Ajxistek/esc/ddite,  i.  114;  Lightfoot,  /for. 
flebr.  ii.  704 ;  Biscoe,  History  of  t/ie  Ads,  p.  428 ; 
and  Wordsworth's  Commentary,  ii.  26. 

H.  B.  H. 

THIEVES,   THE    TWO.      The  men   who 

under  this  name  appear  in  the  history  of  the  Cruci- 
fixion were  robbei's  (Aj^o-rai)  rather  than  thieves 
(ArAeTTTat),  belonging  to  the  lawless  bands  by  which 
Palestine  was  at  that  time  and  afterwards  infested 
(Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  10,  §  8,  xx.  8,  §  10).  Against 
these  brigands  every  Koman  procurator  had  to 
wage  continual  war  (.los.  B.  J.  ii.  13,  §  2).  The 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  shows  how  connnon 
it  was  for  them  to  attack  and  plunder  travellers 
even  on  the  high-road  ftom  Jerusalem  to  Jericho 
(Luke  X.  30).  It  was  necessary  to  use  an  armed 
police  to  encounter  them  (Luke  xxii.  52).  Often, 
as  in  tlie  case  of  Barabbas,  the  wild  robber  life  was 
coiuiected  with  a  fanatic  zeal  for  freedom,  which 
turned  the  marauding  attack  into  a  popular  insur- 
rection (Mark  xv.  7).  For  crimes  such  as  these 
the  l.'omans  had  but  one  .sentence.  Crucifixion  was 
the  penalty  at  once  of  the  robber  and  the  rebel 
(Jos.  B.  ./.  ii.  13,  §  2). 

Of  the  previous  history  of  the  two  who  suffered 
on  Golgotha  we  know  nothing.  They  had  been 
tried  and  condemned,  and  were  waiting  their  execu- 
tion before  our  Lord  was  accused.  It  is  [irnbablf 
enough,  as  the  death  of  Baralibas  was  clearly  ex- 
pected at  the  same  time,  that  they  were  among  the 
cru(7Taffta(TTa'i  who  had  been  imprisoned  with  him, 
and  had  taken  part  in  the  insurrection  in  which 
zeal,  and  hate,  and  patriotism,  and  lust  of  plunder 
were  mingled  in  wild  confusion. 

They  had  expected  to  die  with  Jesus  Barabbas. 
[Comp.  B.\KAHBAs.]  They  find  themselves  with 
one  who  bore  the  same  name,  but  who  was  descrilied 
in  the  superscription  on  his  cross  as  .lesus  of  Naza- 
reth. Tliey  could  hardly  fail  to  have  heard  some- 
thing of  his  fame  as  a  prophet,  of  his  triumphal 
entry  as  a  king.      They   low  find  Him  sharing  the 


3:234      THIEVES,  the  two 

Bauie  fate  as  themsehes,  condemned  on  much  the 
same  charge  (I.uke  xxiii.  5).  They  too  would  bear 
tlieir  crosses  to  the  appointed  place,  while  He  fiuiited 
by  the  way.  Their  garments  would  be  parted 
among  the  soldiers.  For  them  also  there  would  be 
the  druifged  wine,  which  He  refused,  to  dull  the 
sharp  pain  of  the  first  liours  on  the  cross.  They 
catch  at  first  the  prevailing  tone  of  scorn.  A  king 
of  the  Jews  who  could  neither  save  himself  nor 
help  them,  whose  followers  had  not  even  fought  for 
him  (.lohn  xviii.  36),  was  strangely  unlike  the 
many  chieftains  whom  they  had  probably  known 
claiming  the  same  title  (.los.  Ant.  xvii.  10,  §  8), 
strangely  unlike  the  "notable  prisoner"  for  whom 
they  had  not  hesitated,  it  would  seem,  to  incur  the 
risk  of  bloodshed.  But  over  one  of  them  there 
came  a  change.  The  darkness  which,  at  noon,  was 
begimiing  to  steal  over  the  sky  awed  him,  and  the 
Divine  patience  and  silence  and  meekness  of  the 
sufferer  touched  him.  He  looked  back  upon  his 
past  life,  and  saw  an  infinite  evil.  He  looked  to 
the  man  dyhig  on  the  cross  beside  him,  and  saw  an 
hifinite  com])assion.  There  indeed  was  one,  unlike 
all  other  "  kiTigs  of  the  Jews"  whom  the  robber 
had  ever  known.  Such  a  one  nmst  be  all  that  He 
had  claimed  to  be.  To  be  forgotten  by  that  king 
seems  to  him  now  the  most  terrible  of  all  punish- 
ments; to  take  part  in  the  triumph  of  his  return, 
the  most  blessed  of  all  hopes.  The  yearning  prayei- 
was  answered,  not  in  the  letter,  but  in  the  spirit. 
To  him  alone,  of  all  the  myriadi^  who  had  listened 
to  Him,  did  the  Lord  speak  of  Paradise  [comp. 
Paradise],  waking  with  that  word  the  thoughts 
of  a  purer  past  and  the  hopes  of  an  immediate  rest. 
But  its  joy  was  to  be  more  than  that  of  fair  groves 
and  pleasant  streams.  "  Thou  shalt  be  icilh  ?«t-." 
He  siiould  be  reineinbered  there. 

We  cannot  wonder  that  a  history  of  such  won- 
derful interest  should  at  all  times  have  fixed  itself 
on  men's  minds,  and  led  them  to  speculate  and  ask 
questions  which  we  have  no  data  to  answer.  The 
simplest  and  truest  way  of  looking  at  it  has  been 
that  of  those  who,  from  the  great  Alexandrian 
thinker  (Origen,  in  Ruin,  iii.)  to  the  writer  of  the 
most  popular  hymn  of  our  own  times,  have  seen  in 
the  "dying  thief"  the  first  great  typical  instance 
that  '-a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law."  Even  tliose  whose  thoughts  were  less 
deep  and  wide  acknowledged  that  in  this  and  other 
like  cases  the  baptism  of  blood  supplied  the  place 
of  the  outward  sign  of  regeneration  (Hilar.  De 
1  tiiiit.  c.  X.;  Jerome,  Kp.  xiii.).  The  logical  spec- 
nlitions  of  the  Pelagian  controversy  overclouded, 
in  this  as  in  other  instances,  the  clear  judt;ment  of 
Augustine.  Maintaining  the  absolute  necessity  of 
ba[>tism  tc  salvation,  he  had  to  discuss  the  question 
whether  the  penitent  thief  had  been  baptized  or 
not,  and  he  oscillates,  with  melancholy  indecision, 
between  the  two  answers.  At  times  he  is  disposed 
to  rest  contented  with  the  solution  which  had  satis- 
fied others.  Then  again  he  ventures  on  tlie  con- 
jecture that  the  water  which  sprang  forth  from  the 
pierced  side  had  sprinkled  him,  and  so  had  iieen  a 
sufficient  baptism.  Finally,  yielding  to  the  inex- 
orable logic  of  a  sacramental  theory,  he  rests  in  the 
assumption  that  he  probably  had  been  baptized  iie- 
'bre.  either  in  his  prison  or  before  he  entered  on  his 
(oblier-life  (comp.  JJe  Animd,  i.  11,  iii.  12;  Strm. 
ie  Ti-mjj.  130;   Retract,  i.  26,  iii.  18,  55). 

Other  conjectures  turn  more  on  the  circum- 
jtances  of  the  history.  Bengel,  usually  acute,  liere 
nvtrrsboots  the  mark,  and  finds  in  the  Lord's  words 


thimnathah 

to  him,  dropping  all  mention  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom, an  indication  that  the  penitent  thief  was  a 
Gentile,  the  impenite  at  a  Jew,  and  that  thus  the 
scene  on  (.'alvary  was  typical  of  the  position  of  the 
two  Churches  (Gnomon  N.  T.  in  Luke  xxiii.). 
Stier  (  Woi-fJs  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  loc.)  reads  in 
the  words  of  reproof  (ouSe  ^o^rj  crv  rhv  OeSv)  the 
language  of  one  who  had  all  along  listened  with 
grief  and  horror  to  the  revilings  of  the  multitude, 
the  burst  of  an  isdignation  previously  suppressed. 
The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  as  usual,  do  their  liest  to 
lower  the  Divine  history  to  the  level  of  a  legend. 
They  follow  the  repentant  robber  into  the  unseen 
world.  He  is  the  first  to  enter  Paradise  of  all 
mankind.  Adam  and  Seth  and  the  patriarchs  find 
him  already  there  bearing  his  cross.  Michael  the 
archangel  had  led  him  to  the  gate,  and  the  fiery 
sword  had  turned  aside  to  let  him  pass  {Evnng. 
Nicod.  ii.  10).  Names  were  given  to  the  two  rob- 
bers. Demas  or  Dismas  was  the  penitent  thief, 
hanging  on  the  right,  Gestas  the  impenitent  on  the 
left  [livong.  Nicod.  i.  10;  N/irrat.  Joseph,  c.  3). 
The  cry  of  enireaty  is  expanded  into  a  long  wordy 
prayer  {jVcn'r.  Jus.  1.  c),  and  the  promise  suftei-s 
the  same  treatment.  The  history  of  the  Infancy  is 
made  prophetic  of  that  of  the  Crucifixion.  The 
holy  family,  on  their  flight  to  Egypt,  come  upon  a 
band  of  robbers.  One  of  them,  Titus  (the  names 
are  different  here),  has  compassion,  purchases  the 
silence  of  his  companion,  Dumachus,  and  the  infant 
Christ  prophesies  that  after  tliirty  years  Titus  shall 
be  crucified  with  him,  and  shall  go  before  him  into 
Paradise  {Evang.  Infant.^  c.  23).  As  in  other 
instances  [comp.  Magi],%o  in  this,  the  fancy  of 
inventors  seems  to  have  been  fertile  in  names. 
Hede  (Colleclan.)  gives  Matlia  and  Joca  as  those 
which  prevailed  in  his  time.  The  name  given  in 
the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  has,  however,  kept  its 
ground,  and  St.  Dismas  takes  his  ])!ace  in  the  ha- 
giology  of  the  S3rian,  the  (jreek,  and  the  Latin 
Churches. 

All  this  is,  of  course,  puerile  enough.  The  cap- 
tious objections  to  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke  as 
inconsistent  with  tliat  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark, 
and  the  inference  drawn  from  them  that  both  are 
more  or  less  legendary,  are  hardly  less  puerile 
(Strauss,  Lthen  Jesn,  ii.  519  ;  Ewald,  Christvs, 
Gesch.  V.  438).  The  obvious  answer  to  this  is 
that  which  has  been  given  by  Origen  {/fom.  35  in 
Matt.),  Chrysostom  {Ilom.  88  in  Matt.),  and 
others  (comp.  Suicer,  s.  v.  Xriar-vs)-  Both  began 
by  reviling.  One  was  subsequently  touched  with 
sympathy  and  awe.  The  other  explanation,  given 
bv  Cyprian  [De  Passione  Domini),  Augustine  [De 
Cons,  lyvong.  iii.  16),  and  others,  which  forces  the 
statement  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  into  agree- 
ment with  that  of  St.  Luke  by  assuming  a  synec- 
doche, or  syllepsis,  or  enallaf/e,  is,  it  is  believed, 
far  less  satisfactory.  The  technical  word  does  but 
thinly  veil  the  contradiction  which  this  hypothesis 
admits  but  does  not  explain.  E.  H.  P. 

thimna'thah  (nri:pn_ :   ©afMyaed-, 

.Alex.  &a/xi^a-  Theninotha).  A  town  in  the  allot- 
ment of  i>an  (Josh.  xix.  43  only).  It  is  named 
between  f^lon  and  Ekron.  The  name  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  re.sidence  of  Samson's  wife  (inaccu- 
rately given  in  A.  V.  Ti-mxaii);  but  the  position 
of  that  place,  which  seems  to  agree  with  tlie  mod- 
ern Ti/meh  iielow  Zarenh,  is  not  so  suitable,  being 
fully  ten  niilos  from  Akir,  the  representative  ol 
Ekron.     Tim  tab  ajipears  to  have  been  ahiiosi  a& 


THISBE 

tommon  a  rmrne  as  Gibeah,  and  it  is  possible  that 
there  may  have  been  another  in  tiie  allotment  of 
Dan  besides  that  represented  by  Tibnth.  G. 

THIS'BE  (0,V/8?j;  [Alex.]  GjjSrj).  A  name 
found  only  in  Tub.  i.  2,  as  that  of  a  city  of  Naph- 
tali  from  which  Tobit's  ancestor  had  been  carried 
captive  by  the  Assyrians.  'I'lw  real  interest  of  the 
name  resides  in  the  i'act  that  it  is  maintained  by 
some  interpreters  (Hiller,  0»";/(.  pp.  2:jG,  947  ;  Ke- 
land,  Pill.  p.  1035)  to  be  the  place  which  had  the 
glory  of  givinw  birtli  to  Klijah  the  Tishiutk. 
This,  however,  is,  at  the  best,  very  questionalile,  and 
derives  its  main  support  from  the  fact  that  the  word 


THOMAS  3235 

employed  in  1  K.  .xvii.  1  to  denote  the  relation  of 
Elijah  to  Gilead,  if  pointed  as  it  now  stands  in  the 
deceived  Hebrew  Text,  signifies  that  he  was  not  a 
native  of  Gilead  but  merely  a  resident  there,  ana 
came  originally  from  a  diftt^rent  and  foieign  district 
But  it  is  also  possible  to  point  the  word  so  that  the 
sentence  shall  mean  "from  Tishbi  of  Gile.nl,"'  in 
which  case  all  relation  between  the  great  Prophet 
and  Thisbe  of  Napbtali  at  once  falls  to  the  ground. 
[See  TisiiBiTK.] 

'I'here  is,  however,  a  truly  sinsular  variation  in  the 
texts  of  the  passage  in  Tobit,  a  glance  at  which  will 
show  how  hazardous  it  is  to  base  any  deGnite  t.po- 
graphical  conclusions  upon  it :  — 


Out  of  Thisbe  which 
js  at  the  rij;ht  hand 
of  that  city  which  is 
called  properly  Neph- 
thali  in  Galilee  above 
Aser.*  [Miirg.  or 
Kedesh  of  Nephthali 
in  Galilee,  Judg.  iv. 
6.]        

*  1.  e.  probably, 
Hazor. 


LXX. 


Out  of  the  tribe  Out  of  Thisbe 
aud  city  of  Neph-  which  is  at  the 
thali  which  is  iu' right  baud  of 
the     upper     parts!  Kudios  of  Neph- 


Revised  Greek  Text. 


of  Galilee  above 
N:uisson,  behind 
the  road  which 
leads  to  the  west, 
having  ou  the  left 
hand  the  city  of 
Sephet. 


thaleim    in    Gali- 
lee above  Aser. 


Out  of  Thibe  which 
is  at  the  right  hand  of 
Kudion  of  Nephthaleim 
in  Upper  Galilee  above 
Asser,  behind  the  setting 
sun  on  the  right  of  Pho- 
gor  (Peor). 


Vetus  La/in.4. 


Out  of  the  city  of  Bihil 
which  is  on  the  right 
baud  of  Edisse,  a  city  of 
Nephthiilim  in  Upper 
Galilee  over  against  Naa- 
sou,  behind  the  road 
which  leads  to  the  west 
of  the  left  of  llaphain. 

[Another  MS.  reads  Ge- 
briel,  Cydiscus,  and  Ra. 
phaim,  for  Bihil,  Edisse, 
aud  Raphain.] 


Assuming  that  Thisbe,  and  not  Thibe,  is  the  cor- 
rect reading  of  the  name,  it  has  Ijeen  conjectured 
(ariparently  for  the  first  time  by  Keil,  Cumin,  iiber 
die  Kbniyt,\i.2-il)  that  it  originated  in  an  erroneous 

rendering  of  the  Hebrew  word  "'IStCntt,  which 
word  in  fact  occurs  in  the  Helirew  version  of  the 
passage,  and  may  be  pointed  in  two  ways,  so  as  to 
mean  either  "from  the  inhabitants  of,'  or  "from 
Tishbi,"  i.  e.  Thislje.  The  reverse  suggestion,  in 
respect  of  the  same  wonl  in  1  K.  xvii.  ],  has  been 
already  alluded  to.  [  Tisiibiti;.]  But  this,  though 
very  ingenious,  and  quite  within  the  bounds  of  pos- 
sibility, is  at  present  a  mere  conjecture,  since  none 
of  the  texts  support  it,  and  there  is  no  other  evi- 
dence in  its  favor. 

No  name  resembling  Thisbe  or  Thibe  has  been 
yet  encountered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Kecks  or 
StiJ'ed,  but  it  seems  impossible  to  suppose  that  the 
minute  definition  of  the  Latin  and  Kevised  Greek 
Texts — equaled  in  the  sacred  books  only  by  tiie 
well-known  description  of  the  position  of  Shiloh  in 
Judg.  xxi.  I'J — can  lie  mere  invention.  G. 

THISTLE.     [Thorns  and  Thistlks.] 

THOM'AS  (©co^Ss:  Thomas),  one  of  the 
Apostles.  According  to  Eusebius  (//.  A',  i.  13)  his 
real  name  was  Judas.  This  may  have  lieen  a  mere 
confusion  with  Thaddwus,  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
extract.     But   it   may  also  be  that  Thomas  was  a 

surname.  The  word  WX^SD,  T/winn,"  means  '•  a 
twin;  "  and  so  it  is  translated  in  John  xi.  10,  xxi. 
2,  6  SiSv/xoi-  Out  of  this  name  has  grown  the 
'radition  tliat  he  had  a  twin-sister.  Lydia  (Pdtres 
Apost.  p.  272),  or  that  he  was  a  twin-lirother  of 
our  Lord  (Thilo,  Acta   Tlioiiice,  p.  94j;  which  last, 


again,  would  confirm  his  identification  with  Judas 
(comp.  Matt.  xiii.  55). 

He  is  said  to  have  been  born  at  Antioch  {Paires 
Aposl.  pp.  272,  512). 

In  the  catalogue  of  the  Apostles  he  is  coupled 
with  Matthew  in  Matt.  x.  3,  Mark  iii.  18,  Luke  vi. 
15,  and  with  I'hilip  in  Acts  i.  13. 

All  that  we  know  of  him  is  derived  from  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John;  and  this  amounts  to  three 
traits,  which,  however,  so  exactly  agree  together, 
that,  slight  as  they  are,  they  place  his  character 
before  us  with  a  precision  which  belongs  to  no  other 
of  the  twelve  Apostles,  except  Peter,  John,  and 
Judas  Iscariot.  This  character  is  that  of  a  man 
slow  to  lielieve,  seeing  all  the  difficulties  of  a  easrf, 
suljject  to  despondency,  viewing  things  on  the 
darker  side,  and  yet  full  of  ardent  love  for  his  Mas- 
ter. 

The  first  trait  is  his  speech  when  our  Lord  deter- 
mined to  face  the  dangers  that  awaited  Him  in 
Judcea  on  his  journey  to  Bethany.  Thomas  said 
to  his  fellow-disciples,  "  Let  us  also  go  (koI  ^.te7r) 
that  we  may  die  with  Him"  (John  xi.  IG).  Ho 
entertained  no  hope  of  His  escape  —  he  looked  on 
the  journey  as  leading  to  total  ruin ;  but  he  defer 
mined  to  share  the  peril.  "  Though  He  slay  me, 
yet  will  I  trust  in  Him." 

The  second  was  his  speech  during  the  Last  Sup- 
per. "  Thomas  saith  unto  Him,  Lord,  we  know 
not  whither  thou  goest,  and  how  can  we  know  th« 
way"  (xiv.  5)V  It  was  the  prosaic,  incredulous 
doubt  as  to  moving  a  step  in  the  unseen  future,  and 
yet  an  eager  inquiry  to  know  how  this  step  was  tc 
be  taken. 

The  third  was  after  the  Kesurrectio)i.  lie  was 
absent  —  possibly  by  accident,  perha|)s  characteris- 


a  In  Cant.  vii.  4  [A.  V.  3].  it  is  simply  DSn,  ex- 1  ^f^"^"''  "*.  ^«"^^^'  ""'  *''-°'»  "^^  ^jostle,  but  ftom  St 

'  Thomas  ot  Canterbury, 

jcrty    our  -'loii.''     The  frequency   of  the  name  mj 


8236 


THOMAS 


fcically  —  from  the  first  assembly  when  Jesus  aad 
appeared.  The  otiiers  told  him  \\h;it  they  had  seen. 
He  broke  forth  into  an  exclamation,  the  terms  of 
which  convej  to  us  at  once  the  vehemence  of  his 
doubt,  and  at  the  same  time  tlie  vivid  picture  tliat 
his  mind  retained  of  his  Master's  form  as  he  had 
last  seen  Him  lifeless  on  the  cross.  "  Except  I  see 
in  his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my 
finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my 
hand  into  his  side,  1  will  not,  I  cannot  believe" 
(ov  fxT]  TTiffTfvaoo),  Johu  XX.  25. 

On  the  eighth  day  he  was  with  them  at  their 
gatherino;,  perhaps  in  expectation  of  a  recurrence 
of  the  visit  of  the  previous  week ;  and  Jesus  stood 
amongst  them.  He  uttered  the  same  salutation, 
"  Peace  1)6  unto  you  ;  "  and  then  turning  to  Thomas, 
as  if  this  had  been  tiie  special  oliject  of  his  appear- 
ance, uttered  the  words  which  convey  as  strongly 
the  sense  of  condemnation  and  tender  reproof,  as 
those  of  Thomas  had  shown  the  sense  of  hesitation 
and  doubt.  "Bring  thy  finger  hither  [SiSe — as 
if  Himself  pointing  to  his  wounds]  and  see  my 
hands;  and  bring  thy  hand  and  thrust  it  in  my 
side;  and  do  not  liecome  (juri  yivov)  unbelieving 
(oTTio-TOs),  but  believing  (Trioros)-"  •'  He  answers 
to  the  words  that  Thomas  Ijad  spoken  to  the  ears 
of  his  felldw-disciples  only;  but  it  is  to  the  thought 
of  his  heart  rather  than  to  the  words  of  his  lips  that 

the  Searcher  of  hearts  answers K_\e.  ear, 

and  touch,  at  once  ap[)ealed  to,  and  at  once  s:itisfied 
—  the  form,  the  look,  the  voice,  the  solid  and  actual 
body:  and  not  tlie  .senses  only,  but  the  mind  satis- 
fied too;  the  knowled;^e  that  searches  the  very  reins 
and  the  hearts;  tlie  love  that  luveth  to  the  end,  in- 
finite and  eternal  "  (Arnold's  Serm.  vi.  2^8). 

The  etiect  "  on  Thomas  is-immediate.  The  con- 
viction produced  by  the  removal  of  his  doubt  be- 
came deeper  and  stronaer  than  that  of  an}  of  the 
other  Apostles.  The  words  in  which  he  expressed 
his  belief  contain  a  far  higher  assertion  of  his  Mas- 
ter's Divine  nature  than  is  contained  in  any  other 
expression  used  by  Apostolic  lips,  •'  iMy  Lord,  and 
my  God."'  Some  have  supposed  that  kvo.os  refers 
to  the  human,  di6i  to  tlie  Divine  nature.  This  is 
too  artificial.  It  is  more  to  the  point  to  observe 
the  exact  terms  of  the  sentence,  uttered  (as  it  were) 
in  astonished  awe.  "  It  is  then  my  Lord  and  my 
God !  "  ''  And  the  word  "  my  "  gives  it  a  personal 
application  to  himself.  Additional  emphasis  is 
given  to  this  declaration  from  its  being  the  last 
incident  narrated  in  the  direct  narrative  of  the 
Gospel  (before  the  supplement  of  cb.  xxi.),  thus 
corresponding  to  the  opening  words  of  the  prologue. 
"  'I'hus  Christ  was  acknowledged  on  earth  to  be 
what  St.  John  had  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel 
declared  him  to  he  from  all  eternity;  and  the  words 
9f  Thomas  at  the  end  of  tlie  2()th  chapter  do  but 
repeat  the  truth  which  St.  Jolin  had  stated  before  in 
his  own  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  "  (Ar- 
nold's Serm.  vi.  401). 

The  answer  of  our  Lord  sums  up  the  moral  of 
the  whole  narrative;  "  Because <•'  thou  hast  seen  me, 


a  It  is  useless  to  speculate  whether  he  obeyed  our 
Lord's  invitation  to  e.xauiiue  the  wound.*.  The  im- 
pression is  that  he  did  not. 

6  It  is  obviously  of  no  dogmatic  importance  whether 
the  words  are  an  address  or  a  description.  That  tliey 
ire  the  latter,  apjjears  iroui  the  use  of  the  nomiuative 
}  Kvpio?.  The  form  6  fleos  proves  nothing,  as  this  is 
a'ed  for  the  vocative.  At  the  same  time  it  should  be 
ibser.aii  that  the  passage  is  said  to  Clinst,  elinv  avTiL. 


THOMOI 

thou  hast  lieheved:  blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen  me,  and  yet  have  believed  "  (xx.  29).  By  thii 
incident,  therefore,  Thomas,  "  the  Doubting  Apos- 
tle," is  raised  at  once  to  the  Theologian  in  the 
original  sense  of  the  word.  "  Ab  eo  dubitatun 
est,"  says  Augustine,  "  ne  a  nobis  dubitaretur.' 
It  is  this  featui-e  of  his  character  which  has  been 
caught  in  later  ages,  when  for  the  first  time  its 
peculiar  lesson  became  apparent.  In  the  famous 
statue  of  him  by  Tliorwaldsen  in  the  church  at 
Copenhagen,  he  stands,  the  thoughtful,  meditative 
skeptic,  with  the  rule  in  his  hand  for  the  due 
measuring  of  evidence  and  argument.  This  scene 
was  one  of  the  favorite  passages  of  the  English 
theologian  who  in  this  century  gave  so  great  an 
impulse  to  the  progress  of  free  inquiry  combined 
with  fervent  belief,  of  which  Thomas  is  so  remark- 
able an  example.  Two  discourses  on  this  subject 
occur  in  Dr.  Arnold's  published  volumes  of  Ser- 
mons (v.  .312,  vi.  2.J3).  Amongst  the  last  words 
which  he  repeated  before  his  own  sudden  death 
{LiJ'e  ami  Coi-re^poiu/eiice,  7th  ed.  p.  617)  was  the 
blessing  of  Christ  on  the  fiiitli  of  Thomas. 

In  the  N.  T.  we  hear  of  Thomas  only  twice  again, 
once  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee  with  the  seven  disciples, 
where  he  is  ranked  next  after  Peter  (John  xxi.  2), 
and  again  in  the  assemblage  of  the  Apostles  aftei 
the  Ascension  (Acts  i.  13). 

The  close  of  his  life  is  filled  with  traditions  or 
legends;  whicli,  as  not  resting  on  Biblical  grounds, 
may  be  briefly  dispatched. 

The  earlier  traditions,  as  believed  in  the  4th  cen- 
tury (luis.  //.  A',  i.  13,  iii.  1;  Socrat.  H.i:.  i.  19), 
represent  him  as  preaching  in  Parthia  or  Persia, 
and  as  finally  buried  at  Edessa  (Socr.  //.  E.  iv.  18). 
Chrysostom  mentions  his  grave  at  Edessa,  as  being 
one  of  the  four  genuine  tombs  of  Apostles;  the 
other  three  being  Peter,  Paul,  and  John  {Horn,  in 
IJtIi.  20).  With  his  burial  at  Edessa  agrees  the 
.story  of  his  sending  Thaddseus  to  Abgarus  with  our 
Lord's  letter  (Ens.  H.  E,  i.  13). 

The  later  traditions  carry  bim  further  East,  and 
ascribe  to  him  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
church  in  Malabar,  which  still  goes  by  the  name 
of  "  the  Christians  of  St.  Thomas;  "  and  his  tomb 
is  shown  in  the  neighborhood.  This,  however,  is 
now  usually  regarded  as  arising  from  a  confusion 
with  a  later  Thomas,  a  missionary  from  the  Nesto- 
rians. , 

His  martyrdom  (whether  in  Persia  or  India)  is 
said  to  have  been  occasioned  by  a  lance;  and  is 
commemorated  by  the  Latin  Church  on  December 
21,  by  the  Greek  Church  on  October  6,  and  by  the 
Indians  on  July  1. 

For  these  traditions  and  their  authorities,  see 
Butler's  Lives  of  (he  Saints,  December  21.  An 
ajxicryphal  "  Gospel  of  Thomas  "  (chiefly  relating 
to  the  Infancy)  published  in  Tischendorf 's  Evav- 
(jelia  Apucvypha.  The  Apocryphal  "  Acts  of 
Thomas  "  by  Thilo  {Codex  Apocryphus).<i 

A.P.S. 

THOM'OI  {&oij.o'l\  [Vat.  feo/xeei:]  CoesiV 
Thamah  or  Tamah  (1  Esdr.  v.  32). 


c  "  Thomas  "  (®d>jLta)  is  omitted  in  the  best  MSS. 

d  *  The  apocryphal  "  Acts  of  Thomas ''  have  been 
separately  published  by  Thilo  {Ada  S.  Thomce  Apos- 
toll,  etc.  bips.  18"23),  but  they  are  not  contained  in  his 
Cnilex  Aporryplnis  (1832),  which  is  confined  to  th« 
Apocryphal  Gospels.  The  text  is  best  given  in  Tiscb 
endorf  "s  Ada  Ajiostn/urmn  Apacryp'i  i,  Liys.  1851. 


THORN  IN  THE  FLESH 

•  THORN  IN  THE  FLESH.  [Paul,  iii. 
2383  J 

1  HORNS  AND  THISTLES.  There  appear 
to  I*  eifibteeii  or  tweuty  Hebrew  words  which  point 
tc  different  iiiiids  of  prickly  or  thorny  shrubs,  but 
the  context  of  the  passages  wliere  the  sevenil  terms 
Docur  affords,  for  the  most  part,  scarcely  a  single 
clew  whereby  it  is  possible  to  come  to  anything 
like  a  satisfactory  conclusion  with  regard  to  their 
respective  identifications.  These  words  are  vari- 
ously rendered  in  the  A.  V.  by  "  thorns,"  "  briers," 
"  thistles,"  etc.  It  were  a  hopeless  task  to  enter 
into  a  discussion  of  these  numerous  Hebrew  terms; 
we  shall  not  therelore  attenijit  it,  but  confine  our 
remarks  to  some  of  the  most  impoitant  names,  and 
tho.se  which  seem  to  afford  sonje  slight  indications 
as  to  the  plants  they  denote. 

1.   Afdd  (^I3M  :  {]  pd/xyos-  rJiaiimvs)  occm's  as 

the  name  of  some  spinous  plant  hi  Judg.  ix.  14,  15, 
Wtiere  the  A.  V.  renders  it  by  '•  iirumble  '"  (Marg. 
"  thistle  "\  and  in  Ps.  Iviii.  U  (A.  V.  «•  thorns  ''). 
I'he  plant  in  question  is  supposed  to  be  Lyciuin  Eu~ 
riiftMutti,  or  L.  afruia  (box-thorn ),  both  of  which 
species  occur  in  Palestine  (see  Strand,  Flor.  Pukest. 
Nos.  12-1.  125).  1  >iosooiides  (i.  IIU)  thus  speaks 
ol  the  Pdufos'-  "  Ihe  rhamnus,  which  some  call 
(/erstjjiwniun,.  others  UucucKiUha,  the  liomans 
wiiite  thorn,  or  Ctrbalis,  and  the  Carthaginians 
aiddin.  IS  a  shrub  which  grows  around  hedges;  it 
has  erect  branches  with  sharp  spines,  like  the  oxy- 
ncunaia  (hawthorn?),  but  with  small,  oblong,  thick 
soft  leaves."  Dioscorides  mentions  three  kinds  of 
rnamnus,  two  of  which  are  identified  liy  Sijrengel, 
in  nis  Commentary,  with  the  two  species  of  Lyciuiii 
mentioned  above."  See  Beloii,  Obstrvutluiis  de  Plus. 
Hiiii^  etc.,  ii.  ch.  78;  Kauwoltf,  Trav.  bk.  iii.  ch. 
8  Prosper  Alpinus,  JJe  Plant,  ^yypt.  p.  21; 
Celsius,  tlitrob.  i.  199.     The  Arabic  name  of  this 

plant  h\Jdi,  dtdd)  is  identical  with  the  Hebrew; 
Ixit   it   was   also  known    by  the    name  of   'AuseJ 


'e- 


.^). 


Lijcium  Europceum  is  a  native  of  the  south  of 
Europe  and  the  north  of  Africa;  in  the  Grecian 
islands  it  is  common  in  hedges  {Enylish    Vyclup. 

-  Lycium  ")  See  also  the  passages  in  Uelon  and 
Kauwolff  cited  above. 

2.  Cliedek  (p^iTJ  :  aKavOa,  (rrjs  eKrpwyctif- 
spina,  pallancs)  occurs  in  Prov.  xv.  19,  '•  The  way 
of  the  slothful  is  as  an  hedge  of  Cliedek'"  (A.  V. 

-  thorns  "),  and  in  Mic.  vii.  4,  where  the  A.  V.  has 
'brier."     The  Alexand.  LXX.,  in  the  former  pas 

sage,  interprets  the  meaning  thus,  "  'J"he  ways  of 
the  slothful  are  strewed  with  tliorns."  Celsius 
(IJierub.  ii.  35),  referring  the  Heb.    term   to   the 

0      -  - 
Arabic  Chndak  (     •tXs*.),  is  of  opinion  that  some 

spinous  species  of  the  Svlnnutii  is  intended.  The 
Arabic  term  clearly  denotes  some  kind  of  ISolnnuin; 
either  the  S.  nidoiu/tla,  var.  eicidaitum^  or  the 
iS.  Sodiii/ieum  (-apple  of  Sodom'').  Both  these 
«unds  are  beset  with  prickles;  it  is  hardly  probable, 
lowever,  that  they  are  intended  by  the  Heb.  word. 


"  In  his    Hist.   Rei   Herb.,  however,  b«  refers  the 
au^nc  to  the  y.izyplius  vulgaris 


THORNS  AND  THISTLES    32:17 

.  Several  varieties  of  the  egg-plant  are  found  in 
Palestine,  and  some  have  supposed  that  the  famed 
Dead  Sea  apples  are  the  fruit  of  the  S.  Sodoineum 
when  suffering  from  the  attacks  of  some  insect; 
but  see  on  this  sulject  Vine  of  Sodom.  The 
Heb.  term  may  be  generic,  and  intended  to  denote 
any  thorny  plant  suitable  for  hedges. 

3.  C/ioack  (niri:  &Kav,  &Kav9a,  aKXovx, 
KviSr]:  pril'mrvs,  liippa,  spina,  tribulus),  a  word  of 
very  uncertain  meaning  which  occurs  in  the  sei'.se 
of  some  thorny  plant  in  Is.  xxxiv.  1.3;  Hos.  ix.  0; 
Prov.  xxvi.  9;  Cant.  ii.  2;  2  K.  xiv.  9,  "  the  choach 
of  Lebanon  sent  to  the  cedar  of  Lebanon,"  etc.  See 
also  Job  xxxi.  40:   •'  Let  choach  (A.  V.  'thistles  M 


Lycium  Europceum. 

grow  instead  of  wheat."  Celsius  (Hierob.  i.  477) 
believes  the  black-thorn  (Prunus  sylvestrh)  ia 
denoted,  but  this  would  not  suit  the  passage  in 
Job  just  quoted,  from  which  it  is  probable  that 
some  thorny  weed  of  a  quick  growth  is  intended. 
Perha]is  the  term  is  used  in  a  wide  sense  to  signify 
any  thorny  plant;  this  opinion  may,  perhaps,  re- 
ceive some  slight  confirmation  from  the  various 
renderings  of  the  Hebrew  word  as  given  by  the 
LXX.  and  Vulgate. 

4.    Dardar   ("T]T"1'^ :     rpl^oAos-     tribulus)    is 
mentioned  twice  in  connection  with  the  Heb.  kdt» 

(\^^p),  namely,  in  Gen.  iii.  18,  "thorns  and  (his- 
lles"  (A.  v.),  and  in  IIos.  x.  8,  "the  thorn  and 
tiie  lliistle  shall  come  up  on  their  altars."  The 
Greek  rpi^oKos  occurs  in  Matt.  vii.  16,  "  Do  men 
gather  fi<;9  of  thistles?"  See  also  Hel).  vi.  8, 
where  it  is  rendered  "  briers"  by  the  A.  V.  There 
is  some  difference  of  opinion   as  to   the  plant  o» 


3238    THORNS  AND  THISTLES 

plants  indicated  by  tlie  Greelv  rpi^oAos  and  the 
Latin  tribulus.  Of  tlie  two  kinds  of  land  tribuli 
mentioned  by  the  Greelcs  ( Uioscorides,  iv.  15; 
Tlieoplirastns,  Hist.  Phtnl.  vi.  7,  §  5),  one  is  sup- 
[losed  l)y  Sprengel,  Stackhouse,  Koyle,  and  others, 
to  refer  to  the  Tribidus  ferrestris,  Linn.,  the  other 
to  the  Fayonia  Cretica  ;  but  see  Schneider's  Com- 
ment, on  Theophrastus  I.  c,  and  Du  Molin  {Flore 
Paetique  Ancienne,  p.  305),  who  identifies  the  trib- 
ulus of  Virgil  with  tlie  Ctntauren  cilcitnipi,  Linn, 
(''star-thistle").  Celsius  {Hierob.  ii.  128)  ar- 
ernes  in  favor  of  the  Fugonin  ArnfAci,  of  which 
a  figure  is  given  in  Shaw's  Travels  (Catal.  Plant. 
No.  229);  see  also  Forskal,  Flor.  Arab.  p.  88.  It 
is  probable  that  either  the  Tribulus  terrestris, 
which,  however,  is  not  a  spiny  or  thorny  plant, 
but  has  spines  on  the  fruit,  or  else  the  C.  calcilrapa, 
is  the  plant  which  is  more  particularly  intended  by 
the  word  da.rdar. 


THORNS  AND  THISTLES 

5.  Shamir  (T^^Stt''),  almost  always  found  in  con- 
nection with  the  word  skailh  (rVW),  occurs  in  sev- 
eral places  of  the  Hebrew  text;  it  is  variously  ren- 
dered by  the  LXX.,  x^po^os,  X'^P'^os,  Sep^i's,  &y^ 
paia-ris,  ^r]pd.      According  to  Abii'lfadl,  cited  by 


Celsius  {Hiernb.  ii.  188),  "the  Samur  ( 


r 


of 


the  Arabs  is  a  thorny  tree;  it  is  a  species  of  Sidra 
which  does  not  produce  fruit."  No  thorny  plants 
are  more  conspicuous  in  Palestine  and  the  Bible 
lands  than  diflferent  kinds  of  Rhamnacem  such  as 
Paliurus  aculeatus  (Christ's  Thorn),  and  Zizyphus 
Spina  Christi ;  this  latter  plant  is  the  nebk  of  the 
Arabs,  which  grows  abundantly  in  Syria  and  Pal- 
estine, both  in  wet  and  dry  places;  Dr.  Hooker 
noticed  a  specimen  nearly  40  feet  high,  spreadinc 
as  widely  as  a  good  Quercus  ilex  in  England.    The 


Tribulus  Terrestris. 


nebk  fringes  the  banks  of  the  .Jordan,  and  flourishes 
on  the  marshy  banks  of  the  Lake  of  Tilierias;  it 
forms  either  a  .shrub  or  a  tree,  and,  indeed,  is  quite 
common  all  over  the  country.  The  Aral  is  have  the 
terms  Saliim,  Sidra^  D/idl,  Nabcc,  which  appear  to 
denote  either  varieties  or  diflferent  species  of  Paliu- 
rus and  Zizyplms,  or  difl%reiit  states  perhaps  of 
the  same  tree:  but  it  is  a  difficult  matter  to  assign 
to  each  its  particular  signification.     The  Naatsols 

(V"1^3?3)  of  Is    vii.  19,  Iv.  13,   probably  denotes 

some  species  of  Zizyphus.  The  "  crown  of  thorns  " 
w  hich  was  put  in  derision  upon  our  Lord's  head  just 
before  his  crucifixion,  was  probably  composed  of 
the  thorny  twigs  of  the  nebk  (Zizy/ihus  Spina 
Christi)  mentioned  above;  being  counnon  every- 
where, they  could  readily  be  procured.  "  This 
(Mant,"  says  Hasselquist  {Trav.  p.  288),  was  very 
luitable  for  the  purpose,  as  it  has  many  sharp 
thorns,  and  its  flexible,  pliant,  and  round  branches 
might  e:isily  be  plaited  in  the  form  of  a  crown :  and 
w'.ixt,  in  my  opinion,  seems  to  be  the  greatest  proof 
<s,  trial  the  leaves  much  resemlile  those  of  ivy,  as 
they  are  a  very  deep  green."  Perhaps  the  enemies 
of  Christ  would  have  a  plant  somewhat  resembling 
that  with  which  emperois  and  generals  were  used 
to  be  crowned,  that  there  might  be  calumny  even 
m  the  punishment."     Still,  as  Roaenmiiller  {Bib. 


Bof.  p.  201)  remarks,  "  there  being  so  many  kinds 
of  thorny  plants  in  Palestine,  all  conjectures  must 
remain  uncertain,  and  can  never  lead  to  any  satis- 
factory result."  .Although  it  is  not  possible  to  fix 
upon  any  one  definite  Helirew  word  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  any  kind  of  '-thistle,"  yet  there  can  be 
no  doulit  this  plant  must  be  occasionally  alluded  to. 
Hasselquist  ( Trav.  p.  280),  noticed  six  species  of 
Cardui  and  Cuici  on  the  road  between  Jerusalem 
and  Rama: 'and  Miss  Beaufort  speaks  of  giant 
thistles  of  the  height  of  a  man  on  horseback,  which 
she  saw  near  the  ruins  of  Fellham  {Kfjyptian  Sep. 
and  Syrian  Shi'iue!<,  ii.  45,  50).  We  must  also 
notice  another  thorny  plant  and  very  troublesome 
weed,  the  rest-harrow  {Ononis  sjnnos't],  which 
covers  entire  fields  and  plains  both  in  Egypt  and 
Palestine,  and  which,  as  Hasselquist  says  (p.  289), 
is  no  doubt  referred  to  in  some  parts  of  the  Holy 
Scripture. 

Dr.  Thomson  {Land  and  Book,  p.  59)  illus- 
trates Is.  xxxiii.  12,  "  the  people  shall  be  as  the 
burning  of  lime,  as  thorns  cut  up  shall  they  be 
burned  in  the  fire."  by  the  following  observation, 
"  Those  people  yonder  are  cutting  up  thorns  with 
their  mattocks  and  pmning-hooks,  and  gathering 
them  into  bundles  to  be  burned  in  these  burninirg 
of  lime.  It  is  a  curious  fidelity  to  real  life  tliat 
when  the  thorns  are  merely  to  be  destroyed,  they 


«  Hasselquist   nuiPt  have  infended   fn   rpstrlct  the    leaves,  for  the   plantsi  do  not  in   the  slightest   tegre* 
ilmilarlty  tiere  gpokea  of  entirely  ti>   tuv   ci'.'i/r  of  the    resemble  each  other  in  the  fo'tri  of  the  leave*. 


THOROW 

are  never  cut  up,  but  set  on  fire  where  they  grow, 
fhey  are  cut  up  only  fur  tlie  linie-kihi."  See  also 
p.  342  for  other  Scriptural  allusions."         W,  H. 

*  THOROW,  Ex.  xiv.  16  (A.  V.),  in  the  ed. 
of  1611,  the  old  form  for  "through."  H. 

*  THOROWOUT,  originally  in  Num.  x.wiii. 
29,  but  superseded  by  "  throughout."  H. 

*  THOUGHT.  The  phrase  '-to  take  thouyht  " 
is  used  in  the  A.  V.  (1  Sam.  ix.  5;  Mutt.  vi.  2.5,  27, 
28,  31,  31,  x.  19,  and  the  [larallel  passages)  in  the 
sense  of  "  to  be  anxious  "  (Gr.  yttepi/ivaco).  So 
often  in  the  older  English  writers.  A. 

THRA'CIA  (OpoKia,  7))-  A  Thracian  horse- 
man is  incidentally  mentioned  in  2  Mace.  xii.  35, 
apparently  one  of  the  body-gunrd  of  Ciorgias,  ijover- 
nor  of  Idumeea  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Thraoe 
at  this  period  included  the  whole  of  the  country 
within  the  boundary  of  the  Strymon,  the  Danube, 
and  the  coasts  of  the  /Egean,  Propoiitis,  and  Eux- 
ine  —  all  the  region,  in  fact,  now  comprehended  in 
Bulgaria  and  Kouuielia  In  the  early  times  it  was 
inhaljited  by  a  number  of  tr>bes,  each  under  its 
own  chief,  having  a  name  of  its  own  and  preserving 
its  own  customs,  although  the  same  general  cliaiae- 
ter  of  ferocity  and  addiction  to  plunder  prevailed 
throughout.  Thucydides  descriljes  the  limits  of 
the  eojntry  at  the  period  of  the  Peloponnesian  war, 
wlien  Sitalces  king  of  the  Odrysre,  who  inlialiited 
the  valley  of  the  Hebrus  {M iriiza),  had  acquired 
a  predominant  power  in  the  country,  and  derived 
what  was  for  those  days  a  large  revenue  frcini  it. 
This  revenue,  however,  seems  to  have  ar.sen  mainly 
out  of  his  relations  with  the  Greek  trading  conauu- 
nities  established  on  ditterent  points  of  his  seaboard. 
Some  of  the  clans,  even  witiiin  the  limits  of  his  do- 
minion, still  retained  their  independence;  but  after 
the  establishment  of  a  iMacedonian  dynasty  under 
Lysiniachus,  the  central  authority  became  more  pow- 
erful; and  the  wars  on  a  large  scale  which  followed 
the  death  of  Alexander  furnished  employment  for 
the  martial  tendencies  of  the  I'lu'acians,  who 
found  a  demand  tor  their  services  as  mercenaries 
everywhere.  Cavalry  was  tlie  arm  which  they 
chietly  furnished,  the  rich  pastures  of  Houmelia 
aboimding  in  horses.  Erom  that  region  came  the 
greater  part  of  Sitalces'  cavalry,  amounting  to 
nearly  50,000. 

The  only  other  passage,  if  any,  containing  an 
allusion  to  Thrace,  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  is 
Gen.  X.  2,  where  —  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  sons 
of  Japhet,  who  are  enumerated,  may  be  regarded  as 
the  eponymous  representatives  of  different  branches 
of  the  Japhetian  family  of  nations  —  Tinis  has  by 
some  been  supposed  to  mean  Thrace;  but  the  only 
ground  for  this  identification  is  a  fancied  similarity 
between  the  two  names.  A  stronger  likeness,  how- 
ever, might  be  urged  between  the  name  Tiras  and 
that  of  the  Tyrsi  or  Tyrseni,  the  ancestors  of  the 
Italian  Etruscans,  whom,  on  the  strength  of  a 
local  tradition,  Herodotus  places  in  Lydia  in  the 
i,nte-liistorical  times.  Strabo  brings  forward  sev- 
eral facts  to  show  that,  in  the  early  ages,  Thra- 
cians  existed  on  the  Asiatic  as  well  as  the  Euro- 
pean shore;  but  this  circumstance  furnishes  very 
little  help  towards  the  identification  referred  to. 


a  •  On  f.he  Ulblical  names  of  tUoru  aad  thi.stle, 
WW  Dietrich's  Abkanillun^tn  fur  Utinitische  Worifor- 
vuiuna,  pp.  35-95  (Leipz.  ISW).  U. 


THRESHOLDS,  THE       3239 

(Herodotus,  i.  94,  v.  3  ff;  Thucydides,  u.  97* 
Tacitus,  Annal.  iv.  35;  Horat.  Sat.  i.  6.) 

J.  W.  B. 

THRASE'AS  {©paaarios:  Tharsieag).  Fa- 
ther of  ApoUouius  (1).     2   Mace.  iii.  5.      [ApoI;- 

LOXIUS.] 

*  THREAD.     [Ha>'dicraft,  6 ;  Lace.] 

THREE  TAVERNS  (TperyTa;36,jvai:  Tres 
TaburruB),  a  station  on  the  Ajipian  Ksad,  along 
which  St.  Paul  travelled  from  Puteoli  to  Rome 
(Acts  xxviii.  15).  The  distances,  reckoning  south- 
ward from  Rome,  are  given  as  follows  in  tlie  Anlo- 
nina  /linernnj,  "to  Aricia,  10  miles:  to  Three 
Taverns,  17  miles;  to  Appii  Forum,  10  n.iles;" 
and,  comparing  this  with  what  is  observed  gtiU 
along  the  line  of  road,  we  have  no  ditticulty  Jn 
coming  to  the  conclusion  that  "  Three  I'averns  " 
was  near  the  modern  Cisltrna.  For  details  see 
the  jDict.  of  Greek  and  Rom.  Geog.  ii.  1226  6, 
1291  b. 

Just  at  this  point  a  road  came  in  from  Antium 
on  the  coast.  This  we  learn  from  what  Cicero  says 
of  a  journey  from  that  place  to  his  villa  at  Formiae 
(^Atl.  ii.  12).  There  is  no  doubt  that  "  Three  Tar- 
erns  "  was  a  frequent  meeting-place  of  travellers. 
'The  point  of  interest  as  regards  St.  Paul  is  that  he 
met  liere  a  group  of  Christians  who  (like  a  previous 
group  whom  he  had  met  at  Appii  Fukuw)  came 
from  Rome  to  meet  him  in  consequence  of  having 
heard  of  his  arrival  at  Putkoh.  A  good  illustra- 
tion of  this  kind  of  intercourse  along  the  Appian 
Way  is  supplied  by  Josephus  {Anl.wW.  12,  §  1)  in 
his  accoimt  of  the  journey  of  the  pretender  Herod- 
Alexander.  He  landed  at  Puteoli  (Dica;archia)  to 
gain  over  the  Jews  that  were  there;  and  "when 
the  report  went  about  him  that  he  was  coming  to 
Rome,  the  whole  multitude  of  the  .lews  that  werj 
there  went  out  to  meet  him,  ascribing  it  to  Divine 
Providence  that  he  had  so  unexpectedly  escaped." 

J.  S.  H. 

THRESHING.     [Aokiculture,  i.  43  f.] 

*  THRESHING-FLOOR.  [Agkicux,- 
tuke;  Ruth,  Bouk  op\] 

THRESHOLD.  1.  (See  Gate.)  2.  Of 
the  two  words  so  rendered  in  A.  V.,  one,  miph- 
tdii,"  seems  to  mean  sometimes,  as  the  Targura 
explains  it,  a  projecting  beam  or  corbel,  at  a  higher 
point  than  the  threshold  properly  so  called  (Ez. 
ix.  3,  X.  4,  18). 

THRESHOLDS,  THE  C'SpSH  :  ^y   r^ 

(Twayayeiv-  vestibuln).  This  word,  ha-Asuppi, 
appears  to  be  inaccurately  rendered  in  Neh.  xii. 
25,  though  its  re;il  force  has  perhaps  not  jet  been 

discovered.     The  "  house  of  the  Asuppim"  (i"T'!2 

Q^SpSn),  or  simply  "the  Asuppim,"  is  men 
tioned  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  15,  17,  as  a  part,  probably  a 
gate,  of  the  inclosure  of  the  "  House  of  Jehovah." 
i.  e.  the  Tabernacle,  as  established  by  David  —  ap- 
parently at  its  8.  W.  corner.  The  allusion  in  Neh. 
xii.  25  is  undoubtedly  to  the  same  place,  cas  is 
shown  not  oidy  by  the  identity  of  the  name,  but 
by  the  reference  to  David  (ver.  24 ;  compare  1  Chr. 
XXV.  1).    Aiuppiin  is  derivetl  from  a  root  signifying 


a   ^nSIS  :  aWpiof:  limfu  (see  Chis.  p.  IWl, 


8240 


THRONE 


"  to  gather  "  (Gesenius,  Thee.  p.  131),  and  in  the 
absence  of  any  indication  of  what  the  "  house  of 
the  Asiippini  "  was,  it  is  variously  explained  by  the 
lexicographers  as  a  store-chamber  (Gesenius),  or  a 
place  of  assembly  (Fiirst,  Bertlieau).  The  LXX. 
in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  have  oIkos  '"Eareipeiv  •  Vulg.  damns 
■  ieniuruia  concilium.     On  the  other  hand  the  Tar- 

pura  renders  the  word  by  f^lp^,  "  a  lintel,"'  as  if 

deriving  it  from  ^jD.  G. 

THRONE  'k^BS).  The  Hebrew  term  ci/sc 
applies  to  any  elevated  seat  occupied  by  a  person 
in  authority,  whether  a  hiifh-priest  (1  Sam.  i.  9),  a 
judge  (I's.  cxxii.  5),  or  a  military  ciiief  (Jer.  i.  15). 
Tlie  use  of  a  chair  in  a  country  where  the  usual 
postures  were  squatting  and  reclining,  wa-sat  all  times 
regarded  as  a  symbol  of  dignity  (2  K.  iv.  10;  Prov. 
ix.  14).  In  order  to  specify  a  throne  in  our  sense 
of  the  term,  it  was  necessary  to  add  to  cisse  the 
notion  of  royalty:  hence  the  frequent  occurrence  of 
such  expressions  as  "  the  throne  of  the  kingdom  " 


Assyrian  throne  or  chair  of  state  (Layard,  Nineveh,  ii. 
301). 

(Deut.  svii.  18;  1  K.  i.  46;  2  Chr.  vii.  18).  The 
characteristic  feature  in  the  royal  throne  was  its 
elevation :  Solomon's  throne  was  approached  by  six 
steps  (1  K.  X.  19;  2  Chr.  ix.  18);  and  Jehovah's 
thrope  is  described  as  "  high  and  lifted  up  "  (Is.  vi. 
1).  The  materials  and  workmanship  were  costly: 
that  of  Solomon  is  described  as  a  "throne  of  ivory'" 
{i.  e.  inlaid  with  ivory),  iind  overlaid  with  pure 
gold  in  all  parts  except  where  the  ivory  was  appar- 
ent. It  was  furnished  with  arms  or  "  stays,'"  after 
the  manner  of  the  Assyrian  chair  of  state  depicted 
above.  The  steps  were  also  lined  with  pairs  of 
lions,  the  num'oer  of  them  being  perhaps  designed 
to  correspond  with  that  of  the  tribes  of  Israel. 
As  to  the  form  of  the  chair,  we  are  only  informed 
in  1  K.  X.  19,  that  "the  top  was  round  behind" 
(apparently  meaning  either  that  the  back  was 
rounded  off  at  the  top,  or  that  there  was  a  cir- 
cular canopy  over  it):  in  lieu  of  this  particular  we 
are  told  in  2  Chr.  ix.  18  that  "there  was  a  footstool 
»f  gold,  fastened  to  the  throne,"  but  the  verbal 
agreement  of  the  descriptions  in  other  respects  leads 
to  the  presumption  that  this  variation  arises  out  of 
a  corrupted  text  (Thenius,  Cimim.  in  1  K.  /.  c),  a 
presumptiou  which  is  favored  by  the  fact  that  the 


THUNDER 

terms  li'33  and  the  Hophal  form  C^TPS!! 
occur  nowhere  else.  The  king  sat  on  his  throne  on 
state  occasions,  as  when  granting  audiences  (1  K. 
ii.  19,  xxii.  10;  Esth.  v.  1),  receiving  homage  (2 
K.  xi.  19).  or  administering  justice  (I'rov.  xx.  8). 
At  such  times  he  appeared  in  his  royal  robes  (1  K 
xxii.  10;  Jon.  iii.  G;  Acts  xii.  21).  The  throne 
was  the  symbol  of  supreme  power  and  dignity  (Gen. 
xli.  40),  and  hence  was  attributed  to  JeLiovah  both 
in  respect  to  his  lieavenly  abode  (Ps.  xi.  4,  ciii.  19; 
Is.  Ixvi.  1 :  Acts  vii.  49 ;  Kev.  iv.  2),  or  to  his  earthly 
aliode  at  Jerusalem  (Jer.  iii.  17),  and  more  particu- 
larly in  the  Temple  (Jer.  xvii.  12;  Ez.  xliii.  7). 
Similarly  "  to  sit  upon  the  throne  ''  implied  the  ex- 
ercise of  regal  power  (Deut.  xvii.  18;  IK.  xvi.  11; 
2  K.  X.  30;  Esth.  i.  2;,  and  "  to  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  another  person,"  succession  to  the  royal  dignity 
(1  K.  i  13).  In  Neh.  iii.  7,  the  term  cisse  is  ai)plied 
to  the  official  residence  of  the  governor,  which  ap- 
pears to  have  been  either  on  or  near  to  the  city 
wall.  W.  L.  B.  ■ 

THUMMIM.     [Ukim  a.xd  Thumjuji.] 

THUNDER  tCPr).     In  a  physical  iwint  of 
view,  the  most  noticeable  feature  in  connection  with 
thunder  is  the  extreme  rarity  of  its  occurrence  dur- 
ing the  summer  months  in  Palestine  and  the  adja- 
cent countries.     Prom  the  middle  of  April  to  the 
middle  of  September  it  is  hardly  ever  heard.     Kob- 
inson,  indeed,  mentions  an  instance  of  thunder  in 
the  early   part   of  iMay    (Jitse(rrches,  i.   430),  and 
Hussell  in  July  {Ah-ppo,  ii.  289),  but  in  each  case 
it  is  stated  to  le  a  most  unusual  event.      Hence  it 
was  selected  by  Samuel  as  a  striking  expression  of 
the  Divine  displeasure  towards  the  Israelites:  "Is 
it  not  wheat  har\  est  to-day  ':'     I  will  call  upon  the 
Lord,  and  he  siiall  send  thunder  and. rain  "  (1  Sam. 
xii.  17).     Pain  in  harvest  was  deemed  as  extraor- 
dinary as  snow  in  summer  (Prov.  xxvi.  1),  and  Je- 
rome asserts  that  he  had  never  witnessed  it  in  the 
latter  part  of  June  or  in  July  (Comm.  on  Am.  iv. 
7):  the  same  observations  apply  equally  to  thunder 
which  is  rarely  unaccompanied  with  rain  (Kussell, 
i.  72,  ii.  285).     In  the  imaginative  philosophy  of 
the  Hebrews,  thunder  was  regarded  as  the  voice  of 
Jehovah  (Job  xxxvii.  2,  4,  5,  xl.  9;   Ps.  xviii.  13, 
xxix.  3-9;  Is.  xxx.  30,  31),  who  dwelt  behind  the 
thunder-cloud   (Ps.    Ixxxi.  7).     Hence  thunder  is 
occasionally  described  in  the  Hebrfew  by  the  term 
"voices"  (Ex.  ix.  23,28;  1  Sam.  xii.  17).     Hence 
the  people' in  the  Gospel  supposed  that  the  voice  of 
the  Lord  was  the  sound  of  thunder  (John  xii.  29). 
Thunder  was,  to  the  mind  of  the  Jew,  the  symbol 
of  Divine  power  (Ps.  xxix.  3,  &c.),  and  vengeance 
(1  Sam.  ii.  10;  2  Sam.  xxii.  14;   Ps.  Ixxvii.  18:  Is. 
xxix.  6;  liev.  viii.  5).     It  was  either  the  sign  or 
the  instrument  of  his  wrath  on  numerous  occasions, 
as  during  the  plague  of  hail  in   Egypt  (Ex.  ix.  23, 
28),  at  the  promulgation  of  the  Law  (Ex.  xix.  16); 
at  the  discomfiture  of  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  vii. 
10),  and  when  the  Israelites  denianded  a  king  (1 
Sam.  xii.  17).     l"he  term  thunder  was  tran.sferred 
to  the  war-shout  of  a  military  leader   (Job  xxxis. 
25),  and  hence  Jehovah   is  descrilied  as   "causing 
his  voice  to  be  heard  "  in  the  battle  (Is.  xxx,  30). 
It  is  also  used   as  a  superlative  exjjression  in  Job 
xxvi.  14,  where  the  "  thunder  of  his  power  "  is  con- 
trasted with  the  "  little  portion,"  or  rather  the^en- 
tle  wliisper  that  can  be  heard.     In  Job  xxxix.  19 
"  thunder'"is a  mistranslation  for  "a  flowing  maue." 

\V.  L.  B. 


THYATIRA 

THVATI'RA  {eudretpa,  rd'-  civitas  Thyati- 
remirnju).  A  city  on  the  Lyciis,  founded  by  Seleu- 
cus  Nicator.  It  was  one  of  the  many  Macedonian 
colonies  established  in  Asia  Minor,  in  the  SL-qnel  of 
tlie  destruction  of  the  Persian  empire  by  Alexan- 
der. It  lay  to  the  left  of  the  road  from  I'erganuis 
to  Sardis,  on  the  southern  incline  of  the  water-shed 
which  separates  the  valley  of  the  Caius  {Bal-yrt- 
chd)  from  that  of  the  llernius,  on  the  very  con- 
fines of  Mysia  and  Ionia,  so  as  to  he  sometimes 
reckoned  within  the  one,  and  sometimes  within  the 
other.  In  earlier  times  it  had  borne  the  names  of 
Pelopia,  Semiraniis,  and  Euhippia.  At  tl)e  com- 
mencement of  the  Chi"istian  era,  the  ^Macedonian 
element  so  preponderated  as  to  ^i^e  a  di-tinctive 
cliaracter  to  the  population ;  and  Strabo  simply  calls 
it  a  JIacedonian  colony.  The  original  inhabitants 
Had   probably   been   distributed  in  hamlets  round 


THYATIRA 


3241 


about,  when  Thyatira  was  founded.  Two  of  these, 
the  inhabitants  of  which  are  termed  Artui  and 
NiKjdi^ini,  are  noticed  in  an  inscription  of  the  Ro- 
man times.  The  resources  of  the  neighboring  re- 
gion may  be  infei-red,  both  from  the  name  ludiippiu 
and  from  the  magnitude  of  the  booty  which  was 
carried  off  in  a  foray  conducted  jointly  by  Eumenes 
of  Pergamus  and  a  force  detached  by  the  Roman 
admiral  from  Cause,  during  the  war  against  Anti- 
ochus.  During  the  campaign  of  b.  c.  190,  Thy- 
atira formed  tije  base  of  the  king's  operations;  and 
after  his  defeat,  which  took  place  only  a  few 
miles  to  tlie  south  of  the  city,  it  submitted,  at  the 
same  time  with  its  neighbor  Magnesia-on-Sipylus, 
to  the  Romans,  and  was  included  in  the  territory 
made  over  by  them  to  their  ally  the  I'ergamene 
sovereign. 

During  the  continuance  of  the  Attalic  dvnastv 


Thyatira  scarcely  appears  in  history ;  and  of  the 
various  inscriptions  which  have  been  found  on  the 
site,  now  called  Ak  Hissar,  not  one  unequivocally 
belongs  to  earlier  times  than  those  of  the  Roman 
empire.  The  prosperity  of  the  city  seems  to  have 
received  a  new  impulse  under  Vespasian,  whose  ac- 
quaintance with  the  East,  previously  to  mounting 
the  imperial  throne,  may  have  directed  his  atten- 
tion to  the  development  of  the  resources  of  the 
Asiatic  cities.  A  bilingual  inscription,  in  Greek 
and  Latin,  belonging  to  the  latter  part  of  iiis  reiiin, 
shows  him  to  have  restored  the  roads  in  the  domain 
of  Thyatira.  From  others,  between  this  time  and 
that  of  Caracalla,  there  is  evidence  of  the  existence 
of  many  corporate  guilds  in  the  city.  Rakers,  pot- 
ters, tanners,  weavers,  robeniakers,  and  dyers  (oi 
jSat^eVy)  are  specially  mentioned.  Of  tiiese  last 
there  is  a  notice  in  no  less  than  three  inscriptions, 
BO  that  dyeing  apparentl}' formed  an  important  part 
of  the  industrial  activity  of  Thyatira,  as  it  did  of 
that  of  Colossfe  and  Laodicea.  With  thi.s  guild 
there  can  Ijc  no  dou1)t  that  Lydia,  the  seller  of  pur- 
204 


pie  stuffs  (Trop(pvp6TrcoAis),  from  whom  St.  Paul 
met  with  so  favorable  a  reception  at  Philippi  (Acts 
xvi.  14),  was  connected. 

The  principal  deity  of  the  city  was  Apollo,  wor- 
shipped as  the  sun-god  under  the  surname  ryrim- 
nas.  He  was  no  doubt  introduced  by  tlie  Mace- 
donian colonists,  for  the  name  is  Macedonian,  dne 
of  the  three  mythical  kings  of  Macedonia,  whom  the 
genealogists  placed  before  I'erdiccas  —  the  first  of 
the  Temenida;  that  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  rec- 
ognize —  is  so  called;  the  other  two  being  Oirmius 
and  Ovnus.  manifestly  impersonations  of  the  cliicf 
and  tiie  tribe.  I'lie  inscriptions  of  i'liyatira  give 
Tyrinuias  the  titles  of  wpdrroKis  and  irpu-'arcap 
6i:6s\  and  a  special  priesthood  was  attached  to  iiis 
service.  \  priestess  of  Artemis  is  also  mentioned, 
probably  the  administratrix  of  a  cult  derived  from 
the  earlier  times  of  the  city,  and  similar  in  its 
nature  to  that  of  the  Ephesian  Artemis.  Another 
superstition,  of  an  extremely  curious  nature,  wliich 
existed  at  Thyatira,  seems  to  have  been  brougiil 
thitlier  by  some  of  the  corrupted  Jews  o*'  the  di» 


3242 


THYINE  WOOD 


persed  tribes.  A  fane  stood  outside  the  walls, 
dedicated  to  Sctmbatha  —  the  name  of  the  siliyl 
who  is  sometimes  called  (_  halda;aii,  sometimes  Jew- 
ish, sometimes  Persian  —  in  the  midst  of  an  in- 
closnre  desitrnated  "  the  Chaldwan's  court "  [tov 
XaA5alo^  irepilSoAos}-  This  seems  to  lend  an 
illustration  to  the  obscure  passage  in  Kev.  ii.  20, 
21,  which  Grotius  interprets  of  the  wife  of  the 
bishop.  The  drawback  against  the  commendation 
bestowed  upon  the  angel  of  the  Thyatiran  church 
is  tliat  he  tolerates  "  that  woman,  that  Jezebel, 
who,  professing  herself  to  be  a  prophetess,  teaches 
and  deludes  my  servants  into  committing  fornica- 
tion and  eating  things  offered  to  idols."  Time, 
however,  is  given  her  to  repent;  and  this  seems  to 
im[ily  a  form  of  religion  which  had  become  con- 
demiiable  from  the  admixture  of  foreign  alloy, 
ra'her  than  one  idolatrous  nb  inilio.  Now  there 
is  evidence  to  show  that  in  Thjatira  there  was  a 
great  amalgamation  of  races.  Latin  inscriptions 
are  frequent,  indicating  a  considerable  influx  of 
Italian  immigrants;  and  in  some  Greek  inscriptions 
many  Latin  words  are  introduced.  Latin  and 
Greek  names,  too,  are  found  accumulated  on  the 
same  individuals,  —  such  as  Titus  Antonius  Alfenus 
Arignotus,  and  Julia  Severina  Stratonicis.  Hut 
amalgamation  of  dirterent  races,  in  pagan  nations, 
always  went  together  with  a  syncretism  of  different 
religions,  every  relation  of  life  having  its  religious 
sanction.  If  the  sibyl  Sambatha  was  really  a 
Jewess,  lending  her  aid  to  this  proceeding,  and  not 
discountenanced  by  the  authorities  of  the  Juda?o- 
Christian  church  at  Thyatira,  both  the  censure  and 
its  qualification  become  easy  of  exi)lanation. 

It  seems  also  not  improliable  that  the  imagery 
of  the  description  in  Hev.  ii.  18,  6  ex'^''  '''ovs 
6(p0a\/jiovs  avTov  ws  (p\6ya.  Trvp6s,  Kal  oi  ir6S(s 

avTov  o/xoioi  x"'^'^'^^^^''''"?')  '"'''3  ''^^^  ''^^'^  ®"§" 
ge.-ted  by  the  current  pagan  representations  of  the 
tutelary  deity  of  the  city.  See  a  parallel  case  at 
Smyrna.      [Smykna.] 

Besides  the  cults  which  have  Ijeen  mentioned, 
there  is  evidence  of  a  deification  of  liome,  of  Ha- 
drian, and  of  the  imperial  family,  (iames  were 
celebrated  in  honor  of  Tyrimnas,  of  Hercules,  and 
of  the  reigning  emperor.  On  the  coins  before  the 
imperial  times,  the  heads  of  Bacchus,  of  Athene, 
and  of  Cybele,  are  also  found:  but  the  inscriptions 
only  indicate  a  cult  of  the  last  of  these. 

(Strabo,  xiii.  c.  4;  Pliny,  H.  N.  v.  31;  Liv. 
rsxvii.  8,  21,  44;  Polybius,  xvi.  1,  xxxii.  25;  Steph- 
anus  Byzant.  siib  v.  Qvareipa;  Boeckh,  Inscvipt. 
GrcBC.  Thyntir.,  especially  Nos.  3484-3499 ;  Suidas, 
V.  Sa^u/S'^fl-ij :  ^lian,  Vur.  Hist.  xii.  36;  Clinton, 
F.  H.  ii.  221;  Hoffmann,  Griechenland,  ii.  1714.) 

J.  W.  B. 

THYINE  WOOD  {t,{)Kov  eiXuof.  liynum 
thyinum)  occurs  once  only,  namely,  in  Rev.  xviii. 
12,  where  the  margin  has  "sweet"  (wood).  It  is 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  valuable  articles  of  com- 
merce that  should  be  found  no  more  in  Babylon 
(Pome),  whose  fall  is  here  predicted  by  St.  John. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  wood  here  spoken 
of  is  that  of  the  Thuya  articuldta,  Desfont.,  the 
Odlilris  qundrivnlvis  of  present  botanists.  This 
tree  was  much  prized  by  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
Pomans,  on  account  of  the  beauty  of  its  wood  for 
various  ornamental  purposes.  It  is  the  dveia  of 
Theophrastus  {Hist.  Plant,  iii.  4,  §§  2,  6);  the 
diuvov  ivXov  of  Dioscorides  (i.  21).  By  the  Ro- 
mans the  tree  was  called  citrus,  the  wood  citrum. 
It  b  a  native  of  Barbary,  and  grows  to  the  height 


TIBERIAS 

of  15  to  25  feet.  Pliny  (//.  N.  xiii.  15,  s.iys  thai 
the  citrus  is  found  abundantly  in  Mauritania,  lie 
speaks  of  a  mania  amongst  his  countrymen  for 
tables  made  of  its  wood;  and  tells  us  that  wlien 
the  Koman  ladies  were  upbraided  by  their  husbands 
for  their  extravagance  in  pearls,  they  retorted  upon 
them  their  excessive  fondness  for  tables  made  of 
this  wood.  Fabulous  prices  were  given  for  tables 
and  other  ornamental  furniture  made  of  citrus  wood 
(see  Pliny,  /.  c).  The  Greek  and  Roman  writers 
frequently  allude  to  this  wood.  See  a  number  of 
references  in  Celsius,  Hierob.  ii.  25.     Thf  roof  o) 


Thuya  articulala. 

the  mosque  at  Cordova,  built  in  the  9th  cent.,  is 
of  "thyine  wood  "  (Loudon's  Arbortliun,  iv.  2463). 
Lady  Callcott  says  the  wood  is  dark  nut-brown, 
close  grained,  and  very  fragrant."  The  resin 
known  by  the  name  of  Sandarach  is  the  produce 
of  this  tree,  which  belongs  to  the  cypress  tribe 
( Cvpressinece),  of  the  nat.  order  Coniferce. 

W.  H. 

TIBE'RIAS  (Tifiepids-  Tiberias),  a  city  in 
the  tiriie  of  Christ,  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee;  first 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  (John  vi.  1,  23, 
xxi.  1),  and  then  by  Josephus  (Ant.  xviii.,  Btl. 
Jud.  ii.  9,  §  1 ),  who  states  that  it  was  built  by 
Herod  Antipas,  and  was  named  by  him  in  honor 
of  the  emperor  I'iberius.  It  was  probably  a  new 
town,  and  not  a  restored  or  enlarged  one  merely; 
for  "  Rakkath  "  (Josh.  xix.  35),  which  is  said  in 
the  Talmud  to  have  occujiied  the  same  position, 
lay  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  (if  we  insist  on  the 
boundaries  as  indicated  by  the  clearest  pa.ssages), 
whereas  Tiberias  appears  to  have  been  within  the 
Uniits  of  Zebulun  (Matt.  iv.  13).  See  Winer 
Realw.  ii.  619.  The  same  remark  may  be  made 
respecting  Jerome's  statement,  that  Tiberias  suc- 
ceeded to  the  place  of  the  earlier  Chinnereth  ( Ono- 
masticon,  sub  voce);  for  this  latter  town,  as  maj 


a  "  It  is  highly  balsamic  and  odoriferous,  the  reslik, 
no  doubt,  preventing  the  ravages  of  insects  as  well  at 
the  intiuence  of  the  air"  (Loudon's  Arb.  1.  c). 


TIBERIAS 

bo  argued  froiii  the  name  itself,  must  h;ive  leen 
further  north  than  the  site  of  Tilierias  The 
tenacity  witli  wliicli  its  liouian  name  has  adhered 
to  the  spot  (see  infra)  indicates  tlie  same  fact;  for, 
generally  speaivinc;,  foreiLfii  names  in  the  Kast  ap- 
plied to  towns  previously  known  under  names  de- 
rived from  the  native  dialect,  as  e.  g.  Epiphania  fur 
Hamniatli  (Josh.  xix.  35),  I'almyra  for  Tadmor 
(■2  Chr.  viii.  4),  I'tolemais  for  Ai\ko  (Acts  xxi.  7), 
lost  their  foothold  as  soon  as  the  foreiijn  power 
passed  away  which  had  imposed  tlieui,  and  gave 
place  again  to  the  original  appellations.  Tilierias 
was  the  capital  of  (ialilee  from  the  time  of  its 
origin  until  the  reign  of  Herod  Agrippa  II.,  who 
changed  the  seat  of  power  back  again  to  Sei>phoris, 
where  it  had  been  before  the  founding  of  the  new 
city.  Many  of  the  inhabitants  were  Greeks  and 
Uomans,  and  foreign  customs  prevailed  there  to 
such  an  extent  ae  to  give  offense  to  the  stricter 
Jews.     [IIerodians.]      Herod,   the   founder   of 


TIBERIAS 


3i:43 


Tiberias,  had  passed  most  of  his  early  life  in  Italy 
and  had  lirought  witii  him  thence  a  taste  for  the 
amusements  and  magnificent  buildings,  with  which 
he  had  been  familiar  in  that  country.  He  built  a 
stadium  there,  like  that  in  which  the  Roman  youth 
trained  themselves  fur  feats  of  rivalry  and  war. 
lie  erected  a  palace,  which  he  ad<»rned  with  figures 
of  animals,  '-contrary,"  as  Joscphus  says  (  17/.  §§ 
12,  13,  04),  "  to  the  law  of  our  countrymen." 
The  place  was  so  much  the  less  attractive  to  the 
Jews,  because,  as  the  same  authority  states  [Ant. 
xviii.  2,  §  3),  it  .stood  on  the  site  of  an  ancient 
burial-ground,  and  was  viewed,  therefore,  b\"  the 
more  scrupulous  among  them  almost  as  a  polluteil 
and  forbidden  locality.  Coins  of  the  city  of  Tibe- 
rias are  still  extant,  which  are  referred  to  the  times 
of   Tiberius,  Trajan,  and  Hadrian. 

The  ancient  name  has  survived  in  that  of  the 
modern  Tubarieh,  which  occupies  unquestionably 
the  original  site,  except  that  it  is  con  fined  to  nar 


Town  and  Laki  of  Tiberias  from  the  Southwest. 


rower  limits  than  those  of  the  original  city.  Near 
Titbitruli,  about  a-  mile  further  south  along  the 
shore  are  the  celebrated  warm  baths,  which  the 
Roman  naturalists  (Plin.  Hist.  Xxi.  v.  1.5)  reck- 
oned among  the  greatest  known  curiosities  of  the 
world.  [H.^iNiMATH.]  The  intermediate  space  be- 
tween these  liaths  and  the  town  abounds  with  the 
traces  of  ruins,  such  as  the  foundations  of  walls, 
heaps  of  stone,  blocks  of  granite,  and  the  like; 
and  it  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  the  an- 
cient Tiberias  occupied  also  this  ground,  and  was 
aiuch  more  extensive  than  its  modern  successor. 
From  such  indications,  and  from  the  explicit  testi- 
mony of  Josephus,  who  says  {Aid.  xviii.  2,  §  3) 
that  Tiberias  was  near  Ammaus  ("A^u^aouj),  or  the 
VV^arm  Haths,  there  can  be  no  uncertainty  respect- 
ing the  identification  of  the  site  of  this  important 
city.  It  stood  anciently  as  now,  on  the  western 
shore,  about  two  thirds  of  the  way  between   the 


northern  and  southern  end  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
There  is  a  margin  or  strip  of  land  there  between 
the  water  and  the  steep  hills  (which  elsewhere  in 
that  quarter  come  down  so  boldly  to  the  edge  oi 
the  lake),  about  two  miles  long  and  a  quarter  of  a 
mile  broad.  The  tract  in  question  is  somewhat 
undulating,  but  approximates  to  the  character  of  a 
plain.  Tidxirieli,  the  modern  town,  occupies  the 
northern  end  of  this  parallelogram,  and  the  Warm 
Baths  the  southern  extrenuty;  so  that  the  more 
extended  city  of  the  Roman  ajje  must  haxe  covered 
all,  or  nearly  all  of  the  peculiar  ground  whose 
limits  are  tlius  clearly  defined.  (See  Robinson's 
Bihl.  Res.  ii.  380;  and  Porter's  I'andbdok,  ii.  421.) 
The  present  Tubarh-h  has  a  rectangular  form,  is 
guarded  by  a  strong  wall  on  the  land  side,  but  is 
left  entirely  open  towards  the  sea."  A  few  [lalm- 
trees  still  remain  as  witnesses  of  the  luxuriant 
vegetation  which  once  adorneti  this  garden  of  the  « 


a  •  Mr.  MacGregor,  who  was  ten  J.us  in  liis  boat  the  other.  It  wa.s  evident  that  it  liad  "all  bodily 
on  the  lake  of  Galilee,  reports  au  interesting  discovery  ;  supk  ;  the  whole  town  of  Tiberias  had  lowered  to- 
rn the  seii-side  of  the  town  of  Tiberias.  He  observed  ward-i  the  south."  lie  ascribes  this  sinking  to  the 
t  loni?  wall  of  stones,  just  above  the  surface  of  the  '  great  earthquake  which  took  plwe  in  1837  (see  the 
ivater,  300  or  400  yards  ill  extent,  three  cour.ses  of  them  !  art.  above).  See  Rffor:  of  llii  I'air.'-iiiie  Ejplora!ion 
.^ut  of  the  water  at  one  eud,  and  only  two  of  tliem  at  i  Fiini/ ,  oh.  iii.  p.  101  f.  II 


3244  TIBERIAS 

I'roiiiised  Land,  luit  they  are  ^Teatl}'  inferior  in 
size  and  beauty  to  those  seen  in  Egypt.  The 
oleander  grows  here  profusely,  almost  rivaling  that 
flower  so  much  admired  as  found  on  the  neighbor- 
ing plain  of  Gennesaret.  The  people,  as  of  old, 
draw  their  subsistence  in  part  from  the  adjacent 
lake.  The  spectator  from  his  position  here  com- 
mands a  view  of  almost  the  entire  expanse  of  the 
sea,  except  the  southern  part,  which  is  cut  off  by 
a  slight  projection  of  the  coast.  The  precipices 
on  tlie  opposite  side  appear  almost  to  overhang  the 
water,  but  on  being  approached  are  found  to  stand 
liaek  at  some  distance,  so  as  to  allow  travellers  to 
pass  between  them  and  the  water.  The  lofty  Her- 
mon,  the  modern  Jebirl  es/t-S/ieikh,  with  its  glisten- 
ing snow-heaps,  forms  a  conspicuous  object  of  the 
landscape  in  the  northeast.  Many  rock-tombs  ex- 
ist in  the  sides  of  the  hills,  behind  the  town,  some 
of  them  no  doubt  of  great  antiquity,  and  con- 
Btructed  in  the  liest  style  of  such  monuments.  The 
climate  here  in  the  warm  season  is  very  hot  and 
unhealthy ;  but  most  of  the  tropical  fruits,  as  in 
other  parts  of  the  vaUey  of  the  Jordan,  become 
ripe  very  early,  and,  with  industry,  might  be  culti- 
vated in  great  abundance  and  perfection.  The 
article  on  Gennesaket  [vol.  i.  p.  895]  should  be 
read  in  this  connection,  since  it  is  the  relation  of 
Tiberias  to  the  surrounding  region  and  the  lake, 
which  gave  to  it  its  chief  importance  in  the  first 
Christian  age.  The  place  is  four  and  a  half  hours 
from  Nazareth,  one  hour  from  JMejdel,  probably 
the  ancient  Magdala,  and  thirteen  hours,  by  the 
shortest  route,  from  Banias  or  Cjesarea  l^hilippi. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Gospels  give  us  no 
information  that  the  Saviour,  who  spent  so  much 
of  his  public  life  in  Galilee,  ever  visited  Tiberias. 
The  surer  meaning  of  the  expression,  "  He  went 
away  beyond  the  sea  of  Galilee  of  Tiberias  "  in 
John  vi.  1  (-rrepav  ttjj  daAdaar]s  rrjs  TaAiAaias 
rrjs  Ti^epidSos),  is  not  that  Jesus  embarked  from 
Tilierias,  but,  as  Meyer  remarks,  that  He  crossed 
(roin  the  west  side  of  the  Gul'denn  s^ea  of  Tibeii"s 
to  the  opposite  side.  A  reason  has  been  assigned 
for  this  singular  fact,  which  may  or  may  not  ac- 
count for  it.  As  Herod,  the  murderer  of  John  the 
Baptist,  resided  most  of  the  time  in  this  city,  the 
iSaviour  may  have  kept  purposely  away  from  it,  on 
account  of  the  sanguinary  and  artful  (Luke  xiii. 
32)  character  of  that  ruler.  It  is  certain,  from 
Luke  xxiii  8,  that  though  Herod  had  heard  of  the 
fame  of  Christ,  he  never  saw  Him  in  person  until 
they  met  at  Jerusalem,  and  never  witnessed  any  of 
his  miracles.  It  is  possible  that  the  character  of 
the  place,  so  iiiuch  like  that  of  a  Koman  colony, 
may  have  been  a  reason  why  He  who  was  sent  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  performed  so 
little  lal)or  in  its  vicinity.  The  head  of  the  lake, 
and  especially  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  where  the 
population  was  more  dense  and  so  thoroughly  Jew- 
ish, formed  the  central  point  of  his  Galilean  min- 
istry. The  feast  of  Herod  and  his  courtiers,  before 
whom  the  daughter  of  Herodias  danced,  and  in 
fulfillment  of  the  tetrarch's  rash  oath  demanded 
the  head  of  the  dauntless  reformer,  was  held  in  all 
probability  at  Tiberias,  the  capital  of  the  province. 
If,  as  Josephus  mentions  (Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  2),  the 
liaptist  was  imprisoned  at  the  time  in  the  castle 
»f  Machserus  beyond  the  Jordan,  the  order  for  his 
wecution   could   have  been  sent  thither,  and  the 

o  •  Probably  in  no  place  in  the  world  is  the  He-    tent  as  at  Tiberias.     (See  Tobler,  Denkbldtter  aus  Jeru 
»rew  spoken  aa  a  vernacular  language  to  such  an  ex- '  satem,  p   284.)  H. 


TIBERIAS 

bloody  trophy  forwarded  to  the  implacaljle  Herodiaa 
at  the  palace  where  she  usually  resided,  (lanig 
{Johannes  der  Tnufer  im  Gefangniss,  p.  47,  &c.) 
suggests  that  John,  instead  of  being  kept  all  tlie 
time  in  the  same  castle,  may  have  been  confined  in 
different  places,  at  difFerent  times.  [Mach.kiuts, 
Amer.  ed.]  I'he  three  passages  already  referred 
to  are  the  only  ones  in  the  New  Testament  which 
mention  Tiberias  by  name,  namely,  John  vi.  1, 
and  xxi.  1  (in  both  instances  designating  the  lake 
on  which  the  town  was  situated),  and  John  vi. 
23,  where  boats  are  said  to  have  come  from 
Tiberias  near  to  the  place  at  which  Jesus  had 
supplied  miraculously  the  wants  of  the  multitude. 
Thus  the  lake  in  the  time  of  Christ,  among  its 
other  appellations,  bore  also  that  of  the  principal 
city  in  the  neighborhood;  and  in  like  manner, 
at  the  present  day,  Bahr  Tubarit/i,  '•  Sea  of  Tu- 
barieh,"  is  almost  the  oidy  name  under  which  it 
is  known  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  country. 

Tiberias  has  an  interesting  history,  apart  from  its 
strictly  Biblical  associations.  It  bore  a  consj)icu- 
ous  part  in  the  wars  between  the  Jews  and  the  L'o- 
mans.  The  .Sanhedrim,  subsequently  to  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  after  a  temporary  sojourn  at  Jamnia  and 
Sepphoris,  became  fixed  there  about  the  middle  of 
the  2d  century.  Celebrated  schools  of  Jewish  learn- 
ing flourished  there  through  a  succession  of  several 
centuries.  Ihe  Mishna  was  compiled  at  this  place 
by  the  great .Babbi  Judah  Hakkodesh  (a.  d.  100). 
The  Masorah,  or  body  of  traditions,  which  trans- 
mitted the  readings  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  preserved  by  means  of  the  vo«e] 
system  the  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew,  originated 
in  a  great  measure  at  Tiberias.  The  place  jjassed, 
under  Constantine,  into  the  power  of  the  Christians; 
and  during  tiie  period  of  the  Crusades  was  lost  and 
won  repeatedly  by  the  different  conibatant.s.  Since 
that  time  it  has  been  possessed  successixely  by  Per- 
sians, Arabs,  and  Turks;  and  contains  now.  under 
the  Turkish  rule,  a  mixed  population  of  Moham- 
medans, Jews,  and  Christians,  variously  estimated 
at  from  two  to  four  thousand.  'Ihe  Jews  consti- 
tute, perhaps,  one  fourth  of  the  entire  number. 
They  regard  Tiberias  as  one  of  the  four  holy  places 
(Jerusalem,  Hebron,  Safed,  are  the  others),  in 
which,  as  they  say,  prayer  nuist  be  offered  without 
ceasing,  or  the  world  would  fall  back  instantly  into 
chaos.  Ore  of  their  singular  opinions  is  that  the 
]\Iessiah  when  He  appears  will  emerge  from  the 
waters  of  the  lake,  and,  landing  at  Tiberias,  proceed 
to  Safed,  and  there  establish  his  throne  on  the 
highest  summit  in  Galilee.  In  addition  to  the 
language  of  the  particular  country,  as  Poland,  Ger- 
many, Spain,  from  which  they  or  their  families  em- 
igrated, most  of  the  Jews  here  speak  also  the  Jtab- 
binic  Hebrew,  and  modern  Arabic."  They  occupy 
a  quarter  in  the  middle  of  the  town,  adjacent  to  the 
lake;  just  north  of  which,  near  the  shore,  is  a 
Latin  convent  and  church,  occupied  by  a  solitary 
Italian  monk.  Tiberias  suffered  terribly  from  the 
great  earthquake  in  1837,  and  has  not  yet  recovered 
by  any  means  from  the  effects  of  that  disaster.  In 
1852,  the  writer  of  this  article  (later  travellers 
report  but  little  improvement)  rode  into  the  city 
over  the  dilapidated  walls;  in  other  parts  of  them 
not  overthrown,  rents  were  visible  from  top  to 
bottom,  and  some  of  the  towers  looked  as  if  they 
had  been  shattered  by  battering-rams.     It  is  sup- 


TIBERIAS 

[tosed  that  at  least  seven  hundred  of  the  inhabit- 
iiits  were  destroyed  at  that  time.  'I'his  earthquake 
was  severe  and  destructive  in  other  parts  of  Gahlee. 
It  was  a  similar  calamity  no  doubt,  such  as  had 
left  a  strong  impression  on  tlie  minds  of  the  people, 
to  wliich  Amos  refers,  at  tiie  he2;inning  of  his 
propliecy,  as  forming  a  well-lxMown  epoch  from 
wliich  other  events  were  reckoned.  There  is  a 
place  of  interment  near  Tiberias,  in  which  a  distin- 
guished llalibi  is  said  to  be  buried  with  14,000  of 
his  disciples  around  him.  The  grave  of  the  Ara- 
bian philosopher  Lokman,  as  Burckhardt  states, 
was  pointed  out  here  in  the  14th  century.  Hau- 
luer's  Pi.laslmd  (p.  125)  mentions  some  of  the 
foregoing  facts,  and  others  of  a  kindred  nature. 
The  later  fortunes  of  the  place  are  sketclied  some- 
what at  length  in  Dr.  Robinson's  Bihlical  Jie- 
senrclies,  iii.  267-274  (ed.  1841).  It  is  unnecessary 
to  specify  other  works,  as  Tiberias  lies  in  the  ordi- 
nary route  of  travellers  in  the  East,  and  will  be 
fuinid  noticed  more  or  less  fully  in  most  of  the 
books  of  any  completeness  in  this  department  of 
authorship. 

Professor  Stanley,  in  his  Notices  of  some  Loecil- 
itks;  etc.  (p.  193),  has  added  a  few  charming 
touches  to  the  admirable  description  already  given 
in  his  Sin.  and  Pal.  (368-82).  H.  B.  H. 

TIBE'RIAS,  THE  SEA  OF  (^  e6.Kaa<7a. 

Trjs  Ti^epLciSos'-  mare  Tiberindis).  This  term  is 
found  only  in  John  xxi.  1,  the  other  passage  in 
wliich  it  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  (ibid,  vi,  1)  being,  if 
the  original  is  accurately  rendered,  "  the  sea  of 
Galilee,  of  Tiberias."  St.  John  probably  uses  the 
name  as  more  familiar  to  non-residents  in  Palestine 
than  the  indigenous  name  of  the  "  sea  of  Galilee,'' 
or  "  sea  of  Geiinesaret,"  actuated  no  doubt  by  the 
same  motive  which  has  induced  him  so  constantly 
to  translate  the  Hebrew  names  and  terms  which 
lie  uses  (such  as  Rabbi,  Rabl;oni,  JMessias,  Cephas, 
Siloani,  etc.)  into  the  language  of  the  Gentiles. 
[Gkn.n'esahet,  Sea  of.]  G. 

TIBE'RIUS  (Ti^e'pios:  in  full,  Tiberius  Clau- 
dius Xero),  the  second  Roman  emperor,  successor 
of  Augustus,  who  began  to  reign  A.  d.  14,  and 
reigned  until  a.  d.  37.  He  was  the  son  of  Tibe- 
rius Claudius  Nero  and  Livia,  and  hence  a  .stepson 
of  Augustus.  He  was  born  at  Rome  on  the  Kith 
of  November,  b.  c.  45.  He  became  emperor  in  his 
fifty-fifth  year,  after  having  distinguished  himself  as 
a  commander  in  various  wars,  and  having  evinced 
talents  of  a  high  order  as  an  orator,  and  an  admin- 
istrator of  civil  affairs.  His  military  exploits  and 
those  of  Drusus,  his  brother,  were  sung  by  Horace 
(Cdnii.  iv.  4,  14).  He  even  gained  the  reputation 
of  possessing  the  sterner  virtues  of  the  Roman  char- 
acter, and  was  regarded  as  entirely  worthy  of  the 
imperial  honors  to  which  his  birth  and  supposed 
personal  merits  at  length  opened  the  wa}'.  Yet  on 
being  raised  to  the  supreme  power,  he  suddenly 
became,  or  showed  himself  to  be,  a  very  dittierent 
man.  His  subsequent  life  was  one  of  inactivity, 
sloth,  and  self-indulgence.  He  was  desjiotic  in  his 
government,  cruel  and  vindictive  in  his  disposition. 
He  gave  up  the  affairs  of  the  state  to  the  vile.st 
fa\orites,  while  he  himself  \\allowed  in  the  very 
kennel  of  all  that  was  low  and  debasing.  The  only 
palliation  of  his  monstrous  crimes  and  vices  which 
2an  be  offered  is,  that  his  disLtust  of  life,  occasioned 
by  his  early  domestic  troubles,  may  have  driven  him 
it  last  to  despair  and  insanity.  Tiberius  died  at 
Ihe  age  of  se\enty- eight,  alter  a  reign  of  twenty- 


TIBHATH 


3245 


Coin  of  Tiberius. 


three  years.  The  ancient  writers  who  supply  most 
of  our  knowledge  respecting  him  are  Suetonius 
Tacitus  (who  describes  his  character  as  one  o. 
studied  dissimulation  and  hypoc- 
risy from  the  beginning),  Annal. 
i.-vi. ;  Veil.  Paterc.  L.  ii.  94, 
&c. ;  and  Dion  Cass,  xlvi.-xlviii. 
The  article  in  the  Diet.  of'Gr. 
and  Rtiiii.  Biof/.  (vol.  iii.  pp. 
1117-1127)  furnishes  a  copious 
outline  of  the  principal  events  in 
his  life,  and  holds  him  up  in  his 
true  light  as  deserving  the  scorn  and  abhorrenc* 
of  men.  For  an  extended  sketch  of  the  character 
and  administration  of  Tiberius,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  Jlerivale's  llisUiry  of  tlie  Romans,  iv.  170  ff.,  and 
V.  1  ft'.  (N.  Y.,  1865).  It  is  claimed  for  Tiberius 
that  the  Jews  in  Palestine  suffered  much  less  during 
his  reign  from  the  violence  and  rapacity  of  the  Ro- 
man governors,  than  during  the  reign  of  other  ein- 
l)erors.  He  changed  the  rulers  there  only  twice, 
alleging  that  "  the  governor  who  anticipates  but  a 
short  harvest,  makes  the  most  of  his  term,  and  ex- 
torts as  much  as  he  is  able  in  the  shortest  possible 
period  "  (Milman's  Hist,  of  the  Jetcs,  ii.  126). 

The  city  of  TusEniAS  took  its  name  from  this 
emperor.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Saviour's  public 
life,  and  some  of  the  introductory  events  of  the 
apostolic  age,  must  have  flillen  within  the  limits  of 
his  administration.  The  memorable  passage  in 
Tacitus  (A7i>mL  xv.  44)  respecting  the  origin  of 
the  Christian  sect,  places  the  crucifixion  of  tlie  Re- 
deemer under  Tiberius:  "Ergo  abolendo  rumori 
(that  of  his  having  set  fire  to  Rome)  Nero  subdidit 
reos,  et  qusesitissiniis  poenis  affecit,  quos  per  flagitia 
invisos  vulgus  Christianos  appellabat.  Auctor  nom- 
inis  ejus  Christus  Tiberio  iniperitante  per  procura- 
torem  Pontium  Pilatum  supplicio  affectus  erat." 
The  martyrdom  of  Stephen  belongs  in  all  proba- 
bility to  the  last  year,  or  last  but  one  of  this  reign. 
In  Luke  iii.  1,  he  is  termed  Tiberius  Csesar;  John 
the  Baptist,  it  is  there  said,  began  his  ministry  in 
the  ffltenth  year  of  his  reign  {riyeixovia)-  This 
chronological  notation  is  an  important  one  in  deter- 
mining the  year  of  Christ's  birth  and  entrance  on 
his  public  work  [Jesus  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  1383]. 
Augustus  admitted  Tiberius  to  a  share  in  the  em- 
pire two  or  three  years  before  his  own  death;  and 
it  is  a  question,  therefore,  whether  the  fflvtntk 
ymroi  which  Luke  speaks,  should  be  reckoned  from 
the  time  of  the  copartnership,  or  from  that  when 
Tiberius  began  to  reign  alone.  The  former  is  the 
computation  more  generally  adopted ;  but  the  data 
which  relate  to  this  point  in  the  chronology  of  the 
Saviour's  life,  may  be  reconciled  easily  with  the  one 
view  or  the  other.  Some  discussion,  more  or  less 
extended,  in  reference  to  this  inquiry  will  be  found 
in  Krafft's  Cliroiiulo(jie,p.Q6\  Sn[>p^s  Leben  Clirisli, 
i.  1,  &c. ;  Friedlieb's  Leben  Ji.su  C/irisli,  p.  47,  &c. ; 
Elirard's  Kritik,  p.  184;  Tischendorf 's  Synopsis, 
xvi. ;  Greswell's  Dissertations,  i.  334;  Robinson's 
Hurmony  of  the  Gospels,  p.  181;  EUicott's  Life 
of  Christ,  p.  lOG,  note,  Anier.  ed.  ;  Andrews's 
Life,  of  our  Lord,  p.  24  ff. ;  and  Wieseler's  Bei- 
traije  zur  richtigen  Wiirdiyung  der  Krnm/clien 
(1809),  p.  177  ft". •  H.  B.'H. 

TIB'HATH  (nn^tp  [extensive,  /ew^,  Fiirst] : 

MaTaHed;  Vat.  FA.  MeTa^rJXOf'  •^'e'^-  Mare- 
I3(0-]  Thcbalh),  a  city  of  Hadadezer,  kinsj  of  Zo- 
bah  (1  Chr.  xviii.  8),  which  in  2  Sam.  viii.  8  ii 
called  Betah,  prob?.bly  by  an  accidental  transposi- 


8246 


TIBNI 


tion  of  the  first  two  letters.  Its  exf.ct  position  is  !  wliici 
unknown,  but  if  Arani-Zol)ali  is  the  country  lie- 
tween  the  Euphrates  and  (Aelesyria  [see  Syhia]. 
we  must  look  for  Tibhath  on  the  eastern  skirts  of 
the  Anti-Lilianus,  or  of  its  continuation,  the  Jt-bd 
Sluihshabu  and  the  Jtbd  liieha.  G.  K. 

TIB'NI  C^^Sn  \intelliijeni,  Fiirst]:  @a.fi.vi 
[Vat.  -j/6i]  :  Tl'iebnl).  After  Zimri  had  burnt 
himself  in  his  palace,  there  was  a  division  in  the 
northern  kingdom,  half  of  the  people  following 
Tibni  the  son  of  Ginath,  and  half  following  Oinri 
(1  K.  xvi.  21,  22).  Omri  was  the  choice  of  the 
ai-my.  Tibni  was  probably  put  forwai-d  by  the 
people  of  Tirzah,  which  was  then  besieged  by  Oniri 
and  his  host.  The  struggle  between  the  contend- 
ing factions  lasted  four  years  (comp.  1  K.  xvi.  15, 
23):  but  the  only  record  of  it  is  given  in  the  few 
words  of  the  historian :  "  The  people  that  follower! 
Omri  prevailed  against  the  people  that  followed 
Tilmi  the  son  of  Ginath;  so  Tilmi  died,  and  Omri 
reigned."'  Tlie  LXX.  add  that  Tibni  was  bravely 
seconded  by  his  brother  .lorani,  for  they  tell  us.  in 
a  clause  which  Ewald  pronounces  to  be  undoubt- 
edlv  genuine,  "  and  Thannii  and  Jorani  his  brotlier 
died  at  that  time;  and  .Vmliri  reigned  after  Tham- 
ni."  W.  A.  W. 

TI'DAL  (7l?"Tri  [sjikiiJiy,-,  renoim,  Fiirst]: 
@apyd\:  [Alex.  0a\ya,  @a\ya\-]  Thmlnl)  is 
mentioned  only  in  Gen.  xiv.  1,  9.  He  there  a))- 
pears  among  the  kinirs  confederated  with,  and  sub- 
ordinate to,  Chedorlaomer,  the  sovereign  of  I'^Jani. 
who  leads  two  expeditions  from  the  country  about 
the  mouth  of  the  Tigris  into  Syria.  Tiie  name. 
Tidal,  is  certainly  an  incorrect  representation  of  the 
original.  If  the  present  Hebrew  text  is  accepted, 
the"king  was  called  Tli'uhd;  while,  if  the  Septua- 
gint  more  nearly  represents  the  original,"  his  name 
was  Tharijnl,  or  perhaps  Tliunjnl.  This  last  ren- 
dering is  probably  to  be  preferred,  as  the  name  is 
then  a  significant  one  in  the  early  Hamitic  dialect 
of  the  lower 'i'igris  and  Kni)lirates  country —  Thur- 
j/'(/ being  '' the  great  chief"  —  ^aaiKevs  6  fieya? 
{miqii    ivaziirbi)    of    the    Persians.      Thargal    is 

called  "  king  of  nations  "  (C'lS  "n!?PX  ^y  which 
it  is  reasonable  to  understand  that  he  was  a  chief 
over  various  nomadic  tribes  to  whom  no  special 
tract  of  country  could  be  assigned,  since  at  diflfer- 
ent  times  of  the  year  they  inhabited  ditterent  portions 
of  Lower  Mesopotamia.  This  is  tiie  case  with  the 
Arabs  of  these  parts  at  the  present  day.  Thargal, 
however,  should  from  his  name  ha\e  been  a  Tura- 
nian. ^-  1^- 

TIG'LATH-PILE'SER  (niD^'^5-nl7?n 
[see  below]:  @a\yae<p^\\affdp;  [^'nt.  :dso  AA7a0- 
peWaffap,  @a\ya\(pf\\a(Tap\  Alex  A7Aa0  *aA- 
\ao-ap:]  Tln;,lath.J'hnlasor).  In  1  Chr.  v.  20, 
Hud  again  in  2  Chr.  xxviii.  20,  the  name  of  this 
king  is  written  "IpsbpTia/ri,  "  Tilgath-pilne- 
eer;  "  but  in  this  form"  there  is  a  double  corruption. 
The   native    word    reads    as    TiyuUi-pul-lsirn,   for 


TIGLATH-PILESER 

the  Tiu'lath-pil-eser  of  2  Kings  is  a  fai 
equivalent.  The  signification  of  the  name  is  soint 
what  doulitfid.  M.  Oppert  renders  it,  "  Adoratir 
[sit]  filio  Zodiaci,"  and  explains  "  the  son  of  th« 
Zodiac "  as  Nin,  or  Hercules  {Expedition  Scien- 
tifiqub  en  Afi'sapuiamie,  ii.  352). 

Tiglath-Pileser  is  the  second  Assyrian  king  men- 
tioned in  Scripture  as  having   come  into  contact 
with  the  Israelites.     He  attacked  Samaria  in  the 
reign  of  I'ekali,  on  what  groimd  we  are  not  told, 
but  probably  because  I'ekah  withheld   his   tribute, 
and,  having  entered  his  territories,  "  took  Ijon,  and 
Abel-beth-maachah,  and  Janoah,  and  Kedesh,  and 
Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  and  all  the  land  of 
Naphtali,  and  carried  them   captive  to   Assyria" 
(2  K.  XV.  20):  thus  "lightly   afflicting  the  land 
of  Zebulun  and  the  land  of  Naphtali"  (Is.  ix.  1),* 
the  most  northern,  and  so  the  most  exposed  portion 
of  the  country.     The  date  of  this  invasion  cannot 
at  present  be  fixed;  but  it  was,  apparently,  many 
years  afterwards  tliat  Tiglath-Pileser  made  a  second 
expedition    into   these  parts,  which    had    more  im- 
portant 'results  than   his  former  one.     It  appears 
that,  after  the  date  of  his  first  expedition,  a  close 
le.at;ue  was  ((jrmed  between  Ilezin,  king  of  Syria, 
and  Pekah,  having  for  its  special  object  the  humil- 
iatio)i  of  .)ud;ea,  and  intended  to  further  generally 
the  interests  of  the  two  allies.     At  first  great  suc- 
cesses were  gained   l)y  I'ekah   and   his   confederate 
(2  K.  XV.  37,'  2  Chr.   xxviii.  G-8);  but,  on   their 
proceeding  to  attack  .lerusalem  itself,  and  to  threaten 
Ahaz,  who  was  then  king,  with  deposition  from  his 
throne,  which  they  were  about  to   give  to  a  pre- 
tender, "  the  son  of  Talieal '"  (Is.  vii.  6),  the  .lewish 
monarch  applied  to  Assyria  for  assistance,  and  Tig- 
latii-l'ilesei',  consenting  to  aid  him,  again  appeared 
at  the  heail  of  an  army  in  these  regions.      He  first 
marched,   naturally,  against   Damascus,   which  he 
took  (2  Iv.  xvi.  9),  razing  it  (according  to  his  own 
statement)   to  the  ground,  and   killing  liezin,  the 
Damascene  monarch.    After  this,  probably,  he  pro- 
ceeded to  chastise  Pekah,  whose  country  he  entered 
on  the  northeast,  -where  it  bordered  upon  "  Syria 
of  Damascus."     Here  he  overran  the  whole  district 
to  the  east  of  Jordan,  no  longer  "  lightly  afflicting  " 
Samaria,  but  injuring  her  far  "  more    (jritrously, 
by  the  way  of  the  sea,  i,n  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  " 
(Is.  ix.  1),  carrying  into  captivity  '-the  Kenbenites, 
the  Gadites,  and  tlie  half  tribe  of  ^lanasseli"  (1  Chr. 
v.  20),  who  had   previously  held  this  country,  and 
placing  them  in  Upper  Mesopotamia  from  Harran 
to  about  Nisibis   [ibid.)     Thus  the  result  of  this 
expedition  was  the  alisorption  of  the  kingdom  of 
Damascus,  and  of  an  important  portion  of  Samaria, 
into  the  Assyrian  empire;  and   it   further  brought 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  into  the  condition  of  a  mere 
tributary  and  vassal  of  the  Assyrian  monarch. 

Before  returning  into  his  own  land,  Tiglath- 
Pileser  had  an  interview  with  Ahaz  at  Damascus, 
(2  K.  xvi.  10).  Here  doubtless  was  settled  the 
amount  of  tribute  which  Judsea  was  to  jiay  an- 
nually; and  it  may  be  suspected  that  here  too  it 
was  explained  to  Ahaz  by  his  suzerain  that  a  cer- 


o  The  LXX.  evidently  read  737"in  for  72?in, 

ind  therefore  wrote  ©opyaA,  representing  the  2?  by  a 
y.  The  Alt;x.  Codex,  however,  has  ©AAFA,  which 
jriginally  was  doubtless  OAAFA,  agreeing  so  far  with 
ihe  present  Hebrew  text. 

''  *  A  more   accurate   translation   of  Is.  ix.  1.  and 
core  in   harmony   with  the  context  is  :  "  He  lightly 


esteemed  the  land  of  Zebulon  and  the  land  of  Naphtali, 
bu*  afterward  will  signally  honor,''  etc.  In  this  form 
it  is  especially  approprinte  as  understood  of  the  resi- 
dence and  public  ministry  of  Christ  in  that  despised 
region.  Interpreters  generally  (see  Michaelis  Vitringa, 
Heugstenberg,  and  Alexander  on  Is.  viii  2c  rei-ogniM 
this  as  the  primary  reterenee.  S-  Q- 


TIGLATH-PILESER 

tain  deference  to  the  Assyrian  gods  was  due  on  the 
part  of  all  tributaries,  who  were  usually  required  to 
Bet  up  in  their  capital  "  the  Laws  of  Assluir,"  or 
''altars  to  the  Great  Gods"  [see  vol.  i.  j).  190  a]. 
The  "altar"  which  Ahaz  "saw  at  Damascus," 
and  of  which  he  sent  the  pattern  to  Urijah  the 
priest  (2  K.  xvi.  10,  11),  was  probably  such  a  badge 
of  subjection. 

This  is  all  that  Scripture  tells  us  of  Tiglath- 
Fileser.  He  appears  to  have  succeeded  Pul,  and  to 
ha\e  been  succeeded  by  Shalmaneser;  to  have  been 
contemporary  with  Kezin,  Fekah,  and  Ahaz;  and 
therefore  to  have  ruled  Assyria  during  the  latter 
half  of  the  eighth  century  before  our  era.  From 
his  own  inscriptions  we  learn  that  his  reign  lasted 
at  least  seventeen  j-ears;  that,  besides  warring  in 
Syria  and  Samaria,  he  attacked  Kabylonia,  Media, 
Armenia,  and  the  independent  tribes  in  the  upper 
regions  of  Mesopntamia,  thus,  like  the  other  great 
Assyrian  nionarclis,  vvurring  along  the  whole  fron- 
tier of  the  eniph-e;  and  finally,  that  he  was  (prob- 
ably)  not  a  legitimate  prince,  but  an  usurper  and 
the  founder  of  a  dynasty.  This  last  fact  is  gathered 
from  the  circumstance  that,  whereas  the  Assyrian 
kings  generally  glory  in  their  ancestry,  Tiglath- 
I'ileser  omits  all  mention  of  his,  not  even  recording 
las  father's  name  U|ion  his  morunnents.  It  accords 
reniarkablj'  with  the  statements  of  Berosus  (in 
Euseb.  C/iroii.  C'ln.  i.  4)  and  Herodotus  (i.  95), 
that  about  this  time,  i.  e.  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighth  century  u.  C,  there  was  a  change  of  dynasty 
in  Assyria,  the  old  fiimily,  which  had  ruled  for  520 
(520)  years,  being  superseded  by  another  not  long 
before  the  accession  of  Sennacherib.  The  authority 
of  these  two  writers,  combined  with  the  monumental 
uidications,  justifies  us  in  concluding  that  the 
founder  of  the  Lower  Dynasty  or  luiipre,  the  first 
nKJuarch  of  the  New  Kingdom,  was  the  Tiglath- 
Pileser  of  Scripture,  whose  date  nuist  certainly  lie 
ii/juut  this  time,  and  whose  monuments  show  him 
to  have  been  a  self-raised  sovereign.  The  exact 
date  of  the  change  cannot  be  positively  fixed ;  but 
it  is  probiibbj  marked  by  the  era  of  Nabonassar  in 
l{ab\lon,  which  synchronizes  with  b.  C.  74-7.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  Tiglath-Pileser  reigned  cer- 
tainly from  u.  c.  747  to  b.  c.  730,  and  possilily  a 
few  years  longer,  being  succeeded  by  Shalmaneser 
at  least  as  early  as  b.  c.  725."     [Shalsiankskk.] 

The  circumstances  under  which  Tiglath-Pileser 
obtained  the  crown  have  not  come  down  to  us  from 
any  good  authority;  but  there  is  a  tradition  on  the 
Buiiject  which  .seems  to  deserve  mention.  Alexander 
I'olyhistor,  the  friend  of  Sylla,  who  had  access  to 
the  writings  of  Berosus,  related  that  the  first  As- 
syrian dynasty  continued  from  Ninus,  its  founder, 
to  a  certain  Beleus  (Pul),  and  that  he  was  suc- 
ceeded l)y  Beletaras,  a  man  of  low  rank,  a  mere 
vine-dresser  {(puroupySs),  who  had  the  charge  of 
the  gardens  attached  to  the  royal  palace.  Beletaras, 
he  said,  having  acquired  the  .sovereignty  in  an  ex- 
traordinary way,  fixed  it  in  his  own  family,  in  which 
it  continued  to  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Nin- 
eveh (/■'/■.  Hist.  Gr.  iii.  210).  It  can  scarcely  be 
doubte<^l  that  Beletaras  here  is  intended  to  represent 
Tiglath-Pileser,  Beletar  Ijeing  in  fact  another  moile 
ijf  expressing  the  native  Pi(l-isira  or  Piilli-lsir 
lOppert),  which  the  Hebrews  represented  l)y  Pilesei. 
U'liether   there  is  any  truth  hi  the  tradition  ma> 


TIGRIS  32i7 

perhaps  be  doubted.  It  bears  too  near  a  rcseni- 
lilance  to  the  oriental  stories  of  Cyrus,  G.>ges 
Amasis,  and  others,  to  have  in  itself  much  claim 
to  our  acceptance.  On  the  other  hand,  it  har- 
monizes with  the  remarkable  fact — unparalleled  in 
the  rest  of  the  Assyrian  records  —  that  Tiglath- 
Pileser  is  absolutely  silent  on  the  subject  of  his 
ancestry,  neither  mentioning  his  father's  name,  nor 
making  any  allusion  whatever  to  his  birth,  descent, 
or  parentage. 

Tiglath-Pileser's  wars  do  not,  generally,  a])pear 
to  have  been  of  much  importance.  In  Bab3lonia 
he  took  Sippara  (Se]>harvaim),  and  se\eral  places 
of  less  note  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  country ; 
but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  penetrated  far,  or 
to  have  come  into  contact  with  Nabonassar,  who 
reigned  from  b.  c.  747  to  b.  c.  733  at  Babylon. 
In  i\Iedia,  Armenia,  and  Upper  Mesopotamia,  he 
obtained  certain  successes,  but  made  no  permanent 
conquests.  It  was  on  his  western  frontier  only  that 
his  victories  advanced  the  limits  of  the  empire. 
I'he  destruction  of  Damascus,  the  absorption  of 
Syria,  and  the  extension  of  Assyrian  influence  over 
.Judsea,  are  the  chief  events  of  Tiglath-Pileser's 
reign,  which  seems  to  have  had  fewer  external 
triumphs  than  those  of  most  Assyrian  monarchs. 
Probably  his  usurpation  was  not  endured  quite 
patiently,  and  domestic  troubles  or  dangers  acted 
.as  a  check  upon  his  expeditions  against  foreign 
countries. 

No  palace  or  great  building  can  be  ascribed  to 
this  king.  His  slaljs,  which  are  tolerably  numerous, 
show  that  he  nmst  have  built  or  adorned  a  residence 
at  Galah  (jVi/«rM(7),  where  they  were  found:  but, 
as  they  were  not  discovered  in  si/u,  we  cannot  say 
anytiiing  of  the  edifice  to  which  they  originally  be- 
longed. They  bear  marks  of  wanton  defacement; 
and  it  is  plain  that  the  later  kings  purposely  injured 
them ;  for  not  only  is  the  writing  often  erased,  but 
the  slabs  have  been  torn  down,  broken,  anil  used 
as  building  materials  by  Ksar-haddon  in  the  great 
palace  which  he  erected  at  C'alah,  the  soutiiern 
capital  [see  vol.  i.  p.  761  «].  The  dynasty  of  Sargon 
was  hostile  to  the  first  two  princes  of  the  Lower 
Kingdom,  and  the  result  of  their  hostility  is  that 
we  have  far  less  monumental  knowledge  of  Shal- 
maneser and  Tiglath-Pileser  than  of  various  kings 
of  the  Upper  Empire.  G.  K. 

TI'GRIS  (Tlypii  [see  below] :  Ti/prls,  Th/ris) 
is  used  by  the  LXa.  as  the  Greek  equivalent  of  the 

Hebrew  Iliddekd  \^Tl3jy)  '  and  occurs  also  in 
several  of  the  apocryphal  iiooks,  as  in  Tobit  (vi.  1), 
.Judith  (i.  ()),  and  Ecclesiasticus  (xxiv.  25).  The 
meaning,  and  various  forms,  of  the  word  ha\e  lieen 
considered  under  Hiddekkl.  It  only  romaiiiS, 
theref<a-e,  in  the  present  article,  to  describe  the 
course  and  character  of  the  stream. 

The  Tigris,  like  the  Euphrates,  rises  from  two 
principal  sources.  The  most  distant,  and  therefore 
the  true,  soiu-ce  is  the  western  one,  which  is  in  lat." 
38°  10',  long.  39°  20'  nearly,  a  little  to  the  south 
of  the  high  mountain  lake  called  Gu/Jilc  or  Gohiijik, 
in  tlie  peninsula  formed  by  the  Euphrates  where 
it  sweeps  roimd  between  Falun  and  TcUk.  The 
rii;ris'  source  is  near  the  southwestern  an^le  of  the 
lake,  and  cannot  be  more  than  two  or  three  miles 
from  the  channel  of  the  Euphrates.     The  coui'se  of 


o  In  the  Assyrian  Chronological  Canon,  of  which 
cnere  are  four  cnpies  iu  the  British  Museum,  all  more 
it  '■ess  irugmentary,  the  reiga  of  XiglaSU-Piieser  seems  j 


to  be  reckoned  at  either  IG  or  17  years.  (See  Atl^enautn^ 
No.  1812,  p.  S4  ) 


3248  TIGRIS 

the  Tiirris  is  at  first  somewhat  north  of  east,  lint 
after  pursiiiii;;  this  direction  for  aliotit  25  miles  it 
makes  a  sweej)  round  to  the  south,  and  descends 
by  Arffkani  Mddtii  upon  Diarbekr.  Here  it  is 
ah'eadj  a  river  of  considerable  size,  and  is  crossed 
by  a  briilge  of  ten  arches  a  Uttle  below  that  city 
(Xiel)uhr,  Vnifaje  en  Arable,  p.  '■j-2(j).  It  then 
turns  suddenly  to  the  east,  and  flows  in  this  direc- 
tion, past  Osiiuin  Kicui  to  Til,  where  it  once  more 
alters  its  course  and  takes  that  southeasterly  direc- 
tion, which  it  pursues,  with  certain  slis;ht  variations, 
to  its  final  junction  with  the  Euphrates.  At  0.<iiian 
Kitui.  it  receives  the  second  or  Eastern  I'igris, 
whicii  descends  from  Niphates  (the  niodern  Al((- 
Taijli)  with  a  course  almost  due  south,  and,  col- 
lecting on  its  way  the  waters  of  a  Inr<i:e  number  of 
streams,  unites  with  the  'I'ifjris  half-way  between 
Diarbekr  and  Til.  in  long.  41°  nearly.  The  courses 
of  the  two  streams  to  the  point  of  junction  are  re- 
spectively 150  and  100  miles.  A  little  below  the 
junction,  and  before  any  other  tributary  of  im- 
portance is  received,  the  Tigris  is  150  yards  wide 
and  from  three  to  four  feet  deep.  Near  Til  a  large 
streaiii  flows  into  it  from  the  northeast,  bringing 
almost  as  much  water  as  the  main  channel  ordinarily 
holds  (Layard,  A7/?eiv//  unit  Bilnjloii,  p.  49).  This 
branch  rises  near  Billl,  in  northern  Kurdistan,  and 
runs  at  first  to  the  northeast,  but  presently  sweeps 
round  to  the  north,  and  proceeds  through  the  dis- 
tricts of  ShdlUik  and  Buktun  with  a  general  west- 
erly course,  crossing  and  recrossing  the  line  of  the 
38th  parallel,  nearly  to  Hert,  whence  it  flows  south- 
west and  south  to  'Til.  From  Til  the  Tigris  runs 
southward  for  20  miles  through  a  long,  narrow,  and 
deep  gorge,  at  the  end  of  which  it  emeri^es  upon 
the  comparatively  low  but  still  hilly  country  of 
Jlesopotamia,  near  Jezlreh.  Through  this  it  flows 
with  a  course  which  is  south-southeast  to  .Mosul, 
thence  nearly  south  to  Klleh-Sheryhat,  and  again 
south-southeast  to  Saiiutrn,  where  the  hills  end 
and  the  river  enters  on  the  great  alluvium.  The 
course  is  now  more  irregular.  Hetvveeii  Samnni 
and  Baghdad  a  considerable  bend  is  made  to  the 
east;  and,  after  the  Slint-el-lTiK  is  thrown  off'  in 
lat.  32°  30',  a  second  bend  is  made  to  the  north, 
the  regular  southeasterly  course  being  oidy  resinned 
a  little  above  the  32d  parallel,  from  which  point  the 
Tiirris  runs  in  a  tolerably  direct  line  to  its  junction 
with  the  Euphrates  at  Kiirinli.  The  length  of  the 
whole  stream,  exclusive  of  meanders,  is  reckoned  at 
1146  miles.  It  can  be  descended  on  rafts  during 
the  flood  season  from  Dlnrbtkr,  which  is  oidy  150 
miles  from  its  source;  and  it  has  been  navigated 
by  steamers  of  small  draught  nearly  up  to  Mosul. 
From  Diarbekr  to  Samara  the  navigation  is  much 
impeded  by  rapids,  rocks,  and  shallows,  as  well  as 
by  artificial  bunds  or  dams,  which  in  ancient  times 
were  thrown  across  the  streavii,  pi-obably  for  pur- 
poses of  irrigation.  Below  Suinard  there  are  no 
obstructions;  the  river  is  deep,  with  a  bottom  of 
'soft  nuul;  the  stream  moderate;  and  the  course 
very  meandering.  The  average  width  of  the  Tigris 
in  this  part  of  its  course  is  200  yards,  while  its 
depth  is  very  considerable. 

Besides  the  three  head-streams  of  the  'I'igris, 
which  have  been  already  described,  the  river  re- 
ceives, along  its  middle  and  lower  course,  no  fewer 
than  five  imjwrtant  tributaries.  These  are  the  river 
i>f  Ziikko  or  Ivastern  Khabour,  the  (ireat  Zab  {Znh 
Aid),  the  lesser  Zab  {Znb  Affnl),  the  Adhem,  and 
the  Diyaleh  or  ancient  Gyndes.  All  these  rivers 
low  from  the  high  range  of  Zagros,  which  shuts 


TIGRIS 

in  the  ^lesopotamian  valley  on  tht  east,  ;ind  is  ^blt 
to  sustain  so  large  a  number  of  great  streams  froif 
its  inexhaustible  springs  and  abundant  snows 
From  the  west  the  Tigris  obtains  no  tributary  of 
the  slightest  importance,  for  the  Thartimr.  which 
is  said  to  have  once  reached  it,  now  ends  in  a  salt 
lake,  a  little  below  Tekrlt.  Its  volume,  however, 
is  continually  increasing  as  it  descends,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  great  bulk  of  water  brought  into  it 
from  the  east,  particularly  by  the  Great  Zab  and 
the  Diyaleh ;  and  in  its  lower  course  it  is  said  to 
be  a  larger  stream  and  to  carry  a  greater  body  than 
the  Euphrates  (Chesney,  Euphrates  Expedition,  i. 
02). 

The  Tigris,  like  the  Euphrates,  has  a  flood  season. 
Early  in  the  month  of  March,  in  consequence  of  the 
melting  of  the  snows  on  the  southern  flank  of  Ni- 
phates, the  river  rises  rapidly.  Its  breadth  grad 
ually  increases  at  Diarbekr  from  100  or  120  to  250 
yards.  The  stream  is  swift  and  turbid.  The  rise 
continues  through  March  and  April,  reachiiio;  its 
full  height  generally  in  the  first  or  second  week  of 
May.  At  this  time  the  country  about  Baghdad  is 
often  extensively  flooded,  not,  however,  so  much 
from  the  Tigris  as  from  the  overflow  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, which  is  here  poured  into  the  eastern 
stream  through  a  canal.  Further  down  the  river, 
in  the  territory  of  the  Benl-Lam  Arabs,  between 
,the  32d  and  31st  parallels,  there  is  a  great  annual 
inundation  on  both  banks.  About  the  middle  of 
iNIay  the  Tiiiris  begins  to  fell,  and  by  midsummer  it 
has  reached  its  natural  level.  In  October  and  No- 
vember there  is  another  rise  and  fall  in  consequence 
of  the  autumnal  rains;  but  compared  with  the 
spring  flood  that  of  autumn  is  hisignificant. 

The  Tigris  is  at  present  better  fitted  for  purposes 
of  traffic  tha«  the  Euphrates  (Layard,  Nineveh  and 
Babylon,  p.  475);  but  in  ancient  times  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  much  used  as  a  line  of  trade. 
The  As.syrians  probably  floated  down  it  the  timber 
which  they  were  in  the  habit  of  cutting  in  Amanus 
and  Lebanon,  to  be  used  lor  building  purposes  in 
their  capital;  but  the  general  line  of  communica- 
tion lietween  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Persian 
Gulf  was  by  the  Euphrates.  [See  vol.  i.  p.  784.] 
According  to  the  historians  of  Alexander  (Arrian, 
I-.x/j.  .-it.  vii.  7;  coinp.  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4),  the 
Persians  purjiosely  obstructed  the  navigation  of  the 
lower  'Tigris  by  a  series  of  dams  whicli  they  threw 
across  from  bank  to  bank  between  the  embouchure 
and  the  city  of  Opis,  and  such  trade  as  there  w  as 
along  its  course  proceeded  liy  land  (Strab.  ibid.). 
It  is  probable  that  the  dams  were  in  reality  made 
for  another  purpose,  namely,  to  raise  the  level  of  the 
waters  for  the  sake  of  irrigation ;  but  they  would 
und(jubtedly  have  also  the  effect  ascribed  to  them, 
unless  in  the  spring  flood  time,  when  they  might 
have  been  shot  by  boats  descending  the  river.  'Thus 
there  may  always  have  been  a  certain  amount  of 
traffic  down  the  stream ;  but  up  it  trade  would 
scarcely  have  been  practicable  at  any  time  further 
than  Samara  or  'Tekrit,  on  account  of  the  natural 
obstructions,  and  of  the  great  force  of  the  stream. 
The  lower  part  of  the  course  was  opened  by  Alex- 
ander (Arrian,  vii.  7);  and  Opis,  near  the  mouth  of 
the  Diyaleh,  became  thenceforth  known  as  a  mart 
iifXTrSpioi/),  from  which  the  neighboring  districts 
drew  the  merchandise  of  India  and  Arabia  (Strab. 
Kvi.  1,  §  9).  Seleucia,  too,  which  grew  up  soon 
after  Alexander,  derived  no  doubt  a  portion  of  its 
prosjierity  from  the  facilities  for  trade  offered  by  thii 
great  stream. 


TIKVAH 

We  find  but  little  mention  of  tlie  Tigris  in 
Scripture  It  ai)pears  indeed  under  the  name  of 
Hiddelcel,  among  tlie  rivers  of  l-'.den  (Gen.  ii.  14), 
and  is  there  correctly  described  as  "  running  east- 
ward to  Assyria."  But  after  this  we  hear  no  more 
of  it,  if  we  except  one  doubtful  allusion  in  Nalium 
(ii.  6),  until  the  Captivity,  when  it  l;ecome.s  well 
known  to  the  prophet  Uaniel,  who  had  to  cross  it 
in  his  journeys  to  and  from  Susa  (.Shushan).    With 

Daniel  it  is  "  the  Great  River  "  —  bllSn  ~in2n 

T    -  T  T   - 

—  an  expression  commonly  applied  to  the  Eu- 
phrates ;  and  by  its  side  he  sees  some  of  his  most 
important  visions  (Dan.  x.  toxii.)-  No  other  men- 
tion of  the  Tigris  seems  to  occur  except  in  the  apoc- 
ryphal books  ;  and  there  it  is  unconnected  with 
any  real  history. 

The  Tigris,  in  its  upper  course,  anciently  ran 
through  Arnienfa  and  Assyria.  Lower  down,  from 
aliOut  the  point  where  it  enters  on  the  alluvial  plain, 
it  separated  ISahylonia  from  Susiana.  In  the  wars 
between  the  KoHians  and  the  Parthians,  we  find  it 
constituting,  for  a  short  time  (from  a.  u.  114  to 
A.'i).  117),  the  Ijoundary  line  hetween  these  two 
empires.  (_>therwise  it  has  scarcely  iieen  of  any 
political  importance.  The  great  ciiain  of  Zagros  is 
the  main  natural  boundary  between  Western  and 
Central  Asia;  and  beyond  this,  the  next  defensible 
line  is  the  Euphrates.  Historically  it  i.s  found  that 
either  the  central  power  pushes  itself  westward  to 
that  river;  or  the  power  ruling  the  west  advances 
eastward  to  the  mountain  barrier. 

Tlie  water  of  t!ie  Tigris,  in  its  lovi'er  course,  is 
yellowish,  and  is  regarded  as  unwholesome.  The 
stream  aljounds  with  fish  of  many  kinds,  which  are 
often  of  a  large  size  (see  Tobit  vi.  2,  and  compare 
Stral).  xi.  14,  §  8).  Abundant  water-fowl  float  on 
the  waters.  The  banks  are  fringed  with  palm-trees 
and  pomegranates,  orcWbed  with  jungle  and  reeds, 
the  haunt  of  the  wild  boar  and  the  lion 

(The  most  important  notices  of  the  Tigris  to  be 
found  in  the  classical  writers  are  the  following: 
Strabo,  xi.  14,  §  8,  and  xvi.  1,  §§  9-13;  Arrian, 
Exptd.  Alex.  vii.  7 ;  and  Piin.  //.  N.  vi.  27.  The 
best  modern  accounts  are  those  of  Col.  Chesney. 
Kupltriites  KxpeilHlon,  i.  IG,  etc.,  and  Winer,  lital- 
wih-lerbucli,  ii.  622,  623;  with  which  may  be  com- 
pared Layard,  Nineveh  and  £((Oyl<m,  49-51,  and 
464-476;  Loftus,  Cliakkea  and  Susianu,  3-8; 
Jones  in  Tranmclions  of  the  Geograpldcal  Society 
of  Bombay,  vol.  ix. ;  I^ynch  in  Jourmd  of  Geo- 
graphical Society ,  vol.  ix. ;  and  Kavvlinson's  Herod- 
otus, i.  552,  553.)  G.  K. 

TIK'VAH  (n^H'^  [cord,  expect  dion]:  ©g- 
Kovdu;  [yAt.  QeKKOuav;  Alex.  QeKKOve-  Tliecwi). 
1.  The  father  of  Shalhim  the  husband  of  tlie 
prophetess  lluldah  (2  K.  xj^ii.  14).  He  is  called 
TiKVATH  in  tlie  A.  V.  of  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22. 

2.  (0e«coe;  [Vat.  1' A.  EAKem  ;j  Alex,  ©e- 
Kovi'  Theciie.)  The  father  of  ■hiliaziali  (Kzr.  x. 
15).      In  1  Ksdr.  ix.  14  he  is  called  Tiikocanus 

TIK'VATH    (nnrp'iri     [obedience]-,    Keri, 

"^UP'T' '  properly  To/^ehath  or  Tokhath  :  QeKoit; 
y-At.  Ka6ova\;]  Alex.  QaKovaO'-  Thecwilh).    TlK- 
V.wi  the  father  of  Shalhim  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22). 
TILE.     For  general  information  on  the  subject, 


TIMBREL 


324S 


<*   Atd  TOii'  Kepdfxoji'. 

''  "Ki'opii^ai'Te?  (Mark  ii.  4). 

e  •  I'he  6(1   is  Aramaean,  =  son,  and  Mark's  uib?  Ti- 


see  the  articles  [jHICK.  Pottkky,  Se.vl.  Tlie  ex- 
pression in  the  A.  V.  rendering  of  Luke  v.  19 
"•  tiirough  <■'  the  tiling,"  has  give.n  much  trouble  tc 
expositors,  from  the  fact  that  Syrian  houses  are  in 
general  covered,  not  witli  tiles,  but  with  plaster 
terraces.  Some  suggestions  toward  the  solution  oJ 
this  difficulty  ha\e  been  already  given.  [House, 
vol.  ii.  p.  1104.]  An  additional  one  may  here  he 
ofiiired.  1.  Terrace-roofs,  if  constructed  improperly, 
or  at  the  wrong  season  of  the  year,  are  apt  to  craf'.k 
and  to  become  so  saturated  with  rain  as  to  lie  easi.y 
penetralije.  May  not  the  roof  of  the  house  in  which 
our  Lord  performed  his  miracle,  have  l)een  in  this 
condition,  and  been  pierced,  or,  to  use  St.  Mark's'' 
word,  '' broken  up,"  by  the  bearers  ot  the  paralytic? 
(.\ruiidell,  Trav.  in  Asia  Minor,  i.  171;  Kussell, 
Alijtpo,  i.  35.) 

2.  Or  may  the  phrase  "  through  the  tiling  "  be 
accounted  for  thus"?  Greek  houses  were  often,  if 
n(jt  always,  roofed  with  tiles  (Pollux,  vii.  161; 
Vitruvius,  iii.  3).  Did  not  St.  Luke,  a  native, 
proliably,  of  Greek  Aiitioch,  use  the  expression 
"  tiles."  as  the  form  of  roof  which  was  most  familiar 
to  himself  and  to  his  ( ireek  readers  without  reference 
to  the  particular  material  of  the  roof  in  question  ? 
(Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  4;  Jerome,  ProL  to  Comni.  on 
St.  .U'ltth.  vol.  vii.  4;  Conybeare  and  IIowsoii, 
St  Paul,  i.  367.)  It  may  perhaps  be  worth  re- 
marking that  houses  in  modern  Antioch,  at  least 
many  of  them,  have  "tiled  roofs  (Fisher,  Vieia  in 
Syria,  i.  19,  vi.  56).  [See  House,  note  b,  i.  1104, 
Amer.  ed.]  H.  W.  P. 

TIL'GATH-PILNE'SER    (^2^.^ 

-ip^^pbs;  's  nf?r}'i  nppbs  nabri:  [Rom. 

©ayAacpaWacraf),  QaAyacpeWaadp;  Vat.]  @a\- 
yajiavaffap,  &ayva<pafj.aaap,  &a\ya(p€\\aSap  ; 
.Alex.  QayAad  <pa\vaaap'  Ththjulliplialnaiiar).  A 
variation,  and  probably  a  corruption,  of  the  name 
TiGLATH-PiLESEii.  It  is  peculiar  to  the  books  of 
Chronicles,  being  found  in  1  Chr.  v.  6,  26;  2  Chr. 
xxviii.  20.  G. 

*  TILLAGE.     [Agkicultuee.] 

TFLON  (V"lVin;  Keri,  pb^ri  [perh.  (/(/?]: 
'\vdiv;  Alex.  @t\tjov:  Thilon).  One  of  the  four 
sons  of  Shimon,  whose  family  is  reckoned  in  the 
genealogies  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20). 

TIM^'US  {TiiJLOuos-  Timmis).  The  fatiier 
of  the  blind  man,  Bar-timreus,  who  was  restored  to 
sight  by  .lesus  as  he  left  Jericho  (Mark  x.  46)."^ 

TIMBREL,  T  ABRET.     By  these  words  the 

A.  V.  translates  the  Heb.  ^Fl,  toph,  which  is  de- 
rived from  an  imitative  root  occurring  in  many 
languages  not  immediately  connected  with  each 
otlier.      It  is  the  same  as  the  Arabic  and  Persi.an 

S  > 
*J^,  dnff,  which  in  Spanish  becomes  adufe,  a 
tambourine.  'J'lie  root,  which  signifies  to  beat  or 
strike,  is  tbund  in  the  Greek  T-vtravov  or  Tv^iravov, 
Lat.  tiji)i/>anni)i.  It.  iambui-o,  Sp.  lanilmr,  Fr.  t'ini' 
hour,  Prov.  tabor,  F.ng.  tabor,  t.<d)0)iret,  timbre/, 
tinnbourine,  A.-S.  dnbhin,  to  strike.  Ensr.  tap,  and 
many  others.''     In  Old  English  tabor  was  used  for 


iiaiov  is  the  Greek  translation.     On  the  cireumstanos 
of  the  miracle,  see  B.^rtim^ecs  [Amer.  ed.].  H. 

't  It  is   usual  for  et.t  uiologisW  to  quote  tlie  Arab. 


3250 


TIMBREL 


any  (Inim.  Tins  llo^  of  Gloucester,  p.  396  (.  fl. 
Ileariie,  1810) :  — 

"  ■\'or  of  trouipes  and  of  tabors  the  Saracens  made  there 
So  gret  noise,  that  Cristeumen  al  distourbed  were.'' 

[n  Shakespeare's  time  it  seems  to  have  become  an 
instrument  of  peace,  and  is  thus  contrasted  with  the 
drum :  "  I  have  known  when  there  was  no  nnisic 
with  him  but  the  drum  and  fife;  and  now  had  he 
rather  hear  the  iabur  and  the  pipe  "  {Much  Ado,  ii. 
3).  Tabouret  and  tabourine  are  diminutives  of 
tabor,  and  denote  the  instrument  now  known  as  the 
tambourine :  — 

"  Or  Mimoe's  whistling  to  his  tabovrel. 
Selling  a  laughter  for  a  cold  meal's  meat." 

Hall,  Sat.  iv.  1,  78. 

Tabret  is  a  contraction  of  tabouret.  The  word  is 
retained  in  the  A.  V.  from  Coverdale's  translation 
ill  all  passages  except  Is.  xxx.  32,  where  it  is 
omitted  in  Co\erdale,  and  Ez.  xxviii.  13,  where  it 
is  rendered  "beauty." 

The  Heb.  toph  is  undoubtedly  the  instrument 
described  by  travellers  as  the  chijf'  or  i/iff  of  the 
Arabs.  It  was  used  in  very  early  times  by  the 
Syrians  of  Padan-aram  at  their  njerry-makings 
(Gen.  xxxi.  27).  It  was  played  principally  by 
Momen  (Kx.  xv.  20;  Judg.  xi.  34;  1  Sam.  xviii.  6; 
Ps.  Ixviii.  25  [2G] )  as  an  accompaniment  to  the 
song  and  dance  (comp.  .Jud.  iii.  7),  and  appears  to 
have  been  worn  by  them  as  an  ornament  (Jer.  xxxi. 
4).  The  toph  was  one  of  the  instruments  played 
by  the  young  prophets  whom  Saul  met  on  his  re- 
turn from  Samuel  (1  Sam.  x.  5),  and  by  the  Le- 
vites  in  the  Temple-hand  (2  Sam.  vi.  5;  1  Chr. 
xiii.  8).  It  accompanied  the  merriment  of  feasts 
(Is.  V.  12,  xxiv.  8),  and  the  joy  of  triumphal  pro- 
cessions (Judg.  xi.  34;  1  Sam.  xviii.  6),  vhen  the 
women  came  out  to  meet  the  warriors  returning 
from  victory,  and  is  everywhere  a  sign  of  happiness 
and  peace  (Job  xxi.  12;  Is.  xxx.  32;  Jer.  xxxi.  4). 
So  in  tlie  grand  triumphal  entry  of  God  into  his 
Temple  descrilied  in  strong  figures  in  Ps  Ixviii.. 
tlie  jinicession  is  made  up  by  the  singers  who 
marched  in  iront,  and  the  players  on  stringed  in- 
Btrunients  who  lirouglit  up  the  rear,  while  round 
them  all  danced  the  young  maidens  with  their  tim- 
brels (Ps.  Ixviii.  2.5  [215]). 

The  (/iff  of  the  Arabs  is  descrilied  by  Russell 
(Aleppo,  p.  94,  1st  ed.)  as  "a  hoop  (sometimes  with 
pieces  of  brass  fixed  in  it  to  make  a  jingling)  over 
which  a  piece  of  parclunent  is  distended.  It  is  beat 
with  the  fingers,  and  is  the  true  tympanum  of  the 
ineients,  as  appears  from  its  figure  in  several  re- 
'ievos,  rejjresentiiig  the  orgies  of  Bacchus  and  rites 
of  Cybele."  The  same  instrument  was  used  by  the 
Egyptian  dancing-women  whom  Hasselquist  saw 
(Trav.  p.  59,  ed.  1766).  In  Barbary  it  is  called 
tar,  and  "  is  made  like  a  sieve,  consisting  (as  Isi- 
dore"  describes  the  tympanum)  of  a  rim  or  thin 
hoop  of  wood  with  a  skin  of  parchment  stretched 
over  the  top  of  it.  This  serves  for  the  bass  in  all 
their  concerts,  which  they  accordingly  touch  very 
artfully  with  their  fingers,  or  with  the  knuckles  or 
palms  of  their  liands,  as  the  time  and  measure  re- 
quire, or  as  force  and  softness  are  to  be  communi- 
cated to  the  several  parts  of  the  performance" 
(Shaw,  Trav.  p.  202). 

'uno'ir  as  the  original  of  tambour  and  tabor  ;  but  un- 
'ortuQately  the  tiiiib''-r  i.«  a  guitar,  and  not  a  drum 
Buss«lls  Al^f/po.  i.  152.  2l  wi.-).  The  p.arallel  Arabic 
fford  18  tabl,  which  denotes  a  kind  of  drum,  and  is  the 


TIMNAH 

The  tympanum  was  used  in  the  feasts  of  CybeW 
(Her.  iv.  76),  and  is  said  to  have  lieen  the  inven- 
tion of  Dionysus  and   Rhea  (Eur.  Bucch.  59).     It 


(Lane's  Modern  Eid/ptians,  366,  5th  ed.) 


was  placed  by  women,  who  beat  it  with  the  palms 
of  their  hands  (Ovid,  Met.  iv.  29),  and  Juvena 
(<S'((/.  iii.  64)  attributes  to  it  a  S3'rian  origin:  — 

"Jam  pridem  Sjrus  in  Tiberim  defluxit  Orontes 
Et  liijguam,et  mjires  et  cum  tibieine  chordas 
Obliquas,  necnon  gentilia  tympana  secum 
Vexit.' 

In  the  same  way  the  tabor  is  said  to  have  beeu 
introduced  into  Europe  by  the  Crusaders,  who 
adopted  it  from  the  Saracens,  to  whom  it  was 
peculiar  (see  Du  Cange's  note  on  De  Joiuville's 
Hist.  (lu  Roy  Saint  Louis,  p.  61). 

The  author  of  Shille  Hayyibborim  (c.  2)  gives 
the  Greek  Kv./j.$a\ov  as  the  equivalent  of  tojih,  and 
says  it  was  a  hollow  basm  of  metal,  beaten  with  a 
stick  of  brass  or  iron. 

The  passage  of  Ezekiel  (xxviii.  13)  is  oliscure,  and 
appears  to  have  been  early  corrupted.     Instead  of 

ry^EFI,  "  thy  tabrets,"  the  Vulg.  and  Targum  read 

tJ^P^,  "thy  beauty,"  which  is  the  rendering 
adopted  in  Coverdale's  and  Cranmer's  Bibles. 
The  LXX.  seem  to  have  read  tJSIFI,  as  in  ver. 
16.  If  the  ordinary  text  be  adopted,  there  is  no 
reason  lor  taking  toj/h,  as  Jerome  stiggests,  in  the 
sense  of  the  setting  of  a  gem,  "  pala  qua  gemma 
continetur."  W.  A.  W. 

TIM'NA,  TIM'NAH  CS^'DFl  [perh.  re- ' 
siroiiied  or  inaccessible]:  &afivd\  [in  1  Chr.  i.  39, 
Vat.  corrupt:]  Thamna).  1.  A  concubine  of  Eli- 
phaz  sou  of  Esau,  and  mother  of  Anialek  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  12;  in  1  Chr.  i.  36  named  as  a  son  of  Eli- 
phaz):  it  may  be  presumed  that  she  «as  the  same 
as  Tinma;,  sister  of  Lotan,  and  daughter  of  Seir 
the  Horite  ([Gen.  xxxvi.]  ver.  22,  and  1  Chr.  i. 
39). 

2.  [In  1  Chr.,  Vat.  QaiixaV,  Alex.  Qafiava.] 
A  duke,  or  phylarch,  of  Edom  in  the  last  list  in 
Gen.  xxxvi.  40-45  (1  Chr.  i.  51-54),  where  the 
dukes  are  named  '•  according  to  their  families,  after 
their  places,  by  their  names  ....  according  to 
their  habitations:  "  whence  we  may  conclude,  as  in 
the  case  of  Teman,  that  Timnah  was  also  the  name 
of  a  place  or  a  district.  E.  S.  P. 

TIM'NAH  Cn'y^Pi  [lot,  poriiori]).  A  name 
which  occurs,  simple  and  compounded,  and  with 
slight  variations  of  form,  several  times,  in  the  topog- 
raphy of  the  Holy  Land.  The  name  is  derived  by 
the  lexicographers  (Gesenius,  Simonis,  Fiirst)  from 


same  with   the  Rabb.  Heb.  tabla,  and   Span,  atabnl,  a 
kettle-drum      The  instrument  and  the  word  may  h»M 
come  to  us  through  the  Siii'aceug. 
a   Oris.  iii.  31. 


TIMNATH 

a  root  signifying  to  "  portion  fmt,  or  divide":  "  but 
its  frequent  occurrence,  and  the  analoijy  of  the  to- 
po;iraplncal  names  of  otiier  countries,  would  rather 
imply  that  it  referred  to  some  natural  feature  of  the 
country. 

1-  (A.i^a,  Qanvd;  [in  2  Chr.  Vat.  omits;]  Alex. 
voTOi',  Qafjiva'-.  Joseph.  @auvd:  Tliitmnn,  Tliam- 
nnn.)  A  place  which  formed  one  of  the  landmarks 
on  the  north  boundary  of  tlie  allotment  of  .ludah 
(Josh.  XV.  10).  It  was  oliviously  near  the  western 
end  of  the  boundary,  beiiii;  between  Beth-shemesh 
and  the  "  shoulder  of  Ekron."  It  is  probably  iden- 
tical with  the  Thijix.vtiiah  of  Josh.  xix.  43,  one 
of  the  towns  of  Dan,  also  named  in  connection  with 
Ekron,  and  that  again  with  the  Timnatli,  or  more 
accurately  Timnathah,  of  ISamson,  and  the  Thara- 
natha  of  the  Maccabees.  Its  belonging  at  that 
time  to  Dan  would  explain  its  absence  from  the 
list  of  the  towns  of  Judah  (Josh,  xv.),  though  men- 
tioned in  descril)ing  the  course  of  the  boundary. 
The  modern  representative  of  all  these  various  forms 
of  the  same  name  is  probalJy  Tibnth,  a  village 
about  two  miles  west  of  Ain  Shems  (Beth-shemesh), 
among  the  broken  undulating  country  by  which 
the  central  mountains  of  this  part  of  Palestine  de- 
scend to  the  maritime  plain.  It  has  been  shown  in 
several  other  cases  [Kkilah,  etc  ]  that  this  district 
contained  towns  which  in  the  lists  are  enumerated 
as  belonging  to  the  plain.  'I'imnali  is  probably  an- 
other instance  of  the  same  thing,  for  in  -2  (,'hr.  xxviii. 
18  a  place  of  the  same  name  is  mentioned  as  among 
the  cities  of  the  Slit/'tl'di,  which  from  its  occurrence 
with  ISeth-shemesh,  (jideroth,  Gimzo,  all  more  or 
less  in  the  neighborhood  of  Ekron,  is  probably  the 
same  as  that  just  descrilied  as  in  the  hills.  After 
the  Danites  iiad  xleserted  their  original  allotment 
for  the  north,  their  tovv.'s  would  naturally  fall  into 
the  hands  of  .ludah,  or  of  the  Philistines,  as  the  con- 
tinual struggle  between  them  might  happen  to  fluc- 
tuate. 

In  the  later  history  of  the  Jews  Timnah  must 
have  lieen  a  conspicuous  place.  It  was  fortified  by 
Bacchides  as  one  of  the  most  important  military 
posts  of  Judaja  (1  Mace.  ix.  50),  and  it  became 
the  head  of  a  district  or  toparchy,  which  was  called 
after  its  name,  and  was  reckoned  the  fourth  in 
order  of  importance  among  the  fourteen  into  which 
the  whole  country  was  divided  at  the  time  of  Ves- 
pasian's invasion  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §5;  and  see 
Pliny,  V.  14). 

Tibnth  is  now  spoken  of  as  "  a  deserted  site  " 
(Rob.  ii.  IG),  and  not  a  single  western  traveller 
appears  to  have  visited  it,  or  even  to  have  seen  it, 
though  its  position  is  indicated  with  tolerable  cer- 
tainty.     [TlMXATH  ] 

2.  {©aixvada.;  ^■\e\.  @aij.va-  Th'imirt.)  A  town 
in  the  mountain  district  of  .ludah  (.Josh.  xv.  57). 
It  is  named  in  the  same  group  with  Maon,  Ziph, 
and  Carmel,  which  are  known  to  have  been  south 
of  tlela'on.  It  is,  therefore,  undoubtedly  a  distinct 
place  from  that  just  examined.  G. 

TIM'NATH.  The  form  in  which  the  trans- 
lators of  the  A.  V.  inaccurately  present  two  n:imes 
which  are  certainly  distinct,  though  it  is  possible 
that  they  refer  to  the  same  place. 

1.  Timnah  (H^^rn,  i.  e.  Timnah  [lot,  pnr- 
liirn]:  (da/xvd-  Thniini'ifhii).  The  scene  of  the  ad- 
renture  of  Judah  with  his  daughter-in-law  Tamar 


TIMNATH-SERAH 


5251 


■<  The  l,XX.,  as  ul  ove,  derived  it  from  teman,  the 
&uath. 


(Gen.  xxxviii.  12,  13,  14).  There  is  nothing  hera 
to  indicate  its  position.  The  expression  "  went  up 
to  Timnah  "  (ver.  12)  indicates  that  it  was  on 
higher  ground  than  the  spot  from  which  Judab 
started.  But  as  we  are  ignorant  where  that  was, 
the  indication  is  of  no  service.  It  seems  to  have 
been  the  place  where  Judah's  flocks  were  kept. 
There  was  a  road  to  it  (A.  V.  "  way  ").  It  may 
be  identified  either  with  the  Timnah  in  the  moun- 
tains of  Judah,  which  was  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Carmel  where  Nabal  kept  his  huge  flocks  of  sheep ; 
or  with  the  Timnathah  so  familiar  in  the  story  cf 
Samson's  conflicts.  In  favor  of  the  latter  is  the 
doubtful  suggestion  named  under  Enam  and  Tap- 
PU.VH,  that  in  the  words  translated  "  an  open 
place"  there  is  a  reference  to  those  two  towns.  In 
favor  of  the  former  is  the  possilulity  of  the  name  in 
Gen.  xxxviii.  being  not  Timnah  but  Timnathah  (aa 
in  the  Vulgate),  which  is  certainly  the  name  of  the 
Philistine  place  connected  with  Samson.  More 
than  this  cannot  be  said. 

The  place  is  named  in  the  specification  of  the 
allotment  of  the  tiibe  of  Dan,  where  the  A.  V.  ex- 
hibits it  accurately  as  Thijinath.^h.  and  its  name 
doubtless  survives  in  the  modern  Tibiieh  which  is 
said  to  lie  below  Ziireah,  about  three  miles  to  the 
S.  \V.  of  it,  where  the  great  Wady  es-Siirdr  issues 
upon  the  jilain. 

2.  Tijinatmah  (nn3^ri  :  ©ttyUj/aSa;  Joseph. 
Qafivd'  Thmunatha).  The  residence  of  Samson's 
wife  (Judsr.  xiv.  1,  2,  51.  It  was  then  in  the  occu- 
pation of  the  Philistines.  It  contained  vineyards, 
liaunted  however  by  such  savage  animals  as  indi- 
cate that  the  iiojjulation  was  but  sparse.  It  was  on 
hiirher  ground  than  Ashkelon  (xiv.  19),  but  lower 
than  Zorali,  which  we  may  presume  was  Samson's 
starting-point  (xiii.  25).  G. 

TIM'NATH-HE'RES(D'nn  rOfin  [par- 
iion  of  til e  sun,  Ges.]:  Qa/nuaOap^s;  Alex,  ©a^ai-a- 
6ap  fuis'-  Tliinnniitsare).  The  name  under  which 
the  city  and  iturial-place  of  Joshua,  previouslv  called 
Ti.MNATH-SKUAH,  is  mentioned  in.ludg.  ii.  9.  The 
constituent  consonants  of  the  word  are  the  same, 
but  their  order  is  reversed.  The  authorities  differ 
considerably  in  their  explanations.  The  Jews  adopt 
Heres  as  the  real  name;  interpret  it  to  mean  the 
sun;  and  see  in  it  a  reference  to  the  act  of  making 
the  sun  stand  still,  which  is  to  them  the  greatest 
exploit  of  Joshua's  life.  Others  (as  Fiirst,  i.  442). 
while  accepting  Heres  as  the  original  form,  in- 
terpret that  word  as  "clay,"  and  as  originating  in 
the  character  of  the  soil.  Others  a^ain,  like 
i:wald  (Gi'sch.  ii.  347,  348),  and  Bertheau  (On 
.luili/es),  take  Serah  to  be  the  original  form,  and 
lleres  an  ancient  but  unintentional  error.         G. 

TIM'NATH-SE'RAH  (n"ip-n2?pri  [par 
tiiin  tif  dbunihiiice]:  [I!om.  Qafxvacrapdx-  ^  at.] 
©afxapxapilSi  QaixvaOaaaxapa:  Ahx.  Qa/xi/ad 
aapa,  Qaixvaaaxo-p'-  Joseph.  Qafxvd-  Tlniniii'ith 
Siiraa,  Tlutmniilli  Sort).  The  name  of  the  city 
which  at  his  request  was  presented  to  Joshua  after 
the  partition  of  tiie  country  was  conqileted  (Josh, 
xix  50);  and  in  "the  border"  of  which  he  was 
bulled  (xxiv.  30).  It  is  specified  as  "  in  .Mount 
Ephraim  on  the  north  side  of  Mount  (iaash."  in 
.ludg.  ii.  9,  the  name  is  altered  to  Ti.MN.KTii-HiiHKs. 
The  latter  form  is  that  .adojited  l>y  the  .lewish  writers, 
who  interpret  Heres  as  meaninir  the  sun,  and  account 
for  the  name  by  statins:  tiiat  the  fii;ure  of  tlie  sun 
{Uinunalii  ha  cliervK)  was  carved  uikju  the  sepu'k 


32o2  TIMNITE 

chre,  to  indicate  that  it  was  the  tom'h  of  Ihe  man 
who  had  caused  the  sun  to  stand  still  (Rashi,  Com- 
ment, on  both  passages).  Accordingly,  they  iden- 
tify the  place  with  Kefar  chercs,  which  is  said  by 
Kahbi  .Jacob  (Carnioly,  Itiiiemires,  etc.,  p.  186), 
hap-Parchi  (Asher's  Bevj.  p.  4.34),  and  other  Jew- 
ish travellers  down  to  Schwarz  in  our  own  day  (p. 
L51),  to  be  about  5  miles  S.  of  Shechem  {Nablus). 
No  place  with  that  name  appears  on  the  maps,  the 
closest  approach  to  it  being  Kefr- limit,  whioli  is 
niore  nearly  double  that  distance  S.  S.  \V.  of  Na- 
blux.  ^^'he^ever  it  be,  the  place  is  said  by  the  .Tews 
still  to  contain  the  tombs  of  Joshua,  of  Nun,  and  of 
Caleb  (Schwarz,  p.  151). 

Another  and  more  promising  identification  has, 
however,  been  suggested  in  our  own  day  by  Dr.  Eli 
Smith  {Bilil.  Sacra,  1843).  In  his  journey  Irom 
Jifna  to  3feji/el-  Yaba,  about  six  miles  from  the 
former,  he  discovered  the  ruins  of  a  considerable 
town  on  a  gentle  hill  on  the  left  (south)  of  the 
road.  Opposite  the  town  (apparently  to  the  south) 
was  a  much  higher  hill,  in  the  north  side  of  which 
are  several  excavated  sepulchres,  wliich  in  size  and 
in  the  richness  and  character  of  their  decorations 
resemble  the  so-called  "  Tombs  of  the  Kings  "  at 
Jerusalem.  The  whole  bears  the  name  of  Tibneh, 
and  although  without  further  examination  it  can 
hardly  be  afhrnied  to  be  the  Tinniah  of  Joshua, 
yet  the  identification  appears  probable.  [Gaash, 
Amer.  ed.] 

Timnath-Serah  and  the  tomb  of  its  illustrious 
owner  were  shown  in  the  time  of  .Jerome,  who 
mentions  them  in  the  Kpitaph'mm  Paula  (§  13). 
Beyond  its  being  south  of  Shechem,  he  gives  no 
indication  of  its  position,  but  he  dismisses  it  with 
the  following  characteristic  remark,  a  fitting  trilnite 
to  the  simple  self-denial  of  the  great  soldier  of  Israel : 
"^atisque  niirata  est,  quod  distributor  possessionum 
sibi  montana  et  aspera  delegisset."  G. 

TIM'NITE,  THE  Oi^rip  [patr.] :  rod 
&afj.vi  [Vat.  -;/ei] ,  Alex,  o  QaixvaBaios-  Tluim- 
natliwus),  that  is,  the  Timnathite  (as  in  the  Alex. 
LXX.,  and  Vulg.).  Samson's  father-in-law  (Judg. 
XV.  6). 

TI'MO'N  (Tifj.'j>v:  Timon).  One  of  the  seven, 
commonly  called  '-deacons"  [Ljeacon],  who  were 
appointed  to  act  as  almoners  on  the  occasion  of 
complaints  of  partiality  being  raised  by  the  Hellen- 
istic Jews  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  vi.  1-G).  Like  his 
colleagues,  Tinion  l)ears  a  Greek  name,  from  which, 
taken  together  with  the  occasion  of  their  appoint- 
ment, it  has  lieen  inferred  with  much  probability 
that  the  seven  were  themselves  Hellenists.  The 
name  of  Tinion  stands  filth  in  the  catalogue. 
Nothing  further  is  known  of  him  with  certainty; 
but  in  the  •■  Synopsis  de  Vita  et  JMorte  Prophetarum 
Apostoloruin  et  Uiscipiilorum  Domini,"  ascribed  to 
Dorotheus  of  Tyre  {Hlbl.  Patnim,  iii.  149),  we  are 
informed  that  he  w.as  one  of  the  "  seventy-two  "' 
disciples  (the  catalogue  of  whom  i.s  a  mere  conge- 
ries of  New  Testament  names),  and  that  he  after- 
wards became  bishop  of  Hostra  ( V  "  liostra  Ara- 
bum  "),  where  he  suffered  martyrdom  bv  fire. 

VV.  B.  J. 

TIMO'THEUS  (Tifj.6efos  [Jnmorunj   Go<I]). 


n  Thfi  children  of  these  marriages  were  known  as 
ManiZfriui  (bastard.'!),  and  stood  ju8t  above  the  Ne- 
rHHs'tM.  This  was,  however,  ra'Uris  /laribiis.  A  bas- 
tard who  was  a  wise  student  of  the  L^iw  wa.s,  in  tlieor\ , 
ibove  an  itfiiorant  high-priest  (Gem.  Hieros.  Jiurujot/i, 


TIMOTHY 

1.  A  "captain  of  the  Ammonites'"  (I  Mace,  v  6) 
who  was  defeated  on  several  occasions  by  .Judaa 
Maceabffius,  b.  c.  164  (1  Mace.  v.  6,  11,  34-44). 
He  was  jirobably  a  Greek  ad\-enturer  (conip.  Jos. 
AiU.  xii.  8,  §  1),  who  had  gained  the  leadership  o( 
the  tribe.  Thus  .Tosephus  (Ant.  xiii.  8,  §  1.  quoted 
by  Grimm,  on  1  Jlacc.  v.  6)  mentions  one  '■  Zeno, 
surnamed  Cotylas,  who  was  despot  of  Eabbah  "  in 
the  time  of  .Johannes  Hyrcanus. 

2.  In  2  Mace,  a  leader  named  Timotheus  is 
mentioned  as  having  taken  part  in  the  invasion  of 
Nicanor  (b.  c.  166:  2  Mace.  viii.  30,  ix.  3).  At 
a  later  time  he  made  great  preparations  for  a  second 
attack  on  Judas,  but  was  driven  to  a  stronghold, 
Gazara,  which  was  stormed  by  Judas,  and  there 
Timotheus  was  taken  and  slain  (2  Mace,  x  24-37). 
It  has  been  supposed  that  the  events  recorded  in 
this  latter  narrative  are  identical  with  those  in  1 
Mace.  v.  6-8,  an  idea  rendered  more  plausilile  by 
the  similarity  of  the  names  Jazer  and  Gazara  (in 
Lat.  Gazer,  Jazare,  Gazara).  But  the  name  Timo- 
theus was  very  common,  and  it  is  evident  that 
Timotheus  the  Ammonite  leader  was  not  slain  at 
Jazer  (1  JMacc.  v.  34);  and  Jazer  was  on  the  east 
side  of  Jordan,  while  Gazara  was  almost  certainly 
the  same  as  Gezer.  [Jaazkr;  Gazara.]  It 
may  be  urged  further,  in  support  of  the  substantial 
accuracy  of  2  Mace,  that  the  second  campaign  of 
Judas  against  Timotheus  (1)  (1  Mace.  v.  27-44)  is 
given  in  2  Maoc.  xii.  2-24,  after  the  account  of  the 
capture  of  Gazara  and  the  death  of  Timotheus  (2) 
there.  Wernsdorf  assumes  that  all  the  dittk-ences 
in  the  narratives  are  blunders  in  2  Mace.  (De  Jide 
Lihr.  Mace.  §  Ixx.),  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by 
Grimm  (on  2  jNIacc.  x.  24,  32).  But,  if  any  reli- 
ance is  to  be  placed  on  2  Mace,  the  differences  of 
place  and  circumstances  are  rightly  taken  by  Patri- 
tius  to  mark  different  events  {Be  Libr.  Mace. 
§  xxxii.  p.  2.59). 

3.  The  Greek  name  of  Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  1, 
xvii.  14,  &c.).  He  is  called  by  this  name  in  the 
X.  V.  in  every  case  except  2  Cor.  i.  1,  Pliilem.  1, 
Heb.  xiii.  23,  and  the  epistles  addressed  to  him. 

B.  F.  W. 
TIM'OTHY  {TitJi6e^os  [hmorlng  6V/]  :  Tiin- 
ot/ieus).  The  disciple  thus  named  was  the  son  of 
one  of  those  mixed  marriages  \^hich,  though  con- 
demned by  stricter  Jewish  opinion,  and  placing 
their  ofl'spring  on  all  but  the  lowest  step  in  the 
.Jewish  scale  of  i)recedeiice,"  were  yet  not  uncom- 
mon in  the -later  periods  of  Jewish  hi.story.  The 
father's  name  is  unknown :  he  was  a  Greek,  i.  e.  a 
tientile  by  descent  (Acts  xvi.  1,  3).  If  in  any 
sense  a  proselyte,  the  fact  that  the  issue  of  the 
marriage  did  not  receive  the  sign  of  the  covenant 
wou'd  render  it  probaUe  that  he  belonged  to  the 
class  of  half-converts,  the  so-called  Proselytes  of  the 
Gate,  not  those  of  liighteousness  [conip.  Pkosk- 
LYTEs].  The  absence  of  any  personal  allusion  to 
the  father  in  the  Acts  or  Epistles  suggests  the  infer- 
ence that  he  must  have  died  or  disappeared  during 
his  son's  infancy.  The  care  of  the  boy  thus  de- 
volved upon  his  mother  Eunice  and  her  mother 
Lois  (2  Tim.  i.  r>).  Under  their  training  his  edu- 
cation was  emphatically  .Jewish.  "From  a  child" 
he  learnt  (probalily  in  the  LXX.  version)  to  "know 


fol.  84,  in  Liirhtfoot.  Hnr.  Hrh.  in  Matt,  xxiii.  14);  and 
the  education  of  Timotheus  (2  Tim.  iii.  ir*  muv  there- 
fore have  helped  to  overcome  the  pr-'judicf  which 
the  Jews  would  naturally  have  against  bini  ou  thil 
ground. 


TIMOTHY 

the  Holy  Scriptures  "  daily.  The  language  of  the 
Acts  lea\es  it  uncertain  whether  Ljstra  or  Derbe 
were  the  residence  of  the  devout  fixniily.  The  latter 
has  been  inferred,  but  witiiout  much  likeHhood, 
from  a  jjossible  construction  of  Acts  xx.  4,  the 
former  from  Acts  xvi.  1,  2  (conip.  Neander,  Pfl- 
und  Leit.  i.  288;  Alford  and  Huther,  in  loc).  In 
either  case  the  absence  of  any  indication  of  tlie 
existence  of  a  synagogue  makes  this  devout  con- 
sistency more  noticeable.  We  may  think  here, 
as  at  Philippi,  of  the  few  devout  women  going 
forth  to  their  daily  worship  at  some  river-side  ora- 
tory (Conybeare  and  Howson,  i.  211).  The  read- 
ing irapa,  tIvcov,  in  2  'I'im.  iii.  14,  adopted  by 
Lachmaim  and  Tischenilorf,  indicates  that  it  was 
from  them  as  well  as  from  the  Apostle  that  the 
young  disciple  received  his  first  impi'ession  of 
Christian  truth.  It  would  he  natural  that  a 
character  thus  fashioned  siiould  retain  throughout 
sometliin'g  of  a  feminine  piety.  .A.  constitution  far 
from  robust  (1  Tim.  v.  2'5),  a  morbid  shrinking 
from  opposition  and  responsibilitv  (i  Tim.  iv.  12- 
16,  v.  20,  21,  vi.  11-14;  2  Tun.  ii.  1-7),  a  sen- 
sitiveness even  to  tears  (2  Tim.  i.  4),  a  tendency 
to  an  ascetic  rigor  whicli  he  had  not  strength  to 
bear  (1  I'im.  v.  23),  united,  as  it  often  is,  with  a 
temperament  exposed  to  some  risk  from  ''  youthful 
lusts""  (2  Tim.  ii.  22)  and  tlie  softer  emotions 
(1  Tim  V.  2)  —  these  we  may  well  think  of  as 
cliaracterizing  the  youth  as  they  afterwards  char- 
acterized the  man. 

The  arrival  of  Paul  and  IJarnabas  in  Lycaonia 
(Acts  xiv.  6)  brought  the  message  of  glad-tidings 
to  Tiinotiieus  and  his  mother,  and  they  received  it 
with  "unfeigned  faith"  (2  Tim.  i.  5).  If  at  Lys- 
tra,  as  seems  probable  from  2  Tim.  iii.  11,  he  may 
have  witnessed  the  half-t  mipleted  sacrifice,  the 
half  finished  martyrdom,  ot  Acts  xiv.  19.  Tlie 
preaching  of  the  Apostle  on  his  return  from  his 
short  circuit  prepai-ed  him  for  a  life  of  suffering 
(.-Vets  xiv.  22).  l''rom  that  time  his  life  and  edu- 
cation must  have  lieen  under  the  direct  superin- 
tendence of  the  body  of  elders  {Idid.  23).  During 
the  interv.al  of  seven  years  between  the  .Apostle's 
first  and  second  journeys,  the  boy  grew  up  to 
manhood.  His  zeal,  probalily  his  asceticism,  be- 
came known  both  at  Lystra  and  Iconium.  The 
mention  of  the  two  churches  as  united  in  testify- 
ing to  his  character  (.-\cts  xvi.  2),  leads  us  to  be- 
lieve that  the  early  work  was  [irophetic  of  the  latet 
that  he  had  been  already  em|iloyed  in  what  was 
afterwards  to  be  the  great  labor  of  his  life,  as  "the 
messenger  of  the  cliurches,"  and  that  it  was  his 
tried  fitness  for  that  office  which  determined  St. 
Paul's  choice.  Those  who  had  the  deepest  insight 
into  character,  and  spoke  with  a  prophetic  utter- 
ance, pointed  to  him  (1  Tim.  i.  18,  iv.  14),  as 
others  had  pointed  before  to  Paul  and  Barnabas 
(.\cts  xiii.  2),  as  specially  fit  for  the  missionary  work 
in  which  the  .\postle  was  eng.aged.  Personal  feel- 
ing led  St.  Paul  to  the  same  conclusion  (.Acts  xvi. 
3),  and  he  was  soleundy  set  apart  (the  whole  as- 
sembly of  the  elders  laying  their  hands  on  him,  as 
did  the  .Apostle  himself)  to  do  the  work  and  possi- 
iily  to  bear  the  title  of  Kvangelist  (I  Tim.  iv.  14: 
2    Tim.  i.  6,  iv.  5).''     A  ureal   obstacle,   however. 


TIMOTHY 


3253 


n  Comp.  the  elaborate  dis'Rrtation,  Df  vfiarepiKats 
sTTidufiiai?,  by  Bosius,  in  Uase's  Thesaurus,  vol.  ii 


piostiited  itself  Timotheus,  though  inheriting,  at 
it  were,  from  the  nobler  side  (Wetstein,  in  loc), 
and  therefore  reckoned  as  one  of  the  seed  of  ,Abr;»- 
ham,  had  been  allowed  to  grow  up  to  the  age  of 
manhood  without  the  sign  of  circumcision,  and  in 
this  point  he  might  seem  to  be  disclaiming  the 
.lewish  blood  that  was  in  him,  and  choosing  to 
take  up  his  position  as  a  heathen.  Had  that  been 
his  real  position,  it  would  lune  been  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  St.  Paul's  principle  of  action  to  urge 
on  him  the  necessity  of  circumcision  (1  Cor.  vii. 
18;  Gal.  ii.  3,  v.  2).  As  it  was  his  condition 
was  that  of  a  negligent,  almost  of  an  apostate 
Israelite;  and,  though  circumcision  was  nothing, 
and  uncircumcision  was  nothing,  it  was  a  serious 
question  whether  the  scandal  of  such  a  position 
should  be  allowed  to  frustrate  all  his  efforts  as  au 
Evangelist.  The  fact  that  no  oflTense  seems  to 
have  been  felt  hitherto  is  explained  by  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  Gentile  element  in  the  churches 
of  Lycaonia  (.Acts  xiv.  27).  But  his  wider  work 
would  bring  him  into  contact  with  the  .Jews,  who 
had  already  shown  themselves  so  ready  to  attack, 
and  then  the  scandal  would  come  out.  They 
might  tolerate  a  heathen,  as  such,  in  the  syna- 
gogue or  the  church,  but  an  uncircumcised  Israel- 
ite would  be  to  them  a  horror  and  a  portent. 
With  a  special  view  to  their  I'eelings,  making  no 
sacrifice  of  principle,  the  Apostle,  who  had  refused 
to  permit  the  circumcision  of  Titus,  "  took  and 
circumcised"  Timotheus  (.Acts  xvi.  3);  and  then, 
as  conscious  of  no  inconsistency,  went  on  his  way 
distributing  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  .leru- 
salem,  the  great  charter  of  the  freedom  of  the 
Gentiles  {ibid.  4).  Henceforth  Timotheus  was  one 
of  his  most  constant  companions.  Not  since  he 
parted  from  Barnabas  had  he  found  one  whose 
heart  so  answered  to  his  own.  If  Barnalias  had 
been  as  the  brother  and  friend  of  early  days,  he 
had  now  found  one  whom  he  could  claim  as  his 
own  true  son  by  a  spiritual  parentage  (1  Cor.  iv. 
17;  1  Tim.  i.  2:  2  Tim.  i.  2).  They  and  Sil- 
vanus,  and  probably  Luke  also,  journeyed  to  Phi- 
lippi  (.Acts  xvi.  12),  and  there  already  the  young 
Kvangelist  was  conspicuous  at  once  for  his  filial 
devotion  and  his  zeal  (Phil.  ii.  22).  His  name 
does  not  appear  in  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  wurk 
at  Thessalonica,  and  it  is  possible 'that  he  remained 
some  time  at  Philippi,  and  then  acted  as  the  mes- 
senger by  whom  the  members  of  that  chiu'ch  sent 
what  they  were  able  to  give  for  the  .Apostle's  wants 
(Phil.  iv.  1.5).  He  apj>ears,  however,  at  Beroea, 
and  remains  there  when  Paul  and  Silas  are  obliged 
to  leave  (Acts  xvii.  14),  going  on  afterwards  to 
join  his  master  at  .Athens  (1  Thess.  iii.  2).  From 
.Athens  he  is  sent  back  to  Thessalonica  (ibid.),  aa 
having  special  gifts  for  comforting  and  teaching. 
He  returns  from  Thessalonica,  not  to  .Athens  but 
to  Corinth,^  and  his  name  appears  united  with 
St.  Paul's  in  the  opening  words  of  Ijoth  the  letters 
written  from  that  city  to  the  Thessalonians  (1 
Thess.  i.  1;  2  Thess.  i.  1).  Here  also  he  was 
apparently  active  as  an  Evangelist  (2  Cor.  i.  19), 
and  on  him,  |)robably,  with  some  exceptions,  de- 
volved the  duty  of  baptizing  the  new  converts  (1 
Cor.  i.  14).     t)f  the  next  five  years  of  his  life  we 


f  Dr.  Wordsworth   iufers  fi-om  2  Cor.  ix.  11,  ana 
.^cts   xviii.  5,  that  he   brought  contributions  to  th« 


h  I  ionium  has  been  suggested  by  Conybeare  and  support  of  the  .\po.stle  from  the  Maceiloni.m  rhun  U*», 
gowsDii  (i.  2S9)  as  tht  probable  weue  of  the  ordlna-  mid  thus  released  hiui  from  hi.'<  coiitinuou."  lul>nrii«  • 
;ioD  '  t«ut-iuiiker. 


3254 


TIMOTHY 


have  no  record,  aiid  can  infer  nothing  beyond  a 
eoiitinuance  of  his  active  service  as  St.  Paul's  com- 
panion. When  we  next  meet  with  him  it  is  as 
being  sent  on  in  advance  when  the  Apostle  was 
contemplating  the  long  journey  which  was  to  in- 
clude Macedonia,  Achaia,  Jerusalem,  and  Rome 
(Acts  xix.  22).  He  was  sent  to  "bring"  the 
churches  '  into  remembrance  of  the  ways  "  of  the 
Apostle  (1  Cor.  iv.  17).  We  trace  in  the  words 
of  the  "father"  an  anxious  desire  to  guard  the  son 
from  the  perils  which,  to  his  eager  liut  sensitive 
temperament,  would  be  oio«t  trying  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
10).  His  route  would  take  him  through  the 
churohes  which  lie  had  been  instrumental  in  found- 
ing, and  this  would  give  him  scope  for  exercising 
the  shifts  which  were  afterwards  to  be  disjjlayed  in 
a  still  more  respotisible  office.  It  is  probable,  from 
the  passages  already  referred  to,  that,  after  accom- 
plishing the  special  work  assigned  to  him.  he 
returned  by  the  same  route,  and  met  St.  Paul  ac- 
cording to  a  previous  arrani;ement  (1  Cor.  xvi.  11), 
dud  was  til  us  with  him  when  the  second  epistle 
was  written  to  the  Church  of  Corinth  (2  Cor.  i.  1 ). 
He  returns  with  the  Apostle  to  tliat  city,  .and  joins 
in  messages  of  greeting  to  the  disciples  whom  he 
had  known  personally  at  Corinth,  and  who  had 
since  found  their  way  to  Itome  (Kom.  xvi.  21) 
He  forms  one  of  tiie  company  of  friends  who  go 
with  St.  Paul  to  Philippi  and  then  sail  by  them- 
selves, waiting  for  his  arrival  by  a  different  ship 
(Acts  XX.  3-6).  Whether  he  continued  his  jour- 
ney to  Jerusalem,  and  what  became  of  him  during 
St.  Paul's  two  years'  imprisonment,  are  points  on 
which  we  must  remain  uncertain.  The  language 
of  St.  Paul's  address  to  the  elders  of  Kphesus 
(Acts  XX.  17-.3.5)  renders  it  unlikely  that  he  was 
then  left  there  with  authority.  The  absence  of 
his  name  from  Acts  xxvii.  in  like  manner  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  did  not  share  in  the  perilous 
voyage  to  Italy.  He  nuist  have  joined  him,  how- 
ever, apparently  soon  alter  his  arrival  in  Rome, 
and  was  with  him  when  the  epistles  to  the  Phi- 
lippians,  to  the  Colossians,  and  to  Philemon  were 
written  (Phil.  i.  1,  ii.  19;  Col.  i.  1;  Phileni.  1). 
All  the  indications  of  this  period  point  to  inces.sant 
missionary  activity.  As  liefore,  so  now,  he  is  to 
precede  the  personal  coming  of  the  Apostle,  in- 
specting, advising,  reporting  (Phil.  ii.  19-2.3),  car- 
ing especially  for  the  Macedonian  churches  as  no 
one  else  could  care.  The  special  messages  of  greet- 
ing sent  to  him  at  a  later  date  (2  Tim.  iv.  21),  show 
that  at  Rome  also,  as  elsewhere,  he  had  gained 
the  warm  affection  of  those  among  whom  he  min- 
istered. Amont;  those  most  eager  to  be  thus 
remembered  to  liim,  we  find,  according  to  a  fairly 
supported  hypothesis,  tlie  names  of  a  Roman  noble 
[PuDicNs],  of  a  future  bishop  of  Rome  [Linus], 
and  of  the  daughter  of  a  British  king  [Claudia] 
(Williams,  Cldtulia  and  Pudtiis ;  Conybeare  and 

a  Tlie  writer  has  to  thank  Prof.  Lightfoot  for  call- 
ing his  attention  to  an  article  (''They  of  Caesar's 
Household")  in  Joiirn.  of  CLasx.  and  SacrnI  Philology, 
No.  X  ,  in  which  the  hypotlie.'iis  is  questioned,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Epigrams  are  later  than  the  Epistles, 
and  th,at  they  connect  the  n.ame  of  I'udens  with 
heathen  customs  and  vices.  On  the  other  h.and  it 
may  be  urged  that  the  bantering  tone  of  the  Epigrams 
forbids  ns  to  take  them  as  evidences  of  character. 
I'udens  tells  Martial  that  he  does  not  "  like  his 
poems.''  "Oh,  that  is  because  you  read  too  many  at 
V  time''  (iv.  29).  He  begs  him  to  corre.-t  their  hlem- 
£hcs.     "  You  want  an  autograph  copj  then,  do  j  ou  ?  °' 


TIMOTHY 

Ilowson,  ii.  501;  Alford,  Excursus  in  Greek  Test 
iii.  104).  It  is  interestina;  to  think  of  the  young 
Evangelist  as  having  been  the  instrument  by  which 
one  who  was  surrounded  by  the  fathomless  impu- 
rity of  the  Roman  world  was  called  to  a  highei 
life,  and  the  names  which  would  otherwise  have 
appeared  only  in  the  foul  epigrams  of  Martial  (i. 
32, 'iv.  13,  V.  48,  xi.  53)  raised  to  a  perpetual 
honor  in  the  salut.ations  of  an  apostolic  epistle." 
To  this  period  of  his  life  (the  exact  time  and  place 
being  uncertain)  we  may  probably  refer  the  im- 
prisomnent  of  Heb.  xiii.  23,  and  the  trial  at  which 
he  "  witnessed  the  good  confession  "  not  unworthy 
to  he  likened  to  that  of  the  Great  Confessor  before 
Pilat*  (1  Tim.  vi.  13). 

Assuming  the  genuineness  and  the  later  date  of 
the  two  epistles  addressed  to  him  [comp.  the  fol- 
lowing article],  we  are  able  to  put  together  a  few 
notices  as  to  his  later  life.  It  follows  irom  1  Tim. 
i.  3  that  he  and  his  master,  after  the  release  of  the 
latter  from  his  imprisonment,  revisited  the  pro- 
consular Asia,  that  the  Apostle  then  contimied  his 
journey  to  Macedonia,''  while  the  disciple  remained, 
half-reluctantly,  even  weeping  at  the  separation 
(2  Tim.  i.  4),  at  Kphesus,  to  check,  if  possilile, 
the  outgrowth  of  heresy  and  licentiousness  which 
had  sprung  up  there.  The  time  during  which  he 
was  thus  to  exercise  authority  as  the  delej^ate  of  an 
Apostle  —  a  vicar  apostolic  rather  than  a  bishop  — 
was  of  uncertain  duration  (1  Tim.  iii.  14).  The 
position  in  which  he  found  himself  might  well 
make  him  anxious.  He  had  to  rule  i^resbyters, 
most  of  whom  were  older  than  himself  (1  Tim. 
iv.  12),  to  assign  to  each  a  stipend  in  proportion 
to  his  work  (iljid.  v.  17),  to  receive  and  decide  ou 
charges  that  migiit  be  brought  agaiiwt  them  (ibid. 
v.  1,  19,  20),  to  regulate  the  almsgiving  and  tlie 
sisterhoods  of  the  Church  (ibid.  v.  3-10),  to  ordain 
presbyters  and  deacons  (ibid.  iii.  1-13).  There  was 
the  risk  of  being  entangled  in  the  disputes,  prej- 
udices, covetousness,  sensuality  of  a  great  city. 
There  was  the  risk  of  injuring  health  and  strength 
l)y  an  overstrained  asceticism  (ibid.  iv.  4,  v.  2'';). 
Leaders  of  rival  sects  were  there  —  Hymenwus, 
Philetus,  Alexander — to  oppose  and  thwart  him 
(1  Tim.'  i.  20;  2  Tim.  iL  17,  iv.  14,  15).  The 
name  of  his  beloved  teacher  was  no  Ioniser  hon- 
ored as  it  had  been ;  the  strong  affection  of  former 
d-\ys  had  vanished,  and  "  Paul  the  aged  "  had  be- 
come unpopular,  the  object  of  suspicion  and  dis- 
like (comp.  Acts  XX.  37  and  2  Tim.  i.  15).  Only 
in  the  narrowed  circle  of  the  faithful  ftew,  Aquila, 
Priscilla,  Mark,  and  others,  who  were  still  with 
him,  was  he  likely  to  find  sympathy  or  support  (2 
Tim.  iv.  19).  We  cannot  wonder  that  the  Apos- 
tle, knowing  these  trials,  and,  with  his  marvelous 
power  of  bearing  another's  burdens,  makinjr  them 
his  own,  should  be  full  of  anxiety  and  fear  for  his 
disciple's  steadfastness;  that  admonitions,  appeals, 


(vii.  11).  The  slave  En-  or  Eucolpos  (the  name  is 
possibly  a  willful  distortion  of  Eubulus)  does  what 
might  be  the  fulfillment  of  a  Christian  vow  (.\cts  xviii. 
18),  and  this  is  the  occasion  of  the  suggestion  which 
seems  most  damnatory  fv  48)  With  this  there  min- 
gles however,  as  in  iv.  13,  vi.  58,  the  language  of  a 
more  real  esteem  than  is  conmion  in  Martial  (comp 
some  good  remarks  in  Rev.  W.  B.  Galloway,  A  Clergy 
man'.t  Hulidnys,  pp.  36-49). 

h  Dr.  Wordsworth,  in  an  interesting  note  nn  2  Tim 
i.  15,  suppo.<es  the  parting  to  have  been  in  coDSe 
quenoe  of  St.  Paul's  .second  arrest,  and  sees  m  t'lU 
the  explanation  of  the  tears  of  Timotheun 


riMOTHY 

uraniiiigs,  should  follow  eiicli  other  in  rapid  and 
vehement  succession  (1  Tim.  i.  18,  iii.  15,  iv.  14, 
V.  21,  vi.  11).  In  the  second  epistle  to  him  this 
deep  personal  feeling  utters  itself  yet  more  fully. 
The  friendsliip  of  fifteen  years  was  drawing  to  a 
close,  and  all  memories  connected  with  it  throng 
upon  the  mind  of  the  old  man,  now  ready  to  he 
offered,  the  blameless  youth  (2  Tim.  iii.  15),  the 
holy  household  {ibid.  i.  5),  tlie  solemn  ordination 
(ibid.  I.  6),  the  tears  at  parting  (ibid.  i.  4).  The 
last  recorded  words  of  the  Apostle  express  tiie 
earnest  hope,  repeated  yet  more  earnestly,  that  he 
might  see  him  once  again  [ibid.  iv.  U,  i\).  Tinio- 
theus  is  to  osnie  before  winter,  to  bring  with  him 
the  cloak  for  which  in  that  winter  there  would  be 
need  (2  Tim.  iv.  13).  We  may  hazard  the  con- 
jecture tliat  he  reached  him  in  time,  and  that  the 
last  hours  of  the  teacher  were  soothed  by  the 
presence  of  the  disciple  whom  he  loved  so  truly. 
Some  Writers  have  even  seen  in  Heb.  xiii.  23  an 
indication  that  he  shared  St.  Paul's  imprisonment 
and  was  released  from  it  l)y  the  death  of  Nero 
(Conybeare  and  Howson,  ii.  502;  Neander,  Pjl. 
und  Liiit.  i.  552).  lieyond  this  all  is  apocryphal 
and  uncertain.  He  continues,  according  to  the 
old  traditions,  to  act  as  bishop  of  Ephesus  (Euseb. 
//.  E.  iii.  14),  and  dies  a  martyr's  death  under 
Domitian  or  Nerva  (Niceph.  //.  E.  iii.  11).  The 
great  festival  of  Artemis  (the  Karaywyioy  of  that 
goddess)  led  him  to  protest  against  tlie  hcense  and 
frenzy  whicli  accompaiiietl  it.  The  mob  were  roused 
to  fury,  and  put  him  to  deatli  witli  clubs  (comp. 
Polycrates  and  Simeon  JMetaphr.  in  Hensclien's 
Ada  iSimciorum,  Jan.  24).  Some  later  critics  — 
Schleiermacher,  iVIayerhoff —  have  seen  in  him  the 
author  of  the  whole  or  part  of  the  Acts  (Ulshau- 
sen,  Coiaiiientar.  ii.  612). 

A  somewhat  st;xrtUng  v'leory  as  to  the  inter- 
vening period  of  his  iile  has  found  favor  with 
Cahnet  (s.  v.  Timull/ee),  Tillemont  (ii.  147),  and 
others.  If  he  continued,  according  to  tlie  received 
tradition,  to  be  bishop  of  Ei)liesus,  then  he,  and  no 
jtlier,  must  have  been  tlie  "  angel "  of  that  cliurch 
to  whom  the  message  of  Kev.  ii.  1-7  was  ad- 
dresseil.  It  may  be  urged,  as  in  some  degree 
confirming  this  view,  that  both  the  praise  and  tlie 
blame  of  that  message  are  sucli  as  harmonize  with 
tlie  impressions  as  to  the  character  of  Timutheus 
derived  from  tlie  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  Tlie 
refusal  to  acknowledge  the  self-styled  apostles, 
the  alihorrence  of  the  deeds  of  tlie  Nicolaitaiis,  the 
unwearied  laljor,  all  this  belongs  to  "  the  man  of 
God  "  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  And  the  lault  is 
no  less  characteristic.  Tiie  strong  language  of  St. 
Paul's  entreaty  would  lead  us  to  expect  that  the 
temptation  of  sucli  a  man  would  be  to  fall  away 
from  the  glow  of  his  "  tirst  love,"  the  zeal  of  his 
first  faith.  The  [iromise  of  the  Lord  of  the 
Churches  is  in  sulwtance  the  same  as  that  implied 
in  the  language  of  the  Apostle  (2  Tim.  ii.  4-6). 

The  conjecture,  it  should  be  added,  has  been 
passed  over  unnoticed  by  most  of  the  recent  com- 
mentators on  the  Apocalypse  (conip,  Allbrd  and 
Wordsworth,  m  Ice.).  Trench  (Seven  Cliurclies  of 
,liii(,  p.  64),  contrasts  the  "angel"  of  Hev.  li. 
with  Timotheus  as  an  »•  earlier  angel"'  who,  with 
the  gei>eration  to  which  he  belonged,  had  passed 
iway  when  the  Apocalypse  was  written.  It  must 
be  reuiemliered,  however,  that  at  tiie  time  of 
St.  Pauls  death,  Timotheus  was  still  "  young,'" 
probably  not  more  than  thirty-five,  that  he  miglit, 
therefore,  well  be  living,  even  ou  the  assumption  of 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO     3255 

the  later  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  that  the 
traditions  (vdeant  qumitwii)  place  his  death  aftei 
that  date.  Kengel  admits  this,  but  urges  tli6 
olijection  that  he  was  not  the  bishop  of  any  single 
diocese,  but  the  superintendent  of  many  churches. 
This  however  may,  in  its  turn,  be  traversed,  by 
the  answer  that  the  death  of  St.  Paul  may  have 
made  a  great  difference  in  the  work  cf  one  wlio  had 
hitherto  been  employed  in  travelling  as  his  repre 
sentative.  The  si:)ecial  charge  comiiiitted  to  him 
in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  might  not  unnaturally 
give  fixity  to  a  life  which  had  previously  been 
wandering. 

An  additional  fiict  connected  with  the  name  of 
Timothy  is  that  two  of  the  treatises  of  the  Pseudo- 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite  are  addressed  to  him  (Dt 
Hitnirch.  Ctel.  i.  1;  comp.  Le  Nourry,  BisserU 
c.  ix.,  and  Halloix,  Qticest.  iv.  in  Migne"8  edition). 

E.  II.  P. 
TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO.  AuilwrMp. 
—  The  question  whether  these  epistles  were  written 
by  St.  Paul  was  one  to  which,  till  within  -the  last 
half-century,  hardly  any  answer  but  an  affirmative 
one  was  thought  possible.  They  are  reckoned  among 
the  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  Muratoriau  Canon  and 
the  Peshito  version.  Eusebius  (//.  E.  iii.  25, 
places  them  among  the  6ixo)^oyovneva  of  the  N.  T., 
and,  while  recording  the  doubts  which  affected  the 
Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  and  the  other  avriXi- 
yofxeva,  knows  of  none  which  affect  these.  They 
are  cited  as  authoritative  by  TertuUian  (De  Pnescr. 
c.  25;  ad  Uxorem,  i.  7),  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(Strom,  ii.  11),  Irenseus  (Adv.  Hm:  iv.  16,  §  3, 
ii.  14,  §  8).  Parallelisms,  implying  quotation,  in 
some  cases  with  close  verbal  agreement,  are  found 
in  Clem.  Rom.  1  Cor.  c.  29  (comp.  1  Tim.  ii.  8); 
Ignat.  ad  .\[agn.  c.  8  (1  Tim.  i.  4);  Polycarp,  c.  4 
(couip.  1  Tim.  vi.  7,  8);  Theophilus  of  Antioch 
ad  Aul.ul.  iii.  126  (comp.  1  Tim.  ii.  1,  2).  There 
were  indeed  some  notable  exceptions  to  this  con- 
sensus. The  three  Pastoral  Epistles  were  all  re- 
jected by  Marcion  (TertuU.  adv.  Afarc.  v.  21; 
lien.  i.  29),  Basilides,  and  other  Gnostic  teachers 
(Hieroti.  Prmf.  in  Tiluni).  Tatian,  while  strongly 
maintaining  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
denied  that  of  the  other  two  (Hieron.  ib.).  In 
these  instances  we  are  able  to  discern  a  dogmatic 
reason  for  the  rejection.  The  sects  which  these 
leaders  represented  could  not  but  feel  that  they 
were  condemned  by  the  teaching  of  the  Pastonil 
Epistles.  Origeii  mentions  some  who  excluded 
2  Tim.  from  the  Canon  for  a  very  different  reason. 
The  names  of  Jannes  and  Jambres  belonged  to 
an  apocryphal  history,  and  from  such  a  history 
St.  Paul  never  would  have  quoted  (Origen,  Coiiini. 
in  Matt.  117). 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  have,  however,  been  sub- 
jected to  a  more  elaborate  scrutiny  by  the  criticism 
of  Cierinaiiy.  The  first  doubts  were  uttered  by 
J.  C.  Schmidt.  These  were  fbllovi'ed  by  the  Stnd- 
sclireiben  of  Schleiermacher,  who,  assuming  the 
genuineness  of  2  Tim.  and  Titus,  undertook,  on 
that  hypothesis,  to  prove  the  spuriousness  of  1  Tim. 
Holder  critics  saw  that  the  position  thus  taken  was 
untenable,  that  the  three  epistles  must  stand  or 
fall  together.  Eichhoni  (Einl.  iii.)  and  De  Wette 
(Einleil.)  denied  the  Pauline  authorslWpof  all  three. 
There  was  still,  however,  an  attempt  to  niaintain 
their  authority  as  emlwdying  the  sub.«taiice  of  th» 
.\postlos  teaching,  or  of  letters  written  by  him, 
on  the  hypothesis  that  they  had  been  sent  forth 
I  after  his  death  by  some  over-zealous  disciple,  whc 


3256    TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 

wished,  under  the  shadow  of  his  name,  to  attack 
the  prevailing  errors  of  the  time  (Kichhorn,  ib.). 
One  writer  (Schott,  ha<ja(je  I/ist.  Cril.  p  ^24) 
\entures  on  the  hypotliesis  that  Luke  was  tlie 
writer.  Baur  {Die  snffenannten  Paslnral-Brieft), 
here  as  elsewhere  more  daring  than  others,  assigns 
tlieui  to  no  earlier  period  than  the  latter  half  of 
the  second  century,  after  the  death  of  Folycarp  in 
A.  D.  1G7  (p  138).  On  this  hypothesis  2  Tim  was 
the  earliest,  1  Tim.  the  latest  of  the  three,  each 
probably  by  a  ditferent  writer  (pp.  72-7 ti).  I'hey 
grew  out  of  the  state  of  parties  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and,  like  the  Gospel  of  !St.  Luke  and  the 
Acts,  were  intended  to  mediate  between  the  extreme 
Pauline  and  the  extreme  Petrine  sections  of  the 
Church  (p.  58).  Startiii;;  from  the  data  supplied 
by  the  Epistle  to  the  I'hilippians,  the  writers,  first 
of  2  Tim.,  then  of  Titus,  and  lastly  of  1  Tim., 
aimed,  by  the  in.sertion  of  personal  incidents,  mes- 
sages, and  the  like,  at  giving  to  their  compilations 
an  air  of  verisimilitude  (p.  7U). 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  statement  that 
the  question  of  authorship  is  here  more  than  usually 
important.  There  can  be  no  solution  as  regards 
these  epistles  like  that  of  an  obviously  dramatic 
and  therefore  legitimate  personation  of  character, 
such  as  is  possible  in  relation  to  the  authorship 
of  ICcclesiastes.  If  the  Pastoral  P2pistles  are  not 
Pauline,  the  writer  clearly  meant  them  to  pass 
US  such,  and  the  animus  dtcipitndi  would  be  there 
in  its  most  flagrant  form.  Tliey  would  have  to 
take  their  place  with  the  Pseudo-Clementine  Hom- 
ilies, or  the  Pseudo  Ignatian  Epistles.  Where  we 
now  see  the  traces,  full  of  life  and  interest,  of  the 
character  of  "  Pe^uI  the  aged,"  firm,  tender,  zealous, 
lovini:,  we  should  have  to  recognize  only  the  tricks, 
sometimes  skillful,  sometimes  clumsy,  of  some  un- 
known and  dishonest  controversialist. 

Consequences  such  as  these  ought  not,  it  is  true, 
to  lead  us  to  suppress  or  distoit  one  iota  of  e\i- 
dence.  They  may  well  make  us  cautious,  in  ex- 
amining the  evidence,  not  to  admit  conclusions  that 
are  wider  than  the  premises,  nor  to  take  the  prem- 
ises themselves  for  granted.  The  task  of  exam- 
ining is  rendered  in  some  measure  easier  by  the 
fact  that,  in  the  judgment  of  most  critics,  hostile  as 
well  as  friendl}-,  the  three  Pastoral  I'^pistles  stand 
on  the  same  ground.  The  intermediate  hypotheses 
of  Schleiermacher  {supra)  and  Credner  {Einl.  ins 
N.  T.),  who  looks  on  Titus  as  genuine,  2  Tim.  as 
made  up  out  of  two  genuine  letters,  and  1  I'im.  as 
altogether  spurious,  may  be  dismissed  as  individual 
eccentricities,  hardly  requiring  a  separate  notice. 
In  dealing  with  objections  wliich  take  a  wider  range, 
we  are  meeting  those  also  which  are  confined  to 
one  or  two  out  of  the  three  epistles. 

The  chief  elements  of  the  alleged  evidence  of 
spuriousness  may  be  arranged  as  follows:  — 

L  LiuKjuaye.  — The  style,  it  is  urged,  is  different 
from  that  of  the  acknowledged  Pauline  Epistles. 
There  is  less  logical  continuity,  a  want  of  order 
and  plan,  sulijects  brought  up,  one  after  the  other, 
aliruptly  (Schleiermacher).  Not  less  than  fifty 
Words,  most  of  them  striking  aTid  characteristic, 
are  found  in  these  epistles  which  are  not  found  in 
St.  Paul's  writings  (see  the  list  in  Conybeare  and 
Hovvson,  App.  I.,  and  Huther's  JJuk-il.}.  The 
formula  of  salutation  {^dpis,  tAeos,  slij-f]yr)),  half- 
technical  words  and  phrases,  like  euae^eia  and  its 
cognates  (I  Tim.  2,  iii.  10,  vi.  6,  et  al.),  irapa- 
Karad-nK-h  (1  Tim.  i.  18,  vi.  20;  2  Tim.  i.  12,  14, 
d     2),   the  frequently  recurring    TrKTrhs  6    K6yot 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 

(1  Tim.  i.  15,  iii.  1,  iv.  9;  2  Tim.  ii.  11),  the  use 
of  vyiaifovcra  as  the  distinctive  epithet  of  a  true 
teaching,  these  and  others  like  them  appear  here 
for  the  first  time  (Schleierm.  and  Baur).  Some  of 
these  words,  it  is  urged,  (pavepovv,  iirKpavita, 
uoorrtp,  (pus  airpoaiToi',  belong  to  the  Gnostic  ter- 
minology of  the  2d  century. 

On  the  other  side  it  may  be  said,  (1)  that  there 
is  no  test  so  uncertain  as  that  of  language  and  style 
thus  applied ;  how  uncertain  we  may  judge  from 
the  fact  that  Schleiermacher  and  Neander  find  no 
stumbling-blocks  in  2  Tim.  and  Titus,  while  they 
detect  an  un-Pauline  character  in  1  Tim.  A  dif- 
ference like  that  which  marks  the  speech  of  men 
divided  from  each  other  by  a  century  may  be  con- 
clusive against  the  identity  of  authorship,  but  short 
of  that  there  is  hardly  any  conceivable  divergency 
which  may  not  coexist  with  it.  The  style  of  one 
man  is  stereotyped,  formed  early,  and  enduring  long. 
The  sentences  move  after  an  unvarying  rhyHim;  the 
same  words  recur.  That  of  another  changes,  more 
or  less,  from  year  to  year.  As  his  thoughts  expand 
they  call  for  a  new  vocabulary.  The  last  works 
of  such  a  writer,  as  those  of  Bacon  and  of  Burke, 
may  be  florid,  redundant,  figurative,  while  the 
earlier  were  almost  meagre  in  their  simplicity.  In 
proportion  as  the  man  is  a  solitary  thinker,  or  a 
strong  asserter  of  his  own  M'ill,  will  he  tend  to  the 
former  state.  In  proportion  to  his  power  of  re- 
ceiving impressions  from  without,  of  sympathizing 
with  others;  will  be  his  tendency  to  the  latter. 
Apart  from  all  knowledge  of  St.  Paul's  character, 
the  alleged  peculiarities  are  but  of  little  weight  in 
the  adverse  scale.  With  that  knowledge  we  may 
see  in  them  the  natural  result  of  the  intercourse 
with  men  in  many  lands,  of  that  readiness  to  lie- 
come  all  things  to  hll  men,  which  could  hardly  fail 
to  show  itself  in  speech  as  well  as  in  action.  Each 
group  of  his  epistles  has,  in  like  manner,  its  char- 
acteristic words  and  phrases.  (2.)  If  this  is  true 
generally,  it  is  so  yet  more  emphatically  when  the 
circumstances  of  authorship  are  ditterent.  The 
language  of  a  bishop's  charge  is  not  that  of  his 
letters  to  his  private  friends.  The  epistles  which 
St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  churches  as  societies,  might 
well  differ  from  those  which  he  wrote,  in  the 
full  freedom  of  open  speech,  to  a  familiar  friend, 
to  his  own  "true  son."  It  is  not  strange  that  we 
should  find  in  the  latter  a  Luther-like  vehemence 
of  expression  {e.  </.  KeKava-TTjpiaiT/xfi'wi',  1  'I'im.  iv. 
2,  8ia7rapoTpi/8al  5ii<pdapfj.fi/wv  avtipwnwv  rbp 
vovv,  1  lini.  vi.  5,  (T€awpfVfj.iya  afxapnais,  2  1  im. 
iii.  6),  mixed  sometimes  with  words  tliat  im|)ly  that 
which  lew  great  men  have  been  without,  a  keen 
sense  of  humor,  and  the  capacity,  at  least,  for  satire 
(('.(/.  -ypaaJSeis  fjivdovs,  1  lim.  iv.  7;  <p\vapoi 
KoX  nepiepyoi,  1  Tim.  v.  13;  mixpUTM,  1  iini. 
vi.  4;  yaarepes  apyai,  Tit.  i.  12).  (3.)  Other 
letters,  again,  were  dictated  to  an  amanuensis.  These 
have  every  appearance  of  having  been  written  with 
his  own  hand,  and  this  can  hardly  have  been  with- 
out its  influence  on  their  style,  rendering  it  less 
diffuse,  the  transitions  more  abrupt,  the  treatment 
of  eacii  sulject  more  concise.  In  this  respect  it 
may  be  compared  with  the  other  two  autograph 
epistles,  those  to  the  Galatians  and  Philemon.  A 
list  of  words  given  by  Alford  (iii.  Proky.  c.  vii.) 
shows  a  considerable  resemblance  between  the  forn)er 
of  the  two  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  (4.)  It  may 
be  added,  that  to  whatever  extent  a  foi'ger  of  spu- 
rious epistles  would  be  likely  to  form  his  st^le 
after  the  pattern  of   the  recognized  ones,  so  that 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 

men  miulitnot  be  able  to  distinguish  the  counterfeit 
from  the  true,  to  that  extent  tlie  diversity  which 
has  Ijeeii  dwelt  on  is,  within  the  limits  that  have 
been  above  stated,  not  against,  but  for  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  epistles.  (5.)  Lastly,  tliere  is  the 
positive  argument  that  there  is  a  large  common 
element,  both  of  thoughts  and  words,  shared  by 
these  epistles  and  the  others.  The  grounds  of  faith, 
the  law  of  life,  the  tendency  to  digress  and  go  off 
at  a  word,  the  personal,  individualizing  affection, 
the  free  reference  to  his  own  sufferings  for  the 
truth,  all  these  are  in  both,  and  by  them  we 
recognize  the  identity  of  the  writer.  The  evidence 
can  hardly  be  given  within  the  limits  of  this  article, 
but  its  weight  will  be  felt  liy  any  careful  student. 
The  coincidences  are  precisely  those,  in  most  in- 
stances, which  the  forger  of  a  document  would 
have  been  unlikely  to  think  of,  and  give  but  scanty 
support  to  the  perverse  ingenuity  which  sees  in 
these  res?mblances  a  proof  of^  compilation,  and 
therefore  of  spuriousness. 

II.  It  has  been  urged  (chiefly  by  Eichhorn,  Kinl. 
p.  315)  against  the  reception  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
that  they  cannot  be  fitted  in  to  the  records  of  St. 
Paul's  life  in  the  Acts.  To  this  there  is  a  threefold 
answer.  (1.)  The  difficulty  has  been  enormously 
exaggerated.  If  the  dates  assigned  to  them  must, 
w  some  extent,  be  conjectural,  there  are  at  least 
Iwo  hypotheses  in  each  case  {infrii)  which  rest  on 
reasonably  good  grounds.  (2.)  If  the  difficulty  were 
<ts  great  as  it  is  said  to  be,  the  mere  fact  that  we 
eannot  fix  the  precise  date  of  three  letters  in  the 
life  of  one  of  whose  ceaseless  labors  and  journeyings 
we  have,  after  all,  but  fragmentary  records,  ought 
not  to  be  a  stumbling-block.  The  hy[)othesis  of  a 
release  from  the  imprisonment  with  which  the  his- 
tory of  the  Acts  ends  removes  all  difficulties;  and 
if  this  be  rejected  (Haur,  p.  67),  as  itself  not  rest- 
ing on  sufficient  evidence,  there  is,  in  any  case,  a 
wide  gap  of  which  we  know  nothing.  It  may  at 
least  claim  to  be  a  theory  which  explains  phenomena. 
(3.)  Here,  as  before,  the  rejily  is  obvious,  that  a 
man  composing  counterfeit  epistles  would  have  been 
likely  to  make  them  square  with  the  acknowledged 
records  of  the  life. 

III.  The  three  epistles  present,  it  is  said,  a  more 
developed  state  of  church  organization  and  doctrine 
than  that  lielonging  to  the  lifetime  of  St.  Paul. 
(1. )  The  rule  that  the  bishop  is  to  be  "  the  husband 
of  one  wife"  (1  Tim.  iii.  2;  Tit.  i.  6)  indicates 
the  strong  opposition  to  second  marriages  which 
characterized  the  2d  century  (Baur,  pp.  ll;3-120). 
(2.)  The  •' younger  widows"  of  1  Tim.  v.  11  can- 
not possibly  be  literally  widows.  If  they  were,  St. 
Paul,  in  ad\ising  them  to  marry,  would  be  exclud- 
ing them,  according  to  the  rule  of  1  Tim.  v.  9,  from 
all  chance  of  sharing  in  the  church's  bounty.  It 
follows  therefore  that  the  word  xvp"-^  '^  used,  as  it 
was  in  the  2d  century,  in  a  wider  sense,  as  denoting 
a  consecrated  life  (Baur,  pp.  42-49).  (3.)  The  rules 
affecting  the  relation  of  the  bishops  and  elders  in- 
dicate a  hierarchic  development  chanacteristic  of 
the  Petrine  element,  which  became  dominant  in 
the  Churcli  of  Rome  in  the  post-Ajwstolic  period, 
but  foreign  altogether  to  the  genuine  ejiistles  of 
St.  Paul  (Baur,  pp.  80-89).  (4.)  The  term  alperiKSs 
is  used  in  its  later  sense,  and  a  formal  procedure 
against  the  heretic  is  recognized,  which  belongs  to 
the  2d  century  rather  than  the  1st.  (5.)  The  up- 
ward progress  from  the  office  of  deacon  to  that  of 
presbyter,  implied  in  1  Tim.  iii.  13,  belongs  to  a 
\ater  period  (ISaur,  I.  c. ). 

205 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO     325*? 

ft  is  not  difficult  to  meet  objections  which  con- 
tain so  large  an  element  of  mere  arbitrary  assump- 
tion. (1.)  Admitting  Baur's  interpretation  of  1 
Tim.  iii.  2  to  be  the  right  one,  the  rule  which 
makes  monogamy  a  condition  of  the  episcopal  office 
is  very  far  removed  from  the  harsh,  sweeping  cen- 
sures of  all  second  marriages  which  we  find  in 
Athenagoras  and  Tertullian.  (2.)  There  is  not  a 
shadow  of  proof  that  the  "  younger  widows  "  were 
not  literally  such.  The  x^P"'  ®^  ^^^  Pastoral 
Epistles  are,  like  those  of  Acts  vi.  1,  ix.  39,  women 
dependent  on  the  alms  of  the  church,  not  neces- 
sarily deaconesses,  or  engaged  in  active  labors.  The 
rule  fixing  the  age  of  si.Kty  for  admission  is  all  but 
conclusive  against  Baur's  hypothesis.  (3. )  The  use 
of  eiriffKOTTOL  and  wf)€aBvTepoi  in  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  as  equivalent  (Tit.  i.  5,  7),  and  the  absence* 
of  any  intermediate  order  between  the  bishops  and 
deacons  (1  Tim.  iii.  1-8).  are  quite  unlike  what  we 
find  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles  and  other  writings  of 
the  2d  century.  They  are  in  entire  agreement  with 
the  language  of  St.  Paul  (.-Vfts  xx.  17,  28;  Phil, 
i.  1).  Eew  features  of  these  epistles  are  more 
striking  than  the  absence  of  any  high  hierarchic 
system.  (4.)  The  word  alperiKSs  has  its  counter- 
part in  the  alptcnis  of  1  Cor.  xi.  19.  The  sentence 
upon  Hymena;us  and  Ale.Kander  (1  Tim.  i.  20)  has 
a  precedent  in  that  of  1  Cor.  v.  5.  (J).)  The  best 
interpreters  do  not  see  in  1  Tim.  iii.  13  the  transi- 
tion from  one  office  to  another  (comp.  Ellicott,  in 
loc,  and  Deacon).  If  it  is  there,  the  assumption 
that  such  a  change  is  foreign  to  the  Apostolic  age 
is  entirely  an  arbitrary  one. 

IV.  Still  greater  stress  is  laid  on  the  indications 
of  a  later  date  in  the  description?  of  the  false 
teachers  noticed  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  These 
point,  it  is  said,  unmistakably  to  Marcion  and  his 
followers.  In  the  avrideffeis  t^s  \pivdcovvf/.ou 
yvcxxTicos  (1  Tim.  vi.  20)  there  is  a  direct  reference 
to  the  treatise  which  he  wrote  under  the  title  of 
'AvTiO^aets,  settinif  forth  the  contradiction  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  (Baur,  p.  20).  The 
•'  genealogies  "  of  1  Tim.  i.  4,  Tit.  iii.  9,  in  like 
manner,  point  to  the  jEons  of  the  Valentinians  and 
f)phites  {ibid.  p.  12).  The  "forbidding  to  marry, 
and  commanding  to  abstain  from  meats,"'  fits  in 
to  Alarcion's  system,  not  to  that  of  the  Judaizing 
teachers  .of  St.  Paul's  time  (iOid.  p.  24).  The  as- 
sertion that  "the  law  is  good"  (1  Tim.  i.  8)  im- 
plies a  denial,  like  that  of  Marcion,  of  its  Divine 
authority.  The  doctrine  that  the  "  Resurrection 
was  past  already"  (2  Tim.  ii.  18)  was  thoroughly 
Cinostic  in  its  ch.aracter.  In  his  eagerness  to  find 
tokens  of  a  later  date  everywhere,  Baur  sees  in  the 
writer  of  the.se  epistles  not  merely  an  opjwnent  of 
Gnosticism,  but  one  in  part  infected  with  their 
teaching,  and  appeals  to  the  doxologies  of  1  Tim. 
i.  17,  vi.  1.5,  and  their  Christology  throughout,  as 
having  a  (Jnostic  stamp  on  them  (pp.  28-33). 

Carefully  elaborated  as  this  part  of  Baur's  attack 
has  been,  it  is  perliaps  the  weakest  and  most  ca- 
pricious of  all.  The  false  teachers  of  the  Pastoral 
Eiiistles  are  predominantly  .lewish,  i/o/xoStSdaKaKot 
(1  Tim.  i.  7),  belontring  altogether  to  a  ditlerent 
school  from  that  of  Marcion,  giving  heed  to  "  Jewish 
fal)les"  (["it.  i.  14)  and  "disputes  connected  with 
the  I,aw  "  (Tit.  iii.  9).  Of  all  monstrosities  of 
exegesis  few  are  more  willful  and  fantastic  than 
that  which  finds  in  vofioSiSdaKaKoi  Antinomian 
teachers  and  in  /uaxol  i/o/niKal  .Vntinomian  doctrine 
(Baur.  p.  17).  The  natural  sugirestion  that  in  .\<'ts 
sx.  30,  31,  St.    Paul  contemplates    the  riae  and 


3258    TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 

progress  of  a  like  perverse  te<achii]g,  that  in  Col.  ii. 
8-23  we  have  the  same  comliination  of  Jutlaism  and 
a  self-styled  yuwffis  (1  Tiiii.  vi.  20)  or  <pi\ocro<pia 
(Col.  ii.  8),  leading  to  a  like  false  asceticism,  is  set 
aside  summarily  by  the  rejection  both  of  the  speech 
and  the  epistle  as  spurious.  P>ven  the  denial  of 
the  liesurrection,  we  may  remark,  belongs  as  nat- 
urally to  the  mingling  of  a  Sadducfean  element  with 
an  eastern  mysticism  as  to  the  teaching  of  Marcion. 
Tlie  self-contradictory  hypothesis  that  the  writer 
of  1  Tim.  is  at  once  the  strongest  opponent  of  the 
Gnostics,  and  that  he  adopts  their  language,  need 
hardly  be  refuted.  The  whole  line  of  argument, 
indeed,  first  misrepresents  the  language  of  St.  Paul 
in  these  epistles  and  elsewhere,  and  then  assumes 
the  entire  absence  from  the  first  century  of  even 
the  germs  of  the  teaching  which  characterized  the 
second  (comp.  Neaiider,  P/i.  wid  Ldt.  i.  p.  401; 
Heydenreich,  p.  G4). 

Date.  —  Assuming  the  two  epistles  to  Timothy 
to  have  been  written  by  St.  Paul,  to  what  period 
of  his  life  are  they  to  be  referred  V  The  question 
as  it  affects  each  epistle  may  be  discussed  se[)- 
arately. 

First  Epistle  to  Timothij.  —  The  direct  data  in 
this  instance  are  very  few.  (1.)  i.  3,  implies  a 
journey  of  St.  Paul  from  Ephesus  to  Macedonia, 
Timothy  remaining  behind.  (2.)  The  age  of  Tim- 
othy is  described  as  veorris  (iv.  12).  (3.)  The 
general  resemblance  between  the  two  epistles  in- 
dicates that  they  were  written  at  or  about  the  same 
time.  Three  hypotheses  have  been  maintained  as 
fulfilling  these  conditions. 

(A.)  The  journey  in  question  has  been  looked 
on  as  an  flnrecorded  episode  in  the  two  years' 
work  at  Ephesus  of  Acts  xix.  10. 

(B. )  It  has  been  identified  with  the  journey  of 
Acts  XX.  1,  after  the  tunmlt  at  Ephesus. 

On  either  of  these  suppositions  the  date  of  the 
epistle  has  been  fixed  at  various  periods  after  St. 
Paul's  arrival  at  E])hesus,  before  the  conclusion  of 
his  first  imprisonment  at  Rome. 

(C.)  It  has  been  placed  in  the  interval  between 
St.  Paul's  first  and  second  imprisonments  at 
Rome. 

Of  these  conjectures,  A  and  B  have  the  merit  of 
bringing  the  epistle  within  the  limit  of  the  authen- 
tic records  of  St.  Paul's  life,  but  they  liave  scarcely 
any  other.  Against  X,  it  may  be  urged  that  a 
journey  to  Macedonia  would  hardly  have  been 
passed  over  in  silence  either  by  St.  Luke  in  the 
Acts,  or  by  St.  Paul  himself  in  writing  to  the 
Corinthians.  Against  B,  that  Timothy,  instead  of 
remaining  at  Ephesus  when  the  Apostle  left,  had 
gone  on  into  Macedonia  before  him  (Acts  xix.  22). 
The  hypothesis  of  a  possilile  return  is  traversed  by 
the  fact  that  he  is  with  St.  Paul  in  IMacedonia  at 
the  time  when  2  Cor.  was  written  and  sent  off.  In 
favoi'  of  0  as  compared  with  A  or  B,  is  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  contents  of  the  epistle.  The  errors 
against  which  Timothy  is  warned  are  present,  dan- 
gerous, portentous.  At  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  visit 
to  Miletus  in  Acts  xx.,  i.  e.,  according  to  those 
hypotheses,  subsequent  to  the  epistle,  they  are  still 
only  looming  in  the  distance  (ver.  30).  All  the 
circumstances  referred  to,  moreover,  imply  the  pro- 
lonired  absence  of  the  Apostle.  Discipline  had  be- 
come lax,  heresies  rife,  the  economy  of  the  church 
disordered.  It  was  necessary  to  check  the  chief 
otfenders  by  the  .sharp  sentence  of  excommunication 
(1  Tim.  i.  20).  Other  churches  called  for  his  coun- 
mi.  and  directions,  or  a  sharp  necessity  took  him 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 

away,  and  he  hastens  on,  leaving  liehmd  him,  with 
full  delegated  authority,  the  disciple  in  whom  he 
most  confided.  The  language  of  the  epistle  also 
has  a  bearing  on  the  date.  According  to  the  hy- 
potheses A  and  B,  it  belongs  to  the  same  periods 
as  1  and  2  Cor.  and  the  Ep.  to  the  Komans,  or,  at 
the  latest,  to  the  same  group  as  Philippians  and 
I'.phesians;  and,  in  this  case,  the  difierences  of 
style  and  language  are  somewhat  dithcult  to  ex- 
plain. Assume  a  later  date,  and  then  there  is  room 
for  the  changes  in  thought  and  expression  which, 
in  a  character  like  St.  Paul's,  were  to  be  expected 
as  the  years  went  by.  The  only  ohjtctions  to  the 
position  thus  assigned  are — (1)  the  doubtfuhiess 
of  the  second  imprisonment  altogether,  which  haa 
been  discussed  in  another  place  [Paul];  and  (2), 
the  "  youth  "  of  Timothy  at  the  time  when  the 
letter  was  written  (iv.  12).  In  regard  to  the  latter, 
it  is  sutiicient  to  say  that,  on  the  assumption  of  the 
later  date,  the  disciple  was  probably  not  ifiore  than 
3-4  or  '■>'),  and  that  this  was  young  enough  foi  one 
who  was  to  exercise  authority  over  a  whole  body  of 
Bishop-presbyters,  many  of  them  older  than  him- 
self (v.  1). 

tSecnnd  Kpistle  to  li,nothij.  —  The  number  of 
special  names  and  incidents  in  the  2d  epistle  make 
the  chronological  data  more  numerous.  It  w-ill  be 
best  to  bring  them,  as  far  as  possilile,  together, 
noticing  briefly  with  what  other  facts  each  connects 
itself,  and,  to  what  conclusion  it  leads.  Here  also 
there  are  the  conflicting  theories  of  an  earlier  and 
later  date,  (A)  during  the  imprisonment  of  Acti 
xxviii.  30,  and  (B)  during  the  second  imprisonment 
already  spoken  of. 

(1.)  A  parting  apparently  recent,  under  circum- 
stances of  special  sorrow  (i.  4).  Not  decisive.  The 
scene  at  .Miletus  (Acts  .\x.  37)  suggests  itself,  if  we 
assume  A.  The  parting  referred  t<>  in  1  Tim.  i.  3 
might  meet  B. 

(2.)  A  general  desertion  of  the  Ajjostle  even  by 
the  disciples  of  .A.sia  (i.  1.5).  Nothing  in  the  Acts 
indicates  anything  like  this  before  the  imprison- 
ment of  Acts  xxviii.  30.  Everything  in  Acts  xix. 
and  XX.,  and  not  less  the  language  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  sjieaks  of  general  and  strong 
affection.  This,  therefore,  so  far  as  it  goes,  must 
be  placed  on  the  side  of  B. 

(3.)  The  position  of  St.  Paul  as  suffering  (i.  12), 
in  bonds  (ii.  !t),  expecting  "the  time  of  his  de- 
parture "  (iv.  G),  forsaken  by  almost  all  (iv.  16). 
Not  quite  decisive,  but  tending  to  B  rather  than  A. 
The  language  of  the  epistles  belonging  to  the  first 
iraprisoimient  imply,  it  is  true,  bonds  i  Phil.  i.  13, 
10;  Eph.  iii.  1,  vi.  20),  but  in  all  of  them  the 
Apostle  is  surrounded  by  many  friends,  and  ia 
hopeful,  and  confident  of  release  (Phil.  i.  25; 
Philem.  22). 

(4.)  The  mention  of  Onesiphorus,  and  of  senicea 
rendered  by  him  both  at  Pome  and  Ephesus  (i.  16- 
18).  Not  decisive  again,  but  the  tone  is  rather 
that  of  a  man  looking  back  on  a  past  period  of  his 
liiie,  and  the  order  of  the  names  suggests  the  thought 
of  the  ministrations  at  Ephesus  being  subsequent  to 
those  at  Rome.  Possibly  too  the  mention  of  '■  the 
household,"  instead  of  Onesiphorus  himself,  may 
imply  his  death  in  the  interval.  This  therefore 
tends  to  B  rather  than  A. 

(.5.)  The  al)aiidonment  of  St.  Paul  by  Demas  (iv. 
10 ).  Strongly  in  favor  of  B.  Demas  was  with  the 
Apostle  when  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  (iv.  14) 
and  Philemon  (24)  were  written.  2  Tim.  must 
therefore,  in  all  probability,  have  been  written  aftei 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO 

them ;  but,  if  we  place  it  anywhere  in  the  first  ini- 
prisoniiieiit,  we  are  all  but  compelled  «  by  the  men- 
tion of  Mark,  for  whose  coming  the  Apostle  a.sks  in 
2  Tim.  iv.  11,  and  who  is  with  him  in  Col.  iv.  10, 
to  place  it  at  an  earlier  age. 

(6.)  The  presence  of  Luke  (iv.  11).  Agrees  well 
enough  with  A  (Col.  iv.  l-l),  but  is  perfectly  com- 
patible with  B. 

(7.)  The  request  that  Timothy  would  bring  Mark 
(iv.  11).  Seems  at  first,  compared  as  above,  with 
(Jol.  iv.  14,  to  support  A,  but,  in  connection  with 
the  mention  of  Denias,  tends  decidedly  to  B. 

(8.)  Mention  of  Tyciiicus  as  sent  to  Ephesus  (iv. 
12).  Appears,  as  connected  with  Kph.  vi.  21,  22, 
Col.  iv.  7,  in  favor  of  A,  yet,  as  Tychicus  was  con- 
tinually employed  on  special  missions  of  this  kind, 
may  just  as  well  fit  in  with  B. 

(9.)  The  request  tliat  Timothy  would  bring  the 
cloak  and  books  left  at  I'roas  (iv.  13).  On  the  as- 
sumption of  A,  the  last  visit  of  St.  Paul  to  Troas 
would  have  been  at  least  four  or  five  years  before, 
dui'iiig  which  there  would  [irobably  have  been  op- 
portunities enough  for  his  regaining  what  he  had 
left.  In  that  case,  too,  the  circumstances  of  the 
journey  present  no  trace  of  the  haste  and  sudden- 
ness which  the  request  more  than  half  implies.  Un 
the  whole,  then,  tiiis  nmst  be  reckoned  as  in  favor 
of  B. 

(10.)  "  Alexander  the  coppersmith  did  me  much 
evil,"  "greatly  withstood  our  words  "  (iv.  l-i,  15). 
The  part  taken  by  a  Jew  of  this  name  in  the  u]jroar 
of  Acts  xix.,  and  the  natural  connection  of  the  x^^" 
Kfvs  with  the  artisans  represented  by  Demetrius, 
suggest  a  reference  to  that  event  as  something  re- 
cent and  so  far  support  A.  Un  the  other  hand, 
the  name  Alexander  was  to£"«tommon  to  make  us 
certain  as  to  the  identity,  and  if  it  were  the  same, 
the  hypothesis  of  a  later  date  only  requires  us  to 
assume  what  was  probable  enough,  a  renewed  hos- 
tility. 

(11.)  The  abandonment  of  the  Apostle  in  his  first 
defense  (awoXoyia),  and  his  deliverance  "from  the 
mouth  of  the  lion  "  (iv.  16,  17).  Fits  in  as  a  pos- 
silile  contingency  with  either  hypothesis,  but,  like 
the  mention  of  Demas  in  (5),  must  belong,  at  any 
rate,  to  a  tnne  nuicli  later  than  any  of  the  other 
epistles  written  from  Rome. 

(12.)  "  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth,  but  Trophimus 
I  left  at  Miletus  sick  "  (iv.  20).  Language,  as  in 
(9),  implying  a  comparatively  recent  visit  to  both 
places.  If,  however,  the  letter  were  written  during 
the  first  imprisonment,  then  Trophimus  had  not 
been  left  at  Miletus  but  had  gone  on  with  St.  Paul 
to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  29),''  and  the  mention  of 
Erastus  as  remaining  at  Corinth  would  have  been 
superfluous  to  one  who  had  left  that  city  at  the 
lame  time  as  the  Apostle  (.A.ets  xx.  4). 

(13.)  "  Hasten  to  come  before  winter."  Assum- 
ing A,  the  presence  of  Timothy  in  Phil.  i.  1 ;  Col.  i. 
1;  Philem.  1,  might  be  regarded  as  the  consequence 
of  this;  but  then,  as  shown  in  (5)  and  (7),  there 
»re  almost  insuperable  difficulties  in  supposing  this 
epistle  to  have  been  written  before  those  three. 

(14.)  Tiie  salutations  from  Euliulus.  Pudens, 
Linus,  and  Claudia.  Without  lading  much  stress 
on  this,  it  may  be  said  that  the  absence  of  these 
lames  from  all  the  epistles,  which,  according  to  A 


«  Tlie  qualifying  words  mij^ht  have  been  omitted, 
but  for  tlie  fiiot  that  it  has  been  suggested  that  Demas, 
haviDg  forsaken  St.  Paul,  repented  and  returueil  (LarJ- 
Mr,  vi.  3li8). 


TIMOTHY,  EPISTLES  TO      3259 

belong  to  the  same  period,  would  be  difficult  to  ex- 
plain. B  leiives  it  open  to  coigecture  that  they 
were  converts  of  more  recent  date.  They  are  men- 
tioned too  as  knowing  Timothy,  and  this  implies, 
as  at  least  probable,  that  he  had  already  been  at 
Kome,  and  that  this  letter  to  him  was  consequently 
later  than  those  to  the   Philippians  and  Colossians. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  believed  that  the  evidence 
preponderates  strongly  in  favor  of  the  later  date, 
and  tiiat  the  epistle,  if  we  admit  its  genuineness,  is 
therefore  a  strong  argument  for  believing  that  the 
imprisonment  of  Acts  xxviii.  was  followed  by  a 
period  first  of  renewed  activity  and  then  of  sufter- 
ing. 

Places.  —  In  this  respect  as  in  regard  to  time 
1  Tim.  leaves  much  to  conjecture.  The  absence  of 
any  local  reference  but  that  in  i.  3,  suggests  Mace- 
donia or  some  neighboring  district.  In  A  and 
other  MSS.  in  the  Peshito,  Ethiopic,  and  other 
versions,  Laodicea  is  name^  in  the  inscription  as 
the  place  whence  it  was  sent,  but  this  appears  to 
liave  grown  out  of  a  traditional  lielief  restuig  on 
very  insufficient  grounds,  and  incompatible  with 
the  conclusion  which  has  been  above  adopted,  that 
this  is  the  epistle  referred  to  in  Col.  iv.  16  as  that 
from  Laodicea  (Theophyl.  in  loc).  The  Coptic 
version  with  as  little  likelihood  states  that  it  was 
written  from  .\thens  (Hutber,  Einkit.). 

The  second  epistle  is  tree  from  this  conflict  of 
conjectures.  With  the  solitary  exception  of  Bott- 
ger,  who  suggests  Cassarea,  there  is  a  cunscitsus  in 
favor  of  Kome,  and  everything  in  the  circumstances 
and  names  of  the  epistle  leads  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion {iliid.). 

structure  and  Charncterislics.  —  The  peculiar- 
ities of  language,  so  far  as  they  atiect  the  question 
of  authorship,  have  been  already  noticed.  Assum- 
ing the  gcTiuineness  of  the  epistles,  some  character- 
istic features  remain  to  be  noticed. 

(1.)  The  ever- deepening  sense  in  .St.  Paul's  heart 
of'the  Divine  Mercy,  of  which  he  was  the  object, 
as  shown  in  the  in.sertioii  of  eKeoi  in  tjje  s.iliitatiuna 
of  both  epistles,  and  in  the  rjKerjBrii'Of  1  Tim.  i.  13. 

(2.)  The  greater  abruptness  of  the  second  epistle. 
From  first  to  last  there  is  no  plan,  no  treatment  of 
subjects  carefully  thought  out.  .\11  speaks  of  strong 
overflowing  emotion,  memories  of  the  past,  anxieties 
about  the  future. 

(3.)  The  absence,  as  compared  with  St.  Paul's 
other  epistles,  of  Old  Testament  references.  This 
may  connect  itself  with  the  fact  just  noticed,  that 
these  epistles  are  not  argumentative,  possibly  also 
with  the  request  for  the  '•  books  and  parchments  " 
which  had  been  left  behind  (2  Tim.  iv.  13).  He 
m.ay  have  been  separated  for  a  time  from  the 
Upa  ypd.jxfji.aTa,  which  were  conmionly  his  com- 
panions. 

(4.)  The  conspicuous  position  of  the  "  faithful 
sayings "  as  taking  the  place  occupied  in  other 
epistles  by  the  O.  T.  Scri[)tures.  The  way  in 
which  these  are  cited  as  authoritative,  the  vai'iety 
of  subjects  which  they  cover,  suggest  the  thought 
that  in  them  we  have  specimens  of  the  prophecies 
of  the  Apostolic  Church  which  had  most  impressed 
themselves  on  the  mind  of  the  A[)ostle,  and  of  the 
disciples  generally.  1  Cor.  xiv.  shows  how  deep 
a  reverence  he  was  likely  to  feel  for  such  spiritual 


ft  The  conjecture  that  the  "  leaving  "  referred  to 
took  place  during  the  voyage  of  Acts  .\xvii.  i;-  purely 
arbitrary,  aud  at  variauce  with  vers.  5  :ind  6  (f  Chat 

chapter. 


B260 


TIN 


utterances.  In  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  we  have  a  distinct 
retereiice  to  tlieni. 

(5.)  'I'lie  tendency  of  the  Apostle's  mind  to  dwell 
mure  on  the  universality  of  the  redemptive  work  of 
Christ  (1  Tim.  ii.  3-G,  iv.  10;,  his  strong  desire  that 
all  the  teaching  of  his  disciples  should  be  "  sound  " 
(uyiaivovaa),  commending  itself  to  minds  in  a 
healthy  state,  his  fear  of  the  corruption  of  that 
teaching  hy  morbid  subtleties. 

(6.)  The  importance  attached  by  him  to  the 
practical  details  of  administi-ation.  The  gathered 
experience  of  a  long  life  had  taught  him  that  the 
life  and  well-being  of  the  Church  required  these  for 
its  safeguards. 

(7.)  The  recurrence  of  doxologies  (1  Tim.  i.  17, 
vi.  15,  16;  2  Tim.  iv.  18)  as  from  one  hving  per- 
petually in  the  presence  of  God,  to  whom  the  lan- 
guage of  adoration  was  as  his  natural  speech. 

It  has  been  thought  desirable,  in  the  above  dis- 
cussion of  conflicting  theories,  to  state  them  simply 
as  they  stand,  with  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest, 
without  encumbering  the  page  with  constant  ref- 
erence to  authorities.  The  names  of  writers  on 
the  X.  T.  in  such  a  case,  where  the  grounds  of 
reasoning  are  open  to  all,  add  little  or  nothing  to 
the  weight  of  tlie  conclusions  drawn  from  them, 
lull  particulars  will,  however,  be  found  in  the  in- 
troductions of  Alford,  Wordsworth,  Huther,  David- 
son, W'iesinger,  Hug.  Conybeare  and  Howson 
(.-ij'j>.  i.)  give  a  good  tabular  sunmiary  both  of  the 
objections  to  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  and  of 
the  answers  to  them,  and  a  clear  statement  in  favor 
of  the  later  date.  The  most  elaborate  argument  in 
favor  of  the  earlier  is  to  be  fou)id  in  N.  Lardner, 
History  <>/'  Apusi.  and  Ecang.  (  Wurks,  vi.  pp  ;J15- 
375).  E.  11.  P. 

*  For  the  literature  relating  to  these  epistles,  see 
under  Titus,  Epistle  to.  A. 

TIN   (7"'"T2  :   Kaa-ahepos-  stannum).  Among 

the  various  metals  found  among  the  spoils  of  the 
Midianites,  tin  is  enumerated  (Num.  xxxi.  '22).  It 
was  known  to  the  Hebrew  metal-workers  as  an 
alloy  of  other  metals  (Is.  i.  25;  Ez.  xxii.  18,  20). 
The  markets  of  Tyre  were  supplied  with  it  by  the 
ships  of  Tarshish  (Ez.  xxvii.  12).  It  was  used  for 
plummets  (Zech.  iv.  10),  and  was  so  plentiful  as  to 
furnish  the  writer  of  Ecclesiasticus  (xlvii.  18)  with 
a  figure  by  which  to  express  the  wealth  of  Solomon, 
whom  he  apostrophizes  thus:  "Thou  didst  gather 
gold  as  tin,  and  didst  multiply  silver  as  lead."  In 
the  Houieric  times  the  Greeks  were  familiar  with  it. 
Twenty  layers  of  tin  were  in  Agamemnon's  cuirass 
given  him  by  Kinyres  (//.  xi.  25),  and  twenty  bosses 
of  tin  were  upon  his  shield  (JL  xi.  •31).  Copper, 
tin,  and  gold  were  used  by  Hephajstus  in  welding 
the  fiimous  shield  of  Achilles  (//.  xviii.  474).  The 
fence  round  the  vineyard  m  the  device  upon  it  was 
of  tin  {J I.  xviii.  564),  and  the  oxen  were  wrought 
of  tin  anc^  gold  {ibid.  574).  The  greaves  of  Achilles, 
made  by /Hephajstus,  were  of  tin  beaten  fine,  close 
fittiii:4  tcKthe  limb  {JL  xviii.  612,  xxi.  5!i2).  His 
shield  hudj  two  folds  or  layers  of  tin  between  two 
outer  layeirs  of  bronze  and  an  inner  layer  of  gold 
(//.  XX.  271).  Tin  was  used  in  ornamenting  chariots 
(//.  xxiii.  503),  and  a  cuirass  of  bronze  overlaid 
with  tin  is  mentioned  in  JL  xxiii.  561.  No  allu- 
oion  to  it  is  found  in  the  Udyssey.  The  melting 
»f  tin  ill  a  smelting-pot  is  mentioned  by  Hesiod 
(T>„oy.  862). 

'  Tin  is  iiot  found  ii\  Palestine.  Whence,  then,  did 
the  ancient  Hebrews  obtain  their  supply?     ''  Only 


TIN 

three  countries  are  known  to  contain  any  consider- 
able quantity  of  it:  Spain  and  Portugal,  Cornwall 
and  the  adjacent  parts  of  Devonshire,  and  the 
islands  of  Junk,  Ceylon,  and  lianca,  in  the  Straits 
of  JMalacca  "  (Kenrick,  Plicenicia,  p.  212).  Ac- 
cording to  Diodorus  Siculus  (v.  46)  there  were  tin- 
mines  in  the  island  of  Panchaia,  off  the  east  coast 
of  Arabia,  but  the  metal  was  not  exported.  Then 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  mines  of  Britain  were 
the  chief  source  of  supply  to  tlie  ancient  world. 
Mr.  (Jooley,  indeed,  writes  very  positively  {Miiritime 
and  Inland  JJiscurery,  i.  131):  "  There  can  be  no 
dithculty  in  determining  the  country  from  which 
tin  first  arrived  in  Egypt.  That  metal  has  been  in 
all  ages  a  principal  export  of  India:  it  is  enumcT- 
ated  as  such  by  Arrian,  who  found  it  abundant  in 
the  ports  of  Arabia,  at  a  time  when  the  supphes  of 
Kome  llowed  chiefly  through  that  channel.  The 
tin-mines  of  Banca  are  probably  the  richest  in  the 
world ;  but  tin  was  unquestionably  brought  from 
the  West  at  a  later  period."  But  it  hag  been 
shown  conclusively  by  Dr.  George  Smith  (  JJu  t'ng- 
siterides,  Lond.  1863)  that,  so  far  from  such  a 
statement  being  ju.stified  by  the  authority  of  Ariian, 
the  facts  are  all  the  other  way  After  exaniinhig 
the  connnerce  of  the  ports  of  Abyssinia,  Arabia,  and 
India,  it  is  abundantly  evident  that,  "  instead  of  its 
coming  from  the  East  to  Egypt,  it  has  been  invari- 
ably exported  from  I'-gypt  to  the  East ''  (p.  23). 
With  regard  to  the  tin  obtained  from  Spain,  al- 
though the  metal  was  found  there,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  been  produced  in  sufhcient  quantities 
to  supjily  the  Phoenician  maikets.  Posidonius  (in 
Strab.  iii.  147)  relates  that  in  the  country  of  the 
Artabri,  in  the  extreme  N.  W.  of  the  peninsula, 
the  ground  was  bright  with  silver,  tin,  and  white 
gold  (mixed  with  silver),  which  were  lirought  down 
by  the  rivers;  but  the  quantity  thus  obtained  could 
not  have  been  adequate  to  the  demand.  At  the 
present  day  the  whole  surface  bored  for  mining  in 
Spain  is  little  more  than  a  squai'e  mile  (Sniith, 
C'((i■s^'/e/■«/^'.'^,  p.  46).  We  are  thereibre  driven  to 
conclude  that  it  was  from  the  Cassiterides,  or  tin 
districts  of  Britain,  than  the  Phoenicians  obtained 
the  great  bulk  of  this  commodity  (Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 
JJist.  Hurvt-y  of  the  Astr.  of  Ike  Anc.  p.  45J),  and 
that  this  was  done  by  the  direct  voyage  from  Gades. 
It  is  true  that  at  a  later  period  (Strabo,  iii.  147)  tin 
was  con\eyed  overland  to  JNIarseilles  by  a  thirty 
days'  journey  (Diod.  Sic.  v.  2);  but  Strabo  (iii. 
175)  tells  us  that  the  Phcenicians  alone  carried  on 
this  trathc  in  former  times  from  Gades,  concealing 
the  passage  from  every  one;  and  that  on  one  occa- 
sion, when  the  Komans  followed  one  of  their  vessels 
in  order  to  discover  the  source  of  supply,  the  master 
of  the  ship  ran  upon  a  shoal,  leading  those  who 
followed  him  to  destruction.  In  course  of  time, 
however,  the  Komans  discovered  the  passage.  In 
Ezekiel,  "  the  trade  in  tin  is  attributed  to  Tarshish, 
as  '  the  merchant '  for  the  commodity,  without  any 
mention  of  the  place  whence  it  was  procured  " 
(Cassiterides,  p.  74);  and  it  is  after  the  time  of 
Julius  Csesar  that  we  fii'st  hear  of  the  overland 
traffic  by  Marseilles. 

Pliny  (vi.  36)  identifies  the  cassitei-os  of  the 
Greeks  with  the  plumbum  album  or  candidum  of 
the  Komans,  which  is  our  tin.  Stummm,  he  says, 
is  obtained  from  an  ore  containing  lead  and  silver 
and  is  the  first  to  become  melted  in  the  furnace. 
It  is  the  same  which  the  Germans  call  Werk,  and 
is  apparently  the  meaning  of  the  Hebr.  bedil  in  Is 
i.  25.     The  etymology  of  cassiitros  is  uncerlaia 


TIPHSAH 

Fiom  the  fact  that  hi  Sanskrit  kastira  signifies 
'  thi,"  ail  arguineiit  has  been  derived  in  favor  of 
India  being  the  source,  of  the  ancient  supply  of  this 
metal,  but  too  much  stress  must  not  lie  laid  upon 
It.     [Lead.]  W.  A.  W. 

TIPH'SAH  (np?n  Ifnrd] :  [in  1  K.,  Rom. 
Vat.  omit;  in  2  K.]  Q^pa-a.-.:  [.Vlex.  @a^a,  @aipa:'\ 
Thaphsa,  Thrqjsa)  is  mentioned  in  1  Iv.  iv.  i\  as 
the  limit  of  Solomon's  empire  towards  the  luiphra- 
te.s,  and  in  2  K.  xv.  36  it  is  said  to  have  been  at- 
tacked by  Menahen: ,  king  of  Israel,  who  "  smote 
Tiphsah  and  all  that  were  therein,  and  all  the 
coasts  thereof."  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the 
town  intended,  at  any  rate  in  the  former  passage,  is 
that  which  the  Greeks  and  Romans  knew  under  the 
name  of  Tb-psacus  (0ai//aKos),  situated  in  North- 
ern Syria,  at  the  point  where  it  was  usual  to  cross 
the  Euphrates  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  21).     The  name  is 

therefore,  reasonably  enough,  connected  with  HCQ, 
"to  pass  over"  (Winer,  Realwui-terbuch^  ii.  613), 
and  is  believed  to  correspond  in  meaning  to  the 
Greek  irSpos,  the  German /';«•/,  and  our  "ford." 

Thapsacus  was  a  town  of  consideral)le  import- 
ance ill  the  ancient  world.  Xenophon,  who  saw  it 
in  the  time  of  Cyrus  the  younger,  calls  it  "  great 
and  prosperous  "  {fxiyiht)  koX  evSaifxaii/,  Anab.  i. 
4,  §  11).  It  must  have  been  a  place  of  considera- 
ble trade,  the  land-traffic  between  East  and  W^est 
passing  through  it,  first  on  account  of  its  fordway 
(which  was  the  lowest  upon  the  Euphrates),  and 
then  on  account  of  its  bridge  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  23), 
while  it  was  likewise  the  point  where  goods  were 
both  embarked  for  transport  down  the  stream  (Q. 
Curt.  X.  1),  and  also  disembarked  from  boats  which 
had  come  up  to  it,  to  be  convejc"  on  to  their  final 
destination  by  land  (Strab.  xvi.  3,  §  4).  It  is  a 
fair  conjecture  that  Solomon's  occupation  of  the 
place  was  connected  with  his  efforts  to  establish  a 
line  of  trade  with  Central  Asia  directly  across  the 
continent,  and  that  Tadmor  was  intended  as  a 
resting-place  on  the  journey  to  Thapsacus. 

■  Thapsacus  was  the  place  at  which  armies  march- 
ing east  or  west  usually  crossed  the  ''  Great  River." 
It  was  there  that  the  Ten  Thousand  first  learned 
the  real  intentions  of  Cyrus,  and,  consenting  to  aid 
him  in  his  enterprise,  passed  the  stream  (Xen. 
Annb.  i.  4,  §  11).  There  too  Darius  Codoniannus 
crossed  on  his  flight  from  Issus  (Arr.  J£xp.  At.  ii. 
13);  and  Alexander,  following  at  his  leisure,  made 
his  passage  at  the  same  point  {ibid.  iii.  7).  A 
bridge  of  boats  was  usually  maintained  at  the  place 
by  the  Persian  kings,  which  was  of  course  broken 
up  when  danger  threatened.  Even  then,  however, 
the  stream  could  in  general  be  forded,  unless  in  the 
flood -season." 

It  has  been  generally  supposed  that  the  site  of 
Thapsacus  was  the  modern  De'ir  (D'Anville,  Ren- 
nell,  Vaux,  etc.).  But  the  Euphrates  expedition 
proved  that  there  is  no  ford  at  Dc'ir,  and  indeed 
showed  that  the  only  ford  in  this  part  of  the  course 
of  the  Euphrates  is  at  Suriye/i,  45  miles  below  Ba- 
lis, and  16.5  above  De'ir  (Ainsworth,  Tnwds  in  the 
Track  of  the  Ten  Thousand,  p.  70).  This  then 
inust  have  been  the  position  of  Thapsacus.  Here 
ihe  river  is  exactly  of  the  width  mentioned  by  Xen- 
iphon  (4  stades  or  800  yards),  and  here  for  four 


a  This  is  clear  from  the  very  name  of  the  place, 
tui  isi  jonfirnied  by  mocleni  researches.  When  the 
Datives  tolJ  Cyrus  that  the  stream  had  acknowledged 
bim  as  its  king,  having  never  been  forded   until  his 


TIRAS  32ol 

months  in  the  winter  of   1841-1842  the  river  had 
but  20  inches  of  water  (ibid.  p.  72;. 

"  The  Euphrates  is  at  this  spot  full  of  beauty 
and  majesty.  Its  stream  is  wide,  and  its  waters 
generally  clear  and  blue.  Its  banks  are  ow  and 
level  to  the  left,  but  undulate  gently  to  the  right. 
Previous  to  arriving  at  this  point  the  course  of  the 
river  is  southerly,  but  here  it  turns  to  the  east,  ex- 
panding more  like  an  inland  lake  than  a  river,  and 
quitting  (as  Pliny  has  described  it)  the  Pahnyrean 
solitudes  for  the  fertile  Mygdonia "  [ibid.).  A 
pa\ed  causeway  is  visible  on  either  side  of  the  Eu- 
phrates at  Suriyt-h,  and  a  long  line  of  mounds  may 
be  traced,  disposed,  something  like  those  of  Nine- 
veh, in  the  form  of  an  irregular  parallelogram 
These  mounds  probably  mark  the  site  of  the  ancient 
city.  G.  R. 

TI'KAS  (Oyn  [peril,  kmrjinf/,  desire] :  @ei- 
pas;  [Rom.  in  1  Cbr.  ©I'pas:]  Thints).  Tbe 
youngest  .son  of  Japheth  (Cien.  x.  2).  As  the  name 
occurs  only  in  the  ethnological  table,  we  have  no 
clew,  as  tar  as  the  Bible  is  concerned,  to  guide  ns 
as  to  the  identification  of  it  with  any  particular 
people.  .-Vncient  authorities  generally  fixed  on  the 
Thracians,  as  presenting  the  closest  verbal  approx- 
imation to  the  name  (Joseph.  Ant.  i.  6,  §  1;  .Je- 
rome, in  Gen.  x.  2;  Targunis  Pseudoj.  and  Jerus. 
on  Gen.  1.  c.;  Targ.  on  1  Chr.  i.  5):  the  occasional 
rendering  Persid  probably  originated  in  a  coirup- 
tion  of  the  original  text.  The  correspondence  be- 
tween Thrace  and  Tiras  is  not  so  com|ilete  as  to  be 
convincing;  the  gentile  form  0pa|  lirings  them 
nearer  together,  but  the  total  absence  of  the  i  in 
the  Greek  name  is  oliservable.  Granted,  however, 
the  verbal  identity,  no  objection  would  arise  on 
ethnological  grounds  to  placing  the  Thracians 
among  the  .Japhetic  races.  Their  precise  ethnic 
position  is  indeed  involved  in  great  uncertainty; 
but  all  authorities  agree  in  their  general  Indo-Eu- 
ropean character.  The  evidence  of  this  is  circum- 
stantial rather  than  direct.  The  language  has  dis- 
appeared, with  the  excejition  of  the  ancient  names 
ami  the  single  word  bria,  which  forms  the  termina- 
tion of  Meseinbria,  Selymbria,  etc.,  and  is  said  to 
signify  "  town  "  (Strab.  vii.  p.  319).  The  Thra- 
cian  stock  was  represented  in  later  times  by  the 
Getre,  and  these  again,  still  later,  by  the  Daci, 
each  of  whom  inherited  tbe  old  Thracian  tongue 
(Strab.  vii.  p.  303).  But  tliis  circumstance  throws 
little  light  on  the  subject;  fur  the  Daciau  language 
has  also  disappeared,  thougli  fragments  of  its  vo- 
cabulary may  possibly  exist  either  in  AVallachian 
dialects  or  perhaps  in  the  Albanian  language  (Die 
fenbach.  Or.  Eur.  p.  68).  If  Grimm's  identifica- 
tion of  the  Get»  with  the  Goths  were  established, 
the  Teutonic  affinities  of  tlie  Thracians  would  be 
placed  beyond  question  (Gesch.  Deuls.  Spr.  i.  178); 
lint  this  view  does  not  meet  with  general  accept- 
ance. The  Thracians  are  as.sociated  in  ancient  his- 
tory with  the  Pelasgians  (Strab.  ix.  401),  and  the 
Trojans,  with  wlioni  they  had  many  names  in  com- 
mon (Strab.  xiii.  51)0);  in  Asia  Minor  they  were 
represented  by  the  Bithyniana  (Herod,  i.  28.  vii. 
75).  These  circumstances  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  belonged  to  the  Indo-Eurojiean  family, 
but  do  not  warrant  us  in  assigning   them   to  any 

army  waded  through  it,  they  calculated  on  his  iijno- 
ranee,  or  thought  he  would  not  examine  too  strictly 
into  the  groundwork  of  a  compliment.  (See  Xcq.  AiKib 
i.  4,  §  11). 


3262 


TIRATHITES,  THE 


particular  liraiich  of  it.  Other  explanations  have 
been  ofTered  of  the  name  Tiras,  of  which  we  may 
notice  the  Agath.yrsi,  the  first  part  of  the  name 
{A;jfi}  beini;  treated  as  a  prefix  (Knobel,  Volktrt. 
p.  129);  'I'aurus  and  the  various  tribes  occupying 
that  range  (Kaliscli,  Comm.  p.  246);  the  river  Ty- 
ras,  Dniester,  with  its  cognominous  inhabitants, 
the  Tyritoe  (Hiivernick,  Einleit.  ii.  231 :  Schul- 
thess,  Farad,  p.  194);  and,  lastly,  the  maritime 
Tyrrheni  (Tuch,  in  Gen.  I.  c).  W.  L.  B. 

TI'RATHITES,  THE  (D\n2?~iri  [from  a 
place  =  "  ;/<(te,"  Ges.]  :  [Rom.  QapyaOiifi;  Vat.] 
rafliei^;  Alex.  ApyaOietu--  C'anentes).  One  of 
the  three  families  of  Scribes  residing  at  Jabez  (1 
Chr.  ii.  .55),  the  others  being  the  Shimeathites  and 
Suchathites.  The  passage  is  hopelessly  obscure, 
and  it  is  perhaps  impossible  to  discover  whence 
these  three  families  derived  their  names.  The 
Jewish  connnentators,  playing  with  the  names  in 
true  Shemitic  fashion,  hiterpret  them  thus;  "  They 
called  them  Tirathim,  because    their  voices  when 

they  sung  resounded  loud  (3?"]^!)  ;  and  Shimeath- 
ites because  they  made  themselves  heard  (IJ^K?) 
in  reading  the  Law." 

The  Sni.MK.\TiiiTK.s  having  been  inadvertently 
ouiitted  in  their  proper  place,  it  may  be  as  well  to 

g;ive  here  the  equivalents  of  the  name  (C^HX'Jptt'"' : 
2a,ua0ieiV=    Ri^iManies).  G. 

TIRE  ("l^r)'  An  ornamental  head-dress  worn 
on  festive  occasions  (Kz.  xxiv.  17,  23).  The  term 
peer  is  elsewhere  rendered  "goodly"  (Ex.  xxxix. 
28);  "bonnet"  (Is.  iii.  20;  Ez.  xliv.  18);  and 
"ornament"  (Is.  Ixi.  10).  For  the  character  of 
the  article,  see  Mkad-dress.  W.  L.  B. 

TIR'HAKAH  (n^^n.^jyi  [perh.  brmi(/ht 
forth,  exulted,  Sim.]:  QapaKO.;  [Vat.  in  2  Iv., 
©apa;  Sin.  Alex,  in  Is..  0af)af^a:]  Tharaca).  Kini; 
of  Ethiopia,  Cnsli  (jSaatKfvs  AldiSiraii',  LXX. ), 
the  opponent  of  Sennacherib  (2  K.  .xix.  9 ;  Is.  xxxvii. 
9).  While  the  king  of  Assyria  was  "warring 
a^raiiist  Libnah,"  in  the  south  of  Palestine,  he  heard 
of  Tirhakah's  advance  to  fight  him,  and  sent  a 
Becorid  time  to  demand  the  sin-render  of  Jerusalem. 
This  was  15.  c.  cir.  713,  unless  we  suppose  that  the 
expedition  took  place  in  the  24th  instead  of  the 
14th  year  of  Hezekiah,  which  would  bring  it  to 
B.  C.  cir.  703.  If  it  were  an  expedition  later  than 
that  of  which  the  date  is  mentioned,  it  must  have 
been  before  b.  c.  cir.  698,  Hezekiah's  last  year. 
But  if  the  reign  of  Manasseh  is  reduced  to  3.5  years, 
these  dates  would  be  respectively  n.  c.  cir.  693, 
683,  and  678,  and  these  numbers  might  have  to  be 
Blightly  modified,  the  fixed  date  of  the  capture  of 
Samaria,  B.  C.  721,  being  abandoned. 

According  to  llanetho's  epitomists,  Tarkos  or 
Tarakos  was  the  third  and  last  king  of  the  XXVth 
dynasty,  which  was  of  Ethiopkuis,  and  reigned  18 
(Afr.)  or  20  (Eus.)  yeare.  [So.]  From  one  of  the 
Apis-tablets  we  learn  that  a  bull  Apis  was  born  in 
his  26th  year,  and  died  at  the  end  of  the  2()tli  of 
Psanimetichus  I.  of  the  XXVIth  dynasty.  Its  hfe 
exceeded  20  years,  and  no  .Apis  is  stated  to  have 
lived  loiijier  than  26.  Taking  that  sum  as  the 
most  probalile,  we  should  date  Tirhakah's  accession 
n.  C.  cir.  695.  and  assign  him  a  reign  of  26  years. 
In  this  case  we  should  be  obliged  to  take  the  later 
refkoninu:  of  the  Biblical  events,  were  it  not  for  the 
possibility  that  Tirhakah  ruled  over  Ethiopia  before 


TIRSHATHA 

becoming  king  of  Egypt.  In  connection  with  this 
theory  it  must  be  observed,  that  an  earlier  I'^thi. 
opian  of  the  same  dynasty  is  called  in  the  Bible 
"So,  king  of  Egypt,"  while  this  ruler  is  called 
"  Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,"  and  that  a  Pharaoh 
is  spoken  of  in  Scripture  at  the  period  of  the  latter, 
and  also  that  Herodotus  represents  the  Egyptian 
opponent  of  Sennacherib  as  Sethos,  a  native  king, 
who  may  however  have  been  a  vassal  under  the 
Ethiopian. 

The  name  of  Tirhakah  is  written  in  hieroglyph- 
ics TEHAliKA.  Sculptures  at  Thebes  commem- 
orate his  rule,  and  at  Gebel-Berkel,  or  Napata,  he 
constructed  one  temple  and  part  of  another.  Of 
the  events  of  his  reign  little  else  is  known,  and  the 
account  of  Megasthenes  {ap.  Strabo,  xv.  p.  686), 
that  he  rivaled  Sesostris  as  a  warrior  and  reached 
the  Pillars  of  Hercules,  is  not  supported  by  other 
evidence.  It  is  probable  that  at  the  close  of  his 
reign  he  found  the  Assyrians  too" powerful,  and  re 
tired  to  his  Ethiopian  dominions.  I!.  S.  P. 

TIR'HANAH  (HSniri  [inclination  or  fa- 
vor, Ges.,  Fiirst]:  Qapd/x;  Ales,  ©a/^x""'  ^''"" 
?'rt?if( ).  Son  of  Caleb  lien-Hezron  by  his  concubine 
Maachah  (1  Chr.  ii.  48). 

TIR'IA  (S;"1'ri  [fear,  Ges.]:  Qtptd;  [Vat. 
Zaipa\]  Alex.  Q-qpia-  Thiria).  Sou  of  Jehaleleel 
of  the  trilje  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  16). 

TIRSHA'THA  (always  written  with  the  ar- 
ticle, Sini'^^rnn  [see  below] :  hence  the  LXX. 
give  the  word  'Aefpaaaed  [.Alex.  FA.  AdepcaOa, 
Vat.  other  forms]  (Ezr.  ii.  63;  Neb.  vii.  65),  and 
'ApraaaaOd  [Vat.  Alex,  f  A.  omit]  (Neb.  x.  1): 
Vulg.  At/ierA'it/ia).  The  title  of  the  governor  of 
Judrea  under  the  Persians,  derived  by  Gesenius 
from  a  Persian  root  signifying  "stern,"  "severe." 
He  compares  the  title  Gestrenger  Herr,  formerly 
given  to  the  magistrates  of  the  free  and  imperial 
cities  of  Germany.  Compare  also  our  expression, 
"  most  dread  sovereign."  It  is  added  as  a  title 
alter  the  name  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  viii.  9,  x.  1  [Heb. 
2] ) :  and  occurs  also  in  three  other  places,  Ezr.  ii. 
(ver.  63),  and  the  repetition  of  that  account  in  Neh. 
vii.  (vv.  65-70),  where  probably  it  is  intended  to 
denote  Zerubbabel,  who  had  held  the  office  before 
Nehemiah.  In  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  (Ezi-.  ii. 
63;  Neh.  vii.  65,  x.  1)  it  is  rendered  "governor;  " 
an  explanation  justified    by  Neh.   xii.   26,   where 

"Nehemiah  the  governor,"  nnSH  {Pecha,  pos- 
sibly from  the  same  root  as  the  word  we  write  Pa- 
cha, or  Pasha),  occurs  instead  of  the  more  usual 
expression,  "  Nehemiah  the  Tirshatha."    This  word, 

nn2,  is  one  of  very  common  occurrence.  It  is 
twice  applied  by  Nehemiah  to  himself  (vv.  14,  18), 
and  by  the  pro])het  Haggai  (i.  1,  ii.  2,  21)  to  Ze- 
rubbabel. According  to  Gesenius,  it  denotes  the 
prefect  or  go\ernor  of  a  province  of  less  extent  than 
a  satrapy.  The  word  is  used  of  officers  and  gov- 
ernors under  the  Assyrian  (2  K.  xviii.  24 ;  Is.  xxxvi. 
9),  Babylonian  (Jer.  Ii.  57;  Ez.  xxiii.  6,  23;  see 
also  Ezr.  v.  3,  14,  vi.  7;  Dan.  iii.  2,  3,  27,  vi.  7 
[Heb.  8]),  Median  (Jer.  Ii.  28),  and  Persian  (Esth. 
viii.  9,  ix.  3)  monarchies.  And  under  this  last  we 
find  it  api)lied  to  the  rulers  of  the  provinces  bor- 
dered by  the  Euphrates  (Ezr.  viii. ^36;  Neh.  ii.  7, 
9,  iii.  7),  and  to  the  governors  of  Judtea.  Zerubba- 
bel and  Nehemiah  (compare  Mai.  i.  8).  It  is 
found  also  at  an  earlier  period  in  the  times  of  Solo- 


TIRZAH 

inon  (1  K.  X.  15,  2  Chr.  ix.  14)  and  Benhadad  king 
of  Syria  (1  K.  xx  24):  from  which  last  place,  com- 
pared with  others  (2  K.  xviii.  24,  Is.  xxxvi.  9),  we 
find  that  military  commands  were  oiten  held  by 
these  governors ;  the  word  indeed  is  often  rendered 
by  the  A.  V.,  either  in  the  text  or  the  margin, 
"  captain." 

By  thus  briefly  examining  the  sense  of  Pecha, 
which  (though  of  course  a  much  more  general  and 
less  distinctive  word)  is  given  as  an  equivalent  to 
Tirsliatha,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  forming  an 
opinion  as  to  the  general  notion  implied  in  it.  ^Ve 
have,  however,  no  sufficient  infnrmation  to  enalile 
us  to  explain  in  detail  in  what  consisted  the  special 
peculiarities  in  honor  or  functions  whicii  distin- 
guished the  Tirsliatha  from  others  of  the  same  class, 
governors,  captains,  princes,  rulers  of  provinces. 

E.  P.  E. 

TIR'ZAH  (ni'-l-H,  i-  €•  Thivza  \ildiylu']  : 
Qepad-  T/iersi).  Tlie  youngest  of  the  five  daugh- 
ters of  Zelopliehad,  whose  case  originated  the  law 
that  in  the  event  of  a  man  dying  without  male 
issue  his  property  should  pass  to  his  dauuliters 
(Num.  xxvi.  '6'-j,  xxvii.  1,  xxxvi."  11;  Josh.  xvii.  3). 
[Zelophkh.vu.]  G. 

TIR'ZAH  (n^-l.ri  [dtlic/lit]  :    [Rom.  Qepad, 

QepcriXd;  Vat.]  Qapcra,  &epaa,  QapaeiXa;  Alex. 
@epjj.a,  &6p(ra,  SepatKa-  Tlitrsn).  An  ancient 
Canaanite  city,  wiiose  king  is  enumerated  amongst 
the  twenty-one  overthrown  in  the  conquest  of  the 
country  (Josh.  xii.  24).  From  that  time  nothing 
is  heard  of  it  till  alter  the  disruption  of  Israel  and 
Judah.  It  then  reappears  ■'s  a  royal  city — the 
residence  of  .leroboam  (1  K.  xiv  *]?)  and  of  his 
successors,  Baasha  (xv.  21,  33),  Elah  (svi.  8,  9),  and 
Zimri  {jbid.  15).  It  contained  tlie  royal  sepulchres 
of  one  (xvi.  G),  and  probably  all  the  first  lour  kings 
of  the  northern  kingdom.  Zimri  was  besieged  there 
by  Omri,  and  perished  in  the  flames  of  his  palace 
{ibid.  18).  The  new  king  continued  to  reside  there 
at  fii'st,  but  alter  six  years  he  removed  to  a  new 
city  which  he  built  and  named  Sliomron  (Samaria), 
and  which  continued  to  Ije  the  capital  of  the  north- 
ern kingdom  till  its  fall.  Once,  ami  only  once, 
does  Tirzah  reappear,  as  the  seat  of  the  conspiracy 
of  Menahem  ben-Gaddi  against  the  wretched  Shal- 
lum  (2  K.  XV.  14,  10);  but  as  soon  as  his  revolt 
had  proved  successful,  jMeuahem  removed  the  seat 
of  his  government  to  Samaria,  and  Tirzah  was 
again  left  in  obscurity. 

Its  reputation  for  beauty  throughout  the  country 
must  have  been  wide-spread.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  it  is  mentioned  in  the  '^  Song  of  Solomon, 
where  the  juxtaposition  of  Jerusalem  is  sufficient 
proof  of  the  estimation  in  which  it  was  held  — 
"  Bea"j*iful  as  I'lrzah,  comely  as  Jerusalem  "  (Cant. 
vi.  4).     The  LXX.   (eySo/fio)  and  V'ulg.   {suavis) 


TISHBITE,  THE 


32©e 


flo  not,  however,  take  iirtsah  as  a  proper  name  in 
this  passage. 

Eusebius  {Onomast.  @apcri\d'')  mention's  it  in 
connection  with  Menahem,  and  identifies  it  with  a 
"  village  of  Samaritans  in  Batanasa.'"  There  is, 
however,  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  lead  to  the  in- 
ference that  the  Tirzah  of  the  Israelite  monarcha 
was  on  the  east  of -lordan.  It  does  not  appear  to 
be  mentioned  by  the  Jewish  topographers,  or  any 
of  the  Christian  travellers  of  the  Middle  Ages,  ex- 
cept Brocardus.  who  places  "  Thersa  on  a  high 
mountain,  three  leagues  (Imae)  from  Samaria  to 
the  ""east '"  {Descriplio,  cap.  vii.).  This  is  exactly 
the  direction,  and  very  nearly  the  distance,  of  7V/- 
luza/i,  a  place  in  the  mountains  north  of  NaUus. 
which  was  visited  by  Dr.  Robinson  and  Mr.  Van 
de  Velde  in  1852  (/i(W.  Mes.  iii.  302;  Syr.  awl  Pal. 
iii.  334).  The  town  is  on  an  eminence,  which  to- 
wards the  east  is  exceedingly  lofty,  thougii,  being 
at  the  edge  of  the  central  highlands,  it  is  more 
approachable  from  the  west.  The  place  is  large 
and  thriving,  but  without  any  obvious  marks  of 
antiquity.  The  name  may  very  probably  lie  a  cor- 
ruption of  Tirzah;  but  bejond  that  similarity,  and 
the  general  agreement  of  the  site  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  narrative,  there  is  nothing  at  presunt 
to  establish  the  identification  with  certainty. 

G. 

TISH'BITE,  THE  C^^rprin  [patr.]  :  [Vat.] 
0  dia^iiT-nS'  [Rom.]  Alex. /e60-)3iT7js:  Tliesbites). 
riie  well-known  designation  of  Elijah  (1  K.  xvii.  1, 
xxi   17,  28;  2  K.  i.  3,  8,  ix.  36). 

(1.)  The  name  naturally  points  to  a  place  called 
Tishl)eh  (Fiirst),  Tishbi,  or  i-ather  perhaps  Tesheb, 
as  the  residence  of  the  prophet.     And  indeed  the 

word  '^3Lt?n!2,  whicli  follows  it  in  1  K.  xvii.  1, 
and  which  in  the  received  Hebrew  text  is  so  pointed 
as  to  mean  "  from  the  residents,"  may,  without 
violence  or  grammatical  impropriety,  be  pointed  to 
read  '•  from  Tishbi."  This  latter  reading  appears 
to  have  been  followed  by  the  LXX.  (o  06(rySeiTT)5 
6   f'yc   @ia^wv),    Josephus   {Ant.  viii.   13,  §  2.  Trj- 

A6C0S  0eo-/3£i;/r]9),  and  the  Targum  (Htt7"in'^"^, 
"from  out  of  Toshab  " ) ;  and  it  has  the  support 
of  Ewald  {Uesc/i.  iii.  468,  note).  It  is  also  sup- 
ported by  the  fixct,  which  seems  to  have  escaped 
notice,  that  the  word  does  not  in  this  passage  con- 
tain the  T  which  is  present  in  each  one  of  the  places 
where  ^tt7W  is  used  as  a  mere  appellative  noun. 

Had  the  1  been  present  in  1  K.  xvii.  1,  the  inter- 
pretation "from  Tishbi"  could  never  have  been 
proposed. 

Assuming,  however,  that  a  town  is  alluded  to 
as  Elijah's  native  place,  it  is  not  necessary  to  infei 
that  it  was  itself  in  Gilead,  as  Epiphanius,  Adrieho- 


a  In  this  passage  the  order  of  the  nameo  U  altered 
in  the  Hebrew  text  from  that  preserveil  iu  the  other 
passages — ^and  still  more  so  in  the  LX.Y. 

0  The  LXX.  version  of  the  narrative  of  which  this 
verse  forms  part,  amongst  other  remarkable  variations 
from  tlie  Hebrew  text,  substitutes  Sarira  [2apipa],  that 
Is,  Zereda,  for  Tirzah.  In  this  they  are  supported  by 
ao  other  version. 

c  Its  occurrence  here  on  a  level  with  -Jerusalem  has 
b"Jeu  held  to  indicate  that  the  Song  of  Songs  was  the 
work  of  a  writer  belonging  to  the  northern  kingdom. 
But  surely  a  poet,  and  so  ai'deut  a  poet  as  the  author 


of  the  Song  of  Songs,  may  have  been  sufficiently  iu- 
dependent  of  political  con.sideratious  to  go  out  of  his 

own  country if  Tirzah  can  be  said  to  be  out  of  the 

country  of  a  native  of  Judali  —  for  a  metaphor 

''  It  will  be  ob.served  that  the  name  stood  in  the 
liX-X.  of  2  K.  XV.  14  in  Eusebius'  time  virtually  iu  the 
same  strange  un-Hebrew  forui  that  it  now  does. 

e  Schwarz  (150)  seems  merely  to  repeat  this  passago. 

f  The  Alex.  MS,  omits  the  word  in  1  K.  xvii.  1,  and 
both  MSS.  omit  it  iu  xxi.  28,  whicli  they  cist,  with 
tlie  whole  passige,  iu  a  different  form  t'rr  i  me  Uubrew 

tu.\t. 


g'2i5-k  TITANS 

mius,  "  Castell,  and  others  have  iniagiiied ;  for  tlie 

word  IltZ7"lFl,  which  in  the  A.  V.  is  rendered  by 
ihe  general  term  'inhabitant,"  has  really  the 
opecial  force  of  '-resident"  or  even*  "stranger." 
This,  and  the  fact  that  a  place  with  a  similar  name 
is  not  elsewhere  mentioned,  has  induced  the  com- 
mentators "  and  lexicographers,  with  few  exceptions, 
to  adopt  the  name  "  Tishbite  "  as  referring  to  the 
place  TiiiSBii  in  Naphtali,  which  is  found  in  the 
LXX.  text  of  Tobit  i.  2.  The  difficulty  in  the  w^ay 
of  this  is  the  great  uncertainty  in  which  the  text 
of  that  passage  is  involved,  as  has  already  been 
shown  under  the  head  of  Tiiisbe;  an  uncertainty 
quite  sutficient  to  destroy  any  dependence  on  it  as 
a  topographical  record,  although  it  liears  the  traces 
of  having  originally  been  extremely  minute.  Bunsen 
(Bibelwerk,  note  to  1  K.  .xvii.  1)  suifgests  in  sup- 
port of  the  reading  '-the  Tishbite  from  Tishbi  of 
Gilead  "  (which  however  he  does  not  adopt  in  his 
text),  that  the  ])lace  may  have  been  purposely  so 
described,  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  town 
of  the  same  name  in  Galilee. 

(2.)  But  ^3tt7nn  has  not  always  been  read  as 

a  proper  name,  referring  to  a  place.  Like  ""SJi/nTS, 
though  exactly  in  reverse,  it  has  been  pointed  so  as 
to  make  it  mean  "  the  stranger."  This  is  done  l)y 
!Michaelis  in  the  text  of  his  interesting  Bibel  far 
UrKjekhrien —  "  der  Fremdling  Elia,  einer  von  den 
Fremden,  die  in  Gilead  wohnhatt  waren;  "  and  it 
throws  a  new  and  impressi\e  air  lound  the  propiiet, 
who  was  so  emphatically  the  champion  of  the  God 
of  Israel.  But  this  suggestion  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  adopted  by  any  other  interpreter,  ancient 
or  modern. 

The  numerical  value  of  the  letters  ^iSli^n  is  712, 
on  which  account,  and  also  doubtless  with  a  view 
to  its  correspondence  with  his  own  name,  Elias 
Levita  entitled  his  work,  in  which  712  words  are 
explained,  Seplier  Tishbi  (Bartolocci,  i.  140  0). 

G. 

TI'TANS  {Tiraves,  of  uncertain  derivation). 
These  children  of  Uranus  (Heaven)  and  Gaia 
(Earth)  were,  according  to  the  earliest  Greek  le- 
gends, the  vanquished  predecessors  of  the  Olympian 
gods,  condemned  by  Zeus  to  dwell  in  Tartarus,  yet 
not  without  retaining  many  relics  of  their  ancient 
dignity  (j'Esch.  Prom.  Vinct.  passim).  By  later 
(Eatin)  poets  they  were  confounded  witii  the  kindred 
GiynnUs  (Hor.  Od.  iii.  4,  42,  &c.),  as  the  traditions 
of  the  primitive  Greek  faith  died  away;  and  both 
terms  were  transferred  by  the  Seventy  to  the  Ke- 
pliaim  of  ancient  Palestine.  [Giaat.]  The  usual 
Greek  rendering  of  Rephaim  is  indeed  TiyavTfs 
((ien.  xiv.  5;  Josh.  xii.  4,  &c.),  or,  with  a  yet 
clearer  reference  to  Greek  mythology,  -yTj-yeyers 
(Prov.  ii.  18,  ix.   18),   and   Oeo^ixoi  (Symmach. 


o  This  lexicographer  pretends  to  have  been  in  pos- 
eessiou  of  some  special  informatiou  as  to  the  situation 
of  the  place.  Ue  says  {Lex.  Hebr.  ed.  Michaelis), 
"  Urbs  iu  tribu  Gad,  Jebaa  inter  et  Sarou."  Jebaa 
Bhould  be  Jecbaa  {i.  e.  Jogbehah)  and  this  strange  bit 
of  contiden*-  topography  is  probably  taken  from  the 
map  of  .\dricbomius,  made  on  the  principle  of  insert- 
ing every  name  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  known  or  un- 
known. 

b  Tliere  is  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  meaning  of 

iiyirn.     Sei'  Gen.  xxiii.  4  (-sojourner"),  Ex.  xii.  45 
("  fcr«igner  '  ),  Lev.  xxv.  6  ("  stranger  "),  Ps.  xxxix.  12 


TITHE 

Prov.  ix.  18,  xxi.  16;  Job  xxvi.  5).  But  ii  2  Sam 
v.  18,  22,  "the  valley  of  Kephaim  "  is  repres»'nted 
by  rj  KoiKas  tcOh  mavitiv  instead  of  ^  KoiKas  twv 
yt-yavTiiiv,  1  Clu'.  xi.  15,  xiv.  9,  13:  and  tlie  same 
lendering  occurs  in  a  Hexapl.  text  in  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
13.  Thus  Ambrose  defends  his  use  of  a  classical 
allusion  by  a  reference  to  the  Old  Latin  version  of 
2  Sam.  v.,  which  preserved  the  LXX.  rendering 
{Dejide,  iii.  1,  4,  Nam  et  yi<j<intes  et  valltm  Ti- 
tanum  prophetici  sermonis  series  non  refugit.  Et 
Esaias  iSireitus  .  .  .  dixit).  It  can  therefore  oc- 
casion no  surprise  that  iu  the  Greek  version  of  tiie 
triumphal  hymn  of -hidith.  "  the  sons  of  the  Titans  " 
(viol  Tndvoiv-  Xulii- flii  Titan:  Old  Latin,  ^//m 
Ddthan  ;  f.  7\ln  ; /.  belhdvrum)  stands  parallel 
with  "  high  giants,"  v\\/y]\o\  TiyavTes,  where  tl;e 
original  text  proljably  had  C^SD"]  and  D''"1"122. 
The  word  has  yet  another  interesting  ])oint  of  con- 
nection with  the  Bible ;  for  it  may  lia\  e  been  from 
some  vague  sense  of  the  struggle  of  the  infernal  and 
celestial  powers,  dimly  shadowed  forth  in  the  clas- 
sical myth  of  the  Titans,  that  several  Christian 
fathers  inclined  to  the  belief  that  TetTav  was  the 
mystic  name  of  "  the  beast  "  indicated  in  Kev.  xiii. 
18  (Iren.  v.  30,  3  .  .  .  "divinun)  putatur  apud 
multos  esse  hoc  nomen  .  .  .  et  ostentationeni  quan- 
dam  continet  ultionis  .  .  .  et  alias  autem  et  anti- 
quum, et  fide  dignum,  et  regale,  niai;is  autem  et 
tyrannicum  nomen  .  .  .  ut  ex  multis  colligamus 
ne  forte  Tilun  vocetur  qui  veniet"). 

B.  F.  AV. 
TITHE.f'  Without  inquiring  .iito  the  reason 
for  whicli  the  numl;er  ten  "  has  lieen  so  frequently 
preferred  as  a  number  of  selection  in  the  cases  of 
trii)Ute-offerings,  both  sacred  and  secular,  voluntary 
and  compulsory,  we  may  remark  that  numerous 
instances  of  its  use  are  found  both  in  jirufane  and 
also  in  Biblical  history,  prior  to  or  independently 
of  the  appointment  ol'  the  Levitical  tithes  under  the 
Law.  In  Bililical  history  the  two  prominent  in- 
stances are —  1.  Abram  presenting  the  tenth  of  all 
his  property,  according  to  the  Syriac  and  Araliic 
versions  of  Heb.  vii.  and  S.  Jarchi  in  his  Com.,  but 
as  the  passages  themselves  appear  to  show,  of  the 
spoils  of  his  victory,  to  Melchizedek  (Gen.  xiv.  20 ; 
Heb.  vii.  2,  6;  Joseph.  Aiit.  i.  10,  §  2;  Selden  On 
Tithe$.i  0.  1).  2.  Jacob,  after  his  vision  at  Luz, 
devotintf  a  tenth  of  all  his  property  to  God  in  case 
he  should  return  home  in  safety  (Gen.  xxviii.  22). 
Tiiese  instances  bear  witness  to  tjie  antiquity  of 
tithes,  in  some  shape  or  other,  previous  to  the 
Mosaic  tithe-system.  But  numerous  instances  are 
to  Ije  found  of  the  practice  of  heathen  nations, 
(ireeks,  Romans,  Carthaginians,  Arabians,  of  apply- 
ing tenths  derived  from  property  in  general,  from 
spoil,  from  confiscated  goods,  or  from  commercial 
profits,  to  sacred,  and  quasi-sacred,  and  also  to  fiscal 
purposes,  namely,  as  consecrated  to  a  deitj',  pre- 


("  sojourner ").  It  often  occurs  in  connection  with 
"13,  "an  alien,'"  as  in  Lev.  xxv.  23,  35,  40,  47  b,  1  Chr. 
xxix.  15.  Besides  the  above  passages,  tijshdb  is  found 
iu  Lev.  xxii.  10,  xxv.  45,  47  a. 

c  Itelaud,  Pal.  p.  1035  ;  Gesenius,  Tlies.  p.  1352  6, 
&c.,  &c. 

d  "li??!?^  :  ««iT>) :  rhcima::  and  pi.  nilii?^^ 
at  SexaTm:   decimcp. ;  firom   '^^17^,   "ten.'" 

e  Philo  derives  6eVca  from  Se'xecreoi  {De  X  Orae   iL 

1S4). 


TITHE 

lented  as  a  reward  to  a  successful  s^eneral,  set  apart 
as  a  tribute  to  a  sovereign,  or  as  a  permanent 
source  of  revenue.  Among  other  jjassages,  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  citeil:  1  .Mace.  xi.  •JS;  Ilerotl.  i.  89, 
iv.  152,  V.  77,  vii.  132.  ix.  81;  iJiod.  Sic.  v.  42,  xi. 
33.  XX.  II,-  Pans.  v.  10,  §  2,  x  10,  §  1;  Dionys. 
Hal.  i.  19,  23;  Justin,  xviii.  7,  xx.  3;  Arist.  (Econ. 
ii.  2;  Liv.  v.  21;  I'oljli.  ix.  39;  Cic.  It/v.  ii.  3,  0, 
and  7  (where  titlies  of  wine,  oil,  and  "  niinuta; 
fruges,"  are  mentioned ),  P/v  Leg.  Mduil.  G ;  Plut. 
Ayes.  c.  19,  p.  389;  Pliny,  .V.  H.  xii.  14;  Macrob. 
tint.  iii.  6 ;  Xen.  //ell.  i.  7,  10,  iv.  3,  21 ;  Rose, 
Jnscr.  Gr.  p.  215;  Gilibon,  vol.  iii.  p.  301,  ed. 
Smith ;  and  a  reniai'kable  instance  of  I'ruits  tithed 
and  ofliired  to  a  deity,  and  a  feast  made,  of  which 
the  people  of  the  district  partook,  in  Xen.  7iay.i. 
Cyr.  V.  3,  9,  answering  thus  to  the  Hebrew  poor 
man's  tithe-feast  to  be  mentioned  below. 

The  first  enactment  of  the  Law  in  respect  of 
tithe  is  the  deelanitioii  that  the  tenth  of  all  prod- 
uce, as  well  as  of  flocks  and  cattle,  belongs  to 
Jehovah,  and  must  be  ottered  to  Him.  2.  That  the 
tithe  was  to  be  paid  in  kind,  or,  if  redeemed,  with 
an  addition  of  one  fifth  to  its  value  (Lev.  xxvii. 
30-33).  This  tenth,  called  Tenmidth,  is  ordered  to 
be  assigned  to  the  Levites,  as  the  reward  of  their 
service,  and  it  is  ordered  further,  that  they  are 
themselves  to  dedicate  to  the  Lord  a  tenth  of  these 
receipt?,  which  is  to  be  devoted  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  high-priest  (Num.  xviii.  21-28). 

This  legislation  is  modified  or  extended  in  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy,  i.  e.  from  thirty-eight  to 
forty  years  later.  L'onmiands  are  given  to  the  peo- 
ple, —  1,  to  bring  their  tithes,  together  with  their 
votive  and  other  offerings  ai.-l  first-fruits,  to  the 
chosen  centre  of  worship,  the  metropolis,  there  to 
be  eaten  in  festive  celebration  in  company  with  their 
children,  their  servafits,  and  the  Levites  (Deut.  xii. 
5-18).  2.  After  warnings  against  idolatrous  or 
virtually  idolatrous  practices,  and  the  definition 
of  clean  as  distinguished  from  unclean  animals, 
among  which  latter  class  the  swine  is  of  obvious 
importance  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  tithes,  the 
legislator  proceeds  to  direct  that  all  the  produce  of 
the  soil  shall  be  tithed  every  year  (ver.  17  seems  to 
show  that  corn,  wine,  and  oil  alone  are  intended ), 
and  that  these  tithes  with  the  firstlings  of  the  flock 
and  herd  are  to  be  eaten  in  the  metropolis.  3.  But 
in  case  of  distance,  permission  is  given  to  convert 
the  produce  into  money,  which  is  to  be  taken  to  the 
appointed  place,  and  there  laid  out  in  the  purchase 
of  food  for  a  festal  celebration,  in  which  the  Levite 
is,  by  special  command,  to  be  included  (Ueut.  .xiv. 
22-27).  4.  Then  fnUows  the  direction,  that  at 
the  end  of  three  3 ears,  i.  e.  in  the  course  of  the 
third  and  sixth  years  of  the  .Sabliatical  period,  all 
the  tithe  of  that  year  is  to  be  gathered  and  laid  up 
"within  the  gates,"  i.  e.  probalily  in  some  central 
place  in  each  district,  not  at  the  metropolis;  and 
that  a  festival  is  to  lie  held,  in  wliich  ihe  .stranger, 
[he  fatherless,  and  the  widow,  together  with  the 
Levite,  are  to  partake  (il>i'l.  vv.  28,29).  5.  Lastly, 
it  is  ordered  that  after  taking  the  tithe  in  each  third 
?ear,"  which  is  the  year  of  tithing,"  «  an  exculpa- 
•ory  declaration  is  to  be  made  by  every  Israelite, 
.hat  he  has  done  his  best  to  fulfill  the  Divine  com- 
mand (Deut.  xxvi.  l-i-U).'' 

Frwii  all  this  we  gather,  1.  That  one  tenth  o*" 


6  The  LXX.  has  here  eov  oT/i'TcAeiTjis  aTroScKario-a 


TITHE 


3265 


the  whole  produce  of  the  soil  was  to  be  assigned  foi 
the  maintenance  of  the  Levites.  2.  That  out  of  this 
the  Levites  were  to,  dedicate  a  tenth  to  God,  for 
the  use  of  the  high-priest.  3.  That  a  tithe,  in  all 
proliability  a  secuml  tithe,  was  to  be  applied  to 
festival  purposes.  4.  That  in  every  third  year, 
either  this  festival  tithe  or  a  third  tenth  was  to  be 
eaten  in  company  with  the  poor  and  the  Levites. 
The  question  arises,  were  there  three  tithes  taken 
in  this  third  year;  or  is  the  third  tithe  only  the 
second  under  a  different  description?  That  there 
were  two  yearly  tithes  seems  clear,  both  from  the 
general  tenor  of  the  directions  and  from  the  LXX. 
rendering  of  Deut.  xxvi.  12.  But  it  must  be  allowed 
that  the  third  tithe  is  not  without  support.  1.  Jo- 
seplms  distinctly  says  that  one  tenth  was  to  be  given 
to  the  priests  and  Levites,  one  tenth  was  to  be  ap- 
plied to  feasts  in  the  metropolis,  and  that  a  tenth 
I.esides  these  (toitt;;/  7rpt)s  abrats)  was  every  third 
year  to  be  given  to  the  poor  (Ant.  iv.  8,  §  8,  and 
22).  2.  Tobit  says,  he  gave  one  tenth  to  the  priests, 
one  tenth  he  sold  and  spent  at  Jerusalem,  i.  c.  cum- 
nuited  according  to  Deut.  xiv.  24,  25,  and  another 
tenth  he  gave  away  (Tob  i.  7,  8).  3.  St.  Jerome 
says  one  tenth  was  given  to  the  Levites,  out  of 
which  they  gave  one  tenth  to  the  priests  (Seyre- 
poSeKaTrj);  a  second  tithe  was  applied  to  festival 
purposes,  and  a  third  was  given  to  the  poor  (tttco- 
Xci5€/caT7j)  (Cum.  on  Ezeh.  xiv.  vol.  i.  p.  505). 
.Spencer  tliinks  there  were  three  tithes.  Jennings, 
with  Mede,  thinks  there  were  only  two  complete? 
tithes,  but  that  in  the  third  year  an  addition  of 
some  sort  was  made  (Spencer,  De  Ley.  /lebr.  p. 
727;  Jennings,  ,leio.  Ant.  p.  183). 

On  the  other  hand,  Maimonides  says  the  third  and 
sixth  years'  second  tithe  was  shared  between  the 
poor  and  tlie*Levites,  i.  e.  that  there  was  no  third 
tithe  (De  Jnr.  Paiip.  vi.  4).  Selden  and  Michaelis 
remark  that  the  burden  of  three  tithes,  besides  the 
first-fruits,  would  be  excessive.  Selden  thinks  that 
the  third  year's  tithe  denotes  only  a  diflferent  appli- 
cation of  the  second  or  festival  tithe,  and  Michaelis, 
that  it  meant  a  sur|)lus  after  the  consumption  of 
the  festival  tithe  (Selden,  On  Tithes,  c.  2,  p.  13; 
Michaelis,  Laws  of  3/oses,  §  192,  vol.  iii.  p.  143, 
ed.  Smith).  Agafnst  a  third  tithe  maybe  added 
Keland,  Ant.  IJeO^'.  p.  359;  Jahn,  Ant.  §  389; 
Godwyn,  .Uoses  and  Anvon,  p.  136,  and  Carjizov, 
pp.  621,  G22;  Keil,  Bibl.  Arch.  §  71,  i.  337;  Saal- 
scliiits;,  llebr.  Arch.  i.  70;  Winer,  Realirb.  s.  v. 
Zehnte.  Knobel  thinks  the  tithe  was  never  taken 
in  full,  and  that  the  third  year's  tithe  only  meant 
the  portion  contrilnited  in  that  year  [Com.  on  Dent. 
xiv.  29,  in  Kurzyef.  /-'.xey.  //andbuch).  Ewald 
thinks  tiiat  for  two  years  the  tithe  was  left  in  great 
measure  to  free-will,  and  that  the  third  year's  titU(» 
only  was  compulsory  {Alterlhiim.  p.  34(i). 

Of  these  opinions,  that  which  maintains  three 
•separate  and  complete  tithings  seems  improbable,  as 
imposing  an  excessive  burden  on  the  land,  and  not 
easily  reconcilable  with  the  other  directions;  yet 
there  seems  no  reason  for  rejecting  the  notion  of 
two  yearly  tithes,  when  we  recollect  the  esi)eeial 
promise  of  fertility  to  the  soil,  conditional  on  ob- 
.servance  of  the  connnands  of  tl'.e  Law  (Deut.  xxviii). 
There  would  thus  be,  1,  a  yearly  tithe  for  the 
Levites;  2,  a  second  tithe  for  the  festivals,  which 
last  would  every  third  year  be  shsral  by  the  Levites 


TTav  TO  iwiSeKarov  riav  yevvTutiariav  ttj?  y^5  irov  ev  -^ 
irii  TtJ  TpiTO)  TO  SevTCpOi'  eiriSeKaioi'  a-^itit 
TuJ  .\«,im.  K.  T.  K. 


3266 


TITTLE 


with  the  poor.  It  is  this  poor  man's  tithe  which 
Micliaelis  tliinks  is  spoken  of  as  likel}'  to  be  con- 
verted to  the  king's  use  under  the  regal  dynasty 
(1  Saui.  viii.  15,  17;  Mich.  Laws  of  Moses,  vol.  i. 
p.  2-M).  Ewald  thinks  that  under  the  kings  the 
ecclesiastical  titlie-systern  reverted  to  what  he  sup- 
poses to  have  been  its  original  free-will  character. 
It  is  [ilain  that  during  that  period  the  tithe-system 
partook  of  the  general  neglect  into  which  the  ob- 
ser\aiice  of  the  Law  declined,  and  that  Hezekiali, 
among  his  other  reforms,  took  effectual  means  to 
revive  its  use  (2  Chr.  xxsi.  5,  12,  VJ).  Similar 
measures  were  taken  after  the  Captivity  by  Nehe- 
rniah  (Neh.  xii.  44),  and  in  both  these  cases  special 
officers  were  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  stores 
and  storehouses  for  the  purpose.  The  practice  of 
tithing  especially  for  relief  of  the  poor  appe;irs  to 
have  subsisted  even  in  Israel,  for  the  prophet  Amos 
speaks  of  it,  though  in  an  ironical  tone,  as  existing 
in  his  day  (Am.  iv.  4).  But  as  any  degeneracy  ui 
the  national  faith  would  be  likely  to  have  an  etfiict 
on  the  tithe-system,  we  find  complaint  of  neglect  in 
this  respect  made  by  the  prophet  iNIalachi  (iii.  8, 
10).  Yet,  notwithstanding  partial  evasion  or  omis- 
sion, the  system  itself  was  continued  to  a  late  period 
in  Jewish  history,  and  was  even  carried  to  excess 
by  those  who,  like  the  Miarisees,  affected  peculiar 
exactness  in  observance  of  the  Law  (Heb.  vii.  5-8; 
Matt,  xxiii.  23;  Luke  xviii.  12;  Josephus,  A7il.  xx. 
9,  §  2;    Vit.  c.  15). 

j^mong  details  relating  to  the  tithe  payments 
mentioned  by  Kabbinical  writers  may  be  noticed : 
(1.)  Tliat  in  reference  to  the  permission  given  in 
case  of  distance  (Ueut.  xiv.  24),  Jews  dwelling  in 
Babylonia,  Amnion,  Moab,  and  Egypt,  were  consid- 
ered as  subject  to  the  law  of  tithe  in  kind  (Keland, 
iii.  'J,  2,  p.  355).  (2.)  In  tithing  sheep  the  custom 
was  to  inclose  them  in  a  pen,  and  as  the  sheep 
went  out  at  the  opening,  every  tenth  animal  was 
niarketl  with  a  rod  dipped  in  vermilion.  Tiiis  was 
the  "passing  under  tlie  rod."  The  Law  ordered 
that  no  inquiry  should  be  made  whether  the  animal 
were  good  or  bad,  and  that  if  the  owner  changed  it, 
both  the  original  and  the  channeling  were  to  be  re- 
garded as  devoted  (Lev.  xxvii.  32,  33;  Jer.  xxxiii. 
13;  Btcoroth,  i\.  7;  Godwyn,  M.  and  A.  p.  130, 
vi.  7).  (3.)  Cattle  were  tithed  in  and  after  Au- 
gust, corn  in  and  after  Sejrtember,  fruits  of  trees 
in  and  after  January  (Godwyn,  p.  137,  §  9); 
Buxtorf,  Sijn.  J  ml.  c.  xii.  pp.  282,  283.  (4.) 
"  Corners  "  were  exempt  from  tithe  (Ptu/i,  i.  6). 
(5.)  The  general  rule  was  that  all  edible  articles 
Bot  purchased,  were  tithable,  but  that  products 
not  specified  in  Deut.  xiv.  23,  were  regarded  as 
doubtful.  Tithe  of  them  was  not  forbidden,  but 
was  not  required  {Maaserolh,  i.  1;  Dtmai,  i.  1; 
Carpzov,  App.  Bibl.  pp.  019,  020).        H.  W.  P. 

*  TITTLE  is  the  diminutive  of  tit,  hence  = 
mif.lmum,  the  very  least  of  a  thing.  It  stands  for 
the  Greek  Kepaia  (Matt.  v.  18;  Luke  xvi.  17), 
a  little  horn,  denoting  the  slightly  curved  hooks  at- 
taohed  to  some  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  especially 
Lamed,  more  noticeable  in  Hebrew  manuscripts  than 
in  tlie  ordinary  printed  Hebrew.  It  vitiated  a  letter 
ot  an  entire  copy  to  onjit  this  appendage  where  it 
lelonged.  The  jot  in  the  same  connection  was  the 
Greek    iota    or    Hebrew  yodli,   the  smallest  letter 


"■  His  birthplace  may  hare  been  here ;  but  this  is 
juite  uncertain.  The  name,  which  is  Roman,  proves 
nothing 


TITUS 

of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  alphabets.  It  will  be 
seen  how  strong,  therefore,  was  the  Saviour's  assev 
eration:  "  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law  tiU  all  be  fulfilled  "  (iMatt.  v.  18). 

H. 
TI'TUS  MAN'LIUS.  [MA^'LIu.s.] 
TI'TUS  (Titos:  Titus).  Our  mat'eiials  for  the 
biography  of  this  companion  of  St.  Paul  must  l,e 
drawn  entirely  from  tlie  notices  of  him  in  the  Second 
Kpistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the  Galatians,  and  to 
Titus  him.self,  combined  with  the  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy.  He  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts  at  all. 
The  reading  TiVou  'Xoixttov  in  Acts  xviii.  7  is  t'.-j 
precarious  for  any  inference  to  be  drawn  from  it. 
^^'ieseler  indeed  lays  some  slight  stress  upon  it 
{Cliroiwl.  des  Ajxist.  Ztit.  Gi  tt.  1848,  p.  204). 
but  this  is  in  connection  with  a  theory  which  needs 
every  help.  As  to  a  recent  hypothesis,  that  Titu.? 
and  Timothy  were  the  same  person  (K.  King,  Who 
icas  St.  Titus'/  Dublin,  1853),  it  is  certainly  in- 
genious, but  quite  untenable. 

Taking  the  passages  in  tlie  epistles  in  the  chrono- 
logical order  of  the  events  referred  to,  we  turn  first 
to  Gal.  ii.  1,  3.  We  conceive  the  journey  men- 
tioned here  to  be  identical  with  that  (recorded  in 
Acts  XV.)  in  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  went  from 
Antioch  to  Jerusalem  to  the  conference  which  was 
to  decide  the  question  of  the  necessity  of  circum- 
cision to  the  Gentiles.  Here  we  see  Titus  in  close 
association  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch."  He 
goes  with  them  to  Jerusalem.  He  is  in  fact  one  of 
the  Tives  aWot  of  Acts  xv.  2,  who  were  deputed  to 
accompany  them  from  Antioch.  His  circumcision 
was  either  not  insisted  on  at  Jerusalem,  or,  if  de- 
manded, was  firmly  resisted  (ouk  rjvayKdffOT] 
TTfpiT/xridrivai).  He  is  very  emphatically  spoken  of 
as  a  Gentile  ("EWrjv),  by  which  is  most  probaljly 
meant  that  both  his  parents  were  Gentiles.  Here 
is  a  double  contrast  from  Tiinotliy,  who  was  circum- 
cised by  St.  Paul's  own  directions,  and  one  of  whose 
parents  was  Jewish  (Acts  xvi.  1.  3;  2  Tim.  i.  5,  iii 
15).  Titus  would  seem,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
council,  to  have  been  specially  a  representative  of 
the  church  of  the  uncircumcisioii. 

It  is  to  our  purpose  to  remark  that,  in  the  pas- 
sage cited  above,  Titus  is  so  mentioned  as  apparently 
to  imply  that  he  had  become  personally  known  to 
the  Galatian  Christians.  This,  again,  we  combine 
with  two  other  circumstances,  namely,  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the  Second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  were  probably  written  witliin  a  few 
months  of  each  other  [Galatians,  Epistle  to], 
and  both  during  the  same  journey.  Erom  the  latter 
of  these  two  epistles  we  obtain  fuller  notices  of 
Titus  in  connection  with  St.  Paul. 

After  leaving  Galatia  (Acts  xviii.  23),  and  spend- 
ing a  long  time  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  1-xx.  1 ), 
the  Apostle  proceeded  to  Macedonia  by  way  of  Troas. 
Here  he  expected  to  meet  Titus  (2  Cor.  ii.  13),  wjio 
had  been  sent  on  a  mission  to  Corinth.  In  this  hope 
he  was  disappointed  [TnoAs],  but  in  Macedonia 
Titus  joined  hiin  (2  Cor.  vii.  6,  7,  13-15).  Here 
we  begin  to  see  not  only  the  above-mentioned  fact 
of  the  mission  of  this  disciple  to  Corinth,  and  the 
strong  personal  affection  which  subsisted  between 
him  and  St.  Paul  (e'j/  rrj  Tvapovaict  avrov,  vii.  7), 
but  also  some  part  of  the  purport  of  the  mission 
itself.  It  had  reference  to  the  immoralities  at 
Corinth  rebuked  in  the  first  epistle,  and  to  tii« 
effect  of  that  first  epistle  on  the  offending  church. 
\\t  learn  further  that  the  mission  was  sc  far  sue 


TITUS 

eessful  and  satisfactory:  avayyeWcoi/  t^v  vjxSiv 
fTrnr6dj}a-iv  (vii.  7),  eAuTnrj^rjTe  eis  /xeravoiav .(^ii- 
9),  T7)v  travTuiv  vfxdv  viraKO'r]v  (vii.  16);  and  we 
are  enabled  also  to  draw  from  the  chapter  a  strong 
conclusion  regardinj,'  the  warm  zeal  and  sympath)' 
of  Titus,  his  grief  for  what  was  evil,  his  rejuicing 
over  what  was  good :  rfj  wapaKKriffei.  ^  wa^ifKAridr] 
i(p'  i/juv  (vu.  7);  avaTrenavTai  rh  Tri/eCua  aurov 
anh  navTwu  v/xuv  (vii.  lo):  ra  air\dyxva  aurov 
■n-epiffaoTepws  fls  vfj.as  (<Triv  (vii.  15).  liut  if  we 
pri'Ceed  further,  we  discern  another  part  of  the 
mission  with  which  he  was  entrusted.  'I'his  had 
reference  to  the  collection,  at  that  time  in  progress, 
foj-  the  poor  Christians  of  Judasa  {Kaduos  trpu- 
evijp^aro,  viii.  6),  a  phrase  which  shows  that  he 
had  lieen  active  and  zealous  in  the  matter,  while 
the  Corinthians  themselves  seem  to  ha\e  been  rather 
remiss.  This  connection  of  his  mission  with  the 
gathering  of  these  charitable  funds  is  also  proved  by 
another  passage,  which  contains  moreover  an  im- 
plied assertion  of  his  integrity  in  the  business  (^■^ 
Ti  firKeoveKTriffev  vfias  Titos;  xii.  18),  and  a 
Btiitement  that  St.  Paul  himself  had  sent  him  on 
the  errand  {irapeKaKeaa  T'ltov,  ibid.).  Tims  we 
are  prepared  for  what  the  Apostle  now  proceeds  to 
do  after  his  encouraging  con\-ersations  with  Titus 
regarding  the  Corinthian  Church.  He  sends  him 
back  from  JNIacedonia  to  Corinth,  in  company  with 
two  other  trustworthy  Christians  [Tkophijius, 
TvcHiCUs],  bearing  the  second  epistle,  and  with 
an  earnest  request  (irapaKaXiaai,  viii.  0,  tV 
■Kapa.K\r}<nv,  viii.  17)  that  he  would  see  to  the 
completion  of  the  collection,  which  he  had  zealously 
promoted  on  his  late  visit  (jVa  Kadbis  wpoti/iip^aTO, 
ouTois  Kal  ejriTfAeaT],  viii.  6),  T'tus  himself  being 
in  nowise  backward  iu  undertaking  the  commission. 
On  a  review  of  all  these  passages,  elucidating  as  they 
do  the  characteristics  of  the  man,  the  duties  he  dis- 
charged, and  his  close  and  fiitliful  cooperation  with 
St.  Paul,  we  see  how  nnich  meaning  there  is  in 
the  Apostle's  short  and  forcilile  description  of  him 
(elfrf  uwep  TLtov,  KOtvcuvhs  ifjihs  Koi  fh  uij.as 
auvepyoi,  viii.  23). 

All  that  has  preceded  is  drawn  from  direct  state- 
ments in  the  epistles;  but  by  indirect  though  fair 
inference  we  can  arrive  at  something  further,  which 
gives  coherence  to  the  rest,  with  additional  elucida- 
tions of  the  close  connection  of  Titus  with  St.  Paul 
and  the  Corinthian  Church.  It  has  generally  been 
consiilered  doubtful  who  the  aSeXcpoi  were  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  11,  12)  that  took  the  first  epistle  to  Corinth. 
Timothy,  who  had  been  recently  sent  thither  fi'om 
Ephesus  (Acts  xis.  22),  could  not  have  been  one  of 
them  {iav  eKOr;  Ti/x.  1  Cor.  xvi.  10),  and  Apollos 
declined  the  commission  (1  Cor.  xvi.  12).  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  messengers  who  took 
that  first  letter  were  Titus  and  his  companion,  who- 
ever that  might  be,  who  is  mentioned  with  him  in 
the  second  letter  (irape/caAetra  T/toi',  koI  avvairi- 
a-TeiXa  Thv  aSe\(p6v,  2  Cor.  xii.  18).  This  view 
was  held  by  Mackiiiglit,  and  very  clearly  set  forth 
by  him  {Tnind.  of  tlie  Apustulicul  KpistUs,  ivitli 
CiiiiiDi..  Edinb.  1829,  vol.  i.  pp.  451,  674,  vol.  ii. 
pp  2,  7.  124).  It  has  been  more  recently  given 
Dy  Professor  Stanley  {Corin/lihciis,  2d  ed.  pp.  348, 
492),"  but  it  has  been  worked  out  by  no  one  so  elab- 
orately as  by  Professor  Lightfoot  {Cauib.  Juurmil 
of  Classical  and  Sacred  Philulo(jij,.  ii.  201,  202). 


«  There  is  some  Janger  of  confusing  Titiia  and  Ihe 
'•'(tiler  (2  Cor.  xii  18),  i.  e.  llif  brethren  of  1  Cor.  xvi 
"    12,  who  (accordiua:  to  this  view)  took  the  first  lot- 


TITUS  8267 

As  to  the  comiection  between  the  two  contempora- 
neous missions  of  Titus  and  Timotheus,  this  obser- 
vation may  be  made  here,  that  the  difference  of  tht 
two  errands  may  have  had  some  connection  with  a 
difference  in  the  characters  of  the  two  agents.  If 
Titus  was  the  firmer  and  more  energetic  of  the  two 
men,  it  was  natural  to  gi\e  him  the  task  of  enfor- 
cing the  Apostle's  rebukes,  and  urging  on  the  flag- 
ging business  of  the  collection. 

A  considerable  interval  now  elapses  before  we 
come  upon  the  next  notices  of  this  disciple.  St. 
Paul's  first  imprisonment  is  concluded,  and  his  last 
trial  is  impending.  In  the  interval  between  the 
two,  he  and  litus  were  together  in  Crete  {aireKi- 
T^6v  0-6  eV  KpT)Tri,  Tit.  i.  5).  We  see  Titus  re- 
maining in  the  island  when  St.  Paul  left  it,  and 
receiving  there  a  letter  written  to  him  by  the 
Apostle.  From  this  letter  we  gather  the  following 
biographical  details:  In  the  first  place  we  learn  that 
he  was  originally  converted  tlnough  St.  Paul's  in- 
strunjentality:  this  must  be  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  yvriffiov  t€kvov,  which  occurs  so  emphat- 
ically in  the  opening  of  the  epfstle  (i.  4).  Next 
we  learn  the  various  particulars  of  the  responsilile 
duties  which  he  had  to  discharge  in  Crete.  He  is 
to  com])lete  what  St.  Paul  had  been  obliged  to  leave 
unfinished  I'li/a  ra  AetirovTa  eiriSiopdaxTrj,  i.  5), 
and  he  is  to  organize  the  church  throughout  the 
island  by  appointing  presbyters  in  every  city  [Gor- 
tyna;  Las.ea].  Instructions  are  given  as  to  the 
suitable  character  of  such  presbyters  (vv.  G-9);  an^ 
we  learn  fm-ther  that  we  have  here  the  repetition  o'r 
instructions  previously  furnished  by  word  of  mouth 
(a>s  4yci  (TOi  5i6Ta|a,ur);/,  ver.  5).  Next  he  is  to 
control  and  bridle  {imaTOfu^etv,  ver.  11)  the  rest- 
less and  mischievous  Judaizers,  and  he  is  to  be  per- 
emptory in  so  doing  (eAtyxe  aurovs  aTrord^ais, 
ver.  13).  Injunctions  in  the  same  spirit  are  reiter- 
ated (ii.  1,  15,  iii.  8).  He  is  to  urge  the  duties  of 
a  decorous  and  Christian  life  upon  the  women  (ii. 
3-5),  some  of  whom  {irpecr^vTtSai,  ii-  3)  possibly 
had  something  of  an  ofhcial  character  (KaAoSiSaa- 
/caAoys,  tVo  (Tooippofl^aiai  ras  I'f'as,  vv.  o,  4).  He 
is  to  be  watchiul  over  his  own  conduct  (ver.  7):  he 
is  to  impress  upon  the  slaves  the  peculiar  duties  of 
their  position  (ii.  9,  10);  he  is  to  check  all  social 
and  political  turbulence  (iii.  1),  and  also  all  wild 
theological  speculations  (iii.  9);  and  to  exercise  dis- 
cipline on  the  heretical  (iii.  10).  When  we  con- 
sider all  these  particulars  of  liis  duties,  we  see  not 
only  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  the  Apo.stle, 
but  the  need  there  was  of  determination  and  strength 
of  puri)ose,  and  therefore  the  probability  that  this 
was  his  character;  and  all  this  is  enhanced  if  we 
bear  in  mind  his  isolated  and  unsupi)orted  position 
in  Crete,  and  the  lawless  and  immoral  character  of 
the  Cretans  themselves,  as  testified  by  their  own 
writers  (i   12,  13).     [Crete.] 

The  notices  which  remain  are  more  strictly  per- 
sonal. Titus  is  to  look  for  the  arrival  in  Crete  of 
Artemas  and  Tychicus  (iii.  12),  and  then  he  is  to 
hasten  (anovSaeroi')  to  join  St.  Paul  at  Nicopolis, 
Vi'here  the  Apostle  is  proposing  to  pass  the  winter 
(ibid. ).  Zenas  and  Apollos  are  in  Crete,  or  ex[j€cted 
there;  for  Titus  is  to  send  them  on  their  journey, 
and  supply  them  with  whatever  they  need  for  it 
(iii.  13).  It  is  observable  that  Titus  and  Apollos 
are  brought  into  juxtaposition  here,  as  they  were 


ter,  with  Titus  niid  Ihe  brethren  (2  Cor.  viii.  16-24)  whc 
took  the  second  letter. 


3268 


TITUS 


before  in  the  discussion  of  the  mission  from  Eplie- 
Bus  to  Corinth. 

The  movements  of  St.  Paul,  with  which  these 
later  instructions  to  Titus  are  connected,  are  con- 
sidered elsewhere.  [Paul;  Tijiothy.]  We  need 
only  observe  here  that  there  would  he  great  difti- 
culty  in  inserting;  the  visits  to  Crete  and  Nicopolis 
hi  any  of  the  journeys  recorded  in  the  Acts,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  other  objections  to  givinc;  the  epistle 
any  date  anterior  to  the  voyage  to  Rome.  [Titus, 
Epistle  to.]  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  dif- 
ficulty in  arranging  these  circumstances,  if  we  sup- 
pose St.  Paul  to  have  travelled  and  written  after 
being  liberated  from  Ptome,  while  thus  we  gain  the 
further  advantage  of  an  explanation  of  what  Faley 
has  well  called  the  affinity  of  this  epistle  and  the 
first  to  Timothy.  Whether  Titus  did  join  the 
Apostle  at  Nicopolis  we  cannot  tell.  But  we  nat- 
urally connect  the  mention  of  this  place  with  what 
St.  Paul  wrote  at  .no  great  interval  of  time  after- 
wards, in  the  last  of  the  pastoral  epistles  (Titos  els 
AaK/j.aTtai',  2  Tim.  iv.  10);  for  Dalmatia  lay  to 
the  north  of  Nicopolis,  at  no  great  distance  from  it. 
[Nicopolis.]  From  the  form  of  the  whole  sen- 
tence, it  seems  probable  that  this  disciple  had  been 
with  St.  Paul  in  Pome  during  his  final  imprison- 
ment; but  this  cannot  be  asserted  confidently.  The 
touching  words  of  the  Apostle  in  this  passau'e  might 
seem  to  imply  some  reproach,  and  we  might  draw 
from  theui  the  conclusion  that  Titus  became  a  sec- 
ond Denias:  but  on  the  whole  this  seems  a  harsh 
and  unnecessary  judgment. 

Whatever  else  remains  is  legendary,  though  it 
may  contain  elements  of  truth.  Titus  is  coimected 
by  tradition  with  Dalmatia,  and  he  is  said  to  have 
been  an  oliject  of  much  reverence  in  that  region. 
This,  however,  may  simply  be  a  result  of  the  pas- 
sage quoted  immediately  above:  and  it  is  observ-* 
able  that  of  all  the  churches  in  modern  Dalmatia 
CNeale's  Ecdcsiohgical  Notes  on  Dalni.  p.  17.5) 
not  one  is  dedicated  to  him.  'J'he  traditional  con- 
nection of  Titus  with  Crete  is  much  more  specific 
and  constant,  though  here  again  we  cannot  be  cer- 
tain of  the  facts.  He  is  said  to  have  been  perma- 
nent bishop  in  the  island,  and  to  have  died  there  at 
an  advanced  age.  The  modern  capital,  Cnnclvt.  ap- 
pears to  claim  the  honor  of  being  his  burial-place 
(Cave's  Apnstolici,  1716,  p.  42).  In  the  fragment. 
Be  Vita  tt  Actis  Titi,  by  the  lawyer  Zenas  (Fabric. 
Cod.  Apnc.  N.  T.  ii.  831,  832),  Titus  is  called 
Bishop  of  Gortyna:  and  on  the  old  site  of  Gortyna 
is  a  ruined  church,  of  ancient  and  solid  masonry, 
which  bears  the  name  of  St.  Titus,  and  where  .ser- 
vice is  occasionally  celebrated  by  priests  from  the 
neighboring  hamlet  of  Metropolis  (E.  Faliiener, 
Bemahis  in  Crete,  from  a  MS.  History  of  Can- 
did by  Oiiorio  Belli,  p.  23).  The  cathedrarof  Me- 
<jah>-Castron,  in  the  north  of  the  island,  is  also 
dedicated  to  this  saint.  Lastly,  the  name  of  Titus 
was  the  watchword  of  the  Cretans  when  they  were 
invaded  by  the  Venetians:  and  the  Venetians  them- 
selves, after  their  conquest  of  the  island,  adopted  him 
to  some  of  the  honors  of  a  patron  saint;  for,  as  the 
response  after  the  prayer  for  the  Doge  of  Venice 
was  "  Sancte  Marce,  tu  nos  adjuva,"  so  the  response 
after  that  for  the  Duke  of  Candia  was  "  Sancte  Tite, 
tu  nos  adjuva"  (Pashley's  Travels  in  Crete,  i.  6, 
175).'' 

«  The  day  on  which  Titus  is  commemorated  Is 
lanuiirv  4  in  the  Latiu  Calendar,  and  August  25  in 
the  Greek. 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 

We  must  not  leave  unnoticed  the  striking,  though 
extravagant,  panegyric  of  Titus  by  his  successor  in 
the  see  of  Oete,  Andreas  Cretensis  (published,  with 
Amphilochius  and  Methodius,  by  Cbndiefis,  Paris. 
1644).  This  panegyric  has  many  excellent  points: 
e.  (J.  it  incorporates  well  the  more  important  pas- 
sages from  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 
The  following  are  stated  as  facts.  Titus  is  related 
to  the  Proconsul  of  the  island :  among  his  ancestors 
are  Minos  and  P.hadamanthus  (oi  sk  Ai6s)-  Early 
in  life  he  obtains  a  copy  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
and  learns  Hebrew  in  a  short  time.  He  goes  to 
.Judwa,  and  is  present  on  the  occasion  mentioned 
in  Acts  i.  15.  His  conversion  takes  place  before 
that  of  St.  Paul  himself,  but  afterwards  he  attaclies 
himself  closely  to  the  Apostle.  Whatever  the  value 
of  these  statements  may  be,  the  following  descrip- 
tion of  Titus  (p.  156)  is  worthy  of  quotation:  6 
wpocros  Ti)s  Kp7]Twv  iKK\r}aias  bi/xe\tus-  t^s 
a\7]0eias  6  ctiAos*  t^  ttjs  TrtTTeco?  fpeiaua- 
Toiv  ebayyeXiKuiv  Kripvy/j.drwv  rj  aaiyriTOS  adX- 
niy^-  rh  v\p7]\bv  ttjs  TlavKov  y\(irrT}s  arrrjx')""* 

J.  S.  H. 

TI'TUS,  EPISTLE  TO.  There  are  no 
specialties  in  this  epistle  which  require  any  ^ery 
elaborate  treatment  distinct  from  the  other  Pastoral 
Letters  of  St.  Paul.  [Ti.-motiiy,  Epistlks  to.] 
If  those  two  were  not  genuine,  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult confidently  to  maintain  the  genuineness  of  this. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  epistles  to  Timothy  are 
received  as  St.  Paul's,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
reason  for  doubting  the  authorship  of  that  to  Titus. 
.Vmidst  the  various  combinations  which  are  found 
among  those  who  have  been  skeptical  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  pastoral  epistles,  there  is  no  instance  of 
the  rejection  of  that  liefore  us  on  the  part  of  those 
who  have  accepted  the  other  two.  So  far  indeed 
as  these  doubts  are  worth  considering  at  all,  the 
argument  is  more  in  fiivor  of  this  than  of  either 
of  those.  Tatian  accepted  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
and  rejected  the  other  two.  Origen  mentions  some 
who  excluded  2  Tim.,  Imt  kept  1  Tim.  with  Titus. 
Schleiermacher  and  Neander  invert  this  process  of 
doubt  in  regard  to  the  letters  addressed  to  Timothy, 
iiut  believe  that  St.  Paul  wrote  the  present  letter 
to  Titus.  Credner  too  believes  it  to  be  genuine, 
though  he  pronounces  1  Tim.  to  be  a  forgery,  and 
2  Tim.  a  compound  of  two  epistles. 

To  turn  now  from  opinions  .to  direct  externa] 
evidence,  this  epistle  stands  on  quite  as  firm  a 
ground  as  the  others  of  the  pastoral  group,  if  not 
a  firmer  ground.  Nothing  can  well  be  more  ex- 
plicit than  the  quotations  in  Irenwus,  C.  I/ceres,  i. 
16,  3  (see  Tit.  iii.  10),  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  350 
(see  i.  12),  Tertull.  Be  Prcescr.  Hem:  c.  6  (see  iii. 
10,  11),  and  the  reference,  also  Adv.  Marc.  v. 
21;  to  say  nothing  of  earlier  allusions  in  Justin 
Martyr,  Bial.  c.  Trypli.  47  (see  iii.  4),  which  can 
hardly  be  doubted,  Theoph.  Ad  Autol.  ii.  p.  95, 
(see  iii.  5),  iii.  126  (see  iii.  1),  which  are  prol>able, 
and  Clem.  liom.  1  Cor.  2  (see  iii.  1),  which  is 
possible. 

As  to  internal  features,  we  may  notice,  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  Epistle  to  Titus  has  all  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  other  pastoral  epistles.  See.  for 
instance,  -maThs  o  A6yos{\'i\-  8),  vyiaivovtra  SiSacr- 
KaAi'a  (i.  9,  ii.  1,  comparing  i.  13,  ii.  8),  awippo- 
vitv,  awcppoiv,  (TcocppSvcos  (••  8,  ii.  5,  6,  12),  acorii- 
pios,  aairi\p,  awQii  (i.  3,  4,  ii.  10,  11,  13,  iii.  4,  h 
6).  'louSoiKol  fjivdoi  (i.  14,  comparing  iii.  9),  ein- 
(pdveia  'ii.  13).  evcreffeia  (i.  1),  eAe  s  (iii-  5;  in  i. 
4  the  word  is  doubtful).      All  this  tends  to  ghow 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 

that  this  letter  was  written  about  the  same  time 
and  under  similar  circumstances  with  the  other  two. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  epistle  has  marks  in 
its  phraseology  and  style  whicli  assimilate  it  to  the 
general  body  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Such  may 
fairly  be  reckoned  the  following:  Kripvyfj-art  'o 
iTri(rT€v8r]v  iyd  (i.  3);  the  quotation  from  a 
heathen  poet  (i.  12);  the  use  of  a.S6Kiiu.os  (i-  10); 
the  '•  going  off  at  a  word  "  {(rwrT^pos  ....  eVe- 
(ftdvri  yap  ....  awriipios  .  .  .  .  ii-  10,  11); 
and  the  modes  in  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Atone- 
ment (ii.  13)  and  of  Free  Justification  (iii.  5-7) 
come  to  the  surface.  As  to  an}-  difficulty  arising 
from  supposed  indications  of  advanced  hierarchical 
arrangements,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  this  epis- 
tle irpea^uTfpos  and  iwiaKowos  are  used  as  synon- 
ymous {'iva  Karaarrjcrr]?  Trpea/SuTfpovv  ....  5e7 
yap  rhy  eTriaKoiroi'.  .  .  ,  i.  5,  7),  just  as  they  are 
in  the  address  at  Miletus  about  the  year  58  a.  d. 
(Acts  XX.  17,  28).  At  the  same  time  this  epistle 
has  features  of  its  own,  especially  a  certain  tone  of 
abruptness  and  severity,  which  probably  arises 
partly  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  Cretan  popu- 
lation [Crete],  partly  out  of  the  character  of  Ti- 
tus himself.  If  all  these  things  are  put  together, 
the  phenomena  are  seen  to  be  very  unlike  what 
would  be  presented  by  a  forgery,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  general  overwhelming  difficulty  of  imagining 
who  could  have  been  the  writer  of  the  pastoral 
epistles,  if  it  were  not  St.  Paul  himself. 

Concerning  the  contents  of  this  epistle,  some- 
thing has  already  been  said  in  the  article  on  Titu.s. 
No  very  exact  subdi\ision  is  either  necessary  or 
possible.  After  the  introductory  salutation,  which 
has  marked  peculiarities  (i.  1-4;,  Titus  is  enjoined 
to  appoint  suitable  presbyters  in  the  Cretan  Church, 
and  specially  such  as  shall  be  sound  in  doctrine  and 
able  to  refute  error  (5-9).  The  Apostle  then  passes 
to  a  description  of  the  coarse  character  of  tlie  Cre- 
tans, as  testified  by  their  own  writers,  and  the  mis- 
chief caused  by  Judaizing  error  among  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  island  (10-16).  In  opposition  to  this, 
Titus  is  to  urge  sound  and  practical  Christianity 
on  all  classes  (ii.  1-10),  on  the  older  men  (ii.  2),  on 
the  older  women,  and  especially  in  regard  to  their 
influence  over  the  younger  women  (3-5),  on  the 
younger  men  (6-8),  on  slaves  (9,  10),  taking  heed 
meanwhile  that  he  himself  is  a  pattern  of  good 
works  (ver.  7).  The  grounds  of  ail  this  are  given 
in  the  free  grace  which  trains  the  Christian  to  self- 
denying  and  active  piety  (11,  12),  in  the  ijlorious 
hope  of  Christ's  second  advent  (ver.  13),  and  in  tiie 
atonement  by  which  He  has  purchased  us  to  be  his 
people  (ver.  14).  All  which  lessons  Titus  is  to  urge 
with  fearless  decision  (ver.  15).  Next,  ol)edience 
to  rulers  is  enjoined,  with  gentleness  and  forbear- 
ance towards  all  men  (iii.  1,  2),  these  duties  being 
again  rested  on  our  sense  of  past  sin  (ver.  3),  and 
on  the  gift  of  new  spiritual  life  and  free  justification 
(4-7 ).  With  these  practical  duties  are  contrasted 
those  idle  speculations  which  are  to  be  carefully 
avoided  (8,  9);  and  with  regard  to  those  men  who 
are  positively  heretical,  a  peremptory  charge  is 
^ven  (10,  11).  Some  |)ersonal  allusions  then  fol- 
low: Artemas  or  T\chicus  may  be  expected  at 
Crete,  and  on  the  arrival  of  either  of  them  Titus  is 
to  hasten  to  join  the  Apostle  at  Nicopolis,  where 
^e  intends  to  winter;  Zenas  the  lawyer  also,  and 
ApoUos,  are  to  be  provided  with  all  that  is  necessary 
for  a  journey  in  prospect  (12,  13).  Finally,  before 
the  concluding  messages  of  salutation,  an  admoni- 
iion  is  given  to  the  Cretan  Christians,  that  they 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  Ty        3269 

give  heed  to  the  duties  of  practical,  useful  piety 
(14,  15). 

As  to  the  time  and  place  and  other  circumstances 
of  the  writing  of  this  epistle,  the  following  .scheme 
of  filling  up  St.  Paul's  movements  after  his  first 
imprisonment  wiU  satisfy  all  the  conditions  of  the 
case :  We  may  suppose  him  (possibly  after  accom- 
plishing his  long-projected  visit  to  Spain)  to  have 
gone  to  I'^phesus,  and  taken  voyages  from  thence, 
first  to  Macedonia  and  then  to  Crete,  during  the 
former  to  have  written  the  First  I'jj)islle  to  Tim- 
othy, and  after  returning  from  the  latter  to  have 
written  the  Fpistle  to  Titus,  being  at  the  time  of 
despat"hing  it  on  the  point  of  starting  for  Nicop- 
olis, ti  which  place  he  went,  taking  Miletus  and 
Corinth  on  the  way.  At  Nicopolis  we  may  con- 
ceive him  to  have  been  finally  apprehended  and 
taken  to  Rome,  whence  he  wrote  the  Second  Epis- 
tle to  Timothy.  Other  possible  combinations  may 
be  seen  in  Birks  {IJorce  ApvsloUcde,  at  the  end  of 
his  edition  of  the  Horce  Pauliiue,  pp.  299-301), 
and  in  Wordsworth  {Greek  TesUiment,  Pt.  iii.  pp. 
418,  421).  It  is  an  undoubted  mistake  to  en- 
deavor to  insert  this  e|)istle  in  any  period  of  that 
part  of  St.  Pauls  life  which  is  recorded  in  the 
.Vets  of  the  .-Vpostles.  There  is  in  this  writing 
that  unmistakable  ditterence  of  style  (as  compared 
with  the  earlier  epistles)  which  associates  the  Pas- 
toral Letters  with  one  another,  and  with  the  latest 
period  of  St.  Paul  s  life;  and  it  seems  strange  that 
this  should  have  been  so  slightly  observed  by  good 
scholars  and  exact  chronologists,  e.  (/.  .\rchdn. 
Evans  {Scrijit.  Bhxj.  iii.  327-333),  and  Wieselei 
{Chronol.  des  Apost.  Zeitnlt.  pp.  32:)-355),  who, 
approaching  the  sul  ject  in  very  different  ways,  agree 
in  thinking  that  this  letter  was  written  at  Epiiesus 
(between  1  and  2  Cor.),  when  the  Apostle  w.as  in 
the  early  part  of  his  third  missionary  journey 
(Acts  xix.). 

The  loUowing  list  of  commentaries  on  the  Pas- 
toral Epistles  may  be  useful  for  1  and  2  Tim.,  as 
well  as  for  Titus.  Besides  the  general  Patristic 
commentaries  on  all  St.  Paul's  epistles  (Chrysos- 
tom,  Theodoret,  Theophylact,  Jerome,  Bede,  Al- 
cuin),  the  Mediieval  ((Ecumenius,  Euthymius, 
Aquinas),  those  of  the  lieforniiition  period  (l.uther, 
Melancthon,  Calvin),  the  earlier  Boman  Catholic 
(•lustiniani,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Estius),  the  Prot 
estant  commentaries  of  the  17th  century  (Cocceius, 
Grotius,  etc.),  and  the  recent  annotations  on  the 
whole  Greek  Testament  (Kosenmidler,  De  Wette, 
Alford,  ^^'ordsworth,  etc.),  the  following  on  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  may  be  specified :  Daill^,  Exjiosi- 
dnn  (1  Tim.  Genev.  1661,  2  Tim.  Genev.  16-59, 
Tit.  Par.  1655);  Heydenreich,  Die  Pastoralbrieft 
Patdi  erlauterl  {IhxdMw.  1826,  1828);  Fiatt,  V<yr- 
Itstinf/en  iiber  die  Br.  P.  an  Tim.  u.  Til.  (Tiit. 
1831);  Mack  (Roman  Catholic),  Cvmm.  iiber  die 
P<isl<indhriefe  (Tiib.  1836);  Jlatthies,  ErhMrunt, 
der  Pnstoralbriefe  (Greifsw.  1840);  Huther  (paH 
[xi.]  of  Meyer's  Commentary,  Giitt.  1850  [3e  Aufi. 
1866]);  Wiesinger  (in  continuation  of  Olshausen. 
Koenigsl).  1850),  translated  (with  the  excei)tion  of 
2  Tim  )  in  Clark's  Furei<jn  Theoloij.  Lib.  (Edinb. 
1851  [the  whole  is  translated  in  vol.  vi.  of  the 
Anier.  ed.  of  (Jlsbausen,  N.  Y.  1858]),  and  espe- 
cially EUicott  {P.mUn-fd  h'pislles,  2d  ed.,  London, 
1861 ),  who  mentions  in  his  preface  a  Danish  com- 
mentary liy  Bp.  Miller,  and  one  in  modern  Greek, 
Si/i'effST/uos  'lepariKSs,  by  Coray  (Par.  1831) 
Besides  these,  there  are  connnentaries  on  1  Tim. 
and   2  Tim.  by  Mosbeii-t   (llamb.  1755;,  and   ]jei 


3270 


TIZITE,  THE 


TOBIAH 

Thosaites).  The  desio;iiation  of  Joha,  the  brothel 
of  Jediael  and  son  of  Shimri,  one  of  the  iieroes  of 
David's  army  named  in  the  supplementary  list  of  1 
Chr.  xi.  45.  It  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  nothing 
is  known  of  the  place  or  family  which  it  denotes. 

G. 

TO'AH  (n'ln  [inclined,  lmdy,Ges.]:  @oov, 
[Vat.  06(6;]  Alex.  0001/6 :  Tliolm).  A  Kohathite 
Levite,  ancestor  of  Samuel  and  Heman  (1  Chr.  vi. 
34  [10]).  The  name  as  it  now  stands  may  be  a 
fragment  of  "  Nahath  "  (comp.  vv.  26,  .34). 

TOB-ADONI'JAH  (n^ailh?  31t2  [good 
is  A.]:  Tw^aSouias;  [Vat.  Tco0aS'w0eia\  Alex.l 
Tco^aSwptaf,  2.  m.  -la-]  Titobadonias).  One  of 
the  Levites  sent  by  Jehoshaphat  throucrh  the  cities 
of  Judah  to  teach  the  Law  to  the  people  (2  Chr. 
xvii.  8). 

TOB,  THE  LAND  OF  (2'"113  V!?^  [land 
of  (joodness,  fruitful]:  yri  Tdi^'-  terra  Tub).  The 
place  in  which  .Jephthah  took  refuge  when  expelled 
from  home  by  his  half-brother  (-Uidg.  xi.  3);  and 
where  he  remained,  at  tlie  head  of  a  band  of  free- 
booters, till  he  was  brought  back  by  the  sheikhs  " 
of  (jilead  (ver.  5). 

The  narrative  implies  that  the  land  of  Tob  was 
not  far  distant  from  Gilead :  at  the  same,  time, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  must  have  lain  out 
towards  the  eastern  deserts.  It  is  undoubtedly 
mentioned  again  in  2  Sam.  x.  6,  8,  as  one  of  tiie 
petty  Aranute  kingdoms  or  states  which  supported 
the  Anmionites  in  their  great  conflict  with  David. 
In  tlie  Authorized  Version  the  name  is  presented 
liieraiim  as  Ishtob,  i.  e.  Man  of  Tob,  meanini;-, 
according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  the  "  men 
of  Tob."  After  an  immense  interval  it  appears 
again  in  the  Maccabtean  history  (1  Mace.  v.  13). 
Tob  or  Tobie  was  then  the  abode  of  a  considerable 
colony  of  Jews,  numbering  at  least  a  thousand 
males.  In  2  Mace.  xii.  17  its  position  is  defined 
very  exactly  as  at  or  near  Charax,  750  stadia  from 
the  strong  town  Caspis,  though,  as  the  position  of 
neither  of  these  places  is  known,  we  are  not  there- 
by assisted  in  the  recovery  of  Tob.  [Tubie; 
TuBiiixi.] 

I'tolemy  {Geogr.  v.  19)  mentions  a  place  called 
&ad^a  as  lying  to  the  S.  W.  of  Zobah,  and  there- 
fore possil)ly  to  the  E.  or  N.  E.  of  the  country  of 
Amnion  proper.  In  Stephanus  of  Byzantium  and 
in  Eckhel  (Ductr.  Nuinm.  ill.  352),  the  names 
Tubal  and  Tabeiii  occur. 

No  identification  of  this  ancient  district  with 
any  modern  one  has  yet  been  attempted.  The 
name  TtU  Dobbe  (Burckhardt,  Syrin,  April  25), 
or,  as  it  is  given  by  the  latest  explorer  of  those 
regions,  Tdl  Di.bbe  (Wetzstein,  Map),  attached  to 
a  ruined  site  at  the  south  end  of  the  Li-ja,  a  few 
miles  N.  W.  of  Kendwnt,  and  also  that  of  ed-Dnb. 
some  twelve  hours  east  of  the  mountain  el^Kuhib^ 
are  both  suggestive  of  Tob.  But  nothing  can  be 
said,  at  present,  as  to  their  connection  with  it. 

G. 

TOBI'AH  (n*3'i::i  [goodness  of  Jeliovah] : 
Tw^'ias  [Vat.  Ta);36ia],  Tco;8ia:  Tobia).  1.  "The 
children  of  Tobiah  "  were  a  family  who  returned 
with  Zerubbabel,  but  were  unable  to  prove  theii 
connection  with  Israel  (Ezr.  ii.  60;  Neh.  vii.  62). 


(Lips.  1837,  1850),  on  1  Tim.  by  Fleischmann 
(Tiib.  1791),  and  Wegscbeider  (Gitt.  1810),  on  2 
Tim.  by  J.  Barlow  and  T.  Hall  (Lond.  1632  and 
1658),  and  by  Brichner  (Hafn.  1829),  on  Tit.  by 
T.  Taylor  (London,  1668),  Van  Haven  (Hal.  1742), 
and  Kuinoel  (Comment.  Tlieol.  ed.  Velthusen, 
Ruperti  et  Kuinoel  [i.  p.  292  ft'.]).  To  these  must 
Ije  added  what  is  found  in  the  t'ritici  Sacri,  Siipp. 
ii.,  v.,  vii.,  and  a  still  fuller  list  is  given  in  Dar- 
ling's Cijclojxedia  Bibliographicii ;  Pt.  ii.  Subjects, 
pp.  1535,  155.5,  1574.  J.  S.  H. 

*  The  earlier  literature  of  the  controveisy  on 
the  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  referred 
to  in  the  art.  Timothy,  Epistles  to.  Among 
tlie  more  recent  essays  on  the  subject  we  may 
name  the  following:  C.  E.  Scharling,  Die  neuesten 
Untersudiungen  iib.  die  sogennnnten  Pns/orul- 
briefe,  cms  dem  Ddnischen,  Jena,  1846  (unde- 
cided). Th.  Fiudow,  De  Argumentis  historicis, 
quibus  recenier  Epistolarum  Post.  Orign  Poulinn 
iinpugiuitn  est,  a  prize  essay.  Getting.  1852  (rejects 
1  Tim.,  with  Liicke  and  Hleek,  but  defends  2  Tim. 
and  Titus).  W.  Mangold,  iJie  Irrlelirer  der  Pos- 
torcdbriefe,  Marb.  1856.  C.  W.  Otto,  Die  ge- 
sclticlitliclien  Verlidllnisse  der  Piistoralbrlefe  nuf:< 
Nene  uniersuclit,  Leipz.  1860,  pp.  xvi.,  408  (de- 
fends the  genuineness  of  the  e])istles,  but  weakens 
the  argument  by  denying  the  Apostle's  release 
from  his  first  imprisonment);  comp.  the  review  by 
Weiss,  Theol.  SUuL  u.  Krit.,  1861,  pp.  575-597, 
and  Huther's  criticisms  in  the  3d  ed.  of  liis  Krit. 
exeg.  Hnndbudi  (186G).  L.  Ruflfet.  Saint  Paul, 
sa  double  captivite  a  Rome,  Paris,  1860.  Reuss, 
Gesch.  d.heil.  Schriflen  N.  T.  (4eAusg.  1864).  pp. 
76  ft'.,  112  ft'.  (defends  the  genuineness).  Wieseler, 
art.  Timotheus  u.  Titus,  die  Briefe  Pauli  an.  in 
Herzog's  Real- Kncijld.  xxi.  276-342  (1866  >.  Holtz- 
maim,  in  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  viii.  486-512  (1866), 
reviewing  the  recent  literature.  Laurent,  Neutest. 
Studien  (1866),  p.  104  ft'.,  chiefly  on  the  point  of 
Paul's  release  from  his  first  imprisonment,  which 
he  maintains;  so  Ewald,  Gescliichte,  vi.  620  f, 
3e  Ausg.  It  may  be  noted  here  that  recent  ex- 
aminations of  the  Alexandrine  MS.  show  that  the 
reading  e'  tt  1  rh  Tfp/j.a  ttjs  Svaeccs  >n  the  Epist. 
of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians  (c.  5)  is 
unquestionable.  See  on  the  passage  Lightfoot's 
note,  in  his  excellent  edition  of  the  epistle  (1869). 
L.  Mcller,  in  the  3d  ed.  of  the  part  of  De  Wette's 
Kurzgef.  exeg.  Handbuch  (Bd.  ii.  Theil  v.)  which 
contains  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  observes  that,  though 
formerly  holding  a  pretty  firm  conviction  of  their 
spuriousness,  renewed  study  has  satisfied  him  of 
the  untenableness  or  altogether  too  suljective  char- 
acter of  many  of  the  oljections  to  them,  though 
he  cannot  yet  feel  that  confidence  in  their  genuine- 
ness which  the  recent  commentators  (Wiesinger, 
Huther,  Oosterzee)  express  (Pref,  p.  x.).  Guer- 
icke,  Neutest.  Isagogik,  3^  Aufl.  (1868).  pp.  350- 
390,  defends  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles,  as  in 
his  earlier  works.  Davidson,  Jntrod.  to  the  Study 
of  the  iV.  T.  (Lond.  1868),  ii.  144-195,  repeats  the 
arguments  of  the  Tubingen  school  against  them. 

To  the  list  of  commentaries  on  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  given  above,  we  may  add  that  of  J.  J- 
van  Oosterzee,  Theil  xi.  of  Lange's  Bibelwerk  (2*-' 
Aufl.  1864),  translated  with  additions  by  Dr.  E. 
A.  Washburn  and  Dr.  E.  Harwood,  in  vol.  viii.  of 
the  Amer.  ed.  of  Lange  (N.  Y.  1868).  A. 

TI'ZITE,  THE  (^"■^^i^'n   [patr.]:  Vat.  and        a  The  word  is    ^^^\,  which  exactly  angwew  ic 
FA.    o    Uaaeil     [Rom.    ©ajcroi;]     Alex.    Qwaaei'-^  sheikhs- 


TOBIAS 

2.  ([Xeh.  ii  19,  FA.  Tco/Seia;  iv.  3,  FA.i  Tai- 
Bis']  Tobias.)  "Tobiah  the  slave,  the  Animon- 
ite,"  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  rancorous 
opposition  made  by  Sanballat  the  JMoabite  and  iiis 
adherents  to  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem.  The 
two  races  of  Moab  and  Amnion  found  in  these 
men  fit  representatives  of  that  hereditary  liatred 
to  the  Israelites  which  began  before  the  entrance 
into  Canaan,  and  was  not  extinct  when  the  He- 
brews had  ceased  to  exist  as  a  nation.  The  hor- 
rible story  of  the  origin  of  the  Moabites  and  Am- 
monites, as  it  was  told  by  the  Hebrews,  is  an  index 
of  the  feeling  of  repulsion  which  must  have  existed 
between  these  hostile  fivniilies  of  men.  In  the 
dignified  rebuke  of  Neheiniah  it  received  its  high- 
est expression:  "ye  have  no  portion,  nor  right, 
nor  nieinorial  in  Jerusalem  "'  (Neh.  ii.  20).  But 
Tobiah,  though  a  slave  (Neh.  ii.  10,  19),  unless 
this  is  a  title  of  opprobrium,  and  an  Annnonite, 
found  means  to  ally  himself  with  a  priestly  family, 
and  his  son  Johanan  married  the  daughter  of 
MeshuUam  the  son  of  lierechiah  (Neh.  vi.  18). 
He  himself  was  the  son-in-law  of  Sbechaniah  the 
son  of  Arab  (Xeh.  vi.  17),  and  these  family  re- 
lations created  for  him  a  strong  faction  among 
the  Jews,  and  njay  have  had  something  to  do  with 
the  stern  measures  which  Kzra  found  it  necessary 
to  take  to  repress  the  intermarriages  with  foreigners. 
Even  a  grandson  of  the  higli-priest  Eliashib  had 
married  a  daughter  of  Sanballat  (Neh.  xiii.  28).  In 
xiii.  4  Kliashib  is  said  to  have  been  allied  to  Tobiah, 
which  would  imply  a  relationship  of  some  kind 
between  Tobiah  and  Sanballat,  tliough  its  nature 
is  not  mentioned.  Tiie  evil  had  spread  so  far  that 
the  leaders  of  the  people  were  -ompelled  to  rouse 
their  religious  antipatliies  by  reading  from  the  Law 
of  Moses  tlie  strong  proiiibitioii  that  the  Ammon- 
ite and  the  Moal)ite  should  not  dime  into  the  con- 
gregation of  God  for  ever  (Neh.  xiii.  1).  Kwald 
(Of.-idi.  iv.  173)  conjectures  that  Tobiah  had  been 
a  page  ("slave")  at  the  Persian  court,  and,  being 
in  favor  there,  had  been  promoted  to  be  satrap  of 
the  Ammonites.  But  it  almost  seems  that  against 
Tobiah  there  was  a  stronger  feeling  of  animosity 
than  against  Sanballat,  and  that  this  animosity 
found  expression  in  tiie  epithet  "  the  slave,"  which 
is  attacheil  to  his  name.  It  was  Tobiah  who  gave 
venom  to  the  pitying  scorn  of  Sanballat  (Neh.  iv. 
3),  and  provoked  the  bitter  cry  of  Nebemiah  (Neh. 
iv.  4,  5);  it  was  Tobiah  who  kept  up  communica- 
tions with  the  factious  .lews,  and  who  sent  letters 
to  put  their  leader  in  fear  (Neh.  vi.  17,  19):  but 
his  crowning  act  of  insult  was  to  take  up  his  resi- 
dence in  the  Temple  in  the  chamber  which  Eliashib 
had  prepared  for  him  in  defiance  of  the  Mosaic 
statute.  Nehemiah's  patience  could  no  longer  con- 
tain itself,  "  therefore,"  he  says,  "  I  cast  forth  all 
the  household  stuff  of  Toliiah  out  of  the  cham- 
ber," and  with  this  summary  act  Tobiah  disappears 
from  history  (Neh.  xiii.  7,  8).  W.  A.  W. 

TOBI'AS.  The  Greek  form  of  the  name  To- 
p.iAH  or  Toiii.iAn.  1.  {Tco0ias-  Tlwbiax,  Tobias.) 
'I'lie  son  of  Tobit,  and  central  character  in  the  book 
of  that  name.      [  I'oiuT,  Booiv  of.] 

2.  The  father  of  Hyrcanus,  apparently  a  man  of 
j;reat  wealth  and  reputation  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
time  of  Seleucus  Philopator  (cir.  b.  c.  187).  In 
the  high  priestly  schism  which  happened  afterwards 
[Menioi.aus],  "the  sons  of  Tolii.os  "'  took  a  con- 
ipicuous  part  (Joseph.  Anl.  xii.  5,  §  1).  C)ne  of 
ihese,  Joseph,  who  raised  himself  by  intrigue  to 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


3271 


high  favor  with  the  Egyptian  court,  had  a  son 
named  Hyrcanus  (.loseph.  Ani.  xii.  4,  §  2).  It 
has  been  supposed  that  this  is  the  Hyrcanus  re- 
ferred to  in  2  Mace.  iii.  11;  and  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble that,  for  some  unknown  reason  (as  in  the  case 
of  the  Maccabees),  the  whole  family  were  called 
after  their  grandfather,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
father's  name.  On  the  other  hand,  the  natural 
reciirreuce  of  names  in  successive  generations  makes 
it  more  probable  that  the  Hyrcanus  mentioned  in 
Joseplius  was  a  nephew  of  the  Hyrcanus  in  2  Mace. 
(Comp.  Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  V.  1.  iv.  309;  Grimm, 
(((/  Mace.  1.  c).  B.  V.  W. 

TO'BIE,  THE  PLACES  OF  (eV  toTs 
Tou/Sioi/  [Kom.  Toj/Siou] :  in  lucis  Tubiii :  Syr. 
Ttibln).  A  district  which  in  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees  was  the  seat  of  an  extensive  colony  of 
Jews  (1  Blacc.  v.  13).  It  is  in  all  probability 
identical  with  the  Land  of  Tob  mentioned  in  the 
history  of  Jephthab.      [See  also  Tubieni.]     G. 

TO'BIEL  (bS'-a^tO,  the  goodness  of  God: 
Ta);8i7)A:  T/iobld,  Tobiet),  the  father  of  Tobit  and 
grandfather  of  Tobias  (1),  Tob.  i.  1.  The  name 
may  be  compared  with  Tabael  (Ta/3e7)A.).  [Ta- 
BAKL.]  B.  F.  W. 

TOBI'JAH  ('in*3'"ilD  [goodness  of  Jeko- 
viili]:  Tco^/as;  [Vat.  Alex,  omit:]  Tlwbias).  1. 
One  of  the  Levites  sent  by  Jehoshaphat  to  teach 
the  Law  in  the  cities  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 

2.  {ol  xp'ho'-fJ^oi  avTris-  Tobias.)  One  of  the 
Captivity  in  tiie  time  of  Zechariah,  in  whose  pres- 
ence the  prophet  was  commandecF  to  take  crowns 
of  silver  and  gold  and  put  them  on  the  bead  of 
Joshua  the  high-priest  (Zech.  vi.  10).     In  ver.  14 

his  name  appears  in  the  shortened  form  H^ZJIIO. 
Kosenmiiller  conjectures  that  he  was  one  of  a 
deputation  who  came  up  to  Jerusalem,  from  the 
.lews  who  still  remained  in  Babylon,  witli  contri- 
butions of  gold  and  silver  for  the  Temple.  But 
Manrer  considers  that  the  oflt;rings  were  presented 
by  Tobijah  and  his  comi)anioiiS,  because  the  crowns 
were  commanded  to  be  placed  in  the  Temple  as  a 
memorial  of  their  visit  and  generosity. 

W.  A.  W. 

TO'BIT  (Toj.Sei'e,  Ta))36i'T,  Tcu^'t:  Vulg.  To- 
bias; Vat.  Lat.  Tobi,  T/wbi,  Toi/.s).  the  son  of  To- 
biel  (TcojSitjA:  Thobiel,  Toblel)  and  father  of  Tobias 
(Tob.  i.  1,  etc.).     [ToniT,  Book  of.]     The  name 

appears  to  answer  to  ''^"^tS,  which  occurs  frequently 
in  later  times  (Fritzsche,  ad.  Tub.  i.  1),  and  not  (as 
Welte,    Einl.  65)  to  n^Il""llD;  yet   in    that   ca» 

Toi$ls,  according  to  the  analogy  of  Aeuis  C^]^)) 
would  have  been  the  more  natural  form.  The 
etymology  of  the  word  is  obscure.  Ilgeii  translates 
it  simply  "my  goodness;  "  Fritzsche,  with  greatet 

probability,  regards  it  as  an  alibreviation  of  H^l^llS 

comparing  MeAxi  (Luke  iii.  24,  28),  TiTn'  etc. 
(ad  Tob.  1.  c).  The  form  in  the  Vulgate  is  of  no 
weight  against  the  Old  Latin,  except  so  far  as  it 
shows  the  rea<ling  of  the  Chaldaic  text  which  .lerome 
used,  in  which  the  identity  of  the  names  of  the 
father  and  son  is  directly  affirmed  (i.  9,  Vulg.). 

B.  F.' W. 

TO'BIT,   BOOK   OF.     The  book  is  called 

simply  Tobit   (Tw&ir,  ToiSeiT)   in    the  old    MSS. 

.•\t  a  later  time  the  opening  words  of  the  book.  Bi&- 

Kos    \6yaiv   To>j3iT,   were    taken    as    a  title      In 


8272  TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 

Latin  JISS-  it  is  styled  Tobis,  Liber  Tlivbis,  1.  '-h^  r 
Tvb'm  (Sabatier,  p.  706),  Tohii  et  Tobias,  Li'.cr 
utriusque  Tobiw  (Fritzsche,  Einl.  §  1). 

1.  Text.  —  The  book  exists  at  present  in  Greek, 
Latin,  Sjriac,  and  Hebrew  texts,  which  dil*>r  more 
or  less  from  one  another  in  detail,  but  yet  on  the 
whole  are  so  far  alike  that  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  all  were  derived  from  one  written  original, 
which  was  modified  in  the  course  of  translation  or 
transcription.  The  Gix'ek  text  is  found  in  two 
distinct  recensions.  The  one  is  followed  by  the 
mass  of  the  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  and  gives  the  oldest 
text  which  remains.  The  other  is  only  fragmen- 
tary, and  manifestly  a  revision  of  the  former.  t)f 
this,  one  piece  (i.  1-ii.  2)  is  contained  in  the  Cod. 
Sinaiticus  (  =  Cod.  Frid.  Augustanus),  and  another 
in  three  later  MSS.  (44,  10(3,  107,  Holmes  and 
Parsons;  vi.  9-xiii. ;  F'ritzsche,  hxerj.  Ilnndb.  71- 
110).  The  Latin  texts  are  also  of  two  kinds. 
The  connuon  (Vulgate)  text  is  due  to  .lerome,  who 
formed  it  by  a  very  hasty  revision  of  the  old  Latin 
version  with  the  help  of  a  Chaldee  copy,  which  was 
translated  into  Hebrew  for  him  by  an  assistant  who 
was  master  of  both  languages.  The  treatment  of 
the  text  in  this  recension  is  very  arbitrary,  as  mi^ht 
be  expected  from  the  description  which  Jerome 
gives  of  the  mode  in  which  it  was  made  (comj). 
I'nef.  in  Tub.  §  4);  and  it  is  of  very  little  critical 
value,  for  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  accurately 
the  diflerent  elements  which  are  incorporated  in  it. 
The  ante-Hieronymian  (Vetus  Latina)  texts  are  far 
more  vuluable,  though  these  present  considerable 
variations  among  themselves,  as  generally  happens, 
and  rejiresent  the  revised  and  not  the  original  Greek 
text.  Sabatier  has  given  one  text  from  these  MSS. 
of  the  eighth  century  and  also  added  various  read- 
ings from  another  MS.,  formerly  in  the  possession 
of  Christina  of  Sweden,  which  contains  a  distinct 
version  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  book,  i.-vi.  12 
{Bibl.  Lnt.  ii.  706).  A  third  text  is  found  in  the 
quotations  of  the  Speculum,  published  by  Mai,  <S/«'- 
cili  (/.  Rom.  \%.  21-23.  'ihe  lltbrew  versions  are 
of  no  great  weight.  One,  which  was  published  by 
r.  Fagius  (1542),  after  a  Constantinopolitan  edition 
of  1517,  is  closely  moulded  on  the  common  Greek 
text  without  being  a  servile  translation  (Fritzsche, 
§  4).  Another,  published  liy  S.  Minister  (1542, 
etc.),  is  based  upon  the  revised  text,  but  is  extremely 
free,  and  is  rather  an  adaptation  than  a  version. 
Both  these  versions,  with  the  Syriac,  are  reprinted 
in  ^^^lltot^s  Polyglot,  and  are  late  .Jewish  works  oi 
uncertain  date  (Fritzsche,  /.  c.  linen,  ch.  xvii.  fti ). 
The  Syriac  version  is  of  a  composite  character.  As 
far  as  ch.  vii.  9  it  is  a  close  rendering  of  the  com- 
mon Greek  text  of  the  LXX.,  but  from  this  point 
to  the  end  it  follows  the  revised  text,  a  fact  which 
is  noticed  in  the  margin  of  one  of  the  iMS.S. 

2.  CunUnts.  —  The  outline  of  the  l)Ook  is  as  fol- 
lows. Tobit,  a  Jew  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  who 
strictly  oDserved  the  Law  and  remained  faithful  to 
the  Temple-service  at  Jerusalem  (i.  4-8),  was  carried 
captive  to  Assyria  by  Shalmaneser.  While  in  cap- 
tivity he  exerted  himself  to  relieve  his  countrymen, 
which  his  favorable  position  at  court  (ayopaarjis, 
I.  13,  ''purveyor")  enabled  him  to  do,  and  at  this 
time  he  was  rich  enough  to  lend  ten  talents  of  silver 
to  a  countryman,  Gabael  of  Rages  in  Media.  Hut 
when  Sennacherib  succeeded  his  father  Salmaneser, 
the  fortune  of  Tobit  was  chanired.  He  was  accuBed 
if  liinyini;  the  Jews  whom  the  king  had  put  to 
ieath.  and  was  only  able  to  save  himself,  his  wife 
A-una,  and   his  son  Tobias,  by  flight.     Ou  the  ac- 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 

cession  of  Esarhaddon  he  was  allowed  to  letum  tc 
Xineveh,  at  the  intercession  of  his  nephew,  Achi- 
acharus,  who  occupied  a  high  place  in  the  king's 
household  (i.  22);  but  his  zeal  for  his  countrymen 
brought  him  into  a  strange  misfortune.  As  he  lay 
one  night  in  the  court  of  his  house,  being  unclean 
fruin  ha^'ing  buried  a  Jew  whom  his  son  had  found 
strangled  in  the  market-place,  sparrows  "  muted 
warm  dung  into  his  eyes,"  and  he  became  blind. 
Being  thus  disalJed,  he  was  for  a  time  supported  by 
Achiacharus,  and  after  his  departure  (read  eVopei;- 
07],  ii.  10),  by  the  labor  of  his  wife.  On  one  oc- 
casion he  falsely  accused  her  of  stealing  a  kid  which 
had  been  added  to  her  wages,  and  in  return  she  re- 
proached him  with  the  miserable  issue  of  all  his 
righteous  deeds.  Grieved  by  her  taunts  he  prayed 
to  God  for  help;  and  it  happened  that  on  the  same 
day  Sara,  his  kinswoman  (vi.  10,  11),  the  oidy 
daughter  of  l.'agufl,  also  sought  help  from  God 
against  the  reproaches  of  her  father's  household. 
For  seven  young  men  wedded  to  her  had  perished 
on  their  marriage  night  by  the  powei'  of  the  evil 
spirit  Asmodeus  [As.vioUKUs] ;  and  she  thought 
that  she  should  "  bring  her  father's  old  age  with 
sorrow  unto  the  grave"  (iii.  10).  So  Kaphael  was 
sent  to  deliver  loth  from  their  sorrow.  In  the 
mean  time  Tobit  called  to  mind  the  money  which 
he  had  lent  to  Gabael,  and  despatched  Tobias,  with 
many  wise  counsels,  to  reclaim  it  (iv.).  ()u  this 
Kaphael  (under  the  form  of  a  kinsman,  Azarias) 
offered  himself  as  a  guide  to  Tobias  on  his  journey 
to  Media,  and  they  '-went  forth  both,  and  //.e 
i/owiij  rnii'D's  itiiij  Willi  llieiii,^''  and  Anna  was  com- 
forted for  the  absence  of  her  son  (v.).  A\'lien  they 
readied  the  Tigris,  Tobias  was  commanded  l)y  Ra- 
phael to  take  "  the  heart,  and  liver,  and  gall "  of  '•  a 
tisli  which  leaped  out  of  the  river  and  would  have 
devoured  him,"  and  instructed  how  to  use  the  first 
two  against  Asmodeus,  for  Sara,  Kaphael  said,  was 
appointed  to  be  his  wife  (vi.).  So  when  they 
reached  Kcliatana  they  were  entertained  by  Kaguel, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  words  c  f  the  angel,  Sara 
WAS  given  to  Tobias  in  marriage  that  night,  and 
Asmodeus  was  "  driven  to  the  utmost  parts  of 
Egypt,"  where  "  the  angel  bound  him"  (vii.,  viii.). 
After  this  Kaphael  recovered  the  loan  from  (iabael 
(ix.),  and  Tobias  then  returned  with  Sara  and  half 
her  father's  goods  to  Nineve  (x.).  Tobit,  informed 
by  Anna  of  their  son's  approach,  hastened  to  meet 
him.  Tobias  by  the  command  of  the  anixel  applied 
the  fish's  gall  to  his  father  s  e.Nes  and  restored  his 
siiiht  (X.).'  After  this  Kaphael,  addressing  to  both 
words  of  good  counsel,  revealed  himself,  and  ••they 
saw  him  no  more"  (xii.).  On  this  Toliit  expressed 
his  gratitude  in  a  fine  psalm  (xiii.);  and  he  lived  to 
see  the  long  prosperity  of  his  son  (xiv.  1,  2).  After 
his  death  Tobias,  according  to  his  instruction,  re- 
turned to  Ecbatana,  and  "before  he  died  he  heard 
of  the  destruction  of  Nineve,"  of  which  "Jonas  th*" 
proi>het  spake  "  (xiv.  15,  4). 

3.  Hiiloriciil  C/iin-acter.  —  The  narrative  which 
has  been  just  sketched,  seems  to  have  been  received 
without  inquiry  or  dispute  as  historically  true  till 
the  rise  of  free  criticism  at  the  Keformation.  Luther, 
while  warmly  praising  the  general  teaching  of  the 
book  (conip.  §  6),  yet  expressed  doulits  as  to  its 
literal  truth,  and  these  doubts  gradually  gained  a 
wide  currency  among  Protestant  writers.  IJertholdt 
{Einl.  §  579)  has  <riven  a  summary  of  alleged  errors 
in  detail  (e.  <j.  i.  1.  2,  of  Niijihttiali,  compared  with 
2  K.  XV.  29;  vi.  9,  Kages.  said  to  have  been  founded 
by  Sel.  Nicator),  but  the  question  turns  rather  upoi 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 

ths  ijeiR'ral  complexion  of  the  history  than  upon 
minute  oljectioiis,  whicii  aie  often  captions  and 
rarely  satisfactory  (comp.  Welte,  l:iid.  pp.  84-94). 
This,  however,  is  fatal  to  the  supposition  that  the 
book  could  have  been  completed  shortly  alter  the  tail 
of  Nineveh  (u.  C.  fiOG;  Tob.  xiv.  10),  and  written 
in  the  main  some  time  before  (Toll.  xii.  20).  Tlie 
whole  tone  of  the  narrative  bespeaks  a  later  age;  and 
aliove  all,  the  doctrine  of  good  and  evil  s|iirits  is 
elaborated  in  a  form  which  belongs  to  a  period  con- 
siderably posterior  to  the  Babylonian  Captivity 
(.\smodeus,  iii.  8,  vi.  14,  viii.  3;  Kaphael,  xii.  15). 
Tlie  incidents,  again,  are  completely  isolated,  and 
there  is  no  reference  to  them  in  any  part  of  Scrip- 
ture (the  supposed  parallels,  Tob.  iv.  15  (10)  || 
Malt.  vii.  12;  Tob.  xiii.  16-18  ||  l\ev.  xxi.  18,  are 
mere  general  ideas),  nor  in  Josephus  or  Philo. 
An  1  though  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  de- 
tads,  as  such,  is  no  objection  against  tlie  reality  of 
the  occurrences,  yet  it  may  be  fairly  urged  that  the 
ciiaracter  of  the  alleged  mii-aculous  events,  when 
taken  together,  is  alien  from  the  general  character 
ot  sach  events  in  the  historical  books  of  Scri|jture, 
wlide  there  is  nothing  exceptiomil  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  persons  as  iu  the  case  of  Daniel 
[Daniel,  vol.  i.  543],  which  might  serve  to  explain 
this  diftereuce.  On  all  these  grounds  it  may  cer- 
tainly be  concluded  that  the  narratn  e  is  not  snnply 
history,  and  it  is  superfluous  to  inquire  how  fir  it 
is  based  upon  facts.  It  is  quite  possible  that  some 
real  occurrences,  preserved  by  tradition,  furnished 
the  basis  of  the  narrative,  but  it  does  not  follow  by 
any  means  that  the  elimination  of  the  extraordinary 
details  will  leave  behind  pure  history  (so  llgen). 
As  the  book  stands  it  is  a  distincii^'  didactic  narra- 
tive. Its  point  lies  in  the  moial  lesson  which  it 
conveys,  and  not  in  the  incidents.  The  incidents 
furnish  lively  pictures  of  the  truth  which  the  author 
wished  to  inculcate,  but  the  lessons  themselves  are 
independent  of  them.  Nor  can  any  weight  be  laid 
on  the  minute  exactness  with  which  apparently 
unimportant  details  are  described  (e.  y.  the  geneal- 
ogy and  dwelling-place  of  Tobit,  i.  1,  2;  the  mar- 
riage festival,  viii.  20,  xi.  18,  19,  quoted  by  llgen 
and  Welte),  as  proving  the  reality  of  the  events, 
fur  such  particularity  is  characteristic  of  Eastern 
romance,  and  appears  again  in  the  book  of  Judith. 
The  writer  in  composing  his  story  necessarily  ob- 
served the  ordinary  form  of  a  historical  narrative. 

4.  Origiwil  Lamjaaiji,  and  liedsions.  —  In  the 
absence  of  all  direct  evidence,  considerable  doubt 
has  been  felt  as  to  the  original  language  of  the  book. 
The  superior  clearness,  simplicity,  and  accuracy  of 
the  LXX.  text  prove  conclusively  that  this  is  nearer 
the  original  than  any  other  text  which  is  known,  if 
it  be  not,  as  some  have  supposed  (.lalni  and  Fritzsche 
doubtfully),  the  original  itself.  Indeed,  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  brought  forward  to  show 
that  it  is  a  translation  are  far  from  conclusive.  The 
supposed  contradictions  between  different  parts  of 
the  book,  especially  the  change  from  the  first  (i.-iii. 
6)  to  the  third  person  (iii.  7-xiv.),  from  which  llgen 
endeavored  to  prove  that  the  narrative  was  made 
up  of  distinct  Hebrew  documents,  carelessly  put 
together,  and  afterwards  renderetl  by  one  Greek 
translator,  are  easily  explicable  on  other  grounds ; 
and  the  alleged  mistranslations  (iii.  6;  iv.  19,  etc.) 
depend  rather  on  errors  in  interpreting  the  Greek 
text,  than  on  errors  in  the  text  itself.  The  style, 
again,  though  harsh  in  parts,  and  far  from  the 
classical  standard,  is  not  more  so  than  some  books 
which  were  undoubtedly  written  in  Greek  (e.  </.  the 
206 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


3  273 


Apocalypse);  and  there  is  little,  if  anything,  in  it 
which  points  certainly  to  the  innnediate  influence 
of  an  Aramaic  text.  (i.  4,  eis  ndcras  tocs  y^veas 
rov  alaivos,  comp.  Eph.  iii.  21;  i.  22,  (k  Sevrepas; 
iii.  15,  'iva  ri  /xoi  ^rjv;  v.  15,  riva  <tol  eaouai 
jXiaOhv  SiSoj'aii  xiv.  '-i^irpoaideTo  <po0e7a6ai,  etc.) 
To  this  it  may  be  added  that  Origen  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  any  Hebrew  original  (A/),  ad  Afric. 
13);  and  the  Chaldee  copy  which  Jerome  used,  as 
far  as  its  character  can  be  ascertained,  was  evi- 
dently a  later  version  of  the  story.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  no  internal  evidence  against  the  sup- 
position that  the  Greek  text  is  a  translation.  Some 
difficulties  appear  to  be  removed  by  this  supposition 
(e.  <j.  ix.  0);  and  if  the  consideration  of  the  date 
and  place  of  the  composition  of  the  Ijook  favor  this 
view,  it  may  rightly  be  admitted.  The  Greek  offers 
some  peculiarities  in  vocabulary:  i.  6,  irptiiTO- 
Kovpia,  i-  (-'■  Tj  airapxh  'T'^^  Koupwv,  Dent,  xviii.  4; 
i-  7,  airoTrpaTi<^o(jiai',  '•  21,  iKKoyicTTia;  ii-  3, 
aTpayya\6co,  etc.:  and  in  construction,  xiii.  7, 
ayaWtaffOuL  t))v ix^yaXaicrvvinvX  xii.  4,  SiKatovaOai 
Tivi;  vi.  19,  TTpoffdy^tv  Tivi  (intrans. );  vi.  (!,  ^y- 
yiCeiv  iv,  etc.  But  tliese  furnish  no  argument  oi' 
either  side. 

The  various  texts  which  remain  have  already 
been  enumerated.  Of  these,  three  varieties  may  be 
distinguished:  (1)  the  LXX.;  (2)  the  revi.sed  Greek 
text,  followed  by  the  Old  Latin  in  the  main,  and  by 
the  Syriac  in  part;  and  (3)  the  Vulgate  Latin. 
The  Hebrew  versions  have  no  critical  value.  (1.) 
The  LXX.  is  followed  by  A.  V.,  and  has  been  al- 
ready characterized  as  the  standard  to  which  the 
others  are  to  be  referred.  (2.)  The  revised  text, 
first  brought  distinctly  into  notice  by  Fritzsche 
{Kbd.  §  5),  is  based  on  the  LXX.  Greek,  which  is 
at  one  time  extended,  and  then  compressed,  with  a 
view  to  greater  fullness  and  clearness.  A  few  of 
the  variations  in  the  first  chapter  will  indicate  its 
character:  Ver.  2,  0i(r/3?jr,  add.  OTricrai  Su(r/j.wv 
rjXiov  f|  apKTTepwv  ^oyiip',  ver.  8,  of?  KaOriKet, 
given  at  length  ruis  op^avois  Koi  rais  XTjpais, 
K.  T.  A.:  ver.  18,  e'/c  Trjs  'lonSatas,  add.  iv  iijxipais 
T7JS  Kpiff(u>s  y]S  iiroi-qafv  e|  avrov  6  ^aai\fvs 
Tov  ovpavov  Trepl  tS>v  fi\a(r(py)ij,i'j)v  wv  i^kacr- 
(py]fji.r\ffiv-  ver.  22,  olvoxoos,  apxioivox^os-  (3.) 
riie  N'lduate  text  w;is  derived  in  jiait  from  a 
Chaldee  copy  which  was  translated  by  word  of 
mouth  into  Hebrew  for  Jerome,  who  in  turn  die 
tated  a  Latui  rendering  to  a  secretary.  {Pnef.  in 
Tob. :  .  .  .  .  F^xigitis  ut  librum  Chaldaso  sernione 
conscriptuin  ad  Latinum  stylum  traham  .... 
Feci  satis  desiderio  vestro,  non  tamen  nieo  studio 
.  .  .  .  Rt  quia  vicina  est  Chaldaeorum  lingua  ser- 
mon! Hebraico,  utriusque  linguai  peritissinumi  lo- 
quacem  rejieriens  iin'uis  diet  laboi-em  arripiii,  et 
quidquid  ille  niihi  Hebraicis  verbis  expressit,  hoc 
ego,  accito  notario,  sermonibus  Latinis  exposui.)  It 
is  evident  that  in  this  process  Jerome  made  some  use 
of  the  Old  Latin  version,  which  he  follows  almost 
verbally  in  a  tew  jilaces :  iii.  3-6 ;  iv.  6,  7, 1 1,  23,  etc. ; 
lint  the  greater  part  of  the  version  seems  to  be  an 
independent  work.  On  the  whole,  it  is  more  concise 
than  the  Old  Lafin;  but  it  contains  interpolations 
and  chan:.'es,  many  of  which  mark  tlie  asceticism  of 
a  late  age:  ii.  12-14  (parallel  with  Job);  iii.  17-23 
(expansion  of  iii.  14);  vi.  17  ft",  (expansion  of  vi. 
18);  ix.  11, 12;  xii.  13  (et  quia  acceptus  eras  Deo, 
necesse  fuit  ut  tentatio  probaret  te). 

5.  Date  nnd  Place  of  Compos!  I  ion.  —  The  data 
for  determining  the  age  of  the  book  and  the  place 
where  it  was  compiled  are  scanty   md  consequently 


3274 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


verj'  different  opinions  have  been  entertained  on 
these  points.  Eichhorn  (KM.  pp.  408  ff. )  places 
the  author  after  the  time  of  Darius  H\ staspis  with- 
out fixing  any  furtiier  limit  of  age  or  country. 
Bertholdt,  insisting  (wrongly)  on  the  supposed  date 
of  the  foundation  of  Kages  [Rages],  brings  the 
book  considerably  later  than  Seleucus  Xicator  (cir. 
B.  c.  250-200),  and  supposes  that  it  was  written 
by  a  Galilsean  or  Babylonian  Jew,  from  the  prom- 
inence given  to  those  districts  in  the  narrative 
{Einl.  pp.  2499,  2500).  De  Wette  leaves  the  date 
undetermined,  but  argues  that  the  author  was  a 
native  of  I'alestine  (Einl.  §  311).  Ewald  ( Gcsc/iic/ite, 
iv.  2o3-238)  fixes  the  composition  in  the  far  East, 
towards  tlie  close  of  the  Persian  period  fcir.  350 
B.  c).  This  last  opinion  is  almost  certai)ily  cor- 
rect. The  superior  and  inferior  limits  of  the  date 
of  the  book  seem  to  be  defined  with  fair  distinct- 
ness. On  the  one  hand  the  detailed  doctrine  of 
evil  spirits  points  clearly  to  some  time  after  the 
Babylonian  (.'aptivity;  and  this  date  is  detinitely 
marked  by  the  reference  to  a  new  Temple  at  Jeru- 
salem, "not  like  the  first"  (Tob.  xiv.  5;  comp. 
Ezr.  iii.  12).  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing 
to  show  that  the  Jews  were  threatened  with  any 
special  danger  when  the  narrative  was  written  (as 
in  Judith),  and  the  manner  in  which  Media  is  men- 
tioned (xiv.  4)  implies  that  the  Persian  monarchy 
was  still  strong.  Thus  its  date  will  fall  somewhere 
within  the  period  between  the  close  of  the  viork  of 
Neheuiiab  and  the  invasion  of  Alexander  (cir.  n.  C. 
430-334).  The  contents  of  tlie  book  furnish  also 
gome  clew  to  the  place  where  it  was  written.  Not 
only  is  there  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  scenes 
described  (Ewald.  p.  233),  but  the  incidents  have  a 
local  coloring.  The  continual  reference  to  alms- 
giving and  the  burial  of  the  dead,  and  the  stress 
which  is  laid  upon  the  right  performance  of  worship 
at  Jerusalem  by  those  who  are  afar  off  (i.  4),  can 
scarcely  be  due  to  an  effort  of  imagination,  but 
must  rather  have  been  occasioned  by  the  immediate 
experience  of  the  writer.  This  would  suggest  that 
he  was  living  out  of  Palestine,  in  some  Persian  city, 
perhaps  Baljjlon,  where  his  countrymen  were  ex- 
posed to  the  capricious  cruelty  of  heathen  governors, 
and  in  danger  of  neglecting  the  Temple-service. 
Glimpses  are  also  given  of  the  presence  of  the  Jews 
at  court,  not  only  in  the  history  (Tob.  i.  22),  but 
also  in  direct  counsel  (xii.  7,  fj.v(Trr]pioy  ySarxiAecos 
Ka\hv  Kpii^l/ai),  which  better  suit  such  a  position 
than  any  other  (comp.  xiii.  3).  If  these  conjectures 
as  to  the  date  and  place  of  writing  be  correct,  it 
follows  that  we  must  assume  the  existence  of  a  He- 
brew or  Chaldee  original.  And  even  if  the  date 
of  the  book  be  brought  much  lower,  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century  n.  c,  which  seems  to 
be  the  latest  possible  limit,  it  is  equally  certain  that 
it  must  have  been  written  in  some  Aramaic  dialect, 
as  the  Greek  literature  of  Palestine  belongs  to  a 
much  later  time;  and  the  references  to  Jerusalem 
geem  to  show  that  the  book  could  not  have  been 
composed  in  Egypt  (i.  4,  xiv.  5),  an  inference,  in- 
deed, which  may  be  deduced  from  its  general  con- 
tents. As  long  as  the  book  was  held  to  be  strict 
history  it  was  supposed  that  it  was  written  by  the 
immediate  actors,  in  accordance  with  the  direction 
of  the  angel  (xii.  20).     The  passages  where  Tobit 


a  This  is  expressed  still  more  distinctly  in  the 
Spfcininri  (p.  1127,  C,  ed.  Par.  1836):  "  Non  sunt 
omittendi  et  hi  [libri]  quos  quidem  ante  Salvntoris  ad- 
"«Qtuui  constiit  esse  conscriptos,  sed  eos  DOn  receptos 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 

speaks  in  the  first  person  (i.-iii.  6,  xiii.)  were  as- 
signed to  his  authorship.  The  intervening  chapters 
to  Tobit  or  Toliias.  The  description  of  the  close 
of  the  life  of  Tobit  to  Tobias  (xiv.  1-11);  and  the 
concluding  verses  (xiv.  12-15)  to  one  of  his  friends 
who  sui'vived  him.  If,  however,  the  historical 
character  of  the  narrative  is  set  aside,  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  person  of  the  author. 

(i.  History.  —  The  history  of  the  book  is  in  the 
main  that  of  the  LXX.  version.  While  the  con- 
tents of  the  LXX.,  as  a  whole,  were  received  as 
canonical,  the  book  of  Tobit  was  necessarily  included 
without  further  inquiry  among  the  books  of  Holy 
Scripture.  [Canon.]  The  peculiar  merits  of  the 
book  contributed  also  in  no  small  degree  to  gain 
for  it  a  wide  and  hearty  reception.  There  appears 
to  be  a  clear  reference  to  it  in  the  Latin  version  of 
the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  (c.  10,  eleemosyna  de  merle 
lihernt,  Tob.  iv.  10,  xii.  9).  In  a  scheme  of  the 
Ophites,  if  there  be  no  corruption  in  the  text,  Toliias 
appears  amoni;  the  prophets  (Iren.  i.  30,  11). 
Cleujent  of  Alexandria  {Sirottt.  ii.  23,  §  139,  toCtu 
ySpaxfCfJ  h  ypatpT)  SfSr]\wKev  elpr]Kv7a,  lob.  iv.  16) 
and  Origen  practically  use  the  book  as  canonical; 
but  Origen  distinctly  notices  that  neither  Tobit  nor 
Judith  were  received  by  the  Jews,  and  rests  the 
authority  of  Tobit  on  the  usage  of  the  churches 
(A/j.  ad  Afric.  13,  'EBpaloi  rw  Tco/S/qt  ov  xpwJ'Toi 
.  .  .  .  aW',  (Trel  xP^vto-i  tw  Too^ia  al  eKKAr)- 
(riai  .  ...  -De  Unit.  1,  §  14,  ttj  toG  Tcd/3t;t 
0il3\(i>  avriAeyovaiv  ol  e/c  wepiTOfiris  i>s  (jlt)  iv- 
Siad-fjKCf)  ....}.  Even  Athanasius  when  writing 
without  any  critical  regard  to  the  Canon  quotes 
Tobit  as  Scripture  (Apul.  c.  Avian.  §  11,  ojs  ye- 
ypaiTTat,  Toll.  xii.  7);  but  when  he  gives  a  formal 
list  of  the  sacred  books,  he  definitely  excludes  it 
from  the  Canon,  and  places  it  with  other  apocryphal 
books  among  the  writings  which  were  "  to  be  read 
by  those  who  were  but  just  entering  on  Christian 
teachinu',  and  desirous  to  lie  instructed  in  the  rules 
of  piety  "  (Ep.  Ecst.  p.  1177,  ed.  Migne).  In  the 
Latin  Church  Tobit  found  a  much  more  decided 
acceptance.  Cyprian,  Hilary,  and  Lucifer  quote  it 
as  authoritative  (Cypr.  Dt  Orat.  Doin.  32;  Hll 
Pict.  In  Psalm,  cxxix.  7;  yet  comp.  Pivl.  in  P$ 
XV.;  Lucif.  Pro  Atlian.  i.  p.  871).  Augustine  in- 
cludes it  with  the  other  apocrypha  of  the  LXX. 
among  "  the  books  which  the  Christian  Church 
received  "  (De  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  8),«  and  in  this 
he  was  followed  by  the  mass  of  the  later  Latin 
fathers  [comp.  Cakox,  vol.  i.  p.  304,  &c.].  Am- 
brose in  especial  wrote  an  essay  on  Tobias,  treating 
of  the  evils  of  usury,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  iiook 
as  "  prophetic  "  in  the  strongest  terms  [Dt  Tabid, 
i.  1;  comp.  ifexnem.  vi.  4).  Jerome  however,  fol- 
lowed by  Ruffinus,  maintained  the  purity  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  of  the  0.  1'.,  and,  as  has  been  seen, 
treated  it  very  sunmiarily  (for  later  authorities  see 
Canon).  In  modern  times  the  moral  excellence 
of  the  book  has  been  rated  highly,  except  in  'the 
heat  of  controversy.  Luther  pronounced  it,  if  only 
a  fiction,  yet  "a  truly  beautiful,  wholesome,  anii 
profitable  fiction,  the  work  of  a  gifted  poet.  .  .  • 
A  book  useful  for  Christian  reading  "  (ap.  Fritzsche, 
F/inl.  §  11).  The  same  view  is  held  also  in  the 
English  Church.  A  passage  from  Tobit  is  quoted 
in  the  Second   Book  of  Homilies  as  the  teaching 


a  .ludspis  recipit  tamen  cjusdem  Salvatoris  ecclesia." 
The  preface  from  which  these  words  are  tiiken  is  fol- 
lowed bj-  quetations  ftoxn  Wisdom.  Eccle.'iastirus,  aud 
Tobit. 


TOBIT.  BOOK  OF 

•'of  the  lldly  Ghost  in  Scripture"  (Of  Alinsdeeds,  ] 
ii  [>.  ayi,  ed.  Corrie);  and  tlie  l'r:iyer-l)Ook  offers 
several  indications  of  the  same  feeling  of  respect  for 
tlie  book.  Three  verses  are  retained  among  the 
sentences  used  at  the  Offertory  (Tol).  iv.  7-9);  and 
tlie  Preface  to  the  Jfarriage  Service  contains  a  plain 
adaptation  of  Jerome's  version  of  Tob.  vi.  17  (Hi 
iiamque  qui  conjugiuin  ita  suscipiunt  ut  Deuni  a 
Be  et  a  sua  niente  excludant,  et  suae  libidini  ita 
vacent,  sicut  equiis  et  mulus  quihus  non  est  intel- 
lectus,  habet  potestateni  dn-monium  super  eos).  In 
the  First  Book  of  Edward  VI.  a  reference  to  the 
blessing  of  Tobias  and  Sara  by  Raphael  was  re- 
tained in  the  same  service  from  the  old  office  in 
place  of  the  present  reference  to  Aliraham  and 
Sarah ;  and  one  of  tlie  opening  clauses  of  the  IJtaiiy, 
introduced  from  the  Sarum  Breviary,  is  a  repro- 
duction of  the  Vulgate  version  of  Tob.  iii.  3  (Ne 
vindictam  sumas  de  peccatis  meis,  neque  reminis- 
CMris  delicta  mea  \el  p.Trentinii  meoruni). 

7.  Jitli</i<ii(.t  <'/i(iriir/<i-. —  Few  prol  alily  can  reul 
the  liook  in  tiie  LX\.  text  witiiout  assenting 
heartily  to  the  favorable  judgment  of  Luther  on  its 
merits.  Nowhere  else  is  tiiere  preserved  so  com- 
plete and  beautiful  a  picture  of  the  domestic  life  of 
the  Jews  after  tiie  Return.  There  may  be  symptoms 
of  a  tendency  to  formal  righteousness  of  works,  but 
as  yet  the  works  are  painted  as  springing  from  a 
living  faith.  The  devotion  due  to  Jerusalem  is 
united  with  definite  acts  of  charity  (i.  6-8)  and 
with  the  prospect  of  wider  lilessings  (xiii.  11).  The 
giving  of  alms  is  not  a  mere  scattering  of  wealth, 
but  a  real  service  of  love  (i.  16,  17,  ii.  1-7,  iv.  7-11, 
16),  though  at  times  the  emphasis  which  is  laid 
upon  the  duty  is  exaggerated  (.."  it  seems)  from 
the  special  circumstances  in  which  the  writer  was 
placed  (xii.  9,  xiv.  10).  Of  the  special  precepts  one 
(iv.  15,  f)  fxiae'is  /xr;8ei'i'  TrotTjarjs)  contains  the 
negative  side  of  the  golden  rule  of  conduct  (Matt, 
vii.  12),  which  in  this  partial  form  is  found  among 
the  maxims  of  Confucius.  But  it  is  chiefly  in  the 
exquisite  tenderness  of  the  pfirtraiture  of  domestic 
life  that  the  book  excels.  Tlie  parting  of  Tobias 
and  his  mother,  the  consolation  of  Tobit  (v.  17-22), 
tlie  affection  of  Raguel  (vii.  4-8),  the  anxious  wait- 
iiii;  of  the  parents  (x.  1-7),  the  son's  return  (ix.  4, 
xi.),  and  even  the  unjust  suspiciousness  of  the  sor- 
row of  Tol)it  and  Anna  (ii.  11-14)  are  painted  with 
a  simplicity  worthy  of  the  best  times  of  the  patri- 
archs." Almost  every  family  relation  is  tonciied 
upon  with  natural  grace  and  affection:  husband  and 
wife,  parent  and  child,  kinsmen,  near  or  distant, 
master  and  servant,  are  jireseiited  in  the  most  varied 
action,  and  always  with  life-like  power  (ii.  13,  14, 
V.  17-22,  vii.  16,  viii.  4-8,  x.  1-7,  xi.  1-13,  i.'  22, 
ii.  10,  vii.  .3-8,  v.  14,  15,  xii.  1-5,  &c.).  Prayer 
hallows  the  whole  conduct  of  life  (iv.  19,  vi.  17, 
viii.  5-8,  &c  );  and  even  in  distress  there  is  con- 
fidence that  in  the  end  all  will  lie  well  (iv.  0,  14, 
19),  though  there  is  no  clear  anticipation  of  a  future 
personal  existence  (iii.  6).  The  most  remarkable 
doctriiiii  fenture  in  the  book  is  tlie  prominence 
;;iven  to  the  action  of  spirits,  who,  while  they  are 
conceived  to  lie  subject  to  the  passions  of  men  and 
material  influences  (.-Vsmodeus),  are  yet  not  affected 
by  bodily  wants,  and  manifested  only  ny  their  own 
will  (Raphael,  xii.  19).     Powers  of  evil  (SaifiSvioi', 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


Ol^lO 


o  In  this  connection  may  he  noticed  the  incident, 
which  is  without  a  parallel  in  Scripture,  and  seems 
more  natural  to  the  West  than  to  the  East,  the  com- 
panionship of  the  dog  with  Tobias  (v.  IG,  xi.  4 :  comp. 


TTvev/xa  TTovrtpSv,  iii-  8,  17,  vi.  7,  14,  17)  are  rep- 
resented  as  gaining  the  means  of  injuring  men  liy 
sin  [AsMODEUs],  while  they  are  driven  away  and 
bound  by  the  exercise  of  faith  and  prayer  (viii.  2,  3). 
On  the  other  hand  Raphael  comes  among  men  as 
"  the  healer  "  (couip.  Dillmami,  Das  Buck  Iltnock, 
c.  20),  and  by  the  mission  of  (iod  (iii.  17,  xii.  18), 
restores  those  whose  good  actions  he  has  secretly 
watched  (xii.  12,  13),  and  "the  remembrance  of 
whose  prayers  he  has  brought  liefore  the  Holy  One  " 
(xii.  12).  This  ministry  of  intercession  is  elsewhere 
expressly  recognized.  Seven  holy  angels,  of  whom 
Raphael  is  one,  are  specially  described  as  those 
"  which  present  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  and  which 
go  in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  God  "  (xii.  15). 
It  is  characteristic  of  the  same  sense  of  the  need 
of  some  being  to  interpose  between  God  and  man 
that  singular  prominence  is  given  to  the  idea  of 
"the  glory  of  God,"  before  which  these  archangels 
appear  as  priests  in  the  holiest  place  (viii.  15,  xii. 
15):  anil  in  one  passaue  "the  angel  of  God"  (v. 
1(1,  21)  occupies  a  position  closely  reseinliling  that 
of  the  Word  in  the  Targums  and  Philo  (/'<-  mi/l. 
nam.  §  13,  Ac).  Elsewhere  blessing  is  rendered 
to  "all  the  holy  angels"  (xi.  14,  eiiAo7rj/^6Voi  as 
contrasted  with  €v\oyi]T6s'  comp.  I-uke  i.  42), 
who  are  themselves  united  with  "  the  elect  '■  in  the 
duty  of  praising  God  forever  (viii.  15).  This  men- 
tion of  "  the  elect "  points  to  a  second  doctrinal 
feature  of  the  liook,  which  it  shares  with  Baruch 
alone  of  the  apocryphal  writings,  the  firm  belief  in 
a  glorious  restoration  of  the  Jewish  people  (xiv.  5, 
xiii.  9-18),  But  the  restoration  contemplated  is 
national,  and  not  the  work  of  a  universal  .Saviour. 
The  Temple  is  descrilied  as  "consecrated  and  built 
for  all  ages  "  (i.  4),  the  feasts  are  "an  everlasting 
decree"  (i.  6),  and  when  it  is  restored  "  the  streets 
of  .lerusalem  shall  s.ay  .  .  .  Blessed  be  God  which 
hath  extolled  it  for  ever"  (xiii.  18).  In  .all  there 
is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  belief  in  a  personal 
Messiah. 

8.  Comparisons  have  often  been  made  between 
the  book  of  Tobit  and  .lob,  but  from  the  outline 
which  has  been  given  it  is  obvious  that  the  resem- 
blance is  only  superficial,  though  Tol).  ii.  14  was 
probably  suggested  by  Job  ii.  9,  10,  while  the  dif- 
ferences are  such  as  to  mark  distinct  periods.  In 
Tobit  the  sorrows  of  those  who  are  afflicted  are 
laid  at  once  in  prayer  before  God,  in  perfect  reli- 
ance on  his  final  judgment,  and  then  immediately 
relieved  by  Divine  interposition.  In  Job  the  re:d 
conflict  is  in  the  soul  of  the  sufferer,  and  his  relief 
comes  at  length  with  humiliation  and  repeutancp 
(xiii.  6).  The  one  book  teaches  liy  great  thoughts; 
the  other  by  clear  maxims  translated  into  touching 
incidents.  The  contrast  of  Toliit  and  Judith  is 
still  more  instructive.  These  books  present  two 
pictures  of  Jewish  life  and  feeling,  broadly  dis- 
tinguished in  all  their  details,  and  yet  mutually 
illustrative.  The  one  represents  the  exile  prosper- 
ous and  even  powerful  in  a  strange  land,  expo.sed 
to  sudden  dangers,  cherishing  his  national  ties, 
and  looking  with  unshaken  love  to  the  Holy  City, 
but  still  mainly  occupied  by  the  common  duties  of 
.social  life;  the  other  jiortrays  a  time  of  repro:icL 
and  peril,  when  national  independence  was  threat- 
ened, and  a  righteous  cause  seemed  to  justify  un- 


.■Vnibr.  Hernim.  vi.  4, 17  :  "  Mutae  spec'e  hestiae  sanctui 
Raphael,  angelus  Tobise  juveiiis  ....  ad  rvlationeiii 
grjitiae  erudiebat  atTectum  "). 


3276 


TOCHEN 


sorupulous  valor.  The  one  gives  the  popular  iftval 
of  holiness  of  living,  the  other  of  courage  in  daring. 
The  one  reflects  the  current  feeling  at  the  close  of 
the  Persian  rule,  the  other  during  the  struggles  for 
freedom. 

9.  The  first  complete  edition  of  the  book  was  by 
K.  D.  Ilgen  {Bie  Gesch.  Tobias  ....  mil  .... 
eintr  Einlaitung  verselwn,  Jen.  1800),  which,  in 
6]Hte  of  serious  defects  due  to  the  period  at  which 
it  was  published,  contains  the  most  full  discussion 
Df  the  contents.  The  edition  of  Fritzsche  {Exeget. 
Ilandb.  ii.,  Leipzig,  1853)  is  concise  and  scholar- 
like, but  leaves  some  points  without  illustration. 
In  England  the  book,  like  the  rest  of  the  Apocry- 
pha, seems  to  have  fallen  into  most  undeserved 
neglect.  B.  F.  W. 

*  Additional  Literature.  —  Among  the  more 
recent  works  we  may  mention  F.  H.  Reusch,  Das 
Buck  Tobias  iibers.  u.  erklcirf,  JYeib.  im  Br., 
18-57;  H.  Sengelmann,  Das  Bu-ch  Tobii  erkldrl, 
Hamb.  1857;  Hitzig,  Zur  Krit.  d.  apokr.  Biicher 
des  A.  Test.,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift  f.  wiss. 
TheoL,  18G0,  pp.  250-261 ;  Hilgenfeld,  in  liis  Zeit- 
schrift, 1862,  pp.  181-198;  Vai'hinger,  art.  Tobias, 
Buck  des,  in  Herzog's  ReaUEncykl.  xvi.  180  ff. 
(1862);  Ewald,  Geseli.  d.  Volkes  Israel  {i^  Aus^. 
18G4),  iv.  269-27'4;  Noldeke,  Alttest.  Lit.  (1868^ 
pp.  101-109;  and  the  J iif reductions  to  the  0.  T. 
bv  Keil  (1859),  p.  708  ff.,  De  Wette  (8e  Ausg., 
bearb.  von  Schrader,  1869), -p.  580  ff.,  and  David- 
son (Lond.  1863),  iii.  3G6  ff.  A. 

TO'CHEN  (15^  [to^-,  measure]:  QoKKd; 
Alex.  0OXX"'''  Thochen).  A  place  mentioned  (1 
Chr.  iv.  32  only)  amongst  the  towns  of  Simeon. 
In  the  parallel  list  of  Josh.  (xix.  7)  there  is  noth- 
ing corresponding  to  Tochen.  The  LXX.,  how- 
ever, adds  the  name  Thalcha  between  Kenmion 
rnd  Ether  in  the  latter  passage;  and  it  is  not 
Impossible  that  this  may  be  the  remnant  of  a 
Tochen  anciently  existing  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
though  it  has  been  considered  as  an  indication  of 
Telem.  G. 

TOGAR'MAH  (np"12ri :  ©o^^a^ci;  [Alex. 
&ipyafxa\  in  1  Chr.  i.  6,  Qoppafj.;  Vat.  in  Ez., 
eaiypafj.a,  Qepyana-]  Thoyoniia).  A  son  of 
Gouier,  and  brotlier  of  Ashkenaz  and  Riphath 
(Gen.  x.  3).  It  has  been  already  shown  that  To- 
garmah,  as  a  geographical  terra,  is  connected  with 
Armenia,"  and  that  the  subsequent  notices  of  the 
name  (\'.z.  xxvii.  14,  xxxviii.  G)  accord  with  this  view. 
[.\kmenia.]  It  remains  for  us  to  examine  into 
the  ethnology  of  the  Armenians  with  a  view  to 
the  position  assigned  to  them  in  the  IMosaic  table. 
The  most  decisive  statement  respecting  them  in 
ancient  literature  is  furnished  by  Herodotus,  who 
says  that  they  were  Phrygian  colonists,  that  they 
were  armed  in  the  Phrygian  fashion,  and  were  as- 
sociated with  the  Phrygians  under  the  same  com- 
wander  (Herod,  vii.  73).  The  remark  of  Eudoxus 
(Steph.  Byz.  s.  v.  'Apfievla)  that  the  Armenians 
resemble  the  Phrygians  in  many  respects  in  lan- 
guage (t^  (pcovfj  TToWa  <ppvyi(ovai)  tends  in 
'be  same  direction.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  un- 
derstand the  statement  of  Herodotus  as  implying 
more  than  a  conmion  origin  of  the  two  peoples; 
for,  looking  at  the  general  westward  progress  of  the 
Japhetic  races,  and  on  the  central  position  which 


TOLA 

Armenia  held  m  regard  to  their  movements,  w<! 
should  rather  infer  that  Phrygia  was  colonized  from 
Armenia,  than  vice  versa.  The  Phrygians  were 
indeed  reputed  to  have  had  their  first  settlements 
in  Europe,  and  thence  to  have  crossed  into  Asia 
(Herod,  vii.  73),  but  this  must  be  regarded  as  sim- 
ply a  retrograde  movement  of  a  section  of  the  great 
Phrygian  race  in  the  direction  of  their  original 
home.  The  period  of  this  movement  is  fixed  sub- 
sequently to  the  Trojan  war  (Strab.  xiv.  p.  680), 
whereas  the  Phrygians  appear  as  an  important 
race  in  Asia  Minor  at  a  far  earlier  period  (Strab. 
vii.  p.  321;  Herod,  vii.  8,  11).  There  can  be  little 
douljt  but  that  they  were  once  the  dominant  race 
in  tiie  peninsula,  and  that  they  spread  westward 
from  the  confines  of  Armenia  to  the  shores  of  tlie 
yEgaean.  The  Phrygian  language  is  undoubtedly 
to  be  classed  with  the  Indo-European  family.  Tlio 
resemblance  between  words  in  the  Phrygian  ami 
Greek  tongues  was  noticed  by  the  Greeks  then)- 
selves  (Plat.  CratyL  p.  410),  and  the  inscriptions 
still  existhig  in  the  former  are  decidedly  Indo- 
European  (Rawlinson's  Herod,  i.  666).  The  Ar- 
menian language  presents  many  peculiarities  which 
distinguish  it  from  other  branches  of  the  Indo- 
European  family;  but  these  may  be  accounted  for 
partly  l)y  the  ]ihysical  character  of  the  country, 
and  partly  by  the  large  amount  of  foreign  admix- 
ture that  it  has  experienced.  In  spite  of  this, 
however,  no  hesitation  is  felt  by  philologists  in 
placing  Armenian  among  the  Indo-European  lan- 
guages (Pott,  EtijiH.  For  sell.  In  trod.  p.  32;  Die- 
fenbach,  Orir/.  Europ.  p.  43).  With  regard  to  the 
ancient  inscriptions  at  Wan,  some  doubt  exists; 
some  of  them,  but  apparently  not  the  most  an- 
cient, are  thought  to  bear  a  Turanian  character 
(Layard's  Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  402;  Rawlinson's 
Herod.  I.  652);  but,  even  were  this  fully  estab- 
lished, it  fails  to  prove  the  Turani.in  character  of 
the  population,  inasmuch  as  they  may  have  lieen 
set  up  by  foreign  conquerors.  The  Armenians 
themselves  have  associated  the  name  of  Togarmah 
with  their  early  history  in  that  they  represent  the 
founder  of  their  race,  Haik,  as  a  son  of  Thorgom 
(Moses  Choren.  i.  4,  §§  9-11).  W.  L.  U. 

TO'HU  (^nri  [peril,  inclined,  lowhj]:  @oKe\ 
Alex.  Qoov'.  Tliohu).  An  ancestor  of  Samuel  the 
prophet,  perhaps  the  same  as  Toah  (1  Sam.  i.  1 ; 
comp.  1  Chr.  vi.  34). 

TO'i  .(^^ri  \error'\ :  @oov;  [Vat.  once  @ovov.] 
Alex.  0o6i:  Tlwil).  King  of  Haniath  on  the 
Orontes,  who,  after  the  defeat  of  his  powerful 
enemy  the  Syrian  king  Hadadezer  by  the  army  of 
David,  sent  his  sou  Joram,  or  Hadoram,  to  con- 
cratulate  the  victor  and  do  him  homage  with 
presents  of  gold  and  silver  and  brass  (2  Sam.  viii. 
9,  10).  "  For  Hadadezer  had  wars  with  Toi,"  and 
Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  199)  conjectures  that  he  m!\y 
have  even  reduced  him  to  a  state  of  vassalage. 
There  was  probably  some  policy  in  the  conduct  of 
Toi,  and  his  olject  may  have  been,  as  Josephus 
says  it  was  (.Aiil.  vii.  5,  §  4),  to  buy  off  the  con- 
queror with  the  "  vessels  of  ancient  workmanship  " 
{ffKeinq  Trjs  apx"'"^  /coTO(r/ceuf;s)  which  he  pre- 
sented. 

TO'LA  (X'V'^n   [a  u-orm]:   @a,\d\  [Vat.  0a> 


o  The  name  itself  may  possibly  have  reference  to 
Irmenia,  for,  according  to  Urimin  (Gescti.  Deutsrh. 
Spr.  ii.  825),  Togarmah  coniei*  from  the  Sanskrit  tolca.  I 


"tribe,"  and  Arnia  =  Armenia,  which  he  further  oon 
neets  with  HermiDO  the  son  of  Mannus. 


TOLAD 

KafK,  00  *.*,  ©wAaei:]  Tlmln).  1.  The  first- 
born of  lisachar,  and  ancestor  of  the  Tolaites 
(Gen.  xlvi.  13;  Num.  xxvi.  2'i;  1  Chr.  vii.  1,  2), 
jvho  in  the  time  of  David  numbered  22,000  men 
of  valor. 

2.  Judge  of  Israel  after  Abinielech  (.Judt;.  x.  1, 
2).  He  is  described  as  "the  son  of  Puah,  the  son 
of  Dodo,  a  man  of  Issachar."  In  the  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  he   is  made  the  son  of  Abimelech's  uncle, 

Dodo  (TTTl)  being  considered  an  appellative. 
But  Gideon,  Abimelech's  father,  was  a  Manassite. 
Tola  judged  Israel  for  twenty-three  years  at  Sha- 
mir in  JMount  Ephraim,  where  he  died  and  was 
buried. 

•  TO'LAD  (iVin  \birlh,  generation]  :  [Vat.] 
eouXaefj.;  [Rom.]  Alex.  QooKaS:  Tliolad).  One 
of  the  towns  of  Simeon  (1  Chr.  iv.  29),  which  was 
in  the  [wssession  of  the  tribe  up  to  David's  reign, 
probably  to  the  time  of  the  census  taken  by  Joal). 
In  the  lists  of  .Joshua  the  name  is  given  in  the 
fuller  form  of  El-tolad.  G. 

TO'LAITES,  THE  {^^^'^:^r\  [from  Tol.\]  : 
6  ©coXdi  [Vat.  -6(]  :  Thulaihe).  The  descendants 
of  Tola  the  son  of  Issachar  (Num.  xxvi.  2.'5). 

TOL'BANES  {To\^<ivr]s  ■  Tulbanes).  Te- 
LEJi,  one  of  the  porters  in  the  days  of  I^ra  (1 
Esdr.  ix.  25). 

*  TOLL.     [Taxes;  Tribute.] 

TOMB.  Although  the  sepulchral  arrange- 
ments of  the  Jews  have  necessarily  many  points  of 
contact  with  those  of  the  surroimding  nations,  they 
are  still  on  the  whole  —  like  ev..-vthing  else  that 
people  did  —  so  essentiallj'  different,  that  it  is  most 
unsafe  to  attempt  to  elucidate  them  by  appealing 
to  the  practice  of  other  races. 

It  has  been  hitherto  too  much  the  fashion  to 
look  to  Egypt  for  the  prototype  of  every  form  of 
Jewish  art;  but  if  there  is  one  thing  in  the  Old 
Testament  more  clear  than  another,  it  is  the  abso- 
lute antagonism  between  the  two  peoples,  and  the 
abhorrence  of  everything  Egyptian  tliat  prevailed 
from  first  to  last  among  the  Jewish  people.  From 
the  burial  of  Sarah  in  the  cave  of  JLachpelah  (Gen. 
xxiii.  19)  to  the  funeral  rites  prepared  for  Dorcas 
(Acts  ix.  37),  there  is  no  mention  of  any  sarcoph- 
agus, or  even  coffin,  in  any  Jewish  burial.  No 
pyramid  was  raised  —  no  separate  hypoweum  of  any 
individual  king,  and  what  is  most  to  be  regretted 
by  modern  investigators,  no  inscription  or  painting 
which  eitlier  recorded  the  name  of  the  deceased, 
or  symbolized  the  religious  feeling  of  the  Jews 
towards  the  dead.  It  is  true  of  course  that  Jacob, 
dying  in  Egypt,  was  embalmed  (Gen.  1.  2),  but  it 
TTis  only  in  order  that  he  might  be  brought  to 
be  entombed  in  the  cave  at  Hebron,  and  .loseph, 
•s  a  naturalized  Egyptian  and  a  ruler  in  tlie  land, 
was  embalmed;  and  it  is  also  mentioned  as  some- 
thing exceptional  that  he  was  put  into  a  coffin,  and 
was  80  brought  by  the  Israelites  out  of  the  land, 
and  laid  with  his  forefathers.  But  these,  like  tiie 
burning  of  the  body  of  Saul  [see  Buki.vl],  were 
slearly  exceptional  cases. 

Still  less  were  the  rites  of  the  Jews  like  those  of 
the  Pelasgi  or  Etruscans.  With  tliat  people  tlie 
praves  of  the  dead  were,  or  were  intended  to  be,  in 
'very  respect  similar  to  the  homes  of  the  living. 
The  lucumo  lay  in  his  robes,  the  warrior  in  his 
armor,  on  the  bed  on  which  he  had  reposed  in  life, 
Mirrounded  by  the  furniture,  the  \essels,  and  the 


TOMB 


1277 


ornaments  which  had  adorned  his  dwt.iing  when 
alive,  as  if  he  were  to  live  again  in  a  new  world 
with  the  same  wants  and  feelings  as  before.  Be- 
sides this,  no  tall  stel^,  and  no  sepulchral  mound, 
has  yet  been  found  in  the  hills  or  plains  of  Judsea, 
nor  have  we  any  hint  either  in  the  Bible  or  Jose- 
phus  of  any  such  having  existed  which  could  be 
traced  to  a  strictly  Jewish  origin. 

In  very  distinct  contrast  to  all  this,  the  sepul- 
chral rites  of  the  Jews  were  marked  with  the  same 
simplicity  that  characterized  all  their  religious  ob- 
servances. The  body  was  washed  and  anointed 
(Mark  xiv.  8,  xvi.  1;  John  xix.  39,  <fcc.),  wrapped 
in  a  clean  linen  cloth,  and  borne  without  any 
funeral  pomp  to  the  grave,  where  it  was  laitl  with- 
out any  ceremonial  or  form  of  prayer.  In  addition 
to  this,  with  kings  and  great  persons,  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  "great  burninjc''  (2  Chr.  xvi.  14, 
xxi.  19;  Jer.  xxxiv.  5):  all  these  beinw  measures 
more  suggested  by  sanitiry  exigencies  than  by  any 
hankering  after  ceremonial  pomp. 

This  simplicity  of  rite  led  to  what  may  be 
called  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  .lewish 
sepulchres  —  the  c/ec/;  laculus  —  whicii,  so  far  as  is 
now  known,  is  universal  in  all  jiurely  Jewish  rock- 
cut  tombs,  but  hardly  known  elsewhere.  Its  form 
will  be  understood  by  referring  to  the  annexed  dia- 
gram, representing  the  forms  of  Jewish  sepulture. 


No.  1.  —  Diagram  of  Jewish  Sepulchre. 

In  the  apartment  marked  A,  there  are  twelve 
such  loculi,  about  2  feet  in  width  by  3  feet  high. 
On  the  ground-floor  these  generally  open  on  the 
level  of  the  floor;  when  in  the  upper  story,  as  at 
C,  on  a  ledge  or  platform,  on  wiiich  the  body 
might  be  laid  to  be  anointed,  and  on  which  the 
stones  might  rest  which  closed  the  outer  end  of 
each  loculus. 

The  shallow  loculus  is  shown  in  chamber  li,  Init 
was  apparently  oidy  used  wlien  sarcophagi  were 
employed,  and  therefore,  so  far  as  we  know,  only 
during  the  Grseco-lloman  period,  when  foreign  cus- 
toms came  to  be  adopted.  The  sliallow  loculus 
wo  (Id  have  been  singularly  inappropriate'  and  in- 
convenient, where  an  unembalmed  body  was  lair 
out  to  decay  —  as  there  would  evidently  be  no 
means  of  sinitting  it  oflT  from  the  rest  of  the 
catacomb.  Tlie  deep  loculus  on  tiie  otiier  hand 
was  as  strictly  conformalile  with  Jewisii  customs, 
and  could  easily  lie  closed  by  a  stone  fitted  to  the 
end  and  luted  into  the  groove  which  usually  exists 
there. 

This  fact  is  especially  interesting  as  it  affords  a 
key  to  much  that  is  otherwise  liard  to  be  under- 
stood in  certain  passages  in  the  New  Testan  ent. 
I'hus  in  John  xi.  .39,  Jesus  says,  "  Take  away  the 


5278 


TOMB 


itone,"  and  (ver.  41)  "they  took  away  the  stone" 
withou*^  (iifRculty,  apparently;  which  could  hardly 
have  been  the  case  had  it  been  such  a  rock  as 
would  be  required  to  close  the  entrance  of  a  cave. 
And  ch.  XX.  1,  the  same  expression  is  used,  *'  the 
stone  is  taken  away;  "  and  though  the  Greek  word 
in  the  other  three  Evangelists  certaiidy  implies  that 
it  was  rulUd  away,  tliis  would  ecpially  apply  to  the 
Btone  at  the  mouth  of  the  loculus,  into  which  the 
IMaries  must  have  then  stooped  down  to  look  in. 
In  fact  the  whole  narrative  is  infinitely  more  clear 
and  intelligible  if  we  assume  that  it  was  a  stone 
slosing  the  end  of  a  rock-cut  grave,  than  if  we  su])- 
jwse  it  to  have  been  a  stone  closing  the  entrance 
or  door  of  a  hypogeum.  In  the  lattei-  case  the 
Btone  to  close  a  door  —  say  6  feet  by  -i  feet,  could 
hardly  have  weighed  less  than  3  or  4  tons,  and 
could  not  have  been  moved  witiiout  machinery. 

There  is  one  catacomli  —  that  known  as  the 
"  Tombs  of  the  Kings  ''  —  which  is  closed  by  a 
»tone  rolling  across  its  entrance;  but  it  is  the  only 
one,  and  the  innnense  amount  of  contrivance  and 
fitting  whicli  it  has  required  is  sufficient  proof  that 
such  an  ari'angement  was  not  applied  to  any  otlier 
of  the  numerous  rock-tombs  around  .lerusalem,  nor 
coidd  the  traces  of  it  have  been  obliterated  had  it 
anywhere  existed.  From  the  nature  of  the  open- 
ings where  they  are  natural  caverns,  and  the  oi'na- 
mental  form  of  their  doorways  where  they  are  ar- 
chitecturally adorned,  it  is  evident,  except  in  this 
one  instance,  that  they  could  not  have  been  closed 
by  stones  rolled  across  their  entrances;  and  conse- 
quently it  seems  only  to  be  to  the  closinsr  of  tlie 
loculi  that  these  expressions  can  refer.  But  until 
%  more  careful  and  more  scientific  exploration  of 
these  tonilis  is  made  than  has  hitiierto  been  given 
to  the  public,  it  is  difficult  to  feel  quite  certain  on 
this  point.  • 

Although,  therefore,  the  Jews  were  singularly  free 
.Torn  the  pomps  and  vanities  of  funereal  magnifi- 
cence, they  were  at  all  stages  of  their  independent 
existence  an  eminently  burying  people. 

From  the  time  of  their  entrance  into  the  Holy 
Land  till  their  expulsion  liy  tiie  liomans,  they  seem 
to  have  attaclied  the  greatest  importance  to  the 
possession  of  an  unilisturbed  resting-place  for  the 
bodies  of  their  dead,  and  in  all  ages  seem  to  have 
shown  the  greatest  resjicct,  if  not  veneration,  for 
the  sepulcines  of  their  ancestors.  Few,  however, 
sould  enjoy  the  luxury  of  a  I'ock-cut  toml).  Taking 
»11  that  are  known,  and  all  that  are  likely  to  be 
discovered,  there  are  not  probably  500,  certainly  not 
1000,  rock-cut  loculi  in  or  about  Jerusalem,  and 
as  that  city  must  in  the  da3S  of  its  prosperity  have 
possessed  a  population  of  from  30,000  to  40,000 
souls,  it  is  evident  that  the  bulk  of  the  people 
must  then,  as  low,  have  been  content  with  graves 
dug  ;n  the  earta;  but  situated  .as  near  tlie  Holy 
Places  as  their  means  would  allow  their  obtaining 
a  place.  •  The  Iwdies  of  the  kings  were  buried  close 
to  the  Temple  walls  (Ez.  xliii.  7-9),  and  however 
little  they  may  have  done  in  their  life,  the  place  of 
Uieir  i)urial  is  carefully  recorded  in  the  Chronicles 
of  the  Kings,  and  the  cause  why  that  place  was 
chosen  is  generally  pointed  out,  as  if  that  record 
was  not  only  the  most  important  event,  but  the 
final  judgment  on  the  life  of  the  king. 

Toii'.bs  (if  Ihe  Pdtriiirchs.  —  Turning  from  these 
considerations  to  the  more  strictly  historical  part  of 
the  sulijecf,  we  find  that  one  of  the  most  striking 
events  in  the  life  of  iVbraliam  is  thi^  purciiase  of 
ihe  fiiji  I  ftf  ICpin-on  the  llittite  at  HelToiI,  in  vvhich 


TOMB 

was  the  cave  cf  INl'achpelah,  in  ordor  that  he  might 
therein  bury  Sarah  his  wife,  and  that  it  might  be 
a  sepulchre  for  himself  and  his  cliildren.  Ilia  re- 
fusing to  accept  the  privilege  of  burying  there  as 
a  gift  when  ofrered  to  him.  sliows  the  importance 
Abraham  attached  to  tlie  transaction,  and  his  insist- 
ing on  purchasing  and  paying  for  it  (Gen.  xxiii. 
20),  in  order  that  it  might  be  "made  sure  unto 
him  for  the  posse.ssion  of  a  burying-place.'"  There 
he  and  his  immediate  descendants  were  laid  3,700 
years  ago,  and  there  they  are  believed  to  rest  now ; 
but  no  one  in  modern  times  has  seen  their  re- 
mains, or  been  allowed  to  enter  into  the  cave  where 
they  rest. 

A  few  years  ago,  Signor  Pierotti  says,  he  was 
allowed,  in  company  with  the  Pasha  of  Jerusalem, 
to  descend  the  steps  to  tlie  iron  grating  that  closes 
the  entrance,  and  to  look  into  the  cave.  What  he 
seems  to  have  seen  was  —  that  it  was  a  natural 
cavern,  untouched  by  the  chisel  and  unaltered  liy 
art  in  any  way.  Those  who  accompanied  the 
Prince  of  Wales  in  his  visit  to  the  Mosque  were 
not  permitted  to  see  even  this  entrance.  All  tliey 
saw  was  the  round  hole  in  the  floor  of  the  Alosque 
which  admits  light  and  air  to  tiie  cave  lielow.  The 
same  round  opening  exists  at  JVehy  Sninioil  in  the 
roof  of  tlie  reputed  sepulchre  of  the  Prophet  Sam- 
uel, and  at  .Jerusalem  there  is  a  similar  opening 
into  the  tomb  under  the  Dome  of  the  rock.  lu 
the  former  it  is  used  l)y  the  pious  votaries  to  drop 
petitions  and  prayers  into  the  tombs  of  patriarchs 
and  prophets.  The  latter  having  lost  the  tradi- 
tion of  its  having  been  a  burying-place,  tlie  open- 
ing only  now  serves  to  admit  ligiit  into  the  cave 
below. 

Unfortunately  none  of  those  who  have  visited 
Heliron  have  had  sufficient  architectural  knowledge 
to  be  alile  to  say  when  the  church  or  mosque  vvhich 
now  stands  aljove  the  cave  was  erected;  but  there 
seems  no  great  reason  for  doubting  that  it  is  a 
Hyzantine  church  erected  there  between  the  age  of 
Constantine  and  that  of  Justinian.  From  such  in- 
dications as  can  be  gathered,  it  seems  of  the  later 
period.  On  its  floor  are  sarcophau'i  purporting  to 
be  those  of  the  patriarchs ;  but,  as  is  usual  in  east- 
ern tombs,  they  are  only  cenotaphs  representing 
those  that  stand  below,  and  which  are  esteemed  too 
sacred  for  the  vulgar  to  approach. 

Though  it  is  much  more  easy  of  access,  it  is 
almost  as  difficult  to  ascertain  the  age  of  the  wall 
that  incloses  the  s.acred  jirecincts  of  these  tombs. 
From  the  account  of  Joseplius  (B.  J.  iv.  7),  it  does 
not  seem  to  have  existed  in  his  day,  or  he  surely 
would  have  mentioned  it;  and  such  a  citadel  could 
hardly  fail  to  have  been  of  warlike  imiioitance  in 
those  troublous  times.  Besides  this,  we  do  not 
know  of  any  such  inclosure  encircling  any  tomlis 
or  sacred  place  in  Jewisli  times,  nor  can  we  con- 
ceive any  motive  for  so  secluding  these  graves. 

There  are  not  any  architectural  mouldings  about 
this  wall  which  would  enable  an  archivologist  to 
approximate  its  date;  and  if  the  beveling  is  as- 
sumed to  be  a  Jewish  arrangement  (which  is  very 
far  from  being  e.xclusively  the  case),  on  tlie  otlier 
hand  it  may  be  contended  that  no  buttressed  wall 
of  Jewish  masonry  exists  anywiiere.  There  is  in 
fact  nothing  known  witli  sufficient  exactness  to 
decide  tiie  question,  Imt  the  probabilities  certainly 
tend  towards  a  Christian  or  .Saracenic  origin  for  tl>e 
whole  structure  both  internally  and  externally. 

Aiiron  died  on  tlie  summit  nf  Mount  Hor  (Num 
XX.  28,  sxxiii.  3'Ji,  and  we  aiv  led  to  infer  he  wag 


TOMB 

huried  there,  tliouijh  it  is  not  so  stated;  and  we 
have  no  details  of  liis  tomb  which  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  anytliino-  existed  there  earlier  than  the 
Molianiiiiedan  Kubr  that  now  crowns  the  hill  over- 
looking Petra,  and  it  is  at  the  same  time  extremely 
doubtful  whether  that  is  the  Mount  Hor  where  the 
high-priest  died. 

Moses  died  in  the  plains  of  Moab  (Ueut.  xxxiv. 
6),  and  was  buried  there,  "but  no  man  knoweth  his 
sepulchre  to  this  day,"  which  is  a  singular  utter- 
ance, as  being  the  only  instance  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment of  a  sepulchre  being  concealed,  or  of  one  being 
admitted  to  be  unknown. 

Josluia  was  buried  in  his  own  inheritance  in 
Tinniath-Serah  (.losh.  xxiv.  30),  and  Samuel  in  his 
own  house  at  Kamah  (1  Sam.  xxv.  1),  an  expression 
which  we  may  ]irobably  interpret  as  meaning  in 
the  garden  attached  to  his  house,  as  it  is  scarcely 
probable  it  would  be  the  dwt-lling  itself.  We  know, 
however,  so  little  of  the  feelings  of  the  .Tews  of  that 
age  on  the  suliject  that  it  is  by  no  means  improb- 
alile  Imt  that  it  may  have  been  in  a  chamber  or 
loculus  attached  to  the  dwelling,  and  which,  if 
closeil  by  a  stone  carefully  cemented  into  its  place, 
would  have  pre\ented  any  ainioyance  from  the  cir- 
cumstance. Joab  (1  K.  ii.  34)  was  also  buried  "  in 
his  own  house  in  the  wilderness  "  In  fact  it  apjiears 
that  from  the  time  when  Abraham  established  the 
buryiug-place  of  his  family  at  Helirou  till  the  time 
when  David  fixed  that  of  his  family  in  the  city 
which  bore  his  name,  the  Jewish  rulers  had  no  fixed 
or  favorite  place  of  sepulture.  Each  was  buried  on 
his  own  property,  or  where  he  died,  without  niucli 
caring  either  for  the  sanctitj  or  convenience  of  the 
place  chosen. 

Tdialj  of  the  Kings.  —  Of  tin,  Iventy-two  kings 
of  Judah  who  reigned  at  .Jerusalem  from  11)48  to 
590  B.  c,  eleven,  or  exactly  one  half,  were  buried 
in  one  hypogeum  in  the  "  city  of  David."  The 
names  of  the  kings  so  lying  together  were  David, 
Solomon,  Kehoboam,  Abijah,  Asa,  Jeshoshai)hat, 
Ahaziah,  Amaziah,  Jotham,  Hezekiah,  and  -losiah, 
together  with  the  good  priest  Jehoiada.  Of  all 
these  it  is  merely  said  that  they  were  buried  in 
"the  sepulchres  of  their  fathers  "  or  "of  the  kings" 
in  the  city  of  David,  except  of  two  —  Asa  and  Hez- 
ekiah. Of  the  first  it  is  said  (2  Chr.  xvi.  14), 
"  they  buried  him  in  his  own  sepulchres  which  he 
had  made  for  himself  in  the  city  of  David,  and  laid 
him  in  the  bed  [loculus?],  which  was  filled  with 
sweet  odors  and  divers  spices  prepared  by  the 
aix)thecaries'  art,  and  they  made  a  very  great  burn- 
ing for  him."  It  is  not  quite  clear,  however,  from 
this,  whether  this  ap])lies  to  a  new  chamber  at- 
tached to  the  older  sepulchre,  or  to  one  entirely 
distinct,  though  in  the  same  neighborhood.  Of 
Hezekiah  it  is  said  (2  ('hr.  xxxii.  33),  they  buried 
him  in  "  the  chiefest  [or  highest]  of  tiie  sepulchres 
of  the  sons  of  IJavid,"  as  if  there  were  several  apart- 
ments in  the  hypoueum,  though  it  may  merely  be 
jhat  tiiey  excavated  for  him  a  chamber  aliove  the 
pthers,  as  we  find  frequently  done  in  Jewish  sep 
ulchres. 

Two  more  of  these  kings  (.Tehoram  and  .loash) 
»rere  buried  also  in  the  city  of  David,  "  but  not  in 
the  sepulchres  of  the  kings."  The  first  because  of 
the  sore  diseases  of  which  he  died  (2  Chr.  xxi.  20  i; 
the  second  apparently  in  consequence  of  his  disas- 
frous  end  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  25);  and  one  king,  L'zziah 
(2  Chr.  xxvi.  23),  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in 
the  "  field  of  the  burial  of  the  kings,"  because  he 
vas  a  leper.     All  this  evinces  the  extreme  care  the 


TOMB 


3279 


.lews  took  in  the  selection  of  the  buijing-places  of 
their  kings,  and  the  importance  they  attached  to 
the  record.  It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  tliat 
the  highest  honor  which  could  be  bestowed  on  the  « 
good  priest  Jehoiada  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  10)  was  that 
"they  buried  him  in  the  city  of  David  among  the 
kings,  because  he  had  done  good  in  Israel,  both  to- 
ward God  and  toward  his  House." 

The  passage  in  Neh.  iii.  16,  and  in  Ez.  xliii.  7, 
9,  together  with  the  reiterated  assertion  of  the 
books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  that  these  sepul- 
chres were  situated  in  the  city  of  David,  leave  no 
doul)t  but  that  they  were  on  Zion  [see  Jehus.v- 
li:ji],  or  the  Eastern  Hill,  and  in  the  inmiediate 
proximity  of  the  Temple.  They  were  in  fact  cer- 
tainly within  that  inclosure  now  known  as  the  "  Ha- 
ram.A.rea";  but  if  it  is  asked  on  what  exact  spot, 
we  must  pause  for  further  information  before  a  re- 
ply can  be  given." 

This  area  has  been  so  altered  by  Roman,  Chris- 
tian, and  Moslem,  during  the  last  eighteen  centu- 
ries, that,  till  we  can  explore  freely  below  the  sur- 
face, much  that  is  interesting  must  be  hidden  from 
us.  It  is  quite  clear,  howe^•er,  that  the  spot  was 
well  known  during  the  whole  of  the  Jewish  period, 
inasmuch  as  the  sepulchres  were  again  and  again 
opened  as  each  king  died ;  and  from  the  tradition 
that  Hyrcanus  and  Herod  opened  these  sepulchres 
(Ant.  xiii.  8,  §  4;  xvi.  7,  §  1).  The  accounts  of 
these  last  openings  are,  it  must  be  confessed,  some- 
wiiat  apocryphal,  resting  only  on  the  authority  of 
Josephus;  but  they  prove  at  least  that  he  coiisid- 
eied  there  could  be  no  difficulty  in  finding  the 
place.  It  is  very  improbable,  however,  from  what 
we  know  of  the  extreme  simplicity  of  the  Jewish 
se[)ulchral  rites,  that  any  large  sum  should  have 
been  buried  in  David's  tomb,  and  have  escaped  not 
only  the  Persian  inv.aders,  but  their  own  necessitous 
rulers  in  the  time  of  their  extremest  need.  It  is 
much  more  proliable  that  Hyrcanus  borrowed  the 
treasure  of  the  Temple,  and  invented  this  excuse; 
whereas  the  story  of  Herod's  descent  is  so  like  that 
told  more  than  1,000  years  afterward,  by  Benjamin 
of  Tudela,  that  both  may  be  classed  in  the  same 
category.  It  was  a  secret  transaction,  if  it  took 
place,  regarding  which  rumor  might  fashion  what 
wondrous  tales  it  pleased,  and  no  one  could  contra- 
dict them;  but  his  having  built  a  marble  stele 
{Ant.  xvi.  7,  §  1)  in  front  of  the  tomb  may  have 
been  a  fact  within  the  cognizance  of  Josephus,  and 
would  at  all  events  serve  to  indicate  that  the  sepul- 
chre was  rock-cut,  and  its  site  well  known. 

So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  this  and  other  indi- 
cations, it  seems  prol)able  there  was  originally  a  nat- 
ural cavern  in  the  rock  in  this  locality,  which  may 
afterward  have  been  impro\ed  by  art,  ami  in  the 
sides  of  which  locidi  were  sunk,  in  which  the  bodies 
of  the  eleven  kings  and  of  the  good  high-priest  were 
laid,  without  sarcophagi  or  coffin,  but  "  wound  in 
linen  clothes  with  the  spices,  as  the  raaiwier  of  the 
Jews  is  to  bury"  (.lohn  xix.  40). 

Besides  the  kings  above  enmnerated,  iVIatmsseh 
was,  according  to  the  book  of  Chronicles  ('.J  Chr. 
xxxiii.  20)  l)uried  in  his  own  house,  which  the  book 
of  Kings  (2  K.  xxi.  18)  explains  as  the  "garden  of 
his  own  house,  the  garden  of  Uzza,''  where  hi,<i  sou 
.Vmon  was  buried,  also,  it  is  said,  in  his  own  sepul. 
(jhre  (ver.  21)),  but  we  have  notiiing  that  would  en- 
able us  to  indicate  where  this  was;  and  Ahaa,  the 

«  •  See  note  at  tUe  uuU  of  this  article,  ,\ui"r.  e» 
«      &  \V. 


3280 


TOMB 


wicked  king,  was,  accordinsj  to  the  book  of  Chron- 
icles (2  Chr.  xxviii.  27)  "  buried  in  the  city,  even 
in  Jerusalem,  and  they  brouijht  him  not  into  the 
sepulchres  of  the  kings  of  Israel."  The  fact  of 
these  three  last  kings  having  been  idolaters,  thouirh 
one  reformed,  and  their  having  all  three  iieen  buried 
aiiparently  in  the  city,  proves  what  importance  the 
Jews  attached  to  the  locality  of  the  sepulchre,  but 
also  tends  to  show  that  burial  within  the  city,  or 
the  inclosure  of  a  dwelling,  was  not  so  repulsive  to 
their  feelings  as  is  generally  supposed.  It  is  just 
possible  that  the  rock-cut  sepulchre  mider  the  west- 
ern wall  of  the  present  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepid- 
chre  may  be  the  remains  of  such  a  cemetery  as  that 
in  which  the  wicked  kings  were  buried. 


TOMB 

This,  with  many  other  cognate  questions,  innsi 
lie  relegated  for  further  information ;  for  up  tt  the 
present  time  we  have  not  been  able  to  identify  one 
single  sepulchral  excavation  about  .Jerusalem  which 
can  be  said  vi-ith  certainty  to  belong  to  a  period 
anterior  to  that  of  the  Maccabees,  or,  more  cor- 
rectly, to  have  been  used  for  burial  before  the  time 
of  the  Romans.  » 

The  only  important  hypogeum  wliich  is  wholly 
.Jewish  in  its  arrangements,  and  may  consequently 
lielong  to  an  earlier  or  to  any  epoch,  is  that  known 
a.s  the  Tombs  of  the  Prophets  in  the  western  flank 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  It  has  every  appearance  of 
having  originally  been  a  natural  cavern  im|)roved  liy 
art,  and  with  ati  external  gallery  some  140  feet  iii 


No.  2.  —  Plan  of  the  ■'  Tombs  of  the  Prophets.''     From  De  Saiilcy. 


extent,  into  which  twenty-seven  deep  or  Jewish  loculi 
open.  Other  chambers  and  loculi  have  been  com- 
menced in  other  parts,  and  in  the  passages  there  are 
spaces  where  many  other  graves  could  have  been 
located,  all  which  would  tend  to  show  that  it  had 
been  disused  before  completed,  and  consequently  was 
very  modern;  but  be  this  as  it  may,  it  has  no 
architectural  mouldings  —  no  sarcophagi  or  shallow 
loculi,  nothing  to  indicate  a  foreign  origin,  and 
may  therefore  be  considered,  if  not  an  early,  at 
least  as  the  most  essentially  Jewish  of  the  sepul- 
chral excavations  in  this  locality  —  every  other  im- 
portant sepulchral  excavation  being  adorned  with 
architectural  features  and  details  betraying  most 
unmistakably  their  Greek  or  Roman  origin,  and 
fixing  their  date  consequently  as  subsequent  to  that 
}f  the  Maccabees;  or  in  other  words,  like  every 
other  detail  of  pre-Christian  architecture  in  Jeru- 
salem, they  belong  to  the  140  years  that  elapse^ 
from  the  advent  of  Pompey  till  the  destruction  of 
the  city  by  Titus- 

(rrwco-Romnn  Tombs. — Besides  the  tombs  above 
tnumeratedAthere   are   around  Jerusalem,  in    the 


valleys  of  Hinnom  and  Jehoshaphat,  and  on  the 
plateau  to  the  north,  a  number  of  remarkable  rock- 
cut  sepulchres,  with  more  or  less  architectural  deco- 
ration, sufficient  to  enable  us  to  ascertain  that  they 
are  all  of  nearly  the  same  age,  and  to  assert  with 
very  tolerable  confidence  that  the  epoch  to  which 
they  belong  must  be  iietweeii  the  introduction  of 
Roman  influence  and  the  destruction  of  the  city  by 
Titus.  The  proof  of  this  would  be  easy  if  it  were 
not  that,  like  everything  Jewish,  there. is  a  remark- 
able absence  of  inscriptions  which  can  be  assumed- 
to  be  integral.  The  excavations  in  the  Valley  of 
Hinnom  with  Greek  inscriptions  are  comparatively 
modern,  the  inscriptions  being  all  of  Christian  ini- 
[jort  and  of  such  a  nature  as  to  render  it  extremely 
doubtful  whether  the  chimbers  were  sepulchral  at 
all,  anil  not  rather  the  dwellings  of  ascetics,  and 
oriijinally  intended  to' be  used  for  this  purpose. 
These,  however,  are  neither  the  most  important  uoi 
the  most  architectural  —  indeed  none  of  those  m  that 
valley  are  so  remarkable  as  those  in  the  other  locali- 
ties just  enumerated.  The  most  important  of  thou* 
in  the  Valley  of   Hinnom  is  that    known  as  <he 


TOMB 

Retieat-j.lace  of  the  Apostles."  It  is  an  unfinished 
«eavat:on  of  extremely  iate  date,  and  many  of  the 
athers  look  much  more  like  the  dwellings  for  the 
livinif  than  the  resting-places  of  the  dead. 

In  the  village  of  iSiloam  there  is  a  monolithic  cell 
Df  singularly  Egj'ptian  aspect,  which  l)e  Saulcy 
(Voyifje  aut'iurik  la  Mer  Moi-lf,  ii.  .300)  assumes 
to  he  a  chapel  of  Solomon's  Egyptian  wife.  It  is 
prohably  of  very  much  more  modern  date,  and  is 
more  Assyrian  than  Egyptian  in  character;  but  as 
he  is  probably  quite  correct  in  stating  that  it  is  not 
sepulchral,  it  is  only  necessary  to  mention  it  here 
in  order  that  it  may  not  be  confounded  with  those 
that  are  so.  It  is  the  more  worthy  of  remark  as 
one  of  the  great  difficulties  of  the  sulject  arises 
from  travellers  too  readily  assuming  tiiat  every 
cutting  in  the  rock  must  be  sepulchral.  It  may 
be  so  in  Egypt,  but  it  certainly  was  not  so  at 
Cyrene  or  Petra,  where  many  of   the  excavations 


No.  3.  —  So-called  "  Tomb  of  Zecliariah." 

were  either  temples  or  monastic  estahlishmeiits,  and 
it  certainly  was  not  universally  the  case  nt  .leru- 
Balem,  though  our  information  is  frequently  t<iO 
scanty  to  enable  us  always  to  discriminate  exactly 
to  which  class  the  cutting  in  the  rock  may  belong. 

The  principal  remaining  architectural  sepulchres 
may  be  divided  into  three  groups. 

First,  those  existing  in  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat, 
and  known  popularly  as  the  Tombs  of  Zechariah, 
nf  St.  .lames,  and  of  Alisalom. 

Second,  those  known  as  the  Tombs  of  the  Judges, 
and  the  so-called  Jewish  tomb  about  a  mile  north 
of  the  city. 

Third,  that  known  as  the  Tombs  of  the  Kings, 
jbout  half  a  mile  uortli  of  tlie  Damascus  (Jate. 

( >f  the  three  hrst-named  tomlis  the  most  soutiiern 
B  known  as  that  of  Zechariah,  a.  popular  name 
ffliich  there  is  not  even  a  shadow  of  tradition 
lO  justify.  It  consists  of  a  squ.are  solid  basement, 
measuring  18  feet  6  inches  each  way,  and  21)  feet 
k  igh  to  the  top  of  the  cornice.  On  each  face  are 
lour  euiraged  Ionic  columns  between  anta?.  and 
hese  are  surmounted,  not  by  an  ICgyptiati  cornice, 
cU   is  usually  ivj.serted,    but  by  one  oi'  purely  .Vs- 


TOMB  8281 

Syrian  type,  such  as  is  found  at  Ivhorsaliad  (wood- 
cut No.  i).     As  the  Ionic  or  voluted  order  came 
also  from   Assyria,  this  ex- 
ample  is   in    fact    a    more      £J"'  ~~^T^ 
pure  specimen  of  the  Ionic      ^^^ 
order   than    any   found    in      t'       / 
Europe,  where  it  was  always      ■''=  C 
used   by  the  Greeks  with   a      ■'       i 
quasi-Doric   cornice.      Not-      "f- 
withstanding    this,    in    the      j        i 
form   of    the   volutes  —  the 
egg-and-dart    moulding  be- 
neath,   and    every   detail  —  No.  4.— Section  ot  Styi 
it    is    so    distinctly    Roman     obate  at  Kliorsabad. 
tliat  it  is   impossible  to  as- 
sume that  it  belongs  to  an  earlier  age  than  that  of 
their  influence. 

Above  the  cornice  is  a  pyramid  rising  at  rather  a 
sharp  angle,  and  hewn  like  all  the  rest  out  of  the 
solid  rock.  It  may  further  be  remarked  that  only 
the  outward  face,  or  that  fronting  Jerusalem,  is 
completely  finished,  the  other  three  being  only 
blocked  out  (De  Saulcy,  ii.  30-3),  a  circumstance 
that  would  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the  works  may 
have  been  interrupted  by  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  or 
sonje  such  catastrophe,  and  this  may  possibly  also 
account  for  there  being  no  sepulchre  on  its  rear,  if 
suuii  be  really  the  case. 

To  call  this  liuilding  a  tomb  is  evidently  a  mis- 
nomer, as  it  is  absolutely  solid  —  hewn  out  of  the 
living  rock  by  cuttuig  a  passage  round  it.  It  has 
no  internal  chambers,  nor  even  the  semblance  of  a 
doorway.  From  what  is  known  of  the  explorations 
cari-ied  on  by  M.  Kenan  about  Byblus,  we  should 
expect  that  the  tomb,  properly  so  called,  would  he 
an  excavation  in  the  passage  behind  the  monolith  — 
but  none  such  has  been  found,  probaljy  it  was 
never  looked  for  — and  that  this  monolith  is  the 
stel^  or  indicator  of  that  ftict.  If  it  is  so,  it  is  very 
singular,  thougii  very  Jewish,  that  any  one  should 
take  the  trouble  to  carve  out  such  a  monument 
without  putting  an  inscription  or  symbol  on  it  to 
mark  its  destination  or  to  teU  in  whose  honor  it 
was  erected. 

riie  other,  or  so-called  Tomb  of  Absalom,  figured 
in  vol.  i.  p.  17,  is  somewhat  larger,  the  base  beinc 
about  21  feet  square  in  plan,  and  probably  23  or  24 
to  the  top  of  the  cornice.  Like  the  other,  it  is  of 
the  Roman  Ionic  order,  surmounted  by  a  cornice  of 
Ionic  type;  but  i)etween  the  pillars  and  the  cornice 
a  Irieze,  unmistakably  of  the  Roman  Doric  order, 
is  introduced,  so  Roman  as  to  be  in  itself  quite 
suliicient  to  fix  its  epoch.  It  is  by  no  means  clear 
whether  it  had  originally  a  pyramiilical  top  like  its 
neighbor.  The  existence  of  a  square  blocking  above 
the  cornice  would  lead  us  to  suspect  it  had  not;  .at 
all  events,  either  at  the  time  of  its  excavation  or 
subsequently,  this  was  removed,  and  the  jiresent 
very  peculiar  termination  erected,  raising  its  height 
to  over  60  feet.  At  the  time  this  was  done  a 
c!iamber  was  excavated  in  the  base,  we  must 
assume  for  sepulchral  purposes,  though  liow  a  body 
could  be  introduced  through  the  narrow  hole  above 
the  cornice  is  liy  no  means  clear,  nor,  if  inserted, 
how  disposed  of  in  the  two  very  narrow  loculi  that 
exist 

The  great  interest  of  this  excavation  is  that  im- 
mediately in  rear  of  the  monolith  we  do  find  just 
such  a  sepnlcln-al  cavern  as  we  should  expei^t.  It 
is  called  the  Tomb  of  .lehoshapbat,  with  aliout  thn 
same  amount  of  discrimination  as  t'ovenjed  *i- 
nomenclature  of   the  others,  out  is  now'ci'-iaed  l'j 


8282  TOMB 

the  nilibish  and  stones  tlirown  by  the  pious  at  the 
Tomb  of  the  undutiful  Son,  and  consequently  its 
internal  arrangements  are  unknown ;  but  externally 
it  is  crownetl  by  a  pediment  of  consideralile  beauty, 
and  in  the  same  identical  style  as  that  of  the  Totnl)s 
of  the  Judj^es,  mentioned  further  on  —showing  that 


No.  5.  —  Angle  of  Tomb  of  Absalom.    From  De  Saulcy. 

these  two  at  least  are  of  the  same  age.  and  this  one 
at  least  must  have  been  subsequent  to  the  excava- 
tion of  the  monolith :  so  that  we  may  feel  perfectly 
certain  that  the  two  jrroups  are  of  one  age,  even  if 
it  should  not  be  thouirlit  quite  clear  what  that  age 
may  be. 


No.  6.  —  Plan  of  Tomb  of  St.  James, 


The  third  tomb  of  tliis  group,  called  that  of  St. 
'ames.  is  .situated  between  the  otlier  two,  and  ig 
rfa  very  dii^rent  character.    It  consists  (see  Plan) 


TOMB 

of  a  verandah  with  two  Doric  pillars  in  antis,  which 
may  be  characterized  as  belongmg  to  a  very  late 
Greek  order  rather  than  a  Koman  example.  Be- 
hind this  screen  are  se\eral  apartments,  wliich  in 
another  locality  we  might  be  justified  in  calling  a 
rock-cut  monastery  appropriated  to  sepulchral  pur 
poses,  but  in  Jerusalem  we  know  so  little  that  it  it 
necessary  to  pau.se  before  a])plying  any  such  desi;,'- 
nation.  In  the  rear  of  all  is  an  apartment,  aj)- 
parently  unfinished,  with  three  shallow  loculi  meant 
for  the  reception  of  sarcophagi,  and  so  indicating  a 
post-.Iewish  date  for  the  whole  or  at  least  for  that 
part  of  tiie  excavation. 

The  hypogeuui  known  as  the  Tombs  of  the 
Judaes  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the  cata- 
combs around  Jerusalem,  containing  about  sixty 
deep  loculi,  arranged  in  three  stories;  the  upjier 
stories  witli  ledges  in  front  to  give  convenient  access, 
and  to  support  the  stones  that  closed  tliem ;  the 
lower  flush  with  the  ground : "  the  whole,  conse- 
quently, so  essentiaUy  Jewish  that  it  might  lie  of 
any  age  if  it  were  not  for  its  distance  from  the 
town,  and  its  architectural  character.  The  latter, 
as  before  stated,  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Tomb 
of  Jehoshaphat,  and  has  nothintc  Jewish  aliout  it. 
It  might  of  course  be  difficult  to  prove  this,  as  we 
know  so  little  of  what  .lewish  architecture  really  is; 
but  we  do  know  that  the  pediment  is  more  essen- 
tially a  Greek  invention  than  any  other  part  of  their 
architecture,  and  was  introduceil  at  least  not  jirevi- 
ously  to  tlie  age  of  the  Cypselidje,  and  this  peculiar 
form  not  till  long  afterwards,  and  this  particular 
example  not  till  after  an  age  when  the  debased 
Itomau  of  the  Tomb  of  Absalom  had  become  pos- 
sible. 


>o.  7.  —  i'ii^-aJe  ol  the  iouitjs  ot  tlie  JuJ^eo 


The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  tomb  without  a^ 
name,  arid  merely  called  "  a  .lewish  Tomb,"  in  this 
neighborhood,  with  beveled  facets  over  its  fa(,'ade, 
but  with  late  Homan  Doric  details  at  its  anirles, 
sufficient  to  indicate  its  epoch;  but  there  is  nothing 
else  about  these  tombs  requiring  especial  mention. 

Tombs  of  Ihvoil.  —  The  last  of  the  great  (.'roups 
enumerated  al)Ove  is  that  known  as  the  Tombs  of 
the  Kings  —  KMr  is  -  Sullmi  —  or  the  lioyal 
Caverns,  so  called  because  of  their  magnificence, 
and  also  because  that  name  is  applied  to  them  by 
Josephus,  who  in  describing  the  third  wall  men- 
tions them  (B.  J.  v,  4,  §  2),  He  states  that  "the 
wall  reached  a.s  far  as  the  Tower  Psephinus,  and 
then  extended  till  it  came  opposite  the  .Monuments 
(fiVTlfificoy)  of  Helena.  It  then  extended  lurther  to 
a   great  length  till   it   passed  by  the   Sepulchral 


"  Ficrotti'.  in  his  published  Plan  of  Jerusalem,  adds    Italian  is  mistaken.     Wood-cut  Xo.  1  is  taken  frriui  hli 
sarcop!ihi;,'is   chamber   with   shallow  loculi,  but  as  i  plan,  but  used  a.«  a  diagram  ntthfr  thau  as  repressnt 
X>tJi  JScoles  a.yj  De  Saulcy  omit  this,  it  is  probable  the  '  :ug  the  exact  facts  of  the  case 


\ 


TOMB 

Caverns  of  the  Kings,"  etc.  We  nave  thus  first 
the  Tower  Psephinus,  the  site  of  which  is  very 
tolerably  ascertained  on  the  ridire  above  the  Pool 
Birkel  MamiWi  ;  then  the  Monument  of  Helena, 
and  then  at  some  distance  eastward  these  Royal 
Caverns. 

They  are  twice  again 'mentioned  under  the  title 
of  'HpciSou  /xv7]aeiioy.  First,  wiien  Titus,  ai>- 
proaching  from  the  north,  ordered  the  ground  to 
be  cleared  from  Scopus  —  which  is  tolerably  well 
known  —  up  to  those  Monuments  of  Herod  (5.  J. 
V.  3,  §  2);  and  lastly  in  the  description  of  the  cir- 
cunivallation  (B.  J.  v.  12,  §  2),  where  they  are 
mentioned  after  passinn;  the  .Monument  of  .\nanus 
and  Pompey's  Camp,  evidently  on  the  ridije  where 
Psephinus  afterwards  stood,  and  on  the  north  of 
the  city. 

These  three  passages  refer  so  evidently  to  one 
and  the  same  place,  that  no  one  would  probably 
ever  have  doul)ted  — especially  when  taken  in  con- 
junction with  the  architecture  —  but  that  these 
ca\erns  were  the  tombs  of  Herod  and  his  family, 
were  it  not  for  a  curious  contradiction  of  himself 
in  the  works  of  Josejihus,  which  has  led  to  consid- 
erable confusion.  Herod  died  at  Jericho,  and  the 
most  probable  account  {Ant.  svii.  8,  §  3)  would  lead 
us  to  suppose  (it  is  not  so  stated)  that  his  body 
was  ln'ought  to  Jerusalem,  where  the  funeral  jiro- 
cession  was  formed  on  a  scale  and  with  a  magnifi- 
cence which  would  have  been  impossible  at  such  a 
place  as  -lericho  without  long  previous  pre])aration  : 
and  it  then  goes  on  to  say,  "  and  so  they  went 
ei(//it  stadia  to  [the]  Herodium,  for  there,  by  his 
own  command,  he  was  to  lie  buried  "'  —  eight  stadia, 
or  one  mile,  being  the  exact  distance  between  the 
royal  palace  and  these  tombs. 

The  other  account  (D.  J.  i.  33,  §  9)  repeats  i\v 
details  of  the  procession,  and  nearly  in  the  same 
words,  but  substitutes  200  for  8,  which  has  led  to 
the  belief  that  he  was  buried  at  Jebel  Fiirtu/is, 
where  he  had  erected  a  palace  GO  stadia  south  of 
Jerusalem,  and  170  I'rom  Jericho.  Even  tiien  the 
procession  nuist  have  passed  through  Jerusalem, 
and  this  hardly  would  have  been  the  case  without 
its  beini;  mentioned;  but  the  great  difficulty  is  that 
there  is  no  hint  anywhere  else  of  Herod's  intention 
to  be  buried  there,  and  the  most  extreme  improb- 
ability that  he  should  wish  to  be  interred  so  far 
from  the  city  where  all  his  predecessors  were  laid. 
'J'houi;h  it  would  be  unpardonable  to  alter  the  text 
in  order  to  meet  any  particular  view,  still  when  an 
author  makes  two  statements  in  direct  contradic- 
tion the  one  to  the  other,  it  is  allowalile  to  choose 
the  most  conformalile  with  probability;  and  this, 
added  to  his  assertion  that  Ilerod's  Tombs  were  in 
this  neighborhood,  seems  to  settle  the  question. 

The  architecture  (wood-cut  No.  8)  exhibits  the 
Bame  ill-understood  Koman  Doric  arraui^enients  as 
are  found  in  all  these  tombs,  mixed  with  bunches 
of  grapes,  which  first  appear  on  Maccabeau  coins, 
and  foliage  which  is  local  and  peculiar,  and,  so  far 
as  anything  is  known  elsewhere,  miijht  be  of  any 
age.  Its  coimection,  however,  with  that  of  the 
Tomlis  of  Jehoshaphat  and  the  Judges  fixes  it  to 
Jje  same  epoch. 

The  entrance  dcorway  of  this  tomb  is  below  the 
Jfevel  of  the  ground,  and  concealed,  as  far  as  nny- 
tliing  can  be  said  to  be  so  which  is  so  architecturally 
idorned;  and  it  is  remarkable  as  the  only  instance 
►f  this  quasi-coiicealnient  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  closed 
»y  a  very  curious  and  elaborate  contrivance  of  a 
foiling   stone,   often  described,   but  very   clumsily 


TOMB 


3283 


answering  its  purpose.  This  also  rs  characteristic 
of  its  a^e,  as  we  know  from  Pausanias  that  the 
stnictural  marble  monument  of  Queen  Helena  of 
Adiabene  was  remarkal'le  for  a  similar  piece  of  mis- 
placed ingenuity.  Within,  the  tomb  consists  of  a 
vestiliule  or  entrance-hall  about  20  feet  square,  from 
which  three  other  square  apartments  open,  each 
suiToimded  by  deep  lociili.  These  acjain  possess  a 
peculiarity  not  known  in  any  other  tomb  about 
Jerusalem,  of  having  a  square  apartment  either 
beyond  the  head  of  the  loculus  or  on  one  side :  is, 
for  instance  (wood-cut  No  9),  a  a  have  their  inner 
chamliers  a'  a'  within,  but  b  and  b,  at  n'  b',  on 
one  side.  What  the  purpose  of  these  was  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  guess,  but  at  all  events  it  was  not  .Jewish. 
But  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  jjeculiaiity  of 
the  hypocreum  is  the  sarcophagus  chamber  d,  in 
which  two  sarcophagi  were  found,  one  of  which  was 
broutrht  home  by  De  Saulcy,  and  is  now  in  the 
I.ouvre.  It  is  of  course  quite  natural  that  a  Roman 
king  wlio  was  buried  with  such  Roman  pom]3  should 
have  adopted  the  Roman  mode  of  sepulture;  and 
if  this  and  that  of  St.  James  are  the  only  sarcophagi 
chambers  at  Jerusalem,  this  alone  should  settle  the 
controversy;  and   all   certainly  .tends   to  make  it 


[4^fii:j:ii:Mmi^\:i 


No.  8.  —  FafaUe  of  Uuiiid'o  Xuiuljs,  Iruui  n  Photograph. 

more  and  more  probable  that  this  was  really  the 
sepulchre  of  Herod. 

If  the  sarcophagus  now  in  the  Louvre,  which 
came  from  this  chamber,  is  that  of  Herod,  it  is  thi^ 
most  practical  illustration  that  h,as  yet  come  to 
light  of  a  theory  which  has  recently  been  forcing 
itself  on  the  attention  of  antiquarians.  According 
to  this  new  view,  it  is  not  necessary  that  furniture, 
or  articles  wliich  can  be  considered  as  such,  must 
alwinji  foUow  the  style  of  the  architecture  of  the 
day.  They  must  have  done  so  always  in  I'X'ypt,  in 
(ireece,  or  in  the  Middle  .\ges;  but  nii^ht  have 
deviated  from  it  at  Rome,  and  may  proliably  have 
done  so  at  Jerusalem,  among  a  people  who  had  no 
art  of  their  own,  as  was  the  case  with  the  .lews. 
The  discord  in  fact  may  not  have  been  more  otTen- 
sive  to  them  than  the  Louis  Quatorze  furniture  is 
to  us,  with  which  we  adorn  our  Classical  and  Gothic 
buildings  with  such  cosmopolite  impartiality.  If 
this  is  so.  the  sarcophagus  may  have  been  made  for 
Herod.  If  this  hypothesis  is  not  tenal>lo,  it  may 
belong  to  any  age  trom  the  time  of  the  .Maccabees 
to  that  of  Justinian,  most  probal)ly  the  latter,  for 
it  certainly  is  not  Roman,  and  has  no  eonuectiou 
with  the  architecture  of  tiiese  tombs. 

lie  this  as  it  may,  Uiere  seems  no  reajjon  f<w 


3284  TOMB 

doubting  but  that  all  the  architectural  tombs  of 
Jprusaleni  belong  to  the  age  of  the  Romans,  like 
everythinq;  that  has  j'et  been  found  either  at  Petra, 
Baalbec,  Palmyra,  or  Damascus,  or  even  among  the 
stone  cities  of  the  Hauran.     Throughout  Syria,  in 


TOMB 

fact,  there  is  no  important  architectural  example 
which  is  anterior  to  their  day:  and  all  the  speci- 
mens which  can  be  called  Classical  are  strongly 
marked  with  the  impress  of  the  peculiar  forms  of 
Roman  art. 


Xo.  y.  —  Plan  of  Tombs  ot  Herod.     From  De  Saulcy 


Tomb  of  Hdena  of  Adiihane. — There  was  one 
Dther  very  fomous  tomb  at  Jerusalem,  which  can- 
not be  passed  o\'er  in  silence,  though  not  one  ves- 
tige of  it  exists  — for  the  simple  reason  that  though 
Queen  Helena  of  Adiabene  was  converted  to  the 
Jewish  faith,  she  had  not  so  fully  adopted  Jewish 
feelings  as  to  think  it  necessary  she  .should  be 
buried  under  ground.  On  the  contrary,  we  are 
told  that  '•  siie  with  her  brother  were  biu'ied  in  the 
pyramids  which  she  had  ordered  to  be  constructed 
at  a  distance  of  three  stadia  from  Jerusalem  "  {Ant. 
XX.  4,  §  -j).  This  is  confirmed  by  Pausanias  (viii. 
16),  who,  besides  mentioning  the  marble  door  of 
very  apocryphal  mechanism  which  closed  its  en- 
trance, s[ieaks  of  it  as  a  Ta,<pos  in  the  same  sense 
in  which  he  understands  the  mausoleum  at  Hali- 
carnassus  to  have  been  a  structured  tomb,  which 
he  could  not  have  done  if  this  were  a  cave,  as  some 
have  supposed. 

The  specification  of  the  locality  by  Josephus  is  so 
minute  tliat  we  have  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining 
whereabouts  the  monument  stood.  It  was  situated 
outside  the  third  wall,  near  a  gate  between  the 
Tower  Psephinus  and  the  Royal  Caverns  {B.  J.  v. 
22,  and  v.  4,  §  2).  These  last  are  perfectly  known, 
and  the  tower  with  very  tolerable  approximate  cer- 
tainty, for  it  was  placed  on  the  highest  point  of  tiie 
ridge  between  the  hollow  in  which  the  Birket  Ma- 
milla  is  situated  and  the  upper  valley  of  the  Kedron  ; 
they  were  consequently  either  exactly  where  marked 
on  the  plan  in  vol.  ii.  p.  1312,  or  it  may  be  a  little 
more  to  the  eastward. 

They  remained  sufficiently  entire  in  the  4th  cen- 
tury to  form  a  conspicuous  olject  in  the  landscape, 
to  be  mentioned  by  Euseliius,  and  to  be  remarked 
l>y  those  who  accompanied  Sta.  Paula  (Kuseb.  ii. 
12;  iiioron.  EpiUipk.  Pauke)  on  her  journey  to 
Jerudaleuj. 


There  is  no  difficulty  in  forming  a  tolerably  dis- 
tinct idea  of  wh.at  the  appearance  of  this  remark- 
able monument  must  have  been,  if  we  compare 
the  words  descriptive  of  it  in  the  various  authors 
who  have  mentioned  it  with  the  contemporary 
monuments  in  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat.  if 
we  place  together  in  a  row  three  such  monu- 
ments as  the  Tomb  of  Zechariah,  or  rather  two 
such,  with  the  monument  of  Absalom  between 
them,  we  have  such  an  edifice  as  will  answer  to 
the  Pyramid  of  Josephus,  the  Taphos  of  Pausa- 
nias, tlie  Steles  of  Eusel)ius,  or  the  Mausoleum  of 
.Jerome.  But  it  need  hardly  be  added,  that  not 
one  of  these  expressions  apphes  to  an  underground 
excavation.  Accordins;  to  this  view  of  the  mat- 
ter, the  entrance  would  l)e  under  the  Central  Cip- 
pus,  which  would  tlms  form  the  ante-room  to  the 
two  lateral  pyramids,  in  one  of  which  Helena  her- 
self reposed,  and  in  the  other  the  remains  of  her 
brother. 

Since  the  destruction  of  the  city  by  Titus,  none 
of  the  native  inhabitants  of  .lerusalem  have  been  in 
a  position  to  indulge  in  nuich  sepulchral  magnifi- 
cence, or  perhaps  had  any  taste  for  this  class  of  dis- 
play; and  we  in  consequence  find  no  rock-cut  hy- 
pogea,  and  no  structural  monuments  that  arrest 
attention  in  modern  times.  The  people,  however, 
still  cling  to  their  ancient  cemeteries  in  the  Valley 
of  .lehoshaphat  with  a  tenacity  singularly  charac- 
teristic of  the  East.  The  only  difference  beincj, 
that  the  erection  of  the  AVall  of  Agrippa,  which 
now  forms  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Haram 
Area,  has  pushed  the  cemetery  further  toward  the 
Kedron,  or  at  le.ast  cut  off  the  upper  and  nobler 
part  of  it.  And  the  contraction  of  the  city  on 
tiie  north  has  enabled  the  tombs  to  approach 
ne.arer  the  limits  of  the  modern  town  than  waa 
the  case  in  the  days  when  Herod  the  Great  and 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

Helena  of  Aduiliene  were  buried  "on  the  sidor.  »/f 
the  north. ■' 

The  only  remai'kable  exception  to  this  assertion 
is  that  splendid  Mausoleum  which  Conatantine 
erected  over  what  he  believed  to  be  the  tomb  of 
Christ,  and  which  still  exists  at  Jerusalem,  known 
to  Moslems  as  the  Dome  of  the  Rock ;  to  Christians 
as  tiie  Alosque  of  Omar. 

The  arguments  for  its  authenticity  have  already 
been  sufficiently  insisted  upon  in  the  article  Jehu- 
SALEM,  in  the  second  volume,  and  its  general  form 
and  position  shown  in  the  wood-cut,  p.  1316.  It 
will  not,  therefore,  lie  necessary  to  go  over  this 
ground  again.  Externally  its  appearance  was  very 
much  altered  by  the  repairs  of  (Suleiman  the  Mag- 
nificent, when  the  city  had  returned  to  the  posses- 
lion  of  the  Moslems  after  the  retreat  of  the  Cru- 
saders, and  it  has  consequently  lost  much  of  its 
original  Byzantine  character;  but  internally  it  re- 
mains much  as  it  was  left  by  its  founder;  and  is 
now  —  with  the  exception  of  a  few  Indian  tombs 
—  the  most  magnificent  sepulchral  monument  in 
Asia,  and  is,  as  it  ought  to  be,  the  most  splendid 
Christian  sepulchre  in  the  world."  J.  F. 

*  On  this  subject  one  may  see  also  Ordnance 
Survey  of  Jei-usnkm,  pp.  61-70  (Lond.  186.5); 
Reni'tins  of  Tombs  in  Pdlesline,  by  Captain  C.  \V. 
Wilson,  in  Qaarlerly  Statement  of  the  Palestine 
Kxplor.  Fuml,  accompanied  by  drawings  (Lond. 
1869);  Tobler,  JDenkbldtter  aus  Jems.  pp.  609- 
8o5,  and  Dritte  Wanderung  nach  Puldstina,  pp. 
34-1-352 ;  Sepp,  Jerusalem  u.  das  heil.  Land,  i. 
217  tt". ;  Rev.  George  AVilliams,  Holy  City,  more  es- 
pecially in  regard  to  tombs  in  and  around  Jerusa- 
lem, iii.  129  ff . ;  and  in  this  Dictionary,  Jekus.v- 
LEM,  ancient  and  modern.  H. 

TONGUES,    CONFUSION     OF.      The 

unity  of  the  human  race  is  most  clearly  implied,  if 
not  positively  asserted,  in  the  Mosaic  writings.  The 
general  declaration,  "  So  God  created  maji  in  his 
own  image,  ....  male  and  female  created  He 
them  "  (Gen.  i.  27),  is  limited  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  the  act  was  carried  out,  by  the  subsequent 
narrative  of  the  creation  of  the  protoplast  Adam, 
who  stood  alone  on  the  earth  amidst  the  beasts  of 
the  field,  until  it  pleased  Jehovah  to  create  "  an 
help-meet  for  him  "  out  of  the  very  substance  of 
his  body  (Gen.  ii.  22).  From  this  original  pair 
sprang  the  whole  antediluvian  population  of  the 
world,  and  hence  the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis 
conceived  the  unity  of  the  human  race  to  be  of  the 
most  rigid  nature —  not  simply  a  generic  unity,  nor 
again  simply  a  specific  unity  (for  unity  of  species 
may  not  be  inconsistent  with  a  plurality  of  original 
centres),  but  a  specific  based  upon  a  numerical 
unity,  the  species  being  nothing  else  than  the  en- 
largement of  tue  individual.     Such  appears  to  be 


«  *  The  author  of  this  article  has  introduced  iuto 
It  two  points  of  ii  favorite  theory  which  is  original 
with  him,  namely,  that  the  Dome  of  the  Rock,  or  the 
Mosque  of  Omar,  and  Coustantiue's  Church  of  the 
Eioly  Sepulchre  are  identical  ;  and  tliat  Mount  Moriah, 
or  the  Eastern  Hill,  and  Mount  Zion,  are  identical  : 
and,  consequently,  that  the  royal  sepulchres  of  Judah 
were  somewhere  within  the  present  Uuram  Area.  The 
grounds  of  utter  dissent  from  these  views  have  been 
given  by  the  writer  of  this  in  the  article  jEaus.\LE.vi, 
•  IV.  p.  1330  £f.,  Amer,  ed.  The  assertion  above, 
which  has  no  historical  support,  tliat  "  the  Wall  of 
Agrippa  now  forms  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Ha- 
■ani  Areiv,'  contracting  the  ancient  cemetery,  is  dis- 
irovnj  by  Oapt.  Wairen'a  explorations,  who  finds   no 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    -3285 

tTiS  natur.d  meaning  of  the  first  chapters  of  flene- 
sis,  when  taken  by  themselves  —  much  more  so 
when  read  under  the  reflected  light  of  the  New 
Testament;  for  not  only  do  we  meet  with  refer- 
ences to  the  historical  fact  of  such  an  origin  of  the 
human- race  —  e.  y.  in  St.  Paul's  declaration  that 
(jod  "hath  made  of  one  blood  every  nation  of  men 
to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth  " ''  (.Acts  svii. 
20)  —  but  the  same  is  evidently  implied  in  the  nu- 
merous passages  which  represent  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
counterpart  of  .\dam  in  regard  to  the  universality 
of  his  connection  with  the  human  race.  Attempts 
have  indeed  been  made  to  show  that  the  idea  of  a 
plurality  of  original  pairs  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  Mosaic  writings;  but  there  is  a  wide  distinction 
between  a  view  not  inconsistent  with,  and  a  \\evi 
drawn  from,  the  woi'ds  of  the  author:  the  latter  \» 
founded  upon  the  facts  he  relates,  as  well  as  his 
mode  of  relating  them;  the  former  takes  ailvantage 
of  the  weaknesses  arising  out  of  a  concise  or  un- 
methodical style  of  composition.  Even  if  such  a 
view  could  be  sustaineil  in  reference  to  the  narra- 
tive of  the  original  creation  of  man,  it  must  inevi 
tably  fail  in  reference  to  the  history  of  the  repopu 
lation  of  the  world  in  the  postdiluvian  age;  for 
whatever  olijections  may  be  made  to  the  historical 
accuracy  of  the  history  of  the  Flood,  it  is  at  all 
events  clear  that  the  historian  believed  in  the  unj 
versal  destruction  of  the  human  race  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Noah  and  his  family,  and  coiisequently 
that  the  unity  of  the  human  race  was  once  more 
reduced  to  one  of  a  numerical  character.  To  Noah 
the  historian  traces  up  the  whole  postdiluvian  pop- 
ulation of  the  world :  "  These  are  the  three  sons  of 
Noah :  and  of  them  was  the  whole  earth  overspread  "' 
(Gen.  ix.  19). 

Unity  of  language  is  assumed  by  the  sacred  \x\iU)- 
rian  apparently  as  a  corollary  of  the  unity  of  race. 
No  explanation  is  given  of  the  origin  of  speech,  but 
its  exercise  is  evidently  regarded  as  coeval  with  the 
creation  of  man.  No  support  can  be  obtained  in 
behalf  of  any  theory  on  this  suliject  from  the  first 
recorded  instance  of  its  exercise  ("  Adam  gave 
names  to  all  cattle")  for  the  simple  reason  that 
this  notice  is  introductory  to  what  follows:  "but 
for  Adam  there  was  not  foimd  an  help-meet  fur 
him  "  (Gen.  ii.  20).  It  was  not  so  much  the  inten- 
tion of  the  writer  to  state  the  fact  of  man's  power  of 
speech,  as  the  fact  of  the  inferiority  of  all  other  ani- 
mals to  him,  and  the  consequent  necessity  for  the 
creation  of  woman.  The  proof  of  that  inferiority  is 
indeed  most  appropriately  made  to  consist  in  the 
authoritative  assignment  of  names,  implying  an  act 
of  reflection  on  their  several  natures  and  capacities, 
and  a  recognition  of  the  offices  which  they  were  de- 
signed to  fill  in  the  economy  of  the  world.  The 
exercise  of  speech  is  thus  most  happily  connected 

substructions  in  Jerusalem  more  ancient  and  massive 
than  portions  of  the  Eastern  Wall,  layers  of  which 
remain  in  situ. 

The  Quarterly  Statement  No.  V.  of  the  Pal.  Expl. 
Fund  (pp.  245-261)  contains  an  account,  by  Dr.  Oh 
Sandreczki,  ot  the  rock-tombs  of  el-Mtdyeli,  a  village 
near  Lydda,  and  his  reasons  for  identifying  this  site 
with  Modin,  and  these  tombs,  known  as  Kubttr  ei-  Yu- 
/iM,  with  the  Maccabseau  mausoleum.  The  sugges- 
tion appears  quite  plausible.     [Modix,  iii.  1989.] 

S,  W. 

b  The  force  of  the  Apostle's  statement  is  imule- 
quately  given  in  the  A.  V.,  which  gives  ''for  to 
dwell  ■'  as  the  result.  Instead  of  the  dire<_-t  ot.ject  o» 
tat;  uriuciuul  verb. 


8286    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

with  the  exercise  of  reflection,  and  the  relationship 
between  the  inner  act  of  the  uiiml  {\6yos  ivSidBe- 
Tos)  and  the  outward  expression  {Aoyos  Trpo<popi- 
k6s)  is  fully  recognized.  Speech  being  thus  inhe- 
rent in  man  as  a  reflecting  being,  was  regarded  as 
handed  down  from  father  to  son  by  the  same  process 
of  imitation  by  which  it  is  still  perpetuated.  What- 
ever divergences  may  have  arisen  in  the  antedilu- 
vian period,  no  notice  is  taken  of  them,  inasmuch 
as  their  effects  were  obliterated  by  the  universal  catas- 
trophe of  the  I'lood.  The  original  unity  of  speech 
was  restored  in  Noah,  and  would  naturally  be  re- 
tained by  his  descendants  as  long  as  they  were  held 
together  by  social  and  local  bonds.  Accordingly 
We  are  informed  that  for  some  time  "  the  whole 
earth  was  of  one  lip  and  the  same  words  "  (Gen.  xi. 
1 );  i.  e.  l)oth  the  vocal  sounds  and  the  vocables 
were  identical  —  an  exhaustive,  but  not,  as  in  the 
A.  v.,  a  tautologous  description  of  complete  unity. 
Disturbing  causes  were,  llowe^•er,  early  at  work  to 
dissolve  this  twofold  union  of  conmiunity  and  speech. 
The  human  family «  endeavored  to  check  the  ten- 
dency to  separation  by  the  estalilishment  of  a  great 
central  edifice,  and  a  city  which  should  serve  as  the 
metropolis  of  the  whole  world.  They  attempted  to 
carry  out  this  project  in  the  wide  plain  of  Baby- 
lonia, a  locality  admirably  suited  to  such  an  object 
from  the  physical  and  geographical  peculiarities  of 
the  country.  The  project  was  defeated  by  the  in- 
terposition of  Jehovah,  who  determined  to  "  con- 
found their  language,  so  that  they  might  not  under- 
stand one  another's  speech."  Contemporaneously 
with,  and  perhaps  as  the  result  of,  this  confusion 
of  tongues,  the  people  were  scattered  abroad  from 
thence  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth,  and  the 
memory  of  the  great  event  was  preserved  in  the 
name  Babel  (=  confusion).  The  ruins  of  the  tower 
are  identified  by  M.  Oppert,  the  highest  authority 
on  Babylonian  antiquities,  with  the  basement  of 
the  great  mound  of  Birs-Niim-ud,  the  ancient  Bor- 
sippa.* 

Two  points  demand  our  attention  in  reference  to 
this  narrative,  namely,  the  dcL'ree  to  which  the  con- 
fusion of  tongues  may  be  supjiosed  to  have  extended, 
and  the  connection  between  the  confusion  of  tongues 
and  the  dispersion  of  nations.  (1.)  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  assume  that  the  judgment  inflicted  on  the 
builders  of  Babel  amounted  to  a  loss,  or  even  a  sus- 
pension, of  articulate  speech.  The  desired  object 
would  be  equally  attained  by  a  miraculous  ibre- 
Btalment  of  those  dialectical  differences  of  language 
which  are  constantly  in  process  of  production,  but 
vvhicii,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  require  time 
and  variations  of  place  and  habits  to  reach  such  a 
point  of  maturity  that  people  are  unable  to  under- 
stand one  another's  speech.  The  elements  of  the 
one  original  language  may  have  remained,  but  so 
disguised  by  variations  of  pronunciation,  and  by  the 
introduction  of  new  combinations,  as  to  be  practi- 
cally obliterated.  Each  section  of  the  human  fam- 
ily may  have  spoken  a  tongue  ui)intelligil)le  to  the 
remainder,  and  yet  containing  a  substratum  which 
was  common  to  all.  Our  own  experience  suthces 
to  show  how  completely  even  dialectical  ditliereiices 
render  strangers  unintelligible  to  one  another;  and 
if  we  further  take  into  consideration  the  ditterences 


a  The  project  has  been  restricted  by  certain  critics 
'o  the  Hamites,  or,  at  all  event?,  to  a  mere  section  of 
yhe  human  race.  This  and  various  other  questions 
Arising  out  of  the  narrative  are  discussed  by  Vitringa 
.n  his  Obsfrv.  Sncr.  i.  1.  §§  2-8  ;  6,  §§  1-4  Although 
;tje  restrioCiou  above  noticed  is  not  irreconcilable  with 


TONGUES.  CONFUSION  OF 

of  habits  and  associations,  of  which  dialectical  dif 
ferences  are  the  exponents,  we  shall  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  accounting  for  the  result  described  by  the 
sacred  historian.  ('2.)  'i"he  confusion  of  tongues 
and  the  dispersion  of  nations  are  spoken  of  in  the 
Bible  as  contemporaneous  events.  "  So  the  Lord 
scattered  them  abroad  "  is  stated  as  the  executior 
of  the  Divine  coun.sel,  "  Let  us  confound  their  lan- 
guage." The  divergence  of  the  various  families 
into  distinct  tribes  and  nations  ran  parallel  with 
the  divergence  of  speech  into  dialects  and  languages, 
and  thus  the  10th  chapter  of  Genesis  is  posterior  in 
historical  sequence  to  the  events  recorded  in  the 
11th  chapter.  Both  passages  must  be  taken  iiito 
consideration  in  any  disquisition  on  the  early  for- 
tunes of  the  human  race.  We  propose  therefore  to 
inquire,  in  the  first  place,  how  far  modern  re- 
searches into  the  plienomena  of  language  favor  the 
idea  that  there  was  once  a  time  when  "the  whole 
earth  was  of  one  speech  and  language:  "  and,  in 
the  second  place,  whether  the  ethnological  views 
exhibited  in  the  Mosaic  table  accord  with  the  evi- 
dence furnished  by  history  and  language,  both  in 
regard  to  the  s|)ecial  facts  recorded  in  it,  ajid  in  the 
general  Scrijitural  view  of  a  historical  or  more 
properly  a  gentilic  unity  of  the  human  race.  These 
questions,  though  indejiendent,  yet  exercise  a  re- 
flexive influence  on  each  other's  results.  Unity  of 
speech  does  not  necessarily  involve  unity  of  race, 
nor  yet  t'ice  vtrsa  ;  but  each  enhances  the  proba- 
bility of  the  other,  and  therefore  the  argmnents 
derived  from  lan<;uage,  physiology,  and  history, 
may  ultimately  furnish  a  cumulative  amount  of 
[irobability  which  will  fall  but  little  below  demon- 
stration. 

(A.)  The  advocate  of  the  historical  U7iity  of  lan- 
guage has  to  encounter  two  classes  of  opposing 
arguments;  one  arising  out  of  the  diflerences,  the 
other  out  of  the  resemlilances  of  existing  larjguages. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  is  urged  that  the  differences 
are  of  so  decisive  and  B|3ecific  a  character  as  to  place 
the  possibility  of  a  common  origin  wholly  out  of 
the  question ;  on  the  other  hand  that  the  resem- 
blances do  not  necessitate  the  theory  of  a  historical 
unity,  but  may  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  on 
psychological  principles.  It  will  be  our  oliject  to 
discuss  the  amount,  the  value,  and  the  probable 
origin  of  the  varieties  exhibited  by  languages,  with 
a  view  to  meet  the  first  class  of  objections.  But 
before  proceeding  to  this,  we  will  make  a  few  re- 
marks on  the  second  class,  inasmuch  as  these,  if 
established,  would  indlify  any  conclusion  that  might 
be  drawn  from  the  otiier. 

A  psychological  unity  is  not  necessarily  opposed 
to  a  gentilic  unity.  It  is  perfectly  open  to  any 
theorist  to  combine  the  two  by  assuming  that  the 
language  of  the  one  protoplast  was  founded  on 
strictly  psychological  principles.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  psychological  unity  does  not  necessitate  a 
gentilic  unity.  It  permits  of  the  theory  of  a  plu- 
rality of  protoplasts,  who  under  the  influence  of 
the  same  psychological  laws  arrived  at  similar  inde- 
pendent results.  Whether  the  phenomena  of  lan- 
guage are  consistent  with  such  a  theory,  we  think 
extremely  doubtful ;  certainly  they  cannot  furnish 
the  basis  of  it.      The  whole  question  of  the  origin 


the  text,  it  interferes  with  the  ulterior  object  forwhict 
the  narrative  was  probably  inserted,  namely,  to  recon- 
cile the  manifest  diver.'ity  of  language  with  h*  idea  d 
an  originKl  unity. 

b  See  the  .\ppendix  to  this  article. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

ol  laiiguaije  lies  beyond  the  pale  of  historical  proof, 
and  any  theory  connected  with  it  admits  neither 
of  being  proved  nur  disproved.  We  know,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  that  language  is  comnuinicated  Irum 
one  generation  to  another  solely  by  force  of  innta- 
tion,  and  that  there  is  no  play  whatever  lor  the  in- 
ventive faculty  in  reference  to  it.  But  in  what 
manner  the  substance  of  language  was  originally 
produced,  we  tic  not  know.  No  argument  can  be 
derived  against  the  common  origin  from  analogies 
drawn  from  the  animal  world,  and  when  Professor 
Agassiz  compares  similarities  of  language  witli 
those  of  the  cries  of  animals  (,v.  Bohlen's  iiilrod.  in 
Gtii.  ii.  278),  he  leaves  out  of  consideration  the 
important  fact  that  language  is  not  identical  with 
sound,  and  that  the  words  of  a  rational  being,  how- 
ever originally  produced,  are  perpetuated  in  a  man- 
ner wholly  distinct  from  tliat  whereby  animals  learn 
to  utter  their  cries.  Nor  does  the  internal  evitlence 
of  language  itself  reveal  the  mystery  of  its  urigin  ; 
for  tliougu  a  very  large  nmuLier  of  words  may  be 
referred  either  directly  or  mediately  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  onomatopoeia,  there  are  otiiers,  as,  for  in- 
stance, the  first  and  second  personal  pronouns,  which 
do  not  admit  of  such  au  e.^plaiiation.  In  short, 
this  and  other  similar  theoi'ies  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  the  intimate  connection  evidently  e.\isting  be- 
tween reason  and  speech,  and  which  is  so  well  e.x- 
pressed  in  the  Greek  language  by  the  application 
of  the  term  \6yos  to  eacn,  reason  being  nothing 
else  than  inward  speech,  and  speech  nothing  else 
than  outward  reason,  neither  of  tlieui  possessing  an 
independent  existence  without  the  other.  As  we 
conceive  that  the  psychological,  as  opposed  to  the 
gentilic,  unity  involves  questions  connected  with  the 
origin  of  language,  we  can  only  say  that  in  this  re- 
spect it  falls  outside  the  range  of  our  inquiry. 

Kevertiiig  to  the  other  class  of  objections,  we 
proceed  to  re\iew  the  extent  of  the  ditlerences  ob- 
servable in  the  languages  ot  the  world,  in  order  to 
ascertain  whether  tney  are  such  as  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  a  common  origin.  Such  a  review 
must  necessarily  be  imperfect,  both  from  tue  mag- 
nitude of  the  subject,  and  also  from  the  position  of 
the  linguistic  science  itself,  which  as  yet  has  hardly 
advanced  beyond  the  stage  of  infancy.  On  the 
latter  point  we  would  observe  that  the  most  impor- 
tant links  between  the  various  language  fannhes 
may  }'et  be  discovered  in  languages  that  are  eitlier 
unexplored,  or,  at  all  events,  unplaced.  Mean- 
while, no  one  can  doubt  that  the  tendency  of  all 
linguistic  research  is  in  the  direction  of  unity. 
Already  it  has  brought  within  tlie  bonds  of  a  well- 
established  relationship  languages  so  remote  trom 
each  other  in  external  guise,  in  age,  and  in  geo- 
graphical position  as  Sanskrit  and  linglish,  Celtic 
and  Greek.  It  has  done  the  same  for  otner  groups 
of  languages  equally  widely  extended,  but  present- 
ing less  opportunities  of  investigation.  It  has 
recognized  attinities  between  languages  which  the 
ancient  Greek  ethnologist  would  have  classed  under 
the  head  of  '•  barbarian  "'  in  reference  to  each  other, 
and  even  in  many  instances  where  the  modern  phi- 
lologist has  anticipated  no  relationship.  f'he  lines 
of  discovery  thereiore  point  in  one  direction,  and 
ravor  the  expectation  that  the  various  faniihes  may 
be  coml)ined  by  the  discovery  of  connecting  links 
into  a  single  family,  comprehending  in  its  capacious 
bosom  all  the  languages  of  the  world,  but  should 
such  a  result  never  be  attained,  the  probability  of 
*  common  origin  would  still  remain  unshaken ;  lor 
.he  fail'U'e  wmld   iirooably  be   due  to  tiie  absence. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    3287 

in  many  classes  and  families,  of  that  chain  of  hiu- 
lor.oal  evidence,  which  in  the  case  of  the  Indo- 
liuropean  and  Sheniitic  families  enables  us  to  trace 
their  progress  tor  above  3,000  years.  In  many  lan- 
guages no  literature  at  all,  in  many  others  no  ancient 
literature  exists,  to  su[jply  the  philologist  with 
materials  lor  comparative  study:  in  these  cases  it 
can  only  be  by  laborious  research  into  existing 
dialects  that  the  original  forms  of  words  can  be 
detected,  amidst  the  incrustations  and  transmuta- 
tions with  which  time  has  obscured  tlieiii. 

In  dealing  with  the  phenoiiiena  of  language,  we 
should  duly  consider  the  plastic  nature  of  the  mate- 
rial out  of  which  it  is  ibrnied,  and  tiie  numerous  iu- 
dueiices  to  which  it  is  subject.  Variety  in  unity 
is  a  general  law  of  nature,  to  which  e\en  the  most 
stubborn  physical  substances  yield  a  ready  obe- 
dience. In  the  case  of  language  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  lay  any  bounds  to  the  variety  which  we 
might  a  priuri  expect  it  to  assume,  lor  in  the 
tirst  place  it  is  brought  into  close  contact  with  the 
spirit  of  man,  and  reflects  with  amazing  tidelity  its 
enilless  variations,  adapting  itself  to  the  expression 
of  each  feeling,  the  designation  of  each  object,  the 
working  of  each  cast  of  tiiought  or  stage  ot  reason- 
ing power.  Secondly,  its  sounds  are  subjec*  to 
external  influences,  such  as  peculiarities  of  Jic 
organ  of  speech,  the  result  eithe'r  of  natural  uou- 
formation,  of  geographical  position,  or  of  habits  of 
hfe  and  associations  of  an  accidental  character.  In 
the  third  place,  it  is  generally  aflected  by  the  state 
of  intellectual  and  social  culture  of  a  people,  as 
luaiiitested  more  especially  in  the  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  a  standard  literary  dialect,  and  in  the  pro- 
cesses of  verbal  and  syntactical  structure,  which 
again  react  on  the  very  core  of  the  word,  and  pro- 
duce a  variety  of  sound-mut^itions.  Lastly,  it  is 
subjected  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  time  and  use,  ob- 
literating, as  in  an  old  coin,  the  original  impress  of 
the  word,  reducing  it  in  bulk,  producing  new  com- 
binations, and  occasionally  leatling  to  singular  in- 
terchanges of  sound  and  idea.  The  varieties,  re- 
sulting from  the  modifying  iiiHuences  above  enu- 
merated, may  be  reducetl  to  two  classes,  according  aa 
they  affect  the  formal  or  the  radical  elements  of  lan- 
guage. On  each  of  these  subjects  we  propose  to 
make  a  few  remarks. 

I.  Widely  as  languages  now  diflfer  from  each 
other  in  external  form,  the  raw  material  (if  we  may 
use  the  expression)  out  of  which  they  have  sprung 
appears  to  have  been  in  all  cases  the  same.  A  sub- 
stratum of  significant  monosyllabic  roots  iniderliea 
the  whole  structure,  supplying  the  materials  iiecei 
sary  not  only  tor  ordinary  predication,  but  also  for 
what  is  usually  termed  the  "growth"  of  Language 
out  of  its  primary  into  its  more  complicateil  forms. 
It  is  necessary  to  point  this  out  clearly  in  ordei 
that  we  may  not  be  led  to  supijcse  that  the  ele- 
ments of  one  language  are  hi  themselves  endued 
witli  any  greater  vitality  than  those  of  another. 
Such  a  distinction,  if  it  existed,  would  go  far  to 
prove  a  specific  difference  between  languages, 
which  could  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the  idea  of 
their  common  origin.  The  appearance  of  vitality 
arises  out  of  the  manipulation  of  the  roots  by  the 
human  mind,  and  is  not  inherent  in  the  roots 
themselves. 

The  proofs  of  this  original  equality  are  furnished 
by  the  languages  themselves.  Adopting  for  the 
present  the  tlireetbld  morphological  classiricatiou 
into  isolating,  agghitinalive,  and  intiecthig  lan- 
guages, we  shall  hnd  that  ni  original  element  exists 


3288     TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

ill  the  one  which  does  not  also  exist  in  the  other 
With  rei;ard  to  the  isolating  class,  the  terms  '•  uion- 
Dsjllabic "  and  "  radical,"  by  which  it  is  other- 
wise described,  are  decisive  as  to  its  character. 
Languages  of  this  class  are  wholly  unsusceptible  of 
grammatical  mutations:  there  is  no  formal  distinc- 
tion between  verb  and  noun,  substantive  and  ad- 
jective, preposition  and  conjunction :  there  are  no 
inflections,  no  case  or  person  terminations  of  any 
kind:  the  bare  root  forms  the  sole  and  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  language.  In  i-egard  to  the  other  two 
classes,  it  is  necessary  to  establish  the  two  distinct 
points,  (1)  that  the  formal  elements  represent  roots, 
and  (2)  that  the  roots  both  of  the  formal  and  the 
radical  elements  of  the  word  are  monosyllabic. 
Now,  it  may  be  satisfactorily  proved  by  analysis 
that  all  the  component  parts  of  l:oth  inflecting  and 
agglutinative  languages  are  reducilile  to  two  kinds 
of  roots,  predicable  and  pronominal;  the  former 
supplying  the  material  element  of  verbs,  substan- 
tives, and  adjectives,  the  latter  that  of  conjunctions, 
prepositions,  and  particles:  while  each  kind,  but 
more  particularly  the  pronominal,  supply  the  tbrmal 
element,  or,  in  other  words,  the  terminations  of 
verbs,  substantives,  and  adjectives.  The  lull  proofs 
of  these  assertions  would  involve  nothing  less  tlian 
a  treatise  on  comparative  grammar:  we  can  do  no 
more  than  adduce  in  the  accompanying  note  a  few 
illustrations  of  the  various  points  to  which  we  have 
adverted."  Whether  the  two  classes  ot  roots,  pred- 
icable and  pronominal,  are  further  reducilile  to 
one  class,  is  a  point  that  has  been  discussed,  but 
has  not  as  yet  been  established  (Bopp's  Coiiijiitr. 
Gram.  §  105;  Max  Miiller'.s  Leclurts,  p.  209). 
We  have  further  to  show  that  the  roots  of  agglu- 
tinative and  inflecting  languages  are  monosyllabic. 
This  is  an  acknowledged  characteristic  of  the  Indo- 
European  family;  mouosyllabism  is  indeed  the  only 

a  1.  That  prepositions  are  reducible  to  pronominal 
roots  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  instances. 
The  Greek  and,  with  its  cognates  the  German  ab  and 
our  *qf,  is  derived  from  the  demonsti-ative  base  a. 
whence  also  the  Sanskrit  dpa  (Bopp,  §  1000);  np6  and 
n-apoi  are  akin  to  the  Sansk.  prd  and  pira,  secondary 
formations  of  the  above-mentioned  apa  (Bopp,  §  1009). 
The  only  preposition  which  appears  to  spring  from  a 
predicable  base  is  trans,  with  its  cognates  (lurch  and 
through,  which  are  referred  to  the  verbal  root  tar  (Bopp. 
1018). 

2.  That  conjunctions  are  similarly  reducible  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  familiar  instances  of  6ti,  quod ,  and 
"  that,"  indifferently  used  as  pronouns  or  conjunctions. 
The  Latin  ii  is  connected  with  the  pronoun  Si-bi ;  and 
et  together  with  the  Sansk.  yadi,  with  the  relative  base 
ya  (Bopp,  §991). 

3  That  the  suffixes  forming  the  inflections  of  verbs 
and  nouns  are  nothing  else  than  the  relics  of  either 
predicable  or-prononiiual  roots,  will  upiiearfrom  the  tol- 
lowiog  instances,  drawn  (1)  from  the  Indo-European 
languages,  and  (2)  from  the  Ur;il-Altaian  languages.  (1.) 
Th<  -lit  in  SiSioiu  is  connected  with  the  root  whence 
Bpring  the  oblique  cases  of  the  per.'onal  pronoun  eyci  ; 
the  -<r  in  SiSiw:  is  the  remains  of  crv  ;  and  the  t  In  ecm' 
(for  which  an  g-  is  substituted  in  SiSojcrt)  represents 
the  Sanskrit  ta,  which  reappears  in  avro?  and  in  the  ob- 
lique castts  of  the  article  (Bopp,  §§  -io-t,  H-S,  4ot3).  So 
again,  tlie  -<r  in  the  nominative  Aoyos  represents  the 
Sanskrit  pronominal  root  na,  and  the  -d  of  the  neuter 
yuid  the  Sanskrit  ta  (Schleicher's  Compend.  §24o); 
the  genitive  terminations  -05,  -010  (originally  -otroio), 
and  hence  -ou  =  the  Sanskrit  ,<//«,  another  form  of  sa 
(Schleicher,  §262);  the  dative  (or  more  properly  the 
locative)  -«  or  -ot  is  referable  to  Che  demonstrative 
toot  1  (Schleicher,  §  201)  ,  and  tiie  accusative  -v  (orig- 


TONGUES.  CONFUSION  OF 

feature  which  its  roots  have  in  common;  in  othei 
respects  they  exhibit  every  kind  of  variation  from  a 
uniliteral  root,  such  as  i  (/re),  up  to  combinations 
ot  five  letters,  such  as  sound  {icundert),  the  total 
number  of  admissible  forms  of  root  amounting  to 
no  less  than  eight  (Schleicher,  §  20ti).  In  the 
Siieniitic  family  monosyllabism  is  not  &  prima  facie 
characteristic  of  the  root ;  on  the  contrarj',  the  ver- 
bal''stems  exhibit  bisyllabism  with  such  remark- 
aljle  unilbrmity,  that  it  would  lead  to  the  impres- 
sion that  the  roots  also  must  have  been  bisyllaljic. 
'I'he  bisyllabism,  however,  of  the  Shemitic  stem  is 
in  reality  triconsonantalism,  the  vowels  not  forming 
any  part  of  the  essence  of  the  root,  but  benig 
wholly  subordinate  to  the  consonants.  It  is  at 
once  apparent  that  a  triconsonantal  and  even  a 
quadriconsonantal  root  may  be  in  certain  combina- 
tions unisyllabic.  )iut  further,  it  is  m.ore  than 
probable  that  the  triconsonantal  has  been  evolved 
out  of  a  biconsonantal  rcrot,  which  must  necessarily 
be  unisyllabic  if  the  consonants  stand,  as  they  in- 
varialjly  do  in  ^  Shemitic  roots,  at  the  beginning 
and  end  of  the  word.  With  regard  to  the  agglu- 
tinative class,  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  same  law 
which  we  have  seen  to  prevail  in  the  isolating  and 
inflecting  classes,  prevails  also  in  this,  holding  as  it 
does  an  intermediate  place  between  those  opposite 
poles  in  the  world  of  language. 

Fr6m  the  consideration  of  the  crude  materials  of 
language,  we  pass  on  to  the  varieties  exhibited  in 
its  structure,  with  a  view  to  ascertain  whether  in 
these  there  exists  any  bar  to  the  idea  of  an  original 
unity.  (1.)  Reverting  to  the  classification  already 
noticed,  we  have  to  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  principle  on  which  it  is  based  is  the  nature  of 
tlie  connection  existing  between  the  predicable  and 
the  relational  or  inflectional  elements  of  a  word.  In 
the  isolating  class  these  two  are  kept  wholly  dis- 

inally  -it.)  to  a  pronominal  base,  probably  am,  which 
no  longer  appears  in  its  simple  form  (Schleicher,  §  249). 
(2.)  In  the  Ural-.^ltaian  languages,  we  find  that  the 
terminations  of  the  verbs,  gerunds,  and  participles  are 
referable  to  significant  roots  ;  as  in  Turkish  the  active 
atiix  (  or  d  to  a  root  signifying  "  to  do  "  (Ewald, 
Sprachiv.  Abh.  ii.  27),  and  in  Ilungarian  the  factitive 
affix  t  to  te,  '•  to  do,"  the  passive  affix  I  to  te,  "  to  be- 
come ;  "  the  affix  of  possibility  hac  to  hat,  "  to  work," 
etc.  (Pulszky,  in  Phitot.  Trans.  1869,  p.  115). 

b  Monosyllabic  substantives  are  not  unusual  in  He- 
brew, as  instanced  in  3S,  ^2,  etc.  It  is  unneces.sary 
to  regard  these  as  truncated  forms  from  bisyllabic 
roots. 

<■■  That  the  Shemitic  languages  ever  actually  exis'ed 
in  a  state  of  monosyllabism  is  quesiioued  by  Kenan, 
partly  because  the  surviving  monosyllabic  languages 
have  never  emerged  from  their  primitive  condition, 
and  partly  because  he  conceives  .synthesis  and  com- 
plexity to  be  anterior  in  the  history  of  language  to 
analysis  and  simplicity  (Hist.  Gen.  1.  98-100).  The 
first  of  these  objections  is  based  upon  the  assumption 
that  languages  are  developed  only  in  the  direction  o' 
syntheticism  ;  but  this,  as  we  shall  hereafter  shov> 
is  not  the  only  possible  form  of  development,  and  it  is 
just  becau.«e  the  monosyllabic  languages  have  adopted 
another  method  of  perfecting  themselves,  that  they 
have  remained  in  their  original  stage.  The  second 
objection  .seems  to  involve  a  violation  of  the  natural 
order  of  things,  and  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  evi- 
dence afforded  by  language  itself;  for,  though  there  lo 
undoubtedly  a  tendency  in  language  to  pass  from  th« 
synthetical  to  the  analytical  state,  it  is  no  less  clear 
from  the  elements  of  synthetic  forms  that  they  niuitf 
have  originally  existed  in  au  analytical  state. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

tinct:  relational  ideas  are  expressed  by  juxtepo- 
sitioii  or  by  syntactical  arrangement,  and  not  by 
any  combination  of  the  roots.  In  the  agglutinative 
class  tlie  relational  elements  are  attaclied  to  the 
principal  or  predical)le  theme  by  a  mechanical  kind 
of  junction,  the  individuality  of  each  being  pre- 
served even  in  the  comliined  state.  In  the  inflecting 
class  the  junction  is  of  a  more  perfect  character, 
and  may  be  compared  to  a  chemical  combination, 
the  predicable  and  I'elational  elements  being  so  fused 
together  as  to  present  the  appearance  of  a  single 
and  indivisible  word.  It  is  clear  that  there  exists 
no  insuperalile  barrier  to  original  unity  in  tliese 
differences,  from  the  simple  fact  tliat  every  inflect- 
ing language  must  once  have  lieen  agglutinative, 
and  every  agglutinative  language  once  isolating. 
If  the  predicable  and  relational  elements  of  an  iso- 
lating language  be  linked  together,  either  to  the 
eye  oi  the  ear,  it  is  rendered  agglutinative;  if  the 
material  and  formal  parts  are  pronounced  as  one 
word,  eliminating,  if  necessary,  the  sounds  tliat 
resist  incorporation,  the  language  becomes  inflecting. 
(2. )  In  tlie  second  place,  it  should  be  noted  tliat 
these  three  classes  are  not  separated  from  eacli 
other  by  any  sharp  line  of  demarcation.  Not  only 
does  each  possess  in  a  measure  the  quality  pre- 
dominant in  each  other,  but  moreover  each  grad- 
uates into  its  neighbor  through  its  bordering 
members.  The  isolating  languages  are  not  wholly 
isolating;  they  avail  themselves  of  certain  words  as 
relational  particles,  though  these  still  retain  else- 
where their  independent  character:  they  also  use 
composite,  though  not  strictly  compound  words. 
The  agglutinative  are  not  wholly  agglutinative:  tlie 
Finnisli  and  Turkish  classes  of  tlie  Ural-Altaian 
femily  are  in  certain  instances  inflectional,  the  rela- 
tional adjunct  being  fully  incorporated  witli  the 
predicable  stem,  and  having  undergone  a  large 
amount  of  attrition  for  that  purpose.  Nor  again 
are  the  inflectional  languages  wholly  inflectional : 
Helirew,  for  instance,  abounds  with  agglutinative 
forms,  ami  also  avails  itself  largely  of  separate 
particles  for  the  expression  of  relational  ideas:  our 
own  language,  though  classed  as  inflectional,  retains 
nothing  nmre  than  the  vestiges  of  inflection,  and  is 
in  many  respects  as  isolating  and  juxtapositional  as 
any  language  of  that  class.  Wliile,  therefore,  tlie 
classification  holds  good  with  regard  to  the  pre- 
dominant cliaracters  of  the  classes,  it  does  not  imi)ly 
dirterences  of  a  specific  nature.  (3.)  But  furtiier, 
the  morphological  varieties  of  language  are  not  con- 
fined to  the  exhibition  of  the  single  principle  hitherto 
described.  A  comparison  between  the  westerly 
brunches  of  the  Ural-Altaian  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Indo-Eui-opean  on  the  other,  belonging  respec- 
tively to  the  agglutinative  and  inflectional  chisses, 
will  show  that  ihe  quantitative  amount  of  syn- 
thesis is  fully  as  prominent  a  point  of  contrast  as 
the  qualitati\e.  The  combination  of  primary  and 
suljordinate  terms  may  be  more  perfect  in  tiie 
Indo-European,  but  it  is  more  extensively  employed 
in  the  Ural-Altaian  family.  The  former,  for  in- 
stance, appends  to  its  verbal  stems  the  notions  of 
time,  number,  person,  and  occasionally  of  interro- 
gation; the  latter  further  adds  suffixes  indicative 
of  negation,  hypothesis,  causativeness,  reflexiveiiess, 
and  other  similar  ideas,  whereliy  the  word  is  Imilt 
up  tier  on  tier  to  a  marvelous  extent.  I'lie  former 
appends  to  its  substantival  stems  suffixes  of  case 
and  number;  the  latter  adds  governing  particles, 
rendering  them  post- positional  instead  of  pre-posi- 
tional,  and  combining  them  svnthetically  witli  the 
207 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    3289 

predicable  stem.  If,  again,  we  compare  the  Shemitio 
with  the  Indo-European  languages,  we  shall  find  a 
morphological  distinction  of  an  equally  diverse 
character.  In  the  former  the  grammatical  category 
is  expressed  by  internal  vowel-changes,  in  the  latter 
by  external  suffixes.  So  marked  a  distinction  has 
not  unnaturally  been  constituted  the  basis  of  a 
classification,  wherein  tlie  languages  that  adopt  this 
system  of  internal  flecfion  stand  by  themsehes  as  a 
separate  class,  in  contradistinction  to  those  which 
either  use  terminational  additions  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, or  wliich  dispense  wholly  with  inflectional 
forms  (Bopp's  Comp.  Gr.  i.  10-2 ).  The  singular 
use  of  preformatives  in  the  Coptic  language  is. 
again,  a  morphological  peculiarity  of  a  very  decided 
character.  And  even  within  the  same  family,  say 
the  Indo-European,  each  language  exhibits  an  idio- 
syncrasy in  its  morphological  character,  whereliy  it 
stands  out  apart  from  the  other  members  with  a 
decided  impress  of  individuality.  The  inference  to 
be  drawn  from  the  number  and  character  of  the 
differences  we  have  noticed  is  favorable,  rather  than 
otherwise,  to  the  theory  of  an  original  unity.  Start- 
ing from  the  same  cummon  ground  of  monasyllabio 
roots,  each  language-family  has  carried  out  its  own 
special  line  of  development,  following  an  original  im- 
pulse, the  causes  and  nature  of  which  must  remain 
probably  forever  a  matter  of  conjecture.  We.  can 
perceive,  indeed,  in  a  general  way,  the  adaptation  of 
certain  forms  of  speech  to  certain  states  of  society. 
The  agglutinati\'e  languages,  for  instance,  seem  to  be 
specially  adapted  to  the  nomadic  state  by  the  prom- 
inence and  distinctness  with  which  they  enunciate 
the  le.ading  idea  in  each  word,  an  arrangement 
whereby  communication  would  be  facilitated  be- 
tween tribes  or  families  that  associate  only  at  inter- 
vals. We  might  almost  imagine  that  these  languages 
derived  their  impress  of  uniformity  and  solidity 
from  the  monotonous  stepjies  of  Central  Asia,  which 
have  in  all  ages  formed  their  proper  fiabitat.  So, 
again,  the  inflectional  class  reflects  cultivated 
thought  and  social  organization,  and  its  languages 
have  hence  been  termed  "state"  or  "  politic.aff" 
.Monosyllabism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  pronounced  to 
be  suited  to  the  most  primitive  stage  of  thought  and 
society,  wherein  the  family  or  the  individual  is  the 
standard  by  which  things  are  regulated  (Max  Miil- 
ler,  in  Pli'dos.  of  Hist.  i.  28.5).  We  should  hesi- 
tate, however,  to  press  this  theory  as  furnishing  an 
adequate  explanation  of  the  diflferences  observable  in 
language-families.  The  Indo-European  languages  at- 
tained their  high  organization  amid  the  same  scenes 
and  in  the  same  nomad  state  as  those  wherein  the 
agglutinative  languages  were  nurtured,  and  we 
should  be  rather  disposed  to  regard  both  the  language 
and  the  higher  social  status  of  the  former  as  the 
concurrent  results  of  a  higher  mental  organization. 
If  from  words  we  ])ass  on  to  the  varieties  of  syn- 
tactical arrangement,  the  same  degree  of  analogy 
will  be  found  to  exist  between  class  and  cl.ass,  or 
l)etween  family  and  family  in  the  same  class;  in 
other  words,  no  peculiarity  exists  in  one  which  does 
not  admit  of  explanation  by  a  comparison  with 
others.  The  atisence  of  all  grammatical  forms  in 
an  isolating  language  necessitates  a  rigid  collocation 
of  theworils  in  a  .sentence  according  to  logical  prin- 
ciples. 'i"he  same  law  prevails  to  a  very  great  extent 
in  our  own  language,  wherein  the  suliject,  verb,  and 
oliject,  or  the  sulijeL't,  copula,  and  predicate,  gener- 
ally hold  their  relitive  positions  in  the  order  ex- 
hibited, the  exce])tions  to  such  ah  arraniiement  lieing 
easily  brought  into  harniony  with  tliat  s;eneral  l.iw 


3290     TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

In  the  ;i£;glutinative  laiir;na£;es  the  law  of  arran£;e- 
tuent  is  that  the  principal  word  should  come  last 
in  the  sentence,  every  qualifying  clause  or  word 
preceding  it,  and  being  as  it  were  sustained  by  it. 
The  syntactical  is  thus  the  reverse  of  the  verbal 
structure,  the  principal  notion  taking  the  precedence 
hi  the  latter  (Evvald,  Sprachw.  Abh.  ii.  29).  There 
iis  in  this  nothing  peculiar  to  this  class  of  languages, 
beyond  the  greater  uniformity  with  which  the  ar- 
rangement is  adhered  to:  it  is  the  general  rule  in 
the  classical,  and  the  occasional  rule  in  certain  of  the 
Teutonic  languages.  In  the  Shemitic  family  the 
reverse  arrangement  prevails:  the  qualifying  adjec- 
tives follow  the  noun  to  which  they  belong,  and 
the  verb  generally  stands  first :  short  sentences  are 
necessitated  by  such  a  collocation,  and  hence  more 
room  is  allowed  for  the  influence  of  emphasis  in 
deciding  the  order  of  the  sentence.  In  illustration 
of  granmiatical  peculiarities,  we  Uiay  notice  that 
in  the  agglutinative  class  adjectives  qualifying 
sulistantives,  or  substantives  placed  in  apposition 
with  substantives,  remain  undeclined:  in  this  case 
the  process  may  be  compared  with  the  formation 
of  compound  words  in  the  Indo-European  languages, 
where  the  final  member  alone  is  inflected.  So  ai;ain 
the  omission  of  a  plural  termination  in  nouns  fol- 
lowing a  numeral  may  be  paralleled  with  a  similar 
usage  in  our  own  language,  where  the  terms 
"  pound  "  or  "  head  "  are  u.sed  collectively  after  a 
numeral.  We  may  again  cite  the  peculiar  manner 
of  espressmg  the  genitive  in  Heljrew.  This  is 
effected  by  one  of  the  two  following  methods  — 
placing  the  governing  noun  in  tiie  status  con- 
structus,  or  using  the  relative  pronoun "  with  a 
preposition  before  the  governed  case.  The  first  of 
these  ])rocesses  appears  a  sti'ange  inversion  of  the 
laws  of  language;  but  an  examination  into  the 
origin  of  tiie  a<ljuncts,  whether  prefixes  or  affixes, 
used  in  otiier  lan<;uages  for  the  indication  of  the 
geniti\e,  will  show  that  they  have  a  more  intimate 
connection  witli  tiie  governing  than  with  the 
governed  word,  and  that  they  are  generally  re- 
soTvahle  into  either  relative  or  personal  pronouns, 
which  serve  the  simple  purpose  of  connecting  the 
two  words  together  (Garnetfs  h'ss'iys^-pp.  •214-227). 
Th"  same  end  may  be  gained  by  connecting  the 
w  IS  in  pronunciation,  which  would  lead  to  a  rapid 
u.ierance  of  the  first,  and  consequently  to  the  changes 
which  are  witnessed  in  tlie  status  const ricct us.  The 
second  or  periphrastic  process  is  in  accordance  with 
the  general  method  of  expressing  the  genitive;  for 
the  expression  "the  Song  which  is  to  Solomon" 
strictly  answers  to  "  Solomon's  Song,"  the  s  repre- 
senting (according  to  Bopp's  explanation)  a  com- 
bination of  the  demonstrative  sa.  and  the  relative  i/a. 
It  is  tlius  that  the  varieties  of  construction  may  be 
sliown  to  be  consistent  with  unity  of  law,  and  that 
they  therefore  furnish  no  argument  against  a  com- 
mon origin. 

Lastly,  it  may  be  shown  that  the  varieties  of 
language  do  not  arise  from  any  constitutional  in- 
equality of  vital  energy.     Nothing  is  more  remark- 


h  -ia;s. 


b  The  action  of  this  law  is  as  follows  ;  The  vowels 
are  divided  into  three  clnsses,  which  we  may  term 
siiarp,  medial,  and  flat:  the  first  and  the  last  cannot 
be  combiued  in  any  fully  formed  word,  but  all  the 
rowels  must  be  either  of  the  two  first,  or  of  the  two 
last  classes.  The  suffi.xes  must  always  accord  with 
the  root  in  regard  to  the  quality  of  its  vowel-sounds, 
and  heuce  the  necessity  of  having  double  forms  for  all 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

able  than  the  compensating  jiower  apparently  in 
herent  in  all  langu.age,  whereby  it  finds  the  mean* 
of  reaching  the  level  of  the  himian  spirit  through  a 
faithful  adherence  to  its  own  guiding  principle. 
The  isolating  languages,  being  shut  out  from  the 
manifold  advantages  of  verbal  composition,  attain 
their  object  by  multiplied  combinations  of  radical 
sounds,  assisted  by  an  elaborate  system  of  accentua- 
tion and  intonation.  In  tliis  manner  the  Chinese 
language  has  framed  a  vocabulary  fully  equal  to 
the  demands  made  upon  it ;  and  though  this  mode 
of  development  may  not  commend  itself  to  our 
notions  as  the  most  effective  that  can  lie  devised, 
3"et  it  plainly  evinces  a  high  susceptibility  on  the 
part  of  the  linguistic  faculty,  and  a  keen  )>erception 
of  the  correspondence  between  sound  and  sense. 
Nor  does  the  absence  of  inflection  interfere  with 
the  expression  even  of  the  most  delicate  shades  of 
meaning  in  a  sentence;  a  compensating  resource  is 
found  partly  in  a  niultiplicity  of  subsidiary  terms 
expressive  of  plurality,  motion,  action,  etc.,  and 
partly  in  strict  attention  to  sj'ntactical  arrangement. 
The  agglutinative  languages,  again,  are  deficient 
in  compound  words,  and  in  this  respect  lack  the 
elasticit}'  and  expansiveness  of  the  Indo-Kuropean 
family;  Init  they  are  eminently  synthetic,  and  no 
one  can  fail  to  admire  the  regularity  and  solidity 
with  which  its  words  are  built  up,  suffix  on  suffix, 
and,  when  built  up,  are  sufifused  with  an  uniformity 
of  tint  by  the  law  of  vowel-harmony.''  The  Shemitic 
languages  have  worked  out  a  difterent  jirinciple  of 
growth,  evolved,  not  improbably,  in  the  midst  of  a 
conflict  between  the  systems  of  prefix  and  sufiix, 
whereby  the  stem,  being  as  it  were  inclosed  at  both 
extremities,  was  precluded  from  all  external  incre- 
ment, and  was  forced  back  into  such  changes  as 
could  be  effected  by  a  modification  of  its  vowel 
sounds.  But  whatever  may  be  the  orii:in  of  the 
system  of  internal  inflection,  it  must  be  conceded 
that  the  results  are  ^ery  effective,  as  reirards  both 
economy  of  material,  and  simplicity  and  dignity  of 
style. 

The  result  of  the  foregoing  observations  is  to 
show  that  the  formal  varieties  of  languaije  present 
no  obstacle  to  the  theory  of  a  common  origin. 
Amid  these  varieties  there  may  be  discerned  mani- 
fest tokens  of  unity  in  the  original  material  out  of 
which  language  was  formed,  in  the  stages  of  forma- 
tion through  which  it  has  passed,  in  the  general 
principle  of  grammatical  expression,  amj,  lastly,  in 
the  spirit  and  power  displayed  in  the  development 
of  these  various  formations.  Such  a  result,  though 
it  does  not  prove  the  unity  of  language  in  respect 
to  its  radical  elements,  nevertheless  tends  to  estab- 
lish the  a  prioii  probability  of  this  unity:  for  if  all 
connected  with  the  forms  of  languat;e  may  be  re- 
ferred to  certain  general  laws,  if  nothing  in-  that 
department  owes  its  origin  to  chance  or  arbitrary 
appointment,  it  surely  favors  the  presumption  thai 
the  same  priiici]ile  would  extend  to  the  formation 
of  the  roots,  which  are  the  very  core  and  kernel  of 
language.     Here  too  we  might  expect  to  find  the 


the  suffixes  to  meet  the  sharp  or  the  tlat  character  of 
the  root.  The  practice  is  probably  referable  to  the 
same  principle  which  assigned  so  remarkable  a  prom- 
inence to  the  root.  As  the  root  sustains  the  series  of 
suffixes,  its  vowel-sound  becomes  not  unnaturally  the 
tcey-note  of  the  whole  strain,  facilitating  the  processes 
of  utterance  to  the  speaker,  and  of  perception  to  the 
hearer,  and  communicating  to  the  word  the  uniformity 
which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  whole  stiucturecrf 
these  lauKuazes. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

jperation  of  fixed  laws  of  some  kind  or  other,  pro- 
ilucins;  results  of  an  uiiifonn  character;  here  too 
actual  variety  may  not  be  inconsistent  with  original 
unity. 

I[.  Before  entering  on  the  subject  of  the  radical 
identity  of  languages,  we  must  express  our  convic- 
tion that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  a  decisive 
opinion  as  to  the  possiliility  of  estalilisliing  it  by 
proof.  Let  us  briefly  review  the  difficulties  that 
beset  the  question.  Every  word  as  it  appears  in 
an  organic  language,  wliether  written  or  sjioken, 
is  resolvable  into  two  distinct  elements,  whicli  we 
have  termed  predicable  and  formal,  tlie  first  Ijeing 
what  is  commonly  called  the  root,  the  second  the 
grammatical  termination.  In  point  of  fact  both  of 
these  elements  consist  of  independent  roots;  and  in 
order  to  pro\e  the  radical  identity  of  two  languages, 
it  must  be  shown  tliat  they  agree  in  botli  respects, 
that  is,  in  regard  Ijoth  to  tiie  predicable  and  the 
formal  roots.  As  a  matter  of  experience  it  is  found 
that  the  formal  elements,  consisting  for  tiie  most 
part  of  pronominal  bases,  exhibit  a  greater  tenacity 
of  life  than  the  others;  and  hence  agreement  of  in- 
flectional forms  is  justly  regarded  as  furnishing  a 
strong  presumption  of  genei'al  radical  identity. 
Even  foreign  elements  are  forced  into  the  formal 
mould  of  the  language  into  which  they  are  adopted, 
and  thus  l)ear  testimony  to  the  original  character 
of  that  language.  But  though  such  a  formal  agree- 
ment supplies  the  philologist  with  a  most  valuaVjle 
Instrument  of  iiivestination.  it  cannot  be  accepted 
as  a  su1)stitute  for  complete  radical  agreement:  this 
would  still  remain  to  lie  proved  by  an  independent 
examination  of  the  predicable  elements.  The  diffi- 
culties coiniected  with  these  latter  are  many  and 
varied.  Assuming  that  two  laniiuages  or  language- 
families  are  under  comparison,  the  phonological 
laws  of  each  must  be  investigated  in  order  to  arrive, 
in  the  first  place,  at  tiie  primary  forms  of  words  in 
the  language  in  which  they  occur,  and,  in  the  sec- 
ond place,  at  the  corresponding  forms  in  the  lan- 
guage which  constitutes  the  "other  memlier  of 
comparison,  as  done  by  Grinun  for  the  Teutonic  as 
compare<l  with  the  Sanskrit  and  the  classical  lan- 
guages. Tiie  genealogy  of  sound,  as  we  may  term 
it,  must  be  followed  up  l^y  a  genealogy  of  significa- 
tion, a  mere  outward  accordance  of  sound  and  sense 
in  two  terms  being  of  no  value  whatever,  unless  a 
radical  affinity  be  proved  by  an   independent  es- 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    3291 

amination  of  the  cognate  words  in  each  case.  It 
still  remains  to  be  inquired  how  far  the  ultimate 
accordance  of  sense  and  sound  may  be  the  result  of 
onomatopoeia,*  of  mere  borrowing,  or  of  a  possible 
mixture  of  languages  on  equal  terms.  Tlie  final 
stage  in  etymological  inquiry  is  to  decide  tlie  limit 
to  which  comparison  may  be  carried  in  the  prim- 
itive strata  of  language  —  in  other  words,  how  far 
roots,  as  ascertained  from  groups  of  words,  may  be 
compared  with  roots,  and  reduced  to  yet  simpler 
elementary  forms.  Any  flaw  in  the  processes  abo\e 
descrilied  will  of  course  invalidate  the  wliole  result. 
I'^'en  where  the  philologist  is  provided  with  ample 
materials  for  inquiry  in  stores  of  literature  ranging 
over  long  periods  of  time,  much  difficulty  is  ex- 
perienced in  making  good  each  link  in  the  chain 
of  agreement;  and  yet  in  such  cases  the  dialectic 
varieties  have  been  kept  within  some  degree  of  re- 
straint by  the  existence  of  a  literary  language, 
which,  by  impressing  its  autlioritative  stamp  on 
certain  terms,  has  secured  botii  tlieir  general  use 
and  their  external  integrity.  Where  no  literature 
exists,  as  is  the  case  with  the  general  mass  of  lan- 
guages in  the  world,  the  difficulties  are  infinitely 
increased  by  the  combined  effects  of  a  prolific  growth 
of  dialectic  forms,  and  an  absence  of  all  means  df 
tracing  out  their  progress.  Whether  under  tliese 
circumstances  we  may  reasonably  expect  to  estalilisii 
a  radical  unity  of  language,  is  a  question  which 
each  person  must  decide  for  himself.  Much  may 
yet  be  done  by  a  larger  induction  and  a  scientific 
analysis  of  languages  that  are  yet  comparatively 
unknown.  The  tendency  hitherto  has  been  to  en- 
large the  limits  of  a  "  family  "  according  as  the 
elements  of  affinity  have  been  recognized  in  out- 
lying members.  These  limits  may  perchance  be 
still  more  enlarged  iiy  the  discovery  of  connecting 
links  iietween  tlie  language  families,  whereliy  the 
criteria  of  relationsliip  will  lie  modified,  and  new 
elements  of  internal  unity  be  discovered  amid  the 
manifold  appearances  of  external  diversity. 

Meanwhile  we  must  content  ourselves  with  stating 
the  present  position  of  tlie  linguistic  science  in'  ref- 
erence to  this  important  topic.  In  the  first  place  ' 
the  Indo-Iuu'opean  languages  have  been  reduced  to 
an  acknowledged  and  well-defined  relationship:  they 
form  one  of  the  two  families  included  under  the 
head  of  "  inflectional  "  in  the  morphological  classi- 
fication.    The  other  family  in  this  class  is  the  (so- 


«  Grimm  was  the  first  to  discover  a  regular  system 
of  displacement  of  sounds  {tautverschiebung)  pervading 
the  Gothic  and  Low  German  languages  as  compared 
with  Greek  and  Latin.  According  to  this  system,  the 
Gothic  substitutes  aspirates  for  tenues  (A  for  Gr.  k  or 
Lat.  c,  tk  for  t,  and  f  for  p)  ;  tenvies  for  medials  {t  for 
(/,  p  for  b,  and  k  for  g):  and  medials  for  aspirates 
fe  for  Gr.  cli  or  Lat.  h,  d  for  Gr.  «A,  and  b  for  Lat./or 
Br-p/iXGcsfA.  Deuts.  S/ir.  i.  393).  We  may  illustrate 
the  changes  by  comparing  heart  with  ror  or  KapSia ; 
thnu  with  m  ;  fire  with  Tre/xTre  (TreVre),  ov  father  with 
paltr  :  tivo  with  duo  ;  knee  with  youv  ;  ^'oose  with  xv"  < 
dare  with  Oapa-eoi ;  bear  with  yero  or  <|>e'p<u.  What  lias 
thus  been  done  for  the  Teutonic  languages,  has  been 
carried  out  by  Schleicher  in  his  Compeiidimn  for  each 
llass  of  the  Indo-European  family. 

6  It  is  a  delicate  question  to  decide  whether  in  any 
given  language  the  onomatopnctic  words  that  may 
occur  are  original  or  derived.  Numerous  coinciilcncea 
of  sound  and  sense  occur  in  ditferent  languages  to 
which  little  or  no  value  is  attached  by  etymologists 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  onomatopoetic.  But 
evidently  these  may  have  been  hamled  down  from 
'vneratioii   to  generation,  and  from  language  to  lan- 


guage, and  may  have  as  true  a  genealogy  as  any  other 
terms  not  bearing  tliat  character.     For  instance,  tiie 

Hebrew  Ki'a  (1?^7)  expresses  in  its  very  sound  the 
notion  of  swalloirittg  or  gulping,  the  word  consisting, 
as  Renin  has  remarked  {H.  G.  i.  4G0),  of  a  lingual 
and  a  guttural,  representing  respectively  the  tongue 
and  the  throat,  which  are  chietly  engaged  in  the 
operation  of  swallowing.  In  the  Indo-European  Ian 
guages  we  meet  with  a  large  class  of  words  containing 
the  same  elements  and  conveying,  more  or  less,  the 
same  meaning,  such  as  A£i';^a),  KixfJ^du),  ligiirio,  lingua, 
gula,  "  lick,"  and  others.  These  words  may  have  had 
a  ■^nlmon  source,  but,  because  they  are  onomatopoetic 
in  their  character,  they  are  excluded  as  evidence  of 
radical  affinity.  This  exclusion  may  be  carried  too 
far,  though  it  is  difficult  to  point  out  where  it  should 
stop.  But  even  onomatopoetic  words  bear  a  specific 
character,  and  the  names  given  in  imitation  of  the 
notes  of  birds  differ  materially  in  different  languages, 
apparently  from  the  perception  of  some  subtle  anaUigy 
with  previously  existing  sounds  or  ideas.  The  subject 
is  one  of  great  interest,  and  may.\et  play  an  important 
part  iu  the  liistory  of  language. 


3292    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

called )  Shemitic,  the  limits  of  which  are  not  equally 
well  defined,  inasmuch  as  it  may  be  extended  over 
what  are  termed  the  suh-Shemitic  languages,  in 
eluding  the  Egyptian  or  (.'optic.  The  criteria  of 
the  proper  Shemitic  family  {i.  e.  the  Aramaean, 
Hebrew,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  languages)  are  dis- 
tinctive enough ;  but  the  coimection  between  the 
Shemitic  and  the  Egyptian  is  not  definitely  estab- 
lished. Some  philologists  are  inclined  to  claim  for 
the  latter  an  independent  position,  intermediate 
between  the  Indo-luiropean  and  Shemitic  families 
(Bunsen's  P/iil.  of  Hist.  i.  185  fF.)-  The  aggluti- 
native languages  of  Europe  and  Asia  are  combined 
by  Prof.  M.  Miiller,  in  one  family  named  "  Tu- 
ranian." It  is  conceded  that  the  family  bond  in 
this  case  is  a  loose  one,  and  that  the  agreement  in 
roots  is  very  partial  {Lectures,  pp.  290-292).  ]\Iany 
philologists  of  high  standing,  and  more  particularly 
Pott  {Unykich.  Mensch.  Jiissen,  p.  232),  deny  the 
family  relationship  altogether,  and  break  up  the 
Hffglutinative  languages  into  a  great  number  of 
families.  Certain  it  is  that  within  the  Turanian 
Dircle  there  are  languages,  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
L'ral-Altaian,  which  show  so  close  an  afBnity  to 
each  other  as  to  be  entitled  to  form  a  separate 
division,  either  as  a  family  or  a  suljdivision  of  a 
family:  and  this  being  the  case,  we  should  hesitate 
to  put  them  on  a  parity  of  footing  with  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Turanian  languages.  The  Caucasian 
group  again  differs  so  widely  from  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  family  as  to  make  the  relationship  very 
dubious.  The  monosyllaliic  languages  of  south- 
eastern Asia  are  not  included  in  the  Turanian 
family  by  Prof.  M.  Miiller  {Lect.  pp.  290,  326), 
apparently  on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  ag- 
glutinative; but  as  the  Chinese  appears  to  be  con- 
nected radically  with  the  Burmese  (Humlioldfs 
Va-scliied.  p.  3C8),  with  the  Tibetan  (Pli.  of  //isl. 
i.  393-395),  and  with  the  Ural-Altaian  languages 
(Schott  in  A/)h.  Ah.  Beii.  ISfJl,  p.  172),  it  seems 
to  have  a  good  title  to  be  jilaced  in  the  Tm-anian 
family.  M'ith  regard  to  the  American  and  the 
bulk  of  the  African  languages,  we  are  unable  to  say 
whether  they  can  be  brought  under  any  of  the 
heads  already  mentioned,  or  whether  they  stand  by 
themselves  as  distinct  families.  The  former  are 
referred  by  writers  of  high  eminence  to  an  Asiatic 
or  Turanian  origin  (Bunsen,  Phil,  of  Hist.  ii.  Ill; 
Latham's  Man  mid  his  Miyrat.  p.  186);  the  latter 
to  the  Shemitic  family  (Latham,  p.  148). 


o  Several  of  the  terms  compared  by  him  are  ono- 
matopoetic,  as  parak  (yVac-ture),  patask  {■naraaKTuv], 
and  kalap,  and  in  each  of  these  cases  the  initial  letter 
forms  part  of  the  onomatopoeia.  In  others  the  initial 
letter  in  the  Greek  is  radical,  as  in  ^atrtAeveiv  (Potfs 
Et.  Forsch.  ii.  272),  SpiiirTeii'  (i.  229),  and  <rToAafcii' 
(i.  197).  In  others  again  it  is  euphonic,  as  in  /36aA- 
KeLv.  Lastly,  we  are  unable  to  see  how  tarap  and  tarep 
admit  of  close  comparison  with  Sputfxiv  and  Tpet^etc 
It  shows  the  uncertainty  of  such  analogies  that  Gese- 

nius  compares  tarap  with  Spv-rrreiv,  and  Icctlap  (P]  v3) 
with  yKv(f>€iv,  which  Delitzsch  compares  with  khalup 
(P\vn).  An  attempt  to  establish  a  large  amount 
of  radical  identity  by  means  of  a  resolution  of  the 
Hebrew  word  into  its  component  and  significant  ele- 
ments may  lie  seen  in  the  Philolog.  Trans,  for  1858, 
where,  for  instance,  the  ba  in  the  Hebrew  bakash,  is 
compared  with  the  Teutonic  prefix  be ;  the  riar  in  dar- 
kash.  with  the  Welsh  dar  in  dar-paru;  and  the  ckaph 
In  cknpliash  with  the  Welsh  cyf  in  cvfarns 

')  Thesi  groups  are  sufficiently  common  in  Hebrew. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

The  problem  that  awaits  solution  is,  whether  th« 
several  families  above  specified  can  be  reduced  o  a 
single  fiimily  by  demonstrating  their  radical  iden- 
tity. It  would  be  iu>reasonable  to  expect  that  this 
identity  should  be  coextensive  with  the  vocabula- 
ries of  the  various  languages;  it  would  naturally 
be  confined  to  such  ideas  and  objects  as  are  com- 
mon to  mankind  generally.  Even  within  this  circle 
the  difficulty  of  proving  the  identity  may  be  in- 
finitely enhanced  by  the  absence  of  materials. 
There  are  indeed  but  two  families  in  which  these 
materials  are  found  in  anything  like  sufficiency, 
namely,  the  Indo-European  and  the  Shemitic,  and 
even  these  fin-nish  us  with  no  historical  evidence 
as  to  the  earlier  stages  of  their  growth.  We  find 
each,  at  the  most  remote  literary  period,  already 
exhibiting  its  distinctive  character  of  stem-  and 
word-formation,  leaving  us  to  infer,  as  we  best 
may,  from  these  jjhenomena  the  processes  by  which 
they  had  reached  that  point.  Hence  there  arises 
abundance  of  room  for  difference  of  opinion,  and 
the  extent  of  the  radical  identity  will  depend  very 
mi  ch  on  the  view  adopted  as  to  these  earlier  pro- 
cesses. If  we  could  acce;)t  in  its  entirety  the  sys- 
tem of  etymology  jiropounded  by  the  analytical 
school  of  Hebrew  scholars,  it  would  not  be  difficult 
to  establish  a  very  large  amount  of  radical  identity ; 
but  we  cannot  reuard  as  established  the  preposi- 
tional force  of  the  initial  letters,  as  stated  by 
Delitzsch  in  his  Jtshirnin  (pp.  166,  173,  )iote), 
still  less  the  correspondence  between  these  and  the 
initial  letters  of  (ireek  and  Latin  words"  (pp. 
170-172).  The  striking  uniformity  of  bisyllabism 
in  the  verbal  stems  is  explicable  only  on  the  as- 
sumption that  a  single  princiiile  underlies  the 
whole;  and  the  existence  of  groups'*  of  words  dif- 
fering slightly  in  form,  and  havhig  the  same  radi- 
cal sense,  leads  to  the  presumption  that  this  princi- 
ple was  one  not  of  composition,  but  of  euphonism 
and  practical  convenience.  This  presumption  is 
still  further  favored  by  an  analysis  of  the  letters 
forming  the  stems,  showing  that  the  third  letter  is 
in  many  instances  a  reduplication,  and  in  others  a 
liquid,  a  nasal,  or  a  sibilant,  introduced  either  as 
the  initial,  the  medial,  or  the  final  letter.  The 
Hebrew  alphabet  admits  of  a  classification  "^  based 
on  the  radical  character  of  the  letter  according  to 
its  position  in  the  stem.  'I'he  effect  of  com])osi- 
tion  would  have  been  to  produce,  in  the  first  place, 
a  greater   inequality  in  the  length  of  the  words, 


We  will  take  as  an  instance  the  following  one  :  IT-ll^, 

ttJiil.  irtisb.  C?l:3.  and  trt;^9,  all  conveying  the 

-  t'  -  t  '          -  t'  -  t' 

idea  of  "dash"  or  ''strike."  Or,  again,  the  follow- 
ing  group,   with  the   radical    sense    of   slipperiuess  ■ 

3b,  n^b,  nab,  n?b,  abn,  ^bn,  nbc, 

^1^117,  etc.  A  classifieatory  lexicon  of  such  group* 
would  assist  the  etymological  inquiry. 

c  Such  a  classification  is  attempted  by  Boetticher, 
in  Bunsen,  Philos.  of  Hist.  ii.  357.  After  stating  what 
letters  may  be  inserted  either  at  the  beginning,  mid- 
dle, or  end  of  the  root,  he  enumerates  those  which 

are  always  radical  in  the  several  positions ;  2,  for 
instance,  in  the  beginning  and  middle,  but  not  at  the 
end ;  V  and  72  in  the  beginning  only ;  D  and  27 
in  the  middle  and  at  the  end.  but  not  in  the  begin- 
ning. We  are  not  prepared  to  accent  this  classifica- 
tion as  wholly  correct,  but  we  adduce  it  in  illustratiot 
of  the  point  above  noticed 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

»nd,  in  the  second  place,  a  greater  equality  in  the 
Use  of  the  various  organic  sounds. 

After  deducting  largely  from  tlie  amount  of  ety- 
mological correspondence  based  on  the  analytical 
tenets,  there  still  remahis  a  consideralile  amount  of 
radical  identity  which  appears  to  be  above  sus- 
picion. It  is  impossible  to  produce  in  this  pLice  a 
complete  list  of  the  terms  in  which  that  identity  is 
manifested.  In  the  subjoined  note  "  we  cite  some 
instances  of  agreement,  wiiich  cannot  possibly  be 
explained  on  the  principle  of  direct  ononiatopcBia, 
and  which  would  therefore  seem  to  be  the  common 
inheritance  of  the  Indo-European  and  Sbemitic 
fiimilies.  Whether  tliis  agreement  is,  s.a  Kenan 
(suggests,  the  result  of  a  keen  snsceptiliility  of  the 
onomatopoetic  faculty  in  the  original  framers  of 
the  words  (Hist.  Gen.  i.  465),  is  a  point  that  can 
neither  be  proved  nor  disjiroved.  Hut  even  if  it 
were  so,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  words  were  not 
framed  tefore  the  separation  of  tiie  families.  Our 
list  of  comparative  words  might  be  much  enlarged, 
if  we  were  to  include  comparisons  based  on  the 
reduction  of  Shemitic  roots  to  a  bisyllabic  form. 
A  list  of  such  words  may  be  found  in  Uelitzsch's 
Jesliuntn,  pp.  177-180.  In  regard  to  pronouns 
and  numerals,  the  identity  is  but  partial.  We 
may  detect  the  t  sound,  which  forms  tlie  distinc- 
tive sound  of  the  second  personal  pronoun  in  the 
Indo-lCuropean  languages,  in  tlie  Hebrew  attali, 
and  in  the  personal  terminations  of  the  perfect 
tense;  but  the  ;/*,  which  is  the  prevailing  sound  of 
the  first  personal  pronoun  in  the  former,  is  sup- 
planted by  an  «  in  the  latter.  The  numerals 
<ihesh  and  shtbn,  for  "  sis  "  and  "  seven,"  accord 
with  the  Indo-European  forms:  those  representing 
the  numbers  from  "one"  to  "five"  are  possibly, 
though  not  evidently,  identical.*  With  regard  to 
the  other  language-families,  it  will  not  be  expected, 
after  the  observations  already  made,  that  we  should 
attempt  the  proof  of  their  radical  identity.  The 
Ural-Altaian  languages  have  been  extensively  stud- 
ied, but  are  hardly  ripe  for  comparison.  Occa- 
sional resemblances  have  been  detected  in  gram- 
matical Ibrms  <=  and  in  the  vocabularies;  ^Mnit  the 
value  of  these  remains  to  be  proved,  and  we  must 
await  the  results  of  a  more  extended  research  into 
this  and  other  regions  of  the  world  of  language. 

(B.)  We  pass  on  to  the  second  point  proposed 
for  consideration,  namely,  the  ethnological  views 
sxpressed   in  the  Bilile,  and  more   particularly  in 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    3293 

the  10th  chapter  of  Genesis,  which  records  the  dis- 
persion of  nations  consequent  on  the  Confusion  of 
Tongues. 

I.  The  Mosaic  table  does  not  profess  to  describe 
the  process  of  the  dispersion;  but  assuming  that 
dispersion  as  a  fail  (iccompli,  it  records  the  ethnic 
relations  existing  between  the  various  nations  af- 
fected by  it.  These  relations  are  expressed  under 
the  guise  of  a  genealoi.'y;  the  ethnological  char- 
acter of  the  document  is,  however,  clear  both  from 
the  names,  some  of  which  are  gentilic  in  form,  as 
Ludim,  Jebusite,  etc.,  others  geogra|)hical  or  local, 
as  Mizraim,  Sidon,  etc.;  and  again  from  the  form- 
ulary, which  concludes  each  section  of  the  subject 
"after  their  families,  after  their  tongues,  in  their 
countries,  and  in  their  nations"  (vv.  5,  20,  31) 
Incidentally,  the  taljle  is  geographical  as  well  as 
ethnological;  but  this  arises  out  of  the  practice  of 
designating  nations  by  the  countries  they  occu|)y. 
It  has  indeed  been  frequently  surmised  that  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  tal)le  is  purely  geographical,  and 
this  idea  is  to  a  certain  extent  favored  by  the  pos- 
sibility of  explaining  the  names  Sheni,  Ham,  and 
.lapheth  on  this  principle;  the  first  sii;nifyini;  the 
"  high  "  lands,  the  second  the  "  hot  "  or  -low" 
lands,  and  the  third  tlie  "broad."  undefined  regions 
of  the  north.  The  three  families  may  have  been 
so  located,  and  such  a  circumstance  could  not  have 
been  unknown  to  the  writer  of  the  table.  But 
neither  internal  nor  external  evidence  satisfactorily 
prove  such  to  ha\'e  been  tlie  leading  idea  or  prin- 
ciple embodied  in  it;  for  the  .laphetites  are  mainly 
assigned  to  the  "  isles  "  or  maritime  districts  of 
the  west  and  northwest,  while  the  Sheniites  press 
down  into  the  plain  of  Mesopotamia,  and  the 
Hamites,  on  the  other  hand,  occupy  the  high 
lands  of  Canaan  and  Lebanon.  We  hold,  thei'e- 
fore,  the  geographical  as  subordinate  to  the  ethno- 
graphical element,  and  avail  ourselves  of  the  former 
only  as  an  instrument  for  the  disco\ery  of  the 
latter. 

The  c;eneral  arrangement  of  the  table  is  as  fol- 
lows: The  whole  human  race  is  referred  back  to 
Xoah's  three  sons,  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth.  The 
Shemites  are  descrilted  last,  apparently  that  the 
continuity  of  the  narrative  may  not  be  further 
disturbed;  and  the  Hamites  stand  next  to  the 
Shemites,  in  order  to  show  that  these  were  more 
closely  related  to  each  other  than  to  the  ,Iai)hetites. 
The  comparative  degrees  of  affinity  are  expressed. 


o   T'lp,   cornii,  horu. 

typ^,  iJLcayoj,  misceo,  mix. 

TI"^3,  circa,  circle. 

V'nS,   Germ,  erde,  earth. 

p7n,  glaber,  glisco,  Germ,  glatt,  glide. 

C^3,  C2,  SV,  cum,  (Tvv,  (con/os. 

M  Vi2,  ir\€os,  ple7ius,  Germ.  voll.  full. 

"^2,  purus,  pure. 

M"12,  n~13,   vorare,  jSopa. 

T  t'  T  T  ' 

n"l2,   <^epo»,  jSapu?, /fro,  bear. 
1X3,  amarus. 


nn3,  curtus. 
-  t' 

^~)T,  severe. 
-t' 

jn!^^,   Sansk.  math,  nitit/i,  mith  (Flirst,  Lex.  a 

v.),  whence  by  the  iutroductiou  of  r  the  Latiu  mors. 

b  See  Rijdiger's  note  la  Geseu.  Gramm.  p.  165. 
The  identit.v  even  of  .<:kesh  and  "  six  "  has  bocu  ques- 
tioned, ou  the  ground  that  the  original  form  of  the 
Hebrew  word  was  xkel  and  of  the  Aryan  ksvaks  {Pkilol. 
Trans.  1860.  p.  131). 

c  Several  such  resemblances  are  pointed  out  by 
Ewald  in  his  Sprac/nv.  Abkand.,  ii.  18,  34,  note. 

d  The  foUowiug  verbal  resemblances  in  Iluiigarian 
and  Sanskrit  have  been  noticed  :  egy  and  eha,  ''  one ;  ■' 
kat  and  shash,  "six  ;  "  hot  and  saptan,  "."ieveu  ;  "  tiz 
and  dasan,  "  ten  ;  "  erer  and  saknsra,  "thousand;" 
beka  and  b/ieka,  '•  frog  ;  "  araiiy  and  hiraiijn,  "  gold  ;  " 
{Pliilol.  Trans,  for  1858,  p.  25).  Proofs  of  a  more  in- 
timate relationship  between  the  Finnish  and  Imlo 
European  languages  are  adduced  in  a  piijier  on  ih« 
subject  in  the  Phitul.  Trans,  for  1860,  p.  281  ff. 


3294    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

partly  by  coupling  the  names  together,  ag  in  tlie 
eases  of  Elishah  and  Tarshisli,  Kittiui  and  Doda- 
nini  (ver.  4),  and  partly  by  representing  a  genea- 
logical descent,  as,  when  the  nations  just  mentioned 
are  said  to  be  '' sons  of  Javan.",  An  inequality 
may  be  observed  in  the  length  of  the  genealogical 
lines,  whicl)  in  the  case  of  .laplieth  extends  only 
to  one,  in  Ham  to  two,  in  Sheui  to  tln-ee,  and  even 
four  degrees.  Tliis  inequality  clearly  arises  out 
of  the  varying  interest  taken  in  the  several  lines 
by  the  author  of  the  table,  and  by  those  for  wliose 
use  it  was  designed.  We  may  lastly  observe,  that 
the  occurrence  of  the  same  name  in  two  of  tlie  lists, 
as  in  the  case  of  Lud  (vv.  13,  22),  and  Sheba 
(vv.  7,  28),  possibly  indicates  a  fusion  of  the 
races. 

The  identification  of  the  Biblical  with  the  his- 
torical or  classical  names  of  nations,  is  Ijy  no  means 
an  easy  tasi-c,  particularly  where  the  names  are  not 
Bubseqiiently  noticed  in  the  Bible.  In  these  cases 
comparisons  with  ancient  or  modern  designations 
are  the  only  resource,  and  where  the  designation  is 
one  of  a  purely  geographical  character,  as  in  the 
case  of  liiphath  compared  witli  liijxd  monies,  or 
Slash  compared  witli  M((siHS  mans,  great  doubt 
must  exist  as  to  the  ethnic  force  of  the  title,  inas- 
much as  several  nations  may  have  successively 
occupied  tlie  same  district.  Equal  doubt  arises 
where  names  admit  of  being  treated  as  appella- 
tives, and  so  of  being  transferred  from  one  district 
to  anotlier.  Recent  research  into  A.ssyrian  and 
Egyptian  records  has  ni  many  instances  thrown 
light  on  the  Biblical  titles.  In  the  former  we  find 
Mesheuh  and  Tubal  noticed  under  the  forms  Miis- 
ka'i  and  Tuplai,  while  .Javan  appears  as  tlie  appel- 
lation of  Cyprus,  where  the  Assyrians  first  met 
with  Greek  civilization.  In  the  latter  tlie  name 
Phut  appears  under  the  form  of  Poimt,  Hittite 
as  Kliita,  Cush  as  Kttsli,  Canaan  as  KaiKmn, 
etc. 

1.  The  Japhetite  list  contains  fourteen  names, 
of  which  seven  represent  independent,  and  the  re- 
mainder athliated  nations,  as  follows :  (i.)  Goiner, 
connected  etlinically  with  tlie  Cimmerii,  Cimhri  (V), 
and  t'j/'^r)/,' and  geographically  with  Crime".  As- 
sociated with  Corner  are  the  tliree  following:  (".) 
Ashkenaz,  generally  compared  with  lake  Asciinius 
in  Bithynia,  but  by  Knobel  with  the  tribe  As(el, 
As,  or  Ussetes  in  the  Caucasian  district.  On  the 
whole  we  prefer  Ilasse's  suggestion  of  a  connection 
between  this  name  and  that  of  the  Axeniis,  later 
the  Euxiinis  I'ontus.  (6.)  liiphath,  the  Ripiei 
Montes,  which  Knobel  connects  etymologically  and 
geographically  with  C((rpates  Mons.  (c.)  Togar- 
mah,  undoubtedly  Armenia,  or  a  portion  of  it. 
(ii.)  Magog,  the  ^cyfliians.  (iii.)  Madai,  Media. 
(iv.)  .Javan,  the  Jemians,  as  a  general  appellation 
for  the  Hellenic  race,  with  whom  are  associated 
the  four  following:  (a.)  Ehshah,  the  ^i,'(///(JHs,  less 
probably  identified  with  the  district  Elis.  [b.) 
Tarshish,  at  a  later  period  of  Biblical  history  cer- 
tainly identical  with  Tartessus  in  Spain,  to  wliich, 
however,  there  are  objections  as  regards  the  talile, 
partly  from  the  too  extended  area  tiius  given  to  tlie 
Mosaic  world,  and  partly  because  Tartessus  was  a 
Phcenician,  and  consequently  not  a  Japhetic  settle- 
.»ient.  Knobel  compares  the  Tyrseni,  Tyrrlieni, 
and  Tusci  of  Italy;  but  this  is  precarious,  (c. ) 
Kittim,  tlie  town  Citiuin  in  Cyprus,  (d.)  Doda- 
lin.,  the  Unrdtmi  of  Illyria  and  Mysia:  Dodunn 
18  aometinies  compared,  (v.)  Tubal,  the  Tihnreni 
in   I'lm'us.     (vi..^   Meshech,    the    Moschi   in    tlie 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

northwestern  part  of  Armenia,     (vii.;  Tiras,  per 
haps  Thracia. 

2.  Tlie  Hamitic  list  contains  thirty  names,  ol 
which  four  represent  independent,  and  the  remain- 
der affiliated  nations,  as  follows:  (i.)  Cush,  in  two 
branches,  the  western  or  African  representing 
^i-Etldopid,  the  Keesk  of  the  old  Eg3ptian,  and  tlie 
eastern  or  Asiatic  being  connected  with  the  names 
of  the  tribe  Cossiei,  tlie  district  Cissia,  and  the 
province  Susinmt  or  Klnizistitn.  With  Cush  are 
associated:  {(t.)  Seba,  the  Sabcei  of  Yemen  in 
south  Arabia,  {b.)  Havilah,  the  district  K/iaicldn 
in  the  same  part  of  the  peninsula,  (c.)  Sabtah, 
the  town  Subathn  in  Iladramimt.  (d.)  Kaamah, 
the  town  Rhegma  on  the  southeastern  coast  of 
Arabia,  with  whom  are  associated:  («''.)  Sheba,  a 
tribe  probably  connected  ethnically  or  commercially 
with  the  one  of  the  same  name  already  mentioned, 
but  located  on  the  west  coast  of  the  Persian  Gulf. 
(6-.)  Dedan,  also  on  the  west  coast  of  the  Persian 
Gulf,  where  the  name  perhaps  still  survives  in  the 
island  Dddan.  (e.)  Sabtechah,  perhaps  the  town 
Siimyddce  on  the  coast  of  the  Indian  Ocean  east- 
ward of  the  Persian  Gulf.  {/.)  Nimrod,  a  per- 
sonal and  not  a  geographical  name,  the  representa- 
tive of  the  eastern  Cusliites.  (ii.)  Mizraim,  the 
two  Misrs,  i.  e.  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  with 
whom  the  following  seven  are  connected:  {a.) 
Ludim,  according  to  Knobel  a  tribe  allied  to  the 
Shemitic  Lud,  but  settled  in  Egypt;  others  com- 
pare the  river  Laud  (Plin.  v.  2),  and  the  Leivdlah, 
a  lierber  trilie  on  the  Syrtes.  (b.)  Anamim,  ac- 
cording to  Knobel  the  inhabitants  of  the  Bella, 
which  would  be  described  in  Egyptian  by  the  term 
sanemhit  or  tsanemhit,  "  northern  district,"  con- 
verted by  the  Hebrews  into  Anamim.  (c.)  Naphtu- 
him,  variously  explained  as  the  people  of  Neplithys, 
i.  e.  the  northern  coast  district  (Bochart),  and  as 
the  worshippers  of  Phthah,  meaning  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Meuipliis.  ((/.)  Pathrusim,  Upper  Egypt, 
the  name  being  explained  as  meaning  in  the  Egyp- 
tian "  the  south  "  (Knobel).  (e.)  Casluhim,  Ca- 
siiis  mons,  Cassioiis,  and  Cassium,  eastward  of  the 
Delta  (Knobel):  the  Colchians,  according  to  Bo- 
chart, but  this  is  unlikely.  {J'.)  Caphtorim,  most 
probably  the  district  about  C'optos  in  Upper  Egypt 
[Caphtor]  ;  the  island  of  Crete  accordhig  to  many 
modern  critics,  Cappadocia  according  to  the  older 
interpreters,  (t/.)  Phut,  the  Puni  of  the  Egyptian 
inscriptions,  meaning  the  Libyans,  (iii.)  Canaan, 
the  geographical  position  of  which  calls  for  no  re- 
mark in -this  place.  The  name  has  been  variously 
explained  as  meaning  the  "  low  "  land  of  the  coast 
district,  or  the  "suljection"  threatened  to  Canaan 
personally  (Gen.  ix.  25).  To  Canaan  belong  the 
following  eleven :  (a.)  Sidon,  the  well-known  town 
of  that  name  in  Phoenicia,  (b.)  Hetli,  or  the  Hit- 
tites  of  Biblical  history,  (c.)  The  Jebusite,  oi  Je- 
bus  or  Jerusalem,  (f/.)  The  Amorite  irequently 
mentioned  in  Biblical  history,  (e.)  The  Girgasite, 
the  same  as  the  Girgashites.  (f.)  Tire  Hivite,  va- 
riously explained  to  mean  the  occupants  of  the 
"interior"  (Ewald),  or  the  dwellers  in  "  villages  " 
(Gesen.).  (r/.)  The  Arkite,  of  Area,  north  of  Trip- 
olis,  at  the  foot  of  Lebanon,  {h.)  The  Sinite,  of 
i>in  or  Sinna,  places  in  the  Lebanon  district.  (i.\ 
Tlie  Arvadite  of  Aradus  on  the  coast  of  Phoenicia. 
{j.)  The  Zemarite,  of  Simyra  on  the  Eleutherus. 
(k. )  The  Hamathite,  of  Hamath,  the  classical  Kpi- 
phania,  on  the  Orontes. 

.3.  The  Shemitic  list  contains  twenty-five  naniei 
of  which  fi\e  refer  to  iiidepeiKlent,  snd  the  reniaii- 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

ier  to  affiliated  tribes,  as  follows:  (i.)  Elam,  the 
tribe  Eli/mmi  and  tlie  district  Elyiiviis  in  .Siisiana. 
(ii.)  Assliur,  Assyria  between  the  Tigris  and  the 
range  of  Zagrus.  (iii.)  Arphaxad,  .-Ir/vf/j  (t7/(7(s  in 
northern  Assj'ria,  with  whom  are  associated:  (a.) 
Salah,  a  personal  and  not  a  geographical  title,  in- 
dicating a  migration  of  the  people  represented  by 
him ;  S.alah's  son  (a-)  Eber,  representing  geograph- 
ically the  district  across  {_i.  e.  eastward  of )  the  Eu- 
phrates; and  I'^ber's  two  sons  (a-^)  Peleg,  a  personal 
name  indicating  a  ''  division  '"  of  this  branch  of  the 
Shemitic  family,  and  {b'^j  Joktan,  representing  gen- 
erally the  inhabitants  of  Arabia,  with  the  following 
thirteen  sons  of  Joktan,  namely:  ("■*.)  Aluiodad, 
probably  representing  the  trilie  of  .lurirum  near 
Mecca,  whose  leader  was  named  Mwlad.  (bK) 
Sheleph,  the  Sal/peni  in  Yemen,  (c*.)  Hazarnia- 
veth,  Hadrani'iut,  in  southern  Arabia,  {d^.)  Je- 
rah.  (e^.)  Hadoram,  the  Adramihe  on  the  south- 
ern coast,  in  a  district  of  Hadramaut.  (J'*-)  Uzal, 
supposed  to  represent  the  town  Szinan  in  south 
Arabia,  as  having  been  founded  by  Asd.  {<]*.) 
Uiklah.  (At.)  Obal,  or,  as  in  1  Chr.  i.  22,  Ebal, 
which  latter  is  identified  by  Knobel  with  the  6'e- 
banitw  in  the  southwest,  (i*.)  Abimael,  doubtfully 
connected  with  the  district  Mahra,  eastward  of 
Iladra/iiaut,  and  with  the  towns  Mara  and  Midi. 
(_/*.)  Sheba,  the  Sabcei  of  southwestern  Arabia, 
about  Mariaba.  (/u*.)  Ophir,  probably  Admie  on 
the  southern  coast,  but  see  .article.  (IK)  Havilah, 
the  district  KItuwUbi  in  the  northwest  of  Ymiun 
(jn^.)  Jobab,  possibly  the  Jubaritce  of  Ptolemy  (vi. 
7,  §  2-i),  for  which  JobabitK  may  originally  have 
stood,  (iv.)  Lud  generally  com[)ared  with  Lydia, 
but  explained  by  Knobel  as  referring  to  the  v.arious 
aboriginal  tribes  in  and  about  I'aiestnie,  such  as 
the  Amalekites,  Rephaites,  Eniim,  etc.  We  can- 
not consider  either  of  these  views  as  well  estal)lished. 
Lydia  itself  lay  beyond  the  horizon  of  the  iMusaic 
table:  as  to  the  Shemitic  origin  of  its  population, 
conflicting  opinions  are  entertained,  to  which  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  advert  herealter.  Knobel's 
view  has  in  its  favor  the  probaliility  that  the  triljes 
referred  to  would  be  represented  in  the  table;  it  is, 
however,  wholly  devoid  of  historical  confirmation, 
with  the  exception  of  an  Arabian  tradition  that 
Ain/.ik  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Lutid  or  Lnw<id,  the 
Bon  of  Shem."  (v.)  Aram,  the  general  name  for 
Syria  and  northern  Mesopotamia,  with  whom  the 
following  are  associated:  (a.)  Uz,  probably  the 
^sitae  of  Ptolemy.  (//.)  IIul,  doubtful,  but  best 
connected  with  the  name  Huleli,  attaching  to  a  dis- 
trict north  of  Lake  Merom.  (c.)  Gether,  not  iden- 
tified. ((/.)  ilash,  Masius  Mons,  in  the  north  of 
Mesopotamia. 

There  is  yet  one  name  noticed  in  the  table, 
namely,  Philistini,  which  occurs  in  the  Hamitic 
division,  but  without  any  direct  assertion  of  Ham- 
itic descent.  The  terms  used  in  the  A.  V.  "  out 
of  whom  (Cashihim)  came  Philistim "  (ver.  14), 
would  naturally  imply  descent;  but  the  Helaew 
text  only  warrants  the  conclusion  that  the  Philis- 
tines sojourned  in  the  land  of  the  Casluhim.  Not 
withstanding  this,  we  believe  the  intention  of  the 
author  of  tiie  table  to  have  been  to  affirni  the 
Hamitic  origin  of  the  Philistines,  leaving  unde- 
cided the  particular  branch,  whether  Casluhim  or 


«  This  tradition  probably  originated  in  ttie  desire  to 
form  a  connecting  link  between  tlie  Mosaic  table  iind 
he  Tarious  elements  of  the  Arahi.iii  population.  The 
•nly  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from   it  is   that,  in  the 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     32fio 

Caphtorim,  with  which  it  was  more  immediatelj 
connected. 

The  total  imniber  of  names  noticed  in  the  t.alde 
including  Philistim,  would  thus  amount  to  70, 
which  was  raised  by  patristic  writers  to  72. 
These  totals  affbVded  scope  for  numerical  compari- 
sons, and  also  for  an  estimate  of  the  number  o( 
nations  and  languages  to  be  found  on  the  earth's 
surface.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  Bible  itself 
fiu-nishes  no  ground  for  such  calculations,  inasmuch 
as  it  does  not  in  any  case  specify  the  numbers. 

Before  proceeding  further,  it  would  be  well  tc 
discuss  a  question  materially  aflfi^cting  the  historical 
value  of  the  Mosaic  talile,  namely,  the  period  to 
which  it  refers.  On  this  point  very  various  opin- 
ions are  entertained.  Knobel,  conceiving  it  to  rep- 
resent the  commercial  geography  of  the  Phoenicians 
assigns  it  to  about  1200  b.  c.  (  Vullcert.  pp.  4-9  , 
and  Renan  supports  this  view  {Hist.  Gen.  i.  40) 
while  others  allow  it  no  higher  an  antiquity  than 
the  period  of  the  Babylonish  Captivity  (v.  Boh'en's 
Cen.  ii.  207;  Winer,  Rwb.  ii.  G(i.5).  Inte.n.al 
evidence  leads  us  to  refer  it  back  to  the  age  if 
Abraham  on  the  following  grounds :  (1.)  The  Ca- 
naanites  were  as  yet  in  undisputed  possession  of 
Palestine.  (2.)  The  Philistines  had  not  concluded 
their  migration.  (3.)  Tyre  is  wholly  unnoticed,  an 
omission  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  accounted 
for  on  the  ground  that  it  is  included  under  the 
name  either  of  Heth  (Knol)el,  p.  ,323),  or  of  Sidcn 
(v.  Bohlen,  ii.  241).  (4.)  Various  places  such  as 
Simyra,  Sinna.  and  Area,  are  noticed,  which  had 
fallen  into  insignificance  in  later  times.  (-5.)  Kit- 
tim.  which  in  the  age  of  Solomon  was  under  Phce- 
nieian  dominion,  is  assigned  to  Japheth,  and  the 
same  may  be  said  of  Tarshish,  which  in  that  age 
undoubtedly  referred  to  the  Phcenician  emporium 
of  Tartessus,  whatever  may  have  been  its  earlier 
significance.  The  chief  objection  to  so  early  a  date 
as  we  ha\e  ventured  to  [)ropose,  is  the  notice  of  the 
Medes  under  the  name  .Madai.  The  Ary.an  nation, 
which  beai-s  this  name  in  history,  appears  not  to 
have  re.ach'ed  its  final  settlement  until  about  900 
B.  c.  (Rawlinson's  flerod.  i.  404).  But  on  the  other 
hand,  the  name  Media  may  well  have  belonifed  to 
the  district  before  the  arrival  of  the  .\ryan  Mede.s, 
whether  it  were  occupied  by  a  tribe  of  kindred  ori- 
gin to  them  or  by  Turanians;  and  this  probability 
is  to  a  certain  extent  confirmed  by  the  notice  of  a 
Median  dynasty  in  Babylon,  as  reported  by  Berosus, 
so  early  as  the  2.jth  century  B.  c.  (Rawlinson,  i. 
434).  Little  dithculty  would  be  found  in  assigning 
so  early  a  date  to  the  ^ledes,  if  the  Aryan  origin 
of  the  allied  kinjis  mentioned  in  Gen.  xiv.  1  were 
thoroughly  estalilished,  in  accordance  with  Renan  "a 
view  (//.  G.  i.  61):  on  this  point,  however,  we  have 
our  doubts. 

The  Mos.aic  table  is  supplemented  by  ethnolosj- 
ical  notfces  relating  to  the  various  divisions  of  the 
Terachite  family.  The.se  belonged  to  the  Sliemitic 
division,  being  descended  from  Arjihaxad  throiiiih 
Peleg,  with  whom  the  line  terminates  in  the  table. 
Reu,  Serug,  and  Nahor  form  the  interniediato  links 
between  Peleg  and  Terah  (Gen.  xi.  18-25),  with 
whom  \iegan  the  movement  that  terminated  in  tlie 
occupation  of  ('anaan  and  the  adjacent  districts  by 
certain  branches  of  the  family.     The  origin,*!  seai 

opinion  of  its  originator,  there  wa.s  an  element  whicb 
was  neither  Ishniaelitc  uor  JolUauiJ  (.EwaM,  (itsch.  i 
330,  note). 


3:^96   TONGUES,  confusion  of 

Df  Perah"  was  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  (Gen.  xi.  28): 
tlieiice  he  migrated  to  Haran  (Gen.  xi.  31),  where 
a  section  of  his  descendants,  the  representatives  of 
Xahor,  remained  (Gen.  xxiv.  10,  xxvii.  43,  xxix. 
4  fF ),  while  the  two  branches,  represented  by  Abra- 
ham and  Lot,  the  son  of  Haran,  crossed  the  Enpln-a- 
tes  and  settled  in  Canaan  and  the  adjacent  districts 
(Gen.  xii.  5).  From  Lot  sprang;  the  Aloaliites  and 
.\nmionites  (Gen.  xix.  30-38):  from  Abraham  the 
Ishmaelites  through  his  son  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  12), 
the  Israelites  through  Lsaac  and  Jacob,  the  Kdom- 
ites  through  Isaac  and  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.),  and  cer- 
tain Arab  tribes,  of  -whoni  the  Midianites  are  the 
most  conspicuous,  through  the  sons  of  his  concubine 
Ketnrah  (Gen.  xxv.  1-4). 

The  most  important  geographical  question  in 
connection  with  the  Terachites  concerns  their  orig- 
inal settlement.  The  presence  of  the  Chaldees  in 
Babylonia  at  a  subsequent  period  of  Scriptural  his- 
tory has  led  to  a  supposition  that  they  were  a  Ham- 
itic  people,  originally  lielonging  to  Babylonia,  and 
thence  transplanted  in  the  7th  and  8th  centuries  to 
northern  .Assyria  (Hawlinson's  Ihrod.  i.  319).  We 
do  not  think  tliis  view  supported  by  Biblical  notices. 
It  is  more  consistent  with  the  general  direction  of 
the  Terachite  movement  to  look  for  Ur  in  northern 
Mesopotamia,  to  the  east  of  llaran.  That  the  Chal- 
dees, or,  according  to  the  Hebrew  nomenclature, 
the  Kasdim,  were  found  in  that  neighborhood,  is 
indicated  by  the  name  Chesed  as  one  of  the  sons  of 
Nahor  (Gen.  xxii.  22),  and  possibly  by  the  name 
Arphaxad  itself,  which,  according  to  Ewald  (Gesc/i. 
i.  378),  means  "fortress  of  the  Chaldees."  In 
classical  times  we  find  the  Kasdim  still  occupying 
the  mountains  adjacent  to  Arrapacliitis,  the  Bilili- 
cai  Arpachsad,  under  the  names  Clntklm  (Xen. 
Aiinh.  iv.  3,  §§  1-4)  and  Gonlyuii  or  Otrduclii 
(Strab.  xvi.  p.  747),  and  here  the  name  still  has  a 
vital  existence  under  the  form  of  Kurd.  The  name 
Kasdim  is  explained  by  Oppert  as  meaning  "  two 
rivers,"  and  thus  as  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew 
Ndhitrnim  and  the  classical  Afesopoinmin  {Zeit. 
Murf/.  Gt's.  xi.  137).  We  receive  this  explanation 
with  reserve;  but,  as  far  as  it  goes,  it  favors  the 
northern  locality.  The  evidence  for  the  antiquity 
of  the  southern  settleuient  appears  to  be  but  small, 
if  the  term  Kaldni  does  not  occur  in  the  Assyrian 
injcriptions  until  the  9th  century  p..  c.  (Rawlinson, 
i.  449).  We  therefore  conceive  the  original  seat 
of  the  Chaldees  to  have  been  in  the  north,  whence 
they  moved  southward  along  the  course  of  the  Tigris 
until  they  reached  Babylon,  where  we  find  them 
dominant  in  the  7th  century  b.  c.  Whether  they 
first  entered  this  country  as  mercenaries,  and  then 
conquered  their  employers,  as  suggested  by  lienan 
( //.  G.  i.  fi8),  must  remain  uncertain;  but  we  think 
the  suggestion  supported  by  the  circumstance  that 
the  name  was  afterwards  transferred  to  the  whole 
Babylonian  population.  The  sacerdotal  cliaracter 
of  the  Chaldees  is  certainly  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  this  or  any  other  hypothesis  on  the  subject. 

IJetiu'ning  to  the  'lerachites,  we  find  it  impossible 
to  define  the  geographical  limits  of  their  settlements 
with  precision.  Tliey  intermingled  with  the  pre- 
riously  existing  inhabitants  of  the  countries  inter- 
vening lietween  the  Lied  Sea  and  the  Euphrates, 
and  hence  we  find  an  Aram,  an  Uz,  and  a  Chesed 
^nlong  the  descendants  of  Nahor  (Gen.  xxii.  21,  22), 
i  1  >e(laii  and  a  Sheba  among  those  of  Abraham  by 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

Ketnrah  (Gen.  xxv.  3),  and  an  Amalek  among  tha 
descendants  of  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.  12).  Few  of  the 
numerous  tribes  which  sprang  from  this  stock  at- 
tained historical  celebrity.  The  Israelites  must  of 
course  be  excepted  from  this  description ;  so  also 
the  Nabateans,  if  they  are  to  lie  regarded  as  repre- 
sented by  the  Nebaioth  of  the  Bible,  as  to  which  there 
is  some  doubt  (Quatrem^re,  Mekinyes,  p.  59).  Of 
the  rest,  the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Midianites,  and 
Edomites  are  chiefly  known  for  their  hostilities  with 
the  Israelites,  to  whom  they  were  close  neighbors. 
The  memory  of  the  westerly  migration  of  the  Israel- 
ites was  perpetuated  in  the  name  Hebrew,  as  reler- 
ring  to  their  residence  bejond  the  river  Euphrates 
(Josh.  xxiv.  3). 

Besides  the  nations  whose  origin  is  accounted  for 
in  the  Bible,  we  find  other  early  populations  men- 
tioned in  the  course  of  the  history  without  any 
notice  of  their  ethnology.  In  this  category  we  may 
])lace  the  Horims,  who  occupied  Edom  before  the 
descendants  of  Esau  (Ueut.  ii.  12,  22);  the  Ama- 
lekites  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula;  the  Zuzims  and 
Zamzummims  of  Per£ea  (Gen.  xiv.  5;  Deut.  ii. 
20);  the  Eephaims  of  Bashan  and  of  the  valley 
near  Jerusalem  named  after  them  (Gen.  xiv.  5; 
2  Sam.  v.  18);  the  Emims  eastward  of  the  Dead 
Sea  (Gen.  xiv.  5);  the  Avims  of  the  southern  I'hi- 
listine  plain  (Deut.  ii.  23);  and  the  Anakims  of 
southern  Palestine  (Josh.  xi.  21).  The  question 
arises  whether  these  trilies  were  Hamites,  or  whether 
they  represented  an  earlier  population  which  pre- 
ceded the  entrance  of  the  Hamites.  'I'he  latter 
view  is  sup|)orted  by  Knobel,  who  regards  the 
majority  of  these  tribes  as  Shemites,  who  jneceded 
the  Canaanites,  and  communicated  to  them  the 
Shemitic  tongue  {Vulkert.  pp.  204,  316).  No 
evidence  can  be  adduced  in  support  of  this  theory, 
which  was  probably  suggested  by  the  double  diffi- 
culty of  accounting  for  the  name  of  Lud.  and  of 
explaining  the  ajiparent  anomaly  of  the  Hamites 
and  Terachites  speaking  the  same  language  Still 
less  evidence  is  there  in  fiivor  of  the  Turanian 
origin,  which  would,  we  presume,  be  assigned  to 
these  tribes  in  common  with  the  Canaanites  proper, 
in  accordance  with  a  current  theory  that  the  first 
wave  of  population  which  overspread  western  .Asia 
lielouged  to  that  branch  of  the  human  race  (Kaw- 
liiison's  llerod.  i.  045,  note).  To  this  theory  we 
shall  presently  advert:  meanwhile  we  can  only 
observe,  in  reference  to  these  fragmentary  popu 
lations,  that,  as  they  intermingled  with  the  Canaan- 
ites, they  probably  belonged  to  the  same  stock  (comp. 
Num.  xiii.  22;  Judg.  i.  10).  They  may  perchance 
have  belonged  to  an  earlier  migration  than  the 
Canaanitish,  and  may  have  been  subdued  by  the 
later  comers;  but  this  would  not  necessitate  a  dif- 
ferent origin.  The  names  of  these  tribes  and  of 
their  abodes,  as  instanced  in  Gen.  xiv.  5 ;  Deut.  ii. 
23;  Num.  xiii.  22,  bear  a  Shemitic  character  (Ewald, 
Gtscli.  i.  311),  and  the  only  objection  to  their  Ca- 
naanitish origin  arising  out  of  these  names  would 
be  in  connection  with  Zamzummim,  which,  according 
to  Kenan  (//.  G.  p.  35,  note),  is  formed  on  the 
same  principle  as  the  Greek  ^dp^apos,  and  in  this 
case  implies  at  all  events  a  dialectical  difference. 

Having  thus  surve3ed  the  ethnological  statementa 
contained  in  the  Bible,  it  remains  for  us  to  inquire 
how  far  they  are  based  on,  or  accord  with,  physio- 
logical or  linguistic  principles.     Knobel  maintain» 


"  A  connection  between  the  names  Terali  and  Trach- 
t&itis,  Uiiraa  and  Hauran,  is   icuggesteil   by   Reuan 


(Hist.   Gen.  i.    29).      This,    liowever.   i.i   inconslatenr 
with  the  position  jjenerally  assiuned  Lo  Haran. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

thiit  the  threefold  division  of  the  IVIosaic  talile  is 
founded  on  the  phj'siologicai  principle  of  color, 
Slieni,  Ham,  and  .lapheth  representing  respectively 
the  red,  lilack,  and  white  complexions  prevalent  in 
the  ditttirent  regions  of  the  then  known  world  (  I  'iil- 
ktrt.  pp.  ll-l-j).  He  claims  etymological  support 
for  this  view  iu  respect  to  Ham  (=  "  dark  ")  and 
Japheth  (="fair"),  but  not  in  respect  to  Shein, 
and  he  adduces  testimony  to  the  fact  that  such 
differences  of  color  were  noted  in  ancient  times. 
The  etymoloirical  argument  weakens  rather  than 
.sustains  his  view;  for  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that 
the  [irinciple  of  classification  would  be  embodied  in 
tv/o  of  the  names  and  not  also  in  the  third:  the 
force  of  such  evidence  is  wholly  dependent  upon  its 
uniformity.  With  regard  to  the  actual  prevalence 
of  the  hues,  it  is  quite  consistent  with  the  physical 
character  of  the  districts  that  the  Ilamites  of  the 
south  should  be  dark,  and  the  Japhetites  of  the 
north  fair,  and  further  that  the  Shemites  should 
hold  an  intermediate  place  in  color  as  in  geograph- 
ical position.  But  we  have  no  evidence  that  this 
distinction  was  strongly  marked.  The  "  redness  "' 
expressed  in  the  name  luloni  probably  reltjrred  to 
the  soil  (Stanley,  ^.  if  P.  p.  87):  the  /■^ryl/ircisiim 
Mure  was  so  called  from  a  peculiarity  in  its  own 
tint,  arising  from  the  presence  of  some  vegetable 
substance,  and  not  because  the  red  Shemites  bordered 
on  it,  the  black  Gushites  being  equally  numerous 
on  its  shores:  the  name  Adam,,  as  applied  to  the 
Shemitio  man,  is  amliiguous,  from  its  reierence  to 
Boil  as  well  as  color.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Phoenicians  (assuming  them  to  have  reached  the 
Mediterranean  seaboard  before  the  table  was  com- 
piled) were  so  called  from  their  red  hue,  and  yet 
are  placed  in  the  table  among  the  Hamites.  The 
argument  drawn  from  the  red  hue  of  the  Egyptian 
deity  Typhon  is  of  little  value  until  it  can  be 
decisively  proveil  that  the  deity  in  question  repre- 
sented the  Shemites.  This  is  asserted  by  Kenan 
(//.  G.  i.  38),  who  enctorses  [•inobel's.  view  as  far 
as  the  Shemites  are  concerned,  though  he  does  not 
accept  his  general  theory. 

The  linguistic  ditficulties  connected  with  the 
Mosaic  table  are  very  considerable,  and  we  caimot 
pretend  to  unravel  the  tangled  skein. of  contiicling 
opinions  on  the  sulyect.  The  primary  dithcnlty 
arises  out  of  the  Biblical  nai'rative  itself,  and  is 
consequently  of  old  standing — theilitficulty,  namely, 
of  accounting  for  the  evident  identity  of  language 
spoken  by  the  Shemitic  Terachites  and  the  Hamitic 
Canaanites.  Modern  linguistic  research  has  rather 
enhanced  than  removed  this  ditticulty.  The  alter- 
natives hitherto  ottered  as  satisfactory  solutions, 
namely,  that  the  Terachites  adopted  the  language 
of  the  Canaanites,  or  the  Canaanites  that  of  the 
Terachites,  are  both  inconsistent  with  the  enlarged 
area  which  the  language  is  founil  to  cover  on  each 
Bide.  Setting  aside  the  question  of  the  high  im- 
probability that  a  wandering  nomadic  tribe,  such 
as  the  Terachites,  would  be  able  to  impose  its  lan- 
guage on  a  settled  and  powerful  nation  like  the 
Canaanites,  it  would  still  remain  to  be  explained 
how  the  Cushites  and  other  Hamitic  trilies,  who 
did  not  come  into  contact  with  the  Terachites, 
acquired  the  same  general  type  of  language.  And 
>n  the  other  hand,  assuming  that  what  are  called 
Sleuiitic  languages  were  really  Hamitic,  we  have  to 
explain  the  extension  of  the  Hamitic  area  over 
Mesopotamia  and  Assyria,  which,  according  to  the 
<able  and  the  ge.ieral  opinion  of  ethnologists,  be- 
onyed  wholly  to  a  non-Hamitic    pojiuhition.      A 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF     3297 

further  question,  moreover,  arises  out  of  this  ex- 
planation, namely,  what  was  the  language  of  the  Ta- 
rachites  before  they  assumed  this  Hamitic  tongue? 
i'his  question  is  answered  by  .).  G.  Midler,  in 
Herzog's  E.  A',  xiv.  2'J8,  to  the  effect  that  the 
Shemites  originally  spoke  an  Indo-European  lan- 
guage, —  a  view  which  we  do  not  expect  to  see 
generally  adopted. 

ivestrictliig  ourselves,  for  the  present,  to  the  lin- 
gu'stic  question,  we  must  draw  attention  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  well-defined  Hamitic  as  well  as  a 
Sheniilic  class  of  languages,  and  that  any  theory 
which  obliterates  this  distinction  must  fall  to  the 
ground  The  Hamitic  type  is  most  highly  devel- 
oped, as  we  might  expect,  in  the  country  which 
was,  /I'lr  earctUtnct,  the  land  of  Ham,  namely,  Egypt; 
and  whatever  elements  of  original  unity  with  the 
Shemitic  type  may  be  detected  by  philologists, 
practically  the  two  were  as  distinct  from  each  other 
in  historical  times,  as  any  two  languages  could 
[iossibly  be.  We  are  not  therefore  prepared  at  cnce 
to  throw  overboard  the  linguistic  element  of  the 
Mosaic  table.  At  the  same  time  we  I'ecognize  the 
extreme  ditticulty  of  explaining  the  anomaly  of 
Handtic  tribes  speaking  a  Shenntic  tongue.  It  will 
not  suffice  to  say,  in  answer  to  this,  that  these 
tribes  were  Shenntes;  for  again  the  correctness  of 
the  Mosaic  table  is  vindicated  by  the  differences 
of  social  and  artistic  culture  which  distinguish  the 
Shemites  proper  from  the  Phoenicians  and  Cushites 
using  a  Shemitic  tongue.  The  former  are  charac- 
terized by  habits  of  simplicity,  isolation,  and  ad- 
herence to  patriarchal  wa^  s  of  living  and  thinking ; 
the  Phoenicians,  on  the  other  hand,  were  eiiii- 
nently  a  commercial  people;  and  the  Cushites  are 
identified  with  the  massive  architectural  erections 
of  Babylonia  and  South  Arabia,  and  with  equally 
extended  ideas  of  empire  and  social  progress. 

The  real  question  at  issue  concerns  the  language, 
not  of  the  whole  Hamitic  family,  but  of  the  Ca- 
naanites and  Cushites.  With  regard  to  the  former, 
various  explanations  have  been  offered  —  such  as 
Knobel's,  that  they  acquired  a  Shemitic  language 
from  a  prior  population,  rejjresented  i)y  the  Kefaites, 
Zuzim,  Zamzunmiim,  etc.  {lu/kert.  p.  315);  or 
Bunsen's,  that  they  were  a  Shemitic  race  who  had 
long  sojourned  in  Egypt  {P/iil.  of  Hist.  i.  191)  — 
neither  of  which  are  satisfactory.  With  regard  to 
the  latter,  the  only  explanation  to  be  offered  is  that 
a  Joktanid  immigration  supervened  on  the  original 
Hamitic  population,  the  result  being  a  combination 
of  Cushitic  civilization  with  a  Shemitic  language 
(lienan,  i.  322).  Nor  is  it  unimportant  to  men- 
tion that  peculiarities  have  been  discovered  in  the 
Cushite  Shemitic  of  Southern  Arabia  which  su<;gest 
a  close  affinity  with  the  Phoenician  forms  (Kenan, 
i.  318).  We  are  not,  however,  without  expecta- 
tion that  time  and  research  will  clear  ui)  much  of 
the  mystery  that  now  enwraps  the  subject.  There 
are  two  directions  to  which  we  ni.ay  hopefully  turn 
for  light,  namely,  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  with  re- 
gard to  each  of  which  we  make  a  few  remarks. 

That  the  Egyptian  language  exhibits  man_y 
striking  points  of  resemblance  to  the  Shemitic  tv[)e 
is  acknowledged  on  all  sides.  It  is  also  allowed 
that  the  reseudilances  are  of  a  valuable  character, 
being  observable  in  the  pronouns,  numerals,  in 
aggxitinative  forms,  in  the  treatment  of  vowels, 
and  other  such  points  (Kenan,  i.  84,  85).  There 
is  not,  however,  an  equal  degree  of  a<;reemer« 
among  scholars  as  to  the  deductions  to  be  drawn 
Irom  lhe.se  resemblances.     NVhile  many  rcccguiw  in 


3298    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

them  the  proofs  of  a  substantial  identity,  and  hence 
regard  ilauiitism  as  an  early  stage  of  Shemitism, 
others  d.eiiy,  either  on  general  or  on  special  grounds, 
the  proliability  of  such  a  connection.  When  we  find 
such  high  authorities  as  Bunsen  on  the  former  side 
{Phil,  of  Hist.  i.  18G-189,  ii.  3)  and  Kenan  (i.  80) 
on  tlie  other,  not  to  mention  a  long  array  of  scholars 
who  have  adopted  each  view,  it  would  be  presump- 
tion dogmatically  to  assert  the  correctness  or  in- 
correctness of  either.  We  can  only  point  to  the 
possibility  of  the  identity  being  established,  and  to 
the  further  possibility  that  connecting  links  may  1  e 
discovered  between  the  tvvo  extremes,  which  may 
serve  to  bridge  over  the  gulf,  and  to  render  the 
use  of  a  Sheniitic  language  by  a  Hamitio  race  less 
of  an  anomaly  than  it  at  present  appears  to  lie. 

Turning  eastward  to  the  banks  of  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates,  and    the    adjacent    countries,   we    find 
iniple  materials   for  research  in  the  inscrijjtions  re- 
cently discovered,  the    examination   of  which    has 
not  yet  yielded  undisputed  results.      The  Mosaic 
table  places  a  Shemitic  population  in  Assyria  and 
Elam,  and  a  Cushitic  one  in  Babylon.     The  proba- 
bility of  this   being  ethiiicuUy  (as  opposed  to  geo- 
graphically) true  depends  jiartly  on  the  age  assigned 
to  the  table.     There  can  be  no  question  that  at  a 
late  period  Assyria  and  Elani   were  held  by  non- 
Siieniitic,  probably  Aryan  conquerors.     But  if  we 
carry  the  table  back  to  the  age  of  Abraham,  the 
case  may  have  been  difti;rent;    for    though    Klam 
is  regarded  as  etymologieally  identical  with    Iran 
(Kenan,  i.  41),  this    is    not    conclusive  as  to  the 
Iranian  character  of  the  language  in  early  times. 
Sufficient  evidence  is  aflTorded  Ijy  language  that  the 
basis  of  the  population  in  Assyria  was    Shemitic 
(Kenan,  i.  70;   Ivnobel,  pp.   154-156);    and    it  is 
hj  no  means  improbable  that  the  inscriptions  be- 
longing more    especially  to  the    neighliorhood    of 
Susa  may  ultimately  estalilish  the  fact  of  a  Shemitic 
population  in   Elam.     The  presence  of  a  Cushitic 
population  in  Babylon  is  an  opinion  vei-y  generally 
held  on  linguistic  grounds;  and  a  close  identity  is 
said  to  exist  between  the  old  Babylonian  and  tlie 
Maliri   lanijuage,  a  Shemitic  tongue  of  an  ancient 
type  still    living  in  a  district    of    JJadrmiurut,   ii 
Southern  Arabia  (Kenan,  JJ.  G.  i.  CO).     In  addition 
to  the  Cushitic  and  iShemitic  elements  in  the  popu- 
lation of  Babylonia  and  the  adjacent  districts,  the 
presence  of  a  Turanian  element  has  been  inferred 
from  the  linguistic  character  of  the  early  inscrip- 
tions.    We  must  here  express  our  conviction  that 
the  ethnology  of  the  countries  in  question  is  con- 
siderably clouded  by  the  undefined  use  of  the  terms 
Turanian,  Scythic,  and   the  like.     It  is  frequently 
difficult  to  decide  whether  these  terms  are  used  in  a 
linguistic  sense,  as  equivalent  to  aij^jlutinatice,  or 
in  an  ethnic  sense.   The  presence  of  a  cerfcun  amount 
of  Turauianism  in  the  former  does  not  involve  its 
presence  in  the  latter  sense.   The  old  Babylonian  and 
iSusianian  inscriptions  may  be  more  agglutinative 
than  the    later  ones,  but  this  is  only  a  proof  of 
their  belonging  to  an  earlier  stage  of  the  language, 
and  does  not  of  itself  indicate  a  foreign  population; 
and  if  these  early  Babylonian  inscriptions  graduate 
into  the  Shemitic,  as  is  asserted   even  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  Turanian  theory  (Kawlinson's  Ih'rotl.  i. 
442,  445),  the  presence  of  an   ethnic  Turanianism 
caiuiot  possibly  be  inferred.     Added  to  this,  it  is 
aiexplicable  how  the   presence  of  a  large    Scytliic 
jopulalion  in  the    Acliaemenian    period,  to  which 
many  of  the  Susianian  inscriptions  belong,  could 
jscapu  the  notice  of  historians.     The  only  Sc}thJc 


rONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

tribes  noticed  by  Herodotus  in  his  review  of  the 
Persian  empire  are  the  Parthians  and  the  Sacse,  the 
former  of  whom  are  known  to  have  lived  in  the 
north,  while  the  latter  probalily  lived  in  the  extreme 
east,  wliere  a  memorial  of  them  is  still  supposed  to 
exist  in  the  name  Seistan,  representing  tlie  ancient 
Sacastene.  Even  with  regard  to  tliese,  Scythic 
may  not  mean  Turanian;  for  they  may  have  be- 
longed to  the  Scythians  of  history  (the  Skolots),  for 
whom  an  Indo-Euro])ean  origin  is  claimed  (Kawlin- 
son's Ilerod.  iii.  197).  The  impressitn  conveyed 
by  the  supposed  detection  of  so  many  heterogeneous 
elements  in  the  old  Babylonian  tongue  (Kawliiison, 
i.  442,444,  646,  notes)  is  not  favorable  to  the  gen- 
eral results  of  the  researches. 

With  regard  to  Arabia,  it  may  safely  be  asserted 
that  the  Mosaic  table  is  confirmed  by  modern  re- 
search. The  Cushitic  element  has  left  memorials 
of  its  presence  in  the  south  in  the  vast  ruins  of 
Mfireli  and  Sand  (Kenan,  i.  318),  as  well  as  in  the 
influence  it  has  exercised  on  the  Iliwyriritic  and 
Mdliri  lantjuages,  as  compared  with  the  Ilelirew. 
The  Joktanid  element  forms  the  basis  of  the  Arabian 
population,  the  Shemitic  character  of  whose  lan- 
guage needs  no  proof.  With  regard  to  the  Ish- 
maelite  element  in  the  north,  we  are  not  aware  of 
any  linguistic  proof  of  its  existence,  hut  it  is  con- 
firmed by  the  traditions  of  the  Arabians  themselves. 
It  remains  to  be  inquired  how  far  the  .lajilietic 
stock  represents  the  linguistic  characteristics  of  the 
Indo-European  and  Turanian  families.  Adojiting 
the  twofold  division  of  the  former,  suggested  by  the 
name  itself,  into  the  eastern  and  western ;  and  sub- 
dividing the  eastern  into  the  Indian  and  Iranian, 
and  tiie  western  into  the  Celtic,  Hellenic,  Illyrian, 
Italian,  Teutonic,  Slavonian,  and  Lithuanian  classes, 
we  are  alile  to  assign  Madai  (Media)  and  Togarmah 
{Aniicnid)  to  the  Iranian  class;  Javan  [Jiniidn) 
and  Elisliah  (yEolian)  to  the  Hellenic;  Gomer  con- 
jecturally  to  the  Celtic;  and  Iddanim,  also  con- 
jecturally,  to  the  Illyrian.  According  to  the  old 
interpreters,  Ashkenaz  represents  the  Teutonic  class, 
while,  according  to  Knobel.  the  Italian  would  be 
represented  by  Tarsbish,  whom  he  identifies  with 
the  Etruscans;  the  Slavonian  by  Macog;  and  the 
Lithuanian  possibly  by  Tiras  (pp.  90,  68,  130). 
The  same  writer  also  identifies  Kiphath  with  the 
Gauls,  as  distinct  from  the  Cynn-y  or  Gomer  (p.  45); 
while  Kittiin  is  referred  by  him  not  improliably  to 
the  Carians,  who  at  one  period  were  predominant 
on  the  islands  adjacent  to  Asia  Minor  (p.  98).  The 
evidence  for  these  identifications  varies  in  strength, 
but  in  no  instance  approaches  to  demonstration. 
Beyond  the  general  probabihty  that  the  main 
branches  of  the  human  family  would  be  rejiresented 
ill  the  Mosaic  table,  we  regard  much  that  has  been 
advanced  on  this  subject  as  highly  precarious.  At 
the  same  time  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  subject 
is  an  open  one,  and  that  as  there  is  no  possibility 
of  proving,  so  also  none  of  disproving,  the  corrpct- 
iiess  of  tliese  conjectures,  ^^'hether  the  Turanian 
family  is  fairly  represented  in  the  Jlosaic  fable  may 
lie  doubted.  Those  who  advocate  the  Mongolian 
origin  of  the  Scythians  would  naturally  regard 
Magog  as  the  representative  of  this  family:  and 
even  those  who  dissent  from  the  Mongolian  theory 
may  still  not  unreasonably  conceive  that  the  title 
Magog  applied  broadly  to  all  the  nomad  trilies  of 
Northern  Asia,  whether  Indo-luiropcan  or  Tu- 
ranian. Tubal  and  Meschecb  remain  to  be  consid- 
ered: Knol>el  identifies  these  re<;pecti\ely  with  the 
Iberians  and  the  Ligurians  (pp.  Ill,  119';  and  if 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

jhe  Finnish  cliaracter  of  tlie  Basque  lanijuage  were 
•stalilislieil,  he  would  re^^ard  the  Iberians  as  cer- 
tainly, and  the  l^ijrurians  as  jjrobalily  Turanians, 
the  relics  of  the  first  wave  of  population  which  is 
supposed  to  have  once  overspread  tlie  whole  of  the 
European  continent,  and  of  which  the  Finns  in  the 
north,  and  the  Basques  in  tlie  south,  are  the  sole 
surviving  representati\'es.  The  'I'uranian  character 
of  the  two  IJiblical  races  above  mentioned  has  been 
otherwise  maintained  on  the  ground  of  the  identity 
of  the  names  Mescheoh  and  Muscovite  (Rawlinson's 
Herod,  i.  652). 

11.  Having  thus  reviewed  the  ethnic  relations  of 
the  nations  who  fell  within  the  circle  of  the  Mosaic 
table,  we  propose  to  cast  a  glance  beyond  its  limits, 
and  inquire  how  far  the  present  results  of  ethno- 
losxical  science  support  the  general  idea  of  the  unity 
of  the  human  race,  which  underlies  the  Mosaic  sys- 
tem. The  chief  and  in  many  instances  the  only 
instrument  at  our  command  fur  ascertaining  the 
relationship  of  nations  is  lani^uarje.  In  its  general 
results  this  instrument  is  thoroughly  trustworthy, 
and  in  each  individual  case  to  wbieh  it  is  applied  it 
furnishes  a  strong  prima  ficie  evidence ;  but  its  evi- 
dence, if  unsupported  by  collateral  proofs,  is  not  nnim- 
peachal)le,  in  consequence  of  tiie  numerous  instances 
of  adopted  languages  wliicli  have  occurred  within 
historical  times.  This  drawback  to  the  value  of 
the  evidence  of  language  will  not  materially  aftect 
our  present  inquiry,  inasmuch  as  we  shall  confine 
ourselves  as  much  as  possible  to  the  general  results. 

The  nomenclature  of  modern  ethnology  is  not 
identical  with  that  of  the  IJilde,  partly  from  the 
enlargement  of  the  area,  and  partly  from  the  gen- 
eral adoption  of  language  as  the  basis  of  classifica- 
tion. Tlie  term  Shemitic  is  indeed  retained,  not, 
however,  to  indicate  a  descent  from  Shem,  but  the 
use  of  languages  allied  to  that  which  was  current 
among  the  Israelites  in  historical  times.  Hamitic 
also  finds  a  place  in  modern  ethnology,  but  as  sub- 
ordinate to,  or  coordinate  with,  Shemitic.  .Japhetic 
is  superseded  mainly  by  Indo-I']uropean  or  Aryan. 
The  various  nations,  or  families  of  nations,  which 
find  no  place  under  the  Biblical  titles  are  classed 
by  certain  ethnologists  under  the  broad  title  of 
Turanian,  while  b}'  others  they  are  broken  up  into 
divisions  more  or  less  mnnerous. 

The  first  branch  of  our  subject  will  be  to  trace 
the  extension  of  the  Shemitic  family  beyond  tiie 
limits  assigned  to  it  in  the  Bible.  The  most  marked 
characteristic  of  this  family,  as  compared  with  the 
Indo-European  or  Turanian,  is  its  inelasticity. 
Hemmed  in  both  by  natural  barriers  and  by  the 
superior  energy  and  expansiveness  of  the  Aryan 
and  Turanian  races,  it  letains  to  the  present  day 
the  stiitus  quo  of  early  times."  'The  only ''  direction 
in  which  it  has  exhibited  any  tendency  to  expand 
has  been  about  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean, 
and  even  here  its  activity  was  of  a  sporadic  charac- 
ter, limited  to  a  single  branch  of  the  family,  namely, 
the  Phoenicians,  and  to  a  single  phase  of  expansion, 
namely,  commercial  colonies.  In  Asia  JMinor  we 
find  tokens  of  Shemitic  presence  in  Cilicia,  which 


a  Ttie  total  amount  of  the  Shemitic  population  at 
present  Is  computed  to  be  only  30  millions,  while  the 
Indo-Etiropeau  is  computed  at  400  millions  (Ileuan,  i. 
13,  note). 

h  Eastward  of  the  Tigris  a  Shemitic  population  has 
\een  supposed  to  e.\ist  in  Afghanistan,  where  tlie 
PhuIiIii  langua,i;e  has  hten  regarded  as  beannjr  a 
Jhemitir  cliaracter.     A  theory  ('(Misequeutly  has  been 


TONGUES.  CONFUSION  OF    329y 

was  connected  with  Phoenicia  both  by  (i-adition 
(Herod,  vii.  91),  and  by  language,  as  attested  by 
existing  coins  (Gesen.  Mon.  Phcen.  iii.  2):  in  Pam- 
phylia,  Pisidia,  and  Lycia,  parts  of  which  were  oc- 
cupied by  the  Solymi  (I'lin.  v.  24;  Herod,  i.  173), 
whose  name  bears  a  .Shemitic  character,  and  who 
are  reported  to  have  spoken  a  Shemitic  tongue 
(Euseb.  Proep.  Ev.  ix.  'J),  a  statement  confirmed 
by  the  occurrence  of  other  Shemitic  names,  such 
as  Phoenix  and  Cabalia,  though  the  subsequent  pre- 
dominance of  an  Aryan  population  in  those  same 
districts  is  attested  Ijy  the  existing  Lyeian  inscri}> 
tions:  again  in  Caria,  though  the  evidence  ai'ising 
out  of  the  supposed  identity  of  the  names  of  the 
gods  Osogo  and  (yhrysaoreus  with  the  Oi/Voioy  and 
Xpva-u>p  of  Sanchuniathon  is  called  in  question 
(Renan,  //.  G.  i.  49):  and,  lastly,  in  Lj'di.a,  where 
the  descendants  of  Lnd  are  located  by  many  au- 
thorities, and  where  the  prevalence  of  a  Shemitic 
language  is  asserted  by  scholars  of  tlie  highest 
standing,  among  whom  we  may  specify  Buiisen  and 
Lassen,  in  spite  of  tokens  of  the  conteniporaiieons 
presence  of  the  Aryan  element,  as  instanced  in  the 
name  Sardis,  and  in  spite  also  of  the  historical 
notices  of  an  ethnical  ccmiection  with  Mysia  (Herod, 
i.  171).  Whether  the  Shemites  ever  occupied  any 
portion  of  the  plateau  of  Asia  Minor  may  be 
doubted.  In  the  opinion  of  the  ancients  the  later 
occupants  of  Cappadocia  were  Syrians,  distinguished 
from  the  mass  of  their  race  by  a  lighter  hue,  and 
hence  termed  Leucosijrl  (Strah.  xii.  p.  542);  but 
this  statement  is  traversed  by  the  evidences  of 
Aryanism  attbrded  liy  the  names  of  the  kings  and 
deities,  as  well  as  by  the  Persian  character  of  the 
religion  (Strab.  xv.  p.  73-3).  If  therefore  the 
Shemites  ever  occupied  this  district,  they  must  soon 
have  been  brought  under  the  dominion  of  Aryan 
conquerors  (Diefenbacli.  Oriij.  Eurnp.  p.  44).  The 
Phoenicians  were  ubiquitous  on  the  islands  and 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean :  in  Cyprus,  where  they 
have  left  toliens  of  their  presence  at  Citium  and 
other  places;  in  Crete;  in  Malta,  where  they  were 
the  original  settlers  (Diod.  Sic.  v.  12)  ;  on  the 
mainland  of  Greece,  where  their  presence  is  lie- 
tokened  by  the  name  Cadmus;  in  Samos,  Same,  and 
Samothrace,  which  bear  Shemitic  names:  in  los 
and  Tenedos,  once  known  by  the  name  of  Phoenice; 
in  Sicily,  where  Panormus,  Motya,  and  Soloe'e  were 
Shemitic  settlements;  in  Sardinia  (Diod.  Sic.  v 
35);  on  the  eastern  and  southern  coasts  of  Spain ; 
and  on  the  north  coast  of  .\frica,  which  was  lined 
with  Phoenician  colonies  from  the  Syrtis  Major  to 
the  Pillars  of  Hercules.  They  must  also  have  pene- 
trated deeply  into  the  interior,  to  judge  from 
Strabo's,  statement  of  the  destruction  of  three  hun- 
dred towns  by  the  Pharusians  and  Nigritians  (Strab. 
xvii.  p.  820).  Still  in  none  of  the  countries  we 
have  mentioned  did  they  supjilant  the  original  [)o|>- 
ulation :  tliey  were  conquerors  and  settlers,  but  no 
more  than  this. 

■  The  bulk  of  the  North  African  languages,  both 
in  ancient  and  modern  times,  though  not  Shemitic 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  so  far  resemble 


started  that  the  people  speaking  it  repre,«ent  the  ten 
*ribes  of  Israel  (Forster's  I'rnn.  Laiiu-  iii.  241).  We 
believe  the  supposed  Shemitic  resemblances  to  be  un- 
founded, and  that  the  Puslitii  language  holds  an  inter- 
mediate place  between  the  Iranian  and  Iiidi.m  classes, 
with  the  latter  of  which  it  possesses  in  comrion  the 
lingual  or  cerebral  .sounds  i,Diefeubach.  Oi  ■  Eur  p 
37 1. 


h  500    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

that  type  as  to  have  obtained  the  title  of  sub- 
SL-'mitic.  In  tlie  nortli  tlie  old  Nuniidian  language 
appears,  from  the  prevalence  of  tlie  syllable  M'ls  in 
the  name  Mnssylll,  etc.,  to  be  allied  to  the  modern 
Berber  ;  and  the  same  conclusion  has  lieen  drawn 
with  regard  to  the  Libyan  tongue.  TJie  Berber, 
in  turn,  together  with  the  Tinutrkk  and  the  great 
body  of  tlie  North  African  dialects,  is  closely  allied 
to  the  Coptic  of  Eiiypt,  and  therefore  falls  under 
the  title  of  Hamitie,  or,  according  to  the  more  usual 
nomenclature,  sub-Shemitic  (Renan,  H.  G.  i.  201, 
202).  Southwards  of  Egypt  the  Slieniitic  type  is 
reproduced  in  the  majority  of  the  Aljyssinian  lan- 
guages, particularly  in  the  GItees,  and  in  a  less 
marked  degree  in  the  A/iilnirlc,  the  Sdlw,  and  the 
G(iU(( ;  and  Shemitic  influence  may  be  traced  along 
the  whole  east  coast  of  Africa  as  far  as  Mozambique 
(Renan,  i.  3;3G— ']-tO).  As  to  the  languages  of  the 
interior  and  of  the  south  there  appears  to  be  a  con- 
flict of  opinions,  tlie  writer  from  whom  we  have 
just  quoted  denying  any  trace  of  resemblance  to 
tlie  Shemitic  type,  while  Dr.  Latham  asserts  very 
confidently  that  connecting  links  exist  between  the 
6ub-Sheiiiitic  languages  of  the  north,  the  Negro 
languages  in  the  centre,  and  the  Caftie  languages 
of  the  south;  and  that  even  the  Hottentot  language 
is  not  so  isolated  as  has  been  generally  sup[iosed 
(Man  find  his  .\/ii/r.  pp.  134-148).  Bunsen  sup- 
ports this  view  as  far  as  the  lanijuages  noitli  of  the 
equator  are  concerned,  but  regards  the  soutliern  as 
rather  approximating  to  the  Turanian  type  {Phil, 
iif  llUl.  i.  178,  ii.  20).  It  is  impossilile  as  yet  to 
form  a  decided  opinion  on  this  large  sulject. 

.\  question  of  considerable  interest  remains  yet 
to  be  noticed,  namely,  whether  we  can  trace  the 
Shemitic  family  back  to  its  original  cradle.  In  the 
case  of  the  Indo-luiropean  family  this  can  be  done 
vdth  a  higli  degree  of  probability;  and  if  an  original 
unity  existed  Ijetween  these  stocks,  the  domicile  of 
the  one  would  necessarily  be  that  of  the  other.  A 
certain  community  of  ideas  and  traditions  favors 
this  assumption,  and  possibly  the  frequent  allusions 
to  the  east  in  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  may 
contain  a  reniini.scence  of  tlie  direction  in  which 
the  primeval  abode  lay  (Renan,  //.  G.  i.  47G).  The 
position  of  this  abode  we  shall  describe  presently. 

The  Indo-European  family  of  lansiuasjes,  as  at 
present "  constituted,  consists  of  the  following  nine 
classes:  Indian,''  Iranian,  Celtic,  Italian,  Albanian, 
Greek,  Teutonic,  Litliuanian,  and  Slavonian.  Geo- 
graphically, these  classes  may  be  grouped  together 
in  two  divisions  —  Eastern  and  Western  —  the  former 
comprising  the  two  first,  the  latter  the  seven  re- 
maining classes.  Schleicher  divides  what  we  have 
termed  the  Western  into  two  —  the  southwest 
European,  and  the  north  European —  in  the  former 
of  which  he  places  the  Greek,  Allianian,  Italian, 
and  Celtic,  in  the  latter  the  Slavonian,  Lithuanian, 
and  Teutonic  {Compend.  i.  5).  Prof.  jM.  MiiUer 
combines  the  Slavonian  and  Lithuanian  classes  in 
the  Windic,  thus  reducing  the  number  to  eight. 
These  classes  exhiliit  various  degrees  o*'  affinity  to 
each  other,  which  are  described  l)y  Schleicher  in  the 
following  manner:    The  earliest  deviation  from  the 


«  We  use  the  qualifying  exprepsion  "  at  present,'" 
partly  because  it  is  not  improbable  that  new  classes 
may  be  hereafter  added,  as,  for  instance,  an  Anatolian, 
vo  describe  the  languages  of  Asia  Minor,  and  partly 
becau.'^e  there  may  have  been  other  classes  once  in 
BXisteni-e,  which  h-'ve  entirely  disappeared  from  the 
(mm  >*  the  earth. 


TONGUES,  CONFLSION  OF 

common  language  of  the  family  was  eflected  Ij 
the  Slavono-Teutonic  branch.  After  another  in- 
terval a  second  bifurcation  occurred,  which  separated 
what  we  may  term  the  Grfeco-Italo-Celtic  branch 
from  the  Aryan.  The  former  held  togetlier  for  a 
while,  and  then  threw  off"  the  Greek  (including 
probably  the  Albanian),  leaving  the  Celtic  and 
Italian  still  connected :  the  final  division  of  the  two 
latter  took  place  after  another  considerable  inte?'val. 
The  first-mentioned  branch  —  the  Slavono-Teutonic 
—  remained  intr'et  for  a  period  somewhat  ioncer 
than  that  which  witnessed  the  second  biiurcntion 
of  the  original  stock,  and  then  divided  into  the 
Teutonic  and  Slavono- Lithuanian,  which  latter 
finally  broke  up  into  its  two  component  elements. 
The  Aryan  branch  similarly  held  together  for  a 
lengthened  period,  and  then  bifurcated  into  the 
Indian  and  Iranian.  The  conclusion  Sclileicher 
draws  from  these  linguistic  affinities  is  that  the 
more  easterly  of  the  European  nations,  the  Sla- 
vonians and  Teutons,  were  the  first  to  leave  the 
common  home  of  the  Indo-European  race;  that  they 
were  followed  by  the  Celts,  Italians,  and  Greeks; 
and  that  the  Indian  and  Iranian  branches  were  the 
last  to  connnence  their  migrations,  ^\'e  feel  unable 
to  accept  this  conclusion,  which  appears  to  us  to 
be  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  antiquity  of  a 
language  is  to  be  measured  by  its  approximation 
to  Sanskrit.  Looking  at  the  geographical  position 
of  the  representatives  of  the  different  language- 
classes,  we-should  infer  that  the  most  westerly  were 
the  earliest  inunigrants  into  Europe,  and  therefore 
probably  the  earliest  emigrants  from  the  jirinieval 
seat  of  the  race;  and  we  believe  this  to  be  con- 
firmed by  linguistic  proofs  of  the  high  antiquity  of 
the  Celtic  as  compared  with  the  other  branches 
of  the  Indo-European  family  (Bunsen,  Phil,  of 
/list.  i.  108). 

The  original  seat  of  the  Indo-Europeari  race  was 
on  the  plateau  of  Central  Asia,  probably  to  the 
westward  of  the  Bolor  and  Musta<jli,  ranges.  The 
Indian  branch  can  be  traced  back  to  the  slopes  of 
Himalaya  by  the  geographical  allusions  in  the  Vedio 
hymns  (M.  Miiller's  Lec^  p.  2(11);  in  confirmation 
of  which  we  may  adduce  the  circumstance  tiiat  the 
only  tree  for  which  the  Indians  have  an  appellation 
in  common  with  the  western  nations,  is  oue  which 
in  India  is  found  only  on  the  southern  slope  of  that 
range  (Pott,  Eiym.  Forsch.  i.  110).  The  westward 
progress  of  the  Iranian  tribes  is  a  matter  of  history, 
and  though  we  cannot  trace  this  progress  back  to  its 
fountain-head,  tlie  locality  above  mentioned  best 
accords  with  the  traditional  belief  of  the  Asiatic 
Aryans,  and  with  the  physical  and  geogrnphical 
requirements  of  the  case  (Renan,  //.  G.  i.  481). 

The  routes  by  which  the  various  western  branches 
reached  their  respective  localities,  can  only  be  con- 
jectured. We  may  suppose  them  to  have  succes- 
sively crossed  the  plateau  of  Iran  until  they  reached 
Armenia,  whence  they  might  follow  either  a  north- 
erly course  across  Caucasus,  and  by  the  shore  of  'he 
Black  Sea,  or  a  direct  westerly  one  along  the  plateau 
of  Asia  Minor,  which  seems  destined  by  nature  to 
be  the  bridge  between  the  two  continents  of  Europe 


b  Professor  M.  MiiUer  .idopts  the  termination  -(V,  in 
order  to  show  that  classes  are  intended.  This  appears 
unnecessary,  when  it  is  specified  that  the  arrangeuieuJ 
is  one  of  classes,  and  not  of  single  languages.  More- 
over, iu  common  usage,  the  termination  does  noi 
necessarily  carry  the  idea  of  a  class. 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

ind  Asia.  A  tliinl  route  has  been  surmised  for  a 
portion  of  the  Celtic  stock,  naniel),  along  the  north 
coast  of  Alrica,  and  across  the  Straits  of  Giliraltar 
into  ^pain  (Bunsen,  Ph.  "f  H.  i.  148),  but  we  see 
little  contirinatiou  of  this  opinion  beyond  the  fact  of 
the  early  presence  of  the  Celta;  in  that  peninsula, 
which  is  certainly  difficult  to  account  for. 

The  eras  of  the  several  migrations  are  again  very 
much  a  matter  of  conjecture,  i'he  original  move- 
ments belong  for  the  most  part  to  tlie  ante  histor- 
ical age,  and  we  can  do  no  more  than  note  the 
period  at  which  we  first  encounter  the  several  na- 
tiuns.  That  the  Indian  Aryans  had  reached  the 
mouth  of  the  Indus  at  all  events  before  1000  b.  c, 
appears  from  the  Sanskrit  names  of  the  articles 
which  Solomon  imported  froui  that  country  [[x- 
iha].  The  presence  of  Arjans  on  the  Sliemitic 
frontier  is  as  old  as  the  composition  of  the  Mosaic 
table;  and,  acc.rding  to  some  authorities,  is  proved 
by  the  names  of  the  confederate  kings  in  the  age 
of  .Abraham  (Uen.  xiv.  1;  Kenau,  //.  O.  i.  61). 
The  Aryan  Medes  are  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian 
annals  about  900  b.  c.  The  Greeks  were  settled  on 
the  peninsula  named  after  them,  as  well  as  on  tiie 
islands  ot  the  ..^igiean,  long  before  the  dawn  of 
history,  and  the  Italians  had  reached  their  quarters 
at  a  yet  earlier  period.  The  Celts;  had  reached  the 
west  of  Europe  at  all  events  beft)re,  probably  very 
long  before,  the  age  of  Hecatseus  (.500  B.C.);  the 
latest  branch  of  this  stock  arrived  there  about  that 
period  accurding  to  liunsen's  conjecture  {Ph.  of  II. 
i.  15"2).  The  Teutonic  migration  followed  at  along 
interval  after  the  Celtic:  Pytheas  found  them  al- 
ready seated  on  the  shores  of  the  Baltic  in  the  age 
of  .\le.xander  the  Great  (Fhn.  xxxvii.  11),  and  the 
term  yksum  itself,  by  which  amber  was  described 
in  that  district,  belongs  to  them  (Uiefenbach,  Or. 
Eur.  p.  35S)).  The  earliest  historical  notice  of 
them  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  the  nationality 
of  the  Teutones,  who  accompanied  the  Cimbri  on 
their  southern  expedition  in  11-3-102  b.  c.  If 
these  were  Celtic,  as  is  not  uncommoidy  thought, 
then  we  must  look  to  Cresar  and  Tacitus  for  tlie 
earliest  definite  notices  of  the  Teutonic  tribes.  The 
Slavonian  innnigration  was  nearly  contemporaneous 
with  the  Teutonic  (Bunsen,  Ph.  of  11.  i.  72):  this 
stock  can  be  traced  back  to  the  Ve/ieti  or  Vtnedce 
of  Northern  Germany,  first  mentioned  by  Tacitus 
{Germ.  46),  from  whom  the  name  Wend  is  probably 
descended.  The  designation  of  SLm  or  Sri  in  is  of 
comparatively  late  date,  and  applied  specially  to  the 
western  branch  of  the  Slavonian  stock.  'The  Li- 
thuanians are  probably  represented  by  the  G  ilindce 
and  Sudeni  of  Ptolemy  (iii.  5,  §  21),  the  names  of 
which  tribes  have  been  preserved  in  all  ages  in  the 
Lithuanian  district  (Uiefenbach,  p.  202).  They  are 
frequently  identified  with  the  ACslui,  and  it  is  not 
impossible  that  they  may  have  adopted  the  title, 
which  was  a  geographical  one  (=the  ensl  men); 
the  ..-Estui  of  Tacitus,  however,  were  (iermans.  In 
the  above  statements  we  have  omitted  tlie  problem- 
atical identifications  of  the  northern  stocks  with 
the  earlier  nations  of  history:  we  may  here  mention 
that  the  Slavonians  are  not  unfrequently  regarded 
as  the  representatives  of  the  Scythians  'Skolots) 
and  the  Sarmatians  (Knobel,  Volkerl.  p.  6f ).  The 
writer  whom  we  have  just  cited,  also  endeavors  to 
connect  the  Lithuanians  with  the  Agathyrsi  (p. 
1;1LM.     So  again  Grinmi  tracetl  the  Teutonic  stock 

o  We  must  be  understood  as  speaking  of  linguistic 
%n  I  etlin'^louical  proofs  furnished  by  populations  ex- 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF    8301 

to  the  Getse,  whom  he   identified  with  the  Goths 
{Gesdi.  Deut.  Spr.i.  178). 

It  may  be  asked  whether  the  Aryan  race  were 
the  first  comers  in  the  lands  which  they  occupied 
in  historical  times,  or  whether  they  superseded  an 
earlier  population.  With  regard  to  the  Indian 
branch  this  question  can  be  answered  decisively, 
the  vestiges  of  an  aboriginal  population,  which  once 
covered  the  plains  of  Hindostan,  still  exist  in  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  peninsula,  as  well  as  iu 
isolated  localities  elsewhere,  as  instanced  in  the  case 
of  the  Brahus  of  the  north.  Not  only  this,  but 
the  Indian  class  of  languages  possesses  a  pecuharity 
of  sound  (the  lingual  or  cerebral  consonants)  which 
is  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  this  po[)U- 
lation,  and  to  betoken  a  fusion  of  the  conquerora 
and  the  conquered  (Schleicher,  Compend.  i.  141). 
The  languages  of  this  early  population  are  classed 
as  Turanian  (JI.  Miiller,  Ltct.  p.  39!)).  We  are 
unable  to  find  decided  traces  of  Turanians  on  the 
plateau  of  Iran.  The  Sacie,  of  whom  we  have 
ah;eady  spoken,  were  Scythians,  and  so  were  the 
Parthians,  both  by  reputed  descent  (.Justin,  xli.  1; 
and  by  habits  of  life  (Strab.  xi.  51.5);  but  we  can- 
not positively  assert  that  they  were  Turanians,  inaE- 
much  as  the  term  Scythian  was  also  applied,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Skolots,  to  Indo-luiropeans.  In 
the  Caucaisian  district  the  Iberians  and  others  may 
have  been  Turanian  in  early  as  in  later  times;  but 
it  is  difficult  to  unravel  the  entanglement  of  races 
and  languages  in  that  district.  In  Europe  there 
exists  in  the  present  day  an  undoubted  Turanian 
population  eastward  of  the  Baltic,  namely,  the 
Kinns,  who  have  been  located  there  certainly  since 
the  time  of  Tacitus  {Germ.  46),  and  who  probably 
at  an  earlier  ])eriod  had  spread  more  to  the  south- 
wards. l)ut  had  been  gradually  thrust  back  by  the 
advance  of  the  Teutonic  and  Slavonian  nations 
(Uiefenbach,  0.  A',  p.  209).  There  exists  ai;ain  iu 
the  south  a  population  whose  language  (the  Biisque, 
or,  as  it  is  entitled  in  its  own  land,  the  Euskara) 
presents  numerous  points  of  affinity  to  the  Finnish 
in  grammar,  though  its  vocabidary  is  wholly  dis- 
tinct. We  cannot  consider  the  'Turanian  character 
of  this  language  as  fully  established,  and  we  are 
therefore  unalile  to  divine  the  ethnic  affinities  of 
the  early  Iberians,  who  are  generally  regarded  as 
the  proijeTiitors  of  the  Basques.  We  have  already 
adverted  to  the  theory  that  the  Finns  in  the  north 
and  the  Basques  in  the  south  are  the  surviving 
monuments  of  a  'Turanian  population  which  over- 
spread the  whole  of  Europe  before  the  arrival  of  the 
Indo-Europeans.  'This  is  a  mere  theory  which  can 
neither  be  proved  nor  disproved." 

It  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  assign 
to  the  various  subdivisions  of  the  Indo-European 
stock  their  respective  areas,  or,  where  admixture 
has  taken  place,  their  relative  proportions.  Lan- 
guage and  race  are,  as  already  observed,  by  no 
raeiins  coextensive.  'The  Celtic  race,  for  instance, 
which  occupied  Gaul,  Northern  Italy,  large  por- 
tions of  Spain  and  Germany,  and  even  penetrated 
across  the  Hellespont  into  Asia  Minor,  where  it 
gave  name  to  the  province  of  Galatia,  is  now  rep 
resented  linguistically  by  the  insignificant  popula 
tions  among  whom  the  Welsh  and  the  Gaelic  oi 
Erse  languages  retain  a  lingering  existence.  The 
Italian  race,  on  the  other  hand,  which  nnist  have 
been   well-nigt  annihilated  by  or  absorbed  in   the 

isting  witfiin  nistoncal  times,  without  reference  to  th» 
Iteo'ogiciil  questioas  relatiug  to  the  autiijuity  cf  uin" 


3302    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

overwhelming  masses  of  the  northern  hordes,  has 
imposed  its  lan<ruage  outside  the  bounds  of  Italy 
over  the  peninsula  of  Spain,  France,  and  Wallachia. 
But,  while  the  races  have  so  intermingled  as  in 
many  uistances  to  lose  all  trace  of  their  original 
individuality,  the  broad  tact  of  their  descent  from 
one  or  other  of  the  branches  of  the  Indo-l'AU'o- 
pean  family  remains  unafteeted.  It  is,  indeed,  im- 
possible to  affiliate  all  the  nations  whose  naujes  ap- 
pear on  the  roll  of  history,  to  the  existing  divisions 
of  that  family,  in  consequence  of  the  absence  or  the 
obscurity  of  ethnological  critei'ia.  Where,  for  in- 
stance, shall  we  place  the  languages  of  Asia  JNIinor 
and  the  adjacent  districts'?  The  Phrygian  approx- 
imates perhaps  to  the  Greek,  and  yet  it  differs  from 
it  materially  botli  in  form  and  vocabulary  (Kawlin- 
son's  Htrvd.  i.  6CG):  still  more  is  this  the  case 
with  the  Lycian,  which  appears  to  possess  a  vocab- 
ulary wholly  distinct  from  its  kindred  languages 
(lAd.  i.  OO'J,  677-079).  The  Armenian  is  ranged 
under  the  Iranian  division :  yet  this,  as  well  as  the 
language  of  the  Caucasian  Ussets,  whose  indigenous 
name  of  Ir  or  Iron  seems  to  vindicate  for  them  the 
same  relationship,  are  so  distinctive  in  their  features 
as  to  render  the  connection  dubious.  The  lan- 
guages prevalent  in  the  mountainous  district,  an- 
sivering  to  the  ancient  I'ontus,  are  equally  peculiar 
(I)iefenbach,  0.  E.  p.  51).  Passing  to  the  west- 
ward we  encounter  the  Thracians,  reputed  by  Herod- 
otus (v.  3)  the  most  powerful  nation  in  the  world, 
the  Indians  excepted ;  yet  but  one  word  of  their  lan- 
guage (6/-(a  =  "  town  "')  has  survived,  and  all  his- 
torical traces  of  the  people  have  been  obliterated. 
It  is  true  that  they  are  represented  in  later  times 
by  the  Getae,  and  these  in  turn  by  the  Daci,  but 
neither  of  these  can  be  tracked  either  by  history  or 
language,  unless  we  accept  Gri\nm's  more  than 
doubtful  identification  which  would  connect  them 
with  the  Teutonic  branch.  The  remains  of  the 
Scythian  language  are  sufficient  to  establish  the 
Indo-European  affinities  ot  that  nation  (Kawlinson's 
Herod,  iii.  l!)6--20y),  but  insufficient  to  assign  to 
it  a  definite  place  in  the  family.  The  Sc\thians, 
as  well  as  most  of  the  nomad  tribes  associated  with 
them,  are  lost  to  the  eye  of  the  ethnologist,  having 
been  either  absorbed  into  other  nationalities  or 
swept  away  by  the  ravages  of  war.  The  Sarmata; 
can  be  traced  down  to  the  lazyges  of  f/imynry  and 
Podlncliid,  in  which  latter  district  they  survived 
until  the  10th  century  of  our  era  {Did.  of'  Ueo(j. 
ii.  8),  and  then  they  also  vanish.  The  Albanian 
language  presents  a  problem  of  a  different  kind : 
materials  for  research  are  not  wanting  in  this  case, 
but  no  definite  conclusions  have  as  yet  been  drawn 
from  them :  the  people  who  use  this  tongue,  the 
Skipetares  as  they  call  themselves,  are  generally  re- 
garded as  the  representatives  of  tlie  old  lUyrians, 
who  in  turn  appear  to  have  been  closely  connected 
with  the  Thracians  (Strab.  vii.  315;  .Justin,  xi.  1), 
the  name  Dardani  being  found  both  in  Illyria  and 
on  the  shores  of  the  Hellespont:  it  is  not,  therefore, 
improbable  that  the  -Albanian  may  contain  what- 
ever vestiges  of  the  old  Thracian  tongue  still  survive 
(Diefenbach,  6*.  A',  p.  08).  In  the  Italic  peninsula 
the  Etruscan  tongue  remains  as  great  an  enigma  as 
ever:  its  Indo-European  character  is  supposed  to 
be  established,  together  with  the  probability  of  its 
being  a  mixed  language  (ISunsen's  Ph.  of  H.  i.  85- 
88).  The  result  of  researches  into  tiie  Umbrian 
language,  as  represented  in  the  luigubine  tablets,  the 
tarliest  of  which  date  from  about  40(1  u.  c  ;  into  the 
■iabellian,  as  represented  in  the  tablets  of  Vtlkiri 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 

and  Antiito ;  and  into  the  Oscan,  of  which  the  re- 
mains are  numerous,  have  decided  their  position  as 
members  of  the  Italic  class  (ibid.  i.  90-SJ4).  The 
same  cannot  be  asserted  of  the  JNIessapian  or  lapygian 
language,  which  stands  apart  from  all  neighboring 
dialects.  Its  Indo-European  character  is  affirmed, 
but  no  ethnological  conclusion  can  as  }et  be  drawn 
from  the  scanty  information  afforded  us  {ib.  i.  94). 
Lastly,  within  the  Celtic  area  there  are  ethnological 
problems  which  we  cannot  pretend  to  solve.  The 
Eigurians,  for  instance,  present  one  of  these  prob- 
lems: were  they  Celts,  but  belonging  to  im  earlier 
migration  than  the  Celts  of  history  V  Their  name 
has  been  referred  to  a  Welsh  original,  but  on  this 
no  great  reliance  can  be  placed,  as  it:  would  be  in 
this  case  a  local  i^=  cunsimeii)  and  not  an  ethnical 
title,  and  might  have  been  imposed  on  them  by  the 
Celts.  They  evidently  hold  a  posterior  place  to  the 
Iberians,  inasmuch  as  they  are  said  to  have  driven 
a  section  of  this  people  across  the  Alps  into  Italy. 
That  they  were  distinct  from  the  Celts  is  asserted 
by  Strabo  (ii.  128),  but  the  distinction  may  have 
been  no  greater  than  exists  between  the  British 
and  the  Gaelic  branches  of  that  race.  The  admix- 
ture of  the  Celts  and  11  erians  in  the  Spanish  pen- 
insula is  again  a  somewhat  intricate  question,  wliich 
Dr.  Eatham  attempts  to  explain  on  the  ground  that 
the  term  Celt  (KeAroi)  really  meant  Iberian 
{Ethn.  of  Eur.  \>.  'do).  That  such  questions  as 
these  should  arise  on  a  sulject  which  carries  us 
back  to  times  of  hoar  antiquity,  forms  no  ground 
for  doubting  the  general  conclusion  that  we  can  ac- 
count ethnologically  for  the  population  of  the  Euro- 
pean continent. 

The  Shendtic  and  Indo-European  families  cover 
after  all  but  an  insignificant  portion  of  the  earth's 
surface:  the  large  areas  of  northern  and  eastern 
Asia,  the  numerous  groups  of  islands  that  line  its 
coast  and  stud  the  Pacific  in  the  direction  of  South 
Aujerica,  and  again  the  immense  continent  of 
Anieriea  itself,  stretching  well-nigh  from  pole  to 
pole,  remain  to  be  accounted  for.  Historical  aid 
is  almost  wholly  denied  to  the  ethnologist  in  his 
researches  in  these  quarters;  physiology  and  lan- 
guage are  his  only  guides.  It  can  hardly,  there- 
fore, be  matter  of  surprise,  if  we  are  unable  to 
obtain  certainty,  or  even  a  reasonable  degree  of 
probability,  on  this  part  of  our  subject.  Much  has 
been  done;  but  far  more  remains  to  be  done  before 
the  data  for  forming  a  conclusive  opinion  can  be 
obtained.  In  Asia,  the  languages  fall  into  two 
large  classes  —  the  monosyllaliic,  and  the  aggluti- 
native. The  former  are  rejiresented  ethnologically 
by  the  Chinese,  the  latter  by  the  various  nations 
classed  together  by  Prof.  M.  Miiller  under  the 
common  head  of  Turanian.  It  is  unnecessary  for 
us  to  discuss  the  correctness  of  his  view  in  re- 
garding all  these  nations  as  members  of  one  and 
the  same  family,  ^^'hether  we  accept  or  reject 
his  theory,  the  fact  of  a  gradation  of  linguistic 
types  and  of  connecting  links  between  the  various 
branches  remains  unaffected,  and  for  our  present 
purpose  the  question  is  of  comparatively  little  mo- 
ment. The  monosyllabic  type  apparently  betokens 
the  earliest  movement  from  the  common  home  of 
the  human  race,  and  we  should  theiefore  assign 
a  chronological  priority  to  the  settlement  of  the 
Chinese  in  the  east  and  southeast  of  the  continent. 
The  agglutinative  languages  fall  geographically  intc 
two  divisions,  a  northern  and  southern.  The  north- 
ern consists  of  a  well-defined  group,  or  family,  desig 
uated   by  German   ethnologists   the  Iral-Ahaiar 


TONGUES.  CONFUSION  OF 

It  consists  of  the  followins;  five  bninches:  (1.)  Tlip  I 
rungnsiaii.  covering  ix  large  area,  east  of  the  river 
Yenisei,  between  ]ai<e  IJiiikal,  and  the  Tuniruska 
(2.)  The  ilongolian,  which  prevails  over  the  Great 
Desert  of  Gobi,  aiul  among  the  Kalmucks,  wher- 
ever their  nomad  habits  lead  them  on  the  step^s 
either  of  Asia  or  Europe,  in  the  latter  of  which 
they  are  found  about  the  lower  course  of  the 
Volga.  (3.)  The  Turkish,  covering  an  immense 
area  from  the  Mediterranean  in  the  southwest  to 
the  river  Lena  in  the  northeast;  in  luirope  spoken 
by  the  Osmanli,  who  form  the  governing  class  in 
Turkey;  by  the  Nogai,  between  the  Caspian  and 
the  Sea  of  Azov;  and  l)y  various  Caucasian  tribes. 
(4.)  The  Samoiedic,  on  the  coast  of  the  Arctic 
Ocean,  between  the  White  Sea  in  the  west  and  the 
river  Anabara  in  the  east.  (5.)  The  Finnish, 
which  is  spoken  liy  the  Finns  and  Lapps;  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Esthonia  and  Livonia  to  the  south 
of  the  Gulf  of  Finland;  by  various  tribes  about 
the  Volga  (the  Tcheremissians  and  Mordvinians), 
and  the  Kama  (the  Votiakes  and  Perniians);  and, 
lastly,  by  the  JIa<;yars  of  Fluuijary.  The  southern 
branch  is  sul)divided  into  the  fullowinu;  four  classes: 
(L)  The  Tamulian,  of  tlie  south  of  Hindostan. 
(2.)  The  Bhotiya,  of  Tibet,  the  sub-Himalayan 
district  (Xepaul  and  Bhotan),  and  the  Lohitic  lan- 
guages east  of  the  Brahmapootra.  (3. )  The  Tai, 
in  Siaui,  Laos,  Anam,  and  Pegu.  (4.)  The  ^Lalay, 
of  the  Malay  peninsula,  and  the  adjacent  islands; 
the  latter  being  the  original  settlement  of  the  Ma- 
lay race,  whence  they  spread  in  comparatively  mod- 
ern times  to  the  mainland. 

'l"he  early  movements  of  the  races  representing 
these  several  divisions  can  only  be  divined  by  lin- 
guistic tokens.  Prof  1\L  Miiller  assigns  to  the 
'lortbern  trilies  the  following  chronolotjical  order: 
Tuni^usian,  Mongolian,  Turkish,  and  Fiiniish;  and 
„o  the  southern  division  the  following:  Tai,  Malay, 
Bhotiya,  and  Tamulian  (Pli.  </  //.  i.  481 ).  (ieo- 
t;ra|ihically  it  appears  more  likely  that  the  Jlalay 
jireceded  the  Ta'i,  inasnnich  as  they  occupied  a 
more  southerly  district.  The  later  movements  of 
the  F.uropean  Imniches  of  the  northern  division 
can  lie  traced  historically.  The  Turkish  race  com- 
menced their  westerly  migration  from  the  neigh- 
liorhood  of  the  Altai  range  in  the  1st  century  of 
our  era;  in  the  6th  they  had  reached  the  Caspian 
and  the  Volga;  in  the  11th  and  12th  the  Turc- 
omans took  possession  of  their  present  quarters 
south  of  Caucasus:  in  the  13th  the  Osmanli  made 
their  first  appearance  in  Western  Asia;  about  the 
middle  of  the  14th  they  crossed  from  Asia  Minor 
into  Europe;  and  in  the  middle  of  the  15th  they 
hud  established  themselves  at  Constantinople.  The 
Finnish  race  is  supposed  to  have  been  originally 
settled  about  the  Ural  range,  and  thence  to  have 
migrated  westward  to  the  shores  of  the  Baltic, 
which  they  had  reached  at  a  period  atiterior  to  the 
Christian  era;  in  the  7th  century  a  branch  pressed 
southwards  to  the  Danube,  and  founded  the  king- 
dom of  Bulgaria,  where,  however,  they  have  long 
3eased  to  have  any  national  existence.  The  Ugrian 
rribes,  who  are  the  early  representatives  of  the 
Hungarian  Magyars,  approached  Europe  from  Asia 
m  the  5th  and  settled  in  Hungary  in  the  9th  cen- 
tury of  our  era.  The  central  point  from  which 
the  various  branches  of  the  Turanian  family  radi- 
*ted  would  appear  to  be  about  lake  Baikal.  With 
regar''  to  the  ethnology  of  Oceania  and  America  we 
3an  say  but  little.  The  languages  of  the  former 
ve  generally  supposed   to  be  connected  with   the 


TONGUES,  ETC.  (APPENDIX)  3303 

Malay  class  (Bunsen,  Ph.  of  II.  ii.  114),  but  the 
relations,  both  linguistic  and  ethnological,  existing 
between  the  Malay  and  the  black,  or  Negrito  pop- 
ulation, which  is  found  on  many  of  the  groups  oi 
islands,  are  not  well  defined.  The  approximation 
in  language  is  far  greater  than  in  physiology 
(Latham's  Essays,  pp.  213,  218;  Garnett's  Ess'iys., 
p.  310),  and  in  certain  cases  amounts  to  identity 
(Kennedy's  Essays,  p.  85);  but  the  wliole  subject 
is  at  present  involved  in  obscurity.  The  polysyn- 
thetic  languages  of  North  America  are  regarded 
as  emanating  from  the  Mongolian  stock  (Bunsen, 
Ph.  of  U.  ii.  Ill),  and  a  close  affinity  is  said  to 
exist  between  the  North  American  aiul  tlie  Kams- 
kadale  and  Korean  languages  on  the  opi)Osite  coast 
of  Asia  (Latham,  Mnn  and  his  Migr.  p.  185\ 
The  conclusion  drawn  from  this  would  be  thai 
the  population  of  America  entered  by  way  of 
Behring's  Straits.  Other  theories  have,  however, 
been  broached  on  this  subject.  It  has  been  con- 
jectured that  the  chain  of  islands  which  stretches 
across  the  Pacific  may  have  conducted  a  Malay 
population  to  South  America :  and,  again,  an 
African  origin  has  been  claimed  for  the  Caril« 
of  Central  America  (Kennedy's  Essays,  pp.  100- 
123). 

In  conclusion,  we  may  safely  assert  that  the  ten- 
dency of  all  ethnological  and  linguistic  research  is 
to  discover  the  elements  of  unity  amidst  the  most 
striking  external  varieties.  Already  the  myriads 
of  the  human  race  are  massed  together  into  a  few 
large  groups.  Whether  it  will  ever  be  jiossilile  to 
go  beyond  this,  and  to  show  the  historical  unity 
of  these  groups,  is  more  than  we  can  undertake  to 
say.  But  we  entertain  the  firm  persuasion  that  in 
their  broad  results  these  sciences  will  yield  an  in- 
creasing testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  liilile. 

(The  authorities  referred  to  in  the  foregoing 
article  are:  M.  Miiller,  Lectures  cm  ike  Science  of 
Language,  1802  [and  2d  Series,  18G4;  both  re- 
[irinted,  N.  Y.  1802-65] ;  Bunsen,  Philosophy  of 
History,  2  vols.,  1854  [vols,  iii  ,  iv.  of  his  Chris- 
tianity and  Mankind] ;  Benan,  Histoire  Generate 
des  Lanf/ues  Semitir/ues,  3d  ed.,  1803  [4th  ed., 
1864];  knobel,  Volkertafel  der  Genesis,  1850;  W. 
von  Humboldt,  Ueber  die  Verschiedenheit  des 
menschlichen  S/^rachbaues,  1836;  Delitzsch,  .lesh- 
urun,  ^  '■hS ;  Transactions  of  the  Philolii;iic(d  So- 
ciety; Kawlinson,  Herodotus,  4  vols.,  1858;  Pott. 
Etymoloijische  Forschungen,  1833  [-36 ;  new  ed., 
Bd.  i.-ii.  Abth.  1-3,  1859-69] ;  Garnett,  Essays, 
1859 ;  Schleicher,  Compendium  der  vergleichenden 
Grammalik,  1861  [2e  Aufl.,  I860];  Diefenbaeh, 
Origines  Europece,  1861;  Ewald,  Sprachuissen- 
schaftliche  Abhandlungen,  1862. )  [To  these  should 
be  added  the  excellent  work  of  Prof  W.  D.  Whit- 
ney, Language  and  the  Study  (f  Language,  N.  Y. 
1807.  —  A.]  W'.  L.  B. 

Appendi.k.  —  TowKK  OF  Babel. 

The  Tower  of  Babel  forms  the  subject  of  a  pre 
vidus  article  [Babel,  Tower  of];  but  in  conse 
quence  of  the  di.scovery  of  a  cuneiform  inscription, 
in  which  the  tower  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  Confusion  of  Tongues,  the  eminent  cuneiform 
scholar  Dr.  Opper'  has  kindly  sent  the  following 
addition  to  the  present  article. 

The  history  of  the  confusion  of  Languages  was 
preserved  at  Babylon,  as  we  learn  by  the  testimo- 
nies of  classical  and  Babylonian  authorities  (Aby- 
denus,  Frngm.  flist.  Grcpc.  ed.  Didot.  vol.  iv.). 
Only  the  Chaldeans  themselves  did  not  iwimit  the 


3304    TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF  (APPENDIX  —  TOWER  OF   BABEL) 


Hebrew  etymology  of  the  name  of  their  nietrop- 
dHs;  they  derived  it  from  Bitb-el.  the  door  of  AY 
(Kronos  or  Saturnus),  whom  Diodorus  Sicuhi.s 
states  to  have  been  the  planet  most  adored  by  the 
Babylonians. 

The  Talnnidists  say  that  the  true  site  of  the 
Tower  of  Babel  vras  at  Borsif,  the  Greek  Borsippa, 
the  Birs  JVimrud,  seven  miles  and  a  half  frnm 
Ilillttli,  S.  W.,  and  nearly  eleven  miles  from  the 
noithern  ruins  of  Baljylon.     Several  passages  state 

that  the  air  of  Borsippa  makes  forgetful  (T^IS 

nSiyQ,  avir  mnslikakh)-^  and  one  Rabbi  says  that 
Boi'slf'is  Bulsif,  the  Confusion  of  Tongues  (Bere- 
sliit.  Riibbtt,  f.  42,  1).  The  Babylonian  name  of 
this  locality  is  Bursip  or  Biirzipn,  which  we  ex- 
plain by  Tower  of  Tonfjues.  The  French  expedi- 
tion to  Mesopotamia  found  at  the  Birs  Nimrwl  a 
clay  cake,  dated  from  Bar  sip  tlie  -JOth  day  of  the 
6th  month  of  the  IGth  year  of  Nabonid,  and  the 
discovery  confirmed  the  hypothesis  of  several  trav- 
ellers, who  had  supposed  the  Birs  Niinrud  to  con- 
tain the  remains  of  Borsippa. 

Borsippa  (the  Tongue  Tower)  was  formerly  a 
suburb  of  Babylon,  when  the  old  Babel  was  merely 
restrii'ted  to  the  northern  ruins,  before  the  great 
extension  of  the  city,  which,  according  to  ancient 
writers,  was  the  greatest  that  the  sun  ever  warmed 
with  its  beams.  Nebuchadnezzar  included  it  in 
the  great  circumvallation  of  480  stades,  but  left  it 
out  of  the  second  wall  of  3(j()  stades;  and  wlien 
the  exterior  wall  was  destroyed  by  Darius,  Bor- 
sippa became  independent  of  Babylon.  The  his- 
torical writers  respecting  Alexander  state  that  Bor- 
sippa had  a  great  sanctuary  dedicated  to  Apollo 
and  Artemis  (Strab.  xvi.  739;  Stephaiuis  Byz. 
s.  V.  B(<p(riTr7ra),  and  the  former  is  the  building 
elevated  in  modern  times  on  the  very  basement  of 
the  old  Tower  of  Babel. 

This  building,  erected  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  is 
the  same  that  Herodotus  describes  as  the  Tower 
of  .Jupiter  Belus.  In  our  F.xpe<lition  to  Mesopo- 
t'liiiid"  we  have  given  a  description  of  this  ruin, 
and  proved  our  assertion  of  the  identity.  This 
tower  of  Herodotus  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Ijyraraid  described  by  Strabo,  and  which  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  seen  in  the  remains  called  now  Bnbil 
(the  MiijelUbeh  of  Kich).  The  temple  of  Borsippa 
is  written  with  an  ideogram,''  composed  of  the  signs 
for  house  and  spirit  (anima),  the  real  pronuncia- 
tion of  which  was  probably  Sarakli,  tower. 

The  temple  consisted  of  a  large  substructure,  a 
Btade  (GOO  Babylonian  feet)  in  breadth,  and  75 
feet  in  height,  over  which  were  built  seven  other 
stages  of  25  feet  each.  Nebuchadnezzar  gives 
notice  of  this  building  in  the  Borsippa  inscription. 
He  named  it  the  temple  of  the  Seven  Liylits  of 
the  Earth,  i.  e.  the  planets.  The  top  was  the 
temple  of  Nebo,  and  in  the  substructure  (igur) 
was  a  temple  consecrated  to  the  god  Sin,  god  of 
the  month.  This  building,  mentioned  in  the  East 
India  House  inscription  (col.  iv  1.  61),  is  spoKen 
of  by  Herodotus  (i.  181,  &c.). 

Here  follows  the  Borsippa  inscription  :  "  Nabu- 
chodonosor,  king  of  Babylon,  shepherd  of  peoples, 
who  attests  the  immutable  affection  of  Merodach, 
vhe  mighty  ruler-exalting  Nebo;  the  saviour,  the 


a  Erpfdilion  en  Mr'sopotnmie,  i.  208.  Compare 
1,180  the  trigouometrical  survey  of  the  river  in  the 
tiatee. 

'>  HIT  ZI.DA  In  syllabic  characters. 


wise  man  who  lends  his  ears  to  the  orders  of  the 
highest  god;  the  lieutenant  without  reiiroach,  the 
repairer  of  the  Pyramid  and  the  Tower,  eldest  son 
of  NabopaUassar,  king  of  Babylon. 

"  We  say:  Merodach,  the  great  master,  has  cre- 
ailed  me:  he  has  imposed  on  me  to  reconstruct  his 
building.  Nebo,  the  guardian  over  the  legions  of 
the  heaven  and  the  earth,  has  charged  my  hands 
w'.th  the  sceptre  of  justice. 

"  The  Pyramid  is  the  temple  of  the  heaven  and 
the  earth,  the  seat  of  Merodach,  the  chief  of  the 
gods;  the  place  of  the  oracles,  the  spot  of  his  rest, 
I  have  adorned  in  the  form  of  a  cupola,  with 
shining  gold. 

"  The  Tower,  the  eternal  house,  which  I  founded 
and  built,  I  have  completed  its  magnificence  with 
silver,  gold,  other  metals,  stone,  enameled  bricks, 
fir,  and  pine. 

"The  first,  which  is  the  house  of  the  earth's 
b.ase,  the  most  ancient  monument  of  Babvlon,  I 
built  and  finished  it;  I  have  highly  exalted  its  head 
with  bricks  covered  with  copper.^ 

"  We  s.ay  for  the  other,  that  is,  this  edifice,  the 
house  of  the  Seven  Lights  of  the  Earth,  the  most 
ancient  monument  of  Borsippa:  A  former  king 
built  it  (they  reckon  42  ages),  but  he  did  not  coui- 
])lete  its  head.  Since  a  remote  time  people  had 
abiindoneil  it,  without  order  expressing  their  words. 
Since  that  time,  the  earthquake  and  the  thunder 
had  dispersed  its  sun-dried  clay;  the  bricks  of  the 
casing  had"  been  split,  and  the  earth  of  the  interior 
had  been  scattered  in  heaps.  Merodach,  the  great 
lord,  excited  my  mind  to  repair  this  building.  I 
did  not  change  the  site,  nor  did  I  take  away  the 
foundation-stone.  In  a  fortunate  month,  an  aus- 
picious day,  I  undertook  to  build  porticoes  around 
the  crude  lirick  masses,  and  the  casing  of  burnt 
bricks.  I  adapted  tlie  circuits.  I  put  the  inscrip- 
tion of  my  name  in  the  Kitir  of  the  porticoes. 

"  I  set  my  hand  to  finish  it,  and  to  exalt  its  head. 
.•\s  it  had  been  in  former  times,  so  I  founded,  I 
made  it;  as  it  had  lieen  in  ancient  days,  so  I  exalted 
its  summit. 

"  Nebo,  son  of  himself,  ruler  who  exaltest  iNIero- 
dach,  be  propitious  to  my  works  to  maintain  my 
authority.  Grant  me  a  life  until  the  remotest  time, 
a  se\enfold  progeny,  the  stability  of  my  throne,  the 
victory  of  my  sword,  the  pacification  of  foes,  the 
triumph  over  the  lands !  In  the  columns  of  thy 
eternal  table,  that  fixes  the  destinies  of  the  heaven 
and  of  the  earth,  bless  the  course  of  my  days,  in- 
scri1)e  the  fecundity  of  my  race. 

"  Imitate,  0  Merodach,  king  of  heaven  and  earth, 
the  father  who  begot  thee;  bless  my  i)uiklings, 
strengthen  my  authority.  IMay  Nebuchadnezzar, 
the  king-repairer,  rem.ain  before  thy  face!  " 

This  allusion  to  the  Tower  of  the  Tongues  is  the 
on4y  one  that  has  as  yet  been  discovered  in  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions.''  The  story  is  a  Shemitic 
and  not  only  a  Hebrew  one,  and  we  have  no  reasoh 
whatever  to  doubt  of  the  existence  of  the  same 
story  at  Babylon. 

The  ruins  of  the  building  elevated  on  the  spot 
where  the  story  placed  the  tower  of  the  dispersion 
of  tongues,  have  therefore  a  more  modern  origin, 
but  interest  nevertheless  by  their  stupendous  ap- 
pearance. OrPERT. 

c  This  manner  of  building  is  expressly  mentioned 
by  Philostratus  (ApoU.  Ti/an.  i.  25)  as  Babylonian. 
d  See  Expedition  en  Mesopotaniie,  torn.  i.  p  200. 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

TOXGUES,  GIFT  OF.  —  T.  The  history  of 
1  won!  wliich  has  been  used  to  express  some  spe- 
cial, wonderful  I'act  in  the  spiritual  life  of  man  is 
itself  full  of  interest.  It  may  he  a  necessary  prep- 
aration for  the  study  of  the  fact  which  that  word 
represents. 

r\a>TTa,  or  yKcaaaa,  the  word  employed  through- 
out the  N.  T.  for  the  gift  now  under  consideration, 
is  used  —  (1.)  for  the  bodily  organ  of  speech;  (i.) 
for  a  foreign  word,  imported  and  half  nattn-alized  in 
(ireek  (.\rist.  Jihet.  iii.  2,  §  14),  a  meaning  which 
the  words  "gloss"  and  "  glossary "  preserve  for 
us;   (.3.)  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  after  the  pattern  of 

the    corresponding    Hebrew    word    ("Jlti77),    for 

"  speech '■  or  "  language  "  (Gen.  x.  5;  Dan.  i.  4, 
(fee,  &c.). 

Each  oi  these  meanings  might  be  the  starting- 
point  for  the  application  of  the  word  to  the  gift  of 
tongues,  and  each  accordingly  has  found  those  who 
have  maintained  that  it  is  so.  (A.)  Kichhorn  and 
Bardili  (cited  by  Bleek,  Slud.  u.  Kvil.  182.9,  p.  8  f.), 
and  to  some  extent  Bunsen  (Hippoh/tu^,  i.  9),  start- 
ing from  the  first,  see  in  the  so-called  gift  an  inar- 
ticulate utterance,  the  cry  as  of  a  lirute  creature,  in 
which  the  tongue  moves  while  the  lips  refuse  their 
ottice  in  making  the  sounds  definite  and  distinct. 
(H.)  Bleek  himself  (ii/  supr.  p.  -33)  adopts  the  sec- 
ond meaning,  and  gives  an  interesting  collection  of 
passages  to  prove  that  it  was,  in  the  time  of  the 
N.  T.,  the  received  sense.  He  infers  from  this  that 
to  speak  in  tongues  was  to  use  unusual,  poetic  lan- 
guage —  that  the  speakers  were  in  a  high-wrought 
excitement  which  showed  itself  in  mystic,  figurative 
terms.  In  this  view  he  had  been  preceded  by  F-r- 
nesti  (OptiAC.  T/ieolor/. ;  see  Afnniing  Wateh,  iv. 
101)  and  Herder  (Die  Gnhe  dcr  S/iriclie,  pp.  47, 
70).  the  latter  of  whom  extends  tiie  meaning  to 
/ipecial  mystical  interpretations  of  the  O.  T.  (C.) 
The  received  traditional  view  starts  from  the  third 
meaning,  and  sees  in  the  gift  of  tongues  a  distinctly 
(inguistic  power. 

We  have  to  see  which  of  these  views  has  most  to 
eommend  it.  (A.),  it  is  believed,  does  not  meet 
he  condition  of  answering  any  of  the  facts  of  the 
N^.  T.,  and  errs  in  ignoring  the  more  prominent 
meaning  of  the  word  in  later  Greek.  (B. ),  though 
irue  in  some  of  its  conclusions,  and  able,  as  far  as 
they  are  concerned,  to  support  itself  by  the  au- 
thority of  Augustine  (comp.  De  (Jen.  <td  lit.  xii.  8, 
"  linguam  esse  cum  quis  loquatur  ohscuras  et  mys- 
licas  siguificationes  " ),  appears  fivulty,  as  failing 
(1)  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  sense  of  the  word 
!n  the  N.  T.  nas  more  likely  to  be  determined  by 
that  which  it  bore  in  the  LXX.  than  by  its  mean- 
ing in  Gretk  historians  or  rhetoricians,  and  (2)  to 
iieet  the  plienomena  of  Acts  ii.  (C.)  therefore 
commends  itself,  as  in  this  respect  starting  at  least 
from  the  right  point,  and  likely  to  lead  us  to  the 
truth  (comp.  Olshausen,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1829,  p. 
5.38 ).« 

II.  The  chief  passages  from  which  we  have  to 
draw  our  conclusion  as  to  the  nature  and  purpose 
of  the  gift  in  question,  are  —  (1.)  Mark  xvi.  17; 
(2.)  Acts  ii.  1-13,  X.  4R,  six.  6;  (-3.)  1  Cor.  xii.,  xiv. 
It  deserves  notice  that  the  chronological  sequence  of 
these  passages,  as  determined  by  the  date  of  their 


o  Several  scholars,  we  know,  do  not  agree  with  us. 
We  gave  our  reasons  five  years  ago,  and  our  antago- 
nists have  not  vet  refuted  them. 
208 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF        3305 

composition,  is  probably  just  the  opposite  of  that 
of  the  periods  to  which  they  severally  refer.  The 
first  group  is  later  than  the  second,  the  second 
than  the  third.  It  will  be  expedient,  however, 
whatever  modifications  this  fact  may  suggest  after- 
ward, to  deal  with  the  passages  in  their  commonly 
received  order. 

III.  The  promise  of  a  new  power  coming  from 
the  iJivine  Spirit,  giving  not  only  comfort  and  in- 
sight into  truth,  but  fresh  powers  of  utterance  of 
some  kind,  appears  once  and  again  in  our  Lord  a 
teaching.  The  disciples  are  to  take  no  thought 
what  they  shall  speak,  for  the  Spirit  of  their  Father 
shall  speak  in  them  (Matt.  x.  19,  20;  Blark  xiii.  11). 
'I'he  lips  of  Galilean  peasants  are  to  speak  freely 
and  boldly  before  kings.  The  only  condition  is  that 
they  are  "not  to  premeditate"  —  to  yield  them- 
selves altogether  to  the  power  that  works  on  them. 
Thus  they  shall  have  given  to  them  "  a  mouth  and 
wisdom"  which  no  adversary  shall  be  able  "to 
gainsay  or  resist."  In  Mark  x\'i.  17  we  have  a 
more  definite  term  employed:  "  They  shall  speak 
with  new  tongues  {Kaivah  yKdiraais)"  Startnig, 
as  above,  from  (C),  it  can  hardly  be  questioned 
that  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  promise  is  that  the 
disciples  should  speak  in  new  languages  wdiich  they 
had  not  learned  as  other  men  learn  them.  It  must 
be  remembered,  however,  that  tlie  critical  questions 
connected  with  Mark  xvi.  9-20  (comp.  Jleyer 
Tischendorf,  Alford,  in  loc.)  make  it  doubtful 
whether  we  have  here  the  language  of  the  Evan- 
gelist—  doubtful  therefore  whether  we  have  the 
ip.'iissiMii  verba  of  the  Lord  hiuiself,  or  the  nearest 
approximation  of  some  early  transcriber  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  section,  no  longer  extant,  with  which 
the  Gospel  had  originally  ended.  In  this  case  it  be- 
comes possible  that  the  later  phenomena,  or  later 
thoughts  respecting  them,  may  have  determined  the 
language  in  which  the  promise  is  recorded.  On 
either  hypothesis,  the  promise  determines  nothing 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  gift,  or  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  to  be  employed.  It  was  to  be  '•  a  sign."  It 
was  not  to  belong  to  a  chosen  few  only  —  to  Apos- 
tles and  Evangelists.  It  was  to  "follow  them  that 
believed"  —  to  be  among  the  fruits  of  the  living 
intense  faith  which  raised  nien  above  the  common 
le\el  of  their  lives,  and  brought  them  within  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

IV.  The  wonder  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  is,  in  its 
broad  features,  familiar  enough  to  ns.  The  days 
since  the  Ascension  had  been  spent  as  in  a  ceaseless 
ecstasy  of  worship  (Luke  xxiv.  53).  The  120  dis- 
ciples were  gathered  together,  waiting  with  eager 
expectation  for  the  coming  of  power  from  on  high 
—  of  the  Spirit  that  was  to  give  them  new  gifts  of 
utterance.  The  day  of  Pentecost  was  come,  which 
tliey,  like  all  other  Israelites,  looked  on  as  the  wit- 
ness of  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  Will  given  on 
Sinai.  Suddenly  there  swept  over  them  "  the 
soimd  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,"  such  as 
I'zekiel  had  heard  in  the  visions  of  God  by  Chebar 
(i.  24.  xliii.  2)  at  all  times  the  recognized  symbol 
of  a  spiritual  creative  power  (comp.  E-5.  xxxvii. 
1-14;  Gen.  i.  2;  1  K.  xix.  11;  2  Chr.  v.  14;  Ps. 
civ.  3,  4).  With  this  there  was  another  sign  .as- 
sociated even  more  closely  with  their  thoughts  of 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  There  appeared  unto  them 
"  tongues  like  .as  of  fire."  Of  old  the  brightness 
had  lieen  seen  gleaming  through  the  "  thick 
cloud"  (Ex.  xix  10),  or  "  enfolding  "  the  Divine 
glory  (I'J!.  i.  4).  Now  the  tongues  were  distrib- 
uted    {StaafOLC6ufvai\     lii.'hting     ujvin     each     n/ 


3806        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

them."  The  outward  symbol  was  accompanied  by 
au  inward  change.  They  were  '•  filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  as  the  Baptist  and  their  Lord  had  lieen 
(Luke  i.  15,  iv.  1),  thou;,'h  they  themselves  had  as 
j'et  no  experience  of  a  like  kind.  "  They  began  to 
Bpeak  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance."  The  narrative  that  follows  leaves 
hardly  any  room  for  doubt  that  the  wi'iter  meant 
to  convey  the  impression  that  the  disciples  were 
heard  to  speak  in  languages  of  which  they  had  no 
colloquial  knowledge  previously.  The  direct  state- 
ment, "  They  heard  them  speaking,  each  man  in 
his  own  dialect,"  the  long  list  of  nations,  the  words 
put  into  the  lips  of  the  hearers  —  these  can  scarcely 
b(:  reconciled  with  the  theories  of  Bleek,  Herder, 
and  liunsen,  without  a  willful  distortion  of  the  evi- 
dence.'' What  view  are  we  to  take  of  a  phenom- 
enon so  marvelous  and  exceptional '?  What  views 
have  men  actually  taken?  (1.)  The  prevalent  belief 
of  the  Church  has  been,  that  in  the  Pentecostal 
gift  the  disciples  received  a  supernatural  knowled^^e 
of  all  such  languages  as  they  needed  for  their  work 
as  Evangelists.  The  knowledge  was  perlnanent, 
and  could  be  used  at  their  own  will,  as  though  it 
had  lieen  acquired  in  the  common  order  of  things. 
With  this  they  went  forth  to  preach  to  the  nations. 
Diffi^rences  of  opinion  are  found  as  to  special  points. 
Augustirie  thought  that  each  disciple  spoke  in  all 
languages  {De  Verb.  Apost.  clxxv.  3);  Chrysostom 
that  each  had  a  special  language  assigned  to  him, 
and  that  this  was  the  indication  of  the  country 
which  he  was  called  to  evangelize  (Horn,  in  Act. 
ii.).  Some  thought  that  the  number  of  languages 
spoken  was  70  or  75,  after  the  numl)er  of  the  sons 
of  Noah  (Gen.  x.)  or  the  sons  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlvi.), 
or  120,  after  that  of  the  disciples  (comp.  Baroiiius, 
Anmd.  i.  197).  Most  were  agreed  in  seeing  in  the 
Pentecostal  gift  the  antithesis  to  the  confusion  of 
tongues  at  Babel,  the  witness  of  a  restored  unity. 
"  Poena  linguarum  dispersit  homines,  donuni  lin- 
guarum  dispersos  in  unum  populura  collegit " 
(Grotius,  in  Ivc ). 

Widely  diffused  as  this  belief  has  been,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  it  goes  beyond  the  data  with 
which  the  N.  T.  supplies  us.  Kach  instance  of  the 
gift  recorded  in  the  Acts  connects  it,  not  with  the 
work  of  teaching,  but  with  tiiat  of  praise-  and 
adoration  ;  not  with  the  normal  order  of  men's 
lives,  but  vvith  exceptional  epochs  in  them.  It 
came  and  went  as  the  Spirit  gave  men  the  power  of 
utterance  —  in  this  re.spect  analogous  to  the  other 
gift  of  prophecy  with  which  it  was  so  often  associ- 
ated (Acts  ii.  16,  17,  xix.  6)  — and  was    not   pos- 


a  The  sign  in  this  case  had  its  starting-point  in  the 
traditional  belief  of  Israelites.  There  had  been,  it  was 
said,  tongues  of  fire  on  the  original  Pentecost  (Schneck- 
enburger,  Beitrd^e,  p.  8,  referring  to  Buxtorf,  De 
Synofi.,  and  Philo,  De  Decal.).  The  later  Itabbis 
were  not  without  their  legends  of  a  like  "  baptism  of 
fire."  Nicodemus  ben  Gorion  and  Jochanan  ben  Zac- 
cai,  men  of  great  holiness  and  wisdom,  went  into  an 
upper  chamber  to  expound  the  Law,  and  the  house 
began  to  be  full  of  fire  (Lightfoot,  Harm.  iii.  14  ; 
Schoettgen,  Hor.  Heb.  in  Acts  ii.). 

b  It  deserves  notice  that  here  also  there  are  analo- 
gies in  .Jewish  belief  Every  word  that  went  forth 
from  the  mouth  of  God  on  Sinai  was  said  to  have  been 
divided  into  the  seventj'  languages  of  the  sons  of  men 
(AVetstein,  on  Acts  ii.)  ;  and  the  bath-kol,  the  echo  of 
the  voice  of  God,  was  heard  by  every  man  in  his  own 
tongue  (Schneckenburger,  Beitrdge).  So,  as  regards 
.he  jtower  of  speaking,  there  was  a  tradition  that  the 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

sessed  by  them  as  a  thing  to  be  used  this  way  or 
that,  accordins;  as  they  chose. <^  Tiie  speech  of  St 
Peter  which  follows,  like  most  other  speeches  ad- 
dressed to  a  .lerusalem  audience,  was  spoken  appar- 
ently in  Aramaic.''  AYhen  St.  Paul,  who  "  spake 
with  tongues  more  than  all,"  was  at  Lystra,  there 
is  no  mention  made  of  his  using  the  language  of 
Lycaonia.  It  is  almost  implied  that  he  did  not 
understand  it  (.Acts  xiv.  11).  Not  one  word  in 
the  discussion  of  spiritual  gifts  in  1  Cor.  xii.-xiv. 
in;plies  that  the  gift  was  of  this  nature,  or  given 
for  this  purpose.  If  it  had  been,  the  Apostle  would 
surely  ha^■e  told  those  who  possessed  it  to  go  and 
preach  to  the  outlying  nations  of  the  heathen  wnrld, 
instead  of  disturbing  the  church  by  what,  on  thui 
hypothesis,  would  have  been  a  needless  and  oflen- 
sive  ostentation  (comp.  Stanley,  Corinlhians,  p.  261, 
2d  ed.).  Without  laying  much  stress  on  the  tra- 
dition that  St.  Peter  was  followed  in  his  work  by 
.Mark  as  an  interpreter  {kpfx7)Vfvri]s)  (Papias,  in 
Knseb.  //.  E.  iii.  30),  that  even  St.  Paul  was  ac- 
companied liy  i'itus  hi  the  same  character  —  "  quia 
non  potuit  divinorum  sensuura  majestatem  digno 
Gnfci  eloquii  sermonc  explicare"  (Hieron.  quoted 
by  Kstius  in  2  Cor.  ii.)  — they  must  at  least  be 
received  as  testimonies  that  the  age  which  was 
nearest  to  tiie  phenomena  did  not  take  the  same 
view  of  them  as  those  have  done  who  lived  at  a 
greater  distance.  The  testimony  of  Irenseus  (Adih 
llim\  vi.  ()).  sometimes  urged  in  support  of  tiie. 
common' view,  in  reality  decides  nothing,  and,  as 
far  as  it  goes,  tends  against  it  (infr'i).  Nor,  it 
may  be  added,  within  the  limits  assigned  by  the 
providence  of  God  to  the  working  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  was  such  a  gift  necessary.  Aramaic, 
Greek,.Latin,  the  three  languages  of  the  inscription 
on  tiie  cross,  were  media  of  intercourse  throughout 
the  empire.  Greek  alone  sufficed,  as  the  N.  T. 
shows  us,  for  the  Churches  of  the  ^V'est,  for  Mace- 
donia and  Achaia,  for  Pontus,  Asia,  Phrygia.  The 
conquests  of  Alexander  and  of  Home  had  made 
men  [Uylutlic  to  an  extent  which  has  no  parallel  in 
history.  (2.)  Some  interpreters,  influenced  in  part 
by  these  facts,  have  seen  their  way  to  another  solu- 
tion of  the. difficulty  by  changing  tiie  character  of 
tlie  miracle.  It  lay  not  in  any  new  power  bestowed 
on  the  speakers,  but  in  the  impression  produced  on 
the  hearers.  Words  which  the  Galilean  disciples 
uttered  in  their  own  tongue  were  heard  by  those 
who  listened  as  in  their  native  speech.  This  view 
we  find  adopted  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa  [De  S/n'r. 
Satict.],  di.scnssed,  but  not  accepted,  by  Gregory  of 


great  Rabbis  of  the  Sanhedrim  could  speak  all  the 
seventy  languages  of  the  world. 

c  The  first  di.<cussion  whether  the  gift  of  tonfineg 
w.as  bestowed  "  per  modum  habitus  "  with  which  I  aij 
acquainted  is  found  in  Salmasius,  De  Ling.  lUr. 
(quoted  by  Thilo,  De  Ling.  Ignit.  in  Mentheu's  The- 
saurus, ii.  497).  whose  conclusion  is  in  the  negafivo. 
Even  Oalmet  admits  that  it  was  not  permanent  ( Conim. 
in  loc).  UomiJare  also  Wetstein.  in  loc. ;  and  Olshau- 
sen,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1829,  p.  546. 

<'  Dr.  Stanley  suggests  Greek,  as  addressed  to  the 
Hellenistic  .lews  who  were  present  in  such  large  num- 
bers (E.xcurs.  on  Gift  of  Tongues,  Corinthians,  p.  260, 
2d  ed.)  That  St.  Peter  and  the  Apostles  could  speiik 
a  provinci.'il  Greek  is  probable  enough  ;  but  in  this 
instance  the  speech  is  addre.ssed  chiefly  to  the  perma- 
nent dwellers  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  ii.  22,  3G),  and  was 
likely,  like  that  of  St.  P.aul  (Acts  xxi.  40),  to  be  spoken 
in  their  tongue.  To  most  of  the  Hellenistic  hearorn 
this  woul  1  be  intelligible  enousrb. 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

Jfaziaiizus  {Oral,  xliv.),  and  reprofluced  by  Eras- 
mus (//(  he).  A  modification  of  the  same  theory 
is  presented  by  Schnecl^enlmrirer  {Bei/raf/e),  and 
in  part  adopted  by  Olshaiiseii  (/.  c. )  and  Neander 
{Pjlunz.  u.  Leil.  i.  15).  The  phenomena  of  som- 
nambulism, of  the  so-called  mesmeric  state,  are  re- 
ferred to  as  analogous.  The  speaker  was  en  rapport 
with  his  hearers;  the  latter  shared  the  thoughts  of 
the  former,  and  so  heard  them,  or  seemed  to  hear 
[hem,  in  their  own  tongues. 

There  are,  it  is  believed,  weighty  reasons  against 
coth  the  earlier  and  later  fornis  of  this  hypothesis. 
(1.)  It  is  at  variance  with  the  distinct  statement 
of  Acts  ii.  4-,  "They  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues."  (2.)  It  at  once  multiplies  the  mirucle, 
and  degrades  its  character.  Not  tlie  120  disciples. 
but  the  whole  multitude  of  many  thousands,  are  in 
this  case  the  subjects  of  it.  Tiie  gift  no  longer 
connects  itself  with  the  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
following  on  intense  faith  and  earnest  prayer,  but 
is  a  mere  physical  prodigy  wrought  upon  men  who 
are  altogether  wanting  in  the  conditions  of  capacity 
for  such  a  supernatural  power  (Mark  xvi.  17).  (3.) 
It  involves  an  element  of  falsehood.  The  miracle, 
on  this  view,  was  wrought  to  make  men  believe 
what  was  not  actually  the  fiict.  (4. )  It  is  altogether 
inapplicable  to  the  phenomena  of  1  Cor.  xiv. 

(3.)  Critics  of  a  negative  school  have,  as  might 
be  expected,  adopted  the  easier  course  of  rejectinsr 
the  narrative  either  altogetiier  or  in  p.art.  The 
statements  do  not  come  from  an  eye-witness,  and 
may  lie  an  exaggerated  report  of  what  actually  took 
place  —  a  legend  with  or  without  a  historical  foun- 
dation. Tlu>se  who  recognize  such  a  groundwork 
see  in  "  tliei  rushing  mighty  wind,"  the  hurricane 
of  a  thunderstorm,  the  fresh  i)reeze  of  morning;  in 
the  "tongues  Uke  as  of  fire,"  the  flashings  of  the 
electric  fluid;  in  the  "speaking  with  tongues,"  the 
loud  screams  of  men,  not  all  Galileans,  but  coming 
from  many  lands,  overpowered  by  strong  excite- 
ment, speaking  in  mystical,  figurative,  abrupt  ex- 
clamations. They  see  in  chis  "  the  cry  of  the  new- 
born Christendom."  (Bunsen,  flippoliitiis,  ii.  12; 
Kwald,  Gesch.  Isv.  vi.  110;  Bleek,  I.  c. ;  Herder,  /.  c. ) 
From  the  position  occupied  by  these  writers,  such 
a  view  was  perhaps  natural  enough.  It  does  not 
fall  within  the  scope  of  this  article  to  discuss  in 
detail  a  theory  which  postulates  the  incredibility 
of  any  fact  beyond  the  phenomenal  laws  of  nature, 
and  the  falsehood  of  St.  Luke  as  a  narrator. 

V.  What,  then,  are  the  facts  actually  brought 
before  us?  What  inferences  may  be  legitimately 
drawn  from  them  V 

(1.)  The  utterance  of  words  by  the  disciples,  in 
other  languages  than  their  own  Galilean  Aramaic, 
is,  as  has  been  said,  distinctly  asserted. 

(2.)  The  words  spoken  appear  to  have  been  de- 
termined, not  by  the  will  of  the  speakers,  but  by 
the  spirit  which  "  gave  them  utterance."  The  out- 
waid  tongue  of  flame  was  the  symbol  of  the  "  burn- 
ing fire  "  within,  which,  as  in  the  case  of  the  older 
propiiets,  could  not  be  repressed  (.ler.  xx.  9). 

(;).)  Tlie  word  used,  ano(pdeyy((Tdai,  not  merely 
\aA.e?j/,  has  in  the  LXX.  a  s[iecial  though  not  an 
»xclusive  association  with  the  oracular  speech  of 
true  or  false  prophets,  and  appears  to  imply  some 
peculiar,  perhaps  musical,  solenni  intonation  (conip. 
1  Chr.  XXV.  1;  Ez.  xiii.  9;  Trommii  Conconlant. 
i.  v. ;  Grotius  and  Wetstein,  in  loc. ;  Andrewes, 
Wlnlsimdmj  Sermons,  i.). 

(■4.)  The  "  tongues"  were  used  as  an  instrument, 
jot  of  teaching  but  of  praise.    .Vl  first,  indeed,  there 


TONGUES,  GIFl  OF        ooU7 

were  none  present  to  be  taught.  The  disciples  wer« 
by  themselves,  all  sharing  equally  in  the  Spirit's 
gifts.  When  they  were  heard  by  others,  it  was  as 
proclaiming  the  praise,  the  migiity  and  great  works, 
of  God  {fj.iya\fia)-  \\'hat  they  uttered  was  not  a 
warning,  or  reproof,  or  exhortation,  but  a  doxology 
(Stanley,  /.  c.  ;  Haumgarten,  Apostelffesch.  §  3). 
When  the  work  of  teaching  began,  it  was  in  tha 
language  of  the  Jews,  and  the  utterance  of  tongues 
ceased. 

(5.)  Those  who  spoke  them  seemed  to  others  to 
be  under  the  influence  of  some  strong  excitem.snt, 
"  full  of  new  wine."  They  were  not  as  other  men, 
or  as  they  themselves  had  been  before.  Some  rec- 
ognized, indeed,  that  they  were  in  a  higher  state,- 
but  it  was  one  which,  in  some  of  its  outward 
features,  had  a  counterfeit  likeness  in  the  lower. 
When  St.  Paul  uses —  in  I'.ph.  v.  18, 19  {irAripovaOe 
TTvevixaros)  —  the  all  but  self-same  word  which  St. 
Luke  uses  here  to  describe  tlie  state  of  the  disciples 
{i-K\7]adr}a'au  iri'fVfj.aTos  ayiov),  it  is  to  contrast 
it  witii  "  being  drunk  with  wine,"  to  associate  it 
witli  "  psalms  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs." 

(6. )  (Questions  as  to  the  mode  of  operation  of  a 
power  aliove  the  conmion  laws  of  bodily  or  mental 
life  lead  us  to  a  region  where  our  words  should  be 
"  wary  and  few."  There  is  the  risk  of  seeming  to 
reduce  to  the  known  order  of  nature  that  wiiich  is 
by  confession  above  and  beyond  it.  In  this  and 
in  other  cases,  however,  it  may  be  possible,  with- 
out irreverence  or  doubt  —  following  the  guidance 
whicli  Scriptiu'e  itself  gives  us  —  to  trace  in  what 
way  the  new  power  did  its  work,  atid  brought  ahout 
such  wonderful  results.  It  nuist  be  remembered, 
then,  that  in  all  likelihood  sucii  words  as  they  then 
uttered  had  been  heard  by  the  disciples  before.  At 
every  feast  which  they  had  ever  attended  from 
their  youth  up,  they  must  have  been  brought  into 
contact  with  a  crowd  as  varied  as  that  which  was 
present  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  pilgrims  of 
each  nation  uttering  their  praises  and  doxologies. 
The  difleience  was.  that,  before,  the  CJalilean  peas- 
ants had  stood  in  that  crowd,  neither  heeding,  nor 
imderst'anding,  nor  remembering  what  tliey  heard, 
still  less  alile  to  reproduce  it;  now  tiiey  had  the 
power  of  speakiui;  it  clearly  and  freely.  Thi:  Divine 
work  would  in  this  case  take  tiie  form  of  a  super- 
natural exaltation  of  the  memory,  not  of  imparting 
a  miraculous  knowledge  of  words  never  heard  be- 
fore. We  have  the  authority  of  John  xiv.  26  for 
seeing  in  sucli  an  exaltation  one  of  the  special 
works  of  the  Divine  Comforter. 

(7.)  Tlie  gift  of  tongues,  the  ecstatic  burst  of 
praise,  is  definitely  asserted  to  be  a  fulfillment  of  the 
prediction  of  Joel  ii.  28.  The  twice-repeated  burden 
of  that  prediction  is,  "  I  w'ill  pour  out  my  Spirit," 
.and  the  effect  on  those  who  receive  it  is  that  "  they 
shall  prophesy."  We  may  see  therefore  in  tliis 
special  gift  that  which  is  analogous  to  one  element 
at  least  of  the  npo(l>r]T(la  of  the  O.  T. ;  but  tiie 
element  of  teaching  is.  as  we  have  seen,  excluded. 
In  1  Cor.  xiv.  the  gift  of  tongues  and  Trpoc^jjreia 
(in  this,  the  N.  T.  sense  of  the  word)  are  placed  in 
direct  contrast.  We  are  led.  therefore,  to  look  for 
that  which  answers  to  the  Gilt  of  IVingues  in  the 
other  element  of  prophecy  which  is  inchKicd  in 
the  O.  T.  use  of  the  word;  and  this  is  found  in  the 
ecstatic  praise,  the  burst  of  song,  which  appears 
under  that  name  in  the  two  histories  of  Saul 
(1  Sam.  X.  5-13,  xix.  20-24),  and  in  the  oervices 
of  the  Temple  (I  Chr.  xxv.  3). 

(8.)    The  other  instances  in  the  Acts  otler  es.sen- 


3308        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

tially  tlie  same  phenomena.  By  implication  in  xiv. 
15-19,  by  express  statement  in  x.  47,  xi.  15,  17, 
xix.  6,  it  belon;,'s  to  special  critical  epochs,  at  which 
faith  is  at  its  hicjhest,  anid  the  imposition  of  the 
Apostles'  hands  bruiii,'ht  men  into  the  same  state, 
imparted  to  them  the  same  gift,  as  they  had  them- 
Belves  experienced.  In  this  case,  too,  the  exercise 
of  the  gift  is  at  once  connected  with  and  distin- 
guished from  "  prophecy  "  in  its  N.  T.  sense. 

VI.  The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  supplies 
fuller  data.  The  spiritual  gifts  are  classified  and 
•compared,  arranged,  apparently,  according  to  their 
vvorth,  placed  under  regulation.  This  fact  is  in 
itself  significant.  Though  recognized  as  coming 
from  the  one  Divine  Spirit,  they  are  not  therefore 
exempted  from  the  control  of  man's  rea.son  and 
conscience.  The  Spirit  acts  through  the  calm 
judgment  of  the  Apostle  or  the  Church,  not  less 
but  more  authoritatively  than  in  the  most  rapturous 
and  wonderful  utterances.  The  facts  which  may 
be  gathered  are  briefly  these:  — 

(1.)  The  phenomena  of  the  gift  of  tongues  were 
not  confined  to  one  church  or  section  of  a  church. 
If  we  find  them  at  Jerusalem,  Kphesus,  Corinth,  by 
implication  at  Thessalonica  also  (1  Thess.  v.  19), 
we  may  well  believe  that  they  were  frequently  re- 
curring wherever  the  spirits  of  men  were  passing 
through  the  same  stages  of  experience. 

(2.)  The  comparison  of  gifts,  in  lioth  the  lists 
given  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xii.  8-10,  28-30),  places 
that  of  tongues,  and  the  interpretation  of  tongues, 
lowest  in  the  scale.  They  are  not  among  the 
greater  gifts  which  men  are  to  "covet  earnestly" 
(1  Cor.  xii.  31,  xiv.  5).  As  signs  of  a  life  quick- 
ened into  expression  where  before  it  had  been  dead 
vnd  dumb,  the  Apostle  could  wish  that  "  they  all 
spake  with  tongues  "  (1  Cor.  xiv.  5),  could  rejoice 
that  he  himself  "  spake  with  tongues  more  than 
they  all"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  18).  It  was  good  to  have 
known  the  working  of  a  power  raising  them  above 
the  common  level  of  their  consciousness.  They  be- 
longed, however,  to  the  childhood  of  the  Christian 
life,  not  to  its  maturity  (1  Cor.  xiv.  20).  They 
brought  with  them  tlie  risk  of  disturbance  (ibid. 
28).  The  only  safe  rule  for  the  Church  was  not  to 
"  forbid  them  "  (ibid.  39),  not  to  "  quench  "  them 
(1  Thess.  v.  19),  lest  in  so  doing  the  spiritual  life 
of  which  this  was  the  first  utterance  should  be 
crushed  and  extinguished  too,  but  not  in  any  way 
to  covet  or  excite  them.  This  language,  as  has 
been  stated,  leaves  it  hardly  possible  to  look  on  the 
gift  as  that  of  a  linguistic  knowledge  bestowed  for 
the  purpose  of  evangelizing. 

(3.)  The  main  characteristic  of  the  "tongue" 
(now  used,  as  it  were,  technically,  without  the 
epithet  "  new  "  or  "other")"  is  that  it  is  unin- 
telligible. The  man  "  speaks  mysteries,"  prays, 
ulesses,  gives  thanks,  in  the  tongue  (iy  Truev/xaTt 
as  equivalent  to  iu  y\u>aari,  1  Cor.  xiv.  15,  10), 
but  no  one  understands  him  (a/couei).  He  can 
hardly  be  said,  indeed,  to  understand  himself.  The 
Trvevfj.a  in  him  is  acting  without  the  cooperation 
of  the  vovs  (1  Cor.  xiv.  14).  He  speaks  not  to 
men,  but  to  himself  and  to  God  (comp.  Chrysost. 
Horn.  35,  in  1  Cor.).  In  spite  of  this,  however, 
the  gift  might  and  did  contribute  to  the  building 
up  of  a  man's  own  life  (1  Cor.  xiv.  4).  This  might 
be  the  only  way  in  which  some  natures  could  be 
■oused  out  of  the  apathy  of  a  sensual  life,  or  the 


n  The  reader  will  hardly  need  to  be  reminded  that 
unkuown  '■  is  an  iiiteniohitidu  of  the  A.  V. 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

dullness  of  a  formal  ritual.  The  e3stasy  of  adora- 
tion which  seemed  to  men  madness,  might  be  a 
refreshment  unspeiikable  to  one  who  was  weary  with 
the  subtle  questionings  of  the  intellect,  to  whom  all 
familiar  and  intelligible  words  were  fraught  with 
recollections  of  controversial  bitterness  or  the  wan- 
derings of  doubt  (conip.  a  passage  of  wonderful 
jjower  as  to  this  use  of  the  gift  by  Edw.  Irviiic, 
.\toinint]   Watch,  v.  p.  78). 

(4.)  The  peculiar  nature  of  the  gift  leads  the 
Apostle  into  what  appears,  at  first,  a  contradiction. 
"  Tongues  are  for  a  sign,"  not  to  believers,  but  to 
those  who  do  not  believe;  yet  the  effect  on  inibe- 
lievers  is  not  that  of  attracting  but  repelling.  A 
meeting  in  which  the  gift  of  tongues  was  exercised 
witliout  restraint,  would  seem  to  a  heathen  visitor, 
or  even  to  the  plain  common-sense  Christian  (the 
iSioJTTjs,  the  man  without  a  ■^^dpiuij.a),  to  be  an 
assembly  of  madmen.  The  history  of  the  day  of 
Pentecost  may  help  us  to  explain  the  paradox 
The  tongues  ore  a  sign.  They  witness  that  the 
daily  experience  of  men  is  not  the  limit  of  llieir 
spiritual  powers.  'I'hey  disturb,  startle,  awaken, 
are  given  eis  rh  iKTr\riTTfa-6ai  (Chrysost.  JJom. 
30,  in  1  Car.),  but  they  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  the 
grounds  of  conviction  and  belief  (so  Const.  Apost. 
viii.).  They  involve  of  necessity  a  disturbance  of 
the  equilibrium  between  the  understanding  and  the 
feelings.  Therefore  it  is  that,  for  those  who  believe 
already,  prophecy  is  the  greater  gift.  Five  clear 
words  sjjoken  from  the  mind  of  one  man  to  the 
mind  and  conscience  of  another,  are  better  than 
ten  thousand  of  these  more  startling  and  wonderful 
phenomena. 

(5.)  There  remains  the  question  whether  these 
also  were  "tongues"  in  the  sense  of  being  lan- 
guages, of  which  the  speakers  had  little  or  no 
previous  knowledge,  or  whether  we  are  to  admit 
here,  though  not  in  Acts  ii.,  the  theories  which  see 
in  them  only  unusual  forms  of  speech  (Hleek),  oi 
inarticulate  cries  (Bunsen),  or  all  but  inaudible 
whisperings  (Wieseler,  in  Olshausen,  in  foe).  The 
question  is  not  one  for  a  dogmatic  assertion,  but 
it  is  believed  that  there  is  a  preponderance  of  evi- 
dence leading  us  to  look  on  the  phenomena  of 
Pentecost  as  representative.  It  must  have  been 
from  them  that  the  word  tongue  derived  its  new 
and  special  meaning.  The  companion  of  St.  Paul, 
and  St.  Paul  himself,  were  likely  to  use  the  sawe 
word  in  the  same  sense.  In  the  alisence  of  a  dis- 
tinct notice  to  the  contrary,  it  is  probable  that  the 
gilt  would  manifest  itself  in  the  same  form  at 
Corinth  as  at  Jerusalem.  The  '•  divers  kinds  of 
tongues"  (1  Cor.  xii.  28),  the  •^tonr/ues  of  men  " 
(1  Cor.  xiii.  1),  point  to  differences  of  some  kind, 
and  it  is  at  least  easier  to  conceive  of  these  as 
differences  of  language  than  as  belonging  to  utter- 
ances all  equally  wild  and  inarticulate.  The  posi- 
tion maintained  by  Lightfoot  (Harm,  of  Gosp.  on 
Acts  ii.),  that  the  gift  of  tongues  consisted  in  .the 
power  of  speaking  and  understanding  the  true  He- 
brew' of  the  0.  T.,  may  seem  somewhat  extrav- 
agant, but  there  seems  ground  for  believing  that 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  words  had  over  the  minda 
of  Greek  converts  at  Corinth  a  power  which  they 
failed  to  exercise  when  translated,  and  that  there 
the  utterances  of  the  tongues  were  probably  in 
whole,  or  in  part,  in  that  language.  Thus,  the 
"  Maranatha "  of  1  Cor.  xvi.  22,  compared  with 
xii.  3,  leads  to  the  inference  that  that  word  had 
iieen  spoken  under  a  real  or  counterfeit  inspiration. 
It  w.is  the  Spirit  that  led  men  to  cry  Abba,  a-s  tbeii 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

recognition  of  the  fatherhood  of  Giod  (Rem.  viii. 
15;  Gal.  iv.  6).  If  we  are  to  attach  any  definite 
meaning  to  the  "toiignes  of  angels  "  in  1  Cor.  xiii. 
1,  it  must  be  by  connecting  it  with  the  words  sur- 
passing human  utterance,  which  St.  Paul  heard  as 
in  Paradise  (2  Cor.  xii.  4),  and  these  again  with 
the  great  Hallelujah  hymns  of  which  we  read  in 
the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  .\ix.  1-6;  Stanley,  L  c. ; 
Ewald,  Gtsch.  Jsi\  vi.  117).  The  retention  of 
other  words  like  Ilosanna  and  Saliaoth  in  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Church,  of  the  Greek  formula  of  the 
Kyrie  Eleison  in  that  of  the  nations  of  the  West, 
is  an  exemplification  of  the  same  feeling  operat- 
ing in  other  ways  after  the  special  power  hid 
ceased. 

(6.)  Here,  also,  as  in  Acts  ii.,  we  have  to  think 
of  some  peculiar  intonation  as  frequently  charac- 
terizing the  exercise  of  the  "  tongues."'  'I'lie  anal- 
ogies which  suggest  themselves  to  St.  Paul's  mind 
are  those  of  the  pipe,  the  harp,  the  trumpet  (1  Cor. 
xiv.  7,  8).  In  the  case  of  one  "singing  in  the 
spirit"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  15),  but  not  with  the  under- 
standing also,  the  strain  of  ecstatic  melody  must 
have  been  all  that  the  listeners  could  perceive. 
To  "sing  and  make  melody"  is  specially  charac- 
teristic of  those  who  are  filled  with  the  Spirit 
(I^ph.  V.  19).  Other  forms  of  utterance  less  dis- 
tinctly musical,  yet  not  less  mighty  to  stir  the 
minds  of  men,  we  may  trace  in  the  "cry  "  (Kom. 
viii.  15;  Gal.  iv.  6)  and  the  "ineffable  groanings  " 
(Rom.  viii.  2f))  which  are  disthictl}'  ascribed  to  the 
work  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  To  those  who  know 
the  wonderful  power  of  man's  voice,  as  the  orgati 
of  his  spirit,  the  strange,  unearthly  charm  which 
belongs  to  some  of  its  less  normal  states,  the  in- 
fluence even  of  individual  words  thus  uttered,  es- 
pecially of  words  belonging  to  a  language  which  is 
not  that  of  our  common  life  (comp.  Hilar.  Diac. 
Coinm.  ill  1  Cor.  xiv.),  it  will  not  seem  ,strani;e 
that,  even  in  the  absence  of  a  distinct  iny?>']  o.yual 
consciousness,  the  gift  should  take  its  place'; ..■mong 
the  means  by  which  a  man  "built  up"  his  own 
life,  and  might  contribute,  if  one  were  present  to 
expound  his  utterances,  to  "  edify  "  others  also." 

(7.)  Connected  with  the  "tongues,"  there  was, 
as  the  words  just  used  remind  us,  the  correspond- 
ing power  of  interpretation.  It  might  belong  to 
any  listener  (1  Cor.  xiv.  27).  It  might  belong  to 
the  speaker  himself  when  he  returned  to  the  ordi- 
nary level  of  conscious  thought  (1  Cor.  xiv.  13). 
Its  function,  according  to  the  view  that  has  been 
here  taken,  must  have  Ijeen  twofold.  The  inter- 
preter had  first  to  catch  the  foreign  words,  Ara- 
;naic  or  others,  which  had  mingled  more  or  less 
brgely  with  what  was  uttered,  and  then  to  find  a 
meaning  and  an  order  in  what  seemed  at  first  to 
be  without  either,  to  follow  the  loftiest  flights  and 
most  intricate  windings  of  the  enraptured  spirit, 
to  trace  the  subtle  associations  which  linked  to- 
gether words  and  thoughts  that  seemed  at  first  tt) 
have  no  point  of  contact.  Under  the  action  of 
one  with  this  insight  the  wild  utterances  of  the 
"tongues"  might  become  a  treasure-house  of  deep 
truths.  Sometimes,  it  would  appear,  not  even  this 
yas  possible.  Tlie  power  migh'  be  simply  that  of 
40und.     As  the  pipe  or  harp,  plajed  boldly,  the 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 


330& 


a  Neauder  (Pflanz.  u.  Lett.  i.  15)  refers  tx)  the  eCfect 
produced  by  the  preacliing  of  St.  Bernard  upon  hear- 
>r8  who  did  not  understand  one  word  of  the  Latin  iu 
B-hich  he  preached  (0pp.  ii.  119,  ed.  Mabillou)  as  au 
.nstauce  of  this      Like  phenomena  are  related  of  St. 


hand  struck  at  random  over  the  strings,  but  with 
no  SiacTToKr),  no  musical  interval,  wanted  the  con- 
dition of  distinguishable  melody,  so  the  •■tongues," 
in  their  extreinest  form,  passed  beyond  the  limits 
of  interpretation.  There  might  be  a  strange  awful- 
iiess,  or  a  strange  sweetness  as  of  "  tho  tongues  of 
angels,"  but  what  it  meant  was  known  only  to 
God  (I  Cor.  .xiv.  7-11). 

VII.  (1.)  Traces  of  the  gift  are  found,  as  has 
been  said,  in  the  epistles  to  the  Romans,  the  Gala- 
tians,  the  Ephesians.  From  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
from  those  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  John,  they  are 
altogether  absent,  and  this  is  in  itself  significant. 
The  life  of  the  Apostle  and  of  the  Cliureh  has 
passed  into  a  calmer,  more  normal  state.  Wide 
trutiis,  abiding  graces,  these  are  wdiat  he  himself 
lives  in  and  exhorts  others  to  rest  on,  rather  than 
exceptional  ;;^o/7i<r;uara,  however  marvelous.  The 
"  tonjines  "  are  already  "ceasing"  (1  Cor.  xiii.  8), 
as  a  thing  belonging  to  the  past.  Love,  which 
even  wlien  "tongues"  were  miglitiest,  he  had  seen 
to  lie  above  all  gifts,  has  become  more  and  more, 
all  in  all,  to  him. 

(2  )  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  "  tongues  "  was  gradual.  As  it  would 
have  Ijeen  impossible  to  draw  the  precise  line  of 
demarcation  when  the  ivpo<prjTiia  of  the  .\postolic 
age  passed  into  the  5i5a<r/caAia  that  remained  per- 
manently in  the  Church,  so  there  must  have  been 
a  time  when  "  tongues  "'  were  still  heard,  though 
less  frequently,  and  with  less  striking  results.  The 
testimony  of  Irenaeus  {Adv.  liter,  v.  6)  that  there 
were  brethren  in  his  time  "  who  had  prophetic 
gifts,  and  spoke  through  the  Spirit  in  all  kinds  of 
tongues,"  though  it  does  not  prove,  what  it  has 
sometimes  been  alleged  to  prove,  the  permanence 
of  the  gift  in  the  individual,  or  its  use  in  the  work 
of  evangelizing  (Wordsworth  on  Ac/s  ii.),  must  be 
admitted  as  evidence  of  the  existence  of  phenomena 
like  those  which  we  have  met  with  in  the  church 
of  Corinth.  For  the  most  part,  however,  the  part 
which  they  had  filled  in  the  worship  of  the  Church 
was  supplied  by  the  "  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  " 
of  the  succeeding  age.  In  the  earliest  of  the.se, 
distinct  in  character  from  either  the  Hebrew  psalms 
or  the  later  hymns  of  the  Church,  marked  by  a 
strange  mi.xture  of  mystic  names,  and  half-coherent 
thoughts  (such,  e.  ;/.,  as  the  hymn  with  which 
Clement  of  Alexandria  ends  his  TlatSayccyos,  and 
the  earliest  Sibylline  verses),  some  have  seen  the 
influence  of  the  ecstatic  utterances  in  which  the 
strong  feelings  of  adoration  had  originally  shown 
themselves  (Nitzsch,  Clirisll.  Lt/ire,  ii.  p.  208). 

After  this,  within  the  Church  we  lose  nearly  all 
traces  of  them.  The  mention  pf  them  by  Euse- 
bius  {Comin.  in  Ps.  xlvi.)  is  vague  and  uncertain. 
Tiie  tone  in  which  Chrysostom  speaks  of  them 
(CoiHin.  in  1  Cor.  xiv.)  is  that  of  one  who  feels 
the  whole  subject  to  be  obscure,  because  there  are 
no  phenomena  within  his  own  experience  at  all 
answering  to  it.  'The  whole  tendency  of  the  Church 
was  to  maintain  reverence  ami  order,  and  to  repress 
all  a()proaches  to  the  ecstatic  state.  Tliose  who 
yielded  to  it  took  refuge,  as  in  the  case  of  Tertul- 
liau  {iiijhi),  in  sets  outside  the  Church.  Symp- 
toms of  what  was  then  looked  on  as  an  e\'il,  showed 

Antony  of  Padua  and  St.  Vincent  Ferrer  (.Acta  Sane- 
torum,  .June  24  and  April  5),  of  which  this  K  prob- 
ably tlie  explan.'itioti.  (Oouip.  also  Wolf,  Cure  P/tti- 
olug.  in  A'.   T.  Acts  ii.) 


3310        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

'.heniselves  in  the  4th  century  at  Constantinople  — 
ivild,  inarticulate  cries,  words  passionate  but  of 
ittle  meaning,  almost  convulsive  gestures  —  and 
were  met  by  Chrysostom  with  the  sternest  possi- 
ble reproof  {Horn,  in  Is.  vi.  2,  ed.  Migne,  vi. 
100). 

VIII.  (1.)  A  wider  question  of  deep  interest 
presents  itself.  Can  we  find  in  the  religious  his- 
tory of  mankind  any  facts  analogous  to  the  man- 
ifestation of  the  "tongues?"  Recognizing,  as  we 
do,  the  great  gap  which  separates  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  fi'om  all  others, 
both  in  its  origin  and  its  fruits,  tliere  is,  it  is  be- 
lieved, no  reason  for  rejecting  the  thought  that 
there  might  be  like  phenomena  standing  to  it  in 
the  relation  of  foreshadowings,  approximations, 
counterfeits.  Other  xap'o-fj-ara  of  the  Spirit,  wis- 
dom, prophecy,  helps,  governments,  had  or  ha\e 
analogies,  in  special  states  of  men's  spiritual  lii'e, 
at  other  times  and  under  other  conditions,  and  so 
may  these.  The  three  characteristic  phenomena 
are,  as  has  been  seen,  (1)  an  ecstatic  state  of  par- 
tial or  entire  unconsciousness,  the  human  will 
being,  as  it  were,  swayed  by  a  power  above  itself; 
(2)  the  utterance  of  words  in  tones  startling  and 
impressive,  but  often  conveying  no  distinct  mean- 
ing; (.3)  tlie  use  of  languages  which  the  speaker  at 
other  times  was  unable  to  converse  in. 

(2.)  The  history  of  the  O.  T.  presents  us  with 
Bome  instances  in  which  the  gift  of  prophecy  has 
accompaniments  of  this  nature.*  The  word  in- 
cludes something  more  than  the  utterance  of  a 
distinct  message  of  God.  Saul  and  his  messengers 
come  under  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  and  he  lies  on 
the  ground  all  night,  stripped  of  his  kingly  armor, 
and  joining  in  the  wild  chant  of  the  company  of 
prophets,  or  pouring  out  his  own  utterances  to  the 
sound  of  their  music  (1  Sam.  xix.  24;  conip.  Stan- 
ley, L  c). 

(3.)  We  cannot  exclude  the  false  prophets  and 
diviners  of  Israel  from  the  range  of  our  inquiry. 
As  they,  in  their  work,  dress,  pretensions,  were 
counterfeits  of  tliose  who  truly  bore  the  name,  so 
we  may  venture  to  trace  in  other  things  that  which 
resembled,  more  or  less  closely,  what  had  accom- 
panied the  exercise  of  the  Divine  gift.  And  here 
we  have  distinct  I'ecords  of  strange,  mysterious  in- 
tonations. The  ventriloquist  wizards  {oi  iyyacr- 
TpijJLvdoi,  oi  (K  rris  KoiXias  (pwvovaiu)  "peep" 
and  nmtter"  (Is.  viii.  19).  The  "voice  of  one 
wlio  has  a  familiar  spirit,"  comes  Tow  out  of  the 
groiuid  (Is.  xxix.  4).  The  false  prophets  simulate 
with  their  tongues  {eK^akKovras  irpo^-qnias 
yXctxraris,  LXX.)  the  low  voice  with  which  the 
true  prophets  announced  that  the  Lord  had  spoken 

(Jer.  xxiii.  31;  comp.  Gesen.  Tlies.  s.  v.  CW), 

(4.)  The  quotation  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xiv.  21) 
from  Is.  xxviii.  11  ("  With  men  of  other  tongues 
(eV  fTepoy\tiffcrois)  and  other  lips  will  I  speak 
unto  this  peo|)le"),  has  a  significance  of  which  we 
ought  not  to  lose  sight.  The  connnon  interpreta- 
tion sees  in  that  passage  only  a  declaration  that 
those  who  had  refused  to  listen  to  the  prophets 
iiould  be  taught  a  sharp  lesson  by  the  lips  of  alien 


a  Peep.     The  word,  omitted  in  its  place,  deserves  a 
leparate  notice.     It  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  of  Is.  viii.  19, 

s.  14,  as  the  equivalent  of  H^^D^J,  "  to  chirp "  or 
"  cry."  The  Latin  pipio,  from  which  it  comes,  is, 
like  the  Hebrew,  ouomatopoetic,  and  is  used  to  express 
:bv  wailiug  cr_\  of  3  oi'ug  chickens  or  infiuit  ?hilJreu. 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

conquerors.  Ewald  {Prophet,  in  loc),  dissatisfied 
with  this,  sees  in  the  new  teaching  the  voice  of 
thunder  striking  terror  into  men's  minds.  St. 
Paul,  with  the  phenomena  of  the  "  tongues  "  pres- 
ent to  his  mind,  saw  in  them  the  fulfillment  of  the 
prophet's  words.  Those  who  turned  aside  fronv 
the  true  prophetic  message  should  be  left  to  the 
darker,  "  stanmiering,"  more  mysterious  utterances, 
which  were  in  the  older,  what  the  "tongues"  were 
in  the  later  Ecclesia.  A  remarkable  parallel  to 
the  text  thus  interpreted  is  found  in  Hos.  ix.  7. 
There  also  the  people  are  threatened  with  the  with- 
drawal of  the  true  prophetic  insight,  and  in  its 
stead  there  is  to  be  the  wild  delirium,  the  ecstatic 
madness  of  the  counterfeit  (comp.  especially  the 
LXX.,  6  iTpo<p-r]TT)s  6  irapecrTTiKdiis,  &v6pcoiTos  6 
■KViufxaro'p6pos  )■ 

(5.)  Tlie  history  of  heathen  oracles  presents,  it 
need  hardly  be  said,  examples  of  the  orgiastic  state, 
the  condition  of  the  fxavTis  as  distinct  from  the 
■Kpo(pr\T7}s,  in  which  the  wisest  of  Greek  thinkers 
recognized  the  lower  type  of  inspiration  (Plato, 
TimiBHs,  72  B;  Bleek,  I.  c).  The  Pythoness  and 
the  Sib3l  are  as  if  possessed  by  a  power  which  they 
cannot  resist.  They  labor  under  the  aj/lntus  of 
the  god.  The  wild,  unearthly  sounds  ("  nee  mor- 
tale  sonans"),  oiten  hardly  coherent,  burst  from 
their  lips.  It  remains  lor  interpreters  to  collect  the 
scattered  utterances,  and  to  give  them  shape  and 
meaning  (Virg.  yEii.  vi.  45,  98  fF. ). 

(G.)  More  distinct  parallels  are  found  in  the  ac- 
counts of  the  wilder,  more  excited  sects  which  have, 
from  time  to  time,  appeared  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
tendom Tertullian  {i/e  Anim.  c.  9),  as  a  ilontanist, 
claims  the  "  revelationum  charismata"  as  given  to 
a  sister  of  that  sect.  They  came  to  her  "  inter 
dominica  solemnia;"  she  was,  "per  ecstasin,  in 
spiritu,"'  conversing  with  angels,  and  with  the 
Lord  himself,  seeing  and  hearing  mysteries  ("  sacra- 
nientaj"),  reading  the  hearts  of  men,  prescribing 
renjicul'i  for  those  who  needed  them.  The  move 
ment  u'r  tiie  Mendicant  orders  of  the  13th  century, 
the  proi>hesyings  of  the  IGth  in  England,  the  early 
histo,":^  of  the  disciples  of  George  Fox,  that  of  the 
.lansenists  in  France,  the  revivals  under  Wesley  and 
Whitefield,  tliose  of  a  later  date  in  Sweden,  Amer- 
ica, and  Ireland  have,  in  like  manner,  been  fruitful 
in  ecstatic  phenomena  more  or  less  closely  resem- 
bling those  which  we  are  now  considering. 

(7.)  The  history  of  the  French  prophets  at  the 
commencement  of  the  18th  century  presents  some 
facts  of  special  interest.  The  terrible  sufl^erings 
caused  by  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes 
were  pressing  with  intolerable  severity  on  the  Hu- 
guenots of  the  Ceveniies.  The  persecuted  flocks  met 
together  with  every  feeling  of  faith  and  hope  strung 
to  its  highest  jHtch.  The  accustomed  order  of 
worship  was  broken,  and  laboring  men,  children, 
and  female  servants,  spoke  with  rapturous  eloquence 
as  the  messengers  of  God.  Beginning  in  1686,  then 
crushed  for  a  time,  bursting  forth  with  fresh  vio- 
lence in  1700,  it  soon  became  a  matter  of  almost 
European  celebrity.  Refugees  arrived  in  London 
in  1706,  claiming  the  character  of  prophets  (Lacy 
Cry  from  the  Desert ;  N.  Peyrat,  Pastors  wt  the 


In  this  !!ense  it  is  used  in  the  first  of  these  passage" 
for  the  low  cry  of  the  false  soothsayers,  iu  the  second 
for  that  of  birds  whom  the  hand  of  the  spoiler  snatches 
from  their  nests.  In  Is.  xxxviii.  14,  where  the  sam* 
word  is  used  in  the  Hebrew,  the  \.  V.  gives,  "  Like  s 
crane  or  a  swallow   so  did  1  chatter." 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

Willerness).  An  Eui,'lishman,  John  Lacj',  became 
first  a  Convert  and  tlieii  a  leader.  The  convnlsive 
Ecstatic  utterances  of  the  sect  drew  down  the  ridicule 
sf  Shaftesbury  (On  Jiiithusi((sm).  Cahimy  thought 
it  necessary  to  enter  the  lists  aj^'ainst  their  preten- 
sions (  C'rtre«<  ayiiiiigt  the  New  Propln:ts).  Tliey 
gained  a  distinguished  proselyte  in  Sir  K.  Bulkley, 
a  pupil  of  JJishop  Fell's,  with  no  inconsiderable 
learning,  who  occupied  in  their  proceedings  a  position 
which  reminds  us  of  that  of  Henry  Drunimond 
among  the  followers  of  Irving  ( Bulkley 's  Defense 
of  ike  Propliels).  Here  also  there  was  a  strong 
contagious  excitement.  Nicholson,  the  Baxter  of 
the  sect,  published  a  confession  that  he  had  found 
himself  unable  to  resist  it  {Falsehood  of  the  New 
Prophets),  though  he  afterwards  came  to  look  upon 
his  companions  as  "enthusiastick  impostors."  What 
is  specially  noticeable  is,  that  the  gift  of  tongues 
was  claimed  by  them.  Sir  K.  Bulkley  declares 
that  he  had  heard  Lacy  repeat  long  sentences  in 
Latin,  and  another  speak  Hebrew,  though,  when  not 
in  the  Spirit,  they  were  quite  incapable  of  it  {Nar- 
rative, p.  92).  The  characteristic  thought  of  all 
the  revelations  was,  that  they  were  the  true  chil- 
dren of  (jod.  Almost  every  oracle  began  with 
"My  child!  "  as  its  characteristic  word  (I'eyrat,  i. 
235-313).  It  is  remarkable  that  a  strange  ilevi- 
valist  movement  was  spreading,  nearly  at  the  same 
time,  through  Silesia,  the  chief  feature  of  which  was 
that  boyii  and  girls  of  tender  age  were  almost  the 
only  subjects  of  it,  and  that  they  too  spoke  and 
prayed  with  a  wonderful  power  (Lacy,  lidation, 
etc.,  p.  31;   Bulkley,  Narralire,  p.  46). 

(8.)  The  so-called  Unknown  Tongues,  which 
manifested  themselves  first  hi  the  west  of  Scotland, 
and  afterwards  in  the  Caledonian  Ciiurch  in  Regent 
Square,  present  s.  more  striking  phenomenon,  and 
the  data  fur  judging  of  its  nature  are  more  copious. 
Here,  miTe  than  in  most  other  cases,  there  were 
the  conditions  of  long,  eager  expectation,  fixed 
brooding  o\eroiie  centi'al  thought,  the  mind  strained 
to  a  preternatural  tension.  Suddenly,  now  from 
one,  now  from  another,  chiefly  from  women,  devout 
but  illiterate,  mysterious  sounds  were  heard. 
Voices,  which  at  i*tlier  times  were  harsh  and  un- 
pleasing,  became,  when  "singing  in  the  Spirit," 
perfectly  harmonious "  (Cardale,  NtirnUive,  in 
Morulii(j  Watch,  ii.  871,  872).  Those  who  spoke, 
meia  of  known  devotion  and  acuteness,  bore  witness 
to  their  inability  to  control  themselves  (Baxter, 
Narnitice,  pp.  5,.  9,  12),  to  their  being  led,  they 
knew  not  how,  to  speak  in  a  "  triumphant  chant  " 
(ibid.  pp.  46,  81).  The  man  over  whom  they 
exercised  so  strange  a  power,  has  left  on  record  his 
testimony,  that  to  hiui  they  seemed  to  emliody  a 
more  than  earthly  music,  leading  to  the  belief  that 
the  "  t<jngues  "  of  the  Apostolic  age  had  been  as  the 
archetypal  melody  of  which  all  the  Church's  chants 
and'hynnis  were  but  faint,  poor  echoes  (Oliphant's 
Life  of  JrviiKj,  ii.  208).  To  those  who  were 
without,  on  the  other  hand,  they  seemed  but  an 
unintelligible  gibberish,  the  yells  and  groans  of 
madmen  (Newspapers  of  1831,  passim).  Some- 
times it  was  asserted  that  fragments  of  known 
languages,  Spanish,  Italian,  Greek,  Hebrew,  were 
iiingled  together  in  the  utterances  of  those  who 
ipoke  in  the  power  (Baxter,  Narrative,  pp.  133,  134) 
Sometimes  it   was  but  a  jargon  of   mere  sounds 


«  Comp   the  injepeudent   testimony  of  Archdwicon 
^topfoi'd.     lie  UaJ  listened  to  'liu  "  unkuown  tongue," 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF        3311 

{ibid.).  The  speaker  was  commonly  unable  to  in- 
terpret what  he  uttered.  Sometimes  the  office  was 
undertaken  by  another.  A  clear  and  interesting 
summary  of  the  history  of  the  whole  movement  is 
given  in  ]Mrs.  Oliphant's  Life  of  Irving,  vol.  ii 
Those  who  wish  to  trace  it  through  all  its  stages 
must  be  reterred  to  the  seven  volumes  of  the 
Morniny  Watch,  and  especially  to  Irving's  series 
of  papers  on  the  Gifts  of  the  Spirit,  in  vols,  iii  , 
iv.,  and  v.  Whatever  other  explanation  may  be 
given  of  the  facts,  there  exists  no  ground  for  im- 
puting a  deliberate  imposture  to  any  of  the  person? 
who  were  most  conspicuous  in  the  movement. 

(9.)  In  certahi  exceptional  states  of  mind  and 
body  the  powers  of  memory  are  known  to  receive  a 
wonderful  and  abnormal  strength.  In  the  delirium 
of  fever,  in  the  ecstasy  of  a  trance,  men  speak  in 
their  old  age  languages  which  they  have  never  heard 
or  spoken  since  their  earliest  youth.  The  accent  of 
their  common  speech  is  altered.  Women,  ignorant 
and  untaught,  repeat  long  sentences  in  Greek,  Latin, 
Hebrew,  which  they  had  once  heard,  without  in 
any  degree,  understanding  or  intending  to  remember 
them.  In  all  such  cases  the  marvelous  power  is 
tlie  accompaniment  of  disease,  and  passes  away 
when  the  patient  returns  to  his  usual  state,  to  the 
healthy  equilibrium  and  interdependence  of  the  life  of 
sensation  and  of  thought  (Abercrombie,  Intelleclaal 
Powers,  pp.  140-143;  Winslow,  Obscure  Diseases 
of  the  Brain,  pp.  337,  3fj0,  374;  Watson, 
Principles  an<l  Practice  (f  Physic,  i.  128).  The 
mediajval  belief  that  this  power  of  speaking  in 
tongues  belonged  to  those  who  were  possessed  by 
evil  spirits  rests,  obviously,  upon  like  psychological 
phenomena  (I'eter  Martyr,  Loci  Communes,  i.  c.  10; 
Bayle,  Dictionn.  s.  v.  "Grandier"). 

IX.  These  phenomena  have  been  brought  to- 
gether in  order  that  we  may  see  how  far  they  re- 
semble, how  far  they  dift'er  from,  those  which  we 
have  seen  reason  to  believe  constituted  the  outward 
signs  of  the  Gift  of  Tongues.  It  need  not  startle  or 
"  ottend  "  us  if  we  find  the  likeness  between  the  true 
and  the  counterfeit  greater,  at  fii'st  sight,  than  we 
expected.  So  it  was  at  the  churches  of  Corinth  and 
of  Asia.  There  also  the  two  existed  in  the  closest 
approximation  ;  and  it  was  to  no  outward  sign,  to  ne 
speaking  with  languages,  or  prediction  of  the  future, 
tliat  St.  Paul  and  St.  .John  pointed  as  the  crucial 
test  by  which  men  were  to  distinguish  between 
them,  but  to  the  confession  on  the  one  side,  the 
denial  on  the  other,  that  Jesus  was  the  Lord 
(1  Cor.  xii.  3;  1  .lohn  iv.  2,  3).  What  may  be 
legitimately  inferred  from  such  foots  is  the  existence, 
in  the  mysterious  constitution  of  man's  nature,  of 
powers  which  aj-e,  for  the  most  part,  latent,  but 
which,  under  given  conditions,  may  be  roused  into 
activity.  Memory,  imagination,  speech,  may  all  be 
intensified,  transtigured,  as  it  were,  with  a  new 
glory,  acting  independently  of  any  conscious  or 
deliberate  volition.  The  exciting  causes  may  be 
disease,  or  the  fixed  concentration  of  the  senses  or 
of  thought  on  one  object,  or  i\\i  power  of  sym[)athy 
with  those  who  ha\e  already  passed  into  the 
abnormal  state.  The  life  thus  produced  is  at  the 
furthest  pole  fronj  the  common  litis  of  sensation 
halirt,  forethought  It  sees  what  others  do  not  see, 
hears  what  they  do  not  hear.  If  there  be  a  spiritual 
power  acting  upon  man,  we  might  expect  this  phase 

fore,  uneartlily  and  unaccountable.''     IIo  recoguiaej 
procisely  tlie  same  sounds  in  tlie  IrisU  iiuvivuU  of  ISaS 


vaX  bail  fr  und   *  "a  souud   such  as  1  never  Uuiird  bu-    {Work  unJ  Cuiiiiitr.ivurlt,  p.  11). 


3312        TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 

jf  the  life  of  the  human  soul  to  manifest  its  o[)era- 
tions  most  clearly.  Precisely  because  we  l.elieve 
in  the  reality  of  the  Divine  worii  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  we  may  conceive  of  it  as  using  this  state 
as  its  instrument,  not  as  introducing  phenomena, 
in  all  respects  without  parallel,  but  as  carry i no-  to 
its  highest  point,  what,  if  good,  had  been  a  fore- 
Biiailowing  of  it,  presenting  the  reality  of  what,  if 
fvil,  had  been  the  mimicry  and  counterfeit  of  good. 
And  whatever  resemblances  there  may  be,  the  points 
of  difference  are  yet  greater.  The  phenomena 
wliich  have  been  described  are,  with  hardly  an  ex- 
ception, morbid;  the  precursors  or  the  consequences 
of  clearly  recognizable  disease.  The  Gift  of  Tongues 
was  bestowed  on  men  in  full  vigor  and  activity, 
preceded  by  no  frenzy,  followed  by  no  exhaustion. 
The  Apostles  went  on  with  their  daily  work  of 
teaching  and  organizing  the  Church.  Tlie  form 
which  the  new  power  assumed  was  determined 
partly,  it  may  be,  by  deep-lying  conditions  of  man's 
mental  and  spiritual  being,  within  whicli,  as  self- 
imposed  limits,  the  Spirit  poured  fi-om  on  high  was 
pleased  to  work,  partly  by  the  character  of  the 
people  for  whom  this  special  manifestation  was 
given  as  a  sign.  New  powers  of  knowledge, 
memory,  utterance,  for  which  education  and  lialiit 
could  not  at  all  account,  served  to  waken  men  to 
the  sense  of  a  power  which  they  could  not  measure, 
a  Kingdom  of  God  into  which  they  were  culled  to 
enter.  Lastly,  let  us  rememljer  the  old  rule  hohls 
good,  '•  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  Other 
phenomena,  presenting  approximate  resemblances, 
have  ended  in  a  sick  man's  dreams,  in  a  fevered 
frenzy,  in  the  narrowness  of  a  sect.  They  grew 
out  of  a  passionate  broofling  over  a  single  thouglit, 
often  over  a  single  word;  "  and  the  end  has  shown 
that  it  was  not  well  to  .seek  to  turn  back  God's 
order  and  to  revive  the  long-buried  past.  Tiie 
gift  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  the  starting-point 
of  the  long  history  of  the  Church  of  Clirist,  the 
witness,  in  its  very  form,  of  a  universal  fiimily 
gathered  out  of  all  nations. 

But  it  was  the  starting-point  only.  The  new- 
ness of  the  truth  then  presented  to  tlie  world,  tlie 
power  of  the  first  experience  of  a  higher  life,  the 
longing  expectation  in  men's  minds  of  the  Divine 
kingdom,  may  have  made  this  special  nianifestati(jn, 
at  the  time,  at  once  inevitable  and  fitting.  It 
belonged,  however,  to  a  critical  epocii,  not  to  the 
continuous  life  of  the  Church.  It  implied  a  dis- 
turbance of  the  equilibrium  of  man's  normal  state. 
The  high-wrought  ecstasy  could  not  continue,  might 
be  glorious  and  blessed  for  him  who  had  it,  a  siyn, 
as  has  "been  said,  for  those  who  had  it  not;  but  it 
was  not  the  instrument  for  building  up  the  church. 
That  was  the  work  of  another  gift,  the  prophecy 
which  came  from  God,  yet  was  addressed  from  tlie 
mind  .md  heart  of  one  man  to  the  minds  and  liearts 
of  his  brethren.  When  the  overflowing  fullness  of 
life  had  passed  away,  when  "  tongues  "  had  "  ceased," 
and  prophecy  itself,  in  its  irresistible  power,  had 
"  failed,"  they  left  behind  them  the  lesson  they 
were  meant  to  teach.  They  had  liorne  their  wit- 
ness, and  had  done  their  work.  I'hey  had  taught 
men  to  beheve  in  one  Divine  Spirit,  the  giver  of  all 
good  gifts,  "  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  He 
will:  "  to  recognize  his  inspiration,  not  only  in  tlie 
uiar\el  of  the  "  tongues,"  or  in  the  burning  words 
of  prophets,  but  in  all  good  thoughts,  in  the  right 


TOPAZ 

judgment  In  ail  tilings,  in    the  t'xcellent   a;ift   of 
Charity.  E.  H.  P. 

TOPARCHY  (ToTTapxia)-  A  term  applied  in 
one  passage  of- the  Septuauint  (1  JIacc.  xi.  28)  to 
indicate  three  districts  to  which  elsewhere  (x.  30, 
xi.  3-4)  the  name  von6s  is  given.  In  all  these 
passages  the  English  Version  employs  the  term 
"governments.''  The  three  "toparchies"  in  ques- 
tion were  Apherema  {'A(paip(/j.a),  Lydda,  and 
Kamath.  They  had  been  detached  from  Samaria, 
Peraja,  and  (ialilee  respectively,  some  time  before 
the  war  between  Demetriua  Soter  and  Alexander 
Bala.  Each  of  the  two  belligerents  endeavored  to 
win  over  Jonathan,  the  .Jewish  High-Priest,  to  their 
side,  by  allowing  him,  among  other  privileges,  the 
sovereign  power  over  these  districts  without  any 
payment  of  land-tax.  The  situation  of  Lydda" ia 
doubtful;  for  the  toparchy  Lydda,  of  which  Pliny 
speaks  (v.  14),  is  situated  not  in  Pertea,  but  on  the 
western  side  of  the  .lordan.  Apherema  is  con-- 
sidered  by  Grotius  to  denote  the  region  about 
Betiiel,  captured  by  Abijah  from  Jeroboam  (2  Chr. 
xiii.  19).  Kamath  is  probably  the  famous  strong- 
hold, the  desire  of  obtaining  which  led  to  the  un- 
fditunate  expedition  of  the  allied  sovereigns,  Ahab 
and  .lehoshaphat  (1  K.  xxii.). 

The  "  toparchies "  seem  to  have  been  of  the 
nature  of  cujalils,  and  the  passages  in  which  the 
word  TOTTcipx'?^  occurs,  all  harmonize  with  the 
view  of  tliat  functionary  as  the  "(/",  whose  duty 
would  be  fo  collect  the  taxes  and  administer  justice 
in  all  cases  affecting  the  revenue,  and  who,  for  the 
purpose  of  enforcing  payment,  would  ha\'e  the  com- 
mand of  a  small  military  force.  He  would  thus  be 
tlie  lowest  in  the  hierarchy  of  a  despotic  administra- 
tion to  whom  troops  would  be  entrusted;  and  hence 
the  taunt  in  2  K.  xviii.  24,  and  Is.  xxxvi.  9:  ttcSs 
dtTrofrrpe'^'eis  rh  TrpSffoonov  Toirdpxou  ev6s,  riv 
SovAwu  Tov  Kvpiov /xov  Twv  iKaxi-<^T(i}v'  "How 
wilt  tiiou  resist  a  single  toparch,  one  of  the  very 
least  of  my  lord's  slaves ':'  "  But  the  essential  charac- 
ter of  the  toparcli  is  that  of  a  fisc;il  officer,  and  his 
military  character  is  altogether  subordinate  to  his 
civil  Hence  the  word  is  employed  in  Gen.  xli.  34, 
for  the  "  officers  over  the  land,"  who  were  instructed 
to  buy  up  the  filth  part  of  the  produce  of  the  soil 
during  the  seven  years  of  abundance.  In  Dan.  iii. 
3,  Theodotion  uses  the  word  in  a  much  more  exten- 
sive sense,  making  it  equivalent  to  "  satraps,"  and 
the  Eiig.  Version  renders  the  original  by  "princes;" 
but  the  orighial  word  here  is  not  the  same  as  in  Dan. 
iii.  2,  27:  and  vi.  7,  in  every  one  of  which  cases  i> 
subordinate  functionary  is  contemplated. 

J.  W.  B. 

TOPAZ  (nips,  pitdnh:  TOira^ioV-  topnz'ms). 
The  top.az  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Homans  ia 
generally  allowed  to  be  our  chrysolite,  while  their 
chrysolite  is  our  topaz.  [Ciikysolitk.]  Beller 
mann,  however,  {Die  Uviiii  iind  Tlniiniiiim,p.  39>, 
contends  that  the  topaz  and  the  chrysolite  of  the 
ancients  are  identical  with  the  stones  denoted  by 
these  terms  at  the  present  day.  The  account  which 
Pliny  (//.  N.  xxxvii.  8)  gives  of  the  iopazos  evi 
dently  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  that  stone  is  our 
chrysolite;  "  the  topazos,"  he  says,  "  is  still  held  in 
high  estimation  for  its  green  tints."  Accordir.g  c 
the  authority  of  Juba,  cited  by  Pliny,  the  topaz  ia 
derived   from    an    island    in    the   Ked    Sea  called 


a  It  can  liardly  be  doubted   that  the   iuterpolated    gtartiug-point  of  the  peculiarly  unintelligible  caaracttt 
Tord  "  uuknowp,"  in  the  A.  V.  of  1  Cor  xiv  ,  was  the  '  of  most  of  tlie  Irviiigite  utterances. 


TOPHEL 

♦Topazos;  "  it  is  said  that  rtiis  island,  w'.iere  these 
preciuus  stones  were  procure!,  was  surroiiiided  by 
toi^s,  and  was,  in  consequence,  often  sought  for  by 
navii^ators,  and  that  hence  it  received  its  name,  tlie 
term  'topazin"  signifying,  in  tiie  Troglodyte 
tongue,  "to  seek"  (?).  The  pildah,  which,  as 
has  already  been  stated,  probably  denotes  the  mod- 
ern chrysolite,  was  the  second  stone  in  the  first 
row  of  the  high-priest's  breast-plate  (Ex.  xxviii.  17, 
xxxix.  10);  it  was  one  of  the  jewels  that  adorned 
the  apparel  of  the  king  of  Tyre  (Ez.  xxviii.  13);  it 
was  the  bright  stone  that  garnished  the  ninth 
foundation  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  (Rev.  xxi. 
20 ) ;  in  Job  xxviii.  ISJ,  where  wisdom  is  contrasted 
«ith  precious  articles,  it  is  said  that  "the  pli- 
i/dh  of  Ethiopia  shall  not  equal  it."  Chrysolite, 
which  is  also  known  by  the  name  of  olivine  and 
peridot,  is  a  silicate  of  magnesia  and  iron ;  it  is  so 
soft  as  to  lose  its  polish  unless  worn  with  care 
{Miiicriiloijy  (Did  Crystdllograp/iy,  by  Mitchell  and 
Tenuant,  p.  512).     The  identity  of  the  TOTrd(^i.ov 

with  the  nips  of  the  Heb.  Bible  is  sufficiently 
established  by  the  combined  authorities  of  the 
LXX.,  the  Vulg.,  and  Josephus,  while  that  of  the 
Torrduov  with  our  chrysolite  is,  it  appears  to  us, 
proved  beyond  a  doubt  by  those  writers  who  have 
paid  most  attention  to  this  question.  See  Braun, 
De  Vest.  Sac.  Htb.  p.  641,  ed.  1080.  W.  II. 

TOTHEL  (bphi  \liine]:  To<p6\.  Thophd). 
A  place  mentioned  Ueut.  i.  1,  which  has  been  prolj- 
abiy  identified  with  Tufikh  on  a  wady  of  the  same 
name  running  north  of  Bozra  towards  the  N.  W. 
into  the  (ihorand  S.  E  corner  of  the  Dead  Sea 
(Robinson,  ii.  570).  This  latter  is  a  most  fertile 
region,  having  many  springs  and  rivulets  flowing 
into  the  tihor,  and  large  plantations  of  fruit-trees, 
whence  tigs  are  exported.  The  bird  kalta,  a  kind 
tif  partridge,  is  found  there  in  great  numbers,  and 
the  steinbock  pastures  in  herds  of  forty  or  fifty 
together  (Burckhardt,  Holy  Land,  405,  400). 

H.  H. 

TO'PHETH,  and  once  TO'PHET  (H^ri 
[perh.  abominntion.  a  place  abhorred,  Dietr.J). 
Generally  with  the  article  (2  K.  xxiii.  10;  Jer.  vii. 
31,  32,  xix.  6,  13,  14).  Three  times  without  it 
(Jer.  vii.  32,  xix.  11,  12).     Once  not  only  without 

it,  but  with  an  affix,  n^lSn,  ropldth  (Is.  xxx. 
33).  In  Greek,  [Rom.  'aiid  Vat.  2  K.  and  Jer. 
vii.]  Ta<ped,  [Comp.  in  Jer.  xix.  11]  TciKpeO,  and 
[Alex,  in  2  K.]  &o<pda.  (Steph.  Lex.  lot:.  Pere- 
(jrin.;  Biel,  Thes.)\  [for  the  LXX.  in  Is.  xxx.  33 
and  Jer.  xix.  see  below.]  In  the  Vulgat*,  [  Tvphet,] 
■  Toptteth.  In  Jerome,  Topliel.  It  is  not  mentioned 
by  Josephus. 

It  lay  somewhere  east  or  southeast  of  Jerusalem, 
for  Jeremiah  went  out  by  the  Sun  Gate,  or  East 
Gate,  to  go  to  it  (Jer.  xix.  2).  It  was  in  "the 
Valley  of  the  Son  of  Hinnom  "  (vii.  31),  which  is 
"  by  the  entry  of  the  east  gate  "  (xix.  2).  Thus  it 
was  not  identical  with  Hinnom,  as  some  have  writ- 
ten, except  in  the  sense  in  which  Paradise  is  iden- 
tical \vith  Eden,  the  one  being  part  of  the  other.  It 
was  in  Hinnom,  and  was  perhaps  one  of  its  chief 
groves  or  gardens.  It  seems  also  to  have  been  (lait 
»f  the  king's  gardens,  and  watered  by  Siloam,  ]: 
nai)8  a  little  to  the  south  of  the  present  Birktt  vl- 


TOPHETH 


3313 


Hamra.  The  name  Tophet  occurs  only  in  the  Old 
Testament  (2  K.  xxiii.  10;  Is.  xxx.  33;  Jer.  vii. 
31,  32,  xix.  6,  11,  12,  13,  14).  The  New  does  not 
refer  to  it,  nor  the  Apocrypha.     Jerome  is  the  first 

10  notices  it;  but  we  can  see  that  by  his  time  the 
name  had  disap[)eared,  for  he  discusses  it  very  much 
as  a  modern  coiumentator  would  do,  only  mention- 
ing a  green  and  fruitful  spot  in  Hinnom,  watered 
by  Siloam,  where  he  assumes  it  was :  "  Delubruiu 
Baal,  iiemus  ac  lucus,  Siloe  fontibus  irrigatus  "  ( In 
ie/'.  vii.).  If  this  be  the  case,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  valley  or  gorge  south  of  Jeru.salem,  which 
usually  goes  by  the  name  of  Hinnom,  is  not  the  (Je 
Ben-iUnnom  of  the  Bible  Indeed,  until  compara- 
tively modern  times,  that  southern  ravine  was  never 
so  named.  Hinnom  by  old  writers,  western  and 
eastern,  is  always  placed  east  of  the  city,  and  cor- 
responds to  what  we  call  the  "  Mouth  of  the  Ty- 
ropa'on,"  along  the  southern  bed  and  banks  of  the 
Kedron  (Jerome,  De  Locis  llebr.  and  C'omm.  in 
Mali.,  x.  28;  Ibn  Batutah,  Travtls  ;  Jalal  Addin's 
History  of  the  Temple  ;  Felix  Eabri),  and  was 
reckoned  to  be  somewhere  between  the  Fotter'ii 
Field  and  the  Fuller's  I'ool. 

Tophet  has  been  variously  translated.  Jerome 
says  laliluilo  ;  others  (jardeii;  others  f/r«m  ;  others 
place  of  burnin;/ or  buryiny ;  others  aboininalion 
(.lerome,  Noldius,  Gesenius,  Bocliart,  Simonis, 
Onoiii.).  The  most  natural  seems  that  suggested 
by  the  occurrence  of  the  word  in  two  consecutive 
verses,  in  the  one  of  which  it  is  a  tabret,  and  in  the 
other  7Vy;/R-i  (Is.  xxx.  32,  33).  The  Hebrew  vi-ords 
ire  nearly  identical;  and  Tophet  was  probably  the 
king's  "music  grove"  or  garden,  denoting  origi- 
nally nothing  evil  or  hateful.  Certainly  there  is 
no  proof  that  it  took  its  name  from  the  drums 
beaten  to  drown  the  cries  of  the  burning  victims 
that  passed  through  the  fire  to  Moloch.  As  Chin- 
iieroth  is  the  harp-sea,  so  Tophet  is  the  tabrel-yrave 
or  valley.  This  might  be  at  first  part  of  the  royal 
garden,  a  spot  of  special  beauty,  with  a  royal  villa 
in  the  midst,  like  the  I'asha's  palace  at  Shulira, 
near  Cairo.  Afterwards  it  was  defiled  by  idols, 
and  polluted  by  the  sacrifices  of  Baal  and  the  fires 
of  Moloch.  Then  it  became  the  place  of  abomina- 
tion, the  very  gate  or  pit  of  hell.  The  pious  kings 
defiled  it,  and  threw  down  its  altars  and  high 
places,  pouring  into  it  all  the  filth  of  the  city,  till 
it  became  the  "abhorrence"  of  Jerusalem;  for  tc 
it  primarily,  though  not  exhaustively,  the  prophfi^ 
refers :  — 

They  shall  go  forth  and  g.aze 
On  the  carcases  of  the  transgressors  against  niB: 
Knr  their  worm  shall  not  die, 
And  their  fire  shall  not  be  quenched, 
And  they  shall  be  au  abhorrence  to  all  flesh. 
(Is.  lxri.24.) 

In  Kings  and  Jeremiah  the  name  is  "  the  To- 
phet," but  in  Isaiah  (xxx.  33)  it  is  Tophteh ;  yet 
the  places  are  probably  the  same  so  tar,  only  in 
Isaiah's  time  the  grove  might  be  changing  its  name 
somewhat,  and  with  that  change  taking  on  the 
symbolic  meaning  which  it  manifestly  possesses  in 
tlie  prophet's  prediction :  — 

S«t  it)  order  in  days  pa.it  has  been  Tophteh  ; 
Surely  for  the  king  it  has  bei^n  made  ready. 
He  hath  deepened,  he  hath  widened  it  ;  <' 
The  pile  thereof,  fire  and  wood,  he  hath  multiplied. 


«   Of  the  literal  Tophet  it  is  said,  " 'I'hey  sliall  bury 
vn  Tophet,  (///  there  be  no  place  "  (Jer.  vi-.  32).     Of  the 


symbolical  Tophet  it  is  said  above,  "  He  hath  deepaua 

and  viUeiiecl  it." 


3314 


TOPHETH 


Tte  breath  of  Jehovah,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone, 
Doth  set  it  ou  fire. 

It  i(i  to  be  uotieed  that  the  LXX.  translate  the 
above  passage  in  a  peculiar  way:  npi)  r]fj.epa>y 
airaiTy}6r]<j-n,  "thou  shalt  be  required  from  of 
old,"  or  perhaps  "before  thy  time;  "  but  Jerome 
translates  the  LXX.  as  if  their  word  had  been 
c'laTrarao)  (or  aderew,  as  Frocopius  reads  it),  and 
not  awaiT^w,  "  tu  ante  dies  dccipieris,"  adding 
this  comment:  "  Dicitur  ad  ilhuii  quod  ab  initio 
Beipse  dece[)erit,  regnuni  suum  arltitrans  senipiter- 
uuni,  cum  preparata  sint  Gehenna  et  aterna  sup- 
plicia."     In  that  case  the  Alexandrian  translators 

perhaps  took  HriDiJl  for  the  second  person  sin- 
gular masculine  of  the  future  Piel  of  nnQ,  to 
persuade  or  deceive.  It  may  be  noticed  that 
Michaelis  renders  it  thus:  "  Tophet  ejus,  q.  d. 
rogus  ejus.''  In  Jer.  xix.  G,  13,  the  LXX.  trans- 
late Tophet  by  SidnTcvais-  SiaTriTTTajj/,  which  is  not 
easily  exjilained,  except  on  the  supposition  of  a 
marginal  gloss  having  crept  into  the  text  instead 
of  the  projjcr  name  (see  .Jerome;  and  also  .Spuhn 
on  the  Greek  version  of  Jer.  -frcj'.  p.  18,  and  JVutts 
ou  chaps,  xix.,  xiii.). 

In  Jer.  (vii.  32,  xix.  6)  there  is  an  intimation 
that  both  'lophet  and  Gehinnom  were  to  lose  their 
names,  and  to  be  called  "the  \alley  of  slaughter  " 

("^^rnLT  S'^2,  Ge-hfi-Ihhrrjd/t").  Without  ven- 
turing on  the  conjecture  that  the  modern  Dtruj 
can  be  a  relic  of  lldreijdit,  we  may  yet  say  that 
this  lower  part  of  the  Kedron  is  "  the  valley  of 
slaughter/'  whether  it  ever  actually  bore  this  naijie 
or  not.  It  was  not  here,  as  some  have  thought, 
that  the  Assyrian  was  slain  liy  the  sword  of  the 
destroying  angel,  'i'hat  slaughter  seems  to  have 
taken  place  to  the  west  of  the  city,  probably  on  the 
spot  afterwards  called  irom  the  event,  "  the  valley 
of  the  dead  bodies  "  (Jer.  xxxi.  40).  The  slaughter 
from  which  Tophet  was  to  get  its  new  name  was 
not  till  afterwards.  In  all  succeeding  ages,  blood 
has  flowed  there  in  streams;  corpses,  biu'ied  and 
unburied,  have  filled  up  the  hollows;  and  it  nia\ 
be  that  underneath  the  modern  gardens  and  ter- 
races there  lie  not  only  the  debris  of  the  city,  but 
the  bones  and  dust  of  millions,  —  llomans,  Persians, 
Jews,  Greeks,  Crusaders,  IMoslems.  What  future 
days  and  events  may  bring  is  not  for  us  to  say. 
Perhaps  the  prophet's  words  are  not  yet  exhausted. 
IStrange  contrast  between  Tophefs  first  and  last ! 
Once  the  choice  grove  of  Jerusalem's  choicest  val- 
ley; then  the  place  of  defilement  and  death  and 
fire;  then  the  "valley  of  slaughter"!  Once  the 
royal  music-grove,  where  Solomon's  singers,  with 
voice  and  instrument,  regaled  the  king,  the  court, 
and  the  city;  then  the  temple  of  ISaal,  the  high 
place  of  Jloloch,  resounding  with  the  cries  of  burn- 
ing infants;  then  (in  symbol)  the  place  where  is 
the  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  Once  prepared 
for  Israel's  king,  as  one  of  his  choicest  villas;  then 
dei'ra.led  and  defiled,  till  it  becomes  the  place  pre- 
pared f(ir  "the  King"  at  the  sound  of  whose  fall 
the  nations  are  to  shake  (Kz.  xxxi.  Itl);  and  as 
Paradise  and  Eden  passed  into  Babylon,  so  Tophet 
mfl  15en  llinnom  pass  into  Gehenna  and  the  lake 
ot  fire.  These  scenes  seem  to  have  taken  hold  of 
Milton's  mind;  for  three  times  over,  within  fifty 
fines,  he  refers  to  "  the  oppiobrious  hill,"  the  "  hill 


TOU 

of  scandal,"  the  '  jffensive  rrountain,"  and  sj)eaki 
of  Solomon  making  his  grove  in 

"  The  pleasant  valley  of  llinnom,  Tophet  thence 
And  black  Gehenna  called,  the  type  of  hell." 

Many  of  the  old  travellers  (see  Felix  Fabri,  vol.  L 
p.  391)  i-efer  to  TopltH,  or  Topk  as  they  call  it,  but 
they  give  no  information  as  to  the  locality.  Every 
vestige  of  Tophet  —  name  and  grove  —  is  gone,  and 
we  can  only  guess  at  the  spot;  yet  the  references 
of  Scripture  and  the  present  features  of  the  locality 
enable  us  to  make  the  guess  with  the  same  tolerable 
nearness  as  we  do  in  the  case  of  Gethsemane  or 
Scopus.  H.  B. 

*  TORCH.  [Lamp;  Lantern;  Steel.] 
TOK'MAH  (nip-in  [fraud,  deceit]:  iy 
Kpvcprj;  Alex,  /xera  Swpcov'-  clam)  occurs  only  in 
the  margin  of  Judg.  ix.  31,  as  the  alternative  ren- 
dering of  the  Hebrew  word  which  in  the  text  is 
given  as  "privily."  By  a  few  commentators  it  has 
been  conjectured  that  the  word  was  originally  the 
same  with  Akujiah  in  ver.  41,  — one  or  the  other 
having  been  corrupted  by  the  copyists.  This  ap- 
pears to  have  been  first  started  by  Kimchi.  It  is 
adopted  by  Junius  and  Tremellius;  but  there  is 
little  to  be  said  either  for  or  against  it,  and  it  will 
probably  always  remain  a  mere  conjecture.        G. 

TORTOISE  (ni*,  tsdb:  6  KpoK6Set\os  6  x^p- 
craios  '■  civcodihis).  The  tsdb  occurs  only  in  Lev.  xi. 
"2iJ.  as  the.  name  of  some  unclean  animal.  Bocliart 
(J/ieruz.  ii.  403)  with  much  reason  refers  the  Heb. 

term  to  the  kindred  Arabic  ditnb  {,_^jto).  a  "large 
kind  of  lizard,"  which,  from  the  description  of  it 
as  given  by  Damir,  appears  to  be  the  Psannno- 
saurus  Scincus,  or  Monitor  ierresiris  of  Cuvier  (R. 


a  Can  the  Erof:e  of  Jospphus  {Ant.  ix.  10,  §  4)  have 
»liv  connection  with  the  Harcgak  of  Jeremiah? 


Psammosaurus   Scincus. 


A.  ii.  2G).  This  lizard  is  the  iBcn-an  el-hnrd  of  the 
.\rabs,  i.  e.  the  land-waran,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  umran  el-bahr,  i.  e.  the  water-lizard  [Monihr 
Niloiicus).  It  is  common  enough  in  the  deserts  of 
Palestine  and  N.  Africa.  It  is  no  doubt  the  KpoK6- 
SeiAos  x^P"""'^"^  °^  Herodotus  (iv.  192).  See  also 
Dioscorides  (ii.  71),  who  mentions  it,  or  perhaps 
the  Scincus  afficinnlis,  under  the  name  of  aKiyKos- 

Gesenius  derives  the  Heb.  word  from  3?^*,  "  to 
move  slowly."  W.  H. 

TO'IJ  i^Vn-.  Qcod:  Alex.  ewov.  Thou).    Toi, 
king  of  Ilamath  (1  Chr   xviii.  9,  10). 


TOW 

*  TOW.     [Linen;  Flax.] 
TOWER."     l-"or  towers  as  parts  of  city-walls, 

or  as  stroiigliokls  of  refuge  for  villages,  see  Fknckd 
Cities,  Jeuusalem,  ii.  1315-1322,  and  Hana- 
NEEL.  ^V'atch-towe^s  or  fortified  posts  in  frontier 
or  exposed  situations  are  mentioned  in  Scripture, 
fts  the  tower  of  Edau,  etc.  (Gen.  xxxv.  21;  Mic. 
iv.  8;  Is.  xxi.  5,  8,  11;  Hal),  ii.  1;  Jer.  vi.  27; 
Cant.  vii.  4);  the  tower  of  Lebanon,  perhaps  one 
of  David's  "garrisons,"  nefsib  (2  Sam.  viii  6; 
Raunier,  Pal.  p.  29).  Such  towers  or  outposts  for 
the  defense  of  wells,  and  the  protection  of  fiocivs 
and  of  commerce,  were  built  by  Uzziah  in  tlie 
pasture-grounds  {Mklbar)  [Desert],  and  by  his 
3on  Jotham  in  the  forests  (C/wres/iiin)  of  .Judah 
(2  Chr.  xxvi.  10,  xxvii.  4).  liemains  of  such  forti- 
fications may  still  be  seen,  which,  though  not 
perliaps  themselves  of  remote  antiquity,  yet  very 
probably  have  succeeded  to  more  ancient  structures 
built  in  the  same  places  for  like  piu-poses  (Robinson, 
ii.  81,  85,  180;  Roberts,  Sl-t'tc/ies.  i)I.  93).  Uesides 
these  military  structures,  we  read  in  Scripture  of 
towers  built  in  vineyards  as  an  almost  necessary 
appendage  to  them  (Is.  v.  2;  Matt.  xxi.  33;  Mark 
xii.  1).  Such  towers  are  still  in  nse  in  Palestine 
in  vuieyards,  especially  near  Heliron,  and  are  used 
as  lodges  for  the  keepers  of  the  vineyards.''  During 
the  vintage  they  are  filled  with  the  persons  em- 
ployed in  the  work  of  gathering  the  grapes  (Robin- 
sou,  i.  213,  ii.  81;  Martineau,  £ast.  Life,  p.  434; 
De  Saulcy,  Trav.  i.  546).  H.  W.  P. 

*  TOWER  OF  BABEL.  [Tongues,  Con- 
fusion OE.J 

TOWN-CLERK  (ypaij.fj.aTeis-  scriba).  The 
title  ascribed  in  our  Version  to  the  magistrate  at 
Ephesus  who  appeased  tlie  mob  in  the  theatre  at 
the  time  of  the  tumult  excited  by  Demetrius  and 
his  fellow-craftsmen  (Acts  xix.  35).  The  other 
primary  Eniilish  versions  translate  in  the  same 
way,  except  tlio.se  from  tiie  Vulgate  (Wycliffe,  the 
Rhemish),  which  render  -'scribe."  A  digest  of 
Boeckh's  views,  in  his  St'iiilshnusltaltunfj,  respecting 
the  functions  of  tins  officer  at  Athens  (tliere  were 
three  grades  of  the  order  there),  will  be  found  in 
Diet,  of  Ant.  p.  459  fF.  The  ypafj./j.aT6vs  or  "  town- 
clerk  "  at  Ephesus  was  no  doubt  a  more  important 
person  in  that  city  than  any  of  the  public  officers 
designated  by  that  term  in  Greece  (see  Greswell's 
Disstrtiitions,  iv.  152).  The  title  is  preserved  on 
various  ancient  coins  (Wetstein,  Nm).  Test.  ii.  58G ; 
Akermann's  Numismatic  llluUi'ntions,  p.  53), 
which  illustrate  fully  the  rank  and  dignity  of  the 
office.  It  would  appear  that  what  may  have  been 
the  original  service  of  this  class  of  men,  namely, 
to  record  the  laws  and  decrees  of  the  state,  and  to 
"ead  them  in  public,  embraced  at  length,  especially 


TRACKOMITIS 


331^ 


under  the  ascendency  of  the  Romans  in  Asia  Afinor, 
a  much  wider  .sphere  of  duty,  so  as  to  niaiie  tliem, 
in  some  instances,  in  effect  the  heads  or  chiefs  of 
the  municipal  government  (Winer,  liealw.  i.  049). 
They  were  authorized  to  preside  over  the  popular 
assemblies  and  submit  votes  to  them,  and  are  men- 
tioned on  marbles  as  acting  in  that  capacity.  In 
cases  where  they  were  associated  with  a  superior 
magistrate,  they  succeeded  to  his  place  and  dis- 
charged his  functions  when  the  latter  was  absent 
or  had  died.  "  On  the  subjugation  of  Asia  by  the 
Romans,"  says  Baumstark  (Pauly's  EncycUtpadie, 
iii.  949),  ^^ypaixixareh  were  appointed  there  in  the 
character  of  governors  of  single  cities  and  districts, 
who  even  placed  their  names  on  the  coins  of  their 
cities,  caused  the  year  to  be  named  from  them.  And 
sometimes  were  allowed  to  assume  the  dignity,  or 
at  least  the  name,  of  'Apx'^P^"^-"  ^'*'^  writer 
refers  as  his  authorities  to  Schwartz,  Disstrtatio  de 
ypaixfjLaTivtn,  Mnijistriitu  Cicilatum  Asim  Procon- 
sularis  (Altorf,  1735);  Van  Dale,  DissertrU.v.  425; 
Spanheim,  De  Usu  et  Prcest.  Ntimm.  i.  704.  A 
gt)od  note  on  this  topic  will  be  found  in  the  Ntio 
En,/l,inder  (U.  S.  A.),  x.  144. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  Luke's  account,  as 
illustrated  by  ancient  records,  that  the  Ephesiau 
town-clerk  acted  a  part  entirely  appropriate  to  the 
character  in  which  he  appears.  The  speech  deliv- 
ered by  him.  it  may  be  remarked,  is  the  model  of 
a  popular  liaraugue.  He  argues  that  such  excite- 
ment as  the  I'.phesians  evinced  was  undignified, 
inasmuch  as  they  stood  above  all  suspicion  in  re- 
ligious matters  (Acts  xix.  35,  36)  ;  that  it  was 
unjustifiable,  since  they  could  estalilish  nothing 
against  the  men  whom  they  accused  (\er.  37 ) ;  that 
it  was  inmecessary,  since  other  means  of  redress 
were  open  to  them  (vv.  38,  39);  and,  finally,  if 
neither  pride  nor  a  sense  of  justice  availed  any- 
thing, fear  of  the  Roman  power  should  restrain 
them  from  such  illegal  proceedings  (rer.  40). 

H.  B.  H. 

TRACHONI'TIS  {Tpaxoiv'iTis  ■  Truchoni- 
lis).  This  place  is  mentioned  only  once  in  the 
Bilde.  In  Luke  iii.  1  we  read  that  Philip  '•  was 
tetrarch  of  Itursea,  koI  Tpaxoiv'^TiSos  x'^P"-^'^" 
and  it  apjiears  tliat  this  '•  Trachonite  region,"  in 
addition  to  the  little  province  of  Trachonitis,  in- 
cluded parts  of  Auranitis,  Gaulanitis,  and  Bataniea 
(.Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  1,  and  11,  §  4). 

Trachonitis  is,  in  all  probability,  the  Greek  equiv- 
alent for  the  Aramaic  Anjob.  The  Targitmists  ren- 
der the  word  :22"1S,  in  Deut.  iii.  14,  by  S^ID'^D. 
According  to  Gesenius,  DIl'^S  signifies  "  a  heap 

of  stones,"  from  the  root  32"1,  "  to  pile  up  stciiea." 
So  Tpaxiivlris  or  Tpax<^v  is  a  "  rugged  or  stony 

"  •*■•   "I0?>   7^'~'2,   f^"d   ]-in2  :   cTraAfis:  from        4.    Vpl?  :   01K05 :    domiis ;    only    iu    2    K.    t.   24 
^r72,    "search,"  "explore,"  a  searcher  or  watcher ;    '-         '  '■' 

\nd  hence  the  notion  of  a  wat-cli-to«er.     In  Is.  xx.xii,        5     H   S,   usually  "corner,"  twice  only  "  towur," 
14,  the  tower  of  Ophel  is  probably  meant  (Neh.  iii.  26  ;  1  Zeph.  i.  16,  iii.  6 :  yuvia  :  angulus. 

,      ■  ,  .  ,  .  16.   n3!itt  :     o-KOTTid :    specula ;     "  >TatcU-to«er.' 

2.    7'^2!2,  and    V'^^l^  or  71"^ril2  :  Trvpyos :   ""■- 1  IMlZP.vH.j   " 


'is;  from    VlS,    "become   great"    (Ges.   265),    used 
Wmetimes  as  a  proper  name.     [SIigdol.] 

3.    "n2T2  :   rreVpa  .   viiinitio  ;  ouly  one*  "  tower," 
Bab.  ii.  1. 


7.   !Il3t27S2  :    oxvp^na :    robur ;    only    in     poetry 

[MlSOAB.] 

b  ■♦  Such  towers  are  numerous  also  at  Bethlehem 
and  form  a  striking  feature  of  tlie  land.scape  (.Unckett  < 
lili/slrnlions  of  Scripture,  p.  171  f ).  U 


3316 


TRACHONITIS 


tract.' '  William  of  Tyre  gives  a  curious  etymology 
»f  the  word  Tracliouitis:  "  Videtur  autem  nobis  a 
traconibus  dicta.  Tracones  eiiim  dicuntur  occulti 
et  subterranei  meatus,  quibus  ista  regie  abundat  " 
(Gest.  Dei  per  Frnncus,  p.  895).  lie  this  as  it 
may,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  whole  region 
abounds  in  caverns,  some  of  which  are  of  vast  ex- 
tent. Strabo  refers  to  the  caves  in  the  mountains 
beyond  Trachon  {Geoy.  xvi.),  and  he  affirms  that 
one  of  them  is  so  large  that  it  would  contain  4000 
men.  The  writer  has  visited  some  spacious  caves 
in  Jcbel  Hnurun,  and  in  the  interior  of  the  Lejdh. 

The  situation  and  boundaries  of  Trachonitis  can 
be  defined  with  tolerable  accuracy  from  the  notices 
in  Josephus,  Strabo,  and  other  writers.  From 
Josephus  we  gather  that  it  lay  south  of  Damascus, 
and  east  of  Gaulanitis,  and  that  it  bordered  on 
Auranitis  and  Batantea  {B.  J.  iv.  1,  §  1,  i.  20,  §  ■!, 
iii.  10,  §  7).  Strabo  says  there  were  5iio  Tpax^^ovis 
{Geoy.  xvi.).  From  Ptolemy  we  learn  that  it  bor- 
dered on  Batansea,  near  the  town  of  Sacca?a  ( Geoff. 
XV.).  In  the  Jerusalem  Geniara  it  is  made  to  ex- 
tend as  far  south  as  Bostra  (Lightfoot,  Opp-  ii. 
473).  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  though  they  err  in 
confounding  it  with  Ituraea,  yet  the  latter  rightly 
defines  its  position,  as  lyhig  between  !5ostra  and 
Damascus  {Onum.  s.  v.).  Jerome  also  states  that 
Kenath  was  one  of  its  chief  towns  ( Oiioin.  s.  v. 
"  Canath  "). 

F'rom  these  data  we  have  no  difficnlty  in  fixing 
the  position  of  Trachonitis.     It  included  tiie  whole 

of  the  modern  province  call^  el-LejAli  (sLsxJJi), 

with  a  section  of  the  plain  southward,  and  also  a 
part  of  the  western  declivities  of  Jebel  I/nuran. 
This  may  explain  Strabo's  two  Trachons.  The 
identity  of  the  Lejah  and  Trachonitis  does  not  rest 
merely  on  presumptive  evidence.  On  the  northern 
border  of  the  province  are  the  extensive  ruins  of 
Miismeih,  where,  on  the  door  of  a  beautiful  temple, 
Burekhardt  discovered  an  inscription,  from  which 
it  api)ears  that  this  is  the  old  city  of  PJiucus,  and 
the  capital  of  Trachonitis  (/iriTpoKa!iJ.ia  Tpaxoi>voi, 
Trdc.  in  Syr.  117).  The  Lcju/i  is  bounded  on  the 
east  by  the  mountains  of  Batanaa  (now  Jebel 
I/aui'dn),  on  whose  slopes  are  the  ruins  of  Sacca;a 
and  Kenath  ;  on  the  south  by  Auranitis  (now 
flaurdn),  in  which  are  the  extensive  ruins  of  Bostra; 
on  the  west  by  Gaulanitis  (now  .J avldn);  and  on 
the  north  by  Iturrea  (now  Jedur)  and  Damascus. 
If  all  other  proofs  were  wanting,  a  comparison  of 
the  features  of  the  Lejali  with  the  graphic  de- 
scription Josephus  gives  of  Trachonitis  would  be 
sufficient  to  establish  the  identity.  The  inhabitants, 
he  says,  "  had  neither  towns  nor  fields,  but  dwelt 
iu  caves  that  served  as  a  refuge  both  for  themselves 
an'i  their  fiooks.  They  had,  Ijesides,  cisterns  of 
water  and  well-stored  granaries,  and  were  thus  able 
to  remain  long  in  obscurity  and  to  defy  their 
enemies.  The  doors  of  their  ca\es  are  so  narrow 
that  but  one  man  can  enter  at  a  time,  while  within 
they  are  incredibly  large.  The  ground  above  is 
almost  a  plain,  but  it  is  covered  with  ruojged  rocks, 
and  is  difficult  of  access,  except  wiiere  a  guide 
points  out  tlw  paths.  Thcse  paths  do  not  run  in 
a  straight  course,  but  liave  many  windings  and 
turns"  {Ani.  xv.  10,  §  1).  A  description  of  the 
Lejdh  has  been  given  above  [Akguh],  with  which 
this  may  be  compared. 

The  notices  of  Trachonitis  in  historv  are  few  and 
>rief.  Josephus  affirms  that  it  was  colonized  by 
Tz  the  sou  of  Aram   {Anl.  i.  6,  §  4).     His  next 


TRADITION 

reference  to  it  is  when  it  was  held  by  Zenodorns 
the  bandit-chief.  Then  its  inhabitants  made  fre 
quent  raids,  as  their  successors  do  still,  upon  the 
territories  of  Damascus  {Ant.  xv.  10,  §  1).  Augustus 
took  it  from  Zenotiorus,  and  gave  it  to  Herod  the 
Great,  on  condition  that  he  should  repress  the  rolj- 
bers  {Ant.  xvi.  9,  §  1).  Herod  bequeathed  it  to 
his  son  Philip,  and  his  will  was  confirmed  l)y  C*saf 
{B.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3).  This  is  the  Philip  referred  to 
in  Luke  iii.  1.  At  a  later  period  it  passed  into  the 
hands  of  Herod  Agrippa  {B.  ./.  iii.  3,  §  5).  After 
the  conquest  of  this  part  of  Syria  by  Cornelius 
Palma,  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  we 
hear  no  more  of  Trachonitis  (Burekhardt,  Trnv.  in 
Syr.  110  flf.;  Porter,  Damascus,  ii.  240-275;  Jmirn. 
GeOff.  Sue.  xxviii.  250-252).  [Also,  Porter,  Gi>ini 
Cities  of  Baslian,  pp.  15,  93;  and  J.  G.  Wetzstein, 
lieisebericht  iib.  JIauran  u.  die  Trncliontn,  p. 
36  fF.  —  H.]  J.   L.  P. 

*  TRADITION  {irapd^offis,  rendered  once, 
in  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  "ordinances").  Primarily  it  de- 
notes the  act  of  delivering  or  transmitting,  then  the 
thing  delivered ;  in  the  N.  T.  it  has  only  the  latter 
sense.  It  refers  generally,  if  not  always,  to  pre- 
ceptive rather  than  to  historical  matters.  Tradi- 
tions may  be  either  written  or  oral  (2  Thess.  ii.  15); 
and  the  term  is  perhaps  used  in  Gal.  i.  14,  so  as  to 
include  even  precejits  of  the  canonical  Scrijjtures. 
But  the  traditions  alluded  to  by  Christ  in  JMatt.  xv. 
and  Mark  vii.  were  probably  for  the  most  part  oral; 
Josephus  (AnI.  xiii.  10,  §  6)  seems  to  imply  this, 
and  he  furthermore  distinguishes  them  from  the 
Scriptures  as  being  additions  to,  or  explanations  of 
them,  handed  down  from  the  fathers.  'J  hese  were 
afterwards  written  in  the  Talmud.  On  the  char- 
acter of  them,  cf.  Wetstein,  Lightfoot  and  Schottgen 
on  Matt.  vi.  2,  5,  xv.  2.  [Washing  the  HA^■us 
AND  Feet;  Phaiusees;  Schihes.] 

The  authoritativeness  of  traditions,  according  to 
the  N.  T.,  depends  on  their  source.  If  they  orig- 
inated strictly  with  uninspired  men,  they  were  not 
authoritative,  and  might  even  be  directly  opposed 
to  Divine  commandments  (Matt.  xv.  6,  Col.  ii.  8). 
On  the  other  hand  irapaSSans  which  were  derived 
from  Christ  or  his  apostles,  were  authoritative 
(1  Cor.  xi.  2;  2  Thess.  ii.  15).  Here  we  may  note 
also  the  frequent  use  of  TrapaSi'Soj/xi,  said  of  injunc- 
tions or  important  communications  delivered  to  the 
Christians  (1  Cor.  xi.  23,  xv.  3;  Acts  xvi.  4;  Koni. 
vi.  17;  2  Pet.  ii.  21).  In  some  of  these  ca.ses  the 
whole  substance  of  the  Gospel  is  spoken  of  as  thua 
delivered.  '  And  oral  transmission  is  probably  meant 
in  most  cases. 

This  suggests  the  inquiry,  what  traditional  ele- 
ments there  are  in  the  Bible  it.self.  As  regards  the 
0.  T.,  since  the  names  of  the  authors  of  the  his- 
torical books  are  not  given  and  many  of  the  histories 
cover  a  long  period  of  time,  there  is  room  for  un- 
bounded license  in  conjecturing  how  far  the  nar- 
ratives are  traditions  reduced  to  writing  a  greater' 
or  less  time  after  the  occurrence  of  the  events  re- 
corded. But  the  mention  of  histories  now  lost, 
made  as  early  as  Num.  xxi.  14  ("the  book  of  the 
wars  of  the  Lord");  aiid  especially  in  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles  [Kings]  of  annals  of  the 
several  reigns,  diminishes  very  much  the  probability 
of  extensive  resort  to  old  traditions  in  the  compila- 
tion of  the  histories.  Where  reference  is  made  in 
one  part  of  the  0.  T.  to  former  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  people,  we  can  generally  find  the  events 
recorded  in  the  earlier  books.  Cf.  e.  y.  Jeplithah's 
message  to  the  Ammonites   (Judg.  xi.)   with   th« 


TRADITION 

narrative  in  Xuni  xx.  and  xxi.,  or  Ps.  Ixxviii.  with 
the  history  of  the  Exodus.  It  is  more  than  doubt- 
ful whether  we  are  to  understand  Mic.  vi.  5-8  as 
containing  a  dialogue  between  Balak  and  Balaam, 
preserved  by  tradition.  This  view,  though  advanced 
by  Bishop  Butler  {Sermon  on  IJalaam),  and  adopted 
in  the  article  on  Moab  and  by  Stanley  {.lewlsli 
Ciiurcli,  i.  212),  is  not  generally  accepted,  and 
h:u-dly  seems  to  be  suggested  by  the  passage  in 
Micah. 

The  time  embraced  in  the  N.  T.  histories  does 
not  allow  much  scope  to  tradition  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  term.  But  if  we  take  irapdSoais  in 
the  narrower  sense  in  which  the  N.  T.  uses  it,  then 
it  may  be  said  that  a  considerable  part  of  'he  his- 
torical books  of  the  N.  T.  may  be  composed  of  tra- 
ditions. I'he  Gospel  was  at  first  preached,  not 
written.  AVhat  the  apostles  thus  handed  down 
was  afterwards  recorded  by  them  or  others.  See 
Gospels;  Westcott,  Inlvoducdon,  p.  212;  and 
especially  Luke  i.  1  AT.  Accordingly,  the  familiar 
passage  Acts  xx.  35,  where  Paul  quotes  a  saying  of 
Christ  not  elsewhere  recorded,  is  strictly  speaking 
no  more  a  tradition  than  the  other  sayinujs  of  Christ 
which  are  found  in  the  Gospels;  for  at  the  time 
when  Paul  used  this  language  perhaps  none,  or  not 
more  than  one,  of  the  Gospels  was  written.  See 
Hackett,  Acts,  p.  343,  and  Introduction  to  Acts, 
p.  29.  The  same  may  be  said  of  .lohn  viii.  1-11. 
This  narrative,  though  belonging  oriijinally  to  none 
of  the  Gospels,  was  ])robably  preserved  in  the  recol- 
lection of  the  disciples  and  early  incorporated  into 
the  text  of  John.  See  Meyer  on  this  passage. 
Somewhat  different  is  the  case  with  the  interpola- 
tion in  John  v.  3  b,  4,  which  seems  to  be  a  tradition 
reflecting  a  popular  belief,  but  for  which  .John  can- 
not 1)6  regarded  as  vouching.  Still  different  is  the 
tradition  (John  xxi.  23)  respecting  .John's  death, 
which  is  mentioned,  only  to  be  pronounced  f\ilse. 

There  are  however  a  few  instances  of  what  seem 
to  be  traditions  of  longer  standing.  On  2  Tim. 
iii.  8  see  J.\nnes  and  Jambkes,  and  Wetstein 
in  he.  The  phrase  "sawn  asunder'"  in  Heb.  xi. 
37  is  doubtless  founded  on  the  tradition  that  Isaiah 
was  thus  put  to  death.  On  the  dispute  between 
Micliael  and  the  Devil,  Jude  9.  see  Michael;  also 
De  Wett«  and  Huther  in  loc.  Of  a  similar  cliarac- 
ter  is  the  quotation,  in  Jude  14,  15,  from  "  Knoch, 
the  seventh  from  Adam."  On  this  see  Enoch, 
Book  ok.  The  allusion  in  .Jude  G  to  the  angels 
who  kept  not  their  first  estate  may  also  have  been 
derived  from  the  book. of  Enoch  (xii.  4),  though 
this  again  is  probably  derived  from  Gen.  vi.  1-4 
(on  which  see,  besides  the  commentaries,  especially 
Kurtz,  Die  Ehen  der  Sohne  Gotten,  etc.,  in  his 
Gesclnclite  des  Alten  Bundes).  2  Pet.  ii.  4  prob- 
ably refers  to  the  same  thing.  According  to  some, 
the  expression  in  1  Cor.  x.  4  is  derived  from  a 
Jewish  tradition  that  the  rock  from  which  water 
sprang  forth  did  actually  follow  the  Israelites  in 
their  wanderings.  But  this,  though  a  real  Jewish 
tradition,  cannot  be  proved  to  have  existed  before 
the  time  of  Paul;  and  if  it  did,  Paul  does  not  in- 
doi-se  it,  —  at  the  most  he  only  alludes  to  it.  Cf. 
Neander  and  Meyer  in  loc.  A  more  important  in- 
stance of  tradition  is  that  respecting  the  mediation 
of  angels  in  the  giving  of  the  Law.     This  is  men- 


TRANCE 


3317 


"  Tn  Mark  v.  42  and  xvi.  8  it  is  used  simply  for 
astonishment  mingled  «1th  awe,  not  for  the  trance 
«tate. 

•>  The  <'istinc1ion  dniwn  by  Hippocrates  and  Galen 


tioned  as  something  generally  understood,  in  .\ct3 
vii.  53,  Gal.  iii.  19.  and  Heb.  ii.  2.  The  repre- 
sentation cannot  be  derived  directly  from  the  O.  T.; 
but  the  LXX.  in  its  translation  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  2 
ests  it,  and  Josephus  indorses  it  {Ant.  xv.  5, 

On  the  subject  of  tradition  in  the  ecclesiastical 
sense,  see  especially  Holtzmann,  Kanon  und  Tra- 
dition, and  Jacobi,  Kirddiche  Leitre  von  da-  Tra- 
dition. C.  M.  M. 

*  TRAFFICKERS.  [Commerce;  Mar- 
ket.] 

TRANCE  {%K(TTa(ns-  excessus).  (1.)  In  the 
only  passage  (Num.  xxi  v.  4, 16)  in  which  this  word 
occurs  in  the  luiglish  of  the  0.  T.  there  is,  as  th« 
italics  show,   no   corresponding  word  in   Hebrew, 

sim[)ly  b^b,  "falling,"  for  which  the  LXX.  gives 
eV  uTrcw,  and  the  Vulg.  more  literally  qtd  cadit. 
The  Greek  eKaraais  is,  however,  used  as  the  equiv- 
alent ibr  many  Hebrew  words,  signifying  dread, 
fear,  astonishment  (Trommii  Concordant.).  In  the 
N.  T.  we  meet  with  the  word  three  times  (Acts  x. 
10,  xi.  5,  xxii.  17),  the  Vulgate  giving  "excessus" 
in  the  two  former,  "stupor  mentis  "  in  the  latter. 
Luther  uses  "  entziickt "  in  all  three  cases.  The 
meaning  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  words  is  ol)vious 
enough.  The  eKaTacris  is  the  state  in  which  a 
man  has  passed  out  of  the  usual  order  of  his  life, 
beyond  the  usual  limits  of  consciousness  and  voU- 
tion.  "  Excessus,"  in  like  manner,  though  in  clas 
sical  Latin  chiefly  used  as  an  euphemism  for  death, 
became,  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  a  .synonym  fot 
the  condition  of  seeming  death  to  the  outer  world, 
which  we  speak  of  as  a  trance.  "  Hanc  vim  ecstasin 
dicimus,  excessum  sensus,  et  amentise  instar" 
(  Tertull.  de  An.  c.  45).  The  history  of  the  Eng- 
lish word  presents  an  interesting  parallel.  The 
Latin  "  transitus  "  took  its  place  also  among  the 
euphemisms  for  death.  In  early  Italian  "  essere  in 
transito,"  was  to  be  as  at  the  point  of  death,  the 
passage  to  another  world.  Passing  into  French,  it 
also,  al)breviated  into  "  transe,"  was  applied,  not 
to  death  itself,  but  to  that  which  more  or  less 
resembled  it  (Diez,  liomnn.  IVorterbucli,  s.  v. 
"  transito  "). 

(2.)  Used  as  the  word  is  by  Luke,"  "  the  i)hysi- 
cian,"  and,  in  this  special  sense,  by  him  only,  in 
the  N.  T.,  it  would  be  interesting  to  inquire  what 
l)recise  meaning  it  had  in  the  medical  terminology 
of  the  time.  From  the  time  of  Hippocrates,  who 
uses  it  to  describe  the  loss  of  conscious  perception,'' 
it  had  probably  borne  the  connotation  which  it  hag 
had,  with  shades  of  meaning  for  good  or  evil,  ever 
since.  Thus,  Hesychius  gives  as  the  account  cf  a 
man  in  an  ecstasy,  that  he  is  6  eis  eavThv  ,(/?;  iov. 
-Apuleius  {Apolor/ia)  speaks  of  it  as  "  a  change  from 
the  earthly  mind  {awh  rod  yT]'i'yov  (ppoviTfiaros)  to 
a  divine  and  spiritual  condition  both  of  character 
and  life."  TertuUian  {I.  c.)  compares  it  to  the  dream- 
state  in  which  the  soul  acts,  but  not  through  its 
usual  instruments.  Augustine  {Confess,  ix.  11) 
descrilies  his  mother  in  this  state  as  "  abstracta  a 
pra3sentil)us,"  and  gives  a  description  of  like  plie- 
nomena  in  the  case  of  a  certain  Restitutus  {de  Civ 
Dei,  xiv.  24). 
(3. )  We  may  compare  with  these  statements  the 

between  eK<rrd<Tei';  triyuKrai,  and  tKaT.  fieAoyxoAiicai 
answers  obviously  to  tliat  of  later  writers  betweeo  pur« 
and  ecstiitio  catnlepsy  (comp.  Foe.oiua.  tKconom.  Hir 
pncrtU.  8.  V    <(C(rTa(ric>. 


B318  TRANCE 

more  piecise  definitions  of  modem  medical  science. 
Tliere  the  ecstatic  state  appears  as  one  form  of  cat- 
slepsy.  In  catalepsy  pure  and  simple,  tliere  is  -'a 
sudden  suspension  of  thought,  of  sensihility,  of  vol- 
untary motion."  "  The  hody  continues  in  any 
attitude  in  which  it  may  he  placed;  "  there  are  no 
si;,Mis  of  any  process  of  thoui:;ht ;  the  patient  con- 
tinues silent.  In  the  ecstatic  form  of  catalepsy,  on 
the  other  hand,  "the  patient  is  lost  to  all  external 
impressions,  but  wrapped  and  absorhcfl  iu  some 
object  of  the  imagination."  The  man  is  "as  if 
out  of  the  body."  "  Nervous  ami  susceptible  per- 
sons are  apt  to  1)6  thrown  into  these  tr.uices  under 
the  influence  of  what  is  called  mesmerism.  There 
is,  for  the  most  part,  a  high  degree  of  mental  ex- 
citement. The  patient  utters  the  most  enthusiastic 
and  fervid  expressions  or  the  most  earnest  warn- 
ings. The  character  of  the  whole  frame  is  that  of 
intense  contemplative  excitement.  He  believes 
that  he  has  seen  wonderful  visions  and  ireard  sin- 
gular revelations"  (Watson,  PrindpUs  imd  Prac- 
tice, I.ect.  xxxix.  ;  Cojiland,  Diet,  nf  Medicine,  s. 
V.  "Catalepsy").  The  causes  of  this  state  are  to 
be  traced  commonly  to  strung  religious  impressions; 
but  some,  tl)OUi,d),  for  the  most  part,  not  tlie  ec- 
static, phenomena  of  catalepsy  are  producible  l)y  the 
concentration  of  thought  on  one  object,  or  of  the 
vision  upon  one  fixed  point  (  Quiirt.  Iter,  xciii.  pp. 
510-522,  by  Ur.  \V.  B.  Carpenter;  comp.  UiUiM 
AND  Tiiusnini),  and,  in  some  more  exceptional 
cases,  like  that  mentioned  by  .\ugustiue  (tliere, 
however,  under  the  influence  of  sound,  "  ad  imita- 
tas  quasi  lamentantis  cujuslibet  hominis  voces"), 
and  that  of  .Jerome  Cardan  {V<ir.  Her.  viii.  4;5), 
men  have  been  able  to  throw  themselves  into  a  cat- 
aleptic state  at  will.  [See  Dr.  W.  X.  Hammond 
on  the  Physics  and  Pliysiohr/y  of  Splrilwdi.on, 
in  the  X  A.  Rev.  for  April  1870;  ex.  2:j;J-20l.). — 
A.] 

(4.)  ^^  l.atever  explanation  may  be  given  of  it,  it 
is  true  of  many,  if  not  of  most,  of  those  who  have 
left  the  stamp  of  their  own  character  on  the  relig- 
ious history  of  mankind,  that  they  have  1  een  lia- 
ble to  pass  at  times  into  this  abnormal  state.  The 
union  of  intense  feeling,  strong  volition,  long-con- 
tinued thought  (the  conditions  of  all  wide  and  last- 
ing influence),  aided  in  many  cases  by  the  with- 
drawal from  the  lower  life  of  the  support  which  is 
needed  to  maintain  a  healthy  equilibrium,  appears 
to  have  been  more  than  the  "earthen  vessel  "  will 
bear.  The  words  which  speak  of  "  an  ecstasy  of 
idoration  "  are  often  literally  true.  The  many 
•isions,  the  journey  through  the  heavens,  the  so- 
I'alled  epilepsy  of  Jlohammed,  were  phenomena  of 
this  nature.  Of  three  great  mediaeval  teachers,  St. 
Francis  of  Assisi,  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  Joan- 
nes Scotus,  it  is  recorded  that  they  would  fall  into 
the  ecstatic  state,  remain  motioidess,  seem  as  if 
dead,  sometimes  for  a  whole  day,  and  then,  return- 
ini;  to  consciousness,  speak  as  if  they  had  drunk 
deep  of  divine  mysteries  (Gualtperius,  Cril.  Sue.  on 
Acts  X.  10).  The  old  traditions  of  Aristeas  and 
Epimenides,  the  conflicts  of  Punstan  and  I.uther 
with  the  powers  of  darkness,  the  visions  of  Savona- 
rola, and  Georije  Fox,  and  Swedenborg,  and  Boh- 
men,  are  generically  analogous.  Where  there  has 
been  no  extraordinary  power  to   influence   others. 


a  Analogous   to  this  is   the   statement  of  Aristotle 
[Ptol.  c.  30)  that  the  ixfKayxoKLKoi  speiik  ofien  in  wild 


TRANCE 

other  conditions  remaining  the  same,  the  phenom. 
ena  have  appeared  amoiiir  whole  classes  of  men  and 
women  in  proportion  as  the  circumstances  of  their 
lives  tended  to  produce  an  excessive  susceptibility 
to  religious  or  imaginative  emotion.  The  history 
of  monastic  ordeis,  of  .American  and  Irish  revivals, 
gives  countless  examples.  Still  more  noticeable  is 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  iiiiju-avisntori  of  Italy 
are  "  only  able  to  exercise  their  i,'ift  when  they  are 
in  a  state  of  ecstatic  trance,  and  speak  of  the  gift 
itself  as  something  morlud "  "  (Copland,  I.  c); 
while  in  strange  contrast  with  their  earlier  histor}-, 
and  pointing  perhaps  to  a  national  character  that 
has  become  harder  and  less  emotional,  there  is  the 
testimony  of  a  (jernian  physician  (l-'rank),  who  had 
made  catalepsy  a  special  study,  that  he  had  never 
met  with  a  single  case  of  it  among  the  Jews  (Cop- 
land, /.  c.).* 

(5.)  We  are  now  able  to  take  a  true  estimate  of 
the  trances  of  Bililical  history.  As  in  other  things, 
so  also  here,  the  phenomena  are  common  to  higher 
and  lower,  to  true  and  false  systems.  The  nature 
of  man  continuing  the  same,  it  could  hardly  be 
that  the  awfulness  of  the  Divine  presence,  the  ter- 
rors of  Divine  judgment,  should  leave  it  in  the 
calm  equililjrium  of  its  normal  state.  Whatever 
made  the  iuqjress  of  a  truth  more  indelible,  what- 
e\er  gave  him  to  whom  it  was  revealed  more  power 
over  the  hearts  of  others,  might  well  take  its  place 
in  the  Divine  education  of  nations  and  indindual 
men.  We  may  not  point  to  trances  and  ecstasies 
as  proofs  of  a  true  Revelation,  but  still  less  may  we 
think  of  them  as  at  all  inconsistent  with  it.  Thus, 
though  we  have  not  the  word,  we  have  the  thing 
in  the  "deep  sleep"  (eKCTTaais,  LXX.),  the  "hor- 
ror of  great  darkness,"  that  fell  on  Abraham  (Gen. 
XV.  12).  Balaam,  as  if  overcome  by  the  constrain- 
ing power  of  a  Spirit  mightier  than  his  own,  "  sees 
the  vision  of  God,  falling,  but  with  opened  eyes  " 
(Num.  xxiv.  4).  Saul,  in  like  manner,  when  the 
wild  chant  of  the  prophets  stirred  the  old  depths 
of  feehng,  himself  also  "  prophesied  "  and  "  fell 
down  "  (most,  if  not  all,  of  his  kingly  clothins];  l.e- 
in;;  thrown  off'  in  the  ecstasy  of  the  moment),  "all 
that  day  and  all  tliat  night"  (1  Sam.  xix.  24). 
Something  tliere  was  in  Jeremiah  that  made  men 
say  of  him  that  he  was  as  one  that  "  is  mad  and 
maketh  himself  a  prophet"  (Jer.  xxix.  26).  In 
Kzekiel  the  phenomena  appear  in  more  wonderful 
and  awful  forms.  He  sits  motionless  fur  seven 
days  in  the  stuimr  of  astonishment,  till  the  word 
of  the  Lord  comes  to  him  (Ez.  iii.  15).  The  "  hand 
of  the  Lord  "  falls  on  him,  and  he  too  sees  the 
"  visions  of  God,"  and  hears  the  voice  of  the  Al- 
mighty, is  "lifted  up  between  the  earth  and  heaven," 
and  passes  from  the  river  of  Chebar  to  the  Lord's 
house  in  Jerusalem  (Ez.  viii.  3). 

(6.)  As  other  elements  and  forms  of  the  pro- 
phetic work  were  revived  in  "  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets  "  of  the  N.  T.,  so  also  was  this.  Wore 
distinctly  even  than  in  the  O.  T.  it  becomes  the 
medium  through  which  men  rise  to  see  clearly 
what  before  was  dim  and  doubtful,  in  which  the 
mingled  hopes  and  fears  and  perplexities  of  the 
waking  state  are  dissipated  at  once.  Though  dif- 
ferent in  form,  it  belongs  to  the  same  class  of  phe- 
nomena as  the  Gift  of  Tongues,  and  is  connecteu 


6  A  fuller  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  than    caK 
be  entered  on  here  may  be  found  in  the  chaptnr   on 


ourats  of  poetry,  and  as  the  Sibyls  and 
inspired  (ei/6eoi, 


iirliersi  who  are  j  Les  Myitir/urs  iu  Maury,  La  Magit  et  I'Asirnlogie 


TRAT^rSFIGURATION 

with  "  visions  and  revelations  of  the  Lord."  In 
some  cases,  indeed,  it  is  the  clioseii  channel  for  such 
revelations.  To  the  "  trance  "  of  Peter  in  tlie  cit}-, 
where  all  outward  circumstances  tended  to  bring 
the  thought  of  an  expansion  of  the  Divine  kingdom 
more  distinctly  before  him  than  it  ha<l  ever  been 
brought  before,  we  owe  the  indelible  truth  stamped 
upon  the  heart  of  Christendom,  that  God  '•  is  no 
respecter  of  persons,"  that  we  may  not  call  any 
man  "  common  or  unclean  "  (Acts  x.,  xi.).  To  the 
"  trance  "  of  Paul,  when  his  work  for  his  own  peo- 
ple seemed  utterly  fruitless,  ^ve  owe  the  nussion 
which  was  the  starting-point  of  the  histury  of  the 
Universal  Church,  the  conunand  which  bade  him 
"depart  ....  far  hence  mito  the  (jentiles  " 
(Acts  xxii.  17-21).  Wisely  for  the  most  part  did 
that  Apostle  draw  a  veil  over  these  more  mysteri- 
ous experiences.  He  would  not  sacrifice  to  them, 
as  others  have  often  sacrificed,  the  higher  life  of 
activity,  love,  prudence.  He  could  not  explain 
them  to  himself.  "  In  the  body  or  out  of  the 
body"  he  could  not  tell,  but  the  outer  world  of 
perception  had  passed  awa}',  and  he  had  passed 
in  spirit  into  •'  paradise,"  into  "  tlie  third  heaven," 
and  had  heard  "  unspeakable  words  "  (2  Cor.  xii. 
1—1).  Those  trances  too,  we  may  believe,  were 
not  without  their  share  in  fashioning  his  character 
and  life,  though  no  special  truth  came  distinctly 
out  of  them.  United  as  they  then  were,  but  as 
they  have  seldom  been  since,  with  clear  perceptions 
of  the  irutli  of  God,  with  love  wonderful  in  its 
depth  and  tenderness,  with  energy  unresting,  and 
sul)tle  t.ict  almost  passing  into  "  guile,"  they 
made  him  what  he  was,  the  leader  of  the  .Apostolic 
b.and,  emphatically  the  "  master  builder  "  of  the 
Church  of  God  (comp.  Jowett,  Frdtjiutnl  on  the 
Character  of  St.  Paul).  E.  H.  P. 

*  TRANSFIGURATION.  The  event  in 
the  earthly  life  of  Christ  which  marks  the  culmi- 
nating point  in  his  public  minjstry,  and  stands  mid- 
way between  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness  and 
the  agony  in  GethsemaTie.  It  is  recorded,  with  very 
slight  variations,  by  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  xvii.  1- 
i:j;  Mark  ix.  2-13;  Luke  ix  28-;3ti),  but  is  omitted 
by  John,  like  many  other  events  and  miracles,  as 
being  already  known  from  the  gospel  tradition. 

1.  The  place  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists  is 
"  an  high  mountain,"  proliably  in  Galilee,  where 
the  synoptical  Gospels  maiidy  move,  and  where  the 
events  immediately  preceding  and  succeeding  oc- 
curred. The  Lord  was  wont  to  withdraw  to  a 
mountain  for  prayer  (Matt.  xiv.  23;  Luke  xxi.  37; 
John  vi.  15),  and  several  of  the  greatest  events  in 
tlie  history  of  revelation,  from  the  legislation  on 
Mount  Sinai  to  the  ascension  from  Mount  Olivet, 
took  place  on  mountains.  An  ancient  tradition, 
first  mentioned  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {C'ntec/i.  xii. 
10)  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  locates 
the  Transfiguration  on  Mount  Tabor,  the  highest 
in  Galilee,  which  rises,  like  a  truncated  cone,  1310 
Palis  feet  from  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  two  hours 
and  a  ipiarter  south  of  Xazareth,  with  an  nnbroker. 
view  to  the  sui  iMunding  country,  and  is  often  men- 
tioned in  the  Old  Festament  (Judges  iv.  (j,  11,  viii. 
18;  Ps  Uxxix.  12;  Jer.  xlvi.  18),  though  nowhere 
in  the  New.  This  traditiim  gained  soon  almost 
miversal  acce[)tance,  while  an  earlier  tradition, 
which  pl.aces  the  event  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  near 
Jerusalem,  s'ands  isolated.  It  gave  rise  to  the 
building  of  cnurches  and  monasteries  on  the  sum- 
ait  of  Tabor  ("  to  correspond  to  the  three  talierna- 


TRANSFIGURATION       3319 

cles  which  Peter  was  not  permitted  to  build"), 
and  to  the  designation  of  the  festival  of  the  Trans- 
figuration in  the  Greek  Church,  as  Tb  Qa^dopiov- 
There  is  no  evidence  in  tavor  of  this  tradition,  but 
strong  and  decisive  evidence  against  it  ;  for  the 
summit  of  'Tabor  was  employed  without  intermis- 
sion between  the  times  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  218 
H.  c,  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  A.  u.  70,  as 
a  fortification,  and  hence  unfit  for  quiet  seclusion 
and  meditation  (Polybius  v.  70,  6  ;  Josephus,  Ant. 
xiv.  0,  3;  B.  J.  i.  8,  7,  ii.  20,  6,  iv.  18;  comp. 
kitter,  Coinpardtire,  Gcoyrnpliy  of  J^olcsline,  ii. 
313,  Eng.  trans.;  Kobinson,  BM.  lies.  iii.  220- 
225;  Herzog,  Knvijkl.  art.  T/mbor ;  Trench,  Stw!- 
ies  ill  the  (lospeU,  p.  192).  Modern  commentatou 
and  critics  favor  Mount  Hernion,  the  highest 
mountain-top  in  Gaulonitis,  or  one  of  the  spurs  of 
the  .-Vnti-Libanus.  Hermon  is  the  highest  of  all  the 
Lebanon  mountains,  and  is  called  JtOcl  es-Shcikh, 
or  the  Sheikh's  mountain. 

2.  As  to  the  time,  the  Transfigur.ation  probably 
took  place  in  the  night,  because  it  could  be  seen 
to  better  advantage  th.an  in  daylight,  and  Jesus 
usually  went  to  mountains  to  spend  there  the  night 
in  prayer  (Luke  vi.  12,  xxi.  37,  xxii.  39;  Matt, 
xiv.  23,  24).  'The  apostles  were  asleep,  and  are 
described  as  hnvinjj  kept  themselves  atvuke  tlirouijli 
the  net  of  Tronsfrjuration  (Siayprj-yo/jVjcraj'Tsr, 
Luke  ix.  32),  and  they  did  not  descend  till  the 
ne.'it  day  (Luke  ix.  37). 

3.  'The  actors  and  witnesses.  Christ  was  the 
central  figure,  the  subject  of  the  'Transfiguration. 
Moses  and  Elijah  appeared  from  the  heavenly 
world,  as  the  representatives  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  one  of  the  Law,  the  other  of  Propbec}',  to  do 
homage  to  Him  who  was  the  fulfillment  of  both. 

They  were  the  fittest  persons  to  witness  this  an- 
ticipation of  the  heavenly  glory,  not  only  on  account 
of  their  representative  character,  but  also  on  ac- 
count of  their  mysterious  departure  from  this  world  ; 
.Moses  having  died  on  the  mountain,  as  the  rabbin- 
ical-tradition has  it,  "  of  the  kisses  of  .lehovah,"  in 
sight  of  the  Holy '  Land,  and  out  of  sight  of  the 
world;  I'.lyah  having  lieen  translated  alive  from 
earth  to  heaven  on  chariots  of  lire.  Hotli  had  en- 
dured, like  Christ,  a  forty  dajs'  fast,  both  h.ad  been 
on  the  holy  mount  in  the  visions  of  (iod,  and  now 
they  reappeared  on  earth  with  glorified  bodies 
•'  solemnly  to  consign  into  his  hands,  once  and  for 
all,  in  a  syinl)olical  and  glorious  representation, 
their    delegated    and    expiring    power"    (.Mford). 

Tlie  recognition  of  the  heavenly  visitors  by  the  di»- 

cipies  was  probably  by  immediate  intuition,  and 
not  by  subsequent  information. 

Among  the  apostles,  the  three  favorite  disciples, 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  were  the  sole  witnesses  of 
the  scene,  as  they  were  also  of  the  raising  of  J  aims' 
daugliter  and  of  the  agony  in  Gethsemaiie.  Peter 
alludes  to  the  event,  in  his  second  epistle  (i.  16-18), 
where  he  speaks  of  having  been  an  eye-witness  of 
the  majesty  of  the  Lord  .lesus  when  he  was  with 
Him  on  the  holy  mount  and  heard  the  heavenly 
voice  of  the  Father  declaring  Him  to  lie  his  beloved 
Son.  John,  the  bosom  friend  of  .lesus,  probably 
had  in  view  this  among  other  manifestations  of  his 
glory  when  he  testified:  "  We  beheld  his  glory,  the 
glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  full  of 
grace  and  truth  "  (.lolin  i.  14).  And  his  brother 
James,  as  the  protomartyr  among  the  ajiostles,  was 
the  first  to  follow  Him  into  that  glory,  of  which  the 
Transfigm'ation  was  a  foretaste  and  a  sure  ]>ledge. 

4.  The    eveU    itself.      'I he    Tnuisf (juration  or 


8320 


TRANSFIGURATION 


trans/'irmntion.  or,  as  the  German  divines  call  it, 
the  t^kirijiciitioti  {\'erkl(iruii(/)  coDSiated  in  a  visi- 
ble manifestation  and  effulgence  of  the  inner  s^lorj 
of  Christ's  person,  accompanied  by  an  audible  voice 
from  heaven  declaiing  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
in  whom  the  Father  is  well  pleased.  The  expres- 
sion used  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  that  the  Lord 
was  vietumurplwsed  (/xeTe/xop(pw07])-  Luke,  who 
wrote  for  Gentile  readers,  a\oids  this  expressioi 
perhaps  (a".  Trench  suggests),  on  account  of  the 
possible  Associations  of  the  heathen  mythology 
which  would  so  easily  attach  themselves  to  it  in 
Hie  imagination  of  the  Greeks,  and  he  simi)ly  tells 
us  "that  the  fashion  of  his  countenance  was  altered 
as  He  prayed  "  {iy4i>iTo  rh  elSos  tov  irpocrwirov 
auTOv  kr^poy)-  But  it  was  not  only  his  counte- 
nance which  shone  in  supernatural  splendor,  even 
"his  raiment  was  white  and  glistering,"  or  as 
Mark,  with  his  characteristic  fondness  fur  pictur- 
esque details,  and  borrowing  one  image  from  na- 
ture, and  another  from  man's  art,  says,  it  "  became 
shining,  exceeding  white  as  snow,  such  as  no  fuller 
on  earth  can  whiten  them."  We  have  analogies 
in  Scripture  which  may  be  used  as  illustrations. 
When  Moses  returned  from  the  presence  of  Jeho- 
vah on  Mount  Sinai,  the  skin  of  his  face  shone  (Kx. 
xxxiv.  29-35),  which  circumstance  Hilary  calls  a 
figure  of  the  Transfiguration.  Stephen's  face  in 
view  of  his  martyrdom  shone  like  the  face  of  an 
angel  (Acts  vi.  15).  The  human  countenance  is 
often  lit  up  i>y  joy,  and  the  peace  and  blessedness 
of  the  soul,  in  moments  of  festive  elevation,  shine 
through  it  as  through  a  mirror.  In  the  case  of 
Christ,  the  Transfiguration  was  the  revelation  and 
anticipation  of  his  future  state  of  glory  which  was 
concealed  under  the  veil  of  his  humanity  in  the 
state  of  humiliation.  The  cloud  which  overshad- 
owed them  was  bright,  or  light-like,  luminous  ((pw- 
Tfii'TJ),  of  the  same  kind  as  the  cloud  at  the  ascen- 
sion, or  the  clouds  of  heaven  at  the  second  advent 
of  Christ  (Matt.  xxiv.  .30;  Mark  xiii.  2G;  Luke 
xxi.  27),  and  symbolized  the  presence  of  God  (Ex. 
iiv.  lit,  xix.  16;  Is.  xix.  1;  Dan.  vii.  13). 

5.  Different  Explanations.  —  The  event  is  de- 
scribed as  a  vision  {opufjLa.  Matt.  xvii.  9).  But  this 
does  not  exclude  its  objective  reality.  It  only 
places  it  above  the  sphere  of  sense  and  ordinary 
con.sciousness.  It  was  partly  an  objective  appear- 
ance, partly  a  spiritual  vision.  The  apostles  saw 
the  scene  "in  spirit"  (comp.  Acts  x.  10;  1  Cor. 
xiv.  15;  Rev.  i.  10).  They  were  in  an  ecstatic 
'•  state  of  supernatural  clairvoyance,"'  so  to  speak, 
"heavy  with  sleep,"  yet  "keeping  themselves 
awake  throughout;"  and  Peter  did  "not  know 
what  he  said,"  being  only  half  conscious,  overawed 
with  fear  and  wonder,  delighted  so  as  to  desire  to 
hold  fast  this  goodly  state,  yet  "  sore  afraid."  (".) 
The  older  orthodox  writers  descrilie  it  as  a  visible 
manifestation;  some  suppose  that  Moses  and  Elijah 
appeared  in  their  own  bodies;  others  that  Moses, 
not  yet  having  risen,  assumed  a  foreign  body  re- 
sembling his  former  body  (so  Thomas  Aquinas). 
(J>.)  The  rationalists  resolve  the  transfiguration  into 
»  dream,  or  a  meeting  of  Jesus  with  two  secret  dis- 
•iples.  (c. )  Strauss  represents  it  as  a  pure  myth, 
*  poetic  imitation  of  the  transfiguration  of  Moses, 
Ex.  xxiv.  1,  xxxiv.  29  AT.  (Renan,  in  his  Vie  dt 
Jesus,  ignores  the  Transfiguration.)     (d.)    Ewald 


•  Gregory  I.  (Moral,  xxxii.  6):  "In  transfigura- 
tione  quill  rvliud  ouaui  resurrectionis  ultima  gloria 
punclatur  "' 


TRANSFIGURATION 

regards  it  as  a  rare  occurrence,  but  with  mytliical 
embellishments.  But  the  circumstantial  agree- 
ment of  the  three  lC\angelists  who  narrate  the 
event,  its  definite  chronological  date,  its  connection 
with  what  follows,  and  the  reference  to  it  by  I'eter, 
one  of  its  witnesses  (2  Pet.  i.  16-18),  as  well  aa 
the  many  peculiar  traits  to  wiiich  no  parallel  can 
be  found  in  the  transfiguration  of  Moses,  refute  the 
mythical  hypothesis,  and  confirm  the  historical 
character  of  the  scene. 

(J.  The  sif/itijicanre  of  the  Transfiguration.  If 
was.  as  already  remarked,  a  visible  revelation  of  the 
hidden  glory  of  the  person  of  Christ  in  anticipation 
of  his  future  state  of  exaltation,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  prophecy  of  the  future  glory  of  his  people 
after  the  resurrection,  when  our  mortal  bodies  shall 
be  conformed  to  his  glorious  body  (Phil.  iii.  21). « 
It  served  as  a  solemn  inauguration  of  the  history  of 
the  passion  and  final  consummation  of  his  work  on 
earth.  For,  according  to  Luke's  account,  the  efo- 
5o?,  the  excessus  of  Christ,  i.  e.  especially  his  death, 
the  great  mystery  of  the  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
the  world,  and  the  following  resurrection  and  re- 
turn to  the  Father,  was  the  topic  of  conversation 
between  the  two  visitors  from  the  other  world  a'ld 
Jesus.  The  event  bears  a  relation  to  the  history 
of  Christ's  suffering,  like  that  of  his  baptism  in 
the  river  Jordan  to  his  active  ministry.  On  both 
occasions  he  was  brought  into  contact  with  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Old  Testament,  and  strengthened 
for  his  course  by  the  soleinn  approval  of  the  voice 
from  heaven  declaring  him  to  be  the  well-beloved 
Son  of  the  Father.  The  Transfiguration  no  doubt 
confirmed  the  faith  of  the  three  favorite  disciples, 
and  prejjared  them  for  the  great  trial  which  was  ap- 
proaching. It  took  away  from  them,  as  Leo  the 
(ireat  says  (Serm.  xciv.),  the  scandal  of  the  cross. 
It  furnishes  also,  to  us  all,  a  striking  proof  for 
the  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  for  per- 
sonal innnortality,  and  the  mysterious  intercom- 
munion of  the  visilile  and  invisible  worlds.  Both 
meet  in  Jesus  Christ;  he  is  the  connecting  link  be- 
tween the  0.  and  N  T.,  between  heaven  and  earth, 
between  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  the  kingdom  of 
glory.  It  is  very  significant  that,  at  the  end  of  the 
scene,  the  disciples  saw  no  man  save  .lesus  alone. 
Moses  and  Elijah,  the  law  and  the  promise,  types 
and  shadows  pass  away;  the  gospel,  the  fulfillment, 
the  substance,  Christ  remains,  the  only  one  who 
can  relieve  the  misery  of  earth  and  glorify  our  na- 
ture, Christ  ail  in  all. 

The  Transfiguration  has  given  rise  to  one  of  the 
greatest  works  of  art  ever  conceived  by  the  genius 
of  man,  which  is  the  best  comment  on  this  super- 
natural event.  The  picture  under  that  name  was 
the  last  work  of  Raphael,  and  was  carried  to  his 
grave  at  his  burial.  He  died  of  the  Transfiguration 
in  his  early  manhood.  The  original  is  in  St.  Pe- 
ter's at  Rome,  and  has  been  multiplied  in  innumer- 
able copies.  It  represents  Christ  soaring  above  the 
earth  and  swimming  in  glory,  Moses  with  the  t.ables 
of  the  Law  on  one  hand,  Elijah  on  the  other,  the 
three  disciples  with  their  characteristic  features  at 
their  feet,  gazing  in  a  half-dreamy  state  at  the 
dazzling  light;  and  beneath  this  scene  of  celestial 
peace,  the  painter  represents  in  startling  contrast 
the  scene  of  the  lunatic  whose  healing  follows  in 
the  gospel  narrative.  So  in  our  Christian  experi- 
ence we  must  ever  descend  from  the  heights  of  fes- 
tive joy,  and  the  foretaste  of  heaven  which  is  irranted 
us  from  time  to  time,  to  the  hard  work  and  misery 
of  daily  life,  until  we  attain  to  final  rest  and  to  that 


TRAP 

glory  or  tlie  resurrection  of  which  tlie  Transfigura- 
tion is  a  sure  pledge. 

LiUrature.  —  Comp.  the  Commentaries  on  Matt. 
xvii.  1-13,  and  the  parallel  passages,  especially 
Lange,  and  an  article  on  the  J'ransfiguration  in 
Archbishop  Trench's  Studies  in  tlie  Gospels,  18G7. 
The  Transfiguration  is  the  subject  of  three  of  Bishop 
Hall's  Contemplations,  bk.  iv.  12,  13,  14.     F.  S. 

*  TRAP.     [Hunting.] 

*  TREASURE-CITIES.  [Stoke-cities, 
"nier.  ed.] 

*  TREASURY.  In  Mark  xii.  41  (comp. 
I.uke  xxi.  1)  it  is  related  that,  as  Jesus  "  sat  over 
against  the  treasury"  {KaTevavri  rov  ■ya^o<l>v\a- 
Ktov)  he  saw  a  certain  poor  widow  who  came  and 
threw  in  two  mites;  and  in  John  viii.  20  we  read, 
"  These  words  spake  Jesus  in  the  trcaszinj  (eV  tco 
ya^ocpvAaKiw)  as  he  taught  in  the  Temple."  Ac- 
cording to  tlie  Mishna  (Shekalim,  vi.  1  §  5)  there 
wei-e  in  the  Temple  13  treasure-chests  for  the  re- 
ception of  gifts  of  money  to  be  devoted  to  so  many 
special  purposes,  designated  liy  the  inscriptions 
upnii     them.       These    were    called    "trumpets" 

(m^lSltf)  either  from  their  shape  or  from  the 
sha[ie  of  the  opening  into  which  the  contriljutions 
were  dropped.  Ihey  are  generally  identified  with 
the  ya(o<pv\dKia  mentioned  by  Josephus  {D.  J.  v. 
5,  §  2),  who  speaks  of  the  cloisters  wliich  sur- 
rounded the  Court  of  the  Women  [Templk,  p. 
32t(5  li],  on  the  inside  of  its  wall,  as  placed  be- 
fore them  (al  aroal  5e  p-fra^u  twv  ttvAwv  anh  tov 
reixovs  kfSov  itTTpaixfxivai  irph  Tcoy  ya(^o(pu\a- 
Kiwv),  and  tliey  may  perhaps  have  been  collectively 
called  "  the  treasury  "  in  the  passages  of  Mark 
and  Luke  above  referred  to.  In  .iohn  viii.  20  it 
would  seem  probable  that  the  Court,  of  the  ^Vomen 
is  itself  called  "the  treasury  "  because  it  contained 
these  repositories.  Some,  however  (as  Meyer, 
Ewald,  Holtzmann,  Grinmi,  Lex.),  understand  eV 
in  this  pass.age  to  mean  simply  <it,  ium:  .lose 
phus  uses  ya^o<pu\a,Kiov  in  the  singular,  in  refer- 
ence to  a  treasury  in  the  Temple,  Ant.  six.  6,  §  1. 
The  whole  subject  presents  various  questions  which 
we  cannot  here  discuss.  See  especially  Lif>litfoot, 
Priis/HCt  of  tlie  Temple,  ch.  xix.,  and  Clnn-atj. 
Deciid,  ch.  iii.  §§  1-4  (  Wor/cs,  Pitman's  ed.,  ix. 
313  ff,  X.  21)8  tf'.");  Reland,  Antiq.  1.  8.  §§  14-10; 
Winer,  Reoliodrttrb.  art.  Tempel,  ii.  583;  Ebrard, 
Wiss.  Krit.d.ev.  Gesch.  p.  600  f.  (3e  Aufl.,  18(58); 
with  the  notes  of  De  Wette  on  Luke  xxi.  1,  and 
Liicke  and  Godet  on  John  viii.  20.  A. 

*  TREE,  like  freow  in  Anglo-Saxon,  was  often 
a.ied  in  eaily  English  in  the  sense  of  "  wood  "  in 
general,  as  "  ves.sells  of  /re"  (Chaucer),  "  cuppe  of 
Ire ; "  and  also  specifically  to  denote  something 
made  of  wood,  particularly  a  bar  or  beam,  a  mean- 
ing still  preserved  in  the  compounds  nxlc-tree, 
<y~js6-tree,  irhipple-tree.  It  has  the  latter  meanlTig, 
with  a  special  application,  in  several  passages  of  the 
A.  v.,  e.  f/.  Acts  V.  30,  "whom  ye  slew  and  hansjed 
on  a  tree,'''  rather,  "  whom  ye  slew  by  hanging  him 
on  a  cross,"  literally,"  on  a  l)eani  of  wood  "  (eVl  ^v- 
Aou);  so  Acts  X.  39,  xiii.  29;  Gal.  iii.  13.  (See  Dr. 
Noyes's  note  on  Acts  v.  30  in  his  Trnnslnthm  of 
the  N.  T.)  In  like  maimer  the  Genevari  version 
reads,  in  reference  to  the  proposed  hansjinsi  of  Mor- 
dccai,  "  Let  them  make  a  tree  of  fifty  culiits  high  " 
(Estli.  V.  14,  comp.  vi.  4,  vii.  9,  10);  and  the  cross 
m  early  English  poetry  is  often  called  "  ( 'ristes 
tre  "  (Chaucer),  "  Godvs  tre,"  "  the  holv  rode  tre," 

209 


TRIAL 


3321 


or  simply  "  the  tree,"  as  in  the  A.  V.,  1  Pet.  ii. 
24.  Noah's  ark  is  called  in  Wycliffe's  version  of 
Wisd.  X.  4,  "a  dispisable  tree,"  where  the  A.  V. 
reads  "  a  piece  of  wood  of  small  value  "  (LXX.  eu- 
TsAes  |uAoj').  A. 

TRESPASS-OFFERING.  [Sin-offer- 
ing.] 

TRIAL.  Information  on  the  subject  of  trials 
under  the  Jewish  law  will  be  found  in  the  aiticles 
on  Judges  and  Sanhedium,  and  also  in  Jesus 
(JiiHisT.  A  few  remarks,  however,  may  here  be 
added  on  judicial  proceedings  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture, especially  such  as  were  conducted  before  for 
eigners. 

1.  The  trial  of  our  Lord  before  Pilate  was,  in  a 
legal  sense,  a  trial  for  the  offense  tefe  majfstntis ; 
one  which,  under  the  Julian  Law,  following  out 
that  of  the  Twelve  Tables,  would  be  punishable 
with  death  (Luke  xxiii.  2,  38;  John  xix.  12,  15; 
Dig.  iv.  1,  3). 

2.  The  trials  of  the  Apostles,  of  St.  Stephen, 
and  of  St.  Paul  before  the  high- priest,  were  con- 
ducted according  to  Jewish  rules  (Acts  iv.,  v.  27, 
vi.  12,  xxii.  30,  xxiii.  1). 

3.  The  trial,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  of  St.  Paul 
and  Silas  at  Philippi,  was  held  before  the  duumviri, 
or,  as  they  are  called,  ffTparriyoi,  prfetors,  on  the 
charge  of  innovation  in  religion  —  a  crime  punish- 
able with  banishment  or  death  (Acts  xvi.  19,  22; 
Diet,  of  Antiq.  "  Colonia,"  p.  318;  Conybeare  and 
Howson,  i.  345,  355,  356). 

4.  The  interrupted  trial  of  St.  Paul  before  the 
proconsul  Gallio,  was  an  attempt  made  by  the  Jews 
to  estalilish  a  chaige  of  the  same  kind  (Acts  xviii. 
12-17;  Conybeare  and  Howson.  i.  492-496). 

5.  The  trials  of  St.  Paul  at  ( 'a;sarea  (Acts  xxiv., 
XXV.,  xxvi.)  were  conducted  according  to  Roman 
rules  of  judicature,  of  which  the  procurators  Felix 
and  I'estus  were  the  .recoi;nized  administrators. 
(a.)  In  the  first  of  these,  before  Felix,  we  oliserve 
the  employment,  by  the  plaintiffs,  of  a  Roman 
advocate  to  plead  in  Latin.  [Okatok.]  (0.)  The 
postponement  {nmplintio)  of  the  trial  after  St 
Paul's  reply  (L'/ei.  of  Antiq.  "Judex,"  p.  647, 
(c. )  The  free  custody  in  which  the  accused  was 
kept,  pending  the  decision  of  the  judge  (.Acts  xxiv. 
23-26).  The  second  formal  trial,  before  Festus, 
was,  probably,  conducted  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
former  one  before  Felix  (Acts  xxv.  7,  8),  but  it  pre- 
sents two  new  features:  {n.)  the  appeal,  nppellotio 
or  provociitio,  to  Ctesar,  by  St.  Paul  as  a  Roman 
citizen.  The  right  of  appeal  ad populiim,  or  to  the 
tribunes,  became,  under  the  Em])ire,  transferred 
to  the  eiiiperor,  and,  as  a  citizen,  St.  Paul  availed 
himself  of  the  riulit  to  which  he  was  entitled,  even 
in  the  case  of  a  provincial  governor.  The  effect 
of  the  ajipeal  was  to  remove  the  case  at  once  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  emperor  (Conybeare  and  How- 
son, ii.  360;  Diet,  of  Antiq.  "  Appellatio,"  p.  107; 
Dig.  xlix.  1,  4).  (b.)  The  conference  of  the  proc- 
urator with  "the  council"  (xVcts  xxv.  12).  This 
council  is  usually  explained  to  have  consisted  of  the 
assessors,  who  sat  on  the  bench  with  the  pnvtor  as 
consiliarii  (Suet.  Tib.  33:  Diet,  of  Antiq.  "Asses- 
sor," p.  143  ;  Grotius,  On  Acts  xxv.;  Conybeare 
and  Howson,  ii.  358,  361).  But  besides  the  ab- 
sence of  any  jirevious  mention  of  any  assessors  (see 
below),  the  mode  of  expression  trvWaXyiTM  per  a 
Toi"/  (Tvp^ovkioxj  seems  to  admit  flie  explanation  of 
odiiference  with  the  deputies  from  the  Sanhedrim 
(rb  (Tuu/S-).      St.  Paul's  appeal  would   probably  b» 


3322 


TRIBUTE 


in  the  Latin  language,  and  would  require  explana- 
tion on  the  jmrt  of  tlie  judje  to  the  deputation  of 
accusers,  before  he  carried  into  effect  the  inevitable 
result  of  the  appeal,  namely,  the  dismissal  of  the 
case  so  tar  as  they  were  concerned.  [Appeal, 
Amer.  ed.J 

6.  We  have,  lastly,  the  mention  (Acts  xix.  38) 
of  a  judicial  assembly  which  lield  its  session  at  Eph- 
esus,  in  which  occur  the  terms  ayopatoi.  («'•  «•  r]u.4- 
pai)  &yovTai,  and  avBinraroi.  The  former  denotes 
the  assembly,  then  sittinrr,  of  provincial  citizens 
forming  the  conventus,  out  of  which  the  proconsul, 
auOvTraros,  selected  "  judices  "  to  sit  as  his  asses- 
sors. The  avdinraroL  would  thus  lie  the  judicial 
tribunal  composed  of  the  proconsul  and  his  asses- 
sors. In  the  former  case,  at  C»sarea,  it  is  difficult 
to  imagine  that  there  could  be  any  conventus  and 
any  provincial  assessors.  There  the  only  class  of 
men  qualified  for  such  a  function  would  be  the 
Koman  otficials  attached  to  the  procurator;  but  Iti 
Proconsular  Asia  such  assemblies  are  well  known  to 
have  existed  (Bid.  of  Antiq,  '•  l^rovincia,"  pp.  9G5, 
966,  967). 

Karly  Christian  practice  discouraged  resort  to 
heathen  tribunals  in  civil  matters  (1  Cor.  vi.  1). 

H.  W.  P. 

TRIBUTE  {to.  SlSpaXfJ-a--  (Hdrachma,  Matt, 
xvii.  24;  kT^vctos'  ce7isHs,  ibid.  2.5). 

1.  The  chief  Biblical  facts  connected  with  the 
payment  of  tribute  have  been  already  given  under 
Taxes.  A  few  remain  to  be  added  in  comiection 
with  the  word  which  in  the  above  jiiissage  is  thus 
rendered,  inaccurately  enonuh,  in  the  A.  V.  The 
payment  of  the  half-shekel  (=  h:\U-stiiler  ^  two 
drachmae)  was  (as  has  Iieen  said)  [Taxes],  though 
resting  on  an  ancient  precedent  (I'^x.  xxx.  13),  yet, 
in  its  character  as  a  fixed  annual  rate,  of  late  ori- 
gin. It  vfas  proclaimed  according  to  Kabbinic 
rules  on  the  first  of  Adar,  began  to  be  collected  on 
the  15th,  and  was  due,  at  latest,  on  the  first  of  Ni- 
san  (Mishna,  Sliebiliin,  i.  f.  7;' Surenhusius,  pp. 
260,  261).  It  was  applied  to  defray  the  general 
expenses  of  the  Temple,  the  morning  and  evening 
sacrifice,  the  incense,  wood,  shew-bread,  the  red 
heifers,  the  scape-goat,  etc.  (Sheknl.  I.  c.  in  Light- 
foot,  Hvr.  Heb.  on  Matt.  xvii.  2-t).  After  the  de- 
struction of  the  Temple  it  was  sequestrated  by 
Vespasian  and  his  successors,  and  transferred  to 
the  Temple  of  the  Capitoline  Jupiter  (.Joseph.  B. 
J.  vii.  6,  §  6  J. 

2.  The  explanation  thus  given  of  the  "tribute" 
of  Matt.  xvii.  24,  is  beyond  all  doubt  the  true  one. 
To  suppose  with  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Maldo- 
natus,  and  others,  that  it  was  the  same  as  the 
tribute  {Krjvaos)  paid  to  the  Koman  emperor  (Matt, 
xxii.  17),  is  at  variance  with  the  distinct  statements 
of  .Josephus  and  the  Jlishna,  and  takes  away  the 
whole  significance  of  our  Lord's  words.  It  may  be 
questioned,  however,  whether  the  full  significance 
of  those  words  is  adequately  brought  out  in  the 
popular  interpretation  of  them.  As  explained  by 
most  commentators,  they  are  simply  an  assertion 
by  our  Lord  of  his  Divine  Sonship,  an  implied 
rebuke  of  Peter  for  forgetting  the  truth  which  he 
had  so  recently  confessed  (comp.  Wordsworth,  Al- 
ford,  and  others);  "Then  are  the  children  (vloi) 
free:"  Thou  hast  owned  me  as  the  Son  of  the 
Living  God,  the  .Son  of  the  Great  King,  of  the 
Lord  of  the  Temple,  in  whose  honor  men  pay  the 
Temple  tribute;  why,  forL'etting  this,  dost  thou  so 
hastily  make  answer  as  if  [  were  an  alien  and  a 
atranger  r     True  as  this  exegesis  is  in  part,  it  fails 


TRIBUTE 

to  account  for  some  striking  facts.  (1.)  The  plural, 
not  the  singular  is  used  —  "  then  are  the  children 
free."  The  words  imply  a  class  of  "sons"  aa 
contrasted  with  a  class  of  aliens.  (2.)  The  words 
of  our  Lord  here  must  be  interpreted  by  his  lan- 
guage elsewhere.  The  "  sons  of  the  kingdom  " 
are,  as  in  the  Hebrew  speech  of  the  0.  T.,  those 
who  belong  to  it,  in  the  apostolic  language  "  heirs 
of  the  kingdom"  (JIatt.  viii.  12,  xiii.  .38;  .Jam.  ii. 
5;  Rom.  viii.  17),  "sons  of  God,"  "children  of 
their  Father  in  heaven."  (3.)  The  words  th;« 
follow,  "  Give  (uito  them  for  me  and  l/iee,'''  place 
the  disciple  as  standing,  at  least  in  some  degree,  on 
the  same  ground  as  his  Master.  The  principle  in- 
volved in  the  words  "  then  are  the  children  free  " 
extends  to  him  also.  Payment  is  made  for  both, 
not  on  different,  but  on  the  same  grounds. 

3.  A  fuller  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  the  case 
may  help  us  to  escape  out  of  the  trite  routine  of 
commentators,  and  to  rise  to  the  higher  and  broader 
truth  implied  in  our  Lord's  teaching.  The  Teia- 
ple-rate,  as  abo^■e  stated,  was  of  comparatively  latfl 
origin.  The  question  whether  the  o^sts  of  the 
morning  and  evening  sacrifice  ought  to  be  defrayed 
by  such  a  fixed  compulsory  payment,  or  left  to  the 
free-will  offerings  of  the  people,  had  been  a  con- 
tested point  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, 
and  the  former  had  carried  the  day  after  a  long 
struggle  and  debate,  lasting  from  the  1st  to  the 
8th  day  of  Xisan.  So  great  was  the  triumph  in 
the  eyes'of  the  whole  jjarty,  that  they  kept  the  an- 
niversai'y  as  a  kind  of  half  festi\'al.  The  Temple- 
rate  question  was  to  them  what  the  Church-rate 
question  (lias  been  to  later  Conservatives  (.lost,  Ge- 
schicl/te  des  Judenthums>,  i.  218).  We  have  to 
remember  this  when  we  come  to  the  narrative  of 
St.  jMatthew.  In  a  hundred  different  ways,  on  the 
questions  of  the  Sabbath,  of  fasting,  of  unwashed 
hands  and  the  like,  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  had 
been  in  direct  antagonism  to  that  of  the  Pharisees. 
The  collectors  of  the  rate,  probably,  from  the  nature 
of  their  functions,  adherents  of  the  Pharisee  party, 
now  cume,  half-expecting  opposition  on  this  point 
also.  Their  words  imply  that  he  had  not  as  yet 
jiaid  the  rate  for  the  current  year.  His  life  of  con- 
stant wandering,  without  a  home,  might  seem  like 
an  ev.asion  of  it.  They  ask  tauntingly,  "  Will  he 
side,  on  this  jjoint,  with  their  Sadducee  opponents 
and  refuse  to  pay  it  altogether?  "  The  answer  of 
Peter  is  that  of  a  man  who  looks  on  the  payment 
as  most  other  .lews  looked  on  it.  With  no  thought 
of  any  higher  principle,  of  any  deeper  truth,  he 
answers  at  once,  "  His  Master  will  of  course  pay 
what  no  other  religious  Israelite  would  refuse." 
The  \vords  of  his  Lord  led  him  to  the  truth  of 
which  the  Pharisees  were  losing  sight.  The  offer- 
ings of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  should  be  free, 
and  not  comiinlsory.  The  Sanhedrim,  by  making 
the  Temple-oflering  a  fixed  animal  tax,  collecti)ig 
it  as  men  collected  tribute  to  C»sar,  were  lowering, 
not  raising  the  religious  condition  and  character 
of  the  people.  They  were  placing  every  Israelite 
on  the  footing  of  a  "stranger,"  not  on  that  of  a 
"  son."  The  true  principle  for  all  such  offerings 
was  that  which  St.  Paul  afterwards  asserted,  fol- 
lowing in  his  Master's  footsteps,  "  not  grudgingly, 
or  of  necessity,  for  God  loveth  a  cheerful  giver." 
In  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which  any  man 
could  claim  the  title  of  a  Son  of  God,  in  that 
proportion  was  he  "free"  from  this  forced  exac- 
tion. Peter,  therefore,  ought  to  have  remembered 
that  here  at  least,  was  one  Mm,  by  his  own  con- 


TRIBUTE-MONEY 

ession  as   the   Son   of  the   Living  God,  was  ipso 
faclu  exempted. 

4.  Tlie  interpretation  which  has  now  been  given 
.eads  us  to  see,  in  tliese  words,  a  precept  as  wide 
and  far-reaching  as  the  yet  more  memorable  one, 
"  Render  unto  Caisar  the  thinsrs  that  be  Csesar's, 
and  unto  God  the  things  that  be  God's."  They 
condemn,  instead  of  sanctioning,  the  compulsory 
payments  which  human  policy  has  so  often  sulisti- 
tuted  for  the  "cheerful  gifts"  which  alone  God 
loves.  But  the  words  which  follow  condemn  also 
the  perversity  which  leads  men  to  a  spurious  mar- 
tyrdom in  resisting  such  payments.  "  Lest  we 
should  offend  them  ....  give  unto  them  for  me 
mid  thee."  It  is  better  to  comply  with  the  pay- 
meTit  than  to  startle  the  weak  brethren,  or  run 
counter  to  feelings  that  deserve  respect,  or  lay  an 
undue  stress  on  a  matter  of  little  moment.  In 
such  quarrels,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  both 
parties  are  equally  in  the  wrong.  If  the  quarrel 
is  to  find  a  solution,  it  nuist  be  by  a  mutual  ac- 
knowledgment that  both  have  been  mistaken. 

5.  It  is  satisfactory  to  find  that  some  interpret- 
ers at  least,  have  drawn  near  to  the  true  meaning 
of  one  of  the  most  characteristic  and  pregnant 
sayings  in  the  whole  cycle  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 
Augustine  {Qiuesiiones  Evinif/tl.  Ixxv.),  though 
missing  the  main  point,  saw  tliat  what  was  true  of 
the  Lord  and  of  Peter  was  true  of  all  (••  Sahator 
auteni,  cum  pro  se  et  Petro  dari  jubet,  pro  omnibus 
exsolvisse  videtu#").  .Jerome  {ad  loc.)  sees  in  tlie 
words  a  principle  extending  in  some  form  or  other 
to  all  believers  ("  Nos  pro  illius  honore  tributa  non 
reddimus,  et  quasi  Jilii  Eei/is  a  vectigalibus  ini- 
munes  sumus "),  though  his  words  claim  an  ex- 
emption which,  if  true  at  times  of  the  Christian 
clergy,  has  never  been  extended  to  the  body  of 
Christian  laity.  Calvin,  though  adhering  to  the 
common  explanation,  is  apparently  determined 
chiefly  by  his  dislike  of  the  inferences  drawn  from 
the  other  explanation  by  Papists  on  the  one  side, 
and  Analsaptists  on  the  other,  as  claiming  an  ex- 
emption from  obedience  in  matters  of  taxation  to 
the  civil  magistrate.  Luther  [Aiinot.  in  Mall,  xvii.) 
more  lioklly,  while  dwelling  chiefly  on  the  friendly 
pleasantry  which  the  story  represents  as  passing 
between  the  Master  and  the  disciple,"  seizes,  with 
his  usual  acuteness,  the  true  point.  "Qui  fit  (this 
is  his  paraphrase  of  the  words  of  Christ)  mi  Petre, 

ut  a  te  petant,  cum  sis  Regis  filius Vade 

et  scito  nos  esse  in  alio  reyiio  vec/es  et  Jilios  regis. 
Sinito  illis  suum  regnum,  in  quo  sumus  hospites. 
....  Fiid  reyni  sumus,  sed  non  hujns  regni 
raundani."  Tindal  {Mary.  Note  on  JNIatt.  xvii. 
26;  in  like  manner,  extends  the  principle,  "  So  is  a 
Christian  man  free  in  all  things  ....  yet  pajeth 
he  tribute,  and  submitteth  himself  to  all  men  for 
his  brother's  sake."  E-  H.  P. 

TRIBUTE-MONEY.  [Taxes;  Tribute.] 
TRIP'OLIS  {t}  TpiiroAis)-  The  Greek  name 
of  a  city  of  great  commercial  importance,  which 
served  at  one  time  as  a  pohit  of  federal  union  for 
Aradus,  Sidon,  and  Tyre.  What  its  Phoenician 
name  was  is  unknown ;  but  it  seems  not  impossilile 
that  it  was  Kadytis,  and  that  this  was  really  the 
place  captured  by  Neco  of  which  Herodotus  speaks 
(ii.  159,  iii.  5).  Kadytis  is  the  Greek  form  of  the 
S\rian  KeduHia,  "the  holy,"  a  name  of  which  a 

<«  "  Es  muss  ja  ein  fein,  freunrllich  lieblich  Ocsell- 
rliiift  seiu  gewest  inter  Christum  el  disciptdos  J«os."' 


TRIPOLIS 


3323 


relic  still  seems  to  survive  in  the  Nahr-KwJinli.  a 
river  which  runs  through  Tarahlinis,  the  modern 
representative  of  Tripolis.  All  ancient  federations 
had  for  their  place  of  meeting  some  spot  conse- 
crated to  a  common  deity,  and  just  to  the  south 
of  Tripolis  was  a  promontory  which  went  by 
the  name  of  &eov  irp6(TonTov.  [Pexiel,  ni. 
2-107  6.] 

It  was  at  Tripolis  that,  in  the  year  351  b.  c, 
the  i)lan  was  concocted  for  the  siuuiltaneous  revolt 
of  the  Phojnician   cities  and  the  Persian  depend- 
encies in  Cyprus  against  the  Persian  king  Ochus. 
Although  aided  by  a  league  with  Nectanebus  king 
of  Egypt,  this  attempt  foiled,  and  in  the  sequel 
great  part  of  Sidon  was  burnt  and  the  chief  citi- 
zens destroyed.      Perhaps  the  imiwrtance  of  Trip- 
olis was  increased  by  this  misfortune  of  its  neigh- 
bor, for  soon  after,  when  Alexander  invaded  Asia, 
it  appears  as  a  port  of  the  first  order.     After  tht 
battle  of  Issus  some  of  the  Greek  officers  in  Da- 
rius's  service  retreated  thither,  and  not  only  found 
ships  enough  to  carry  themselves  and  8,000  soldiers 
away,  but  a  number  over  and  above,  which  they 
burnt  in  order  to  preclude  the  victor  from  an  im- 
mediate pursuit  of   them    (Arrian,  ii.   13).     The 
destruction   of   Tyre  by   Alexander,  like   that  of 
Sidon  by  Ochus,  would  naturally  tend  rather   to 
increase  than  diminish  the  importance  of   Tripolis 
as  a  commercial  port.     When  Demetrius  Soter,  the 
son  of  Seleucus,  succeeded  in  wresting  Syria  from 
the  young  son  of  Antiochus  (b.  c.  101),  he  landed 
there,  and  made  the  place  the  base  of  his  opera- 
tions.    It  is  this  circumstance  to  which  allusion  is 
made  in  the  oidy  passage  in  which  Tripolis  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible  (2  Mace.  xiv.  1 ).     The  pros- 
perity of  the  city,   so   far  as  appears,  continued 
down   to  the  middle  of  the  Gth   century  of   the 
Christian  era.     Dionysius  Periegetes  applies  to  it 
the  epithet  \nTapT]v   in  the  3d  century.     In  the 
Peutinger  Table  (which  probably  was  compiled  in 
the  reign  of  the  Em|)eror  'riiet)dosius)  it  appears  on 
the  great  road  along  the  coast  of  Phoenicia;  and  at 
Orthosia  (the  next  station  to  it  northwards)  the 
roads  which  led  respectively  into  Mesopotamia  and 
Cilicia  branched  off  from  one  another.     The  pos- 
.session  of  a  good  harbor  in  so  important  a  point 
for  land-tratHc,  doubtless  combined  with  the  rich- 
ness of  the  neighboring  mountains  in  determining 
the  original  choice  of  the  site,  which  seems  to  have 
been  a  factory  for  the  purposes  of  trade  established 
by  the  three  great  Phoenician  cities.    Each  of  these 
held  a  portion  of  Tripolis  surrounded  by  a  fortifieil 
wall,  like  the  western  nations  at  the  Chinese  ports. 
But  in  A.  D.  543  it  was  laid  in  ruins  by  tlie  ter- 
rible earthquake  which    happened    in    the  month 
of  .luly  of  that  year,  and  overthrew  Tyre,  Sidon, 
Berytus,  and  Byblus  as  well.    On  this  occasion  the 
appearance  of  the  coast  was  much  altered.    A  large 
portion  of  the  promontory  'Theuprosopon  (which  in 
the  Christian  times  had  its  name,  from  motives  of 
piety,  changed  to  Lithoprosopon)  fell  into  the  sea, 
and,    by    the   natural    breakwater   it   cTriistituted, 
ereat,ed  a  new  port,  able  to  contain  a  considerable 
number  of  large  vessels.     The  ancient  Tri]H)lis  was 
finally  destroyed  by  the  Sultan  El  Mansonr  in  thi: 
year   128'J    A.   i).;  and  the  modern    Tavabloiis  ie 
situated  a  couple  of  miles  distant  to  the  east,  and 
is  no  longer  a  port.      EUMynn.  which  is  perhaps 
on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Tripolis,  is  a  small  fish- 
ing village.     'Tarablous  contains  a  population  of 
15,000  or  .16,000  inhabit.ant-s,  and  is  the  centre  of 
one  of  the  four  pashalics  of  Syria.     It  exports  siJk. 


3324 


TROAS 


tobacco,  galls,  and  oil,  grown  in  the  lower  parts 
of  the  mountain  at  the  foot  of  which  it  stands; 
and  performs,  on  a  smaller  scale,  the  part  which 
was  foiaierly  taken  by  Tripolis  as  the  entrepot  for 
the  productions  of  a  most  fertile  region  (Diod.  Sic. 
xvi  41;  Strabo,  xvi.  c.  2;  Vossius  ad  Melani,  i. 
12;  Tbeophanes,  Cla'onoi/rajMa,  sub  anno  6043). 

J.  W.  B. 

TRO'AS  (Tpojas).  The  city  from  which  St. 
Paul  fir.st  sailed,  in  consequence  of  a  Divine  inti- 
mation, to  carry  the  Gospel  from  Asia  to  Europe 
(Acts  xvi.  8,  11)  —  where  he  rested  for  a  sliort  time 
on  the  northward  road  from  Ephesus  (during  tlie 
next  missionary  journey),  in  the  expectation  of 
meeting  Titus  (2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13)  —  where  on  the 
return  soutliwards  (during  the  same  missionary 
journey)  he  met  those  who  had  preceded  him  from 
Philippi  (Acts  xx.  5,  6),  and  remained  a  week,  the 
close  of  which  (before  the  journey  to  Assos)  was 
marked  by  the  raising  of  Eutychus  from  the  dead 
during  the  protracted  midnight  discourse  —  and 
where,  after  an  inter\'al  of  many  years,  the  Apostle 
left  (during  a  journey  the  details  of  which  are 
unknown)  a  cloak  and  some  books  and  parchments 
in  the  liouse  of  Carpus  (2  Tim.  iv.  13)  — deserves 
ihe  careRd  attention  of  the  student  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  full  name  of  the  city  was  Alexandreia  Troas 
(Liv.  XXXV.  42),  and  sometimes  it  was  called  simply 
Alexandreia,  as  by  Pliny  (//.  N.  v.  33)  and  Straljo 
(xiii.  p.  593),  sometimes  simply  Troas  (as  in  the 
N.  T.  and  the  Ant.  Itin.  See  Wesselins,  p.  334). 
The  former  part  of  the  name  indicates  the  period 
at  which  it  was  founded.  It  was  first  built  by 
Antigonus,  under  the  name  of  Antigoneia  Troas, 
and  peopled  with  the  inhabitants  of  some  neigh- 
boring cities.  Afterwards  it  was  embeUished  by 
Lysimachus,  and  named  Alexandreia  Troas  Its 
situation  was  on  the  co;vst  of  Mysia,  opposite  the 
S.  Iv  extremity  of  the  island  of  Tenedos. 

Under  the  Romans  it  was  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant towns  of  the  province  of  Asia.  It  was  the 
chief  point  of  arrival  and  departure  for  those  who  I 
went  by  sea  between  ^Macedonia  and  the  western 
Asiatic  districts;  and  it  was  connected  by  good 
roads  with  other  places  on  the  coast  and  in  the  in- 
terior. For  the  latter  see  the  map  in  Leake's  Ai\a 
Minor.  The  former  cannot  be  better  illustrated 
than  by  St.  Paul's  two  voyages  between  Troas  and 
Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  11,  12,  xx.  6),  one  of  which 
was  accomplished  in  two  days,  the  other  in  five. 
At  this  time  Alexandreia  Troas  was  a  cohnia  with 
the  .lus  ItaLicum.  This  strong  Roman  connection 
can  be  read  on  its  coins.  The  Romans  had  a  pe- 
culiar feeling  connected  with  the  place,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  legend  of  their  origin  from  Troy. 
Suetonius  tells  us  that  .Julius  Caesar  had  a  plan  of 
making  Troas  the  seat  of  empire  {Cces.  79).  It 
may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  words  of  Horace 
{Oirm.  iii.  3,  57)  that  Augustus  had  some  such 
dreams.  And  even  the  modern  name  Kski-St(tmboul 
(or  "  Old  Constantinople  ")  seems  to  commemorate 
the  thought  which  was  once  in  ( 'onstantine's  mind 
(Zosim.  ii.  30;  Zonar.  xiii.  3),  who,  to  use  Gibbon's 
words,  "before  he  gave  a  just  preference  to  the 
jituation  of  Byzantium,  had  conceived  the  design 


«  *  An  island  called  Trogyllium  lay  off  the  coast 
■>f  the  promontory  of  that  name  (Strabo,  xiv.  p.  636), 
md  some  think  this  to  be  me.mt  in  Acts  xx.  6.  (See 
VoTh\%er's  Hundb. 'I'T  niten  (ien^rapkie,i\.j,~Q.)  The 
Vpo&tle  wouU  I'ave  beeu  nearer  to  Ephesus  at  Trogjl- 


TROPHIMUS 

of  erecting  the  seat  of  empire  on  this  celebrated 
spot,  from  which  the  Romans  derived  their  fabulous 
ori^fin." 

'I'lie  ruins  at  Eski-Stmnboul  are  considerable; 
The  most  conspicuous,  however,  especially  the  re- 
mains of  the  aqueduct  of  Herodes  Atticus,  did  not 
exist  when  St.  Paul  was  there.  The  walls,  which 
may  represent  the  extent  of  the  city  in  the  Apostle's 
time,  inclose  a  rectangular  space,  extending  above 
a  mile  from  east  to  west,  and  nearly  a  mile  from 
north  to  south.  That  which  possesses  most  interest 
for  us  is  the  harbor,  which  is  still  distinctly  trace- 
alile  in  a  basin  about  400  feet  long  and  200  broad. 
Descriptions  in  greater  or  less  detail  are  given  bj 
Poeocke,  Chandler,  Hunt  (in  Walpole's  Manoirs), 
Clarke,  Prokesch,  and  Fellows.  J.  S.  H. 

TROGYL'LIUM.  Samos  [which  see]  is  ex- 
actly opposite  the  rocky  extremity  of  the  ridge  of 
Mycale,  which  is  called  Tpoj-yvAAioi'  in  the  N.  T. 
(Acts  XX.  15)  and  by  Ptolemy  (v.  2),  and  Tpoi- 
■yiXwv  by  Stral)0  (xiv.  p.  036).  The  channel  is 
extremely  narrow.  Strabo  (/.  c.)  makes  it  al)ont  a 
mile  broad,  and  this  is  confirmed  by  our  Admiralty 
Charts  (1530  and  1555).  St.  Paul  sailed  through 
this  channel  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  at  the  close  of 
his  third  missionary  journey  (Acts,  I.  c).  The 
navigation  of  this  coast  is  intricate;  and  it  can  be 
gathered  from  Acts  xx.  G,  with  subsequent  notices 
of  the  days  spent  on  the  voyage,  that  it  was  the 
time  of. dark  moon.  Thus  the  night  was  spent  at 
Trogyllium."  It  is  interesting  Ifc  observe  that  a 
little  to  the  east  of  the  extreme  point  there  is  an 
anchorage,  which  is  still  called  St.  Paul's  Purl. 

J.  S.  H. 

TROOP,  BAND.  These  words  have  a  peculiar 
signification  in  many  passages  of  the  O.  T.,  which 
is  apt  to  be  overlooked,  and  the  knowledge  of  which 
throws  a  brighter  light  upon  them.  They  are  em- 
ployed to  represent  the  Hebrew  word  I-ITS,  r/eilutf, 
which  has  invariably  the  force  of  an  irre<;ular  body 
of  people,  large  or  small,  united  not  for  the  puq)Ose 
of  defense  or  regular  aggression,  like  an  army,  but 
with  the  object  of  marauding  and  phmder.  (See 
Mo.\i5,  vol.  iii.  p.  1983,  note,  where  the  term  yedud  is 
examined.)  In  addition  to  the  instances  of  its  use 
there  named,  it  may  be  observed  that  our  transla- 
tors have  in  a  few  cases  tried  to  bring  out  its  mean- 
ing more  strongly;  as  in  1  Chr.  xii.  21,  "  band-of- 
the-rovers;"  Hos.  vi.  9,  and  vii.  1,  "  troop-of-rob- 
bers."  G. 

TROPH'IMUS  [Tp6cpl^J,os  [foster-child]). 
Of  the  three  passages  where  this  companion  of  .St 
Paul  is  mentioned,  the  first  associates  him  very 
closely  with  Tychicus  (Acts  xx.  4),  and  the  last 
seems  in  some  degree  to  renew  the  association,  and 
in  reference  to  the  same  geographical  district  (2 
Tim.  iv.  20;  see  ver.  123,  while  the  intermediate 
one  separates  him  entirely  from  this  connection 
(Acts  xxi.  29). 

From  the  first  of  these  passages  we  learn  that 
Tychicus,  like  Trophimus,  was  a  native  of  Asia 
('Ao-iacoi'))  "'"^1  tlist  the  two  were  among  thosfc 
companions  who  travelled  with  the  Apostle  in  the 
course  of  the  third  missionary  journey,  and  during 
part  of  the  route  which  he  took  in  returning  from 

lium  on  the  mainland  than  he  was  at  Miletus.  A 
better  harbor,  however,  or  greater  focility  of  inter 
course  may  have  led  him  to  prefer  the  more  distaii 
place  for  his  interview  with  the  Ephesian  elder?. 


TROUGHS 

Macedonia  toward  Syria.  From  what  we  know 
30iiceriiiiig  tlie  collection  which  was  going  on  at 
this  time  for  the  poor  Christians  in  Judsea,  we  are 
disposed  to  connect  these  two  nien  with  the  business 
of  that  contribution.  This,  as  we  sliall  see,  sug- 
gests a  probable  connection  of  irophimus  with  an- 
otiier  circumstance. 

Both  he  and  Tjchicus  accompanied  St.  Paul 
from  Macedonia  as  far  as  Asia  (oxp'  rf/s  'Acri'as 
i,  c),  but  Tychicus  seems  to  have  remained  tliere 
•vhile  'I'rophiuius  proceedeil  witli  the  Apostle  to 
Jerusalem.  There  he  was  the  innocent  cause  of  the 
tumult  in  which  St.  Paul  was  apprehended,  and 
from  which  the  V03 age  to  Home  ultimately  lesulted. 
Certiin  Jews  from  the  district  of  .Asia  saw  the  two 
Christian  missionaries  together,  and  iuppostd  that 
Paul  had  t!il>eu  Trophimus  into  the  Temple  (Acts 
xxi.  27-29).  I'rom  this  passage  we  learn  two  new 
fects,  namely,  that  Trophimus  was  a  Gentile,  and 
that    he  was  a  native,  not  simply  of  Asia,  but  of 

El'HlCSUS. 

A  considerable  interval  now  elapses,  during 
which  we  have  no  trace  of  either  Tychicus  or 
Trophimus;  but  in  the  last  letter  written  by  St. 
Paul,  shortly  before  his  martyrdom,  from  Rome, 
he  mentions  them  both  {Tvx^Khv  cnreaTeiAa  els 
^EcpeffOf,  2  Tiui.  iv.  12;  Tp6(ptfj.ov  aTTfAiTroy  iv 
Mi\7]TC}>  aa&evovvra.,  iOtd.  20).  From  the  last  of 
the  phrases  we  gather  simply  that  the  Apostle  had 
no  long  time  before  been  in  the  Levant,  that 
Trophimus  had  been  with  him,  and  that  he  had 
been  left  in  infirm  health  at  Jliletus.  Of  the 
further  details  we  are  ignorant;  but  this  we  may 
say  here,  that  while  there  would  be  considerable 
ditficulty  in  accounnodating  this  passage  to  any 
part  of  the  recorded  narrative  previous  to  the  voy- 
age to  Rome,"  all  difficulty  vanishes  on  the  sup- 
position of  two  imprisoinnents,  and  a  journey  in 
the  Levant  between  them. 

What  was  alluded  to  aljove  as  probable,  is  that 
Trophimus  was  one  of  tlie  two  brethren  who,  with 
Titus,  conveyed  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians (2  Cor.  viii.  lG-2-i).  The  argument  is  so 
well  stated  by  Professor  Stanley,  that  we  give  it  in 
his  words:  "Trophimus  was,  lil;e  Titus,  one  of 
the  few  Gentiles  who  accomiianied  the  Ajx)stle;  an 
I'^phesian,  and  therefore  likely  to  have  been  sent 
by  the  Apostle  from  Epliesus  with  the  first  epistle, 
or  to  have  accompanied  him  Irom  Ephesus  now;  he 
was,  as  is  implied  of  '  this  brother,'  '  whose  praise 
was  in  all  the  churches,'  well  known ;  so  well 
known  that  the  Jews  of  Asia  Minor  at  Jeru- 
salem immediately  recognized  him ;  he  was  also 
especially  coimected  with  the  -Vpostle  on  this  very 
mission  of  the  collection  for  the  poor  in  Juda;a. 
Thus  far  would  appear  irom  the  description  of  him 
In  Acts  xxi.  29.  From  Acts  xx.  4  it  also  appears 
iliat  he  was  with  St.  Paul  on  his  return  from  this 
very  visit  to  Corinth"  (Stanley's  Cvrinlliians,  2d 
edit.  p.  492). 

The  story  in  the  Greek  Menology  that  Trophimus 
was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples  is  evidently  wrong: 
the  legend  that  he  was  beheaded  by  Nero's  orders 
is  possibly  true.  J.  S.  H. 

*  TROUGHS.     [Fountaun;  Well.] 

*TROW  (Luke  xvii.  9)  belongs  to  the  period  of 


a  Trophimus  was  no  doubt  at  Miletus  on  the  occa- 
lion  recorded  in  .\cts  .vx.  15-38,  but  it  is  most  certiiin 
Ihat  he  was  not  left  there.  The  theory  also  that  ho 
was  left  there  on  the  voyage  to  Rome  is  preposterous ; 
foi  '.he  wind  forced  St.  Paul's  vessel  to  run  direct  from 


TRUMPETS,  FEaST  OF       3325 

our  English  version,  as  synonymous  with  "think,' 
"  believe."  It  is  from  the  A.-S.  trtowian,  to  trust, 
altered  of  course  to  truueii  in  German.  H. 

*  TRUCE -BREAKERS.  Tlie  Greek  so 
rendered  {aawovhoi.)  both  hi  2  Tim.  iii.  3  and  Rom. 
i.  31,  means  literally  "  without  hbations,"  and  as 
libations  accompanied  truces  or  treaties,  "  with- 
out truces,"  i.  e.  making  no  truces,  and  hence  iiiif 
plucnble.    '  R.  D.  C  R. 

TRUMPET.     [CoKXET.] 

TRUMPETS,  FEAST  OF  (ni?^-liTl  CV, 
Num.  xxix.  1:  ri^ipa  ari/xaaias'-  dies  danynris  tt 
tiiliiiruin  ;  TIV^'^I^  p~l3T,  Lev.  xxiii.  24 :  fj.v7i/j.6' 
axivov  ixaKiri-vywi/:  sibbatuiii  memoriale  clanyen 
tibus  tubis;  in  the  Mishna  H^tl^n  tt.''S~',  "the 
liegiuning  of  the  year  "),  the  feast  of  the  new  moon, 
which  iell  on  the  first  of  fisri.  It  differed  from 
the  ordinary  festivals  of  the  new  moon  in  several 
important  particulars.  It  was  one  of  the  seven 
days  of  Holy  Convocation.  [Fkasts.]  Instead  of 
the  mere  blowing  of  the  trumpets  of  the  Temple  at 
the  time  of  tlie  oflfering  of  the  sacrifices,  it  was  "  a 
day  of  blowing  of  trumpets.''  In  addition  to  the 
daily  sacrifices  and  the  eleven  victims  ofltered  on  the 
first  of  every  month  [New  jMoon],  there  were 
ottered  a  young  bullock,  a  ram,  and  seven  lambs  of 
the  first  year,  with  the  accustomed  meat-otferinL's, 
and  a  kid  for  a  sin-otti;ring  (Num.  xxix.  l-G).  Tlie 
regular  monthly  ottt;ring  was  thus  repeated,  with 
the  exception  of  one  young  bullock. 

It  is  said  that  both  kinds  of  trumpet  were  blown 
in  the  Temple  on  this  day,  the  straight  trumpet 

(nn*i!Jn)and  the  cornet  ("iS'ltt/'and  'QT).),  ai'd 
that  elsewhere  any  one,  even  a  child,  might  blow  a 
cornet  (Reland,  iv.  7,  2;  Carpzov,  p.  425;  Rogk 
Hash.  i.  2;  Jubilee,  vol.  ii.  p.  1483,  note  c;  Cor- 
net). When  the  festival  fell  upon  a  Sabbath,  the 
trumpets  were  blown  in  the  Temple,  but  not  out  of 
it  (Jiosh  Hash.  iv.  1). 

It  has  been  conjectured  that  Ps.  Ixxxi.,  one  of 
the  songs  of  Asa[)h,  was  composed  expressly  for  the 
Feast  of  Trutnpets.  The  Psalm  is  used  in  the  ser- 
vice for  the  day  by  the  modern  Jews.  As  the  third 
verse  is  rendered  in  the  LXX.,  the  Vulgate,  and  the 
A.  v.,  this  would  seem  highly  probable,  '■  Blow 
up  the  trumpet  in  the  new  moon,  the  time  ap- 
pointed, on  our  solemn  feast  day."  But  the  best 
authorities    understand    the  word  translated    nexb 

moon  (npS)  to  mean  full  moon.  Hence  the 
psalm  would  more  properly  belong  to  the  service 
for  one  of  the  festivals  which  take  place  at  the  full 
moon,  the  Passover,  or  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
((lesen.  Tins.  s.  v.;  Rosenmiiller  and  Hengsten- 
berg  on  Ps.  Ixxxi.). 

Various;  meanings  have  been  assigned  to  the 
Feast  of  Trumpets.  Maimonides  consiiiered  that 
its  purpose  was  to  awaken  the  people  from  theii 
spiritual  slumber  to  prepare  for  the  solemn  humili- 
ation of  the  Day  of  .Atonement,  which  followed  it 
within  ten  days.  This  may  receive  some  counte- 
nance from  Joel  ii.  15,  "Blow  the  trumpet  ("IDItl') 
in  Zion,  sanctify  a  fast,  call  a  solemn   assembly." 


the  S.  W.  corner  of  A.sia  Minor  to  the  fi.  end  of  Crete 
(Apts  xxvii.  7).  We  may  add  that  when  Trophimus 
ffis  left  in  sickness  at  Miletus,  whenever  that  might 
be  he  was  within  easy  reach  ol  his  liome-frieud.-  a' 
Ephesus,  as  we  see  from  Acts  xx.  17. 


0  O  Oil 


TRYPHENA 


Some  have  supposed  that  it  was  intended  to  intro- 
duce the  seventh  or  Sabbatical  month  of  the  year, 
whieli  was  especially  holy  because  it  was  the  seventh, 
and  because  it  contained  the  Day  of  Atonement 
and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Fagius  in  Ln\  xxiii. 
24;  Buxt.  Syn.  Jud.  c.  xxiv.)-  Philo  and  some 
early  Christian  writers  I'egarded  it  as  a  memorial 
of  the  giving  of  the  Law  on  Sinai  (I'hilo,  vol.  v.  p. 
4G,  ed.  Tauch.;  Basil,  in  PsA^wi.;  Theod.  Quad, 
x.vxii.  in  Lev.).  But  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient 
reason  to  call  in  question  the  common  opinion  of 
Jews  and  Christians,  that  it  was  the  festival  of  the 
New  Year's  Day  of  the  civil  year,  the  First  of  Tisri, 
^he  month  wliich  commenced  the  Sabbatical  year 
and  the  year  of  Jubilee.  [Juisilee,  ii.  148.j  6.]  If 
the  New  Moon  Festival  was  taken  as  the  consecra- 
tion of  a  natural  division  of  time,  the  month  in 
which  the  earth  yielded  the  last  rijje  produce  of 
the  season,  and  began  again  to  foster  seed  for  the 
suiiiily  of  the  future,  might  well  be  regarded  as  the 
first  month  of  the  year.  The  fact  that  Tisri  was 
the  great  niontli  for  sowing  might  thus  easily  have 
sugtrested  the  thought  of  commemorating  on  this 
day  the  finished  work  of  Creation,  when  the  sons 
of  (lod  shouted  for  joy  (.lob  xxxviii.  7).  The  Feast 
of  Trumpets  thus  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  anni- 
versary of  the  liirthday  of  the  world  (Mishna,  liosli 
ll,iih'.\.  1;  Ilupfeld, '/>e  Fest.  Ihb.  i\.  13;  Buxt. 
byn.  Jud.  c.  xxiv.). 

It  was  an  odd  fancy  of  the  Rabbis  that  on  this 
day,  every  year,  (iod  judges  all  men,  and  that  they 
pass  before  Him  as  a  Hock  of  sheep  pass  liefor  a 
shepherd  {Rosli  Hush.  i.  2).  S.  C. 

TRYPHE'NA  and  TRYPHO'SA  (Tpu(|>aii/a 

Koi  Tpvcpaiea  [liixuridiis :  Vulg.  Tryjilicenn  and 
Tryphosn] }.  'I'wo  Christian  women  at  Home,  who. 
among  those  tliat  are  enumerated  in  the  conchisiim 
of  St.  Pauls  letter  to  that  city,  receive  a  special 
salutation,  and  on  the  special  ground  that  they  are 
engaged  there  in  "laboring  in  the  F-ord  "  (Itom. 
xvi.  12).  i'hey  may  have  been  sisters,  but  it  is 
more  likely  that  they  were  fellow-deaconesses,  and 
among  the  predecessors  of  that  large  numijer  of 
official  women  who  ministered  in  the  Church  of 
Home  at  a  later  period  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  43); 
for  it  is  to  be  observed  that  they  are  spoken  of  as 
at  that  time  occupied  in  Christian  service  {ras 
KOTTiiiaas),  while  the  salutation  to  Persis,  in  the 
game  verse,  is  connected  with  past  service  (tjtis 
fKOTriaaev). 

We  know  nothing  more  of  these  two  sister- 
workers  of  the  apostolic  time;  but  the  name  of 
one  of  them  occurs  curiously,  with  other  names 
famihar"  to  us  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  the  apoc- 
ryphal Acts  of  Paid  and  Theclti.  There  Try- 
phena  appears  as  a  rich  Christian  widow  of  Anti- 
och,  who  gives  Thecla  a  refuge  in  her  house,  and 
sends  money  to  Paul  for  the  relief  of  the  poor.  (See 
Jones,  On  the  Canon^  ii.  371,  380.)  It  is  impos- 
eilile  to  discern  any  trace  of  probability  in  this  part 
of  the  legend. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  columbaria  of 
"  Caesar's  household "  in  the  Vigna  Cudini,  near 
Povtn  S.  Sebdsliano^  contain  the  name  Tryphena, 
i-s  well  as  other  names  mentioned  in  this  cha[)ter, 
Philologus  and  Julia  (ver.  15),  and  also  Amplias 
ver.  8).  Wordsworth's  Tuur  in  Italy  (1802),  ii. 
'73.  J.  S.  U. 

TRY'PHON  {Tpxxpaix-  Utixwious] ).  A  usurper 
){  the  S,\  rian  throne.  His  proper  name  was  Diod- 
itus  (Stril).  xvi.  2,  10;  App.  Si-,  c   f!S  ■.  and  the 


TSEBAOTH,  LORD  OF 

surname  Tryphon  was  given  to  him,  or,  acwrding 
to  Appian,  adopted  by  him,  after  his  accession  to 
power.  He  was  a  native  of  Cariana,  a  fortified 
place  in  the  district  of  Apamea,  where  he  was 
brought  up  (Strab.  /.  c).  In  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander Balas  he  was  attached  to  the  court  (App. 
I.  c.  dovXos  Twu  ^acnXicav.  Diod.  ,/')•.  xxi.  ap. 
Miill.  IJisl.  Gr.  j'rtKjm.  ii.  17,  aTpuTTiyosi  I  Mace, 
xi.  39,  Twv  irapa  'AAe|.);  but  towards  the  close 
of  his  reign  he  seems  to  have  joined  in  the  con- 
spiracy which  was  set  on  foot  to  transfer  the  crown 
of  Syria  to  Ptol.  Philometor  (1  Mace.  xi.  13 ;  Died. 
/.  f. ).  Alter  the  death  of  Alexander  Balas  he  t«)k 
advantage  of  the  unpopularity  of  Demetrius  II. 
to  put  forward  the  claims  of  Antiochus  VI.,  the 
young  son  of  Alexander  (1  Mace.  xi.  39;  B.  c. 
]45).  After  a  time  he  obtained  the  support  of 
.lonathan,  who  had  been  alienated  from  Demetrius 
by  his  ingratitude,  and  the  young  king  was  crowned 
(li.  ('.  144).  Tryphon,  however,  soon  revealed  his 
real  designs  on  the  kingdom,  and,  fearing  the  oppo- 
sition of  Jonathan,  he  gained  possession  of  his  per- 
son by  treachery  (1  Mace.  xii.  39-50),  and  after  a 
short  time  put  him  to  death  (1  Mace.  xiii.  23). 
As  the  way  seemed  now  clear,  he  murdered  Anti- 
ociuis  and  seized  the  supreme  jiower  (1  Mace.  xiii. 
31,  32),  which  he  exercised,  as  far  as  he  was  able, 
with  violence  and  rajwcity  (1  Mace.  xiii.  34).  Ilia 
tyrainiy  again  encouraged  the  hopes  of  Demetrius, 
who  was  engaged  in  preparing  an  expedition  against 
him  (15.  c.  141),  when  he  was  taken  prisoner  (1 
Mace.  xiv.  1-3),  and  Tryphon  retained  the  tinone 
(Just,  xxxvi.  1;  Diod.  Leg.  xxxi.)  till  Antiochus 
VII.,  the  brother  of  Demetrius,  drove  him  to  Dora, 
frum  which  he  escaj)ed  to  Orthosia  in  l'h(enicia 
(1  .Macc^  XV.  10-14,  37-39;  b.  c.  139).  Not  long 
afterwards,  lieing  hard  pressed  by  Antiochus,  he 
conniiiited  suicide,  or,  according  to  other  accounts, 
was  put  to  death  by  Antiochus  (.Strab.  xiv.  5,  2; 
Ajip.  Hyi-.  c.  GS,  'AvTioxoi  —  KTeivei  ....  trvv 
TTOfw  TToW^).  Josephus  {Ant.  xiii.  7,  §  2)  adds 
that  he  was  killed  at  Apamea,  the  place  which  he 
made  his  headquarters  (Strab.  xvi.  2,  10).  The 
authority  of  Tryphon  was  evidently  very  partial, 
as  ajipears  from  the  growth  of  Jewish  independence 
under  Simon  Maccabajus;  and  Strabo  describes  him 
as  one  of  the  chief  authors  of  Cilician  piracy  (xiv. 
3,  2).  His  name  occurs  on  the  coins  of  Anti- 
ochus VI.  [vol.  i.  p.  llSj,  and  he  also  struck  coins 
in  his  own  name.     [Antiochus;  Dk.mktkius.J 

B.  F.  W. 


Coin  of  Tryphon. 
TRYPHO'SA.  [Tryphena  and  Tryphosa.] 
*  TSEB'AOTH,  LORD  OF,  is  a  more 
exact  orthography  than  Sabaoth,  adopted  in  Rom. 
ix.  29  and  Jas.  v.  4  from  the  Greek  (aa^aiid), 
the  form  under  which  this  title  of  Jehovah  has 
been  already  noticed  in  this  Dictimiary.  We  re- 
call the  suliject  here  for  the  purpose  of  qualifying 
the  explanation  given  under  the  other  head.  It  is 
said  there  to  be  applied  to  .lehovah  simply  as  "  the 
leader  and  commander  of  tlie  armies  of  the  nation, 
who  'went  forth  with  them  '  (Ps.  xliv.  9),  and  led 
them   to  certain  victory  over   the  worshippers  "  o? 


TUBAL 

'alse  goas.  It  is  undei.iable  that  tsebnoth  often 
denotes  the  national  armies  of  Israel,  and  may  some- 
times in  connection  with  Jehovah  (Lord  of  hosts) 
designate  this  army  as  God's  host,  which  He  leads 
forth  to  victory  against  the  enemies  of  his  people 
(«ee  1  Sam.  xvii.  45).  But  such  an  application  by 
no  means  exliausts  the  meaning  of  the  term.  It  is 
used  also  of  the  sun,  and  moon,  and  stars,  which 
are  called  Jehovah's  "  iiost,"  because  they,  too, 
execute  his  wUl,  and  represent  so  impressively  his 
majesty  and  power.  Thus  in  Gen.  ii.  1  it  is  said : 
"  The  heavens  and  the  earth  were  finished,  and  all 
the  hosl  of  them."  In  L)eut.  iv.  19  the  Israelites 
are  warned  against  idolatry:  "  Lest  thou  lift  up 
thine  eyes  unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the 
sun,  and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  all  the  host 
of  heaven,"  thou  "shouldest  be  driven  to  serve 
them,"  etc.  (see  also  xvii.  3).  In  various  other 
passages  (2  K.  xvii.  16,  xxi.  S;  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  3,  b; 
Jer.  xix.  13)  the  Chaldcean  worship  of  the  stars  is 
described  as  that  of  bowing  down  or  offering  in- 
cense to  "  tiie  liosl  of  heaven."  It  is  not  sur- 
prising, therefore,  that  we  should  find  the  same 
term  applied  to  the  heavenly  inhabitants,  angels, 
Beniphiai,  and  other  superhuman  orders  that  sur- 
round the  throne  of  God,  and  are  sent  forth  to  do 
his  pleasure  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Thus  in  1 
K.  xxii.  19  the  prophet  Jlicaiah  says :  "  Hear  thou 
therefore  the  word  of  the  Lord:  I  saw  the  Lord 
(Jehovah)  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host 
of  heaven  standing  by  him;  "  and  ver.  21:  "And 
there  came  forth  a  spirit  (one  of  the  host),  and 
stood  before  the  l>ord  and  said,"  etc.  That  Jeho- 
vah is  styled  "the  Lord  of  hosts"  with  reference 
to  his  supremacy  as  the  sovereign  of  m\  riads  of 
angels  as  well  as  of  men,  is  evident  from  the  paral- 
lelism of  various  passages.  Thus  in  Ps.  ciii.  20, 
21 :  "  Bless  Jehovah,  ye  his  aiic/els,  that  excel  in 
strength.  Bless  Jehovah,  all  ye  his  hosts;  ye  min- 
isters of  his,  that  do  his  pleasure."  Assuredly  the 
armies  of  Israel  cannot  be  intended  here,  or  the 
stars  which  appear  on  the  face  of  the  heavens. 
So  iu  I's.  cxhiii.  2:  "Praise  ye  him,  all  his  any  els; 
praise  ye  him,  all  his  /ivsls."  As  to  the  existence 
of  such  orders  of  superhuman  beings,  the  angel- 
ologv  of  the  O.  T.  agrees  precisely  with  that  of  the 
N.  T.  (see  Luke  ii.  13 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  53 ;  liev.  xix. 
14).     [AxGi'XS.] 

It  is  said  under  Sabaotii  that  the  name  is 
found  in  the  Lnglish  Bible  only  in  Horn.  ix.  29  and 
James  v.  4.  It  is  tbund  in  those  passages  because 
the  tireelc  is  Kuptos  'S.a^awQ-  It  may  be  added 
that  in  the  Sept.  translation  of  1  Samuel  and 
Isaiah  the  expression  is  generally,  "  The  Lord  of 
Sabaoth;"  while  always  in  2  Samuel,  frequently 
iu  Jeremiah  and  throughout  the  Minor  Prophets, 
it  is  Puntol^rc.liir,  "  the  Almighty ''  or  "all-ruhng." 
In  the  Latin  Vulgate  "  Saijaoth  "  appears  in  tiie 
0.  T.  only  in  .ler.  xi.  20,  wliile  in  tlie  prophets  tiie 
usual  equivalent  is  Dominus  excrcUaum  and  Doiu- 
inus  or  Peus  vlrtutum  in  the  Psalms.  In  Pom.  ix. 
29  and  James  v.  4,  the  Vulgate  follows  the  Greek 
text.  (On  this  topic  see  Prof  Plumptre  in  Sun- 
'Jiy  M(i(/(izliie,  Dec.  1808;  and  Qihler  in  Herzog's 
Uml-Enajk.  viii.  400-404.)  11." 

TU'BAL  (ba^n  [see  below] ;  briW  in  Gen. 
c.  2;  Ez.  xxxii.  2G,  xxsix.  1:  0o;3«'A.,  .  except  in 
E>..  xxxix.  1,  where  Alex.  @o0(p    [and   xxvii.  13, 


TUBAL 


332 


«  Kaobel  conuects  these  Iberians  of  the  eii.st  and 
»«et,  and  considers  the  Tibareui  to  have  been  a  brauch 


where  Rom.  •^  trvfjuTaaa,  Alex,  to  <Tvfj.wavra\  ■ 
Tltuhnl,  but  in  Is.  Ixvi.  19,  It(dlt).  In  the  an- 
cient ethnological  tables  of  Genesis  and  1  ( 'hr. 
Tubal  is  reckoned  with  Javan  and  Meshech 
among  the  sons  of  Japheth  (Gen.  x.  2 ;  1  Chr. 
i.  5).  The  three  are  again  associated  in  the  enu- 
meration of  the  sources  of  the  wealth  of  Tyre; 
Javan,  Tubal,  and  Meshech,  brought  slaves  and 
coiiper  vessels  to  the  Phoenician  markets  (Rz.  xxvii. 
13).  Tubal  and  Javan  (Is.  Ixvi.  19),  Meshech  and 
Tubal  (Ez.  .xxxii.  26,  xxxviii.  2,  3,  xxxix.  1),  are 
nations  of  the  north  (Ez.  xxxviii.  15,  xxxix.  2). 
.losephus  {Aal.  i.  6,  §  1)  identifies  the  descendants 
of  Tubal  with  the  Iljerians,  that  is  —  not,  as  .le- 
rome  would  understand  it,  Spaniards,  but  —  the 
inhabitants  of  a  tract  of  country,  between  the  Cas- 
pian and  Euxine  Seas,  which  nearly  corresponded 
to  the  modern  Georgia."  This  approximates  to 
the  view  of  Bochart  (Phaler/,  ill.  12),  who  makes 
the  Moschi  and  Tibareui  represent  Meshech  and 
Tul)al.  These  two  Colchian  tribes  are  mentioned 
together  in  Herodotus  on  two  occasions;  first,  as 
forming  part  of  flie  19th  satrapy  of  the  Persian 
empire  (iii.  94),  and  again  as  being  in  the  army 
of  Xerxes  under  the  connuand  of  Ariomardus  the 
son  of  Uarius  (vii.  78).  The  Moschi  and  Tibareni, 
moreover,  are  "constantly  associated,  under  the 
names  of  Mushd  and  Tuplai,  in  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions "  (Sir  H.  Kawlinson  in  Rawlinson's  Ihr. 
i.  535).  The  Tibareni  are  said  by  the  Scholiast 
on  ,\pollonius  Khodius  (ii.  1010)  to  have  been  a 
Scythian  tribe,  and  they  as  well  as  the  Jloschi  are 
probably  to  be  referred  to  that  Turaniasi  people, 
who  in  very  early  times  S|)read  themselves  o\ei-  the 
entire  region  between  the  Mediterranean  and  India, 
the  Pei-sian  Gulf  and  the  Caucasus  (Kawlinson, 
IJer.  i.  535).  In  the  time  of  Sargon,  according 
to  the  inscriptions.  Ami  iris,  the  son  of  Khuliya, 
was  hereditary  chief  of  Tubal  (the  southern  slopes 
of  Taurus).  lie  "had  cultivated  relations  with 
the  kings  of  Musak  and  Vararat  (Meshech  and 
Arar.at,  or  the  Moschi  and  Armenia)  who  were  in 
revolt  against  Assyria,  and  thus  drew  upon  himself 
the  hostility  of  the  great  king"  (tbil.  i.  169, 
note  3).  In  former  times  the  Tiliareni  were  proli- 
ably  more  important,  and  the  .Moschi  and  Tibareni, 
Meshech  and  Tubal,  may  have  been  names  by 
which  powerful  hordes  of  Scythians  were  known  to 
the  Hebrews.  But  in  history  we  only  hear  of 
them  as  pushed  to  the  furthest  limits  of  their  an- 
cient settlements,  and  occupyins;  merely  a  strip  of 
coast  along  the  Euxine.  Their  neighbors  the 
Chaldeans  were  in  the  same  condition.  In  the 
time  of  Herodotus  the  iMoschi  and  Tibareni  were 
even  more  closely  connected  than  at  a  later  period, 
for  in  Xenophon  we  find  them  sepaiated  by  the 
Macrones  and  Mossynoeci  {Aiutb.  v.  5,  §  1 ;  Plin.  vi 
4,  Ac).  The  limits  of  the  territory  of  the  Tibareni 
are  extremely  difficult  to  determine  with  any  deirree 
of  accuracy.  After  a  part  of  the  10,000  (ireeka 
on  their  retreat  with  Xenophon  had  embarked  at 
Cerasus  (perhaps  near  the  modern  Ktrasoun  Dire 
Sii),  the  rest  marched  along  the  coast,  and  soon 
came  to  the  boundaries  of  the  Mossynceci  (Annb. 
V.  4,  §  2).  They  traversed  the  country  occupied 
by  this  people  in  eight  days,  and  then  came  to  the 
(  halybes,  and  after  them  to  the  Tib:ireni.  The 
eastern  limit  of  the  Tibareni  was  therefore  about 
80  or  90   miles  along  the  coast  \V.  of  ( 'enisus. 

of  tUU  \videly-.i!preiid   Tiirauian  fiinilv,  knowi,  ti,   z\u 
Ucbrcrts  as  Tubal  {^Jlktrtajel  d.  Out.  §  13). 


3328 


TUBAL-CAIN 


Two  days'  march  through  Tibarene  brought  the 
Greeks  to  C'otyora  {AnaO.  v.  5,  §  3),  unci  they  were 
altogether  three  days  in  passing  through  the  coun- 
try (Died.  Sic.  xiv.  30).  Now  from  C.  Ja.soniuni 
to  Boon,  according  to  Anian  (Peripl.  16),  the 
distance  was  90  stadia,  90  more  to  C'otyora,  and  60 
noni  Cotyora  to  the  river  Jlelanthius,  making  in 
all  a  coast  line  of  240  stadia,  or  three  days'  march. 
I'rofessor  Rawlinson  {Her.  iv.  181)  conjectures  that 
the  Tibareni  occupied  the  coast  between  Cape  Y'l- 
si/iin  (.Jasonium)  and  the  River  Melantliius  {.^fclct 
Irnidk),  but  if  we  follow  Xenophon,  we  nuist  place 
J5o<  n  as  their  western  boundary,  one  day"s  march 
from  Cotyora,  and  their  eastern  limit  must  lie 
suuirbt  somi  10  miles  east  of  the  Mekt  Innnk^ 
perhaps  not  far  from  the  modern  Aptar,  which  is 
3^  hours  from  that  river.  The  anonymous  author 
of  the  Teriplus  of  the  Euxine  says  (33)  that  the 
Tibareni  formerly  dwelt  west  of  Cotyora  as  far  as 
Polemoiiium,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Puuleinan  cliiii, 
1^  miles  east  of  Fatudli. 

In  the  time  of  Xenophon  the  Tibareni  were  an 
independent  tribe  (Aiinb.  vii.  8,  §  2.5).  Long  be- 
fore tb,.s  they  were  sulyect  to  a  numiier  of  petty 
chiefs  which  was  a  principal  element  of  their  weak- 
ness, and  rendered  their  subjugation  by  .Assyria 
more  easy.  Dr.  Hincks  (quoted  l)y  Rawlinson, 
Herod,  i.  380,  note  1)  has  found  as  many  as  twenty- 
four  kings  of  the  Tuplai  mentioned  in  the  inscrip- 
tions. Tliey  are  said  by  Apollonius  Rliodius  to 
have  been  rich  in  flocks  (Ai-i/.  ii.  377).  The  traflic 
in  slaves  and  vessels  of  copper  with  which  the  peo- 
ple of  Tubal  supplied  the  markets  of  Tyre  (l^z. 
xxvii.  13)  still  further  connects  them  with  the 
Tibareni.  It  is  well  known  that  the  regions  bor- 
dering on  the  Fontus  Kuxiims  furnished  Ihe  most 
beautiful  slaves,  and  that  the  slave  traffic  was  an 
extensive  branch  of  trade  among  the  Cappadoeians 
(Polyb.  iv.  38,  §  4;  Hor.  Ep.  i.  (5,  39;  Rers.  Sat. 
vi.  77;  Mart.  A'p.  vi.  77.  x.  7G,  &6.).  The  cop[)er 
of  the  Mossynoeci,  the  neighbors  of  the  Tibareni, 
was  celebrated  as  being  extremely  bright,  and  with- 
out any  admixture  of  tin  (Arist.  De  Mir.  Auscult. 
p.  62);  and  the  Chalybes,  who  lived  between  these 
tribes,  were  long  famous  for  their  craft  as  metal- 
BUiiths.  We  must  not  forget,  too,  the  copper-mineg 
of  Chalvar  in  Armenia  (Hamilton,  Ag.  Mhi.  i.  173). 

The  .\rabic  Version  of  Gen.  x.  2  gives  Chorasan 
and  China  for  Meshech  and  Tubal ;  in  I'Aisebius 
(see  Bochart)  they  are  Illyria  and  Thessaly.  The 
Talmudists  {Yuma,  fol.  10,  2),  according  to  Bo- 
ehart,  define  Tubal  as  "  the  home  of  the  Uninci 

(''p"^^31S),"  whom  he  is  inclined  to  identify  with 
the  Huns  {PJadecj,  iii.  12).  They  may  perhaps 
take  their  name  from  Oenoe,  the  modern  Unith,  a 
town  on  the  south  coast  of  the  Black  Sea,  not  far 
from  Cape  Yasoun  (.Tasonium),  and  so  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood  of  the  Tibareni.  In  the 
Targum  of  R.  Joseph   on   1   Chr.    (ed.   Wilkins) 

S''''3'*n^1  is  given  as  the  equivalent  of  Tubal,  and 
Wilkins  renders  it  by  Bithynia.  But  the  reading 
in  this  passage,  as  well  as  in  the  Targums  of  .Jeru- 
salem and  of  .Jonathan  on  Gen.  x.,  is  too  doubtful 
to  be  followed  as  even  a  traditional  authority. 

W.  A.  W. 

TU'BAL-CA'IN  (T^P  bn^D  [see  below] : 
i  0d/3cA:  Tubni-ca'in).  The  son  of  Lamech  the 
Cainiie  by  his  wife  Zillah  (Gen.  iv.  22).  Ho  is 
called  "  a  furbisher  of  every  cutting  instrument  of 
lopper  and  iron."     The  Jewish  legend  of  later  times 


rURPENTINE-TREE 

associates  him  with  his  father's  song.  '• '  auieoh 
was  blind,"  says  the  story  as  told  by  Rashi,  '-and 
Tubal-Cain  was  leading  him;  and  he  saw  Can., 
and  he  appeared  to  hiin  like  a  wild  beast,  so  ha 
told  his  father  to  draw  his  bow,  and  he  slew  him. 
-Vnd  when  he  knew  that  it  was  Cain  his  ancestor 
he  smote  his  hands  together  and  struck  his  son 
between  them.  So  lie  slew  him,  and  his  wives 
withdraw  from  him,  and  he  conciliates  them." 
In  this  story  Tubal-Cain  is  the  "young  man  "  of 
the  song.  Rashi  apparently  considers  the  name 
of  Tubal-Cain  as  an  appellative,  for  he  makes  him 
director  of  the  works  of  Cain  for  making  weapons 

of  war,  and  connects  "Tubal"  with  ^3rn.  lahbi'd, 
to  season,  and  so  to  prepare  skillfully.    He  appears 

moreover  to  have  pointed  it  T'^^'H,  tobH,  which 
seems  to  have  been  the  reading  of  the  I^XX.  and 
Josephus.  According  to  the  writer  last  mentioned 
{Ant.  I.  2,  §  2),  Tubal-Cain  was  distinguished  for 
his  prodigious  strength  and  his  success  in  war. 

The  derivation  of  the  name  is  extremely  obscure. 
Hasse  {Lnideckuiujen,  ii.  37,  quoted  by  Ivnobel  on 
(ien.  iv.  22)  identifies  Tubal-Cain  with  Vulcan; 
and  Buttmann  {Mythol.  i.  164)  not  only  compares 
tliese  names,  but  adds  to  the  comparison  the  TeA- 
xivi"!  of  Rhodes,  the  first  workers  in  copjier  and 
iron  (Strabo,  xiv.  G.54),  and  Dwalinn,  the  demon 
smith  of  the  Scandinavian  mythology.  Gesenius 
proposed  to  consider  it  a  hylirid  word,  compounded 

of    the   I'ers.    ^^a.J,   tiipal,  iron  slag,  or  scoria, 

and   the   Arab.  ..wAJJ,  kain,   a   smith;    but   this 

etymology  is  more  than  doubtful.  The  Scythian 
race  Tubal,  who  were  coppersmiths  (Ez.  xxvii.  13), 
naturally  suggest  themselves  in  connection  with 
Tubal-Cain.  W.  A.  W. 

TUBIE'NI  {Tov&irivoi\  Alex.  Tov^avoi:  Tu- 
binncBi).  The  ''Jews  called  Tubieni  "  lived  about 
Chairax,  7.50  stadia  from  a  strongly-fortified  city 
called  Caspis  (2  Mace.  xii.  17).  They  were  doubt- 
less the  same  who  are  elsewhere  mentioned  as  living 
hi  the  towns  of  Toubion  (A.  V.  Tubie),  which 
again  is  probably  the  same  with  the  Tob  of  the 
Old  Testament.  G. 

*  TUMULT,  Mark  v.  38.     [MouhxIxNG.] 

*  TURBANS.     [BojJXETS.] 

TURPENTINE-TREE  (rfpeVivflos,  npi- 
^ivOos'-  tertbinthui)  occurs  only  once,  namely,  in 
the  Apocrypha  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  16),  where  wisdom  ia 
compared  with  the  "  turpentine-tree  that  stretcheth 
forth  her  branches."  llie  repePu'dos  or  rfpjuii'dos 
of  the  Greeks  is  the  Pislacia  tertbinHius,  tereliinth- 
tree,  conmion  in  Ralestine  and  the  East,  supposed 

by  some  writers  to  represent  the  elali  (H^S)  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible.  [Oak.]  The  terebinth,  though 
not  generally  so  conspicuous  a  tree  in  Ralestine  as 
some  of  the  oaks,  occasionally  grows  to'a  large 
size.  See  Robinson  {B.  Ii.  ii.  222,  223),  who  thus 
speaks  of  it.  "  The  Butm  "  (the  Arabic  name  of 
tlie  terebinth)  "  is  not  an  evergreen,  as  often  repre- 
sented, but  its  small  lancet-shaped  leaves  fall  in 
the  autumn,  and  are  renewed  ui  the  spring.  The 
flowers  are  small,  and  followed  by  sniall  oval  berries, 
hanging  in  clusters  from  two  to  five  inches  long, 
resembling  much  those  of  the  vine  when  the  grapes 
are  just  set.  From  incisions  in  the  trunk  tliore  i» 
said  to  flow  a  sort  of  transparent  balsam,  consti- 
tuting a  very  pure  and  fine  species  of  t  urpenliiia, 


TURTLE 

with  Ai.  airreealjle  odor  like  citron  or  jessamii.e, 
and  a  mild  taste,  and  hardening  ijradually  into  a 
transparent  siiim.  In  Palestine  nothin»  seems  U> 
be  known  of  this  product  of  the  bntni!"  The 
terebinth  belonjrs  to  the  Nat.  Order  Annnn-dvicice, 
the  plants  of  which  order  generally  contain  resinous 
secretions.  W.  H. 


TURTLE 


8329 


Pistqfia  lerehinthus. 

TURTLE,  TURTLE-DOVE  ("l"in,  tin- : 
rpvyiiv  '■  lurtiir :  generally  in  connection  with 
n^l"*,  ijoiirVi,  "dove").  [Dove.]  The  name  is 
phonetic,  evidently  derived  from  the  plaintive  cooing 
of  the  bird.  The  turtle-dove  occurs  first  in  Scrip- 
ture in  Gen.  xv.  i),  where  Abram  is  commanded  to 
otfer  it  along  with  other  sacrifices,  and  with  a  young 

pigeon  (7T12,  (/ozdl).  In  the  Levitical  law  a  pair 
of  turtle-doves,  or  of  young  pigeons,  are  constantly 
preserilied  as  a  substitute  for  those  who  were  too 
poor  to  provide  a  lamb  or  a  kid,  and  these  birds 
were  admissilile  either  as  trespass,  sin,  or  burnt- 
ofTering.  In  one  instance,  the  case  of  a  N^azarite 
having  been  accidentally  defiled  by  a  dead  bod}-,  i 
pan-  of  turtle-flovesor  young  pi<4eons  were  specially 
enjoined  (Xum.  vi.  10).  It  was  in  accordance  with 
the  provision  in  Lev,  xii.  6  that  the  mother  of  our 
Lord  made  the  offering  for  her  purification  (Luke 
ii.  24).  During  the  early  period  of  Jewish  history, 
there  is  no  evidence  of  any  other  bird  except  the 
pigeon  having  been  domesticated,  and  up  to  the 
time  of  Solomon,  who  may,  witii  the  peacock,  have 
introduced  other  gallinaceous  birds  from  India,  it 
was  probably  the  only  poultry  known  to  the  Israel- 
ites. To  tljis  day  enormous  quantities  of  piLieons 
\re  kept  in  dove  cots  in  all  the  towns  and  villaiies 
sf  Palestine,  and  several  of  the  fancy  races  so  famil- 
ur  in  tills  country  have  l)een  traced  to  be  of  Syriar 
►rigin.  The  ottering  of  two  young  pigeons  must 
lave  been  one  easily  within  the  reach  of  the  poores^, 
»nd  the  offerer  was  accepted  according  to  that  he 
had,  and  not  according  to  that  he  had  not. .  The 
tdmission  of  a  pair  of  turtle-doves  was  perhaps 
i  yet  further  concession-  to  extreme  iwverty  for, 
jnlike  the  pigeon,  the  turtle,  from  its  miirratory 
»aturc  atid  timid  disposition,  has  ne\er  yet  been 


kept  in  a  stete  of  fi-ee  domestication;  but  lieing 
extremely  numerous,  and  resorting  especially  to 
gardens  for  nidification,  its  ymmg  might  easily  be 
found  and  captured  by  those  who  did  not  even  pos- 
sess pigeons. 

[t  is  not  ijiiprobable  that  the  palm-dove  {Turtiir 
/Eijijptiacus,  Temni.)  may  in  some  measure  ha\e 
supplied  the  sacrifices  in  the  wilderness,  for  it  is 
found  in  amazing  numbers  wherever  the  palm-tree 
occurs,  whether  wild  or  culti\ated.  In  most  of 
the  oases  of  North  Africa  and  Arabia  every  tree  is 
the  home  of  two  or  three  pairs  of  these  tame  and 
elegant  birds.  In  the  crown  of  many  of  the  date- 
trees  five  or  six  nests  are  placed  together;  and  the 
writer  has  frequently,  in  a  palm-grove,  brought 
down  ten  brace  or  more  without  moving  from  his 
piist.  In  such  camps  as  Elim  a  considerable  supply 
of  these  doves  may  have  been  obtained. 

From  its  habit  of  pairing  for  life,  and  its  fidelity 
for  its  mate,  it  was  a  symbol  of  purity  and  an  ap- 
propriate oflTering  (comp.  Plin.  Nut.  Hist.  x.  52) 
The  regular  migration  of  the  turtle-dove  and  ita 
return  in  spring  are  alluded  to  in  Jer.  viii.  7,  "  The 
turtle  and  the  crane  and  the  swallow  observe  the 
time  of  their  coming;  "  and  Cant.  ii.  11,  12,  "  The 
winter  is  past  .  .  .  and  the  voice  of  the  turtle  is 
heard  iTi  our  land."  So  Pliny,  "  Hyeme  muti;,, 
a  vere  voealibus;"  and  Arist.  Hist.  An.  ix.  8, 
"  Turtle-doves  spend  the  summer  in  cold  countries, 
the  winter  in  warm  ones."  Although  elsewhere 
(viii.  5)  he  makes  it  hibernate  ((pic\e7).  There  is, 
indeed,  no  more  grateful  proof  of  the  return  of 
spring  in  Mediterranean  countries  than  the  voice 
of  the  turtle.  One  of  the  first  birds  to  migrate 
northwards,  the  turtle,  while  other  songsters  are 
heard  chiefly  in  the  morning,  or  only  at  intervals, 
innnediately  on  its  arrival  pours  forth  from  every 
garden,  grove,  and  wooded  hill  its  melancholy  yet 
soothing  ditty,  unceasinsjly  from  early  dawn  till 
sunset.  It  is  from  its  plaintive  note  doubtless  that 
David  in  Ps.  Ixxiv.  19,  pouring  forth  his  lament  to 
God,  compares  himself  to  a  turtle-dove. 

From  the  abundance  of  the  dove  tribe  and  their 
importance  as  an  article  of  food,  the  ancients  dis- 
criminated the  species  of  ColuinbiikB  more  accu- 
rately than  of  many  others.  Aristotle  enumerates 
five  species,  which  are  not  all  easy  of  identification, 
as  but  four  species  are  now  known  rommonli/  to 
inhabit  Greece.  In  Palestine  the  number  of  speoiea 
is  probably  greal/er.  Besides  the  rock-dove  {Co- 
liimb'i  livid,  L.),  very  conmion  on  all  the  rocky 
parts  of  the  coast  and  in  the  inland  ravines,  where 
it  remains  throughout  the  year,  and  from  which 
all  the  varieties  of  the  domestic  pigeon  are  derived, 
the  ring-dove  (Cohanba  pcdumhus,  L.)  frequents  all 
the  wooded  districts  of  the  country.  The  stock- 
dove {Col.umha  mnns,  L.)  is  as  generally,  but  more 
sparingly  distributed.  Another  species,  allied  either 
to  this  or  to  Columha  livin,  h.as  been  observed  in 
the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  perhaps  Cd.  leiiconotn, 
Vig.  See  Ibis,  vol.  i.  p.  35.  The  turtle-dove  (  Turliir 
iiuritus,  L. )  is,  as  has  been  stated,  most  abundant, 
and  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  an  allied  species, 
the  palm-dove,  or  Egyptian  turtle  {Turtur  j£//i/p- 
li'icKs,  Tennn.),  is  by  no  means  uncommon.  This 
bird,  most  abundant  among  the  palm-trees  in  Egypt 
and  North  Africa,  is  distinguished  from  the  com- 
mon turtle-dove  by  its  ruddy  chestnut  color,  its  long 
tail,  smaller  size,  and  the  absence  of  the  collar  on 
the  neck.  It  does  not  migrate,  but  from  the  sim- 
ilarity of  its  note  and  h.abits,  it  is  not  probable  that 
it  was  distinguished  by  the  ancients.     The  large 


J330 


TUTORS 


[iidian  turtle  {Turtur  (jelnstes,  lemia.)  has  al»o 
been  stated,  though  without  authority,  to  occur  in 
Palestine.  Other  species,  as  the  well  known  col- 
lared iove  ( Tuvtur  risoria,  L. )  have  been  incor- 
rectly included  as  natives  of  Syria.         H.  B.  T. 


Turtur  JEgyptiaciis. 

*  TUTORS,  only  in  Gal.  iv.  2,  the  translation 
of  iirirporrot,  more  properly  rendered  "guardians." 
It  denotes  those  to  whom  a  charge  is  committed, 
in  this  instance  that  of  guardian  or  overseer  of 
children  who  are  the  heirs  of  property,  while  the 
associated  term  oIkov6^ioi  singles  out  those  anion  l' 
the  o\erseers  who  regulate  the  pecuniary  affairs  of 
the  estate.  The  better  sense  of  the  latter  term  is 
"stewards"  and  not  "governors"  (A.  V.).  See 
especially  Wieseler,  Ueber  den  Br.  nil  die  Oidnter. 
p.  326.  The  A.  V.  follows  the  antecedent  Eiiolish 
versions,  e.Kcept  Wycliffe's.  See  IiemarJ>'»  un  Ren- 
derings, etc.,  Bibl.  Sacra,  xxii.  139.  H. 

TYCH'ICUS  (TvxtKo^  [fortuitous]).  A  com- 
panion of  St.  Pa\il  on  some  of  his  journeys,  and  one 
of  his  fellow-laborers  in  the  work  of  the  Gosjiel. 
He  is  mentioned  in  live  separate  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  in  tour  cases  explicitly,  in  the  fifth 
very  probably,  he  is  connected  with  the  district  of 
Asia.  (1.)  In  Acts  XX.  4,  he  appears  as  one  of  those 
who  accompanied  the  Apostle  through  a  longer  or 
shorter  ])ortion  of  his  return-journey  from  the  third 
missionary  circuit.  Here  he  is  expressly  called 
(with  Trophimus)  'h<TLav6s\  but  while  Trophimus 
went  with  St.  Paul  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  29), 
Tvchicus  was  left  behind  in  Asia,  probably  at 
Miletus  (Acts  xx.  15,  38).  (2.)  How  Tychicus  was 
employed  in  the  interval  before  St.  Paul's  first  im- 
prisonment we  cannot  tell:  but  in  that  imprison- 
ment he  was  with  the  Apostle  again,  as  we  see  from 
Col.  iv.  7,  8.  Here  he  is  spoken  of,  not  only  as 
"  a  beloved  brother,"  but  as  "  a  faithful  minister 
ind  fellow-servant  in  the  I-ord ;  "  and  he  is  to  make 
known  to  the  Colossians  the  present  circumstances 
af  the  .\postle  (ret  kut'  e'/ie  iravra  yvu/piaei),  and 
X)  bring  comfort  to  the  Colossians  themselves  ('/ra 
TapoLKaKerTT]  tccs  KapSias  u/xuv)-  Prom  this  we 
jather  that  diligent  service  and   warm   Christian 


TYR ANNUS 

sympathy  were  two  features  of  <je  life  and  char- 
acter of  Tychicus.  Colossse  was  in  Asia;  but  froai 
the  fact  that  of  Onesimus,  who  is  mer.tioned  im- 
mediately afterwards,  it  is  said,  os  4cni.v  e'l  u^w;/, 
whereas  Tychicus  is  not  so  styled,  we  naturally  in- 
fer that  the  latter  was  not  a  native  of  that  city. 
These  two  men  were  douljtle^s  the  bearers  both  of 
this  letter  and  the  following,  as  well  as  tlitt  tc 
Philemon.  (3.)  The  language  concerning  T\chieu9 
in  Eph.  v.  21,  22,  is  very  similar,  though  not  ex- 
actly in  the  same  words.  And  it  is  the  more  im- 
portant to  notice  this  passage  carefully,  because  it 
is  the  only  personal  allusion  in  the  epistle,  and  is 
of  some  consi<lerable  value  as  a  subsidiary  argumei.t 
for  its  authenticity.  If  this  was  a  circular  letttr, 
Tychicus,  who  bore  a  coumiission  to  Colossse.  and 
who  was  probably  well  known  in  various  [wrts  of 
the  pro\ince  of  Asia,  would  be  a  very  ])roj)er  person 
to  see  the  letter  duly  delivered  and  read.  (4.)  The 
next  references  are  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  first 
in  chronological  order  being  Tit.  iii.  12.  Here  .St. 
Paul  (writing  possibly  from  Ephesus)  says  that  it 
is  probable  he  may  send  Tychicus  to  Crete,  about 
the  time  when  he  him.self  goes  to  Nicopolis.  (5.)  In 
2  Tim.  iv.  12  (written  at  Eonie  during  the  second 
injprisonment)  he  says,  "  I  am  herewith  sending 
Tychicus  to  Ephesus."  At  least  it  seems  natural, 
with  Dr.  Wordsworth,  so  to  render  aTreVreiAa, 
though  Bp.  iniieott's  suggestion  is  also  worth  con- 
sidering, that  this  mission  may  have  been  coiniected 
with  the  carrying  of  the  Jirst  epistle.  (See  their 
notes  on  the  passage.)  However  this  may  be,  we 
see  this  disciple  at  the  end,  as  we  saw  him  at  the 
beginning,  connected  locally  with  .-Xsia,  while  also 
coiiperating  with  St.  P'aul.  AA'e  have  no  authentic 
information  concerning  Tychicus  in  any  period 
previous  to  or  sulisequent  to  these  five  Scriptural 
notices.  The  tradition  which  places  him  afterwanis 
as  bishop  of  Chalcedon  in  Bithynia  is  apjiarently 
of  no  value.  But  there  is  much  proliability  in  the 
conjecture  (Stanley's  Corintliinns,  2d  ed.  p.  493) 
that  Tychicus  was  one  of  the  two  "  iirethren  " 
(Trophimus  being  the  other)  who  were  associated 
with  Titus  (2  Cor.  viii.  16-24)  in  conducting  the 
business  of  the  collection  for  the  poor  Christians  in 
.Iud*a.  As  arguments  for  this  view  we  may  men- 
tion tlie  association  witli  Trophimus,  the  probability 
that  both  were  Ephesians,  the  occurrence  of  both 
names  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  (see  2  Tim. 
iv.  20),  the  chronological  and  geographical  agree- 
ment with  the  circumstances  of  the  third  missionarj 
journey,  and  the  gener.al  language  used  concerning 
Tychicus  in  Colossians  and  Ephesians.  [Asia  ; 
EphI'Zsus;  TuorHTMUS.]  J.  S.  H. 

TYRAN'NUS  {Tvpawos  [despot,  tyrant]). 
The  name  of  a  man  in  whose  school  or  place  of 
audience  Paul  taught  the  Gospel  for  two  j-ears, 
during  his  sojourn  at  Ephesus  (see  Acts  xix.  9). 
The  halls  or  rooms  of  the  philosophers  were  called 
(rxoA.ai  among  tlie  later  Greeks  (Liddell  and  Scott, 
s.  r. );  and  as  Luke  applies  that  term  to  ihe  mi- 
i/itorium  in  this  instance,  the  presumption  is  that 
Tyrannus  himself  was  a  (Jreek,  and  a  public  teacher 
of  philosoiihy  or  rhetoric.  He  and  Paul  nuist  have 
occupied  the  room  at  different  hours;  but  whether 
he  hired  it  out  to  the  Christians  or  gave  to  then 
the  use  of  it  (in  either  case  he  must  have  been 
friendly  to  them)  is  left  uncertain.  Meyer  is  dis- 
posed to  consider  that  Tyrannus  W"as  a  Jewish  rabt>i, 
and  the  owner  of  a  private  synagog  le  or  house  toi 

teaching  (tt?"^lJ?   n"'2).     But,  in  the  fir>it  p)ac«i, 


TYRE 

nis  Greek  name,  and  the  f  ict  that  he  <s  not  men- ' 
tioned  as  a  Jew  or  proselyte,  disagree  with  that 
supposition ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  as  Paul  re- 
paired to  this  man's  school  after  ha.ing  been  com- 
pelled to  leave  the  Jewish  synagogue  (Acts  xix.  9), 
it  is  evident  that  he  took  this  course  as  a  means 
of  gaining  access  to  .the  heathen  ;  an  olject  which 
lie  would  naturally  seek  through  the  coi  peration  of 
one  of  their  own  number,  and  not  by  associating 
himself  with  a  Jew  or  a  Gentile  adherent  of  the 
Jewish  fiiith.  In  speaking  of  hini  merely  as  a  cer- 
tain Tyrannus  {Tvpavvov  rivos),  Luke  indicates 
certainly  that  he  was  not  a  believer  at  first;  though 
it  is  natural  enough  to  think  that  he  may  have 
become  such  as  the  result  of  his  acquaintance  with 
the  Apostle.  Hemsen  (De7-  Apostit  Paulus,  p.  218) 
throws  out  the  idea  that  the  hall  may  have  be- 
longed to  the  authorities  of  the  city,  and  have 
deiived  its  name  from  the  original  proprietor. 

H.  B.  H. 

TYRE  Cry^,  ~I!J,  i.e.  Tzdr:  ripos:  Tyrus: 
Josh.xis. '29  [oiTi'pioi] ;  2Sam.xxiv  7;  Is.  xsiii.  1; 
Ez.  xxvi.  15,xxvii.  2,  &c.).  A  celebrated  commercial 
city  of  antiquity,  situated  in  Phoenicia,  on  the  east- 
ern coast  of  the  ATediterranean  Sea,  in  latitude  ^3° 
17'  N.  (Admiral  Smythe's  McdiUrranenn,  p.  4G9). 
Its  Hebrew  name  "  Tzor  "  signifies  a  rock;  which 
well  agrees  with  the  site  of  Siu\  the  modern  town, 
on  a  rocky  penirjsula,  formerly  an  island.  From 
the  word  -'Tzor"'  were  derived  two  names  of  the 
city,  in  which  the  first  letters  differed  from  each 
other,  though  botli  had  a  feature  of  their  common 
parent:  1st,  the  Aramaic  word  Tura,  whence  the 
Greek  word  Turos,  probalily  pronounced  Tyros, 
which  finally  prevailed  in  Latin,  and  with  slight 
changes,  in  the  modern  languages  of  the  West; 
and.  2dly,  Sara,  or  Sarra,  which  occurs  in  Plnutus 
(True.  ii.  0,  58,  "  purpuram  ex  Sara  tibi  attuli  "), 
and  which  is  familiar  to  scholars  through  the  well- 
known  line  of  Virgil,  "  Ut  gemma  bibat,  et  Sarrano 
dormiat  ostro  "  (6Vo/y/.  ii.  .50G;  comp.  Aul.  Gell. 
xiv.  6;  Silius  Italicus,  xv.  20-3;  Juvenal,  x.  30). 
According  to  a  jiassage  of  Probus  (ad  Virg.  Geoi-ff. 
ii.  11.5),  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Grote  (History  of  Greece, 
35-3),  the  form  "Sara''  would  seem  to  have 
occuiTed  in  one  of  the  Greek  epics  now  lost,  which 
passed  under  the  name  of  Homer.  Certainly,  this 
form  accords  best  with  the  modern  Arabic  name 
of  Sih: 

Pal.i?tyrus,  or  Old  Tyre.  There  is  no  doubt 
that,  previous  to  the  siege  of  the  city  by  Alexander 
the  Great,  Tyre  was  situated  on  an  island ;  but, 
according  to  the  tradition  of  the  inhabitants,  if  we 
may  believe  Justin  (xi.  10),  there  was  a  city  on  the 
mainland  before  there  was  a  city  on  the  island ; 
and  the  tradition  receives  some  color  from  the  name 
of  Palsetyrus,  or  Old  Tyre,  which  was  borne  in 
Greek  times  by  a  city  on  the  continent,  30  stadia 
to  the  south  (Strabo,  xii.  11,  24).  But  a  difficulty 
irises  in  supposing  that  Palfetyrus  was  built  before 
Tyre,  as  the  word  Tyre  evidently  means  "  a  rock," 
ind  few  persons  who  have  visited  the  site  of 
PaliBtyrus  can  seriously  suppose  that  any  rock  on 
the  surface  there  can  have  given  rise  to  the  name. 
To  escape  this  difficulty,  Hengstenberg  makes  the 


TYRE 


09  1 
■J -J  I 


a  According  to  Herodotus,  the  priests  at  Tyre  told 
•iim  that  their  city  had  been  founded  2,300  years  be- 
bre  his  visit.  Supposing  he  was  at  Tyre  in  450  B.  c, 
fcis  would  make  tlie  date  of  its  foundation  2,7.50  n.  c 
Josephus  makes    the   more  sober  statement,  probably 


suggestion  that  Palwtyrus  meant  Tyre  that  formerly 
existed;  "  qufe  quondam  fuit;"  and  that  tlie  name 
was  introduced  after  the  destruction  of  the  greater 
part  of  it  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  distinguish  it  from 
that  part  of  Tyre  which  continued  to  be  in  exist 
ence  (De  rebus  Tyriorum,  p.  20).  Movers,  justly 
deeming  this  explanation  unlikely,  suggests  that  the 
original  inhabitants  of  fhe  city  on  the  mainland 
possessed  the  island  as  part  of  their  territory,  and 
named  their  city  from  the  characteristic  features  of 
the  island,  though  the  i.sland  itself  was  not  then 
inhaliited  (D'ls  Plidiiizisdie  Altevtiium,  vol.  ii.  pt. 
i.  p.  173).  This  explanation  is  po.s,sible;  but  other 
explanations  are  equally  possible.  Fur  example,  thii 
Phcenician  name  of  it  may  have  been  the  Old  City; 
and  this  may  have  been  translated  "  Pala-tyrus  " 
in  Greek.  Or,  if  the  inhabitants  of  the  mainland 
migrated  to  the  island,  they  may  afterwards,  at 
some  time  or  other,  have  given  to  the  city  which 
they  left  the  name  of  Old  Tyre,  without  its  being 
necessarily  implied  that  the  city  had  ever  borne 
simply  the  name  of  Tyre.  Or  some  accidental  cir- 
cumstance, now  beyond  the  reach  of  conjecture, 
may  have  led  to  the  name;  just  as  for  some  unac- 
countalile  reason  Roma  Vecchia,  or  Old  Rome,  ia 
the  name  given  in  the  Roman  Campagna  (as  is 
stated  on  the  high  authority  of  iMr.  H.  E.  Bun- 
bury)  to  ruins  of  the  age  of  Caracalla  situated  lie- 
tween  the  roads  leading  to  Frascati  and  Alliano, 
although  there  are  no  traces  there  of  any  Old  Town, 
and  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose 
that  there  is  any  historical  foundation  whatever  for 
the  name.  And  this  again  would  tally  with  Mr. 
Grote's  remark,  who  observes  (I.  c.)  that  perhaps 
the  Phoenician  name  which  the  city  on  the  main- 
land bore  may  have  been  something  re.sembling 
Pake- Tyrus  in  sound  but  not  coincident  in  mean- 
ing. It  is  important,  however,  to  bear  in  mind 
that  this  question  regarding  Paketyrus  is  merely 
archneological,  and  that  nothing  in  Biblical  history 
is  affected  by  it.  Nebuchadnezzar  necessarily  be- 
sieged the  portion  of  the  city  on  the  mainland,  as 
he  had  no  vessels  with  which  to  attack  the  island; 
but  it  is  reasonably  certain  that,  in  the  time  of 
Isaiah  and  l'"zekiel,  the  heart  or  core  of  the  city  was 
on  the  island.  The  city  of  Tyre  was  consecrated 
to  Hercules  (Melkarth)  who  was  the  principal  object 
of  worship  to  the  inhabitants  (Quintus  Curtius.  iv. 
2;  Stral)0,  xvi.  p.  7.57);  and  Arriaii  in  his  History 
says  that  the  temple  on  the  island  was  the  most 
ancient  of  all  temples  within  the  memory  of  man- 
kind (ii.  10).  It  cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  that 
the  island  had  long  been  iidiabited.  ,\nd  with  this 
agree  the  expressions  as  to  Tyre  Ijeing  ''  in  tht 
midst  of  the  seas"  (Ez.  xxvii.  25,  20);  and  even 
the  thre.at  against  it  that  it  should  be  made  like 
the  top  of  a  rock  to  spread  nets  upon  (see  Dea 
Vignoles'  Chronologie  de  I'/Iislnire  Soiiile,  Berlin, 
1738,  vol.  ii.  p.  25).  As,  however,  the  space  on 
the  island  was  limited,  it  is  very  possilde  that  the 
|)opulation  on  the  mainland  may  have  exceeded  the 
population  on  the  i.<land  (see  Movers,  I.  c.  p.  81). 

Whether  liuilt  liefore  or  later  than  Palatyrns. 
the  renowned  city  of  Tyre,  though  it  laid  claims  to 
a  very  high  antiquity"  (Is.  xxiii.  7;  Herodot.  ii. 
14;  (iuintus  Curtius,  iv.  4),  is  not  mentioned  either 


founded  on  Menander's  history,  tliat  it  wn.<!  founded 
2.30  \  ears  before  the  counneneement  of  the  bnililin; 
of  Solomon's  temple.  Under  any  circumstances.  Jo- 
se|>hus  could  not.  with  hi.«  ideas  and  chronolMjjy,  havo 
accepted  the  date  of  the  Tyriau  priests;  f <  r  theu  Tyr« 


3332  TYRE 

in  the  Iliad  or  in  the  Odyssey;  but  no  inference 
can  be  legitimately  drawn  from  this  fact  as  to  the 
existence  or  non-existence  of  the  city  at  the  time 
when  those  poems  were  composed,  'llie  tribe  of 
Canaanites  which  iiihal)ited  tiie  small  tract  of  coun- 
try which  may  be  called  I'hoenicia  Proper  [PucE- 
nicia]  was  known  by  the  generic  name  of  Sidonians 
(.ludg.  xviii.  7;  Is.  xxiii.  2,  4,  12;  Josh.  xiii.  6; 
Ez.  xxxii.  30);  and  this  name  undoubtedly  included 
Tyrians,  the  inhabitants  being  of  the  same  race, 
and  the  two  cities  being  less  than  20  English  miles 
distant  from  each  other.  Hence  when  Solomon 
sent  to  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  for  cedar-trees  out  of 
Lebanon  to  be  hewn  by  Hiram's  subjects,  he  re- 
minds Hiram  that  "  tliere  is  not  among  us  any 
that  can  skill  to  hew  timber  like  the  Sidonians" 
(1  K.  V.  6).  Hence  Virgil,  who,  in  his  very  first 
mention  of  Carthage,  expres.sly  states  that  it  was 
founded  by  coloiusts  from  Tyre  (yEn.  i.  12),  after- 
wards, with  i)erfect  propriety  and  consistency,  calls 
it  the  Sidonian  city  {yEn.  i.  677,  678,  iv.  54.5.  See 
Des  Vignoles,  /.  c.  p.  25).  And  in  like  manner, 
when  Sidonians  are  spoken  of  in  the  Homeric 
I'oems  (//.  vi.  200,  xxiii.  74.3;  Od.  iv.  84,  xvii.  424), 
this  might  comprehend  Tyrians;  and  the  mention 
of  the  city  Sidon,  while  there  is  no  similar  mention 
of  Tyre,  would  be  fully  accomited  for — if  it  were 
necessiTi-y  to  account  for  such  a  circumstance  at  all 
in  a  poem  —  liy  Sidon's  having  been  in  early  times 
more  flourishing  than  Tyre.  It  is  worthv,  likev\'ise, 
of  beini;  noted,  that  Tyre  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Pentateucii;  but  here,  again,  though  an  inference 
may  be  drawn  against  tlie  importance,  no  inference 
can  be  legitimately  draw^n  against  the  existence,  of 
Tyre  in  the  times  to  which  the  Pentateuch  refers. 

In  the  Bible,  Tyre  is  named  for  the  first  time  in 
the  book  of  .Joshua  (xix.  29),  where  it  is  adverted 
to  as  a  fortified  city  (in  the  A.  V.  "  the  strong 
city''),  in  reference  to  the  boundaries  of  the  tribe 
of  -Vsher.  Nothing  historical,  however,  turns  upon 
tills  mention  of  Tyre;  for  it  is  indisputable  tliat  the 
tribe  of  .Asher  never  possessed  the  Tjrian  territory. 
According  to  the  injunctions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
indeed,  all  the  Canaanitish  nations  ought  to  have 
lieen  exterminated;  but,  instead  of  this,  the  Israel- 
ites dwelt  among  the  Sidonians  or  Phceniciai's,  who 
were  inhaliitants  of  the  land  {.ludg.  i.  31,  32),  and 
never  seem  to  have  had  any  war  with  that  intel- 
ligent race.  Subsequently,  in  a  passage  of  Samuel 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  7),  it  is  stated  that  the  enumerators 
of  the  census  in  the  reign  of  David  went  in  pur- 
suance of  their  mission  to  Tyre,  amongst  other 
cities,  which  must  lie  understood  as  implying,  not 
that  Tyre  was  subject  to  David's  autliority,  but 
merely  that  a  census  was  thus  taken  of  the  .lews 
resident  there.  But  the  first  passages  in  the  He- 
brew historical  writings,  or  in  ancient  history  gen- 
erally, which  afford  glimpses  of  the  actual  condition 
of  TjTe,  are  in  the  book  of  Samuel  (2  Sam.  v.  11), 
in  connection  with  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  sending 
cedar-wood  and  workmen  to  David,  for  building 
him  a  palace;  and  sulisequently  in  the  book  cf 
Kings,  in  connection  with  the  building  of  Solomoi.'s 
temple.     One  jjoint  at  this  period  is  particularly 


would  have  been  founded  before  the  era  of  the  Deluge. 
Bee  an  instructive  pas.iage  as  to  the  chronology  of 
Tosephug  in  Aiit.  viii   3,  §  1. 

«  Tt  may  be  interesting  to  compare  the  distance 
trom  which  the  limestone  was  brought  with  which  St. 
t'aurs  Cathedral  was  built.  It  was  hewn  from  quar- 
ries in  the  Isle  of  Portland,  and  wag  sent  to  Loudon 


TYRE 

worthy  of  attention.  In  contradistinction  from  all 
tlie  other  most  celebrated  independent  connnercia] 
cities  out  of  Phoenicia  in  tlie  ancient  and  modern 
world,  lyre  was  a  monarchy  and  not  a  republic; 
and,  notwithstanding  its  merchant  j)rinces,  who 
might  have  been  deemed  likely  to  favor  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  aristocratical  commonwealth,  it  con- 
tinued to  preserve  the  monarchical  form  of  govern- 
ment imtil  its  final  loss  of  independence.  Another 
point  is  the  skill  in  the  mechanical  arts  which  seenia 
to  have  been  already  attained  by  the  Tyrians. 
Under  this  head,  allusion  is  not  specially  made  to 
the  excellence  of  the  Tyrians  in  felling  trees ;  for, 
througii  vicinity  to  the  forests  of  Lebanon,  tliCr' 
would  as  naturally  have  become  skilled  in  that  ait 
as  the  backwoodsmen  of  .America.  But  w4iat  is 
peculiarly  noteworthy  is  that  Tyrians  had  become 
workers  in  brass  or  copper  to  an  extent  which 
implies  considerable  advancement  in  art.  In  the 
enumeration  of  the  \arious  works  in  brass  executed 
by  the  Tyrian  artists  whom  Solomon  sent  for,  there 
are  lilies,  palm-tree^,  oxen,  lions,  and  cherubim 
(1  K.  vii.  13-45).  The  manner  in  which  the  cedar- 
wood  and  fir-wood  was  conveyed  to  Jerusalem  is 
likewise  interesting,  partly  from  the  similarity  of 
the  sea  voyage  to  what  may  commonly  be  seen  on 
the  Khine  at  the  present  day.  and  partly  as  giving 
a  vivid  idea  of  the  really  short  distance  between 
Tjre  and  Jerusalem.  The  wood  was  taken  in  floats 
to  Joppa  (2  Chr.  ii.  16;  IK.  v.  9),  a  distance  of 
less  than  74  geographical  miles.  In  the  Mediter- 
ranean during  summer  there  are  times  when  this 
voyage  along  the  coast  would  have  been  perfectly 
safe,  and  when  the  Tyrians  might  have  reckoned 
confidently,  especially  at  night,  on  light  winds  to 
fill  the  sails  which  were  probably  used  on  such 
occasions.  From  Joppa  to  Jerusalem  the  distance 
was  about  32  miles;  and  it  is  certain  that  by  this 
route  the  whole  distance  between  the  two  celebrated 
cities  of  .Jerusalem  and  Tyre  was  not  more  than 
106"  geographical,  or  about  122  l^nglish  miles. 
Within  such  a  comparatively  short  distance  (which 
by  land,  in  a  straight  line,  was  about  20  miles 
shorter)  it  would  be  easy  for  two  sovereigns  to 
establish  personal  relations  with  each  other;  more 
especially  as  the  northern  boundary  of  Solomon's 
kingdom,  in  one  direction,  was  the  southern  bound- 
ary of  Phcenicia.  Solomon  and  Hiram  may  fre- 
quently have  met,  and  thus  laid  the  foundations  of 
a  political  alliance  in  personal  friendship.  If  by 
messengers  they  sent  riddles  and  problems  for  each 
other  to  solve  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  5,  §  3;  c.  Apion. 
i.  17),  they  may  previously  have  had,  on  several 
occasions,  a  keen  encounter  of  wits  in  convivial  in- 
tercourse. In  this  way,  likewise,  Solomon  may  have 
become  acquainted  with  the  Sidonian  women  who, 
with  those  of  other  nations,  seduced  him  to  Poly- 
theism and  the  worship  of  Astarte  in  his  old  age. 
Similar  remarks  apply  to  the  circumstances  which 
may  have  occasioned  previously  the  strong  aft'ection 
of  Hiram  for  David  (1  K.  v.  1). 

However  this  mav  be,  it  is  evident  that  under 
Solomon  there  was  a  close  alliance  between  the  He- 
brews and  the  Tyrians.     Hiram  supplied  Solomon 


round  the  North  Foreland  up  the  river  Thames.  The 
distance  to  Loudon  in  a  straight  line  from  the  North 
Foreland  alone  is  of  itself  about  twelve  miles  greatei 
than  from  Tyre  to  Joppa;  while  the  distance  from  th« 
Isle  of  Portland  to  the  North  Foreland  is  actuallt 
three  times  as  great. 


TYRE 

irith  cedar  wood,  precious  metals,  and  workmen, 
»nd  gave  liini  sailors  for  the  voyage  to  Ophir  and 
India,  while  on  the  other  hand  Solomon  gave  Hiram 
supplies  of  corn  and  oil,  ceded  to  him  some  cities, 
and  permitted  him  to  make  use  '>f  some  havens  on 
the  Red  Sea  (1  K.  ix.  11-U,  2G-28,  x.  22).  These 
friendly  relations  survived  for  a  time  the  disastrous 
Becession  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  and  a  century  later 
Ahah  married  a  daughter  of  Ethhaal,  king  of  the 
Sidonians  (1  K.  xvi.  31),  who,  according  to  Jlenau- 
der  (.losephus.  Ant.  viii.  13,  §  2),  was  daughter  of 
Ithobal,  king  of  Tyre.  As  she  was  zealous  for  her 
national  religion,  she  seems  to  have  been  regarded 
as  an  abomination  by  the  pious  worshippers  of 
Jehovah  ;  but  this  led  to  no  special  prophetical 
denunciations  against  Tyre.  The  case  became  dif- 
ferent, however,  when  mercantile  cupidity  induced 
the  Tyrians  and  the  neighboring  Phoenicians  to  buy 
Hebrew  captives  from  their  enemies  and  to  sell 
them  as  slaves  to  the  Greeks  [Piicexicians,  iii. 
2518  /j]  and  Kdomites.  From  this  time  commenced 
denunciations,  and,  at  first,  threats  of  retaliation 
(Joel  iii.  4-8;  Amos  i.  9,  10);  and  indeed,  though 
there  might  be  peace,  there  could  not  be  sincere 
friendship  between  the  two  nations.  But  the  like- 
lihood of  the  denunciations  being  fulfilled  first  arose 
from  the  progressive  conquests  of  the  Assyrian 
monarchs.  It  was  not  probable  that  a  powerful, 
victorious,  and  ambitious  neighbor  could  resist  the 
temptation  of  endeavoring  to  suljugate  tlie  small 
strip  of  land  between  the  Lebanon  and  the  sea,  so 
insignificant  in  extent,  but  overflowing  with  so  much 
wealth,  which  by  the  Greeks  was  called  Phcenicia. 
[PmENiciA.]  Accordingly,  when  Shalmaneser, 
king  of  Assyria,  had  taken  the  city  of  Samaria, 
had  conquered  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  carried 
its  inhabitants  into  captivity,  he  turned  his  arms 
aijainst  the  Phoenician  cities.  At  this  time.  Tyre 
had  reached  a  high  point  of  prosperity.  Since  the 
reign  of  Hiram,  it  had  planted  the  splendid  colony 
of  Carthage  (1-13  years  and  eight  months,  Josephus 
says,  after  the  building  of  Solomon's  Temple,  c. 
Ajdon.  i.  18);  it  possessed  the  island  of  Cyprus, 
with  the  valuable  mines  of  the  metal  "  copper  "  (so 
named  from  the  island);  and,  apparently,  the  city 
of  Sidon  was  subject  to  its  sway.  But  Shalmaneser 
seems  to  have  taken  advantage  of  a  revolt  of  the 
Cyprians  ;  and  what  ensued  is  thus  related  by 
IMeiiander,  who  translated  the  archives  of  Tyre  into 
the  (ireek  language  (see  Josephus,  Ayit.  ix.  14.  §  2); 
''  Elulaeus  reigned  3G  years  (over  Tyre).  This  king, 
upon  the  revolt  of  the  Ivittfeans  (Cyprians),  sailed 
with  a  fleet  against  them,  and  reduced  them  to 
sulimission.  On  the  other  hand,  the  king  of  the 
Xssyrians  attacked  in  war  the  whole  of  Phoenicia, 
.jut  soon  mad%  peace  with  all,  and  turned  back. 
On  this,  Sidon  and  Ace  («'.  e.  Akko  or  Acre;  and 
Palietyrus  revolted  from  the  Tyrians,  with  many 
other  cities  which  delivered  themselves  up  to  the 
king  of  Assyria.  Accordingly,  when  the  Tyrians 
wouM  r>ot  submit  to  him,  the  king  returned  and 
fell  u]ion  them  again,  the  Phoenicians  having  fur- 
nished him  with  60  ships  and  800  rowers.  Against 
these  the  Tyrians  sailed  with  12  ships,  and,  dis- 
persing the  fleet  opposed  to  them,  they  took  five 
hundred  men  prisoners.  The  reputation  of  all  the 
'itizens  in  I'yre  was  hence  increased.  Upon  this 
the  king  of  the  Assyrians,  moving  off  his  army, 
•laced  guards  at  their  river  and  aqueducts  to  pre- 
vent the  Tyrians  from  drawing  water.  This  con- 
\inued  for  five  years,  and  still  the  Tyrians  held  out, 
lupplyiuir  themselves  with  water  from  wells."     !t  is 


TYRE  5333 

in  reference  to  this  siege  that  the  prophecy  against 
Tyre  in  the  writings  entitled  Isaiali,  chaj)  xxiii. 
was  uttered,  if  it  proceeded  from  the  Propliet  Isaiah 
himself:  but  this  point  will  be  again  noticed. 

After  the  siege  of  T3re  by  Shalmaneser  (whlct 
must  have  taken  place  not  long  after  721  u.  C. ), 
Tyre  remained  a  powerful  state  with  its  own  kings 
(Jer.  XXV.  22,  xxvii.  3;  Ez.  xxviii.  2-12),  remark- 
able for  its  wealth,  with  territory  on  the  mainland, 
and  protected  by  strong  fortifications  (Ez.  xxviii.  5, 
xxvi.  4.  ti,  8,  10,  12,  xxvii.  11;  Zech.  ix.  3).  Our 
knowledge  of  its  condition  thenceforward  until  the 
siege  l)y  Nebuchadnezzar  depends  entirely  on  va- 
rious notices  of  it  by  the  Hebrew  prophets;  but 
some  of  those  notices  are  singularly  full,  and,  espe- 
cially, the  twenty-se\enth  chapter  of  Ezekiel  fur- 
nishes us,  on  some  points,  with  details  such  as  have 
scarcely  come  down  to  us  respecting  any  one  city  of 
antiquity,  exce[)ting  Rome  and  Athens.  One  point 
especially  arrests  the  attention,  that  Tyre,  like  its 
splendid  daughter  Carthage,  employed  mereen.iry 
soldiers  (Ez.  xxvii.  10,  11).  This  has  been  the 
general  tendency  in  commercial  cities  on  account  of 
the  high  wages  which  may  be  obtained  by  artisans 
in  a  thriving  community,  compared  with  the  ordi- 
nary pay  of  a  .soldier;  and  Tyre  had  been  unable  to 
resist  the  demoralizing  temptation.  In  its  service 
there  were  Phoenicians  from  Arvad,  iEtiiiopians 
olitained  through  the  commerce  of  Egypt,  and 
hardy  mountaineers  from  Persia.  This  is  the  first 
time  that  the  name  of  Persia  occurs  in  the  remains 
of  ancient  literature,  before  its  sons  founded  a  great 
monarcliy  on  the  ruins  of  the  Chalda;an  empire. 
We  may  conceive  them  like  the  Swi.ss,  who,  poor, 
faithful,  and  brave,  have  during  many  centuries, 
until  the  last  few  years,  deemed  enlistment  in 
foreign  service  a  legitimate  source  of  gain  Inde- 
pendently, however,  of  this  fact  respecting  Tjrian 
mei'cenary  soldiers,  ICzekiel  gives  interesting  details 
respecting  the  trade  of  Tyre.  On  this  head,  with- 
out attempting  to  exhaust  the  subject,  a  few  lead 
ing  points  may  be  noticed.  The  first  question  is 
as  to  the  countries  from  which  Tyre  obtained  the 
precious  metals ;  and  it  appears  that  its  gold  came 
from  Ar.abia  by  the  Persian  Gulf  (v.  22),  just  as  in 
the  time  of  Solomon  it  came  from  Arabia  by  the 
Ited  Sea  [OphiuJ.  Whether  the  Arabian  mer- 
chants, whose  wealth  was  proverbial  in  Koman 
classical  times  (Horace,  Od.  i.  2!J,  1),  obtained  their 
gold  by  traffic  with  .\frica  or  India,  or  whether  it 
was  the  product  of  their  own  country,  is  uncer- 
tain; but  as  far  as  the  latter  alternative  is  con- 
cerned, the  point  will  probably  be  cleared  up  in  the 
progress  of  geological  knowledge.  On  the  other 
hand,  tlie  silver,  iron,  lead,  and  tin  of  Tyre  came 
from  a  very  different  quarter  of  the  worlil,  namely, 
from  the  south  of  Spain,  wiiere  the  Phxnicians 
had  established  their  settlement  of  Tarahish,  or  Tar- 
tcssus.  As  to  copper,  we  should  have  presumed 
that  it  w.as  obtained  from  the  valual)le  mines  in 
Cyprus;  but  it  is  mentioned  here  in  conjunction 
with  Javan,  Tubal,  and  Meshech,  which  points  to 
the  districts  on  the  south  of  the  Black  Sea,  in  the 
neighl)oriiood  of  Armenia,  in  the  southern  line  of 
the  Caucasus,  between  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Cas- 
pian, 'i'he  country  whence  Tyre  was  supplied  with 
wheat  wa-s  Palestine.  This  point  has  been  alreadv 
noticed  elsewhere  [Pikk.nicia.ns,  iii.  2.51'J]  .is  hel|)- 
ing  to  explain  why  tliere  is  no  instance  on  record 
of  war  between  Tyre  and  the  Isnelites.  It  may 
be  .iddeil  tliat  tlie  value  of  Palestine  as  a  wheats 
country  to  T^re  wa.s  greaiiy  enhanced  by  its  prox 


3334 


TYRE 


imity,  as  there  was  scarcely  a  part  of  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  on  the  west  of  the  river  Jordan  which  was 
distant  more  than  a  hundred  miles  from  that  great 
commercial  city.  The  extreme  points  in  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  would  be  somewhat  more  distant; 
l)ut  the  wheat  probably  came  from  the  northern 
part  of  Palestine.  Tyre  likewise  obtained  from 
I'alestine  oil,  honey,  and  balm,  Imt  not  wine  appar- 
ently, notwithstanding  the  abundance  of  grapes  and 
wine  in  Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  11).  The  wine  was  im- 
ported from  Damascus,  and  was  called  wine  of  Hel- 
l)on,  which  was  proljably  not  the  product  of  the 
country  adjoining  the  celelirated  city  of  that  name, 
but  came  from  the  neighljorhood  of  Damascus  it- 
self (see  Porter"s  IfundbvokJ'or  Syrin,  vol.  ii.  [i.  V-ib; 
compare  Atlienasus,  i.  51).  The  Bedawin  Arabs 
gu]iplied  Tyre  with  lambs  and  rams  and  goats,  fur 
tile  rearing  of  which  their  mode  of  life  was  so  well 
ada]ited.  i'^^'ypt  furnished  linen  for  sails,  and  doubt- 
less for  other  purposes,  and  the  dyes  from  shell-fish, 
which  afterwards  liecame  sucii  a  source  of  profit  to 
the  Tyrians,  were  imported  from  the  Peloponnesus 
(compare  the  "  Laconicas  purpuras  "  of  Horace,  O'L 
ii.  18,  7,  and  Pliny,  ix.  40).  Lastly  from  Dedan  in 
the  Persian  Gulf,  an  island  occupied  possibly  by  a 
Phoenician  colony,  horns  of  ivory  and  ebony  were 
imported,  which  must  originally  have  been  ol)taiiied 
from  India  (Ez.  xxvii.  10,  11,  22,  12,  13,  17,  18,  21, 
7,  15). 

In  the  midst  of  great  prosperity  and  wealth, 
which  was  the  natural  result  of  such  an  extensive 
trade  (Ez.  xxviii.  4),  Nebuchadnezzar,  at  the  head 
of  an  army  of  the  Chaldees,  invaded  Judaja,  and 
captured  .lerusalem.  As  Tyre  was  so  near  to  .leru- 
salem,  and  as  the  conquerors  were  a  fierce  and  for- 
niidaljle  race  (Hab.  i.  G),  led  by  a  general  of  un- 
doubted capacity,  who  had  not  long  liefore  humbled 
the  power  of  the  I'^gyptians,  it  would  naturally  be 
supposed  that  this  event  would  have  excited  alarm 
and  terror  amongst  the  Tyrians.  Instead  of  this 
we  may  infer  from  Ezekiel's  statement  (xxvi.  2) 
that  their  predominant  feeling  was  one  of  exulta- 
tion. At  first  sight  this  appears  strange  and  al- 
most inconceivable;  but  it 'is  rendered  intelligible 
by  some  previous  events  in  Jewish  history.  Only 
34  years  before  tiie  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  com- 
menced the  celebrated  Keformation  of  Josiah,  b.  c. 
(i22  This  momentous  religious  revolution,  of 
wliich  a  detailed  account  is  given  in  two  chapters 
of  the  book  of  Kings  (2  K.  xxii.,  sxiii.),  and  which 
cannot  be  too  closely  studied  by  any  one  who  wishes 
to  understand  the  Jewish  Annals,  fully  explains  the 
exultation  and  malevolence  of  tlie  Tyrians.  In 
that  Reformation,  Josiah  had  heaped  insults  on  the 
gods  who  were  the  objects  of  Tyrian  veneration  and 
love,  he  had  consumed  with  fire  the  sacred  vessels 
used  in  their  worship,  he  had  burnt  their  images 
and  defiled  their  higli  places  —  not  excepting  even 
the  higli  place  near  Jerusalem,  which  Solomon  the 
friend  of  Hiram  had  Imilt  to  Ashtoreth  the  Queen 
of  Heaven,  and  which  for  more  than  350  years  had 
been  a  striking  memorial  of  the  reciprocal  good-will 
which  once  united  the  two  monarchs  and  the  two 
nations.  Indeed,  he  seemed  to  have  endeavored  to 
sxterminate  their  religion,  for  in  Samaria  (2  K. 
xxiii.  20)  he  had  slain  upon  the  altars  of  the  high 
places  all  their  priests.  These  acts,  although  in 
Iheir  ultimate  results    they  may  have  contributed 

"•  It  WcHS  owing  to  this  Reformation  of  .losiali  tluit 
irhen  the  Jews  were  rarried  into  captivit.  hv  .NVbu- 
.hadaezzar  a  generation  bad  arisen  uuUiiuCed  bj  idula- 


TYRE 

powerfully  to  the  "  diffusion  of  the  Jewish  religion 
must  have  been  regarded  by  the  Tyrians  as  a  series 
of  sacrilegious  and  abominable  outrages;  and  we 
can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  death  in  battle  of 
Josiah  at  Megiddo,  and  the  subsequent  destruction 
of  the  city  and  Temple  of  .lerusalem  were  hailed  liy 
them  with  triumphant  joy,  as  instances  of  Divine 
retrilnition  in  human  affiiirs. 

This  joy,  however,  must  soon  have  given  way 
to  other  feelings,  when  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded 
Phoenicia,  and  laid  siege  to  Tyre.  That  siege 
lasted  thirteen  years  (Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  21),  and 
it  is  still  a  dis|)uted  point,  which  will  be  noticed 
separately  in  this  article,  whether  Tyre  was  actually 
taken  !)y  Nebuchadnezzar  on  this  occasion.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  it  is  probable  that,  on  some  terms 
or  other,  Tyre  submitted  to  the  Chaldees.  This 
would  explain,  amongst  other  points,  an  expedition 
of  .\  pries,  the  Pharaoh-Hophra  of  Scripture,  against 
Tyre,  which  probably  ha])peiied  not  long  alter,  and 
which  may  have  been  dictated  by  ob\'ious  motives 
of  self-defense  in  order  to  prevent  the  na\al  power 
of  Tyre  becoming  a  powerful  instrument  of  attack- 
ing I'-L^ypt  ill  the  hands  of  the  Chaldees.  In  this 
expedition  ,-\ pries  besieged  Sidon,  fought  a  naval 
battle  with  Tyre,  and  reduced  the  whole  of  the 
coast  of  Phoenicia,  though  this  could  not  have  had 
lasting  efl^ects  (Herod,  ii.  161;  Diod.  i.  08;  Movers, 
Das  Plionizische  Aller(hu7n,  vol.  ii.  p.  451).  The 
rule  of  Nebuchadnezzar  over  Tyre,  though  real, 
may  have  Ijeen  light,  and  in  the  nature  of  an  alli- 
ance; and  it  may  have  been  in  this  sense  that  Mer- 
lial,  a  subsequent  Tyrian  king,  was  sent  for  to 
Babylon  (Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  21).  During  the 
Persian  domination  the  Tyrians  were  sulject  in 
name  to  the  Persian  king,  and  may  have  given  him 
trilnite.  With  the  rest  of  Phoenicia,  they  had  Mib- 
mitted  to  the  Persians,  without  striking  a  blow; 
perhaps,  through  hatred  of  the  Chaldees;  perhaps, 
solely  from  prudential  motives.  But  their  connec- 
tion with  the  Persian  king  was  not  slavish.  Thus, 
when  Camljyses  ordered  them  to  join  in  an  expe- 
dition against  Carthage,  they  refused  compliance, 
on  account  of  their  solemn  engagements  and  pa- 
rental relation  to  that  colony:  and  Cambyses  did 
not  deem  it  right  to  use  force  toward  them  (Herod, 
iii.  19).  Afterwards  they  fought  with  Persia 
against  Greece,  and  furnished  vessels  of  war  in  the 
expedition  of  Xerxes  against  Greece  (Herod,  vii. 
98);  and  Mapen,  the  son  of  Sirom  the  Tyrian.  is 
mentioned  amongst  those  who,  next  to  the  com- 
manders,' were  tlie  most  renowned  in  the  fleet.  It 
is  worthy  of  notice  that  at  tliis  time  Tyre  seems  to 
have  been  inferior  in  power  to  Sidon.  These  two 
cities  were  less  than  twenty  English  miles  distant 
from  each  otlier ;  and  it  is  easy  to  •onceive  that  in 
the  course  of  centuries  tiieir  relative  importance 
might  fluctuate,  as  would  be  very  possible  in  our 
own  country  with  two  iieighlwring  cities,  such  for 
example,  as  Liverpool  and  Manchester.  It  is  possi- 
ble also  that  Tyre  may  have  been  seriously  weakened 
l)y  its  long  struggle  against  Nebuchadnezzar.  Un- 
der the  Persian  dominion.  Tyre  and  Sidon  sup- 
plied cedar  wood  again  to  the  Jews  for  the  build- 
ing of  the  second  Tem])le;  and  this  wood  was  sent 
liy  sea  to  Joppa,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem,  as  had 
been  the  case  with  tlie  materials  for  the  first  Tem- 
ple in  the  time   of   Solomon  (Ezra    iii.  7).     Un- 


try,  and  yet  many  of  them  probably  free  from  the  in 
tense  scrupulousness  in  ceremonial  observauCBS  whici 
prevailed  subsequeatlv. 


TYRE 

iet  the  Persians  likewise  TjTe  was  visited  by  an 
historian,  (koni  whom  we  niit;ht  have  derived  val- 
uable information  respecting  its  condition  (Herod, 
ii.  44).  But  the  information  actually  supplied  by 
him  is  scanty,  as  the  motive  of  liis  vojage  seems  to 
have  been  solely  to  visit  the  celel)rated  temple  of 
Rlelkarth  (the  Phoenician  Hercules),  which  was  sit- 
uated in  the  island,  and  was  highly  \eTierated.  He 
sives  no  details  as  to  the  city,  and  merely  specifies 
two  columns  which  he  observed  in  the  temple,  one 
of  gold,  and  the  other  of  enieralil ;  or  rather,  as  is 
reasonably  conjectured  liy  Sir  Gardiner  Wilkinson, 
of  green  glass  (Rawlinson's  f/crodotus,  ii.  81,  82). 
Towards  the  close  of  the  following  century,  ii.  c. 
3-32,  Tyre  was  assailed  for  the  third  time  by  a  great 
conqueror:  and  if  some  uncertainty  hangs  over  the 
siege  liy  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  results  of  the  siege 
by  Alexander  were  clear  and  undeiiialile.  It  was 
essential  to  the  success  of  his  military  plans  that 
the  Phwuici.an  fleet  should  be  at  liis  connnand,  and 
that  he  should  not  be  lialde  throuirh  their  hostility 
to  have  his  communications  by  sea  with  Greece  and 
Macedonia  suddenly  cut  off;  and  he  accordingly 
juninioned  all  the  Phoenician  cities  to  sulmiit  to 
his  rule.  All  the  rest  of  them,  including  Aradus, 
Byblus,  and  Sidon,  complied  with  his  deuiands,  and 
the  seamen  of  those  cities  in  the  Persian  fleet 
brought  away  their  ships  to  join  him.  Tyre  alone, 
calculating  prol)ably  at  first  on  the  support  of  those 
seamen,  refused  to  admit  him  within  its  walls  — 
and  then  ensued  a  memorable  sietre  which  lasted 
seven  months,  and  the  success  of  which  was  the 
greatest  of  all  the  achievements  which  Alexander 
up  to  that  time  had  attempted.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  give  here  the  details  of  that  siege,  which  may  be 
found  in  Arrian  and  Quintus  Curtius,  and  in  all 
good  Grecian  histories,  such  as  tliose  of  Bishop 
Thirlwall  and  Mr.  Grote.  It  may  lie  sufficient  to 
say,  that  at  that  time  Tyre  was  situated  on  an 
island  nearly  half  a  mile  from  the  mainland  — that 
"  it  was  completely  surrounded  by  prodigious  walls, 
the  loftiest  portion  of  which  on  tlie  side  fronting 
the  maiidand  reached  a  lieight  not  less  than  150 
feet;  "  and  th.at  notwithstanding  his  persevering 
efforts,  he  could  not  have  succeeded  in  his  attempt, 
if  the  harbor  of  Tyre  to  the  nortii  had  not  lieen 
blockaded  by  the  Cyprians,  and  that  to  the  south 
by  the  Phoenicians,  thus  affording  an  opportunity 
to  Alexander  for  uniting  the  isknd  to  the  mainland 
by  an  enormous  artificial  "  mole.  Moreover,  owing 
to  internal  disturbances,  Carthage  was  unable  to 
afford  any  assistance  to  its  parent  state. 

The  immediate  results  of  the  capture  by  Alex- 
ander were  most  disastrous  to  it,  as  its  brave  de- 
fenders were  put  to  death ;  and,  in  accordance  with 
the  barliarous  nolicy  of  ancient  times,  30,000  of  its 
inhal)itunts,  including  slaves,  free  females  and  free 
children  were  sold  as  slaves  (Arrian,  iv.  24,  §  9; 
Diodorus,  xvii.  46).  It  gradually,  however,  recov- 
;red  its  prosperity  througii  the  iuunigration  of  fresh 


TYRE 


ooo<.> 


«  That  Tyre  was  on  au  island,  previous  to  its  siege 
oy  Alexander,  is  one  of  tlie  most  certain  facts  of  his- 
:ory  ;  but  on  exauiiniug  the  locaUty  at  the  pre.sent  daj 
few  persons  would  suspect  from  existing  appearances 
that  there  was  any  tiling  artificial  in  the  formation  of 
the  present  peninsula. 

b  Pliny  the  elder  gives  an  account  of  the  I'hoeni- 
cian  shell-fish  (ix.  (50,  61),  and  states  that  from  the 
larger  ones  the  dye  was  extracted,  after  taking  off  the 
shell  :  but  that  the  small  fish  were  crushed  alive 
;ogethp-  with  the  shells.  Mr.  Wilde,  an  intelligent 
Ttoderu  traveller,  observed  at  T\  re   numerous   round 


settlers,  though  its  trade  is  said  to  have  suffered  by 
the  vicinity  aiul  rivalry  of  ,-Vlexandria.  Under  the 
Macedonian  successors  of  Alexander,  it  shared  the 
fortunes  of  the  Seleucidse,  who  bestowed  on  it  many 
privileges;  and  there  are  still  in  existence  coins  of 
that  ejioch  with  a  Phoenician  and  Greek  inscrip- 
tion (Kckhel,  Doctr.  Nummoruiii  Vtl.  vol.  iii.  p. 
37!),  &c. ;  Gesenius,  Monumenta  Plimiicue,  pp. 
202-264,  and  Tab.  34).  Under  the  Romans,  at 
first  it  continued  to  enjoy  a  kind  of  freedom ;  for 
.losephus  mentions  that  when  Cleopatra  pressed 
.\ntony  to  include  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  a  gift  of 
Phoenician  and  Jewish  territory  whicli  he  made  to  • 
her,  he  steadily  refused,  knowing  tliem  to  hava 
lieen  ■'  free  cities  from  their  ancestors  "  {Ant.  xv. 
4,  §  1).  Subsequently,  however,  on  the  arrival  of 
.\ugustus  in  the  East,  he  is  said  to  have  deprived 
the  two  cities  of  tlieir  liberties  for  seditious  conduct 
{iSouAwaaTO,  Dion  Cassius,  Ixiv.  7).  Still  th.-; 
prosperity  of  Tyre  in  the  time  of  Augustus  was 
undeniably  great.  Stralio  gives  an  account  of  it 
at  that  period  (xvi.  2,  23),  and  speaks  of  the  great 
wealth  which  it  derived  from  the  dyes  of  the  cele- 
brated Tyrian  purple,  which,  as  is  well  known, 
were  extracted  from  shell-fish  found  on  the  coast, 
belonging  to  a  species  of  the  genus  Murex.  In  the 
days  of  Kzekiel,  the  Tyrians  had  imported  purple 
from  the  Peloponnesus;  but  they  had  since  learned 
to  extract  the  dye  for  themselves;  and  they  had  the 
advantage  of  having  shell-fish  on  their  coast  better, 
adapted  for  this  purpose  even  than  tliose  on  the 
Lacedaemonian  coast  (Pausanias,  iii.  21,  §  6).  Strabo 
adds,  that  the  great  number  of  dyeing  works  ren- 
dered the  city  unpleasant  as  a  place  of  residence* 
He  further  speaks  of  the  houses  as  consisting  of 
many  stories,  even  of  more  than  in  tiie  houses  at 
Rome  —  which  is  pi'ecisely  what  might  l)e  expected 
in  a  prosperous  fortified  city  of  limited  area,  in 
which  ground-rent  would  lie  high.  Pliny  the  Klder 
gives  additional  information  respecting  the  city,  for 
in  describing  it  he  says  that  the  circumference  of 
the  city  proper  (i.  e.  the  city  on  the  peninsula)  was 
22  stadia,  while  that  of  the  whole  city,  including 
Palretyrus,  was  l!J  l.'oraau  miles  {jVat.  Hist.  v.  17). 
Tiie  accounts  of  Strabo  and  Pliny  have  a  peculiar 
interest  in  this  respect,  that  they  tend  to  convey 
an  idea  of  what  the  city  must  h.ive  been,  when 
visited  liy  Christ  (.Matt.  xv.  21;  Mark  vii.  24). 
It  was  perhaps  more  populous  than  .Jerusalem 
[.Jerusalem,  ii.  1320],  and  if  so,  it  was  undoubt- 
edly the  largest  city  which  he  is  known  to  have 
visited.  It  was  not  nuich  more  than  thirty  miles 
distant  from  Nazareth,  where  Christ  mainly  lived 
as  a  carpenter's  son  during  the  greater  part  of  hia 
life  (Matt.  ii.  23,  iv.  12,  13,  18;  Mark  vi.  3).  We 
may  readily  conceive  that  He  may  often  have  gore 
to  Tyre,  while  yet  unknown  to  the  world,  and 
whatever  uncertainty  there  may  be  as  to  the  extent 
to  which  the  Greek  language  was  likely  to  be 
spoken  at  Nazareth,  at  Tyre,  and  in  its  neighbor- 
holes  cut  in  the  solid  sandstone  rock,  in  which  sheila 
seem  to  have  been  crushed.  They  were  perfectly 
smooth  on  the  inside  ;  and  many  of  them  were  shaped 
exactly  like  a  modern  iron  pot,  broad  and  Hat  at  the 
bottom,  and  narrowing  toward  the  top.  Many  of 
these  were  filled  with  a  breccia  of  shells  ;  in  other 
places  this  breccia  lay  in  heaps  in  the  neighborhood. 
All  the  shells  were  of  one  species,  and  were  undoubt- 
edly the  Murex  Trnnculu.i.  See  Narrnlive  of  a  Vitynae 
to  Madeira,  Teneriffe.^  ami  'ilnt%g  Ike  tiliores  of  Ihf 
Mti/ilerranean.     Dublin,  1844. 


8336 


TYRE 


hood,  there  must  have  been  excellent  opportunities 
for  conversation  in  that  language,  with  which  He 
seems  to  have  been  acquainted  (Mark  vii.  26). 
I'Yoni  the  time  of  Christ  to  the  beginning  of  the 
5th  century,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that,  as 
far  as  was  compatible  with  the  irreparable  loss  of 
independence.  Tyre  continued  in  uninterrupted 
prosperity;  and  about  that  period  Jerome  has  on 
record  very  striking  testimony  on  the  sulject, 
which  has  been  often  quoted,  and  is  a  landmark  in 
Tyrian  history  (see  Geseiiius"s  Jesniii,  vol.  i.  p. 
714).  Jerome,  in  his  Commentaries  on  Ezekiel, 
comes  to  the  passage  in  which  the  prophet  threatens 
Tyre  with  the  approach  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king 
if  Babylon  (Ez.  xxvi.  7);  and  he  then,  amongst 
jther  points,  refers  to  the  verse  in  which  the 
Drophet  predicts  of  Tyre,  "  Thou  shalt  be  built  no 
more,"  saying  that  this  raises  a  question  as  to  how 
a  city  can  be  said  not  to  be  liuilt  any  more,  which 
we  see  at  the  present  day  tlie  most  noble  and  the 
most  beautiful  city  of  Phoenicia.  '•  Quodque  ae- 
quitur:  nee  sedificaberis  ultra,  videtur  facere  quaes- 
tionem  quoniodo  non  sit  sedificata,  qunm  hodit 
cerniinus  PlicBiuces  nobilissimam  et  jJulcherriiiKun 
civiUUeni.''''  He  afterwards,  in  his  remarks  on  the 
•3d  verse  of  the  27th  chapter,  in  which  Tyre  is 
called  "a  merchant  of  the  people  for  many  isles," 
says  that  tiiis  continues  down  to  bis  time,  so  that 
jommercial  dealings  of  almost  all  nations  are  car- 
ried on  in  that  city  —  "  quod  qtiideni  usque  kodie 
*perseverat,  ut  omnium  piopemodo  gentium  in  ilia 
exeixeanlur  cominercia."  Jerome's  Commentaries 
on  Ezekiel  are  supposed  to  have  been  written  about 
the  years  411-4l4  a.  d.  (see  Smith's  Dictiowu-y 
of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography^  vol.  ii.  p.  465), 
so  that  his  testimony  respecting  the  prosperity  of 
Tyre  bears  date  almost  precisely  a  thousand  years 
after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
B.  c.  588.  As  to  the  passage  in  which  Ezekiel 
states  that  TyTe  shall  be  built  no  more,  Jerome 
says  the  meaning  is,  that  "  Tyre  will  be  no  more 
the  Queen  of  Nations,  having  its  own  king,  as  was 
the  case  under  Hiram  and  other  kings,  but  that  it 
was  destined  to  be  always  subject,  either  to  the 
Chaldeans,  or  to  the  Macedonians,  or  to  the  Ptole- 
mies, or  at  last  to  the  Romans."  At  the  same 
time  Jerome  notices  a  meaning  given  to  the  pas- 
sage by  some  interpreters,  that  Tyre  would  not  be 
built  in  the  last  days;  but  he  asks  of  such  inter- 
preters, "  How  they  will  be  able  to  preserve  the 
part  attriijuted  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  especially  as  we 
read  in  what  follows,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
Tyre,  but  had  no  reward  of  his  labor  (xxix.  18), 
and  that  Egypt  was  given  over  to  him  because  in 
besieging  Tyre  he  had  served  the  purpose  of  God." 
^Vhen  Jerome  spoke  of  Tyre's  sulijection  to  the 
Romans,  which  had  then  lasted  more  than  four 
hundred  years,  he  could  scarcely  have  anticipated 
that  another  subjugation  of  the  country  was  re- 
served for  it  from  a  new  conquering  power,  coming 
not  from  the  north,  but  from  the  south.  In  the 
7th  century  A.  v>.  took  place  the  extraordinary 
Arabian  revolution  under  iMohamraed,  which  has 
given  a  new  religion  to  so  many  millions  of  man- 
kind. In  the  years  63.3-638  a.  d.  all  Syria  and 
Palestine,  from  the  Dead  Sea  to  Antioch,  was  con- 
quered  by  the  Khalif  Omar.  This  conquest  was 
80  conq)lete,  that  in  both  those  countries  the  lan- 
guage of  Mohammed  has  almost  totally  supplanted 
the  language  of  Christ.  In  Syria,  there  are  only 
three  vilhiiies  where  Syriac  (or  Aramaic)  is  the 
'ernacular   language.      In    Palestine,  it  is  not  the 


TYRE 

language  of  a  single  native;  and  in  Jerusalem,  to  a 
stranger  who  understands  what  is  involved  in  this 
momentous  revolution,  it  is  one  of  the  most  sug- 
gestive of  all  sounds  to  hear  the  Muezzin  daily  call 
^lohammedans  to  prayers  in  the  Arabic  language  of 
Mohammed,  within  the  sacred  precincts  where  once 
stood  the  Temple,  in  which  Christ  worshipped  in 
Hebrew,  or  in  Aramaic.  (As  to  the  Syriac  lan- 
guage, see  Porter's  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Pnl. 
estine,  vol.  ii.  p  551.)  But  even  this  conquest  did 
not  cause  the  overthrow  of  Tyre.  The  most  essen- 
tial conditions  on  which  peace  was  granted  to  Tyre, 
as  to  other  Syrian  cities,  were  the  paymejit  of  a 
poll-tax,  the  oliligation  to  give  board  and  lodging 
for  three  days  to  every  Muslem  traveller,  the  wear- 
ing a  peculiar  dress,  the  admission  of  JNIuslems  into 
the  churches,  the  doing  away  with  all  crosses  and 
all  sounds  of  bells,  the  avoiding  of  all  insulting 
expressions  towards  the  Mohammedan  religion,  and 
tlie  prohibition  to  ride  on  horseback  or  to  build 
new  churches.  (.See  Weil's  Ueschichle  dtr  Chal- 
ifer,  bd.  i.  81,  82.)  Some  of  these  conditions  were 
humiliating,  and  nearly  heart-breaking;  but  if  sub- 
mitted to,  the  lives  and  private  property  of  tiie 
inhabitants  remained  untouched.  Accordin^'ly.  at 
the  time  of  the  Crusades  Tyre  was  still  a  floui-isii- 
ing  city,  when  it  surrendered  to  the  Christians  on 
the  27th  of  .lune,  1124.  It  had  early  been  the 
seat  of  a  Christian  bishopric,  and  Cassius,  bishop 
of  Tyre,  is  named  as  having  been  present  at  tlie 
Council  of  (_'a?sarea  towards  the  cl'ise  of  the'  2d 
century  (lieland,  Palestine^  1054);  and  now,  in 
the  year  after  its  capture  by  the  Crusaders,  W'il- 
liau),  a  Krenchman,  was  made  its  archljishop. 
Tlii.s  archbishop  has  left  on  record  an  account  of 
the  city,  which  gives  a  high  idea  of  its  wealth  and 
great  military  strength.  (See  Wilhelmi  Tyrensis 
Ilistoria,  lih.  xiii.  cap.  5.)  And  his  statements 
are  confirmed  by  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  who  visited 
it  in  the  same  century.  (See  Purchas's  Pilgrims, 
ii.  1443.)  The  latter  writer,  who  died  in  1173, 
says:  ''  Nor  do  I  think  any  haven  in  the  world  to 
be  like  unto  this.  The  city  itself,  as  I  have  said, 
is  goodly,  and  in  it  there  are  alDOut  four  hundred 
Jews,  among  whom  some  are  very  skillful  in  disci- 
plinary readings,  and  especially  Ephraim  the  Egyp- 
tian judge,  and  Mair,  and  Carchesona,  and  Abra- 
ham, the  head  of  the  imiversity.  Some  of  the 
Jews  there  have  ships  at  sea  for  the  cause  of  gain. 
There  are  artificial  workmen  in  glass  there,  who 
make  glass,  called  Tyrian  glass,  the  most  excellent, 
and  of  -the  greatest  estimation  in  all  countries. 
The  best  and  most  approved  sugar  is  also  found 
there."  In  fact,  at  this  period,  and  down  to  the 
close  of  the  13th  century,  there  was  perhaps  no 
city  in  the  known  world  which  had ^tronger  claims 
than  Tyre  to  the  title  of  the  "  Eternal  City,"  if 
experience  had  not  shown  that  cities  as  well  as  in- 
dividuals were  subject  to  decay  and  dissolution. 
Tyre  had  been  the  parent  of  colonies,  which  at  a 
distant  period  had  enjoyed  a  long  life  -and  had 
died;  and  it  had  survived  more  than  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  its  greatest  colony,  Carthage.  It  had 
outlived  /Egyptian  Thebes,  and  Babylon,  and  an- 
cient Jerusalem.  It  had  seen  Grecian  cities  rise 
and  fell;  and  although  older  than  them  all,  it  was 
in  a  state  of  great  prosperity  when  an  illustrious 
Roman,  who  had  been  sailing  from  /Egina  to 
JMegara,  told  Cicero,  in  imperishable  words,  of  the 
corpses  or  carcases  of  cities,  the  op/ndorum  cndnv- 
era,  by  which  in  that  voyage  he  had  been  in 
every  direction  encompassed  {Ep.  ad  Familiar,  iv 


•^YKE 

5.)  Rome,  it  is  true,  was  still  in  existence  in  the 
13th  century;  but,  in  comparison  witli  Tyre,  Home 
itself  was  of  recent  date,  its  now  twice  consecrated 
soil  having  been  merely  the  haunt  of  shepherds  or 
robbers  for  some  hundred  years  after  Tyre  was 
wealthy  and  strong.  At  length,  however,  the  evil 
day  of  Tyre  undoubtedly  arrived.  It  had  been 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half  in  the  hands  of 
Christians,  when  in  March,  a.  d.  1-291,  the  Sul. 
tan  of  Egypt  and  Damascus  invested  Acre,  then 
known  to  Europe  by  the  name  of  I'tolemais,  and 
took  it  by  storm  after  a  siege  of  two  montlis.  The 
result  was  told  in  the  begiiming  of  the  next  cen- 
tury by  Marinus  Sanutus,  a  Venetian,  in  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "  On  the  same  day  on  which  Ftole- 
mais  was  taken,  the  Tyrians,  at  vespers,  leaving 
the  city  empty,  without  the  stroke  of  a  sword, 
without  tiie  tumult  of  war,  embarked  on  board 
their  vessels,  and  abandoned  the  city  to  be  occu- 
pied freely  by  their  conquerors.  On  the  morrow 
the  Saracens  entered,  no  one  attempting  to  prevent 


TYRE  3337 

them,  and  they  did  what  they  pleased. "     (Liber 
Stcrttorum JidMuiu  Crucis,  lib.  iii.  cap.  22.") 

This  was  the  turning-point  in  the  history  of  Tyre, 
187SJ  years  after  the  caj)ture  of  Jerusalem  by  Neb- 
uchadnezzar; and  Tyre  has  not  yet  recovered  from 
the  blow.  In  the  first  half  of  the  1-lth  century  it 
was  visited  by  Sir  John  ^laundeville,  who  says, 
speaking  of  "  Tyre,  which  is  now  called  Silr,  here 
was  once  a  great  and  goodly  city  of  the  Christians : 
but  the  Saracens  have  destroyed  it  in  great  part; 
and  they  guard  that  haven  carefully  for  fear  of  the 
Christians"  (Wright's  Early  Tntrtls  in  Pahstine, 
p.  141).  About  A.  D.  1610-11  it  was  visited  by 
Sandys,  who  said  of  it:  "But  this  once  famous 
'1  yre  is  now  no  other  than  a  heap  of  ruins ;  yet 
have  they  a  reverent  aspect,  and  do  instruct  the 
pensive  l)eholder  with  their  exemplary  frailty.  It 
hath  two  harbors,  that  on  the  north  side  the  fairest 
anil  best  throughout  all  the  Levant  (which  the  cur- 
sours  enter  at  their  pleasure) ;  the  other  choked  with 
the  decayea  of  the  city."     (I'urchas's  I'ilyriiiis,  ii 


lainis  uf  l^ie 


1393.}  Towards  the  close  of  the  same  century,  in 
1697  A.  D.,  Maundrell  says  of  it,  "  On  the  north 
side  it  has  an  old  Turkish  castle,  besides  which 
there  is  nothing  here  but  a  mere  Babel  of  brolien 
*alls,  pillars,  vaults,  etc.,  there  being  not  so  much 
as  an  entire  house  left.  Its  present  inhabitants  are 
only  a  few  poor  wretches  that  harbor  in  vaults  and 
subsist  upon  fishing."  (See  Harris,  Voyniji's  and 
Travels,  ii.  8-16.)  Lastly,  without  quoting  at 
length  Dr.  Richard  Pocoeke,  who  in  1737—40  A.  u. 
stated  (see  vol.  x.  of  Finkerton's  Voyages  and 
Travels,  p.  470)  that,  except  some  janizaries,  there 
were  few  other  inhabitants  in  the  city  than  two  or 
three  Christian  families,  the  words  of  Hasselquist, 
the  Swedish  naturalist,  may  be  recorded,  as  they 
mark  the  lowest  point  of  depression  which  Txre 
seems  to  have  reached.  He^  was  there  in  iMay, 
1751  A.  D.,  and  he  thus  speaks  of  his  visit:  "  We 
followed  the  sea-shore  ....  and  came  to  Tyre, 
now  called  Zur,  where  we  lay  all  night.     None  of 


these  cities,  which  formerly  were  famous,  are  so 
totally  ruined  as  this,  except  Troy.  Zur  now 
scarcely  can  be  called  a  miserable  village,  though  it 
was  formerly  lyre,  the  queen  of  the  sea.  Here 
(ire  about  ten  inliabikiuts.  Turks  and  Cliristians, 
who  lire  by  Jlstiin//."  (See  Hasselquist,  Voya,(jes 
and  Travels  in  the  Levant,  London,  1766.)  A 
slight  change  for  the  better  began  soon  alter.  Vol- 
ney  states  that  in  1766  A.  d.  the  Metawileh  took 
possession  of  the  place,  and  built  a  wall  round  it 
twenty  feet  high,  which  existed  when  he  visited 
Tyre  neai'ly  twenty  years  afterward.  At  tliat  time 
Volney  estimated  the  population  at  fifty  or  sixty 
poor  families.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  present 
century  there  has  been  a  partial  re\ival  of  prosper- 
ity. 13ut  it  has  been  visited  at  different  times  dur- 
ing tiie  last  thirty  }ears  by  Bililical  scholars,  such 
as  Professor  Robinson  {Bibl.  lies.  ii.  463-471), 
Canon  Stanley  (Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  270),  and 
M.  Ernest  Kenan*  (Letter  in  the   Muniteur,  July 


«  A  copy  of  this  work  is  in  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos, 
Hanoviaj,  IGll. 

b  M.  Eruest  Kenan  says  there  has  been  Mo  fulisirl- 
«»■■«  of  the  laud,  owing  to  earthqualies  or  other  causes  ; 

ftnd  that  the  west  of  the  island  has  the  xnuie  level  as  I  suffered   from    uurchquakes 
tn  aucjeut  limes.     Mr.  Wilde  had  spoken   witli  ureal 
210 


caution  on  this  point,  pp.  383-385.  It  is  still  very  de- 
sirable that  the  peninsula  and  the  adjoining  coast  should 
be  niiuutcly  examined  by  au  experienced  practical  ge- 
ologi.^t.  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  city  has 
See    i'or'er,  /    c.  ;  anJ 


3338  TYRE 

11,  1861),  who  all  concur  in  the  account  of  its  gen- 
eral aspect  of  desolation.  Mr.  Porter,  who  resided 
several  years  at  Damascus,  and  had  means  of  ob- 
taining correct  information,  states  in  1858  that 
"  the  modern  town,  or  rather  village,  contains  from 
3,000  to  4,000  inhabitatits,  about  6ne  half  being 
Metawileh,  and  the  other  Christians  "  {Handhouk 
for  Travellers  in  Syria  and  /'(destine,  p.  391). 
Its  great  inferiority  to  lie}  rout  for  receiving  vessels 
suited  to  the  requirements  of  modern  navigation 
will  always  prevent  Tyre  from  becoming  again  the 
most  important  commercial  city  on  the  Syrian  coast. 
It  is  reserved  to  the  future  to  determine  whether 
with  a  good  government,  and  with  peace  in  the 
Lebanon,  it  may  not  increase  in  population,  and 
become  again  comparatively  wealthy. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  proper  to  consider  two  ques- 
tions of  much  interest  to  the  Biblical  student,  which 
have  been  already  noticed  in  this  article,  but  which 
could  not  then  be  conveniently  discussed  fully.  (1) 
The  date  and  authorship  of  the  prophecy  against 
Tyre  in  Isaiah,  chap,  xxiii. ;  and  (2),  the  question 
of  whether  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  his  long  siege 
of  Tyre,  may  be  supposed  to  have  actually  taken 
it. 

On  the  first  point  it  is  to  be  observed,  that,  as 
there  were  two  sieges  of  Tyre  contemporaneous 
with  events  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament, 
namely,  that  by  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria,  in 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  the  siege  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, king  of  the  Chaldees,  after  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem  in  588  b.  c,  and  as  Isaiah  was  living 
during  the  former  siege,  but  must  have  been  dead 
considerably  more  than  a  hundred  years  at  the  time 
of  the  latter  siege,  it  is  probable,  without  denying 
predictive  prophecy,  that  the  prophecy  relates  to 
the  first  siege,  if  it  was  written  by  Isaiah.  As  the 
prophecy  is  in  the  collection  of  writings  entitled 
"Isaiah,"  there  would  formerly  not  have  been  any 
doubt  that  it  was  written  by  that  prophet.  But  it 
has  been  maintained  by  eminent  Biblical  critics 
that  many  of  the  writings  under  the  title  of  his 
name  were  written  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
Captivity.  This  seems  to  be  the  least  open  to  dis- 
pute in  reference  to  the  prophecies  commencing 
with  "  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people,"  in  the 
1st  verse  of  the  iOth  chapter,  concerning  which  the 
following  facts  seem  to  the  writer  of  the  present 
article  to  be  well  established."  (1.)  These  prophe- 
cies are  difierent  in  style  fi-om  the  undisputed  writ- 
ings of  Isaiah.  (2.)  They  do  not  jtredict  that  the 
Jews  will  be  carried  away  into  captivity  at  Babylon, 
but  they  presuppose  that  the  Jews  are  already  in 
captivity  there  at  the  time  when  the  prophecies  are 
uttered ;  that  Jerusalem  is  desolate,  and  that  the 
Temple  is  burnt  (Is.  kiv.  10,  11,  xliv.  26,  28,  xlv. 
13,  xlvii.  5,  6,  lii.  2,  9,  li.  3,  II,  17-23).  (3.)  The 
name  of  Cyrus,  who  conquered  Babylon  probably 
at  least  a  hundred  ard  fifty  years  after  the  death  of 


compare  Seneca,  Nat.  QiuBSt.  vi.  1-11,  Strabo,  xv.  p. 
757,  and  Justin,  xl.  2,  1. 

<»  Doubts  as  to  the  authorship  of  these  chapters 
were  first  suggested  by  Doderlein  in  1781,  in  a  review 
of  Koppe's  translation  of  Lowth's  Isaiah.  Since  1781 
tlieir  later  date  lias  been  accepted  by  Eichhorn,  Rosen- 
muller,  De  Wette,  Gesenius,  Winer,  Ewald.  Hitzig, 
Knobel,  Herzfeld,  Bleek,  Geiger,  and  Davidson,  and 
^y  numerous  other  Hebrew  scholars.  The  evidence 
has  been  nowhere  stated  more  clearly  than  by  Gese- 
Diu8  in  his  Jesaia  (part  ii.  pp.  18-35,  Leipzig,  1821). 
'On  the  other  hand,  the  writer  of  the  article  Is.uah 


TYRE 

Isaiah  is  mentioned  in  them  twice  (xJiv.  28,  xIt. 
1):  and  (4),  there  is  no  external  contemporary  evi. 
dence  between  the  time  of  Isaiah  and  the  time  of 
Cyrus  to  prove  that  these  prophecies  were  then  in 
existence.  But,  although  in  this  way  the  evidence 
of  a  later  date  is  peculiarly  cogent  iu  reference  to 
the  40th  and  ibllowing  chapters,  there  is  also  reason- 
able evidence  of  the  later  date  of  several  other  chap- 
ters, such,  for  example,  as  the  13th  and  14th  (on 
which  observe  particularly  the  first  four  verses  of 
the  14th  chapter)  and  chapters  xxiv.-xxvii.  Hence 
there  is  no  a  priori  ditficulty  in  admitting  that  the 
23d  chapter,  respecting  Tyre,  may  likewise  have 
lieen  written  at  the  time  of  the  Chaldtean  invasion. 
Vet  this  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  something 
in  the  nature  of  proliable  proof,  and  the  real  point 
is  whether  any  such  proof  can  be  adduced  on  this 
subject.  Now  although  Hitzig  {Der  Prophet 
Jesaja,  Heidellierg,  1833,  p.  272)  undertakes  to 
show  that  there  is  a  ditftirence  of  language  between 
Isaiah's  genuine  prophecies  and  the  2od  chapter, 
and  although  Ewald  {Die  Proplieten  des  Allen 
Bundes,  vol.  i.  p.  238),  who  refers  it  to  the  siege  of 
Tyre  by  Shalmaneser,  believes  the  23d  chapter,  on 
the  grounds  of  style  and  language,  to  ha\e  been 
written  by  a  younffer  contemporary  and  scholar  of 
Isaiah,  not  by  Isaiali  himself,  it  is  proliable  that 
the  majority  of  scholars  will  be  mainly  influenced 
in  their  opinions  as  to  the  date  of  that  chapter  by 
their  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  13th  verse.  In 
the  A.  V.  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  translated 
thus :  "  Behold  the  land  of  the  Chalcheans,  this 
people  was  not  till  the  Assyrian  founded  it  for  them 
that  dwell  in  the  wilderness" — and  this  has  been 
supposed  by  some  able  commentators,  such  as  Ko- 
senmiiller  and  Hitzig  {ndloc),  to  imjily  that  the 
enemies  with  which  the  Tyrians  were  threatened 
were  the  Chaldees  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  not 
the  Assyrians  under  Shalmaneser.  If  this  is  the 
meaning,  very  few  critics  would  now  doubt  that  the 
prophecy  was  composed  in  the  time  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar; and  there  is  certainly  something  remarka- 
ble in  a  supposed  mention  of  the  Chaldees  by  such 
an  early  writer  as  Isaiah,  inasmuch  as,  with  the 
possible  exceiitious  in  the  mention  of  Abraham  and 
Aliraham's  family  as  having  belonged  to  "  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees"  (Uen.  xi.  28,  31,  xv.  7),  the  men- 
tion of  the  Chaldees  by  Isaiah  would  be  the  earliest 
in  the  Bible.  The  only  other  passage  respecting 
which  a  doubt  might  be  raised  is  in  the  book  of 
Job  (i.  17)  —  a  work,  however,  which  seems  to  the 
author  of  this  article  to  have  been  probably  written 
later  than  Isaiah.''  But  the  13th  verse. of  the 
chapter  attributed  to  Isaiah  liy  no  means  necessa 
rily  imphes  that  the  Chaldees  unde"  Nel)uchidnez 
zar  were  attacking  Tyre,  or  were  about  to  attack 
it.  Accepting  the  ordinary  version,  it  would  be 
amply  sutticient  that  Chaldees  should  be  formidable 
mercenaries  in  the  Assyrian  army.     This  is  the  in- 


in  the  present  work  maintains  the  unity  of  the  book. 
—  Ed.] 

f>  In  the  total  absence  of  external  evidence  nothing 
in  favor  of  an  earlier  date  can  be  adduced  to  outweigh 
one  circumstance  long  since  noticed  among  numerouft 
others  by  Gesenius  {Geschichte  der  Hebrdischen  Sprache 

und  Schrifi),  that  the  Aramaic  plural  ^"^v^  occuia 
twelve  times  iu  the  book  (iv.  2 ;  xii.  11  ;  xv.  13  ; 
xviii.  2;  xxvi.4;  xxxii.  11,  14;  xxxiii.  8,  32;  xxxlv. 
3  :  XXXV.  16  ;  xxxviii.  2).  [But  there  are  strong  rea- 
sons for  assigning  an  earlier  date  to  the  book  :  He* 
I  Job,  ii.  p.  1408  Ef.  —  Ed.] 


TYRE 

terpretation  of  Gesenius  ( Commentar  iiher  den  Je- 
siiiii^  ad  loc),  whc  goes  still  farther.  Founding  his 
ro'isouing  on  the  frequent  mention  by  Xenophon  of 
Llialdees,  as  a  bold,  warlike,  and  predatory  tribe  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Armenia,  and  collecting  scat- 
tered notices  round  this  fundamental  fact,  he  con- 
jectures that  bands  of  them,  having  served  either  as 
mercenaries  or  as  volunteers  in  the  Assyrian  army, 
had  received  lands  for  their  permanent  settlement 
on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  not  long  before  the 
invasion  of  Shalmaneser  (see  Xenophon,  Cyropce'l. 
iii.  2,  §§  7,  12;  Anab.  iv  3,  §  4,  v.  5,  §  9,  vii.  8, 
§  14).  So  great  is  our  ignorance  of  the  Chaldees 
previous  to  their  mention  in  the  Bible,  that  this 
conjecture  of  Gesenius  cannot  be  disproved.  Tiiere 
is  not  indeed  sufficient  positive  evidence  for  it  to 
justify  its  adoption  by  an  historian  of  the  Chaldees; 
but  the  possibility  of  its  being  true  should  make  us 
hesitate  to  assume  that  the  13th  verse  is  incompat- 
ible with  the  date  ordinarily  assigned  to  the  proph- 
ecy in  which  it  occurs.  But,  independently  of 
these  considerations,  the  beginning  of  the  13th 
verse  is  capable  of  a  totally  different  translation 
from  that  in  the  A.  V.  It  may  be  translated  thus: 
"  Behold  the  land  of  the  Chaldees,  the  people  is  no 
more,  Assyria  has  given  it  [tiie  land]  to  the  dwell- 
ers in  the  wilderness."  This  is  partly  in  accord- 
ance with  Ewald's  translation,  not  following  him 
in  the  substitution  of  "  Cauaanites  "  (which  he 
deems  the  correct  reading)  for  >' Chaldees  " — and 
then  the  passage  might  refer  to  an  unsuccessful  re- 
bellion of  tlie  Chaldees  agaiini  Assyria,  and  to  a 
consequent  desolation  of  the  land  of  the  Chaldees 
by  their  victorious  riders.  One  point  may  be  men- 
tioned in  fovor  of  this  view,  that  the  Tyrians  are 
not  warned  to  look  at  the  Chaldees  in  the  way  that 
Habakkuk  threatens  his  contemporaries  with  the 
hostility  of  that  "terrible  and  dreadful  nation," 
but  the  Tyrians  are  warned  to  look  at  the  I'lnd  of 
the  Chaldees.  Here,  again,  we  know  so  little  of 
the  history  of  the  Chaldees,  that  this  interpretation, 
likewise,  cannot  be  disproved.  And,  on  the  whole, 
as  the  Inadeu  of  proof  rests  with  any  one  who  de- 
nies Isaiah  to  have  lieen  the  author  of  the  23d  chap- 
ter, as  the  13tli  verse  is  a  very  obscure  passage,  and 
as  it  cannot  be  proved  incompatible  with  Isaiah's 
authorship,  it  is  permissible  to  acquiesce  hi  the  Jew- 
ish tradition  on  the  sulyect. 

2diy.  The  question  of  whether  Tyre  was  actually 
taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  after  his  thirteen  years' 
siege,  has  been  keenly  discussed.  Gesenius,  Winer, 
and  Hitzig  decide  it  in  the  negative,  while  Ileng- 
stenberg  has  argued  most  fully  on  the  other  side. 
Without  attempting  to  exhaust  the  subject,  and 
issuming,  in  accordance  with  Movers,  that  Tyre,  as 
(veil  as  tlie  rest  of  Phoenicia,  submitted  at  last  to 
Nebuchadnezzar,  the  following  pointst  may  be  ob- 
served respectini,'  the  supposed  capture:  (1.)  The 
evidence  of  Ezekiel,  a  contemporary,  seems  to  be 
against  it.  He  says  (xxis.  18)  that  "Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Babylon  caused  his  army  to  serve  a 
great  service  against  Tyre;  "  that  "every  head  was 
made  bald,  and  every  shoulder  was  peeled,  yet  had 
he  no  wages,  nor  his  army  for  Tyrus,  for  the  service 
that  he  served  against  it;"  and  the  obviods  infer- 
ence is  that,  however  great  the  exertions  of  the 
army  may  have  been  in  digging  intrenchments  or 


TYRE 


3339 


«  Hengstenberg  (De  Rebus  Ti/riorum,  p.  75)  says 
'.hat  ttiis  silence  of  the  Greek  anj  Phoeuiciau  histo- 
rians proves  too  much,  as  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
tity  W!i«  besieged  Sy  Nebuchaduezzar.      To  this  Ilitzig 


in  casting  up  earthworks,  the  seige  was  unsuccess- 
ful. This  is  confirmed  by  the  following  ver.ses  (19, 
20),  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  land  of  Ei:ypt 
will  be  given  to  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a  compensation, 
or  wages,  to  him  and  his  army  for  their  having 
served  against  Tyre.  Movers,  indeed,  asserts  that 
the  only  meaning  of  the  expression  that  Nebiicha<l-I 
nezzar  and  his  army  had  no  wages  for  their  service 
against  Tyre  is.  that  they  did  not  plunder  the  city. 
But  to  a  virtuous  commander  the  best  reward  of 
besieging  a  city  is  to  capture  it;  and  it  is  a  strange 
sentiment  to  attribute  to  the  Supreme  Being,  or  to 
a  prophet,  that  a  general  and  his  army  recei\ed  no 
wages  for  capturing  a  city,  because  they  did  not 
plunder  it.  (2.)  Josephus,  who  had  access  to  his- 
torical writings  on  tins  subject  which  have  not 
reached  our  times,  although  he  quotes  Phoenician 
writers  who  show  that  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
Tyre  (Ant.  x.  11,  §  1;  c.  Apian.  23),  neither  states 
on  his  own  authority,  nor  quotes  any  one  else  .as 
stating  that  Nebuchadnezzar  took  it.  (3.)  The 
capture  of  Tyre  on  this  occasion  is  not  mentioned 
by  any  Greek  or  Koman  author  whose  writings  are 
now  in  existence.  (4.)  In  the  time  of  Jerome  it 
was  distinctly  stated  by  some  of  his  contemporaries 
tliat  they  had  read,  amongst  other  histories  on  this 
point,  histories  of  Greeks  and  Phoenicians,  and  es- 
pecially of  Nicolaus  Damascenus,  in  wjiich  nothing 
was  said  of  the  siege  of  Tyre  by  the  Chaldees;"  and 
Jerome,  in  noticing  this  fact,  does  not  quote  any 
authority  of  any  kind  for  a  counter-statement,  but 
contents  himself  with  a  general  allegation  that  many 
facts  are  related  in  the  Scrijitures  which  are  not 
found  in  Greek  works,  and  that  "  we  ought  not  to 
acquiesce  in  the  authority  of  those  whose  pertidy 
and  falsehood  we  detest  "  (see  Commenl.  ad  J-.'ze- 
c/iielem,  xxvi.  7).  On  this  view  of  the  question 
there  would  seem  to  lie  small  reason  for  believing 
that  the  city  was  actually  captured,  were  it  not  tor 
another  passage  of  Jerome  in  his  Commentaries  on 
the  passage  of  Ezekiel  already  quoted  (xxix.  18),  in 
which  he  explains  that  the  meaning  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's having  received  no  w^es  for  his  warfare 
against  Tyre  is,  not  that  he  failed  to  take  the  city, 
but  that  the  Tyrians  had  previously  removed  every- 
thing precious  from  it  in  ships,  so  that  when  Neb- 
uchadnezzar entered  the  city  he  found  notliing 
there.  This  interpretation  has  been  admitted  by 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  critics  of  our  own  day 
(Ewald,  Die  Proplieten  dis  Altai  Bmuks,  ad  loc), 
who,  deeming  it  probable  that  .lerome  had  obtained 
tlie  information  frpm  some  historian  whose  name  is 
not  given,  accepts  as  historical  this  account  of  the 
termination  of  the  siege.  This  account,  therefore, 
as  far  as  Inquirers  of  the  present  day  are  concerned, 
rests  solely  on  the  authority  of  Jerome;  and  it  tima 
Ijecomes  important  to  ascertain  the  principles  and 
method  which  Jerome  adopted  in  writing  his  Com- 
mentaries. It  is  peculiarly  fortunate  that  Jerome 
himself  h.as  left  on  record  some  valuable  informa- 
tion on  this  point  in  a  letter  to  Augustine,  for  the 
understanding  of  which  tiie  following  brief  prelim- 
inary explanation  will  be  sufficient:  In  Jerome's 
Commentaries  on  the  .second  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  when  adverting  to  the  passa>;e 
(vv.  11-14)  in  which  St.  Paul  states  that  he  had 
withstood  L'eter  to  the  face,  "  because  he  was  to  be 


replies,  that  the  historians  could  only  have  oniitted  tfl 
mention  the  siege,  because  the  siege  had  net  boeu  fol 
lowed  by  the  capture  of  the  city  {Drr  iVo/  iiet  Jt$aia 
p.  278). 


3340  iVRE 

blamed  "for  requiring  Cliristians  to  comply  with 
the  observances  of  the  .Jewish  ritual  law,  Jerome 
denies  that  there  was  an}-  real  ditTerence  of  opinion 
between  the  two  Apostles,  asserts  that  they  had 
merely  made  a  preconcerted  arrangement  of  appiir- 
tilt  difference,  in  order  that  those  who  approved  of 
•  circumcision  might  plead  the  example  of  Peter,  and 
that  those  who  were  unwilling  to  be  circumcised 
might  extol  the  religious  lil)erty  of  Paul.  .Jerome 
then  goes  on  to  say  that  "  the  fact  of  simulation 
being  useful,  and  occasionally  permissilile,  is  taught 
by  the  example  of  Jehu  king  of  Israel,  who  never 
would  have  been  aide  to  put  the  jM-iests  of  liaal  to 
death  unless  he  had  feigned  willingness  to  worship 
an  idol,  saying,  '  Ahab  served  liaal  a  little,  but 
Jehu  shall  serve  him  much.'  "  On  this  Augustine 
strongly  remonstrated  with  Jeronje  in  two  letters 
which  are  marked  .56  and  67  in  Jerome's  Corre- 
spondence. To  these  Jerome  returned  an  answer 
in  a  letter  marked  112,  in  which  he  repudiates  the 
idea  that  he  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  all  that  is 
contained  in  his  Connnentaries,  and  then  frankly 
confesses  how  he  composed  them.  Beginning  with 
Origen,  he  enumerates  several  writers  whose  Com- 
mentaries he  had  read,  specifying  amongst  others, 
l.aodicenus,  who  had  lately  left  the  Church,  and 
Alexander,  an  old  heretic.  He  then  avows  that 
having  read  them  all  he  sent  for  an  amanuensis,  to 
whom  he  dictated  sometimes  his  own  remarks, 
sometimes  those  of  otiiers,  without  paying  strict  at- 
tention either  to  the  order  or  the  words,  and  some- 
times not  even  to  the  meaning.  "  Itaque  ut  sim- 
pliciter  fatear,  legi  ha;c  omnia,  et  in  mente  mea 
plurima  coacervans,  accito  notario,  vel  mea,  vel 
aliena  dictavi,  nee  ordinis,  nee  verborum,  interdum 
nee  sensuum  memor  "  (see  Migne's  Edition  of  Je- 
rome, vol.  i.  p.  918).  Now  if  the  bearing  of  the 
remarks  concerniirg  simulation  for  a  pious  purpose, 
and  of  the  method  which  Jerome  followed  in  the 
composition  of  his  Commentaries  is  seriously  con- 
sidered, it  cannot  but  throw  doubt  on  his  uncorrol)- 
orated  statements  in  any  case  wherein  a  religious  or 
theological  interest  may  have  appeared  to  him  to 
be  at  stake. 

Jerome  was  a  very  learned  man,  perhaps  the 
most  learned  of  all  the  Fathers.  He  was  also  one 
of  the  vei-y  few  among  them  who  made  themseh'es 
acquainted  witii  the  Hebrew  language,  and  in  this, 
as  well  as  in  other  points,  he  deserves  gratitude  for 
the  services  ^hich  he  has  rendered  to  Biblical  liter- 
ature. He  is,  moreover,  a  \aluable  witness  to  facts, 
when  he  can  be  suspected  of  no  bias  concerning 
them,  and  especially  when  they  seem  contrary  to 
his  religious  prepossessions.  But  it  is  evident,  from 
the  passages  in  his  writings  above  quoted,  that  he 
had  not  a  critical  mind,  and  that  he  can  scarcely 
be  regarded  as  one  of  those  noble  spirits  who  prefer 
truth  to  supposed  pious  ends  which  may  be  attained 
by  its  violation.  Hence,  contrary  to  tlie  most  nat- 
ural meaning  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel's  words  (xxix. 
18),  it  would  be  unsafe  to  rely  on  Jerome's  sole 
authority  for  the  statement  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  his  army  eventually  captured  Tyre. 

Litif.ratuft.  —  For  information  on  this  head,  see 
Phienicians,  vol.  iii.  p.  2522.  In  addition  to  the 
works  there  mentioned,  see  Robinson's  Bibl.  Res. 
ii.  461-471;  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  264- 
208;   Porter's  Hamlbvak  for  Syria  and  Palestine, 


TYRE 

pp.  390-396;  Hengstenberg,  De  Rebus  Tyriorun\ 
Berlin,  1832;  and  Hitter's  Erdkunde,  vel.  xvii.  Ist 
part,  3d  book,  pp.  320-379.  Professor  Bobinson, 
in  addition  to  his  instructive  history  of  Tyre,  has 
published,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  third  volume, 
detailed  list,  which  is  useful  for  the  knowledge  o/ 
Tyre,  of  works  by  authors  who  had  themselves 
traxelled  or  resided  in  Palestine.  See  likewise  an 
excellent  account  of  Tyre  by  Cesenius  in  his  Jesaia, 
i.  707-719,  and  by  Winer,  s.  v.,  in  his  Blbl.  Real- 
wort.     [Tykians;  Tykus.]  E.  T. 


"  *  We  state  the  point  in  this  manner  because 
there  is  room  for  the  question,  whether  the  Hebrews 
tuul  a  distinct  writUju  tharacter  thus  early   and   vaa,} 


Coin  of  Tyre. 


*  In  2  Sam.  v.  11,  and  1  Chr.  xiv.  1,  we  are 
told  that  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  sent  cedar  wood,  and 
carpenters,  and  masons  to  David,  to  build  him  a 
palace;  and,  subsequently,  that  he  sent  materials 
and  workmen  to  Solomon  to  build  the  Temple 
(1  K.  V.  10;  2  Chr.  ii.  14,  16).  A  striking  con- 
firmation of  this  amity  between  Hiram  and  the 
Hebrew  kings  has  lately  been  brought  to  light. 
Certain  writings  or  i.iarks  have  been  found  on  the 
bottom  rows  of  the  wall  at  the  southeast  angle  of 
the  Haram  area,  near  where  the  ancient  Temple 
must  have  stood,  at  the  depth  of  about  90  feet, 
where  the  foundations  lie  on  the  limerock  itself. 
Mr.  E.  Deutsch,  of  the  British  Museum,  who  has 
examined  these  stones  on  the  ground,  decides  (1) 
that  these  signs  were  cut  or  painted  on  the  stones 
when  they  were  laid  in  their  ]iresent  places;  (2)  that 
they  do  not  represent  any  inscription;  and  (3)  that 
that  they  are  certainly  Phoenician.  That  they  are 
Phoenician  marks  is  beyond  question,  because  they 
agree  with  those  found  on  primitive  substructions 
in  the  harbor  of  Sidon.  It  is  certainly  remarkable 
that  Phoenician  letters  or  etchings  should  be  found 
on  these  stones  at  Jerusalem,  thus  suddenly  brought 
to  light ;  and  the  best  explanation  of  the  fact  is 
that  they  were  placed  there  by  the  Tyrian  archi- 
tects whom  Hiram  sent  to  Jerusalem  to  assist  in 
the  erection  of  the  Temple."  The  precise  value  of 
the  characters  is  not  yet  determined,  but  no  doubt 
they  were  designed  to  guide  the  w'orkmen  in  placing 
the  stones  in  their  proper  position,  or  in  cutting 
and  shaping  them  so  as  to  have  them  properly  ad- 
justed to  each  other  (See  Quart.  Stalem.  (if  Pat. 
Ltt-plor.  Fund,  No.  ii.  1869). 

The  N.  T.  references  to  Tyre  are  few,  but  inter- 
esting. The  Saviour  performed  some  of  his  mira- 
cles in  the  vicinity  (Matt.  xv.  21;  Mark  vii.  '24). 
The  Saviour's  apostrophe  to  Chorazin  and  Beth- 
saida  represents  the  inhabitants  of  these  cities  as 
more  wicked  than  those  of  lyre  and  Sidon,  on  ac- 
count of  the  misuse  of  opportunities  which  the 
latter  did  not  enjoy  (Matt.  xi.  20;  Luke  x.  13). 
The  disciples  who  went  to  Phoenice  after  the  death 
of  Steprten  undoubtedly  made  known  the  Gospel 
there  (Acts  xi.  19).     Paul,  on  his   last  journey  to 


not  have  used  at  that  period   one  common   to   tbem 
selves  and  the  Phoenicians  and  other  kindred  tribet 


TYRIANS 

Ferusrtleni,  went  on  shdre  at  Tyre  and  sought  out 
[avevpovTts]  the  disciples  iu  that  city.  The  proph- 
2ts  there  attempted,  in  vain,  to  dissuade  liini  from 
^oin»  up  to  Jerusalem.  The  touching  scene  of 
the  farewell  on  the  beach  (Acts  xxi.  b)  forms  a 
memorable  passage  in  Paul's  history.  Lulve  de- 
scribes the  occurrence  with  autoptic  precision.  His 
word  aiyLa\6s  (a  smooth  shore,  —  cf.  Acts  xxvii. 
39,  as  distinguished  from  one  rocky,  precipitous,  — 
on  which  they  kneeled  down),  is  the  projier  one  for 
the  level,  sandy  beach  on  both  the  northern  and 
southern  sides  of  Tyre.  Paul's  company  reiim- 
barked  at  this  point,  and  sailed  thence  to  Ptolemais 
where  they  finished  the  voyage  (Acts  xxi.  7).     H. 

*  TYR'IANS  {Tvpiof.  Tyril),  inhabitants  of 
Tyre,  Ecclu*  xlvi.  18.  The  lleb.  "^^2,  D"'"^*^, 
LXX.  Tvpios,  TupioL,  variously  rendered  "  of  Tyre,'' 
"  men  of  Tyre,"  and  "  they  of  Tyre  "  or  "  Tyrus," 
also  occur  1  K.  vii.  14;  1  Chr.  xxii.  4;  2  Chr.  ii. 
U;  Ezr.  iii.  7;  Neh.  xiii.  16;  1  Esdr.  v.  55;  2 
Mace.  iv.  49.     [Tyre.]  A. 

*  TYROPCE'ON,  THE  (^  riiv  Tuponoiiiv 

(pdpay^  =  t/i&  Valley  of  the  Clteeietiwngers).  This 
valley  was  an  important  feature  in  the  ancient  to- 
pography of  Jernsalem,  running  from  the  plateau 
on  the  north  to  the  fountain  of  Siloam,  dividing 
the  southern  part  of  the  city  into  two  high  and 
steep  ridges,  making  it  a  double  promontory.  Al- 
though immense  quantities  of  rubbish  had  accumu- 
lated in  it,  almost  fiUing  its  upper  part.  Professor 
Robinson  was  able  to  point  out  its  general  course. 
His  theory,  demanded  by  the  specifications  of  .lose- 
plius,  that  it  curved  around  the  northern  brow  of 
the  southwest  hill,  was  warmly  disputed  by  some 
writers;  but  subsequent  investigations  have  estab- 
.islied  its  correctness.  It  has  long  been  known 
that  the  most  interesting  part  of  Jerusalem  was 
subterranean,  and  some  of  Capt.  Warren's  most 
valual)le  recent  explorations  have  been  in  this  valley. 
He  has  sunk  shafts  in  it  to  depths  of  between  50 
and  80  feet,  going  down  to  its  rocky  bed,  in  which 
he  found  drains  and  reservoirs  cut,  and  tracing  the 
foundations  of  the  west  Haram  wall  for  se\eral 
hundred  feet.  Opposite  Kobinson's  Arch,  on  the 
otiier  side  of  the  valley,  he  found  the  other  pier  of 
the  massive  bridge  wliich  once  spanned  it,  leading 
from  the  Temple  to  the  upper  city;  and  sixty  feet 
below  the  present  surface  he  found  some  of  the 
ruins  of  the  bridge  itself.  Further  north  he  dis- 
covered the  ruins  of  another  similar  bridge,  built 
later,  as  he  thinks,  and,  also,  an  ancient  gateway 
in  the  western  llaram  wall  —  all  now  covered  with 
'•  the  debris  of  thousands  of  years."  S.  W. 

TY'RUS  [">"^!J,  "l!5:  Tvpos,  exc.  Ex.  xxvi., 
xxvii.,  :S,6p,  2  Mace.  iv.  49,  Tupiot:  Tyrus,  Tyrii]. 
This  form  is  employed  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  books 
of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Hosea  (Joel  has  "Tyre"), 
Amos,  Zechariah,  2  Esdras,  Judith,  and  the  Macca- 
bees, as  follows:  Jer.  xxv.  22,  xxvii.  3,  xlvii.  4; 
Ez.  xxvi.  2,  3,  4,  7,  15,  xxvii.  2,  3,  8,  32,  xxviii.  2, 
12,  xxix.  18;  Hos.  ix.  13;  Am.  i.  9,  10;  Zech.  ix. 
2,  3;  2  Esdr.  i.  11;  Jud.  ii.  28;  1  Mace.  v.  15;  2 
Vlacc.  iv.  18,  32,  44,  49. 

*  TY'RUS,  THE  LADDER  OF  (f,  KKifia^ 
Tvpou;  Joseph.  K\ifj.a^  Tvpiwi/:  termini  Tyri),  I 
Vlacc.  xi.  59,  is  described  by  Josephus  (/?.  ./.  ii. 
10,  §  2)  as  a  high  mountain  on  the  coast  of  Pales - 


UOAL 


3341 


«  •  Stanley  sugsjests  (S.  l(    P.    p.   2(56,  note)   that 
>oth  this  promontor}'  and  the  Ras  el-Ahyad,  or  White 


tine,  100  stadia  north  of  Ptolemais  (Accho,  Acre, 
Akic'i).  It  is  the  modern  Eds  tn-Ndkural(,  a 
bluff  promontory,  about  half-way  between  Ptole- 
mais and  Tyre,  forming  the  northern  limit  of  the 
Plain  of  Acre,  as  Carmel  is  the  southern,  but,  as 
Dean  Statdey  remarks  (-S.  cf-  P.  p.  264,  3d  ed.),  it 
"  difl'ers  froui  Carmel  in  that  it  leaves  no  beach  be- 
tween itself  and  the  sea,  and  thus,  by  cutting  off  all 
comnnuiication  rouijd  its  base,  acts  as  the  natural 
barrier  Ijetween  the  bay  of  Acre  and  the  maritime 
plain  to  the  north—  in  other  words,  between  Pal- 
estine and  Phoenicia."  «  'See  also  Ritter,  Erdk. 
xvi.  809,  813,815;  Rob.  PIrys.  Geoy.  p.  21;  Neu- 
bauer,  Geoy.  du  Talinad,  p.  39,  A. 

*  TZADDI,  one  of  the  Hebrew  letters. 
[Wkitixg.]  H. 

u. 

U'CAL  (^3i^,  and  in  souie  copies  ^3^  [s*« 
below] ).  According  to  the  received  text  of  Prov. 
XXX.  1.  Ithiel  and  Ucal  nuist  be  reg;irtled  as  proper 
names,  and  if  so,  they  must  lie  the  names  of  disci- 
ples or  sons  of  Agur  the  son  of  Jakeh,  an  unknown 
sage  among  the  Hebrews.  But  there  is  great  ob- 
scurity about  the  passage.  The  LXX.  translate 
Tcils  WKTTevovai  deai  Kal  Travofxai-  the  \  ulgate, 
cum  quo  est  £>tus,  el  qui  Deo  secum  morcmte  con- 
fortntus.  The  Arabic  follows  the  LXX.  to  some 
extent;  the  Targum  reproduces  Ithiel  and  Ucal  as 
proper  names,  and  tiie  Striae  is  corrupt,  Ucal  1)6- 
ing  omitted  altogether.  Luther  represents  the 
names  as  Leiihiel  and  Uclnd.  De  Wette  regards 
them  as  proper  names,  as  do  most  translators  and 
commentators.     Junius  explains  both  as  referring 

to   Christ.     The   LXX.    probably  read  ''3^'^.^:?^. 

^5ST  vS.     The  Veneto-Greek  has  Ka\   ffuvrjffo- 

fiai  =  ^"'^^l.     Cocceius   must  have  pointed  the 

words  thus,   73ST    /M  ^i1"'Sv,  "  I  have  labored 

'  -•■.  T        ••         •        •  t' 

for  God  and  have  obtained,"  and  this,  with  regard 
to  the  first  two  words  must  have  been  the  reading 
of  J.  U.  Michaelis,  who  renders,  "I  have  wearied 
myself  for  God,  and  have  given  up  the.  investiga- 
tion," applying  the  words  to  a  man  who  had  be- 
wildered himself  with  philoso[)hical  speculations 
about  the  Deity,  and  had  been  compelled  to  give 
up  the  search.  Bertheau  also  (Die  Sprilc/ie  S(d. 
Einl.  xvii.)  sees  in  the  words,  "  I  have  wearied  my- 
self for  God,  I   have  wearied  myself  for  God,  and 

have  fiiinted  "  (73S1),  an  appropriate  commence- 
ment to  the  series  of  proverbs  which  follow.  Hit- 
zig's  view  is  substantially  the  same,  except  that  he 

points  the  last  word  V?S1  and  readers,  "  and  I 
became  dull ;  "  applying  it  to  the  dimness  which 
the  investigation  produced  upon  the  eye  of  the 
mind  {Die  ISpr.  i<id.  p.  310).  Bunsen  {Bibelicerk, 
i.   p.  clxxx.)   follows  Bertheau's  punctuation,   but 

regards  vS  "^iT^S^  on  its  first  occurrence  as  a 
symbolical  name  of  the  speaker.  "  The  saying  ol 
the  man  '  I-have-wearie(l-myself-for-God ;  '  I  have 
wearied  mj'self  for  God,  and  have  fainted  away.'' 
There  is,  however,  one  fatal  objection  to  this  view, 
if  there  were  no  others,  and  that  is,  that  the  verb 

nS7,  "  to  be  weafied,"  nowJiere  takes  after  \i  the 

Cape,  are  compriseJ  under  the  aanie  of  "  Scala  Tyiio 
rum.  A 


3342 


UEL 


wcusati\e  of  the  oliject  of  weariness.  On  this  ac- 
30unt  alone,  therefore,  we  must  reject  all  the  above 
sxplaiiations.  If  Bertheau's  pointing  be  adopted, 
the  only  legitimate  translation  of  the  words  is  that 
given  by  Dr.  Davidson  {Introd.  ii.  338),  "I  am 
weary,  O  God,  I  am  weary,  O  (lod,  and  am  become 
weak."  Ewald  considers  both  Ithiel  and  Ucal  as 
symbolical  names,  employed  by  the  poet  to  desig- 
nate two  classes  of  thinkers  to  whom  he  addresses 
himself,  or  rather  he  combines  both  names  in  one, 
•' God- with-me-and-I-am  strong,"  and  bestows  it 
upon  an  imaginary  character,  whom  he  introduces 
to  take  part  in  the  dialogue.  The  name  '  God-with- 
nie,' says  Keil  (Hiivernick,  Einl.  iii.  412),  "de- 
notes such  as  gloried  in  a  more  intimate  communion 
with  God,  and  a  higher  insight  and  wisdom  ob- 
tained thereby,"  while  ''  I-am-strong "  indicates 
"the  so-called  strong  spirits  who  boast  of -their 
wisdom  and  might,  and  deny  the  holy  God,  so 
that  both  names  most  probalily  represent  a  class  of 
freethinkers,  who  thought  tiiemselves  superior  to 
tlie  revealed  law,  and  in  practical  atheism  indulged 
the  lusts  of  the  liesh."  It  is  to  be  wished  that  in 
tills  case,  as  in  many  others,  commentators  had 
oliserved  the  precept  of  the  Talmud,  "  Teach  thy 
tongue  to  say,  '  I  do  not  know.'  "        W.  A.  W. 

U'EL  (bs\S'  [will  nf  God,  Ges.]  :  OutjA;  [Vat. 
0u7)A.,  and  so  FA.,  joined  with  preceding  word:] 
Utl).  One  of  the  family  of  Bani,  who  during  the 
Captivity  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  34). 
Called  Juki,  in  1  Ksdr.  ix.  34. 

U'KNAZ  (T3|7^  [prob.  chase,  Ininting]  :  Kej^e'^: 
C'enez).  In  the  margin  of  1  Chr.  iv.  15  the  words 
"  even  Kenaz  "  in  the  text  are  rendered  "  Uknaz," 
as  a  proper  name.  Apparently  some  name  has 
been  omitted  before  Kenaz,  for  the  clause  begins 
"  and  the  ions  of  Elah,"  and  then  only  Kenaz  is 
given.  Both  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  omit  the  con- 
junction. In  the  Peshito-Syriac,  which  is  evidently 
corrupt,  Kenaz  is  the  third  son  of  Caleb  the  son  of 
Je]ihunneh.  [He  may  have  been  at  least  a  de- 
scendant of  Caleb's,  according  to  1  Chr.  iv.  15.] 

U'LAI  [-2  syl.]  C^^^W  [Pehlvi,  pure  water, 
Fiast]:  [i'iieodot.]  Ow^aA;  [LXX.  Oi-Aa^]  Ulai) 
is  mentioned  liy  Daniel  (viii.  2,  IG)  as  a  river  near 
to  Susa,  where  he  saw  his  vision  of  the  ram  and 
the  he-goat.  It  has  been  generally  identified  with 
the  Eulwus  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  geographers 
(Marc.  Heracl.  p.  18;  Arr.  Kxp.  Al.  vii.  7;  Strab. 
XV.  3,  §  22;  Ptol.  vi.  3;  Phny,  //.  N.  vi.  31),  a 
large  stream  in  the  immediate  neighliorhood  of 
that  city.  This  identification  may  be  safely  allowed, 
•esting  as  it  does  on  the  doul)le  ground  of  close 
►erbal  resemblance  in  the  two  names,  and  complete 
agreement  as  to  the  situation. 

Can  we,  then,  identify  the  Eulasus  with  any 
existing  stream?  Not  without  opening  a  contro- 
versy, since  there  is  no  point  more  disputed  among 
comparative  geographers.  The  Enlteus  has  been 
by  many  identified  with  the  Choaspes,  which  is 
undoubtedly  the  modern  Kerkhah,  an  affluent  of 
the  Tigris,  flowing  into  it  a  little  below  Kurnnh. 
By  others  it  has  been  regarded  as  the  Kuran,  a 
large  river,  considerably  further  to  the  eastward, 
;rhich  enters  the  Khor  Bamishir  near  Muhamme- 
rali.  Some  have  even  suggested  that  it  may  have 
been  the  Shapur  or  Sha'ur,  a  small  stream  which 
rises  a  few  miles  N.  W.  of  Susa,  and  flows  by  the 
ruins  into  the  Dizful  stream,  ^.n  affluent  of  the 
Kuran. 


ULAI 

The  general  grounds  on  which  the  Eulseus  bat 
been  identified  with  the  Choaspes,  and  so  with  the 
Ktrkhah  (Salmasius,  RosenmuUer,  Wahl,  Kitto, 
etc. )  are,  the  mention  of  each  separately  by  ancient 
writers  as  "the  river  of  Susa,"  and  (more  espe- 
cially) the  statements  made  liy  some  (Strabo,  Plin.) 
that  the  water  of  the  Eulseus,  by  others  (Herod., 
Athen.,  Pint.,  Q.  Curtius)  that  that  of  the  Cho- 
aspes was  the  only  water  tasted  by  the  Persian 
kings.  Against  the  identification  it  must  be  no- 
ticed that  Strabo,  Pliny,  Solinus,  and  Polyclitus 
(ap.  Strab.  xv.  3,  §  4)  regard  the  rivers  as  distinct, 
and  that  the  lower  course  of  the  Eulseus,  as  de- 
scribed by  Arrian  {Exp.  Al.  vii.  7)  and  Pliny  (//. 
N.  vi.  26),  is  such  as  cannot  possibly  1)8  reconciled 
with  that  of  the  Kerkhah  river. 

The  grounds  for  regarding  the  Eulaeus  as  tho 
Kuran  are  decidedly  stronger  ihkn  those  for  iden- 
tifying it  with  the  Kerkhah  or  Choaspes.  No  one 
can  compare  the  voyage  of  Nearchus  in  Arrian's 
Indica  with  Arrian's  own  account  of  Alexander's 
descent  of  the  Eula;us  (vii.  7)  without  seeing  that 
the  Eulseus  of  the  one  narrative  is  the  Pasitigris 
of  the  other;  and  that  the  Pasitigris  is  the  Kuran 
is  almost  universally  admitted.  Indeeil,  it  may  be 
said  that  all  accounts  of  the  hwtr  Eulseus  —  those 
of  Arrian,  Pliny,  Polyclitus,  and  i'tolemy  —  iden- 
tify it,  beyond  the  possihility  of  mistake,  with  the 
luici:r  Kuran,  and  that  so  far  there  ought  to  be  no 
controversy.  The  difficulty  is  with  respect  to  tlie 
tipper  Eulseus.  The  Eulseus,  according  to  Pliny, 
surrounded  the  citadel  of  Susa  (vi.  27),  whereas 
even  the  DizJ'td  branch  of  the  Kuran  does  not 
come  within  six  miles  of  the  ruins.  It  lay  to  the 
west,  not  only  of  the  Pasitigris  (Kuran),  but  also 
of  the  Coprates  (ri\er  of  Dizful),  according  tc 
Diodorus  (xix.  18,  19).  So  far,  it  might  be  the 
Sliapur,  but  for  two  objections.  The  S/uijjur  is 
too  small  a  stream  to  have  attracted  the  general 
notice  of  geographers,  and  its  water  is  of  so  bad  a 
character  that  it  can  never  have  been  chosen  for  the 
royal  talile  {Geo/jraph.  .Journ.  ix.  70).  There  is 
also  an  important  notice  in  Pliny  entirely  incom- 
patible with  the  notion  that  the  short  stream  of  the 
tiJiapur,  which  rises  in  the  plain  about  live  miles 
to  the  N.  N.  W.  of  Susa,  can  be  the  true  Eulseus. 
Pliny  says  (vi.  31)  the  Eulqjus  rose  in  Media,  and 
flowed  through  Mesobatene.  Now  this  is  exactly 
true  of  the  upper  Kerk/iah,  which  rises  near  flam- 
adan  (Ecbatana),  and  flows  down  the  district  of 
Malisabadan  (Jlesobatene). 

The' result  is  that  the  various  notices  of  ancient 
writers  appear  to  identify  the  upper  Eulajus  with 
the  upper  Kerkludi,  and  the  lower,  F>ulajus  (quite 
unmistakably)  with  the  lower  Kuran.  Does  tnis 
ap[)arent  confusion  and  contradiction  admit  of  ex 
planation  and  reconcilement'? 

A  recent  survey  of  the  ground  has  suggested  a 
satisfactory  explanation.  It  appears  that  the  Ker- 
kJtidi  once  bifurcated  at  Pai  Pid,  about  20  miles 
N.  W.  of  Susa,  sending  out  a  branch  which  passed 
east  of  the  ruins,  absorbing  into  it  the  Shapur,  and 
flowing  on  across  the  plain  in  a  S.  S.  E.  direction 
till  it  fell  into  the  Kuran  at  Ahwaz  (Loftus,  ChaU 
diea  and  Susiana,  pp.  424,  425).  Thus,  the  upper 
Kerkha.h  and  the  lower  Kuran  were  in  old  times 
united,  and  n)ight  be  viewed  as  forming  a  single 
stream.  The  name  Eulseus  ( Ulai)  seems  to  have 
ai)plied  most  ])roperly  to  the  eastern  branch  stream 
from  Pai  Pul  to  Ahwaz  ;  the  stream  above  Pa\ 
Pul  was  sometimes  called  the  ICulaius,  but  was 
more   properly  the  Choaspes,   which  was  also  the 


ULAM 

jole  name  of  the  western  branch  (or  present  course) 
Df  the  Kerkliuk  from  P,ii  Pul  to  the  Tigris.  Th» 
name  I'asitigris  was  proper  to  the  upper  Kuran 
fi-oni  its  source  to  its  junction  with  the  Eula'us, 
after  wliich  the  two  names  were  equally  applitnd  to 
the  lower  river.  The  Dlzfid  stream,  whicb.  was 
not  very  generally  known,  was  called  the  Coprates. 
It  is  believed  that  this  view  of  the  river  names  will 
reconcile  and  make  intelligible  all  the  notices  of 
them  contained  in  the  ancient  writers. 

It  follows  from  this  that  the  water  which  the 
Persian  kings  drank,  both  at  the  court,  and  when 
they  travelled  abroad,  was  that  of  the  Ktrkhuh, 
taken  proljably  from  the  eastern  Ijraneh,  or  proper 
Eulseus,  which  washed  the  walls  of  Su.sa,  and  (ac- 
sording  to  I'liny)  was  used  to  strengthen  its  de- 
fenses. This  water  was,  and  still  is,  believed  to 
possess  peculiar  liyhtness  (Strab.  xv.  3,  §  22;  G'ec- 
graph.  Journ.  ix.  70),  and  is  thought  to  be  at 
once  more  wholesome  and  more  pleasant  to  the 
taste  than  almost  any  other.  (On  the  controversy 
concerning  this  stream  the  reader  may  consult  Ivin- 
neir,  Persian  Einpice,  pp.  100-106 ;  .Sir  H.  Kaw- 
linson,  in  Gtoyrapli.  Journ.  ix.  84-93;  Layard, 
in  the  same,  xvi.  91-9-t;  and  Loftus,  ChalcLea  and 
Susiana,  pp.  424-431.)  G.  R. 

U'LAM  (lj7^S  [porch,  vestibule]:  OliKajj.: 
Ulnm).  1.  A  descendant  of  Gilead  the  grandson 
of  Manasseh,  and  father  of  Uedan  (1  Chr.  vii.  17). 

2.  (AiA.a/i;  [Vat.  in  ver.  40,  AiAeiyu;]  Alex. 
OvKajM- )  The  first-born  of  Kshek,  the  brother  of 
Azel.  a  descendant  of  the  house  of  Saul.  His  sons 
were  among  the  famous  ai-chers  of  Benjamin,  and 
with  their  sons  and  grandsons  made  up  the  goodly 
family  of  150  [l  Chr.  viii.  39,  40). 

UL'LA  (Sby  [j/ofc]:  'OAa;  Alex.  n\a: 
Olhi).  An  Asherite,  head  of  a  family  in  his  tribe, 
II  mighty  man  of  valor,  but  how  descended  does 
not  appear  (1  Chr.  vii.  39).  Perhaps,  as  Junius 
suggests,  he  may  be  a  son  of  Ithran  or  Jether;  and 


"  This  looks  at  first  sight  like  a  nii.splacemenf.  of 
the  uame  Rechob  from  its  proper  position  lurther  on 
in  the  verse.     Rechob,  however,  is  usually  'Paa/3. 

b  Lev.  xi.  29-30  forbids  eating  the  weasel,  the 
mouse,  the  tortoise,  the  terret,  the  chameleon,  the 
lizard,  the  snail,  and  the  mole.  The  LXX.  has,  in 
place  of  the  tortoise,  the  xpoKoSeiAos  6  xipadxcKi,  and 
instead  of  the  snail  (put  before  the  lizard,  ixa.vpa.)i  the 
XoAajSioTijs. 

c  In  the  LXX.  of  Lev.  xi.  14,  two  birds  only  are 
mentioned,  rbf  yv-rra  Kai  Toi/  Iktivov,  and  in  the  par- 
allel passage  of  Deut.  xiv.  13  the  same  two  ;  but  in 
the  Ileb.  of  the  latter  passage  only  our  present  text 
has  three  birds'  names.     It  is  therefore  probable  that 

one  of  these,  riS"1,  rendered  "  glede  "  by  the  A.  V., 

U  a  mere  corruption  of  nS"^,  found  both   in  Dent. 

T  t' 
and  in  Lev.,  for  which  the  LXX.  gives  yui/(,  and  the 
Vulgate  Milvius.  So  Maimon.  took  it  (Bochart, 
Hieroz.  ii.  33,  303).  Thus  we  have  twenty  birds 
named  as  unclean,  alike  in  the  Heb.  and  in  the  LXX. 
of  Lev.  xi.  13-19,  and  of  many  of  these  the  identifica- 
tion is  very  doubtful.  Bochart  says  (p.  354),  ''  nom- 
Ina  avium  iinmundarum  receuset  Maimon.,  interpre- 
iari  ne  conatns  quidem  est.  In  the  lleb.  of  Deut. 
Kiv.  we  have,  allowing  for  the  probable  corrupt' 3n  of 
>ne  namo,  the  same  tsventy,  but  in  the  LXX.  only 
aineteen  ;  "  every  raven  after  his  kind  "  (ndpTa  Kopaxa. 
coi  tA  Ofioia  aviTuI),  of  Ijcv.  being  omitted,  and  the 
Other  names,  although  the  same  as  those  of  Lev.,  yet 
\8viug  a  dill"rent  order  and  grouping  after  the  flrsl 


UNCLEAN  MEATS         3343 

we  may  further  conjecture  that  his  name  may  be  3 
corruption  of  Ara. 

UM'MAH  (n^l7  [f/ntheriny]:  [Piom.  'A^- 
x6^\  Vat.]  Apx"'^;"  [Alex.]  A/j.fj.a:  Aaunn}. 
One  of  the  cities  of  the  allotment  of  Asher  (.Josii. 
xix.  30  only).  It  occurs  in  comjiany  with  Aphek 
and  Kehob;  but  as  neither  of  these  have  been  iden- 
tified, no  clew  to  the  situation  of  Uminah  is  gained 
thereby.  Dr.  Thomson  {Bibl.  Sacra,  18^)5,  p. 
822,  quoted  by  Xan  de  Velde)  was  shown  a  place 
called  'Alma  in  the  highlands  on  the  coast,  about 
five  miles  N.  N.  E.  of  Has  en-Nakliura,  which  is 
not  dissimilar  in  name,  and  which  he  conjectures 
may  be  identical  with  Ummah.  But  it  is  quite 
uncertain.  'Alma  is  described  in  Laiul  ami  Book, 
chap.  XX.  G. 

*    UNCmCUMCISION.        [Concision; 

ClKCUJICI.sION.] 

UNCLEAN  MEATS.  These  were  things 
strangled,  or  dead  of  themselves,  or  through  beasts 
or  iiirtls  of  prey;  whatever  beast  did  not  both  part 
the  hoof  and  chew  the  cud;  and  certain  other 
smaller    animals   rated    as    "  creeping    things "  * 

(\^~1^:"') ;  certain  classes  of  birds  '^  mentioned  in 
Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.  twenty  or  twenty-one  in 
all;  whatever  in  the  waters  had  not  both  fins  and 
scales;  whatever  winged  insect  had  not  besides  foui 
legs  the  two  hind-legs  for  leaping;  <'  besides  things 
offt?red  in  sacrifice  to  idols;  and  all  blood  or  what- 
ever contained  it  (save  perhaps  the  blood  of  fish,  as 
would  appear  from  that  only  of  beast  and  bird  being 
forbidden.  Lev.  vii.  26),  and  therefore  flesh  cut 
from  the  live  animal;  as  also  all  fat,  at  any  rate 
that  disposed  in  masses  among  the  intesthies,  and 
probably  wherever  discernible  and  separable  among 
the  flesh  (Lev.  iii.  14-17,  vii.  23).  The  eating  of 
blood  was  prohibited  even  to  "  the  stranger  that 
sujourneth  among  you  "  (Lev.  xvii.  10,  12,  13, 14), 
an  extension  which  we  do  not  trace  in  other  dietary 
precepts;  e.  <j.  the  thing  which  died  of  itself  was 


eight.  Thus  Lev.  xi.  17,  consists  of  the  three.  Kai 
vvKTiKopaKa,  xai  KaTapaxniv ,  /cat  ijSii'  ;  whereas  Deut. 
xiv.  16,  which  should  correspond,  contains  xal 
epuiSiou , KoX KVKi'ov, Kai.L^i.v.  Also  the  ewo'j/,  ''hoopoe.'' 
and  the  nopciupiM:',  ''coot,'"  figure  in  both  the  LXX 
lists. 

<l  In  Lev.  xi.  21  the  Keri  has  'lb — IC?S,   against 

the  sVltTM  of  the  Cethib.  It  is  best  to  adopt  the 
former  and  view  the  last  part  of  the  verse  as  eousti 
tuting  a  class  that  may  be  eaten  from  among  a  larger 
doubtful  cla.ss  of  "flying  creeping-things,"  the  difff.r. 
eiitia  consisting  in  their  having  four  feet,  and  a  pair 
of  hind-legs  to  spring  with.  The  A.  V.  is  here  ob 
scure.  "All  fowls  that  creep,"  and  "every  flying 
creeping  thing,"  standing  in  Lev  xi.  20,  21  for  pre- 
cisely the  same  Heb.  phrase,  rendered  by  the  LX.X 
Tci  epireTct  Twi'  ireTcu'u)!'  ;  and  "  legs  ahni-e  their  feet 
to  leap,"  not  showing  that  the  dislinct  larger  spring- 
ing legs  of  the  locust  or  cicada  are  meant ;  where  the 

Heb.  73/SlJ,  and  LXX.  avioTepov  seem  to  express 
the  upward  projection  of  these  logs  above  the  crea- 
ture's back.     So  Bochart  takes  it  (p.  452),  who  also 

prefers  \!>  in  the  reading  above  given;  "ita  enim 
Hebriipi  omnes ;  "  auu  so,  he  adds,  the  San>»r.  Pent 
He  states  that  locusts  are  salted  for  food  in  Egypt 
(iv.  7,  491,  492  ;  comp  Has.«elquist,  281-283).  Thu 
edible  class  is  enumerated  in  four  species  .No  pr^oepi 
is  found  in  Deut.  relating  to  thes4>. 


B344 


UNCLEAN   MEATS 


to  be  given  "  unto  the  stranger  tliat  is  in  tin' 
pates  "  (Dent.  xix.  21).  As  reaarcls  blood,  the  pro- 
hibition indeed  dates  from  the  declaration  to  Noah 
against  "  flesh  with  the  life  thereof  which  is  the 
blflod  thereof,"  in  Gen.  ix.  4,  which  was  perhaps 
regarded  by  Moses  as  still  binding  upon  all  Noah's 
descendants.  The  grounds,  however,  on  which  the 
similar  precept  of  the  Apostolic  Council,  in  Acts 
XV.  20,  21,  appears  based,  relate  not  to  anj'  obliga- 
tion resting  still  unbroken  on  the  Gentile  world, 
but  to  the  risk  of  promiscuous  ofiense  to  the  Jews 
and  Jewish  Christians,  '■'■for  Moses  of  old  time 
hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him."  Hence 
this  abstinence  is  reckoned  amongst  "  necessary 
things"  (ra  lira.va.'yKis)',  and  "things  otit^red  to 
idols,"  although  not  solely,  it  may  be  presumed,  on 
the  same  grounds,  are  placed  in  the  same  class  with 
"blood  and  things  strangled  "  (dTrf'xeo-^ai  €(5a)Ao- 
Qviijiv  Kai  aiixaTO^  Koi  ttviktov,  vv.  28,  29).  Be- 
sides these,  we  tind  the  proliibition  twice  recurring^ 
against  "seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk."  It 
is  added,  as  a  final  injunction  to  the  code  of  dietary 
precepts  in  Deut.  xiv.,  after  the  crowning  declara- 
tion of  ver.  21,  "yi/r  tliou  art  an  holy  people  unto 
the  Lord  thy  God;  "  liut  in  Ex.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv. 
2(),  the  context  relates  to  the  bringing  first-lruits  to 
the  altar,  and  to  the  "Angel"  who  was  to  "go 
before ''  the  people.  To  this  precept  we  shall  have 
occasion  further  to  return. 

The  general  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  is 
rightly  observed  by  Michaelis  (Smith's  Trandiiltnn^ 
Art.  ccii.  etc.)  to  have  its  parallel  anjongst  all 
nations,  there  being  universally  certain  creatures 
regarded  as  clean,  i.  e.  fit  for  food,  and  the  rest  as 
the  opposite  (comp.  Lev.  xi.  47).  With  the  greater 
number  of  nations,  however,  this  is  only  a  tradi- 
tional usage  based  merely  perhaps  either  on  an  in- 
stinct relating  to  health,  or  on  a  repugnance  which 
is  to  be  regarded  as  an  ultimate  fact  in  itself,  and 
of  which  no  further  account  is  to  be  given,  'i'hus 
Michaelis  (ns  above)  remarks  that  in  a  certain  part 
of  Germany  rabbits  are  viewed  as  unclean,  i.  e.  are 
advisedly  excluded  from  diet.  Our  feelings  as  re- 
gards the  frog  and  the  snail,  contrasted  with  those 
of  continentals,  supjily  another  clo.se  parallel.  Now, 
it  is  not  unlikely  that  nothing  more  than  this  is 
intended  in  the  distiriction  between  "  clean  "  and 
"  unclean  "  in  the  directions  given  to  Noah.  The 
intention  seems  to  have  been  that  creatures  recog- 
nized, on  whatever  ground,  as  unfit  ibr  human  food, 
Bhould  not  be  preserved  in  so  large  a  proportion  as 
those  whose  number  might  be  diminished  by  that 
consumption.  The  dietary  code  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  the  traditions  which  have  descended  among.st 
the  Arabs,  unfortified,  certainly  down  to  the  time  of 
Mohammed,  and  in  some  cases  later,  by  an}'  legis- 
lation whatever,  so  far  as  we  know,  may  illustrate 
the  probable  state  of  the  Israelites.  If  the  Law 
seized  upon  such  haliits  as  were  current  amo)ig  the 
people,  perhaps  enlarging  their  scope  and  range,  the 
whole  scheme  of  tradition,  instinct,  and  usage  so 
enlarged  might  become  a  ceremonial  barrier,  having 
a  relation  at  once  to  the  theocratic  idea,  to  the 
general  health  of  the  people,  and  to  their  separate- 
ness  as  a  nation. 

The  same  personal  interest  taken  by  Jehovah  in 
his  subjects,  which  is  expressed  l)y  the  demand  for 
1  ceremonially  pure  state  on  the  part  of  every 
Israelite  as  in  covenant  with  Him,  regarded  also 


UNCLEAN    MEATS 

this  particular  detail  of  that  purity,  namely,  diet. 
Thus  the  prophet  (Is.  Ixvi.  17),  speaking  in  Hi« 
name,  denounces  those  that  "  sanctify  themselves 
(consecrate  themselves  to  idolatry),  eating  swine's 
flesh,  and  the  abomination,  and  the  mouse,"  and 
those  "  which  remain  among  the  graves  and  lodge 
in  the  monuments,  wliicli  eat  swine's  flesh,  and 
broth  of  abominable  things  is  in  their  vessels" 
(Ixv.  4).  It  remained  for  a  higher  Lawgiver  to 
announce  that  "  there  is  nothing  from  without  a 
man  that  entering  into  him  can  defile  him  "  (Mark 
vii.  15).  The  fat  was  claimed  as  a  burnt-oftering 
and  the  blood  enjoyed  the  highest  sacrificial  esteem. 
In  the  two  combined  the  entire  victim  was  by  lep- 
resentation  offt^red,  and  to  transfer  either  to  human 
use  was  to  deal  presumjitnously  with  the  most  holy 
things.  Hut,  besides  this,  the  blood  was  esteemed 
as  "the  life"  of  the  creature,  and  a  mysterious 
sanctity  beyond  the  sacrificial  relation  thereliy 
attached  to  it.  Hence  we  read,  "  whatsoever  soul 
it  be  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood,  even  that 
.soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  "  (Lev.  vii.  27, 
comp.  xvii.  10,  14).  Whereas  the  offender  in  other 
dietary  respects  was  merely  "  unclean  until  even  " 
(xi.  40,  xvii.  15). 

lilood  was  certainly  drunk  in  certain  heathen 
rituals,  especially  those  which  related  to  the  .solem- 
nization of  a  covenant,  but  also  as  a  pledge  of  idol- 
atrous worship  (Ps.  xvi.  4;  Ez.  xxxiii  2.3).  Still 
there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  blood  has  ever  been 
a  eommon"  article  of  food,  and  any  lawgiver  might 
probably  reckon  on  a  natural  aversion  effectually 
fortifying  his  prohibition  in  this  respect,  uidess 
under  some  bewildering  influence  of  superstition. 
Whether  animal  qualities,  grosser  appetites,  and 
inhuman  tendencies  might  be  supposed  by  the  He- 
brews tiansniitted  into  the  partaker  of  the  lilood 
of  animals,  we  have  nothing  to  show:  see,  however, 
.losephus,  Aiit.  in.  11,  §  2. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  tlie  practical  efl^ect  of  the 
rule  laid  down  is  to  exclude  all  the  carnlrura 
among  quadrupeds,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  interpret 
the  nomenclature,  the  raploves  among  birds.  This 
suggests  the  question  whether  they  were  excluded 
as  being  not  averse  to  human  carcases,  and  in  most 
eastern  countries  acting  as  the  servitors  of  the 
battle-field  and  the  gibbet.  Even  swine  have  been 
known  so  to  feed ;  and,  further,  by  their  constant 
runcation  among  whatever  lies  on  the  ground,  sug- 
gest impurity,  even  if  they  were  not  generally  foul 
feeders.  Amongst  fish  those  which  were  allowed 
contain  imquestionably  the  most  wholesome  varie- 
ties, save  that  they  exclude  the  oyster.  Probalily, 
however,  sea-fisbing  was  little  practiced  by  the 
Israelites;  and  the  Levitical  rules  nui.st  be  under- 
stood as  referring  backwards  to  their  experience  of 
the  produce  of  the  Nile,  and  forwards  to  their 
enjoyment  of  the  Jordan  and  its  upper  lakes. 
The  exclusion  of  the  camel  and  the  hare  from 
allowable  meats  is  less  easy  to  account  for,  save 
that  the  former  never  was  in  conunon  use,  and  is 
generally  spoken  of  in  reference  to  the  senii-liar- 
barous  desert  tribes  on  the  eastern  or  southern 
border  land,  some  of  whom  certainly  had  no  in- 
superable repugnance  to  his  flesh ;  «  although  it  is 
so  impossiljle  to  substitute  any  other  creatuje  for 
the  camel  as  the  "ship  of  the  desert,"  th.at  to  eat 
him,  especially  where  so  many  other  creatures  give 
meat  so  much  preferable,  would  be  the  worst  econ- 


a  The  camel,  it  may  be  observed,  is  the  creature    tially  cloven   but  incompletely  so,  and  he  is  aUo 
most  near  the  line  of  separation,  for  the  foot  is  par-  ^  rumiuaut. 


UNCLEAN    MEATS 

jmy  possible  in  an  eastern  connuissariat  —  that  of 
destroying  the  best,  or  rather  the  only  conveyance, 
in  order  to  obtain  tlie  nwst  indifferent  food.  'I'lie 
hare"  was  long  snpjx)sed,  even  by  eminent  natural- 
ists,'' to  ruminate,  and  certainly  was  eaten  by  the 
Egyptians.  'I'he  horse  and  ass  would  be  generally 
Bpared,  from  similar  reasons  to  those  which  ex- 
empted the  camel.  As  regards  other  cattle,  the 
young  males  wfiuld  be  those  uni\ersally  prefei'red 
for  food,  no  more  of  that  sex  reaching  maturity 
than  wei-e  needful  for  breeding,  whilst  the  supply 
'>(  milk  suggested  the  copious  preservation  of  the 
female.  The  duties  of  drauifht  would  require 
another  rule  in  rearing  neat-cattle.  The  laboring 
steer,  man's  fellow  in  the  tield,  had  a  life  somewhat 
ennobled  and  sanctified  by  that  conu-adeship.  Thus 
it  seems  to  have  been  quite  unusual  to  slay  for 
sacrifice  or  food,  as  in  1  K.  xix.  21,  the  o.x  accus- 
tomed to  the  yoke.  And  perhaps  in  this  ease,  as 
being  tougher,  the  flesh  was  not  roasted  liut  boiled. 
The  case  of  Araunah's  oxen  is  not  similar,  as  cat- 
tle of  all  ages  were  useful  in  the  threshing-floor 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  22).  Many  of  these  restrictions  must 
be  esteemed  as  merely  based  on  usage,  or  arbitrary. 
Practically  the  law  left  among  the  allowed  meats 
an  ample  variety,  and  no  inconvenience  was  likely 
to  arise  from  a  prohibition  to  eat  camels,  horses, 
and  asses.  Swine,  hares,  etc.,  would  probably  as 
nearly  as  possible  be  exterminated  in  proportion  as 
the  law  was  observed,  and  tlieir  economic  room 
filled  by  other  creatures.  Wunderbar  {Biblisrh- 
Tdliii.  Medicin,  part  ii.  p.  50)  refers  to  a  notion 
that  "  the  animal  element  might  only  with  great 
circumspection  and  discretion  be  taken  up  into  the 
life  of  man,  in  order  to  avoid  debasing  that  human 
life  by  assimilation  to  a  brutal  level,  so  that  there! ly 
the  soul  might  become  degraded,  profaned,  filled 
with  animal  affections,  and  disqualified  for  drawing 
near  to  God."  lie  thinks  also  that  we  may  notice 
a  meaning  in  "  the  distinction  between  creatures 
of  a  higher,  nobler,  and  less  intensely  animal  or- 
ganization as  clean,  and  those  of  a  K)wer  and  in- 
complete organization  as  unclean,"  and  that  the 
insects  provided  with  four  legs  and  two  others  for 
leaping  are  of  a  higher  or  more  complete  type  than 
others,  and  relatively  nearer  to  man.  Tliis  seems 
fanciful,  iiut  may  nevertheless  have  been  a  view 
current  among  Kabbinical  authorities.  As  regards 
birds,  the  raptores  have  connnonly  tough  and  'u- 
digestible  flesh,  and  some  of  them  are  in  all  warm 
countries  the  natural  scavengers  of  all  sorts  of 
carrion  and  offal.  This  alone  begets  an  instinctive 
repugnance  towards  them,  and  associates  them 
with  what  was  beforehand  a  defilement.  Thus  to 
kill  them  for  food  would  tend  to  multijily  various 
sources   of   uncleanness.<^     Porphyry    [Abstin..   iv. 


UNCLEAN    MEATS 


SU5 


a  The  TQtW,  "  coney,"  A.  V.,  Lev.  xi.  5 ;  Deut. 
xiv.  7 ;  Ps.  civ.  18 ;  Prov.  xxx.  2(j,  is  probably  the 
jerboa. 

b  See  a  correspondence  on  the  question  in  T/ie 
Standard  and  most  other  London  newspapers,  April 
2a,  1863. 

c-  Bochart  (Hieroz.  ii.  33,  355,  1.  43)  mentions  vari- 
ous symbolical  meanings  as  conveyed  by  the  precepts 
regarding  birds:  "Aves  rapaces  prohibuit  ut  a  raphia 
averteret,  nocturnas,  ut  abjicerent  opera  tonebnirum 
et  se  proderent  lucis  filios,  lacus'res  et  riparias,  qua- 
rum  rictus  est  irapurissimus,  ut  ab  omui  immuuditia 
%>a  arceret.  Struthioneni  deiiique,  qui  a  terra  nou 
ittoUitur,  ut  terrenis  relictis  ad  ea  tenderent  quue  sur- 
•um  sunt.  Quae  interpretatio  non  nostra  est  sed  vete- 
Mm.''     He  refers   to   Barnabas,   Epist.  x. ;  Clemens 


7,  quoted  by  Winer)  says  that  the  Rg\pt;an  priests 
alistained  from  all  fish,  from  all  quadrupeds  with 
solid  hoofs,  or  having  claws,  or  which  were  not 
horned,  and  from  all  carnivorous  birds.  Other 
curious  parallels  have,  been  found  amongst  more 
distant  nations.'' 

but  as  OrienUils  have  minds  sensitive  to  teach 
ing  by  types,  there  can  be  little  doul)t  tliat  such 
ceremonial  distinctions  not  only  tended  to  keep 
.lew  and  Gentile  apart,  but  were  a  perpetual  re- 
minder to  the  former  that  he  and  the  latter  were 
not  on  one  level  before  God.  Hence,  when  that 
economy  was  changed,  we  fi'.id  that  this  was  the 
very  symbol  selected  to  instruct  St.  Peter  in  the 
truth  that  God  was  not  a  "  respecter  of  persons." 
The  vessel  filled  with  "  fourfooted  beasts  of  the 
earth,  and  wild  beasts,  and  creeping  things,  and 
fowls  of  the  air,"  was  expressive  of  the  Gentile 
world,  to  be  |)ut  now  on  a  level  with  the  Israelite, 
through  God's  "  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith." 
A  sense  of  tliis  their  prerogative,  however  dimly 
held,  may  have  fortified  the  memliers  of  the  priv- 
ileged nation  in  their  struggle  with  the  persecu- 
tions of  the  Gentiles  on  this  very  point.  It  was 
no  mere  question  of  which  among  several  means 
of  supporting  life  a  man  chose  to  adopt,  when  the 
persecutor  dictated  the  alternative  of  swine's  flesh 
or  the  loss  of  life  itself,  but  whether  he  should 
surrender  the  badge  and  type  of  that  privilege  by 
which  Israel  stood  as  the'  favored  nation  before 
God  (l  Mace.  i.  63,  64;  2  Mace.  vi.  18,  vii.  1). 
The  same  feeling  led  to  the  exaggeration  of  the 
Mosaic  regulations,  until  it  was  "unlawful  for  a 
man  that  was  a  -lew  to  keep  company  with  or  come 
unto  one  of  another  nation"  (Acts  x.  28);  and 
with  such  intensity  were  badges  of  distinction 
cherished,  that  the  wine,  bread,  oil,  cheese,  or  any- 
thing cooked  by  a  heathen,*^  were  declared  unlaw- 
ful for  a  Jew  to  eat.  Nor  was  this  strictness,  how- 
ever it  might  at  times  be  pushed  to  an  absurdity, 
without  foundation  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  The 
Jews,  as,  during  and  after  the  return  from  Cap- 
tivity, they  found  the  avenues  of  the  world  opening 
around  them,  would  find  their  intercourse  with 
Gentiles  unavoidably  increased,  and  their  only  way 
to  avoid  an  utter  relax  iti(jn  of  their  code  would  lie 
in  somewhat  overstraining  the  precepts  of  prohibi- 
tion. Nor  should  we  omit  the  tendency  of  those 
who  have  no  scruples  to  "desjjise"  those  who  have, 
and  to  parade  their  liberty  at  the  expense  of  these 
latter,  and  give  piquancy  to  the  contrast  by  wanton 
tricks,  designed  to  Ijeguile  the  Jew  from  his  strict- 
ness of  observance,  and  make  him  unguariledly 
partake  of  what  he  abhorred,  in  order  to  heighten 
ills  confusion  by  derision.  One  or  two  instances 
of  such  amusement  at  the  Jew's  expense  would 

Alex.  Strom,  v.  ;  Origen,  Homil.  in  Levil  ,  Novatiau, 
De  Cibit  Judaic,  cap.  iii. ;  Cyril,  contra  Jul'an.  lib.  ix. 

d  Winer  refers  to  Von  Bohleu  (Genesis,  p.  S8)  na 
finding  the  origin  of  the  clean  and  unclean  animals 
iu  the  Zendavestii,  in  that  the  latter  are  the  creation 
of  Ahrimau,  whereas  man  is  ascribed  to  that  of  Or- 
muzd.  He  rejects,  however,  and  quite  rightly,  the 
notion  that  Persian  institutions  exurci.sed  any  influ- 
ence over  Ilobrew  ones  at  the  earliest  period  of  the 
fitter,  and  connects  it  with  the  efforts  of  some  "  deo 
Pentiiteuch  recht  jung  und  die  Ideon  dea  Zendavesta 
rech'  <ilt  zu  machou.''  See  Uncle.\nness  for  other  re- 
semblances between  Per.sian  and  Hebrew  ritual. 

c  Winer  also  refers  to  Ahnda  Zarn,  ii  2-t),  T  2: 
Hottirger,  Leg.  Htbr.,  pp.  117,  141. 


3346 


UNCLEAN   MEATS 


drive  the  latter  within  the  entrenchments  of  an 
universal  reiJiij;iiance  and  avoidance,  and  make  him 
seek  the  safe  side  at  tlie  cost  of  being  counted  a 
churl  and  a  bigot.  Thus  we  may  account  for  the 
refusal  of  the  "king's  meat"  by  the  religious 
cajitives  (Dan.  i.  8),  and  for  the  similar  conduct 
recorded  of  Judith  (xii.  2)  and  Tobit  (Tob.  i.  11); 
and  in  a  similar  spirit  Shakespeare  makes  Shyloek 
say,  "  I  will  not  eat  with  you,  drink  with  you,  nor 
pray  with  j'ou  "  (Merdiant  of  Venice,  Act  i.  Sc. 
iii.).  As  regards  things  offered  to  idols,  all  who 
own  one  (iod  meet  on  common  ground;  but  the 
Jew  viewed  the  precept  as  demanding  a  literal  ob- 
'ective  obedience,  and  had  a  hoi}'  horror  of  even 
an  unconscious  infraction  of  the  Law :  hence,  as 
he  could  never  know  what  had  received  idolatrous 
consecration,  his  only  safety  lay  in  total  abstinence ; 
whereas  St.  Paul  admonishes  the  Christian  to  ab- 
stain, "  for  his  sake  that  showed  it  and  for  con- 
science' sake,"  from  a  thing  said  to  have  been 
consecrated  to  a  false  god,  but  not  to  parade  his 
conscientious  scruples  l)y  interrogating  the  butcher 
at  his  stall  or  the  host  in  his  guest-chamber  (1  Cor. 
X.  25-29),  and  to  give  opposite  injunctions  would 
doubtless  in  his  view  have  been  '•  compelling  the 
Gentiles  to  live  as  did  the  Jews"  {lovSdi^fii/,  Gal. 
ii.  14). 

The  prohibition  to  "  seethe  a  kid  in  his  mother's 
milk"  has  caused  considerable  difierence  of  opin- 
ion amongst  commentators.  Michaelis  (Art.  ccx.) 
thought  it  was  meant  merely  to  encourage  the  use 
cf  olive  oil  instead  of  the  milk  or  butter  of  an 
animal,  which  we  commonly  use  in  cookery,  where 
the  Orientals  use  the  former.  This  will  not  sat- 
isfy any  mind  Ijy  which  the  clew  of  syml)olism,  so 
blindly  held  by  the  eastern  devotee,  and  so  deeply 
interwoven  in  .Jewish  ritual,  has  been  once  duly 
■  seized.  Jlercy  to  the  beasts  is  one  of  the  under- 
currents which  permeate  that  Law.  To  soften  the 
feelings  and  humanize  the  character  was  the  higher 
and  more  general  aim.  When  St.  Paul,  comment- 
ing on  a  somewhat  similar  precept,  says,  "  Doth 
God  care  for  oxen,  or  saith  He  it  altogether  for  our 
Bakes?  "  he  does  not  mean  to  deny  God's  care  for 
oxen,  but  to  insist  the  rather  on  the  more  elevated 
and  more  human  lesson.  The  milk  was  the  des- 
tined support  of  the  young  creature:  viewed  in 
reference  to  it,  the  milk  was  its  "  life,"  and  had  a 
relative  sanctity  reseml)ling  that  of  the  forbidden 
blood  (comp.  ,luv.  xi.  G8,  "  qui  plus  lactis  habet 
quam  sanguinis,"  speaking  of  a  kid  destined  for 
the  knife).  No  doulit  the  abstinence  from  the 
forbidden  action,  in  the  case  of  a  young  creature 
already  dead,  and  a  dam  unconscious  probably  of 
its  loss,  or  whose  consciousness  such  an  use  of  her 
milk  could  in  nowise  quicken,  was  based  on  a  senti- 
ment, merely.  But  the  practical  consequence,  that 
milk  must  be  foregone  or  elsewhere  obtained,  would 
prevent  the  sympathy  from  being  an  empty  one. 
It  would  not  be  the  passive  emotion  which  becomes 
weaker  by  repetition,  for  want  of  an  active  hal)it 
with  which  to  ally  itself  And  thus  its  operation 
would  lie  in  indirectly  quickening  sympathies  for 
the  brute  creation  at  all  other  times.  The  Tal- 
mudists  took  an  extreme  view  of  the  precept,  as 
forl)idding  generally  the  cooking  of  flesh  in  milk 
(Mishna,  Chollin,  viii. ;  Hottinger,  Leg.  Uebr.  pp. 
117,  141,  quoted  by  Winer). 

It  remains  to  mention  the  sanitary  aspect  of  the 
case.  Swine  are  said  to  be  peculiarly  lialjle  to  dis- 
lase  in  their  own  bodies.  This  probably  means 
ixAi  tliey  are  more  easily  I'^d  than  other  creatures 


UNCLEAN  MEATS 

to  the  foul  feeding  which  produces  it;  and  when 
the  average  heat  is  great,  decomposition  rapid,  and 
malaria  easily  excited,  this  tendency  in  the  animal 
is  more  mischie\ous  than  elsewhere.  A  mec.zel  oi 
mezd,  from  whence  we  have  "measled  pork,"  is 
the  old  English  word  for  a  "leper,"  and  it  is  as- 
serted that  eating  swine's  flesh  in  Syria  and  Egypt 
tends  to  ])roduce  that  disorder  (Bartholin!,  he 
Murbis  BilA.  viii.;  Wunderbar,  p.  51).  But  there 
is  an  indefiniteness  aljout  these  assertions  which 
prevents  our  dealing  with  them  scientifically.  J/ea- 
zel  or  inezel  may  well  indeed  represent  "  leper," 
but  which  of  all  the  morl)id  symptoms  chissed 
under  that  head  it  is  to  stand  for,  and  whether  it 
nieans  the  same,  or  at  least  a  parallel  disorder,  in 
man  and  in  pig,  are  indeterminate  questions. 
[Lkper.]  The  prohibition  on  eating  fat  was  .salu- 
brious in  a  region  where  skin  diseases  are  frequent 
and  virulent,  and  that  on  blood  had,  no  doul)t,  a 
similar  tendency.  The  case  of  animals  dying  of 
themselves  needs  no  remark :  the  mere  wish  to 
insure  avoiding  disease,  in  case  they  had  died  in 
such  a  state,  would  dictate  the  rule.  Yet  the 
beneficial  tendency  is  veiled  under  a  ceremonial 
difference,  for  the  "stranger"  dwelling  by  the 
Israelite  was  allowed  it,  although  the  latter  was 
forbidden.  Thus  is  their  distinctness  before  God, 
as  a  nation,  ever  put  prominently  forward,  even 
where  more  common  motives  appear  to  have  their 
turn.  As  regards  the  animals  allowed  for  food, 
comparin'g  them  with  those  forbidden,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  on  which  side  the  balance  of  whole- 
someness  lies.  Nor  would  any  dietetic  economist 
fail  to  pronounce  in  favor  of  the  Levitical  dietary 
code  as  a  whole,  as  insuring  the  maximum  of  pub- 
lic health,  and  yet  of  national  distinctness,  pro- 
cured, however,  by  a  minimum  of  the  inconvenience 
arising  from  restriction. 

Bochart's  Hitrozolcon ;  l-'orskal's  Descn'piiones 
Animalium,  etc.,  quce  in  Itintre  OrienVili  nbserva- 
vit,  with  his  Jcunes  lieniin  Niiiitrnliuiii,  and  liosen- 
miiller's  ILiwIbucli  der  Bibl.  Alleiiliumskunde^voX. 
iv.,  Ndtavid  llislonj,  may  be  consulted  on  some 
of  the  questions  connected  with  this  subject;  also 
more  generally,  Moses  Maimonides.  Ik  t'ihis  Vetitis  : 
Keinhard.  De  Cibis  Ih-brcBorum  Pi-oliiOi/is. 

H.  H. 

*  The  distinction  between  clean  and  unclear, 
animals  w.as  divinely  recognized,  apparently  as  al- 
ready familiar  among  men,  before  the  Flood  (Gen.' 
vii.  2).'  Animal  food,  on  the  other  hand,  was  first 
permitted  to  man  after  the  Flood  (Gen.  ix.  3,  cf.  i. 
29  and  vi.  21);  and  that  permission  was  couched 
in  the  most  general  terms  without  reference  to  clean 
or  unclean.  It  is  iilain,  therefore,  that  the  basis  of 
the  distinction  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in 
the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  the  various  animsls  to  be 
used  for  food.  Indeed  some  more  satisfactory  way 
of  accounting  for  human  customs  in  regard  to  'this 
use  itself  seems  desirable  than  merely  tradition,  or 
sanitary  instinct,  or  sentiment.  Such  a  basis  both 
for  the  original  distinction,  and  also  for  the  dif- 
ference in  regard  to  the  use  of  animals  for  food 
seems  to  be  fuitiished  by  the  fact  that  immediately 
after  the  Flood  Noah  ofl'ered  in  sacrifice  "  of  every 
clean  beast  and  of  every  clean  fowl"  ((ien.  viii.  20). 
There  must  then  have  already  existed  a  recognized 
distinction  among  animals  of  clean  and  unclean  ac- 
cording to  tiieir  fitness  or  unfitness  to  lie  offered  in 
sacrifice, — a  poiijt  prolialily  determined  l)y  Divin? 
direction  in  the  earliest  ages.     This  seems  siso  to 


UN  CLEANNESS 

t*  the  fiin(1:imeiital  idea  in   the  word  "^nT3  used 

T 

to  designate  the  clean  animal.  The  distinction 
having  once  been  established  for  purposes  of  sacri- 
fice, would  naturally  have  passed  on  to  food,  since 
the  eating  of  animal  food  was  everywhere  so  closely 
connected  with  the  previous  offering  of  a  part  of 
the  animal  in  sacrifice.  When  it  became  necessary 
or  expedient  to  extend  the  cl.isses  allowable  for  food 
beyond  the  very  small  number  used  for  sacrifice, 
it  was  readily  done  by  following  the  principle  of 
similarity,  and  recognizing  as  suitable  for  food  those 
animals  possessing  the  same  general  characteristics 
as  were  required  in  victims  for  sacrifice. 

When  by  the  Great  Sacrifice  on  Calvary  animal 
sacrifices  were  done  away,  the  basis  for  the  distinc- 
tion in  animals  for  food  at  once  ceased,  and  man 
recurred  again  to  the  broad  permission  of  Gen.  ix. 
3,  "  Every  moving  thing  that  livetii  shall  be  meat 
for  you;  even  as  the  green  herb  have  I  given  you 
all  things."  F.  G. 

UNCLEANNESS.  The  distinctive  idea  at- 
tached to  ceremonial  uncleanness  among  the  He- 
brews was,  that  it  cut  a  person  off  for  the  time  from 
social  privileiies,  and  left  his  citizenship  among 
tiod's  people  for  the  while  in  abeyance.  Ft  did  not 
merely  require  by  law  a  certain  ritual  of  purifica- 
tion, in  order  to  enhance  the  importance  of  the 
priesthood,  i)ut  it  placed  him  who  had  conti'acted 
an  uncleanness  in  a  position  of  disadvantage,  from 
which  certain  ritualistic  acts  alone  could  free  him. 
These  ritualistic  acts  were  primarily  the  means  of 
recalling  tiie  people  to  a  sense  of  the  personality 
of  God,  and  of  the  reality  of  the  bond  in  which  the 
Covenant  had  placed  them  with  Him.  As  regards 
the  nature  of  the  acts  themselves,  they  were  in  part 
purely  ceremonial,  and  in  part  had  a  sanitary  ten- 
dency; as  also  had  the  personal  isolation  in  which 
the  unclean  were  placed,  acting  to  some  extent  as 
a  quarantine,  under  circumstances  where  infection 
was  possible  or  supposalile.  It  is  remarkable  that, 
although  many  acts  having  no  connection  specially 
with  cleansing  entered  into  the  ritual,  the  most 
frequently  enjoined  metliod  of  removing  ceremonial 
pollution  was  that  same  washini;  which  produces 
pliysical  cleanliness.  Nor  can  we  adequately  com- 
prehend the  purport  and  spirit  of  the  lawgiver, 
unless  we  recognize  on  either  side  of  the  merely 
ceremonial  acts,  often  apparently  enjoined  for  the 
sake  of  solemnity  alone,  the  spiritual  and  moral 
benefits  on  the  one  side,  of  which  they  spake  in 
shadow  only,  and  the  i)hysical  correctives  or  pre- 
ventives on  the  other,  which  they  often  in  substance 
fionveyed.  Maimonides  and  some  other  expositors, 
whilst  they  apparently  forliid,  in  reality  practice  the 
rationalizing  of  many  ceremonial  precepts  (AV^under- 
bar,  BlbUsch-Tulmudische  R[i:<Ucin,  2e-i  Heft,  4). 

There  is  an  intense  reality  in  the  fact  of  the 
Divine  Law  taking  hold  of  a  man  l)y  the  ordinary 
infirmities  of  flesh,  and  setting  its  stamp,  as  it  were, 
in  the  lowest  clay  of  whicli  he  is  moulded.  And 
indeed,  things  which  would  be  imsuited  to  the 
spiritual  dispensation  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
which  might  even  sink  into  the  ridiculous  by  too 
close  a  contact  with  its  sublimity,  have  their  ])roper 
place  in  a  law  of  temporal  sanctions,  dire<'tly  affect- 
ing man's  life  in  this  world  chiefly  or  solely.  I'he 
lacredness  attached  to  the  human  body  is  parallel 


UNCLEANNESS 


3347 


a  Compare  the  view  of  the  modern  Persians  in  this 

■espect.     Ohardiu's  Voi/n^e.-:,  vol.  ii.  p.  343.  diap.  iv. 

I<e  corps  8e  vf^sente  devaut  Uieu  cou\iiio  VCime  :  il 


to  that  which  invested  the  Ark  of  the  C'^venant 
itself.  It  is  as  though  .lehovah  thereby  would  teach 
them  that  the  "  very  hairs  of  their  bead  were  all 
numbered"  before  Him, 'and  that  "in  his  book 
were  all  their  members  written."  Thus  was  incul- 
cated, so  to  speak,  a  bodily  holiness."  And  it  is 
remarkable  indeed,  that  the  solemn  precept,  "  Ye 
shall  be  holy;  for  I  am  holy,"  is  used  not  oidy 
where  moral  duties  are  enjoined,  as  in  Lev.  xix.  2, 
but  equally  so  where  piu'ely  ceremonial  precepts  are 
delivered,  as  in  xi.  44,  45.  So  the  emphatic  and 
recurring  period,  "  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,"  is 
found  added  to  the  clauses  of  positive  observance 
as  well  as  to  those  relating  to  the  grandest  ethical 
barriers  of  duty.  The  same  weight  of  veto  or  in- 
junction seenjs  laid  on  all  alike:  e.  ff.  "  Ye  shall 
not  make  any  cuttings  in  your  flesh  for  the  dead, 
nor  print  any  marks  upon  you :  I  am  the  Lord," 
and  "  Thou  shalt  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head, 
and  honor  the  face  of  the  old  man,  and  fear  thy 
God:  I  am  the  Lord"  (xix.  28,  32).  They  had 
his  mark  set  in  their  flesh,  and  all  flesh  on  which 
that  had  passed  had  received,  as  it  were,  the  broad 
arrow  of  the  king,  and  was  really  owned  l)y  him. 
They  were  preoccupied  by  that  mark  of  ownersliip 
in  all  the  leading  relations  of  life,  so  as  to  e.Kclude 
the  admission  of  any  rival  badge. 

Nor  were  they  to  be  only  "  separated  from  other 
people,"  but  tiiey  were  to  be  "  holy  unto  God  "  (xx. 
24,  26),  "  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation.'' 
Hence  a  nunilaer  of  such  ordinances  regarding  out- 
ward purity,  which  in  Kgypt  they  had  seen  used 
only  by  the  priests,  were  made  publicly  obligatory 
on  the  flebrew  nation. 

The  importance  to  physical  well-being  of  the  in 
junctions  which  reqtured  frequent  ablution,  under 
vi'hatever  special  pretexts,  can  be  but  feebly  appre- 
ciated in  our  cooler  and  damper  climate,  where 
there  seems  to  be  a  less  rapid  action  of  the  atmos- 
phere, as  well  as  a  state  of  the  frame  less  disposed 
towards  the  generation  of  contagion,  and  towards 
morbid  action  generally.  Hence  the  obvious  utility 
of  reinforcing,  liy  the  sanction  of  religion,  obser- 
vances tending  in  the  main  to  that  healthy  .state 
which  is  the  only  solid  basis  of  comfort,  even  though 
in  certain  points  of  detail  they  were  burdensome. 
The  custom  of  using  the  bath  also  on  occasions  of 
ceremonious  introduction  to  persons  of  rank  or  im- 
portance (Ruth  iii.  3:  Judith  x.  3),  well  explains 
the  special  use  of  it  on  occasions  of  religious  minis- 
tration, viewed  as  a  personal  appealing  before  God ; 
whence  we  understand  the  office  of  the  lavers  among 
the  arrangements  of  the  sanctuary  (Lx.  xxx.  18 
21 ;  1  K.  vii.  38,  39;  comp.  Ex.  xix.  10,  14;  1  Sam. 
xvi.  5;  Josh.  iii.  5;  2  Chr.  xxx.  17).  The  examples 
of  parallel  observances  among  the  nations  of  an- 
tiquity, will  suggest  them.selves  easily  to  the  classicaJ 
student  without  special  references.  The  closest  ap- 
proximation, however,  to  the  Mosaic  ritual  in  thij 
res)iect,  is  said  to  i)e  found  in  the  code  of  Menu 
(Winer,  "  lieinigkeit,"  313,  note). 

To  the  priests  was  ordinarily  referred  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  law  of  uncleanness,  as  may  be  g'athered 
from  Hag.  ii.  11.  Uncleanness,  as  referred  to  man, 
may  lie  armnged  in  three  degrees ;  (1)  that  which 
defiled  merely  "  until  even,"  and  was  removed  by 
bathing  and  washing  the  clothes  at  the  end  of  it  — 
such  were  all  contacts  with  dead  animals;   (2)  that 


taut  done  qu'il  soil  pur,  taut  pour  paiU-r  a  Dieu,  qu« 
pour  entrer  dans  le  lieu  consacr^  a  son  cultu." 


]348 


UNCLEANNESS 


graver  sort  wliich  defiled  for  seven  da3's,  and  was 
removed  by  the  use  of  the  "  water  of  separation  "  — 
iiich  were  all  defilements  connected  with  the  human 
corpse;  (;3)  uncleanness  from  the  morbid,  puerperal, 
or  menstrual  state,  lasting  as  long  as  that  morbid 
Btate  lasted  —  but  see  further  below ;  and  i^i  the 
case  of  leprosy  lasting  often  for  life. 

It  suffices  b^ely  to  notice  the  spiritual  signif- 
icance which  the  law  of  carnal  ordinances  veiled. 
This  seems  sometimes  apparent,  as  in  Deut.  xxi.  G-8 
(comp.  Ps.  xxvi  6,  Ixxiii.  13),  yet  calling  for  a 
spiritual  discernment  in  the  student;  and  this  is 
the  point  of  relation  between  these  "  divers  wash- 
ings" and  Christian  Baptism  (1  Pet.  iii.  21).  Those 
who  lacked  that  gift  were  likely  to  confound  the 
unvard  with  the  outward  purification,  or  to  fix  their 
regards  exclusively  on  the  latter. 

As  the  human  person  was  itself  the  seat  of  a 
eovenant-token,  so  male  and  female  had  each  their 
ceremonial  oliligations  in  proportion  to  their  sexual 
differences.  Further  than  this  the  increase  of  the 
nation  was  a  special  point  of  the  promise  to  Abraham 
and  Jacob,  and  therefore  their  fecundity  as  parents 
was  under  the  Divine  tutelage,  beyond  the  general 
notion  of  a  curse,  or  at  least  of  God's  disfavor,  as 
implied  in  barrenness.  The  "  blessings  of  the  breasts 
and  of  the  womb  "  were  his  (Gen.  xlix.  25),  and 
the  Law  takes  accordingly  grave  and  as  it  were 
paternal  cognizance  of  the  organic  functions  con- 
nected with  propagation.  Thus  David  could  feel. 
"  Thou  has  j)ossessed  my  reins:  thou  hast  covered 
me  in  my  mother's  womb  "  (I's  cxxxix.  13);  and 
St.  Paul  found  a  spiritual  analogy  in  the  fact  that 
"  God  had  tempered  the  body  together,  havintr 
given  more  abundant  honor  to  that  part  which 
lacked"  (1  Cor.  xii.  24).  The  changes  of  habit  in- 
cident to  the  female,  and  certain  al)normal  states  of 
either  sex  in  regard  to  such  functions,  are  touched 
on  reverently,  and  with  none  of  the  iEsculapian 
coldness  of  science  —  for  the  point  of  view  is  through- 
out from  the  sanctuary  (Lev.  xv.  31);  and  the 
purity  of  the  individual,  both  moral  and  physical, 
as  well  as  the  preservation  of  the  race,  seems  in- 
cluded in  it.  There  is  an  emphatic  reminder  of 
human  weakness  in  the  fact  of  l)irtli  and  death  — 
man's  passage  alike  into  and  out  of  his  mortal  state 
—  being  marked  with  a  stated  pollution.  Thus  the 
birth  of  the  infant  brought  defilement  on  its  mother, 
which  she,  except  so  far  as  necessarily  isolated  by 
the  nature  of  the  circumstances,  propagated  around 
her.  Nay,  the  conjugal  act  itself"  or  any  act  re- 
sembling it,  though  done  involuntarily  (vv.  16-18), 
entailed  uncleanness  for  a  day.  The  corp.se,  on  the 
other  hand,  bequeathed  a  defilement  of  seven  days 


a  Comp.  Herod,  ii.  64,  where  it  appears  that  after 
luch  iutercourse  an  Egyptian  could  not  enter  a  sanc- 
tuary without  first  bathing. 

f>  Ancient  Greek  physici;ins  assert  that,  in  southern 
countries,  the  symptoms  of  the  puerperal  state  con- 
tinue longer  when  a  woman  has  borne  a  daughter  than 
when  a  sou.  Michaelis  (Smii/i''s  Translation),  Art. 
214. 

c  Winer  quotes  a  remarkable  passage  from  Pliny, 
JV.  H.  vii.  13,  specifying  the  mysteriously  mi.schievous 
properties  ascribed  in  popular  superstition  to  the  men- 
•trual  flux  ;  e.  g.  buds  and  fruits  being  bliglited,  steel 
blunted,  dogs  driven  mad  by  it,  and  the  like.  But 
Pliny  has  evidently  raked  together  all   sorts  of  "  old 

vives'  fables,"  without  any  attempt  at  testing   their 
truth,  and  is  therefore  utterly  untrustworthy.     More 

o   the    purpose   is    his    quotation    of  Haller,    Efem. 

Physiol,  vii.  148,  to  the  effect  that  this  opinion  of  the 


UNCLEANNESS 

to  all  who  handled  it,  to  the  "  tent "  or  chanibm 
?f  death,  and  to  sundry  things  within  it.  Nay, 
contact  with  one  slain  in  the  field  of  battle,  or  with 
even  a  human  bone  or  grave,  was  no  less  effectual 
to  pollute,  than  that  with  a  corpse  dead  by  the 
course  of  nature  (Num.  xix.  11-18).  This  shows 
that  the  source  of  pollution  lay  in  the  mere  fact  of 
death,  and  seems  to  mark  an  anxiety  to  fix  a  sense 
of  the  connection  of  death,  even  as  of  l)irth,  with 
sin,  deep  in  the  heart  of  the  nation,  by  a  wide 
pathology,  if  we  may  so  call  it,  of  defilement.  It  is 
as  though  the  pool  of  human  corruption  was  stirred 
anew  by  whatever  jiassed  into  or  out  of  it.  For  the 
special  cases  of  male,  female,  and  intersexual  defile- 
ment, see  Lev.  xii.,  xv.  M'underbar,  Biblisc/i-Tal- 
iimdische  Mediriii,  pt.  iii.  19-20,  refers  to  iMishna, 
Zabim,  ii.  2,  Nnzir.  ix.  4,  as  understanding  by  the 
symptoms  mentioned  in  Lev.  xv.  2-8  tl/e  yonurrhma 
Itenic/na.  The  same  authority  thinks  that  the  plague 
"for  Peor's  sake"  (Num.  xxv.  1,  8,  9;  Deut.  iv.  3: 
Josh.  xxii.  17)  was  possibly  a  syphilitic  affliction 
derived  from  the  Moabites.  [Issue;  Medicine.] 
The  duration  of  defilement  caused  by  the  birth 
of  a  female  infant,  being  double  that  due  to  a  male, 
extending  respectively  to  eighty*  and  forty  days 
in  all  (Lev.  xii.  2-5),  may  perhaps  represent  the 
woman's  heavier  share  in  the  first  sin  and  first 
curse  (Gen.  iii.  16;  1  Tun.  ii.  14).  Tor  a  man's 
"  issue,"  besides  the  uncleanness  while  it  lasted,  a 
probation  of  seven  days,  including  a  washing  on 
the  third  day,  is  prescribed.  Similar  was  the  period 
in  the  case  of  the  woman,  and  in  that  of  intercourse 
with  a  woman  so  affected  (Lev.  xv.  1.3,  24,  28). 
Such  an  act  during  her  menstrual  separation  '^  was 
regarded  as  incurring,  beyond  uncleanness,  the 
penalty  of  both  the  persons  being  cut  off  from 
among  their  people  (xx.  18).  We  may  gather  from 
Gen.  xxxi.  35,  that  such  injunctions  were  agreeable 
to  established  traditional  notions.  The  propaga- 
tion of  uncleanness  from  the  person  to  the  bed, 
saddle,  clothes,  etc.,  and  through  them  to  other 
persons,  is  apt  to  impress  the  imagination  with  an 
idea  of  the  loathsomeness  of  such  a  state  or  the 
heinousness  of  such  acts,  more  forcibly  by  far  than 
if  the  defilement  clove  to  the  first  person  merely 
(Lev.  XV.  5,  6,  9,  12,  17,  20,  22-24,  26,  27).  It 
threw  a  broad  margin  around  them,  and  warned 
all  off  by  amply  defined  boundaries.  One  expres- 
sion in  ver.  8,  seems  to  have  misled  Winer  into 
supposing  that  an  issue  of  rheum  (Sdileijiijliiss) 
was  perhaps  intended.  That  "spitting,"  in  some 
cases  where  there  was  no  disease  in  question,  con- 
veyed defilement,  seems  implied  in  Num.  xii.  14, 
and  much  more  might  such  an  act  so  operate,  from 


virulent  and  baneful  eCFects  of  this  secretion  proceeded 
from  Asia,  and  was  imported  into  Europe  by  the 
Arabians  ;  which,  however,  lacks  due  foundation,  and 
which  PUny's  language  so  far  contradicts.  The  law.s 
of  Menu  are  said  to  be  more  stringent  on  this  head 
than  the  Mosaic.  The  menstrual  affection  begins  at 
an  earlier  age,  and  has  periods  of  longer  duration  with 
Oriental  women  than  with  those  of  our  own  climate. 
That  Greek  religion  recognized  some  of  the  I^evitical 
pollutions  is  plain  from  Eurip.  Iplii'^.  Taiir.  380  foil., 
where  we  read  of  a  goddess,  —  r/ris,  Pporiov  ixev  yjv  ns 
a\pYiTaL  (f)6uov,  i]  Kol  \o\eLa.^,  r}  u^Kpov  9iyr\  ^epoiv, 
^Mfiu>v  ajrei'pyet,  ixva-apw  lo?  r/yoviufi-)).  A  fragment 
of  the  same  poet,  adduced  by  Mr.  Pale.v  ("J.  loc.  cit., 
is  even  moi-e  closely  in  point.  It  is,  TrdAAeuKa  S'  exw» 
eiHio^fa  <j)evyu>  yevecrCv  re  PpOTtov  Kal  veKpoBiJKt)^  o* 
XpifimofjLGVo^  ^  TTji'  T*  efxxj/vxuiv  ^pu}(TiV  iScoTiov  V€^V 
Aay/uai.     Comp.  also  Theophr.  Char.  17. 


UXCLEANNESS 

jiie  whosi!  malady  made  him  a  source  of  pollution 
even  to  tlie  touch. 

As  regards  the  propagation  of  uncleanness  the 
Law  of  Moses  is  not  quite  clear.  ^Ve  read  (Num. 
xix.  22),  "  Whatsoever  the  unclean  person  touoheth 
shall  be  unclean;  "  but  there  uncleanness  from  con- 
tact with  the  corpse,  grave,  etc.,  is  the  subject  of 
the  chapter  which  the  injunction  closes;  and  this  is 
confirmed  by  Hag.  ii.  13,  where  "one  that  is  un- 
clean by  a  (lead  body''  is  similarly  expressly  men- 
tioned. Also  from  the  command  (Num.  v.  2-4)  to 
"put  the  unclean  out  of  the  camp;"  where  tiie 
'leper,"  the  one  "that  hath  an  issue,"  and  the 
one  "  defiled  by  the  dead,"  are  particularized,  we 
n.ay  assume  that  the  minor  pollution  for  one  day 
only  was  not  communicable,  and  so  needed  not  to 
be  "  put  forth."  It  is  observalile  also  that  the 
mnjiir  pollution  of  the  "issue"  conununicated  l)y 
contact  the  Hijrtor  pollution  only  (I^ev.  xv.  .5-11). 
Hence  may  perhaps  be  deduced  a  tendency  in  tlie 
contagiousness  to  exhaust  itself;  the  minor  pollu- 
tion, whether  engendered  l)y  the  major  or  arising 
directly,  being  non-communicable.  Thus  the  major 
itself  woulil  expire  after  one  remove  from  its 
original  subject.  To  this  pertains  the  distinction 
mentioned   by  Lightfoot  {flor.  llebr.  on  Blatt.  xv. 

2),   namely,  that  between    S^I2,  "  unclean,"  and 

71D2,  "  profane  "  or  "  polluted,"  in  that  the  latter 
does  not  pollute  another  lieside  itself  nor  propagate 
pollution.  In  the  ancient  commentary  on  Num. 
known  as  "  Siphri "  "  {<ip.  Ugol.  Tlies.  xv.  346),  a 
greater  transmissibility  of  polluting  power  seems 
assumed,  the  defilement  being  there  traced  through 
three  removes  from  the  original  subject  of  it;  but 
this  is  no  doubt  a  Rabbinical  extension  of  the 
original  Levitical  view. 

Miohaelis  notices  a  medical  tendency  in  the  re- 
striction laid  on  coition,  whereby  both  parties  were 
unclean  until  even :  he  thinks,  and  with  some  rea- 
son, that  the  law  would  operate  to  discourage  polyg- 
amy, and,  in  monogamy,  would  tend  to  preserve 
the  health  of  the  pai'ents  and  to  provide  for  the 
healthiness  of  the  ofFs[)riug.  The  uncleanness  sim- 
ilarly imposed  upon  self-pollution  (Lev.  xv.  16; 
L)eut.  xxiii.  10),  even  if  involuntary,  would  equally 
exercise  a  restraint  both  moral  and  salutary  to 
health,  and  suggest  to  parents  the  duty  of  vigilance 
over  their  male  children  (Micbaelis,  Art.  ccxiv.- 
ccxvii. ). 

With  regard  to  uncleanness  arising  from  the 
lower  animals,  Lightfoot  {Hoi\  [lebv.  on  Lev.  xi.- 
XV.)  remarks,  that  all  which  were  unclean  to  touch 
when  dead  were  unclean  to  eat,  but  not  conversely ; 
and  that  all  which  were  unclean  to  eat  were  un- 
clean to  sacrifice,  but  not  conversely;  since  "  multa 
edere  licet  quae  non  sacrificari,  et  multa  tangere 
licet  quaj  non  edere."  For  uncleanness  in  matters 
of  food,  see  Unclean  Meats.  All  animals,  how- 
ever, if  dying  of  themselves,  or  eaten  with  the 
blood,  were  unclean  to  eat.  [Blood.]  The  carcase 
also  of  any  animal  unclean  as  regards  diet,  however 
dying,  defiled  whatever  person  it,  or  any  part  of  it 
touched.  B}'  the  same  touch  any  garment,  sack, 
ikin,  or  vessel,  together  with  its  contents,  became 
»nclean,  and  was  to  be  purified  by  washing  or  scour- 
«ig;  or  if  an  earthen  vessel,  was  to  be  broken,  just 


UNCLEANNESS 


3349 


a  The  passage  'n  the  Latin  Tension  is,  "  Si  vasa 
\aBb  tangunt  hominim  qui  tangat  vasa,  quje  tangant 
vortaum  sunt  immunda,"  etc. 

6  Biship  Colenso  i  ppears  to  have  ml.'fapplied  this. 


as  the  Brahmins  break  a  vessel  out  of  which  a 
Christian  has  drunk.  Further,  the  water  in  which 
such  things  had  been  purified  comnuniicated  their 
uncleanness;  and  even  seed  for  sowing,  if  wettec 
with  water,  became  unclean  by  touch  of  any  carrion 
or  unclean  animal  when  de.ad.  All  these  defile 
ments  were  "  until  even  "  only,  save  the  eating 
"with  the  blood,"  the  oSender  in  which  respect 
was  to  "be  cut  off"  (Lev.  xi.,  xvii.^). 

It  should  further  be  added,  that  the  same  sen- 
tence '-of  cutting  off,"  was  denounced  against  all 
who  should  "  do  presumptuously  "  in  resjiect  even 
of  minor  defilements;  by  which  we  may  understand 
all  contempt  of  the  legal  provisions  regarding  them 
rhe  comprehensive  term  "defilement"  also  in 
eludes  the  contraction  of  the  unlawfid  marriages 
and  the  indulgence  of  uidawful  lusts,  as  denounced 
in  Lev.  xviii.  Even  the  sowing  heterogeneous 
seeds  in  the  same  plot,  the  mixture  of  materials  in 
one  garment,  the  sexual  admixture  of  cattle  witli 
a  diverse  kind,  the  ploughing  with  diverse  ani- 
mals in  one  team,  although  not  formally  so  classed, 
yet  seem  to  fall  under  the  same  general  notion, 
save  in  so  far  as  no  specified  terra  of  defilement  or 
mode  of  purification  is  prescrilied  (Lev.  xix.  19; 
Dent.  xxii.  9-11;  comp.  Michaelis,  as  above,  ccxx.) 
Ill  the  first  of  these  cases  the  fruit  is  pronounced 
"  defiled,"  which  Michaelis  interpets  as  a  consecra- 
tion, i.  e.  confiscation  of  the  crop  for  the  uses  of  the 
priests. 

The  fruit  of  trees  was  to  be  counted  "  as  uncir- 
cumcised,"  /.  e.  imclean  for  the  first  three  years;  in 
the  fourth  it  was  to  be  set  apart  as  "  holy  to  praise 
the  Lord  withal,"  and  eaten  conmionly  not  till  the 
fifth.  Micliaelis  traces  an  economic  effect  in  this 
regulation,  it  being  best  to  pluck  off  the  blossom  in 
the  early  years,  and  not  allow  the  tree  to  bear  fruit 
till  it  had  attained  to  some  maturity  {i'nd.  ccxxii. ). 

The  directions  in  Dent,  xxiii.  10-13,  relate  to 
the  avoidance  of  impurities  in  the  case  of  a  host  en- 
camped,* aa  shown  in  ver.  !),  and  from  the  mention 
of  "enemies  "  in  ver.  14.  The  health  of  the  army 
would  of  course  suffer  from  the  neglect  of  such 
rules;  but  they  are  based  on  no  such  ground  of  ex- 
pediency, but  on  the  scrupulous  ceremonial  purity 
demanded  by  the  (iod  whose  presence  was  in  the 
midst  of  them.  We  must  suppose  that  the  rule 
which  expelled  soldiers  under  certain  circumstances 
of  pollution  from  the  cainp  for  a  whole  day,  was 
relaxed  in  the  presence  of  an  enemy,  as  otherwise 
it  would  have  placed  them  beyond  the  protection 
of  their  comrades,  and  at  the  mercy  of  the  hostile 
host.  As  regards  the  other  regulation,  it  is  part 
of  the  teaching  of  nature  herself  that  an  assembled 
community  should  reject  whatever  the  human  body 
itself  expels.  And  on  this  ground  the  Levitical 
Law  seems  content  to  let  such  a  matter  rest,  for  it 
annexes  no  stated  defilement,  nor  prescribes  any 
purification. 

Amongst  causes  of  defilement  should  be  noticed 
the  fact  that  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  burnt 
whole,  which  were  mixed  with  water  and  became 
the  standing  resource  for  purifying  uncleamiess  in 
the  second  degree,  themselves  became  a  source  of 
defilement  to  all  who  were  clean,  even  as  of  purifi- 
cation to  the  unclean,  and  so  the  water.  Thus  the 
priest  and  Levite,  who  administered  this  [uirifica- 

as  though  it  were  required  of  the  host  of  Israel,  i.  ',. 
the  whole  boilv  of  the  people,  throughout  the  wuole 
of  their  wauileriug  iu  the  wilderness  Tut  PcnCaieuch 
etc..  ch.  vi.  3a. 


8350 


UNCLEANNESS 


tion  in  their  respective  degrees,  were  themselves 
made  unclean  thereby,  Imt  in  the  first  or  lightest 
decree  only  (Num.  xix.  7,  full.).  Somewhat  simi- 
larly the  scape-goat,  who  bore  away  the  sins  of  the 
people,  defiled  him  who  led  him  into  the  wilderness, 
and  the  bringing  forth  and  liurning  the  sacrifice 
on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement  had  a  similar 
power.  Thi^lightest  form  of  uncleaimess  was  ex- 
piated by  batmng  the  liody  and  wa.shing  the  clothes. 
Besides  the  water  of  purification  made  a-s  aforesaid, 
men  and  women  in  their  "  issues,"  were,  after  seven 
days,  reckoned  from  the  cessation  of  the  disorder, 
to  bring  two  turtle-doves  or  young  pigeons  to  be 
killed  by  the  priests.  The  purification  after  cliild- 
bed  is  well  known  from  the  N.  T. ;  the  Law,  how- 
ever, primarily  required  a  lamb  and  a  bird,  and  al- 
lowed the  poor  to  commute  for  a  pair  of  birds  as 
beforei  That  for  the  leper  declared  clean  consisted 
of  two  stages:  the  first,  not  properly  sacrificial, 
though  involving  tlie  shedding  of  blood,  consisted 
in  bringing  two  such  birds,  the  one  of  which  the 
priest  iiilled  over  sprinir-water  with  which  its  blood 
was  mingled,  and  the  mixture  sprinkled  seven  times 
on  the  late  leper,  with  an  instrument  made  of  cedar- 
wood,  scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop;  the  living  liird  was 
then  dipped  in  it,  and  let  fly  away,  symbolizing  " 
probably  the  libert}-  to  which  the  leper  would  be 
entitled  when  his  proliation  and  sacrifice  were  com- 
plete, even  as  the  slaughtered  bird  signified  the 
discharge  of  the  impurities  which  his  blood  had 
contained  during  the  diseased  state.  The  leper 
might  now  bathe,  shave  himself,  and  wash  his 
clothes,  and  come  witliin  the  town  or  camp,  nor 
was  every  place  which  he  entered  any  longer  [lol- 
luted  by  him  (Mishna,  Nc'(jnii>i,  xiu.  11;  Celim,  i. 
4),  he  was,  however,  relegated  to  his  own  house  or 
tent  for  seven  days.  At  the  end  of  that  time  he 
was  scrupulously  to  sl^ave  his  whole  body,  even  to 
his  eyebrows,  and  wash  and  bathe  as  before.  The 
final  sacrifice  consisted  of  two  lambs,  and  an  ewe 
sheep  of  the  first  year  with  flour  and  oil,  the  poor 
being  allowed  to  bring  one  lamb  and  two  birds  as 
before,  with  smaller  quantities  of  flour  and  oil.  Tor 
the  detail  of  the  ceremonial,  some  of  the  features 
of  which  are  rather  singular,  see  Lev.  xiv.  Lepers 
were  allowed  to  attend  the  synagogue  worship, 
where  separate  seats  were  assigned  them  {Neyaiiii, 
xiii.  12). 

All  these  kind  of  uncleanness  disqualified  for 
holy  functions :  as  the  layman  so  aftiscted  might  not 
approach  the  congregation  and  the  sanctuary,  so  any 
priest  who  incurred  defilement  must  abstain  from 
the  holy  things  (Lev.  xxii.  2-8).  The  high-priest 
was  forbidden  the  customary  signs  of  mourning 
for  father  or  mother,  "  for  the  crown  of  the  anoint- 
ing oil  of  his  God  is  upon  him  "  (Lev.  xxi.  10-12), 
and  beside  his  case  the  same  prohibition  seems  to 
have  been  extended  to  the  ordinary  priests.  At 
least  we  have  an  example  of  it  in  the  charge  given 
to  Eleazar  and  Ithamar  on  their  brethren's  death 
(Lev.  X.  6).  From  the  specification  of  "  father  or 
mother,"  we  may  infer  that  he  was  permitted  to 
mourn  for  his  wife,  and  so  Maimonides  (f/e  Liiciu, 
cap.  ii.,  iv.,  v.)  explains   the   te.xt.     Further,  from 


a  I.  e.  conveying  in  symbol  only  a  release  from  the 
Btate  to  which  the  leper,  whilst  such,  was  sentenced. 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  duality  of  the  symbol 
irose  from  the  natural  impossibility  of  representing  life 
ind  death  in  the  same  creature,  and  that  both  the 
fcirds  involve  a  ci  mplete  repre.'ientation  of  tlie  Death, 
Resurrection,  and  \scension  which   procure  tlie  Chris- 


UNCLEANKESS 

the,  special  prohibition  of  F'zekiel,  who  was  a  priest 
to  mourn  for  his  wife  (Ez.  xxiv.  15,  fell.),  we  k.io« 
that  to  mourn  for  a  wife  was  generally  permitted 
to  the  priests.  Among  ordinary  Israelites,  the  man 
or  woman  who  had  an  issue,  or  the  latter  while  in 
the  menstrual  or  puerperal  state,  might  not,  ac- 
cording to  the  Kabbiiis,  enter  even  the  mount  on 
which  the  Temple  stood ;  nor  might  the  intra-mural 
space  be  entered  by  any  Israelite  in  mourning.  In 
Jeru.salem  itself,  according  to  the  same  authorities, 
a  dead  body  might  not  be  allowed  to  pass  the  night, 
nor  even  the  bones  of  one  be  carried  through  its 
streets:  neither  was  any  cultivation  allowed  there, 
for  fear  of  the  dung,  etc.,  to  which  it  might  give 
rise  (Maimonides  C'onstil.  de  Teiirp.  cap.  vii.  xiv.- 
xvi.).  No  bodies  were  to  be  interred  within  towns, 
unless  seven  chief  men,  or  the  public  voice,  hade 
the  interment  there;  5iid  every  tomb  within  a  town 
v\'as  to  be  carefully  walled  in  {ibid.  xiii.).  If  a  man 
in  a  state  of  pollution  presumed  to  enter  the  sanc- 
tuary, he  was  obliged  to  ofl^er  a  sacrifice  as  well  as 
sutler  punishment.  The  sacrifice  was  due  under 
tiie  notion  that  the  pollution  of  the  sanctuary 
needed  expiation,  and  the  punishment  was  either 
whipping,  the  "  rebel's  beating,"  which  meant  leav- 
ing tiie  otiender  to  the  mercies  of  the  mob,  "  cutting 
off  from  the  congregation,"  or  death  "  by  the  hand 
of  heaven"  (Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebr.  on  Lev.  sv. ; 
Ugolini,  Thes.  xvi.  126). 

As  regards  tlie  special  case  of  the  leper,  see 
Lki'Kosy.  To  the  remarks  there  made,  it  may  be 
added  that  the  priests,  in  their  contact  with  the 
leper  to  be  adjudged,  were  exempted  from  the  law 
of  defilement;  that  the  garb  and  treatment  of  the 
leper  seems  to  be  that  of  one  dead  in  the  eye  of  the 
Law,  or  rather  a  perpetual  mourner  for  his  own 
estate  of  death  with  "  clothes  rent  and  head  bare,'' 
the  latter  being  a  token  of  profound  affliction  and 
prostration  of  spirit  among  an  oriental  people, 
which  no  conventional  token  among  ourselves  can 

adequately  parallel.  The  fatal  cry  K^^,  N^p, 
"  Unclean,  unclean !  "  was  uttered  not  oidy  by  tlaa 
leper,  but  by  all  for  whose  uncleanness  no  remedy 
could  be  found  {Ptsic/itha,  §  2;  Ugol.  77ies.  xvi. 
4t)).  When  we  consider  the  aversion  to  leprous 
contact  which  prevailed  in  .Jewish  society,  and  that 
wljatever  the  leper  touched  was,  as  if  touched  by  a 
corpse,  defiled  seven  days,  we  see  the  happy  signifi- 
cance of  our  Lord's  selecting  the  touch  as  his  ineans 
of  healing  the  leper  (Lightfoot,  Hw.  IJebr.  on 
Matt.  viii.  2);  as  we  also  appreciate  better  the  bold 
iaith  of  the  woman,  and  how  daringly  she  over- 
stepped conventional  usage  based  on  the  letter  of 
the  Law,  who  having  the  "  issue  of  blood,"  hitherto 
incurable,  "came  behind  him  and  touched  the  hem 
of  his  garment,"  confident  that  not  pollution  to  Him 
but  cleansing  to  herself  would  be  the  result  of  that 
touch  (Luke  viii.  43,  foil.). 

As  regards  the  analogies  which  the  ceremonial 
of  other  oriental  nations  ofl!ers,  it  may  be  m'en- 
tioned  that  amongst  the  Arabs  the  touching  a  corpse 
still  defiles  (Burckhardt,  p.  80).  Beyond  this,  M. 
Chardin  hi  his  account  of  the  rehgion  of  the  Per- 
sians (  \'oy(iijes  en  Perse,  vol.  ii.  348,  foil.)   enters 


tian  Atonement.  This  would  of  course,  however,  es- 
cape the  notice  of  the  worshipper.  Christ,  with  his 
own  blood,  "  entered  the  holy  places  not  niiide  with 
hands,"  as  the  living  bird  soared  up  to  the  visible 
firmament  with  the  blood  of  its  fellow.  We  may  com- 
pare the  two  goats  completing  apparently  one  similar 
joint-symbol  on  the  day  of  Atonement. 


UNCTIJX 

into  particulars  which  sliow  a  singularly  close  cor- 
respondence with  the  I.eviticul  code.  This  will  be 
seen  by  quotin,'  merely  the  headings  of  gome  of  his 
chapters  and  sections.  'I'hus  we  tiud  under  "  chap. 
iv.  l^""^  partie,  Ues  purifications  qui  se  font  avec 
d'eau;  2'l<^  partie,  De  riniinondicitd;  l'^''^  section, 
De  I'impurete  qui  se  contracte  senihu  coitua  ;  ■2'ii^ 
section,  De  Tinipuret^  qui  arrive  aux  femines  par 
les  pertes  de  sang,  De  Timpuret^  des  pertes  de  sang 
ordinaires,  De  I'impuret^  des  pertes  de  sang  extraor- 
dinaires,  De  rinipurete  des  pertes  de  sang  des 
couches,  'ieme  partie,  De  la  purification  des  corjis 
niorts."  We  may  compare  also  with  certain  Levit- 
ical  precepts  the  following:  "  8i  un  diien  boit 
dans  un  vase  ou  l^che  quelque  plat,  il  faut  t'curer 
le  vase  avec  de  la  teri-e  nette,  et  puis  le  la\er  deux 
fois  d'eau  nette,  et  il  sera  net."  It  is  remarkable 
also  that  these  pr,  cepts  apply  to  the  people  not  qua 
they  are  Mohammedans,  but  (ji(d  they  are  Persians, 
as  they  are  said  to  shun  even  .Mohammedans  who  are 
not  of  the  same  ritual  in  regard  to  these  observances. 
For  certain  branches  of  this  subj«>ct  the  reader 
may  be  relerred  to  the  treatises  in  the  Mishna 
named  Nidihtli  (menstruata),  Parali  {vaccn  riifa), 
Te/iorofh  {Puri/iUes),  Znbhini  (Jiitxu  laborantes), 
Celiin  (vcisif),  ^fisclt^/l  Arlnh  {nrborum  piwptitia)  ; 
also  to  Maimon.  lib.  v.  Issure  Biih  [  prohibiUe 
cokiones),  Niddah  (ut  sup.),  Afaccabth  Assm-oth 
(clbi prohibit).  H.  H. 

*  UNCTION.  [Anoint;  Spikit,  The  Holy.] 

UNDERGIRDING,  Acts  xxvii.  17.  [Ship 
(-1),  p.  3005.] 

*  UNDERSETTERS,  1  K.  vii.  30,  34,  are 
props,  supports.  H. 

*  UNGRACIOUS,  i.  e.  "  graceless,"  "wicked," 
the  translation  (.A..  V.)  in  2  Mace.  iv.  li),  viii.  34, 
XV.  3  of  /jLiapoi  and  Tfiicra\iT7}pios,  epithets  applied 
to  Jason  and  Nicanor.  A. 

UNICORN  (CSn,  reem ;  Q^ip,  reeyni ;  or 

Cn,  ix'yn:  fiovoK^pws,  aSp6s'-  I'liinocems,  uni- 
Cfirriis).  the  unhappy  rendering  by  the  A.  V.,  fol- 
lowing the  LXX.,  of  the  Hebrew  Reeiii,  a  word 
which  occurs  seven  times  in  the  0.  T.  as  the  name 
of  some  large  wild  animal.  More,  perhaps,  has 
been  written  on  the  subject  of  the  unicorn  of  the 
ancients  than  on  any  other  animal,  and  various  are 
the  opinions  which  ha\e  Ijeen  given  as  to  the  crea- 
ture intended.  The  reini  of  the  Helirew  Bible, 
however,  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  one- 
horned  animal  mentioned  by  Ctesias  {/ndica,  iv. 
25-27),  ^lian  (Nat.  Aiiiin.  xvi.  20),  Aristotle 
{Hist.  Aniin.  ii.  2,  §  8),  Pliny  (//.  N.  viii.  21),  and 
other  Greek  and  Roman  writers,  as  is  evident  from 
Deut.  xxxiii.  17,  where,  in  the  blessing  of  Joseph, 
it  is  said,  "  His  glory  is  like  the  firstling  of  his 
bullock,  and  his  horns  are  like  the  horns  of  a  uni- 
corn "  (CW~1  "^D"}©,  not,  as  the  text  of  the  A.  V. 
renders  it,  "the  horns  of  unicorns.'"  The  two 
horns  of  the  Reem  are  "  the  ten  thousands  of 
Ephraim  and  the  thousands  of  Manasseh  "  —  the 
two  tribes  which  sprang  from  one,  t  e.  Joseph,  as 
two  horns  from  one  head.  This  text,  most  appro- 
priately referred  to  by  Schultens  (  Comment,  in  Job. 
xxxix.  9 ),  puts  a  one-horned  animal  entirely  out  of 
the  question,  and  in  consequence  disposes  of  the 
♦pinion  held  by  Bruce  (Trav.  v.  89)  and  others, 
that  some  species  of  rhinoceros  is  denoted,  or  that 
maintained  by  some  writers,  that  the  renn  is  iden- 
tical with   some   one-horned    animal   Sfii'l  to  have 


UNICORN 


3351 


been  seen  by  travellers  in  South  Africa  and  in  Thi- 
bet (see  Barrow's  Tr<tcels  in  S.  AJ'i-ica,  i.  312- 
318,  and  Asiatic  Journal,  xi.  154),  and  identical 
with  the  veritable  unicorn  of  Greek  and  Latin 
writers!  Bochart  {/lieroz.  ii.  335)  contends  thai 
the  Hebrew  reem  is  identical  with  the  Arabic  rim 

/*J)')    which    is    usually    referred    to    the    Oryx 

leucoryx,  the  white  antelope  of  North  Africa,  and 
at  one  time  perhaps  an  iidiabitant  of  Palestine. 
Bochart  has  been  followed  by  Hosenmiiller,  Winer, 
and  others.  Arnold  Boot  [Animad.  Sacr.  iii.  8, 
Loud.  1G44),  with  nnich  better  reason,  coTijectures 
that  some  species  of  urus  or  wild  ox  is  the  Reem 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  He  has  been  followed 
by  Schultens  ( Commtnt.  in  Jobuin  xxxix.  9,  who 
translates  the  term  by  Bos  sylcestris :  this  learned 
writer  has  a  long  and  most  valuable  note  on  this 

question),  by  Parkhurst  (ffeb.  Lex.  s.  v.  DS~1), 
Maurer  {Comment,  in  Job.  1.  c),  Dr.  Harris  {N(t. 
Hist,  of  the  Bible),  and  by  Gary  {Notes  on  Joe. 
1.  c).  Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  412)  and  Ge.^enius 
{Tlu'S.  s.  v.)  have  little  doubt  that  the  buttalo 
{Bnbnlus  buffalus)  is  the  reHni  of  the  Bible.  Be- 
fore we  proceed  to  discuss  these  several  claimants 
to  represent  the  reem,  it  will  be  well  to  note  the 
Scriptural  allusions  in  the  passages  where  the  term 
occurs.  The  great  strength  of  the  reem  is  men- 
tioned in  Num.  xxiii.  22,  Job  xxxix.  11;  his  hav- 
ing two  horns  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  17;  his  fierce  nature 
in  Ps.  xxii.  21;  his  indomitable  disposition  in  Job 
xxxix.  9-11;  the  active  and  playful  habits  of  the 
young  animal  are  alluded  to  in  Ps.  xxix.  6 ;  while 
in  Is.  xxxiv.  6,  7,  where  Jehovah  is  said  to  be  pre- 
paring "  a  sacrifice  in  Bozrah,"  it  is  added,  "  the 
reamim  shall  come  down,  and  the  bullocks  with 
the  bulls." 

The  claim  of  any  animal  possessed  of  a  single 
horn  to  be  the  reem  has  already  been  settled,  tor 
it  is  manifestly  too  much  to  assume,  as  some 
writers  ha\e  done,  that  the  Hebrew  term  does  not 
always  denote  the  same  animal.  Little  can  be 
urged  in  favor  of  the  rhinoceros,  for  even  allowing 
that  the  two-horned  species  of  Abyssinia  {Ji.  bicor- 
nis)  may  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  the  woody 
districts  near  the  Jordan  in  Biblical  times,  this 
P'irhyderm  must  be  out  of  the  question,  as  one 
which  would  have  been  forbidden  to  be  sacrificed 
by  the  Law  of  Moses,  whereas  the  reem  is  men- 
tioned by  Isaiah  as  coming  down  with  bullocks 
and  rams  tc  the  Lord's  sacrifice.  "  Omnia  ani- 
malia,"  says  Rosenmliller  {Schol.  in  Is.  1.  c.),  "ad 
s.acrificia  idonea  in  unum  congregantur."  Again, 
the  skipping  of  the  yourg  reem  (Ps.  xxix.  6)  is 
scarcely  compatible  with  the  habits  of  a  rhinoceros. 
Moreover  this  animal,  when  unmolested,  is  not  gen- 
erally an  object  of  much  dread,  nor  can  we  Ijelieve 
that  it  ever  existed  so  plentifully  in  the  Bible  lands, 
or  even  would  have  allowed  itself  to  have  been 
sufficiently  often  seen  so  as  to  be  the  subject  of  fre- 
quent attention,  the  rhinoceros  being  an  animal  of 
retired  habits. 

With  regard  to  the  claiirs  of  the  Oryx  leucoryx, 
it  must  be  observed  that  this  antelope,  like  the  rest 
of  the  family,  is  harmless  unless  woimded  or  hard 
pressed  by  tlie  hunter,  nor  is  it  remarkable  for  the 
possession  of  any  extraordinary  strength.  Figures 
of  the  oryx  occur  frequently  on  the  l'>gyptian 
sculptures,  "  being  among  the  animals  tamed  by 
the  Egyptians  and  kept  hi  great  lunnbers  in  theii 
preserves  "  (Wilkinson's  ^1;jc.    liijypt.  i.  227,  erf 


3352 


UNKNOWN  GOD 


1854).  Certainlj'  this  antelope  can  i  ever  be  the 
fierce  indomitable  reem  mentioned  in  the  book 
of  Job. 

Considering,  therefore,  that  the  reem  is  spoken 
of  as  a  two-horned  animal  of  great  strength  and 
ferocity,  that  it  was  evideutlj-  well  known  and  often 
seen  by  the  .lews,  that  it  is  mentioned  as  an  animal 
fit  for  sacrificial  purposes,  and  that  it  is  frequently 
associated  with  bulls  and  oxen,  we  think  there  cm 
be  no  doubt  that  some  species  of  wild  ox  is  intended. 
The  allusion  in  I's.  .\cii.  10,  "  But  thou  shalt  lift 
up,  as  a  reiiym^  my  horn,"  seems  to  point  to  the 
mode  in  which  the  Buvid<je  use  their  horns,  lower- 
ing the  head  and  then  tossing  it  up.  liut  it  is 
impossilile  to  determine  what  particular  species  of 
wild  ox  is  signified.  At  present  there  is  no  exist- 
ing example  of  any  wild  bovine  animal  found  in 
Palestine;  but  negative  evidence  in  this  respect 
must  not  be  interpreted  as  affording  testimony 
against  the  supposition  that  wild  cattle  formerly 
existed  in  the  Biiile  lands.  The  lion,  for  instance, 
was  once  not  unfrequently  met  with  in  Palestine, 
as  is  evident  from  Biblical  allusions,  liut  no  traces 
of  living  specimens  exist  now.  Dr.  Both  found 
lions'  bones  in  a  gravel  bed  of  the  Jordan  some  few 
years  ago,  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  some  luture 
explorer  may  succeed  in  discovering  bones  and 
skulls  of  some  huge  extinct  Urns,  allied  perhaps  to 
that  gigantic  ox  of  the  Hercynian  forests  which 
Csesar  [Btll.  Gull.  vi.  20)  describes  as  being  of  a 
stature  scarcely  below  that  of  an  elephant,  and  so 
fierce  as  to  spare  neither  man  nor  beast  should  it 
meet  with  either,  "  Notwithstanding  assertions 
to  the  contrary,''  says  Col.  Hamilton  .Smith  (Kitto's 
Cyd.  art.  "Reem"),  "the  urus  and  the  bison 
were  spread  anciently  from  the  Bhine  to  China, 
and  existed  in  Tin-ace  and  .\sia  Minor;  while  they, 
or  allied  species,  are  still  found  in  yiberia  and  the 
forests  both  of  Northern  and  Southern  Persia. 
Finally,  though  the  buft'alo  was  not  found  anciently 
further  west  than  Aracoria,  the  gigantic  Gmcr 
{BiOds  fj(iurws)  and  several  congeners  are  spread 
over  all  the  mountain  wildernesses  of  India  and 
the  Ulitriff-id-  Wady;  and  a  further  colossal  species 
roams  with  ether  wild  bulls  in  the  valleys  of 
Atlas." 

Some  have  conjectured  that  the  reem  denotes 
the  wild  buffalo.  Although  the  chainsn,  or  tame 
buffalo,  was  not  introduced  into  Western  Asia 
until  the  Arabian  conquest  of  Persia,  it  is  possi- 
ble that  some  wild  species,  Bubuliis  arnee,  or  B. 
brachycerus,  may  have  existed  formerly  in  Pales- 
tine. We  are,  however,  more  in  favor  of  some 
gigantic  Urus.'* 

Numerous  references  as  to  the  fMovoKepus  of  the 
ancients  will  be  found  in  Bocliart  (IJieroz.  iii. 
cap.  27),  Winer  (/y/i/.  Reidw.  "Einhorn";)  but 
110  further  notice  of  this  point  is  taken  here  except 
tfO  observe  that  the  more  we  study  it  the  more  con- 
vinced we  are  that  the  animal  is  fabulous.  The 
supposed  unicorns  of  which  some  modern  travellers 
speak  have  never  been  seen  by  trustworthy  wit- 
nesses.'' W.  H. 

*  UNKNOWN  GOD.     [Altar,  Amer.  ed. ; 

Mahs'  Hill.] 


UR 

♦UNLEAVENED.      [Bkead;  Lea-es  ; 

I'-VSSOVER.] 

UN'NI.  1.  0337  [deiwesied]:  'EAitorjA,  'n»i' 
[Vat.  FA.  in  ver.  20,  witli  part  of  preceding  word, 
KAcocei;  FA.  in  ver.  18,  \wr)K;  Alex,  hvi,  hvavi-\ 
Aid.)  One  of  the  Levite  doorkeepers  (A.  V. 
"porters")  appointed  to  play  the  psaltery  "on 
alamoth  "  in  tlie  service  of  the  sacred  Tent,  as 
settled  by  David  (1  Chr.  xv.  18,  20). 

2.  (1337,  but  in  Km  "^337 :  [Rom.]  Vat.  and 
Alex,  omit;  F'A.-^  lava'i-  Ihinni.)  A  second  Le- 
vite (unless  the  family  of  the  foregoing  be  intended) 
concerned  in  the  sacred  office  after  the  Return  froiu 
Babylon  (Neh.  xii.  0). 

*  UNTOWARD,  Acts  ii.  40,  in  the  sense  of 
"perverse,"  "intractable."  "Toward"  in  parts 
of  England  at  present  is  applied  to  animals  as 
meaning  "  tame,"  "  tractable."  Bacon  {Kssay  yiva.) 
uses  "  towardness  "  Jor  docility.  (Eastwood  and 
Wright's  Bibk  Word  Buuk,  p.  50-3.)  H. 

*  UPHARSIN.     [Meke,  etc.] 

U'PHAZ  (T^^S:  MuxpdC,  'n<pdC:  Ophm, 
vbryzuiii),  Jer.  x.  9;  Dan.  x.  5.  [Ophik,  iii. 
22.38  b.] 

*  UPPER-CHAMBER.   [House,  ii.  1 105. j 

*  UPPER  COASTS  or  properly  Parts  {a„a- 
TepiKo,  jxipt)),  Acts  xix.  1,  are  the  intermediate 
regions  tl^irough  which  Paul  passed  (SieAflol;');  on 
his  way  from  Antioch  to  I'^phesus,  at  the  beginnirg 
of  his  third  missionary  tour.  The  lands  more 
especially  meant  are  Calatia  and  Phrygia  (see 
xix.  23).  The  term  afcorep i/ca,  as  illustrated  by 
Kypke  {Observat.  Sncrce,  ii.  0.3),  implies  a  twofold 
geographical  relation ;  first,  elevated,  as  compared 
with  the  sea-coast  wiiere  Ephesus  was;  and,  sec- 
ondly, inland  or  eastern,  with  reference  to  the  rela- 
tive position  of  the  places.  Xenophon's  familiar 
use  of  ava^aivui  and  avd0a(Tis  is  another  example 
of  a  similar  application  of  kindred  words.        H. 

UR  ("l^S  [see  below]  :  Xwpa-  f/^r)  occurs  in 
Genesis  only,  and  is  there  mentioned  as  the  land 
of  Haran's  nativity  (Gen.  xi.  28),  the  place  from 
which  Terah  and  .Abraham  started  "  to  go  into  the 
land  of  Canaan  "  (xi.  31).     It  is  called  in  Genesis 

"Uro/rte  Clnddaans"  (n'''Tffi'3  ">•>'),  while 
in  the  Acts  St.  Stephen  places  it,  by  implication, 
in  Mesopotamia  (vii.  2,  4).  These  are  all  the  indi- 
cations which  Scri])ture  furnishes  as  to  its  locality. 
As  they  are  clearly  insufBcient  to  fix  its  site,  the 
chief  traditions  and  opinions  on  the  suliject  will  be 
first  considered,  and  then  an  attempt  will  be 
made  to  decide,  by  the  help  of  the  Scriptural 
notices,  between  them. 

One  tradition  identifies  Ur  with  the  modern 
Orfah.  There  is  some  ground  for  believing  that 
this  city,  called  by  the  Greeks  Edessa,  had  also  the 
name  of  Orrha  as  early  as  the  time  of  Isidore  (ab. 
B.  c.  150);  and  the  tradition  connecting  it  with 
Abraham  is  perhaps  not  later  than  St.  Ephraeni 
(a.  d.  330-370),  who  makes  Nimrod  king  of 
Edessa,  among  other  places  ( Comment,  in  Gen.  Op. 
vol.  i.  p.  58,  B.).     According  to  Pocock  {Descrip- 


"  There  appears  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  ancient 
lake-iuhabitants  of  Switzerland  towards  the  close  of 
the  stone  period  succeeded  in  taming  the  urus.  "  In 
1.  tame  stale,"  .''ays  Sir  C.  Lj-ell  {AntiqnUy  of  Man,  p. 
'!4).    "its    bone»    were    somewhat    liws    massive    and 


heavy,  and  its  horns  were  somewhat  smaller  than  in 
wild  individuals." 

6  The  reader  will  find  a  full  discussion  of  th« 
"  Unicorn  of  the  Ancients  "  in  the  witer"s  article  ia 
the  Ann    ml  Ma?,  of  Xiii.  hist.  November,  18(52. 


UR 

lion  of  Ihe  East,  vol.  i.  p.  159),  that  Ur  is  Edessa 
or  Orl'ali  is  "the  universnl  opinion  of  the  -lews;  " 
and  it  is  also  the  local  belief,  as  is  indicated  by  the 
title,  "  JMosque  of  Abraham,"  borne  by  tlie  chief 
religious  edifice  of  the  place,  and  the  desiLjnation, 
'  Lake  of  Abraham  the  Beloved,"  attached  to  the 
pond  in  which  are  kept  the  sacred  fish  (Ains- 
worth.  Travels  in  the  Track;  etc.,  p.  64;  conip. 
Pocock,  i.  159,  and  Niebuhr,  Vuynye  en  Arable, 
p.  330). 

A  second  tradition,  which  appears  in  the  Tal- 
mud, and  in  some  of  the  early  Araliian  writers, 
finds  Ur  in  Wnrka,  the  'Opx<iv  of  the  Greeks,  and 
probalily  the  Erech  of  Holy  Scripture  (called  'Ooe'x 
by  the  LXX.).  This  place  bears  the  name  ol 
Hurulc  in  the  native  inscriptions,  and  was  in  the 
country  known  to  the  Jews  as  "  the  land  of  the 
<Jhaldseans." 

A  third  tradition,  less  distinct  than  either  of 
these,  liut  entitled  to  at  least  equal  attention,  dis- 
tini,'uishes  Ur  from  VVarka,  while  still  placing  it  in 
the  same  region  (see  Journal  of'  Asvitlc  tiociety, 
vol.  xii.  p.  481,  note  2).  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  city  whereto  this  tradition  points  is  that 
which  appears  by  its  bricks  to  ha\'e  lieeii  called 
llur  by  the  natives,  and  which  is  now  represented 
by  the  ruins  at  Mu<jliev\  or  Umgheir,  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  nearly  opposite  to  its 
junction  with  the  &haUel-lUe.  Tlie  oldest  Jewish 
tradition  which  we  possess,  that  quoted  by  Euse- 
liius  from  Eupoleuuis "  {Pra>p.  Kv.  ix.  17),  who 
lived  about  b.  C.  150,  may  be  fairly  said  to  intend 
tills  place;  for  by  identifying  Ur  (Uria)  witb  the 
Babylonian  city,  known  also  as  Caniarina  and 
Chaldaeopolis,  it  points  to  a  city  of  the  Moon, 
which //'ttr  was  —  Knmar  he\n(r  "the  Moon"  in 
Aral)ic,  and  Khaldi  the  same  luminary  in  the  Old 
Armenian. 

An  opinion,  unsupported  by  any  tradition,  re- 
mains to  be  noticed.  Bochart,  L'alniet,  Bunsen, 
and  others,  identify  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  with 
a  place  of  the  name,  mentioned  liy  a  single:  late 
writer  —  Ammianus  Marcellimis  —  as  "a  castle  " 
existing  in  his  day  in  Eastern  JNIesopotaniia,  l>e- 
tween  Hatra  {el-lladhr)  and  Nisibis  (Amm.  Marc. 
sxv.  8).  The  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  this  site 
seem  to  be  the  identity  of  name  and  the  position  of 
the  place  between  Arrapachitis,  which  is  thought  to 
have  leen  the  dwelling-place  of  Abraham's  ances- 
tors in  the  time  of  Arphaxad,  and  Haran  {Harran), 
whither  he  went  from  Ur. 

It  will  1)6  seen,  that  of  the  four  localities  thought 
to  have  a  claim  to  be  regarded  as  Abraham's  city, 
two  are  situated  in  Upper  Mesopotamia,  between 
the  Mons  Masius  and  the  Sinjar  range,  while  the 
other  two  are  in  the  alhivial  tract  near  the  .sea,  at 
least  400  miles  further  south.  Let  us  endeavor 
first  to  decide  in  which  of  these  two  regions  Ur  is 
more  probably  to  be  sought. 

That  Chald^a  was,  properly  speaking,  the  south- 
ern part  of  Babylonia,  the  region  bordering  upon 
the  gulf,  will  be  admitted  by  all.  Those  who  main- 
tain the  northern  emplacement  of  Ur  arijue,  tiiat 
vvitii  the  extension  of  Chaldfean  power  the  name 
travelled  northwai'd,  and  became  coextensive  with 
Mesopotamia;  but,  in  the  first  place,  there  is  no 


UR 


3353 


a  The  words  of  Eusebius  are :  AeKa-rr)  ytvea  <i>-i\(n.v 
[EvTToAeiuo?],  iv  ttoAci  -n^?  Ba^uAioi'ias  Kajnapa'T),  riv 
TLi'e?  Kiyav  TroKiv  OvptrjV,  eij^at  6e  fX€0epfj.r]vevoixev7fi^ 
XoAiaibji'  TTcVti',  cv  toCwv  SeKaTr}  yewcf  yeve<T6at 
AvipaaM. 

211 


proof  that  the  name  Chaldjea  was  ever  extended  to 
the  region  above  the  Sinjar;  and  secondly,  if  it 
was.  tlie  .lews  at  any  rate  mean  by  Clialda>a  ex- 
clusively the  lower  country,  and  call  the  upper 
Mesopotamia  or  Padan-Aram  (see  Job  i.  17 ;  Is. 
xiii.  19,  xliii.  14,  &c.).  Again,  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  tliat  Baliylonian  power  was  estalJished 
l)eyoiid  the  Sinjar  in  these  early  times.  On  the 
contrary,  it  seems  to  have  been  confined  to  Baby- 
lonia proper,  or  the  alluvial  tract  below  Hit  and 
I'ekrit,  until  the  expedition  of  Chedorlaomer,  which 
was  later  than  the  migration  of  Abraham.  The 
conjectures  of  Ephraem  Syrus  and  Jerome,  who 
identify  the  cities  of  Nimrod  with  places  in  the 
upper  Mesopotaniian  country,  deserve  no  credit. 
The  names  all  reall}'  belong  to  Chaldaia  proper. 
Moreover,  the  best  and  earliest  Jewish  authorities 
place  Ur  in  tlia  low  region.  Eupolemus  has  been 
already  quoted  to  this  effect.  Jo.se])hus,  though 
less  distinct  upon  the  point,  seems  to  have  held 
tlie  same  view  {Ant.  i.  6).  The  Talmudists  also 
are  on  this  side  of  the  question;  and  local  tra- 
ditions, which  may  be  traced  back  nearly  to  the 
Hegira,  make  the  lower  country  tlie  place  of  Abra- 
ham's birth  and  early  life.  If  Orfnh  has  a  JMosque 
and  a  Lake  of  Abraham,  Cutha  near  Babylon  goes 
by  Abraham's  name,  as  the  traditional  scene  of  all 
his  legendary  miracles. 

Again,  it  is  really  in  the  lower  country  only 
that  a  name  closely  con-esponding  to  the  Hebrevv 

"^-IM    is  found.     The    cuneiform    Hur   represents 

~1^S  letter  for  letter,  and  only  differs  from  it  in 
the  greater  strength  of  the  aspirate.  Isidore's 
Orrha  i^Op'pa)  ditit?rs  from  'Ur  considerably,  and 
the  supposed  Ur  of  Ammiaiuis  is  probably  not  Ur, 
but  Adur.« 

I'he  argument  that  Ur  should  be  sought  in  the 
neighborhood  of  .\rrapacliitis  and  Seruj,  because 
the  names  Arphaxad  and  Serug  occur  in  the  gene- 
alogy of  Abraham  (Bunsen,  Egypt's  Place,  etc., 
iii;  366,  367),  has  no  weight  till  it  is  shown  that 
the  human  names  in  question  are  really  connected 
with  the  places,  which  is  at  present  assumed  some- 
what boldly.  Arra[)achitis  conies  probably  from 
Arapk'ha,  an  old  Assyrian  town  of  no  great  consp- 
quence  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris,  above  Nino- 
veil,  which  has  only  three  letters  in  common  with 

Arphaxad  (~f^?2'^S);  and  Seruj  is  a  name  which 

does  not  appear  in  Mesopotamia  till  long  after  the 
('hristian  era.  It  is  rarely,  if  ever,  that  we  can 
extract  geographical  information  from  the  names  in 
a  historical  genealogy;  and  certainly  in  the  pres- 
ent case  nothing  seems  to  have  been  gained  by  the 
attenqit  to  do  so. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  may  regard  it  as 
toler.ably  certain  that  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees"  was  a 
[ilace  situated  in  the  real  Chaldiea  —  the  low  coun- 
try near  the  Persian  Gulf.  The  only  question  that 
remains  in  any  degree  doubtful  is,  whether  Warka 
or  .Uiiylieir  is  the  true  locality.  These  places  are 
not  far  apart;  and  either  of  them  is  sutficiently 
suitalile.  Both  are  ancient  cities,  probably  long 
anterior  to  Abraham.  Traditions  attach  to  both, 
but  perhaps  more  distinctly  to  Wca-ka.     On  the 


«  The  MS.  re.ading  is  "  Adur  venere  ;  "  "  ad  Ur  "'  is 
au  emendation  of  the  commentators.  The  former  is 
to  be  preferred,  since  Ammianus  does  not  use  ''  ad  " 
after  "  veuio." 


3354 


UR 


other  hand,  it  seems  certain  that  Warka,  the  native 
Danie  of  which  was  Ihintk;  represents  the  Erech 
of  Genesis,  which  cannot  possibly  be  the  Ur  of  the 
same  booli.  Muyhnr,  therefore,  which  bore  the 
exact  name  of  '  Ur  or  Hur,  remains  with  the  best 
claim,  and  is  entitled  to  be  (at  least  provisionally) 
regarded  as  the  city  of  Abraham. 

If  it  be  objected  to  this  theory  that  Abraham, 
having  to  go  from  Mui/heir  to  Palestine,  would  not 
be  likely  to  take  Haraii  {flarran)  on  his  way,  more 
particularly  as  he  must  then  have  crossed  the  Eu- 
phrates twice,  the  answer  would  seem  to  be,  that 
the  movement  was  not  that  of  an  individual  but 
of  a  tribe,  travelling  with  large  flocks  and  herds, 
whose  line  of  migration  would  have  to  be  deter- 
mined by  necessities  of  pasturage,  and  by  the 
friendly  or  hostile  disposition,  the  weakness  or 
strength  of  the  tribes  alreafly  in  possession  of  the 
regions  which  had  to  be  traversed.     Fear  of  Arab 


UR 

plunderers  (Job  i.  15)  may  very  proliably  hwe 
caused  the  emigrants  to  cross  the  Euphrates  bef  ire 
quitting  Babylonia,  and  having  done  so,  they  might 
natmally  follow  the  left  bank  of  the  stieam  to  the 
Belik,  up  which  they  might  then  proceed,  attracted 
by  its  excellent  pastures,  till  they  reached  Harran. 
As  a  pastoral  tribe  proceeding  from  Lower  Baby- 
lonia to  Palestine  must  ascend  the  Euphrates  as 
high  as  the  latitude  of  Aleppo,  and  perhaps  would 
find  it  best  to  ascend  nearly  to  Bh\  Harran  was 
but  a  little  out  of  the  proper  route.  Besides,  the 
whole  tribe  which  accompanied  Abraham  was  not 
going  to  Palestine.  Half  the  tribe  were  bent  on  a 
less  distant  journey;  and  with  them  the  question 
mu^  have  been,  where  could  they,  on  or  near  the 
line  of  route,  obtain  an  unoccupied  territory. 

If  upon  the  grounds  above  indicated  Aftigheir 
may  be  regarded  as  the  true  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees," 
from  which  Abraham  and  his  family  set  out,  some 


'■^-^r^ 


Ruins  of  Temple  at  Mugheir  (Loftu«). 


account  of  its  situation  and  history  would  seem  to 
be  appropriate  in  this  place.  Its  remains  have 
been  very  carefully  examined,  both  by  Mr.  Loftus 
and  lAIr.  Taylor,  while  its  inscriptions  have  been 
deciphered  and  translated  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson. 
'Ur  or  Hur,  now  Mui/ln-ir,  or  Um-Miit/heir, 
"the  bitumened,"  or  "the  mother  of  bitumen," 
is  one  of  the  most  ancient,  if  not  ilie  most  ancient, 
of  the  Chaldfean  sites  hitherto  discovered.  It  lies 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  at  the  distance 
of  about  six  miles  from  the  present  course  of  the 
stream,  nearly  opposite  the  point  where  the  Eu- 
phrates receives  the  Sliai-el-IIie  from  the  Tigris. 
It  is  now  not  less  than  125  miles  from  the  sea; 
but  there  are  grounds  for  believing  that  it  was  an- 
ciently a  maritime  town,  and  that  its  present  inland 
position  has  been  caused  by  the  ra]5id  growth  of 
the  alluvium.  The  remains  of  buildings  are  gen- 
erally of  the  most  archaic  character.  They  cover 
an  oval  space,  1.000  yards  long  by  800  broad,  and 
sonsist  principally  of  a  number  of  low  mounds 
inclosed  within  an  enceiufe,  which  on  most  sides 
is  nearly  perfect.      The  most  remarkable  building 


is   near  the  northern   end  of  the  niins.     It  is  a 

temiile  of  the  true  ChakLnean  type,  built  in  stages, 
of  which  two  remain,  and  composed  of  brick,  partly 
sun-burnt  and  partly  baked,  laid  chiefly  in  a  cement 
of  bitumen.  'Ihe  liricks  of  this  building  bear  the 
name  of  a  certain  Urvkh,  who  is  regarded  as  the 
earliest  of  the  Chaklsean  monumental  kings,  and 
the  name  may  possibly  be  the  same  as  that  of 
Orchamus  of  Ovid  {.lletriph.  iv.  212).  His  sup- 
posed date  is  i'..  c.  2000,  or  a  little  earlier.  'Ur 
was  the  capital  of  this  monarch,  who  had  a  dojnin- 
ion  extending  at  least  as  far  north  as  Nitfer,  and 
who,  by  the  grandeur  of  his  constructions,  is  proved 
to  have  lieen  a  wealthy  and  powerful  j^i'lnce.  The 
great  temple  appears  to  have  been  founded  by  this 
king,  who  dedicated  it  to  the  IMoon-Kod.  f/nrki, 
from  whom  the  town  itself  seems  to  have  dei'ived 
its  name.  /////,  son  of  Urukli,  completed  the  tem- 
ple, as  well  as  certain  other  of  his  father's  build- 
ings, and  the  kings  who  followed  upon  these  con- 
tinued for  several  generations  to  adorn  and  bea  itify 
the  city.  'Ur  retained  its  metropolitan  character 
for  above  two  centuries,  and  even  alter  it  liecam* 


iwoiid  to  T?abylon,  was  a  great  cUy,  with  an  espe- 
cially sacred  character.  The  notions  entertained 
of  its  superior  sanctity  led  to  its  lieing  used  as  a 
cemetery  city,  not  only  during  the  time  of  the 
early  Chaldfean  supremacy,  but  throughout  the 
Assyrian  and  even  the  later  Babylonian  period. 
It  is  in  the  main  a  city  of  tombs.  By  far  the 
greater  portion  of  the  space  within  the  enceinta  is 
occupied  by  graves  of  one  kind  or  another,  while 
outside  the  inclosure,  the  whole  space  for  a  dis- 
tance of  several  hundred  yards  is  a  thickly-occu- 
pied burial-ground.  It  is  believed  that  'Ur  was 
for  1,800  years  a  site  to  which  the  dead  were 
brought  from  vast  distances,  thus  resembling  such 
places  as  A'l  rbela  and  NtdJiJ]  or  Meshed  All,  at 
the  present  day.  The  latest  mention  that  we  find 
of  "Ur  as  an  existing  place  is  in  the  passage  of 
luipolemus  already  quoted,  where  we  learn  that  it 
had  changed  its  name,  and  was  called  (Jamarina. 
It  probably  fell  into  decay  under  the  Persians,  and 
was  a  mere  ruin  at  the  time  of  Alexander's  con- 
quests. Perhaps  it  was  the  place  to  which  Alex- 
ander's informants  alluded  when  they  told  him 
that  the  tombs  of  the  old  Assyrian  kings  were 
chiefly  in  the  great  marshes  of  the  lower  country 
(Arrian,  Exp.  Alex.  vii.-22).  G.  K. 

*  UR  ("l^i^,  light :  Rom.,  with  next  word, 
&vp3<pap;  Vat.  'Xdupofpap;  Alex,  npa;  FA-  2ovp'- 
Ur),  father  of  Eliphal  or  Eliphelet,  one  of  David's 
valiant  men  (1  Chr.  xi.  35).  A. 

UR'BANB  [2  syl.]  (Obp^avSs  [Lat.  urbnims, 
!.  e.  "  urbane,"  "refined"]:  Urbaims).  It  would 
have  been  better  if  the  word  had  been  written 
UitiiAN  in  the  Authorized  Version.  For  unlearned 
readers  sometimes  mistake  the  sex  of  tiiis  Christian 
disciple,  who  is  in  the  long  list  of  those  whom  St. 
Paul  salutes  in  writing  to  liome  (Itom.  xvi.  9). 
We  have  no  means,  however,  of  knowing  more 
about  Urbanus,  except,  indeed,  that  we  may  rea- 
sonably conjecture  froin  the  words  that  follow  [t^v 
a-vvepyhv  TffJLciv  iv  Xpi<rTcJ!}  that  he  had  been  at 
some  time  in  active  religious  coilperation  with  the 
Apostle.  Each  of  those  who  are  saluted  just  be- 
fore and  just  after  is  simply  called  rbv  a.ya-K-qT6v 
uou.     The  name  is  Latin.  J.  S.  H. 

U'RI  (^"J^W  \^fiery,  burniiif/] :  Oupei'as,  Ex. 
xxxi.  2,  [xxxviii.  22;]  Ovpias  [Vat.  -pei-],  Ex. 
XXXV.  30;  2  Chr.  i.  5;  Oiipi  [Vat.  -pei],  1  Chr.  ii. 
20 ;  Alex.  Qypi,  except  in  2  Chr. :  Uri).  1.  The 
father  of  Bezaleel  one  of  the  architects  of  the 
Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxi.  2,  xxxv.  30,  xxxviii.  22;  1 
Chr.  ii.  20;  2  Chr.  i.  5).  He  was  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah,  and  grandson  of  Caleb  ben-Hezron,  his 
father  being  Hur,  who,  according  to  tradition,  was 
the  husband  of  Miriam. 

2.  ('A5ai'.)  The  father  of  Geber,  Solomon's 
commissariat  officer  in  Gilead  (1  K.  iv.  10). 

3.  {'aSoud;  Alex.  nSove.)  One  of  the  gate- 
keepers of  the  Temple,  who  had  married  a  foreign 
wife  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  24). 

URFAH  (n^^^W,  light  of  Jehovah:  Ovpias 
[Vat.  -pei;  in  1  Chr.  xi.  41,  Ovpia,  Aiex.  Oupias, 
Vat.  FA.«Oyf)€t:]  Urins).  1.  One  of  the  thirty 
ODinmanders  of  the  thirty  bands  into  whicli  the 
Israelite  army  of  David  was  divided  (1  (^hr.  xi.  41 ; 
2  Sara,  xxiii.  39).  Like  others  of  David's  officers 
'Ittai  of  Gath;  Ishbosheth  the  Canaanite,  2  Sam. 
ixiii.  8,  LXX.;  Zelek  the  Ammonite,  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
37)  he  was  a  foreigner  —  a  Hittite.  His  name, 
kowever,  and  his  manner  of  speech  (2  Sam.  xi.  11) 


URIAH 


3855 


indicate  that  he  had  adopted  the  Jewisli  religion 
He  married  Bathsheba,  a  woman  of  extraordinary 
beauty,  the  daughter  of  Eliam  —  possilily  the  same 
as  the  son  of  Ahithophel,  and  one  of  his  brother 
officers  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  34);  and  hence,  perhaps,  as 
Professor  Blunt  conjectures  (Oiincidences,  ii.  x.), 
Uriah's  first  acquaintance  with  Bathsheba.  It  may 
lie  inferred  from  Xathan"s  parable  (2  Sam.  xii.  3) 
that  he  was  passionately  devoted  to  his  wife,  and 
that  their  union  was  celebrated  in  Jerusalem  as  one 
of  peculiar  tenderness.  He  had  a  house  at  Jeru- 
salem underneath  the  palace  (2  Sam.  xi.  2).  In 
the  first  war  with  Amnion  he'  followed  .loab  to  the 
siege,  and  with  him  remained  encamped  in  the 
open  field  (ibid.  11).  He  returned  to  .lerusalem, 
at  an  order  from  the  king,  on  the  pretext  of  asking 
news  of  the  war,  —  really  in  the  hope  that  his  re- 
turn to  his  wife  might  cover  the  shame  of  his  own 
crime.  The  king  met  with  an  unexpected  obstacle 
in  the  austere,  soldier-like  spirit  which  guided  ail 
Uriah's  conduct,  and  which  gives  us  a  high  notion 
of  the  character  and  discipline  of  David's  officers. 
He  steadily  refused  to  go  home,  or  partake  of  any 
of  the  indulgences  of  domestic  life,  whilst  the  Ark 
and  the  host  were  in  booths  and  his  comrades  lying 
in  the  open  air.  He  partook  of  the  royal  hospitality, 
liut  slept  always  at  the  gate  of  the  palace  till  the 
last  night,  when  the  king  at  a  feast  vainly  en- 
deavored to  entrap  him  by  intoxication.  The  sol- 
dier was  overcome  by  the  debauch,  but  still  retained 
his  sense  of  duty  sufficiently  to  insist  on  sleeping 
at  the  palace.  On  t!ie  morning  of  the  third  day, 
David  sent  him  liack  to  the  camp  with  a  letter  (as 
in  the  story  of  Bellerophon),  containing  the  com- 
mand to  Joab  to  cause  his.destruotion  in  the  battle. 
Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  7,  §  1)  adds,  that  he  save  as  a 
reason  an  imaginary  offense  of  Uriah.  None  such 
appears  in  the  actual  letter.  Prob.ably  to  an  un- 
scrupulous soldier  like  Joab  the  absolute  will  of  the 
king  was  sufficient. 

The  device  of  .Joab  was,  to  observe  the  part  of 
the  wall  of  I\abbath-.\mmon,  where  the  greatest 
force  of  the  besieged  was  congregated,  and  thither, 
as  a  kind  of  forlorn  hope,  to  send  Uriah.  .V  sally 
took  place.  Uriah  and  the  officers  with  him  ad- 
vanced as  far  as  the  gate  of  the  city,  and  were  there 
shot  down  by  the  archers  on  the  wall.  It  seems 
as  if  it  had  been  an  established  maxim  of  Israelitish 
warfare  not  to  approach  the  wall  of  a  besieged  city ; 
and  one  instance  of  the  fatal  result  was  always 
quoted,  as  if  proverbially,  against  it  —  the  sudden 
and  ignominious  death  of  Abimelech  at  Thebez, 
which  cut  short  the  hopes  of  the  then  rising  mon- 
archy, i'his  appears  from  the  fact  (as  given  in  the 
LXX.)  that  Joab  exactly  anticipates  what  the  king 
will  say  when  lie  hears  of  the  disaster. 

Just  as  Joab  had  forewarned  the  messenger,  the 
king  broke  into  a  furious  passion  on  hearing  of  the 
loss,  and  cited,  almost  in  the  very  words  which 
Joab  had  ])redicted.  the  case  of  .\liimelech.  (I'he 
only  variation  is  the  omission  of  the  name  of  tlie 
grandfather  of  .\bimelecli,  which,  in  the  LXX.,  is 
Ner  inste.ad  of  Joash.)  The  messenger,  as  instructed 
by  .loab,  calmly  continued,  and  ended  the  story  with 
the  words:  "  Thy  servant  also,  Uriah  the  Hittite, 
is  de;xd."  In  a  moment  David's  anger  is  appeased. 
He  sends  an  encouraging  message  to  Joab  on  the 
unavoidable  chances  of  war,  and  urges  him  to  con- 
tinue the  siege.  It  is  one  of  the  touching  parts  of 
the  story  that  Uriah  falls  unconscious  of  his  wile's 
dishonor.  She  hears  of  her  husband's  death.  The 
narrative  gives  no  hint  as  to  her  shame  or  remorse 


S356 


URIAS 


She  "  mourned  ''  with  the  usual  signs  of  grief  as  a 
widow:  and  then  became  the  wife  of  David  (2  Sam. 
xi.  27). 

Uriah  remains  to  us,  preserved  by  this  tragical 
incident,  an  example  of  the  chivalrous  and  devoted 
characters  that  were  to  be  found  amongst  the  Ca- 
naanites  serving  in  the  Hebrew  army.     A.  P.  S. 

2.  [Oupias;  Vat.  Oupeiay.]  High-priest  hi  the 
reisn  of  Ahaz  (Is.  viii.  2;  2  K.  xvi.  10-16).  We 
first  hear  of  him  as  a  witness  to  Isaiah's  prophecy 
concerning  Maher-shalal-hash-baz,  with  Zechariali, 
the  son  of  Jeberechiah.  He  is  probably  the  same 
as  Urijah  the  priest,  who  built  the  altar  for  Ahaz 
(2  K.  xvi.  10).  If  this  be  so,  tlie  prophet  sum- 
moned him  as  a  witness  probably  on  account  of  his 
position  as  high-priest,  not  on  account  of  his  per- 
sonal qualities;  though,  as  the  incident  occurred 
at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  Uriah's 
irreligious  subserviency  may  not  yet  have  manifested 
itself.  When  Ahaz,  after  his  deliverance  from 
Rezin  and  Pekah  by  Tiglath-Pileser,  went  to  wait 
upon  his  new  master  at  Damascus,  he  saw  there  an 
altar  which  pleased  him,  and  sent  the  pattern  of  it 
to  Uriah  at  Jerusalem,  with  orders  to  have  one 
made  lii<e  it  against  the  king's  return.  Uriah  zeal- 
ously executed  the  idolatrous  command,  and  when 
Ahaz  returned,  not  only  allowed  him  to  offer  sacri- 
fices upon  it,  but  basely  complied  with  all  his  im- 
pious directions.  The  new  altar  was  accordingly 
set  in  the  court  of  the  Temple,  to  the  east  of  where 
the  lirazen  altar  used  to  stand;  and  the  daily  sacri- 
fices, and  the  burnt-offerings  of  the  king  and  people, 
were  offered  upon  it;  while  the  brazen  altar,  ha\ing 
been  removed  from  its  place,  and  set  to  the  north 
of  the  Syrian  altar,  was  Reserved  as  a  private  altar 
for  the  king  to  inquire  by.  It  is  likely,  too,  that 
Uriah's  compliances  did  not  end  here,  but  that  he 
was  a  consenting  party  to  the  other  idolatrous  and 
sacrilegious  acts  of  Ahaz  (2  Iv.  xvi.  17,  18,  xxiii.  5, 
11,  12;  2  Chr.  xxviii.  2-3-2.5). 

( )f  the  parentage  of  Uriah  we  know  nothing.  He 
probably  succeefled  Azariab,  who  was  high-priest  in 
the  reign  of  Uzziah,  and  was  succeeded  by  that 
Azariah  who  was  high-priest  in  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiab.  Hence  it  is  prolialile  that  he  was  son  of  the 
former  and  father  of  tlie  latter,  it  being  by  no  means 
uncommon  among  the  Ilelirews,  as  among  the 
Greeks,  for  the  grandchild  to  have  the  grandfather's 
name.  Probably,  too,  he  may  have  been  descended 
from  that  Azariah  who  must  have  been  high-priest 
in  the  reign  of  Asa.  But  he  has  no  place  in  the 
sacerdotal  genealogy  (1  Chr.  vi.  4-15),  in  which 
there  is  a  great  gap  between  Amariah  in  ver.  11, 
and  Shalhun  the  father  of  Hilkiah  in  ver.  13. 
[HiGH-PKiEST,  ii.  1071  b.]  It  is  perhaps  a  legiti- 
mate inference  that  Uriah's  line  terminated  in  liis 
successor,  Azariah,  and  that  Hilkiah  was  descended 
through  another  branch  from  .A.mariah,  who  was 
priest  in  -lehoshaphat's  reign. 

3.  [Oup'ia,  (/en-]  A  priest  of  the  family  of  Hak- 
koz  (in  A.  V.  wrongly  Koz),  the  head  of  the  seventh 
course  of  jjnests.  (See  1  Chr.  xxiv.  10.)  It  does 
not  appear  when  this  Urijah  lived,  as  he  is  only 
named  as  the  father  or  ancestor  of  Merenioth  in 
the  days  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Ezr.  viii.  3-3; 
Neh.  iii.  4,  21).     In  Neh.  his  name  is  Urijaii. 

A.  C.  H. 

UKI'AS  iOupias  ■■  Urvts).  1.  Uriah,  the 
tiusband  of  Bathsheba  (Matt.  i.  6). 

2.  [Vat.  Ovpnas.]  Uuijah,  3  (1  Esdr.  ix.  43; 
tomp.  Neh.  vii.  4). 


URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

U'RIEL,  fiiie  of  God,  an  angel  named  only  in 
2  Esdr.  iv.  1,  36,  v!  20,  x.  28.  In  the  second  of 
these  passages  he  is  called   "the  arciiangel.'' 

*  In  the  book  of  Enoch,  Uriel  is  described  as 
"  the  angel  of  thunder  and  trembling  "  (c.  20),  and 
the  angel  "  placed  over  all  the  lights  of  heaven  " 
(c.  7-0,  §  3).  jMilton  makes  him  "regent  of  the 
sun."  A. 

U'RIEL  (^S'^l^S  [fire  of  God] :  oipiVJA  ; 
[Viit.  OpirjA:]  Urid).  1.  A  Kohathite  Levite,  son 
of  Tahath  (1  Chr.  vi.  24  [9]).  If  the  genealogies 
were  reckoned  in  this  chapter  from  father  to  sen, 
Uriel  would  be  the  same  as  Zephaniah  in  ver.  36 ; 
liut  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  is  the 
case. 

2.  [In  ver.  11,  Vat.  FA.  ApirjA..]  Chief  of  the 
Kohathites  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  ('hr.  xv.  5,  11). 
In  this  capacity  he  assisted,  together  with  120  of 
his  brethren,  in  bringing  up  the  ark  from  the  house 
of  ( )bed-edom. 

3.  Uriel  of  Gibeah  was  the  father  of  ]\Iaachah, 
or  Michaiah,  the  favorite  wife  of  Peholioam,  and 
mother  of  Abijah  (2  Chr.  xiii.  2).  In  2  Chr.  xi.  20 
she  is  called  "  Maachah  the  daughter  of  Absalom ;  " 
and  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  10,  §  1)  explains  this  by 
saying  that  her  mother  was  Tamar,  Absalom's 
daughter.  Rashi  gives  a  long  note  to  the  effect 
that  Miehaiah  was  called  Maachah  after  the  name 
of  her  daughter-in-law  the  mother  of  Asa,  who  waa 
a  woman  of  renown,  and  that  her  father's  name 
was  Uriel  Abishalom.  There  is  no  indication,  how- 
ever, that  Absalom,  like  Solomon,  had  another 
name,  although  in  the  Targum  of  R.  Joseph  on 
Chronicles  it  is  said  that  the  father  of  Maachah 
was  called  Uriel  that  the  name  of  Absalom  might 
not  be  mentioned. 

URI'JAH  (n*"1^1S  [flame  of  Jehovah]  : 
Ovpias  [\'at.  -pei-]  :  Uriris).  1.  Urijah  the  priest 
in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (2  K.  xvi.  10),  probalily  the 
same  as  Uiuah,  2. 

2.  iOvpia. )  A  priest  of  the  family  of  Koz,  or 
hak-Koz  [Neh.  iii.  4,  21],  the  same  as  Uriah,  3. 

3.  {Ovpias;  [Vat.  Oup€(a:]  Urin.)  One  of  the 
priests  who  stood  at  Ezra's  right-hand  when  he 
read  the  Law  to  the  people  (Neh.  viii.  4). 

4.  (^n*~l/lS:  [Ohplas;  Vat.  -pei-:]  Urins.) 
The  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kirjath-jeai-im.  He  proph- 
esied in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim  concerning  the  land 
and  the  city,  just  as  Jeremiah  had  done,  and  the 
king  sought  to  put  him  to  death;  Init  he  escaped, 
and  fled  into  Egypt.  His  retreat  was  soon  dis- 
covered :  Elnathan  and  his  men  brought  him  up 
out  of  Egypt,  and  Jehoiakim  slew  him  with  the 
sword,  and  cast  his  body  forth  among  the  graves 
of  the  couunon  people  (Jer.  xxvi.  20-23).  The 
story  of  Shemaiah  appears  to  be  quoted  by  the 
enemies  of  Jeremiah  as  a  reason  for  putting  him 
to  death ;  and,  as  a  reply  to  the  instance  of  Micah 
the  Morasthite,  which  Jeremiah's  friend  gave  as  a 
reason  why  his  words  should  be  listened  to  and  his 
life  spared.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  view  adopted  by 
Rashi.  W.  A.   W. 

AND    THUM'MIM  *  (a^^W, 


U'RIM 

u.*'?£ri  :     StjAcoo-is    Kol    a.\'i]Qiia--    doctrina    et 
Veritas). 

I.  (1.)  When  the  Jewish  exiles  were  met  or 
their  return  from  Babylon  bv  a  question  which  they 
had  no  data  for  answering,  they  agreed  to  postpone 
the  settlement  of  the  difiiculty  till  there  should  rise 


URIM  AND   THUMMIM 

ip  "  :i  priest  with  Urini  and  'rhuniniim  "  (Ezr.  ii. 
.Vi;  Nell.  vii.  G5).  The  inquiry,  what  those  L^Wni 
stud  rhiimiuiiu  themselves  were,  seems  liicely  to 
wait  as  long  for  a  final  and  satisfying  answer.  On 
svery  side  we  meet  with  confessions  of  ignorance  — 
'•  Non  constat"  (Kimchi),  "  Nescimus  "■  (Ahen- 
Ezra),  "  Difficile  est  invenire  "  (Augustine)  —  va- 
ried only  l>y  wild  and  confiicting  conjectures.  It 
would  lie  comparatively  an  easy  task  to  give  a  cata- 
logue of  these  hypotheses,  and  transcribe  to  any  ex- 
tent the  learning  which  has  gathered  round  them. 
To  attetnpt  to  follow  a  true  historical  method,  and 
60  to  construct  a  theory  which  shall,  at  least,  in- 
clude all  the  phenomena,  is  a  more  arduous,  but 
may  be  a  more  profital)le  task. 

(2.)  The  starting-piiint  of  such  an  inquiry  must 
be  from  the  words  which  the  A.  V.  has  left  un- 
translated. It  will  be  well  to  deal  with  each  sep- 
•jrately. 

(A.)  In  Urim,  Hebrew  scholars,  with  hardly  an 

exception,  have  seen  the  plural  of  "1-lM  ( =  light, 
or  fire).  The  LXX.  translators,  however,  appear  to 
have  had  reasons  which  led  them  to  another  ren- 
dering than  that  of  (pais,  or  its  cognates.  They 
give  7)  SrjKa'o-is  (Ex.  xxviii.  .30;  Ecchis.  xlv.  10), 
and  SrjXoi  (Num.  xxvii.  21;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8;  1  Sam. 
xxviii.  6),  while  in  Ezr.  ii.  6-3,  and  Neh.  vii.  65,  we 
have  respectively  plural  and  singular  participles  of 
(poDTi^oi).  In  Aquila  and  Theodotion  we  find  the 
more  literal  (poorifffj-oi.  The  Vulg.,  following  the 
lead  of  the  LXX.,  but  going  further  astray,  gives 
docfvina  in  Ex.  xxviii.  30  and  Deut.  xxxiii.  8.  omits 
the  word  in  Num.  xxvii.  21,  paraphrases  it  by  '■'■  per 
i'lcerdoies"  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6,  and  gives  ^^ judi- 
cium'''' in  Ecclus.  xlv.  10,  as  the  rendering  of 
5/)Aa)(ri?.  Luther  gives  Licld.  The  literal  English 
equivalent  would  of  course  be  "lights;"  but  the 
renderings  in  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  indicate,  at  least, 
a  traditional  belief  among  the  .lews  that  the  plural 
form,  as  in  Elohim  and  other  like  words,  did  not 
involve  numerical  plurality. 

(B.)    Tliummiin.     Here  also  there  is  almost  a 

cmsensus  "  as  to  the  derivation  from  Dn  (  =  per- 
fection, completeness):  but  the  LXX.,  as  before, 
uses  the  closer  Greek  equivalent  reAeios  but  once 
(Ezr.  ii.  63),  and  adlieres  elsewhere  to  aArjfleia;  and 
the  Vulg.,  giving  "  ptrfectus'"  there,  in  like  man- 
ner gives  "  Vf7'ilns  "  in  all  other  passages.  Aquila 
more  accurately  choo.ses  TiXiLSaeis.  Luther,  in 
his  first  edition,  gave  VijU'igkeil,  but  afterwards 
rested  in  Recht.  What  has  been  said  as  to  the 
plural  of  Urim  applies  here  also.  "  Light  and  Per- 
fection "  would  probably  be  the  best  English  equiv- 
alent. The  assumption  of  a  hendindi/s,  so  that  the 
two  words  =  "  perfect  illumination  "  (Carpzov,  App. 
Crtt.  i.  5;  Bilhr,  SiimhoHL;  ii.  135),  is  unneces- 
cary  ani,  it  is  believed,  unsound.  The  mere  phrase, 
as  such,  leaves  it  therefore  uncertain  whether  each 
word  by  itself  denoted  many  things  of  a  given  kind. 


a  The  exceptions  to  the  consetisiis  are  just  worth 
noticing.  (1.)  Bellarmiue  wishing  to  defend  the  Vulg. 
translation,  suggested   the   derivation  of  Urim   from 

rrr^  =  "  tS  teach  ;  "  and  Thumniim  from  ^^S,  "  to 
be  true."  (BuxtorT,  Diss.  <Je  Ur.  et  T/t.)  (2.)  Thum- 
Biim  has  been  derived  from  2k>i71  coutr.  Cj'H  =  "  a 
rwin,"  on  the  theory  that  the  two  groups  of  gems,  six 
on  each  side  the  breast-plate,  were  what  constituted 
ttie  Urim  and  Thummim.  (R.  Azarias,  in  Buxtorf, 
i.  f.) 


UKIM  AND  THUMMIM     3857 

or  whether  the  two  taken  together  niiu'lit  be  re- 
feiTed  to  two  distinct  objects,-  or  to  one  and  the 

same  object.     The  presence  of  the  article  H^and 

yet  more  of  the  demonstrative  jHS  before  each,  is 
rather  in  favor  of  distinctness.  In  Deut.  xxxiii.  8, 
we  have  separately,  "  Thy  Thununini  and  thy 
Urim,"  the  first  order  being  inverted.  Urim  is 
found  alone  in  Num.  xxvii.  21;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  G; 
Thummim  never  by  itself,  unless  with  Ziillig  we 
find  it  in  Ps.  xvi.  5. 

11.  (1.)  Scriptural  StateinenU.  —  The  mysteri- 
ous words  meet  us  for  the  first  time,  as  if  they 
needed  no  esplanation,  in  the  description  of  the 
high-priest's  apparel.     Over  the  ICphod  there  is  to 

be  a  "breastplate  of  judgment"  (tD^piSn  ^tl^H, 
Xoyelov  Kpiaecos'-''  riUiomde  jadici'i).  of  gold,  scar- 
let, purple,  and  fine  linen,  folded  square  and  doulj- 
led,  a  '-span"  in  length  and  width.  In  it  are  to 
be  set  four  rows  of  ])recious  stones,  each  stone  with 
the  name  of  a  tribe  of  Israel  engraved  on  it,  that 
Aaron  may  >'bear  them  upon  his  heart."  Then 
comes  a  further  order.  Inside  the  breastplate,  as 
the  tables  of  the  Covenant  were  placed  inside  the 

Ark  (the  preposition  /M  is  used  in  both  cases,  Ex. 
XXV.  16,  xxviii.  30),  are  to  be  placed  "the  Urim 
and  the  Thummim,"  the  Light  and  the  Perfection; 
and  they,  too,  are  to  be  on  Aaron's  heart,  when  he 
goes  in  before  the  Lord  (Ex.  xxviii.  15-30).  Not 
a  word  describes  them.  They  are  mentioned  as 
things  already  familiar  both  to  Moses  and  the 
people,  connected  naturally  with  the  functions  of 
the  high-priest,  as  mediating  between  Jehovah  and 
his  people.  The  command  is  fulfilled  (Lev.  viii.  8). 
They  pass  from  Aaron  to  Eleazar  •  with  the  sacred 
ephod,  and  other  pontiJicaUa  (Num.  xx.  28). 
When  .Joshua  is  solemnly  appointed  to  succeed  the 
great  hero  lawgiver,  he  is  bidden  to  stand  before 
Eleazar  the  priest,  "  who  shall  ask  counsel  for  him 
after  the  judgment  of  Urim,"  and  this  counsel  is  to 
determine  the  movements  of  the  host  of  Israel 
(Num.  xxvii.  21).  In  the  blessings  of  Aloses,  they 
appear  as  the  crowning  glory  of  the  tribe  of  Levi 
("  Thy  Thummim  and  thy  Urim  are  with  thy  Holy 
One  "),  the  reward  of  the  zeal  which  led  them  to 
close  their  eyes  to  everything  but  "the  Law  and 
the  Covenant"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  8,  9).  Once,  and 
once  only,  are  they  mentioned  by  name  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Judges  and  the  monarchy.  Saul,  left 
to  his  self-chosen  darkness,  is  answered  "  neither 
by  dreams,  nor  by  Urim,  nor  by  prophet"  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  0).  There  is  no  longer  a  priest  with  Urim 
and  Thummim  (to??  (pairi^ovai  Kal  toTs  re\eiots, 
Ezr.  ii.  63;  6  (puTicj-aiv,  Neh.  vii.  65)  to  answer 
hard  questions.  'AMien  will  one  appear  again  V 
The  Son  of  Sirach  copies  the  Greek  names  (Sij\oi, 
aK7]deia)  in  his  description  of  Aaron's  garments, 
but  throws  no  light  upon  their  meaning  or  their 
use  (Ecclus.  xlv.  10).<-' 

b  The  LXX.  rendering,  so  different  from  the  literal 
meaning,  must  have  originated  either  (1)  from  a  false 

etymology,  as  if  the  word  was  derived  from   tTHD 

-    T 

=  "  to  divine  "  (Gen.  xliv.  15) ;  or  (2)  from  the  orac- 
ular use  made  of  the  breastplate  ;  or  (3)  from  other 
association."  coiniected  with  the  former  {infra).  The 
Vulg.  simply  tbllows  the  LXX.  Seb.  Schmidt  give?  the 
more  literal  "  pertornte.''  "  liTeast-plate  ''  is,  perhap*, 
somewhat  misleading. 

«  The   A.  v.,  singularly   enough,   retranslatt'S   tli« 


3358     URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

(2.)  Besides  these  direct  statements,  there  are 
others  in  whicii  we  may,  without  violence,  trace  a 
reference,  if  not  to  botli,  at  least  to  the  Urini. 
When  questions  precisely  of  the  nature  of  those 
■described  in  Num.  xxvii.  21  are  asked  by  the 
.eader  of  the  peojjle,  and  answered  by  Jehovah 
(Judg.  i.  1,  XX.  18)  —  when  like  questions  are 
asked  by  Saul  of  the  high-priest  Ahiah,  "  wearing 
an  ephod  "  (1  Sam.  xiv.  3, 18)  —  by  David,  as  soon 
as  he  has  with  him  the  presence  of  a  high-priest 
with  his  ephod  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  2,  12,  xxx.  7,  8)  — 
we  may  legitimately  infer  that  the  treasures  which 
the  ephod  contained  were  the  conditions  and  medht 
of  his  answer.  The  questions  are  in  almost  all 
cases  strategical,"  "  ^^'ho  shall  go  up  for  us  against 
the  Canaanites  first?"  (Judg.  i.  1,  so  xx.  18), 
"  ^^'ill  the  men  of  Iveilah  deliver  me  and  my  men 
into  the  hand  of  Saul?  "  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  12),  or,  at 
least,  national  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1).  The  answer  is,  in 
all  cases,  very  brief,  but  more  in  form  than  a  sim- 
ple Yes  or  Xo.  One  question  only  is  answered  at 
a  time. 

(3.)  It  deserves  notice  before  we  pass  beyond  the 
rauL^e  of  Soiptural  data.,  that  in  some  cases  of  de- 
llection  from  the  established  religious  order,  we  find 
the  ephod  connected  not  with  the  Urim  but  with 
the  Tlkai'hi.m,  wiiich,  in  the  days  of  Lalian,  if  not 
earlier,  had  been  conspicuous  in  Aramaic  worshij). 
Micah,  first  consecrating  one  of  his  own  sons,  and 
then  getting  a  Levite  as  his  priest,  makes  for  him 
'•an  ephod  and  teraphim  "  (Judg.  xvii.  5,  xviii.  14, 
2Uj.  Throughout  the  history  of  the  northern 
kingdom  tlieir  presence  at  Dan  made  it  a  sacred 
place  (Judg.  xviii.  30),  and  apparently  deternjined 
Jeroboam's  choice  of  it  as  a  sanctuary.  When  the 
prophet  Hosea  foretells  the  entire  sweeping  away  of 
the  system  which  the  Ten  Tribes  had  cherished,  the 
point  of  extremest  destitution  is.  that  "  they  sh.-dl 
be  many  days  ....  without  an  ephod,  and  witli- 
Dut  teraphim"  (Hos.  iii.  4),  deprived  of  all  coun- 
terfeit oracles,  in  order  that  they  may  in  the  end 
"return  and  seek  the  Lord."''  It  seems  natural 
to  infer  that  the  teraphim  were,  in  these  instances, 
the  unauthorized  substitutes  for  the  Urim.  The 
inference  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  LXX. 
uses  here,  instead  of  teraphim,  the  same  word  (Srj- 
\o>v)  which  it  usually  gives  for  Urim.  That  the 
teraphim  \\ere  thus  used  through  the  whole  history 
of  Israel  may  be  inferred  from  their  frequent  occur- 
rence in  conjunction  with  other  forms  of  divination. 
Thus  we  have  in  1  Sam.  xv.  23,  "  witchcraft  "  and 
'•  teraphim  "  (A.  V.  "  idolatry  '"),  in  2  K.  xxiii.  24, 
"familiar  spirits,"  "wizards,  and  teraphim"  (A. 
V.  "images").  The  king  of  Babylon,  when  he 
uses  divination,  consults  them  (Ez.  xxi.  21).  They 
speak  vanity  (Zech.  x.  2). 

III.  Theories.  —  (1.)  For  the  most  part  we  have 
to  deal  with  independent  conjectures  rather  than 
with  inferences  from  these  data.  Among  the  latter, 
however,  may  be  noticed  the  notion  that,  as  Closes 
is  not  directed  to  make  the  Urim  and  Thunmiim, 
Ihey  must  have  had  a  supernatural  origin,  specially 


I 
URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

created,  unlike  anything  upon  earth  (K.  ben  Xa^h- 
man  and  Ilottinger  in  Buxtorf,  Diss,  de  U.  et  T 
in  Uirolini,  xii.).  It  would  be  profitless  to  discuss 
so  arbitrary  an  hypothesis. 

(2.)  A  favorite  view  of  Jewish  and  of  some 
Christian  writers  has  been,  that  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  were  identical  with  the  twelve  stones 
on  which  the  names  of  the  tril)es  of  Israel  were 
engraved,  and  the  mode  in  which  an  oracle  was 
given  was  by  the  illumination,  simultaneous  or  suc- 
cessive, of  the  letters  which  were  to  make  up  the 
answer  (Jalkut  Sifre,  Zohar  in  Exnd.  f.  105;  iMai- 
monides,  K.  ben  Nachman,  in  Buxtorf,  /  c. :  Drusiiis, 
in  Crit.  Sac.  on  Ex.  xxviii. ;  Chrysoszcm,  Grotius. 
et  al.).  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §  5)  adopts  another 
form  of  the  same  stoiy,  and,  apparently  identifying 
the  Urim  and  Thunnnim  with  the  sardonyxes  on 
the  shoulders  of  the  ephod,  says  that  they  were 
bright  before  a  victory,  c)r  when  the  sacrifice  waa 
accejitable,  dark  when  any  disaster  was  impending. 
Epiphanius  {de  xii.  ye  mm.),  and  the  writer  quoted 
by  Suidas  (s.  v.  'E<J)ouS),  present  the  same  thought 
in  yet  another  form.  A  single  diamond  (aSa/xa.t) 
placed  in  the  centre  of  the  breastplate  prognosti- 
cated peace  when  it  was  bright,  war  when  it  was 
red,  death  when  it  was  dusky.  It  is  conclusive 
against  such  views  (1)  that,  without  any  evidence, 
without  even  an  analogy,  they  make  unauthorized 
additions  to  the  miracles  of  Scripture;  (2)  that 
the  former  identify  two  things  which,  in  Ex. 
xxviii.,'  are  clearly  distinguished;  (3)  that  the 
latter  makes  no  distinction  between  the  Urim  and 
the  Thnmn)im,  such  as  the  repeated  article  leads 
us  to  intier. 

(3.)  A  theory,  involving  fewer  gratuitous  as- 
sumptions, is  that  in  the  middle  of  the  ephod,  or 
within  its  folds,  there  was  a  stone  or  pl.-ite  of  gold 
on  which  was  engraved  the  sacred  name  of  Jehovah, 
the  Sliein-h  immijilionis/i  of  Jewish  cabbalists,<^  and 
that  by  virtue  of  this,  fixing  his  gaze  on  it,  or 
reading  an  invocation  which  was  also  engraved  with 
the  name,  or  standing  in  his  ephod  before  the 
mercy-seat,  or  at  least  before  the  veil  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, he  became  capable  of  prophesying,  hearing 
the  Divine  voice  within,  or  listening  to  it  as  it  pro- 
ceeded, in  articulate  sounds,  from  the  glory  of  the 
Shechinah  (Buxtorf,  I.  c.  7;  Lightfoot,  vi.  278; 
Bra'unius,  de  Vestitu  Hehr.  ii. ;  Saalschiitz,  Archd- 
oloy.  ii.  363).  Another  form  of  the  same  thought 
is  found  in  the  statement  of  Jewish  writers,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  spake  sometimes  by  Urim,  some- 
times by  prophecy,  sometimes  by  the  Bath-Kol 
(Seder  01am,  c.  xiv.  in  Braunius,  /.  c),  or  that  the 
whole  purpose  of  the  unknown  symbols  was  "  ad 
excitandam  prophetiam  "  (R.  Levi  ben  Gershon,  in 
Buxtorf,  I.  c.\  Kimchi,  in  Spencer,  /.  c).  A  more 
eccentric  form  of  the  "  writing  "  theory  was  pro- 
pounded by  tha  elder  Carpzov,  who  maintained  that 
the  Urim  and  Thunnnim  were  two  confessions  o( 
faith  in  the  INIessiah  and  the  Holy  Spirit  (Carpzov, 
App.  Crit.  i.  5). 

(4.)  Spencer  [de  Ur.  et  Tli.)  presents  a  singular 


3reek  words  back  into  the  Hebrew,  and  gives  "  Unm 
»ud  Tliummim  "  as  if  tbey  were  proper  names. 

«  On  ttiis  account,  probably,  the  high-priest  was  to 
go  out  to  battle  (Num.  xxxi.  6),  as,  in  his  absence, 
tliere  was  to  be  a  Sacerdox  Castrensis.  [Priests.] 
''  The  wi-iter  cannot  bring  himself,  with  I'usey 
Coiiiin.  in  loc  ),  to  refer  the  things  named  by  the 
prophet,  p;irtly  to  the  true,  partly  to  the  false  ritual ; 
etili  less.  «ith  Spencer  (Diss,  de  Ur.  et  77i.),  to  see  in 
ill  of  them   thiuy;-!  which   the  prophet  recognizes  as 


right  and  good.  It  is  simpler  to  take  them  as  de- 
scribing the  actual  polity  and  ritual  in  which  the 
uorthem  kingdom  had  gloried,  and  of  which  it  was  to 
be  deprived. 

c  A  wilder  form  of  this  belief  is  found  in  the  cab- 
balistic  book  Zohar.  There  the  Urim  is  said  to  have 
had  the  Divine  name  in  42,  the  Thummim  in  72  let» 
ters.  The  notion  was  probably  derived  from  the  Jew- 
ish invocations  of  books  like  the  Clai-icula  Salomonit 
[SoLuMu^.] 


URIM  AJaB  THUMMIM 

iiiion  of  ;ieutene<s  and  extravagance.  He  r'ghtly 
i-ecognizes  the  distinctness  of  the  two  tiiiiiL^s  which 
otliers  had  confoniided.  Whatever  tlie  Urim  and 
Thuniuiini  were,  they  were  not  the  twelve  stone.s, 
and  they  were  distinmiishahle  one  from  the  other. 
They  were  placed  inside  the  folds  of  the  doubled 
Cliof/wii.  Kestint;  on  the  facts  referred  tu.  lie  in- 
ferred the  identity  of  the  Urini  and  the  'rer;i|)hini.« 
This  was  an  instance  in  which  the  Divine  wisdom 
accommodated  itself  to  man"s  weakness,  and  al- 
lowed the  debased  superstitious  Israelite.s  to  retain 
a  fragment  of  the  idolatrous  system  of  their  fatliers, 
ill  order  to  wean  theui  gradually  from  the  system 
as  a  whole.  The  obnoxious  name  of  Tei-ajjliim  was 
dropped.  The  thing  itself  was  retained.  The  very 
uame  Urim  was,  he  argued,  identical  in  meaning 
with  'leraphim.''  It  was,  therefore,  a  small  image 
probably  in  human  form.  So  far  the  hypothesis 
has,  at  least,  the  merit  of  being  inductive  and  his- 
torical; but  when  he  comes  to  the  question  how  it 
was  instrumental  oracularly,  he  passes  into  the  most 
extravagant  of  all  assumptions.  The  image,  when 
the  high-priest  questioned  it,  spoke  by  the  meilia- 
tion  of  an  angel,  with  an  articulate  human  voice, 
just  as  the  Teraphim  spoke,  in  like  manner,  by  the 
intervention  of  a  demon  1  In  dealing  with  the 
Thummim,  which  he  excludes  altogether  from  the 
oracular  functions  of  the  Urim,  Sijencer  adopts 
the  notion  of  an  Egyptian  archet\pe,  which  will  be 
noticed  further  on. 

(5.)  Michaelis  (L>ia-i  of  .Vases,  v.  §  52)  gives 
his  own  opinion  that  the  Uriui  and  I'humndm  were 
three  stones,  on  one  of  which  was  written  Yes,  on 
another  No,  while  the  third  was  left  blank  or  neu- 
tral. The  three  w|re  used  as  lots,  and  the  high- 
priest  decided  according  as  the  one  or  the  other 
was  drawn  out.  lie  does  not  tliink  it  worth  while 
to  give  one  iota  of  evidence;  and  the  notion  does 
not  apijear  to  have  been  more  than  a  [lassing  ca- 
price. It  obviously  iails  to  meet  the  phenomena. 
lx)ts  were  fiamiliar  enough  among  the  Israelites 
(Num.  Kxvi.  55;  Josh.  xiii.  6,  tt  nl. ;  1  Sam.  xiv. 
41 :  Frov.  xvi.  30 ),  but  the  Urim  was  something 
solemn  and  peculiar.  In  the  ca.ses  where  the  Urim 
was  consulted,  the  answers  were  always  more  than 
a  mere  negative  or  attirmati\e. 

(().)  The  conjecture  of  ZiiUig  {Conm.  in  Ajxk. 
Exc.  ii.),  though  adopted  by  Winer  (Renlw/j.),  can 
hardly  be  looked  on  as  more  satisfying.  With  him 
the  Urim  are  bright,  t.  e.  cut  and  polished,  dia- 
monds, in  form  like  dice;  the  Thummim  perfect, 
i.  t.  whole,  rough,  uncut  ones,  each  class  with  in- 
scription.s  of  some  kind  engraved  on  it.  He  sup- 
poses a  handful  of  these  to  have  been  carried  in  the 
pouch  of  the  high-priest's  Cliushtn,  and  when  he 
wished  for  an  oracle,  to  have  been  taken  out  by 
him  and  thrown  on  a  tal)le,  or,  more  jirobaldy,  on 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.  As  ^hey  fell  their  posi- 
tion, according  to  ti-aditional  rules  known  only  to 
the  high-priestly  families,  indicated  the  answer. 
He  compares  it  with  fortune-telling  by  cards  or 
coffee-grounds.  The  whole  scheme,  it  need  hardly 
be  said,  is  one  of  pure  invention,  at  once  arldtrary 
and  offensive.  It  is  at  least  questionable  whether 
the  Kwyptians  had  access  to  diamonds,  or  knew  the 
»rt  of  polishing  or  engraving  them.      [I>iAJio><t).] 


URIM  AND  THUMMIM       3359 

A  hanilfnl  .>f  diamond  cubes,  large  enough  to  liave 
words  or  munojraras  engraved  on  them,  is  a  thing 
which  lias  no  parallel  in  Egyptian  archasology,  nor, 
indeed,  anywhere  else. 

(7.)  The  latest  Jewish  interpreter  of  eminence 
(Ivalisch,  on  Ex.  xxviii.  31),  combining  parts  of 
tiie  views  (2)  and  (3),  identifies  the  Urim  and 
Thunnnini  with  the  twelve  tribal  gems,  looks  on 
the  name  as  one  to  be  explained  by  a  hendiadys 
(Liiiht  and  Perfection  =  Perfect  iDumination),  and 
l)elieves  the  high-priest,  by  concentrating  his 
thou^hts  on  the  attributes  they  represented,  to 
have  divested  himself  of  all  selfishness  and  preju- 
dice, and  so  to  have  passed  into  a  true  prophetic 
sta'e.  In  what  he  says  on  this  point  there  is  muci> 
that  is  both  beautiful  and  true.  Lightfoot,  it  may 
be  adiled,  had  taken  the  same  view  (ii.  407,  vi. 
278),  and  th.at  given  ahove  in  (3)  converges  to  -^e 
same  result. 

IV.  One  More  Theory.  —  il.)  It  may  seem 
venturesome,  after  so  many  wild  and  conflicting 
conjectures,  to  add  yet  another.  If  it  is  believed 
tiiat  the  risk  of  falling  into  one  as  wild  and  baseless 
need  not  deter  us,  it  is  because  there  are  materials 
within  our  reach,  drawn  from  our  larger  knowledge 
of  antiquity,  and  not  less  from  our  fuller  insight 
into  the  less  conmion  phenomena  of  consciousness, 
which  were  not,  to  the  same  extent,  within  the 
reach  of  our  fathers. 

(2.)  The  starting  point  of  our  inquiry  may  be 
fuund  in  adhering  to  the  conclusions  to  which  the 
Scriptural  statements  lead  us.  The  Urim  were  not 
identical  with  the  Tluunmim,  neither  of  them 
identical  with  the  tribal  gems.  The  notion  of  a 
hen-iinhjs  (almost  always  the  weak  prop  of  a  weak 
theory)  may  be  discarded.  And,  seeing  that  tiiey 
are  mentioned  with  no  description,  we  mu.st  infer 
that  they  and  their  meaning  were  already  known, 
if  nut  to  the  other  Israelites,  at  least  to  Moses.  If 
we  are  to  look  for  their  origin  anywhere,  it  nmst  be 
in  tiie  customs  and  the  symbolism  of  Egypt. 

(3.)  ^Ve  may  start  with  the  Thummim,  as  pre- 
senting the  easier  problem  of  the  i\w.  Here  there 
is  at  once  a  patent  and  striking  analogy.  The 
priestly  judges  of  Egypt,  with  whose  presence  and 
<;arb  iMoses  must  have  been  familiar,  wore,  each  of 
them,  hanging  on  his  neck,  suspended  on  a  goldeu 
chain,  a  figure  which  (ireek  writers  describe  as  an 
image  of  Truth  {'XKi)6eia,  as  in  the  LXX.)  often 
with  closed  eyes,  made  sometimes  of  a  sapphire  or 
other  precious  stones,  and,  therefore  necessarily 
small.  They  were  to  see  in  this  a  symbol  of  the 
purity  of  motive,  without  which  they  would  be 
miworthy  of  their  oftlce.  With  it  they  toucheil 
tiie  lips  of  the  litigant  as  they  bade  him  speak  the 
truth,  the  whole,  the  perfect  truth  (Diod.  Sic.  i. 
48,  75;  .Elian,  Vor.  Hist.  xiv.  34).  That  this 
parallelism  commended  itself  to  the  most  learned  uf 
the  .-Vlexandrian  Jews  we  may  infer  (1)  from  the 
deliberate  but  not  obvious  use  by  the  LX.\.  of  the 
word  a\7]deia  as  the  translation  of  Thummim; 
(2)  from  a  remarkable  passage  in  Philo  (de  Vil. 
J/iw.  iii.  11),  in  which  he  says  that  the  breastplate 
(\6ytov)  of  the  high-priest  was  made  strong  that 
he  might  wear  as  an  image  (jVa  a.ya\fxaTO(popfj) 
the  two  virtues  which  were  so  needful  for  his  othce. 


a  He  had  been  preceded  in  this  view  by  Joseph 
VIede  (Diis.  1.  c.  35),  wbo  pointed  out  the  strong  re- 
lemblaiice,  if  not  the  identity  of  tlie  two. 

b  Tlie  proce.'is  Df  proof  is  ingenious,  but  liai-div  con- 
rtncing        Urim    =    "  lights,    fires  ;  "    Seraphim   = 


"  tho  burning,  or  tlery  ones  ;  "  and  Teraphim  is  hut 
the  same  word,  with  au  .\ramaic  substitu'inn  of  '"^ 
for  tr. 


33G0      URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

The  connection  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Egyp- 
tian symbol  was  first  noticed,  it  is  believed,  by 
Spencer  (/.  c).  It  was  met  with  cries  of  aUinn. 
No  single  custom,  rite,  or  symbol,  could  possibly 
have  been  transferred  from  an  idolatrous  system 
into  that  of  Israel.  There  was  no  evidence  of  tlie 
antiquity  of  the  Egyptian  practice.  It  was  prob- 
ably copied  from  the  Hebrew  (Witsius,  ^-Eijypthtca, 
ii.  10,  11,  12,  in  Ugolini,  i. ;  Kiboudealdus,  de 
Uiim  tt  Th.  in  Ugolini,  xii. ;  Tatrick,  Coiniu.  in 
hx.  xsviii.).  The  discussion  of  the  princi|ile  in- 
volved need  not  be  entered  on  here.  Spencer's 
way  of  i)utting  the  case,  assuming  that  a  deliased 
form  of  religion  was  given  in  condescension  to  the 
superstitions  of  a  debased  people,  made  it,  indeed, 
needlessly  offensive,  but  it  remains  true,  that  a  rev- 
elation of  any  kind  must,  to  be  intelligiMe,  use 
preexistent  words,  and  that  those  words,  whether 
spoken  or  .symbolic,  may  therefore  l.e  taken  from 
any  language  with  which  the  recipients  of  the  rev- 
elation are  familiar."  In  this  instance  the  prej- 
udice has  worn  away.  The  most  orthodox  of  Ger- 
man theologians  accept  the  once  startling  theory, 
and  find  in  it  a  proof  of  the  veracity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch (Hengstenberg,  Egypt  and  tlie  Five  Bou/cs  <f 
Moses,  c.  vi.).  It  is  admitted,  partially  at  le;ist, 
by  a  devout  .Jew  (Kalisch,  on  Kx.  xxviii.  SI).* 
And  the  missing  link  of  evidence  has  been  found. 
The  custom  was  not,  as  had  been  said,  of  late 
origin,  but  is  found  on  the  older  monuments  of 
Egypt.  There,  round  the  neck  of  the  judge,  are 
seen  the  two  figures  of  Thmei,  the  representative 
of  Themis,  Truth,  Justice  (Wilkinson,  Ancient 
Eijyptiiins,  V.  28).  The  coincidence  of  sound  may, 
it  is  true,  be  accidental,  but  it  is  at  least  striking. 
In  the  words  which  tell  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  in  close 
connection  with  the  Thummim  as  its  chief  glory, 
that  it  did  the  stern  task  of  duty,  blind  to  all 
that  could  turn  it  aside  to  evil,  "  saying  to  his 
father  and  his  mother,  I  have  not  seen  him  "  (Ueut. 
xxxiii.  9),  we  n.ay  perhaps  trace  a  reference  to  the 
closed  eyes  of  the  Egyptian  Thmei. 

(4.)  The  way  is  now  open  for  a  further  inquiry. 
We  may  legitimately  ask  whether  there  was  any 
symbol  of  Light  standing  to  the  Urim  in  the  same 
relation  as  the  symbolic  figure  of  Truth  stood  to  the 
Thummim.  And  the  answer  to  that  question  is  as 
follows.  On  the  breast  of  well-nigh  every  member 
of  the  priestly  caste  of  Egypt  there  hung  a  pectoral 
plate,  corres[)onding  in  position  and  in  size  to  the 
i'huslien  of  the  high-priest  of  Israel.  And  in 
many  of  these  we  find,  in  the  centre  of  the  jJectonde, 
right  over  the  heart  of  the  priestly  nmmmy,  as  the 
trim  was  to  be  "on  the  heart"  of  Aaron,  what 
was  a  known  symbol  of  Light  (see  British  Jluseum, 
First  Eyyptiau  Room,  Cases  07,  69,  70,  88,  89. 
i^eaml  ditto,  Cases  68,  09,  74).  In  that  symbol 
were  united  and  embodied  the  highest  religious 
thoughts  to  which  man  had  then  risen.  It  repre- 
sented the  Sun  and  the  Universe,  Light  and  Life, 

«  It  may  be  reasonably  urged  indeed  that  in  such 
sases  the  previous  connection  with  a  false  system  is  a 
reason  /or,  and  not  against  tlie  use  ot  a  symbol  iu  it- 
self expres^ive.  The  priests  of  Israel  were  taught  that 
iiey  were  not  to  have  lower  thoughts  of  the  light  and 
^rfection  wliicli  they  needed  than  the  priests  of  Ra. 

t>  It  is  right  to  add  that  the  Egyptian  origin  is  re- 
jected both  by  Biihr  (Si/mboUk-,  ii.  IGi)  and  Ewald  (.4/- 
Atrtliibn.  pp.  307-309),  but  without  sufficient  grounds. 
Bwald's  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  is,  indeed,  at 
'vuce  superficial  and  inconsistent.  In  tlie  Alterthihner 
I.  c.)  he  speaks  of  the  Uiim  and   Thuumiiii'    ?  lots. 


URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

Creation  and  llesurrection.  The  material  of  the 
symbol  varied  according  to  the  rank  of  the  wearer. 
It  might  be  of  blue  porcelain,  or  jasper,  or  corne- 
lian, or  la])is  lazuli,  or  amethyst.  Prior  to  oui 
knowing  what  the  symbol  was,  we  should  proliabl'y 
think  it  natural  and  fitting  that  this,  like  the  other, 
should  have  been  transferred  from  the  lower  worship 
to  the  higher,  from  contact  with  falsehood  to  fellow- 
sh'.p  with  truth.  Position,  size,  material,  meaning, 
everything  answers  the  conditions  of  the  problem. 

(5.)  liut  the  symbol  in  this  case  was  the  mystic 
Scarabaeus;  and  it  may  seem  to  some  startling  and 
incredible  to  suggest  that  such  an  emblem  could 
have  been  borrowed  for  such  a  purpose.  It  is  r>T- 
haps  quite  as  difficult  for  us  to  understand  how  '" 
could  ever  have  come  to  be  associated  with  such 
ideas.  We  have  to  throw  ourselves  back  into  t 
stage  of  huiiian  progress,  a  phase  of  human  thought 
the  most  utterly  uidike  any  that  conies  within  our 
experience.  Out  of  the  mud  which  the  Nile  left 
in  its  flooding,  men  saw  myriad  forms  of  life  issue. 
That  of  the  Scarabaeus  was  the  most  conspicuous. 
It  seemed  to  tliem  self-generated,  called  into  being 
by  the  light,  the  child  only  of  the  sun.  Its  glossy 
wing-cases  reflecting  the  bright  rays  made  it  seem 
like  the  sun  in  miniature.  It  became  at  once  the 
emblem  of  Ka,  the  sun,  and  its  creative  power 
(Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  4,  §  21 ;  Euseb.  Priep. 
Evan  I/,  iii.  4;  Brugsch, /,(6er  Metempsychoseos,  p. 
33 ;  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  iv.  295,  v.  26, 
476).  But  it  came  also  out  of  the  dark  earth,  after 
the  flood  of  waters,  and  was  therefore  the  synibol 
of  life  rising  out  of  death  in  new  forms;  of  a  resur- 
rection and  a  metempsychosis  (Brugsch,  /.  c.  and 
^Egypt.  Alterth.  p.  32).  So  jt  was  that  not  in 
I'vgypt  only,  but  in  Etruria  and  Assyria  iu->d  other 
countries,  the  same  strange  emblems  veapjjeared 
(Dennis.  Cities  and  Sepulciires  of  Etrnria,  Iiitrod. 
Ixxiii. :  Layard,  A7/(ere/i,  ii.  214).  So  it  was  that 
men,  forgetting  the  actual  in  the  ideal,  invested  it 
with  the  title  of  M.onoy^vris  (Horapollo,  Iliernyl. 
1.  c.  10),  that  the  more  mystic,  dreamy,  Gnostic 
sects  adopted  it  into  their  symbolic  language,  and 
that  semi-Christian  Scaraba;i  are  found  with  the 
sacred  words  ,lao,  Sabaoth,  or  the  names  of  angels 
engraved  on  them  (Bellermanu,  Ueber  die  Scara- 
Oiien-Gemmen,  i.  JO),  just  as  the  m\stic  Tau,  or 
Crux  ans  ita,  appears,  in  spite  of  its  original  mean- 
ing, on  the  monuments  of  Christian  Egypt  (Wil- 
kinson, Anc.  Eijypt.  v.  283).  In  older  Egypt  it 
was,  at  any  rate,  connected  with  the  thought  of 
Divine  illumination,  found  in  frequent  union  with 
the  symboUc  eye,  the  emblem  of  the  providence  of 
God,  and  with  the  hieroglyphic  invocation,  "  Tu 
radians  das  vitam  puris  hominibus "  (Brugsch'a 
translation.  Fiber  Metenips.  p.  33).  It  is  obvious 
that  in  such  a  case,  as  with  the  Crvx  ansaia,  the 
Scarabisus  is  neither  an  idol,  nor  identified  with 
idolatry.'^  It  is  simply  a  word,  as  much  the  mere 
exponent   of  a  thought   as  if  it  were  spoken  with 


adopting  Michaelis's  view.  In  his  Prop/ieten  (i.  15)  he 
speaks  of  the  high-priest  tixing  bis  gaze  on  them  tc 
bring  himself  into  the  prophetic  state. 

c  The  symbolic  language  of  one  nation  or  age  i-ill, 
of  course,  often  be  unintelligible,  and  even  seem  lu- 
dicrous to  another.  They  will  t;ike  for  granted  hat 
men  have  worshipped  what  they  manifestly  resp»5„i<;d. 
Would  it  bo  ea-sy  to  make  a  Moi  aunnedan  understand 
clearly  the  meaning  of  the  symbols  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelists as  used  in  tiie  ornamentations  of  Englisit 
churches?  Would  an  English  congregation,  not 
urchKologists,  bear  to  be  told  that  thi;y  wei  i  to  en 


iftllM  AND  THUiVlMIM 

the  li|is,  or  written  in  phonetic  characters.  There 
is  nothing  in  its  Kiryptian  origin  or  its  animal  form 
wliicli  need  startle  us  anj' more  tliun  the  like  orij^in 
of  the  Arl<  or  tlie  riiummiin,  or  tlie  like  form  in 
the  BuAZKN  Si:i:i'KM',  or  the  fourfold  syniholic 
figures  of  the  Cherubim.  It  is  to  he  added,  that 
Joseph  hj  his  marriage  with  the  daughter  of  the 
priest  of  On,  the  jiriest  of  the  sun-god  lia,  and 
Moses,  as  having  heen  trained  in  the  learning  of 
the  Egyptians,  and  probably  among  the  priests  of 
the  same  ritual,  and  in  tlie  same  city,  were  certain 
t<j  lie  acquainted  with  the  sculptured  icon/,  and 
with  its  meaning.  For  the  latter,  at  any  rate,  it 
wouhl  need  no  description,  no  interpretation.  l)eep 
set  in  the  Clwshtn,  between  the  gems  tliut  repre- 
sented Israel,  it  would  set  forth  that  Light  and 
Truth  were  the  centre  of  tbe  nation  s  life.  Belong- 
ing to  the  breastplate  of  judgment,  it  would  bear 
witness  that  the  high-priest,  in  his  oracular  acts, 
needed  above  all  things  spotless  integrity  and  Di- 
vine illumination.  It  fulfilled  all  the  conditions 
and  taugbt  all  the  lessons  which  Jewish  or  Chris- 
tian writers  have  connected  with  the  Urim. 

(G.)  (A.)  Have  we  any  dttta  for  determining 
the  material  of  the  symbol '?  The  following  tend 
at  least  to  a  definite  conclusion:  (1.)  If  the  stone 
was  to  represent  light,  it  would  probabl}'  be  one  in 
which  light  was,  as  it  were,  eniljodied  in  its  purest 
form,  colorless  and  clear,  diamond  or  I'ock  crystal. 
(2.;  The  traditions  quoted  above  from  Suidas  and 
Epiphanius  confirm  this  inference."  (3.)  It  is  ac- 
cepted as  [lart  of  ZiiUig's  theory,  by  Dean  Trench 
(K/jislles  to  ^'e(•t'H  C'liurclies,  p.  125).''  The 
•'  white  stone  "  of  liev.  ii.  17,  like  the  other  rewards 
of  him  that  overcometli,  declared  the  truth  of  the 
Universal  I'riesthood.  What  had  been  tlje  peculiar 
treasure  of  the  house  of  Aaron  should  be  bestowed 
freely  on  all  lielievers. 

(H.)  .Vnother  fact  connected  with  the  symbol 
enables  us  to  include  one  of  the  best  sujjported  of 
the  Jewish  conjectures.  As  seen  on  the  bodies  of 
Egyptian  priests  and  others  it  almost  always  bore 
an  inscription,  the  name  of  the  god  whom  the  priest 
served,  or,  more  commonly,  an  invocation,  from  the 
Iiook  of  tlie  Dead,  or  some  other  Egyptian  liturgy 
(lirugsch.  Lib.  Mettmps.  I.  c).  There  would  here, 
also,  be  an  analogy.  Upon  the  old  emblem,  ceas- 
ing, it  may  be,  to  bear  its  old  distinctive  form,'-' 
tliere  might  be  the  "new  name  written,"  the  Tet- 
ragrammaton,  the  Shem-hiiiiimfphorash  of  later 
Judaism,  directing  the  thoughts  of  the  priest  to  the 
true  Lord  of  Life  and  Liglit,  of  whom,  unlike  the 
Lord  of  Life  in  tlie  temples  of  Egypt,  tliere  was  no 
form  or  similitude,  a  Spirit,  to  be  worshipped  there- 
fore in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

(7.)  We  are  now  able  to  approach  the  question, 
"  In  what  way  was  the  Urim  instrumental  in  en- 
abling the  high-priest  to  give  a  true  oracular 
response?  "  We  may  dismiss,  with  the  more 
thoughtful  writers  already  mentioned   (Kimchi,  on 


irave  on  their  seals  a  pelican  or  a  fish,  as  a  type  of 
Christ?  (Clem.  Alex.  PanJa^.  ill.  11,  §  59.) 

"  The  words  of  Epiphanius  are  remarkable,  ij  S>)- 
^ucri!,  OS  i]V  6  aSct/xas. 

''  For  the  reasons  stated  above,  in  discussing 
iiillig's  theory,  tlie  writer  finds  himself  unable  to 
igree  with  Deau  Trench  as  to  the  diamond  being  cer- 
Xiiuly  the  stone  in  question.  So  far  sis  he  knows,  no 
iiaiuouds  have  as  yet  been  found  among  the  jewels  of 
?gypt.  Rock  crystal  seers  therefore  tho  more  prob- 
Ible  of  the  two. 

c  Changes  in  the  form  of  an  emblem  till  it  ceases  to 


URIM  AND  TIIUMMIM     3361 

2  Sam.  XXV.,  may  be  added),  the  gratuitous  prod 
igies  whicli  have  no  existence  but  in  the  fancies  of 
Jewish  or  Christian  dreamers,  the  articulate  voice 
and  the  illumined  letters.  There  remains  tlie  con- 
clusion that,  in  some  way,  they  helped  him  to  rise 
out  of  all  selfishness  and  hypocrisy,  out  of  all  cere- 
monial routine,  and  to  pass  into  a  state  analogous 
to  that  of  the  later  prophets,  and  so  to  become 
capable  of  a  new  spiritual  illumination.  The  mo  his 
(iperaiu/i  in  this  case  may,  it  is  believed,  be  at  least 
illustrated  by  some  lower  analoi;ies  in  the  less  com- 
mon i)henomena  of  consciousness.  Among  the 
most  remarkable  of  such  phenomena  is  the  change 
produced  by  concentrating  the  thoughts  on  a  single 
idea,  by  gazing  steadfastly  on  a  single  fi.xed  point, 
riie  britrhter  and  more  dazzling  the  point  upon 
which  the  eyes  are  turned  the  more  rapidly  is  the 
change  produced.  The  life  of  perception  is  inter- 
rupted. Sight  and  bearing  fail  to  fulfill  their 
usual  functions.  The  mind  passes  into  a  state  of 
profound  abstraction,  and  loses  all  distinct  per- 
sonal consciousness.  Though  not  asleep  it  may 
see  visions  and  dream  dreams.  Under  the  sug 
gestions  of  a  will  for  the  time  stronger  than  itself, 
it  may  be  played  on  like  "  a  thinking  automaton."  '' 
Whe.i  not  so  played  on,  its  mental  state  is  deter- 
mined liy  the  "dominant  ideas"  which  were  im- 
pressed upon  it  at  the  moment  when,  by  its  own 
act,  it  brought  about  the  abnormal  change  (Dr. 
W.  B.  Carpenter  in  Qanrterly  Rev.  xciii.  5L0,  .522). 
(8.)  We  are  familiar  with  these  phenomena 
chiefly  as  they  connect  themselves  with  the  lower 
forms  of  mysticism,  with  the  tricks  of  electro-biolo- 
gists, and  other  charlatans.  Even  as  such  they 
present  points  of  contact  with  many  facts  of  inter- 
est in  Scriptural  or  Ecclesiastical  History.  Inde- 
pendent of  many  facts  in  monastic  legends  of  which 
this  is  the  m.ist  natural  explanation,  we  may  see  in 
the  last  great  controversy  of  the  Greek  Church  a 
startling  proof  how  terrible  may  be  the  influence  of 
these  morbid  states  m  hen  there  is  no  healthy  moral 
oi;  intellectual  activity  to  counteract  them.  For 
three  hundred  jears  or  more  the  rule  of  the  Abbot 
Simeon  of  Xerocercos,  prescribing  a  process  precisely 
analogous  to  that  described  above,  was  adopted  by 
myriads  of  monks  in  .Mount  .A.thos  and  elsewhere. 
The  Christianity  of  the  East  seemed  in  danger  of 
giving  its  sanction  to  a  spiritual  suicide  like  that  of 
a  Buddhist  seeking,  as  his  higiiest  blessedness,  the 
annihilation  of  the  Nirwnua.  I'hmged  in  profound 
abstraction,  their  eyes  fi-iced  on  tiie  centre  of  tlieir 
own  bodies,  the  (^uietists  of  the  14th  century  dicru- 
Xoo-Toi,  oix<pa\6y\iuxoi.)  enjoyed  an  unspeakable 
tranquillity,  believed  themselves  to  be  radiant  with 
a  Divine  glory,  and  saw  visions  of  the  uncreated 
light  which  had  shone  on  Tabor.  Degrading  aa 
the  whole  matter  seems  to  us,  it  was  a  serious  dan- 
ger then.  The  mania  spread  like  an  epidemic,  even 
among  the  laity.  Husbands,  fathers,  men  of  letters, 
and  artisans  gave  themselves  up  to  it.     It  was  ini  • 


bear  any  actual  resemblance  to  its  original  prototype 
are  familiar  to  all  students  of  symbolism.  The  Crux 
ansnta,  the  Tau,  which  wag  the  sign  of  life,  is,  perhaps, 
the  most  striking  instjmce  (Wilkinson,  Aiu.  E^ypt.  v. 
283).  Gesenius,  in  like  manner,  in  his  ilDiutmmla 
P>ice>iicia,  ii.  68,  69,  70),  gives  engravings  of  Jcanibsei 
in  which  nothing  but  the  oval  form  is  left. 

</  Tlie  word  is  used,  of  coui'se,  in  its  popular  sense, 
or  a  toy  moving  by  machinery.  Strictly  speakin,-', 
automatic  force  is  just  the  element  which  luw,  for  ttu 
time    iisappeared. 


3862    UKIM  AND  THUMMIM 

portant  enough  to  be  the  occasion  of  repeated  Syn- 
ods, in  which  emperors,  i)atriarchs.  bishops  were 
eager  to  take  part,  and  mostly  in  favor  of  the  prac- 
tice, and  the  corollaries  deduced  from  it  (Fleury, 
Hist.  Kecks,  xcv.  9;  Gieseler,  Ch.  Hist.  §  121); 
Maury,  La  Afayie  et  V AstroUnjie,  pp.  429,  430). 

(9.)  It  is  at  least  conceivable,  however,  that, 
within  given  limits,  and  in  a  given  stage  of  human 
progi'ess,  the  state  which  seems  so  abnormal  might 
have  a  use  as  well  as  an  abuse.  In  the  opinion  of 
one  of  the  foremost  among  modern  physiologists, 
the  processes  of  hypnotism  would  have  their  place 
in  a  perfect  system  of  therapeutics  (  Quart.  Etcieio, 
1.  c).  It  is  open  to  us  to  believe  that  they  may, 
in  the  less  perfect  stages  of  the  spiritual  history  of 
mankind,  have  helped  instead  of  hindering.  In  this 
way  only,  it  may  be,  tlie  sense-bound  spirit  could 
abstract  itself  from  the  outer  world,  and  take  up 
the  attitude  of  an  expectant  tranquillity.  The  en- 
tire suppression  of  human  consciousness,  as  in  the 
analogous  phenomena  of  an  ecstatic  state  [comp. 
Trance],  the  surrender  of  the  entire  man  to  be 
played  upon,  as  the  hand  plays  upon  the  harp,  may, 
at  one  time,  have  been  an  actual  condition  of  the 
inspired  state,  just  as  even  now  it  is  the  only  con- 
ception wliich  some  minds  are  capable  of  forming 
of  the  fact  of  inspiration  in  any  form  or  at  any  time 
Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  may  represent  to  our- 
selves the  process  of  seeking  counsel  "  by  Urim." 
The  question  brought  was  one  affecting  the  well- 
being  of  the  nation,  or  its  army,  or  its  king.  The 
inquirer  spoke  in  a  low  whisper,  asking  one  ques- 
tion only  at  a  time  (Gem.  liab.  Juiiui,  in  Mede, 
I.  c).  The  high-priest,  fixing  his  gaze  on  the 
"gems  oracular"  that  lay  "on  his  heart,"  fixed 
his  thoughts  on  the  Light  and  the  Perfection  which 
they  symboli.^ed,  on  the  Holy  Name  inscribed  on 
them.  The  act  was  itself  a  prajer,  and,  like  other 
prayers,  it  might  be  answered."  After  a  time,  he 
passed  into  the  new,  mysterious  half-ecstatic  state. ** 
All  disturbhig  elements  —  selfisiiness,  prejudice, 
the  fear  of  man  —  were  eliminated.  He  received 
the  insight  which  he  craved.  Men  trusted  in  his 
decisions  as  with  us  men  trust  the  judgment  which 
has  been  purified  by  prayer  for  the  help  of  the 
Kternal  Spirit,  more  than  that  which  grows  only 
out  of  deliate,  and  policy,  and  calculation. 

(10.)  It  is  at  least  interesting  to  think  that  a 
like  method  of  passing  into  this  state  of  insight 
was  practiced  unblamed  in  the  country  to  which  we 
have  traced  the  Urim,  and  among  the  people  for 
whose  education  this  process  was  adapted.  We 
need  not  think  of  Joseph,  the  pure,  the  heaven- 
taught,  the  blameless  one,  as  ado|)ting,  still  less  as 
falsely  pretending  to  adopt,  the  daik  arts  of  a  sys- 
tem of  imposture  (Gen.  xliv.  5,  15).  For  one  into 
whose  character  the  dream-element  of  prevision  en- 
tered so  largely,  there  would  be  nothing  strange  in 
the  use  of  media  by  which  he  might  superinduce 
at  will  the  dream-state  which  had  come  to  him  in 
his  youth  unbidden,  with  no  outward  stimulus;  and 
the  use  of  the  cup  by  which  Joseph  "divined"  was 


URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

precisely  analogous  to  that  which  has  been  now  de 
scribed.  To  fill  the  cup  with  water,  to  fix  the  eye  on 
a  gold  or  silver  coin  in  it,  or,  more  frequently,  on 
the  dazzlil^g  reflection  of  the  sun's  rays  from  it,  was 
an  essential  part  of  the  KvAtKo/MivTsia,  the  \eKavo- 
fxavTeia  of  ancient  systems  of  divination  (Maury, 
Ln  Mayie  et  I'Asiivlnyie,  pp.  426-428;  Kalisch, 
Oeiiesis,  ill  loc. ).  In  the  most  modern  form  of  it. 
among  the  magicians  of  Cairo,  the  boy's  fi.xed  gaze 
upon  the  few  drops  of  ink  in  the  palm  of  his  hand 
a)iswers  the  same  purpose  and  produces  the  same 
result  (Lane,  Mod.  Kyypt.  i.  c.  xii.).  The  ditter- 
ence  between  the  true  and  the  false  in  these  cases 
is,  however,  far  greater  than  the  superficial  resem- 
blance. To  enter  upon  that  exceptional  state  with 
vague,  stupid  curiosity,  may  lead  to  an  i;nbecility 
which  is  the  sport  of  every  casual  suggestion.  Tc 
pass  into  it  with  feelings  of  hatred,  passion,  lust, 
mny  add  to  their  power  a  fearful  intensity  for  evil, 
till  the  state  of  the  soul  is  demoniac  rather  than 
human.  To  enter  upon  it  as  the  high-priest  en- 
tered, with  the  prayer  of  faith,  might  in  like  man- 
ner intensify  wliat  was  nobl&st  and  truest  in  him. 
and  fit  him  to  be  for  tiie  time  a  vessel  of  the  Trith. 

(11.)  It  rnay  startle  us  at  first  to  think  that  any 
physical  media  should  be  used  in  a  divine  order  to 
bring  abop'  a  spiritual  result,  still  more  that  those 
media  should  be  the  same  as  are  found  elsewhere 
in  systems  in  which  evil  is  at  least  preponderanv ; 
yet  here  too  Scriptui-e  and  History  present  us  with 
very  striking  analogies.  In  other  forms  of  worship, 
in  the  mysteries  of  Isis,  in  Orphic  and  Corybantian 
revels,  nuisic  was  used  to  work  the  worshippers  into 
a  state  of  orgiastic  frenzy.  In  the  mystic  frater- 
nity of  I'ythagoras  it  was  employed  before  sleep, 
that  their  visions  might  be  serene  and  pure  (Plu- 
tarch, l)e  Is.  et  Osii:  ad  fin.).  Yet  the  same  in- 
strumentality bringing  about  a  result  analogous  at 
least  to  the  latter,  proliably  embracing  elements  of 
l)oth,  was  used  from  the  first  in  the  gatherings  of 
the  pi'ophets  (1  Sam.  x.  5).  It  soothed  the  vexed 
spirit  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xvi.  23);  it  wrought  on  him, 
when  it  came  in  its  choral  power,  till  be  too  burst 
into  the  ecstatic  song  (1  Sam.  xix.  20-24).  With 
one  at  least  of  the  greatest  of  the  iirojihets  it  was 
as  much  the  [jreparation  for  his  receiving  light  and 
guidance  from  above  as  the  gaze  at  the  Urim  had 
been  to  the  high-priest.  "  Elisha  said  .... 
'  Now  bring  me  a  miilstrel.'  And  it  came  to  p.ass, 
when  the  minstrel  played,  that  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  came  upon  him  "  (2  K.  iii.  15).*^ 

(12.)  'J'he  facts  just  noticed  point  to  the  righi 
answer  to  the  question  which  yet  remains,  as  to 
the  duration  of  the  Urim  and  the  Thunmiim,  and 
the  reasons  of  their  withdrawal.  The  statement  of 
Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §§  5-7)  that  they  had  con- 
tinued to  shine  with  supernatural  lustre  till  within 
two  hundred  years  of  his  own  time  is  simply  a 
Jewish  faille,  at  variance  with  the  direct  confession 
of  their  al)sence  on  the  return  from  the  Captivity 
(Kzr.  ii.  03),  and'  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees 
(1  Mace.  iv.  46,  xiv.  41).     As  little  reliance  is  to 


"  The  prayer  of  Ps.  xliii.  3,  "  Send  out  thy  light 
»nd  thy  truth,"  though  it  does  not  contain  the  woi'ds 
Urim  aud  Thunmiim,  speaks  obviously  of  that  which 
they  symbolized,  aud  may  be  looked  upon  as  an  echo 
9f  the  high-priest's  prayer  in  a  form  in  which  it  might 
»e  ased  by  any  devout  worshipper. 

f>  The  striking  exclamation  of  Saul,  "  Withdraw  thy 
;iaDd  I  "  when  it  seemed  to  him  that  the  Urim  was  no 
longer  needed,  was  clearly  an  interruption  of  this  pro- 
sess  (1  Sum   xiv.  19). 


c  That  "  the  hand  of  tlie  Lord  "  was  the  recognized 
expression  for  this  awful  consciousness  of  the  Diviue 
presence  we  find  from  the  visions  of  Kzekiel  (i.  3,  iii. 
14,  el  al.),  aud  1  K.  xviii.  46.  It  helps  us  obviou.sly 
to  determine  the  sense  of  the  corre.«ponding  phrase 
"  with  the  finger  of  Gnd,"  in  Ex.  xxxi.  18.  Comp 
too,  the  equivalence,  in  our  Lords  teaching,  of  the  twci 
forms.  ''If  I  with  the  fijiger  of  God  (Luke  xi.  20  = 
'  by  the  Spirit  of  Ood,'  JJatt.  xii.  28)  cast  out  Ue-ils  ' 


URIM  AND  THUMMIM 

be  placed  on  the  assertion  of  other  Jewish  writers, 
that  they  continued  in  activity  till  the  time  of  the 
bal)_vlonian  Kxile  (Suiti,  p.  43;  Midrash  on  Soi/y 
.fjj'  Hoi.  in  Buxtorf,  /.  c).  It  is  quite  inconceiva- 
hle.  had  it  been  so,  that  there  should  have  been  no 
single  instance  of  an  oracle  tlius  obtained  during 
the  whole  history  of  the  nioTiarchy  of  Judah.  The 
facts  of  the  case  are  lew,  but  they  are  decisive. 
Never,  after  tlie  days  of  David,  is  the  eidiod,  with 
its  appendages,  connected  witli  counsel  from  Jeho- 
vah (so  Carpzov,  App.  Crit.  i.  5).  Abiathar  is  the 
last  priest  who  habitually  uses  it  for  that  pur|)ose 
(1  Sam.  xxiii.  G,  9,  xxviii.  G;  probably  also  i  Sam. 
xxi,  1).  His  name  is  identified  in  a  strange  tradi- 
tion embodied  in  the  Talmud  {Simhedr.  f.  19,  1, 
in  Lightfoot,  xi.  380)  with  the  departed  glory  of 
the  Urini  and  the  Thummim.  And  the  explana- 
tion of  these  facts  is  not  far  to  seek.  Men  had  been 
taught  by  this  time  another  process  by  which  the 
spiritual  might  at  once  assert  its  independence  of 
the  sensuous  lile,  and  yet  retain  its  distinct  per- 
sonal consciousness  —  a  process  less  liable  to  per- 
version, leading  to  higher  and  more  continuous 
ilhnnination.  Through  the  sense  of  hearing,  not 
through  that  of  sight,  was  to  be  wrought  the 
Bulitle  and  mysterious  change.  Music  —  in  its 
uiar\elous  variety,  its  subtle  sweetness,  its  spirit- 
stirring  power — was  to  be,  for  all  time  to  come, 
the  lawful  lielp  to  the  ecstasy  of  praise  and  prayer, 
cpening  heart  and  soul  to  new  and  higher  thoughts. 
The  utterances  of  the  prophets,  speaking  by  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  were  to  supersede  the  oracles  of 
the  Urini.  The  change  which  about  this  period 
passed  over  the  speech  of  Israel  was  a  witness  of 
the  moral  elevation  which  that  other  change  in- 
volved. "  He  that  is  now  called  a  proi)het  was 
beforetinie  called  a  seer"  (1  Sam.  ix.  9).  To  be 
the  mouth-piece,  the  spokesman  of  Jehovali  was 
hiilher  tbau  to  see  visions  of  the  future,  however 
clear,  whether  of  the  armies  of  Israel  or  the  lost 
asses  of  Kish. 

(13.)  The  transition  was  probably  not  made 
without  a  struggle.  It  was  accompanied  by,  even 
if  it  did  not  in  part  cause  the  transfer  of  the  Pon- 
tificate from  one  branch  of  the  priestly  family  to 
another.  The  strange  opposition  of  Abiathar  to 
the  will  of  David,  at  the  close  of  his  reign,  is  intel- 
ligible on  the  hypothesis  that  he,  long  accustomed, 
as  holding  the  Ephod  and  the  Urim,  to  guide  the 
king's  councils  by  his  oracular  answers,  viewed, 
with  some  approach  to  jealousy,  the  growing  influ- 
ence of  the  prophets,  and  the  accession  of  a  prince 
who  had  grown  up  under  their  training.  With  him 
at  any  rate,  so  far  as  we  have  any  knowledge,  the 
Urim  and  the  Thummim  passed  out  of  sight.  It 
was  well,  we  may  lielieve,  that  they  did  so.  To 
have  the  voices  of  the  prophets  in  their  stead  was 
to  gain  and  not  to  lose.  So  the  old  order  changed, 
giving  place  to  the  new.  If  the  fond  yearning  of 
the  Israelites  of  the  Captivity  had  been  fulfilled, 
and  a  priest  had  once  again  risen  with  Urim  and 
with  Thunnnim,  they  would  but  have  taken  their 
place  among  the  "  weak  and  beggarly  elements " 
which  were  to  pass  away.  All  attempts,  from  the 
Rule  of  Simeon  to  the  Spb-itwd  /•.'xercisc.-i  of  Loy- 
ola, to  invert  the  Divine  order,  to  purchase  spiritual 
ecstasies  by  the  sacrifice  of  intellect  aid  of  cou- 


USURY 


8363 


science,  hive  been  steps  backward  into  darkness, 
not  forward  into  light.  So  it  was  that  God,  in 
many  different  measures  and  many  difTerent  fash- 
ions (iroKv/mepios  Kal  iroAuTp6iroi>s)i  spake  in  tune 
past  unto  tiie  Fathers  (Heb.  i.  1).  So  it  is,  in 
words  that  embody  the  same  thought,  and  draw 
from  it  a  needful  lesson,  that 

"  God  fulfills  him.<<elf  iu  many  ways, 
Lest  cue  good  custom  should  corrupt  the  world.''  " 

E.  H.  P. 

*  USDUM  (*tX*wt:    Usdum).     This  is  tha 

name  of  the  remarkable  mountain  of  rock-salt  near 
the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  called  by  the 
natives  Buji-  Usdum,  K/i(i$Iim  Usdum,  and  Jebei 
Usdum.  The  name  is  generally  accepted  as  i  tra- 
dition of  Sodom.  It  has  been  fully  described  by 
liobinson  and  Tristram,  and  its  probable  connec- 
tion with  the  saltness  and  volume  of  the  sea,  and 
with  the  site  of  Sodom,  has  been  discussed  in  pre- 
ceding articles.  Travellers  refer  particularly  to  the 
fantastic  shapes  into  which  some  of  its  pinnacles 
and  angles  are  worn  by  the  action  of  the  elements. 
The  latest  visitor.  Captain  Warren,  collected  "  most 
beautiful  specimens  of  salt  crystals,  like  icicles,  only 
pointing  towards  the  sky,  which  melted  away  at 
Jerusalem."  Captain  W.  has  been  the  first,  in 
modern  times,  to  accomplish  the  ascent  of  the  clifi 
SMth  (Masada)  on  the  east  ( Quart.  St((tem.  Fid. 
Ex.  Fund,  No.  iv.  pp.  141-150).  [Masada; 
SiuDiiM,  Vale  ok;  Sodojl]  S.  W. 

USURY.  Inform.ation  on  the  subject  of  lend- 
ing and  liorrowing  will  be  found  under  Loan.  It 
need  only  be  remarked  here  tbat  the  practice  of 
mortgaging  land,  sometimes  at  exorbitant  interest, 
grew  up  among  the  Jews  during  the  Captivity,  in 
direct  violation  of  the  Law  (Lev.  xxv.  36,  37;  Ez. 
xviii.  8,  13,  17).  ^\'e  find  the  rate  reaching  1  in 
100  per  month,  corresponding  to  the  Koman  ci-n- 
lesiiiKC  usiijxe,  or  12  per  cent,  per  annum  —  a  rate 
which  Niebuhr  considers  to  have  been  borrowed 
from  abroad,  and  which  is,  or  has  been  till  quite 
lately,  a  very  usual  or  even  a  minimum  rate  in  the 
East  (Nieb.  JJist.  of  lioine,  iii.  57,  Engl.  Tr. ; 
Volney,  Trav.  ii.  254,  note  ;  Chardin,  Voi).  vi. 
122).  Yet  the  law  of  the  Kuran,  like  the  Jewish, 
forbids  all  usury  (Lane,  M.  E.  i.  132;  Sale,  Kiirdn, 
c.  30).  The  laws  of  Menu  allow  18  and  even  24 
per  cent,  as  an  interest  rate;  but,  as  was  the  law 
in  Egypt,  accumulated  interest  was  not  to  exceed 
twice  the  original  gum  lent  {Lmcs  of  Menu,  c.  viii. 
140,  141,  lof ;  Sir  W.  .loTies,  Works,  vol.  iii.  p. 
295;  Diod.  i.  9,  79).  This  Jewish  practice  wan 
annulled  by  Nehemiah,  and  an  oath  exacted  to  in- 
sure its  discontinuance  (Neh.  v.  3-13 ;  Selden,  Df 
Jur.  N(d.  vi.  10;   Hofmann,  Lex.  "Usura"'). 

H.  W.  p. 

*  The  word  usury  has  come  in  modern  luiglith 
to  mean  excessive  interest  upon  money  loaned, 
either  formally  illegal,  or  at  least  oppressive.  At 
the  time  of  the  Anglican  version,  however,  the 
word  did  not  bear  this  sense,  but  meant  simply 
interest  of  any  kind  upon  money,  thus  strictly  cor- 
responding to  the  Hebrew  Tft?'2  (and  also  S'^i*^ 
which  is  used  iu  Neh.  v.  7).     It  is  to  be  remem- 


a  In  addition  to  the  authorities  cited  in  the  text, 
>ne  has  to  he  named  to  wliich  the  writer  has  not  been 
ible  to  ^-ct  access,  and  wliich  he  knows  only  tlirongh 


ises  on  the  Scarabsei  are  quoted  above  has  also  writ 
ten.  Of  Urim  iind  Tkiniimim.  die  nll'Stm  Uenntien 
He  apparently  identifies  the  Urim  aud  Thimmiim  with 


•he  Thesaurus  of  Ge!>-iiius      Belleruiaun,  whose  treat-  i  the  gems  of  the  fcreastplato. 


3364 


UTA 


bered  that  the  Jewish  'law  prohihitiii^  usury,  for- 
hade  the  taking  of  any  interest  whatever  for  money 
lent,  without  regard  to  the  rate  of  interest;  but 
this  prohibition  related  only  to  tlie  Jews,  their 
brethren,  and  there  was  no  command  regulating 
either  the  taking  of  interest,  or  its  amount,  from 
foreigners.  !■'.  G. 

U'TA  (Ovrd:  Utha),  1  Esdr.  v.  30.  It  appears 
to  be  a  corruption  of  Akkub  (Ezr.  ii.  45). 

U'THAI  [2  syl.]  ^H^^  {.Jehomh  succors] : 
rvwdi:  [Vat.  Tooeei;]  Ales,  roiei:  Olliti).  1. 
The  son  of  Ammihud,  of  the  children  of  Piiarez, 
the  son  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ix.  4).  He  appears  to 
have  been  one  of  those  who  dwelt  in  Jerusalem 
fcfter  the  Captivity.  In  Neb.  xi.  4  he  is  called 
"  Athaiah  the  son  of  Uzziali." 

2.  (Oveat;  [Vat.  Ovdi:]  Uthai.)  One  of  the 
eons  of  Bigvai,  who  returned  in  the  second  cara- 
van with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  14). 

U'THI  {OvOi),  1  Esdr.  viii.  40.  [Uthai,  2.] 
*  UTTER,  Lev.  v.  1,  where  he  who  does  not 
"  utter  "  iniquity  is  said  to  commit  iniquity,  i.  e. 
If  he  does  not  make  it  known  or  disclose  it.  This 
sense  of  the  word  now  seldom  occurs  except  in 
speaking  of  the  "  utterance "  or  circulation  of 
money  and  stocks.  H. 

UZ  {*^^V  [fruitful  in  trees,  Dietr.] :  O^C\ 
[Rom.  Vat.  om.  in  1  Chr.;  Alex.]  Cls'-  Us,  f/us). 
This  name  is  applied  to  —  1.  A  son  of  Aram 
(Gen.  X.  2.3),  and  consequently  a  grandson  of  Shem, 
to  whom  he  is  immediately  referred  in  the  more 
conci.se  genealogy  of  the  Chronicles,  the  name  of 
Aram  being  omitted «  (1  Chr.  i.  17).  2.  A  son 
of  Nahor  by  Milcah  (Gen.  xxii.  21;  A.  V.  Huzi. 

3.  l^Q,s,  ''fly:  //ms.]  A  son  of  Dishan,  and 
grand.son  of  Seir  (Gen.  xxxvi.  28;   [1  Chr.  i.  42 1). 

4.  [r]  'Av<t7tis',  Sin.  tj  AvcreiTis'-  Hus.]  'I'he 
country  in  which  Job  lived  (Jol)  i.  1).  As  the 
tjenealogical  statements  of  the  book  of  Genesis  are 
undoubtedly  ethnological,  and  in  many  instances 
also  geographical,  it  may  be  fairly  surmised  that 
the  coincidence  of  names  in  the  above  cases  is 
not  accidental,  but  points  to  a  fusion  of  various 
branches  of  the  Shemitic  race  in  a  certain  locality. 
This  surmise  is  confirmed  by  the  circumstance  that 
other  connecting  links  may  be  discovered  between 
the  same  branches.  For  instance,  Nos.  1  and  2 
have  in  common  the  names  Aram  (comp.  Gen.  x. 
2-3,  xxii.  21)  and  Maachah  as  a  geographical  desig- 
nation in  connection  with  the  former  (1  Chr.  xix. 
G),  and  a  personal  one  in  connection  with  the  lat- 
ter (Gen.  xxii.  24).  Nos.  2  and  4  have  in  common 
the  names  Buz  and  Ikizite  (Gen.  xxii.  21;  Job 
xxxii.  2),  Chesed  and  Chasdim  (Gen.  xxii.  22; 
Job  i.  17,  A.  V.  "  Chakkeans ").  Shuah,  a 
nephew  of  Nahor,  and  Shuhite  (Gen.  xxv.  2;  .Fob 
ii.  11),  and  Kedem,  as  the  country  whither  Abra- 
ham sent  Shuah,  together  with  his  other  children 
i>y  Keturah,  and  also  as  the  country  where  Job 
lived  (Gen.  xxv.  6;  Job  i.  3).  Nos.  3  and  4, 
again,  have  in  common  Eliphaz  (Gen.  xxxvi.  10; 
Job  ii.  11),  and  Teman  and  Temaiiite  (Gen.  xxxvi. 
11;  Job.  ii.  11).  The  ethnological  fact  embodied 
ill  the  above  coincidences  of  names  appears  to  be  as 

"  The  LXX.  inserts  the  words  xal  utol  'Apaioi  before 
the  notice  of  Uz  and  his  brothers  :  but  for  this  there 
ie  no  authority  in  the  Hebrew.  For  a  parallel  instance 
)f  conciseness,  see  ver.  4. 

t)  The    printed   edition   of  the  I\lcm  i\id   writes   the 


UZAL 

follows:  Certain  branches  of  the  Aramaic  family 
being  both  more  anciert  and  occupying  a  more 
northerly  position  than  the  otiiers,  coalesced  with 
branches  of  the  later  Abrahamids,  holding  a  some- 
what central  position  in  Mesopotamia  and  Pales- 
tine, and  again  with  branches  of  the  still  later 
Edomites  of  the  soutli,  after  they  had  become  a 
distinct  race  from  the  Abrahamids.  This  conclu- 
sion would  receive  confirmation  if  the  geographical 
position  of  Uz,  as  described  in  the  book  of  Job, 
harmonized  with  the  probability  of  such  an  amal- 
gamation. As  far  as  we  can  gather,  it  lay  either 
east  or  southeast  of  Palestine  (Job  i.  3;  see 
Be.ne-Keueji);  adjacent  to  the  Sabseans  jnd  the 
Chaldeans  (Job  i.  15,  17),  consequently  ntathwfird 
of  the  southern  Arabians,  and  westvvard  of  tlie 
Euphrates;  and,  lastly,  adjacent  to  the  Edomites 
of  -Mount  Seir,  who  at  one  period  occupied  Lz, 
probably  as  conquerors  (Lam.  iv.  21),  and  whose 
troglodyte  hal)its  are  proliably  described  in  -lob 
XXX.  6,  7.  The  position  of  the  country  may  further 
be  deduced  from  the  native  lands  of  Job's  fi'iends, 
Eliphaz  the  Temanite  being  an  Idunia;an,  Elihu 
the  Buzite  being  probably  a  neighbor  of  the  Chal- 
dseans,  for  Buz  and  ('hesed  were  brothers  (Gen. 
xxii.  21,  22),  and  Bildad  the  Shuhite  being  one  of 
the  Betie-Kedem.  Whether  Zophar  the  Naaniathile 
is  to  be  connected  with  Naaniah  in  the  tribe  of 
Judah  (Josh.  xv.  41)  may  be  regarded  as  prob- 
lematical: if  he  were,  the  conclusion  would  be 
further  established.  From  the  above  data  we  infei 
tliat  the  land  of  Uz  corresponds  to  the  Arabia 
Deserta  of  classical  geography,  at  all  events  to  so 
much  of  it  as  lies  north  of  the  30th  parallel  of  lati- 
tude. This  district  has  in  all  ages  been  occupied 
by  nomadic  tribes,  who  roam  from  the  borders  of 
Palestine  to  the  Euphrates,  and  northward  to  the 
confines  of  Syria.  Whether  the  name  Uz  sur- 
vived to  classical  times  is  uncertain :  a  tribe  named 
^Esitfe  (AiVrrai)  is  mentioned  by  Ptolemy  (v.  19, 
§  2);  this  Bochart  identifies  with  the  Uz  of  Scrip- 
ture by  altering  the  reading  into  AucrTrat  {P/nderj, 
ii.  8);  but,  with  the  exception  of  the  rendering  in 
the  LXX.  (gV  x^p^  TV  AvalTiSi,  Job  i.  1;  comp. 
xxxii.  2),  there  is  nothing  to  justify  such  a  change. 
Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  1003)  is  satisfied  with  the  form 
yEsitiE  as  sufficiently  corresponding  to  Uz. 

W.  L.  B. 

U'ZAI  [2  syl.]  (n^S  \i-obusq :  EvCd'i;  [Vat.] 
FA.  Ei/6i:  Ozi).  The  father  of  Palal,  who  as- 
sisted Nehemiah  in  rebuilding  the  city  wall  (Xeh. 
iii.  25). 

U'ZAL  (bnS  [see  notel  ;  Samar.  bT"'N: 
[Piom.  in  Gen.  Al^-i)K;  in  1  Chr.  omits;  Alex.] 
A((/>]A,  Ai^rjj':  Uznl,  Iluzal).  The  sixth  son  of 
Joktan  (Gen.  x.  27;  1  Chr.  i.  21),  whose  settle- 
ments are  clearly  traced  in  the  ancient  name  of 
Saii'a,   the  capital  city  of  the  Yemen,  which  wa^ 

originally    Awzal,     U'Sji      (Ibn-Khaldoon,    ap. 

Caussin,  Essai,  i.  40,  foot-note:  Mardsid,  s.  v.; 
Gesen.  Lex.  s.  v.;  Bunsen's  Bibehoerk,  etc.).*  It 
has  disputed  tlie  right  to  be  the  chief  city  of  the 
kingdom  of  Sheba  from  the  earliest  ages  of  which 


name  Oozal,  and  says,  "  It  is  said  that  its  name  was 
Oozal ;  and  when  the  Abyssinians  arrived  at  it,  and 
.saw  it  to  be  beautiful,  they  said  '  San'a,'  which  meaiil 
beautiful ;  therefore  it  was  called  Sf  D"a." 


crzzA 

»ny  traditions  have  come  clown  to  U3-  the  rival 
uities  being  Siieba  (the  Arabic  Seba),  and 
Skphar  (or  ZaiVir).  Unlike  one  or  lioth  of 
these  cities  which  passed  occasionally  into  the 
hands  of  the  people  of  Hazajoiavkth  (Hud- 
raniawt),  it  seems  to  have  always  belonged  to  the 
people  of  Sheba;  and  from  its  position  in  the  cen- 
tre of  the  best  portion  of  that  kingdom,  it  must 
always  have  been  an  ini[)ortant  city,  though  prob- 
ably of  less  importance  than  Seba  itself  Niebidir 
(Dcscr.  p.  201  if.)  says  that  it  is  a  walled  town, 
situate  in  an  elevated  country,  in  kit.  15°  "2',  and 
with  a  stream  (after  heavy  rains)  rinniing  through 
it  (from  the  mountain  of  Sawafee,  Kl-Idreesee,  i. 
5U).  and  anotlier  larger  stream  a  little  to  the  west, 
and  country-houses  and  villages  on  its  lianks.  It 
has  a  citadel  on  the  site  of  a  famous  temple,  called 
Beyt-Ghumdan,  said  to  have  been  founded  by 
Shoorabeel;  which  was  razed  by  order  of  Othnian. 
The  houses  and  palaces  of  San' a,  Nieliulu-  says, 
are  finer  than  those  of  any  other  town  of  Arabia; 
and  it  possesses  many  mosques,  public  baths,  and 
caravanserais.  El-Idreesee's  account  of  its  situa- 
tion and  flourishing  state  (i.  50,  quoted  also  by 
ho'^hart,  Plutleff,  xxi.)  agrees  with  that  of  Niebuhr. 
Yakout  says,  "  San'a  is  the  greatest  city  in  the 
Yemen,  and  the  most  beautiful  of  them.  It  re- 
sembles Damascus,  on  account  of  the  abundance 
of  its  trees  (or  gardens),  and  the  rippling  of  its 
waters"  {Mushtartik,  s.  v.,  comp.  Ibn-Kl-Wardee 
MS.);  and  the  author  of  the  Marasid  (said  to  be 
Yakoot)  says,  "  It  is  the  capital  of  the  Y'enien 
and  the  best  of  its  cities;  it  resembles  Damascus, 
on  account  of  the  abundance  of  its  fruits  "  (s.  v, 
San'a). 

Uzal,  or  Awzal,  is  most  probably  the  same  as 
the  Auzara  (Au^apa),  or  Ausara  (AuVapa)  of  the 
classics,  by  the  common  permutation  of  I  and  r. 
Pliny  (//.  N.  xii.  16)  speaks  of  this  as  belonging 
to  the  Gebanitaa;  and  it  is  curious  that  the  ancient 
division  (or  "  mikhlaf  ")  of  the  Y'emen  in  which  it 
is  situate,  and  which  is  called  Sinhan,  belonged  to 
a  very  old  confederacy  of  tiibes  named  Jenb,  or 
Genb,  whence  the  Gebanita;  of  the  classics;  another 
division  being  also  called  Mikhlaf  Jenb  {Marchid. 
B.  vv.  mikhlaf  and  jenli,  and  Muslil(tr<tk,%.  v. jenb). 
Bochart  accepts  Ausara  as  the  classical  form  of 
Uzal  (Phaleg,  1.  c),  but  his  derivation  of  the  name 
of  the  Gebanitae  is  purely  fanciful. 

Uzal  is  perhaps  referred  to  by  Ez.  (xxvii.  19), 
translated  in  the  A.  V.  "  Javan,"  (/oinc/  to  and  fro, 

Heb.  vTISD.  A  city  named  Y';iwan,or  Y^awan, 
in  the  Yemen,  is  mentioned  in  the  Kdinoos  (see 
Gesenius,  Lex.  and  Bochart,  I.  c).  Commentators 
are  divided  in  opinion  respecting  the  correct  read- 
ing of  this  passage;  but  the  most  part  are  in  favor 
of  the  reference  to  Uzal.     See  also  Javan. 

E.  S.  P. 


UZZAH 


8365 


UZ'ZA  (W-Jl?  [strength] :  'ACd;  [Vat.  Naai/a:] 
Ozit).  1.  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of  Ehud  (1 
Chr.  viii.  7).  The  Targuni  on  Esther  makes  him 
one  of  the  ancestors  of  Mordecai. 

2.  ('0(,a.)  Elsewhere  called  Uzzah  (1  Chr. 
xiii.  7,  U,  10,  11). 

3.  CACd>  [Vat.  Oyo-a],  '00  [Vat.  FA.  OCfi]; 
[Alex.]  A(,a,  0^1:  Azn.)  The  children  of  Uzza 
ivere  a  family  of  Nethinim  who  returned  with 
Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  49;  Neh.  vii.  51). 

4.  (n-T^:  'oCd\  Alex.  A^o:    Ozn).     Properly 
Uzzan."     As  the  text  now  stands,  Uzzah  ia  a 


descendant  of  Merari  (1  Chr.  vi  29  [U]);  bu« 
there  appears  to  be  a  gap  in  the  .-erse  by  which 
the  sons  of  Gershoni  are  omitted,  for  Libni  and 
Shimei  are  elsewhere  descendants  of  Gershom,  and 
not  of  JMerari.  Perhaps  he  is  the  same  as  Zina 
(n3''T),  or  Zizah  (nOT),  the  son  of  Shimei  (1 
Chr.  xxiii.  10,  11);  for  these  names  evidently  de- 
note the  same  person,  and,  in  Hebrew  character, 
are  not  unlike  Uzzah. 

UZ'ZA,  THE  GARDEN  OF   (St^  "J2  : 

K/)7ros  'OCd'  /lurtMS  Aza).  The  spot  in  which 
Manasseh  king  of  Judah,  and  his  son  Anion,  were 
both  buried  (2  K.  xxi.  18,  2G).  It  was  the  garden 
attached  to  Manasseh's  palace  (ver.  18,  and  2  Chr. 
xxxiii.  20),  and  therefore  presumably  was  in  Jeru- 
salem. The  fact  of  its  mention  shows  that  it  wai 
not  where  the  usual  sepulchres  of  the  kings  were. 
No  clew,  however,  is  afforded  to  its  position.  Jose- 
phus  (Ant.  X.  3,  §  2)  simply  reiterates  the  stato 
ment  of  the  Bilile.  It  is  ingeniously  suggested  by 
Cornelius  a  Lapide,  that  the  garden  was  so  called 
from  being  on  the  spot  at  which  Uzza  died  during 
the  removal  of  the  Ark  from  Kirjath-jearim  to 
Jerusalem,  and  which  is  known  to  have  retained 
his  name  for  long  after  the  event  (2  Sam.  vi.  8). 
There  are  some  grounds  for  placing  this  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  possibly  at  or  near  the  threshing-Hoor  of 
Araunah.      [Nacikjn,  vol.  iii.  p.  2051,  and  note] 

The  scene  of  Uzza's  death  was  itself  a  threshing- 
floor  (2  Sam.  vi.  6),  and  the  change  of  the  word 
from  this,  (joren,  ^"^2,  into  f/an,  ]3  garden,  would 
not  be  difficult  or  improbable.  But  nothing  cer- 
tain can  be  said  on  the  point. 

Bunsen  {Bibdwerk,  note  on  2  K.  xxi.  18)  on  the 
strength  of  the  mention  of  "  palaces  "  in  the  same 
paragraph  with  Ophel  (A.  V.  "  forts  ")  in  a  denun- 
ciation of  Isaiah  (xxxii.  14),  asserts  that  a  palace 
was  situated  in  the  Tyropoeon  valley  at  the  foot  of 
the  Temple  mount,  and  that  this  was  in  all  proba- 
bility the  palace  of  Manasseh  and  the  site  of  the 
Garden  of  Uzza.  Surely  a  slender  foundation  fo' 
such  a  superstructure !  G 

UZ'ZAH  (S-T17  in   2    Sam.  vi.  3,   elsewhere 

n-TV  [strength]:  '0(,a;  Alex.  Afa,  Ai\o:  Ozn). 
One  of  the  sons  of  Abinadab,  in  whose  house  at 
Kirjath-jearim  the  Ark  rested  for  20  years.  The 
eldest  son  of  Abinadab  (1  Sam.  vii.  1)  seems  to 
have  been  Eleazar,  who  was  consecrated  to  look 
after  the  Ark.  Uzzah  probably  was  the  second, 
and  Ahio"  the  third.  They  both  accompanied  its 
removal,  when  David  first  undertook  to  carry  it  tx) 
.lerusalem.  Ahio  apparently  went  before  the  cart 
—  the  new  cart  (1  Chr.  xiii.  7) — on  which  it 
was  placed,  and  Uzzah  walked  by  the  side  of  the 
cart.  The  procession,  with  all  maimer  of  music, 
advanced  as  far  as  a  spot  variously  called  "  the 
threshing-floor"  (1  Chr.  xiii.  9),  "the  threshing- 
tloor  of  Cliidon  "  (ibid.  Heb.  LXX.;  Jos.  .-l*;^  vii. 
4,  §  2i,  "the  threshing-floor  of  Nachor  "  (2  Sam. 
vi.  (!,  LXX.),  "the  threshing-floor  of  Nachon  " 
{ibid.  Heb  ).  At  this  point  —  perhai)S  slipping  over 
the  smooth  rock  —  the  oxen  'or,  LXX.,  "  the 
calf")  sttnnl  led  (Heb.)  or  "  overturned  the  Ark" 
(LXX.).     Uzzah  caught  it  to  prevent  its  falling. 

He  died  immediately,  by  the  side  of  the  Ark. 
Ills  death,  by  whatever  means  it  was  accomplished 
was  so  sudden  and  awful  that,  in  the  sacred  lan- 


"  Tbe  L.VX   for  "  Ahio."  read  "hi?  brethren. 


3366 


UZZEN-SHERAH 


Sjuawe  of  th«»  Old  Testament,  it  is  ascribed  directly 
to  the  Divine  ani;er.  "  The  anger  of  the  Lord  was 
kindled  against  Uzzah,  and  God  smote  him  there."' 

"  For  hk  error,"'  ^^'ij'^'3,  adds  the  present 
Hel)rew  text,  not  the  LXX. ;  "  because  he  put  his 
hand  to  the  Ark"  (1  C'hr.  xiii.  10).  The  error  or 
sin  is  not  explained.  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  4,  §  2) 
makes  it  to  be  because  he  touched  the  Ark  not  being 
a  priest.  Some  have  supposed  that  it  was  because 
the  Ark  was  in  a  cart,  and  not  (Ex.  xxv.  14)  carried 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  Levites.  But  the  narrati\e 
seems  to  iniply  that  it  was  simply  the  rough,  hasty 
handling  of  the  s.acred  coffer.  The  event  produced 
a  deep  sensation.  David,  with  a  mixture  of  awe 
ami  resentment,  was  afraid  to  carry  the  Ark  fur- 
ther; and  tlie  place,  apparently  changins;  its  ancient 
name,"  was  hencelbrth  called  "  Perez-Uzzah,"  the 
"breaking,"  or  "disaster"  of  Uzzah  (2  Sam.  vi. 
8;  1  Clu\  xiii.  11;  Jos.  Ant.  vii.  4,  §  2). 

There  is  no  proof  for  the  assertion  that  Lzzah 
was  a  Levite.  A.  P.  S. 

UZ'ZEN-SHE'RAH  (n";^Sy'  'J.-TS  [perh. 
em-  or  corner  of  Shtmli]  :  kui  viol  'OCdv,  2ej?p«  = 
Chtnsarn).  A  town  founded  or  relniilt  by  .Sherah, 
an  Ephraiuiite  woman,  the  daughter  either  of 
Kphraim  himself  or  of  Beriah.  It  is  named  only 
in  1  Chr.  vii.  24,  in  connection  with  the  two  Beth- 
horons.  These  latter  still  remain  probably  in  pre- 
cisely their  ancient  position,  and  called  by  almost 
exactly  their  ancient  names;  but  no  trace  of  Uzzen- 
Sherah  appears  to  have  been  yet  discovered,  unless 
it  lie  in  Beit  Sira.  which  is  shown  in  the  maps  of 
Van  de  Velde  and  Tobler  as  on  the  N.  side  of  the 
Wadij  Sulniiwin,  al.iout  three  miles  S.  W.  of 
Beitilr  et-talda.  It  is  mentioned  liy  Kobinson  (in 
the  lists  in  Appendix  to  vol.  iii.  of  Bibl.  Res.,  1st 
ed.,  p.  120);  and  also  by  Tobler  {Ztte  Wandtnmtj, 
p.  188).     [Shkkah.] 

The  word  ozeti  in  Helirew  signifies  an  "ear;" 
and  assuming  th.at  vzzen  is  not  merely  a  modifi- 
cation of  some  unintelligible  Canaanite  word,  it 
n;ay  point  to  an  earlike  projection  or  other  natural 
feature  of  the  ground.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Aznoth-Tabor,  in  which  aznotli  is  perhaps  related 
to  the  same  root. 

It  has  iieen  proposed  to  identify  Uzzen-Sherah 
with  Timnath-Serah ;  but  the  resemblance  between 

the  two  names  exists  only  in  Enghsh  (mKti?  and 

n^D),  and  the  identification,  tempting  as  it  is 
from  the  fact  of  Sherah  being  an  ancestress  of 
Joshua,  cannot  be  entertained. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  LXX.  (in  both 
MSS.)  give  a  different  turn  to  the  passage,  by  the 

addition  of  the  word  '^331  before  Uzzen.  Sherah, 
in  the  former  part  of  the  verse,  is  altogether  omit- 
te<l  in  the  Vat.  MS.  (Mai),  and  in  the  Alex,  given 
as  2aopa.  G. 

UZ'ZI  (''•^37,  short  for  n^-T;S7,  Jehovah  is  my 
Btrenyth.  Compare  Uzziah,  Uzziel).  1.  ('0^1! 
[Vat.  OCei;  in  Ezr.,  '0(iov,  (/en.;  Vat.  S.aoviax 
Alex.  O^'iui:]  Ozi.)  Son  of  liukki.  and  father  of 
Zerahiah,  in  the  line  of  the  high-priests  (1  Chr.  vi. 
5,  6,  51;  Ezr.  vii.  4).  Though  Uzzi  was  the  lineal 
ancestor  of  Zadok,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  was 


"  For  the  conjemire  that  this  was  the  0\rden  of 
DzzA  iiieiitioufil  ill  the  later  history,  see  t'.iv  iirt-ceiliiiff 
irtirae. 


UZZIAH 

ever  high-priest.  Indeed,  he  is  included  in  those 
descendants  of  Phinehas  between  the  high  priest 
Aliishua  ('luicrTjTros)  and  Zadok,  who,  according  to 
Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  1),  were  private  persons.  He 
mu.st  have  been  contemporary  with,  but  rather 
earlier  than  ICli.  In  Josephus's  list  Uzzi  is  un- 
accountably transformed  into  Joxath.\n. 

2.  [Vat.  corrupt.]  Son  of  Tola  the  son  of 
Issachar,  and  father  of  five  sons,  who  were  all  chief 
men  (1  Chr.  vii.  2,  3). 

3.  ['oCi;  Vat.  oCei.]  Son  of  Bela,  of  the  tribe 
of  Beiijamin  (1  Chr.  vii.  7). 

4.  Another,  or  the  same,  from  whom  descended 
some  Benjamite  houses,  which  were  settled  at 
Jerusalem  after  the  return  from  Capti\ity  (1  Chr. 
ix.  8). 

5.  [Vat.  FA.  Ofei:  Azzi.']  A  Levile,  son  of 
Bani,  and  overseer  of  the  Levites  dwelling  at  Jeru- 
salem, in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  xi.  22). 

6.  [Vat.  FA.i  Alex,  omit;  Kom.  FA.^  'Q^i: 
Azzi.'l  A  priest,  chief  of  the  father's-house  of 
Jedaiah,  in  the  time  of  Joiakim  the  high-pritst 
(Neh.  xii.  19). 

7.  [Kom.  Vat.  FA.i  Alex,  omit;  FA.3  "0^1': 
Azzi.]  One  of  the  priests  who  assisted  Ezra  in 
the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  xii. 
42).     Perhaps  the  same  as  the  preceding. 

A.  C.  H. 

uzzi; A  (W*-tr  [strent/thofJeliova/i]:  'oCi'o; 
[Vat.  FA.]  Alex.  OCfia:  Ozia).  One  of  David's 
guard,  and  apparently,  from  his  appellation  "  the 
Ashterathite,"  a  native  of  Ashtaroth  beyond  Jor- 
dan (1  Chr.  xi.  44). 

UZZI'AH  (n*-T^  [see  above]:  ' ^(ap[as  in 
Kings  [Vat.  in  2  K.'xv.  .30,  Axaj,  34,  O^fias], 
'0Q0.S  [Vat.  O^iias,  exc.  2  Chr.  xxvi.  1,  Oxo^eias; 
Kom.  "O^'ei'as,  Is.  i.-l,  vi.  1,  and  so  Sin.  i.  1  and 
vii.  1]  elsewhere;  Alex.  OxoC'"S'  in  2  K.  xv.  1.3: 
Ozias,  but  Azniids  in  2  K.  xv.  13). 

1.   Uzziah  king   of  Judah.     In   some  passages 

his  name  appears  in  the  lengthened  form  ^n*-T2? 
(2  K.  XV.  32,  34;  2  Chr.  xxvi.,  xxvii.  2;  Is.  i.  1, 
vi.  1,  vii.  1),  which  Gesenius  attributes  to  an  error 

of  the  copyists,  n^T27  and  n^~lT27  being  nearly 
identical,  or  "  to  an  exchange  of  the  names  aa 
spoken  by  the  common  people,  ss  being  pronounced 
for  sc."  This  is  possible,  but  there  rfre  other  in- 
stances of  the  princes  of  Judah  (not  of  Israel) 
changing  their  names  on  succeeding  to  the  throne, 
undoubtedly  in  the  latter  history,  and  perhaps  in 
the  earlier,  as  Jehoahaz  to  Ahaziah  (2  Chr.  xxi. 
17),  though  this  example  is  not  quite  certain. 
[Ahaziah,  2.]  After  the  murder  of  Amaziah, 
his  son  Uzziah  was  chosen  by  the  people  to  occupy 
the  vacant  throne,  at  the  age  of  16;  and  for  the 
greater  part  of  his  long  reign  of  52  years  he  lived 
in  the  fear  of  God,  and  showetl  himself  a  wise, 
active,  and  pious  ruler.  He  began  his  reign  by  a 
successful  expedition  against  his  father"s  enemies, 
tiie  Edomites.  who  had  revolted  from  Judah  in  Je- 
horam's  time,  80  years  before,  and  penetrated  as 
far  aa  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  "Akaba,  where  be 
took  the  important  place  of  Elath,  fortified  it,  and 
probably  established  it  as  a  mart  for  foreign  com- 
merce, which  .lehoshaphat  had  failed  to  do.  This 
success  is  recorded  in  the  Second  Book  of  Kinga 
(xiv.  22.,  but'  from  the  Second  Book  of  Chronicles 
(xxvi.  1.  etc.)  we  learn  much  more.  Uzziah  waired 
other  >  ictorious  wars  in  the  south,  especially  aK»insl 


UZZIAH 

ihe  ^lehiiiiim,  oi  peo]ile  of  Maaii,  and  the  Arabs 
of  Guibaal.  A  fortified  town  named  Mnan  still 
exists  in  Arabia  I'etrcea,  south  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
The  situation  of  Gurbaal  is  unknown.  (For  con- 
jectures, more  or  less  probable,  see  Ewald,  Gesch. 
i.  321;  AlKiiL'jviJi;  Guebaal.)  Such  enemies 
would  hardly/  maintain  a  lont;  resistance  after  the 
defeat  of  so  formidable  a  tribe  as  the  Edomites. 
Towards  the  west,  Uzziah  fought  with  equal  suc- 
cess against  the  Philistines,  leveled  to  the  ground 
the  walls  of  Gath,  Jabneh,  and  Ashdod,  and 
founded  new  fortified  cities  in  the  Philistine  terri- 
tory. Nor  was  he  less  vigorous  in  defensive  than 
otfijnsive  operations.  He  strengthened  the  walls 
of  .leriisalem  at  their  weakest  points,  furnished  them 
with  formidalile  engines  of  war,  and  equipped  an 
army  of  ^07,500  men  with  the  best  inventions  of 
military  art.  He  was  also  a  great  patron  of  agri- 
culture, dug  wells,  built  towers  in  the  wilderness 
for  the  protection  of  the  flocks,  and  cultivated  rich 
vineyards  and  aralile  Lmd  on  his  own  account. 
He  never  deserted  the  worship  of  the  true  God, 
aiid  was  much  influenced  by  Zechariah,  a  prophet 
who  is  only  mentioned  in  connection  with  him  (2 
Chr.  -xxvi.  5);  for,  as  he  nnist  have  died  before 
Uicziah,  he  cannot  be  the  same  as  the  Zechariah 
of  is.  viii.  2.  So  the  southern  kingdom  was  raised 
to  a  condition  of  prosperity  which  it  had  not  known 
since  the  death  of  Solomon;  .and  as  the  power  of 
Israel  was  gradually  falling  away  in  the  latter 
period  of  Jehu's  dynasty,  that  of  .ludah  extended 
itself  over  the  Ammonites  and  !Moabitos,  and  other 
tribes  lieyond  .Jordan,  from  whom  Uzziah  exacted 
tribute.  See  2  Chr.  xxvi.  8,  and  Is.  xvi.  l-,5,  from 
which  it  would  appear  that  the  annual  tribute  of 
sheep  (2  [v..  iii.  4)  was  revived  either  during  this 
reign  or  soon  after.  The  end  of  Uzziah  was  less 
prosperous  than  his  beginning.  Elated  with  his 
splendid  career,  he  determined_  to  burn  incense  on 
the  altar  of  God,  but  was  opposed  by  the  high- 
priest  Azariah  and  ei;;hty  others.  (See  Kx.  xxx. 
7,  8;  Num.  xvi.  40,  xviii.  7.)  The  king  was  en- 
raged at  the'r  resistance,  and,  as  he  piessed  forward 
with  his  censer,  was  suddenly  smitten  with  lejirosy, 
a  disease  which,  according  to  Gerlach  (in  /ccc),  is 
often  brought  out  by  violent  excitement.  In  2  K. 
XV.  5  we  are  merely  told  that  "  the  Lord  smote 
the  kinsr,  so  that  he  was  a  leper  inito  the  d.ay  of 
his  death,  and  dwelt  in  a  sever.d  house;"  but  his 
invasion  of  the  priestly  office  is  not  specified.  This 
catastrophe  compelled  Uzziah  to  reside  outside  the 
city,  so  that  the  kingdom  was  .administered  till  his 
death  by  his  son  Jothain  as  regent.  Uzziah  was 
biH'ied  "with  his  fathers,''  yet  apparently  not  act- 
ually in  the  royal  sepulchres  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  23). 
Djring  his  reign  an  earthquake  occurred,  which, 
though  not  mentioned  in  the  historical  liooks,  was 
apparently  very  serious  in  its  consequences,  for  it 
is  alluded  to  as  a  chronological  epoch  by  Amos 
(i.  I ).  and  mentioned  in  Zech.  xiv.  5,  as  a  con- 
vulsion from  which  the  people  "fled.''  [F.aktii- 
yt'AKE.]  .losephus  (Ant.  ix.  10,  §  4)  connects  it 
ivith  Uzziah's  sacrile^cious  attempt  to  offer  incense, 
lUt  this  is  very  unlikely,  as  it  cannot  have  occurred 
*ater  than  the  17th  year  of  his  reign  [.-Vmo.sJ. 
The  first  six  chapters  of  Isaiah's  prophecies  beluuL: 
to  this  reign,  and  we  are  told  (2  (Jhr.  xxvi.  22 1 
that  a  full  accomit  of  it  \\:\a  written  by  that  proi)het 
Some  notices  of  the  state  of  ,)ud;?h  af  this  time 
may  also  be  obtained  from  the  contemporary  proph- 
ets llosea  and  .\mos,  though  lioth  of  these  lal)<)red 
-uore  particularly  in  Israel,      ^^'e  gather  from  their 


UZZIEL 


33G7 


writings  (Hos.  iv.  15,  vi.  11:  Xm.  vi.  1),  as  well 
as  from  the  early  chapters  of  Isaiah,  that  though 
the  condition  of  the  southern  kingdom  was  fai 
superior,  morally  and  religiously,  to  that  of  the 
northern,  yet  that  it  was  by  no  means  free  from 
the  vices  which  are  apt  to  accompany  wealth  and 
prosperity.  At  the  same  time  llosea  conceives 
bright  hopes  of  the  blessings  which  were  to  arise 
from  it;  and  though  doubtless  these  ho|>es  pointed 
to  something  fiir  higher  than  the  brilliancy  of 
Uzziah's  administration,  and  though  the  return  of 
the  Israelites  to  "  David  their  king  "  can  only  be 
adequately  explained  of  Chrisfs  kiu'^dom.  yet  the 
prophet,  in  contemplating  the  condition  of  .Judah 
at  this  time,  was  plainly  cheered  by  the  thought 
that  there  God  was  really  honored,  and  his  wor- 
ship visibly  maintained,  and  that  therefore  \sith  it 
was  bound  up  every  hope  that  his  promises  to  his 
people  would  be  at  last  fulfilled  (Hos.  i.  7,  iii.  3). 
It  is  to  be  observed,  with  reference  to  the  general 
character  of  Uzziah's  rei^n,  that  the  writer  of  the 
Second  Book  of  Chronicles  distinctly  states  that 
his  lawless  attempt  to  burn  incense  was  the  only 
exception  to  the  excellence  of  his  administration 
(2  Chr.  xxvii.  2).  His  reign  lasted  from  b.  c. 
808-0  to  750-7.  G.  E.  L.  C. 

2.  COC''a;  [Vat.  O^eia:]  Ozias.)  A  Kohathito 
Levite.  and  ancestor  of  Samuel  (1  Chr.  vi.  24  [U]). 

3.  [Vat.  FA.  0(,'6ia.]  A  priest  of  the  sons  of 
Harim,  who  had  taken  a  foreign  wife  in  the  days 
of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  21). 

4.  CACia:  [Vat.  A^eS;  FA.  aC^Sw;  Ale.K. 
0{,'ia".]  AzidiH.)  Father  of  Athaiah,  or  Uthai 
(Neh.  xi.  4). 

5.  {^n^-fV  :  'oC'ias  [Vat.  -(.t-]  :  Ozlas.) 
Father  of  jehonathan,  one  of  David's  overseers  (1 
Chr.  xxvii.  25). 

UZ'ZIEL  (b«M3;:  'o^.i^x-  [V.t.  oCeiTjA, 
exc.  Num.  iii.  19,  1  Chr.  xxiii.  20,  Oj,'i7)A,  Lev.  x. 
4,  A^irjA;  Alex.  OCu-vK  in  Ex.  vi.  18:]  Ozid: 
"God  is  my  streniith  ").  1.  Fourth  son  of  Ko- 
hath,  father  of  Mishael,  Elzaphan  or  lilizaphan, 
and  Zithri,  and  uncle  to  Aaron  (Ex.  vi.  18,  22; 
Lev.  x.  4).  The  family  descended  from  him  were 
called  Uzzielites,  and  Elizaphan,  the  chief  of  this 
family,  was  also  the  chief  father  of  the  Kohathites, 
by  Divine  direction,  in  the  time  of  Muses  (Num. 
iii.  19,  27,  30),  although  he  seems  to  have  been 
the  youngest  of  Kohath's  .sons  (1  Chr.  vi.  2,  18). 
The  house  of  Uzziel  numbered  112  adults,  under 
Amminadab  their  chief,  at  the  time  of  the  bring- 
ing up  of  the  Ark  to  Jerusalem  by  King  David  0 
Chr.  XV.  10). 

2.  [Vat.  O^'eiijA.]  A  Siraeonite  captain,  rcu 
of  Ishi,  who,  after  the  successful  expedition  of  hi« 
tribe  to  the  valley  of  Gedor,  went  with  his  three 
brethren,  at  the  he.ad  of  five  hundred  men  in  the 
days  of  Hezekiah,  to  JMount  Seir,  and  smote  the 
remnant  of  the  Amalekites,  who  had  sunived  the 
previous  slaughter  of  .Saul  and  David,  and  took 
possession  of  their  country,  and  dwelt  there  "  unto 
this  d.ay"  (1  Chr.  iv.  42;  see  Bertheau). 

3.  Head  of  a  Benjamite  house,  of  the  sons  of 
Bela  (i  Chr.  vii.  7). 

4.  [Vat.  .A^apar/A.]  A  musician,  of  the  ions 
of  Heman,  in  David's  reign  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4),  else- 
where called  Azareel  (ver.  18).  Compare  Uzziah 
and  Azariah. 

5.  [Vat.  oCeiTjA.]  X  Levite,  of  the  sons  of 
Jeduthun,  who  in  the  days  of  Kin;;  lle/.ekiali    «n.k 


3368         UZZIELITES,  THE 

an  active  part  in  cleansing  and  sanctifying  the 
'lemple.  after  all  the  pollutions  introduced  by  Aliaz 
(2  Chr.  xxix.  14,  19). 

6.  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit.]  Son  of  Harhaiah, 
prolialily  a  priest  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah,  who 
took  part  in  repairing  the  wall  (Neh.  iii.  8).  He 
is  described  as  "  of  the  goldsmiths,"  i.  e.  of  those 
priests  whose  hereditary  office  it  was  to  repair  or 
make  the  sacred  vessels,  as  may  be  gathered  from 
the  analogy  of  the  apothecaries,  mentioned  in  the 
same  verse,  who  are  defined  (1  Chr.  ix.  30).  The 
goldsmiths  are  also  mentioned  (Xeh.  iii.  31,  32). 
That  this  Uzziel  was  a  priest  is  also  probable  from 
his  name  (No.  1),  and  from  the  circumstance  that 
Malchiah,  the  goldsmith's  son,  was  so. 

A.  C.  H. 

UZ'ZIELITES,  THE  C^bs^-T3;rT  [patr.]: 
5 'OC'ilA,  '0C"?A;  [Vat.  oCf'T/^O  OiicliUe,  Ozi- 
helitce).  The  descendants  of  Uzziel,  and  one  of  the 
four  great  families  into  which  the  Kohathites  were 
divided  (Num.  iii.  27;  1  Chr.  xxvi.  23). 


V. 

*  VAGABOND  at  first  meant  only  "wan- 
derer," "fugitive."  It  is  applied  thus  to  Cain 
(Gen.  iv.  12),  and  to  the  sons  of  persecutors  {Vs. 
cix.  10),  as  being  doomed  to  rove  from  place  to 
place.  The  exorcists  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  13)  are 
60  called,  not  opprobriously  jier  se,  but  as  going 
about  (irepiepx^fMevoi)  from  one  city  to  another  in 
the  practice  of  their  arts.  H. 

VAJEZA'THA  (Wnt^  [see  below]  :  Za0ou- 
6uios  ;  [Alex.  Za0ovyada  ;]  FA.  Za^ovSeBaf- 
Jezniha).  One  of  the  ten  sons  of  Haman  whom 
the  Jews  slew  in  Shushan  (Esth.  ix.  9).     Gesenius 

derives  his  name  from  the  Pers.  5'ij«,  "white," 

Germ,  wehs ;  but  Fiirst  suggests  as  more  probable 
that  it  is  a  compound  of  the  Zend  vahjn.  "better," 
an  epithet  of  the  Ized  haoma,  and  znta,  "  born," 
and  so  "born  of  the  Ized  haoma."  But  such  ety- 
mologies are  little  to  be  trusted. 

VALE,  VALLEY.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to 
state  that  these  words  signify  a  hollow  swell  of 
ground  between  two  more  or  less  parallel  ridges  of 
high  land.  Vale  is  the  poetical  or  provincial  form. 
It  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  centre  of  a 
valley  should  usually  be  occupied  by  the  stream 
which  forms  the  drain  of  the  high  land  on  either 
side,  and  from  this  it  commonly  receives  its  name; 
as,  the  Valley  of  the  Thames,  of  the  Colne,  of  the 
Nile.  It  is  also,  though  comparatively  seldom, 
called  after  some  town  or  remarkable  object  which 
it  contains;  as,  the  Vale  of  Evesham,  the  Vale  of 
White-horse. 

Valley  is  distinguished  from  other  terms  more  or 
less  closely  related;  on  the  one  hand,  from  "  glen," 
''ravine,"  "gorge,"'  or  "dell,"  which  all  express  a 
depression  at  once  more  alirupt  and  smaller  than 
a  valley;  on  the  other  hand,  from  "plain,"  which, 
though  it  may  be  used  of  a  wide  valley,  is  not 
ordinarily  or  necessarily  so. 

It  is  to  lie  regretted  that  with  this  quasi-precision 
of  meaning  the  term  should  not  ha\e  been  emplo3ed 
«-ith  more  restriction  in  the  Authorized  Version  of 
the  Bible. 

'I'he  structure  of  the  greater  part  of  the  Holy 
'>and  douij  not  lend  itself  to  the  formation  of  valleys 


VALE,  VALLEY 

in  our  sense  of  the  word.  The  abrupt  transitions 
of  its  crowded  rocKy  hills  preclude  the  existence  of 
any  extended  sweep  of  valley;  and  where  one  such 
does  occur,  as  at  Hebron,  or  on  the  southeast  of 
Gerizim,  the  irregular  and  unsymmetrical  positions 
of  the  inclosing  hills  rob  it  of  the  character  of  a 
valley.  Tlie  nearest  approach  is  found  in  the  space 
between  the  njountains  of  Gerizim  and  Ebal,  which 
contains  the  town  of  Nablus,  the  ancient  Shechem. 
This,  however,  by  a  singular  chance,  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible.  Another  is  the  "  Valley  of 
.lezreel  "  —  the  undulating  hollow  which  intervenes 
between  Gilboa  {.Itl/el.  Fukua),  and  the  so-called 
Little  Hermon  {./ebel  Duhy), 

Valley  is  employed  in  the  Authorized  Version  to 
render  five  distinct  Hebrew  words. 

1.  'Emek  (p^^  :  (pdpayi,,  KotXdi,  also  very 
rarely  TreSlov,  abXwv,  and  E^s/c  or  AfxeK)-  This 
appears  to  approach  more  nearly  to  the  general 
sense  of  the  English  word  than  any  other,  and  it  is 
satisfactory  to  find  that  our  translators  have  in- 
varialily,  without  a  single  exception,  rendered  it  by 
"  valley."  Its  root  is  said  to  have  the  force  of 
deepness  or  seclusion,  which  Professor  Stanley  has 
ingeniously  urged  may  be  accepted  in  the  sense  of 
lateral  rather  than  of  vertical  extension,  as  in  the 
modern  expression,  —  a  deep  house,  a  deep  recess. 
It  is  connected  with  several  places;  but  the  only 
one  which  can  be  identified  with  any  certainty  is 
the  Emck  of  Jezreel,  already  mentioned  as  one  of 
the  nearest  approaches  to  an  Englisli  valley.  I'he 
other  ICmeks  are:  Achor.  Ajalon,  Baca,  Berachah. 
Hethrehob,  Elah,  Gibeoii,  Hebron,  Jehoshaphat, 
Keziz,  Rephaim,  Shaveh,  Siddira,  Succoth,  and  of 
ha-Charuts  or  "  the  decision  "  (.Joel  iii.  li). 

2.  Gal  or  Gi  (S^3  or  W2  :  (pdpay^).  Of  this 
natural  feature  there  is  fortunately  one  example 
remaining  which  can  be  identified  with  certainty  — 
the  deep  hollow  which  encompasses  the  S.  W.  and 
S.  of  Jerusalem,  and  which  is  without  doubt  identi- 
cal with  the  Ge-hinnom  or  Ge-len-hinnom  of  the 
0.  T.  This  identification  appears  to  establish  the 
Ge  as  a  deep  and  abrupt  ravine,  with  steep  sides 
and  narrow  bottom.  The  term  is  derived  by  the 
lexicographers  from  a  root  signifying  to  flow  to- 
gether; but  Professor  Stanley,  influenced  probably 
by  the  aspect  of  the  ravine  of  Hinnom,  proposes  to 

connect  it  with  a  somewhat  similar  root  (H^S), 
which  has  the  force  of  rending  or  bursting,  and 
which  perhaps  gave  rise  to  the  name  Gihon,  the 
famous  spring  at  Jerusalem. 

Other  Ges  mentioned  in  the  BilJe  are  those  of 
Gedor,  Jiphthah-el,  Zeboim,  Zephathah,  that  of  salt, 
that  of  the  craftsmen,  that  on  the  north  side  of  Ai, 
and  tliat  opposite  Beth  Peor  in  Moab. 

3  Naclinl  ( VflD  :  (pipayf^,  xet/J-^p^ovs)-  This 
is  the  word  which  exactly  answers  to  the  Arabic 
wiidy.  and  has  tieen  already  alluded  to  in  that  con- 
nection. [P.\LKST1NK,  iii.  2300  a ;  Kivkh,  p.  273.5.] 
It  expresses,  as  no  single  English  word  can,  the  bed 
of  a  stream  (often  wide  and  shelving,  and  like  a 
"valley"  in  character,  which  in  the  rainy  season 
may  be  nearly  filled  by  a  foaming  torrent,  though 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  year  dry),  and  tlie  stream 
itself,  which  after  tiie  sulisidence  of  the  rains  has 
shrunk  to  insisrnificant  dimensions.  To  autumn  trav- 
ellers in  the.  south  of  France  such  appearances  are 
familiar;  the  wide  shallow  lied  strewed  with  water 
worn  stones  of  all  sizes,  amongst  which  shrubs  ar* 


VALLEY  OF  BACA 

tTTowiiii;  promiscuously,  perhaps  crossed  by  a  liridge 
of  four  or  five  arches,  under  the  centre  one  of  which 
hrawls  along  a  tiny  stream,  the  sole  remnant  of  the 
broad  and  rapid  river  which  a  few  months  before 
might  have  carried  av/ay  the  structure  of  the  liridge. 
Such  is  the  nearest  liiveness  to  the  wadies  of  Syria, 
exceptinj;  that  —  owing  to  the  demolition  of  the 
wood  which  formerly  shaded  the  comitry,  and  pre- 
vented too  rapid  evaporation  after  rain  —  many  of 
the  latter  are  now  entirely  and  constantly  dry.  'I'o 
these  last  it  is  obvious  that  the  word  '■  valley"  is 
not  inapplicable.  It  is  employed  in  the  A.  V.  to 
translate  »{f!c/(((/, alternating  with  "brook,"  ''river," 
and  "  stream."  For  a  list  of  the  occurrences  of 
each   see  Sinai  and  Pal.  App.  §  38. 

4.  Bik'dk  (ni7i72  :  ■TreSiov).  This  term  ap- 
|.'ears  to  mean  rather  a  plain  than  a  valley,  wider 
than  the  latter,  thonsh  so  far  resembling  it  as  to 
lie  inclosed  by  mountains,  like  the  wide  district  be- 
tween Lebanon  and  Anti-Lebanon,  which  is  still 
called  the  Bt;k<Ca,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Amos. 
[Plai.v,  iii.  2.5-16  6.]  It  is  rendered  hy  "valley" 
in  Ueut.  xxxiv.  3;  Josh.  xi.  8,  17,  xii.  7;  2  Cbr. 
XXXV.  22;  Zech.  xii.  IL 

5.  Has-ShefeWi  (nbst^n :  rh  ireSiov,  r) 
TreSivr})-  This  is  the  only  case  in  which  the  em- 
ployment of  the  term  "  valley"  is  really  unfortunate. 
The  district  to  which  alone  the  name  hus-Sliefclaii 
is  applied  in  the  BiMe  has  no  resemblance  whatever 
to  a  valley,  but  is  a  broad  swelling  tract  of  many 
hundred  miles  in  area,  which  sweeps  gently  down 
from  the  mountains  of  Judah 

"  To  mingle  with  the  bounding  main  " 

of  the  Mediterranean.  [See  Palestine,  iii.  229G; 
Plains,  iii.  2547  b;  Sephela,  p.  2911,  &c.]  It 
is  rendered  "  the  vale"  in  Dent.  i.  7;  -Josh.  x.  40; 
1  K.  X.  27;  2  Chr.  i.  15;  -Jer.  xxxiii.  13;  and  "  the 
valley  "  or  "valleys"  in  .Josh.  ix.  1,  xi.  2,  IG,  xii. 
8,  XV.  33;  Judg.  i.  9;  -Jer.  xxxii.  44.  G. 

*  VALLEY  OF  BACA.  [Baca,  Amer.  ed.] 

*  VALLEY  OF  DECISION.  [.Jeiiosii- 
APHAT,  Valley  of.] 

*  VALLEY  OF  SOREK.  [Sorek,  Vai^ 
ley  of.] 

*  VALLEY-GATE,  2  Chr.  xxvii.  9 ;  Neh. 
iii.  13.     [.JEiiUS.\LEM,  ii.  1322.] 

VANFAH  (n^31:  ohovavia\  [Vat.  Oi/i€- 
Xcua;]  Alex.  0[X)vvia.\  FA.  Oviepe'  Vnnia).  One 
of  the  sons  of  Bani,  who  put  away  Lis  foreign  wife 
at  Ecra's  command  (Fzr.  x.  36). 

*  VANITIES,  a  frequent  designation,  in  the 
Bible,  of  the  f;ilse  gods  of  the  heathen,  cliaracterized 
as  having  no  actual^.xistence.     The  usual  Hebrew 

terms  so  rendered  are  C"'  .^H,  and  D^DIS,  in 
which  the  non-reality  of  the  olijects  naturally  sets 
forth  at  the  same  time  the  folly  and  wickedness  of 
such  worship  (cf.  1  Cor.  viii.  4  ff. ). 

In  Acts  xiv.  15,  Paul  places  .Jupiter  and  Mercury 
in  this  class  of  nonentities  (tovtoov  tSiv  jxaTaiaiv)- 
Some,  indeed,  ex|)lain  the  term  there  of  the  vain 
practices   of   heathenism  ;    but  that  destroys   the 


VEIL 


5369 


<*  Tanjieovo't  6'  eKao'TOs  avrCtv  7roA\a9  fier  KOvpt6ia9 
yuyaiKas,  7roA\(3  S'  In  TrAeOvas  TToAAaKa?  iCTwi'Tai 
;H8rod.  i.  1.35).  ' 

''  '-'  It  is  the  custom  of  us  Persians,  when  we  make 
212 


evident  opposition  between  the  word  and  rhv  Oehi 
rhv  Cwwra  hi  the  context.      [Idols;  Iuol.vtry.] 

H. 

VASH'NI  C'^t^'l  [J<ih  is  praise,  Fiirst] : 
2,ayi\  [Vat.  Sai/ec]  Vasseni).  The  first-born  of 
Samuel  as  the  text  now  stands  (1  Chr.  vi.  28  [13] ). 
But  in  1  Sam.  viii.  2  the  name  of  his  first-born  is 
.Joel.  Most  probably  in  the  Chronicles  the  name 
of  Joel  has  dropped  out,  and  "  Vashni"  is  a  cor- 
ruption of  "'SClh,  "  and  (the)  second."  The  Peshito 
Syriac  has  amended  the  text,  and  rendered  "  The 
sons  of  Samuel,  his  first-born  Joel,  and  the  name 
of  his  second  son  Abiah."  In  this  it  is  followed 
by  the  Arabic  of  the  London  Polyglott. 

VASH'TI  Oritj^T  :  'Ao-nV;  Ouao-rrj,  Joseph.: 

Vaslhi  :  "  a  beautiful  woman,"  Pers.).  The 
"queen"  (HS^Xin)  of  Ahasuerus,  who,  for  re- 
fusing to  show  herself  to  the  king's  guests  at  the 
roval  banquet,  when  sent  for  by  the  king,  incurred 
his  wrath,  and  was  repudiated  and  deposed  (Fsth. 
i.);  when  ]<>sther  was  substituted  in  her  jilace. 
Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  identify  her  with 
historical  personages:  as  by  Ussher  with  Atossa, 
the  wife  of  Darius  Hy.staspis,  and  by  J.  Capellus 
with  Parysatis,  the  mother  of  Ochus;  but,  as  was 
said  of  Esther  (like  the  "  threescore  queens "  in 
Cant.  vi.  8,  9"),  it  is  far  more  probable  that  she 
was  only  one  of  the  inferior  wives,  dignified  with 
the  title  of  queen,  whose  name  has  utterly  disap- 
peared from  history.  [Esther.]  This  view  of 
Vashti's  position  seems  further  to  tally  exactly  with 
the  narrative  of  Ahasuerus'  order,  and  Vashti'a 
refusal,  considered  with  reference  to  the  national 
manners  of  the  Persians.  I'or  Plutarch  ( Coiijiu/. 
prwcept.  c.  16)  tells  us,  in  agreement  with  Herod. 
V.  18,  that  the  kino;s  of  Persia  have  their  legitimate 
wives  to  sit  at  table  with  them  at  their  banquets, 
but  that,  when  they  choose  to  riot  and  drink,  they 
send  their  wives  away  and  call  in  the  concubines 
and  singing-girls.  Hence,  when  the  heart  of 
Ahasuerus  "was  merry  with  wine,"  he  sent  for 
Vashti,  looking  upon  her  only  as  a  concubine;  she, 
on  the  other  hand,  considering  herself  as  one  of  the 
KovpiSlat  yvva7Kes,  or  legitimate  wives,  refused  to 
come.  See  Winer,  liealwh.  Josephus's  statement 
{Aiil.  xi.  6,  §  1),  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  customs 
of  the  Persians  for  their  wives  to  be  seen  by  any 
men  but  their  own  husbands,  is  evidently  inac- 
curate, being  equally  contradicted  by  Herodotus, 
V.  18,*  and  by  the  book  of  Esther  itself  (v.  4,  8, 
12,  Ac).  A.  C.  H. 

*  VAT.      [Fat  ;   Oil,   2  ;   Olive  ;    Wine- 

PRESS.] 

VEIL.  Under  the  head  of  Dress  we  have 
already  disposed  of  various  terms  improperly  ren- 
dered "veil"  in  the  A.  V.,  such  as  milpachnih 
(Ituth  iii.  15),  tsaiph  (Gen.  xxiv.  65,  xxxviii.  14, 
19),  and  vwlvl  (Cant.  v.  7;  Is.  iii.  23).  These  have 
been  explained  to  be  rather  shawls,  or  mantles, 
wliich  nnght  at  pleasure  be  drawn  over  the  face, 
but  which  were  not  designed  for  the  .special  ])urpose 
of  veils.  It  remains  for  us  to  notice  the  foUowins, 
terms  which  describe  the  veil  proper:   (1.)  Miisveh,<^ 


a  great  feast,  to  invite   both  our  concubines  and  oni 
wives  to  sit  down  with  us." 


3370  VEIL 

used  of  the  veil,  which  Moses  assumed  when  he 
came  down  from  the  mount  (Ex.  xxxiv.  33-35).  A 
cognate  word  sulh  "  occurs  in  Gen.  xlix.  11  as  a 
general  term  for  a  man's  raiment,  leading  to  the 
inf(!rence  that  the  musveh  also  was  an  ample  outer 
robe  which  might  be  drawn  over  the  face  when 
required.  The  context,  however,  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  is 
conclusive  as  to  the  object  fur  whieli  the  robe  was 
assumed,  and,  whatever  may  have  Ijeen  its  size  or 
form,  it  nmst  have  been  used  as  a  veil.  (2.)  Mis- 
pachdth/>  used  of  the  veils  which  tlie  folse  prophets 
placed  upon  their  heads  (Ez.  xiii.  18,  21 :  A.  V. 
"  kerchiefs  " ).  The  word  is  understood  by  (jesenius 
(Thes.  p.  965)  of  cushions  or  mattresses,  but  the 
etymology  [saphnch,  to  pour)  is  equally,  if  not  more 
favoralile,  to  tlie  sense  of  a  Jkiwliig  \eil,  and  this 
accords  better  with  the  notice  that  they  were  to  be 
placed  "upon  the  head  of  every  stature,"  implying 
that  the  length  of  the  veil  was  proportioned  to  the 
height  of  the  wearer  (Fiirst,  Lex.  s.  v.;  Hitzig  in 
Ez.  1.  c).  (3.)  IiiVdM,<:  used  of  the  light  veils 
worn  by  females  (Is.  iii.  19;  A.  V.  "mufflers"), 
which  were  so  called  from  their  rustling  motion. 
The  same  term  is  applied  in  the  Mishna  {Sct/j.  6, 
§  6)  to  the  veils  worn  by  Arabian  women.  (4.) 
Tsammnh ,<^t  imderstood  by  the  A.  V.  of  "  locks  " 
of  hair  (Cant.  iv.  1,  3,  vi.  7;  Is.  xlvii.  2),  and  so 
by  Winer  {Renltch.  "  Schleier");  but  the  contents 
of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  used  favor  the  sense 
of  veil,  the  wearers  of  the  article  being  in  each  case 
highly  born  and  handsomely  dressed.  A  cognate 
word  is  used  in  the  Targum  (Gen.  xxiv.  05)  of  the 
robe  in  which  Rebecca  enveloped  hei-self 

With  regard  to  the  use  of  the  veil,  it  is  important 
to  observe  that  it  was  Ijy  no  means  so  general  in 
ancient  as  in  modern  times.  At  present,  females 
are  rarely  .seen  without  it  in  oriental  countries,  so 
much  so  that  in  Egypt  it  is  deemed  more  requisite 
to  conceal  the  face,  including  the  top  and  back  of 
the  head,  than  other  parts  of  the  person  (Lane,  i. 
72).  Women  are  even  delicate  about  exposing  their 
heads  to  a  physician  for  medical  treatment  (Russell's 
Akjtpo,  i.  240).  In  remote  districts,  and  among 
the  lower  classes,  the  practice  is  not  so  rigidly  en- 
forced (Lane,  i.  72).  Much  of  the  scrupulousness 
in  respect  to  the  use  of  the  veil  dates  from  the 
pronuilgation  of  the  Koran,  which  forbade  women 
appearing  unveiled  except  in  the  presence  of  their 
nearest  relatives  {Km:  xxxiii.  55,  59).  In  ancient 
times,  the  veil  was  adopted  only  in  exceptioiial  cases, 
either  as  an  article  of  ornatnental  dress  (Cant.  iv. 
1,  3,  vi.  7),  or  by  betrothed  maidens  in  tiie  presence 
of  their  future  husbands,  especially  at  the  time  of 
the  wedding  ((Jen.  xxiv.  05,  xxix.  25  [Makhi.\ge]), 
or  lastly,  by  women  of  loose  character  for  purposes 
of  concealment  (Gen.  xxxviii.  14).  But,  generally 
speaking,  women  both  married  and  unmarried  ap- 
peared in  public  with  their  faces  exposed,  both 
among  the  Jews  (Gen,  xii.  14,  xxiv.  16,  xxix.  10; 
1  Sam.  i.  12),  and  among  the  Egyptians  and  As- 
syrians, as  proved  by  the  invariable  absence  of  the 
veil  in  the  sculptures  and  paintings  of  these 
peoples. 

.4mong  ths  Jews  of  the  New  Testament  age  it 
appears  to  have  been  customary  for  the  women  to 
cover  'heir  heads  (not  necessarily  their  faces)  wheti 
Bngagcd  iu  public  worship.     For,  St.  Paul  repro. 


6  ninDDD. 

T  ;    • 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT 

bates  the  disuse  of  the  veil  by  the  Corinthian  women, 
as  implying  an  assumption  of  equality  with  the 
other  sex,  and  enforces  the  covering  of  the  head  as 
a  sign  «  of  subordination  to  the  authority  of  the 
men  (1  Cor.  xi.  5-15).  The  same  passage  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  use  of  the  talith,  with 
which  the  Jewish  males  cover  their  heads  in  prayer, 
is  a  comparatively  modern  practice;  inasmucii  an 
the  Apostle,  putting  a  hypothetical  case,  states  that 
every  man  having  anything  on  his  head  dishonors 
his  head,  i.  e.  Christ,  inasmuch  as  the  use  rf  the 
veil  would  imply  subjection  to  his  fellow-men  rathet 
than  to  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  xi.  4).  W.  L  B. 

VEIL  OF  THE  TABERNACJLE  AND 
TEMPLE.     [Taueknacle;  Temile.] 

*  VEIL,  RENDING  OF  THE.     [Jex;VB 
CliKlsT,  ii.  1379  ((.] 

*  VERMILION.     [Colors,  4.] 
VERSIONS,  ANCIENT,  OF  THE  OLD 

AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS.  On  the  an- 
cient versions  in  general,  see  Walton's  Prole yom- 
eiin :  Simon,  f/istoire  Critique ;  Jlarsh's  Jlicha- 
elis;  Eichhorn's  Einleilung ;  Hug's  Einltiiuny ; 
De  Wette's  Einleitung ;  Hiivernick's  Einleitung  . 
Davidson's  Introduction  [Biblical  Ci-iiicisni]  ;  Reuss, 
Gescliict/te  c/is  Ncuen  I'tstiimenis ;  Home's  liftro- 
duction  by  Ayre  (vol.  ii.),  [or  by  Davidson  (vol.  ii., 
ed.  1850)],  and  Tregelles  (vol.  iv.);  Scrivener's 
Plain  Introduction ;  Bleek's  Einleitung ;  [Keil's 
Einleitung.  Of  Hug,  De  ^Vette,  Hiivernick,  Bleek, 
and  Keil  there  are  English  translations.  On  the 
versions  of  the  N.  T.  Hug  is  particularly  full.  — 

'Ihere  were  two  things  which,  in  the  early  cen 
turies  after  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
were  closely  connected :  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel, leading  to  the  diffiised  profession  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  amongst  nations  of  varied  languages;  and 
the  formation  of  versions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for 
tlie  use  of  the  Cliurches  thus  gathered  in  varied 
countries.  In  fact,  for  many  ages  the  spread  of 
Christianity  and  the  appearance  of  vernacular 
translations  seem  to  have  gone  almost  continually 
hand  in  hand.  The  only  exceptions,  perhaps,  were 
those  regions  in  which  the  Christian  profession  did 
not  extend  beyond  what  might  be  called  the  civil- 
ized portion  of  the  community,  and  in  which  also 
the  Greek  language,  diffused  through  the  conquests 
of  Alexander,  or  the  Latin,  the  concomitant  of  the 
dominion  of  Rome,  had  taken  a  deeply-rooted  and 
widely-extended  hold.  Before  the  Christian  era, 
the  Greek  version  of  tiie  Old  Testament,  commonly 
termed  the  Septuagint,  and  the  earlier  Targums 
(if,  indeed,  any  were  tvritten  so  early)  supplied  every 
want  of  the  Jews,  so  far  as  we  can  at  all  discover. 
And  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Greek  transla.- 
tion  of  the  Old  Testanient  ha(>i|3roduced  some  con- 
siderable effect  beyond  the  mere  Jewish  pale:  for 
thus  the  comparatively  large  class  of  proselytes 
which  we  find  existing  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  and 
his  Apostles  must  apparently  have  been  led  to  em- 
brace a  religion,  not  tlien  commended  by  the  holi 
ness  of  its  professors  or  by  external  advantages,  but 
only  accredited  by  its  doctrines,  which  professed  to 
be  given  by  the  revelation  of  God  (as,  indeed,  tbey 
were);  and   which,  in  setting  forth  the  unity  of 


e  The  term  e|ou(ri'a  in  1  Cor.  xi.  10  =  sign  of  au- 
thority, just  as  /Sao-iAeia  in  Diod.  Sic.  i.  47  =  fign,  of 
rsyaltv. 


VERSION,  ANCIENT  (^THIOPICl 


3871 


Tiod,  and  in  the  coiidenination  of  all  idolatry, 
iupplieil  a  need,  not  i'liniislieil  by  an \  thing  which 
protessed  to  be  a  system  of  positive  reli;^ion  as  held 
by  the  Greek,  Latin,  or  Egyptian  priests. 

In  making  inquiry  as  to  the  versions  formed 
after  the  spread  of  Christianity,  we  rarely  find  any 
indication  as  to  the  translators,  or  the  particular 
;ireumstances  under  which  they  were  executed. 
All  we  can  say  is,  that  those  who  had  learned  that 
the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  —  namely,  that  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God  there  is  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  eternal  life  through  faith  in  his 
pr-pitiatory  sacrifice, — are  indeed  the  truth  of 
God ;  and  who  knew  that  tlie  New  Testament  con- 
tains the  records  of  this  religion,  and  tlie  C)ld  the 
preparation  of  God  for  its  introduction  through 
promises,  types,  and  prophecies,  did  not  long  remain 
without  possessing  these  Scriptures  in  languages 
which  they  understood.  The  appearance  of  ver- 
nacular translations  was  a  kind  of  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  formation  of  Chin-ches. 

We  have  also  some  indications  that  parts  of  the 
New  Testament  were  translated,  not  by  those  who 
received  the  doctrines,  Ijut  by  those  who  opposed 
them;  this  was  probalily  done  in  order  the  more 
successfully  to  guard  Jews  and  proselytes  to  .luda- 
isiw  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Cross  of  Christ, 
'•  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block." 

Translations  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  into  the  Hebrew  dialect  are  men- 
tioned in  the  very  curious  narration  given  by  Kpi- 
phanius  (t.  xxx.  3,  12)  respecting  Joseph  of  Tilje- 
rias ;  he  speaks  of  their  Ijeing  secretly  preserved  liy 
the  .Jewish  teachers  of  that  city.  But  these  or  any 
similar  versions  do  not  appear  to  have  been  exam- 
ined, much  less  used  by  any  Christians.  They  de- 
serve a  mention  here,  however,  as  being  translations 
of  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  the  former  existence 
of  which  is  recorded.  • 

In  treating  of  the  ancient  versions  that  have 
come  down  to  us,  in  wliole  or  in  part,  they  will  be 
described  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  languages. 
It  may  be  premised  tiiat  in  most  of  them  the  Old 
Test,  is  not  a  version  from  the  Irlebrew,  but  merely 
a  secondary  translation  from  the  Septuagint  in 
some  one  of  its  early  forms.  The  value  of  these 
secondary  versions  is  but  little,  except  as  bearing 
on  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  a  depart- 
ment of  Biblical  learning  in  which  they  will  be 
found  of  much  use,  whenever  a  competent  scholar 
shall  earnestly  enrrage  in  the  revision  of  that  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  'lest.,  pointing  out  the  correc- 
tious  introduced  through  the  labors  of  Origen. 

S.  F.  T. 

^THIOPIC  VERSION.  —  Christianity  was 
introduced  into  ^Ethiopia  in  the  4th  century, 
through  the  labors  of  Frumentius  and  jEdesius  of 
Tyre,  who  bad  been  made  slaves  and  sent  to  the 
king  (Theodoret,  Hist.  Kcd.  i.  23;  Socr.  i.  19; 
Sozomen,  ii.  24).  Hence  arose  the  episcopal  see 
of  Axum,  to  which  Frumentius  was  appointed  by 
Athanasius.  The  ^thiopic  version  which  we  pos- 
sess is  in  the  ancient  dialect  of  Axum;  hence  some 
have  ascribed  it  to  the  age  of  the  earliest  mission- 
dries  ;  but  from  the  getieral  character  of  the  ver- 
sion itself,  this  is  improbable;  and  the  Abyssin- 
ians  themselves  attribute  it  to  a  later  jieriod: 
though  tlieir  testimony  is  of  but  little  value  by 
Itself;  for  their  accounts  are  very  contradictory, 
wid  some  of  them  even  speak  of  its  having  been 
translated  from  the  Arabic;  which  is  certainly  in- 
correct. 


The  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  the  New,  was  ex- 
ecuted from  the  (jreek. 

In  1513  Potken  published  the  yEthiopic  Psaltet 
at  Kome :  he  received  this  portion  of  the  Scriptures 
from  some  Abyssinians  with  whom  he  had  met: 
whom,  however,  he  called  Chaldaeans,  and  their 
language  Chaldee. 

In  1.348-4'.),  the  ^thiopic  New  Test,  was  also 
printed  at  Home,  edited  by  three  Ab3'ssinians:  they 
sadly  complained  of  the  difficulties  under  which 
they  labored,  from  tlie  printers  having  been  occu- 
pied on  what  they  were  unable  to  read.  They 
speak  of  having  had  to  fill  up  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  book  of  Acts  by  translating  from  the  Latin 
and  Greek :  in  this,  howe\er,  there  seems  to  be 
some  overstatement.  The  Roman  edition  was  re- 
printed in  Walton's  Polyglott;  Init  (according  to 
Ludolf )  all  the  former  errors  were  retained,  and 
new  ones  introduced.  When  Bode  in  11,53  pub- 
lished a  careful  Latin  translation  of  the  zEthiopic 
text  of  Walton,  he  supplied  Biblical  scholars  in 
general  with  the  means  of  forming  a  judgment  as 
to  this  version,  which  had  been  previously  impos- 
sible, except  to  the  few  who  were  acquainted  with 
the  language. 

In  1826-30,  a  new  edition,  formed  by  a  collation 
of  MSS.,  was  published  under  the  care  of  Mr. 
Thomas  Pell  Piatt  (formerly  F'ellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge),  whose  object  was  not  strictly 
crilicfd,  but  rather  to  give  to  the  Abyssinians  their 
Scriptures  for  ecclesiastical  use  in  as  good  a  form 
as  he  conveniently  could,  consistently  with  ^IS. 
authority.  From  the  notes  made  by  iNIr.  I^latt  in 
the  course  of  his  collations,  it  is  evident  that  the 
translation  had  been  variously  revised.  The  differ- 
ences of  AISS.  had  appeared  so  marked  to  Ludolf 
that  he  supposed  that  there  nuist  have  been  two 
ancient  versions.  Ihit  Mr.  Piatt  fotmd,  in  the 
course  of  his  examin;ition,  that  where  certain  MSS. 
differ  widely  in  tlieir  readings,  some  other  copy 
would  introduce  both  readings,  either  in  a  conflat*" 
form,  or  simply  in  the  way  of  repetition.  The 
probability  appears  to  be  that  there  was  originally 
one  version  of  the  Gospels;  but  that  this  was  after- 
ward re\ised  with  Greek  MSS.  of  a  different  com- 
plexion of  text;  and  that  succeeding  copyists  either 
adopted  one  or  the  other  form  in  passages;  or  else, 
by  omitting  nothing  from  text  or  margin,  they 
formed  a  confused  combination  of  readings.  It 
appears  proljable  that  all  the  portion  of  the  New 
Test,  after  the  Gospels  originated  from  some  of 
the  later  revisers  of  the  former  part;  its  para- 
phrastic tone  accords  with  this  opinion.  We  can 
only  form  a  judgment  from  the  printed  texts  ol 
this  version,  until  a  collation  of  the  MSS.  now 
known  shall  be  so  executed  as  to  be  available  for 
critical  use. 

As  it  is,  we  find  in  the  copies  of  the  version, 
readings  which  show  an  affinity  with  the  older 
class  of  Greek  MSS.,  intermingled  with  others 
decidedly  Byzantine.  Some  of  the  copies  knowB 
show  a  stronger  leaning  to  the  one  side  or  the 
other;  and  this  gives  a  considerable  decree  of 
certainty  to  the  conclusion  on  the  sulject  of  re- 
vision. 

An  examination  of  the  version  proves  both  that 
it  vviis  executed  from  the  Greek,  and  also  that  the 
translator  made  such  mistakes  that  he  could  hardly 
have  been  a  person  to  whom  Greek  was  the  nativo 
tongue.  The  following  instances  (mostly  taken 
from  C.  B.  Michaelis)  prove  this:  opia  is  con- 
founded   with   ufiea   (or  ypij);  Matt    iv.    13.  "  in 


3372 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (ARABIC) 


vonte  Zalnilon ;  "  six.  1,  "  in  vumtes  Judaeae  trans 
•  Jordaiieni."  Acts  iii.  20,  wpoK^x^'P^'^'l^^'""'  '•'"'e"- 
dered  as  "  quem  prauiixit  "  (TrpoKexpiC/UfVov);  ii- 
37,  Karevvyriaav  "  nperfi  sunt,  quoad  cor  eornm  " 
[KaTrivoiyT]<Tav) ;  xvi.  25,  enriKpocivTO  avraiv  ol 
liCTfitot,  "  percussa  sunt  vincula  eoruni "  {iireKpov- 
ovTO  avTwv  ol  Bcfffiol)-  Matt.  v.  25,  ^vvod>v  is 
rendered  as  inteUujens  {iwoSiv);  Luke  viii  29, 
Koi  ireSais  (pv\a(ra-6fj.euos,  "  a  pnrvt/lis  ciistodi- 
tus,"  as  if  TTttiSiois.  Koni.  vii.  11.  i^y)irarriaiv, 
'•  conculcavit,"  as  if  i^eTrdrriafv.  Rev.  iv.  3,  Ipis, 
"  sacerdotes,"  as  if  tepety.  Tlie  meaning  of  words 
alike  in  spelling  is  confomided:  thus,  1  Cor.  xii. 
28.  "  I'osuit  Dominus  aurem  ecclesia?,"  from  the 
differing  meanings  of  OT2.  Also  wrong  render- 
ings sometimes  seem  to  have  originated  with  false 
etymology:  thus.  Matt.  v.  22,  "Qui  autem  dixerit 
fratrem  suum  pannosum,"  paKo,  having  been  con- 
nected with  poLKOS. 

Bode's  Latin  version,  to  which  reference  has  al- 
ready been  made,  enabled  critical  scholars  to  use 
the  Roman  text  with  much  confidence.  The  late 
Mr.  L.  A.  Prevost,  of  the  British  Museum,  exe- 
cuted for  Dr.  Tregelles  a  comparison  of  the  text  of 
Mr.  Flatt  with  the  Roman,  as  reprinted  in  Walton, 
together  with  a  literal  rendering  of  the  variations; 
this  gave  him  the  critical  use  of  l)oth  texts.  The 
present  Bisliop  of  Gloucester,  Dr.  Kllicott,  speaking 
with  the  personal  advantage  possessed  by  a  scholar 
himself  able  to  use  both  j^Ethiopic  texts  of  the 
New  Test.,  draws  attention  to  the  superiority  of 
that  edited  by  Mr.  Piatt:  after  speaking  (Aids  to 
Fnilli,  p.  381)  of  the  non-para])hrastic  character 
of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Test,  in  gen- 
eral, Dr.  EUicott  adds  in  a  note :  "  It  may  be  no- 
ticed that  we  have  specified  the  ^thiopic  version 
as  that  edited  by  Mr.  Pell  Piatt.  The  ^tiiiopic 
version  found  in  \A'alton's  Polyglott  often  degen- 
erates into  a  paraphrase,  especially  in  difficult  pas- 
sages." 

The  Old  Test,  of  this  version,  made  from  the 
LXX.  (as  has  been  already  specified),  has  been 
sutgected  apparently  (with  the  exception  of  the 
Psalms)  to  very  little  critical  examination.  A  com- 
plete edition  of  the  ^thiopic  Old  Test,  has  been 
commenced  by  Dillmann;  the  first  portion  of  which 
appeared  in  1853.  [Tom.  i.  Octateuch,  1853-55; 
torn,  ii.,  1  Sam.-Esther,  1801  fF.  For  editions  of 
some  other  parts  of  the  O.  T.  see  De  Wette,  liinl. 
§  61,  8e  Ausg.  —  A.] 

Literature.  —  Potken,  Pre/ace  to  the  ^thiopic 
Psalter,  Rome,  1513;  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Preface 
to  Boilt's  Collation  of  St.  Mattheic.  Halle,  1749; 
Bode,  Latin  Translation  of  the  ' /Etliioj/ic  New 
Test.  Brunswick,  1753;  T.  P.  Vlaii,  M l<.  Notes 
made  in  the  Collation  of  jEthuqdc  MSS.,  and 
Private  Letters  sent  to  Trer/elles ;  L.  A.  Prevost, 
MS.  Collation  of  the  Text  of  Piatt  loith  the  Ro- 
■nan,  and  Tnmslation  of  Variations,  executed  for 
Tregelles ;  A.  Dillmann,  ^thiopische  Bibeliiber- 
tetzung  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopadie. 

S.  P.  T. 

ARABIC  VERSIONS.  —  To  give  a  detailed 
account  of  the  Arabic  versions  would  be  impossible, 
without  devoting  a  much  larger  space  to  the  sub- 
iect  than  would  be  altogether  in  its  place  in  a  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible:  for  the  versions  themselves 


a  Cardinal  Wiseman  ( On  the  Miracles  of  the  New 
r«s«.,  Essays  i.  172-17'5,  240-244)  gives  a  curious  inves- 
igatiOD  of  tlie  oritriii   and  translation  of  tliis  Arabic 


do  not,  owing  to  their  compp.ratively  late  date,  pos- 
sess any  primary  importance,  even  for  critical 
studies:  and  thus  many  points  connected  with 
these  translations  are  .  rather  of  literary  than 
strictly  Biblical  interest.  The  versions  of  the 
Old  Test,  must  be  considered  separately  from 
those  of  the  New ;  and  those  from  the  Hebrew  text 
must  be  treated  apart  from  those  formed  from  the 
LXX. 

I.  Arabic  versions  of  the  Old  Test. 

A.  Made  from  the  Hebrew  text. 

Rabbi  Saadiah  Haggaon,  the  Hebrew  contnen- 
tator  of  the  10th  century,  translated  portions  (some 
think  the  whole)  of  the  O.  T.  into  Aral)ic.  His 
version  of  the  Pentateuch  was  printed  at  Constan- 
tinople, in  1546.  The  Paris  Polyglott  contains  tho 
same  version  from  a  IMS  diflfering  in  many  of  its 
readings:  this  was  reprinted  by  Walton.  It  seems 
as  if  copyists  had  in  parts  altered  the  version  con- 
siderably. The  version  of  Isaiah  by  Saadiah  was 
printed  by  Paulus,  at  Jena,  in  1791,  from  a  Bod- 
leian !MS. ;  the  same  library  contains  a  MS.  of  his 
version  of  Job  and  of  the  Psalms.  Kimchi  quotes 
his  version  of  Hosea. 

The  book  of  .loshua  in  the  Paris  and  Walton's 
Polyglotts  is  also  from  the  Hebrew;  and  this  R6- 
diger  states  to  lie  the  fact  in  the  case  of  the  Poly- 
glott text  of  1  K.  xii.;  2  K.  xii.  16;  and  of  Neh. 
i.-ix.  27. 

Other  portions,  translated  from  Hebrew  in  later 
times,  do  not  require  to  be  even  specified  here. 

But  it  was  not  the  Jews  only  who  translated  into 
Arabic  from  the  original.  There  is  also  a  version 
of  the  Pentateuch  of  the  Samaritans,  made  by  Abu 
Said.  He  is  stated  to  have  clearly  had  the  trans- 
lation of  Saadiah  before  him,  the  phraseology  of 
which  he  often  follows,  and  at  times  he  must  have 
used  the  Samaritan  version.  It  is  considered  that 
this  work  of  Al)i»  Said  (of  which  a  portion  has 
been  printed)  is  of  coiisiderable  use  in  connection 
witii  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch.    [See  Sa:\iakitan  Pkntateuch,  ii.  3.] 

B.  Made  from  the  Peshito  Syriac. 

This  is  the  base  of  the  Arabic  text  contained  in 
the  Polyglotts  of  the  books  of  Judges,  Ruth,  Sam- 
uel, Kings,  and  Nehemiah  (with  the  exception 
mentioned  above  in  these  last-named  books). 

In  some  M,SS.  there  is  contained  a  translation 
from  the  Hexaplar-SyriAC  text,  which  (though  a 
recent  version)  is  of  some  importance  for  the  criti- 
cism of  that  translation. 

0.  -Made  from  the  LXX. 

The  version  in  the  Polyglotts  of  the  books  not 
specified  above." 

Another  text  of  the  Psalter  in  Justiniani  Psalter- 
ium  Octuplum,  Genoa,  1516. 

The  Araliic  versions  existing  in  MS.  exhibit  very 
various  forms:  it  appears  as  if  alterations  had  been 
made  in  the  different  countries  in  which  they  had 
been  used;  hence  it  is  almost  an  endless  task  to 
discriminate  amongst  them  precisely. 

II.   Arabic  Versions  of  the  Neiu  Test. 

The  printed  editions  of  the  Arabic  New  Test. 
must  first  be  specified  before  their  text  can  be  de- 
scribed. 

1.  The  Roman  editio  princeps  of  the  four  Gros- 
pels,  1590-91  (issued  both  with  and  without  an 


Psalter,  and  of  the  occasional  use  of  the  Hebrew  test 
and  sometimes  of  the  Syriac  version. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (AKMENIAN) 


3373 


nterliiiear  Latin  version.  Reissued,  vvitli  a  new 
:itle,  iCil'J;  and  again,  with  a  bibliographical  pref- 
iice,  1774). 

2.  The  Erpenian  Arabic.  The  whole  New  Test, 
•dited  by  Erpenius,  10 16,  at  Lejden,  from  a  MS. 
jf  the  13th  or  14th  century. 

3.  Tlie  .\rabic  of  the  Paris  Polyofott,  1645.  In 
the  Gospels  this  follows  mostly  the  Roman  text;  in 
the  Kpistles  a  5IS.  from  Aleppo  was  used.  The 
Arabic  in  Walton's  Polyglott  appears  to  be  simply 
taken  from  the  Paris  text. 

4.  The  Ci'rshuni  Arabic  test  (/.  e.  in  Syriac  let- 
ters), the  Syriac  and  Arabic  New  Test ,  published 
at  Rome,  in  1703.  For  this  a  MS.  brought  from 
Cyprus  was  used. 

Storr  proved,  that  in  all  these  editions  the  Gos- 
pfls  are  really  the  same  translation,  however  it  may 
have  been  modified  by  copyists;  especially  when  the 
Sjriac,  or  Memphitic,  stand  by  the  side. 

Juynboll,  in  his  description  of  an  Arabic  Codex 
at  Franeker  (1838),  threw  new  light  on  tlie  origin 
of  the  Arabic  Gospels.  He  proves  that  the  Frane- 
ker Codex  coincides  in  its  general  text  with  the 
Roiiian  editio  princeps,  and  that  both  follow  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  so  that  Raymundi,  the  Roman  edi- 
tor, must  not  be  accused  of  having  Latinized  the 
texf.  The  greater  agreement  of  the  Polyglott  text 
witii  the  Greek  lie  ascribes  to  the  influence  of  an 
Aleppo  MS.,  which  the  Paris  editor  used.  Juyn- 
bol'  tiien  identifies  the  text  of  the  Franeker  MS. 
(and  of  the  Roman  edition)  with  the  version  nia'e 
in  the  8th  century  by  .John,  liisiiop  of  Seville. 
The  question  to  be  considered  tluis  becomes.  Was 
the  Latin  the  basis  of  the  version  of  tlie  ( jospels  V 
and  did  some  afterwards  revise  it  with  the  Greek  ? 
3r,  was  it  taken  from  the  Greek '?  and  was  the 
alteration  to  suit  the  Latin  a  later  work  ?  If  tlie 
former  supposition  be  correct,  then  the  version  of 
John  of  Seville  may  have  been  the  Jirst ;  if  the 
latter,  then  all  that  was  done  iiy  the  Spanish  liishop 
must  have  been  to  adapt  an  existing  Arabic  version 
to  the  Latin. 

Gildemeister,  in  his  communications  to  Tischen- 
dorf  {Gr.  Test.  18.39,  Prolegg.  p.  ccxxxix.),  en- 
deavors to  prove,  tliat  all  the  supposed  Qoimection 
of  tliis  (or  apparently  of  any)  version  with  John 
o(  Seville  is  a  mistake.  The  worils,  however,  of 
Mariana,  the  Spanish  historian,  are  express.  He 
Bays,  under  the  year  737,  "  His  a:qualis  Joannes 
Hispaleiisis  Praesul  diviiios  libros  lingua  Arabica 
ilonaliat  utriusque  iiationis  saluti  consulens;  quo- 
niain  Arabic«  liiiguoe  multus  usus  erat  Christianis 
leipie  atque  Mauris;  Latina  passim  ignorabatur. 
Ejus  iuterpretatiouis  e.xempla  ad  nostram  fetatem 
(i.  e.  A.  i>.  1600)  conservata  sunt,  extantque  non 
ano  in  loco  in  Hispania."  "  Gildemeister  says, 
indeed,  that  this  vvas  entirely  cause<l  from  a  mis- 
understanding of  wliat  had  been  stated  iiy  Roderic 
of  Toledo,  the  first  who  says  anytbin<j;  on  the  sub- 
iect.     He  iwlds  that  John  of  Seville  lived  really  in 


a  Adier  (Reise  nach  Rom,  p.  184)  {^ivcs  a  citiition 
from  D.  Vincenzio  Juan  de  Lasiauosa,  who  says  in 
nis  Museo  ill:  las  Medallas  c/eiconociijas,  Huesca,  1645, 
p.  115,  "El  santo  Ar^obispo  Don  Juan  traduxo  la 
•agraJa  escrituraen  Arabi^o,  parcuya  iutercessiva  hizo 
EHos  uiucbos  uiilagros  i  los  Mores  le  Uainavan  Caii/ 
iltiiatemn.'^     Adler  conjectures  this  Jesigiiatiou  to  be 


jjt  wia+J!  cX.jl.J' 


^j^LkJI. 


ft  *  Some  notice   should   perhaps   be   taken   of  an 
Arabic  version  of  the  whole  N.  T.  (except  the  Apoea- 


the  10th  century,  and  not  in  the  8tn:  if  so,  hi^ 
must  be  a  ditlereut  person,  apparently,  from  th« 
Bishop,  of  the  same  name,  about  whom  Mariana 
could  hardly  have  been  misinformed.  It  doe.n  not 
appear  as  if  JuynboU's  details  and  arguments  were 
likely  to  be  set  aside  through  the  brief  fragments 
of  Gildemeister's  letters  to  Tischendorf,  which  the 
latter  has  published. 

In  tlie  Erpenian  .Vrabic  the  latter  part  is  a  trans- 
lation from  the  Peshito  Syriac;  the  Epistles  not 
found  in  that  version  and  tlie  Apocalypse  are  said 
to  be  from  the  Mem|)liitic. 

The  latter  part  of  the  text  in  the  Polyglotts  is 
from  the  Greek.  Various  .Vraliic  translations  of 
portions  of  the  New  Test,  exist  in  MS. :  they  do  not 
require  any  especial  enunieratioii  here.* 

Lkeriiture.  —  Malanimeus,  Preface  in  the  re-is- 
SMC,  in  1774,  oj'  the  Roiimn  tfjHthm  of  the  Arabic 
Gospels  ;  Storr,  Disserluiio  limugm-alls  critica  de 
Evitnijellls  Ariibicis,  Tiibingen,  1775:  Juynboll, 
LeiterkuiuUye  Bijdnigeii  ( Tweede  Stukje.  Be- 
schrijviiiij  Villi  eeii  Ambischeii  Codex  der  Franeker 
Bibliolheek,  bevaiteiidt  de  vier  livangelien,  gevoli/d 
van  eenige  opmerkingen,  welke  de  ktterkuiidige 
Gescltiedenis  vim  de  Arablsche  Vertulliig  der 
Evangelieii  betreffen),  Leyden,  1838;  Wiseman, 
On  the  Miracles  of  tlie  New  Testament. 

S.  P.  T. 

ARMENIAN  VERSION.  —  Before  the  5th 
century  the  .\rmenians  are  said  to  have  used  the 
Syriac  alphabet;  but  at  that  time  Miesrob  is  stated 
to  have  invented  i\\e  .Armenian  letters.  Soon  after 
this  it  is  said  that  translations  into  the  Armenian 
language  commenced,  at  first  from  the  Syriac. 
Miesrob,  with  his  companions,  Joseph  and  Eznak, 
began  a  version  of  the  Scriptures  with  the  book  sf 
Proverbs,  and  completed  all  the  Old  Test. ;  and  in 
the  New,  they  used  the  Syriac  as  their  basis,  from 
their  inability  to  obtain  any  Greek  books.  But 
when,  in  the  year  431,  Joseph  and  Eznak  returned 
from  the- council  of  Ephesus,  bringing  with  them  a 
Greek  copy  of  the  Scriptures,  Isaac,  the  .Vrmenian 
Patriarch,  and  Miesrob,  threw  aside  what  they  had 
already  done,  in  order  that  they  might  execute  a 
version  from  the  Greek.  But  now  arose  the  difH- 
culty  of  their  want  of  a  competent  acquaintance 
with  that  language:  to  remedy  this,  Eznak  .and 
Joseph  were  sent  with  Moses  Chorenensis  (who  ia 
himself  the  narrator  of  these  details)  to  study  that 
language  at  Alexandria,  There  they  made  what 
Moses  calls  their  third  translation;  the  first  being 
that  irom  the  Syriac,  and  the  second  that  which 
had  been  attempted  without  sutticient  acquaintance 
with  the  (}reek  tongue.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that 
the  former  attempts  were  used  as  far  as  they  could 
be,  and  that  the  whole  was  remodeled  so  as  to  suit 
the  Greek. 

Tlie  first  printed  edition  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  in  .A.rmenian  appeared  at  Amsterdam 
in    1666,  under  the  care  of   a  person  commonly 


lypse)  found  in  a  MS.  in  the  Vatican  Library  (Cod. 
Vat.  Arab.  13),  and  described  by  Scholz  iu  his  Bib 
lisch-Kriiisihe  Rente  (1823),  pp.  117-126  ;  comp.  Uug 
§  107.  It  appears  by  the  Greek  subscription  to  liav» 
boon  iniido  at  Eiuesa  {Hums)  in  Syria  by  one  Daniel 
I'hilentolos  Thougli  our  knowlodf^c  of  it  is  vei-y 
iiiiperti'Ct,  the  agreement  of  many  of  its  readings  with 
the  oldest  Ureek  MSS.  in  the  specimons  given  by 
Scholz  is  rcmarkablo.  It  wants,  for  example,  the  last 
twelve  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  supports  th€ 
reading  os  in  1  Tim.  iii.  IG.  A. 


3374 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (ARMENIAN) 


ternjed  Oscan,  or  Uscan,  and  described  as  beins;  an 
*  Armenian  bishop  (Hug,  however,  denies  that  Uscan 
was  his  name,  and  Eichhorn  denies  that  he  was  a 
bisliop).  From  this  edit io  princeps  others  were 
printed,  in  which  no  attempt  was  made  to  do  more 
than  to  follow  its  text:  although  it  was  more  than 
suspected  that  Uscan  had  by  no  means  faithfully 
adhered  to  ^IS.  authority.  Zohrab,  in  178'.),  pub- 
lished at  Venice  an  improved  text  of  the  Armenian 
New  Test.;  and  in  1805  he  and  his  coadjutors 
completed  an  edition  of  the  entire  Armenian  Scrip- 
tures, for  which  not  only  MS.  authority  was  used 
throughout,  but  also  the  results  of  collations  of 
]\[SS.  were  subjoined  at  the  foot  of  the  pages.  The 
basis  was  a  MS.  written  in  the  14th  century,  in 
Cilicia  ;  the  whole  number  employed  is  .said  to 
have  been  eight  of  the  entire  Bible,  twenty  of  the 
New  Test.,  with  several  more  of  particular  por- 
tions, such  as  the  I'salms.  Tischendorf  states  that 
Aucher,  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Lazarus  at  Venice, 
informed  him  that  he  and  some  of  his  fellow- 
monks  had  undertaken  a  nev?  critical  edition:  this 
probal)ly  would  contain  a  repetition  of  the  various 
collations  of  Zohrab,  together  with  those  of  other 
MSS. 

The  critical  editors  of  the  New  Test,  appear  all 
of  them  to  have  been  lUiacquainted  with  the  Arme- 
nian language;  the  want  of  a  Latin  translation  of 
this  version  has  made  it  thus  impossible  for  them 
to  use  it  as  a  critical  authority,  except  by  the  aid 
of  others.  Some  readings  were  thus  comnuuiicated 
to  ilill  by  Louis  Piques;  Wetstein  received  still 
more  from  La  Croze;  Griesbach  was  aided  liy  a 
collation  of  the  New  Test,  of  1789,  made  by  Bre- 
denkamp  of  Hamburg.  Scholz  speaks  of  having 
been  furnished  with  a  collation  of  the  text  of  1805; 
but  either  this  was  done  very  partially  and  incor- 
rectly, or  else  Scholz  made  but  little  use  (and  that 
without  real  accuracy)  of  the  collation.  These 
partial  collations,  however,  were  by  no  means  such 
as  to  supply  what  was  needed  for  the  real  critical 
use  of  the  version ;  and  as  it  was  known  that  Uscan's 
text  was  thoroughly  untrustworthy  for  critical  pur- 
po.ses,  an  exact  collation  of  the  Venice  text  of  1805 
became  a  desideratum ;  Dr.  Charles  Kien  of  the 
British  Museum  undertook  the  task  for  Tregelles, 
thus  su]>plying  him  with  a  valualile  portion  of  the 
materials  for  his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament. By  marking  the  words,  and  noting  the 
import  of  the  various  readings,  tnul  tite  discrepHii- 
cies  of  UsC'in's  lext,  Rieu  did  all  that  was  practi- 
cable to  make  the  whole  of  the  labor  of  Zohrab 
available  for  those  not  like  himself  Armenian  schol- 
ars. 

It  had  been  long  noticed  that  in  the  Armenian 
Kew  Test,  as  printed  by  Uscan  1  John  v.  7  is 
found :  those  who  are  only  moderately  acquainted 
with  criticism  would  feel  assured  that  this  must  be 
an  addition,  and  that  it  could  not  he  pait  of  the 
original  translation.  Did  Uscan  then  introduce  it 
'rom  the  Vulgate?  he  seems  to  have  admitted  that 
n  some  things  he  supplied  defects  in  his  MS.  by 
translations  from  the  Latin.  It  was,  however,  said 
that  Haitho  king  of  Armenia  (1224-70),  had  in- 
serted this  ver.se:  that  he  revised  the  Armenian 
r»rsion  by  means  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  tiuit  he 
translated  the  prefaces  of  Jerome  (and  also  those 
(vhich  are  spurious)  into  Armenian.  Hence  a  kind 
»f  auK/jiciim  attached  itself  to  the  Armenian  version, 
»nd  its  use  was  accompanied  by  a  kind  of  doubt 
niiether  or  not  it  was  a  critical  authority  which 
!)uld  lie  safely  used.     'I'he  known  fact  that  Zohrab 


had  omitted  1  John  v.  7,  was  felt  tc  be  so  far  satis 
factory  that  it  showed  that  he  had  not  found  it  in 
his  MSS.,  which  were  thus  seen  to  be  earlier  than 
the  introduction  of  this  conniption.  But  the  col- 
lation of  Dr.  Kieu,  and  his  statement  of  the  Arme- 
nian authorities,  set  forth  the  character  of  the 
version  distinctly  in  this  place  as  well  as  in  the 
text  in  general.  Dr.  Kieu  says  of  1  John  v.  7, 
that  out  of  eighteen  MSS.  used  by  Zohrab,  one 
only,  and  that  written  A.  D.  1656,  has  the  passage 
as  in  the  Stephanie  Greek  text.  In  one  ancient 
MS-  the  reading  is  found  from  a  recent  correction. 
Thus  there  is  no  ground  ibr  supposing  that  it  wai 
inserted  by  Haitho,  or  by  any  one  till  the  time 
wlieii  Uscan  lived.  The  wording,  however,  of 
Uscan  in  this  place,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
M.S.  of  1650:  so  that  each  seems  to  have  beeti 
independently  liorrowed  from  the  Latin.  That 
Tscan  did  this,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt; 
for  in  the  immediate  context  Uscan  accords  with 
the  Latin  in  opposition  to  all  collated  Armenian 
^ISS. :  thus  in  ver.  6,  he  follows  the  Latin  "C7/?-/s- 
tiis  est  Veritas;"  in  ver.  20  he  has,  instead  of 
ifffj-iv,  the  sulijunctive  answering  to  simus  :  even 
in  this  minute  point  the  Armenian  MSS.  definitely 
vary  from  Uscan.  In  iii.  11,  for  aya-KWfiiv,  Uscan 
stands  alone  hi  agreeiuL;  with  the  N'lilgate  diliyatis. 
'I'hese  are  proofs  of  the  employment  of  tlie  Vulgate 
either  by  Uscan,  or  by  some  one  else  who  prepared 
the  MS.  from  which  he  printed.  There  are  many 
OLiier  passages  in  which  alterations  or  consideral)le 
additions  (see  for  instance  Matt.  xvi.  2,  3,  xxiii. 
1-t;  John  viii.  1-11;  Acts  xv.  34,  xxiii.  24,  xxviii. 
25)  are  proofs  that  Uscan  agrees  with  the  Vulgate 
against  all  known  MSS.  (These  variations  in  the 
two  texts  of  Uscan  and  Zohrab,  as  well  as  the 
material  readings  of  Armenian  MSS.  are  inserted 
in  Tregelles'  Greek  Test,  on  Dr.  Kieu's  authority.) 

But  stjfieiiintic  revision  with  the  A'ulgate  is  not 
to  be  found  even  in  Uscan's  text:  they  differ  greatly 
in  characteristic  readings;  though  here  and  there 
throughout  there  is  some  mark  of  an  hiiluence 
drawn  from  the  Vulgate.  And  as  to  accordances 
with  the  Latin,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
there  is  any  proof  of  alterations  having  been  made 
in  the  days  of  Iving  Haitho. 

Some  have  spoken  of  this  version  as  though  it 
had  been  made  from  the  Peshito  Syriac,  and  not 
from  the  Greek;  the  only  grounds  for  such  a  notion 
can  be  the  facts  connected  with  part  of  the  history 
of  its  execution.  There  are,  no  doubt,  a  few  read- 
ings which  show  that  the  translators  had  made 
some  use  of  the  Syriac;  but  these  are  only  e.xcep- 
tions  to  the  general  texture  of  the  version  ;  an  addi- 
tion from  John  xx.  21.  brought  into  jNLatt.  xxviii. 
18,  in  both  the  Armenian  and  the  I'eshito,  is  prob- 
ably the  most  marked. 

The  collations  of  MSS.  show  that  some  amongst 
them  difti^r  greatly  from  the  rest:  it  seems  as  if  the 
variations  did  not  in  such  cases  originate  in  Ai'ae- 
nian,  but  they  must  have  sprung  from  some  recast- 
ing of  the  text  and  its  revision  by  Greek  copies. 
There  mny  perhaps  be  proofs  of  the  difit^rence  be- 
tween the  MS.  brought  from  Epbesus,  and  the 
copies  afterwards  used  at  Alexandria;  but  thus 
much  at  least  is  a  certain  conclusion,  that  compar- 
ison with  Greek  copies  of  difif^rent  kinds  must  at 
some  period  have  taken  place.  I'he  omission  of 
the  last  twelve  verses  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  in  the 
older  Armenian  copies,  and  their  in.sertion  in  the 
later,  may  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  nome  effective  ro 
visioi>. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (EGYPTIAN) 


3375 


The  Armenian  version  in  its  general  texture  is  a 
rahiable  aid  to  tlie  criticism  of  tlie  text  of  the  Xew 
Test.:  it  was  a  worthy  service  to  rehabilitate  it  as 
a  critical  witness  as  to  the  general  readins  of  cer- 
tain Greek  copies  existing  in  the  former  half  of  the 
5th  century. 

Literature.  —  Moses  Chorenensis.  Hhtorim  Ar- 
menincm  Libri  iii.,  ed.  Guliel.  et  Georg.  Whiston, 
1736;  Rieu  (Dr.  Charles),  MS.  collittiun  of  iht 
Armenian  text  of  Zohrab,  and  translation  of  the 
various  readings  made  for  Treyelles.     S.  P.  T. 

CHALDEE  VERSIONS.   [Targums,  l.elow.] 

EGYPTIAN  VERSIONS.  —  I.  The  Mem- 
fHiTiC  Version.  —  'l"he  version  thus  designated 
was  for  a  considerable  time  the  only  Egyptian  trans- 
lation known  to  scholars;  O'ptic  was  then  regarded 
as  a  sufficiently  accurate  and  definite  appellation. 
But  when  the  fact  was  established  that  there  were 
at  least  two  E.tryptian  versions,  the  name  Coptic 
was  found  to  lie  indefinite,  and  even  unsuitable  for 
the  translation  then  so  termed :  for  in  the  dialect 
of  Upper  Egypt  there  was  another;  and  it  is  from 
the  ancient  O'ptos  in  Upper  I'gypt  that  the  term 
Coptic  is  taken.  Thus  Copto-JIemphitic,  or  more 
simply  Memphitic,  is  the  better  name  for  the  ver- 
sion in  the  dialect  of  Lower  Egypt. 

When  Egyptian  translations  were  made  we  di, 
not  know:  we  find,  however,  that  in  the  middle  of 
the  4th  century  tlie  Egyptian  language  was  in 
great  use  amongst  the  Christian  inhabitants  of  that 
country;  for  the  rule  of  I'achomius  for  the  monks  is 
stated  to  have  been  drawn  up  in  Egyptian,  and  to 
have  been  afterwards  translated  intotireek.  It  was 
prescribed  that  evei'y  one  of  the  monks  (estimated 
at  seven  thousand)  for  whom  this  rule  in  Egyptian 
was  drawn  up,  was  to  learn  to  read  (whetlier  so 
disposed  or  not),  so  as  to  be  able  at  least  to  read 
the  New  Test,  and  the  Psalms  The  whole  narra- 
tion presupposes  that  there  was  in  Upper  Egypt  a 
translation. 

So,  too,  also  in  Lower  Eirypt  in  the  same  century. 
For  Palladius  found  at  Nitria  the  aliliot  .lohn  of 
Lycopolis,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  Xew 
Test.,  but  who  was  ignorant  of  Greek;  so  that  he 
could  only  converse  with  him  through  an  inter- 
preter. There  seems  to  be  proof  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical use  of  the  l*>gyptian  language  even  before  this 
time.  Those  who  know  what  the  early  Christian 
worship  was,  will  feel  how  cogent  is  tiie  proof  that 
the  Scriptures  had  then  been  translated. 

When  the  attention  of  Eurojjean  scholars  was  di- 
rected to  the  language  and  races  of  modern  Egypt, 
it  was  foinid  that  while  the  native  Christians  use 
only  Arabic  vernacularly,  yet  in  their  services  and 
in  the  pulilic  reading  of  the  Scriptures  they  employ 
a  dialect  of  the  Coptic.  This  is  the  version  n:w 
termed  Memphitic.  When  MSS.  had  been  brought 
fi'ora  Egypt,  Thomas  Marshall,  an  Englishman, 
prepared  in  the  latter  part  of  tlie  Ifith  century  an 
edition  of  the  Gospels;  the  publication  of  which 
was  prevented  by  his  death.  From  .some  of  the 
readings  having  been  noted  by  him  jMill  was  able 
to  use  them  for  insertion  in  his  Greek  Test. :  they 
"iflen  differ  (sometimes  for  the  better)  from  the  text 
published  by  Wilkins.  Wilkins  was  a  Prussian  liv 
mrth;  in  1716  he  published  at  Oxford  the  first 
VIemphitic   New  Test.,  founded  on  MSS.  in  the 


n  •  It  may  be  noted  liere  that  the  later  writings  of 
Boetticher  have  been  published  uniier  the  niiuie  of 
Paul  or  Paul  Auton  de  LaearUe.     Aiuouu  these  is  an  i 


Bodleian,  and  compared  with  some  al  Rome  and 
Paris.  That  he  did  not  execute  the  woik  in  a  ver^ 
satisfactory  manner  would  probalily  now  be  owned 
by  every  one;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  nc 
one  else  did  it  at  all.  Wilkins  gave  no  proper  ac- 
count of  the  MSS.  which  he  used,  nor  of  the  vari- 
ations which  he  found  in  them :  his  text  seems  to 
be  in  many  places  a  confused  combination  of  what 
he  took  from  various  MSS. ;  so  that  the  sentences 
do  not  properly  connect  themselves,  even  (it  is  said) 
in  grammatical  construction.  And  yet  for  130 
years  this  was  the  the  only  Memphitic  edition. 

In  1840-18,  Schwartze  published  at  Berlin  an 
edition  of  the  Memphitic  Gospels,  in  which  he  em- 
ployed MSS.  in  the  Royal  Library  there.  These 
were  almost  entirely  mtidern  transcripts;  but  with 
these  limited  materials  he  produced  a  far  more  8.at- 
isfitctory  work  than  toat  of  Wilkins.  At  the  foot 
of  the  page  he  gave  the  variations  which  he  found 
in  his  copies;  and  sulijoined  there  was  a  collation 
of  the  Memphitic  and  Thebaic  versions  with  Lach- 
niann's  Greek  Test.  (1842),  and  the  first  of  Tisch- 
endorf  (1841).  There  are  also  such  references  to 
the  Latin  version  of  Wilkins,  that  it  almost  seems 
as  if  he  supposed  that  all  who  used  his  edition 
would  also  have  that  of  Wilkins  before  them. 

The  death  of  Schwartze  prevented  the  continua- 
tion of  his  labors.  Since  then  Boetticher's  editions, 
first  of  the  Acts  and  then  of  the  Epistles,  have  ap- 
peared ;  these  are  not  in  a  form  which  is  available 
for  the  use  of  those  who  are  theriiselves  unacquainteti 
with  Egyptian :  the  editor  gives  as  his  reason  for 
issuing  a  bare  text,  that  he  intended  soon  to  publish 
a  work  of  his  own  in  which  he  would  fidly  employ 
the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions.  Several  years 
have  snice  passed,  and  Boetticher  does  not  seem  to 
give  any  fiu'ther  prospect  of  the  issue  of  such  volume 
on  the  ancient  versions." 

In  1848-.52  a  magnificent  edition  of  the  Meiii- 
phitic  New  Test,  was  published  by  the  Society  for 
promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  under  the  editorial 
care  of  the  l.'ev.  R.  T.  Lieder  of  Cairo.  In  its  prep- 
aration he  followed  IMSS.  without  depending  on 
the  text  of  U'ilkins.  There  is  no  statement  of  the 
variations  of  the  authorities,  which  would  have 
hardly  been  a  suitable  accompaniment  of  an  edition 
intended  solely  for  the  use  of  the  Coj>tic  churches, 
and  in  which,  while  the  Egyptian  text  which  is  read 
aloud  is  printed  in  large  characters,  there  is  at  tho 
side  a  small  column  in  .\rabic  in  6rder  that  the 
readers  may  themselves  be  al>le  to  understand  some- 
thing of  wiiat  they  read  aloud. 

It  is  thus  impossible  to  give  a  liiilnry  of  this 
version:  we  find  proof  that  such  a  translation  ex- 
isted in  early  times,  we  find  this  now  (and  from 
time  inmiemorial)  in  church  use  in  Egypt;  when 
speaking  of  its  internal  character  and  its  value  as 
to  textual  criticism  (after  the  otiier  Egyptian  ver- 
sions have  been  described),  it  will  be  found  that 
there  are  many  considerations  which  go  far  to  prove 
the  identity  of  what  we  now^  have,  with  that  which 
nnist  have  existed  at  an  early  period. 

The  Old  Iftstanient  of  this  version  was  made 
from  the  LXX.  (_)f  this,  ^Vilkins  edited  the  Penta- 
teuch in  1731 ;  the  Psalter  was  published  at  Pome 
in  1744.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Tattam  edited  the  Minor 
Prophets  in  18-iG,  Job  in  1840,  and  the  Majoi 
Prophets   in  18.53.     Bardelli  published  Daniel  in 

essay  De  Xnvo  Teslnmtnto  ad  Venionum  Orievtalium. 
fidem  ectindo,  Borl.  1857,  4to.  a. 


3376 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (EGYPTIAN) 


i849.  [A.  Pallet,  La  version  cophte  du  Pent, 
Livr.  1,  2,  Par.  1854.  P.  de  La^arde,  Dtr  Pent, 
ioptiscli,  Leipz.  1867.  —  J.  L.  Ideler,  Psalteriwn 
Copiice,  Berol.  1837.  31.  G.  Schwartze,  Psalte- 
riutn  in  Dial.  Copt.  Ling.  Mempliil.  iransJ.  eili'lil, 
Nolisque  crit.  et  (/ram.  instr'uzit,  Lips.  1843,  4to. 
-A.] 

H.  TirE  Thebaic  Version.  —  The  examina- 
tion of  F,<Typtiaii  JISS.  iti  the  last  century  showed 
that  besides  the  Memjihitic  there  is  also  another 
version  in  a  co<;nate  ELr>-ptian  dialect.  To  this  the 
name  Saliidic  was  applied  by  some,  from  an  Arabic 
designation  for  Upper  Esi.vpt  and  its  ancient  lan- 
guage. It  is,  however,  far  better  to  assign  to  this 
version  a  name  not  derived  from  the  language  of  the 
Arabian  occupants  of  that  land:  thus  L'opto-The- 
baic  (as  styled  by  Giorgi),  or  sinjply  Theliaic,  is 
far  preferable.  The  first  who  attended  much  to 
the  subject  of  this  version  was  Woide,  who  collected 
readings  from  M.SS.  which  he  communicated  to 
Cramer  in  1779.  In  1783  IMingarelli  published  a 
few  portions  of  tliis  version  of  tlie  New  Test,  from 
the  Nanian  MSS.  In  1789  Gioigi  edited  very 
valual'le  (ireek  and  Thebaic  fragments  of  St.  John's 
Gospel,  which  appear  to  l)eioiig  to  the/;/)'/;  century. 
Miinter,  in  1787,  had  published  a  fragment  of 
Daniel  in  this  version;  and  in  1789  he  lirought  out 
portions  of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  together  with 
readings  which  he  had  collected  from  31S.S.  in 
other  parts  of  the  New  Test.  In  the  following  year 
Mingarelli  printed  Mark  xi.  •29-xv.  22,  from  >iSS. 
which  had  recently  been  obtained  by  Nani;  but 
owing  to  the  editor's  death  the  unfinislied  sheets 
were  never,  properly  speaking,  jmhlishtd.  A  few 
copies  only  seem  to  have  been  circulated ;  they  are 
the  more  valuable  from  the  fact  of  the  MSS.  hav- 
ing been  destroyed  by  the  persons  into  whose  hands 
they  fell,  and  from  their  containing  a  portion  of  the 
New  Test,  not  found,  it  ajipears,  in  any  known  MS. 
\^'oide  was  now  busily  engaged  in  the  collection  of 
portions  of  the  Thebaic  Scriptures:  he  had  even 
issued  a  Prospectus  of  such  an  edition  in  1778. 
Woide's  death  took  place  befoi-e  his  edition  was 
completed.  In  1799,  however,  it  appeared  under 
the  editorial  care  of  Ford.  In  this  work  all  the 
portions  found  by  Woide  himself  were  given,  as 
veil  as  those  published  liy  IMingarelli  in  his  life- 
time: but  not  only  were  Min^areHi■.s  posthumous 
sheets  passed  by,  but  also  all  that  had  lieen  jiub- 
1  shed  by  Miinter  and  Giorgi,  as  well  as  the  tran- 
!ript  of  Miinter  from  the  Borgian  MSS.,  which 
Ford  might  have  used  for  his  edition.  This  col- 
lection of  Iragments  contains  the  greater  part  of  the 
Thebaic  New  Test.  They  might,  however,  be 
greatly  amplified  out  of  what  are  mentioned  by 
Zoega,  as  found  in  the  Borgian  MSS.  (now  in  the 
Propaganda),  in  his  catalogue  puMished  in  1810 
after  his  death.  'It  could  hardly  have  l)een  tliought 
that  this  definite  account  of  existing  Thebaic  frag- 
ments would  have  remained  more  than  half  a  cen- 
tury without  some  I'^gyptian  scholar  having  rescued 
the  inedited  portions  of  this  version  from  their  ob- 
scurity; and  surely  tiiis  would  not  have  been  the 
ease  if  Biblical  critics  had  been  found  who  pos.sess 
Egyptian  learning. 

In  the  Jlemphitic  Gospels  of  Schwartze  there  is 
not  only,  as  has  lieen  already  mentioned,  a  collation 
aulijoined  of  tlie  Theliaic  text,  liut  also  the  criticisms 
of  that  learned  editor  on  both  Ford  and  Woide, 
oeither  of  whom,  in  his  jud<rment,  possessed  sufli- 
lient  editorial  eomjieteMcv.      In  thisoijinion  he  was 


it  had  not  been  for  the  labors  of  Woide  (of  which 
Ford  was  simply  the  continner),  there  is  no  re;wor 
to  suppose  but  that  the  Thebaic  New  Test,  would 
remain  unprinted  still.  Had  this  been  the  case  the 
loss  to  textual  criticism  would   have  been  great. 

III.  A  Tniliu  FIgyptian  Version.  —  Some 
Egyptian  fragments  were  noticed  by  both  Miinter 
and  Giorgi  amongst  the  Borgian  M.SS.,  which  in 
dialect  differ  both  from  the  Menjphitic  and  Thebaic. 
These  fragments,  of  a  third  ICgyptian  translation, 
were  edited  by  lioth  the.se  scholars  independently  in 
the  same  year  (1789).  In  what  part  of  F-gypt  this 
third  dialect  was  used,  and  what  should  be  its 
distinctive  name,  has  been  a  good  deal  discus.'^ed, 
Arabian  writers  mention  a  third  Egyptiaj,  dialect 
under  the  name  of  Buslimuric,  and  this  has  bj 
some  been  assumed  as  the  appellation  for  this  '.er- 
sion.  Giorgi  supposed  that  this  was  the  dialect  of 
the  Ammonian  Oasis;  in  this  Miinter  agreed  with 
him;  and  thus  they  called  the  version  the  Auuuo- 
ninn.  There  is  in  fact  no  certainty  on  the  suliject: 
but  as  the  affinities  of  the  dialect  are  closely  allied 
to  the  Thebaic,  and  as  it  has  been  shown  tliat 
Bashiniir  is  the  district  of  Lower  Figypt  to  the  east 
of  the  Delta,  it  seems  by  no  means  likely  that  it 
can  belong  to  a  region  so  far  from  the  Thebaid. 
Indeed  it  has  been  reasonably  doubted  whether  the 
slight  differences  (mostly  those  of  orthography )  en- 
title this  to  be  considered  to  be  a  really  different 
dialect  from  the  Thebaic  itself. 

After  the  first  portions  of  this  version,  others 
were  transcribed  independently  by  Zoega  and  F^n- 
gelbreth,  and  their  transcripts  appeared  respectively 
in  1810  and  1811.  The  latter  of  these  scholars 
accompanied  his  edition  with  critical  remarks,  and 
the  text  of  the  other  I'.gyplian  versions  on  the  same 
page  for  purposes  of  comparison. 

Tilt  Cluiracier  and  Critical  Use  of  the  Egyptian 
Versions.  —  It  appears  that  the  Thebaic  version 
may  reasonably  claim  a  higher  anticpiity  than  the 
Jlemphitic.  The  two  translations  are  independent 
of  each  other,  and  both  spring  from  Greek  copies. 
The  Thel)aic  lias  been  considered  to  be  the  older  of 
the  two,  ])artly  from  it  having  been  thought  that  a 
liook  in  tlie  'i'hebaic  dialect  quotes  this  version,  and 
troin  what  was  judged  to  be  the  antiquity  of  the 
book  so  referred  to.  There  are  other  grounds  less 
precarious.  It  the  Memphitic  version  exhibits  a 
general  agreement  with  the  text  current  at  Alex- 
andria in  the  third  century,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppo,se  that  it  either  belongs  to  that  age,  or  at 
least  to  one  not  \ery  remote.  Now  while  this  is 
the  case  it  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the  Thebaic 
seems  to  have  been  framed  from  a  text  in  which 
there  was  a  much  greater  admixture,  and  that  not 
irising  from  the  later  revisions  which  moulded  it 
into  the  transition  text  of  the  fourth  century  (com- 
mencing probalily  at  Antioch),  but  exactly  in  the 
opposite  direction:  so  that  the  contents  of  the  two 
versions  would  seem  to  show  that  the  antiquity  of 
the  Thebaic  is  most  to  be  regarded,  liut  that  the 
Memphitic  is  often  prefer.able  as  to  the  goodness  of 
its  readings,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  dialect. 

It  is  probaiile  that  the  more  Hellenized  region  of 
Lower  Egypt  would  not  require  a  vernacular  \er- 
sion  at  so  early  a  period  as  would  the  more  thor- 
oughly Egyptian  region  of  the  Theliaid.  There 
are  some  marks  of  want  of  polish  in  the  Thebaic; 
the  Greek  words  which  are  introduced  are  changed 
into  a  barbarous  form;  the  habitual  introduction  of 
an  a.<jiiride  shows  either  an  iirnoranee  of  the   ime 


perhaps  correct;  but  still  let  it  be  observed,  that  if  i  Greek  sounds,  or  else  it  seems  like  a  want  of  polish 


VERSIOIfS,  ANCIENT  (GOTHIC) 


3377 


n  the  dialect  itself.  That  sucli  a  moile  of  express- 
ing Greei<  words  in  Egyptian  is  not  needed,  we  can 
see  from  its  non-existence  in  th2  Meinpliitic. 

The  ])robable  conclusions  seem  to  be  these:  that 
the  Thebaic  version  was  made  in  the  early  part  of 
the  third  century,  for  the  use  of  the  common  people 
among  the  Christians  in  Upper  Iv^'vpt ;  that  it  was 
foruicd  from  MSS.  such  as  were  then  current  in 
ihe  rey;ions  of  Kgypt  which  were  distant  from  Alex- 
andria; that  afterwards  tlie  -Meniphitic  version  was 
executed  in  what  was  the  more  polished  dialect, 
from  the  Greek  copies  of  Alexandria;  and  that  thus 
in  process  of  time  the  Memphitic  remained  alone  in 
ecclesiastical  use.  Possibly  the  disuse  of  the  Tlie- 
baic  in  the  Egyptian  churches  did  not  take  place 
until  Arabic  was  fast  becoming  the  vernacular 
tongue  of  that  land.  It  will  be  well  lor  those  whose 
studies  enable  them  personally  to  enter  on  the  do- 
main of  Egyptian  literature,  to  connmniicate  to 
Biblical  scholars  the  results  of  new  researches. 

The  value  of  these  versions  in  textual  criticism, 
even  though  they  are  known  only  through  defective 
channels,  is  very  high.  In  some  respects  they  af- 
ford the  same  kind  of  evidence  relative  to  the  text 
current  in  Egypt  in  the  early  centuries,  as  do  the 
Old  Latin  and  the  version  of  Jerome  for  that  in 
use  in  the  West.      [Vulgate.] 

A  few  remarks  only  need  be  made  respecting  the 
iltcrd  Egyptian  version.  The  fragments  of  this  fol- 
low the  Thebaic  so  closely  as  to  have  no  independ- 
ent character.  This  version  does  however  possess 
critical  value,  as  furnishinsi  evidence  in  a  small 
portion  not  knovi'n  in  the  Thebaic.  The  existence 
of  the  M ('/■(/ version  is  a  further  argument  as  to  the 
early  existence  and  use  of  the  'J'hel)aic,  for  tiiis 
seems  to  be  formed  from  it  l)y  moulding  it  into  the 
colloquial  dialect  of  some  locality. 

Littraturt.  —  Schwartze.  Qitrituw  Evanc/eliii  in 
Di'ikctu  LingucB  Copticm  Memphitica,  18-16—17 ; 
Woide,  Nucl  TestameiUi  Fnic/menta  SaldiUcii 
((.  e.  Thebaica)  [Appendix  ad  Cod.  Alex.],  1799; 
Mingarelli,  jEi/iiptivruiii  Codicuin  Jitliquke,  178.5, 
&c. ;  iliinter,  Couiinentafio  de  indole  Versiunis  N. 
T.  S^ilildiae,  1789;  Giorgi,  Fraymenttim  Ev.  S. 
J  van.  GrcBco-Copto-Tliehaicum,  1789;  Zoega,  C(tl- 
alogus  Codicuin  Copticorum  Minmscriptorun  qui 
in  Mus(.'o  Boryinno  Velilris  adservantur,  1810; 
Engelbreth,  Fraymentti  Basniurico-  Copticn  VeUris 
et  Nuvi  Testnmenti,  1811.  S.  P.  T. 

GOTHIC  VERSION. —  In  the  year  ;!18  the 
Gothic  bishop  and  translator  of  Scripture,  Ulphilas, 
was  born.  He  succeeded  Theophiliis  as  iiishop  of 
the  Goths  in  348,  when  he  subscribed  a  confession 
rejecting  the  orthodox  creed  of  NiciEa  ;  througli 
hini  it  is  said  that  the  Gotlis  in  general  adopted 
Arianism;  it  may  be,  liowe\er,  more  correct  to 
consider  that  Arianism  (or  Semi-Arianisni)  had  al- 
ready spread  amongst  the  Goths  iniiabiting  within 
the  Houian  Empire,  as  well  as  auiongst  the  Greeks 
and  l^atins.  Theophilns,  the  predece.ssor  of  Uljihi- 
las,  had  been  present  at  the  council  of  Niciea,  and 
had  subscribed  the  llomoousian  confession.  The 
ureat  work  of  Ul[ihilas  was  his  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, a  translation  in  which  few  traces,  if  any  (ex- 
cept in  I'hil.  ii.  0),  can  be  found  of  his  peculiar  and 
irroneous  doguias.  In  388  Ulphilas  visited  Con- 
ltantinoi>le  to  defend  his  heterodox  creed,  and  while 
there  he  died. 

In  the  5th  century  the  Eastern  Goths  occupied 
«nd  governed  Italy,  while  the  Western  (ioths  took 
posijession  of  Spain,  where  they  ruled  till   tlie  be- 


ginning of  the  8th  century.  Amongst  the  Gotha 
in  botii  these  countries  can  the  use  of  this  versiou 
be  traced.  It  nuist  in  fact  have  at  one  time  been 
tlie  vernacular  translation  of  a  large  portion  d 
Europe. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  IGth  century  the  exist- 
ence of  a  MS.  of  this  version  was  known,  through 
MoriUon  having  mentioned  that  he  had  observed 
one  in  the  lilirary  of  the  monastery  of  Warden  on 
the  Ruhr  in  Westplialia.  He  transcribed  the  Lord's 
i'rayer  and  some  other  parts,  whicli  were  after- 
wards published,  as  were  other  verses  copied  soon 
after  liy  Ai'uold  Jlercator. 

In  1G48,  almost  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Thirty 
Years'  War,  the  Sweiles  took  that  part  of  Prague 
on  tlie  left  of  the  Moldau  (Kleine  Seite),  and 
ainoiinst  the  spoils  was  sent  to  Stockholm  a  copy  of 
the  (iothic  Gospels,  known  as  the  Codex  Arijenieus. 
This  .MS.  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  same  that 
ilorillon  had  seen  at  Werden;  but  whether  the 
same  or  not,  it  had  been  long  at  Prague  when  found 
there  by  the  Swedes,  for  Strenins,  wlio  died  in  1601, 
mentions  it  as  being  there.  The  Codex  Argeideus 
was  taken  by  the  Swedes  to  Stockholm;  but  on  the 
abdication  of  Queen  Christina  of  Sweden,  a  few 
years  later,  it  disappeared.  In  Kj.'J.S  it  was  in  the 
possession  of  Isaac  \'ossius  in  Holland,  who  had 
been  the  queen's  librarian;  to  him  therefore  it  is 
probable  that  it  had  been  given,  and  not  to  the 
queen  herself,  by  the  general  who  brought  it  from 
Prague.  In  1002  it  was  repurchased  for  Sweden 
by  Count  Alagnus  Gabriel  de  la  Gardie,  who  caused 
it  to  be  splendidly  bound,  and  placed  it  in  the 
library  of  the  University  of  Upsal,  where  it  now 
remains. 

While  the  book  was  in  the  hands  of  Vossius  a 
transcript  was  made  of  its  text,  from  which  Jiniius, 
his  uncle,  edited  the  first  edition  of  the  Gothic 
Gospels  at  Uort  in  1605:  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels, 
edited  by  ^larshall,  accompanied  the  Gothic  text. 
The  labors  of  other  editors  succeeded :  Stiern- 
hielin,  1071;  Benzel  and  Lye,  1750;  atid  others 
compaiatively  recent.  The  -MS.  is  written  on  vel- 
huii  that  was  once  purple,  in  silver  letters,  except 
those  at  the  beginning  of  sections,  which  are  golden. 
The  Gos[)els  have  many  lucicnte :  it  is  calcidated 
that  when  entire  it  consisted  of  3"2()  folios:  there 
are  now  but  188.  The  iniiformity  of  the  writing  is 
wonderful:  so  that  it  has  been  thought  whether 
each  letter  was  not  formed  by  a  hot  iron  impress- 
ing the  gold  or  silver,  u.sed  just  as  bookbinders  put 
on  the  lettering  to  the  back  of  a  book.  It  is  pretty 
certain  that  *.his  beautiful  and  elaborate  MS.  niust 
have  been  written  in  the  6th  century,  probably  iu 
Upper  Italy  when  under  the  Gothic  sovereignty. 
Some  in  the  last  century  supposed  that  the  language 
of  this  document  is  nut  Gothic,  but  Krankish  —  an 
opuiion  which  was  set  at  rest  by  the  discovery  in 
Italy  of  Ostro-Gothic  writings,  about  which  there 
could  be  no  question  raised.  Some  Visi-Gothio 
monuments  in  Spaiu  were  evidence  on  the  eatne 
side. 

Knittel,  in  1702,  edited  from  a  Wolfenbiittel 
palimpsest  some  portions  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ko- 
mans  in  Gothic,  in  which  the  Latin  stood  by  the 
side  of  the  version  (/'  Ulphilas.  This  discovery 
first  made  known  the  existence  of  any  part  of  a 
version  of  the  Epistles.  .The  portions  brought  to 
light  were  soon  afterwards  used  by  Ihre  in  tlie  col- 
lection of  remarks  on  Ulphilas  edited  in  1773  by 
lUischiiig. 

But  as  it  was  certain  that  iu  olwMire  jilaces  thj 


3378 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 


Coator  Argentem  had  beeu  not  very  correctly  read, 
[hre  labored  to  copy  it  with  exactitude,  and  to  ibnii 
a  Latin  \ersion:  what  he  had  thus  prepareil  was 
edited  by  Zahn  in  1805. 

New  lidit  dawned  on  Ulphilas  and  his  version  in 
1817.  While  the  late  Cardinal  Mai  was  enj^a^ed 
m  the  examination  of  palimpsests  in  the  Anibrusian 
Library  at  Milan,  of  which  he  was  at  that  tin.e  a 
librarian,  he  noticed  traces  of  some  dotliic  writing 
under  that  of  one  of  the  codices.  This  was  found 
to  be  part  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In 
making  further  examination,  four  other  paliujpsests 
were  found  whicli  contained  portions  of  the  Gothic 
Version.  Mai  deciphered  these  MSS.  in  conjunc- 
tion with  Count  Carlo  Ottavio  Castiglione,  and  their 
labors  resulted  in  the  recovery,  besides  a  few  por- 
tions of  the  Old  Test.,  of  almost  the  whole  of  the 
thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  some  parts  of  the 
Gospels. 

'I be  edition  of  Gabelentz  and  Loebe  (1830-46) 
contains  all  that  has  been  discovered  of  the  Gothic 
Version,  with  a  Latin  translation,  notes,  and  a 
Gothic  Dictionary  and  Grauunar.  These  editors 
were  at  the  pains  to  reexamine,  at  Upsal  and  Milan, 
the  jMSS.  thenjselves.  They  have  thus,  it  appears, 
succeeded  in  a\oiding  the  repetition  of  errors  made 
by  their  predecessors.  The  Milan  palimpsests  were 
ciiemically  restored  when  the  mode  of  doing  this 
was  not  as  well  known  as  it  is  at  present;  the 
whole  texture  of  the  vellum  seems  stained  and 
spoiled,  and  thus  it  is  not  an  easy  task  to  read  the 
ancient  writing  correctly.  Those  who  have  theni- 
Relves  looked  at  the  Wolfenbiittel  palimpsest  from 
which  Knittel  edited  the  portions  of  Romans,  and 
who  have  also  examined  the  Gothic  palimpsests  at 
Milan,  will  probalily  agree  that  it  is  less  difficult  to 
read  the  imrestored  ;MS.  at  Wolfenbiittel  tlian  the 
restored  MSS.  at  Jlilan."  This  must  be  liorne  in 
mind  if  we  would  appreciate  the  labors  of  Gabe- 
lentz and  Loebe. 

In  185-i  UppstriJm  published  an  excellent  edition 
of  the  text  of  the  Codex  Arijeidnis,  with  a  beauti- 
ful fac-simile.  Ten  leaves  of  the  jMS.  were  then 
missing,  and  Uppstrom  tells  a  rather  ungratilying 
Btory  that  they  bad  been  stolen  by  some  English 
traveller.  It  is  a  satisfaction,  however,  that  a  lew 
years  afterwards  the  real  thief  on  his  death-lied  re- 
stored the  missing  leaves;  and,  though  stolen,  it 
was  not  by  any  one  out  of  Sweden.  Uppstrom  ed- 
ited them  as  a  supplement  in  1857. 

In  1855-50  Massmanr,  issued  an  excellent  small 
edition  of  all  the  Gothic  portions  of  the  Scriptures 
known  to  be  extant.  He  accompanies  the  Gothic 
text  with  the  Greek  and  the  Latin,  and  there  are  a 
Grammar  and  Vocabulary  subjoined.  This  edition 
is  said  to  be  more  correct  than  that  of  Gabelentz 
und  Loelte.  Another  edition  of  Ulphilas  ["  Text, 
Gram.,  u.  Wijrterbnch  "]  by  F.  L.  Stamm  appeared 
at  Paderboni  in  1858  [4e  Ausg.,  von  M.  Heyne, 
1869]. 

As  an  ancient  monument  of  the  Gothic  language 
Jie  version  of  Ulphilas  possesses  great  interest;  as 
a  version  the  use  of  which  was  once  extended 
widely  through  Europe,  it  is  a  monument  of  the 
Christianization  of  the  Goths;  and  as  a  version 
blown  to  have  been  made  in  the  4th  century,  and 
transmitted  to  us  in  ancient  iSISS.,  it  has  its  value 
in  textual  criticism,  being  thus  a  witness  to  read- 
ings which  were  current  in   that  age.     In   certain 


passages  it  has  been  thought  that  there  is  sonu 
proof  of  the  influence  of  the  Latin ;  and  this  hag 
been  regarded  as  confirmed  by  the  ordei  of  the  (Gos- 
pels in  the  Cock-x  AryenU-iis,  being  that  of  some  o( 
the  Old  Latin  MSS.,  Matthew,  .John,  Luke,  Mark. 
But  if  the  peculiarities  pointed  out  were  borrowed 
in  the  Gothic  from  the  Latin,  they  must  be  cnnsid 
ered  rather  as  exceptional  points,  and  not  such  as 
affect  the  general  texture  of  the  version,  for  its 
Greek  origin  is  not  to  be  mistaken.  This  is  cer- 
tain from  the  manner  in  which  the  Greek  construc- 
tions and  the  forms  of  compound  words  are  imitated. 
The  very  mistakes  of  rendering  ai'e  proofs  of  Greek 
and  not  Latin  origin.  The  marks  of  conformity  to 
the  Latin  may  have  been  introduced  into  the  ver- 
sion in  the  case  of  MSS.  co|)ied  in  Italy  during  the 
rule  ill  that  land  of  the  Gothic  sovereigns.  The 
\^'olfenll^ittel  palimpsest  has  Latin  by  the  side  of 
the  Gothic. 

The  Greek  from  which  the  version  was  made 
must  in  many  respects  have  been  what  has  been 
termed  the  transition  text  of  the  4th  century; 
another  witness  to  which  is  the  revised  form  of 
the  Old  Latin,  such  as  is  foimd  in  the  Codex 
Brixianus  (this  revision  being  in  fact  the  lUdit). 
[Vulgate.] 

In  all  cases  in  which  the  readings  of  the  Gothic 
confirm  those  of  the  most  ancient  authorities,  the 
united  testimony  must  be  allowed  to  possess  espe- 
cial weight. 

Literdlure. —  Waitz,  Utber  diis  Leben  vnd  die 
Lehre  des  Ulpliila,  1840;  Gatielentz  and  Loebe, 
Ulfilas  {Proh'ymnenfi),  18-30-43;  Uppstrom,  C\>- 
dex  Ai-f/eidtus,  1854  {Decern  Codicis  Arr/eiitei 
rediviva  ftdia,  1857);  Massmann,  Wjilca,  1857. 
[W.  Bessell,  Ueber  das  Leben  des  Uljihis,  etc., 
Gott.  1800;  W.  Krafft,  art.  "  Ulfila"  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyki.  xvi.  610-624  (1802),  comp.  bis  Die 
Arifunye  d.  cliristl.  Kivclie  hei  d.  yerm.  Viilkern^ 
Bd.  i.  Abth.  i.  (1854);  E.  Bernhardt,  Krit.  Uri^ 
tersn.  iiber  die  (jotli.  Bibeliiberselzung,  2  Hefte, 
Meiningen,  Elberf.,  1804-01).  —  A.]       S.  P.  T. 

GREEK  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT.—  ].  Skptuagint.  —  In  addition  to  the 
special  article  on  this  version  [Septuagint]  a  few 
points  may  be  noted  liere. 

I.  Nnme.  ■ —  In  all  discussions  relative  to  the 
name  of  Septwiyint,  so  universally  appropriated  to 
the  Greek  version  of  Alexandria,  the  scholion  dis- 
covered by  Osann  and  published  by  Kitschl  ought 
to  be  considered.  The  origin  of  this  Latin  scholion 
is  curious.  The  substance  of  it  is  stated  to  have 
been  extracted  from  Callimachus  and  Eratosthenes, 
the  Alexandrian  librarians,  by  Tzetzes,  and  from 
bis  Greek  note  an  Italian  of  the  15th  century  hag 
formed  the  Latin  scholion  in  question.  The  writer 
has  been  speaking  of  the  collecting  of  ancient  Greek 
poems  carried  on  at  Alexandria  under  Ptoleni} 
Pbiladelpbus,  and  then  he  thus  continues:  "Nan. 
rex  ille  pbilosophis  .aftt,'rtissinms  (corr.  ' differtissi- 
mus,'  Ritscbl,  '  attectissinius,'  Thiersch)  et  ceteris 
oninil)US  .auctoribus  claris,  disquisitis  impensa  regiae 
munificentiaj  ubique  terrarum  quantum  valuit  vo- 
luminibus  opera  1  lemetrii  Pbalerei  p  h  z  x  a  senum 
duas  bibliothecas  fecit,  alteram  extra  regiam  alteram 
autem  in  regia."  The  scholion  then  goes  on  to 
speak  of  books  hi  many  languages:  "  qu£e  summa 


a  Sucli  is  the  writer's  judgment  from  his  own  ex- 
Hjiination  of  the  palimpsest  at  Wolfenbiittel,  and  of 


those  at  Milan  ;  but  of  course  he  never  saw  ihe  latte! 
prior  to  their  restoratiou. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 


3379 


iiligi:i)tia  rex  die  in  suani  linsuam  fecit  ab  optimis 
Lnter|)i'etilnis  converti."  "  Bernhardy  reads  instead 
of -'plizxa  seiiuni,"'  "  et  Ixx  senuni,''  and  this 
Eorrection  is  agreed  to  by  Thiersch,  as  it  well  may 
be:  some  •correction  is  manifestly  needed,  and  this 
appears  to  bo  right.  This  gives  ns  secentij  tUkrs 
associated  in  the  formation  of  the  library.  The  tes- 
timony comes  to  us  from  Alexandrian  authority; 
and  this,  if  true  (or  even  if  believed  to  be  true), 
would  connect  the  Sepluaijinl  with  the  library ;  a 
designation  which  might  most  easily  be  applied  to 
a  version  of  the  Scriptures  there  deposited ;  and, 
let  the  translation  be  once  known  by  such  a  name, 
tiien  nothing  would  be  more  probable  than  that  the 
designation  should  be  applied  to  the  traiislniurs. 
This  may  be  regarded  as  tlje  first  step  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  fables.  I.et  the  Seplii(i(/in(  be  first 
known  as  applying  to  the  associates  in  the  collec- 
tion of  the  library,  then  to  the  library  itself,  and 
then  to  that  particular  book  in  the  library  which 
to  so  many  had  a  far  greater  value  than  all  its 
other  contents.  Whether  more  than  the  Penta- 
teuch was  thus  translated  and  then  deposited  in 
the  Royal  Library  is  a  separate  question. 

II.  The  Connt'Ctlon  aj'  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
LXX.  with  the  S'liimrilaii  Text.  —  It  was  long  ago 
remarked  that  in  the  I'entateucli  the  Samaritan 
copy  and  the  LXX.  agree  in  readings  which  difler 
from  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  .Jews.  This  has  been 
pointed  out  as  occurring  in  perhaps  two  thousand 
places.  The  conclusion  to  which  some  thus  came 
was  that  the  LXX.  must  have  been  translated  from 
a  Samaritan  copy. 

But,  on  many  grounds,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
admit  this,  even  if  it  were  found  impossible  to  ex- 
plain the  coincidences.  For  (i.)  it  nuist  be  taken 
into  account  that  if  the  discrepancies  of  the  Sa- 
maritan and  .Jewish  copies  be  estimated  numer- 
ically, the  LXX.  will  be  found  to  agree  Jar  more 
freqiientlij  with  the  latter  than  the  former,  (ii.) 
In  the  cases  of  considerable  and  marked  jjassasies 
tccurring  in  the  Samaritan  which  are  not  in  the 
.  ewisli,  the  LXX.  does  not  contain -them,  (iii.)  In 
the  passages  in  which  slight  variations  are  found, 
both  in  the  Samaritan  and  LXX.,  from  the  -Jewish 
text,  they  often  dittijr  amongst  themselves,  and  the 
amplification  of  the  LXX.  is  less  than  that  of  the 
Samaritan,  (iv.)  Some  of  the  small  amplifications 
in  which  the  Samaritan  seems  to  accord  with  the 
LXX.  are  in  such  incorrect  and  non-idiomatic  He- 
brew that  it  is  suggested  that  these  must  be  trans- 
lations, and,  if  so,  probably  from  the  LXX.  (v.)  The 
amplifications  of  the  LXX.  and  Samaritan  often  re- 
semble each  other  greatly  in  character,  as  if  similar 
false  criticism  had  been  a]>plied  to  the  text  in  each 
case.  But  as,  in  spite  of  all  similarities  such  as 
these,  the  Pentateuch  of  the  LXX.  is  more  .lewish 
than  Samaritan,  we  need  not  adopt  the  notion  of 
translation  from  a  Samaritan  ('odex.  which  woidd 
involve  the  subject  in  greater  difficulties,  and  leave 
more  points  to  be  ex|)lained.  (On  some  of  the  sup- 
posed agreements  of  the  LXX.  with  the  Samaritan, 
see  Bishop  Fit-^gerald  in  Kitto's  Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature,  Oct.  1848,  pp.  324-332.) 

III.  The  Lituryical  Origin  of  Portions  of  the 
LXX.  —  This  is  a  subject  for  inquiry  which  has 
"eceived  hut  liitle  attention,  not  so  much,  probably, 
IS   its    importance   deserves.     It  was    noticed    by 


o  See    Thiersch,   De    Pentnteuchi    versione  Alexan- 
irinn,  pp.  8,  9      Erlangeii,  184L    . 
b  EicUhorn  and  tliose  who  bave  foUn-ved  him  stats 


Tregelles  many  years  ago  that  the  headings  of  cer- 
tain psalms  in  the  LXX.  coincide  with  the  litur- 
gical directions  in  the  Jewish  Prayer-book  :  the 
results  were  at  a  later  period  communicated  in 
Kitto's  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  Ajjril,  1852. 
pp.  207-209.  'I'iie  results  may  be  briefly  stated: 
The  23d  Psalm,  LXX.  (24th,  Hebrew),  is  headed 
in  the  LXX.,  tjjs  fxias  aa^^drov;  so  too  in  He- 
brew,  in    De    Sola's   Pi-ayers  of  the    Sephardim, 

"J1tt7S"in  nVn:  Ps.  xlvll.,  LXX.  (Heb.  xlviii.) 
devTfpa  ara^^drou,  "^ZW  DVb  :  Ps.  xciii.,  LXX. 

(Heb.  xciv.),  rerpdSi  aa^^drov,  '^'S^'ZH  CT'  •  : 
Ps.  xcii.,  LXX.  (Heb.  xciii.),  els  Trjv  -hixipav  toZ 
irpoa-afi^aTOu,  ''tftt?  DV7.  There  appear  to  ba 
no  Greek  copies  extant  which  contain  similar  head- 
ings for  Psalms  Ix.^xi.  and  Ixxx.  (Heb.  Ixxxii.  and 
Ixxxi.),  which  the  .lewish  Prayer-book  appitipriates 
to  the  thirtl  and  ffth  days;  but  that  such  once 
existed  in  the  case  of  the  latter  psalm  seems  to  lie 
shown  from  the  Latin  Psalterium  Veins  having  the 

prefixed  guintn  snbbali,  "^tt-^TlSn  Wv>.  Prof. 
IJelitzsch,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Ps(dms,  has 
recently  pointed  out  that  the  notation  of  these 
psalms  in  the  LXX.  is  in  accordance  with  certain 
passages  in  the  Talnmd. 

It  is  worthy  of  inquiry  whether  variations  in 
other  passages  of  the  i^XX.  from  the  Hebrew  text 
cannot  at  times  be  connected  with  liturgical  use, 
and  whether  they  do  not  originate  in  part  from 
rul)rical  directions.  It  .seems  to  be  at  least  plain 
that  the  psalms  were  translated  from  a  co[)y  pre- 
pared lor  synagogue  worship. 

2.  Aquil.v.  —  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  in 
the  second  century  there  were  three  versions  ex- 
ecuted of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  into  Greek. 
The  first  of  these  was  made  by  Aquila,  a  native  of 
Sinope  in  Pontus,  who  had  become  a  proselyte  to 
.Judaism.  The  .Jerusalem  Talmud  (see  Bartolocci, 
Bibliothecn  Rabb.  iv.  281)''  describes  him  as  a  dis- 
ciple of  Rabbi  Akiba;  and  tliis  would  place  him  in 
some  part  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian 
(a.  d.  117-138).  It  is  supposed  tliat  the  object 
of  his  version  was  to  aid  the  Jews  in  their  contro- 
versies with  the  Christians:  and  that  as  the  latter 
were  in  the  habit  of  employing  the  LXX.,  they 
wished  to  bave  a  version  of  their  own  on  which 
they  could  rely.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  Jews 
in  many  (ireek-speaking  countries  were  not  su  R- 
ciently  acquainted  with  Hebrew  to  refer  for  them- 
selves to  the  original,  and  thus  tliey  wished  to  have 
such  a  Greek  translation  as  they  might  use  with 
confidence  in  their  discussions.  Such  controversies 
were  (it  nuist  be  remembered)  a  new  thing.  Prior 
to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  there  were  none  be- 
sides the  Jews  who  used  the  Jewish  Scriptures  as  a 
means  of  learning  (iod's  revealed  truth,  except  those 
who  either  partially  or  wholly  iiecame  proselytes  to 
.ludaism.  But  now  the  Jews  saw  to  their  grief, 
tiiat  tlieir  Scriptures  were  m.ade  the  instrimients 
for  teaching  the  principles  of  a  religion  which  they 
rc'^arded  as  nothing  less  than  an  apostasy  from 
Moses. 

This,  then,  is  a  probable  account  of  the  origin 
of  this  version.  Extreme  literality  and  an  occasional 
polemical  bias  appear  to  be  its  chief  characteristics. 

this  on  the  authority  of  Ironreus,  instead  of  that  of 
th';  Jerusak'ni  Tahiiuil,  a  confusion  wliich  needs  to  t« 
explicitly,  and  not  merely  tacitly  corrected 


3380 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 


The  iflioin  of  tlie  Greek  language  is  very  often 
violated  in  order  to  produce  what  was  intended 
should  be  a  very  literal  version :  and  thus,  not  only 
sense  but  grammar  even  was  disregarded:  a  suffi- 
cient instance  of  this  is  found  in  his  rendering  the 

Hebrew  particle  nS  by  (tw,  as  in  Gen.  i.  1,  trvv 

rhu  ovpavhv  koL  ahv  'r^v  yrju,  "  quod  Gr«ca  et 
Latina  lingua  onniino  non  reoipit,"  as  Jerome  says. 
Another  instance  is  furnished  by  Gen.  v.  5,  kuI 
f0)(Tiv  'ASa/n  rpiaKovTU  tros  Koi  ivvaKSaia  eros. 
It  is  sufficiently  attested  that  this  version  was 
formed  for  controversial  purposes:  a  proof  of  which 
Diay  be  found  in  the  rendering  of  particular  pas- 
sages, 3uch  as  Is.  vii.  14,  where  Hl^^l^,  in  the 

LXX.  TTapQiuos,  is  by  Aquila  translated  via.vis\ 
Biich  renderings  might  be  regifl'ded  perhaps  rather 
as  modes  of  avoiding  an  argument  than  as  direct 
falsitication.  There  certainly  was  room  for  a  version 
which  should  express  the  Hebrew  more  accurately 
than  was  done  by  the  LXX.;  liut  if  this  had  lieen 
thoroughly  carried  out  it  would  have  been  fountl 
that  in  many  important  points  of  doctrine  — such, 
Cor  instance,  as  in  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah  and 
tiie  rejection  of  Israel,  the  true  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew  text  would  liave  been  in  far  closer  con- 
formity with  the  teaching  of  the  New 'Testament 
than  was  the  LXX.  itself.  It  is  prol)able,  therefore, 
that  one  jmlemical  ol'ject  was  to  make  the  citations 
in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Oid  appear  to  be 
inconclusive,  by  producing  other  renderings  (often 
proliably  more  litenilli/  exact)  differing  from  the 
LXX.,  or  even  contradicting  it.  Thus  Christianity 
wight  seem  to  the  Jewish  mind  to  rest  on  a  false 
tasis.  But  in  many  cases  a  really  critical  examiner 
vould  have  found  that  in  points  of  important  doc- 
trine the  New  Testament  (iefinitely  rejects  the  read- 
ing of  the  LXX.  (when  utterly  unsuited  to  the 
matter  in  hand),  and  adopts  the  reading  of  the 
Helirew. 

It  is  mentioned  that  Aquila  put  forth  a  second 
edition  («.  e.  revision)  of  his  version,  in  which  the 
Hebrew  was  yet  more  ser\ilely  followed,  but  it  is 
not  known  if  this  extended  to  the  wliole,  or  only  to 
three  books,  namely,  Jeremiah,  Kzekiel,  and  Daniel, 
of  which  there  are  fragments. 

Aquila  often  appears  to  have  so  closely  sought 
to  follow  the  etymology  of  the  Hebrew  words,  that 
not  only  does  his  version  produce  no  definite  idea, 
but  it  does  not  even  suirgest  any  meaning  at  all. 
If  we  possessed  it  perfect  it  would  have  been  of 
great  value  as  to  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
though  often  it  would  be  of  no  service  as  to  its  real 
i;nd?rslanding. 

That  this  version  was  employed  for  centuries  by 
tbe  .Jews  tiiemselves  is  proved  indirectly  l>y  the 
14Gth  Novella  of  Justinian:  ttAV  ol  Sia  rrjs  'EA- 
f^riviSof  avayivwaKovTis  rrj  twu  e^SofivKovra 
Xp'f](rovTai  irapaSoaei  .  ,  .  ttAV  oAA'  ais  h.y  /j.rj 
ras  Aonras  avToh  aTTO/cAeieic  vofjLiaOeirifjLiv  ipfir\- 
viias,  QL^aav  ^i^ofxev  koI  tij  ^AkvKou  K^xRVf^^ct'i 
Kav  el  a\\6(pvhos  iKsTi'os  Kal  oii  fj.irpiav  i-uX 
Tiviov  Ae'lecoj/  exV  "'P'^S  roiis  tfiSofj.'l^KOi'ra  ti]i/ 
')ia(paiuiai'. 

3 .  Ti  I EODOTION.  —  The  second  version ,  of  wh  icb 
we  have  information  as  executed  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, is  that  of  Theodotion.  He  is  stated  to  have 
been  an  Ephesian,  and  he  seems  to  be  most  gen- 
erally described  as  an  Kbionite:  if  this  is  correct, 
ais  work  was  probably  intended  for  those  senu- 
wbristians  who  may  liave  desired  to  use  a  version 


of  their  own  instead  of  employing  the  LXX.  viiti 
the  Christians,  or  that  of  Aqtula  with  the  .lews. 

But  it  may  be  doubted  if  the  name  of  translnfinn 
can  be  rightly  applied  to  the  work  of  Theodotion  : 
it  is  rather  a  revision  of  the  LXX.  with  the  Hebrew 
text,  so  as  to  bring  some  of  the  copies  then  in  use 
into  more  conformity  with  the  original.  This  he 
was  able  to  do  (with  the  aid  probaldy  of  some  in- 
structors) so  as  to  elinjinate  portions  which  had 
been  introduced  into  the  LXX.,  without  really  being 
an  integral  part  of  the  version ;  and  also  so  as  to 
bring  much  into  accordance  with  the  Hebrew  in 
other  respects.  But  his  own  knowledge  of  Helirew 
was  evidently'  very  limited ;  and  thus  words  and 
]iai-ts  of  sentences  were  left  untranslated;  the  He- 
brew being  merely  written  with  Greek  letters. 

Theodotion  as  well  as  Aquila  was  quoted  by 
Irenwus;  and  against  both  there  is  the  connnon 
charge  laid  of  corrupting  texts  which  relate  to  the 
Messiah:  some  polemical  intention  in  such  passages 
can  hardly  be  doubted.  The  statement  of  I'.pi- 
phanius  that  he  made  his  translation  in  the  i-eii;n  of 
Conniiodus  accords  well  with  its  having  been  quoted 
by  Irenseus;  but  it  cainiot  be  correct  if  it  is  one 
of  the  translations  referred  to  by  Justin  Martyr  as 
giving  interpretations  contrary  to  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  New  Test. 

There  can  be  no  douljt  that  this  version  was 
much  used  by  Christians:  probably  many  changes 
in  the  text  of  the  T^XX.  were  adopted  from  Theo- 
dotion:  this  may  have  begun  before  the  I'blical 
labors  of  Origen  brought  the  various  versions  into 
one  conspectus.  The  translation  of  the  liook  of 
Daniel  by  Theodotion  was  substituted  for  that  of  the 
LXX.  in  ecclesiastical  use  as  early  at  least  as  part 
of  the  third  century.  Hence  Daniel,  as  rendered 
or  revised  by  Theodotion,  has  so  long  taken  the 
place  of  the  true  LXX.,  that  their  version  of  this 
book  was  supposed  not  to  be  extant;  and  it  has 
oidy  been  found  in  one  MS.  In  most  editions  of 
the  LXX.  Theodotion's  version  of  Daniel  is  stili 
substituted  for  that  which  really  belongs  to  that 
translation. 

4.  Symmachus  is  stated  by  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  to  have  been  an  Eljionite:  so  too  in  the 
Syrian  accounts  given  by  Assemani;  Epiphanius, 
however,  and  others  style  him  a  Samaritan,  'i'here 
may  have  been  Ebionites  from  amongst  the  Samari- 
tans, who  constituted  a  kind  of  separate  sect;  and 
these  may  have  desired  a  version  of  their  own;  or 
it  may  be  that  as  a  Samaritan  he  made  this  version 
for  some  of  that  people  who  employed  Greek,  and 
who  had  learned  to  receive  more  than  the  Penta- 
teuch. But  perhaps  to  such  motives  was  added  (if 
indeed  this  were  not  the  only  cause  of  the  version) 
a  desire  for  a  Greek  translation  not  so  unintelligibly 
bald  as  that  of  Aquila,  and  not  displaying  such  a 
want  of  Hebrew  learning  as  that  of  Theodotion.  It 
is  probable  that  if  this  translation  of  Synnnaehus 
had  appeared  prior  to  the  time  of  Irenasus,  it  would 
have  been  mentioned  by  him;  and  this  agrees  with 
what  Epiphanius  says,  namely,  that  he  lived  under 
the  lunperor  Severus. 

The  translation  which  he  produced  was  probably 
better  than  the  othei'S  as  to  sense  and  general 
piu'aseology.  When  .lerome  sjieaks  of  a  second 
edil'um  he  may  proltalJy  mean  some  revision,  more 
or  less  complete,  which  he  executed  after  his  trans- 
lation was  first  made:  it  could  hardly  be  a  retrans- 
lation,  or  anything  at  all  tantamount  thereto 

5.  The  Fifth;  Si.vtii,  and  Skvexth  Ver- 
sions. —  Besides  the  translations  of  Aquila,  S;  tu- 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (GREEK) 


8381 


machus.  and  Theodotion,  the  great  critical  work  of 
Origeii  couiprised  as  to  portions  of  the  Old  Test, 
three  other  versions,  placed  for  comparison  with 
the  l.XX. ;  which,  from  their  being  anonymous, 
are  onl}'  known  as  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh ; 
designations  taken  from  tlie  i>laces  which  they  re- 
spectively occupied  in  Origen's  colunmar  arrange- 
ment. Ancient  writers  seem  not  to  have  been  uni- 
form in  the  notation  which  they  applied  to  these 
versions;  and  thus  what  is  cited  from  one  by  its 
number  of  reference  is  quoted  by  others  under  a 
different  numeral. 

These  three  partial  translations  were  discovered 
by  Origen  in  the  course  of  his  travels  in  connection 
with  his  great  work  of  Biblical  criticism.  Euse- 
bius  says  that  two  of  these  versions  (but  without 
designating  precisely  whicii)  were  found,  the  one 
at  Jericho,  and  the  other  at  Nicopolis  on  the  Gulf 
of  Actium.  Epiphanius  says,  that  what  he  terms 
the  fifth,  was  found  at  Jericho,  and  the  sixth  at 
Nicopolis;  while  .leronie  speaks  of  the  fifth  as  hav- 
ing been  found  at  the  latter  place. 

The  contents  of  the  fifih  version  appear  to  have 
been  the  Pentateucli,  Psalms,  Canticles,  and  the 
minor  prophets:  it  seems  also  to  be  referred  to  in 
the  SjTo-flexaplar  text  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings: 
it  may  be  doubted  if  in  all  these  liooks  it  was  com- 
plete, or  at  least  if  so  nuich  were  adopted  by 
Origen.  The  existing  fragments  prove  that  the 
translator  used  the  Hebrew  original;  but  it  is  also 
certain  that  lie  was  aided  by  the  work  of  former 
translators. 

The  sixth  version  seems  to  have  been  just  the 
same  in  its  contents  as  the  fifth  (exce|)t  2  Kings): 
and  thus  the  two  may  have  been  confused :  this 
translator  also  seems  to  have  had  the  other  versions 
before  him.  Jerome  calls  the  authors  of  the  fifth 
and  sixth  "Ji«/a«cos  translatores  "  ;  but  the  trans- 
lator of  this  must  have  been  a  Christian  when  he 
executed  his  work,  or  else  the  hand  of  a  Chris- 
tian reviser  must  have  meddled  with  it  before  it 
was  employed  by  C>rigen ;  which  seems  from  the 
small  interval  of  time  to  be  hardly  probalile. 
For  in  llab.  iii.  15  the  translation  runs,  e|r)A0es 
Tou  awaai  rhv  Ka6v  aov  dia  'It/coC  tov  xP'-^'^ov 

(TOU. 

Of  the  seventh  version  very  few  fragments  re- 
main. It  seems  to  have  contained  the  Psalms  and 
minor  prophets;  and  the  translator  was  probably  a 
Jew. 

From  the  references  given  by  Origen,  or  by  those 
who  copied  from  his  columnar  arrangement  and  its 
results  (or  who  ackkd  to  such  extracts),  it  has 
been  thought  that  other  Greek  versions  were 
spoken  of  Of  these  b  'E^paio^  probably  refers  to 
the  Hebrew  text  or  to  something  drawn  from  it: 
6  Si'poy  to  the  Old  Syriac  version:  rh  2,a/j.apeiTi- 
k6v  ()robably  a  reference  to  the  Samaritan  text, 
or  some  Samarit.an  gloss:  (5  'EWtjuikSs,  6  "AA- 
Aos,  6  av€Triypa(pos  some  unspecified  version  or 
versions.  • 

'i'he  existing  fragments  of  these  varied  versions 
are  mostly  to  be  fomiil  in  tlie  editions  of  the  relics 
Df  Origen's  Hexapla,  by  ;\Iontfaucon  and  by  Bahrdt, 
[and  later,  by  F.  Field,  Oxford,  1807-70.  See  also 
jelow,  Syhiac  Veksions,  I.  (B.),  on  the  editions 
Df  the  Syriac  from  the  Ilexaplar  Greek  text.  —  .\.] 

(For  an  account  of  the  use  made  of  these  ver- 
pons  by  Origen,  and  its  results,  see  Skptuac-ixt.  ) 

6.  The  Veneto-(jkekk  Vp;hsion.  —  .\  MS.  of 
the  fourteenth  century,  in  the  lil)rary  of  St.  Mark 
it  Venice,  contains  a  peculiar  version  of  the  Pen- 


tateuch, Proverbs,  Ecelesiastes,  Canticles.  Ruth, 
Lamentations,  and  Daniel.  All  of  these  books,  ex- 
cept the  Pentateuch,  were  published  by  Villoison 
at  Strasbourg  in  1784;  the  Pentateuch  was  edited 
by  Amnion  at  Erlangen  in  17'J0-'Jl.  The  version 
itself  is  thon^cht  to  be  four  or  five  hundred  years 
older  than  the  one  MS.  in  which  it  has  been  trans- 
mitted ;  this,  however,  is  so  thoroughly  a  matter 
of  opinion,  that  there  seems  no  absolute  reason  for 
determining  that  this  one  MS.  may  not  be  the 
original  as  well  as  the  only  one  in  existence.  It  is 
written  in  one  very  narrow  column  on  each  page; 
the  leaves  follow^  each  other  in  the  Hebrew  order, 
so  that  the  book  begins  at  what  we  should  call  the 
end.  An  examination  of  the  MS.  suggested  the 
opinion  that  it  may  have  been  written  on  the 
broad  inner  margin  of  a  Hebrew  M.S. :  and  that 
for  some  reason  the  llel)rew  jiortion  had  been  cut 
away,  leaving  thus  a  Greek  MS.  probably  miique 
as  to  its  form  and  arrangement.  As  to  the  trans- 
lation itself,  it  is  on  any  supposition  too  recent  to 
be  of  consequence  in  criticism.  It  may  be  said 
briefly  that  the  translation  was  made  from  the  He- 
brew, aIthou<;h  the  present  punctu.ation  and  accent- 
uation is  often  not  followed,  and  the  translator  was 
no  douljt  acquainted  with  some  other  tireek  ver- 
sions. The  language  of  the  translation  is  a  most 
strange  mixture  of  astonishing  and  cacophonous 
barl)arism  with  attempts  at  Attic  elegance  and  re- 
finement. The  Doric,  which  is  employed  to  an- 
swer to  the  (,'haldsean  portions  of  Daniel,  seems  to 
be  an  indication  of  remarkable  affectation. 

The  Greek  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel.  — 
Any  account  of  the  Greek  versions  of  Holy  Scrii> 
ture  would  be  incomplete  without  some  allusion 
to  the  fact,  that  if  early  testimonies  and  ancient 
opini<jn  unitedly  are  to  have  some  weight  when 
wholly  uncontradicted,  then  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  original  language  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew  was  Hebrew^  and  that  the  text  which  has 
been  transmitted  to  us  is  really  a  Greek  trans- 
lation. 

It  may  be  briefly  stated  that  every  early  writer 
who  mentions  that  St.  iMatthew  wrote  a  Gospel  'it 
all  says  that  he  wrote  in  Hebrew  (that  is,  in  the 
Syro-Chaldaic),and  in  Palestine  in  the  first  century; 
so  that  if  it  be  assumed  that  he  did  not  write  in 
Hebrew  but  in  Greek,  then  it  may  well  be  asked, 
what  ground  is  there  to  believe  that  he  wrote  any 
narrative  of  our  Lord's  life  on  earth  ? 

Every  early  writer  that  has  come  down  to  us 
uses  the  Greek  of  St.  IMatthew,  and  this  with  the 
definite  recognition  that  it  is  a  translation ;  hence 
we  n)ay  be  sure  that  the  Greek  copy  belongs  to  tha 
.\postolic  age,  having  been  thus  authoritatively 
used  from  and  up  to  that  time.  Thus  the  ques- 
tion is  not  the  authority  of  the'Greek  translation, 
which  comes  from  the  time  when  the  churches  en- 
joyed Apostolic  guidance,  but  whether  there  was  a 
Hebrew  original  from  whicli  it  had  been  translated. 

The  witnesses  to  the  Helirew  original  were  men 
sufficiently  competent  to  attest  so  simple  a  fact,  es- 
pecially seeing  that  they  are  relied  on  in  what  is  far 
niore  important,  — that  St.  Matthew  wrote  a  Gos- 
pel at  all.  Papias,  in  the  begimiing  of  the  second 
century,  repeats  apparently  the  words  of  .John  the 
Presbyter,  an  immediate  disciple  of  our  Lord,  th.at 
"  JIatthew  wrote  the  oracles  in  the  Hebrew  dia- 
lect." Irena-Ds,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  cen- 
tury, is  equally  explicit;  in  connection  with  the 
Indian  mission  of  Pantwiuis  in  the  same  aire,  we 
le;iri'.  that  he  found  the  Goswl  of  Matthew  in  the 


3382 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SLAVONIC) 


very  Hebrew  letters.  In  the  next  century  Origen, 
the  laborious  investigator  and  diligent  inquirer, 
says,  that  the  received  account  was  that  St.  Mat- 
thew had  written  the  first  Gospel,  and  that  it  was 
in  Hebrew.  So  too  in  the  )iext  century,  Kpipha- 
nius  and  Jerome,  l)oth  of  whom,  lilve  Origen,  were 
acquainted  with  Hebrew.  Jerome  also  mentions 
the  very  copies  of  this  Hebrew  original  which  were 
extant  in  his  time,  and  which  he  transcrilied.  He 
shows  indeed  that  the  copies  then  circulateil  amongst 
the  Nazarenes  had  been  variously  interpolated:  but 
this  would  not  afliict  the  antecedent  fact.  So  too 
Epiphanius  shows  that  the  document  had  been  va- 
riously depraved :  but  this  does  not  set  aside  what 
it  orii^'inally  was. 

To  follow  the  unanimous  agreement  of  later  writ- 
ers  is  needless;  but  what  can  be  said  on  the  other 
side?  What  evhivnce  is  adduced  that  St.  IMatthew 
wrote  in  Greek?  None  whatever:  but  sinijily  some 
it  priori  notions  that  he  ought  to  have  done  so  are 
advanced:  then  it  is  truly  stated  that  the  (ireek 
Gospel  does  not  read  as  though  it  had  aliout  it  the 
constraint  of  a  translation;  and  then  it  is  said  that 
perhaps  the  witnesses  for  the  Helirew  original  were 
mistaken."  "But  (says  Principal  Campliell)  is  the 
positive  testimony  of  witnesses,  delivered  as  of  a 
well-known  fact,  to  be  overturned  by  a  mere  suppo- 
sition, a  perhaps  f  for  that  the  case  is  really  as 
they  suppose  no  shadow  of  evidence  is  pretended  " 
(  Worh,  ii.  171). 

For  another  theory,  that  St.  ftfatthew  wrote 
both  in  Hebrew  and  also  in  Greek,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence: the  notion  is  even  contradicted  iiy  the 
avowed  ignorance  of  the  early  Christian  WTiters  as 
to  whose  hand  formed  the  Greek  version  which 
they  accepted  as  authoritative.  To  them  there  was 
nothing  self -contradictory  (as  some  have  said)  in 
the  notion  of  an  authoritative  translation.  As  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  public  use  of  the  Jour  (ios- 
pels  in  Greek  was  universal  in  the  churches  from 
the  Apostolic  age,  it  proves  to  us  that  Apostolic 
sanction  must  have  been  the  ground  of  this  usage; 
this  surely  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the  Greek  Gos- 
pel that  we  have. 

Erasnnis  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  suf^gest 
that  the  Greek  is  the  original  of  the  Apostle:  at 
least  no  writer  earlier  than  Erasmus  has  been 
brought  forward  as  holding  the  opinion :  in  this 
many  have  followed  him  on  what  may  be  called 
very  subjective  grounds.  Erasmus  also  advanced 
the  opinion  that  Irenaeus  Against  Heresies  was 
WTitten  by  him  in  Latin.     For  this  he  had  just  as 


good  grounds  as  for  the  Greek  original  of  St.  JIat 
thew.  As  to  Irenseus,  no  one  appears  to  follow 
Erasmus;  why  should  so  many  adhere  to  his  bold 
opinion  (opposed  by  so  nuich  evidence  and  sup- 
ported by  none)  relative  to  St.  JIatthew?  On  the 
revival  of  letters  there  was  much  curiosity  ex- 
]ii-essed  for  the  recovery  of  a  copj'  of  St.  JNlatthew's 
Hebrew  original.  Pope  Nicholas  V.  is  said  to 
have  ofTered  five  thousand  ducats  for  a  copy :  this 
])robal)ly  suggested  the  retranslations  into  Hebrew 
of  this  Gospel  pulilished  in  the  following  c«ntury 
by  Sel)astian  Miiiister  and  others.  S.  P.  T. 

LATIN  VERSIONS.     [Vulg.\te.] 
SAMARITAN    VERSIONS.       [Samahitan 
Pentatkucu,  p.  2812  a.] 

SLAVONIC  VERSION.  In  the  year  862 
there  was  a  desire  expressed,  or  an  inquiry  made, 
for  Christian  teachers  in  Moravia,  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  the  labors  of  missionaries  began 
amongst  them.  We  need  not  consider  the  Mora- 
via in  which  these  services  were  conmienced  to  be 
precisely  restricted  to  or  identified  with  the  region 
which  now  bears  that  name,  for  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury Great  Moravia  was  of  far  wider  extent ;  and 
it  ■was  amongst  the  Slavonic  people  then  occupying 
this  whole  region,  that  the  effort  for  Christianiza- 
tion  was  put  forth  But  while  this  further  extent 
of  Moravia  is  admitted,  it  is  also  to  be  recollected 
that  the  province  of  Moravia,  of  which  Briinn  is 
the  metropolis,  is  not  only  the  nucleus  of  Moravia, 
but  that  also  the  iidiabitants  of  that  country,  still 
retaining  as  they  do  their  Slavonian  tongue,  rightly 
consider  themselves  as  the  descendants  and  succes- 
sors of  those  who  were  then  Christianized.  Thus, 
in  1862  they  commemorated  the  thousandth  anni- 
versary of  their  having  taken  this  step,  and  in  1803 
they  celebrated  the  thousandth  from  the  actual  ar- 
rival of  missionaries  amongst  them,  i'hese  mission- 
aries were  Cyrillus  and  jMetbodius,  two  brothers 
from  Thessalonica:  to  Cyrillus  is  ascribed  the  in- 
vention of  the  Slavonian  alphabet,  and  the  com- 
mencement of  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures. 
Neander  truly  says  that  he  was  honoralily  distin- 
guished from  all  other  missionaries  of  that  period 
in  not  having  yielded  to  the  prejudice  which  repre- 
sented the  languages  of  rude  nations  as  too  profane 
for  sacred  uses;  and  by  not  having  shrunk  from 
any  toil  which  was  necessary  in  order  to  become 
accurately  acquainted  with  the  language  of  the 
people  anjongst  whom  he  labored.  Cyrillus  ap- 
pears ta  have  died  at  Rome  in  868,  while  Metho- 


a  The  manner  in  wliich  the  testimony  of  eouipetent 
witnesses  has  been  not  only  called  iu  question,  but 
get  aside,  is  such  as  would  cast  doubt  on  any  histor- 
ical fact  competently  attested  ;  and  the  terms  applied 
to  the  witnesses  themselves  are  such  as  seem  to  .show 
that  argument  being  vain,  it  is  needful  to  have  re- 
course to  something  else ;  not  mere  ussfrtinn  as  op- 
posed to  the  definite  evidence,  but  a  mode  of  speaking 
of  the  witnesses  themselves  and  of  misrepresenting 
their  words,  which  would  not  be  ventured  on  in  com- 
mon matters.  Thus  a  writer  wlio  is  well  and  justly 
■isteemed  on  otlier  subjects,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Alex- 
inder,  sets  aside  the  evidence  and  the  statements  of 
Jerome  in  this  manner  :  "  The  one  who  says  he  Iiad 
ieen  the  [Hebrew]  gospel  is  Jerome  ;  but  his  evidence 
ibout  it  is  so  conflicting  that  it  is  not  worth  a  rush. 
First  he  says  he  has  seen  it,  and  is  sure  that  it  is  the 
original  of  the  Greek  gospel  ;  then  he  softens  down 
with  'it  is  ca'leil  by  most  people  Jlatthews  ;iiithentio.' 
as  most  believe,' and  so  on      Now   lie  ^a>»,  '  Who 


translated  it  into  Greek  is  unknown  ;  '  and  presently, 
with  amusing  self-complacency  and  obliviousness,  h« 
tells  us,  '  I  myself  translated  it  into  Greek  and  Latin  I ' 
Why  there  is  not  a  small-debt  court  in  the  country 
where  siich  a  witness  would  not  be  hooted  to  the 
door."  AVould  such  modes  of  reasoning  be  adopte4  it 
it  were  not  desired  to  mystifv  the  subject?  Who 
cannot  see  tliat  Jerome  says  that  it  is  unknown  who 
had  made  the  Greek  translation  then  current  for  cen- 
turies ?  And  who  imagines  that  he  identified  with 
that  version  the  one  whicli  he  had  recently  made  from 
the  document  found  at  Beroea?  But  tlius  it  is  that 
this  is  substituted  for  argument  on  this  subject.  Dr. 
Land,  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature^  October, 
1858,  boldly  asserts,  "  U'e  may  .«afely  say  that  there  is. 
in  probability  as  well  as  in  direct  testimony,  a  weight 
as  heavy  in  the  scale  of  the  Greek  text  as  in  that  ol 
the  Hebrew,  not  to  go  further."  But,  in  fact,  there  i» 
no  testimony,  direct  or  indirect,  for  a  Greek  origiua. 
of  St.  Matthew. 


Jius  continued  for  many  years  to  be  bisliop  of  the 
Slavonians.  He  is  stated  to  have  continued  his 
brotlier'g  translation,  although  how  muck  they 
themselves  actually  executed  is  quite  uncertain ; 
perhaps  much  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not  trans- 
lated at  all  in  that  age,  possibly  not  for  many  cen- 
turies after. 

The  Old  Testament  is,  as  might  be  supposed,  a 
version  from  the  LXX.,  but  what  measure  of  re- 
vision it  may  since  have  received  seems  to  be  by  no 
means  certain.  As  the  oldest  known  MS.  of  the 
whole  Bible  is  of  the  year  l-i'JiJ,  it  may  reason- 
ably be  questioned  whether  this  version  may  not  in 
large  portions  be  comparatively  modern.  This 
conld  only  be  set  at  rest  by  a  more  full  and  accu- 
rate knowledge  being  olitained  of  Slavonic  Biblical 
MSS.  Dobrowsky,  however,  mentions  (Griesbach's 
o'r.  Ttst.  ii.,  xxxiii.)  that  this  MS.  (his  1),  and 
two  others  copied  from  it,  are  the  only  Slavonic 
MSS.  of  the  entire  Bible  existing  in  Russia.  If 
it  be  correct  that  the  M,SS.  which  he  terms  2  and 
3  are  copietl  from  this,  there  are  strong  reasons  for 
believing  that  it  was  not  comji/e/ed  for  some  years 
subsequently  to  14L)!).  The  oldest  MSS.  of  any 
part  of  this  version  is  an  Kvangeliarium,  in  Cyril- 
lic characters,  of  the  year  105J ;  that  at  Kheims 
(containing  the  Gospels)  on  which  the  kings  of 
France  used  to  take  their  coronation  oath,  is  nearly 
as  old.  One,  containing  the  Gospels,  at  Moscow, 
is  of  the  year  1144. 

The  first  printed  portion  was  an  edition  of  the 
Gospels  in  Wallachia,  in  1512;  in  1575  the  same 
portion  was  printed  at  Wihia;  and  in  1581  the 
whole  Bible  was  printed  at  Ostrog  in  Volhynia; 
from  this  was  taken  the  Moscow  edition  of  1GG3, 
in  which,  however,  there  was  some  revision,  at  least 
80  far  as  the  insertion  of  1  .lohn  v.  7  is  concerned. 
VVetstein  cited  a  few  readings  from  this  version ; 
Alter  made  more  extracts,  which  were  used  by 
Griesbach,  together  with  the  collations  sent  to  him 
by  Dobrowsky,  both  from  M.SS.  and  printed  edi- 
tions. We  thus  can  say,  with  some  confidence, 
that  the  general  text  is  such  as  would  ha\3  been 
expected  in  the  ninth  century:  some  readings  from 
the  Latin  have,  it  appears,  been  introduced  in 
l)laces:  this  arises  probably  from  the  early  Slavo- 
nian custom  of  reading  the  Gospel  in  Latin  before 
they  did  it  in  their  own  tongue. 

Dobrowsky  paid  particular  attention  in  liis  col- 
lations to  the  copies  of  the  .\pocalypse:  it  has  been, 
however,  long  suspected  that  that  book  formed  no 
portion  of  this  version  as  originally  made.  We  can 
now  go  further  and  say  definitely  that  the  Apoc- 
alypse, as  found  in  some  at  least  of  the  Slavonic 
copies,  could  not  be  anterior  to  the  appearance  of 
the  first  edition  of  the  Gr.  Test,  of  Krasnuis  in 
1516.     For  there  are  readings  in  the  Apocalypse 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC)  Sdiid 

of  Erasn)us  which  are  entirely  devoid  of  any  sup- 
port from  Greek  MSS.  This  can  be  said  confi- 
dently, since  the  one  Greek  copy  used  by  luasnms 
has  been  identified  and  described  by  Prof.  De- 
litzsch.«  It  is  now  therefore  known  that  peculiari- 
ties as  to  error  in  Erasmus's  text  of  the  Apocalypse, 
as  it  first  appeared,  are  in  several  plapes  due  not  tc 
the  MS.  from  which  he  drew,  but  to  the  want  of 
care  in  his  edition.  And  thus,  whatever  agrees 
with  such  peculiarities  nmst  depend  on,  and  thus 
be  subsequent  to  the  Erasmian  text.  In  Kev.  ii. 
13,  the  Erasmian  text  has  the  peculiar  reading,  eV 
Tois  r]/xepais  ffials;  for  this  no  MS.  was  cit«d 
by  Griesbach,  and  all  his  authority,  besides  th« 
Erasmian  edition,  was  in  fact  "  Slav.  3,  4,"  t,  e. 
two  MSS.  collated  by  Dobrowsky ;  one  of  these  \i 
said  by  him  to  be  copied  from  the  oldest  Slavonic 
iMS.  of  the  whole  Bible:  if,  therefore,  it  agrees 
with  it  in  this  place,  it  shows  that  the  Slavonic 
iMS.  must,  in  that  p.art  at  least,  be  later  than  the 
year  15 IG.  The  oidy  Greek  authority  for  this 
reading,  ^/xais,  is  the  munjin  of  92,  the  Dublui 
MS.,  famous  as  containing  1  .John  v.  7:  in  which 
the  Gospels  belong  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury; the  Acts  and  Epistles  are  somewhat  later, 
and  the  Apocalypse  was  added  about  the  year 
1580.''  There  seems  to  be  another  Slavonic  text 
of  the  Apocalypse  contained  in  Dobrowsky's  10,  but 
whether  it  is  older  than  the  one  already  mentioned 
is  doubtful.  S.  P.  1. 

SYHIAC  VERSIONS.  I.  Of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

A.  From  ike  Hebrew.  —  In  the  early  times  of 
Syrian  Christianity  there  was  executed  a  version 
of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  original  Hebrew, 
the  use  of  which  must  have  been  as  widely  extended 
as  was  the  Christian  profession  amongst  that  peo- 
ple. Ephraem  the  Syrian,  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  4th  century,  gives  abundant  proof  of  its  use 
in  general  by  his  countrymen.     When  he  calls  it 

OUK  VERSION,  .^Ji^iO,  it  does  not  appear  to 
be  in  opposition  to  any  other  Syriac  translation 
(for  no  other  can  be  proved  to  have  then  existed), 
but  in  contrast  to  the  original  Hebrew  te.xt,  or 
to  tho.se  in  other  languages. °  .\t  a  later  period 
this   Syriac    translation    was    designated   Pesliito, 

^■j5"="*"^  (Simple);  or,  as  in  the  preface  of  Bar- 

Hebroeus  to  his  Thesaurus  Arcanorwn,  )  ^O,'^  V* 


a  Handschriftliche  Funde  von  Frauz  Delitzsch. 
Erstes  Heft,  Die  Erasmischen  Eutstelluugeu  ties  Te.xtes 
der  -Apocalypse,  nachgewiesen  aus  clem  verloreu  ge- 
glaubten  Codex  Reuclilini,  1861. 

Handschriftliche  Funde  von  Franz  Delitzsch,  mit 
Beitr.igen  von  S.  I'.  Tregelles.  Zweites  Heft,  neue  Stu- 
lien  liber  deu  Codex  Reuchlini,  etc. ,  1862.  [Also  with 
the  Euglisli  title,  "  Manuscript  Disnveries  by  Francis 
Delitzsch,  with  additions  by  S.  P.  Tregelles.  Part  II., 
New  Studies  on  the  Codex  Reuchlini,  and  new  result.-" 
In  the  textual  history  of  the  Apocalypse,  drawn  from 
the  libraries  of  Munich,  Vienna,  Rome,  etc.,  1862.''] 

*  See  further  an  article  by  Dr.  T.  J.  Conaut  on  the 
Sreek  Text  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  the  Baptist  ^uar- 
yrlM  for  April,  1870.  A. 


J  V'T^^"*^  (Simple  version).  It  is  probable  that 
this  name  was  applied  to  the  version  after  another 
had  been  formed  from  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text. 
In  the  translation  made  from  Origen's  revision  of 
the  LXX.,  the  critical  marks  introduced  by  him 
were  retained,  and  thus  every  page  and  every  part 


f>  This  Greek  authority  is  the  one  denoted  by  92. 
Tischendorf  (following  a  misprint  in  Tregelles'  Grt;ek 
and  English  Revelation,  1844)  gives  it  91**.  That 
would  signify  a  correction  in  a  later  liand  in  91  ;  which 
is  the  modern  supplement  to  the  Vatican  MS.,  in  which 
such  a  correction  has  been  sought  in  vain. 

c  Ephraemi  Opera  Syr.  i.  380  (on  1  Sam.  xxiy.  4). 
He  is  simply  comparing  the  Hebrew  phrase  and  the 

Syriac    version:      Jl^^.'^.N      '-¥^1       ^^^,       ^>^ 


3384 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


1VKS  marked  with  asterisks  and  obeli,  from  wbici.   shows  tha'  it  was  tlien  current,  but  also  gives  the 


the  translation  from  the  Hebrew  was  free.  It 
might,  therefore,  be  but  natural  for  a  bare  text  to 
be  thus  designated,  in  contrast  to  the  marks  and 
the  citations  of  the  different  Greek  translators 
found  in  the  version  from  the  Hexaplar  Greek. 
This  translation  from  the  Hebrew  has  always  been 
the  ecclesiastical  version  of  the  Syrians;  and  wlien 
it  is  remembered  how  in  tlie  5th  century  dissen- 
sions and  divisions  were  introduced  into  the  Syrian 
churches,  and  how  from  that  time  the  Monophy- 
sites  and  those  termed  Nestorians  have  been  in  a 
state  of  unhealed  opposition,  it  shows  not  only  the 
antiquity  of  this  version,  but  also  the  deep  and 
abiding  hold  which  it  must  have  taken  on  the 
mind  of  the  people,  that  this  version  was  firmly 
held  fast  by  both  of  these  opposed  parties,  as  well 
as  by  those  who  adhere  to  the  Greek  Church,  and 
by  the  Jlaronites.  Its  existence  and  use  prior  to 
their  divisions  is  sufficiently  proved  by  Epbraeni 
alone.  But  bow  much  older  it  is  than  that  deacon 
of  Edessa  we  have  no  evidence.  From  Bar-He- 
brseus  (in  the  13th  century)  we  learn  that  tliere 
were  three  opinions  as  to  its  age;  some  saying  that 
the  version  was  made  hi  the  reigns  of  Solomon  and 
Hiram,  some  that  it  was  translated  by  Asa,  the 
priest  who  was  sent  by  the  king  of  Assyria  to 
Samaria,  and  some  that  the  version  was  i^rade  in 
the  days  of  Adai  the  apostle  and  of  Aljgaius,  king 
of  Osrhoene  (at  which  time,  he  adds,  the  Siinpla 
version  of  the  New  'I'est.  was  also  made)."  'i'he 
first  of  these  opinions  of  course  implies  that  the 
books  written  before  that  time  were  then  trans- 
lated ;  indeed,  a  limitation  of  somewhat  the  same 
kind  would  aiiply  to  the  second.  The  ground  of 
the  first  opinion  seems  to  have  Ijeen  the  belief  that 
the  Tyrian  king  was  a  convert  to  the  piofession  of 
the  true  and  revealed  faith  held  by  the  Israelites; 
and  that  the  possession  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the 
Syriac  tongue  (which  they  identified  with  his  own) 
was  a  necessary  consequence  of  this  adoption  of 
the  true  belief:  this  opinion  is  mentioned  as  having 
been  held  by  some  of  the  Syrians  in  the  Uth  cen- 
tury. The  second  opinion  (which  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  cited  from  any  Syriac  writer  prior  to 
Bar-Hebrafus)  seems  to  have  some  connection  with 
the  I'ormatiun  of  the  Samaritan  veision  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. As  that  version  is  in  an  Aramsean  dia- 
lect, any  one  who  supposed  that  it  was  made 
immediately  alter  the  mission  of  the  priest  fiom 
Assyria  might  say  that  it  was  then  first  that  (t?i 
Arama;an  translation  was  executed;  and  this  might 
aftervi'ards,  in  a  sort  of  indefinite  manner,  have 
been  connected  with  what  the  Syrians  themselves 
used.  James  of  Edessa  (in  the  latter  half  of  the 
7th  century)  had  held  the  t/iird  of  the  opinions 
mentioned  by  Bar-Hebra;us,  who  cites  him  in  sup- 
port of  it,  and  accords  with  it. 

It  is  highly  improliable  that  any  part  of  the 
Syriac  version  is  older  than  the  ad\ent  of  our  Lord  ; 
those  who  placed  it  under  Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa, 
seem  to  have  argued  on  the  account  that  the  Syrian 
people  then  received  Christianity;  and  thus  they 
supposed  that  a  version  of  the  Scriptures  was  a 
necessary  accompaniment  of  such  conversion.  All 
that  the  account  shows  clearly  is,  then,  that  it  was 
believed  to  belong  to  the  earliest  period  of  flie 
Christian  faith  among  them :  an  opinion  with 
H'hicli  all  that  we  know  ou  the  subject  accords 
ivell.      Thus  Ephraem,  in  the  Uh  century,  not  only 

«   Wiseman,  Hone  Si/riacrr,  p.  90. 


impression  *liat  tliis  had  even  then  been  limy  the 
case.  For  in  his  commentaries  he  gives  explana- 
tions of  terms  which  were  even  then  obscure.  This 
might  have  been  ii'om  age:  if  so,  the  version  was 
made  comparatively  long  before  his  days:  or  it 
might  be  from  its  having  l^een  in  a  dialect  different 
from  that  to  which  he  was  accustomed  at  Edessa 
In  this  case,  then,  the  translation  was  made  in 
some  other  part  of  Syria;  wliich  would  hardly 
liave  been  done,  unless  Cliristianity  had  at  such  a 
time  been  more  diffused  t'hats  than  it  was  at 
lulessa.  The  dialect  of  that  city  is  stated  to  have 
been  tlie  purest  Syriac:  if,  then,  the  version  was 
made  for  that  place,  it  would  no  doubt  have  been 
a  monument  of  sucli  [)urer  dialect,  rrol.ably  the 
origin  of  tlie  Old  Syriac  version  is  to  le  compared 
with  that  of  the  Old  Latin  [see  Vulgatic]  ;  and 
tliat  it  differed  as  much  from  the  polished  lan- 
guage of  l'"<lessa  as  did  the  Old  Latin,  made  in  the 
African  Pro\ince,  from  the  contemporary  writers 
of  Kome,  such  as  Tacitus. 

E\en  thoiigli  the  traces  of  the  origin  of  this 
version  of  the  Old  Test.  Ije  but  few,  yet  it  is  of 
importance  that  they  should  lie  marked;  for  the 
end  Syriac  has  the  peculiar  value  of  lieing  the  first 
version  from  the  Hebrew  original  made  for  Chris- 
tian use;  and,  indeed,  the  only  translation  of  the 
kind  liefore  tliat  of  .Jerome,  which  was  made  suli- 
sequently  to  the  time  when  Ephraem  wrote.  Tills 
Syriac  commentator  »*'(?/ liave  termed  it  "ouk  ver- 
sion," in  contrast  to  all  others  then  current  (for 
the  Targums  were  hardly  versions),  which  were 
merely  reflections  of  the  Greek  and  not  of  the 
Hebrew  original. 

The  proof  that  this  version  was  made  from  the 
Helirew  is  twofold:  we  have  the  direct  statements 
of  Ephraem,  who  compares  it  in  places  with  the 
Hebrew,  and  speaks  of  this  origin  as  a  fact;  and 
and  who  is  confirmed  (if  that  had  been  needful) 
by  later  Syrian  writers;  we  find  the  same  thing  as 
evident  from  the  internal  examination  of  the  ver- 
sion itself.  Whatever  internal  change  or  revision 
it  may  have  received,  the  Hebrew  groundwork  of 
the  tran.slatiou  is  unmistakable.  Such  indications 
of  revision  must  be  afterwards  briefly  specified. 

The  first  jirinted  edition  of  this  version  was  that 
which  apiieared  in  the  Paris  Polyglott  of  Le  .lay  in 
104.5;  it  is  said  tliat  the  editor,  Gabriel  Sionita,  e 
Maronite,  bad  only  an  imperfect  MS.,  and  that, 
besides  errors,  it  was  defecti\e  as  to  whole  passage?, 
and  even  as  to  entire  books.  This  last  charge  siirv  t 
to  be  so  made  as  if  it  were  to  imply  that  booliS 
were  omitted  besides  those  of  the  Apocrypha,  a 
part  which  Sionita  confessedly  had  not.  He  is 
stated  to  have  supplied  the  deficiencies  by  trans- 
lating into  Syriac  from  the  \'ulgafe.  It  can  hardly 
lie  supposed  but  that  there  is  some  exaggeration  in 
these  statements.  Sionita  may  have  filled  up  an  occa- 
sional hiatus  ill  his  RIS. ;  but  it  requires  very  defi- 
nite examination  before  we  can  fully  credit  tliat  he 
thus  supplied  whole  books.  It  seems  needlul  to 
believe  that  the  defective  books  were  simply  thosp 
in  the  Apocrypha,  which  he  did  not  supply.  'J'ho 
result,  however,  is,  that  the  Paris  edition  is  but  an 
infirm  groundwork  for  our  speaking  with  confidence 
of  the  text  of  this  version. 

In  Walton's  Polyglott,  1657,  the  Paris  text  is 
reprinted,  but  with  the  addition  of  the  Apocryphal 
books  which  had  been  wanting.  It  was  generally 
said  that  Walton  had  done  much  to  amend  the 
texts  upon  MS.  authority;  but  the  late  Prof.  Le« 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


3385 


denies  tliis.  stating  that  "the  only  addition  made 
by  Walton  was  some  Apocryphal  books."  From 
Walton's  Polyglott,  Kirsch,  in  1787,  published  a 
separate  edition  of  the  Pentateuch.  Of  the  Syriac 
Psalter  there  have  been  many  editions.  The  first 
of  these,  as  mentioned  l)y  Eichhorii,  appeared  in 
IGIO;  it  has  by  the  side  an  Araliic  version.  In 
1G25  there  were  two  editions;  the  one  at  Paris 
edited  l)y  Gabriel  Sionita,  and  one  at  Leyden  by 
1-rpenius  from  two  MSS."  These  have  since  been 
rei)eated ;  but  anterior  to  them  all,  it  is  mentioned 
tliat  the  seven  penitential  psalms  appeared  at  Rome 
ill  1.584. 

Ill  the  punctuation  given  in  the  Polyglotts,  a 
system  was  introduced  which  was  in  part  a  pecul- 
iarity of  Gabriel  Sionita  himself.  This  has  to  be 
borne  in  mind  by  those  who  use  either  the  Paris 
Polyglott  or  that  of  Walton ;  for  in  many  words 
there  is  a  redundancy  of  vowels,  and  the  form  of 
•ioiiie  is  thus  exceedingly  changed. 

When  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  pro- 
posed more  tlian  forty  years  ago  to  issue  the  Syriac 
Old  Testament  for  tiie  first  time  in  a  separate  vol- 
ume, the  late  Prof.  Lee  was  employed  to  nialie  such 
editorial  preparations  as  could  be  connected  with  a 
mere  revision  of  the  text,  without  any  specification 
of  the  authorities.  Dr.  Lee  collated  for  the  purpose 
six  Syriac  MSS.  of  tiie  Old  Test,  in  general,  and  a 
very  ancient  copy  of  the  Pentateuch:  he  also  used 
in  part  the  coninientaries  of  Kphraem  and  of  Bar- 
Ilebroeus.  From  these  various  sources  he  con- 
structed his  text,  with  the  aid  of  that  found  already 
in  the  Polyglotts.  (Jf  course  the  corrections  de- 
pended on  the  editor's  own  judgment;  and  the 
want  of  a  specification  of  the  results  of  collations 
leaves  the  reader  in  doubt  as  to  what  the  evidence 
may  be  in  those  places  in  which  there  is  a  depart- 
ure from  the  Polyglott  text.  But  tliough  more  in 
formation  might  be  desired,  we  have  in  the  edition 
of  Lee  a  veritable  Syriac  text,  from  Syriac  authori- 
ties, and  free  from  the  suspicion  of  having  been 
formed  in  modern  times,  by  Gabriel  Sionita's  trans- 
lating portions  from  the  Latin.  [I^rof.  Lee's  edi- 
tion was  pulilished  at  London  in  182-3. — ^A.] 

But  we  have  now  in  this  country,  in  the  MS. 
treasures  brought  from  the  Nitrian  valleys,  the 
means  of  far  more  accurately  editing  this  version. 
Even  if  the  results  should  not  appear  to  be  strik- 
ing, a  thorough  use  of  these  iNLSS-  would  place  this 
version  on  such  a  basis  of  diplomatic  evidence  as 
would  show  positively  how  this  earliest  Christian 
translation  from  the  Heljrew  was  read  in  the  6th 
or  7th  century,  or  possibly  still  earlier:*  we  thus 
could  use  the  Syriac  with  a  fuller  degree  of  confi- 
dence in  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  just  as 
we  ca.n  the  more  ancient  versions  of  the  New  for 
the  criticism  of  the  (Jreek. 

In  the  beginning  of  1849,  the  late  excellent 
Biblical  scholar,  the  Kev.  John  Hoge."s,  Canon  of 
F.xeter,  published  Jieasons  why  n  Nvio  Edilum  of 
t'lf  Pesclnio,  or  Ancient  Syritic  Version  of  the  Ull 
'J eshtmcnl,  should  be  published.  In  this  interest- 
ing pamphlet,  addressed  to  the  late  Archl)islio]>  of 
Caiiterliury,  Canon  Rogers  speaks  of  the  value  of 
the  version  itself,  its  importance  in  criticism,  the 
existing  editions,  their  defects,  the  sources  of 
emendation  now  possessed  by  this  country,  in  the 


a  *  Dathe  also  published  an  edition  of  the  text  of 

Erpenius  at  Halle  iu   1768,  adding  the  vowel-poiiits, 

and    notes.     There   is  an   Kngli.xh  Tramla' inn   of  the 

Syriac  Ptskito    Version  of  the  Psn'ms  nf  Uivnl.  with 

213 


Nitrian  MSS.  especially,  "  now   [1849]   under  the 
care  of  the  Kev.   Win.   Curetoii,   who   is  making 
known  to  the  public  the  treasures  of  the  library  of 
the  Monastery  of  St.  Mary  Deipara,  in  the  Xitrian 
desert  in  Egypt,  thus  happily  obtained."     He  ad- 
verts to  the  facility  which  would  be  afforded  for  the 
proper    publication  of  the  proposed  edition,  from 
type  having  been  of  late  prepared  representinsr  the 
proper   Estrangelo  Syriac   character,  of  which  Ur. 
Cureton  was  e\en  then  making  use  in  printing  his 
text  of  the  Syriac  Gospels,  etc.     If  it  had  been  an 
honor  to  this  country  to  issue  the  collations  of  Ken- 
nicott  for  the  Hel;rew  Old  Test.,  and  of  Holmes  for 
tiie  LXX.,  might  not  this  proposed  Syriac  edition 
be  a  worthy  successor  to  such  works?     The  plnn 
proposed  by  Canon  Rogers  for  its  execution  was 
this:  to  take  the  Syriac  MS.  which  appeared  to  be 
the  best  in  each  portion  of  the  Old   Test.,  both  on 
the  ground  of  goodness  and  antiquity:  let  this  be 
printed,  and  then  let  collations  be  made  by  various 
scholars  in  interleaved  copies;  the  whole  of  the  re- 
sults might  then  be  published  in  the  same  form  a.s 
De  Rossi's  Vitrice  Lec/iimes  to  the  Hebrew  Bille. 
Canon   Rogers  gives  a   few  hints   as  to  ^vhat  he 
thought  would  be  proltable  results  from  such  a  col- 
lation.    He  did  not  expect  that  the  difl"erences  from 
the  printed   Syriac  would   be  very  great ;  but  still 
there  would  be  a  far  greater  satisfaction  as  to  the 
confidence  with  which  this  version  might  be  quoted, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  criticism   of  the 
Hel)rew  original.     B}  way  of  illustration  he  pointed 
out  a  good  many  passages,  in  which  it  can  hardly 
be  doulited  that  the  defects  in  the  printed  Syriac 
arise  from  the  defectiveness  of  the  copy  or  copies  on 
which  it  was  based.     He  also  showed  it  to  be  a 
point  of  important   inquiry,  whether  in  places  ir 
which  tiie  printed  Syriac  agrees  with   the   LXX., 
the  Syriac  has  been  altered ;  or  whether  both  may 
preserve  the  more  ancient  reading  of  Hebrew  copies 
once  extant.      The  reasons  why  such  a  Syriac  text 
should  lie  jirepared  and   published,  and  why  such 
collations  should  be  made,  are  thus  summed  up  by 
Canon  Rogers:  "1st.    Because  we  have  no  printed 
text  from  ancient  and   approved    i\ISS.     2d.  Be- 
cause the  Latin  version  in  Walton's  Polyglott  often 
fiiils  to  convey  the  sense  of  the  Syriac.     Sd.  Be- 
cause there  are  many  omissions  in  the  printed  text 
which  may  perhaps  be  supplied  in  a  collation  ol 
early  JISS.     4th.   Because  the  facilities  now  given 
to  the  study  of  Hebrew  make  it  desirable  that  new 
facilities  should  also  be  given  to  the  study  of  the 
cognate  hiiiguages.     5th.  Because  it  is  useless  to 
accumulate  ancient  and  valuable  Biblical  JMSS.  at 
the  British  Museum,  if  those  MSS.  are  not  applied 
to  the  purposes  of  sacred  criticism.     Uth.   Ijecause 
in  comparing  the  Suiac  with  the  Hebrew  original, 
many  points  of  important  and  interesting  investi- 
gation will    arise.     Finally,  Because   it  is  neither 
creditable  to  the  literary  character  of  the  age,  nor 
to  the  theological  position  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, tliat  one  of  our  most  ancient  versions  of  the 
Bible   should    continue    in    its    present    neglected 
state."     These  considerations   of  the  late   Canon 
Rogers  are  worthy  of  being  thus  repeated,  not  only 
as  lieing  the  deliberate  judgment  of  a  good  Bililicd 
scholar,   but  as    also  pointing  out  practically  the 
olyects  to  be    sought    in    making   proper  use   of 


Notes  Critical  and  Explanatory,  by  the  Rev.  Aniinte 
Olicfr,  Boston,  1861  A. 

I>  The    Pentateuch   could   probably  be  given  on  ■ 
basis  of  the  fjtft  centurv. 


3386 


the  Eililical  materials  which  are  at  our  hands,  and 
of  which  the  scholars  of  former  ages  had  not  the 
benefit. 

There  was  a  strong  hope  expressed  soon  after 
the  issue  of  Canon  Kogers's  appeal,  that  tlie  work 
would  have  been  formally  placed  in  a  proper  man- 
ner in  the  hands  of  the  Kev.  Wni.  Cureton,  and 
that  thus  it  would  haie  been  accomplished  under 
his  superintendence,  at  the  Oxford  University 
Press.  Canon  iiogers  announced  this  in  an  ap- 
pendix to  his  pamphlet.  But  this  has  not  been  ef- 
fected. It  may  still  be  hoped  that  Dr.  Cureton 
will  edit  at  least  (he  Pentateuch  from  a  very  an- 
cient copy :  but  there  is  not  now  in  this  country 
the  priiclicfd  encouragement  to  such  Biblical  stud- 
ies as  require  the  devotion  of  lime,  labor,  and  at- 
tention (as  well  as  pecuniary  expense),  which  in 
the  last  century  Kennicott  and  Hohnes  received. 

But  if  the  printed  Syriac  text  rests  on  by  no 
means  a  really  satisfactory  basis,  it  may  be  asked, 
How  can  it  be  said  positively  that  what  we  have  is 
the  same  version  substantially  that  was  used  by 
Ephraem  in  the  4th  century  V  Happily,  we  have 
the  .same  means  of  identifying  the  Syriac  with  that 
anciently  used,  as  we  have  of  shuwini;  that  the 
modern  Latin  Vulgate  is  sulistantially  the  version 
executed  by  .Jerome.  We  admit  that  the  common 
printed  Latin  has  suffered  in  various  ways,  and  yet 
at  the  liottom  and  in  its  general  texture  it  is  un- 
doubtedly the  work  of  Jerome:  so  with  the  I'eshito 
of  the  Old  Test.,  whatever  errors  of  judniiieut  were 
committed  by  Gabriel  Sionita,  the  tirst  editor,  and 
however  little  has  been  done  by  those  who  should 
have  corrected  these  things  on  MS.  authority,  the 
identity  of  the  version  is  too  certain  for  it  to  be 
thus  destroyed,  or  even  (it  may  be  said)  materially 
obscured. 

From  the  citations  of  Ephraem,  and  the  single 
words  on  which  he  makes  remarks,  we  have  sutfi- 
cieiit  proof  of  the  identity  of  the  version :  even 
though  at  times  he  also  furnishes  proof  that  the 
copies  as  printed  are  not  exactly  as  he  read.  The 
following  may  be  taken  as  instances  of  accordance: 
they  are  mostly  from  the  places  (see  Wiseman,  //. 
iSyr.  p.  122,  &c.)  in  which  Ephraem  thinks  it  need- 
ful to  explain  a  Syrian  word  in  this  version,  or  to 
discuss  its  meaning,  cither  from  its  having  become 
antiquated  in  his  time,  or  from  its  being  unused  in 
the  same  sense  by  the  Syrians  of  Edessa.     Thus, 

Gen.  i.  1,  -^^  is  used  in  Syriac  as  answering  to 
the  Hebrew  i^S.  The  occurrence  of  this  word 
Ephraem    mentions,  giving  his    own  explanation : 

i.  2,  cnario  cnol;  x.  9,  for  t;'?  -i'"122,  the 

Syriac  has  M^*-^-*-^-',  which  Ephraem  men- 
tions as  being  a  term  which  the  Persians  also  use. 

Gen.  XXX.  14,  for  C"'H1^"7  there  is  )^6;irij, 
a  word  which  Ephraem  mentions  as  being  there, 
and  the  possible  meaning  of  which  he  discusses. 

•     V      s.      q 

Ex.  xxviii.  4,  >~iOO/;_2  stands  for  the  Hebrew 
^V'n;  Ephraem  reads  it  \.^0}.j  i-Si,  and  ex- 
plains the  meaning:  xxxviii.  4,  ^^i-O  (~l22p) ; 

ixxviii.  16,  J-^::^  (vn""n^;7);  xxviii.  4o, 

•aS.a(nSi'23n);  Num.  xi.  7,  for  "T2  there  is 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 

)fa«-'^n^Q"^,  a  word  equ.dly,  it  seems,  nioai;iiig 
coriander ;  which  was,  however,  unknown  tc 
Ephraem,  who   expounds  it  as    though  it  meant 


food  of  all  kinds,  as  if  j  U  '>*.m  ^^O.  i  Sam 
xxiii.  28,  ici^KJ^  for  37bp;  2  Sara.  viii.  7, 
I'.j^'^-*,  merely  retaining  the  Hebrew  word 
^"dhW  in  a  Syriac  form.     1  K.  x.  11,   JLomo 

(c^ap^s);  sii.  11,   J-L^ij  (c^sxp). 

2  K.  iii.  4,  Jf-^-l  (^~."'^3);  Job  ixxix  23, 
)Li);.x^i3  (n2f  S);    xli.  13,    «Ti<5^i;,    the 

Heb.  t:nbri,  is.  m.  22,  JJ^-XlisI^.^^ 
(nSns^p);  jer.  li.  41,  J^^AiijJ  Cntrtt?). 

Zech.  V.  7,  J  -^^aID  (np''S).  In  these  pas- 
sages, and  in  several  others,  the  words  of  the 
Peshito  are  cited  by  Ephraem  because  of  their 
obscurity,  and  of  the  need  that  they  had  of  ex- 
planation. 

The  proof  that  the  version  which  has  come  down 
to  us  is  substantiMlly  that  used  by  the  Syrians  in 
the  4th  century,  is  perhaps  more  definite  from  the 
comparison  of  words  than  it  would  have  been  from 
the  comparison  of  passages  of  greater  length ;  be- 
cause in  longer  citations  there  always  might  be 
some  ground  for  thinking  that  perhaps  the  MS.  of 
Ephraem  might  have  been  conformed  to  later  Syr- 
iac copies  of  the  Sacred  Text;  while,  with  regard 
to  peculiar  words,  no  such  suspicion  can  have  any 
place,  since  it  is  on  such  words  still  found  in  the 
Peshito  that  the  remarks  of  Ephraem  are  based. 
The  fact  that  he  sometimes  cites  it  differently  from 
what  we  now  read,  only  .shows  a  variation  of  copies, 
perhaps  ancient,  or  perhaps  such  as  is  found  merely 
in  the  printed  text  that  we  have. 

P'rom  Ephraem  having  mentioned  Iransldtws  of 
this  version,  it  has  been  concluded  that  it  was  the 
work  of  several:  a  thing  probable  enough  in  itself, 
but  which  could  hardly  be  proved  from  the  occur- 
rence  of  a  casual  phrase,  nor  yet  from  variations  iu 
the  rendering  of  the  same  Hebrew  word ;  such  va- 
riations being  found  in  almost  all  translations,  even 
when  made  by  one  person  —  that  of  Jerome,  for  in- 
stance; and  which  it  would  be  almost  impossible  to 
avoid,- especially  before  the  time  when  concordances 
and  lexicons  were  at  hand.  Variations  in  phrase- 
ology give  a  far  surer  ground  for  supjiosing  several 
translators. 

It  has  been  much  discussed  whether  this  trans- 
lation were  a  Jewish  or  a  Christian  work.  Some, 
who  have  maintained  that  the  tran.slator  wat  a  Jew, 
have  argued  from  his  knowledge  of  HebrvTS-  and 
his  mode  of  rendering.  But  these  considi cations 
prove  nothing.  Indeed,  it  might  well  be  doubted 
if  in  that  age  a  Jew  would  have  formed  anything 
except  a  Chaldee  'iargum ;  and  thus  diffuseness  of 
paraphrase  might  be  expected  instead  of  closeness 
of  translation.  There  need  be  no  reasonable  objec- 
tion made  to  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  Christian  work. 
Indeed  it  is  difhcult  to  suppose,  that  before  the  dif- 
fusion of  Christianity  in  Syria,  the  version  could 
have  been  needed. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  Syriac  in  general  gU|t 
ports  the  Hebrew  text  that  we  have:  how  far  argu 
ments  uiay  be  raised  upon  minute  coincidi^nces  oi 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


5387 


rariations  cannot  be  certainly  known  until  the 
indent  text  of  the  version  is  better  established. 
Uccasionall}-,  howe\er,  it  is  clear  that  the  Syriac 
translator  read  one  consonant  for  another  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  translated  accordingly;  at  times  an- 
other vocalization  of  the  Hebrew  was  followed. 

A  resemblance  has  been  pointed  out  between  the 
Syriac  and  the  reading  of  some  of  the  Chaldee 
Targums :  if  the  Targuni  is  the  older,  it  is  not  un- 
likely that  the  Syriac  translator,  using  every  aid  in 
his  power  to  obtain  an  accurate  knowledge  of  what 
he  was  rendering,  examined  the  Targums  in  diffi- 
cult passages.  This  is  not  the  place  for  formally 
iiscussing  the  date  and  origin  of  the  Targums 
[see  below,  Takgums];  but  if  (as  seems  almost 
certain)  the  Targums  which  have  come  down  to 
us  are  almost  without  exception  more  recent  than 
the  Syriac  version,  still  they  are  probably  the  suc- 
cessors of  earlier  Targums,  whicli  by  amplification 
have  reached  their  jiresent  sliape.  Thus,  if  existing 
Targums  are  more  recent  than  the  Syriac,  it  may 
happen  that  their  coincidences  arise  from  the  use  of 
a  conunon  source  —  an  earlier  Targum. 

But  there  is  another  point  of  inquiry  of  more 
importance:  it  is,  how  far  has  this  version  been 
affected  by  the  LXX.  V  and  to  what  are  we  to 
attribute  this  influence?  It  is  possible  that  the 
influence  of  the  LXX.  is  partly  to  be  ascribed  to 
copyists  and  revisers;  while  in  part  this  belonged 
to  the  \ersion  as  originally  made.  For,  if  a  trans- 
lator had  access  to  another  version  while  occupied 
in  making  his  own,  he  might  consult  it  in  cases  of 
difficulty;  and  thus  he  might  unconsciously  follow 
it  in  other  parts.  Even  knowing  the  wonls  of  a 
particular  translation  may  affect  the  mode  of  ren- 
dering in  another  translation  or  revision.  And 
thus  a  tinge  from  the  LXX.  may  have  easily  existed 
in  this  version  from  the  first,  even  though  in  whole 
books  it  may  not  be  found  at  all.  But  when  the 
extensive  use  of  the  LXX.  is  remembered,  and  how 
Boon  it  was  superstitiously  imagined  to  have  been 
made  by  direct  inspiration,  so  that  it  was  deemed 
canonically  authoritative,  we  cannot  feel  wonder 
that  readings  from  the  LXX.  should  have  been 
from  time  to  time  introduced;  this  may  have  com- 
menced probably  before  a  Syriac  version  had  been 
made  fiom  the  Hexaplar  <ireek  text;  because  in 
such  revised  text  of  the  LXX.  the  additions,  etc., 
in  which  that  version  difttjred  from  the  Hebrew, 
would  be  so  marked  that  they  would  hardly  seem 
to  be  the  authoritative  and  genuine  text. 

Some  comparison  with  the  Greek  is  probable 
even  before  the  time  of  Ephraem ;  for,  as  to  the 
Apocryphal  books,  while  he  cites  some  of  them 
(though  not  as  Sciipture),  the  Apocryphal  addi- 
tions to  Daniel  and  the  books  of  Maccabees  were 
not  yet  found  in  Syriac.  Whoever  translated  any 
of  thj'se  books  from  the  Greek,  may  easily  have 
also  compared  with  it  in  some  places  the  books  pre- 
viously translated  from  the  Hebrew. 

In  the  book  of  I'salms  this  version  exhibits  many 
peculiarities.  Either  the  translation  of  the  Psalter 
must  be  a  work  independent  of  the  I'esiiito  in 
general,  or  else  it  has  been  strangely  revised  and 
Altered,  not  only  from  the  Greek,"  but  also  from 


a  Perhaps  as  to  this  the  version  of  the  Psalms  from 
jae  Greek  made  by  Poly  carp  (to  be  mentioned  pres- 
ently) has  not  been  sufficiently  tjiken  into  account. 
Indeed,  remarkably  little  attention  appears  to  have 
been  paid  to  the  evidence  that  such  a  version  ex- 
WtHd 


liturgical  use.  Perhaps,  indeed,  the  Psalms  are  a 
different  version ;  and  that  in  this  espect  tlie  prac 
tice  of  the  Syrian  churches  is  like  that  of  the 
Koman  Catholic  Church  and  the  Church  of  England 
in  using  liturgically  a  difli;rent  version  of  the  book 
so  much  read  ecclesiastically. 

It  is  stated  that,  after  tlie  divisions  of  the  Syrian 
Church,  there  were  revisions  of  this  one  version  by 
the  Monophysites  and  by  the  Nestorians:  prolialily 
it  would  be  found,  if  tlie  subject  could  lie  fully 
investigated,  that  there  were  in  the  hands  of  differ- 
ent parties  copies  in  which  the  ordinary  accidents 
of  transcription  had  introduced  variations. 

The  Karkapliensiaii  recension  mentioned  by 
Bar-Hebrieus  was  only  known  by  name  prior  to 
the  investigations  of  AViseman;  it  is  found  in  two 
MSS.  in  the  Vatican;  it  was  formed  for  the  use 
of  Monophysites  ;  there  is  peculiarity  in  the 
punctuation  introduced,  by  a  leaning  towards  tlie 
Greek ;  but  it  ii,  as  to  its  substance,  the  Peshito 
version. 

B.  Tl/e  Syriac  version  from  the  Hexaplar 
(irevk  Text.  —  The  only  Syriac  version  of  the  Old 
Test,  up  to  the  6th  century  was  apparently  the 
Peshito.  The  first  definite  intimation  of  a  portion 
of  the  Old  Testament  translated  from  the  Greek  is 
through  Moses  Aghelajiis.  This  Syriac  writer 
lived  in  the  middle  of  the  6th  century.  He  made 
a  translation  of  the  (llapliyra  of  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria from  Greek  into  Syriac;  and,  in  tlie  prefixed 
ICpistle,  he  speaks  of  the  versions  of  the  New  'Test. 
and  the  Psalter,  "  which  Polycarp  (rest  his  soul !  ),^ 
the  Chorepiscopus,  made  in  Syriac  tor  the  faithful 
Xenaias,  the  teacher  of  Mabug,  worthy  of  the  mem  • 
ory  of  the  good."  ''  We  thus  see  that  a  Syriac 
version  of  the  Psalms  had  a  similar  origin  to  the 
Philoxenian  Syriac  Xew  'Test.  We  know  that  the 
date  of  the  latter  was  A.  i).  508;  the  Psalter  was 
probably  a  contemporaneous  work.  It  is  .said  that 
the  Nestorian  patriarch,  Marabba,  A.  i).  552,  made 
a  version  from  the  Greek;  it  does  not  appear  to  lie 
in  existence,  so  that,  if  ever  it  was  completely  exe- 
cuted, it  was  probalily  superseded  by  the  llexa[i!ar 
version  of  Paul  of  'Tela;  indeed '  Paul  may  have 
used  it  as  the  basis  of  his  work,  adding  marks  of 
reference,  etc. 

'The  version  by  Paul  of  Tela,  a  INIonophysite,  was 
made  in  the  beginning  of  the  7th  century;  for  its 
basi^  he  used  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text — that  is, 
the  LXX.,  with  the  corrections  of  Origen,  the 
asterisks,  obeli,  etc.,  and  with  the  references  to  the 
other  Greek  versions. 

'The  Syro-Hexaplar  version  was  made  on  the 
principle  of  following  the  Greek,  word  for  word,  as 
exactly  as  possible.  It  contains  the  marks  intro- 
duced by  Origen ;  and  the  references  to  the  versions 
of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  'Theodotion,  etc.  In  fact 
it  is  from  this  Syriac  version  that  we  obtain  our 
most  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  results  of  the 
critical  labors  of  Origen. 

Andreas  Masius,  in  his  edition  of  the  book  of 
Joshua,<^  first  used  the  results  of  this  Syro-Hexa- 
plar text;  for,  on  the  authority  of  a  MS.  in  hia 
possession,  he  revised  the  Greek,  introducing  aster- 
isks and  obeli,  thus  showing  what  Origen  had  done, 


ft  Assemani,  BIh/iotheca  Orieiilaiis,  ii.  83 ;  where 
however,  the  obscure  Syriac  is  turned  into  .«till  nion 
obscure  Latin. 

(■  Josuae  imperatoris  hiatoria  illustrata  atque  expll 
cata  ab  Andrea  Masio.     Autwerji,  1574. 


3388 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC; 


how  much  he  had  inserted  in  the  text,  and  what 
be  had  marked  as  not  tbiind  in  the  Hebrew.  The 
Syriac  MS-  used  by  Masiiis  has  been  long  lost; 
though  in  this  day,  after  the  recovery  of  the  Codex 
Keuclilini  of  the  Apocalypse  (from  which  Erasmus 
first  edited  that  book)  by  Prof.  Delitzsch,  it  could 
baldly  be  a  cause  for  surprise  if  this  Syriac  Codex 
were  again  found. 

It  is  from  a  IMS.  in  tlie  Ambrosian  Library  at 
Milan  that  we  possess  accurate  means  of  knouino; 
this  Syriac  version.  The  MS.  in  question  contains 
the  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles, 
Wisdom,  I'xclesiasticus,  Minor  Prophets,  Jeremiah, 
Ijaruch,  Daniel,  Kzekiel,  and  Isaiah.  Norberg  pub- 
lished, at  Lund  in  1787,  the  books  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  from  a  transcript  which  he  had  made 
of  the  MS.  at  Milan.  In  1788,  Bugati  puhUshed 
at  Milan  the  book  of  Daniel;  he  also  edited  the 
Psalms,  the  printing  of  which  had  been  completed 
before  his  death  in  181G;  it  was  published  in 
1820.  The  rest  of  the  contents  of  the  Milan  Codex 
(with  the  exception  of  the  Apocryphal  books)  was 
published  at  Berlin  in  1835,  by  Middeldorpf,  from 
the  transcript  made  by  Norberg;  Middeldorpf  also 
added  the  4th  (2d)  book  of  Kings  from  a  MS.  at 
Paris. 

Besides  these  portions  of  this  Syriac  version,  the 
MSS.  from  the  Nitrian  monasteries  now  in  the 
British  Museum  would  add  a  good  deal  more  : 
amongst  these  there  are  six,  from  which  much 
might  be  drawn,  so  that  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  other  books  may  be  recovered."  These  MSS. 
are  like  that  at  Milan,  in  having  the  marks  of  Ori- 
gen  in  the  text;  the  references  to  readings  in  the 
margin;  and  occasionally  the  Greek  word  itself  is 
thus  cited  in  Greek. 

Dr.  Antonio  Ceriani,  of  the  Ambrosian  Library 
ftt  Milan,  after  haviiig  for  a  considerable  time  pro 
posed  to  edit  the  portions  of  the  Syro-Hexaplar 
Codex  of  Milan  which  had  hitherto  remained  in 
MS.,  commenced  such  a  work  in  1861  {Monumenta 
Sacra  et  Profnnn,  Opera  Colkf/ii  BlOliollieae 
AmbrosianoB),  the  first  part  of  the  Syriac  text 
being  Baruch,  Lamentations,  and  the  Epistle  of 
Jeremiah.  To  this  work  Ceriani  subjoined  a  colla- 
tion of  some  of  the  more  important  texts,  and  crit- 
ical notes.  A  second  part  has  since  appeared.  It 
is  to  be  hoped  that  he  may  thus  edit  the  whole 
MS.,  and  that  the  other  portions  of  this  version 
known  to  be  extant  may  soon  appear  in  print. 

The  value  of  this  version  for  the  criticism  of  the 
LXX.  is  very  great.  It  supplies,  as  far  as  a  ver- 
sion can,  the  lost  work  of  Origen. 

The  list  of  versions  of  the  Old  Test,  into  Syriac 
often  appears  to  be  very  numerous ;  but  on  exam- 
ination   it  is  found   that  many   translations,  the 


names  of  which  appear  in  a  catalogue  are  I'ally 
either  such  as  never  had  an  actual  extstenc,  oi 
else  that  they  are  either  the  version  from  the 
Hebrew,  or  else  that  from  the  Hexaplar  text  of  the 
LXX.,  under  different  names,  or  with  some  slight 
revision.  To  enumerate  the  supposed  versions  is 
needless.  It  is  only  requisite  to  mention  that 
Thomas  of  Harkel,  whose  work  in  the  revision  of  \ 
translation  of  the  New  Test,  will  have  to  be  men- 
tioned, seems  also  to  have  made  a  translation  from 
tiie  Greek  into  Syriac  of  some  of  the  Ajxicryphal 
books  —  at  least,  the  subscriptions  in  certain  MSS. 
state  this. 

II.    The   Syriac   New   Testament    Veb- 

SIGNS. 

A.  The  PesMlo-Syrinc  N.  T.  (Text  of  W id- 
manstadt,  and  Cureton's  Gospels.) 

In  whatever  forms  the  Syriac  New  Test,  may 
have  existed  prior  to  the  time  of  Philoxenus  (the 
beginning  of  the  sixth  century),  who  caused  a  new 
translation  to  be  made,  it  will  be  more  convenient 
to  consider  all  such  most  ancient  translations  or 
revisions  together;  even  though  there  may  be  rea- 
sons afterwards  assigned  foi'  not  regarding  the  ver- 
sion of  the  earlier  ages  of  Christianity  as  absolutely 
one. 

It  may  stand  as  an  admitted  fact  that  a  version 
of  the  New  Test,  in  Syriac  existed  in  the  2d  cen- 
tury; and  to  this  we  may  refer  the  statement  of 
Eusebius  respecting  Hegesippus,  that  he  "  made 
quotations  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews and  the  Syriac,"  e/c  re  tov  Kad'  "E.^paLOvs 
fi/ayyeKiov  koI  tou  'Xvpia.Kov  (IJist.  heel.  iv.  22). 
It  seems  equally  certain  that  in  the  4th  century- 
such  a  version  was  as  well  kiiown  of  the  New 
Test,  as  of  the  Old.  It  was  the  companion  of 
the  Old  Test,  translation  made  from  the  Hebrew, 
and  as  such  was  in  haliitual  use  in  the  Syriac 
churches.  To  the  translation  in  common  use 
amongst  the  Syrians,  orthodox,  Monophysite,  or 
Nestorian,  from  the  5th  century  and  onward,  the 
name  of  Peshito  has  been  as  commonly  applied  in 
the  New  Test,  as  the  Old.  In  the  7th  century  at 
least  the  version  so  current  acquired  the  name  of 

).^*.i3,  old,  in  contrast  to  that  which  was  then 
formed  and  revised  by  the  Monophysites. 

Though  we  have  no  certain  data  as  to  the  origin 
of  this  version,  it  is  probable  on  every  ground  that 
a  Syriac  translation  of  the  New  Test,  was  an  ac 
companiment  of  that  of  the  Old;  whatever  there- 
ibre  beaj's  on  the  one,  bears  on  the  other  also. 

There  seem  to  be  but  few  notices  of  the  old 
Syriac  version  in  early  writers.  Cosmas  Indico- 
pieustes,  in  the  former  half  of  the  Gth  century 
incidentally  informs  us  that  the  Syriac  translation 


a  The  following  is  the  notation  of  these  MSS.,  and 
their  contents  and  dates  :  — 
12,133  (besides  the  Peshito  Exodus) ;  Joshua  (defective), 

cent.  vii.     "  Translated   from   a  Greek   MS.  of  the 

He.vapla,  collated  with  one  of  the  Tetrapla." 
12,134,  ExofJux.     A.  D.  697. 
14,434,  Psalms  lomied  from  tivo  MSS.  cent.  viii.  (with 

the  Song  of  the  Three  Children   subjoined  to  the 

second).     Both  MSS.  are   defective.     Subscription, 

"  According  to  the  LXX." 
14.437,  \iimbers  and  1  Kings,  defective  (cent.  vii.  or 

fiii.).     The  subscription  to  1  Kings  says  that  it  was 

translated  into  Syriac  at  Alexandria  in  the  year  927 

(A.  D.  616). 
4,442,    Genesis,    defective    (with    1    Sam.    Peshito). 

"  According  to  the  LXX."  (cent   vi.). 


17,103,  Judges  and  Ruth,  defective  (cent.  vii.  <  r  viii  ). 

Subscription  to  Judges,  "According  to  the  I  KX.  ;  " 

to  Rath,  "From  the  Tetrapla  of  the  LXX." 

The  notes  on  these  MSS.  made  by  the  pre.sent  writer 

in  1857,  have  been  kindly  compared  aud  amplified  by 

Mr.  William  Wright' of  the  British  Mu.^eum. 

Rordam  issued  at  Copenhagen  in  1859  the  first  por- 
tion of  an  edition  of  the  MS.  17,103  :  another  part  has 
since  been  published.  [Title:  Libri  Judicum  et 
Ruth  secundum  Versinnem  Syriaco-Hexaplarem,  etc. 
2  fiisc.  Havnije,  1859-Gl.]  Some  of  these  MSS.  were 
written  in  the  same  century  in  which  the  version  was 
made.  They  may  probably  be  depended  oi  as  giving 
the  text  with  general  accuracy. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


388£ 


loes  lot  coiituin  the  Secoml  Kpistle  of  Peter,  2  and 
3  .lolm,  and  Jude.  This  was  found  to  be  correct 
when  a  thousand  3'ears  afterwards  this  ancient 
translation  became  again  known  to  Western  schol- 
irs.  In  1552,  Moses  of  Mardin  came  to  Kome  to 
Pope  Julius  III.,  commissioned  Ijy  Ignatius  the 
Jacobite  (Monophysite)  patriarch,  to  state  his  relig- 
ious opinions,  to  effect  (it  is  said)  a  union  with 
the  Romish  Church,  and  tu  (jtt  the  Syriic  NfW 
./^est.  printed.  In  this  last  object  Moses  failed  both 
ttt  Kome  and  Venice.  At  Vienna  he  was,  however, 
sixcessful.  Widmanstadt,  the  chancellor  of  the 
Emperor  Ferdinand  1.,  had  himself  learned  Syriac 
6oin  Theseus  Ambrosius  many  years  previously; 
Bud  through  his  influence  the  emperor  undertook 
thj  chaige  of  an  edition,  which  appeared  in  1555, 
through  the  Joint  labors  of  Widmanstadt,  Moses, 
and  Postell.  Some  copies  were  afterwards  issued 
with  the  date  of  l.'»62  on  tiie  back  of  the  title." 

In  having  only  three  Catholic  epistles,  this  Syriac 
New  Test,  agreed  with  the  description  of  Cosmas; 
the  Apocalypse  was  also  wanting,  as  well  as  the 
section  John  viii.  1-11;  this  last  omission,  and 
some  other  points,  were  noticed  in  the  list  of  errata. 
The  editors  appear  to  have  followed  their  MSS. 
with  great  fidelity,  so  that  the  edition  is  justly 
valued.  In  subsequent  editions  endeavors  were 
made  conjecturally  to  amend  the  text  by  introduc- 
ing 1  John  V.  7  and  other  portions  which  do  not 
belong  to  this  translation.  One  of  the  principal 
jditions  is  that  of  Leusden  and  Schaaf;  in  this  the 
text  is  made  as  full  as  possible  by  supplying  every 
lacuna  from  any  source;  in  the  punctuation  there 
is  a  strange  peculiarity,  that  in  the  former  part 
Leusden  cliose  to  follow  a  sort  of  Clialdee  analogy, 
while  on  his  death  Schaaf  introduced  a  regular  sys- 
tem of  Syriac  vocalization  through  all  the  rest  of 
the  volume.  The  Lexicon  which  accompanies  this 
edition  is  of  great  value.  This  edition  was  first 
issued  in  1708:  more  copies,  however,  have  the 
dale  1709 ;  while  some  have  the  false  and  dishonest 
statement  on  the  title  page,  "  Secunda  editio  a 
niendis  purgata,"  and  the  date  1717.  The  late 
I'rofessor  Lee  published  an  edition  in  1816,  in 
which  he  corrected  or  altered  the  text  on  the  au- 
thority of  a  few  JISS.  This  is  so  far  independent 
of  that  of  W^idmanstadt.  It  is,  however,  very  far 
short  of  being  really  a  critical  edition.  In  1828, 
the  edition  of  Mr.  William  Greenfield  (often  re- 
printed from  the  stereotype  plates)  was  published 
by  Messrs.  Hagster:  in  this  the  text  of  VVidman- 
Btadt  was  followed  (with  the  \-owels  fully  expressed), 
and  with  certain  sup|ilenients  within  brackets  from 
Lee"s  edition.  For  the  colUitiun  with  Lee's  text 
Greenfield  was  not  responsible.  There  are  now  in 
this  country  excellent  materials  for  tlie  formation 
of  a  critical  edition  of  this  version ;  it  may,  however, 
be  eaii,  that  as  in  its  first  publication  the  MSS. 
enployed  were  honestly  used,  it  is  in  the  text  of 
Widmanstadt  in  a  far  better  condition  than  is  the 
I'eshito  Old  Testament. 


«  The  date  of  1555  appears  repeatedly  in  the  body 
i)f  the  volume  ;  at  the  end  of  the  Go.«pels,  May  18, 
1555  ;  St.  Paul's  Epp.,  July  18,  1555;  Acts,  Aug.  14. 
1555  ;  Cath.  Epp.  aud  the  couclusion,  Sept.  27,  1555. 
The  volume  is  dedicated  to  the  Emperor  Ferdinand, 
ind  the  contents  mention  three  other  dedications  to 
Dther  members  of  the  imperial  house.  All  of  the.«e 
three  are  often  wanting,  and  two  of  them,  addressed 
o  the  .\rchdukes  Ferdinand  and  Charles,  are  not  only 
feneniUy  wanting,  but  it  is  even  said  that  no  copy  is 
known  ;l  which  they  are  found. 


Tills  Syriac  Version  has  been  vaiiously  esti- 
mated: some  have  thought  that  in  it  they  had  a 
genuine  and  unaltered  monument  of  the  second,  ot 
periiaps  even  of  the  Jirst  century.  They  tlius  nat- 
urally upheld  it  as  almost  coi  rdinate  in  authority 
witli  the  Greek  text,  and  as  being  of  a  period  ante- 
rior to  any  Greek  copy  extant.  Otliers  finding  in 
it  indubitable  marks  of  a  later  age,  were  inclined 
to  deny  that  it  had  any  claim  to  a  v  Ty  remote  an- 
ti([iiity;  thus  La  Croze  thouglit  tliat  tiie  commonly 
prinled  Syriac  New  Test  is  not  the  Peshito  at  all, 
but  the  Pliiloxeniaii  executed  in  the  1  e^inning  of 
the  Utli  century.  'I'he  fact  is,  tliat  this  version  as 
transmitted  to  us  contains  marks  of  antiquity,  and 
also  ti-aces  of  a  later  age.  The  two  things  are  so 
blended,  that  if  either  class  of  phenomena  alone 
were  regarded,  the  most  opposite  opinions  might  l>e 
formed.  The  opinion  of  Wetstein  was  one  of  the 
most  perverse  tliat  could  lie  devised:  he  found  in 
tills  version  readings  which  accord  with  the  l^atin ; 
and  then,  acting  on  the  strange  system  of  cr'ticisni 
which  lie  adopted  in  his  later  years,  he  asserted 
that  any  such  accordance  with  the  Latin  was  a 
proof  of  corruption  from  that  version :  so  that  with 
him  the  proofs  of  antiquity  became  the  tokens  of 
later  origin,  and  he  thus  assigned  the  translation  to 
the  seventh  century.  With  him  the  real  indica- 
tions of  later  readings  were  only  the  marks  of  the 
very  reverse.  Michaelis  took  very  opposite  ground 
to  that  of  Wetstein;  he  upheld  its  antiquity  and 
authority  very  strenuously.  The  former  point 
could  be  easily  prurt'l,  if  one  class  of  readings  alone 
were  considered;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  eon- 
tents  of  the  version  itself.  But  on  the  other  hand 
there  are  difficulties,  for  very  often  readings  of  a 
much  more  recent  kind  appear;  it  was  thus  thought 
that  it  might  be  compared  with  the  Latin  as  found 
ill  the  Codex  Brixianus,  in  which  there  is  an  ancient 
groundwork,  but  also  the  work  of  a  reviser  is  mani- 
fest. Thus  the  judgment  formed  by  Griesbach 
seems  to  be  certainly  the  correct  one  as  to  the  pe- 
culiarity of  the  text  of  this  version ;  he  says  (using 
the  terms  proper  to  his  system  of  recensions): 
"  NuUi  harum  recensionuin  Syriaca  versio,  prout 
quideni  typis  excusa  est,  similis,  varum  nee  uUi 
prorsus  dissimilis  est.  In  uiultis  conchiit  cum  Al- 
exandrina  recensioiie,  in  pluribus  cum  Occidentali, 
ill  uonnuUis  etiam  cum  Constanthiopolitana,  ita 
tanieii  nt  qu;e  in  banc  posteriorilms  denium  seculis 
invecta  sunt,  pleraque  rejiudiet.  iJivevsis  ergo  lem- 
poribus  (ul  Grcecos  codices  plane  dirersos  iterum  iter- 
umque  recognita  esse  videttir'"  (.Voy.  Test.  Proleg. 
Ixxv.).  In  a  note  (iriesbach  introduced  the  com- 
parison of  the  Codex  Brixianus,  "  Illustrari  hoc 
potest  codicnni  nonnullorum  Latinorum  exemplo, 
qui  priscam  quidem  versionem  ad  Occidentalem  re- 
censionem  accommodatam  representant,  sed  passim 
ad  juniores  iibros  Grcecos  refictam.  Kx  hoc  yenere 
est  Brixianus  Codix  J^ittinus,  qui  non  raro  a 
Graeco-Latinis  et  vetustioribus  Latinis  omnibus 
solus  discedit,  et  in  Grascorum  partes    transit."  " 

6  Griesbach's  most  matured  judgment  on  this  sub- 
ject was  thus  given:  "  Interpolationes  autem  e  locis 
Evangeliorum  parallelis,  quales  apnd  Syrum,  Marx, 
xxviii.  18,  Luc.  ix.  39,  item  Matt.  xxii.  22,  23,  M.ir  vi. 
11,  xiii.  14,  Luc.  iv.  18,  depreliendnntur,  non  inagis 
quani  additameiita  e  lectionariis  libris  in  sacrum  con- 
textum  traducta,  velut  Luc.  xv.  11,  ant  liturgicuin 
illud    iissumeutum  Matt.   vi.  13,  vitia  sunt    tj)   \oii'n 

propria Quin  plerasque  intetpriationes  mode 

enumeratas,  cum   aliis  ejusmodi  generis  multis,   qua 
nunc  iu  versioue  Syriaca  extiiut,  primitus  ab  ea  ab- 


3390 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


Some  proof  tlmt  the  text  of  the  coninioii  printed 
Peshito  has  Iieeii  ffnTouff/it,  will  appear  when  it 
is  compareil  with  the  Cinetonian  Syriac  Gospels. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  remembered  that  this  is  no 
neio  opinion ;  that  it  is  not  the  pecullav  notion  of 
Tregelles.  or  of  any  one  individual;  for  as  the 
question  has  1  een  reopened,  it  has  been  treated  as 
if  th"s  were  some  theory  newly  invented  to  serve  a 
purpose.  The  Rev.  F.  H.  Scrivenei',  whose  labors 
in  the  collation  of  (ireek  j\ISS.,  and  whose  care  in 
editing  Codex  Augiensis  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  de- 
serve very  hi;;h  commendation,  a\owed  himself 
many  years  a;o  an  ardent  admirer  of  the  Peshito- 
Syriac.  But  even  then  he  set  aside  its  authority 
very  often  when  it  happened  to  adhere  to  the 
iincient  Greek  text,  to  the  other  .ancient  versions, 
and  to  the  early  I'athers.  in  opposition  to  the  later 
copies.  But  «hen  the  judgment  of  Griesbacii  re- 
specting the  conunon  printed  Syriac  had  i)een  re- 
peated and  enforced  by  Tregelles  (Home's  Jiitrod. 
vol.  iv.  p.  20.5),  .Scrivener  came  forward  as  its  cham- 
pion. In  his  Introduction  to  Codex  .-Vugiensis,  Mr. 
Scrivener  says,  "How  is  this  divergency  of  the 
Peshito  version  from  the  text  of  Codex  B  explained 
by  Tiegelles "i'  He  ieels  of  course  the  ]jressure  of 
the  argument  against  him,  and  meets  it,  if  not  suc- 
cessfully, with  even  nioie  than  his  wonted  boldness. 
The  transl  .ton  degenerates  in  his  hands  into  '  i/ie 
version  coinmoiily'  pi'inttd  as  tht  I'ishiio.^  Now 
let  us  mark  tlie  precise  nature  of  the  demand  here 
made  on  our  faith  by  l!r.  Tregelles.  He  would 
persuade  us  tii.at  the  whole  Eastern  Church,  dis- 
tracted as  it  has  been,  and  split  into  hostile  sections 
for  the  space  of  ],-K)0  years,  orthodox  and  .lacoliite. 
Nestorian  and  JNiaronite  alike,  those  who  could 
agree  in  nothino;  else,  have  laid  asiile  their  bitter 
jealousies  in  order  to  sulistitute  in  their  monastic 
libraries  and  liturgical  services,  another  and  a  spu- 
rious version  in  the  room  of  the  Peshito,  that  sole 
surviving  monumentiof  the  first  ages  of  the  Gospel 
in  Syria!  Nay,  ni(jre.  that  this  wretched  forgery 
has  deceived  Orientalists  profound  as  Michaelis  " 
and  Lowth,  has  passed  without  suspicion  through 
the  ordeal  of  searching  criticism  to  which  every 
branch  of  sacred  literature  has  been  subjected  dur- 
ing the  last  half  century!  We  will  require  solid 
reasons,  indeed,  before  we  surrender  ourselves  to  an 
hypothesis  as  novel  as  it  appears  violently  im|)roli- 
alile"  (pp.  xiv.,  xv.).  i\Ir.  Scrivener's  warmth  of 
declamation  might  have  been  spared :  no  one  calls 
the  Peshito  "a  spurious  version,"  "wretched 
forgery,"  etc.,  it  is  not  suggested  that  the  Syrian 
churches  agreed  in  some  strange  substitution:  all 
that  is  suggested  is,  that  at  the  time  of  the  tran- 
sition Greek  text,  before  the  disruption  of  the  Syrian 
churches,  the  then  existing  Syriac  version  was  re- 
vised and  modernized  in  a  way  analogous  to  that  in 
which  the  Latin  was  treated  in  Cod.  Brixianus. 
On  part  of  Mr.  Scrivener's  statements  the  Kev.  F. 
J.   A.   Hort   has  well  remarked:  "The  text  may 


fuisse  et  seriori  demum  tempore  in  earn  irrepsisse, 
plane  uiihi  pei-suasuui  est.  Venssime  enim  clar.  liu- 
gius  (  .  .  .  .  coll.  prolegomenis  iu  majoreni  uieam  N 
X.  eJitionem,  Hal.  1706,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixxv.)  aniuiajvertit, 
versiouem  hanc  a  Diorthote  quodaui  videri  recognitaui 
fuisse  ac  castigatara.  Jd  quod  quiuto  seculo  ineunte, 
iintequam  •>cclesia3  orientates  Nestorianis  et  Mouophy- 
«ticis  n.xis  disciudereutur,  evenisse  suspicor,  et  iu 
epiatolis  magis  adhuc  quam  iu  Evangeliis  locum  ha- 
buisse  autumo.'"  Coinmentanus  Criticus,  ii.  Meltte- 
mala,  li.,  lii.  1811 


have  been  altered  and  corrupted  between  the  firit 
or  second,  and  fifth  centuries.  This  is  all  that  l)r 
Tregelles  h.as  supjjosed,  though  Mr.  Scrivener  as 
sails  him  with  unseemly  violence,  as  if  he  had  rep- 
resented the  vulgar  text  as  '  a  wretched  forgery." 
Air.  Scrivener's  rashness  is  no  less  remarkaljle  in 
calling  this  a  '  novel  hypothesis,'  when  in  fact  it  is 
at  leasfas  old  as  Griesl)ach.  .  .  .  There  is  neithei 
evidence  nor  internal  probability  against  the  sup- 
position that  the  Old  Syriac  version  was  revised 
into  its  present  form  ....  in  the  4th  or  even  fid 
century,  to  make  it  accord  with  Greek  IMSS.  then 
current  at  Autioch,  Edessa,  or  Nisibis:  cmd  tcithvvi 
some  such  supposition  the  Syriac  text  must  remain 
an  inexplica/jle  phtnoviewm,  unless  we  bring  the 
Greek  and  Latin  texts  into  confirmity  with  it  ly 
contradicting  the  full  and  clear  evidence  which  we 
do  possess  respecting  them.  All  that  we  have 
now  said  might  have  been  alleged  before  the  Cure- 
toniau  Syriac  was  discovered :  the  case  is  surely 
strengthened  in  a  high  degree  by  the  appearance 
(in  a  MS.  assigned  to  the  5th  century)  of  a  Syriac 
version  of  the  Gospels,  bearing  clear  marks  of  the 
highest  antiquity  iu  its  manifest  errors  as  well  as 
in  its  choicest  readings.  The  appropriation  of  the 
7iaine  '  Peshito,'  appears  to  us  wholly  unim[jortant, 
except  for  rhetorical  purposes."  '' 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Hort  will  suffice  in  rescu- 
ing the  opinion  stated  by  Tregelles  from  the  charge 
of  iiui:elty_  or  rashness:  indeed,  the  supposition  as 
stated  by  Griesbach,  is  a  simple  solution  of  various 
difficulties;  for  if  this  be  not  the  fact,  then  evtry 
other  most  ancient  document  or  monument  of  the 
New  Test,  must  have  been  strangely  altered  in  its 
text.  The  number  of  difficulties  (otherwise  inex- 
(ilicable),  thus  solved,  is  aliout  a  demonstration  of 
its  triith.  Mr.  Scrivener,  however,  seems  incapable 
of  ap])reheiidiiig  that  the  revision  of  the  Peshito  is 
an  opinion  long  ago  held :  he  says  since,  "  I  know 
no  other  cause  for  suspecting  the  Peshito,  than  that 
its  readings  do. not  suit  Ur.  Tregelles,  and  if  this 
fact  be  enough  to  convict  it  of  corruption,  I  am 
quite  unable  to  vindicate  it."  <=  Why,  then,  do 
not  the  readings  "suit"  Dr.  Tregelles?  Because, 
if  they  were  considered  genuine,  we  should  have  (to 
use  Mr.  Hort's  words)  to  "  bring  the  Greek  and 
Latin  texts  into  conformity  with  it,  by  contradict- 
ing tlie  full  and  clear  evidence  which  we  do  possess 
respecting  them." 

\\'hether  the  whole  of  this  version  proceeded 
from  the  same  transl.ator  has  been  questioned.  It 
appears  to  the  present  writer  probable  that  the 
New  Test,  of  the  Peshito  is  not  from  the  same  hand 
as  the  Old.  Not  only  may  Michaelis  be  right  in 
supposing  a  peculiar  translator  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  but  also  other  parts  may  be  from  diHerent 
hands;  this  opinion  will  become  more  general  the 
more  the  version  is  studied.  The  revisions  to 
which  the  version  was  subjected  may  have  suc- 
ceeded in  part,  but  not  wholly,  in  effacing  the  m- 


a  ^ven  Micliaelis  did  not  think  it  needful  to  assume 
that  the  Peshito  had  been  transmitted  without  any 
chauge,  "  In  using  the  S.vriac  version,  we  must  ijever 
forget  that  our  present  editions  iire  very  imperfect,  and 
not  conclude  that  every  reading  of  the  Syriac  printed 
text  was  the  reading  of  the  Greek  MS.  of  the  first  cen- 
tury."    Marsh's  Michaetis,  ii.  46. 

''  Journal  of  Classical  and  i^ncred  Philolos;y  (('am 
bridge),  Feb.  1860.  pp.  378,  379. 

'•  "  I'laiu  Introduction,"  p   4'2't,  fool-nou 


VERSIONS.  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


339 


lications  of  a  plurality  of  translators.     The  Acts  1  as  edited,  had  heen  known  from  the  earliest  an;es  : 


ind  I'^pistles  seem  to  he  either  more  recent  than  the 
Gospels,  tiioiiLjh  far  less  revised ;  or  else,  if  coeval, 
far  more  corrected  hj  later  Greek  ilSS. 

There  is  no  sufficient  rea.son  for  supposing  that 
this  version  ever  contained  the  four  Catholic 
Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse,  now  absent  from  it, 
not  only  iu  the  printed  editions  but  also  in  the 
MSS. 

Some  variations  in  copies  of  the  Peshito  have 
been  rei,'arded  as  if  they  might  be  styled  JMonophy- 
Bite  and  Nestorian  recensions:  hut  the  designation 
would  be  (av  too  definite:  for  the  difJerences  are 
not  sufficient  to  warrant  tiie  classification. 

The  MSS.  of  the  K<u  knpheudna  recension  (as 
it  has  been  termed)  of  tlie  I'esiiito  Old  Test,  con- 
tain also  the  New  with  a  similai'  character  of  text. 

*  The  Peshito  version  of  the  N.  T.  has  l:een 
translated  into  English  by  Dr.  J.  \V.  Etheridge,  2 
vols.  Lond.  184ti-4'J,  and  by  Ur.  James  Munlock, 
N.  V.  18.^1.  A. 

Tke  Ciireloturni  Syriac  (iospels.  —  "  Compara- 
tive cridcisa.  "  shows  the  true  character  of  every 
document,  whether  previously  known  or  newly 
brought  to  light,  which  professes  to  contain  the 
early  text  of  the  New  Test.  By  comparative  crit- 
icism is  not  meant  such  a  mode  of  examining  au- 
thorities as  that  to  which  BIr.  Scrivener  has  applied 
this  term,  but  such  a  use  of  combined  evidence 
as  was  intended  and  defined  l>y  tiie  critic  by  wlioni 
the  expression  was  (for  convenience'  sake)  intro- 
duced: that  is,  the  ascertainment  that  readings 
ai'e  in  ancient  documents,  or  rest  on  ancient  evi- 
dence (whether  early  citations,  versions,  or  MSS.), 
and  then  the  examination  of  wiiat  documents  con- 
tain such  readings,  and  thus  within  what  limits 
the  inquiry  for  the  ancient  text  may  be  bounded. 
Thus  a  document,  in  itself  modern,  may  lie  ])roved 
to  be  ancient  in  testimony:  aversion,  previously  un- 
known, may  be  shown  to  uphold  a  very  early  text. 
For  pur[»ses  of  comparative  criticism  early  read- 
ings, known  to  be  false,  have  often  as  detinite  a 
value  in  tlie  chain  of  proof  as  those  wliicii  are  true. 
In  the  process  of  comparative  criticism  nothing  is 
assumed,  but  point  after  point  is  established  by  in- 
dependent testimony:  and  thus  the  character  of  the 
text  of  ftlSS.,  of  ancient  versions,  and  of  patristic 
citations,  is  upheld  by  their  accordance  with  facts 
attested  by  other  witnesses,  of  known  age  and  cer- 
tain transmission. 

It  was  reasonable  to  suppose  with  Griesbach  that 
the  Syriac  version  must  at  one  time  have  existed  in 
a  form  difierent  from  that  in  the  common  printed 
text:  it  was  felt  by  Biblical  scholars  to  he  a  mere 
assumption  that  the  name  Ptsliito  carried  with  it 
l<)uie   hallowed    prestige ;  it  was    established  tiiat 

was  a  groundless  imagination  that  this  version, 


a  It  18  very  certain  that  many  who  profess  a  peculiar 
aJi.iiratiou  for  the  Peshito  do  tliis  rather  from  snme 
tra  Jtional  notion  than  from  minute  personal  acquaint- 
auce  They  suppose  that  it  has  some  preseriptive 
right  to  the  first  rank  amongst  versions,  *'iBy  praise 
ts  excellences,  which  they  have  not  personally  in- 
•estigutcd,  anil  they  do  not  care  to  know  wherein  it 
Is  defective.  Every  error  in  translation,  every  doubt- 
ful readinc;,  every  supposed  defect  in  the  one  kno.vn 
MS.  of  the  Curetouiau  Gospels,  has  been  enumerated 
by  those  who  wish  to  depreciate  that  version,  and  to 
ietract  from  the  critical  merits  of  its  discoverer  and 
»ditor.  But  many  of  the  supposed  defects  are  really 
the  very  opposite  ;  and  if  th?y  similarly  examined  the 
PesUito,  they  might  find  more  fault  with  it  ami  with 


the  original  monument  of  Syrian  Christianity. 
Hence  if  it  could  be  shown  that  an  earlier  version 
(or  earlier  basis  of  the  same  version)  had  existed, 
there  was  not  only  no  a  ]n-iori  olijection,  but  even 
a  demonstrated  probability  (almost  certainty)  tiiat 
this  had  been  the  case.  When  it  is  remembered 
how  little  we  know  historically  of  the  Syriac  ver- 
sions, it  must  be  felt  as  an  assumption  that  the 
form  of  text  common  from  the  fifth  century  and 
onward  was  the  oriijinal  version.  In  1848  TreL^elleg 
(see  Davidson's  Jittrorluctloii  to  the  A'ew  Test. 
vol.  i.  p.  42!))  sugrjested  that  "the  Nitrian  IMSS. 
when  collated  may  exhibit  perhaps  an  earlier  text.'" 
Tiiis  was  written  without  any  notion  that  it  was 
an  ascertained  tact  that  such  a  MS.  of  the  (iospels 
existed,  and  that  the  full  attention  of  a  thorough 
Syriac  scholar  had  been  devoted  to  its  illustration 
and  publication. 

Among  the  JNfSS.  brought  from  the  Nitrian 
monasteries  in  1842,  Dr.  Cureton  noticed  a  copy 
of  the  Gospels,  difii?ring  ijreatly  from  the  common 
text:  and  this  is  the  form  of  text  to  which  the 
name  of  Curetonian  Syriac  has  been  rightly  ap- 
]>lied.  Every  criterion  which  proves  the  common 
Peshito  not  to  exhibit  a  text  of  extreme  antitpiity, 
equally  proves  the  early  origin  of  this.  The  discov- 
ery is  in  fact  that  of  the  object  which, was  wanted, 
the  want  of  which  had  lieen  [ireviously  ascertained. 
Dr.  Cureton  considti-s  that  the  MS.  of  the  Gospels 
is  of  the  fifth  century,  a  point  in  which  all  com- 
[letent  judges  are  proljably  agreed.  Some  ]iersons 
indeed  have  sought  to  depreciate  the  text,  to  point 
out  its  differences  from  the  Peshito,  to  regard  all 
such  variations  as  corruptiotis,  and  thus  to  stig- 
matize the  Curetonian  Syriac  as  a  corrupt  revision 
of  tlie  Peshito,  barbarous  in  language  and  false  in 
readings."  This  peremptory  judgment  is  as  reason- 
able as  if  the  old  Latin  in  the  Codex  Vercellensis 
were  called  an  ignorant  revision  of  the  version  of 
.lerome.  The  judi;inent  that  the  Curetonian  Syriac 
is  older  than  the  Peshito  is  not  the  peculiar  opinion 
of  (,'ureton,  Alford.*  Trei^elles,  or  Bililical  scholars 
of  the  school  of  ancient  evidence  in  this  country, 
liut  it  is  also  that  of  continental  scholars,  such  as 
Kwald,  and  apparently  of  the  late  Prof.  Bleek.'^ 

The  MS.  contains  Matt,  i.-viii.  22,  x.  .31-xxiii. 
25.  Mark,  the  four  last  verses  onlv.  .lohn  i.  1-42, 
iii.  n-vii.  37,  xiv.  11-2D;  Luke  i"i.  48-iii.  16,  vii. 
3;!-xv.  21,  xvii.  24-xxiv.  41.  It  would  have  been 
a  thing  of  much  value  if  a  perfect  copy  of  this  ver 
sion  had  come  down  to  us;  but  as  it  is,  we  have 
reason  greatly  to  value  the  discovery  of  Dr.  Cureton, 
which  shows  how  tridy  those  critics  have  argued 
wiio  concluded  that  such  a  version  must  have  ex- 
isted :  and  who  regarded  this  as  »  proved  J'nct,  even 
when  not  only  no  portion  of  the  -.ersion  was  known 


its  translator.  The  last  fourteen  chapters  of  the  book 
of  Acts,  as  they  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  Peshito, 
present  far  more  grounds  for  comment  than  an  equal 
portion  of  the  Cmvtonian.  The  Peshito  is  a  very 
valuMble  version,  although  overpraised  by  some  inju- 
dicious admirers,  who  (even  if  they  have  rend  it)  have 
never  closely  and  verbally  examined  it.  Many  have 
evidently  never  looked  further  than  the  Gospels,  even 
though  aided  by  Schaafs  Latin  intorpretiUion. 

I>  "  Perhaps  the  earliest  and  most  important  of  all 
the  versious.'"  .\lford's  Gr.  Test.  Proleg.  vol  i.  p  114 
ed.  4. 

<••  See  Bleek's  Eitileituns  in  -las  N.  Tett.  p  ;i3,  faol- 
note. 


?392 


VERSIONS.  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


»  lie  extant,  but  also  when  even  the  record  of  \U 
jxistence  was  unnoticed.  For  there  is  a  record 
^howins;  an  acquaintance  with  this  version,  to  which, 
is  well  as  to  the  version  itself,  attention  has  been 
directed  by  Dr.  Cirreton.  Bar  Salibi,  bishop  of 
.Aniida  in  the  12th  century,  in  a  passace  translated 
by  Dr.  C.  (in  discussing  the  omission  of  three  kint^s 
in  the  iLjenealo^y  in  St.  Matthew)  s.ays:  '■  There  is 
found  occasionally  a  Syriac  copy,  made  out  of  the 
Hebrew,  which  inserts  these  three  kings  in  the 
genealogy;  but  that  afterwards  it  speaks  of  J'oitr- 
leen  and  not  of  seventeen  generations,  because 
fourteen  generations  has  been  substituted  for  seven- 
teen by  the  Hebrews  on  account  of  their  holding 
to  the  septenary  lunriber,"  etc." 

It  shows  then  that  Bar  Salibi  knew  of  a  Syriac 
text  of  the  Gospels  in  which  Ahaziah,  .loash,  and 
Amaziah  were  inserted  in  Matt.  i.  8:  there  is  the 
same  reading  in  the  Curetonian  Syriac:  but  this 
mitjht  have  been  a  coincidence.  But  in  ver  17  the 
Curetonian  text  has,  in  contradiction  to  ver.  8, 
fiiin-teen  generations  and  not  sercnieen  :  and  so 
had  the  copy  mentioned  by  Bar  Salilii :  the  former 
point  niii^ht  be  a  mere  coincidence;  the  latter,  how- 
ever, shows  such  a  kind  of  union  in  contradiction 
as  proves  the  identity  very  conviiicincly-  Thus, 
thout;h  this  version  was  unknown  in  Europe  prior 
lo  its  discovery  by  Dr.  Cureton,  it  must  in  the 
12th  century  have  been  known  as  a  text  sonie- 
tinies  found,  and  as  mentioned  by  the  Monophysite 
bisliop,  it  might  be  more  in  use  amongst  his  co- 
reliirionists  than  amongst  others.  Perhaps,  as  its 
existence  and  use  is  thus  recorded  in  the  12th  cen- 
tury, some  fin-ther  discovery  of  Syriac  iMSS.  may 
furnish  us  with  another  copy  so  as  to  supply  the 
defects  of  the  one  hajjpil}'  recovered. 

In  examining  the  Curetonian  text  with  the  com- 
mon printed  _Feshito.  we  often  find  such  identity 
of  phrase  and  rendering  as  to  show  that  they  are 
not  wholly  independent  translations:  then,  again, 
we  meet  with  such  variety  in  tlie  forms  of  words, 
etc.,  as  peenis  to  indicate  that  in  the  I'eshito  tlie 
phraseology  had  been  revised  and  refined.*  But 
the  great  (it  might  be  .said  characteristic)  difference 
between  the  Curetonian  and  the  Peshito  Gospels  is 
in  their  readings;  for  while  the  latter  cannot  in  its 
present  state  be  deemed  an  unchanged  production 
of  the  second  century,  the  former  liears  all  the 
marks  of  extreme  antiquity,  even  thouffh  in  ])laces 
it  may  have  suffered  from  the  introduction  of  read- 
ings current  in  very  earlj'  times. 

The  following  are  a  few  of  the  very  many  cases 
in  which  the  ancient  reading  is  found  in  the  Cure- 
tonian, and  the  later  or  transition  readins;  in  the 
Peshito.  For  the  general  autlwrities  on  the  sub- 
ject of  each  passage,  reference  must  be  made  to 
the  notes  in  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  New 
Te«t. 

Matt.  XIX.  17,  tI  fxi  fpccTo.s  TTepl  rov  ayaf)ov\ 
the  ancient  reading,  as  we  lirid  ii]  the  liest  authori- 
ties, and  as  we  know  from  Origan ;  so  the  Cure- 
tonian: Ti  /ue  Ae-yeir  a.yad6v\  the  common  text 
with  the  Peshito.  ]Matt.  xx.  22,  the  clause  of  the 
common  text.  koI  rh  Bdirriafia  &  iyw  0aTrTt(o/LiaL 
(and  the  corres]ionding  part  of  the  foUowinr,'  verse) 
we  in  the  I'eshito;  while  we   know  from  Origen 

a  For  the  Syriac  of  this  part  of  the  pas.-sage  from 
Bar  Salibi,  see  Asseuiaui.  Bibliotkena  Orientalis,  ii. 
i60. 

b  A  collation  of  an  ancient  Syriac  MS.  of  the  Gospf  Is 
Bichj  7,157  in  the  British  Museum)  showed  that  the 


that  they  were  in  his  day  a  peenliaiit>  jf  St.  Afark 
omitted  in  the  Curetonian  witti  tlie  other  best  au- 
thorities In  fact,  except  tlie  Peshito  and  som« 
revised  I.,atin  copies,  there  is  no  evidence  at  ail 
extant  for  these  words  prior  to  the  fifth  century. 
Matt.  V.  4,  5 :  here  th^  ancient  order  of  the  beati- 
tudes, as  supported  by  Origen,  Tertullian,  the 
canons  of  Eusebius,  and  Hilary,  is  that  of  placing 
fxixKapioi  ol  Trpaels,  k.  t.  A.  bt-fore  fxaKtipioi  oi 
■rrei/OovvTfs,  K.  T.  A.;  here  the  Curetonian  agrees 
with  the  distinct  testimonies  for  this  order  against 
the  Peshito.  In  Matt.  i.  18,  we  know  from  Irensena 
that  the  name  "  .lesus  "  was  not  read :  and  this  i« 
confirmed  by  the  Curetonian :  in  fact,  the  eommor 
reading,  however  widely  supported,  could  not  ha'B 
originated  until  'Irjaovs  xp'^^is  was  treated  as  a 
combined  proper  name,  otherwise  the  meaning  of 
Tov  Se  'ItjctoC  xp^'^'^'ov  V  yevecns  would  not  be 
"  the  birth  of  .lesus  Christ,"  but  "  the  birth  of 
.Jesus  as  the  Christ."  Here  the  Curetonian  read- 
ing is  in  full  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  the 
second  century  in  opposition  to  the  Peshito.  In 
Matt.  vi.  4  the  Curetonian  omits  a\)T6s\  w  the 
same  ver.  and  in  ver.  6  it  omits  iv  tw  (pavepy:  in 
each  case  with  the  best  authorities,  but  against  the 
Peshito.  Matt.  v.  44,  has  been  amplified  by  copy- 
ists in  any  extraordinary  manner:  the  words  in 
brackets  show  the  amplifications,  and  the  place 
from  which  each  was  taken :  j-yii  8e  Ae^co  vfiiv, 
AyawaTf .  Toi/s  ixdpovs  viua>v  [evXoyelrf  Tovs 
Karapai/jifyovs  v/xas,  Puke  vi.  28,  /caAw?  iroi6?Te 
TOVS  /xiaovfras  ufias,  ibid.  27],  koI  wpoafvxfc&e 
vTTfp  Twv  [iTn]pia.l^6vTU>v  vfjLUS  Ka],  ibid,  .35] 
ZiwKovTwv  ii/xas.  1  he  liriefer  form  is  attested  by 
Irenaius,  Clement,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Eusebius,  etc. ; 
and  though  the  inserted  words  and  clauses  are 
found  in  almost  all  Greek  MSS.  (except  Codices 
Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus),  and  in  many  versions 
including  the  Peshito,  they  are  not  in  the  Curetonian 
Hiirhtc.  Of  a  similar  kind  are  Matt,  xviii.  .To,  ra 
irapaitTuixaTa  aiiTwv'-,  Fuke  viii.  54,  e«/3aAdij'  6|a) 
navTas  Kal'-  Luke  ix.  7,  ^Tr'  avrov-  ix.  54.  iy  Kal 
'HAi'as  etroiriafv:  xi.  2,  yevriSriTci}  rh  64\i]/ud  aox, 
u>s  iv  oupavw  Kal  eVj  ttjs  yrj^i  xi.  29,  tov  vpo- 
(pTjTOu;  XI.  44,  ypafxixwTiis  Kal  <papicra7ot  viroKpi- 
TOi';  .lohn  iv.  43,  Kal  aTrfjAflej/:  v.  16,  Kal  i0}Tovp 
avThv  airoKTuyai;  vi.   51,  ^j/  iyu  dcifftu;  vi.   69, 

TOV   {oilVTOS. 

These  are  lint  a  few  samples  of  the  variations 
which  exist  between  the  Curetonian  Syriac  and  the 
Peshito  as  to  the  kind  of  text:  the  instances  of 
this  might  be  increased  almost  indefinitely.  Those 
acquainted  with  critical  results  will  know  that  some 
of  those  here  specified  are  crucial  texts  in  points  of 
comparative  criticism.  Such  a  comparison  not  only 
shows  the  antiquity  of  the  text  of  the  Curetonian 
Syriac,  but  it  also  affords  abundant  proof  that  the 
Peshito  must  have  been  modernized  and  revised. 

The  antiquity  of  the  Curetonian  text  is  also 
shown  by  the  occurrence  of  readings  which  vera, 
as  we  know,  early  current,  even  though  rightly  re- 
pudiated as  erroneous:  several  of  the.se  are  in  the 
Curetonian  Syriac;  it  may  suffice  to  rtfer  to  the 
long  addition  after  Matt.  xx.  28. 

The  Curetonian  Syriac  presents  such  a  text  aa 
we  mijrht  have  concluded  would  be  current  in  the 


Sj'rians  were  in  the  habit  of  reforming  tl  eir  copies  in 
some  respects.  The  grammatical  forms,  etc.,  of  this 
51S.  are  much  more  ancient  than  tho.-^e  of  the  text  o( 
WiilmanstaJt,  who  has  been  followed  by  suecessitt 
editors. 


lecoiid  century  :  the  Peshito  has  many  features 
which  cdidd  mil  belong  to  that  age:  unless,  indeed, 
we  are  ready  to  reject  established  facts,  and  those 
of  a  very  numerous  kind:  probably,  at  least,  two 
thousand. 

It  is  not  needful  for  very  great  attention  to  be 
paid  to  the  phraseology  of  the  Curetoiiian  Syriac  in 
order  to  see  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Jlatthew  (litters 
in  mode  of  expression  and  various  other  particulars 
from  what  we  find  in  the  rest.  This  may  lead  us 
auain  to  look  at  the  testimony  of  Bar  Salibi :  he 
tells  us,  when  speaking  of  this  version  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, "  there  is  found  occasionally  a  Syriac  copy 
iiuu/e  out  of  the  Hebrew : '"  we  thus  know  that  tiie 
D|)inion  of  the  Syrians  themselves  in  the  12tii  cen- 
tury was  that  this  translation  of  St.  Matthew  was 
not  made  from  the  Greek,  but  from  the  Hebrew 
original  of  the  Evangelist:  such,  too,  is  the  judg- 
ment of  Dr.  Cureton  :  "  this  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
appears  at  least  to  be  built  upon  the  original  .Ara- 
maic te.xt,  which  was  the  work  of  the  Apostle  him- 
self"     (.Ptefice  to  Syri'ic  Gospels,  p.  vi.) 

Dr.  Cureton  ritrhtly  draws  attention  to  the  pe- 
culiar title  prefixed  to  the  Gospel  by  St.  Alatthew, 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC)  3393 

\\'e  know   from  .Jerome  that    the    Hebrew  9t 

Jlatthew  had  THtt  where  the  Greek  has  iinoixnov 
We  do  not  find  that  word  here,  but  we  read  for 
both  iiTiowiov  and  aTifiipov  at  the  end  of  the 
verse,  pOQ.>  »  )lJ_*J<l3 |  u  constant  of  the  day." 
'I'his  might  have  sprung  from  the  interpretation, 

"  morrow  by  morrow,"  given  to  "IHID  ;  and  it  may 
be  illustrated  by  Old  Test,  passages,  e.  (/.  Num.  iv. 

7,  where  T^Hi^rT  cHh  is  rendered  by  l-^-*^ 

^.JlLix::^)).  Those  who  think  that  if  this  Syriac 
version  had  been  made  from   St.  Matthew's  He- 


^a^>^oJ. 


Now 


whatever  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  dauipharsho 
here  brought  in  —  whether  it  signifies  "  the  dis- 
tinct Gospel  of  Matthew,"  as  rendered  by  Cureton, 
or  "  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  set  forth  "  [i.  e  for 
lessons  throughout  the  ecclesiastical  year],  as  Bern- 
stein advances,  supporting  his  opinion  by  a  passage 
in  .Asseuiani  (which  can  hardly  here  ajjply,  as  this 
copy  is  not  so  "set  forth  "),  or,  if.it  means  (as 
some  have  objected),  "the  Gospel  of  Matthew  ex- 
plained "  —  still  there  nuist  l)e  some  reason  why 
the _/i'r)ii  Gospel  should  be  thus  designated,  and  not 
the  others.  Hut  the  use  of  the  cognate  Hebrew 
verb  in  the  Ok!  Testament  may  afford  us  some  aid 
as  to  what  kind  of  ex/A  /nation  is  meant,  if  indeed 
tiiat  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  here  used.  In  the 
description  of  the  reading  of  the  law  in  Neh.  viii.  8, 
we  are  told,  "  So  they  read  in  the  book  of  the  law 

distinctli/  {W~)T  72)  and  gave  the  sense,  and  caused 
the  peo[)le  to  understand  the  reading."  The  word 
here  used  has  been  regarded  by  able  scholars  as 
implying  an  interpretation  from  tlie  ancient  lie- 
brew  into  the  form  of  Aramaean  then  current.  Such 
a  Mephurash,  when  written,  would  be  the  germ  of 
the  Targum  of  after  ages.  (See  below,  p.  u39G  a.) 
The  same  word  may  be  used  in  the  headi]ig  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel  in  the  same  sense  —  as  being  an 
explanation  from  one  Sliemitic  tongue  or  dialect 
into  another,  just  as  St.  Matthew's  (jospel  turned 
from  one  form  of  Hebrew  into  pure  Striae  would 
be. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  if  St.  Matthew's  Hebrew 
(or  Chaldaic)  Gospel  was  before  the  translator,  why 
Bhould  he  have  done  more  than  copy  into  Su'iac 
letters?  Why  ira»5/f(/e  at  all':'  It  is  sufficient,  in 
reply,  to  refer  to  the  Chaldaic  portions  of  Daniel 
and  Ezra,  and  to  the  Syriac  version  made  from 
them.  In  varying  dialects  it  sometimes  liappeus 
that  the  vocabulary  in  use  differs  more  than  the 
granniiatical  forms.  Thevei'li.al  identity  may  often 
be  striking  even  though  accompanied  with  frequent 
variation  of  terms. 


<»  See  Moses  Aghelseus  in  Assemani,  Bibliolh.  Orient. 
.83. 
b  PrwfiiCH  to  the  Sjriac  edition  of  2  Pet.  etc. 


brew,  we  ought  to  find  "nHtS  here,  forget  that  » 
translation  is  not  a  verbal  transfusion. 

We  know  from  Euseliius  that  Hegesippus  cited 
from  tiie  Gospel  according  to  the  Helirews,  and 
from  the  Syriac.  Now  in  a  fragment  of  Hegesip- 
pus (Koutli,  i.  '219),  there  is  tlie  quotation,  fxaKa- 
pioL  01  o(pda\fj.ol  ufxcov  ol  ^\ew6vTis  Kal  ra  S)Ta 
vfxcii'  TO,  CLKovovra,  words  which  might  be  a  Greek 
rendering  from  Matt.  xiii.  10,  as  it  stands  in  this 
Syriac  (iospel  as  we  have  it,  or  probably  also  in  the 
Helirew  work  of  the  Apostle  him.self.  Every  notice 
of  tlie  kind  is  important;  and  Dr.  Cureton,  in 
pointing  it  out,  has  furnished  students  with  one  of 
the  varied  data  through  which  a  right  conclusiOa 
may  be  reached. 

l"2very  successive  investigation,  on  the  part  of 
competent  scholars,  aids  in  the  proof  that  the 
Curetonian  Gospels  are  an  older  form  than  those  in 
tlie  Peshito;  that  the  Peshito  is  a  revision  replete 
with  readings  unknown  in  the  2d  century  (and 
often  long  after)  ;  and  that  the  Curetonian  text 
possesses  the  highest  critical  as  well  as  historical 
value. 

The  more  the  evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  is 
weii;hed,  the  more  established  it  apjiears  will  be 
the  judgment  that  the  (Juretonian  Syriac  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel  was  translated  from  the  Apostle's 
Hebrew  (Syro-Chaldaic)  original,  although  injured 
since  by  copyists  or  revi.sers. 

B.  The  Pliitoxenian  Syriac  Version,  aiul  its 
Revision  by  Thomas  of  flarkel.  —  Philoxenus,  or 
Xenaias,  Bp.  of  Hierapolis  or  Mabug  at  the  be- 
Lriiining  of  the  Gtli  century  (who  was  one  of  those 
Monophysites  who  subscrilied  the  IJeimlicon  of  the 
I->mperor  Zeno),  caused  Pol^carp,  his  Chorepiscnpus, 
to  make  a  new  translation  of  the  New  Test,  into 
Syriac.  This  was  executed  in  a.  d.  .508,  and  it  is 
generally  termed  Philoxenian  from  its  promoter." 

This  version  has  not  been  transmitted  to  us  in 
the  form  in  which  it  was  first  made;  we  cnly  pos- 
sess a  revision  of  it,  executed  by  Thomas  of  Harkel 
in  the  following  century  (The  Gospels,  A.  d.  616). 
Pococke,  in  1630,''  gives  an  extract  from  Bar  Salibi, 
in  which  the  version  of  Thomas  of  Harkel  is  men- 
tioned ;  and  though  Pococke  did  not  know  u-hat 
version  Thomas  had  made,  he  sjieaks  of  a  Syriac 
translation  of  the  Gospels  communicated  to  him  by 
some  learned  man  whom  he  does  not  name,  which 
from  its  servile  adherence  to  the  (ireek  was  no 
doubt  the  Harklean  text.  In  the  Bibliolhtca  Ori- 
entalis  of  Assemani  there  were  further  notices  of 
the  work  of  Thomas;  and  in  1730  Samuel  Palmer 
sent  from  the  ancient  Amida  (now  Iharlnkr)  Syriac 
MSS.  to  Dr.  Gloucester  Ilidley,  in  which  the  ver- 
sion is  contained.  Thus  he  had  two  copies  of  the 
(iospels,  and  one  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Nsw  Test, 
except  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  th'.  Hebrews,  suid 


3394 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (SYRIAC) 


the  Apocalypse.  No  other  MSS.  appear  to  have 
yet  come  to  light  which  contain  any  of  this  version 
beyond  the  Gospels.  From  the  subscrii)tions  we 
learn  that  the  text  was  revised  by  Tiiomas  with 
three  (some  copies  say  two)  Greels  MSS.  One 
Greek  copy  is  similarly  mentioned  at  the  close  of 
the  catholic  epistles. 

Eidley  published,  in  1701,  an  account  of  the 
MSS.  in  his  possession,  and  a  notice  of  tliis  version. 
He  had  intended  to  have  edited  the  text:  this  was 
however  done  by  White,  at  different  times  from 
1778  to  180.3.  After  the  publication  of  the  Gospels, 
the  researclies  of  Adler  lirought  more  copies  into 
notice  of  that  part  of  the  Harlvlean  text.  From 
one  of  the  MSS.  in  the  Vatican,  St.  .John's  Gospel 
was  edited  by  Bernstein  in  1851.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  this  version  differs  from  the  Feshito,  in  con- 
taining all  the  seven  catholic  epistles. 

In  describir,g  this  version  as  it  has  come  down  to 
us,  the  text  is  the  first  thing  to  lie  considered.  This 
Ls  characterized  by  extreme  literality:  tlie  Synac 
idiom  is  constantly  bent  to  suit  the  Greek,  and 
everything  is  in  some  manner  expressed  in  the 
Greek  phrase  and  order.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
that  it  could  have  been  intended  for  ecclesiastical 
reading.  It  is  not  independent  of  tiie  Pesfiito,  the 
words,  etc.,  of  which  are  often  emplojed.  As  to 
the  kind  of  Greek  text  that  it  re])resents,  it  is  just 
what  might  have  been  expected  in  the  Gth  century. 
The  work  of  Thomas  in  the  text  itself  is  seen  in  the 
introduction  of  obeli,  by  which  passages  which 
he  rejected  were  condemned;  and  oi  ngteridv,  with 
which  his  insertions  were  distinguished.  His  model 
in  all  this  was  the  Hexaplar  Greek  text.  Tlie 
MSS..  which  were  used  liy  Thomas  were  of  a  diti'er- 
ent  kind  from  those  employed  in  making  the  ver- 
sion; they  represented  in  general  a  nmch  older  and 
purer  text.  The  margin  of  the  Harklean  recension 
contains  (like  the  Hexaplar  text  of  tlie  LXX.)  read 
ings,  mostly  apparently  from  the  Greek  MSS.  used. 
It  has  been  questioned  whether  these  readings  are 
not  a  comparison  with  the  I'eshito;  if  any  of  them 
are  so,  they  ha\e  probably  been  introduced  since 
the  time  of  Thomas.  It  is  probable  that  the  Phi- 
loxenian  version  was  very  literal,  but  that  the  slav- 
ish adaptation  to  the  Greek  is  the  work  of  Thomas: 
and  that  his  text  thus  bore  about  the  same  relation 
to  that  of  Philoxeuus  as  the  Latin  Bible  of  Arias 
Montauus  does  to  that  of  his  predecessor  Pagninus. 
For  textual  criticism  this  version  is  a  good  author- 
ity as  to  the  text  of  its  own  time,  at  least  where  it 
does  not  merely  follow  the  Peshito.  The  aniiilifi- 
cations  in  the  margin  of  the  book  of  Acts  liriiig  a 
MS.  used  by  Thomas  into  close  comparison  with 
the  Codex  Itezae.  One  of  the  MS.S.  of  the  Gospels 
lent  to  Kidley  contains  the  Harklean  text,  with 
■ome  revision  by  Bar  Salibi. 

C.  Syrinc  Versions  of  Portions  wanting  in  the 


a  The  Ilev.  B.  Harris  Cowper  has  courteously  com- 
municated the  following  notice  relative  to  the  Svriac 
Apocalypse  in  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum  :  "  The 
MS.  No.  7,185  of  the  14th  century  does  not  contain  the 
actual  text  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  a  brief  commentiiry 
upon  it  —  upon  paper,  and  not  quite  perfect ;  the  text 
Beeniiug  to  be  tliat  of  our  printed  books.  The  text  of 
the  Apoc;ilypse  is  apparently  all  found  in  No.  17,127, 
B  comnieutfiry  upon  the  book  of  the  11th  century. 
This  also  seems  to  be  of  the  same  text  as  the  printed 
dition." 

*  Do  Dieu  says  that  this  Syriac  MS.  contained 
"omnia  N.  T.  Syriaci,  quie  in  prioribus  deerant  edi- 
aoniJbUE  "     Does  this  mean   that   .t  mereU'  coutaiued 


Peshito.  —  I.  The  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  sec- 
ond and  third  of  .John,  and  that  of  .Jude.  The  fact 
has  been  already  noticed,  that  the  Old  Syriac  Ver- 
sion did  not  contain  these  epistles.  They  were 
published  by  Pococke  in  1630,  from  a  MS.  in  the 
Bodleian.  The  version  of  these  epistles  so  often 
agrees  with  what  we  have  in  the  Harklean  recen- 
sion, that  the  one  is  at  least  dependent  on  the  other. 
The  suggestion  of  Dr.  Davidson  (Biblical  Crilicism, 
ii.  190),  that  the  text  of  Pococke  is  that  of  Philox- 
euus before  it  was  revised  bj-  Thomas,  seems  mos* 
l)robable.  But  if  it  is  objected,  that  the  translation 
does  not  show  as  great  a  knowledge  of  Greek  as 
might  have  been  expected  in  the  translation  of 
the  rest  of  the  Philoxenian,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  here  he  had  not  the  Peshito  to  aid  him.  In 
the  Paris  Polyglot t  these  epistles  were  added  to  the 
Peshito,  with  which  they  have  since  been  commonly 
printed,  although  they  have  not  the  slightest  rela- 
tion to  that  version. 

II.  The  Apocalypse. — In  1627  De  Dieu  edited 
a  S3Tiac  version  of  the  Apocalypse,  from  a  MS.  in 
the  Leyden  Library,  written  by  one  "Caspar  from 
the  land  of  the  Indians,"  who  lived  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  16th  century.  A  MS.  at  Florence,  also 
written  by  this  Caspar,  has  a  subscription  stating 
that  it  was  copied  in  1.582  from  a  MS.  in  the  writ- 
ing of  Thomas  of  Harkel.  in  A.  d.  622.  If  this  is 
correct  it  shows  that  Tliomas  by  himself  would 
h.ave  been  but  a  poor  translator  of  the  N.  T.  But 
the  subscription  seems  to  be  of  doubtful  authority; 
and  until  the  Kev.  B.  Harris  Cowper  drew  atten- 
tion to  a  more  ancient  copy  of  the  version,  we 
might  well  be  somewhat  uncertain  if  this  were  really 
an  ancient  work."  It  is  of  small  critical  value,  and 
the  AIS.  froiu  which  it  was  edited  is  incorrectly 
written.  It  was  in  the  MS.  which  Archbishop 
Ussher  sent  as  a  present  to  De  Dieu  in  1031,  in 
which  the  whole  of  the  Syriac  N.  T.  is  said  to  have 
been  contained  (of  what  version  is  unknown),  that 
having  lieen  the  only  complete  MS.  of  the  kind 
described ; ''  and  of  this  MS.,  in  comparison  with 
the  text  of  the  Apocalypse  printed  by  De  Dieu, 
Ussher  says,  "  the  Syriac  lately  set  out  at  Leyden 
may  be  amended  by  my  MS.  copy'"  (  Fodd's  Wnl- 
Um,  i.  196,  note).  This  book  from  the  Paris  Poly- 
glott  and  onward,  has  been  added  to  the  I'eshito 
in  this  translation.  Some  have  erroneously  called 
this  Syriac  Apocalyse  th'e  Philoxenian,  a  name  tc 
which  it  has  no  title:  the  error  seems  to  have  origi- 
nated from  a  verlial  mistake  in  an  old  advertise- 
ment of  (Greenfield's  edition  (for  which  he  was  not 
responsible),  wliich  said  "the  Apocalypse  and  thii 
Epistles  not  found  in  the  Peshito,  are  given  from 
the  Philoxenian  version." 

HI.  The  Syriac  I'ersion  of  .John  viii.  1-11.  — 
From  the  M.S.  sent  liy  .\rchbishop  Ussher  to  Di 
Dieu,   the  latter  pulilished   this  section   in   1031 


what  was  previously  wanting,  or  the  wliole,  including 
Buch  parts  ?  It  seems  strange  if  this  .section  of  St. 
John  stood  in  it  atone.  This  makes  it  .'eem  as  if  the 
interpretation  given  above  were  the  true  one.  Ussher  s 
own  description  is  this:  '■  1  have  received  the  parrels 
of  the  N.  Test,  [in  Syriac]  which  hitherto  we  have 
wanted  in  that  language,  namely,  the  history  of  th<! 
adulterous  woman,  the  2d  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  2d  and 
3d  Epistles  of  St.  John,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the 
Hevelation  ;  as  also  a  small  tractate  of  Ephrem  Syrus 
in  his  own  language."  Archbishop  Ussher  to  Dr 
Samuel  Ward,  June  23,  1626  (Todd's  Life  or  Waiion 
i.  194). 


Prom  De  Dieu  it  was  Imertefl  in  the  London  Poly- 
p;lott,  with  a  reference  to  Usslier's  MS.,  and  lience 
it  has  passed  with  the  other  editions  of  the  Peshito, 
where  it  is  a  mere  interpolatio'.i. 

A  copy  of  tlie  same  version  (e8-;entiallj)  is  found 
in  Ridley's  C'o'/ex  Barsiilibce!,  where  it  is  attributed 
to  Maras,  A.  D.  622:  Adler  found  it  also  in  a  Paris 
BIS.  ascribed  to  Abbas  Mar  Paul. 

Bar  Salibi  cites  a  different  version,  out  of  Maras, 
Bishop  of  Amida,  through  the  chronicle  of  Zacli- 
arias  of  iMelitina.  See  Asseniani  {Diblhtlli.  Orient. 
ii.  53,  170),  who  gives  tiie  introductory  words. 
Probably  the  version  edited  is  that  of  Paul  (as 
Btated  in  the  Paris  MS.)  and  that  of  Maras  the 
line  cited  by  Bar  Sahbi;  while  in  Kidley's  MS.  the 
two  are  confoundeil.  The  Paul  mentioned  is  ap- 
parently Paul  of  Tela,  the  translator  of  the  Hexa- 
plar  Greek  text  into  Syriac. 

D.  The  Jehusalk.m  Syki.\c  Lection.vhy.  — 
The  MS.  in  tiie  Vatican  containing  this  version 
was  pretty  fully  described  by  S.  E.  Assemani  in 
1756,  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  MSS.  belonging  to 
that  Lilirary;  but  so  few  copies  of  that  work  es- 
caped destruction  by  fire,  that  it  was  virtually  un- 
published, and  its  contents  almost  unknown.  Adler, 
who  at  Copenhagen  had  the  advantage  of  studying 
one  of  the  few  copies  of  this  Catalogue,  drew  pulilic 
attention  to  this  peculiar  document  in  his  Kurze 
Uebersicht  seiner  biblischkriiischen  Seise  nich 
Rom,  pp.  118-127  (Altona,  1783),  and  still  further, 
in  1789,  in  his  valualile  examination  of  the  Syriac 
versions.  The  MS.  was  written  in  A.  d.  1030,  in 
peculiar  Syriac  writing;  the  ])ortions  are  of  course 
those  for  the  dittisrent  festivals,  some  parts  of  the 
Gospels  not  l)eing  there  at  all.  The  dialect  is  not 
common  Syri.ac  ;  it  was  termed  the  Jerusnieiii 
Syriac,  from  its  being  supposed  to  resemble  the 
.lerusalem  Talmud  in  language  and  other  points. 
The  grammar  is  peculiar;  the  forms  almost  Chal- 
dee  rather  than  Syriac ;  two  characters  are  used  for 
expressing  V  and  P. 

For  critical  purposes  this  Lectionary  has  a  far 
higher  value  than  it  has  for  any  other:  its  readings 
often  coincide  with  the  oldest  and  best  authorities. 
It  is  not  yet  known  as  to  its  entire  text;  for  except 
a  small  specimen,  no  part  has  been  printed;  Adler, 
however,  selected  large  numbers  of  readings,  which 
have  been  commonly  used  by  critics  from  that  time 
and  onward.  In  Adler's  opmion  its  date  as  a  ver- 
sion would  be  from  the  4tli  to  the  Gth  century; 
but  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  it  is  of  so  early 
an  age,  or  that  any  Syrians  then  could  have  used 
80  corrupt  a  dialect.  It  may  rather  be  supposed 
to  be  a  translation  made  from  a  (h-eek  Lectionary, 
never  having  existed  as  a  substantive  translation : 
to  what  age  its  execution  should  be  assigned  seems 
wholly  uncertain.  (.V  further  account  of  the  MS. 
of  this  version,  drawn  up  from  a  comjiarisou  of 
Assemani's  description  in  tiie  Vatican  Catalogue, 
and  that  of  Adler,  with  the  IMS.  itself  in  the 
Vatican  Library,  made  by  the  present  writer,  is 
given  in  Home's  Introil.  iv.  284-287,  where,  how- 
ever, "  Jerusalem  Tavyuin  "  twice  stands  for  Tal- 

■IIIU'I. ) 

It  appears,  from  the  statement  of  Ur.  Ceriani  of 
Milan,  that  Count  Marescalchi  [.Miniscalciii]  has 
met  with  a  MS.  of  tiiis  Lectionary,  and  that  he 
has  long  had  the  intention  of  pulilishing  it.  [It 
was  pulilished  at  Verona  in  1861-64  iiy  Count 
Miniscalchi-l'".rizzo.  ni  2  vols.  4t,o,  tiie  first  contain- 
ing the  text,  witli  a  Latin  translation;  the  second 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM)  3395 

(art.  Syriac  Versions  in  Ivitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl. 
Lit.,  3d  ed.)  the  prolegomena  are  disappointing.  — 
A.] 

On  the  Syriac  Versions. — Adler,  N.  T.  Ver- 
siones  Syriacie,  Simplex,  Philoxeniana  et  Hiero- 
stilyiiiitana.  ckmw  examiantce,  1789  ;  Wiseman, 
Horas  Syriaca,  1827;  Kidley,  Be  Syriacnrnm  jV. 
F(jifleris  versioimm  indole  atque  usii,  etc.,  1761; 
Winer,  Commentatio  de  versionis  N.  T.  Syriacce 
usu  crilico  caute  institiumh,  1823 ;  Wiehelliaus, 
De  Novi  Test,  versione  Syriaca  antiqua  quum 
Peschitho  vacant,  1850;  Bernstein,  De  C'liarklfnsi 
N.  T.  irandntione  Syriaca  commentatio,  1857; 
Cureton,  Anlient  Recensicn  of  the  Syrinc  Gospeli 
(Preface,  etc.),  18.5^.  S.  P.  T. 

TARGUM     (C^3~!ri,    from  D3~li"n  ;     Arab. 

I^^wj,  to   translate,   explain);  a   Chaldee   word 

of   uncertain   origin,   variously  derived   from    the 

roots    Dn"!,   Cp~     (comp.  Arab.    ijVJ))     iV^'v 

etc.),  and  even  identified  with  the  Greek  Tpdyr][j.a, 
dessert  (l<"r.  drayees),  (trop.  rpayn/xaTa  Tciii' 
\6ya>v,   Uion.    Hal.   li/iet.    10,  18),  which  occurs 

often    in    the    Talmud   as    S^^'^^IID     ^3"^I2,    or 


S!2''2~in  ("  such  as  dates,  almonds,  nuts,"  etc. 
Pes.  119  b):  the  general  term  for  the  CIIA1>- 
DKE,  or,  more  accurati-ly  ARAMAIC  VERSIONS 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  injunction  to  •'  read  the  Book  of  the  Law 
before  all  Israel  ....  the  men,  and  women,  and 
children,  and  the  strangers,"  on  the  Feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles of  every  Sabbatical  year,  as  a  means  of 
solemn  instruction  and  edification,  is  first  found  in 
Deut.  xxxi.  10-13.  How  far  the  ordinance  was 
observed  in  early  times  we  have  no  means  of  judg- 
ing. It  would  appear,  however,  that  such  readings 
did  take  ]jlace  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.  Certain  it 
is  tiiat  among  the  first  acts  undertaken  by  Ezra 
towards  the  restoration  of  the  primitive  religion 
and  public  worship  is  reported  his  reading  "before 
the  congregation,  both  of  men  and  women  "  of  the 
returned  exiles,  "in  the  Book  in  the  Law  of  God' 
(Xeh.  viii.  2,  8).  Aided  by  those  men  of  learning 
and  eminence  with  whom,  according  to  tradition, 
he  founded  that  most  important  religious  and  polit- 
ical body  called  the  Great  Synagogue,  or  Men  of 

the  Great  Assembly  (nblian  HD^D  ^li'^S, 
536-167),  he  appeai-s  to  have  succeeded  in  so  firmly 
establishing  regular  and  frequent  public  readings 
in  the  Sacred  Records,  that  later  ant iiori ties  almost 
unanimously  trace  this  hallowed  custom  to  times 
immemorial  —  n»y  to  the  time  of  Moses  himself. 
Sucli  is  the  statement  of  Josephus  (c.  A/),  ii.  17); 
and  we  read  in  the  .\cts,  xv.  21,  "  For  Moses  of  old 
time  hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him, 
lieing  read  in  the  synagogue  every  sabl>ath  day." 
So  also  Jer.  Meg.  i.  1:  "Ezra  has  instituted  for 
Lsrael  that  the  maledictions  in  the  Pentateuch 
slioulil  also  lie  read  in  jmblic,"  etc.  Further,  Meg. 
31  b,  "  Kzr.i  instituted  ten  things,  namely,  that 
there  should  be  readings  in  the  Law  also  in  the 
afternoon  service  of  Sabbath,  on  the  Monday,  and 

on    the    Thursday,  etc But  was  not  this 

instituted  before  in  the  desert,  as  we  find  » they 
went  for  three  days  and  found  no  water  '  (water 
ineaMing  the  Law,  as  Is.  Iv.  1  is  fancifully  explained 
by  tiie  ila'^'uadal.  until  the  '  propliets  amiiMi;  tiiiMu  ' 


Ijioieg-^mena  and  glos,sary.    According  to  Davidson  I  arranged   the   three  weekly  readings'?      But    Ezra 


3396 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM^ 


»iilj'  reinstituted  them,"  comp.  also  B.  Kama,  82 
J,  etc.  To  these  ancient  readiiiojs  in  the  Penta- 
teuch were  added,  in  the  course  of  time,  readings 
in  the  prophets  (in  some  Babylonian  cities  even  in 

the  Ha^iographa),  which  were  called  m~llj-n, 
Eiiflnroth  ;  but  when  and  how  these  were  intro- 
duced is  stili  matter  of  speculation.  Former  inves- 
tigators (Abudraham,  Elias  Levita,  Vitringa,  etc.) 
ilmost  unanimously  trace  their  origin  to  the 
Syrian  persecutions,  during  which  all  attention  to 
the  Law  was  strictly  proliiliited,  and  even  all  the 
copies  of  it  that  were  found  were  ruthlessly  de- 
stroyed; so  that,  as  a  substitute  for  the  I'enta- 
teuchical  Parasha,  a  somewhat  •corresponding  por- 
tion of  the  Prophets  was  read  in  the  synagogue, 
tnd  the  custom,  once  introduced,  remained  fi.'ced. 
Kcceut  scholars  on  tiie  other  hand,  without  much 
show  of  reason,  as  it  would  appear,  variously  hold 
the  lliifliinili  to  have  sprung  from  the  sermon  or 
homiletic  exercise  which  accompanied  the  reading 
in  the  Pentateuch,  and  took  its  exm-diuiii  (as  Haf- 
tarah,  by  an  extraordinary  linguistic  stretch,  is 
explained  by  Frankel)  from  a  prophetic  passage, 
adapted  in  a  manner  to  the  Mosaic  text  under  con- 
sideration; or,  again,  they  imagine  the  Haftarali 
to  have  taken  its  rise  spontaneously  during  the 
exile  itself,  and  that  Ezra  retained  and  enforced  it 
in  Palestine. 

If,  however,  the  ]jrimitive  religion  was  ret-stab- 
lished,  together  with  the  second  Temple,  in  more 
than  its  tbriner  vigor,  thus  enabling  the  small 
number  of  the  retm-ned  exiles  —  and  these,  accord- 
ing to  tradition,  the  lowest  of  the  low,  the  poor  in 
wealth,  in  knowledge,  and  in  ancestry,"  the  very 
outcasts  and  refuse  of  the  nation  as  it  were  *  —  to 
found  upon  the  ruins  of  Zion  one  of  the  most 
important  and  lasting  spiritual  commonwealths 
that  has  ever  been  known,  there  was  yet  one  thing 
which  neither  authority  nor  piety,  neither  academy 
nor  synagogue,  could  restore  to  its  original  power 
and  glory  —  the  Hebrew  language.  Ere  long  it 
was  found  necessary  to  translate  the  national  books, 
in  order  that  the  nation  ii-om  whose  midst  they 
had  sprung  might  be  able  to  understand  them. 
And  if  for  the  Alexandrine,  or  rather  the  whole 
body  of  Hellenistic  Jews,  Greek  translations  had 
to  be  composed,  those  who  dwelt  on  the  hallowed 
Boil  of  their  forefathers  had  to  receive  the  Sacred 
Word  through  an  Aramaic   medi'imi.     The  word 

ti7Tl2X3,  3fephoras/i,  "explanatory,"  "clearly," 
or,  as  the  A.  V.  has  it,  "  distinctly,"  used  in  the 
above-quoted  passage  of  Neh.  viii.  8,  is  in  the  Tal- 
mud explained  by  "  Targuni."  <^  Thus  to  Ezra 
himself  is  traced  the  custom  of  adding  translations 
in  the  then  popular  idiom  —  the  Aramaic  —  to  the 
periodical  readings  (.ler.  Meg.  28  6;  J.  Ned.  iv., 
Bab.  Ned.  i.;  Main..  Hilch.  Teph.  xii.  §  10,  etc.), 


for  which  he  is  also  reported  to  have  fixed  the 
Sabbaths,  tlie  INIondays  and  Thursdays  —  the  two 
latter  the  market  and  law-days,  when  the  villagers 
came  to  town  —  of  every  week  (Jer.  Meg.  i.  1 ; 
Baba  Kama,  82  a).  The  gradual  decay  of  tiie 
pure  Hebrew  vernacular,  among  the  multitude  at 
least,  may  be  accounted  for  in  many  ways.  'i"he 
Midrash  very  strikingly  points  out,  among  the 
characteristics  of  the  long  sojourn  of  Israel  in 
Egypt,  that  they  neither  changed  their  language, 
nor  their  names,  nor  the  shape  of  their  garments, 
during  all  that  time.  The  bulk  of  their  com- 
munity —  shut  up,  as  it  were,  in  the  small  province 
of  Goshen,  almost  exclusively  reduced  to  inter- 
course with  their  own  race  and  tribes,  devoted  only 
to  the  pasture  of  their  flocks,  and  perhaps  to  the 
tilling  of  their  soil  —  were  in  a  condition  infinitely 
more  favorable  for  the  retention  of  all  the  signs  and 
tokens  of  their  nationality  than  were  the  Babylo- 
nian captives.  The  latter,  scattered  up  and  down 
the  vast  empire,  seem  to  have  enjoyed  everywhere 
full  liberty  of  intercommunication  with  the  natives 
—  very  similar  in  many  respects  to  themselves  — 
to  have  been  utterly  unrestrained  in  the  exercise 
of  every  profession  and  trade,  and  even  to  have 
risen  to  the  highest  offices  of  state;  and  thus, 
during  the  comparatively  short  space,  they  struck 
root  so  firmly  in  the  land  of  their  exile,  that  when 
opportunity  served,  they  were,  on  the  whole,  loth 
to  return  t.o  the  Land  of  Promise.  \\'hat  more 
natural  than  that  the  immigrants  under  Zerubba- 
bel,  and  still  more  those  who  came  with  Ezra  — 
several  generations  of  whose  ancestors  had  been 
settled  in  Babel  —  should  have  brought  back  with 
them  the  Aramaic,  if  not  as  their  vernacular,  at  all 
events  as  an  idiom  with  which  they  were  perfectly 
familiar,  and  which  they  may  partly  have  con- 
tinued to  use  as  their  colloquial  language  in  Pales- 
tine, as,  in  fact,  they  had  had  to  use  it  in  Babylon  ? 
Continuous  later  immigrations  from  the  "  Cap- 
tivity "  did  not  fail  to  reinforce  and  further  to 
spread  the  use  of  the  same  tongue.  All  the  de- 
crees and  official  connnunications  addressed  to  the 
.lews  by  their  Persian  masters  were  in  Aramaic 
(Ezr.  Neh.  prissiiii),  Judiea  being  considered  only 
as  ]iart  of  the  Syrian  satrapy.  Nor  must  it  be 
forgotten  that  the  old  colonists  in  Palestine  (2  K. 
xvii.  24)  were  Samaritans,  who  had  come  from 
"Aram  and  Babel,"  and  who  spoke  Chaldee;  that 
intermarriages  with  women  from  Ashdod,  Amnion, 
and  Moab  had  been  common  (Neh.  xiii.  2-3) ;  that 
Phoenicia,  whose  merchants  (Tyrians,  Neh.  xiii.  16) 
appear  to  have  settled  in  Palestine,  and  to  have 
established  commercial  relations  with  Judaea  and 
Galilee,  contains  large  elements  of  Chaldee  in  ita 
own  idiom.  Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  we  find  in 
the  book  of  Daniel,  for  instance,  a  somewhat  forced 
Hebrew,  from  which,  as  it  would  seem,  the  author 


"  "  Ten  kinds  of  families  went  up  from  Babylon  : 
Priests,  Levites,  Israelites,  profaned  C^v"^  VH,  those 
whose  fathers  are  priests,  but  whose  mothers  are  not 
6t  for  priestly  marriage) ;  proselytes,  freedmen,  bas- 
tards (or  rather  those  born   in    illegal  wedlock )  ;   Ne- 

thinim  (lowest  menials  of  the  Temple)  ;  "^piniZ? 
('  about  whose  lineage  there  is  silence,'  —  of  unknown 
fethers) ;  and  ''SIDS,  'foundlings,  of  unknown 
tather  and  mother  '  "  (Kidd.  4,  1) 

b  "  Ezta,  on   leaving   Babylon,   made  it  like   unto 

ourb  flour"  n^^pZ   nbiDD  (ii.). 


c  " '  And  they  read  in  the  book  of  the  Law  of  God 
clearly  (tZ^'^IDtt),  and  gave  the  understanding,  so 
that  they  understood  the  reading  :  '  —  'in  the  book 
of  the  Law  '  —  this  is  Mikra,  the  original  reading  in 

the  Pentateuch  ;  '  ti7~n2tt,  clearly  '  —  this  is  Tar- 
gum  "  (Meg.  Sa;  Ned  37  *).  To  this  tradition  also 
might  be  referred  the  otherwise  rather  enigmatical 
passage  (Sanh.  21  6)  :  "Originally,"  says  Mar  Sutra, 
"  the  Law  was  given  to  Israel  in  Ibri  writing  and  th« 
holy  (Hebrew)  language.  It  was  again  given  to  them 
in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  the  Ashurith  writing  and  th« 
Aramaic  language,"  etc. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


8397 


|ladly  lapses  into  the  more  familiar  Aramaic  (conip. 
ii.  4,  etc.);  that  oracles  were  received  by  the  high- 
priests  Johanaii  "  and  Simon  the  Just''  in  the  Holy 
3f  Holies  (during  the  Syrian  wars)  in  Aramaic 
(Sotah,  33,  a)  ;  and  that,  in  short,  some  time 
before  the  Hasmonean  period,  this  was  the  lan- 
guage in  which  were  couched    not    only  popular 

Bayings,  proverbs,  and  the  like  (I^VTH  ^ti7X3, 
Beresh.  R.  107  d ;  Tanch.  17  n;  Midr.  Tehill.  23 
d;  51/,  etc.,  etc.),  but  official  and  Ici^al  documents 
(Mishna  Ketub.  4,  8 ;  Toseftah  Sabb.  c.  8 ;  Kdu- 
ioth,  8,  4,  —  c.  130  H.  c),  even  certain  prayers  " 
—  of  ]5aby]i)nian  origin  probably  —and  in  which 
books  destined  for  the  threat  mass  of  the  people 
were  writteri.f'  That,  indeed,  tlie  Hebrew  Lau- 
gnatre  —  the  "language  of  Kenaan  "  (Is.  xix.  18), 
or  "  Jehudith"  (2  K.  xviii.  2i;,  28;  Is.  xxxvi.  11) 
of  tiie  Bible  —  became  more  and  more  the  lan- 
guag(!  of  the  few,  the  learned,  the  I/dly  Lfingnnije, 

W^pn    lltt^b,    or,  still    more    exactly,  IW^b 

Sti^llp  iT'Q,  "  Language  of  the  I'emple,"  set 
aside  almost  exclusively  for  the  holy  service  of  relig- 
ion: be  it  the  Divine  Law  and  the  works  in  which 
this  was  contained  (like  the  Mishna,  tlie  Boraithot, 
RIechilta.  Sifri,  Sifra,  the  older  Midrashim.  and 
very  many  jiortions  of  the  Talmud),  or  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  different  academies  (witness 
the  Hebrew  letter  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  Alex- 
andria about  lt)0  H.  c,  Chag.  .ler.  ii.  2),  or  be 
it  the  sacred  worship  itself  in  Temple  and  syna- 
gogue, which  was  almost  entirely  carried  on  in  pure 
Helirew. 

If  the  common  people  thus  gradually  had  lost  all 
knowledge  of  tiie  tongue  in  which  were  written  the 
books  to  be  I'ead  to  them,  it  naturally  followed  (in 
order  "that  they  might  understand  them  ")  that 
recourse  nmst  be  had  to  a  translation  into  the  idiom 
with  which  they  were  familiar  —  the  Aramaic. 
That  further,  since  a  bare  translation  could  not  in 
all  cases  suffice,  it  was  necessary  to  add  to  the  trans- 
lation an  ex|)lanation,  more  particularly  of  tlie  more 
difficult  and  obscure  passages.  Both  translation 
and  explanation  were  designated  by  the  term  Tcr- 
guM.  In  tiie  course  of  time  there  sprang  up  a 
guild,  whose  special  office  it  was  to  act  as  iiitev- 
pi'eters  in  both  senses  (Mcturycmnn  «),  while  for- 
merly the  learned  alone  volunteered  their  services. 
These  interpreters  were  subjected  to  certain  bonds 
and  regulations  as  to  the  form  and  substance  of 
their  renderings.  Thus  (coinp.  Mishna  Meg.  pns- 
iiin  ;  Mass.  Sofer.  xi.  1 ;  Mainion.  Hilch.  Tephill. 
12,  §  11  ff.;  Orach  Chaj.  145,  1,  2),  "neither  the 
reader  nor  the  interpreter  are  to  raise  their  voices 
one  above  the  other;  "  "  they  have  to  wait  for  each 


a  "  The  youths  who  went  to  combat  at  Antiochia 
have  been  victorious." 

'i  "  Perished  has  the  army  which  the  eueiny  thought 
to  lead  against  the  Temple  " 

c  Introduction    to  the   Ilaggadah    for   the   Pesach 

(Si^Hv  SnD)  :  "Such  was  the  bread  of  misery 
which  our  fathers  ate  in  the  land  of  Mizrajim.  Who- 
ever is  needy,  he  come  and  eat  with  us  ;  whoever  is 
In  want,  he  come  and  celebrate  the  Pesach.  This 
year  here,  next  year  in  the  land  of  Israel ;  this  year 
slaves,  next  year  free  men."  The  Kailrlish,  to  which 
\fterwards  a  certain  signification  as  a  prayer  for  the 
lead  was  given,  and  wliich  begins  as  follows  :  "  l.«t 
►here  be  magnified  and  sanctified  the  Great  Name  in 
Ihe  world  which  lie  has  created  according  to  His 
^ih,  and  which  Ue  rules  as  His  kingdom,  during  your 


other  until  each  have  finished  his  verso:  "  "th« 
Meturgeman  is  not  to  lean  against  a  pillar  or  a 
beam,  but  to  stand  with  fear  and  with  reverence; '" 
"  he  IS  nut  to  use  it  m-itten  Tdfguin,  but  he  is  to 
deliver  his  translation  viva  voce  "  —  lest  it  might 
appear  that  he  was  reading  out  of  the  Torah  itself, 
and  thus  the  Scriptures  be  held  responsible  for 
what  are  I/is  own  dicta;  "no  more  than  one  verse 
in  the  Pentateuch,  and  three  in  the  Propiiets  [a 
greater  license  is  given  for  the  book  of  Esther] 
sliall  be  read  and  translated  at  a  time;"  "that 
there  should  be  not  more  than  one  reader  and  one 
interpreter  for  the  Law,  while  for  the  Prophets  one 
readei'  and  one  interpreter,  or  two  interpreters,  are 
allowed,"  etc.  (comp.  1  Cor.  xiv.  21  ft'.;  xii.  30;  27, 
28).  Again  (Mishna  Meg.  and  Tosiftah,  ad  la-:.), 
certain  passages  liable  to  give  offense  to  the  multi- 
tude are  specified,  which  may  be  read  in  the  syna- 
gogue and  translated ;  others,  which  may  l)e  read 
but  not  translated  ;  others,  a<:ain,  which  may 
neither  be  read  nor  translated.  To  the  first  class.' 
belong  l/ie  account  of  the  Creation  —  a  subject  not 
to  be  discussed  publicly,  on  account  of  its  most 
vital  l)earing  upon  the  relation  between  the  Creator 
and  the  Kosmos,  and  the  nature  of  both:  the  deed 
of  Lot  and  his  two  daugliters  (Ueii.  xix.  31);  of 
Judah  and  Tamar  (Gen.  xxxviii.);  the  first  account 
of  the  making  of  the  golden  calf  (liix.  xxxii.}:  all 
the  curses  in  the  Law;  the  deed  of  Annion  and 
Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiii.);  of  Aljsalom  with  his  father's 
concubines  (2  Sam.  xvi.  22);  the  story  of  the 
woman  of  Gil  eah  (Judg.  xix.).  These  are  to  be 
read  and  translated  —  being  mostly  deeds  which 
carried  their  own  punishments  with  them.  To  be 
read  but  not  translated  are  9  the  deed  of  Reuben 
with  his  father's  concubine  (Gen.  xxxv.  22);  the 
latter  portion  of  the  story  of  the  golden  calf  (Ex. 
xxxii.);  the  benediction  of  the  priests  (on  account 
of  its  awful  nature).  And  neither  to  be  read 
nor  translated  are  the  deed  of  David  and  Bath- 
sheba  (2  Sam.  xi.  and  xii.),  and  according  to  one 
the  story  of  Amnon  and  Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiii.). 
(Both  the  latter  stories,  however,  are,  in  Jlishna 
Meg.  iv.  10,  enumerated  among  tho.se  of  the  sec- 
ond class,  which  are  to  be  read  but  not  translated.) 

Altogether  these  Meturyemanini  do  not  seem  to 
have  been  held  generally  in  very  high  respect;  one 
of  the  reasons  being  probably  that  they  were  paid 
(two  Selnim  at  one  time,  according  to  Blidr.  R. 
Gen.  98),  and  thus  made  (what  P.  Aboth  especially 
inveighs  against)  the  Torah  "  a  spade  to  dig  with 
it."  "  No  sign  of  blessing,"  it  was  said,  moreover, 
"  could  rest  upon  the  profit  they  made  by  the't 
calling,  since  it  was  money  earned  on  the  Sabbath  '' 
(  Pes.  4  b).     Persons  unfit  to  be  readers,  as  those 

life  and  your  days,  and  the  life  of  the  whole  house  of 
Israel,  speedily  and  in  a  near  time,  and  say  ye 
'  Amen :  Be  the  Great  Name  praised  foi  ever  and 
evermore.'  "  etc. 

tl  MegiUath  Taanith,  etc. 

ij' .  f  f^  I  _■  ;  Arm.  Sargmani'dl ;  Ital.  Turcimanno , 
Fi.  Truchtirient ;   Engl.  Dragoman,  etc.). 

/Comprised  in  the  mnemonic  formula,  IpS?  n  .IJ 
'nhW':i  (Meg.  25  a). 

c  p'iii?^,  ibid. 


3898  VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 

whose  ,-lothes  were  so  torn  and  ragged  that  their]  to  him  and  to  fiod,  since  the  mother  will  in  the 

.  .,  ,    ^,  ,    ^,  .    ,—,—,.«,>,   lend  carry  his  children  over  to  idolatrons  woishiiil 

limbs  became  visible  throuo;h  the  rents  (11(112;,  111  1  /      c        i.-    i 

'"  '         "        a  as  als(j  he  who  enlart,'es  upon   (or  figuratively  ex- 

plains) the  sections  relative  to  incest  (Lev.  xviii.)  — 
he  shall  forthwith  be  silenced  and  publicly  rebuked." 
A^ain  (conip.  Jer.  Ber.  v.  1;  Meg.  iv.  10).  "Those 
who  translate  '  0  my  people,  children  of  Israel,  as 
I  am  merciful  in  heaven,  so  shall  ye  be  merciful 
on  earth: '  —  '  (_'ow  or  ewe,  it  and   her  young  ye 


their  appearance  thus  not  corresponding  to  the  rev- 
erence due  to  the  Sacred  Word  itself,  or  blind  men, 
were  admitted  to  the  office  of  a  Meturgeman  ;  and, 
apart  from  there  not  being  the  slightest  authority 
attached  to  their  interpretations,  they  were  liable 
to  be  stopped  and  silenced,  publicly  and  ignomin- 

iously,  whenever  they  seemed  to  overstep  the  bounds  Igh^iy'iioV  kni  in"one 'day'''(Levrxxir28}~'— Uiey 
of  discretion.     At  what  time  tlie  rei^ulation   that  ^  -  - 

thsy  should  not  be  under  fifty  years  of  age  (in  odd 
reference  to  the  "  men  of  fifty,"  Is.  iii.  2,  men- 
tioned in  Juchas.  44,  2)  came  into  use,  we  are  not 
able  to  decide.  The  Mishna  certainly  speaks  even 
of  a  minor  (under  thirteen  years)  as  being  allowed 
both  to  read  and  to  act  as  a  Weturgenian  (comp. 
Mishna  Meg.  passim).  Altogether  they  appear  to 
have  borne  the  character  of  empty-headed,  bom- 
bastic fools.  Thus  Midr.  Koh.  has  to  Reel.  vii.  5: 
"  •  It  is  better  to  hear  the  rebuke  of  the  wise : '  — 
these  aie  the  preachers  (Darshanim)  —  '  than  for 
a  man  to  hear  the  song  of  fools : '  —  these  are  the 
jMeturgemanim,  who  raise  their  voices  in  sing-song, 

{'^.''W'2,  or  with  empty  fancies) :  — '  that  the  people 
may  hear.' "  And  to  ix.  17:  "'The  words  of 
wise  men  are  heard  in  quiet '  —  these  are  the 
preachers  (Darshanim)  —  'more  than  the  cry  of 
him  that  ruleth  among  fools '  —  these  are  the 
Metur^emanim  who  stand  aliove  the  congregation." 
And  though  both  passages  may  refer  more  especially 
to  those  Meturgeinanim  (Emoras.  speakers,  ex- 
pounders) who  at  a  later  period  stood  by  the  side 
of  the  Cliiic/tam,  or  president  of  the  .Academy,  the 
preacher  kut  e^oxv"  (himself  seated  on  a  raised 
dais),  and  repeated  with  a  loud  voice,  and  enlarged 
upon  what  the  latter  had  whispered  into  their  ear 

in  Hebrew  (n'^n^!?  IV^b  lb  W^b  CIIP, 
comp.  Matt.  x.  27,  "  What  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  that 
preach  ye  upon  the  housetops"),  yet  there  is  an 
abundance  of  instances  to  show  that  the  .Meturire- 
man  at  the  side  of  the  reader  was  exposed  to  re- 
bukes of  a  nature,  and  is  spoken  of  in  a  manner, 
not  likely  to  be  employed  towards  any  but  men 
low  in  the  social  scale. 

A  fair  notion  of  what  was  considered  a  proper 
Tirguni  may  be  gathered  from  the  maxim  pre- 
served in  the  Talmud  (Kidd.  49  n):  "  Whosoever 
translates  [as  Meturgeman]  a  verse  in  its  closely 
exact  form  [without  proper  regard  to  its  real  mean- 
ing] is  a  liar,  and  whosoever  adds  to  it  is  impious 
and  n  bhisphenier,  e.  g.,  the  literal  rendering  into 
Chaldee  of  the  verse,  '  They  saw  the  (Jod  of  Israel ' 
(Ex.  xxiv.  10),  is  as  wrong  a  translation  as  '  They 
saw  the.  angel  of  God ; '  the  proper  rendering  being, 
'Thev  saw  the  glory  of  the  (Jod  of  Israel.'" 
[Comp.  Samar.  Pent.  p.  2812  b.]  Other  in- 
stances are  found  in  the  Jlishna  (Meg.  iv.  8); 
"  Whosoever  renders  the  text  (Lev.  xviii.  21)  '  And 
thou  shalt  not  let  any  of  thy  seed  pass  through  the 
fire  to  Molech,'  by  '  Thou  shall  not  give  thy  seed 
to  be  carried  over  to  heathenism  (or  to  an  Aramite 
woman;  '  [t.  e.  as  the  Gemara,  ad  loc;  Jer.  Sanh. 
9,  and  Sifri  on  Deut.  xviii.  10,  explain  it,  one  who 
marries  an  Aramaic  woman ;  for  although  she  may 
bpcorae  a  proselyte,  she  is  yet  sure  to  bear  enemies 


do  not  well,  for  they  represent  the  Laws  of  God 
[whose  reasons  no  man  dare  try  to  fathom]  as  mere 
axioms  of  mercy;"  and,  it  is  added,  "the  short- 
sighted and  the  frivolous  will  say,  '  Lo !  to  a  bird's- 
.nest  He  extends  his  mercy,  but  not  to  yonder  mis- 
eralile  man  .  .  .'  " 

The  same  causes  which,  in  the  course  of  time, 
led  to  the  writing  down  —  after  many  centuries  of 
oral  transmission  —  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Tra- 
ditional Law,  the  very  name  of  which  (niTH 
HD    V372ti?,  "  oral  law,"  in  contradistinction  to 

ZinDSU?  rrrin,  or  "  written  law  ")  seemed  to 
imply  that  it  should  never  become  a  fixed,  im- 
mntalile  code,  engendered  also,  and  about  the  same 
period,  as  it  woidd  ajjpear,  written  Targums:  for 
certain  portions  of  the  Bilile,  at  least." 

The  fear  of  the  adulterations  and  mutilations 
which  the  Divine  Word  —  amid  the  troubles  within 
and  without  the  commonwealth  —  must  undergo 
at  the  hands  of  incompetent  or  impious  exponents, 
broke  through  the  rule,  that  the  Targum  should 
oidy  be  oi-al,  lest  it  might  acquire  undue  authority 
(comp.  IMishna  Jleg.  iv.  5,  10;  Tosifta,  ibid.  3;- 
.ler.  Meg.  4,  1;  Bab.  Meg.  24  a;  Sota,  39  b). 
Thus,  if  a  Targum  of  .lob  is  mentioned  (Sab.  115  "  ; 
Tr.  Soferim,  5,  15;  Tosifta  Sab.  c.  14;  .ler.  Sabb. 
10,  1 )  as  having  been  highly  disapproved  by  Ga- 
maliel the  Elder  (middle  of  first  century,  a.  d.),  who 
caused  it  to  be  hidden  and  buried  out  of  sisilit:  we 
find,  on  the  other  hand,  at  the  end  of  the  .second 
century,  the  practice  of  reading  the  Targmn  gen- 
erally commended,  and  somewhat  later  Jehoshua 
ben  Levi  enjoins  it  as  a  special  duty  upon  his  sons. 
The  Mishna  even  contains  regulations  about  the 
maimer  (Jad.  iv.  5)  in  which  the  Targum  is  to  lie 
written.  But  even  in  their  written,  and,  as  we  may 
presume,  authoritatively  approved  form,  the  Tar- 
gums were  of  comparatively  small  weight,  and  of 
no  canonical  \alue  whatsoever.  The  Sabbath  was 
not  to  1)6  broken  for  their  sake  as  it  was  lawful  to 
do  for  the  Scripture  in  the  original  Hebrew  (Sab. 
115  a).  The  'i'argutn  does  not  defile  the  hands 
(for  the  purpose  of  touching  consecrated  food)  as 
do  the  Chaldee  portions  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
(Yad.  iv.  5). 

The  gradual  growth  of  the  Code  of  the  wi'itten 
TariTum,  such  as  now  embraces  almost  the  whole 
of  the  0.  T.,  and  contains,  we  may  presume,  but 
few  snatches  of  the  primitive  Targums,  is  shroudeu 
in  deep  obscurity.  We  shall  not  fail  to  indicate 
the  opinions  arrived  at  as  to  the  date  and  author- 
ship of  the  individual  versions  in  their  due  places; 
but  we  nnist  warn  the  reader  beforehand,  that  no 
positive  results  have  been  attained  as  yet,  save  that 
nearly  all  the  names  and  dates  hitherto  commonly 


a  AS,  according  to  Frankel,  the  LXX  was  onlv  a  (of  chap?,  xxv.  and  xxlx.),  were  originally  left  untrans- 
partial  translation  at  first.  Witness  tlie  oonfusion  in  la^d.  Saadia  in  a  similar  manner  uses  the  formulw 
aie  last  chapters  of  Exodus,  which,  as  uiere  repetitions    ^iJIJA^Qj.   ,ijij^^    i\jj0   in  repetitioM. 


aitnche/l  to  them  must  be  rejected.  And  we  fear 
that,  as  long  at  least  as  the  Targum  shares  the 
fete  of  the  I, XX.,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  the 
Mi(h-ash,  the  Talmud,  etc.:  namely,  that  a  really 
critical  edition  remains  a  thing  occasionally  dreamt 
of,  but  never  attempted,  —  so  long  nmst  we  al)andon 
the  hope  of  getting  any  nearer  a  final  solution  of 
this  and  many  otiier  still  more  important  questions. 
The  utter  corruption,  moreover,  of  the  Targum, 
bitterly  complained  of  already  by  Elias  Levita 
(an  author,  be  it  observed,  of  very  moderate  at- 
tainments, but  absurdly  overrated  by  certain  of  his 
contemporaries,  and  by  those  who  copied  his  usually 
shallow  dicta  without  previous  examination),  de- 
bars us  from  more  than  half  its  use.  -Vnd  yet  how 
fertile  its  study  could  be  made;  what  light  it  might 
be  made  capable  of  throwing  upon  the  Bible  itself, 
upon  the  history  of  the  earliest  development  of 
Biblical  studies,  versions,  and  upon  the  Midrash  — 
both  the  Halachah  and  ITaggadah  —  snatches  of 
which,  in  their,  as  it  were,  liijuid  sta'jes,  lie  em- 
bedded in  the  Targums:  all  this  we  need  not  urge 
here  at  length. 

Before,  however,  entering  into  a  more  detailed 
account,  we  must  first  dwell  for  a  short  time  on 
the  .Uidrnsh"  itself,  of  which  tlie  Targum  forms 
part. 

The  centre  of  all  mental  activity  and   religious 
action  among  the  -Jewish  community,  after  the  re- 
turn from  Babylon,  was  the  Scriptural  Canon  col- 
lected by  tiie  Soferim,  or  men  of  the  Great  Syn- 
agogue.     These  formed  the  chief  authority  on  the 
civil  and  religious  law,  and  their  authority  was  the 
Pentateuch.     Their  office  as  expounders  and  com- 
mentators   of    the    Sacred    Records    was    twofold, 
riiey  had,  firstly,  to  explain  the  exact  meaning  of 
such  ])rohibitions  and  ordinances  contained  in  the 
Mosaic  Books  as   seemed   not  explicit  enough  for 
the  multitude,  and  the  precise  application  of  which 
in  former  days  had  been  forgotten  dm'ing  the  (Cap- 
tivity.   Thus,  e.  g.,  general  terms,  like  tlie  "  work  ' 
forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  were  by  them  specified 
and   particularized;  not  indeed  according  to  their 
own  arbitrary  and  individual  views,  but  according 
to  tradition  traced  back  to  Sinai  itself.     Secondly, 
laws  neither  specially  contained  nor  even  indicated 
in  the  Pentateuch  were  inaugurated  by  tlieni  ac- 
cording to  the  new  wants  of  the  times  and  the  ever- 
shifting  necessities  of  the  growing  conmionwealth 
{'Jeserotfi,  Tekniioth).     Nor  were  the  latter  in  all 
cases  given  on  the  sole  authority  of  the  Synod ;  but 
they  were  in  most  cases  traditional,  and  certain 
special  letters  or  signs  in  the  Scriptures,  seemingly 
superfluous  or  out  of  place  where  they  stood,  were, 
aoeor-iing  to  fixed  hermeneutical  rules,  understood 
to  indicate  the  inhibitions  and   prohibitions  {(!e- 
dniim,  "Fences"),  newly  issued  and  fixed.     But 
Scripture,  which  had  for  this  purpose  to  be  studied 
most  minutely  and  unremittincly  —  the  most  care- 
ful and  .scrutinizing  attention   Ijeing  paid  even  to 
its  outward  form  and  send)Iance  —  was  also  used, 
and  more  especially   in   its   non-legal,   prophetical 
parts,  for   homiletic   purposes,  as  a  wide  field  of 
themes   for  lectures,   sermons,   and    religious   dis- 
courses, both  in  and  out  of  the  synagogue:  at  every 
wlemnity  in  public  and  private  life.    This  juridical 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT   (TARGUM)  3399 

and  homiletical  expounding  and  inter()reting  of 
Scripture  —  the  germs  of  both  of  which  are  founa 
still  closely  intertwined  and  liound  up  with  each 
other  in  the  Targum  —  is  called  duras/i,  and  the 
alanche  of  Jewish  literature  which  began  silently 
to  gatlier  from  the  time  of  the  return  from  the 
e.dle  and  went  on  rolling  uninternijitedly  —  how- 
ever dread  the  events  which  befell  the  nation  — 
until  about  a  thousand  years  after  the  destruction 
of  the  second  Temple,  may  be  comprised  under  the 
general  name  Midrash  —  "  expounding."    The  two 

chief  branches   indicated   are,    ILdachnh    ("7vn., 
"to  go"),  the  rule   by  which  to  go,  =  Viinding, 
authoritative   law ;    and    IIaggadi(h    (^^^,    "  tr 
say  ")  =  saying,  legend,  —  flights  of  fancy,  darting 
up  from  the  Divine  Word.  Tiie  ILilin-kah.  treating 
more  especially  the  Pentateuch  as  the  legal  part  of 
the  0.  T.,  bears  towards  this  book  the  relation  of 
an  amplified  and  annotated  code;  these  amplifica- 
tions and   annotations,  be   it  well  understood,  not 
being  new  laws,  formerly  unheard  of,  deduced  in 
an  arbitrary  and  fanciful  manner  from  Scripture, 
but  supposed  to  be  simultaneous  oral   revelations 
hiidediU  in  the  Scripture:   in  any  case  represent- 
ing not  the  human  but  the  Divine  interpretation, 
handed  down  through  a  mined  authority  (Kabbala, 
Shemata  —  "  something  received,  heard  ").      The 
[laggadah,  on  the  other  hand,  held  especial  sway 
over  the  wide  field  of  ethical,  poetical,  prophetical, 
and  historical  elements  of  the  O.  T.,  but  was  free 
even  to  interpret  its   legal  and  historical  passages 
fimcifuUy  and  allegorically.    The  whole  Bilje,  with 
all  its  tones  and  colors,  lielonged  to  the  fJaggndah, 
and  this  whole  Bible  she  transformed  into  an  end- 
less series  of  themes  for  her  most  wonderful  and 
capricious  variations.     "  Prophetess  of  the  exile," 
she  took  up  the  hallowed  verse,  word,  or  letter,  and, 
as  the  //idachah  pointed  out  in  it  a   special  ordi- 
nance, she,  l>y  a  mo.'rt  ingenious  exegetical  process 
of  her  own,  showed  to  the  wonder-struck  multitude 
how  the    woful    events    under   which    they    then 
groaned  were  hinted  at  in  it,  and  how  in  a  m.annei' 
it  predicted  even  their  future  issue.     The  aim  of 
the    llaggadidi  being   the   ]iurely  momentai'y  one 
of  elevating,  comforting,  edifying  its  audience  for 
the  time  being,  it  did  not  pretend  to  pos/iess  the 
slightest  authority.     As  its  method  was  capricious 
and  arbitrary,  ao  its  cultivation  was  open  to  e\ery 
one  whose  heart  prompted  him.     It  is  saga,  tale, 
gnome,  parable,  allegory,  —  poetry,  in  short,  of  its 
own   most  strange  kind,   springing    up   from   the 
sacred  soil  of  Scriptm-e,  wild,  luxuriant,  and  tangled, 
like  a  primeval  tropical  forest.     If  the  llalachnh 
used  the  Scriptural  word  as  a  last  and  most  awful 
resort,  against  wliich  there  was  no  further  ap[)eal, 
the  Ilaggadah  used  it  as  the  golden  nail  on  which 
to    hang    its  gorgeous   tapestry:    as   introduction, 
refrain,  text,   or  fundamental  stanza  for  a  gloss; 
and  if  the  former  was  the  iron  bulwark  around  the 
nationality  of  Israel,  which  every  one  was  ready  at 
every  moment  to   defend  to  his  last  breath,   the 
latter  was  a  maze  of  flowery  walks  within  those 
fortress-walls.     That  gradually  the  llaggadali  pre- 
ponderated and  became  the  Midrash  Kar    t^oxh" 
of  the  jKople,  is  not  surprising.     We  shall  notice 


«   ti7~n?2  (Arab.  ,)*,»  Juo),  Brat  used  in  2  Chr. 

UU.  22.  xxiv.  27  ;  "  Commentary,"  In  the  sensn  of  Cse- 
lar's  "  Common tftries,"  eulargemeut,   embBllishmeiit. 


complement,  etc-  (.\.  V.  stnry  .').  The  compilers  of 
Chronicles  .seem  to  have  used  such  promiscuous  worlw 
treating  of  BiMicul  personages  and  event,'*,  provided  they 
contained  aught  that  served  the  tendency  of  tin-  book 


3400 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


liow  each  successive  Targum  became  more  and 
more  impregnated  with  its  essence,  and  from  a 
version  became  a  succession  of  short  homiletics. 
Tliis  difference  between  the  two  I)ranches  of  Midrasii 
is  striliingly  pointed  in  the  following  Tahiiudical 
story  :  "  K.  (Jhia  b.  Abba,  a  Halachist.  and  R. 
Abbahu,  a  Ilaggadist,  once  came  together  into  a 
city  and  preached.  The  people  flocked  to  the  latter, 
while  the  former's  discourses  remained  without  a 
hearer.  Thereupon  the  Hasigadist  comforted  tlie 
Halachist  with  a  parable.  Two  merchants  come 
into  a  city  and  spread  their  wares,  —  the  one  rare 
pearls  and  precious  stones;  the  other  a  ribbon,  a 
ring,  glittering  trinkets:  aromid  whom  will  the 
multitude  throng?  .  .  .  Formerly,  when  life  was 
not  yet  l)itter  lalior,  the  people  had  leisure  for  the 
iee\)  word  of  the  Law;  now  it  stands  in  need  of 
comfortings  and  Ijlessings." 

The  first  collections  of  the  TInhclioh  —  embrac- 
ing the  whole  field  of  juridieo-political,  religious, 
and  practical  life,  both  of  the  individual  and  of 
the  nation :  the  human  and  Divine  law  to  its  most 
minute  and  insignificant  details  —  were  instituted 
by  Hillel,  Akiba,  and  Simon  B.  Gamaliel;  but  the 
final  redaction  of  the  general  code,  Misliwi,"  to 
which  the  later  Toseftahs  and  Boraithas  for.n  sup- 
plements, is  due  to  Jehudah  Hannassi  in  220  a.  d. 
Of  an  earlier  date  with  respect  to  the  contents, 
but  couuiiitted  to  writing  in  later  times,  are  the 
three  books:  Si/)'a,  or  Torntli  Ku/ntnim  (an  am- 
plification of  Leviticus),  Sifri  (of  Numliers  and 
Deuteronomy),  and  Mecliilt/ia  (of  a  portion  of 
Exodus).  The  masters  of  the  Mishnaic  period, 
after  the  Soferim,  are  the  Tannaim,  who  were  fol- 
lowed by  the  Amoraim.  The  discussions  and 
further  amplifications  of  the  IMishna  by  the  latter, 
form  the  Gtmni'd  (Complement),  a  work  extant  in 
two  redactions,  namely,  that  of  Palestine  or  Jeru- 
salem (middle  of  4th  century),  and  of  Babylon 
(.5th  century  A.  d.),  which,  together  with  the 
Mi.shna,  are  comprised  under  the  name  'i'almud. 
Here,  however,  though  the  work  is  ostensibly  de- 
voted to  Hnliichrdi,  an  almost  equal  share  is  allowed 
to  [IcKjijitdiili.  The  Haggadistic  mode  of  treatment 
was  threefold :  either  the  simple  understanding  of 
words  and  things  {Pvslint)  or  the  homiletic  appli- 
cation, holding  up  the  mirror  of  (Scripture  to  the 
present  {DeruaJi)^  or  a  mystic  inter[)retation  (Sud), 
the  second  of  which  chiefly  found  its  way  into  the 
Targiim.  On  its  minute  division  into  special  and 
general,  ethical,  historical,  esoteric,  etc.,  Haggadah, 
we  cannot  enter  hers.  Suffice  it  to  add  that  the 
most  extensive  collections  of  it  which  have  sur- 
vived are  iMidrash  liabbah  (conmienced  about  700. 
concluded  about  1100  A.  n.),  comprising  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  the  five  Megilloth,  and  the  Pesikta 
(about  700  A.  I).),  which  contains  the  most  com- 
plete cycle  of  Pericopes,  but  the  very  existence  of 
which  had  until  lately  been  forirotten,  surprisingly 
enough,  through  the  very  extracts  made  from  it 
(Jalkut,  Pesikta  Rabbathi,  Sutarta,  etc.). 

From  this  indispensable  digression  we  return  to 
the  subject  of  Targum.  The  Targums  now  extant 
are  as  follows  : — 

L  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch,  known  as  that  of 
Onkelos. 

H.  Targum  on  the  first  and  last  prophets,  known 
U  that  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel. 


a  Mishua,  from  shann,  "to  learn,"  "  learning,"  not, 
M  erroneously  tr,anslated  of  Cild,  and  repeated  ever 
lince,   AeuTepoxri?,   '' repetitiou  ;  "   but  corresponding 


ILL  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch,  likewise  known 
as  that  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel. 

IV.  Targum  on  portions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
known  as  Targum  Jerushalmi. 

V.  Targums  on  the  Hagiographa,  ascrilied  to 
Joseph  the  Blind,  namely:  — 

1.  Targum  on  Psalms,  Job,  Proveros. 

2  Targum  on  the  five  Megilloth  (Song  of  Songs, 
Ruth,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes). 

•3.  Two  (not  three,  as  commonly  stated)  other 
Targums  to  Esther:  a  smaller  and  a  larger,  the 
latter  known  as  'largum  Sheiu,  or  Second  Tar- 
gum. 

VL  Tarijuui  to  Chronicles. 

Vn.  Targum  to  Daniel,  known  from  an  unpub- 
lished Persian  extract,  and  hitherto  not  received 
among  the  number. 

VIIL  Targum  on  the  Apocryphal  pieces  of 
Esther. 

We  have  hinted  before  that  neither  any  of  the 
names  under  which  the  Targimis  hitherto  went, 
nor  any  of  the  dates  handed  down  with  them, 
have  stood  the  test  of  recent  scrutiny.  Let  it, 
however,  not  for  a  moment  be  supposed  that  a 
skeptic  Wolfian  school  has  been  at  work,  and  with 
hypercritical  and  wanton  malice  has  tried  to  annihi- 
late the  hallowed  names  of  Onkelos,  Jonathan,  and 
Joseph  the  Blind.  It  w.ll  be  seen  from  what  fol- 
lows that  most  of  these  names  have  or  niay  have 
a  true  historical  foundation  and  meaning;  but  un- 
critical ages  and  ignorant  scril)es  have  perverted 
this  meaning,  and  a  succession  of  most  extraordi- 
nary misreadings  and  strangest  varepa  irpSripa  — 
some  even  of  a  very  modern  date  —  have  produced 
rare  confusion,  and  a  chain  of  assertions  which  dis- 
solve before  the  first  steady  gaze.  That,  notwith- 
standing all  this,  the  implicit  belief  in  the  old 
names  and  dates  still  reigns  supreme  will  surprise 
no  one  who  has  lieen  accustomed  to  see  the  most 
striking  and  undenialile  results  of  investigation  and 
criticism  quietly  ignored  l)y  contemporaries,  and 
forgotten  l)y  generations  which  followed,  so  that 
the  same  work  had  to  be  done  very  many  times 
o\er  again  before  a  certain  fact  was  allowed  to  be 
such. 

We  shall  follow  the  order  indicated  above:  — 

I.  The  Takguji  of  Onkelos. 

It  will  be  necessary,  before  we  discuss  this  work 
itself,  to  speak  of  the  person  of  its  reputed  author 
as  far  as  it  concerns  us  here.  There  are  few  more 
contested  questions  in  the  whole  province  of  Bibli- 
cal, nay  general  literatme,  than  those  raised  on 
this  head.  Did  an  (Jnkelos  ever  exist?  Was  there 
more  than  one  Onkelos?  Was  (Jnkelos  the  real 
form  of  his  name?  Did  he  translate  the  Bilile 
at  all,  or  part  of  it?  And  is  tins  Targum  the 
translation  he  made?  Do  the  dates  of  his  life 
and  this  Targum  tally?  etc.,  etc.  The  ancient 
accounts  of  Onkelos  are  avowedly  of  the  most  cor- 
rupted and  confused  kind :  so  much  so  that  both 
ancient  and  modern  investigators  have  failed  to 
reconcile  and  amend  them  so  as  to  gain  general 
satisfaction,  and  opinions  remain  widely  diverge:;t. 
This  being  the  case,  we  thiid<  it  our  duty  t"  lay 
the  whole  —  not  very  voluminous  —  evidence,  col- 
lected both  from  the  body  of  Talnuidical  and  post- 
Talmudical    (so  called    Raljbinical)    and    patristic 

exactly  with  Talmud  (from  Inmad,  "  to  learn  ''),  aud 
Torah  (from  koreli^  "  to  teach");  all  three  terms  mean- 
ing  " /Ae  stwJy,'^  by  way  of  emiaenct. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


S'lOl 


(\Titiii£js  bcfpre  the  reader,  in  order  tliat  he  may 
judge  lor  himself  how  far  the  conclusions  to  which 
ue  shall  point  may  be  right. 

The  iirst  mention  of  "  Onkelos  "  —  a  name  vari- 
ously derived  from  Nicolaus  (Geiger),  "OfOfj-a  Ka\6s 
[sic]  (Henan),  Homunculus,  Avunculus,  etc.  —  more 
fully  "Onkelos  the  Proselyte,"  is  found  in  the  To- 
siftah,  a  work  drawn  up  shortly  after  the  Mishna. 
Here  we  learn  (1)  that  '-Onkelos  the  I'roselyte  " 
was  so  serious  in  his  adherence  to  the  newly-adopted 
(.lewish)  fiiith,  that  he  threw  his  share  in  his  pa- 
ternal inheritance  into  the  Dead  Sea  (Tos.  Demai, 
vi.  9).  (2.)  At  the  funeral  of  Gamaliel  the  elder 
(1st  century  A.  d.)  he  burnt  more  than  70  min;ie 
worth  of  spices  in  his  honor  (Tos.  Shabb.  8).  (3.) 
This  same  story  is  repeated,  with  variations  (Tos. 
ISemach.  8).  (4.)  He  is  finally  mentioned,  by  way 
of  corroboration  to  ditt'erent  Halachas,  in  connec- 
tion with  Gamaliel,  in  three  more  ]ilaccs,  which 
complete  our  references  from  the  'I'osiftali  (Tos. 
Rlikv.  6,  1;  Kehm,  iii.  2,  2;  Chag.  .3,  1).  The 
Babylonian  Talmud,  the  source  to  which  we  turn 
our  attention  next,  mentions  the  name  Onkelos 
four  times:  (1.)  As  '-Onkelos  the  Proselyte,  the 
son  of  Kalonikos "  (CallinicusV  Cle^nicus?),  the 
son  of  Titus'  sister,  who,  intending  to  become  a 
convert,  conjured  up  the  ghosts  of  Titus,  Balaam, 
and  Christ  [tiie  latter  name  is  doubtful],  in  order 
to  ask  them  what  nation  was  considered  the  first 
in  the  other  world.  Their  answer  that  Israel  was 
the  favored  one  decided  him  (Gift.  o(i).  (2.)' As 
"Onkelos  the  son  of  Kalonymus ''  ((,'leonymusV) 
(Aboda  Sar.  11  a).  It  is  there  related  of  him 
that  the  emperor  (Knisur)  sent  three  Koman 
cohorts  to  capture  him,  and  that  he  converted 
them  all.  (3.)  In  Baba  Bathra  99  n  (Boraitiia), 
"Onkelos  the  Proselyte"  is  quoted  as  an  authority 
on  the  question  of  the  form  of  the  Cherubim.  And 
(4.)  The  most  important  passage  —  because  on  it 
and  it  alone,  in  the  wide  realm  of  ancient  litera- 
ture, has  been  founded  the  general  belief  tliat 
Onkelos  i»  the  author  of  the  Targum  now  current 
under  this  name  —  is  found  in  Meg.  3  a.  It  rends 
as  follows ;  "  K.  Jeremiah,  and,  according  to  others, 
K.  Chia  bar  Al)ba,  said :  The  Targum  to  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  made  by  the  '  Proselyte  Onkelos,'  from 
the  mouth  of  K.  Eliezer  and  K.  Jehoshua;  the 
Targum  to  the  Prophets  was  made  by  Jonathan 
ben  Uzziel  from  the  mouth  of  Haggai,  Zechariali, 

and  Malaciii But  have  we  not  been  tauglit 

that  the  Targum  existed  from  the  time  of  I'^zra? 
....  Only  that  it  was  forgotten,  and  ()nkelos 
restored  it."  No  mention  whatever  is  to  be  found 
of  Onkelos  either  in  the  Jerusalem  Tahnud,  re- 
dacted about  a  hundred  years  before  the  Baby- 
lonian, nor  in  the  Church  fathers  —  an  item  of  neg- 
ative evidence  to  which  we  shall  presently  draw 
further  attention.  In  a  JMidrasli  collection,  com- 
pleted about  the  mitidie  of  the  12th  century,  we 
find  again  "  Onkelos  the  Proselyte  "  asking  an  old 
man,  "  Whether  that  was  all  the  love  God  liore 
towards  a  pioselyte,  that  He  promised  to  give  him 
bread  and  a  garment?  Whereupon  tiie  old  man 
replied  that  this  was  all  for  whicli  the  Patriarch 
Jacob  prayed  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  20).  Tiie  book  /ohar, 
of  late  and  very  uncertain  date,  makes  "Onkelos  " 
a  disciple  of  Hillel  and  Shammai.  finally,  a  iMS., 
also  of  a  very  late  and  uncertain  date,  in  the 
library  of  the  Leipzig  Senate  (B.  H.  17),  relates 
of  "  Onkelos,  the  nephew  of  Titus  "  that  he  asked 
the  emperor's  advice  as  to  what  merchandise  he 
thought  it  was  profitable  to  trade  in.  The  em- 
2U 


peror  told  him  that  that  snould  be  bought  which 
was  cheap  in  the  market,  since  it  was  sure  to  rise 
in  price.  \V'hereupon  Onkelos  went  on  his  waj". 
Ue  repaired  to  Jerusalem,  and  studied  the  Law 
under  K.  Eleazar  and  R.  Jehoshua,  and  his  face 
became  wan.  When  he  returned  to  the  court,  one 
of  the  courtiers  observed  the  pallor  of  his  coun- 
tenance, and  said  to  Titus,  "  Onkelos  appears  to 
have  studied  the  Law."  Interrogated  by  Titus,  he 
admitted  the  fact,  adding  that  he  had  done  it  by 
his  advice.  No  nation  had  ever  been  so  exalted, 
and  none  was  now  held  cheaper  among  the  nations 
than  Israel:  "therefore,"  he  said,  '-I  concluded 
that  in  the  end  none  would  be  of  higher  price." 

This  is  all  the  information  to  lie  fbiiiid  in  ancient 
authorities  aliout  Unkelos  and  the  Targum  which 
bears  his  name.  Surprisingly  enough,  the  latter  is 
well  known  to  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (whether  to 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud  is  questionable)  and  the 
Midrashim,  and  is  often  quoted,  but  iievi-i'  once  m 
Tar'jum  Onkelos.  The  quotations  from  it  are  in- 
variably introduced  with  ]3''tt3inQ~TD,  "  As  we 
[Babylonians]  translate;  "  and  the  version  itself  is 
called  (e.  g.  Kiddush.  49  a)  pi  Cin~in,  "  Our 
Targum,"  exactly  as  P^phraim  Syrus  (0pp.  i.  380) 
speaks  of  the  Peshito  as  "Our  translation." 

Yet  we  find  on  the  other  hand  another  current 
version  invariably  quoted    in  the  Tahnud    \)y  the 

name  of  its  known  author,  namely,  D7"'pl7  C3~in, 
"the  [Greek]  Version  of  Akilas:  "  a  circumstance 
which,  by  showing  that  it  was  customary  to  quote 
the  author  by  name,  excites  suspicion  as  to  the  re- 
lation of  Onkelos  to  the  Targum  Onkelos.  Still 
more  surprising,  however,  is,  as  far  .as  the  person 
of  Onkelos  is  concerned  (whate\er  be  the  discrep- 
ancies in  the  aliove  accounts),  the  similarity  be- 
tween the  incidents  related  of  hini  and  tho.se  re- 
lated (jf  Akilas.  The  latter  (ob"'pir,  Ob^pW) 
is  said,  iioth  in  Sifra  (Lev.  xxv.  7)  and  the  Jeru- 
salem I'almud  (Demai,  xxvii.  </),  to  have  been  born 
in  Pontus,  to  have  been  a  proselyte,  to  have  thrown 
his  paternal  inheritance  into  an  asphalt  lake  (T. 
Jer.  Demai,  2.5  (/),  to  have  translated  the  Torah 
belbre  K.  Kliezer  and  It.  Joshua,  who  praised  him 

(1D7p,  in  allusion  perhaps  to  his  name,  D  V'^p37)  ' 
or,  according  to  other  accounts,  before  R.  Akiba 
(comp.  Jer.  Kidd.  J,  1,  2,  etc.,;  Jer.  IMeg.  1,  Jl; 
Babli  Meg.  3'()-  ^^e  learn  further  that  he  lived 
in  the  time  of  Hadrian  (Chag.  2,  1 ),  that  he  was 
the  son  of  the  Emperor's  sister  (I'ancli.  28,  1),  that 
he  became  a  convert  agauist  the  Emperor's  will  {ib. 
and  Sheni.  Kabba,  140  c),  and  that  he  consulted 
I'Uiezer  and  Jehoshua  al)Otit  his  conversion  (Bcr.  R. 
T8(/,-  comp.  IMidr.  Koh.  102  4).  Eirst  he  is  said  to 
have  gone  to  the  tbrnier,  and  to  have  asked  him 
whether  that  was  all  the  love  God  bore  a  proselyte, 
that  He  promised  him  bread  and  a  garment  (Gen 
xxviii.  20).  "  See,"  he  said,  "  what  exquisite  liirds 
and  other  delicacies  I  now  have:  even  my  slaves 
do  not  care  for  them  any  longer."  Whereupon  U. 
Eliezer  became  wroth,  and  said,  "  Is  that  foi 
which  Jacob  prayed,  '  And  give  me  bread  to  eat 
and  a  garment  to  wear,'  so  small  in  thine  eyes'?  — 
Comes  he,  the  proselyte,  and  receives  these  things 
without  any  trouble!  "  — And  Akilas,  dissatisfied, 
left  the  irate  Master  and  went  to  H.  Joshua,  lie 
pacified  him,  and  e.x^)laiiied  to  him  that  "  Bread  " 
meant  the  Divine  Law,  and  "  Garment,"  theTalith, 
or  sacred  gannent  to  be  worn  during  prayer.    ■•  .\i'd 


3402 


VEllSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


not  this  alone,  he  continued,  but  the  Prosel3te  may 
marry  his  daughter  to  a  priest,  and  liis  offspring  may 
become  a  high-priest,  and  offer  burnt-offerings  in 
the  Sanctuary."  More  strilting  still  is  a  Greek  quo- 
tation from  Onkelos.  the  Chaldee  translator  (Midr. 
Echa,  58  c),  which  in  reality  is  found  in  and  quoted 
(Midr.  Shir  hashir.  27  d)  from  Akilas,  the  Greek 
translator. 

That  Akilas  is  no  other  than  Aquila  {''Akv>  us), 
the  well-known  Greek  translator  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, we  need  hardly  add.  He  is  a  native  of 
I'ontus  (Iren.  adv.  Hcer.  3,  24;  Jer.  De  \'ii:  111. 
c.  54;  Philastr.  Dt  Hcer.  §  90).  He  lived  under 
Hadriivn  (Kpiph.  Dt  Pond,  ei  Men.i.  §  12).  He  is 
called  the  TrevdepiS-ni  (Chron.  Alex.  ireud€p6'i)  of 
the  Emperor  (ib.  §  14),  becomes  a  convert  to  Ju- 
daism (§  15),  whence  he  is  called  the  Proselyte 
(Iren.  ii.  ;  Jerome  to  Is.  viii.  14,  etc.),  and  receives 
instructions  from  Akiba  (Jer.  ib.).  He  translated 
the  0.  T.,  and  his  Version  was  considered  of  the 
highest  import  and  authority  among  the  Jews,  es- 
pecially those  unacquainted  with  the  Helirew  Ian 
guage  (Euseb.  Pntp.  Ev.  I.e.;  Augustin,  Civ.  D. 
XV.  23;  Philastr.  Iher.  90;  Justing  Novell.  146). 
Thirteen  distinct  quotations  "  from  tiiis  Version  are 
preserved  in  Talmud  and  Jlidrash,  and  they  tally, 
tor  the  most  part,  with  the  corresponding  passages 
preserved  in  the  Hexapla;  and  for  tliose  even  which 
do  not  agree,  there  is  no  need  to  have  recourse  to 
corruptions.  We  know  from  .lerome  (on  Ezek.  iii. 
15)  that  Aquila  prepared  a  further  edition  of  his 
Version,  called  by  the  Jews  kqt'  aKpi^nav,  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  assume, 
cceteris  paribus,  that  the  different  passages  belong 
to  the  different  editions. 

If  tlien  there  can  Ije  no  rea,sonaMe  doubt  as  to 
the  identity  of  Aquila  and  Akilas,  we  may  well  now 
go  a  step  further,  and  from  the  threefold  accounts 
adduced,  —  so  strikini;ly  parallel  even  in  their 
anachronisms  and  contortions  —  safely  argue  the 
identity,  as  of  Akilas  and  Aquila,  so  of  Onkelos 
"  the  trunslntor,'"  with  Akilas  or  Aquila.  Whether 
in  reality  a  proselyte  of  that  nanje  had  been  in  ex- 
istence at  an  earlier  date  —  a  circumstance  which 
might  explain  part  of  the  contradictory  statements; 
and  whether  the  difference  of  tlie  forms  is  produced 

through  the  27  (ng,  nk),  with  which  we  find  the 
name  sometimes  spelt,  or  the  Babylonian  manner, 
occasionally  to  insert  an  n,  Uke  in  Adrianus,  which 
we  always  find  spelt  A«drianus  in  the  Babylonian 
Talmud;  or  whether  we  are  to  read  Gamaliel  II. 
for  Gamaliel  the  Elder,  we  cannot  here  examine; 
ii-ything  connected  with  the  person  of  an  Onkelos 
no  longer  concerns  us,  since  he  is  not  the  author  of 
the  Targum ;  indeed,  as  we  saw,  only  once  ascribed 
to  him  in  the  passage  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
(Meg.  3  a),  palpably  corrupted  from  the  Jerusalem 
Talmud  (Meg.  i.  9).  And  not  before  the  Oth  cen- 
tury (Pirke  der.  Eliezer  to  Gen.  xlv.  27)  does  this 
mischievous  mistake  seem  to  have  struck  root,  and 
even  from  that  time  three  centuries  elapsed,  during 
which  the  Version  was  quoted  often  enough,  but 
without  its  authorship  being  ascribed  to  Onkelos. 
From  all  this  it  follows  that  those  who,  in  the 


face  of  this  overwhelming  mass  of  evidence,  would 
fain  retain  Onkelos  in  the  false  position  of  trans- 
lator of  our  Targum,  must  be  ready  to  admit  that 
there  were  two  men  living  simultaneously  of  most 
astoundingly  similar  names;  both  proselytes  to  Ju- 
daism, both  translators  of  the  Bible,  both  disciples 
of  R.  Eliezer  and  K.  Jehoshua;  it  being  of  both 
reported  by  the  same  authorities  that  they  trans- 
lated the  Bible,  and  that  they  were  disciples  of  the 
two  last-mentioned  I'octors;  both  supposed  to  be 
nephews  of  the  reigning  emperor,  who  disapproved 
of  their  conversion  (for  this  account  comp.  Dion 
Cass.  Ixvii.  14,  and  Deb.  Rah.  2,  where  Domitian 
is  related  to  have  had  a  near  relative  executed  foi 
his  inclining  towards  Judaism);  and  very  many 
more  palpable  improbabilities  of  the  stme  descrip- 
tion. 

The  question  now  remains,  why  was  this  Targum 
called  that  of  Onkelos  or  Akilas  ?  It  is  neither  a 
translation  of  it,  nor  is  it  at  all  done  in  the  same 
spirit.  All  that  we  learn  about  the  Greek  Vereion 
shows  us  that  its  chief  aim  and  puqiose  was,  (o 
counteract  the  LXX.  The  latter  had  at  that  time 
become  a  mass  of  arbitrary  corruptions  —  especially 
with  respect  to  the  Jlessianic  passages  —  as  well 
on  the  Christian  as  on  the  Jewish  side.  It  was 
requisite  that  a  translation,  scrupulously  literal, 
should  be  given  into  the  hands  of  those  who  were 
unable  to  read  the  original.  Aquila,  the  disciple, 
according  to  one  account,  of  Akiba— the  same  Akiba 
who  expounded  (darasli)  for  halachistic  purposes 
the  seemingly  most  insignificant   particles  in   the 

Scripture  (e.  g.  the  iHW,  sign  of  accusatiAe;  Gen. 
R.  1;  Tos.  Sheb.  1;  Talm.  Sheb.  26  r()  —  fulfilled 
his  task  according  to  his  master's  method.  "  Non 
solum  verba  sed  et  etymolowias  verborum  transferre 

conatus  est (juod  Heiirsei  non  solum  habent 

&pepa  sed  et  wp6apepa,  ille  KaKoCvXws  et  syllabas 
interpretetur  et  litteras,  dictatque  a-  v  v  rhv  oupavhv 
Kai  (Tvv  t))u  yriu  quod  grajca  et  latina  lingua  non 
recipit  "  (.ler.  de  Uj/t.  Gen.  interpret.).  Targum 
Onkelos,  on  the  other  hand,  is,  if  not  quite  a  para- 
phrase, yet  one  oi  the  very  freest  versions.  Nor  do 
the  two  translations,  with  rare  exceptions,  agree 
even  as  to  the  renderings  of  proper  nouns,  which 
each  occasionally  likes  to  transform  into  something 
else.  But  there  is  a  reason.  The  Jews  in  posses- 
sion of  this  most  slavishly  accurate  Greek  Bible- 
text,  could  now  on  the  one  hand  successfully  com- 
bat arguments,  brought  against  them  from  inter- 
polated LXX.  passages,  and  on  the  other  follow 
the  expoundings  of  the  School  and  the  Halachah, 
based  upon  the  letter  of  the  Law,  as  closely  as  if 
they  had  understood  the  original  itself.  That  a 
version  of  this  description  often  marred  the  sense, 
mattered  less  in  times  anything  but  favorable  tc 
the  literal  meaning  of  the  Bible.  It  thus  gradually 
became  such  a  favorite  with  the  people,  that  iti 
renderings  were  houseliold  words.  If  the  day  whe? 
the  LXX.  was  made  was  considered  a  dny  of  dis- 
tress like  the  one  on  which  the  golden  calf  was  cast 
and  was  actually  entered  among  the  fast  days  (8tl 
Tebeth;  Meg.  Taauith),  —  this  new  version,  which 
was  to  dispel  the  mischievous  influences  of  the  older, 


a  Greek  quotations:  Gen.  xvii.  1,  in  Beresh.  Rab. 
51  b ;  Ley.  xxiii.  40,  Jer  Succah,  3,  5,  fol  53  d 
(comp.  Vaj.  Rab.  200</),-  Is.  iii.  20,  Jer.  Shabb.  6,  4, 
fol.  8  6;  Ez.  XVI  10,  Milr.  Thren.  58  c;  Ez.  xxiii  43, 
Vjy.  Rab.  203rf  ;  Ps.  xh  iii.  15  (.Ma-«or  T..  xlvii.  accord- 
lojt  to  LXX.l.  Jer.  Meg  2,  3,  fol.  73  6  ,•  frov.  xviii.  21, 


Vaj.  Rab.  fol.  2036;  Esth.  i.  6,  Midr.  Esth.  120 d 
Dan.  V.  5,  Jer.  Joiua,  3,  8,  fol-  41  a.  —  Hebrew  quota- 
tion.^, re-translated  from  the  Greek :  J*v.  xix.  20, 
Jer.  Kid.  i.  1,  fol.  59  a  ;  Dan.  viii.  13,  Ber.  Itab.  24  c.  — 
ChalrUe  quotations:  Prov.  xxv.  11;  Beresh  Kab.  104 
b  ;  Is.  V.  6,  Midr.  Koh.  113  c.  d. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3403 


■jarned  for  its  author  one  of  the  most  delicate  coni- 
plinieiits  ill  the  manner  of  the  time.  Tlie  verse  of 
tlie  Scripture  (Ps.  xlv.  2),  "Thou  art  more  beauti- 
ful {ji'fjejita)  than  the  sons  of  men,"  was  applied 
to  hiiu  —  in  allusion  to  Gen.  ix.  27,  wliere  it  is  said 
that  Japhet  {i.  e.  the  Greelc  language)  should  one 
day  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem  ((.  e.  Israel),  JMeg. 
1,  11,  71  6  and  c ;  9  b,  Ber.  IJab.  10  b.  —  Ourai  yap 
'AKuAas  Sov\€vaiv  rrj  k^paiKrj  \4^ei.  e/cSeSco/cej' 
ciiriiv  •  •  •  ■  (piKoTtfiSrepoy  Treina'Tevfj.fi'os  Trapa 
'loi/Saioif,  fipfi.rjvevKevai  ti)v  ypacp-qv,  etc.  (Orig. 
ad  Afric.  2). 

What,  under  these  circumstances,  is  more  nat- 
ural than  to  suppose  that  the  new  Chaldee  Version 
—  at  least  as  excellent  in  its  way  as  the  Greek  — 
was  started  under  the  name  which  had  become  ex- 
pressive of  tlie  type  and  ideal  of  a  Bilile-translatioii; 
that,  in  fact,  it  should  be  called  a  Targum  done  in 
the  manner  of  Aquila — Aquila-Tiiryuni.  Wheth- 
er the  title  of  reconniiendation  was,  in  considera- 
tion of  the  merits  of  tlie  work  upon  which  it  was 
bestowed,  gladly  indorsed  and  retained  —  or  for 
aught  we  know,  was  not  bestowed  upon  it  until  it 
was  generally  found  to  be  of  such  surpassing  merit, 
we  need  not  stop  to  argue. 

Being  thus  deprived  of  the  dates  which  a  close 
examination  into  tlie  accounts  of  a  translator's  l.fe 
might  have  furnished  us,  we  must  needs  try  to  tix 
the  time  of  our  Targum  as  approximately  as  we  can 
by  the  circumstances  under  which  it  took  its  rise, 
and  by  the  quotations  from  it  which  we  meet  in 
early  works.  '  Without  unnecessarily  going  into  de- 
tail, we  sliall  briefly  record,  wliat  we  said  in  the  in- 
troduction, tliat  the  Targum  was  begun  to  be  com- 
mitted to  writing  about  the  end  of  the  2d  century, 
A.  D.  So  far,  however,  from  its  superseding  the 
oral  Targum  at  once,  it  was  on  the  contrary  strictly 
forbidden  to  read  it  in  public  (Jer.  Meg.  4,  1). 
Nor  was  there  any  unilbrmity'  in  the  version. 
Down  to  the  middle  of  tlie  2d  century  we  find  the 
masters  most  materially  ditfering  from  each  other 
with  respect  to  the  I'argum  of  certain  passages, 
(Seb.  51 '()  and  translations  quoted  not  to  be  found 
in  any  of  our  Targums.  The  necessity  must  thus 
have  pressed  itself  upon  the  attention  of  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  the  people  to  put  a  stop  to  the  fluctuating 
state  of  a  version,  which  in  the  course  of  time 
must  needs  have  liecome  naturally  surrounded  with 
a  halo  of  authority  little  short  of  that  of  the  orig- 
inal itself.  W^e  shall  thus  not  be  far  wrong  in 
placing  the  work  of  collecting  the  difl:erent  frag- 
ments with  their  variants,  and  reducing  them  into 
one  —  finally  authorized  Version  —  about  the  end 
of  the  3d,  or  the  beginning  of  the  4th  century,  and 
ill  assigning  Babylon  to  it  as  tlie  birthplace.  It 
was  at  Babylon  that  about  this  time  the  light  of 
learning,  extinguished  in  the  blood-stained  fields  of 
Palestine,  shone  with  threefold  vigor.  The  Acad- 
emy at  Nahardea,  founded  according  to  legend  dur- 
ing the  Babylonian  exile  itself,  had  gathered 
strength  in  the  same  degree  as  the  numerous  Pal- 
estinian schools  began  to  decline,  and  when  in  25'J 
A.  i>.  that  most  ancient  school  was  destroyed,  there 
were  three  others  simultaneously  flourisliing  in  its 
stead,  —  Tiberias,  whither  tlie  college  of  I'alestinian 
Jabneh  had  l)een  transferred  in  tlie  time  of  (iania- 
liel  III.  (200);  Sora,  founded  by  Chasda  of  Kafri 
(293);  and  Punibadita,  founded  by  li.  .lehudah  b. 
jecheskeel  (207).  And  in  Babylon  for  well-nigii  a 
housand  years  "the  crown  of  the  Law"  remained, 
iiid  to  Babylon,  the  seat  of  the  "  Head  of  the 
(lolah  "   (Dispersion),  all  Israel,  scattered    to  the 


ends  of  the  earth,  looked  for  its  spiritual  guidance 
That  one  of  the  first  deeds  of  these  Schools  musi 
have  been  the  tixing  of  the  Targum,  as  soon  as  the 
fixing  of  it  became  indispensable,  we  may  well  pre- 
sume; and  as  we  see  the  text  fluctuating  down  to 
the  middle  of  the  2d  century,  we  must  needs  assume 
that  tlie  redaction  took  place  as  soon  afterwards  as 
may  reasonal)ly  be  supposed.  Further  corrobora- 
tive arguments  are  found  for  Babylon  as  the  place 
of  its  final  redaction,  although  Palestine  was  the 
country  where  it  grew  and  developed  itself.  Blany 
grammatical  and  idiomatical  signs  —  the  substance 
itself,  i.  e.  the  words,  being  Palestinian  —  point,  as 
far  as  the  scanty  materials  in  our  hands  permit  us 
to  draw  conclusions  as  to  the  true  state  of  language 
in  Babylon,  to  that  country.  The  1  argum  further 
exhibits  a  greater  linguistic  similarity  with  the 
Babylonian,  than  with  the  Palestinian  Gemara. 
.\gain,  terms  are  found  in  it  which  tlie  Talmud 
distinctly  mentions  as  peculiar  to  Baliylon,"  not  to 
mention  Persian  words,  which  on  Babylonian  soil 
easily  found  their  way  into  our  work.  One  of  the 
most  striking  hints  is  the  unvarying  translation  of 

the  Targum  of  the  word  'nni,  "  Kiver,"  by  Eu- 
plirates,  the  Kiver  of  Babylon.  Need  we  further 
point  to  the  terms  above  mentioned,  under  which 
the  Targum  is  exclusively  quoted  in  the  Talmud 
and  the  JMidrasliim  of  Babylon,  namely,  "  Our 
Targum,"  "  As  wt:  translate,"  or  its  later  designa- 
tion (Aruch,  Kaslii,  Tosafoth,  etc.)  as  the  "  Targum 
of  Babel  "  V  Were  a  I'urther  proof  needed,  it  might 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  tlie  two  Babylonian 
Schools,  which,  holding  different  readings  in  vari- 
ous places  of  the  Scripture,  as  individual  traditions 
of  their  own,  consequently  held  different  readings 
in  the  Targum  ever  since  the  time  of  its  redaction. 
The  opinions  developed  here  are  shared  more  or 
l^ss  by  some  of  the  most  competent  scholars  of  our 
day:  for  instance,  Zuiiz  (who  now  repudiates  the 
dictum  laid  down  in  his  G'oUesdu'nstl.  V\irti:,  that 
the  translation  of  Onkelos  dates  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  first  century,  a.  d.  ;  conip.  Geiger, 
Zeltschr.  1813,  p.  170,  note  3),  Griitz,  Levy,  Herz- 
feld,  Geiger,  Frankel,  etc.  The  history  of  the  in 
vestigation  of  the  Targuras,  more  especially  that  o( 
Onkelos,  presents  the  usual  spectacle  of  vague  spec- 
ulations and  widely  contradictory  notions,  held  by 
diftierent  investigators  at  different  times.  Suffice  it 
to  mention  that  of  old  authorities,  Reuchlin  puts  the 
date  of  the  Targum  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Isaiah 
—  notwithstanding  that  the  people,  as  we  are  dis- 
tinctly told,  did  not  understand  even  a  few  Ara- 
maic words  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  Following 
Asaria  de  Rossi  and  Kliah  Levita  (who,  for  reasons 
now  completely  disposed  of,  assumed  the  Targum  to 
have  first  taken  its  rise  in  Babylon  during  the  Ca,p- 
tivity),  Bellarmin,  Sixtus  Senensis,  Aldret,  Barto- 
locci.  Rich.  Simon,  Hottinger,  Walton,  Thos.  Smith, 
Pearson,  Allix,  Wharton,  Prideaux,  Schickard, 
take  the  same  view  with  individual  modifications. 
Pfeirter,  B.  Meyer,  Steph.  Morinus,  on  the  other 
hand,  place  its  date  at  an  extremely  late  period, 
and  assign  it  to  Palestine.  Another  scliool  held 
that  the  Targum  was  not  written  until  after  the 
time  of  the  Talmud  —  so  Wolf,  Havermann,  partly 
Rich.  Simon,   Hornbeck,  Joh.  Morinus,  etc.:  and 

n  my  3,  "a  girl,"  is  rendered  by  S^HT;  "  foi 
thus  they  call  in  Babyloa  a  young  girl,"  1 ZIH 
S'-DT   Spi^'^b   b:3D3    ]^-np  (Obag.  13  a) 


3404 


VEKSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM^ 


their  reasons  are  botb  the  occurrence  of  "  Tahnud- 
ical  Fables"  in  the  Targum  and  tiie  silence  of  the 
Fathers.     The  former  is  an  art;unient  to  which  no 
reply  is  needed,  since  we  do  not  see  what  it  can  be 
meant  to  prove,  unless  the  "  Rabbinus  Tahnud  " 
has  floated  before  their  eyes,  who,   according   to 
"  Henricus  Seynensis  Capucinus  "  {Ann.  L'ccl.  torn. 
i.  261),  must  have  written  all  this  gigantic  litera- 
ture,  ranging  over  a  thousand  years,   out  of  his 
own  head,  in  which  case,  indeed,  every  dictum  on 
record,  dating  before  or  after  the  compilation  of  the 
Tahnud,  and  in  the  least  resembling  a  passage  or 
story  contained  therein,  must  be  a  plagiarism  from 
its  sole  venerable  author.     The   latter  argument, 
namely,  the  silence  of  the  Fathers,  more  especially 
of  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Epiphanius,  has  been  an- 
swered by  Walton ;  and   what  we  liave  said  will 
further  corroborate  his  arguments  to  the  effect,  that 
they  did  not  njention  it,  not  because  it  did  not  ex- 
ist in  their  days,  but  because  they  either  knew  noth- 
ing of  it,  or  did  not  understand  it.     In  the  person 
of  an  Onkelos,  a  Clialdee  translator,  the  belief  has 
been  general,  and  will  remain  so,  as  long  as  the  or- 
dinary handbooks  —  with  rare  exceptions — do  not 
care  to  notice  the  uncontested  results  of  contempo- 
rary in\estigation.     How  scholars  within  the  last 
century  have  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  coiitradic- 
torv  accounts  aliout  Onkelos,  more  particularly  how 
they  have  striven  to  smooth  over  the  difficulty  of 
their  tallying  with  those  of  Akilas  —  as  far  as  either 
had  come  under  their  notice  —  for  this  and  other 
minor  points  we  nnist  refer  the  reader  to  Eichhorn, 
Jahn,  13ertlioldt,  Hiivernick,  etc. 
We  now  turn  to  the  Targum  itself. 
Its  language  is  Chaldee,  closely  approaching  in 
purity  of  idiom  to  that  of  Ezra  and  Daniel.    It  fol- 
lows a  sober  and  clear,  though  not  a  slavish  exege- 
sis, and  keeps  as  closely  and  minutely  to  the  text 
as  is  at  all  consistent  with  its  purpose,  namely,  to 
L*  chiefly,  and  above  all,  a  version  for  the  people. 
Its  explanations  of  difficult  and   obscure  passages 
bear  ample  witness  to  the  competence  of  those  who 
gave  it  its  final  shape,  and   infused   iijto   it  a  rare 
unity.     Even  where  foreign  matter  is  introduced, 
or,   as   Berkowitz   in   his   Hebrew  work    Oifli    Or 
keenly  observes,  where  it  most  artistically  blends 
two  translations:  one   literal,  and   one   figurative, 
into  one;  it  steadily  keeps  in  view  the  real  sense  of 
the  passage  in  hand.    It  is  always  concise  and  clear 
and  dignified,  worthy  of  the  grandeur  of  its  subject. 
It  avoids  the  legendary  character  with  which  all  the 
later  Targums  entwine  the  Biblical  word,  as  far  as 
ever  circumstances  would  allow.     Only  in  the  po- 
etical passages  it  was  compelled  to  yield  —  though 
reluctantly  —  to  the  ])opular  craving  for  Haggadah  ; 
but  e\en  here  it  chooses  and  selects  with  rare  taste 
and  tact. 

Generally  and  broadly  it  may  be  stated  that 
alterations  are  never  attemjjted,  save  for  the  sake  of 
clearness;  tropical  terms  are  dissolved  by  judicious 
circumlocutions,  for  the  correctness  of  which  the 
authors  and  editors —  in  possession  of  the  living 
tradition  of  a  language  still  written,  if  not  spoken 
(n  their  day  —  certainly  seem  lietter  judges  than 
gome  modern  critics,  who,  through  their  own  incom- 
plete acquaintance  with  the  idiom,  injudiciously 
blame  Onkelos.  Highly  characteristic  is  the  aver- 
g'ou  of  the  Targum  to  aiithropopathies  and  anthro- 
pomorphisms; in  fact,  to  any  term  which  could  in 
the  eyes  of  the  multitude  lower  the  idea  of  the  High- 
i»t  Being.    Yet  there  are  many  passages  retained  in 


to  Him.  He  speaks,  He  sees,  He  hears,  He  smella 
the  odor  of  sacrifice,  is  angry,  repents,  etc.:  — the 
Tai-gum  thus  showing  itself  entirely  opposed  to  the 
allegorizing  and  symbolizing  tendencies,  which  in 
those,  and  still  more  in  later  days,  were  prone  to 
transform  Biblical  history  itself  into  the  most  ex- 
traordinary legends  and  fairy  tales  with  or  withou. 
a  moral.  The  Targum,  however,  while  retaining 
terms  like  "  the  arm  of  God,'  "  the  right  hand  of 
God,"  "the  finger  of  God  '  —  for  Power,  Provi- 
dence, etc.  —  replaces  terms  like  "  foot,'"  "  front," 
"  back  of  God,"  by  the  fitting  figurative  meaning. 
W^e  must  notice  further  its  repugnance  to  V)rini;  the 
Divine  Being  into  too  close  contact,  as  it  were,  nith 
man.  It  erects  a  kind  of  reverential  barrier,  a  sort 
of  invisible  medium  of  awful  reverence  between 
the  Creator  and  the  creature.  Thus  terms  like 
"  the  Word  "  (Loffos  =  Sansk.  Om),  "the  Shi  chi- 
nah  "  (Holy  Presence  of  God's  Majesty,  '  the 
Glory"),  further,  human  beings  talking  not  to,  but 
"before"  God,  are  frequent.  The  feme  care,  in  a 
minor  degree,  is  taken  of  the  dignity  of  the  persons 
of  the  patriarchs,  who,  though  the  Scripture  may 
expose  their  weaknesses,  were  not  to  be  held  up  in 
their  iniquities  before  the  multitude  whose  ances- 
tors and  ideals  they  were.  That  the  most  curious 
vcrrepa  irporepa  and  anachronisms  occur,  such  as 
Jacob  studying  the  I'orah  in  the  Academy  of  Sheni, 
etc.,  is  due  to  the  then  current  typifying  tendencies 
of  the  Haggadah.  Some  extremely  cautious,  withal 
poetical  alterations  also  occur  when  the  patriarchs 
speak  of  having  acquired  something  by  violent 
means:  as  Jacob  (Gen.  xlviii.  22),  by  his  "sword 
and  bow,"  which  two  words  become  in  the  Tar- 
gum "  prayers  and  supplications."  But  the  points 
which  will  have  to  be  considered  chiefly  when  the 
Targum  becomes  a  serious  study  —  as  throwing 
the  clearest  light  uixin  its  time,  and  the  ideas  then 
in  vogue  about  matters  connected  with  religious 
belief  and  exercises  —  are  those  which  treat  of 
prayer,  study  of  the  Law,  prophecy,  angelology, 
and  the  ^Messiah. 

The  only  competent  investigator  who,  after  Wi- 
ner {Dt  Onktloso,  1820),  but  with  infinitely  more 
minuteness  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
has  gone  fully  into  this  matter,  is  Luzzatto.  Con- 
sidering the  vast  importance  of  this,  the  oldest 
Targum,  for  Biblical  as  well  as  for  linguistic  studies 
in  general,  —  not  to  mention  the  advantages  that 
might  accrue  from  it  to  other  branches  of  learning, 
such  as  geography,  history,  etc. :  we  think  it  ad- 
visable to  give,  for  the  first  time,  a  brief  sketch  of 
the  results  of  this  eminent  scholar.  His  classical, 
though  not  rigorously  methodical,  Olieb  O'er 
(1830)  is.  it  is  true,  quoted  by  every  one,  but  in 
reality  known  to  but  an  infinitely  small  number, 
although  it  is  written  in  the  most  lucid  modern 
Hebrew. 

He  divides  the  discrepancies  between  Text  and 
Targum  into  four  principal  classes. 

A.  Where  the  language  of  the  Text  has  been 
changed  in  the  Targum,  but  the  meaning  of  the 
former  retained. 

B-  Where  both  language  and  meaning  wtffe 
changed. 

C.  Where  the  meaning  was  retained,  but  addi- 
tions were  introduced. 

D.  Where  the  meaning  was  changed,  and  addi- 
tions were  introduced. 

He  further  subdivides  these  four  into  thirty-two 
classes,  to  all  of  which  he  adds,  in  a  most  thorough 


rhich  human  affections  and  qualities  are  attributed  !  and  accurate  manner,  some  telling  specimens     Not 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3i05 


wiitistiKidirii;  tlie  apparent  pedantry  of  his  method, 
and  the  undeniable  identity  wliich  necessarily  must 
Bxist  between  some  of  his  classes,  a  glance  over 
their  whole  body,  aided  by  one  or  two  examples  in 
each  case,  wiU  enable  us  to  gain  as  clear  an  insij^ht 
into  the  manner  and  "genius"  of  the  Onkelos- 
Targum  as  is  possible  without  tlie  study  of  the 
work  itself. 

(A.)  Discrepancies  where  the  language  of  the  text 
has  been  changed  in  the  Targum,  but  the  meaning 
of  the  former  has  been  retained. 

1.  Alterations  owing  to  the  idiom:  e.  (/.  the  sin- 
gular," "  Let  there  be  [sil]  lights  "  (Gen.  i.  14),  is 
transformed  into  the  plural''  [sint]  in  the  Targum; 
"man  and  woman,"'-  as  ap|ilied  to  the  animals 
(Gen.  vii.  2),  becomes,  as  unsuitable  in  the  Ara- 
maic, "  male  and  female."  '' 

2.  Alterations  out  of  reverence  towards  God, 
more  especially  for  the  purpose  of  doing  away  with 
all  ideas  of  a  plurality  of  the  Godhead :  e.  tj.  the 
tei  ms  Adonai,  Klohim,  are  replaced  by  .Jehovah, 
lesl  these  might  appear  to  imply  more  than  one 
Goi'.  Where  Elohim  is  applied  to  idolatry  it  is 
rendered  "  Error."  « 

3.  Anthropomorphisms,  where  they  could  be 
misunderstood  and  construed  into  a  disparagement 
or  a  lowering  of  the  dignity  of  the  Godhead  among 
the  common  people,  are  expunged :  e.  ;j.  for  "  And 
(lod  smelled  a  sweet  smell"  (Gen.  viii.  21),  Onke- 
los  has,  "  And  .Jehovah  received  the  sacrifice  with 
grace;  "  for  '•  And  Jehovah  went/ down  to  see  the 
city  "  (Gen.  xi.  5),  "  And  .Jehovah  reveakda  Him- 
self," a  term  of  frequent  use  in  the  Targum  tor 
verbs  of  motion,  such  as  "  to  go  down,"  "  to  go 
through,"  etc.,  applied  to  God.  "  I  shall  pass  over'' 
you  "  (Ex.  xii.  13),  the  Targum  renders,  "I  shall 
protect  you."  J  Yet  only  anthropomorphisms  which 
clearly  stand  figuratively  and  might  give  offense, 
are  expunged,  not  as  Maimonides,  followed  by  nearly 
all  commentators,  holds,  (dl  anthropomorphisms, 
for  words  like  "  hand,  finger,  to  speak,  see,"  etc. 
(see  above),  are  retained.  But  where  the  words 
remember,  think  of,  *-"  etc.,  are  used  of  God,  they 
always,  whatever  their  tense  in  the  text,  stand  in 
the  Targum  in  the  present;  since  a  past  or  future 
svould  imply  a  temporary  forgetting  on  the  part  of 
the  Omniscient.^     A  keen  distinction  is  here  also 

established  by  Luzzatto  between  "'^H  and  '^^3,  the 
former  used  of  a  real,  external  seeing,  the  latter  of 
a  seeing  "  into  the  heart." 

4.  Expressions  used  of  and  to  God  by  men  are 
brought  more  into  harmony  with  the  idea  of  Iiis 
dignity.     Thus  Abraham's  question,  "  The  Judge 

of  the  whole  earth,  should  -he  not  (S7)  do  jus- 
tice? "  (Gen.  xviii.  25)  is  altered  into  the  atfirnia- 
ti?e:  "The  Judge  ....  verily   He  will  do  jus- 


N-?"' 


pn^ 


s-^ani?  mil?!:) 


^  1'r^^      "  ^bansT        ''  \nnDD 

]  Comp.  Prayer  for  Bosh  haghana,  nPIDti?  ]^MT 

TD1,  "  And  there  is  no  forgetting  before  the  throne 
tf  Thy  glory.*' 


tice."  Laban,  who  speaks  of  his  gods  "'  in  the  text. 
is  made  to  speak  of  his  reUgion "  only  in  the 
Targum. 

5.  Alterations  in  honor  of  Israel  and  their  an- 
cestors.    Rachel  "stole""  the  teraphim  (xxxi.  10* 
is  softened  into  Rachel  "took";?'  Jacob  "fled" 
from   Laban  {ibkl.  22),  into  "  went";''  "The  sons 
of    .Jacob   answered    Shechem    with    craftiness " 
(xxxiv.  13),  into  "with  wisdom."  < 

G.  Short  glosses  introduced  for  the  better  under- 
standing of  the  text:  "for  it  is  my  mouth  that 
speaks  to  you  "  (xlv.  12),  Joseph  said  to  his  breth- 
ren: Targum,  "  in  your  tongue,"  "  i.  e.  without  an 
interpreter.  "The  people  who  had  made  the  calf" 
(Ex.  xxxii.  35);  Targum,  "  worshipped,"  ^  since  not 
they,  but  Aaron  made  it. 

7.  Explanation  of  tropical  and  allegorical  expres- 
sions :  "  Be  fruitful  (lit.  '  creep,'  from  \^1ti7)  and 
nndtiply "  (Gen.  i.  28),  is  altered  into  "  bear 
children  ;  "  '"  "  thy  brother  Aaron  shall  be  thy 
prophet '' ^  (Ex.  vii.  1),  into  "  thy  interpreter  "  ^ 
(Meturgeman);  "  I  made  thee  a  god  (Elohim)  to 
Pharaoh  "  (Ex.  vii.  1),  into  "  a  master;  "  ^  "  to  a 
head  and  not  to  a  tail  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  13),  into 
"to  a  strong  man  and  not  to  a  weak;""'  and 
finally,  "  Whoever  says  of  his  father  and  his 
mother,  I  saw  them  not"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  9),  into 
•'  Whoever  is  not  merciful  ^  towards  his  father  and 
his  mother." 

8.  Tending  to  ennoble  the  language:  the  "  wash- 
ing "  of  .Aaron  and  his  sons  is  altered  into  "  sanc- 
tifying «';  "  the  "carcasses"  'i'  of  the  animals  of 
Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  11)  become  "  pieces  ; "  «' 
"anointing"/'  becomes  "elevating,  raising;"^ 
"  tlie  wife  of  the  bosom,"  '*'  "  wife  of  the  cov- 
enant."'' 

'.).  The  last  of  the  classes  where  the  terms  are 
altered,  but  the  sense  is  retained,  is  that  in  which 
a  change  of  language  takes  place  in  order  to  intro- 
duce the  explanations  of  the  oral  Law  and  tlie  tra- 
ditions: e.  y.  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  "On  the  morrow  after 
the  Sabliath  ^■'  {i.  e.  the  feast  of  the  unleavened 
bread)  the  priest  shall  wave  it  (the  sheaf),"  (Jnkelos 
for  Sabbath,  yeris/-(7rfy.''  For  frontlets '"'  (Deut.  vi. 
8),  lefiUin  (phylacteries)."' 

(B.)  Change  of  both  the  terms  and  the  mean 
ing. 

10.  To  avoid  phrases  apparently  derogatory  to 
the  dignity  of  the  Divine  Being:  "  Am  I  in  God'a 
stead  V""'  becomes  in  Onkehs,  "  Dost  thou  ask 
[children]  from  me  ?  ?''  from  before  God  thou 
shouldst  ask  them  "  ((ien.  xxx.  2). 

11.  In  order  to  avoid  anthi-opomorphisms  of  an 
oljectionable  kind.  "  U'itii  the  breath  of  thy 
nose  "  7'  ("  bhist  of  thy  nostrils,"  A.  V.,  Ex.  xv.  8), 
becomes  «'  With  the  word  of  thy  mouth."  r>  "  And 


-fS^33 


''  pa7ip^i "'  D^n^D    "^  «">nb2  (D^-nn^; 


-f:^">p  ntt7''N 


TP^n  nw^^ 


*■  S3'l3  wai''  "•'  mDiDitj 

"'  -{-b^^^  °'  >3:w  'bw  nnnn 

^  'i3T  s^y3  ns  ^i^n 

^  -["'CS  m-l3T  '^  1^212  -l!2"'^3T 


8406 


VEKSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


I  shall  spread  my  hand  over  thee  "  «  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
22),  is  transformed  into  "1  shall  with  my  word 
protect  thee."  *  "  And  thou  shalt  see  my  back 
parts,<^  but  my  face  ^  shall  not  be  seen  "  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
2-3):  "  And  thou  shalt  see  what  is  behind  me/  but 
that  which  is  before  me/  shall  not  be  seen  "  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  12). 

12.  For  the  sake  of  religious  euphemisms:  e.  g. 
"  And  ye  shall  be  like  God  "  o  (Gen.  iii.  5),  is 
altered  into  ''  like  princes."  ^  "A  laughter./  has 
God  made  me"  (Gen.  xxi.  6),  into  "  A  joy  ^"  he 
gives  me  "  —  "  God  "  being  entirely  omitted. 

13.  In  honor  of  the  nation  and  its  ancestors: 
e.  y.  "  .Jacob  was  an  upright  man,  a  dweller  in 
tents  ■' '  (Gen.  xxv.  27),  becomes  "  an  upriglit  man. 
frequentuig  the  house  of  learning."  "'  "  One  of  the 
people «  might  have  lain  with  thy  wife "  (Gen. 
xxvi.  10)  —  "  One  singled  out  among  the  people,"  o 
i.  e.  the  king.  "  Thy  brother  came  and  took  my 
blessing  with  deceit  "i^  (Gen.  xxvii.  35),  becomes 
"  with  wisdom."  9 

1-i.  In  order  to  avoid  similes  objectionable  on 
sesthetical  grounds.     "  And  he  will  bathe  his  foot 

in  oil"'' 'And  he  will  have   many  delicacies  ■' 

of  a  king  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2-t). 

1.5.  In  order  to  ennoble  the  language.  "  And 
man  became  a  living  beinj;  "  '  (Gen.  ii.  7)  —  "  And 
it  l)ecame  in  man  a  speakuiK  spirit."  "  "  How 
good  are  thy  tents,  •'  O  .lacob  "  —  "  How  good  are 
thy  lands,'"  O  Jacob  "  (Num.  xxiv.  5). 

16.  In  favor  of  the  oral  Law  and  the  Rabbinical 
explanations.  "  And  go  into  the  land  of  Moriah  "  ■''" 
(Gen.  xxii.  2),  becomes  "  into  the  land  of  worship  " 
(the  future  place  of  the  Temple).  "  Isaac  went  to 
walk!/  in  the  field"  (Gen.  xxiv.  63),  is  rendered 
"  to  ;«•«!/."  z     [Comp.  Sam.  Pent.,  p.  2812  6  j 

■  Thou  shalt  not  boil  a  kid  «'  in  the  milk  of  its 
mother"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  26)  —  as  meat  and  milk,'^  ac- 
cording to  the  Halachah. 

(C.)  Alterations  of  words  (circumlocutions,  ad- 
ditions, etc.)  without  change  of  meaning. 

17.  On  account  of  the  difference  of  idiom  :  e.  ;/. 
"  Her  father's  brother  " '''  (=  relation.  Gen.  xxix. 
12),  is  rendered  "  The  son  of  her  father's  sister."  d' 
"  \Miat  God  does«'  (future)  he  has  told  Pharaoh '' 
(Gen.  xli.  28)  —  "  What  God  will  do,"/'  etc. 

18.  Additions  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  expres- 
sions app.arently  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  tiie 
DiNine  Being,  by  implying  polytheism  and  the  like: 
"  Who  is  like  unto  Thee (7'  among  the  gods?  "  is 
rendered,  "  There  is  none  like  unto  Thee,'*'  Thou 
irt  God  "   (Ex.  XV.  11).     "And   they  sacrifice  to 


"  n:3;n  ins      "  sdi72  in'^m  in 

•  V"i32n  '  n^u  u;D3b 

"  sbb^n  m"^b  msn  mm 
'  T'^hs   *"  -T27-1S   '  ti^im:^  "  mtr-b 

2  KDn /ID.     [Abraham  instituted,  according  to 
aie   Mi'lrash,    thf    laorning-   (Shaharith),    Isaac    the 


demons  who  are  no  gcds'/  —  "of  no  use"* 
(IJeut.  xx.xii.  17). 

I'J.  In  order  to  avoid  erroneous  notions  impliet 
in  certain  verbs  and  epithets  used  of  the  I)ivin« 
Heing:  e.  <j.  "And  the  Spirit  of  God '' moved  " 
(Gen.  i.  2)  —  "A  wind  from  ijefore  the  Lord."  "' 
"  And  Xoah  built  God  an  altar  "  »'  (Gen.  viii.  20) 

—  "  an  altar  before  "'  the  Lord."  "  And  God  i>'  was 
with  the  l)oy"  (Gen.  xxi.  20)  —  "  And  the  word 
of  God  1'  was  in  the  aid  of  the  boy."  "  The  moun- 
tain of  God  "  (Ex.  iii.  1)  —  "  The  mountain  uiion 
which  was  revealed  the  glory  '"'  of  God."  •'  The 
staff  of  God  "  (Ex.  iv.  20)  —  "  The  staff  with  wliich 
thou  hast  done  the  miracles  before"'  God."  "And 
I  shall  see  ''  what  will  be  their  end  "  —  "  It  is  opt-u 
(revealed)  before  me,"  «'  etc.  The  Divine  Being  ia 
ill  fact  very  i-arely  spoken  of  without  that  spiritual 
medium  mentioned  before;  it  being  considered,  as 
it  were,  a  want  of  proper  reverence  to  speak  to  or 

of  Him  directly.     The  terms   "Before"   (21p), 

"Word"  {A6yos,   S^tt'^a),  "Glory"  (W~p''), 

"  Majesty  "  (n^jISDti?),  are  also  constantly  used 

instead  of  the  Divine  name;  e.  (j.  "  'i'lie  voice  of 
the  Lord  God  was  heard"  (Gen.  iii.  8) — "The 
voice  of  the  Word."  "And  he  will  dwell  in  the 
tents  of  Shem  "  (ix.  27)  —  "And  the  Shechinah 
[Divine  Presence]  will  dwell."  "And  the  Lord 
went  up  from  Abraham  "  (Gen.  xvii.  22)  —  "  And 
the  gloi"}-  of  God  went  up."  "  And  God  came  to 
Abimelech  "  (Gen.  xx.  3)  —  "And  the  word  from 
[liefore]  (iod  came  to  Abimelech." 

20.  For  the  sake  of  improving  seemingly  irrever- 
ential  phrases  in  Scripture.  "  Who  is  God  that 
I  should  listen  unto  his  voice?  "  (Ex.  v.  2)  —  "  The 
name  of  (jod  has  not  been  revealed  to  me,  that  I 
should  receive  his  word."  ^' 

21.  In  honor  of  the  nation  and  its  ancestors. 
"  And  Israel  said  to  Joseph,  Now  I  shall  gladly 
die  "  •"'  (Gen.  xlvi.  30),  which  might  appear  frivolous 
in  tiie  mouth  of  the  patriarch,  becomes  "  I  shall 
be  comforted.''  now."  "  And  he  led  his  flock  to- 
wards-'/' tlie  desert"  (Ex.  iii.  1)  —  "  towards  a  good 
spot  of  pasture  «'  in  the  desert." 

22.  In  honor  of  the  Law  and  the  explanation  of 
its  obscurities.  "  To  days  and  years  "  (Gen.  i.  14) 
— "  that  days  and  years  should  be  counted  by 
them."  a"  "  A  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil " 

—  "A  tree,  and  those  who  eat  its  fruits  ^"  will  dis- 
tinguish Ijetween  good  and  evil."  "I  shall  net 
further  curse  for  the  sake  of  c"  man  "  (viii.  21)  — 


afternoon-   (Minha),   and   Jacob    the    evening-prayu 

(Maarib).] 

"'  nbnn  M3   ^  nbm  na;n     '^  ^nH 
^'  nrw^  -12  '^  nt27i3;  ^'  -Q3;ab  i\'-ir 
•^  -[inn  ^r:^      *'  13?3  na  n"^b 
•'■'  ''nbN  sb     '■■'  ii-i!j  inn  n^b 
''  s^nbs  nn  "^  a^nbs  mp  p  nn 
"^  'nb  '^  'n  mp       ^  'b« 

■^  'm  s-ia^»  "  «-ip>    •'  'n  mp  p 
*'  \n^i^         "^  ^aip  ^b:i 
•^  n-'-i^^an  bnpST  ^b  ^b^ns  sb 
«^  nnirss     "  nnmw     ^  'nn  -ins 
^  'n  n^y-i  -ittt?      ""  "Jinn  ^ytirh 
^'  >mn>2  rbDSi  pVsT    '^'  -mnyr 


VERSIONS,  AXCIENT  (TARGUM) 


'  through  the  sin  «  of  man."  "  To  the  f;round 
ihall  not  be  forgiven  the  blood  *  shed  upon  it " 
(Num.  XXXV.  33)  —  '•  the  innocent  <^  blood." 

23.  For  the  sake  of  avoiding  similes,  metoiiyni- 
ical  and  allegorical  passages,  too  ditticult  for  the 
comprehension  of  the  multitude:  e.  g.  "  Thy  seed 
like  the  dust  of  the  earth"  (Gen.  xiii.  16)  — 
"  mighty  ''  as  the  dust  of  the  earth."  "  I  am  too 
small  for  all  the  benefits  "  (Geu.  xxxii.  10)  —  "  Jly 
good  deeds  <^  are  small."  "  And  the  Lord  thy  God 
will  circumcise  thy  heart "  —  "  the  folly  of  thy 
heart."/ 

2-1.  For  the  pake  of  elucidating  apparent  obscuri- 
ties, etc.,  in  the  written  Law.  •'  Therefore  shall  a 
mau  leave  his  father  and  his  mother"  (Gen.  ii.  24) 

—  "  the  home  "  o  (not  really  his  parents).  "  The 
will  of  Him  who  dwelleth  in  the  busli  "  — ■  "  of  Him 
that  dwelleth  in  heaven  *  [whose  Shechinah  is  in 
heaven],  and  who  revealed  Himself  in  the  l)ush  to 
Moses." 

25.  In  favor- of  the  oral  Law  and  the  traditional 
explanations  generally.  "  He  punishes  the  sins  of 
the  parents  on  their  children  "  (Kx.  xs.  5),  has  the 
addition,  "  when  the  children  follow  the  sins  of 
their  parents  "  (comp.  liz.  xviii.  19).  "  The  right- 
eous and  tlie  just  ye  shall  not  kill"  (Ex.  xxiii.  7) 

—  "  He  who  has  left  the  tribunal  as  innocent,  thou 
fihalt  not  kill  him,"  i.  e.,  according  to  the  Halacha, 
he  is  not  to  lie  arraigned  again  for  the  same  crime. 
".Doorposts"  (mesusulh)  (Deut.  vi.  9)  —  "And 
thou  shalt  write  them  .  .  .  and  ojjix  t/iem  upon 
the  posts,"  etc. 

(D.)  Alteratiou  of  language  and  meaning. 

26.  In  honor  of  the  Divine  Being,  to  avoid 
apparent  multiplicity  or  a  likeness.  "  Beliold  man 
will  be  like  one  of  us,  knowing  good  and  evil  " 
(Gen.  iii.  22)  —  "  He  will  be  the  only  one  in  the 
world.'  to  know  good  and  evil."  '•  For  who  is  a 
God  in  heaven  and  on  earth  who  could  do  like  thy 
deeds  and  powers?  "  (Deut.  iii.  2-i)  —  "  Thou  art 
God,  thy  Divine  Presence  (Shechinah)  is  in  heaven^' 
above,  and  reigns  on  earth  below,  and  there  is  none 
who  does  like  unto  thy  deeds,"  etc. 

27.  Alteration  of  epithets  employed  of  God. 
"And  before  thee  shall  I  hide  myself"'  (Gen.  iv. 
14)  —  "  And  before  thee  it  is  not  possible  to  hide."  '« 
"  This  is  my  God  and  I  will  praise  »  Him,  the  God 
of  my  father  and  1  will  extol »  Him  "  (Fx.  xv.  2) 

—  "This  is  my  God,  and  I  will  build  Him  a  sanc- 
tuary;?'tiie  God  of  my  fathers,  and  I  will  pray 
before  Him."  'i  "  In  one  moment  I  shall  ^o  up  in 
thy  midst  and  annihilate  thee"  —  "  For  one  hour 
will  I  take  away  my  majesty  from  among  thee" 
(since  no  evil  can  come  from  .above). 

28.  For  the  ennobling  of  the  sense.  "  Great  is 
Jehovah  above  all  gods" — "Great  is  God,  and 
there  is  no  other  god  beside  Him."  "Send  through 
him  whom  thou  wilt  send  "  (Ex.  iv.  13)  —  "  through 
him  who  is  worthy  to  be  sent." 

29.  In  honor  of  the  nation  and  its  ancestors. 
"  Ar.i  the  souls  they  made*  iu  Haran  "  (Gen  xii. 
5)  —  "the  souls  they  made  subject  to  the  Divine 


3407 

Law '  in  Haran."  "  And  Isaac  brought  her  intc 
the  tent  of  his  mother  Sarah  "  (Gen.  xxiv.  67)  — 
"  -Vnd  lo  righteous  were  her  works,"  like  the  work, 
of  his  mother  Sarah."  "  And  he  bent  his  shouldet 
to  lie.ar,  and  he  became  a  tributary  servant"  (Gen 
xlix.  15)  —  •'  And  he  will  conquer  the  cities  of  the 
nations  and  destroy  their  dwelling-places,  and  those 
that  will  remain  there  will  serve  him  and  pay 
triliute  to  him."  "  People,  foolish  and  not  wise  " 
(Deut.  xxxii.  6)  —  "  People  who  has  received  the 
Law  and  has  not  become  wise."  " 

30.  Explanatory  of  tropical  and  metonymical 
phrases.  "  And  besides  thee  no  man  shall  raise  his 
hand  and  his  foot  in  tlie  whole  land  of  Egypt" 
(Gen.  xli.  44)  —  "  There  shall  not  a  man  raise  his 
hand  to  seize  a  weapon,  and  his  foot  to  ride  on  a 
horse." 

31.  To  ennoble  or  improve  the  language.  "  Coats 
of  skin"  (Gen.  iii.  21)  —  "  Garments  of  honor** 
on  the  skin  of  their  flesh."  "  Thy  two  daughters 
who  are  found  with  tiiee  "  (Gen.  xix.  15)  —  "  who 
were  found  faithful  with  thee."  "  May  Reuben 
live  and  not  die  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  6)  —  "  May  Reuben 
hve  in  the  everlasting  life." 

The  foregoing  examples  will,  we  trust,  be  found 
to  bear  out  sufficiently  the  judgment  given  above 
on  this  Targum.  In  spite  of  its  many  and  im- 
portant discrepancies,  it  never  for  one  moment 
forgets  its  aim  of  being  a  clear,  though  free,  ti-ans- 
lation  Jbr  (lie  people,  and  nothing  more.  Wher- 
ever it  deviates  from  the  literalness  of  the  text, 
such  a  course,  in  its  ca.se,  is  fully  justified  —  nay, 
necessitated  —  either  by  the  obscurity  of  the  pas- 
sage, or  the  wrong  construction  that  naturally 
would  be  put  upon  its  wording  by  the  nudtitude. 
The  explanations  given  .agree  either  with  the  real 
sense,  or  develop  the  current  tradition  supposed  to 
underlie  it.  The  specimens  .adduced  by  other  in- 
vestigators, however  differently  classified  or  ex- 
plained, are  easily  brought  under  the  foregoing 
heads.  They  one  and  all  tend  to  prove  that 
Onkelos,  whatever  the  oiijections  against  single 
instances,  is  one  of  the  most  e.^cellent  and  thor- 
oughly competent  interpreters.  A  few  instances 
only  —  and  they  are  very  few  indeed  —  may  be 
adduced,  where  even  Onkelos,  as  it  would  appear, 
"dormitat."  Far  be  it  from  us  for  one  moment 
to  depreciate,  as  has  been  done,  the  infuiitely  supe- 
rior knowledge  l)oth  of  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 
idioms  on  the  part  of  the  writers  and  editors  of 
our  document,  or  to  attribute  their  discrepancies 
from  modern  translations  to  ignorance.  They 
drank  from  the  fullness  of  a  highly  valuable  tra- 
ditional exegesis,  as  fresh  and  vigorous  in  their 
days  as  the  Hebrew  language  itself  still  was  in  the 
circles  of  the  wise,  the  academies  and  schools. 
15ut  we  have  this  advantage,  that  words  which 
then  were  obsolete,  and  whose  meaning  was  known 
no  longer  —  only  guessed  at  —  are  to  us  fimiiliar 
by  the  lunnerous  progeny  they  have  produced  in 
cognate  idioms,  known  to  us  through  the  mighty 
spread  of  linguistic  science  in  our  days ;  and  if  w« 

'  ^^3•2?^^^s  ^  jr-rp!:  rt^b  ^32S 
'  ^m^ip  nb?:s  '  \-i22a7  pbow 
'  rd:v  '  sn^^nisb  n^2';a7T 

"  -pn  -r^:;b 


3408 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


(re  not  aided  by  a  traditional  exegesis  handed 
down  within  and  without  the  schools,  perhaps  exer 
since  the  days  of  the  framing  of  the  document 
itself,  neither  are  we  prejudiced  and  fettered  by  it. 
Whatever  may  be  implied  and  hidden  in  a  verse 
Dr  word,  we  have  no  reason  to  translate  it  accord- 
ingly, and,  for  the  attaining  of  this  purpose,  to 
overstrain  the  powers  of  the  roots.  Among  such 
email  shortcomings  of  our  translator  may  be  men- 
tioned that  he  appears  to  have  erroneously  derived 

nSi:?    (Gen.  iv.  7)  from    Stt73;  that    nn3"13 

(xx.  6)  is  by  him  rendered    nPIDlW;    "^^SS 

(Gen.  xli.  43)  by  S^bssb  SnS;  12S  (Deut. 

xxiv.  5)  "^2^;  and  the  like.  Comp.  however  the 
Commentators  on  these  passages. 

The  bulk  of  the  passages  generally  adduced  as 
proofs  of  want  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  Onkelos 
have  to  a  great  part  been  shown  in  the  course  of 
the  foregoing  specimens  to  Ije  intentional  devia- 
tions; many  other  passages  not  mentioned  merely 
instance  the  want  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  his 
critics. 

Some  places,  again,  exhiliit  that  blending  of  two 
distinct  translations,  of  which  we  have  spoken;  the 
catclnvord  Ijeing  apparently  taken  in  two  different 
senses.  Thus  Gen.  xxii.  13,  where  he  translates: 
"  And  Abraham  lifted  up  his  eyes  after  these,  and 
behold  there  was  a  ram;  "  he  has  not  "in  his  per- 
plexity "  mistranslated  "THS  for  "IRS,  but  he  has 

only  placed  for  the  sake  of  clearness  the  '"IHS 
after  the  verb  (he  saw),  instead  of  the  noun  (ram); 

and  the  STH,  which  is  moreover  wanting  in  some 

texts,  has  been  added,  not  as  a  translation  of  ^HS 

or  ^^S,  but  in  order  to  make  the  passage  more 
lucid  still.  A  similar  instance  of  a  double  trans- 
lation is  found  in  Gen.  ix.  6:  "  Whosoever  sheds  a 
man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  "  — 
rendered  "  Whosoever  sheds  the  blood  of  man,  by 
witnesses  through  the  sentence  of  the  judges  shall 

his  blood  be  shed;  "  DTSIU,  by  man,  being  taken 
first  as  "  witness,"  and  then  as  "judges." 

We  may  further  notice  the  occurrence  of  two 
Messianic  passages  in  this  Targum :  the  one,  Gen. 
xlix.  10,  Shiloh ;  the  other.  Num.  xxiv.  17,  "  scep- 
tre: "  both  rendered  "  Messiah." 

A  fuller  idea  of  the  "  genius "  of  Onkelos  as 
translator  and  as  p.araphrast,  may  be  arrived  at 
from  the  specimens  suljoined  in  pp.  3-l:18-3-i20. 

We  cannot  here  enter  into  anything  like  a  mi- 
nute account  of  the  dialect  of  Onkelos  or  of  any 
other  Targum.  Kegarding  the  linguistic  shades 
of  the  different  Targums.  we  must  confine  ourselves 
to  the  general  remark,  that  the  later  the  version, 
the  more  corrupt  and  adulterated  its  lancuage. 
Three  dialects,  however,  are  chiefly  to  be  distin- 
puisiied :  as  in  the  Aramaic  idiom  in  general, 
which  in  contradistinction  to  the  Syriac,  or  Chris- 
tian Aramaic,  may  be  called  Judaeo-Aramaic,  so 
»lso  in  the  different  Targums;  and  their  recogni- 
jon  is  a  material  aid  towards  fixing  the  place  of 


their  origin;  although  we  must  warn  the  readeJ 
that  this  guidance  is  not  always  to  be  relied  upon. 

1.  The  Galilean  dialect,  known  and  spoken  of 
already  in  the  Talmud  'as  the  one  which  most 
carelessly  confounds  its  sounds,  vowels  as  well  a£ 
consonants.  "  The  Galileans  are  negligent  with 
respect  to  their  language,"  and  care  not  for  gram- 
matical forms  "  *  is  a  common  saying  in  the  Ge- 
mara.     We  learn  that  they  did  not  distinguish 

properly  between  B  and  P  (3,  D),  saying  Tapula 
instead  of  Tabula,  between  Ch  and  K  (3  and  p), 
s^.vi"a  X^'/""'^  ^'^^  Kvpios.  Far  less  could  they 
distinguish  between  the  various  gutturals,  as  is 
cleverly  exemplified  in  the  story  where  a  Judajan 
asked  a  Galilean,  when  the  latter  wanted  to  buy  an 

"IDS,  whether  he  meant  "1^27    (wool),  or  "l^M 

(a  lamb),  or  "^^H  (whie),  or  "^^H  (an  ass). 
The  next  consequence  of  this  their  disregard  of 
the  gutturals  was,  that  they  often  tiirew  them  off 
entirely  at  the  beginning  of  a  word  j^i^i'  (tphtsresin. 
Again  they  contracted,  or  rather  wedged  together, 
words  of  the  most  dissimilar  terminations  ^nd  be- 
ginnings. By  confounding  the  vowels  like  the  con- 
sonants, they  often  created  entirely  new  words  and 

forms.  The  Mappik  H  (n)  became  Ch  (somewhat 
similar  to  the  Scotch  pronunciation  of  the  initial 
H).  As  the  chief  reason  for  this  (ialilean  confu- 
sion of  toiTgues  (for  which  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  73; 
ilark  xiv.  70)  may  be  assigned  the  increased  fa- 
cility of  intercourse  with  the  neighboring  nations 
owing  to  their  northern  situation. 

2.  The  Samaritan  dialect,  a  mixture  of  vulgar 
Hebrew  and  Aramsean.  in  accordance  with  the  origin 
of  the  people  itself.  Its  chief  characteristics  are 
the  frequent  use  of  the  Ain  (which  not  only  stands 
for  other  gutturals,  but  is  even  used  as  mater 
leciionis),  the  commutation  of  the  gutturals  in 
general,   and  the  indiscriminate  use  of  the  mute 

consonants  3  for  "1,   p  for  3,   H  for  p,  etc. 

3.  The  Judeean  or  Jerusalem  dialect  (comp. 
Ned.  66  b)  scarcely  ever  pronounces  the  gutturals 
at  the  end  properly,  often  throws  them  off"  entirely. 
-Jeshua,  becomes  Jeshu  ;  Sheba  —  Shib.  Many 
words  are  peculiar  to  this  dialect  alone.  The  ap- 
pellations of  "door,"<-'  "  light,"  ^^  "  reward,"  «  etc., 
are  totally  different  from  those  used  in  the  other 
dialects.  Altogether  all  the  peculiarities  of  pro- 
vincialism, shortening  and  lengthening  of  vowels, 
idiomatic  phrases  and  words,  also  an  orthography 
of  its  own,  generally  with  a  fuller  and  broader 
vocalization,  are  noticeable  throughout  both  the 
Targums  and  the  Tahnud  of  -Jerusalem,  which,  for 
the  further  elucidation  of  this  point,  as  of  many 
others,  have  as  yet  not  found  an  investigator. 

The  following  recognized  Greek  words,  the  greater 
part  of  which  also  occur  in  the  Talmud  and  Mid- 
rash,  are  found  in  Onkelos;  Ex.  xxviii.  25,  /Sripu?.- 
Aos;'"  Ex.  xxviii.  11,  yKv(p7);B  Gen.  xxviii.  17, 
iSioJTTjs;''  Lev.  xi.  30,  kojAi^tt)?;-'"  Ex.  xxviii.  19, 
dpiKiai'^  (Plin.  xxxvii.  68);  Ex.  xxxix.  11,  Kop- 
XvS6viot,  '  comp.  Pes.  der.  Kah.  xxxii.  (Carbun- 
culi);  Deut.  xx.  20,  xapaxwua"^  (Ber.  R.  xcviii.) 


'  i<Wl  for  S33 

'  ni:iD  for  n:H 


*  S3tt;b  wp"^^-r  wb 
■*  ^3'*2in  for  >:nw 


"Flbn 


larin 


*  M^pnn     - '  SD^^D^^ 


VERSIONS,  ANCIEXT  (TARGUM) 


3409 


F.x.  xxiiii.  20,  xpaiixa'-,"  Xuui.  xv.  38,  Dent.  xxii. 
12,  Kpatrmdov  ;  *  Ex.  xxx.  3-t,  Kiaros  ;  "^  Gen. 
xxxvii.  28,  Af)5oj';''  Ex.  xxiv.  l(i,  (pafiaos'-^  Ex- 
sxvi.  0,  TTf^pTTTj ;  /  Gen.  vi.  14,  xe'Spos;  ^  I'^x.  xxviii. 
19,  Keyxpos''  (Plin.  xxxvii.  4).  To  tliese  may  be 
added  tlie  unrecognized  Trgpa^i'j '  (Ex.  xxi.  18), 
Kifipovxv^,'''  01"  \f0p6xri  (Gen.  xxx.  14),  &c. 

Tlie  following  sliort  rules  on  tlie  general  mode 
af  transcribing  the  Greek  letters  in  Aramaic  and 
Syriac  ('rargum,  Talmud,  INIidrasb,  etc.),  may  not 
be  out  of  place : — 

r  before  palatals,  pronounced  like  y,  becomes  3. 

7.  is  rendered  by  T. 

H  appears  to  have  occasionally  assumed  the  pro- 
nunciation of  a  consonant  (Digamma);  and  a  T 
is  inserted. 

0  is  iH  T  ^'  But  this  rule,  even  making  al- 
lowances for  corruptions,  does  not  always  seem  to 
have  been  .strictly  observed. 

K  is  p,  sometimes  3, 

M,  which  before  labials  stands  in  lieu  of  a  ;/, 

becomes  3  :  occasionally  a  3  is  inserted  before 
labials  where  it  is  not  found  in  the  Greek  word. 

E,  generally  DD,  sometimes,  however,  T3  or 
2D. 

n  is  2,  sometimes,  however,  it  is  softened 
into  3. 

P  is  sometimes  altered  into    V  or  3. 

'P  becomes  either  m  or  "^H  at  the  beginning 
of  a  word. 

2  either  D  or  T. 

The  spirilus  aspcr,  which  in  Greek  is  dropped  in 
the  middle  of  a  word,  reappears  again  sometimes 
(<rvve8poi —  SanAedrin).  Even  the  lenis  is  repre- 
sented sometimes  by  a  H  at  the  beginning  of  a 
word  ;  sometimes,  however,  even  the  ashler  is 
dropped. 

As  to  the  vowels  no  distinct  rule  is  to  be  laid 
down,  owing  principally  to  the  original  want  of 
vowel-points  in  our  texts. 

Before  double  consonants  at  the  beginning  of  a 

word  an  S  proslheiicicm  is  placed,  so  as  to  render 
the  pronunciation  easier.  The  terminations  are  fre- 
quently Mebraized :  thus  oi  is  sometimes  rendered 

by  the  termination  of  the  Masc.  PI.   C^,  etc. 

A  curious  and  instructive  comparison  may  be 
instituted,  between  this  mode  of  transcription  of 
the  Greek  letters  into  Hebrew,  and  that  of  the 
Hebrew  letters  into  Greek,  as  found  chiefly  in  the 
LXX. 

S  sometimes  inaudible  {spirit,  len.),  'Aapcuv, 
'EXKCLi/d;  sometimes  audible  (as  spirit,  asper),  'A/8- 
oaafx,  'HAiaj. 

12  =j3:  'Pe^eKKa\  sometimes  cp:  'laKe^C-l}^, 
lometimes    v'-   'Vauv,   sometimes  ^u^-    Zepov/j-fia 


3  ^  -y:  rSfxep,  sometimes  «:  Aoit^k,  sometimes 
X:   ^epovx. 

1=5:  once  =  t  MarpaiO  (Gen.  xxxvi.  .39). 

n  =  N,  either  spirit,  asp.  like  'OSoppd,  o» 
.yiir.  Itfii.  like  'A/SeA. 

1  =  u,  not  the  vowel,  but  our  v.  ''Eva,  Aevi'- 
thus  also  ov  (as  the  Greek  writers  often  express 
the  Latin  v  by  ov):  'Uaaovd:  sometimes  = /3: 
^a^v  (Gen.  xiv.  5);  sometimes  it  is  entirely  left 
out,  'A(7Ti'  for  Vashti. 

T  =  (^,  sometimes  o-:  Za^ovXdv,  Xaa^l;  rarely 
|:  Bau|  (Gen.  xxii.  21). 

n,  often  entirely  omitted,  or  repi'esented  by  a 
soir.  !en.  in  the  beginning,  or  the  reduplication  of 
the  vowel  in  the  middle  or  at  the  end  of  the  word, 
sometimes  =  x'-  Xdfj,  ;  sometimes  =  k'.  Td0eK 
(Gen.  xxii.  24). 

13  =  T :  2,a(pdT :  sometimes  =  S :  4>ouS  (Gen. 
x.  G);  or  e:  'E\i(pa\de  (2  Sam.  v.  10). 

"^  =  |:  'IaKaJ/8,  or  /  before  p  ("!)  :  'lepe/xlas. 
Between  several  vowels  it  is  sometimes  entirely 
omitted:   'icoaSa. 

^  =  X  '■  Xavadv  ;  sometimes  «•  :  :S,a^a9aKd 
(Gen.  X.  7);  rarely  -=  y.  Tacpdcapiifx. 

7,  3,  "1  =  A.,  (/,  p  ;  but  they  are  often  found 
interchanged:  owing  perhaps  to  the  similarity  of 

the  Greek  letters.     3  is  sometimes  also  rendered  ju 
(see  above). 

72  =  jx,  sometimes  13:  Ne/SptiSS,  Se/SAa  (1  Chr. 
i.  47). 

W  and  D  =  (J-:  Ivjxidiv,  ^rieip,  2iV. 

V  =  spir.  kn.:  'Etppwv:  sometimes  =  7  (c/ 
Tofxoppa;  sometimes  «:  'Ap^oK  (Gen.  xxiii.  2) 

D  ^^  ^:  ^a\iy,  or  w:  'S.aAiradS. 

2  =  0-:  StScoi/:  sometimes  f:  Oi/^  (Gen.  s.  2-3  ■ 
Cod.  Alex,  "ris;  xxii.  21,  "a^- 

p  z=  ic:  BaAa/c;  sometimes  x'-  Xerrovpd;  also 
a:  XeAeA. 

n  =  0:   'laped;  sometimes  t:  Toxii. 

As  to  the  Bible  Text  from  which  the  Targutc 
was  prepared,  we  can  only  reiterate  that  we  have 
no  certainty  whatever  on  this  head,  owing  to  the 
extraordinarily  corrupt  state  of  our  Targum  texts. 
Pages  upon  pages  of  Variants  have  l)een  gathered 
by  Cap|)elhis,  Kennicott,  Buxtorf,  De  Kossi,  Cler- 
icus,  Luzzatto,  and  others,  by  a  superficial  com- 
parison of  a  few  copies  oidy,  and  those  chiefly 
printed  ones.  Whenever  the  very  numerous  MSS. 
shall  be  collated,  then  the  learned  worlil  may  pos- 
sibly come  to  certain  prot)alile  conclusions  on  it. 
It  would  appear,  however,  that  broadly  speaking, 
our  present  Masoretic  text  has  been  the  one  from 
which  the  Onk.  Version  was,  if  not  made,  yet 
edited,  at  all  events;  unless  we  assume  that  late 


SeK,  sometimes  it  is  completely  changed  into /x:  I 'i:i"ds   have  been   intentionally  busy  in  mutually 
laaveta  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  6).  i  assimilating  text  and    translation.     Many  of  the 


«  (S^"*)  □'nS  (Mich.  Lex.  Syr.  435,   makes  it 
Persian.) 


S1DDT1D 


nU73 


cr^b 


SD-1D 


"  DT-np 


3410 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


inferences  drawn  by  De  Rossi  and  otliers  from  the 
discrepancies  of  tlie  version  to  discrepancies  of  tlie 
oriijinal  from  the  Masor.  text,  must  needs  be  re- 
iected  if  Onkelos'  method  and  phraseology,  as  we 
have  exhibited  it,  are  taken  into  consideration. 
Thus,  when  (Ex.  xxiv.  7)  "before  the  people"  is 
found  in  Onkelos,  while  our  Hebrew  text  reads 
"  in  the  ears,"  it  by  no  means  follows  that  Onkelos 

read  "^2TS!Zl :  it  is  simply  his  way  of  explaining 
the  unusual  phrase,  to  which  he  remains  faithful 
throuirhout.  Or,  "  Lead  the  people  unto  the  jtlace 
(A.  V.)  of  which  I  have  spoken  (Kx.  xxxii.  34),  is 

solely  Onkelos'  translation  of  "1ki7S  vW,  soil,  the 

place,  and  no  DTp^D  need  be  conjectured  as  hav- 
ing stood  in  Onkelos'  copy;  as  also  (Ex.  ix.  7) 
his  addition  "From  the  cattle  of  '■the  children  of 

Israel "  does  not  prove  a  "^32  to  have  stood  in 
his  Codex. 

And  this  also  settles  (or  rather  leaves  unsettled), 
the  question  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  targuniic 
texts,  such  as  we  have  them.  Considering  that 
no  MS.  has  as  yet  been  found  older  than  at  most 
600  years,  even  the  careful  couiparison  of  all  those 
that  do  exist  would  not  much  further  our  knowl- 
edge. As  far  as  those  existing  are  concerned,  they 
teem  with  the  most  palpable  blunders,  r-  "Ct  to 
speak  of  variants,  owing  to  sheer  carelessness  on  the 
part  of  the  copyists ;  —  but  few  are  of  a  nature  dam- 
aging the  sense  materially.  The  circumstance 
that  text  and  Targum  were  often  placed  side  by 
side,  column  by  cohmin,  must  have  hail  no  little 
share  in  the  incorrectness,  since  it  was  but  natural 
to  make  the  Targum  resemble  the  text  as  closely 
as  possiljle,  while  the  nature  of  its  material  differ- 
ences was  often  unknown  to  the  scribe.  In  fact, 
the  accent  itself  was  made  to  fit  both  the  Helirew 
and  the  Chaldee  wherever  a  larjrer  addition  did  nut 
render  it  utterly  impossible.  Tlius  letters  are  in- 
serted, ouiitted,  thrust  in,  blotted  out,  erased,  in  an 
nifinite  number  of  places.  But  the  difference  goes 
still  further.  In  some  Codices  synonymous  terms 
are   us  d    most    arbitrarily   as    it    would    appear: 

n27~1S  and  SnaiS  earth,  DTS  and  S"^2S 

man,    miS    and    "l^ntt    path,     mrT^    and 

Cn  VS,  Jehovah  and  Elohim,  are  found  to  re- 
place eaeli  other  indiscriminately.  In  some  in- 
stances, the  Hebrew  Codex  itself  has,  to  add  to  the 
confusion,  been  emendated  from  the  Targum. 

A  Masorah  has  been  written  on  Onkelos,  vath- 
out,  however,  any  authority  being  inherent  in  it, 
and  without,  we  should  say,  much  value.  It  has 
never  been  printed,  nor,  as  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  ascertain,  is  there  any  MS.  now  to  be  found 
in  this  country,  or  in  any  of  the  jjublic  liljraries 
abroad.  What  has  become  of  Buxtorfs  copy, 
which  he  intended  to  add  to  his  never  printed 
"  Babylonia"  —  a  book  devoted  to  this  same  subject 
—  we  do  not  know.  Luzzatto  has  lately  found  such 
a  "  Masorah  "  in  a  Pentateuch  MS.,  but  he  only 
mentions  some  variants  contained  in  it.  Its  title 
must  not  mislead  the  reader;  it  has  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  Masorah  of  the  Bible,  but  is  a  re- 
cent work,  like  the  Mnsorah  of  the.  Talmud,  which 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  Talmud  text. 

The  MSS.  of  Onkelos  are  extant  in  great  num- 
lers  —  a  circumstance  easily  explained  by  the  in- 
junction that  it  sliould  be  read  every  Sabliatii  at 
bome,  if  not  in  the  synagogue.     The  Bodleian  has 


5,  the  British  Museum  2,  Viei.na  6,  Augsburg  1, 
Nuremberg  2,  Altdorf  1,  Carlsruho  3,  Stuttgart  2. 
Erfurt  3,  Dresden  1,  Leipsic  1,  Jena  1,  Dessau  1, 
Helmstadt  2,  Berlin  4,  Breslau  1,  Brieg  1,  Hegena 
burg  1,  Hamburg  7,  Copenhagen  2,  Upsala  I 
.Amsterdam  1,  Paris  8,  Molsheira  1,  Venice  6, 
Turin  2,  Milan  4,  Leghorn  1,  Sienna  1,  Genoa  1, 
Florence  5,  Bologna  2,  Padua  1,  Trieste  2,  Parma 
about  40,  Kome  18  more  or  less  complete  Codd. 
containing  Onkelos. 

l-lditw  Prmceps,  Bologna  1482,  fol.  (.-Vbr.  b. 
Chajjim)  with  Hebr.  Text  and  Rashi.  Later  Edd. 
Soria  1490,  Lisbon  14'Jl,  Constantinople  1.505; 
from  these  were  taken  the  texts  in  the  Compluten- 
sian  (1517)  and  the  Venice  (llomberg)  Polyglotts 
(1518,  1520,  1547-49),  and  Buxtox-f's  Kabbinical 
Bible  (1619).  This  was  followed  by  the  Paris 
Polyglott  (1645),  and  Walton's  (1657).  A  recent 
and  much  emend, ited  edition  dates  Wilna  1852. 

Of  the  extraordinary  similarity  between  Onkelos 
and  the  Samaritan  version  we  have  spoken  under 
SaiMahitan  Pentatkuch  [p.  2813].  There  also 
will  be  found  a  specimen  of  both,  taken  from  the 
Barberini  Codex.  Many  more  poii'its  connected 
with  Onkelos  and  his  influence  upon  later  heime- 
neutics  and  exegesis,  as  well  as  his  relation  to  ear- 
lier or  later  \ersions,  we  haxe  no  space  to  enlarge 
upon,  desirable  as  an  inve.stigation  of  these  points 
might  be.  We  have,  indeed,  only  been  induced  to 
dwell  so  long  upon  this  single  Targum,  because  in 
the  first  instance  a  great  deal  that  has  been  said 
here  will,  mutatis  mu/aiidis,  hold  good  also  for  the 
other  Targums  ;  and  further,  liecause  Onkelos  is 
THE  Chaldee  version  nar  ii,oxhv,  while,  from 
Jonathan  downwards,  we  more  and  more  leave  the 
province  of  Version  and  gradually  arrive  from  Para- 
phrase to  JMidrash-Haggadah.  We  shall  therefore 
not  enter  at  any  length  into  these,  but  confine  our- 
selves chiefly  to  main  results. 

II.  Targum  on  the  Prophets, 
Namely,   Joshua,  Judges,   Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah. 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets, 
—  called  TAKiiu.M  ok  .Ionathan  hen  Uzziel. 

Next  in  time  and  importance  to  Onkelos  on  the 
I'entateuch  stands  tlie  Targum  on  the  Prophets, 
which  in  oiu'  printed  Edd.  and  MSS.  —  none  older, 
we  repeat  it,  than  about  600  years  —  is  a.-scribed  to 
Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  of  whom  the  'Talmud  contains 
the  following  statements  :  (1.)  "Eighty  disciples 
had  Hiilel  the  Elder,  thirty  of  whom  were  worthy 
that  the  Shechinah  (Divine  Majesty)  should  rest 
upon  them,  as  it  did  upon  Moses  our  Lord;  peace 
be  upon  him.  Thirty  of  them  were  worthy  that 
the  sun  should  stand  still  at  their  bidding  as  it  did 
at  that  of  Joshua  ben  Nun.  Twenty  were  of  in- 
termediate worth.  The  greatest  of  tiieni  all  was 
Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  the  least  R.  Jolianan  ben 
Saccai;  and  it  was  said  of  R.  Johanan  li.  Saccai, 
that  he  lett  not  (uninvestigated)  the  Bible,,  the 
Jlishna,  the  (iemara,  the  Halachahs,  the  Hagga- 
dahs,  the  subtleties  of  the  Law,  and  the  subtleties 
of  the  Soferim  .  .  .  .  ;  the  easy  tliiuLrs  and  the 
difficult  things  [from  the  mo.st  awfu\  Divine  mys- 
teries to  the  common  jiopular  proverbs]  ....  If 
this  is  said  of  the  least  of  tlliem.  what  is  to  be  said 
of  the  greatest,  i.  e.  .lonathan  b.  L'zziel?"  (Bab. 
Bath.  134  ",-  comp.  Succ.  28  «.)  (2.)  A  second 
yiassage  (see  Onkelos)  referring  more  especially  tc 
our  present  subject,  reads  as  follows:  "  The  'Tar- 
Lruui  of  Onkelos  wa<  made  by  Onkelos  the  {'rose- 
Ivte  from  the  mouth  of  li.  Eliezer  and  I'  Jehoshua 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


8411 


»nd  that  of  the  Prophets  by  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel 
from  the  inouth  of  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Mala- 
uhi.     And  in   that   hour   was   the  land  of  Israel 

Bhaken  three  hundred  parasangs And  a 

voice  was  heard,  sayint:;,  '  Who  is  this  who  has  re- 
vealed my  secrets  unto  tlie  sons  of  man  ? '  Up 
rose  Jonathan  lien  Uzziel  and  said  :  '  It  is  I  who 
have  revealed  thy  secrets  to  the  sons  of  man.  .  .  . 
But  it  is  known  and  revealed  before  Thee,  tliat  not 
for  my  liouor  have  I  done  it,  nor  for  the  honor  of 
my  father's  house,  but  for  thine  honor;  that  the 
disputes  may  cease  in  Israel.'  ....  And  he  fiu- 
ther  desired  to  reveal  the  Targum  to  tlie  H  aging 
rapha,  wlien  a  voice  was  beard :  '  Enough.'  And 
wliy  y  —  because  the  day  of  tlie  Messiah  is  revealed 
therein  (Meg.  3  r»)."  Wonderful  to  relate,  the  sole 
and  exclusive  authority  for  the  general  belief  in  the 
authorship  of  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel,  is  this  second 
Haggadistic  passage  exclusively;  which,  if  it  does 
mean  anything,  does  at  all  events  not  mean  our 
Targum,  which  is  found  mourning  over  the  "  Tem- 
ple in  ruins,''  full  of  invectives  against  Rome  (Sam. 
xi.  5;  Is.  xxxiv.  9,  &c.,  &c.),  mentioning  Armillus 
(Is.  X.  4)  (the  Anticlirist),  Germania  (Kz.  xxxviii. 
t!):  not  to  dwell  upon  the  thousand  and  one  other 
internal  and  external  evidences  against  a  date  ante- 
rior to  the  Christian  era.  If  interj.olatious  must 
be  assumed,  —  and  indeed  Rashi  speaks  already  of 
corruptions  in  his  MSS.  —  such  solitary  additions 
are  at  all  events  a  very  different  thing  from  a 
wholesale  system  of  intentional  and  minute  inter- 
polation throughout  the  bulky  work.  But  what 
is  still  more  extraordinary,  this  behef — long  and 
partly  still  upheld  most  reverentially  against  all 
difficulties  —  is  completely  modern :  that  is,  not 
older  than  at  most  6()U  years  (the  date  of  our  old- 
est Targum  MSS.),  and  is  utterly  at  variance  with 
the  real  and  genuine  sonrces:  the  Talmud,  the 
Midrash,  the  Bal)ylonian  Schools,  and  every  au- 
thority down  to  Hai  Gaon  (12th  cent.)-  I'le- 
quently  quoted  as  this  Targum  is  in  the  ancient 
works,  it  is  never  once  quoted  as  the  Targum  of 
Jonathan.  But  it  is  invariaUy  introduced  with 
the  formula  :  "  R.  Joseph  «  (bar  (,'hama,  the 
Blind,  euphemistically  called  the  clear-sighted,  the 
well-known  I'resident  of  Bumbaditha  in  Babylonia, 
who  succeeded  Rabba  in  319  A.  D)  says,"  etc. 
(Moed  Katon  20  n,  Besach.  68  a,  Sanh.  94  h). 
Twice  even  it  is  quoted  in  Joseph's  name,  and  with 
the  addition,  "  \\'ithi)ut  the  Targum  to  this  verse 
(due  to  him)  we  conld  ncjt  understand  it.'  This 
is  the  simple  state  of  the  case:  and  for  more  than 
two  hundred  years  critics  ha\e  lavished  all  their 
acumen  to  defend  what  never  had  any  real  exist- 
ence, or  at  best  owed  its  apparent  existence  to  a 
heading  added  by  a  superficial  scribe. 

The  date  which  the  Talmud  thus  in  reality 
assigns  to  our  I'argum  fully  coincides  witii  our 
former  conclusions  as  to  the  date  of  written  I'ar- 
gums  in  genei'al.  And  if  we  may  gather  thus 
much  from  the  legend  that  to  write  down  the  Tar- 
gum to  the  Prophets  was  considered  a  much  bolder 
undertaking  —  and  one  to  which  still  more  reluct- 
untly  leave  was  given  —  than  a  Targum  on  the 
Pentateuch,  we  shall  not  be  far  wrong  in  placing 
litis  Targum  some  time,  although  not  long,  after 
Onkelos,  or  aliout  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century; 
—  tlie  latter  years  of  R.  .biseph,  who  it  is  said, 
vcupied  liimself  chiefly  with  the  Targum  when  he 


a  "  Sinai,'"  "  I'ossessor  of  WTieat,"  in  allusion  to  his 
8t  master^  over  the  traditions. 


had  become  blind.  The  reason  given  for  that  re- 
luctance is,  although  hyperbolically  expressed,  jjer- 
fectly  clear:  ''  The  Targum  on  the  Prophets  revealed 
tlie  secrets  "  —  that  is,  it  allowed  free  scope  to  the 
wijdest  fantasy  to  run  riot  upon  the  prophetic  pas- 
sages —  tempting  through  their  very  obscurity,  — 
and  to  utter  explanations  and  interpretations  rela- 
tive to  present  events,  and  oracles  of  its  own  for 
future  times,  which  might  be  fraught  with  grave 
dangers  in  more  than  one  respect.  The  Targum 
on  the  Pentateuch  (permitted  to  be  committed  to 
writing,  Meg.  3  c  ;  Kidd.  09  (t)  could  not  but  be, 
even  in  its  written  form,  more  sober,  more  dignified, 
more  within  the  bounds  of  fixed  and  well-known 
traditions,  than  any  other  Targum;  since  it  had 
originally  been  read  pid)licly,  and  been  checked  by 
the  congregation  as  well  as  the  authorities  present; 
—  as  we  have  endeavored  to  explain  in  the  Intro- 
duction. There  is  no  proof,  on  the  other  hand,  of 
more  than  fra<:ments  from  the  Propliels  having 
ever  been  read  and  translated  in  the  synagogue. 
Whether,  however.  R.  Joseph  was  more  than  the 
redactor  of  this  tlie  second  part  of  the  Bilile- 
Targum,  which  vvas  originated  in  Palestine,  and 
was  reduced  to  its  final  shape  in  Baliylon,  we  can- 
not determine.  He  may  perhaps  have  made  con- 
siderable additions  of  his  own,  by  filling  up  gaps 
or  rejecting  wrong  versions  of  some  parts.  So 
much  seems  certain,  that  the  schoolmen  of  his 
Academy  were  the  collectors  and  revisers,  and  he 
gave  it  that  stanii)  of  unity  which  it  now  possesses, 
spite  of  the  occasioiial  difference  of  stvle:  adapted 
simply  to  the  variegated  hues  and  dictions  of  its 
manifold  Biblical  originals. 

But  we  do  not  mean  to  reject  in  the  main  either 
of  the  Talnuidical  passages  quoted.  \\'e  believe 
that  there  was  such  a  man  as  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel, 
that  he  was  one  of  the  foremost  pupils  of  Hillel, 
and  also  that  he  did  translate,  either  privately  or 
])ubliely,  jiarts  of  the  prophetical  books;  chiefly,  we 
should  say,  in  a  mystical  manner.  And  so  start- 
ling were  his  interpretations — borne  aloft  by  his 
high  fame — that  who  but  prophets  themselves 
could  have  revealed  them  to  him?  And,  i;oing  a 
step  further,  who  could  reveal  prophetic  alle;rorics 
and  mysteries  of  "//  the  prophetic  books,  hut  those 
who,  themselves  the  last  in  the  list,  had  the  whole 
body  of  sacred  oracles  before  them?  ibis  appears 
to  us  the  only  rational  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from 
the  foots :  as  they  stand,  not  as  they  are  imagined. 
That  nothing  save  a  few  snatches  of  this  orii/iiia. 
paraphrase  or  Midrash  coidd  be  embodied  in  our 
Targum,  we  need  not  urge.  Yet  for  these  even  we 
have  no  proof  Zunz,  the  facile  princejjs  of  Tar- 
guniic  as  well  as  Midrashic  investigation,  who.  a« 
late  as  1830  (Godtsd  I  w7c.),  still  believed  him- 
self  in  the  modern  notion  of  Jonathan's  authorship 
("  first  half  of  first  century,  a.  d."),  now  utterly 
rejects  the  notion  of  '•  our  possessing  aiijjtliinii  ol 
Jonathan  ben  Uzziel "  (Geiger's  Ztitgchr.  1837, 
p.  2r,t)). 

I>ess  conservative  than  our  view,  however,  are 
the  views  of  the  modern  school  (Rajipoport,  Luz- 
ziitto,  I'ninkel,  (ieiger,  Levy,  Bauer,  .lahn,  Ber- 
tboidt,  I^evysohn,  etc.  ),.who  not  only  reject  the  au- 
thorship of  Jonathan,  but  also  utterly  deny  that 
there  was  any  ground  whatsoever  for  assigninir  a 
Targum  to  him,  as  is  done  in  the  Talnuid.  The 
passa^re,  they  say,  is  not  older,  but  yonn<:er  tb.an 
our  TariTum,  and  in  fact  does  apply,  erroneously  of 
course,  to  this,  and  to  no  other  work  of  a  similar 
kind.     The  popular  cry  for  a  gre;it  '■  name,  ujwu 


3412 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


which  to  hang  "  —  in  Tahmidical  pliraseology  — 
»1]  that  is  cherished  and  venerated,  and  the  wish  of 
those  eager  to  impart  to  tliis  Version  a  lasting  au- 
thority, found  in  Jonathan  the  most  fitting  person 
to  father  it  upon.  Was  he  not  tlie  greatest  of  the 
great,  "  who  had  been  dusted  witli  the  dust  of  Hil- 
lel's  feet?"  He  was  the  wisest  of  the  wise,  the 
one  most  imbued  with  Iviiowledge  human  and  di- 
vine, of  all  those  eighty,  the  least  of  \\hom  was 
worthy  that  the  sun  should  stay  its  course  at  his 
biddiiio;.  Nay,  such  were  the  flames  «  that  arose 
from  his  glowing  spirit,  says  the  hyperbolic  Hag- 
gadah,  that  "  when  he  studied  in  the  Law,  the  very 
birds  that  flew  over  him  in  the  air,  were  consumed 
by  fire"  {iiisfi'/>liu'> — not,  as  Landau,  in  the 
preface  to  his  Aruch,  apologetically  translates,  be- 
came Sernplis).  At  the  same  time  we  readily 
grant  that  we  see  no  reason  why  the  great  Hillel 
himself,  or  any  other  nuich  earlier  and  equally  emi 
nent  Master  of  the  Law,  one  of  the  Soferim  perhaps, 
should  not  have  been  fixed  upon. 

Another  suggestion,  first  broached  by  Drusius, 
and  long  exploded,  has  recently  l-een  revived  under 
a  somewhat  modified  form.  Jonathan  (Godgiven), 
Urusius  said,  was  none  else  but  Theodotion  ((iod- 
given),  the  second  Greek  translator  of  the  Bible 
after  the  LXX.,  who  had  become  a  Jewish  pros- 
elyte. Considering  that  the  latter  lived  under 
Commodus  IL,  and  the  former  at  the  time  of 
Christ ;  that  the  latter  is  said  to  have  translated 
the  Prophets  only  (neither  the  Pentateuch,  nor 
the  Hagiographa),  while  the  former  translated  the 
wliole  Bilile;  that  Jonathan  translated  into  Ara- 
maic and  'I'heodotion  into  Greek,  —not to  mention 
the  fact  that  Theodotion  was,  to  say  the  least,  a 
not  very  competent  translator,  since  "  ignorance 
or  negligence  "  (Montfaucon,  Pre/,  to  Hexupln), 
or  both,  must  needs  be  laid  at  the  door  of  a  trans- 
lator, who,  when  in  difficulties,  simply  transcrilies 
the  hard  Hebrew  words  into  Greek  characters, 
without  troubling  himself  any  further;  '^  widle  the 
mastery  over  both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic 
displayed  in  the  Jonathanic  Version  are  astound- 
ing: —  considering  all  this,  we  need  not  like  Wal- 
ton ask  caustically,  why  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel 
should  not  rather  be  identified  with  the  Emperor 
rheodosius,  whose  name  also  is  "Godgiven;"  — 
jut  dismiss  the  suggestion  as  Carpzov  long  since 
dismissed  it.  We  are,  however,  told  now  ( Luzzatto, 
Geiger,  etc.),  that  as  the  Babylonian  Targum  on 
the  Pentateuch  was  called  a  Targum  "  in  the 
manner  of  Aquila  or  Onkelos,"  i.  e.  of  sterling 
value,  so  also  the  continuation  of  the  Babylonian 
Targum,  which  embraced  the  Prophets,  was  called 
a  Targum  "in  the  manner  of  Theodotion  "  = 
Jonathan;  and  by  a  further  stretch,  Jonathan- 
Theodotion  became  the  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel.  We 
cannot  but  disagree  with  this  hypothesis  also  — 
based  on  next  to  nothing,  and  carried  to  more 
than  the  usual  length  of  speculation.  While  Akyla 
is  quoted  continually  in  the  'I'almud,  and  is  de- 
servedly one  of  the  best  known  and  best  beloved 
characters,  every  trait  and  incident  of  whose  per- 
sonal history  is  told  even  twice  over,  not  the  slight- 
est  trace   of  such  a  person  as  Theodotion  is  to 


a  Tlie  simile  of  the  fire  —  "  as  the  Law  was  given 
m  fire  on  Sinai  "  —  is  a  yery  favorite  one  in  the  Mid- 
■ash 

«  E-  g  ,  Lev.  vii  18,  7132,  T.  ^eyyuJA,  or  ^eyyou'A, 


be  found  anywhere  in  the  Talmudical  littrature 
What,  again,  was  it  that  could  have  acquired  sc 
transcendent  a  fame  for  his  translation  an'd  himself, 
that  a  Version  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  ver) 
prophets  should  be  called  after  him,  "  in  order 
that  the  people  should  like  it  "  ?  —  a  translation 
which  was,  in  fact,  deservedly  unknown,  and,  prop- 
erly speaking,  no  translation  at  all.  It  was,  as 
we  learn,  a  kind  of  private  emendation  of  some 
LXX.  passages,  objectionalile  to  the  pious  proselyte 
in  their  then  corrupted  state.  It  was  only  the 
book  of  I'aniel  which  was  retained  from  Theo- 
dotion's  pen,  because  in  this  book  the  LXX.  had 
become  past  correction.  If,  moreover,  the  inten- 
tion was  "  to  give  the  people  a  Hebrew  for  a  Greek 
name,  because  the  latter  might  sound  too  foreign," 
it  was  an  entirely  gratuitous  one.  Greek  names 
abound  in  the  Talmud,  and  even  names  begin- 
ning with  Theo  like  Theodorus  are  to  be  found 
there. 

0)1  the  other  hand,  th^  opinion  has  been  broached 
that  this  Targum  was  a  post-Talmudical  produc- 
tion, belonging  to  the  7th  or  8th  cent.  A.  d.  For 
this  point  we  need  only  refer  to  the  Talmudical 
quotations  from  it.  And  when  we  further  add, 
that  .lo.  JMorimis,  a  man  as  conspicuous  by  his 
want  of  knowledge  as  by  his  n)ost  ludicrous  attacks 
upon  all  that  was  "Jewish"  or  "Protestant"  (it 
was  he,  e.  </.  who  wished  to  see  the  "forged" 
Masoretic  Code  corrected  from  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch, q.  v.),  is  the  chief,  and  almost  only,  de- 
fender of  this  theory',  we  have  said  enough.  On 
the  other  theory  of  there  being  more  than  one 
author  to  our  Tarjxum  (Kichhorn,  Berthcldt,  De 
Wette),  combated  fiercely  by  Gesenius,  Havernick, 
and  others,  we  need  not  further  enlarge,  after  what 
we  have  already  said.  It  certainly  is  the  work, 
not  of  one,  or  of  two,  but  of  twenty,  of  fifty  and 
more  Meturgeuianim,  Haggadists,  and  Halachists. 
The  edition,  however,  we  repeat  it  advisedly,  has 
tlie  undeniable  stamp  of  one  master-mind ;  and  its 
individual  workings,  its  manner  and  peculiarity  are 
indelibly  impressed  upon  the  whole  labor  from  the 
first  page  to  the  last.  Such,  we  hold,  must  be  the 
impression  upon  every  attentive  reader;  more  espe- 
cially, if  he  judiciously  distinguishes  between  the 
first  and  the  last  prophets.  That  in  the  historical 
relations  of  the  former,  the  Version  must  be,  on 
the  whole,  more  accurate  and  close  (although  here 
too,  as  we  shall  show,  Haggadah  often  takes  the 
reins  out  of  the  JMeturgeman's  or  editor's  hands), 
while  in  the  obscurer  Oracles  of  the  latter  the 
Midrash  reigns  supreme — is  exactly  what  the  his- 
tory of  Targuniic  development  leads  us  to  expect. 

And  with  this  we  have  pointed  out  the  general 
character  of  the  Targum  under  consideration. 
Gradually,  perceptil)ly  almost,  the  translation  be- 
comes the  Tpdyrj/jLa,  a  frame,  so  to  speak,  of  alle- 
gory, paralile,  myth,  tale,  and  oddly  masked  his- 
tory—  such  as  we  are  wont  to  see  in  Talmud  and 
Midrash,  written  under  the  bloody  censorship  of 
Esau-Rome;  interspersed  with  some  lyrical  pieces 
of  rare  poetical  value.  It  becomes,  in  short,  like 
the  Hasgadah,  a  whole  system  of  eastern  phantas- 
magorias whirling  round  the  sun  of  the  Holy  Word 


by  way  of  emendation ;  Lev.  xiii.  6,  nRDDQ, 
Ma<j-*aa  ;  ibid.  nSCT,  2^9  ;  Lev.  xviii.  23,  73P 
'Jd^eA  ;  Is.  Ixiv.  5,  n"^"T2?,  ESSCfi. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3413 


jf  the  Seer.  Yet,  it  is  always  aware  of  being  a 
translation.  It  returns  to  its  verse  after  long 
Bxcurses,  often  in  next  to  no  perceptible  connection 
with  it.  Even  in  the  midst  of  the  full  swing  of 
fancy,  swayed  to  and  fro  by  the  many  currents  of 
thought  that  arise  out  of  a  single  word,  snatches 
of  the  verse  from  which  the  flight  was  taken  will 
suddenly  appear  on  the  surface  like  a  refrain  or  a 
keynote,  showing  that  in  reality  tiiere  is  a  connec- 
tion, though  hidden  to  the  uninitiated  For  long 
periods  again,  it  adheres  most  strictly  to  its  text 
and  to  its  verse,  and  translates  most  conscientiously 
and  closely.  It  may  thus  fairly  be  described  as 
holding  in  point  of  interpretation  and  enlargement 
of  the  text,  the  middle  jilace  lietween  Onkelos,  who 
ynly  in  extreme  cases  deviates  into  paraphrase,  and 
the  subsequent  Targums,  whose  connection  with 
their  texts  is  frequently  of  the  most  fligiity  charac- 
ter. Sometimes  indeed  our  I'arguni  coincides  so 
entirely  with  Onkelos,  —  being,  in  fact,  of  one  and 
tiie  same  origin  and  growtli,  and  a  mere  continua- 
tion and  completion  as  it  were  of  the  former  work, 
that  this  similarity  has  misled  critics  into  specula- 
tions of  the  priority  in  date  of  either  the  one  or 
the  other.  Hiivernick,  e.  g.  holds  — ■  against  Zunz 
—  that  Onkelos  copied,  plagiarized  in  fact,  .Jona- 
than. We  do  not  see,  quite  apart  from  our  placing 
C)nkelos  first,  why  either  should  ha^•e  used  the 
other.  The  three  passages  ('ludg.  v.  2f)  and  Deut. 
xxii.  5;  2  K.  xiv.  6  and  Deut.  xxiv.  IG;  Jer. 
xlviii.  45,  46  and  Num.  xxi.  28,  29)  generally 
adduced,  do  not  in  the  tiret  place  exhibit  that  lit- 
eral closeness  wh'ch  we  are  led  to  expect,  and  which 
alone  could  be  called  "copying;"  and  in  the 
Becond  place,  the  two  last  passages  are  not,  as  we 
also  thought  we  could  infer  from  the  words  of  the 
writers  on  either  side,  extraneous  paraphrastic  addi- 
tions, but  simply  the  similar  translations  of  similar 
texts:  while  in  the  first  passage  Jonathan  only 
refers  to  an  injunction  contained  in  the  Penta- 
teuch-verse quoted.  But  even  bad  we  found  such 
paraphrastic  additions,  apparently  not  belonging  to 
the  subject,  we  should  have  accounted  fur  them  by 
certain  traditions  —  the  common  property  of  the 
whole  generation  —  being  recalled  by  a  certain 
word  or  phrase  in  the  Pentateuch  to  the  memory 
of  the  one  translator;  and  by  another  word  or 
phrase  in  the  Prophets  to  the  memory  of  the  nther 
translator.  The  interpretation  of  .Jonathan,  where 
it  adheres  to  the  text,  is  mostly  very  correct  in  a 
philosophical  and  exegetical  sense,  closely  literal 
even,  provided  the  meaning  of  the  original  is  easily 
to  be  understood  by  the  people.  When,  however, 
similes  are  used,  unfamiliar  or  obscure  to  the  people, 
it  unhesitatingly  dissolves  them  and  makes  them 
easy  in  their  mouths  like  household  words,  by 
adding  as  nmch  of  ex|)lanation  as  seems  fit;  some- 
times, it  caimot  be  denied,  less  sagaciously,  even 
incorrectly,  comprehending  the  original  meaning. 
Yet  we  must  be  very  cautious  in  attributing  to  a 
version  which  altogether  bears  the  stamp  of  thor- 
ough competence  and  carefulness  that  which  may 
be  single  corruptions  or  interpolations,  as  we  find 
them  sometimes  indicated  by  an  introductory 
"  Says  the  Prophet  :  "  "  although,  as  stated  above, 
ive  do  not  hesitate  to  attribute  the  passages  dis- 
Dlaying  an  acquaintance  with  works  written  down 


«  S"'33  -ins. 

h  1  Sam.  ii.  10  ;   2   Sam.  xxlii.  3  ;  1  K.  It.  33  ;    Is. 
'  2,  ix.  6,  X.   27,  xi    1,  6,  xv-  2,  xtI   1.  6.  xxviii   5, 


to  the  4th  century,  and  exhibiting  popular  notions 
current  at  that  time,  to  the  Targum  in  its  original 
shape.  Generally  speaking,  and  holding  the  ditfer- 
ence  between  the  nature  of  the  Pentateuch  (sup- 
posed to  contain  in  its  very  letters  and  signs  Hala- 
ciiistic  references,  and  therefore  only  to  be  handled 
by  the  Meturgeman  with  the  greatest  care)  and 
that  of  the  Prophets  (freest  Homiletes  themselves) 
steadily  in  view  —  the  rules  laid  down  above  with 
respect  to  the  discrepancies  between  original  and 
Targum,  in  Onkelos,  hold  good  also  with  .Jonathan. 
Anthropomorphisms  it  avoids  carefully.  Geo- 
graphical names  are,  in  most  cases,  retained  as  in 
the  original,  and  where  translated,  they  are  gen- 
erally correct.  Its  partiality  for  Israel  never  goes 
so  far  that  anything  derogatory  to  the  character  of 
the  people  should  be  willingly  suppressed,  although 
a  cert;iin  reluctance  against  dwelling  upon  its  iniqui- 
ties and  punishments  longer  than  necessary,  is  vis- 
ible. Where,  however,  that  which  reihimids  to  the 
praise  of  the  individual  — more  especially  of  heroes, 
kings,  prophets  —  and  of  the  community,  is  con- 
tained in  the  text,  there  the  paraphrase  lovingly 
tarries.  Future  bliss,  in  this  world  and  the  world 
to  come,  liberation  from  the  oppressor,  restoration 
of  the  Sanctuary  on  Mount  Zion,  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Jehovah  and  the  House  of  Uavid,  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  the  nation  and  of  its  full  and  entire 
independence,  as  well  as  of  the  national  worship, 
with  all  the  primitive  Sjilendorof  Priest  and  l.evite, 
singer  and  musician  and  prophet  —  thesp  are  the 
favorite  dreams  of  the  people  and  of  Jonathan,  and 
no  link  is  overlooked  by  which  those  strains  may 
be  drawn  in  as  variations  to  the  Bil)lical  theme. 
Of  Messianic  passages,  Jonathan  has  |)ointed  out 
those  n)entioned  below;  *  a  number  not  too  large, 
if  we  consider  how,  with  the  increased  misery  of 
the  people,  their  ardent  desire  to  see  their  Deliverer 
appear  speedily  must  have  tried  to  find  as  many 
places  in  the  Bible  as  possible,  warranting  his 
arrival.  So  for  from  their  being  suppressed  (as,  by 
one  of  those  unfortunate  accidents  that  liefall  some- 
times a  long  string  of  investigntu's,  who  are  copy- 
ing their  information  at  third  aiid  fonrtli  hand, 
has  been  unblushingly  asserted  by  almost  everybody 
up  to  Gesenius,  who  found  its  source  in  a  misuii- 
(/trslood  seii/tnce  of  C'irpzov),  they  are  most  prom- 
inently, often  almost  pointedly  brouglit  forward. 
And  there  is  a  decided  polemical  aninuis  inherent 
in  them  —  temperate  as  far  as  appearance  goes. 
but  containing  many  an  unspoken  word :  such  as 
a  fervent  human  mind  pressed  down  liy  all  the 
woes  and  terrors,  written  and  ui:written,  would 
whisper  to  itself  in  the  depths  of  its  despair.  These 
passages  extol  most  rapturously  the  pomp  and  glory 
of  the  Messiah  to  come  —  by  way  of  contrast  to 
the  humble  appearance  of  Christ:  and  in  all  the 
places  where  suffering  and  misery  appear  to  be  the 
lot  forecast  to  the  Anointed,  it  is  Israel,  to  whom 
the  passage  is  referred  by  the  Targum. 

Of  further  dogmatical  and  theological  peculiari- 
ties (and  this  Targum  will  one  day  prove  a  mine 
of  instruction  chiefly  in  that  direction,  l)esides  the 
otiier  vast  advantages  inherent  in  it,  as  in  the  older 
Targums,  for  linguistic,  patristic,  geographical,  his- 
torical, and  other  studies)  we  may  mention  briefly 
the  "Stars  of  (Jod  ''  (Is.  xiv.  13;  comp.  Dan.  viii 


xlli.  1,  xliii.  10,  xlT.  1,  Hi.  13,  liii.  10:  Jer.  xxiii  6 
XXX.  21,  xxxiii.  13.  15  :  Hos.  iii.  5.  xiv.  8  ;  Mic.  l» 
8,  V.  2,  18 ;  Zech.  iii.  8.  iv.  7,  vi.  12,  x.  4. 


3414 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


10;  2  Mace.  ix.  10,  being  refenefl  —  in  a  similar 
manner  —  to  "  tlie  people  of  Israel " ) ;  the  doctrine 
of  the  second  death  (fs.  xxii.  14,  Ixv.  15),  etc. 
As  to  the  general  nature  of  its  idiom,  what  we 
have  said  above  holds  good  here.  Likewise  our 
remarks  on  the  relation  between  the  text  of  the 
original  of  Onkelos,  and  its  own  text,  may  stand 
for  Jonathan,  who  never  appears  to  differ  from  the 
Masoretic  text  without  a  very  cogent  reason.  Yet, 
since  .Jonathan's  MSS.,  though  very  njuch  smaller 
in  number,  are  in  a  still  worse  ]ilii;ht  than  those 
of  OnkeloS;  we  cannot  speak  with  gi'eat  ceitainty 
on  this  Y>oiut.  Respecting,  however,  the  individual 
language  and  phraseology  of  the  translation,  it 
lacks  to  a  certain,  though  small  degree,  the  clear- 
ness and  transparency  of  Onkelos;  and  is  some- 
what alloyed  with  foreign  words.  Not  to  such 
a  degree,  however,  that  we  cannot  fully  indorse 
Carpzov's  dictum  :  "  Cnjus  iiitor  sermonis  Chaldaii 
et  dictionis  laudatur  puritas,  ad  Onkelosum  proxime 
accedens  et  parum  deflectens  a  puro  tersoque  (,'hal- 
daismo  biblico  "  (C)-it.  .SV(c;-.  p.  4(!1 ),  and  incline 
to  the  belief  of  Wolf  {RM.  Ihbr.  ii.  1165):  "  (jme 
vero,  vel  quod  ad  voces  novas  et  barbaras,  vel  ad 
res  setate  ejus  inferiores,  aut  futilia  iioiuiuUa, 
quamvis  pauca  triplicis  hujus  generis  exstent,  ibi 
occurrunt,  ex  merito  falsarii  cujusdani  ingenio  ad- 
scribuntur."  Of  the  manner  and  style  of  this 
Targuni,  the  few  su)  joined  specimens  will  we  hope 
give  an  approximate  idea. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  notice  a  feature  of  our 
Targum,  not  the  least  interesting  perhaps,  in  rela- 
tion to  general  or  "human"  hterature:  namely, 
that  the  Shemitic  fairy  and  legendary  lore,  which 
for  the  last  two  thousand  years  —  as  far  as  we  can 
trace  it  —  has  grown  up  in  East  and  West  to  vast 
glittering  mountain-ranges,  is  to  a  very  great  extent 
to  be  found,  in  an  embryo  state,  so  to  say,  in  this 
our  Targuni.  \Mien  the  literary  history  of  those 
most  wonderful  circles  of  medifeval  saigas  —  the 
sole  apparent  fruit  brour;ht  home  by  the  crusaders 
from  the  eastern  battle-fields  —  shall  come  to  be 
written  by  a  competent  and  thorough  investii;ator, 
he  will  have  to  extend  his  study  of  the  sources  to 
this  despised  "  fabulosus  "  Targum  Jonathan  ben 
Uzziel.  And  the  entire  world  of  pious  Biblical 
legend,  which  Islam  has  said  and  sung  in  the  Ara- 
bic, Persian,  Turkish,  and  all  its  other  tongues,  to 
the  delight  of  the  wise  and  the  simple  for  twelve 
centuries  now,  is  contained  almost  fully  developed, 
from  beginning  to  end,  but  clearer,  purer,  and 
incomparably  more  poetically  conceived,  in  our 
Targura-Hasgadah. 

The  Kditio  Princeps  dates  Leiria,  1494.  The 
later  editions  are  embodied  in  the  Antwerp,  Paris, 
and  London  Polyglotts.  Several  single  books  have 
likewise  been  repeatedly  edited  (comp.  Wolf,  Le 
loDg,  Rosen  mil  Her,  etc.). 


Authorized 

Version. 


1  Then  sang 
Deborah  and  Ba- 
rak the  son  of 
\binoam  on  that 
lay,  saying, 

2  Praise  ye  the 


Targum 

[Jonathan-ben-Dzziel] 

To  THE  Prophets. 


Adthorized 
Version. 


avenging  of  Is- 
rael, when  the 
people  willingly 
offered  them- 


3  Hear,    0   ye 
kings  ;   give  ear, 

0  ye  princes  ;  1, 
even  I,  will  slug 
unto    the    Lord  ; 

1  will  sing  praise 
to  the  Lord  God 
of  IsraeL 


4  Lord,  when 
thou  weute.^t  out 
of  Seir,  Vheu 
thou  uiarohedst 
out  of  the  tit'ld 
of  Kdom,  the 
earth  trembled, 
and  the  heaveu.s 
dropped,  the 

clouds  also 

dropped  water. 


5  The  moun- 
tains melted  from 
before  the  Lord. 
even  that  Sinai 
from    before    the 


Tarqum 

[Jonathan-ben-Uzzlel] 

To  the  Prophets. 


nations  come  over  them  and  drivi 
them  out  of  their  cities  ;  but  when 
they  return  to  do  the  Law,  then 
they  are  mighty  over  their  enemies 
and  drive  them  out  from  the  whol« 
territory  of  the  land  of  Israel.  Thu> 
has  been  broken  Sisera  and  all  his 
armies  to  his  punishment,  and  to  a 
miracle  and  a  salvation  for  J.srael. 
Then  the  wise  returned  to  sit  in  the 
houses  of  the  synagogue  ....  and 
to  teach  unto  the  people  the  doctrine 
of  the  Law.  Thi^refore  praise  ye 
and  bless  the  Lord. 

3  Hear,  ye  kings  (ye  who  came 
with  Sisra  to  the  battle-array),  lis- 
ten, ye  rulers  [ye  who  were  with 
Jabln  the  king  of  Kenaan  :  not  with 
your  armies  nor  with  your  power 
have  ye  conquered  and  become 
mighty  over  the  house  of  Israel)  — 
said  Deborah  in  prophecy  before 
God  :  I  praise,  give  thanks  and 
bles.«ings  before  the  Lord,  the  God 
of  Israel. 

4  [0  Lord,  Thy  Law  which  Thou 
gavest  to  Israel,  when  they  trans- 
gress it,  then  the  nations  rule  over 
them  :  but  when  they  return  to  it, 
then  they  become  powerful  over 
their  enemies.]  0  Lord,  on  the  d.ay 
when  Thou  did.'t  reveal  Thyself  to 
give  it  unto  them  fi-om  Seir,  Thou 
becamest  manifest  unto  them  in  the 
splendor  of  Thy  glory  over  the  terri- 
tories of  Edom  :  the  earth  trembled, 
the  heavens  showered  down,  the 
clouds  dropped  rain. 

5  The  mountains  trembled  before 
the  Lord,  the  mountains  of  Tabor, 
the  mountains  of  Hernion,  and  the 
mountain  of  Carmel,  spake  with 
each    other,  and    said   one    to    the 


Lord  God  of  Is-lother:     Upon    me     the    Shechinah 


rael. 


1  And  Deborah  and  Barak  the 
son  of  Abinoam  gave  praise  for  the 
miracle  and  the  salvation  which 
were  wrought  for  Israel  on  that 
day,  and  spake : 

2  When    the    children  of   Israel 


Lord      for      the  rebel    against    the    l^iw,    then    the 


6  In  the  days 
of  Shamgar  the 
son  of  Anath,  in 
the  days  of  Jael, 
the  highways 
were  unoccupied, 
and  the  travellers 
walked  through 
byways. 

7  The  inhabit- 
ants of  the  vil- 
lages ceased, they 
ceased  in  Israel, 
until  that  I  Deb- 
orah arose,  tliat  I 
arose  a  mother  in 
Israel. 

8  They  chose 
new  gods ;  then 
jvns    war   in   the 


will  rest,  and  to  me  will  It  come. 
But  the  Shechiuah  rested  upon 
Mount  Sinai,  which  is  the  weakest 
and  smallest  of  all  the  moini  tains. 
.  .  This  Sinai  trembled  and 
shook,  and  its  smoke  went  up  as  goes 
up  the  smoke  of  an  oven:  because  of 
the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel  which 
had  manifested  itself  upon  it. 

6  When  they  transgressed  in  the 
days  of  Shamgar  the  son  of  Anath, 
in  the  days  of  Jael,  ceased  the  way- 
farers :  they  who  had  walked  in 
well-prepared  ways  had  again  to 
walk  in  furtive  paths. 


7  Destroyed  were  the  open  cities 
of  the  land  of  Israel  :  their  inhab- 
itants were  shaken  off  and  driven 
about,  until  I,  Deborah,  was  sent 
to  prophesy  over  the  bouse  of  I*- 
rael. 


8  When  the  children  of  Israel 
went  to  pray  unto  new  idols  [errors] 
which    recently    had    coiiii     to    b* 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3415 


Authorized 
Version. 


gates  :  was  there 
R.  shield  or  spear 
seen  among  forty 
tbousaud  in  Is- 
rael? 


9  My  heart  is 
toward  the  gov- 
ernors of  Israel, 
that  offered  them- 
selves willingly 
among  the  peo- 
ple. Bless  ye  the 
Lord. 


10  Speak,  ye 
that  ride  on  white 
asses,  ye  that  sit 
in  judgment,  and 
walk  by  the  way . 


TARomi 
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 

To    THE    PEOPHETS. 


worshipped,  with  which  their  fathers 
did  not  concern  themselves,  tliere 
came  over  them  tlie  nations  and 
drove  them  out  of  their  cities  :  but 
when  they  returned  to  the  Law, 
they  could  not  prevail  against  thum 
until  they  made  themselves  strong, 
and  Sisra  went  up  against  them, 
the  enemy  and  the  adversary,  with 
forty  thousand  chiefs  of  troop.s,  with 
fifty  thousand  holdei'S  of  the  sword, 
withsi.xty  thousand  holders  of  spears, 
with  seventy  thousand  holders 
of  shields,  with  eighty  thousand 
throwers  of  arrows  and  slings,  be- 
sides nine  hundred  iron  chariots 
which  he  h  id  with  him,  and  his 
own  chariots.  All  these  thousands 
and  all  these  hosts  could  not  stand 
before  Barak  and  the  ten  thousand 
men  he  had  with  him. 

y  Spake  Deborah  iu  prophecy  :  1 
am  sent  to  praise  the  scribes  of  Is- 
rael, who,  wliile  tills  tribulation 
lasted,  ceased  no.  to  study  in  the 
Ijaw  :  and  it  redounds  well  unto 
them  who  .«at  in  the  houses  of  con- 
gregation, wide  open,  and  taught 
the  people  the  doctrine  of  the  Law, 
and  praised  and  rendered  thanks 
before  the  I.iord. 

10  Those  who  had  interrupted 
their  occupations  are  riding  on 
asses  covered  with  many-colored 
caparisons,  and  they  ride  about 
freely  in  all  the  territory  of  Israel, 
and  congregate  to  sit  in  judgment. 
They  walk  iu  their  old  ways,  and 
are  speaking  of  the  power  Thou  hast 
shown  in  the  land  of  Israel,  etc. 


JUDGES    XI. 


39  And  it  came 
to  pass,  at  the 
end  of  two 
months,  that  she 
returned  unto  her 
fether,  who  did 
with  her  accord - 
ins  to  his  vow 
which  h<!  had 
vowed :  and  she 
knew  no  man. 
And  it  was  »  cus- 
tom in  Israel. 


39  And  it  was  at  the  end  of  two 
months,  and  she  returned  to  her 
father,  and  he  did  unto  her  accord- 
ing to  the  vow  which  he  had  vowed  : 
and  she  h,ad  known  no  man.  And 
it  became  a  statute  in  Israel. 

Additinn  (rT^Din),  .that  no 
man  should  offer  up  his  son  or  his 
daughter  as  a  burnt  offering,  as 
Jephta  the  Gileadite  did,  who  asked 
not  Phinehas  the  priest.  If  he  had 
asked  Phinehas  the  priest,  then  lie 
would  have  dissolved  his  vow  with 
money  [for  animal  sacrifices]. 


1   SAM.    II. 


1  And  Hannah 
prayed,  and  -saiil. 
Vly  heart  rejoiceth 
in  the  Lord  ;  mine 
horn  is  exalted 
in  the  Lord  ;  my 
mouth  is  enlarged 
over  mine  ene- 
mies ;  because  T 
rejoice  in  thy  sal- 
ratjon. 


1  And  Hannah  prayed  in  the 
spirit  of  prophecy,  and  said  :  [Lo, 
my  son  Samuel  will  become  a  proph- 
et over  Israel  ;  in  his  days  they 
will  be  freed  from  the  hand  of  the 
Philistines  ;  and  through  his  hands 
shall  be  done  unto  them  wondrous 
and  mighty  deeds :  therefore]  be 
strong,  my  heart,  iu  the  portion 
wliiih  Ood  .gave  me.  [.\nd  al.*o 
Ileman  the  son  of  .Joel,  the  son  of 


Authorized 

Version. 


2  There  is  none 
holy  as  the  Lord  : 
for  there  is  none 
beside  thee,  nei- 
ther is  there  any 
rock  like  our  God. 


3  Talk  no  more 
so  exceeding 
proudly  ;  let  not 
arrogancy  come 
out  of  your 
mouth :  for  the 
Lord  is  a  God  of 
knowledge,  and 
by  him  actions 
are  weighed. 

4  The  bows  of 
tlie  mighty  are 
broken,  and  they 
that  stumbled 
are  girded  with 
strength. 


TARGtJM 

[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 

To    THE   PUOPUETS. 


my  son  Samuel,  shall  arise,  he  and 
his  fourteen  sons,  to  say  praise  with 
nablia  (harps?)  and  cyther.*,  with 
their  brethren  the  Levites,  to  sing 
in  the  house  of  the  sanctuary : 
therefore]  Let  my  horn  be  e.xalted 
in  the  gift  which  God  granted  untc 
me.  [And  also  on  the  miraculous 
punishment  tiiat  would  befiU  the 
Philistines  who  would  bring  back 
the  ark  of  the  Lord  in  a  new  chariot, 
together  with  a  sin-offering  :  there- 
fore let  the  congregation  of  Isr  le] 
say]  I  will  open  my  mouth  to  speak 
great  things  over  my  enemies  ;  be- 
cause I  rejoice  in  thy  salvation. 

2  [Over  Sanherib  the  king  of 
Ashur  did  she  prophesy,  and  she 
said  :  He  will  arise  with  all  his 
armies  over  Jeru.salem,  and  a  great 
sign  will  be  done  with  him.  There 
shall  fall  the  corpses  of  his  troops : 
Therefore  prai.<e  ye  all  the  peoples 
and  nations  and  tongues,  and  cry]  : 
There  is  none  holy  but  God  ;  there 
is  not  beside  Thee  ;  and  Thy  people 
.shall  say,  There  is  none  mighty  but 
our  God. 

3  [Over  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king 
of  Babel  did  she  prophesy  and  say  : 
Ye  Chaldeans,  and  all  nations  who 
will  once  rule  over  Isr.iel]  Do  not 
speak  grandly  ;  let  no  blasphemy 
go  out  from  your  mouth  :  for  God 
knows  all,  and  over  all  his  servants 
he  extends  his  judgment  ;  also  from 
you  he  will  take  punishment  of 
your  guilt. 

4  [Over  the  kingdom  Javan  she 
prophesied  and  said]  The  bows  of 
the  mighty  ones  [of  the  Javanites] 
will  be  broken  ;  [and  those  of  the 
house  of  the  Asmoneans]  who  are 
weak,  to  them  will  be  done  miraclea 
and  mighty  deeds. 


1   SAM.  xvn. 


8  And  he  stood 
and  cried  unto 
the  armies  of  Is- 
rael, and  said 
unto  them.  Why 
are  ye  come  out 
to  set  your  battle 
in  array  ?  Am 
not  I  a  Philis- 
tine, and  ye  ser- 
vants to  Saul  ? 
choose  you  a  man 
for  you,  and  let 
him  come  dowu 
to  me. 


8  And  he  arose,  and  he  cried 
unto  the  armies  of  Israel,  and  said 
unto  them :  Why  have  you  put 
yourselves  in  battle  array  ?  Am  I 
not  the  Philistine,  and  you  the  ser- 
vants of  Saul  ?  [I  am  Goliath  the 
Philistine  from  Gath,  who  have 
killed  the  two  sons  of  Eli,  the  priesta 
Chofna  and  Pinehas,  and  carried 
captive  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
the  Lord,  I  who  have  carried  it  to 
the  hou.se  of  Dagon,  »?//  Error,  and 
it  has  been  there  in  the  cities  of  the 
Philistines  seven  months.  And  in 
every  battle  which  the  Philistines 
have  had  I  went  at  the  head  of  the 
army,  and  we  conquered  in  the  bat- 
tle, and  we  strew  the  killed  like  the 
dust  of  the  earth,  and  until  now 
huve  the  Philistines  not  thought 
me  worthy  to  become  captaiu  of  a 
thou.sand  over  them.  And  you,  0 
children  of  Israel,  what  inightv  deed 
has  Saul  the  son  of  Ki^  h  frnui  Oibeuh 


3416 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUMi 


Authorized 
Version. 


Targom 

[Jonathau-ben-Uzziel] 

To  THE  Prophets. 


done  for  you  that  you  made  him 
king  over  you  ?  If  he  is  a  vahaiit 
man,  let  him  come  out  and  do  bat- 
tle with  me  :  but  if  he  is  a  wealv 
man],  then  choose  for  yourselves  a 
man ,  and  let  him  come  out  against 
me,  etc. 


1    KINGS   XIX. 


11,  12  And  he 
gaid.  Go  forth, 
and  stand  upon 
the  mount  before 
ihe  Lord.  And, 
behold,  the  Lord 
passed  by,  and  a 
great  and  strong 
wind  rent  the 
mountains,  and 
brake  in  pieces 
the  rocks,  before 
the  Lord  ;  but  the 
Lord  was  not  in 
the  wind :  and 
after  the  wind  an 
earthquake  ;  but 
the  Lord  was  not 
in  the  earth  • 
quake  :  .4ud  after 
the  earthquake  a 
fire  ;  but  the  Lord 
was  not  in  the 
fire  :  and  after 
the  fire  a  still 
small  voice. 

13  And  it  was 
so.  when  Elijah 
heard  ?'«,  that  he 
wrapped  his  face 
in  his  mantle, 
and  went  out,  and 
stood  in  the  en- 
tering in  of  the 
cave  :  and,  be- 
hold, there  came 
a  voice  unto  him 
and  said,  What 
doest  thou  here, 
Elijah  ? 


11.  12  And  he  said  [to  Elijah], 
Arise  and  stand  on  the  mountain 
before  the  Lord.  And  God  revealed 
himself:  and  before  him  a  host  of 
angels  of  the  wind,  cleaving  the 
mountain  and  breaking  the  rocks 
before  the  Lord  ;  but  not  in  the 
host  of  angels  was  the  Shechinah. 
And  after  the  host  of  the  angels  of 
the  wind  came  a  host  of  angels  of 
commotion  ;  but  not  in  the  host 
of  the  angels  of  commotion  was  the 
Shechinah  of  the  Lord.  And  after 
the  host  of  the  angels  of  couimotiou 
came  a  host  of  angels  of  fire  ;  but 
not  in  the  host  of  the  angels  of  fire 
was  the  Shechinah  of  the  Lord. 
But  after  the  host  of  the  angels 
of  the  fire  came  voices  singing  in 
silence. 


13  And  It  was  when  Elijah  heai-d 
this,  he  hid  his  face  in  his  mantle, 
and  he  went  out  and  he  stood  at 
the  door  of  the  cave  ;  and,  lo  !  with 
him  was  a  voice,  saying.  What  doest 
thou  here,  0  Elijah  I  etc. 


ISAIAH  xxxin 


22     For      the      22  For   the   Lord   is   our  judge, 
LoRl>!,«ourjudge,|who    delivered   us   with    his    power 


the  IjORD  is  our 
lawgiver,  the 
Lord  is  our  king ; 
he  will  save  us 


from  Mizraim  :  the  Lord  is  our 
teacher,  for  lie  has  given  us  the 
doctrine  of  the  Torah  from  Sinai ; 
the  Lord  is  our  king  :  lie  will  de- 
liver us,  and  give  us  righteous  res- 
titution from  the  army  of  Gog. 


11  Thos  shall 
j-esaj'  unto  them, 
The  gods  that 
hive  not  made 
«he  heiivens  and 


11  This  is  the  copy  of  the  letter 
which  Jeremiah  the  prophet  sent  to 
the  remaining  ancient  ones  of  the 
captivity  in  Babel  :  "  And  if  the 
nations  among  whom   you  are  will 


Authorized 
Version. 


the  earth,  ecen 
they  shall  perish 
from  the  earth, 
and  from  under 
these  heavens, 


Taroum 

[.lonathan-beu-Uzziel] 

To  the  Prophets. 


say  unto  you,  Pray  to  our  Errors . 
—  0  house  of  Israel,  then  you  shall 
answer  thus,  and  speak  in  this 
wise  :  The  Errors  unto  which  you 
pray  are  Errors  which  are  of  no 
use  :  they  cannot  rain  from  heaven  ; 
they  cannot  cause  fruit  to  grow 
from  the  earth.  They  and  their 
worshippers  will  perish  from  the 
earth,  and  will  be  destroyed  from 
under  these  heavens. 


MICAH    VI, 


4  For  I  brought 
thee  up  out  of  the 
laud  of  Egypt, 
and  redeemed 
thee  out  of  the 
house  of  servants; 
.and  I  sent  be- 
fore thee  Moses, 
Aaron,  and  Mir- 
iam. 


4  For  T  have  taken  thee  out  from 
the  land  of  Mizraim,  and  have  re- 
leased thee  from  the  house  of  thy 
bondage  :  and  have  sent  before  thee 
three  prophets :  Moses,  to  teach 
thee  the  tradition  of  the  ordinances  : 
Aaron,  to  atone  for  the  people  ;  and 
Miriam,  to  teach  the  women. 


III.  and  -IV.  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben-Uz- 
ziEL  AND  Jerushalsii- Targum  on  thk 
Pentatkucm. 

Onkelos  and  Jon.Tthan  on  the  Pentateuch  and 
Prophets,  wliatever  be  their  exact  date,  place,  au- 
thorship and  editorship,  are,  as  we  have  endeavored 
to  show,  the  oldest  of  e.xistina;  Tarsums,  and  be- 
long, in  their  present  sh.ape,  t©  Babylon  and  the 
Babylonian  academies  flourishing  between  the  3d 
and  4th  centuries  a.  d.  But  precisely  as  two  par- 
allel and  independent  developments  of  the  oral  Law 

(23tZ7n;  have  sprung  up  in  the  Palestinian  and 
Babylonian  Talmuds  respectively,  so  also  recent  in- 
\'estigation  has  proved  to  demonstration  the  exist- 
ence of    two    distinct  cycles  of    Targums   on  the 

written  Law  (SHSSIZ^n)  —  i.  e.  the  entire  body 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Both  are  the  offspring  of 
the  old,  primitive  institution  of  the  public  "read- 
ing and  translating  of  the  Torah,"  which  for  many 
hundred  years  had  its  place  in  the  Palestinian 
synagogues.  The  one  first  collected,  revised,  and 
edited  in  Babylon,  called — more  especially  that 
part  of  it  which  embraced  the  Pentateuch  (Onkelos) 
—  the  Babylonian,  Ours,  by  way  of  eminence,  on 
account  of  the  superior  authority  inherent  in  all  the 
works  of  the  Madinchae  (Babylonians,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  Maarbae  or  Palestinians).  I'he 
other,  continuing  its  oral  life,  so  to  say,  down  to  a 
much  later  period,  was  written  and  edited  —  less 
carefully,  or  rather  with  a  much  more  faithful  re- 
tention of  the  oldest  and  youngest  fancies  of  JMetur- 
gemanini  and  Darshanini  —  on  the  soil  of  Judaea 
itself.  Of  this  entire  cycle,  however,  the  Penta- 
teuch and  a  few  other  liooks  and  fragmentary  pieces 
only  have  survived  entire,  while  of  most  of  the  otlier 
books  of  the  Biljle  a  few  detached  fragments  are  all 
that  is  known,  and  this  chieHy  from  quotations 
The  injunction  al'ove  mentioned  respecting  tliesah- 
b.atical  reading  of  the  Targum  '^-.\  the  Pentateuch  — 
nothing  is  said  of  the  Prophets  —  explains  the  fact, 
to  a  certain  extent,  how  the  Pentateuch  Targum 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3417 


has  been  religiously  preserved,  while  the  others  have  |  scribe  about  that  time  must  have  taken  the  abbre- 
pc'iislied.     This  circumstance,  also,  is  to  be  taken 


into  consideration,  tliat  Palestine  was  in  later  cen 
turies  well-nigh  cut  oft'  from  communication  with 
the  Diaspora,  while  Bal)ylon,  and  the  gigantic 
literature  it  produced,  reigned  paramount  over  all 
.ludaism,  as,  indeed,  down  to  the  10th  century,  the 
latter  continued  to  have  a  spiritual  leader  in  tlie 
person  of  the  Ilesli  Gelutha  (Head  of  the  Golah), 
residing  in  Baliylon.  As  not  the  least  cause  of  the 
loss  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  Palestinian  Targurn 
may  also  be  considered  tlie  almost  uninterrupted 
martyrdom  to  which  those  were  suljected  who  pre- 
ferred, under  all  circumstances,  to  live  and  die  in 
the  Land  of  Promise. 

However  tliis  may  be,  the  Targum  on  the  Pen- 
tateuch has  come  down  to  us:  and  not  in  one,  but 
in  two  recensions.  JNlore  surprising  still,  the  one 
liitherV>  considered  a  fragment,  because  of  its  em- 
l)raciug  portions  only  of  tlie  individual  books,  has 
in  reality  never  lieen  intended  to  embrace  any 
further  portion,  and  we  are  tlnis  in  the  possession 
of  two  Palestinian  Targums,  preserved  in  tlieir 
original  forms.  The  one,  which  extends  from  the 
tir^t  verse  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Deuteronomy,  is 
kiiown  under  the  name  of  Targum  Jonathan  (lien 
Uzziel)  or  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  the  Pentateucli. 
The  otlier,  interpreting  single  verses,  often  single 
words  oidy,  is  extant  in  the  following  proportions: 
a  third  on  Genesis,  a  fourth  on  Deuteronomy,  a 
fifth  on  Numbers,  tln-ee  twentieths  on  Exodus,  and 
about  one  fourteenth  on  Leviticus.  The  latter  is 
generally  called  'largum  Jvrusludini,  or,  down  to 
the  11th  century  (llai  Gaon,  Chananel),  Targum 
Ereis  Israel,  Targum  of  Jerusalem  or  of  the  land 
of  Israel.  That  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  the  same  to 
whom  the  prophetical  Targum  is  ascribed,  and  wlio 
is  reported  to  liave  lived  either  in  the  5tli-4th 
century  b.  c,  or  aliout  tlie  time  of  Christ  himself 
(see  above),  could  have  little  to  do  with  a  Targum 
which  speaks  of  Constantinople  (Num.  xxiv.  19,  24), 
describes  very  plainly  the  breakiiig-up  of  the  West- 
Roman  Empire  (Num.  xxiv.  19-24),  mentions  the 
Turks  (Gen.  x.  2),  and  even  Mohammed's  two 
wives,  Chadidja  and  Fatime  (Gen.  xxi.  21),  and 
which  exhibits  not  only  the  fullest  acquaintance 
with  the  edited  body  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
by  quoting  entire  passages  from  it,  but  adopts  its 
peculiar  phraseology  —  not  to  mention  the  com- 
plete disparity  between  the  style,  language,  and 
general  manner  of  the  Jonathanic  Targum  on  the 
Prophets,  and  those  of  this  one  on  the  Pentateuch, 
strikingly  palpable  at  first  sight,  —  was  recognized 
by  early  investigators  (Morinus,  Pfeiffer,  Walton, 
etc.),  who  soon  overthrew  the  old  belief  in  Jonathan 
b.  Uzziels  authorship,  as  upheld  by  ^leiialiem  Ke- 
kanati,  Asariah  de  Wossi,  Gedaljah,  (ialatin,  Fagius, 
etc.  But  the  relation  in  which  the  two  Targums, 
BO  similar  and  yet  so  dissimilar,  stood  to  each  other, 
how  they  arose,  and  where  and  when  —  all  these 
questions  have  for  a  long  time,  in  the  terse  words 
of  Zuiiz,  caused  many  of  the  learned  such  dire 
mi.sery,  that  whenever  the  "Targum  Hierosulymi- 
tanum"  come.s  up,  they,  instead  of  information  on 
it  and  its  twin-brother,  prefer  to  treat  the  reader 
to  a  round  volley  of  abuse  of  them.  Not  before  the 
first  half  of  this  century  did  the  fact  become  full) 
and  incontestably  establiulied  (by  the  simple  process 
of  an  investigation  o*"  the  sources),  that  iioth  Tar- 
gums were  ii  rea..ty  one  —  that  both  were  known 
down  to  the  14th  century  under  no  other  name 
than  Targum  Jerushalmi — and  that  some  forgetful 
'il5 


viation  ^'Tl-'Z".  J.'  over  one  of  the  two  docu- 
ments, and,  instead  of  dissolving  it  into  Targum- 
Jerushalmi,  dissolved  it  erroneously  into  what  he 
must  till  then  have  been  engaged  in  copying  — 
namely,  Targum-Jonathan,  sc.  ben  Uzziel  (on  the 
Prophets).  This  error,  fostered  by  the  natural 
tendency  of  giving  a  well-known  and  for-femed 
name  —  without  inquiring  too  closely  into  its  ac- 
curacy —  to  a  hitherto  anonymous  and  compara- 
tively little  known  version,  has  been  copied  again 
and  again,  until  it  Ibuiid  its  way,  a  hundred  years 
later,  into  print.  Of  the  intermediate  stage,  when 
only  a  few  MSS.  had  received  the  tiew  designation, 
a  curious  fact,  which  Azariah  de  Kossi  (Cod.  37  b) 
mentions,  gives  evidence.  "  I  saw,"  he  says,  "  two 
complete  Targums  on  the  whole  Pentateuch,  word 
for  word  alike;  one  in  Keggio,  which  was  described 
in  the  margin,  'Targum  of  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel;' 
the  other  in  iMantua,  described  at  the  margin  as 
'  Targum  Jerushalmi.'  "  In  a  similar  manner 
quotations  from  either  in  the  Aruch  confound  the 
designation.  Benjamin  Mussaphia  (d.  1674),  the 
author  of  additions  and  corrections  to  the  Aruch, 
has  indeed  pronounced  it  as  his  personal  conjecture 
that  both  may  be  one  and  the  same,  and  Drusius, 
Mendelssohn,  Kappoport,  and  others  shared  his 
opinion.  Yet  the  difficulty  of  their  obvious  dissim- 
ilarity, if  they  were  identical,  remained  to  be  ac- 
counted for.  Zunz  tries  to  solve  it  by  assuming 
that  Pseudo-Jonath.in  is  the  original  Targum,  and 
that  the  fragmentary  Jerushalmi  is  a  collection  of 
variants  to  it.  The  circumstance  of  its  also  contain- 
ing portions  identical  with  the  codex,  to  which  it  is 
supposed  to  be  a  collection  of  readings,  he  explains 
by  the  negligence  of  the  transcriber.  Frankel, 
however,  followed  by  Traub  and  Levysohn,  has  gone 
a  stej)  further.  Fiom  the  very  identity  of  a  propor- 
tionately larire  nunilier  of  places,  amounting  to 
about  thirty  in  each  l)ook,  and  from  certain  pal- 
palile  and  consistent  differences  which  run  through 
both  recensions,  they  have  arrived  at  a  different 
conclusion,  which  seems  to  carry  conviction  on  the 
face  of  it,  namely,  that  Jerushalmi  is  a  collection 
of  emendations  and  additions  to  single  portions, 
phrases,  and  words  of  Onkelos,  and  Pseudo-.lona- 
thaii  a  further  emendated  and  completed  edition 
to  the  whole  Pentateuch  of  Jerushalmi-Onkelos. 
The  chief  incentive  to  a  new  Targum  on  the  Penta- 
teuch (that  of  Onkelos  being  well  known  in  Pales 
tine),  was,  on  the  one  hand,  the  wish  to  explain 
such  of  the  passages  as  seemed  either  obscure  in 
themselves  or  capable  of  greater  adaptation  to  the 
times;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  great  and  para- 
mount desire  for  legendary  lore,  and  ethical  and 
homiletical  motives,  intertwined  with  the  very  letter 
of  Scripture,  did  not  and  could  not  feel  satisfied 
with  the  (generally)  strictly  literal  version  of  On- 
kelos, as  soon  as  the  time  of  eccentric,  prolix,  oral 
Targums  had  finally  ceased  in  Palestine  too,  and 
written  Targums  of  liabylon  were  introduced  as  a 
substitute,  once  fur  all.  Hence  variants,  exactly  as 
found  in  .lerushalmi,  not  to  the  whole  of  Onkelos, 
liut  to  such  portions  as  seemed  most  to  require 
"improvement  "  in  the  direction  indicated.  ,\nd 
how  much  this  thonmirhly  paraphrastic  version  wa» 
]ire('eiTt'd  to  the  literal  is,  among  other  sii^ns,  plainly 
visible  from  the  circumstance  that  it  is  still  joined, 
for  instance,  to  the  reading  of  the  Decalogue  on  the 
Fe.ast  of  Weeks  in  the  synai;ogue.  .\t  a  1  iter  |)erio<I 
the  gaps  were  fiUeil  U|).  and  the  whole  uf  thn  "xint 


3418 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


Ing  Jerushalnii  was  recast,  as  far  again  as  seemed 
fitting  and  requisite.  Tliis  is  the  Jonathan,  so 
3alled  .for  the  last  four  hundred  years  only.  And 
thus  the  identity  in  some,  and  the  divergence  in 
other  places  finds  its  most  natural  solution. 

The  Jerushahni,  in  both  its  recensions,  is  writ- 
ten in  the  Palestinensian  dialeot,  the  peculiarities  of 
which  we  have  briefly  characterized  above.  It  is 
older  than  tha  Masora  and  the  conquest  of  Western 
Asia  by  the  Arabs.  Syria  or  I'aiestine  must  be 
its  birthplace,  the  second  half  of  the  7th  century 
its  date,  since  the  instances  above  jriven  will  not 
allow  of  any  earlier  time.  Its  chief  aim  and  pur- 
pose is,  especially  in  its  second  edition,  to  form  an 
entertaining  compendium  of  all  the  Halachah  and 
liaggadah,  which  i-efers  to  the  Pentateuch,  and 
takes  its  stand  upon  it.  And  in  this  lies  its  chief 
use  to  us.  There  is  hardly  a  single  allegory,  paralile, 
mystic  digression,  or  tale  in  it  which  is  not  found 
in  the  other  Haggadistic  writings  —  Mishna,  Tal- 
mud, JNIechilta,  Sifra,  Sifri,  etc.;  and  both  Winer 
and  Petermann,  not  to  mention  the  older  author- 
ities, have  wrongly  charged  it  with  inventing  its  in- 
terpretations. Even  where  no  source  can  lie  indi- 
cated, the  author  has  surely  only  given  utterance 
to  the  leading  notions  and  ideas  of  his  times,  ex- 
travagant and  abstruse  as  they  may  oftentimes  ap- 
pear to  our  modern  western  minds.  Little  value 
is  inherent  in  its  critical  emendations  on  the  exe- 
gesis of  Onkelos.  It  sometimes  endeavors  either  to 
find  an  entirely  new  signification  for  a  word,  and 
then  it  often  falls  into  grave  errors,  or  it  restores  in- 
terpretations rejected  by  Onkelos,  only  it  njust  never 
be  forgotten  that  translation  is  quite  a  secondary 
oliject  with  Jerushahni.  It  adheres,  however,  to 
the  general  method  followed  by  Onkelos  and  Jona- 
than. It  dissolves  similes  and  widens  too  concise 
diction.  Geographical  names  it  alters  into  those 
current  in  its  own  day.  It  avoids  anthropomor- 
phisms as  well  as  anthropopathisms.  The  strict 
distinction  between  the  Divine  Being  and   man  is 

kept  up,  and  the  word  D"Tp  "  before  "  is  put  as  a 
kind  of  medium  between  the  former  and  the  latter, 
no  less  than  the  other —  "  Shechinah,"  "  Word," 


evil  ones,  etc. :  —  all  this,  howev'er,  in  a  raiu;li  nici* 
decided  and  exaggerated  form  than  either  in  Onkeloi 
or  .lonathan.  Its  language  and  grannnar  are  very 
corrupt;  it  abounds  —  chiefly  in  its  larger  edition, 
the  Pseudo-.!onathan  —  in  Greek,  Latin,  Persian, 
and  Arabic  words;  and  even  making  allowances  for 
the  many  blunders  of  ignorant  scribes,  enough  will 
remain  to  pronoinice  the  diction  migrammatical  in 
very  many  places. 

Thus  much  briefly  of  the  Jenishalmi  as  one  and 
the  same  work.  We  shall  now  endeavor  to  pouit 
out  a  few  characteristics  belonging  to  its  two  re- 
censions respectively.  The  first,  .'erushalmi  kut' 
i^ox^y,  knows  very  little  of  angels;  Michael  is 
the  only  one  ever  occurring:  in  Jonathan,  on  the 
other  hand,  angelology  flourishes  in  great  vigor: 
to  the  Biblical  Michael,  Gabriel,  Uriel,  are  added 
the  Angel  of  Death,  Samael,  Sagnugael,  Shachassai, 
Usiel;  seventy  an<;els  descend  with  God  to  see  the 
building  of  the  Baliylonian  tower;  nine  hundred 
millions  of  punishing  angels  go  through  Egypt 
during  the  night  of  the  Exodus,  etc.  Jerushahni 
makes  use  but  rarely  of  Halachah  and  Haggadah, 
while  Jonathan  sees  the  text  as  it  were  only  through 
the  medium  of  Haggadah:  to  him  the  chief  end. 
Hence  Jonathan  has  many  Midrashim  not  found  in 
Jerushahni,  while  he  does  not  omit  a  single  one 
contained  in  the  latter.  There  are  no  direct  his- 
torical dates  in  Jenishalmi,  but  many  are  found  in 
Jonathan,  and  since  all  other  signs  iridicate  that 
but  a  short  space  of  time  intervenes  between  the 
two,  the  late  origin  of  eitiier  is  to  a  great  extent 
made  manifest  by  these  dates.  The  most  striking 
difference  between  them,  however,  and  the  one 
which  is  most  characteristic  of  either,  is  this,  that 
while  Jerushalnii  adheres  more  closely  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  JMishna,  Jonathan  has  greater  affinity 
to  that  of  the  Talmud.  Of  either  we  subjoin  short 
specimens,  whicii,  for  the  purpose  of  easier  compar- 
ison, and  reference,  we  have  placed  side  by  side  with 
Onkelos.  The  Targum  .lerushalmi  was  first  printed 
in  Bomberg's  Bilde,  Venice,  1518  tt'.,  and  was  re- 
printed in  Bomberg's  edd.,  and  in  M'alton,  vol.  iv. 
Jonathan  to  the  Pentateuch,  a  JIS.  of  which  was 
first  discovered  liy  Ashur  Purinz  in  the  Library  of 


"  Glory,"  etc.     It    never   uses   ICloiiim  where   the  the  family  of  the  Puahs  in  Venice,  was  printed  for 

Scripture  applies    it  to  man  or  idols.     The  same  the  first  time  in   1590,  as  "  Targum  Jonathan  ben 

care  is  taken  to  extol  the  good  deeds  of  the  peojile  Uzziel,"  at  Venice,  reprinted  at  Hanau,  1618,  Am- 

Kud   its  ancestors,  and  to  slur  over  and  excuse  the  sterdam,  1640,  Prague,  1G46,  Walton,  vol.  iv.,  et<j. 

GENESIS    III.  17-24. 


Authorized  Version. 


17  And  unto  Adam  be 
Baid,  Because  thou  hast 
hearkened  unto  the  voice 
of  thy  wife,  aud  hast  eaten 
Bf  the  tree,  of  which  1  com- 
manded thee,  saying,  Thou 
Shalt  not  eat  of  it :  cursed 
is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  ; 
in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of 
it  all  the  days  of  thy  life  ; 


18  Thorns  also  and  this 
ties  shall  it  bring  forth  to 
thee;  and  thou  shalt  eat 
the  be,rb  of  the  field  ; 


Onkelos. 


17  And  to  Adam  he  said. 
For  that  thou  hast  accepted 
the  word  of  thy  wife,  and 
hast  eaten  from  the  tree  of 
which  I  have  commanded 
unto  thee,  and  said.  Thou 
shalt  not  eat  from  it  : 
cursed  shall  the  earth  be 
for  thy  .sake  ;  with  trouble 
shalt  thoii  eat  of  it  all  the 
days  of  thy  life  ; 

18  And  thorns  and  this- 
tles it  shall  grow  for  thee  : 
and  thou  shalt  eat  the  grass 
of  the  field  ; 


Tabodm  Jerushalui. 

First  Recension. 


18  And  thorns  and  this- 
tles shall  it  multiply  for 
thee  ;  and  thou  shalt  eat 
the  grass  that  is  on  the 
face   of  the   earth      Then 


Targum 

[Jonathan-ben-Uzzi(  I] 

Jeroshalmj. 

Second  Recension. 


17  And  to  Adam  be  said, 
Because  thou  hast  received 
the  word  of  thy  wife,  and 
hast  eaten  from  the  fruit  of 
the  tree,  of  which  I  com- 
manded tliee.  Thou  shalt 
not  eat  from  it  :  cursed  be 
the  earth,  because  it  has 
not  shown  unto  thee  thy 
fault ;  in  sorrow  shalt  thou 
eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy 
life  ; 

18  And  thorns  and  this 
ties  shall  grow  and  multi- 
ply for  thy  sake  ;  and  thou 
shalt  eat  the  grass  that  ir 
on    the    fa^e   of  the   field 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3419 


AVmORIZED  VSBSION. 


19  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  Shalt  thou  eat  bread 
till  thou  return  unto  the 
ground ;  for  out  of  it  wast 
thou  taken  :  for  dust  thou 
art,  and  unto  dust  shalt 
thou  return. 


20  And  Adam  called  his 
wife's  name  Eve  ;  because 
she  was  the  mother  of  all 
living. 

21  Unto  Adam  also  and  to 
his  wife  did  the  Lord  God 
make  coats  of  skins,  and 
clothed  them. 


22  And  the  Lord  God 
said,  Behold,  the  man  i 
become  as  one  of  us,  to 
know  good  and  evil  :  and 
now,  lest  he  put  forth  his 
band,  and  take  also  of  the 
tree  of  Ufe,  and  eat,  and 
live  for  ever : 


23  Therefore    the    Lord 

liod  sent  him  forth  from 
.he  garden  of  Eden,  to  till 
the  ground  from  whence  he 
vas  taken. 

24  3o  he  drove  out  the 
man  ;  and  he  placed  at  the 
ia«'  of  the  garden  of  Eden 


19  Tn  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  Shalt  thou  eat  bread, 
until  thou  returnest  unto 
the  earth  from  which  thou 
art  created  :  for  dust  art 
thou,  and  to  dust  shalt 
thou  return. 


20  And  Adam  called  the 
name  of  his  wife  Chavah 
for  that  she  was  the  mother 
of  all  sons  of  man. 

21  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
made  unto  Adam  and  his 
wife  garments  of  glory,  on 
the  skin  of  their  flesh,  and 
clothed  them. 


Tarqcm  Jebushalmi. 
First  Recension. 


began  Adam  and  said,  I 
pray,  through  the  Mercy 
that  is  before  Thee,  Jeho- 
vah, let  us  not  be  accounted 
before  Thee  as  the  beasts 
that  eat  the  grass  on  the 
fiice  of  the  field  :  may  we 
be  permitted  to  arise  and 
toil  with  the  toil  of  our 
hands,  and  eat  food  from 
the  fruits  of  the  earth  ;  and 
thus  may  there  be  a  differ- 
ence before  Thee  between 
the  sons  of  man  and  the 
oiBpriug  of  cattle. 


22  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
said,  Behold  Adam  is  tlie 
only  one  in  the  world 
knowing  good  and  evil 
perchance  now  he  might 
stretch  forth  his  hand  and 
take  also  from  the  tree  of 
life,  and  eat,  and  live  for 
evermore. 


23  And  Jehovah  Elohlra 
sent  him  from  the  garden 
of  Eden,  to  till  the  earth 
whence  he  was  created. 


24  And  he  drove  out 
Adam  ;  and  he  placed  be- 
fore the  garden  of  Eden  the 


Tarrum 
[Jouathan-hen-Uzziel] 

Jerushalmi. 
Second  Recension. 


22  And  the  Word  of  Je- 
hovah Elohim  said,  Lo ! 
man,  whom  I  created,  is 
alone  in  this  world,  as  I 
am  alone  in  the  highest 
Heavens  ;  mighty  nations 
will  spring  from  him  ;  from 
him  also  will  arise  a  people 
that  will  know  to  distin- 
guish between  good  and 
evil  :  now  it  is  better  to 
expel  him  from  the  garden 
of  Eden,  before  he  stretch 
out  his  hand  and  take  also 
from  the  fruits  of  the  tree 
of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  for 
ever. 


24  And  He  expelled 
Adam,  and  caused  to  re- 
ide  the  splendor  of  his  She- 


Adam  answered  and  said,  I 
pray,  by  the  Mercy  that  is 
before  Thee,  Jehovah,  that 
we  may  not  be  deemed  like 
unto  the  beasts,  that  we 
should  eat  grass  that  is  on 
the  face  of  the  field  ;  may 
we  be  allowed  to  arise  and 
toil  with  the  toiling  of  our 
hands,  and  eat  food  fi'om 
the  food  of  the  earth,  and 
thus  may  there  be  a  dis- 
tinction now  before  Thee, 
between  the  sons  of  men 
and  the  offspring  of  cattle. 

19  ....  In  the  toil  of 
the  palm  of  thy  hand  shalt 
thou  eat  food,  until  thou 
returnest  unto  the  dust 
from  which  thou  wert  cre- 
ated :  for  dust  art  thou,  and 
to  dust  shalt  thou  return  : 
for  from  the  dust  thou  wilt 
once  rise  to  give  juilgmeut 
and  •ccount  for  all  that 
thou  hast  done,  on  the  day 
of  the  great  Judgment. 

20  And  Adam  called  the 
name  of  his  wife  Chavah  ; 
for  she  is  the  mother  of  all 
the  sous  of  man. 

21  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
made  unto  Adam  and  his 
wife  garments  of  honor, 
from  the  skin  of  the  ser- 
pent which  he  had  cast  out 
of  it,  on  the  skin  of  their 
flesh,  instead  of  their  beauty 
which  they  had  cast  off ; 
and  he  clothed  them. 

22  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
said  to  the  angels  that  were 
miuisteriug  before  him,  Lo  ! 
there  is  Adam  alone  on  the 
earth,  as  I  am  alone  in  the 
highest  Heavens,  and  there 
will  spring  from  him  those 
who  know  to  distinguish 
between  good  and  evil  :  it 
he  had  kept  the  command- 
ment I  commanded,  ho 
would  have  been  living 
and  lasting,  like  the  tiee 
of  life,  for  evermore.  Now 
since  he  has  not  kept  what 
I  conmianded.  We  decree 
against  him  and  expel  him 
from  the  garden  of  Eden, 
before  he  m.ay  stretch  out 
his  hand  and  take  from  tlie 
fruits  of  the  tree  of  life  ; 
for  if  he  ate  therefrom  he 
would  live  and  remain  for 
ever. 

23  And  Jehovah  Elohim 
expelled  him  from  the  gar- 
den of  Eden,  and  he  went 
and  he  settled  on  the  Mount 
of  Moriah,  to  till  the  earth 
of  which  he  was  crmated. 

24  And  Ho  drfvo  out 
Adam  from  where  Hs  had 
made  to  reside  the  gljry  ol 


3420 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM; 


Authorized 
Version. 


0herubim5,[!]and 
a  flauiiug  sword 
which  turned  ev- 
ery way,  to  keep 
the  way  of  the 
tree  of  life. 


Onkelos. 


Cherubim  and  the 
sharp  sword, 

which  turns  to 
guard  the  way  to 
the  tree  of  life. 


Targcm  Jerushalm. 

First  Recension. 


chinah  from  the  beginning  at  the  east 
of  the  garden  of  Eden,  above  the  two 
Cherubim.  Two  thousand  jears  be- 
fore the  world  was  created,  he  cre- 
ated the  Law,  and  prepared  Gehin- 
nom  [Hell]  andUan  Eden  [Paradise]  : 
He  prepiired  Gan  Eden  for  the  right- 
eous, that  they  may  eat  and  delight 
in  the  fruits  of  the  tree,  because 
they  kept  the  commandments  of  the 
Law  in  this  world,  and  prepared  Ge- 
hinnom  for  the  wicked,  for  it  is  like 
unto  a  sharp  sword  that  eats  from 
both  sides  ;  He  has  prepared  witliin 
it  sparks  of  light  and  coals  which 
consume  the  wicked,  to  puni.sh  them 
in  the  future  world  for  their  not  hav- 
ing kept  the  commandments  of  the 
Law.  For  the  tree  of  life  that  is  the 
Law ;  whosoever  keeps  it  in  this 
world,  he  will  live  and  last  like  the 
tree  of  life :  good  is  the  Law  to 
whomsoever  keeps  it  in  this  world, 
like  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  hfe  in  the 
world  to  come. 


Takgum 
[Jonathan-ben-Uzziel] 

jERUSH.VLJn. 

Second  Recension. 


his  Shechinah  from  the  beginning  b& 
tween  the  two  Cherubim.  Before  He 
created  the  world  He  has  created  the 
Law  :  He  has  prepared  the  garden  ot 
Eden  for  the  righteous,  that  they 
shall  eat  and  delight  in  the  fruits  of 
the  tree,  because  they  have  acted 
during  their  life  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Law  in  this  world, 
and  have  kept  its  commandments  : 
He  has  prepared  the  Gehinnom  for 
the  wicked,  which  is  likened  unto  3 
sharp  sword  that  eats  from  two  side* : 
Ue  prepared  within  it  sparks  of  light 
and  coals  of  fire  to  judge  with  them 
the  wicked  who  rebelled  in  their 
lives  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Law.  Better  is  this  Law  to  him  who 
acts  according  to  it  than  the  fruits  of 
the  tree  of  life,  for  the  Word  of  Jeho- 
vah has  prepared  for  him  who  keeps 
it,  that  he  shall  live  and  walk  in  the 
paths  of  the  way  of  the  life  of  the 
future  world. 


THE   LAST   CEL4.PTER   OP  DEUTERONOMY,    Verses  1-3. 


Authorized  Version. 


1  And  Moses  went  up 
from  the  plains  of  Moab 
unto  the  mountain  of 
Nebo,  to  the  top  of  Pis- 
gah,  that  is  over  against 
Jericho.  And  the  Lord 
shewed  him  all  the  land 
■)f  Gilead,  unto  Dan, 


2  And  all  Naphtali,  and 
the  land  of  Ephraim,  and 
Manasseh,  and  all  the 
land  of  Judah,  unto  the 
ntmost  sea, 


8  And  the  south,  and 
the  plain  of  the  valley  of 
Jericho,  the  city  of  pahn 
taroes,  unto  Zoar. 


1  And  Moses  ascended 
from  the  encampment  of 
Moab  to  the  mountain  of 
Nebo  :  the  head  of  the 
height  that  is  opposite 
Jericho.  And  Jehovah 
showed  him  all  the  land 
of  Gilead  unto  Dan. 


2  And  all  Naphtali  and 
the  land  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh,  and  all  the 
land  of  Judah  to  the 
hindmost  sea, 


3  And  the  west  and  the 
plain  of  the  valley  of 
Jericho  the  city  of  the 
palms,  unto  Zoar. 


Targum  Jerushalmi. 
First  Recension. 


1  And  Moses  ascended 
fi-om  the  plain  of  Moab 
to  the  mountain  of  Nebo, 
the  summit  of  the  hill 
which  is  opposite  Jeri- 
cho. And  God  showed 
him  the  whole  land  : 
Gilead  unto  Dan  cf  Caes- 
area. 

2  And  all  the  land  of 
Naphtali,  and  the  land 
of  Ephraim  and  Manas 
seh,  and  the  whole  land 
of  Judah,  to  the  hind 
most  sea, 


3  And  west,  and  the 
plain  of  the  valley  of 
Jericho  the  city  which 
produces  the  palms,  that 
is  Zeer. 


Targum 
[Jonathan-ben-TJzziel] 

jEEUSHAUn. 

Second  Recension. 


1  And  Moses  ascended  from  the 
plains  of  Moab  to  the  mountain  ol 
Nebo,  tlte  summit  of  the  height 
which  is  ever  against  Jericho,  and 
the  word  of  Jehovah  showed  him 
all  tlie  mighty  ones  of  the  land  : 
the  powerful  deeds  which  Jephtha 
from  Gilead  would  do,  and  the  vic- 
tories of  Samson  the  son  of  Ma- 
noah,  from  the  tribe  of  Dan. 

2  And  the  thousand  princes  from 
the  house  of  Naphtali  who  joined 
issue  with  Balak,  and  the  kings 
whom  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  from 
the  tribe  of  Efraim,  would  kill,  and 
the  power  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Jo- 
ash  from  the  tribe  of  Manasseh, 
and  all  the  kings  of  Israel,  and  the 
kingdom  of  the  house  of  Judah 
who  would  rule  in  the  land  until 
the  second  Sanctuary  would  b' 
laid  low. 

3  And  the  king  of  the  south  who 
would  join  the  king  of  the  north 
to  destroy  the  inhabitants  of  the 
land,  and  the  Ammonites,  and  the 
Moabites,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
valleys  who  would  oppress  Israel, 
and  the  exile  of  the  disciples  of  Elija 
who  would  be  driven  out  from  the 
plain  of  Jericho,  and  the  exile  of 
the  disciples  of  Elisha  who  would 
be  driven  out  from  the  city  of 
palms  by  their  brethren,  the  house 
of  Israel  :  two  hundred  thousand 
men.  And  the  woes  of  each  gener- 
ation and  the  punishment  of  At- 
malgus  [Aruiillus]  the  evil  one  and 
the  battle-array  of  Gog.  And  id 
this  great  misery  Michael  will  aria* 
with  the  sword  :  to  save,  etc. 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM, 


3421 


V.  T/VRGUMS  OF    "Joseph    the   Blind"   on 

THE    HAGIOGRAPHA. 

"  When  Jonathan  hen  Uzziel  began  to  para- 
phrase the  Cethubim"  (Hagiographa),  we  read  in 
the  Talmudical  passage  before  quoted,  "  a  mysteri- 
ous voice  was  heard  saying:  It  is  enough.  Thou 
hast  revealed  the  secrets  of  the  Propliets  —  why 
wouldst  thou  also  reveal  those  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  " 
—  It  would  thus  appear,  that  a  Targum  to  these 
books  (Job  excepted )  was  entirely  unknown  up  to  a 
very  late  period.  Those  Targums  on  the  Hagiog- 
rapha whicli  we  now  possess  have  been  attributed 
vaguely  to  different  authors,  it  being  assumed  in 
the  first  instance  that  they  were  the  work  of  one 
man.  Now  it  was  Ak\las  the  Greek  translator, 
mentioned  iu  Bereshitii  Kabba  (see  above);  now 
Onkelos,  the  ChaMee  translator  of  the  Pentateuch, 
his  mythical  double;  now  Jonathan  b.  Uzziel,  or 
Joseph  (Jose^  the  Blind  (see  aliove).  But  the  di- 
versity in  the  different  parts  of  the  work  warring 
too  palpably  aj;ainst  tlie  unity  of  authorship,  the 
blindness  of  the  last-named  authority  seemed  to 
shi>w  the  easiest  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  Joseph 
was  supiwsed  to  have  dictated  it  to  different  dis- 
ciples at  different  periods,  and  somehow  every  one 
of  the  amanuenses  infused  part  of  his  own  individ- 
uality into  his  share  of  the  work.  Popular  belief 
thus  fastened  upon  this  Joseph  the  Blind,  since  a 
name  the  work  must  needs  have,  and  to  him  in 
most  of  the  editions,  the  Targum  is  .affiliated.  Yet, 
if  ever  he  did  translate  the  Hagiographa,  certain  it 
is  that  those  which  we  possess  are  not  by  his  or  his 
disciples"  hands  —  that  is,  of  the  time  of  the  4th 
century.  Writers  of  the  l-Sth  century  already  re- 
futed this  notion  of  Joseph's  authorship,  for  the  as- 
sumption of  which  there  never  was  any  other  groiuid 
than  that  he  was  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  like 
Onkelos-Akylas  and  Jonathan,  in  connection  with 
Targum ;  and,  as  we  saw,  there  is  indeed  I'eason  to 
believe  that  he  had  a  share  in  the  redaction  of 
"  Jonathan  "  to  tlie  Prophets,  which  falls  in  his 
time.  Between  him  and  our  hagio^raphical  Tar- 
gums,  however,  many  centuries  must  have  elapsed. 
Yet  we  do  not  even  venture  to  assign  to  them  more 
than  an  ap[iroximate  round  date,  about  1000  A.  D. 
Besides  the  Targums  to  tiie  Pentateuch  and  the 
Prophets,  those  now  extant  range  over  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Job,  the  five  Megilloth,  i.  e.  Song  of 
Songs,  Huth,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes ; 
the  Chronicles,  and  Daniel.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
alone  are  left  without  a  Targum  at  present;  yet  we 
can  iiardly  help  believing  that  ere  long  one  will  also 
be  found  to  the  latter,  as  the  despaired-of  Chroni- 
cles was  found  in  the  17th  century,  and  Daniel  — 
a  sure  trace  of  it  at  least  —  so  recently,  that  as  yet 


nobody  has  considered  it  worth  his  while  to  take 
any  notice  of  it.  We  shall  divide  these  Targumi 
into  four  groups:  Proverbs,  Job,  Psalms;  —  MegU- 
loth ;  —  Chronicles ;  —  and  Daniel. 

1.  Targum  on  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs. 
Certain  litiguistic  and  other  characteristics  "  ex- 
hibited by  these  three  Targums,  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  are  nearly  contemporaneous  pro- 
ductions, and  that  their  birtliplace  is,  most  hkely, 
Syria.  While  the  two  former,  however,  are  mere 
paraphrases,  the  Targum  on  Proverbs  comes  nearer 
to  our  idea  of  a  version  than  almost  any  Targum, 
except  perhaps  that  of  Onkelos.  It  adheres  as 
closely  to  the  original  text  as  possible.  The  most 
remarkaljle  feature  about  it  however,  and  one  which 
has  given  rise  to  endless  speculations  and  discus- 
sions, is  its  extraordinary  similarity  to  the  Syriac 
Version.  It  would  indeed  sometimes  seem  as  if 
they  had  copied  each  other — an  opinion  warmly 
advocated  by  Dathe,  who  endeavored  to  prove  that 
the  Chaldee  had  copied  or  adajited  the  Syrian, 
there  being  passages  in  the  Targum  which  could, 
he  assumed,  only  be  accounted  for  by  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  Syriac  translation.*  It  has,  on  the 
other  hand,  been  argued  tliat  there  are  a  greater 
number  of  important  passages  which  distinctly  show 
that  the  Targumist  had  used  an  original  Hebrew 
text,  varying  from  that  of  the  Syriac,  and  had  also 
made  use  of  the  LXX.  against  the  latter.^  The 
Syriasms  would  easily  be  accounted  for  by  the  Ara- 
maic idiom  itself,  the  forms  of  which  vary  but  little 
from,  and  easily  merge  into,  the  sister  dialect  of 
Syria.  Indeed  nearly  all  of  them  are  found  in  the 
Talmud,  a  strictly  Aramaic  work.  It  has  been 
supposed  by  others  that  neither  of  these  versions,  as 
they  are  now  in  our  hands,  exhibit  their  original 
form.  A  late  editor,  as  it  were,  of  the  (mutilated) 
Tariium,  n\iglit  have  derived  his  emendations  from 
that  version  which  came  nearest  to  it,  both  in  lan- 
guage and  in  close  adlierence  to  the  Hebrew  text  — 
namely,  the  Syriac ;  and  there  is  certainly  every 
reason  to  conclude  from  the  wofully  faulty  state  in 
which  this  Targum  is  found  (Luzzatto  counts  sev- 
eral hundred  corrupt  readings  in  it),  that  many  and 
clumsy  hands  must  have  been  at  work  upon  the 
later  Codd.  The  most  likely  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culty, however,  seems  to  be  that  indicated  by 
Frankel — 'namely,  that  the  LXX.  is  the  common 
source  of  Ijoth  versions,  but  in  such  a  manner  that 
the  Aramaic  has  also  made  use  of  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Greek. —  of  the  latter,  however,  through  the 
Syriac  medium.  As  a  specimen  of  the  curious 
similarity  of  both  versions,  the  following  two  verses 
from  the  beginning  of  the  book  may  find  a  plac 
here : — 


a  E.  g.,  the  use  of  the  word  '^733S  for  angel  in 

I»rg.  Vi.  and  Job,  the   3,   affixed  to  the  3d  p.  plur. 

prsef.  Peal,  the  infio.  with  prjef.  J2,  besides  several 
more  or  less  unusual  Greek  and  Syriac  words  commou 
to  all  three, 

6  E.  g.,  ch.  xxix.  5,  the  Heb.  word  H'^'lp,  "  city," 
is  rendered   )J^i.2^  "  city,"  in  Syr.    Targum  trans- 

ates  Sin3  "  a  lie,"  which  is  only  to  be  accounted  for 
by  a  lui-  understanding  or  misreading  of  the  Syriac 
L3i..3  where  for  the  second  c  the  Chaldee  trans- 
ator  read  a  '',  |l.^^2. 


c  Prov.   xxvi.   10,   the  Masoretic   text  reads:   ^H 

b^'DD  iscyi  bD  bbinn ;  lxx.  nowa  x^^^^^i^ 

TaL    <ripf    a-Apo.'co^  (=   b'^D'D   "Itt?^)  ;    Targ.    >3D 

SbD'^Dl    K"i:273   Wn-,  thus  adopting  exactly 
the  reading  of  the  LXX.  against  the  received  text 
xxix.  21,   "'"I^l?  "1^3^  p32tt,  quoted  in  the  samt 
manuer  in  Talm.  Succah.  62  b;  LXX.  os  KaracrnaTa/^jf 
€K  n-ai^bs  otKeTT/s  Itrrai  ;    evidently    reading     ^35 

HTI"'  =  Targ.  ^ina  WlD2?b.     Conip.  also  xiftf 
16,  XXX.  30,  &c. 


3422 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


CHAP.  r.  2,  3. 


Targuji  (Ver.  2). 
Ver.  3. 

«b3"m7"T  smna  sbnp^sb 

Compare  also  vers.  5,  6,  8,  10,  12,  13;  ch.  ii. 
?ers.  9,  10, 13-15;  iii.  2-9,  etc. 

We  must  not  omit  to  observe  that  no  eaily  Jew- 
.sh  commentator — Kashi,  Ibn  Ezra,  etc. — men- 
tions the  Targum  either  to  Proverl)S,  or  to  Job  and 
Psalms.  Nathan  ben  Jechiel  (12th  century)  is  the 
first  who  quotes  it. 

Respecting  the  two  latter  Targums  of  this  group. 
Psalms  and  Job,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  they  are, 
more  or  less,  mere  collections  of  fragments.  That 
there  must  have  existed  ])araphrases  to  Job  at  a 
very  early  period  follows  from  the  Talmudical  pas- 
sages which  we  quoted  in  the  introduction  —  nay, 
we  almost  feel  inclined  to  assume  that  this  book, 
considered  by  the  learned  as  a  mere  allegory  (-'Job 
never  was,  and  never  was  created,"  is  the  dictum 
found  in  the  Talmud,  Hnba  Batbra,  15  a:  i.  e.  he 
never  had  any  real  existence,  but  is  a  poetical, 
though  sacred,  invention),  dpened  the  list  of  writ- 
ten paraphrases.  How  much  of  the  primitive  ver- 
sion is  embodied  in  the  one  which  we  possess  it  is 
of  course  next  to  inqjossilde  to  determine,  more  es- 
pecially in  the  state  of  infancy  in  which  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  Targums  as  yet  remains.  So  much, 
however,  is  ])al|)able,  that  the  Targums  of  both 
Psalms  and  Job  in  their  present  shape  contain  relics 
of  different  authors  in  different  times:  some  para- 
phrasts,  some  strictly  translators.  Very  frequently 
a  second  version  of  the  same  passage  is  introduced 

by  the  formula  "IHS  Q12~in,  "another  Tar- 
gum," and  varies  most  widely  from  its  predecessor; 
while,  more  especially  in  the  Psalms,  a  long  series 
of  chapters  translated  literally,  is  followed  by  an- 
other series  translated  in  the  wildest  and  most 
fanciful .  character.  The  Cod.  Erpen.  still  exhiliits 
these  various  readings,  as  such,  side  by  side,  on  its 
margin ;  thence,  however,  they  have  in  our  printed 
editions  found  their  way  into  the  text.  How  much 
of  these  variants,  or  of  the  entire  text,  belongs  to 
the  Palestinian  Cycles,  which  may  well  ha\e  em- 
bnaced  the  whole  Torah,  —  or  whether  they  are  to 
be  considered  exclusively  the  growth  of  later  times, 
and  have  thus  but  a  very  slender  connection  with 
either  the  original  Habylonian  or  the  Palestinian 
Targum-works,  future  investigation  must  determine. 
The  most  useful  in  this  group  is  naturally  the 
Targum  on  Proverbs,  it  being  the  one  which  trans- 
i.ites  most  closely,  or  rather  the  only  one  which 
does  trnndate  at  all.  Besides  the  explan.ation  it 
gives  of  difficult  passages  in  the  text,  its  peculiar 
affinity  to  tlie  Syriac  Version  naturally  throws 
some  light  upon  both,  and  allows  of  emendations 
jn  and  through  either.  As  to  Job  and  Psalms, 
their  chief  use  lies  in  their  showing  the  gradual 
dying  stages  of  the  idiom  in  which  they  are  writ- 
ten, and  also  in  their  being  in  a  manner  guides  to 
the  determination  of  tiie  date  of  certain  stages  of 
Haggadah. 


Syr.  (Ver.  2). 
Ver.  3. 

.)I.o_,>»l.o  )lJ->»o  JI.CLa-.jJo 

2,  3.  Targubis  on  the  five  Megilloth. 

These  Targums  are  likewise  not  mentioned  le- 
fore  the  12th  century,  when  the  Aruch  quotes  their 
severally, — although  Esther  must  have  been  trans- 
lated at  a  very  early  period,  since  the  Talmud  al- 
ready mentions  a  Targum  on  it.  Of  this,  we  need 
hardly  add,  no  trace  is  found  in  our  present  'J'ar- 
gum.  The  freedom  of  a  "version"  can  go  no 
further  than  it  does  in  these  Targums  on  the  Me- 
gilloth. They  are,  in  fact,  mere  Haggadah.  and 
bear  the  most  striking  resemblance  to  the  INIidrash 
on  the  respective  books.  Curiously  enough,  the 
gradual  preponderance  of  the  Paraphrase  over  the 
text  is  noticeable  in  the  following  order:  Kuth, 
Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Song  of  Songs. 
The  latter  is  fullest  to  overflowing  of  those  "  nuyce 
alque  J'livolitfites,"  which  have  so  sorely  tried  the 
temper  of  the  wise  and  grave.  Starting  from  the 
almost  comical  notion  that  all  they  found  in  the 
l)0oks  of  Mohammedanism  and  of  Judaism,  of 
Pome  and  of  Greece,  if  it  seemed  to  have  any  ref- 
erence to  "  lieligio,"  however  unsupported,  and 
however  plainly  be.aring  the  st.amp  of  poetry — good 
or  bad  —  on  its  face,  must  needs  be  a  religious  creed, 
and  the  creed  forced  upon  every  single  believer:  — 
they  could  not  but  get  angry  with  mere  '  day- 
dreams '  being  interspersed  with  the  sacred  litera- 
ture of  the  Bible.  Delitzsch,  a  scholar  of  our 
generation,  says  of  the  Targums  in  general  that 
"  history  becomes  in  them  most  charming,  most  in- 
structive poetry;  but  this  poetry  is  not  the  inven- 
tion, the  phantasma  of  the  writer,  but  the  old  and 
popular  venerable  tradition  or  legend  ....  the 
Targums  are  poetical,  both  as  to  their  contents  and 
form  "  {Gesch.  d.  Jiid.  Poesie,  p.  27):  and  further, 
"  The  wealth  of  legend  in  its  gushing  fullness  did 
not  suflfer  any  formal  bounds;  legend  bursts  upon 
legend,  like  wave  upon  wave,  not  to  be  danjuied  in 
even  by  any  poetical  forms.  Thus  the  Jerusalem 
largum  in  its  double  Kecensions  [to  the  Penta- 
teuch], and  the  Targums  on  the  five  Megilloth  are 
the  most  beautiful  national  works  of  art,  through 
which  there  runs  the  golden  thread  of  Scripture, 
and  which  are  held  together  only  by  the  unity  of 
'the  idea"  (p.  135).  Although  we  do  not  share 
Delit/.sch's  enthusiasm  to  the  full  extent,  yet  we 
cannot  but  agree  with  him  that  there  are,  toget'hei 
with  stones  and  dust,  many  pearls  of  precious  price 
to  be  gathered  from  these  much  despised,  because 
hardly  known,  books. 

The  dialect  of  these  books  occupies  the  mean  be- 
tween the  East  and  \\'est  Aramaean,  and  there  is  a 
certain  unity  of  style  and  design  about  all  the  five 
books,  which  fully  justifies  the  supposition  that 
they  are,  one  and  all,  the  work  of  one  author.  It 
may  be  that,  taken  in  an  inverted  series,  they  mark 
the  successive  stages  of  a  poet's  life;  glowing,  rap- 
turous, overflowing  in  the  first;  stately,  solier, 
prosy  in  the  last.     As  to  the  time  of  its  vrritinc  w 


VERSIONS,  ANCIENT  (TARGUM) 


3423 


tditing,  we  have  again    to  repeat,  that  it  is  most  i  that  dare  to  pronounce  tlie  name  of  the  Profan* 


uncertain,  but  unquestionably  belongs  to  a  piriud  I 
much  later  than  the  Talmud.  The  book  of  Esther, 
enjoying  both  through  its  story-like  form  and  the 
early  injunction  of  its  being  read  or  heard  by  every 
one  on  the  Feast  of  Purim,  a  great  circulation  and 
popularity,  has  been  targumized  many  times,  and 
besides  the  one  emljodied  in  the  five  Megiiloth, 
there  are  two  more  extant  (nut  three,  as  generally 
stated:  the  so-called  tliird  Ijeing  only  an  abbrevia- 
tion of  the  first),  which  are  calleil  respectively  the 
first:  a  short  one  without  digressions,  and  the 
second  —  {Taryum  sluni):  a  larger  one,  belonging 
to  the  Palestinian  Cycle.  The  latter  Targum  is  a 
collection  of  eastern  romances,  broken  up  and  ar- 
ranged to  the  single  \erses:  of  gorgeous  hues  and 
extravagant  imagination,  such  as  are  to  be  met  with 
ill  the  Adshaib  or  Chamis,  or  any  eastern  collec- 
tion of  legends  and  tales. 

VI.  Takguji  on  thk  Book  of  Chkomci.es. 

This  Targuiu  was  unknown,  as  we  said  before, 
up  to  a  very  recent  period.  In  1G8U,  it  was  edited 
for  the  first  time  from  an  Erfurt  iMS.  by  M.  F. 
beck,  and  in  1715  from  a  more  complete  as  well  as 
correct  iVIS.  at  Camliridge,  by  1).  \Vilkins.  The 
name  of  Hungary  occurring  in  it,  and  its  frequent 
use  of  the  Jerusalem-Targuni  to  the  Pentateuch, 
amounting  sometimes  to  simple  copying  (comp.  the 
Genealogical  Table  in  chap,  i.,  etc  )  show  sufficiently 
that  its  author  is  neither  ".Jonathan  b.  Uzziel " 
uor  "  Joseph  the  Blind,"  as  has  been  suggested. 
But  the  language,  style,  and  the  Haggadah,  with 
which  it  abounds,  point  to  a  lat«  period  and  {joint 
out  Palestine  as  the  place  where  it  was  written. 
Its  use  must  be  limited  to  philological,  historical, 
and  geographical  studies;  the  science  of  exegesis 
will  profit  little  by  it.  The  first  edition  appeared 
under  the  title  P<u:'plurisis  C/i'iLlaici  liiir.  C/irun- 
icorum,  cura  M.  F.  Beckii,  2  tom.  Aug.  Vhid. 
1680-8;j,  4to;  the  second  by  D.  Wilkins,  Punt- 
phrnsis  ....  anclore  R.  Jusep/in,  etc.  Amst., 
1715,  4to.  The  first  edition  has  the  ad\antage  of 
a  large  number  of  very  learned  notes,  the  second 
that  of  a  comparatively  more  correct  and  complete 
te.\t. 

VII.  The  Takgum  to  Danii:l. 

It  is  for  the  first  time  that  this  Targum,  for  the 
iion-e.xistence  of  which  many  and  weighty  reasons 
were  given  (that  the  date  of  the  Messiah's  arrival 
was  hidden  in  it,  among  others),  is  here  formally 
introduced  into  the  regidar  rank  and  file  of  Tar- 
gums,  althouLch  it  has  been  known  for  now  Uiore 
than  five  and  twenty  years.  Munk  found  it  not 
indeed  in  the  Original  Aramaic,  but  in  what  ap- 
pears to  him  to  be  an  extract  of  it  written  in  Per- 
jjau.  Tho  MS.  i  .Vnc.  Fond,  No.  45,  Imp.  Library) 
is  inscribed  "  History  of  Daniel,"  and  has  retained 
only  the  fiiit  words  of  the  Original,  which  it  trans- 
lates likewise  into  Persian.  This  language  is  then 
retained  throughout. 

After  several  legends  known  from  other  Targums, 
follows  a  long  prophecy  of  Daniel,  from  which  the 
!)Ook  is  shown  to  have  been  written  after  the  fiist 
L'rusade.  Jlohaumiad  and  his  succossurs  ai-e  nion- 
lioned,    also    a   king    who   coming    from    Europe 

{^S'*Q1"1  TS)  will  go  to  Damascus,  and  kill  the 
Uhmaelitic  (Mohammedan)  kings  and  princes;  he 
will  break  down  the  minarets  (mS^^D),  destroy 
he  mosques  (Sn"T3D2),  and  no  one  will  after 


(71DS  =  Mohammad).  The  Jews  will  also  hava 
to  suffer  great  misfortunes  (as  indeed  the  knightl) 
Crusaders  won  their  spurs  by  dastardly  nmrderiuL' 
the  helpless  ma.sses,  men,  women,  and  children,  ii, 
the  Ghettos  along  the  Khine  and  elsewhere,  before 
they  started  to  deliver  the  Holy  Tomb).  By  a 
sudden  transition  the  Prophet  then  passes  on  to  the 
•>  Messiah,  son  of  Joseph,"  to  Gog  and  Magog,  and 
to  the  ■'  true  Messiah,  the  son  of  David."  Munk 
rightly  concludes  that  the  book  must  have  lieen 
conqwsed  in  the  12th  century,  when  Christian 
kings  reigned  for  a  brief  period  over  Jerusalem 
(Nu/iee  sitr  Saadia,  Par.  1838). 

Vlll.  There  is  also  a  Chaldee  translation  extant 
of  the  apocryphal  pieces  of  Esther,  which,  entirely 
lying  apart  from  our  task,  we  confine  ourselves  to 
mention  without  further  entering  into  the  subject. 
De  liossi  has  published  them  with  Notes  and  Dis- 
sertations. Tiibingen,  178.3,  8vo. 
Further  fragments  of  the  Palestinian  Targum. 

Besides  the  complete  books  belonging  to  the  Pal- 
estinian Cycle  of  I'argum  which  we  have  mentioned, 
and  the  portions  of  it  intersected  as  "  Another 
Heading,"  "  Another  Targum,"  into  the  Babylo- 
nian Versions,  there  are  extant  several  independent 
fragments  of  it.  Nor  need  we  as  yet  despair  of 
finding  still  further  portions,  perhaps  one  day  to 
see  it  restored  entirely.  There  is  all  the  more  hope 
ibr  this,  as  the  Targum  has  not  been  lost  very  long 
yet.  ^Vbudraham  quotes  the  Targum  Jerushalmi 
to  SSaiiiuel  (i.  9,  13).  Kiuichi  has  preserved  several 
passages  from  it  to  Judyes  (xi.  1,  consisting  of  47 
words);  to  Samuel  (i.  17,  18:  106  words);  and 
Kings  (i.  22,  21:  68  words;  ii.  4,  1:  174  words; 
iv.  6:  55  words;  iv.  7:  72  words;  xiii.  21:  9 
words),  under  the  simple  name  of  Toseftah,  i.  e. 
Addition,  or  Additional  Targum.  Luzzatto  has 
also  lately  found  fragments  of  the  same,  under  the 
names  "  Targum  of  Palestine,"  "  Targum  of  Jeru 
shalmi,"  "  Another  Beading,"  etc.,  in  an  African 
Codex  written  5247  A.  Ji.  =  1487  A.  D.,  namely, 
to  1  Sam.  xviii.  19;  2  Sara.  xii.  12;  1  Kings  v.  9, 
V.  11,  V.  1-3,  X.  18,  X.  20,  xiv.  13;  to  Hosea  i.  1; 
()l>ad.  i.  1.  —  To  Isaiah,  IJashi  {Isuaki,  not  as  peo- 
ple still  persist  in  calling  him,. Inr eld),  Abudraham 
and  I'arissol  quote  it:  and  a  fragment  of  the  Tar- 
gum to  his  prophet  is  extant  in  Cod.  Urbin.  Vat- 
ican No.  1,  containing  about  120  words,  and  be- 
ginning: "  Prophecy  of  Isaiah,  which  he  prophesied 
at  the  end  of  his  prophecy  in  the  days  of  iManasseh 
the  Son  of  Hezekiah  the  King  of  the  Tribe  of  the 
House  of  Jndah  on  the  17th  of  Tamuz  in  the  hour 
when  .Mana-sseh  set  up  an  idol  in  the  I'emple,"  etc. 
Isaiah  predicts  in  this  his  own  violent  death.  Part^ 
of  this  rar;,'um  are  also  found  in  Hebrew,  in  Pesik 
tall  llabbathi  G  ",  and  Valkut  Isa.  58  </.  A  Jeru 
salem  largum  to  Jeremiah  is  mentioned  by  Kim- 
chi;  to  Ezekiel  by  K.  Simeon,  Nathan  (.\ruch). 
and  likewise  by  Kimelii,  who  also  speaks  of  a 
further  addition;.l  Targum  to  Jonathan  for  this 
bonk.  A  •' TaJgum-Jerushalini  "  to  Micah  is 
known  to  Rashi,  and  of  Zechariah  a  frai;ment  has 
lieeii  published  in  Mruns  (Eiehhorn's  Ripert.  xv. 
174)  from  a  Ileuchlinian  MS.  (Cod.  354,  Kennic. 
25),  written  TiOfi.  The  passage,  found  as  a  mar- 
ginal gloss  to  Zech.  xii.  10,  reads  as  follows:  — 

"  Targum  Jerushalmi.  And  I  shall  pour  out 
upon  the  I  lease  of  David  and  the  inhabitants  of 
.Jerusalem  tl.e  spirit  of  prophecy  and  of  [n-ayer  fot 
truth.     .Viid  alter  this  shall  go  forth  ^lo  siah  th« 


3424       VEKSIONS,  ANCIENT 

Son  of  Efraim  to  wage  war  against  Gog.  And 
Gog  will  kill  him  before  the  city  of  Jerusbalaini. 
riiey  will  look  up  to  me  and  tliey  will  ask  nie 
therefore  the  heathens  have  killed  ^lessiah  the  Son 
Df  Efraim.  They  will  then  mourn  over  biui  as 
mourn  father  and  mother  over  an  only  son,  and 
they  will  wail  over  him  as  one  wails  over  a  firstlioni." 

—  A  Targum  Jerushalnii  to  the  third  chapter  of 
Hiibakkuk,  quoted  by  liashi,  is  mentioned  by  De 
ilossi  (Cod.  265  and  405,  both  13th  century).  It 
has  been  suggested  that  a  Targum  Jerushalnii  on 
the  Prophets  only  e.xisted  to  the  Haltarahs,  which 
had  at  one  time  been  translated  perhaps,  like  the 
portion  from  the  Law,  in  public;  but  we  have  seen 
that  entire  books,  not  to  mention  single  chapters, 
possessed  a  Palestinian  Targuui,  which  never  were 
intended  or  used  for  the  purpose  of  Maftarah.  .•Xnd 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  origin  of  this 
Targum  to  the  Prophets  is  precisely  similar  to,  and 
perhaps  contemporaneous  with,  that  which  we 
traced  to  that  portion  which  embraces  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  Baltylonian  Version,  the  "Jonathan-"' 
'J'argum,  though  paraphrastic,  did  not  satisfy  the 
apparently  more  imaginative  Palestinian  public. 
Thus  from  heaped-up  additions  and  marginal 
glosses,  the  step  to  a  total  re-writing  of  the  entire 
Codex  in  tiie  maimer  and  taste  of  the  latter  times 
and  the  diflerent  locality,  was  easy  enough.  From 
a  critique  of  the  work  as  such,  however,  we  nuist 
naturally  keep  aloof,  as  long  as  we  have  only  the 
few  specimens  named  to  judge  from.  But  its  gen- 
eral spirit  and  tendency  are  clear  enough.  So  is 
also  the  advantage  to  which  even  the  uiiniminii 
that  has  survived  may  some  day  be  put  by  the  stu- 
dent of  Jlidrashic  literature,  as  we  have  briefly  in- 
dicated above. 

We  cannot  conclude  without  expressiiiij;  the  hope 

—  probably  a  vain  one  —  that  linguistic  studies 
may  soon  turn  in  the  direction  of  that  vast  and 
most  interesting,  as  well  as  important,  Aramaic 
literature,  of  which  the  Targums  form  but  a  small 
item . 

The  writer  finally  begs  to  ol)serve  that  tlie  trans- 
lations of  all  the  passages  quoted  from  Talmud  and 
Midrash,  as  well  as  the  specimens  from  the  Targum, 
have  been  made  by  him  directly  from  the  respective 
originals. 

N.  Pfeiffer,  Critica  Sacr. ;  The.  Smith,  IHa- 
ivihe  ;  Gerhard,  De  Script.  Sacr.  ;  Helvicus,  De 
C'liiild.  BibK  Paraph. ;  Varen,  De  Targ.  Onktl. ; 
M'olf,  B'M  Hebr. ;  Carpzov,  Critica  Sacra  ;  Joh. 
Morinus,  Exerciil.  Bibl. ;  Schickard,  Bechin.  Hap- 
per.  ;  Jerar,  Proleg.  Biblice ;  Eivet,  Jsa(jo<je  ad 
S.  S. ;  AUix,  Judic.  Pedes.  Jud. ;  Huet,  De 
Claris  Jnterjyp. ;  Leusden,  Philol.  Hebi:  ;  Pri- 
deaux,  Connect.  ;  Eambach,  Jnst.  Ilerm.  Sacr.  ; 
Elias  Levita,  Melurc/eman ;  Tishbi ;  Luzzatto, 
Oheb  Ger;  Perkovitz,  Oleh  Or;  Winer,  Onke- 
//<« ;  Anger,  De  Onkeluso;  Vitringa,  Synayofja; 
Azariah  De  Rossi,  Meor  Emijim;  Petermann,  De 
duabus  Pent.  Paraph.  ;  Dathe,  De  ratione  con- 
sensus vers.  Chald.  et  Syr.  Prov.  Sal.  ;  Lcivy,  in 
Geiger's  Zeilschr. ;  Levysohn  and  Traub  in  Fran- 
kel's  .Vonaisschr.  ;  Zunz,  Cotlesiliensll.  Vortratie  ; 
Geiger,  Urschrift;  Frankel,  Vorstudien  zur  LXX.; 
Beilrdc/e  f.  Pal.  Exerj.,  Zcitschrijl ;  Monats- 
tchrifi ;  Geiger,  Zeitschrift  ;  Fiirst,  Orient ;  Hall. 
Ally.  Liter.  Zeitg.  1821  and  1832;  Introductions 
jf  Walton,  Eichhorn,  Keil,  Hjivernick,  Jahn,  Herbst, 
Bertheau,  Davidson,  etc. ;  Gesenius,  ./csom  ;  Home, 
Aruch  ;  Geschichten  of  Jost,  Herzfeld.  Griitz,  etc. ; 
Dehtzsch,  Gesch.  d.  Jiid.  Poesie,  Sachs's  Beit  ray  e ; 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 

Fiirst,  Chald.  Gramm.  ;  Yj.  Deutsch  in  Wisttrnh 
Monatschr.,  185U;  Zeitschrift  auA  Verhandliinyen 
der  Deutschen  Moryenldnd.  Gtsellsch.,  etc.,  etc. 

E.  D. 

VERSION,  AUTHORIZED.  The  history 
of  the  English  translations  of  the  Bible  connects 
itself  with  many  points  of  interest  in  that  of  the 
nation  and  the  Church.  The  lives  of  the  individ- 
ual translators,  the  long  struggle  with  the  inditfer- 
ence  or  opposition  of  men  in  power,  the  religions 
condition  of  the  people  as  calling  for,  or  affected 
by,  the  appearance  of  the  translation,  the  time  and 
place  and  form  of  the  successive  editions  by  which 
the  demand,  when  once  created,  was  supplied  — 
each  of  these  has  furnished,  and  might  again  fur- 
nish, materials  for  a  volume.  It  is  obvious  that 
the  work  now  to  be  done  must  lie  within  narrower 
limits;  and  it  is  proposed,  therefore,  to  exclude  all 
that  belongs  simply  to  the  personal  history  of  the 
men,  or  the  general  history  of  the  time,  or  that 
conies  within  the  special  province  of  bililiography. 
What  will  be  aimed  at  will  be  to  sjive  an  account  of 
the  seieral  versions  as  they  ap]ieared ;  to  ascertain 
the  qualifications  of  the  translators  for  the  work 
which  they  undertook,  and  the  principles  on  which 
they  acted ;  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  final  result 
of  their  labors  in  the  received  version,  and,  as  con- 
sequent on  this,  of  the  necessity  or  desirableness  oi 
a  new  or  revised  translation;  and,  finally,  to  give 
such  a  survey  of  the  literature  of  the  subject  as 
may  help  the  reader  to  obtain  a  fuller  knowledge 
for  himself. 

I.  Eahly  Th.\nslatioxs.  —  It  was  asserted  by 
Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his  anxiety  to  establish  a 
point  against  Tyndal,  that  he  had  seen  English 
translations  of  the  Bible,  which  had  been  made  be- 
fore ^^'yclifl^e,  and  that  these  were  approved  by  the 
Bishops,  and  were  allowed  by  them  to  be  read  by 
laymen,  and  even  by  devout  women  (Diidoyiies,  ch. 
viii.-xiv.  col.  82).  There  seem  good  grounds,  how- 
ever, for  doubting  the  accuracy  of  this  statement. 
No  such  translations  —  versions,  i.  e.  of  the  entire 
Scriptures  —  are  now  extant.  No  traces  of  them 
appear  in  any  contemporary  writer.  Wjcliffe's 
great  complaint  is.  that  there  is  no  translation 
(Forshall  and  Aladden,  Wyclijj'e''s  Bible,  Pre/,  p. 
xxi.  Prol.  p  59).  The  Constitutions  of  Archbishop 
Arundel  (A.  D.  1408)  mention  two  only,  and  these 
are  Wyclifte's  own,  and  the  one  based  on  his  and 
completed  after  his  death.  Jlore's  statement  must 
therefore  be  regarded  either  as  a  rhetorical  exagger- 
ation of  the  fact  that  parts  of  the  Bible  had  been 
previously  translated,  or  as  rising  out  of  a  mistake 
as  to  the  date  of  MSB.  of  the  Wyclitii;  version.  The 
history  of  the  English  Bible  will  therefore  begin, 
as  it  has  besun  hitherto,  with  the  work  of  the  first 
great  reformer.  One  glance,  however,  we  may 
give,  in  passing,  to  the  earlier  history  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  and  connect  some  of  its  most  honored 
names  with  the  great  work  of  making  the  tniths  of 
Scripture,  or  parts  of  the  books  themselves,  if  not 
the  Bible  as  a  whole,  accessible  to  the  people.  We 
may  think  of  Caedmon  as  embodying  the  whole 
history  of  the  Bible  in  the  alliterative  metre  of 
-Anclo-.Saxon  poetry  (Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  24);  of 
Aldhelm,  Bishop  of  Sherbonie,  in  the  7th  century, 
as  rendering  the  Psalter ;  of  Bede,  as  translating  in 
the  last  hours  of  his  life  the  Gos])el  of  St.  Johr. 
{Epist.  Cuthberti);  of  .Alfred,  setting  forth  in  his 
mother-tongue  as  the  great  groundwork  of  his 
legislation,  the  four  chapters  of  Exodus  (xx.-xxiii.) 
that  contained  the  first  code  of  the  laws  o/  Israpi 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


3425 


(Pauli's  Life  of  Alfred,  cli.  v.).  The  wishes  of 
the  great  king  extended  further.  He  desired  that 
"  all  the  free-born  youth  of  his  kingdom  should 
be  able  to  read  the  Englisli  Scriptures""  {ibid). 
Portions  of  tlie  Bible,  some  of  tlie  Psalms,  and  ex- 
tracts from  other  books,  were  translated  by  him  for 
his  own  use  and  that  of  his  children.  The  tradi- 
tions of  a  later  date,  seeing  in  him  the  representa- 
tive of  all  that  was  good  in  the  old  Saxon  time, 
made  him  the  translator  of  the  whole  Bible  {ibid. 
Supp.  to  ch.  v.). 

The  work  of  translating  was,  however,  carried  on 
by  otliers.  One  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  four 
Gos[iels,  interlinear  with  the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate, 
known  as  the  Durham  Book,  is  found  in  the  t'ot- 
tonian  MSS.  of  tlie  British  Museum,  and  is  referred 
to  the  9th  or  lOth  century.  Anuther,  known  as 
the  Kushworth  Gloss,  and  belonging  to  the  same 
period,  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford." 
Anuther,  of  a  somewhat  later  date,  is  in  the  same 
collection,  and  in  the  liljrary  of  C.  C  College,  Cam- 
bridge. Tiie  name  of  Aldhelm,  ISishop  of  Sher- 
borne, is  connected  witli  a  version  of  the  Psalms: 
that  of  ^Eltric,  with  an  Eiiitome  of  Scripture  His- 
tory, including  a  translation  of  many  parts  of  the 
historical  books  of  the  Bible  (Lewis,  Hist,  of 
TransL  ch.  i. ;  Forshall  and  Madden,  P/'e/'rtce  ; 
Bagster's  Eiujli^li  flexapLi,  Pref. ).  The  influence 
of  Norman  ecclesiastics,  in  the  reigns  that  preceded 
or  followed  the  Conquest,  was  probalily  adverse  to 
the  continuance  of  this  work.  They  were  too  fiir 
removed  from  sympathy  with  the  subjugated  race 
to  care  to  educate  them  in  their  own  tongue.  The 
spoken  dialects  of  the  English  of  that  period  woidd 
naturally  seem  to  them  too  rude  and  uncouth  to 
be  the  channel  of  Divine  truth.  Pictures,  mys- 
teries, miracle-plays,  rather  than  books,  were  the 
histruments  of  education  for  all  but  the  few  who, 
in  monasteries  under  Norman  or  Italian  superin- 
tendence, devoted  themselves  to  tiie  study  of  theol- 
ogy or  law.  In  the  remoter  parts  of  iuigland,  how- 
ever, where  their  influence  was  less  felt,  or  the  na- 
tional feeling  was  stronger,  there  were  tiiose  who 
cairied  on  the  succession,  and  three  versions  of  the 
(iospels,  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge, 
in  the  Bodleian,  and  in  the  British  Museum,  be- 
longing to  the  11th  or  12th  century,  remain  as 
attesting  their  labors.  The  metrical  paraphrase  of 
the  Gospel  history,  known  as  the  Ormulum,  in  al- 
literative English  verse,  ascribed  to  the  latter  half 
of  the  12th  century,  is  the  next  conspicuous  monu- 
ment, and  may  be  looked  upon  as  indicating  a  de- 


a  So  Pauli  (Eng.  transl.).  But  would  '' Euglisc  ge- 
writ "  mean  "the  Scriptures''  exclusivt'ly  ?  Do  not 
the  words  of  .\lfred  point  to  a  general  as  well  as  a  re- 
ligious education? 

f>  One  interesting  fact  connected  with  this  ver.sion 
is  that  its  text  agrees  with  that  of  the  Codex  Bezre 
where  that  JIS.  differs  most  from  the  textua  receplns  of 
the  N.  T.  Another  is  its  publication  by  Foxe  the 
Martyrologist  in  1571,  at  the  request  of  Archbishop 
Parker.  It  was  subsequently  edited  by  Dr.  Marshall 
in  16G5. 

It  may  be  noticed,  as  bearing  upon  a  question  after- 
wards the  subject  of  much  discussion,  tiiat  in  this  and 
the  other  An,u;lo-Saxon  versions  the  attempt  is  made  to 
give  vernacular  equivalents  even  for  the  words  which, 
as  belonging  to  a  systematic  theology,  or  for  other 
reasons,  most  later  versions  have  left  practically  nu- 
Sranslated.  Thus  baptisma  is  "  fyllith  "  (washing)  ; 
■tanit'ntia,  "doed-hoto'"  (redress  for  evil  deeds).  So 
\ribre  are  "  bocete '' (bookmen).  Synagogues,  "  ges- 
uuauuguui  "     (met'tiags)  j     amen,     "  sothlice "     ^iu 


sire  to  place  the  facts  of  the  P,il>le  within  reach  of 
others  than  the  clergy.^  The  13th  century,  a  time 
in  England,  as  throughout  Europe,  of  religious  re- 
vival, witnessed  renewed  attempts.  A  prose  trans* 
lation  of  the  Bible  into  Norman-Erench,  cir.  A.  D. 
1200,  indicates  a  demand  for  devotional  reading 
within  the  circle  of  the  Court,  or  of  the  wealthier 
merchants,  or  of  convents  for  women  of  high  rank. 
I'urther  siirns  of  the  same  desire  are  found  in  three 
I'jiglish  versions  of  the  Psalms  —  one  towards  the 
close  of  the  13th  centtn-y ;  another  by  Schorhani, 
cir.  A.  D.  1320;  another — with  other  canticles 
from  the  0.  T.  and  N.  T.  —  by  liichard  Rolle  of 
Hampole,  cir.  1349 ;  the  last  being  accompanied  by 
a  devotional  exposition :  and  in  one  of  the  Gospels 
of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  and  of  all  St.  Paul's 
epistles  (the  list  includes  the  apocryphal  epistle  to 
the  l.aodiceans),  in  the  library  of  C.  C.  College, 
Cambridge.  The  fact  stated  by  Archbishop  Arun- 
del in  his  funeral  sermon  on  Amie  of  Bohemia,  wife 
of  Richard  II..  that  she  liabitually  read  the  Gospels 
in  the  vulgar  tongue,  with  divers  expositions,  was 
probably  true  of  many  others  of  high  rank.^'  It  is 
interesting  to  note  these  facts,  not  as  detracting 
from  the  glory  of  the  great  reformer  of  the  14th  cen- 
tury, but  as  showing  that  for  him  also  there  had 
been  a  preparation ;  that  what  he  supplied  met  a 
demand  which  had  for  many  years  been  gathering 
strength.  It  is  almost  needless  to  add  that  these 
versions  started  from  nothing  better  than  the  copies 
of  the  Vulgate,  more  or  less  accurate,  which  each 
translator  had  before  him  (Lewis,  ch.  i. ;  Forshall 
and  Madden,  Pref  nee). 

II.  VVycliffe  (b.  1324;  d.  1384).  —  (1.)  It  is 
singular,  and  not  without  significance,  that  the  first 
translation  from  the  Bible  connected  with  the  name 
of  Wyclifl'e  should  have  been  that  of  part  of  the 
Apocalypse. «  The  Last  Aye  of  the  Church  (a.  d. 
1350)  translates  and  expoinids  the  vision  in  which 
the  reformer  read  the  signs  of  his  own  times,  the 
sins  and  the  destruction  of  "  Antichrist  and  his 
meynee "  (^multitude).  Shortly  after  this  he 
completed  a  version  of  the  Gospels,  accompanied  by 
a  commentary  "  so  that  pore  Christen  men  may 
some  dele  know  the  text  of  the  Gospel,  with  the 
comyn  sentence  of  olde  holie  d oc tores  "  {Pref  tee). 
Wj'clifle,  however,  though  the  chief,  was  not  the 
oidy  laborer  in  the  cause.  The  circle  of  English 
reatlers  was  becoming  wider,  and  they  were  not 
content  to  have  the  Book  which  they  honored 
above  all  others  in  a  tongue  not  their  own./  An- 
other translation  and  commentary  appear  to  have 

sooth);  and  phylacteries,  "  healsbec "  (neck-books). 
See  Lewis,  Hist,  of  Translations,  p.  9. 

<••  The  Ormulum,  edited  by  Dr.  White,  was  printed 
at  the  Oxford  University  Press  in  1852. 

</  Chronologically,  of  course,  the  Gospels  thus  re 
ferred  to  may  have  been  Wycliffe's  translation  ;  but 
the  strong  opposition  of  Arundel  to  the  work  of  the 
Reformer  makes  it  probable  that  those  which  the 
queen  used  belonged  to  a  different  school,  like  that  of 
the  versions  just  mentioned. 

e  The  authorship  of  this  book  has  however  been 
disputed  (com p.  Todd's  Preface). 

f  "  One  comfort  is  of  knightes  ;  they  saveren  much 
the  GospoUe,  and  have  wille  to  read  in  Englische  the 
(Jospelle  of  Christes  life  "  (WyolitTe,  Frolngiif).  Com- 
pare the  speech  ascribed  to  Joliii  of  Gaunt  (13  Hie.  II.). 
"  We  will  not  be  the  dregs  of  all,  .seeing  other  nation* 
have  the  law  of  God,  which  is  the  law  of  our  faith, 
written  in  their  own  language  "  (k'o.xe,  Pref.  to  Saxon 
Giispcls  ;   licwis,  p   29). 


8A26 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


been  made  about  the  same  time,  in  ignorance  of 
Wjcliffc's  work,  and  lor  the  "  nianie  lewid  men 
that  gladlie  would  kon  the  Gospelle,  if  it  were 
draghen  into  the  Engliseh  tung."  The  fact  that 
many  MSS.  of  this  period  are  extant,  containing 
in  luiglish  a  Monotessaroii,  or  Harmony  of  the 
Gospels,  accompanied  by  portions  of  the  epistles,  or 
portions  of  the  0.  T.,  or  an  epitome  of  Scriptm-e 
history,  or  the  substance  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  or 
the  catholic  epistles  at  full  length,  with  indications 
more  or  less  distinct  of  Wycliffe's  influence,  shows 
how  wide-spread  was  the  feeling  that  the  time  had 
come  for  an  English  Bible.  (Forshall  and  Mad- 
den, Pvef.  pp.  xiii.-xvii.)  These  preliminary  la- 
bors were  followed  up  by  a  complete  translation 
of  the  N.  T.  by  Wycliffe  himself.  The  0.  T. 
was  undertaken  by  his  coadjutor,  Nicholas  de 
Hereford,  but  was  interrupted  proliably  by  a  cita- 
tion to  appear  before  Archbishop  Arundel  in  1382, 
and  ends  abru[)tly  (following  so  far  the  order  of 
the  Vulgate)  in  the  middle  of  Baruch.  Many  of 
the  MSS.  of  this  version  now  extant  present  a 
different  recension  of  the  text,  and  it  is  probable 
that  the  work  of  Wycliffe  and  Hereford  was  re- 
vised l)y  Richard  I'urvey,  cir.  A.  d.  1-388.  To 
him  also  is  ascrilied  the  interesting  Prologue,  in 
which  the  translator  gives  an  account  both  of  his 
purpose  and  his  method.  (Forshall  and  Madden, 
Pref.  p.  XXV.) 

(2.)  The  former  was,  as  that  of  Wycliffe  had 
been,  to  give  an  Kuglish  Bible  to  the  English 
people.  He  appeals  to  the  authority  of  Bede,  of 
Alfred,  and  of  Grostete,  to  the  examples  of 
"  Frenshe,  and  Beemers  (Bohemians),  and  Brit- 
ons." He  answers  the  hypocritical  objections 
that  men  were  not  holy  enough  for  such  a  work : 
that  it  was  wrong  for  "  idiots  "  to  do  what  the 
great  doctors  of  the  Church  had  left  inidone. 
He  hopes  "  to  make  the  sentence  as  trewe  and 
open  in  Englishe  as  it  is  in  Latine,  or  more  trewe 
and  open." 

It  need  hardly  be  said,  as  regards  the  method  of 
the  translator,  that  the  version  was  based  entirely 
upon  the  Vulgate. "^  If,  in  the  previous  century, 
scholars  like  Grostete  and  Roger  Bacon,  seeking 
knowledge  in  other  lands,  and  from  men  of  other 
races,  had  acquired,  as  they  seem  to  have  done, 
some  knowledge  both  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  the 
succession  had,  at  all  events,  not  been  perpetuated. 
The  war  to  be  waged  at  a  later  period  with  a 
different  issue  between  Scholastic  Philosophy  and 
"  Humanity  "  ended,  in  the  first  struggle,  in  the 
triumph  of  the  former,  and  there  was  proliably  no 
one  at  Oxford  among  Wycliffe's  contemporaries 
who  could  have  helped  him  or  Purvey  in  a  transla- 
tion from  the  original.  It  is  something  to  find  at 
such  a  time  the  complaint  that  "  learned  doctoris 
taken  littel  heede  to  the  lettre,"  the  recognition 
that  the  Vulgate  was  not  all  sufficient,  that  "  the 


a  A  crucial  instance  is  that  of  Gen.  iii.  15  :  "  She 
(hall  trede  thy  head." 

b  This  knowledge  is,  however,  at  second  h.and,  "  bi 
wituesse  of  Jerom,  of  Lii'e,  and  other  expositouris." 

c  It  is  worth  while  to  give  his  own  account  of  this 
process  ;  "  First  this  simple  creature,-'  his  usual  way 
i»f  speaking  of  himself,  '■  hedde  myche  travaile,  with 
tiverse  felawis  and  helperis,  to  gedere  manie  elde 
bibles,  and  othere  doctoris,  and  oomune  glosis,  and 
to  make  oo  Latyn  bible  sumdel  trewe,  and  thanue  to 
Itudie  it  of  the  new.  the  text  with  the  glose,  and 
jthere  d'^'ctoris,  as  be  nii"*e,  and  special!  Lire  on  the 


texte  of  oure  bokis  "  (he  is  speaking  of  the  Pgalter 
and  tlie  difficulty  of  understanding  it)  "discordetb 
much  fioni  the  Ebreu."  *  The  difficulty  which 
was  thus  felt  was  increased  by  the  state  of  the 
Vulgate  text.  The  tianslator  compkains  that  what 
the  Church  had  in  view  was  not  Jerome's  version, 
but  a  later  and  corrupt  text;  that  "  the  connnie 
Latyne  Bibles  han  more  neede  to  be  corrected  as 
manie  as  I  have  .seen  in  my  life,  than  hath  the 
Englishe  Bible  late  translated."  To  remedy  this 
he  had  recourse  to  collation.  Many  MSS.  were 
compared,  and  out  of  this  comparison,  the  true 
reading  ascertained  as  far  as  pos.sil)le.  The  next 
step  was  to  considt  the  Glossa  Ordimiria ,  the  com- 
mentaries of  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  and  others,  as  to 
the  meaning  of  any  difficult  passages.  After  this 
(we  recognize  here,  jierhaps,  a  departure  from  the 
right  order)  grammars  were  consulted.  Then  came 
the  actual  work  of  translatintr,  which  he  aimed  at 
making  idiomatic  rather  than  literal.  As  he  went 
on,  he  submitted  his  work  to  the  judgment  of 
others,  and  accepted  their  sugirestions.^  It  is  in- 
teresting to  trace  these  early  strivings  after  the 
true  excellence  of  a  translator;  yet  more  interest- 
ing to  take  note  of  the  spirit,  never  surpassed,  .sel- 
dom equaled,  in  later  translators,  in  which  the  w(jrk 
was  done.  Nowhere  do  we  find  the  conditions  of 
the  work,  intellectual  and  moral,  more  solemnly 
asserted.  "  A  transl.ator  hath  grete  nede  to  studie 
well  the  sejitence,  both  befoi-e  and  after,"  so  that 
no  equivocal  words  may  mislead  his  readers  or 
himself,  and  then  also  "  he  hath  nede  to  lyve  a 
clene  life,  and  be  ful  devout  in  preiers,  and  have 
not  his  wit  occupied  about  worldli  things,  that  the 
Ilolie  Spiryt,  author  of  all  wisedom,  and  cunnynge 
and  truthe,  dresse  (=  train)  him  in  his  work,  and 
suffer  him  not  for  to  err  "  (Forshall  and  Madden, 
Prol.  p.  60). 

(.3.)  The  extent  of  the  circulation  gained  by  this 
version  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that,  in 
spite  of  all  the  chances  of  time,  and  all  the  sys- 
tematic efforts  for  its  destruction  made  by  Arch- 
bishop Arundel  and  others,  not  less  than  150  copies 
are  known  to  be  extaijt,  some  of  then  obviously 
made  for  pei'sons  of  wealth  and  rank,  others  ap- 
parently lor  hun)bler  readers.  It  is  significant  as 
lieariiig,  either  on  the  date  of  the  two  works,  or 
on  the  position  of  the  writers,  that  while  the  quo- 
tations from  Scripture  in  Langton's  [Langland's] 
Vision  of  Piers  Plowman  are  uniformly  given  in 
Latin,  those  in  the  Persotie's  Tale  of  Chaucer  are 
given  in  English,  which  for  the  most  part  agrees 
substantially  with  Wycliffe's  translation. 

(4. )  The  following  characteristics  may  be  noticed 
as  distinguishing  this  \ersion :  (1.)  The  general 
homeliness  of  its  style.  The  languatre  of  the  court 
or  of  scholars  is  as  far  as  possible  avoided,  and  that 
of  the  people  followed.  In  this  respect  the  prin- 
ciple has  lieen  acted  on  by  later  translators.     The 


elde  testament,  that  helpid  full  myche  in  this  werk 
the  thriilde  t'me  to  counsel  with  elde  grammarians 
and  elde  dyvynis  of  hanle  wordes  and  harJe  sentences 
how  those  mizte  best  be  understode  and  translated, 
the  iiij'^  tynie  to  translate  as  clearlie  as  he  coude  to 
the  sentence,  and  to  have  manie  good  felawis  and 
kunnynge  at  the  correcting  ol  the  trimslacioun  "  (  Pnf- 
nrf,  c.  XV.).  The  note  at  the  close  of  the  preface,  on 
the  grammatical  idioms  of  different  languages,  th« 
many  English  equiv.-ili  nts.  e  l'-  for  the  Latin  ablatlTl 
absolute,  shows  coiisid  irablc  disceruuieut. 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED. 


3427 


ityle  of  WyclifFe  is  to  that  of  Chaucer  as  Tyndal's 
is  to  Surrey's,  or  that  of  the  A.  V.  to  Ben  Jon- 
Bon's.  ('2.)  The  substitution,  in  many  cases,  of 
English  equivalents  for  quasi-technical  words.  Thus 
we  find  "fy"  or  "fogh"  instead  of  "  Raca  "  (Matt. 
V.  22);  "they  were  washed"  in  Matt.  iii.  6: 
"  richesse  "  for  "mammon"  (Luke  xvi.  9,  11,  13); 
"  bishop  "' for  "  high-priest  "  (/»'Yss/)«).  (3.)  The 
extreme  literalness  with  which,  in  some  instances, 
even  at  the  cost  of  being  unintelligible,  the  Vulgate 
text  is  followed,  as  in  2  Cor.  i.  17-19. 

III.  Tyndal.  —  The  work  of  Wycliffe  stands 
by  itself.  Whatever  power  it  exercised  in  pre- 
paring the  way  for  the  Reformation  of  the  16th 
century,  it  had  no  perceptible  influence  on  later 
translations.  By  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  its 
English  was  already  obsolescent,  and  the  revival 
of  classical  scholarship  led  men  to  feel  dissatisfied 
with  a  version  which  had  avowedly  been  made  at 
second-hand,  not  from  the  original.  With  Tyndal, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  enter  on  a  continuous  suc- 
cession. He  is  tiie  patriarch,  in  no  remote  ances- 
try, of  the  Authorized  Version.  With  a  consistent, 
unswerving  purpose,  he  devoted  his  whole  life  to 
this  one  work;  and  through  dangers  and  difhcul- 
ties,  amid  enemies  and  treacherous  friends,  in  exile 
and  loneliness,  accomplished  it.  More  than  Cran- 
mer  or  Kidley  he  is  the  true  hero  of  the  English 
Reformation.  While  they  were  slowly  moving  on- 
wards, halting  between  two  opinions,  watching  how 
the  court-winds  blew,  or,  at  the  best,  making  the 
most  of  opportunities,  he  set  himself  to  the  task 
without  winch,  he  felt  sure,  reform  would  be  im- 
possible, which  once  accomplished,  would  render 
it  inevitable.  "  lue  many  years,"  he  said,  at  the 
age  of  thirty-six  (A.  D.  1520),  he  would  cause  "  a 
boy  that  driveth  the  plough"  to  know  more  of 
Scripture  than  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  then 
knew  (Foxe,  in  Anderson's  Annals  of  J-Jtu/lisli  Bible, 
i.  36).  We  are  able  to  form  a  fairly  accurate  esti- 
mate of  his  fitness  for  the  work  to  which  lie  thus 
gave  himself.  The  change  which  had  come  over 
the  universities  of  continental  Europe  since  the 
time  of  ^V'ycliffe  had  affected  those  of  England. 
Greek  had  been  taught  in  Paris  in  1458.  The  first 
Greek  Grammar,  that  of  Constantiue  l.ascaris,  had 
been  printed  in  1476.  It  was  followed  in  1480  liy 
Craston's  Lexicon.  The  more  enterprising  scholars 
of  Oxford  visited  foreign  universities  for  the  sake 
of  the  new  learning.  Grocyn  (d.  1519),  Linacre 
(d.  1524),  Colet  (d.  1519),  liad,  in  this  way,  from 
the  Greeks  whom  the  fall  of  Gon-stanlinople  had 
scattered  over  Europe,  or  from  their  Italian  pui)ils, 
learnt  enough  to  enter,  in  their  turn,  upon  the 
work  of  teaching.'  When  Erasmus  visited  (Jxford 
in  1497,  he  found  in  these  masters  a  scholarship 
which  even  he  could  admire.  Tyndal,  who  went 
to  Oxford  circ.  ]51)(),  nnist  have  been  within  the 
range  of  their  teaching.  His  two  great  op|)onents 
Sir  Thomas  More  and  Bishop  Tonstal,  are  known  to 
have  been  among  their  pupils.  It  is  significant 
enough  that  after  some  years  of  study  Tyndal  left 
Oxford  and  went  to  Cambridge.  Such  changes 
were,  it  is  true,  common  enough.  The  fame  of 
any  great  teacher  would  draw  round  him  men  from 
other  universities,  from  many  lands.  In  this  in- 
itance,  the  reason  ot  Tyndal's  choice  is  proliably 

a  *  The  .MS.  on  which  this  statement  is  founded  is 
pronounced  by  Mr  Francis  Fry  of  Bristol  to  be  un- 
questionably a  forgery.  So  Mr.  ^Ves'eott  regards  it 
'Hist,  of  the  En^iish  Bible,  p.  32,  note).  A. 


not  far  to  seek  (Walter,  Binff.  Notice  to  Tyndars 
Duct  final  Treatises).  Erasmus  was  in  Cainliridgf 
from  150J  to  1514.  All  that  we  know  of  Tyndal's 
character  and  Ufe.  the  fact  especially  tiiat  he  had 
made  translations  of  portions  of  the  N.  T.  as  early 
as  1502  «  (Oflbr,  Life  of  Tyndal,  p.  9),  leads  tc 
the  conclusion  that  he  resolved  to  make  the  most 
of  the  presence  of  one  who  was  emphatically  the 
scholar  and  philologist  of  Europe.  It  must  be  re- 
meujbered,  too,  that  the  great  scheme  of  Cardinal 
Ximenes  was  just  then  be^'inning  to  interest  the 
nunds  of  all  scholars.  The  publication  of  tlie 
Complutensian  Bible,  it  is  true,  did  not  take  place 
till  1520:  but  the  collection  of  MSB  and  other 
preparations  for  it  began  as  early  as  1504.  In  the 
meiwi  time  Erasmus  himself,  in  1516,  brought  out 
tiie  first  published  edition  of  the  (jreek  Testament; 
and  it  was  thus  made  accessible  to  all  scholars.  Of 
the  use  made  by  Tyndal  of  these  opportunities  we 
have  evidence  in  his  coming  up  to  London  (1522), 
in  the  vain  hope  of  persuading  Tonstal  'known  as 
a  Greek  scholar,  an  enlightened  Humanist)  to 
sanction  his  scheme  of  rendering  the  N.  T.  into 
English,  and  bringing  a  translation  of  one  of  the 
orations  of  Isocrates  as  a  proof  of  his  capacity  for  the 
work.  The  attempt  was  not  successful.  "  At  the 
last  I  understood  not  only  that  there  was  no  room 
in  my  Lord  of  London's  palace  to  translate  the  N. 
T.,  but  also  that  there  was  no  place  to  do  it  in  all 
England  "  (Pref.  to  Fire  Books  of  Moses). 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  say  how  far  at  this  time  any 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  attainable  at  the  luiglish 
universities,  or  how  far  Tyndal  had  used  any  means 
of  access  that  were  open  to  him.  It  is  probable 
that  it  may  have  been  known,  in  some  mejisure,  to 
a  few  bolder  than  their  fellows,  at  a  time  far  earlier 
than  the  introduction  of  Greek.  The  large  body 
of  Jews  settled  in  the  cities  of  England  must  have 
l)ossessed  a  knowledge,  more  ox  less  extensive,  of 
their  Hebrew  books.  On  their  banishment,  to  the 
number  of  16,000,  by  Edward  I.,  these  books  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  monks,  superstitiously  rever- 
enced or  feared  by  most,  yet  drawing  some  to  ex- 
amination, and  then  to  study.  Grostete,  it  is  said, 
knew  Hebrew  as  well  as  Greek.  Moirer  Bacon 
knew  enough  *  to  pass  judgment  on  the  Vulgate  as 
incorrect  and  misleading.  Then,  however,  came  a 
period  in  which  linguistic  studies  were  thrown  into 
the  baokgi'ound,  and  Hebrew  became  an  unlvnown 
speech  even  to  the  best-read  scholars.  The  first 
signs  of  a  revival  meet  us  toward  the  close  of  the 
loth  century.  The  reniarkalile  fact  that  a  Hclirew 
Psaiterwas  printed  at  .Suncino  in  1477  (forty  years 
before  Erasnms's  (ireek  Testament),  tiie  Penta- 
teuch in  1482,  the  Prophets  in  1486,  the  whole  of 
the  O.  T.  in  1488,  that  by  1496  four  editions  had 
Ipeen  published,  and  by  1596  not  fewer  than  eleven 
(Whitaker,  /fist,  and  Crit.  Inquiry,  p.  22)  indi- 
cates a  demand  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  stu- 
dents of  Europe,  not  less  than  on  that  of  tlie  more 
learned  Jews.  Here  also  the  progress  of  the  Com- 
plutensian Bible  would  have  attracted  the  notice 
of  scholars.  The  cry  raised  by  the  "  Trojans  "  of 
Oxford  in  1519  (chieily  consisting  of  the  friars,  whc 
from  the  time  of  Wycliffe  had  all  liut  swamped  tha 
education  of  the  place)  against  the  first  Greek  lec- 
tures—  that  to  study  that  language  would  n)ake 


b  The  boast  of  Bncon,  that  any  one  using  hii 
nii-thod  could  learn  Hebrew  and  Greek  within  a  week, 
bold  as  it  is,  shows  that  he  knev  souiething  of  bcih 
{De  Laur/e  Hac  Script,  c.  28). 


3428 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED. 


Dien  Pagans,  that  to  study  Hebrew  would  make 
them  Jews  —  sliows  that  the  latter  study  as  well  as 
the  former  was  the  object  of  their  dislike  and  fear" 
(Anderson,  i.  24;   Hallam,  ]Jt.  of  l:ur.  i.  403). 

Whether  'i'yndal  had  in  this  way  gained  any 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  before  he  left  England  in 
1524  may  be  uncertain. .  The  fact  that  in  1530—31 
be  published  a  translation  of  Genesis,  Deuteronomy, 
and  Jonah,*  may  be  looked  on  as  the  first-fruits  of 
his  labors,  the  work  of  a  man  who  was  giving  this 
proof  of  his  power  to  translate  from  the  original 
(Anderson,  Annuls,  i.  209-288).  We  may  perhaps 
trace,  among  other  motives  for  the  many  wander- 
ings of  his  exile,  a  desire  to  visit  the  cities  Worms, 
Cologne,  Hamburgh,  Antwerp  (Anderson,  pp.  48- 
64),  where  the  Jews  lived  in  greatest  numbers,  and 
some  of  which  were  famous  for  their  Heltrew  learn- 
ing. Of  at  least  a  fiiir  acquaintance  with  that  lan- 
guage we  have,  a  few  years  later,  abundant  evi- 
dence in  the  talile  of  Hebrew  words  prefixed  to  his 
translation  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  in  casual 
etymologies  scattered  through  his  other  works,  e.  y. 
Mammon  {Parable  of  Wicked  Mammon,  p.  GB'^), 
Cohen  (Obedience,  p.  255),  Abel  Mizraim  (p.  347), 
Pesah  (p.  353).  A  remark  {Preface  to  Obedience, 
p.  148)  shows  how  well  he  had  entered  into  the 
general  spirit  of  the  language.  "  The  properties 
of  the  Hebrew  tongue  agreeth  a  thousand  times 
more  with  the  F.nglishe  than  with  the  Latine.  Tiie 
manner  of  speaking  is  in  both  one,  so  that  in  a 
thousand  places  thou  needest  not  but  to  translate 
it  into  Englishe  word  for  word."  When  Spalatin 
describes  him  in  1534  it  is  as  one  well-skilled  in 
seven  lamiuages,  and  one  of  these  is  Hebrew  <'  (An- 
derson, i.  397). 

The  N.  T.  was,  however,  the  great  object  of  his 
care.  First  the  GosfSels  of  St.  Matthew  and  .St. 
Mark  were  published  tentatively,  then  in  1525  the 
whole  of  the  N.  T.  was  printed  in  4to  at  Cologne 
and  in  small  Svo  at  Worms.<^  The  work  was  the 
fruit  of  a  self-sacrificing  zeal,  and  the  zeal  was  its 
own  reward.  In  England  it  was  recei\ed  with 
denunciations.  Tonstal,  Bishop  of  London,  preach- 
ing at  Paul's  Cross,  asserted  that  there  were  at 
least  2,000  errors  in  it,  and  ordered  all  cojjies  of  it 
to  be  bought  up  and  burnt.  An  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment (35  Hen.  Vlll.  cap  1)  forbade  the  use  of  all 
copies  of  Tyndal's  "false  translation."  Sir  T. 
Jlore  {Dialogues,  1.  c.  Supplication  of  Souls,  Con- 

a  As  indicating  progress,  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
the  first  Hebrew  professor,  Robert  Wakefield,  was  ap- 
pointed at  Oxford  in  1530,  and  that  Henry  VIII. "s 
secretary,  P.ice,  knew  Greek.  Hebrew,  and  Chaldee. 

b  The  existence  of  a  translation  of  Jouah  by  Tyndal, 
previously  questioned  by  some  editors  and  biographers, 
has  been  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  discovery  of 
a  copy  (believed  to  be  unique)  iu  the  possession  of  the 
Ven.  Lord  Arthur  Hervey.  It  is  described  in  a  letter 
by  him  to  the  JBimj  Post  of  Feb.  .3,  1862,  transferred 
shortly  afterwards  to  the  Athencpum 

c  The  references  to  Tyndal  are  given  to  the  Parker 
Society  edition. 

(I  Hallani"s  assertion  that  Tyndal's  version  "  was 
avowedly  taken  from  Luther"s,"  originated  probably 
in  an  inaccurate  reminiscence  of  the  title-page  of 
Coverdale's  {Lit.  of  Europe,  i.  526). 

e  The  only  extant  copy  of  the  Svo  edition  is  in  the 
Library  of  the  Baptist  College  at  Bristol.  It  was 
reproduced  in  1862  in  fac-simiU  by  Mr.  Francis  Fry, 
Bristol,  the  impression  being  limited  to  177  copies. 
Mr.  Fry  proves,  by  a  careful  comparison  of  type,  size, 
water-mark,  and  the  like,  with  those  of  other  books 
from   the  same  press,  that   it  was  printed  by  Peter 


futation  of  Tyndal's  Answer)  ei  tered  the  list* 
against  it,  and  accused  the  translator  of  heresy, 
liad  scholarship,  and  dishonesty,  of  "  corrupting 
Scripture  after  Luther's  counsel."  The  treatment 
which  it  received  from  professed  friends  was  hardly 
less  aimoying.  Piratical  editions  Mere  printed, 
often  carelessly,  by  trading  publishers  at  Antwerp.^ 
A  scholar  of  liis  own,  George  Joje,  undertook  (in 
1534)  to  improve  the  version  by  bringing  it  into 
closer  conformity  with  the  Vulgate,  and  made  it 
the  veJiicle  of  peculiar  opinions  of  his  own,  sub- 
stituting "  life  after  this  life,"  or  "  verie  life,"  for 
"  resurrection,"  as  the  translation  of  avdcTacris- 
(Conip.  Tyndal's  indignant  protest  in  Pi'ef.  to  edi- 
tion of  1534.)  Even  the  most  zealous  reformers  iu 
England  seemed  disposed  to  throw  his  translation 
overboard,  and  encouraged  Coverdale  (infra)  in 
undertaking  another.  In  the  mean  time  the  work 
went  on.  Editions  were  printed  one  after  another.? 
The  last  appeared  in  1535,  just  before  his  death, 
■'diligently  compared  with  the  Greek,"  presenting 
for  the  first  time  systematic  chapter-headings,  and 
with  some  peculiarities  in  spelling  specially  intended 
for  tlie  pronunciation  of  the  peasantry  (Otfor.  Life, 
p.  82  '').  His  heroic  life  was  brought  to  a  close  in 
1536.  We  may  cast  one  look  on  its  sad  end  —  the 
treacherous  betrayal,  the  Judas-kiss  of  the  false 
friend,  the  in>nrisonment  at  Vilvorden,  the  last 
prayer,  as  the  axe  was  about  to  fall,  "  Lord,  open 
the  King  of- England's  eyes."  ' 

The  «ork  to  which  a  life  was  thus  nolily  devoted 
was  as  nolily  done.  To  Tyndal  belongs  the  honor 
of  having  given  the  first  example  of  a  translation 
based  on  true  principles,  and  the  excellence  of  later 
versions  has  been  almost  in  exact  proportion  as  they 
followed  his.  Believing  that  every  part  of  Scrip- 
ture had  one  sense  and  one  only,  the  sense  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer  (Obedience,  p.  304),  he  made  it 
ills  work,  using  all  philological  helps  that  were 
accessible,  to  attain  that  sense.  Believing  that  the 
duty  of  a  translator  was  to  place  bis  readers  aa 
nearly  as  possible  on  a  level  with  those  for  whom 
the  liooks  were  originally  written,  he  looked  on  all 
the  later  theological  associations  that  had  gathered 
round  the  words  of  the  N.  T.  as  hindrances  rather 
than  helps,  and  sought,  as  far  as  possible,  to  get 
rid  of  them.  Not  "grace,"  but  "favor,"  even  in 
.lohn  i.  17  (in  edition  of  1525);  not  "charity,'* 
but   "love;"    not   "confessing,"   but   "  acknowl- 


Schoeffer  of-  Worms.  By  a  Jike  process  Mr.  Anderson 
(i.  63)  fixes  Cologne  as  the  place,  and  Peter  Quentel  as 
the  printer  of  the  4to. 

,/■  In  two  of  these  (1534  and  1535)  the  words,  "  This 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  iu  my  blood,"  in  1  Cor.  xi. 
were  omitted  (Anderson,  i.  415). 

g  The  localities  of  the  editions  are  not  without 
interest.  Hamburgh,  Cologne,  Worms,  in  1525  ; 
Antwerp  in  1526-1528 ;  Marlborow  (=  Marburg)  in 
1529;  Strasburg  (Joye's  edit.)  in  1531;  Bergen-op-' 
Zoom  in  1533  (.Joye's) ;  John  c.  vi.  at  Nuremberg 
in  1533  ;  Antwerp  in  1634  (Cotton,  Printed  Editions, 
pp.  4-6). 

A  *  This  conjecture  of  Mr.  Offer  is  not  borne  out 
by  an  examination  of  the  book  itself.  See  Westcott's 
Hist,  of  the  Eng:tisk  Bible,  p.  64  f.  A. 

i  Two  names  connect  themselves  sadly  with  this 
version  A  copy  of  the  edition  of  1534  was  presented 
specially  to  Anne  Boleyn,  and  is  now  extant  in  th« 
British  Museum.  Several  passages,  such  as  might  b« 
marked  for  devotional  use,  are  underscored  in  rod  ink 
Another  reforming  t^ady,  Joan  Bocher,  was  known  t« 
have  been  active  in  circulating  Tyndal's  N.  T.  (Neml 
i.  43  ;  Strype.  Mtm.  i.  c.  26). 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


3429 


Jdging;  "  not  "penance,"  but  "repentance;" 
not  "priests,"  but  "seniors  "or  "elders;"  not 
■•'salvation,"  but  "health;"  not  "church,"  but 
"  congregation,"  are  instances  of  the  changes 
which  were  tlien  looked  on  as  startling  and  heret- 
ical innovations  (Sir  T.  More,  I.  c).  Some  of  tliem 
we  are  now  laniiliar  with.  In  others  tlie  later  ver- 
sions bear  traces  of  a  reaction  in  favor  of  the  older 
phraseology.  In  this,  as  in  other  things,  Tyndal 
was  in  advance,  not  only  of  his  own  age,  but  of  the 
SLge  that  followed  him.  To  him,  however,  it  is 
owing  that  the  versions  of  the  En>,'l;sh  Church 
have  throughout  been  popular,  and  not  scholastic. 
All  the  e.Kquisite  grace  and  simplicity  which  have 
endeared  the  A.  V.  to  men  of  the  most  opposite 
tempers  and  contrasted  opinions  — to  .1.  H.  New- 
man {Du/din  BevwiL',  June,  18.53)  and  J.  A. 
Froude  —  is  due  mainly  to  his  clear-sighted  truth- 
fulness." The  desire  to  make  the  Bible  a  people's 
book  led  him  in  one  edition  to  something  like  a 
provincial,  rather  than  a  national  translation,''  but 
on  the  whole  it  kept  him  free  from  the  besetting 
danger  of  the  time,  that  of  writing  for  scholars,  not 
for  the  people;  of  aversion  full  of  "ink-horn" 
phrases,  not  in  the  spoken  language  of  the  English 
nation.  And  throughout  there  is  the  pervading 
stamp,  so  often  wanting  in  other  like  works,  of  the 
most  thorough  truthfulness.  No  woril  has  been 
altered  to  court  a  king's  favor,  or  please  bishops, 
or  make  out  a  case  for  or  against  a  particular 
opinion.  He  is  working  freely,  not  in  the  fetters 
of  prescribed  rules.  With  the  most  entire  sin- 
cerity he  could  say,  "  I  call  God  to  record,  against 
the  day  we  shall  appear  before  our  Lord  Jesus  to 
give  a  reckoning  of  our  doings,  that  I  never  altered 
one  syllable  of  God's  word  against  my  conscience, 
nor  would  this  day,  if  all  th.at  is  in  the  world, 
whether  it  be  pleasure,  honor,  or  riches,  might  be 
given  me"  (Anderson,  i.  349). 

IV.  CoVEKDALE.  —  (1.)  A  complete  transla- 
tion of  the  Bil)le,  different  from  Tyndal's,  bearing 
the  name  of  JNIiles  Coverdale,  printed  probably  at 
Zurich,  appeared  in  1535.  The  undertaking  itself, 
and  the  choice  of  Coverdale  as  the  translator,  were 
probal)ly  due  to  Cromwell.  Tyndal's  coTitroversial 
treatises,  and  the  polemical  character  of  his  prefaces 
and  notes,  had  irritated  the  leading  ecclesiastics 
and  eml)ittered  the  mind  of  the  king  himself  against 
him.  All  that  he  had  written  was  publicly  con- 
demned. There  was  no  hope  of  obtaining  the 
king's  sanction  for  anything  that  bore  his  name. 
But  the  idea  of  an  English  translation  began  to 


a  The  testimony  of  a  Roman  Catholic  scholar  is 
worth  quoting :  "  In  point  of  perspicacity  and  noble 
Bimplicity,  propriety  of  idiom  and  purity  of  style,  no 
English  version  has  as  yet  surpassed  it  (Geddes,  Pro- 
sped  us  for  a  new  Translation,  p.  89).  The  writer  can- 
not forbear  adding  Mr.  Froude's  judgment  in  his  own 
words  :  '■  The  peculiar  genius,  if  such  a  word  may_be 
permitted,  which  breathes  through  it,  the  mingled 
tenderness  and  majesty,  the  Saxon  simplicity,  the 
preternatural  grandeur,  unequaled,  uuapproached,  in 
the  attempted  improvements  of  modern  .scholars,  —  all 
are  here,  and  bear  the  impress  of  the  mind  of  one 
man,  and  that  man  William  Tyudal  "  {Hist,  of  En-^. 
iii.  84). 

h  *  Error  ;  see  p.  3428,  note  k.  A. 

-  A  list  of  such  words,  99  iu  number,  was  formally 
laid  before  Convocation  by  Gardiner  in  1542,  with  the 
proposal  that  they  should  be  left  untranslated,  or 
Bnglished  with  as  little  change  as  possible  (licwis, 
Hist.  ch.  2  ;  \Eng.  Hexapla,  p   10')]). 

d  U  is  uncertain  where  this  version  was  printed,  the 


find  favor.  The  rupture  with  the  see  of  Rome,  the 
marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  made  Henry  willing 
to  adojit  what  was  urged  upon  him  as  the  surest 
way  of  breaking  forever  the  spell  of  the  l^ope's  au- 
thority. Tlie  Ijishops  even  began  to  think  of  the 
thing  as  possible.  It  was  talked  of  in  Convocation. 
I'hey  would  take  it  in  hand  themselves.  The  work 
did  not,  however,  make  much  progress.  The  great 
preliminary  question  whether  "  venerable  "  words, 
such  as  hostia,  penance,  pascha,  holocaust,  and  the 
like,  should  be  retained,  was  still  unsettled  (Ander- 
son, i.  414).'^  Not  till  "  the  day  after  doomsday  " 
(the  words  are  Cranmer's)  were  the  luiglish  ]jeople 
likely  to  ijet  their  English  Bible  from  the  bishops 
{ibid.  i.  577).  Cromwell,  it  is  proliable,  thought 
it  better  to  lose  no  further  time,  and  to  strike  while 
the  iron  was  hot.  A  divine  whom  he  had  patron 
ized,  though  not,  like  Tyndal,  feeling  himself  called 
to  that  special  work  {Prcf.  to  Coverddlt's  Bible), 
was  willing  to  undertake  it.  To  him  accortiingly 
it  was  intrusted.  There  was  no  stigma  attached 
to  his  name,  and,  though  a  sincere  reformer,  neither 
at  that  time  nor  afterwards  did  he  occupy  a  suffi- 
ciently prominent  position  to  become  an  object  of 
special  persecution.'' 

(2.)  The  work  which  was  thus  executed  was 
done,  as  might  be  expected,  in  a  very  different 
fashion  from  Tyndal's.  Of  the  two  men,  one  had 
made  this  the  great  object  of  his  life,  the  other,  in 
his  own  language,  "  sought  it  not,  neither  desired 
it,"  but  accepted  it  as  a  task  assigned  him.  One 
prepared  himself  for  the  work  by  long  years  of  labor 
in  Greek  and  Hebrew.  The  other  is  content  to 
make  a  translation  at  second  hand  "  out  of  the 
Douche  (Luther's  German  Version)  and  the  Lat- 
ine."  "  The  one  aims  at  a  rendering  which  shall 
be  the  truest  and  most  exact  possible.  The  other 
loses  himself  in  weak  commonplace  as  to  the  ad- 
vantage of  using  many  English  words  for  one  and 
the  same  word  in  the  original,  and  in  practice 
oscillates  between  "penance"  and  "repentance," 
"  love  "  and  "  charity,"  "  priests  "  and  "elders,* 
as  though  one  set  of  words  were  as  true  and  ade 
quate  as  the  other  (Preface,  p.  19).  In  spite  of 
these  weaknesses,  however,  there  is  much  to  like  in 
the  spirit  and  temper  of  Coverdale.  He  is  a  sec- 
ond-rate man,  laboring  as  such  contentedly,  n>t 
ambitious  to  appear  other  than  he  is.  He  thinks 
it  a  great  gain  that  there  should  be  a  diversity  of 
translations.  He  acknowledges,  though  he  dare 
not  name  it,  the  excellence  of  Tyndal's  version,./ 
and  regrets  the  misfortune  which  left  it  incomplete. 

title-page  being  silent  on  that  point.  Zurich,  Cologne, 
and  Frankfort  have  all  been  conjectured.  Caverdale 
is  liuown  to  have  been  abroad,  and  may  have  come  in 
contact  with  Luther. 

e  There  seems  something  like  an  advertising  tactio 
this  title-page.  A  scholar  would  have  felt  that  there 
was  no  value  in  any  translation  but  one  from  the 
original.  But  the  "Douche"'  would  serve  to  attract 
the  lleforming  party,  who  held  Luther's  name  iu 
honor  ;  while  the  "  Latine  "  would  at  least  conciliate 
the  conservative  feeling  of  Gardiner  and  his  associates. 
Whitaker,  however,  maintains  that  Coverdale  knew 
more  Hebrew  tliau  ho  chose,  at  this  time,  to  ackuowl 
edge,  and  refers  to  his  translation  of  one  difficult 
passage  (''  Ye  take  youre  pleasure  under  the  okes  and 
under  all  grene  trees,  the  children  beyinge  slaine  in 
the  valleys,"  la.  Ivii.  5)  as  proving  an  independent 
judgment  against  the  authority  of  Luther  and  the 
Vulgate  (H'.<i(.  nii'l  Crtt.  Enquirij    p.  52). 

/  "  If  thou  [the  reader]  be  fei  7eiic  iu  prayer,  God 
shall  not  only  send   thee  it.  fthe   15ibU  I  iu   a   b«tt<<« 


3430 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


He  states  frankly  that  he  had  done  his  work  with 
the  assistance  of  that  and  of  five  others."  If  the 
language  of  his  dedication  to  the  king,  whom  he 
compares  to  Moses,  Uavid,  and  Josiah,  seems  to  be 
somewhat  fulsome  in  its  flattery,  it  is,  at  least, 
liurdly  more  oftensive  than  tliat  of  the  dedication 
of  the  A.  v.,  and  there  was  more  to  palliate 
it.f- 

(3.)  An  inspection  of  C'overdale's  version  serves 
to  show  the  influence  of  the  authorities  he  fol- 
lowed.=  The  proper  names  of  the  O  T.  appear  lor 
the  most  part  in  their  Latin  form,  Ellas,  Kliseus. 
Ochozias;  sometimes,  as  in  Ksay  and  Jeremy,  in 
that  which  was  familiar  in  spoken  English.  !Some 
points  of  correspondence  witii  Lutlier"s  version  are 
uot  without  interest.  Thus  "Cush,"  which  in 
Wyclifti?.  Tyndal,  and  the  A.  V.  is  uniformly  ren- 
dered "  Ethiopia,"  is  in  Coverdale  "  Morians'  land  " 
(I's.  kviii.  31;  Acts  viii.  27,  &c.),  after  the  "  Moh- 
renlande "  of  Luther,  and  appears  in  this  form 
accordingly  in  the  F.  B.  [Prayer  Book]  version  of 
the  Psalms.  'I'he  proper  name  Ralishakeh  passes, 
as  in  Luther,  into  the  "chief  butler"  (2  K.  xviii. 
17;  Is.  xxxvi.  11).  In  making  the  sons  of  David 
"priests"  (2  Sam.  viii.  18),  he  followed  both  his 
authorities.  'EwiaKOiroL  are  "  bishops  "  in  Acts 
XX.  28  ("  overseers  "  in  A.  V.).  "  Shiloh,"  in  the 
prophecy  of  Gen.  xlix.  10,  becomes  "  the  worthy," 
after  Luther's  "  der  Held."  "  They  houghed 
oxen  "  takes  the  place  of  "  they  digged  down  a 
wall,''  in  Gen.  xlix.  0.  The  singular  word  "  Lamia  " 
is  taken  from  the  Vulg.,  as  the  English  rendering 
of  Z/»"  ("wild  beasts,"  A.  V.)  in  Is.  xxxiv.  14. 
The  "tabernacle  of  witness,"  where  the  A.  V.  has 
"  congregation,"  shows  the  same  influence.  In 
spite  of  Tyndal,  the  Vulg.  "  plena  gratia,"  in  Luke 
i.  28,  leads  to  "full  of  grace;"  while  we  have, 
on  the  other  hand,  "  congregation  "  throughout  the 
N.  T.  for  4KK\riaia,  and  "  love  "  instead  of  "  char- 
ity "  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  It  was  the  result  of  the  same 
indecision  that  his  language  as  to  the  Apocrypiia 
lacks  the  sharpness  of  that  of  the  more  zealous 
reformers.  "  Baruch  "  is  placed  with  the  canon- 
ical books,  after  "  Lamentations."  Of  the  rest 
he  says  that  they  are  "placed  apart,"  as  "not 
held  by  ecclesiastical  doctors  in  the  same  repute  " 
as  the  other  Scriptures,  but  this  is  only  because 
there  are  "  dark  sayings "  which  seem  to  ditter 
from  the  "open  Scripture."  He  has  no  wish 
that  they  should  be  "despised  or  little  set  by.'" 
"  Patience  and  study  would  show  that  the  two 
were  agreed." 

(4. )  What  has  been  stated  practically  disposes  of 
the  claim  which  has  sometimes  been  made  for  this 
version  of  C'overdale's,  as  though  it  had  been  made 
from  the  original  text  (Anderson,  i.  564;  Whita- 
ker,  Nist.  and  Crit.  Enquiry,  p.  58).  It  is  not 
improbable,  however,  that  as  time  went  on  he  added 


[version]  by  the  ministration  of  those  that  began  it 
before,  but  shall  also  move  the  hearts  of  those  that 
before  meddled  not  withal." 

«  The  five  were  probably  —  (1)  the  Vulgate,  (2) 
Luther's,  (3)  the  German  Swiss  version  of  Zurich,  (4) 
:he  Latin  of  Pagninus,  (5)  Tyndal's.  Others,  how- 
ever, have  conjectured  a  German  translation  of  the 
Vulgate  earlier  than  Luther's,  and  a  Dutch  version 
from  Luther  (Whitaker,  Hist,  and  Crit.  Enquiry, 
p.  49). 

b  He  leaves  it  to  the  king,  e.  §■.,  "  to  correct  his 
■nmslation,  to  amend  it,  to  imfrove  [=  rnndemn]  it, 


to  his  knowledge.  The  letter  addressed  by  him  u 
Cromwell  {Remains,  p.  492,  Parker  Soc.)  obviously 
asserts,  somewhat  ostentatiously,  an  acquaintance 
"  not  only  with  the  standing  text  of  the  Hebrew, 
with  the  interpretation  of  the  C'haldee  and  the 
Greek,"  but  also  with  "  the  diversity  of  reading  of 
all  texts"  He,  at  any  rate,  continued  his  work  as 
a  painstaking  editor.  Fresh  editions  of  his  Bible 
were  published,  keeping  their  ground  in  spite  of 
rivals,  in  1537,  1539,  1550,  1553.  He  was  called 
in  at  a  still  later  period  to  assist  in  the  Geneva  ver- 
sion. Among  smaller  facts  connected  with  this 
edition  may  be  mentioned  the  appearance  of  He- 
brew letters  —  of  the  name  Jehovah  —  in  the  title- 
page  (mn'^),  and  again  in  the  margin  of  the  alpha- 
betic poetry  of  Lamentations,  though  not  of  Ps. 
cxix.  The  plural  form  "  Biblia  "  is  retained  in  the 
title-page,  possiljly  however  in  its  later  use  as  a 
singular  feminine  [conip.  Bihle].  There  are  no 
notes,  no  chapter  headings,  no  divisions  into  verses. 
The  letters  A,  B,  C,  D,  in  the  margin,  as  in  the 
early  editions  of  Greek  and  Latin  authors,  are  tlie 
only  helps  for  finding  places.  Marginal  references 
point  to  parallel  passages.  The  O.  T.  especially  in 
Genesis,  has  the  attraction  of  wood-cuts.  Each  liouk 
has  a  tal)le  of  contents  prefixed  to  it.'' 

V.'  Matthe-sv.  —  (1.)  In  the  year  1537,  a  large 
folio  Bible  appeared  as  edited  and  dedicated  to  the 
king,  liy  Thomas  JMatthew.  No  one  of  that  name 
appears  at  all  prominently  in  the  religious  history 
of  Henry  VIII.,  and  this  suggests  the  inference  that 
tlie  name  was  pseudonymous,  adopted  to  conceal  the 
real  translator.  The  tradition  which  connects  this 
Matthew  with  John  Kogers,  the  proto-martyr  of 
the  Marian  persecution,  is  all  l)ut  undisputed.  It 
rests  (1)  on  the  language  of  the  indictnierjt  and 
sentence  which  describe  him  (l-'oxe,  Acts  ami  Mon- 
umintg,  pp.  1029,  1563;  Chester,  Life  of  Riyns, 
pp.  418-423)  as  Joannes  Kogers  alias  Matthew,  as 
if  it  were  a  matter  of  notoriety;  (2)  the  testimony 
of  Eoxe  himself,  as  representing,  if  not  personal 
knowledge,  the  current  l)elief  of  his  time;  (3)  the 
occui'rence,  at  the  close  of  a  short  exhortation  to  the 
Study  of  Scripture  in  the  Preface,  of  the  initials 
J.  li.  ;  <^  (4)  internal  evidence.  This  subdivides 
itself,  (a.)  Pogers,  who  had  graduated  at  Peni- 
liroke  Coll.  Cambridge  in  1525,  and  had  sufficient 
fame  to  be  invited  to  the  new  Cardinal's  College  at 
Oxford,  accepted  the  office  of  chaplain  to  the  mer- 
chant adventurers  of  Antwerp,  and  there  became 
acquainted  with  Tyndal,  two  years  before  the  latter's 
death.  Blatthew's  Bible,  as  might  be  expected,  if 
this  hypothesis  were  true,  reproduces  Tyndal's 
work,  in  the  N.  T.  entirely,  in  the  0.  T.  as  far  as 
2  Chr ,  the  rest  being  taken  with  occasional  modifi- 
cations from  Coverdale.  (6.)  The  language  of  the 
dedication  is  that  of  one  ■who  has  mixed  much,  as 


yea,  and  clean  to  reject  it,  if  your  godly  wisdom  shall 
think  necessary." 

c  Gin.sburg  {App.  to  Coheletli)  has  shown  that, 
with  regard  to  one  book  at  least  of  the  0.  T.,  Cover- 
dale  followed  the  German-Swiss  version  printed  at 
Zurich  in  1531,  with  an  almost  servile  obsequious- 
ness. 

d  A  careful  reprint,  though  not  a  fac-simile,  of  Gov- 
erdale's  version  has  been  published  by  Bagster  (1838) 

e  These  ornamental  initials  aie  cui-iously  .^elected 
H.  R  for  the  kings  name,  W.  T.  (at  the  end  of  tb  i  0 
T.)  for  William  Tyndal,  R.  G.  for  Richard  Graftoi  uti 
printer. 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


3431 


Rfigera  mixed,  with  foreign  reformers.  "  Tills  hope 
have  tlie  godlie  even  in  strange  countries,  in  your 
grace's  godliness." 

(2. )  The  printing  of  the  boolc  was  begun  appar- 
ently abroad,  and  was  carried  on  as  far  as  the  end 
of  Isaiah.  At  that  point  a  new  pagination  begins, 
and  the  names  of  the  London  printers,  (jrafton  and 
Wliiteclmrcl),  ai)i)ear.  The  history  of  the  book  wa^ 
probably  something  like  tliis:  Coverdale's  transla- 
tion had  not  given  satisfaction  —  least  of  all  were 
the  more  zealous  and  scholar-like  reformers  con- 
tented with  it.  As  the  only  complete  English 
Bible,  it  was,  however,  as  yet,  in  possession  of  the 
field.  'I'yndal  and  Kogers,  therefore,  in  the  year 
preceding  the  imiirisoinnent  of  the  former,  deter- 
mined on  another,  to  include  0.  T.,  N.  T.,  and 
Apocrypha,  but  based  tlirougliout  on  the  original. 
Left  to  himself,  Rogers  carried  on  the  work,  prolia- 
l)ly  at  the  expense  of  the  same  Antwerp  merchant 
who  had  assisted  Tyndal  (I'oyntz),  and  thus  got  as 
far  as  Isaiah.  The  enterprising  London  printers, 
Grafton  and  Whitechurch,  then  came  in  (Chester, 
Life  of  Roycrs,  p.  2!)).  It  would  be  a  good  spec- 
ulation to  enter  the  market  with  this,  and  so  drive 
out  Coverdale's,  in  which  they  had  no  interest. 
'J'hey  accordingly  embarked  a  considerable  capital, 
^500,  and  then  came  a  stroke  of  policy  which  may 
be  described  as  a  miracle  of  audacity.  Kogers's 
name,  known  as  the  friend  of  Tyndal,  is  siipiiressed, 
and  the  simulacrum  of  Thomas  Matthew  disarms 
suspicion.  The  book  is  sent  by  Grafton  to  Cran- 
mer.  He  reads,  approves,  rejoices.  He  would 
rather  have  the  news  of  its  being  licensed  than  a 
thousand  pounds  (Chester,  pp.  42-5-427).  Appli- 
cation is  then  made  both  by  Grafton  and  Crannier 
to  Cromwell.  The  king's  license  is  granted,  but 
the  publisher  wants  njore.  Nothing  less  than  a 
monopoly  for  five  years  will  give  him  a  fair  margin 
of  profit.  Without  this,  he  is  sure  to  l)e  undersold 
by  piratical,  inaccurate  editions,  badly  printed,  on 
inferior  paper.  Failing  this,  he  trusts  that  the 
king  will  order  one  copy  to  be  bought  by  every  in- 
cumbent, and  six  liy  every  abl)ey.  If  this  was  too 
much,  the  king  might,  at  least,  impose  that  obliga- 
tion on  all  the  popish ly-inclined  clergy.  That  will 
bring  in  sometliing,  besides  the  good  it  may  possi- 
bly do  them  (Chester,  p.  430).  The  application 
was,  to  some  extent,  successful.  A  copy  was  or- 
dered, by  royal  proclamation,  t(j  be  set  up  in  every 
church,  tlie  cost  being  divided  between  the  clergy 
and  the  parishioners.  This  was,  therefore,  the 
first  Authorized  Version.  It  is  scarcely  conceiv- 
able, however,  that  Henry  could  have  read  the 
book  which  he  thus  sanctioned,  or  known  that  it 
was  substantially  identical  with  what  had  been 
publicly  stigmatized  in  his  Acts  of  Parliament  {ut 
supra).  What  had  before  given  most  ottense  had 
been  the  polemic  character  of  Tyndal's  aimotations, 
and  here  were  notes  bolder  and  more  thorough  still. 
Even  the  significant  W.  T.  does  not  appear  to  have 
attracted  notice. 

(.3.)  What  has  been  said  of  Tyndal's  version 
applies,  of  course,  to  this.  There  are,  however, 
signs  of  a  more  advanced  knowledge  of  llelirew. 
All  the  technical  words  connected  with  the  I'salnis, 
Neginoth,  Shiggaion,  Shenilnith,  etc.,  are  elabo- 
rately explained.  Ps.  ii.  is  printed  as  a  dialogue. 
The  names  of  the  llelirew  letters  are  prefixed  to  the 
ver.ses  of  Lamentations.  Reference  is  made  to  the 
Chaldee  Paraphrase  (Job  vi.),  to  liabbi  Abraham 
(.)ob  xix.),  to  Kimciii  (Ps.  iii  ).  A  like  range  of 
inowledge  is  shown  in  the  N.  T.     Strabo  is  quoted 


to  show  that  the  Magi  were  not  kings,  ^Fucrobiua 
as  testifying  to  Heroil's  ferocity  (Matt,  ii.),  Eras 
mus's  Paraphrase  on  Matt,  xiii.,  xv.  The  popular 
Identification  of  Mary  Magdalene  with  "  the  womac 
that  was  a  siimer "  is  discussed,  and  rtjected 
(Luke  X.).  More  noticeable  even  than  in  Tyndal 
is  the  boldness  and  fullness  of  the  exegetical  notes 
scattered  throughout  the  liook.  Strong  and  ear- 
nest in  asserting  what  he  looked  on  as  the  central 
truths  of  the  Gospel,  there  was  in  Rogers  a  Luther- 
like  freedom  in  other  things  which  has  not  appeared 
again  in  any  authorized  translation  or  popular  com- 
mentary. He  guards  his  readers  against  looking 
on  the  n.arrative  of  Job  i.  as  literally  true.  He 
recognizes  a  definite  historical  starting-point  for 
Ps.  xlv.  ("The  sons  of  Korah  praise  Solomon  for 
the  beauty,  eloquence,  power,  and  nobleness,  both 
of  himself  and  of  his  wife  "),  Ps.  xxii.  ("  David  de- 
clareth  Christ's  dejection and  all,  under  fig- 
ure of  himself  "),  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  ("  Sol- 
omon made  this  balade  for  himself  and  his  wife,  the 
daughter  of  Pharaoh,  under  the  shadow  of  himself, 
figuring  Christ,"  etc.).  The  chief  duty  of  the 
Sabbath  is  "  to  minister  the  fodder  of  the  Word  to 
simple  souls,"  to  be  "  pitifnl  over  the  weariness  of 
such  neighbors  as  labored  sore  all  the  week  long." 
''  When  such  occasions  come  as  turn  our  rest  to 
occupation  and  labor,  then  ought  we  to  remember 
that  the  Sabiiath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath"  (Jer.  xvii.).  He  sees  in  the 
Prophets  of  the  N.  T.  simply  "expounders  of  Holy 
Scrl|)ture  "  (.Vets  xv.).  To  the  man  living  In  faith, 
'•  Peter's  fishing  after  the  resurrection,  and  all  deeds 
of  matrimony  are  pure  spiritual;  "  to  those  who  are 
not,  "  learning,  doctrine,  contemplation  of  high 
things,  preaching,  study  of  Scripture,  founding  of 
churches  and  abbeys,  are  works  of  the  flesh  "  {Pref. 
to  Rom'(ns)fi  "  Neither  is  outward  circumcision  or 
outward  baptism  worth  a  pin  of  themselves,  save 
that  they  put  us  in  rememlnance  to  keep  the  cov- 
enant" (1  Cor.  vii.).  "He  that  desireth  honor, 
graspeth  after  lucre  ....  castles,  parks,  lordships 
.  .  .  .  desireth  not  a  work,  much  less  a  good  work, 
and  is  nothing  less  than  a  Inshop  "  (1  Tim.  iii.). 
Ez.  xxiv.  is  said  to  be  "  against  bishops  and  curates 
that  despise  the  flock  of  Christ."  The  ayyeKos 
iKKK7](Tia,s  of  Rev.  ii.  and  ill.  appears  (as  in  Tyu 
dal)  as  "the  messenger  of  the  congregation." 
Strong  protests  against  purgatory  are  found  hi 
notes  to  Ez.  xviii.  and  1  Cor.  iii.,  and  in  the  "  Ta- 
ble of  Principal  Matters  '"  it  is  significantly  stated 
under  the  word  Purgatory  that  "  it  is  not  in  the 
HIble,  but  the  purgation  and  remission  of  our  sin 
is  made  us  by  the  abundant  mercy  of  God."  The 
prefiicc  to  the  Apocrypha  explains  the  name,  and 
distinctly  asserts  the  inferiority  of  the  books.  No 
notes  are  added,  and  the  translation  is  taken  from 
Coverdale,  as  if  it  had  not  been  worth  while  to  giv* 
much  labor  to  it. 

(4.)  A  few  points  of  detail  remain  to  be  noticed 
In  the  order  of  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  Rogers  fol 
lows  Tyndal,  agreeing  with  the  A.  V.  as  far  as  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon.  This  is  followed  by  the  Epis- 
tles of  St.  John,  then  that  to  the  Hebrews,  then 
those  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James,  and  St.  Jude. 
Wood-cuts,  not  very  freely  introduced  elsewhere, 
are  prefixed  to  every  chapter  in  the  Revelation. 
The  introduction  of  the  "  Table  "  mentioned  above 


o  Tlie  long  preface  to  the  Rnmans  (seven  folio  pagpg 
was  substantially  identical  with  tliat  in  'fyudal's  edi 
tion  of  1534. 


8432 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


^ives  Rogers  a  claim  to  he  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
cordances, the  "father"  of  all  such  as  write  in 
dictionaries  of  the  Bible.  Reverence  for  the  He- 
brew text  is  shown  by  his  stril<ing  out  the  three 
verses  which  the  Vulgate  has  added  to  Ps.  xiv.  In 
a  later  edition,  published  at  Paris,  not  by  Rogers 
himself,  but  by  Grafton,  under  Coverdale's  superin- 
tendence, in  1539,  the  obnoxious  prologue  and 
prefaces  were  suppressed,  and  the  notes  systemat- 
ically expurgated  and  toned  down.  The  book  was 
in  advance  of  the  age.  Neither  book-sellers  nor 
bishops  were  prepared  to  be  responsible  for  it. 

YI.  Taveiinkk  (1539).  — (1  )  The  boldness  of 
the  pseudo-Matthew  had,  as  has  been  said,  fright- 
ened tiie  ecclesiastical  world  from  its  propriety. 
(Joverdale's  version  was,  however,  too  inaccurate  to 
keep  its  ground.  It  was  necessary  to  find  anotlier 
editor,  and  the  printers  applied  to  Richard  Taver- 
ner.  But  little  is  known  of  his  life.  The  fact  that, 
though  a  layman,  he  had  been  chosen  as  one  of  the 
canons  of  the  Cardinal's  College  at  Oxford  indicates 
a  reputation  for  scholarship,  and  this  is  confirmed 
by  the  character  of  his  translation.  It  professes, 
in  the  title-page,  to  be  "  newly  recognized,  with 
great  diligence,  after  the  most  faithful  exemplars." 
'i'he  editor  acknowledges  "  the  labors  of  others  («•  n. 
Tyndal,  Coverdale,  and  Matthew,  thougli  he  does 
not  name  them)  who  have  neither  undiligently  nor 
unlearnedly  travelled,"  owns  that  the  work  is  not 
one  which  can  be  done  '•  a))solutely  "  (J.  e.  com- 
pletely) by  one  or  two  persons,  but  requires  "a 
deeper  conferring  of  many  learned  wittes  together, 
and  also  a  juster  time,  and  longer  leisure;  "  but  the 
thing  had  to  be  done;  he  had  l)een  asked  to  do  it. 
He  had  "  used  his  talent  "  as  he  could. 

(2.)  In  most  respects  this  may  be  described  as 
an  ex])urgated  edition  of  Matthew's.  There  is  a 
Table  of  Principal  Matters,  and  there  are  notes; 
but  tlie  notes  are  briefer,  and  less  polemical.  The 
passages  quoted  above  are,  e.  g.  omitted  wholly  or 
in  part.  The  epistles  follow  the  same  order  as 
before. 

VII.  Ckanmer.  —  (1.)  In  the  same  year  as 
Taverner's,  and  coming  from  the  same  press,  ap- 
peared an  Enghsh  Bible,  in  a  more  stately  folio, 
printed  with  a  more  costly  type,  bearing  a  higher 
name  than  any  previous  edition.  The  title-page  is 
an  elaborate  engraving,  the  spirit  and  power  of 
which  indicate  the  hand  of  Holliein.  The  king, 
seated  on  his  throne,  is  giving  the  Verlnan  Dei  to 
the  bishops  and  doctors,  and  they  distribute  it  to 
the  people,  while  doctors  and  people  are  all  joining 
in  cries  of  "  I'ivai  ^ca;."  It  declares  the  book  to 
be  "  truly  translated  after  the  verity  of  the  Heltrew 
and  Greek  texts  "  by  ■'  divers  excellent  learned 
men,  expert  in  tlie  foresaid  tongues.''  A  preface, 
in  April,  1540,  with  the  initials  T.  C,  implies  the 
archbishop's  sanction.  In  a  later  edition  (Nov. 
1540),  his  name  appears  on  the  title-page,  and  the 
names  of  his  coadjutors  are  given,  (Juthbert  (Ton- 
gtal)  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  Nicholas  (Heath) 
Bishop  of  Rochester;  but  this  does  not  exclude  the 
possibility  of  others  having  been  employed  for  the 
nrst  edition. 

(2.)  Crannier's  version  presents,  as  might  be 
expected,  many  points  of  interest.  The  prologue 
gives  a  more  complete  ideal  of  what  a  translation 
ought  to  be  than  we  have  as  yet  seen.  Words  not 
in  the  original  are  to  be  printed  in  a  diflferent  type. 
They  are  added,  even  when  '•  not  wanted  by  the 
»ense."  to  satisfy  those  who  have  "  missed  them  " 
ji    j)rt'vious  translations,  ;'.  '■.  they   represent  the 


various  readings  of  the  Vulgate  where  it  differs 
from  the  Heljrew.  The  sign  *  indicates  diver.sity 
in  the  Chaldee  and  Hebrew.  It  had  been  intended 
to  give  all  these,  but  it  was  found  that  this  would 
have  taken  too  much  time  and  space,  and  the  ed- 
itors purposed  tlierefore  to  print  them  in  a  little 
volume  by  themselves.  The  frequent  hands  (K^") 
in  the  margin,  in  like  manner,  show  an  inten- 
tion to  give  notes  at  the  end;  but  Matthew's  Bible 
had  made  men  cautious,  and,  as  there  had  not  been 
time  for  "the  King's  Council  to  settle  them,"  they 
were  omitted,  and  no  help  given  to  tlie  reader  be 
yond  the  marginal  references.  In  alienee  of  notes, 
the  lay-reader  is  to  submit  himself  to  the  "  godly- 
learned  in  Christ  Jesus."  There  is,  as  the  title- 
page  might  lead  us  to  expect,  a  greater  display  of 
Hebrew  than  in  any  previous  version.  The  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  have  their  Hebrew  names  given, 
Berescliilk  (Genesis),  Wlla  Scheiiwih  (Exodus), 
and  so  on.  1  and  2  Chr.  in  like  manner  appear, 
as  Dibre  Haiamim.  In  the  edition  of  1541,  many 
proper  names  in  the  0.  T.  appear  in  the  fuller  He- 
brew form,  e.  g.  Amaziahu,  Jeremiahu.  In  spite 
of  this  parade  of  learning,  however,  the  edition  of 
1539  contains,  perhaps,  the  most  startling  blunder 
that  e\er  appeared  under  the  sanction  of  an  arch- 
bishop's name.  The  editors  adopted  the  preface 
which,  in  IMatthew's  Bible,  had  lieen  prefixed  td 
the  Apocrypha.  In  that  preface  the  common  tra- 
ditional explanation  of  the  name  was  concisely 
given.  They  appear,  however,  to  have  shrunk  from 
offending  the  coiuservative  party  in  the  C  hurcli  by 
applying  to  tiie  books  in  question  so  damnatoiy  an 
epitliet  as  Apocrypha.  They  looked  out  lor  a  \ror(l 
more  neutral  and  respectful,  and  found  one  that 
appeared  in  some  MS.S.  of  Jerome  so  applied, 
though  in  strictness  it  lielongetl  to  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent set  of  books.  They  accordingly  substituted 
that  word,  leaving  the  preface  in  all  other  respects 
as  it  was  betbre,  and  the  result  is  the  somewhat 
ludicrous  statement  that  the  "  books  were  called 
Uagiograplia,"  because  "they  were  read  in  secret 
and  apart  "  ! 

(3.)  A  later  edition  in  1541  presents  a  few  modi- 
fications worth  noticing.  It  appears  as  "  au- 
thorized" to  be  "  used  and  frequented  "  in  "every 
church  in  the  kingdom."  The  introduction,  with 
all  its  elal)orate  promise  of  a  future  perfection  dis- 
appears, and,  in  its  place,  there  is  a  long  preface  by 
Cranmer,  avoiding  as  much  as  possible  all  references 
to  other  translations,  taking  a  safe  Via  Media  tone, 
blaming  those  who  "refuse  to  read,"  on  the  one 
hand,  and  "inordinate  reading,"  on  the  other. 
Tins  neutral  character,  so  characteristic  of  Cran- 
nier's policy,  was  doubtless  that  which  enabled  it 
to  keep  its  ground  during  the  changing  moods  of 
Henry's  later  years.  It  was  reprinted  again  and 
again,  and  was  the  Authorized  Version  of  the 
English  Church  till  1568  — the  interval  of  Mary's 
reign  excepted.  From  it,  accordingly,  were  takeji 
most,  if  not  all,  the  portions  of  Scripture  in  the 
Prayer  Books  of  1549  and  1552.  The  Psalms,  as 
a  whole,  the  quotations  from  Scripture  in  the  Hom- 
ilies, the  sentences  in  the  Communion  Services 
and  some  phrases  elsewhere,  "  still  preserve  the  re- 
membrance of  it.  The  oscillating  character  of  the 
book  is  shown  in  the  use  of  "love"  instead  of 
"charity"  in  1  Cor.  xiii.;  and  "congregation' 
instead  of  "  church  "  generally,  after  Tyndal;  whilf 
in  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  we  have  the  singular  rendering 

«  Such,  c.  g..  as  "  worthy  fruits  of  penance." 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


M  if  to  gain  the  fovor  of  his  opponents,  "  with  au- 
thority of  priestliood."  The  jilan  of  indicating 
cUnihttul  texts  by  a  siiialler  type  was  atliiered  to, 
and  wan  applied,  among  other  passages,  to  Ps.  xiv. 
5,  G,  7,  and  the  more  memorable  text  of  1  John  v. 
7.  Tlie  translation  of  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  "  All  Scrip- 
ture given  by  inspiration  of  God,  is  profitable." 
etc.,  anticipated  a  construction  of  that  text  which 
has  sometimes  been  Iwasted  of,  and  sometimes  at- 
taclced,  as  an  innovation.  In  this,  however,  Tyndal 
had  led  the  way. 

VIII.  Geneva. — (1.)  The  experimental  trans- 
lation of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  by  Sir  .lolin 
Clielve  into  a  purer  Enghsh  than  Irefore  (Strjpe, 
Life  of' Cheke,  vii.  3),  had  so  little  influence  on  the 
versions  that  followed  that  it  hardly  calls  for  more 
than  a  passing  notice,  as  showing  that  scholars 
were  as  yet  unsatisfied.  The  reaction  under  Mary 
gave  a  check  to  the  whole  work,  as  far  as  England 
was  concerned;  but  the  exiles  who  fled  to  Geneva 
entered  on  it  with  more  vigor  than  ever.  Cran- 
mer's  version  did  not  come  up  to  their  ideal.  Its 
size  made  it  too  costly.  There  were  no  explana- 
tory or  dogmatic  notes.  It  followed  Ooverdale  too 
closely ;  and  where  it  deviated,  did  so,  in  some  in- 
stiinces,  in  a  retrograde  direction.  The  Genevan 
refugees  —  among  them  Wbittiugham,  Goodman, 
PuUain,  Sampson,  and  Coverdale  himself — labored 
"for  two  years  or  more,  day  and  night."  They 
entered  on  their  "  great  and  wonderful  work  "  with 
much  "  fear  and  trembling."  Their  translation  of 
the  N.  T.  was  "  diligently  revised  by  the  most 
approved  Greek  examples"  (MSS.  or  editions?) 
{Preface).  The  N.  T.,  translated  by  Whitting- 
hani,  was  printed  by  Conrad  Badius  in  1557,  the 
whole  Bible  in  1560. 

(2.)  Whatever  may  have  l>een  its  faults,  the 
Geneva  liible  was  unquestionably,  for  sixty  years, 
the  most  popular  of  all  versions.  Largely  imported 
in  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth,  it  was  printed  in 
England  in  1561,  and  a  patent  of  monopoly  giveji 
to  James  Bodleigh.  This  was  transferred,  in  1576, 
to  Barker,  in  whose  family  the  right  of  printing 
Bibles  remained  for  upwards  of  a  century.  Not 
less  than  eighty  editions,  some  of  the  whole  Bil)le, 
were  printeil  between  1558  and  1611."  It  kept  its 
ground  for  some  time  even  against  the  A.  V.,  and 
ga\e  way,  as  it  were,  slowly  and  under  protest.  The 
causes  of  this  general  acceptance  are  not  difticult 
to  ascertain.  The  volume  was,  in  all  its  editions, 
cheaper  and  more  portable  —  a  small  quarto,  in- 
stead of  the  large  folio  of  Cranmer's  "  (ireat  Bible." 
It  was  the  first  Bible  which  laid  aside  the  obsoles- 
cent black  letter,  and  appeared  in  Roman  type. 
It  was  the  first  which,  following  the  Hebrew  ex- 
ample, recognized  the  division  into  verses,  so  dear 
to  the  preachers  or  hearers  of  sermons.  It  was  ac- 
companied, in  most  of  the  editions  after  1578,  l)y  a 
Bible  Dictionary  of  considerable  merit.  The  notes 
were  often  really  helpful  in  dealing  with  the  ditti- 
culliis  of  Scripture,  and  were  looked  on  as  spiritual 
and  evangelical.  It  was  accordingly  the  version 
specially    adopted    by   the    great    Puritan    party 


a  •  Bttween  1558  and  1644,  according  to  the  Qunr. 
Rev.  for  April,  1870,  about  150  editions  were  pub- 
lish sd  of  tlie  Bible  or  parts  thereof,  it  lias  been  ob- 
ser>ed  that  la  the  Soitliiiers  Pnckft  Bibfe,  publislied  in 
1G43  for  tlie  use  of  Cromwell's  army,  nearly  all  the 
selections  of  Scripture  were  taken  from  the  Cloiieva 
versiou.  See  the  reprint  by  George  Liveruiore,  C.uii- 
bridgB,  1861,  p.  vi.  A. 

216 


3433 

through  the  whole  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  for  into 
that  of  James.  .-\s  might  be  expected,  it  was  based 
on  Tyndal's  version,  often  returning  to  it  where 
the  intermediate  renderings  had  had  the  character 
of  a  compromise. 

(•3.)  Some  peculiarities  are  worthy  of  special 
notice:  (1.)  It  professes  a  desire  to  restore  the 
"  true  writing  "  of  many  Hebrew  names,  and  we 
meet  accordingly  with  forms  like  Izhak  (Isaac), 
Jaacob,  and  the  like.  (2.)  It  omits  the  name  of  St. 
Paul  from  the  title  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews; 
and,  in  a  short  preface,  leaves  the  authorship  an 
open  question.  (3.)  It  avows  the  principle  of  put- 
ting all  words  not  in  the  original  in  Italics.  (4. 
It  jiresents,  in  a  calendar  prefixed  to  the  Bible 
something  like  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  es 
tablished  order  of  the  Church's  lessons,  commemo- 
rating Scripture  facts,  and  the  deaths  of  the  great 
Reformers,  but  ignoring  saints'  days  altogether. 
(5.)  It  was  the  first  English  Bible  which  entirely 
omitted  the  Apocrypha.  (6.)  The  notes  were  char- 
acteristically Swiss,  not  only  in  their  theology,  but 
in  their  politics.  They  made  allegiance  to  kings 
dependent  upon  the  soundness  of  their  faith,  and  in 
one  instance  (note  on  2  Chr.  xv.  16)  at  least 
seemed,  to  the  easily  startled  James  I.,  to  favor 
tyrarmicide.* 

(4. )  The  circumstances  of  the  early  introduction 
of  the  Geneva  version  are  worth  mentioning,  if 
only  as  showing  in  how  different  a  spirit  the  great 
fathers  of  the  English  Keformation,  the  most  con- 
servative of  Anglican  theologians,  acted  from  that 
which  has  too  often  animated  their  successors 
Men  talk  now  of  difterent  translations  and  variou." 
readings  as  likely  to  undermine  the  faith  of  the 
people.  When  application  was  made  to  Archbishop 
Parker,  in  1565,  to  support  Bodleigh's  application 
for  a  license  to  reprint  the  Geneva  version  in 
12mo,  he  wrote  to  Cecil  in  its  favor.  He  was  at 
the  time  looking  forward  to  the  work  he  afterwards 
accomplished,  of  "one  other  special  Bible  for  the 
churches,  to  be  set  forth  as  convenient  time  and 
leism'e  should  permit;  "  but  in  the  mean  time  it 
would  "nothing  hinder,  but  rather  do  much  good, 
to  have  diversity  of  translations  and  readings  " 
(Strype,  Life  of  Parker,  iii.  6).'-'  In  many  of  the 
later  reprints  of  this  edition  the  N.  T.  purports  to 
be  based  upon  Beza's  Latin  version ;  and  the  notes 
are  said  to  be  taken  from  [Beza,]  Joac.  C'amerarius, 
P.  Loseler  Villerius,  and  Er.  Junius. 

IX.  The  Bishops'  Bible.  —  (1.)  The  facts  just 
stated  will  account  for  the  wish  of  Archbishop 
Parker,  in  spite  of  his  liberal  tolerance,  to  Ijring 
out  another  version  w'hich  might  establish  its 
claims  against  that  of  Geneva.  Great  preparations 
were  made.  The  correspondence  of  Parker  with 
his  suffragans  presents  some  points  of  interest,  as 
showing  how  little  agreement  there  was  as  to  the 
true  theory  of  a  translation.  Thus  while  Sandys, 
Bishop  of  Worcester,  finds  fault  with  the  "  com- 
mon translation  "  (Geneva?),  as  "  following  iMuu- 
ster  too  much,"  and  so  "swerving  much  from  the 
Hebrew,"  Guest,  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  who  took 

ft  The  note  "  Herein  he  showed  that  he  lacked  zeal, 
for  she  ought  to  have  died,"  was  probably  one  which 
Scotcli  fanatics  had  handled  in  counection  with  the 
name  of  James's  mother. 

c  The  Oeueva  version,  as  published  by  Parker,  is 
that  popularly  knowu  as  the  Breeches  Bible,  from  ita 
remleringof  (jeii.  iii.  7.  It  had  however  been  preceded 
iu  tills  by  Wycliife's 


3434 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


the  Psalms,  acted  on  the  principle  of  translating 
them  so  as  to  agree  with  the  N.  T.  quotations, 
"  for  the  avoiding  of  otiense;  "  and  Cox,  Hishop  of 
Ely,  while  laying  down  the  sensiUe  rule  that  "  ink- 
horn  terms  were  to  ije  avoided,"  also  went  on  to 
add  "  that  the  usual  terms  were  to  be  retained  so 
far  forth  as  the  Helaew  will  well  hear"  (Strype, 
Parlcer,  iii.  G).  The  principle  of  pious  frauds,  of 
distorting  the  truth  for  the  sake  of  edification,  has 
perhaps  often  heen  acted  on  by  other  translators. 
It  has  not  often  been  so  explicitly  avowed  as  in 
the  first  of  these  suggestions. 

(2.)  The  bishops  thus  consulted,  eight  in  num- 
ber, together  with  some  deans  and  professors, 
brought  out  the  fruit  of  their  labors  in  a  magnifi- 
cent folio  (15G8  and  1572).  iMerything  had  been 
done  to  make  it  attractive.  A  long  erudite  preface 
vindicated  the  right  of  the  people  to  read  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  (quoting  the  authority  of  Bislio])  Fisher) 
admitted  the  position  which  later  divines  have  often 
been  slow  to  admit  that  "  there  be  yet  in  the 
Gospel  many  dark  places  which,  without  all  doubt, 
to  the  posterity  shall  be  made  much  more  open." 
Wood-engravings  of  a  much  higher  character  than 
those  of  the  Geneva  Bible  were  scattered  profusely, 
especially  in  Genesis.  Three  portraits  of  the  Queen, 
the  Earl  of  Leicester,  and  Lord  Burleigh,  lieautiful 
specimens  of  copperplate  engraving,  appeared  on  the 
title-pages  of  the  several  parts."  A  map  of  Pales- 
tine was  given,  with  degrees  of  latitude  and  lon- 
gitude, in  the  edition  of  1572.  A  most  elaborate 
series  of  genealogical  tallies,  prepared  by  Hugh 
Broughton,  the  great  Rabbi  of  the  age  (of  whom 
more  hereafter),  but  ostensibly  by  Speed  the  anti- 
quary (Broughton"s  name  being  in  disfavor  with 
the  bishops),  was  prefixed  (Strype,  Parker,  iv.  20; 
Lightfoot,  Life  of  Brvuijdon).  In  some  points  it 
followed  previous  translations,  and  was  avowedly 
based  on  (  ranmer's.  "  A  new  edition  was  neces- 
sary." "  This  had  led  some  well-disposed  men  to 
recognize  it  again,  not  as  condemning  the  former 
translation,  which  has  been  followed  mostly  of  any 
•ther  translation,  excepting  the  original  text " 
(Pre/',  of  lhl'2).  Cranmer's  prologue  was  reprinted. 
The  Geneva  division  into  verses  was  adopted 
throughout. 

(3.)  Some  peculiarities,  however,  appear  for  the 
first  and  last  time.  (1.)  The  books  of  the  Bible 
are  classified  as  legal,  historical,  sapiential,  and 
prophetic.  This  was  easy  enough  for  the  0.  T., 
but  the  application  of  the  same  idea  to  the  N.  T. 
produced  some  rather  curious  combinations.  The 
Gospels,  the  Catholic  I'>pistles,  and  those  to  Titus, 
Philemon,  and  the  Hebrews,  are  groujied  together 
as  legal,  St.  Paul's  other  epistles  as  sapiential;  the 
Acts  appear  as  the  one  historical,  the  Kevelation 
as  the  one  prophetic  book.  (2.)  It  is  the  only 
Bible  in  which  many  passages,  sometimes  nearly 
a  whole  chapter,  have  been  marked  for  the  express 
purpose  of  being  omitted  when  the  chapters  were 
read  in  the  public  service  of  the  Church.  (3.)  One 
edition  contained  the  older  version  of  the  Psalms 
from  Matthew's  Bible,   in    parallel   columns  with 


«  The  fitness  of  tliese  illustrations  is  open  to  ques- 
tion. Others  still  more  incongruous  found  their  way 
into  the  text  of  the  edition  of  1572,  and  the  feelings 
of  the  Pu_-itans  were  shocked  by  seeing  a  wood-cut  of 
Keptnne  in  the  initial  letters  of  >7onah,  Micah,  and 
Nahuui,  while  that  of-the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  went  so 
ftu  af  to  give  Leda  and  the   Swan.     There  must,  to 


that  now  issued,  a  true  and  piacticrJ  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  benefit  of  a  diversity  of<  translations. 
(4.)  The  initials  of  the  translators  were  attached  to 
the  hooks  which  they  had  severally  undertaken. 
The  work  was  done  on  tlie  plan  of  limited,  not  joint 
liability.  (5.)  Here  as  in  the  Geneva,  there  is  the 
attempt  to  give  the  Heljrew  proper  names  more  ac- 
curately, as,  e.  (J.,  in  Ileva,  Isahac,  Uziahu,  etc. 

(4.)  Of  all  the  English  versions,  the  Bishops' 
Bilile  had  proljably  the  least  success.  It  did  not 
counnand  the  respect  of  scholars,  and  its  size  and 
cost  were  far  Irom  meeting  the  wants  of  the  people. 
Its  circulation  appears  to  have  been  practically 
limited  to  the  churches  which  were  ordered  to  be 
supplied  with  it.  It  had  however,  at  any  rate  tha- 
right  to  lioast  of  some  good  Hebrew  .scholars  among 
the  translators.  One  of  them.  Bishop  Alley,  hwl 
written  a  Hebrew  Grammar;  and  though  vehe- 
mently attacked  by  Broughton  (Townley,  Literary 
History  of  the  Bible,  iii.  190),  it  was  Jefended  as 
vigorouslv  by  Fulke,  and,  together  with  the  A.  V. 
received  from  Selden  the  praise  of  being  ''  the  best 
translation  in  the  world  ''  ("  Table  Talk,"  Works, 
iii.  200U). 

X.  Kheibis  and  Dottay.  —  (1.)  The  successive 
changes  in  the  Protestant  versions  of  the  Scriptures 
were,  as  might  be  expected,  matter  of  triumph  to 
the  controversialists  of  the  Latin  Church.  Some 
saw  in  it  an  argument  against  any  translation  of 
Scripture  into  tlie  spoken  language  of  the  people. 
Others  ])ointed  derisively  to  the  want  of  unity 
which  these  changes  displayed.  There  were  some, 
however,  who  took  the  line  which  Sir  T.  More  and 
Gardiner  had  taken  umler  Henry  ATII.  They  did 
not  obje('t  to  the  principle  of  an  English  translation. 
They  oidy  charged  all  the  versions  hitherto  made 
with  being  false,  corrupt,  heretical.  To  this  there 
was  the  ready  retort,  that  they  had  done  nothing: 
that  their  bishops  in  the  reign  of  Henry  had 
promised,  but  had  not  performed.  It  was  felt  to 
be  necessary  that  they  should  take  some  steps 
which  mi^'ht  en.able  them  to  turn  the  edge  of  this 
reproach,  and  the  English  refugees  who  were  settled 
at  Rheims  —  Martin,  Allen  (afterwards  cardinal), 
and  Bristow  —  undertook  the  work.  Gregory 
Martin,  who  had  graduated  at  Cambridge,  had 
signalized  himself  by  an  attack  on  the  existing 
versions,''  and  had  been  answered  in  an  elaborate 
treatise  by  Eulke,  Master  of  Catherine  Hall,  Cam- 
brijge  (A  Defence  of  tlie  ISincei-e  and  True 
Traiishition,  etc.).  The  charges  are  mostly  of  the 
same  kind  as  those  brought  by  Sir  T.  More  against 
Tyndal.  "  I'he  old  time-honored  words  were  dis- 
carded. The  authority  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate 
was  set  at  nought  when  the  translator's  view  of 
tiie  meaning  of  the  Helirew  and  Greek  differed 
from  what  he  found  in  them."  The  new  model 
translation  was  to  avoid  these  faults.  It  was  to 
connnand  the  respect  at  once  of  priests  and  people 
After  an  incubation  of  some  years  it  was  published 
at  Iiheims  in  1582.  Though  Martin  was  compe- 
ter.t  to  translate  from  the  Greek,  it  professed  to  be 
based   on    "  the  authentic   text  of  the  Vulgate." 


say  the   least,  have  been   very  slovenly  editorship  tc 
permit  this. 

i  "  A  discovery  of  the  manifold  corruptions  of  Holy 
Scriptures  by  the  Heretikes  of  our  dajs,  specially  of  the 
English  sectaries."'  The  language  of  this  and  other 
like  books  was,  as  might  be  expected,  very  abusive. 
The  Bible,  in  Protestant  translations,  was  ''  not  God'i 
word,  but  the  devil's." 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


343,5 


Notes  were  aikletl,  as  stroiif^Iy  doj^'matic  as  those 
)f  tlie  (ieueva  Bible,  and  ofteii  keenly  controversial. 
I'lie  woik  of  translation  was  completed  somewhat 
later  by  the  publir:atiou  of  the  0.  T.  at  Douay  in 
1609.  The  language  was  precisely  what  might 
have  been  expected  from  men  who  adopted  Gardi- 
ner's ideal  of  what  a  translation  ought  to  be. 
At  every  page  we  stumble  on  "  strange  ink-horn 
words,"  whioii  never  had  been  English,  and  never 
could  be,  such,  e.  g.,  as  "  the  Pasche  and  the 
Azymes "  (Mark  xvi.  1),  "the  arch-synagogue" 
(Mark  v.  35),  "in  prepuce  "  (Kotn.  iv.  9),  "obdu- 
rate with  the  fallacie  of  sin"  (Heb.  iii.  13),  "a 
greater  hoste  "  (Heb.  xi.  4),  "  this  is  the  annuntia- 
tion  "  (1  John  v.  5),  "  pre-ordinate  "  (Acts  xiii. 
48),  "  the  justifications  of  our  Lord  "  (Luke  i.  6), 
"  what  is  to  me  and  thee"  (.lohn  ii.  4),  "longa- 
nimity "  (Kom.  ii.  4),  "  purge  the  old  leaven  that 
you  may  be  a  new  paste,  as  you  are  azymes" 
(1  Cor.  iv.  7),  "you  are  evacuated  from  Christ" 
(Gal.  V.  4),  and  so  on." 

(2.)  A  style  such  as  this  had,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, but  few  admirers.  Among  those  few,  how- 
ever, we  find  one  great  name.  Hacon,  who  leaves 
the  great  work  of  the  reign  of  James  unnoticed, 
and  quotes  almost  uniformly  from  the  Vulgate, 
goes  out  of  his  way  to  praise  the  fihemish  version 
for  having  restored  "charity"  to  the  place  from 
which  Tyndal  had  expelled  it,  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  ( Of 
the  J'<icifiaitioii  of't/ie  Church). 

XI.  AuTitoiuzKi)  Veksion.  —  (1.)  The  posi- 
tion of  the  Ensjlish  Church  in  relation  to  the  ver- 
Bions  in  use  at  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of 
James  was  hardly  satisfactory.  The  Bishops'  Bi- 
ble was  sanctioned  by  authority.  That  of  Geneva 
had  the  strongest  hold  on  the  afltjctions  of  the 
people.  SchuLirs,  Hebrew  scholars  in  particular, 
found  grave  fault  with  both.  Hugh  Broughton, 
who  spoke  Hebrew  as  if  it  had  been  his  mother- 
tongue,  denounced  the  former  as  being  full  of 
"  traps  and  pitfalls,"  "  overthrowing  all  religion," 
and  proposed  a  new  revision  to  be  effected  by  an 
Englisi  Septuagiut  (72),  with  power  to  consult 
gardeners,  artists,  and  the  like,  about  the  words 
connected  with  their  several  callin<;s,  and  bound  to 
Bubmit  their  work  to  "  one  qualified  for  difficul- 
ties.'' Tiiis  ultimate  referee  was,  of  course,  to  be 
himself  (Strype,  WhiUpft,  iv.  19,  23).  Unhappily, 
neither  his  temper  nor  his  manners  were  such  as  to 
ivin  favor  for  this  suggestion.  Whifgift  disliked 
him.  worried  him,  drove  him  into  exile.  His  feel- 
ing was,  however,  shared  by  others;  and  among 
the  demands  of  the  I'uritan  representatives  at  the 
Hampton  Court  Conference  in  1604  (l)r.  Iteinolds 
being  the  spokesman),  was  one  for  a  new,  or,  at 
least,  a  revised  translation.  The  special  objections 
which  they  urged  were  neither  munerous  (three 
passages  only  —  Ps.  cv.  28,  cvi.  30,  (Jal.  iv.  25, 
were  referred  to)  nor  important,  and  we  must  con- 


a  Kveu  Roman  Catholic  divines  have  felt  the  supe- 
(iority  of  the  A.  V.,  and  Ch:illoner,  in  his  editions 
if  the  N.  T.  in  1748,  and  the  Bible,  1763,  often  fol- 
ows  it  in  preference  to  the  Rlieinis  and  Douay  trans- 
itions. 

b  Only  forty-seven  names  apjiear  iu  the  king's  list 
'Burnet,  Reform.  Rerovds).  Seven  may  have  died,  or 
lecliiied  to  act ;  or  it  may  have  been  intended  that 
there  should  be  a  final  Coiumittee  of  Revision.  A 
'ull  list  is  given  by  Fuller  {Ch.  Hist,  x.)  ;  and  is 
Reproduced,  with  biographical  particulars,  by  Todd 
•»id  .\uderson. 


elude  either  that  this  part  of  their  ci  .se  had  not 
been  carefully  got  up,  or  that  the  bull\ing  to 
which  they  were  exijosed  had  had  the  desirei 
effect  of  throwing  them  into  some  confusion.  The 
bishops  treated  the  dithculties  which  they  did  raise 
with  supercilious  scorn.  They  were  "  trivial,  old, 
and  often  answered."  Bancroft  raised  the  ciy  of 
alarm  which  a  timid  Conservatism  has  so  often 
raised  since.  "  If  every  man's  humor  were  to  lie 
followed,  there  would  be  no  end  of  translating  " 
(CardweU,  Co»frreiices,  p.  188).  Cranmer's  words 
seemed  likely  to  be  fulfilled  again.  Had  it  been 
left  to  the  bishops,  we  might  have  waited  for  the 
A.  V.  "  till  the  day  after  doomsday."  Even  when 
the  work  was  done,  and  the  translators  acknowl- 
edged that  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  had 
been  the  starting-point  of  it,  they  could  not  resist 
the  temptation  of  a  fling  at  their  opponents.  The 
objections  to  the  Bishops'  liible  had,  they  said, 
been  nothing  more  than  a  shift  to  justify  the 
refusal  of  the  Puritans  to  subscribe  to  tiie  Com- 
munion Book  (/'re/ace.  to  A.  V.).  I?ut  the  king 
disliked  the  politics  of  the  Geneva  Bible.  Either 
repeating  what  he  had  heard  from  others,  or  exer- 
cising his  own  judgment,  he  declared  that  there 
was  as  yet  no  good  translation,  and  that  that 
was  the  worst  of  all.  Nothing,  however,  was 
settled  at  the  Conference  beyond  the  hope  thus 
held  out. 

(2.)  But  the  king  was  not  forgetful  of  what  he 
thought  likely  to  be  the  glory  of  his  reign.  The 
work  of  organizing  and  superintending  the  arrange- 
ments for  a  new  translation  was  one  specially  con- 
genial to  him,  and  in  1606  the  task  was  accord- 
ingly commenced.  The  selection  of  the  fifty-four 
scholars  ''  to  whom  it  was  entrusted,  seems,  on  the 
whole,  to  have  been  a  wise  and  fair  one.  Andrews 
Saravia,  Overal,  Montague,  and  Barlow,  repre 
sented  the  "higher"  party  in  the  Church;  IJei- 
nolds,  Chaderton,  and  Lively  that  of  the  Puritans.' 
Scholarship  unconnected  with  party  was  repre 
sented  by  Henry  Savile  and  John  Boys.  One 
name  is  indeed  conspicuous  by  its  absence.  The 
greatest  Hebrew  scholar  of  the  age,  the  maVi 
who  had,  in  a  letter  to  Cecil  (1595),  urged  this 
very  plan  of  a  joint  translation,  who  had  already 
translated  several  books  of  the  0.  T.  (Job,  Eccle- 
siastes,  Daniel,  Lamentations)  was  ignominiouslj 
excluded.  This  may  have  been,  in  part,  owing  to 
the  dislike  with  which  Whitgift  and  Bancroft  had 
all  along  regarded  him.  But  in  part,  also,  it  was 
owing  to  Broughton's  own  character.  An  unman- 
ageable temper  siiowing  itself  in  violent  laniruage, 
and  the  habit  of  stigmatizing  those  who  differed 
from  him,  even  on  such  questions  as  those  con- 
nected with  names  and  dates,  as  heretical  and 
atheistic,  must  have  made  him  thoroughly  imprac 
ticable;  one  of  the  men  whose  presence  throws  a 
committee  or  Conference  into  chaos.'' 


c  This  siilo  was,  however,  weakened  by  the  death 
(if  Keiuolds  and  Lively  during  the  progress  of  the 
work.  The  loss  of  the  latter,  Hebrew  professor  at 
Cambridge  for  thirty  years,  was  every  way  deplora- 
ble. 

'I  It  deserves  notice  that  Broughton  is  the  only 
Knglish  translator  wlio  hag  adopted  the  Etrrnnl  aa 
the  eriuivalent  for  Jehovah,  as  in  the  French  version. 
To  him  also  perhaps,  more  thai^  to  any  other  diviuo, 
we  owq  the  true  iuterpretjitiou  of  the  D'.soeut  into 
Hell. 


3436  VERoION,  AUTHORIZED 

(3.)   VNHiat  reward  otlier  than  that  of  their  own  I  and    Greek  words.     This   was   obviously  direct*' 


tonsciences  and  the  judifnient  of  posterity  were  the 
men  thus  chosen  to  expect  for  their  long  and  lalio- 
rious  task  V  The  king  was  not  disposed  to  pay 
them  out  of  his  state  revenue.  Gold  and  silver 
were  not  always  plentiful  in  the  household  of  the 
English  Solomon,  and  from  him  they  received 
nothing  (Heywood,  State  of  Auth.  Bibl.  Rivhion). 
There  remained,  however,  an  ingenious  form  of 
lil)erality,  which  had  the  merit  of  being  inexpen- 
sive. A  king's  letter  was  sent  to  the  archbishops 
and  bishops,  to  be  transmitted  by  them  to  their 
chapters,  commending  all  the  translators  to  their 
favorable  notice.  They  were  exhorted  to  contribute 
in  all  1,000  marks,  and  the  king  was  to  be  informed 
of  each  man's  liberality.  If  any  livings  in  tlieir 
gift,  or  in  the  gift  of  private  persons,  became 
vacant,  the  king  was  to  be  informed  of  it,  that  he 
might  nominate  some  of  the  translators  to  the 
vacant  preferment.  Heads  of  colleges,  in  like 
maimer,  were  enjoined  to  give  free  board  and  lodg- 
ing to  such  divines  as  were  summoned  from  the 
country  to  labor  in  the  great  work  (Strype,  Wltit- 
gifl,  iv.).  That  the  king  might  take  his  place  as 
the  director  of  the  whole,  a  copy  of  fifteen  instruc- 
tions was  sent  to  each  translator,  and  apparently 
circulated  ireely  in  both  Universities. 

(4.)  The  instructions  thus  given  will  be  found 
in  Fuller  (/.  c),  and  with  a  more  accurate  text  in 
Burnet  {Reform.  Records).  It  will  not  be  neces- 
sary to  give  them  here  in  fuU ;  but  it  will  lie  inter- 
esting to  note  the  bearing  of  each  clause  upon  the 
work  in  hand,  and  its  relation  to  previous  versions. 
(1.)  The  Bishops'  Bible  was  to  be  followed,  and  as 
little  altered  as  the  original  Till  permit.  This 
was  intended  probaldy  to  quiet  the  alarm  of  those 
who  saw,  in  the  proposal  of  a  new  version,  a  con- 
demnation of  that  already  existing.  (2.)  The  names 
of  prophets  and  others  were  to  be  retained,  as 
nearly  as  may  be  as  they  are  vulgarly  used.  This 
was  to  guard  against  forms  like  Izhak,  Jeremiahu, 
etc.,  which  had  been  introduced  in  some  versions, 
and  which  some  Hebrew  scholars  were  willing  to 
introduce  more  copiously.  To  it  we  owe  probably 
the  forms  Jeremy.  Elias,  Osee,  Core,  in  the  N.  T. 
(3.)  'I'he  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as  the 
word  Church  not  to  be  translated  Congregation. 
The  rule  was  a])parently  given  for  the  sake  of  this 
special  application.  "  Charity,"  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  was 
probably  also  'lue  to  it.  The  earlier  versions,  it 
will  be  remembered,  had  gone  on  the  opposite  prin- 
ciple. (4.)  When  any  word  hath  divers  significa- 
tions, that  to  be  kept  which  hath  been  most  com- 
monly used  by  the  most  eminent  fathers,  being 
agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place  and  the 
analogy  of  faith.  This,  like  the  former,  tends  to 
confound  the  functions  of  the  preacher  and  the 
translator,  and  substitutes  ecclesiastical  tradition 
for  philological  accuracy.  (5.)  The  division  of  the 
chapters  to  be  altered  either  not  at  all,  or  as  little 
as  possilile.  Here,  again,  convenience  was  more  in 
view  than  truth  and  accuracy,  and  the  result  is 
that  divisions  are  perpetuated  which  are  manilestly 
arbitrary  and  misleading.  (6.)  No  marginal  notes 
to  be  affixed  but  only  for  the  explanation  of  Hebrew 


<•  >"'es  Smith,  himself  a  translator  and  the  writer 

»f  thCj       "ace,  complained  of  Bancroft  that  there  was 

no  contradicting  him  (Beard,  Hevised  Eng.  Bible). 

b  Gell's  evidence,  as  having  been  chaplain  to  Arch- 

Iiop  Ahbot,  carries  some  weight  with  it.     His  works 

vre  tn  he  found  in  the  Brit.  Jlus.  Library,  Mr.  Scriv- 


against  the  Geneva  notes,  as  the  special  objects  of 
the  king's  aversion.  Practically,  however,  in  what- 
ever leeling  it  originated,  we  may  be  thankful  that 
the  A.  V.  came  out  as  it  did,  without  note  or  com- 
ment. The  open  Bil)le  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
all  readers.  The  work  of  interpretation  was  left 
free.  Had  an  opposite  course  beoi  adopted,  we 
might  have  had  the  tremendous  evil  of  a  whole 
body  of  exegesis  imposed  upon  the  Church  by 
authority,  reflecting  the  Calvinism  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  the  absolutism  of  James,  the  high- flying 
prelacy  of  Bancroft.  (7.)  Such  quotations  of  places 
to  be  marginally  set  down  as  may  serve  for  fit 
reference  of  one  Scripture  to  another.  The  ja-in- 
ciple  that  Scripture  is  its  own  best  interpreter  i»ii« 
thus  recognized,  but  practically  the  marginal  rel<?i- 
ences  of  the  A.  V.  of  1611  were  somewhat  scanty, 
most  of  those  now  printed  having  been  added  in 
later  editions.  (8  and  9.)  State  plan  of  translation. 
Each  company  of  translators  is  to  take  its  own 
books;  each  person  to  bring  his  own  corrections. 
The  company  to  discuss  them,  and  having  finished 
their  work,  to  send  it  on  to  another  company,  and 
so  on.  (10.)  Provides  for  differences  of  opinion 
between  two  companies  liy  referring  them  to  a 
general  meeting.  (11.)  Gives  power,  in  cases  of 
difficulty,  to  consult  any  scholars.  (12.)  Invites 
suggestions  from  any  quarter.  (13.)  Names  the 
directors  of  the  work:  Andrews,  Dean  of  West- 
minster; Barlow,  Dean  of  Chester ;  and  the  Regius 
Professors  of  llel)rew  and  Greek  at  both  Univer- 
sities. (14.)  Names  translations  to  be  followed 
Then  they  agree  more  with  the  original  than  the 
Bishops'  Bible,  sc.  Tyndal's,  Coverdale's,  Mat- 
thew's, Whitchurch's  (Cranmer's),  and  Geneva. 
(15.)  Authorizes  Universities  to  appoint  three  or 
four  overseers  of  the  work. 

(5.)  It  is  not  known  that  any  of  the  correspond- 
ence connected  with  this  work,  or  any  minute  of 
the  meetings  for  conference  is  still  extant.  Nothing 
is  more  striking  than  the  silence  with  which  the 
version  that  was  to  be  the  inheritance  of  the  Eng- 
lish people  for  at  least  two  centuries  and  a  half  was 
ushered  into  the  world.  Here  and  there  we  get 
glimpses  of  scholars  coming  from  their  country 
livings  to  their  old  college  haunts  to  work  diligently 
at  the  task  assigned  them  (Peck,  Desideratn  Curi- 
osa,  ii.  87).  We  see  the  meetings  of  translators, 
one  man  reading  the  chapter  which  he  has  been  at 
work  on,  while  the  others  listen,  with  the  original, 
or  Latin, 'or  German,  or  Italian,  or  Spanish  versions 
in  their  hands  (Selden,  Table  Talk).  We  njay 
represent  to  oursehes  the  differences  of  opinion, 
settled  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  "odd  man,"  or 
by  the  strong  overbearing  temper  of  a  man  like 
Bancroft,"  the  minority  comforting  themselves  with 
the  thought  that  it  was  no  new  thing  for  the  truth 
to  l>e  outvoted  (Gell,  Jis.'^ay  towards  Ameiuhient 
(f  last  Ei>(i.  Transl.  of  Bible,  p.  321 ).»  Dogmatic 
interests  were  in  some  cases  allowed  to  bias  the 
translation,  and  the  Calvinism  of  one  party,  the  pre- 
latic  views  of  another,  were  both  represented  at  the 
expense  of  accuracy  (Gell,  l.  c.).<^ 

(6.)  For  three  years  the  work  went  on,  the  sepa- 


ener's  statement  to  the  contrary  being  apparently  an 
oversight  (Stiiijikmfnt  tn  A.   V.  nf  N-  T.  p.  101). 

c  The  following  passages  are  those  commonly  re- 
ferred to  in  support  of  this  charge  :  (1.)  The  rendering 
"  such  as  should  be  saved,"  in  Acts  ii.  47.  (2  )  Th« 
in.-iertion  of  the  words   "  any   man  "   in  Heb    x    ijfc 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


3437 


rate  companies  eomjiariiif;  notes  as  directed.  When 
tlie  woik  drew  towards  its  conijiletion  it  was  neces- 
sary to  place  it  under  the  care  of  a  select  few. 
'I'wo  from  each  of  the  three  groups  were  accordingly 
selected,  and  the  six  met  in  London,  to  superintend 
the  publication.  Now,  for  the  first  tiuie,  we  find 
any  more  definite  remuneration  than  the  shadowy 
promise  held  out  in  the  king's  letter,  of  a  share  in 
the  IjUiiO  marks  which  Deans  and  Chapters. would 
wt  contribute.  The  matter  had  now  reached  its 
burliness  stage,  and  the  Company  of  Stationers 
thought  it  expedient  to  give  the  six  editors  thirty 
founds  each,  in  weekly  payments,  for  their  nine 
months'  labor.  The  final  correction,  and  the  task 
of  writing  the  arguments  of  the  several  books,  was 
given  to  liilson.  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Dr. 
Miles  Smith,  the  latter  of  whom  also  wrote  the 
Dedication  and  the  Preface.  Of  these  two  docu- 
ments the  first  is  unfortunately  familiar  enough  to 
us,  and  is  chiefly  conspicuous  for  its  servile  adula- 
tion." James  1.  is  "that  sanctified  person,"'  '-en- 
riched with  singular  and  extraordinary  graces," 
that  had  appeared  ■'  as  the  sun  in  his  strength."' 
To  him  they  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  those 
whom  they  describe,  in  somewhat  peevish  accents, 
as  "  Popish  persons  or  self-conceited  brethren." 
The  Preface  to  the  Keader  is  more  interesting,  as 
throwing  light  upon  the  principles  on  which  the 
translators  acted.  They  "  never  thought  that 
they  should  need  to  make  a  new  translation,  nor 
yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good  one."  "  Their 
endeavor  was  to  make  a  good  one  better,  or  out  of 
many  good  ones  one  principal  good  one."  They 
claim  credit  for  steering  a  middle  course  between 
the  Puritans  who  "  left  the  old  ecclesiastical  words." 
and  the  obscurity  of  tiie  Papists  "  retaining  foreign 
words  of  purpose  to  darken  the  sen.se."  They  vin- 
dicate the  [)ractice.  in  which  they  indulge  very  freely, 
of  translating  one  word  in  the  original  by  many 
English  words,  partly  on  the  intelligible  ground 
that  it  is  not  always  possil)le  to  find  one  word  that 
will  express  all  the  meanings  of  the  Greek  or  He- 
brew, partly  on  the  somewhat  childish  ])lea  that  it 
would  be  imfair  to  choose  some  words  for  the  high 
honor  of  being  the  channels  of  (Jod's  truth,  and  to 
pass  over  others  as  unworthy. 

(7.)  The  version  thus  published  did  not  allat 
once  su[iersede  those  already  in  possession.  The 
fact  tliat  five  editions  were  published  in  three  years, 
shows  that  there  was  a  good  demand.  But  the 
Bishops'  Bible  probably  remained  in  many  churches 
(.-Vndrews  takes  his  texts  from  it  in  preaching  be- 
fore the  king  as  late  as  1G21),  and  die  popularity 
of  the  Geneva  Version  is  shown  by  not  less  than 
thirteen  reprints,  in  whole  or  in  part,  between  IGll 
and  1617.  It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  impres- 
sion which  the  A.  V.  made  at  the  time  of  its  ap- 
(kiirance.     Probably,  as  in  most  like  cases,  it  was 


("  the  just  shall  live  by  faith,  but  if  aiii/  man  draw 
back,"  etc.)  to  avoid  an  iufereuce  unfavorable  to  the 
doctrine  of  Final  Perseverance.  (3.)  Tlie  use  of  ''  bish- 
opric," in  Acts  i.  20,  of  "  oversight,"  iu  1  I'et.  v.  2,  of 
"  bishop,'-  iu  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  &c.,  and  "  overseers,"'  in 
Acts  XX.  28,  iu  order  to  avoid  the  ideutilicatinu  of 
bishops  and  elders.  (4  )  The  cbapter-hwidiu^  of  I's. 
exiix.  iu  Itjil  (since  altered),  '  The  Pi-opliet  e.-ihortctli 
to  praise  God  for  that  power  whirli  he  hath  given  the 
Unurch  to  bind  the  conscieuoes  of  iiieu."  Blunt  {Du- 
xes of  a  Parish  Priest,  Lect.  H.)  appears  in  this  ques- 
don  on  the  side  of  the  pro.secution  ;  Trench  ( Oft  thf  A. 
V.  of  the  N.  T.  c.  x.)  on  that  of  the  defense.  The  charj^o 
»f  au  undue  bias  against  Home  in  1  Cor.  xi  27,  Qal. 


f:u-  less  for  good  or  e\  il  than  friends  or  foes  expected 
The  Puritans,  and  the  religious  jjortion  of  tlie  mid- 
dle classes  generally,  missed  the  notes  of  the  Ge- 
neva book  (Fuller,  Cli.  Hist.  x.  50,  51).  The  Ro- 
manists sjx)ke  as  usual,  of  the  un.settling  effect  ol 
these  frequent  changes,  and  of  the  marginal  read- 
ings as  leaving  men  in  doubt  what  was  the  truth  oi 
Scripture''  One  frantic  cry  was  heard  from  Hugh 
Broughton  the  rejected  {Win-ks,  p.  GGl),  whc 
"  would  rather  be  torn  in  pieces  by  wild  horses  than 
impose  such  a  version  on  the  poor  churches  of  Eng- 
land." Selden.  a  few  years  later,  gives  a  calmer 
and  more  favorable  judgment.  It  is  "the  best  of 
all  translations  as  giving  the  true  sense  of  the  orig- 
inal." This,  however,  is  qualified  by  the  remark 
that  "  no  book  in  the  world  is  translated  as  the 
Bible  is,  word  for  word,  with  no  regard  to  the  dif- 
ference of  idioms.  This  is  well  enough  so  long  as 
scholars  have  to  do  with  it,  but  when  it  comen 
among  the  common  people,  Lord!  what  gear  do 
they  make  of  it!"  {Table  Talk).  The  feeling 
of  which  this  was  the  expression,  led  even  in  the 
midst  of  the  agitations  of  the  Commonwealth  to 
proposals  for  another  revision,  which,  after  being 
brought  forwr.rd  in  the  Grand  Committee  of  Relig- 
ion in  the  House  of  Commons  in  Jan.  1056,  was 
referred  to  a  sub-committee,  acting  under  White- 
locke,  with  power  to  consult  di\ines  and  report. 
( 'onferences  were  accordingly  held  frequently  at 
\\'hitelocke"s  house,  at  which  we  find,  mingled  with 
less  illustrious  names,  those  of  Walton  and  Cud- 
worth.  Nothing,  however  canie  of  it  (Whitelocke, 
Memormis,  p.  5G4-;  Collier,  ("//.  Hist.  ii.  9).  No 
report  was  e\er  made,  and  with  the  Restoration  the 
tide  of  conservative  feeling,  in  this  as  in  other  things, 
checked  all  plans  of  further  alteration.  jMany  had 
ceased  to  care  for  the  liible  at  all.  Those  who  did 
care  were  content  with  the  Bible  as  it  was.  Only 
here  and  there  was  a  voice  raised,  like  R.  Cell's 
{at  supra),  declaring  that  it  had  defects,  that  it 
liore  in  some  tilings  the  stamp  of  the  dogmatism  ol 
a  party  (p.  321). 

(8.)  The  highest  testimony  of  this  period  is  that 
of  Walton.  From  the  editor  of  the  Polyglott,  the 
few  words  "  inter  omnes  eminet  "  meant  a  good 
deal  {Pref.).  With  the  reign  of  Anne  the  tide  of 
glowing  panegyric  set  in.  It  would  be  easy  to  put 
together  a  long  ciiU-mi  of  praises  stretching  from 
that  time  to  the  present.  With  many,  of  course, 
this  has  been  only  the  routine  repetition  of  a  tradi- 
tional boast.  "Our  unrivaled  Translation,"  and 
"our  incomparable  Liturgy,"  have  been,  equally, 
phrases  of  course.  But  there  have  been  witnesses 
of  a  far  higher  weight.  In  proportion  as  the  Eng- 
lish of  the  18th  century  was  infected  with  a  Latin- 
ized or  (jalliei/.ed  style,  did  those  who  had  a  purer 
taste  look  with  reverence  to  the  strength  and  purity 
of  a  better  time  as  represented  in  the  A.  V.     Thug 


V.  6,  Heb.  xiii.  4,  is  one  ou  which  an  acquittal  may  b« 
pronounced  with  liitle  or  no  hesitation. 

a  It  may  be  at  least  pleaded,  in  mitigation,  that  the 
flattery  of  the  translators  is  outdone  by  tliat  of  Fnincie 
Bacon . 

b  Uhitaker"s  answer,  by  articipation,  to  the  charge 
is  worth  quoting:  "No  inc^/uvenieuce  will  toUow  il 
interpretations  or  versions  of  Scripture,  when  the.v 
have  become  obsolete,  or  ceased  to  be  intelligible,  may 
be  afterwards  changed  or  corrected"'  {Dissert,  on 
Srripl.  p.  232,  Parker  Soc.  ed.).  The  wiser  divines  ol 
the  Kuglish  Church  had  not  then  learned  to  raise  the 
crj  of  finality. 


S438 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


Addison  dwells  on  its  ennobling  the  coldness  of 
tnodern  languages  with  the  glowing  phrases  of  He- 
brew (Sptctit/or,  No.  405),  and  Swift  confesses  that 
'  the  translators  of  the  Bible  were  masters  of  an 
linglish  st}le  far  fitter  for  that  work  than  any  we 
see  in  our  present  writings  "  (Letter  to  Lord  Ox- 
ford). Each  half-century  has  naturally  added  to 
the  prestige  of  these  merits.  The  language  of  the 
A.  V.  has  intertwined  itself  with  the  controversies, 
the  devotion,  the  literature  of  the  English  people. 
It  has  gone,  wherever  they  have  gone,  over  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth.  The  most  solenni  and  tender 
of  individual  memories  are,  for  the  most  part,  asso- 
ciated with  it.  Men  leaving  the  Church  of  Eng- 
knd  for  the  Church  of  Home  turn  regretfully  with 
a  yearning  look  at  that  noble  "  well  of  English 
undefiled,"  which  they  are  about  to  e-Kchange  for 
the  uncouth  monstrosities  of  Rheims  and  Douay. 
In  this  case  too,  as  in  so  many  others,  the  ])osition 
of  the  A.  V.  has  been  strengthened,  less  by  the 
Bkill  of  its  defenders  than  by  the  weakness  of  its 
assailants,  ^\'hile  from  time  to  time,  scholars  and 
dixines  (Lowth,  Newcome,  Waterland,  'I'rench, 
EUicott),  have  admitted  the  necessity  of  a  revision, 
those  who  have  attacked  the  present  version  and 
produced  new  ones  have  been,  for  the  most  part, 
men  of  narrow  knowledge  and  defective  taste  (Pur- 
ver,  and  Harwood,  and  Bellamy,  and  Conquest), 
just  able  to  pick  out  a  few  obvious  faults,  and  show- 
ing their  competence  for  the  task  by  entering  on 
the  work  of  translating  or  revising  the  wliole  Bilile 
single-handed.  One  memorable  exception  must 
not,  however,  be  passed  over.  Hallam  {Lit.  of 
Europe,  iii.  ch.  2,  m/fn.)  records  a  brief  but  em- 
phatic protest  against  the  "enthusiastic  praise" 
which  has  been  lavished  on  this  translation.  '•  It 
may,  in  the  eyes  of  many,  be  a  better  Englisii,  liut 
it  is  not  the  English  of  Daniel,  or  Raleigh,  or  Ba- 
con, ....  It  abounds,  in  fact,  especially  in  the 
0.  T.,  with  obsolete  phraseology,  and  with  single 
words  long  since  abandoned,  or  retaiued  only  in 
provincial  use.''  The  statement  may,  it  is  lielieved, 
be  accepted  as  an  encomiuui.  If  it  had  been  the 
English  of  the  men  of  letters  of  James's  reign, 
would  it  have  retained  as  it  has  done,  for  two  cen- 
turies and  a  half,  its  hold  on  the  mind,  the  mem- 
ory, the  aftiictions  of  the  English  peo|ile? 

XII.  ScHi.;:\ii:s  fok  a  Revision.  —  (1.)  Ano- 
kice  of  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  at 
various  times  to  bring  about  a  revision  of  the  A.  V., 
.>hough  necessarily  brief  and  imperfect,  may  not  be 
without  its  use  for  future  laborers.  The  first  half 
of  the  18th  century  was  not  favorable  for  such  a 
work.  An  almost  solitary  L'ssiiy  for  a  Ntiv 
Triinshition  by  II.  R.  (Hoss),  1702,  attracted  httle 
or  no  notice  (Todd,  Life  of  Wcdton.  i.  134).  A 
Greek  Test,  with  an  English  translation,  singularly 
vulgar  and  offensive,  [by  W.  JIace,]  was  published 
in  1729,  of  which  extracts  are  given  by  Lewis  {IJisi. 
if  Triinsl.  ch.  v.)  With  the  slight  revival  of  learn- 
ing among  the  scholars  of  the  latter  half  of  that 
period  the  subject  was  again  mooted.  Lowth  in  a 
^'isitation  Sermon  (1758),  and  Seeker  in  a  Latin 
Speech  intended  for  Convocation  (1761),  recom- 
mended it.  Matt.  I'ilkington  in  his  Jii-nini-ks 
(175!)),  and  Dr.  Thomas  Brett,  in  an  Lxsay  on 
Ancient  Veri>ions  of  the  Bible  (1760),  dwelt  on  the 
importance  of  consulting  them   with  reference  to 


the  0.  T.  as  well  as  the  N.  T.,  with  a  view  to  a 
more  accurate  text  than  that  of  the  Masoretic  He-  ' 
brew,  the  former  insisting  also  on  the  obsoltte 
words  which  are  scattered  in  the  A.  V.  and  giving 
a  useful  alphalietic  list  of  them.  A  folio  New  ami 
Literal  Ti'iinglrition  of  the  whole  Bible  by  Anthony 
Purver,  a  Quaker  (1764),  was  a  more  ambitious 
attempt.  He  dwells  at  some  length  on  the  "  ob- 
solete, uncouth,  clownish "  expressions  which  dis- 
figure the  A.  V.  He  includes  in  his  list  such 
words  as  "joyous,"  "solace,"  "damsel,'  "day- 
spring,"  "bereaved,"  "marvels,"  "boi/lmen." 
He  substitutes  "  He  hearkened  to  what  he  said," 
for  "  he  hearkened  to  his  voice;"  "eat  victuals," 
for  "eat  bread"  (Gen.  iii.  19);  "was  in  fa  vol 
with,"  for  "found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  ;  "  "  wag 
angry,"  for  "his  wrath  was  kindled."  In  spite  oi 
this  defective  taste,  however,  the  work  has  consid- 
erable merit,  is  based  upon  a  careful  study  of  the 
original,  and  of  many  of  the  best  conmieutators, 
and  may  be  contrasted  favorably  witli  most  of  the 
single-handed  translations  that  have  followed.  It 
was,  at  any  rate,  far  above  the  depth  of  degrada- 
tion and  folly  which  was  reached  in  Ilarwood'a 
Literal  Traiidiitbm  of  the  N.  T.  "  with  freedom, 
spirit,  and  eleg.ance  "  (1768).  Here  again,  a  few 
samples  are  enough  to  show  the  character  of  the 
whole.  "  The  young  lady  is  not  dead  "  (Mark  v.  39)_. 
"  A  gentleman  of  splendid  family  and  opulent  for- 
tune had  two  sons  "  (Luke  xv.  11).  "The  clergy- 
man said,'  You  have  given  him  the  only  right  and 
proper  answer "  (Mark  xii.  32).  "We  shall  not 
pay  the  common  debt  of  nature,  but  by  a  soft  tran- 
sition," etc.  (1  Cor.  XV.  51). 

(2.)  Biblical  revision  was  happily  not  left  en- 
tirely in  such  hands  as  these.  A  translation  by 
Worsley  "  according  to  the  present  idiom  of  the 
ICnglish  tongue"  (1770)  was,  at  least,  less  often- 
sive-  Durell  (Preface  to  Job),  Lowth  (Preface  to 
haialt),  Blayney  (Pref  to  Jeremitili,  1784),  were 
all  strongly  in  favor  of  a  new,  or  revised '  transla- 
tion. Durell  dwells  most  on  the  arbitrary  addi- 
tions and  omissions  in  the  A.  V.  of  Job,  on  the 
total  absence  in  some  cases,  of  any  intelligible 
meaning.  Lowth  speaks  chiefly  of  the  faulty  state 
of  the  text  of  the  0.  T.,  and  urges  a  correction  of 
it,  partly  from  various  readings,  partly  from  ancient 
versions,  partly  from  conjecture.  Each  of  the  three 
contributed,  in  the  best  way,  to  the  work  which 
they  had  little  expectation  of  seeing  accomplished, 
by  laboring  steadily  at  a  single  book  and  commit- 
ting it  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church."  Kenni- 
cott's  laliors  in  collecting  MS.  of  the  O.  T.  Lssued 
in  his  t>tate  of  the  present  Hebrew  Teit  (1753, 
1759),  and  excited  expectations  that  there  might 
before  long  be  something  like  a  basis  for  a  new 
version  in  a  restored  original. 

A  more  anil)itious  scheme  was  started  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Dr.  (ieddes,  in  his  Prospectus  J'or 
a  .Vew  Translation  (1780).  His  remarks  on  the 
history  of  English  trausl.ations,  his  candid  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  excellences  of  the  A.  V.,  and  espe- 
cially of  Tyndal's  work  as  pervading  it,  his  critical 
notes  on  the  true  principles  of  translation,  on  the 
A.  V.  as  falling  short  of  them,  may  still  be  read 
with  interest.  He  too,  like  Lowth,  finds  fault  with 
the  superstitious  adherence  to  the  Masoretic  text, 
with  the  undue  deference  to  lexicons,  and  disregard 


a  Whatever  be  the  demerits  of  Lowth's  Isaiah,  it 
i«8erve9  something  better  than  the  sarcasm  of  Hurd, 
;iiiv''  '■  its  only  use  was  to  show  how  httle  was  to   lie 


expected  from  any  new  translation."  As  the  Boswell 
of  Warburton,  Hurd  could  not  n-sist  tlif  leujptatlOB 
of  attacking  an  old  antagouist  of  his  muster".*;- 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


8439 


rf  versions  shown  by  our  translators.  The  pro- 
posal was  well  received  by  many  Biblical  scimlars, 
Lowth,  Kennicott,  and  liarrington  being  foremost 
among  its  patrons.  Tlie  work  was  issued  in  parts, 
according  to  the  terms  of  the  prospectus,  but  did 
not  get  further  than  2  Chron.  in  1792,  wlieu  tlie 
death  of  the  translator  put  a  stop  to  it.  Partly 
perhaps  owing  to  its  iucompleteness.  Iiut  still  uiore 
from  the  extreme  boldness  of  a  preface,  anticipating 
the  conclusions  of  a  later  criticism, «  Dr.  Geddes's 
translation  fell  rapidly  into  disfavor.  A  Sermchi 
by  White  (famous  for  his  Bampton  Lectures)  in 
1779,  and  two  Pamphlets  by  .1.  A.  Symonds,  Pro- 
fes.sor  of  iModeru  History  at  Camliriclge,  the  first 
on  the  Gospels  and  the  .Vets,  in  1789;  the  second 
on  the  Epistles,  in  1794,  though  attacked  in  an 
Apology  for  the  Litnv<jy  tind  Cliurch  of  Knglund 
(1795),  helped  to  keep  the  discussion  from  ob- 
livion. 

(3.)  The  revision  of  the  A.  V.,  like  many  other 
Balutary  reforms,  was  hindered  by  the  Frencii  Kev- 
olution.  In  1792,  Arclibishop  Newcome  had  pub- 
lished an  elal)orate  defense  of  such  a  scheme,  citing 
a  host  of  authorities  (Doddridge,  Wesley,  Camp- 
bell, in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned),  and 
taking  the  same  line  as  Lowth.  Kevised  transla-' 
tions  of  the  X.  T.  were  published  ijy  Wakefield  in 
1795,  by  Newcome  him.self  in  1796,  by  Scarlett  in 
1798.  Campbell's  version  of  the  Gospels  appeared 
in  1788,  that  of  the  Epistles  by  Macknight  in 
1795.  But  in  1796  the  note  of  alarm  was  sounded. 
A  feeble  pamphlet  by  George  Burges  (Litter  to  I  lie 
Lord  Bishop  of  Ely)  took  the  ground  that  "the 
present  period  was  unfit,"  and  from  that  time. 
Conservatism,  pure  and  simple,  was  in  the  ascend- 
ant. To  suggest  that  the  \.  V.  might  Ije  inaccu- 
rate, was  almost  as  bad  as  holding  "  French  prin- 
ciples." There  is  a  long  interval  before  the  question 
again  comes  into  anything  like  prominence,  and 
then  there  is  a  new  school  of  critics  in  the  Quar- 
terly Review  and  elsewhere,  ready  to  do  battle 
vigorously  for  things  as  they  are.  The  opening  of 
the  next  campaign  was  an  article  in  the  CLisslad 
Journal  (No.  .3(i),  by  Dr.  .lohn  Bellamy,  proposing 
a  new  translation,  followed  soon  afterwards  by  its 
publication  under  the  patronage  of  the  Prince  lie- 
gent  (1818).  The  work  was  poor  and  unsatisfac- 
tory enou:,'li,  and  a  tremendous  battery  was  opened 
upon  it  in  the  Quarterly  lieview  (Nos.  37  and  38), 
as  afterwards  (No.  46)  upon  an  unhappy  critic.  Sir 
J.  B.  Bin-ges,  who  came  forward  with  a  pani[ihlet 
in  its  defense  {lieasons  iti  Faror  <f  ii  Ncto  Tni/is- 
yuioii,  1819).  The  rash  assertion  of  both  liellamy 
and  Burges  that  the  A.  V.  had  been  made  almost 
entirely  from  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate,  and  a  general 
deficiency  in  all  arcurate  scholarship,  made  them 
easy  victims.  The  personal  element  of  this  con- 
troversy may  well  be  passed  over,  liut  three  less 
ephemeral  works  issued  from  it,  which  any  future 
laborer  in  the  same  field  will  find  worth  consulting. 
^\'hitaker's  Ilistoricid  and  Critical  Jnquiry  was 
chiefly  an  able  e-tposure  of  the  exaggerated  state- 
meat  just  montioned.     H.  J.  Todd,  in  his   ]'iiidi- 


o  "  I  will  not  pretend  to  say  that  it  [tlie  history  of 
,he  Pentateuch]  is  entirely  unmixed  with  the  leaven 
tf  the  lieroic  ages.     Let  the  fattier  of  Ilelirew  be  tried 


cation  of  the  Authorized  TransLttion  (1819),  en- 
tered more  fully  than  any  previous  writer  had  done 
into  the  history  of  the  A.  V.,  and  gives  many  facts 
as  to  the  hves  and  qualifications  of  the  translators 
not  easily  to  be  met  with  elsewhere.*  The  most 
masterly,  however,  of  the  manifestoes  against  all 
change,  was  a  pamphlet  {Rehnirks  on  the  Critical 
Principles,  etc.,  Oxford,  1820),  published  anony- 
mously, but  known  to  have  lieen  written  by  Arch- 
bishop Laurence.  The  strength  of  the  argument 
lies  chiefly  in  a  skillful  display  of  all  the  ditticulties 
of  the  work,  the  inipossiljility  of  any  satisfactory 
restoration  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  0.  T.,  or  any  set- 
tlement of  the  (ireek  of  the  N.  T.,  the  expediency 
therefore  of  adhering  to  a  Textus  7-eccptu.<  in  both. 
The  argument  may  not  be  decisive,  but  the  schol- 
arsliip  and  acuteness  brought  to  bear  on  it  make 
tlie  book  instructive,  and  any  one  entering  on  the 
work  of  a  translator  ought  at  least  to  read  it, 
that  he  may  kuow  wljat  difhculties  he  has  to 
face.c 

(4.)  A  correspondence  between  Herliert  ]Marsh, 
bishop  of  Peterborough,  and  the  liev.  II.  Walter, 
in  1828,  is  the  next  hnk  in  the  chain.  Marsh  had 
spoken  (Lectures  on  Biblical  Criticism,  p.  295) 
with  some  contempt  of  the  A.  V.  as  based  on 
Tyndal's,  Tyndal's  on  Luther's,  and  Luther's  on 
^liinster's  Lexicon,  which  was  itself  based  on  the 
Vulgate.  There  was,  therefore,  on  this  view,  no 
real  translation  from  the  Hebrew  in  any  one  of 
these.  Substantially  this  was  what  Bellamy  had 
said  before,  liut  Marsh  was  a  man  of  a  ditierent 
CMlil)re,  and  made  out  a  stronger  case.  Walter,  in 
his  answer,  proves  what  is  plain  tnough,  that  I'yn- 
dal  knew  some  Hel)iew,  and  that  Luther  in  some 
instances  followed  liabbinical  authority  and  not  the 
Vnlttate;  but  tlie  evidence  hardly  goes  to  the  extent 
of  showing  that  Tyndars  version  of  the  0.  T.  was 
entirely  independent  of  Luther's,  or  Luther's  of  the 
Latin. 

(5.)  The  last  five-and-twenty  years  have  seen 
the  question  of  a  revision  from  time  to  time  gain- 
ing fresh  proniinenee.  If  men  of  second-rate  power 
have  sometimes  thrown  it  back  by  meddling  with 
it  in  wrong  ways,  others,  able  scholars  and  sound 
theologians,  have  admitted  its  necessity,  and  helped 
it  forward  by  their  work.  Dr.  Conquest's  Bible, 
with  "  20,0(10  emendations  "  (1841),  has  not  com- 
manded the  respect  of  critics,  and  is  almost  self- 
condemned  by  the  silly  ostentation  of  its  title. 
The  motions  which  have  from  time  to  time  been 
made  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  Mr.  llejwood, 
have  borne  little  fruit  bevond  the  display  of  feeble 
Liberalism  and  yet  feebler  Consen-atism  by  which 
such  deliates  are,  for  the  most  [)art,  characterized; 
nor  have  the  discussions  in  Convocation,  though 
opened  by  a  scholar  of  high  rei>ute  (Prottjssor  Sel- 
wyn),  been  much  more  productive.  Dr.  Beard's 
A  Revised  Lnylish  Bible  the  Want  of  the  Church 
(1857),  thouijh  tending  to  overstate  the  defects  of 
the  A.  v.,  is  yet  valuable  as  containing  much 
information,  and  representing  the  opinions  of  the 
more  learned  Nonconformists.     Ear  more  impor- 


0  About  this  period  al.>io  (1819)  a  new  edition  of 
Newconio's  ver.<iion  was  published  bv  Belsliiim  and 
other  Uiiitiirian  ministers, and,  like  Uellam.i'.'i  attempt 


by  the  same  rules  of  criticism  as  the  father  of  (Jruek    on  the  0.  X  ,  had  the  effect  of  stilfoniuf;  the  i-esistani'S 
history. "  of  the  gi-eiit  body  of  the  uleriiv  to  all   propos.ils  for  a 

h  A  short  epitome  of  this  portion  of  Todd's  book  revision.  [The  so-called  /m/Toivi/  Virsian,  here  ru 
bas  been  published  by  the  S.  V.  C.  K.  as  a  tract,  and  !  terrcd  to.  wus  published  iu  18u8  I  repriutod  liostim 
till  be  found  useful.  1 18U9.  -    *.l 


3440 


VERSION.  AUTHORIZED 


laiit,  every  way,  both  as  virtually  an  authority  in 
favor  of  revision,  and  as  contrihuting  htfi^ely  to  it, 
are  Professor  Scholefield's  Ilinls  for  iin  Iinprocul 
Trnnsbition  of  the  N.  T.  (1832).  In  his  second 
edition,  indeed,  he  disclaims  any  wish  for  a  new 
translation,  but  the  principle  which  he  lays  down 
clearly  and  truly  in  his  prefiice,  that  if  there  is 
"  any  adventitious  difficulty  resultini;;  from  a  de- 
fective translation,  then  it  is  at  the  same  time  an 
act  of  cliarity  and  of  duty  to  clear  away  the  diffi- 
culty as  mucli  as  possible,"  leads  lei,'itiniately  to  at 
least  a  revision ;  and  this  conclusion  ]Mr.  Selwyn 
in  the  last  edition  of  the  Hints  (1857)  has  delib- 
erately adopted.  To  Bishop  Ellicott  also  lielonj;s 
the  credit  of  having  spoken  at  once  boldly  and 
wisely  on  this  matter.  Putting  the  question 
whetiier  it  would  be  right  to  join  those  who  oppose 

all  revision,  his  answer  is,  "  God  forliid It 

is  in  vain  to  cheat  our  own  souls  with  the  thought 
that  these  errors  (in  A.  V.)  are  either  insignificant 
or  imaginary.  There  (u-e  errors,  there  «re  inaccu- 
racies, there  are  misconceptions,  there  'ire  obscuri- 
ties ....  and  that  man  who,  after  being  in  any 
degree  satisfied  of  tliis,  permits  himself  to  lean  to 
the  counsels  of  a  timid  or  popular  obstructiveness, 
or  who,  intellectually  unable  to  test  the  truth  of 
these  allegations,  nevertheless  permits  himself  to 
denounce  or  deny  them,  will  ....  have  to  sus- 
tain the  tremendous  charge  of  having  dealt  deceit- 
fully with  tlie  inviolable  word  of  God  "  (Pref.  to 
Pasldi-iil  KjiUtlvs).  The  translations  appended  l)y 
Dr.  Ellicott  to  his  editions  of  St.  Paul  s  Epistles, 
proceed  on  the  true  principle  of  altering  the  A.  V. 
"  only  where  it  appears  to  be  incorrect,  inexact, 
insufiicieiit,  or  obscure,"  uniting  a  profound  rever- 
ence for  the  older  translators  with  a  bold  truthful- 
ness in  judging  of  tiieir  work.  The  copious  colla- 
tion of  all  the  earlier  English  versions  makes  this 
part  of  his  book  esiiecially  interesting  and  valuable. 
Dr.  Trench  {On  the  A.  V.  (f  the  N.  T.,  18.58), 
in  like  manner,  states  his  conviction  that  "  a  re- 
vision ougiit  to  come,"  though  as  yet,  he  thinks, 
"  the  Greek  and  the  English  necessary  to  bring  it 
to  a  successful  issue  are  alike  wanting"  (p.  3). 
The  work  itself,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  the  fullest 
eontradiction  possible  of  tiiis  somewliai  liespondejit 
statement,  and  supplies  a  good  store  of  materials 
for  use  when  the  revision  actually  conies.  I'he 
Rerhivn  of  the  A.  I',  by  Five  Cleriji/iuen  (Dr. 
Harrow,  Dr.  Mol)erly,  Dean  Alford,  Mr.  Humphry, 
and  Dr.  Ellicott),  represents  the  same  school  of 
conservative  progress,  has  tiie  merit  of  adhering  to 
the  clear,  pure  Englisii  of  the  A.  V.,  and  does  not 
deserve  tlie  censure  which  Dr.  Heard  passes  on  it 
as  "promising  little  and  performing  less."  As  yet, 
tl  is  series  includes  only  tlie  Gospel  of  St.  John,  and 
the  Epistles  to  the  Pomans  and  Corintliians."  The 
publications  of  the  American  Bible  Union  are  signs 
that  there  also  the  same  want  has  been  felt.  The 
translations  given  respectively  by  Allbrd,  Stanley, 
Jowett,  and  Conyl)eare  and  Ilowson,  in  their 
respective  Connnentaries,  are  in  like  manner,  at 
once  admissions  of  the  necessity  of  the  work,  and 
3ontributions  towards  it.  i\Ir.  Sharpe  (18i0)  and 
Mr.  Highton   (1802)  have  ventured   on   the  wider 


a  *  The  Epistles  to  the  Galatiaus,  Ephesians,  Phil- 
tppians  uiid  Colossiaus  have  since  appeared  A. 

''  Mr.  Malau'8  careful  translation  of  the  chief  Orien- 
tal and  oths-r  versions  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Johu,  and  Mr.  Scriveners  notes  on  St.  Mattliew, 
Jtserve   to   be    mentioned   as  valuable   coutributious 


work  of  translations  of  the  entire  X.  T.  Mr 
Cookesley  has  pulilished  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mattliew 
as  Part  I.  of  a  like  undertaking.  It  might  almost 
seem  as  if  at  last  there  was  something  like  a 
consensus  of  scholars  and  divines  on  this  question. 
That  assumption  would,  however,  be  too  hast). 
Partly  the  ris  inertia,  which  in  a  larire  body  like 
the  clergy  of  the  English  Church,  is  always  great, 
partly  the  fear  of  ulterior  consequences,  partly  also 
the  indiffereifce  of  the  majority  of  tlie  laity,  would 
probalily,  at  the  present  moment  give  at  least  a 
numerical  majority  to  the  opponents  of  a  revision. 
Writers  on  this  side  are  naturally  less  numerous, 
lint  tlie  feeling  of  Conservatism,  pure  and  simple, 
has  found  utterance  in  four  men  rei)resenting  dif- 
ferent .sections,  and  of  different  ealilire, — Jlr. 
Scrivener  {Su/>p.  to  A.  Kng.  V.  of  N.  T.),  Dr. 
M'Gaul  {Reasons  for  holding  fast  the  Authorized 
Knglish  Version),  Mr.  S.  C.  Malan  (A  Vindication, 
etc.),  and  Dr.  Cumniing  {Revision  and  TransLir- 
tion).>' 

XIII.  Pkesknt  St.vte  of  the  Question.  — 
(1.)  To  take  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  extent  to 
wliich  the  A.  V.  requires  revision  would  call  for 
nothing  less  than  an  examination  of  each  single 
book,  and  would  therefore  involve  an  amount  of 
detail  inconipatihle  with  our  present  limits.  To 
give  a  few  instances  only,  would  practically  fix 
attention  on  a  part  only  of  the  evidence,  and  so 
would  lead  to  a  false  rather  than  a  true  estimate. 
No  attempt,  therefore,  will  be  made  to  bring 
togetlier  individual  passages  as  needing  correction. 
A  few  remarks  on  tlie  cliief  questions  wbicli  must 
necessarily  come  i}efore  those  who  undertake  a 
revision  will  not,  perhaps,  be  out  of  place.  Exam- 
ples, classified  under  corresponding  heads,  will  be 
found  in  the  book  by  Dr.  Trench  already  men- 
tioned, and,  scattered  in  the  form  of  annotations, 
in  tliat  of  Professor  Scholefield. 

(2.)  The  translation  of  the  N.  T.  is  from  a  text 
confessedly  imperfect.  What  editions  «ere  used  is 
a  matter  of  conjecture:  most  probably,  one  of  those 
published  with  a  Latin  version  by  Beza  between 
15(i.5  and  15!l8,  and  agreeing  substantially  with 
the  Ificlns  receptus  of  16.3.3.  It  is  clear,  on  prin- 
ci|)le,  that  no  revision  outrht  to  ignore  the  results 
of  the  textual  criticism  of  the  last  hundred  years. 
To  shrink  from  noticing  any  variation,  to  go  on 
printing  as  the  inspired  Word  that  which  there  is 
a  preponderant  reason  for  believing  to  lie  an  inter- 
polation or  a  mistake,  is  neither  honest  nor  rever- 
ential. To  do  so  for  the  s.ake  of  greater  edification 
is  simply  to  offer  to  God  the  unclean  sacrifice  of  a 
lie.  The  authority  of  the  A.  V.  is  at  a)iy  rate  in 
fa\or  of  the  practice  of  not  suppressing  facts.  In 
Matt.  i.  11,  xxvi.  26;  Luke  xvii.  36;  John  ix.  6; 
Acts  xiii.  18;   Eph.  vi.  9;  Heb.  ii.  4;  James  ii.  18; 

1  John    ii.   23;  1   Pet.  ii.  21;  2  Pet.   ii.  11,  18; 

2  .lohn  8,  different  readings  are  given  in  the  mar- 
gin, or,  as  in  1  John  ii.  23,  indicated  by  a  different 
type.  In  earlier  versions,  as  has  been  mentioned 
1  John  V.  7  was  printed  in  smaller  letters.  The 
degree  to  which  this  should  be  done  will,  of  course, 
require  discernment.  An  apparatus  like  that  in 
Tischendorf  or  Alford  would  obviously  be  out  o< 


towards  the  work  which  they  deprecate.  A  high 
American  authority,  Mr.  George  P.  Marsh,  may  also 
be  refei-red  to  as  throwing  the  weight  of  his  judgmeul 
into  the  scale  against  any  revision  at  the  p  f.senf 
uioment  {Lectures  on  tlie  Englisii  Lan^iiasf,  Uw* 
xxviii. ). 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


y4-n 


^lace.  rrobably  the  useful  (ireek  Testiuijeiit  ed- 
ited b}-  Mr.  Scrivener  might  serve  as  an  example  of 
II  iiiiddle  course. 

(3.)  Still  less  had  been  done  at  tlie  commeuce- 
noeiit  of  the  17th  century  for  the  text  of  the  O.  T. 
The  .lewish  teacliers,  from  whom  I'rotestant  divines 
derived  their  kMO\vleili;e,  had  uiven  currency  to  the 
belief  that  in  the  Ma.soietic  text  were  contained  (he 
ijjgi:isimii  vvrbi  of  llevelation,  free  from  all  risks  of 
error,  from  all  casualtie.s  of  transcription.  The  con- 
ventional phrases,  "the  authentic  Hebrew,"  "the 
Hebrew  verity,''  were  the  expression  of  this  undis- 
ijeniing  reverence."  They  refused  to  ap[)ly  the  same 
rules  of  judLrnient  here  which  they  applied  to  the 
text  of  the  N.  T.  Tliey  assumed  that  the  Maso- 
retes  were  infallible,  and  were  reluctant  to  acknowl- 
edge that  there  had  been  any  variations  since. 
Even  Walton  did  not  escape  bein^  attacked  as  un- 
sound by  the  ureat  Ptnitan  divine.  Dr.  John  Owen, 
for  havinii  called  attention  to  the  fact  of  discrepan- 
cies (/'/•■•/(-//.cap.  vi.).  The  materials  for  a  revised 
text  are,  of  cotu-se,  scantier  than  with  the  N.  T. ; 
but  the  labors  of  Kennicott,  De  Kossi,  J  H.  Mi- 
chaelis,  ami  Davidson  have  not  been  fruitless,  and 
here,  as  there,  the  older  versions  must  be  admitted 
as  at  least  evidence  of  variations  which  once  existed, 
but  which  were  su|ipressed  by  the  riiiorous  uni- 
formity of  the  later  Rabbis.  Conjectural  emenda- 
tions, such  as  Newcome,  Lowth,  and  Kwald  have 
so  freely  sugs^ested,  ouglit  to  be  ventured  on  in 
such  places  only  as  are  quite  unintelligible  without 
them. 

(4.)  All  scholars  worthy  of  the  name  are  now 
agreed  that  as  little  change  as  possible  should  be 
made  in  the  languatje  of  the  A.  V.  Happily  there 
is  little  risk  of  an  emasculated  elegance  such  as 
might  have  infected  a  new  version  in>the  last  cen- 
tury. The  very  fact  of  the  admiration  felt  for  the 
A.  v.,  and  the  general  revival  of  a  taste  for  the 
literature  of  the  Elizabethan  period,  are  safeguards 
against  any  like  tampering  now.  Some  words, 
however,  absolutely  need  change,  as  being  alto- 
gether obsolete;  others,  more  numerous,  have  been 
slowly  passing  into  a  different,  often  into  a  lower 
or  a  narrower  meaning,  and  are  therefore  no  longer 
what  they  once  were,  adequate  renderings  of  the 
iffiginal. 

(5.)  The  self-imposed  law  of  fiiirness  which  led 
the  A.  V.  translators  to  admit  as  many  English 
words  as  possible  to  the  honor  of  representing  one 
in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  text  has,  as  might  he  ex- 
pected, marred  the  perfection  of  their  work.  Some- 
times the  effect  is  simply  the  loss  of  the  solemn 
einphasis  of  the  repetition  of  the  same  word. 
Sometimes  it  is  more  serious,  and  affects  the  mean- 
ing. While  it  would  be  simple  pedantry  to  lay 
down  unconditionally  that  but  one  and  the  same 
word  sliould  lie  used  throughout  for  one  in  the 
original,  there  can  be  n§  doulit  that  such  a  limita- 
tion is  the  true  principle  to  start  with,  and  that 
instances  to  the  contrary  should  be  dealt  with  as 


n  The  JuJaizing  spirit  on  tliis  matwr  culuiiniited 
In  t\ie  Formula  Helvetici  Consensus^  fi\i\c\\  pronounocs 
the  existing  0.  T.  text  to  be  '•  turn  quoad  coiison.vs, 
turn  quoad  vocalia,  sive  puncta  ipsa,  sive  puuctorum 
potestatem,  turn  quoad  res,  turn  quoad  verba,  6eo- 
Tveuirros. 

''  Tlie  En .;lisl> man's  Hebrew  Conrnr'/rtnrf  and  the 
'Snuiishmiin's  Greek  Coiiconlaiiri-,  pulilislicii  by  \Val- 
*>n  and  >lab«rly,  doserve  mention  as  ii-;i!lul  liclps  for 
the  student  of  tlie  A.  V.  in  ovprcoiiiiug  tliis  di.Ticulty. 


exceptional  necessities.  Side  by  side  with  this 
fault,  tliere  is  another  just  the  opposite  of  it.  One 
I'-nglish  word  appears  for  several  Greek  or  Heljfew 
words,  and  thus  shades  of  meaning,  often  of  impor- 
tance to  the  right  understanding  of  a  passage,  are 
lost  sight  of.  Taken  together,  the  two  forms  of 
eri-or,  which  meet  us  in  well-nigh  every  chapter, 
make  the  use  of  an  English  Concordance  absolutely 
misleading.* 

((!.)  Grammatical  inaccuracy  must  be  noted  as  a 
defect  pervading,  more  or  less,  the  whole  extent  of 
the  present  version  of  the  N.  T.  Instances  will  be 
found  in  abundance  in  Trench  and  Scholefield 
(ji'tssiin),  and  in  any  of  the  better  Commentarieg. 
The  true  force  of  tenses,  cases,  prepositions,  arti- 
cles, is  continually  lost,  sometimes  at  the  cost  of 
the  finer  shades  which  give  vividness  and  emphasis, 
but  .sometimes  also  entailing  more  serious  error.s. 
In  justice  to  the  translators  of  the  N.  T.,  it  must 
be  said  that,  situated  as  they  were,  such  errors 
were  almost  inevitalile.  They  learned  Greek 
through  the  medium  of  Latin.  Lexicons'^  and 
grammars  were  alike  in  the  universal  language  of 
.scliolars;  and  that  language  was  jjoorer  and  less 
inflected  than  the  (ireek.  and  failed  utterly  to  rep- 
re.sent,  <-.  ;/.  the  force  of  its  article,  or  the  difference 
of  its  aori,-t  and  perfect  tenses.  Such  books  of  this 
nature  as  were  used  by  the  translators  were  necessa- 
rily br.sed  upon  a  far  scantier  induction,  and  were 
therefore  more  meagre  and  inaccurate  than  those 
which  have  been  the  fruits  of  the  labors  of  later 
scholars,  liecent  scholarship  may  in  many  things 
fall  short  of  that  of  an  earlier  time,  but  the  in- 
troduction of  Greek  lexicons  and  grannnars  in 
English  has  been  beyond  all  doubt  a  change  for  the 
better. 

(7.)  The  field  of  the  O.  T.  has  lieen  far  less  ade- 
quately worked  than  that  of  the  N.  T.,  and  Hebrew 
scholarship  has  made  far  less  progress  than  Greek, 
lielatively,  indeed,  there  seems  good  ground  for  be- 
lieving that  Hebrew  was  more  studied  in  the  early 
part  of  the  17tii  century  than  it  is  now.  It  was 
newer  and  more  popular.  The  reverence  which 
men  felt  for  the  perfection  of  the  "  Hebrew  verity" 
made  them  willing  to  labor  to  learn  a  language 
which  they  looked  upon  as  half-divine.  But  here 
also  there  was  the  same  source  of  error.  The  early 
Hebrew  lexicons  represented  partly,  it  is  true,  a 
.lewish  tradition;  but  partly  also  were  ba.sed  upon 
the  Vulgate  (Bishop  Marsh,  Leclurcs,  ii.  App.  61). 
The  forms  of  cognate  Shemitic  languages  had  not 
been  applied  as  a  means  for  ascertaining  the  pre- 
cise value  pf  Hebrew  words.  The  grammars,  also 
in  Latin,  were  defective.  Little  as  Hebrew  pro- 
fessors have,  for  the  most  part,  done  in  the  way 
of  exegesis,  any  good  conniienfai-y  on  the  0.  T. 
will  show  that  here  also  there  are  errors  as  seri- 
ous as  in  the  N.  T.  In  one  memorable  case,  the 
inattention,  real  or  apparent,  of  the  translators  to 
tiie  foi'ce  of  the  //ipliil  form  of  the  verb  (Lev. 
iv.  12)  has  led  to  a  serious  attack  on   the  truth- 


c  Oonstjvntine's  and  Scapula's  were  the  two  priuci- 
pally  used.  During  the  half  century  that  preceded 
the  .\.  V.  the  study  of  Greek  had  made  great  progress, 
wa,s  taught  at  all  the  great  .schools  in  VjS<),  and  uiadu 
part  of  the  system  of  new  ones  then  founded.  Xow- 
ell,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  published  a  Greek  versim  ol 
the  Oateohisni.  The  Grammar  chietlv  in  use  waf 
probably  Colet's  (?). 


8442 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


fulness  of  the  wliole  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch 
(Colenso,  Pentateuc/i  Critically  Examined^  Part  I. 
ch.  vii.). 

(8.)  The  division  into  chapters  and  verses  is  a 
matter  that  ought  not  to  be  passed  over  in  any 
future  revision.  Tlie  former,  it  must  be  remem- 
bei-ed,  does  not  go  furtlier  back  than  the  13th  cen- 
tury. Tlie  latter,  thougli  answeriuff,  as  far  as  the 
O.  T.  is  concerned,  to  a  long-standing  .Jewish  ar- 
rangement, depends,  in  the  N.  T.,  upon  the  work 
of  Piobert  Stephens.  [Bir.LE.]  Neither  in  the 
O.  T.  nor  in  the  N.  T.  did  the  verse-division  ap- 
pear in  any  earlier  English  edition  than  that  of 
Geneva.  The  inconveijiences  of  changing  both  are 
probably  too  great  to  be  risked.  'J'he  habit  of  re- 
ferring to  chapter  and  verse  is  too  deeply  rooted  to 
be  got  rid  of.  Yet  the  division,  as  it  is,  is  not  sel- 
dom artificial,  and  sometimes  is  absolutely  mislead- 
ing. No  one  would  think  of  printing  any  other 
book,  in  prose  or  poetry,  in  short  clauses  like  the 
verses  of  our  Bibles,  and  the  tendency  of  such  a  di- 
vision is  to  give  a  broken  and  discontinuous  knowl- 
edge, to  make  men  good  textuaries  but  bad  divines. 
An  arrangement  like  that  of  the  Paragraph  Piijles 
of  our  own  time,  with  the  verse  and  chapter  divis- 
ions relegated  to  the  margin,  ought  to  form  part 
of  any  authoritative  revision." 

(9.)  Other  points  of  detail  remain  to  be  noticed 
briefly:  (i.)  The  cha[(ter  headings  of  the  A.  V.  often 
go  beyond  their  proper  province.  If  it  is  intended 
to  give  an  authoritative  conunentary  to  the  lay 
reader,  let  it  be  done  thoroughly.  Hut  if  that 
attempt  is  abandoned,  as  it  was  deliberately  in 
10 11,  then  for  tht.  chapter-headings  to  enter,  as 
they  do,  upon  the,  work  of  interpretation,  giving, 
as  in  Canticles,  Psalms,  and  Prophets,  passim, 
mystical  meanings,  is  simply  an  inconsistency. 
\Miat  should  be  a  mere  table  of  contents  becomes 
a  gloss  upon  the  text,  (ii  )  The  use  of  Italics  in 
printing  the  A.  V.  is  at  least  open  to  some  risks. 
At  first  they  seem  an  honest  conliession  on  the  part 
of  the  translators  of  what  is  or  is  not  in  the  origi- 
nal. On  the  other  hand,  they  tempt  to  a  loose 
translation.  Few  writers  would  think  it  necessary 
to  use  them  in  translating  other  books.  If  the 
words  do  not  do  more  than  represent  the  sense  of 
the  original,  then  there  is  no  reason  for  treating 
them  as  if  they  were  added  at  the  discretion  of  the 
translators.  If  they  go  beyond  that,  they  are  of 
the  nature  of  a  gloss,  altering  the  force  of  the  orig- 
inal, and  h.ave  no  right  to  be  there  at  all,  while  the 
fact  that  they  appear  as  additions  frees  the  trans- 
lator from  the  sense  of  responsibility,  (iii.)  Good 
as  the  principle  of  marginal  references  is,  the  mar- 
gins of  the  A.  v.,  as  now  printed,  are  somewhat 
inconveniently  crowded,  and  the  references,  being 
often  merely  verbal,  tend  to  defeat  their  own  pur- 


«  As  examples  of  what  ni.ay  be  said  on  both  sides 
ou  tliis  point,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  an  article 
on  P'lrn^rapk  Bib.'es  in  No.  208  of  the  EfJiiibiirah  lit- 
vieto  (subsequently  reprinted  by  the  Kev.  \V.  Harness, 
1855'  and  the  pamphlet  by  Dr.  M'Caul  (Rernons  for 
ioldiiig  fast]  already  meutioiied.  Reeves's  Bibles  and 
Testaments  (1S02)  and  I5oothroyd's  translation  (1824) 
should  be  mentioned  as  having  set  the  example  fol- 
lowed by  the  Ileligious  Tract  Society  in  their  Pa/a- 
graph  Bible, 

b  In  all  these  points  there  has  been,  to  a  much 
larger  extent  than  is  commonly  known,  a  work  of  un- 
luthorized  revision.  Neither  Italics,  nor  references, 
jor  readings,  nor  chapter-headings,  nor,  it  may  be 
itlded,  punctuation,  are  the  same  now  as  they  were  iu 


pose,  and  to  make  the  reader  weary  of  referring 
'I'hey  need,  accordingly,  a  careful  sifting;  and 
though  it  woidd  not  be  desirable  to  go  l)ack  tc 
the  scanty  number  of  tlie  original  edition  of  1611, 
something  intermediate  between  that  and  the  pres- 
ent over-abundance  would  be  an  improvement,  (iv.) 
Marginal  readings,  on  the  other  hand,  indicating 
variations  in  the  text,  or  differences  in  the  judg- 
ment of  translators,  might  be  profitably  increased 
in  number.  The  results  of  the  laliors  of  scholars 
would  thus  be  placed  within  the  reach  of  all  intelli- 
gent readers,  and  so  many  difficulties  and  stum- 
bling-blocks might  be  removed.'' 

(10  )  \\'hat  has  lieen  said  will  serve  tc  show  at 
once  to  what  extent  a  new  revision  is  required,  and 
what  are  the  chief  difficulties  to  be  encountered. 
And  the  work,  it  is  believed,  ought  not  to  be  de- 
layed nmch  longer.  Names  will  occur  to  every  one 
of  men  competent  to  undertake  the  work  as  far  as 
the  N.  T.  is  concerned ;  and  if  such  alterations 
only  were  to  be  introduced  as  commanded  the  as- 
•sent  of  at  least  two  thirds  of  a  chosen  body  of 
twenty  or  thirty  scholars,  while  a  place  in  the  mar- 
gin was  given  to  such  renderings  only  as  were 
adopted  by  at  least  one  third,  there  would  be,  it  is 
believed,  at  once  a  great  change  for  tlie  better,  and 
without  any  shock  to  the  feelings  or  even  the  prej- 
udices of  the  great  mass  of  readers.  j\Ien  fit  to 
undertake  the  work  of  revising  the  translation  of 
the  0.  T.  are  confessedly  fewer,  and,  for  the  most 
part,  occupied  in  other  things.  The  knowledge 
and  the  power,  however,  are  there,  though  in  less 
measure,  and  even  though  the  will  be  for  the  time 
absent,  a  summons  to  enter  on  the  task  from  tho.se 
whose  authority  they  are  bound  to  respect,  would, 
we  cannot  doubt,  be  listened  to.  It  might  have 
the  result  of  directing  to  their  proper  task  and  to 
a  fruitful  issue  energies  which  are  too  often  with- 
drawn to  ephemeral  and  un[)rotitalile  controversies. 
.\s  the  revised  Bible  would  be  for  the  use  of  the 
I'Lniilish  people,  the  men  appointed  for  the  purpose 
ought  not  to  be  taken  exclusively  from  the  Knglish 
Church,  and  the  learning  of  Nonconformists  should, 
at  least,  be  fairly  represented.  The  changes  rec- 
ommended by  such  a  body  of  men,  under  condi- 
tions such  as  those  suggested,  might  safely  be  al- 
lowed to  circulate  experimentally  for  two  or  three 
years.  When  they  had  stood  that  trial,  they  miglit 
without  risk  be  printed  in  the  new  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. Such  a  work  would  unite  reverence  for  the 
past  with  duty  towards  the  future.  In  imdertak- 
ing  it  we  should  be,  not  slighting  the  translators 
on  whose  labors  we  have  entered,  lint  following  in 
their  footsteps.  It  is  the  wisdom  of  the  Church  to 
bring  out  of  its  treasures  things  new  and  old. 

E.  II.  P. 

*  Litj:i!.^tui;k.  —  (1.)   Ilistorij  of  Knylish  Ver- 


the  A.  V.  of  1611.  The  clnef  alterations  appear  to 
to  have  been  made  first  in  li;83,  and  afterwmds  iu 
ITtSy.  by  Dr.  Blayney,  under  tlie  s.anction  of  the  Ox- 
ford Delegates  of  the  Press  {Geiitlmian's  Ma^nzitte, 
November,  1789).  A  like  work  was  done  about  the 
same  time  by  Dr.  Paris  at  Cambridge.  There  had 
however,  been  some  chimges  previously.  The  edition 
of  1838,  in  particular,  shows  considerable  augmentji- 
tions  in  tlie  Italics  (Turton,  Texl  of  the  Eni^lish  Bible, 
1833,  pp.  Ul,  126)  To  l!la\  ney  al,«o  we  owe  most  cl 
the  notes  on  weights  and  measures,  and  coins,  and 
the  explanation,  where  the  text  .«eems  to  require  it.  of 
Hebrew  pruper  names.  The  whole  question  of  the  \\M 
of  ItJilics  is  discussed  elaborately  ly  Tnvloii  in  thi 
work  just  mentioned. 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


3443 


nons  of  the  Bible. —  Anthony  Johnson,  Hist.  Ac- 
oounl  of  i.'n<j.  Trandations  of  the  Bible,  Loud. 
1730;  reprinted  in  Watson's  /"rncte,  vol.  iii.  John 
Lewis,  Cmnplete  Hist,  of  tlit  Translations  of  the 
Holy  Bible  and  the  N.  T.  into  Enijliah  (2d  ed. 
I73y),  3d  ed.  Lend.  1818.  Al)p.  Nevvconie,  Hist. 
View  of  the  Eng.  Biblical  Translntions ;  the  Kx- 
pediency  of  revising  our  present  Tnuislition,  etc., 
Duhl.  1792.  H.  J.  Todd,  Authentic  Account  of 
vur  Auth.  Trans,  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  Trans- 
lators, 2d  ed.,  Malton,  1834.  The  Jiny.  Ihxapli, 
exiiibititifj  the  ^'/a;  hnporlant  Eng.  Translations  of 
the  iV.  T.,  Wiclif  IH80,  Tyndale  15U.  Cranmer 
1539,  Genevan  1557,  Anglo-Rhemisli  1582,  Au- 
thorized IGll;  the  Greek  Text  nfter  Scholz. 
Preceded  by  an  Hist.  Account  of  the  Eng.  Trans- 
lations. Lond.,  Ba<;ster,  1841,  4to.  (The  anony- 
mous "Hist.  Account"  (pp.  160)  was  written  by 
S.  P.  Tregelles.  It  is  vakialile;  but,  for  some  rea- 
son, in  the  later,  undated  im])ressions  of  the  Hex- 
apla  a  difi'erent  and  much  briefer  account  lias  lieen 
Bulistituted.  The  so-called  "  Wiclif "'  is  merely 
Purvey's  revision  of  WyclifTe's  version;  the  real 
^Vycliffe's  N.  T.  was  first  published  by  Lea  Wilson 
hi  1848.  The  whole  Bible  as  translated  by  W\c- 
liffe  and  his  followers  was  first  printed  in  the  mag- 
nificent edition  of  Forshall  and  Madden  in  4  vols. 
4to,  Oxford,  1850.)  C  Anderson,  Tlie  Anmds  (f 
the  Eng.  Bible,  2  vols.  Lond.  1845;  abridged  by 
Dr.  S.  I.  Prime,  N.  Y.  1849.  A.  W.  irClure,  The 
Transl'itors  revived ;  a  Biograj)hic(d  Afemoir,  etc., 
N.  Y.  1853.  Mrs.  H.  C.  Conant,  The  Eng.  Bible. 
Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Translations,  etc.,  N.  Y.  185G. 
(A  good  popular  account.)  McGlintock  and 
Strong's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Theol.  and  Eccles.  Lit , 
vol.  i.  (N.  Y.  1867),  art.  Authorized  Version.  B. 
F.  Westcott,  General  View  of  the  Hist,  of  the 
Ent/lish  Bible,  Lond.  18GS.  Articles  in  the  Auur. 
Bibl.  Repos.  Oct.  1835  (by  B.  B.  Edwards),  and  in 
the  Quar.  Rev.  for  April  1870  (repr.  in  Littell's  /ac- 
ing  Age,  No.  1,355).  — Bibliographical:  Lea  AVil- 
son.  Bibles,  Testaments,  Psalms,  etc.,  in  English 
in  the  Collection  of  Len  Wilson,  Lonci.  1845,  4to. 
H.  Cotton,  Editions  of  the  Bible  and  Parts  thereof 
in  Eng.  from  1505  to  1850,  2d  ed.,  Oxford,  1852. 
Id.,  Ritemes  and  Doiray.  An  Attempt  to  shew 
what  has  been  done  by  Bom.  Catholics  for  the  Dif- 
fusion of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  English,  Oxford, 
1855.  E.  B.  O'CallaghaTi,  List  of  Editions  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  Parts  thereof  printed  in 
America  previous  to  1800,  Albany,  18G1,  larije  8vo. 
F.  Fry,  Description  ef  the  Great  Bible,  1539,  the 
fix  Eds.  of  Cranmer^s  Bible,  1540,  1541,  also  of 
the  Eds.  in  folio  of  the  A.  V.  printed  in  1611, 1613, 
1617,  1634,  1G40",  Lond.  1860. 

On  the  two  folio  editions  of  tlie  A.  V.  printed  in 
1611.  and  on  the  cliangcs  which  its  text,  hcadinijs, 
marginal  notes,  etc.,  have  unders^one  since  that  date, 
see  \y.  Kilburn,  Dungfrous  Errors  in  sevend  late 
winted  Bibles,  Finsbnry,  1659.  (Dr.  .lohn  Lee,) 
Memorial  for  the  Bible  Societies  in  Scotland,  Edin. 
1824.  Report  from  Select  Com.  on  King's 
Printers'  Patents.  8  Auij.  1832,  pp.  55,  67  f.,  1()5, 
no,  131,  152,  155  f.,  IGO,  339-341  (Pari.  Papers 
1831-32,  vol.  xviii.).  Thos.  Curtis,  The  Exist- 
ing Monopoly  an  Inadequnie  Protection  of  the  A. 
V.  1*'  the  Scriptures,  Lond.  1833.  E.  Cardwell, 
Oxford  Bibles.  ISfr  Curti-i's  .Misi'epresentalions 
'.xposed,  Oxf.  1833.  (I'roni  the  Brit.  .Mng.  for 
March,  1833.)  Thos.  Turton,  The  Text  of  the  Eng. 
Yible  ninsidertd,  2(1  ed.  Oxf.  1833.  ((ieor-;e  Liv- 
•rmore,)    Eng.     Versions    of    Scripture,    in    the  I 


Christ.  Examiner  (Boston)  for  July,  1833.  Thog. 
Curtis,  Received  Version  of  the  Bible,  in  Chriat. 
Rev.  for  March,  1838.  Amer.  Bible  Society,  Re- 
port of  the  Com.  on  Versions,  N.  Y.  1851;  comp. 
36'/t  Arm.  Report  of  the  Soc.  (N.  Y.  1852),  pp.  ^8- 
37;  Repoi-t  on  the  Recent  Collation  cf  the  Eng. 
Vers,  of  the  Bible,  N.  Y.  1857;  and  42(Z  Ann.  Re- 
port if  the  Soc.  (N.  Y.  1858),  pp.  31-41.  A.  C. 
C(oxe),  Apol.  for  the  Common  Eng.  Bible;  and 
Review  of  the  Extrawdinary  Changes  made  in  it 
by  .Managers  of  the  Amer.  Bible  Soc,  3d  ed..  Bait. 
1857.  Statements,  and  Documents,  concerning  the 
recent  Action  of  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the 

Amer.  Bible  Soc by  Members  if  the  Late 

Com.on  I'ersions,  N.  Y.  1858.  (The  history  of  the 
'•  standard  text  "  pnMished  by  the  Amer.  Bible  Soo. 
in  1851,  and  revoked  in  1858,  is  very  curious.  See 
McGlintock  and  Strong's  Cyclop.,  i."563  f.)  E.  W. 
(iilman.  Early  Eds.  if  the  A.  V.  of  tlie  Bible,  in 
the  Bibl.  Saci-a  for  Jan.  18bQ.  (James  Lenox,) 
The  Early  Eds.  of  King  James's  Bible  in  Folio,  N. 
Y.  1861,  4to.  Report  from  tlie  Select  Com.  on  tk^ 
Qiieens  Printers'  Patent  (4  Aug.  1859).  pp.  26  ff., 
38,  51  flf".  (I'arl.  Papers  1859,  Sess.  2,  vol.  v.) 
The  Present  State  of  the  Text  of  our  Auth.  Eng. 
Bible,  in  the  Chri.'itian  Remembrancer  for  Oct. 
18GG.  C.  F.  Scliatier,  The  Eng.  Vers,  of  the  N. 
T.  and  the  .Uarg.  Readings,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra 
for  July,  1869 ;  see  also  his  Exeget.  Punctuatiim 
of  the  N.  T.,  ibid.  Oct.  1868.  The  Rev.  F.  H. 
Scrivener  has  lately  pul  dished  Part.  I.  (Gen.  to 
Solomon's  Song)  of  The  Cambridge  Paragraph 
Bible  of  the  Auth.  Eng.  Version,  with  the  Text 
revised  by  a.  Collation  of  its  Early  and  other 
principal  Editions,  the  Use  of  the  Italic  Type  made 
Uniform,  the  Marg.  Refs.  remodelkd,  and  a  Cnt. 
Introd.  prcfxed,  Cambr.  1870,  4to.  The  "  exact 
Beprint  of  the  Auth.  Version  of  1611,"  puldished 
at  (Oxford,  1833,  4to,  is  from  the  second  of  the  edi- 
tions issued  in  the  year  referred  to. 

(2.)  Ess'iys  on  the  Revision  of  the  A.  V.  —  Many 
works  relating  to  this  subject  have  been  mentioned 
in  the  jireceding  article,  p.  3438  f.  Of  the  writers 
there  named,  Synionds,  Newcome,  Scholefield  and 
Trench  are  particularly  worthy  of  notice.  We  may 
add,  liev.  W'm.  Harness,  The  State  of  the  Eng. 
Bible.  Reprinted  from  the  Edinb.  Rev.  of  Oct. 
1855,  Lond.  1856.  IJev.  Wm.  Selwyn,  Xotes  on 
the  Revision  of  the  A.  V.,  Lond.  1856.  Dr.  Fred. 
Iliff,  Plea  for  the  Revisal  if  the  Bible  Trans,  of 
IGll,  Lond.  1857.  Plea  for  a  New  Eng.  Vers, 
of  the  Scriptures,  by  rt  Licentiate  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  Lond.  1864.  Alford,  fhw  to  study 
the  N.  T.,  3  vols.  Lond.  1865-68,  containing 
numerous  corrections  of  the  A.  V.  A.  Dewes, 
Plea  for  translating  the  Scriptures,  iMud.  1866. 
Bj).  FHlicott,  Consideraaonn  on  the  Revision  of  the 
Eng.  Vers,  of  the  N.  'l .,  Lond.  1870.  Various 
publications  of  Amer.  liihle  Union.  Arts,  in  Netb 
Englander,  Feb.  1859  (E.  W.  Oilman),  jNIay,  1859 
(J.  W.  (iibbs);  Quar.  Rer.  ,]!in.  1863:  Contemp. 
Rev.  Jinie,  ISGG  (T.  K.  Cheyne).  Feb.  1870  (W.  (i. 
Humplirvi  :  :uid   /Irit.   Qwir.  Itiv.  .Ian.  1870. 

On  the  obsolete  or  obsolescent  words  and  plirasea 
of  the  A.  v.,  the  bc-'t  work  is  The  Bibl".  IVord- 
Rook,  by  J.  Eastwood  and  W.  A.  Wright,  Lond. 
1806:  .see  also  the  New  Englimier  for  May,  1859. 
Tiie  JNIessrs.  Bagster  have  lately  published  (Lond. 
1870)  A  Critical  English  New  Testa. -ne nt :  pre- 
senting  at  one  View  the  A.  V.  and  the  resull.i  of 
the  Criticism  of  the  Grig.  Text  ;  and  in  connec- 
tion with  this  subject  we  may  notice  The  N.  T.  . 


3444 


VERSION,  AUTHORIZED 


the  Auth.  Eng.  Vt:r». ;  with  various  RtdiUm/s 
from  the  iliree  must  cekbraUd  MSS.  [Sin.  Vat. 
Alex.]  of  ill e  Greek  Tex/,  by  Constimline  Tischen- 
dorf.  Tauchnitz  Ed.,  vol.  1.000.  Leipz.  1869.  It 
is  to  be  regretted,  however,  tliat  this  vohime  is  not 
very  carefully  edited:  e.  <j.  in  Jude  24  the  reading 
of  the  Vat.  MS.  is  falsely  given,  and  in  ver.  25  "  be- 
fore all  the  world  "  is  a  bad  rendering  of  trph  wavrhs 
Toii  alceuos,  "  before  all  time." 

(3.)  Recent  Beviskms  or  New  Translations. — 
Of  the  Whole  Biblk,  or  the  Old  Test.,  we 
may  mention:  Noah  Webster,  The  Holy  Bible 
....  in  the  Common  Version,  with  Amendments 
of  the  Lnn(/u(i(/e,  New  Haven,  1833.  G.  II. 
Noyes,  New  Trans,  of  Job,  Ecdesiastes,  and  the 
Canticles,  with  Introductions  and  Notes  (1828, 
18-10),  3d  ed.,  Boston,  1867;  Psalms  and  Proverbs 
(1830, 184G),  3d  ed.,  Bost.  1867;  Hebrew  Prophets 
(1833,  1837),  3d  ed.,  with  a  New  Introd.  and  Notes, 

2  vols.  Bost.  1806.  Ebenezer  Henderson,  The  Book 
of  Jsaiali.  translated,  with  a.  Commentary,  Loiid- 
1840,  2d  ed.  1857;  Minor  Prophets,  1845,  and 
Andover,  ]864;  Jeremiah  and  Lam.,  1851,  And. 
1868;  Ezekiel,  1855,  And.  1870.  J.  A.  Alexander, 
The  Earlier  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  N.  Y.  1840; 
Mie  Later,  1847;  Psalms  translated  and  explained, 

3  vols.  N.-  Y.,  18-"'0.  JMoses  Stuart,  Comm.  on 
the  Book  of  Danici  [with  a  New  Trans.],  Boston, 
1850;  Ecclesiastes,  N.  V.  1851;  Proverbs,  1852. 
A.  Benisch,  The  Jewish  Scliool  and  Family  Bible, 
3  vols.  Lond.  1852-56.  M.  Kalisch,  Hist,  and 
Grit.  Commentary  on  the  0-  T.,  with  a  New 
Trans.;  Genesis,  Lond.  1858;  Exodus,  1855; 
Leviticus,  ch.  i.-x.,  1867.  liobt.  Yoinig,  Tl>e  Holy 
Bible,  trans,  uccordinrj  to  the  Letter  and  Idioms  of 
the  Oriy.  Languages,  2d  ed.,  I'ldin.  1863.  (Ruth- 
lessly sacrifices  the  English  idiom.)  Tlie  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Covenant,  in  a,  revised 
Trans.,  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Wellbeloved,  the  Rev. 
Geo.  Vance  Smith,  and  the  Rev.  Jnhn  Scott  Porter, 
3  vols.  Lond.  1859-62.  Sam.  Sharpe,  The  He- 
brew Scriptures  translated,  3  vols,  l-ond.  1865. 
The  Amer.  Bible  Union  have  published  revised 
translations,  by  Dr.  T.  J.  C'onant,  of  Job  (N.  Y. 
1856),  and  Genesis  (1808);  a  revised  version  of  the 
Psalms  and  Proverbs  by  the  same  hand  is  now  in 
press.  The  American  translation  of  Lange's 
Commentary,  edited  by  Dr.  Schaff,  gives  through- 
out corrections  of  the  A.  V.,  and  in  the  poetical 
and  prophetical  books  of  the  Old  Test.,  new  trans- 
lations. For  other  translations  of  particular  books 
of  the  O.  T.,  among  which  Ginsburg's  Song  of 
Songs  and  Ecclesiastes  deser\'e  particular  mention, 
Bee  the  appropriate  heads  in  the  Dictionary. 

New  Testament.  —  Charles  Thomson,  Sec. 
of  the  Continental  Congress,  The  Neio  Covenant, 
trans,  from  the  Greek,  Phil.  1808  (vol.  iv.  of  his 
Holy  Bible,  trans,  from  the  Greek).  Granville 
Penn,  The  Book  of  the  New  Covenant :  being  a 
Crit.  Revision  of  the  Text  and  Trans,  if  the  Eng. 
Vers,  of  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1836,  followed  by 
Annotations,  1837,  and  Supplemental  Annotations, 
new  ed.,  1841.  (I<xlgar  Taylor,)  The  N.  T.  re- 
vised from  the  A.  V.  and  made  conformable  to  the 
Text  of  Griesbach,  Lond.,  Pickering,  1840.  Sam. 
Sharpe,  The  N.  T.  trans,  from  Griesbach's  Text 
(Ist  ed.  1840),  5th  ed.  Lond.  1802,  and  Crit. 
N'otes,  2d  ed.,  Lond.  1807.  Andrews  Norton, 
Trans,  of  the  Gospels,  with  Notes,  2  vols.  Boston, 
1855.  L.  A.  Sawyer,  The  N.  T.  translated,  with 
Improved  Divisions  of  Chapters  and  Verses,  Bos- 
/On,  1858.     Mr.  Sawyer  has  also  published  trans- 


lations of  the  Hebrew  Prophets  and  Poets,  Bost 
1801-02.  A  translation  of  the  N.  T.  has  beer 
published  anonymously  by  John  Nelson  Darby,  the 
founder  of  the  sect  of  the  Plymouth  Brethren, 
London,  [180-?]  each  book  issued  separately.  It 
is  not  without  merit.  The  "second  revision''  of 
the  N.  T.  by  the  Final  Committee  of  the  Amer. 
Bible  Union  was  published  in  N.  Y.,  in  different 
forms,  in  1860.  In  this  version,  "  immerse  "  is 
substituted  for  "  baptize,"  "  immersion  "  for  "  bap- 
tism," etc.  Preliminary  revisions  of  most  of  the 
books  of  the  N.  T.,  with  notes,  wei'e  previously 
issued  for  public  examination  and  criticism.  Among 
the  authors  of  these  were  Dr.  T.  J.  C'onant  (Mat- 
thew), the  Rev.  N.  N.  Whiting  (."Mark,  Luke, 
Fphesians,  Pastoral  Epistles),  Rev.  Alex.  Camp- 
bell (Acts),  Dr.  John  Lillie  (1  and  2  Thess.,  and 
2d  Peter  to  Rev.  inclusive),  and  Dr.  H.  B.  Hackett 
(Philemon).  A  very  large  sum  of  money  ha« 
been  spent  by  the  American  Bible  Union  in  carry- 
ing on  this  important  work;  and  some  of  our 
ablest  sciiolars  have  been  enuaged  upon  it.  T.  S. 
Green,  The  Twifoll  N.  T.,  being  a  New  Trans 
accompanying  a  newly  formed  Text,  Lond. 
Bagster,  [1865,]  4to;  comp.  his  Crit.  Notes  on 
the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1867.  Henry  Alford,  The  N. 
T.  after  the  A.  V.  newly  compared  with  the  Orig. 
Greek  and  revised,  Lond.  1869 :  comp.  his  N.  T. 
for  Enij.  Readers,  with  corrections  of  the  A.  V. 
and  notes,  2  vols,  in  4  pts.,  1803-00.  G  .R.  Noyes, 
The  N.  T. :  translated  from  the  Greek  Text  of 
Tischendorf  Boston,  1809;  4th  ed.  1870.  Rol>t. 
Ainslie,  The  N.  T.  trans,  from  the  Greek  Ttxi 
of  Tischendorf  (8co,  Lips.  1865),  Lond.  and 
Brighton,  1809.  (The  title  and  also  the  preface 
are  deceptive.  The  translation  is  tiot  from  the 
text  of  Tischendorf.  but  from  his  edition  of  the 
Codex  Sinaiticus,  which  has  many  readings  that 
neither  he  nor  any  other  critic  would  ever  dream 
of  regarding  as  genuine.)  N.  S.  Folsom,  The 
Four  Gospels:  trans,  [mainly]  from  the  Greek 
Text  of  Tischendorf,  ivith  various  Readings  and 
Notes,  Boston,  1869.  For  other  translations  of 
parts  of  the  N.  T.,  see  the  literature  under  the 
separate  books.  — The  translations  of  Abner  Knee- 
land  {N.  T.  in  Greek  and  English,  Phil.  1822), 
Rodolphus  Dickinson  (Bost.  ]83'3),  and  Beiij.  Wil- 
son (Emphatic  Diaghit,  N.  Y.  [(ieneva,  111.] 
1864)  may  be  mentioned  as  literary  curiosities.  — 
Among  the  versions  which  have  been  named,  both 
of  the  0.  T.  and  the  New,  those  of  the  late  Dr. 
Noyes  appear  to  the  present  writer  eminently  dis- 
tinguished for  accuracy,  clearness,  good  taste, 
natural,  idiomatic  English,  and  the  attainment, 
generally,  of  the  happy  medium  between  bald  liter- 
alness  and  loose  paraphrase. 

The  Convocation  of  Canterbury  has  already 
(July,  1870)  undertaken  a  revision  of  the  A.  V., 
and  appointed  a  Committee  for  the  work,  under 
the  chairmanship  of  the  Bishop  of  Winciiest'er 
(Wilberforce).  They  have  divided  themselves  into 
two  companies,  that  on  the  Old  Test,  consisting 
of  the  Bishops  of  St.  David's,  Llandaff,  Ely,  Lin- 
coln, Bath  and  Wells,  Archd.  Rose,  Can.  Selwyn, 
Dr.  Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay;  that  on  the  New,  of  the 
P.ps.  of  Winchester,  (ilouces  erand  Bristol  vEUicott)^ 
and  Salisbury,  the  Prolocutor.  t!ie  Deans  of  Can- 
terbury (Alford),  Westminster  (Stanley),  and  Can. 
Blakesley.  Many  other  distinguished  scholars  have 
been  invited,  some  of  them  not  members  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  Convocation  of  York, 
and  the  British  Government  hi've  declined  to  par- 


VESTRY 

iif.ipate.  The  Committee  on  the  N.  T.  were  to 
hold  their  first  meetiiitc  on  June  22  and  23,  1870. 
We  have  no  room  for  further  details. 

For  the  literature  pertaining  to  this  topic,  see 
further  Darlini^'s  Cijcl.  Biblioi^raphicn  (Suhjects), 
3ol.  82  ff.,  and  McClintock  and  Stron£;'s  Cyclope- 
dia, vol.  iii.,  art.  "  English  Versions,"  where  will  be 
found  many  references  to  articles  in  periodical  pub- 
lications. A. 

*  VESTRY  (nnribp)  a  house  or  depository 
at  Samaria,  of  the  sacred  vestments  of  the  priests  of 
Baal.  The  lilnglish  and  Hebrew  teruis  occur  oidy 
in  2  K.  X.  22.  The  jj.arments  wtre  ])rnl)ably  of  fine 
bvssus  (Biihr,  Symbu/ik  des  Muscisch.  Cuhtis,  ii. 
87 ).  and  were  worn  by  the  priests  only  in  religious 
occupations.  It  was  not  the  royal  wardrobe,  ex- 
cept aa  it  may  have  been  under  the  monaich's  con- 
trol. H. 

*  VEX  is  very  often  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  the 
sense  of  "harass,"  "torment,"  "attiict,"  "op- 
press "  (e.  r/.  Num.  xx.  15;  1  Sam.  xiv.  47;  Job 
xxvii.  2;  Matt.  xv.  22;  Acts  xii.  1).  It  has  now 
become  a  nuich  we;iker  word.  A  similar  remark 
applies  to  "  ve.katiom;  "  see  Deut.  xxviii.  20;  1 
Chr.  XV.  5;  Is.  ix.  1.  A. 

*  VIAL  in  the  A.  V.  Rev.  v.  9,  "  golden  vials 
full  of  odors,"  and  xv.  7,  xvi.  1-17,  xvii.  1,  xxi.  9. 
"  the  seven  vials  full  of  the  wrath  of  God,"  suggests 
a  false  idea  to  the  common  reader.  The  Greek 
word  (^laAij,  which  is  here  used,  signifies  not  "  a 
small  bottle,"  but  "a  broad,  shallow  bowl." 

A. 
VILLAGES."  It  is  evident  that  chdtser,  "a 
village,"  lit.,  an  inclosure,  a  collection  of  huts,  is 
often  used,  especially  in  the  enumeration  of  towns 
in  Josh,  xiii.,  xv..  xix.,  to  imply  unwalled  suburbs 
outside  the  walled  towns.  And  so  it  appears  to 
mean  when  we  compare  Lev.  xxv.  31  with  v.  34. 
Jfiyrdsli,''  A.  V.  "suburbs,"  i.  e.  a  place  thrust 
out  from  the  city  (see  also  Gen.  xli.  48).  Arab 
villages,  as  found  in  Arabia,  are  often  mere  collec- 
tions of  stone  huts,  "  long,  low,  rude  hovels,  roofed 
only  with  the  stalks  of  palm-leaves,"  or  covered  for 
a  time  with  tent-cloths,  which  are  removed  when 
the  tribe  change  their  quarters.  Otheis  are  more 
solidly  built,  as  are  most  of  the  modern  villages  of 
Palestine,  though  in  some  the  dwellings  are  mere 
mud  huts  (Robinson,  i.  1G7,  ii.  13,  14,  44,  387; 
Hasselquist,  Trav.  p.  155 ;  Stanley,  S.  (f  P.  p. 
233,  App.  §  83,  p.  525).  Arab  villages  of  the  Hed- 
jaz  and  Yemen  often  consist  of  huts  with  circular 
roofs  of  leaves  or  grass,  resembling  the  description 
given  by  Sallust  of  the  Nuniidian  mapuliu,  namely, 


VIXE 


3445 


ships  with  the  keel  uppermost  (Sallust,  Jur/.  18. 
Shaw,  Tniv.  p.  220;  Niebuhr,  Dtscr.  de  I'A.-nb. 
p.  54). 

i'here  is  little  in  the  O.  T.  to  enable  us  nioro 
precisely  to  define  a  village  of  Palestine,  beyond  the 
fact  that  it  was  destitute  of  walls  or  external  de- 
fenses. Persian  villages  are  spoken  of  in  similar 
terms  (Kz.  xxxviii.  11;  Esth.  ix.  19). 

By  the  Talmndists  a  village  was  defined  as  a 
place  destitute  of  a  synagogue  (Lightfoot,  t'lwroyr. 
Ceninry,  ch.  xcviii.).  Galilee,  in  our  Lord's  time, 
contained  many  villages  and  village-towns,'^  and 
.losephus  says  that  in  his  time  there  were  in  Gsliiea 
204  towns  and  villages,**  some  of  which  last  had 
walls  (.loseph.  V'it.  §  45).  At  jiresent  the  coui;try 
is  almost  depopulated  (Raumer,  P(d.  p.  105;  Stan 
ley,  S.  f  P.  p.  384).  Most  modern  Turkish  and 
Persian  villages  have  a  Menz'd  or  McdhuJ'th,  a 
house  for  travellers  (Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  295; 
Koliinson,  ii.  19;  Martyn,  IJft,  p.  437). 

The  places  to  which  in  the  0.  T.  the  term  chatser 
is  applied  were  mostly  in  the  outskirts  of  tlie  coun- 
try (Stanley,  p.  520).  In  the  N.  T.  the  term 
Kiciir]  is  applied  to  Bethphage  (Alatt.  xxi.  2),  Beth- 
any (Luke  X.  38;  .lohn  xi.  1),  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv. 
13),  Bethlehem  (John  vii.  42).  A  distinction  be- 
tween city  or  town  (ttJAis)  and  village  {KWfxr])  is 
pointed  out  (Luke  viii.  1).  On  the  other  hand, 
Bethsaida  is  called  irohis  (John  i.  44;  Luke  is.  10) 
and  also  Ku>fx7)  (Mark  viii.  23,  26),  unless  by  the 
latter  word  we  are  to  understand  the  sulmrbs  of 
the  town,  which  meaning  seems  to  lieloug  to 
"country"^  (Mark  vi.  50).  The  relation  of  de- 
pendence on  a  chief  town  of  a  district  appears  to  be 
denoted  by  the  phrase  "villages  of  Caisarea  Phi- 
lippi  "  (Mark  vft.  27). 

In  the  Hebrew  language  the  prefix  Caphar  im- 
plied a  regular  village,  as  Gapernanm,  which  place, 
however,  had  in  later  times  outgrown  the  limits 
implied  by  its  ori<;inal  designation  (Lightfoot,  I.  c, 
Stanley,  pp.  521-527;  1  Mace.  vii.  31). 

H.  W.  P. 

VINE.  The  well-known  valuable  plant  (  Vitis 
viidj'era)  very  frequently  referred  to  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  and  cultivated  from  the 
earliest  times.  The  first  mention  of  this  plant 
occurs  in  Gen.  ix.  20.  21,  where  Noah  is  represented 
as  having  been  its  first  cultivator.  The  Egyptians 
say  that  Osiris  first  tau'^ht  men  the  use  of  the  vine. 
That  it  was  abundantly  cultivated  in  Egypt  is  evi- 
dent from  the  frequent  representations  on  the 
monuments,  as  well  as  from  the  Scriptural  allu- 
sions. See  Gen.  xl.  9-11,  Pharaoh's  dream;  and 
Num.  XX.  5,  where  the  Lsraelites  complain  that  the 


«  1.   Bath.     See  D.^uqhter. 

2.  "^Vri;  errauAi!,  Kia/xr):  villa,  castettiim,  oppi- 
dum.  especially  describod  as  uuwallcd,  Lev.  xxv.  31. 
(Stanley,  S.  S^-  P.  App.  §  87.) 

3.  (a.)  ~1S3,    from  "123,  "cover"  (Ges.  p.  706). 

KuJuT) :  vUla.    (*.)  "1^D3,  only  once,  Neh.  vj.2;  kwjui;: 

vicidu.i.     (c.)  "123,  only  once,  1  Sam.  vi.  IS:  Kiojutj : 
ritla. 

4.  (a.)  T"nD,  fromT"lQ  (Ges.  p.  1125,  "  to  separate," 
\ls(  ■'  to  judije,"  like  Kpii'io  ;  once  "  village,"  t.  e.  a 
|lac«  of  separated  dwelling.'',  llab.  iii.  14) ;  ivvioTrf; : 

VUator.     See  Prrizzi?£.     (b.j  ^1T"n5,  Judg.  v   7,11; 
i.  V.  following  Targ.,  "  villageg ;  '"  lit.,  rulers  or  war- 


riors,    (c  )  nnflQ,  TToAts  (unwalled)  Ez.  xxxviii.  11. 

('/.)  ''T'lS,  properly  a  dweller  in  the  country,  pa- 
partus:  (^epe  (J'aio?  :   oppiUum. 

5.  n^n  :  tn-avAis  :  viais  :   Num.  xxxii.  41 ;  Deut 

T  - 

iii.  14 ;  Judg.  x.  4  :  a  word  applied  by  moderu  Bedouinfl 
to  their  own  villages  (Stanley,  p.  527).  See  U,\V0TH- 
Jair. 

6.  3''tt7~13Q:    jrepio-TTopia :    fiibiirbana :   lit.,    pM 
tures  for  flocks  (Ocs.  pp.  30(1, -307). 

In  N.  T.  the  word  Kuj/nr;  is  also  rendered  "  town." 

*•  E7~I3T2,  from   tt?"12,   '■  drive  out." 

T  :  • '  -T' 

<^   Kto^ioiroAet? ,  i-irof  et  civilntex,  Mark  1.  &>. 
''    IIoAeis  Ka'i  Kfr>fjLai. 
"    Avoot. 


3446  VINE 

wilderness  was  "  no  place  of  fii,'s  or  of  vines.'  en- 
dentlj  regretting  that  they  had  left  the  vines  of 
Egypt.  Comp.  :ilso  Ps.  Ixxviii. -17  :  "  He  destroyed 
their  vines  with  hail  "  (see  on  this  sulject  (  VUius, 
Jlkrvb.  ii.  412). 

The  vines  of  Palestine  were  celebrated   loth  for 
luxuriant  growth  and   for  the  ininietise  clusters  of 
grapes  which  they  produced.     When  the  sjiies  were 
Bent  forth  to  view  the  promised   land,  we  are  told 
that   on  their  arrival  at  the  valley  of  Eshcol  tiiey 
cut  down  a  liranch  with  one  cluster  of  grapes,  and 
bare    it  between  two  or.  a  staff  (Num.  xiii.   2o). 
This  they  did  no  doubt  for  convenience  of  carriasre, 
»iid  in  order  that   the   grapes   on    that    splendid 
cluster  might  not  be  bruised.     Travellers  have  fre- 
quently  testified    to    the  large  size  of  the  gra|)e- 
>:lusters    of    Palestine.      Schulz     {Lei/inujcn     i/cg 
lloc'isti:n,  V.  28.5,  quoted  by  lioseimiiiller,  Bihl.  But. 
[).  223)  speaks  of  supping  at  Beitsliin,  a   village 
near  Ptolemais,  under  a  vine  whose  stem  was  a' out 
a  foot  and  a  half  in    diameter,  and  whose    height 
WIS  about  thirty  feet,  which  by  its  branches  formed 
a  hut    upwards    of  thirty    feet    broad    and    long. 
"  The  clusters    of   these  extraordinary  vines,"  he 
adds,  "  are  so  large  that  they  weigh  ten  or  twelve 
pounds,  and  the  berries  may  be  compared  with  our 
small  plums."     See  also  Belon,  Ol/strdt.  ii.  340: 
"  Les  seps  des  vignes  sont  fort  gros  et  les  rameaux 
fort     spacieux.     Les     haliitants     enteiident     bien 
comme  il  la  faut  gouverner.     Car  ils  la  plantent  si 
loing  I'une  de  I'autre,  qu'on  pourroit  mener  une 
charrette  entre  deux.     Oe'  n'est   pas  graiide  nier- 
veille  si  les  raisins  sont  si  beaux  et  le  vin  si  puis- 
sant."    Strabo    states     that    it   is    recorded   that 
there  are  vines  in  IMargiana  whose  stems  are  such 
as  would  require  two  men  to  span  ftund,  and  whiise 
clusters  are  two  cubits  long  {Gevc/rapli.  i.  112,  ed. 
Kramer).     Now  Margiana  is  the  modern  district 
of  (ihilan  in  Persia,  southwest  of  the  Caspian  Sea, 
ind  the  very  country  on  whose  hills  the  vine  is  be- 
lie\ed  to  be  indigenous.      Nothing  would    be  easier 
than   to  multiply  testimonies  relative  to  the  lar;;e 
size  of  the  grapes  of  Palestine,  from  the  pulilished  ac- 
counts of  travellers  such  as  Elliot,  Laborde,  JIariti, 
Uandini  (who  expresses  his  surprise  at  the  extraor- 
dinary size  of  the  grapes  of  Lebanon),  Russell,  etc. 
We  must  be  content  with  quoting  the  following  ex- 
tract  from  Kitto's  P/iysiail  Hhtoiy  of  Palestine, 
p.  330,  which  is  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  spies' 
mode  of  carrying  the  grapes  from  E.shcol:  "Even 
in  our  own  country  a  bunch  of  grapes  was  produced 
at  Welbeck,  and  sent  as  a  present  from  the  Duke 
of  Kutland  to  the  Marquis  of  Rockingham,  which 
weighed  -nineteen  pounds.     It  was  conveyed  to  its 
destination  —  more  than  twenty  miles  distant  —  on 
a  staff  by  four  laborers,  two  of  whom  bore  it  in  rota- 
tion."    The  greatest  diameter  of  this  cluster  was 
nineteen  inches  and  a  half,  its  circumference  four  feet 
and  a  half,  and  its  length  nearly  twenty-three  inches. 
Especiil   mention  is  made  in  the  Bible  of  the 
vines  of  Eshcol  (Num.  xiii.  24,  xxxii.  9),  of  Sibmah, 
HesbboTi,  and  Elealeh  (Is.  xvi.  8,  9,  10;  Jer.  xlviii. 
32),  and  En-gedi  (Cant.  i.  14).     Prof.  Stanley  thus 
Bpeaks   of  the  vineyards  of  .hidah,  which  he  saw 
^lonir  the  slopes  of  Bethlehem:     '-Here,  more  than 
tlsewhere  in  Palestine,  are  to  lie  seen  on  the  sides 
^f  the  hills,  the  vineyards  marked   by  their  watch- 
towers  and  walls,  seated  on  their  ancient  terraces  — 
the  earliest  and  latest  symbol  of  Judah.     The  ele- 
vation of  the  hills  and  taUe-lands  of  .ludah  is  the 
true  climate  of  the  vine.      He  '  tiound  his  foal  to 


VINE 

washed  his  garments  in  wine,  and  his  clothes  in  tht 
blood  of  grapes.'  It  was  from  the  Judiean  valley 
of  Eshcol.  'the  torrent  of  the  cluster,"  that  the  spies 
cut  down  the  gigantic  cluster  of  grapes.  '  A  vine- 
yard on  a  hill  of  olives,'  with  the  '  fence,'  and  '  the 
stones  gathered  out,'  and  the  tower  in  the  midst  of 
it,'  is  the  natural  figure  which,  both  in  the  pro|ihet- 
ical  and  evangelical  records,  represents  the  kingdom 
of  Judah"  (S.  f  P.  p.  164).  From  the  abun- 
dance and  excellence  of  the  vines,  it  may  readily  be 
under^itood  how  frequently  this  plant  is  the  sulject 
of  metaphor  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Thus  Israel 
is  a  vi"e  brought  from  Egypt,  and  planted  by  the 
Ivord's  hand  in  the  Land  of  Promise;  room  had 
lieen  prepared  lor  it  (compare  with  this  the  passatre 
from  Belon  quoted  above);  and  where  it  took  root  it 
tilled  the  land,  it  covered  the  hills  with  its  shadow, 
its  bousrhs  were  like  the  eoodly  cedar-trees  (Ps. 
Ixxx.  8,  10).  Comp.  Gmelin  (Travels  t/irmic/k 
Jluasia  ami  N.  Persia,  iii.  4-31),  who  thus  speaks 
of  the  vines  of  Ghilan:  "It  is  fond  of  fore.st8, 
....  and  is  frequently  found  about  promontories, 
and  their  lower  part  is  almost  entirely  covered  with 
it.  There,  higher  than  the  eye  can  reach,  it  winds 
itself  about  the  loftiest  trees;  and  its  tendrils,  which 
iiere  have  an  arm's  thickness,  so  spread  and  mutu- 
ally entangle  themselves  far  and  wide,  that  in  places 
where  it  grows  in  the  most  luxuriant  wildness  it  is 
very  difficult  to  find  a  passage."  To  dwell  under 
the  vine  and  fig-tree  is  an  emblem  of  domestic 
happiness  and  peace  (1  K.  iv,  25;  Mic.  iv.  4;  Ps. 
cxxviii.  3);  the  rebellious  people  of  Israel  are  com- 
pared to  "wild  grapes,"  "an  empty  vine,"  "the 
deuenerate  plant  of  a  strange  vine,"  etc.  (Is.  v.  2, 
4,  but  see  Cockle;  Hos.  x.  1;  .ler.  ii.  21).  It  is 
a  vine  which  our  Lord  selects  to  show  the  spiritual 
union  which  subsists  between  Himself  and  \m 
members  (.John  xv.  1-6). 

The  following  Hebrew  words  denote  the  vine:  — 

1.  Gephcn  (^p2),   or,  more  definitely,    ;;e/ilitn 

hayyayin  (^'**i^  l.r.?)»  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
Bilile,  and  used  in  a  general  sense.  Indeed  fiejihen 
sometimes  is  applied  to  a  plant  that  resembles  a 

vine  in  some  particulars,  as  n^TK^  ]??3  ((jeplien 
sadeli),  2  K.  iv.  39,  i.  e.  probalily  the  Colocuith 
plant  [Gourd,  ii.  962],  or  Dip  ]^2  {,/ej>iien 
Sedi'mi),  the  vine  of  Sodom,  certainly  not  a  vine. 
(See  below.) 

2.  Sorek  (P^b),  or  sorekah  {Tljr^^'),  is  a 
term  expressive  of  some  choice  kind  of  vine  (.Ter.  ii. 
21;  Isv.  ^;  Gen.  xlix.  11),  supposed  to  be  iden- 
tical with  that  now  called  in  Morocco  serk-i,  and  in 
Persia  kishmisli,  with  small  round  dark  berries,  and 
soft  .stones.  (See  Niebuhr,  Desciipt.  de  l' Arable, 
p.  147;  and  Oedmann,  Snmmlung,  ii.  97.)  From 
the  passage  in  Jeremiah,  it  is  clear  that  the  svrek 
denotes  not  another  species  of  vine,  but  the  com- 
mon vine  which  by  some  process  of  cultivation  at- 
tained a  high  state  of  excellence. 

3.  Nazir  ("^^P),  originally  applied  to  a  Nazarite 
who  did  not  shave  his  hair,  expresses  an  "  undressed 
vine  "  (A.  V.),  i.  e.  one  which  every  seventh  and 
every  fiftieth  year  was  not  primed.  (See  Gesenius, 
Tlu-s.  s.  v.) 

Grapes  are   designated  by  various  names:     (l.J 

Fslicvl  (^3t*'S),   is  either   "a  cluster,"   ripe  oi 


Jhe  vine,  and  his  ass's  colt  to  the  choice  vine;  he   unripe,  like  ractmus,  or  a  "single  grape"  (as  in 


VINE 


U.  Ixv.  8;  Mic.  vii.  1).     (2.)  '  aidb  (32!7  ;    Arab. 

'a  cluster").     (3.)  5oser  ("102),  sour, 


i.  e.  unripe  grapes  (Is.  xviii.  5).  (4.)  Zemordli 
(mifiT)    "  a  grape  cut  off."     "  The  blossom  "  of 

the  vine  is  called  semddar  (Tlttp),  Cant.  ii.  13, 
15.     "  Grape  stones  "  are  probably  meant  by  char- 

isumiim  (D^p^T'O);  A.  V.  ''kernel,"  Num.  vi.  4. 
"  The   cuticle  "  of  the  grape  is  denominated  zdy 

(3T),    Num.    I.    c. ;    "the    tendrils"    by   sariyhii 

(a"'a"^-lb).  Joel  i.  7. 

The  ancient  Hebrews  probably  allowed  the  vine 
to  grow  trailiTig  on  the  t;round,  or  Ufion  supports. 
This  latter  mode  of  cultivation  appears  to  lie  al- 
hided  to  by  Kzekiel  (xix.  11,  \i):  "her  strong 
rods  were  lirokeu  and  withered  "  Dr.  Uobinson, 
who  has  iriven  us  much  information  on  the  vines  of 
Palestine,  thus  speaks  of  the  manner  in  which  he 
saw  tiiem  trained  near  Hebron  :  "  They  are 
planted  singly  in  rows,  eight  or  ten  feet  apart  in 
each  direction.  The  stock  is  snttered  to  f;r(iw  up 
large  to  the  height  of  six  or  einht  feet,  and  is  then 
/astened  in  a  sloping  position  to  a  strouir  stake,  and 
the  shoots  suffered  to  grow  and  extend  from  one 
plant  to  another,  forming  a  hne  of  festoons.  Some- 
times two  I'ows  are  made  to  slant  towartis  each 
bther,  and  thus  form  by  their  shoots  a  sort  of  arch. 
These  shoots  are  pruned  away  in  autuuni  "  {Bibl. 
Res.  ii.  80,  81). 

The  vintage,  bdtsir  ("^^^2),  which  fornu  rly 
was  a  season  of  general  festivity,  as  is  the  case 
more  or  less  in  all  vine-growing  countries,  com- 
menced in  September.     The  towns  are  deserted, 

and  the  people  live  among  the  vineyards  (D7??) 
in  the  lodges  and  tents  (Bibl.  /?^s.  I.e.;  comp. 
Judg.  ix.  27;  .ler.  xxv.  30;  Is.  xvi.  10).  The 
grapes  were  gathered  with  shouts  of  joy  by  the 

"grape-gatherers"  (~i^2)  (Jer.  xxv.  30),  and  put 
into  baskets  (see  Jer.  vi.  9).  They  were  then  car- 
ried on  the  head  and  shoulders,  or  slung  upon  a 

yoke,  to  the  "wine-press"  (nS),  [Wink.] 
Those  intended  for  eating  were  perhaps  put  into 
flat  open  baskets  of  wickerwork,  as  was  the  custom 
in  Egypt  (Wilkinson,  Arte.  KijijpL  i.  43).  In 
Palestine  at  present   the  finest  grapes,   says   Dr. 

Kobinson,  are  dried  as  raisins,  tsimmuk  (p^X2^), 
and  the  juice  of  the  remainder,  after  having  been 
trodden  and  pressed,  "  is  boiled  down  to  a  syrup 

which,  under  the  name  of  dibs  (tT^?)  is  much 
used  by  all  classes,  wherever  vineyards  ai'e  found, 
as  a  condiment  with  their  food."  lor  further  re- 
marks on  the  modes  of  making  fermented  drinks, 
etc.,  of  the  juice  of  the  grape,  see  under  Wink 

The  vine3ard  (DI^S),  which  was  genei'ally  on  a 
hill  (Is.  V.  1;  Jer.  xxxi.  5;  Amos  ix.  13),  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  wall  or  hedge  in  order  to  keep  out 
the  wild  boars  (Ps.  Ixxx.  13),  jackals,  and  Ibxes 
(Num.  xxii.  24;  Cant.  ii.  1.5;  Neh.  iv.  3;  l",z.  xiii. 
K,  5;  Matt.  xxi.  33),  which  commit  sad  havoc 
imorfgst  the  vines,  both  by  treading  them  down 
and  by  eating  the  grapes.  Within  the  vineyard 
jras  one  or  more  towers  of  stone  in  which  the  vine 

imHsers.  cm-iinhn  (D^Q^3),  lived   (Is    i.  8,  v.  2; 


VINE  OF  SODOM  3i47 

Matt.  xxi.  33;  see  also  Kobinson,  Bibl.  Res.  i.  213 

ii.  81).     The   press,  gnih   ('"13),   and   vat,   ytkd 

(25^),  which  was  dug  (Matt.  xxi.  33)  or  hewn 
out'  of  the  rocky  soil,  were  part  of  the  vineyard 
furniture  (Is.  v.  2).  See  the  art.  AA^ine,  for  a 
figure  of  a  large  foot-press  with  vat,  represented  in 
operation.  The  wine-press  of  the  Hebrews  was 
probalplv  of  the  form  there  depicted.  [Fat,  p 
814  a.]" 

The  vine  in  the  Mosaic,  ritual  was  subject  tc 
the  usual  restrictions  of  the  "seventh  year"  (Ex. 
xxiii.  11),  and  the  juliilee  of  the  fiftieth  year  (Lev. 

xxv.  11).  The  gleanings,  oleloth  (n'wv37),  wen 
to  be  left  for  the  poor  and  stranger  (Jei.  xlix.  9; 
Deut.  xxiv.  21).  The  vineyard  was  not  to  be 
sown  "with  divers  seeds"  (Deut.  xxii.  9),  but  fig- 
trees  were  sometimes  planted  in  vineyards  (Luke 
xiii.  6).  Comp.  1  Iv.  iv.  25:  "Every  man  under 
his  vine  and  under  his  fig-tree."  Persons  passing 
through  a  vinejard  were  allowed  to  eat  the  grapes 
therein,  but  not  to  carry  any  away  (Deut.  xxiii. 
24). 

Besides  wild-boars,  jackals,  and  foxes,  other  ene- 
mies, such  as  birds,  locusts,  and  caterpillars,  occa- 
sionally damajjed  the  vines. 

Beth-haccerem,  "  the  house  of  the  vine  "  (Jer. 
vi.  1;  Neh.  iii.  14),  and  Abel-ceramim,  "the  plain 
of  the  vineyards,"  took  their  respective  names  from 
their  vicinity  to  vineyards.  Gophna  (now  J  if/in), 
a  few  miles  N.  of  .lerusalem,  is  stated  by  Eusebius 
(Oiwiii.  ^dpay^  ^irpvos)  to  have  derived  its  name 
from  its  vines.      But  see  Opiini.  W.  H. 

VINE  OF  SODOM  (Dip  "|?|,  ijcphen 
Siildm:  &uiTe\os  '2,oS6iJ.oi}i''  vinen  Sodomurnrn) 
occurs  only  in  Deut.  xxxii.  32,  where  of  the  wicked 
it  is  said  —  "  their  vine  is  of  the  vine  of  Sodom, 
and  of  the  fields  of  Gomorrah."  It  is  generally 
supposed  that  this  passage  alludes  to  the  celebrated 
apples  of  Sodom,  of  which  .losephus  (iJe//.  JuJ. 
iv.  8,  §  4)  speaks,  and  to  which  apparently  Tacitus 
{Hid.  V.  6)  alludes.  Much  has  been  written  on 
this  curious  subject,  and  various  trees  have  been 
conjectured  to  be  that  which  produced  those 

'■  Dead  Sea  fruits  that  tempt  the  eye. 
But  turu  to  ashes  ou  the  lips," 

of  which  Moore  and  Byron  sing. 

The  following  is  the  account  of  these  fruits,  an 
given  by  Josephus:  speaking  of  Sodom,  he  says  : 
"  It  was  of  old  a  happy  land,  both  in  respect  of  itd 
fruits,  and  the  abundance  of  its  cities.  But  now  it 
is  all  burnt  up.  Men  say  tliat,  on  account  of  the 
wickedness  of  its  inhabitants,  it  was  destifiycd  by 
ligiitning.  At  any  rate,  there  are  still  to  te  seen 
remains  of  the  divine  fire  and  traces  of  fine  cities, 
and  moreover  ashes  produced  in  the  fruits,  whiih 
indeed  resemble  edible  fruit  in  color,  but,  ou  being 
plucked  by  the  hand,  are  dissolved  into  smoke  and 
ashes."  Tacitus  is  more  general,  and  speaks  of 
till  the  herbs  and  flowers,  whether  growing  wild 
or  planted,  turning  black,  and  crumbling  into 
ashes. 

Some  travellers,  as  Maundrell  (Early  Trav.  in 
P(difstine,  p.  454,  Bohn,  1848),  regard  the  whole 
story  as  a  fiction,  being  unable  either  to  see  or 
hear  of  any  fruit  that  would  answer  the  required 
description.  Pococke  sujjposed  the  ai)ples  of  Sodom 
to  be  pomegranates,  "  which,  having  a  tough,  hard 
rind,  and  being  left  on  the  trees  two  or  three  years, 
mav  be  dried  to  dust  inside,  and  the  outHJde  nia\ 


J448 


VINE  OF  SODOM 


remain  fair."  Hasselquist  {Trnv.  p.  287)  seeks  to 
Identify  tlie  apples  in  question  with  the  ecrs-siuuieil 
fruit  ot  the  Solnnuiii  mtlont/ena  when  attacked  bj' 
Bonie  species  of  tentlii-edo,  which  converts  the  wliole 
jf  the  inside  into  dust,  while  the  rnid  remains 
entire  and  keeps  its  color.  Seetzen  in  his  letters 
to  Baron  Zach  {Moiuti.  Correspond,  xviii.  442) 
thought  he  had  discovered  the  apples  of  Sodom  in 
the  fruit  of  a  kind  of  cotton-tree,  which  grew  in 
the  plain  of  el-Ghor,  and  was  known  by  the  name 
of  Anschar.  The  cotton  is  contained  in  the  fruit, 
which  is  like  a  pomegranate,  but  has  no  pulp. 
Chateau) iriand  concludes  the  long-sought  fruit  to 
be  that  of  a  thorny  shrub  with  small  taper  leaves, 
which  in  size  and  color  is  exactly  like  the  little 
Etryptian  lemon;  when  dried,  this  fruit  yields  a 
blackisii  seed,  which  may  be  compared  to  ashes, 
and  which  in  taste  resembles  bitter  pepper.  Burck- 
hardt  {Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  392)  and  Irliy  and  Man- 
gles believe  that  the  tree  which  produces  these 
celebi'ated  apples  is  one  which  they  saw  abundantly 
in  the  Ghor  to  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  known 
by  the  vernacular  name  of  nslityr  or  osli'n:  This 
tree  bears  a  fruit  of  a  reddish- yellow  color,  about 
three  inches  in  diameter,  which  contains  a  white 
Fubstanee  resembling  the  finest  silk,  and  enveloping 
some  .seeds.  This  silk  is  collected  by  the  Arabs, 
and  twisted  into  matches  for  their  firelocks.  Dr. 
Robinson  {BiU.  Res.  i.  523),  when  at  'Ain  .Jidy, 
without  knowing  at  the  moment  whether  it  had 
been  observed  by  former  tra\ellers  or  not,  instantly 
pronounced  in  favor  of  the  'osher  fruit  being  the 
apples  of  Sodom.  His  account  of  tiiis  tree  is 
minute,  and  may  well  be  quoted:  '-The  'os/ie/-  of 
the  Arabs,'"  which  he  identifies  with  the  Asclepias 
{C(ihitropis)  pmcera  of  botanists,  "is  found  in 
abundance  in  Upper  Egypt  and  Nubia,  and  also 
in  Arabia  Eelix;  but  seems  to  be  confined  in 
Palestine  to  the  borders  of  the  Dead  Sea.  We 
saw  it  only  at  'Ain  Jidy;  Hasselquist  found  it  in 
the  desert  between  Jericho  and  the  northern  shore ; 
and  Irby  and  Mangles  met  with  it  of  large  size  at 
the  south  end  of  the  sea,  and  on  the  isthmus  of 
the  peninsula.  We  saw  here  several  trees  of  the 
kind,  the  trunks  of  which  were  si.x  or  eight  inches 
in  diameter,  and  the  whole  height  from  ten  to  fif- 
teen feet.  It  has  a  grayish  cork-like  bark,  with 
long  oval  leaves  ....  it  discharges  copiously 
from  its  broken  leaves  and  flowers  a  milky  fluid. 
The  fiuit  greatly  resembles  externally  a  large 
smooth  apple  or  orange,  hangina;  in  clusters  of  three 
or  four  together,  and  when  ripe  is  of  a  yellow 
color.  It  was  now  fair  and  delicious  to  the  eye. 
and  soft  to  the  touch ;  but,  on  being  pressed  or 
struck,  it  explodes  with  a  puff,  like  a  bladder  or 
pufl[-ball,  leaving  in  the  hand  only  the  shreds  of 
the  thin  rind  and  a  few  fibres.  It  is  indeed  filled 
chiefly  with  air,  which  gives  it  the  round  form. 


o  "  You  do  not  mention  the  Solarium  Sodomirum, 
which  I  thought  had  beeu  quoted  as  one  apple 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  which  is  the  plant  I  always 
'bought  to  be  as  probably  the  fruit  in  question  as  any 
other.  The  objection  to  S.  melon^eiia  is,  that  it  is  a 
cultivated  plant;  to  the  oak  gall,  that  it  is  wholly 
ftbseut  from  the  Dead  Sea  district,  though  it  answers 
'.he  description  best,  so  far  as  its  beautiful  exterior 
Ind  powdery  bitter  interior  are  concerned. 

'■  Tlie  Vine  of  Sodom,  again,  I  always  thought  might 
refer  to  Cuctnnis  cotncyntkis  [see  OoDRD,  ii.  962],  which 
Is  bitter  and  powdery  inside  ;  the  term  vine  would 
tcarcely  be  given  to  any  but  a  trailing  or  other  plant 
jf  the  habit  of  a  vine.     Tlie  objection  to  the  Ca'i>- 


VINE  OF  SODOM 

.  .  .  .  After  a  due  allowance  for  the  marvelous 
in  all  popular  reports,  I  find  nothing  which  doe* 
not  apply  almost  literally  to  the  fruit  of  the  'os/i^r, 
as  we  saw  it.  It  must  be  plucked  and  handled 
with  great  care,  in  order  to  preserve  it  from 
bursting." 

Mr.  Walter  Elliot,  in  an  article  "  on  the  Pmna 
Sodoinifica,  or  Dead-Sea  apples"  {Trnns.  of  the 
F.utomol.  Soc.  ii.  14,  1837-1840),  endeavors  to 
show  that  the  apples  in  (juestion  are  oak  galls, 
which  he  found  growinir  plentifully  on  dwarf  oaks 
{Qitercus  infvctnria)  in  the  country  beyond  the 
Jordan.  He  tells  us  that  the  Arabs  asked  him  to 
liite  one  of  these  galls,  and  that  they  laughed  when 
they  saw  his  mouth  full  of  dust.  '•  That  these 
galls  are  the  true  Dead-Sea  apples,"  it  is  added, 
"there  can  no  longer  be  a  question:  nothing  can 
be  n)ore  beautiful  than  their  rich,  glossy,  purplish- 
red  exterior:  nothing  more  bitter  than  their  porous 
and  easily  pulverized  interior"  (p.  If)).  The  opin- 
ion of  Pococke  n)ay,  we  think,  be  dismissed  at 
once  as  being  a  most  improbable  conjecture.  The 
objection  to  the  Sofanum  mdonyena  is  that  the 
plant  is  not  peculiar  to  the  shores  or  neighborhood 
of  the  Sea  of  Sodom,  but  is  generally  distributed 
throughout  Palestine,  besides  which  it  is  not  likely 
that  the  fruit  of  which  Josephus  speaks  should  be 
represented  by  occasional  diseased  specimens  of  the 
fruit  of  the  eiisj-apple ;  we  must  look  for  some 
plant,  the  normal  character  of  whose  fruit  comes 
somewhere  nearer  to  the  required  conditions.  Seet- 
zen's  plant  is  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by 
liurckhardt,  Irby  and  Mangles,  and  Robinson,  i.  e. 
the  ^ofiher.  Chateaubriand's  thorny  slirub,  with 
fruit  like  small  lemons,  may  he  the  Zukkuin  (Bn- 
hinites  yE(/yplific'i),  but  it  certainly  cannot  be  the 
tree  intended.  It  is  not  at  all  jirobable  that  the 
oak-ffalls  of  which  Mr.  Elliot  speaks  should  be 
the  fruit  in  question ;  because  these  being  formed 
on  a  tree  so  generally  known  as  an  oak,  and  being 
common  in  all  countries,  would  not  have  been  a 
subject  worthy  of  especial  remark,  or  have  been 
noticed  as  something  peculiar  to  the  district  around 
the  Sea  of  Sodom.  The  fruit  of  the  ''oslier  apjjears 
to  have  the  best  claim  to  represent  the  apples  of 
Sodom;  the  Vnlotropis  procern  is  an  Indian  jilant, 
and  thrives  in  the  warm  valley  of  'Ain  .Jidy,  but 
is  scarcely  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  Palestine. 
The  readiness  with  which  its  fruit,  "  fair  to  the 
eye,"  bursts  when  pressed,  agrees  well  with  Jose- 
phus's  account:  and  although  there  is  a  want  of 
suitableness  between  ''  the  few  fibres  "  of  Robinson, 
and  the  "smoke  and  ashes"  of  the  Jewish  his- 
torian, yet,  according  to  a  note  by  the  editor  of 
Seetzen's  Letters,  the  fruit  of  the  Calolropis  in 
winter  contains  n  yellowish  dust,  in  appearance 
resembling  certain  fungi,  but  of  pungent  quality." 

W.  H. 


tiopis  procera  (Asclep.  gignntfa,  Lin.)  is,  that  it  is  very 
scarce  and  not  characteristic  of  the  district,  being 
found  in  one  spot  only.  The  beautiful  silky  cotton 
would  never  suggest  the  idea  of  anything  but  what 
is  exquisitely  lovely  —  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  any- 
thing more  beautiful  :  to  assume  that  a  diseased  state 
of  it  was  intended,  is  arguing  ad  i^votimi  ab  ignoto 
and  a  very  far-fetched  idea."  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Dr.  Hooker's  remark,  that  the  term  vine  must  refer 
to  some  plant  of  the  habit  of  a  vine,  is  conclusive 
against  the  claims  of  all  the  phints  hitherto  iilenfifiej 
with  the  Vine  of  Sodom.  The  C.  colnci/nthis  alon* 
possesses  the  required  condition  implied  in  the  name 

W.  H 


VINEGAR 

VINEGAR  (V^'n:  i'^or  :  ncetum).  The 
Melirew  term  c/iomets  was  applied  to  a  heveraite, 
coiisistiiii;  i,'enerally  of  wiue  or  strong  drink  turned 
Bour  (whence  its  use  was  i)roscrilied  to  the  Naz- 
arite,  Num.  vi.  3),  liut  sometimes  artificially  made 
by  an  admixture  of  barley  and  wine,  and  thus 
liable  to  fermentation  (Mishn.  Pes.  3,  §  1).  It 
was  acid  even  to  a  proverb  (Frov.  x.  26),  and  by 
itself  formed  a  nauseous  draught  (Ps.  Ixix.  21), 
but  was  serviceable  for  the  purpose  of  sopping 
tiread,  as  used  by  laborers  (Ruth  ii.  14).  The 
degree  of  its  acidity  may  be  inferred  from  Prov. 
XXV.  20,  where  its  effect  on  nitre  is  noticed.  Sim- 
ilar to  the  chumefs  of  the  Hebrews  was  the  ncetum 
of  the  Romans,  —  a  thin,  sour  wine,  consumed  by 
soldiers  (V'eget.  He  Mil.  iv.  7),  either  in  a  pure 
state,  or,  more  usually,  mixed  with  water,  when 
it  was  termed  posca  (Plin.  xix.  2!);  Spart.  ffnclr. 
10).  This  was  the  beverage  of  which  the  Saviour 
partook  in  his  dying  moments  (Matt,  xxvii.  48; 
Mark  xv.  36;  .John  xix.  20,  30),  and  doubtless  it 
was  refreshing  to  his  exhausted  frame,  though 
offered  in  derision  either  on  that  occasion  or  pre- 
viously (Luke  xxiii.  36).  The  same  liquid,  min- 
gled with  gall  (as  St.  Matthew  states,  probably 
with  the  view  of  marking  the  fulfillment  of  the 
prediction  in  Ps.  Ixix.  21),  or  with  myrrh  (as 
St.  Mark  states  with  an  eye  to  the  exact  historical 
fact «),  was  offered  to  the  Saviour  at  an  earlier  st:iue 
of  his  suffei'ings,  in  order  to  deaden  the  perception 
of  pain  (Matt,  xxvii.  34;  Mark  xv.  23). 

W.  L.  B. 

VINEYARDS,  PLAIN  OF  THE  (b^S 

D*''?1J??  '•  'EySeAxap^e/j';  Alex.  AjSfA.  afiirfKaivaiV- 
Abel  qzKB  est  vineis  cwisita).  This  place,  men- 
tioned only  in  Judg.  xi.  33,  has  been  already  no- 
ticed under  Abel  (5:  seevol.  i.  p  5  a).  To  what 
he  has  there  said,  the  writer  has  only  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  a  ruin  bearing  the  name  of 
Beit  el-Kerm,  —  "  house  of  the  vine."  was  encoun- 
tered by  De  Saulcy  to  the  north  of  Kerak  {Narr. 
i.  3,53).  This  may  be  the  Abel  cerainiin  of  Jeph- 
thah.  if  the  Aroer  named  in  the  same  passage  is 
the  place  of  that  name  on  the  Arnon  (  W.  Af(y'eb). 
It  is  however  by  no  means  certain ;  and  indeed  the 
probability  is  that  the  Ammonites,  with  the  instinct 
of  a  nomadic  or  semi-nomadic  people,  betook  tiiem- 
selves,  when  attacked,  not  to  the  civilized  and  cul- 
tivated country  of  Moab  (where  Beit  el-Kerm  is 
situated),  but  to  the  spreading  deserts  towards  the 
east,  where  they  could  disperse  themselves  after  the 
usual  tactics  of  such  tribes.  G. 

VIOL.  For  an  explanation  of  the  Hebrew 
word  translated  "  viol  "  see  Psaltkry.  The  old 
English  viol,  like  the  Spanish  rii/ueln.  was  a  six- 
stringed  guitar.  Mr.  Chappell  (Pip.  :Uiis.  i.  246) 
says,  "  the  position  of  the  fingers  was  markeil  on 
the  fitiger-board  by  frets,  as  in  guitars  of  the  present 
day.  The  '  Chest  of  Viols  '  consisted  of  three,  four, 
five,  or  six  of  different  sizes;  one  for  the  trelile, 
others  for  the  mean,  the  counter-tenor,  the  tenor, 
and  perhaps  two  for  the  bass."  Etymologically 
viol  is  connected  with  the  Jian.Jiol  and  the  A.-S. 
Ji^ele,  through  the  Fr.  viole,  Old  Fr.  vielle,  Med. 


VOWS 


3449 


"  St.  Mark  terms  it  oTvos  eVfiupvio-fteVos.  There  is 
no  diffitulty  in  the  application  of  oTi^os  and  ofo?  to 
the  same  .substance  ;  but  whether  the  /jiera  \oKr]<; 
u.emy}i.h'ov  of  St.  Matthew  cau  in  any  wav  lie  iilen- 
iilied  with    the   ia-nvovi<ju.ivo<;    of  Mark,   is  doubttu! 


Lat.  vitelli.  In  the  Prom/iti  riuni  PidtuIoi-wii  we 
find  "  Fyyele,  viella,  tidlcina,  vitella."'  Again,  in 
Noith's  Plutarch  (Aiitonius,  p.  980,  ed.  1505)  there 
is  a  description  of  Cleopatra's  barge,  '•'  the  poope 
whereof  was  of  gold,  the  .«ailes  of  purple,  and  the 
owers  of  silver,  which  kept  stroke  in  rowing  after 
the  sound  of  the  musicke  of  flutes,  howboyes, 
cyfherns,  ryolls,  and  such  other  instruments  as 
they  played  vpon  in  the  barge."  W.  A.  W. 

*  VINTAGE.     [Harvest;  VixNE;  Wi.xe.] 
VIPER.     [Serpent.] 

*  VOLUME.     [Book;  Roll;  Writing.] 

VOPH'SI  OD?T:  2aj3i;  Alex.  lajSc  Vapsi). 
Father  of  Nahlii.  the  spy  selected  from  the  tribe 
of  Naphtali  (Num.  xiii.  14). 

■  *  VOTE.  This  is  the  proper  word  in  Acts 
xxvi.  10,  instead  of  "  voice  "  of  the  A.  V.  Paul 
says  there  that  when  Stephen  and  other  disciples 
were  put  to  death  he  -'gave  his  vote,"  KariiveyKa 
xprjcpov,  against  them.  Some  allege  this  as  proof 
that  he  was  a  member  of  the  .Jewish  Sanhedrim  at 
the  time,  and  voted  for  the  sentence  of  death. 
But  the  languatre  does  not  warrant  this  conclusion. 
Like  our  "suffrage,"  \pri(f>os,  a 'stone  u.sed  as  a 
ballot,  often  signified  opinion  merely,  assent  or  dis- 
sent, with  only  a  figurative  allusion  to  the  act  of 
voting.  Plato  often  uses  the  word  in  this  sense 
(see  Rost  and  Palm's  Gc.  Hdmhcorlcrb.  iii.  p. 
2575).  It  is  improbable  on  other  grounds  that 
Paul  belonged  to  the  Sanhedrim  at  th.at  time. 
His  age  would  hardly  have  allowed  him  to  attain 
that  honor  so  early  (see  Acts  vii.  58),  and  his  being 
unmarried  (as  we  may  infer  fi-om  1  Cor.  vii.  8)  was 
a  disqualification  if,  as  the  later  Jews  maintain,  no 
one  could  be  a  judge  unless  he  was  a  father,  be- 
cause a  parent  may  be  expected  to  be  merciful. 
Lechler  gives  the  right  interpretation.  H. 

A'^OWS''  The  practice  of  making  vows,  i.  e. 
incurring  voluntary  oliligations  to  the  Deity,  on 
fulfillment  of  certain  conditions,  such  as  deliverance 
from  death  or  danger,  success  in  enterprises,  and 
the  like,  is  of  extremely  ancient  date,  and  common 
in  all  systems  of  religion.  The  earliest  mention 
of  a  vow  is  that  of  Jacob,  who,  after  his  vision  at 
Bethel,  promised  that  in  case  of  his  safe  return  he 
would  dedicate  to  Jehovah  the  tenth  of  his  goods, 
and  make  the  place  in  which  he  had  set  up  the 
memorial-stone  a  place  of  worship  (Gen.  xxviii. 
18-22,  xxxi.  13).  Vows  in  general  are  also  men- 
tioned in  the  book  of  .lob  (xxii.  27). 

Among  instances  of  heathen  usage  in  this  respect 
the  following  passages  may  be  cited :  Jer.  xliv.  25, 
and  .lonah  i.  16;  Hom.  /l.  i.  64,  93,  vi.  93,  308; 
Oili/KS.  iii.  382;  Xen.  Annh.  iii.  2,  §  12;  Virg. 
(ietn-;/.  i.  436;  ^n.  v.  234:  Hor.  Cnrm.  i.  5,  1%, 
iii.  29,  59;  Liv.  xxii.  9,  10;  Cic.  Alt.  viii.  16; 
Justin,  xxi.  3 ;  a  passage  which  speaks  of  immoral 
vows;  Veil.  I'at.  ii.  48. 

The  Law  therefore  did  not  introduce,  but  regu- 
lated the  i)ractice  of  vows.  Three  sorts  are  men- 
tioned: I.  Vows  of  devotion,  Neder ;  II.  Vows 
of  abstinence,  Esnr  or  hav ;  HI.  Vows  of  destruc- 
tion, Clitreni. 

I.   As  to  vows  of  devotion,  the  following  rules 


The  term  ^oA^  may  well  have  been  applied  to  somt 
soporific  substance. 

''   n^ll^,  from   "113,    "  to   make   tow  "   (Qta 
p-  855).     See  also  Anathema. 


3450 


vows 


Bre  laid  down :  A  man  might  devote  to  sacred  uses 
possessions  or  persons,  but  not  tlie  first-l)orn  either 
of  man  or  beast,  wliich  was  devoted  already  (Lev. 

XXvii.  20).       [FlKST-BORN.] 

(ii.)  If  lie  vowed  land,  he  might  either  redeem  it 
or  not.  If  he  intended  to  redeem,  two  points  were 
to  be  considered:  (1)  the  rate  of  redemption;  (2) 
the  distance,  prospectively  and  retrospectively,  from 
the  year  of  juliilee.  The  price  of  redemption  was 
fixed  at  50  shekels  of  silver  for  the  quantity  of  land 
which  a  homer  of  barley  (eirjht  bushels)  would  suf- 
fice to  sow  (Lev.  xxvii,  16;  see  Knobel).  This 
payment  might  be  abated  under  the  direction  of 
the  priest,  according  to  the  distance  of  time  from 
the  juliilee-year.  I5ut  at  whatever  time  it  was 
redeemed,  he  was  required  to  add  to  the  redemp- 
tion-price one  fifth  (20  per  cent.)  of  the  estimated 
value.  If  he  sold  the  land  in  the  mean  time,  it 
might  not  then  be  redeemed  at  all,  but  was  to  go 
to  the  priests  in  the  jidjilee-year  (ver.  20). 

The  purchaser  of  land,  in  case  he  devoted  and 
also  wished  to  redeem  it,  was  required  to  pay  a 
redemption-price  according  to  tlie  priestly  valua- 
tion first  mentioned,  but  without  the  additional 
fifth.  In  this  cAse,  however,  the  land  was  to 
revert  in  the  jubilee  to  its  original  owner  (Lev. 
xxvii.  16",  24,  xxv.  27;  Keil,  JJtbr.  Arch.  §§  G6, 
80). 

The  valuation  here  laid  down  is  evidently  based 
on  the  notion  of  amiual  value.  Supposing  land  to 
require  for  seed  about  3  bushels  of  barley  per 
acre,  the  homer,  at  the  rate  of  32  pecks,  or  8 
bushels,  would  be  sufficient  for  about  2^  or  3 
acres.  Fifty  shekels,  25  ounces  of  silver,  at  five 
shillings  the  ounce,  would  r;ive  ^6  5s  ,  and  the 
yearly  valuation  would  thus  amount  to  about  £2 
per  acre. 

The  owner  who  wished  to  redeem,  would  thus 
be  required  to  pay  either  an  annual  rent  or  a 
redemption-price  answering  to  the  nunilier  of  years 
short  of  the  juliilee,  liut  deducting  Sabbatical  years 
(Lev.  xxv.  3,  15,  10 ),  and  adding  a  fifth,  or  20  per 
tent.,  in  either  case.  Thus,  if  a  man  devoted  an 
acre  of  land  in  the  jubilee  year,  and  redeemed  it  in 
the  same  year,  he  would  pay  a  redemption  price  of 
49 — G  =43  years'  value,  -f-  20  per  cent.  =  j£103  4^., 
or  an  annual  rent  of  £2  8s. ;  a  rate  by  no  means 
excessive  when  we  consider,  (1)  the  prospect  of 
restoration  in  the  jubilee;  (2)  the  luidoulited  fer- 
tility of  the  soil,  which  even  now,  under  all  disad- 
vantages, sometimes  yields  an  hundredfold  (Burck- 
hardt,  Sifrvi,  p.  297). 

If  he  refused  or  was  unaljle  to  redeem,  either 
the  next  of  kin  (Goel)  came  forward,  as  he  had 
liberty  to  do,  or,  if  no  redemption  was  effected,  the 
land  became  the  property  of  the  priests  (Lev.  xxv. 
25,  xxvii.  21;  Paith  iii.  i2,  iv.  1,  etc.). 

In  the  case  of  a  house  de\oted,  its  value  was  to 
be  assessed  by  the  priest,  and  a  fifth  added  to  the 
redemjition  price  in  case  it  was  redeemed  (Lev. 
xxvii.  15).  Whether  the  rule  held  good  regarding 
houses  in  walled  cities,  namely,  that  the  liberty  of 
redemption  lasted  only  for  one  year,  is  not  certain ; 
but  as  it  does  not  appear  that  houses  devoted,  but 
not  redeemed,  became  the  property  of  the  priests, 
and  as  the  Levites  and  priests  had  special  towns 
assisrned  to  them,  it  seems  likely  that  the  price 
only  of  the  house,  and  not  the  house  itself,  was 
made  over  to  sacred  uses,  and  thus  that  the  act  of 
consecration  of  a  house  means,  in  fact,  the  conse- 
cration of  its  value.  The  Jlishna,  however,  says, 
that   if  a  devoted  house  fell  down,  the  owner  was 


VOWS 

not  liable  to  payment,  but  that  he  was  liable  if 
he  had  devoted  the  value  of  the  house  {Ertuin. 
V.  5). 

(6.)  Animals  fit  for  sacrifice,  if  devoted,  were  not 
to  be  redeemed  or  changed,  and  if  a  man  attempted 
to  do  so,  he  was  required  to  bring  both  the  devotee 
and  the  changeling  (Lev.  xxvii.  9.  10,  33).  Ihey 
were  to  be  free  from  blemish  (Mai.  i.  14).  An 
anim.al  unfit  for  sacrifice  might  be  reoeemed,  with 
the  addition  to  the  priest's  valuation  of  a  fifth,  or 
it  became  tlie  property  of  the  priests.  Lev.  xxvii. 
12,  13.      [Offeiiung.] 

(c.)  The  case  of  persons  devoted  stood  thns:  A 
man  might  devote  either  himself,  his,  child  (not 
tiie  first-born),  or  his  slave.  If  no  redemption  took 
place,  the  devoted  person  became  a  slave  of  tlio 
sanctuary  —  see  the  case  of  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv. 
8;  Michaelis,  §  124,  ii.  166,  ed.  Smith).  [Naz- 
AiUTE.]  Otherwise  he  might  be  redeemed  at  a 
\aluation  according  to  age  and  sex,  on  the  follow- 
ing scale  (Lev.  xxvii.  1-7):  — 

A.  1.  A  male  from  one  month   to  5  years     .£     .?.  el. 

old,  5  .shekels =  0  12     6 

2.  From  5  years  to  20  years,  20  shekels  =  2  10     0 

3.  Krom  20  years  to  60  years,  50  shekels  =650 

4.  Above  60  years,  15  sliekels     .      .      .  =  1  17     6 

B.  1.  Females  from  one  month  to  5  years, 

3  shekels ^076 

2.  From  5  years  to  20  years,  10  shekels  =1     5     0 

3.  From  20  years  to  60  years,  30  shekels  =  3  15     0 

4.  Above  60  years,  10  shekels     .     .     .=150 

If  the  person  were  too  poor  to  pay  the  redemption 
price,  his  value  was  to  be  estimated  by  the  priest, 
not,  as  Michaelis  says,  the  civil  magistrate  (Lev. 
xxvii.  8:   Dent.  xxi.'5;  .Mich.  §  145,  ii.  283). 

Among  general  regulations  aflFecting  vows,  the 
following  may  be  mentioned  :  — 

1.  Vows  were  entirely  voluntary,  but  once  made 
were  retjarded  as  compulsory,  and  evasion  of  per- 
formance of  them  was  held  to  be  contrary  to  true 
religion  (Num.  xxx.  2;  Deut.  xxiii.  21;  Eccl. 
V.  4). 

2.  If  persons  in  a  dependent  condition  made 
vows,  as  ('0  an  unmarried  daughter  living  in  her 
father's  house,  or  (b)  a  wife,  even  if  she  afterward.s 
became  a  widow,  the  vow,  if  (a)  in  the  first  case 
her  father,  or  (b)  in  the  second,  her  husband  heard 
and  disallowed  it,  was  void;  but  if  they  heard 
without  disallowance,  it  was  to  remain  good  (Num. 
xxx.  3-16).  Whether  this  principle  extended  to 
all  children  and  to  slaves  is  wholly  uncertain,  aa 
no  mention  is  made  of  them  in  Scripture,  nor  by 
I'hilo  when  he  discusses  the  question  (de  Spac.  Ley. 
6,  ii.  274,  ed.  Mangey).  Michaelis  thinks  the 
omission  of  sons  implies  absence  of  power  to  con- 
trol them  (§  83,  i.  447). 

3.  Votive  ofi^erings  arising  from  the  produce  of 
any  impure  traffic  were  wholly  forbidden  (Dent, 
xxiii.  18).  A  question  has  risen  on  this  part  of 
the  subject  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  cekb^ 
dog,  which  is  understood  to  refer  either  to  Immoral 
intercourse  of  the  grossest  kind,  or  liteially  and 
simply  to  the  usual  meaning  of  the  word.  The 
prohiliition  against  dedication  to  sacred  uses  of 
gain  obtained  by  female  prostitution  was  doiditless 
directed  against  the  practice  which  jjrevailed  in 
Phcenicia,  Baljj- Ionia,  and  Syria,  of  which  men- 
tion is  made  in  Lev.  xix.  29;  Baruch  vi.  43  [or 
Epist.  of  Jer.  43];  Herod,  i.  199;  Strabo,  p.  561; 
August,  (le  civ.  Dei,  iv.  10,  and  other  autliorities 
quoted  by  Spencer  (de  leg.  ffebr.  ii.  35,  p.  566). 
Followini;  out  this  view,  and  bearinar  in  miud  th« 


VULGATE,  THE 

nenfon  made  in  2  K.  xxiii.  7,  of  a  practice  evi- 
^entlv  connected  with  idolatrous  worsliii),  tlie  word 
tJcb  lins  been  sometimes  rendered  cince /ti/ ;  some 
have  understood  it  to  reler  to  the  first-born,  but 
Spencer  himself,  ii.  35,  p.  572:  Josephus,  Ant.  iv. 
8,  §  9;  Gesen.  ii.  685,  and  the  Mishna,  Temuriik, 
vi.  3,  all  understand  dog  in  the  literal  sense. 
[Dog.] 

II.,  III.  For  vows  of  abstinence,  see  Corban; 
and  for  vows  of  extermination,  Anathema,  and 
Ezr.x.8;  Mic.  iv.  13. 

■\''ows  in  general  and  their  binding  force  as  a  test 
of  religion  are  mentioned  —  Job  xxii.  27 ;  Prov.  vii. 
14;  I's.  xxii.  25,  1.  14,  Ivi.  12,  Ixvi.  13,  cxvi.  14: 
Is.  «ix.  21;  Nah.  i.  15. 

Certain  refinements  on  votive  consecrations  are 
noticed  in  tlie  JMishna,  e.  cf. :  — 

1.  No  evasion  of  a  vow  was  to  be  allowed  which 
substituted  a  part  for  the  whole,  as,  '•  I  vowed  a 
sheep  but  not  the  bones"  (N'edir.  ii.  5). 

2.  A  man  devotnig  an  ox  or  a  iiouse,  was  not 
liable  if  the  ox  was  lost,  or  the  house  fell  down ; 
but  otherwise,  if  he  had  devoted  the  value  of  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these. 

3.  No  devotions  might  be  made  within  two 
j-ears  before  the  jubilee,  nor  redemptions  within 
the  year  following  it.  If  a  son  redeemed  his 
father's  land,  he  was  to  restore  it  to  him  in  the 
iubilee  {Erac.  vii.  3). 

4.  A  man  might  devote  some  of  his  flock, 
herd,  and  heathen  slaves,  but  not  all  these  {ibid. 
viii.  4). 

5.  Devotions  by  priests  were  not  redeemable, 
but  were  transferred  to  other  priests  (i/jid.  6). 

6.  A  man  who  vowed  not  to  sleep  on  a  bed, 
might  sleep  on  a  skin  if  he  pleased  ((Jtho,  Lex. 
Rabb.  p.  673). 

7.  The  sums  of  money  arising  from  votive  con- 
secrations were  divided  into  two  parts  —  sacred  (1) 
to  the  altar;  (2)  to  the  repairs  of  the  Temple  (lie- 
land,  Ant.  c.  X.  §  4). 

It  seems  that  the  practice  of  shaving  the  head 
at  the  expiration  of  a  votive  period  was  not  lim- 
ited to  the  Nazaritic  vow  (Acts  xviii.  18,  xxi. 
24). 

The  practice  of  vows  in  the  Christian  Church, 
though  evidently  not  forbidden,  as  the  instance  just 
quoted  serves  to  show,  does  not  come  within  the 
Bcope  of  the  present  article  (see  Bingham,  Antiq. 
xvi.  7,  9,  and  Suicer,  ewx''?)-  H.  W.  P. 

VULGATE,  THE.  (Latin  Versions  of 
THE  Bible.)  The  influence  which  the  Latin  Ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  ha\e  exercised  upon  Western 
Christianity  is  scarcely  less  than  that  of  the  LXX. 
ipon  the  Greek  churches.  But  both  the  (jreek 
*nd  the  Latin  Vulgates  have  been  long  neglected. 
The  revival  of  letters,  bringing  with  it  the  study 
af  the  original  texts  of  Holy  Scripture,  checked  for 
a  time  the  study  of  these  two  great  bulwarks  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  churches,  for  the  LXX.  in  fact 
t)elot)gs  rather  to  the  history  of  Christiaiiity  than 
to  the  history  of  Judaism,  and,  in  spite  of  recent 
labors,  their  importance  is  even  now  hardly  recog- 
nized. In  the  case  of  the  Vulgate,  ecclesiastical 
controversies  have  still  further  impeded  all  efforta 
»f  lil)eral  criticism.  The  Romanist  (till  lately) 
regarded  the  Clementine  text  as  fixed  beyond  a[)- 
,ieal;  the  Protestant  shrank  from  examining  a  suli- 
'ect  which  seemed  to  belong  peculiarly  to  the 
Womariist.  Yet,  apart  from  all  polemical  ques- 
ions,  the  Vulgate  should  have  a  very  deep  interest 


VULGATE,  THE 


3451 


for  all  the  Western  churches.  For  many  centu- 
ries it  was  the  only  Bible  generally  used;  and, 
directly  or  indirectly,  it  is  the  real  parent  of  all 
the  vernacular  versions  of  Western  Kurope.  The 
Gothic  Version  of  Ulphilas  alone  is  independent  of 
it,  for  the  Slavonic  and  modern  liussian  versions 
are  necessarily  not  taken  into  account.  With 
F.ngland  it  has  a  peculiarly  close  connection.  The 
earliest  translations  made  from  it  were  the  (lost) 
books  of  Bede,  and  the  Glosses  on  the  Psalms  and 
Gospels  of  the  8th  and  9th  centuries  (ed.  Thorpe. 
Lond.  1835,  1842).  In  the  10th  century  ^Elfric 
Iranslated  considerable  portions  of  tlie  O.  T.  (//</> 
I'ltcuc/iiis,  etc.,  ed.  Thwaites,  Oxoii.  1098).  But 
the  most  important  monument  of  its  influence  is 
the  great  English  Version  of  WycliflTe  (1324-1384, 
ed.  Forshall  and  Madden,  Oxfd.  1850),  which  is  a 
literal  rendering  of  the  current  Vulgate  text.  In 
the  age  of  the  Reformation  tlie  Vulgate  was  rather 
the  guide  than  the  source  of  the  [xipular  versions. 
The  Romanist  translations  into  German  (Michaelis. 
ed.  !Marsh,  ii.  107),  French,  Italian,  and  Spanish, 
were  naturallv  derived  from  the  Vulgate  (R.  Simon, 
Hist.  Crit.  N.  T.  Cap.  28,  29,  40,  41).  Of  others, 
that  of  Luther  (N.  T.  in  1523)  was  the  most  im- 
portant, and  in  this  the  Vulgate  had  great  weight, 
though  it  was  made  with  such  use  of  the  originals 
as  was  possible.  From  Luther  tlie  influence  of 
the  Latin  passed  to  our  own  Authorized  Version. 
Tjndal  had  spent  some  time  abroad,  and  was 
acquainted  with  Luther  before  he  putdished  his 
version  of  the  N.  T.  in  1521).  Tyiidal's  version 
of  the  O.  T.,  which  was  unfinished  at  the  time  of 
his  martyrdom  (153(J),  was  completed  by  Cover- 
dale,  and  in  this  the  influence  of  the  Latin  and 
German  translations  was  predominant.  A  proof 
of  this  remains  in  the  Psalter  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
which  was  taken  from  the  "  Great  English  Bible" 
(1539,  1540),  which  was  merely  a  new  edition  of 
that  called  Matthew's,  which  was  itself  taken  from 
Tyndal  and  Coverdale.  This  version  of  the  Psalm.a 
follows  the  Galilean  Psalter,  a  revision  of  the  Old 
Latin,  made  by  .Jerome,  and  afterwards  introduced 
into  his  new  translation  (comp.  §  22),  and  dilfers 
in  many  respects  I'roni  the  Hebrew  text  (e.  <j.  Ps. 
xiv.).  It  would  be  out  of  place  to  follow  this 
question  into  detail  here.  It  is  enough  to  remem- 
ber that  the  first  translators  of  our  Bible  had  been 
familiarized  with  the  Vulgate  from  their  youth, 
and  could  not  have  cast  oft"  the  influence  of  earlv 
association  But  the  claims  of  the  Vulgate  to  the 
attention  of  scholars  rest  on  wider  grounds.  It  is 
not  only  the  source  of  our  current  theological 
terminology,  but  it  is,  in  one  shape  or  other,  the 
most  important  early  witness  to  the  text  and 
interpretation  of  the  whole  Bible.  The  materials 
available  for  the  .accurate  study  of  it  are  unfor- 
tunately at  present  as  scanty  as  those  yet  unex- 
amined are  rich  and  varied  (comp.  §  30).  The 
chief  original  works  bearing  on  the  Vulgate  gener 
ally  are  — 

K.  Simon,  ffisloire  Critique  du  V.  T.  1678- 
1085:   N.  T.  1689-1693. 

Hody,  Dt  Bibliorum  iextibus  onyirialibus,  Oxon. 
17t)5. 

Martianay,  Ilieron.  0pp.  (Paris,  1693,  with  the 
prefaces  and  additions  of  Vallarsi,  Verona,  1734, 
and  Maftei,  Venice,  1767). 

Bianchini  {/Jlnncliinus  lot  Blancliini),  Vindl 
vice  C'l'iim.  SS.  Vid;/.  Lnt.  Kdit.  Roraae,  1740. 

Bukentop,  Lux  de  Luce  ....  Bruxellia, 
1710. 


3452 


VULGATE,  THE 


Sabatier,  Bibl.  SS.  Lnt.  Vers,  ^n^,  ReiiiU, 
1743. 

Van  Ess,  Pragmatisck-kiilische  Gesch.  d.  Vulg. 
Tiiljingeii,  1824. 

Vercellone,  VaricB  Lecliones  Vulg.  Lnt.  Bibli- 
»rwn,  torn,  i.,  Ronise,  1860;  torn.  ii.  pars  prior, 
1862. 

In  addition  to  these  there  are  the  controversial 
vvorljs  of  JIariana,  Belhirmin,  Whitalver,  Full^e, 
Btc,  and  numerous  essays  by  Calniet,  I).  Scliulz, 
Klecli,  Kieg'ler,  etc.,  and  in  the  N.  T.  the  labors 
of  Bentley,  Sanftl,  Griesbach,  Schulz,  Lachniaiin, 
Tregelles,  and  Tischendorf,  have  collected  a  great 
Ruiount  of  critical  materials.  But  it  is  not  too 
nuich  to  say  that  the  noble  work  of  Vercellone  has 
made  an  epoch  in  the  study  of  the  Vulgate,  and 
the  chief  results  which  follow  from  tlie  first  install- 
ment of  his  collations  are  here  for  the  first  time 
incorporated  in  its  history.  The  subject  will  be 
treated  under  the  following  heads:  — 

I.  The  Origin  and  History  of  the  najie 
Vulgate.     §§  1-3. 

II.  TnK  Old  Latin  Versions.  §§  4-13. 
Oi'igin,  4,  5.  Character,  6.  Canon,  7.  Revis- 
ions :  Itala,  8-11.     Remains,  12,  13. 

HI.  The  Labors  of  Jerojie.  §§  14-20. 
Occasion,  14.  Kevisioii  of  Old  Latin  of  N.  T., 
1-5-17.  Gospels,  15,  16.  Acts,  J'Jjiistks,  etc.,  17. 
Kevision  of  0.  T.  from  the  LXX.,  18,  19.  Trans- 
lation of  O.  T.  from  the  Hebrew,  20. 

iV.  The  History  of  Jerome's  Transla- 
tion to  the  Introduction  of  Printing. 
§§  21-24.  Corruption  of  Jerome''s  text,  21,  22. 
Kevision  of  Alcuin,  23.  Later  revisions:  divisions 
of  III  e  text,  24. 

V.  The  History  of  the  Printed  Text. 
§§  25-29.  Karly  editions,  25.  The  Sixtine  and 
( 'lementine  Vulgates,  26.  Their  relative  merits, 
27.      Later  editions,  28,  29. 

VI.  The  JIaterials  for  the  Revision  of 
Jerome's  Text.  §§  30-32.  MSS.  of  0.  T., 
30,  31.      Of  N.  T.,  32. 

VII.  The  Critical  Value  of  the  Latin 
Versions.  §§  33-39.  In  0.  T.,  33.  Jn  N.  T., 
34-38.  Jerome's  Kevision,  34-36.  The  Old  Latin, 
37.      Interpretation,  39. 

VIII.  The  Language  of  the  Latin  Ver- 
sions, §§  40-45.  Provincialisms,  41,  42.  Grce- 
cisms,  43.  Influence  on  Modern  Language, 
45. 

I.  The  Origin  and  History  of  the  name 
Vulgate.  —  1.  The  name  Vulgate,  which  is 
equivalent  to  VulgfUa  editio  (the  current  text  of 
Holy  Scripture),  has  necessarily  been  used  differ- 
ently in  various  ages  of  the  Church.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  phrase  originally  answered  to 
the  Kotvri  (kSoctis  of  the  Greek  Scriptures.  In  this 
sense  it  is  used  constantly  l>y  Jerome  in  his  Coni- 
menteries,  and  his  language  explains  sufficiently 
the  origin  of  the  term:  "  Hoc  juxta  LXX.  inter- 
pretes  diximus,  quorum  edilio  toto  orbe  rulgata 
est"  (Hieron.  Comm.  in  Is.  Ixv.  20).  "  Multum 
in  hoc  loco  LXX.  editio  Hebraioumque  discordant. 
Prinium  ergo  de.  Vidgata  editione  traotabimus  et 
postea  sequemur  ordineni  veritatis  "  (id.  xsx.  22). 
',11  some  places  Jerome  distinctly  quotes  the  Greek 
•ext:  "  Porro  in  editione  Vulgata  dupliciter  legi- 
Buis;  quidam  enim  codices  habent  StjAoi  dffiv, 
'we.  est  ni'inifesti  sunt :  alii  Sei\a7oi  €l<nv,  hoc  est 
c.eticulosi  sive  miseri  sunt  "  {Comm.  in  Osee,  vii. 
13:  comp.  8-11,  etc.).  But  generally  he  regards 
Ihe  Old  Lati'i.  which  was  rendered  from  the  LXX., 


VULGATE,  THE 

as  substantially  identical  with  it^  and  thus  intio- 
duces  Latin  quotations  under  the  name  of  the 
LXX.  or  Vulgata  editio :  "  .  .  .  .  niiror  quomodo 
vulgata  editio  ....  testimonium  alia  interpreta- 
tione    sub\erterit  :     Congregaboi'    et   glorifcabor 

coram.  Domino Illud  autem  quod  in  LXX. 

legitur:  Congregabor  et  glorificabor  coram  Domino 
.  .  .  .  "  {Comm.  in  Is.  xlix.  5).  So  again:  "  Phil- 
isthseos  ....  alienigenas  Vulgata  scribit  editio  " 
Cibiil.  xiv.  29).  "  .  .  .  .  PalKsthiis,  quos  indif- 
ferenter  LXX.  alienigenas  vocant "  {in  Ezek.  xvi. 
27).  In  this  way  the  transference  of  the  name 
from  the  current  Greek  text  to  the  current  Latin 
text  became  easy  and  natural;  but  there  does  not 
appear  to  be  any  instance  in  the  age  of  Jerome 
of  the  application  of  the  term  to  the  Latin  V^ersion 
of  the  (J.  T.  without  regard  to  its  derivation  from 
the  LXX.,  or  to  that  of  the  N.  T. 

2.  Yet  more:  as  the  phrase  KOivr\  ^kSoctis  caine 
to  signify  an  uncorrected  (and  so  corrupt)  text,  the 
same  secondary  meaning  was  attached  to  vulgata 
editio.  Thus  in  some  places  the  vulgata  editio 
stands  in  contrast  with  the  true  Hexapiaric  text 
of  the  LXX.  One  passage  will  place  this  in  the 
clearest  light:  "  .  .  .  .  breviter  admoneo  aliam 
esse  editioiiem  quam  Origenes  et  Cresariensis  Euse- 
bius,  omiiesque  (irsecire  translatores  koiv^v,  id  est, 
communem  appellant,  atque  vulgatam,  et  a  plerisqu* 
nunc  AouKiavhs  dicitur;  aliam  LXX.  interpretun 
qua3  in  k^anKols  codicibus  reperitur,  et  a  nobis  ir 
Latinum  sermonem  fideliter  versa  est  .  .  . 
Koiv))  autem  ista,  hoc  est,  Communis  editio,  ipsj 
est  quae  et  LXX.,  sed  hoc  interest  inter  utram 
que,  quod  kuivt]  pro  locis  et  temporibus  et  pre 
voluntate  scriptorum  vetus  corrupta  editio  est; 
ea  autem  quae  habetur  in  ({^airXols  et  quam  no» 
vertimus,  ipsa  est  quae  in  eruditorum  libris  in- 
corrupta  et  immaculata  LXX.  interpretum  trans- 
latio  reservatur"  (Ep.  cvi.  ad  Sun,  et  Fret 
§  2). 

3.  This  use  of  the  phrase  Vidgata  editio  to 
describe  the  LXX.  (and  the  Latin  Version  of  th? 
LXX.)  was  continued  to  later  times.  It  is  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  Augustine,  Ado  of 
Vienne  (a.  d.  860),  R.  Bacon,  etc.;  and  Bellarmin 
distinctly  recognizes  the  application  of  the  term, 
so  that  \'an  Ess  is  justified  in  saying  that  the 
Council  of  Trent  erred  in  a  point  of  history  when 
they  described  Jerome's  Version  as  "  vetus  et 
vulgata  editio,  qu£e  longo  tot  ssecidorum  usu  in 
ipsa  ecclesia  probata  est''  (Van  Ess,  Gesch.  Z\) 
As  a  general  rule,  the  Latin  Fathers  speak  of 
Jerome's  Version  as  "our  "  version  {nostra  editio, 
niistri  codices);  but  it  was  not  unnatural  that  the 
Tridentine  Fathers  (as  many  later  scholars)  should 
1ie  misled  by  the  associations  of  their  own  time, 
and  adapt  to  new  circumstances  terms  which  had 
grown  olisolete  in  their  original  sense.  And  when 
the  difference  of  the  (Greek)  "  Vulgate  "  of  the 
early  Church,  and  the  (Latin)  "Vulgate''  of 'the 
modern  Roman  Church  has  once  been  apprehended, 
no  further  diificulty  need  arise  from  the  identity 
of  name.  (Compare  Augustine,  Ed.  Benedict. 
Paris,  1836,  torn.  V.  p.  xxxiii.;  Sabatier,  i.  792; 
Van  Ess,  Gesch.  24-42,  who  gives  very  full  and 
conclusive  references,  though  he  fails  to  perceive 
that  the  Old  Latin  was  practically  identified  with 
the  LXX.) 

It.  The  Old  Latin  Versions.  — 4.  The  his- 
tory of  the  earliest  Latin  Version  of  the  Bible  i» 
lost  in  complete  oljscurity.  All  that  can  b« 
atRrmed  with  certainty  is  that  it  was  made    ii 


VULGATE,  THE 

Africa."  During  the  first  two  centuries  the 
Church  of  Rome,  to  which  we  naturally  look  for 
the  source  of  the  version  now  identified  with  it, 
was  essentially  Greel^  The  IJouian  bishops  bear 
Lireek  names ;  the  earliest  KuinaTi  liturgy  was 
Ljreek:  the  few  remains  of  the  Christian  literature 
t>f  Rome  are  Greek.''  The  same  remark  holds  true 
of  Gaul  (comp.  Westcott,  IlUt.  of  Omon  of  N.  T. 
pp.  209,270,  and  reff.);  Imt  the  Cluuc'h  of  N. 
Afiica  seems  to  have  been  Latin-speaking  Irom  the 
first.  At  what  date  this  Uliurch  was  founded  is 
uncertain.  A  passage  of  Augustine  (c.  Dowtt. 
A/).  37)  seems  to  imply  that  Africa  was  converted 
late;  but  if  so,  the  Gospel  spread  there  with  re- 
markable rapidity.  At  the  end  of  the  second 
century  Christians  were  found  in  every  rank,  and 
in  everyplace;  and  the  master-spirit  of  TertuUian, 
the  first  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  was  then  raised  up 
to  give  utterance  to  the  passionate  thoughts  of 
his  native  Church.  It  is  therefore  from  TertuUian 
that  we  nmst  seek  the  earliest  testimony  to  the 
existence  and  character  of  the  OU  Latin  (  Vtius 
lyiibia). 

5.  On  tlie  first  point  the  evidence  of  Tee- 
rLLLi.^.N,  if  candidly  examined,  is  decisive.  He 
distinctly  recognizes  the  general  currency  of  a 
Latin  Version  of  the  N.  T.,  though  not  necessarily 
of  every  book  at  present  included  in  tlie  Canon, 
whicli  even  in  his  time  had  been  able  to  n\ould  the 
popular  language  [adv.  Prax.  5 :  In  usu  est  iios-. 
trorum  per  simplicitatem  interpretationis  .... 
De  Monog.  11 :  Sciamus  plane  non  sic  esse  in 
Graeco  authentico  quoraodo  in  usum  exiit  per  dua- 
rum  syllabarum  aut  callidam  aut  simplicem  ever- 
sionem  ....).  This  was  characterized  by  a 
"rudeness"  and  "simplicity,"  which  seems  to 
point  to  the  nature  of  its  origin.  In  the  words 
of  Augustine  {De  doclr.  Christ,  ii.  16  (11)  ),  "  any 
one  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  who  gained 
possession  of  a  Greek  MS.,  and  fancied  that  be  had 
a  fair  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Latin,  ventured  to 
translate  it."  ((Jui  scripturas  ex  Hebraja  lingua 
in  Grjecam  verterunt  nuiiierari  possunt;  Latini 
.uitem  interpretes  iiuUo  modo.  Ut  enim  cuivis 
primis  fidei  temporibus  in  manus  venit  Codex 
(iraicus,  et  aliquantulum  tacultatis  sibi  utriusque 
liiiguas  habere  videliatur,  ausus  est  interpretari.) « 
Thus  the  version  of  the  X.  T.  appears  to  have 
arisen  from  individual  and  successive  efforts;  but  it 
does  not  follow  liy  any  means  that  munerous  ver- 
sions were  simultaneously  circulated,  or  that  the 
several  parts  of  the  version  were  made  indepen- 
dently.''  Even  if  it  had  been  so,  the  exigencies  of 
the  public  service  must  soon  have  given  definiteness 
and  substantial  unity  to  the  frairmentary  labors  of 
indi-.'iduals.  The  work  of  private  hands  would 
necessarily  be  subject  to  revision  for  ecclesiastical 
use.  The  separate  books  would  be  luiited  in  a 
volume;  and  thus  a  standard  text  of  the  whole 
collection  would  be  established.  With  regard  to 
the  0.  T.  the  case  is  less  clear.     It  is  probable  that 


VULGATE,  THE 


3453 


a  This  has  been  established  with  the  greatest,  full 
lesB  by  Card.  Wiseman,  Ttvo  Letters  on  1  John  v.  7, 
iddressed  to  the  editor  of  the  Oit/iolic  Mn<;itziite, 
1832,  183a  ;  republished  with  additious,  Rome,  1835  ; 
lud  again  in  his  collected  Essnits,  vol.  i  1853.  Eich- 
norn  and  ling  had  maintained  the  same  opinion  ; 
»d  Lachmaun  has  further  confirmed  it  (N.  T.  i 
Praf.). 

f>  In  the  absence  of  all  evidence  it  is  impossible  to 
say  how  Car  the  Christians  of  the  It)di:ui  provinces 
Ved  Che  Greek  or  Latin  language  habitually 


the  Jews  who  were  settled  in  N.  Africa  were  con- 
fined to  the  Greek  towns;  otherwise  it  ndght  be 
supposed  that  the  Latin  Version  of  the  O.  T.  is  in 
part  anterior  to  the  Christian  era,  and  that  (as  in 
the  case  of  Greek)  a  preparation  for  a  Christian 
Latin  dialect  was  already  made  when  the  Gospel 
was  introduced  into  Africa.  However  this  may 
have  l.een,  the  substantial  similarity  of  the  dif- 
ferent uarts  of  the  (JM  and  New  Testaments 
establishes  a  real  connection  between  them,  and 
justifies  the  belief  that  there  was  one  popular  Latin 
Version  of  the  Bible  current  in  Africa  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century.  Many  words  which 
are  either  Greek  (machajra,  sophia,  perizoma,  po- 
deris,  agonizo,  etc.)  or  literal  translations  of  Greek 
forms  (vivifico,  jnstifico,  etc.)  abound  in  both,  and 
explain  what  TertuUian  meant  when  he  spoke  of 
the  "  simplicity "  of  the  translation  (compare 
below  §  43). 

6.  I'he  exact  literality  of  the  Old  Version  was 
not  confined  to  the  most  minute  oIiserva]ice  of  or- 
der and  the  accurate  reflection  of  the  words  of  the 
original:  in  many  cases  the  very  forms  of  Greek 
construction  were  retained  in  violation  of  Latin 
usage.  A  few  examples  of  these  singular  anomalies 
will  convey  a  better  idea  of  the  absolute  certaint} 
with  which  the  Latin  commonly  indicates  the  text 
which  the  translator  had  before  him,  than  any  gen- 
eral statements:  Matt.  iv.  13,  habitavit  in  Caphar- 
naum  maritiiiinm ;  id.  15,  terra  Neptalim  vinm 
maris;  id.  25,  ab  Jerosolymis  .  .  .  .  et  trans  Jor- 
d.anem;  v.  22,  reus  erit  in  (jehenwttn  igrns;  vi.  19, 
ubi  tinea  et  co«jes<M?v{  externiinat  Mark  xii.  31, 
maj'iis  liontm  jyrceceploi-uin  aliud  non  est.  Luke  x. 
19,  nihil  vos  uocebit.  Acts  xix.  20,  non  solum 
Ephesi  sed  pfene  totius  Asice.  Rom.  ii.  15.  inter  se 
coyitittionuin  accusnntiuni  vel  etiani  defendentium. 

1  Cor.  vii.  32,  solicitus  est  quae  sunt  Domini.  It 
is  obvious  that  there  was  a  contiiuial  tendency  to 
alter  expressions  like  these,  and  in  the  first  age  of 
the  version  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  continual 
Grsecism  which  marks  the  Latin  texts  of  Dj  ( Cod. 
Bezie),  and  E^  (Cod.  Lnud.)  had  a  wider  currency 
than  it  coidd  maintain  afterwards. 

7.  With  regard  to  the  .\frican  Canon  of  the  N. 
T.  the  Old  Version  offers  important  evidence.  From 
considerations  of  style  and  language  it  seems  cer- 
tain that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  .James,  and 

2  Peter,  did  not  form  part  of  the  original  African 
Version,  a  conclusion  which  falls  in  with  that  which 
is  derived  from  historical  testimony  (comp.  The 
Hist,  of  the  Canon  of  the  N.  T.  p.'  282  ff.).  In 
the  O.  T.,  on  the  otlier  hand,  the  Old  Latin  erred 
by  excess  and  not  by  defect:  for  as  the  Version  waJi 
made  from  the  current  copies  of  the  LXX.  it  in 
eluded  the  Apocryphal  books  which  are  commonly 
contained  in  them,  and  to  these  2  Esdras  was  earli 
added. 

8.  After  the  translation  once  received  a  definite 
shape  in  Africa,  which  could  not  have  been  long 
after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  it  was  not 


c  Card.  Wiseman  has  shown  (E-isai/s,  i.  24,  26| 
that  '■  intcrpretor  "  and  "  verto  "  may  be  used  of  a 
revision ;  but  in  connection  with  iirimis  Ji'lei  tein- 
poribii.i  they  seem  certainly  to  describe  the  origin  of 
the  Version. 

'I  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  point  out  minuta 
differences  in  rendering  which  show  that  the  transla- 
tion wiis  the  work  of  different  hands.  Mill  (Proteus- 
521  IT.)  has  made  some  iuterrsting  collections  to 
establish  this  result,  but  he  places  too  much  reliance 
on  the  version  of  Di   (Cod.  Beael. 


B454 


VULGATE,  THE 


publicly  revised.  The  old  text,  was  jealously  guarded 
by  ecclesiastical  use,  and  was  retained  there  at  a 
time  when  Jerome's  Version  was  elsewhere  almost 
universally  received.  The  well-known  story  of  the 
disturbance  caused  by  the  attempt  of  an  African 
bishop  to  introduce  Jerome's  <■'■  cucm-bitn''^  for  the 
old  "  hedera  "  in  the  history  of  Jonah  (August. 
Ep.  civ.  ap.  Hierou.  Epp.,  quoted  by  Tregelles,  In- 
troduction^ p.  242)  shows  how  carefully  intentional 
changes  were  avoided.     But  at  the  same  time  the 


VULGATE,  THE 

text  sufTered  by  the  natural  corruptions  cf  copying, 
especially  liy  interpolations,  a  form  of  error  to 
which  the  Gospels  were  particularly  exposed  (com p. 
§  15).  In  the  O.  T.  the  veiijion  was  made  from 
the  unrevised  edition  of  the  LXX.  and  thus  from 
the  first  included  many  false  readings  of  which  Je- 
rome often  notices  instances  (e.  g.  Ep.  cvi.  ad 
Sun.  et  Fret.),  [n  Table  A  two  texts  of  the  Old 
Latin  are  placed  for  comparison  with  the  Vulgate 
of  Jerome. 


TABLE  A.     Dan.  ix.  4-8.« 
August.  Ep.  cxi.  ad  Victor. 
Precatus   sum    Dominum    Deum 

meum, 
et  coii/essiis  sum  et  dixi  : 
Domiue  Deus,  magne  et  mirabilis, 

et  qui  servas  testamentum  tuum, 
et  miserioorJiam  diligentibus  te, 
et  servantibus  prsecepta  tua 
Peccavimus,  wl versus  le^em  fecimus, 
impie   egimvs    et  rtcesshnus  et  Ue- 

chnavimus 
a  praeceptis  tuis  et  a  judicii.<!  tuis, 
et  nou    exaudivimus    servos    tuos 

prophetas, 
qui  loquebantur  in  nomine  tuo  ad 

reges  nostros, 

et  ad  omneni  pnpnlum  terrse, 

Tibi,  Doniine,  justitia: 

nobis  auteui 

confusio  faciei  ; 

Sicut  dies  hie  viro  Judn, 

et  hahiiantihus  Jerusalem, 

et  oniui  Isr.iel. 

qui  proximi  sunt  et  qui  longe  sunt, 

in  omni  tirra  iu  qua  eos  dissemi- 

n.asti  ibi, 
propter  contuniMciam  eorum, 
quia  improbacerunt  te,  Domiue. 

a  The  differences  in  the  two  first  columns  are  marked  by  Italics.  The 
Italics  iu  col.  3  mark  where  the  text  of  Jerome  differs  from  both  the  other 
texts. 


Cod.  Wirce}}. 
Precatus  sum  Dominum  Deum 

meum  et  dixi : 

Domine  Deus,  magne  et  mirabilis, 

qui  servas  testamentum  tuum, 
et  misericordiam  diligentibus  te, 
et  servantibus  prajcepta  tua  : 
Peccavimus,  fecimus  injurias, 
nocuimus.  et  decliuavimus 

a  praeceptis  tuis  et  a  judiciis  tuis, 
et  uou  exaudivimus  servos  tuos  pro- 

fetas. 
qui  loquebautur  ad  reges  nostros, 


«t  ad  ouines  populos  terree. 

Tibi,  Domine,  justitia  : 

nobis  auteui,  et  fratribus  nostris, 

confusio  faciei ; 

Sicut  dies  hie  viro  Jiidai 

et  inkabitantibus  Hierusaiem, 

et  omni  Israel, 

qui  proximi  sunt  et  qui  longe  sunt, 

in  qua  eos  disseminasti  ibi, 

contumacia  eorum, 

qua  exprobaverunt  tibi,  Domine. 


Vulgata  nova. 
Oraci  Dominum  Deum  meum, I 

et  confessus  sum  2  et  dixi : 

Obsecro  Domine  Deus,  magne  et  .«  - 
ribilis, 

custodims  pactum. 

et  misericordiam  diligentibus  te, 

et  custodientihus  mandata  tua  : 

Peccavimus,  iniquitatem  3  fecimus, 

impie  egimus.  et  recessimus  et  de- 
cliuavimus 

a  mandatis  tuis  nc  judiciis. 

Nou  obedivimus  servis  tuis  prophe- 
tis, 

qui  locuti  sunt  in  nomine  tuo  regi- 
bus  nostris, 

principibus  nostris,  patribus  nostris, 

omniquepopulo  terrae. 

Tibi,  Domine,  justitia  : 

nobis  autem  4 

confusio  faciei  ; 

Sicut  est  hodie  viro  Juda  * 

et  habitatoribus  Jerusalem, 

et  omni  Israel, 

his  qui  prope  sunt,  et  his  qui  prorul, 

in  universii  terns  ad  quas  ejecisti 
eos 

propter  iniquilates  eorum, 

in  quibus  peccaverunt  in  te. 

"  et  c.s.  om.  Tol 
4  a.  om.  Tol. 


1  m.  otn.  Tol. 
'  inique,  Tol. 
s  Judae,  Tol. 


9.  The  Latin  tran.slator  of  Irenceus  was  prob- 
ably contemporary  with  Tertullian,"  and  his  ren- 
derings of  the  quotations  from  Scripture  confirm 
the  conclusions  which  have  been  already  drawn  as 
to  the  currency  of  (substantially)  one  Latin  version. 
It  does  not  appear  that  he  had  a  Latin  JMS.  before 
him  during  the  execution  of  his  work,  but  he  was 
so  familiar  with  the  common  translation  that  he  re- 
produces continually  chai-acteristic  phrases  which 
he  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  derived  from  any 
other  source  (Lachniann,  N.  T.  i.  pp.  x.,  xi.). 
Cyprian  (t  a.  d.  257)  carries  on  the  chain  of  tes- 
timony far  through  the  nest  century;  and  he  is 
followed  by  Lactantius,  Juvencus,  J.  Firmicus  ISla- 
ternus,  Hilary  the  deacon  (Ambrosiaster),  Hil- 
ary of  Poitiers  (t  A.  D.  3G8),  and  Lucifer  of 
Casjiliari  (t  A.  d.  370).  Ambrose  and  Augustine 
exhibit  a  peculiar  recension  of  the  same  text,  and 
Jerome  offers  some  traces  of  it.  From  this  date 
ftlSS.  of  parts  of  the  African  text  have  been  pre- 
lerved  (§  12),  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  trace  the 
history  of  its  transmission  to  a  later  time. 

10.  But  while   the    earliest  Latin  Version  was 

a  It  should  be  added  that  Dodwell  places  him  much 
ater,  at  the  close  of  the  4th  cent.  Couip.  Grabe,  Pro- 
|'^;^.  ad  hen.  ii.  §  3. 

l>  It  is  unnecessary  now  to  examine  the  conjectures 


preserved  generally  unchanged  in  N.  Africa,  it  fared 
ditierently  in  Italy.  There  the  provincial  rudeness 
of  the  version  was  necessarily  more  offensive,  and 
the  comparative  familiarity  of  the  leading  bishops 
with  the  Greek  texts  made  a  revision  at  once  more 
feasible  and  less  startling  to  their  congregations. 
Thus  in  the  fourth  century  a  definite  ecclesiastical 
recension  (of  the  Gospels  at  least)  appears  to  have 
been  made  in  N.  Italy  by  reference  to  the  Greek, 
which  was  distinguished  by  the  name  of  Jtala. 
This  Augustine  recommends  on  the  ground  of  its 
close  accuracy  and  its  perspicuity  (.•\ug.  De  Doctr. 
Christ.  15,  ''in  ipsis  interpretationibus  Itala*  cseteris 
praeferatur,  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  per- 
spicuitate  sententise  "),  and  the  text  of  the  Gospels 
which  lie  follows  is  marked  by  the  latter  charac- 
teristic when  compared  with  the  African.  In  the 
other  books  the  difference  cannot  be  traced  witfc 
accuracy;  and  it  has  not  yet  been  accurately  deter- 
mined whether  other  national  recensions  may  not 
have  existed  (as  seems  certain  from  the  evidence 
which  the  writer  has  collected)  in  Ireland  (Britain), 
Gaul,  and  Spain. 


which  have  been  proposed,  usitnti-qua,  ilia  qua.  They 
were  made  at  a  time  when  the  history  of  the  Old  Latin 
was  unUnowu. 


VULGATE,  THE 

11.  The  Itala  appears  to  have  been  made  in 
tome  degree  with  authority :  other  revisions  were 
made  for  private  uae,  in  vhich  such  changes  were 
introduced  as  suited  tlie  taste  of  scribe  or  critic. 
Tlie  next  stage  in  tlie  deterioration  of  tlie  text  was 
the  intermixture  of  these  various  revisions;  .so  that 
it  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  the  Gospels  were 
in  such  a  state  as  to  call  for  that  final  recension 
which  was  made  by  .lerouie.  Wliat  was  the  nature 
of  this  confusion  will  be  seen  from  the  accompany- 
ing  tables  (B  and  G,  on  nest  page)  more  clearly 
thau  from  a  lengthened  descriiition. 

12.  The  MSS.  of  the  Old  Latin  which  have  been 
preserved  exhibit  the  various  forms  of  that  version 
vhich  have  been  already  noticed.  Those  of  the 
Gospels,  for  the  reason  which  has  been  given,  pre 
gent  the  different  types  of  text  with  unmistakable 
clearness.  In  the  O.  T.  tlie  MS.  remains  are  too 
gtanty  to  allow  of  a  satisfactory  classification. 

i.  aiSS.  of  the  Old  Latin  Version  of  the  0.  T. 

1.  Fragments  of  Gen.  (xxxvii.,  xxxviii.,  xli., 
xlvi.,  xlviii.-l.,  parts)  and  Ex.  (x  ,  xi.,  xvi., 
xvii.,  xxiii.-xxvii.,  parts)  from  Cod.  E.  (§  30) 
of  the  Vulgate  :  \'ercellone,  i.  pp.  183-84, 
307-10. 

2.  Fragments  (scattered  verses)  of  the  Penta- 
teuch :  Miinter,  Miscell.  [lafn.  1821,  pp. 
89-9.5. 

■3.  Fragments  (scattered  verses  of  1,  2  Sam. 
and  1,  2  Kings," and  the  Canticles),  given 
by  Sabatier. 

4.  Corbel.  7,  Soec.  xiii.  (Sabatier),  Esther. 

5.  Pechianus  (Sabatier),  Fragm.  Ksther. 

6.  Or.at.  (Sabatier),  Esther  i.-iii. 

7.  Majoris  Jlonast.  Saec.  xii.  (Martianay,  Sa- 
batier), Job. 

8.  Sangerra.  Psalt.  Saec.  vii.  (Sabatier). 

9.  Fragments  of  Jeremiah  (xiv.-sli.,  detached 
verses),  E^iekiel  (xl.-xlviii.,  detached  frag- 
ments). Daniel  (iii.  15-23,  3.3-50,  viii.,  xi., 
fragments),  Hosea  (ii.-vi.,  fragments),  from 
i  palimpsest  .MS.  at  Wiirzburg  (Sac.  vi., 
vii.):  Miinter,  Miscell.  ILifn.  1821. 

11.  Fragmenta   Hos.  Am.  Mich ed. 

E.  Eanke,  1858,  &c.     (This  I'ook  the  writer 
has  not  seen.) 

12.  Bodl.  Auct.  F.  4,  32.  Fragments  of 
Deuteronomy  and  the  Prophets,  "  Greece  et 
Latine  litteris  Saxonicis,"  Saec.  viii.,  is." 

ii.  MSS.  of  the  Apocryphal  book.s. 

1.  Reg.  3504,  Saec.  ix.  (Sabatier),  Tob.  and 
Jud. 

2,  3.  Sangerm.  4,  15,  Saec.  ix.  (Sabatier), 
Tob.  and  .Jud. 

4.  Vatic.  (Reg.  Suec),  Ssec.  vii.,  Tob. 

5.  Corliei.  7  (Sabatier),  Jud. 

6.  Pechian.   (Sabatier),  Saec.  x.,  Jud. 

The  text  of  the  remaining  l)Ooks  of  the  Vetus 
Lntiiin  not  having  been  revised  bv  Jerome 
is  retained  in  MSS.  of  tlie  Vulgate. 


VULGATE,  THE 


3455 


3  To  th38e  must  probably  be  added  the  MSS.  of 
3enesis  and  the  Psalter  ia  the  possession  of  Lord  Ash- 
burnham,  said  to  be  "  of  the  fourth  century."  • 

The  t«xt  of  the  Oxford  MS.  (No.  12)  is  extremely 
intereatiug.  and  offers  many  coincidences  with  the  ear- 
jest  African  readings.  The  passages  cont;tiiMd  in  it 
ire  (a)  Deut.  xxxi.  7  ;  24-30  ;  xxxii  1-4.  (^)  Uos.  ii. 
18  «  ;  iv.  1-3  a  :  9  a  ;  vi.  1 6, 2 ;  16  ;  x.  12  n  ;  xii  6  :  viii. 
5.  4.  Amos  iii.  8  ;  v.  3  ;  14.  Mich.  iii.  2 ;  iv.  1,2; 
«  (part) ;  V.  2  ;  vi.  8  ;  vii.  6,  7.  Joel  iii.  18.  Obad. 
15.  Jou.  i.  8  «,  9.  Nah.  iii.  13.  Hab.  ii  4  6  ;  iii.  3. 
fieihan.  i.  14-16;  IS  (part).     Agg.  ii.  7,  8.     Zech.  i. 


iii.   MSS.  of  the  N.  T. 
(1.)  Of  the  Gospels. 

African  {i.  e.  unrevised)  text. 

a.  C"d.  rc/'ce/ie?is/s,  at  Vercelli,  mitten 
by  Eusebius,  bishop  of  VerceDi  hi  tlie 
4th  cent.  Published  by  Irici,  1748, 
and  Bianchini,  Ev.  Qaadr.  1749. 
6.  Cod.  Veronensis,  at  Verona,  of  the  4th 
or  5th  cent.  Published  by  Bianchini 
(as  above). 

c.  Cod.  Colbeiiinus,  in  Bibl.  Imp.  at 
Paris,  of  the  11th  cent.  Published  by 
Sabatier,   Versinnes  antiqiioe. 

d.  Cod.  Cldroinonlanus,  in  the  Vatican 
Libr.,  of  the  4th  or  5th  cent.  It  con- 
tains a  great  part  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
is  mainly  African  in  character.  Pu))- 
lished  liy  jMai,  Script,  vtt.  mi:  Coll. 
iii.  1828. 

€.  Cod.  Viiidjbohens'S,  at  Vienna,  of  5th 
or  Gth  cent.  It  contains  fragments  ol 
St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.  Edited  by 
Alter  in  two  German  periodicals. 

/.  Cod.  BobUensis,  at  Turin,  of  the  5th 
cent.  It  contains  parts  of  St.  Mat- 
thew and  St.  Mark.  The  chief  parts 
published  by  Tiscliendorf  in  the  Jakr- 
biicher  d.  Literatur.  Vienna,  1847  if. 
The  text  is  a  remarkable  revision  of 
the  African. 

g.  The  readings  of  a  Speculum,  published 
by  Mai,  Patvum  nova  colleclio,  i.  2, 
1852.  Conip.  Tregelles,  Introduction, 
240. 

h.  Cod.  Sdngallensis,  of  the  5th  or  4th 
cent.  It  contains  fragments  of  St. 
lifatthew  and  St.  Mark.  Transcribed 
by  Tischeiidorf. 

t.  (jod.  Palut.,  at  Vienna,  of  the  5th 
cent.  Published  by  Tischdf.  1847.  A 
very  important  j\IS.,  containing  St. 
John,  and  St.  Luke  neaily  entire,  and 
considerable  parts  of  the  other  Gos- 
pels. 

To  these  must  lie  added  a  very  remark- 
able fi'agment  of  St.  Luke  pulilished 
by  A.  M.  Ceriani,  from  a  MS.  of  the 
6th  cent,  in  the  Ambrosian  Libr.  at 
Slilan:  Moiium.  Sacra,  ....  1801; 
and  a  purple  fragment  at  Dublin 
(Sasc.  V.)  containing  Matt.  xii.  13-23, 
puijlished  by  Dr.  Todd  in  Proceed- 
inffs  of  R.  I.  A.  iii.  374. 

k.    Cod.  Corbtiensis,  St.  Matt.     Edited 
by  Martianay  and  Sabatier. 
Italic  revision.* 

I.  Cod.  Brixianus,  of  tliedth  cent.  The 
best  type  of  the  llnlic  text.  Published 
by  Bianchini,  I.  c.  Comp.  Lachni. 
N.  T.  i.  Prisf.  xiv. 

4  (part) ;  viii.  16,  17,  19  6  .•  is.  9  ;  xili.  6  ;  7.  Mai.  i. 
6  (part),  10  6, 11  ;  ii.  7;  iii.  1.  Zech.  ii.  8  6/  Mab  iv 
2,  13  ;  5.  6  a.  (y)  Qeu  i.  1-ii.  3  :  Ex.  xiv.  24-xv.  S , 
Is.  iv.  1-v.  7  ;  Iv.  1-5 ;  Ps.  xli   1-4  ;  Oeii.  xxii.  1-19. 

6  The  critical  value  of  these  revised  ante-Hiero- 
nymiaii  t»'Xts  is  unduly  underrated,  iiach  recension, 
lis  the  representative  of  a  revi.<ion  of  tlie  >  dest  te\t 
by  the  help  of  old  Greek  MSS..  is  perhaps  i.ot  iufe- 
rior  to  the  recension  of  Jerome  ;  and  tlie  .M.SS.  in 
which  tbev  are  .severally  contJiined.  though  nuiiier 
ically  inferior  to  Vulgate  M5?  ,  are  scarcely  inferior  i* 
voal  authority. 


3456  VULGATE,  THE 


S         £  =  ' 


»    «!  -S    l-.i:  a  .-S  5         -a       S       -2  S  S         £.«•-   - 


=  ? 


S-5, 


la    ■§     S  .  ^     S--        «    lis     2^  =  3  ^  =  ~        g=|       -3        Sg.        I        II  1..=  --; 

Ills   It      lil-cisll   c||l|5.s|  I        1-^'!<„gl1lis  '^"lils-2     I   is-|      |sT| 


•-  f    •-  S*  lif  IS-=^Jli'l'|5.||i|     g  lis  "1.2    sgll 

1^'  -s  a    I  =3  I     i  I  -s        ; -. ^  iici 

^"  I -I   ,'ll5   I     Pil=i  IIJ  I  i       I       I   «     -III  ■         ^      ^"'' 


i« -SI'S  =  5,1  S3  '-e-s    5  =  s  ^•■l-l's"?  S^?  2 


.S_=l3     £ 


„ -  S  =-t  ; 

|iP      1^    'it: 


.«■?    -a     2  _-•§  =  £...     gc    •=. 


:-S  e  ' 


»  S  5     =  ^"'^  =  3  ^  "'"     =  li'S  £  a  "■-  "g  g.i 
g_^>  3  =-=  c  5  c.M.j  I  s  ;    '°.£  ^.2  «  I  £-5  oi 

"_       J    £^.=  ?-z  2  i  ~  o  i  =  =-S  t=>  J*^ 
CO        <<    "^  ?.-Si5^'i  ;  a  5  ^5-^*   =  fc'2j 


■=         us  o  a  g.a 


•".S  o  >  H~ -;3'"S.u  <=■«>     5-^.c  -  =  ~  c  3  _  =^  -S        ^   t5  »  o      «■«      roS      =•-     .2.2'''         =        -S-a  '^  5  E 


■2  S5=*.i:  aSu 

I    I       1.11    -2       I    1.1   I 


M— •-  £'>:^  =0    S  -    .0 
.s:=a3C'w3       .5      •" 

"S-*,^  ~  5i -— 5  i:  2'^^  =-~  K  P  a     ^  S-- -  "  -  «       ■-t.j  ^ 

IfL  I II    I    li^      i  P     l^^l 

§lhs1^     £Sl     -•=    iSii        .»    fir      ■li-a-S 


N  -il.l 


is  a    a  £^•-'0  §■=  S'c  a  :=-=,;  is"?         ptaa-c-S'-"   ■g.J'i'I 


5"Pi  iii-J-i  iili  !i|£|l!       lilllllllliiir'il  !llilii  111^ 


_i-iiicu     ?=a:..5ie     oSP5     ^^SSCo-^  -c  S  £  S  a,t:'- S 

er=-^l  =  ^  i!~l!i  lag!  i^i5-=|^  £  (g  -g^^     ^  ^^       H    K^  >  i^p 

^ ^ i       I     a                              a      S  =  «A 

-    o     „        -SS       -3        a     g                             a  -o-S       ^     If3                                 sis         2?--c3 

■  ^     e    s    ,^<s~2     e        -so..-        «    a  i?^-?        a.-"a                              2«S?         ^^=8 

33    'S     a    --SSS-s    ■■'        g     Si     fe    ■=        5.2  fc2g«     ~S.2c3                              s »     a  =,             -a- 

»:^      £     .o     --Sc^S      S        .g      gc:     .~      2^a'."t>  "-S  g'S     ^  i  a  5'^ 

~-3    .a     3  .'SaSl     §        J   .2=     ■§    '"•-■S^    •  1:<£.S  ^^"-iS  3  5 

5>  a     o  ^— c.S  " --3     I        ce  5  ;  3"   -S     S.^  e.g  .g  Ka;"?  2  3-73  "" 

l^S  ..._  i-S  =  S  =  =  H     -s   -     aa^S     .aS-Se.Sl-  '-SxhiiuS" 


--cl.   1     slel   •  ot|-3  2"b-=2g3  e5    Zs-g      "i  =;3 

^§sSgS.g-S  =  sg..S-s    gg|3    5|is-g|  ^ra-5.lrSiS3  §-i2||ls  lis 2 

sfiiiiti  111=  itiil£ii.^l  sliii!1iii  li|l;.ll|ll 

°'|2iB--5?-='='»  =  p      3--Pa     -20:2213  ^2g^-3a'-''?-5|  •'X^ao^^g    iSoSS 


VULGATE,  THE 

m.    Cod.    MoiiKcetinis,   of  the   6th  cent. 
Transcribed  by  Tischeiiclorf. 
Irish  (British)  revisioii." 

(a.)  C'ainhridge  (J?iiv.  Libr.  Kk.  1,  24. 
Soec.  viii. '?  St.  Luke,  i.  IS-eiul,  and 
St.  ,(ohn,  i.  18-xx.  17.  Beiitley's  X. 
Capitula  wanting  in  St.  Luke;  xiv.  in 
St.  John.  No  Animonian  Sections 
(Plate  ii.  fiy;.  1.) 

(y3.)  C.'anibridi;e  ■Unw.  Libr.  Ti.  6,  .32. 
Saec.  viii.-x.  Tlie  Book  of  Deer. 
St.  Matt,  i.-vii.  23.  St.  Mark,  i.  1, 
V.  36.  St.  Luke,  i.  1,  iv.  2.  St.  John, 
entire.  Very  many  old  and  peculiar 
reading.?.  Nearer  Vulg.  than  (a),  but 
very  carelessly  written.  No  .\inmonian 
Sections    or   Capitula.     Belonged    to 

■I  It  would  be  impossible  to  enter  in  detail  iu  the 
present  place  into  the  peculiarities  of  the  text  presented 
by  this  group  of  MSS.  It  will  be  ob.served  that  copie.s 
ire  included  in  it  which  represent  historically  the 
Irish  (j),  e).  Scorch  (^),  Mercian  (^),  Northumbrian  (S), 
and  —  if  we  may  trust  the  very  uncerbiin  tradition 
which  represents  the  Gospels  of  St.  Chad  as  written  by 
Gildas  (comp.  Lib.  Uindav.  p.  615,  ed.  1840)  —  \Velsh 
churcbe.-i.  Beutley.  who  had  collated  more  or  less 
completely  four  of  them,  ob.served  their  coincidence 
in  remarkable  readings,  but  the  individual  differences 
cf  the  copies,  no  less  tluin  their  wide  range  both  in 
place  and  age,  exclude  the  idea  that  all  were  derived 
fi'om  one  source.  They  stand  out  as  a  remarkable  mon- 
ument of  the  independence,  the  antiquity,  and  the  in- 
fluence of  British  (Irish)  Christianity. 

For  the  present  it  must  suffice  to  give  a  few  special 
readings  which  show  the  extent  and  character  of  the 
variations  of  this  family  from  other  families  of  MSS. 
The  notation  of  the  text  is  preserved  for  the  sake  of 
brevity. 

Matt.  viii.  24.  —  Fluctibus -|- era<  uutem  (enim  y) 
I'Jis  vpiitu^  contrarius  (contr.  vent,  f)  (y  6  e  ^). 

Matt.  X.  29.  —  Sine  voLunlnie  Dei  palris  cestri  qui 
in  ccBlis  est  (sine  p.  vol.  q.  e.  in  c.  e).  Sine  p.  v.  vol. 
qui  inc.  e.  ^**.  Sine  patre  vestro  voluntate,  etc.,  ^* 
(y  e  ^).      ^ 

Matt.  xiv.  8.5.  —  Loci  iUius  venerunt  et  [ova.  ven.  et. 
S  f]  aiioraverunt  eum  et  {&  e  ^). 

Matt,  xxvii.  49.  — Alius  nutem  accepta  lanceapupu- 
git  (pupungit)  latus  ejus  et  exit  (-iit  -ivit)  arjua  et  san- 
guis (y  6  f). 

Mark  xiii.  18.  —  Ut  hieme  nnn  fiat  (-et)  fu^a  vestra 
(ySe)  vel  sabbato  (5  e),  ut  non  fra  (sic) /«g-a  vestra 
hieme  vel  sabbato  (^). 

Luke  xxiii.  2.  —  Nostram  +  et  solventem  legem  {-\- 
nostram  ^)  et  prophet  as  (5  e  ^). 

Luke  xxiv.  1.  —  Ad  mon.  -|-  Maria  Ma-^dalena  et 
tltfra  Maria  et  qumilam  cum  eis  (S  e). 

John  xix.  30.  —  Cam  aiitem  ex/iiravit  (asp.  e  trdisct 
spm  (sic)  ^)  velamenlum  (velum  a  e  ^)  tem/di  scissum 
est  medium  a  summo  usque  (ad  a)  itearsum  (aye  ^). 

John  xxi.  6.  —  Invenielis  -)-  Dixerunl  autem  Per  to- 
tarn  noctem  tahorantes  nihil  cepimus :  in  verba  autfm 
tiio  mittimus  (laxttemus  [sic  i.  e.  laxabimus]  rete  e, 
mitemus  (sic)  ^)  (y  e  ()■ 

Other  readings  more  or  less  characteristic  are  Matt. 
ii.  14,  matrem  om  ejus  :  ii.  15,  est  om  a  Domino ;  iv.  9, 
vade  -j- retro  ;  iv.  6,  de  te  -|-  ut  custoiliant  te  in  om- 
nibus vii.^  tuis ;  V.  5,  lugent  -\-  nunc ;  v.  48,  sicut 
p.iter  ;  vi.  13,  paliaris  nos  int/uci,  etc. 

As  a  more  continuous  specimen  the  following  read- 
ings occur  in  one  chapter  in  the  Hereford  Gospels  in 
which  this  Latin  t<xt,  with  a  few  others  only,  agreeS 
jloiiely  with  the  Qienk  :  Luke  xxiv.  (3,  esset  in  Gul. 
7,  tertia  die ;  16.  iignoscerent  eum  :  20,  tradiderunl 
(j/m  .-  24,  vidernnt  ;  28,  fin.zit  loii^ius  ire;  38.  qunre 
Xogitationes  :  39.  prdrs  meos  :  44.  h<er  sunt  vrba  mi  a 
*ua  locutus  sum  ad  vos.     Other  remarkable  readings  in 


VULGATE,  THE 


3457 


monks  of  Deer  in  Aberdeenshire 
Conip.  JMr.  H.  Bradshaw  in  tht 
Printed  Catahgue.iJ    [See  p.  3482  «.] 

(•y.)  Lichfield,  Book  of  St.  Clnid.  Saec. 
viii.  St.  Matt.,  St.  Mark,  and  St. 
Luke,  i.-iii.  9.     Bentley's  ^y. 

(5.)  Oxford,  Bodi.  D.  24  (-3946).  Saec. 
viii.  Tlie  Gospels  if  Moc  Regol,  or 
the  Rusliworlh  MS.  Bentley's  x- 
No  Capit.,  Sect.,  or  Prefaces.  A  col- 
lation of  the  Latin  text  in  the  Lindis- 
farne  text  of  St.  Matt,  and  St.  Mark 
(conip.  p.  3475,  note  «),  together  with 
the  Northumbrian  gloss,  has  been  pub- 
lished l)y  Rev.  J.  Stevenson.  Defi- 
cient Luke  iv.  29-viii.  38.<^ 

(e.)  Oxford,   C.  C.  CoU.  122.     Saec.  x., 

the  same  passage  are  8,  horum  verborum  ;  18,  Respon 
dens  unus  om.  et  ;  21,  quo  hcBC  omnia  ;  27,  et  erat  in 
cipiens  :  29,  inclinala  est  dies  jam, 

K  comparison  of  the  few  readings  from  the  Gospels 
given  iu  the  Epistle  of  GiLD.ts  according  to  the  Cam- 
bridge MS.  ([/>i(y.  Libr.  Dd.  1,  17),  for  the  text  in 
Stevenson's  edition  is  by  no  means  accurate,  shows 
some  interesting  coincidences  with  these  Irish  (Brit- 
ish) .MSS.  (For  the  explanation  of  the  additional  ref- 
erences see  §  31.) 

.Matt.  V.  15.  —  Supra  y  a  e  f  K  W  F  (6)  ;  v.  16,  mag- 
nificint  6  («,  b)  ;  ^  19,  qui  enim  y  e  P  (a,  b)  ;  vii.  2, 
judicahitiir  de  vobis  e  (a,  b)  ;  vii.  3.  xibn  consideras  (a) ; 
vii.  4,  ill  oculo  tuo  est  y ;  vii.  6,  misfritis  (a,  6)  ;  vii. 
15,  atteudite  -)-  vobis  y  &  ^  {b)\  vii.  17,  bonus  frurtus 
6  0  (a,  b);  id  et  mala  malos ;  vii.  23,  operarii  iniqui- 
taiis(n);  vii.  27,  i»ipif(erunt  0  ;  x.  28,  (t  corj/us  et 
aniiiiam,  e,  c.  et  an.  y  S  ;  Xv.  14,  ceeci  duces  sunt  ;  xvi. 
18,  infirm  y  S  e  f  B  II  0  Z  K  <^  (a)  ;  xvi.  19,  qiirrcun- 
que  ;  ill.  eriint  ligata  5  (b) ;  xxiii.  3,  vera  opera  &  ( (\)  ; 
id.,  et  ipsi  non  f .  5  e  ^{b)  \  xxiii.  13,  qui  claud.  D.  id., 
vos  autem  6  ^  II  0  (^. 

Thus  of  twenty-one  readings  which  differ  from  Cod. 
Ain.  thirteen  are  given  in  one  or  other  of  those  MSS. 
which  have  been  supposed  to  present  a  typical  British 
(Irish)  text,  and  of  these  eleven  are  found  in  the 
Rushivorlk  M'Si.  a.\oxie.  While  on  the  other  hand  nine 
readings  agree  with  Cod.  Veron.  and  seven  with  Cod. 
YerrelL,  and  every  reading  is  supported  by  some  old 
authority.  Thus,  though  the  range  of  comparison  is 
very  limited,  the  evidence  of  the.se  quotations,  as  far 
as  it  goes,  supports  the  belief  in  a  distinct  British 
text. 

In  the  Evangelic  quotations  in  the  printed  text  ol 
St.  Patrick,  out  of  seventeen  variations,  eight  (as  far 
as  I  can  find)  are  supported  by  no  known  I^atiu  au 
thority  :  the  remainder  are  found  in  y,  S,  e  or<^.  Ba- 
CHiARius  I  have  not  been  able  to  examine,  though  his 
writings  are  not  unlikely  to  offer  some  illustrations  of 
the  early  text. 

Sedulius  ( Opus  Pnschalej,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected from  his  foreign  training,  gives  in  the  main  a 
pure  Vulgate  text  in  his  quotations  from  the  Vulgate. 
When  he  differs  from  it  {e.  g.  Luke  x.  19,  20  ;  John 
xi.  43,  prodi),  he  often  appears  to  quote  from  memory, 
and  differs  from  all  MSS. 

The  quotations  given  at  length  in  the  British  copy 
of  Juveucus  (Camb.  Unii\  Li'6r.  Ff.  4,  42)  would  prob 
ably  repay  a  careful  examination. 

''  This  MS.,  in  common  with  many  Irish  MSS.  (e.g 
Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1802,  2796,  the  Book  of  MacDurnan, 
and  some  others,  as  Harl.  1775,  Cotton.  Tib.  A  ii.)  sepa- 
rates the  geuealogy  in  St.  Matt,  from  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel,  closing  v.  17  with  the  words  Finit  Prologus, 
and  then  adding  Incipit  Evangelium. 

c  The  reading  of  this  MS.  in  Matt,  xxi  28  ff.  is  very 
remarkable  :  Homo  quidam  habebat  duos  filios  et  ac- 
cedens  ad  primum  dixit  fill  vade  operaro  in  viam  • 
I  meaui    ille  autem  respondons  dixit  eo  dne  et  o»n  iil 


B458  VULGATE,  THE 

xi.  ?    Beiitley's  C.     Has  Canons  and 
Prefaces,  but  no  Sect,  or  Capit. 
(^,)  Hereford  (/S«a;o?i)  Gospels.   Saec.  viii. 
(ix.).     The    four    Gospels,    with    two 
small     lacunje.     Without      Prefaces, 
Canons,     Capitula,     or    Sections.     A 
very    important    copy,    and    probably 
British  in  origin."     (Plate  ii.  fig.  5.) 
(,,.)    The  Rook  of  Armayh  (all  N.  T.), 
Trin.  Coll.  Dublin :  written  A.  d.  807. 
Comp.   Proceedings  of  R.    I.  A.  iii. 
pp.  316,  356.     Sir  W.  Betham,  Irish 
Aniiq.  Researches,  iifi 
(9.)  A   copy    found    in    the    Domhnach 
Airt/id  (Royal  I.  Acad.),  Ssec.  v.,  vi. 
Comp.  Petrie,    Transactions  of  R.  I. 
A.,  xviii.  1838.     O'Curry's  Lectures, 
Dublin,  1861,  pp.  321  ff.,  where  a  fac- 
simile is  given. 
((.)  (/c)  I'wo  copies  in  Trin.  Coll.  Dublin, 
said  to  be  "  ante-Hieronymian,   Sffic. 
vii."  c 
To  these  must  be  added  a  large  numlier  of  Irish, 
Including  under   this    term    Noith '  British   MSS., 
which  exhibit  a  text  more  nearly  approaching   the 
Vulgate,  but  yet  with  characteristic  old  readings. 
Such  are :  — 

Brit.  Mus.,  Bail.  1802.     Ssc.  x.-xii.     A.  d. 

1138?     Prefaces  all  at  th#  beginning.     No 

Cajniida  or  Sections.    Bentle)  "s  W.    (Plate 

ii.  fig.  4.) 

Brit.   Mus.,  Ilarl.  1023.     Secc.  x.-xii.  ?     No 

Capitula  or  Sections.     (Plate  ii.  fig.  3.) 
Lambeth.       The    Book    of    Mac    Durnan.'l 
Sffic.  X.     Has  Sections,  but  no  Prefiices  or 
Canons. 
Dublin,  T.  C  C.      The  Book  of  K ells.    Ssec. 

viii. 
Dublin,  T.  a  a    The  Book  of  Burrow.  Ssec. 
■     viii. 
Dublin,  T.  C.  C.    The  Book  of  Dimma.    Saec. 

viii. 
Dublin,    T.    C.    C.      The    Book   of  Moling. 
Soec.  viii.^ 
GalUcan  (?)  revision./ 

Brit.  Mus.,  Eijerton,  609,  formerly  Majm-is 
Monasterii ;  iv.  Gospp.  deficient  from 
Mark  vi.  56  to  Luke  xi.  1.  .This  JIS.  is 
called  7nm,  and  classified  under  ^^ulgate 
MSS.  in  the  editions  of  the  N.  T.,  but  it 
has  been  used  only  after  Calmet's  very  im- 
perfect collation,  and  offers  a  distinct  type 
of  text.  Prmf.  Can.     No  Capitula. 


•ccedenB  autem  ad  alterum  dixit  similiter  at  ille  re- 
Bpondeng  ait  nolo,  postea  autem  poenitentia  niotus  abiit 
in  Tiuiam.*  quis  ex  duob  :  fecit  voluntatem  patris. 
iicunt*  novissimus. 

a  For  tlie  opportunity  of  examining  this  MS.  the 
writer  is  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  the  Rev.  J.  Jebb, 
i).  D.,  Canon  of  Hereford. 

6  This  MS.  contains  the  Ep.  to  the  Laodicenes,  with 
the  note  Sr.rl  Uininumus  earn  negat  esse  Paiili  : 
Betham,  ii.  263.  The  stichometry  is  as  follows :  Ula- 
t.'ieus  versus  hahet  MMDCC,  Marcus  MDCC,  Lucas 
MMDCCC,  Jo/munis  MMCCC.     Id.  p.  318.* 

c  Dr.  Reeves  undertook  to  publish  the  text  of  the 
B(Ok  of  jVrmagh,  with  collations  of  i,  k,  and  other 
MSS.  in  T.  C.  D.,  but  the  writer  has  been  unable  to 
l<jarn  whether  he  vrill  carry  out  his  design.  The  MSS. 
I)  -K  the  writer  knows  only  by  description,  and  very 
bnpertectly. 

''  Fae-similes  of  many  of  these  "  Irish  "  MSS.  .art 
{iren  in  \Vestwood"8   Paltr.ographia  Sacra  and  in  D' 


VULGATE,  THE 

(2.)  Of  the  Acts  and  Epistles. 

n.  Cod.  Bobbiensis,  at  Vienna.  A  few 
fragments  of  the  Acts  and  Cath.  Epp 
Edited  by  Tischendorf,  JahrOiicher  d 
Lit.  1.  c. 

0.  Cod.  Corbel,  a  IMS.  of  Ep.  of  St 
James.  Published  by  jMartianay,  1695 

p.  (Of  St.  Paul's  Epp.)  Cod.  Clitrotn. 
the  Latin  text  of  D2.  Published  b} 
Tischendorf. 

q.  (Of  St.  Paul's  Epp.)  Cod.  Sangerm., 
the  Latin  text  of  K,^,  said  to  have  an 
independent  value,  but  imperfectly 
known. 

J-.  (Of  St.  Paul's  Epp.)  Cod.  Botrn.,  the 
Latin  text  of  Go.  is  in  the  main  an 
old  copy,  adapted  in  some  points  to 
the  Greek. 

s.   (See  Gospels. ) 

t.  Fragments  of  St.  I'aul's  Epistles  tran- 
scribed at  Muineh  by  Ti.scliendorf 

u,  r.  (Acts)  the  Latin  text  of  Dj  and  Eg 
(Cod.  lieziti  and  Cod.  Laud.). 
To  these  must  be  added,  from  the  result  of  a 
partial  collection  [collation  ?] :  — 

xi.  Oxford,  Bodl.  .3418  (Seklen,  30) 
Acts.  Ssec.  viii.,  vii.  An  uncial  MS 
of  the  highest  interest.  Deficient  xiv 
20,  fdei — XV.   32,  cum  essent.  Bentl. 

•  j^o.  Among  its  characteristic  readings 
may  be  noticed:  v.  34,  foras  modicum 
apostolos  secedere;  ix.  40,  surge  in 
nomine  Domini  Ihu  Xti. ;  xi.  17,  ne 
daret  illis  Spiritum  Sanctum  credenti- 
bus  in  nomine  Ihu  Xti.;  xiii.  14, 
Paulus  et  Barnabas;  xvi.  1,  et  cum 
circuisset  has  nationes  pervenit  in 
Derben.     (Plate  i.  fig.  4.) 

X2  Oxford,  Bo'll.  Laud.  Lat.  108  (E, 
67).  Saec.  ix.  St.  Paul's  Epp.  in 
Saxon  letters.  Ends  Hebr.  xi.  34, 
aciem  gUidii.  Corrected  apparently 
by  three  hands.  The  original  text 
was  a  revision  of  the  Old  Latin,  but  it 
has  been  much  era.sed.  In  many  cases 
it  agrees  with  d  almost  or  quite  alone: 
e.  g.  Rom.  ii.  14,  16,  iii.  22.  20,  x.  20, 
XV.  13,  23,  27.  30.  The  I^instles  to 
Thess.  are  placed  before  the  1'.]).  to 
Coloss.  This  arrangen.ent,  which  is 
given  by  Augustine  (De  Doctr.  Christ. 
ii.  13),  appears  to  have  prevailed  in 
early  English    MSS.,  and   occurs    in 


Curry's  Lectures.  The  text  of  most  of  them  (even  of 
those  collated  by  Beutley)  is  very  imperfectly  known, 
and  it  pas.«es  by  a  very  gradual  transition  into  the  or- 
dinary type  of  Vulgate.  The  whole  question  of  the 
general  character  and  the  specific  varieties  of  these 
MSS.  requu'cs  careful  investigation.  The  Tal'le,(F, 
will  give  some  idea  of  their  variations  from  the  com- 
mon text.  The  Stow  St.  John,  at  present  in  Lord 
Ashburnham's  collection,  probably  belongs  to  this 
family . 

e  These  four  MSS  I  know  only  by  Mr.  Westwood's 
descriptions  in  his  Palepnsrnpliia  Sacra;  and  to  Mr. 
Westwood  belongs  the  credit  of  first  directing  attention 
to  Irish  MSS.  afler  the  time  of  Bentley. 

/  The  text  of  this  recension,  which  I  believe  to  b« 
contained  also  in  t'  1,  and  Bentley "s  p  (comp.  p.  3477 
note  c)  is  closely  allied  to  tlie  British  type.  As  to  th« 
Spanish  text  I  have  no  sufflcient  materials  to  form  an 
eEtimate  of  its  character. 


VULGATE,  THE 

the  Saxon  Cambridge  SIS.,  and  sev- 
eral other  MSS.  of  tlie  Bible  quoted 
by  Hody,  p.  GG4.  Coiup.  §  31  (2)  8." 
The  well-known  Ilarkian  MS.  1772 
(§  32,  (2)  3)  ought  to  be  reckoned 
rather  among  the  Old  than  the  Vul- 
gate texts.  A  good  collection  of  its 
more  striking  variations  is  given  in  tlie 
Harleian  Catalogue.  In  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  (no  less  than  in  the  Gospels) 
there  are  indications  of  an  unrevised 
(African)  and  revised  texts,  but  the 
materials  are  as  yet  too  imperfect  to 
allow  of  an  exact  determination  of  the 
different  types. 
(3.)  In  the  Apocalypse  the  text  depends  on  m 
and  early  quotations,  especially  in  I'rimasius. 

13.  It  will  be  seen  that  for  the  chief  part  of  the 
0.  T.,  and  for  considerable  parts  of  the  N.  T.  (e.  g. 
Apoc.  Acts),  the  Old  text  rests  upon  early  quota- 
tions (principally  TertuUian,  Cyprian,  Lucifer  of 
Cagliari,  for  the  African  text,  Ambrose  and  Au- 
gustine for  the  Italic).  These  were  collected  by 
Sabatier  with  great  diligence  up  to  the  date  of  his 
work;  but  more  recent  discoveries  {e.  tj.  of  the 
Koman  i^pecuhim)  have  furnished  a  large  store  of 
new  materials  which  have  not  yet  been  fully  em- 
ployed. (The  great  work  of  Sabatier,  already  often 
referred  to,  is  still  the  standard  work  on  the  Latin 
.Versions.  His  gi'eat  fault  is  his  neglect  to  distin- 
guish the  different  types  of  te.xt,  African,  Italic, 
British,  Gallic;  a  task  which  yet  remains  to  be 
done.  The  earliest  work  on  the  subject  «as  l)y 
Flaminius  Nobilius,  Vctiis  Test.  sec.  LXX.  Lnlitte 
rtdlilwii  ....  Kom£E,  1588.  The  new  collations 
made  by  Tischendorf,  iSIai,  Miinter,  Ceriani,  have 
been  noticed  separately.)  [See  also  the  addition  at 
the  end  of  this  article.  —  A.] 

III.  The  Labors  ok  Jkromk.  — 14.  It  has 
been  seen  that  at  the  close  of  the  4th  century  tlie 
Latin  texts  of  the  Bible  current  in  the  Western 
Church  had  fallen  into  tlie  greatest  corruption. 
The  evil  was  yet  greater  in  prospect  than  at  the 
time;  for  the  separation  of  the  East  and  West, 
politically  and  ecclesiaslically,  was  growing  immi- 
nent, and  the  fear  of  the  perpetuation  of  false  and 
conflictiiig  Latin  copies  proportionately  greater. 
But  in  the  crisis  of  danger  the  great  scholar  was 
raised  up  who  prolialily  alone  for  l,.'jOO  years  pos- 
sessed the  qualifications  necessary  for  producing  an 
original  version  of  the  Scriptures  for  the  use  of  tiie 
Latin  churches.  Jerome  —  Eusebius  Hieronymus 
—  was  liorn  in  32'J  a.  d.  at  Stridon  in  Dalmatia, 
and  died  at  Bethlehem  in  420  A.  D.  From  his 
early  youth  he  was  a  vigorous  stuilent,  and  age  re- 
moved nothing  from  his  zeal.  He  has  been  well 
called  the  Western  Origen  (Hody,  ]).  350),  and  if  he 
wanted  the  largeness  of  heart  and  generous  sym- 
pathies of  the  great  Alexandrine,  he  had  more 
^hastened  critical  skill  and  closer  concentration  of 
power.  After  long  and  self-denying  studies  in  the 
East  and  West,  Jerome  went  to  lioine  a.  n.  382, 
probalily  at  the  request  of  Daniasus  the  I'ope,  to 
Assist  in  an  important  .synod  {F.p  cviii.  6),  where  he 
seems  to  have  been  at  once  attached  to  the  service 
if  the  Tope  (Ay^.  cxxiii.  10).      His  active  Biblical 


VULGATE,  THE 


3459 


«  A  very  interesting  historical  notite  of  the  use  of 
tae  Old  Larin  in  the  North  of  England  is  given  by 
Bede,  who  says  of   Coolfrid,    a  contemporary   abbot. 

IJibliothecam  utriusiiue  Monasterii  [Wearmoutli 
end  Jarroff]  magna  ^emiimsse  industria.     Ita  ut  tres 


labors  date  from  this  epoch,  and  in  examining  theni 
it  will  be  convenient  to  follow  the  order  of  time, 
noticing  (1)  the  Revision  of  the  Old  Latin  Version 
of  the  N.  T.;  (2)  the  Jievision  of  the  Old  Latin 
Version  (from  the  (ireek)  of  the  O.  T. ;  (3)  the  New 
Version  of  the  0.  T.  from  the  Hebrew. 

(1.)  Tlie  Revision  of  the  Old  Lutin  Version  of 
the  N.  T.  — 15.  Jerome  had  not  been  long  at 
Rome  (a.  d.  383)  when  Damasus  consulted  him  on 
points  of  Scriptural  criticism  (A}j.  xix.  "  Dilectionis 
tute  est  ut  ardenti  illo  strenuitatis  ingenio  .... 
vivo  sensu  scribas").  The  answers  which  he  re- 
ceived (A};/j.  XX.,  xxi.)  may  well  have  encoura;,'ed 
him  to  seek  for  gi'eater  services;  and  apiwrently  in 
the  same  year  he  applied  to  Jerome  for  a  revision 
of  the  current  Latin  Version  of  the  N.  T.  by  the 
help  of  the  Greek  original.  Jerome  was  fully  sensi- 
ble of  the  prejudices  which  such  a  work  would  ex- 
cite among  those  "  who  thought  that  ignorance 
was  holiness  "  {Ep  ad  Mnrc.  xxvii.),  but  the  need 
of  it  was  urgent.  "  There  were,"  he  sajs,  "  almost 
as  many  forms  of  text  as  copies  "  ("  tot  sunt  ex- 
emplaria  pene  quot  codices,"  Prmf.  in  Evv.).  Blis- 
takes  had  been  introduced  "  by  false  transcription^ 
liy  clumsy  corrections,  and  by  careless  interpola- 
tion "  {id  ),  and  in  the  confusion  which  had  ensued 
the  one  remedy  was  to  go  back  to  the  original 
source  (Gra'ca  Veritas,  Grseca  origo).  The  Gospels 
had  naturally  suffered  most.  Thoughtless  scrilies 
inserted  additional  details  in  the  narrative  from  the 
parallels,  and  changed  the  forms  of  expression  to 
those  with  which  tliey  had  been  originally  famil- 
iarized {id.).  Jerome  therefore  applied  himself  to 
these  first  ("  hac  prsesens  praefatiuncula  poUicetur 
quatuor  tantum  Evangelia  ").  But  his  aim  was  to 
revise  the  Old  Latin,  and  not  to  make  a  new  ver- 
sion. When  Augustine  expressed  to  him  his  grat- 
itude for  "  his  iranslntion  of  the  Gospel  "  {Ep.  civ. 
(J,  "  non  parvas  Deo  gratias  agimus  de  opere  tuo 
quo  I'A-angelium  ex  (Jrwco  iiiierpretnUis  e*'"),  he 
tacitly  corrected  him  by  substituting  for  this 
phrase  "  the  correction  of  the  N.  T."  {Ep.  cxii.  20, 
"  Si  me,  ut  dicis,  in  N.  T.  emendatloiie  suscipis 
....").  For  this  purpose  he  collated  early 
(ireek  jNISS.,  and  preser\ed  the  current  rendering 
wherever  the  sense  was  not  injured  by  it  ("  .  .  .  . 
ICvangelia  ....  codicum  Grajcorum  emendata 
coUatione  sed  veterum.  Quae  ne  multuin  a  leutionis 
Latina;  consuetudine  discreparent,  ita  calamo  tem- 
peravinius  ('(//.  imperavimus)  ut  ins  tantum  quaj 
sensum  videbantur  mutare,  correctis,  reliqua  manere 
pateremur  ut  fuerant;  "  Prwf.  ad  Dmii.).  Yet 
although  he  proposed  to  himself  this  limited  object, 
the  various  forms  of  corruption  whicli  liad  been  in- 
troduced were,  as  he  describes,  so  numerous  that 
the  difference  of  the  Old  and  Revised  (Hieronymian) 
text  is  throughout  clear  and  striking.  Thus  in 
Matt.  V.  we  have  the  following  variations:  — 
VHus  T.ntina.b 
7  ipsis  miserebilur  Deus. 

11  dixerint  .... 

—  yirciyiter  jiistitinin. 

12  ante   vos  paircs  eorum 

(Luke  vi.  26). 


Viilgata  nova  (Hieron.). 
7  ipsi  nrisericordiam  ccn 
seijuenlur. 

11  dixeriut  ....  menti- 

entes. 
—  propter  me. 

12  ante  vos. 


Pandpctaa  nov8S  translationis,  ad  unum  vetustai  trans- 
lationis,  queni  de  Roma  attulerat,  ipse  superajjuugeret 
.  .  .  .  "  (Hist.  Abbot.  Wireinut/t.  et  Girwievs  Quot«J 
by  Hody,  D^  Text.  p.  409). 

b  In  giving  the  readings  of  Vetiis  Latina  the  wi-itei 


3460 


VULGATE,  THE 


Vulgala  nova  (Hieron.). 

17  non  veni  solvere. 

18  fiant. 


Vetus  Latina. 

17  nou  veni  solvere  legem 

ant  ptophetas. 

18  fiant  :    crzliim    et    terra 

transibunt,   verba  aii- 

iem  mea  non  prceter- 

ibunt. 
22  fratri  sue  sine  causa. 
25  es  cum  illo  in  ira. 

29  ent  in  gehennam. 
37  fiuod  autem  amplius. 

i\  a/ihiic  alia  duo. 

43   odies. 

14   yestTOS,etbenerJicitequi 

maledicent     vobis     et 

benefacite. 

Of  these  variations  those  in  vers.  17,  44,  are  only 
partially  supported  by  the  old  copies,  but  they 
illustrate  the  character  of  the  interpolations  from 
whicli  the  text  suffered.  In  St.  .John,  as  might  lie 
expected,  the  variations  are  less  fi'equent.  The  6th 
chapter  contains  only  the  following:  — 


22  fratri  suo. 

25  es  in  via  oum  eo  (and 

often). 
29  mittatiir  in  gehennam. 
37  quod  autem  his  abun- 

cJanlius. 
41  et  alia  duo. 

43  odio  habebis. 

44  vestros  benefacite. 


2  sequebatur  autem. 
21  (volebant) 

23  (quein  benedixerat 

Dominus  (alii  aliter)  ). 
3d  hiBc  est  enim. 
39  (Patris  mei). 

53  (manducare). 

66  (a  patre). 

67  ex  hoc  ergo. 


2  et  sequebatur. 

21  (volueruntl. 

23  (gratias  agente  Domi- 
no). 

39  h;ec  est  aiittm. 

39  (Patris  mei  qui  misit 
me). 

53  (ad  niandueandum). 

66  (a  patre  7?ieo). 

67  ex  hoc. 


16.  Some  of  the  changes  which  Jerome  intro- 
duced were,  as  will  be  seen,  made  purely  on  lin- 
guistic grounds,  but  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  on 
what  principle  he  proceeded  in  this  re.spect  (comp. 
§  35).  Others  involved  questions  of  interpretation 
(Matt.  vi.  11,  supefsubslantidlis  for  eVioivcnos). 
Hut  the  greater  number  consisted  in  the  removal 
of  the  interpolations  by  which  the  synoptic  Gospels 
especially  were  disfigured.  These  interpolations, 
unless  his  description  is  very  much  exaggerated, 
nuist  have  been  far  more  numerous  than  are  found 
in  existing  copies;  but  examjiles  still  occur  which 
show  the  important  service  which  he  rendered  to 
the  Church  by  checking  the  perpetuation  of  apoc- 
ryphal glo.sses:  Matt.  iii.  3,  15  (v.  12);  (ix.  21); 
XX.  28;  (xxiv.  36);  Mark  i.  3,  7,  8;  iv.  19; 
xvi.  4;  Luke  (v.  10);  viii.  48;  ix.  43,  50;  xi. 
36;  xii.  38;  xxiii.  48;  John  vi.  56.  As  a  check 
upon  further  interpolation  he  inserted  in  his  text 
the  notation  of  the  Eusebian  Canons  [New  Tks- 
TAMEXT,  §  21] ;  but  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  he 
included  in  his  revision  the  famous  pericape,  John 
vii.  53-viii.  11,  which  is  not  included  in  that 
analysis. 

17.  The  preface  to  Damasus  speaks  only  of  a 
revision  of  the  Gospels,  and  a  question  has  been 
raised  whether  .Jerome  really  revised  the  remaining 
books  of  the  N.  T.  Augustine  (a.  d.  403)  speaks 
jnly  of  "  the  (Jospel "'  (A/j.  civ.  6,  quoted  above), 
and  there  is  no  preface  to  any  other  books,  such  as 
is  elsewhere  found  before  all  Jerome's  versions  or 
editions.  But  the  omission  is  probably  due  to  the 
eoniparatively  pure  state  in  which  the  text  of  the 
rest  of  the  N.  T.  was  preserved.  Damasus  had 
requested  {Prmf.  ad  Dam.)  a  revision  of  the  whole. 


VULGATE,  THE 

and  when  Jerome  had  faceil  the  more  invidious  and 
difEcult  part  of  liis  work  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  he  would  shrink  from  the  completion  of  it. 
In  accordance  with  this  view  he  enumerates  (a.  d. 
398)  among  his  works  "  the  restoration  of  the 
(Latin  Version  of  the)  N.  T.  to  harmony  with  the 
original  Greek."  (A'/i.  ad  Lucin.  Ixxi.  5:  "  N.  T. 
Grfficae  reddidi  auetoritati,  ut  enim  Veterum  Li- 
brorum  fides  de  Hebrsis  voluminibus  examinanda 
est,  itanovorum  Gr;€C£e(?)  sermoiiis  normam  desid- 
erat."  De  Vir.  III.  cxxxv. ;  "  N.  T.  Grsecae  fidei 
reddidi.  Vetus  juxta  Hebraicam  transtuli.")  It 
is  yet  more  directly  conclusive  as  to  the  fact  of  this 
revision,  that  in  writing  to  Marcella  (cir.  a.  d.  385) 
on  the  charges  which  h.ad  been  brought  against 
him  for  "introducing  changes  in  the  Gospels,"  he 
quotes  three  passages  from  the  Epistles  in  which 
he  asserts  the  superiority  of  the  present  Vulgate 
reading  to  that  of  the  Old  Latin  (Kom.  xii.  11, 
Z>(Wimo  servientes,  for  iempori  servientes;  1  Tim. 
V.  19,  add.  nisi  sub  duobus  aut  tribus  testibus; 
1  Tim.  i.  15,  Jiiklis  sermo,  for  Immanus  sermo). 
An  examination  of  the  Vulgate  text,  with  the 
quotations  of  ante-Hieronymian  fathers  and  the 
imperfect  evidence  of  M♦^.S.,  is  itself  sufficient  to 
establish  the  reality  and  character  of  the  revision 
This  will  be  apparent  from  a  collation  of  a  few 
chapters  taken  from  several  of  the  later  books  of 
the  N.  T. ;  but  it  will  also  be  obvious  that  the 
revision  w.is  hasty  and  imperfect;  and  in  later 
times  the  line  between  the  Hieronymian  and  Old 
texts  became  \ery  indistinct.  Old  readings  appear 
in  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate,  and  on  the  other  hand  no 
5IS.  represents  a  pure  African  text  of  the  Acts  and 
l'4)istles. 

Acts  i.  4-25. 

Vulg. 


Versio   Vetus.a 

4  rum  conversaretur  cum 

illis  ....  quod  au- 
distis  a  inc. 

5  tingeinini. 

6  at  illi  convenientes. 

7  at  ilte  respondens  dixit. 

8  superveniente  S.  S. 

10  inteuderent.  Comp.  iii. 
(4),  12  ;  vi.  15  ;  X.  4 ; 
(xiii.  9). 

13  ascenderunt     in    supe- 

rior a. 
erant  habitantes. 

14  perseverantes  unanimes 

orationi. 
18   Hie  igilur  adr/uisivit. 
21  qui  convenerunt  nobis- 

cum  viris. 
25  ire.     Comp.  xvii.  30. 


4  convescens  .  .     .  quam 

audistis  j7cr  os  nieum 

5  baptizabimini. 

6  Igitur  qui  conyeaeTa,nt 

7  Dixit  autem. 

8  supervenientis  S.  S. 
10  intuerentur. 


13  in  ccenaculum   ascend- 

erunt. 
—  manebant. 

14  persev.    unanimiter   m 

oratione. 
18  El  hie  quidem  possedit. 
21  viris  qui  nobiscum  sunt 

congregati. 
26  ut  abiret. 


Acts  xvii.  16-34. 


ias  througuout  confined  himself  to  those  which  are 
upported   by  a  combination  of  authorities,  avoiding 


16  circa  simulacrum. 

17  JudKis. 

18  seminator. 

22  superstitiosos. 

23  perambulans. 

culturas  vestras. 

26  ex  uno  sanguine. 


16  i'Jolotatriee  deditam 

17  cu7n  Judseis. 

18  seminiverbius. 

22  superstitiosiores. 

23  prce.teriens. 

—  simulacra  Teetrs. 
26  ex  uno. 


Kom.  i.  13-15. 
13  Non  autem  arbitror.       \1S  nolo  autem. 
15  quodinme est promptus\l6  quod  in  me  promptum 
sum.  est. 


the  peculiarities  of  single  MSS.,  and  (*f  possible)  of  a 

single  family. 

n  See  note  i,  p.  3459. 


VULGATE,  THE 


VULGATE,  THE 


8461 


1  Cor. 
Vorsio  Vetus. 
i  sequenri   se    (sequenti, 
q),  ( Cod.  Aug.  f).a 

6  in  flguram. 

7  idolorum     cultores     (g 

corr.)  efficiamur. 
i2  putat  (g  corr.). 
i5  sicut    pruUentes,  vobis 

dico. 
[I)  quern  (f,  g). 
—  commuuicatio  (alt.)  (f, 

S)- 
21  piirticipare  (f,  g). 
?9  inflaeli  (g). 


X.  4-29. 

Vu/g. 
4  consequente  e08 

6  in  figura  (f),  (g). 

7  idololatriB  (idolatreg,  f). 

etticiamini  (f). 
12  existimat  (f). 

15  ut  (.sicut,  f,  g)  prudenti- 

bus  loquor  (dico,  f,  g). 

16  c\d. 

—  participatio. 

21  participes  esse. 
29  (aliena) ;  alia  (f). 


2  Cor.  :ii.  11-18. 
14  diim  {qnnd  g  corr.)  non,14  non  revdatum  (f) 

reveUitur  (g  corr. ). 
18  de  (a  g)  gloria  m  gtori-  18  a     claritate     in 
am  (g).  I  tatein. 


tlari- 


Gal.  lii.  14-25. 

14  brnedi ctionem  {%).  14  poUicllalinneni  (f). 

15  irrituin/acit{irritat,g).':l^  spernit  (f). 

25  veiiiej^e  autem  Jide  (g).|25  At  uhi  venit  fides  (f). 


constitvtus,'    6  cum 


2  unum  (g) 
6  cum  .  .  , 

(g)- 
12  diiectissimi  (g). 
26  sollicitus  (tcedebatur,  g). 
28  sollicitus  itaque. 

30  parabolatus    de   anima 
sua  (g). 


Phil.  u.  2-30. 

2  id  ipsum  {(). 


esset  (f ). 


12  carissi?)ti  (f ). 

26  mrBstui  (f ). 

28  festinantius  ergo   {fest. 

ego,  f:fesl.  aulefn,g). 
30  tradens   animam  suam 

(f)- 


1  1m.  iii.  1-12. 

1  fidelis  (f ). 

2  doctorem  (f ). 
4  habentemsj«6i777os(f,  g). 
8  turpe  li":rutn    sectantes 

(f )  («</rpi7.  s.  g). 
12^(05    6«n«    regtntes    (gjl2  qui fihis  suis  bene  prcR- 
corr.).  sj'ni  (f) 


1  Humanus  (g  corr.). 

2  docibilem  (g). 

4  habentem  in  obseqitio. 
8  turpilitcros. 


(2.)  The  Revision  of  tlie  0.  T.  from  the  LXX. 
—  18.  About  tbe  same  time  (cir.  A.  d.  383)  at 
which  he  was  engaged  on  the  revision  of  the  N.  T., 
Jerome  undertook  also  a  first  revision  of  the  Psal- 
ter. This  he  made  by  the  help  of  tlie  Greek,  but 
the  work  was  not  very  complete  or  careful,  and  the 
words  in  which  he  describes  it  may,  perhaps,  be 
extended  without  injustice  to  the  revision  of  the 
later  books  of  the  N.  T. :  "  Fsalterium  liomae 
.  .  .  emendarani  et  juxta  LXX.  interpretes,  licet 
cvrsim  iiiayna  illud  ex  parte  correxeram  "  [Prmf. 
in  Lib.  Ps.).  This  revision  obtained  the  name  of 
the  Roman  I'salter,  probably  because  it  was  made 
for  the  use  of  the  Homan  Church  at  the  request 
of  1  )amasu3,  where  it  was  retained  till  the  pontifi- 
tate  of  Tins  V.  (a.  d.  150G),  who  introduced  the 
iallican  I'salter  generally,  though  the  Roman 
^Salter  was  still  retained  in  three  Italian  churches 
Hotly,  p.  383,  "in  una  KomsB  Volicann  ecclesia, 
ft  extra  urbem  in  Mcdiohinensi  et  in  ecclesia  S. 
Marci,  Venetiis").  In  a  short  time  "the  old 
>iTor  prevailed  over  the  new  correction,"  and  at 


a  The  Latin  readings  of  Cod.  Aug.  hare  been  added, 
iS  otfering  an  interesting  example  of  the  admixture 
if  a  few  old  ■readings  witli  the  revised  text.  These 
•f  Coil.  Barn  (g)  diffHr.  as  will  be  seen,  very  v^idely 
Votu  theui 


the  urgent  request  of  Paula  and  Eustochium  Jerome 
commenced  a  new  and  more  thorough  revision 
(GaUicnn  Psalter).''  The  exact  date  at  which  this 
was  made  is  not  known,  but  it  may  be  fixed  with 
great  proliability  very  shortly  after  A.  d.  387,  wliet 
he  retired  to  P>ethlehem,  and  certainly  before  391, 
when  he  had  begun  his  new  translations  from  the 
Hebrew.  In  the  new  revision  Jerome  attempted 
to  rejiresent  as  far  as  possible,  by  the  help  of  the 
(jreek  Versions,  the  real  reading  of  the  Hebrew. 
Witii  this  view  he  adopted  the  notation  of  Oris;en 
[Ski'tuagint;  compare  Pi-cef.  in  Gen.,  etc.],  and 
thus  indicated  all  the  additions  and  omissions  of 
the  L.KX.  text  reproduced  in  the  Latin.  The 
additions  were  marked  by  an  obelus  {■*-);  the 
omissions,  which  he  supplied,  by  an  asterisk  (  *  ). 
The  omitted  passages  he  supplied  by  a  version  of 
the  Greek  of  Theodotion,  and  not  directly  from  the 
Hebrew  ("  unusquisque  .  .  .  ubicunqne  viderit 
virgulam  prascedentem  (n-)  ab  ea  usque  ad  duo 
puncta  (  "  )  quae  inipressimus,  aciat  in  LXX. 
interpretilius  plus  halieri.  Ubi  autem  stellse  (  *  ) 
simiiitudinem  perspexerit,  de  Heliraais  voluminilnis 
additnm  noverit,  a>que  usque  ad  duo  pnucta,,  jnxtn 
Tlievdotionis  ihtmtnxitt  editionem,  qiu  sinip/icitale 
aermonis  a  LXX.  interpretibus  non  discorddt," 
Prtef.  ad  Ps.  ;  compare  Proeff  in  Job,  Par(dip. 
Libr.  Solom.  juxta  />A'A'.  Jnti.,  Ep.  cvi.  ad  Sun 
et  Fret.).  Tiiis  new  edition  soon  obtained  a  wide 
popularity.  Gre;jory  of  Tours  is  said  to  have 
introduced  it  from  Home  into  tbe  public  .services  in 
Fnince,  and  from  this  it  obtained  the  name  of  the 
GaUicnn  Psalter.  The  comparison  of  one  or  two 
passages  will  show  the  exteirt  and  nature  of  the 
corrections  which  Jerome  introduced  into  this 
second  work,  as  compared  with  the  Roman  Psalter. 
(See  Table  1),  on  next  page.) 

How  f:ir  he  tliought  change  really  necessary 
will  appear  from  a  comparison  of  a  few  verses 
of  his  translation  from  the  Hebrew  with  the  earlier 
revised  Septuagintal  translations.  (.See  Table  K.) 
'  Numerous  MSS.  remain  which  contain  the  Latin 
Psalter  in  two  or  more  forms.  Thus  Bibl.  Bvdl. 
Laud.  35  (Sac.  x. '?)  contains  a  triple  Psalter, 
Galilean,  Roman,  and  Hebrew:  Coll.  (J.  C.  O.eon. 
xii.  (S*c.  XV.)  (lallican,  Roman,  Hebrew:  Id  x. 
(Srec.  xiv.)  Galilean,  Hebrew,  Hebr.  text  with 
interlinear  Latin:  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  034,  a  double 
Psalter,  Ga'lican  and  Hel)rew:  Brit.  .Uiis.  Arund. 
155  (Sfec.  xi.)  a  Roman  Psalter  with  Galilean 
corrections:  Coll.  SS.  Trin.  Cainbr.,  R.  17,  1, 
a  triple  Psalter,  Hebrew,  Galilean,  Roman  (Sa;c. 
xii.):  Id.  R.  8,  6,  a  triple  Psalter,  tiie  Hebrew 
text,  with  a  peculiar  interlinear  Latin  A-^ersion, 
Jerome's  Hebrew,  Galilean.  An  example  of  the 
unrevised  Latin,  which,  indeed,  is  not  very  satis- 
factorily distinguished  from  the  Roman,  is  found 
with  an  Anglo-Saxon  interlinear  version,  Univ. 
L'br.  t'anibr.  Ff.  i.  23  (Stec.  xi.).  H.  Stephens 
pulilished  a  "  Quincuplex  Psallerium.  Galli- 
cum,  Rliotnaictim,  liebruicum,  Vetus,  Concilintum 
.  .  .  .  Paris,  1513,"  hut  he  does  not  mention  the 
MSS.  from  which  he  derived  his  texts. 

""9.  From  the  second  (Galilean)  revision  of  the 
Psalms  Jerome  appears  to  have  proceeded  to  a 
revision  of  the  other  books  of  the  O.  T.,  restoring 

b  In  one  place  Jerome  seems  to  include  these  two 
revl.sioii.s  in  one  work  :  "  Psalterium  .  .  .  oerte 
emciuliitis,siiiium  juxta  Iy.\X.  intcrprete.s  uoslro  labore 
dudum  Koiiia  siisoipit"  .  .  .  (Apol.  a/lv.  Ruf.  U. 
30 1. 


5462 


VULGATE,  THE 

TABLE    D. 


[n  Tables  D,  E,  and  F,  the  passages  are  taken  from  Martianay's  and  Sabatier's  texts,  without  any  reference  U 
MSS.,  so  that  the  variations  cannot  be  regarded  as  more  than  approximately  correct. 


Vetus  Latina. 


{Nisi  quod) 
Nisi  quia  (quod) 
Minorasti. 


respexit  me. 
-teprccatioiiem. 


hymnum. 

{Domino.) 
jocundatum. 

mpud  inferos. 


Vs.  viii.  4-6. 
Psalt.   Romnninn. 
Quoniam  videbo  ccelos,  opera  digitorum  tu- 

orum  : 
lunam  et  Stellas  quas  tu  fundasti. 
Quid  est  homo,  qimd  niemor  es  ejus? 
aut  filius  hominis,  quoniam  visitas  eum  ? 
MinviMi  eum  paulo  minus  ab  angelis  j 
gloria  et  honore  coronastj  eum  : 
et  constituisti  eum  super  opera  manuuni  tu- 

arum. 


Psalt.  GrJlicanum. 
Quoniam  videbo  coelos  *  tuos  "  opera  digito 

rum  tuorum  ; 
lunam  et  Stellas  quse  t  tu  "  fundasti. 
Quid  est  homo,  quod  memor  es  ejus  ? 
aut  tilius  hominis,  quoniam  visitas  eum? 
Minuisti  eum  paulo  minus  ab  angelis  ; 
gloria  et  honore  coronasti  eum, 
t  et  "  constituisti  eum  super  opera  manuum 

tuaruni. 


Ps.  sxxix.  1-4. 

Exspectans  exspectavi  Dominuni : 

et  rcspfxit  me  ; 
et  exaudivit  dtprerationeTJi  nieam  ; 
et  eduxit  me  de  lacu  miseriee, 
et  de  Into  fsecis. 

Et  statuit  super  petram  pedes  meos  ; 
et  direxit  gressus  meos. 
Et  immisit  in  os  meum  canticum  novum  : 

hyvutum  Deo  nostro. 


Exspectans  exspectavi  Dnmlnum  ; 

et  intenilit  mihi  ; 
et  tex"audivit  preces  nieas  ; 
et  eduxit  nie  de  lacu  miserise, 
tet  "de  Into  f»ci8. 

Et  statuit  super  petram  pedes  meo8  ; 
tet"  direxit  gressus  meos. 
Et  immisit  in  os  meum  canticum *ovran . 

r.ariaen  Deo  nostro. 


.     Ps.  xvi.  (XV.)  8-11  (.VcTS  ii 
Providebam    Dominum.    in    conspectu    meo 

semper, 
quoniam  a  dextris  est  mihi,  ue  commovear. 
Propter  hoc  deleclalinn  est  cor  meum, 
et  exsultavit  lingua  mea : 
insuper  et  caro  mea  requiescet  in  spe. 
Qiiouiam  non  derelinques  animam  meam  in 

inferno  (-um)  ; 
nee  dabis  Sanctum  tuum  videre  corruptio- 

nem. 
Notas  mihi  fecisti  vias  vitje  : 
adimplebis  me  Ifetitia  cum  vultu  tuo : 
delectationes  in  dextra  tua,  usque  in  finem. 


,  2.5-28). 

Providebam    Dominum.   in   conspectu   meo 

semper, 
quoniam  a  dextris  est  mihi,  ne  commovear. 
Propter  hoc  Icetnlum  est  cor  meum, 
et  exsultavit  lingua  mea  : 
t  insuper  "et  caro  mea  requiescet  in  spe. 
Quoniam  non  derelinques  animam  meam  in 

inferno : 
nee   diibis  Sanctum  tuum  videre  corruptio- 

nem. 
Notas  mihi  fecisti  vias  vitee  : 
adimplebis  me  Isetitia  cum  vultu  tuo  : 
delectationes   in   dextera   tua  t  usque  "  in 

finem. 


Vetus  Latina. 
Quis  est  homo  qui  vult  vitam, 
et  ciipit  videre  dies  bonos  ? 
Cohibe  linguam  tuam  a  malo  : 
^t  labia  tua  ne  loqnantur  dolum. 
Deverte  a  malo  et  fac  bonum  : 
inquire  pacem  et  sequere  earn. 
Oculi  Domini  super  justos 
et  aures  qus  ad  preces  eorum. 
Vultus  Domini  super  facientes  mala 


TABLE    E. 

Ps.  ixxiii.  (xxxiv.)  12-10  (1  Pet.  iii.  10 

I  Vulo-ata. 

,  j  Quis  est  homo  qui  vult  vitam, 

;  d digit  dies  videre  bonos? 
Proliibe  linguam  tuam  a  malo : 
et  labia  tua  ne  loquantur  dolum. 
Diverle  a  malo  et  fac  bonum  : 
inquire  pacem,  et  perstqvere  earn. 
Oculi  Domini  super  justos 
et  aures  ejus  in  preces  eorum. 
Vultus  autem  Domini  super  facieU' 
tes  mala. 


-12). 

Jeromc''s  Tran.^1.  from  the  Hebr. 
Quis  est  fir  qui  velit  vitam 
diligens  dies  videre  bonos  ? 
Custodi  linguam  tuam  a  malo, 
et  labia  tua  ne  loquantur  dolum. 
Recede  a  malo  et  tac  bonuni  : 
qiicere  pacem  pt  persequere  earn. 
Oculi  Domini  ad  justos 
et  aures  ejus  arl  clamores  eornm. 
Yultus  Domini  super  facientes  m»- 
lum. 


?acrificium  et  oblationem  noluisti : 
lures  autem  perfecisti  mihi. 
flolocausta  etiam   pro    delir.to   non 

postulasti. 
Tunc  dixi :  Ecce  venio 
In  capite  libri  scriptum  est  de  me 

3tfaciam  voluntatem  tuam. 


Ps.  xxxix.  (xL)  6-8  (Heb.  x.  5-10). 
Sacrificium  et  oblationem  noluisti :   ;  Victima  et  oblatione  non  indigea. 
aures  autem  perfecisti  mihi.  '  aures  fodisti  mihi. 

Uolocaustum    et   pro  peccato   non '  Holocaustum  et   pro    peccato   non 

postulasti :  |  petisti. 

Tunc  dixi  :  Ecce  venio.  1  Tunc  dixi :  Ecce  venio. 

In  capite  libri  scriptum  est  de  me,   ]  In  vohtmine  libri  fccriptum  est  d« 

I  Die, 

ut /acercOT  voluntatem  tuam.  |  ut  facerem  7>?aa(i/»n /i6t. 


to  omnem  terram  esiit  sonus  eo- 
rum : 

rt  in  finibvs  orbis  tcrrse  verba  eo- 
rum. 


Ps.  xviii.  (six.)  5  (Rom.  x.  18). 

In  omnem  terram  exivit  sonus  eo-  I  In  universam  terram  exivlt  sonai 

rum.  eorum ; 

et  in  fintx  orbis  terra;  verba  eorum     et  in  fmem  'rbis  verba  eoi-um 


VULGATE,  THE 

ill,  l)j'  the  help  of  the  Greek,  to  a  general  con- 
formity with  the  Hebrew.  In  the  preface  to  the 
Revision  of  Job,  he  notices  the  opposition  which  lie 
had  met  with,  and  contrasts  indignantly  his  own 
labors  with  the  more  mechanical  occii[)ations  of 
monies  wliich  excited  no  reproaches  ("  Si  ant  fi.scel- 
lam  junoo  texcrem  aut  palmarum  folia  complicarem 
.  .  .  .  nullus  niorderet,  nemo  reprelienderet.  Nunc 
auteni  ....  corrector  vitiornm  falsarius  vocor"). 
Similar  complaints,  bnt  less  strongly  exi>re.ssed, 
occur  in  the  prefiice  to  the  hooks  of  Chronicles,  in 
which  he  had  recourse  to  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  io 
the  Greek,  in  order  to  correct  the  innumerable 
errors  in  the  names  by  which  both  texts  were  de- 
formed. In  the  preface  to  the  three  books  of  Solo- 
mon (Proverbs,  I'xclesiastes,  Canticles)  he  notices 
no  attacks,  bnt  excuses  himself  for  neglecting  to 
revise  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom,  on  the  ground 
that  "he  wished  only  to  amend  the  Canonical 
Scriptures"  ("  tantummodo  Canonicas  Scripturas 
vol)is  emendare  desiderans  ").  No  otiier  prefaces 
remain,  and  the  revised  texts  of  the  Psalter  and 
Job  have  alone  been  preserved ;  but  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  .leronie  carried  out  his  design 
of  revising  all  the  "  Canonical  Scriptures  "  (comp. 
Ej).  cxii.  nd  Auyust.  (cir.  A.  i>.  404),  "Quod  au- 
teni in  aliis  quseris  epistolis:  cur  prior  niea  in  li- 
bris  Cnnonicis  interpretatio  asteriscos  halieat  et 
virgulas  prsenotatas  ....").  He  speaks  of  this 
work  as  a  whole  in  several  places  (e.  g.  ade.  EtiJ'- 
ii.  24,  "  Kgone  contra  LXX.  interpretes  aliquid 
Bum  locntus,  quos  ante  annos  plurimos  diligentis- 
sime  eniendatos  me£e  linguae  studiosis  dedi  .  .  .  V 
Comp.  /(/.  iii.  25;  Ep.  Ixxi.  ad  Eucin.,  "  Septna- 
ginta  interpretum  editioiiem  et  te  habere  non  du- 
bito,  et  ante  annos  plurimos  (he  is  writing  A.  D. 
398)  diligentissinie  eniendatam  studiosis  tradidi  "), 
and  distinctly  represents  it  as  a  Latin  Version  of 
Origen's  Hexaplar  text  [Ep-  cvi.  ad  Stiii.  el  Fret, 
"  Ea  auteni  qnse  hal)etur  in  'E^awKoTs  et  quam  non 
vertimus  "),  if,  indeed,  the  reference  is  not  to  be 
confined  to  the  Psalter,  which  was  the  immediate 
subject  of  discussion.  Hut  though  it  seems  certain 
that  the  revision  was  made,  there  is  very  great  dif- 
ficulty in  tracing  its  history,  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  no  allusion  to  the  revision  occurs  in  the  pref- 
ace to  the  new  translation  of  the  Pentateuch, 
Joshua  (Judges,  Ruth),  Kings,  the  Prophets,  in 
wliich  .lerome  touches  more  or  less  plainly  on  the 
tlitficulties  of  \i'>»  task,  while  he  does  refer  to  his 
former  labors  on  Job,  the  Psalter,  and  the  books  of 
Solomon  in  the  parallel  prefaces  to  those  books,  and 
also  in  his  Apology  against  Rufinus  (ii.  27.  29,  30, 
31).  It  has,  indeed,  been  supposed  (V'allarsi, 
Pnef.  ill  flier,  x.)  that  these  six  books  only  were 
pulilished  by  .lerome  himself.  The  remainder  may 
have  been  put  into  circulation  surreptitiously.  But 
this  supposition  is  not  without  difficulties.  Au- 
gustine, writing  to  Jerome  (cir.  A.  d.  405),  ear- 
nestly begs  for  a  copy  of  the  re\ision  from  the 
LXX.,  of  the  publication  of  which  he  was  then 
^nly  hitely  aware  (A'/j.  xcvi.  34,  "Delude  nobis 
niittas,  obsecro,  interpretationem  tuam  de  Septua- 
ginta,  qiuim  te  ididisse  nesciebiim;  "  comp.  §  34). 
It  does  not  appear  vviiether  the  request  was  granted 
or  not,  but  at  a  much  later  period  (cir.  a.  i>.  410) 
Jerome  says  that  he  cannot  furnish  him  with  "a 
copy  of  tiie  LXX.  {i.  e.  the  Latin  version  of  it) 
uri4shed  with  asterisks  and  olieli,  as  he  had  lost 
!,he  chief  part  of  his  former  labor  by  some  person's 


VULGATE,  THE 


3463 


treachery"  {Ep.  cxxxiv.,  '-Pleraque  prioris  laborii 
iraude  cujusdam  amisimus.")-  However  this  may 
have  been,  Jerome  could  not  have  spent  more  tlian 
four  (  )r  five)  years  on  the  work,  and  that  too  in  the 
midst  of  other  labors,  for  in  491  he  was  already  en- 
gaged on  the  versions  from  tlie  Hebrew  which  con- 
stitute his  great  claim  on  the  lasting  gratitude  of 
the  ( 'hurch. 

(3.)  Tlie  Translation  of  the  0.  T.  from  the 
Hebreio.  —  20.  Jerome  commenced  the  study  of 
Hebrew  when  he  was  already  advanced  in  middle 
life  (cir.  a.  d.  374),  tliinkiiii:  tiiat  tlie  difficultiea 
of  the  langu.age,  as  he  (juaintly  paints  them,  would 
serve  to  sulidne  the  temptations  of  passion  to  which 
he  was  exposed  ^Ep.  cxxv.  §  12;  comp.  Prcef.  in 
Dan.).  I'rom  this  time  he  continued  the  study 
with  imabated  zeal,  and  availed  himself  of  every 
help  to  perfect  his  kn'>wledi:e  of  the  language.  His 
first  teacher  had  been  a  Jewisii  convert;  but  after- 
wards he  did  not  scruple  to  seek  the  instruction  of 
Jews,  whose  services  he  secured  with  great  difficulty 
and  expense.  This  excessive  zeal  (as  it  seemed 
exposed  him  to  the  misrepresentations  of  his  ene- 
mies, and  Rufinus  indulges  in  a  silly  pun  on  the 
name  of  one  of  his  teachers,  with  the  intention  of 
showing  that  his  work  was  not  "  supported  by  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  but  only  of  a  second  Ba- 
rabbas "  (Ruf  Apol.  ii.  12;  Hieron.  Apol.  i.  13; 
comp.  Ep.  Ixxxiv.  §  3,  and  Pnef.  in  Paral.).  Je- 
rome, however,  was  not  deterred  by  opposition  from 
pursuing  his  object,  and  it  were  only  to  be  wished 
that  he  had  surjjassed  his  critics  as  much  in  gen- 
erous courtesy  as  he  did  in  honest  labor.  He  soon 
turned  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  to  use.  In  some 
of  his  earliest  critical  letters  he  examines  the  force 
of  Hebrew  words  {Epp.  xviii.,  xx.,  A.  d.  381,  383); 
and  in  A.  D.  384,  he  had  been  engaged  for  some 
time  in  comparing  the  version  of  Aquila  with  He- 
brew MSS.  {Ep.  xxxii.  §1),  which  a  Jew  had  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  for  him  from  the  synagogue 
{Ep.  xxxvi.  §  1).  After  retiring  to  Ijethlehem,  he 
ajjpears  to  have  devoted  himself  with  renewed  ar- 
dor to  the  study  of  Hebrew,  and  he  published  sev- 
eral works  on  the  subject  (cir.  a.  d.  389;  Quast. 
f/eOr.  in  den.  etc.).  These  essays  served  as  a  pre- 
lude to  his  New  Version,  which  he  now  commenced. 
This  \ersion  was  not  undertaken  with  any  ecclesi- 
astical sanction,  as  the  revision  of  the  Gospels  was, 
but  at  the  urgent  request  of  private  friends,  or 
from  his  own  sense  of  the  imperious  necessity  of 
the  work.  Its  history  is  told  in  the  main  in  the 
prefaces  to  the  several  installments  which  were  suc- 
cessively published.  The  Books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings  were  issued  first,  and  to  these  he  prefixed 
the  famous  Prologus  gakatiis,  addressed  to  Paala 
and  Eustochium,  in  which  he  gives  an  account  of 
the  Hebrew  Canon.  It  is  impossible  to  determine 
why  he  selected  these  books  for  his  experiment,  for 
it  does  not  appear  that  he  was  requested  by  any 
one  to  do  so.  The  work  itself  was  executed  with 
the  greatest  care.  Jerome  speaks  of  the  transla- 
tion as  the  result  of  constant  revision  {Prol.  Gal., 
"  Lege  ergo  primum  Sanuiel  et  !Malachim  meum 
meum,  inquam,  nieum.  Quidquid  enim  crebriua 
vertendo  et  emendando  sollicitius  et  didicinuis  et 
tenenuis  nostrum  est").  At  the  time  when  this 
was  pulilished  (cir.  A.  n.  391,  392)  other  books 
seem  to  have  been  already  translated  {Prol.  Gal., 
"omnibus  libris  quos  de  Hebrieo  vertimus");  and 
in  393  the  sixteen  prophets  <»  were  in  circulation, 


■«  A  (juestica   has  been   raised  whether  Daniel  was    not  translated  at  a  later  time  (comp.  Ki<    /'/co?!.  xxi.), 


8464 


VULGATE,  THE 


and  Jo'o  had  lately  been  put  into  the  hands  of  his 
most  intimate  friends  (A/>.  xlix.  ad  Pummach.). 
Indeed,  it  would  appear  that  already  in  392  he  had 
in  some  sense  completed  a  version  of  the  O.  T.  [Dt 
Vir.  HI.  cxxxv.,  "  Vetus  juxta  Hebraicum  trans- 
tuli."  This  treatise  was  written  in  that  year);" 
but  many  books  were  not  completed  and  published 
till  fome  years  afterwards.  The  next  books  which 
he  put  into  circulation,  yet  with  the  provision  that 
they  should  be  confined  to  friends  {Prcef.  in  L'zr.), 
were  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  which  he  translated  at 
the  request  of  Dominica  and  Kogatianus,  who  had 
urged  him  to  the  task  for  three  years.  This  was 
probaljly  in  the  year  394  ( ]'it.  flieron.  xxi.  4),  for 
in  the  preface  he  alludes  to  his  intention  of  discuss- 
ing a  question  which  he  treats  in  Jip.  Ivii.,  written 
in  395  (Oe  optinu  Gen.  interpret.).  In  the  prefiice 
to  the  Chronicles  (addressed  to  Chromaiius),  he  al- 
ludes to  the  same  epistle  as  "  lately  written,''  and 
these  Viooks  may  therefore  be  set  down  to  that  3  ear. 
The  three  books  of  Solomon  followed  in  398,''  having 
been  "the  work  of  ^hree  days"  when  he  had  just 
recovered  from  a  severe  illness,  which  he  suffered  in 
that  year  (Prcef.  "  Itaque  longa  a?grotatione  frac- 
tus  ....  tridui  opus  noniini  vestro  [Chromatio 
et  Heliodoro]  consecravi."  C'omp.  /Cp.  Ixxiii.  10). 
The  Oclaleuc/i  now  alone  remained  (Kp.  Ixxi.  5, 
i.  e.  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  and  Es- 
ther, PriT.f.  in  ./os.).  Of  this  the  Pentateuch  (in- 
Bcribed  to  Desiderius)  was  published  first,  but  it  is 
uncertain  in  what  year.     The  preface,  however,  is 


VULGATE,  THE 

not  quoted  in  the  Apology  against  Rufinus  (a.  I) 
400),  as  those  of  all  the  other  books  which  were 
then  published,  and  it  may  therefore  be  set  down 
to  a  later  date  (Hody,  p.  357).  The  remaining 
books  were  completed  at  the  request  of  Eustochinm, 
shortly  after  the  death  of  I'aula,  a.  d.  404  {Prccf. 
in  .Jos.).  'I'hus  the  whole  translation  was  spread 
over  a  period  of  about  fourteen  years,  from  the  six- 
tieth to  the  seventy-sixth  year  of  Jerome's  life.  But 
still  parts  of  it  were  finished  in  great  haste  (e.  </. 
the  books  of  Solomon).  A  single  day  was  suffi- 
cient for  the  translation  of  Tobit  {Praf.  in  Tub.); 
and  "one  short  effort  "  (una  lucubratiuncula)  fur 
the  translation  of  Judith.  Thus  there  are  errors 
in  the  work  which  a  more  careful  re^•ision  might 
have  removed,  and  .lerome  himself  in  many  places 
gives  renderings  which  he  prefers  to  those  which  he 
had  adopted^  and  admits  from  time  to  time  that  he 
had  fallen  into  error  (Hody,  p.  362).  Yet  such 
defects  are  trifling  when  compared  with  what  he 
accomplished  successfully.  The  work  remained  foi 
eight  centuries  the  bulwark  of  western  Christianity, 
and  as  a  monument  of  ancient  linguistic  power 
the  translation  of  the  0.  T.  stands  unrivaled  and 
unique.  It  was  at  least  a  direct  rendering  of 
the  original,  and  not  the  version  of  a  version. 
The  Septuagintal  tradition  was  at  length  set  aside, 
and  a  few  passages  will  show  the  extent  and  char- 
acter of  the  differences  by  which  the  new  transla- 
tion was  distinguished  from  the  Okl  Latin  which 
it  superseded. 


TABLE  F. 


Vetus  Latina 
Et  tu  Bethlehem  domus  Ephrata 
nequaqunm  minima  es  ut  sis  in  millibus  Judse : 
ex  te  uiihi  egredietur 
ut  sit  in  principetn  Israel, 
St  egressus  ejus  ab  initio, 
ex  dinbiis  s<eciUi. 


Mic.  V.  2  (Matt.  ii.  6). 

Viil^ata  nova 
Et  tu  Bethlehem  Ephrata, 
parviitiis  ts  in  millibus  JudtB : 
ex  te  niihi  egrediftur 
(jiii  sit  c/oiniiiator  in  Israel, 
et  egressus  ejus  ab  initio, 
a  diehus  cetrrnitatis. 


Jkr.  xxxviii.  (xxxi. 


Vox  in  Rhnma  audita  est, 
lamentatio  et  fletus  et  luctus, 
Rachel  plorantis  filios  sues, 
et  noluil  conquiescere, 
quia  non  sunt. 


15  (Matt.  ii.  18). 
Vox  in  excftso  audita  est 
lamentationis  luctus  et  fletns, 
Rachel  plorantis  filios  sues  ; 
et  nolentis  [noluit]  consotari 
super  eis  [s.  filiis  suis],  quia  non  sunt 


Hoc  primvm  bibe  velociter  fac 
regie  Zabulon,  terra  Neptalim ; 
et  reliqui  qui  jiixta  mare  estis 
trans  Jordanem  Galileese  gentium. 
Populus  qui  ambulabat  in  tenebris 

vidit  lucem  niagnam : 
jui  habitatis  in  regione  et  umbra  mortis 

lux  orietur  vobis. 


Is.  ix.  1,  2  (Matt.  iv.  15,  16). 

Prima  tempore  allevinta  est 
terra  Zabulon  et  terra  Nephthali : 
et  novissimo  aggravata  est  via  marti 
trans  Jordanem  Galilwfe  gentium. 
Populus  qui  anibulaVjat  in  tenebris 

vidit  lucem  maguam  ; 
habitantibus  in  regione  umbrse  morttl 

lux  orca  est  eis. 


Iste  peccata  nostra  portat 
et  pro  nobis  dolet. 


Is.  liii.  4  (Matt.  viii.  17). 

I      Vere  languores  nostros  ipse  tullt 
I      et  dolores  nostros  ipse  poriavic. 


IS  Jerome  does  not  Include  him  among  the  prophets  in 
;he  Prol.  Gal.  ;  but  in  a  letter  written  A.  D.  394  (Ep. 
liii.  ad  Paid.)  he  places  him  distinctly  among  the  four 
p-eater  prophets.  The  preface  to  Daniel  contains  no 
mark  of  time  :  it  appears  only  that  the  translation 
jfas  made  after  that  of  Tobit,  when  Jerome  wa«  not 
/et  familiar  with  Chaldee 


a  Sophronius  {De  Vir.  111.  cxxxlv.)  had  also  then 
translated  into  Greek  Jerome's  version  of  the  Psalms 
and  Prophets. 

b  The  date  given  by  Ilody  (a.  d.  388)  rests  on  s 
false  reference  (p.  356) 


VULGATE,  THE 


VULGATE,  THE 


3466 


Vetus  Latina. 
Gaude  vehemenler,  filla  Slon, 
prt/;di''ii  filia  Jerusalem : 
Ecee  Rex  tuus  veuiet  tibi  Justus  et  salvans 
ipse  mansuetus  et  ascendens  super 
subjugalem  et  puUu7n  novum. 


Zech.  ix.  9  (Matt.  ixi.  5). 

Vulgata  nova. 
Exsulta  satis,  filia  Siou, 
jubila  filia  Jerusalem. 

Ecce  Rex  tuus  veniet  tibi  Justus  et  salvator  : 
ipse  pauper  et  asceudens  super 
asinam  et  super  piiUum  filium  asince. 


Is, 

Spiritus  Domini  super  me, 

propter  quod  uuxit  me  : 

evangelizart  paiiperihus  Diisit  me, 

sanare  contritos  corde, 

praedicare  captivis  remissionem, 

et  ccBtis  lit  videant : 

vocare  annum  acceptabilem  Domino 

et  diem  retributionis : 
cousolari  omnes  lugentes. 


Lxi.  1,  2  (Luke  iv.  18,  19). 

I      Spiritus  Domini  (al.  add.  Dei)  super  me, 
eo  quod  unxerit  Doniinus  me  : 
ad  annmiciandmn  mansuetis  misit  me, 
ut  mederer  coutritis  corde, 
et  prjBdicarem  captivis  indulgentiam, 
et  dausis  apertionem  : 
ut  proedicarem  (al.  et  annunciarem)  annum  placatv 

ilem  Domino 
et  diem  ultiouis  Deo  nostro : 
ut  cousolarer  omnes  lugentes. 


Et  dicam  non  populo  meo : 

Populus  mens  es  tu. 

Et  ipse  dicet: 

JJominus  Deus  mens  es  tu. 


ISt  erit  in  loco  ubi  dictum  est  eis : 
Nou  populus  mens  vos : 
Vocabuntur  Filii  Dei  viventis. 


Hos.  ii.  2.i  (Rom.  ix.  25). 

Et  dicam  non  populo  meo . 
Populus  mens  es  tu. 
Et  ipse  dicet : 
Deus  mens  es  tu. 


Hos.  i.  10  (Rom.  is.  26). 

Et  erit  in  loco  ubi  dicetur  eis : 
Non  populus  mens  vos  : 
Dicetur  eis:  Filii  Dei  viven'is. 


Is.  xxviii.  16  (Rom.  x.  11). 
Ecce  ego  immittam  in  fundamenta  Sion  lapidem  •  .  •  |      Ecce  ego  mittam  in  fundamentis  Sion  lapSdHa 
et  qui  crediderit  non  confundetur.  \      qui  crediderit  non  festinet. 


De  morte  redlmam  illos : 

ubi  est  causa  tua,uiOTs'! 

iii>i  est  aculeus  tuus,  Inferne? 


Hos.  xiii.  14  (1  Con.  xv.  55). 

De  morte  redimam  eos  : 
era  mors  tua,  o  mors, 
morbus  tuus  ero,  Inferne. 


Job  iv.  15-21. 


Et  spiritus  in  fociem  mihi  occurrit, 

Horruerunt  capilli  mei  et  carnes. 

Exsurrexi  et  non  cognovi. 

Inspexi,  et  non  erat  figura  ante  faciem  meam  : 

sed  auram  tantum  et  vocem  audiebam. 

Quidenim?     Nunquid  homo  coram  Domino  mun- 

dus  erit, 
aut  ab  operibus  suis  sine  macula  vir  ? 
Si  contra  servos  suos  non  credit, 
et  adversus  angelos  suos  pravum  quid  reperit. 
Habitantes  autem  domos  luteas, 
de  quibus  et  nos  ex  eodem  luto  sumus, 
percussit  illos  tanquam  tinea, 
fit  a  mane  usque  ad  vesperam  ultra  non  sunt; 
et  quod  non  possent  sibi  ipsis  subvenire  perierunt. 
Afflavit  enim  eos  et  aruerunt, 
interierunt,  quia  non  habebant  sapientiam. 


Et  cum  spiritus  me  praesente  transiret, 

inhorruerunt  pili  carnis  mese 

Stetit  quidam,  cvijus  non  agnoscebam  Tultom 

imago  coram  oculis  meis, 

et  vocem  quasi  aurae  lenis  audivi. 

Nunquid  homo  Dei  comparatione  justificabitur, 

aut  factore  suo  purior  erit  vir  ? 

Ecce  qui  serviunt  ei  non  sunt  stabiles  : 

et  in  angelis  suis  reperit  pravitatem. 

Quanto  magis  hi  qui  habitant  domos  luteas, 

qui  terrenum  habent  fundamentum, 

consumentur  velut  a  tinea? 

De  mane  usque  ad  vesperam  succidentu 

et  quia  nullus  intelligit  in  oeternum  peribuDt 

Qui  autem  reliqui  fuerint  auferentur  ex  eis  : 

Morientur,  et  non  in  sapientia. 


[V.  The  History  of  Jerome's  Transla- 
tion to  the  Invention  of  Printing.  —  21. 
The  critical  labors  of  Jerome  were  received,  as  such 
labors  always  are  received  by  the  multitude,  with 
h  loud  outcry  of  reproach.  He  was  accused  of 
disturbing  the  repose  of  the  Church,  and  shakitiji; 
the  foundations  of  faith.  Acknowledged  errors,  as 
he  complains,  were  looked  upon  as  hallowed  by 
ancient  usage  {Prcef.  in  .fob  ii.)-  and  few  had  the 
wisdom  or  candor  to  acknowledge  the  iniportrtnce 
of  seeking  for  the  purest  possible  text  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Even  Augustine  was  carried  away  by 
the  popular  prejudice,  and  endeavored  to  discour- 
218 


age  Jerome  from  the  task  of  a  new  translation 
{Fp.  civ.),  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  dangerous 
and  almost  profane.  Jerome,  indeed,  did  little  to 
smooth  the  way  for  the  reception  of  his  work. 
The  violence  and  bitterness  of  his  language  is  more 
like  that  of  the  rival  scholars  of  the  16th  century 
than  of  a  Christian  Father;  and  there  are  few 
more  toiching  inst.ances  of  humility  than  that  of 
the  young  Augustine  bending  himself  in  entire 
submission  liefore  the  contemptuous  and  impatient 
reproof  of  the  veteran  scholar  (A/),  cxii.  s.  /". ). 
Hut  even  Augustine  could  not  overcome  the  force 
of  early  habit.     To  the  last  lie  remained  faithful 


3466 


VULGATE,  THE 


to  the  Italic  text  which  he  had  first  used;  and 
while  he  notices  in  his  Retracl/iiinnes  several  fault}- 
re<adings  which  he  had  formerly  embraced,  he  shows 
no  tendency  to  substitute  generally  the  New  Ver- 
uion  for  the  Old."  In  such  cases  time  is  the  great 
reformer.  Clamor  based  upon  ignorance  soon  dies 
away;  and  the  new  translation  gradually  came  into 
use  equally  with  the  old,  and  at  length  supplanted 
it.  In  the  5th  century  it  was  adopted  in  Gaul  by 
Eucherius  of  Lyons,  Vincent  of  Lerins,  Sedulius 
and  Claudianus  Mamertus  (Hody,  p.  398);  but 
the  Old  Latin  was  still  retained  in  Africa  and 
Britain  (ibid.).  In  the  6th  century  the  use  of 
Jerome's  Version  was  universal  among  scholars 
except  in  Africa,  where  the  other  still  lingered 
(Junilius);  and  at  the  close  of  it  Gregory  the 
Great,  while  conmienting  on  .leronje's  Version, 
acknowledged  that  it  was  admitted  equally  with 
the  Old  by  the  Apostolic  See  {Prtef.  in  Job  ad 
Leaiidrwn),  "  Novam  translationem  dissero,  sed  ut 
comprobationis  causa  exigit,  nunc  Novam,  nunc 
Veterem,  per  teftimonia  assume:  ut  quia  sedes 
Apostolica  (cui  auctore  Deo  prsesideo)  utraque 
utitur  niei  quoque  labor  studii  ex  utraque  fulcia- 
tur."  But  the  Old  Version  was  not  authorita- 
tively displaced,  though  the  custom  of  the  Roman 
Church  prevailed  also  in  the  other  churthes  of  the 
West.  Thus  Isidore  of  Seville  {De  Ojfic.  Ecch-s. 
i.  12),  after  affinning  the  inspiration  of  the  LXX., 
goes  071  to  reconuiiend  the  Version  of  Jerome, 
"  which,"  he  saj'S,  "  is  used  universally,  as  being 
more  truthful  in  substance  and  more  perspicuous 
ni  language."  "  [Hieronynii]  editione  generaliter 
onines  ecclesise  usquequaque  utuntur,  pro  eo  quod 
veracior  sit  in  sententiis  et  clarior  in  verbis:" 
(Hody,  p.  402).  In  the  7th  centm-y  the  traces  of 
the  Old  Version  grow  rare.  Julianus  of  Toledo 
(a.  u.  076;  affirms  with  a  special  polemical  pur- 
{X)se  the  authority  of  the  LXX.,  and  so  of  the 
()ld  Latin;  but  still  he  himself  follows  Jerome 
when  not  influenced  liy  the  requirements  of  con- 
troversy (Hody,  pp.  40-5,  406).  In  the  8th  cen- 
tury Bede  speaks  of  Jerome's  Version  as  "  our 
edition''  (Hody,  p.  408);  and  from  this  time  it  is 
needless  to  trace  its  history,  though  the  Old  Latin 
was  not  wholly  forgotten.*  Yet  throughout,  the 
New  Version  made  its  way  without  any  direct 
ecclesiastical  authority.  It  was  adopted  in  the 
different  churches  gradually,  or  at  least  without 
any  formal  command.  (Compare  Hody,  p.  411  fT. 
for  detailed  quotations.) 

22.  But  the  Latin  Bi!)le  which  thus  passed  grad- 
ually into  use  under  the  name  of  Jerome  was  a 
strangely  composite  work.  The  books  of  the  O.  T., 
with  one  exception,  were  certainly  taken  from  his 
version  from  the  Hebrew;  but  this  had  not  only 
been   variously  corrupted,  but  was   itself  in   many 


VULGATE,  THE 

particulars  (especially  in  the  Pentateuch)  at  vari- 
ance with  his  later  judgment.  Long  use,  however, 
made  it  impossible  to  substitute  his  Psalter  from 
the  Hebrew  for  the  Galilean  P.salter;  and  thus  this 
book  was  retained  from  the  Old  Version,  as  Jerome 
had  corrected  it  from  tlie  LXX.  Of  the  Apocry- 
phal books  Jerome  hastily  revised  or  translated  two 
only,  Judith  and  Toliit.  The  remainder  were  re- 
tained from  the  Old  Version  against  his  judgment; 
and  the  Apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel  and  Esther, 
which  he  had  carefuUv  marked  as  apocryphal  in  his 
own  version,  were  treated  as  integral  parts  of  the 
books.  A  few  iMSS.  of  the  Bible  iliithfully  pre- 
served the  "  Hebrew  Canon,"  but  the  great  mass, 
according  to  the  general  custom  of  copyists  to  omit 
nothinsj,  included  everything  which  had  held  a 
place  in  the  Old  Latin.  In  the  N.  T.  the  only 
inqjortant  addition  which  was  frequently  interpo- 
lated was  the  apocryplial  Kpistle  to  the  Laodiceans. 
The  text  of  the  Gospels  was  in  the  main  Jerome's 
revised  edition ;  that  of  the  remaining  books  his 
very  incomplete  revision  of  the  Old  Latin.  Thus 
the  present  Vulgate  contains  elements  which  belong 
to  every  period  and  form  of  the  Latin  Version  — 
(1.)  Unrtvised  Old  Latin  :  Wisdom,  Ecclus.,  1,  2 
Mace,  Baruch.  (2.)  Old  Latin  revised  from  the 
LXX.:  Psalter.  (3.)  Jerome's  free  translation 
from  the  original  text:  Judith,  Tobit.  (4.)  Je- 
rome's translation  from  the  Oriijinal :  0.  T.  ex- 
cept Psalter.  (5.)  Old  Latin  revised  from  Greek 
J/^'S.  ;  •  Gosjiels.  (6.)  Old  Latin  cursorily  re- 
vised: the  remainder  of  N.  T. 

The  Revision  of  Alcuin.  —  23.  Meanwhile  the 
text  of  the  different  parts  of  the  Latin  Bible  was 
rapidly  deteriorating.  The  simultaneous  use  of  the 
Old  and  New  versions  necessarily  led  to  great  cor- 
ruptions of  both  texts.  Mixed  texts  were  formed 
according  to  the  taste  or  judgment  of  scribes,  and 
the  confusion  was  further  increased  by  the  changes 
which  were  sometimes  introduced  by  those  who  had 
some  knowledge  of  (ireek.*^  From  this  cause 
scarcely  any  Anglo-Saxon  Vulgate  MS.  of  the  8th 
or  0th  centuries  which  the  writer  has  examined  is 
wholly  free  from  an  admixture  of  old  readings. 
Several  remarkal)le  examples  are  noticed  below 
(§  .32);  and  in  rare  instances  it  is  difficult  to  de- 
cide whether  the  text  is  not  rather  a  revised  Vetns 
than  a  corrupted  Vidijata  nova  (e.  g.  Brit.  Mus. 
Rvg.  i.  E.  vi.;  Addit.  5,463).  As  early  as  the  6th 
century,  Cassiodorus  attempted  a  partial  revision 
of  the  text  (Psalter,  Prophets,  Epistles)  by  a  colla- 
tion of  old  MSS.  But  private  labor  was  unable  to 
check  the  growing  corruption;  and  in  the  8th  cen- 
tury this  had  arrived  at  such  a  height,  that  it  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  Charlemagne.  Charle- 
magne at  once  souirht  a  remedy,  and  er  trusted  to 
Alcuin   (cir.  A.  D.  802)  the  task  of  revising  the 


n  When  lie  quotes  it.  he  seems  to  consider  an  ex- 
Ijlanation  nece»sary  (De  dnctr.  Christ,  iv.  7,  15) :  "  Ex 
iUius  prophetse  libro  potissimum  hoc  faciam  .  .  .  . 
non  autem  secundum  LXX.  iiiterpretes,  qui  etiam 
ipsi  divino  sptritit  interpretati ,  nb  hor  alitrr  videntvr 
noiiKiilta  dixisse,  ut  ad  spiritunlem  sensum  Jtiagis  ad- 
mnueritur  lectoris  intentio  ....  sed  sicut  ex  Hebrseo 
in  Latinuni  eloquium,  presbytero  Hieronvnio  utriu.s- 
que  linguaj  perito  interpretante,  translata  sunt."  In 
his  Retractationrs  there  is  no  definite  reference,  as  far 
as  I  have  observed,  to  Jerome's  critical  Labors.  He 
notices,  however,  some  false  readings :  Lib.  i.  vii. ;  Ps. 
xliii.  22  (Rom.  viii.  S6) ;  Wisd.  viii.  7;  Eccles.  i.  2; 
id.  six  4;  Matt,  c  22,  nw.  sine  causa ;  Lib  ii.,  xii.; 
Matt.  XX.  17  (duodecitn  fnr  duo\. 


b  Thus  Bede.  speaking  of  a  contemporary  abbot, 
says  that  he  increased  the  library  of  two  monasteries 
with  great  zeal,  "ita  ut  tres  Pandfctns''  (the  name 
for  the  collection  of  the  Holy  Scrirtures  adopted  bv 
Alcuin,  in  place  of  BiUiotlieca)  "novas  translatiu- 
iiis  ad  unum  vetust«  translationis,  quam  de  Roma 
attulerat,  ipse  superadjungeret  .  .  .  .'  (Hody,  p. 
409). 

c  Jerome  notices  this  fruitful  source  of  error :  "  Si 
quid  pro  studio  ex  latere  additum  est  non  debet  poui 
in  corpore,  ne  priorem  translahonem  pro  scribentium 
voluntate  conturbat "  (Ep.  cvi.  ad  Sun.  et  Fret.) 
Bede,  WalalVid  Strabo,  and  others,  complain  of  th# 
same  custom. 


VULGATE.  THE 

[,atin  text  for  pulilic  use.  This  Alcuin  appears  to 
have  done  simply  by  the  use  of  JLSS.  of  the  Vul- 
l^ute.  and  not  by  reference  to  the  original  texts 
(Person,  Lvller  vi.  to  Tnivls,  p.  145).  The  pas- 
sa^es  which  are  adduced  by  Hody  to  prove  his  fa- 
miliarity with  Hebrew,  are  in  fact  only  quotations 
from  .Jerome,  and  he  certainly  left  I  he  test  unal- 
tered, at  least  in  one  place  where  Jerome  points  out 
its  inaccuracy  (Gen.  xxv.  8).«  The  patronage  of 
Charlemagne  gave  a  wide  currency  to  the  revision 
of  Alcuin,  and  several  MSS.  remain  which  claim  to 
date  immediately  from  his  time.''  According  to  a 
very  remarkable  statement,  Ch.arlemagne  was  more 
than  a  patron  of  sacred  criticism,  and  himself  de- 
voted the  last  year  of  his  life  to  the  correction  of 
the  Gospels  •'  with  the  help  of  Greeks  and  Syr- 
ians "  (Van  Ess,  p.  1.59,  quoting  Theganus,  Script. 
Hid.  Franc,  ii.  277  ).c 

24:.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  probable  that 
Alcuin's  revision  contributed  much  towards  pre- 
serving a  good  Vulgate  text.  The  best  iLSS.  of 
his  recension  do  not  differ  widely  from  the  pure 
Hieronymian  text,  and  his  authority  nmst  have 
done  much  to  check  the  spread  of  the  interpolations 
which  reappear  afterwards,  and  which  were  derived 
from  the  intermixture  of  the  Old  and  New  Versions. 


VULGATE,  THE 


3467 


Examples  of  readings  which  seem  to  be  due  to  him 
occur:  Dent.  i.  9,  add.  soliludinem ;  venissemits, 
for  -eds ;  id.  4,  nsrendimus,  for  ascendemiis ;  ii 
24,  ill  iiuinu  tua,  for  in  mnnus  iuus  ;  iv.  33,  vidisti, 
for  vixitili ;  vi.  13,  ipii,  add.  soli ;  xv.  9,  octdos,  om. 
luos:  xvii.  20,  Jiliiis,  for //it;  xx.  6,  add.  venient; 
xxvi.  16,  at.  for  et.  But  the  new  revision  w.aa 
gradually  deformed,  though  later  attempts  at  cor- 
rection were  made  by  Lanfranc  of  Canterbury  (a.  d. 
1089,  Hody,  p.  410),  Card.  Nicolaus  (a.  D.  11-50), 
and  the  Cistercian  Abbot  Stephanus  (cir.  a.  d. 
1150).  In  the  13th  century  Coi-rectoria  were 
drawn  up,  especially  in  France,  in  which  varieties 
of  reading  were  discussed ;  <^  and  Koger  Bacon  com- 
plains loudly  of  the  confusion  which  was  introduced 
into  the  "  Conunon,  that  is  the  Parisian  copy," 
and  quotes  a  false  reading  from  Mark  viii.  38, 
where  the  correctors  had  substituted  confcsgiis  for 
confusus  (Hody,  pp.  419  ff.).  Little  more  was  done 
for  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  till  tlie  invention  of 
printing;  and  the  name  of  Lautentius  Valla  (cir. 
1450)  alone  deserves  mention,  as  of  one  who  de- 
voted the  highest  powers  to  the  criticism  of  Holy 
Scriiiture,  at  a  time  when  such  studies  were  little 
esteemed. <= 

V.  Thk  Histoky  of  the  Printed  Text. — 


a  Hieron.  QntEst.  in  Gen.  xxv.  8  ;  Coinm.  in  Ec- 
cles.  ix.  466  ;  ibiil  xii.  490. 

i  Amoug  the.<e  i.«  that  known  as  Charlemagne's  Bi- 
ble, Brit.  JMii.s.  AJJ.  10,.54t).  which  has  been  described 
by  Uug,  Einl.  §  123.  Another  is  in  the  library  of  the 
Oratory  at  Kouie  (comp.  §  30,  Cod.  D).  A  third  is  in 
the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris.  All  of  these,  however, 
are  later  than  the  age  of  Charlemagne,  and  date  prob- 
ably from  the  time  of  Charles  the  Bald,  A.  D   875. 

c  Mr.  H.  Bradshaw  suggests  that  this  statement  de- 
rives some  confirmation  from  the  preface  which  Charle- 
magne added  to  the  collection  of  Homilies  arranged 
by  Paulas  Diacouus,  in  which  he  spwiUs  "  of  the  pains 
which  he  had  taken  to  set  the  church  books  to 
rights."  A  copy  of  this  collection,  with  the  Preface 
(xitli  cent.),  is  preserved  in  the  Library  of  St.  Peters 
Coll.  Cambr. 

rf  Vercellone  has  given  the  readings  of  three  Vati- 
can Correctoria,  and  refers  to  his  own  essay  upon 
them  in  Atti  ililla  Pontif.  Acad.  Kom.  di  Archeotogia, 
XIV.  There  is  a  Correcloriuin  in  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  A, 
viii. 

f  The  divisions  of  the  Latin  Versions  into  capitula 
were  very  various.  Cassiodorus  (t  560  A.  D.)  mentions 
an  ancient  division  of  some  books  existing  in  his  time 
{''  Octateuchi  [/.  e.  Pentateuch,  .Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth] 
titulos  ,  .  .  credidiiuus  imprimendos  amajoribus  nos- 
tris  ordiae  eurrente  descriptos  "  De  Inst.  Die.  Litt. 
i  ),  and  in  other  books  (1,  2  Chron.,  the  hooks  of  Solo- 
mon), he  himself  made  a  corresponding  division.  Je- 
rome mentions  cajiitii'a,  but  the  sections  which  he  in- 
dicates do  not  seem  to  estjiblish  the  existence  of  any 
generally  received  arrangement;  and  the  variety  of 
the  capitulation  in  the  best  existing  MSS.  of  his  ver- 
sion proves  that  no  one  method  of  subdivision  could 
claim  his  authority.  The  divisions  which  are  given 
in  MSS.  cm-respond  with  the  summary  of  contents  by 
which  the  several  books  are  prefaced,  and  vary  con- 
siderably in  length.  They  are  called  indiscriminately 
cnjiitiila,  breces,  tittili.  Marrianay,  in  his  edition  of 
the  Bibliot/ifca,  gives  a  threefold  arrangement,  and  as- 
signs the  different  terms  to  the  three  several  divisions  ; 
thus  Genesis  has  xxxviii  titiili,  xlvi  breves,  Ixxxii  (or 
jliv)  rapitida.  But  while  .Terome  does  not  appear  to 
have  fixed  any  division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters,  he 
Arranged  the  text  in  lines  (rersKS,  cttixoi)  for  conveu- 
ieiue  in  reading  and  interpreUition  ;  and  the  lines 
A'ere  combined  in  marked  groups  (membrn,  xijiKa).  In 
Uj^j  poetical  books  a  further  arrangement  marked  the 


parallelism  of  the  answering  clauses  (Martianay,  Pro- 
lega  iv.  All  Die.  Bihl.).  The  number  of  lines  (versus) 
is  variously  given  in  different  MSS.  (Comp.  Vercellone, 
Var.  Led.  App.  ad  .los.)  For  the  origin  of  the  pre.seut 
division  of  the  Vulgate,  see  BtBLE,  i.  307  a. 

An  abstract  of  the  capitula  and  versus  given  in  the 
Alcuin  MS.,  known  as  "  Charlemagne's  Bible  "  (Brit. 
Mus  Addit.  10,546),  will  give  a  satisfactory  idea  of  the 
contents,  nomenclature,  and  arrangement  of  the  best 
copies  of  the  Latin  Bible. 

Epistola  ad  Paulinum.  Prafatio. 

Bresit,  i.  e.  Genesis,  capp.  Ixxxii.  habet  versos  m.  DCO. 
EUrsmot/i,  i.  e.  JSxodus,  capp.  cxxxviiii.  v.  lil 
Leviticus,  Hebraice 

Vaiecra.  .     capp.  Ixxxviiii.  v.  ii.  ccc. 
Niimeri     .     .  capp.  Ixxviiii.    habet  vers.  numr.  ui. 
Addabari7n,  Grece 

Deuteronomimn     capp.  civ.  habet  vers.  II.  DC 
Prasfatio  Jesu  Naue  et  Judicum. 
Josiie  Ben  Nun  .  capp.  xxxiii.  habet  vers.  i.  DCCL. 
tloftim,  1.  e.  Judicum, 

(liber)  .     .     .     capp.  xviii.  habet  vers.  numr. 

I.   DCCL. 

Ruth        none,  habet  ver.  num.  cct 

Prasfatio  (Prologus  galeatus). 
Samiiliel  (Regum),  lib. 

prim.    .     .     .     capp.  xxvi.  habet  versus,  II.  ccc. 
Sainuhel  (Regum),  lib. 

sec.        .      .     .     capp.  xviii.  habet  versus,  u.  cc. 
Mnlnchim ,  i.  e.  Regum, 

lib.  tert.  capp.  xviiii. 

(for  xviii.)  .  habet  vers.  u.  d. 

Malachim,  i.  e.  Regum, 

lib.  quart.     .       capp.  xvii.  habet  versus  ii.  col- 
Prologus. 

Isaias none,  habet  vers.  Ili.  dlsxx. 

Prologus. 

Hieremiiis  (with  Lam.  and 

Pr.ayer)     ....     none,  habet  versus  lin.  ccooi 
Prologus. 
Hiczerherl  (-iel)       .     .     none.  none. 

DanUiel none,  habet  versus  I.  ikjoct. 

Oscc,  Jnhel,  .4mns,  Abdias, 

.Tnnas,    Michas,    Naum, 

Abnciic,   Sn//lwnias,  Ag- 

gi  IIS     Zacharin$,    Man- 
chins    none.  none. 

Prologus. 


3468 


VULGATE,  THE 


25.  It  was  a  noble  omen  for  the  future  procrress  of 
[jrintiiig  that  the  first  book  which  issued  from  the 
press  was  the  Bible;  and  the  sjdendid  pages  of  the 
Mazarin  Vulgate  (Mainz.  Gutenburg  and  Fust) 
itand  yet  unsurpassed  by  the  latest  efforts  of  typog 
raphy.  This  work  is  referred  to  about  the  year 
14.55,  and  presents  the  common  text  of  the  loth 
century.  Other  editions  followed  in  rapid  succes- 
Bion  (the  first  with  a  date,  Mainz,  1462,  Fust  and 
Schoiffer),  but  they  offer  nothing  of  critical  interest 
The  first  collection  of  various  readings  appears  in  a 
Paris  edition  of  1504,  and  others  followed  at  Venice 
and  Lyons  in  1511,  1513;  but  Cardinal  Xiuienes 
(1502-1517)  was  the  first  who  seriously  revised  the 
Latin  text  ("....  contulimus  cum  quamplu- 
riuiis  exemplaribus  venerandte  vetustatis;  sed  his 
maxime.  quoe  in  jiubHca  Complutensis  nostrse 
Universitatis  bibliotheca  reconduntur,  quae  supra 
octingentesimum  abhinc  annum  litteris  Gothicis 
conscripta,  ea  sunt  sinceritate  ut  nee  apicis  lapsus 
possit  in  eis  deprehendi,"  Pra//'.)",  to  which  he 
assigned  the  middle  place  of  honor  in  his  I'olyglott 


none,  habet  versus  v.  dcc. 


habet  versus  I.  c. 

Ixi.  noue. 
It. 


VULGATE.  THE 

between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  [comp.  Nem 
'I'kstament,  iii.  2129  b].  The  Complutensian  text 
is  said  to  be  more  coiTect  than  those  which  pre- 
ceded it,  but  still  it  is  very  far  from  being  pure. 
This  was  followed  in  1528  (2d  edition  1532)  by  an 
edition  of  K.  Stephens,  who  had  bestowed  great 
pains  upon  the  work,  consulting  three  MSS.  of 
high  character  and  the  earlier  editions,  but  as  yet 
the  best  materials  were  not  open  for  use.  About 
tiie  same  time  various  attempts  were  made  to  cor- 
rect the  Latin  from  the  original  texts  (Erasmus, 
1510;''  Pagninus,  1518-28;  Card.  Cajetanus; 
Steuchius,  1529;  Clarius,  1542),  or  even  to  make 
a  new  Latin  version  (.Jo.  Campensis,  1533).  A 
more  important  edition  of  R.  Stephens  followed  in 
1540,  in  which  he  made  use  of  twenty  MSS.  and 
introduced  considerable  alterations  into  his  former 
text.  In  1541  another  edition  was  published  by 
Jo.  Benedictus  at  Paris,  which  was  based  on  the 
collation  of  JI.SS.  and  editions,  and  was  often 
reprinted  afterwards.  Vercellone  speaks  much 
more  highly  of  the  Blblia  Ord'maria,  with  glosses, 


Job none.  v.  I.  DCC. 

Origo  Proph.  David,  Prsefatio. 

Liber  Psalmoruni  (Gallican) 

none,  habet  vr.  v. 
Epist.  ad  Chroni.  et  Heliod. 

Liber  Proverbioruni    capp.  Ix.  habet  versus  i.  DCCXL. 
Ecclesiastes  .     .     capp.  xxxi.  none. 
Cantica  Canticonim  .     none,  habet  versus  CCLXXS. 
Liber  Saplentiee     capp.  xlviii.  habet  ver.sus  I.  DCC. 
Ecclesiastkus  .     capp.  cxxvii.  habet  versus  ii.  Dccc. 
Prsefiitio. 

Dnbreiamin,  lib.  prim.    none.  hab.  (sic) 
Parcdypominon  (lib. 

sec.) none.  none. 

Prasfatio. 

Liber  EzrcB  .... 

Prologus. 

Hester  (with  add.) 

Prsefatio. 

Tobias none,  none, 

Prologus. 

Judith     .... 

Liber  Machabr.  prim 

Machabr.  liber  sec. 

Prsef.  ad  Diimasum. 

Argumentum. 

Cauones. 

Prologus. 

Mattheus     .     .     capp.  lixxi.  habet  vers.  IT.  dcc. 

Marcus  .     .     .     capp.    xlvi.  habet  v-  i.  DCC. 

Lucas     .     .     .     capp.  Ixxiii.  vers.  in.  dccc. 

Johannes      .     .     capp.  xxxv.  vers.  i.  dccc. 

Lib.  Actinirn  Apo'^t.  capp.  Ixxiiii.  habet  vers.  HI.  DC 

Prologus  septem  Epistolarum  Can. 

Epistl.  Sci.  Jacobi     .     capp.  xx.  none. 

Epistl.  Scl.  Petri  jyrim.  capp.  xx.  

Epistl.  Sri.  Petri  sec.        capp.  xi.  

Epistl.  Set.  Joh.  prim.   capp.  xxT 

Epistl.  Set.  Joh.  sec.  .      capp.  v.  

Epistl.  Sci.  Joh.  tert.  .     capp.  vi. 

Bpistl.  Scl.  Ju'l.    .     .    capp.  vii. 

Yi])]a,.  ad  Romanos      .     capp.  li.  habet  versus  Dccccxi. 

Epla.  ad  Cor.  prim.    capp.  Ixxii.  none. 

Epla.  arf  Cor.  sec.     capp.  xxviii.  habet  vers,  ccxcn. 

Bpla.  ad  Galalhas   capp.  xxxvii  habet  versus  ccxm. 

Epla.  ad  Ephesios       capp.  xxxi.  habet  versus  cccxvn 

Epla  ad  Philippenses  capp.  xviiii.  none. 

Epla.  ad  Thess.  prim,  capp,  xxv.  habet  versus  ccxm. 

Epla.  ad  Thess.  sec.     capp.  viiii.  none. 

Epla.  ad  ColosensfS    capp.  xxxi.  none. 

K|)la.  ad  Tim.  prim.  capp.  xxx.  vers,  ccxxx. 

Epla   ad  Tim .  sec.       capp.  xxv.  none. 

Epla.  a/i  Til.    .  .     capp.  x.  none. 


Epla.  ad  Phi/em.  .  capp.  iiii.  none. 
Epla.  ad  Hehr.  capp.  xxxviiii.  noue. 
Epla.  ad  Laodieenscs  none.  none. 
Apocalypsis  .     .     capp.  xxv   habet  versus  i.  DCCC. 

An  argumentum  is  given  before  each  of  the  books 
of  the  N.  T.  except  the  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Laodiceans,  and  the  whole  MS.  closes  with 
sixty -eight  hexameter  Latin  verses. 

The  divisions  agree  generally  with  Brit.  Mus.  Harl. 
2805,  and  Lambeth  3,  4.  In  the  VallicelUan  Alcuin 
MS.  (comp.  p.  .5iT4  d)  the  apocryphal  Ep.  to  the  Lao- 
diceans is  not  found  ;  but  it  occurs  in  the  same  posi- 
tion in  the  great  Bible  in  the  King's  Library  (1  E.  vii. 
viii.),  with  four  capitula. 

Many  examples  of  the  various  divisions  into  capitula 
are  given  at  length  by  Thomasius,  Opera,  i.  ed.  Vez- 
zosi,  Romee,  1747.  The  divisions  of  the  principal 
MSS.  which  the  writer  has  examined  are  given  be- 
low, §  30. 

Beutley  gives  the  following  stichometry  from  Cod. 
Sanzerm.  (g)  :  — 

Ep.  ad  Rom  ,    Scribta  de  Chorintho.      Versos  dcccc. 
(so  two  other  of  B.'s  MSS.). 
ad  Cor.  i.,  Scribta  de  Philipis.     Versus  DCCCLXX. 
ad    Cor.    ii.,   Scribta    de     Macedonia.      Versus 

DLSX.  (sic), 
ad    Galat.,     Scribta    de    urbe     Roma.       Verti 

CCLXfflXC.  (sic). 
ad   Ephes.,    Scribta   de    urbe    Roma,      Versus 

cccxn. 
ad  Philip.,  Scribta  de  urbe  Roma.      Versi  ccci. 
ad  Colo.ss.,  Scribta  de  urbe  Roma.     Versi  ccvni. 
ad  Thess.  i.,  Scripta  de  Alhenis.      Versi  CLXinr. 
ad  Thess.  ii.,    Scripta  de  urbe   Roma.      Versus 

cvm. 
ad  Tim.  i.,  Scribta  de  Lauditia.     Versus  ccxxx. 
ad  Tim.  ii.,  Scripta  a  Roma.      Versus  CLXXil. 
ad  Tit.,  Scripta  de  Nicopolin.     Versus  Lxvu. 
ad  Philem.,   Scribta   de   urbe    Roma.     .Versus 

xsxnii. 
ad  Hebr.,  Scribta  de  Roma.      Versus  DCO. 
No  verges  ar«  given  from  this  MS.  for  the  other 
books. 

a  The  copy  which  is  here  alluded  to  is  stiU  in  the 
library  at  Alcala,  but  the  writer  is  not  aware  that  it 
has  been  reexamined  by  any  scholar.  There  is  also  a 
seconiJ  copy  of  the  Vulgate  of  the  12th  cent  A  list 
of  Biblical  MSS.  at  Alcala  is  given  in  Ur.  TregeUes' 
Print.'d  Text  of  N-   T..  pp.  15-18. 

h  Erasmus  himself  wished  to  publish  the  Latin  text 
as  he  found  it  in  MSS.  ;  but  he  was  dissuaded  by  the 
advice  of  a  friend,  ■'  urgent  rather  than  wise  "  ("  antid 
cousiUis  improbis  verius  quam  felicibus  '"). 


VULGATE,  THE 

etc  ,  published  at  Lyons,  1645,  as  giving  readinijs 
ill  iicconlauce  witli  the  oldest  MSS.,  tliough  the 
sources  from  which  they  Are  derived  are  not  given 
{V((ri(B  Led.  xcix.).  The  course  of  controversy 
in  the  16th  century  exaggerated  the  imiwrtance  of 
the  differences  in  the  text  and  interpreta  ion  of  the 
Vulgate,  and  the  confusion  called  for  some  remedy 
An  authorized  edition  became  a  necessity  for  llie 
Komisii  Church,  and.  however  i^ruvely  later  theo- 
logians may  have  erred  in  explaining  the  (lolicv  or 
intentions  of  the  Tridentine  lathers  on  this  point, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  (setting  aside  all  refer- 
ence to  the  oriijinid  texts)  the  principle  of  their 
decision  —  the  prelerence,  that  is,  of  the  oldest 
Latin  text  to  any  later  Latin  version  —  was  sul'- 
Btantially  right." 

The  Sixiiiie  and  CUtnentine  Vulgaies.  —  26. 
The  first  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent  was  held 
on  Dec.  1.3tii,  15-45.  After  some  preliminary 
arraugemeiits  the  Nicene  Creed  was  formally  pro- 
mulgated as  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  faith 
on  Keb.  4tii,  1546,  and  then  the  Council  proceeded 
to  the  question  of  the  authority,  text,  and  inter- 
pretation of  Holy  Scripture.  A  committee  was 
appointed  to  report  upon  the  subject,  which  held 
private  meetings  from  Feb.  iOth  to  March  17th. 
CousideraMe  varieties  of  opinion  existed  as  to  the 
relative  value  of  tlie  original  and  Latin  texts,  and 
the  final  decree  was  intended  to  serve  as  a  com- 
promise.'' This  was  made  on  Afiril  8th,  1546,  and 
consisted  of  two  parts,  the  first  of  which  contaiiiB  the 
list  of  tile  canonical  books,  with  the  usual  anathema 
311  those  who  refuse  to  receive  it;  while  the  second. 
"On  the  Edition  and  Use  of  the  Sacred  Books," 
contains  no  anathema,  so  that  its  contents  are  not 
articles  of  faith. =  Tlie  wording  of  the  decree  itself 
contains  several  marks  of  the  controversy  from 
which  it  arose,  and  admits  of  a  far  more  lilieral 
construction  than  later  glosses  have  afftxed  to  it. 
Ill  affirming  the  authority  of  the  '  Old  Vulgate '  it 
contains  no  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  oiiginal 
texts.  The  question  decided  is  simjily  the  relative 
merits  of  tlie  current  Latin  versions  ("si  ex 
omnibus  Latinis  versionibus  qua;  circumfennitur 
....  "),  and  this  only  in  reference  to  public 
exercises.  The  ol  ject  contemplated  is  the  advan- 
tage (utilitas)  of  the  Church,  and  not  anything 
essential  to  its  constitution.  It  was  further  en 
acted,  as  a  check  to  the  license  of  printers,  that 
"  Holy  Scri|jture.  but  especially  the  old  and  com 
moil  (Vulgate)  edition  (evidently  without  excluding 
the  original  texts),  should  be  printed  as  correctly 
as  possible."  In  spite,  however,  of  tlie  comiiara- 
tive  caution  of  the  decree,  and  the  interpretation 
which  was  affixed  to  it  liy  the  highest  authorities, 
it  was  received  with  little  favor,  and  the  want  of  a 
Handard   text  of  the  \"ulgate  practically  left  the 


VULGATE,  THE 


3-4G9 


«  Bellarmin  justly  insists  on  this  fact,  wliich  has 
I  ^cu  strangely  overlooked  in  later  coutroversies  (/Je 
Verba  Dei,  x..  ap.  Van  Kss,  §  27):  "Nee  euim  Patres 
[Triileutiui]  fouuum  ullaiii  ineutiouem  fererunt.  Sod 
(olum  ex  tot  latiuis  versionibus,  qua;  uunc  ciremn- 
feruntur,  uuam  delegeruut,  quam  ceteris  auteponerent 
....  antiquam  uovis,  probatam  longo  usu  recenti- 
t^  adhuc,  ac  ut  sic  loquar.  erudis  .   .   .  .   " 

''  The  original  authorities  are  collected  and  given 
w  length  by  Van  Ess,  §  17. 

c  Insuper  eadem  Sacrosaucta  Synodus  consideraus 
jon  parum  utititatis  iiccedere  posse  ecclesia;  Dei,  si  ex 
omnibus  latinis  editioiiibus.  quie  eircuniferuutur 
sacronun  librorum,  quaenani  pro  autheutica  habenda 
iit.  iniiotescat,  statuit  et  declarat,  ut   hiec  ipsa  vetus 


luestion  as  unsettled  as  before.  The  ilecree  itself 
was  made  by  men  little  fitted  to  anticipate  the 
difficulties  of  textual  criticism,  but  afterwards  these 
were  found  to  be  so  great  that  for  some  time  it 
seemed  that  no  Authorized  edition  would  appear. 
The  theologians  of  Belgium  did  something  to  meet 
the  want.  In  1547  the  first  edition  of  Hentenius 
appeared  at  Louvain,  which  had  very  coiisideralde 
influence  upon  later  copies.  It  was  based  upon 
the  collation  of  Latin  MSS.  and  the  Stephanie 
edition  of  1540.  In  the  Antwerp  Polyglott  of 
1568-1572  the  Vulgate  w.as  borrowed  from  the 
Coniplutensian  (Vercellone,  Var.  LtCt.  ci.);  but 
in  the  Antwerp  edition  of  the  Vulgate  of  1573-74 
the  text  of  lienteiKUs  was  adopted  with  copious 
additions  of  readings  by  Lucas  Brugensis.  This 
last  was  designed  as  tlie  preparation  and  temporary- 
substitute  for  the  I'apal  eilitiou:  indeed  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  it  was  not  put  forth  as  the 
"correct  edition  required  by  the  Tridentine  de- 
cree" (comp.  Lucas  Brui:.  ap.  Vercellone,  cii. ). 
l)ut  a  ra[)al  board  was  already  engaged,  however 
desultorily,  upon  the  work  of  revision.  The  earliest 
trace  of  an  attempt  to  realize  the  recouimendationa 
of  the  Council  is  found  fifteen  years  .after  it  was 
made.  In  1561  Paulus  Manutius  (son  of  Aldus 
Manutius)  was  invited  to  Rome  to  superintend  the 
printing  of  Latin  and  Greek  Bibles  ( \'ercellone, 
Var.  Led.  etc.,  i.  Prol.  six.  n.).  During  that 
year  and  the  next  several  scholars  (with  Sirletus 
at  their  he  id)  were  engaged  in  the  revision  of  the 
text.  In  the  pontificate  of  Pius  V.  the  work  was 
Continued,  and  Sirletus  still  took  a  chief  part  in  it 
(156!),  1570,  Vercellone,  /.  c.  xx.  it.),  but  it  was 
currently  reported  that  the  difficulties  of  publishing 
an  authoritative  edition  were  insuperable.  Nothing 
further  was  done  towards  the  revision  of  the  Vul- 
gate under  (iregory  XIII. ,  but  preparations  were 
made  for  an  edition  of  the  LXX.  Tliis  appeared 
in  1587.  in  the  second  year  of  the  pontificate  of 
Sixtus  v.,  who  had  been  one  of  the  chief  promoters 
of  the  work.  After  the  publication  of  the  LXX., 
.Sixtus  immediately  devoted  himself  to  the  produc- 
tion of  an  edition  of  the  Vulgate.  He  was  him- 
self a  scholar,  and  his  imperious  genius  led  him  to 
face  a  t-ask  from  which  others  had  shrunk.  "  He 
had  felt,"  he  says,  "  from  his  first  accession  to  the 
papal  throne  (1585),  great  grief,  or  even  indigna- 
tion (indigne  ferentes),  that  the  Tridentine  decree 
was  still  unsatisfied;  "  and  a  board  w.as  appointed, 
under  the  presidencj'  of  Card.  Carafa,  to  arrange 
the  materials  and  offer  suggestions  for  an  edition. 
Sixtus  himself  revised  the  text,  rejecting  or  con- 
firming the  suggestions  of  the  board  by  his  absolute 
judgment;  and  when  the  work  was  printed  he 
examined  the  sheets  with  the  utmost  care,  and 
corrected   the   errors  with   his  own  liaiid.<'     The 

et  vulgata  editio,  quK  longo  tot  seculorum  usu  iu  ipsa 
eccle.sia  probata  est,  in  piititicis  lectiouibus,  disputa- 
tiouibus,  praedicatiouibus  et  expositionibus  pro  au- 
theutica  liabeatur ;  et  ut  nemo  illam  rtgicere  quovis 

prictextu  audeat  vel  pricsumat Sed  et  iuipres- 

soribus  modum iuiponere  volens de- 

crevit  et  suituit  ut  posthac  sacra  scriptura;)0</.'i,«(»ii<m 
vero  htec  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata  editio  quam  emeuda- 

tissime  imprimatur 

<t  The  original  words  are  both  interesting  and  im 
portant  :  "  Nos  ....  ipsius  Apostoloruin  Principis 
auctoritate  coiifisi  ....  haudquaquam  gnivati 
suiiius  ....  hunc  quoque  iion  medioei-em  aceuratte 
lucubrationis  laborem  suscipcre,  atque  ea  oiuiiia 
perlegere   quce   alii   colleneraut  aut   seiiseiaut.  divfr- 


3470  VULGATE,  THE 

edition  appeared  in  1590.  with  the  famous  consti- 
tution ^i^terinis  lilt  (dated  March  1st,  1580)  \ne- 
fixed,  in  which  Sixtus  aftirnied  with  characteristic 
decision  the  plenary  authority  of  the  edition  for  all 
future  time.  "  By  the  fullness  of  Apostolical 
power  "  (such  are  his  words)  "  we  decree  and  de 
dare  that  this  edition  ....  approved  by  the 
authority  delivered  to  us  by  the  Lord,  is  to  be 
received  and  held  as  true,  lawful,  authentic,  and 
unquestioned,  in  all  public  end  private  discussion, 
reading,  preaching,  and  explanation."  «  He  further 
forbade  expressly  the  publication  of  various  read- 
ings in  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  and  pronomiced  that 
all  readings  in  other  editions  and  MSS.  which  vary 
from  those  of  the  revised  text  "  are  to  have  no 
credit  or  authority  for  the  future  "  (ea  in  iis  quw 
huic  nostras  editioni  non  consenserint,  nuUain  in 
posterum  fidem,  nullamque  auctoritatem  habitura 
esse  decerniinus).  It  was  also  enacted  that  tiie 
new  revision  should  be  introduced  into  all  missals 
and  service-books:  and  tlie  greater  excommiuiica- 
tion  was  threatened  against  all  who  in  any  way 
contravened  the  constitution.  Had  the  life  of  Sixtus 
been  prolonged,  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  his  iron 
wdl  would  have  enforced  the  changes  which  he 
thus  peremptorily  proclaimed  ;  but  he  died  in  .\ug. 
1590,  and  those  whom  he  had  alarmed  or  otiemled 
took  immediate  measures  to  hinder  the  execution 
of  his  designs.  Nor  was  this  without  good  reason. 
He  had  changed  the  readings  of  those  whom  he 
had  employed  to  re])ort  upon  the  text  with  the  most 
arbitrary  and  unskillful  hand ;  and  it  was  scarcely 
an  exaggeration  to  say  that  his  precipitate  "  self- 
reliance  had  brought  the  C'hurcli  into  the  nujst 
serious  peril."  >>  During  the  brief  pontificate  of 
Urban  VII.  nothing  could  be  done;  but  the  reaction 
was  not  long  delayed. 

On  the  accession  of  Gregory  XIV.  some  went 
so  far  as  to  propose  that  the  edition  of  Sixtus 
should  be  absolutely  prohibited ;  but  Bellarmin 
suggested    a   middle   course.      He    proposed    that 


Barum  lectionum  rationes  peipendere,  sanctorum  doc- 
torum  sententias  recognoscere :  qu»  quibus  antefe- 
renda  essent  dijudicare,  adeo  ut  iu  hoc  laboriosissimae 
emeiidationis  curriculo,  in  quo  operam  quotidianam, 
eamque  pluribus  horis  collocandaui  duxinius,  aliorum 
quidem  labor  fuerit  in  consulendo,  noster  auteni  iu  eo 
quod  ex  pluribus  esset  optimum  deligendo  :  ita  tamen 
ut  veterem  multis  in  Ecclesia  abhiuc  sasculis  receptam 
lectioueiu  omnino  retinueriuiu.s.  Novam  intereaTypo- 
grapbiara  in  Apostolifo  Vaticauo  Palatio  nostro  .... 
exstruxiuuis  .  .  .  .  ut  iu  ea  emeudatum  jam  Biblio- 
rum  Tolunien  excudcretur ;  eaque  res  quo  luagis 
iucorrupte  perficeretur,  nostra  no.s  ipsi  mauu  correxi- 
mus,  si  qua  prajlo  vitia  obrepsei-ant,  et  quse  coufusa 
aut  feeile  coiifundi  posse  videbantur  ....  distiuxi- 
uus  "  (Hody,  p.  496  ;  Van  Ess,  p.  273). 

a  "  ....  ex  certa  nostra  scieutia,  deque  Apos 
iilicae  potestatis  plenitudine  statuimus  ac  declaramus, 
eaui  Vulgatain  sacrac,  tam  veteris,  quam  uovi  Testa- 
menti  pairinae  Latinam  editionem,  quae  pro  authentioa 
a  Concilio  Xridentino  recepta  est,  sine  ulla  dubitatione, 
aut  coutroversia  ccusendam  esse  banc  ipsam,  quam 
nunc,  prout  optime  fieri  poterit,  emendatam  et  in 
Vaticana  Typographia  impressam  in  uiiiversa  Chris 
tiana  Republica,  atque  iu  omnibus  Chx'istiani  orbi 
Ecclesiis  legendam  evulgamus,  decernenteseam  .  .  . 
pro  vera,  Icyitima,  autbentica  et  iudubitata,  in  onuii- 
bus  publici.s  privatlsque  disputationibus,  lectionibus, 
prsedicationibus,  et  explanatiouibus  recipiendam  et 
teuen<lan)  esse." 

h  Bellaruiin  to  Clement  VIII.  :  •'  Novit  beatitudo 
restra  cui  se  totamque  erclesiam  discrimiui  eonuuiserit 
Sixtus  V.  di.\u\juxia  -pnrprim  '(octriio'  sensiis  sacrorum 


VULGATE,  THE 

the  erroneous  alterations  of  the  text  which  had 
been  made  in  it  (''quK  male  vnilala  erant") 
"  slionld  be  corrected  with  all  ]iossible  speed  ana 
tlie  Hilile  reprinted  under  the  name  of  Sixtus,  with 
a  prefatory  note  to  the  effect  tliat  errors  (aliqua 
errata)  had  crept  into  the  former  edition  by  the 
carelessness  of  tlie  printers."  <-'  This  pious  fraud, 
or  rather  daring  falsehood,''  for  it  can  be  called  by 
no  other  name,  found  favor  with  those  in  power. 
A  commission  was  ajipointed  to  revise  the  Sixtine 
text,  under  the  presidency  of  the  Cardinal  Colonna 
(L'olumna).  At  first  the  commissioners  made  but 
slow  progress,  and  it  seemed  likely  that  a  year 
would  elapse  bel'ore  the  revision  was  completed 
(UngareUi,  in  VerceUone,  Proky.  Iviii.).  The 
mode  of  proceedings  was  therefore  changed,  and  tlie 
commission  moved  to  Zagarolo,  the  country  seat 
of  Colonna;  and,  if  we  may  believe  the  inscription 
which  still  commemorates  the  event,  and  the  cur- 
rent report  of  the  time,  the  work  was  completed  in 
nineteen  days.  But  even  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
tlie  work  extended  over  six  months,  it  is  obvious 
that  there  was  no  time  for  the  examination  of  new 
authorities,  but  only  for  making  a  rapid  revision 
with  the  hel[)  of  the  materials  already  collected. 
The  task  was  hardly  finisiied  wlien  tjregory  died 
(Oct.  1591),  and  the  publication  of  the  revised  text 
was  again  delayed.  His  successor.  Innocent  IX., 
died  within  the  same  year,  and  at  the  beginning 
of  1592  Clement  VIII.  was  raised  to  the  popedom. 
Clement  entrusted  the  final  revision  of  the  text  to 
Toletus,  and  the  whole  was  printed  by  Aldus 
Manutius  (the  grandson)  before  the  end  of  1592. 
The  Preface,  which  is  moulded  upon  that  of  Sixtus, 
was  written  by  Bellarmin,  and  is  favoralily  distin- 
guished from  that  of  Sixtus  by  its  temperance  and 
even  modesty.  The  text,  it  is  said,  had  been  pre- 
pared witli  the  greatest  care,  and  though  not  aljso- 
lutely  perfect  was  at  least  (what  is  no  idle  lioast) 
more  correct  than  that  of  any  former  edition. 
Some  readhigs  indeed,  it  is  allowed,  had,  though 


bibliorum  euieudationem  aggressus  est ;  nee  satis  scio 
an  gravius  unquam  periculum  occurrerit  "  (Van  Ess, 
p.  290). 

c  The  following  is  the  original  passage  quoted  by 
Vau  Ess  from  the  fii'St  edition  of  Bellarmins  Auto- 
biography (p.  291),  anno  1591 :  "  Cum  Gregorius  XIV. 
cogitaret  quid  agendum  esset  de  bibliis  a  Sixto  V 
editis,  in  quibus  erautperinutla  perpera?fi  mutata,  non 
deerant  viri  graves,  qui  ceuserent  ea  biblia  esse  pub- 
lice  prohibenda,  sed  N.  (Bellarminus)  coram  pontifice 
demohstravit,  biblia  ilia  uou  esse  prohibeuda,  sed  esse 
ita  corrigenda,  ut  salvo  houore  Sixti  V.  poutificis  biblia 
ilia  emendata  proderentur,  quod  fieret  si  quam  celer- 
rime  tollereutur  (/iicb  male  niiitala  erant,  et  biblia 
recudereutur  sub  nomine  ejusdem  Sixti,  et  addita 
prajfatione  qua  significaretur  in  prima  cditione  Sixti 
pra>  fesiiiiatione  irrfpsisse  aligva  errata,  vel  tj  pogra- 
phorum  vel  aliorum  incuria,  et  sic  N.  reddidit  Sixto 
pontitici  bona  pro  mails."  The  last  words  refer  to 
SixtuB'  condemnation  of  a  thesis  of  Bellarmin,  iu  \Vhieh 
be  denied  "  Papam  esse  dominum  directum  totius 
orbis  ;  '"  and  it  was  this  whole  passage,  and  not  the 
Preface  to  the  Clementine  Vulgate,  which  cost  Bellar- 
min his  canonization  (^au  Ess,  from  the  original  doc- 
unlcnt^-,  pp.  291-318).  It  will  be  observed  that  Bel- 
larmin first  describes  the  errors  of  the  Sixtine  edition 
really  as  iJelit/erate  alterations,  and  then  proposes  tn 
represent  them  as  errors. 

<t  The  evidence  collected  by  A'an  E».  ^pp.  285  ff.), 
.and  even  the  cautious  admissions  of  UngareUi  an.j 
VerceUone  ^pp.  xjcxix.-xhv.),  will  prove  that  this  laa 
guage  is  not  too  strong. 


VULUATP],  THE 

•  in"onf;,  l^eon  left  unchanged,  to  avoid  popiilar 
jftense "  But  yet  even  here  Bellamiui  (lid  not 
Bcrupie  to  repeat  the  liction  of  the  intention  of 
Sixtiis  to  recall  his  edition,  wliich  still  disi;races 
the  front  of  the  Roman  Vulgate  hy  an  apology  no 
less  needless  than  untrue.*  Auotlier  edition  fol- 
lowed in  1593,  and  a  third  in  lu'J8,  with  a  triple 
list  of  errata,  one  for  each  of  the  tliree  editions. 
Other  editions  were  afterwards  pulilished  at  liome 
(comp.  Vercellune,  civ.),  but  with  these  corrections 
'  the  history  of  the  autliorized  text  properly  con- 
cludes. 

27.  The  respective  merits  of  the  Sixtine  and 
Clementine  editions  have  l)een  often  debated.  In 
point  of  mechanical  accuracy,  the  Sixtine  seems  to 
be  clearly  superior  (Van  Ess,  305  fi".),  but  Van 
Ess  has  allowed  hhnself  to  be  misled  in  the  esti- 
mate which  lie  gives  of  the  critical  value  of  the 
Sixtine  readings.  The  collections  lately  published 
by  Yercellone  ''  place  in  the  clearest  light  the  strange 
and  uncritical  mode  in  which  Sixtus  dealt  with  the 
evidence  and  results  submitted  to  him.  The  rec- 
ommendations of  the  Sixtine  correctors  are  marked 
by  singular  wisdom  and  ci'itical  tact,  and  in  almost 
every  case  where  Sixtus  departs  from  them  he  is  in 
error.  This  will  Ije  evident  from  a  collation  of 
the  readings  in  a  few  chapters  as  given  by  Vercel- 
lone.  Thus  in  the  first  four  chapters  of  (ienesis 
the  Sixtine  correctors  are  right  agiiinst  Sixtus:  i. 
2,  27,  31;  ii.  18,  20;  iii.  1,  11,  12,  17,  21,  22;  iv. 
1,  5,  7,  8,  9,  15,  IG,    19;  and  on  the  other  hand 


VULGATE,  THE 


3471 


a  'i'uis  fact  Bellarmin  puts  in  stronger  liglit  when 
writing  to  Lucas  Brugeusis  (lliOS)  to  acknowledge  his 
critical  collations  on  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  ;  "  De 
libello  ail  me  misso  griitias  ago,  sej  seias  velim  biblia 
vulgata  uoa  esse  a  nobis  accuratissiuie  castigata,  mulra 
enim  de  iudustria  justis  de  causis  pertrausivimus,  qua; 
Gorrectioae  iudigere  videbantur." 

t>  The  original  text  of  the  passages  here  referred  to 

is   full  of  interest :   "  Sixtus  V opus  tandem 

coufectum  typis  mandari  jussit.  Quod  cum  jam  asset 
excusum  et  ut  in  lucem  emitteretur,  idem  Pontifex 
operam  daret  [implying  tliat  the  edition  was  not  pub- 
lished], aniuiadverteus  non  pauca  iu  Sacra  Biblia  preli 
vitia  irrepsisse,  quae  iterata  diligentia  indigere  videren- 
tur,  totum  opus  sub  iucudem  revocandum  censuit 
atque  decrevit  [of  this  there  is  not  the  faintest  shadow 

of    proof) Aecipe    igitur,     Christiaue     lector 

....  ex  Vaticana  typographia  veterem  ac  vulgatain 
Baci'ae  scripturae  editionem,  quanta  fieri  potuit  (iili-( 
geutia  castigatam  :  quam  quideui  sicut  omuibus 
numeris  absolutam,  pro  humana  imbeciUitate  aftirmare 
difficile  est,  ita  ceteris  omnibus  quae  ad  hanc  usque 
diem    prodierunt    emendatiorem,    purioremque    esse, 

minime  dubitandum In  hac  tjimen  pervulgata 

lectioue  sicut  uonnuUa  consulto  mutata,  ita  etiam 
ftlia,  quae  mutauda  videbantur,  consulto  iunnutiita 
relicta  sunt,  turn  quod  ita  fiicieuduui  esse  ad  oU'ensio- 
nem  populorum  vitaudam  S.  Hieronymus  non  semel 
idmonnit  turn  quod  .  .  .  ."  The  candor  of  these 
words  contrasts  strangely  with  the  folly  of  later  cham- 
pions of  the  edition. 

la  consequence  of  a  very  amusing  mistranslation 
of  a  phrase  of  Hug,  it  has  been  commonly  stated  in 
England  that  this  Preface  gained,  instead  of  cos(, 
Bellarmin  liis  canonization :  (Hug,  EinL  i.  490. 
"  Welche  ihn  um  seine  Ileiligsprechung  gebracht 
kabeu  soil  ").  The  resil  offense  lay  in  the  words 
(uoted  above  (p.  3470,  note  c). 

'-  The  most  imporbint  of  these  is  the  Cndrr  Oira- 
/iaiius,  a  copy  of  the  Antwerp  edition  of  1.58.3,  with 
■he  MS.  corrections  of  tJie  Sixtiue  board.     Tliis  was 


Sixtus  is  right  against  the  correctors  in  i.  15.  The 
Gregorian  correctors,  therefore  (whose  results  are 
gi^■en  in  the  C'lenientine  edition),  in  the  main  siin 
ply  restored  readings  adopted  by  the  Sixtine  board 
and  rejected  by  Sixtus.  In  the  book  of  Deuteron- 
omy the  Clementine  edition  follows  the  Sixtine 
correctors  whez-e  it  differs  from  the  Sixtine  edition : 
i.  4,  19,  31;  ii.  21;  iv.  6,  22,  28,  30,  3-3,  39;  v. 
24;  vi.  4;  viii.  1;  ix.  9;  x.  3;  xi.  3;  xii.  11,  12, 15, 
&c. ;  and  every  change  (except  probably  vi.  4;  xii.  11, 
12)  is  right;  while  on  the  other  hand  in  the  same 
chapters  there  are,  as  far  as  I  have  observed,  only 
two  instances  of  variation  without  the  authority  of 
the  Sixtine  correctors  (xi.  10,  32).  But  in  point 
of  fact  the  Clementine  edition  errs  by  excess  of  cau- 
tion. Within  the  same  limits  it  follows  Sixtus 
against  the  correctors  wrongly  in  ii.  33;  iii.  10,  12, 
13,  10,  19,  20;  iv.  10,  11,  28,  42;  vi.  3;  xi.  28: 
and  in  the  whole  book  admits  in  the  following  pas- 
sages srbitr.ary  changes  of  Sixtus:  iv.  10;  y.  24: 
vi.  13;  xii.  15,  32;  xviii.  10,  11;  xxix.  23.''  In 
the  N.  T.,  as  the  report  of  the  Sixtine  correctors 
has  not  yet  been  published,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
how  far  the  same  law  holds  good ;  but  the  follow- 
ing comparison  of  the  variations  of  the  two  editions 
in  continuous  passages  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles 
will  show  that  the  Clementine,  though  not  a  pure 
text,  is  yet  very  far  purer  than  the  Sixtine,  which 
oft«n  gives  Uld  Latin  readings,  and  sometimes 
appears  to  depend  simply  on  patristic  authority  <= 
((.<?.  pp.  11.):  — 


found  by  Ungarelli  in  the  Library  of  the  Roman  Col- 
lege of  SS.  Blaise  and  Charles.  Comp.  Vercellone, 
Pnf/  \i. 

d  The  common  statement  that  the  Clementine  edi- 
tion follows  the  revision  of  Alcuin,  while  the  Sixtine 
gives  the  true  text  of  Jerome,  is  apparently  a  mere 
conjectural  assertion.  In  Deuteronomy,  Sixtus  gives 
the  .\lcuiniau  reading  in  the  following  passages  :  i.  19  : 
iv.  30,  33  ;  xxi.  6  ;  and  I  have  not  observed  one  pas- 
s>age  where  the  Clementine  text  agrees  with  that  ol 
Alcuin  unless  that  of  Sixtus  does  also. 

Passages  have  been  taken  from  the  Pentateuch,  be- 
cau.se  iu  that  Vercellone  has  given  complete  and  trust- 
worthy materials.  The  first  book  of  Samuel,  iu  which 
the  later  corruptions  are  very  extensive,  gives  results 
generally  of  tlie  same  character.  Great  and  obvious 
interpolations  are  preserved  both  iu  the  Sixtine  and 
Clementine  editions :  iv.  1  ;  v.  6  ;  x.  1  ;  xiii.  15  ;  xiv 
22,  41 ;  XV.  3,  12 ;  xvii.  36  ;  xx.  15  (chiefly  from  the 
LXX.).  The  Sixtine  text  gives  the  old  reading  dis- 
placed from  the  Clementine  :  iii.  2,  3  ;  iv  1 ,  4  ;  vii. 
10  (?)  ;  ix.  1  (?),  25.  The  Clementine  restores  the  old 
reading  against  Sixtus :  i.  9,  19  ;  ii.  11,  17,  2iJ,  30  ;  iv. 
9  (?).  (21) ;  vi  9  ;  ix.  7  ;  x.  12  ;  xii.  6, 11, 15,  23 ;  xiii, 
18  ;  xiv.  2  (?),  14,  15.  Thus  iu  fifteen  chapters  Clem- 
ent alone  gives  the  old  readings  sixteen  times,  Sixtus 
alone  five  times.  Vercellone,  iu  the  second  part  of 
his  Varioe  Lectiones,  which  was  published  after  this 
article  was  printed,  promises  a  special  discu.ssion  of  the 
interpolations  of  1  Sam.,  which  were,  as  might  have 
been  expected,  expunged  by  the  Sixtine  correctors. 
Vercellone  ail  1  Reg.  iv.  1. 

e  Tlie  variations  between  the  Sixtine  and  Clemen 
tine  editions  were  collated  by  T.  James,  Belliim  papa/e, 
s.  cnnronJia  Jlscnrs  ....  Lond.  1600  ;  and  more  coin 
pletely,  with  a  collation  of  the  Clementine  editions, 
by  H.  de  Bukentop,  Lux  de  li/cf,  lib.  iii.  pp.  315  ff 
Vercellone,  correcting  earlier  critics,  reckons  that  the 
«nole  number  of  variations  between  the  two  revisions 
is  about  3,000  {ProUs^.  ylviii.  not  ). 


3472 


VULGATE,  THE 


Sixtine. 

Oemenline. 

Matt.i.  2;i   rocabitur  (pp.  11.)- 

—  Tocabunt. 

ii.    5,  Juda  (gat.  mm.  etc.). 

—  Judae. 

13,  surge,  accipe  (?). 

—  surge  et  accipe. 

iii.  2,  appropinquabit     (iv. 

—  appropinquavit. 

17),    (MSS.    Gallic. 

pp.  11.). 

3,  de   quo   dictum    est 

—  qui  dictus  est. 

(tol.  it). 

10,  arboris  (Tert.). 

—  arborum. 

JT.  6,  ut  .  .  .  .  tollant  (it.) 

—  et  .  .  .  .  toUent. 

V,  Jesus  rursum. 

—  Jesus :  Rursum. 

15,  Galilaese  (it.  am.  etc.). 

—  Galilaea. 

16,  ambulabat  (?). 

—  sedebat. 

T.  11,  vobis   homines  (gat. 

—  vobis. 

mm.  etc.). 

30,  abscinde  (?). 

—  abscide. 

40,  in  judicio  (it.). 

—  judicio. 

Ti.  7,  eth.  faciunt  (it.). 

—  ethuici. 

30,  enim  (it.). 

—  autem. 

▼ii.  1,  et  uou  judicabimiui. 

—  ut  noo  judiccmini. 

^           nolite     condeumare 

et   non    condemua- 

bimiui  (?). 

4,  siue,   frater    (it.   pp. 

—  siue. 

11). 

23,  a  me  omnes  (it.  pp 

—  a  me. 

11.). 

2.5,  supra    (pp.    11.    tol. 

—  super. 

etc.). 

29,  scribfe  (it.). 

—  scribee  eorum. 

viii.  9,  alio  (it.  am.  etc.). 

—  alii. 

12,  ubi  (pp.  11.). 

—  ibi. 

18,  jussit  discipulos  (it.). 

—  jussit. 

20,  caput  suum  (it.  tol.). 

—  caput. 

2S,  venisset  Jesus  (it.). 

—  venisset. 

32,  magno  impetu  (it.). 

—  impetu. 

33,  hsec  omnia  (?). 

—  omnia. 

34,  rogabant  eum  ut  Je- 

— rogabant  ut. 

sus  (?). 

Ephes.  i.  15,  in  Christo  J  (pp.  11. 

—  in  Domino  J. 

Bodl.). 

21,  dominationem  H). 

—  et  dominationem. 

ii.  1,  vos  couvivificavit 

—  vos. 

(pp.  11.). 

11,  vos    eratis    (pp.    11. 

—  vos. 

Bodl.  etc.). 

— ,  dicebamini  (pp.  11.). 

—  dicimini. 

12,  qui    (pp.    U.    Bodl. 

—  quod. 

etc.). 

22j.  Spiritu  Sancto  (pp. 

—  Spiritu. 

11.  Sang.  etc.). 

iii.  8,  mihi  enim  (pp.  11.). 

—  mihi. 

16,  virtuteni  (it.). 

—  virtute. 

— ,  in  interiore  homine 

—  in  iuteriorem  hom- 

(pp.  11.  Bodl.). 

inem. 

iv.  22,  deponite  (it.). 

—  deponere. 

80,  in  die  (pp.  11.  Bodl. 

—  in  diem. 

etc.). 

V.  26,  mundans  earn   (pp. 

—  mundans. 

11.). 

27,  in  gloriosam  (?). 

—  gloriosam. 

Ti.  15,  in    praeparationem 

—  in  prseparatione. 

(it.). 

20,  in  catena  ista  (it.?). 

—  in  catena  ita. 

(Some   of   the  readings   of  B 

odl.  (§  13,  (3)  S2)  are 

idded.      It.  is  used,  as  is  comm,- 

r'v  done,  for  the  old 

rexts  generally  ;  and  the  notatic 

u    f  the  MSS.  is  that 

usually  followed.) 

a  The  materials  which  Bentley  collected  (see  p.  3474, 
note  a)  are  an  invaluable  help  for  investigation,  but 
they  will  not  super.sede  it.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible 
to  determine  on  what  principle  he  inserted  or  omitted 
variations.  Sometimes  he  notes  with  the  greatest  care 
discrepancies  of  orthograjihy,  and  at  other  times  he 
neglects  important  differences  of  te.\t.  Thus  in  John 
i.  18-51  he  gives  correctly  23  variations  of  the  Cam- 
bridge MS.  (Kk.  1,  24 )  and  omits  51 :  and  in  Luke  i. 


VULGATE,  THE 

28.  While  the  Clementine  edition  was  still  lecen 
some  thoughts  seem  to  have  been  entertained  of  re- 
vising it.  Lucas  Brugensis  made  important  collec- 
tions for  this  purpose,  but  the  practical  difficulties 
were  found  to  be  too  great,  and  the  study  of  various 
readings  was  reserved  for  scholars  (Bellarmiu.  ad 
Lucam  Brug.  1606).  In  the  next  generation  use 
and  controversy  gave  a  sanctity  to  the  authorized 
text.  jMany,  especially  in  .Spain,  pronounced  it  to 
have  a  value  superior  to  the  originals,  and  to  be 
inspired  in  every  detail  (conip.  Van  Ess,  401 ,  * 
402;  Hody,  in.  ii.  15);  but  it  is  useless  to  dwell 
on  the  history  of  such  extravagancies,  from  which 
the  Jesuits  at  least,  following  their  great  champion 
Bellarmiu,  wisely  kept  aloof.  It  was  a  more  serious 
matter  that  the  universal  acceptance  of  the  papal 
text  checked  the  critical  study  of  the  materials  on 
which  it  was  professedly  based.  At  length,  how- 
ever, in  1706,  Martianay  published  a  new,  and  in 
the  main  better  text,  chiefly  from  original  MSS.,  in 
his  edition  of  .lerome.  Vallarsi  added  fresh  colla- 
tions in  his  revised  issue  of  Martianay's  work,  but 
in  both  cases  the  collations  are  imperfect,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  with  accuracy  on  what  MS. 
authority  the  text  which  is  given  depends.  Sa- 
batier,  though  professing  only  to  deal  with  the 
Old  Latin,  published  important  materials  for  the 
criticism  of  .Jerome's  Version,  and  gave  at  length 
the  readings  of  Lucas  Brugensis  (1743).  More 
than  a  ceiitury  elapsed  before  anything  more  of  im- 
portance was  done  for  the  Text  of  the  Latin  version 
of  the  0.  T.,  when  at  length  the  fortunate  discovery 
of  the  original  re\isiori  of  the  Sixtine  correctors 
again  directed  the  attention  of  Eoman  scholars  to 
their  authorized  text.  The  first-fruits  of  their 
labors  are  given  in  the  volume  of  Yercellone 
ahead}  often  quoted,  which  has  thrown  more  light 
upon  the  history  and  criticism  of  the  Vulgate  than 
any  previous  work.  There  are  some  defects  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  materials,  and  it  is  unfortunate 
that  the  editor  has  not  added  either  the  authorizM 
or  corrected  text;  but  still  the  work  is  such  tha( 
every  student  of  the  Latin  text  must  wait  anxiously 
for  its  completion. 

2i).  The  neslect  of  the  Latin  text  of  the  0.  T. 
is  but  a  con.sequence  of  the  general  neglect  of  the 
criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text.  In  the  N.  T.  far 
more  has  been  done  for  the  correction  of  the  Vul- 
gate, though  even  here  no  critical  edition  has  yet 
been  published.  Numerous  collations  of  MSS., 
more  or.  less  perfect,  have  been  made.  In  this,  as 
in  many  other  points,  Bentley  pointed  out  the  true 
path  which  others  have  followed.  His  own  colla- 
tion of  Latin  MSS.  was  extensive  and  important 
(conip.  Ellis,  Btntleii  Criiica  Sacra,  xxxv.  ft'.)." 
Griesbach  added  new  collations,  and  arranged  those 
which  others  had  made.  Lachniann  printed  the 
Latin  text  in  his  larger  edition,  having  collated  the 
Codex  Fnldensis  for  the  purpose.  Tischendorf  has 
labored  among  Latin  MSS.  only  with  less  zeal  than 
among  Greek.  And  Tregelles  has  given  in  hig 
edition  of  the  N.  T.  the  text  of  Cod.  Amintinm 
from  his  own  collation  with  the  variations  of  the 


1-39  he  gives  13  variations  of  St.  Chad's  Gospels  and 
omits  30 ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  character  of 
the  readings  recorded  which  can  have  determined  the 
selection,  as  the  variations  which  are  neglected  are 
sometimes  noted  from  other  MSS.,  and  are  in  them- 
selves of  every  degree  of  importance.  A  specimen 
from  each  of  the  volumes  which  contain  his  collation! 
will  show  the  great  amoimt  of  labor  which  he  be- 
stowed upou   the  work  ;  and,  hitherto,  no  specimen 


VULGATE,  THE 

Clementine  edition.  Hut  in  all  these  cases  the 
study  of  the  Latin  was  merely  ancillary  to  that  of 
the  Greek  text.  Probably  from  tlie  great  antiquity 
and  purity  of  the  Codd.  Aminilnus  and  FuldKiish, 
there  is  comparatively  little  scope  for  criticism  in 
liie  revision  of  .Jerome's  Version ;  but  it  could  not 
be  an  unprofitable  work  to  examine  luoi'e  in  detail 
than  has  yet  been  done  the  several  phases  through 
which  it  has  passed,  and  the  causes  which  led  to 
its  gradual  corruption.  (.\  full  account  of  the 
editions  of  the  V^ulgate  is  given  by  ]\Iasch  [Le 
Lfiigl,  Bibliothcca  Sacra,  1778-90.  Copies  of  the 
Sixtine  and  Clementine  editions  are  in  the  library 
of  the  British  Museum.) 

VI.  The  M.VTEKiALS  fok  the  Revision  of 
.Ikrome's  Te.kt.  —  30.  Very  few  Latin  MSS.  of 
tlie  O.  T.  have  been  collated  with  critical  accuracy. 
The  Pentateuch  of  Vercellone  (Jiunice,  1800)  is  the 
first  attempt  to  collect  and  arrange  the  materials 
for  determining  the  Hieronymian  text  in  a  manner 
at  all  corresponding  with  the  importance  of  the 
subject.  Even  in  the  N.  T.  the  criticism  of  the 
Vulgate  text  has  always  been  made  subsidiary  to 
that  of  the  Greek,  and  most  of  the  MSS.  quoted 
have  only  been  examined  cursorily.  In  the  follow- 
ing list  of  MSS.,  which  is  necessarily  very  imper- 
fect, tlie  notation  of  Vercellone  (from  whom  most 
of  the  details,  as  to  the  MSS.  which  he  has  ex- 


VULGATE,  THE 


347S 


amined,  are  derived)  has  been  followed  as  far  aa 
possiljle;  but  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  he 
marks  the  readings  of  MSS.  Correctoria  and  edi- 
tions in  the  same  manner. 

(i.)   MiiS.  of  Old  Test,  tml  Apocrypha. 

A  {Codex  Ainiatiiius,  Bilil.  Laurent.  Flor.),  at 
I'loience,  written  about  the  middle  of  the  Gth  cent. 
(cir.  541,  Tischdf.)  with  great  accuracy,  so  that 
both  in  age  and  worth  it  stands  first  among  the 
authorities  for  the  Hieronymian  text.  It  contains 
.Jerome's  Psalter  from  the  Hebrew,  and  the  whole 
Latin  Bible,  with  the  exception  of  Baruch.  The 
variations  from  the  Clementnie  text  in  the  N.  T, 
have  been  edited  by  F.  F.  Fleck  (1840);  and 
I'ischendorf  and  Tregelles  separately  collated  the 
N.  !'.  in  1843  and  1846,  the  former  of  whom  pub- 
lishe<l  a  complete  edition  (18-50;  2d  ed.  1854)  of 
this  part  of  the  MS.,  availing  himself  also  of  the 
collation  of  'I'regelles.  The  O.  T.  has  been  now 
collated  liy  Vercellone  and  Palmieri  for  Vercel- 
lone's  Vii7-i(s  Levtionts  (Vercellone,  i.  p.  Ixxxiv.). 
The  MS.  was  rightly  valued  by  the  Sixtine  ^cor- 
rectors, who  in  many  places  follow  its  authority 
alone,  or  when  only  leebly  supported  by  other  evi- 
dence: e.  (J.  Gen.  ii.  18,  v.  26,  vi.  21,  vii.  3,  5,  ix. 
18, 19,  x.  i. 

B  {Codex  Toletnnus,  Bibl.  Eccles.  Tolet.),  at 
Toledo,  written  in  Gothic  letters  about   tlie   8th 


lias  been  published.     The  student  may  find  it  inter- 
esting to  compare  the  variations  noted  with  those  In 
Table  B. 
CoU.  SS.  Trin.  Cambr.,  Mark  ix.  45-49. 

B.  17,  5. 

2,^      1 
1  2  p  la  ^  Et  si  pes  tuus  te  scandal- 

.   * 
eum  IX  izat,  amputa  ilium:  bounm 

2  {^TTjul  (/) 

\%opy^\i  G  do  fx,     est  tibi  clauAaya  iutroire  in 

vitam  aeteruam,  quam  duos 

pedes    habentem    mitti    iu 

gehennam  ignis  inextingui- 

[  ]  del.  T         bills :    [ubi  vermis   eorum 

"*  P  X  y  ^     ^eorum  1^  non  mordur,  et  ignis  ^  uon 

gue  upy  C  extiug-ui'tur.  Quod  si  oculus 

del.  a  e  o  n  fj.  <l>        eie  p        tuus  scaudalizat   te   fi[i]ce 

2,1.4,1 

1  2  p  C      cae  x    eum  :  bonum  est  tibi  /i<.«cum 

iiitroire    in    regnum     Dei, 

quam  duos  oculos  habentem 

mitti  in  gehennam  ignis :] 

tie  p  fxx »'  '*^'  vermis  eorum  uou  mor/- 

%tin  u  §■"«  o  pv  *'i''i  et  ignis  nou  exlingui- 

pi\> 
del.  ^  ^n\  orr  tur.      Omnii    [enim]    igne 

II  salietur,   et  omnis   vietiina 
on  2 

'  ]  del.  6)rp(m/«^MUfx''y    [sale]  salietur.     Bouum  est 
1 
12c  8al ;  quod  si  sal  insulsum  fu- 

erit,  in  quo  illud  coudietis  ? 
(B.  17.  5.)  M/oi 

^ter  X  sal  ■.:•.■.  <l>  sic  Ilabete    in  ^    vobis   sal,   et 

mlem  a€OTT<rTll^)(        paceiii  habete  inter  vos. 

II  omiies  euim   igue  e.\amin- 

antur  p. 

In  'his  excerpt  a  —  </>  (except  y)  represent  French 

MSS   TOllated  chiefly  by  T.  Walker;  M,  U,  the  MSS 

in  tbe  Brit.  Mus.  marked   Hat!.  2'SS,  Harl.  282(3  ro 


spectively  ;  f ,  the  Gospels  of  St.  Chad  ;  x.  the  Gos- 
pels of  Mac  Regol ;  y.  the  Gospels  of  St.  John  C.  Oxon 
(comp.  the  lists  p.  .3455,  f.). 

Coll.  S.S.   Trin.  Cantbr.  Mark  ix.  45-49. 

(B.  17,  14.) 

2  EUOTD 1 
(|)  f  1  2  P  K  Et  si  pes  tuus  te  scaudal- 

izat, amputii  ilium :  bouum 
2       1       F 
1  2  D  do  E  est  tibi  c/oi/dum  introire  in 

vitam  aeternam,  quam  duos 
pedes  habentem  mitti  iu  ge- 
6  K  T  P  B  (semper)  hennam  ignis  iuexstiugui- 

b'lis:  ubi  vermis  eorum  non 
rie  Z.  mon'tur,  et  ignis  nou  exstin- 

JF 
gue  Z.     [  ]  del.  Z.  g-«i'tur.  [Quod  si  oculus  *i2- 

us  ticandalizat  t^ejife  eum  : 
bonum  est  tibi  luscum  m- 
troire  in  regnum  Dei,  quam 
,^K  inextinguibilis  (erased)  duos  oculos  habentem  mitti 
rie  Z  (erased)  em  Y  in    gehenriawz    iguis^     obi 
giie  Ti  (erased)  vermis  eorum  non  mon'tur, 

^eorum  K  (erased)  et  ignis^  uou  exsting-uitur] 
YED  EPBF 
ni  0  alii  U  B  (sic)  Omnis  enim  igHcso^/etur,  et 

E 
D  (/)  Y  ^  Z  F  del.  0  B  P  H  K  omnis  victima  [s,ale]  sa/i<i- 
tur.  Bonum  est  sal :  quod  si 
lum  P  sai  P  K  sal  vasulsum  fuerit,  in  quo 

DZEHOY 
(/I'e/ur  (corr. -is)  E.  il/wd  cond?c/;.s.'     Ilabete  in 

THPDKfY<^ 
Z  R  salem  B  D  E        vobis  sal.,  et  pacem  habete 
inter  vos. 
The  collations  in  this  volume  are,  as  will  be  seem 
somewhat  confused.     Many    are   in   Bentley's   hand, 
who  has  added  numerous  emendations  of  the  Latin 
text  in  B.  17, 14.    Thus,  on  the  same  page  from  which 
this  example  is  taken,  wo  find :  Mark  ix.  20,  ab  in- 
Janl'a.    fo.    leg.   ab   infaiiti.  nai.&i.69ev.      X.   14,    Quos 
tjuam  videret.  forte  leg.     Quod  cil  videret  (sic  a  p.  m 
0  :  a  later  note),     x.  38,  Et  baplismitm  r/iie  ego.  leg. 
Aiit  bnfitrsma,  quod  ego.     For  the  MSS.  quote  I,  see 
the  lists  already  referred  to. 


1474 


VULGATE,  THE 


cent.  Tlie  text  is  generally  pure,  and  closely  ap- 
proaches to  that  of  A,  at  least  in  0.  T.  A  colla- 
tion of  this  MS.  with  a  Louvain  edition  of  the 
Vulgate  (1569,  fol.)  was  made  by  Christopher  I'a- 
loniares  by  the  command  of  Sixtus  V.,  and  the 
Sixtine  correctors  set  a  high  value  upon  its  read- 
ings :  e.  y.  Gen.  vi.  4.  The  collation  of  Palomares 
was  published  by  Bianchini  {.Vindicice,  p.  Iv.  ft".), 
from  whom  it  has  been  reprinted  by  Migue  {IJieron. 
Oj'j).  X.  875  ff.).  Vercellone  has  made  use  of  the 
original  collation  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library, 
which  is  not  always  correctly  tianscribed  by  Bian- 
chini; and  at  the  same  time  he  had  noted  the  vari- 
ous readings  which  have  been  neglected  owing  to 
the  difference  between  the  Louvain  and  Clementine 
texts.  The  MS.  contains  all  tiie  Latin  Bilile  (the 
P.salter  trom  the  Hebrew),  with  the  exception  of 
Baruch.  A  new  collation  of  the  JMS.  is  still  de- 
sirable; and  for  the  N.  T.  at  least  the  work  is  one 
which  might  easily  be  accomplished. 

C  ( Codex  PauUinuti,  v.  C<irollnns,  Romse,  ISIon. 
S.  Benedict,  ap.  Basil.  S.  PauUi  extr.  niffinia),  a 
MS.  of  the  whole  Latin  Bible,  with  the  exception 
Df  Baruch.  Vercellone  assigns  it  to  the  Uth  cen- 
tury. It  follows  the  recension  of  Alcuin,  and  was 
3ne  of  the  MSS.  used  by  the  original  board  ap- 
pointed by  Pius  IV.  for  the  revision  of  the  Vulgate. 
It  has  been  collated  by  Vercellone. 

D  (Codex  VuUictllianus  o\uu  Stntinnis,  Iionine, 
Bibl.  Vallicell.  Orat.  B.  vi),  an  Alcuiniau  MS  of 
the  Bible  also  used  by  the  Roman  correctors,  of  the 
same  date  (or  a  little  older)  and  character  as  C. 
Comp.  Vallarsi,  Prwf.  ad  Hieron.  ix.  15  (ed. 
Migne),  and  note  b,  p.  3467.  Collated  by  Ver- 
cellone. 

E  ( Codex  Oliobonianns  olim  Cervinuinus,  Vatic. 
60),  a  M.S.  of  a  portion  of  the  0.  T.,  imperfect  at 
the  beginning,  and  ending  with  ,Judg.  xiii.  20.  It 
is  of  tlie  8th  century,  and  gives  a  text  older  than 
Alcuin's  recension.  It  contains  also  important 
fragments  of  the  Old  Version  of  Genesis  and  Ex- 
odus published  by  Vercellone  in  his  VaricB  Lec- 
tiunes,  i.     Coll.  by  Vercellone. 

F  (Komw,  Coll.  SS.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  a  MS.  of 
the  entire  Latin  Bible  of  the  10th  century.  It 
follows,  in  the  main,  the  recension  of  Alcuin,  with 
some  varijftions,  and  contains  the  Roman  Psalter. 
Coll.  by  Vercellone. 

G  (Roma;,  Coll.  8S.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  a  MS.  of 
the  13th  century,  of  the  common  late  type.  Coll. 
by  Vercellone. 

II,  L,  P,  Q,  are  used  by  Vercellone  to  n.ark  the 
readings  given  by  Martiatiay,  Hentenius,  Castel- 
lanus,  and  R,  Stephanus,  in  editions  of  the  Vul- 
gate. 

I,  Sac.  xiii.  Collated  in  part  by  C.  J.  Bauer, 
Eichhorn,  Repertoriwn,  xvii. 

K  (Monast.  SS.  Trin.  Cavce),  a  most  important 
MS.  of  the  whole  Bible,  belonging  to  the  monas- 
tery of  La  Cava,  near  Salerno.  An  exact  coiiy  of 
it  was  made  for  the  Vatican  Library  (num.  8484) 
by  the  conuiiand  of  Leo  XIL,  and  this  has  Ijeen 
used  by  Vercellone  for  the  books  after  Leviticus. 


■  "  Beutlej'  procured  collations  of  upwards  of  sixty 
Englisli  and  Frencli  Latin  MSS.  of  tlie  N.  T  ,  which 
ire  still  preserved  among  his  papers  in  Trin.  Coll. 
Ciiuibridfje,  B.  17,  5,  and  B.  17,  14.  A  list  of  these, 
as  given  by  Bentley,  is  printed  in  Ellis's  BcntUii 
Critirji  Sacra,  pp.  xxxv.  fT.  I  have  identified  and 
noticed  the  English  MSS.  below  (comp.  p.  3475  ff.). 
Df  Uibles  BeuL#y  gives  more  or  less  complete  collations 


VELGAIE,  THE 

For  the  three  first  books  of  the  Pentateuch  he  had 
only  an  imperfect  collaticii.  The  MS.  belongs  tc 
the  6th  or  7th  century  (Mai,  Ncwa  Patrum  Bibl 
i.  2,  7;  Spicil.  Rom.  ix.  Praef.  xxiii.),  and  presents 
a  pecidiar  text.  Tischendorf  has  quoted  it  on  1 
.John  V.  7,  8. 

M,  N,  0,  are  Correctoria  in  the  Vatican  Library. 
R,  S   (Romse,  Coll.   SS.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  Ssec. 
xiv.,  of  the  common  late  type  given  in  the  edition.» 
of  the  15th  century. 

T,  Sa:;c.  X.,  xi. ;  U,  Smc.  xii.,  two  MSS.  of  the 
type  of  the  recension  of  .Vlcuin. 

V  (Romse,  Coll.  SS.  Blasii  et  Caroli),  Ssec.  xiii., 
akin  to  F. 

These  MSS.,  of  which  Vercellone  promises  com- 
plete collations,  thus  represent  the  three  great  types 
of  the  Hieronymian  text:  the  oriLjinal  text  in  vari- 
ous stages  of  decadence  (A,  B,  K);  the  recension 
of  Alcuin  (C,  D,  F,  T,  U,  V);  and  the  current 
later  text  (E,  G,  R,  S).  But  though  perhaps  no 
JMS.  will  ever  surpass  A  in  general  purity,  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  many  more  MSS.,  representing  the 
ante-Alcuinian  text,  may  yet  be  examined. 

31.  Martianay,  in  his  edition  of  the  Dirinn 
Bibllolheca,  quotes,  among  others,  the  following 
MSS.,  but  he  uses  them  in  such  a  way  that  it  ia 
impossil)le  to  determine  throughout  the  reading  of 
any  particular  MS. :  — 

Codtx  Meiaminnus,  Ssec.  x. 
Codex  Carcassonensis,  Ssec.  x. 
Codex  Sanf/ermnnensls  (1),  Ssec.  x. 
Codex  Reyius,  3563-64. 
Codex  Sanyermanensis  (2),  a  fragment. 
Codex    Narbonengis.     {Index    MSS.    Codd. 
Hieron.  ix.  pp.  135  fF.  ed.  Migne.) 
To  these,  VaUai'si,  in  his  revised  edition,  adds  a 
collation,  more  or  less  complete,  of  other  MSS.  for 
the  Pentateuch  (.Joshua,  Judges)  —  of 
Cod.  Pcdrdinus,  3. 
Cod.  Urbinas. 
For  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 

Cod.   Veronaisis,  a  MS.  of  the  very  highest 
value.     (Comp.  Vallarsi,  Pnef'.  19  ft',  ed. 
IMigne. ) 
For  the  Psahns. 

Codd.  Rey.  Suec.  ii.  1286. 
Cod.   Vatic.  154. 

Cod.  S.  Crucis   (or  104,    Cider ciensis),  (the 
most  valuable). 
For  Daniel. 
Cod.  Pidnt.  3. 
Cod.   Vatic.  333. 
For  Esther,  Tobit,  and  Judith. 
Cod.  Rey.  Suec.  7. 
Cod.  ViUic.  Palat.  24. 
But  of  .all  these  only  special  readings  are  known. 
Other  M.SS.  which  deserve  exammation  are  :  — 

1.  Brii.  Mtis.  Addit.  10,  546.  SiEC.  ix 
(Charlemagne's  Bible),  an  Alcuinian  copy.  Comp. 
p.  3467,  note  c. 

2.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  E,  vii.,  viii.  Srec.  ix.,  x. 
(Bentley's  MS.  R).« 

3.  lirit.    Afus.    Addit.    24,142.   ■  Saec.    ix.,    x. 


of  the  N.  T.  from  I'aris.  Bibl.  Rfg.  3562  (A.  D.  876), 
3561,  Ssec.  ix.  ;  3563-64,  Scec.  ix.  ;  35642,  Ssec.  ix  ,  x 
All  appear  to  be  Alcuinian. 

Sir  F.  Madden  has  given  a  list  of  the  chief  MSS.  of 
the  Latin  Bible  (19  copies)  in  the  Gentleman's  Ma^iv 
zine,  1836,  pp.  580  ff.  This  list,  however,  might  b« 
increased. 


coOfhie 

eTTslONTTBlT 

cj  u  r  s  ext>  ti  01B -cj  s  f  eciTao 

•  Lci  isr  TATCCOp  ATTK  IS 
AO-)eNrT>lCO'J01>lS 

cjxJiApTJJ&Uc^TsaieTcwe 


2.  Brit.  Mus  — Addit.  5463. 


eXNOMJBTT 

07ccr;vx  TMOcxjssrcr>us 

■3.  .Slonyhurst — (St.  C'lithbert's,  St.  lohn.  ) 

|UKlceK90TRA^l^lt*ei5  iLluco 

UTCR.acipi(;eKeTUR      ^ 

^U6cepeRUHT^X<-Tenr)  ifiro 
eT  BAl  ol  AM  6  SI  Bl  C  RUCeoT) 

*  0x011.  Bodl.— 348.  (  Seld.  30. ) 

pRoT^mer  BApTIZA«T  T>pciTpft7lTpptif 

sicKeT>i3  e^cTOxoCOR^eliceT;^  ^ 

eTKespONDGN^  AIT    CKeOoT>ipLltr 

esse  il55)  ^pccy  aria^siT  si2sjRe 


SPECIMENS     OF    UNCIAL     MSS.    OF     THE. LATIN     BIBLE. 


VULGATE,  THE 

(Impoitiuit:  apparently  taken  from  a  nuich  older 
;opy.  Tlie  I'salter  is  Jerome's  Version  of  the 
Hebrew.  The  Apocryphal  books  are  placed  after 
the  Hagiographa,  with  the  heading :  Incipit  quartus 
orclo  ewum  Ubrovum  qui  in  Veteri  TtUamento 
extra  Canonem  Hebraeorum  sunt.  The  MS.  be- 
gins Gen.  xlix.  6.) 

■i.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  2,805  to  Psalms  with  some 
lacunaj.     Ssec.  is. 

5.  Br!,.  Mus.  Egerton  1,046.  Ssec.  viii.  Prov. 
Zcclep.  Cant.  Sap.  Ecclus.  (with  some  lacunse). 
Good  Vulgate. 

G.   Lambeth,  3,  4.     Ssec  xii. 

.32.  ii.  MSS.  of  the  N.  T. 

A,  B,  C,  D,  F,  etc.,  as  enumerated  before.  To 
these  must  be  added  the  Codex  Fuldensis  of  the 
whole  N.  T.,  which,  however,  contains  the  (Jospels 
m  the  form  of  a  Harmony.  'J'iie  text  of  the  MS. 
is  of  nearly  equal  value  with  that  of  A,  and  both 
seem  to  have  been  derived  from  the  same  source 
(Tischdf.  Prole;/;/.  Cod.  Am.  p.  xxiii.).  The  MS. 
has  been  collated  by  Lachmann  and  Buttmann, 
and  a  complete  edition  is  in  preparation  by  E. 
Kanke. 

Other  Vulgate  J\ISS.  of  parts  of  the  N.  T.  have 
been  examined  more  or  less  carefully.  Of  the 
Gospels,  Tischendorf  {Proleg.  ccxhx.  ff.)  gives  a 
list  of  a  considerable  number,  which  ha\e  been  ex- 
amined very  imperfectly.  Of  the  mure  iui[)ortant 
of  these  the  best  known  are :  — 

For.  Frcig.  (at  Prague  and  Venice).  PubUshed 
by  Bianchuii,  in  part  after  Dobrowsky. 


VULGATE,  THE  3475 

Harl.  (Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1,775).  S»c.  vii.  Coll. 
in  part  by  Griesbach  {Sijmb.  Crit.  i.  305  ft"). 

Per.  Fragments  of  St.  Luke,  edited  by  Bian- 
chini. 

Brit.  Mus.  Cotton.  Nero  D,  iv.  Ssec.  viii. 
(lientl.  Y).  The  Lindisfarne  (St.  Cuthbert)  Gos- 
pels with  interlmear  Northumbrian  gloss.  Ed.  by 
Stevenson,  for  Surtees  Sociely  (St.  Matt.;  St. 
Mark).  The  Northumbrian  gloss  by  Bouterwek, 
1857.  Stevenson  has  added  a  collation  of  the 
Latin  of  the  Kushworth  Gospels  «  (p.  3457,  No. 

S)- 

The  follo^ving,  among  many  others  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  deserve  examination :  *  — 

(L)  Of  tlie  Gospels. 

1.  Brit.  Mus.  Hurl.  1,775,  Saec.  vii.  (Grien- 
bach's  harl.  Bentley's  Z).  A  new  and 
complete  collation  of  this  most  precious 
MS.  is  greatly  to  be  desired.  It  contains 
the  Preface's,  Carions,  and  Sections,  with 
blank  places  for  the  Capllula.e  (Plate  I., 
fig.  1.) 

2.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  E.  vi.  Ssec.  vii.  (Bent- 
ley's  P).  A  very  important  English  MS., 
with  many  old  readings,  Picsf.  Can.  (no 
Sections),  C(«/>.  Mt.  xxviii.  Mc.  xii  f?)  Lc 
XX.  .Job.  siv.  Supposed  to  have  formed 
part  of  the  Biblia  Greyoriana  :  Westwoud, 
Archuioloi/ical  Journal,  xl.  p.  292. 

3.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  B.  vii.  Ssec.  viii.  (Bent^ 
ley's  H).  Another  very  important  MS., 
preserving  an  old  text.''    Prmf.  Can.  (Sect.) 


a  For  all  critical  purposes  the  Latin  texts  of  this 
edition  are  wortliless.  In  one  chapter  fctken  at  ran- 
dom (Mark  viii.),  there  are  seventeen  errors  iu  the  text 
of  the  Lindisfarne  MS.,  including  the  omission  of  one 
line  witli  the  corresponding  gloss. 

b  The  accompanying  Plates  will  give  a  good  idea 
of  the  external  character  of  some  of  the  most  ancient 
and  precious  Latin  MSS.  which  the  writer  has  exam- 
ined. For  permission  to  take  the  tracings,  from 
which  the  fac-similes  were  made,  his  sincere  thanks 
are  due  to  the  various  Institutions  in  whose  charge 
the  MSS.  are  placed. 

Pl.i.^?.  1.  Brit.  Mils  Uarl.  1,775,  Matt.  xxi.  30,31, 
Eo  domiiie  —  et  melretrices].  This  MS.  (like  figs.  2,  3) 
exhibits  the  arrangement  of  the  text  in  line."  {versus, 
a-ri'xot).  The  original  reading  noinssbniis  has  been 
changed  by  a  late  hand  into  priiriis.  A  characteristic 
error  of  sound  will  be  noticed,  ibit  for  ivit  (6  for  v), 
which  occurs  also  in  fig.  2. 

Fig.  2.  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  5,463.  Matt.  xxi.  30,  31, 
ail  —  novissimus.  This  magnificent  MS.  shows  the 
beginning  of  contraction  {/Juob'')  and  punctuation. 

Fig.  3.  Slont/hurst.  John  xix.  15-17,  non  habemiis 
—  cracem.  This  MS,  unlike  the  former,  seems  to 
have  been  prepared  for  private  use.  It  is  written 
throughout  with  the  greatest  regularity  and  care. 
The  large  capitals  probably  indicate  the  beginnings  of 
membra  {xioKa).     The  words  are  here  separated. 

Fig.  4.  Oxf.  Bodl.  3,418.  Acts  viii.  3lj,  37,  et  ait  — 
stare. 

PI.  ii.  Fig.  1.  Cambr.  Univ.  Libr.  Kk.  i.  24.  John 
V.  4,  saiius  Jiebat  —  ho7no  ibi.  Tiiis  MS.  offers  a  fine 
example  of  the  semi-uncial  "  Irish  "  character,  with 
the  characteristic  dotted  capitals,  which  seems  to  liave 
been  used  widely  in  the  8th  century  throughcnit  Ire- 
land and  central  and  northern  England.  Tlie  text 
jontains  a  most  remarkable  instance  of  the  incori)ora- 
tiou  of  a  marginal  gloss  into  the  body  of  tlio  book 
[hoc  in  Greci-s  exemplaribus  non  'mbelur),  without  any 
mark  of  separation  by  the  original  baud.  This  clause 
ilso  offers  a  distinct  proof  of  the  revision  of  the  copy 
from  which  the  MS.  was  derived  by  Greek  41SS.  Tlie 
•ontraction  for  aulem  is  worthy  of  notice. 


J^(^.  2.  Brit.  Mas.  Reg.  1  B.  vii.  Another  type  of 
"  Saxon  "  writing. 

Figs.  3,  4.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  1,023.  Matt,  xxvii.  49, 
with  the  addition  Alius  aute?n  —  et  sanguis.  Ibid. 
1802.  Matt,  xxi.  30,  31,  et  non  ut  —  pupli[cani]. 
Two  characteristic  specimens  of  later  Irish  writing. 
The  contractions  for  eum,  autcm,  ejus,  et^  aqua,  in 
tig.  3,  and  for  et,  non,  enim,  quia  in  fig.  4,  are  notico 
.able- 

Fig.  5.  Hereford  Gos/jHs.  John  i.  3,  4,/'(Ci»"!  est 
—  comprakckenderunl.  Probably  a  British  type  of  thf. 
''-  Irish  ■'  character.  The  symbol  for  est  (-^),  and  the 
ck  for  h,  are  to  be  observed. 

c  The  varying  divisions  into  capHulu  probably  indi- 
cate different  families  of  MSS  ,  and  deserve  attention 
at  least  in  important  MSS.  The  terms  brtviariiim , 
capitula,  breves,  appear  to  be  used  quite  indiscrim- 
inately. One  term  is  often  given  at  the  beginning  and 
another  at  the  end  of  the  list.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit  9,;J81 
gives  tituU  (a  division  into  smaller  sections)  as  well  as 
capitula. 

d  This  MS.  contains  the  addition,  after  Matt.  Mt 
28,  In  the  following  form  :  — 

Vos  autem  quaeritis  de  modico 
crescere  et  de  maxima  minui 
Cutri  autem.  introiiretis 

ad  coenam  vocati 
Nolite  recumbere  in  supe 

rinribiis  locis         [veniat 
Ne  forte  dignior  te  super 

et  accedens  is  qui  te  in  vitavit 
Dicat  tibi  iuJhuc  inferius 

accede  et  confundaris 
Si  autem  recubueris  in  in 

f  riori  loco  et  venerit  hu 

milior  te 
Dicet  tibi  qui  to  invitabit 
Accede  ailhiic  siiprriiis  et 

erit  tibi  hoc  utilius. 
The  same  addition  is  given  in  the  first  hand  of  Oxford 
/j'o'H.  857,and  in  the  second  handof  1!.M.  ^r/rf.  ?4,142, 
with   the   following  variations  •  introisritis   advenerit^ 


3476 


VULGATE,  THE 


Cop.  Mt.  Ixxxvii.  (sic).  Mc.  xlvi.  Lc.  sciv. 
Joh.  xlv.      (Plate  II.,  fi^.  2.) 

4.  Bi-it.  JNIus.  Colton.  Otho  C  V.  Ssec.  viii. 
(Fras^ments  of  JIatt.  and  Mark.  Bentley's 
0).  Injured  by  file:  restored  and  mounted, 
1848.     The  complement  of  2-1. 

5.  Brit.  Mus.  Addlt.  5,403.  Ssec.  viii.  (Bent- 
ley's  F).  A  magnificent  (Italian)  uncial 
5IS.  with  many  old  readings.  Prtef.  Can. 
(Sect.)  C"p.  Mt.  xxviii.  Mc.  xiii.  Lc.  xx. 
Joh.  xiv.     (Plate  1.,  fij;.  2.) 

6.  Brit.  Mus.  Hurl.  2,788.  Stec.  viii.,  ix. 
(Codex  aureus  i.  Bentley's  M2).  Good  Vul- 
gate. 

7.  Brit.  Mus.  Hurl.  2,797.  Sac.  viii.,  is. 
(Codex  aureus  ii.)     Vulgate  of  late  type. 

8.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  2  A.  xx.  Ssec.  viii.  (Lec- 
tiones  quredani  ex  Evangeliis.)  Good  Vul- 
gate. 

9.  Brit.  Mus.  Hnrl.  2,790,  cir.  850.  A  fine 
copy,  with  some  old  readings. 

10.  Brit.  Mus.  Had.  2,795.  Saec.  ix.  (In  red 
letters.)     Vulgate  of  late  type. 

11.  Brit.  Mus.  Had.  2,82.3.  Sac.  ix.  Good 
Vulgate,  with  versus. 

12.  Brit.  Mus.  ILirl.  2,826.  Sa;c.  ix.,  viii. 
(Bentley's  Ho).     Good  Vulgate. 

13.  Brit.  JIus.  Ret/.  1  A,  xviii.  Ssec.  ix.,  x. 
(Cod.  Athelstani.  Bentley's  O).  Many  old 
and  peculiar  readings. 

14.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  D,  iii.  Ssec.  x.  Like 
13,  but  most  carelessly  written. 

15.  Brit.  Mus.  AMU.  11,848.  Sac.  ix.  Care- 
fully written  and  corrected.  Closely  re- 
sembling 20. 

16.  Brit.  Mus.  Addil.  11,849.  Sac.  ix.  ViJ- 
gate  of  late  type. 

17.  Brit.  Mus.  Egerton,  708.  Ssec.  ix.  (St. 
Luke  and  St.  John.)  Some  important  read- 
ings. 

18.  Brit.  Mus.  Egerion,  873.  Sfec.  ix.  Good 
Vulgate.  Prmf.  Can.  (Sect.)  Cap.  Matt, 
xxviii.  j\Ic.  xiii.  Ix.  xxi.  .loh.  xiv. 

19.  Brit.  Mus.  Adili/.  9,381.  Sffic.  ix.  From 
St.  Petroc's,  Bodmin.  Some  peculiar  read- 
ings. Prczf.  Con.  (Sect.)  Titiili.  Jlt.  cclii. 
{Cap.  Ixx.xiv.  versus  iiDCC).  Mc.  clxxxvi. 
Lc.  cccxl.  Joh.  ccxxvi. 

20.  Brit.  Mus.  Coilon.  Tib.  A,  ii.  Sac.  x. 
(The  Coronation  Book.  Bentley's  E).  Many 
old  readings  in  common  with  1,  3,  5,  but 
without  great  interpolations." 

21.  Brit.  Mus.  Re;/.  1  D.  ix.  Ssec.  xi.  (Ca- 
nute's Book.  Bentley's  A).  Good  Vul- 
gate. 


invitavit.  In  B.  M.  Reg.  A.  xviii.  the  variations  are 
much  more  considerable  :  piisillo,majori  mhiores  esse, 
introeuntes  aiiletn  et  rogati  ail  coenam,  loci's  eminen- 
tioribits,  clarior,  oin.  is,  ad  coenam  focai-it,  deorsiim,  in 
I.  inf.  rec,  supervenerit,  ad  coenam  vocavit,  adiuic 
sursutn  accede,  cm.  hoc. 

«  Bentley  has  also  given  a  collation  of  another  Cot- 
toniau  MS.  (Otho,  B  ix.)  very  similar  to  this,  which 
almost  perished  in  the  fire  in  17.31.  Mr.  E.  A.  Bond, 
Doputy  Keeper  of  the  MSS.,  to  Avhose  kindness  the 
writer  is  greatly  indebted  for  importiint  help  in  exam- 
ining the  magnificent  collection  of  Latin  MSS.  in  the 
British  Museum,  has  shown  him  fragments  of  a  few 
leaves  of  this  MS.  which  were  recovered  from  the 
wreck  of  the  fii-e.  By  a.  singular  error  Bentley  calls 
this  MS.,  and  not-  Tib.  A.  ii.,  the  Coronation  Book. 
Comp.  Smith,  Cotton.  Cat'.   "^ 


VULGATE,  THE 

22.  Cambridge  Univ.  Libr.  LI.  i.  10.  (Passij 
et  Pesurrectio  ex  iv.  ICvv.).  Sac.  viii, 
Written  (appai-eiitly)  for  Ethelwald,  Bp.  of 
Lindisfarne. 

23.  Cambridge,  C.  C.  C.  Libr.  cclxxxvi.  (iv. 
Gospels,  with  Eusebian  Canons.)  Sa;c.  vi. 
vii.  Supposed  by  many  to  have  been  sent 
by  Gregory  the  Great  to  Augustine.  Cap. 
Matt,  xxviii.  Mark  xiii.  Luke  :;x,  John  xiv. 
Vulgate  with  many  old  readings.  It  hag 
been  corrected  by  a  very  pure  Vulgate  t»xt. 
Described  and  some  readings  given  by  J. 
Goodwin,  Publ.  of  Cambr.  Antiquarian 
Snciely,  1847.6 

24.  Cambridge,  C.  C.  C.  Libr.  cxcvii.  (Frag- 
ments of  St.  John  and  St.  Luke,  extending 
over-  John  i.  1-x.  29,  and  Luke  iv.  5-xxiii. 
26,  with  Eusebian  Canons.)  Sa:'c.  viii. 
The  fragments  of  St.  John  were  published 
by  J.  Goodwin,  I.  c.  A  curiously  mixed 
text,  forming  a  connectmg  link  between  the 
"  Irish  "  text  and  the  Vulgate,  but  with- 
out any  great  interpolations.  See  No.  4. 
Comp.  p.  3457. 

25.  Cambridge,  Trin.  Coll.  B.  10,  4,  iv. 
Gospels,  Saec.  ix.  (Cap.)  Matt,  xxvii.  Mc. 
xiii.  Lc.  xxi.  Joh.  xiv.  Good  Vulgate,  with 
some  old  readings.     (Bentley's  T.) 

26.  Cambridge,  Coll.  £>.  Joh.  C.  23.  The 
Bendish  Gospels,  Ssec.  ix.  Good  Vulgate, 
very  carefully  written. 

27.  Oxford,  Bodl.  857  (D.  2,  14).  Ssec.  vii. 
Begins,  Matt.  iv.  14,  ut  adim.  —  ends  .John 
xxi.  15,  with  a  lacuna  from  Matt.  viii.  29, 
dicentes  —  ix.  18,  defuncta  est.  Sect. 
Pnef.  (Cap.)  Mc.  xiii.  Lc.  xx.  Joh.  xiv. 
Closely  akin  to  23.1^ 

28.  I  )urham,  "  Codex  Evangeliorum  plus 
mille  annorum,  litteris  capitalibus  ex  Bibli- 
otheca  Dunelmensi."  (Bentley's  K.)  Ends 
John  i.  27. 

29.  Durham,  "Codex  Evangeliorum  plus 
mille  annorum,  sed  imperfectus."  (Bentley's 
|.)  Begins  Mark  i.  12.  Two  very  impor- 
tant MSS.  Both  have  many  old  readings 
in  connnon  with  1,  3,  4,  5. 

30.  Stony  hurst,  St.  CutliherVs  St.  John,  found 
in  1105  at  the  head  of  St.  Cuthbert  when 
his  tomb  was  opened.  Ssec.  vii.  Very  pure 
Vulgate,  agreeing  with  Cod.  Am.  in  many 
very  remarkable  readings:  e.  g.  1.  15,  dixi 
vobis;  ii.i,tibi  et  mihi;  iv.  10,  resjxmdii 
Jesus  dixit ;  iv.  16,  ei  veni,  cm.  hue,  etc.'' 
(Plate  I.  fig.  3.) 


b  A  complete  edition  of  this  text,  with  collations  of 
London  Brit.  3L(s.  Harl.  1,775  i  Reg.  1  E.  vi.  1  B 
vii.  ;  Addit.  5,463  ;  Oxford,  Bodl.  857,  is,  I  believe,  ju 
preparation  by  the  Rev.  G.  Williams,  Fellow  of  King's 
College,  Cambridge. 

c  By  a  very  strange  mist.ake  Ti.^chendorf  describes 
this  MS.  as  "  multorum  Ni.  Tl.  fragmentorum."' 

f'  It  may  he  interesting  to  give  a  rough  classification 
of  these  MSS.,  all  of  which  the  writer  has  examined 
with  more  or  less  care.  Many  others  of  later  date 
may  be  of  equal  value  ;  and  there  are  several  early 
copies  in  private  collections  (as  at  Middlehill)  and  at 
Dublin  (e.  g.  the  (Vulgate)  Book  of  St.  Colunibo,  Ssec. 
vii  (Westwood)  Pal.  Sacra),  which  he  has  been  obliged 
to  leave  unexamined. 

Group  i.    Vulgate    text    approacking   closely   it.    t/it 


Vol.IE 


Pl.H 


CP 


it 

it 

^1 


r  ? 


^^  ' 


VULGATE,  THE 

(2.)  Of  the  Acts  and  Epistles  and  Apoc:  — 

1.  Oxford,  Bodl.  tidd.  30  (Acts),  fciee  §12, 
(2).     (Plate  I.  fi^.  4.) 

2.  Oxfcrd,  Bodl.  Laml.  E,  67  (Kpp.  I'aul). 
See  §  12,  (2). 

3.  Brit.  Mus.,  Ilarl.  1,772.  (Epp.  Paul,  et 
Catli.  (except  3  Jo.  .hid.).  Apoc.)  Ssec. 
viii.  Griesbach,  Synb.  Cnt.  i.  326  ff,  a 
most  important  MS.  (Beiitley's  M.)  See 
§  12,  (2). 

4.  Brit.  Mus.  Harl.  7,.551.  (FraKtii.  of  Cath. 
Epp.  and  St.  Luke.)  Saec.  viii.  (Bentley's 
«!  7.) 

5.  Brit.  Mus.  Addit.  11,852.  Ssec.  ix.  Epp. 
Paul.  Act.  Cath.  Epp.  Apoc.  Good  Vul- 
gate." 

6.  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  1  A.  xvi.  Saec.  xi.  Good 
Vulgate. 

7.  Cambridge,  Coll.  SS.  Trin.  B.  10,  5. 
Saec.  ix.  (Collated  by  F.  J.  A.  Hort. 
Bentley's  S.)    In  Saxon  letters:  akin  to  2.'" 

8.  Cambridge,  Coll.  US.  Trin.  Cod.  Au(j. 
(F2).  Published  by  F.  H.  Scrivener,  1859.C 

9.  "  Codex  ecclesiae  Lincolniensis  800  an- 
iiorum."      (Bentley's  |,  Act.  Apoc.) 

10  Brit.  Mus.  Reg.  2  F.  i.  Ssec.  xii.  (Bent- 
ley's B. )  Paul.  Epp.  xiv.  cum  commentario. 
Many  old  readings. 

A  Leotioiiary  quoted  by  Sabatier  (Siec.  viii.), 
md  the  Mozarabic  Liturgy,  are  also  of  great  criti- 
jal  value. 

In  addition  to  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate,  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  Version  which  was  made  from  it  is  an  im- 
portant help  towards  the  criticism  of  the  text.  Of 
this  the  /leplnteuch  and  ./ob  were  published  by  E. 
Thwaites,  Oxfd.  IG'JO;  the  (Latin-Saxon)  Psalter, 
by  J.  Spelman,  IGW,  and  B.  Thorpe,  1835 ;  tlie 
Gospels,  by  Archiip.  Parker,  1571,  T.  Marshall, 
1665,  and  more  satisfactorily  liy  B.  Thorpe,  18-12, 
and  St.  Afdit.  by  J.  M.  Kemble  (and  C  Hardwick), 
with  two  Anglo-Saxon  texts,  formed  on  a  collation 
of  five  MSS.  and  the  Lindisfarne  text  and  gloss. 
Comp.  also  the  Prankish  Version  of  the  Harmony 
of  Ammonius,  ed.  Schmeller,  1841. 

VII.  The   CitiTicAi,  Value  of  the  Latin 


VULGATE,  THE 


3477 


ivlwle  to  the  Cod.  Ammt. :  6,  8,  11,  12,18,  21,22, 
25,  26,  30. 
Group  ii.    Vulgate  text  of  a  later  type  :  7,  10,  16. 
Group  iii.  A   Vulgate  text  inaMy  willi  old  readings  : 

1,  9,  17,  19,  23,  27. 
Group  iv.  A  mixed  text,  in  which  the  old  readings 
are  numerous  and  ittiportant :  2,  3,  4  (24),  5,  13, 
14, 15,  20,  28,  29. 
A  more  complete  collation   might   modify  this  ar- 
rangement, but  it  is  (I  believe)  approximately  true. 

a  This  MS.  contains  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiccnes 
after  that  to  the  Hebrews,  and  also  the  addition  IJoh. 
v.  7,  in  the  following  form  :    t^uia  tres  sunt  qui  testi- 

mnnium  dant  sps,  et  aqua,  et  sanguis,  et  tres  unum 
sunt.  Sicut  in  crtelo  tres  sunt,  pater  verbnm  et  sps,  et 
tri'S  unum  sunt.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  two  other 
oldest  authorities  iu  support  of  this  addition,  also  .sup- 
port the  Epistle  to  the  Laodicenes  —  the  MS.  of  La 
Cava,  aud  the  Speculutn  published  by  Mai. 

''  A  fraguient  containing  prefatory  excerpts  to  a 
copy  of  St  Paul's  epistles  written  in  a  hand  closely  re- 
sembling this  is  found  B.  M    Cotton.  Vitell.  C.  viii. 

'-■  From  an  examination  of  Bentley's  unpublished 
eoUatious,  it  may  be  well  to  add  that  of  the  eighteen 
Preach  M.S.S.,  which  he  caused  to  be  compared  with 
the  (Jlementiue  text  (Lutel.  Paris,  apud  CInuitium 
So'iniinn.  MDOXXVlu.     See  Trin.  Coll.  Oamb.  B.  17.61. 


A'ersiox.s.  —  33.  The  Latin  Version,  in  its  various 
forms,  contributes,  as  has  been  already  seen,  mora 
or  less  important  materials  for  the  criticism  of  tlie 
original  texts  of  tlie  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and 
of  the  Conunon  and  Hexaplaric  texts  of  the  LXX. 
The  bearing  of  the  Vulgate  on  the  LXX.  will  not 
be  noticed  here,  as  the  points  involved  in  the  in- 
quiry more  properly  belong  to  the  history  of  the 
LXX.  Little,  again,  need  be  said  on  the  value  of 
the  translation  of  Jerome  for  the  textual  criticism 
of  the  O.  r.  As  a  whole  his  work  is  a  remarkable 
monument  of  the  substimtial  identity  of  the  Helirew 
text  of  the  4tli  century  with  the  present  Masoretic 
text;  and  the  want  of  trustworthy  materials  for 
the  exact  determination  of  the  Latin  text  itself,  hat 
made  all  detailed  investigation  of  his  readings  im- 
possible or  imsatisfactory.  The  passages  which 
were  quoted  in  tlie  premature  controversies  of  the 
loth  and  17th  centuries,  to  prove  the  corruption  of 
the  Hebr^  or  Latin  text,  are  commonly  of  little 
importance  as  far  as  the  text  is  concerned.  It  will 
be  enough  to  notice  those  only  which  are  quoted 
by  Whitaker,  the  worthy  antagonist  of  Bellarmiu 
{Disputation  on  Scripture,  pp.  163  fF.,  ed.  Park. 
Soc). 

Gen.  i.  30,  om.  all  green  herbs  (in  V^et.  L.);  iii. 
15,  Ipsa  conteret  caput  tuum.  There  seems  good 
reason  to  believe  that  the  original  reading  was  ipse. 
Comp.  Vercellone,  ad  kic.     See  also  Gen.  iv.  10. 

iii.  17,  in  opere  tuo.     1113272  for  ~f~nil^2. 

iv.  10,  om.  Nod,  which  is  specially  noticed  in 
Jerome's  QucbsI.  Hebr. 

vi.  6,  add.  et  prjecavens  in  futurum.  The  words 
are  a  gloss,  aud  not  a  part  of  the  Vulgate  text. 

viii.  4,  vicesimo  septimo,  J'or  septimo  decimo 
So  LXX. 

Id.  7,  egrediebatur  et  noji  revertebatur.  Thb- 
non  is  wanting  in  the  best  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate, 
and  has  been  introduced  from  the  LXX. 

xi.  13,  trecentis  tribus,  for  quadringentis  tribus. 
So  LXX. 

ix.   6,  fundetur  sanguis  illius.      On.  "  by  man." 

xxxvii.  2.  Sedecim  for  septemdecim.  Probably 
a  transcriptural  error. 

the  following  are  the  most  important,  and  wovJd  reptiy  a 
complete  collation.  The  writer  has  retained  Bentley's 
notation  :  some  of  the  MSS.  may  probably  Lave  pjissed 
into  other  collections. 

a.  S.  Gertnnni  a  Pratis.  Smcyiii.  Gold  uncials  on 
purple  vellum.  Matt.  vi.  2,  ut  —  to  end.  Mark 
ix.  47,  etc*  — xi.  13,  vidisset.  xii.  23,  resurrexerint 
—  to  end.     Good  Vulgate. 

(n.  S.  Germani  a  Pratis.  (g'  of  Tischdf.  etc.)  A 
very  important  MS.,  containing  part  of  0.  T.,  the 
whole  of  N.  T.  (of  Oallican  text  .'),  and  "  tria 
folia  Pastoris."  Existing  collations  are  very 
incomplete.  At  the  end  of  th«  Epistle  to  tlK 
Hebrews,  which  precedes  the  Shepherd,  the  M3. 
has  (according  to  Bentley)  the  following  note  ; 
Explicit  ad  Hehraeos.  Lege  cum  pace.  Biblio- 
theca  Hieronimi  Presbiteri  Bethleem  secundum 
Graecum  ex  emendatis.  mis  exemplaribus  conlatus 
(sic). 

V.   S.    Germani  a  Pratis,  1,  2,  A.  D.  809. 

o.  Biht.  RtgicT,  l'ari.s.  3,706.  4  Gosp.  Ssec.  ix. 
Many  old  readings. 

n.  Bibl.  Regirr,  Paris.  3,706  (2,  8).  4  Gosp.,  with 
some  lacunre.     Srec.  viii.    Many  old  readings. 

p.  S.  Martini  Turonensis.  Lit.  aureis.  Saec.  viii 
An  importanc  MS.  (GallicauT).  Corap.  p.  346& 
note/. 


3478  VULGATE,  THE 

xxxis.  6,  (iiii.     "  Wherefore  he  left  —  Joseph." 
xl.  5,  om.  "  The  butler  —  prison." 
xlix.  10.     Conip.  Vercelloiie  ad  lac. 

33.  om. 

In  xxiv.  6,  xxvii.  5,  xxxiv.  29,  the  variation  is 
probably  in  the  rendering  only.  The  reniaininf; 
passages,  ii.  8;  iii.  6;  iv.  6,  13,  26;  vi.  3;  xiv.  3; 
xvii.  16;  xix.  18;  xxi.  9;  xxiv.  22;  xxv.  34;  xxvii. 
33;  xxxi.  32;  xxxviii.  5,  23;  xlix.  22,  contain  dif- 
ferences of  interpretation;  and  in  xxxvi.  21,  xli.  45, 
the  ^'ulgate  appears  to  have  preserved  important 
traditional  renderings. 

34.  The  examples  which  have  been  given  sho"^ 
the  comparatively  narrow  limits  within  wliicii  the 
Vulgate  can  be  used  for  the  criticism  of  the  lielirew 
text.  The  Version  was  made  at  a  time  when  the 
present  revision  was  already  established;  and  the 
freedom  which  Jerome  allowed  himself  in  rendering 
the  sense  of  the  original,  often  leaves  it  doulithd 
whether  in  reality  a  various  reading  is  re])reseMted 
by  the  peculiar  form  which  he  gives  to  a  particular 
passage.  In  the  N.  T.  the  case  is  far  different. 
In  this  the  critical  evidence  of  the  Latin  is  separable 
into  two  distinct  elements,  the  evidence  of  the  Old 
Latin  and  that  of  the  Ilieronymian  revision.  The 
latter,  wh^re  it  diffi^rs  from  the  former,  represents 
the  received  (jreek  text  of  the  4tii  century,  and  so 
far  claims  a  respect  (speaking  roughly)  equal  to 
that  due  to  a  first-class  Greek  JNLS. ;  and  it  may 
be  fairly  concluded,  that  any  reading  opposed  to  the 
combined  testimony  of  the  oldest  Greek  MSS'.  and 
the  true  Vulgate  text,  either  arose  later  than  the 
4th  century,  or  was  previously  confined  within  a 
very  narrow  range.  The  cvrrcrJums  of  Jerome  do 
not  carry  us  back  beyond  the  age  of  existing  (ireek 
MSS.,  but,  at  the  same  time,  they  supplement  the 
original  testimony  of  MSS.  by  an  independent  wit- 
ness. The  subsUinct  of  the  Vulgate,  and  the  copies 
of  the  Old  Latin,  have  a  more  venerable  authority. 
The  origin  of  the  Latin  \'ersion  dates,  as  has  been 
Been,  from  the  earliest  age  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  translation,  as  a  whole,  was  practically  fixed 
and  current  more  than  a  century  before  the  tran- 
scription of  the  oldest  Greek  MS.  Thus  it  is  a 
witness  to  a  text  more  ancient,  and  therefore, 
cceteris  paribtis,  more  valuable,  than  is  represented 
by  any  other  authority,  unless  the  Peshito  in  its 
present  form  be  excepted.  This  primitive  text  was 
not,  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  free  from  serious 
jorruptions  (at  least  in  the  synoptic  Gospels)  from 
the  first,  and  was  variously  corrupted  afterwards. 
3iit  the  corruptions  proceeded  in  a  different  direc- 
tion and  liy  a  different  law  from  those  of  Greek 
JISS.,  and,  consequently,  the  two  authorities 
mutually  correct  each  other.  What  is  the  nature 
of  these  corruptions,  and  what  the  character  and 
value  of  Jerome's  revision,  and  of  the  Old  Latin, 
will  be  seen  ftora  some  examples  to  be  given  in 
detail. 

35.  Before  giving  these,  however,  one  prelimi- 
nary remark  must  be  made.  In  estimating  the 
critical  value  of  Jerome's  labors,  it  is  necessary  to 
draw  a  distinction  between  his  different  works. 
His  mode  of  proceeding  was  by  no  means  uniform; 
and  the  importance  of  his  judgment  varies  with  the 
object  at  which  he  aimed.  The  three  versions  of 
the  Psalter  represent  coinfjletely  the  three  different 
methods  which  he  followed.  At  first  he  was  con- 
tented with  a  popular  revision  of  the  current  text 
(the  Roman  P.salter);  then  he  instituted  an  ac- 
curate comparison  between  the  current  text  and 
the  original  I'the  Galilean  Psalter);  and  in  the  next 


VULGATE,  THE 

place  he  translated  independently,  giving  a  direct 
version  of  the  original  (the  Iltbrtw  Psalter).  These 
three  methods  follow  one  another  in  chronological 
order,  and  answer  to  the  wider  views  which  Jerome 
gradually  gained  of  the  functions  of  a  BildicaJ 
scholar.  The  revision  of  the  N.  T.  belongs  unfor- 
tunately to  the  first  period.  When  it Was  made, 
Jerome  was  as  yet  unused  to  the  task,  and  he  was 
anxious  not  to  arouse  popular  prejudice.  His  aim 
was  little  more  than  to  remo^■e  obvious  interpola- 
tions and  blunders;  and  in  doing  this  he  likewise 
introduced  some  changes  of  expression  which  soft- 
ened the  roughness  of  the  Old  Version,  and  some 
which  seemed  to  be  required  for  the  true  expression 
of  tlie  sense  (e.  (j.  Matt.  vi.  11,  supersnhstavtiiiU.n 
lor  quutldianum).  But  while  he  accomplished 
much,  he  failed  to  carry  out  even  this  limited  pur- 
pose with  thorough  completeness.  A  rendering 
which  he  conmionly  altered  was  still  suffered  to  re- 
main in  some  places  without  any  obvious  reason 
(e.  (J.  fj.vffTripiov,  So^d^co,  a<pavi^ci}};  and  the 
textual  emendations  which  he  introduced  (apart 
from  the  removal  of  glosses)  seem  to  have  been 
made  after  only  a  partial  examination  of  Greek 
copies,  and  those  probably  few  in  number.  I'he 
result  was  such  as  might  have  been  expected.  The 
greater  corruptions  of  the  Old  Latin,  whether  ijy 
addition  or  omission,  are  generally  corrected  in  the 
Vulgate.  Sometimes,  also,  Jerome  gives  the  true 
reading  in  details  which  had  been  lost  in  the  Old 
Latin:  Matt.  i.  io,  cognosctbat ;  ii.  %j,  prophetas  ; 
v.  22,  om.  e'lKri;  ix.  15,  lu(jere ;  John  iii.  8;  Luke 
ii.  33,  6  warrip:  iv.  12:  but  not  rarely  he  leaves  a 
false  reading  uncorrected  (M.itt.  ix.  28,  vobis ;  x. 
42),  or  adopts  a  false  reading  where  the  true  one 
was  also  current;  Matt.  xvi.  6;  xviii.  29;  xix.  4; 
John  i.  3,  16;  vi.  04.  Kven  in  graver  variations 
he  is  not  exempt  from  error.  The  famous  pericope, 
John  vii.  53-viii.  11,  which  had  gained  only  a 
partial  entrance  into  the  Old  Latin,  is  certainly  es- 
tablished in  the  Vulgate.  The  additions  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  35,  Luke  iv.  19,  John  v.  4,  1  I'et.  iii.  22, 
were  already  goierally  or  widely  received  in  the 
Latin  copies,  and  Jerome  left  them  imdisturbed 
The  same  may  be  said  of  Mark  xvi.  9-20;  but  the 
"heavenly  testimony"  (1  John  v.  7),  which  is 
found  in  the  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  is,  beyond  all 
doui)t,  a  later  interpolation,  due  to  an  Alrican  gloss; 
and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  interpolations 
in  Acts  viii.  37,  ix.  5,  were  really  erased  by  Jerome, 
though  they  maintained  their  place  in  the  mass  of 
Latin  copies. 

36.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  Gospels  was  far 
more  complete  than  that  of  the  remaining  parts  of 
the  N.  T.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible,  except  in  the 
Gospels,  to  determine  any  substantial  difterence  in 
the  Greek  texts  which  are  represented  by  the  Old 
and  Ilieronymian  Versions.  I'^lsewhere  the  differ- 
ences, as  far  as  they  can  be  satisfactorily  estab- 
lisiied,  are  differences  of  expression  and  not  of  text; 
and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  the 
readings  which  exist  in  the  best  Vulgate  M^S, 
when  they  are  at  variance  with  other  Latin  author- 
ities, rest  upon  the  deliberate  judgment  of  Jerome. 
On  the  contrary,  his  Connnentaries  show  that  he 
used  copies  differing  widely  from  the  recension 
which  passes  under  his  name,  and  even  expressly 
condemned  as  faulty  in  text  or  rendering  many 
passages  whicti  are  undoubtedly  part  of  the  Vulgate 
I'hus  in  his  C'immentary  on  the  Galatians  he  con- 
denms  the  additions,  iii.  1,  veriiati  nan  ubedu-e , 
V.  21,  Iwiiilddla, ;  and  the  translations,  i.  16.  ruM 


VULGATE,  THE 

xcquieti  carni  et  sanyui.ni  (for  non  contuh  cum 
came  et  sanguine);  v.  9,  modicum  fermenlum  to- 
tarn  massam  corrumpii  (for  modicum  fennentum 
iotam  connperBionemfermentat);  v.  11,  evacuntttm 
est  {(or  .cessavit);  vi.  3,  seipsum  (seipse)  seducit 
(for  menlem  suam  decipit).  And  in  the  text  of 
the  epistle  wliich  he  gives  there  are  upwards  of  fifty 
readings  which  difier  from  the  best  Vulgate  text, 
of  which  aljout  ten  are  improvements  (iv.  21:  v. 
13,  23;  vi.  13,  15,  16,  &c.),  as  many  more  inferior 
readings  (iv.  17,  26,  30,  &c.),  and  the  remainder 
differences  of  expression:  mala  for  nequam,  rectn 
pede  incedunt  for  recte  dmOidunt,  rursum  for 
iterum.  The  same  difFerences  are  found  in  his 
Commentaries  on  the  other  epistles:  ad  Kplies.  i. 
6;  iii.  14;  iv.  19;  v.  22,  31;  ad  Tit.  in.  15.  From 
this  it  will  be  evident  that  the  Vulirate  text  of  the 
Acts  and  the  Epistles  does  not  represent  the  crit- 
ical opinion  of  .Jerome,  even  in  the  restricted  sense 
in  whioli  this  is  true  of  the  text  of  the  (ios'pels. 
But  still  there  are  some  readings  which  may  with 
probability  be  referred  to  his  re\ision:  Acts  xiii. 
18,  mores  eorum  sustinuit  for  imtiiit  (aluit)  eos- 
Kom.  xii.  11,  Doiimio  for  teinpoii.  Eph.  iv.  19, 
illuminabit  le  C/iristus  for  coiitinf/es  Cliristum. 
Gal.  ii.  5,  neqiie  ad  liovam  cessimus  for  ad  lioram 
cessimus.  1  Tim.  v.  19,  add.  nisi  sub  duohiis  aid. 
Ifibu-s  teftibus. 

37.  The  chief  corruptions  nf  the  Old  Latin  con- 
sist in  the  introduction  of  glosses.  These,  like  the 
corresponding  additions  in  the  Codex  Bezm  (l>i), 
are  sometimes  indications  of  the  venerable  antiq- 
uity of  the  source  from  which  it  was  derived,  and 
Beam  to  carry  us  back  to  the  time  vvlien  tlie  evan- 
gelic tradition  had  not  yet  been  wholly  sn]5erseded 
by  the  written  (iospels.  Such  are  the  inter[)ola- 
tions  at  Matt.  iii.  15;  xx.  28;  Luke  iii.  22  (com- 
pare also  Luke  i.  40:  xii.  38);  but  more  frequently 
they  are  derived  from  ]iarallel  passages,  either  by 
direct  trangference  of  tlie  words  of  another  evangel- 
ist, or  by  the  reproduction  of  the  substance  of  them.  ' 
These  interpolations  are  frequent  in  the  synoptic 
Gospels;  Matt.  iii.  3:  Mark  xvi.  4;  Luke  i.  29, 
vi.  10;  ix.  43,  50,  54:  xi.  2;  and  occur  also  in 
St.  .John  vi.  56,  &c.  Hut  in  St.  John  the  Old 
Latin  more  commonly  errs  by  defect  than  by  excess. 
Thus  it  omits  clauses  certainly  or  proliably  genuine : 
iii.  31;  iv.  9;  v.  30:  vi.  23;  viii.  58,  &c.  Some- 
times, again,  the  renderings  of  the  (ireek  text  are 
free:  Luke  i.  29:  ii.  15;  vi.  21.  Such  variations, 
h(/wever,  are  rarely  likely  to  ndslead.  Otherwise 
the  Old  Latin  text  of  the  Gos])els  is  of  the  hii;hest 
value.  There  are  cases  where  some  Latin  MSS. 
combine  with  one  or  two  other  of  the  most  ancient 
witnesses  to  8up])ort  a  reading  which  has  been  ob- 
literated in  the  mass  of  authorities:  Luke  vi.  1; 
Mark  xvi.  9  ff '. ;  v.  3;  .and  not  un frequent  1/  (comp. 
§  35)  it  preserves  the  true  text  which  is  lost  in  the 
Vulgate:   Luke  xiii.  19;  xiv.  5:  xv.  28. 

38.  But  the  places  where  the  Old  Latin  and  the 
Vulgate  have  separately  preserved  the  true  reading 
are  rare,  when  compared  with  those  in  which  they 
combine  with  other  ancient  witnesses  against  the 
great  mass  of  authorities.  Every  chapter  of  the 
Gospels  will  funiish  instances  of  this  agreement, 
irhich  is  often  the  more  striking  because  it  exists 
iinly  in  the  original  text  of  the  Vulgate,  while  the 
later  copies  have  been  corrupted  in  the  same  way  as 
the  later  Greek  MSS.:  Mark  ii.  10;  iii.  25  (V); 
fiii.  13,  &c. ;  Kom.  vi.  8;  xvi.  24,  Ac.  In  the  first 
few  chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  the  following  may  be 
noticed:   i.   18   (bis\:  ii.   18  :   iii.    10  :  v.  4,  5,  11, 


VULGATE,  THE 


34'<9 


30,  44,  47;  vi.  5,  13;  vii.  10,  14,  29;  viii.  -32 
(x.  8),  &c.  It  is  useless  to  multiply  examples 
which  occur  equally  in  every  part  of  the  N.  T.  • 
Luke  ii.  14,  40;  iv.  2,  &c. ;  .John  i.  52;  iv.  42, 
51 ;  v.  16;  viii.  59;  xiv.  17,  &c.:  Acts  ii.  30,  31, 
37,  Ac;  1  Cor.  i.  1,  15,  22,  27,  &c.  On  the  other 
li.and,  there  are  passages  (comp.  §  35)  in  which 
the  Latin  authorities  combine  in  giving  a  false  read- 
ini::  Matt.  vi.  15;  vii.  10-  viii.  28  (?),  A'c;  Luke 
iv.  17;  xiii.  23,  27,  31,  &c.;  Acts  iii.  20,  &c.;  1 
Tim.  iii.  16,  &c.  But  these  are  comparatively  few, 
and  commonly  marked  by  the  absence  of  all  East- 
ern corroborative  evidence.  It  may  be  impossible 
to  lay  down  definite  laws  for  the  separation  of  read- 
ings which  are  due  to  free  rendering,  or  careless- 
ness, or  glosses,  but  in  practice  there  is  little  diffi- 
culty in  distinguishing  the  variations  which  are  due 
to  the  idiosyncrasy  (so  to  speak)  of  the  version 
from  those  which  contain  real  traces  of  the  original 
text.  Aifd  when  every  allowance  has  been  made 
for  the  rudeness  of  the  original  Latin,  and  the  haste 
of  .lerome's  revision,  it  can  scarcely  be  denied  that 
the  Vulgate  is  not  only  the  most  venerable  but  also 
the  most  precious  monument  of  Latin  Christianity. 
For  ten  centuries  it  preserved  in  Western  Europe 
a  text  of  Holy  Scripture  far  purer  than  that  which 
was  current  in  the  IJyzantine  ( 'hurch ;  and  at  the 
revival  of  Greek  learning,  guided  the  way  towards 
a  revision  of  the  late  tireek  text,  in  which  the  best 
Biblical  critics  have  followed  the  steps  of  Bentley, 
with  ever-deepening  conviction  of  the  supreme  im- 
portance of  tlie  coincidence  of  the  earliest  Greek 
and  Latin  authorities. 

39.  Of  the  interpretative  value  of  the  Vulgate 
little  need  be  said.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
in  dealing  with  the  N.  T.,  at  least,  we  are  now 
in  posses.sion  of  means  infinitely  more  varied  and 
better  suited  to  the  right  elucidation  of  the  test 
than  could  have  been  enjoved  by  tlie  original 
.\frican  translators.  It  is  a  false  humility  to  rate 
as  nothing  the  inheritance  of  ages.  If  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  laws  of  language,  the  clear  per- 
ception of  principles  of  grammar,  the  accurate 
investigation  of  words,  the  minute  comparison  of 
:incieiit  texts,  the  wide  study  of  antiquity,  the 
long  lessons  of  ex]ierience,  have  contributed  nothing 
towards  a  fuller  understanding  of  Holy  Scripture, 
all  trust  in  Divine  Providence  is  gone.  If  we  are 
not  in  this  respect  far  in  advance  of  the  simple 
peasant  or  half-trained  scholar  of  North  Africa,  or 
even  of  the  laborious  student  of  Bethlehem,  we 
iiave  proved  false  to  their  example,  and  dishonor 
them  by  our  indolence.  It  would  be  a  thankless 
task  to  quote  instances  where  the  Latin  Version 
renders  the  Greek  incorrectly.  Such  faults  arise 
most  commonly  from  a  servile  adherence  to  the 
exact  words  of  tlie  original,  and  thus  that  which 
is  an  error  in  rendering  proves  a  fresh  evidence  ol 
the  scrupulous  care  with  which  the  translator 
generally  follow^xl  the  text  before  him.  But  while 
the  interpreter  of  the  N.  T.  will  be  fully  justified 
in  setting  aside  without  scruple  the  authority  of 
early  versions,  there  are  sometimes  ambiguous 
passages  in  which  a  version  may  iiieserve  the 
traditional  sen.se  (.lohn  i.  3,  9,  viii.  25,  Ac.)  or 
indicate  an  early  difference  of  translation;  and  thei. 
its  e.idence  may  be  of  the  highest  value.  But 
even  here  the  judgment  must  be  free.  Versions 
supply  authority  for  the  text,  and  opinion  only  for 
the  rendering. 

VIII.  The  LAXf;u.\(;K  of  the  I  .\tin  V|':r- 
sioNs    —   40.    The    characteristics    of     ('hristi;iii 


8480 


VULGATE,  THE 


Latinity  have  been  most  unaccountably  nei;;lected 
by  lexicographers  and  grammarians.  It  is,  indeeii, 
only  vtely  that  the  full  importance  of  proxincial 
diaaajts  in  the  history  of  languai;es  has  lieen  fully 
recognized,  and  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  writings 
'"t.  Tertullian,  Arnobius,  and  the  African  Fathers 
generally,  will  now  at  length  receive  the  attention 
which  tliey  justly  claim.  But  it  is  necessary  to  go 
back  one  step  further,  and  to  seek  in  the  remains 
of  the  Old  Latin  Bible  tiie  earliest  and  the  purest 
traces  of  the  popular  idioms  of  Afiican  Latin. 
It  is  easy  to  trace  in  the  patristic  writings  the 
powerful  influence  of  this  veneralile  \'ersion;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  the  Version  itself  exhibits  nu- 
merous peculiarities  which  were  evidently  borrowed 
from  the  current  dialect.  Generally  it  is  necessary 
to  distinguish  two  distinct  elements  liotli  in  the 
Latin  Version  and  in  subsequent  writings:  (1) 
Provincialisms  and  (2)  Grascisms.  The  former 
are  chieflv  of  interest  as  illustrating  the  history  of 
the  Latin  language;  the  latter  as  marking,  in  some 
degree,  its  power  of  expansion.  Only  a  few  re- 
marks on  each  of  these  heads,  which  may  help  to 
guide  inqidry,  can  be  offered  here;  but  the  care- 
ful reading  of  .some  chapters  of  the  Old  Version 
(e.  g.  I'salms,  Kcclus.,  Wisdom,  in  the  modern 
Vulgate)  will  supply  numerous  illustrations." 

(L)  Provincialisms.  —  -ll.  One  of  the  most  in- 
teresting facts  in  regard  to  the  language  of  the 
Latin  Version  is  the  reappearance  in  it  of  early 
forms  which  are  found  iu  Plautus  or  noted  as 
archaisms  by  grammarians.  These  establish  in  a 
siunal  manner  the  vitality  of  the  ijopular  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  literary  idiom,  and,  from  the 
great  scarcity  of  memorials  of  the  Italian  dialects, 
possess  a  peculiar  value.  Examples  of  icords,  forms. 
and  const riictions  will  show  the  extent  to  which  this 
phenomenon  prevails. 

(a)    Words : 

Stultiloqitium,    ■midtiloqidum,   vninloqutis 

(Plautus);  stiibilimciiluiii   (id.);  d'ltus 

(subst.  id.);  condiqnns  (id.);  (irniinn- 

cidii  (id.);  versipellis  (id.);  saluri/as 

(id.);  sldcie  (id.);  cwt/aius  (Ennius); 

cvsfodilio  (Festus)  ;    decipida.  dejero 

(Plautus);  exeniero  (^d.);  «aus(Pac.); 

mino  (to  drice.,  Festus). 
(/3)  Forms: 

Deponents  as  Passive:  consoler,  hortor, 

promvi'eor  (Heb.  xiii.  16);  ministvor. 
Irregular  inflections :  prirlibor  absamsus  ; 

conversely,  exies,  etc. 

tapelin  (Plautus),  hcec  (fern.  pi.). 
Unusual  forms:  pascun  (fem.);  nmrmttr 

(niasc.)  ;  sal  (neut. )  ;    ri^tia   (sing.); 

certor,  odio,  cornum,  placoi'  (subst.), 

dulcor. 
y)    Constructions : 

Emlgro  with  ace.  (Ps.  Ixi.  7,  emigrabit  te 

de  tabernaculo);    dominor   with    f/en.; 

noceo  w  ith  ace. ;  sui,  suus,  for  ejus,  etc. ; 

non  for  ne  prohibitive;  capit  inipers. 

42.  In  addition  to  these  there  are  many  other 


1  Cardinal  Wiseman  (Tivo  Letfra,  etc.,  republished 
a  Essni/.t,  i.  pp.  46-64)  has  examined  this  subject  in 
lonie  detail,  and  the  writer  has  fully  availed  himself 
(>f  lii«  examples,  in  addition  to  those  which  he  had 
Qiniself  collected.  The  Thes'viTiis  of  Faber  (ed.  1749) 
li  the  most  complete  t>>i'  Ei'deiiiastical  l^atia  ;  and  Du- 


VULGATE,  THE 

peculiarities  which  evidently  belong  to  the  African 
(or  common )  dialect,  and  not  merely  to  the  Chris- 
tian form  of  it.  Such  are  the  words  minorare^ 
minoratio,  improperium,  framea  (a  sword),  ablnc- 
tatio,  anmialis,  alleninre,  peclusculum,  aniemurale, 
panifica,  paratura,  tortura,  tribidare  (met.),  trib- 
ulaiio,  valefacere,  veredurius,  viare,  victualia,  vi- 
rectum  (viretum),  vitulamen,  volatilia  (subst.), 
quiilei-nio,  recUnatorium,  scrutiniiwi,  sponsare, 
stratoria  (subst.),  svjf'erentin,  svfficientia,  super- 
abundanfia,  siistineniia,  cartallus,  cassidile,  collac- 
taiieus,  condidcare,  f/eniinen,  grossitudo,  refeclio 
(KaTciAv/xa),  exterminium,  defuiictiv  (decease),  sub- 
stantia (abs. ),  iiwolntus. 

New  verbs  are  formed  from  adjectives :  pessi?hare, 
proximare,  approximare,  assiduare,  pigritari, 
snlvare  {salvfttor,  salvntio),  obvinre,  Jucundare, 
and  especially  a  large  class  in  -Jico :  morlifico,  vivi- 
fico,  sanctifico,  glorifiro,  clarifico,  beatifico,  casti- 
Jico,  gi-aiifico,  fructifico. 

Other  verbs  worthy  of  notice  are:  appropriare, 
appreiiare,  tenebrescere,  indulcare,  impilunare, 
(planus),  7nanic(tre. 

In  this  class  may  be  reckoned  also  many 

(1.)  New  substantives  derived  from  adjectives: 
possibilitas,  prceclnritas,  paitrnitus,  pnescieniia, 
religiodtas.  nativitns,  supervacuitus,  magnalia. 

Or  verbs:  requietio,  respectio,  creatura,  subi- 
tatio,  extollentia. 

(2.)  New  verbals:  accensibiUs,  acceptabilis,  da- 
cibilis,  productilis,  passibilis,  receptibilis,  reprehen- 
sihilis,  swuhbilis,  subjfctibilis,  arreptitius ;  and 
participial  forms:  pudoratus,  angustiatus,  iimora- 
tus,  sens'ittts,  disciplinatus,  magnatus,  Unguatus. 

(-3.)  New  adjectives:  aniincequus,  tempioi'aneiis, 
unigeniius,  qucrubsus  ;  and  adverbs,  terribiliier, 
unanimiter,  spii'ituuliter,  cognoscibiliter,  fiducial 
iter. 

The  series  of  negative  compounds  is  peculiarly 
worthy  of  notice:  immenim-aiio,  incrediiio,  incon- 
summatio  ;  inh(moi'are  ;  innuxiliaim,  indeficiens, 
incimfusibiUs,  importabilis. 

Among  the  characteristics  of  the  late  stage  of  a 
language  must  he  reckoned  the  excessive  frequency 
of  compounds,  especially  formed  with  the  preposi- 
tions. The.se  are  peculiarly  abundant  in  the  Latin 
Version,  but  in  many  cases  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine whether  they  are  not  direct  translations  of 
the  late  LXX.  forms,  and  not  independent  forms: 
e.  g.  addtcinvtre,  adinvenire  -nlio,  adincrescere, 
pereffluere,  permuiidare,  propitrgare,  superexul- 
tare,  siipvrinvalescere,  supererogare,  reinvitare, 
rememoratio,  repropiliari,  subin/'evre.  Of  these 
many  are  the  direct  representatives  of  Greek  words: 
svperadulta  (1  Cor.  vii.  30),  mperseminare  (Matt, 
xiii.  2.5),  comparlicipes,  concnplivus,  complimtntiis, 
etc.  {xtipersubslantialis,  Matt.  vi.  11);  and  others 
are  formed  to  express  distinct  ideas:  subcinei-icius, 
subnervare,  etc.* 

(2.)  Grcecisms.  — 4.3.  The  "simplicity"  of  the 
Old  V^ersion  necessarily  led  to  the  introduction  of 
very  numerous  Septuagintal  or  N.  T.  forms,  many 
of  which  have  now  passed  into  common  usse.  In 
this  respect  it  would  be  easy  to  point  out  the  dif- 


tHpon's  Conrnrrlnnre  i.^,  as  far  as   the  writer   has   ob- 
served, complete  for  the  authorized  Clementine  text. 

''  It  would  be  interest! II g  to  trace  the  many  .«trik 
ing  parallelisms  between  the  Vulgate  and  the  Afrirar 
Appuleius  (e.  g.  incrfilibiUs  (act.)  in^ff'iis;ibilis,  yiiolfi 
tarf,  etc  ),  or  the- Spanish  Seneca  (e.  g.  inquittudo,  in 
j/unUius,  etc.;. 


VULGATE,  THE 

ference  which  exists  between  Jerome's  own  work 
and  the  original  translation,  or  his  revision  of  it. 
Examples  of  Greek  words  are:  ztlire,  perizomo,, 
python,  pijllwnissn,  prostlyhts,  pnplieies  -tissa 
-tizare  -lure,  poderis,  pumpntice,  thesnurizare, 
anaihemaiizare,  a(jonlzttre,  atjonia,  aromdtizwe, 
angelus  -icus,  piribolus,  pisticus,  probaticn,  p'l- 
pyrio,  pastophorla,  telimkim,  euchnris,  acharis, 
romplicen,  iiravi.um,  dithalissus,  donvt,  (Ihronus), 
thymiatorium,  iristega,  scundilum,  sitnrcia,  blas- 
phemnre,  etc.,  besides  the  purely  technical  terms: 
pairiarclui,  F((r<isceve,  Pasclia,  Paracletus.  Other 
words  based  on  the  Greek  are:  apoiior,  anynrio, 
apostatare,  npoflolttus,  acedior  (ojcTjSia). 

Some  close  rondei-ini^s  are  interesting:  amodo 
(oirb  rovTov),  prupiliatorium  {iKaaTTipioi/),  inid- 
ipsum  (e'jri  rh  avrh),  rulioiiah  (AoysTov,  Ex.  xxviii. 
15,  &c.),  sceiwfdclirfius  (Acts  xviii.  3),  seminiver- 
t/iiis  (Acts  xvii.  18),  suhintroductus  (Gal.  ii.  4),  sii- 
perca-im-i  (Jude  3),  civilitas  (Acts  xxii.  28),  inten- 
taior  malorum  (.lames  i.  13).  To  this  head  also 
must  be  referred  such  constructions  as  zelnre  witli 
accus.  {(t]\ov;/  Ttva);  fncere  with  inf.  {ivoiilv 
....  yeve<Tdai)\  potestas  with  inf.  (i^ovaia 
apiiuai);  the  n.se.of  the  in/,  to  express  an  end 
(Acts  vii.  43,  iizoi-naaTe  irpoaKWilv)  or  a  result 
(Luke  i.  25,  eVerSec  aipeXilv,  rvspexil  cniftrre); 
the  introduction  of  quia  for  oti  in  the  sense  of  thut 
(Luke  i.  58,  amlitrunt  ....  qida),  or  for  on 
recitativum  (Matt.  vii.  23,  Conjiiebo)-  illis  quid 
....);  the  ddt.  with  dssifqid  (Luke  i.  3,  irapaKO- 
KovQiiv  V.  L.);  the  use  of  the  <jai.  with  the 
comparative  (John  i.  50,  viojora  lioritm);  and 
such  Hebraisms  as  vir  mortis  (1  K.  ii.  2G).  Comp. 
§6. 

Generally  it  may  be  observed  that  the  Vulgate 
Latin  bears  traces  of  a  threefold  iiifiue.ice  derived 
from  the  original  text;  and  tlie  modifications  of 
form  which  are  capable  of  being  carried  l>ack  to 
this  source  occur  yet  more  largely  in  modern  lan- 
guages, whether  in  this  case  tliey  are  to  be  referred 
to  the  plastic  power  of  the  Vulgate  on  the  popular 
dialect,  or,  as  is  more  likely,  we  must  suppose  that 
the  Vulgate  has  preserved  a  distinct  record  of  [)uw- 
ers  wliicli  were  widely  working  in  the  times  of  the 
Empire  on  the  common  Latin.  These  are  (1)  an 
extension  of  the  use  of  prepositions  for  simple  cases, 
e.  y.  in  the  renderings  of  iv.  Col.  iii.  17,  facere  in 
verbo,  etc.;  (2)  an  assimilation  of  pronouns  to 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  article,  e.  g.  1  John  i. 
2,  ipsa  vita;  Luke  xxiv.  9,  iUis  undecim,  etc.; 
and  (3)  a  constant  employment  of  the  definitive 
and  epithetic  genitive,  where  classical  usage 
would  have  required  an  adjective,  e.  y.  Col.  i. 
13,  lilius  caritdtts  smn ;  iii.  12,  viscera  miseri- 
it)rdia. 

44.  The  peculiarities  which  have  been  enumer- 
ated are  found  in  greater  or  less  frequency  through- 
out the  Vulgate.  It  is  natural  that  they  should  lie 
most  abundant  and  striking  in  the  parts  which  have 
been  preserved  least  changed  from  the  Old  Latin, 
the  Apocrypha,  the  Acts,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse. 
Jerome,  who,  as  he  often  says,  had  spent  many 
years  in  the  schools  of  grannnarians  and  rhetori- 
cians, could  not  fail  to  soften  down  many  of  tlie  as- 
perities of  tiie  earlier  version,  either  by  adojiting 
variations  already  in  partial  use,  or  by  correcting 


VULGATE,  THE 


3481 


a  Probalily  the  most  remarkable  example  of  the  in- 
fluence of  theology  upon  popular  language,  i.<<  tlio  eu- 
tii-e  suppression  of  the  correlatives  of  verhiini  in  all  the 
Bomauue  langiiuijeg.    The  forms  occur  in  flie  relij^ious 
219 


fiiulty  expressions  himself  as  he  revised  the  text. 
An  examination  of  a  few  chapters  in  the  Old  and 
New  Versions  of  the  Gospels  will  show  the  character 
and  extent  of  the  changes  which  he  ventured  to  in- 
troduce: Luke  i.  60,  oux''>  '**"*>  ^^*-  '-')  nequa- 
qumn,  Vulg. ;  id.  65,  iu  oAtj  ttj  opeivfj,  in  omni 
niopddna,  Vet.  L.,  super  omnhi  montana,  Vulg.; 
ii.  \,  lyrofileretur,  pi'ofessio,  Vet.  L.,  describerdur, 
descriplio,  Vulg. ;  id.  13,  exerciius  ccelestis,  Vet. 
L.,  miUtiiB  ccelestis,  Vulg.;  id.  34,  quod  contrndico- 
tur.  Vet.  L.,  cvi  contr.  Vulg. ;  id.  49,  in  propria 
PiUris  met,  Vet.  L.,  in  his  qiue  patris  mei  .'sunt, 
Vulg.  Some  words  he  seems  to  have  changed 
constanth",  though  not  universally:  e.  g.  obaudltio, 
obdudio  (obedientia,  oljedio);  mensurnre  (metiri); 
dilectio  (caritas);  sacramentum  (mysteriuni),  etc. 
And  many  of  the  most  remarkable  forms  are  con- 
fined to  books  which  he  did  not  revise:  elucidare, 
imdtare  (jucundari);  futniydbumlus,  illmnentatus, 
indisciplindtus,  insuspicubi/is ;  cxsecrdinenium  (ex- 
terminium),  yaadinionium ;  extoUenlid,  honorifi' 
centia:  horripilatio,  inhonoratio. 

45.  Generally  it  may  be  said  that  the  Scriptural 
idioms  of  our  common  language  have  come  to  us 
mainly  through  the  Latin ;  and  in  a  wider  view 
tlie  Vulgate  is  the  connecting  link  between  classi- 
cal and  modern  languages.  It  contains  elements 
which  belong  to  the  earliest  stage  of  Latin,  and  ex- 
hibits (if  often  in  a  rude  form)  the  flexibility  of  the 
popular  dialect.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  fur- 
nished the  source  and  the  model  for  a  large  portion 
of  current  Latin  derivatives.  Even  a  cursory  ex- 
amination of  the  characteristic  words  which  have 
l)een  given  will  show  how  many  of  them,  and  how 
many  corresponding  forms,  have  passed  into  living 
languages  «  To  follow  out  tills  question  in  detail 
would  be  out  of  place  here;  but  it  would  furnish  a 
ciiapter  in  the  history  of  language  fruitful  in  results 
and  liitherto  unwritten.  Within  a  more  limit«» 
range,  the  authority  of  the  Latin  Versions  is  unde- 
niable, though  its  extent  is  rarely  realized.  The 
vast  power  which  they  have  had  in  determining  the 
theological  terms  of  western  Christendom  can 
hardly  be  overrated.  By  far  the  greater  part  of 
the  current  doctrinal  terminology  is  based  on  the 
N'ulgate,  and,  as  tar  as  can  be  ascertained,  wa» 
originated  in  the  Latin  Version.  Predeslinntio-n 
justijicdtion,  supereroyalion  (supererogo),  sanctifi- 
Cdtum,  salvation,  medldlor,  regeneration,  revela- 
tion, visitation  (met.),  propitiation,  first  appear  in 
the  Old  Vulgate.  Grace,  reilewplion,  eleclic>-, 
reconciliation,  satisfdction,  inspiration,  scripture, 
were  devoted  there  to  a  new  and  holy  use.  Sac- 
rament iixucTTTipiov)  and  communion  are  from  the 
same  source;  and  though  baptism  is  Greek,  it 
comes  to  us  froui  the  Latin.  It  would  be  easy  to 
extend  the  list  by  the  addition  of  orders,  penance, 
conyreyation.  priest.  But  it  can  be  seen  from  the 
forms  already  brought  forward  that  the  Latin  Ver- 
sions have  left  their  mark  both  upon  our  language 
and  upon  our  thoughts;  and  if  the  right  method 
of  controversy  is  based  upon  a  clear  historical  per- 
ception of  tlie  force  of  words,  it  is  evident  that  the 
study  of  the  Vulgate,  however  much  neglected,  can 
never  be  neglected  with  impunity.  It  was  the  Ver- 
sion which  alone  tiiey  knew  who  handed  down  to 
the  Itefonners  the  rich  stores  of  medieval  wisdom ; 

technical  sen.'e  (the  Word),  but  otherwise  they  are  re 
pliu-etl  by  the  represoiitJitives  of  parabola  (parola,  ps 
role,  ete.i      Oouipure  Dim,  E'ym.   iVortb.  p.  253. 


8432 


VULTURE 


the  Version  with  which  the  greatest  of  the  Eeforrn- 
ers  were  most  famihar,  and  from  which  they  had 
drawn  their  earliest  knowledge  of  Divine  truth. 

13.  ¥.  W. 

*  Recent  LHernture.  —  First  of  all  should  be 
named  the  excellent  article  Vulyata,  by  O.  F. 
Fritzsche,  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  xvii.  422-460 
(1803).  See  also  O.  Zockler,  H'wronipnus,  sein 
Le/jcii  u.  Wirkeii,  Gotha,  ]8t!5;  L.  Diestel,  Gesch. 
(I.  Alien  Test,  in  dtr  clirlslL  Kirche,  Jena,  18(59, 
p.  'J4  ft'. ;  F.  Kaulen,  Gesch.  der  Vulyata,  Mainz, 
18U9;  and  H.  Konsch,  Itala  ii.  Vulfj«tn.  IJis 
Spnichii/ioiii  ....  erlduterf,  Marb.  1800.  See 
also  Konsch,  JJie  kit.  BibeliXbersttzun(jen  im 
christl.  Afriica  zur  Zeit  des  .AiK/iistinu.'s,  in  the 
Zeitschi:  f.  d.  hist.  Tlieol ,  1807,  pp.  600-034; 
and  Beitraije  zur  pntristischen  BezemjuiKj  d.  bibl. 
Texdjestidt  u.  Lntinitdl,  I.  Aus  Aiiibrosius,  ibid. 
]809,  pp.  434-479,  and  1870,  pp.  91-145.  Por- 
tions of  the  Old  Latin  versions  have  been  published 
by  F.  Mone.  JJe  libris  patimpsesfis,  Carlsr.  18-5.5, 
p.  49  ft'.  (I'rov.):  E.  Kanke,  Fmginentu  Vers.  sac. 
Script.  Lat.  Antehieronym.  e  Cod.  M8.  emit,  etc. 
isV/.  Libi-i  repetitd,  cui  accedit  Appendix.  Wien, 
1868  (1st  ed.  1856-58):  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  A' '.7/«. 
Inlerp.  ret.  Lat.  (.Judges),  appended  to  his  JAber 
J iuiicuin  sec.  LXX.,  Turici,  1867;  A.  Vogel,  Bei- 
iri'Kje  zur  Uerstelliuifj  d.  idt.  Int.  Bibeliibersetzunr/, 
Wien,  1868;  and  especially  Librai-um  Lecit.  e< 
]\'iiin.  \'trsio  nntiqua  Itida  e  Cod.  pernntiqin)  in 
Biblioth.  Asliburnliam.  cunserr  itn  nunc  prinium 
ti/pis  editd,  Lond.  18'i8.  fol.  (pri  ately  printed). 
T/ie  Back  of  Deer  (p.  3457,  y3)  has  been  edited  by 
John  Stuart,  F^din.  1869.  A. 

VULTURE.     The  rendering  in  A.  V.  of  the 

Heb.   n*"^   {dmjyali)  and    i^^"^;   and  also  in  Job 

xxviii.  7,  of  rf'S,  (lyynii  ;  elsewhere,  m  Lev.  xi. 
14,  and  Deut.  xiv.  13,  more  correctly  rendered 
"kite":  LXX.  -yyi^  and  'iktivos'  Vulg.  vullur  : 
except  ill  Is.  xxxiv.  15,  where  LXX.  read  i\a(pos, 
and  Vulg.  correctly  milrus. 

There  seems  no  doubt  but  that  the  A.  V.  trans- 
lation is  incorrect,  and  that  the  original  words  re- 
fer to  some  of  the  snialler  species  of  raptorial  birds, 

as  kites  or  buzzards.  n*"7  is  evidently  synony- 
mous with  Arab.  XJtXilO  h'dnyidi,  the  vernacular 
for  the  "kite"  in  North  Africa,  and,  without  the 
epithet  "  red,"' for  the  black  kite  especially.  Bo- 
cbart  [llieroz.  ii.  2,  195)  explains  it  Vullur  niyer. 
The  Samaritan  and  all  other  Eastern  Versions  agree 

in  rendering  it  "  kite."  n*S  (nyydh)  is  yet  more 
certainly  referable  to  this  bird,  which  in  other  pas- 
sages it  is  taken  to  represent.  Bochart  {Hieroz.  ii. 
b.  2,  c.  8,  p.  193)  says   it  is  the  same  bird  which 

the  Arabs  call  LjL}  {yayn)  from  its  cry;  but  does 
not  state  what  species  this  is,  supposing  it  appar- 
ently to  be  the  magpie,  the  Arab  name  for  which, 

however,  is  ,    vLjliLxJ',  el  nqaaq. 

There  are  two  very  difTerent  species  of  bird  com- 
prised under  the  English  term  vulture :  the  grifTon 

[Gyps  J'ulvus,   Sav.),  Arab.  wvwO,  nesser:    Heb. 

^tC"]?,  nesher :  invariably  rendered  "eagle"  by  A. 
v.;  and  the percnopter,  or  Egyptian  vulture  {Ne- 

ifthronpercnoptertis,  Sav.),  Arab.  &«_^\,  raklima: 


VULTURE 

Heb.  Cn"l,  rachdm  :  rendered  "  gier-eagle  "  uj 
A.  V. 

The  identity  of  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  terms  in 
these  cases  can  scarcely  be  questioned.  However 
degrading  the  substitution  of  the  ignoble  vulture 
for  the  royal  eagle  may  at  first  sight  appear  in 
many  passages,  it  nmst  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
grifibn  is  in  all  its  movements  and  characteristics  a 
majestic  and  royal  bird,  the  largest  and  most  pow- 
erful which  is  seen  on  the  wing  in  Palestine,  and 
far  surpassing  the  eagle  in  size  and  power.  Its 
only  rival  in  these  respects  is  the  be&rded  vulture 
or  lamniergeyer,  a  more  uncommon  bird  every- 
where, and  which,  since  it  is  not,  like  the  griffon, 
bald  on  the  head  and  neck,  cannot  be  referred  to  as 
neslier  (see  Mic.  i.  16).  Very  different  is  the  slov- 
enly and  cowardly  Egyptian  vulture,  the  familiar 
scavenger  of  all  oriental  towns  and  villages,  pro- 
tected for  its  useful  habits,  but  loathed  and  de- 
spised, till  its  name  has  become  a  term  of  reproach 
like  that  of  the  dog  or  the  swine. 

If  we  take  the  Heb.  oyyah  to  refer  fo  the  red 
kite  {milrus  regalis,  Temm.),  and  dayyih  to  the 
black  kite  (milvus  nter,  Temm.)i,  we  shall  find  the 
piercing  sight  of  the  former  referred  to  by  Job 
(xxviii.  7),  and  tlie  gregarious  habits  of  the  latter 
by  Isaiah  (xxxiv.  15).  Both  species  are  inhabit- 
ants'of  Palestine,  the  red  kite  being  found  all  over 
the  country,  as  formerly  in  England,  but  nowhere 
in  great  numbers,  generally  soaring  at  a  great 
height  over  the  plains,  according  to  Dr.  Roth,  and 
ap])arently  leaving  the  country  in  winter.  The 
black  kite,  which  is  so  numerous  everywhere  as  to 
lie  gregarious,  may  be  seen  at  all  times  of  the  year, 
hovering  over  the  villages  and  the  outskirts  of 
towns,  on  the  lookout  for  offal  and  garba.^e,  which 
are  its  favorite  food.  Vulture-like,  it  seldom,  un- 
less pressed  by  hunger,  attacks  living  animals.  It 
is  therefore  never  molested  by  the  natives,  and 
builds  its  nest  on  trees  in  their  neighborhood,  fan- 
tastically decorating  it  with  as  many  rags  of  col- 
ored cloth  as  it  can  collect. 

There  are  three  sjjecies  of  vulture  known  to  in- 
habit i^alestine:  — 

1.  The  Lamniergeyer  {Gypaetos  bnrbntus,  Cuv.), 
which  is  rare  everywhere,  and  only  found  in  deso- 
late mountain  regions,  where  it  rears  its  young  in 
tlie  depth  of  winter  among  inaccessible  precipices, 
(t  is  looked  upon  by  the  Arabs  as  an  eagle  rathei 
than  a  vulture. 

2.  The  Griflxm  {Gifps  fulvus,  Sav.),  mentioned 
above,  remarkable  for  its  power  of  vision  and  the 
great  height  at  which  it  soars.  Aristotle  {Anim. 
Hist.  vi.  5)  notices  the  manner  in  which  the  gritfou 
scents  its  prey  from  afar,  and  congregates  in  the 
wake  of  an  army.  The  same  singular  instinct  was 
remarked  in  the  Russian  War,  when  vast  numbera 
of  this  vulture  were  collected  in  the  Crimea,  and 
remained  till  the  end  of  the  campaign  in  the  neigh- 
liorhood  of  the  camp,  although  previously  they  had 
been  scarcely  known  in  the  country.  "  Whereso- 
ever the  carcass  is  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered 
together  "  (Matt.  xxiv.  28);  "  Where  the  slain  are, 
there  is  she  "  (.lob  xxxix.  30).  The  writer  observed 
this  bird  universally  distributed  in  all  the  moun- 
tainous and  rocky  districts  of  Palestine,  and  espe- 
cially abundant  in  the  southeast.  Its  favorite 
breeding-places  are  between  Jerusalem  and  Jericho, 
and  all  round  the  Dead  Sea. 

The  third  species  is  the  Egyptian  vulture  {Neo- 
phi-on  percnof't!)tts.  Sav.),  often  called  Phiwaoh'i 


WAGES 

lien,  observed  in  Palestine  by  Hasselquist  and  all 
subsequent  traxellers,  and  \ery  numerous  every- 
where. Two  other  species  of  very  large  size,  the 
tared  nnd  cinereous  vultures  ( Vultur  nubicus, 
Smith,  and  Valtur  cinereus,  L.),  although  inhab- 
itants of  the  neighboring  coimtries,  and  probably 
also  of  the  soutlieast  of  Palestine,  have  not  yet 
been  noted  in  collections  from  that  country. 

H.B.  T. 


w. 

WAGES."  The  earliest  mention  of  wages  is 
of  a  recompense  not  in  money  but  in  kind,  to  Jacob 
from  Laban  (Gen.  xxix.  1-5,  20,  xxx.  28,  xxsi.  7, 
8,  41),  This  usage  was  only  natural  among  a 
pastoral  and  changing  population  like  that  of  the 
tent-dwellers  of  Syria.  In  Egypt,  money  payments 
by  way  of  wages  were  in  use,  l)ut  the  terms  cannot 
now  be  ascertained  (Ex.  ii.  9).  Tlie  only  mention 
of  the  rate  of  wages  in  Scripture  is  found  in  the 
parable  of  the  householder  and  vineyard  (Matt.  xx. 
2),  where  the  laborer's  wages  are  set  at  one  denarius 
per  day,  probably  =7|'/.,  a  rate  whicli  agrees  with 
Tobit  V.  14,  where  a  drachma  is  mentioned  as  the 
rate  per  day,  a  sum  which  jnay  be  fairly  taken  as 
equivalent  to  the  denarius,  and  to  tiie  usual  pay  of 
a  soldier  (ten  asses  per  diem)  in  the  later  days  of 
the  Koman  repulilic  (Tac.  Ann.  i.  17;  Polyb.  vi. 
39).  It  was  perhaps  the  traditional  remembrance 
of  this  suin«as  a  day's  wages  that  suggested  tlie 
mention  of  ''  drachmas  wrung  from  the  hard  hands 
of  peasants"  (Shakespeare,  Jul.  Cics.  iv.  -3).  In 
earlier  times  it  is  probaljle  that  the  rate  was  lower, 
as  until  lately  it  was  througiujut  India.  In  Scot- 
land we  know  that  in  the  last  century  a  laborer's 
daily  wages  did  not  exceed  sixpence  (.Smiles,  Lives 
of  Enyineers,  ii.  90).  Mut  it  is  likely  that  labor- 
ers, and  also  soldiers,  were  su|)plied  with  provisions 
(Michaelis,  Laws  <f  Mcst-s,  §  130,  vol.  ii.  p.  190, 
ed.  Smith),  as  is  intimated  by  the  word  dtpwvia, 
used  hi  Luke  iii.  14,  and  1  Cor.  ix.  7,  and  also  by 
Foljbius,  vi.  39.  The  Mishnah  {Baba  vietzia, 
vii.  1,  §  5),  speaks  of  victuals  being  allowed  or 
not  according  to  the  custom  of  the  place,  up  to 
the  value  of  a  denarius,  i.  e.  inclusive  of  the  pay. 

The  law  was  very  strict  in  requiring  daily  pay- 
ment of  wages  (Lev.  xix.  13;  Ueut.  xxiv.  14,  15); 
and  the  JNIishnah  applies  the  same  rule  to  the  use 
(  f  animals  (Baba  iiietzi'i,  ix.  12).  Tlie  employer 
who  refused  to  give  his  laliorers  sufficient  victuals 
is  censured  (Jol)  xxiv.  11),  and  tlie  imquity  of 
withholding  wages  is  denounced  (Jer.  xxii.  13; 
Mai.  iii.  5;  James  v.  4). 

Wages  in  general,  whether  of  soldiers  or  labor- 
ers, .ire  mentioned  (Hag.  i.  6;  Ez.  xxix.  18,  19; 
John  iv.  36).  liurckhardt  mentions  a  case  in 
Syria  resemblmg  closely  that  of  Jacob  with  Laban 
—  a  man  who  served  eight  years  for  his  food,  on 


WALLS 


3483 


a  1.  "1!3tJ7,   n~13m?!2  :   uio-edj  :  m  trees. 
7  T '        V      :  - 

2.   riv'lS^S:  fitcrSos :  opvs:  wages  for  work  done, 

*om   b^Q,   "work"  (Oes- P- 1117). 

b  1.  rT3~iyi''S  :  xopTjyi'a:  miiri :  only  in  Ezra  v.  3. 

2.    (a)    ^^3  :     ^payiioi;:     maceria.     (*)     "17.2  ' 

ppayii.oC:    maceria      (c)  n^^S  :  Sid<TTr)tt.a,<l)payij.6i: 
>tpet. 


condition  of  obtaining  his  master's  daughter  in 
marriage,  and  was  afterwards  compelled  iiy  his 
father  in-law  to  perform  acts  of  service  for  him 
(^'»//tVr,  p.  297).  H.  W.  P. 

WAGON.  [C.\KT  and  Cmakiot.]  The 
oriental  wagon  or  arubah  is  a  vehicle  composed 
of  two  or  three  planks  fixed  on  two  solid  circular 
blocks  of  wood,  from  two  to  five  feet  in  diameter, 
which  serve  as  wheels.  To  the  floor  are  sometimes 
attached  wings,  which  splay  outwards  like  the  sides 
of  a  wheelbarrow.  Por  the  eonvej'ance  of  passen- 
gers, mattresses  or  clothes  are  laid  in  the  bottom, 
and  the  vehicle  is  drawn  by  buflaloes  or  oxen 
(Arundell,  Asia  .Ifinor,  ii.  191,  235,  238;  Olearius, 
Tniv.  p.  309;  Ker  Porter,  Trnv.  ii.  533.)  Egyp- 
tian carts  or  wagons,  such  as  were  sent  to  con- 
voy Jacob  (Gen.  xlv.  19,  21,  27),  are  described 
under  Cart.  The  covered  w.agons  for  conveying 
the  materials  of  the  Tabernacle  were  proliably  con- 
structed on  Egyptian  models.  They  were  each 
drawn  by  two  oxen  (Num.  vii.  3,  8).  Herodotus 
mentions  a  four-wheeled  Egyptian  vehicle  (a/xa^a) 
used  lor  sacred  purposes  (Her.  ii.  63). 

H.   W.  P. 

*  Cinder  this  head  belongs  "litters"  Is.  Lwi. 
20,  the  Hebrew  word  being  the  same  as  that  for 
"  wagons "  in  Num.  vii.  3,  8.  Litters  occurs 
only  this  once  in  the  A.  V.  H. 

*  WALL  OF  PARTITION.  [Partition 
Wall.] 

WALLS. ''  Only  a  few  points  need  be  noticed 
in  addition  to  .what  has  been  said  elsewhere  on 
wall-construction,  whether  in  brick,  stone,  or  wood. 
[Bricks;  Hanuicraft;  JIortar.]  1.  The  prac- 
tice common  in  Palestine  of  carrying  foundations 
down  to  the  solid  rock,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Temple, 
and  in  the  present  day  with  structures  intended  to 
be  permanent  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  11,  §  3;  Luke  vi 
48;  Kol)insoii,  ii.  338;  QiL  Ch.  Chron.  (18.57), 
p.  459).  The  pains  taken  by  the  ancient  builders 
to  make  good  the  foundations  of  their  work  may 
still  be  seen,  both  in  the  existing  substructions 
and  in  the  number  of  old  stones  used  in  more 
modern  constructions.  Some  of  these  stones  — 
ancient,  but  of  uncertain  date  —  are  from  20  feet 
to  30  feet  10  inches  long,  3  feet  to  6  feet  6  inches 
broad,  and  5  feet  to  7  feet  6  inches  thick  (Rob.  i. 
233,  282,  28'J,  iii.  228).  As  is  the  case  in  num- 
berless instances  of  Syrian  buildings,  either  old  or 
built  of  old  materials,  the  edges  and  sometimes  the 
faces  of  these  stones  are  "beveled  "  in  flat  grooves. 
This  is  commonly  supposed  to  indicate  work  at 
least  as  old  as  the  Roman  period  (Rob.  i.  261,  286, 
ii.  75,  76,  278,  353,  iii.  52,  58,  84,  229,  461,  493, 
511;  Fcrgusson,  tldbk.  of  Arcli.  p.  288).  On 
the  contrary  side,  see  Cu'l.  Ch.  Chron.  (1858)  p 
350. 

15ut  the  great  size  of  these  stones  is  far  exceeded 
by  some  of  those  at  Baalbek,  three  of  which  are 


3  n^in  :   Tet^os :  tnunis. 

4.  7^n  :   Si'vaixis  :  virtus  :  ulso  irporei'xto'iia :  agft 

5.  y^n  and   Yin :   Toixos:  paries. 

6-  Y  "t    •   "■fpiTeiXOS  :  miiri  :  only  in  Dan.  Ix.  25 

7.  (a)  7ri!S.     (6)  bnS,    ChaW.  •.    To'ixot:  pant  \ 

8.  "n  p  :   Tor^os  :  I'ariet. 

9.  "^^Ci?  ;   Tfixo?  :   miirus. 


3484  WANDERING 

each  aljout  C3  feet  loni;;  and  one,  still  lying  in  the 
quarry,  measures  G8  feet  4  inches  in  leni;th,  17  feet 
2  inches  broad,  and  14  feet  7  inches  thick.  Its 
weight  can  scarcely  be  less  than  600  tons  (Kob.  iii. 
505^  512;  Yolney,  Trav.  ii.  241). 

2.  A  feature  of  some  parts  of  Solomon's  build- 
ings, as  described  by  Josephus,  corresponds  re- 
markably to  the  method  adopted  at  Nineveh  of 
encrusting  or  veneering  a  wall  of  brick  or  stone 
with  slabs  of  a  more  costly  material,  as  marble  or 
alabaster  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  5,  §  2;  Fergusson, 
HdOk.  202,  203). 

3.  Another  use  of  walls  in  Palestine  is  to  sup- 
port mountain  roads  or  terraces  formed  on  the 
sides  of  hills  for  purposes  of  cultivation  (Rob.  ii. 
493,  iii.  14,  4.5). 

4.  The  •'  paths  of  the  vineyards  "  (Num.  xxii. 
24)  is  illustrated  by  Kobinson  as  a  pathway  through 
vineyards,  with  walls  on  each  side  (BM.  Hes.  ii.  8l^; 
Stanley,  S.  ami  P.  102,  420;  Lindsay,  Trav.  p. 
239;  Maundrell,  Early  Trav.  p.  437).  [Win- 
dow.] H.  W.  P. 

WANDERING  IN  THE  WILDER- 
NESS.    [Wilderness  of  Wandehing.] 

WAR.  The  most  important  topic  in  connec- 
tion with  war  is  the  formation  of  the  army,  which 
is  destined  to  carry  it  on.  This  has  been  already 
described  under  the  head  of  Army,  and  we  shall 
therefore  take  up  the  suliject  from  the  point  where 
that  article  leaves  it.  Before  entering  on  a  vrar 
of  aggression  the  Hebrews  sought  for  the  Divine 
sanction  by  consulting  either  the  Uiim  and  Thum- 
mim  (.ludg.  i.  1,  xx.  27,  28;  1  Sam.  xiv.  37,  xxiii. 
2,  xxviii.  6,  xxx.  8),  or  some  acknowledged  prophet 
(1  K.  xxii.  6;  2  Chr.  xviii.  5).  The  heathens 
betook  themselves  to  various  kinds  of  divination 
for  the  same  purpose  (Ez.  xxi.  21).  Divine  aid 
was  further  sought  in  actual  warfare  by  bringing 
into  the  field  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  which  was 
the  symbol  of  Jehovah  Himself  (1  Sam.  iv.  4-18, 
xiv.  18).  a  custom  which  prevailed  certainly  down 
to  David's  time  (2  Sam.  xi.  11;  comp.  Ps.  Ixviii. 
1,  24).  During  the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness 
the  signal  for  warlike  preparations  was  sounded  by 
priests  with  the  silver  trumpets  of  the  sanctuary 
(Num.  X.  9,  xxxi.  6).  Formal  proclamations  of 
war  were  not  interchanged  between  the  belligerents ; 
but  occasionally  messages  either  deprecatory  or 
defiant  were  sent,  as  in  the  cases  of  Jephthah  and 
the  Anmionites  (Judg.  xi.  12-27),  Ben-hadad  and 
Ahab  (1  K.  xx.  2),  and  again  Amaziah  and  Jehoash 
(2  K.  xiv.  8).  Before  entering  the  enemy's  dis- 
trict spies  were  sent  to  ascertain  the  character  of 
the  country  and  the  preparations  of  its  inhabitants 
for  resistance  (Num.  xiii.  17;  Josh.  ii.  1;  Judg. 
vii.  10;  1  Sam.  xxvi.  4).     When   an   engagement 


o  "^"l^itt,  lit.  an  "enclosing"  or  "besieging,'' 
and  hence  applied  to  the  wall  by  which  the  siege  was 
effected. 

b  riVVD.   Saalschutz(j4rc/idoZ.  ii.  504)  understands 

this  term  of  the  scaling-ladder,  comparing  the  cognate 
sullam  (Gen.  xxviii  12),  and  giving  the  verb  shaphac, 
which  accompanies  sotlah,  the  sense  of  a  "hurried 
advancing  "  of  the  ladder. 

''  p*"^.  Some  doubt  exists  as  to  the  meaning  of 
Ibis  term.  The  sense  of  "  turrets  '■  assigned  to  it  by 
Ueseiius  (  77^5.  p.  3-30)  has  been  objected  to  on  the 
ground  that  the  word  alway-s  appears  in  the  singular 
lumbi^r.  and  in  connection  with  the  expression  "  round 


WAR 

was  imminent  a  sacrifice  was  offered  (1  Satn.  vii. 
9,  xiii.  9),  and  an  inspiriting  address  delivered 
either  by  the  commander  (2  Chr.  xx.  20)  or  by  a 
priest  (beut.  xx.  2).  Then  followed  the  battle- 
signal,  sounded  forth  from  the  silver  trumpets  as 
already  described,  to  which  the  host  responded  by 
shouting  the  war-cry  (1  Sam.  xvii.  52;  Is.  xiii. 
13;  Jer.  1.  42;  F^.  xxi.  22;  Am.  i.  14).  The 
combat  assumed  the  form  of  a  number  of  hand-to- 
hand  contests,  depending  on  the  qualities  of  the 
individual  soldier  rather  than  on  the  disposition  of 
masses.  Hence  the  high  value  attached  to  fleet- 
ness  of  foot  and  strength  of  arm  (2  Sam.  i.  23,  ii. 
18;  1  Chr.  xii.  8).  At  the  same  time  varioijs 
strategic  devices  were  practiced,  such  as  the  am- 
buscade (Josh.  viii.  2,  12;  Judg.  xx.  36),  surprise 
(Judg.  vii.  10),  or  circumvention  (2  Sam.  v.  23) 
Another  mode  of  settling  the  dispute  was  by  the 
selection  of  champions  (1  Sara,  xvii.;  2  Sam.  ii. 
14),  who  were  spurred  on  to  exertion  by  the  oflfer 
of  high  reward  (1  Sam.  xvii.  25,  xviii.  25;  2  Sam. 
xviii.  11;  2  Chr.  xi.  6).  The  contest  having  been 
decided,  the  conquerors  were  recalled  from  the  pur- 
suit by  the  sound  of  a  trumpet  (2  Sam.  ii.  28, 
xviii.  16.  XX.  22). 

The  siege  of  a  town  or  fortress  was  conducted  in 
the  following  manner:  A  line  of  circumvallation  " 
was  drawn  round  the  place  (Ez.  iv.  2;  Mic.  v.  1), 
constructed  out  of  the  trees  found  in  the  neighbor- 
hood (Deut,  XX.  20),  together  with  earth  and  any 
other  materials  at  hand.  This  line  not  only  cut 
oflf  the  besieged  from  the  surrounding  country,  but 
also  served  as  a  base  of  operations  for  the  besiegers. 
The  next  step  was  to  throw  out  from  this  line  one 
or  more  "  mounts  "  or  "  banks  "  *  in  the  direction 
of  the  city  (2  Sam.  xx.  15;  2  K.  xix.  32;  Is.  xxxvii. 
33),  which  was  gradually  increased  in  height  until 
it  was  about  half  as  high  as  the  city  wall.  On 
this  mound  or  bank  towers  ^  were  erected  (2  K. 
XXV.  1;  Jer.  Iii.  4;  Ez.  iv.  2,  xvii.  17,  xxi.  22, 
xxvi.  8),  whence  the  slingers  and  archers  might 
attack  with  effect.  Battering-rams  '^  (Ez.  iv.  2,  xxi. 
22)  were  brought  up  to  the  walls  by  means  of  the 
bank,  and  scaling-ladders  might  also  be  placed  on 
it.  Undermining  the  walls,  though  practiced  by 
the  Assyrians  (Layard,  Nin.  ii.  371),  is  not  noticed 
in  the  Bible;  the  reference  to  it  in  the  LXX.  and 
Vuli:.,  in  Jer.  Ii.  58,  is  not  warranted  by  the  orig- 
inal text.  Sometimes,  however,  the  walls  were 
attacked  near  the  foundation,  either  by  individual 
waiTiors  who  protected  themselves  from  above  by 
their  shields  (Ez.  xxvi.  8),  or  by  the  further  use  of 
such  a  machine  as  the  Ildepolisf  referred  to  in 
1  Mace.  xiii.  43.  Burning  the  gates  was  another 
mode  of  obtaining  ingress  (Judg.  ix.  52).  The 
water-supply  would  naturally  be  cut  off,  if  it  wers 


about  "  the  city.  Hence  the  sense  of  "  circumvalla- 
tion  "  has  been  assigned  to  it  by  Michaelis,  Kail 
{Archdol.  ii.  303),  and  others.  It  is  diflBcult,  however, 
in  this  case,  to  see  any  distinction  between  the  terms 
dayck  and  matzur.  The  expression  "  round  about  " 
may  refer  to  the  custom  of  casting  up  banks  at  differ- 
ent points  ;  the  use  of  the  singular  in  a  collectivs 
sense  forms  a  greater  difficulty. 

•  T 

«  This  is  described  by  AmmianusMarcellinn8(xxiii. 
4,  §  10)  as  a  combination  of  the  testiido  and  the  bat- 
tering-ram, by  means  of  which  the  besiegers  brok» 
through  the  lower  part  of  the  wall,  and  thus  "  leape<; 
into  the  city,"  not  from  above,  as  the  words  prin  a 
facie  imply ,  but  from  below. 


WAR 

f  oj^i'  (e  (.lud.  viii.  7).  The  besiei;eil.  nie;imvhilc, 
iiivimtliened  and  repaired  their  fbrtiticatioiis  (Fs. 
UKii.  10),  and  repelled  tlie  enemy  from  the  wall  by 
missiles  .(2  Sam.  xi.  2-1),  by  throwing  over  beams 
ftnd  heavy  stones  (Judi;.  ix.  b'-i;  2  Sam.  xi.  21; 
•Joseph.  B.  ./.  V.  3,  §  3,  6,  §  3),  by  ponriiii;  down 
boiling  oil  (fl.  J.  iii.  7,  §  28),  or  lastly  by  erecting 
fixed  engines  for  the  propulsion  of  stones  and  arrows 
(2  L'hr.  xxvi.  1.5).  [Engine]  Sallies  were  also 
made  for  the  purpose  of  burning  the  besiegers' 
works  (1  Mace.  vi.  31;  B.  J.v.'W,  §  4),  and 
driving  them  away  from  the  neighljorhood.  The 
{or .'going  operations  recfive  a  large  amount  of  illus- 
tration from  the  repre.'^entations  of  such  scenes  on 
the  Assyrian  slalis.  We  tliere  .see  the  "bank" 
tlirown  up  in  tlie  form  of  an  inclined  plane,  with 
tlie  liattering-ram  hauled  up  on  it  assaulting  the 
wall.*!;  movaMe  towers  of  considerable  elexation 
l)rouglit  up,  whence  the  waiTiors  discharge  their 
niTows  into  the  city;  the  walls  undermined,  or 
attempts  made  to  destroy  them  l)y  picking  to  pieces 
the  lower  courses;  the  defenders  actively  engaged 
in  archery,  and  averting  the  force  of  the  battering- 
rnin  by  cliains  and  ropes;  the  scaling-ladders  at 
leniitli  brought,  and  tlie  conflict  become  hand-to- 
liand  (i.ajard's  Xiii.  ii.  366-374). 

The  treatment  of  the  conquered  was  extremely 
gevei'e  in  ancient  tunes.  The  lea<lers  of  the  host 
were  put  to  death  (Josh.  x.  20;  .Judg.  vii.  25), 
with  the  occasional  indignity  of  decapitation  after 
death  (1  Sam.  xvii.  51:  2  Mace.  xv.  30;  Joseph. 
8.  ./.  i.  17,  §  2).  The  bodies  of  the  soldiers  killed 
ii  action  were  plundered  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  8;  2  Mace, 
■iii.  27);  the  survivors  were  either  killed  in  some 
avage  manner  (Judg.  ix.  45;  2  Sam.  xii.  31;  2 
^lir.  XXV.  12),  mutilated  (Judg.  i.  6;  1  Sam.  xi. 
2),  or  carried  into  captivity  (Nuui.  xxxi.  26;  Deut. 
KX.  14).  Women  and  children  were  occasionally 
put  to  death  with  the  greatest  barbarity  (2  K.  viii. 
12,  XV.  16;  Is.  xiii.  16,  18;  Hos.  x.  14,  xiii.  16; 
Am  i.  13;  Nah.  iii.  10;  2  Mace.  v.  13):  but  it 
w.s  more  usual  to  retain  the  maidens  as  concubines 
or  servants  (Judg.  v.  30;  2  K.  v.  2).  Sometimes 
the  bulk  of  the  population  of  the  conquered  coun- 
try was  removed  to  a  distant  locality,  as  in  the 
rase  of  the  Israelites  when  subdued  by  the  As- 
s.rians  (2  K.  xvii.  (i).  and  of  the  Jews  by  the 
Uabylonians  (2  K.  xxiv.  14,  xxv.  11).  In  addition 
to  these  measures,  the  towns  were  destroyed  (Judg. 
ii.  45;  2  K.  iii.  25;  1  Mace.  v.  28,  51,  x.  84),  the 
idols  and  shrines  were  carried  oft'  (Is  xlvi.  1,  2), 
or  destroyed  (1  Mace.  v.  68,  x.  84);  the  fruit-trees 
were  cut  down,  and  the  fields  spoiled  by  over- 
spreading them  with  stones  (2  Iv.  iii.  Ii),  25);  and 
the  horses  were  lamed  (2  Sam.  viii.  4;  .losh.  xi.  6, 
>J).  If  the  war  was  carried  on  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  plunder  or  supremacy,  these  extreme  meas- 
ures would  hardly  be  carried  into  execution ;  the 
conqueror  would  restrict  himself  to  rifling  the  treas- 
uries (1  K.  xiv.  26  ;  2  K  xiv.  14,  xxiv.  13),  or 
levying  contributions  (2  K.  xviii.  14). 

The  Mosaic  Law  mitigated  to  a  certain  extent 
the  severitv  of  the  ancient  usages  towards  tlie  con- 
quered. NVith  the  exception  of  the  Canaanites, 
who  were  deli\ered  over  to  the  ban  of  extermina- 
tion liy  tlie  express  command  of  (lod,  it  was  for- 
bidden to  the  Israelites  to  put  to  death  any  others 
han  ma.es  bearing  arms:  the  women  and  children 
mere  to  lie  kept  alive  (Deut.  xx.  13,  14).  In  a 
similar  spirit  of  humanity  the  Jews  were  piohib- 
ited  from  felling  fruit-trees  for  the  jim-pose  of  niak- 
ug  siege  v?orks  (Deut.  xx.  19).     The  Law  further 


WASHING  HANDS  AND  FEET     3485 

restricted  the  power  of  the  conqueror  over  fennles, 
and  secured  to  them  humane  treatment  (Deut.  xxi. 
10-14).  The  majority  of  the  savage  acts  recordei) 
as  having  been  practiced  by  the  Jews  were  eithei 
in  retaliation  for  some  gross  provocation,  as  in- 
stanced in  the  cases  of  Adoni-bezek  (Judg.  i.  6 
7),  and  of  David's  treatment  of  the  .Vnimonites 
(2  Sam.  X.  2-4,  .xii.  31;  1  Chr.  xx.  3):  or  else 
they  were  done  by  lawless  usur|)ers,  as  in  ilena- 
hem's  treatment  of  the  women  of  Tiphsah  (2  K. 
XV.  16).  The  Jewish  kings  generally  appear  to 
have  obtained  credit  for  clemency  (I  K.  xx.  31). 

The  conquerors  celebrated  their  success  by  the 
erection  of  monumental  stones  (I  Sam.  vii.  12: 
2  Sam.  viii.  13,  where,  instead  of  "gat  him  a 
name,"  we  should  read  "set  up  a  memoriid"),  by 
hanging  up  trophies  in  their  public  buildings  (1 
Sam.  xxi.  9,  xxxi.  10;  2  K.  xi.  10),  and  by  tri- 
imphal  songs  and  dances,  in  which  the  whole 
population  took  part  (Ex.  xv.  1-21;  Judg.  v. ;  1 
Sam.  xviii.  6-8;  2  Sam.  xxii.;  Jud.  xvi.  2-17;  1 
M.acc.  iv.  24).  The  death  of  a  hero  was  com- 
memorated by  a  dirge  (2  Sam.  i.  17-27 ;  2  Chr. 
XXXV.  25),  or  by  a  national  mourning  (2  Sam  iii. 
31).  The  fallen  warriors  were  duly  buried  (1  K. 
xi.  15),  their  arms  being  deposited  in  the  grave 
beside  them  (Ez.  xxxii.  27),  while  the  enemies' 
corpses  were  exposed  to  the  beasts  of  prey  (1  Sam. 
xvii.  44;  Jer.  xxv.  33).  The  Israelites  were  di- 
rected to  undergo  the  purification  imposed  on  those 
who  had  touched  a  corpse,  before  they  entered  the 
precincts  of  the  camp  or  the  sanctuary  (Num.  xxxi. 
19).  The  disposal  of  the  spoil  h,as  already  been 
described  under  Booty.  W.  L.  B. 

*  WARDROBE,  2  K.  xxii.  14,  where,  as 
rendered  in  the  margin,  the  Hebrew  signifies  "  gar- 
ments." The  vestments  of  the  priests  are  prob- 
ably meant,  said  there  to  have  been  under  the  care 
of  SiiALLUM.  The  same  notice  occurs  in  2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  22.     [See  Vestky,  Amer.  ed.]  H. 

*  WARES.     [Co.mmekce;  Merchant.] 

WASHING  THE  HANDS  AND  FEET. 

The  particular  attention  paid  by  the  Jews  to  the 
cleansing  of  the  hands  and  feet,  as  compared  with 
other  parts  of  the  body,  originated  in  the  social 
usages  of  the  East.  As  knives  and  forks  were  dis- 
pensed with  in  eating,  it  was  absolutely  necessary 
that  the  hand,  which  was  thrust  into  the  common 
disii,  should  be  scrupulou.sIy  clean;  and  again,  as 
sandals  were  ineflectual  against  the  dust  and  heat 
of  an  eastern  climate,  washing  the  feet  on  enter- 
ing a  house  was  an  act  both  of  respect  to  the  com- 
jiany  and  of  refreshment  to  the  traveller. .  The 
former  of  these  usages  was  transformed  by  the 
Pharisees  of  the  New  Testament  age  into  a  matter 
of  ritual  observance  (Mark  vii.  3),  and  special  rules 
were  laid  down  as  to  the  times  and  manner  of  its 
performance.  The  neglect  of  the.se  rules  by  our 
lx)rd  and  his  discijiles  drew  down  upon  Him  the 
hostility  of  that  sect  (Matt.  xv.  2;  Luke  xi.  38). 
Whether  the  expression  Trvyfj.rj  used  by  St.  Mark 
has  reference  to  any  special  regulation  may  per- 
haps be  doubtful;  the  senses  "oft"  (A.  V.),  and 
"diligently"  (Alford),  have  been  assigned  to  it, 
but  it  may  possibly  signify  "with  the  fist,"'  as 
though  it  were  necessary  to  close  the  one  hand, 
which  lia<l  .already  been  cleansed,  before  it  w.as 
applied  to  the  unclean  one.  This  sense  ajipears 
preferalile  to  the  other  interpretations  of  a  similar 
character,  such  .as  "  up  to  the  wrist"  (Li'.ditfoot); 
"up  to  the  elbow"  (  Theophylact);  "ha\iiig  clo.-ieJ 


3486 


WASH POT 


the  hand  '"  wliich  is  undergoing  the  washing  (Grot. : 
Scalig.).  The  I'harisaical  regulations  on  this  sub- 
jec>t  are  embodied  in  a  treatise  of  the  iNIishnah, 
entitled  Tndditn,  from  which  it  appeal's  that  the 
ablution  was  confined  to  the  hand  (2,  §  3),  and  that 
great  care  was  needed  to  secure  perfect  puritj'  in 
the  water  used.  The  ordinary,  as  distinct  from  the 
ceremonial,  washing  of  hands  before  meals  is  still 
universally  prevalent  in  eastern  countries  (Lane,  i. 
190:  Buickhardt's  Noles,  i.  63). 

Washing  the  feet  did  not  rise  to  the  dignity  of 
a  ritual  observance,  except  in  connection  with  the 
services  of  the  sanctuary  (Ex.  xxs.  19,  21).  It 
held  a  high  place,  however,  among  the  rites  of 
hospitality.  Immediately  that  a  guest  presented 
himself  at  the  tent-door,  it  was  usual  to  offer  the 
necessary  materials  for  washing  the  feet  (Gen.  xviii. 
4,  xix.  2,  xxiv.  32,  xliii.  24;  Judg.  xix.  21 ;  conip. 
Horn.  0(i.  iv.  49).  It  was  a  yet  more  com|jj^ 
mentary  act,  lietokening  equally  humility  and  affec- 
tion, if  the  host  actually  performed  the  office  for 
his  guest  (1  Sam.  xxv.  41;  Luke  vii.  38,  44;  John 
xiii.  5-14;  1  Tim.  v.  10).  Such  a  token  of  hos- 
pitality is  still  occasionally  exhibited  in  the  East, 
either  by  the  host,  or  by  his  deputy  (Robinson's 
B:/k  ]iis.  ii.  229;  Jowetfs  Bes.  pp.  78,  79).  The 
feet  were  again  washed  before  retiring  to  bed 
(Cant  V.  3).  A  synjbolical  significance  is  attached 
in  John  xiii.  10  to  washing  the  feet  as  compared 
with  bathing  the  whole  body,  the  former  being 
partial  (viTTTco),  the  JiHter  complete  (Xovco),  the  for- 
mer oft-repeated  in  the  course  of  the  day,  the  latter 
done  once  for  all ;  whence  they  are  adduced  to 
illustrate  the  distinction  lietween  occasional  sin  and 
a  general  state  of  sinfulness.  After  being  washed, 
the  feet  were  on  festive  occasions  anointed  (Luke 
vii.  38;  John  xii.  3).  The  indignity  attached  to 
the  act  of  washing  another's  fieet,  appears  to  have 
been  extended  to  the  vessel  used  (I's.  Ix.  8). 

W.  L.  B. 
*  WASHPOT.  [See  the  article  above.] 
WATCHES  OF  NIGHT  (nn^Jt?" W :  (p^- 
AafcT)).  The  .lews,  like  the  Greeks  and  liomans, 
divided  the  night  into  military  watches  instead  of 
hiiurs,  each  watch  representing  the  period  for 
which  sentinels  or  pickets  remained  on  duty.  The 
proper  Jewish  reckoning  recognized  only  three  such 
watches,  entitled  the  first  or  "beginning  of  the 
watches  "«  (Lam.  ii.  19),  the  middle  watch''  (Judg. 
vii.  19),  and  the  morning  watch''  (Ex.  xiv.  24; 
1  .Sam.  xi.  11 ).  These  would  last  respectively  from 
sunset  to  10  p.  m.;  from  10  p.  m.  to  2  a.  m.;  and 
from  2  A.  Bi  to  sunrise.  It  has  been  contended 
liy  Lightfoot  (//<«•.  fhb.  i.i  Matt.  xiv.  2.5)  that  the 
Jews  really  reckoned  four  watches,  three  oidy  of 
which  were  in  the  dead  of  the  night,  the  fourth 


'  "ii7.2n  n":bt?"S.         ci  ^f2tt?. 

"  Yet  beiug  an  ottering  to  "  bring  iniquity  to  re- 
meuibr.ince  "  (ver.  15),  it  is  ceremonially  rated  as  a 
"  sin  offering ;  "  hence  no  oil  is  to  be  mixed  with  the 
meal  before  burning  it,  nor  any  frankincense  to  be 
placed  upon  it  when  burnt,  which  same  rule  was  ap- 
plied to  "sin  ofierings  ■'  generally  (IjBV.  v.  11).  With 
meat  offerings,  on  the  contrary,  the  mixture  of  oil  and 
the  imposition  of  frankincense  were  prescribed  (ii.  1. 
I  7,  14.  151. 

/  I'lobably  not  the   '  water  of  separation  "  for  puri- 


WATER  OF  JEALOUSY 

being  in  the  morning.  This,  however,  is  rendered 
improbable  by  the  use  of  the  term  "middle,"  and 
is  opposed  to  Rabbinical  authority  (Mishnah,  Bc- 
rncfi.  c.  1.  §  1;  Kimchi,  on  Ps.  Ixiii.  7;  Rashi, 
on  Judg.  vii.  19).  Subsequently  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Roman  supremacy,  the  number  of 
watclies  was  increased  to  four,  which  were  described 
either  according  to  their  numerical  order,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  "fourth  watch"  (Matt.  xiv.  25;  comp. 
Joseph.  Ant.  v.  6,  §  5),  or  by  the  terms  "even, 
midnight,  cock-crowing,  and  moming  "  (Mark  xiii. 
35).  These  terminated  respectively  at  9  P.  31., 
midnight,  3  A.  M.,  and  6  a.  ji.  Conformably  to 
this,  the  guard  of  soldiers  was  divided  inio  four 
relays  (Acts  xii.  4),  showing  that  the  Roman 
regime  was  followed  in  Herod's  army.  Watchniei. 
appear  to  have  patrolled  the  streets  of  the  Jewish 
towns  (Cant.  iii.  3,  v.  7 ;  Ps.  cxxvii.  1,''  where  for 
"  waketh  "  we  should  sub-stitute  "watcheth:"  Ps. 
cxxx.  6).  W.  L.  B. 

*  WATCHMAN.    [Watches  of  Night.] 
WATER     OF     JEALOUSY     (Num.    v 
11-31),      t:'^~]lZr\  "^p,    "waters  of   bitterness," 
sometimes   with   C^'^'^Kfin  added,  as  "  causing 

a  curse"  (~''!!^»  vStap  tov  e'Aey/xoD;  Philo,  ii.  310, 
TTOTOs  i\4yxov^-  '^^^  ritual  prescribed  consisted 
in  the  hustiand's  bringing  the  woman  liefore  the 
priest,  and  the  essential  part  of  it  is  unquestion- 
ably the  oath,  to  which  the  "  water "  was  sub- 
sidiary, symbolical,  and  ministerial.  With  her  he 
was  to  bring  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah  of  barley- 
meal  as  an  offering.  Perhaps  the  whole  is  to  be 
regarded  from  a  judicial  point  of  view,  and  this 
"offering  "  in  the  light  of  a  court-fee.''  (iod  him- 
self was  .suddenly  invoked  to  judge,  and  his  pres- 
ence recognized  by  throwing  a  handful  of  the 
barley-meal  on  the  blazing  altar  in  the  course  of 
the  rite.  In  the  first  instance,  however,  the  priest 
"set  her  before  the  Lord"  with  the  offering  in 
her  hand.  The  Mishnah  {Sotith)  prescribes  that 
she  be  clothed  in  black  with  a  rope  girdle  around 
her  waist;  and  from  the  direction  that  the  priest 
"shall  uncover  her  head  "  (ver.  18),  it  would  seem 
she  came  in  ^■eiled,  probably  also  in  black.  As  she 
stood  holding  the  offering,  so  the  priest  stood  hold- 
ing an  earthen  vessel  of  holy  water/  mixed  with 
the  dust  from  the  floor  of  the  sanctuary,  and  de- 
claring her  free  from  ail  evil  consequences  jf  inno- 
cent, solemnly  devoted  her  in  the  name  of  Jehovah 
to  be  "a  curse  and  an  oath  among  her  people,"  if 
guilty,  further  describing  the  exact  consequences 
ascribed  to  the  operation  of  the  water  in  the  "  mem- 
bers "  which  she  had  "yielded  as  servants  to  un- 
clean n  ess  "  f  (vv.  21,  22,  27;  comp.  Rom.  vi.  19 
and   Theodoret,    Qiuest.  x.   in  Num.).     He   then 


fication,  mixed  with  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  fcj 
as  its  ceremonial  property  was  to  defile  the  pure  arJd 
to  purify  the  unclean  (Num.  xix.  21)  who  touched  it, 
it  could  hardly  be  used  in  a  rite  tlie  object  of  which 
was  to  establish  the  innocence  of  the  upright  or  dis- 
cover the  guilt  of  the  siuner,  without  the  symbolism 
jarring.  Perhaps  water  from  the  laver  of  the  sanc- 
tuary is  intended. 

0  The  words  nbcb,  b^'^^b,  HvCD,  rendered 
in  the  A.'V.  by  the  word  '"rot,"  ratlier  indicate,  ac- 
cording to  Gesen  s.  f.  ^?3.  to  ''  become  or  make 
lean  "  Jlichaelis  thought  OTarian  dropsy  was  inteudcj 
by    the    symptoms.     Jo.<eDhus   say^     toO   re   aiteAou 


WATER  OF  JEALOUSY 

"wi-ote  these  curses  in  a  book,  and  blotted  them 
out  with  the  bitter  water,''  and,  having  thrown, 
probably  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  the  hand- 
ful of  meal  on  the  alt-ir,  "  caused  the  woman  to 
drink"  the  potion  thus  drugged,  she  moreover 
answering  to  the  words  of  his  imprecation,  "Amen, 
Amen."  Josephus  adds,  if  tlie  suspicion  was  un- 
founded, she  obtained  conception ;  if  true,  she  died 
infamously.  This  accords  with  the  sacred  text,  if 
she  "  be  clean,  then  shall  she  be  free  and  shall  con- 
ceive seed'''  (ver.  28 j,  words  which  seem  to  mean 
that  when  restored  to  her  husband's  affection  she 
fihould  be  blessed  with  fruitfulness ;  or,  that  if  con - 
iieption  had  taken  place  before  her  appearance,  it 
would  have  its  proper  issue  in  child-bearini;,  which, 
if  she  had  been  inifaillifiU,  would  be  intercepted  by 
the  operation  of  the  curse.  It  may  be  supposed 
that  a  husband  would  not  be  forward  to  publish 
his  suspicions  of  his  own  injury,  unless  there  were 
symptoms  of  apparent  conception."  and  a  risk  of  a 
child  by  another  being  presented  to  him  as  his 
own.  In  this  case  the  woman's  natural  apprehen- 
Bions  regarding  her  own  gestation  wfiuld  operate 
very  strongly  to  make  her  shrink  from  the  potion, 
if  guilty.  For  plainly,  the  effect  of  such  a  cere- 
monial on  the  nervous  system  of  one  so  cii'cum- 
Btanced,  might  easily  go  far  to  imperil  her  life,  e\'en 
without  the  precise  symptoms  ascribed  to  the  water. 
Meanwhile  the  rule  would  operate  beneficially  foi- 
the  woman,  if  innocent,  who  would  be  during  this 
interval  under  the  protection  of  the  court  to  which 
the  husband  had  liiniself  appealed,  and  so  far  secure 
against  any  violent  consequence  of  his  jealousy, 
which  had  thus  found  a  vent  recognized  by  law. 
Further,  by  thus  interposing  a  period  of  probation 
the  fierceness  of  conjugal  jealousy  might  cool.  On 
comparing  this  argument  with  the  further  restric- 
tions laid  down  in  the  treatise  SoUili  tending  to 
limit  the  application  of  this  rite,  there  seems  grave 
reason  to  doubt  whether  recoiuvse  was  ever  had  to 
it  in  fact.  [Adoltkky.]  The  custom  of  writing 
on  a  parchment  words  cabalistic  or  medical  relating 
to  a  particular  case,  and  then  washing  them  ott', 
and  giving  the  patient  the  water  of  this  alilution 
to  drink,  has  descended  among  oriental  supersti- 
tions to  the  present  day,  and  a  sick  .-Vrab  would 
probably  thnik  this  the  most  natural  way  of  "tak- 
ing "  a  prescription.  See,  on  the  general  subject, 
Groddeck  de  veil,  ffehr.  purgnf.  caslitnlis  in  Ugol. 
Thesriur.  (Winer).  The  custom  of  such  an  ordeal 
was  probal)ly  traditional  in  Moses'  time,  and  by 
fencing  it  round  with  the  wholesome  awe  inspired 
by  the  solenniity  of  the  prescrilied  ritual,  the  law- 
giver woidd  deprive  it  to  a  great  extent  of  its  bar- 
iarous  tendency,  and  would  probably  restrain  the 
Lusband  from  some  of  the  ferocious  extremities  to 
which  he  migiit  otherwise  be  driven  by  a  sudden 
5t  of  jealousy,  so  powerfid  in  the  oriental  mind. 
On  the  whole  it  is  i;o  be  taken,  like  the  permission 
to  divorce  by  a  written  instrument,  rather  as  the 


EKTrecroi'TOs  avrfi,  koX  •riji'  KOiAi'ai'  iSepov  KaTakafji^auov- 
ros  {Ant.  iii.  11,  §  6). 

a  This  is  gomowhat  supported  by  the  rendering  in 

the  A.  V.  of  the  words   ntC^n^  sb  K"im,  V.  13. 

oy  "neither  she  be  taken  with  the  manner,''  the  ital- 
'cized  words  being  added  as  explanatory ,0vlthout  anv 
to  correspond  iu  the  original,  and  pointing  to  the 
«udden  cessation  of  "the  manner'' or  "custom  of 
■vomen  "  (Gen.  xviii.  11.  xxxi.  35).  i.e.  the  nienstruiil 
flux,  suggesting,  in  the  ca.sc  of  a  wouian  not  past  the 


WAVE-OFFERING  3487 

mitigation  of  a  custom  ordinarily  harsh,  and  as  a 
barrier  placed  in  the  way  of  uncalculating  vindio- 
tiveness.  Viewing  the  regulations  concerning  mat- 
rimony as  a  while,  we  shall  find  the  same  principle 
animating  them  in  all  their  parts  —  that  of  pro- 
viding a  legal  channel  for  the  course  of  natural 
feelings  where  irrepressilile,  but  at  the  same  time 
of  surrounding  their  outlet  with  institutions  apt  to 
mitigate  their  intensity,  and  so  assisting  the  grad- 
ual formation  of  a  gentler  temper  in  the  bosom  of 
tiie  nation.  The  precept  was  given  "  liecause  of  the 
hardness  of  their  hearts,"  but  with  the  design  and 
the  tendency  of  softening  them.  (See  some  re- 
marks in  .Spencer,  de  Leg.  Hebr.)  H.  H. 
WATER  OF  SEPARATION.    [Pukifi- 

CATION.] 

*  WATERCOURSE.     [Conduit.] 

,    *  WATERING    WITH    THE    FOOT. 

[(Iakdkx;   Foot,  W.vtekixg  with  the.] 

*  WATER -POT.  [Pot;  Weights  and 
JIe.^sukes.] 

*  WATER-SPOUT.   [Gutteh,  Amer.  ed.] 
WAVE-OFFERING    (HSlSn,    "a    wav- 
ing," from     r|13,    "to  wave,"    ''DST*     nSI^H 

mn"',  "a  waving  before  Jehovah").  This  rite, 
toijether  with  that  of  "  heaving  "  or  "  raising  "  the 
offering,  was  an  inseparable  accompaniment  of 
peace-ofTerings.  In  such  the  right  shoulder,  con- 
sidered the  choicest  part  of  the  victim,  was  to  be 
"  heaved,"  and  viewed  as  holy  to  the  Lord,  only 
eaten  therefore  by  the  priest;  the  breast  was  to  be 
"waved,"  and  eaten  by  the  worshipper.  On  the 
second  day  of  the  Passover  a  sheaf  of  corn,  in  the 
green  ear,  was  to  be  waved,  accompanied  by  the 
sacrifice  of  an  unblemished  lamb  of  the  first  year, 
from  the  performance  of  which  ceremony  the  days 
till  Pentecost  were  to  be  counted.  When  the  feast 
arrived,  two  loaves,  the  first-fruits  of  the  ripe  corn, 
were  to  be  oflfered  with  a  burnt-oftiiring,  a  sin-off'er- 
ing,  and  two  lambs  of  the  first  year  for  a  peace- 
oftt-ring.     These  likewise  were  to  be  waved. 

The  Scriptural  notices  of  these  rites  are  to  be 
found  in  Ex.  xxix.  2-t.  27;  Lev.  vii.  30,  34,  viii.  27, 
ix.  21,  X.  1-1,  1.5,  xxiii.  10,  15,  20;  Num.  vi.  20, 
xviii.  11,  18,  20-29,  etc. 

We  find  also  the  word  HSI^n  applied  in  F^x. 
xxxviii.  2-4  to  the  gold  offered  by  the  people  for  the 
fm-niture   of    the    sanctuary.     It   is   there  called 

nS13nn  nrrr.      it  may  have  been  waved  when 

l)resented,  but  it  seeins  not  impossible  that  nSISH 
hail  acquired  a  secondary  sense  so  as  to  denote 
"  free-will  oft'ering."  In  either  case  we  must  sup- 
pose the  ceremony  of  waving  to  h.ave  been  known  to 
and  practiced  by  the  Israelites  before  the  giving  of 
the  Law. 


ago  of  child-bearing,  that  conception  had  taken  place. 
If  this  be  the  sense  of  the  original,  tlie  suspicions  of 
the  husband  would  be  so  far  based  upon  a  fact.  It 
seems,  however,  also  po.ssible  that  the  words  may 
be  an   extension  of  the  sense  of  those  iuimediatety 

preceding,  HS  ^^S  "7271,  when  the  connected  tenoi 

would  be,  "and  there  be  no  witness  against  ber,  iirnl 
she  be  not  taken,"'  i.  c  t;iken  in  the  fact  :  romp  .lolin 
viii  4,  auTT)  t|  yui-jj  icaxfiA^i^^r;  iira\/TO<j>Mii<o  uoiv«vo- 
MtlT). 


8488 


WAY 


It  seems  not  quite  oertaiii  from  F,x.  xxix  'i6.  27, ' 
whether  the  waving  was  [lerlorniecl  by  the  priest  or 
by  the  worshipper  with  tlie  Ibriuer's  iis-istiince. 
The  Rabbinical  tradition  represents  it  as  done  by 
the  worshipper,  tlie  priest  supporting  his  hands 
from  below. 

In  conjecturing  the  meaning  of  this  rite,  regard 
must  be  had,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  kind  of 
sacrifice  to  which  it  belonged.  It  was  the  accom- 
paniment of  peace-offerings.  These  not  only,  like 
tlie  other  sacrifices,  acknowledged  God's  greatness 
aiid  his  right  over  the  creature,  but  they  witnessed 
to  a  ratified  covenant,  an  established  coniniuiiion 
between  God  and  man.  While  the  sin-offering 
merely  removed  defilement,  while  the  bnrnt-otter- 
ing  gave  entirely  over  to  (iod  of  his  own,  the 
victim  being  wholly  consumed,  the  peace-offerinir, 
as  establishing  relations  between  God  and  the  wor- 
shipper, v\as  participated  in  by  the  latter,  who  ate, 
as  we  have  seen,  of  the  breast  that  was  waved. 
The  Kabbis  explain  the  heaving  of  the  shoulder  as 
an  acknowledgment  that  (iod  has  his  throne  in  the 
heaven,  the  waving  of  the  breast  that  He  is  present 
in  every  quarter  of  the  earth.  The  one  rite  testified 
to  his  eternal  majesty  on  high,  the  other  to  his 
behig  among  and  with  his  people. 

It  is  not  said  in  Lev.  xxiii.  10-14,  that  a  peace- 
offering  accompanied  the  wave-sheaf  of  the  1 'ass- 
over.  On  the  contrary,  the  only  bloody  sacrifice 
mentioned  in  connection  with  it  is  styled  a  burnt- 
offering.  When,  however,  we  consider  that  every- 
where else  the  rite  of  waving  belongs  to  a  ])eace- 
ofFering,  and  that  besides  a  sin  and  a  burnt  offering, 
there  was  one  in  connection  with  tlie  wave-loaves 
of  Pentecost  (Lev.  xxiii.  ID),  we  shall  be  wary  of 
conchiding  that  there  was  none  in  the  present  case. 
The  significance  of  these  rites  seems  considerable. 
The  name  of  the  month  Abib,  in  which  ,the  I'ass- 
i)\er  was  kept,  means  the  month  of  the  gi'een  ear 
of  corn,  the  month  in  which  the  great  produce  of 
the  earth  has  come  to  the  birth.  In  that  month 
the  nation  of  Israel  came  to  the  birth ;  each  suc- 
ceeding Passover  was  the  keeping  of  the  nation's 
Ijirthday.  Beautifully  and  naturally,  therefore, 
were  the  two  births  —  that  of  the  peo|ile  into 
national  life;  that  of  their  needful  sustenance  into 
yearly  life — combined  in  the  Passover.  All  first- 
fruits  were  holy  to  God:  the  first-born  of  men,  the 
first-produce  of  the  earth.  Both  principles  were 
rtiognized  in  the  Passover.  When  six  weeks  after, 
"w  harvest  had  ripened,  the  first-fruits  of  its  ma- 
cn-ed  jjroduce  were  similarly  to  be  dedicated  to 
God.  Both  were  waved,  the  rite  which  attested 
the  Divine  presence  and  working  all  around  us 
being  surely  most  appropriate  and  significant  in 
thai!  case.  F.  G. 

WAY.  This  word  has  now  in  ordinary  parlance 
so  entirely  forsaken  its  original  sense  (except  in 
combination,  as  in  "highway,"  "  causeway  ")  and 
is  so  uniformly  employed  in  the  secondary  or  meta- 
phorical sense  of  a  "  custom  "  or  "  manner,"  that 
it  is  difficult  to  rememlier  that  in  the  Bilile  it  most 
frequently  signifies  an  actual  road  or  track.  Our 
translators  have  employed  it  as  the  e(pnvalent  of 
no  less  than  eighteen  distinct  Hebrew  terms.  Of 
these,  several  had  the  same  secondary  sense  which 

'.he  word  "  way  "  has  with  us.     Two  others  (rTHS 


«  This  is  more  obscure  in  the  A.  V.  even   Ihau  the 
)there :  ''  Come  along  by  tlie  plain  of  .Meouenim."' 


WEASEL 

and  ^^inS)  are  employed  only  by  the  poets,  and 
are  commonly  rendered  "  path  "  in  the  A.  V.  But 
the  term  which  most  frequently  occurs,  and  in  the 
majority  of  cases  signifies  (though  it  also  is  now 
and  then  used  metaphorically)  an  actual  road,  is 

Tf^^,  dertc,  coimected  with  the  German  ire/en 
and  the  English  "  tread."  It  may  be  truly  said 
that  there  is  hardly  a  single  passage  in  which  thi? 
word  occurs  which  would  not  be  made  clearer  and 
more  real  if  "  road  to  "  were  substituted  for  "  way 
of."  Thus  Gen.  xvi.  7,  "  the  spring  on  the  roaci 
to  Shur;  "  Num.  xiv.  25,  "the  road  to  the  Red 
Sea;  "  1  Sam.  vi.  12,  "  the  road  to  Bethshemesh:  " 
Judg.  ix.  37,  "  the  road  to  the  oak  "  of  Meonenim  ;  " 
2  K.  xi.  19,  "the  road  to  the  gate."  It  turns  that 
which  is  a  mere  general  expression  into  a  substan- 
tial reality.  And  .so  in  hke  manner  with  the  word 
6S6s  in  the  New  Testament,  which  is  almost  in- 
variably translated  "  way."  Mark  x.  32,  "  They 
were  on  the  road  going  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  "  Matt.  xx. 
17,  "and  Jesus  took  the  twelve  disciples  apart  in 
the  road  "  —  out  of  the  crowd  of  pilgrims  who, 
like  themselves,  were  bound  for  the  Passover. 

There  is  one  use  of  both  dei-ec  and  d56s  which 
must  not  be  passed  over,  namely,  in  the  sense  of  a 
religious  course.  In  the  Old  Test,  this  occurs  but 
rarely,  perhaps  twice:  namely  in  Amos  viii.  14. 
"the  manner  of  Beersheba,"  where  the  prophet  is 
probably  alluding  to  some  idolatrous  rites  then 
practiced  there;  and  again  in  Ps.  cxxxix.  24,  "look 
if  there  be  any  evil  way,"  any  idolatrous  practices, 
"  in  me,  and  lead  me  in  the  everlasting  way." 
But  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  d56s,  "the  way," 
"the  road,"  is  the  received,  almost  technical,  term 
for  the  new  religion  which  Paul  fiirst  resisted  and 
afterwards  supported.  See  Acts  ix.  2,  xix.  9,  23, 
xxii.  4,  xxiv.  14,  22.  In  each  of  these  the  word 
"that"  is  an  interpolation  of  our  translators,  and 
should  have  been  put  into  Italics,  as  it  is  in  xxiv.  22. 

Tlie  religion  of  Islam  is  spoken  of  in  the  Koran 
as  "  the  path  (et  tank,  iv.  66),  and  "  the  right 
path  "  (i.  5;  iv.  174).  Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  353)  lias 
collected  examples  of  the  same  expression  in  otlier 
languages  and  religions.  G. 

*  WEALTH  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  some 
passages  (Kzr.  ix.  12;  Esth.  x.  3;  1  Cor.  x.  24)  in 
its  old  sense  of  "  weal  "  or  "  welfare."  A. 

*  WEALTHY  is  used  in  the  A.  V.,  Jer.  xlix. 
31,  in  the  sense  of  "prosperous,"  "at  ease";  and 
in  Ps.  Ixvi.  12  it  has  a  similar  meaning. 
[Wealth.]  A. 

WEANING.  [Abraham  ;  Banquet  , 
Child.] 

WEAPONS.     [Arms.] 

WEASEL  ("T!?'n,  clwled:  yaXri-  musiela) 
occurs  only  in  Lev.  xi.  29,  in  the  list  of  unclean 
animals.  According  to  the  old  versions  and  the 
Talmud,  the  Heb.  cJioled  denotes  "  a  weasel "  (se« 
Lewysohn,  Zool.  des  Talin.  p.  91,  and  Buxtorf,  Lex. 
V.  Rub.  ei  Tulm.  p.  756);  but  if  the  word  is  iden- 

tical  with  the  Arabic  chuld  {(XX^)  and  the  Syriac 
cinddo  (J«-^Q.A/),  as  Bochart  {Hkroz.  ji.  435) 
and  others  have  endeavored  to  show,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  '^a  mole  "  is  the  animal  indicated.  Ge- 
senius ( Tlii's.  p.  474),  however,  has  the  followiii)> 
very  true  oliservation :  "  Satis  constat  animaliuni 
nomina  persiepe  in  hac  lingua  hoc,  in  alia  co;;iiara 


WEAVING 

iliiitl,  id  vero  simile,  animal  siirnifica.ve."'     He  pre- 
fers to  render  the  term  Ijy  "  Weasel." 

Moles  ;ue  common  enoui^h  in  Palestine;  Ilassel- 
quist  {Trav.  p.  120),  speakiut;  of  the  country  be- 
tween .lati'a  and  Kauja,  sajs  he  had  never  seen  in 
ftiij  place  the  ground  so  cast  up  by  moles  as  in 
these  plains.  'I'here  was  scarce  a  yard's  length 
between  each  niole-hill.  It  is  not  inipruhalile  that 
both  the  T.ilpa  turajMea  and  the  T.  cwci,  the 
blind  mole  of  which  Aristotle  speaks  {/list.  Aiiiin. 
i  8,  §  o),  occur  in  Palestine,  though  we  have  no 
definite  information  on  this  point.  The  family  of 
Mus/tii(ke  also  is  doubtless  well  represented.  I'er- 
haps  it  is  better  to  give  to  the  Hel).  term  the  same 
signification  which  the  cognate  Arabic  and  Syr.ac 
have,  and  understand  a  "mole"  to  be  denoted  ly 
it.     [Mole.]  W.  H. 

WEAVING  (y^if).  The  art  of  weaving  ap- 
pears to  be  coeval  with  the  first  dan-ning  of  civil- 
ization. In  what  country,  or  by  whom  it  was  in- 
vented, we  know  not:  but  we  find  it  practiced  with 
great  skill  by  the  Egyptians  at  a  very  early  period, 
and  hence  the  invention  was  not  unnaturally  attribu- 
ted to  them  (I'Ln.  vii.  57).  The  "vestures  of  fine 
hnen  "  such  as  .losepli  wore  (Gen.  xli.  42),  were  the 
product  of  I'^gyptian  looms,  and  their  quality,  as  at- 
tested l)y  existing  specimens,  is  pronounced  to  be 
not  inferior  to  the  finest  cambric  of  modern  times 
(Wilkinson,  ii.  75)  The  Israelites  were  probably 
acquainted  with  the  process  before  their  sojourn  in 
Egypt;  but  it  was  undoubtedly  there  that  they  at- 
tained the  proficiency  which  enabled  them  to  exe- 
cute the  hangings  of  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxv.  .35; 
1  Chr.  iv.  21),  and  otiier  artistic  textures.  At  a 
later  period  the  Egyptians  were  still  famed  for  their 
manufactures  of  "  fine  '  (i.  e.  hackled)  flax  and  of 
cAiiri,"  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  networks,"  but 
more  probably  a  lo/iilc  material  either  of  linen  or 
cotton  (Is.  xix.  9).  From  them  the  Tynans  pro- 
cured the  "  fine  linen  with  broidered  work  "  for  the 
sails  of  their  vessels  (Ez.  xxvii.  7),  the  handsome 
character  of  which  may  be  inferred  from  the  repre- 
sentations of  similar  sails  in  the  Egyptian  paintings 
(Wilkinson,  ii.  1.31,  107).  Weaving  was  carried  on 
in  Egypt,  generally,  l)ut  not  universally,  by  men 
(Herod,  ii.  35;  comp.  Wilkinson,  ii.  84).  This  was 
the  case  also  among  the  Jews  about  the  time  of  tiie 
Exodus  (1  Chr.  iv.  21),  but  in  later  times  it  usually 
fell  to  the  lot  of  the  females  to  supply  the  household 
with  clothing  (1  Sam.  ii.  11);  2  K.  xxiii.  7),  and  an 
industrious  housewife  would  pr.iduce  a  surplus  for 
sale  to  others  (I'rov.  xxxi.  lli,  lii,  24). 

The  character  of  the  loom  and  the  ])rocess  of 
weaving  can  only  be  inferred  from  incidental  notices. 
The  Egyptian  loom  was  us.ially  upriixht,  and  the 
weaver  stood  at  his  work.  The  'cloth  was  fixed 
sometimes  at  the  top,  sometimes  at  the  bottom,  .so 
that  the  remark  of  Herodotus  (ii.  85),  that  the 
I'jgyptians,  contrary  to  the  usual  practice,  pressed 
t.l.e  woof  downwards,  must  be  received  with  reser- 
fation  (Wilkinson,  ii.  85).  That  a  similar  variety 
>f  usage  prevailed  among  the  .lews,  may  be  inferred 


« "'■in. 

*  m30 :    so   called   from    its    resemblance  to   a 

T 

jloughmau's  yoke. 

*  n35Ki.  This  term  is  otherwise  unilerstootl  of 
riie  warji,  as  in  the  L.\.Y.  anj  ttio  Vulgate  (.Ueseu. 
Tnes.  p.  890). 


WEAVING  348C 

from  the  -'•mark  of  St.  .lohn  (xix.  2.3),  that  the 
seamless  coat  was  woven  "  from  the  top"  (e'k  rat 
a,i"jc6£u).  Tunics  of  this  kind  were  designated  hr 
the  Koinan  reclcs.  inipb  ing  that  they  were  mad , 
at  an  upright  loom  at  which  the  weaver  stood  t/ 
his  work,  thrusting  the  woof  upwards  (Plin.  viii. 
74).  The  modern  Arabs  use  a  procumbent  loonv 
r.ii.sed  above  the  ground  by  short  legs  (BurckhardtV 
Niites,  i.  07).  The  Bible  does  not  notice  the  loom 
itself,  but  speaks  of  the  beam  *>  to  which  the  war], 
was  attached  (1  Sam.  xvii,  7;  2  Sam.  xxi.  19^: 
and  of  the  pin  ^'  to  which  the  cloth  was  fixed,  and 
on  which  it  was  rolled  (.(udg.  xvi.  14).  We  have 
also  notice  of  the  shuttle'/'  which  is  described  by  a 
term  significant  of  the  act  of  weaving  (.lob  rli.  6); 
the  thrum  »  or  threads  which  attached  the  web  to 
the  beam  (Is.  xxxviii.  12,  maryiii);  and  the  web'' 
it>elf  (.ludg.  xvi.  14;  A.  V.  "beam").  Whether 
the  two  terms  in  Lev.  xiii.  48,  rendered  "  warp  "/ 
and  "  woof,"  9  really  mean  these,  admits  of  doul)t, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the  one  could 
be  atiirted  witli  leprosy  without  the  other:  perhaps 
the  terms  refer  to  ceitain  kinds  of  texture  (Ivnobel, 
in  1)0.).  The  shuttle  is  occasionally  dispensed 
with,  the  woof  being  passed  through  with  the  hand 
(Koliin.son's  Bibl.  Jit-s  i.  10;*).  The  speed  with 
which  the  weaver  used  his  shuttle,  and  the  decisive 
manner  in  which  he  separated  the  web  from  the 
thruni  when  his  work  was  done,  supplied  vivid 
images,  the  former  of  the  speedy  passage  of  life 
(.lob  vii.  0),  the  latter  of  sudden  death  (Is.  xxxviii 
12).^ 

The  textures  produced  by  the  Jewish  weavers 
were  vei-y  various.  The  coarser  kinds,  such  as 
tent-cloth,  sackcloth,  and  the  "  hairy  garments  " 
of  the  poor  were  made  of  goat's  or  camel's  hair 
(Ex.  xxvi.  7;  Matt.  iii.  4).  Wool  was  extensively 
used  for  ordinary  clothing  (Lev.  xiii.  47;  Prov. 
xxvii.  20,  xxxi.  1.3;  Ez.  xxvii.  18),  while  for  finer 
work  flax  was  used,  var3iug  in  quality,  and  pro- 
ducing the  different  textures  described  in  the  Bible 
as  "  linen  "  and  "  fine  linen."  The  mixture  of 
wool  and  flax  in  cloth  intended  for  a  garment  was 
interdicted  (Lev.  xix.  19;  Deut.  .xxii.  11).  With 
regaid  to  the  ornamental  kinds  of  work,  the  terms 
rikiinili,  "  needlework,"  and  nin'dsili  chosheb,  "  the 
work  of  the  cunning  workman,"  have  been  already 
di.scussed  under  the  head  of  Emukoideker,  to  the 
effect  that  both  kinds  were  produced  in  the  loom, 
and  that  the  distinction  between  them  lay  in  the 
addition  of  a  device  or  pattern  in  the  latter,  the 
rikiiiiih  consisting  simply  of  a  variegated  stuff 
without  a  pattern.  We  may  further  notice  the 
terms:  (1.)  glidb((ts>'  and  t'lshbets^  applied  to  the 
robes  of  the  priest  (Ex.  xxviii.  4  39),  and  eiguify- 
ing  U' sue  1 1  ted  (A.  V.  "broidered"),  i.  e.  with 
depressions  probalily  of  a  squ;ire  shape  worked  in 
it,  similar  to  the  texture  described  by  the  Komans 
under  the  term  scutalatus  (Plin.  viii.  73;  .Juv.  ii. 
97 ) ;  this  was  produced  in  the  loom,  as  it  is  ex- 
|)ressly  said  to  be  the  work  of  the  weaver  (lix. 
xxxix.  27).  (2.)  Moshzai-k  (A.  V.  "twined"), 
applied  to  the  fine  linen  out  of  which  the  curtains 


<'  JIT'^'     "^^^^  ^^^^^  yiOTdi  describes  both   the  w«b 
ind  the  shuttle. 


T    - 


3490  WEB 

of  the  Tabeiiiacle  and  the  sacerdotal  vestments  were 
made  {Ex  xxvi.  1,  xxviii.  0,  etc.);  in  this  texture 
eacli  thread  consisted  of  several  finer  threads  twisted 
»^>gether,  as  is  described  to  have  been  the  case  with 
the  famed  corselet  of  Amasis  (Herod,  iii.  47).  (3.) 
Mislibetsotli  zd/idf/"  (A.  V.  "of  wrought  gold  "), 
textures  in  which  gold  thread  was  interwoven  (Ps. 
xlv.  1.3).  The  Babylonians  were  particularly  skill- 
ful in  this  branch  of  weaving,  and  embroidered 
groups  of  men  or  animals  on  the  robes  (Flin.  viii. 
74;  Layard,  Nin.  ii.  413);  the  "goodly  Baby- 
lonish garment"  secreted  by  Achan  was  probably 
of  this  character  (Josh.  vii.  21).  The  sacerdotal 
vestments  are  said  to  have  been  woven  in  one  piece 
without  the  intervention  of  any  needlework  to  join 
the  seams  (.loseph.  Ant.  iii.  7,  §  4).  The  "  coat 
without  seam  "  (^itwv  appacpos'''^  worn  by  Jesus 
at  the  time  of  his  crucifixion  (.lohn  xix.  23),  was 
piobably  of  a  sacerdotal  character  in  this  respect, 
but  made  of  a  less  costly  material  (Carpzov,  Appar. 
p.  72).  \V.  L.  B. 

*  WEB.     [Wkavixo  ] 

*  WEDDING.  This  topic  has  been  ex- 
haustively treated  under  the  head  of  ^Makiuage 
(iii.  1793-1807),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 
In  this  relatiori,  the  Canticles  may  be  entitled  to 
special  recognition,  as  a  sacred  book  portraying, 
according  to  almost  every  theory  of  its  interpreta- 
tion, the  sacredness  of  wedded  love  —  there  being  a 
general  agreement  that  its  two  principal  pei-sonages 
were  wedded,  or  solemnly  lietrothed,  and  that  the 
theme  of  the  song  is  chaste,  connubial  love.  This 
view  is  fatal  to  the  hypothe&is  advanced  in  a  pre- 
ceding article  [Shui.amite,  iv.  p.  3021],  that 
"the  object  of  Solomon's  passion"  was  a  lovely 
Shunanimite  girl,  who  figured  in  the  history  of  the 
royal  family  (1  K.  i.  3,  4,  ii.  17,  21),  one  of  the 
court-beauties  of  his  day.  The  conjecture  is  fur- 
ther discountenanced  by  the  allusions  (Cant.  iii. 
6,  viii.  5)  to  the  bridal  procession   and  the  bride 

coming  up  from  "  the  wilderness  "  ("^SISH),  the 
term  by  which  the  sacred  writers  generally  desig- 
nate the  southern  desert.  It  is  still  further  dis- 
credited by  her  allusions  to  her  foreign  extraction ; 
and  the  deprecatory  appeal  to  the  daughters  of 
Jerusalem  (Cant.  i.  5,  (i ),  quite  out  of  place  on 
the  lips  of  a  native  Jewess,  of  the  court  circle, 
would  well  befit  a  dark-skinned  daughter  of  Egypt, 
or  of  one  of  the  desert  tribes.  S.   W. 

*  WEDGE.     [Mines,  iii.  1939  b.] 
WEEK     {V^n^\   or    V2^\    from    V^W, 

"seven,"  a  heptad  of  anything,  but  particularly 
used  for  a  period  of  seven  days :  ifiSo/xas  ■  sepli- 

mana).    We  have  also,  and  much  oftener,  ni?Iit£'', 

or  c:^'^  n27Dti\ 

Whatever  controversies  exist  respecting  the  ori- 
gin of  the  week,  tiiere  can  be  none  about  the  great 
antiquity,  on  particular  occasions  at  least,  among 
the  Sheniitic  races,  of  measuring  time  by  a  period 
of  seven  days.  This  has  been  thought  to  be  im- 
plied in  the  phrase  respecting  the  sacrifices  of  Cain 
and  Abel  ((Jen.  iv.  3),  "  in  process  of  time,"  liter- 
ady  "  at  the  end  of  days."'  It  is  to  be  traced  in 
the  nairative  of  the  subsidence  of  the  Flood  (Gen. 
/iii.  10),  "and  he  stayed  yet  other  seven  days;" 
and  we  f  ud  it  recognized  by  the  Syrian    Laban 


» ant  mi'2tt'a 

TT  :    :    • 


WEEK 

(Gen.  xxix.  27),  "fulfill  her  week."  It  is  needless 
to  say  that  this  division  of  time  is  a  marked  feature 
of  the  JMosaic  Law,  and  one  into  which  the  whole 
3'ear  was  parted,  the  Salibath  sutRcientlj'  showing 
that.  'J'he  week  of  seven  days  was  also  made  the 
key  to  a  scale  of  seven,  running  through  the  Sab- 
l)atical  years  up  to  that  of  jubilee.  [See  Sab- 
bath; Sabbatical  Yeab;  and  Jubilee,  Yeak 

OF.] 

The  origin  of  this  division  of  time  is  a  matter 
which  has  given  birth  to  much  speculation.  Its 
antiquity  is  so  great,  its  observance  so  wide-spread 
and  it  occupies  so  important  a  place  in  sacred 
things,  that  it  has  been  very  generally  thrown  back 
as  tar  as  the  creation  of  man,  wiio  on  this  suppo- 
sition was  told  from  the  very  first  to  divide  his 
time  on  the  model  of  the  Creator's  order  of  working 
and  resting.  The  week  and  the  Sabbath  are,  if 
this  be  so,  as  old  as  man  himself;  and  we  need  not 
.seek  for  reasons  either  in  the  human  mind  or  the 
facts  with  which  that  mind  comes  in  contact,  for 
the  adoption  of  such  a  division  of  time,  since  it  is 
to  be  referred  neither  to  man's  thoughts  nor  to 
man's  will.  A  purely  theological  ground  is  thus 
established  for  the  week  and  for  the  sacredness  of 
the  number  seven.  Ihey  who  embrace  this  view 
support  it  by  a  reference  to  the  six  days'  creation 
and  the  Divine  rest  on  the  seventh,  which  they 
consider  to  have  been  made  known  to  man  from 
the  very  first,  and  by  an  appeal  to  the  exceeding 
prevalence  of  the  hebdomadal  division  of  time  from 
the  earliest  age  —  an  argument  the  force  of  which 
is  considered  to  be  enhanced  by  the  alleged  absence 
of  any  natural  ground  for  it. 

To  all  this,  however,  it  may  be  objected  that  we 
are  quite  in  the  dark  as  to  when  the  record  of  the 
six  days'  creation  was  made  known,  that  as  human 
language  is  used  and  human  apprehensions  are 
addressed  in  that  record,  so  the  week  being  already 
known,  the  perfection  of  the  Divine  work  and 
Sabliatii  may  well  have  been  set  forth  under  the 
figure  of  one,  the  existing  division  of  time  mould- 
ing the  document,  instead  of  the  document  giving 
birth  to  the  division;  that  old  and  wide-spread  as 
is  the  recognition  of  tliat  division,  it  is  not  uni- 
versal ;  that  the  nations  which  knew  not  of  it 
were  too  important  to  allow  the  argun)ent  froni 
its  prevalency  to  stand;  and  that  so  far  from  its 
being  without  ground  in  nature,  it  is  the  most 
obvious  and  convenient  way  of  dividing  the  month. 
Each  of  these  points  must  now  be  briefly  consid- 
ered :  — ' 

1st.  That  the  week  rests  on  a  theological  ground 
may  be  cheerfully  acknowledged  by  both  sides;  but 
nothing  is  determined  by  such  acknowledgment  as 
to  the  original  cause  of  adopting  this  division  of 
time.  1  he  records  of  creation  and  the  fourth  com- 
mandment give  no  doubt  the  ultimate  and  there- 
fore the  deejiest  ground  of  the  weekly  division, 
but  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  it  was  npt 
adopted  for  lower  reasons  before  either  was  known. 
Whetlier  the  week  gave  its  sacredness  to  the 
number  seven,  or  wliether  the  ascendency  of  that 
number  helped  to  determine  the  dimensions  of  the 
week,  it  is  impossilile  to  say.  The  latter  fact,  the 
ancient  ascendency  ot  the  number  seven,  n)ight 
rest  on  divers  grounds.  The  planets,  accordinu; 
to  the  astrononjy  of  those  tin)es,  were  seven  in 
nundier;  so  are  tl;e  noles  of  tiie  diatonic  scale; 
.so  also  many  otbei'  things  naturally  attracting 
observation. 

2d'y.   'ilie  pn'\alei.ce  of  the  weekly  division  was 


WEEK 

indeed  v.ry  great,  but  a  nearer  approach  to  univer- 
sality is  required  to  render  it  an  argument  for  the 
view  in  aid  of  whicli  it  is  appealed  to.  It  was 
adopted  l).v  all  the  Sheniitic  races,  and,  in  the  later 
period  ot  their  history  at  least,  by  the  Kgyptians. 
Across  the  Atlantic  we  find  it,  or  a  division  all  but 
identical  with  it,  among  the  Peruvians.  It  also 
obtains  now  witli  the  Hindoos,  but  its  antiquitv 
among  them  is  matter  of  question.  It  is  po-isibJe 
that  it  wiis  introduced  into  India  by  the  .Arabs  and 
Mohammedans.  So  in  China  we  find  it,  but  whether 
universally  or  only  among  the  Buddhists  admits  of 
doubt.  (See,  for  both,  I'riaidx's  QwE^/iones  .Uo- 
saicie,  a  work  with  many  of  the  results  of  whicii 
we  may  be  well  expected  to  quarrel,  but  which 
deserves,  in  respect  not  only  of  curious  learning,  but 
of  the  vigorous  and  valuable  thought  with  which  it 
Ls  impregnated,  to  be  far  more  known  than  it  is.) 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  reason  for  thinking 
the  week  known  till  a  later  period  either  to  Greeks 
or  Romans. 

3dly.  So  far  from  the  week  being  a  division  of 
time  without  ground  in  nature,  there  was  much 
to  recommend  its  adoption.  Where  the  davswere 
named  from  planetary  deities,  as  among  first  the 
Assyrians  .and  Chaidees,  .and  then  the  Egyptians, 
there  of  course  each  i)eriod  of  seven  days  would 
constitute  a  whole,  and  that  whole  might  come  to 
be  recognized  by  nations  that  disregarded  or 
rejected  the  practice  which  had  shaped  and  deter- 
mined it.  But  furtlier,  the  week  is  a  most  natural 
and  nearly  an  exact  quadripartition  of  the  month, 
BO  that  the  quarters  of  the  moon  may  easily  have 
suggested  it. 

It  is  beside  the  purpose  of  this  article  to  trace 
the  liebdomad.al  division  among  other  nations  than 
the  Hebrews.  The  week  of  the  Bilile  is  that  with 
which  we  have  to  do.  liven  if  it  were  proved  that 
tlie  planetary  week  of  the  Egyptians,  as  sketched 
by  Dion  Cassius  (f/isf.  Rom.  xxxvii.  18),  existed 
at  or  before  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  the  children 
of  Israel  did  not  copy  that.  Their  week  was 
simply  determined  l)y  the  .S.abbatli ;  and  tiiere  is 
no  evidence  of  any  other  day.  with  them,  having 
either  had  a  name  assigned  to  it,  or  any  particular 
associations  bound  up  with  it.  The  days  seemed 
to  have  been  distinguished  merely  by  the  ordinal 
numerals,  counted  from  the  Sal)bath.  We  shall 
have  indeed  to  return  to  tiie  ligyptian  planetary 
week  at  a  later  stage  of  our  inquiry,  but  our  fir^yt 
and  main  business,  as  we  have  already  said,  is  with 
the  week  of  the  Bible. 

We  have  seen  in  Gen.  xxix.  27,  that  it  was 
known  to  the  ancient  Syrians,  and  the  injunction 
to  Jacob,  "fulfill  her  week,"  indicates  that  it  w.as 
in  use  as  a  fi.Ked  term  for  great  festive  celebrations. 
The  most  prol)able  exposition  of  the  passage  is,  that 
Laban  tells  .Jacob  to  fulfill  Leah's  wee/c,  the  proper 
period  of  the  nuptial  festivities  in  connection  with 
his  marriage  to  her,  and  then  he  may  have  Rachel 
also  (comp.  Judg.  xiv.).  And  so  too  for  funeral 
ol)servance,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ob.sequies  of 
ilacob,  .Joseph  "  made  a  mourning  for  his  father 
seven  days"  (Gen.  1.  10).  But  neither  of  tliese 
iiistances,  any  more  th.an  Xoah's  procedure  in  the 
irk,  go  furtlier  tlian  showing  the  custom  of  ob- 
serving a  term  of  seven  days  for  any  olisei-vanco 
.if  importance.  They  do  not  prove  that  the 
frhole  year,  or  the  whole  month,  was  thus  divided 
«t  .all  times,  and  without  regard  to  remarkable 
J  vents. 

In  Exodus  of  course  the  week  comes  in:o  vecy 


WEEK 


3491 


distinct  manifestation.  Two  of  the  great  feasts  — • 
the  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Taljernacles  —  are 
prolonged  for  seven  days  after  that  of  their  initiation 
(Exod.  xii.  15-20,  etc.),  a  custom  which  remains 
in  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  rituals  of  which  the 
remembrances  and  topics  of  the  great  festivals  are 
])rolonged  till  what  is  technically  called  the  octave. 
Although  the  Feast  of  Pentecost  lasted  but  one  d.ay, 
yet  the  time  for  its  observance  was  to  be  courted 
by  weeks  from  the  Passover,  whence  one  of  its 
titles,  "  the  Feast  of  Weeks." 

The  division  by  seven  was,  as  we  have  seen  ex- 
panded so  .as  to  make  the  seventh  month  and  the 
seventh  year  Sabbatical.  To  whatever  extent  the 
laws  enforcing  this  m.ay  have  been  neglectiiJ  before 
the  Captivity,  their  effect,  when  studied,  must  ha\e 

been  to  render  the  words  17l3Ci7,  e/35o/ia»,  vcek, 

capable  of  meaning  a  seven  of  years  almost  as 
naturally  as  a  seven  of  days.  Indeed  the  generality 
of  the  word  would  have  this  effect  at  any  rate. 
Hence  their  use  to  denote  the  latter  in  prophecy, 
more  especially  in  that  of  Daniel,  is  not  mere  arbi- 
trary symbolism,  but  the  employment  of  a  not  un- 
familiar and  easily  understood  langu.age.  This  is  not 
the  place  to  discuss  schemes  of  prophetic  interpre- 
tation, nor  ilo  we  pro[)ose  giving  our  opinion  of  any 
such,  but  it  is  connected  with  our  subject  to  re- 
mark that,  whatevei-  be  the  merits  of  that  which  in 
Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse  understands  a  year  by  a 
d:nj,  it  cannot  be  .set  aside  as  forced  .and  unnatural. 
Whether  days  were  or  were  not  intended  to  be  thus 
understood  in  the  places  in  question,  their  being  so 
would  have  been  a  congruous,  and  we  m.ay  say 
logical  attendant  on  the  scheme  which  counts  weeks 
of  years,  and  both  would  have  been  a  natiu-al  com- 
putation to  minds  familiar  and  occupied  with  the 
law  of  the  Sabbatical  year. 

In  tlie  N.  T.  we  of  course  find  such  clear  recog- 
nition of  and  famili.arity  with  the  week  as  needs 
scarcely  be  dwelt  on.  S<aored  as  the  division  was, 
and  stamped  deep  on  the  minds  and  customs  of 
God's  people,  it  now  received  .additional  .solemnity 
from  our  Lord's  last  earthly  Passover  gathering  up 
his  work  of  life  into  a  week. 

Hence  the  Christian  Church,  from  the  very  first, 
was  familiar  with  the  week.  St.  Paul's  language 
(1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  Kara  fxiav  aa^^aTOov)  shows  this. 
We  cannot  conclude  from  it  that  such  a  division  of 
time  was  observed  by  the  inhabitants  of  Corinth 
generally;  for  they  to  whom  he  was  writing, 
tliough  doubtless  the  m.ajority  of  them  were  Gen- 
tiles, yet  knew  the  Lord'.s  d.ay,  and  most  probJibly 
the  Jewish  Sabbath.  But  though  we  can  infer  nc 
more  than  this  from  the  place  in  question,  it  i^ 
clear  that  if  not  by  this  time  yet  very  soon  after, 
the  whole  Roman  world  had  adopted  the  hebdom- 
a<lal  division.  Dion  Cassius,  who  wrote  in  the  2d 
century,  speaks  of  it  as  both  universal  and  recent 
in  his  time.  He  represents  it  as  coming  from 
I'JiXypt,  and  gives  two  schemes,  by  one  or  other  of 
which  he  considers  that  the  planetary  names  of  the 
different  days  were  fixed  (Dion  (^assius,  xxvii.  18). 
Those  names,  or  corresponding  ones,  have  perpetu- 
ated themselves  over  t^liristendom,  though  no  asso- 
ciations of  any  kind  are  now  connected  with  them, 
except  in  so  far  as  the  whimsical  conscience  of  some 
has  quarivlled  with  their  P.agan  origin,  and  led  to 
an  attempt  at  their  disuse.  It  would  be  interest- 
ing, though  foreign  to  our  ])resent  purpose,  to  in- 
quire into  the  origin  of  this  planetary  week.  A 
(leeply-learned  paper  in  the  PliiloUiyiod  Miveui\ 


3492        WEEKS,  FEAST  OF 

by  tlie  late  Archdeacon  Hare,"  gives  the  credit  of 
lU  invention  to  tlie  Chaldees.  Dion  Cassias  was 
however  pretty  sure  to  have  been  right  in  tracing 
its  adoption  by  the  Koman  world  to  an  Egyptian 
origin.  It  is  very  striking  to  reflect  that  while 
Christendom  was  in  its  cradle,  the  law  Ijy  whicii 
she  was  to  divide  li«?r  time  came  without  collusion 
with  her  into  universal  observance,  thus  making 
things  ready  for  her  to  impose  on  mankind  that 
week  on  whicli  all  Christian  life  has  been  shaped  — 
that  \veek  grounded  on  no  worship  of  planetary 
deities  nor  dictated  by  the  mere  wish  to  quadri- 
partite the  month,  but  based  on  the  earliest  lesson 
of  revelation,  and  jiroposing  to  man  his  Blaker's 
model  as  that  whereby  to  regulate  his  working  and 
his  rest — that  week  which  once  indeed  in  modern 
times  it  has  been  attempted  to  abolish,  because  it 
was  atteuipted  to  abolish  the  whole  Christian  faith, 
but  which  has  kept,  as  we  are  sure  it  ever  will  keep, 
its  ground,  being  bound  up  with  that  other,  and 
sharing  therefore  in  that  other's  invincibility  and 
perpetuity.  F.  G. 

WEEKS,  FEAST  OF.     [Pkntecost.] 

WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 

I.   WEIGHTS. 

Introduction.  —  It  will  lie  well  to  explain  briefly 
the  method  of  inquiry  which  led  to  the  conclusions 
stated  in  this  article,  the  suVject  being  intricate, 
and  the  conclusions  in  many  main  particulars  dif- 
ferent from  any  at  which  other  investigators  ha\e 
arrived.  The  disagreement  of  the  opinions  respect- 
ing ancient  weights  that  have  been  formed  on  the 
evidence  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers  shows  the 
importiince  of  giving  the  tirst  place  to  the  evidence 
of  monuments.  The  evidence  of  the  Bible  is  clear, 
except  in  the  case  of  one  jjassage,  but  it  requires  a 
monumental  commentary.  The  general  principle 
of  the  present  inquiry  was  to  give  the  evidence  of 
the  monuments  the  preference  on  all  doubtful 
points,  and  to  compare  it  with  that  of  literature, 
so  as  to  ascertain  the  purport  of  statements  which 
otherwise  appeared  to  be  explical)le  in  two,  or  even 
three,  different  ways.  Thus,  if  a  certain  talent  is 
said  to  be  equal  to  so  many  Attic  drachms,  these 
are  usually  explained  to  be  drachms  on  the  old,  or 
Commercial  standard,  or  on  Solon's  reduced  stand- 
ard, or  again  on  the  further  reduced  standard  equal 
to  that  of  Iioman  denarii  of  the  early  emperors;  but 
if  we  ascertain  from  weights  or  coins  the  weight  of 
the  talent  in  question,  we  can  decide  with  what 
standard  it  is  compared,  unless  the  text  is  hope- 
lessly corrupt. 

Besides  this  general  principle,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  bear  in  mind  the  following  postulates. 

1.  All  ancient  (ireek  systems  of  weight  were  de- 
rived, either  directly  or  indu-ectly,  from  an  eastern 
source. 

2.  All  the  older  systems  of  ancient  Greece  and 
Persia,  the  ^ginetan,  the  Attic,  the  Babylonian, 
and  the  Euboic,  are  divisible  either  by  6,000,  or  by 
3,600. 

.3.  The  6,000th  or  3,600th  part  of  the  talent  is  a 
divisor  of  all  higher  weights  and  coins,  and  a  mul- 
tiple of  all  lower  weights  and  coins,  except  its  two 
thirds. 

4.  Coins  are  always  somewhat  below  the  stand- 
4rd  weight. 

5.  'I'he  statements  of  ancient  writers  as  to  the 


a   Plu'lolog.  Mits.  vol.  i. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 

relation  of  ditTerent  systems  are  to  be  taken  eithei 
as  indicating  original  or  current  relation.  When  a 
set  of  statements  shows  a  special  study  of  metrol- 
ogy we  must  infer  original  relation;  isolated  state- 
ments may  rather  be  thought  to  indicate  current 
relation.  All  the  statements  of  a  writer,  which  are 
not  borrowed,  probably  indicate  either  the  one  oi 
the  other  kind  of  relation. 

6.  The  statements  of  ancient  writers  are  to  be 
taken  in  their  seemingly  obvious  sense,  oi  discarded 
altogether  as  incorrect  or  unintelligible. 

7.  When  a  certain  number  of  drachms  or  other 
denominations  of  one  metal  are  said  to  correspond 
to  a  certain  number  of  drachms  or  other  denomina-- 
tions  of  another  metal,  it  must  not  be  assumed  that 
the  system  is  tlie  same  in  both  cases. 

Some  of  these  postulates  may  seem  somewhat 
strict,  but  it  nmst  be  recollected  that  some,  if  not 
all,  of  the  systems  to  be  considered  have  a  mutual 
relation  that  is  very  apt  to  lead  the  inquirer  to 
visionary  results  if  he  does  not  use  great  caution  in 
his  investigations. 

The  information  respecting  the  Hebrew  weights 
that  is  contained  in  direct  statements  necessitates 
an  examination  of  the  systems  used  by,  or  known 
to,  the  (Jreeks  as  late  as  Alexander's  time.  We 
begin  with  such  an  examination,  then  state  the  di- 
rect data  for  the  determination  of  the  Hebrew  sys- 
tem or  systems,  and  finally  endea\or  to  effect  that 
determination,  adding  a  comparative  view  of  all  our 
main  results. 

I.  Early  Greek  Talents.  —  Three  principal  sys- 
tems were  used  by  the  Greeks  before  the  time  of 
Alexander,  — tho.se  of  the^iEginetan,  the  Attic,  and 
the  Euboic  talents. 

1.  The  ^irinetan  talent  is  stated  to  have  con- 
tained 60  minfe,  and  6,000  drachms.  The  follow- 
ing points  are  incontestably  established  on  the  evi- 
dence of  ancient  writers.  Its  drachm  was  heavier 
than  the  Attic,  by  which,  when  unqualified,  we 
mean  the  drachm  of  the  full  monetary  standard, 
weighing  about  67.5  grains  Troy.  Pollux  states 
that  it  contained  10,000  Attic  drachms  and  100 
Attic  minae.  Aulus  Gellius,  referring  to  the  time 
of  Demosthenes,  speaks  of  a  talent  being  equal  to 
10,000  drachms,  and,  to  leave  no  doubt,  says  they 
would  be  the  same  number  of  denarii,  which  in  his 
own  time  were  equal  to  current  reduced  Attic 
drachms,  the  terms  drachms  and  denarii  being  then 
used  interchangeably.  In  accordance  with  these 
statements,  we  find  a  monetary  system  to  have 
been  in  use  in  Macedonia  and  Thrace,  of  which  the 
drachm  weighs  about  110  grs.,  in  very  nearly  the 
proportion  required  to  the  Attic  (6:  10;:  67.5: 
112.5). 

The  silver  coins  of  ^gina,  however,  and  of  many 
ancient  Greek  cities,  follow  a  lower  standard,  of 
which  the  drachm  has  an  average  maximum  weight 
of  about  96  grs.  The  ftimous  Cyzicene  staters  of 
electrum  appear  to  follow  the  same  standard  as  the' 
coins  of  iEgina,  for  they  weiEch  about  240  grs.,  and 
are  said  to  have  been  equal  in  value  to  28  Attic 
drachms  of  silver,  a  daric,  of  129  grs.,  being  equal 
to  20  such  drachms,  which  would  give  the  Cyzi- 
cenes  (20:  129:  :  28;  180)  three  fourths  of  gold,"the 
very  proportion  assigned  to  the  composition  of  elec- 
trum by  Pliny.  If  we  may  infer  that  the  silver 
was  not  counted  in  the  value,  the  Cyzicenes  would 
be  equal  to  low  didrachms  of  jEgina.  The  drachm 
obtained  from  the  silver  coins  of  ^gina  has  very 
nearly  the  weight,  92.3  grs.,  that  Boeckh  assigns 
to  that  of  Athens  before  Solon's  reduction,  of  whick 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


3493 


the  system  continued  in  use  afterwards  as  the  I 
L'oniniercial  talent.  The  coins  of  Alliens  give  a 
staudnrd.  G7.5  gi's.,  for  the  Solonian  druchin,  that 
does  not  idlow,  taking  that  standard  for  the  basis 
of  ooiiiputation,  a  higher  weight  for  the  ante-So- 
lonian  drachm  thau  about  that  computed  by 
Boeckh. 

An  examination  of  Mr.  Burgon's  weights  from 
Athens,  in  the  British  Museum,  has,  however,  in- 
duced us  to  infer  a  higher  standard  in  both  cases. 
These  weights  bear  inscriptions  which  ])rove  their 
denominations,  and  that  they  follow  two  systems. 
One  weighing  9,980  grs.  troy  has  the  inscription 
MNA  ArOP  {fJ.va  a7opa(os?),  another  weighing 
7,171,  simply  MNA.  \Ve  have  therefore  two  sys- 
tems evidently  in  the  relation  of  the  Commercial 
Attic,  and  Solonian  Attic  (9,980:  7,171:  :  i;38.88: 
99.7  instead  of  100),  a  conclusion  borne  out  by  the 


fuller  data  given  a  little  later  (§  I.  2).  The  lower 
weight  is  distinguished  by  AEMO  on  a  weight  of 

3,482  (X  2  =  6,964)  grs.,  and   by  q^^q  on  one 

of  884  (X  8  =  7,072) :  its  mina  was  therefore  called 
Stj^oo-i'o.  The  identity  of  these  two  systems,  the 
Market  and  the  Popular,  with  the  Commercial  and 
Solonian  of  Athens,  is  therefore  evident,  and  we 
thus  obtain  a  higher  standa'rd  for  both  Attic  tal- 
ents. From  the  correct  relation  of  the  weights  of 
the  two  niinoe  given  above,  we  may  compute  the 
drachms  of  the  two  talents  at  about  99.8  and  71.7 
grs.  The  heavier  standard  of  the  two  Attic  sys- 
tems afforded  by  these  weights  reduces  the  difficulty 
that  is  occasioned  by  the  difference  of  the  tvyo 
/Eyinetan  standards. 

We  thus  obtain  the  following  principal  standard! 
of  the  j-Esinetan  weight. 


A.  —  TABLE  OP  MR.  BURGON'S  VPEIGHTS  FROM  ATHENS. 

All  tliese  weights  are  of  iead,  except  Nos.  15  and  38,  wliich  are  of  bronze. 


Weight, 

, 

Con- 

Value, Attic 

Excess 

Value,  Attic 

Excess 

No. 

Grs. 

Inscription. 

Type. 

dition. 6 

Com- 

or 

Solonian  ^ 

or 

Troy. 

mercial. 6 

deficiency. 

deficiency. 

1 

9,980 

MNA   ArOP 

Dolphin. 

A 

Mina 

2 

9,790 

Id. 

D 

(Mina) 

-190 

3 

7,171 

MNA 

Id. 

A 

Mina 

4 

7,048 

Id. 

d 

{.Mina) 

-123 

5 

4,424 

Diota 

B 

1  MINA? 

-  356.6 

6 

3,874 

Tortoise 

B 

i  MINA  ? 

+  288.5 

3.482 

AEMO 

Id.i 

B 

i  Miua 

- 103.5 

8 

3,461 

Turtle 

B 

1  Mina 

-124.5 

9 

3,218 

TETAPT 

Tortoise 

A  ?  or  D  ? 

i  ^fINA 

-  367.5 

10 

2,959 

Half  diota 

d 

A  MINA  ? 

-f  90.6 

11 

2.8iJ5 

MO 

TurMe 

B 

i  MINA  ? 

-     3.4 

12 

2,210 

AEMO 

Half  diota 

C 

^  MINA 

-  180.3 

13 

1,872 

Half  turtle 

B 

I  MINA 

+  79.2 

14 

1.770 

EMITETAP 

Half  tortoise 

B 

1  MLNA 

-   22.7 

15 

1,698 

Crescent 

B? 

i  Mina  ? 

-298 

16 

1,648 

B 

i  Mina? 

-348 

17 

1,603 

n    M 

B?orD? 

i  Mina  ? 

-393 

18 

1,348 

B 

A 

2     deca- 
drachms. 

-   86.2 

19 

1,231 

MO 

Quarter  diota  2 

B 

/>  MINA  ? 

-f-  358 

20 

1,172 

AH 

Orescent 

B 

f,  MINA  ? 

-    23.1 

21 

1,171 

Crescent 

B 

S,  MINA? 

-    24.1 

22 

1,082 

Half  Turtle* 

B 

iMina? 

+  84 

1  Mina? 

-113  1 

23 

1,045 

AEMO 

Ure5ceut 

E 

±  Mina  ? 
1   Mina  ? 
1  Mina 
1  Miua 

- 150.1 

24 

988 

AEMO 

Diota  in  wreath  * 

B 

-1-  91.6 

25 

928.5 

AEMO 

Owl,  A.  in  field -i 

C 

-f  32.1 

2t) 

924 

Half  crescent  and 

B 

-f-  27.6 

star 

27 

915.5 

D? 

J   Mina 

+  19.1 

28 

910.5 

B 

^  Mina 

-f  14  1 

29 

901 

Quarter  diota 

B 

1  Mina 

+     io 

30 

889 

A   .   .   0 

d 

1   .Miua 

-    :.3 

31 

884 

ae  orAO 

C? 

J  Mina 

-    12.3 

32 

869 

Rose 

c? 

^  Miua 

-    27.3 

33 

859 

AEMO 

Uncertain  obj.  in 
wreath  « 

d 

J   Mina 

-   37.3 

84 

845 

Half  crescent 

B 

^  Mina  T 

-    51.S 

85 

756.5 

A 

D? 

4  didrachins 

-41.9 

3i 

541.5 

B 

8  drachms? 

-   32.1 

37 

527.5 

T 

B 

i  of  1  mina  ? 

-h28.5 

38 

450 

B? 

6  drachms  ? 

.-49 

6  drachms? 

-1-  19.7 

39 

411 

B 

4  drachms  ? 

-1-11.8 

6  drachms  ? 

_    19.2 

40 

388 

B? 

4  drachms? 

-11.2 

5  drachms? 

4-  29.4 

'  Countermark,  tripod.  =  Countermark,  prow.  3  Turtle,  headle.ss  ?  ■»  Couuterinarh 

Explanation  of  signs  :  A,  Scarcely  injured.  B,  .\  little  weight  lost.  C,  More  than  a  little  lost.  D,  Much 
^rei-'lit  lost.  d.  Much  corroded.  E,  Very  much  weight  lost.  When  two  signs  are  given,  the  former  is  th« 
More  probable.  <•  The  weight  of  the  Commercial  .\ttic  niina  is  here  itssumed  to  be  about  9,990  grs.  '  Th« 
feight  of  the  Solouian  Attic  mina  i.s  here  assumed  to  be  about  7.171  ffCi,  The  heavier  t<ilent  Ls  ludicated  bt 
capital  litters. 


3494 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


n.  The  Macedonian  talent,  or  .Eginetan  of  the 
Writers,  weigliing  alioiit  G6(»,0()0  grs.,  containing  UO 
niina.'  anil  0,000  draclinis. 

o.  The  Commercial  talent  of  Athens,  used  for 
the  coins  of  ^ilgina,  weighing,  as  a  monetary  talent, 
never  more  than  about  570,000  grs.,  reduced  lioni 
a  weight-talent  of  about  598,800,  and  divided  into 
the  same  principal  pauts  as  the  preceding. 

It  may  be  ol  jected  to  this  opinion,  that  the  coins 
of  ^Egina  should  rather  give  us  the  true  ,cEginetan 
standard  than  those  of  Macedonia,  but  it  may  iie 
replied,  that  we  know  from  literature  and  monu- 
ments of  liut  two  (jreek  systems  heavier  than  the 
ordinary  or  later  Attic,  and  that  the  heavier  of 
tliese  systems  is  sometimes  called  -lEginetan,  the 
lighter,  which  bears  two  other  names,  never. 

2.  The  Attic  talent,  when  simply  thus  desig- 
nated, is  the  standard  weight  introduced  by  Solon, 
which  stood  to  the  older  or  ("ommercial  talent  in 
Iho  relation  of  100  to  138  8-9.  Its  average  maxi- 
nnmi  weight,  a«  derived  fi'om  the  coins  of  Athens 
and  the  evidence  of  ancient  writers,  gives  a  drachm 
of  about  07.5  grs.;  but  iMr.  Hurgon's  weights,  as 
already  shown,  enable  us  to  raise  this  sum  to  71.7. 
'J'hose  weights  have  also  enabled  us  to  made  a  very 
curious  disco\ery.  ^^'e  have  already  seen  that  two 
minK,  the  Market  and  the  Popular,  are  recogidzed 
in  them,  one  weight,  having  the  inscription  MNA 
ArOP  {fiva  ayopaio^'^),  weighing  9,980  grs.,  and 
ajiother,  inscriljed  MNA  (/ii/a[5r?/iO(n'a] ),  weighing 
7,171  grs.,  these  being  in  ahnost  exactly  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Commercial  and  ordinary  Attic  niin;e 
Sriu6(Tiai.  There  is  no  indication  of  any  third 
system,  but  certain  of  the  marks  of  value  prove 
that  the  lower  system  had  two  talents,  the  heavier 
of  which  was  double  the  weight  of  the  ordin.iry 
talent.  No.  9  has  the  inscription  TETAPT,  "  the 
quarter,"  and  weighs  3,218  grs.,  giving  a  unit   of 

12,872  grs.;  No.  14,  inscribed  ^^^I,  the  "half- 
o  )  ETAP' 

quarter,"  weighs  1,770  grs.,  giving  a  unit  of  14,- 

160  irrs.      We  thus  obtain  a  mina  twice  that  of 


Sfiions  reduction.  The  probable  reason  for  the 
u.se'of  this  larger  Solonian  talent  will  be  shown  in 
a  later  place  (§  IV.).  'i'hese  weights  are  of  about 
the  date  of  the  Feloponnesian  War.  (See  Table 
A.) 

From  these  data  it  appears  that  the  Attic  talent 
weighed  about  430.200  grs.  by  the  weights,  and 
that  the  coins  give  a  talent  of  about  405,000  grs., 
the  latter  being  apparently  the  weight  to  which 
the  talent  was  reduced  after  a  time,  and  the  maxi- 
mum weight  at  wiiich  it  is  reckoned  liy  ancient 
writers.  It  gradually  lost  weight  in  the  coinage, 
until  the  drachm  fell  to  about  57  grs.  or  less,  thus 
coming  to  be  equivalent  to,  or  a  little  lighter  than, 
the  denarius  of  the  early  Caesars.  It  is  important, 
when  examining  the  statements  of  ancient  writers, 
to  consider  whether  the  full  monetary  weight  oi 
the  drachm,  mina,  or  talent,  or  the  weight  after 
tills  last  reduction,  is  intended.  There  are  caaea, 
as  in  the  comparison  of  a  talent  fallen  into  disuse, 
where  the  value  in  Attic  drachms  or  denarii  so  de- 
scrilied  is  evidently'  used  with  reference  to  the  full 
Attic  monetary  weight. 

3.  The  Euboic  talent,  though  used  in  Greece,  is 
also  said  to  ha\e  been  used  in  Persia,  and  there 
can  be  no  doubt  of  its  eastern  origin.  We  there- 
fore reserve  the  discussion  of  it  for  the  next  section 
(§  II.,  2). 

II.  Foreifpi  Tiilenis  of'  (he  same  Period.  —  Two 
foreign  systems  of  the  same  period,  besides  the  He- 
lirew,  are  mentioned  by  ancient  writers,  the  Baby- 
lonian talent  and  the  Euboic,  which  Herodotus  re- 
lates to  have  been  used  by  the  Persians  of  his  time 
respectively  for  the  weighing  of  their  silver  and  gold 
paid  in  trilmte. 

1.  The  Habylonian  talent  may  be  determined 
fr(im  existing  weights  found  by  Mr.  Layard  at 
Nineveh.  'Ihese  are  in  the  forms  of  lions  and  ducks, 
and  are  all  upon  the  same  system,  although  the 
same  denominations  sometimes  weigh  in  the  pro- 
portion of  2  to  1.  On  account  of  their  great  im- 
portance we  insert  a  table,  specifying  their  weigiita, 


B.  —  T.\BLE  OF  WEIGtlTS  FROM  NINEVEH. 

Two  weights  in  the  series  are  omitted  in  this  table:  one  is  a  large  duck  representing  the  same  weight  a< 
No.  1,  but  much  injured  ;  the  other  is  a  small  lion,  of  which  the  weight  is  doubtful,  as  it  cannot  be  decided 
whether  it  was  adjusted  with  one  or  two  rings. 


No. 


Form  and 

Phoenician 

Material. 

Inscription. 

Duck  stone 

ft 

Lion 

tt 
bronze 

XV  Manehs 
\  Manehs 

tt 

III  Manehs 

(t 

II  Manehs 

t! 

11  Manehs 

C< 

II  Manehs 

tt 

Maneh 

Maneh 
Maneh 

Fifth 

tt 

<■ 

Quarter 

Duck  stone 

Cuneiform 
Inscription. 


XXX  Manehs 
X  Manehs 


V  Manehs 
ITI  Manehs 
II  Manehs 
II  Manehs 


Maneh 
Maneh 


Marks 

Con- 

of Value. 

dition.! 

A 

B 

B 

B 

B 

C 

A 

B 

B 

A 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

B 

IiniT 

C 

iimi 

B 

iiniiii 

B 

Weight. 
Grs.   Troy. 


233..300 

77,.500 

1.5.000 

230,460 

77,820 

44,196 

30,744 

29,796 

14,604 

15,984 

14,724 

10,272 

7.224 

7,404 

3,708 

3,060 

3.648 

2,904 

2,748 

1.968 


Computed 

Di  visit 

Weight. 

Qt.  T. 

239,760 

79,920 

15,984 

239,760 

i 

79,920 

h 

47,952 

a 

31,968 

1 

Id. 

i 

15,984 

Id. 

Id. 

1 

7,992 

Id. 

3,996 

3,196 

iM 

3,996 

JM 

.3,196 

Id. 

2,131 

A.  Well  preserved.         B,  Somewhat  injured.         0,  Much  injured. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


3495 


Ifisoriptions,  and  degree  of  iireservanon.  (See  Ta- 
l)le  I?,  [)revious  page. )  • 

From  these  data  we  may  safely  draw  the  follow- 
ing inferences. 

The  weights  represent  a  doal)le  system,  of  which 
the  heavier  talent  contained  two  of  the  lighter  tal- 
ents. 

The  heavier  talent  contained  60  manehs.  The 
maneh  was  divided  into  thirtieths  and  sixtieths. 
We  conclude  the  units  having  tiiese  respective  re- 
lations to  the  maneh  of  the  heavy  talent  to  he  divis- 
ions of  it,  because  in  the  case  of  the  first  a  thirti- 
eth is  a  more  likely  division  than  a  fifteenth,  which 
it  would  he  if  assigned  to  the  lighter  talent,  and 
hecause,  in  the  case  of  the  second,  eight  sixtieths  is 
a  njore  likely  division  fh'in  eight  thirtieths. 

Tlie  lii;hter  talent  contained  fiO  manehs.  Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Ilincks,  the  maueii  of  the  lighter  talent 
was  divided  into  sixtieths,  and  these  again  into 
thirtieths.  The  sixtieth  is  so  important  a  division 
in  any  liabylonian  system,  tliat  there  can  he  no 
douht  that  Dr.  Ilincks  is  right  in  assigiiiig  it  to 
this  talent,  and  moreover  its  weight  is  a  value  of 
great  consequence  in  the  liahylonian  system  as  well 
as  in  one  deriveil  from  it.  Mesides,  the  sixtieth 
bears  a  different  name  from  the  sixtieth  of  the 
heavier  talent,  so  that  there  must  have  been  a  six- 
tieth in  each,  unless,  but  this  we  have  shown  to  be 
unlikely,  the  latter  belongs  to  the  lighter  talent, 
which  would  then  have  had  a  sixtieth  and  thirtieth. 
The  following  table  exhibits  our  results. 


Heavier  Talent. 


2 


Grs.  Troy. 
2'36  4 


-^  Maueh  532  8 

60                      30       Maneh  15.9S4 

8,600                  1,800           60        Talent  959,1140 
Lighter  Talent. 

Wn  °f  eV  ^^^^"^^  4-44 

30  gig  Maneli  133.2 

1.800  60     Maneh  7.992 

108,000  3.6U0  60  Talent  479,520 

Certain  low  subdivisions  of  the  lighter  talent  may 
be  determined  from  smaller  weights,  in  the  British 
Museum,  from  Babylonia  or  Assyria,  not  found 
with  those  last  described.  These  are,  with  one  ex- 
ception, ducks,  and  have  the  following  weights, 
which  we  compare  with  the  multi[)les  of  the  sm.all- 
est  subdivision  of  the  lighter  talent. 

Smaller  Babylonian  or  Assyrian    Thirtieths  of  Sixtieth 
Weights.  of  Maneh. 

Grs.  Troy.    Unit,  4.44    '^",111"^^^'^ 
1    Duck,  marked  II,  wt.  329         80.355  2         320 

I     I  m !    ^''-  ^•'^■'^•2      120 

i.       "                                100  25.  Ill  100 

5.       •(                               87+  22.    97.6  88 

6    Weight   like  short  )    gg  gl.     932  84 
.stopper.                ) 

7.  Duck.                            80-1-  20.     88  8  80 

8.  "  40-      10.     44  4  40 
9        "                                 34-       8      35  5           32 

10.       "  19  5.     22.2  20 

Before  coniparimr  the  evidence  of  the  coins  which 
we-  may  suppose  to  have  been  struck  acc"-ding  to 
\he  Babylonian  talent,  it  will  be  well  to  a-scertain 
vv-hether  the  higher  or  lower  talent  was  in  use,  or 
Mhether  b"th  were,  in  the  period  of  the  Persian 
coins. 

Herodotus  speaks  of  the  Babylonian  talent  as  not 
greatly  exceeding  the  Euboic,  which  has  been  com- 


puted to  be  equivalent  to  theConmiercial  Attic,  but 
njore  reasonably  as  nearly  the  same  as  tlie  ordinary 
.Attic.  Pollux  makes  the  Babylonian  talent  equal 
to  7,o;)0  Attic  drachms.  Takhig  the  Attic  drachm 
at  07.5  grs.,  the  standard  jirobably  used  by  Pollux, 
the  Babylonian  talent  would  weigh  472,500,  which 
is  very  near  the  weight  of  tlie  lighter  talent.  iEli^n 
says  that  the  Babylonian  talent  was  equal  to  72 
.Attic  miuEP,  which,  on  the  standard  of  07.5  to  the 
drachm,  gives  a  sum  of  480.000.  "We  may  there- 
fore su[ipose  that  the  lighter  talent  was  generally, 
if  not  universally,  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  PsraL'iii 
coins. 

Herodotus  relates  that  the  king  of  Persia  received 
the  silver  tribute  of  the  satrapies  according  to  the 
Babylonian  talent,  but  the  gold,  according  to  tho 
Euljo'ic.  We  may  therefore  infer  that  the  silver 
coinage  of  the  Persian  monarchy  was  then  adjusted 
to  the  former,  the  gold  coinage  to  the  latter,  if  there 
was  a  coinage  in  both  metals  so  early.  The  oldest 
coins,  both  gold  and  silver,  of  the  Persian  mon- 
archy, are  of  the  time  of  Herodotus,  if  not  a  little 
earlier;  and  there  are  still  more  ancient  pieces,  in 
boih  metals,  of  the  same  weights  as  Persian  gold 
and  silver  coins,  which  are  found  at  or  near  Sardes, 
and  can  scarcely  be  doubted  to  be  the  coinage  of 
Crcesus,  or  of  another  Lydian  king  of  the  6th  cen- 
tury. The  larger  silver  coins  of  the  Persian  mon- 
archy, and  those  of  the  satraps,  are  of  the  (bllowing 
denominations  and  weights:  — 


Piece  of  three  sigli 
Piece  of  two  sigll  , 
Siglos        .     .     ,     . 


Grs.  Troy. 
.     253.5 
.     169 
.      84.5 


The  only  denomination  of  which  we  know  tiit, 
name  is  the  siglos,  which,  as  having  the  same  type 
as  the  I  )aric,  appears  to  be  tiie  oldest  Persian  silver 
coin.  It  is  the  ninetieth  part  of  the  maneh  of  the 
lighter  talent,  .and  the  5,400th  of  that  talent.  The 
piece  of  three  sigli  is  the  thirtieth  part  of  that 
maneh,  and  the  1,800th  of  the  talent.  If  there 
were  any  doubt  as  to  these  coins  being  struck  upon 
the  Babylonian  standard,  it  would  be  removed  in 
the  next  part  of  our  inquiry,  in  which  we  shall 
show  that  the  relation  of  gold  and  silver  occasioned 
these  divisions. 

2.  The  luiboic  talent,  though  bearing  a  Greek 
name,  is  rightly  held  to  have  been  originally  an 
eastern  system.  As  it  was  used  to  weigh  the  gold 
sent  as  tribute  to  the  king  of  Persia,  we  may  infer 
that  it  was  the  standard  of  the  Persian  gold  money; 
and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppo.se  that  the  coinage  of 
I'^uboia  was  upon  its  standard.  Jf  our  result  as  to 
the  talent,  when  tested  by  the  coins  of  Persia  and 
Eubcea,  confirms  this  inference  and  supposition,  it 
may  be  considered  sound. 

We  nuist  now  discuss  the  celebrated  passage  of 
Herodotus  on  the  tribute  of  the  Persian  satrapieg. 
He  there  states  that  the  Babylonian  talent  con- 
tained 70  Euboic  minoe  (iii.  89).  He  specifies  the 
amount  of  silver  paid  in  Babylonian  talents  by  each 
province,  and  then  gives  the  sum  of  the  silver  ac- 
cording to  the  Euboic  standard,  reduces  the  gold 
paid  to  its  equivalent  in  silver,  reckoning  the  former 
at  thirteen  times  the  value  of  the  latter,  and  lastly 
gives  the  sum  total.  His  statements  may  be  thu.'* 
tabvJated  :  — 


9ui»  of  itemi,     Fmiinlent  In  i^.  T.  Equivalent   Difference 
silver.  at  iflminn;=«>  B.  T.       stated. 


.740  B.  T.    =   9,030  K.  T. 


9.540  E.  T. 


3496 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


Sold  tribute. 
at)0  E.  T. 


Equivalent  at  13  to  1. 
4,680  E.  T.  Id 


Total   .     .     13,710  E.  T 
Total  stated  14,560 

Difference  .    +850 


14,220 
14.560 

+340 


It  is  impossible  to  explain  this  double  error  in 
any  satisfactory  manner.  It  is,  however,  evident 
that  in  tlie  time  of  Herodotus  there  was  some  sucli 
relation  between  the  Baliylonian  and  Euboic  talents 
as  that  of  11.60  to  10.  This  is  so  near  12  to  10 
that  it  may  be  inquired  whether  ancient  writers 
speak  of  any  relative  value  of  gold  to  silver  about 
this  time  tliat  would  make  talents  in  this  propor- 
tion easy  fur  exchange,  and  whether,  if  such  a  pro- 
portion is  stated,  it  is  confirmed  by  the  Persian 
cMns.  The  relative  value  of  13  to  1,  stated  liy  Herod- 
otus, is  very  nearly  12  to  1,  and  seems  as  though 
it  bad  heen  the  result  of  some  change,  such  as 
might  have  been  occasioned  by  the  exhaustion  of 
the  surface-gold  in  Asia  Minor,  or  a  more  carefid 
working  of  the  Greek  silver  mines.  I'he  relative 
value  12  to  1  is  mentioned  by  Plato  {Bipjxtrc/i.). 
Aliout  Plato's  time  the  relation  was,  however,  10  to 
1.  He  is  therefore  speaking  of  an  earlier  period. 
Supposing  that  the  proportion  of  the  liabylonian 
and  KuUiic  talents  was  12  to  10,  and  that  it  was 
based  upon  a  --'ative  value  of  12  to  1,  what  light 
do  the  Persian  coins  throw  upon  the  theory?  If 
we  take  the  chief  or  only  Persian  gold  coin,  the 
Daric,  assuming  its  weight  to  be  129  grs.,  and 
multiply  it  by  12,  we  obtain  the  product  1,548.  If 
we  divide  this  product  as  follows,  we  obtain  as 
aliquot  parts  the  weights  of  all  the  principal  and 
heavier  Persian  silver  coins :  — 


-5-    9 

-1.  18 


258  three  sigli. 
172  two  sigli. 
86  sigli. 


On  these  grounds  we  may  suppose  that  the 
Euboic  talent  was  to  the  Baliylonian  as  60  to 
72,  or  5  to  6.  Taking  the  Babylonian  maneh 
at  7,992  grs.,  we  obtain  399,300  for  the  Euboic 
talent. 

This  result  is  most  remarkably  confirmed  by 
an  ancient  bronze  weight  in  the  form  of  a  lion 
discovered  at  Abydos  in  the  Troad,  and  bearing 
in  Phwnician  characters  the  following  inscription  ; 

S20D  n  N'^inZ)  b^pb  P2DS,  "Approved," 
or  "  found  correct  on  the  part  of  the  satrap  who  is 
appointed  over  the  silver,'"  or  "money."  It  weighs 
396,000  grs.,  and  is  supposed  to  have  lost  one  or 
two  pounds'  weight.  It  has  been  thought  to  be  a 
weight  of  50  Babylonian  niinse,  but  it  is  most  un- 
likely that  there  should  have  been  such  a  division 
of  t\  e  talent,  and  still  more  that  a  weight  shoidd 
have  been  made  of  that  division  without  any  dis- 
tinctive inscription.  If,  however,  the  Euboic  talent 
was  to  the  Babylonian  in  the  proportion  of  5  to  fl, 
50  Babylonian  minre  would  correspond  to  a  Kuboic 
talent,  and  this  weight  would  be  a  talent  of  that 
standard.  We  have  calculated  the  Eul)o'ic  talent 
at  399,600  grs.,  this  weight  is  396,000,  or  3,600 
deficient,  but  this  is  explained  by  the  supposed 
loss  of  one  (5,760)  or  two  (11,520)  pounds 
weight." 

We  have  now  to  test  our  result  by  the  Persian 
gold  money,  and  the  coins  of  l'',ul>o?a. 


The  principal,  if  not  the  only,  Persian  gold  c"in 
is  the  Daric,  weitrhing  about  129  grs.  Tin.'!,  we 
have  seen,  «a9  the  standard  coin,  according  to 
which  the  silver  money  was  adjusted.  Its  double 
in  actual  weight  is  found  in  the  silver  coinage,  but 
its  equivalent  is  wanting,  as  though  for  the  sake  of 
distinction.  The  double  is  the  thirtieth  of  the 
maneh  of  the  lighter  or  monetary  Babylonian 
talent,  of  whicli  the  Daric  is  the  sixtieth,  the  latter 
being,  in  our  oiiiuion,  a  known  division.  The 
weight  of  the  sixtieth  is,  it  should  lie  observed, 
about  133.2  grs.,  somewhat  in  exce.ss  of  the  weight 
of  the  Uaric,  but  ancient  coins  are  always  struck 
below  their  nominal  weight.  The  Daric  was  thus 
the  3,600th  part  of  the  Babylonian  talent.  It  is 
nowhere  stated  how  the  Euboic  talent  was  divided, 
but  if  we  suppose  it  to  have  contained  50  minaf, 
then  the  Daric  would  have  been  the  sixtieth  of  the 
mina,  l)ut  if  100  minfe,  tlie  thirtieth.  In  any  case 
it  would  have  iieen  the  3,000th  part  of  the  talent. 
.As  the  fi.000th  was  the  chief  division  of  the  .^gin- 
etan  ancf  Attic  monetary  talents,  and  the  3,000th 
of  the  Hebrew  talent  according  to  which  the  sacred 
tribute  was  paid,  and  as  an  Egyptian  talent  con- 
tained 6,000  such  units,  no  other  jirincipal  division 
of  the  chief  talents,  save  that  of  the  B.abylonian 
into  3,000,  being  known,  this  is  exactly  what  we 
should  expect. 

The  coinage  of  Euboea  has  hitherto  been  the 
great  obstacle  to  the  discovery  of  the  Euboic  talent. 
For  the  present  we  speak  only  of  the  silver  coins, 
for  the  only  gold  coin  we  know  is  later  than  the 
earliest  notices  of  the  talent,  and  it  must  therefoie 
have  been  in  (ireece  originally,  as  far  as  money 
was  concerned,  a  silver  talent.  The  coins  give  the 
following  denominations,  of  which  we  state  the 
averaire  highest  weights  and  the  assumed  true 
weights,  compared  with  the  assumed  true  weights 
of  the  coins  of  Athens;  — 


Coins  op 

EUBIEA. 

Coins  op  Athexs. 

Highest 

Assu 

ned  true 

Assumed  true 

weiy;ht. 

w 

ciglit. 

wui;,'lit. 

258 

Teti-adracbni  270 

121 

129 

Pidrachm        135 

85 

86 

63 

64.5 

Drachm            67-6 

43 

43 

Tetrobolon       46 

It  must  be  remarked  that  the  first  Euboic 
denomination  is  known  to  us  only  from  two  very 
early  coins  of  Eretria,  in  the  British  Museum, 
which  may  possilily  be  Attic,  struck  during  a 
time  of  Athenian  supremacy,  for  they  are  of 
about  the  weight  of  very  heavy  Attic  tetra- 
drachms. 

It  will  be  perceived  that  though  the  weights  of 
all  denominations,  except  the  third  in  the  Eul.oic 
list,  are  very  near  the  Attic,  the  system  of  division 
is  evidently  different.  The  third  Euboic  denomi- 
nation is  identical  with  the  Persian  siglos,  and  indi- 
cates the  Persian  origin  of  the  system.  The  second' 
piece  is,  however,  identical  with  the  Daric.  It 
would  seem  that  the  Persian  gold  and  silver  systems 
of  division  were  here  combined ;  and  this  might 
perfectly  have  been  done,  as  the  Daric,  though  a 
division  of  the  gold  talent,  is  also  a  division  of  the 
silver  t;ilent.  As  we  have  noticed,  the  Daric  is 
omitted  in  the  Persian  silver  coinage  for  some 
special  reason.  The  relation  of  the  I'ersian  and 
Greek  systems  may  be  thus  stated :  — 


Since  this  wa."  written  we  have  asoertjiined  that    talent  {Reruf  Arc/i'^olnifif/iif,  n.  s.  .Jan.  1862).   See  ais; 
<i.  de  Vogii<5  has  .<iuppotied   this   liou    to   be  a  Eubo  c    Arclicaoloaical  Jnurruil,  1860,  Sept.  pp.  199.  2lJ0. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


3497 


Persian  silver, 

Persian  ^old, 

Greeli  Euboic. 

BabTionian. 

Euboic. 

Actual  weight. 

Ai-5Uinel 

253.5 

2i:s 

169 

129 

121 

129 

sis 

85 
63 
43 

86 

64.5 

43 

The  standard  weic,'hts  of  Persian  silver  coins  are 
here  assumed  from  the  higliest  average  weigiit  of 
the  siij;los.  We  hold  that  the  coins  of  Corinth 
probably  follow  the  Euboic  S3stem. 

The  only  gold  coin  of  Euboea  known  to  us  has 
the  extraordinary  weight  of  49.4  grs.  It  is  of 
Carystus,  and  probably  in  date  a  little  before  Alex- 
ander's time.  It  may  be  upon  a  system  for  gold 
money  derived  from  the  luibo'ic,  exactly  as  the 
Kuboic  was  derived  from  the  Babylonian,  but  it  is 
not  safe  to  reason  upon  a  single  coin. 

3.  The  talents  of  Egypt  have  hitherto  formed  a 
most  unsatisfactory  subject.  We  counnence  our 
inquiry  by  stating  all  certain  data. 

The  gold  and  silver  coins  of  the  Ptolemies  follow 
the  same  standard  as  the  silver  coins  of  the  kings 
of  Macedon  to  Philip  II.  inclusive,  which  are  on  the 
full  ^Eginetan  weight.  The  copper  coins  have  been 
thought  to  follow  the  same  standard,  but  this  is  an 
error. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  are  known  to  have  had 
two  weights,  the  AleN  or  UTeX,  containing  ten 
smaller  weights  liearing  the  name  KeT,  as  M. 
Chabas  has  proved.  The  former  name,  if  rightly 
read  ]\IeN,  is  a  maneh  or  mina,  the  latter,  accord- 
ing   to    the    Copts,    was   a   drachm   or  didrachm 

(Ki't^  :  KlTe,  CKJTe,  S.  drachma,  di- 
drachma,  the  last  form  not  being  known  to  have 
the  second  signification).  A  weight,  inscribed 
"  Five  KeT,"  and  weigliing  698  grs.,  has  been  dis- 
covered. It  probalily  originally  vveiglied  about  700 
(Revue  Archeolof/iquc,  n.  s.).  We  can  thus  de- 
termine the  KeT  to  have  weighed  about  140  grs., 
and  the  MeN  or  UTeN  about  1,400.  An  exam- 
ination of  the  copper  coins  of  the  Ptolemies  has  led 
us  to  the  interesting  discovery  that  they  follow  this 
standard  and  system.  I'he  following  are  all  the 
heavier  denominations  of  the  copper  coins  of  the 
earlier  Ptolemies,  and  the  corresponding  weigiits; 
the  coins  vary  much  in  weight,  but  they  clearly  in- 
dicate their  standard  and  their  denominations:  — 

Egyptian  Copper  Coins,  and  Weights. 


Cuius. 

Grs. 
A  cir.  1400. 
B  cir.  700. 
'^  cir.  280. 
D  tir,  140. 
E  cir.      70. 


Weights. 

MeN,  or  UTeN  (Maneh?) 

5  KeT. 

(2  Ke'J"). 

KeT. 

(i  KeT). 


We  must  therefore  conclude  that  the  gold  and 
silver  standard  of  the  Ptolemies  was  different  from 
the  copper  standard,  the  latter  lieing  that  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians.  The  two  talents,  if  calculated 
from  the  coins,  which  in  the  gold  and  silver  are 
oelow  tiie  full  weight,  are  in  the  proportion  of 
about  10  (gold  and  silver)  to  13  (copjier);  or,  if 
calculated  from  the  higher  correct  standard  of  the 
gold  and  silver  system,  in  the  proportion  of  about 
10  to  12.7 :  we  sliaU  speak  as  to  the  exchange  in  a 
later  place  (§  III.). 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  difficulty  of  explain- 
ing the  statements  of  ancient  writers  ns  to  tlie 
Egyptian.  Alexandrian,  or  Ptolemaic  talent  or  tal- 
220 


ents,  probably  arises  from  the  use  of  two  systems 
which  could  be  easily  confounded,  at  least  in  their 
lower  divisions. 

4.  The  Carthaginian  talent  may  not  be  as  old  as 
the  period  before  Alexander,  to  which  we  limit  our 
inquiry,  yet  it  reaches  so  nearly  to  that  period  that 
it  cannot  be  here  omitted.  Those  silver  coins  of 
the  Carthaginians  which  do  not  follow  the  Attic 
standard  seem  to  be  struck  upon  the  standard  of 
tlie  Persian  coins,  the  Babylonian  talent.  The  only 
clew  we  have,  however,  to  the  system  is  afforded 

by  a  bronze  weight   inscribed     HD^     Vpti7^, 

and  weighing  321  grammes  =:  4,950.5  grs.  (Dr. 
Levy  in  Zeitschrift  d.  Deulsch.  miirgenl.  Uesdkch. 
xiv.  p.  710).  This  sum  is  divisible  by  the  weights 
of  all  the  chief  Carthaginian  silver  coins,  except  the 
"decadrachm,"  but  only  as  sevenths,  a  system 
of  division  we  do  not  know  to  have  obtained  in 
any  ancient  talent.  The  Carthaginian  gold  coins 
seem  also  to  be  divisions  of  this  mina  on  a  different 
principle. 

III.  The  Ihhrtxo  Tulent  arTulents  and  Divisions. 
—  The  data  we  have  obtained  enaljle  us  to  examine 
the  statements  respecting  the  Hebrew  weigiits 
with  some  expectation  of  determining  this  diffi- 
cult question.     The  evidence  may  be  thus  stated. 

1.  A  talent  of  silver  is  mentioned  in  Exodus, 
which  contained  3,000  shekels,  distinguished  as 
"  the  holy  shekel,"  or  "  shekel  of  the  sanctuary." 
The  number  of  Israelite  men  who  paid  the  ransom 
of  half  a  shekel  apiece  was  003,550,  and  the  sum 
paid  was  100  talents  and  1,775  shekels  of  silver 
(Ex.  XXX.  13,  15,  xxxviii.  25-28),  whence  we  easily 
discover  that  the  talent  of  silver  contained  3,000 
shekels  (603,550  ->  2  =  301,775  shekels  — 1,775  — 
300,000  -5-  100  talents  =  3,000  shekels  to  the  tal- 
ent). 

2.  A  gold  maneh  is  spoken  of,  and,  in  a  parallel 
passage,  shekels  are  mentioned,  three  nianehs  being 
represented  l)y  300  shekels,  a  maneh  therefore  con- 
taining 100  shekels  of  gold 

3.  .Josephus  states  that  the  Hebrew  talent  of  gold 
contained  100  miiiie  {Xv^vi-a  sk  xP^<^o^  .... 
(TTadfxhv  exo"'^°'  M""^  tKOTc^j',  &s  'Efipaioi  fx-iv 
KaAovffi  Kiyx^-P^^f  ^''  ^e  ri]v  'EAA.tjvik??!'  /x€- 
Ta^a\x6fj.evov  yKuxjaav  ff7]fj,aivet  TaKavrov, 
Ant.  iii.  6,  §  7). 

4.  Josephus  states  that  the  Hebrew  niina  of 
gold  was  equal  to  two  librae  and  a  half  {^oKhv 
bKo(T<pvpT]KaTov  xP^f^V",  (k  ixvuv  TpiaKoaiuiv 
Tr(iroi7]f.iiv7)v-  ■)]  oe  fiva  nap'  rjixtv  io'X'^f^  Airpai 
Suo  Kal  '^jxiav.  Ant.  xiv.  7,  §  1).  Taking  the 
Homan  pound  at  5,050  grs.,  the  maneh  of  gold 
would  weigh  about  12,625  grs. 

5.  I'piphanius  estimates  the  Hebrew  talent  at 
125  lioman  pounds,  which,  at  the  value  given 
above,  are  equal  to  about  631,250  grs. 

6.  A  difficult  passage  in  ICzekiel  seems  to  speak 
of  a  maneh  of  50  or  60  shekels:  "  And  the  shekel 
[shall  lie]  twenty  gertihs:  twenty  shekels,  five  and 
twenty  shekels,  fifteen  shekels,  shall  be  your  maneh  " 
(xiv.  12).  The  ordinary  text  of  the  LXX.  gives  a 
series  of  small  sums  as  the  Helirew,  though  diHer- 
ing  in  the  numbers,  but  the  Alex,  and  ^'at.  IMSS 
have  50  for  15  {ttKoffi  o&oKoi,  -KfvTi  u'ikKoi, 
TreVre  Ka\  (TikKoi  5fKa,  koI  TCiVTi)Kovra  <rl.KKot 
Tj  ixva  icrrai  ufjuv).  1  he  meaning  would  be, 
either  that  there  were  to  be  three  inaneiis,  respe;;t- 
ively  containing  20,  25,  and  15  shekels,  or  the 
like,  or  else  that  a  sum  is  intended  by  these  num- 
l)ers  (20  4-  25  -|-  15)  =  00,  or  possibly  50.      But  i« 


3498 


WEIGHTS  ANB  MEASURES 


must  be  reTnemberea  that  this  is  a  prophetical 
passage. 

7.  Josephiis  makes  the  gold  shekel  a  Daric  (AnI. 
iii.  8,  §  10). 

From  these  data  it  may  reasonably  be  inferred,  (1) 
that  the  Hebrew  gold  talent  contained  100  manehs, 
each  of  which  again  contained  100  shekels  of  gold, 
ftiul,  basing  the  calculation  on  the  stated  value 
of  the  maneh,  weighed  about  1,262,500  grs.,  or, 
basing  the  calculation  on  the  con-espondence  of  the 
gold  shekel  to  the  Daiic,  weighed  about  1,2!)(),0(>0 
grs.  (129  X  100x100),  the  latter  being  probably 
nearer  the  true  value,  as  the  2i  lilirre  may  be  sup- 
posed to  be  a  round  sum;  and  (2)  that  the  silver 
talent  contained  3,000  shekels,  and  is  probalily  the 
talent  spoken  of  by  Epiphanius  as  equal  to  125  Ro- 
man pounds,  or  631,250  grs.,  which  would  give  a 
shekel  of  210.4  grains.  It  is  to  be  oliserved  that, 
taking  the  estimate  of  .Tosephus  as  the  basis  for  cal- 
culating the  maneh  of  the  former  talent,  and  that 
of  Epiphanius  for  calculating  the  latter,  their  rela- 
tion is  exactly  2  to  1,  50  manehs  at  2i  pounds, 
making  125  pounds.  It  is  therefore  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  two  talents  of  the  same  system  are 
referred  to,  and  that  the  gold  talent  was  exactly 
double  the  silver  talent. 

l.«t  us  now  examine  the  Jewish  coins. 

1.  The  shekels  and  half-shekels  of  silver,  if  we 
take  an  average  of  the  heavier  specimens  of  the 
JIaccabean  issue,  give  the  weight  of  the  former  as 
about  220  grs.  A  talent  of  3,000  such  shekels 
would  weigh  about  660,000  <:rs.  This  result  agrees 
very  nearly  with  the  weight  of  the  talent  given 
by  Epiphanius. 

2.  The  copper  coins  are  generally  without  any 
indications  of  value.  The  two  heaviest  denomina- 
tions of  the  JIaccabean  issue,   however,   bear  the 

names  "half"  ("'!Jn),  and  "  quarter "  (V^'Dn). 
M.  de  Saulcy  gives  the  weights  of  three  "  halves  " 
as,  respectively,  2.51.6  grs.  (16.3  grammes),  236.2 
(15.3),  and  2i9.2  (14.2).  In  Mr.  Wigan's  collec- 
tion are  two  "quarters,"  weighing,  respectively, 
145.2  grs.  and  118.9  grs.;  the  former  being,  appar- 
ently, the  one  "  quarter  "  of  which  M.  de  Saulcy 
gives  the  weight  as  142.  (9.2  grammes).  We  are 
unable  to  add  the  weights  of  any  more  specimens. 
Tliere  is  a  smaller  coin  of  the  same  period,  which 
has  an  average  weight,  according  to  INI.  de  Saulcy, 
of  81  8  grs.  (5.3  grannues).  If  this  be  the  third 
of  the  '-half,"  it  would  give  the  weight  of  the 
latter  at  245.4  grs.  As  this  may  be  thought  to 
be  slender  evidence,  especially  so  far  as  the  larger 
coins  are  concerned,  it  is  important  to  ol^erve 
that  it  is  confirmed  by  the  later  coins.  From  the 
copper  coins  mentioned  above,  we  can  draw  up  the 
following  scheme,  comparing  them  with  the  silver 
coins. 

Copper  Corns.  Silver  Coins. 

Average  Supposed                    A"erase  Supposed 

weight.  weiKht.                        w.'ijiht.     weifilit. 

2.36.4  250      Shekel          ;20         220 

132.0  125      Half-shekel  110         110 

81.8  83.3   (Third)           73.3 


Half 

Quarter 

(Si.xth) 


It  is  evident  from  this  list  that  the  copper  "half" 
and  "quarter"  are  half  and  quarter  shekels,  and 
»re  nearly  in  the  relation  to  the  silver  like  denomi- 
nations of  2  to  1.  Hut  this  relation  is  not  exact, 
and  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  ascertain  further, 
whether  the  standard  of  the  silver  talent  can  be 
raised,  if  not,  whether  the  gold  t.ilent  can  be  more 


this  explanation  be  impossible,  whether  there  is  atij 
ground  for  supposing  a  third  talent  with  a  shake 
heavier  than  two  shekels  of  silver. 

The  silver  shekel  of  220  gra.  gives  a  talent  d 
660,000  grs. :  tl)is  is  the  sa'.ne  as  the  jEginetan, 
which  appears  to  be  of  Phoenician  origin.  There 
is  no  evidence  of  its  ever  haying  had  a  higher  shekel 
or  didrachm. 

The  dou'.ile  talent  of  1,320,000  grs.,  gives  a  Ua- 
ric  of  132  grs.,  which  is  only  1  gr.  and  a  small 
fraction  below  the  standard  obtained  from  the  Bab- 
ylonian talent. 

The  possiliility  of  a  separate  talent  for  copper  de- 
pends upon  the  relations  of  the  three  metals. 

The  relation  of  gold  to  silver  in  the  time  of  He- 
rodotus was  1 :  13.  The  early  relation  upon  which 
the  systems  of  weights  and  coins  used  by  the  Per- 
sian state  were  founded  was  1 :  12.  Under  the 
Ptolemies  it  was  1 :  12  5.  The  two  Hebrev^  talents, 
if  that  of  gold  were  exactly  double  that  of  silver, 
would  have  been  easy  for  exchange  in  the  relation 
of  1 :  12, 1  talei;t  of  gold  corresponding  to  24  talents 
of  silver.  The  relation  of  silver  to  copper  can  be 
best  conjectured  from  the  Ptolemaic  system,  li 
the  Hebrews  derived  this  relation  from  any  neigh- 
boring state,  Egypt  is  as  likely  to  have  influenced 
them  as  Syria;  for  the  silver  coinage  of  Egypt  was 
essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the  Hebrews,  and 
that  of  Syria  was  different.  Besides,  the  relation 
of  silver  aiwl  co])per  must  have  been  very  nearly  the 
same  in  Syria  ami  Palestine  as  in  Egypt  during  the 
period  in  which  the  .lewish  coinage  had  its  origin, 
on  account  of  the  large  commerce  between  those 
countries.  It  has,  we  venture  to  think,  been  satis- 
factorily shown  by  Letronne  that  the  relation  of 
silver  to  cojiper  under  the  Ptolemies  was  1 :  60,  a 
mina  of  silver  corresponding  to  a  talent  of  copper. 
It  has,  however,  been  supposetl  that  the  draciim  of 
copper  was  of  the  same  weight  as  that  of  gold  and 
silver,  an  opinion  which  we  have  proved  to  be  in- 
correct in  an  earlier  part  of  this  article  (§  H.  3). 
An  important  question  now  arises.  Is  the  talent 
of  copper,  w  hen  spoken  of  in  relation  to  that  of  sil- 
ver, a  talent  of  weight  or  a  talent  of  account  ?  —  in 
other  words,  Is  it  of  6,000  actual  drachms  of  140 
grs.  each,  or  of  6.000  drachms  of  account  of  about 
110  grs.  or  a  little  le.ss?  This  question  seems  to 
be  answered  in  favor  of  the  former  of  the  two  ra- 
phes by  the  facts.  (1)  that  the  copper  coins  being 
struck  upon  the  old  Egyptian  weight,  it  is  incred- 
ible that, so  jiolitic  a  prince  as  the  fu-st  Ptolemy 
should  have  introduced  a  double  system  of  reckon- 
ing, whicli  would  have  given  offense  and  occasioned 
confusion;  (2)  th-it  the  ancient  Egyptian  name  of 
the  monetary  unit  became  that  of  the  drachm,  as  is 
shown  by  its  being  retained  with  the  sense  drachm 
and  didrachm  by  the  Copts  (§  II.  3);  and  had 
there  lieen  two  didrachms  of  copper,  that  on  the 
Egyptian  system  would  probably  have  retained  the 
native  name.  We  are  of  opniion,  therefore,  that 
the  Egyptian  copper  talent  was  of  6,000  copper 
drachms  of  the  weight  of  140  grs.  each.  But  this 
solution  still  leaves  a  difficulty.  We  know  that  the 
relation  of  silver  to  copper  was  1 :  60  in  drachms, 
though  1 :  78  or  80  in  weight.  In  a  modern  state 
the  actual  relation  would  force  itself  into  the  posi- 
tion of  the  official  relation,  and  1:  60  would  become 
1 :  78  or  80 :  but  this  was  not  ni  cessarily  the  case 
in  an  ancient  country  in  so  peculiar  a  condition  aa 
Egyi)t.  Alexandria  and  a  few  other  towns  were 
Greek,  the  rest  of  the  country  purely  llgyptian ; 


than  twice  the   weight  of  the  silver,  and,  slioidd  1  and  it  is  quite  possible  that,  while  the  gold   and 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


3499 


tih-er  <^.iinage  was  current  in  the  Greek  towns,  the 
Ivjivptif.iis  may  have  refused  to  take  anything  but 
toiHier  on  their  own  stundard.  The  issue  of  copper 
Dohis  aliove  their  value  would  have  heen  a  sacrifice 
to  the  exchequer,  if  given  in  exchange  for  gold  or 
silver,  rough  or  coined ;  but  they  might  have  Ijeen 
exclusively  paid  out  for  salaries  and  small  expendi- 
ture, and  would  have  given  an  enormous  profit  to 
the  government,  if  repaid  in  small  taxes.  Suppos- 
ing  that  a  village  paid  a  silver  niina  in  taxes  col- 
lected from  small  projirietoi's,  If  they  had  only  cop- 
per the  government  would  receive  in  excess  180,(100 
grs.,  or  not  much  less  than  a  fifth  of  the  whole 
amount.  No  one  who  is  conversant  with  the 
East  in  the  present  day  will  deny  the  possibility  of 
luch  a  state  of  things  in  Egypt  under  the  Ptole- 
mies. Our  decision  may  be  aided  by  tlie  results 
of  the  two  theories  upon  the  relations  of  the 
iTietals. 


Nominal  relation 

A?    1     = 

(Stater) 
AT   I     =: 

M.  12.5 
(Miaa) 

=  «  00 
(Talent) 

JE  750 

EtelatioQ  in  weight 

M    1     ~ 

^12.6 

-       ,    80 

AI   I     = 

•*,    1,000 

It  must  be  remembered  that,  in  endeaNTiring  to 
determine  which  of  these  two  relations  is  the  co*-- 
rect  one,  we  must  be  guided  by  the  evidence  of  an- 
tiquity, not  by  the  mathematical  proiwrtions  of  the 
results,  for  we  are  now  not  dealing  with  coins,  but 
with  relations  only  originally  in  direct  connection 
with  systems  of  coinage. 

-  Ixtroniie  irives  the  relation  of  silwr  to  copjwr 
among  the  Honiaiis,  at  the  end  of  the  Third  Punic 
War,  as  I:  112,  reduced  frotn  1:8.'5.3,  both  much 
liigher  \'alues  of  the  former  metal  than  1 :  00.  It 
is  therefore  reasonable  to  sup[H)se  that  the  relation 
of  1 :  80  is  that  which  prevailed  in  Kgypt  under 
the  Ptolemies,  and  so  at  the  time  at  which  the 
first  Jewish  coins  were  struck,  that  of  Simon  the 
Maccabee. 

We  may  therefore  suppose  that  the  Hebrew 
talents  of  silver  and  copper  were  exchangeable  in 
the  pro[K)rtion  of  alwut  1 :  80,  and,  as  we  haw 
seen  that  the  coins  show  that  their  shekels  were  of 
the  relative  weight  1  :  2-f,  we  may  take  as  the 
basis  of  our  computation  the  supposition  that  50 
shekels  of  silver  wei^  equal  to  a  talent  of  copper, 
or  100  =  1  talent  double  the  former.  We  pre- 
fer the  former  relation  as  that  of  the  Egyptian 
system. 

aaiiV60=ll,000  grs.  X60=660,000+1500=440-5-2=220 
X™    770,000  51.3  3    256  6 

X72    792,000  628       264 

X75    825,000  550       275 

X80    880,000  686.6   293.3 

Of  these  results,  the  first  is  too  low,  and  the 
fourth  and  fifth  too  high,  the  second  and  third 
agreeing  with  our  approximative  estimate  of  the 
(hekel  and  half-sliekel  of  copper.  It  is,  however, 
possible  that  the  fourth  i-esult  may  l>e  the  true  one, 
IS  some  coins  giw  very  nearly  this  standard. 
Which  is  the  right  system  can  only  lie  inferred 
from  the  effect  on  the  exchange,  although  it  must 
Ve  remembered  that  very  awkward  exchanges  of 
«ilver  and  copper  may  have  olitained  wherever  cop- 
per was  not  an  important  metal.  'I'lnis  at  Athens 
8  pieces  of  brass  went  to  the  obolus,  and  7  lepta 
»  the  piece  of  brass.     The  tbrmer  relation  would 


be  easy  of  computation,  the  latter  very  inconven- 
ient. Among  the  Jews,  the  copper  coinage  was  of 
more  importance:  at  first  of  acciu'ate  fabric  aiid 
not  very  varying  weight,  afterwards  the  only  coin- 
age. Its  relation  to  the  silver  money,  and  after- 
wards to  the  I'^gyptian  and  Phoenician  currency  ot 
the  same  weight,  nuist  therefore  have  been  correct. 
On  this  ground,  we  should  prefer  the  relation  of 
silver  to  copper  1 :  72,  giving  a  talent  of  792,000 
grs.,  or  nearly  twice  the  luibolc.  The  agreement 
is  remarkable,  but  may  be  fortuitous. 

( )ur  theory  of  the  Hebrew  coinage  would  be  as 
follows :  — 

Gold   .   .  Shekel  or  Dane  (foreign)  129  grs. 
Silver    .  Shekel  220.  Half-shekel  110. 
Copper  .  Half    (-shekel)   264,  Quarter   (-shekel)  132, 
(Sixth-shekel)  88. 

We  can  now  consider  the  weights. 

The  gold  talent  contained  100  manehs,  and  10,- 
000  shekels. 

The  silver  talent  contained  3,000  shekels,  6,000 
bekas,  and  60,000  gerahs. 

The  copijer  talent  probably  contained  1,500 
shekels. 

The  "  holy  shekel,"  or  "  shekel  of  the  sanctu- 
ary "  (tt?~T|7n  b|7.ti^),  is  spoken  of  both  of  the 
gold  (Kx.  xxxviii  24)  and  silver  (25)  talents  of  the 
time  of  the  Kxodus.      We  also  read  of  "  the  king's 

weight"  ("nbiarr  pS,  2  Sam.  xiv.  26).  But 
there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  different  systems 
to  be  meant. 

■  The  significations  of  the  names  of  the  Hebrew 
weights  must  be  here  stated. 

The  talent  C^SS)  means  "  a  circle,"  or 
"glolie,"  [ux>b;ility  '-an  aggregate  sum." 

The  shekel  (  -^tr)  signifies  simply  "a  weight." 

The  beka  (VITS)  or  half-shekel,  signifies  "  a 
division,"  or  "  half." 

The  "  quarter-shekel "  (bp.C?  ^2"!)  is  once 
mentioned  (I  Sam.  ix.  8). 

The  gerah  (n~l_3)  signifies  "  a  grain,"  or 
"bean." 

IV.  riie  ffhtory  and  ReltUiom  of  the  Princi- 
pal Ancient  Talents.  —  It  is  necessary  to  add  a 
view  of  the  history  and  rel.ations  of  the  talents  we 
have  discussed  in  order  to  show  what  light  our  the- 
ories throw  upon  these  matters.  The  inquiry  must 
be  prefiicetl  by  a  list  of  the  talents:  — 

A.  Eastern  Talents. 
Hebrew  gold   .   1,320,000     Hebrew  silver      .     660,000 
Uiihy Ionian  ).   .  org  040     Babylonian  lesser  )  j-q  goQ 

(silver)      j  .   .    ''  '  (silver)  )     '   ' 

Egyptian  ....  840,000 

Persian  gold  399,600 

Hebrew  copper  ?  792,000  ? 

n.  Qrgek  Talents. 

^;ginctan 660,000 

Attic  Coinniereial 598,800 

Attic  ConuTieirial,  lowered      ....  558,900 

Attic  Solonlan,  double 860.520 

AUin  Solonlan,  ordinary 430,2'iO 

Attic  Solonlan.  lowered 405.IXI0 

Euboic 3S7,(HlO-f 

We  omit  the  liilcnt  of  the  coins  of  yEgina,  as  a 
mere  monetnrv  variety  of  the  ./Kginefan,  throuiil» 
the  Attic  Conunercial. 


3500 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


We  take  the  Hebrew  to  lie  the  oldest  system  of 
weight.  Apart  from  the  evidence  from  its  relation 
to  tlie  other  systems,  this  may  be  almost  proved  by 
our  finding  it  to  obtain  in  Greece,  in  Phoenicia,  and 
in  Judsea,  as  the  oldest  Greek  and  Phoenician 
system,  and  as  the  .lewish  system.  As  the  Jewish 
system,  it  must  have  been  of  far  greater  antiquity 
than  the  date  of  the  earliest  coin  struck  upon  it. 
'I'he  weight  according  to  which  the  ransom  was  first 
paid  must  have  been  retained  as  the  fixed  legal 
standard.  It  may  seem  surprising,  when  we  re- 
member the  general  tendency  of  money  to  depreci- 
ate, of  which  .such  instances  as  tho.se  of  the  Athen- 
ian silver  and  the  I'^lnglish  gold  will  occur  to  the 
reader,  that  this  system  should  have  been  ])reserved, 
by  any  but  the  Hel)rews,  at  its  full  weight,  from 
the  time  of  the  Exodus  to  that  of  the  earliest  Greek 
coins  upon  the  .^ginetan  standard,  a  period  proba- 
bly of  not  much  less  than  a  thousand  years;  but  we 
may  cite  the  case  of  the  .solidus  of  the  Roman  and 
Byzantine  emperors,  which  retained  its  weight  from 
its  origination  under  Constantine  the  Great  until 
the  fall  of  Constantino))le,  and  its  purity  from  the 
time  of  Constantine  until  that  of  Alexius  Comne- 
nus;  and  again  the  long  celebrity  of  the  sequin  of 
Venice  and  the  florin  of  Venice  for  their  exact 
weight.  It  nnist  be  remembered,  moreover,  that 
in  Phoenicia,  and  originally  in  Greece,  this  system 
was  that  of  the  great  trading  nation  of  antiquity, 
who  would  have  had  the  same  interest  as  the  Ve- 
netians and  Florentines  in  maintaining  the  fidl 
monetary  standard.  There  is  f^  remarkaVile  evi- 
dence in  fevor  of  the  antiquity  of  this  weight  in 
the  circumstance  that,  after  it  had  been  depreciated 
in  the  coins  of  the  kings  and  cities  of  IMacedon,  it 
was  restored,  in  the  silver  money  of  Philip  II.,  to 
its  full  monetary  standard. 

The  Hebrew  system  had  two  talents  for  the 
precious  metals  in  the  relation  of  2:  1.  The  gold 
talent,  apparently  not  used  elsewhere,  contained 
100  manehs,  each  of  which  contained  again  100 
shekels,  there  being  thus  10,000  of  these  units, 
weighing  about  1-32  grs.  each,  in  the  talent. 

The  silver  talent  also  known  as  the  ^Eginetan 
contained  3,000  shekels,  weighing  about  220  grs. 
each.  One  gold  talent  appears  to  have  been  equal 
to  24  of  these.  The  reason  for  making  the  talent 
of  gold  twice  that  of  silver  was  probably  merely 
for  the  sake  of  distinction. 

The  Babylonian  talent,  like  the  Hebrew,  con- 
sisted of  two  systems,  in  the  relation  of  2  to  1, 
upon  one  standard.  It  appears  to  have  lieen  formed 
from  the  Hebrew  by  reducing  the  number  of  units 
from  10,000  to  7,200.  The  system  was  altered  by 
the  maneh  being  raised  so  as  to  contain  120  instead 
nf  100  units,  and  the  talent  lowered  so  fis  to  con- 
tain 60  instead  of  100  manehs.  It  is  possible  that 
this  talent  was  originally  of  silver,  as  the  exchange, 
in  their  common  unit,  with  the  Hebrew  gold,  in 
the  relation  of  1  :  12,  would  be  easy,  6  units  of 
the  gold  talent  passing  for  72  of  the  silver,  so  that 
10  gold  units  would  be  equal  to  a  silver  maneh, 
which  may  explain  the  reason  of  the  change  in 
the  division  of  the  talent. 

The  derivation,  from  the  lighter  Babylonian  tal- 
ent, of  the  Kubo'ic  talent,  is  easily  ascertained. 
Their  relation  is  that  of  6 :  5,  so  that  the  whole 
■alents  could  be  readily  exchanged  in  the  relation 
pf  12  :  1;  and  the  units  being  common,  their  ex- 
.rhange  would  be  even  more  easy. 

fhe  Egyptian  talent  '■annot  be  traced  to  any 
jther.     Either   it    is   an  nidependi>nt  system,  or, 


perhaps  it  is  the  oldest  talent  and  parent  of  the 
rest.  The  Helirew  copper  talent  is  equally  ob- 
scure. Perhaps  it  is  the  double  of  the  Persian 
gold  talent. 

The  ^ginetan  talent,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the 
same  as  the  lesser  or  silver  Hebrew  talent.  Its  in- 
troduction into  Greece  was  doubtless  due  to  the 
Phoenicians.  The  Attic  Commercial  was  a  degra- 
dation of  this  talent,  and  was  itself  further  de- 
graded to  form  the  Attic  Solonian.  The  jEginetan 
talent  thus  had  five  successive  standards  (1,  Orig- 
inal ^i^ginetan;  2,  Attic  Commercial;  3,  Id.  low- 
ered; 4,  Attic  Solonian;  5,  Id.  lowered)  in  the 
following  relation :  — 


5.44: 

5. 

:  3.9 

3.6 

6. 

:  4.3 

6. 

4.3 

The  first  change  was  probably  simply  a  degra- 
dation. The  second  may  have  been  due  to  the 
influence  of  a  Grseco-Asiatic  talent  of  Cyzicus  or 
Phocjea,  of  which  the  stater  contained  about  180 
grs.  of  gold,  although  weighing,  through  the  addi- 
tion of  GO  grs.  of  silver,  about  240  grs.,  thus  im- 
plying a  talent  in  the  relation  to  the  ^Eginetan  of 
about  5:  (j.  vSolon's  change  has  been  hitherto  an 
unresolved  enigma.  The  relation  of  the  two  Attic 
talents  is  so  awkward  that  scarcely  any  division  is 
conmion  to  them  in  weight,  as  may  be  inferred 
from  the  data  in  the  table  of  Athenian  weights 
that  we  have  given.  Had  the  heavier  talent  been 
divided  into  quarters,  and  the  lighter  into  thirds, 
this  would  not  have  been  the  case.  The  reason  of 
Solon's  change  is  therefore  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
influence  of  some  other  talent.  It  has  been  sup- 
posed that  this  talent  was  the  Euboic,  but  this 
theory  is  destroyed  by  our  discovery  that  the  Attic 
standard  of  the  oldest  coins  is  below  the  weight- 
standard  of  about  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian 
War,  and  thus  that  the  reductioli  of  Solon  did  not 
bring  the  weights  down  to  the  ICuboic  standard. 
If  we  look  elsewhere  we  see  that  the  heavier  Solo- 
nian weight  is  almost  the  same  in  standard  as  the 
Egyptian,  the  didrachm  of  the  former  exceeding 
the  unit  of  the  latter  by  no  more  than  about  3  grs. 
This  exi)lanation  is  almost  proved  to  be  the  true 
one  by  the  remarkable  fact  that  the  Attic  Solonian 
talent,  apparently  unlike  all  other  Greek  talents, 
had  a  double  talent,  which  would  give  a  drachm 
instead  cf  a  didrachm,  equivalent  to  the  P^gyptian 
unit.  At  the  time  of  Solon  nothing  would  be  more 
likely  than  such  an  Egyptian  influence  as  this  ex- 
planation implies.  The  commercial  relations  of 
Egypt  and  Greece,  through  Naucratis,  were  then 
active;  and  the  tradition  or  myth  of  the  Egyptian 
ori^iin  of  the  Athenians  was  probably  never  stronger. 
The  degradation  of  the  Attic  Solonian  talent  was  no 
doubt  eflTected  by  the  influence  of  the  Euboic,  with 
the  standard  of  which  its  lower  standard  is  probably 
identical. 

The  px'incipal  authorities  upon  this  subject  are  : 
Boeckh's  Mftroloi/ische  UnUrsuchunyen ;  Momm- 
sen's  Cescliichle  des  Romischen  Miinzwesens ;  and 
Hussey's  Ancient  Weiyhts.  Don  V.  Vazquez 
Queipo's  L'ssdi  sur  les  Systemes  Melriqnes  et  Mon- 
eUiires  des  Anciens  Ptuplts  also  contains  much 
information.  The  writer  must  express  his  obliga- 
tions  to  Mr.  de  Salis,  Mr.  Vaux,  and  Mr.  E 
Wigan,  and  more  especially  to  his  colleagues  Mr 
Madden  and  Mr.  Coxe,  for  valuable  assistance. 

K.  S.  P. 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


3501 


U.  MEASURES. 

The  most  important  topic  to  be  discussed  in 
50nnection  with  the  subject  of  tlie  Hebrew  measures 
is  their  relative  and  absolute  value.  Another  topic, 
of  secondary  importance  perhaps,  but  possessing;  an 
independent  interest  of  its  own,  demands  a  few 
prefatory  remarks,  namely,  the  origin  of  these 
measures,  and  their  relation  to  those  of  surround- 
iui;  countries.  'J'he  measures  of  len<:;th  are  chietly 
derived  from  the  members  of  the  human  body, 
wliich  are  happily  adapted  to  the  purpose  from  the 
circumstance  that  they  exhibit  certain  definite  pro- 
portions relatively  to  each  other.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  assume  that  a  system  founded  on  such  a 
l)asis  was  the  invention  of  any  single  nation:  it 
would  naturally  be  adopted  by  all  in  a  rude  state 
Of  society.  Nevertheless,  the  particular  parts  of 
the  body  selected  for  the  purpose  may  form  more 
or  less  a  connecting  link  between  the  systems  of 
various  nations.  It  will  be  observed  in  the  sequel 
that  the  Hebrews  restricted  themselves  to  the  fore- 
arm, to  the  exclusion  of  the  foot  and  also  of  the 
pace,  as  a  proper  measure  of  length.  The  adop- 
tion of  foreign  names  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  as 
showing  a  probability  that  the  measures  themselves 
were  borrowed.  Hence  the  occurrence  of  words  of 
Kgyptian  extraction,  such  as  liiii  and  t/iliah,  and 
probably  ammnh  (for  "cubit"),  inclines  us  to  seek 
for  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  scales  both  of  length 
and  capacity  in  that  quarter.  The  measures  of 
capacity,  which  have  no  such  natural  standard  as 
those  of  length,  would  more  probably  be  settled  by 
conventional  usage,  and  the  existence  of  similar 
measures,  or  of  a  similar  scale  of  measures  in  dif- 
ferent nations,  would  furnish  a  strong  probability 
of  their  having  been  derived  fiom  sonie  connnon 
Bource.  Thus  the  coincidence  of  the  Hebrew  bath 
being  subdivided  into  72  logs,  and  the  Athenian 
iiu-tritih  into  72  xi-slce,  can  hardly  lie  the  result  of 
chance;  and,  if  there  further  exists  a  correspond- 
ence between  the  ratios  that  the  weights  bear  to 
the  measures,  there  would  l)e  still  further  evidence 
of  a  common  origin.  Hoeckh,  who  has  gone  fully 
into  this  sulyect  in  his  Mtlroloyisc/ie  Unlersucli- 
uiiyen,  traces  back  the  whole  system  of  weights 
and  measures  prevalent  among  the  civilized  nations 
of  antiipiity  to  Babylon  (p.  30).  The  scanty  in- 
formation we  possess  relative  to  tiie  Helirew  weights 
and  measures  as  a  connected  system,  precludes  the 
possibility  of  our  assigning  a  detinite  place  to  it  in 
ancient  metrology.  The  names  already  referred  to 
lead  to  the  inference  that  Kgypt  rather  than  Baby- 
lonia was  the  quarter  whence  it  was  derived,  and  the 
identity  of  the  Hebrew  with  the  Athenian  scales 
for  liquids  furnishes  strong  evidence 'that  these  had 
a  coninnniity  of  origin.  It  is  important,  however, 
tu  obseJ'e  in  connection  with  this  sulject,  that  an 
identitj'  of  ratios  does  i  ot  involve  an  identity  of 
absolute  quantities,  a  distinction  which  \ery  possi- 
bly escaped  the  notice  of  early  writers,  who  were 
uot  unnatmally  led  to  identify  the  nieasm-es  in 
.heir  absolute  values,  because  they  held  the  same 
relative  positions  in  the  several  scales. 


ysi'S. 


h  nDi3. 


nnt. 


''  n^S.  This  term  is  generally  referred  to  a 
Coptic  orif^in,  being  derived  from  a  word,  mnlif  or 
wahi,  signifjing  the  "  fore-arm,'"  which  with  tlio  ar- 
ticle prefixed  becomes  ammnhi  (Boeckh,  p.  265).  Ge- 
<erius,  however,  refers  it  to  the  Hebrew  word  sigiiify- 


W'e  divide  the  Hebrew  measures  into  two  classes 
according  as  they  refer  to  length  or  capacity,  and 
sul)divide  each  of  these  classes  into  two,  the  former 
into  measures  of  length  and  distance,  the  latter  into 
liquid  and  dry  measures. 

1.  Measures  of  length. 

(1.)  The  denominations  referring  to  length  were 
derived  for  the  most  part  from  the  arm  and  band. 
We  may  notice  the  following  four  as  derived  from 
this  source:  (a.)  The  ils'^n,"  or  finger's  breadth, 
mentioned  only  in  .Jer.  lii.  21.  (6.)  The  it/jii<ic/i,'> 
or  hand  breadth  (lis.  xxv.  25:  1  K.  vii.  2fi;  2 
Chr.  iv.  5),  applied  metaphorically  to  a  short  period 
of  time  in  Ps.  xxxix.  5.  ('.)  I'he  zaretlt,'^  or  span, 
the  distance  between  the  extremities  of  the  thumb 
and  the  little  finger  in  the  extended  hand  (Ex.  xxviii. 
10;  1  Sam.  xvii.  4;  Ez.  xliii.  13),  applied  gener- 
ally to  describe  any  small  measure  in  Is.  xl  12. 
(f/.)  The  animali,''  or  cubit,  the  distance  from  the 
elbow  to  the  extremity  of  the  middle  finger.  This 
occurs  very  frequently  in  the  Bilile  in  relation  to 
buildings,  such  as  the  Ark  (Cien.  vi.  1.5),  the  Tab 
ernacle  (Ex.  xxvi.,  xxvii.),  and  the  Temple  (1  K. 
vi.  2;  Ez.  xl.,  xli.).  as  well  as  in  relation  to  man's 
stature  (1  Sam.  xvii.  4;  Matt.  vi.  27),  and  other 
oljects  (Esth.  V.  14;  Zech.  v.  2).  In  addition  to 
the  above  we  may  notice:  (e.)  The  (pmtd,'^  lit.  a 
/•(«/,  applied  to  Eglon's  dirk  (Judg.  iii.  16).  Its 
length  is  uncertain,  but  it  probably  fell  below  the 
cul)it,  with  which  it  is  identified  in  the  .A..  V.  {/.) 
The  kaneliyf  or  reed  (compare  our  word  "cane") 
for  measuring  buildings  on  a  large  scale  (Ez.  v] 
5-8,  xli.  8,  xlii.  l(j-19). 

Little  information  is  furnished  by  the  Bible  itself 
as  to  the  relative  or  absolute  lengths  described  under 
the  above  terms.  With  the  exception  of  the  notice 
that  the  reed  equals  six  cubits  (Ez.  xl.  5),  we  have 
no  intimation  that  the  measures  were  combined  in 
anything  like  a  scale.  We  should  indeed  infer 
the  reverse,  from  the  circumstance  that  Jeremiah 
speaks  of  "four  fingers,"  where  according  to  the 
scale,  he  would  have  s.aid  "a  hand  breadth;  "  that 
in  the  description  of  Goliath's  height  (1  Sam.  xvii. 
4),  the  expression  "  six  culiits  and  a  span,"  is  used 
instead  of  "  six  cubits  and  a  half;  "  and  that  Ezekiel 
mentions  "  span  "  and  "  half  a  cubit  "  in  close  jux- 
taposition (xliii.  13, 17),  as  though  they  bore  no  re- 
lation to  each  other  either  in  the  ordinary  or  the 
Jong  cubit.  That  the  denominations  held  a  certain 
ratio  to  each  other,  arising  out  of  the  proportions 
of  the  members  in  the  body,  could  hardly  escape 
notice;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  ever 
worked  up  into  an  artificial  scale.  The  most  im- 
portant conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  Bililical 
notices,  is  to  the  eftect  that  the  cubit,  which  maj'  be 
regarded  as  tlie  standard  measure,  was  of  varying 
length,  and  that,  in  order  to  secure  accuracy,  it 
was  necessary  to  define  the  kind  of  cubit  intended, 
the  result  being  that  the  other  denominations,  i( 
combined  in  a  scale,  wouM  vary  in  like  ratio.  Thus 
in  Deut.  iii.  11,  the  cubit  is  sjiecified  to  be  "after 
the  cubit  of  a  man;  "  in  2  Chr.  iii.  3,  "after  the 
first,"  or  rather  "after  the  olderc  me.asure;  "  anti 
in  Ez.  xli.  8,  "a  great  cubit,"  or  literally  "a  cubit 

iiig  "  mother,"  as  though  the  fore-arm  were  in  some 
seuso  the  "  mother  of  the  arm  "  {Thrs.  p.  110). 

v't 
a  That  the  expression  nS^tt'S^  appUes  to  priority 
of  time,  as  well  as  of  order,  is  clear  from  many  piis 
sages,  as  e.  g.,  2  K.  xvii.  34  ;  Rzr.  iii.  12  ;  lias:,  ii.  3 


3502 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


J©  the  joint,"  which  is  further  defined  in  xl.  5,  to 
be  "  a  cubit  and  an  hand-breadth."  These  expres- 
sions involve  one  of  tlie  most  knotty  points  of 
Hebrew  archaeology,  namely,  the  number  and  the 
respective  lengths  of  the  Scriptural  cubits.  That 
there  was  more  than  one  cubit,  is  clear;  but  whether 
there  were  three,  or  only  two,  is  not  so  clear.  We 
shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  topic  again ; 
tor  the  present  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  the 
consideration  of  the  expressions  themselves.  A 
cubit  "after  the  cubit  of  a  man,"  implies  the  ex- 
istence of  another  cubit,  which  was  either  longer  or 
shorter  than  it,  and  from  analogy  it  may  be  t;iken 
for  granted  that  this  second  cubit  would  be  the 
longer  of  the  two.  But  what  is  meant  by  the 
"  ammah  of  a  man  ?  "  Is  it  the  cubitus  in  the 
anatomical  sense  of  the  term,  in  other  words, 
the  bone  of  the  fore-arm  between  the  elbow  and 
the  wrist?  or  is  it  the  full  cubit  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  term,  from  the  elbow  to  the  extremity 
of  the  middle  finger?  What,  again,  are  we  to 
understand  by  Ezekiel's  expression,  "  cubit  to  the 
•oint?"  The  term  aislsil,"  is  explained  by  Gese- 
nius  {TItes.  p.  144)  of  the  knuckks,  and  not  of  the 
"armholes,"  as  in  the  A.  V.  of  Jer.  xxxviii.  12, 
where  our  translators  have  omitted  all  reference  to 
the  word  ymUcd,  which  follows  it.  A  "  cubit  to 
the  knuckles "  would  imply  the  space  from  the 
elbow  to  the  knuckles,  and  as  this  cubit  exceeded 
by  a  hand-iireadtii  the  ordinary  cubit,  we  should 
infer  that  it  was  contradistiuiiuished  from  the  cubit 
that  reached  only  to  the  wrist.  The  meaning  of 
the  word  is,  however,  contested  :  Hitzig  gives  it  the 
sense  of  a  comiecliny  ivall  {  Coiniii.  on  Jer.).  Stur- 
mius  (Sciciiji:  p.  94)  understands  it  of  the  e(l(/e  of 
the  walls,  and  others  in  the  sense  of  a  winy  of  a 
building  (Kosenmiiller,  Scliol.  in  Jer.).  Michaelis 
on  the  other  hand  understands  it  of  the  knuckles 
{Siijjplem.  p.  119),  and  so  does  Saalschiitz  (Arcldivl. 
ii.  165).  The  expressions  now  discussed,  taken 
together,  certainly  favor  the  idea  that  the  culiit 
of  the  Bible  did  not  come  up  to  the  full  length  of 
the  cubit  of  other  countries.  A  fnrtlier  question 
remains  to  be  discussed,  namely,  whether  more  than 
two  cubits  were  in  vogue  among  the  Hebrews.  It 
is  generally  conceded  that  the  "former"  or  "older" 
measure  of  2  Chr.  iii.  3,  was  the  Mosaic  or  legal 
cubit,  and  that  the  modern  measure,  the  existence 
of  which  is  implied  in  that  designation,  was  some- 
what larger.  Further,  the  cubit  "  after  the  cubit 
of  a  man"  of  Deut.  iii.  11,  is  held  to  be  a  com- 
mon measure  in  contradistinction  to  the  Mosaic 
one,  and  to  have  fallen  below  this  latter  in  point 
of  length  In  this  case,  we  should  have  three 
cubits  —  the  common,  the  Mosaic  or  old  measure, 
and  the  new  measure.  We  turn  to  Ezekiel  and 
find  a  distinction  of  another  character,  namely,  a 
long  and  a  short  cubit.  Kow,  it  has  been  urged 
by  many  writers,  and  we  think  with  good  reason, 
that  Ezekiel  would  not  be  likely  to  adopt  any  other 
than  the  old  orthodox  Mosaic  standard  for  the 
measurements  of  his  ideal  temple.  If  so,  his  long 
cubit  would  be  identified  with  the  old  measure, 
and  his  short  cubit  with  the  one  "after  the  cubit 
of  a  man,"  and  the  nnw  measure  of  2  Chr.  iii.  3 
would  rei)resent  a  still  longer  cubit  than  Ezekiel's 
long  one.  Other  explanations  of  the  prophet's 
language  have,  however,  been  offered .  it  has  been 


'  KnotMil  assumes  tnac  ttiere  were  steps,  and  that 


sometimes  assumed  that,  while  living  in  Chaldjpa 
he  and  his  countrymen  had  adopted  the  long  Baby- 
lonian cubit  (Jahn,  Archmol.  §  113);  but  in  thia 
case  his  short  cubit  could  not  have  lielonged  to  the 
same  country,  inasmuch  as  the  difference  between 
these  two  amounted  to  only  three  fingers  (Herod, 
i.  178).  Again,  it  has  been  explained  that  his 
short  cubit  was  the  ordinary  Chaldsean  measure, 
and  the  long  one  the  Jlosaic  measure  (Rosenn)iiller 
in  F.z.  xl.  5);  but  this  is  unlikely  on  account  of  the 
respective  lengths  of  the  Babylonian  and  the  Mosaic 
cubits,  to  which  we  shall  hereafter  refer.  Inde- 
pendently of  these  objections,  we  think  that  the 
passages  previously  discussed  (Deut.  iii.  11;  2  Chr. 
iii.  3)  imply  the  existence  of  three  cubits.  It  re- 
mains to  be  inquired  whether  from  the  Bible  itself 
we  can  extract  any  information  as  to  the  length 
of  the  Mosaic  or  legal  cubit.  The  notices  of  the 
height  of  the  altar  and  of  the  height  of  the  lavers 
in  the  Temple  are  of  importance  in  this  respect. 
In  the  former  ease  three  cubits  is  specified  (Ex. 
xxvii.  1),  with  a  direct  prohibition  against  the  use 
of  steps  (Ex.  XX.  26);  in  the  latter,  the  height  of 
the  base  on  which  the  laver  was  placed  was  three 
cubits  (I  K.  vii.  27).  If  we  adopt  the  ordinary 
length  of  the  cubit  (say  20  inches),  the  heights 
of  the  altar  and  of  the  base  would  be  5  feet.  But 
it  would  be  extremely  inconvenient,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  minister  at  an  altar,  or  to  use  a  laver 
|)laced  at  such  a  height.  In  order  to  meet  thia 
difficulty  without  any  alteration  of  the  length  of 
the  cubit,  it  nuist  be  assumed*  that  an  inclined 
plane  led  up  to  it,  as  was  the  case  with  the  loftier 
altar  of  the  Temple  (Mishn.  Midd.  3,  §§  1,  3). 
But  such  a  contrivance  is  contrary  to  the  spirii  of 
tlie  text;  and,  even  if  suited  to  the  altar,  would  be 
wholly  needless  for  the  lavers.  Hence  Saalschiitz 
infers  that  the  cubit  did  not  exceed  a  Prussian  foot, 
which  is  less  than  an  English  foot  (Arclicivl.  ii. 
167).  The  other  instances  adducal  by  him  are  not 
so  much  to  the  point.  The  molten  sea  was  not 
designed  for  the  purpose  of  bathing  (though  thia 
impression  is  conveyed  by  2  Chr.  iv.  6  as  given  in 
the  A.  v.),  and  therefore  no  conclusion  can  be 
drawn  from  the  depth  of  the  water  in  it.  The 
height  of  Og,  as  inferred  from  the  length  of  his 
bedstead  (9  cubits,  Deut.  iii.  11),  and  the  height 
of  Goliath  (6  cubits  and  a  span,  1  Sam.  xvii.  4), 
are  not  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  cubit  about 
18  inches  long,  if  credit  can  be  given  to  other 
recorded  instances  of  extraordinary  stature  (Plin. 
vii.  2,  16;  Herod,  i.  68:  Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  4,  § 
5).  At  the  same  time  the  rendering  of  the  LXX. 
in  1  Sam.  xvii.  4,  which  is  followed  by  Josephua 
{Ant.  vi.  9,  §  1),  and  which  reduces  the  number 
of  cubits  to  four,  suggests  either  an  error  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  or  a  considerable  increase  in  the 
length  of  the  cubit  in  later  times. 

The  foregoing  examination  of  Biblical  notices 
has  tended  to  the  conclusion  that  the  cubit  of  e.idy 
times  fell  far  below  the  length  usually  assigned  to 
it;  but  these  notices  are  so  scanty  and  ambiguous 
that  this  conclusion  is  by  no  means  decisive.  We 
now  turn  to  collateral  sources  of  information,  which 
we  will  follow  out  as  far  as  possible  in  chrono- 
logical order.  The  earliest  and  most  reliable  testi- 
mony as  to  the  length  of  the  cubit  is  supplied  by 
the  existing  specimens  of  old  Egyptian  measures. 


the  prohibition  in  Ex.  xx.  26  emanates  from  an  authoi 
wlio  wrote  in  ignorance  of  tho  previous  direction* 
I  {Cuiinn.  on  Ex.  xxvii.  1). 


WEIGHTS  AN 

Several  of  these  have  tieen  discovered  in  tomhs, 
earning  us  back  at  all  events  to  1700  h.  c,  wliiie 
the  Nilonieter  at  Elepliantine  exhibifg  the  leimtli 
of  the  cubit  in  the  time  of  the  Homau  emjierors 
No  great  difference  is  exhil)ited  in  tliese  measures, 
the  longest  lieiiig  estimated  at  about  21  inches, 
and  the  shortest  at  alwut  20^,  or  exactly  20.472IJ 
inches  (Wilkinson,  Aiic.  Ky.  ii.  258).  Thev  are 
divided  into  28  digits,  and  in  this  respect  contrast 
with  the  Mosaic  cubit,  which,  according  to  Kab- 
binical  authorities,  was  divided  into  24  dibits. 
There  is  some  difficult}'  in  reconciling  tliis  dis- 
crepancy witli  the  almost  certain  fact  of  the  deri- 
vation of  the  cubit  from  Kgypt.  It  has  been 
generally  surmised  that  tlie  Egyptian  cubit  was  of 
more  than  one  length,  and  that  the  sepulchral 
measures  eiliibit  the  shorter  as  well  a.<i  tlie  longer 
by  special  ui;u-ks.  Wilkinson  denies  tlie  existence 
of  more  than  one  cubit  {Anc.  Eij  ii.  257-25!)), 
apparently  on  the  grmuid  that,  tlie  tcjtal  lengtlis  of 
tlie  uiea«ui«s  do  not  materially  vary.  It  may  !« 
conceded  that  the  measures  are  intended  to  iiepre 
sent  the  same  length,  the  variation  beiiiu;  gimply 
the  result  of  uieeiianical  inaccuracy:  but  this  does 
not  decide  the  question  of  the  double  cubit,  which 
rather  turns  on  the  [leculiarities  of  notation  ob- 
servable on  these  measures.  For  a  full  discussion 
of  this  jjoint  ue  must  refer  tlie  reader  to  Thenius's 
essay  in  the  Theolot/isehe  SliK/itn  uiul  KrUiketi  for 
1846,  pp.  297-342.  Our  limiU  will  permit  only  a 
brief  statement  of  the  fa<!ts  of  the  case,  and  of  the 
views  expressed  in  nefereiice  to  them.  The  most 
perfect  of  the  I'^gyptian  cubit  measures  are  those 
preserved  iii  the  Turin  aiid  Louvre  .Museuma.  Tlie^ 
are  unequally  divided  into  two  parts,  tlie  one  on 
the  right  hand  containing  1.5,  and  the  other  1.3 
digits.  In  the  former  part  the  digits  are  suf)- 
divided  into  aliquot  parts  from  i  to  _l_,  reckoning 
from  right  to  left.  In  the  latter  |)art  the  digits 
are  marked  on  the  lower  edge  in  the  Tuiia,  and  on 
the  upper  edge  in  the  louvre  me.asure.  In  the 
Turin  measure  the  three  left-hand  digits  exceed  the 
others  in  size,  and  have  marks  over  them  indicating 
either  fiiigers  or  tlie  numerals  1,  2.  S.  The  four 
left-hand  digits  are  also  marked  off  from  the  rest 
by  a  double  stroke,  and  are  further  distinguished  by 
hieroglyphic  marks  supix)sed  to  indicate  that  they 
are  digits  of  the  old  measure.  There  are  also 
special  marks  tetween  the  Oth  and  7th,  and  be- 
tween the  10th  and  11th  digits  of  the  left  hand 
portion  In  the  Ijuuvre  cubit  two  digits  are  marked 
ott'ou  the  lower  edge  by  lines  running  in  a  slight- 
ly trans\erse  direction,  thus  producing  a  greater 
length  than  is  given  on  the  upper  side.  It  has 
been  found  that  each  of  the  three  aliove  specified 
digits  in  the  Turin  me;isure  =  J--  of  the  whole 
length,  less  these  three  digits;  or,  to  put  it  in 
another  form,  the  lour  left-hand  digits  ;=  1  of  the 
2.5  right-hand  digit« :  also  that  each  of  the  two 
digits  in  the  Ixmvre  measure  =  ^j  of  the  whole 
lenyth,  leas  these  two  digits;  and  further,  that 
twice  the  left  half  of  either  measure  =  the  whole 
length  of  the  Louvre  measure,  less  the  two  diixits. 
Most  writers  on  the  subject  agree  in  the  conclusion 
'hat  the  measures  contain  a  comliination  of  two,  if 
jot  three,  kinds  of  cubit.  Great  difference  of 
opinion,  however,  is  manifested  as  to  jiarticulars. 


«  The  jirecl.-*  amount  of  484289  is  obtaiuod  by 
taking  the  mean  of  the  four  folIo"iii{{  amounts :  ^^ 
»f  623..")2't,  the  tofcil  length  of  the  Turin  uieasuri'.  = 
IB6.13L);    tivice  the  left-hand  divisiuu   of  the  sama 


D  MEASURES  3503 

Thenius  makes  the  difference  between  the  roya' 
and  old  cubits  to  be  no  more  than  two  digits,  the 
averai^e  length  of  the  latter  being  484.289"  mil- 
limetres, or  19.0(jti  inches,  as  compared  with 
52:i.524  millimetres,  or  20.611  inches  and  523 
milliiiii'tres,  or  20  591  inches,  the  lengths  of  the 
Turin  and  Louvre  measures  respectively.  He  ac- 
counts for  the  additional  two  digits  as  originating 
in  the  pract^e  of  placing  the  two  fingers  crosswaya 
at  the  end  of  the  arm  and  hand  used  in  measuring, 
so  as  to  mark  the  spot  up  to  which  the  cloth  or 
other  article  has  Ijeen  measured.  He  further  finds, 
in  the  notation  of  the  Turin  measure,  indications 
of  a  third  or  ordinary  cubit  23  digits  in  length. 
Another  explanation  is  that  the  old  cubit  consi-sted 
of  24  old  or  25  new  digits,  and  that  its  length  was 
4!)2  millimetres,  or  18.189  inches;  and  again, 
others  put  the  old  cubit  at  24  new  digits,  as 
markefl  on  the  measures.  The  relative  proportion* 
of  the  two  wouki  be.  on  these  sevei'al  hyix;tliesea, 
as  28  :  2G,  as  28  :  2.j,  ami  as  28  :  24. 

The  use  of  more  than  one  cubit  appears  to  have 
also  prevailed  in  Babylon,  for  Herodotus  states 
that  the  "royal"  exceeded  the  '•  moderate  "  cubit 
(tt^jX'S  fj-irpios)  by  three  digits  (i.  178).  The 
appellation  "  royal,"  if  IwiTowed  from  the  Baby- 
lonians, would  itself  imply  the  e.visteuce  of  another; 
but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  this  other  wag 
the  "  moderate"  cubit  mentioned  in  the  text.  The 
majority  of  critics  think  that  Herodotus  is  there 
s|(eaking  of  the  ordinary  Greek  cubit  (Boeckh,  p. 
214),  though  the  op|X)site  view  is  affirmed  by 
Grote  in  his  notice  of  Boeckh's  work  (CIuks.  Mus. 
i.  28).  Even  if  the  Greek  cubit  be  understood,  a 
further  difficulty  arises  out  of  the  uncertainty 
whether  Herodotus  is  sjjeaking  of  digits  as  they 
stood  on  the  (Jrtek  or  on  the  Babylonian  measure 
In  the  one  ease  the  projxirtions  of  the  two  would 
lie  as  8  :  7,  in  the  other  case  as  9  :  8.  Boeckh 
adopts  the  Babylonian  digits  (without  good  reason, 
we  think),  and  estimates  the  Bal)ylonian  royal  cubit 
at  234.2743  Paris  lines,  or  20.806  inches  (p.  219). 
A  greater  length  would  lie  assigned  to  it  according 
to  the  data  furnished  by  iM.  Opjiert,  as  stated  in 
l.'awliiison's  lie, oil.  i.  315;  for  if  the  cubit  and 
ftiot  stood  in  the  ratio  of  5  :  3,  and  if  the  latter 
contained  15  digits,  and  had  a  length  of  315  milli- 
metres, then  the  iengtU  of  the  ordinary  cubit 
would  te  525  millimetreg,  and  of  the  royal  cubit, 
assuming,  with  Mr.  Grote,  that  the  cubits  in  each 
c;ise  were  Babylonian,  588  niilliniL'tres,  or  23.149 
inches. 

lieverting  to  the  Hebrew  measures,  we  slwuld  be 
disposed  to  identify  the  nvuo  measure  implied  in 
2  Chr.  iii.  3  with  the  full  Egyptian  cubit;  the 
>'  old  "  measure  and  Ezekiel's  cubit  with  the  lesser 
one,  either  of  20  or  24  digits;  and  the  "  cubit  of  a 
man  "  with  the  thinl  one  of  which  Thenius  speaks. 
Boeckh.  however,  identities  the  Mosaic  measure 
with  the  full  l^gyptian  cubit,  and  accounts  for  the 
difference  in  the  number  of  digit*  on  the  hyijothesig 
that  the  Hebrews  substituted  a  division  into  24 
tor  that  into  28  digits,  the  size  of  the  digits  lieiiig 
of  Course  increased  (pp.  206,  207).  With  regard 
to  the  Babylonian  measure,  it  seems  highly  im- 
pi-obable  that  either  the  ordinary  or  the  royai  cubit 
could  be  identilied  with  Ezekiel's  short  cubii.  (as 

menBure,  =  480. 792 ;  the  length  of  the  20  digit*  on 
the  Louvre  niejisure,  =  480. .375 ;  iind  twice  tl»e  le/t 
haud  divisiou  of  the  same,  =  483.SG0. 


350i 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


RosenmiAller  thinks),  seeing  that  its  length  on  eithec. 
of  the  computations  above  offered  exceeded  that  of 
the  Egyptian  cubit. 

In  the  Mishnah  the  Mosaic  cubit  is  defined  to  be 
one  of  six  pahiis  {  Cclim,  p.  17,  §  10).  It  is  termed 
the  moderate"  cubit,  and  is  distinguished  from  a 
lesser  cubit  of  fi\'e  palms  on  the  one  side  ( Celim, 
ibid.),  and  on  the  other  side  from  a  larger  one, 
consisting,  according  to  Bartenora  {ith  CtL  17,  § 
9),  of  six  palms  and  a  digit.  The  palm  consisted, 
according  to  Maimonides  (ibid.),  of  four  digits; 
and  the  digit,  according  to  Arias  Montanus  {Ant. 
p.  113),  of  four  barleycorns.  This  gives  144  bar- 
leycorns as  the  length  of  the  cubit,  which  accords 
with  the  number  assigned  to  the  cubitus  Justus  et 
tntdiocris  of  the  Arabians  (Boeckh,  p.  246).  The 
length  of  the  Mosaic  cubit,  as  computed  by  The- 
nius  (after  several  trials  with  the  specified  number 
of  barleycorns  of  middling  size,  placed  side 'by 
side),  is  214.512  Paris  lines,  or  lO.O.'JlS  inches 
{St.  u.  Kr.  p.  110).  It  seems  hardly  possible  to 
arrive  at  any  very  exact  conclusion  by  fhis  mode 
of  calculation.  Kisenschmid  estimated  144  barley- 
corns as  equal  to  238. -3.5  Paris  lines  (Boeckh,  p. 
2(J9),  perhaps  from  having  used  larger  grains  than 
the  average.  The  writer  of  the  article  on  "  Weights 
and  Measures "  in  the  Penny  Ct/cIopcu'Jia  (xviii. 
198)  gives,  as  the  result  of  his  own  exjierience, 
that  38  avera<;e  grains  make  up  .5  inches,  in  which 
case  144  =  18.947  inches;  while  the  length  of  tiie 
Arabian  cubit  referred  to  is  computed  at  213.0.58 
Paris  lines  (Boeckh,  p.  247).  The  Talmudists  state 
that  the  Jlosaic  cubit  was  used  for  the  edifice  of 
the  Tabernacle  and  Temple,  and  the  lesser  cubit 
for  the  vessels  thereof.'^  This  was  probalily  a  fic- 
tion; for  the  authorities  were  not  agreed  among 
themselves  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  lesser 
cubit  was  used,  some  of  them  restricting  it  to  tlie 
golden  altar,  and  parts  of  the  brazen  altar  (Mish- 
nah. Cel.  p.  17,  §  10).  But  this  distinction,  ficti- 
tious as  it  may  have  been,  shows  that  the  cubits 
were  not  regarded  in  the  light  of  sacrtd  and  pro- 
fiine,  as  stated  in  works  on  Hebrew  archaeology. 
Another  distinction,  adopted  by  the  Kabbinists  in 
reference  to  the  p;dm,  would  tend  to  show  that 
they  did  not  rigidly  adhere  to  any  definite  length 
of  cubit  r  for  they  recognized  two  kinds  of  palms, 
one  wherein  the  fingers  lay  loosely  open,  which 
they  denominated  a  smiling  palm  ;  the  other 
wherein  the  fingers  were  closely  compressed,  and 
styled  the  (jvitviny  palm  (Carpzov,  Appar.  pp. 
074,  676). 

i'he  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the  foregoing 
Considerations  are  not  of  the  decisive  character  that 
we  would  wish.  For  while  the  collateral  evidence 
derived  from  the  practice  of  the  adjacent  countries 
and  from  later  Jewish  authorities  la\ors  the  idea 
that  the  Biblical  culiit  varied  but  little  from  the 
length  usually  assigned  to  that  measure,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  Bible  itself  is  in  favor  of  one  consider- 
ably shorter.  This  e\  idence  is,  however,  of  .so  un- 
certain a  character,  turning  on  points  of  criticism 
and  on  brief  notices,  that  we  can  hardly  venture  to 
adopt  it  as  our  standard.     We  accept,  therefore. 


6  Hence   tliey  were   denominated    7"*33n  PI^S, 
cuMt  of  the  building,"  and   l1^    ^H    S,  "cubit 


with  reservation,  the  estimate  of  Theniiis,  and  from 
the  cubit  we  estimate  the  absolute  length  of  tht 
other  denominations  according  to  the  proportiona 
existing  between  the  members  of  the  body,  the  cubit 
equaling  the  two  spans  (compare  Ex.  xxv.  3,  10 
with  Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  6,  §§  5,  6),  the  span  three 
palms,  and  the  palm  four  digits. 


Digit 
4 

12 

24 
144 


Inches, 

79.38 

Palm 3.1752 

3  Span 9.5257 

6  2     I  Cubit    ....     19.0515 

12  6      I  Keed       .   114.3090 


if  the  vessels." 
c  The  term 


"  acre "  occurs    in    the    A.  V.  as  the 


Land  and  area  were  measured  either  by  the  cubit 
(Num.  XXXV.  4,  5;  Ez.  xl.  27)  or  liy  the  reed  (Ez. 
xlii.  20,  xliii.  17,  xlv.  2,  xlviii.  20;  Rev.  xxi.  16). 
There  is  no  indication  in  the  Bible  of  the  use  of  a 
square  measure  liy  the  Jews.<^  "Whenever  they 
wished  to  define  the  size  of  a  plot,  they  specified 
its  length  and  breadth,  even  if  it  were  a  perfect 
square,  as  in  Ez.  xlviii.  16.  The  difficulty  of  de- 
fining an  area  by  these  means  is  experienced  in  the 
interpretation  of  Num.  xxxv.  4,  5,  where  the 
suburbs  of  the  Levitical  cities  are  described  as  reach- 
ing outward  from  the  wall  of  the  city  1,000  cubits 
round  about,  and  at  the  same  time  2,000  cubits  on 
each  side  from  without  the  city.  We  can  hardly 
understand  these  two  measurements  otherwise  than 
as  applying,  the  one  to  the  width,  the  other  to  the 
external  boundary  of  the  suburb,  the  measurements 
being  taken  respectively  perpendicular  and  parallel 
to  the  city  walls.  But  in  this  case  it  is  necessary 
to  miderstand  the  words  rendered  "  from  without 
the  city,"  in  ver.  5,  as  meaning  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  city,  so  that  the  length  of  the  city  wall  should 
be  added  in  e.ach  case  to  the  2,000  cubits.  The  re- 
sult would  be  that  the  size  of  the  areas  would  vary, 
and  that  where  the  city  walls  were  unequal  in 
length,  the  sides  of  the  suburb  would  lie  also  un- 
equal. For  instance,  if  the  city  wall  was  500  cul)its 
long,  then  the  side  of  the  suburli  would  be  2,500 
cubits;  if  the  city  wall  were  1,000  cubits,  then  the 
side  of  the  suburb  would  be  3,000  cubits.  Assi-m- 
ing  the  existence  of  two  towns,  500  and  1,000  cubits 
s()nare,  the  ai-ea  of  the  suburb  would  in  the  former 
case  =  6,000,000  square  cnbits,  and  would  be  24 
times  the  size  of  the  town ;  while  in  the  latter  case 
the  suburb  would  be  8,000,000  square  cubits,  and 
only  8  times  the  size  of  the  t'^wn.  This  explana- 
tion is  not  wholly  satisfactory,  on  account  of  the 
disproportion  of  the  suburbs  as  compared  with  the 
towns;  nevertheless  any  other  explanation  only  ex- 
aggerates this  disproportion.  Keil,  in  his  comment 
on  Josh.  xiv.  4,  assumes  that  the  city  wall  was  in 
all  cases  to  be  regarded  as  1,000  cubits  long,  which 
with  the  1,000  cubits  outside  the  wall,  and  measured 
in  the  sauje  direction  as  the  wall,  would  make  up 
the  2,000  cubits,  and  would  give  to  the  .side  of  the 
suburb  in  every  case  a  length  of  3,000  cubits.  The' 
objection  to  this  view  is  that  there  is  no  evidence  as 
to  an  uniform  length  of  the  city  walls,  and  that  the 
suburb  might  have  been  more  conveniently  de- 
scribed as  3,000  cubits  on  each  side.    All  ambiguity 

equivalent  for  madnnh  (HSPfi)  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  14 

aud  {oTtze}>ied  (ip^)  in  Is.  v.  10.  The  latter  term 
also  occurs  in  the  passage  first  quoted,  and  would  with 
moie  consistency  be  rendered  acre  instead  of  "yoke." 
It  uieaus  such  an  aniouut  of  land  as  a  yoke  of  exes 
would  plough  iu  a  day,     Madnah  mef  ns  a  furrow. 


WEIGHTS  aHH)  measures 


3505 


nouid  Lave  been  avoided  if  the  size  of  tlie  suburb 
bad  been  decided  eitber  by  alisokite  or  relative 
Bcreaije;  in  otber  words,  if  it  were  to  consist  in  ;dl 
cases  of  a  certain  fixed  acreage  outside  tbe  walls,  or 
if  it  were  made  to  vary  in  a  certain  ratio  to  tbe  i-i  e 
of  the  town.  As  tbe  text  stands,  neither  of  these 
methods  can  be  deduced  from  it. 

(2.)  Tbe  measures  of  distance  noticed  in  tbe  Old 
Testament  are  tbe  three  followin;^:  (a.)  Tbe 
tsa\i(/,c  or  pace  (2  Sara.  vi.  13),  answerinji;  gener- 
all}'  to  our  yard.  (6.)  Tbe  C'ibrath  hmrtUfi  ren- 
dered in  the  A.  V.  "  a  little  way  "  or  "  a  little  piece 
of  ground  "  (Gen.  xxxv.  IG,  xlviii.  7 ;  2  K.  v.  19 ;. 
The  expression  appears  to  indicate  some  definiie 
distance,  but  we  are  unable  to  state  witli  precision 
what  that  distance  was.  The  LXX.  retains  tbe 
Hebrew  word  in  tbe  form  Xa&padd,  as  though  it 
were  tbe  name  of  a  place,  adding  in  Gen.  xlviii.  7 
tbe  words  Kara  rbc  iTTTrc^Spo^oi/,  which  is  thus  a 
second  trnislation  of  tlie  expression.  If  a  certain 
distance  was  intended  by  this  translation,  it  would 
be  either  the  ordinary  length  of  a  race-course,  or 
such  a  distance  as  a  horse  could  travel  without  be- 
ing over-fatigued,  in  otber  words,  a  stage.     But  it 


with  the  following  additional  measures:  ((/.)  Tht 
Salibath-day's  journey,^  already  discussed  in 
sepaiate  article,  (e.)  Tbe  s<«'//on,/or  "  fui^ng,' 
a  (.ireek  measure  introduced  into  Asia  subsequeutlj 
to  Alexander's  conquest,  and  hence  first  mentioned 
in  tbe  .Apocrypha  (2  Mace  xi.  5,  xii.  9,  17,  29),  and 
sulisequently  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  sxiv. 
i;i;  .John  vi.  I'J,  xi.  18;  I!ev.  xiv.  20,  xxi.  16). 
lioth  the  name  and  tbe  length  of  the  stade  were 
liorrowed  from  the  foot-race  course  at  Olympia.  It 
equaled  600  Greek  feet  (Herod,  ii.  149),  or  125 
i.'oman  paces  (I'lin.  ii.  23),  or  6()6|  feet  of  our 
measure.  It  thus  falls  below  tbe  furlong  by  53|- 
feet.  The  distances  l)etween  .Jerusalem  and  the 
places  Bethany,  .lamnia,  and  Scythopolis,  are  given 
I  with  tolerable  exactness  at  15  stades  (John  xi.  18), 
240  siades  (2  -Mace.  xii.  9),  and  000  stades  (2  Mace, 
xii.  2;)).  In  2  Maco.  xi.  5  there  is  an  evident  error, 
eitlier  of  tbe  author  or  of  the  text,  in  respect  to  the 
position  of  Bethsura,  which  is  triven  as  oidy  5  .stades 
from  .lerusalem.  Tbe  Tahiuidists  describe  tbe  stade 
under  tbe  term  )-t's,»  and  regarded  it  as  equal  to 
(i25  feet  and  125  paces  (Carpzov,  Appar.  p.  679). 
(_/'.)  The  Mile,''  a  Roman  measure,  equalling  1,00C 


probably  means  a  locality,  either  a  race-course  itself,    Koman  paces,   8  stades,  and  1,618  English  yard; 


as  in  3  Mace.  iv.  11,  or  the  space  outside  the  town 
w.dls  where  tbe  race-course  was  usually  to  l)e  found. 
The  LXX.  give  it  again  in  Gen.  xlviii.  7  as  tlie 
equivalent  for  Lpbratb.  The  Syriao  and  Persian 
versions  render  cibnith  by  parasanir,  a  well-known 
Persian  measure,  generally  estimated  at  .'iO  stades 
(Herod,  ii.  6,  v.  53),  or  from  3^^  to  4  English  miles, 
but  sometimes  at  a  larger  amount,  even  u|)  to  00 
stades  (.Strab.  xi.  518).  Tbe  only  conrbision  to  be 
drawn  from  the  Bible  is  that  the  cibratk  did  not 
exceed  and  proliably  equaled  tbe  distance  between 
Bethlehem  and  Rachel's  burial-place,  which  is  tra- 
ditionally identified  with  a  spot  Ii-  mile  north  of 
tbe  town,  (f.)  The  i/erec  ■i/oiii,''  or  iiudidldc  yuin,'i 
■A  day's  journey,  which  was  tbe  most  usual  method 
of  calculating  distances  in  travelling  (Gen.  xxx.  36, 
xxxi.  23;  Ex.  iii.  18,  v.  3;  Num.  x.  33,  xi.  31, 
xxxiii.  8;  Deut;  i.  2;  1  Iv.  xix.  4;  2  K.  iii.  9;  Jon. 
iii.  3;  1  Mace.  v.  24,  vii.  45;  Tob.  vi.  1),  though 
but  one  instance  of  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 
(Luke  ii.  44).  The  distance  indicated  by  it  was 
naturally  fluctuating  according  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  traveller  or  of  the  country  through  which  he 
passed.  Herodotus  variously  estimates  it  at  200 
and  150  stades  (iv.  101,  v.  53);  Marinus  {up.  Plot. 
i.  11)  at  150  and  172  stailes;  Pausanias  (x.  33, 
§  2)  at  150  stades;  Strabo  (i.  35)  at  (rora  250  to 
300  stades;  and  Vegetius  (Ue  lie  Mil.  i.  11)  at 
from  20  to  24  miles  for  the  Roman  army.  Tbe 
ordinary  day's  journey  among  the  Jews  was  30 
miles;  but  when  they  travelled  in  companies  only 
10  miles;  Xeapolis  formed  tbe  first  stage  out  of 
Jerusalem,  according  to  tbe  former,  and  Beeroth 
ttccording  to  the  latter  computation  (Lightfoot, 
l-^xtrc.  in  Luc.  ii.  44).  It  is  impossible  to  as- 
lign  any  distinct  length  to  the  day's  journey: 
ilahn's  estimate  of  33  miles,  172  yards,  and  4  feet, 
i-i  based  upon  tbe  false  assumption  that  it  bore  some 
'ned  iratio  to  the  otber  measures  of  length. 
In  the  Apocrypha  and  New  Testament  we  meet 


■J  O'l. 


<'  cv  Tibnr). 

/  SraSiOf . 
A    MiAioK. 


[Mll.K 

2.   .Measures  of  capacity. 

The  measures  of  capacity  for  liquids  were:  {a.'. 
The  log'  (Lev.  xiv.  10,  etc.),  the  name  originally 
signifuug  a  "basin."  (6.)  The  bin,*  a  name  of 
I'.gyptian  origin,  frequently  noticed  in  tbe  Bilile 
(I'.x.  xxix.  40,  xxx.  24;  Num.  xv.  4,  7,  9;  Ez.  iv. 
11,  etc.).  (c.)  The  bath,'  tbe  name  meainng 
'•  meastu-ed,"  tbe  largest  of  the  liquid  measures  (1 
K.  vii.  2ti,  38;  2  Chr.  ii.  10;  Ezr.  vii.  22;  Is.  v. 
10).  With  regard  to  the  relative  values  of  these 
measures  we  learn  nothing  from  the  Bible,  but  we 
gather  from  Josepbus  {Ant.  iii.  8,  §  3)  that  the 
bath  contained  6  bins  (for  the  bath  equaled  72 
xvst(e  or  12  choes,  and  the  bin  2  chnes),  and  from 
the  Rabbinists  that  tbe  bin  contained  12  logs 
(('ar|)zov,  Appiir.  p.  685).  The  relative  valued 
therefore  stand  thus:  — 


Log 
12 


Hhi 

G 


Bath 


The  dry  measure  contained  tbe  following  denom- 
inations: {(I.)  Tbe  cab,'"  mentioned  only  in  2  K. 
vi.  25,  tbe  name  meaning  litenvlly  hollow  or  con 
ciiri'.  {0.)  Tbe  omer,"  mentioned  only  in  Ex.  xvi. 
16-36.  Tbe  same  measure  is  elsewhere  termed 
issdrv»,o  as  being  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah 
(comp.  Ex..  xvi.  36),  whence  in  tbe  A.  V.  "tenth 
deal"  (Lev.  xiv.  10,  xxiii.  13;  Num.  xv.  4,  etc.). 
riie  word  omer  implies  a  lii-op,  and  secondarily  a 
shfdf.  (c. )  The  sc'iiA, /^  or  "  measure,"  this  being 
the  etymological  meaning  of  the  term,  and  appro- 
[iriateiy  applied  to  it,  inasmuch  as  it  was  tbe  or- 
dinary measure  for  household  purposes  ((ien.  xviii. 
6;  I'Sam.  xxv.  18;  2  K.  vii.  1,  16).  Tbe  Greek 
equivalent  occurs  in  Matt.  xiii.  33;  Luke  xiii.  21. 
The  seah  was  otherwise  termed  shdlish,'i  as  being 
the  third  part  of  an  ephah  (Is.  xl.  12;  Ps.  Ixxx.  5). 
((/.)  The  ephah,'"  a  word  of  Egyptian  origin,  and 


P  nSP  ?   <raTov. 


9  tr^bti?. 


3506 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


of  frequent  recurrence  in  the  Bible  (Ex.  xvi.  ;J6; 
Lev.  V.  11,  vi.  20;  Num.  v.  15,  xxviii.  5;  Judir.  vi. 
lit;  Ruth  ii.  17;  1  Sam.  i.  24,  xvii.  17;  I'Lz.  xlv. 
11,  Vi,  xlvi.  5,  7,  11,  14).  (e.)  The  lethec,^  ov 
'■  halt-homer,"  literally  meaning  what  is  poured 
out :  it  occurs  only  in  Hos.  iii.  2.  {f.)  The  homer,'' 
nieaninjf  lieiip  (Lev.  xxvii.  10;  Num.  xi  32;  Is.  v. 
10;  Ez.  xlv.  i;^).  It  is  elsewhere  termed  cor,'^' 
from  the  circular  vessel  in  which  it  was  measured 
(1  K.  iv.  22,  V.  11;  2  Chr.  ii.  10,  xxvii.  5;  Ezr. 
vii.  22;  Ez.  xlv.  14).  The  Greek  equivalent  occurs 
iu  Luke  xvi.  7. 

The  relative  proportions  of  the  dry  measures  are 
tJ  a  certain  extent  expressed  in  the  names  issari'ii, 
uieanini;-  a  tenth,  and  sli<Uis/i,  a  thii'd.  In  addition 
we  have  the  Biblical  statement  that  the  omer  is  the 
tenth  part  of  the  ephah  (ICx.  xvi.  36),  and  that  the 
ephah  was  the  tenth  part  of  a  homer,  and  corre- 
sponded to  the  bath  in  liquid  measure  (Ez.  xlv  11). 
The  llabbinists  suppleuient  this  l)y  stating  that  tlie 
ephah  contained  three  seahs,  and  the  seah  six  caljs 
(Carpzov,  p.  683).  We  are  tlius  enal)led  to  draw 
out  the  following  scale  of  relative  values :  — 
Cab 
II 

Seah 

3      I  Ephah 
30      I       10     I  Homer 


6 

18 
180 


10 
100 


Tlie  above  scale  is  constructed,  it  will  be  oli- 
Berved,  on  a  combination  of  decimal  and  duodecimal 
ratios,  the  former  prevailing  in  respect  to  the  omer, 
ephah,  and  homer,  the  latter  in  respect  to  the  cab, 
seah,  and  ephah.  In  the  liquid  measure  the  duo- 
decimal ratio  alone  appears,  and  hence  there  is  a 
fair  presumption  that  this  was  the  original,  as  it 
was  undoubtedly  the  most  general,  principle  on 
which  the  .scales  of  antiquity  were  fraiued  (Bdeckh, 
p.  38).  Whether  the  decimal  division  was  intro- 
duced from  some  other  system,  or  whether  it  was 
the  result  of  local  usage,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
show. 

The  absolute  values  of  the  liquid  and  dry  meas- 
ures form  the  subject  of  a  single  inquiry,  inasnuioh 
AS  the  two  scales  have  a  measure  of  equal  value, 
namely,  the  bath  and  the  ephah  (Ez.  xlv.  11);  if 
either  of  these  can  lie  fixed,  the  conversion  of  the 
otlier  denominations  into  their  respective  values 
readily  fbllowg.  Unfortunately  the  data  tor  deter- 
mining the  value  of  the  bath  or  ephah  are  both 
scanty  and  conflicting.  Attempts  have  been  made 
to  deduce  the  value  of  the  bath  from  a  coinjjarison 
of  the  dimensions  and  the  contents  of  the  molten 
gea  as  given  in  1  K.  vii.  23-26.  If  these  particu- 
lars had  been  given  with  greater  accuracy  and  full- 
ness, they  would  have  furnished  a  sound  basis  for 
a  calculation ;  but,  as  the  matter  now  stands,  un- 
cert;iinty  attends  every  statement.  The  diameter 
Is  given  as  10  cubits,  and  the  circumference  as  30 
cubits,  the  diameter  being  stated  to  be  "  from  one 
brim  to  the  other."  Assuming  that  the  vessel  was 
circular,  the  proportioTig  of  the  diameter  and  cir- 
ctmifereuce  are  not  gufhciently  exact  lor  mathenuit- 
ical  purposes,  nor  are  we  able  to  decide  whether 
the  diameter  was  measured  from  the  internal  or  the 
external  edge  of  the  vessel.  The  shape  of  the  ves 
gel  ha«  been  variously  conceivetl  to  be  circular  and 
•olygonal,  cylindrical  and  hemispherical,  with  per- 
pendicular and  with  bulging  sides.     The  contents 


are  given  as  2,000  baths  in  1  K.  vii.  26,  and  3,00t 
baths  in  2  Chr.  iv.  5,  the  latter  being  probably  a 
corrupt  text.  Lastly,  tlie  length  of  the  cubit  is 
undefined,  and  hence  every  estimate  is  attended 
with  suspicion.  The  conclusions  drawn  have  been 
widely  different,  as  might  be  expected.  If  it  be 
assumed  that  the  form  of  the  vessel  was  cylindrical 
(as  the  description  prima  J'ncie  seems  to  imply), 
that  its  clear  diameter  was  10  cubits  of  the  \alue 
of  10  0515  English  inches  each,  and  that  its  full 
contents  were  2,000  baths,  then  the  value  of  the 
bath  would  be  4.8005  gallons;  for  the  contents  of 
the  vessel  would  equal  2,715,638  cubic  inches,  or 
0,793  gallons.  If,  however,  the  statement  of  Jose- 
phus  {AiU.  viii.  3,  §  5),  as  to  the  hemispherical 
form  ot  the  vessel,  be  adopted,  then  the  estimate 
would  be  reduced.  Saigey,  as  quoted  by  Boeckh 
(p.  261),  oil  this  hypothesis  calculates  the  value 
of  the  bath  at  18.086  French  litres,  or  3.0807 
English  i;alloiis.  If,  further,  we  adopt  Saalschiitz's 
view  as  to  the  length  of  the  cubit,  which  he  puts 
at  15  Dresden  inciies  at  the  highest,  the  value  of 
tlie  bath  will  be  further  reduced,  according  to  his 
calculation,  to  lOi  Prussian  quarts,  or  2.6057 
Eiiijlish  gallons;  while  at  his  lower  estimate  of  the 
cubit  at  12  inches,  its  value  would  be  little  more 
than  one  half  of  this  amount  [ArclUiol.  ii.  171). 
(In  the  other  hand,  if  the  vessel  bulged,  and  if  the 
diameter  and  circumference  were  measured  at  the 
neck  or  narrowest  part  of  it,  space  might  be  found 
tor  2,000  of  even  3,000  baths  of  greater  value  than 
any  of  the  above  estimates.  It  is  therefore  hope- 
less to  arrive  at  any  satisfactory  conclusion  from 
this  source.  Nevertheless  we  think  the  calculations 
are  not  without  their  use,  as  furnishing  a  certain 
amount  of  presumptive  evidence.  For,  setting 
aside  the  theory  that  the  vessel  bulged  consid- 
erably, for  which  the  text  furnishes  no  evidence 
whatever,  all  the  other  computations  agree  in  one 
point,  namely,  that  the  bath  fell  far  below  the  value 
placed  on  it  by  Josephus,  and  by  modern  writers 
on  Hebrew  arclueology  generally,  according  to 
whom  the  bath  measures  between  Sand  9  English 
gallons. 

We  turn  to  the  statements  of  Josephus  and 
other  early  writers.  The  former  states  that  the 
bath  equals  72  xestoR  (Ant.  viii.  2,  §  0),  that  the 
hill  equals  2  .Attic  clmes  (ibid.  iii.  8,  §§  3,  9,  §  4), 
that  the  seah  equals  1+  Italian  mixlii  (ibid.  ix.  4, 
§5),  that  the  cor  equals  10  Attic  midimni  (ibid. 
XV.  9,  §  2),  and  that  the  issaron  or  omer  equals  7 
Attic  cotyke  (ibid.  iii.  6,  §  6).  It  may  further  be 
implied  liom  Ant.  ix.  4,  §  4,  as  compared  with  2 
K.  vi.  25,  that  he  regarded  the  cab  as  equal  to  4 
xestes.  Now,  in  order  to  reduce  these  statements 
to  consistency,  it  must  be  assumed  that  in  Ant. 
XV.  9,  §  2,  he  has  confused  the  mtdlnimis  with  the 
iiittreies,  and  in  Ant.  iii.  6,  §  6,  the  cuty/c  with 
the  xestes.  Such  errors  throw  doubt  on  his  othei 
statements,  and  tend  to  the  conclusion  that  Jose- 
phus was  not  really  familiar  with  the  Greek  meas- 
ures. Tliis  impression  is  supported  by  his  apparent 
ignorance  ot  the  term  inetriitei,  which  he  should 
have  used  not  onl}'  in  the  passage  above  noticed, 
but  also  in  viii.  2,  §  9,  where  he  would  naturally 
have  substituted  it  for  72  xeftie,  assuming  thai 
these  were  Attic  xtglie.  Nevertheless  his  testimonj 
must  be  taken  as  decisively  in  favor  of  the  iden- 
tity of  the  Hebrew  bath  with  the  .Ittie  meirel^i. 


»-Dr. 


0^3: 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 

Jerome  (/«  Matt.  xiii.  33)  affirms  that  the  seah 
equals  1^  modii,  and  {in  Ez.  xlv.  11)  that  the  c^r 
sqiials  30  jiiodii,  —  statements  that  are  glaringly 
inconsistent,  inasmuch  as  there  were  30  sealis  in 
the  cor.  The  statements  of  Epiphanius  in  his 
treatise  De  Mensitris  are  equally  remarkable  for 
inconsistency.  He  states  (ii.  177)  th.it  the  cor 
equals  30  modii :  on  this  assumption  the  bath 
would  equal  51  sextarii,  but  he  <;ives  only  50  (p. 
178):  the  seah  would  equal  1  modius,  but  he  gives 
li  inodii  (p.  178),  or,  according  to  his  estimate  of 
17  Sextarii  to  the  inodius,  21^  sexinrii,  though 
elsewhere  he  assigns  56  sextnrii  as  its  value  (p 
182):  the  onier  would  be  5JL  sextnrii,  but  he 
gives  7^  (p.  182),  implying  45  modii  to  the  cor: 
and,  lastly,  the  ephah  is  identified  with  the  Egyp- 
tian artahe  (p.  182),  which  was  either  4^  or  3^ 
modii,  according  as  it  was  in  the  old  or  the  new 
measure,  tliough  according  to  his  estimate  of  the 
cor  it  would  only  equal  3  modii.  Little  reliance 
can  be  placed  on  statements  so  loosely  made,  and 
the  question  arises  whether  the  identification  of  the 
bath  with  the  melreti's  did  not  arise  out  of  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  two  measures  held  the  same 
relative  position  in  the  scales,  each  being  subdi- 
vided into  72  parts,  and,  again,  wiiether  the  assign- 
ment of  30  modii  to  the  cor  did  not  arise  out 
of  there  being  30  sealis  in  it.  i'he  discrepancies 
can  only  be  explained  on  the  assumption  that  a 
wide  margin  was  allowed  for  a  long  measure, 
amounting  to  an  increase  of  50  per  cent.  This 
appears  to  have  been  the  case  from  the  definitions 
ol  the  seah  or  adrov  given  by  Hesychius,  piSStos 
yefj.wv,  ijyovv,  ev  ^/atav  fj.6Siov  IraXiKou,  and 
again  by  Suidas,  /x6Slov  uTrfpTreTrATjpco/ueVor,  cLs 
thai  fji6Siou  'ivd  Kal  'r\fjLiaw.  Assuming,  however, 
that  .losepiuis  was  right  in  identifying  the  batli 
with  the  metrites,  its  value  would  be,  according  to 
Boeckh's  estimate  of  the  latter  (pp.  2(51,  278), 
l'J93.5  I'aris  cubic  inches,  or  8.7053  English  gal- 
lons, but  according  to  the  estimate  of  Itertheau 
((lescli.  p.  73)  l,i)8o.77  I'aris  cubic  inches,  or 
8.tiG'J6  English  gallons. 

The  liabbinists  furnish  data  of  a  different  kind 
for  calculating  the  value  of  the  Hebrew  measures 
They  estimated  the  log  to  lie  equal  to  six  hen  eggs, 
the  cubic  contents  of  which  were  ascertained  by 
measuring  the  amount  of  water  they  displaced 
(Maimonides,  in  Cel.  17,  §  10).  On  this  basis 
Thenius  estimated  the  log  at  14.088  Paris  cubic 
inches,  or  .00147  I'.nglish  gallon,  and  the  liath  at 
1,014. 3'J  Paris  cubic  inches,  or  4.4286  gallons  (Si. 
u.  Kr.  pp.  101,  121).  Again,  the  log  of  v^Ver  is 
said  to  have  weighed  108  Egyptian  drachma;,"  each 
equalling  61  barleycorns  (.Maimonides,  in  Bvidi,  3, 
§  6,  ed.  Guisius.).  Thenius  finds  that  6,588  bar- 
leycorns fill  about  the  same  space  as  6  hen  eggs 
(St.  u.  Kr.  p.  112).  And  again,  a  log  is  said  to 
fill  a  vessel  4  digits  long,  4  broad,  and  2  J-  high 
(.Maimonides,  in  Prmf.  .Memiciiolli).  This  vessel 
would  contain  21.6  cubic  inches,  or  .07754  gallon. 
The  conclusion  arrived  at  from  tiiese  data  would 
agree  tolerably  well  with  the  fii-st  estimate  formed 
on  the  notices  of  the  molten  sea. 


WELL 


850? 


As  we  are  unable  to  decide  between  .Tosephus 
and  the  Rabbinists,  we  give  a  double  estimate  of 
the  various  denominations,  adopting  IJertheau' 
estimate  of  the  meiretes :  — 

(Jnsephus.)       (Rabbinists.) 


Gallons. 
86.696 


Gallons. 
or     44.286 


a  In  the  table  the  weight  of  the  log  is  given  as  104 
flrachms  ;  but  in  this  ca,se  the  contents  of  the  log  are 
lupposed  to  be  wine.  The  relative  weights  of  water 
inil  wine  were  as  27 :  ^1. 

*   MeTprjT^;.  c  Xomf. 


Homer  or  Cor 

Ephah  or  Bath    .     .     8.6696  or  4.4286 

Seah 2.8898  or  1.4762 

Hill 1.4449  or  .7381 

Omor 8669  or  .4428 

Cab 4816  or  .246 

Log 1204  or  .0615 

In  the  New  Testament  we  have  notices  of  the' 
following  foreign  measures:  («.)  The  metred's''- 
(John  ii.  6;  A.  V.  "  firkin  "),for  liquids,  (b.)  The 
clmnix"  (Hev.  vi.  6;  .-\.  V.  "  measure  "),  for  dry 
goods,  (c.)  The  xestis,''  applied,  however,  not  to 
the  particular  measure  so  named  by  the  (ireeks, 
but  to  any  small  vessel,  such  as  a  cup  (Mark  vii. 
4,  8;  A.  V.  "pot"),  (c/.)  The  mixliiis,  similarly 
applied  to  describe  any  vessel  of  moderate  dimen- 
sions (Matt.  v.  16;  Mark  iv.  21;  Luke  xi.  33; 
A.  V.  "bushel  ");  though  properly  meaning  a  Ro- 
man measure,  amounting  to  about  a  peck. 

The  value  of  the  Attic  metretes  has  been  already 
stated  to  be  8.6696  gallons,  and  consequently  the 
amount  of  liquid  in  six  stone  jars,  containing  on 
the  averaire  2^^  metrelce  each,  would  exceed  110 
gallons  (.John  "ii.  6).  Very  possibly,  however,  the 
Greek  term  represents  the  Hebrew  bath,  and  if  the 
Ijatii  be  taken  at  the  lower  estimate  assigned  to  it, 
the  amount  would  be  reduced  to  about  60  gallons. 
Even  this  amount  far  exceeds  the  requirements  for 
the  ])urposes  of  legal  purification,  the  tendency  of 
Pharisaical  refinement  being  to  reduce  the  amount 
of  water  to  a  minimum,  so  that  a  quarter  of  a  log 
would  suffice  for  a  jierson  (Mishnah,  Ynd.  1,  §  1) 
The  question  is  one  simply  of  archieological  interest 
as  illustrating  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  and  does 
not  affect  the  character  of  the  miracle  with  which 
it  is  connected.     The  chcanix  was    i    of  an  Attic 

48 

medimnus,  and  contained  nearl}  a  quart.  It  rep- 
resented the  usual  amount  of  coi'n  for  a  day's  food, 
and  hence  a  chcanix  for  a  pemiy,  or  demirius, 
which  usually  purchased  a  bushel  (Cic.  Verr.  iii. 
81),  indicated  a  great  scarcity  (Rev.  vi.  6). 

With  regard  to  the  use  of  fair  measures,  varioua 
precepts  are  expressed  in  the  Mosaic  law  and  other 
parts  of  the  Bible  (Lev.  xix.  35,  36;  Dent,  xxv 
14,  15:  Prov.  xx.  10;  Ez.  xlv.  10),  and  in  ah 
piobal)ility  standard  measures  were  kept  in  the 
Temple,  as  was  usual  in  the  other  civili7.ed  cctui- 
tries  of  antiquity  (lioeckh.  ji.  12). 

The  works  chiefly  i-eferred  to  in  the  preeent 
article  are  the  following:  lioeckh,  Metrologische 
[/iilersucliiinr/tn,  1838;  Cl(tssicnl  Museum,  vol. 
i  ;  Theohijische  Stmlien  vnd  Kritiken  for  1840; 
Mishnah,  ed.  Snrenhusius;  Wilkin.son,  Ancient 
h'i/i,/)ti(ins.  2  vols.  1854;  Epiphanius,  Opera,  2 
vols.,  ed.  Petavius.  W.  L.  B. 

WELL.''  The  difference  between  a  well  (Riir) 
and  a  cistern  (Ror)  [t'lSTKHN],  consists  chiefly  in 


e  1    "^S2  :   4>p4o.p :  puteus  ;  in  four  places  "  pit." 

2.  T13  :  XiitKO!  :  m^cma; usually  "pit."    [Pit 

3.  ^^^^^  :   usually  "fotint;iin."     [FovniTACi  ] 

4.  ^^p!^.     [FotretiiN  ;  Spring.] 


3508 


WELL 


the  use  of  the  former  word  to  denote  a  receptacle 
fur  water  springing  up  freshly  from  the  gronnd, 
while  tlie  latter  usually  denotes  a  reservoir  for  rain- 
water (Gen.  xxvi.  19,  32;  Prov.  v.  15;  John  iv. 
14)« 

The  special  necessity  of  a  supply  of  water  (-Kulg. 
i.  15)  in  a  hot  climate  has  always  involved  among 
Eastern  nations  questions  of  property  of  the  highest 
importance,  and  sometimes  given  rise  to  serious 
contention.  To  give  a  name  to  a  well  denoted  a 
right  of  property,  and  to  stop  or  destroy  one  once 
dug  was  a  military  expedient,  a  mark  of  conquest, 
or  an  encroachment  on  territorial  right  claimed  or 
existing  in  its  neii,dihorhood.  Thus  the  well  Beer- 
sheba  was  opened,  and  its  possession  attested  with 
special  formality  by  Abraham  (tJen.  xxi.  30,  31). 
In  the  hope  of  expelling  Isaac  from  their  neighljor- 
hood,  the  Philistines  stopped  up  the  wells  which 
had  been  dug  in  Abraham's  time  and  called  by  Iiis 
name,  an  encroachment  which  was  stoutly  resisted 
by  the  followers  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvi.  15-33;  see 
also  2  K.  iii.  19;  2  Chr.  xxvi.  10;  Burckliardt, 
Notes,  ii.  185,  194,  204,  27()).  The  Kuran  notices 
abandoned  wells  as  signs  of  desertion  (Sur.  xxii.). 
To  acquire  wells  which  they  had  not  themselves 
dug,  was  one  of  the  marks  of  favor  foretold  to 
the  Hebrews  on  their  entrance  into  Canaan  (Dent, 
vi.  11).  To  possess  one  is  noticed  as  a  mark  of 
independence  (Prov.  v.  15),  and  to  abstain  from  the 
use  of  wells  belonging  to  others,  a  disclaimer  of 
interference  with  their  property  (Num.  xx.  17,  19. 
xxi.  22).  Similar  rights  of  possession,  actual  and 
hereditary,  exist  among  the  Aralis  of  the  present 
day.  Wells,  Burckhardt  says,  in  the  interior  of  the 
Desert,  are  exclusive  property,  either  of  a  whole 
tribe,  or  of  individuals  whose  ancestors  dug  the 
wells.  If  a  well  be  the  property  of  a  tribe,  the 
tents  are  pitched  near  it,  whenever  rain-water  be- 
comes scarce  in  the  desert;  and  no  other  .Arabs  are 
tlien  perndtted  to  water  their  camels.  But  if  the 
well  belongs  to  an  individual,  he  receives  presents 
from  all  strange  tribes  who  pass  or  encamp  at  the 
well,  and  refresh  their  camels  with  the  water  of  it. 
The  property  of  such  a  well  is  never  alienated ; 
and  the  Arabs  say,  that  the  possessor  is  sure  to  lie 
fortunate,  as  all  who  drink  of  the  water  bestow  on 
him  their  benedictions  {Notes  on  Bid.  i.  228,  229 ; 
conip.  Num.  xxi.  17,  18,  and  .ludg.  i.  15). 

It  is  thus  easy  to  understand  how  wells  have 
become  in  many  cases  links  in  the  history  and 
landmarks  in  the  topography  both  of  Palestino  and 
of  the  Araliian  Peninsula.  The  well  once  dug  in 
the  rocky  soil  of  Palestine  might  be  filled  with  earth 
or  stones,  but  with  difficulty  destroyed,  and  thus 
the  wells  of  Beer-sheba,  and  the  well  near  Nabulus, 
called  Jacob's  well,  ax'e  among  the  most  undoubted 
witnesses  of  those  transactions  of  sacred  history  in 
which  they  ha\e  liorne,  so  to  speak,  a  prominent 
part.  On  the  other  hand,  the  wells  dug  in  the 
gandj  soil  of  the  Arabian  valleys,  easily  destroyed. 


a  *  The  k.V.  does  not  always  observe  tlie  proper  dis- 
tinction between  "  well  "  and  "  fountain  "  or  "  spring." 

Thus  it  renders  the  same  word  ("J'^l?)  "  well "  in 
Judg.  vii.  1;  Neh.  ii.  13,  etc.,  and  "  fountain  "  in 
Gen.  xvi.  7;  Num.  xxxiii.  9,  etc.  There  is  another 
inconsistency  in  the  A.  V.,  which  is  a  source  of  con- 
tusion. Our  translators  sometimes  transfer  the  first 
oart  of  Che  compound  exprei.«ion,  as  "  £ji-rogel,'' 
'  E«-shemesh."  "  £n-tappuaji,"  etc..  and  sometimes 
tianslate  it,  as  "  "'ell  of  Harod,"  "Pragon  Well,"  etc. 

H. 


WELL 

but  easily  renewed,  often  mark,  liy  their  leadj 
supply,  the  stations  at  which  the  Hebrew  pilgrims 
slaked  their  thirst,  or,  as  at  Marah,  were  disaj). 
pointed  by  the  bitterness  of  the  water.  In  like 
manner  the  stations  of  the  Mohammedan  pilgrims 
from  Cairo  and  Damascus  to  Mecca  (the  Hadj 
route)  are  marked  by  the  wells  (Kobinson,  i.  66. 
69,  204,  205,  ii.  283;  Burckhardt,  Srjvin,  pp.  318, 
472,  474;  App.  111.  650,  660:  Shaw,  Trnv.  314; 
Niebuhr,  Descrip.  de  I'Ar.,  pp.  347,  348;  Wellsted, 
Trav.  ii.  40,  43,  64,  457.  App. ). 

Wells  in  Palestine  are  usually  excavated  from 
the  solid  limestone  rock,  sometimes  with  steps  to 
descend  into  them  (Gen.  xxiv.  16;  Burckhardt, 
Syri'i,  p.  232;  Col.  C/i.  Chron.  1858,  p.  470). 
The  brims  are  furnished  witli  a  curb  or  low  wall 
of  stone,  bearing  marks  of  hVz\\  antiquity  in  the 
furrows  worn  by  the  ropes  used  in  drawing  water 
(Hoi),  i.  204).  This  curb,  as  well  as  the  stone 
cover,  which  is  also  very  usual,  agrees  with  the 
directions  of  the  Law,  as  explained  by  Philo  and 
.losephus,  namely,  as  a  protection  against  accident 
(Ex.  xxi.  33;  Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  8,  §  37 ;  Philo,  De 
Spec.  Leg.  iii.  27,  ii.  324,  ed  Mangey;  Maundrell, 
in  /i.  Trav.  435).''  It  was  on  a  curb  of  this  sort 
that  our  Lord  sat  when  He  convei'sed  with  the 
woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv.  6),  and  it  was  this, 
the  usual  stone  cover,  which  tlie  woman  placed  on 
the  mouth  of  the  well  at  Bahurim  (2  Sam.  xvii. 
19),  where  A.  V.  weakens  the  sense  by  omitting 
the  article.'^  '  Sometimes  the  wells  are  covered 
with  cupolas  raised  on  pillars  (Burckhardt,  App.  V. 
p.  665). 

The  usual  methods  for  raising  water  are  the  fol- 
lowing: (1.)  The  rope  and  bucket,  or  water-skin 
(Gen.  xxiv.  14-20;  John  iv.  11).  When  the  well 
is  deep  the  rope  is  either  drawn  over  the  curb  by 
the  man  or  woman,  who  pulls  it  out  to  the  dis- 
tance of  its  full  length,  or  by  an  ass  or  ox  employed 
in  the  same  way  for  the  same  purpose.  Sometimes 
a  pulley  or  wheel  is  fixed  over  the  well  to  assist 
the  work  (Robinson,  i.  204,  ii.  248;  Niebuhr, 
Descr.  de  V Ar.  137,  pi.  15;  Col  Ch.  Chron.  1859, 
p.  350;  Chardin,  Voy.  iv.  98;  Wellsted,  Trav.  i. 
280).  (2.)  The  sakiyeh,  or  Persian  wheel.  This 
consists  of  a  vertical  wheel  furnished  with  a  set  of 
buckets  or  earthen  jars,  attached  to  a  cord  passing 
over  the  wheel,  which  descend  empty  and  return 
full  as  the  wheel  revolves.  On  the  axis  of  the 
wheel  revolves  a  second  wheel,  parallel  to  it,  with 
cogs  which  turn  a  third  wheel  set  horizontally  at  a 
sufficient  height  from  the  ground  to  allow  the 
animal|||>sed  in  turning  it  to  pass  under.  One  or 
two  cows  or  bulls  are  yoked  to  a  pole  which  passes 
through  the  axis  of  this  wheel,  and  as  they  travel 
round  it  turn  the  whole  machine  (Num.  xxiv.  7; 
Lane,  Mod.  Ki/.  ii.  163;  Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  120; 
Col.  Ch.  Chron.  1859,  p.  352:  Shaw,  pp.  291,  408). 
(3.)  A  modification  of  the  last  method,  by  which 
a  man,  sitting  opposite  to  a  wheel  furnished  with 


6  *  Mr.  E.  H.  Palmer,  in  passing  from  Sinai  to 
Nakhl,  went  up  the  Wady  Jiiyar,  of  which  he  says : 
'•  This  wady  is  so  called  from  the  wells  (Bi-dr)  which 
exist  near  its  head,  and  whicli,  in  their  form  and  use, 
remarkably  illustrate  the  passage  in  Genesis  xxis 
7-9  :  '  Till  they  roll  the  stone  from  the  well's  mouth 
then  we  water  the  sheep.'  ''  {(.luart.  Statem.  Pal.  Et 
Fund,  No.  v.  p.  257.)  S.  W. 

«   17^^ U  •     TO  en  iKoA- pifia  :   velamen. 


WELL  IS  HIM 

buckets,  turns  it  by  drawing  with  his  hands  one 
set  of  spokes  prulonifed  beyond  its  circumference, 
and  pushinc;  another,  set  from  him  with  his  feet 
(Niebuhr,  Voij.  i.  p.  121),  pi.  15;  Koliinson,  ii.  22, 
iii.  89).  (4.)  A  method  very  common,  both  in 
ancient  and  modern  Kgypt,  is  the  shadoof,  a  sim- 
ple contrivance  consisting  of  a  lever  moving  on  a 
pivot,  whicli  is  loaded  at  one  end  witii  a  lump  of 
clay  or  some  other  weight,  and  has  at  the  other  a 
bowl  or  bucket.  This  is  let  down  into  the  water, 
and,  when  raised,  emptied  into  a  receptacle  aliove 
(Niebuhr,  Voy.  i.  120;  Lane,  .1/.  E.  ii.  163;  Wil- 
kinson, A.  E.  i.  ;j.5,  72,  ii.  4). 

Wells  are  usually  furnished  with  troughs  of  wood 
or  stone."  into  which  the  water  is  emptied  for  the 
use  of  persons  or  animals  coming  to  the  wells.  In 
modern  times  an  old  stone  sarcophagus  is  often 
used  for  this  purpose.  The  bucket  is  very  com- 
monly of  skin  (Biirckhardt,  Hyvin,  p.  63;  Robinson, 
i.  204,  ii.  21,  315,  iii.  35,  89,  109,  1-34;  Lord 
Lindsay,  Ti-iv.  pp.  235,  237;  Wilkinson,  A.  E. 
1.  c;   Gen.  xxiv.  20;  Ex.  ii.  16). 


WHALE 


3501 


Ancient  Egyptian  machine  for  raising  water,  identical 
with  the  skadoof  oi  the  present  day.    (Williiusou.) 

Unless  machinery  is  used,  which  is  commonly 
worked  by  men,  women  are  usually  the  water- 
carriers.  They  carry  home  their  water-jars  on 
their  heads  (Lindsay,  p.  236).  Great  contentions 
often  occur  at  the  wells,  and  they  are  often,  among 
Bedouins,  favorite  places  for  attack  by  enemies 
(Ex.  ii.  16,  17;  Judg.  v.  11;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  15,  16; 
Burckhardt,  Syrin,  p.  63;  Notes  on  Bed.  i;228; 
Col.  Ch.  Chron.  1859,  p.  473;  Lane,  M.  E.  i.  2.52; 
Robinson,  iii.  153).  H.    W.  P. 

*  WELL  IS  HIM,  Ecclus.  xxv.  8,  9  {k.  V.), 
exhibits  a  curious  remnant  of  the  old  use  of  "  him  " 
as  a  dative.  =  "  to  him."  Compare  "  Woe  is  me," 
and  the  examples  from  (jhancer  ( Cunt.  Tales,,  2,1 11, 
16,302)  cited  in  Eastwood  and  Wright's  Bible 
Word  Bonk,  p.  524.  A. 

*  WELL  OF  JACOB.  [Shechkm,  p. 
2957  f.] 

*  WELL-SPRING.    [Fountain;  Well.] 
WHALE.     As  to  the  signification  of  the  He- 
brew terms  tan  (]FI  or   IF)  and  tannin,  7^3J^), 
jariously  rendered  in  the  A.   V.   by   "  dragon," 


"    npti7  ■    TOTi<7'n}pio>' :   cnnalis. 


"  whale,"  "  serpent,"  "  sea-monster,"  see  Dkagon. 
It  remains  for  us  in  this  article  to  consider  the 
transaction  recorded  in  the  book  of  Jonah,  of  that 
prophet   having   been  swallowed   by  some  "  great 

fish "    (V"n2  2"^),    which   in    Matt.    xii.    40    is 

called,  KrjTOS.  rendered  in  our  version  by  "  whale." 

Much  criticism  has  been  expended  on  the  Scrijv 
tnral  account  of  Jonah  being  swalloweci  by  a  large 
fish ;  it  has  been  variously  understood  as  a  literal 
transaction,  as  an  entire  fiction  or  an  allegory,  as  a 
poetical  myth  us  or  a  parable.  With  regard  to  the 
remarks  of  those  writers  who  ground  their  objec- 
tions upon  the  denial  of  miracle,  it  is  obvious  that 
this  is  not  the  place  for  discussion ;  the  question 
of  Jonah  in  the  fish's  belly  will  share  the  sama 
fate  as  any  other  miracle  recorded  in  the  Old  Tea- 
lament. 

The  reader  will  find  in  Rosenmiiller's  Prolegoiiv- 
ena  several  attempts  by  various  writers  to  explain 
the  Scriptural  narrative,  none  of  which,  however, 
have  anything  to  recommend  them,  unless  it  be  in 
some  cases  the  ingenuity  of  the  authors,  such  as 
for  instance  that  of  Godfrey  Less,  who  supposed 
that  the  "  fish  "  was  no  animal  at  all,  but  a  ship 
with  the  figure  of  a  fish  painted  on  the  stern,  into 
which  Jonah  was  received  after  he  had  been  cast 
out  of  his  own  vessel !  Equally  curious  is  the  ex- 
planation of  G.  C.  Anton,  who  endeavored  to  solve 
the  difficulty,  by  supposing  that  just  as  the  prophei 
was  thrown  into  the  water,  the  dead  carcase  of 
some  large  fish  floated  by,  into  the  belly  of  which 
he  contrived  to  get,  and  that  thus  he  was  drifted 
to  the  shore!  The  opinion  of  KosenmiiUer,  that 
the  whole  account  is  founded  on  the  Phoenician 
fable  of  Hercules  devoured  by  a  sea-monster  sent 
by  Neptune  (Lycophron,  Cassand.  33),  although 
sanctioned  by  (Jesenius,  Winer,  Ewald,  and  other 
(Jerman  writers,  is  opposed  to  all  soinid  principles 
of  Biblical  exegesis.  It  will  be  our  purpose  to 
consider  what  portion  of  the  occui-rence  partakes 
of  a  natural,  and  what  of  a  miraculous  nature. 

In  the  first  place  then,  it  is  necessary  to  observe, 
that  the  Greeek  word  kjjtos,  used  by  St.  Matthew, 
is  not  restricted  in  its  meaning  to  "a  whale,"  or 
any  Cetacean  ;  like  the  Latin  cete  or  cetits,  it  may 
denote  any  sea-monster,  either  "  a  whale,"  or  "a 
shark,"  or  "a  seal,"  or  "a  tunny  of  enormous 
size"  (see  Athen.  p.  303  B,  ed.  Dindorf;  Odys. 
xii.  97,  iv.  446,  452;  //.  xx.  147).  Although  two 
or  three  species  of  w  hale  are  found  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  yet  the  "great  fish"  that  swallowed 
the  prophet,  cannot  properly  be  identified  with  any 
Cetacean,  for,  although  the  sperm  whale  ( Catodon 
nvtcroceph'dim)  has  a  gullet  sufficiently  large  to 
admit  the  body  of  a  man,  yet  it  can  hardly  be  tha 
fish  intended;  as  the  natural  food  of  cetaceans 
consists  of  small  animals,  such  as  meduste  and 
Crustacea. 

Nor,  again,  can  we  agree  with  Bishop  Jebb  (So- 
cred  Literature,  pp.  178,  179),  that  the  Koi\ia  of 
the  (ireek  Testament  denotes  the  back  portion  of  a 
whale's  mouth,  in  the  cavity  of  which  the  prophet 
w.as  concealed ;  for  the  whole  passage  in  Jonah  is 
clearly  opjjosed  to  such  an  interpretation. 

Tlie  only  fish,  then,  capable  of  swallowing  a 
man  would  be  a  large  sjiecimen  of  the  White  Shark 
{Carcharias  vidijavis),  that  dreaded  enemy  of 
sailors,  and  the  most  voracious  of  the  family  of 
t>i/ii-itid,e.  'I'liis  shark,  which  siimetinics  attains 
the  leiiirth  of  thirty  feet,  is  quite  alJe  to  swallow  a 
man  whole.     Some  commentators  are  skeptical  on 


851U 


WHEAT 


this  point.  It  would,  however,  be  easy  to  quote 
passages  jrom  the  writings  of  authors  and  travellers 
ill  {)iTR.'f  of  this  assertion;  we  confine  ourselves  to 
t«o  or  three  extracts.  The  shark  "  has  a  large 
gullet,  and  in  the  bellj  of  it  are  sometimes  found 
the  bodies  of  men  half  eaten,  sometimes  wliole  nnd 
entire  "  (Niiture  Displayed,  iii.  p.  ]-iO).  Hut  lest 
the  Abbe  Pluclip,  should  not  be  considered  sutticient 
authority,  we  give  a  quotation  from  Jlr.  Couch's 
recent  publication,  A  History  of  tlie  Fifties  of  the 
British  Islands.  Speaking  of  white  sharks,  this 
author,  who  has  paid  much  attention  tr  ilie  habits 
of  fish,  states  that  "they  usually  cut  asunder  any 
object  of  considerable  size  and  thus  swallow  it; 
but  if  they  find  a  difficulty  in  doing  this,  tiiere  is  no 
hesitation  in  passing  into  the  stomach  even  what  is 
of  enormous  bulk ;  and  the  formation  of  the  jaws 
and  throat  render  this  a  matter  of  but  little  ditti- 
culty."  Ruysch  says  that  the  whole  body  of  a  man 
in  armor  {kiricalus),  has  been  found  in  the  stomach 
of  a  white  shark;  and  Capt^un  King,  in  his  Survey 
of  Australia,  says  he  had  caught  one  which  could 
have  swallowed  a  man  witii  the  greatest  ease. 
Blumenbach  mentions  that  a  whole  horse  has  been 
■found  in  a  shark,  and  Caiitain  I5asil  Hah  reports 
the  taking  of  one  in  which,  besides  other  things, 
he  found  the  whole  skin  of  a  buffalo  which  a  short 
time  before  had  been  thrown  overboard  from  his 
ship  (i.  p.  27).  Dr.  Baird  of  the  British  Museum 
{Cyclop,  of  Nat.  Sciences,  p.  514-),  says  that  in 
the  river  Hooghly  below  Calcutta,  he  had  seen  a 
white  shark  swallow  a  bullock's  head  and  horns 
entire,  and  he  speaks  also  of  a  shark's  mouth  being 
"  sutiiciently  wide  to  receive  the  body  of  a  man." 
Wherever  therefore  the  Tarshish,  to  which  Jonah's 
ship  was  bound,  was  situated,  whether  in  Spain,  or 
in  Cilicia,  or  in  Ceylon,  it  is  certain  that  the  com- 
mon white  shark  might  have  been  seen  on  the 
voyage.  The  C.  vubjaris  is  not  uncommon  in  the 
Jlediterranean ;  it  occurs,  as  Forskal  (Deacript. 
Anim(d.  p.  20)  assures  us,  in  the  Arabian  Gulf. 
and  is  common  also  in  the  Indian  Ocean.  So  far 
for  the  natural  portion  of  the  subject.  But  how 
Jonah  could  have  been  swallowed  wliole  unhurt,  or 
how  he  could  have  existed  for  any  time  in  the 
shark's  belly,  it  is  impossible  to  explain  by  simply 
natural  causes.  Certainly  the  preservatioti  of 
Jonah  in  a  fish's  belly  is  not  more  remarkable 
than  that  of  the  three  children  in  the  midst 
of  Nebuchadnezzar's  "  burning  fiery  furnace." 
[Jonah,  Amer.  ed.] 

Naturalists  have  recorded  that  sharks  have  the 
nabit  of  throwing  up  again  whole  and  alive  the 
prey  they  have  seized  (see  Couch's  //ist.  of  Fishes 
i-   p.    :i'4).     '•  I    have  heard,"'   says   Mr.    Darwin, 

Tom  Dr.  Allen  of  Forres,  that  he  haa  frequently 
found  a  diodon  floating  alive  and  distended  in  the 
Btomach  of  a  siiark;  and  that  on  several  occa- 
sions 1)6  has  kniiwn  it  eat  its  way  out,  not  only 
tiinuigh  the  coats  of  the  stomacli,  l)ut  tlirougb  the 
sides  of  tiie  monster  which  has  been  thu".  killed." 

W.  H. 
WHKAT.     The  well-known    valuable    cereal, 
cultivated  from  the  earliest  times,  and  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  Bible.     In  the  A.  V.  the  Heb. 

words  bar  ("12   or  ~I2),    ddgdn    (P"^),   riphuth 

(niS^'l),  are  occasionally  translated  "wheat:" 
but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  proper  name  of  this 
jereal,  as  distinguished  from   "barley,"   "spelt," 

»t«.,  is  chittdh  (H^n  :  Chald.  T^^n,  rhinttn). 


WHEAT 

As  to  the  former  Hebrew  terms,  see  under  Corn 
The  first  mention  of  wheat  occurs  in  Gen.  xxx.  14 
in  tlie  account  of  Jacob's  sojourn  with  Laban  in 
JMesopotamia,  Much  has  been  written  on  the  suK 
ject  of  the  origin  of  wheat,  and  the  question  appears 
to  lie  still  undecided.  It  is  said  that  the  Triticuni 
vult/iire  has  been  found  wild  in  some  parts  of 
Persia  and  Sil)eria,  apparently  removed  from  the 
influence  of  cultivation  {English  Cyclop,  art.  "  Trit- 
icuni '■).  Again,  from  the  experiments  of  M.  Esprit 
Kalire  of  Agde  it  would  seem  that  the  numeroug 
varieties  of  cultivated  wheat  are  merely  improved 
transformations  of  yE(/ilops  ovala  {Journal  of  the 


Egyptian  Wheat. 

Rnynl  Agvicull.  Soc,  No.  xxxiii.  pp.  167-180). 
M.  Fabre's  experiments,  however,  have  not  been 
deemed  conclusive  by  some  botanists  (see  an  inter- 
esting paper  by  the  late  Prof.  Henfrey  in  No.  xli. 
of  the  .hmrnal  quoted  aliove).  Egypt  in  ancient 
times  was  celebrated  for  the  growth^of  its  wheat; 
tlie  best  quality,  according  to  Pliny  {Nat.  Hist. 
xviii.  7),  was  grown  in  the  Thebaid;  it  was  all 
bearded,  and  the  same  varieties.  Sir  G.  Wilkinson 
writes  {Anc.  Egypt,  ii.  39,  ed.  185-1),  "  existed 
in  ancient  as  in  modem  times,  among  which  may 
be  mentioned  the  seven-eared  quality  described  in 
Pharaoh's  dream  "  (Gen.  xli.  22).  This  is  the  so- 
called  mummy-wheat,  which,  it  has  been  said,  has 
germinated  after  the  lapse  of  thousands  of  years, 
but  it  is  now  known  that  the  whole  thing  was  a 
fraud.  Babylonia  was  also  noted  for  the  excellence 
of  its  wheat  and  other  cereals.     "  In  grain,"  sayi 


WHEEL 

Herodotus  (i.  193),  "  it  will  yield  commonly  two 
hundred  fold,  and  at  its  sfreatest  production  as 
much  as  three  hundred  fold.  The  blades  of  the 
wheat  and  barley  plants  are  often  four  finfjers 
broad."  But  this  is  a  great  exagijeration.  (See 
also  Theophrastus,  Hist.  Plnnt.  viii.  7.)  Modern 
writers,  as  Chesney  and  Rich,  bear  testimony  to 
the  great  fertility  of  ^lesopotamia.  Syria  and 
Palestine  produced  wheat  of  fine  quality  and  in 
lari^e  quantities  (Ps.  cxlvii,  14-,  Ixxxi.  IG,  etc.  )• 
There  appear  to  be  two  or  three  kinds  of  wlieat  at 
present  grown  in  Palestine,  the  Triticum  vidyare 
(var.  hyOernum),  the  T.  »indta  [see  KyeJ,  and 
another  variety  of  beardeil  wheat  which  appears  to 
be  the  same  as  the  Egyptian  kind,  the  T.  compos- 
ilum.  In  the  parable  of  tiie  sower  our  Ixird  alludes 
to  grains  of  wheat  which  in  good  ground  produce  a 
hundred  fold  (Matt.  xiii.  8).  "The  return  of  a 
hundred  for  one,"  says  Trench,  "  is  not  unheard 
of  in  the  East,  though  always  mentioned  as  some- 
thing extraordinary."  Laborde  says,  "  There  is  to 
be  found  at  Kerek  a  species  of  hundred  wheat  which 
justifies  the  text  of  the  Bilile  against  the  (barges 
of  exaggeration  of  which  it  has  been  the  object." 
The  common  Trilicum  vu/ijure  will  sometimes 
produce  one  hundred  grains  in  the  ear.  Wheat  is 
reaped  towards  the  end  of  .\pril,  in  May,  and  in 
Jiuie,  according  to  the  differences  of  soil  and  posi- 
tion; it  was  sown  either  broadcast,  and  then 
ploughed  in  or  trampled  in  by  cattle  (Is.  xxxii.  20), 
or  in  rows,  if  we  rightly  understand  Is.  xxviii.  25, 
which  seems  to  imply  that  the  seeds  were  planivd 
apart  in  order  to  insure  larger  and  fuller  ears. 
The  wheat  was  put  into  the  ground  in  the  winter, 
and  some  time  after  the  barley;  in  the  Egyptian 
plague  of  hail,  consequently,  the  barley  suffered, 
but  the  wheat  had  not  appeared,  and  so  escaped 
injury.  Wheat  was  ground  into  flour;  the  finest 
qualities  were  expressed  by  the  term  "fat  of  kid- 
neys of  wheat,"  H^^n  HVbp  3^n  (Deut. 
xxxii.  14).  Unripe  ears  are  sometimes  cut  off  from 
the  stalks,  roasted  in  an  oven,  mashed  and  lioiled, 
and  eaten  by  the  modern  Pigyptians  (Sonnini, 
Trav.).  Rosenmiiller  {Botmitj  of  the  Bible,  p. 
80),  with  good  reason,  conjectures  that  this  dish, 
which  the  Arabs  call  Ferik,  is   the  same  as  the 

geres  carmel  (vp"^3   ti^l^.l)  of  Lev.  ii.  14  and 

2  K..  iv.  42.  The  Heb.  word  Kali  ("^bll,  Lev.  ii. 
14)  denotes,  it  is  probable,  roasted  ears  of  corn, 
still    used    as    food    in    the    East.     An   "  ear   of 

corn  "  was  called  Shihbokth  (n^2K7),  the  word 
which  betrayed  the  Ephraimites  (Judg.  xii.  1,  6), 
who  were  unable  to  give  the  sound  of  sli.  I'he  cu- 
rious expression  in  Prov.  xxvii.  22,  "  though  thou 
shouldest  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar  among  wheat 
with  a  pestle,  yet  will  not  his  foolishness  depart 
from  him,"  appears  to  point  to  the  custom  of  mix- 
ing the  graias  of  inferior  cereals  with  wlie:it ;  the 
me.uiiiig  will  then  be,  •'  Let  a  fool  be  ever  so  much 
in  the  con^paiiy  of  wise  men,  yet  he  will  coiitiiuie 
3.  fool."  Maurer  (C<'m"iert^  I.  c.)  simply  explains 
the  passage  thus:  "  (iuomodocunque  tractaveris 
stultuni  non  patietur  se  emendari."  [Compare 
xrticles  Coks;  Aqkiculturk;  B.vkley.J 

W.  H. 
*  WHEEL.     [Cart;   Laver;  Wkll.J 
»  WHEN  AS,  Matt.  i.  18  (A.  V.),  is  simply 
=  "  when,"  as  often  in  old  English  writers.     A. 
•WHIP.      [Cuuu;  Goad;  S'"'>"Koi.>o.J 


WIDOW 


3511 


*  WHIRLPOOL,  as  the  margmal  rendeiing 
"  leviathan  "  in  Job  xli.  1,  is  not  used  in  its  pres- 
ent sense,  but  denotes  a  kind  of  whale.    See  the  quo- 
tations from  Holland's  Pliny,  xi.  37,  is.  3,  4,  in  East- 
wood and  Wright's  Bibk  Worrl-Book,  p.  330.    A. 

WHIRLWIND  (np^D;  Hny?).  The 
Hebrew  terms  sApliAh  and  seArcih  convey  the 
notion  of  a  violent  wind  or  hurricane,  the  former  be- 
cause such  a  wind  sweeps  away  every  object  it  en- 
counters, the  latter  because  the  objects  so  swept 
away  are  tossed  about  and  agitated.  In  addition  to 
this,  (iesenius  gives  a  similar  sense  to  yalgal,"  ii 
Ps.  Ixxvii.  18  (A.  V.  "heaven")  and  Ez.  x.  13 
(.v.  V.  "wheel").  Generally,  however,  this  lact 
term  expresses  one  of  the  effects  of  such  a  stona 
in  rolling  a\o\\g  chaff,  stubble,  or  such  light  article* 
( Tlies.  p.  288).  It  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the 
al)Ove  terms  express  the  specific  notion  of  a  whirl- 
wind,  i.  e.  a  gale  moving  violently  round  on  its  own 
axis  —  and  there  is  no  warrant  for  the  use  of  the 
word  in  the  .-V.  V.  of  2  Iv.  ii.  11.  The  most  vio- 
lent winds  in  Palestine  come  from  the  east;  and  the 
passage  in  .Job  xxxvii.  9,  which  in  the  A.  V.  reads, 
"  Out  of  the  south  cometh  the  whirlwind,"  should 
rather  be  rendered,  "  Out  of  his  chamber,"  etc. 
The  whirlwind  is  frequently  used  as  a  metaphor  of 
violent  and  sweeping  destruction.  Cyrus's  invasion 
of  Babylonia  is  compared  to  a  southerly  gale  coming 
out  of  the  wilderness  of  Arabia  (Is.  xxi.  1 ;  comp. 
Knobel,  in  foe),  the  effects  of  which  are  most  prej- 
udicial in  that  country.  Similar  allusions  occur 
in  Ps.  Iviii.  9;  Prov.  i.  27,  x.  25;  Is.  xl.  24;  Dan. 
xi.  40.  W.  L.  B. 

*  WHITE.     [Colors,  1.] 

*  WHITE  STONE.     [Stones,  8.] 

*  WHOT  (Deut.  ix.  19),  appears  in  the  edition 
of  1611,  subsequently  changed  to  •'  hot."  H. 

WIDOW  (n3^bS:    xvpa-  i-'i^iiin).     Under 

the  JMosaic  dispensation  no  legal  provision  was  made 
for  the  maintenance  of  widows.  They  were  left  de- 
pendent partly  on  the  affection  of  relations,  more 
especially  of  the  eldest  son,  whose  birthright,  or 
extra  share  of  the  |)roperty,  imposed  such  a  duty 
upon  him,  and  partly  on  tlie  privileges  accorded  to 
other  distressed  classes,  such  as  a  participation  in 
the  triennial  third  tithe  (Deut.  siv.  29,  xxvi.  12), 
in  leasing  (Deut.  xxiv  19-21),  and  in  religious 
feasts  (Deut.  xvi.  11,  14).  In  the  spirit  of  these 
regulations  a  portion  of  the  spoil  taken  in  war  was 
assigned  to  them  (2  Mace.  viii.  28,  30).  A  special 
prohibition  was  laid  against  taking  a  widow's  gar- 
ments in  pledge  (Deut.  xxiv.  17),  and  this  was 
practically  extended  to  other  necessaries  (Job  xxiv. 
3).  In  addition  to  these  specific  regulations,  the 
widow  was  commended  to  the  care  of  the  commu- 
nity (Ex.  xxii.  22;  Deut.  xxvii.  19;  Is.  i.  17;  Jer. 
vii.  6,  xxii.  3;  Zech.  vii.  10),  and  any  neglect  or 
oppression  was  strongly  reprobated  (.lob  xxii.  9, 
xxiv.  21;  Ps.  xciv.  6;  Is.  x.  2;  Ez.  xxii.  7;  MaL 
iii.  5;  Ecclus.  xxxv.  14,  15;  Bar.  vi.  38  [or  Epist. 
of  Jer.  38] ;  INIatt.  xxiii.  14).  In  times  of  danger 
widows  were  permitted  to  deposit  their  property  in 
the  treasury  of  the  Temple  (2  Mace.  iii.  10). 
With  regard  to  the  remarriage  of  widows,  the  only 
restriction  im[X)sed  by  the  Mosaic  law  had  reference 
to  the  contingency  of  one  being   left  childless,  in 


.  babs. 


3512 


WIDOW 


which  case  the  brother  of  the  deceased  husband  had 
ii  right  to  marry  the  widow  (Ueut.  xxv.  5,  S;  Matt, 
xxii.  23-30).  [M.\RKiAtiK.]  The  high-priest  was 
•prohibited  from  marrying  a  widow,  and  in  the  itleal 
pohty  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  the  prohibition  is  ex- 
tended to  the  ordinary  priests  (i'^z.  xliv.  22!. 

In  tlie  Apostolic  Church  the  widows  were  sus- 
tained at  the  public  expense,  the  relief  being  daily 
administered  in  kind,  under  the  superintendence  of 
officers  appointed  for  this  sjiecial  purpose  (Acts  vi. 
1-6).   Particular  directions  are  given  ijy  St.  Paul  as 
to  the  class  of  persons  entitled  to  such  public  main- 
tenance (1  Tim.  V.  3-10).     He  would  confine  it  to 
the  "  widow  indeed  "'   (^  ojitcos   xvpa)i  w'loni   he 
defines  to  be  one  who  is  left  alone  in   the  world 
{jxiixovw^evr})i  without  any  relations  or  Christian 
friends  responsible  for  her  support  (vv.  3-.5,  16). 
Poverty  combined  with  friendlesaness  thus  formed 
the  main  criterion  of  eligibility  for  public  support ; 
out  at  the  same  time  the  character  of  the  widow  — 
hei'  piety  and  trustfulness  —  w'as  to  be  taken  into 
account  (ver.  5).     Out  of  the  body  of  such  widows 
a   certain    number  were    to  be  enrolled   (/caroA-e- 
■ye'frSto;  A.  V.    "taken    into    the   number"),  the 
qualifications   for  such    enrollment  being  (1)  that 
they  were  not  under  sixty  years  of  age;   (2)  that 
they  had    been  '•  the  wife  of  one  man,"   probably 
meaning  but  once  married;  and  (3)  that  they  had 
led  useful  and  charitable  lives  (vv.  9,  10).     The  ob- 
ject of  the  enrollment  is  liy  no  means  obvious.     If 
we  were  to  form  our  opinion  solely  on  the  qualifi- 
cations above  expressed,  we  should  conclude   that 
the  emolled  widows  formed  an  ecclesiastical  order, 
having  duties  identical  with  or  analogous  to  those 
of  the  deaconesses  of  the  early  Church.     P"or  why, 
if  tlie    object  were  of  an  eleemosynary  character, 
should  tlie  younger  or  twice-married  widows  be  ex- 
cluded ?     The  weight  of  modern  criticism  is  un- 
doubtedly in  favor  of  the  view   that  the   enrolled 
widows  held  such  an  official  position  in  the  Church 
(Alford,  De  Wette,  Lange,  etc.,  in  1   Tim.  v.  9,  10). 
But  we  can  perceive  no  ground  for  isolating  the  pas- 
sage relating  to  the  enrolled  widows  from  the  con- 
text, or  for  distinguishing  these  from  the  "  widows 
indeed  "'  referred  to  in   the  preceding  and  succeed- 
ing verses.     If  the  [jassage  i)e  read  as  a  whole,  then 
the  impression  derived  from  it  will  be  that  the  en- 
rollment was  for  an  eleemosynary  purpose,  and  that 
the  main  condition  of  enrollment  was,   as  before, 
poverty.     The  very  argument  which  has  been  ad- 
duced in  favor   of  the   opposite    view,    in    reality 
equally  favors  this  one;  for  why  should   unmarried 
or  young  women  be  excluded  from  an  ecclesiastical 
order?     The  practice  of  the  early  Ciuirch  proves 
that  they  were  not  excluded.      I'he  author  of  the 
Apiisiulicdl  ConsliiuUons    lays  down  the  ride   that 
virgins  should  be  generally,  and  widows  only  excep- 
iioaally,  appointed  to   tlie  office  of  deaconess  (vi. 
17,  §  4);  and  though  the  directions  given  to  Tim- 
othy were  frequently  taken  as  a  model  for  the  ap- 
pointment  of  deaconesses,  yet  there  was  great  di- 
versity of  practice  in  this  respect  (Bingham's  Ant.  ii. 
22.  §§  2-5).     On  the  other  hand,  the  restrictions 
contained  in  the  Apostolic  directions  are  not  incon- 
gistent  with  the  eleemosynary  view,  if  we  assume, 
as  is  very  possible,  that  the  enrolled  widows  formed 
t  jjermanent  charge  on  the  public  funds,  and  en- 
joyed certain  privileges  by  reason  of  their  long  pre- 
vious  services,    while    the    remainder,    who    were 
younger,  and  might  very  possibly  remarry,  would 
be  regarded  in  the   light  of  temporary  and  casual 
recipients.     But  wiiile  we    tluia   Ijelieve  that   the 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 

primary  object  of  the  enrollment  was  simply  to  en- 
force a  more  methodical  administration  of  the 
Church  funds,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the 
order  of  widows  would  obtain  a  quasi-official  posi- 
tion in  the  Church.  Having  already  served  a  vol- 
untary diaconate,  and  having  exhibited  their  self- 
control  by  refraining  from  a  second  marriage,  they 
would  naturally  be  looked  up  to  as  models  of  piety 
to  their  sex,  and  would  belong  to  the  class  whence 
ileaconesses  would  be  chiefly  drawn.  Hence  we 
find  the  term  "  widow  "  {x'f]f>a)  used  by  early 
writers  in  an  extended  sense,  to  signify  the  adoption 
of  the  conditions  iiy  which  widows,  enrolled  as 
such,  were  bound  for  the  futm-e.  Thus  Ignatius 
speaks  of  "virgins  who  were  called  widows  "  (Trap- 
deyovs  rai  Aeyo/xffa?  xrjpas;  J'^p-  nd  Smyrn. 
13);  and  Tertullian  records  the  case  of  a  virgin 
who  was  placed  on  the  roll  of  widows  {in  ridwitu) 
while  yet  under  twenty  years  of  age  {De  Vel.  Virg. 
9).  It  is  a  further  question  in  what  respect  these 
virgins  were  called  "widows."  The  annotations 
on  Ignatius  regard  the  term  as  strictly  equivalent 
to  "deaconess"  {Paires  Apos.  ii.  441,  ed.  .lacob- 
son),  but  there  is  evidently  another  sense  in  which 
it  may  be  used,  namely,  as  betokening  celib((ry,  and 
such  we  believe  to  have  been  its  meaning,  inasmuch 
as  the  abstract  term  ^ripeta  is  used  in  the  sense  of 
continence^  or  unmnrried  state,  in  the  Apostolical  ■ 
Constitutions  {irapQivos  fx^  (pepovcra  ttjv  ii/  i/e6- 
Tt)Ti  x^P^'af'  dajpov  ^xovaa  XTjpsi'aj,  iii.  1,  §§  1, 
2).  We  are  not  therefore  disposed  to  identify  the 
widows  of  the  Bible  either  with  the  deaconesses  or 
with  the  TTpea^vTiSes  of  the  early  Church,  from 
each  of  which  classes  they  are  distinguished  in  the 
work  last  quoted  (ii.  57,  §  8,  viii.  13,  §  4).  The 
order  of  widows  (rb  XVP^K'^'')  existed  as  a  separate 
institution,  contemporaneously  with  these  offices, 
apparently  for  the  same  eleemosynary  purpose  for 
which  it  was  originally  instituted  ( Const.  Apos.  iii. 
1,  §  1,  iv.  5,  §  1).  VV.  L.  B. 

WIFE.     [Uivokce;  Marriage.] 

WILD  BEASTS.     [Beasts.] 

*  WILDERNESS  OF  SIN.  [Sin,  Wil- 
derness OF.] 

WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDER- 
ING. The  historical  magnitude  of  the  Exodus  as 
an  event,  including  in  that  name  not  only  the  exit 
from  Egypt,  lint  the  passage  of  the  sea  and  deseit, 
and  the  entry  into  Canaan,  and  the  strange  scenery 
in  which  it  was  enacted,  tio  less  than  the  miraculous 
agency  sustained  throughout  forty  years,  has  given 
to  this  locality  an  interest  which  is  heightened,  if 
possible,  by  the  constant  retrospect  taken  by  the 
great  Teacher  of  the  New  Testament  and  his  Apos- 
tles, of  this  portion  of  the  history  of  the  race  of 
Israel,  as  full  of  spiritual  lessons  necessary  for  the 
Christian  Church  throughout  all  ages.  Hence  this 
region,  which  pliysically  is,  and  has  probably  been 
for  three  thousand  years  or  more,  little  else  than  a 
barren  waste,  has  derived  a  moral  grandeur  and  ob- 
tained a  reverential  homage  which  has  spread  with 
the  diffusion  of  Christianity.  Indeed,  to  Christian, 
Jew,  and  Moslem  it  is  alike  holy  ground.  The 
mystery  which  hangs  over  by  far  the  greater  num- 
ber of  localities,  assigned  to  events  even  of  first-rate 
magnitude,  rather  inflames  than  allays  the  eager- 
ness for  identification ;  and  the  result  has  been  a 
larger  array  of  tourists  than  has  prohalily  ever  pene- 
trated any  other  country  of  equal  difficulty.  Burck- 
hardt,  Niebuhr,  Seetzen,  Laborde  and  Linant 
Bii^ipell,  Piauuier,   Kussegger,    Lepsius,    Henniker 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3513 


WoiistP'l,  Fazakerley,  and  Miss  Martinean,  are  con- 
spicuous amongst  those  wlio  have  contributed  since 
the  close  of  the  last  century  to  deepen,  to  vivify, 
and  to  correct  our  impressions,  besicles  the  earlier 
works  of  Moncouys  in  the  17th  century,  and  Ilas- 
selquist  and  Pooocke  in  the  18th;  whilst  Wilson, 
Stewart,  Bartlett,  Bonar,  Olin,  Bertou,  liobinson, 
and  Stanley  have  added  a  rich  detail  of  illustration, 
reaching  to  the  present  day.  And  thus  it  is  at 
length  "  possible  by  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
country  itself  to  lay  down,  not  indeed  the  actual 
route  of  the  Israelites  in  every  stage,  but  in  almost 
all  cases  the  main  alternatives  between  which  we 
must  choose,  and  in  some  cases  the  very  spots 
themselves."  Yet  with  all  the  material  which  now 
lies  at  the  disposal  of  the  topographical  critic,  there 
is  often  a  real  poverty  of  evidence  where  there  seems 
to  lie  an  abundance;  and  the  single  lines  of  infor- 
mation do  not  weave  up  into  a  faljric  of  clear  knowl- 
edge. "  Hitherto  no  one  traveller  lias  traversed 
more  than  one,  or  at  most  two  routes  of  the  Desert, 
and  thus  the  determination  of  these  questions  has 
lieeii  olisoured;  first,  by  the  tendency  of  every  one 
to  make  the  Israelites  follow  his  own  track ;  and 
secondly,  by  his  inability  to  institute  a  just  com- 
parison between  the  facilities  or  difficulties  which 
attend  the  routes  which  he  has  not  seen.  This  ob- 
scurity will  always  exist  till  some  competent  traveller 
has  e.xplored  the  whole  Peninsula.  When  this  has 
been  fairly  done,  there  is  little  doubt  that  some  of 
the  most  important  topographical  questions  now  at 
issue  will  be  set  at  rest  "  (Suanley,  ^^  if  P.  33). 

I.  The  uncertainties  connnence  from  the  very 
starting-point  of  the  route  of  the  Wandering.  It 
is  impossible  to  fix  the  point  at  which  in  "the 
wilderness  of  Etham  "  (Num.  xxxiii.  6,  7)  Israel, 
now  a  nation  of  freemen,  emerged  from  that  sea 
into  which  they  had  passed  as  a  nation  of  sla\es. 
But,  slippery  as  is  the  physical  ground  for  any  fix- 
ture of  the  miracle  to  a  particular  spot,  we  may 
yet  admire  the  grandeur  and  vigor  of  the  image 
of  baptism  which  Christianity  has  appropriated 
from  those  waters.  There  their  freedom  was  won ; 
''  not  of  themselves,  it  was  the  gift  of  God,"  whose 
presence  visibly  preceded;  and  therefore  St.  Paul 
says,  "  they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud,"  and  not 
only  "  in  the  sea."  The  fact  that  from  "  Ethan) 
in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  their  path  struck 
across  the  sea  (Ex.  xiii.  20),  and  from  the  sea  into 
the  same  wilderness  of  Etham,  seems  to  indicate 
the  upper  end  of  the  furthest  tongue  of  the  Gulf 
of  Suez  as  the  point  of  crossing,  for  here,  as  is 
probable,  rather  than  lower  down  the  same,  the 
district  on  either  side  would  for  a  short  distance 
on  both  shores  have  the  same  name.  There  seems 
reason  also  to  think  that  this  gulf  had  then,  as 
also  at  Ezion-tJelier  [Ezion-gkukh],  a  ftn-ther  ex- 
tension northward  than  at  present,  owing  to  tlie 
land  having  upheaved  its  level.     This  action  seems 


a  See  a  pamphlet  by  Charles  T.  Beke,  Ph.  D.,  "  A 

Few  Words  with  Bishop  Colenso,''  pp.  4,  5. 

h  Compare  the  use  of  the  same  word,  of  a  multi- 
tude of  men  or  cattle  (in  Joel  i.  18),  to  express  iv 
anofjia  elvai,  without  reference  to  egress  or  directiou 
of  course,  merely  for  want  of  food. 

«  Jusephus  {Ant.  ii.  15,  §  3)  .ipeaks  of  the  obstruc- 
tion of  precipitous  and  impassable  mountJiins,  but 
when  we  consider  his  e.ttravagant  language  of  the 
height  of  the  buildings  of  the  Temple,  it  is  Mkely  that 
much  more,  when  speaking  in  general  terms  of  a  spot 
80  distant,  such  expressions  may  be  set  down  as  sim- 
ply rhetorical. 

221 


to  have  been  from  early  times  the  predominant  one, 
and  traces  of  it  have  recently  been  observed."  Thus 
it  is  probable,  as  a  result  of  the  same  agency,  that 
the  sea  was  even  then  shallow,  and  the  sudden 
action  of  a  tidal  sea  in  the  cttl-de-snc  of  a  narrow 
and  shallow  gulf  is  well  known.  Our  own  Solway 
Firth  is  a  familiar  example  of  the  lise  and  rush  of 
water,  surprising,  at  times,  especially  when  com- 
bined with  the  action  of  a  strong  wind,  even  those 
habitually  cognizant  of  its  power.  Similarly  by 
merely  venturing,  it  seems,  below  high-water  mark, 
our  own  King  John  lost  his  baggage,  regalia,  and 
treasures  in  the  estuary  of  The  Wash.     I'haraoh's 

exclamation,  "they  are  entangled  (Cl'^pIIl?) *  in  the 

land,"  merely  expresses  the  perplexity  in  which 
such  a  multitude,  h.aving,  from  whatever  cause,  no 
way  of  escape,  would  find  themselves.  "  The  wil- 
derness hath  shut  them  in,"  refers  merely,  it  is 
probable,  to  his  security  in  the  belief  that,  having 
reached  the  flat  of  the  waste,  they  were  completely 
at  the  mercy  of  a  chariot  force,  like  his,  and  rather 
excludes  than  implies  the  notion  of  mountain's.'^ 
The  direction  of  the  wind  is  "east"  in  the  He- 
brew (Cirj  n^~l2),  but  in  the  LXX.  "  south  " 

{v6rw),  in  Ex.  xiv.  21.  On  a  local  question  the 
probable  authority  of  the  latter,  executed  in  Egypt 
near  the  spot,  is  somewhat  enhanced  above  its  ordi- 
nary value.  The  furthest  tongue  of  the  gulf,  now 
supposed  dr}',  narrows  to  a  strait  some  way  below, 
i.  e.  south  of  its  northern  extremity,  as  given  in 
Laborde's  map  (Commentury  on  Exod.)  and  then 
widens  again.''  In  such  a  narrow  pass  the  action 
of  the  water  would  be  strongest  when  "  the  sea 
returned,"  and  here  a  wind  anywhere  between  E. 
and  S.  S.  E.,  to  judge  from  that  map,  would  pro- 
duce nearly  the  same  effect;  only  the  more  nearly 
due  E.  the  more  it  would  meet  the  sea  at  right 
angles.*'  The  prol)ability  is  certainly  that  Pharaoh, 
seeing  his  bondmen,  now  all  but  within  his  clutch, 
yet  escaping  from  it,  would  in  the  darkness  of 
night,  especially  as  he  had  spurned  calmer  coun- 
sels and  remonstrances  before,  pursue  with  head- 
long rashness,  even  although,  to  a  sober  judgment 
guided  by  experience,  the  risk  was  plain.  There 
is  a  resemblance  in  the  names  Migdol  and  the 
"  ancient  '  JIagdolum,'  twelve  miles  S.  of  Pelu- 
sium,  and  undoubtedly  described  as  '  Migdol '  by 
.lereiniah  and  Ezekiel "  (.ler.  xliv.  1,  xlvi.  14;  Ez. 
xxix.  10,  XXX.  6;  S.  </•  P.  p.  37),  also  between  the 
same  and  the  modern  Mulclahi,  "  a  gentle  slope 
tlu'ongh  the  hills"  towards  Suez;  and  Pi-Hahiroth 
perhaps  is '.I/;'!*'/.  The  "wilderness  of  Etham" 
probably  lay  on  either  side  adjacent  to  the  now 
dry  trough  of  the  northern  end  of  the  gulf  Dr. 
Stewart  {Tvnt  (ind  Khun,  p.  (54)  thinks  the  name 
I'^tham  traceable  in  the  Wadi/  Alilfii,  on  the  Ara- 
bian shore,  but  this  and  the  preceding  ^AjrAd  are 

d  Dr.  Stanley  (S.  If  P.  p.  36)  thinks  that  this  sup- 
posed extension  "  depends  on  arguments  which  have 
not  yet  been  tlioroughly  explored.'" 

e  If  the  wind  were  direct  S.  it  would  at  some  points 
favor  the  notion  that  "  the  passage  was  not  a  transit 
but  a  short  circuit,  returning  agjiiu  to  the  Egyptian 
.<hore,  and  then  pursuing  their  way  round  the  head 
of  tho  gulf,"'  an  explanation  favored  "  by  earlier  Chris- 
tian coinmcnt'itors,  and  by  almost  all  the  Rabbinical 
writers"  (5.  !f  P.  p.  3t)).  The  landing-place  would 
on  this  view  be  considerably  north  of  the  point  n1 
entering  the  sea. 


8514 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


of  doubtful  identity.  The  probability  seems  on 
the  whole  to  fiivor  the  notion  that  the  crossing  lay 
to  the  N.  of  the  Jehd  'Ala/cnh,  which  lies  on  the 
P^gyptian  side  S.  of  Suez,  and  therefore  neither 
the  'AyCiH  Miha,"  nor,  much  less,  the  Huiiimdin 
Phiirnun,  further  down  on  the  eastern  shore  — 
each  of  which  places,  as  well  as  se\eral  others, 
claims  in  local  legend  to  be  tlie  spot  of  landing  — 
will  suit.  Still,  these  places,  or  either  of  them, 
may  be  the  region  where  "  Israel  saw  the  Egyptians 
dead  upon  the  sea-shore"  (Ex.  xiv.  30).  The 
crossing  ])lace  from  the  Egyptian  Wady  Tiiwarik 
to  tiie  'Ai/i'm  Jh'isn  has  been  supported,  however, 
by  Wilson,  Olin,  Dr.  Stewart  ( Tcnl  ami  Khan,  p. 
50),  and  others.  The  notion  of  Muktuhi  being 
Migdol  will  best  suit  tiie  previous  view  of  the  more 
northerly  passage.  Tlie  '-wilderness  of  Shur," 
into  which  the  Israelites  "  went  out "  from  the 
Red  Sea,  appears  to  lie  the  eastern  and  southeastern 
continuation  of  that  of  Ethani,  for  both  in  Mx.  xv. 
22,  and  in  Num.  xxxiii.  8,  tliey  are  recorded  to 
have  "  gone  three  days  in  the  wilderness,"  indicated 
respectively  in  the  two  passages  as  that  of  Shur 
and  that  of  Etham.  From  the  expression  in  Ex. 
xiii.  20,  "  Etham,  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  the 
baljitable  region  would  seem  to  have  ended  at  that 
place.  Josephus  {Anl.  vi.  7,  §  3)  seems  to  identify 
Pelusium  with  Shur  (comp.  1  Sam.  xv.  7);  but 
probably  he  merely  uses  the  former  term  in  an 
approximate  sen.se,  as  a  land-mark  well  known  to 
bis  readers;  since  Shur  is  descrilied  as  -'over 
against,  or  before  Egypt"  (Gen.  xxv.  18),  being 
perhaps  the  same  as  Sihor,  sinnlarly  spoken  of  in 
Josh.  xiii.  3;  Jer.  ii.  18.  When  so  described,  we 
may  understand  "  Egy])t  "  to  be  taken  in  a  strict 
sense  as  excluding  Goshen  and  the  Arabian  nonie. 
[Goshen.]  Shur  "before  I'^gypt,"  whatever  the 
name  may  have  meant,  nuist  probably  be  viewed 
as  l3ing  eastward  of  a  line  drawn  from  Suez  to 
I'elusiuni;  and  the  wilderness  named  from  it  or 
from  Etham,  extended  three  days"  journey  (for  the 
Israelites)  from  the  head  of  the  gulf,  if  not  more. 
It  is  evident  that,  viewed  from  Egypt,  the  wilder- 
ness miglit  easily  take  its  name  from  the  last  out- 
post of  the  habitable  region,  whether  town  or 
village,  whereas  in  otlier  aspects  it  might  have  a 
name  of  its  own,  from  some  land-mark  lying  in  it. 
Thus  the  Egyptians  may  have  known  it  as  con- 
nected with  Etham,  and  the  desert  inhabitants  as 
belonging  to  Shur;  while  from  bis  residence  in 
Egypt  and  sojourn  with  Jethro,  both  names  may 
have  been   familiar  to  Moses.     However  this  may 


n  A  warm  spring,  the  temperature  of  which  is  given 
by  Mr.  Hamilton  (Sinai,  the  Heiljaz  and  Soudan,^.  14) 
as  beinj;  83*  Fahrenheit.  "  llobinson  found  the  water 
here  salt,  and  yielding  a  bard  deposit,  yet  the  Arabs 
railed  these  springs  '  sweet  :  '  there  are  several  of 
them"  (Seetzen,  Reisrn,  iii.  pt.  iii.  431)  The  Hum- 
mam  ("  warm  baths  ")  Phnratin  are  similar  springs, 
lying  a  little  W.  of  S.  from  Wdcly  U.^eit,  on  the  coast 
close  to  whose  edge  rises  the  precipitous  Jebel  Hiim- 
m^im,  so  called  from  tliem,  and  here  intercepting  the 
path  along  the  shore.  The  Rev.  K.  S.  Tyrwhitt,  who 
made  the  desert  journey  in  February,  1863,  says  that 
there  mat/  be  a  warm  spring  out  of  the  twelve  or 
thirteen  which  form  the  ^AyUti  Mttsa,  but  that  the 
water  of  the  larger  well  is  cold,  and  that  he  drank 
of  it. 

h  North  of  this  limit  lies  the  most  southern  wady 
which  has  been  fixed  upon  by  any  considerable  num- 
ber of  autlioritics  for  Elim,  from  which  the  departure 
was  taken  into  the  wilderness  of  Sin.     Seetzen,  but 


be,  from  Suez  eastward,  the  large  desert  tract, 
stretching  as  far  east  as  the  Ghor  and  Mount  Seir 
i.  e.  from  32°  40'  to  35°  10'  E.  long.,  begins! 
The  31st  parallel  of  latitude,  nearly  traversing  tl- 
'Arish,  the  "  River  of  Egypt,"  on  the  Mediterra- 
nean, and  the  southernmost  extremity  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  may  be  taken  roughly  to  represent  its  north- 
ern limit,  where  it  really  merges  imperceptibly  into 
the  ''  south  country  "  of  Judah.  It  is  scarcely 
called  in  Scripture  by  any  one  general  name,  but 
the  "  wilderness  of  Paran  "  most  nearly  approxi- 
mates to  such  a  designation,  though  lost,  short  of 
the  Egyptian  or  western  limit,  in  the  wilderness 
of  Shur,  and  perhaps,  although  not  certainly,  cur- 
tailed eastward  by  that  of  Zin.  On  the  south  side 
of  tiie  et-TUi  range,  a  broad  angular  band  runs 
across  the  penitisula  with  its  apex  turned  south- 
ward, and  pointing  towards  the  central  block  of 
granite  mountains.  This  is  a  tract  of  sand  known 
as  the  Dcblxii  cr-Ramldi  or  Eamlnh,  but  which 
name  is  omitted  in  Kiepert's  map.  The  long  hor- 
izontal range  and  the  sandy  plain  together  form 
a  natural  feature  in  marked  contrast  with  the  py- 
ramidal configuration  of  the  southern  or  Sinaitic 
region.  Tlie  "  wilderness  of  Sinai  "  lies  of  course 
in  that  southern  region,  in  that  part  which,  al- 
tliough  generally  elevated,  is  overhung  by  higher 
peaks.  How  far  this  wilderness  extended  is  un- 
certain. The  Israelites  only  traversed  the  north- 
western region  of  it.  The  "wilderness  of  Sin" 
was  their' passage  into  it  from  the  more  pleasasit 
district  of  coast  wadies  with  water-springs,  which 
succeeded  to  the  first-traversed  wilderness  of  Shur 
or  Etham,  where  no  water  was  found.  Sin  may 
probably  be  identified  with  thfe  coast  strip,  now 
known  as  el-Kaa,  reaching  from  a  little  aljove  the 
,ltbel  Fdran,  or  as  nearly  as  possible  on  the  29th 
parallel  of  latitude,''  down  to  and  beyond  Tur  on 
the  Ked  Sea.  They  seem  to  have  only  dipped  into 
the  "Sin"  region  at  its  northern  extremity,  and 
to  have  at  once  moved  from  the  coast  towards  the 
N.  "W.  upon  Sinai  (Ex.  xv.  22-27,  xvi.  1;  Num. 
xxxiii.  8-11).  It  is  often  impossible  to  assign  a 
distinct  track  to  this  vast  body  —  a  nation  swarm- 
ing on  the  march.  The  fact  of  niany,  perhaps 
most,  of  the  ordinary  avenues  being  incapable  of 
containing  more  than  a  fraction  of  them,  would 
often  have  compelled  them  to  appropriate  all  or 
several  of  the  modes  of  access  to  particular  points, 
between  the  probabilities  of  which  the  judgment  of 
travellers  is  balanced.'^  Down  the  coast,  howe\er, 
from  Etham  or   the   Suez  region  southwards,  the 


he  alone,  suggests  that  Elim  is  to  be  found  in  a  warm 
spring  in  a  northerly  direction  from  3'iir,  at  a  very 
slight  distance,  which  waters  the  extensive  date-palm 
plantations  there.  If  this  were  so,  TiiT  itself  would 
have  certainly  been  included  in  the  radius  of  the 
camp  ;  but  it  is  unlikely  that  they  went  so  far  south. 
c  It  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  that  the  same 
observations  apply  to  the  battle  in  Rephidim  with 
Anialek  To  look  about  for  a  battle-field  large  jenough 
to  give  sufficient  space  for  two  hosts  worthy  of  repre- 
senting Israel  and  Amalek,  and  to  reject  all  sites 
where  this  possibility  is  not  obvious,  is  an  unsafe 
method  of  criticism.  The  most  reticulated  mass  of 
wadies  in  the  whole  peninsula,  if  deemed  worth  fight- 
ing for,  would  form  a  battle-ground  for  all  practical 
purposes,  though  not  properly  a  "  field  "  of  battle, 
and  the  battle  might  decisively  settle  supi'emacy 
within  certain  limits,  although  no  regular  method  of 
warfare  might  be  applicable,  and  the  numbers  actually 
engaged  might  be  inconsiderable.      It  would  perhap* 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3515 


Jourse  is  broad  and  open,  and  there  the  track  would 
ne  more  definite  and  united.  Bel'ore  going  into 
the  furtlier  details  of  this  question,  a  glance  may 
be  taken  a,t  the  general  configuration  of  the  ef-Ti/i 
region,  computed  at  40  parasangs,  or  about  140 
miles,  in  length,  and  the  same  in  breadth,  by  Jakiit, 
the  famous  geographer  of  Haniah  (Seetzen,  Jieisen, 
iii.  47).  For  a  description  of  the  rock  desert  of 
Sinai,  in  which  nature  has  cast,  as  it  were,  a  pyra- 
mid of  granite,  culminating  at  flin  Shftiimer, 
9,300  feet  above  sea-level,  but  cloven  and  sulcated 
in  every  direction  by  wadies  into  minor  blocks,  see 
Sinai. 

H.  The  twin  gulfs  of  Suez  and  'Akabah,  into 
which  the  Red  Sea  separates,  embrace  the  Penin- 
sula on  its  W.  and  E.  sides  respectively.  One  or 
otiier  of  thein  is  in  sight  from  almost  all  the  sum- 
mits of  the  Sinaitic  cluster,  and  from  the  highest 
points  both  branches.  The  eastern  coast  of  the 
Gulf  of  Suez  is  strewn  with  shells,  and  with  the 
forests  of  submarine  vegetation  which  possibly  gave 
the  whole  sea  its  Hebrew  appellation  of  'the  "  Sea 
of  Weeds."  The  "  huge  trunks  "  of  its  "  trees  of 
coral  may  be  seen  even  on  the  dry  shore;  "  while 
at  Tdi\  cabins  are  formed  of  madrepores  gathered 
from  it,  and  the  debt-is  of  conchylia  lie  thickly 
heaped  on  the  beach."  Similar  "  coralline  forests" 
are  described  (5.  c/  P.  p.  83)  as  marking  the  coast 
of  the  (iulf  of  '.\kabah.  The  northern  portion  of 
the  whole  Peninsula  is  a  plateau  bounded  south- 
wards by  the  range  of  et-Tili,  which  droops  across 
it  on  the  map  with  a  curve  somewhat  like  that  of  a 
slack  chain,  whose  points  of  suspension  ai-e,  west- 
wards, Suez,  and  eastward,  but  further  south,  some 
"  sandstone  cliffs,  which  shut  off"  *  this  region 
from  the  .Gulf  of  'Akabah.  The  northwestern 
member  of  this  chain  converges  with  the  shore  of 
the  Gulf  of  Suez,  till  the  two  run  nearly  parallel. 
Its  eastern  member  throws  oft"  several  frai;ments 
of  long  and  short  ridges  towards  the  (inlf  of 
'Akabah  and  the  northern  plateau  called  from  it 
et-Tili.  The  ./efiel  biUdl,  {\imxkh:ivi\t,  Blu-lel)  h 
the  most  southerly  of  the  continuations  of  this 
eastern  member  (Seetzen,  Eaisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  413). 
'I'he  greatest  elevation  in  the  et-  Till,  range  is 
attained  a  little  \V.  of  the  meridian  34°,  near  its 
most  southerly  point;  it  is  here  4,654  feet  above 
the  Mediterranean.  From  this  point  the  watershed 
of  the  plateau  runs  obliquely  between  N.  and  K. 
towards  Hebron;  westward  of  which  line,  and 
tiorthward  from  the  westerly  niemlier  of  Jebd 
el-Ti/i,  the  whole  wady-system  is  drained  by  the 
great  Wachj  el-'Arish,  along  a  gradual  slope  to  the 
Mediterranean.  The  shorter  and  nuich  steeper 
slope  eastward  partly  con\erges  into  the  large  ducts 
of  wadies  Fikreh  and  el-Jdb,  entering  the  Dead 
Sea's  southwestern  angle  through  the  southern 
wall  of  the  (ihor,  and  partly  finds  an  outlet  nearly 
parallel,  l)ut  further  to  the  S-,  by  the  IVady  Jenifeh 
into  the  'Arabah.  The  great  depressfon  of  the 
Dead  Sea  (1,300  feet  below  the  Mediterranean) 
explains  the  greater  steepness  of  this  eastern  slope. 


resemble  somewhat  more  closely  a  street  figlit  for  the 
mastery  of  a  town. 

a  Stanley,  *'.  ^  P.  p.  5 :  Hamilton,  Sinai,  tlie  Hed- 
jaz,  nnd  Soudan,  p.  1-1. 

b  Stanley,  S.  i^  P.  p.  8. 

c  Sf>etzeu,  who  cros-wl  this  route  G  hours  to  the  E. 
•f  this  stjition,  says  that  this  r<ad,  and  not  the  ninge 
A  't-T  It,  is  the  political  division  of  the  country,  all 
tlie  country  to  the  S.  of  the   road  being  reckoned  as 


In  crossing  this  plateau,  Seetzen  foi  nd  that  ram 
and  wind  had  worked  depressions  in  parts  of  iU 
flat,  which  contained  a  few  shrulis  or  isolated 
bushes.  This  flat  rose  here  and  there  in  heights 
steep  on  one  side,  composed  of  white  chalk  with 
frequent  lumps  of  flint  embedded  (iii.  48).  The 
plateau  h.as  a  central  point  in  the  station  <^  Khan 
NdUil,  so  named  from  the  date-trees  which  once 
adorned  its  wady,  but  which  have  all  disappeared. 
This  point  is  nearly  equidistant  from  Suez  west- 
ward, 'Akabah  eastward,  d- Arish  iiortGward,  and 
tlie  toot  of  Jebifl  Mma  southward.  It  lies  half  a 
mile  X.  of  the  "  Hadj -route,"  between  Suez  and 
"Akabah,  which  traverses  "a  boundless  flat,  dreary 
and  desolate"  {ibid.  50),  and  is  1,494 <'  feet  above 
the  Mediterranean  —  nearly  on  the  same  meridian 
as  the  highest  point  before  assigned  to  et-Tih.  On 
this  meridian  also  lies  Urn  Slixumer  farther  south, 
the  highest  point  of  the  entire  Peninsula,  having 
an  elevation  of  '.),3()0  feet,  or  nearly  doulJe  that  of 
et-Tih.  A  little  to  the  W.  of  the  same  meridian 
lies  el-'Arinh,  and  the  southern  cape,  Jim  Mo- 
hammed, is  situated  about  34°  17'.  Thus  the 
parallel  31°,  and  the  meridian  34°,  form  important 
axes  of  the  whole  region  of  the  Peninsula.  A  full 
description  of  the  wilderness  of  e/-Tih  is  given  by 
Ur.  liobinson  (i.  177,  178,  l'J9),  together  with  a 
memorandum  of  the  travellers  who  explored  it 
previously  to  himself. 

On  the  eastern  edge  of  the  plateau  to  the  X.  of 
the  et-Tl/i  range,  which  is  raised  terrace-wise  by  a 
step  from  the  le  el  of  the  Ghor,  rises  a  singular 
second,  or,  reckoning  that  level  itself,  a  third  pla- 
teau, superimposed  on  the  general  surface  of  the 
et-Tih  region.  These  llussegger  {M'lp)  distin- 
guishes as  three  terraces  in  the  chalk  ridges.  Dr. 
Kruse,  in  his  Ani>H-rkun(/en  on  Seetzen's  travels 
(iii.  pt.  iii.  410),  remarks  that  the  ,/ibel  et-Tih  is 
the  moide.t  ni(/ri,  or  ixi\aves  of  Ptolemy,  in  whose 
view  that  range  descends  to  the  extreme  southern 
point  of  the  Peninsula,  thus  including  of  course  the 
Sinaitic  region.  This  confusion  arose  from  a  want 
of  distinct  conception  of  geographical  details.  The 
name  seems  to  have  been  obtained  from  the  dark, 
or  even  black  color,  -which  is  observable  in  parts 
(see  p.  3516,  note  d). 

The  Hadj-route  from  Suez  to  'Akabah,  crossing 
the  Peninsula  in  a  direction  a  little  S.  of  E.,  may 
stand  for  the  chord  of  the  arc  of  the  et-  Tilt  range, 
the  length  of  which  latter  is  about  120  miles.  This 
slope,  descendin'j;  northwards  upon  the  Mediterra- 
nean, is  of  limestone  {S.  cf  P.  p.  7),  covered  with 
coarse  gravel  interspersed  with  black  flints  and 
drift  (Hussegger's  Mop).  But  its  desolation  has 
not  always  been  so  extreme,  oxen,  asses,  ami  sheep 
having  once  grazed  Iti  parts  of  it  where  now 
only  the  camel  is  found.  Three  passes  through 
the  et-Tih  rauLce  are  mentioned  by  Robinson  (i. 
123;  comp.  561-563,  App.  xxii.) — ef-Rakiiieh, 
the  western;  d-Mureikhy,  the  eastern;  and  d- 
Wi'trsnh,  between  the  two.  These  all  meet  S.  of 
Ktdiiiibeh  (liehoboth.  Gen.  xxvi.  22'.^),  in  about  N. 


the  Tfir,  and  that  northwards  as  appertaining  tc 
Syria  ' Kfisni,  iii.  410.  411,  coiiip  p.  58).  His  cours* 
lay  between  the  route  from  Hebron  to  "Akabah,  and 
that  from  Holmin  to  Suez.  He  went  straight  south- 
wards to  Fr-iidn  ;  a  route  which  no  traveller  hn» 
followed  sinoe 

''  This  measurement  is  a  mean  between  that  given 
in  Stanley  (map,  .S.  if  P.  p  5),  and  Hussegger's  est|. 
mate,  as  given  by  Seetzen  (Hf/.tfn,  iii.  pt.  iii   411) 


3516 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


lat.  31°  5',  E.  long.  3-10  42',  and  thence  diverge 
towards  Hebron  and  (!aza.  The  eastern  «  is  noted 
by  Russegger  as  4,853  feet ''  above  sea-level.  Seet- 
«en  took  the  et-  Tih  range  for  the  "  Mount  Seir," 
passed  on  the  way  from  Sinai  (Horeb,  Deut.  i.  2) 
to  Kadesli  Barnea  by  the  Israelites  {Eeise^i,  iii.  28; 
conip.  itAd.  Kruse's  Annurkumjen,  pt.  iii.  417). 
It  would  form  a  conspicuous  object  ou  the  left  to 
the  Israelites,  going  southeastwards  near  the  coast 
of  the  Gulf  of  Suez.  Seetzen,  proceeding  towards 
Suez,  i.  e.  in  the  opposite  direction,  mentions  a 
high  sandy  plain  {Beisen,  iii.  Ill),  apparently 
near  Wady  Gliurundel,  whence  its  steep  soutliern 
face  was  visible  in  a  white  streak  stretching  west- 
wards and  eastwards.  Dr.  Stanley  {S.  cf  P.  p.  7) 
Bays,  "  However  mucii  the  other  mountains  of  the 
Peninsula  vary  in  form  or  height,  the  mountains 
of  the  Tlh  are  always  alike — always  faithful  to 
their  tabular  outline  and  blanched  desolation."  <^ 
They  appear  like  "  a  long  limestone  wall."  This 
traveller  saw  them,  however,  only  "  from  a  dis- 
tance "  {ibid,  and  note  2).  Seetzen,  who  crossed 
them,  going  from  Hebron  to  Sinai,  says  of  the 
view  from  the  highest  ridge  of  the  lower  mountain- 
line:  ''  What  a  landscape  was  that  I  looked  down 
upon!  On  all  sides  the  most  friirhtful  wilderness 
extended  out  of  sight  in  every  direction,  without 
tree,  shrub,  or  speck  of  green.  It  was  an  alterna- 
tion of  flats  and  hills,  for  the  most  part  black  as 
night,  only  the  naked  rock  walls  on  the  hummocks 
and  heights  showed  patches  of  dazzling  whiteness  <' 
....  a  striking  image  of  our  globe,  when,  through 
Phaeton's  carelessness,  the  sun  came  too  near  to 
it"  {Rn&en,  iii.  50).  Similarly,  describing  the 
scenery  of  the  Wiidy  el-Bidrn.  by  which  he  passed 
the  et-Tih  range  (see  note  a  below),  he  says:  "  On 
the  S.  side  rose  a  considerable  range,  desolate, 
craggy,  and  naked.  All  was  limestone,  chalk,  and 
tiint.  The  chalk  clifts  gave  the  steep  offset  of  the 
Tih  range  on  its  S.  side  the  aspect  of  a  snmc 
mountain'"  (p.  62). 

The  other  routes  which  traverse  the  Peninsula 
are,  that  from  Hebron  to  Suez  along  the  maritime 
plain,  at  a  distance  of  from  10  to  30  miles  from 
the  sea,  passing  tl- Arisli  ;  that  from  Suez  to  Tur 
along  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  through  the 
Kd(i  ,  and  that  from  'Akabah,  near  Ezion-geber, 
ascending  the  western  wall  of  the  'Arabah  through 
the  Wady  el-Jeib,  by  several  passes,  not  far  from 
the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  towards 
Hebron,  in  a  course  here  nearly  N.  W.,  then  again 
N.«  A  modern  mountain  road  has  been  partially 
tonstructed  by  Abbas  Pasha  in  the  pass  of  the 
Wady  Hebi-dn,  leading  from  the  coast  of  the  Gulf 
Df  Suez  towards  the  convent  conmionly  called  St. 

a  Seetzen  probably  took  this  eastern  pass,  which 
leads  out  into  the  Wadt/  Br  rah  (.Seetzen,  El  Biara, 
called  also  El  SchdirJe,  Reisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  411,  Kruse"s 
Anmerkungen,  conip.  iii.  62).  lie,  however,  shortly 
before  crossing  the  range,  came  upon  "  a  flat  hill 
yielding  wholesome  pasture  for  camels,  considerable 
numbers  (llanfen)  of  which  are  met  with  here,  also 
two  herds  of  goats  and  some  sheep  "  (iii.  60)  ;  not 
strictly  confirming  the  previous  statement,  which  is 
Dr.  Robinson's. 

f>  It  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  this  statement  with  the 
figure  (4,645  ft.)  given  by  Dr.  Stanley  (5.  ^  P.,  map, 
p.  5)  apparently  as  the  extreme  height  of  the  moun- 
tain El-O'ljwe  (Stjinley,  J.  E'/hne),  since  we  might 
expect  that  the  pass  would  he  somewhat  Inwtr  than 
the  highest  point,  instead  of  higher  On  this  moun- 
Uiin,  s«;e  p.  3r)34,  nnti'  a. 


Catharine's.  The  ascent  from  the  trough  of  the 
'Arabah  (which  is  steeper-sided  at  its  N.  W.  ex- 
tremity than  elsewhere)  towards  the  general  pla- 
teau is  by  the  pass  el-K/iurdr,  by  which  the  level 
of  tliat  broad  surface  is  attained.  The  smaller 
plateau  rests  obliquely  upon  the  latter,  abutting  on 
the  Dead  Sea  at  jMasada,  where  its  side  and  that 
of  the  lower  floor  converge,  and  is  reached  by 
ascending  through  the  higher  Nidcb  es-SHfa.  Its 
face,  corresponding  to  the  southern  face  of  the  Tih 
plateau,  looks  considerably  to  the  W.  of  S.,  owing 
to  this  obliquity,  and  is  delineated  like  a  well- 
defined  mountain  wall  in  Kiepert's  map,  having  at 
the  S.  E.  angle  a  bold  buttress  in  the  Jebel  Mukli- 
rdh,  and,  at  the  S.  W.  another  in  the  Jtbel  'ArdiJ 
en-Nakah,  which  stands  out  apparently  in  the 
wilderness  like  a  promontory  at  sea.  From  the 
former  mountain,  its  most  southerly  point,  at  about 
30°  20'  N.  L.,  this  plateau  extends  northward  a 
little  east,  till  it  merges  in  the  southern  slope  of 
Juda-a,  but  at  about  30°  50'  N.  lat.,  is  cut  nearly 
through  by  the  Wady  Fikreh,  trenching  its  area 
eastward,  and  not  quite  meeting  the  Wady  .}Jur- 
rdli,  which  has  its  declivity  apparently  toward  the 
Wady  el-'Arish  westward.  The  face  of  moun- 
tain wall  mentioned  above  may  probably  be  "  the 
mountain  of  the  Amorites,"  or  this  whole  higher 
plateau  may  be  so  (Deut.  i.  7,  19,  20).  A  line 
drawn  northwards  from  Jids  Mohammed  passes  a 
little  to  the  W.  of  '' Ardif  en-Nakah.  A  more 
precise  description  of  some  parts  of  this  plateau  has 
been  given  under  Kade.sh. 

On  the  whole,  except  in  the  Dehhet  er-Hamleh, 
sand  is  rare  in  the  Peninsula.  There  is  little  or 
none  on  the  sea-shore,  and  the  plain  el-Kaa  on  the 
S.  W.  coast  is  graveUy  rather  than  sandy  (S.  (^ 
P.  p.  8).  Of  sandstone  on  the  edges  of  the  granitic 
central  mass  there  is  no  lack./  It  is  chiefly  found 
between  the  chalk  and  limestone  of  et-Tih  and  the 
southern  rocky  triangle  of  Sinai.  Thus  the  .lebel 
Ddlal  is  of  sandstone,  in  tall  vertical  cliffs,  forming 
the  boundary  of  er-Jiamleh  on  the  east  side,  and 
similar  steep  sandstone  cliffs  are  visible  in  the  same 
plain,  lying  on  its  N.  and  N.  W.  sides  (Seetzen, 
iii.  66;  comp.  pt.  iii.  413).  In  the  Wady  Mo- 
katteb  "  the  soft  surface  of  these  sandstone  cliffs 
offered  ready  tablets  "  to  the  unknown  wayfarers 
who  wrote  the  '>  Sinaitic  inscriptions."  This  stone 
gives  in  some  parts  a  strong  red  hue  to  the  nearer 
landscape,  and  softens  into  shades  of  the  subtlest 
delicacy  in  the  distance.  Where  the  surface  has 
been  broken  away,  or  fretted  and  eaten  by  the 
action  of  water,  these  hues  are  most  vivid  [S.  i^  P. 
pp.  10-12).  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  Egyp- 
tians worked  the  limestone  of  el-  Tih,  and  that  that 


'-•  Seetzen  (iii.  56)  remarks  that  "  the  slope  of  the 
et-Tih  range  shows  an  equal  wildnees ''  to  that  of  the 
desert  on  its  northern  side. 

''  Comp.  Dr.  Stanley's  description  of  the  march 
down  the  Waily  Tayibeh  "  between  vast  cliffs  white  on 
the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  of  a  black  calcined 
color  (S.  ^  P.  p.  69). 

e  Nearly  t'ollowing  this  track  in  the  opposite  direc 
tion,  i.  e.  to  the  S.  E.,  Seetzen  went  from  Hebron  to 
M'irlara  (al.  Mar/iirah,  or  Mod(ra),  passing  by  Maon, 
et-Kir»iel  (the  "  Carmel  "  of  Nabal's  pasture-ground  in 
1  Sam.  XXV.  2),  and  AHir  (Reisen,  iii,  10-18). 

/  A  remarkable  sandstone  mountain  on  the  S.  W. 
plain  near  the  sea  is  the  Jebel  NakUs  {"  bell  "),  said  to 
be  so  called  from  the  ringing  sound  made  by  the  sand 
I  pouring  over  its  cliffs  (Stewart,  T.  ^  K.  p.  386,  comp 
I  Russegger,  Reistn,  iii.  277). 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3517 


»i;iterial,  as  found  in  the  pyramids,  was  there 
qiuin-ied.  The  hardness  of  the  granite  ni  the  Jehel 
elTiir  has  been  emphatically  noticed  by  travellers. 
Thus,  in  constructing  recently  the  mountain  road 
for  Abbas  Pasha,  "  the  rocks  "  were  found  "  obsti- 
nately to  resist  even  the  gunpowder's  blast,"  and 
the  sharp  glass-like  edges  of  tlie  ui'anite  soon  wear 
away  the  workmen's  shoes  and  cri])ple  their  feet 
(Hamilton,  Sinai,  the  HedJ  iz,  and  iSo/'idm,  p.  17). 
Similarly,  Laborde  says  (Comin.  on  Num.  xxxiii. 
36):  "In  my  journey  across  that  country  (from 
Egypt,  through  Sinai  to  the  Ghor),  I  had  carried 
from  Cairo  two  pair  of  shoes;  they  wei'e  cut,  and 
my  feet  came  thnm/h;  when  I  arrived  at'Akabah, 
luckily  I  found  in  the  magazines  of  that  fortress 
two  other  pair  to  replace  them.  On  my  return  to 
.Sinai,  I  was  barefoot  again.  Hussein  tlien  pro- 
cured me  sandals  half  an  inch  thick,  which,  on  my 
arrival  in  Cairo,  themselves  were  reduced  to  noth- 
inif,  though  tiiey  had  well  pieserved  my  feet." 
Seetzen  noticed  on  Mount  St.  Catherine  that  the 
granite  was  "fine-grained  and  very  firm  "  (iii.  90). 
h'or  the  area  of  greatest  relief  in  the  surface  of  the 
whole  Peninsula,  see  Sinai,  §§  1,  2,  3.  The  name 
./ebd  t'^-rur  includes  the  whole  cluster  of  moun- 
tiiins  from  tl-Fureid  on  the  N.  to  Uni  Shauiuer 
on  the  S.,  and  from  Musa  and  ed-Deir  on  the  E. 
to  //uin^r  and  Serbal  on  the  W.,  including  St. 
Catherine,  nearly  S.  W.  of  Mi'isa.  By  "  Sinai  " 
is  generally  understood  the  Musa  plateau,  between 
the  Wady  Ledjd  (Stanley,  Map)  and  the  Wady 
IShueib  on  its  western  and  northeastern  flanks, 
and  bounded  northwestward  by  the  Wady  er- 
Ra/itli,  and  southeastward  by  the  Wady  Sebnyeh 
{Sebaiyeh,  Stanley,  ibid.).  The  Arabs  give  the 
name  of  Tur  —  properly  meaning  a  high  mountain 
(Stanley,  <S.  <f  /*.  p.  8) — to  the  whole  region 
south  of  the  Hadj-route  from  Suez  to  \-ikabah  as 
far  as  Ras-Moltammed  (see  above,  p.  .3515,  note  c). 
The  name  of  7'«;'  is  also  emphatically  given  to  the 
cultivable  region  lying  S.  W.  of  the  Jebel  et-  Tur. 
Its  fine  and  rich  date-palm  plantation  lies  a  good 
way  southwards  down  the  (iid^  of  Suez.  Here 
opens  on  the  sea  the  most  fertile  wady  now  to  be 
found  in  the  Peninsula  (Uurckhardt,  Arab.  i'l.  362; 
Wellsted,  ii.  !)),  receiving  all  the  waters  which  flow 
down  the  range  of  Sinai  westward  «  (Stanley,  S. 
4  P.  p.  19). 

III.  A  most  important  general  question,  after 
Btttling  the  outline  of  this  "  wilderness,''  is  the  ex- 
ti'.nt  to  which  it  capable  of  supporting  animal  and 
human  life,  especially  when  taxed  by  the  consump- 
ti.)n  of  such  flocks  and  herds  as  the  Israelites  took 
with  them  from  Kg.Vpt,  and  ]irobably  —  though  we 
know  not  to  what  extent  this  last  was  supplied  by 
the  maima  —  by  the  tlemand  made  on  its  resources 


by  a  host  of  from  2,000,000  to  3,000.000  souk.' 
In  answer  to  this  question,  "much,"  it  has  been 
observed  (S.  cf  P.  p.  21),  "may  be  allowed  for 
the  sijread  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  far  and  wide 
through  the  whole  Peninsula,  and  also  for  the  con- 
stant means  of  support  from  their  own  flocks  and 
herds.  Something,  too,  might  be  elicited  from  the 
undoubted  fact  that  a  population  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  equal  to  the  whole  permanent  population  of 
the  Peninsula  does  actually  [la.ss  through  the  desert 
in  the  caravan  of  the  5,000  African  pilgrims,  on 
their  way  to  Mecca.  But,  amongst  these  consid- 
erations, it  is  important  to  observe  what  indications 
there  may  be  of  the  mountains  of  Sinai  having  efer 
been  alile  to  furnish  greater  resources  than  at  pres- 
ent. These  indications  are  well  sunnned  up  by 
Hitter  {Sinai,  pp.  920,  927).  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  vegetation  of  the  wadies  has  considerably 
decreased.  In  part,  this  would  be  an  inevitable 
effect  of  the  violence  of  the  winter  torrents.  The 
trunks  of  palm-trees  washed  up  on  the  shore  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  from  which  the  living  tree  has  now  for 
many  centuries  disappeared,  show  what  may  have 
been  the  devastation  produced  among  those  moiui- 
tains  where  the  floods,  especially  in  earlier  times, 
must  have  been  violent  to  a  degree  unknown  in 
Palestine;  whilst  the  peculiar  cause  —  the  impreg- 
nation of  salt —  which  has  preserved  the  vestiges 
of  the  older  vegetation  there,  has  here,  of  course, 
no  existence.  The  traces  of  such  a  destruction 
were  pointed  out  to  Burckhardt  {Arab.  p.  538)  on 
the  eastern  side  of  Mount  Sinai,  as  having  oc- 
ciured  within  half  a  century  before  his  visit;  also 
to  Wellsted  (ii.  15),  as  having  occurred  near  'J'lir 
in  1832.  In  part,  the  same  result  has  followed 
from  the  reckless  waste  of  the  Bedouin  tribes  — 
reckless  in  destroying  and  careless  in  replenish- 
ing. A  fire,  a  pipe,  lit  under  a  grove  of  desert, 
trees,  may  clear  away  the  vegetation  of  a  whole 
valley. 

"  The  acacia-trees  "  have  been  of  late  yeais  ruth- 
lessly destroyed  by  the  Bedouins  for  the  sake  of 
charcoal,"  which  forms  "the  chief,  perhaps  it  might 
be  said  the  only  traffic  of  the  Peninsula''  {S.  if 
P.  p.  24).  Thus,  the  clearance  of  this  tree  in  the 
mountains  where  it  abounded  once,  and  its  decrease 
in  the  neighbor  groups  in  which  it  exists  still, 
is  accounted  for,  since  the  monks  appear  to  have 
aided  the  devastation.  Vegetation,  where  main- 
tained, nourishes  water  and  keeps  alive  its  own  life; 
and  no  atteuipts  to  produce  vegetation  anywhere  in 
tills  desert  seem  to  have  failed.  "  The  gardens  at 
the  wells  of  Moses,  under  the  French  and  English 
agents  from  Suez,  and  the  gardens  in  the  valleys  of 
Jebel  .Musa,  under  the  care  of  the  Greek  monks  ol 
the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine,"  "^  are  conspicuous 


n  Tbe   following  positiona  by  East  longitude  ftom 
Paris  are  giveu  iu  .Seetzen,  iii.  pt.  iii.,  Animrk.  414 :  — 

Suez,  29^  57'  30",  Berghaus. 

'Akabah,  28^  45',  Niebulir  ;  but28o  55'  by  others. 

Couvcut  St.  Ciitheriue,  28*'  36'  40"  5'",  Seetzen 
auJ  Z!u;li  ;  but  31=  37'  54"  by  Kiippell. 

Sinai,  28°  46'. 

Ras  Mohammed,  27°  43'  24". 
But  there  must  be  grave  errors  in  tbe  figures,  since 
Suez  13  placed  furthcj^t  to  (lie  east  of  all  the  places 
Danied,  whereas  it  lies  furthest  to  the  west ;  also  'Aka- 
bah lies  an  t  ntire  degree,  by  Kiepcrt's  map,  to  the  east 
of  the  Convent,  whereas  it  is  here  put  at  less  than  9'; 
tnd  Ras  Mokammed,  which  lies  further  to  the  east 
tiian  all  tliese  except  'Akabah,  is  placed  to  the  west 
iif  them  aJl 


ft  Dr.  Stanley  (S.  ^  P.  p.  24,  note  1),  following 
Ewald  {Gfsclii elite,  ii.  61,  253,  259.  2d  ed.),  says,  "  the 
most  recent  and  the  most  critical  investigation  of  this 
(the  Israelitish)  history  inclines  to  adopt  the  numbers 
of  600,000  (males  of  the  warlike  age)  as  autlientic." 

c  Dr.  Stiinley  (p.  25)  thinks  tlie  ark  and  wooden 
uteusils  of  the  Tabernacle  were  of  this  timber.  Seet- 
zen (iii.  109)  saw  no  trees  nearly  big  enough  for  such 
service,  and  thinks  it  more  probable  that  the  material 
was  ohtauicd  by  purchase  from  travelling  caravans  ; 
but  it  is  not  clear  whether  he  thinks  that  the  tre« 
(Mimosa  Niloliia)  is  in  this  wildernc9.s  below  it,s  usual 
size,  or  that  not  this  but  something  else  is  the  "  Shit- 
tiui-wood  "  ot  the  .V.  V. 

'/  So  called,  but  tbe  proper  name  appears  to  be  rrjt 
aylat  jncTafiooctujirtajs,  i.  e.  the  Transfiguration  of  oui 


8518 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


ixamples  {ibid,  p  2G).  Besides,  a  traveller  in  the 
16th  century  calls  the  Wacly  er-Ralnh  jii  front  of 
the  Convent,  now  entirely  bare,  "a  vast  yrti-n', 
plain.""  In  this  wilderness,  too,  abode  Amalek, 
"the  first  of  the  nations,"  powerful  enough  seri- 
ously to  imperil  the  passage  of  the  Israelites 
through  it,  and  importantly  contributing  to  subse- 
quent history  under  the  monarchy.  Besides  whom 
we  have  "  king  Arad  the  Canaanite,  who  dwelt  in 
the  south,"  i.  c.  apparently  on  the  terrace  of  moun- 
tain overhanging  the  GhcV  near  Masada  on  the 
Dead  Sea,  in  a  region  now  wholly  desolate.  If  his 
people  were  identical  with  the  Amorites  or  Canaan- 
ites  of  Num.  xiv.  43;  Deut.  i.  44,  then,  besides  the 
Amalekites  of  Ex.  xvii.  8,  we  have  one  other  host 
within  the  limits  of  what  is  now  desert,  who  fought 
with  Israel  on  equal  or  superior  terms;  and,  if  they 
are  not  identical,  we  have  tico  such  (Num.  xiv.  40- 
45,  xxi.  1,  xxxiii.  40;  Deut.  i.  43,  44).  These 
must  have  been  "  something  more  than  a  mere 
handful  of  Bedouins.  The  Egyptian  copper-mines, 
monuments,  and  hieroglyphics  in  Siirdbit  el-Kliti- 
diin  and  the  Wady  Mii(/lutr(t,  imply  a  degree  of 
intercourse  between  Egypt  and  the  Peninsula  "  in  a 
period  probal}Iy  older  than  the  Exodus,  "of  which 
all  other  traces  have  long  ceased.  1'he  ruined 
cities  of  Edom  in  the  mountains  east  of  the  'Ara- 
bdli,  and  the  remains  and  history  of  Peira  itself, 
indicate  a  traffic  and  a  population  in  these  remote 
regions  which  now  is  almost  inconceivable"  (S. 
4'  P.  p.  26).  Even  the  6th  and  7th  centuries 
A.  D.  showed  traces  of  habitation,  some  of  which 
still  remain  in  ruined  cells  and  gardens,  etc.,  far 
exceeding  the  tale  told  by  present  facts.  Seetzen, 
in  what  is  jjerhaps  as  arid  and  desolate  a  region  as 
any  in  the  whole  desert,  asked  his  guide  to  men- 
tion all  the  neighboring  places  whose  names  he 
knew.  He  received  a  list  of  sixty-three  places  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Aliidurali,  Petra,  and  \4k:ii- 
Lfdi,  and  of  twelve  more  in  the  G/idr  ea-S'iphia,  of 
which  total  of  seventy-five  all  save  twelve  are  now 
abandoned  to  the  desert,  and  have  retained  noth- 
ing save  their  names —  "  a  proof,"  he  remarks, 
"that  in  very  early  ages  this  region  was  extremely 
populous,  and  that  the  furious  I'age  with  which  the 
Arabs,  both  before  and  after  the  age  of  llohammed, 
assailed  the  (ireek  emperors,  was  able  to  convert 
into  a  waste  this  blooming  region,  extending  from  ' 
the  limit  of  the  Hedjazto  the' neighborhood  of  Da- 
mascus"  {Jicisen,  iii.  17,  18). 

Thus  the  same  traveller  in  the  same  journey 
(from  Hebron  to  Madirali )  entered  a  wady  called 
el-Jtmen,  where  M'as  no  trace  of  water  sa\e  moist 
Bpots  in  the  sand,  but  on  making  a  hole  with  the 
hand  it  was  quickly  full  of  water,  good  and  drink- 
able (ibi<l.  p.  13).  The  same,  if  saved  in  a  cistern, 
and  served  out  by  sluices,  might  proliably  have 
clothed  the  bare  wady  with  verdure.  This  is  con- 
firmed by  his  remark  {ibid.  p.  83),  that  a  blooming 
vegetation  shows  itself  in  this  climate  wherever 
there  is  water;  as  well  as  V)y  the  exaniple  of  the 
tank  system  as  practiced  in  Hindostan.     He  also 


notices  that  there  are  quicksands  in  many  sjx^ts  ol 
the  Debbet  er-Rumhh,  which  it  is  difficult  to  un- 
derstand, unless  as  c'^used  by  accumulations  of 
water  {ibid.  p.  67).  Similarly  in  the  desert  Wady 
el-Kndeis  between  Hebron  and  Sinai,  he  found  a 
spot  of  quicksand  with  sparse  shrubs  growing  in  it 
{ibid.  p.  48). 

Now  the  question  is  surely  a  pertinent  one,  as 
compared  with  that  of  the  subsistence  of  the  flocks 
and  herds  of  the  Israelites  during  their  wanderings, 
how  the  sixtj-three  perished  communities  named 
by  Seetzen's  guide  can  have  supported  themselves? 
It  is  pretty  certain  that  fish  cannot  Yne  in  the 
Dead  Sea,''  nor  is  there  any  reason  for  thinking 
that  these  extinct  towns  or  villages  were  in  anj 
large  proportion  near  enough  to  its  waters  to  avail 
themselves  of  its  resources,  even  if  such  existed. 
To  suppose  that  the  country  could  ever  have  sup- 
ported extensive  coverts  for  game  is  to  assume  the 
most  difficult  of  all  solutions  of  the  question.  The 
creatures  that  find  shelter  about  the  rocks,  as  hares, 
antelopes,  gazelles,  jerboas,  and  the  lizards  that 
burrow  in  the  sand  {el-Dsobb),  alluded  to  by  this 
traveller  in  several  places  (iii.  67,  conip.  pt.  iii.  415- 
442,  and  Laborde,  Ccmm.  on  Num.  xxxiii.  42),  are 
far  too  few,  to  judge  from  appearances,  to  do  more 
than  eke  out  a  subsistence,  the  staple  of  which  must 
have  been  otherwise  supplied  ;  and  the  same  remark 
will  apply  to  such  casual  windfalls  as  swarms  of 
edible  locusts,  or  flights  of  quails.  Nor  can  the 
memory  of  these  places  be  probably  connected  with 
the  distant  period  when  Petra,  the  commercial  me- 
tropolis of  the  Nabathseans,  enjoj-ed  the  carrying 
trade  between  the  Levant  and  Egypt  westwards, 
and  the  rich  communities  further  east.  There  is 
least  of  all  reason  for  supposing  that  by  the  produce 
of  mines,  or  by  asphalt  gathered  from  the  Dead 
Sea,  or  by  any  other  native  commodities,  they  can 
ever  have  enjoyed  a  commerce  of  their  own.  We 
are  thrown  back,  then,  upon  the  supposition  that 
they  must  in  some  way  have  supported  themselves 
from  the  produce  of  the  soil.  And  the  produce  for 
which  it  is  most  adapted  is  either  that  of  the  date- 
palm,  or  that  to  which  earlier  parallels  point,  as 
those  of  .lethro  and  the  Kenites,  and  of  the  various 
communities  in  the  southern  border  of  .Judah 
(Num.  xxxiv.  4,  5;  Josh.  xv.  3,  4;  1  Sam.  xxx. 
27-31),  namely,  that  of  pasturage  for  flocks  and 
herds,  a  possibility  which  seems  solely  to  depend  on 
adequately  husbanding  the  water  supplied  by  the 
rains.       This    tallies    with    the  use   of  the   word 

"12"T^,    for   "wilderness,"   /.   e.   "a  wide,   open 

space,  with,  or  without  actual  pasture,  the  country 
of  the  nomads,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the 
agricultural  and  settled  jwople  "  {S.  ^  P.  p.  486, 
App.  §  9).<^  There  seems  however  to  be  implied 
in  the  name  a  cap.acity  for  pasturage,  whether  ac- 
tually realized  or  not.  This  corresponds,  too,  with 
the  "  thin,"  or  rather  "  transparent  coating  of  wg- 
etation,"  seen  to  clothe  the  greater  part  of  the  Si- 
naitic  wilderness  in  the  present  day  {ibid.  pp.  16, 


Lord,  represented  in  the  great  mosaic  of  Justinian,  in 
tlie  apse  of  its  church,  probably  of  his  age.  as  is  also 
the  name  (Tyrwhitt).  The  transfer  of  the  body  of  St 
Catherine  thither  from  Kg3'pt  by  angels  is  only  cue  of 
the  local  legends  ;  but  its  a.ssociatiou  appears  to  have 
predominated  ^Tith  travellers  (Seetzen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  414. 
115). 

a  Moneonys  quoted  by  Stanley,  S.  ^'  P. 


h  Seet7Pn  sreaks  in  cue  place  ot  a  few  shell-lish  be- 1  nature 


ing  seen  along  its  southern  shore.     Compare  Stanley, 
«.  4"  p.  p.  293.     [Sea,  the  Salt.] 

c  The  word  MUlbar  has  been  examined  under  the 
head  of  Desert  (vol.  i.  p.  591).  The  writer  of  that 
article  hsis  nothing  to  add  to  it,  except  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  use  of  the  term  in  .ler.  ii.  2,  where 
the  prophet  in  tsvo  words  gives  an  e.xact  defluitiou 
of  a  Uliilhar:  "a  laud  not   suivn  "  —  that  is,  left   t« 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WAXDERIXG 


3519 


i2l,  and  which  furnishes  an  initial  niininiuni  from 
•v'hich  human  fostering  liauds  niioht  extend  the 
prospect  of  possible  resources  up  to  a  point  as  far 
in  excess  of  present  facts  as  were  tlie  numbers  of 
the  Israelitish  host  aliove  tlie  0,000  Bedouins  com- 
puted now  to  form  the  population  of  the  desert. 
As  regards  the  date-palm,  Ilasselquist  speaks  as 
though  it  alone  affcjrded  the  means  of  life  to  some 
existing  Arab  communities.  Hamilton  {Sinai,  etc., 
p.  17)  says  that  in  his  path  by  the  ]V(tdy  [hbran, 
towards  the  modern  Sinai,  "  small  clSnjps  of  un- 
cultivated date  trees  rise  between  the  granite  walls 
of  the  pass,  wiierever  the  winter  torrents  have  left 
sufficient  detritus  for  tlieir  nourisiiment."  And 
again,  after  describini;  tlie  pass  of  the  Convent,  he 
continues,  •'  l)eneath  lies  a  veritalile  cliaos,  through 
wliich  now  trickles  a  sUndt-r  thread  of  water,  where 
in  winter  rushes  down  a  boiling  torrent  "  "  (ibid. 
p.  19).  It  is  hanily  too  niucli  to  affirm  that  the 
resources  of  fiie  desert,  under  a  careful  economy  of 
nature's  bomity,  might  be,  to  its  present  means  of 
subsistence,  as  that  winter  torrent's  voknne  to  that 
summer  streamlet's  slender  thread.  In  the  Wndy 
flebrdn  this  traveller  found  "a  natural  bath," 
formed  in  the  granite  Ijy  the  \iiii  Htbidn,  called 
"the  Christians'  pool  "  {ibid.  p.  17).  Two  thirds 
of  the  way  up  the  Jebel  Milsa  he  came  upon  "  a 
frozen  streandet "  {ibid.  p.  30);  and  Seetzen,  on 
the  14th  of  Ajiril,  found  snow  lying  aljout  in  shel* 
tered  clefts  of  the  Jebcl  Calharin,  where  the  rays 
of  the  sun  could  not  penetrate  (iii.  92).  Hamilton 
encountered  on  the  Jthel  Mi'isit  a  thunder-storm, 
with  "heavy  rain"  {Sinai,  etc.,  p.  16).  Tliere 
seems  on  the  whole  no  deficiency  of  precipitation. 
Indeed,  the  geographical  situation  would  rather  be- 
speak a  copious  supply.  Any  southerly  wind  must 
bring  a  fair  amount  of  watery  vapor  from  the  lied 
Sea,  or  from  one  of  its  expanding  arms,  wliich  em- 
brace the  peninsula  on  either  side,  like  the  blades 
ofafbrfex;  wiiile  at  no  greater  distance  than  140 
miles  nortliward  roll  the  waters  of  the  JMediterra- 
Dean,  supplying,  we  may  suppose,  tlieir  quota,  which 
the  mucli  lower  ranges  of  tlie  Tih  and  Odjme  can- 
not eftectually  intercept.  Nor  is  there  any  sucli 
shelter  from  rain-clouds  on  either  of  the  Gulfs  of 
Suez  and  'Akal)ah,  as  the  long  line  of  mountains 
on  the  eastern  flank  of  Egypt,  which  screens  the 
rain  supply  of  the  former  from  reaching  the  valley 
of  the  Nile.  On  the  contrary,  the  conformation  of 
the  Peninsula,  with  the  high  wedge  of  gr.uiitic 
mountains  at  its  core,  would  rather  receive  and 
condense  the  v.apors  from  either  gulf,  and  jirecipi- 
tate  their  bounty  over  the  lower  faces  of  mountain 
and  troughs  of  wady,  interposed  l)etweeii  it  and  tiie 
*ea.  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  tlie  low  intel- 
lectual condition  of  the  monks  *  forbids  any  reason- 
alile  hope  of  adequate  meteorological  oliservations  to 
chock  these  merely  probal)le  arguments  with  reli- 
able statements  of  fact;  but  in  the  al)sence  of  any 


a  There  is  no  mistakiDg  the  enormoas  amount  of 
•aiu  which  must  fall  on  the  desert  and  run  off  use- 
lessly into  tlie  sea.  lu  February  all  the  wadies  had 
evidently  had  strong  torrents  down,  and  all  across 
them  from  hillside  to  hillside.  The  whole  surface  of 
wide  valleys  was  marked  and  rihbed  like  the  bed  of  a. 
stony  and  sandy  stream  iu  England.  Tlie  great  plain 
of  Murkli'ik  was  intersected  in  all  dircction.s  by  these 
torrents,  draining  the  mouutains  about  Nukb  Bndera 
Bo  all  the  wadies,  wherever  there  was  a  decided  fall. 
Major  Macdoiiald  (engaged  at  present  in  superintend- 
ing the  working  of  a  tuniuoise  bed  at  S'lratiU  el-Khti 
Hm)  said  tliat  after  a  sudden  storm  in  the  hills  to  tlie 


such  register,  it  seems  only  fair  to  take  reasonable 
probabilities  fully  into  view.  Yet  some  significant 
iiiets  are  not  wanting  to  redeem  in  some  degree 
these  prolialiilities  from  the  ground  of  mere  hypoth- 
esis. "In  two  of  the  great  wadies"  which  break 
the  wilderness  on  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez, 
'  Gliurundtl,  and  Useit,  with  its  continuation  of  the 
IVddi/  Tnyibe/i,  tracts  of  vegetation  are  to  be  found 
in  considerable  luxuriance.''  The  wadies  leading 
down  from  tlie  Sinai  range  to  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah 
"furnish  the  same  testimony,  in  a  still  greater  de- 
gree," as  stated  l>y  Hiippell,  Miss  Martineau,  Ih: 
liobinson,  and  Burckhardt.  "  In  three  spots,  how- 
ever, in  the  desert  ....  this  vegetation  is  brought 
by  the  concurrence  of  the  general  configuration  of 
the  country  to  a  still  higher  pitch.  By  far  tiie 
most  remarkable  collection  of  springs  is  that  which 
renders  the  clusters  of  the  Jebd  Musa  the  chief 
resort  of  the  Bedouin  tribes  during  the  summer 
heats,  l-'our  abundant  sources  in  the  mountains 
iminediately  aliove  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine 
must  always  have  made  that  region  one  of  the  most 
frequented  of  the  desert.  .  .  .  Oases  (analogous  to 
that  of  Amnion  in  the  western  desert  of  the  Nile) 
are  to  be  found  wherever  the  waters  from  the  dif- 
ferent wadies  or  hills,  whether  from  winter  streams 
or  from  such  living  springs  as  have  just  been  de- 
scribed, converge  to  a  commi.:i  reservoir.  One  such 
oasis  in  the  Sinaitic  desert  seeniS  to  be  the  p.alm- 
grove  of  El-  Wih/y  at  Tur,  described  by  Burck- 
hardt as  so  thick  that  he  could  hardly  find  his  way 
through  it  (S.  tf  P.  p.  10,  note  1;  see  Burckh. 
Arab.  ii.  302).  The  other  and  the  more  impor- 
tant is  the  Wddy  Feiidn,  high  up  in  the  table- 
land of  Sinai  itself  {S.  f  P.  pp.  18,  19)."  Now, 
what  nature  has  done  in  these  favored  spots  might 
surely  be  seconded  <•'  in  others  by  an  ample  popula- 
tion, familiarized,  U)  some  extent,  by  their  sojourn 
in  Kgypt  with  the  most  advanced  agricultural  ex- 
perience of  the  tlieii  world,  and  guided  by  an  able 
leader  who  knew  the  country,  and  found  in  his 
wife's  family  others  who  knew  it  even  better  than 
he  (Num.  x.  31).  It  is  thus  supposable  that  the 
language  of  Ps.  cvii.  35-38,  is  based  on  no  mere 
pious  imagery,  but  on  actual  fact:  "He  turneth 
the  wilderness  into  a  standing  water,  and  dry 
ground  into  water-springs.  And  there  He  inaketh 
the  hungry  to  dwell,  that  they  may  prepare  a  city 
for  habitation;  and  sow  the  fields  and  plant  vine- 
yards, which  may  yield  fruits  of  increase.  He 
blesseth  them  so  that  they  are  multiplied  greatly; 
anil  siiffereth  not  tlieir  ctittle  to  deci-ease."  And 
thus  we  may  find  an  approximate  basis  of  reality 
for  the  enhanced  poetic  images  ?f  Isaiah  (xli.  19, 
Iv.  13).  Palestine  itself  attbrds  abundant  tokens  of 
the  resources  of  nature  so  hiisliande<l,  as  in  the  a^ 
tificial  "  terraces  of  which  there  are  still  ti-aces  to 
the  very  summits  "  of  the  mountains,  and  some  of 
which  still,  in  the  Jordan  valley,  "  are  occupied  by 

N.,  he  had  from  two  to  three  feet  of  water  running 
furiously  through  his  tents  for  three  hours,  in  IKar/y 
Miifik'ira.  Conmiou  industry  in  dijiging  fcinks  would 
make  all  tlio  wadies  "  blossom  as  the  rose  "  (Tvr- 
whitt). 

''  See  Dr.  Stanley's  estimate  of  the  inmates  of  the 
convent  (S.  if  P.  pp.  5.5,  56). 

c  Nay,  It  is  possible  that  such  works  had  ali-oitdy 
to  some  extent  been  undertaken  on  account  of  the 
mining  colonies  which  certainly  then  existed  at  W'a'ty 
IW'iiihnrii  and  Surabit  el-Klia-iim,  and  were  probably 
supported  on  the  produce  of  the  country,  not  sent  00 
camels  from  Kgypt  i,Ty  rwhitt). 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3520 

masses  of  vegetation  "  (S.  tf  P.  pp.  138,  297). 
In  favored  spots  wild  luxuriance  testifies  to  the  ex- 
tent of  tlie  naticiiial  resources,  as  in  the  wadies  of 
the  coast,  and  in  the  plain  of  Jericho,  where  "  ftir 
and  wide  extends  the  green  circle  of  tangled  thick- 
ets, iu  the  midst  of  which  are  the  hovels  of  the 
modern  village,  beside  which  stood,  in  ancient  times, 
the  great  city  of  Jericho"  {ibid.  p.  ;]06).  From 
this  plain  alone,  a  correspondent  of  the  British 
Consul  at  Jaffa  asserts  that  he  could  feed  the  whole 
population  of  modern  Syria  ( Cotton  Siippli/  lii;- 
j)orter,  June  14,  1862).  But  a  plantation  re- 
deemed from  the  wilderness  is  ever  in  the  position 
of  a  besieged  city;  when  once  the  defense  of  the 
human  garrison  is  withdrawn,  the  fertility  stimu- 
lated by  its  agency  must  obviously  perish  by  the 
invasion  of  the  wild.  And  thus  we  may  probably 
suppose  that,  from  imniberless  tracts,  thus  tempo- 
rarily rescued  from  barrenness,  iu  situations  only 
moderately  favoralile,  the  traces  of  verdure  have 
vanished,  and  the  desert  has  reclaimed  its  own;  or 
that  there  the  soil  only  betrays  its  latent  capacity 
by  an  unprofitable  dampness  of  the  sand. 

Seetzen,  on  the  route  from  Hebron  to  Sinai,  after 
describing  an  '-immense  tiinty  plain,"  the  ''drear- 
iest and  n)ost  desolate  solitude,"  observes  that,  "as 
soon  as  the  rainy  season  is  over  and  the  warm 
weather  sets  in,  the  pits  (of  rain-water)  dry  up,  and 
it  becomes  uninhabitable,"  as  ''  there  are  no  ijrooks 
or  s[)rings  here  "  (iii.  55,  56).  Dr.  Stewart  (  Tim 
Tent  mid  i/ie  Khan,  pp.  14,  15)  says  of  the  Wady 
A/illii,  which  he  would  identify  with  Etham  (Ex. 
xiii.  20:  Nmii.  xxxiii.  0),  "sand-hills  of  consider- 
alile  height  separate  it  from  the  sea,  and  prevent 
the  winter  rains  from  running  off  rapidly.  A  con- 
siderable deposit  of  rich  alluvial  loam  is  the  result, 
averaging  from  2  to  4  inches  in  thickness,  by  sow- 
ing upon  which  immediately  after  the  rains  tlie  Be- 
douins coidd  certainly  reap  a  profitable  harvest;  but 

they  affect  to  despise  all  agricultural  labor 

Yet,"  he  adds,  "the  region  never  could  have  sup- 
plied food  by  its  own  natural  vegetation  for  so  great 
a  multitude  of  flocks  and  herbs  as  followed  in  the 
train  of  the  Israelites."  This  seems  rather  a  pre- 
cipitate sentence;  for  one  can  hardly  tell  what  its 
improved  condition  under  ancient  civilization  may 
have  yielded,  from  merely  seeing  what  it  now  is, 
after  lieing  o\eirun  for  centuries  by  hordes  of  con- 
temptuous Bedouins.  Still,  as  regards  the  general 
question,  we  are  not  informed  what  luunbers  of  cat- 
tle followed  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt.  We  only 
know  that  "  flocks  and  herds  "  went  with  them, 
were  forbidden  to  graze  "before  the  mount" 
(Sinai),  and  shared  the  fortunes  of  the  desert  with 
their  owners.  It  further  appears  that,  at  the  end 
of  the  forty  years'  wandering,  tvvo  tribes  and  a  half 
were  tlie  chief,  perhaps  the  only,  cattle-masters. 
And,  when  we  cousi  Jer  how  greatly  the  long  and 
gore  bondage  of  Egypt  nuist  have  interfered  with 
v-heir  favorite  pursuit  during  the  eighty  years  of 
Moses'  life  before  the  Exodus,  it  seems  reasonable 
to  think  that  in  the  other  tribes  only  a  few  would 
have  possessed  cattle  on  leaving  Egypt.  The  notion 
of  a  people  "  scattered  abroad  throughout  all  the 
land  of  Egypt"  (Ex.  v.  12)  in  pursuit  of  wholly 
different  and  absorbing  labor,  being  able  generally 
tu  maintain  their  wealth  as  sheep-masters  is  ob- 
viously absurd.  It  is  therefore  supposable  that 
Reuben,  Gad,  and  a  portion  of  JIanasseh  had,  by 
remoteness  of  local  position,  or  otlier  favorable  cir- 
cumstances to  us  unknown,  escaped  the  oppressive 
consequences  to  their  flocks  and  herds  which  must 


have  generally  prevailed.     We  are  not  told  that  the 
lambs  at  the  first  passover  were  obtained  from  the 
flock  of  each  family,  but  only  that  they  vrere  bidden 
to  "  draw  ijut  and  take  a  lamb  for  an  house  "  —  a 
direction  quite  consistent  in  many,  perhaps  in  most 
cases,  with  purchase.      Hence  it   is  probaljle  that 
these  two  tribes  and  a  half  may  have  been  the  chief 
cattle-masters    first  as  well  as  last.     If  they  had 
enough  cattle  to  find  their  pursuit  in  tending  them, 
and  the  others  had  not,  economy  would  dictate  a 
transfer;  and  the  whole  multitude  of  cattle  would 
probably  fare  better  by  such  an  ari-angement  than 
l)y  one  which  left  a  few  head  scattered  up  and  down 
in  the   families  of  different  tribes.     Nor    is  there 
any  reason    to  think    that  the  whole  of  the  forty 
years'  sojourn  was    spent   in  such    locomotion    as 
marks  the  more  continuous  portion  of  the  narrative. 
The  great  gap  in  the  record  of  events   left  by  the 
statement  of   Deut.  i.  4(!,  "  Ye  abode   in  Kadesh 
many  days,"    may  be  filled  up  by  the  supposition 
of  quartei's  establislied  in  a  favorable  site,  and  the 
great  hulk  of  the  whole  time  may  have  been  really 
passed     in   such     stationary   encampments.     And 
here,  if  two  tribes  and  a  half  only  were  occupied  in 
tending  cattle,  some  resource  of  laljor,  to  avoid  the 
embarrassing  temptations  of  idleness  in  a  host  so 
large  and  so  disposed  to  murmur,  would  be,  in  a 
human  sense,  necessary.     Nor  can  any  so  probalde 
Sn  occupation  he  assigned  to  the  remaining  nine 
and  a  half  tribes,  as  that  of  drawing  from  the  wil- 
derness whatever  contributions  it  might  be  made 
to  afford.     From  what  they  had  seen  in  Egypt,  the 
work  of  irrigation  would  be  familiar  to  them,  and 
from   the  prospect   before  them    in   Palestine    the 
practice   would   at   some   time    become   necessary: 
thus  there  were  on  the  whole  the  soundest  reasons 
for   not  allowing    their  experience,  if   possible,  to 
lapse.     And,  irrigation    being   supposed,   there  is 
little,  if  any,  dithcidty  in  supposing  its  results:  to 
the    spoil taneousness    of  which    ample  testimony, 
from  various   travellers,  has  been  cited  above.     At 
any  rate  it  is  unwise  to  decide  the  question  of  the, 
possilile  resources  of  the  desert  from  the  condition 
to  which  the  apathy  and  fastidiousne.s.s  of  the  Be- 
douins have  reduced   it  in  modern  times.     On  this 
view,  while  the  jiurely  pastoral  tribes  would   retain 
their  haltits  unimpaired,  the  remainder  would  ac- 
quire some  slight  jirobation  in  those  works  of  the 
field  which  were  to  form  the  staple  industry  of  their 
future  country.     But,  if  any  one  still  insists  that 
the  produce   of  the  desert,  however  supposaljly  im- 
proved, coidd  never  have  yielded   sujiport   for  all 
"  the  flocks  and  herds  "  —  utterly  indefinite  as  their 
numlier  is  —  which  were  carried  thither;  this  need 
not  invalidate  the  present  argument,  much  less  be 
deemed  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptural  narrative. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  latter  to  forliid  our  suppos- 
ing that  the  cattle  perished  in  the  wilderness  by 
hundreds  or  by  thousands.     Even  if  the  words  of. 
Ps.  cvii.  38  be  taken  in   a  sense  literahy  historical, 
they  need  mean   no  more  than  that,  by  the  time 
they  reached  the  borders  of  Palestine,  the  number 
so  lost  had,  liy  a  change  of  favorable  circumstances, 
been  replaced,  perhaps  even  by  capture  from  the 
enemy,  over  whom  God,  and  not  their  own  sword, 
had  given  them  the  victory.     All  that  is  contended 
tor  is,   that   the  resources  of  the  wilderness  were 
doubtless  utilized  to  the  utmost,  and  that  the  flocks 
and  herds,  so  far  as   they  have   survived,  were  so 
kept  alive.     What  those  resources   might  amount 
to,  is  periiaps    nearly  as  indefinite  an    inquiry  as 
what  was  the  number  of  the  cattle.     The  dilticultj 


wilderxp:ss  of  the  wandering 


3521 


rould  "  find  its  level  "  by  the  diminution  of  the 
latter  till  it  tell  within  the  limits  of  the  former;  and 
in  this  balanced  state  we  must  be  content  to  leave 
the  question. 

Nor  oui^ht  it  to  be  left  out  of  view,  in  consider- 
ing any  arguments  regarding  the  possible  change 
in  the  character  of  the  wilderness,  that  Egyptian 
policy  certaiidy  lay,  on  the  whole,  in  fevor  of  ex- 
tending the  desolation  to  their  own  frontier  on  the 
Suez  side;  for  thus  they  would  gain  the  surest  pro- 
tection against  invasion  on  their  most  exposed 
border;  and  as  Egypt  rather  aimed  at  the  develop- 
ment of  a  high  internal  civilization  than  an  exten- 
sion of  intiuenee  by  foreign  conquest,  such  a  desert 
frontier  would  be  to  Egypt  a  chenp  defense.  Thus 
we  may  assume  that  the  i^haraohs,  at  any  rate  after 
the  rise  of  the  Assj  rian  empire,  would  discern  their 
interest  and  would  act  upon  it,  and  that  the  felling 
of  wood  and  stopping  of  wells,  and  the  obliteration, 
wherever  possible,  of  oases,  would  systematically 
make  the  Peninsula  uutenalfle  to  a  hostile  army  de- 
scending fom  the  X.  E.  or  the  N. 

IV.  It  remains  to  trace,  so  far  as  possible,  the 
track  pursued  by  the  host,  bearing  in  mind  the 
limitation  before  stated,  that  a  variety  of  converg- 
ing or  parallel  routes  must  often  have  been  required 
to  allow  of  the  passage  of  so  great  a  numl)er.  As- 
suming the  (lassage  of  the  Ked  Sea  to  have  been 
effected  at  some  spot  N.  of  the  now  extreme  end  of 
the  Gulf  of  Suez,  they  would  march  from  their 
point  of  landing  a  little  to  the  E.  of  S.  Here  they 
were  in  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  and  in  it  "  they 
Went  three  days  and  found  no  water."  The  next 
point  mentioned  is  Marah.  The  'Ain  el-I/nwdra 
has  been  thought  l)y  most  tra\ellers  since  Burck- 
hardt's  time  to  be  Marah.  Between  it  and  the 
'Ayuit  Mitsii  the  plain  is  alternately  gra\elly,  stony, 
and  sandy,  while  under  the  range  of  Jcbd  Wiir- 
dihi  (a  branch  of  i-t-Tili)  cludk  and  flints  are  found. 
There  is  no  water  ou  the  direct  line  of  route 
(Robinson,  i.  87-98).  Hnwdva  stands  in  the  lime 
and  gypsum  region  which  lines  the  eastern  shore 
of  the  tJulf  of  Suez  at  its  northern  extremity. 
Seetzen  (Reisen.  iii.  117)  describes  the  water  as 
salt,  with  purgative  qualities;  but  adds  that  his 
Hedouins  and  their  camels  drank  of  it.  He  argues, 
from  its  inconsiderable  size,  that  it  could  not  be  the 
Marah  of  Moses.  This,  however,  seems  an  incon- 
clusive reason,  [Mauah.]  it  would  not  be  too 
near  the  point  of  landing  assumed,  as  above,  to  be 
to  the  N.  of  the  ^Ayun  Muse,  nor  even,  as  Dr. 
Stewart  argues  (p.  55),  too  near  for  a  landing  at 
the  ' Aijun  Mumi  it.self,<»  when  we  consider  the  in- 
jumbrances  which  would  delay  the  host,  and,  espe- 
cially whilst  they  were  new  to  the  deaert,  prevent 


a  Dr.  Aitoun,  quoted  by  Dr.  Stewart  (1.  c),  it  seems, 
denies  this. 

b  In  the  Wwly  Tal  were  found  date-palms,  wild 
trunbless  t.aniarisks,  and  the  white-flowering  broom  ; 
n'lso  a  small,  sappy  growth,  scarce  a  hand  high,  called 
tl  Szemmkk  by  the  Hedouius,  which,  when  dried,  is 
pounded  by  them,  and  mixed  with  wheat  for  bread. 
It  has  a  saltish-sour  taste,  and  is  a  useful  salad  herb, 
belougiug  to  the  ofder  Mesembri/anChemum,  Liim. 
(Seetzen,  ihiii.). 

c  Yet  ho  apparently  allows  as  pessib.e  that  Marah 
may  bo  found  in  a  hrook  observed  by  f  urer  a  little  to 
he  N.  of  GInirundfl  (iii.  117). 

d  There  is,  however,  a  remarkable  dilTerotice  between 
tbe  indication  of  locality  given  by  Seetzen  to  this  wady, 
lud   the    position  ascribed  to  the    Tih  rl-Am-ira,  us 


rapid  marches.  But  the  whole  region  appears  to 
aljound  in  brackish  or  bitter  springs  (Seetzen,  ibid 
iii.  117,  &c. ;  Anmtrh  430),  For  instance,  about 
1 1  hour  nearer  Suez  than  the  Wadi/  Ghurun/M 
(which  Eepsius  took  for  Marah,  but  which  Niebuhr 
and  liobinson  regard  as  more  jirobably  Elim),  Seet- 
zen {IhliL  iii.  113,  114)  found  a  Wadyb  Tal,  with 
a  salt  spring  and  a  salt  crust  on  the  surfice  of  its 
bed,  the  same,  he  thinks,  as  the  spot  where  Nieliuhr 
speaks  of  finding  rock-salt,  'J'his  corresponds  in 
general  proximity  with  Marah.  The  neighboring 
region  is  described  as  a  low  plain  girt  with  limestone 
hills,  or  more  larely  chalk.  For  the  consideration  of 
the  nuJMcle  of  sweetening  the  waters,  see  Marah. 
On  this  first  section  of  their  desert-march,  Dr.  Stan- 
ley ( 6'.  i/-  P.  p.  37 )  remarks,  "  There  can  be  no 
dispute  as  to  the  general  track  of  the  Israelites  after 
the  jiassaire  (of  the  Ked  Sea).  If  they  were  to 
enter  the  mountains  at  all,  they  must  continue  in 
the  route  of  all  travellers,  between  the  sea  and  the 
table-land  of  the  Till,  till  they  entered  the  low  hilla 
of  ijliui'undcl.  According  to  the  view  taken  of  the 
scene  of  the  passage,  Jlarah  may  either  be  at  '  the 
springs  of  .Moses,'  or  else  at  Hdivdra  or  Ghurun- 
dtl."  He  adds  in  a  note,  "  Dr.  Graul,  however, 
wa,s  told  ....  of  a  spring  near  Tih  cl-Amarct, 
right  (/.  e.  south)  of  fl ncav^i,  so  bitter  that  neither 
men  nor  camels  could  drink  of  it.  From  hence 
the  road  goes  straight  to  Wudij  Ghanindel."  Seet- 
zen also  inclines  to  view  favorably  the  identification 
of  tl-Aindrn  with  Marah.  He  gives  it  the  title  of  * 
a  "  wady,"'  and  precisely  on  this  ground  rejects  the 
pretensions  of  el-Hawdra  as  being  no  "wady,"  but 
only  a  brook;'"  where.as,  from  the  statement  "  they 
encamped "  at  Marah,  iMarah  nnist,  he  argues, 
have  been  a  wady.f'  It  seems  certain,  however, 
that  Wiidij  Ghurundel — whether  it  be  Marah,  as 
Lepsius  and  (although  douljtfully)  Seetzen  thought, 
or  Elini  as  Xieliuhr,  Kobinson,  and  Kruse  —  must 
have  lain  on  the  line  of  march,  and  almost  equally 
certain  that  it  furnished  a  camping  station.  In 
this  wady  Seetzen  found  more  trees,  shrubs,  and 
bushes  than  he  anywhere  else  saw  in  his  journey 
from  Sinai  to  Suez.  He  particularizes  several  date- 
palms  and  many  tamarisks,  and  notes  that  the 
largest  quantity  of  the  vegetable  manna,  now  to  be 
found  anywhere  in  the  I'eninsula,  is  gathered  here 
(iii.  IIG)  from  the  leaves  of  the  last-named  tree, 
wliich  here  grows  "  with  gnarled  boughs  and  hoary 
head;  the  wild  acacia,  tangled  by  its  desert  growth 
into  a  thicket,  also  shoots  out  its  gray  foliage  and 
white  blossoms  over  the  desert  "  (Stanley,  <S.  i} 
P.  p.  68).  The  "  scenery  "  in  this  region  becomes 
"a  succession  of  watercour.ses "  ^  {ibid.);  and  the 
Witdy    Tiiyibeli,    connected    with    Gh&r&nchl   by 


above,  For  Seetzen  (or  rather  Dr.  Kruse,  commenting 
ou  his  journal)  says,  liobinson  passed  the  wady  two 
hours  nearer  Suez  than  Hawara,  and  therefore  so  far 
to  the  north,  not  south,  of  it  {kcisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  430. 
431).  Ilenfo  it  is  pos.sible  that  the  Tih  and  the  Kndy 
el-Ainara  may  be  distinct  localities,  and  the  common 
name  result  from  the  common  property  of  a  briny  or 
bitter  .spring.  Iviepert's  map  (in  Robinson,  vol.  i.) 
gives  the  two  Uiunes  Amara  and  Hawara  close  to- 
gether, the  former  a  little,  but  less  than  a  mile,  to  the 
north. 

<!  So  Dr.  Kruse  notices  that  Dr.  Robinson's  Arabs 
who  camped  in  GhSrundel  found,  at  half  an  hour's 
dist;ince  from  their  camping  ground,  a  flowing  brook 
and  copious  fou.itiins,  such  !us  they  hitherto  nowhere 
found  m  the  l'e«iiisula  (Seetzen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  430) 


3522 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


Vstil^"-  \i  SO  named  from  the  goodly  water  and 
»egetation  which  it  contains.  These  three  vvadies 
encompass  on  three  sides  the  Jtbd  Hummain  ;  the 
Bea,  which  it  precipitously  overhangs,  heing  on  the 
fourth.  To  judge  from  the  configuration  as  given 
in  the  maps,  there  seems  no  reason  why  all  three 
Bhould  not  have  combined  to  form  Elim,  or  at  any 
rate,  as  Dr.  Stanley  {ibid.)  suggests,  two  of  them. 
Only,  from  Num.  xxxiii.  9,  10,  as  Elim  appears 
not  to  ha\e  been  on  the  sea,  we  must  suppose  that 
the  encampment,  if  it  extended  into  three  wadies, 
stopped  short. of  their  seaward  extremities.  The 
Ifiraelitish  host  would  scarcely  find  in  all  three  more 


latter,  and  subordinate  thereto.  The  evident  de 
sign  iiowever,  in  Num.  xxxiii.  being,  to  place  on 
rec<ird  their  itinerary,  this  latter  is  to  be  esfteemed 
as  the  Ivciis  ctassicus  on  any  topographical  ques- 
tions, as  compared  with  others  having  a  less  special 
relation  to  the  track.  The  "  wilderness  of  Sin  '"  is 
an  appellation  no  doubt  representing  some  natural 
feature,  and  none  more  probably  than  the  allu\i;il 
plain,  which,  lying  at  the  edge  of  the  sea,  about 
the  spot  we  now  regard  them  as  having  reached, 
begins  to  assume  a  significant  appearance.  The 
modern  name  for  this  is  el-Kwi,  identified  by 
Seetzen ''  with  this  wilderness   (iii.   pt.   iii.  41'2). 


than  adequate  ground  for  their  encampment.     Be-  i  Dr.  Stanley  c  calls  el  Kan,  at  its  initial  point,  "  the 


Wady 

Wn'iy 

Ghurundd. 

Use  it. 

>.^_ 

— i— -.— .^    -' 

Niebuhr, 

One  or       Laborde 

Robinson, 

both,    ''  possibh  , 

Kruse. 

Stanley.     Robinson 

(By  Lepsius 

(>.  72). 

identified 

with  Marah.) 

yond  (/.  e.  to  the  S.  E.  of  (Jhurumhl),  the  ridges 
and  spurs  of  limestone  mountain  push  down  to  the 
sea.  across  the  path  along  the  plain  (Robinson,  i. 
70,  and  Map). 

This  portion  of  the  question  may  be  summed  up 
by  presenting  in  a  tabular  form,  the  views  of  some 
leading  travellers  or  aimotators,  on  the  site  of 
Elim :  — 

Some  warm  sprinirs 
north  of  T\ir.  which 
feed  the  rich  date- 
plantations  of    the 

■  convent  there, 
Seetzen. 


Dr.  Kruse  {Anmerk.  p.  418)  singularly  takes  the 
words  of  Ex.  xv.  27,  "  they  encamped  there  (in 
Elim)  by  the  waters"  as  meaning  •■  by  the  sea;  "' 
whereas,  from  Num.  xxxiii.  9,  iO,  it  appears  they 
did  not  reach  the  sea  till  a  stage  further,  althouuh 
their  distance  from  it  previously  had  been  but 
small. 

From  Elim,  the  next  stage  brouglit  the  people 
again  to  the  sea.  This  fact,  and  the  enviable  posi 
tion  in  respect  of  water  supply,  and  con.seqnent 
great  fertility,  eiijojed  by  Tur  on  the  coast,  would 
make  it  seem  probalile  that  Tin-  was  the  locality 
intended;  but  as  it  lies  njore  than  seventy  miles. 
in  a  straight  line,  from  the  nearest  probaldy  assign- 
able spot  for  Elim,  .such  a  distance  makes  it  a 
highly  improbable  site  for  the  next  encampment. 
The  probable  view  is  that  their  seaside  camp  was 
fixed  much  nearer  to  the  group  of  wadies  viewed  as 
embracing  Elim,  perhaps  in  the  lower  part  of  the 
Wtuly  Tayibeh,  which  appears  to  have  a  point  of 
juncture  with  the  coast  (Stanley,  >S.  tj''  P.  p.  38). 
The  account  in  Ex.  xvi.  knows  nothing  of  this  en- 
campment by  the  sea,  but  brings  the  host  at  once 
into  " the  wilderness  of  Sin:  "  but  we  nmst  bear 
in  mind  the  general  pin-pose  of  recording,  not  the 
people's  history  so  much  as  God's  dealings  with 
them,  and  the  former  rather  as  illustrative  of  the 

a  Robinson  (i.  69)  sa.vs  that  near  thi.s  wady  hot  sul- 
phurt'ous  springs  were  visited  by  Niebuhr,  and  are  de- 
Bcribed'by  Russeg^er. 

h  He  calls  it  the  Wilderness  of  Sir,  but  this  is  plainly 
B  misprint  for  Sin. 

c  liis  map,  however,  omits  the  name  el-Kaa.  Rob- 
inson thinks  the  wilderness  of  Sin  is  the  maritime 
plain  southeast  of  Miirklid/i,  but  not  certainly  includ- 
ing tlie  latter. 

</  Seet»>n  thought  that  Dophkah  might  possibly  be 
retraced  in  the  name  of  a  place  in  tliis  region,  el-Tob- 
iaclia  fKruse).     For  Alush  there  is  no  conjecture. 

e  Seetzen  compares  it  to  the  round  bead*  obtained 


plain  of  Murkhuli,"  and  thinks  it  is  probably  this 
wilderness.  Lower  down  the  coast  this  plain  ex- 
pands into  the  liroadestin  the  Peninsula,  and  some- 
where in  the  still  northern  portion  of  it  we  nmst 
doubtless  place  the  '•  Dophkah  "  '^  and  "  Alush  "  of 
Num.  xxxiii.  12-14. 

In  the  wilderne.ss  of 'Sin  occurred  the  first  mur- 
muring for  food,  and  t\\e  first  fall  of  manna.  The 
modern  confection  sold  under  that  name  is  the  ex- 
udation collected  from  the  leaves  of  the  tamarisk 
tree  {Tairi'iriik  Orieuldiis,  Liim.,  Arab,  tarfa,  Heb. 

^tJ'S')  only  in  the  Sinaitic  valleys,  and  in  no  great 
abundance. «  If  it  residts  from  the  punctures  made 
in  the  leaf  by  an  insect  (the  Coccus  minmip,trus, 
Ehrenberg)  in  the  course  of  June,  July,  and  Au- 
gust, this,  will  not  suit  the  time  of  the  people's 
entering  the  region  ''  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
second  month  after "  their  departure  from  Egypt 
(Ex.  xvi.  1-8).  It  is  said  to  keep  as  a  hardened 
syrup  for  years  (Laborde,  Comment.  Geoyr.  on 
Ex.  xvi.  13,  14),  and  thus  does  not  answer  to  the 
more  striking  characteristics  described  in  Ex.  xvi. 
14-26.  [Manna.]  Seetzen  thought  that  the 
gum  Aral  lie,  an  exudation  of  the  acacia,  was  the 
real  manna  of  the  Israelites;  i.  e.  Seetzen  regards 
the  statement  of  "  bread  from  heaven  "  as  a  fic- 
tion {R^■istn,  iii.  75-79).  A  caravan  of  a  thousand 
persons  is  said  by  Hasselquist  (  Voyat/es,  etc.,  Ma- 
teiid  MifdicK,  p.  298,  transl.  ed.  17GG)  to  have 
subsisted  solely  on  this  substance  for  two  months. 
In  the  same  passage  of  Ex.  (v.  13)  quails  are  first 
n]entione<l. 

In  most  portions  of  the  earlier  route  it  is  more 
important  to  show  the  track  than  to  fix  the  sta- 
tions; and  such  an  indication  only  can  be  looked 
for  where  nothing  lieyond  the  name  of  the  latter  is 
recordetj.  Supposing  now  that  the  alluvial  plain, 
where  it  first  begins  to  broaden  to  a  significant  size, 
is  "  the  wilderness  of  Sin,"  all  further  questions, 
till  we  come  to  Sinai,  turn  on  the  situation  assigned 
to  Rephidim.  If,  as  seems  most  likely,  Iiei)hidim 
be  found  at  Ftivun  [1;ephii>imj,  it  becomes  almost 
certain  that  the  track  of  the  host  lay  to  the  north 
of    Herbal,/  a  magnificent    five-peaked    mountain. 


from  the  niastich  ;  and  says  it  is  used  as  a  purgative 
ill  Upper  Kgypt,  and  that  it  is  supposed  to  be  brought 
out  by  the  great  effect  of  heat  on  a  sandy  soil,  since 
in  Syria  and  elsewhere  this  tree  has  not  the  product. 

/  Dr.  Stanley  notices  that  possibly,  viewing  Gliur- 
finclel  (or  Useit,  which  lies  beyond  it,  from  Suez)  as 
Elim,  the  host  may  have  gone  to  the  latter  (the  fur- 
iker  point),  and  th«n  have  turned  back  to  the  lower 
part  of  G/wriindel,  and  there  pitched  by  the  "  Red 
.>^ea.'"  Then,  he  further  remarks,  it  was  open  to  them 
to  take  a  northern  course  for  Sinai  (Jihrl  M'lfn], 
avoiding  Serbnl  iiud  Feirdn  altogether  (S.  ^  P.  p.  38) 
But  all  tliis,  he  adds,  seems  "  not  Ukely."    Tb.at  rouu 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3523 


ifhicli  .-^oiiie  have  thouijht  to  be  Sinai,  and  which 
oecf^'iies  first  visible  at  the  plain  of  Miirklia/i. 
[Sinai.]  The  Tal/ernarle  was  not  yet  set  up,  nor 
the  ordei'  of  inarch  organized,  as  sulisetjuently 
(Num.  X.  13,  &o.),  hence  the  words  "track"  or 
"route,"  as  indicating  a  line,  can  only  be  taken  in 
the  most  wide  and  general  sense.  The  road  slowly 
rises  between  tlie  coast  and  Fviran,  which  has  an 
elevation  of  just  half  the  highest  peak  of  the  whole 
cluster.  Fnrdn  must  have  been  gained  by  some 
road  striking  off  from  the  sea-coast,  like  the  IF'c/// 
Mokntteb,  which  is  now  the  usual  route  from  Cairo 
thither,  perhaps  by  several  parallel  or  converging 
lines.  Those  who  reject  Fnraii  for  Kephidini  will 
have  the  oiuis  of  accounting  for  such  a  fruitfid  and 
blooming  spot  as,  from  its  jwsition,  it  must  alw.ays 
have  been,  being  left  out  of  the  route,  and  of  find- 
ing some  other  site  for  Rephidim.  Possibly  Tiir 
itself  might  be  Rephidim,  but  then  not  one  of  the 
sites  generally  discussed  for  Sinai  will  suit.  It 
seems  better  then  to  take  Fcii-dii,  or  the  adjacent 
valley  of  es-S/ieyk-h  in  connection  with  it,  tor  Kephi- 
dini. The  water  may  have  been  produced  in  one, 
and  the  battle  have  taken  place  in  the  other,  of 
these  contiguous  localities;  and  the  most  direct  way 
of  reaching  then)  from  el-Marklidh  (the  "  wilder- 
ness of  Sin  ")  will  be  through  the  wadies  Sl/elidh 
and  Moknthb.  Dr.  Stanley,  who  suicgests  the  road 
by  the  S.  of  StrbCd,  through  Wudy  Hebrdii " 
(Kobinson,  i.  95),  as  also  a  possible  route  to  Sinai 
(S.  cf-  P.  p.  38,  4),  and  designates  it  "  the  south- 
ern "  one,  omits  to  propose  any  alternati\e  station 
for  Rephidim;  as  he  also  does  in  the  case  of  "the 
northern  "  route  being  accepted.  That  route  has 
been  already  mentioned  (page  -3522,  note /'),  but  is 
of  too  remote  a  probability  to  require  being  here 
taken  into  view.  The  IVndy  MukaUeb,  the  "  writ- 
ten," as  its  name  imports,  contains  the  laruest 
number  of  inscriptions  known  as  tlie  Sinaitic.  They 
are  scratched  on  the  friai)le  surface  of  the  sand- 
stone masses  which  dot  the  valley  on  either  side, 
some  so'high  as  to  have  plainly  (lot  been  executed 
without  mechanical  aid  and  great  deliberation. 
They  are  described  or  noticed  by  Dr.  Kobinson, 
Burckhardt,  Laborde,  Seetzen.  and  others,  but 
especially  by  Dr.  Stanley  (*'  </■  P.  pp.  57-02).  [See 
on  this  subject  Sinai,  p.  Wi)'^,  notes  c  and  d.] 

V.  Besides  the  various  suirgestions  regarding 
Horeb  and  Sinai  given  under  SixAi,  one  occurs  in 
Dr.  Kruse's  Anmn-kunf/cn  on  .Seetzen,  which  is 
worth  recording  here.  Seetzen  approached  the 
JeOi-l  Musa  from  the  N.,  a  little  W.,  by  a  route 
which  seems  to  have  brought  him  into  the  region 
thi'ough  which  Dr.  Robinson  approached  it  from 
the  "N.  W.  On  this  Dr.  Ivruse  remarks,  "  Horeb 
lay  in  the  plain  of  Kephidlm  ....  a  day's  march 
short  of  (v(ir)  Sinai,  on  a  dry  plain,  which  was 
extensive  enough  for  a  camping  ground,  with  a  rock 


passes  by  S'lrihit  el-Kliadim  to  the  Jfbel  Miisa.  Rob- 
mson,  wbo  went  by  this  way,  coiijcctureU  that  el-Klid- 
Uim  was  a  place  of  pilgrimage  to  the  aucifut  Egyp- 
tians, and  might  liave  been  the  object  of  Moses" 
proposed  journey  of  '■  tliree  days  inio  the  wilderness  " 
(i.  79).  The  best  account  of  this  locality  by  far, 
which  the  present  contributor  lias  mot  with,  is  that  in 
the  MS.  referi-Hd  to  at  the  end  of  tliis  article.  The 
writer  dwells  especially  on  the  iuiiiiense  remains  of 
milling  operations,  refuse  of  fuel,  metal,  etc.,  to  be 
leeii  tliere  ;  also  on  the  entrenched  camp  at  I\ri^/iar<i, 
Uscovered  recently  by  Major  JIacdoiiald,  evidently  a 
Fork  ot  great  labor  and  of  cap.acity  for  a  large  garrison. 
"  Through  the  wilderness  of  Kaa  (from  its  north- 


fountain  struck  liy  Moses  fi-om  the  rock.  Thij 
distance  just  hits  the  plain  es-Slwb  {Selttb,  Kie- 
pert's  Map),  which  Kobinson  entered  before  reach- 
ing the  foremost  ridge  of  Sinai,  and  suits  the 
peaked  mountain  el-OrJ'.  in  the  highest  point  of 
this  plain.  That  this  plain,  too,  is  large  enough 
for  fighting  in  (as  mentioned  Kx.  xvii.  9),  is  plain 
from  Robinson's  statement  (i.  141)  of  a  combat 
between  two  tribes  which  took  place  there  some 
years  before  his  visit.  Roldiison,  from  this  rocky 
peak,  which  I  took  for  Horeb,  in  1^  hour  reached 
the  spring  Giubt/i,  probably  the  oijie  the  opening 
of  which  was  ascribed  to  Mo.ses,  and  thence  in 
another  hour  came  to  the  steep  pass  i^^ukb  Jlihcy, 
to  mount  which  he  took  2|  hours,  and  in  2^  hours 
more,  crossing  the  plain  er-Raheh,  arrived  at  the 
convent  at  the  foot  of  Sinai.  Seetzen's  Arabs  gave 
the  name  of  Orrlht  *  to  a  mountain  reached  befoi-e 
ascending  the  pass,  no  doubt  the  same  as  Robin- 
son's e^-C*;;/' and  the  Horeb  of  Holy  Writ  "  {Reistn, 
iii.  pt.  iii.  422;  comp.  414).  He  seeks  to  recon- 
cile this  with  Ex.  xxxiii.  6,  which  describes  the 
people,  ])enitent  after  their  disobedience  in  the 
matter  of  the  golden  calf,  as  "  stripping  themselves 
of  their  ornaments  by  the  Mount  lloreb,'"  by  sup- 
posing that  they  were  by  Moses  led  back  again  <' 
from  Sinai,  where  (iod  had  appeared  to  him,  and 
immediately  below  which  they  had  encamped,  to 
Horeb  in  the  plain  of  Rephidim.  But  this  must 
have  been  a  day's  journey  backward,  and  of  such  a 
retrograde  movement  the  itiiierarj'  in  Num.  xxxiii, 
14,  15,  16.  has  no  trace.  On  the  contrary,  it  says, 
"  they  removed  from  tlie  desert  of  Sinai  and  pitched 
in  Kibroth  Hattaavah."  Now,  although  they 
stayed  a  year  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  (Ex.  xix. 
1;  Num.  X.  11,  12),  and  need  not  be  supposed  to 
have  had  but  one  camping  station  all  the  time,  yet 
Hephidim  clearly  appears  to  he  without  the  limits 
of  that  wilderness  (Ex.  xvii.  1,  xix.  1,2;  Num. 
xxxiii.  15),  and  a  return  thither,  being  a  departure 
from  those  limits,  might  therefore,  we  should  ex- 
pect, l)e  noticed,  if  it  took  place;  even  though  aD 
the  shiftings  of  the  camp  wilhiii  the  wilderness  of 
Sinai  might  not  be  set  down  in  the  itinerary. 
Under  .Six.vi  an  attempt  is  made  to  reconcile  the 
^^  ruck  in  Horeb"  at  Rephidim  with  a  •'■Mount 
Horeb  "  (tiie  .same,  in  fiict,  as  Sinai,  though  with 
a  relative  ditference  of  view),  by  regarding  "  Horeb  " 
as  a  designation  descriptive  of  ths  ground,  applica- 
ble, through  similarity  of  local  features,  to  either. 
If  tins  be  not  admitted,  we  may  perhaps  regard  the 
\i'(idy  es-S/ieykli,  a,  cresce  it  concave  southwards, 
whose  western  horn  joins  Wudy  Fci/ an,  and  whose 
e.astern  finds  a  southeastern  continuation  in  the 
plain  erPd/iek  (leading  up  to  Jrbd  Miisti,  the 
probable  Sinai),  as  tlie  Horeb  proper.  This  con- 
tains a  rock  called  traditionally  the  "  seat  of  Moses  " 
(Schubert,  Jieisen,  ii.  ;J5G).     And  this  is  to  some 

ern  border)  to  the  opening  of  Wnfiy  Hebrciii  into  it  is 
b\  hours'  journey.  The  manna  tamarisk  is  found 
there  ;  ami  some  birds,  called  by  Dr.  Kruso  '"  Wiislen- 
hiihiicrn,'  which  he  appears  to  think  might  be  the 
quails  of  Scripture.  Seetzen  iu  his  journal  plainly 
sets  down  the  "  quails  '"  as  being  wholly  a  mistake  for 
locusts  (Rfiseii,  iii.  pt.  iii.  413,  comp.  80). 

h  "  Xwo  hardly  distinguishable  mounttiins  on  either 
side  of  the  way  (from  the  Waih/  Biiiznrun)  were 
named  Orribr  and  Freuerk  "  (Heisen,  iii.  Git). 

c  He  thinks  the  reason  why  they  were  thus  couu- 
tormauded  wa.i  because  "  Horeb  "  was  t>etter  supplied 
with  water,  but  he  does  not  show  that  the  ''spring 
Gurbeli  "  adequately  meets  this  couditiou  (,i6i(/.  ii2». 


3524 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


Extent  confirmed  b)-  the  fact  that  the  wady  which 
continues  the  plain  er-Jidlieh  to  the  N.  W.,  form- 
ing with  the  latter  a  slightly  obtuse  angle,  resumes 
the  name  of  es-Sheykli.  If  we  may  suppose  the 
name  "  Horeb,"  though  properly  applied  to  the 
crescent  Wady  es-Sheykh,  which  joins  Ftiran,  to 
have  had  such  an  extension  as  would  embrace 
er-Rdheh,  then  the  "rock  in  Horeb"  might  be  a 
day's  journey  from  the  "  Mount  (of)  Horeb."  " 
This  view,  it  may  be  observed,  does  not  exclude 
that  just  referred  to  under  Sinai,  but  merely 
removes  it  from.resting  on  the  sense  there  jiroposed 

for  "  Horeb  "   (3jTn),  as  a  local  appellative,  to 

more  general  grounds. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  case  with  other  sacred 
localities,  the  identification  of  Sinai  itself  will 
proliably  never  be  free  from  obscurity.  We  seem 
to  have  adequate  information  regarding  all  the 
eminent  mountains  within  the  narrow  compass  to 
which  our  choice  is  reduced,  and  of  all  the  impor- 
tant passes.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  any  fresh  clew 
of  trustworthy  local  tradition  will  be  unraveled,  or 
any  new  light  thrown  on  the  text  of  the  Scriptural 
statements.  Somewhere  in  the  granitic  nucleus 
of  lofty  mountain  crests  the  answer,  douljtless,  lies.'' 
l"'or  the  grounds  on  which  a  slight  preponderance 
of  probability  rests  in  favor  of  the  Jehi:L  Miisa,''- 
see  Sinai.  But  even  that  preponderance  mainly 
rests  on  the  view  that  the  numbers  ascribed  in  our 
present  text  to  the  host  of  Israel  are  trustworthy. 
If  further  criticism  should  make  this  more  doulit- 
ful  than  it  now  is,  that  will  have  the  probuljle 
effect  of  making  the  question  mure  vague  rather 
than  more  clear  than  it  is  at  present.  "  This 
degree  of  uncertainty  is  a  great  safeguard  for  tiie 
real  reverence  due  to  the  place.  As  it  is,  you  may 
rest  on  your  general  conviction  and  be  thankful  " 
(iS'.  cf-  P.  p.  76).  The  tradition  which  has  conse- 
crated the  Jebel  Musn  can,  we  know,  be  traced  to 
its  source  in  a  late  year.  It  has  the  taint  of  mod- 
ernism and  the  detective  witness  of  the  older  tra- 
dition of  Serbdl.  Dr.  Stanley  thinks  it  "  doubtful 
whether  the  scene  of  the  giving  of  the  Law,  as 
we  now  conceive  it,  ever  entered  into  the  minds 
of  those  who  fixed  the  traditional  site.  The  con- 
secrated peak  of  the  Jebi^l  Miim.  was  probably 
revered  simply  as  the  spot  where  JNIoses  saw  the 
vision  of  tjod,  without  reference  to  any  more  gen- 
eral event  "  (*S.  cf  P.  p.  7G),  and  this  is  likely  to 
have  been  equally  true  of  Herbal  before  it.  The 
Eastern  mind  seized  on  the  spot  as  one  of  devout 
contemplation  by  the  one  retired  saint;  the  Western 
searches  ibr  a  scene  which  will  bring  the  people 
perceptibly  into  the  region  of  that  Presence  which 
the  saint  beheld. 

Certain  vivid  impressions  left  on  the  minds  of 


travellers  seem  to  bespeak  such  remarkable  fiatures 
for  the  rocks  of  this  cluster,  and  they  are  generally 
so  replete  with  interest,  that  a  few  leading  details  ot 
the  aspect  of  the  principal  mountains  may  fintl  place 
here.     Approaching  the  granitic  nucleus  from  the 
N.  side,  Seetzen  found  hiuiself  "  ever  between  two 
liigh,  wild,  and  naked  cliffs  of  granite."     All  possi- 
ble forms  of  mountains  blended  in  the  view  of  the 
group,  conical  and  pointed,  truncated,  serrated,  and 
rounded  {Btiscii,  iii.  CO,  67).     Innnediately  previ- 
ous to  this  he  had  been   upon   the  perpendicular 
sandstone   clitFs,  which   in   eUDilldl   bounded  the 
sandy  plain  er-Ramleh  on  the  eastern,  whilst  simi- 
lar steep  sandstone  chfTs  lay  on  the  N.  and  N.  W. 
On  a  nearer  view  small  bright  quartz-grit  {  Qaarz- 
kksel),   of    whitish-yellow   and   reddish  hue,   was 
observed    in    the   coarse-grained    sandstone.      Dr. 
Stanley,  approaching  from  the  N.  W.,  from  Wady 
SlitUdl,  through  wadies  Sidri  and  Peirdn,  found 
the  rocks  of  various  orders    more  or   less    inter- 
changed and  intermixed.     In  the  first,  "  red  tops 
resting  on  dark-green  bases  closed  the  prospect  in 
front,"  doubtless  both  of  granite.     Contrast  with 
this  the  description  of  Jebel   Musd,  as  seen  from 
Mount  St.  Catherine  {ibid.  77).  "the  redi/ish  gYM\- 
ite  of  its    loiutr  mass,  ending  in   the  gray  yreen 
granite  of   the  peak  itself."        Wady   Sidri    lies 
letween  red  granite   mountains  descending  pre- 
cipitously on  the  sands,"  but  just  in  the  midst  of 
it  the  granite   is  exchanged  for  sandstone,  which 
last  forms  the  rock-tablets  of  the  Wady  Mokntleb, 
lying   in  the  way  to   Wady  Feiran.     This  last  is 
full  of  •' endless  windings,"  and   here  "began  the 
curious  sight  of  the  mountains,  streaked  from  head 
to  foot,  as  if  with  boiling  streams  of  dark  red  mat- 
ter poured  over  them,  the  igneous  fluid  squirted 
upwards  as  they  were  heaved  from   the  ground." 
....•'  The  colors  tell  their  own  story,  of  chalk 
and  limestone  and  sandstone  and  granite."    Besides 
these,  "  huge  cones  of  white  clay  and  sand  are  at 
intervals  planted  along  these  mighty  watercourses 
(the  now  dry  wadies),  apparently  the  original  allu- 
vial dejiosit  of  some  tremendous  antediluvian  tor- 
rent, left  there  to  stiffen  into  sandstone  "  {ib.  71). 
The    Wady  Feii'dn  is  bounded  southwards  by  the 
Jebil  Nediye/i  and  the  Jtbel  Serbdl,  which  extend 
westwards    to    the    maritime    plain,  and    eastward 
to  the   Sinaitic  grou]),  and  on  whose  further   or 
southern  side  lies  the  widest  part  of  el-Kda,  previ- 
ously noticed  as  the  "  wilderness  of  Sin."     Seet- 
zen remarks  that  Jebel  Feiran  is  not  an  individual 
mountain,    but,    like    Sinai,  a  conspicuous  group 
{Jicisen,  iii.  107;  comp.  pt.  iii.  413). 

Verbal  rises  from  a  lower  level  than  the  Sinaitic 
group,  and  so  stands  out  more  fully.  Dr.  Stewart's 
account  of  its  summit  confirms  that  of  Burckhardt. 
The  former  mounted   from    the    northern    side  a 


«  The  expression   miH   "IHp   in  Ex.  xxxiii.  6 

way  probably  be,  like  the  expression  C^n  7Sn  "^n, 

iii.  1,  and  that  of  m^rt"*   "IHS.  Josh.  xxi.  11,  etc., 

T        ;         -    :  ' 
tvro  nouns  in  regimt'u,  the  "  mount  oy  Horeb." 

b  The  Tabula  Peiitingfriuna  gives  in  the  interior 
of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  a  wilderness  indicated  as 
<>■  de.«ertuin  ubi  xl.  annos  erraverunt  fllii  Israelis 
ducente  Moyse,"  and  marks  therein  a  three-peaked 
mountain,  with  the  words,  "  hie  legem  acceperunt  in 
moDte  Syna."  Dr.  Kruse  thinks  the  "  three  peaks  " 
cean  Sinai  (i.  e.  the  Jebel  Musa),  Asc.  Episteme  and 
i<je  Jebfl  Hiim^r  (Seetzen,  Reisen,  iii.  pt.  iii.  421). 

c  Dr.  Kruse  sajs,  '-  This  highest  S.  K.  point  of  Sinai 


is  indisputabl}'  the  '  mountain  of  the  Lord  '  of  Holy  • 
Writ,  the  modern  Mount  St.  Catherine.  The  N.  W 
part  of  Sinai  is,  however,  now  named  Chorif  by  the 
monks,  not  by  the  .-Vrabs,  probably  in  order  to  com- 
bine Horeb  with  Sinai,  by  which  nan.*  they  denote 
the  most  southeasterly  point.  The  '  plain  '  or  '  wil- 
derness '  of  Sinai  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  high 
plain  situated  on  the  northern  steep  dechvity  sur- 
rounded by  the  three  before-named  peaks  of  Sinui,  the 
opposite  plateau  of  Jebel  Fnnia,  and  E.  and  W.  som« 
low  ridges.  It  is  now  called  the  plain  Rdheh,  and  is, 
according  to  Robinson's  measurement,  quite  large 
enough  to  hold  two  millions  of  Israelites,  who  here 
encamped  together  "  {ibirJ.  422). 


WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING 


3525 


narrow  plateau  at  the  top  of  the  easternmost  peak. 
A.  block  of  gray  granite  crowns  it,  and  several  con- 
tiguous blocks  form  one  or  two  grottoes,  and  a  cir- 
cle of  loose  stones  rests  in  the  narrow  plateau  at  the 
top  {The  Tetit  and  I  lit  Khan,  pp.  117,  118).  The 
"  five  peaks,"  to  which  ••  in  most  points  of  view  it 
is  reducible,  at  first  sight  appear  inaccessible,  but 
are  divided  by  steep  ravines  filled  with  fragments 
of  fiUlen  granite."'  Dr.  (Stanley  mounted  "over 
smooth  blocks  of  granite  to  the  top  of  the  third  or 
central  peak,"  amid  which  ''  innumerable  shrubs, 
like  sage  or  thyme,  grew  to  the  very  summit." 
Here,  too,  his  ascent  was  assisted  by  loose  stones 
aiTanged  by  human  hands.  The  peak  divides  into 
'•  two  eminences,"  on  "  tlie  highest  of  which,  as  on 
the  back  of  some  petrified  tortoise,  you  stand,  and 
overlook  the  whole  Peninsula"  (^'.  if  P.  pp.  71,  7'2). 
Kussegger  says  "  the  stone  of  tlie  peak  of  Strbal  is 
porphyry"  {litiseii,  iii.  27G).  Ur.  Stewart  men- 
tions the  extensive  view  from  its  sunnnit  of  the 
mountains  "  which  arise  from  the  western  shore 
of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah,"  seen  in  the  N.  E.,  and 
of  the  Sinaitic  range,  "  closely  packed  "  with  the 
intermediate  Jtbd  Wtiieidli,  '■  forming  the  most 
confused  mass  of  mountain  tops  that  can  be  imag- 
ined" (pp.  114,  llu).  His  description  of  the  ascent 
of  the  eastern  peak  is  formidable.  He  felt  a  rarity 
of  the  air,  and  olten  had  to  climb  or  crawl  flat  on 
the  breast.  It  was  like  "  the  ascent  of  a  glacier, 
only  of  smooth  granite,  instead  of  ice."  At  a 
quarter  of  an  hour  from  the  summit  he  also  "  found 
a  stair  of  blocks  of  granite,  laid  one  above  another 
on  the  surface  of  the  smooth  slippery  rock  "  (p. 
113).  On  the  nortliern  summit  are  visible  the  re- 
mains of  a  building,  "  granite  fnagments  cemented 
with  lime  and  mortar,"  and  "  close  beside  it  three 
of  those  mysterious  inscriptions,"  implying  "that 
this  summit  was  frequented  by  unknown  pilgrims 
who  used  those  characters"  (.*?.  i/  P.  p.  72). 

The  approach  to  Jtl>tl  Musa  from  the  W.  is 
only  practicable  on  foot.  It  lies  through  Wady 
Solam  and  the  Nukb  Hawk,  "  Pass  of  the  Wind,"  " 
whose  stair  of  rock  leads  to  the  second  or  higher 
stage  of  the  great  mountain  labyrinth.  Elsewhere 
this  pass  would  be  a  roaring  torrent.  It  is  amidst 
masses  of  rock  a  thread  of  a  stream  just  visible,  and 
here  and  there  forming  clear  pools,  shrouded  in 
palms,  or  leaving  its  clew  to  be  traced  oidy  by 
rushes.  From  the  head  of  this  pass  the  clift-lront 
of  Sinai  comes  in  sight  through  "  a  long  continued 
plain  lietween  two  precipitous  mountain  ranges  of 
black  and  yellow  gran.te."  This  is  the  often- men- 
tioned plain  ei--Edhch.  Deej)  gorges  enter  it  on 
each  side,  and  the  convent  and  its  gardens  clo.se 
the  view.  The  ascent  of  Jebcl  Musn,  which  con- 
tains "  high  valleys  with  abundant  springs,"  is  by 
3.  long  flight  of  rude  steps  winding  through  crags 
of  granite.  The  cave  and  chapel  "of  Klias  "  are 
passed  on  the  slope  of  the  ascent,  and  the  summit  is 
marked  by  the  ruins  of  a  mosque  and  of  a  Christian 
church.     But    Strauss    adtls,    '•  the    '  .Mount   of 

a  By  this  pass  Dr.  Stanley  w.is  himself  conducted 
thither,  sending  his  camels  round  by  the  Waili/  es- 
:i/ieykli  from  Feirdn,  "  the  more  accessible  though  more 
Eirouitous  route  into  the  central  upland."  By  this 
latter  he  supposes  the  great  bulk  of  the  host  of  I.«raul 
may  have  reached  er-Rahck  uud  Siuai,  while  "the 
;hief8  of  the  people  would  uiouut "  by  the  same  pass 
which  he  took  (S.  ^  P.  p.  42). 

h  Dr.  Stewart  (ub.  sup.  122)  says,  "  Ghebel  Musa,  the 
Kinai  of  monkish  traditions,  is  neither  visible  from  the 
Qbebvl  (/.  e.  liaa)  Sriti-afeh,  uor  from  any  other  uoiut 


Jloses  '  rose  in  the  south  higher  and  higher  still  " 
and  the  point  of  this,  debet  iMiisa,  eighty  feet  in 
diameter,  is  distant  two  hours  and  more  from  the 
plain  below  {Sinai  and  Golyotlia,  p.  116).  The  Ras 
ISi'iJ'sdJ'nh  seems  a  small,  steep,  and  high  mountain, 
which  is  interposed  between  the  slope  of  debel  Musa 
and  the  plain ;  and,  from  its  position,  surveys  both 
the  openings  of  es-Sktykh  N.  E.  and  of  er-Rdhek  * 
N.  \\^,  which  converge  at  its  foot.  Opposite  to  it, 
across  the  plain,  is  the  debel  Fureid,  whose  peak  is 
cloven  asunder,  and  the  taller  summit  is  again  shat- 
tered and  rent,  and  strewn,  as  by  an  earthquake, 
with  its  own  fragments.  The  aspect  of  the  plain 
between  debel  Fureid,  which  here  forms  a  salient 
angle,  wedging  southwards,  and  the  dids  SuJsdJ'eh, 
is  described  as  being,  in  conjunction  with  these 
mountains,  wonderfully  suggestive,  both  by  its 
grandeur  and  its  suitableness  for  the  giving  and 
the  receiving  of  the  Law.  "  That  such  a  plain 
should  e.Kist  at  all  in  front  of  such  a  clitf  is  so  re- 
markable a  coincidence  with  the  sacred  narrative, 
as  to  furnish  a  strong  internal  argument,  not  merely 
of  its  identity  with  the  scene,  but  of  the  .scene  itself 
having  been  described  by  an  eye-witness  "  {S.  cf'  P. 
pp.  42,  43).  The  character  of  the  Sinaitic  granite 
is  described  by  Seetzen  {Reisen,  iii.  8(5)  as  being 
(1)  flesh-red  with  glass-colored  quartz  and  black 
mica,  and  (2)  grayish-white  with  abundance  of  the 
same  mica.  He  adds  that  the  first  kind  is  larger- 
grained  and  handsomer  than  the  second.  Hamilton 
speaks  of  "  long  ridges  of  arid  rock  surrounding  him 
in  chaotic  confusion  on  every  side,"  and  "  the  sharp 
broken  peaks  of  granite  far  and  near  as  all  equally 
desolate  "  {Sinai,  tlie  dledjaz,  and  Soudan,  p.  31). 
This  view  of  "  granite  peaks,"  so  thickly  and  wildly 
set  as  to  form  "a  labyrinth  "  to  the  eye,  was  what 
chiefly  impressed  I>r.  Stanley  in  the  view  from  the 
top  of  debel  Musa^S.  cf  P.  p.  77).  There  the 
weather-beaten  rocks  are  full  of  curious  fissures  and 
holes  (p.  46),  the  surface  being  "a  grariite  mass 
cloven  into  deep  gullies  and  basins  "  (p.  76).  Over 
the  whole  mountain  the  imagination  of  votaries  has 
stamped  the  rock  with  tokens  of  miracle.  The 
dendrites  <^  were  viewed  as  memorials  of  the  Burn- 
itig  Bush.  In  one  part  of  the  moimtain  is  shown 
the  impress  of  JNIoses'  back,  as  he  hid  himself  from 
the  presence  of  God  {ib.  30);  in  another  the  hoof- 
print  of  Mohammed's  mule:  in  the  plain  below,  a 
riule  hollow  between  contiguous  blocks  of  stone 
passes  for  the  mould  of  the  head  of  the  (iolden  Calf; 
while  in  the  valley  of  the  Leja,  which  runs,  parallel 
to  and  overhung  by  the  debel  J/iisa's  greatest 
length,  into  er-Rdheh,  close  to  Ras  Sufsdfeh,  the 
famous  "  Stone  of  Moses "  is  shown  —  "a  detached 
mass  from  ten  to  fifteen  feet  high,  intersected  with 
wide  slits  or  cracks  ....  with  the  stone  between 
them  worn  away,  as  if  by  the  dropping  of  water  from 
the  cr.ack  immediately  above."  This  distinctness 
of  the  mass  of  ti)e  stone  lends  itself  to  the  belief  of 
the  l.'abbis,  that  this  "rock  followed"  the  Israelites 
through  the  wilderness,  which  would  not  be   the 

in  the  plain  oi  fr-Raheh."  This  seems  confirmed  by  the 
argument  of  5.  ^  P.  pp.  43,  44,  that  Moses,  descend- 
ing from  the  Jebel  MUsn,  would  not  be  able  to  see  what 
was  going  on  in  the  plain  till  ho  emerged  upon  it,  the 
height  of  STifMtfrh  effectually  intercepting  the  view. 

c  These  have  become  scarce  on  this  mountain  ;  Seet- 
zen {Reisen,  iii.  80)  expressly  mentions  that  he  observed 
none.  They  are  now  found  abundantly  in  the  course 
of  constructing  .\bbas  I'asha's  mountain  road  (Stewart 
r.  if  K  pp.  132,  lai). 


5526 


WILDERNESS   OF  THE  WANDERING 


case  with  the  non-detached  oft-set  of  some  larger 
cliff".  The  Koran  also  contains  reference  to  '-the 
rock  with  the  twelve  mouths  fur  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,"  i.  e.  the  aforesaid  cracks  in  the  stone, 
into  which  the  Bedouins  thrust  grass  as  they  mut- 
ter their  prayers  before  it.  Bishop  Clajton  ac- 
cepted it  as  genuine,  so  did  Whiston  the  translator 
of  Josephus;"  but  it  is  a  mere  hisus  n/i/une;  and 
there  is  another  fragment,  "less  consijicuous,"  in 
the  same  valley,  "  with  precisely  similar  marks." 
In  the  pass  of  the  IVw/y  es-S//eykh  is  another 
stone,  called  the  "  Seat  of  Moses,"  described  by 
Laborde  (S.  ^  P.  pp.  45-48,  and  notes).  Seetzen 
adds,  some  paces  beyond  the  "  Stone  of  Moses  " 
several  springs,  copious  for  a  region  so  [loor  in 
water,  have  their  source  from  under  Ijlocks  of 
granite,  one  of  which  is  as  big  as  this  "  Stone  of 
Moses."  These  springs  gush  into  a  very  small 
dike,  and  thence  are  conducted  by  a  canal  to  sup- 
ply water    to  a   little    fruit-garden Their 

water  is  pure  and  very  good.  On  this  canal,  sev- 
eral paces  lielow  the  basin,  lies  a  considerably  bigger 
lilock  of  granite  than  the  "  Stone  of  Moses,"  "  and 
the  canal  runs  round  so  close  to  its  side  as  to  lie 
half-concealed  by  it"  {Rehen,  iii.  9-5).  He  seems 
to  argue  that  this  appearance  and  half-connealment 
may  have  been  made  use  of  by  JNIoses  to  procure 
belief  in  his  having  produced  the  water  miracu- 
lously, which  existed  before.  But  this  is  wholly 
inconsistent,  as  indeed  is  any  view  of  this  being  the 
actual  "  rock  in  Horeb,"  with  his  view  of  Rephidim 
as  situated  at  el-Hessui/i,  the  western  extremity  of 
the  Wady  Feirdii.  Equally  at  variance  with  the 
Scriptural  nan-ative  is  the  claim  of  a  hole  in  er 
Rahe/i,  below  Rds  Siifstifth,  to  be  "the  I'it  of 
Korah,"  whose  story  belongs  to  another  and  far 
later  stage  of  the  march. 

On  Mount  St.  Catherine  ijae  principal  interest 
lies  in  the  panorama  of  the  whole  Peninsula  which 
it  commands,  emljraeed  by  the  converging  horns  of 
the  Red  Sea,  and  the  complete  way  in  which  it 
overlooks  the  Jchel  Musn,  which,  as  seen  from  it, 
is  by  no  means  conspicuous,  being  about  1,000  feet 
lower.  Seetzen  mounted  by  a  path  strewn  with 
stones  and  blocks,  having  nowhere  any  steps,  like 
those  mentioned  as  existing  at  Serbdl,  and  remarks 
that  jasper  and  porphyry  chiefly  constitute  the 
mountain.  He  reached  tlie  highest  point  in  three 
hours,  including  intervals  of  rest,  by  a  hai-d,  steep 
path,  with  toilsome  clambering;  but  the  actual 
time  of  ascending  was  only  1|  hours.  The  date- 
palm  plantation  of  Tur  is  said  to  be  visible  from 
tlie  top;  liut  the  haze  prevailing  at  the  time  pre- 
vented tills  traveller  from  verifying  it  {Rehtn.  iii. 
8y-!Jy).  "The  rock  of  the  highest  point  of  this 
mountain  swells  into  the  form  of  a  liuman  body, 
its  arms  swathed  hke  that  of  a  mummy,  but  iiead- 
less  —  the  counterpart,  as  it  is  alleged,  of  tlie  corpse 
of  the  beheaded  Egyptian  saint Not  im- 
probably this  grotesque  figure  furnishes  not  merely 
the  illustration,  but  the  origin,  of  the  story  "  of  St. 
Catherine's  body  being  transported  to  the  spot,  after 
martyrdom,  from  Egypt  by  angelic  hands  {S.  cj- 
>.  p.  45). 

The  remaining  principal  mountain  is  named  vari- 


a  See  his  note  on  Ant.  iii.  1,  §  7. 

b  Dr.  SUuley  verified  the  possibility  of  the  fact,  and 
iisproved  its  iiiiniculous  character  by  examining  the 
mvine  above  the  Convent,  througli  which,  uhen  tlie 
3UU  gains  the  necessary  altitude,  a  ray  wnuld  reacli 
the  nliapol  (5.  ^  f .  p  4i5). 


ously  ed-Dei?;  "the  Convent;"  "  Bestin,"  from 
St.  Episteme,  the  first  abbess  of  the  nunnery. 
"  .Solab,"  from  "  the  Cross,"  which  stands  on  ita 
summit;  and  the  "  Mount  of  the  Burning  Bush," 
from  a  legend  that  a  sunbeam  shoots  down,  sup- 
posed miraculously,  on  one  day  in  the  year,  through 
the  mountain  into  the  chapel  of  the  "  Burning 
Bush  "  *  (so  called)  in  the  convent  {ib.  p.  78).  In 
the  pass  of  the  Convent  rocks  arise  on  every  side, 
in  long  succession,  fantastically  colored,  gray,  red, 
blue,  bright  yellow,  and  bronze,  sometimes  strangely 
marked  with  white  lines  of  quartz  or  black  bands 
of  basalt;  huge  blocks  worn  into  fantastic  shapes 
....  interrupt  the  narrow  track,  which  successive 
ages  have  worn  along  the  face  of  the  precipice,  or, 
hanging  overhead,  threaten  to  overwhelm  the 
traveller  in  their  fall.  The  wady  which  contains 
this  pass  is  called  by  the  name  of  S/iu\'ib  —  a  cor- 
ruption of  Hobab,  the  name  of  the  fatlier-iu-kw  of 
Moses  {ib.  pp.  32,  33).  At  the  foot  of  a  mountain 
near  the  convent  Seetzen  noticed  "  a  range  of  rocks 
of  black  horn-porphyry,  of  hornblende,  and  black 
jasper,  and  between  their  scrolls  or  volutes  white 
quartz."  The  gardens,  as  has  Ijeen  noticed,  are  in 
sight  from  the  approach  through  er-Rd/ieh.  Seet- 
zen enlarges  on  their  beauty,  enhanced,  of  course,  by 
the  savage  wild  aliout  them;  "indeed  a  blooming 
vegetation  appears  in  this  climate  wherever  there 
is  water"  {Reistn,  iii.  70,  73,  87).  These  proved 
capabilities  of  the  soil  are  of  interest  in  reference  to 
the  Mosaic  and  to  every  period.  As  regards  the 
Convent,  the  i-eader  may  be  referred  to  L)r.  Stan- 
ley's animated  description  of  its  character,  the 
policy  of  its  founder,  and  tiie  quality  of  its  inmates 
{S.  cj-  P.  pp.  51-50).  This  traveller  took  three  hours 
in  the  ascent.  "  In  the  recesses  between  tlie  peaks 
was  a  ruined  Bedouin  village.  On  the  highest  level 
was  a  small  natural  basin,  thickly  co\ered  with 
shrubs  of  myrrh  —  of  all  the  spots  of  the  kind  that 
1  saw,  the  best  suited  for  the  feeding  of  Jethro's 
flocks  in  the  seclusion  of  the  mountain  "  (ib.  p.  78). 
He  thought  the  prospect,  however,  from  its  summit 
inferior  in  various  ways  to  any  of  the  other  views 
from  the  neighboring  mountains,  Herbal,  St.  Votli- 
eriiie,  ./ebet  .\lusa  or  Jids  Sufsdfth. 

The  rocks,  on  leaving  Sinai  on  the  east  for  'Aka- 
bah,  are  curiously  intermingled,  somewhat  as  in  the 
opposite  margin  of  the  wadies  Sidri  and  Mokntttb. 
Wtidy  Seydl  contains  "hills  of  a  conical  shape, 
curiously  slanting  across  each  other,  and  with  an 
appearance  of  serpentine  and  basalt.  The  wady 
.  .  .  .  then  mounted  a  short  rocky  pass  —  of  hills 
capped  with  sandstone  —  and  entered  on  a  plain  of 
deep  sand  —  the  first  we  had  encountered  —  over 
which  were  scattered  isolated  clumps  of  sandstone, 
with  occasional  chalk  ....  At  the  close  of  this 
plain,  an  isolated  rock,  its  high  tiers  rising  out  of 
lower  tiers,  like  a  castle."  Here  "  the  level  ranges 
of  et-Tiii  rose  in  front."  And  soon  after,  on  strik- 
ing down,  apparently,  northeastwards,  "  a  sandy 
desert,  amidst  fantastic  sandstone  rocks,  mixed 
with  lilac  and  dull  green,  as  if  of  tufa,"  succeeded. 
After  this  came  a  desert  strewn  with  "  fragments 
of  the  jTiVi,"  J.  e.  limestone,  but  "presently,"  in 
the  "  Wady    GliUzdk/i,'^  =    which    turns   at    first 


c  Here  Dr.  Stanley  quitted  the  track  pur.sued  by  Dr 
Robinson,  which  from  the  Convent  he  had  hithertc 
followed  ;  the  latter  continuing  in  a  N.  K.  directloD 
through  WaiJtj  Smnghy  to  tlie  western  shore  of  th« 
Oulf  of  "Akabah,  the  foniier  turning  nor'iiwards  bj 


WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING 


3527 


nearly  due  northward,  and  then  deflects  westward, 
the  "high  granite  roclis  "  reappeared;  and  in  the 
Wady  el-'Ai/i,  •'  the  rocks  rise,  red  granite  or  blacl^ 
basalt,  occasionally  tipped  as  if  with  castles  of  sand- 
stone to  the  heigljt  of  about  1,000  feet  ....  and 
filially  open  on  the  sea.  At  the  mouth  of  the  pass 
are  many  traces  of  flood  —  trees  torn  down,  and 
strewed  along  the  sand  "  (ib.  pp.  80,  81). 

VI.  VVe  now  pass  on  to  resume  the  attempt  to 
trace  the  progress  of  the  Israelites.  Their  sojourn 
of  a  year  in  tlie  neighborhood  of  Mount  Sinai  was 
an  eventful  one.  'I'he  statements  of  the  Scriptural 
narrative  which  relate  to  the  receiving  of  the  two 
Tables,  the  Golden  Calf,  Moses'  visioTi  of  God,  and 
the  visit  of  .lethro,  aie  too  well  known  to  need 
special  mention  here;  but  besides  these,  it  is  certain 
from  Num.  iii.  4,  that  liefore  tliey  quitted  the  wil- 
derness of  Sinai,  tlie  Israelites  were  thrown  into 
mourning  by  the  untimely  death  of  .\aron"s  two 
sons,  Nadab  and  Abihu.  This  event  is  probably 
connected  witii  the  setting  u|)  of  the  Taljeruacle  and 
the  enkindling  of  that  holy  fire,  tlie  sanctity  of 
which  tiieir  death  avenged.  That  it  has  a  deter- 
minate chronological  relation  with  the  promulga- 
tions which  from  time  to  time  were  made  in  that 
wilderness,  is  proved  by  an  edict  in  Lev.  xvi.,  being 
fixed  as  subsequent  to  it  (Lev.  x.,  comp.  xvi.  1). 
The  only  other  fact  of  history  contained  in  Levit- 
icus is  the  punishment  of  tlie  son  of  mixed  parent- 
age for  blasphemy  (xxiv.  10-14).  Of  course  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  is  mentioned 
early  in  the  book  in  connection  with  the  laws  re- 
lating to  their  office  (viii.,  ix.)-  In  the  same  wil- 
derness region  the  people  were  mnnliered,  and  the 
exchange  of  the  Levites  against  the  firstlmrn  was 
effected ;  these  last,  since  their  delivery  when  God 
smote  those  of  Egypt,  having  incurred  the  obliga- 
tion of  sanctity  to  him.  The  oflferings  of  the  princes 
of  Israel  were  here  also  received.  The  last  incident 
mentioned  before  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  was  quitted 
for  that  of  Paran  is  tlie  intended  de|)arture  of 
lloliab  the  Keiiite,  which  it  seems  he  altandoned  at 
Moses'  urgency.  They  now  quitted  tlie  Sinaitic 
region  for  that  of  Paran,  in  which  they  went  three 
days  without  finding  a  permanent  encampment,  al- 
though temporary  halts  must  of  course  have  been 
daily  made  (Num.  i.,  ix.  15-23;  x.  13,  33;  xi. 
35;  xii.  16).  A  glance  at  Kiepert's,  or  any  map 
showing  the  I'egion  in  detail,  will  prove  that  here  a 
choice  of  two  main  routes  begins,  in  order  to  cross 
the  intervening  space  between  Sinai  and  Canaan, 
which  they  certainly  approached  in  the  first  in- 
stance on  the  southern,  and  not  on  the  eastern  side. 
Here  the  higher  plateau  surmounting  the  IVi 
region  would  almost  certainly,  assuming  the  main 
features  of  the  wilderness  to  have  been  then  as  they 
are  now,  have  compelled  them  to  turn  its  western 
side  nearly  by  the  route  by  which  Seetzen  came  in 
the  opposite  direction  from  Hebron  to  Sinai,  or  to 
turn  it  on  the  east  by  going  up  the  'Arabah,  or  be- 
tween the  'Arabah  and  the  higher  jilateau.  Over 
its  southern  face  there  is  no  pass,  and  hence  the 
roads  from  Sinai,  and  those  trom  Petra  towards 
Gaza  and  Hebron,  all  converge  into  one    of  two 


the  Wailii  G/vizniteh,  as  above,  immediately  after  pass- 
ing the  ''Ain  et-Hli/ltera/i. 

n  Seetzfu  supposes  that  what   are  callej  quiiila  iti 
Icripture    were    really   locusts    (liehen,    Iii.    80)  ;    uii 
>piuiou  which  Coquerel  (I.aborde,  Comiii.  Oro^.   Kx. 
»vi.  13)  appeiirs  to  have  shared      But  surely  locu.st^,  !  p   115 
u  edible,  are  tor-  >veU  kno-ru  ia  Scripture  to  make  the  1 


trunk-lines  of  route  (Robinson,  i.  117,  151,  152.  ii 
18ii).  Taberah  and  Kibroth-IIattaavah,  both  seem 
to  belong  to  the  same  encampment  where  Israel 
alwde  lor  at  least  a  month  (xi.  20),  being  names 
given  to  it  from  the  two  events  which  happened  there. 
[T.viiiiit.vii,  KiisROTir  -  Uattaavaii,  (2u.\ils.] 
These  stations  seem  from  Num.  x.  11-13,  33-30,  to 
have  lain  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran ;  but  possibly 
the  passage  x.  11-13  should  come  after  that  33-30, 
anti  the  "  three  days'  journey  "  of  ver.  33  lie  still 
in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai;  and  even  Taberah  and 
llazeroth,  reached  in  xi ,  xii.,  also  there.  Thus 
they  would  reach  Paran  only  in  xii.  16.,  and  x.  12 
would  be  either  misplaced  or  mentioned  by  antici- 
pation only.  One  reason  for  thinking  that  they  did 
not  strike  northwards  across  the  Ti/i  range  frona 
.Sinai,  is  Moses'  question  when  they  murmur, 
"  Shall  all  the  fish  of  the  sea  be  gathered  together 
for  them,  to  suffice  them?"  which  is  natural 
enough  if  they  were  rapidly  nearing  the  Gulf  of 
'Akabah,  but  strange  if  they  were  posting  towards 
the  inland  heart  of  the  desert.  Again  the  quails  " 
are  brought  by  "  a  wind  from  the  sea  "  (Num.  xi. 
22,  31);  and  various  travellers  (Burckhardt,  Schu- 
bert, Stanley)  testify  to  the  occurrence  of  vast 
flights  of  birds  in  this  precise  region  between  Sinai 
and  '.A.kabah.  Again,  U.izeroth,  the  ne.xt  station 
after  these,  is  coupled  with  Dizahab,  which  last 
seems  undoubtedly  the  B  tliab  on  the  shore  of  that 
gulf  (Deut.  i.  1»  and  Robinson,  ii.  187,  note).  This 
makes  a  seaward  position  likely  for  Hazeroth.  And 
as  Taberah,  previously  reached,  was  three  days' 
journey  or  more  from  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  they 
had  probably  advanced  that  distance  towards  the  N. 
E.  and  'Akabah;  and  the  distance  required  for  this 
will  bring  us  so  near  tl-f/ud/itnlk  (the  spot  which 
Dr.  Robinson  thought  represented  Hazeroth  in  fact 
as  it  seems  to  do  in  name),  that  it  may  be  accepted 
as  a  highly  probable  site.  Thus  they  were  now  not 
far  from  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah.  A  spot 
which  seems  almost  cert;un  to  attract  their  course 
was  the  IVady  el-  Ain,  being  l/iv  water,  the  spring, 
of  that  region  of  the  desert,  which  would  have 
drawn  around  it  such  "  nomadic  settlements  as  are 
implied  in  the  name  of  Hazeroth,  and  such  as  that 
of  Israel  must  have  been"  (IS.  if  P.  p.  82).  Dr. 
Robinson  remarks,  that  if  this  be  so,  this  settles  the 
course  to  Kadesh  as  being  up  the '.A.rabah,  and  not 
across  the  plateau  of  et-  Tili.i'  Dr.  Stanley  thinks 
this  identification  a  "  faint  probabihty,"'  and  the 
more  uncertain  as  regards  identity,  "  as  the  name 
Hazeroth  is  one  of  the  least  likely  to  be  attached 
to  any  permanent  or  natural  feature  of  the  desert," 
meaning  ''simply  the  inclosures,  such  as  m.ay  still 
be  seen  in  the  Bedouin  villages,  hardly  less  transi- 
tory than  tents"  (S.  (/•  P.  pp.  81,  82).  We  rely, 
however,  rather  on  the  combination  of  the  varioua 
sircumstances  mentioned  above  than  on  the  name. 
The  Wady  llwlherak  and  Wady  tl-\-iiii  appear  to 
run  nearly  parallel  to  each  other,  from  S.  W.  to 
N.  E.,  nearly  from  the  eastei-n  extremity  of  the 
Wndy  es-Slwykli,  and  then'  N.  E.  extremity  comes 
nearly  to  the  coast,  marking  about  a  midway  dis- 
tance between  the  Jehel  Musa  and  'Akabah.     In 


confusion  possible  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  says  that  quails,  or 
suuiU  partridges,  which  he  supposes  rathernieaut,  are, 
lis  far  as  he  saw,  more  common  in  the  desert  than  lo- 
custs. 

t>  KoblDSon,  ub.  sup.  ;  comp.   Stewart,    T.  and   h 


3528 


WILDERNESS   OP  THE  WANDERING 


Hazeroth  the  people  tarried  seven  days,  if  not  more 
(Num.  xi.  35,  xii.),  diirinw  the  exclusion  of  Miriam 
fi'oni  the  camp  while  leprous.  The  next  permanent 
encampment  brought  them  into  the  wilderne.ss  of 
Parau,  and  here  the  local  commentator's  greatest 
difficulty  begins. 

For  we  have  not  merely  to  contend  with  the  fact 
•that  time  has  changed  the  desert's  face  in  many 
parts,  and  obliterated  old  nanifs  for  new;  but  we 
have  beyond  this,  great  obscurity  and  perplexity  in 
the  narrative.  The  task  is,  first,  to  adjust  the  un- 
certainties of  the  reconl  inhr  se,  and  then  to  try 
and  make  the  resultant  probability  square  with  the 
main  historical  and  physical  facts,  so  far  as  the 
latter  can  be  supposed  to  remain  unaltered.  Be- 
sides the  more  or  less  discontinuous  form  in  which 
the  sacred  narrative  meets  us  in  I'^xodus,  a  small 
portion  of  Leviticus,  and  the  greater  part  of  Num- 
bers, we  have  in  Num.  xxxiii.  wliat  purports  at 
first  sight  to  1)6  a  complete  skeleton  route  so  far  as 
regards  nonienclature;  and  we  further  find  in 
Deuteronomy  a  review  of  the  leading  events  of  the 
wairdering,  or  some  of  them,  without  following  the 
order  of  occurrence,  and  chiefly  in  the  way  of  allu- 
sion expanded  and  dwelt  upon.  Tluis  the  autiiority 
is  of  a  tln'eefold  character.  And  as,  in  the  main 
narrative,  wliole  years  are  often  sunk  as  une^■entful, 
BO  in  the  itinerary  of  Num.  xxxiii.,  on  a  near  view 
great  chasms  occur,  which  require,  where  all  else 
bespeaks  a  severe  uniformity  of  method,  to  be 
somehow  accounted  for.  But,  beyond  the  ques- 
tions opened  by  either  authority  in  itself,  we  have 
ditticulties  of  apparent  incongruity  between  them ; 
such  as  the  omission  in  Exodus  of  Dophka  and 
Alush,  and  of  the  encampment  by  the  Ked  Sea; 
and,  incomparably  greater,  that  of  the  fact  of  a  visit 
to  Kadesh  being  recorded  in  Num.  xiii.  2G,  and 
again  in  xx.  1,  while  the  itinerary  mentions  the 
name  of  Kadesh  only  once.  These  difficulties 
resolve  themselves  into  two  main  questions.  Did 
Israel  visit  Kadesh  once,  or  twice '?  And  where  is 
it  now  to  be  looked  for  ? 

Before  attempting  these  difficulties  individually, 
it  may  be  as  well  to  suggest  a  caution  against 
certain  erroneous  general  views,  which  often  appear 
to  govern  the  considerations  of  desert  topography. 
One  is,  tliat  the  Israelites  journeyed,  wherever  they 
could,  in  nearly  a  straight  line,  or  took  at  any  rate 
the  shortest  cuts  between  point  and  point.  This 
has  led  some  dtlineators  of  maps  to  simply  register 
the  file  of  names  in  Num.  xxxiii.  16-3G  from 
Sinai  in  rectilinear  sequence  to  Kedesh,  wherever 
they  may  happen  to  fix  its  site,  then  turn  the  line 
backward  from  Kadesh  to  Ezion-geber,  and  then 
either  to  Kadesh  again,  or  to  Mount  Hor,  and 
thence  again,  and  here  correctly,  down  the  'Arabah 
southwards  and  rounct  the  southeastern  angle  of 
Edom,  with  a  sweep  northwards  towards  JNIoal.). 
In  drawing  a  map  of  the  Wanderings,  we  should 
mark  as  approximately  or  proliably  ascertained  the 
stations  from  Ethani  to  Hazerotli,  after  which  no 
track  should  be  attempted,  but  tlie  end  of  the  line 
should  lose  itself  in  the  blank  space ;  and  out  of  the 
same  blank  space  it  might  on  the  western  side  of 
the  'Arabah  be  similarly  resumed  and  traced  down 


a  He  speaks  of  certain  stations  as  "  plac(5es  entre 
le  mout  Sinai  et  Cades,  espace  qui  ue  couiporte  pas 
plus  de  onze  jourut^es  fielon  faffii-matioa  bieu  positive 
ie  DeuteroQOine  ''  (i.  1).  Ue  then  proceeds  to  argue, 
"  Oes  di.t-sept  statious  ri^unies  aux  trois  que  nous 
rasoQS  li'tixauiluer,  ea  ferment  yingt ;   11  y  a  done 


the  'Arabah,  etc.,  as  before  described.  All  the 
sites  of  intervening  stations,  as  being  either  plainly 
conjectural  merely,  or  lacking  any  due  authority, 
should  simply  be  marked  in  the  margin,  save  that 
Moserah  may  be  put  close  to  Mount  Hor,  and 
Ezion-geber  further  S.  in  the  'Arabah  [Eziox- 
gkisek],  from  which  to  the  brook  Zered  and 
onwards  to  the  plains  of  Moab,  the  ambiguities  lie 
in  narrow  ground,  and  a  probable  light  breaks  on 
the  route  and  its  stations. 

Another  common  error  is,  that  of  supposing  that 
from  station  to  station,  in  Num.  xxxiii.,  always 
represents  a  day's  march  merely,  whereas  it  is 
plain  from  a  comparison  of  two  passages  in  Ex. 
(xv.  2-2),  and  Nuni.  (x.  33),  that  on  two  occasions 
three  days  formed  the  period  of  transition  between 
station  and  station,  and  therefore,  that  not  day's 
marches,  but  intervals  of  an  indefinite  number  of 
days  between  permanent  encampments,  are  intended 
by  that  itinerary-;  and  as  it  is  equally  clear  from 
Num.  ix.  22,  that  the  ground  may  have  been 
occupied  for  "  two  days,  or  a  month,  or  a  year," 
we  may  suppose  that  the  occupations  of  a  longer 
period  only  may  be  marked  in  tlie  itinerary.  And 
thus  the  difficulty  of  apparent  chasms  in  its  enu- 
meration, for  instance  the  greatest,  between  Ezion- 
geber  and  Kadesh  (xxxiii.  35-37)  altogether  van- 
ishes. 

An  example  of  the  error,  consequent  on  neglect- 
ing to  notice  this,  may  be  seen  in  Laborde's  map 
of  the  Wa'nderings,  in  his  Commentary  on  Exodus 
and  Numbers,  in  which  the  stations  named  in 
Num.  xxxiii.  18-34  are  closely  crowded,  but  be- 
tween those  of  ver.  35  and  those  of  ver.  37  a  large 
void  follows,  and  between  those  of  ver.  37  and  those 
of  ver.  39  a  still  larger  one,  both  of  which,  since  on 
referring  to  the  text  of  his  Commentary  "  we  find 
tliat  the  intervals  all  represent  day's  marches,  are 
plainly  impossible. 

Omitting,  then,  for  the  present  all  consideration 
of  the  previous  intervals  after  Hazeroth,  some  sug- 
gestions concerning  the  nomenclature  and  possible 
sites  of  which  will  be  found  in  articles  under  their 
respective  names,  the  i)rJmary  question,  did  the 
people  visit  Kadesh  twice,  or  once  only,  demands  to 
be  considered. 

We  read  in  Num.  x.  11,  12,  that  "  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  of  the  second 
year  ....  the  children  of  Israel  took  their  jour- 
neys out  of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  and  the  clutid 
res/ed  in  the  wilderness  "f  Paran."  The  latter 
statement  is  probably  to  be  viewed  as  made  by 
anticipation;  as  we  find  that,  after  quitting  Kib- 
roth-Hattaavah  and  Hazeroth,  "  the  people  pitched 
in  the  wild'erness  of  Paran  "  (Num.  xii.  16).  Here 
the  grand  pause  was  made  while  the  spies,  "  sent," 
it  is  again  impressed  upon  us  (xiii.  3),  "  from  the 
wilderness  of  I'aran,"  searched  the  land  for  "  forty 
days,"  and  returned  "  to  Moses  and  to  Aaron,  and 
to  all  the  congregation  ....  unto  the  loilde-rnfss 
of  Paran  to  Kadesh.^''  This  is  the  first  mention 
of  Kadesh  in  the  narrative  of  the  Wanderings 
(vv.  25,  26).  It  may  here  be  observed  that  an 
inaccuracy  occurs  in  the  rendering  of  Moses'  direc- 
tions   to    the   spies    in    the    A.    V.    of    xiii.    17, 


neuf  stations  ....  dont  on  ne  sait  que  faire."  Ttie 
statement  quoted  from  Deuteronomy,  whetlier  genuine 
or  an  annotation  that  bias  crept  into  the  text,  nierelj 
states  the  distance  as  ordinarily  Ivnown  and  traveller 
aud  need  not  indicate  that  the  Israelites  crossed  it  a 
ttiat  rate  of  proKress. 


WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING 


3529 


"  get  you  up  by  this  way  soufhiunnl "  (3D33), 
where  "  by  the  South,"  i.  e.  by  the  bonier  lyiiiLj  in 
that  direction  from  Palestine,  is  intended,  as  is  fur- 
ther plain  from  ver.  22,  "  And  they  ascended  by  the 
south  and  came  to  Hebron,"  i.  e.  they  went  noi'lh- 
ivard."  From  consideiations  adduced  under  Ka- 
DESH,  it  seems  that  Kadesh  probably  means  firstly, 
a  region  of  the  desert  spoken  of  as  havinsj  a  rela- 
tion, sometimes  with  the  wilderness  of  I'arau,  and 
sometimes  with  that  of  Zin  (comp.  vers.  21,  20);  | 
and  secondly,  a  distinct  city  within  that  desert 
limit.  Now  all  the  condiiions  of  the  narrative  of 
the  departure  and  return  of  the  spies,  and  of  the 
consequent  despondency,  niurmurini;,  and  penal 
sentence  of  wanderitig,  will  be  satisfied  by  su])- 
posing  tliat  the  name  "  Kadesh  "  here  means  llie 
rtykm  merely.  It  is  observable,  also,  that  Kadesh 
is  not  named  as  the  place  of  departure,  but  only  as 
that  of  return.  From  I'arau  is  the  start;  but  from 
Zin  (both  regions  in  the  desert)  the  search  com- 
mences. And  this  agrees  with  the  political  geogra- 
phy of  the  southern  border,  to  which  the  wilderness 
of  Zin  is  always  reckoned  as  pertaining,''  whereas 
that  of  I'aran  always  lies  outside  the  promised 
land.  Natural  features  of  elevation,  depression, 
and  slope,'-'  are  the  only  tokens  to  which  we  can 
reasonably  trust  in  deciding  where  the  Paran  wil- 
derness ends,  and  that  of  Zin  begins.  It  has  been 
proposed  under  Kauksh  to  regard  part  of  the 
'Arabah,  including  all  the  low  ground  at  the  south- 
ern and  southwestern  extremity  of  the  Dead  ISca, 
as  the  wilderness  of  Zin.  [Zin.]  Then  the  broad 
lower  northeastern  plateau,  including  both  its 
slopes  as  described  above,  will  be  defined  as  the 
Paran  wilderness  proper.  If  we  assume  the  higl.er 
superimposed  plateau,  described  above,  to  bear  the 
name  of  "  Kadesh  "  as  a  de.sert  district,  and  its 
southwestern  mountain  wall  to  be  "  the  mountain 
of  the  Amorites,"  then  the  Paran  wilderness,  so 
far  as  synonymous  with  Kadesli,  will  mean  most 
naturally  the  region  where  that  mountain  wall  from 
.lebtl  Araif  en-Nnknh  to  Jeliel  Muklimh,  and 
perhaps  thence  northward  along  the  other  side  of 
the  angle  of  the  highest  plateau,  overhangs  the 
lower  terrace  of  the  'Ilk.  Moses  identifies  the 
comiuLj  "  to  Kadesh  Barnea  "  ''  with  the  coming  to 
"  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites  "  (l)eut.  i.  JU,  20), 
whence  the  spies  were  also  despatched  (vv.  22, 
23),  which  is  said  to  have  been  from  "  Paran  "  in 
Num.  xiii.  3.  Suppose  the  spies'  actual  start  to 
have  been  made  from  somewhere  on  the  watershed 
of  the  two  slopes  of  et-  Tilt,  the  spies'  best  way 
then  would  have  been  by  the  Wadij  el-JernJ'ali 
into  and  so  up  the  'Arabah:  this  would  he  begin- 
ning "  from  the  wilderness  of  Zin,"  as  is  said  in 
Num.  xiii.  21.  Then,  most  naturally,  by  his 
direction  to  them,  "go  up  into  the  inoantaiii  " 
(Num.  xiii.  17),  which  he  represents  as  acted  on  in 


I  The  ;ford  for  "  southward "  would  be    nSHD, 

T  ;v 
as  fonud  in  Ez.  xl.  24  ;  Josh.  xvii.  9,  10.     The  word 

332  appears  to  mean  the  "  dry  "  country,  and  hence 
to  become  the  appellative  for  the  region  on  the  south 
of  Judiih  and  Siuieou  where  springs  were  scarce  ;  see 
The  l^egcb  by  Rev.  E.  Wilton,  pref.  viii. 

b  Num.  xxxiv.  4  ;  .fosh.  xv.  3. 

c  For  some  good  remarks  on  the  level  of  the  desert 
and  the  slope  between  the  south  couutry,  Dead  Sea, 
and  the  '.\r.U)ah,  see  Kobiusou,  i.  587. 

<l  Fur  "  Biruea,"  as  perhaps  a  llorite  proper  name, 
■ee  liAPKSU,  note  b. 

222 


Dent.  i.  24,  "  and  they  turned  and  went  up  into 
the  mountain,"  he  meant  them  to  mount  the 
higher  plateau,  supposed  the  region  Kadesh.  By 
their  "  turning  "  in  order  to  do  so,  it  may  he  in- 
ferred that  their  course  was  not  direct  to  their 
object,  as  indeed  has  been  supposed  in  taking  them 
along  the  'Aral)ah  and  again  up  its  western  side  by 
the  passes  el-Khurdr  and  es-Siifd  (Zephatif).''  By  ^ 
these  passes  they  must  have  left  Zin  or  the  'Arabah, 
there  being  no  choice.  During  the  forty  days  of 
their  absence,  we  may  suppose  the  host  to  have 
mo\-ed  from  the  watershed  into  the  Kadesh-Paran 
region,  and  not  at  this  period  of  their  wanderings 
to  have  touched  the  city  Kadesh  at  all.  This  is 
quite  consistent  with,  if  it  be  not  even  confirmed 
by,  the  words  of  the  murmurers  in  xiv.  2,  3, 
"Would  God  we  had  died  in  this  icildenitss ! 
And  wherefore  hath  the  Lord  brought  us  unto 
this  liind;"  and  throughout  the  denunciation 
which  follows,  evidently  on  the  same  spot,  the 
words  "  the  wilderness,"  and  "  this  wilderness," 
often  recur,  but  from  first  to  last  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  a  "  city." 

Now,  in  Dent.  i.  19,  where  these  proceedinijs 
pass  in  review  before  Moses,  in  his  words  to  the 
people,  there  is,  strictly  speaking,  no  need  to  men- 
tion Kadesh  at  all,  for  the  people  were  all  the  time 
in  the  wilderness  of  Panin.  Yet  this  last  is  so  wide 
a  term,  reaching  almost  from  the  'Arabah  to  near 
the  Egyptian  frontier,  that  Moses  might  naturally 
use  some  more  precise  designation  of  the  quarter 
he  meant,  lie  accordingly  marks  it  by  the  prox- 
imity of  Kadesh.  Thus,  the  spies'  return  to  "  the 
wilderness  of  Paran  tu  Kadesh  ''  means  to  that  part 
of  the  lower  plateau  where  it  is  adjacent  to  the 
higher,  and  probably  the  eastern  side  of  it-  The 
expression  "  from  Kadesh-barnea  even  unto  Gaza" 
is  decisive  of  an  eastern  site  for  the  former  (Josh. 
x.  41).  • 

Here,  as  is  plaiji  both  from  Nmn.  xiv.  40-45  .and 
from  Deut.  i.  41-44,  followed  the  wayward  attempt 
of  the  host  to  win  their  way,  in  spite  of  their  sen- 
tence of  prohibition,  to  the  "hill"  (Num.  xiv. 
40-45,  Deut.  i.  41-44)  or  "  mountain  "  of  the 
Amalekites  and  Canaanites,  or  Amorites,  and  their 
humiliating  defeat.  They  were  repulsed  in  trying 
to  force  the  ])ass  at  Hormah  (or  Zephath,  Judg.  i. 
17),  and  the  region  of  that  defeat  is  called  "  Seir," 
showing  that  the  place  was  also  known  by  its  Horite 
name;  and  here  perhaps  the  remnant  of  the  Horitea 
were  allowed  to  dwell  by  the  Edomites,  to  whose 
border  this  territory,  in  the  message  of  Num.  xx. 
IC,  is  ascribed.  [Kadesh.]  Here,  from  the 
notice  in  Num.  xiv.  25,  that  these  "Amalekites 
and  Canaanites  dwelt  in  the  valtey,"  we  may  sup- 
pose that  their  dwelling  was  where  they  would  find 
pasture  for  their  flocks,  in  the  Wadij  el-Fikveh  and 
others  tributary  to  el-Jiib,  and  tliat  they  took  post 


e  Mr.  Wilton  {Negeb,  pp.  12, 198-202),  following  Row- 
lands (in  WilHams),  makes  Zepliath  es-Sebata  ou  the 
northern  side  of  the  high  broad  plateau,  supposed  here 
to  be  the  "  mountain  of  the  Amorites."  On  this  view 
the  Israelites  must  already  have  won  that  eminence 
from  which  it  was  clearly  the  intention  of  the  .Amorites 
to  repel  tliem  ;  and  must,  when  defeated,  have  been 
driven  up  liill  from  a  position  occupied  iu  the  plain 
below.  Tlie  position  es-Sufa  is  on  tlie  S.  side  of  the 
high  ground,  and  has  probably  always  been  tlie  pass 
by  which  to  mount  it.  For  all  this,  see  Mr.  Wilton's 
owu  map,  or  any  oue  which  shows  both  es-Sebata  anJ 
ts-S'ifa. 


3530 


WILDERNESS   OF  THE  WANDERING 


in  the  "  mountain  "  or  "  hill,"  as  liarring  the  way 
of  the  Israelites'  advance.  So  the  spies  had  gone 
by  Moses'  direction  "  this  way,  by  the  South  (not 
'  southward,'  as  shown  above),  up  into  the  moun- 
tain;" and  this  same  wai:,  "the  way  of  the 
spies," "  through  the  passes  of  el-Kliuvar  and 
es-Sufa,  was  the  approach  to  the  city  Kadesh 
also.    • 

Here,  then,  the  penal  portion  of  the  wanderings 
commences,  and  the  great  bulk  of  it,  comprising  a 
period  of  nearly  thirty-eight  years,  passes  over 
between  this  defeat  in  Num.  x;v.,  and  the  resump- 
tion of  local  notices  in  Num.  xx.,  where  again  the 
names  of  "  Zin  "  and  "  Kadesh  "  are  the  first  that 
meet  us. 

The  only  events  recorded  during  this  period 
(and  these  are  interspersed  with  sundry  proundga- 
tions  of  the  Ceremonial  Law),  are  the  execution 
of  the  offender  who  gathered  sticks  on  the  Sab- 
bath (Num.  XV.  32-30),  the  reljellion  of  Korah 
^vi.),  and,  closely  connected  with  it,  the  adjudg- 
ment of  the  preeminence  to  Aaron's  house  with 
their  kindred  tribe,  solemnly  confirmed  by  the 
judicial  miracle  of  the  rod  that  blossomed.  Thi.s 
seems  to  have  been  followed  by  a  more  rigid  separa- 
tion between  Levi  and  the  other  tribes,  as  regards 
the  approach  to  the  Tabernacle,  than  had  been 
practically  recognized  before  (xvii.,  xviii.  22:  conip. 
xvi.  40). 

We  gather,  then,  from  Deut.  i.  46,  that  the 
greater  part,  perhaps  the  whole,  of  this  period  of 
nearly  thirty-eight  years,  if  so  we  may  interpret 
the  "  many  days  "  tiiere  spoken  of,  was  passed  in 
Kadesh,  —  the  7-e(jiun,  that  is,  not  the  city ;  in 
which,  of  course,  the  camp  may  have  been  shifted 
at  convenience,  under  direction,  any  number  of 
times.  But  Num.  xx.  1  brings  us  to  a  new  point 
of  departure.  The  people  have  grown  old,  or 
rattier  again  young,  in  their  wanderinga.  Here, 
then,  we  are  at  "  the  desert  of  Zin,  in  the  first 
month,"  with  the  "people  abiding  in  Kadesh." 
By  the  sequel,  "  Miriam  died  tliert,  and  was  buried 
there"  a  more  precise  definition  of  locality  now 
seems  intended ;  which  is  further  confirmed  by  the 
subsequent  message  from  the  same  place  to  the 
king  of  Edom,  >'  Behold,  we  are  in  Kadesh,  a  city 
in  the  uttermost  of  tliy  border"  (v.  16).  This, 
then,  nmst  be  supposed  to  coincide  with  the  en- 
campment, recorded  as  taking  place  "  iu  the  wil- 


derness of  Zin,  which  is  Kadesh,"  reoistered  hi  the 
itinerary  (xxxiii.  .56).  We  see  then  why,  iu  that 
register  of  specific  camping-spots,  there  was  no 
necessity  for  any  previous  mention  of  "  Kadesh ; " 
because  the -earlier  notice  in  the  narrative,  where 
that  name  occurs,  introduces  it  not  as  an  individual 
encampment,  but  onlv  as  a  region,  within  which 
perpetual  changes  of  encampment  went  on  for  the 
greater  part  of  thirty-eight  years.  We  also  see 
that  tlipy  came  twice  to  Kadesh  the  region,  if  tha 
city  Kadesh  lay  in  it.  and  once  to  Kadesh  the  cit/; 
l)Ut  once  only  to  Kadesh  the  region,  if  the  city  lay 
without  it.  We  are  not  told  how  the  Israelite 
came  into  possession  of  the  city  Kadesh,  nor  who 
were  its  previous  occupants.  The  probability  ia 
that  these  last  were  a  remnant  of  the  Horites,  who 
after  their  expulsion  by  ICdom  from  Mount  Seii 
[Ki)(.>m]  may  have  here  retained  their  last  hold  on 
tlie  territory  between  Edom  and  the  Canaanitish 
Amorites  of  '•  the  South."  Probably  Israel  took 
it  by  force  of  arms,  which  may  have  induced  the 
attack  of  "  Arad  the  Canaanite," ''  who  would  then 
feel  his  border  immediately  threatened  (Num. 
xxxiii.  40;  comp.  xxi.  1).  This  warlike  exploit  of 
Israel  may,  perhaps,  be  alluded  to  in  .Judges  v.  4 
as  the  occasion  when  Jehovah  "  went  out  of  Seir  " 
and  "  marched  out  of  the  field  of  Edom  "  to  give 
his  people  victory.  The  attack  of  Arad,  however, 
though  with  some  shght  success  at  first,  only 
lirouglit  defeat  upon  himself  and  destruction  upon 
his  cities  (xxi.  S).*^  We  learn  from  xxxiii.  36  only 
that  Israel  marched  without  permanent  halt  from 
Ezion-geber  upon  Kadesh.  This  sudden  activity 
after  their  long  period  of  desultory  and  purposeless 
wandering  may  have  alarmed  King  Arad.  The 
itinerary  takes  here  another  stride  from  Kadesh  to 
Mount  I  lor.  There  their  being  engaged  with  the 
burial  of  Aaron  may  have  given  Arad  his  fancied 
opportunity  of  assaulting  the  rear  of  their  march, 
he  descending  from  the  north  whilst  they  also  were 
facing  southwards.  In  direct  connection  with  these 
events  we  come  upon  a  singular  jttssage  in  Deuter- 
onomy (x.  6,  7),  a  scrap  of  narrative  imbedded  in 
Moses'  recital  of  events  at  Horeb  long  previous.'' 
This  contains  a  short  list  of  names  of  localities,  on 
comparing  which  with  the  itinerary,  we  get  some 
clew  to  'the  line  of  march  from  the  region  Kadesh 
to  Ezion-geber  southwards. 

We  find  at  the   part  of   their  route  in   whict 


a  Our  A.  V.  here  seems  to  have  viewed    D^"nnSn 

•  T  -:  T 

as  if  derived  from  ~1W,  "  to  spy."    Gesen.  readers  it 

"  regions,"  and   the  LXX.  malies   it  a  proper  name, 

'AOapeiv.     It  is  not^  elsewhere  found.     Now  the  verb 

~^-\I^  occurs  in  the  passage  where  the  spies  are  sent 

forth.  Num.  xiii.,  xiv.,  which  gives  a  presumption  in 

fuTor  of  the  A.  V. 

t'   More  properly  "  the  Canaanitish  king  of  Arad." 
c  He  "  took  some  of"   the  Israelites   "prisoners." 

It  is  possible  the  napie  Mosera,  or  plur.  Moseroth,  may 

recall  this  fact ;  the  word  "^Dl^  (found  only  in 
the  plur.)  meaning  "  bonds  "  or  "  fetters."  This 
would  accord  with  the  suggestion  of  the  text  that 
Aaron's  burial  gave  Arad  the  opportunity  for  his  raid  ; 
for  Mosera  must  have  been  near  Mount  Hor,  where 
that  burial  took  place.  It  is  possible  that  the  destruc- 
tion of  tliese  cities  may  not  liave  really  taken  place 
till  the  entry  into  Canaan  under  Joshua  (.losh.  xii.  14 ; 
JuIk  i.  17)  and  may  be  mentioned  iu  Num.  xxi.  2,  3, 
by  anticipation  only  as  a  subsequent  fulfillment  of  the 
7,.w  fcorded  as  then  made.     It  is  obvious  to  suiruest 


that  Modern  is  the  Mosera  of  Deut.  x.  6,  and  so  Mr. 
Wilton  (The  Neifeb,  p.  28,  etc.)  has  suggested,  wishing 
to  identify  it  with  Mount  Hor.  But  the  received  site  for 
Mount  Hor  is  the  least  doubtful  of  all  in  the  Exodus. 
Josephus  clearly  identifies  it  as  we  do  ;  and  there  is  a 
strong  improbability  in  a  .Tewish  tradi:ion  fixing  it  in 
Edountish  or  in  Nabathseau  territory,  unless  the  testi- 
mony in  its  favor  had  been  overpowering.  Modera 
might  perhaps  be  the  hill  called  "  Sin  "  (Zin?)  men- 
tioned by  Josephus  as  that  in  which  Miriam  was 
buried  {Ant.  iv.  4,  §§  6,  7). 

d  A  somewhat  similar  fragment  of  narrative,  but 
relating  to  what  perhaps  took  place  during  the  lime 
of  the  allocution  to  the  people  between  the  paragraphs 
of  which  it  occurs,  is  lound  in  Deut.  iv.  41-43 ;  and 
indeed  the  mention  of  Aaron's  death,  with  the  date  and 
his  age,  and  of  the  aLaek  of  Arad,  both  of  which  had 
been  detailed  before,  is  hardly  less  of  a  deviation  from 
the  dry  enumeration  of  stations  in  the  itinerary  itself 
(Num.  xxxiii.  38,  39).  But  it  would  be  foreign  to  oui 
present  purpose  to  enter  on  the  critical  questioni 
which  the.'ie  passages  suggest.  Vt'n  assume  their  gea- 
uineness,  and  suppose  them  displaced. 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3531 


A.aroii's  death  took  place,  that  stations  named 
'  Beeroth  of  the  children  of  .faakan,  Mosera  (where 
Aaron  died),  Gudgodah,  and  Jotbath,"  were  suc- 
:essively  passed  through;  and  from  Num.  xxxiii. 
38,  we  find  that  "  Aaron  went  up  into  Mount 
Hor  ....  and  died  there  in  the  fortieth  year 
....  in  the  first  day  of  the  fifth  month."  As- 
Buming  for  Mount  Hor  the  traditional  site  over- 
hanging the  'Arabah,  which   they  very  soon  after 


this  quitted,  Mosera  must  have  been  close  to  it, 
probably  in  the  'Arabah  itself.  Now  the  station! 
which  in  tlie  itinerary  come  next  before  Ezion- 
geber,  and  which  were  passed  in  the  strictly  penal 
wandering  which  commenced  from  tlie  region  Ka- 
desh,  have  names  so  closely  similar  thst  we  cannot 
doubt  we  are  here  on  the  same  ground.  Their 
order  is,  however,  sligiitly  changed,  standirig  in  the  < 
two  passages  as  follows :  — 


Conjectural  Srrs. 
(a.)  'Ain  Hash,  N.  \V.  in  the  'Arabah. 
(l.i   Kusheitieh,  mouth  of  the  Wriily  Abii, 

near  the  foot  of  Mount  Ilor. 
(2  )   'jim  Gh^irundeL 
(3)    Warly  el-Gkmlkdgldk. 
(4.)  Confluence  of  Wady  et-Adlibeh  with 

el-Jfrafek. 


Num.  xxxiii.  30-35. 

(a.)  (llashmonah.) 
(1.)  Moseroth. 

(2.)  neiH'-.luakan.a 
(3.)  Hor-hagidgad. 
(4.)  Jotbathah. 
(Ebrouah.) 
(Eziou-geber.) 


Dect.  X.  6, 


(1 


Beeroth  of  the  children 
of  J.ojikan. 
(2.)  Moaera. 
(3.)  Gudgodah. 
(4.)  Jotbath.'' 


Now  in  Num.  xx.  14,  16,  22-29,  the  narrative 
conducts  us  from  Kadesh  the  city,  reached  in  or 
sliortly  before  "  the  fortieth  year,"  to  Mount  Hor. 
where  Aaron  died,  a  jxirtiun  of  ivhich  rotite  is 
accordiuLrly  that  given  iu  IJeut.  x.  6,  7 ;  whereas 
the  parallel  column  from  Num.  xxxiii.  gives  sub- 
stantially the.  same  route  as  pursued  in  the  early 
p.art  of  the  penal  wandering,  when  fulfilling  the 
command  given  in  the  region  Kadesh,  "  turn  you, 
get  you  into  the  wilderness  by  the  way. of  the  Ked 
Sea"  (Num.  xiv.  25;  Dent.  i.  40),  which  com- 
mand we  further  karn  from  Deut.  ii.  1  was  strictly 
acted  on,  and  winch  a  march  towards  Ezion-geber 
would  exactly  fulfill. 

These  half-obliterated  footsteps  in  the  desert  may 
seem  to  indicate  a  direction  only  in  whicli  Kadesh 
the  city  '^  lay.  \^'idely  difierent  localities,  from 
I'etra  eastward  to  c-l- K /idles  ih  on  the  northwest, 
and  westward  to  near  tlie  JeOel  [hllak,  have  been 
assigned  liy  different  writers.  The  best  way  is  to 
acknowledge  that  our  research  has  not  yet  grasped 
the  materials  for  a  decision,  and  to  lie  content  with 
Konie  such  attempt  .as  that  under  Kadesh,  to  fix 
it  approximately  only,  until  more  undoubted  tokens 
are  ol)tained.  The  portion  of  the  arc  of  a  circle 
with  es-Sufa  for  its  centre,  and  a  day's  journey  — 
about  fifteen  miles  —  tor  its  radius,  will  not  take 
in  el-K/idlesnli,  nor  retra,f'  and  the  foruier  name 
seems  to  be  traceable,  with  a  slight  metathesis, 
much  more  probal)ly  in  Cliesil^  than  in  Kadesh./ 
The  highest  plateau  is  marked  with  the  ruins  of 
Aboda,  and  on  the  inferior  one,  some  miles  S.  W. 
tif  the  defile  of  the  Warly  el-Filcreh  stands  a  round 
conical  hill  of  limestone,  mixed  with  s.and,  named 
Madarah  (Modura,  or  Modera),  at  a  shoit  day's 
[onrnev  from  tlie  soutborn  end  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
Seetzen,  who  visited  it,  had  had  his  curiosity  raised 
by  a  Bedouin  legend  of  a  vill.age  having  been 
destroyed  by  Allah  and  buried  under  that  hill  for 
the  wickedness  of  its  people;  and  that,  as  a  further 


n  See  JaaK.W  and  Bene  .Taakan  for  the  name, 
laakan  was  the  grandson  of  Seir  (1  Chr.  i.  42  ;  comp. 
Jen.  xiv.  ti,  x.^xvi.  27). 

'>  Dr.  Robinson,  judging  from  his  visit,  thinks  that 
these  stations  could  not  have  lain  to  the  S.  of  Mount 
Hor.  as  that  region  is  too  poor  in  water  to  contain  any 
euch  place  as  .Jotbath  in  Dent.  x.  7,  and  corresponds 
rather  to  the  description  given  in  Num.  xxi.  4-'3  (ii. 
175).  He  thinks  that  ^Ain  ci-raviVA  is  either  Beeroth, 
Bene  Jaakan,  or  Moseroth,  and  Wady  el-liliudkagidh 
Jotbath  (il)id.). 

'•  baborde  ( Comment,  on  Num.  xxxiii.  .36)  places 
VLiidesli  the  city  "  pres  ilea  .sources  d'Euibascii  au  fond 


attestation,  human  skulls  were  found  on  the  groun  i 
around  it.  This  statement  he  resolved  by  visitui' 
the  spot  into  a  simple  natur.al  phenomenon  of  some 
curious  rounded  stones,  or  pebbles,  which  abound 
in  the  neighborhood.  He  thought  it  a  legend  of 
Sodom ;  and  it  might,  with  equal  likeliliood,  have 
been  referred  to  the  catastrophe  of  Korah  (.Seetzen 
Jieisen,  iii.  13),  which,  if  our  sites  for  Kadesh  th( 
region  and  Paran  are  correct,  should  have  occurred 
in  the  neighborhood,  were  it  not  far  more  probable 
that  the  physical  appearance  of  the  round  pebliles 
having  once  given  rise  to  the  story  of  the  skulls, 
tlie  legend  was  easily  generated  to  account  for 
them. 

The  mountains  on  the  west  of  the  'Arabah  must 
have  been  always  poor  in  water,  and  form  a  drea''^" 
contrast  to  the  rich  springs  of  the  eastern  side  in 
Mount  Seir.  From  the  cliff  front  of  this  last, 
Mount  Hor  stands  out  prominently  (Robinson,  ii. 
174-180).  It  has  been  suggested  [Hok  Hagid- 
gad]  that  the  name  Hagidgad,  or  Gudgodah,  may 
possibly  be  retraced  in  the  Wmly  el-G'/iudhdfjIiii/fi, 
which  has  a  confluence  with  the  IVady  el-Jernfeh. 
This  latter  runs  into  the  'Arabah  on  the  west  side. 
That  point  of  confluence,  as  laid  down  in  Kiepert'a 
map  (l^obiiison,  Bihl.  lies,  i.),  is  about  fifteen  miles 
from  the  '.\rabah's  nearest  point,  and  about  forty 
or  forty-five  from  the  top  of  Mount  Hor.  On  the 
whole  it  Sfcms  likely  enough  th.at  the  name  of  this 
wady  may  really  rei)resent  tlint  of  this  station, 
although  the  latter  may  have  lain  nearer  the  "Ara- 
bah than  the  wady  now  reaches,  and  this  conjectu- 
ral identification  has  been  adojited  above.  Jotbath, 
or  Jotbatha,»  is  described  as  "  a  land  of  rivers  of 
waters"  (Deut.  x.  7);  and  may  stand  for  any  con- 
fluence of  wadies  in  sufficient  force  to  justify  that 
character.  It  should  certainly  be  in  the  southern 
portion  of  the  '.Vrabali,  or  a  little  to  the  west  of  the 
same. 

The  prob.aliilities  of  the  whole  march  from  Sin.ai, 


de  Ouadi  Djerafi  "  (Wady  el-Jerafeh).  Dr.  Robinson 
thought  ''Ain  el-Weibehvfa,s  Kadesh.  the  city,  or,  as  he 
calls  it,  Kadesh  Uarnea  (see  Map,  vol.  i.,  end).     Dr. 

Stanley  remarks  that  there  is  no  cliff  (377D)  there. 
See  his  remarks  quoted  under  Kadesh. 

d  Robinson  puts  rs-Sn/a  at  about  two  days' journey 
from  the  foot  of  Mount  Hor,  ii.  180,  181. 

e  As  suggested  in  Williams's  Hiity  City,  i.  404. 

.''  The  northern  Kadesh,  r  Kedesh,  in  Naphtaii 
has  the  very  .same  consonants  in  its  modern- .\rabie 
name  as  in  the  Hebivw. 

!/  \  writer  in  the  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit.  .April,  1860 


3532 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


then,  seem  to  stand  as  follows:  They  proceeded 
towards  the  N.  E.  to  the  'Ain  d-Hwlherah  (Haze- 
roth),  and  thence  quitted  the  maritime  region. 
Btriking  directly  northwards  to  el-  Ain,  and  thence 
by  a  route  wholly  unknown,  perhaps  a  little  to 
the  E.  of  N.  across  the  lower  eastern  spurs  of  the 
et-Tih  range,  descending  the  upper  course  of  the 
Wady  el-Jernfch,  until  the  southeastern  angle 
of  .the  higher  plateau  confronted  them  at  the  Jv/jiI 
el-Afukhrah.  Hence,  after  dispatching  the  spies, 
they  moved  perhaps  into  the  'Arahah,  or  along  its 
western  overhanging  hUls,  to  meet  their  return. 
Then  followed  the  disastrous  attempt  at  or  near 
es-Sii/'a  (Zephath),  and  the  penal  wandering  in  the 
wilderness  of  Kadesh,  with  a  track  wholly  unde- 
termined, save  in  the  last  half  dozen  stations  to 
Ezion-geber  inclusively,  as  shown  just  above.  They 
then  marched  on  Kadesh  the  city,  probaljly  up  the 
'Arabah  by  these  same  stations,  took  it,  and  sent 
from  there  the  message  to  Edom.  The  refusal 
\nith  which  it  was  met  forced  them  to  iwtrace  the 
'Arabah  once  more,  and  meanwhile  Aaron  died. 
Thus  the  same  stations  (l)eut.  x.  6,  7)  were  passed 
again,  with  the  slight  variation  just  noticed,  prolja- 
bly  caused  by  the  command  to  resort  to  Mount 
Hor  which  that  death  occasioned."  Thence,  after 
reaching  'Akabah,  and  turning  northeastward,  they 
passed  by  a  nearly  straight  line  towards  the  eastern 
border  of  Moab. 

Of  the  stations  in  the  list  from  Rithmah  to 
Mithcah,  both  inclusive,  notliing  is  known.  The 
latter,  with  the  few  preceding  it,  probably  belong 
to  the  wilderness  of  Kadesh ;  but  no  line  can  be 
assigned  to  the  route  beyond  the  indications  of 
the  situation  of  that  wilderness  given  above.  In 
the  sequel  to  the  burial  of  Aaron,  and  the  refusal 
of  Edom  to  permit  Israel  to  "  pass  through  his 
border  "  ''  (which  refusal  may  perhaps  have  been 
received  at  Mount  Hor  (Moserah),  though  the 
message  which  it  answered  was  sent  from  the  city 
Kadesh),  occurred  the  necessity,  consequent  upon 
this  refusal,  of  the  people's  "  compassing  the  land 
of  Edom  "  (Num.  xxi.  4),  when  they  were  much 
"  discouraged  because  of  the  way,"  <^  and  where  the 
consequent  murnniring  was  rebuked  by  the  visita- 
tion of  the  "fiery  serpents"  (v.  5,  6).  There  is 
near  Elatli  a  promontory  known  as  the  Has  Uin 
Ihiye,  "  the  mother  of  serpents,"   which  seem  to 


abound  in  the  region  adjacent;  and,  if  we  mai 
suppose  this  the  scene  of  that  judgment,  the  event 
would  be  thus  connected  with  the  line  of  march, 
rounding  the  southern  border  of  Mount  Seir,  laid 
down  in  Deut.  ii.  8,  as  being  "  through  the  way 
of  the  plain  (i.  e.  the  'Arabah)  fi-om  Elath  and 
from  Ezion-geber,"  whence  ''turning  northward," 
having  "  compassed  that  mountain  (Mount  Seir) 
loiio;  enough,"  they  "  passed  by  the  way  of  the 
wilileriiess  of  Moab"  (v.  3,  8). 

Some  permanent  encampment,  perhaps  repre- 
sented by  /almonah  in  Num.  xxxiii.  41,  42,  seems 
here  to  have  taken  place,  to  judge  from  the  urgent 
expression  of  Moses  to  the  people  in  Deut.  ii.  13: 
"  Now  rise  up,  said  I,  and  get  you  over  the  brook 
Zered,"  which  lay  further  N.  a  little  E.,  being 
probably  the  Wady  el-Alisy  (Robinson,  ii.  157). 
[Zkhkd.]  The  delay  caused  by  thi'!  plague  of  ser- 
pents may  be  the  probable  account  of  this  apparent 
urgency,  which  would  on  this  view  have  taken 
place  at  Zalmonah ;  and  as  we  have  connected  the 
scene  of  that  plague  with  the  neighborhood  of 
I'^llath,  so,  if  we  suppose  Zalmonah  ''  to  have  lain 
in  the  Wady  /thm,  which  has  its  junction  with  the 
'Arabah  close  to  'Akabah,  the  modern  site  of  Elath, 
this  will  harmonize  the  various  indications,  and 
form  a  suitable  point  of  departure  for  the  last  stage 
of  the  wandering,  which  ends  at  the  brook  Zered 
(v.  14).  Dr.  Stanley,  who  passed  through  'Akabah, 
thus  describes  the  spot  in  question  {S.  if  P.  pp.  84, 
85):  "  'Akabah  is  a  wretched  village  shrouded  in  a 
palm-grove  at  the  north  end  of  the  gulf,  gathered 
round  a  fortress  built    for    the  protection  of    the 

Mecca  pilgrimage This  is  the  whole  object 

of  the  present  existence  of  'Akabah,  which  stands 
on  the  site  of  the  ancient  Elath,  —  '  the  Palm- 
Trees,'  so  called  from  the  grove.  Its  situation, 
however,  is  very  striking,  looking  down  the  beauti- 
ful gulf,  with  its  jagged  ranges  on  each  side.  On 
the  west  is  the  great  black  pass,  down  which  the 
pilgrimage  descends,  and  from  which  'Akabah 
('  the  Pass  ')  derives  its  name;  on  the  north  opens 
the  wide  plain,  or  Desert  Valley,  wholly  different  in 
character  from  anything  we  have  seen,  still  called, 
as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Moses,  '  the  'Arabah.' 
Down  this  came  the  Israelites  on  their  return  from 
Kadesh,  and  through  a  gap  up  the  eastern  hills 
they  finally  turned  off  to  Moab This  is  the 


(onnectB   this  name   with   312,     "good,"  from    the 
goodness  of  the  water  supply.     This  is  not  unhkely  ; 

but  his  view  of  the  name    rT2t2"'.  as  from  the  same 
T  :  t' 


'J  ^  Q     ^ 


root  as  the  Arabic  x«  A^  'Adhbeh,  is  very  doubt- 
ful, the  £.  (Heb.  ^)  being  probably  radical.  How- 
ever, if  eW Adhbeli  be,  as  he  avers,  a  region  of  abundant 
water,  the  place  may  correspond  witli  Jotbath,  though 
the  name  do  not.  His  map  places  it  about  17  miles 
N.  W.  of  the  modern  extremity  of  the  Gulf  of  'Aka- 
bah —  i.  e.  on  the  western  side  of  the  'Arabah.  His 
general  view  of  the  route  to  and  from  Kadesh,  and 
ispecially  of  the  .»ite  of  Sinai  and  Mount  Hor,  is  inad- 
missible. See  further  towards  the  end  of  this  article. 
Hurckhardt's  map  gives  another  watery  spot  with 
palm-trees  in  the  'Arabah  itself,  not  far  from  its 
southern  end,  which  might  also  suit  for  Jotbath. 

a  Hengstenberg  {Aiif/tenticiiy  nf  the  Pent.  ii.  356) 
h:is  another  explanation  of  the  deranged  order  of  the 
stations  enumerated  just  above,  based  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  in  the  two  pas.sages  (Num.  xxxiii.  30-3.5. 
Deut.  X.  6,  7)  the  march  proceeded  in  two  opposite 
iirections  ;  but  this  woul  1  obviously  require  a  reverse 


order  of  all  the  stations,  and  not  the  derangement  of 
two  merely.  Von  Raumer  thought  that  the  line  of 
march-  threaded  the  'Arabah  thrice  through,  and, 
making  allowance  for  the  mistake  of  giving  it  each 
time  a  nearly  rectilinear  direction,  he  is  not  far 
wrong. 

h  Dr.  Robinson  thinks  that  by  the  "  King's  High- 
ivay  "  the  Wady  Ghmveir,  opening  a  thoroughfare 
into  the  heart  of  the  Edomitish  territory  was  meant 
(ii.  157).  Though  the  passage  through  Edom  wag 
refused,  the  burial  of  the  most  sacred  person  of  a  kin- 
dred people  may  have  been  allowed,  especially  if 
Mount  Hor  was  already,  as  Dr.  Stanley  suggest*,  a 
local  sanctuary  of  the  region  {S.  ^  P.  pp.  97,  98). 

c  Tlie  way  up  the  "Arabah  was  toilsome,  and  is  so 
at  this  day.  Dr.  Robinson  calls  it  "a  still  more 
frightful  desert "  than  the  Sinaitic  (ii.  184).  The  pass 
at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  towards  et-Tik  '<  is 
famous  for  its  difficulty,  and  for  the  destruction  which 
it  causes  to  animals  c>f  burden  "  (i.  175).  Only  two 
travellers,  Laborde  ana  Bertou,  have  accomplished  (or 
recorded  their  accomplishment  of)  the  entire  length 
of  the  'Arabah. 

('  Von  Raumer  identifies  it  with  Moan,  a  few  min 
utes  to  the  E.  of  Petra. 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


3533 


iVndy  Itnm,  wbich  tunis  the  eastern  range  of  the 

'  Arabah It  is  still  one  of  the  regular  roads 

lo  Petra,  and  in  ancient  times  seems  to  have  been 

the  main  approach  from  FJath  or  'Akabah 

The  only  published  account  of  it  is  that  of  I-aborde. 
'J'hese  mountains  appear  to  be  granite,  till,  as  we 
iidvance  northward,  we  reach  the  entrance  of  the 
\Vii(/y  T'utial,  where,  for  the  first  time,  red  saiid- 
Btone  appears  in  the  mountains,  rising,  as  in  the 
Wndy  iPAin,  architecture-wi-e,  above  gray  gran- 
ite." 

Three  stations,  Punon,"  Oboth,  and  fje-Abarim, 
were  passed  between  this  locality  and  the  brook  or 
#alley  of  Zered  (Num.  xxi.  10-12,  comp  xxxiii. 
43,  4-t),  which  last  name  does  not  occur  in  the 
itinerary,  as  neither  do  those  of  "the  lirooks  of 
Arnon,"  Beer,  Mattanah,  Nahaliel,  and  Hainoth, 
all  named  in  Num.  xxi.  14-20;  but  tlie  interval 
lietweeu  Ije-Abarim  and  Nebo,  which  last  cor- 
responds probably  (see  Deut.  xxxiv.  1 )  with  the 
Pisgali  ^  of  xxi.  20,  is  filled  by  two  stations  merely, 
named  Dibon-gad  and  Almon-tliblathaim,  from 
whence  we  may  infer  that  in  these  two  only  were 
permanent  halts  made.  [Dibon-g.vd;  Almon- 
DiiiLATHAiJi.]  Ill  this  stage  of  their  progress 
occurred  the  "digging"  of  the  "well"  by  "the 
princes,"  the  successive  victories  over  Sihon  and 
Og,  and,  lastly,  the  famous  episodes  of  Balaam  and 
I'hinehas,  and  the  final  numbering  of  the  people, 
followed  by  the  chastisement  of  the  Midiauites 
(Num.  xxi.  17,  xxii.-xxvi.,  xxxi.  1-12;  comp. 
Deut.  ii.  24-37,  iii.  1-17). 

(Jne  passage  remains  in  which,  although  the 
event  recorded  belongs  to  the  close  of  Moses'  life, 
relating  to  his  last  words  in  the  plain  of  Moab, 
and  as  such  lies  beyond  the  scope  of  this  article, 
several  names  of  places  yet  occiir  which  are  iden- 
tical with  some  herein  considered,  and  it  remains 
to  be  seen  in  what  sense  those  places  are  connected 
with  the  scene  of  that  event.  The  passage  in 
question  is  Deut.  i.  1,  where  Moses  is  said  to  have 
spoken  "  on  this  side  Jordan  in  the  wilderness,  in 
the  plain  over  against  the  Hed  Sea,  between  I'aran 
and  Tophel,  and  Laban  and  Hazeroth  and_  Uiza- 
hab."<-"     The  words  "on  this  side"  might  here 


a  Punou  is  spoken  of  by  Jerome  (Reland,  p.  592)  as 
■■  Quondam  civitas  piiucipum  Edom  nunc  viculus  in 
deserto,  ubi  £eruiii  uietalla  damnatoruiti  suppliciis 
effodiuDtur  iater  civitatem  I'etram  et  Zoaram." 
A.thanas.  Episl.  ad  Solit.  Vitarn  Asenies.  speaks  of  the 
condemnation  of  a  person  to  ttie  mines  of  I'lissno, 
where  he  would  only  live  a  few  days.  Winer  says, 
Seetzen  took  Kalaat  Phcnan  for  Punon,  referring  to 
Munatl.  Corresp.  xvii.  137.  Laborde  {Comment,  on 
Num.  xxxiii.  42)  thinks  that  the  place  named  by 
Jerome  and  Athanasius  cannot  be  Punon,  which  he 
iays  lay  S.  E.  of  Petra.  He  adds  that  Burckhardt 
»,nd  Von  llaumer  took  Tiif'iMi  for  Punou.  lie  places 
Oboth  "  dans  les  decombres  de  Kutaieh  {Butdhy,  Kob- 
ius(  n),  laissant  ainsi  Maan  a  droite." 

b  Dr.  Stewart  (T.  ^  K.  \>  386)  says,  "The  river  Ar- 
non empties  itself  into  the  Dead  Sea,  and  between  them 
rises  the  lofty  Gfbel  Ataroiis,  which  is  believed  to  be 
the  Nebo  or  Pisgah  of  Scripture."  He  justifies  this 
'rem  its  being  the  highest  mountain  on  the  Moabitish 
border,  and  from  the  hot  spring  Callirhoc  being  sit- 
uated at  its  base,  which  seems  to  correspond  with  the 
Ashdoth  (■'  springs  "  or  "  streams  ")  of  Pisgah  of  Deut. 
Iv.  49.  lie  adds  that  "Moses  could  have  seen  the 
Auil  of  Israel  from  that  mountiiin."  The  Aruou  is, 
witliout  doubt,  the  WiiiJtj  el-Mnjeb.  Ar  of  .Moab  is 
treopolis ,  Rabbath-Moab,  now  Rabba.  [.iu-AIOAB  and 
lENON] 


mislead,  meaning,  as  shown  by  the  LXX.  render 
uig,  Tre'pa;',  "across"  or  "  beyond,"  t.  e.  on  the 
E.  side.  This  is  a  passage  in  which  it  is  of  little 
use  to  examine  the  question  by  the  aid  of  maps, 
since  the  more  accurate  tliey  are,  the  more  probably 
will  they  tend  to  confuse  our  view  of  it.  The 
words  seem  to  forget  that  the  (iulf  of  'Akabah  pre- 
.sents  its  ei/U  to  the  end  of  the  'Aribah  ("  plain  ''), 
and  to  assume  that  it  presents  the  Unt/tli  of  itg 
coast,  on  which  Dizahab  [Dukab)  lies.  This  length 
of  co.ast  is  regarded,  then,  as  opposite  to  the  'Ara- 
bah; and  thus  the  'Aral»ah,  in  which  Jloses  spoke, 
is  defined  by  "  Paran  and  Tophel,"  lying  on  oppo- 
site edges  of  the  Dead  Sea,  or  rather  of  the  whole 
depression  in  which  it  lies,  which  is  in  fact  the 
'Arabah  continued  northward.  Paran  here  is  per- 
iiaps  the  El  Paran  to  which  Chedorlaomer  came  in 
(ien.  xiv.  G  [Pahan],  and  probably  Tophel  is  the 
well-known  Tafileh  to  tlie  N.  N.  li.  of  Petra;  and 
similarly  the  tied  Sea,  "  over  against  "  which  it  is 
spoken  of  as  lying,  is  defined  by  Dizahab  on  its 
coast,  and  Hazeroth  near  the  same.  The  intro- 
duction of  "  Laban  "  is  less  clear,  but  probably 
means,  from  its  etymology,  "  the  white,"  I.  e.  the 
chalk  and  limestone  region,  which  in  the  mountain- 
range  of  Till,  comes  into  view  from  the  Edomitish 
mountains  (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  p.  87),  and  was 
probably  named,  from  that  point  of  view,  by  the 
[)aler  contrast  which  it  there  offered  to  the  rich 
and  varied  hues  of  the  sandstones  and  granites  of 
Mount  Seir,  which  formed  their  own  immediate 
foreground. 

A  writer  in  the  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit.,  April 
18G0,  on  Sinai,  Kadesli,  ami  Mount  Ilor,  pro- 
pounds an  entirely  original  view  of  these  sites,  ic 
confiict  with  every  known  tradition  and  hithertc 
acoei)ted  theory.''  For  inst.aiice,  Josephus  identi- 
fies Mount  Hor  with  Petra  and  Kerek;  Jerome 
and  Ivosnias  point  to  Serbal  in  the  granitic  moun- 
tain region  as  Sinai;  but  this  writer  sets  aside 
Josephus'  testimony  as  a  wholly  corrupt  tradition, 
invented  by  the  Kabbis  in  their  prejudice  against 
the  Idnmseans,  in  whose  territory  between  Eleu- 
theropolis,  Petra,  and  Elath  (see  .Jerome  on  Obnd. ), 
he    asserts    they  all    lay.      [Edomitks.]      Kadesh 


c  Via  n3-ii72  -13-Tas  i^n>n  -1:2173 

T  T  -;  T         T   :  •  -     '  ••   : —         •.•■■: 

27Tf  ^~T*I  are  the  words  of  the  Heb.  text,  from  which 
the  LXX.  offers  some  divergencies,  being  as  follows : 
Tv4pa.v  ToO  'lop&avov  eu  Tf)  €pr)fiw  irpb?  Sv<TtiLa.l^  v\ii<jioi> 
rrjs  €puSpa5  8a\a<r(rr);  ai'afiieo'oi'  'I'apai'  To(|)6A,  koX  AojSbr 

KoX  KvKiiv  KoX  Karaxpva-ea.  Tho  phrase  ?|H,"l2^,  if 
"  Red  Sea,"  be,  as  the  LXX.  confirms,  the  true  meaning, 
is  here  abriilged  into  V]'!\0.    The  word  HS'^^S  was 

possibly  differently  read  by  the  LXX.  (query,  3';572, 
as  if  "the  evening"  were="the  west,"  5uo-|u.ac), 
whilst  'Vapav  'To<j>6\  looks  as  though  it  were  meant  for 
one  comi)Ounii  name ;  and  the  two  last  names  are  trans- 
lated, Uazeroth  beiug  z=  "  iuclosures,"  and  Di-zahab  =: 
"  tlie  golden."  N.  B  Uazeroth  elsewhere  is  repre- 
sent<;d  by  '\(rqpu>8  (Num.  xi.  35,  xii.  16). 

d  Some  incident-al  errors  of  this  writer,  though  un- 
important, may  a.ssist  in  forming  an  estimato  of  hia 
work.  Tlius  ho  identifies  Petra  with  Bo^rah,  the  for- 
mer being  the  capitJil  of  tho  later  Nabathoeans.  the  lat- 
ter that  of  the  Edom  of  the  prophetic  period  and  lo- 
cally distinct.  Again  he  says,  "  Of  all  tho  peopie  in 
the  ud' verse,  the  nvce  most  detested  by  the  lews  were 


3531 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERING 


the  city,  and  perhaps  Kadesli  Baniea,  did  so  lie. 
wjd  possibly  Kliisa,  now  el-Kliuksali,  may  retain 
a  trace  of  "  Kadesh."  several  types  of  wliicli  no- 
menclature are  to  be  fomid  in  the  region  lyiiii; 
thence  southward  [Kadebh]  ;  but  el-K/id/tsnIi  lies 
too  far  N.  and  W.  to  be  the  Kadesh  Karnea  to 
which  Israel  came  "by  the  way  of  the  spies,"  and 
which  is  clearly  in  far  closer  connection  with  Ze- 
phath  (es-Sufh)  than  el-Kliaksnh  could  be.  On 
the  contrary,  there  seems  great  reason  for  thinking 
that,  had  so  well-known  and  historical  a  place  as 
Elusa  been  the  spot  of  any  great  event  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Exodus,  the  tradition  would  probably 
have  been  traceable  in  some  form  or  other,  v\'hereas 
there  is  not  a  trace  of  any.  Kadesh,  again,  lay 
"  in  the  uttermost  of  the  border  "  of  Edom.  Now, 
although  tliat  border  may  not  have  lain  solely  I"., 
of  the  'Arabah,  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
known  fects  to  extend  it  to  Elusa;  for  then  the  en- 
emies encountered  in.  Horniah  would  have  been 
Edomites,  whereas  they  were  Amalekites,  Canaan- 
ites.  and  Amorites;  and  Isi'ael,  in  forcing  the  pass, 
would  ha\e  been  doing  what  we  know  they  entirely 
abstained  from — attempting  violence  to  the  teiri- 
tory  of  Edom.  The  "designs  "  which  this  writer 
attributes  to  the  "  Rabbis,"  as  regards  the  perioti 
up  to  Josephus'  time,  are  gratuitous  imputations; 
nor  does  he  cite  any  authorities  for  this  or  any 
other  statement.  Nor  was  there  any  sucli  feeling 
against  the  Iduma-ans  as  he  suppo.ses."  They  an- 
nexed part  of  the  territory  of  Judah  and  .Simeon 
during  the  Captivity,  and  were  subsequently,  by 
the  warlike  Alaccabees,  aimexed  themselves,  received 
circumcision  and  the  Law,  by  which  an  ICdomite 
might,  "  in  the  third  generation,"  enter  the  coii- 
gregation  of  Israel  (Deut.  xxiii.  8),  so  that  by  the 
New  Testament  period  they  must  ha\e  been  fully 
recognized.  The  Jews  proper,  indeed,  still  speak 
<j/' them  as  "  foreigners,"  but  to  them  as  having 
the  place  of  kinsmen,  a  common  share  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  care  of  its  sanctity  as  their  "metropolis;" 
and  Josephus  expressly  testifies  that  they  kept  the 
Jewish  feasts  there  {Ant.  xvii.  10,  §  2;  conip.  B. 
J.  iv.  4,  §§  4,  5).  The  zealots  and  the  party  of 
order  both  appealed  to  their  patriotism,  somewhat 
as  in  our  Ileliellion  both  parties  appealed  to  the  Scots. 
It  remains  to  notice  the  natural  history  of  the 
wilderness  which  we  have  been  considering.  A 
number  of  the  animals  of  the  Sinaitic  region  have 


the    Idumseans."     That    race     has    gei-ierall3'     been 
thought,  on  good  authority,  to  be  the  Saniai-itans. 

a  Some  feeling  of  rivah-y  there  no  doubt  was  ;  but 
this  writer  vastly  exaggerates  it,  in  supposing  that  the 
Jewish  llabbis  purposely  obliterated  genuine  tradi- 
tions, which  referred  these  sites  to  Idumsean  territory 
—  that  of  a  circumcised  and  vanquished  race  who  had 
accepted  the  place  of  "  proselytes  of  the  covenant  "  — 
in  order  to  transfer  them  to  what  was  then  the  terri- 
tory of  the  purely  Gentile  and  often  hostile  Nabatha;- 
Bus.  Surely  a  transfer  the  other  way  would  have  been 
far  more  likely.  Above  all,  what  reason  is  there  for 
thinking  that  the  Rabbis  of  the  period  busied  them- 
Beives  with  such  points  at  all  ?  Zeal  for  sites  is  the 
growth  of  a  later  age.  There  is  no  proof  that  they 
ever  cared  enough  for  Mount  Hor  to  falsify  for  the 
»ake  of  it.  As  regards  Jtbtl  OiJjme  being  Sinai,  the 
writer  seems  to  have  formed  a  false  conception  of 
O'Jjme,  which  he  draws  as  a  prominent  mountain 
boss  in  the  range  of  Tih^  taking  that  range  for  Horeb, 
md  the  prominent  mountain  for  Sinai.  The  best 
jiaps  show  that  it  had  d"  such  predominance.  Tliey 
?ive  it  (f.  1^.  Kiepert'f  hs  a  distinct  but  less  clearly 


been  mentioned.  [Sinai.]  The  domestic  cattl* 
of  the  liedouins  will  of  course  be  found,  but  camels 
more  numerously  in  the  drier  tracts  of  et-Tih. 
Schubert  (Neiaen,  ii.  354)  speaks  of  Sinai  as  not 
being  frequented  by  any  of  the  larger  beasts  o) 
prey,  nor  even  by  jackals.  The  lion  has  become 
very  rafe,  but  is  not  absolutely  unknown  in  the  re- 
gion {Nefji'h,  pp.  46,  47).  Foxes  and  hyenas.  Hitter 
(xiv.  333)  says,  are  rare,  but  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  men- 
tions hyenas  as  common  in  the  Wady  Muyhara  ; 
and  Eitter  (ibid.),  on  the  authority  of  Burckhardt, 
ascriljes  to  the  region  a  creature  which  appears  to 
be  a  cross  between  a  leopard  and  a  wrlf,  both  oi 
which  ai-e  rare  in  the  Peninsula,  but  by  which 
probably  a  hyena  is  to  be  understood.  A  leopard- 
skin  was  obtained  by  Burckhardt  on  Sinai,  and  a 
fine  leopard  is  stated  by  INIr.  Tyrwhitt  to  have  been 
seen  by  some  of  his  party  in  their  ascent  of  Uin 
Slidumtr  in  1802.  Schubert  continues  his  list  in 
the  hyrax  Syrincus,  the  ibex,*  seen  at  Tufikli  in 
flocks  of  forty  or  fiftj'  together,  and  a  pair  of  whose 
horns,  sten  by  Burckhardt  {Asab.  pp.  405,  406)  at 
Ktfvek;  measured  3^  feet  in  length,  the  webr,'-"  the 
shrew-mouse,  and  a  creature  whicli  he  calls  the 
"  spring-maus  " ''  {Mus  jaculus  or  jerboa?),  also  a 
cants  Jamelicus,  or  desert-fox,  and  a  hzard  known 
as  the  Ayama  Sinaitica,  which  may  possibly  be 
identical  with  one  of  these  described  below.  Hares 
and  jerboas  are  found  in  Wiu/y  Fnrdn.  Schubert 
quotes  {ibid  note)  Riippell  as  having  found  speci- 
mens of  helix  a.\\A  of  corcineUd  in  this  wilderness; 
for  the  former  comp.  Forskal,  Jcones  Jiertim  yn- 
lur.  Tab.  xvi.  Schubert  .saw  a  fine  eagle  in  the 
same  region,  besides  catching  specimens  of  thrush, 
with  stonechat  and  other  song-birds,  and  speaks  of 
the  warbling  of  the  birds  as  being  audible  from  the 
mimosa  bush.  Clouds  of  birds  of  passage  were 
visible  in  the  Wady  Murrah.  Near  the  same 
tract  of  wilderness  Dr.  Stanley  saw  "  the  sky  dark- 
ened by  the  flights  of  innumerable  birds,  which 
proved  to  be  large  red-legged  cranes,  3  feet  in 
height,  with  black  and  white  wings,  measuring  7 
feet  from  tip  to  tip  "  (<S.  if  P.  p.  82).  At  Tu- 
fileh  crows  al)ound.  On  Serbdl  Dr.  Stewart  saw 
the  red-legged  partridge  (Tent  and  Khan,  p.  117; 
comp.  Burckhardt,  Syria,  p.  534);  and  the  bird 
"  katta,"  in  some  parts  of  the  Peninsula,  comes 
in  such  numbers  that  boys  sometimes  knock  over 
three  or  four  at  a  single  throw  of  a  stick.«      Has- 


defined'and  apparently  lower  i-ange,  falling  back  into 
the  northern  plateau  in  a  N.  W.  direction  from  about 
the  most  southerly  point  of  the  Tih ;  which,  from  all 
the  statements  regarding  it.  is  a  low,  horiznntjil  ninga 
of  limestone,  with  no  such  prominent  central  point 
whatever.  Russegger  describes  particularly  the  mount- 
ing by  the  wall-like  partition  of  "Edjme  "  to  the  pla- 
teau of  Edjme  itself.  "  The  height,''  he  says,  "  whicfc. 
we  had  here  to  mount  is  in  no  wise  considerable," 
and  adds,  "  we  had  now  arrived  at  the  plateau  "  {RtU 
sen.  iii.  60,  61). 

b  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  ccromends  the  fiesh  of  the  ibex  as 
superior  to  any  of  the  deer  tribe  that  he  had  ever 
eaten. 

c  Or    Uabr,    wj  • ,     "  fel'   similis  sine    cauda    her- 

bffihagus  monticola  caro  incolis  edulis  "  (Forskil,  D«- 
script.  Anitn.  v.). 

d  Seetzen  (iii.  41)  saw  holes  in  the  earth,  made,  he 
thought,  by  mice,  in  going  from  Hebron  to  Madnra. 

e  Probably  these  birds  have  furnished  a  stnrv  m 
Pliny,  of  their  settling  by  night  on  the  yards  of  ship* 
in  such  vast  nvunbers  as  to  sink  them  (H.  A.  x  V 


WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WAlN BERING 


3535 


lelquist,  who  saw  it  here  and  in  Egypt,  calls  it  a 
partridge,  smaller  tliau  ours,  and  of  a  grayish 
color  (p.  20-i).  Kilter  (xiv.  SS^  i  adds  linnets  (V), 
ducks,  prairie-hirds,  heath-cocks,  larks,  a  specimen 
of  finch,  liesides  another  small  Itird,  probalily  red- 
breast or  chaffinch,  the  varieties  of  falcon  known  as 
the  bvdcliijdactijlus  and  the  niiier^  and,  of  course, 
on  the  coast,  sea-swallows,  and  mews.  Flocks  of 
blue  rock  pigeons  were  repeatedly  seen  by  JNIr. 
Tjrwhitt.    . 

Seetzen,  going  from  Ilehron  to  Madara,  makes 
mention  of  the  following  animals,  whose  names 
were  mentioned  by  his  guides,  though  he  does  not 
say  that  any  of  them  were  seen  by  himself:  wolf, 
porcupine,  wild-cat,  ounce,  mole,  wild  ass,  and  three 
not  easily  to  be  identified,  the  ^eUek,  dog-shaped," 
the  Anasc/i,  which  devours  the  gazelle,  and  the 
Jkkajib,  said  to  be  small  and  in  shape  like  a  hedge- 
hog. Seetzen's  list  in  this  locality  also  includes 
certain  reptiles,  of  which  such  as  can  be  identified 
are  explained  in  the  notes:  el-Melltd.ihi,  Uinm 
el-Szlnman,  d-Liilsdin  or  Lejnfi  eUIJarrdbn  or 
Hirba,'^  Dsc/ierrdr  or  Jarrdreli,''  tl-Ddb,  otiier- 
mse  Dwle,^  tl-lhmne  or  JJanmi,/ el- Lijf'ed  ;  and 
among  birds  tlie  partridge,  duck,  stork,  eagle," 
vulture  (er-Iiiikluiiii),  crow  (el-Grdb),  kite  (///- 
dciijeh),'i  and  an  unknown  bird  called  by  him  Um- 
S'llct.  Uis  guides  told  him  of  ostriches  as  seen 
near  Bteidlia  on  the  way  from  Hebron  to  Sinai, 
and  he  saw  a  nightingale,  but  it  seems  at  no  great 
distance  to  the  south  of  Heliron.  The^ame  writer 
also  mentions  the  edible  lizard,  el-Dsob,  as  fre- 
quently found  in  most  parts  of  tiie  wilderness,  and 
his  third  volume  has  an  appendix  on  zoiilogy,  par- 
ticularly describing,  and  often  with  illustrations, 
many  reptiles  and  serpents  of  Kgypt  and  Arabia, 
without,  however,  pointing  out  such  as  are  peculiar 
to  the  wilderness.  Auiong  these  are  thirteen  vari- 
eties of  lizard,  twenty-one  of  serpent,  and  seven  of 
frog,  liesides  fifteen  of  Nile-fish.  Laborde  speaks 
of  serpents,  scorpions,  and  "black-scaled  lizards, 
which  perforate  the  sand,  as  found  on  the  eastern 
border  of  Edom  near  Tufikh  ( Comm.  on  Num. 
xxxiii.  42).  The  MS.  of  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  speaks  of 
B.tarting  "a  large  sand  colored  lizard,  about  ;J  feet 
long,  exactly  like  a  crocodile,  with  the  same  bandy 
look  about  his  fore-legs,  the  elbows  turning  out 
enormously."     He  is  described  as  covered  not  only 

a  With   this  comparo   tho   mention  by  Burelchardt 
[ap.  Ritter,  xiv.  333)  of  a  great  wild-dog  spoken  of  bj' 
the  Bedouius,  and  tliought  by  Hitter  to  be  perhaps  the 
■ame  .as  the  Derban  of  the  Hedjaz  desert. 
%  ^    ^ 

6  1,;^\.  ,  rana  (Freyta^j. 


"^   Ow^.,  cliamcEteon  (Fr.).     Mr.  Tyrwhitt  speaks 

^f  one  of  these  as  seen  by  him  at  tlie  entrance  of 
Walij  es-Slieykh  on  the  route  from  Suez  to  Siuai  by 
Surabit  el-K,':ndim,  whicti  appeared  green  iu  shade 
nd  yellow  iu  sunshine. 

''    5>Iy^,  scorpionum   parvorum   species,    Scorpio 
(emina  (Fr.). 

«       S     -  G     > 

*  ■_,j-uj).  Lacerta   Mgypti   (Fr.)  ;  and    i^.i^,    "a 

W-Toi  ;  '"  but  this  dilTerence  of  siguilicatiou  seems  to 


"  in  scales,  but  in  a  regular  aruK  r,  which  rattled 
quite  loudly  as  he  ran."  He  "  got  up  before  tlie 
dromedary,  and  vanished  into  a  hole  among  soi  ;e 
retem."  This  occurred  at  the  head  of  the  Waihj 
MokaUeb.  Hasselquist  (p.  220)  gives  a  Lacert  i 
Scincus,  "  the  Seine,"  as  (bund  in  Arabia  Petroe.a, 
near  the  lied  Sea,  as  well  as  in  Upper  Egypt. 
which  he  .says  is  much  used  by  the  inhabitants  of 
the  I'^ast  as  an  apln-odisiac,  the  flesh  of  the  animal 
being  given  in  powder,  and  broth  made  of  the  re- 
cent fiesh.  He  also  mentions  the  edible  locust. 
Gri/liiis  ArabicHs.  which  appears  to  be  connnon  in 
the  wilderness,  as  in  other  parts  of  Arabia,  giving 
an  account  of  the  preparation  of  it  in  food  (pp.  230- 
2'i.'!).  liurckhardt  names  a  cape  not  far  from 
'Akabah,  Rds  Uiii  /I'lye^  from  the  number  of  .sei- 
pents  which  abound  there,  and  accordingly  applied 
to  this  region  the  description  of  the  ••  fiery  ser- 
pents " '  in  Num.  xxi.  4-1).  .Schubert  (ii.  362) 
remarked  the  first  serpents  jn  going  from  Suez  and 
Sinai  to  Petra,  near  et-ff&i/lierdii  ;  he  describes 
them  as  speckled.  Burckhardt  (-S^/z'/n,  pp.  499, 
502)  saw  tracks  of  serpents,  two  inches  thick,  in  the 
sand.  According  to  Kiippell,  serpents  elsewhere  in 
the  Peninsula  are  rare.  He  names  two  poisonous 
kinds.  Cerastes  and  Scylalis  (Ritter,  xiv.  329).  The 
scorpion  has  given  his  name  to  the  "  Ascent  of 
Scorpions,"  which  was  part  of  the  boundary  of  Ju- 
dah  on  the  side  of  the  southern  desert.  Wndi/  es- 
Zuweirah  in  that  region  swarmed  with  them ;  and 
l)e  Saulcy  says,  '•  you  camiot  turn  over  a  single 
pelible  in  the  Nedjd  (a  branch  wady)  without  find- 
ing one  under  it"  (De  Saulcy,  i.  529,  quoted  in 
Ne<ie,i)^  p.  51). 

The  reader  who  is  curious  about  the  fish,  mol- 
lusca,*;  etc.,  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  should  consult 
Schubert  (ii.  263,  note,  298,  note,  ajid  for  the  plants 
of  the  same  coast,  294,  note).  For  a  description  of 
the  coral-banks  of  the  Red  Se.a,  see  Ritter  (xiv.  476 
f. ),  who  remarks  that  these  formations  rise  from 
the  coast-edge  always  in  longitudinal  extension 
parallel  to  its  line,  bespeaking  a  fundamental  con- 
nection with  the  upheaval  of  the  whole  stretch  of 
shore  from  S.  E.  to  N.  W.  A  fish  which  Seetzen 
calls  the  Alum  may  be  mentioned  as  furnishiiii:  to 
the  Bedouins  the  fish-skin  sandals  of  which  they 
are  fond.  Ritter  (xiv.  327)  thinks  that  fish  may 
have  contributed  materially  to  the  sustenance  of  the 


show  that  they  cannot  represent  one  and  the  same 
animal,  as  Seetzen's  text  would  seem  to  intend. 


1.  Q  C  J  aquila. 


J       >  ''■"^ ,  siarabcBus.  g   (^_j 

''    XjIJo^.  milviiis. 

i  Mr.  Wilton  (Negeb,  p.  51)  interprets  "  flying,"  ap 
plied  (Is.  XXX.  6)  to  the  serpent  of  the  South,  m 
'■  making  great  springs  ;  "  and  "  fiery  "  as  eitlier  de- 
noting a  sensation  cau.-sed  by  the  bite,  or  else  ''red- 
colored  ;  "  since  such  are  said  to  have  been  found  by 
several  travellers  whom  he  cites  in  the  region  between 
the  Dead  and  lied  Seas. 

<•  A  nunilier  of  these  are  delineated  in  ForskSrs 
Icoiifs  Reruni  i\'nl.  among  the  later  plates:  see  also 
his  l^ir)?ies,  iv.,  Cora/iia  Maris  Kiibri  (ibiil.).  Also  in 
Russegger's  atlas  some  speoiuiens  of  the  same  classes 
are  engraved.  Schubert  (ii  370)  remarks  that  most 
of  the  fish  found  in  tho  Gulf  of  'Akabah  belong  to  tne 
tribes  known  as  Acant/iiirus  and  Chrrtmlon  (Hassel- 
quist. p.  223.)  He  saw  a  large  turtle  asleep  iinil  basK- 
ing  on  the  shore  near  the  castle  of  ■.\kabah,  which  Ua 
iuelfectually  tried  to  captui'e. 


3536 


WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDEKING 


Israelites  in  the  desert  (Num.  xi.  22),  as  thej'  are 
now  driefl  and  salted  for  sale  in  Cairo  or  at  tlie 
Convent  of  St.  Catherine.  In  ahrook  near  the  foot 
of  Serbal,  Schubert  saw  some  varieties  of  etupln-H^, 
ihjticus,  colymbetes,  gyrinus,  and  other  water  insects 
(Reise,  ii.  302,  note). 

As  regards  the  vegetation  of  the  desert,  the  most 
frequently  found  trees  are  the  date-palm  (Pliamix 
diictyliferd),  the  desert  acacia,  and  the  tamarisk. 
The  pahns  are  almost  always  dwarf,  as  descrilied  in 
S.  ij-  P.  p.  20,  but  sometimes  the  "  dom  "  palm  is 
seen,  as  on  the  .shore  of  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  (Schu- 
bert, ii.  370;  comp.  Robinson,  i.  ]f51).  Hassel- 
quist,  speaking  of  the  date-palm's  powers  of  suste- 
nance, says  that  some  of  the  poorer  families  in  Upper 
Kirypt  live  on  nothing  else,  the  very  stones  being 
ground  into  a  provender  for  the  dromedary.  This 
tree  is  often  found  in  tufts  of  a  dozen  or  more  to- 
gether, the  dead  and  living  boughs  interlacing  over- 
head, the  dead  and  living  roots  intertwining  lielow, 
and  thus  forming  a  canopy  in  the  de.sert.  Fhe 
date-palms  in  Wiuly  Tiir  are  said  to  lie  all  nimi- 
bered  and  registered.  The  acacia  is  the  Afiiiwsc 
Nilutica,  and  this  forms  the  most  common  vegeta- 
tion of  the  wilderness.       Its  Arabic  name  is  es- 

Seydl  ((JLaaiwX  and  it  is    generally   supposed   to 

have  furnished  the  "  Shittini  wood  "  for  the  Taber- 
nacle (Forskal,  Dtscr.  Plant.  Cent.  vi.  No.  90: 
Celsii  Hierub.  i.  498  f.  ;  Ritter,  xiv.  33.5  f.). 
[Shittah-tree.]  It  is  armed  with  fearful  thorns, 
which  sometimes  tear  the  packages  on  the  camels" 
backs,  and  of  course  would  severely  lacerate  man  or 
beast.  The  gum  arable  is  gathered  from  this  tree, 
on  which  account  it  is  also  called  the  Acacia  gum- 
mifura.  Other  tamarisks,  beside  the  mamiij'era, 
mentioned  aliove,  are  found  in  the  desert.  Grass 
is  comparatively  rare,  but  its  quantity  varies  with 
the  season.  Robinson,  on  finding  some  in  Wady 
Suiiifjhy,  N.  E.  from  Sinai,  near  the  (iulf  of  'Aka- 
bah, remarks  that  it  was  the  first  his  party  liad 
seen  since  leaving  the  Nile.  The  terebinth  {Pis- 
Uichid  terebint/ius,  Arab.  Biiim)  «  is  well  known  in 
the  wadies  about  Beer-sheba,  but  in  the  actual  wil- 
derness it  hardly  occurs.  For  a  full  description  of 
it  see  Robinson,  ii.  222,  223,  and  notes,  also  i.  208 ; 
and  comp.  Cels.  Hierobot.  i.  34.  The  "  broom," 
of  the  variety  known  as  retem  (Heb.  and  Arab.), 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  by  "juniper,"  is  a  genuine 
desert  plant;  it  is  described  (Robinson,  i.  203,  and 
nate)  as  the  largest  and  most  conspicuous  shrub 
therein,  having  very  bitter  roots,  and  yielding  a 
quantity  of  e.xcellent  cliarcoal,  which  is  the  sta])le, 
if  one  may  so  say,  of  the  desert.  The  following 
are  mentioned  by  Schubert  (ii.  352,  354)''  as  found 


within  the  limits  of  the  wilderness  :  Mespilus  A^ar- 
onia,  Cohitea  haleppica,  .4traphaxis  spinosa,  1  phe- 
dra  alaba,  Cytisus  unifiorus,  and  a  Cynomorinm,  a 
highly  interesting  variety,  compared  by  Schubert 
to  a  well  known  Maltese  one.  To  tliese  he  adda 
in  a  note  (ibid.)  :  Dactylis  meniphitica,  Gagea 
reticulata,  Rumex  vesicarius,  Artemisia  Judaica, 
I>eyssera  discoidea,  Santolina  fragrantissima,  Seri- 
ola,  Lindenliergia  Sinaica,  Laminm  ami)lexieaule.'' 
Stachys  afEnis,  Sisymbrium  iris,  Anchusa  Milleri, 
Asperugo  procumbens,  Oniphalodes  intermedia, 
Dsemia  cordata.  Reseda  canescens,  and  pruinosa, 
Reaumuria  vermiculata,  Fumaria  parviflora,  Hype- 
coum  jjendulum,  Cleome  trinervis,  iErua  tomen- 
tosa,  Malva  Honbezey,  F'agoiiia,'-  Zygophyllum 
coccineum,''  Astragalus  Prosenii,  Genista  niono- 
sperma.e  Schuliert  (ii.  357)  xlso  mentions,  as  found 
near  Abu  Suiceir,  N.  E.  of  Sinai,  a  kind  of  sage, 
and  of  what  is  probably  ^oafs-rue,  also  (note,  ibid.) 
a  fine  variety  of  Astragalus,  together  with  Linaria, 
I>otus,  Cynosurus  echinatus,  Bromus  tectorum,  and 
(p.  3f)5)  two  varieties  of  Fergularia,  the  procera 
and  the  tomentosa. 

In  the  S.  W.  region  of  the  Dead  Sea  grows  the 
singular  tree  of  the  apples  of  Sodom,  the  Asckpias 
yiynnteaf  of  botanists.  Dr.  Robinson,  who  gives 
a  full  description  of  it  (i.  522,  523),  says  it  miglat  1)6 
taken  for  a  gigantic  species  of  the  milk-weed  or 
silkweed  found  in  the  northern  regions  of  the  U.  S. 
He  condemns  the  notion  of  Hassehiuist  (pp.  285, 
287,  288)  as  an  error,  that  the  fruit  of  the  Hvhinum 
melonyelii  when  punctured  by  a  tenthredo.  resulted 
in  the  Sodom  apple,  retaining  the  skin  uninjured, 
but  wholly  changed  to  dust  within  {ibid.  p.  524). 
It  is  the  '  Osher  of  the  Aralis.  Robinson  also  men- 
tions willows,  hollyhocks,  and  liawthorns  in  the  Si- 
naitio  region,  from  the  first  of  which  the  Ras  SUf- 
safeh,  "willow-head,"  takes  its  name  (i.  106,  109; 
Stanley,  S.  if  P.  p.  17).  He  saw  hy.ssop  (jddeh) 
in  abundance,  and  thyme  (za'ter),  and  in  the 
Wady  Feiian  the  colocynth,  the  kirdliy  or  kir- 
dee,'i  a  green  thorny  plant  with  a  yellow  flo.wer; 
and  in  or  near  the  '.Arabah,  the  juniper  {'arar), 
the  oleander  (dijtc/i),  and  another  shrub  like  it,  the 
znkiiani,  as  also  the  plant  el-Ghudah,  resembling 
the  rc/t'/f,  but  larger  (i-  83,  110;  ii.  119,  and  note, 
124,  12G).  He  also  describes  the  Gldrkhud,  which 
has  been  sugixested  as  possibly  the  "  tree  "  cast  by 
jNIoses  into  the  waters  of  Marah  (F^x.  xv.  25).  It 
grows  in  saline  regions  of  inten.se  heat,  bearing  a 
small  red  berry,  very  juicy,  and  slightly  acidulous. 
Being  constantly  found  among,st  brackish  pools,  the 
"  bane  and  antidote  "  would  thus,  on  the  above 
supposition,  be  side  by  side,  but  as  the  fruit  ripens 
in  June,  it  could  not  have  been  ready  for  its  sup- 


o  Seetaen  met  with  it  (iii.  47)  at  about  1  liour  to  the 
W.  of  Wadii  el-'.\in,  between  Hebron  and  Sinai  ;  but 
the  mention  of  small  cornfields  in  the  same  neighbor- 
hood shows  that  the  spot  has  the  character  of  an  oa,sis. 

ft  Schubert's  floral  catjilogue  is  unusually  rich.  He 
travelled  with  an  especial  view  to  the  natural  history 
of  the  regions  vi.sited.  His  tracks  extend  from  Cairo 
through  Suez,  Ayun  Miisa,  and  Tor.  by  way  of  Serbal, 
to  Sinai,  thence  to  Mount  Hor  and  Pefra  ;  thence  by 
Madara  and  Hebron  to  .Jerusalem  ;  as  well  as  in  the 
northern  region  of  Palestine  and  Syria.  His  book 
ihould  be  consulted  by  all  students  of  this  branch  of 
the  subject. 

'•  Both  these  are  found  in  cultivated  grounds  only. 

''  Shown  in  Korskal'a  Iconex  Rer.  Naltir.  tab.  xi., 
vbere  several  kinds  of  zysfophiilliim  are  delineated. 

«  Probably  the  same  as  the  retem  mentioned  above. 


/  Many  varieties  of  Asclepiax,  especially  the  Cordata, 
are  given  by  Forskal  {Descr.  Plant.  Cent.  ii.  49-51).  A 
writer  in  the  Englisk  CyrlnpnerL  of  Nnt.  Hist,  support* 
the  view  of  Hasselquist.  which  Dr.  Robinson  condemns, 
calling  this  tree  a  Solatium,  and  ascribing  to  a  ten- 
thredo the  phenomenon  which  occurs  in  its  fruit.  [See 
Vine  of  Sodom.] 


■■^^y, 


arboris  rarae  nomen  in  deserto  cres- 


cent:; cujus  flores  flaviores  sunt  quam  plantss 
I  VMS*      {Jvars,    memecyton    tinctorium)    appellatse," 

(Freytag).  For  this  and  most  of  the  notes  on  tti» 
.Aniliic  names  of  plants  and  anim8.1ii,  t*"'  pr«seul 
writer  U  indubted  to  Mr.  E.  S.  Poole. 


WILDERNESS   OF   THE   WANDERING 


3537 


posed  use  in  the  early  days  of  the  Kxudus  (Hobiii- 
son,  i.  66-69).  He  adds  in  a  note  that  Forskai 
gives  it  {FLir.  JSy.  Arab.  p.  Ixvi.),  as  the  Pui/n- 
num  retusHiii,  but  that  it  is  more  correctly  the  ^V(- 
trnria  tridenUita  oi  Desfoiitaines  [Fkn-a  Atlant.  i. 
372).  The  mountain  6';»  .S/cwmer  takes  its  name 
from  the  fennel  found  upon  it,  as  perhaps  may  Sur- 
bdl  from  the  sei\  myrrh,  which  "  creeps  over  its 
ledges  up  to  the  very  summit,"  — a  plant  noticed 
by  Ur.  Stanley  as  "tiiickly  covering"  with  its 
"shrubs"  the  "natural  basin"  whicji  surmounts 
td-Ddi;  and  as  seen  in  the  IVculy  Seydl,  N.  E. 
from  Sinai  [S.  c/  P.  pp.  17,  78-80).  Dr.  Stanley 
also  notices  the  wild  thorn,  from  which  the  Wivly 
Sidrl  takes  its  name,  tiie  tig-tree  which  entitles 
another  wady  the  "  Fatlier  of  Fig-trees "  {Ahit 
lliiiiiad),  and  in  the  Wady  Sfijal,  "a  yellow  fiow- 
eriiig  shrub  called  a/jtitliu-Ku,  and  a  blue  thorny 
plant  called  silkh."  Again,  nortlieastwards  in 
Wddy  el-'Ain  were  seen  "  rushes,  the  large-leaved 
plant  called  eslur,''''  and  further  down  the  "  lusaf, 
vv  caper  plant,  .springing  from  the  clefts."  Seet- 
zen's  mtscinbri/ rut/ieinum,  described  above,  page 
3.321,  note  l>,  is  noticed  by  Forskai,  who  adds  that 
no  herb  is  more  common  in  sandy  desert  localities 
than  the  second,  the  nodijinruin,  called   in    Arabic 

the  'jhinid  ((J«.AA/L£\     Hasselquist  speaks  of  a 

mestmb,  wliich  he  calls  the  "  fig-marigold,"  .as 
found  in  the  ruins  of  .Alexandria;  its  agreeable 
saltish-aromatic  flavor,  and  its  use  by  the  Egyp- 
tians in  salads,  accoi'd  closely  with  Seetzen's  de- 
scription. Seet/.en  gives  also  Araljic  names  of  two 
plants,  one  called  ickfduia  by  the  guides,  described 
as  of  the  size  of  heath  with  blue  flowers:  the  other 
named  SubhIi-eUUcli,  found  to  the  north  of  Wady 
cd-^Ain,  which  had  a  club-shaped  sappy  root,  ranged 
a  foot  high  above  the  earth,  having  scales  instead 
of  leaves,  and  covered,  when  he  saw  it,  with  larije, 
gulden  flowers  clinging  clo.se  together,  till  it  seemed 
like  a  little  ninepin  (Kegel).  Somewhat  to  the 
south  of  this  he  observed  the  "  rose  of  Jericho  " 
growini;  in  the  dreariest  and  most  desolate  solitude, 
and  which  appears  alw.ays  to  be  dead  {lieigen,  iii. 
40,  .54).  In  the  region  about  .Madara  he  also 
found  wiiat  he  calls  "Christ's-thorn,"  .\rab.  el- 
.liissilrh,  and  an  anonymous  plant  with  leaves 
broader  than  a  tulip,  perhaps  the  esbcr  mentioned 
above.  The  ibllowing  list  of  plants  between  Hebron 
and  Madara  is  also  given  I)y  Seetzen,  having  prob- 
ably been  written  down  tiy  him  from  hearing  them 
pronounced  by  his  Bedouin  guides,  and  some  ac- 
cordingly it  h.as  not  been  possible  to  identify  with 
any  known  names, — el-K/iilrrdy,  mentioned  in 
the  previous  column,  not*  e  ;  td-Hiirtid,  a  hyacinth, 
whose  small  pear-shaped  bulb  is  eateii  raw  liy  *,he 
Bedouins,  tPArin,"  el-Dsc/ierra,  et-Sphdru  (or 
Znfra'l),''  el-Erblan,  el-Gdime,  Sclukera.  (or 
Shak:ooreeyeh),<^  el-Metnan,  described   as   a  small 


""^5^'' 


nomen  arboris  crescentis  in   arenis. 


lore  saliguco.  fructu  ziziphino  aniaro,  radicibus  rani- 
ilisque  rubris,  cujus  recentiore  fructu  vesountur  cii- 
aieli,  fortice  autcui  coria  concinuantur  '"  (Fre.vt.).  It 
jrows  to  a  man's  height,  with  a  flower  like  the  Snlir 
.iV.'//''""^"'  but  smaller,  with  a  fruit  like  the  jujube, 
Hid  the  root  VHil. 


»   ^'wSi^,  ruta  syUtitris  (Freyt, ^ 


shruli,  tl-f/miin,  el-ScliUlueh,  possibly  the  same  as 
that  called  siUeh,  as  above,  by  Dr.  Stanley,  el- 
Klidbi  (or  Klial),'i  el-Hnndtijuk  (or  Handakook) ' 
el-/.id<Umina,  el-ffadddd,  Kitli,  Addun  el-Hamnuh 
(or  'Allan  tl-tlimdr)./  Some  more  rare  plants, 
l)reeious  on  account  of  their  products,  are  the  fol- 
lowing: Balsainum  Aavunis,  or  nux  be/ien,  called 
l>y  the  Arabs  Festuck  el-Ban,  from  which  an  oil  is 
extracted  having  no  perfume  of  its  own,  but  scented 
at  pleasure  with  jessamine  or  other  odoriferous  leaf, 
etc.,  to  make  a  choice  unguent.  It  is  found  in 
.Mount  Sinai  and  Upper  Egypt:  Cucnrhila  Ldge- 
naria,  Arab.  Charrah,  found  in  Egypt  and  the 
deserts  of  Arabia,  wherever  the  mountains  are  cov- 
ered with  rich  soil.  The  tree  producing  the  famous 
bals:ini  called  "  of  Mecca,"  is  found  m.any  days' 
journey  from  that  place  in  Arabia  Petrwa.  Lin- 
naeus, after  some  hesitation,  decided  that  it  was  a 
species  of  Amyiis.  The  olibanum  frankincense  is 
mentioned  by  Hasselquist  as  a  product  of  the  des- 
ert; but  the  producing  tree  appears  to  be  the  same 
as  that  wliich  yields  the  gum  araliic,  namely,  the 
.\fimt>sa  nilntlca,  mentioned  al)ove.  The  same 
writer  mentions  the  Schan  "nthus  officinalis,  "  cam- 
el's hay,"  as  growing  plentifully  in  the  deserts  of 
both  the  .\rabias,  and  regards  it  as  undoubtedly 
one  of  the  precious,  aromatic,  and  sweet  plants, 
which  the  Queen  of  Sheba  gave  to  Solomon  (Has- 
selquist, pp.  255,  288,  296,  297;  comp.  pp.  250,  251, 
300).  Fuller  details  on  the  facts  of  natural  history 
of  the  region  will  be  found  in  the  writers  referred 
to,  and  some  additional  authorities  may  be  found 
in  Sprengel,  Histovia  Rti  Herb.  vol.  ii. 

Besides  these,  the  cultivation  of  the  ground  by 
the  Sinaitic  monks  has  enriched  their  domain  with 
the  choicest  fruit-trees,  and  with  a  variety  of  otiier 
trees.  The  produce  of  the  former  is  famed  in  the 
markets  of  Cairo.  The  cy[)resses  of  the  Convent 
are  visible  far  away  among  the  mountains,  and 
there  is  a  single  conspicuous  one  near  the  "  cave  of 
Flias "  on  Jtbel  Mu>iti.  Besides,  they  have  the 
silver  and  the  common  ])oplar,  with  other  trees,  for 
timber  or  ornament.  The  ipricot,  apple,  pear, 
quince,  almond,  walnut,  pomegranate,  olive,  vine, 
citron,  orange,  cornelian  cherry,  and  two  fruits 
named  in  the  Ar.abic  sc/ieUuk  and  barguk,  have 
been  successfully  naturalized  there  (Kobinson,  i. 
94;  Seetzen,  iii.  70,  &c.:  Hasselquist,  p.  425 :  N.  ij- 
P.  p.  52).  Dr.  Stanley  views  these  as  mostly  intro- 
duced from  Europe;  Hasselquist  on  the  contrary 
views  them  as  being  the  origin.als  whence  the  finest 
varieties  we  have  in  Europe  were  first  brought. 
Certainly  nearly  all  the  above  trees  are  common 
enoui;h  iji  the  gardens  of  Palestine  and  Damascus. 

[The  present  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  the 
kindness  of  the  liev.  K.  S.  Tyrwhitt  of  Oxford,  in 
allowing  him  a  sight  of  a  valuable  MS.  read  by 
th.at  traveller  before  the  Alpine  Club.  It  is  ex- 
pected to  be  pulilished  in  the  Journ.al  of  that  body, 


"^   2U\*.A..<ww     cichorium  ;    intyhus  (ForskM,  Flor 

yE^j/pt.  up.  Froyt.).     Succory  or  endive.     CoElrilla 

(MS.  notes). 

(^   |_ll  --^  J    nomen  plantio  regionis  Nedjiil  pecaliaris 
cui  est  Hos  ;    caulis  exiguus  ;  Laser  ;  Ruta  (Fi-eyt.). 

?  "  °  - 
'        V  m  '"' l\  ^  ~'^  1   Lotus-pl.ant  (Freyt.).      Distinct, 

it  shoulil  seoni,  from  the  lote-tree,  or  nlbk  (a   speoiM 
of  the  binls-foot  trefoil  ?).     Melilot  (MS.  uo  asl. 
J  CoBil'rey  (.MS.  notes). 


3538 


WILL 


but  was  not  in  print  when  tliis  paper  went  to  press. 
The  references  to  Mr.  Tyrwhitt  in  the  preceding 
article,  either  relate  to  that  MS.,  or  to  his  own  re- 
marks upon  the  article  itself,  which  he  inspected 
whilst  in  the  proof  sheet  ]  H.  H. 

*  The  desert  of  et-7"ik,  which  is  so  thoroughly 
treated  in  this  article,  is  being  traversed  at  the 
present  time  (1870),  under  the  auspices  of  the  Pal- 
estine E.xploration  Fund,  by  Mr.  E.  H.  Palmer, 
wL )  lias  had  large  experience  as  an  eastern  traveller, 
and  is  familiar  with  the  Arabic  laniiuage ;  aided  by 
Mr.  C.  F.  Tyrwhitt  Drake,  of  the  University  of 
Cambridge,  who  is  making  observations  as  a  natu- 
ralist. Two  letters  lia\e  been  published  from  Mr. 
Palmer  (  Quart.  StatevienI  of  I /it  Pnl.  Kxpl.  Funil, 
No.  V.  pp.  254-259),  dated  at  Nutc/il,  the  point  from 
which  his  exploration  of  the  interior  region  of  the 
Ilk  connnences.  His  investigations,  if  completed, 
promise  to  throw  light  on  difficult,  oliscure,  and  un- 
known points,  relating  to  this  deeply  interesting 
tract.    Compare  addition  to  Sinai,  Amer.  ed. 

S.  W. 

*  An  addition  to  the  present  article,  giving  the 
important  results  of  the  exploration  refei-red  to,  has 
been  expected  from  the  Kev.  F.  W.  Holland,  mem- 
ber of  the  Royal  Ceog.  Society.  Should  it  be  re- 
ceived iu  season,  it  will  appear  at  the  end  of  this 
volume.  A. 

*  WILL  is  often  used  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  N. 
T.  in  such  a  way  that  the  force  of  the  original  is 
lost  or  obscured  to  the  connnon  reader,  who  takes 
it  as  merely  the  sign  of  the  future  tense,  though  it 
really  represents  dfXai  or  ^ovXo/xai,  "  to  desire,'" 
"  to  will,"  "to  purpose."  Thus  "  Herod  will  kill 
thee"  (Luke  xiii.  31)  means  "Herod  desiies  (or 
designs)  to  kill  thee"  (deKet  af  avoKrelvai)- 
"  The  lusts  of  your  father  ye  iciU  do  "  (0f'A6Te 
iroletv,  John  viii.  44)  —  better  "  ye  Itwe  to  do  "  (Al- 
ford),  or  "ye  are  ready  to  do"  (Noyes).  "  I  will 
put  you  in  remembrance"  (Jude  5,  ^ov\ofiai,  etc), 
Bhould  be  "  I  iWi'/i  to  remind  you"  (Noyes).  For 
other  examples,  see  Matt.  v.  40,  xi.  14,  27,  xvi.  24, 
25,  XX.  26,  27;  Mark  viii.  34,  35,  x.  4-3,  44;  Luke 
ix.  23,  24,  X.  22;  John  v.  40,  vii.  17,  ix.  27:  Eom. 
xiii.  3;  1  Cor.  xiv.  35;  1  Tim.  v.  11;  2  Tim.  iii 
12;  Kev.  xi.  5.  A. 

WILLOWS  (W'^'IV,   'ardbim,  only  hi  pL: 

Irea'.  (with  7rjJJ  &yvov  K\dSovs  e'/c  x^'l'-°^Ppo^, 
KAwues  oiyvov:  snlices),  undoubtedly  the  correct 
rendering  of  the  above  Hebrew  term,  as  is  proved 
by  the  old  versions  and  the  kindred  Arabic  yharab 

among  the  trees  whose  branches  were  to  be  used  in 
the  construction  of  booths  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles; in  Job  xl.  22,  as  a  tree  which  gave  shade  to 
Behemoth  ("the  hippopotamus");  in  Is.  xliv.  4, 
where  it  is  said  that  Israel's  offspring  should  spring 
up  "as  willows  by  the  water-courses;  "  in  the  jwalm 
(cxxxvii.  2)  which  so  beautifully  represents  Israel's 
sorrow  during  the  time  of  the  Captivity  in  Habylon, 
—  "  we  hanged  our  harps  upon  tiie  willows  in  the 
midst  thereof."  With  respect  to  the  tree  upon 
which  the  captive  Israelites  liung  their  harps,  there 
can  be  no  doulit  that  the  weeping-willow  {Sulix 
Biilti/tdiiicn)  is  intended.  This  tree  tcrows  abun- 
dantly on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  in  other  parts 
of  Asia  as  in  Palestine  (Strand's  Ftont  PiiUett.  Xo. 
556).  and  also  in  North  Africa.  Bochart  has  en- 
ieavored  to  show  {Pli'dt'(/,i.  cap.  viii.)  that  country 


WILLOWS,  BROOK  OF  THE 

is  '~>poken  of,  in  Is.  xv.  7,  as  "  the  ^'alley  of  Wil- 
lows."  This,  however,  is  very  doubtful.  Sprenge] 
(//isl.  Rei  Herb.  i.  18,  270)  seems  to  restrict  the 
'ardb  to  the  S(dix  Biibylonica;  but  there  can 
scarcely  lie  a  doubt  that  the  term  is  generic,  and  in- 
cludes other  species  of  the  large  family  of  Saliei, 
which  is  probably  well  represented  in  Palestine  and 
the  Bible  lands,  such  as  the  Sidix  alba,  S.  liminalii 
(osier),  S.  J^t/yptiuca,  which  latter  plant  Sprengel 

identifies  with  the  safsaf  (>^L-0_(l,o)  of  Abul'- 
fadli,  cited  by  Celsius  {Iliemb.  ii.  108),  which 
word  is    probably  the  same  as    the  Tsiqjhisajihdk 

(n!:''2!?)  of  Ezekiel  (xvii.  5),  a  name  in  Arabij 
for   a    "willow."      Burckhardt    (Syria,    p.    644; 

mentions  a  fountain  called  'Ain  Safsaf  (.  .va^ 

>»3L^flJiA^),  "  the  Willow  Fountain  "  (Catafago, 
Arabic  Dictionary,  p.  1051).  Rauwolf  (quoted  in 
Bibl.  But.  p.  274)  thus  speaks  of  the  safsnf- 
"These  trees  are  of  various  sizes;  the  stems, 
branches,  and  twigs  are  long,  thin,  soft,  and  of  a 
jiale  yellow,  and  have  some  resemljlance  to  those  of 
the  birch  ;  the  leaves  are  like  those  of  the  common 
wiljow;  on  the  botitrhs  grow  here  and  there  shoots 
of  a  span  long,  as  on  the  wild  fig-trees  of  Cyprus, 
and  these  put  forth  in  spring  tender  downy  blos- 
soms like  those  of  the  poplar;  the  blossoms  are 
pale  colored,  and  of  a  delicious  fragrance;  the  na- 
tives pull  them  in  great  quantities,  and  distill  from 
them  a  cordial  which  is  much  esteemed."  Hassel- 
quist  (Trnv.  p.  449),  under  the  name  of  calf,  ap- 
parently speaks  of  the  same  tree:  and  Forskal  {De- 
sci-ipt.  Plant,  p.  Ixxvi.)  identifies  it  with  the  Salix 
jEijyptiaca,  while  he  considers  the  safsaf  to  be  the 
S.  Babykmica.  From  these  discrepancies  it  seems 
that  the  Arabic  words  are  used  indefinitely  for  wil- 
lows of  different  kinds. 

"  The  children  of  Israel,"  says  Lady  Callcott 
(Scrij)ture  Ilerbid,  p.  533),  "still  present  willows 
annually  in  their  synagogues,  boiHid  up  with  palm 
and  myrtle,  and  accompanied  with  a  citron."  In 
this  country,  as  is  well  known,  sprigi  of  willow- 
blossoms,  under  the  name  of  "palms,"  are  often 
carried  in  the  hand,  or  borne  on  some  part  of  the 
dress,  b}-  men  and  boys  on  Palm  Sunday. 

Before  the  Babylonish  Captivity  the  willow  wag 
always  associated  with  feelings  of  joyful  prosperity. 
"It  is  remarkable,"  as  Mr.  Johns  {The  Forest 
Trees'  of  Britain,  ii.  240)  truly  says,  "  for  having 
been  in  different  ages  emblematical  of  two  directly 
o])posite  feelin<;s,  at  one  time  being  associated  with 
the  palm,  at  another  with  the  cypress."  After  the 
Captivity,  however,  this  tree  became  the  emblem  of 
sorrow,  and  is  frequently  thus  alluded  to  in  the 
poetry  of  our  own  country:  and  "  tliere  can  be  no 
doubt,"  as  Mr.  Johns  continues,  "  that  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  tree  to  sorrow  is  to  be  traced  tp  th( 
pathetic  passage  in  the  Psalms." 

Various  uses  were  no  doubt  made  of  willows  by 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  although  there  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  any  definite  allusion  to  them.  The 
Egyptians  used  "  flat  baskets  of  wickerwork,  similar 
to  those  made  in  Cairo  at  the  present  day  "  (Wil- 
kinson, Anc.  K(Hj)t.  i.  43).  Herodotus  (i.  194} 
speaks  of  boats  at  Baliylon  whose  framework  was  of 
willow;  such  coracle-shaped  boats  are  represented 
in  the  Nineveh  scu\pt\n-es  (.see  Bawlinson's  //erod- 
o/ns,  vol.  i.  p.  268]  W.  H. 

WILLOWS,   THE    BROOK   OF   THB 


WILLOWS,  BROOK  OF  THE 

(D^S^l^n  VHD:  ^  pdpay^  'Apa0as--  i<->rn-ns 
Sfilicum).  A  wady  nieiitioneil  by  Isaiah  (xv.  7)  in 
his  dirge  over  JNIoab.  His  laiijiuaye  implies  that 
it  was  one  of  tiie  boundaries  of  the  country  —  prob- 
ably, as  Gesenius  (Jes'iiir,  i.  532)  observes,  the 
Bouthern  one.  It  is  possibly  identical  with  a  wady 
mentioned  by  Amos  (vi.  14)  as  the  tlien  recognized 
BOuthern  limit  of  the  northern  kingdom  "  (Fiirst, 
Ilandwb. ;  Ewald,  Projiheteii).  This  latter  appears 
in    the   A.    V.  as  "  the  river  of  the  wilderness  " 

('^5'7=;'t^  ?•  6  x^'^t^o-Ppos  rccv  Sva/xwu'  iorrcii:! 
clestrii).  Widely  as  they  ditier  in  the  A.  V.,  it 
will  be  observed  that  the  names  are  all  but  identi- 
cal in  the  original,  the  only  difference  being  that  it 
.8  plural  in  Isaiaii  and  singular  in  Amos.  In  the 
latter  it  is  ha-Anibuh,  the  same  name  which  is  else- 
where almost  exclusively  used  for  tiie  Valley  of  the 
Jordan,  the  (Hior  of  modern  Arabs.  If  the  two 
are  regarded  as  identical,  and  the  latter  as  the  ac- 
curate form  of  the  name,  then  it  is  probable  that 
the  Wady  el-Ahsy  is  intended,  which  breaks  down 
through  the  southern  part  of  the  mountains  of 
Moab  into  the  so-called  Glior  es-SiiJidi^  at  the 
lower  end  of  the  lake,  and  appears  (though  our  in- 
formation as  to  tiiat  locality  is  very  scanty)  to  form 
a  natural  barrier  between  the  districts  of  Keruk 
and  J  thill  (Burckhardt,  Syria,  Aug.  7).  This  is 
not  improbably  also  the  brook  Zeked  {nachal- 
Ztrtd)  of  the  earlier  history. 

Should,  however,  the  Nuchal  ha-Arnbhii  be  ren- 
dered "the  WiUow-torrent,"  —  which  has  the  sup- 
port of  Gesenius  (Jtsaia)  and  Pusey  {Cumin,  on 
Amos,  vi.  14),  —  then  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
the  name  Wady  SuJ'saJ',  "  Willow  Wady,"  is  still 
attached  to  a  part  of  the  main  branch  of  tiie  ravine 
which  descends  from  Ktrik  to  the  north  end  of  the 
peninsula  of  the  Dead  Sea  (Irl)y,  May  9).  Either 
of  these  positions  would  agree  with  the  require- 
ments of  either  passai^e. 

The  Targum  Pseudojonathan  translates  the  name 
Zered  by  "osiers,"  or  ••  iiaskets." 

The  Rev.  Mv.  ^\'iltun,  in  his  work  on  The 
Neijeb,  or  South  Country  of  Scripture,  endeavors 
to  identify  the  Nach  il  hn-Arabah  of  Amos  with 
the  Wady  el-Jeib,  wliich  forms  the  main  drain  by 
which  the  waters  of  tiie  present  Wady  Arabah  (the 
gi'eat  tract  between  debil  Sl/erah  and  the  moun- 
tains of  et-Tth)  are  discharged  into  the  (Jhor  <-«- 
Sa/ith  at  the  soutiiern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  (This 
important  wady  was  first  described  by  Dr.  Robin- 
Bon,  and  an  account  of  it  will  be  found  in  this  work 
under  the  head  of  Akauah,  vol.  i.  p.  13.t  b.)  This 
is  certainly  ingenious,  Ijut  cannot  l)e  accepted  as 
more  than  a  mere  conjecture,  without  a  sinnle  con- 
sideration in  its  favor  beyond  the  magnitude  of  tlie 
Wady  el-Ji'ib,  and  the  consequent  probability  that 
it  would  be  mentioned  by  the  I'rophet.* 


WINDOW 


8539 


«  Amos  is  speaking  of  the  northern  kingdom  only, 
not  of  the  wliole  nation,  which  e.\cludes  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  LXX.,  I.  e.,  probably-  tlie  Wmly  el-Arisli, 
and  also  (if  it  were  not  precluded  by  other  reasons) 
that  of  Gesenius,  the  Kidron. 

b  It  is  surely  iiieautipus  (to  say  tlie  least)  to  speak 
»f  a  mere  conjecture,  such  as  this,  iu  terms  as  positive 
ind  unliesitjiting  as  if  it  were  a  certain  and  iudispu- 
vahle  identifictttion  —  "  Amos  is  the  only  sacred  writer 
who  mentions  the  Wady  rl-Jtib  ;  which  he  dftiiies  ,is 
the  southern  limit  of  Palestine  ....  The  minute  ac- 
suracy  of  the  Prophet  iu  speaking  of  it  as  the  '  nachal 
Df  tlie  .\rabah  •  "  \Negr.b,  etc.,  pp.  34  351.     It  has  not 


Over  this  name  .leronie  takes  a  snigular  nigli( 
in  his  Commentary  on  Is.  xv.  7,  connecting  it  with 
tiie  Orehim  (A.  V.  "ravens  ")  who  fed  Elijah  dur- 
ing his  seclusion :  "  Pro  salicibus  in  Hebr.eo  leg- 
inius  Arabiin  quod  potest  et  Arabes  intelligi  et  legi 
Orbini ;  id  est  villa  in  finibus  eorum  sita  cujiis  a 
plerisque  accolse  in  Monte  Oreb  Eli*  pra;buisse  ali- 

nienta  dicuntur "     The  whole  passage  is  a 

curious   mixture   of  topographical    confusion    and 
what  would  now  be  denounced  as  rationalism. 

G. 

WILLS.  The  suliject  of  testamentary  disposi- 
tion is  of  course  intimately  connected  with  that  of 
inheritance,  and  little  need  he  added  here  lo  what 
will  be  found  above.  [Heir,  vol.  ii.  p.  1034  f.] 
Under  a  system  of  close  inheritance  hke  tliat  of  the 
Jews,  the  scope  for  bequest  in  respect  of  land  was 
limited  by  the  right  of  redemption  and  general  re- 
entry in  the  Jubilee  year.  [Juuilee;  Vows.] 
But  the  Law  does  not  forbid  bequests  by  will  of 
such  limited  interest  in  land  as  was  consistent  with 
those  rights.  The  case  of  houses  in  walled  towns 
was  different,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  tliat  they 
must,  in  fact,  have  frequently  been  bequeatlied  liy 
will  (Lev.  XXV.  30).  Two  instances  are  recorded  in 
the  O.  T.  under  the  Law,  of  testamentary  disposi- 
tion :  (I)  effected  in  the  case  of  Ahithophel  (2  Sam. 
xvii.  23);  (2)  recommended  in  the  case  of  Hezekiah 
(2  K.  XX.  I;  Is.  xxxviii.  1);  and  it  may  be  remarked 
in  both,  that  the  word  "  set  ^  in  order,"  niarg. 
"  give  charge  concerning,"  agrees  with  the  Arabic 
word  "command,"  wliich  also  means  "make  a 
will  "  (Michaelis,  Law  of  Moses,  art.  80,  vol.  i.  p. 
430,  ed.  Smith).  Various  directions  concerning 
wills  will  be  found  in  the  Mishna,  which  imply  dis- 
position of  land  {Babn  BiUlir.  viii.  6,  7). 

H.  W.  P. 

WIMPLE  (nnSTpn).  An  old  Enghsh  word 
for  hood  or  veil,  representing  the  Hebrew  viilpor- 
chath  in  Is.  iii.  22.  The  same  Hebrev?  word  is 
tran.slated  "veil"  in  Rutli  iii.  15,  but  it  signifies 
ratliei'  a  kind  of  shawl  or  mantle  (Schroeder,  De 
Vestitii  Mulier.  Hebr.  c.  16).     [Dkess,  i.  G22  a.] 

W.  L.  V,. 

WINDOW  O'lVri;  Chal.  13:  dvpls)-  The 
window  of  an  oriental  house  consists  generally  of 
an  aperture  (as  the  word  chalUjn  implies)  closed  in 
with  lattice-work,  named  in  Hebrew  by  the  terms 
«;7/6/ya/( ''  (Eccl.  xii.  3,  A.  V.  "window;"  His. 
xiii.  3,  A.  V.  "chimney"),  chdrakkim"  (Cant,  ii 
9),  and  es/mdi  /  (Judg.  v.  28;  Prov.  vii.  6,  A.  V. 
"casement"),  the  two  former  signifying  the  inter- 
laced work  of  the  lattice,  and  the  third  the  cojlnesi 
produced  by  the  free  current  of  air  through  it. 
Glass  has  lieen  introduced  into  Egypt  in  modem 
times  as  a  protection  against  the  cold  of  winter, 
but  lattice- work   is  still  the    usual,  and  with  thj* 


even  the  support  that  it  was  in  the  Prophet's  native 
district.  Amos  was  no  "  prophet  of  the  Negeb."  He 
belonged  to  the  pasture-grounds  of  Tekoa,  not  ten 
miles  from  Jerusalem,  and  all  his  work  seems  to  hava 
lain  in  BetLjl  ard  the  northern  kingdom  There  is 
not  one  tittle  of  evidence  that  he  ever  set  foot  in  the 
Negeb.  or  knew  anything  of  it.  Such  statement-s  as 
the.se  are  calculated  only  to  damage  and  retard  the 
too-faltering  progress  of  Scripture  topography. 

<^  n-1— :    ivTeWoncu:   dispono.  nS-ITJ  mHabb..  » 
will  (Oes.  p.  1155). 


3540  WINDS 

poor  the  only  contrivance  for  closing  the  window 
(Lane's  Mod.  Kg.  i.  29).  When  the  lattice-work 
was  open,  tiiere  appears  to  have  been  nothing  in 
early  times  to  prevent  a  person  from  falling  through 
the  aperture  (Acts  xx,  9).  The  windows  generally 
look  into  the  inner  court  of  the  house,  but  in  every 
house  one  or  more  look  into  the  street,  and  hence 
it  is  possible  for  a  person  to  observe  the  approach 
of  another  without  being  himself  observed  (Judg. 
v.  28;  2  Sam.  vi.  16;  Prov.  vii.  G;  Cant.  ii.  9).  In 
Egypt  these  outer  windows  uenerally  project  over 
the  doorway  (Lane,  i.  27;  Carne's  Ltifers,  i.  94). 
When  houses  aliut  on  the  town  wall  it  is  not  un- 
usual for  them  to  have  projecting  windows  sur- 
mounting the  wall  and  looking  into  the  country  as 
represented  in  Conybeare  and  Howson's  !St.  Paul, 
i.  124.  Through  such  a  window  the  spies  escaped 
from  Jerieho  (Josh.  ii.  15)  and  St  Paul  from 
Damascus  «  (2  Cor.  xi.  33 ).  W.  L.  B. 

WINDS  {Vyn).  That  the  Hebrews  recognized 
the  existence  of  four  prevailing  winds  as  issuing, 
broadly  speaking,  from  the  four  cardinal  points, 
north,  south,  east,  and  west,  may  be  inferred  from 
their  custom  of  using  the  expression  "four  winds  " 
as  equivalent  to  the  "  four  quarters  "  of  the  hemi- 
sphere (Ez.  xxxvii.  9;  Dan.  viii.  8;  Zecli.  ii.  6; 
Matt.  xxiv.  31).  The  correspondence  of  tlie  two 
ideas  is  expressly  stated  in  Jer.  xlix.  30.  The 
north  wind,  or,  as  it  was  usually  called  •'  the 
north,"  *  was  naturally  the  coldest  of  the  four 
(Ecclus.  xliii.  20),  and  its  presence  is  hence  invoked 
as  favorable  to  vegetation  in  Cant.  iv.  16.  It  is 
further  described  in  Prov.  xxv.  23,  as  bringing  {X. 
V.  "driveth  away  "  in  text;  "  bringeth  forth  '"  in 
marg.)  rain;  in  tliis  case  we  must  understand  the 
northwest  wind,  which  may  bring  rain,  but  was 
certainly  not  regarded  as  decidedly  rainy.  The 
difficulty  connected  with  this  passage  has  led  to  the 
proposal  of  a  wholly  differerlt  sense  for  the  term 
izd/jlion,  namely  Idddtn  idiicc  The  northwest 
wind  prevails  from  the  autunmal  equinox  to  the 
beginning  of  November,  and  the  north  wind  from 
June  to  the  equinox  (vide  Kaumer's  Pa/dsl.  p.  79). 
The  east  wind  '^  crosses  the  sandy  wastes  of  Arabia 
Deserta  before  reaching  Palestine,  and  w'as  hence 
termed  "the  wind  of  the  wilderness"'  (.lob  i.  19; 
Jer.  xiii.  24).  It  is  remarkably  dry  and  penetrat- 
ing, and  has  all  the  eflects  of  the  sirocco  on  vegeta- 
tion (Ez.  xvii.  10,  xix.  12;  Hos.  xiii.  15;  .Jon.  iv. 
8).  It  also  blows  with  violence,  and  is  hence  sup- 
posed to  be  used  generally  for  any  violent  wind  (Job 
xxvii.  21,  xxxviii.  24;  Ps.  xlviii.  7;  Is.  xxvii.  8; 
Ez.  xxvii.  26).  It  is  probably  in  tliis  sense  that  it 
is  used  in  Ex.  xiv.  21,  though  the  east,  or  at  all 
events  the  northeast  wind  would  be  the  one  adapted 
to  effect  the  phenomenon  described,  namely,  the 
•partition  of  the  waters  towards  the  north  and  south, 
BO  that  they  stood  as  a  wall  on  the  right  hand  and 
on  the  left  i,  lloliinson,  /iitjl.  lies.  i.  57).  In  this  as  in 
many  other  passages,  the  LXX.  gives  the  "  south" 
wind    (i/Sror'',   as   the   equivalent   for   the  Greek 


a  *  A  few  steps  to  the  left  of  Bab-es-S/iurlceh,  one  of 
the  eastern  gates  of  Damascus,  are  two  or  thn.-e  win- 
dows in  the  external  face  of  the  wall,  said  to  open  into 
houses  on  the  iusMe  of  the  city.  If  Saul  was  let  down 
through  such  a  window  (which  belongs  equally  to  the 
house  and  the  wall)  the  interchange  of  the  two  ex- 
pressions becomes  still  more  natural.  The  Apostle 
tsoaped  "  through  the  wall "  (as  stjited  in  Acts),  and 
tw  stjiS^ed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  CoriuthiausJ  he  wf^aped 


WINDS 

kadim.  Nor  is  this  wholly  incorrect,  for  in  Egypt, 
where  the  LXX.  was  composed,  the  south  wind  has 
the  same  characteristics  that  the  east  has  in  Pales- 
tine. The  Greek  translators  appear  to  have  felt  the 
difficulty  of  rendering  kddlm  in  Gen.  xli.  6,  23,  27, 
because  the  pnrching  effects  of  the  east  wind,  with 
which  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine  ire  familiar,  are 
not  attributable  to  that  wind  in  Egypt,  but  either 
to  the  south  wind,  called  in  that  country  the  khct- 
mdseen,  or  to  that  known  as  the  samoom,  which 
comes  from  the  southeast  or  south-southeast 
(Lane's  Mud.  AV/.  i.  22,  23).  It  is  certainly  pos- 
sible that  in  Lower  Egypt  the  east  wind  may  be 
more  parching  than  elsewhere  in  that  country,  but 
there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  assij^ning  to  the  term 
kddiiii  the  secondary  sense  of  pitrching,  in  this  pas- 
sage, than  that  of  rloltiil  in  the  others  before  quoted. 
As  such  at  all  events  the  LXX.  treated  tlie  term 
both  here  and  in  several  other  passages,  where  it  is 
rendered  biusdit  (Kavawu.  lit.  the  burner).  In 
James  i.  11,  the  X-  V.  erroneously  understands  this 
expression  of  the  burning  heat  of  the  sun.  In  Pal- 
estine the  east  wind  prevails  from  lebruary  to 
June  {vide  liauuier,  p.  79).  The  south  wind,''  which 
traverses  the  Araliian  peninsula  before  reaching 
Palestine,  must  necessarily  be  extremely  hot  (Job 
xxxvii.  17;  Luke  xii.  55);  but  the  rarity  of  the 
notices  leads  to  the  inference  that  it  seldom  blew 
from  that  quarter  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  26;  Cant.  iv.  16; 
E.cclus.  xltii.  10):  and  even  when  it  does  blow,  it 
does  not  carry  the  .tainooiii  into  Palestine  itself,' 
although  Kobiiison  experienced  the  effects  of  this 
scoiu-ge  not  far  south  of  Beer-sheba  {Ets.  i.  196). 
In  Egypt  the  south  wind  {khuntdseen)  prevails  in 
the  spring,  a  portion  of  which  in  the  months  of 
.\pril  and  JMay  is  termed  el-khamdseen  from  that 
circumstance  (Lane,  i.  22).  The  west  and  south- 
west winds  reach  Palestine  loaded  with  moisture 
gathered  from  the  Mediterranean  (Robinson,  i.  4211), 
"  and  are  hence  expressively  termed  by  the  Arabs 
fathers  of  the  rain  "  {vide  Raumer,  p.  79).  The 
little  cloud  "like  a  man's  hand"  that  rose  out  of 
the  west,  was  recognized  by  Elijah  as  a  presage  of 
the  coming  downfall  (1  K.  xviii.  44),  and  the 
same  token  is  adduced  by  our  Lord  as  one  of  tho 
ordinary  signs  of  the  weather  (Luke  xii.  54). 
Westerly  winds  prevail  in  Palestine  from  November 
to  February. 

In  addition  to  the  four  regular  winds,  we  have 
notice  in  the  Bible  of  the  local  squalls  (Aa?Aaij/; 
Mark  iv-.  37;  Luke  viii.  23)  to  which  the  Sea  of 
Gennesareth  was  liable  in  consequence  of  its  prox- 
imity to  high  ground,  and  which  were  sufficiently 
violent  to  endanger  boats  (Matt.  viii.  24;  John  vi. 
18).  The  gales  which  occasionally  visit  Palestine 
are  noticed  mider  the  head  of  Whirlwind.  In 
the  narrative  of  St.  I'aul's  voyage  we  meet  with  the 
Greek  term  lips  (Ai;|/)  to  describe  the  southwest 
wind;  the  Latin  Cortis  or  Cnurus  (;(ipos),  the 
northwest  wind  (Acts  xxvii.  12);  and  eiipoKAySouf 
(a  term  of  uncertain  origin,  perhaps  a  corrup- 
tion of  ivpaKvKaiv,  which  appears  in  some  JISS. 

at  the  same  time  "  through  a  window  through  the 
wall."  H. 

e  The  term  zUaphak  (nD27^T)  in  Ps.  xi.  6  (A  V 
"  horrible  ")  has  been  occasionally  understood  as  refer 
ring  to  the  xamooin  (Olshausen,  in  toe.  ;  Gesen.  Tkes 
p.  418)  ;  but  it  may  equally  well  be  rendered  •'  'Vratli 
ful  "  or  "  avenging  ''  (Hengstenberg,  in  loci. 


WINE 

[namely,  Vat.  Sin.  and  Alex.]),  a  wind  of  a  very  vio- 
lent character  (Tv<pu>ptK6i)  coming  from  E.  N.  E. 
(Acts  xxvii.  14;  Coiiyb.  and  Hows.  St.  Paul,  ii. 

402).       [i'>UHOCLYl)ON.] 

The  ii]etaphori>;al  ^illusions  to  tlie  winds  are  very 
numerous;  the  east  wind,  in  particular,  was  re- 
garded as  the  symbol  of  nutliinifness  (Job  xv.  2; 
Hos.  xii.  1),  and  of  the  wasting  destruction  of  war 
(Jer.  xviii.  17),  and,  still  more,  of  tlie  effects  of 
Divine  vengeance  (Is.  xxvii.  8),  in  which  sen.se, 
however,  general  references  to  violent  wind  are  also 
employed  (Ps.  ciii.  16;  Is.  Ixiv.  6;  .ler.  iv.  11). 
Wind  is  further  used  as  an  image  of  speed  (I's.  civ. 
4,  '-He  niaketh  his  angels  winds;"  Heb.  i.  7), 
and  of  transitoriness  (lob  vii.  7;  I's.  Ixxviii.  3L(). 
Lastly,  the  wind  is  frequently  adduced  as  a  witness 
of  the  Creator's  power  (.lub  xxviii.  2-5;  Ps.  cxxxv. 
7;  Eccl.  xi.  5;  Jer.  x.  13;  Prov.  xxx.  4;  Am.  iv. 
13),  and  as  representing  the  operations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (John  iii.  8;  Acts  ii.  2),  wliose  name 
(TTj/eCyUo)  represents  a  gentle  wind.        W.  L.  B. 

WINE.  The  manufacture  of  wine  is  carried 
back  in  the  Bible  to  the  age  of  Noah  (Gen.  ix.  20, 
21),  to  whom  the  discovery  of  the  process  is  appar- 
ently, though  not  explicitly,  attributed.  The 
natural  history  and  culture  of  the  vine  is  described 
under  a  separate  head.  [Vim:.]  The  only  other 
[)lant  whose  fruit  is  noticed  as  liaving  lieen  eon- 
verted  into  wine  was  the  pomegranate  (Cant.  viii. 
2).  In  Palestine  the  vintage  takes  place  in  Sep- 
tember, and  is  celebrated  with  great  rejoicings  (Rob- 
inson. Bibl.  lies.  i.  431,  ii.  81 ).  Tiie  ripe  fruit  was 
gathered  in  baskets  (.ler.  vi.  !J),  as  represented  in 
Egyptian  paintings  (Wilkinson,!.  41-45),  and  was 
carried  to  the  wine-press.  It  was  then  placed  in 
the  upper  one  of  the  two  vats  or  receptacles  of 
which  the  wine-press  was  formed  [Wink-phess], 
and  was  subjected  to  the  process  of  "  treading,"' 
which  lias  prevailed  in  ail  ages  in  Oriental  and 
South-European  countries  (Neh.  xiii  15;  Job  xxiv. 
11;  Is.  xvi.  10;  Jer.  xxv.  30,  xlviii.  33;  Am.  ix. 
13;  Kev.  six.  15).  A  certain  amount  of  juice 
exuded  from  the  ripe  fruit  from  its  own  ])ressure 
before  the  treading  conniienc'ed.  This  ajjpears  to 
have  been  kept  separate  from  the  rest  of  tlie  juice, 
and  to  have  formed  tlie  ykitkus  or  '•  sweet  wine  " 
noticed  in  Acts  ii.  13.  The  first  drops  of  juice 
that  reached  the  lower  vat  were  termed  the  dtma, 
or  '-tear,"  and  formed  the  first-lruits  of  the  vintage 
{aizapxa-^  \rtvov,  LXX.)  which  were  to  Ije  pre- 
sented to  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxii  2!)).  The  "  treading  " 
was  effected  by  one  or  more  men,  according  to  the 
size  of  the  vat,  and,  if  the  Jews  adopted  the  same 
arrangements  as  the  Egyptians,  the  treaders  were 
assisted  in  the  operation  by  ropes  fixed  to  the  roof 
of  the  wine-press,  as  re|)resented  in  Wilkinson's 
Anc.  I'd.  i.  46.  Ihey  encouraged  one  another  by 
shouts  and  cries  (Is.  xvi.  t),  10;  Jer.  xxv  30,  xlviii. 
33).  Their  legs  and  garments  were  dyed  red  with 
the  juice  (Gen.  xlix.  11;  Is.  Ixiii.  2,  3).  The  ex- 
pressed juice  escaped  by  an  aperture  into  the  lower 
vat,  or  was  at  once  collecteil  in  ve.sselg.  A  hand- 
press  was  ocLasionally  u.sed  in  Egypt  (Wilkinson,  i. 
45),  liut  we  have  no  notice  of  such  an  instrument 
in  the  Bible.  As  to  the  subsequent  treatment  of 
the  wine,  we  have  but  little  information.  Some- 
times it  was  preserved  in  its  unfermented  state,  and 


WINE 


8541 


drunk  as  must,  but  more  generally  it  was  bottled 
off  after  fermentation,  and,  if  it  were  desiuned  to  le 
kept  for  some  time,  a  certain  amount  of  lees  was 
added  to  give  it  liody  (Is.  xxv.  6).  The  wine  con- 
sequently required  to  be  "refined  "  or  strained  pre- 
viously to  being  brought  to  table  (Is.  xxv.  6). 


,\V.\\ 


^w.  If /-///////////// /.////,' V 


Egyptian  Wine-press,  frora  Wilkinson. 

I      The  produce  of  the  wine-press  was  described  in 
the  Helirew  language  by  a  variety  of  terms,  indi.;- 
I  ative  either  of   the  quality  or  of   the  use  of   the 
!  liquid.     These  terms  have  of  late  years  been  sub- 
j  jected  to  a  rigorous  examination  with    a  view  to 
show  that  Scri|)ture  disapproves,  or,  at  all  events, 
I  does  not  speak  with  approval,  of  the  use  of  fer 
I  mented   liquor.     In  order  to  estabhsh  this  position 
I  it  has  been  found  necessary,  in  all  cases  where  the 
I  substance  is  coupled  with  terms  of  commendation, 
I  to  explain  them    as    meaning   either  unfermented 
I  wine  or  fruit,  and  to  restrict  the   notices    of  fer- 
mented wine  to  i)assages  of  a  condemnatory  char- 
acter.    We  question  whether  the  critics  who  have 
adopted  these  views  have  not   driven  their   argu- 
ments beyond  their  fair  conclusions.     It  may   at 
once  be  conceded  tliat  the  Hebrew  terms  translated 
"  wine "    refer    occasionally    to    an    unfermented 
liquor;  but  inasmuch    as  there  ai'e  frequent  allu- 
sions to  intoxication  in  the  Bible,  it  is  clear  that 
fermented  liquors  were  also    in  common  use.      It 
may  also  be  conceded  that  the  BilJe  occasionally 
speaks    in  terms    of  strong  condemnation  of   the 
effects  of  wine;  Ijut  it  is  an  open  question  wliether 
ill  tbe.se  cases  the  condemnation  is  not  rather  di- 
rected against  intoxication  and  excess,  th.an  against 
the  sulistance  which  is  the  occasion  of  the  excess. 
The  term   of  chief  importance  in  connection  with 
this  suliject  is  linnih,  which  is  undouljtedly  spoken 
of  with    ajiproval,  inasmuch    as    it    is    frequently 
classed    witli   (ld(jaii  and   sliemoi,   in    the   triplet 
"  corn,  wine,  and  oil,"  as  the  special  gifts  of  Prov- 
idence <■     This   has  been   made   the   sul)ject  of  a 
sjieoial  discussion  in  a  pamphlet  entitled   J'irosh  Ic 
Yinjin  by  l)r    Lees,  the  object  being  to  prove  that 
it  means  not  wine   but  fruit.      An  examination  of 
the  Hebrew  terms  is  therefore  unavoidable,  but  we 
desire  to  carry  it  out  simply  as  a  matter  of  BililieaJ 
criticism,  anil  without  reference  to  the  topic  which 
hiis  called  forth  the  discussion. 


a  *  The  word  tran-'lated  "  oil  "  when  "  wine  and 
>U  "  or  "corn,  wine,  and  oil''  are  spoken  of  in  con- 
junction is  not  skemeii  (^^tt?),  but  vt'-'Aar  ("IH^J^), 


which,  according  to  Gesenins,  "  seems  to  differ  from 
sliemen  as  ttrCisli  from  ynyin.''^  Sheinen  i»  never  a.s80 
ciated  with  I'lrisk.  A 


B642 


WINE 


The  most  general  term  for  wine  is  ynyin,"  wliich 
is  undoubtedly  connected  with  the  Greek  olvos^  the 
Latin  vlnuni,  and  our  "  wine."  It  has  liitherto 
oeen  the  current  ophiion  that  the  Indo-European 
iaiiguatfes  borrowed  the  term  from  the  Hebrews. 
The  reverse,  however,  appears  to  be  the  case  (Ke- 
nan. Lau'j.  Sem.  i.  207):  the  word  belongs  to  the 
Indo-Kuropean  languages,  and  may  be  reterred 
either  to  the  root  we,  "to  weave,"  whence  conje 
viere,  viinen,  viiis,  vitta  (Pott,  Etym.  Forsch.  i. 
120,  230),  or  to  the  root  wan,  "to  love"  (Kuhn, 
i^tilschr.  f.  vergl.  Spvachf.  i.  191,  192).  'I'he 
word  being  a  borrowed  one,  no  conclusion  can  be 
drawn  from  etymological  considerations  as  to  its 
use  in  the  Hebrew  language.  Tirdsh  ^  is  referred 
to  the  root  ynims/i,  •'  to  get  possession  of,"  and  is 
applied,  according  to  Gesenius  (T/ies.  p.  633),  to 
wine  on  account  of  its  inebriating  qualities,  wherely 
u  gets  possession  of  the  brain ;  but,  according  to 
Bythner,  as  quoted  by  Lees  {Tirosh,  p.  52),  to  the 
vine  as  being  a  possession  (kut^  f^oxv'^)  •"  the 
eyes  of  the  Hebrews.  Neither  of  these  explana- 
tions is  wholly  satisftictory,  but  the  second  is  less 
so  than  the  first,  inasmuch  as  it  would  be  difficult 
to  prove  that  the  Hebrews  attached  such  pre- 
eminent value  to  the  vine  as  to  pluce  it  on  a  ]).u- 
with  landed  property,  which  is  designated  by  the 
cognate  terms  yerushshdh  and  moi  ashdii.  Nor  do 
we  see  that  any  valuable  conclusion  could  be  drawn 
from  this  latter  derivation;  for,  assuming  its  cor- 
rectness, the  question  would  still  arise  whether  it 
was  on  account  of  the  natural  or  the  manufactured 
product  that  such  store  was  set  on  the  vine. 
Msisc  is  derived  from  a  word  signifying  "to 
tread,"  and  therefore  refers  to  the  method  by 
wliich  the  juice  was  expressed  from  the  fruit.  It 
would  very  properly  refer  to  neiv  wine  as  being 
recently  trodden  out,  but  not  necessarily  to  un  fer- 
mented wine.  It  occurs  but  five  times  in  the 
Bible  (Cant.  viii.  2;  Is.  xlix.  215;  Joel  i.  5,  iii.  18; 
Am.  ix.  13).  Sc'i/je''  is  derived  from  a  root  signi- 
fying to  "  soak  "  or  "  drink  to  excess."  The  cog- 
nate verb  and  participle  are  constantly  used  in  the 
latter  sense  (l.>eut.  xxi.  20;  Prov.  xxiii.  20,  21: 
Is.  Ivi.  12;  Nah.  i.  10).  The  connection  between 
sobe  and  the  Latin  S'ip<(,  applied  to  a  decoction  of 
must  (Kitto's  Cyrl.  a  v.  Wine),  appears  doubtful: 
the  latter  was  regarded  as  a  true  Latin  word  by 
Pliny  (xiv.  11).  Sohe  occurs  but  thrice  (Is.  i  22: 
Hos.  iv.  18;  Nah.  i.  10).  Chemer  «  (Deut.  xxxii. 
14),  in  the  Chaldee  chnmar  (Ezr.  vi.  9,  vii.  22) 
and  chomta  (DaTi.  v.  1  IF.),  conveys  the  notion  of 
foaming  or  ebull/lioi),  and  may  equally  well  apply 
to  the  process  of  fermentation  or  to  the  frothing 
of  liquid  freshly  [wured  out,  in  which  latter  case  it 
might  1)6  used  of  an  unfermented  liquid.  Aft-sec f 
(Ps.  Ixxv.  8\  mezeg  B  (Cant.  vii.  2),  and  miiiisdc>' 
(Prov.  xxiii.  30;  Is.  Ixv.  11),  are  connected  ety- 
mologically  with  misceo  and  "  mix,"  and  imply  a 
mixture  of  wine  with  some  other  substance:  no 
conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  word  itself  as  to 
the  quality  of  the  wine,  whether  fermented  or 
unfermented,  or  as  to  the  nature  of  the  substance 
introduced,  whether  spices  or  water. '  We  may 
further  notice  sliecdr,'  a  generic  term  applied  to  all 
fermented  liquors  except  wine  [Dkink,  Studnc;]  ; 


d  s:nb. 


•    T 


WINE 

chometzk  a  weak  sour  wine,  ord.iiarily  tennsa 
vinegar  [Vinkgak]  ;  dshishdh,l  rendered  '•  flagon 
of  wine  "  in  the  A.  V.  (2  Sam.  xvi.  1;  1  Chr.  xvi. 
3;  Cant.  ii.  5;  Hos.  iii.  1),  but  really  meaning 
a  cake  of  pressed  raisins;  and  shemdrim,^"  prop- 
erly meaning  tlie  "  lees  "  or  dregs  of  wine,  but  in 
Is.  XXV.  6  transferred  to  wine  that  had  been  kept 
on  the  lees  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  its  body. 
In  the  New  Testament  we  meet  with  the  following 
terms:  oinos,"  answering  to  yayin  as  the  general 
desiirnation  of  wine;  gleukos,"  properly  stueet  mne 
(.A.cts  ii.  13);  sikera,P  a  Grecized  form  of  the 
Hebrew  sli(/cdr  ;  and  oxos,i  vinegar.  In  Rev.  xiv. 
10  we  meet  with  a  singular  expression,'"  literally 
meaning  mixed  unmixed,  evidently  referring  to  the 
custom  of  mingling  wine:  the  two  terms  cannot 
be  used  together  in  their  literal  sense,  and  hence 
the  former  has  lieen  explained  as  meaning  "  poured 
out"  (De  Wette  in  I.  c). 

From  the  terms  themselves  we  pass  on  to  an 
examination  of  such  passages  as  seem  to  elucidate 
their  meaning.  Both  yayin  and  tirdsh  are  occa- 
sionally connected  with  expressions  that  would 
apply  properly  to  a  fruit;  the  former,  for  instance, 
with  verbs  significant  of  gathering  (,Ier.  xl.  10,  12), 
and  growing  (Ps  civ.  14,  1.5);  the  latter  with  gath- 
ering .(Is.  Ixii.  !J,  .A.  Y.  "  brought  it  together"), 
treading  (Mic.  vi.  1.5),  and  withering  (Is.  xxiv.  7; 
Joel  i  10).  So  again  tlie  former  is  used  in  Num. 
vi.  4  to  define  the  particular  kind  of  tree  whose 
products' were  forliidden  to  the  Nazarite,  namely, 
the  "  pendulous  shoot  of  the  vine;  "  and  the  latter 
in  Judi;.  ix.  13,  to  denote  tlie  product  of  the  vine. 
It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  in  most,  if  not 
all,  the  passages  where  these  and  similar  expressions 
occur,  there  is  something  to  denote  that  the  fruit  is 
regarded  not  simply  as  fruit,  but  as  the  raw  mate- 
rial out  of  which  wine  is  manufactured.  Thus, 
for  instance,  in  Ps.  civ.  15  and  Judg.  ix.  13  the 
cheering  eflects  of  the  product  are  noticed,  and  that 
these  are  more  suitable  to  the  idea  of  wine  than  of 
fruit  seems  self-evident:  in  one  passage  indeed  the 
A.  V.  connects  the  expression  "  make  cheerful  " 
with  bread  (Zech.  ix.  17),  but  this  is  a  mere  mis- 
translation, the  true  sense  of  the  expression  there 
used  being  to  nourish  or  inake  to  grow.  So,  again, 
the  treading  of  the  grape  in  Mic.  vi.  15  is  in  itself 
conclusive  .as  to  the  pregnant  sense  in  which  the' 
term  tirijsh  is  used,  even  if  it  were  not  sul)sequent!y 
implied  that  the  eftect  of  the  treading  was  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  things  to  produce  the  yayin 
which  was  to  be  drunk.  In  Is.  Ixii.  9  the  object 
of  the  gathering  is  clearly  conveyed  by  the  notice 
of  drinkmig.  In  Is.  xxiv.  7  the  tirdsh,  which 
withers,  is  paralleled  with  yayin  in  the  two  follow- 
ing verses.  And  lastly,  in  Is.  Ixv.  8  the  nature  of 
the  tirdsh,  which  is  said  to  be  found  in  the  cluster 
of  the  grapes,  is  not  obscurely  indicated  by  the  sub- 
sequent euloginm,  "  a  blessing  is  in  it."  That  the 
terms  "vine"  and  "wine"  should  be  thus  inter- 
changed in  poetical  language  calls  for  no  explana- 
tion. We  can  no  more  infer  from  such  instances 
tliat  the  Hebrew  terms  mean  grapes  as  frtdt, 
than  we  could  infer  the  same  of  the  Latin  viintm 
because  in  some  two  or  three  passages  (Plant.  Trin. 
ii.  4,  125;   VaiT.  de   L.   L.   iv.   17;  Cato,  R.  R. 


'  nr»"^t:'S. 


C^~i^lZ7, 


n    OTi'o?. 
<i   "Ojo?. 


o    TAeCico?.  P  ICxepa. 

}'  Ke*f€pa<r«€Vo?  aKparof. 


WIXE 

B.  147)  the  term  ii  transferred  to  the  grape  out  of 
nhich  wine  Is  made. 

The  qiiestidn  whether  either  of  the  ahove  terms 
ordinarily  sijrnified  a  solid  substance  would  be  at 
once  settled  by  a  reference  to  the  m inner  in  which 
they  were  consumed.  With  regard  to  yyin  we 
are  not  aware  of  a  sini;le  passage  which  couples  it 
with  the  act  of  tntiiKjfl  With  regard  to  lir'ish 
the  case  is  somewhat  different,  inasmuch  as  tliat 
term  generally  follows  "  corn,"  in  the  triplet  '•  corn, 
wine,  and  oil,"  and  hence  the  term  applied  to  the 
consumption  of  corn  is  carried  on,  in  accordance 
with  the  granuiKitical  figure  zeiujiii'i,  to  tiie  otiier 
members  of  the  clause,  as  in  Dent.  xii.  17.  In  the 
only  passage  where  tiie  act  of  consuming  /iros/i 
alone  is  noticed  (Is.  Ixii  8,  9),  the  verb  is  shdthd/i,'' 
which  constantly  indicates  the  act  of  drinkinr/  (c.  r/. 
Gen.  ix.  21,  xxiv.  22;  Ex.  vii.  21:  Rutli  ii.  "J),  and 
is  the  general  term  combined  with  datl  in  the  joint 
act  of  "eating  and  drinlving  "  (e.  (/.  1  Sam  xxx. 
IG;  Job  i.  -i;  Iiiccl.  ii.  21).  We  can  find  no  con- 
firmation for  the  sense  of  sucking  assigned  to  the 
terra  by  Dr.  Lees  (Tirosh,  p.  01):  the  passage 
quoted  in  support  of  that  sense  (I's.  Ixxv.  8)  imples 
at  all  events  a  kind  of  sucking  allied  to  drinking 
rather  thaii  to  eating,  if  indeed  the  sense  of  drink- 
ing be  not  the  more  coi-rect  rendering  of  the  term. 
An  argument  has  been  drawn  against  the  usual 
sense  assigned  to  iirosli,  from  the  circumstance  that 
it  is  generally  connected  with  "  corn,"  and  tiierefore 
implies  an  edible  rather  than  a  drinkable  substance, 
'i'he  very  opposite  conclusion  may,  however,  be 
drawn  from  tliis  circumstance;  for  it  may  be  rea- 
sonably urged  that  in  any  enumeration  of  tJie  mate- 
rials needed  for  man's  su|)port,  '•  meat  and  drink  " 
would  be  specified,  rather  than  several  kinds  of  the 
former  and  none  of  the  latter. 

There  are,  moreo\er,  passages  which  seem  to 
imply  the  actual  manufacture  of  liroa/i  by  the  same 
process  by  which  wine  was  ordinarily  made.  l''or, 
not  to  insist  on  the  probability  tliat  the  "  brinijing 
togetlier,"  noticed  in  Is.  Ixii.  9,  would  not  appi'o- 
priately  apply  to  the  collecting  of  the  fruit  in  the 
wine-vat,  we  have  notice  of  the  "  treading  "  in  con- 
nection with  tirosh  in  .Mic.  vi.  15,  and  again  of  the 
"  overflowing  "  and  the  "  bursting  out  "  of  tiie 
tl.nisk  in  the  vessels  or  lower  vat  (ye/ctb ;  inroAr)- 
viov),  whicii  received  the  nmst  from  the  proper 
press  (Prov.  iii.  10;  Joel  ii.  24). 

Lastly,  we  have  intimations  of  the  effect  pro- 
duced by  an  excessive  use  of  yii/in  and  Iirosli.  To 
the  former  are  attributed  the  "darkly  flashing  eye  " 
(Gen.  xlis.  12;  A.  V.  "  red."  but  see  Gesen.  Tlu'S. 
Append,  p.  89),  the  unliridled  tongue  (IJrov.  xx.  1; 
Is.  xxviii.  7);  the  excitement  of  the  spirit  (I'rov. 
xxxi.  6;  Is.  v.  11;  Zech.  ix.  l.T,  x.  7),  the  enchained 
afflictions  of  its  votaries  (Hos.  iv.  1 1 ),  the  perverted 
judgment  (Prov.  xxxi.  5;  Ls.  xxviii.  7),  tiie  indecent 
exposure  (Hab.  ii.  15, 16),  and  the  sickness  resulting 
from  the  heal  {chemdh.  A.  V.  "  bottles  ")  of  wine 
I'llos.  vii.  5).  The  allusions  to  the  effects  of  lirosh 
are  confined  to  a  single  passage,  but  this  a  most 
iecisive  one  namely,  flos.  iv.  II,  "  Whoredom  and 
R'ine  {yayiii),  and  new  wine  {iirosli)  take  away  the 
neart,"'  where  tirosh  appears  as  the  climax  of  en- 
grossing influence,  in  immediate  connection  with 
yayin. 

<t  An  apparent  instance  occurs  in  Is.  Iv.  1,  where 
thri  "  buy  and  t-at ''  tias  been  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
'  Duy  wine  and  milk  ''  which  follows  {Tirosh.  p.  94). 
Silt   the   term   rendered   "  buy   '   pi'operly  means  "  to 


WINE 


3548 


The  impression  produced  on  the  mind  by  a  gen 
eral  review  of  the  above  notices  is,  that  both  yyin 
and  lin'ith  in  their  ordinary  and  popular  acceptation 
referred  to  fermented,  intoxicating  wine.  In  the 
condemnatory  passages  no  exception  is  made  in 
favor  of  any  other  kind  of  liquid  passing  under 
the  same  name  but  not  invested  with  the  same 
dangerous  qualities.  Nor  again  in  these  passages 
is  there  any  decisive  condemnation  of  the  substance 
itself,  which  would  enforce  the  conclusion  that  else- 
where an  unfermented  liquid  must  be  understood. 
The  condemnation  must  be  understood  of  excessive 
use  in  aTiy  case:  for  even  where  this  is  not  expressed, 
it  is  implied:  and  therefore  the  instances  of  wiiie 
being  drunk  without  any  reproof  of  the  act,  'may 
with  as  great  a  probability  imply  the  moderate  na* 
of  an  intoxicating  be»erage,  as  the  use  of  an  uniii' 
toxicating  one. 

The  notices  of 'fermentation  are  not  very  decisive. 
.A.  certain  amount  of  fermentation  is  implied  in  the 
distension  of  the  leather  bottles  when  new  wine  was 
jilaced  in  them,  and  which  was  liable  to  burst  ok' 
bottles.  [Bottle.]  It  has  been  suggested  that 
the  object  of  placing  the  wine  in  bottles  was  to  pre- 
vent fermentation,  Imt  that  in  "  the  case  of  old 
bottles  fermentation  might  ensue  from  their  being 
impregnated  with  the  fermenting  sulistance  "  (  Ti- 
rosh, p.  65).  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
statement  in  Matt.  ix.  17,  but  it  detracts  from  the 
spirit  of  the  comparison  which  implies  the  presence 
of  a  strong,  expansive,  penetrating  principle.  It  is, 
however,  inconsistent  with  Job  xxxii.  19,  where  the 
distension  is  described  as  occurring  even  in  new 
bottles.  It  is  very  likely  that  new  wine  was  pre- 
.served  in  the  state  of  must  by  placing  it  in  jars  or 
bottles,  and  then  burying  it  in  the  earth.  iBut  we 
should  be  inclined  to  understand  the  passages  aljove 
quoted  as  referring  to  wine  drawn  off  before  the 
fermentation  was  complete,  either  for  immediate 
use,  or  for  the  purpose  of  forming  it  into  sweet  wine 
alter  the  manner  described  by  the  Geoponic  writers 
(vii.  19)  [Diet,  of  Ant.  "  Vinum  "].  The  pres- 
ence of  th,e  gas-bubble,  or  as  the  Hebrews  termed 
it,  "  the  eye  "  that  s|)arkled  in  the  cup  (Prov.  xxiii. 
;)1),  was  one  of  the  tokens  of  fermentation  having 
taken  place,  and  the  same  effect  was  very  possibly 
implied  in  the  name  Iheiner. 

Tlie  remaining  terms  call  for  but  few  remarks. 
There  can  be  no  question  that  (tsis  means  wine,  and 
in  this  case  it  is  observable  that  it  forms  part  of  a 
Divine  promise  (Joel  iii.  18;  Am.  ix.  13)  very  much 
as  tirosh  occurs  elsewhere,  though  other  notices 
inqily  that  it  was  the  occasion  of  excess  (Is.  xlix. 
2li;  ,Ioel  i.  5).  Two  out  of  the  three  passages  in 
which  .lobe  occurs  (Is.  i.  22;  Nah.  i.  10)  imply  a 
licpior  that  would  be  spoiled  or  loounded  (the 
expression  in  Is.  i.  22,  mdhul,  A.  V.  "  mixed,"  n 
supposed  to  convey  the  same  idea  as  the  Latin 
C'striire  applied  to  wine  in  Plin.  six.  19)  by  the 
application  of  water;  we  think  the  passages  quoted 
favor  the  idea  of  strenf/lh  rather  than  sweetness 
being  the  characteristic  of  sobe.  The  term  occurs 
in  llos.  iv.  18,  in  the  sense  of  a  debauch,  and  tlie 
verb  accompanying  it  has  no  connection  with  the 
notion  of  acidity,  but  would  more  properly  be  ren- 
dered "  is  past."  The  ininyUny  inqJied  in  the 
term  mestk  may  have  been   designed   either    to 

buy  grain,"  and  hence  expresse?   in   itself  the   nub 
st;ince  to  be  eaten. 

6  nrw. 


3544 


WINE 


increase,  or  to  diminish  the  strength  of  the  wine, 
according  as  spices  or  water  formed  the  ingredient 
that  was  added.  The  notices  chiefly  favor  the 
former  view;  for  mingled  liquor  was  prepared  for 
high  festivals  (Prov.  ix.  2,  5),  and  occasions  of 
excess  (Prov.  xxiii.  30;  Is.  v.  22).  A  cup  "full 
mixed,"  was  emblematic  of  severe  punishment  (i's. 
Ixxv.  8).  At  the  same  time  strength  was  not  the 
Bole  object  sought  :  the  wine  "  mingled  with 
myrrh  "  given  to  Jesus,  was  designed  to  deaden 
pain  (Mark  xv.  23),  and  the  spiced  pomegranate 
wine  prepared  by  the  bride  (Cant.  viii.  2)  may  well 
have  been  'of  a  mild  character.  Both  the  Greeks 
and  liomans  were  in  the  habit  of  flavoring  their 
wines  with  spices,  and  such  preparations  were 
described  by  the  former  as  wine  e|  apai/j.a.Twi' 
KaTa(TKfva(6/J.(voi  (Athen.*.  p.  31  e),  and  by  the 
latter  as  aroniali/es  (Plin.  xiv.  19,  §  5).  The 
authority  of  the  Mishna  n)ay  l)e  cited  in  f;xvor  both 
of  water  and  of  spices,  the  former  being  noticed  in 
f  Berach.  7,  §  5;  Ptsich.  7,  §  13.  and  the  latter  in 

Scheii.  2,  §  1.  In  the  New  Testament  the  char- 
acter of  the  "  sweet  wine,"  noticed  in  .\cts  ii.  13, 
calls  fur  some  little  remark.  It  could  not  be  ne/r 
wine  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  inasmuch  aa 
about  eight  months  must  have  elapsed  between  the 
vhitage  and  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  It  might  have 
been  applied,  just  as  miistiin  was  liy  the  Homans, 
to  wine  that  had  been  preserved  Ibi-  about  a  year  in 
an  unfermented  state  (Cato,  li  R.  c.  120).  But 
the  explanations  of  the  ancient  lexicographers 
rather  lead  us  to  infer  that  its  luscious  qualities 
were  due,  not  to  its  being  recently  made,  liut  to  its 
being  produced  from  the  very  purest  juice  of  the 
grape;  for  both  in  Hesychius  and  the  Ktymologi- 
cum  Magnum  the  term  y\fvKos  is  explained  to  be 
the  juice  that  flowed  spontaneously  from  the  grape 
before  the  treading  commenced.  The  name  itself, 
therefore,  is  not  conclusive  as  to  its  being  an  unfer- 
mented liquor,  while  the  context  implies  the  re- 
verse: for  St.  Peter  would  hardly  have  oSered  a 
serious  defense  to  an  accusation  that  was  not  seri- 
ously made;  and  yet  if  the  sweet  wine  in  question 
were  not  intoxicating,  the  accusation  could  only 
Lave  been  ironical. 

As  consitlerable  stress  is  laid  upon  the  quality 
of  sweetness,  as  distinguished  from  strength,  sup- 
posed to  be  implied  in  the  Helirew  terms  inesek 
and  siibe,  we  ujay  observe  that  the  usual  term  for 
the  inspissated  juice  of  the  grape,  which  was  char- 
acterized more  especially  by  sweetness,  was  debftsli," 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "honey  "  ((ien.  xliii.  11; 
Ez.  xxvii.  17).  This  was  prepared  by  lolling  it 
down  either  to  a  third  of  its  original  bulk,  in  which 
case  it  was  termed  supa  by  the  Latins,  and  ev/zrj/xa 
or  aipaiov  by  the  Greeks,  or  else  to  half  its  bulk, 
in  which  case  it  was  termed  defrutum  (Plin.  xiv. 
11).  Both  the  substance  and  the  name,  under  the 
form  of  dlhs,  are  in  commo!i  use  in  Syria  at  the 
present  day.  We  may  further  notice  a  less  artifi- 
cial mode  of  producing  a  sweet  liquor  from  the 
grape,  namely,  by  pressmg  the  juice  directly  into 
fne  cup,  as  described  in  Gen.  xl.  11.  And,  lastly, 
there  appears  to  have  been  a  beverage,  also  of  a 
Bweet  character,  produced  by  macerating  grapes, 
and  hence  termed  the  "  liquor " ''  of  grapes 
(Num.  vi.  3).  These  latter  preparations  are  al- 
lowed in  the  Koran  (xvi  69)  as  substitutes  for  wine. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  wines  of  Pal- 


t:-?^. 


6  n-irr'tt. 


WINE 

estine  varied  in  quality,  and  were  named  after  the 
localities  in  which  they  were  made.  We  have  no 
notices,  however,  to  this  effect.  The  only  wines  of 
which  we  liave  special  notice,  belonged  to  Syria: 
these  were  the  wine  of  Helbon,  a  valley  near  Da- 
mascus, which  in  ancient  times  was  prized  at  Tyre 
(Kz.  xxvii.  18)  and  by  the  Persian  monarchs 
(Strab.  XV.  p.  735),  as  it  still  is  by  the  residents 
of  Damascus  (Porter,  DamaSms,  i.  333);  and 
the  wine  of  Lebanon,  famed  for  its  aroma  (Hos. 
xiv.  7  ). 

With  resrard  to  the  uses  of  wine  in  private  life 
there  is  little  to  remark.  It  was  produced  on  oc- 
casions of  ordinary  hospitality  (Gen.  xiv.  18),  and 
at  festivals,  such  as  marriages  (John  ii.  3).  The 
monuments  of  ancient  Egypt  furnish  abundatit  evi- 
dence that  the  people  of  that  country,  both  male 
and  female,  indulged  liberally  in  the  use  of  wine 
(Wilkinson,  i.  52,  53).  It  has  been  inferred  from 
a  passage  in  Plutarch  {de  hid.  6)  that  no  wine  was 
drunk  in  I'-gypt  before  the  reign  of  Psanimetichus, 
and  this  passage  has  been  quoted  in  illu.^tration  of 
Gen.  xl.  11.  The  meaning  of  the  author  .seems 
rather  to  l)e  that  the  kings  subsequently  to  Psani- 
metichus did  not  restrict  themselves  to  the  quan- 
tity of  wine  pre.scribed  to  them  by  reason  of  their 
sacerdotal  office  (Diod.  i.  70).  The  "iiltivation  of 
the  vine  was  incompatible  with  the  conditions  of  a 
nomad  life,  and  it  was  probably  on  this  account 
that  Jonadab,  wishing  to  perpetuate  that  kind  of 
life  among  hi-s  posterity,  prohibited  the  use  of 
wine  to  them  (.ler.  xxxv.  6).  The  case  is  exactly 
l)arallel  to  that  of  the  Nabathseans,  who  abstained 
from  wine  on  purely  poHtical  grounds  (Diod.  xix. 
94). 

Under  the  Mosaic  Law  wine  formed  the  usual 
drink-oftering  that  accompanied  the  daily  sacrifice 
(Ex.  xxix.  40),  the  presentation  of  the  first-fruits 
(Lev.  xxiii.  13),  and  other  offerings  (Num.  xv.  5). 
It  appears  from  Num.  xxviii.  7  that  strong  drink 
might  be  substituted  for  it  on  these  occasions. 
Tithe  was  to  tie  paid  of  wine  {tirosh )  as  of  other 
products,  and  this  was  to  be  consumed  "  before  the 
Lord,"  meaning  within  the  precincts  of  the  Temple, 
or  perhaps,  as  m.ay  be  inferred  from  Lev.  vii.  16,  at 
the  place  where  the  Temple  was  situated  (Deut.  xii. 
17,  18).  '1  he  priest  was  also  to  receive  fir.st-fruits 
of  wine  {I'lrosh),  as  of  other  articles  (Deut.  xviii. 
4;  comp.  Kx.  xxii.  29):  and  a  promise  of  plenty 
was  attached  to  the  faithful  payment  of  these  dues 
(Prov.  iii.  9,  10).  The  priests  were  prohibited 
from  the  tise  of  wine  and  strong  drink  before  per- 
forming the  services  of  the  Temple  (Lev.  x.  9),  and 
the  place  which  this  prohibition  holds  in  the  nar- 
rative favors  the  presumption  that  the  offense  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu  was  committed  under  the  influ- 
ence of  liquor.  Ezekiel  repeats  the  prohibition  as 
far  as  wine  is  concerned  (Ez.  xliv.  21).  The  Naz- 
arite  was  prohibited  from  the  use  of  wine,  or  strong 
drink,  or  even  the  juice  of  grapes  during  the' con- 
tinuance of  his  vow  (Num.  vi.  3);  but  the  adoption 
of  that  vow  was  a  voluntary  act.  The  use  of  wine 
at  the  pasch.al  feast  was  not  enjoined  by  the  Law; 
but  had  lieconie  an  established  custom,  at  all  events 
in  the  post-Baliylonian  period.  The  cup  was  handed 
round  four  times  according  to  the  ritual  prescribed 
in  the  Mishna  {Pesuch.  10,  §  1),  the  third  cup 
being  design.ated  the  "cup  of  blessing"  (1  ^'or. 
X.  16),  because  grace  was  then  said  {PtsacI:  10, 
§  7).  [P.\ss()VKi!.J  The  contents  of  the  cup  are 
specifically  described  by  our  Lord  a.s  "the  fruit" 
{.yivvriHia)  of  the  vine  (Matt.  xxvi.  29;  Mark  xiv 


WINE-FAT 

25:  Luke  xxii.  18),  and  in  the  Mishna  simply  as 
wine.  The  wine  was  mixed  with  warm  water  on 
these  occiisiiins,  as  implied  in  the  notice  of  the 
warming  kettle  (Pes  (t7(.  7,  §  13).  Hence  in  the 
early  Christian  Churcli  it  was  usual  to  mix  the  sac- 
ramental wine  witli  water,  a  custom  as  old,  at  all 
events,  as  .Justin  Martyr's  time  {Apol.  i.  Go).  The 
Pastoral  Epistles  contain  directions  as  to  the  mod- 
erate use  of  wine  on  the  part  of  all  holding  office  in 
the  Church;  as  that  they  should  not  \e  i^dpoivoi 
(I  Tim.  iii.  3;  A.  V.  "given  to  wine"),  meaning 
insolent  and  violent  inider  the  influence  of  wine; 
"not  given  to  nnieh  wine"  (1  Tim.  iii.  8);  "not 
enslaved  to  much  wine"  (Tit.  ii.  3).  The  terra 
vrt<pa.K^o^  in  1  Tim.  iii.  2  (A.  V.  "sober"), 
expresses  general  vigilance  and  circumspection 
(Sehleusner,  Lex.  s.  v.;  Alford,  in  loc).  St.  Paul 
advises  Timothy  himself  to  be  no  longer  a  habitual 
water-drinker,  but  to  take  a  little  wine  for  his 
health's  sake  (1  Tim.  v.  23).  No  very  satisfactory 
reason  can  be  assigned  for  the  place  which  this  in- 
junction holils  in  the  epistle,  unless  it  were  intended 
to  correct  any  possible  misapprehension  as  to  the 
preceding  words,  "  Keep  thyself  pure."  The  pre- 
cepts above  quoted,  as  well  as  others  to  the  same 
eflt^ct  addressed  to  the  disciples  generally  (Rom.  xiii. 
13;  Gal.  v.  21;  1  Pet.  iv.  3),  show  the  extent  to 
which  intemperance  prevailed  in  ancient  times,  and 
the  extreme  danij;er  to  which  the  Church  was  sub- 
jected from  this  quarter.  W.  L.  B. 

^  On  the  liible  names  of  wine  and  its  use  in  the 
East,  see  articles  by  \V.  G.  Schauffler  in  the  Bibl. 
Repos.  for  e»ct.  1830:  L.  Mayer,  Ainer.  Bibl.  Re- 
pos.  for  Oct.  1839;  and  T.  Laurie,  Bibl.  Sacra  for 
Jan.  1809.  The  view  of  Dr.  F.  R.  Lees,  referred 
to  above,  is  set  forth  in  his  articles  Wine.i  Fruits. 
and  Drink,  Stroni/,  in  the  first  edition  (184-5)  of 
Kittos  Cycl.  of'  Bibl.  Lit.,  also  in  his  Essays,  Hist, 
and  Crii.  on  the  Temperance  Question,  Lond.  1853 
(including  Tirosli  lo  Yaijin),  and  very  fully  in  the 
Temperance  Bible- ComntenUiry  by  Ur.  F.  K.  Lees 
and  the  Kev.  Dawson  Burns,  Lond.  1868,  Amer. 
ed.,  with  Preface  by  Dr.  Tayler  Lewis,  N.  Y.  1870. 
They  are  adopted  in  the  main  by  Professor  G.  C. 
M.  Douglas,  art.  Wine  in  Fairbairn's  Imp.  Bible 
Diet.,  but  are  warmly  controverted  by  Isaac  .Jen- 
nings, art.  lVi?ie  in  the  3d  ed.  of  Kitto's  Cycl.  of 
Biol.  Lit.  (18()i5).  A. 

*  WINE-FAT.  [Wine-Prkss.] 
WINE-PRESS  (."13;  217.':.;  n-n-19).  From 
the  scanty  notices  contained  in  the  Bible  we  gather 
that  the  wine-presses  of  the  .Jews  consisted  of  two 
receptacles  or  vats  [)Liced  at  different  elevations,  in 
the  upper  one  of  which  the  grapes  were  trodden. 
«iiile  the  lower  one  received  the  expressed  juice. 
The  two  vats  are  mentioned  together  only  in  Joel 
iii.  13:  "The  press  ((/ath)  is  full:  the  fats  {yelce- 
bim)  overflow  "  —  the  upper  vat  being  full  of  fruit, 
the  lower  one  overflowing  with  the  must.  Yekeb 
is  similarly  applied  in  .loel  ii.  24,  and  proliably  in 
Prov.  iii.  10,  where  the  verb  rendered  "  burst  out " 
in  the  A.  V.  may  bear  the  more  general  sense  of 
^i  abound"  ((iesen.  Thes.  p.  1130).  Gath  is  also 
strictly  applied  to  tli^  upper  vat  in  Neh.  xiii.  15, 
Lam.  i.  15,  and  Is.  Ixiii.  2,  with  piirdli  in  a  paral- 
lel sense  in  the  fbllowing  verse.  Elsewhere  yekeb 
is  not  strictly  applied;  for  in  Job  xxiv.  11,  and  Jer. 
xlviii.  33,  it  refers  to  the  upper  vat,  just  as  in 
Matt.  xxi.  33,  inroKy)viov  (properly  the  vat  umkr 
the  press)  is  substituted  for  \t)u6s,  as  given  in 
Mark  iU.  1.  It  would,  moreover,  appear  natural 
223 


WISDOM  OF  SOLOMON     3645 

to  de.scribe  the  whole  arrangement  by  the  terra 
()ath,  as  denoting  the  most  important  portion  of  it; 
but,  with  the  exception  of  proper  names  in  which 
the  word  appears,  sucli  as  Gath,  Gath-rinunon, 
Gath-hejuher,  ana  Gittaim.  the  term  yekeb  is  ap- 
plied to  it  (.ludg.  vii.  25;  Zech.  xiv.  10).  The 
same  term  is  also  applied  to  the  produce  of  the 
wine-press  (Num.  xviii.  27,30;  Deut.  xv.  14:  2  K. 
vi.  27;  Hos.  ix.  2).  The  term  pi'irah,  as  used  in 
Hag.  ii.  10,  probalily  refers  to. the  contents  of  a 
wine-vat,«  rather  than  to  the  press  or  vat  itself. 
The  two  vats  were  usually  dug  or  hewn  out  of  the 
solid  rock  (Is.  v.  2,  margin;  Matt.  xxi.  33).  An- 
cient wine-presses,  so  constructed,  are  still  to  he 
seen  in  Palestine,  one  of  which  is  thus  described  by 
Robinson :  "  Advantage  had  been  taken  of  a  ledge 
of  rock ;  on  the  upper  side  a  shallow  vat  had  been 
dug  out,  eight  feet  square,  and  fifteen  inches  deep 
Two  feet  lower  down  another  smaller  vat  was  ex- 
cavated, four  feet  square  by  three  feet  deep.  The 
grapes  were  trodden  in  the  shallow  upper  vat,  and 
the  juice  drawn  off  by  a  hole  at  the  bottom  (still 
remaining)  into  the  Io\ver  vat"  {Bibl.  Res.  iii.  137 
603).  The  wine-presses  were  thus  permanent,  and 
were  sufficiently  well  known  to  serve  as  indications 
of  certain  localities  (Judg.  vii.  25;  Zech.  xiv.  10). 
The  upper  receptacle  (<jath)  was  large  enough  to 
.admit  of  threshing  being  carried  on  in  (not  "  by," 
as  in  A.  V.)  it,  as  was  done  by  Gideon  for  the 
sake  of  concealment  (Judg.  vi.  11).      [F.vt.] 

'    W.  L.  B. 

WINNOWING.     [AGRICUI.TUHE.] 

*  WINTiiJTi      [Palestine,  iii.  2317  ff.;  Au- 

RICULTUKE.] 

WISDOM    OF    JESUS,   SON    OF   SI 
RACH.     [LccLEsiASTicus.] 

WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON.     2o 

cpia  'S.aXoijj.wV,  '2,o(pia  '2.o\ofxii>VTOS\  later,  ^  2o 
<pia'-  Liber  Sapientice  ;  Sa/tientin  Salo7nonis ; 
Sophia  Sulumonis.  The  title  2o(J)/a  was  also  ap- 
plied to  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  as  by  Melito  nj).  Eu- 
seb.  //.  K.  iv.  26  {Uapot/xiai  ^  Kal  17  So^i'a;  see 
Vales,  or  Routh  ad  A't'.),  and  also  to  Lcclesiasticus, 
as  Epiphanius  {adv  /icer.  Ixxvi.  p  941,  eu  rats  2o- 
(piai^,  2oAouaJi'Tds  T€  (prifxi  Kal  vlov  2i/jax)'  ^o"^ 
which  considerable  confusion  has  arisen. 

1.  Text.  —  rhe  Book  of  Wisdom  is  preserved  in 
tJreek  and  Latin  texts,  and  in  subsidiary  transla- 
tions into  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Armenian.  Of  these 
latter,  the  Armenian  is  said  to  be  the  most  impor- 
tant; the  Syriac  and  Arabic  Versions  being  para- 
phrastic and  inaccurate  (Grimm,  Einl.  §  10).  The 
tireek  text,  which,  as  will  appear  afterwards,  is  un- 
doubtedly the  original,  otters  no  remarkable  fea- 
tures. The  variations  in  the  MSS.  are  confined 
within  narrow  limits,  and  are  not  such  as  to  sug- 
gest the  idea  of  distinct  early  recensions;  nor  is 
there  any  appearance  of  serious  corruptions  anterior 
to  existing  Greek  authorities.  The  Old  Latin 
Version,  which  was  left  untouched  by  Jerome 
(Pnef.  in  Liber  Sal.,  In  eo  libro  qui  a  plerisquc 
Sapieiilin  Salomonis  iTiscribitur  ....  calamo 
temperavi ;  tantunnnodo  canonic;is  Scripturas 
emendare  desiderans,  et  studium  nieum  certis  ma- 
gis  (juam  dubiis  commendare),  is  in  the  main  a 
close  and  faithful  rendering  of  the  tireek,  though 
it  contains  some  .additions  to  the  original  text,  such 
as  are  characteristic  of  the  old  version  generally. 

n  The  LXX.  renders  the  term  b.v  |u.«Tpi7n|«,  n»» 
Greek  meosui-e  equivalent  to  the  Hebitw  liath 


3,546 


WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON 


Examples?  of  these  additions  are  found  —  i.  15,  In- 
juxfitia  anttm  mortis  est  acqiiisltio  ;  ii.  8,  Nullum 
pratum  sit  quod  non  pertrnnseat  luomria  nosti'a ; 
ii.  17,  et  sclemus  qius  ei'unt  novissiina  ilUus ;  vi.  1, 
Melior  est  sajiienlia  guam  vires,  et  vir  prudens 
quam  fortis.  And  tlie  construction  of  the  paral- 
lelism in  the  two  first  cases  suggests  the  belief  that 
there,  at  least,  the  Latin  reading  may  be  correct. 
But  other  additions  pofnt  to  a  different  conclusion: 
vi.  23,  diliffile  lumen  sapientice  omnes  qui  prceestis 
popidis ;  viii.  11,  et  fades  principmn  tnirabuntur 
me  ;  ix.  19,  qidcunque  plncuerunt  tibi  dnmine  a 
principio  ;  xi.  5,  a  defecthme  potus  sui,  et  in  eis 
cum  abundarent  JiUi  Israel  Icelali  sunt. 

The  chief  Greek  MSS.  in  which  the  book  is  con- 
tained are  the  Cudex  Sinniticus  (S),  the  Cod. 
Alexandrinus  (A),  the  Cod.  Valicanus  (B),  and 
the  Cod.  Ephraeini  rescr.  (C).  The  entire  text 
is  preserved  in  the  three  former;  in  the  latter,  only 
considerable  fragments :  viii.  5-xi.  10;  xiv.  19-xvii. 
18;  xviii.  2i-xix.  22. 

Sabatier  used  four  Latin  MSS.  of  the  higher 
class  for  his  edition:  '•  Corbeienses  duos,  uTium  San- 
germanensem,  et  alium  S.  Theodorici  ad  Remos," 
of  which  he  professes  to  give  almost  a  complete 
(but  certainly  not  a  literal)  collation.  The  varia- 
tions are  not  generally  important;  liut  patristic 
quotations  show  that  in  early  times  very  considera- 
ble differences  of  text  existed.  An  important  MS. 
of  the  book  in'the  Brit.  Mus.  /■:>;ertii!i,  1046,  Skc. 
viii.  has  not  yet  been  examined. 

2.  Contents.  —  The  bonU  has  been  variously 
divided ;  but  it  seems  to  f:\ll  most  naturally  into 
two  great  divisions:  fl)  i.-ix.;  (2)  x.-xix.  The 
first  contains  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  its  moral 
and  intellectual  aspects;  the  second,  the  doctrine 
of  Wisdom  as  shown  in  history.  Each  of  these 
parts  is  again  capable  of  subdivision.  The  first 
part  contains  the  praise  of  Wisdom  as  the  source 
of  immortality  in  contrast  with  the  teaching  of 
sensualists  (i.-v.);  and  next  the  praise  of  \S'i.sdom 
as  the  guide  of  practical  and  intellectual  life,  the 
stay  of  princes,  and  the  interpreter  of  the  universe 
(vi.-ix.).  The  second  part,  again,  follows  the 
action  of  Wisdom  summarily,  as  preserving  God's 
servants  from  Adam  to  Moses  (x.  1-xi.  4),  and 
more  particularly  in  the  punishment  of  the  Egyp- 
tians and  Canaanites  (xi.  5-lG,  xi.  17-xii. ).  This 
punishment  is  traced  to  its  origin  in  idolatry, 
which,  in  its  rise  and  progress,  presents  the  false 
substitute  for  Revelation  (xiii.,  xiv.).  And  in  the 
last  section  (xv.-xix.)  the  history  of  the  Exodus  is 
used  to  illustrate  in  detail  the  contrasted  fortunes 
of  the  people  of  God  and  idolaters.  The  whole 
argument  may  be  presented  in  a  tabular  form  in 
the  following  shape :  — 

[.  —  Ch.  i.-ix.      The  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  its 
spiritual,  intellectucd,  and  moral  aspects. 

(a  )  i.-v.  Wisdom  the  giver  of  happiness  and 
immortality. 
The  conditions  of  wisdom  (i.  1-11). 
Uprightness  of  thought  (1-5). 
Uprightness  of  word  (6-11). 
The  origin  of  death  (i.  12-ii.  24). 

Sin  (in  fact)  by  man's  free  will  (i.  12-16). 

The  reasoning  of  the  sensualist  (ii.  1-20). 

Sin  (in  source)  by  the  envy  of  the  devil 

(21-24). 

The  godly  and  wicked  in  life  (as  mortal),  (iii. 

1-iv. ). 


In  chastisements  (iii.  1-10). 

In  the  results  of  life  (iii.  11-iv.  6). 

In  length  of  life  (7-20). 
The  godly  and  wicked  after  death  (v.). 

The  judgment  of  conscience  (1-14). 

The  judgment  of  God  — 
On  the  godly  (15,  16). 
On  the  wicked  (17-2-3). 
(3.)  vi.-ix.  AVisdom  the  guide  of  life. 
Wisdom  the  guide  of  princes  (vi.  1-21) 

The  responsibility  of  power  (1-11). 

A\  isdom  soon  found  (12-16). 

Wisdom  the  source  of  true  sovereigntj 
(17-21). 
The  character  and  realm  of  wisdom. 

Open  to  all  (vi.  22-vii.  7). 

Pervading  all  creation  (vii.  8-viii   1). 

Swaying  all  life  (viii.  2-17). 
Wisdom  the  gift  of  God  (viii.  17-ix.). 

Prayer  for  wisdom  (ix. ). 

II.  —  Ch.  x.-xix.      The  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  it* 
historical  aspects. 
(o.)   Wisdom  a  power  to  save  and  chastise. 
Wisdom  seen  in  the  guidance  of  God's  people 

from  Adam  to  Mo.ses  (x.-xi.  4). 
Wisdom  seen  in  the  punishment  of  God's  ene- 
mies (xi.  .5-xii.). 

The  Egyptians  (xi.  5-xii.  1). 
The  Canaanites  (xii.  2-18). 
.  The  lesson  of  mercy  and  judgment  (19- 
27). 
(^.)    The   growth    of  idolatry  the   opposite  to 
wisdom. 
The  worship  of  nature  (xiii.  1-9). 
The  worship  of  images  (xiii.  10-xiv.  13). 
The  worship  of  deified  men  (xiv.  14-21). 
The  moral  effects  of  idolatry  (xiv.  22-31). 
(y.)  The  contrast  between  true  worshippers  and 
idolaters  (xv.-xix.). 
The  general  contrast  (xv.  1-17). 
The  special  contrast  at  the  Exodus  — 

The  action  of  beasts  (xv.  18-xvi.  13). 
The   action   of  the  forces  of  nature  — 

water,  fire  (xvi.  14-29). 

The  symbolic  darkness  (xvii.-xviii.  4). 

The  .action  of  death  (xviii.  5-25). 

The  powers  of  nature  changed  in  their 

working  to  save  and  destroy  (xix.  1- 

21). 

Conclusion  (xix.  21). 

The-subdivisions  are  by  no  means  shaiply  defined, 

though  it  is  not  difficult  to  trace  the  main  current 

of  thought.     Each  section  contains  the  preparation 

for  that  which  follows,  just  as  in  the  classic  trilogy 

the  close  of  one  play  shadowed  forth  the  subject 

of  the  next.     Thus  in  ii.  24  b,  iv.  20,  ix.  18,  etc., 

the  fresh  idea  is  enunciated,  which  is  subsequently 

developed  at  length.     In  this  way  the  whole  book 

is  intimately  bound  together,  and  the  clauses  which 

appear  at  first  sight  to  be  idle  repetitions  of  though! 

really  spring  from  the  elaborateness  of  its  structure. 

3.    Unity  and  Inte(jrity.  —  It  follows  from  what 

has  been  said  that  the  book  forms  a  complete  and 

harmonious  whole.     But  the  distinct  treatment  of 

tlie  subject,  theoretically  and  historically,  in  two 

parts,  has   given  occasion  from  time  to  time  for 

maintaining  tiiat  it  is  the  work  of   two  or  more 

authors.     C.  E.  Houbigant  {Pmlegg.   ad  Sap.  et 

Kecks.  1777)  supposed  that  the  first  nine  chapters 

were  the  work  of  Solomon,  and  that  the  translatoi 

of  the  lleljrew  original  (probably)  adiled  tbp  latei 


WISDOM,  THE,   OF  SOLOMON 


3547 


t-liapttrs.  Eicl)horn  {Einl.  in  d.  Apoc.  1795), 
lightly  tbeliiig  that  some  historical  illiisU-atioiis  of 
tlie  action  of  wisdom  were  requireci  by  tiie  close  of 
oh.  ix.,  fixed  the  end  of  the  orii^iiuil  book  at  ch.  xi 
1.  Nachtigall  {Das  Buck  Wi-ish.  1799)  devised  a 
far  more  artificial  theory,  and  ima<;ined  that  he 
could  trace  in  the  book  the  records  of  (so  to  speak) 
an  antiphonic  "Praise  of  Wisdom,"  delivered  in 
three  sittings  of  the  sacred  schools  by  two  com- 
panies of  doctors.  Bretschneider  (1804-5),  fol- 
lowing out  tlie  simpler  liypothesis,  found  tliree 
ditlerent  writings  in  the  book,  of  which  he  attrib- 
uted the  first  part  (i.  1-vi.  8)  to  a  Palestinian  Jew 
of  the  time  of  Antiocluis  F,piph.,  the  second  (vi. 
9-x.)  to  a  philosophic  Alexandrine  Jew  of  the 
time  of  our  Lord,  and  the  third  (xii.-xix.)  to 
a  contemporary,  but  uneducated  Jew,  who  wrote 
under  the  inttuence  of  the  rudest  national  preju- 
dices. The  eleventh  cliapter  was.  .is  he  supposed, 
added  by  the  compiler  who  brought  the  three  chief 
parts  together.  HerthoMt  (/uidtituiiy,  1815)  fell 
liack  upon  a  modification  of  the  earliest  division. 
He  included  cc.  i.-xii.  in  the  original  book, 
which  he  regarded  as  essentially  philosophical, 
while  the  later  addition  (xiii.-xix.)  is,  in  his  judg- 
ment, predominantly  theological.  It  is  needless  to 
enter  in  detail  into  the  arguments  by  which  these 
various  opinions  were  maintained,  but  when  taken 
togetlier,  they  furnish  an  instructive  example  of  tlie 
course  of  subjective  criticisir.  The  true  .efutation 
of  t.be  one  hypothesis  which  they  have  in  common 
—  the  divided  authorship  of  the  book  —  is  found  in 
the  sul)Stantial  harmony  and  connection  of  its 
parts,  in  the  presence  of  the  same  general  tone  and 
manner  of  thought  throughout  it,  and  yet  more  in 
the  essential  unilbnuity  of  style  and  language  which 
it  presents,  though  both  are  necessarily  modified  in 
iome  degree  by  the  subject-matter  of  the  different  sec- 
,.ions.  (For  a  deta  led  examination  of  the  arguments 
of  the  ''  Separatists,"  see  Grimm,  Kxvij.  Ilnwlb. 
§  4;  and  Bauermcister,  Cunini.  in  Uh.  S^ip.  3  ft'.) 

Some,  however,  admitting  the  unity  of  the  book, 
h.ive  questioned  its  integrity.  Eichhorn  imagined 
that  it  was  left  imperfect  by  its  author  (/-,««/.  p 
148);  Grotius,  apparently,  th.at  it  was  mutilated 
by  some  accident  of  time  (Videtur  hie  liber  esse 
K6\ovpos]\  a'ld  others  have  been  found,  in  later 
times,  to  support  each  opinion.  Yet  it  is  obvious 
that  the  scope  of  the  argument  is  fully  satisfied  by 
the  investigation  of  the  providential  history  of  the 
Jews  up  to  the  time  of  the  occupation  of  Canaan, 
a!id  the  last  verse  furnishes  a  complete  e|)ilogue  to 
the  treatise,  which  Grimm  compares,  not  inaptly, 
with  the  last  words  of  'i  Mace. 

The  idea  that  tlie  liook  has  lieen  interpolated  by 
a  (Miristian  hand  (Grotius,  Griitz)  is  as  little  worthy 
of  consideration  as  the  idea  that  it  is  incomplete. 
The  pass.iges  which  have  been  brought  forward  in 
support  of  this  opinion  (ii.  l-2-2(),  24,  iii.  Vi,  14, 
8.1V.  7;  comp.  /lumilies,  p.  174,  ed.  1850)  lose  all 
rheir  force,  if  fairly  interpreted. 

4.  Style  awl  Lanc/wii/e.  —  The  literary  charac- 
ter of  the  book  is  most  remarkable  and  interesting. 
[n  the  richness  and  freedom  of  its  vocabulary  it 
Qiost  closely  resembles  the  fourth  book  of  Macca- 
oees,  but  it  is  superior  to  that  fine  declamation, 
both  in  power  and  variety  of  diction.  No  existing 
work  represents  perhaps  more  completely  the  style 
of  composition  which  would  be  produced  by  the 
jophistic  schools  of  rhetoric;  and  in  the  .artificial 
balancing  of  words,  and  the  freiiueiit  niceties  of 
UTaiigi'iiicnt  and  rhythm,  it  is  impo.ssible  not  to  be 


reminded  of  the  exquisite  story  of  Proilicus  (Xen 
Memorah.  ii.  1,  21),  and  of  the  subtle  refinements 
of  Protagoras  in  the  dialogue  which  bears  his  name. 
It  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence  that  the  effect 
of  different  [larts  of  the  book  is  ver3-  unequal.  The 
florid  redundancy  and  restless  straining  after  effect, 
which  may  be  not  unsuited  to  vivid  intellectual 
pictures,  is  wholly  alien  from  the  philosophic  con- 
templation of  history.  Thus  the  forced  contnisti 
and  fantastic  exa;rgerations  in  the  description  of  the 
Egyptian  plagues  cannot  but  displease;  while  it  is 
ecjually  impossible  not  to  admire  the  Jyrical  force 
of  the  langnage  of  the  sensualist  (ii.  1  ft'.),  and  of 
the  picture  of  future  judgment  (v.  15  ft'.).  The 
magnificent  description  of  W'isdcm  (vii.  22-viii.  1) 
must  rank  among  the  noblest  passasjes  of  human 
eloquence,  and  it  would  be  perhaps  impos.sible  to 
point  out  any  piece  of  equal  length  in  the  remains 
of  classical  antiquity  more  prei;nant  with  noble 
thought,  or  moi-e  rich  in  express! \e  phrxseology. 
It  may  be  placed  beside  the  Hymn  of  Cleanthes  or 
the  visions  of  Plato,  and  it  will  not  lose  its  power 
to  charm  and  move.  Examples  of  strange  or  new 
words  may  be  found  almost  on  every  page.  Such 
are  a.vaTTo^KTfj.o'!,  irpoiTS'TAacrTOS,  6t56;if6eia,  a'ye- 
ficcx'o.,  eVa^'eij',  afcrjAi'Soiroj,  pe/x^arriios,  |er(- 
reia;  others  belong  chaiMcteristically  to  later  Greek, 
as  S/ajSouAiOf,  ai/rafaKAaadat,  dSiaTrroiros,  eSfid- 
^eiu,  l^oAAos,  airepiatacTTOS,  etc;  others,  again, 
to  the  language  of  philosophy,  bixoioiraOr]%,  ^oiri- 
K6i,  wpoiifpeaTavat,  etc:  and  others  to  the  LXX., 
Xepo-cio),  6\oicai'irwfj.a,  etc.  No  class  of  writings 
and  no  mode  of  combination  appear  to  be  unfa- 
miliar to  the  writer.  Some  of  the  phrases  which 
he  adopts  are  singularly  happy,  as  Kardxp^os 
afiapTias  (i.  4),  dAa^oceueo'Sai  irarepa  d^of  (li- 
lt)), eArrls  adavaaia^  ■w\r)pr\s  (iii-  4),  etc. ;  and 
not  less  so  some  of  the  short  and  weighty  sen- 
tences in  which  he  gathers  up  the  truth  on  which 
he  is  dwelling:  vi.  19,  acpOapaia  iyyvs  ehat 
TTOJe?  d€ou\  XI.  2f5.  (peiSri  Se  iravrmv  on  ah,  itxri 
Se'tnroTa  ^  iK  6^  v  x^-  ^'^^^  numerous  arti- 
ficial resources  with  which  the  book  abounds  are 
a  less  pleasing  mark  of  labor  bestowed  upon  its 
composition.  Thus,  in  i.  1,  we  have  jt.yaTfr](TaTi 
.  .  .  .  (ppour]a'aTe  ■  ■  ■  ■  ev  a,ya66Tr]Ti  Kal  iv 
anXdrriTi,  ....  ^rirrjaaTe  ;  v.  22,  woTa/jo) 
.  •  .  •  aTroTo'/xaJSi  xiii.  11,  irfpie^vaev  eujua&wj 
•  •  .  •  Kal  T6xi''?<''a,u6i'os  ei/npeirds  ;  xis.  21, 
TTiKrhv  eijTrjKTou-  I'he  arrangement  of  the  words 
is  equally  artificial,  but  generally  more  effective, 
and  often  very  sulitle  and  forcible;  vii.  29,  go-ri 
yap  auTT]  {rj  (ro<pia)  euirpfTreo'Tepa  7]\iov  koI 
inrfp  vaffav  acrrpicv  deffiv.  (pearl  avyKpivofxivy] 
ei/piffKeTui  -Kporepa.  tovto  jxev  yap  SiaSex^Taj 
vv^,  rrofpia^  S4  oiiK  avriax^^i  KaKia- 

The  language  of  the  Old  Latin  translation  is  also 
itself  full  of  interest.  It  presents,  in  great  pro- 
fusion, the  characteristic  provincialisms  which  else- 
where mark  the  earliest  African  version  of  tbe 
Scriptures.  [Comp.  Vulgatk.  §  43.]  Such  art 
the  substantives  externiiniun,  rej'riijeriuin ;  pnecla- 
ril-is,  mu'lii'ta.-!,  tiimiet't.i,  7iatii'it'is,  suj>e7-vacuit(is  ; 
suhitatio  ;  itssislrix,  doclrix,  (lecfrix  ;  imineiiwratio 
{afivricria);  incolatus  ;  the  adjectives  cuniemplibilis, 
ini-ffuyihiUs,  odibiUs  ;  incoinquinnius,  innuxiliatus, 
iiidisciplinaliis,  insensatus,  iitsiinulatus  (avvir6- 
KpiTos);  fitniiyiilmndus;  the  verbs  imyusliare, 
inansHi'tare,  impropernre  ;  and  the  phrases  intpns- 
sibilis  iinmitlere,  parlVnis  (=:piirtiiii),  innuniertibilit 
lioneilis,  prmidtntiw  (pi.). 

5.  Original  Laiujaaije.  —  The  cliaracti;rl8ti(»  of 


3548 


WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON 


tLe  language,  which  have  been  just  noticed,  are  so 
marked  that  no  doubt  could  ever  have  been  raised 
as  to  the  originality  of  the  Greek  text,  if  it  had  not 
been  that  the  ijook  was  once  supposed  to  be  the 
work  of  Solomon.  It  was  assumed  (so  far  rightly ) 
that  if  the  traditional  title  were  correct,  the  book 
must  have  been  written  in  Hebrew;  and  the  belief 
which  was  thus  based  upon  a  false  opinion  as  to 
the  authorship,  survived,  at  least  partially,  for 
some  time  after  that  opinion  was  abandoned.  Yet 
as  it  must  be  obvious,  even  on  a  superficial  exam- 
ination, that  the  style  and  language  of  the  book 
show  conclusively  that  it  could  not  have  been  the 
work  of  Solomon,  so  it  appears  with  equal  cer- 
tainty that  the  freedom  of  the  Greek  diction  was 
checked  by  no  Aramaic  text.  This  was  well  stated 
by  Jerome,  who  sajs,  "  I'ertur  et  iravdperos  Jesu 
fiUi  Sirach  hber,  et  alius  \pfvSenlypa(pos  qui  Sa- 
pientiaSalomonis  inscribitur  .  .  .  .  Secundus  apud 
Hebrseos  nusquani  est,  quia  et  ipse  stylus  Gr«cam 
eloquentiam  redolef  (Pnef'.  in  Libr.  Siilom.); 
and  it  seems  sujierfluous  to  add  any  further  argu- 
ment to  those  which  must  spring  from  the  reading 
of  any  one  chapter.  It  is,  however,  interesting  on 
other  grounds  to  observe  that  the  book  contains 
Unequivocal  traces  of  the  use  of  the  LXX.  where 
It  ditlers  from  the  Hebrew:  ii.  12,  iyeSpeiiffoo/uLev 
T  hv  5  i  Ka  iov  o  T  I  dvo'XpV'T'^os  T]  /J,7  V 
iari  (Is.  iii.  10);  xv.  10,  anoShs  rj  KapSia 
avTwv  (Is.  xUv.  20);  and  this  not  in  direct  quota- 
tions, where  it  is  conceivable  that  a  (ireek  trans- 
lator might  have  felt  justified  in  adopting  the  ren- 
dering of  the  version  with  which  he  was  familiar, 
but  where  the  words  of  the  LXX.  are  inwrought 
into  the  text  itself.  But  while  the  original  lan- 
guage of  the  book  may  be  regarded  as  certainly 
determined  by  internal  evidence,  great  doubt  hangs 
over  the  date  and  place  of  its  composition;  and  it 
will  be  necessary  to  examine  some  of  the  doctrinal 
peculiarities  which  it  presents  before  any  attempt 
is  made  to  determine  these  points  with  approximate 
accuracy. 

6.  JJoclriiml  Character.  — The  theological  teach- 
ing of  the  book  otlers,  in  many  respects,  the  nearest 
approach  to  the  language  and  doctrines  of  Greek 
philosophy  wliich  is  found  in  any  Jewish  writing 
up  to  the  time  of  I'hilo.  There  is  much  in  the 
views  which.it  gives  of  the  world,  of  man,  and  of 
the  Divine  Nature,  which  springs  rather  from  the 
combination  or  conflict  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
thought  than  from  the  independent  development  of 
Hebrew  thought  alone.  Thus,  in  speaking  of  the 
ilmighty  power  of  God,  the  writer  describes  Him  as 
"  having  created  the  universe  out  of  matter  with- 
out form  "  (/cTiVao'a  rhv  K6fffj.ov  6|  a  /x  6  p  <p  o  v 
1/ A  rj  s,  xi.  17),  adopting  the  very  phrase  of  the 
l^latonists,  which  is  found  also  in  riiilo  (De  F«7. 
(JJf'tr.  §  Vi),  to  describe  the  preexisting  matter  out 
uf  which  the  woild  was  made,  and  (like  Philo,  JJe 
31  unci.  Op.  §.3)  evidently  implying  that  this  inde- 


a  The  famous  passage,  ii.  12-20,  has  been  very  fre- 
quently regarded,  both  in  early  and  modern  times,  as 
a  propliecy  of  the  Passion  of  Christ,  "  the  child  of 
God."  It  is  quoted  in  this  sense  by  TertuUian  {ado. 
Marc  iii.  22),  Cyprian  (Testiin.  ii.  14),  Hippolytus 
(Dem  adv.  Jiid.  9),  Origeu  (Horn,  vi  in  Ex.  1.),  and 
many  later  Fathers,  and  Romish  interpreters  have 
genera'Jy  followed  their  opinion.  It  seems  obvious, 
however,  that  the  passage  contains  no  individual  ref- 
Brence ;  and  the  coincidences  which  exist  between  the 
IkDguage  and  details  in  the  Gox|)eh  «re  due  uari'v  to 


terminate  matter  was  itself  uncreated.  Whaterei 
attempts  may  be  made  to  bring  this  statement  intc 
harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  an  absolute  primal 
creation,  it  is  evident  that  it  derives  its  form  from 
Greece.  Scarcely  less  distinctly  heathen  is  the  con- 
ception which  is  presented  of  the  body  as  a  mere 
weight  and  clog  to  the  -soul  (ix.  15;  contrast  2  Cor. 
v.  1-4);  and  we  must  refer  to  some  extra-Judaic 
source  for  the  remarkable  doctrine  of  the  preexist- 
ence  of  souls,  which  finds  unmistakable  expression 
in  viii.  20.  The  form,  indeed,  in  which  this  doc- 
trine is  enunciated  differs  alike  from  that  given  liy 
Plato  and  by  Pliilo,  but  it  is  no  less  foreign  to  the 
pure  Hebiew  mode  of  thougiit.  It  is  more  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  language  of  the  0.  T.  that  the 
writer  represents  the  Spirit  of  God  as  filling  (i.  7) 
and  irispiring  all  things  (xii.  1),  but  even  here  the 
idea  of  "  a  soul  of  the  world  "  seems  to  influence 
his  thoughts;  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  tlie 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  Providence  {irpSvoia,  xiv.  ;!, 
xvii.  2;  comp.  Grimm,  ad  foe),  and  of  the  four 
cardinal  virtues  (viii.  7,  <T(jo(ppo(Tvv7),  <pp6vr)<Tis,  Si- 
Katoavvri,  avSpeia),  which,  in  form  at  least,  show 
the  effect  of  Stoic  teaching.  There  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  no  trace  of  the  characteristic  Christian  doc- 
trine of  a  resurrection  of  the  body ;  and  the  future  , 
triumph  of  the  good  is  entirely  unconnected  with 
any  re\elation  of  a  personal  JNlessiah  "  (iii.  7,  8,  v. 
16;  comp.  Grimm  on  i.  12,  iii.  7,  for  a  good  view 
of  the  eschatology  of  the  book).  The  identification 
of  the"  tempter  (Gen.  iii.),  directly  or  indirectly, 
with  the  devil,  as  the  brLnger  "  of  death  into  the 
world  "  (ii.  23,  24),  is  the  most  remarkable  develop- 
ment of  Biblical  doctrine  which  the  book  contains; 
and  this  pregnant  passage,  when  combined  with  the 
earlier  declaration  as  to  the  action  of  man's  free 
will  in  the  taking  of  evil  to  himself  (i.  12-16),  is  a 
nolile  examjile  of  the  living  power  of  the  Divine 
teaching  of  the  O.  T.  in  the  face  of  other  mfluences. 
It  is  also  in  this  pomt  that  the  Pseudo-Solomon 
differs  most  widely  from  Philo,  who  recognizes  no 
such  evil  power  hi  the  world,  though  the  doctrine 
must  have  been  well  known  at  Alexandria  (comp. 
Gfroier,  Pliilo,  etc.  ii.  238).''  The  subsequent  de- 
liverance of  Adam  from  his  transgression  (e|eiA.oTo 
ainhv  4k  TTapairrw^iLaTOS  idiov)  is  attributed  to 
Wisdom;  and  it  appears  that  we  must  understand 
by  this,  not  the  scheme  of  Divine  Providence,  but 
that  wisdom,  given  by  God  to  man,  which  is  im- 
mortality (viii.  17).  Generally,  too,  it  may  be  ob- 
ser\ed  that,  as  in  the  cognate  books,  Pro\erbs  and 
licclesiastes,  there  ai'e  few  traces  of  the  recognition 
of  the  sinfulness  even  of  the  wise  man  in  his 
wisdom,  which  forms,  in  the  Psalms  and  the 
Proiihets,  the  basis  of  the  Clu'istian  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  (yet  comp.  xv.  2).  With  regard  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  O.  T.,  it  is  worthy  of  notice 
that  a  tyiiieal  significance  is  assumed  to  underlie 
the  historic  details  (xvi.  1,  xviii.  4,  5,  etc.);  and 
in  one  most  remarkable  passage  (xviii.  24)  the  high- 


the  0.  T.  passages  on  which  it  is  based,  and  partly  to 
the  concurrence  of  each  typical  form  of  reproach  and 
suffering  in  the  Lord's  Passion. 

b  There  is  also  considerable  difference  between  the 
sketch  of  the  rise  of  idolatry  in  Philo,  De  Monarch. 
§  1-3,  are  that  given  in  Wisd.  siii.,xiv.  Other  differ- 
ences are  pointed  out  by  Eicbhorn,  Einl.  172  ff.  A 
trace  of  the  cabbalistic  use  of  numbers  is  pointed  ou» 
by  Ewald  in  the  twenty-one  attributes  of  Wisdom  (Til 
22,  23). 


WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON 


3548 


priestly  dress  is  expressly  descrilied  as  presenting  an 
lnia.;e  of  the  Divine  glory  in  creation  and  in  the 
patriarchal  covenant — an  explanation  which  is 
iouud,  in  the  main,  both  in  l^hilo  {De  Vit'i  Mas. 
§  12)  and  Josephus  {Ant.  in.  7,  §  7),  as  well  as  in 
later  writers  (comp.  also  xvi.  6,  §  7).  In  connec- 
tion with  the  0.  T.  Scriptures,  the  book,  as  a 
whole,  ni:vy  be  regarded  a-s  carrying  on  one  step 
further  the  great  problem  of  lite  contained  in  Ec- 
cksiastes  and  Jol);  while  it  differs  from  both  J'or- 
mnlly  by  the  admixture  of  Greek  elements,  and  doc- 
triwiVy  by  thj  supreme  prominence  given  to  the 
idea  of  immortality  as  the  vindication  of  Divine 
justice  (com|).  below,  §  9). 

7.  Tlie  Doctrine  <if  IVisdiim  —  It  would  be  im- 
possible to  trace  here  in  detail  the  progressive  de- 
velopment of  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom,  as  a  Divine 
Power  standing  in  some  sense  lietween  the  Creator 
and  creation,  yet  without  some  idea  of  this  history 
no  corr'?ct  opinion  can  be  formed  on  the  position 
wbich  the  book  of  the  Pseudo-Solomon  occupies  in 
,)e«'ish  literature.  The  foundation  of  the  doctrine 
is  to  lie  found  in  the  book  of  l^roverbs,  where  (viii.) 
Wisdom  (KIwkmah)  is  repre><ented  as  present  with 
(iod  before  (viii.  22)  and  during  the  creation  of  the 
world.  So  far  it  appears  only  as  a  princi|)le  regu- 
lating the  action  of  tlie  Creator,  though  even  in  this 
way  it  establishes  a  close  connection  between  the 
world,  as  the  outward  expression  of  Wislom,  and 
.God.  Moreover,  by  the  person! tication  of  Wisdom, 
and  the  relation  of  Wisdom  to  men  (viii.  31),  a 
pre|)aration  is  made  for  the  extension  of  the  doe- 
trine.  This  appears,  after  a  long  interval,  in  Fx- 
clesiasticus.  In  the  great  descri[)tion  of  Wisdom 
given  in  thatl)Ook  (xxiv.),  Wisdom  is  represented 
as  a  creation  of  God  (xxiv.  9),  penetrating  the 
whole  universe  (4-6),  and  taking  up  her  special 
abode  with  the  chosen  people  (8-12).  Her  personal 
existence  and  providential  function  are  thus  dis- 
tinctly brought  out.  In  the  liook  of  Wisdom  the 
conception  gains  yet  further  completeness.  In  this, 
Wisdom  is  identified  with  the  Spirit  of  God  (ix. 
17)  —  an  identification  lialf  implied  in  Ecclus.  xxiv. 
3  —  which  l)rooded  over  the  elements  of  the  un- 
formed world  (ix.  9),  and  inspired  the  prophets 
(vii.  7,  27).  She  is  the  power  which  unites  (i.  7) 
and  directs  all  things  (viii.  1).  By  her,  in  especial, 
men  have  fellowship  with  God  (xii.  1);  and  her 
action  is  not  confined  to  any  period,  for  "in  all 
ages  entering  into  holy  souls,  she  maketh  them 
friends  of  God  and  prophets  "  (vii.  27).  So  also 
her  working,  in  the  providential  history  of  God's 
pe<^i)le,  is  traced  at  length  (x.):  and  her  power  is 
declared  to  reach  beyond  the  world  of  man  into 
that  of  spirits  (vii.  2;i)- 

The  conception  of  Wisdom,  however  lioldly  per- 
sonifietl,  yet  haves  a  wide  chasm  lietween  the  world 
and  the  C'reatot  Wisdom  answers  to  the  idea  of 
B  spirit  vivifying  and  uniting  all  things  in  all  time, 
as  distinguislied  from  any  special  outward  revela- 
tion of  the  Divine  I'erson.  Thus  at  the  same  time 
that  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  was  gradually  con- 
Btructed,  the  correlative  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Word  was  also  reduced  to  a  definite  shape.  The 
Word  {.\fKiii)-'i),  the  Divine  expression,  as  it  was 
imderstood  in  Palestine,  furnished  the  exact  com- 
plement to  Wisdom,  the  Divine  thought;  but  the 
ambiguity  of  the  Greek  Uxjos  {fennn,  rntio)  intro- 
.luced  cousideraljle  confusion  into  the  later  treat- 
ment of  the  two  ideas.  Broadly,  however,  it  may 
oe  said  that  the  Word  properly  represented  the 
nediative  element  in  the  action  of  God,  Wisdom 


the  mediative  element  of  his  omnipresence.  Thus, 
accordhig  to  the  later  distinction  of  Philo,  \\'isdora 
corresponds  to  the  iiiimitnent  Word  (\6yoi  evSid- 
0eTos),  while  the  Word,  strictly  speaking,  was  de- 
fined as  ennncidlive  {A6yos  irpo(poptK6s)-  Both 
ideas  are  included  in  tlie  language  of  the  propheti, 
and  both  found  a  natural  development  in  Palestine 
and  i'igypt.  The  one  prepared  men  for  the  revela- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God,  the  other  for  the  revelation 
of  the  I  loly  Spirit. 

The  book  of  the  Pseudo-Solomon,  which  gives 
the  tnost  complete  view  of  Divine  Wisdom,  contains 
only  two  passages  in  which  the  Word  is  invested 
with  the  attrilnites  of  personal  action  (xvi.  12,  xviii. 
l.j;  ix.  1  is  of  different  character).  These,  however, 
are  sufficient  to  indicate  that  the  two  powers  were 
distinguished  by  the  writer;  and  it  has  been  com- 
monly argued  that  the  superior  prominence  given 
in  the  book  to  the  conception  of  Wisdom  is  an  in- 
dication of  a  date  anterior  to  Philo.  Nor  is  this 
conclusion  unreasonable,  if  it  is  probably  estaljlished 
on  independent  grounds  that  the  liook  is  of  Alex- 
andrine origin.  Bat  it  is  no  less  important  to  ob- 
serve that  the  doctrine  of  Wisdom  in  itself  is  no 
proof  of  this.  There  is  notliing  in  the  direct  teach- 
ing on  this  subject  which  might  not  have  afisen  in 
Palestine,  and  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  recur 
to  the  more  special  traits  of  Alexandrine  thought 
in  the  Ijook  which  have  been  noticed  before  (§  G) 
for  the  primary  evidence  of  its  Alexandrine  origin; 
and  starting  from  this  there  apjiears  to  be,  as  far  as 
can  be  judged  from  the  imperfect  materials  at  our 
command,  a  greater  affinity  in  the  form  of  the  doc- 
trine on  wisdom  to  the  teaching  of  Alexandria  than 
to  that  of  Palestine  (comp.  Ewald,  Gtsch.  iv.  5-18 
ff. ;  Welte,  Ai«/.  101  ff.,  has  some  good  criticisms 
on  n.any  supposed  traces  of  Alexandrine  doctrine  in 
the  book,  liut  errs  in  denying  all). 

'['he  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Wisdom  passes  by  a 
transition,  often  imperceptible,  to  that  of  human 
wisdom,  which  is  derived  from  it.  This  emliracen 
not  only  the  wliole  range  of  moral  and  spiritual 
virtues,  but  also  the  various  branches  of  physical 
knowledge.  [(Jomp.  Philosophy.]  In  this  aspect 
the  enumeration  of  the  great  forms  of  natural 
science  in  vii.  17-20  (viii.  8),  ottt-rs  a  most  in- 
structive subject  of  comparison  with  the  correspond- 
ing passages  in  1  K.  iv.  32-34.  In  additiim  to  the 
subjects  on  which  Solomon  wrote  (Songs,  Proverbs: 
Plants,  Beasts,  Fowls,  Creeping  Things,  Fishes), 
Cosmology,  Meteorology,  Astronomy,  Psychology, 
and  even  the  elements  of  the  philosophy  of  history 
(viii.  8),  are  included  among  the  gifts  of  Wisdom. 
So  far  then  the  thoughtful  .lew  had  already  at  the 
('hri.stian  era  penetrated  into  the  domain  of  specu- 
lation and  inquiry,  into  each  province,  it  would 
seem,  which  was  then  recognized,  without  abandon- 
ing the  simple  faith  of  his  nation.  The  fact  itself 
is  most  significant:  and  the  whole  book  may  be 
quoted  as  furnishing  an  important  corrective  to  the 
later  Poman  descriptions  of  the  .lews,  which  were 
drawn  from  the  (leople  when  they  had  lieen  almost 
uncivilized  by  the  excitement  of  the  last  desperate 
struggle  for  national  existence.  (For  detailed  refer- 
ences to  the  chief  authorities  on  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  doctrine  of  Wisdom,  see  Philosophy; 
adding  Bruch,  Die  Wtisheilslehre  der  llebrdtr, 
1851.) 

8.  Place  (itid  D'tte  of  Writing.  —  Without  claim- 
ing for  the  internal  indications  of  the  origin  of  the 
liook  a  decisive  force,  it  .seems  most  reasonaiUe  to 
believe  on   these  grounds   that  it  was  compi  sed  at 


8550 


WISDOM,  THE,  OF  SOLOMON 


Alpxaiidna  some  time  before  the  time  of  Philo  (cir. 
120-80  B.  c.)-  'J'liis  oijiiiiou  iu  the  main,  tliougli 
tlie  conjectural  date  varies  from  150-50  b.  c.  or 
even  beyond  tliese  limits,  is  held  by  Heydenreich, 
Gfriirer,  Bauernieister,  Evvald,  Bruch,  and  Grimm ; 
and  other  features  in  the  boolc  go  far  to  confirm  it. 
Without  entering  into  the  question  of  the  extent  of 
the  Hellenistic  element  at  .lerusalem  in  the  last 
century  b.  c,  it  may  be  safely  altirmed  that  there 
is  no\f  the  slightest  evidence  for  the  existence  there 
of  so  wide  an  acquaintance  with  Greek  modes  of 
thought,  and  so  complete  a  command  of  the  re- 
sources of  the  Greek  language,  as  is  shown  in  the 
book  of  Wisdom.  Alexandria  was  the  only  place 
where  Judaism  and  Philosophy,  both  of  the  east 
and  west,  came  into  natural  and  close  connection. 
It  appears  further  that  the  mode  in  which  I'^gyptian 
idolatry  is  spolien  of,  must  be  due  in  some  degree 
to  the  influence  of  present  and  hving  antagonism, 
and  not  to  the  contemplation  of  past  history,  'ibis 
is  particularly  evident  in  the  great  force  laid  upon 
the  details  of  the  Egyptian  animal  worship  (xv.  18, 
etc  ) ;  and  tiie  description  of  the  condition  of  the 
Jewish  settlers  in  Egypt  (xix.  14-16)  applies  better 
to  colonists  fixed  at  Alexandria  on  the  conditions 
of  equ^ity  liy  tlie  first  Ptolemies,  than  to  the  im- 
mediate descendants  of  Jacob.  It  may,  indeed,  be 
said  justly,  that  the  local  coloring  of  the  latter  part 
of  the  book  is  conclusive  as  to  the  place  of  its  com- 
position. But  all  the  guesses  which  have  been 
made  as  to  its  authorship  are  absolutely  valueless. 
The  earliest  was  that  mentioned  by  Jerome,  which 
assigned  it  to  Philo  {Prcvf.  in  Lib.  Hnl.  "  Konnnlli 
scriptorum  veterum  hunc  esse  Judsei  Philonis  affirm- 
ant ").  'i'liere  can  be  no  doulit  that  the  later  and 
famous  Philo  was  intended  by  this  designation, 
though  Jerome  in  his  account  of  him  makes  no  ref- 
erence to  the  belief  {Da  vir.  illuMr.  xi.).  Many 
later  writers,  including  Luther  and  Gerhard, 
adopted  this  view;  but  the  variations  in  teaching, 
which  have  l)een  already  noticed,  effectually  pro\e 
that  it  is  unfounded.  Others,  therefore,  have  nn- 
agined  that  the  name  was  correct,  but  that  the 
elder  Philo  was  intended  by  it  (G.  Wernsdorff,  and 
iu  a  modified  foi-m  Huet  and  Bellarmin).  But  of 
this  elder  Jewish  Philo  it  is  simply  known  that  he 
wrote  a  poem  on  Jerusalem."  Lutterbeck  suggested 
Aristobulus.  [Aiustobulus.]  luchhorn,  Zeller, 
Jost,  and  several  others  supposed  that  the  author 
was  one  of  the  Therapeutfe,  but  here  the  positive 
evidence  against  the  conjecture  is  stronger,  for  the 
book  contains  no  trace  of  the  ascetic  discipline 
which  was  of  the  essence  of  the  Therapeutic  teach- 
ing. The  opinion  of  some'  later  critics  that  the 
book  is  of  Christian  origin  (Kirschkaum,  C  K. 
Weisse),  or  even,  definitely  the  work  of  Apollos 
(Noack),  is  still  more  perverse;  for  not  only  dues  it 
not  contain  tiie  slightest  trace  of  the  three  cardinal 
truths  of  Christianity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Atone- 
ment, the  IJesurrection  of  the  body,  but  it  even 
leaves  no  room  for  them  by  the  general  tenor  of  its 
teaching.* 


a  The  conjecture  of  J.  Faber.  that  the  book  was 
Hiitten  by  Zi-rubbabel,  who  lightly  assumed  the  char- 
wter  of  a  secouil  Snlomon,  is  only  worth  mentioning 
«  a  specimen  of  misplaced  ingenuity  (comp.  Welte, 
Einl.  p.  191  ff.).  ♦ugustiue  himself  corrected  the  mis- 
take by  which  he  attributed  it  to  Jesus  the  son  of 
irach. 

b  I'r.  Tregelles  hns  ^iven  a  new  turn  to  this  opinion 
9y  supposing  that  the  book  may  have  been  written  by 


9.  HisUn-y.  —  The  history  of  the  book  is  ex- 
tremely obscure.  There  is  no  trace  of  the  use  of  it 
before  the  Christian  era,  but  this  could  not  be 
otherwise  if  the  view  which  has  been  given  of  its 
date  be  coirect.  It  is  perhaps  more  surprising  that 
Philo  does  not  (as  it  seems)  show  any  knowledge 
of  it,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  if  his  writings  are 
carefully  examined  with  this  olject,  some  allusions 
to  it  may  be  found  which  have  hitherto  escaped  ob- 
servation. On  the  other  hand,  it  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  St.  Paul,  if  not  other  of  the  Apostclic 
writers,  was  familiar  with  its  language,  though  he 
makes  no  definite  quotation  from  it  (the  supposed 
reference  in  Luke  xi.  49  to  Wisd.  ii.  12-14,  is 
wholly  unfounded).  Thus  we  have  striking  paral- 
lels in  Rom.  ix.  21  to  Wisd.  xv.  7;  in  liom.  ix.  ii2 
to  Wisd.  xii.  20;  in  Eph.  vi.  13-17  to  Wisd.  v 
17-19  (the  heavenly  armor),  etc.  The  coincidences 
in  thought  or  language  which  occur  in  other  books 
of  the  N.  T.,  if  they  stood  alone,  would  be  insuffi- 
cient to  establish  a  direct  connection  between  the>ii 
and  the  Book  of  Wisdom ;  and  even  in  the  case  of 
St.  Paul,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  his  ac- 
quaintance with  the  book  may  not  have  been  gained 
rather  orally  than  by  direct  study.  The  same  re- 
mark apjilies  to  a  coincidence  of  language  in  the 
epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  pointed  out 
by  Grinnn  [Ad  Cor.  i.  27;  Wisd.  xi.  22,  xii.  12); 
so  that  the  first  clear  refei-ences  to  the  book  occur 
not  earlier  than  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
According  to  Eusebius  (//.  7i.  v.  26),  Irenoeus 
made  use  of  it  (and  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews)  in 
a  lost  work,  and  in  a  passage  of  his  great  work 
(ndv.  IJter.  iv.  38,  3),  Irenseus  silently  adopts  a 
characteristic  clause  from  it  (Wisd.  vi.  19,  acpdap- 
cria  Se  iyyhs  elvai  iroie?  Oeov).  Erom  tlie  tin)e  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria  the  book  is  constantly  quoted 
as  an  inspired  work  of  Solomon,  or  as  "  Scripture," 
even  liy  those  Eathers  who  denied  its  assumed  au- 
thorship, and  it  gained  a  place  in  the  Canon  (to- 
gether with  the  other  Apocryphal  books)  at  the 
Council  of  Carthage,  cir.  397  A.  D.  (for  detailed 
references  .see  Canon,  vol.  i.  pp.  364,  366).  Erom 
this  time  its  history  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
other  Apocryphal  books  up  to  the  period  of  the 
lielbrmation.  In  the  controversies  which  arose 
then  its  intrinsic  excellence  commanded  the  admi- 
ration of  those  who  refused  it  a  place  among  the 
canonical  books  (so  Luther  op.  Grimm,  §  2).  Pel- 
lican  directly  affirmed  its  inspiration  (Grimm,  I.e.); 
and  it  is  quoted  as  Scripture  iu  both  the  books  of 
Homilies  (pp.  98-99  ;  174,  ed.  1850).  In  later 
times  the  various  estimates  which  have  iieen  formed 
of  the  book  have  been  influenced  by  controversial 
prejudices.  In  England,  like  the  rest  of  the  .Apoc- 
rypha, it  has  been  most  strangely  neglected,  though 
it  fiu'nishes  several  lessons  for  Church  Eeetivals. 
It  seems,  indeed,  impossible  to  study  the  ijook  dis- 
passionately, and  not  feel  that  it  forms  one  of  the 
last  links  in  the  chain  of  providential  connection 
between  the  Old  and  New  Covenants.  How  far  it 
falls  short  of  Christian  truth,  or  rather  how  com- 


a  Christian  (otherwise  unknown)  named  Philo  In 
support  of  this  he  suggests  an  ingenious  conjectural 
emendation  of  a  corrupt  passage  of  the  Muratorian 
Canon.  Where  the  Latin  text  reads  et  Sapiintin  iih 
amicU  Satoinnnis  in  honoreiii  ipsltis  acripta,  he  imagines 
the  original  Greek  may  have  read,  icai  r;  2o(f)ia  2oA.o- 
fittirTOs  iiirb  ^lAwTO^  (for  vtto  (i'u\txiv\  ....  Or  agaiiv 
that  .lerome  so  misread  the  passage  {Journal  uf  Vliiloi 
18.55.  p  37  ff.). 


WISE  MEN 

pletely  silent  it  is  on  tlie  essential  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  has  bten  already  seen;  and  yet  (Chris- 
tianity offers  the  only  complete  solution  to  the 
problems  which  it  raises  in  its  teaching  on  the  im- 
niC'ltality  of  man,  on  future  judi^ment,  on  the  cath- 
olicity of  the  divine  Church,  and  the  speciality  of 
Revelation.  It  would  not  be  easy  to  find  elsewliere 
any  pre-Christian  view  of  religion  equally  wide, 
sustained,  and  definite.  'I'he  writer  seems  U>  have 
looked  to  the  east  and  west,  to  tlie  philosophy  of 
Persia  and  Greece,  and  to  have  gatheied  from  both 
what  they  contained  of  Divine  truth,  and  yet  to 
have  clung  witii  no  less  ze:d  than  his  lathers  to  tliat 
central  revelation  whicli  (Jod  ni:\de  first  to  Moses, 
and  then  carried  on  liy  tlie  0.  l".  prophets.  Thus 
in  some  sense  tlie4bouk  becomes  a  landmark  by 
which  we  may  purtially  fix  the  natural  limits  of  the 
development  of  .lewisb  doctrine  wiien  brought  into 
contact  with  hcatlien  doctrine,  and  measure  the 
aspirations  whicli  were  thus  raised  Ijefore  their 
great  fulfillment.  The  teaching  of  the  book  upon 
immortality  lias  lelt  ineffaceable  traces  upon  the 
language  of  Chrfetendom.  Tlie  noble  phrase  which 
speaks  of  a  "  hope  full  of  immortality  "  (Wisd.  iii. 
4),  can  never  be  lost;  and  in  mediaeval  art  few 
symbols  are  more  striking  than  that  which  repre- 
sents in  outward  form  that  "  the  souls  of  the  right- 
eous are  in  the  hand  of  God  "  (Wisd.  iii.  I). 
Other  passages  less  familiar  are  scarcely  less  beai, 
tiful  when  seen  in  the  light  of  Christianity,  as  -xv. 
3,  "To  know  Thee  (0  God)  is  perfect  righteous- 
ness; yea,  to  know  Thy  power  is  the  root  of  im- 
mortality "  (conip.  viii.  l-'J,  17;  8t.  John  xvii.  3), 
or  xi.  26,  "Thou  sparest  all:  for  they  are  thine, 
0  Lord,  thou  lover  of  souls  "  (coinp.  xii.  10);  and 
many  detached  expressions  anticipate  the  language 
of  the  .Vpostles  (iii.  'J,  X"P'J  f^l  eAeos;  iii.  14, 
Trjs  TTiffTeuis  X'^P'*"  e'f  A€/f  r?) ;  xi.  23,  irapopas  a/xap- 
TTijiiaTa  kvQpMTtoiv  ejs  jxiTavoLav;  xvi.  7,  5ia  (re 
rhv  ■KO.VTCi)!'  a(iiT?ipa)- 

10.  Cuiiiiiienlaik-s.  —  The  earliest  commentary 
which  remains  is  that  of  Habanus  Maurus  (t  8.j(J), 
who  undertook  the  work,  as  he  says  in  his  prelace, 
because  he  was  not  acquainted  with  any  complete 
exposition  of  the  book.  It  is  uncertain  from  his 
language  whether  the  homilies  of  .Vugustiue  and 
Anilirose  existed  in  his  time:  at  least  they  have 
now  been  long  lost.  Of  the  Roman  (Jatholic  com- 
mentaries the  most  important  are  those  of  Lorimis 
(t  1634),  Corn,  a  Lapide  (f  1637),  .Maldonatus 
(t  1583),  Calmet  (t  1757),  J.  A.  Schmid  (1858). 
Of  other  commentaries,  the  chief  are  those  by  (iro- 
tius  (t  1645),  Heydeiireich,  Bauermeister  (1828), 
and  Grimm  (1837).  The  last-mentioned  scholar 
has  also  puldished  a  new  and  admirable  commentary 
in  the  Karzijcf.  Kxi'tj.  Hniulh.  zu  d.  Apok.  1860, 
which  contains  ample  references  to  earlier  writers, 
and  only  errs  by  excess  of  fullness.  The  Knglish 
couituenfciiy  of  K.  .-\rnald  (t  1750)  is  extremely  dif- 
fuse, but  includes  much  illustrative  matter,  and 
bIiows  a  regard  for  tlie  variations  of  .MS.S.  and 
versions  which  was  most  unusual  at  the  time.  A 
|ood  English  edition,  however,  is  still  to  he  de- 
sired. B.  F.  W. 

*  WISE  MI'lN,  Matt.  ii.  1.     [Magi;  Stau 

■^F  THE   \VlSE  MkX.] 

*  WIST  =" knew"  (Ex.  xvi.  15;  Mark  ix. 
J).  It  is  from  the  A.-S.  wton,  in  Germ.  wi»»en. 
See  Wit,  VV(yr.  H. 

*  WIT,  from  the    V.^S.  Jt)|7rtn==«to  know" 


WITNESS 


3551 


(Gen.  xxiv.  21 ;  Ex.  ii.  4).     Hence,  '•  to  do  to  vnt " 
(2  Cor.  viii.  1)  is  "to  caivse  to  know."  H. 

WITCH,  WITCHCRAFTS.     [Magic] 
*  WITHERED  HAND.     [Medicine,  vol. 

iii.  p.  1800.] 

WITNESS."  Among  peoi)le  with  whom  writ- 
ing is  not  common,  the  evidence  of  a  transaction  is 
given  by  some  tangible  memorial  or  significant  cere- 
mony. Abraham  g:ive  seven  ewe-lambs  to  .\binie- 
lech  as  an  evidence  of  his  property  in  the  well  of 
Beer-sheba.  .lacob  raised  a  heap  of  stones,  "the 
heap  of  witness,"  as  a  boundary-mark  between  him- 
self and  Laban  (Gen.  xxi.  30,  xxxi.  47,  52).  The 
trilies  of  Reuben  and  Gad  raised  an  "  altar,"  de- 
signed espre-^sly  not  for  sacrifice,  but  as  a  witness 
to  the  covenant  between  themselves  and  the  rest  of 
the  nation;  -loshna  set  up  a  stone  as  an  eviden^'e 
of  the  allegiance  promised  by  Israel  to  God;  "  for," 
he  said,  "it  hath  heard  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  " 
(.losh.  xxii.  10,  26,  34,  xxiv.  26,  27).  So  also  a 
pillir  is  mentioned  by  Isaiah  as  "a  witness  to  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  in  the  land  of  Egypt"  (Is.  xix.  10, 
20).  Thus  also  the  sacred  ark  and  its  contents  are 
called  "  the  Testimony  "  (Ex.  xvi.  33,  34,  xxv.  16, 
xxxviii.  21;  Num.  i.  50,  53,  ix.  15,  x.  11,  xvii.  7, 
8,  xviii.  2;   Heb.  ix.  4). 

Thus  also  symbolical  usages,  in  ratification  of 
contracts  or  completed  arrangements,  as  the  cere- 
;'iony  of  shoe-loosing  (l)eut.  xxv.  9,  10;  Ruth  iv. 
7,  8),  the  ordeal  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a  sus- 
pected wife,  with  which  may  be  compared  the 
ordeal  of  the  Styx  (Num.  v.  17-31;  Class.  Mus. 
vi.  380).  The  Bedouin  Arabs  practice  a  fiery 
ordeal  in  certain  cases  by  way  of  compurgation 
(Burckhardt,  Noitf,  i.  121  ;  Layard,  Nin.  and 
H(b.  p.  305).  The  ceremony  also  appointed  at 
the  oblation  of  first-fruits  may  be  mentioned  as 
partaking  of  the  same  character  (Deut.  xxvi.  4). 
[FiHST-FnuiTb.] 

But  written  evidence  was  by  no  means  unknown 
to  the  .Jews.  Divorce  was  to  be  proved  by  a  writ- 
ten document  (Deut.  xxiv.  1,  3),  whereas  among 
Bedouins  and  Mussulmans  in  general  a  spoken  sen- 
tence is  sufficient  (Burckhardt,  Nutes,  i,  110;  Sale, 
Koran,  c.  33,  p.  348;  Lane,  .\fod.  Ey.  i.  136,  236). 
In  civil  contracts,  at  least  in  later  times,  docu- 
lueiitary  evidence  was  required  and  carefully  pre  ■ 
served  (Is,  viii.  16;  Jer.  xxxii.  10-16), 

On  the  whole  the  Law  was  very  careful  to  pi'o- 
vide  and  enforce  evidence  for  all  its  infractions  and 
all  transactions  bearing  on  them ;  c,  </.  the  memo- 
rial stones  of  Jord.an  and  of  Ebal  (Deut.  xxvii.  2- 
4;  Josh.  iv.  9,  viii.  30);  the  fringes  on  garnients 
(Num.  XV.  39,  40);  the  boundary-stones  of  prop- 
erty (Deut.  xix.  14,  xxvii.  17;  Prov.  xxii.  28);  tlie 
"  broad  plates  "  made  from  the  censers  of  the  Ko- 
rithiles  (Num.  xvi,  38);  above  all,  the  Ark  of  Tes- 
timony itself:  all  these  are  instances  of  the  care 
taken  by  the  Legislator  to  perpetuate  evidence  of 
the  fact«  on  which  the  legislation  was  founded,  and 
by  which  it  was  supported  (Deut.  vi.  20-2.i). 
.\ppeal  to  the  same  principle  is  also  repeatedly 
made  in  the  case  of  ])ropliecies  as  a  test  of  their 
autiienticity  (Deut.  xviii.  22;  Jer.  xxviii,  9.16,  17; 
.lohn  Iii.  11,  v.  36,  x.  38,  xiv.  11;  Luke  xxiv.  48; 
4cts  i.  3,  ii.  32,  iii.  15,  ..to.). 

Among  special  provisions  of  the  Law  with  re- 
spect to  evidence  are  the  following:  — 

o  "^27,  mi^  f. :  nafiTv% ;  'fs'is ;  used  be  tU  < 
per.sons  and  riiiica. 


3552 


WIZARD 


1.  Two  witnesses  at  least  are  required  to  estali- 
lish  any  charge  (Num.  xxxv.  30;  Deut.  xvii.  (J, 
xix.  15;  1  K.  xxi.  13;  John  viii.  17;  2  Cor.  xiii. 
1;  Heb.  x.  28);  and  a  like  principle  is  laid  down 
by  St.  Paul  as  a  rule  of  procedure  in  certain  cases 
in  the  Christian  Church  (1  Tim.  v.  19). 

2.  In  the  case  of  the  suspected  wife,  evidence 
besides  tlie  husband's  was  desired,  though  not  de- 
manded (Num.  V.  13). 

3.  Tlie  witness  wlio  withheld  the  truth  was  cen- 
sured (Lev.  V.  1). 

4.  False  witness  was  punished  with  the  punish- 
ment due  to  the  offense  which  it  sought  to  estab- 
lish.    [Oaths.] 

5.  Slanderous  reports  and  officious  witness  are 
discouraged  (Ex.  xx.  16,  xxiii.  1;  Lev.  xix.  IG,  18; 
Deut.  xix.  16-21;  Prov.  xxiv  28). 

6.  The  witnesses  were  the  first  executioners 
(Deut.  xiii.  9,  xvii.  7;  Acts  vii.  58). 

7.  In  case  of  an  animal  left  in  charge  and  torn 
by  wild  beasts,  the  keeper  was  to  bring  the  carcase 
in  proof  of  the  fact  and  disproof  of  his  own  crimi- 
nality (Ex.  xxii.  13). 

8.  According  to  Josephus,  women  and  slaves 
were  not  admitted  to  bear  testiujony  (Ant.  iv.  8, 
§  15).  To  these  exceptions  the  Mishna adds  idiots, 
deaf,  blind,  and  dumb  persons,  persons  of  infamous 
character,  and  some  others,  ten  in  all  (Selden,  (/t- 
Syiiedr.  ii.  13,  11;  Otho,  Lex.  Rnbb.  p.  053). 
Tlie  high-priest  was  not  bound  to  give  evidence  in 
any  case  except  one  affecting  the  king  {ibid.).  Va- 
rious refinements  on  the  quality  of  evidence  and 
the  manner  of  taking  it  are  given  in  the  Mishna 
{Sitnhedr.  iv.  5,  v.  2,  3;  Maccolh,  i.  1,  9;  ISheh. 
iii.  10,  iv.  1,  V.  1).  In  criminal  cases  evidence 
was  required  to  be  oral;  in  pecuniary,  written  evi- 
dence was  allowed  (Otho,  Lex.  Rahb.  p.  053). 

In  tlie  N.  T.  the  original  notion  of  a  witness  is 
exhil]ited  in  the  special  form  of  one  who  attests  his 
belief  in  the  Gospel  by  personal  suffering.  So  St. 
Stephen  is  styled  by  St.  Paul  (Acts  xxii.  20),  and 
the '^  faithful  Antipas  "  (Rev.  ii.  13).  St.  John 
also  speaks  of  himself  and  of  others  as  witnesses  in 
this  sense  (Rev.  i.  9,  vi.  9,  xi.  3,  xx.  4).  See  also 
Heb.  xi.  and  xii.  1,  in  which  passage  a  number  of 
persons  are  mentioned,  belonging  both  to  0.  T.  and 
N.  T.  who  bore  witness  to  the  truth  by  personal 
end'icance ;  and  to  this  passage  may  be  added,  as 
bearnig  on  the  same  view  of  the  term  "witness," 
Dan.  iii.  21,  vi.  16:  1  Mace.  i.  60,  63;  2  Mace, 
vi.  18,  19.  Hence  it  is  tliat  the  use  of  the  eccle- 
siastical term  "  Martyr  "  has  arisen,  of  which  co- 
pious illustration  may  be  seen  in  Suicer,  Thes.  vol. 
ii.  p.  310,  &c.     [Maktvk,  Amer.  ed.] 

H.  W.  P. 

WIZARD.     [Magic] 

*  WOE  WORTH  (Ez.  xxx.  2)  is  equivalent 
to  "  woe  be,"  /.  e.  to  the  day  of  which  the  propiiet 
Bjieaks.  Woi-th,  from  the  Anglo-Saxon,  means 
»•  to  be  "  or  "  become,"  like  werden  in  German. 

H. 

WOLF  (2S^,  zei'b:  Kvkos-  lupus).  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  wolf  of  Palestine  is  the 
common  C<inii  lupus,  and  that  tliis  is  the  animal 
BO  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  though  it  is 
true  tiiat  we  lack  precise  information  with  regard  to 
the  Ci'tddm  of  Palestine,  llemprich  and  Khrenberg 
have  described  a  few  species,  as,  for  instance,  the 
Cdnis  Syriacus  and  the  (\  (  Vulpes)  Ndoticus  (see 
fiL'nres  in  art.  Fo.^.  i.  840  f. );  and  Col.  Hamilton 
Sn  it^    itu^ntions,  under  the  name  of  dtrbuun,  a 


WOMEN 

species  of  black  wolf,  as  occuiriiig  in  Ai  ibia  and 
Southern  Syria;  but  nothing  definite  seems  to  Ix 
known  of  this  animal.  Wolves  were  doubtless  fai 
more  connnon  in  Biblical  times  than  they  are  now, 
tliough  they  are  occasionally  seen  by  modem  trav 
ellers  (see  Kitto's  PItysical  flistovy  of  P(des/iiie, 
p.  364,  and  Russell's  iV(d.  Hist,  of  A/eppo,n.  184): 
"  the  wolf  seldom  ventures  so  near  the  city  as  the 
fox,  but  is  sometimes  seen  at  a  distance  by  the 
sportsmen  among  the  hilly  grounds  in  the  neigh- 
borhood; and  the  villages,  as  well  as  the  herds, 
often  suffer  from  them.  It  is  called  deeb  in  Arabic, 
and  is  common  all  over  Syria." 

The  following  are  the  Scriptural  allusions  to  the 
wolf:  Its  ferocity  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  xlix.  27 ; 
Kz.  xxii.  27;  Hab.  i.  8;  Matt.  vii.  15:  its  noc- 
turnal habits,  in  Jer.  v.  6;  Zeph  iii.  3;  Hab.  i.  8: 
its  attacking  sheep  and  lambs,  .lohn  x.  12;  Matt. 
X.  10;  Luke  x  3.  Isaiah  (xi.  6,  Ixv.  25)  foretells 
the  peaceful  reign  of  the  Messiah  under  the  meta- 
phor of  a  wolf  dwelling  with  a  lamb;  cruel  perse- 
cutors are  compared  with  wolves  (Matt.  x.  16 ;  Acta 
XX.  29). 

Wohes,  like  many  other  animals,  are  sulyect  to 
variation  in  color;  the  common  color  is  gray  with 
a  tinting  of  fawn  and  long  black  hairs;  the  variety 
most  frequent  in  Southern  Euiope  and  the  Pyrenees 
is  black;  the  wolf  of  Asia  Minor  is  more  tawny 
than  those  of  the  conmion  color. 

The  people  of  Nubia  and  Egypt  apply  the  term 
dieb  to  the  Cmiis  antlius,  Vr.  Cuv.  (see  Riippell's 
Afliis  zu  der  Reise  iiii  Nvrdlichen  Africa,  p.  46); 
this,  however,  is  a  jackal,  and  seems  to  be  the 
Lupus  Syriacus,  vvhich  Hemp,  and  Ehrenb.  noticed 
in  Syria,  and  identical  with  tiie  "  Egyptian  wolf  " 
figured  by  Ham.  Smith  in  Kitto's  CycL 

W.  H. 

WOMEN.  The  position  of  women  in  the 
Helirew  commonwealth  contrasts  favorably  with 
that  which  in  the  present  day  is  as.signed  to  them 
generally  in  eastern  countries.  The  social  equality 
of  the  two  sexes  is  most  fully  implied  in  the  history 
of  the  original  creation  of  the  woman,  as  well  as  in 
the  name  assigned  to  her  by  the  man,  which  dif- 
fered from  his  own  only  in  its  feminine  termination 
((ien.  ii.  18-23).  This  narrative  is  hence  effect- 
ively appealed  to  as  supplying  an  argument  for 
enforcing  the  duties  of  the  husband  towards  tlie 
wife  (Eph.  v.  28-31).  Many  usages  of  early  times 
interfered  with  the  preservation  of  this  theoretical 
equality :  we  may  instance  the  existence  of  polyg- 
amy, the  autocratic  powers  vested  in  the  head  of  the 
family  under  the  patriarchal  system,  and  the  treat- 
ment of  captives.  Nevertheless  a  high  tone  was 
maintained  generally  on  this  sulject  by  the  Mosaic 
Law,  and,  as  far  as  we  have  the  means  of  judging, 
by  the  force  of  pulilic  opinion. 

The  most  salient  point  of  contrast  in  the  usages 
of  ancient  as  compared  with  modern  oriental  society 
was  the  lar^e  amount  of  liberty  enjoyed  by  women. 
Instead  of  being  immured  in  a  harem,  or  appe.ar- 
iiig  in  public  with  the  face  covered,  the  wives  and 
maidens  of  ancient  times  minified  freely  and  openly 
with  the  other  sex  in  the  duties  and  amenities  of 
ordinary  life.  Rebekah  travelled  on  a  camel  with 
her  face  unveiled,  until  she  came  into  the  presence 
of  her  affianced  (Gen.  xxiv.  64,  05).  Jacob  saluted 
Rachel  with  a  kiss  in  the  presence  of  the  shepherds 
(Gen.  xxix.  11).  Each  of  these  maidens  was  en^ 
gau'ed  in  active  employment,  the  former  in  fetching 
water  from  tiie  well,  the  latter  in  tending  her  flock. 
Sarah  wore  no  veil  in  Egyiit,  and  3et  this  tn'meij 


WOMEN 

no  ground  for  supposins;  her  to  be  married  (Gen. 
xii.  14-19).     An  outrage  on  a  maiden  in  the  open 
field   was    visited    with    the    se\erest    punishment 
(Ueut.  xxii.  2o-27),  provint;  tiiat  it  was  not  deemed 
improper  tor  her  to  go  about  unprotected.    Further 
than  this,  women  played   no  inconsiderable  part  in 
public    celebrations:     Miriam    headed   a   band    of 
women  who  commemorated  witii  song  and  dance 
the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptians  (Kx.  xv.  20,  21): 
Jephthah's  daughter  gave   her  father  a  triumplial 
reception   (-Tudg.   xi.   3-1);   the    maidens  of   Shiloh 
rt:uiced  publicly  in  the  vineyards  at  the  yearly  feast 
(.ludg.  xxi.  21);  and    the  women   feted    Saul  and 
l),iviil,  on  their  return  from  the  defeat  of  the  Phi- 
listines, with  singing  and  dancing  (1  Sam.  xviii.  0, 
7).     The  odes  of  Deborah  (.ludg.  v.)  and  of  Han-  j 
nail  (1  Sam.  ii.  1,  etc.)  exhibit  a  degree  of  intel- 
lectual cultivation  which  is  in  itself  a  proof  of  the  , 
position  of  the  sex  in  that  period.     Women  also  i 
occasionally  held  public  offices,  particularly  tliat  of  j 
prophetess  or    inspired    teacher,   a^    instanced    in 
Miriam    (Ex.   xv.    20),  Huldah    (2   K.   xxii.    1-1),  | 
Noadiah    (Neh    vi.   14),  .A.nna  (Luke  ii.  30),  and  j 
above  all  Del)orah.  who  applied  her  prophetical  gift  ! 
to  the  administration  of  pulilic  affairs,  and  was  so 
entitled    to   be   .styled   a    "judsre"    (.Tudtr.  iv.  4).  | 
The  active  pirt  taken  by  •fezel)el  in  the  govermnent  [ 
of  Israel  (1  K.  xviii.  13,  xxi.  2-5),  and  the  usurpa- 
tion of  the  throne  of  .ludah  by  Athaliah  (2  K   xi. 
3),  further  attest  the  latitude  allowed  to  women  in 
public  life. 

TiiB  mana'jcement  of  household  aflfkirs  devolved 
mainly  on  the  women.  They  brou<;ht  the  water 
from  the  well  (den.  xxiv.  15;  1  Sam.  ix.  11), 
attended  to  the  flocks  (den.  xxix.  6,  etc.;  Ex.  ii. 
10),  prepared  the  meals  {Gen.  xviii.  6;  2  Sam  xiii. 
81,  and  occupied  their  leisure  hours  in  spinning 
(Kx.  XXXV.  20;  Prov.  xxxi.  19)  and  making  clothes, 
eitlier  for  the  use  of  the  family  (1  Sam.  ii.  19; 
I'rov.  xxxi.  21),  for  sale  (I'rov.  xxxi.  14,  24),  or 
fur  charity  (Acts  ix.  39).  The  value  of  a  virtuous 
and  active  housewife  forms  a  frequent  topic  in  the 
hook  of  Proverbs  (xi.  16,  xii.  4,  xiv.  1,  xxxi.  10, 
etc.).  Her  influence  was  of  course  proportionably 
great ;  and.  where  there  was  no  second  wife,  she 
controlled  the  arrangements  of  the  house,  to  the 
extent  of  inviting  or  receiving  guests  on  her  own 
motion  (-ludg.  iv.  18;  1  Sam.  xxv.  18,  etc.;  2  K. 
iv.  8,  etc.).  The  effect  of  pol3'gamy  was  to  transfer 
fem.ale  influence  from  the  wives  to  the  mother,  as 
is  incidentally  shown  in  the  application  of  the  term 
(/ch'weli  (litprally  meanincj  powerful)  to  the  qneen 
mother  (1  K.  ii'.  19.  xv.  13;  2  K.  x.  13,  xxiv.  12: 
.ler.  xiii.  18,  xxix.  2).  Polvjiamy  also  necessitated 
a  separate  establishment  for  the  wives  collectively. 
or  for  each  individually.  Tims  in  the  palace  of 
the  Persian  monarch  there  M'as  a  "  house  of  tlie 
women  "  (Esth.  ii.  9)  which  was  guarded  by 
einuichs  (ii.  3):  in  Solomon's  palace  the  harem 
was  connected  with,  but  separate  from,  the  rest  of 
the  building  (1  K.  vii.  8);  and  on  journeys  each 
wife  had  her  separate  tent  (tien.  xxxi.  33).  In 
sufh  cases  it  is  probable  that  the  females  took  their 
iiip;ils  apart  from  the  males  (Esth.  i.  9);  but  we 
have  no  reason  to  conclude  that  the  separate  system 
prevailed  generally  among  the  .lews.  The  women 
were  present  at  festivals,  either  as  attendants  on 
the  guests  (.lohn  xii.  2),  or  as  themselves  guests 
(.lob  i.  4:  .Tolm  ii.  3);  and  hence  there  is  <;ood 
•  fround  for  concluding  that  on  ordinary  occasions 
ilso  thev  joinrd  the  males  at  meals,  though  tlierr  is 
10  jH)8itive  testimony  to  that  effect. 


WOOLEN  3553 

Further  information  on  the  subject  of  this  arti 
cle  is  given  under  the  heads  Deaconess,  Dkess 
H.viR,  Maukiage,  Slave,  Veil,  and  Widow. 

W.  L.  B. 

WOOD.     [Forest.] 

*  WOOF.     [Weaving.] 

WOOL  PP?;    f2).     Wool  was  an  article 

of  the  highest  value  among  the  Jews,  as  th^  staple 
material  for  the  manufacture  of  clothing  (Lev.  xiii 
47;  Deut.  xxii.  11;  Job  xxxi.  20;  Prov.  xxxi.  13; 
Kz.  xxxiv.  3;  Hos.  ii.  5).  Both  the  Hebrew  terms, 
tsemer  and  gez,  imply  the  act  of  she.aring,  the  dis- 
tinction between  them  beinij;  that  the  latter  refers 
to  tlie  "  fleece  "  (Deut.  xviii.  4;  Job  xxxi.  20),  as 
proved  by  the  use  of  the  coi^Tiate  gizzah,  in  Judg. 
vi.  37-40,  in  conjunction  with  tsemer,  in  the  sense 
of  "  a  fleece  of  wool."  The  importance  of  wool  is 
incidentally  shown  by  the  notice  that  Mesha's 
tribute  was  paid  in  a  certain  number  of  rams  "  with 
the  wool  "  (2  K.  iii.  4),  as  well  as  by  its  being 
specified  among  the  first-fruits  to  be  offered  to  the 
priests  (Deut.  xviii.  4).  The  wool  of  Damascus 
was  hiirhly  prized  in  the  mart  of  Tyre  (Ez.  xxvii. 
18);  and  is  compared  in  the  LXX.  to  the  wool  of 
:\liletus  (ipia  eK  MiArjTOv),  the  fame  of  which  was 
widely  spre.ad  in  the  ancient  world  (Plin.  viii.  73; 
VirL'.  f''eorf/.  iii  300,  iv.  334).  Wool  is  occasion 
ally  cited  as  an  image  of  purity  and  brilliancy  (Is. 
i.  18;  Dan.  vii.  9;  Rev.  i.  14),  and  the  flakes  of 
snow  are  appropriately  likened  to  it  (Ps.  cxlvii.  16). 
The  art  of  dyeing  it  was  understood  by  the  Jews 
(Mishna,  S/iah.  1,  §  0).  W.  L.  B. 

WOOLEN  (LINEN  and).    Among  the  laws 
against    unnatural  mixtures  is  found  one  to  this 

effect:  "A  garment  of  mixtures  [tptpl^tZ?, 
shaatncz]  shall  not  come  upon  thee"  (Lev.  xix. 
19);  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Deut.  xxii.  11,  "thou 
shalt  not  wear  skaatncz,  wool  and  flax  together." 
Our  version,  by  the  help  of  the  latter  passage,  has 
rendered  the  strange  word  shantnez  in  the  former, 
"of  linen  and  woolen;  "  while  in  Deut.  it  is  trans- 
lated "a  garment  of  divers  sorts."  In  the  Vulgato 
the  difficulty  is  avoided;  and  Ki;35r)Aos,  "spuri- 
ous "  or  "  counterfeit,"  the  rendering  of  the  LXX., 
is  wanting  in  precision.  In  the  I'argum  of  Onkelos 
the  same  word  remains  with  a  slight  modification 
to  adapt  it  to  the  Chaldee;  but  in  the  Peshito- 
Syriac  of  Lev.  it  is  rendered  by  an  adjective, 
"  motley,"  and  in  Deut.  a  '■  motley  garment,"  cor- 
responding in  some  degree  to  the  Samaritan  ver- 
sion, which  has  "spotted  like  a  leopard."  Two 
things  only  appear  to  be  certain  about  shantncz  — 
that  it  is  a  foreign  word,  and  that  its  origin  has 
not  at  present  been  traced.  Its  signification  is 
sufficiently  defined  in  Deut.  xxii.  11.  The  deriva- 
tion given  in  the  Mishna  (CUniin,  ix.  8),  which 
makes  it  a  compound  of  three  words,  signifying 
'•carded,  spun,  and  twisted,"  is  in  keeping  with 
Rabbinical  etymologies  generally.  Other  etymolo- 
gies are  proposed  by  Bochar'  (Hieroz.  pt.  i.  b.  2, 
c.  45),  Simonis  (Lea;.  Ileb,  and  Pfeifi'er  (Du/j. 
Vex.  cent.  2,  loo.  xi.).  The  last-mentioned  writer 
defended  the  l-^gyptian  origiii  of  the  word,  but  his 
knowledge  of  Coptic,  according  to  Jablonski,  ex- 
tended not  nuich  beyond  the  letters,  and  little 
value,  therefore,  is  to  be  attached  to  the  solution 
which  he  pro[)osed  for  the  difficulty.  Jablonski 
himself  favors  the  suggestion  of  I'brster,  tiiat  a 
garment  of  linen  and  woolen  was  called  by  the 
Egyptians  shuiUms,  and  that  this  word   wa>  oor- 


8554 


WORD,  THE 


rowed  by  the  Ilebiews,  and  written  by  them  in  tlie 
form  shaatniz  ( Opusc.  i.  294). 

The  reason  given  by  Josephus  {Ant.  'v  8,  §  11) 
fur  the  law  which  prohiliited  tlie  wearing  a  garment 
woven  of  linen  and  woolen  is,  that  such  were  worn 
by  the  priests  alone  (see  Mishna,  Cil'iim,  ix.  1 ). 
Of  this  kind  were  the  girdle  (of  which  Josephus 
says  the  warp  was  entirely  linen,  Aiil.  iii.  7,  §  2), 
ephod,  and  breastplate  (Braunius,  de  Vest.  Hnc. 
Ihbi:  pp.  110,  HI)  of  the  high-priest,  and  the 
i^irdle  of  the  common  priests  (Maimonides,  Cele 
Jidiiimikdiisli,  cviii.).  Spencer  conjectured  that 
the  use  of  woolen  and  linen  inwoven  in  the  same 
garment  prevailed  amongst  the  ancient  Zabii,  and 
was  associated  with  their  idolatrous  ceremonies 
(De  leff.  /h'h.  ii.  33,  §  3);  but  that  it  was  per- 
mitted to  the  Hebrew  priests,  because  with  them  it 
could  give  rise  to  no  suspicion  of  idolatry  Mai- 
monides found  in  the  books  of  the  Zabii  that 
"  the  priests  of  the  idolaters  clothed  themselves 
with  robes  of  linen  and  woolen  mixed  together" 
(Townley,  Reasons  of  the  Lairs  of  Moses,  p.  207). 
By  "  wool "  the  Talmudists  nnderstood  the  wool 
of  sheep  (Mishna,  Cil  dm,  ix.  1).  It  is  evident 
from  Zeph.  i.  8,  that  the  adoption  of  a  particular 
dress  was  an  indication  of  idolatrous  tendencies, 
and  there  may  l)e  therefore  some  truth  in  the 
explanation  of  Maimonides.  \V.  A.  W. 

*  WORD,  THE  (6  \6yos:  verbum),.Jo\m  i.  1, 
14.  This  term  is  employed  by  St.  John  in  a  manner 
peculiar  to  himself  among  the  sacred  writers,  liut 
in  such  a  manner  as  suggests  that  among  those  for 
whom  he  immediately  wrote,  it  was  ah'eady  asso- 
ciated with  a  meaning  or  meanings  somewhat  anal- 
ogous to  that  which  he  designed  to  convey  by  it. 
That  this  was  in  general  the  case,  there  is  abun- 
dant evidence;  but  to  determine  precisely  the  vari- 
ous shades  of  meaning  attached  to  it  in  different 
quarters  by  those  who  lived  at  tlie  time  of  the 
Evangelist  or  not  long  before,  and  to  show  pre- 
cisely in  what  relation  his  own  employment  of  it 
stood  to  existing  usage,  are  among  the  most  tlitii- 
cult  problems  in  the  history  of  religious  thought. 

The  idea  of  a  distinction  between  the  hidden  and 
the  manifested  Deity,  lietween  God  as  He  is  in  him- 
self and  as  He  makes  himself  known  in  creation 
and  revelation,  seems  to  have  been  early  entertaiiietl 
among  the  Jews,  and  was  naturally  suggested  l)y 
many  of  the  representations  of  the  Old  Testament, 
such,  e.  (/.  as  that  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  Kx. 
xxiii.  20,  21,  and  elsewhere,  the  divine  manifesta- 
tion to  Moses,  Kx.  xxxiii.  20-23,  and  the  passage 
in  which  \Vlsdom  is  introduced  as  speaking,  I'rov. 
viii.,  particularly  vv.  23-31. 

In  the  apocryphal  books  of  Reclesiasticus  (xxiv. 
3,  4,  8,  0)  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (vii.  22- 
27.  ix.  4,  9),  both  works  of  Alexandrine  origin,  the 
concef.tion  presented  in  the  passage  last  referred  to 
is  developed  in  such  a  way  as  strongly  to  favor  the 
supposition  of  a  design  to  indicate  a  personal  being 
as  the  medium  of  the  divine  communication  with 
the  world,  and  in  a  speci.al  m.anner  (Kcclus.)  with 
Israel.  [NVisno^i  ov  Soi.omox,  §  7.]  But  the 
most  prominent  form  among  those  in  which  the 
idea  of  the  .self-revealing  God  was  wont  to  be  ex- 
pressed among  the  .lews  subsequently  to  the  Cap- 


WORD,  THE 

tivity,  seems  to  have  originated  in  what  w..j  tlw 
standing  representation  of  the  divine  agency  em- 
ployed in  the  0.  I'.  The  earliest  statement  in  re- 
lation to  this  subject  is  "  God  snid,  Let  there  be 
light,  and  there  was  light,"  Gen.  i.  3.  In  a  simi- 
lar manner  not  oidy  is  the  whole  work  of  original 
creation  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  word  of  God  (I'.s. 
xxxiii.  t),  9),  but  it  is  his  word  that  maintains  the 
course  of  nature  and  accomplislies  the  purposes  ol 
Providence  (Ps.  cvii.  20,  cxlvii.  15,  18;  5s.  Iv.  11). 
Nowhere  liowever  in  the  O.  T.  does  the  use  of  the 
term  exceed  the  limits  of  bold  personification.  Pre- 
cisely at  what  period  it  began  to  be  employed  in 
Jewish  theology  as  designating  a  distinct  personal- 
ity it  is  impossilile  to  ascertain.  The  earliest  in- 
stance of  what  is  even  apparently  such  a  use  occurs 
in  Wisd.  Sol.  xviii.  15,  16.  Speaking  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  the  writer  says, 
"  Thine  almighty  word  (o  iravTo^uuaij.6s  aov 
\6yos)  leaped  down  from  heaven,  out  of  thy  royal 
throne,  as  a  fierce  man  of  war  into  the  miilst  of  a 
land  of  destruction,  bearing  thine  mifeigned  com- 
mandment (Tr}V  avuTrdKpiTov  iirirayitv  <Tov  (pe- 
pwu)  as  a  sharp  sword."  Here,  whatever  interpre- 
tation we  may  put  upon  the  passage,  the  distinc- 
tion manifestly  made  between  "  thine  almighty 
word  "  and  the  -'unfeigned  commandment"  inter- 
|)oses  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  explana- 
tion resorted  to  by  Grimm  (Exey.  Ilnndb.  in  loc  ), 
tiuit  the  whole  is  to  be  resolved  into  a  "  rhetorico- 
jwetical  personification  of  the  divine  will  and  agency 
in  the  intiiction  of  punishment."  This  representa- 
tion, however,  it  should  be  added,  is  wholly  with- 
out a  parallel,  either  in  the  same  or  in  any  nearly 
contemporary  work.  I'he  passages  W^isd.  Sol.  ix. 
1,  xvi.  12,  26;  Ecclus.  xliii.  26,  xlviii.  3,  5  — 
comp.  2  Pet.  iii.  5,  7  ;  Heb.  xi.  3  —  exhibit  noth- 
ing essentially  different  from  the  usage  of  the  O. 
T.,  and  the  same  is  true  of  those  passages  in  the 
book  of  Enoch  where  "  the  word"  is  spoken  of 
(p.  ij.  xiv.  24,  xci.  1,  cii.  1;  see  Hilgenfeld,  Die 
jiid.  Apokaiypllk,  p.  105,  note  2).  The  passage  in 
Enoch  xc  38,  is  proliably  corrupt;  see  DiUmam". 
in  loc. 

Among  the  Jews  of  Palestine  the  fact  of  the 
early  prevalence  of  sonie  conception  of  the  Word 
as  a  distinct  hypostasis  has  been  by  many  very 
confidently  inferred  from  the  Targums  or  Chaldee 
parapin-ases  of  portions  of  the  O.  T.  These  writ. 
ings,  although  their  claims  to  antiquity  have  l)een 
of  late  years  considerably  reduced  [Vei;sions,  Ak- 
CIKNT  (T.MJuu.M)],  doubtless  represent  long-stand- 
ing .Jewish  tradition,  and  it  is  among  their  most  re- 
markable  characteristic  features  that  whenever  God 
is  spoken  of  in  the   Heb.  especially  as  interposing 

in  the  attiiirs  of  men,  the  expression  "'^T  S~1^"*P, 

Memva  da-Yeya  (sometimes  M~^^2^,  Dibbuia], 
'■  the  word  of  .lehovah,"  is  very  commonly  substi- 
tuted for  the  proper  divine  name."  But  there  are 
no  data  from  which  we  may  gather  the  exact  form 
of  thought  which  l.-iy  at  the  foundation  of  the  usage, 
and  the  employment  of  it  was  plainly  determined 
b>  no  settled  rule.  Most,  if  not  all  the  passages  in 
which  the  expressions  above  cited  occur  may  be  ex- 
plained by  a  reference  to  the  principle  suggested  on* 


o  *  Inierchanged  occasionally   witli  other  expres- 

llons.  euch  aa  ''"'"T  W"!"^,  YSkara  da-  Ycya,  nD^^f^^ 
t:  -       T  t:'  t  :  •  : 

♦^T     S'lcchintah  da-Yfya.  ''the  majesty  or  glory  of 


.Jehovah  "  The  statement  sometimes  made  that  tht 
^■^1  S"^p''tt,  "  word  of  Jehovah,"  is  in  the  Tar 
gums  expressly  identifled  with  the  MesisisJi  can  hardlj 


be  sustained. 


I>   S   X. 


WORD,  THE 

f.  3404  b  of  this  work  (coiiip.  pp.  3406  b,  3418  n), 
namely,  the  repugnance  of  the  writers  to  brine;  tlie 
Divine  Beini:;  into  too  close  contact,  as  it  were,  with 
man.     Comp.  Shkchinah. 

The  writini^s  of  Pliilo,  the  Jew  of  Alexandria, 
who  flourished  in  tlie  former  half  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, present  the  earliest  approximation  to  a  defi- 
nite doctrine  of  tlie  Word.  His  system,  if  system 
it  may  he  called,  is  a  sin<i;ular  coml)ination  of  I'ytli- 
aworeanism,  Flatonism,  .Stoicism,  and  the  Emana- 
tionism  of  the  East  with  the  doctrines  of  the  0. 
T.  Scriptures.  Of  this  system  the  doctrine  of  the 
Loi^os  "  lias  been  styled  the  central  point,  and  it  is 
often  presented  here  in  terms  which  bear  a  strikinc; 
resemblance  to  the  representations  of  St.  John,  al- 
thongh  quite  commonlv  a  careful  examination  shows 
that  the  resemblance  lies  in  the  expression  rather 
than  in  the  thouL,dit.*  That  the  Lon'os-<ioctrine  of 
St.  .Tohn  is  in  some  way  connected  with  that  of 
J'hilo,  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt.  But  the 
manifold  inconsfruities,''  not  to  say  self-contradic- 
tions, to  be  found  in  the  writinL;s  of  the  latter,  the 
extraordinary  latitude  which  he  manifestly  allows 
himself  in  his  representations,  and  above  all,  the 
wide  contrast  presented  by  his  whole  style  of  tiiiiik- 
hig  to  that  exhibited  in  tlie  Fourth  Gospel,''  forl)id 
us  to  believe  tliat  tlie  author  of  that  Gospel  can 
have  been  indebted  to  tlie  Alexandrian  philosopher 
for  any  fundamental  element  of  docti^ie. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  connection  tietween 
the  doctrine  of  the  Loljos  as  found  in  the  writiniis  of 
St.  John,  and  the  use  that  had  been  already  made  of 
the  term  in  various  quarters,  it  is  very  evident  that 
in  its  essential  features  that  doctrine  was  somethini; 
wholly  new  to  the  world.  It  invoh-ed  the  revela- 
tion of  a  fact  for  which  languaq;e  furnished  no  en- 
\irely  adequate  expression.  In  such  a  case  there 
are  two  courses  open  to  tlie  writer.  He  must  either 
invent  a  new  term  to  desis^nate  the  new  thouijlit  to 
be  conveyed,  or  he  must  appropriate  a  term  already 
emploj'ed  in  a  sense  somewhat  related  to  that  he 


WORD,  THE 


3555 


a  *  The  selection  of  this  term  by  Philo  was  doubt- 
less determined  by  a  reference  to  the  peculiar  use  of 
it  in  the  O.  T.  above  alluJed  to.  lu  accordance  with 
the  usage  of  Plato,  frnai  whom  his  conception  of  the 
Logos  in  its  main  features  was  derived,  i/oOs  was  the 
expression  which,  but  for  this  consideration,  he  would 
natuKiUy  have  employed.  D.  S.  T. 

h  *  Thus  the  Logos  is  represented  as  the  Son  of 
God  (De  Prof.  c.  20,  0pp.  i.  562  ed  Mang  ),  the  eldest 
Son,  tlie  first-begotteu,  Trpjcr^uraTo;  ulos,  irptordyoi'os 
(De  Conf.  Lin^.  cc.  14.  28,  i.  414,  427  ;  De  Ai^ric.  c. 
12,  i.  .308  ;  De  Somn.  lib.  i.  c.  37,  i.  653)  ;  the  image 
of  Wod,  elKtoveeov  {Dp  Opif.  Miindi,  c.  8,  i.  6 ;  De 
Conf.  Liiis.  c.  20,  i.  419:  De  Somn.  lib.  i.  c.  41,  i. 
65f),  and  often  elsewhere;  his  "eternal  image,"  Dt 
Conf.  Lin:;,  c.  28,  i.  427)  ;  the  instrument  by  which 
the  world  was  made,  opyai'oi'  &l  ov  6  Koo-fioq  KarecrKeu- 
ao-9>)  {De  Cherub,  c.  35,  i.  162,  where  note  Philo"s  dis- 
tinction between  to  {i0"  ov,to  ef  ou,  to  &C  ov,  and  to  6i' 
6,  as  denoting  respectively  the  primary  or  ellicient 
cause,  the  material,  the  instrument  or  intermediate 
ageut.  and  the  enil  or  final  cause  ;  comp.  Le^^.  A'- 
les;.  lib.  iii.  c.  31,  i  106,  <7/tia  9eoO  6  Adyo?  avTcv  eariv, 
Q>  Ka9aiT€p  opyaro)  TrpotT^pT/o'a/Lter'O?  eKotrjixoTroteL,  also 
De  l\Iii(r.  Abr.  c.  1,  i.  437  ;  De  Mnnarck  lib.  ii.  c.  5, 
i.  225)  ;  God's  vicegerent,  v-rapxoi.  upou  whom  all 
hinga  depend  {De  Auric,  c.  12,  i.  308  ;  De  Sojnn.  lib. 
I.  c.  41,  1.  656)  ;  the  interpreter  of  God,  epix-qveiK;  or 
'.'TTOihqrrt';  9coO  ( Lfi??.  A'leg.  lib.  iii.  c.  74,  i.  128; 
Q'io>/  De'is  sit  immitt-  c.  29,  i.  283;  De  Nom.  Mut. 
8.  3,  i.  58U  ;  tlie  light,  4,^^  {De  Somn.  lib.  i.  n.  13,  i. 
1B2) ;  the    Jiuafaiti    of    wlidom,   o-o<i)i'as  tdiv;,    from 


wishes  to  express,  and  he  must  indicate  in  some 
way  the  limitations  or  enl.arwements  of  significance 
that  are  necessary  to  make  it  an  adequate  ex|onent 
of  his  meaning.  The  latter  course  is  adopted  liy 
St.  John,  in  accordance  with  the  common  practice 
of  the  sacred  writers.  In  the  term  Lo^os  and  its 
Chaldee  equivalents,  as  emijloyed  liy  the  Jews  of 
Palestine  and  Egypt,  he  finds  the  nearest  approx- 
imation to  such  an  expression  as  he  needs  in  order 
to  set  forth  his  own  conception  of  the  being  tliat 
has  become  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ.  But  the 
term  is  employed  in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  at 
best  indefinitely,  and  when  most  definitely,  always 
in  a  sense  more  or  less  diverse  from  that  which  it 
is  his  object  to  convey.  The  necessity  is  thus  laid 
upon  him,  in  .appropriating  this  term  to  his  ow-ii 
purpose,  to  guard  carefully  against  l)ein(;  misunder- 
stood, and  to  make  explicit  statements  in  respect  to 
tliose  points  where  the  term,  as  commonly  employed, 
is  likely  either  to  fall  short  of  fuUy  conveying  his 
own  idea,  or  to  suggest  some  erroneous  conception 
of  it.  Accordingly,  in  announcing,  by  way  of  in- 
troduction to  his  Gospel,  the  doctrine  of  the  Word, 
as  tii.at  apparently  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
the  whole  liistory  he  is  about  to  give,  he  first  of  all 
declares,  with  manifest  reference  to  Gen.  i.  1,  "  In 
tiie  beginning  was  ('Eu  OLpxv  ^v)  the  Word." 
Here,  as  in  the  opening  of  his  first  epistle,  is  dis- 
tinctly brought  to  view  the  <freat  fact  of  the  uncre- 
ated, and  therefore  the  eternal,  existence  of  the 
Logos.  Next  follows  a  statement  of  the  intimate 
relation  vvdiich  the  Los;os  sustains  to  (iod  {koI  6 
\6yos  iiu  irphs  rhv  &e6i>\  and  notwithstanding 
the  distinction  thus  implied,  it  is  immediately 
added,  "  the  Word  wns  (lod."  Then  as  if  to  guard 
against  the  misapprehension  being  entertained  that 
the  distinction  indicated  as  existing  in  tlie  divine 
nature  had  originated  in  time,  there  is  sulijohied 
the  affirmation  "  The  same  was  in  the  heyinidng 
with  God."'  To  pursue  further  the  account  given 
of  the  Word  in  the  sublime  prologue  of  the  Evan- 


which  those  who  draw  obtain  everlasting  life,  fior/i' 
aiSioi/  {De  Prof.  c.  18, 1.  560) ;  the  intercessor  for  man, 
iKeTT)?  ToO  6vr\Tov,  and  mediator  between  Goil  and  the 
world,  separating  and  yet  connecting  both  ( Qitis  Re 
nnn  Div.  Hrr.res,  c.  42,  i.  501  f.)  ;  high-priest,  apxte- 
peu;,  free  from  all  sin  {De  Prof.  cc.  20,  21,  i  562  f.  : 
De  Somn.  lib.  i.  c.  37.  i.  653).  and  perhaps  advocate 
or  paraclete,  Trapa.K\r)TO';  {De  Mo.«p,  lib.  iii.  c.  14»  ii 
155),  but  in  this  passage  some  understand  the  term 
to  be  applied  to  the  world  as  "  the  sou  of  God  ;  "  comp. 
Mangey's  note.  The  Logos  is  also  called  by  Philo.eeos, 
"  God,"  or  rather,  "a  divine  being,"  the  term  being 
used  by  him  in  a  lower  sense  {De  Sotnn.  lib.  i.  c.  38, 
i.  656,  comp.  Legg.  Alteg.  lib.  iii.  c.  73,  i.  128  ;  ic-ure 
po?  Seds,  "a  second  God,"  Fragm.  ap.  Euseb.  Prcsp. 
Ev.  vii.  12,  0pp.  ii.  625).  D.  S.  T. 

e  *  A  single  illustration  of  these  incongruities  may 
suffice.  While  Philo  expressly  identifies  the  Logo* 
with  the  Wisdom  of  God  {Legg.  Alleg.  lib.  i.  c.  19, 
Opp.  i.  56,  and  elsewhere),  he  also  represents  Wisdom 
as  the  spouse  of  God  {De  Ehrietale,  c.  8,  i.  361)  and  the 
mother  of  the  Logos  {De  Prof,  c  20,  i.  562).     D  S.  T. 

''  *  In  Illustration  of  the  radical  difference  between 
the  religious  system  of  Philo  and  that  of  St.  .John,  it 
needs  only  to  be  stated  that  the  idea  of  a  personal 
Messiah  finds  no  place  in  his  writings,  and  his  idea  ol 
the  creation  precludes  the  necessity  of  such  a  Messiah 
Contrast  too  his  conception  of  God  as  a  being  d3V(id 
of  all  qualities  {Quod  Deus  sit  immiU.  c.  11,  Opp.  i. 
281)  with  such  passages  as  John  iii.  16,  xvi  27  ;  1 
John  iv.  8.  J).  S.  X. 


5556 


WORD,  THE 


gjelist,  would  make  it  necessary  to  trench  too  mucli 
UDon  the  province  of  the  coniiiieutator.  The  main 
purpose  of  this  article  is  to  point  oiit  in  general  the 
probable  relation  of  St.  John's  doctrine  upon  this 
subject  to  tiie  previous  history  of  the  employment 
of  the  term,  and  to  show  in  what  manner  it  may  be 
supposed  that  his  own  representations  have  been 
affected  by  existing  tendencies  of  thought.  While 
in  '^he  view  above  presented  of  the  way  in  which 
his  own  special  usage  of  the  term  was  prolialjly  de- 
te?  mined,  nothing  has  been  said  of  its  fitness  in  its 
more  ordinary  acceptations  for  the  purpose  to  which 
he  ap])lies  it,  we  are  under  no  necessity  of  suppos- 
ing that  in  his  selection  of  it,  he  had  no  regard  to 
its  more  connnon  significance,  whether  in  the  lan- 
guage of  philosophy  or  in  that  of  every-day  life,  as 
coutributini;  to  make  it  suitable  for  his  purpose. 
It  is,  in  particular,  far  from  improbable  that  the 
import  of  kSjos  as  being  preeminently  the  revela- 
tion of  thought  may  have  been  distinctly  in  his 
mind,  as  most  highly  fit  to  be  associated  with  Him 
who  is  The  Truth  revealed." 

The  explanation  of  o  \6yos  as  =-  ,5  Xeycou,  and 
likewise  that  adopted  by  Beza,  Tittmann,  and 
others,  as  =:  o  XeyS/j.^uo^,  or  6  eVayyeA^ei'r,  the 
jtromised  one,  are  wholly  unsustained  by  usage. 
Nor  is  Miere  any  valid  foundation  for  supposing,  as 
many  do,  that  the  term  was  adopted  by  St.  John 
on  the  ground  of  its  being  specially  suite<l,  in  cer- 
tain of  its  acceptations,  to  expre.ss  the  idea  of  the 
Divine  Reason.  It  should  be  ailded,  however,  that 
not  ordy  was  the  Kvanjielist  furnished  through  the 
already  prevailing  conceptions  of  the  Word,  with 
the  most  suitable  expression  of  his  great  idea,  but 
he  was  thus  enal)led  to  avail  himself  of  whatever 
there  was  of  truth  connected  with  past  speculations 
upon  thesuliject,  and  to  show  how  his  own  doctrine 
effectually  met  the  difficulties  which  had  been  felt 
so  long,  and  which  attempts  had  been  so  variously 
made  to  meet.  It  was  as  if  he  had  said  to  those 
of  his  readers  whom  he  more  iunnediately  had  in 
view,  What  you  have  vainly  sought  to  find,  and 
what  you  may  think  that  in  your  conception  of 
tlie  Word,  you  have  found,  I  make  known  to  you 
in  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Indeed,  it  is  not  in  his  presentation  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Word  alone,  tiiat  we  find  the  indica- 
tions of  such  a  design.  In  all  his  writings  we  are 
met  by  the  recurrence  of  peculiar  phrases  and  rep- 
resentations (many  of  them  often  repeated),  which 
stand  connected  in  such  a  mamjer  with  systems  of 
error  that  came  to  their  full  development  only  in  a 
subsequent  age,  that  we  are  enabled  both  to  discern 
the  germs  of  those  systems  as  alreadv  in  being  in 
his  own  time,  and  to  trace  their  origin  in  |)i'eceding 
thongiit,  at  fthe  same  time  that  we  are  called  to 
note  the  admirable  skill  with  which  the  inspired 
writer,  without  resorting  to  the  form  of  polemics, 
effectually  guards  the  truth  against  assault,  and 
turns  the  dangers  which  threaten  it  into  a  source 
of  strength.  D.  S.  T. 

*  Many  works  relating  to  the  subject  of  this  ar- 
ticle are  referred  to  uu-der  John,  Gospel  ok,  vpl. 
ii.  p.  1439.  Among  the  writers  there  named, 
Liicke  and  Dorner,  Niedner  and  Bucher,  Stuart 
and  Xorton,  are  particularly  worthy  of  consultation. 
Of  the  commentators  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  be- 


o  •  The  supposition  entertained  by  many,  that,  in 
.he  designation  The  \yord,  as  understood  with  some 
reference  to  its  common  acceptation,  it  is  intended  to 
Mt  fortti  au  inward  relation  of  the   Divine  Being  to 


WORD,  THE 

si'les  Liicke,  the  following  are  perhaps  the  most  !i> 
structive  in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos; 
(irotius,  Le  Clerc  (on  John  i.  1-18  in  his  Latin 
translation  of  Hammond,  i.  391  ff.,  2d  ed.;  comp. 
his  Epist.  Cril.  vii.-ix.),  Whitby,  Wetstein,  Pan- 
Ins,  Kuinoel  (who  gives  a  detailed  view  of  the  ear- 
lier literature),  Tholnck,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and 
Baumgarten-Crusius.  Out  of  the  host  of  other 
writers  who  have  treated  of  this  sulject,  the  follow- 
ing may  be  selected  as  worthy  of  notice:  C.  San- 
dius,  Diss,  de  \6yu,  appended  to  his  Jnterp.  Par. 
adoxcB  in  Quat.  Jivani/.,  Cosmop.  [Amst.],  1670, 
pp.  2.39-303.  Joh.  Sauliert,  Diss,  de  Voce  \6yoi 
(id  Joh.  i.  1,  Altorf.,  1687,  reprinted  in  Menthen's 
Til  es  I  urns  (supplementary  to  the  Critici  Sacri)^  ii. 
347-362.  (P.  Ailix, )  Judymvnt  of  the  Ancient  Jeiv- 
isli  Church  against  the  Unitarimis,  Lond.  1699,  2d 
ed.  1821  (untrustworthy).  (Souverain,)  Le  Platon- 
'isnie  devoile,  Cologne,  1700;  Eng.  trans.,  Plaionism 
Unveiled,  n.  p.  1700;  (ierman  tran.slation  by  J.  F. 
C.  Loffler,  Versuch  iih.  d.  PLitonisnius  d.  Kirchen- 
vdter,  2"  Aufl.,  1792,  with  an  Appendix  by  the 
translator.  Paulus,  Die  Goltheit  ids  Lehrer  dwch 
Werke  u.  Worte,  Joh.  i.  1-18,  in  his  .\temoriibiL 
viii.  94-198  (1796);  see  also  his  Coinmentar  (1812). 
Keil,  De  h6yw,'in  his  Opusc.  Acad.  (1821),  pp. 
483-531.  F.  G.  Siiskind,  Ktwns  iib.  d.  neueren 
Ansichten  der  Stelle  Joh.  i.  1-14,  in  his  May.  f. 
chrisiL  Do;/,^  u.  Moral,  x.  1-91  (1803).  Ber- 
tholdt,  Clii:istulo(jia  Judceoruin,  etc.  ErL  1811,  pp. 
104-134  (uncritical).  C.  W.  Upham,  Letters  on 
the  Logos,  Bost.  1828.  Baumlein,  Versuch  die 
Redeuluny  des  johan.  Logos  aus  den  Religionssys- 
temen  des  Orients  zu  entwickeln,  Tiil).  1828. 
(Biiumlein  now  confesses.  Com.  iib.  d.  Kv.  d.  Jvh., 
p  23,  that  his  representations  in  this  work  were 
drawn  from  imreliable  sources  —  the  Oupnek'hat 
and  Kleuker's  Zendavesta.)  E.  Burton,  hiquiry 
into  the  Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age  (Bampton 
Lectures),  Lect.  vii.  Oxf.  1829.  J.  Pye  Smith, 
Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  5th  ed.  Edin. 
1859,  i.  341-350  (Chaldee  Targums),  36-3-386 
(Philo),  and  elsewhere;  comp.  W.  Hincks's  Review 
of  this  work  in  the  Monthly  Repas.  for  1831,  re- 
printed separatel}',  Lond.  1832.  J.  F.  Denhani, 
On  the  Doctrine  of  the  Logos,  in  Kitto's  Journ. 
of  Sac.  Lit.  for  Jan.  1849;  iii.  107-135  (su- 
perficial and  inaccurate).  James  Strong,  two  arts, 
in  the  Meth.  Quar.  Rev.  for  July  and  Oct.  1851. 
G.  F.  Simmons,  Six  Sermons,  Bost.  1856,  pp.  31- 
60.  M.  Nicolas,  Des  Doctrines  reliyieiises  des 
Jiiifs,  etc.,  Par.  1860,  pp.  143-215;  comp.  art.  in 
Christ.  I\xani.  for  Jan.  1863,  on  The  Palestinian 
Word,  founded  on  Nicolas,  and  erroneously  iden- 
tifying the  Logos  of  Philo  with  the  Memj-a  of  the 
Targums.  A.  Lanison,  Church  of  the  First  Three, 
Centuries,  2d  ed.  Bost.  1865,  p.  58  ff.  II.  L.  Man- 
sel,  art.  Philosophy  ((Jreek),  in  Kitto's  Cycl.  oj 
Bibl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  iii.  520-531.  Liddon,  The  Di- 
vinity of  our  Lord  (Bampton  Lect.  1806),  2d  ed. 
1868,  p.  59  ff.,  226  ff.  Jos.  Langen  (Cath.),  Das 
Jiidenthum  in  Paldstina  zur  Zeil  Christi  (1866), 
pp.  248-281.  L.  T.  Schulze,  Vom  Menschensohn 
u.  vom  Loyos,  Gotha,  1867  (dogmatic). 

On  the  use  of  aoipia,  \6yos,  and  ■jrvevna  ayiop 
in  the  Apocrypha,  see  Brctschneider,  Sijstem.  Dr.r- 
stellung  d.  Doym.  u.  s.  w.  (/.  apocr.  Schri-  'ten  d. 

Himself,  "  the  principle,"'  as  Tholuck  expresses  it, 
'■  through  wliic.h  Ood  is  revealtd  to  Himself,"  would,  if 
admitted,  make  the  declaration  nugatory,  "  Tlxe  Word 
was  Willi  God."  D  3  T. 


WORD,  THE 

A.  T.,  Leipz.  1805,  pp.  191-275,  where  there  are 
full  references  to  the  older  literature ;  see  also  the 
works  referred  to  under  Apochypha,  i.  125  f., 
adding  Bruch's  Wtiflieils-Lehre  i/ti-  lltbraev 
(1851),  p.  283  fF.,  311  tf.,  and  the  worlts  of  Gfrorer 
and  Dahiie  to  be  mentioned  below. 

On  Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  one  may  fur- 
ther consult  the  following  essays:  Cudworth's  la- 
telltctanl  Syjslem  of  Ike  Universe,  ch.  iv.  §  36, 
with  the  elaborate  note  of  Mosheim  in  his  Latin 
translation  of  the  work,  2d  ed.,  i.  828  If.  (vol.  ii. 
p.  32(1  ti'.  of  Harrison's  ed.  of  Cudwurtli).  J.  H. 
Carpzov,  L>e  \6yci3  Pliiloiiis  non  Ju/imtnco,  Helnist. 
1749,  in  opposition  to  Alangey  (I'ref.  to  I'hilo),  re- 
printed as  lib.  vii.  of  the  Philoidana  prefixed  to 
his  Siicvce  Kxerc.  in  Kp.  ad  Ilebr.  (1750),  pp. 
cvii.-clxiiii.  E.  H.  Stahl,  Entwurf  des  PlilLo- 
nischen  Lthrbegrlff^s,  in  Kichhorn's  Allijtm.  Bib- 
liolli.  iv.  785-890  (1792).  Caesar  Morgan,  hifeMi- 
(jtttioH  of  the  Trinilij  of  Pluto  and  Pliilo  J  adieus 
(1795),  reprinted  Cambr.  (Kng.),  1853.  J.  Bry- 
ant, Stntiineiits  of  Pliilo  J  tide  as  [sic]  concerninjj 
the  A070S,  or  Wwd  of  God,  Canibr.  (ling.),  1797. 
'jrossniann,  Qiueslionun  Pldloneirum  Partic.  I., 
II.,  Lips.  1829,  410.  (Valuable;  purports  to  give 
all  the  passages  in  which  the  word  Koyos  occurs  in 
Philo. )  Gfrorer,  Pldlo  u.  die  jUd.-idtx.  Tiitoso- 
pfiie,  2  Abth.  Stuttg.  1831,  also  1835  (Theil  I.  of  his 
Krit.  Gt'sch.  d.  U rch ristenlhiinis).  i^jicke  praises 
the  anonymous  reviews  of  Grossniann  and  GIrorer 
in  the  l^eipzig  Lilt.-Ztitunff  (or  1831,  Nr.  121-126, 
and  1832,  Nr.  25.3-250.  -J.  G.  Muller  character- 
izes Gfrorer  as  "  oft  oberflachlich  uud  breit."  Nor- 
ton, Statement  of  Reasons,  etc.  (1833),  2d  ed. 
Bost.  1856,  pp.  3U-349.  Uiihne,  Gescli.  Uar- 
stellung  d.  jiid.-aUx.  Jielitjions-Philos.,  2  Abth. 
Halle,  1834.  (One  of  the  most  thorough  works  on 
the  subject;  conip.  Baur's  review  in  the  Jahrb.  /'. 
wiss.  Kriiik,  Nov.  1835,  pp.  737-792.)  Kitter, 
Gtsch.  d.  Pkilos.  iv.  418  ft:  (1834),  or  iv.  407  ff. 
Eng.  trans.  Seniisch,  Justin  der  Mdrtyrer,  ii. 
267  ff.  (1842),  or  ii.  165-207,  Ryland's  trans.  A. 
Franck,  Ln  Kabbok,  Par.  1843,  pp.  293-338. 
Keferstein,  Philo's  Lthre  von  den  yoUliditn  Mit- 
telwesen,  Leipz.  1846.  ("  Eine  griindliche  und 
eingehende  Arbeit" — J.  G.  Miiller.)  Steinhart, 
art.  Philo  in  Pauly"s  Real-Encycl.  v.  ]  499-1516 
(1848).  M.  Wolff  (Kabbin),  Die  philonische  Phi- 
bsophie,  2e  Ausg.,  Gothenb.  1858.  Hagenbach, 
Hist,  of  Doctrines,  First  Per.,  §  40,  ling,  trans. 
from  4th  Germ,  ed.,  N.  Y.  1861.  U.liinger, 
Heidenthiun  u.  Judenthuni  (1857),  pp.  838-848,  or 
ii.  398  tt",  Eng.  trans.  J.  G.  Miiller,  art.  Pldlo  in 
Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  xi.  578-603  (1859).  B. 
Jowett,  St.  Paul  and  Philo,  in  his  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  2d  ed.,  Lond.  1859,  i.  448-514.  Zeller's 
Philos.  d.  Griechen,  iii.  601-631  (1852).  (Excel- 
lent; I  have  not  the  2d  ed.  (1868)  at  hand.) 
Hoelemann,  De  Evanij.  Joannei  Introiln  (1855), 
op.  33-52.  Graetz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  iii.  303  ff. 
v2'--  Aufi.  1863).  Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  VotUs  Israel, 
3e  Ausg.  vi.  282  ff.  (1808).  See  also  the  arts. 
^LEXANDKIA  and  PHILOSOPHY  in  this  Bic- 
ionary. 

The  passages  relied  on  in  proof  that  the  Targum- 


WORM 


3557 


a  *  The  student  should  be  on  his  guard  ag;iingt 
ihe  niLstranslations  which  he  wiU  find,  in  variuus 
Writers,  of  the  Targums  on  Ps.  ex.  1,  Is.  xlii.  1,  Oeu. 
lU.  22,    xxviii.   20,    xlix.   18,    and    Is.    xvi.   1.      The 

»hrase  "1?2''D    or   >"<   DIP   'I'O   S"!!^""::,  "a  "  or 
-    ■•  t:         t  t:  '  •  T :     •■  ' 


ists  regarded  the  Memra.  da-  Yeya,  •'  Word  of  Je- 
hovah," as  a  being  or  subsistence  distinct  from 
God,  the  medium  of  his  revelations  tt  man,  will  be 
found  in  the  works  of  AllLx,  Bertholdt,  J.  P.  Smith, 
and  Langen,  as  referred  to  above,  also  in  Gl'rtirer's 
Jahrhuwlert  des  JJeils  (1838),  i.  307-318,  and  tli«> 
Introductions  to  litlieridge's  Trans,  of  the  Tai-- 
ijums  on  the  Pentateuch,  2  vols.  Lond.  1862-65. 
in  opposition  to  this  view,  vvliich  appears  to  Ije 
wholly  untenable,  see  the  valuable  Diss,  of  ,':^ube)  t, 
M'/j  supra,  p.  351  ff. ;  Lightfoot,  //;/•.  JJebr.  on 
.John  i.  1;  J.  G.  Carpzov,  Crit.  Sac.  V.  T.  (1748), 
p.  479  ff. ;  Sliskind,  vbi  supr.  p.  16  rt'. ;  Pauhis, 
(Joinm.  lib.  d.  Ev.  d.  Joh.  (1812),  pp.  8-18,  cor- 
recting his  earlier  representations  in  the  Memorab. 
viii.  141  ff".;  E.  1'.  (=  G.)  Bengel,  Opusc.  Acad. 
(1834),  p.  398  ff'.;  ]j\\Tton,  Bampt.  Led.  (182J), 
p.  221;  Noyes  in  the  Christ.  Exam,  for  May, 
4836,  p.  233  f. ;  Stuart  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  .Ian 
1850,  p.  20  ft'.;  and  Bucher  (Cath.),  Des  Apost. 
.lohannes  Lehre  voni  Logos  (1856),  pp.  108-132, 
who  discusses  the  matter  pretty  thoroughly.  See  also 
Levy's  Chald.  Worterb.  lib.  d.  Targ.  ii.  32  (1868). 
Some  of  the  writers  referred  to  above  find  tlie 
Memra  h3postasized  in  the  later  Targums,  though 
not  the  earlier;  l)ut  there  seenis  to  be  no  good 
ground  for  the  distinction.  The  prize-es^jiy  of 
S.  Maybaum,  Die' Anthroponiorphien  u,  Anlhro- 
popntlden  bei  Onkelos  u.  d.  spatern  Targuniini 
iidt  besond.  Beriicksicht.  der  Ausdriicke  Aleiiirf, 
Jeliira  u.  Schechinth  1,  Brest.  1870,  I  have  not  yet 
seen.  The  older  literature  of  the  subject  is  given 
in  Wolf's  Bibl.  Ilebr.  ii.  1185  ff'.  Tliat  the 
Memra  is  identified  by  the  Targumists  with  the 
Messiah  h,as  been  maintained  by  some,  not  only 
without  any  plausible  reason,  but  in  oijpositiou  to 
the  clearest  passages;  see  the  Jerusalem  I'arg.  on 
Ex.  xii.  42;  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  L)eut.  xxx.  4* 
and  .lonathan  ben  Uzziel  on  Is.  xlii.  l.« 

On  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Test,  see 
the  references  under  Angels,  vol.  i.  p.  98.  Both 
on  this  subject,  and  on  the  use  of  the  terms  She- 
chinah  and  Melatron  in  the  later  Jewish  writings, 
the  reader  is  particularly  recommended  to  coTisult 
Ur.  Noyes's  review  of  Hengstenberg  in  the  Christ. 
Examiner  for  M.ay  and  July,  1836.  On  the  later 
Jewish  notions  generally,  see  the  literature  under 
the  art.  Mkssiah.  A. 

WORM,  the  representative  in  the  A.  V.  of  the 
Hebrew  words  Sds,  Rimmdh,  and  Tole'ah,  Told, 
or    Toldath,  occurs  in  numerous   passages  in  the 

Bible.  The  first-named  term,  Sds  (ZT* :  (Tr)^' 
tinea)  occurs  only  in  Is.  Ii.  8,  "For  the  'ash 
(tf^)  shall  eat  them  up  like  a  garment,  and  the 
sas  shall  eat  them  like  wool."  The  word  proljably 
denotes  some  particular  species  of  moth,  whose 
larva  is  injurious  to  wool,  while  perhaps  the  former 
name  is  the  more  general  one  for  any  of  the 
destructive  tinece  or  "  clothes  moths."  For  fur- 
ther information  on  the  subject  the  reader  is 
referred  to  Moth. 

2.  Rimmdh  (n^"n  :  aKwh-n^,  (T?|^f/ls,  cra-Tpia.: 
vermis,  putredo,  tinea).      The  manna  that  the  dis- 


"  the  word  from  before  the  Lord"  (Gen.  xx.  3,  Num. 
x.-tiii.  4,  comp.  Ktheridge,  i.  17,  ii.  16)  may  also  ui  islead , 

but  note  the  similar  use  with  122 ."!-,  pilli^&m,  Jer.  i 
2,  Ez.  i.  3,  etc..  and  see,  for  other  illustrations  of  thr 
idiom,  Targ.  ou  Is.  lix.  1.  and  O-tu.  i.  27  i.Jeiua  >.     A 


3558  WORM 

obedient  Israelites  kept  till  the  morning  of  a  week- 
day "  bred  worms  "'  (C"^27v"lin),  and  stank  (Ex. 
xvi.  20);  while  of  that  kejjt  over  the  Sabbath  and 
gathered  the  night  before,  it  is  said  that  "  it  did 

not  stink,  neither  was  there  any  worm  (,n3n) 
tlierein."'    The  Hebrew  word  is  connected  with  the 

root  C^"1  "  to  be  putrid  "  (see  Gesenius,  I'/its. 
s.  v.), ^Ind  points  evidently  to  various  kinds  of 
niagcjots,  and  the  larvaj  of  insects  which  feed  on 
putrefying  animal  matter  rather  than  to  earth- 
worHis;  the  words  in  the  original  are  clearly  used 
indiscriminately  to  denote  either  true  (tniiclid'i,  or 
the  larval  condition  of  various  insects.  Thus,  as 
may  be  seen  above,  rhiimali  and  toPiih  are  both 
used  to  express  the  maggot  or  caterpillar,  whatever 
it  might  have  been  that  .consumed  the  bad  manna 
in  the  wilderness  of  Sin.  .lob,  under  his  heavy 
affliction,  exclaims,  "My  flesh  is  clothed  with 
rliiiindh^'  (vii.  5;  see  also  xvii.  14);  tliere  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  expression  is  to  be  under- 
stood literally;  a  person  in  Job's  condition  would 
very  probably  suffer  from  entuzon  of  some  kind. 
In  .fob  xxi.  2(5,  sxiv.  20,  there  is  an  allusion  to 
Worms  (insect  larvse)  feeding  on  the  dead  bodies 
of  tha»  buried;  our  translators  in  the  well-known 
passage  (xix.  26)  —  "And  though  after  my  skin 
worms  destroy  this  body  "  —  have  rather  over- 
interpreted  the  words  of  the  original,  •'  My  skin 
shall  have  been  consumed."" 

The    patriarch    uses    both  rimmalt    and  tul'^'ali 

{jr\12j^F\)  in  ch.  x.xv.  6,  where  he  compares  the 
estate  of  man  to  a  rimmd/i,  and  the  son  of  man  to 
a  tdli'ah.  This  latter  word,  in  one  or  other  of  its 
forms  (see  above),  is  applied  in  Deut.  xxviii.  3'J 
to  some  kinds  of  larvae  destructive  to  tiie  vines: 
"  Thou  shalt  plant  vineyards  ....  but  shalt  not 
gather  the  grapes,  for  the  taldnth  shall  eat  them.'" 
Various  kinds  of  insects  attack  the  vine,  amongst 
wliich  one  of  the  most  destructive  is  the  ,7'urtrix 
vilisf'H'i,  the  little  caterpillar  of  which  eats  off' the 
hme»parts  of  the  blossoms,  the  clusters  of  wliich  it 
binds  together  by  spinning  a  web  around  them. 
The  "  worm  "  which  is  said  to  have  destroyed 
Jonah's  gourd  was  a  toldatk  (Jonah  iv.  7).  Mi- 
chaelis  {Siippl.  p.  2189)  quotes  Kumphius  as  assert- 
ini;  that  there  is  a  kind  of  black  caterpillar,  which, 
diu-ing  sultry  rainy  weatlier,  does  actually  strip  the 
plant  of  its  leaves  in  a  single  night.  In  Is.  lxvi.»2-l 
allusion  is  made  to  maggots  feeding  on  the  dead 
bodies  of  the  slain  in  battle.  The  words  of  the 
prophet  are  applied  by  our  Lord  (.Mark  ix.  44,  40, 
48)  metaphorically  to  the  stings  of  a  guilty  con- 
science in  the  world  of  departed  spirits. 

The  death  of  Herod  -Agrippa  1.  was  caused  by 
worms  {(jK(u\7}K6fipunosi  Acts  xii.  23);  according 
U)  Josephus  (Ant.  xix.  8),  his  death  took  place  five 
llays  alter  his  departure  from  the  theatre.  It  is 
furious  that  the  Jewish  historian  makes  no  mention 
jf  worms  in  the  ca.se  of  .Vgriiipa,  tiiouL'h  he  ex- 
pressly notes  it  in  that  of  Herod  the  Cireat  {Ant. 
xvii.  6,  §  5).  A  .similar  death  was  that  of  Antiochus 
Kpiphanes  (2  Mace.  ix.  !) ;  see  also  Kuseijius,  Kcd. 
Hist.  viii.  10;  and  Lucian  Pscudomitnt.  i.  p.  904; 
sompare  Wetstein  on  Acts  xii.  23).  "Whether  the 
worms  were  the  cause  or  the  result  of  the  disease 
is  an  immaterial  question.     The    "  Angel  of   the 

•  The  Hebrew  is,  nST'^Ejv?  ''I'l^  "IHWl, 
1   «.,  "  And  atter  that  they  shall  have  consumed  this 


WORSHIPPER 

Lord  struck  Herod  "  with  some  disease,  the  issue 
of  which  was  fatal,  and  the  loathsome  spectacle  of 
which  could  not  fail  to  have  had  a  marked  humiiia^ 
ing  effect  on  his  proud  heart.  W.  H. 

WORMWOOD  (n31?b,  luandh:  ynKpla 
Xo^Vt  oSvi/T],  and  avdyKri'-  'iimiritudo  ahsyntldiim). 
The  correct  translation  of  the  Heb.  word  occurs 
frequently  in  the  Bible,  and  generally  in  a  meta- 
phorical sen.se,  as  in  Deut.  xxix.  18,  where  of  the 
idolatrous  Israelites  it  is  said,  "  Lest  there  be  among 
you  a  root  that  beareth  wormwood  "  (see  also  Prov. 
v.  4).  In  Jer.  ix.  15,  xxiii.  1.5;  Lam.  iii.  15.  19, 
wormwood  is  symbolical  of  bitter  calamity  and  sor- 
row; unrighteous  judges  are  said  to  "turn  judg- 
nient  to  wormwood"  (Am.  v.  7).  The  Orientals 
typified  sorrows,  cruelties,  and  calamities  of  any 
kind  by  plants  of  a  poisonous  or  bitter  nature. 
[G.\Li^,  i.  861.]  The  name  of  the  star  which  at 
the  sound  of  the  third  angel's  trumpet  fell  upon 
the  rivers,  was  called  Worm  word  {"Kx^ivSos'-  Hev. 
viii.  11).  Kitto  {Phys.  Hist,  of  Pakstine,  p.  215} 
enumerates  four  kinds  of  wormwood  as  found  in 
Palestine  —  Artemisin.  iiilnliai,  A.  Jiulaica,  A 
J'liiticdsci,  and  A.  cini-mn.  Kauwolf  speaks  of 
some  knid  of  wormwood  under  the  name  of  Absin- 
tiduiii  santonlcum  Judiiicum,  and  says  it  is  very 
connnon  in  Palestine;  this  is  perhaps  the  Arttmisii 
.ludnica.  The  Hebrew  Lridwih  is  doubtless  generic, 
and  denotes  several  species  of  Artemisia  (Celsius, 
Hkrvb.  i.  p.  480;  KosenmiiUer,  Bibl.  Bvt.p.  116). 

W.  H. 

♦WORSHIP  (derived  from  worth,  and  the 
termination  sl/ip)  originally  =  w)?7/;/ne«s,  became 
used  to  denote  the  honor  or  reverence  of  which  one 
was  regarded  as  worthy,  and,  as  a  verb,  signified  to 
pay  such  honor  or  reverence;  the  word  not  being 
oiii;inally  restricted,  as  now,  to  religious  worship. 
I'hus  Wyclifle  translates  Matt.  xix.  19,  "  Woisd/ij) 
thi  fadir  and  thi  modir,"  and  iu  the  marriage  senice 
of  the  Church  of  England  the  bridegroom  says  to  the 
bride  "  with  my  body  I  thee  woi'sliip.'"  The  noun 
"  worship  '■  is  so  used  in  the  A.  V.  Josh.  v.  14;  Luke 
xiv.  10;  and  the  verb  occurs  in  Matt,  xviii.  26  and 
often  elsewhere  as  the  rendering  of  irpocrKwew  when 
it  denotes  the  civil  reverence  or  homage  expressed 
by  the  oriental  custom  of  prostration.  [.\li<)i;.\- 
TioN:  ALT.vii;  I'kaykh;  Pkikst;  Sackifick, 
etc.]  A. 

WORSHIPPER.  A  translation  of  the  Greek 
word  v(wK6pos,  used  once  only.  Acts  xix.  35;  in 
the  margin  "  remple-kieper."  The  -neocoros  waa 
originally  an  attendant  in  a  temple,  probably  en- 
trusted with  its  charge  (Eurip.  Jon,  115,  121,  ed. 
L)ind. ;  Plato,  Ley.  vi.  7,  liekk. ;  Theodoret,  HUt. 
Kcd.  iii.  14,  16;  Pollux,  i.  14;  Philo, />e  Pror. 
iSVfc.  6,  ii.  237 ;  Hesychius  explains  it  by  6  rhv 
vahv  Koa/j.wv,  Kopelv  yap  rh  aaipeiv,  Suidas, 
KoafjLwv  Kal  evrpeTTLi^cov,  olAA'  ovx  0  ffapui/,  ed. 
Gaisf.  p.  2579).  The  divine  honors  paid  in  later 
Greek  times  to  eminent  persons  even  in  their  life- 
time, were  imitated  and  exaggerated  by  the  Komans 
under  the  empire,  especially  in  Asia  (Plut.  Ly.i. 
23:  Appian,  .Mitln:  7G:  Dion  Cass.  xxxi.  6).  The 
term  vtocoros  became  thus  applied  to  cities  or  com- 
munities which  undertook  the  worship  of  particulai 
emperors  even  in  their  lifetime;  bnt  there  is  iic 
trace  of  the  special  title  being  applied  to  any  city 


my  skin,"  or,  as  David.<on  renders  it,  "  Yea,  after  mj 
skin,  when  thi?  (boi.lj)  is  destroyed"  (IntroU  u  T  U 
p.  227).        * 


WOT   AND   WOTTETH 

Irefore  the  time  of  Ausjiustus.  The  first  occurrence 
of  the  term  in  connection  witli  Kpiiesus  is  on  coins 
of  the  aife  of  Xero  (A.  i).  54-68),  a  time  which 
would  sufficiently  agree  with  its  use  in  the  account 
of  the  riot  there,  probably  in  55  or  56.  In  later 
times  the  title  appears  with  the  numerical  adjuncts 
8i$,  Tp'^  and  even  TSTpaKis.  A  coin  of  Nero's  time 
bears  on  one  side  'E<ptaioi>v  veaiKopcuv,  and  on  the 
reverse  a  figure  of  tlie  temple  of  Artemis  (Mionnet, 
Jnscr.  iii.  'J3;  Kckhel,  Lhnir.  Vat.  Num.  ii.  520) 
The  ancient  veneration  of  Artemis  and  her  temple 
on  the  part  of  the  city  of  I'^jhesus,  which  procured 
for  it  the  title  of  yeooKipos  t^s  'Apre'/xiSoj,  is  too 
well  known  to  need  illustration :  but  iu  later  times 
it  seems  probable  that  witli  the  term  i/eaiicSpos  the 
practice  uf  Neocorism  became  reserved  almost  ex- 
clusively for  the  veneration  paid  to  Roman  emperors, 
towards  whom  many  other  cities  also  of  Asia 
Minor  are  mentioned  as  Neocorists,  e.  y.  Nicome- 
dia,  I'erinthus,  Sardis,  Smyrna,  Jlagnesia  (Herod. 
L.  26;  Strabo,  xiv.  640;  Aristid.  (Jr.  xlii.  775,  ed. 
Dind.;  Mionnet.  Insci:  iii.  97,  Nos.  281,  285; 
Eckhel,  Dt^  Num.  ii.  520,  521;  Hoeckh,  Jnscr. 
2617,2618,  2622,  2J54,  2U57.  2yi)0.  2'J92,  2993; 
Krause,  Z?e  C'lV.  Ntucorts  ;  Hofmann,  Li;x.  '  A'^e(;- 
corvs  ').  H.  W.  1*. 

*WOT  and  WOfTETH  occur  repeatedly  in 
the  A.  V.  (Gen.  xxi.  26,  xxxix.  8,  xJiv.  15;  Kxod. 
xxxii.  1,  etc.)  as  forms  of  the  indicative  present  of 
the  old  verb  to  toit^Ui  "  know."     [Wist;  Wit.] 

A. 

WRESTLING.     [Games.] 

WRITING.  It  is  proposed  in  the  present 
article  to  treat,  not  of  writins:  in  general,  its  origin, 
the  people.by  whom  and  the  manner  in  which  it 
was  discovered,  but  simply  with  reference  to  the 
Helirew  race  to  give  such  indications  of  their  ac 
quaintance  with  the  art  as  are  to  be  derived  from 
their  books,  to  discuss  the  urigin  and  formation  of 
their  alphaliet,  and  the  sulisequent  development  of 
the  present  square  character,  and  to  combine  with 
this  discussion  an  account,  so  far  as  can  lie  ascer- 
tained, of  the  material  appliances  which  they  made 
use  of  in  writing,  and  the  extent  to  which  the  prac- 
tice prevailed  among  the  people. 

It  is  a  remarkable  iact  that  although,  with  re- 
spect to  other  arts,  as  for  instance  those  of  music 
and  metal  working,  the  Hebrews  have  assigned  the 
honor  of  their  discovery  to  the  heroes  of  a  remote 
antiquity,  there  is  no  trace  or  tradition  whatever  of 
tlie  origin  of  letters,  a  discovery  many  times  more 
remarkalile  and  important  than  either  of  the.se. 
Tbniughout  the  book  of  (Jenesis  there  is  not  a 
Bini;le  allusion,  direct  or  indirect,  either  to  the 
practice  or  to  the  existence  of  writing.     The  word 

2n2,  cd//(rt6,  "to  write,"  does  not  once  occur; 

none  of  its  derivatives  are  used ;  and  "^pD,  si'pker, 
"  a  book,"  is  found  only  in  a  single  passage  (Gen. 
V.  1),  and  there  not  in  a  connection  which  involves 
the  supposition  that  the  art  of  writing  was  known 
\t  the  time  to  which  it  refers.  The  signet  of  Judah 
(Gen.  xxxviii,  18.  25)  which  had  probably  .some  de- 
vice engraven  upon  it,  and  I'haraoh's  ring  (Gen. 
xli.  42)  with  which  Joseph  was  invested,  have  been 
appealed  to  as  indicating  a  knowledge  quite  con- 
sistent with  the  existence  of  writing.  But  as  there 
is  nothing  to  show  that  the  devices  upon  these 
rings,  supposing  them  to  exist,  were  written  char- 
«cters.  or  in  fict  any*bin!,;  more  than  endilemat- 
Ical  figures,  they  cannot  be  considered   as  throwing 


WRITING 


3559 


much  light  upon  the  question.  That  the  Egyp- 
tians in  the  time  of  Joseph  wire  acquainted  with 
writini;  of  a  certain  kind  there  is  otlier  evidence  to 
prove,  but  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  up  to  this 
period  the  knowledge  extended  to  the  Hebrew 
family.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no  evidence 
against  it.  The  instance  brought  forward  by  Heng- 
stenberg  to  prove  that  "  signets  commonly  bore  al 
phabetic  writings,"  is  by  no  means  so  decisive  as 
he  would  have  it  appear.  It  is  Ex.  xxxix.  30: 
"  .\nd  they  made  the  plate  of  the  holy  crown  of 
pure  gold,  and  wrote  upon  it  a  writing  of  the  en- 
■rravings  of  a  signet,  '  Holiness  to  the  Lord.'  " 
That  is,  this  inscription  was  engraved  upon  the 
plate  as  the  device  is  engraved  upon  a  signet,  in  in- 
taglio; and  the  expression  has  refijrence  to  the 
manner  of  engraving,  and  not  to  tlie  figures  en- 
graved, and  therefore  cannot  be  appealed  to  as  prov- 
ing the  existence  of  alphabetic  characters  upon 
Judah's  signet  or  Pharaoh's  ring,  ^^'riting  is  first 
distinctly  mentioned  in  Ex.  xvii.  14,  and  the  con- 
nection clearly  implies  that  it  was  not  then  em- 
ployed for  the  first  time,  but  was  so  familiar  as  to 
Le  used  for  historic  records.  Moses  is  commanded 
to  preserve  the  memory  of  Amalek's  onslaught  in 
the  desert  by  committing  it  to  writing.  "  And  Je- 
hovah said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial 
in  tilt  book  (not  '  '(  book,'  as  in  the  A.  V.),  and 
rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua."  It  is  clear  that 
some  special  book  is  here  referred  to,  perhaps,  as 
Aben  Ezra  suggests,  the  book  of  the  wars  of  Je- 
hovah, or  the  book  of  Jashar,  or  one  of  the  many 
documents  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  which  have  long 
since  perished.  Gr  it  may  have  been  the  book  in 
which  Moses  wrote  the  words  of  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxiv. 
4),  that  is  the  laws  contained  in  chapters  xx.-xxiii. 
The  tables  of  the  testimony  are  said  to  be  "  written 
by  the  finger  of  God  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  18)  on  both  sides, 
and  "  the  writing  w.is  the  writing  of  God,  graven 
upon  the  tables  "  (Ex.  xxxii.  16).  It  is  not  clear 
whether  the  passage  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  28  implies  that 
the  second  tallies  were  written  by  Moses  or  by  God 
himself.  The  engraving  of  the  gems  of  the  high- 
priest's  breastplate  with  the  names  of  the  children 
of  Israel  (Ex.  xxviii.  1 1 ),  and  the  inscription  upon 
the  mitre  (Ex.  xxxix.  30)  have  to  do  more  with  the 
art  of  the  engraver  than  of  the  writer,  but  both 
imply  the  existence  of  alphabetic  characters.  The 
next  allusion  is  not  .so  clear.  The  Israelites  were 
forbidden,  in  imitation  of  the  id'Jatrous  nations,  to 
put  any  "  brand  "  (lit.  "  writing  of  burning  " )  upon 
themselves.  The  figures  thus  branded  upon  the 
skin  might  have  been  alphabetical  characters,  but 
they  were  more  probalily  emblematical  devices, 
symbolizing  some  object  of  worship,  for  the   root 

SnS,  cathab  (to  write),  is  applied  to  picture-draw- 
ing (Judg.  viii.  14),  to  mapping  out  a  country 
(Josh,  xviii.  8),  and  to  plan-drawing  (1  Chr.  xxviii. 
19 ).  The  curses  against  the  adulteress  were  written 
by  the  priest  "in  the  book,"  as  before;  and  blotted 
out  with  water  (Num.  v.  23).  This  proceeding, 
though  principally  distinguished  by  its  symbolical 
character,  involves  the  use  of  some  khid  of  ink,  and 
of  a  material  on  which  the  curses  were  written 
which  would  not  1:*  destroyed  by  water.  The  writ- 
ing on  door-posts  and  gates,  alluded  to  in  Deut. 
vi.  9,  xi.  20,  though  perhaps  to  be  taken  figura- 
tively rather  than  literally,  implies  certainly  an 
acquaintance  wi(,h  the  art  and  the  use  of  alphabetic 
characters.  Hitherto,  however,  nothing  has  been 
said  of  the  apjiUcation   of  writinr;  to  the  pi.rpose« 


3560 


WRITING 


of  ordinary  life,  or  of  the  knowledge  of  the  art 
atuong  the  common  people.  Up  to  this  point  such 
Knowledge  i§  only  attriluited  to  Moses  and  the 
priests.  From  Deut.  xxiv.  1,  3,  however,  it  would 
appear  that  it  was  extended  to  others.  A  man  who 
wished  to  be  separated  from  his  wife  for  her  infidel- 
ity, could  relieve  himself  by  a  summary  process. 

"  Let  him  write  her  a  bill  0?P,  Si'plier,  "  a  book  " ) 

of  divorcement,  and  give  it  in  her  hand,  and  send 
her  out  of  his  house."  It  is  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  infer  from  this  tliat  the  art  of  writing  was 
an  accomplishment  possessed  by  every  Hebrew  citi- 
zen, though  there  is  no  mention  of  a  third  party ; 
and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  these  "bills  of 
divorcement,"  though  apparently  so  informal,  were 
the  woik  of  professional  scribes.  It  was  enjoined 
as  one  of  the  duties  of  the  king  (Deut.  xvii.  18), 
that  he  should  transcribe  the  book  of  the  Law  for 
his  own  private  study,  and  we  shall  find  hereafter 
in  the  history  that  distinct  allusions  to  writing 
occur  in  the  case  of  several  kings.  The  remaining 
instances  in  the  Pentateuch  are  the  writing  of  laws 
upon  stone  covered  with  plaster,  upon  which  while 
soft  the  inscription  was  cut  (Deut.  xxvii.  3,  8),  the 
writing  of  the  song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxi.  24),  and 
of  the  Law  in  a  book  which  was  placed  in  the  side 
of  the  ark  (Deut.  xxxi.  2ti).  One  of  the  first  acts 
of  Joshua  on  entering  the  Promised  Land  was  to 
inscribe  a  copy  of  the  Law  on  the  stones  of  the 
Altar  on  Jlount  Kbal  (.Josh.  viii.  32).  The  survey 
of  the  country  was  drawn  out  in  a  book  (Josh,  xviii. 
8).     In  the  time  of  the  Judges  we  first  meet  with 

the  professional  scribe  ("^DD,  sopher),  in  his  im- 
portant capacity  as  marshal  of  the  host  of  warriors 
(Judg.  V.  li),  with  his  staff  (A.  V.  "pen")  of 
office.     Ewald  (Poet.  Bitch,  i.  129)  regards  sop/ier 

in  this  passage  as  equivalent  to  t'  Dtt?,  shuphet, 
"judge,"  and  certainly  the  context  implies  the  high 
rank  which  the  art  of  writing  conferred  upon  its 
possessor.  Later  on  in  the  history  we  read  of 
Samuel  writing  in  "the  book  "  the  manner  of  the 
kingdom  (1  Sam.  x.  25);  but  it  is  not  till  the  reign 
of  David  that  we  hear  for  the  first  time  of  writing 
being  used  for  the  purposes  of  ordinary  communi- 
cation. The  letter  (lie.  "  book  ")  which  contained 
Uriah's  death-warrant  was  written  by  David,  and 
must  have  been  inten<led  for  the  eye  of  Joab  alone: 
who  was  therefore  able  to  read  writing,  and  prob- 
ably to  write  himself,  though  his  message  to  the 
king,  conveying  the  intelligence  of  Uriah's  death, 
was  a  verbal  one  (2  Sam.  xi.  14,  15).  If  we  ex- 
amine the  instances  in  which  writing  is  mentioned 
in  connection  with  individuals,  we  shall  find  that 
in  all  eases  the  writers  were  men  of  superior  position. 
In  the  Pentateuch  the  knowledge  of  the  art  is  attrib- 
uted to  Moses,  Joshua,  and  the  priest  alone.  Sam- 
uel, who  was  educated  by  the  high-priest,  is  njen- 
tioned  as  one  of  the  earliest  historians  (1  Chr.  xxix. 
29),  as  well  as  Nathan  the  prophet  (2  Chr.  ix.  29), 
Sl.emaiah  the  prophet,  Iddo  the  seer  (2  Chr.  xii. 
Id,  xiii.  22),  and  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  (2  Chr. 
«x.  34).  Letters  were  written  by  Jezebel  in  the 
name  of  Ahab  and  sealed  with  his  seal  (1  K.  xxi. 
8,  9,  11);  by  Jehu  (2  K.  x.  6);  by  Hezekiah  (2 
Chr.  XXX.  1);  by  Rabshakeh  the  Assyrian  general 
(2  Chr.  xx.xii.  17);  by  the  Persian  satraps  (Ezr.  iv. 
6,  7,  8);  by  Sanballat  (Neb.  vi.  5),  Tobiah  (Neh. 
vi.  19),  Haman  (Esth.  viii.  5),  Mordecai  and  Es- 
ther (Estli.  ix.  29).  The  prophet  Elijah  wrote  to 
A.hab  (2  Chr.  xxi.  12);   Isaiah  wrote  some  of  the 


WRITING 

history  of  his  time  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  22);  Jeremiah 
committed  his  prophecies  to  writing  (Jer.  li.  60), 
sometimes  liy  the  help  of  Baruch  the  scribe  (.ler. 
xxxvi.  4,  32);  and  the  false  prophet,  Shemaiah  the 
Nehelamite,  endeavored  to  undermine  Jeremiah's 
influence  by  the  letters  which  he  wrote  to  the  hieh- 
priest  (.ler.  xxix.  25).  In  Is.  xxix.  11,  12,  there  is 
clearly  a  distinction  drawn  between  the  man  who 
was  able  to  read,  and  the  man  who  was  not,  and  it 
seems  a  natural  inference  from  what  has  been  said 
that  the  accomplishment.?  of  reading  and  writing 
were  not  widely  spread  among  the  people,  when 
we  find  that  they  are  universally  attributed  to  those 
of  high  rank  or  education,  kings,  priests,  prophets, 
and  professional  scribes. 

In  addition  to  these  instances  in  which  writing 
is  directly  mentioned,  an  indirect  allusion  to  its 
early  existence  is  supposed  to  be  found  in  the 
name  of  certain  officers  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt, 

□"^"l^ti;,  s/wterim,  LXX.  ypafxfji.a.Ti'is  (Ex.  v.  6, 
A.  V.  "officers").  The  root  of  this  word  has  been 
sought  in   the  Arabic  ..  ,i^  w    saiarn,  "to  write,'' 

and  its  original  meaning  is  believed  to  be  "  writers," 
or  "scribes;  "  an  explanation  adopted  by  Gesenius 
in  his  Lexicon  llehraicuin  dd  T/iesnurus,  though 
he  rejected  it  in  his  Gescluclite  der  Hebriihclien 
Spraclie  miil  Schrifl.  In  the  name  Kirjath-Se- 
pher  (Piooktown,  Josh.  xv.  15)  the  indication  of  a 
knowledge  of  writing  among  the  Phcenicians  ia 
more  distinct.  Hitzig  conjectures  that  the  town 
may  have  derived  its  name  from  the  discovery  of 
the  art,  for  the  Ilittites,  a  Canaanitish  race,  inhab- 
ited that  region,  and  the  term  Hittite  may  possi- 

• 
bly  have  its  root  in  the  Arabic    ^^  ~^    chatta,  "  to 
write." 

The  Hebrews,  then,  a  branch  of  the  great  She- 
mitic  family,  being  in  possession  of  the  art  of  writ- 
ing, accordinrf  to  their  own  historical  records,  at  a 
very  early  period,  the  further  questions  arise,  what 
character  they  made  use  of,  and  whence  they  ob- 
tained it.  It  is  scarcely  possilile  in  the  present 
day  to  believe  that,  two  centuries  since,  learned 
men  of  solier  judgment  seriously  maintained,  al- 
most as  an  article  of  faith,  that  the  square  charac- 
ter, as  it  is  known  to  us,  with  the  vowel  points  and 
accents,  was  a  direct  revelation  from  heaven,  and 
that  the  conunandments  were  written  by  the  finger 
of  God  upon  the  tables  of  stone  in  that  character. 
Such,  however,  was  really  the  case.  But  recent 
investigations  have  sho\vn  that,  so  far  from  the 
square  character  having  any  claim  to  such  a  remote 
antiquity  and  such  an  august  parentage,  it  is  of 
comparatively  modern  date,  and  has  been  formed 
from  a  more  ancient  type  bv  a  gradual  process  of 
development,  the  steps  of  which  will  be  indicated 
hereafter,  so  far  as  they  can  be  safelv  ascertained. 
What  then  was  this  ancient  type?  Most  probably 
the  Phoenician.  To  the  Phoenicians,  the  daring 
seamen,  and  adventurous  colonizers  of  the  ancient 
world,  tradition  assiirned  the  honor  of  the  invention 
of  letters  (Plin.  v.  12).  This  tradition  may  lie  of 
no  value  as  direct  evidence,  but  as  it  prolialily  orig- 
inated with  the  Greeks,  it  shows  that,  to  them  at 
least,  the  Phrenicians  were  the  inventors  of  letters, 
and  that  these  were  introduced  into  Europe  by 
means  of  that  intercourse  with  Phoenicia  which  ia 
implied  in  the  legend  of  Cadmus,  the  man  of  the 
East.      The   Phoenician  companions  of  this  hero. 


WRITING 

according  to  Herodotus  (v.  58),  taught  the  Greeks 
many  accomplishments,  and  among  others  the  use 
of  letters,  which  hitherto  they  had  not  possessed, 
rio  Lucan,  Phars.  iii.  220 :  — 

"  Phoenices  primi,  famae  si  creilimus,  ausi 
Mansuram  rudibus  voeem  signare  figuris."' 

Pliny  (vii.  56)  was  of  opinion   that  letters  were 
of  Assyrian  origin,  but  he  mentions  as  a  lielief  held 
by  others   that  they  were  discovered   among  the 
Egyptians  by  ^lercury,  or  that  the  Syrians  had  the 
honor  of  the  invention.     The  last-mentioned  theory 
is  that  given  by  Diodorus  Siculus  (v.  74),  who  says 
that  the  Syrians  invented   letters,  and  from   them 
the  Phoenicians,  having   learned  them,  transferred 
them  to  the  Greeks.     On  the  other  hand,  accord- 
ing to  Tacitus  {Ann.  xi.  14),  I'^gypt  was  believed 
tx)  be  the  source  whence  the  Phcenicians  derived 
th«'ir  knowledge.     Be  this  as   it   may,  the  voice  of 
tradition  represetits  the  Phoenicians  as  the  dissem- 
inators,  if  not    the    inventors   of    the    alphabet. 
Whether  it  came  lo  them  from  an  Araniwan  or 
Egyptian  source  can  at  best  be  but  the  subject  of 
conjecture.     It   may,   however,  be  reasonalily  in- 
ferred that  tlie  ancient  Hebrews  derived  from,  or 
shared  with,  the  Phcenicians  the  knowledge  of  writ- 
ins  and  the  use  of  letters.     The  two  nations  spoke 
laiiiTuages  of  the  same  Shemitic  family ;  they  were 
brought  info  close  contact  by  geographical  position : 
all  circumstances  combine  to   render  it    probable 
that  the  ancient  Hebrew  alphabet  was  the  connnon 
possession  both  of  Hebrews  and  PhoeTucians,  and 
this  probability  is  strengthened  by  (he  results  of 
modern  investigation  into  the  Phcenician  inscrip- 
tions which  have  of  late  years  been   brought   to 
light.     The  names  of  the   Hebrew  letters  indicate 
that  they  must  have  been  the  invention  of  a  Shem- 
itic  people,  and  that  they  were  moreover  a   pas- 
toral people  may  be  inferred  from  the  same  evitleiice. 
Such  names  as  Aleph  (an  ox),  Gimel   (a  camel), 
Lamed  (an'ox-goad),  are  most  naturally  explained 
by  this  hyiwthesis,  which  necessarily  excludes  the 
seafaring  Phoenicians  from  any  claim   to  their  in- 
vention.    If,  as  has  been  conjectured,  they  took 
the  first  idea  of  writing  from  the  Egyptians,  they 
would  at  least  have  given  to  the  signs  which  they 
invented    the    names    of   objects  with   which  they 
themselves  were  familiar.     So  far  from  this  being 
the  case,  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  contain 
no  trace  whatever  of  ships  or  seafaring  matters :  on 
the  contrary,  they  point  distinctly  to  an  inland  and 
pastoral  people.     The  Shemitic  and  Egyptian  al- 
phabets have  this  principle   in  common,  that   the 
object  whose  name  is  itiven  to  a   letter  was   taken 
orisinally  to  indicate  the  letter  which  betrins  the 
name;  but  this  fiwt  alone  is  insufficient  to  show 
that  the   Shemitic  races   borrowed   their  alphaliet 
from  Egypt,    or  that  the  principle  thus  held    in 
common  may  not  have  been  the  possession  of  other 
nations  of  a  still  earlier  date  than   the   Egyptians. 
"  The   phonetic  use  of   hieroglyphics,"   says    Mr. 
Kenrick,  "  would  naturally  suggest   to  a  practical 
peo]ile,  such  as  the  Phoenicians  were,  a  simplifica- 
tion of  the  cumbrous  system  of  the  I'^gyptians,  by 
dispensing  altogether  with  the  pictorial   and   sym- 
bolical use,  and   assigning  one   character  to  each 
Eound,   instead   of   the  multitude  of    homophones 
which  made  the  reading  of  the  hieroglyphics  so  dif- 
ficult; the  residence  of  the  'Phoenician  shepherds,' 
the  Hyksos,  in  Egypt  might  aflford  an  opportunity 
for  this  adaptation,  or  it  might  be  brought  alioiit 
by  comniereial  intercourse.      We  cannot,  however 
•224 


WRITING 


3561 


trace  such  a  resemblance  between  the  earliest  Phce* 
nician  alphabet  known  to  us,  and  the  phonetia 
characters  of  Egypt,  as  to  give  any  certainty  to 
this  conclusion"  {Phceiiicia,  pp.  1G4,  105). 

Perhaps  all  that  can  be  inferred  from  the  tradi- 
tion that  letters  came  to  the  Greeks  from  the  Phoe- 
nicians, but  that  they  were  the  invention  of  the 
I'^gyptians,  is  that  the  Egyptians  possessed  an  al- 
phabet before  the  Phcenicians.  Wahl,  De  Wette, 
and  Kopp  are  inclined  to  a  Babylonian  origin,  un- 
derstanding the  'S.vpoi  of  Diodorus  and  the  Syri  of 
Pliny  of  the  Baljylonians.  But  Gesenius  has  shown 
this  to  be  untenable,  because  (1)  Pliny  distinctly 
mentions  both  Syri  and  Anayrii,  and  by  no  means 
confounds  them;  and  (2)  because  the  inscription 
on  the  seal-stone,  on  which  Kopp  based  his  theory, 
is  nothing  more  than  Phrenician,  and  that  not  of 
the  oldest  form,  but  inclining  to  the  somewhat  later 
Aramaic  character.  This  seal-stone  or  brick  con- 
tained, besides  a  cuneiform  inscription,  some 
Shemitic  characters  which  were  deciphered  by 
Kopp,  and  were  placed  by  him  at  the  head  of  his 
most  ancient  alphabets  {Bili/er  uml  Schriften,  ii. 
154).  Gesenius,  however,  read  them  with  a  very 
dirterent  result.  He  himself  argues  for  a  Phoeni- 
cian origin  of  the  alphabet,  in  opposition  to  a 
Babylonian  or  AramfBan,ou  the  following  grounds: 
1.  'rhat  the  names  of  the  letters  are  Phoenician, 
and  not  Syrian.  Several  of  the  names  are  found 
alike  in  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  dialects:  as  for 
instance,  beth,  ffiniel,  zain,  nun,  ain,  resh,  sliin, 
but  others  are  not  found  in  Syriac  at  all,  at  least 
not  in  the  same  sense.  Aleph,  in  Syriac  signifies 
"a  thousand,"  not  "an  ox;"  daluth  is  not  -'a 
door,"  and  for  this,  as  well  as  for  vau,  yod,  mem, 
pe,  kopb,  and  tnu,  diflferent  words  are  used.  The 
tireek  forms  of  the  names  of  the  letters  are  some- 
what in  favor  of  an  Aramaic  origin,  but  there  is  no 
proof  that  they  came  in  this  shape  from  the  East, 
and  that  they  were  not  so  modified  by  the  Greeks 
themselves.  2.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  Aramaic 
di;\lect  was  the  language  of  the  inventors;  for  th<» 

letters  '^  1  27  S,  which  to  them  were  certainly  con- 
sonants, had  become  so  weak  in  the  .\ramaic  that 
thev  could  scarcely  any  longer  api)ear  as  such,  and 
could  not  have  lieen  expressed  by  signs  by  an  in- 
ventor who  spoke  a  dialect  of  this  kind.  3.  If 
the  Phcenician  letters  are  pictorial,  as  there  seems 
reason  to  believe,  there  is  no  model,  among  the  old 
Babylonian  discoverers  of  writing,  after  which  they 
could  have  been  formed ;  while,  on  the  other  band, 
it  is  extremely  probable  that  the  Phcenicians,  from 
their  extended  commerce,  especially  with  Eg3'pt, 
adopted  an  imitation  of  the  Egyptian  phonetic 
hieroglyphics,  thcnigh  they  took  neither  the  figures 
nor  the  names  from  this  source.  The  names  of 
some  of  the  letters  lead  us  to  a  nomad  pastoral 
people,  rich  in  herds:  aleph  (an  ox),  tfiinel  (a 
camel),  lamed  (an  ox-goad),  beth  (a  tent),  dnleth 
(a  tent-door),  v<iu  (a  tent-peg),  cheth  (a  hurdle  or 
pen).  It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  Gesenius  did 
not  see  that  this  very  fact  militates  strongly  against 
the  Phoenician  origin  of  the  letters,  and  points,  as 
has  been  observed  above,  rather  to  a  pastoral  than 
a  seafaring  people  as  their  inventors.  But  whether 
or  not  the  Phoenicians  were  the  inventors  of  the 
Shemitic  alphabet,  there  can  be  no  doulit  of  their 
just  claim  to  being  its  chief  disseminators;  and 
with  this  understanding  we  may  accept  the  geneal- 
ogy of  alphaliets  as  given  by  (iesenius.  and  eriiib- 
ited  in  the  accompanying  table 


3562 


WRITING 


WRITING 


Anc.  Greek. 


Anc.  Persian.       Numidian.     Anc.  Hebrew. 


Anc.  Aramaean. 


Etruscan.  Roman. 
Umbriaii.  I 

Oscan.  Runic .' 
Samuite. 


Celti-     Coptic.     Gothic.       Slavonian, 
berian. 


Samaritan.     Palmyrene. 


Heb.  squara 

characwr. 


Sassanid-writing.       Estrangelo      Sabian. 
I  and  Nestorian. 


Armenian  ? 

Whatever  minor  differences  may  exist  between 
Ihe  ancient  and  more  modern  Shemitic  alphabets, 
they  have  two  chief  characteristics  in  common: 
(1.)    That  they  contain  only  consonants  and  the 

three  principal  long  vowels,  W,  T,  "^  [whicli  must 
have  been  consonants  originally.  —  W.  H.  W.] ; 
the  other  vowels  being  represented  by  signs  above, 
below,  or  in  the  middle  of  letters,  or  being  omitted 
altogether.  (2.)  That  they  are  written  from  right 
to  left.  The  Ethiopic,  being  perhaps  a  non-Shem- 
itic  alphabet,  is  an  exception  to  this  rule,  as  is 
the  cuneiform  character  in  which  some  Shemitic 
inscriptions  are  found.  The  same  peculiarity  of 
Egyptian  witing  was  remarked  by  Herodotus.  No 
instance  of  what  is  called  boast ntp'-.edon  writing  — 
that  is  in  a  direction  from  rigiit  lo  left,  and  from 
left  to  right  in  alternate  lines  —  is  found  in  Shem- 
itic monuments. 

The  old  Shemitic  alphabets  may  be  divided  into 
two  principal  classes:  (1.)  The  Phoenician,  as  it 
exists  (")  in  the  inscriptions  in  (Jyprus,  Malta, 
Carpentras,  and  the  coins  of  Phoenicia  and  her 
colonies.  It  is  distinguished  by  an  absence  of 
vowels,  and  by  sometimes  having  the  words  divided 
and  sometimes  no'  (6.)  In  the  inscriptions  on 
•lewish  coins.  {c  In  the  Phoenicio-Egyptian 
writing,  with  three  vowel  signs,  deciphered  by 
C'aylus  on  the  mummy  bandages.  I"rom  («)  are 
derived  id),  the  Samaritan  character,  and  (e),  the 
(ireek.  (2.)  The  Hebrew-Chaldee  character;  to 
which  belong  («).  the  Hebrew  square  character: 
{b),  the  Palmyrene,  which  has  some  traces  of  a 
cursive  hand;  (c),  the  Estrangelo,  or  ancient  S>t- 
iac;  and  (</),  the  ancient  Arabic  or  Cufic.  The 
oldest  Arabic  writing  (the  Himyaritic)  was  per- 
haps the  same  as  the  ancient  Hebrew  or  Phoe- 
nician." 

It  remains  novv  to  consider  which  of  all  these 
was  the  alphabet  originally  used  by  the  ancient 
Hebrews.  In  considering  this  question  it  will  on 
many  accounts  be  more  convenient  to  begin  with 
the  common  square  character,  which  is   more  fa- 


a  *  Schroder  (Plidnizische  Sprnche,  pp.  77,  78)  di- 
vides tlie  Plioenician  remains  into  four  palasographical 
classes.  The  first,  which  he  malies  provisioDally,  as 
he  had  no  monument  to  put  in  it,  is  the  original 
Archaic  Phcenician  used  with  little  alteration  up  to 
the  seventh  century  before  Chi'ist.  To  this  class,  we 
may  say,  belongs  the  Moabite  monument  of  King 
Mesha,  first  given  to  the  public  by  M.  Ganneau  in 
January.  1870.  The  second  cla.ss  is  the  Eastern  Phce- 
nician, jxteuding  from   the  seventh  or  sixth  centurv 


Peshito.     Uiguric.  or 
Old  Turkish. 


Nischi. 


miliar,  and  which  from  this  familiarity  is  moie 
constantly  associated  with  the  Hebrew  language 
and  writing.     In  the  Talmud  (Sanh.  fol.  21,  22) 

this   character  is  called    272]^^  ^HS,    "  square 

writing,"  or  n'^n'1!i7S  SHS,  "  Assyrian  writ- 
ing;" the  latter  appellation  being  given  because, 
according  to  the  tradition,  it  came  up  with  the 
Israelites  from  .Assyria.  Under  the  term  Assyria 
are  included  Clialdaea  and  Babylonia  in  the  wider 
sense;  for  it  is  clear  that  in  ancient  writers  the 
names  Assi/rian  and  Chaldcean  are  applied  indif- 
ferently-to  the  same  characters.  The  letters  of  the 
inscription  on  the  tomb  of  Sardanapalus  are  called 
Chaldaean  (Athen.  xii.  529)  and  Assyrian  (Athen. 
xii.  469;  Arrian,  lixp.  Alex.  ii.  5,  §  4).  -■^gain, 
the  Assyrinn  writing  on  the  pillars  erected  by 
Darius  at  the  Bosporos  (Her.  iv.  87).  is  called  by 
Strabo    Persian    (xv.   502).     Another    derivation 

for  the  epithet  n'^'^^tt'S,  ashshiuith.  as  applied 
to  this  writing,  has  been  suggested  by  Eabbi  Judah 

the  Holy,  who  derives  it  from  il'^ffi'^P,  tneush- 
shereth,  "blessed;''  the  term  being  applied  to  it 
because   it  was    eniployed    in  writing  the   sacred 

liooks.  Another  etymology  (from  "Itt.'W,  ashar, 
to  be  straight),  given  by  the  Hebrew  grammarian 
Abraham  de  Balniis.  describes  it  as  tlie  straight, 
perpendicular  writing,  so  making  the  epithet  equiv- 
alent to  that  which  we  apply  to  it  in  calling  it  the 
square  cliaracter.  Hupfeld,  starting  from  the  same 
root,  explains  the  Talmudic  designation  as  merely 
a  technical  term  used  to  denote  the  more  modern 

writing,  and  as  opposed  to  V^"'*  rants,  "  broken," 
by  which  the  ancient  character  is  described.*  Ac- 
cording to  him  it  signifies  that  which  is  firm, 
strong,  protected  and  supported  as  with  forts  and 
walls,  referring  perhaps  to  the  horizontal  strokes 
on  which  the  letters  rest  as  on  a  foundation. 
In   this  view   he   compares  it  with   the  Ethiopic 

character,   which   is   called    in   Arabic    i\XMtjO, 


B.  c.  until  the  time  of  Christ,  and  called  by  M.  de 
VogiitS  the  "  Sidonian."'  The  third  class  is  the  Car- 
thaginian, and  the  fourth  the  New  Punic  of  the  time 
of  the  Roman  domination  of  North  Africa  and  Spain. 

W.  H.  W. 

b  *  Probably  the  Talmud  of  Venice  is  right  in 
printing  this  word  ^27T  instead  of  \^2?~',  from  I 
root   y^l"^,  "  to  cut,  engrave."'  W.  H   W 


WRITINa 

■'supported."  It  must  be  confessed  that  none  of 
Ihese  explanations  are  so  satisfactory  as  to  be  un- 
hesitatingly accepted.     The  only  fact  to  be  derived 

from  the  word  n^^^ti7S  is  that  it  is  the  source 
of  the  whole  Talmud^  tradition  of  the  Babylonian 
origin  of  the  sijuare^haracter.  This  tradition  is 
embodied  in  the  following  passages  from  the  Jeru- 
Balem  and  Babylonian  Talmuds:  "It  is  a  tradi- 
tion :  R.  Jose  says  Ezra  was  fit  to  have  the  Law 
given  by  his  hand,  but  that  the  age  of  Moses  pre- 
vented it;  yet  though  it  was  not  given  by  his 
hand,  the  writing  and  the  language  were;  the 
writing  was  written  in  the  Syriac  tongue,  and  in- 
terpreted in  the  Syriac  tongue  (Ezr.  iv.  7),  and 
they  could  not  read  the  writing  (Dan.  v.  8);  from 
hence  it  is  learned  that  it  was  given  on  the  same 
day.    R.  Nathan  says  the  Law  was  given  in  broken 

characters  (\^27"1,  I'aafs),  and  agrees  with  R.  Jose; 
hut  Rab  («'.  e.  R.  Judah  the  Holy)  says  that  the 
Law  v/as  given  in  the  Assyrian  (i.  e.  the  square) 
character,  and  when  they  sinned  it  was  turned  into 
the  liroken  character,  and  when  they  were  worthy, 
in  the  days  of  Ezra,  it  was  turned  to  them  again 
in  the  Assyrian  character,  according  to  Zech.  ix. 
12.  It  is  a  tradition :  K.  Simeon  ben  Eleazar  says, 
on  the  account  of  R.  Eleazar  ben  Parta,  who  also 
says,  on  the  account  of  F^liezer  Hammodai,  the  Law 
was  written  in  the  Assyrian  character "  (Talm. 
Jerus.  Me'jiWih,  fol.  71,  72,  73).  But  the  story,  as 
best  known,  is  told  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud : 
"  Mar  Zutra,  or  as  others  Mar  Ukba,  says,  at  first 

the  Law  was  given  to  Israel  in  the  Hebrew  ("'"13^, 
i.  e.  the  Samaritan)  writing  and  the  holy  tongue; 
and  again  it  was  given  to  them,  in  the  days  of 
EzrS,  in  the  Assyrian  writing  and  the  Syrian 
tongue.  They  chose  for  the  Israelites  the  Assyrian 
writing  and  the  holy  tongue,  and  left  to  the  Itliotie 
the  Hebrew  writing  and  the  Syrian  tongue.  Who 
are  the  Id'wtm  f  R.  Chasda  says,  the  Cutheans 
(or  Samaritans).  "What  is  the  Hebrew  writing? 
R.  Chasda  says,  the  Libonaah  writing  "  {San/ied. 
fol.  21,  2;  22,  1).  The  Libonaah  writing  is  ex- 
plained by  R.  Solomon  to  mean  the  large  charac- 
ters in  which  the  Jews  wrote  their  anuilets  and 
mtzuzoth.  The  broken  character  mentioned  abo\'e 
can  only  apply  to  the  Samaritan  alphabet,  or  one 
very  similar  to  it.  In  this  character  are  written, 
not  only  manuscripts  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
varying  in  age  from  the  13th  to  the  16th  century, 
but  also  other  works  in  Samaritan  and  Arabic. 
The  Samaritans  themselves  call  it  Hchrew  writinff, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  square  character,  which 
they  call  the  writing  of  Ezra.  It  has  no  vowel 
points,  but  a  diacritical  mark  called  Marlieiono  is 
employed,  and  words  and  sentences  are  divided. 
A  form  of  character  more  ancient  than  the  Samari- 
tan, though  clo.sely  resembling  it,  is  found  on  the 
coins  struck  under  Simon  JMaccal)aeus,  cir.  n.  c. 
142.  Of  this  writing  Gesenius  remarks  (art.  Pa- 
Iduyraplde  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  t'ncyclopckUe) 
that  it  was  most  probably  employed,  even  in  manu- 
scripts, during  the  whole  lifetime  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  and  was  gradually  displaced  by  the  square 
character  about  the  birth  of  Christ.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  characters  on  the  Maccaba'an  coins 
shows  that  they  bear  an  extremely  close  resem- 
blance to  those  of  the  Phoenician  inscriptions,  and 
11   many   cases  are  all  but   identical  with  them. 

I'he  figures  of  thn>e  characters  (T,  ^,  D)  do  not 

»ccur,  and  that  of  3  is  doubtful. 


WRITING 


3503 


In  order  to  explain  the  Tahuudic  story  above 
given,  and  the  relation  between  the  square  char- 
acter and  that  of  the  coins,  different  theories  have 
been  constructed.  Some  held  that  the  square  char- 
acter was  sacred,  and  used  by  the  priests,  while 
the  character  on  the  coins  was  for  the  purposes  of 
ordinary  life.  The  younger  Buxtorf  (  De  Lit.  Hebr. 
Gen.  Ant.)  maintained  that  the  square  alphabet 
was  the  oldest  and  the  original  alphabet  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  that  before  the  Captivity  the  Sa- 
maritan character  had  existed  side  liy  side  with  it; 
that  during  the  Captivity  the  priests  and  more 
learned  part  of  the  people  cultivated  the  square  or 
sacred  character,  while  those  who  were  left  in 
Palestine  adhered  to  the  common  writing.  Ezra 
brought  the  former  back  with  him,  and  it  was 
hence  called  Assyrian  or  Chaldtean.  The  other 
was  used  principally  by  the  Samaritans,  though 
occasionally  by  the  Jews  themselves,  as  is  shown 
by  the  characters  on  the  Maccabisan  coins.  This 
opinion  found  many  supporters,  and  a  singular 
turn  was  given  to  it  by  Morinus  (De  Limjua  Pri- 
mtvcii,  p.  271)  and  Loescber  {Dt  Cmisis  Ling. 
Iltbr.  pp.  207,  208),  who  maintained  that  the  char- 
acters on  the  coins  were  a  kind  of  tachygraphic 
writing  formed  from  the  square  character.  Ilart- 
mann  {Ling.  Einl.  p.  28,  &c.)  also  upheld  the 
existence  of  a  twofold  character,  the  sacred  and 
profane.  The  favorers  of  this  hypothesis  of  a 
double  aljihabet  hatl  some  analogies  to  which  they 
could  apjieal  for  support.  The  Egyptians  had  a 
twofold,  or  even  a  threefold  character.  The  cunei- 
form writing  of  the  ancient  Persians  and  Medes 
was  perhaps  a  sacred  character  for  monuments,  the 
Zend  being  used  for  ordinary  life.  The  Arabs, 
Persians,  and  Turks,  employ  different  characters 
according  as  they  require  them  for  letters,  poems, 
or  historical  writings.  But  analogy  is  not  proof, 
and  therefore  the  passage  in  Is.  viii.  1  has  been 
appealed  to  as  containing  a  direct  allusion  to  the 
ordinary  writing  as  opposed  to  the  sacred  charac- 
ter. But  it  is  evident,  upon  examination,  that  the 
writing  there  referred  to  is  that  of  a  perfectly 
legible  character,  such  as  an  ordinary  unskilled 
man  might  read.  Irenseus  {Adv.  Hmras.  ii.  24  i, 
indeed,  speaks  of  sacerdotal  letters,  but  his  infor- 
mation is  not  to  be  relied  on.  In  fact  the  sole 
ground  for  the  hypothesis  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
only  specimens  of  the  Helirew  writing  of  common 
life  are  not  in  the  usual  character  of  the  manu- 
scripts. If  this  supposition  of  the  coexistence  of 
a  twoftjld  alphaliet  be  abandoned  as  untenable,  we 
must  either  substitute  for  it  a  second  hypothesii, 
that  the  square  character  was  the  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  that  the  Sa- 
maritan was  used  in  the  northern  kingdom,  or  that 
the  two  alphabets  were  successive  and  not  con- 
temporary. Against  the  former  hypothesis  stands 
the  fact  that  the  coins  on  which  the  so-called 
Samaritan  character  occurs  were  struck  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  names  Hebrew  and  Assi/vian,  as 
applied  to  the  two  alphabets,  would  still  be  unac- 
comited  for.  .There  remains  then  the  hypotliesis 
that  the  square  character  and  the  writing  of  the 
coins  succeeded  each  otiier  in  point  of  time,  and 
that  the  one  gradually  took  the  place  of  the  other, 
just  as  in  Arabic  the  Nischi  writing  has  displaced 
the  older  Cufic  character,  and  in  .Syriac  the  Es- 
trangelo  has  given  place  to  that  at  present  in  use 
But  did  the  square  character  precede  the  charactei 
on  the  coins,  or  'vas  the  reverse  the  case?  Accord- 
ing to  some  of  the  doctors  of  the  I'alt  lud  {Sunh. 


3564  WRITING 

fol.  21,  2;  22,  1),  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  the 
Law  was  given  to  the  Israelites  in  the  Hel)re\v  char- 
acter and  the  holy  tongue.  It  was  given  again 
in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  the  Assyrian  character  and 
the  Aramsean  tongue.  By  the  "Hebrew"  char- 
acter is  to  be  understood  vvliat  is  elsewhere  called 
the  "  broken  "  writing,  which  is  what  is  conin-.only 
called  Samaritan ;  and  by  tlie  Assyrian  writing  is 
to  be  understood  the  square  character.  But  Rabbi 
Judah  the  Holy,  who  adopted  a  different  etymology 

for  the  word  iT'Tltt'S  (Assyrian),  says  that  the 
Law  was  first  given  in  this  square  character,  but 
that  afterwards,  when  the  people  sinned,  it  was 
changed  into  the  broken  writing,  which  again,  upon 
their  repentance  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  was  converted 
into  the  square  character.  In  both  these  cases  it 
is  evident  that  the  tradition  is  entirely  built  upon 
the  etymology  of  tlie  word  tislishurith,  and  varies 
according  to  the  different  conceptions  formed  of  its 
meaning:  consequently  it  is  of  but  slight  value  as 
direct  testimony.  The  varying  character  of  the 
tradition  shows  moreover  that  it  was  framed  after 
the  true  meaning  of  the  name  had  become  lost. 
Origen  (on  Ez.  ix.  4)  says  that  in  the  ancient 
alphabet  the  iitu  had  the  form  of  a  cross,  and 
(Hexcifla,  i.  86,  Montfaucon)  that  in  some  MSS. 

of  the  LXX.  the  woid  mn^  was  written  in  an- 
cient Hebrew  characters,  not  with  those  in  use  in 
his  day,  "  for  they  say  that  Ezra  used  other  [let- 
ters] after  the  Captivity."  Jerome,  following 
Origen,  gives  out  as  certain  what  his  predecessor 
only  mentioned  as  a  report,  and  the  tradition  in 
his  hands  assumes  a  ditterent  aspect.  "  It  is  cer- 
tain," he  says,  "that  Ezra  the  scribe  and  doctor 
of  the  law,  after  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
restoration  of  the  Temple  under  Zerubbabel,  dis- 
covered other  letters  which  we  now  use:  whereas 
up  to  that  time  the  characters  of  the  Samaritans 

and  Hebrews  were  the  same And  the  tetra- 

grammaton  name  of  the  Lord  we  find  in  the  present 
day  written  in  ancient  letters  in  certain  Greek 
rolls"  (Prul.  GuL  in  Libr.  Bey.).  The  testimony 
of  Origen  with  regard  to  the  form  of  t<iu  under- 
goes a  similar  modification.  "  In  the  ancient  He- 
brew letters,  which  the  Samaritans  use  to  this  day, 
the  last  letter,  tau,  has  the  form  of  a  cross." 
Again,  in  another  passage  (Ep.  1-36  ad  Marcdl. 
ii.  704,  Ep.  14,   ed.  Martianay)  Jerome  remarks 

that  the  ineffable  name  mn^,  being  misunder- 
stood by  the  Greeks  when  they  met  with  it  in 
their  books,  was  read  by  them  pipi.,  i.  e.  mill- 
It  has  been  inferred  from  this  that  the  ancient 
characters,  to  which  both  Jerome  and  Origen  refer 
in  the  first-quoted  [lassages,  were  the  square  char- 
acters, because  in  them  alone,  and  not  in  the  Sa- 
maritan, does  any  resemblance  between  mn^  and 
nini  e.xist.  There  is  nothing,  however,  to  show 
that  Jerome  contemplated  the  same  case  in  the  two 
uassages.  In  the  one  he  expressly  mentions  the 
"ancient  characters,"  and  evidently  as  an  excep- 
tional instance,  for  they  were  only  found  in  "  cer- 
tain rolls ;  "  in  the  other  he  appears  to  speak  of  an 
occurrence  by  no  means  uncommon.  Again,  it  is 
Jerome,  and  not  Origen,  who  is  responsible  for  the 
assertion  that  in  the  Samaritan  alphabet  the  Tau 


WRITING 

has  the  form  of  a  cross.  Origen  merely  says  this 
is  the  case  in  the  ancient  or  original  [apxa^ois] 
Hebrew  characters,  and  his  assertion  is  true  of  the 
writing  on  the  Maccabsean  coins,  and  of  the  an- 
cient and  even  the  more  modem  Phoenician,  but 
not  of  the  alphaljet  known^  us  as  the  Samari- 
tan. It  seems  clear,  therefore,  that  Jerome's  lan- 
guage on  this  point  cannot  be  regarded  as  strictly 
accurate. 

There  are  many  arguments  which  go  to  show 
that  the  Samaritan  character  is  older  than  the 
square  Hebrew.  One  of  these  is  derived  from  the 
existence  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which,  ac- 
cording to  some  writers,  must  date  at  least  from 
the  time  of  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms, 
the  northern  kingdom  retaining  the  ancient  writing 
which  was  once  common  to  Ijoth.  But  there  is  no 
evidence  for  the  existence  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch before  the  Captivity,  and  the  opinion  which 
now  most  commonly  prevails  is  that  the  Samaritans 
received  it  first  in  the  Maccabsean  period,  and  with 
it  the  Jewish  writing  (Hiivernick,  Einl.  i.  290). 
The,  question  is  still  far  from  being  decided,  and 
while  it  remains  in  this  condition  the  arguments 
derived  from  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  camiot  be 
allowed  to  have  much  weight.  Hupfeld  {Stud,  und 
Krit.  1830,  ii.  279,  &c.)  contends  that  the  conmion 
theory,  that  the  Samaritans  received  their  writing 
from  the  ancient  Israelitish  times,  but  maintained 
it  more  faithfully  than  the  Jews,  is  improbable, 
because  the  Samaritans  were  a  mixed  race,  entirely 
different  from  the  ancient  Israelites,  and  had,  like 
their  language,  a  [)reponderating  Aramaic  element : 
consequently,  if  they  had  had  a  character  peculiar 
to  themselves,  independently  of  their  sacred  book, 
it  would  rather  have  been  Aramaic.  He  a^ues 
that  the  Samaritans  received  tlieir  present  writing 
with  their  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews,  because  the 
Samaritan  character  differs  in  several  important 
particulars  from  that  on  the  Phcenician  monu- 
ments, but  coincides  in  all  characteristic  deviations 
with  the  ancient  Hebrew  on  the  ]Maccaba;an  coins. 
These  deviations  are —  (1)  the  horizontal  strokes  in 
bM,  man,  and  nun,  which  have  no  parallel  on 
the  Phoenician  monuments:  (2)  the  angular  heads 
of  beth,  ddlelli,  and  especially  'ain,  which  last 
never  occurs  in  an  angular  form  in  Phoenician : 
(3)  the  entirely  different  forms  of  isnd^  and  vnu, 
as  well  as  of  ziiin  and  samecli,  which  are  not 
found  on  the  JIaccabiEan  coins.  In  the  Samaritan 
letters  aleph,  chi^th,  hmied,  shin,  there  is  a  closer 
relatioivship  with  the  forms  of  the  old  Hebrew:  the 
only  marked  deviation  is  in  the  form  of  tnit.<^  To 
these  considerations  Hupfeld  adds  the  traditions  of 
Origen  and  Jerome  and  the  Talmud  already  given, 
and  the  fact  that  the  Samaritans  have  preserved 
their  letters  unchanged,  a  circumstance  which  is 
intelligible  on  the  supposition  that  these  letters 
were  regarded  by  them  with  superstitious  reverence 
as  a  sacred  character  which  had  come  to  them  from 
without,  and  which,  in  the  absence  of  any  earlier 
indigenous  tradition  of  writing,  necessarily  became 
a  lifeless  permanent  type. 

The  names  of  the  letters,  and  the  correspondence 
of  their  forms  to  their  names  in  the  Phoenician 
and  Phoenicio-Samaritan  alphabets,  supply  another 
argument  for  the  superior  antiquity  of  this  to  the 
Hebrew   square   character:    e.   g.   ^ Ain   (an   eye). 


n  *  These  remarks  need  Diodification  if  we  tiike  as  Mohammedai  -posque,  of  which  Rosen  gives  a  figure 
our  standard  of  comparison  some  lately  A\s,coveTiiA\{Zeitsck.d.D(utsch.JSlorg.  Ges.  xiii.  278)  Here,  con- 
and  quite  old  Samaritan  iusoriptions,  such  as  the  trary  to  Hupfeld,  the  tau  is  a  simplf  cross,  being 
IhigmeD*'  of  a  copy  of  the  Decalogue  built  into  a    precisely  the  old  Phceuician  form.  W   H.  \V. 


WRITING 

wliicli  on  the  coins  and  Phoenician  monuments  has  i 
tlie  form  o ;  Jii^sh  (a  head ),  q."  On  the  other  hand, 
the  names  V((u  (a  nail  or  peic),  Zui/i  (a  weapon), 
C'op/i  (the  hollow  hand),  correspond  to  their  forms 
better  in  the  square  character:  this,  however,  at 
most,  would  only  pro\^  that  both  are  derived  from 
the  same  original  alphaliet  in  which  the  corre- 
epoiiilence  between  the  shape  and  name  of  each  let- 
ter was  more  complete.  Again,  we  trace  the  Phoe- 
uiciaii  alphabet  much  further  back  than  the  square 
character.  The  famous  inscription  on  the  sarcoph- 
agus of  Eshmunazar,  found  at  Sidon  in  1855,  is 
refon-ed  by  the  Due  de  I^iynes  to  the  sixth  century 
B.  C.  The  date  of  tiie  inscription  at  Marseilles  is 
UiMft  uncertain.  Some  would  place  it  before  the 
fourdation  of  the  Greek  colony  there,  b.  c.  GOO. 
Th'^re  is  reason  to  believe,  however,  that  it  is  much 
niore  recent.  Besides  these  we  have  the  inscrip- 
tions at  Sigfeuni  and  Amycl;Te  in  the  ancient  Greek 
cliaracter,  which  is  akin  to  the  Phoenician.  On  the 
other  hand,  tlie  Heljraeo-Chaldee  character  is  not 
fdund  on  historic  monuments  before  the  birth  of 
(Jhrist.  A  consideration  of  the  various  readings 
which  have  arisen  from  the  interchange  of  similar 
characters  in  the  present  text  leads,  as  might  natu- 
rally be  expected,  to  results  which  are  rather  favor- 
alile  to  the  square  character,  for  in  this  alone  are 
the  manuscripts  written  which  have  come  down  to 
us.  The  following  examples  are  given,  with  one 
exception,  by  Gesenius:  — 

(((.)  In  the  square  alphabet  are  confounded  — 

2  and  3.     n^^nW,  Neh.  xii.  14  =  Tl^ZDW, 

Neh.  xii.   3;  """I^JT,  1   Chr.    ix. 

15  =  nST,  Neh.  xi.  17. 

1  and  \      Ipl^l,  Gen.   xlvi.    27  =  ]p2?\  1 
Chr.  1.  42. 

2andD.     n'n"^3,  1  K.  vii.   40  =  n"n'^D, 
2  Chr.  iv.  ll! 

D  and  -I.    nDii:?n,  Ps.  xvih.  12 =mtt;n, 

2  Sam.  xxii.  12. 

t  and  1.     tTS?n,  Ps.  xxxi.  3  =  "JI^^D,    Ps. 

Ixxi.  3. 
(6.)  In  both  alphabets  are  confounded  — 

1  and  ~1.      nSn,  1  i^hv.  i.  6  =  nS'^l,  Gen. 

X.   3 ;     Q^D"n,  1  Chr.   i.   7  = 

□•^aT-l,  Gen.  X.  4;   HST,  Lev. 

xi.   14=nSn,  Deut.    xiv.  13; 

ST'I,    Ps.    xviii.    ll  =  S-)"»\ 
2  Sam.  xxii.  11. 
(c.)  In  the  Phoenician  alone  — 

3  and  1.      nbn,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  29  =  1^71, 

1  Chr.  xi.  30. 

^  and  W,  whence   probably  ]^'S,  .Tosh.  xxi.  10 
=  YiDV,  1  Chr.  vi.  44. 

2  and  5.      "'"ll^a,    1    Chr.    xi.    37  =  ''~ll?D, 

2  Sam.  xxiii.  35. 
(d.)  In  neither  — 


3  and  1. 


WRITING 

□in3,  Neh.  vii. 
ii.  2. 


3565 

Cin-1,  Ezr. 


D  and  n.      "JHri,    Num.    xxvi.    35  =  nnn, 

1  Chr.  vii.  20.     ']^f2^,  1   Chr. 

vi.  76  [61]  =  m!2n,  Josh,  xxi 
32. 
The  third  class  of  these  readings  seems  to  point 
to  a  period  when  the  Hebrews  used  the  Phoenicia*: 
character,  and  a  comparison  of  the  Phoenician 
alphabet  and  the  Hebrew  coin-writing  shows  that 
the  examples  of  which  Gesenius  makes  a  fourth 
class,  might  really  be  included  under  the  third:  for 

in  these  some  forms  of  3  and    ^,  as  well  as  of  3 

and  n,  are  by  no  means  unlike.  This  circum- 
stance takes  away  some  of  the  importance  which 
the  c^bove  results  otherwise  give  to  the  square  char- 
acter. Indeed,  after  writing  his  Habraische  Sprache 
unci  Sell  rift,  Gesenius  himself  appears  to  have 
modified  some  of  the  conclusions  at  which  he  ar- 
rived in  that  work,  and  instead  of  maintaining  that 
the  square  character,  or  one  essentially  siniilar  to 
it,  was  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  LXX.,  and  that 
the  Maccabees  retained  the  old  character  for  their 
coins,  as  the  Arabs  retained  the  Cufic  some  centu- 
ries after  the  introduction  of  the  Nischi,  he  con- 
cludes as  most  probable,  in  his  article  PidaO(jvaphie 
(in  Er.sch  and  (^ruber's  EncycL),  that  tiie  ancient 
Hebrew  was  first  changed  for  the  square  character 
about  the  birth  of  Christ.  A  comparison  of  the 
Phoenician  with  the  square  aljihabet  shows  that  the 
latter  could  not  be  the  inmiediate  development  of 
the  former,  and  that  it  could  not  ha\'e  been  formed 
gradually  from  it  at  some  period  subsequent  to  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees.  The  essential  difference 
of  some  characters,  and  the  similarity  of  others, 
render  it  probable  that  the  two  alphaliets  are  both 
descended  from  one  more  ancient  than  either,  of 
which  each  has  retained  some  peculiarities.  This 
more  ancient  form,  Hupfeld  {Hishvuische.  Gram- 
mttiik,  §  7)  maintains,  is  tiie  original  alphabet 
invented  by  the  Babylonians,  and  extended  by  the 
Phoenicians.  From  this  the  square  character  was 
developed  by  three  stages. 

1.  In  its  olde.^t  form  it  appears  on  Pha>.nician 
monuments,  stones,  and  coins.  The  number  of  the 
inscriptions  containing  Phoenician  writing  was  77, 
greater  and  smaller,  in  the  time  of  Gesenius,  but  it 
has  since  been  increased  by  the  discovery  of  the 
famous  sarcophagus  of  Eshmunazar  king  of  Sidon, 
and  tlie  excavations  which  have  still  more  recently 
been  made  in  the  neigliliorhood  .of  Carthage  have 
brought  to  light  many  others  which  are  now  in  the 
British  Museuin.  Tlio.se  described  by  (ieseiiius 
were  found  at  Athens  (three  bilingual),  at  Malta 
(four,  one  of  which  is  bilingual),  in  Cyprus,  among 
the  ruins  of  Kitium  (thirty-three),  in  Sicily,  in  the 
ruins  of  Carthaire  (twelve),  and  in  the  regions  of 
Cartilage  and  Nuniidia.  They  belong  for  the  most 
part  to  the  period  between  Alexander  and  the  age 
of  Augustus.  A  Punic  inscription  on  the  arch  of 
vSeptimius  Severus  brings  down  the  Phamician 
character  as  late  as  the  lieginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury after  Christ.  Besides  these  inscriptions  on 
stone,  there  are  a  number  of  coins  bearing  Phoeni- 


«  *  No  sort  of  dependence  can  he  put  ou  tliis  argu-  palaeograpUical  data,  without  considering  the  rssem- 
cent  The  olde.st  Resli  has  a  triangular,  and  not  a  blance  tliey  may  be  imagined  to  ticar  to  the  un'iiiioj 
rfiuna    head,   and    the    gradual  development    of  tlie  |  of  their  names.  W.  II    \V. 

{Iet>''*w   square   characters  is    evident   enough    from  I 


3566 


WRITING 


cian  cliaracttrs,  of  which  those  found  in  Cilicia  are 
the  most  ancient,  and  belont;  to  the  times  of  the 
Persian  domination.  The  character  on  all  these  is 
essentially  the  same.  In  its  best  form  it  is  found 
on  the  Sicilian,  JNfaltese,  Cj'prian,  and  Carthaginian 
inscriptions.  On  the  Cicilian  coins  it  is  perhaps  most 
original,  degenerating  on  the  later  coins  of  Phcenicia, 
Spain,  and  the  neighboring  islands,  and  becoming 
almost  a  cursive  character  in  the  monuments  of  Nu- 
niidia  and  the  African  provinces.  There  are  no 
final  letters,  and  no  divisions  of  words.  The  char- 
acteristics of  the  Phcenician  alphabet  as  it  is  thus 
discovered  are,  that  it  is  purely  consonantal;  that 
it  consists  of  twenty-two  letters  written  from  right 
to  left,  and  is  distinguished  Ijy  strong  perpendicu- 
lar strokes,  and  the  closed  heads  of  the  letters;  that 
the  names  and  order  of  the  letters  were  the  same 
as  in  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  as  may  be  inferred 
from  the  names  of  the  Greek  letters  which  came 
immediately  from  Phoenicia;  and  that  originally 
the  alphabet  was  pictorial,  the  letters  representing 
figures.  This  last  position  has  been  strongly  op- 
posed by  "Wuttke  {Zeitsc/i.  d.  D.  M.  6'.  xi.  75, 
etc.),  who  maintains  that  the  ancient  Phcenician 
alphabet  contains  no  traces  of  a  pictorial  character, 
and  that  the  letters  are  simply  combinations  of 
strokes.  It  is  impossible  here  to  give  his  argu- 
ments, and  the  reader  is  referred  for  further  infor- 
mation to  his  article.  This  ancient  Phoenician 
character  in  its  earliest  form  was  probably,  says 
Ilupfeld,  adopted  by  the  Hebrews  from  the  Canaan- 
ites,  and  used  by  them  during  the  whole  period  of 
the  living  language  till  shortly  before  the  birth  of 
Christ.  Closely  allied  with  it  are  the  characters  on 
the  Maccab«an  coins,  and  the  Samaritan  alphabet. 

2.  While  the  old  writing  remained  so  almost 
unchanged  among  the  Phoenicians  and  Samaritans, 
it  was  undergoing  a  gi-adual  transformation  among 
its  original  inventors,  the  Arani£eans,  especially 
those  of  the  West.  This  transformation  was  effected 
by  opening  the  heads  of  the  letters,  and  by  bending 
the  perpendicular  stroke  into  a  horizontal  one, 
which  in  the  cursive  character  served  for  a  connect- 
ing stroke,  and  in  the  inscriptions  on  stone  for  a 
basis  or  tbundation  for  the  letters.  The  character 
in  this  form  is  found  in  the  earliest  stage  on  the 

stone  of  Carpentras,  where  the  letters  37,  3,  "T,  "1, 
have  open  heads;  and  later  in  the  inscriptions  on 
the  ruins  of  Palmyra,  where  the  characters  are  dis- 
tinguished by  the  open  heads  degenerating  some- 
times to  a  point,  and  by  horizontal  connecting 
Btrokes.  Besides  the  stone  of  ( Jarpentras,  the  older 
form  of  the  modified  Aramaean  character  is  found 
on  some  fragments  of  papyrus  found  in  Egypt,  and 
preserved  in  the  Lilirary  at  Turin,  and  in  the  Mu- 
seum of  the  Duke  of  Blacas.  Plates  of  these  are 
gi\'en  in  Gesenius'  Moniimenta  Plioanlchi  (tab. 
28-33).  They  belong  to  the  time  of  the  later 
Ptolemies,  and  are  written  in  an  Aramaic  dialect. 
The  inscription  on  the  Carpentras  stone  was  the 
work  of  heathen  scribes,  proltably,  as  Ur.  Levy 
suggests  (ZciUch.  d.  D.  M.  G.  xi.  67),  the  Baby- 
lonian colonists  of  Egypt;  the  writing  of  the  papyri 
he  attiibutes  to  Jews.  The  inscription  on  the  vase 
rf  the  Serapeum  at  Memphis  is  placed  by  the  Due 
Je  Luynes  and  jNI.  Mariette  in  the  ith  century 
s.  C.      In  the  Blacas  fragments  the  heads  of  the 

letters  2,  ^,  "1,  have  fallen  away  altogether.     In 

the  forms  of  H,  H,  D,  we  see  the  origin  of  the 
•igures  of  the  square  chai-acter.     The  final  forms 


WRITING 

of  Cfiph  and  Nun  occur  for  the  first  time.  Tht 
Pahnyrene  writing  represents  a  later  stage,  and 
belongs  principally  to  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries after  Christ,  the  time  of  the  greatest  prosperity 
of  Palmyra.  The  oldest  inscription  belongs  to  the 
year  3'JG  of  the  Greeks  (a.  d.  8-i),  and  the  latest 
to  the  year  569  (a.  d.  257).  The  writing  was  not 
confine/:!  to  Palmyra,  for  an  inscription  in  the  same 
character  was  found  at  Abilene.  The  Palmyreue 
inscriptions  are  fifteen  in  number:  ten  bihngual,  in 
Syriac  and  Greek,  and  Syriac  and  Latin.  Two  are 
preserved  at  Rome,  four  at  Oxford.  Those  at  Rome 
differ  ft'om  the  rest,  in  having  lost  the  heads  of  the 

letters  3,  ^,  "1,  ^,  while  the  forms  of  the  "'j  D,  H, 
are  like  the  Phoenician.  Of  the  cursive  Assyrian 
writing,  which  appears  to  be  allied  to  the  Aramabi. 
Mr.  Layard  remarks,  "  On  monuments  and  remair.j 
purely  Syrian,  or  such  as  cannot  be  traced  to  a 
foreign  people,  oidy  one  form  of  character  has  been 
discovered,  and  it  so  closely  resemliles  the  cursive 
of  A.ssyria,  that  there  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  origin  of  the  two.  If,  therefore,  the 
inliabitants  of  Syria,  whether  Phcenicians  or  others, 
were  the  inventors  of  letters,  and  those  letters  were 
such  as  exist  upon  the  earliest  monuments  of  that 
country,  the  cursive  character  of  the  Assyrians  may 
have  been  as  ancient  as  the  cuneiform.  However 
that  may  be,  this  hieratic  character  has  not  yet 
been  found  in  Assyria  on  remains  of  a  very  early 
epoch,  and  it  would  seem  probable  that  simple  ])er- 
pendicular  and  horizontal  lines  preceded  rounded 
forms,  being  better  suited  to  lettei's  carved  on  stone 
tablets  or  rocks.  At  Nimroud  the  cursive  writing 
was  found  on  part  of  an  alabaster  vase,  and  on 
fragments  of  pottery,  taken  out  of  the  rul)bisl) 
covering  the  ruins.  On  the  alaljaster  vase  it  ac- 
companied an  inscription  in  the  cuneiform  charac- 
ter, containing  the  name  of  the  Khorsabad  king,  to 
whose  reign  it  is  evident,  from  several  circum- 
stances, the  vase  must  be  attributed.  It  has  also 
been  found  on  Babylonian  bricks  of  the  time  of 
Nebuchadnezzar"  {Nln.  ii.  pp.  165,  166).  M. 
Fresnel  discovered  at  Kasr  some  fifty  fragments  of 
pottery  covered  with  this  cursive  character  in  ink. 
These,  too,  are  said  to  be  of  the  age  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar {Journ.  Asld.  July  1853,  p.  77).  Dr.  Levy 
{Ztiticli.  d.  D.  M.  G.  ix.  465)  maintains,  in 
accordance  with  the  Talnmdic  tradition,  that  the 
.lews  acquired  this  cnrsiv»  writing  in  Babylon,  and 
brought  it  back  with  them  after  the  Captivity 
together  with  the  ( "haldee  language,  and  that  it 
gradually  displaced  the  older  alphabet,  of  w^hich 
fragments  remain  in  the  forms  of  the  final  letters. 

3.  While  this  modification  was  taking  place  in 
the  .\ramaic  letters,  a  similar  process  of  change 
was  going  on  in  the  old  character  among  the  Jews. 
We  already  find  indications  of  this  in  the  Macca^ 
baean  coins,  where  the  straight  strokes  of  some  let- 
ters are  Itroken.  The  Araniaic  character,  too,  had 
apparently  an  influence  upon  the  Hebrew,  propor- 
tioned to  the  influence  exercised  by  the  .\ramaic 
dialect  upon  the  Hebrew  language.  The  heads  of 
the  letters  still  left  in  the  Pahnyrene  character  are 
removed,  the  position  and  length  of  several  oblique 

strokes  are  altered  (as  in  i"),  H,  2,  3).  It  lost  the 
character  of  a  cursive  hand  by  the  separation  of 
the  several  letters,  and  the  stiff  ornaments  which 
they  received  at  the  hands  of  calligra|)hers,  and  thus 
became  an  angular,  uniform,  broken  character,  frou) 

which  it  receives  its  name  s'pi  ire  {V'll'^fp  !2n2) 


WRITING 

In  the  letters  S,  3,  2,  0,  tt,  3,  D,  V,  S,  H,  tlie 
yEg\^pto- Aramaic  ajjpears  the  ukler,  and  the  I'al- 
mjrene  most  resembles  the  square  character.  In 
others,  on  the  contrary,  as  H,  13,  p,  1,  the  square 
character  is  closely  allied  to  the  forms  in  the  Blacas 
fragments;  and  in  sorae,-as  1,  H,  1,  T,  "'j  W,  both 
the  older  alphabets  agree  with  the  square  character. 
So  for  as  regards  the  development  of  the  square 
character  from  the  Aramtean,  as  it  appears  on  the 
Btone  of  Carpelitras  and  the  ruins  of  Palmyra,  Hup- 
feld  and  Geseuius  are  substantially  agreed,  but  they 
differ  widely  on  another  and  very  important  point. 
Gesenius  is  disposed  to  allow  some  weight  to  the 
tradition  as  preserved  in  the  Talmud,  Origen,  and 
Jerome,  that  the  Hebrews  at  some  period  adopted 
a  character  different  from  their  own.  The  Chaldee 
square  alphabet  he  considers  as  originally  of  Ara- 
maic origin,  but  transferred  to  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. To  this  conclusion  he  appe.irs  to  be  drawn 
by  the  name  Assyrinii  applied  in  the  Talmud  to 
the  square  character,  which  he  infers  was  probably 
the  ancient  character  of  Assyria.  If  this  were  the 
case,  it  is  reuiarkable  that  no  trace  of  it  should  be 
found  on  the  Assyrian  monuments;  and,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  other  evidence,  it  is  unsafe  to  build  a 
theory  upon  a  name,  the  interpretation  of  which 
is  uncertain.  The  change  of  alphabet  from  the 
Phoenician  to  the  Aramaean,  and  the  devL'lopraent 
of  the  Syriac  from  the  Araniiean,  Gesenius  regards 
as  two  distinct  circumstances,  which  took  place  at 
different  times,  and  were  separated  by  a  consider- 
able interval.  The  formation  of  the  square  charac- 
ter he  maintains  cannot  be  put  earlier  than  the 
second  century  after  Christ.  Hupfeld,  on  the  other 
hand,  with  more  show  of  reason,  rejects  altogether 
the  theory  of  an  abrupt  change  of  character,  because 
he  doubts  whether  any  instance  can  be  shown  of  a 
simple  exchange  of  alphabets  in  the  case  of  a  people 
who  have  already  a  tradition  of  writing.  The  an- 
cient letters  were  in  use  in  the  time  of  the  Jlacca- 
bees,  and  from  that  period  writing  did  not  cease, 
but  was  rather  more  practiced  in  the  transcrip- 
tion of  the  sacred  books.  Besides,  on  comparing 
the  I'almyrene  with  the  square  character,  it  is  clear 
that  the  iormer  has  been  altered  and  developed, 
a  result  which  would  have  been  impossible  in  the 
case  of  a  communication  from  without  which  over- 
whelmed all  tradition  and  spontaneity.  The  case 
of  the  Samaritans,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that  of  a 
people  who  received  an  alphabet  entire,  which  they 
regarded  as  sacred  in  consequence  of  its  associa- 
tion with  their  sacred  book,  and  which  they  there- 
fore retained  unaltered  with  superstitious  fidelity. 
Moreover,  in  the  old  Hebrew  writing  on  the  coins 
we  see  already  a  tendency  to  several  important  al- 
terations, as,  for  example,  in  the  open  heads  of  13 
and  '^,  and  the  base  lines  of  3,  3,  Q,  3;  and 
many  letters,  as  71,  are  derived  rather  from  the 
33in-character  than  from  the  Palmyrene,  while  £D 

md  p  are  entirely  Phoenician.  Finally,  Hupfeld 
idds,  "  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improliable  —  nay, 
Uniost  inconceivable  —  that  the  Jews,  in  the  feiTor 
>f  their  then  enthusiasm  for  their  sacred   books, 

"»  Another  link  between  the  Palmyrene  and  the 
iquare  ehiiract<»r  is  supplied  by  the  writing  on  .some 
jf  the   ilabylouian  bowls,    described    by  Mr.  Layard 


WRITING  3567 

should,  consciously  and  without  apparent  reason, 
have  adopted  a  foreign  character,  and  abandoned  the 
ancient  writing  of  their  fathers." 

Assumnig,  then,  as  appro-ximately  true,  that  the 
square  character  of  the  Hebrews  was  the  natural 
result  of  a  gradual  process  of  development,  and 
that  it  was  not  adopted  in  its  present  shape  from 
without,  but  became  what  it  is  by  an  internal  or- 
ganic change,  we  have  further  to  consider  at  what 
time  it  acquired  its  present  form.  Kopp  {Bihkr 
and  SchriJ'ten,  ii.  177)  places  it  as  late  as  the  ith 
century  after  Christ;  but  he  appears  to  be  guided 
to  his  conclusion  chiefly  by  the  fact  that  the  Pal- 
myrene character,  to  which  it  is  most  nearly  allied, 
extended  into  the  3d  century.  It  is  evident,  how- 
ever, I'rom  several  considerations,  that  in  the  4tb 
century  the  square  character  was  substantially  the 
same  as  it  is  to  this  day,  and  had  for  some  time 
been  so.  The  descriptions  of  the  forms  of  the  let- 
ters in  the  Tahnud  and  Jerome  coincide  most  ex- 
actly with  the  present;  for  both  are  acquainted 
with  Jiiiitl  letters,  and  describe  as  similar  those  let- 
ters which  resemble  each  other  in  the  modern  al- 
phabet, as,  for  instance,  3  and   D,  1  and  ^,    H 

and  n,  1  and  "*,  T  and  ],  l2  and  D.  The  calli- 
graphic ornaments  which  were  employed  m  the 
writing  of  the  synagogue  rolls,  as  the  tayyiii  on 

the  letters  V"  ^  ^  2  t3  2?  t27,  the  point  in  the 

broken  headline  of  H  (  fY  ),  and  many  other  pre- 
scriptions for  the  orthography  of  the  Torah  are 
found  in  the  Talmud,  and  show  that  Hebrew  cal- 
ligraphy, under  the  powerful  protection  of  minute 
laws  observed  with  superstitious  reverence,  had  long 
received  its  full  development,  and  was  become  a 
fixed  unalterable  type,  as  it  has  remained  ever  since. 
The  change  of  character,  moreover,  not  only  in  the 
time  of  Jerome  and  the  Talnnid,  but  even  as  early 
as  Origen,  was  an  event  already  long  passed,  and 
so  old  and  involved  in  the  darkness  of  fable  as  to  be 
attributed  in  the  conmion  legend  to  Ezra,  or  by 
most  of  the  Talmudists  to  God  Himself.  The  very 
obscurity  which  surrounds  the  meaning  of  the  tei-ma 

■^27")  and  n^~nii7S  as  applied  to  the  old  and  new 
writing  respecti\-ely,  is  another  proof  that  in  the 
time  of  the  Talnnidists  the  square  character  had 
become  permanent,  and  that  the  history  of  the 
changes  through  which  it  had  passed  had  been  lost. 
In  the  Mishna  (S/iabb.  xii.  5)  the  case  is  mentioned 

of  two  Zains  (TT)  being  written  for  Clietk  (H), 
which  could  only  be  true  of  the  square  character. 
The  often-quoted  passage,  Matt.  v.  18,  which  is 
generally  brought  forward  as  a  proof  that  the  square 
character  must  have  been  in  existence  in  the  time  of 
Christ,  who  mentions  loora,  or  ijixl,  as  the  smallest 
letter  of  the  alphabet,  proves  at  least  that  the  old 
Hebrew  or  Phoenician  character  was  no  longer  in 
use,  but  that  the  Palmyrene  character,  or  one  very 
much  like  it,  had  been  introduced.  From  these 
circumstanoGs  we  may  infer,  witii  Hupfeld  (Stud, 
uiul  Kril.  1830,  ii.  288),  tiiat  Whiston's  conjecture 
is  approximately  true;  namely,  that  about  the  first 
or  second  centufy  after  Christ  the  square  character 
assumed  its  present  form ;  though  in  a  question  in- 
volved in  so  much  uncertainty,  it  is  impossiblo  to 
pronounce  with  great  positivencss." 

(Sin.  and  Bab.  p.  509),  which  Dr.  Levy  {Zf'n.^ch  I.  D. 
M.  G.)  assigns  to  the  7th  century  .1  D.  [See  the  ['ats 
in  Sch  ader's  ed.  of  Re  "'"-tte's  Eml.  (1860),  —  .1 .] 


3568  WRITING 

Xext  to  the  scattered  hints  as  to  the  shape  of  the 
Hebrew  letters  which  we  find  in  the  writings  of 
Jerome,  the  most  direct  evidence  on' this  point  is 
supplied  by  tlie  so-called  Alplntbetum  Jesuiiarum, 
which  is  found  in  a  MS.  (Codex  Marchalianiis,  now 
lost;  of  the  LXX.  of  Lam.  ii.  It  is  the  work  of  a 
Greek  scribe,  imperfectly  acquainted  with,  or  more 
probably  entirely  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  who  copied 
slavishly  the   letters  which  were   before  him.     In 

this  alphabet  H  is  written  n;  "*  and  1  are  of  nearly 
equal  length,  the  latter  being  distinguished  by  two 
dots;  p  is  made  like  p,  and  H  like  H.  The  let- 
ters on  the  two  Abraxas  gems  in  his  possession  were 
thouclit  by  ^Nlontfaucon  (Pndim.  ad  Hex.  Oriy. 
i.  •22,  23)  to  have  been  Helirew;  but  as  they  have 
not  been  fairly  deciphered,  nothing  can  be  inferred 
from  them.  Other  instances  of  the  occurrence  of 
the  Ileljrew  alphabet  written  liy  ignorant  scribes 
are  found  in  a  Codex  of  the  New  Testament,  of 
which  an  account  is  given  by  Treschow  ( Tent. 
(Itscr.  Cod.  \'et.  aliquot  Gr.  N.  7'.),  and  three 
have  been  edited  from  Greek  and  Latin  MSS.  in 
the  Niiuveau  Traite  Diplomatique  published  by  the 
Benedictines.  To  these,  as  to  the  Alphiil/eltiin 
Jtsuilarii/n,  Kennicott  justly  attributes  no  value 
(Dissert.  Gen.  p.  69  note).  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  Hebrew  writuig  of  a  monk,  taken  from  the 
work  of  Rabanus  ^Maurus,  De  invenlione  linyuarum. 
The  Jews  themselves  recognize  a  doulile  character 
in  the  writing  of  their  synagogue  rolls.     The  earlier 

of  these  is  called  the  Tain  writing  (3n3  Cj*^)  as 
some  suppose,  from  Tarn,  the  grandson  of  Rashi, 
who  flourished  in  the  12th  century,  and  is  thought 
to  be  the  inventor;  or,  according  to  others,  from 
the  pirftct  form  of  the  letters,  the  epithet  Tain 
being  then  taken  as  a  significant  epithet  of  the 
square    character,  in  which    sense    tiie  expression 

nsn  nH'^iHS,  cCthibak  thammdh,  occurs  in  the 

Talmud  {Shabbath,  fol.  10-3  b).  Phylacteries  writ- 
ten in  this  character  were  hence  called  Tarn  tepliil- 
lin.  The  letters  have  fine  pointed  corners  and  per- 
pendicular tarjfjin  (^"^rin),  or  little  strokes  attached 

to  the  seven  letters  V^f  2^^^.  The  r-n/i  writ- 
ing is  chiefly  found  in  German  synagogue  rolls,  and 
probably  also  in  those   of  the  Polish  -Jews.     The 

Wehh  writing  (DHS  ti77Tl),  to  which  the  Jews 
assign  a  later  date  than  to  the  other,  usually  occurs 
in  the  synagogue  rolls  and  other  manuscripts  of  the 
Spanish  and  eastern  Jews.  The  figures  of  the  let- 
ters are  rounder  than  in  the  Tarn  writing,  and  the 
iiKjyin,  or  crown-like  ornaments,  terminate  in  a 
thick  point.  But  besides  these  two  forms  of  wTit- 
ini:,  wliich  are  not  essentially  distinct,  tliere  are 
minor  differences  observable  in  the  nianuscripts  of 
ditl'erent  countries.  The  Spanish  character  is  the 
most  regular  and  simple,  and  is  for  the  most  part 
large  and  bold,  forming  a  true  square  character. 
The  German  is  more  sloping  and  comjiressed,  with 
pointed  corners;  but  finer  than  the  Spanish.  Be- 
tween these  the  French  and  Italian  character  is  in- 
termediate, and  is  hence  called  by  Kennicott  (Dis». 
Gtn.  p.  71)  chnracter  intermedins.  It  is  for  the 
most  part  rather  smaller  than  the  others,  and  the 


WRITING 

forms  of  the  letters  are  rounder  (Eichhorn,  Einf  ii 
37-41;  Tychsen,  Tentaineii  de  vnr.  cid.  Ihbr.  V. 
T.  MSS.  i/eneribus,  p.  2G4;  BellermLJin.  De  usv 
pakeoi/.  Ilebr.  p.  43). 

The  Alphabet.  — The  oldest  evidence  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Hel)rew  alphabet  is  derived  from  the  al- 
phabetical psalms  and  poems:  Pss.  xxv.,  xxxiv., 
xxxvii.,  cxi.,  cxii.,  cxix.,  cxlv. ;  Prov.  xxxi.  10-31; 
Lam.  i.-iv.  From  these  we  ascertain  that  the  num- 
ber of  the  letters  was  twenty- two,  as  at  present. 
The  Arabic  alphabet  originally  consisted  of  the 
same  number.  Irenteus  (Atli:  Iher.  ii.  24)  says 
that  the  ancient  sacred  letters  were  ten  in  number. 
It  has  lieen  argued  by  many  that  the  alphabet  of 
the  Phoenicians  at  first  consisted  only  of  sixteen  let- 
ters, or  according  to  Hug  of  fifteen,  T,  tO,  3,  D 

5,  2  being  omitted.  The  legend  as  told  by  Pliny 
(vii.  56)  is  as  follows.  Cadmus  brought  with  him 
into  Greece  sixteen  letters;  at  the  time  of  the  Tro- 
jan war  Palamedes  added  four  others,  0,  H,  4>,  X, 
and  Simonides  of  Melos  four  more,  Z,  H,  H',  CI. 
Aristotle  recognized  eighteen  letters  of  the  original 
alphabet,  ABrAEZIKAMNOnPSTY*, 
to  which  0  and  X  were  added  by  Kpicharmus 
(comp.  Tac.  Ann.  xi.  14).  By  Isidore  of  Seville 
{Oriy.  i.  3)  it  is  said  there  were  seventeen.  But 
in  the  oldest  story  of  Cadmus,  as  told  by  H^erodotus 
(v.  58)  and  Diodorus  (v.  24),  nothing  is  said  of 
the  number  of  the  letters.  Recent  investigations, 
however,  have  rendered  it  probable  that  at  first  the 
Shemitic  alphabet  consisted  of  l)Ut  sixteen  letters. 
It  is  true  that  no  extant  monuments  illustrate  the 
period  when  the  alpliai)et  was  thus  curtailed,  but 
as  the  theory  is  based  upon  an  organic  arrangement 
first  proposed  by  Lepsius,  it  may  lie  briefly  noticed. 
Dr.  Donaldson  {New  Cratylus,  p.  171,  3d  ed.)  says, 
•'  Besides  the  nmtes  and  breathings,  the  Hebrew 

alphabet,  as  it  now  stands,  has  four  sibilants,  T,  0, 

^,  W.  Now  it  is  quite  clear  that  all  these  four 
sibilants  could  not  have  existed  in  the  oldest  state 
of  the  alphabet.     Indeed  we  have  positive  evidence 

that  the  Fphraimites  could  not  pronounce  IT,  but 

substituted  for  it  the  simpler  articulation  D 
(Judges  xii  6).  We  consider  it  quite  certain,  that 
at  the  first  there  was  only  one  sibilant,  namely  this 

D,  or  samech.  Finally,  to  reduce  the  Shenutic  al- 
phabet to  its  oldest  form,  we  must  omit  cupli,  which 
is  only  a  softened  form  of  knph,  the  liquid  resh.  and 
the  semivowel  /"'/,  which  are  of  more  recent  intro- 
duction. .   .  .   The  remaining  16  letters  appear  iu 

the  following  order:  S,  3,  2,  1,  71,  \  H,  12,  7, 

D,  3,  D,  "2,  C,  p,  n.  If  we  examine  this  order 
more  minutely,  we  shall  see  that  it  is  not  arbitrary 
or  accidental,  but  strictly  organic  according  to  the 
Shemitic  articulation.  We  have  four  classes,  each 
consisting  of  4  letters:  the  first  and  second  classes 
consist  each  of  3  mutes  preceded  by  a  breathing, 
the  third  of  the  3  liquids  and  the  sil)ilant,  which  per- 
haps closed  the  oldest  alphabet  of  all,  and  the  fourth 
contains  the  three  supernumerary  mutes  preceded 
by  a  breathing.''  "  The  original  16  letters  of  the 
Greek    alphabet,    corresponding   to   those   of    the 


a  *  Dr.  Donaldson's  conjecturea  are  at  best  rather    and  never  was,  so  far  as  we  know.     Why  four   sibi 

fanciful.     His  seeou  1  class  does  not  consist  of  "  three    '^"'^  "  ^""l;!  "<>'  '>^^«  «^;;^«'i  j"  the  olde.t  state  of  th. 

alphabet  "  it  would   be  fhflicult  to  show      Ifihelau 
aiutes."     Even  if  H  can  be  called  such,  T  is  no  mute    jru;,ge  was  developed  sufficiently,  at  tlie   time  the  al 


WRITING 

Slieniitic,  are  tiius  given  by  Dr.  Donaldson  (i/jiJ. 
p.  175). 

s|n3-T|nhnti|b^2:|D  li^ls  pn 

A|BrA|'E|F  H  0|AMN|2|o|n9T 

"  In  the  Cireek  alphabet,  as  it  is  now  given  in 
the  grammars,  F  and  Q  are  omitted,  and  ten  otlier 
characters  added  to  these."      The  Sheniitic  Tsade 

(V)  became  ?eta  {Q,  Cnph  (3)  became  kappn  (/c), 

md  IW(  )  became  Mii.f  (<).  Rcsh  (^)  was  adopted 
and  called  vho  {p],  and  2ac,  which  was  used  by 
the  Dorians  for  Styixa  (Her.  i.  139),  is  only  an- 
other form  of  Z^iin  (T).  Skin  (W)  or  Sin  [W) 
is  the  origiilal  of  |i,  which  from  some  cause  or 
other  has  changed  places  with  crlyfj.a,  the  Sheniitic 
Sdintch,  just  aj  ^rJTa  has  been  transferred  from  its 
position.  In  like  manner  Mem  became  /jiv,  and 
JVuH  liecame  vv.  With  the  remaining  Greek  let- 
ters we  have  nothing  to  do,  as  they  tlo  not  appear 
to  have  been  Slieujitic  in  origin,  and  will  therefore 
proceed  to  consiiler  the  Hebrew  alphabet  as  known 
to  us. 

With  regard  to  the  airangement  of  the  letters, 
our  chief  sources  of  intbrniation  are  as  before  the 
alphabetical  acrostics  in  the  I'salms  and  {..amenta- 
tions.  In  these  [loem.s  some  irregularities  in  the 
ai'rangement  of  the  alpliabet  are  observable.     For 

instance,  in  Lam.  ii.,  iii.,  iv.,  D  stands  before  1^  : 
in  Ps.  xxxvii.  "2  stands  before  2,  and  V  is  want- 
ing: in  I'ss.  XXV.,  xxxiv.  1  is  omitted,  and  in  both 
there  is  a  final  verse  after  iH  beginning  with  D. 
^lience  D  has  been  compared  with  the  Greek  cj), 

and  the  transposition  of  V  and  !i  has  been  ex- 
plained from  the  interchange  of  these  letters  in 
Aramaic.  But  as  there  are  other  irregularities  in 
the  alphabetical  ])sahns,  no  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
these  points.     We  find,  for  example,  in  Ps.  xxv. 

two  verses  beginning  with  S,  while  2  is  omitted ; 

in  Ps   xxxiv.  two  begin  with  "T,  and  so  on. 

The  names  of  the  letters  are  given  in  the  LXX. 
of  the  Lamentations  as  found  in  the  Vatican  MS. 
as  printed  by  Mai,  and  in  the  Codex  Friderico-Au- 
gustanus,  pul)lished  by  Tischendorf.  Both  these 
ancient  witnesses  prove,  if  proof  were  wanting, 
that  in  the  -Ith  century  after  Ciirist  the  Hebrew 
letters  were  known  by  the  same  names  as  at  the 
present  day.  These  nanies  all  denote  sensible  ob- 
ieots  which  had  a  resemblance  to  the  oriiiiiial  form 
of  the  letters,  preserved  pai'tlj-  in  the  square  alpha- 
bet, partly  in  the  Phcenioian,  and  partly  perhaps  in 
the  alphabet  from  which  both  were  derived. 

The  following  are  the  letters  of  tlie  Hebrew  al- 
phabet in  their  present  shape,  with  their  names 
and  the  nieaninirs  of  these  names,  so  tar  as  they 
can  be  ascertained  with  any  degree  of  probability. 

S,  Aleph.  ?l7S  =  ^^S,  an  ox  (comp.  Pint. 
Syiiip^  Qmesl.  ix.  2,  §  li).  In  the  old 
Phcenician  forms  of  this  letter  can  still  be 


phabet  was  aJopteJ,  to  distinguish  the  souuiis.  the 
Uphabet  must  have  represented  the  current  pronun- 
tiation.  The  laii^'uage,  and  even  its  literature,  prob- 
ably, had  reached  considersible  development  before 
ilphabetic  eharactere  were  derived  from  older  hiero- 
glyphic or  syllabic  forms.     The  oldest  inscriptions  sho« 


WRITING  3669 

traced    some   resemblance   to   an   ox-head, 

3,  Belh.  n'^S=n"'3,  a  house.  The  figure 
in  the  square  character  corresponds  more  to 
its  name,  while  the  Ethiopic  f\  has  greater 
resemblance  to  a  tent,     Gr.  jSf/ra  (B)- 

3,  Giinel.  V^"^2=  VQ3,  a  camel.  The  an- 
cient form  is  supposed  to  represent  the  head 
and  neck  of  this  animal.  In  Phoenician  it 
is  ~|,  and  in  Ethiopic  *^,  which  when 
turned  round  became  the  Greek  7aU|Ua 
{=  ydfjiXa),  V.     Gesenius  holds  that  the 

earliest  form -^  represented  the  camel's 
luuup, 

1,  Lhiltth.  nb'^=n^'^,  a  door,  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  name  is  seen  in  the  older 
form  2J,  whence  the  Greek  SeAra,  A,  a 
tent-door.  [The  simple  triangle  of  the 
Greek  A  is  a  yet  older  form  found  in  the 
Moabite  Inscription,  and  still  more  resem- 
bles a  tent-door.  —  W.  H.  W.] 

n,  He.  Sn,  without  any  probable  derivation; 
perhaps  corrupted,  or  merely  a  technical 
term.     F^^wald  says  it  is  the  same  as  the 

Arabic  5«Jfi  a  hole,  fissure.  Hupfeld  con- 
nects it  with  the  interjection  SH,  "lo!" 
The  corresponding  Greek  letter  is  E,  which 
is  the  Phoenician  ^  turned  from  left  to 
right. 

1,  Vuu.  11,  a  hook  or  tent-peg;  the  same  as 
the  old  Greek  Qav  (  f),  the  form  of  which 
resembles  the  Phoenician  -K^.  [But  the 
old  Phcenician  "1  is  Y  and  not  ^,  and 
corresponds  in  shape  with  the  Greek  T,  with 
which  it  also  corresponds  in  sound.  The 
Greek  T  has  been  supposed  to  be  a  late  ad- 
dition to  the  Greek  alphabet,  but  it  is  found 
in  the  oldest  inscriptions,"  and  its  shape 
shows  it  to  have  been  borrowed,  with  the 
other  Phoenician  characters,  from  the  East. 
—  W.  H.  W.] 

T,  Zitin.  'J^l,  probably  =  M'^  zaino,  a 
weapon,  sword  (Ps.  xliv.  7):  omitting  the 
final  letter,  it  was  also  called  ^T,  zai  (Mish. 
Slidbb.  xii.  5).  It  appears  to  be  the  same 
as  the  ancient  Greek  'S.dv.  [The  same  in 
name,  perhaps;  but  the  oldest  form  of 
^T/ra,  as  found  in  the  inscriptions  from 
Halicarnassus  and  Teos,  is  ^,  the  same 
as  the  most  antique  Zain.  —  W.  H.  W.] 
n,  Chcih.  ^y^^i  a  fence,  inclosure  (=:  Arab. 
Jajl^-,  from  jflLss.,  Syr.  -jJCIa.*,  to 
surround).  Comp.  the  Phoen.  ^.  C/ietli 
is  the  Greek  ^ra  (H). 


all  the  letters  (^  happetui  to  be  missing  in  the  great 
Moabite  Inscription),  and  they  are  all  present  iu  th« 
alphabet  received  by  the  GreeUs.  W.  li.  \V. 

"   *    KirchholT's  Smdien  ztirGesch.  cl.  ^rierh.  Alplia- 
hets^  iu  the  Abkandi.  of  the  Berlin  Acad.,  lS(i3,  p.  2'i5 

w.  u.  w. 


So70 


WRITING 


12,  Tet.  tO'^tO,  a  snake,  or  i'^'p,  a  basket. 
The  Greek  e^ra. 

%  Yod.  11''=  T,  a  band.  The  form  of  the 
letter  was  perhaps  originally  longer,  as  in 
the  Greek  l  {Iuto.)-  The  Phoenician  (  ni  ) 
and  Samaritan  ( /7T  )  figures  have  a  kind  of 
distant  resemblance  to  three  fingers.  In 
Etbiopic  the  name  of  the  letter  is  ynman, 
the  right  hand.  [But  these  are  neither 
the  oldest  Phoenician  nor  Samaritan  forms. 
The  archaic  Yod^  ^,  had  but  two  "  fin- 
gers." —  W.  H.  W.] 

5,  Ca2}li.  ?)3,  the  hollow  of  the  hand.  •  The 
Greek  Kamra  (k)  is  the  old  Phoenician  form 
(h)  reversed. 

V,  Lanled.  "T^^,  a  cudgel  or  ox-goad  (comp. 
Judg.  iii.  31).  The  Greek  xd/x^Sa  (A); 
"Phoenician,  ^.  ^.  [In  the  Moabite  stone 
and  other  very  old  inscriptions,  the  lower 
part  of  the  Laiiitd  is  curved.  —  A.] 

£3,  Mem.  Q'^P  =  Q"^_P,  water,  as  it  is  com- 
monly e.xplained,  with  reference  to  the  Sa- 
maritan 5cJ.  In  the  old  al|)habets  it  is  "7, 
in  which  Gesenius  sees  the  figure  of  a  tri- 
dent, and  so  possildy  the  symbol  of  the  sea. 
The  Greek  /j,v  corresponds  to  the  old  woril 

'lS3,  "water,"  Job  ix.  30.  [The  oldest 
form  of  Mem,  as  M.  de  Vogiie  shows,  is 
not  ^7  but  y  ;  and  resembles  waves  more 
than  a  trident.  —  W.  H.  W.] 

3,  Nun.  1^2  a  fish,  in  Chaldee,  Arabic,  and 
Syriac.  In  almost  all  Phoenician  alphabets 
the  figure  is  "j.  On  the  llaltese  inscrip- 
tions it  is  nearly  straight,  and  corresponds 
to  its  name.  The  Greek  yv  is  derived 
from  it. 

D,  Samech.  TTS^D,  a  prop,  fi-oni  TJ^D,  to 
support;  perliaps,  says  Gesenius,  the  same 
as  the  Syriac  J-O.^J20,  s'moco,  a  triclin- 
ium. But  this  interpretation  is  solely 
founded  on  the  rounded  form  of  the  letter 
in  the  square  alphabet;  and  he  has  in  an- 
other place  {.Uun.  Ph(Eii.\i.  83)  shown  how 
this  has  come  from  the  old  Phoenician, 
which  has  no  liken  ss  to  a  triclinium,  or  to 
anything  else  save  a  flash  of  lightning  strik- 
ing a  church  spire.  The  Greek  alytia  is 
undoubtedly  derived  from  Samech,  as  its 
form  is  from  the  Phoenician  character,  al- 
though its  place  in  the  Greek  alphaliet  is 
occupied  l)y  |r.  [The  7iiiine  of  alyfxa 
seems  to  be  derived  from  ISnmelcfi,  but  its 
shape  from  that  of  S/iin.  Sdiin-kh  agrees 
in  its  earliest  form  with  that  of  |r,  which 
occupies  its  place  in  the  ali)!iabet.  The 
oldest  form  of  the  Greek  H  which  has  been 
preserved  is  ^,  which  comes  \ery  near  to 
the  Siimekli,  ^,  which  in  this  antique 
form  is  presented  to  us  for  the  first  time  in 
the  Moabite  Inscription.  —  W.  H.  W.] 

37,  'Am.      'J^17,  an  eye:  in  the  Phoenician  and 


WRITING 

Greek  alpliabets  O.  Originally  it  had  two 
powers,  as  in  Arabic,  and  was  represented 
in  the  LXX.  by  r,  or  a  simple  breathing 

?,  Pe.       S3=  n^,  a  mouth.     The  Greek  ttI  is 

from   "Q,  the  construct  form  of  H^. 

^,  Tsiide.  ^"l^J  or  ^"T^,  a  fish-hook  or  prong 
for  spearing  the  larger  fish.  Others  explain 
it  as  a  nose,  or  an  owl.  One  of  the  Phoe- 
nician forms  is  \^.  From  Ts'ide  is  derived 
the  Greek  ^rj  Ta. 

p,  Koph.       ^"ip,  perhaps  the  same  as   the  .\r- 

abic  Olis  the  back  of  the  head.  Gese- 
nius orignially  expkined  it  as  equivalent  to 

the  Chaldee  H'^P?  the  eye  of  a  needle,  or 
the  hole  for  the  handle  of  an  a.xe.  Hitzig 
rendered  it  "ear,"  and  others  "a  pole." 
The  old  Hebrew  form  (P),  inverted  ^,  be- 
came the  Greek  KSwira  (  *1  );  and  the 
form  (  9  )>  which  occurs  on  the  ancient 
Syracusan  coins  [and  in  the  Moabite  In- 
scription —  W.  H.  W.],  suggests  the  origin 
of  the  Roman  Q. 

"1,  Rtsk.       ^"^"1)  fi  head   (comp.   Aram.   tt'W^ 

=  tt?5S~)).  The  Phoenician  *^  when  turned 
round  became  the  Greek  P,  the  nan)e  of 
which,  pGJ,  is  corrupted  from  Resh. 

W  Shin  '\^W     Compare  ^tt',  a  tooth,  sometimes 
&      &  V      used  for  a  jagged  pronioutory. 

W  Sin.    I'^ip  J  The  letters  W  and  W  were  prob- 
al)ly  at  first  one  letter,  and  afterwards  be- 
came distinguished  by  tlie  diacritic  point, 
which  was  known  to  Jerome,  and  called  by 
him  accentus  (  Qiuegi.  Hebr.  in  Gen.  ii.  23; 
Am.  viii.  1-2).     In   Ps.  cxix.  161-168,  and 
Lam.   iii.   01-63,  they  are  used  promiscu- 
ously, and  in  Lam.  iv.  21  XD  is  put  for  'W. 
The  narrative  in  Judg.  xii.  6  points  to  a 
ditti;reiice  of  dialect,  marked  by  the  differ- 
ence in  sound   of   these  two  letters.     The 
(ireek  |r  is  derived  from  Shin,  as  vv  fiom 
Nun.      [Tlie  mime  of  the  Greek  ^r  may  be 
corrupted  from  that  of  Shin  ;  but  its  shape, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  from   that  of  Samech, 
whose  place  it  occupies.     So  a7y/xa,  with 
-  the  name  of  Samech,  has   the    place  and 
form  of  Shin,  both   being  represented  by 
W  in  the  earliest  alphabets.  —  W.  H.  W.] 
n,  Tau.       W,  a  mark  or  sign  (Ez.  ix.  4):  jirob- 
alily  a  sign  in  the  shape  of  a  cross,  such  as 
cattle  were  marked   with.     This  significa- 
tion corresponiJs  to   the   shapes  of  the  old 
Helirew  letter  on   coins -|-,    Xifi'om.the 
former  of  which  comes  the  Greek  toD  (T)- 
In  the   mystical   interpretation  of  the   al|)habet 
given   l\y  Kusebius   (Pnep.  Kvang.  x.  5)  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Tsade  was  called  Tsedek,  and  Koph  was 
called  Kul.     The  Polish  Jews  still  call  the  former 
Tsndek. 

Divisions  of  Words.  —  Hebrew  was  originally 
written,  like  most  ancient  languages,  without  any 
divisions  between  the  words."     In  most  Greek  ni- 


«  •  At  lirst  sight  it  appears  straugt  that  the  wc  rds    iu  ancient  manuscripts  should  be  thus  run  to^-etUe:  a»  t 


WRITING 

8cri]>tions  there  are  no  such  divisions,  thoui^h  in 
several  of  the  oldest,  as  the  Eui^ubine  Tables  and 
the  Siga^an  inscription,  there  are  one  or  two,  while 
others  have  as  many  as  three  points  which  serve 
this  purpose.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Plioe- 
nioian  inscriptions.  Most  have  no  divisions  of 
words  at  all,  but  others  have  a  point,  except  where 
the  words  are  closely  connected."  The  cuneiform 
character  has  the  same  ])oint,  as  well  as  the  Samar- 
itan, and  in  Cufic  tlie  words  are  separated  by 
spaces,  as  in  the  Araniffio-Egyptian  writing.  The 
various  readings  in  the  l^XX.  show  that,  at  the 
time  this  version  was  made,  in  the  Hebrew  iMSS. 
which  tiie  translators  used  the  words  were  written 
in  a  continuous  series.''  The  modei'n  synagogue 
rolls  and  the  MSS.  of  the  Samaritan  I'entateuch 
ba\e  no  vowel-points,  but  the  words  are  divided, 
and  the  Samaritan  in  this  respect  differs  but  little 
from  the  Hebrew. 

Final  Leilei s,  etc. —  In  addi:ion  to  the  letters 
above  desciibed,  we  find  in  all  Helirew  MSS.  and 

printed  books  the  forms  "7,  Dj  1,  ^,  V>  which  are 

the  shapes  assumed  by  the  letters  3,  72,  3,  Q,  U, 
when  they  occur  at  the  end  of  words.  Tlieir  in- 
vention was  clearly  due  to  an  endeavor  to  render 
reading  more  easy  by  distinguishing  one  word  from 
another,  but  they  are  of  comparatively  modern  date, 
'i'he  various  readings  of  the  i>XX.  show,  as  has 
been  already  said,  that  that  version  was  made  at  a 
time  when  the  divisions  of  words  were  not  marked, 
and  consequently  at  this  time  there  could  be  no 
final  letters.  Gesenius  at  first  maintained  that  on 
the  I'almyrene  iiiscri|jtions  there  were  neither  final 
letters  nor  divisions  of  words,  but  he  afferuards  ad- 
mitted, though  with  a  little  exhibition  of  temper, 
that  the  final  Nan  was  founti  there,  after  bis  eri'or 
had  been  pointed  out  by  Kopp  {Biiil.  ii.  Sclir.  ii. 
132;  Ges.  .Uon.  Pluen.  p.  82).  In  the  Aramajo- 
Egyptian  writing  both  final  Cnph,  and  final  Nun 
occur,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Blacas  fragments  given 
by  Gesenius.  The  five  final  letters  "  are  mentioned 
in  lieresbith  Rabba  (parash  i.  fol.  1,  4),  and  in 
both  Talmuds;  in  the  one  (T.  Bab.  Sahbnt.  fol. 
104,  1)  they  are  said  to  be  used  by  the  seers  or 
prophets,  and  in  the  other  (T.  Hieros.  MtijilLi]), 
fol.  71,  4-)  to  be  an  Ihilncitii  or  tradition  of  Moses 
from  Sinai;  yea,  by  an  ancient  writer  (I'irke  Eli- 
ezer,  c.  48)  they  are  said  to  be  known  by  Abra- 
ham "  (Gill,  DissartiU'wn  conctrnlny  the  Antiquity 


WRITING 


8571 


succession  of  continuous  lines.  Yet  in  fact  our  mode 
of  separating  tlie  words  is  the  artificial  one,  and  the 
other  is  the  natural  one,  in  i-educing  oral  discourse  to 
written.  Spoken  speech  is  an  unbroken  current.  It 
is  not  the  ear  at  all,  except  as  slightly  aided  by  some 
intonation  of  the  voice,  but  the  mind  which  separates 
the  speech  into  words,  and  thus  apprehends  the  mean- 
ing of  what  is  uttered.  The  speaker  runs  together 
ditfereut  words  in  tlie  same  manner  as  he  runs  to- 
gether dillereut  syllables  of  the  same  word.  The  old 
Qiethod  therefore  simply  adjusted  the  eye  to  the  ear, 
and  so  made  the  discourse  appear  on  parchment  or 
stone  very  much  as  it  sounded  from  the  tongue  of 
the  speaker.  H. 

"  *  The  words  are  separated  by  points  in  some  of 
the  most  ancient  Phosnician  inscriptions,  as  in  the 
second  from  Citiuui,  that  from  Tucca,  the  bilingual  of 
Sardinia,  and  notably  so  in  tJie  oldest  of  all,  the  Mo- 
ibite  Inscription,  which  also  separates  sentences  by  a 
berpeudicular  line.  W.  H.  W. 

f>  *  And  yet  these  cases  .are  so  r,are,  that,  after 
lareful  comparison,  I  find  but  six  or  eight  in  the  five 
books   of  Moses,  and   even   thesii   generally  require  a 


of  the  Heb.  Lan</uri(/e,  etc.,  p.  69).     The  final  Mett 

in  the  middle  of  the  word  n2~lD7  (Is.  ix.  6)  is 
mentioned  in  both  'I'ahnuds  (Talm.  Bab.  Scnlie- 
drin,  fol.  94,  1;  Talm.  Jer.  Sank.  foL  27,  4),  and 
liy  .lerome  {in  foe).  In  another  passage  Jerome 
(Frol.  ad  Libr.  lieij.)  speaks  of  the  final  letters  as 
if  of  equal  antiquity  with  the  rest  of  the  alphabet. 

The  similarity  of  shajje  between  final  Mem  (3)  and 

Samech  (D)  is  indicated  by  the  dictum  of  IJab 
Clmsda,  as  given  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (J/e- 
(jilbi/i,  c.  1;  ShnObuth,  fol.  104,  1),  that  "  J/e«J 
and  Sninec/i,  which  were  on  the  Tables  (of  the  I^aw) 
stood  by  a  miracle."  It  was  a  tradition  among 
the  .lews  that  the  letters  oti  the  tables  of  stone  given 
to  IMoses  were  cut  through  the  stone,  so  as  to  be 
legilile  on  both  .sides;  hence  the  miracle  by  which 
Mem  and  Sameck  kept  their  place.  The  final  letters 
were  also  known  to  Epiphanius  (Z>e  Mens,  et  Pon- 
deribus,  §  4).  In  our  present  copies  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  there  are  instances  in  which  final  letters  occur 
in  the  middle  of  words  (see  Is.  ix.  6,  as  above), 
and,  on  the  contrary,  at  the  end  of  words  the  ordi- 
nary forms  of  the  letters  are  employed  (Neh.  ii.  13; 
.Job  xxxviii.  1);  but  these  are  only  to  be  regarded 
as  clerical  errors,  which  in  some  MSS.  are  corrected. 
On  the  ancient  Phoenician  inscriptions,  just  as  in 
the  Greek  uncial  MSS.  the  letters  of  a  word  were 
divided  at  the  end  of  a  line  without  any  indication 
being  given  of  such  division,  but  in  Hebrew  JMSS. 
a  twofold  course  has  been  adopted  in  this  case.  If 
at  the  end  of  a  hue  the  scribe  found  that  he  had 
not  space  for  the  complete  word,  he  either  wrote 
as  many  letters  as  he  could  of  this  word,  but  left 
them  unpointed,  and  put  the  complete  word  in  the 
next  line,  or  he  made  use  of  what  are  called  ex- 
tended letters,  litene  dilatnbiles  (as  M,  Tl,  and 
the  like),  in  order  to  fill  up  the  superabundant 
space.  In  the  former  case,  in  order  to  indicate  that 
the  \^ord  at  the  end  of  the  line  was  incomplete,  the 
last  of  the  unpohited  letters  was  left  unfinished,  or 
a  sign  was  placed  after  them,  resembling  sometimes 

an  inverted  3,  and  sometimes  like  iH,  37,  or  tt.  If 
the  space  left  at  the  end  of  the  line  is  inconsiderable 
it  is  either  filled  up  by  the  first  letter  of  the  next 
word,  or  by  any  letter  whatever,  or  by  an  arliitrary 
mark.  In  some  cases,  where  the  space  is  too  small 
for  one  or   two  consonants,  the    scribe  wrote  the 


slight  variation  in  the  letters,  so  that  not  much  can 
be  deduced  on  the  subject.     These  cases  are  Gen.  vii. 

11,   ^"1^727   for     Ci>   ibV ;  Gen.  xx.  1(3,   iVs 
•  ;    V  T   T  ■•. 

rnnpD  for  rn^T.  Vs ;  Gen.  xi.  n.  obsa 

b?«  for  b^Sn  bba ;  Num.  xxiii.  10,  >»a^ 
"1?:D  for   "iQDTa^;  Num.    xxiv.    22,    ^H    "llT^b 

-  T  T   :     •  'II..  ;    . 

ni^-ry   for   n'0-~\V    TV   '^Vnb;  Deut.xxvl.S, 
T   :  T  .        -      I.  Iat     ••  t    : 

~T3S'^  D'^S  for  la's  '*?2"^S!;  Deut.  xxxiii.  2, 
apparently  Wlp  nbm  DnDSI  for  HHSI 
trip   nh5"1^  ;   and  perhaps  Deut.  xxxii.  8,    '^32 

b^  "^tt^s  or  bs  "itt'"*  "22  for  bwnji?';  ""22  • 

cf   Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  where   jnTtTW    seems  to  have 

been  read  for  i'l'^  tZ7S.  These  are  also  sjiecimeU!! 
of  the  scores  of  cases  where  the  vowels  wore  differ 
eutly  read.  W.  U   \f 


3572  WRITING 

exclufled  letters  in  a  smaller  form  on  the   margin 

aliove  the  line  (Eichhorn,  E'lnl.  ii.  57-59).  That 
abbreriatiuns  were  employed  in  the  ancient  Hebrew 
writing  is  shown  by  the  inscriptions  on  the  Macca- 
bsean  coins.  In  MSS.  the  frequently  recm-ring 
words  are  represented  by  writing  some  of  their  let- 
ters only,  as  '"Itt?"^  or  'M~1{£7'^  for  bsitt?'',  and  a 
frequently  recurring  phrase  by  the  first  letters  of  its 

words  \vith  the  mark  of  abbreviation ;  as    H  7  D 

for  iTDn  Dbi^b  "^D,  ^":  or  "^"^  for  m^^ 

whicli  is  also  written    '^    or  ^  '^.     The  qrenter  and 

smaller  letters  whicii  occur  in  the  middle  of  words 
(i;omp.  I's.  Ixxx.  10;  Gen.  ii.  4).  the  siispe7ii/ed  let- 
ters ('ludg.  xviii.  30;  Ps.  Ixxx.  14),  and  the  in- 
VerU'd  fetters  (Num.  x.  35),  are  transferred  from 
the  MSS.  of  the  Masoretes,  and  have  all  received 
at  the  hands  of  the  .lews  an  allegorical  explanation. 
In  Jiidg.  xviii.  30  the  suspended  Nun  in  the  word 
"Manasseh,"  without  which  tiie  name  is  "Moses,"' 
is  .said  to  be  inserted  in  order  to  conceal  the  dis- 
grace which  the  idolatry  of  his  grandson  conl'erred 

upon  the  great  lawgiver.     Similarly  the  small   D 

in  the  word  nnSIl /,  "  to  weep  for  her  "  (Gen. 
xxiii.  2),  is  explained  by  Baal  Hatturim  as  indicat- 
ing tiiat  Abraham  wept  little,  because  Sarah  was 
an  old  woman. 

Nundjcr-;  were  indicated  either  by  letters  or 
figures.  The  hitter  are  found  on  Phoenician  coins, 
on  the  sarcopliagus  of  ICslmnmazar,  on  the  Pal- 
niyrene  inscriptions,  and  iirobal)ly  also  in  tlie  .4ra- 
niseo-ICgyptian  writing.  On  the  other  liand,  letters 
are  found  used  as  numerals  on  the  Maccaba?an 
coins,  and  among  the  Arabs,  and  their  early  adop- 
tion for  the  same  purpose  among  the  Greeks  may 
have  been  due  to  the  Phoenicians.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  conjecture  from  tliese  analogies  that  figures 
and  letters  representing  numbers  may  ha\'e  been 
emplo3ed  by  the  ancient  Hebrews.  It  is  even  pos- 
Mible  tliat  many  discrepancies  in  numbers  may  be 
explained  in  this  way.  For  instance,  in  1  Sam.  vi. 
19,  for  50,070  the  Syriac  has  5,070;  in  1  K.  iv.  26 
[v.  6]  Solomon  had  40,000  horses,  while  in  tlie 
parallel  passage  of  2  Chr.  ix.  25  he  has  only  4,000; 
according  to  2  Sam.  x.  18,  David  destroyed  700 
cliariots  of  the  Syrians,  wliile  in  1  Clir.  xix.  18, 
the  number  is  increased  to  7,000.  If  figures  were 
in  use  such  discrepancies  are  easily  intelligilile  On 
the  other  hand,  the  seven  years  of  famnie  in  2  Sam. 
xxiv.  13,  may  be  reconciled  with  the  iliree  of  1  Chr. 
xxi.  12  and  the  LXX.  by  supposing  that  a  scribe, 

writing  the  square  character,  mistook  2  (;=  3)  for 

T  (  =  7).  Again,  in  2  Chr.  xxi.  20,  Jehoram  dies 
at  the  age  of  40,  leaving  a  son,  Ahaiiiah,  who  was 
42  (2  Chr.  xxii.  2).  In  the  parallel  passage  of 
2  K.  viii.  26  Ahaziah  is  only  22,  so  that  the  scribe 

probably  read  2T3  instead  of  33.  On  the  whole, 
Gesenius  concludes,  the  preponderance  would  be  in 
favor  of  the  letters,  but  he  deprecates  any  attempt 
to  explain  by  this  means  the  enormous  numbers  we 
meet  with  in  the  descriptions  of  armies  and  wealth, 
and  the  variations  of  the  Samaritan  and  LXX.  from 
the  Hebrew  text  in  Gen.  v. 

Voivei-points  and  Diacritical  Marls.  —  It  is  im- 
possible here  to  discu.ss  fully  the  origin  and  antiq- 
uity of  the  vowel-points  and  other  marks  which  are 
l^niul  ill  the  writing  of  Hebrew  MSS.     The  mojft 


WRITING 

that  can  be  done  will    be  to  givt  a  summary  of 
results,  and  to  refer  the  reader  tc   the  sources  of 
fuller   information.     Almost   all  the  learned  .Tews 
of  the  Middle  Ages  maintained  the  equal  antiquity 
of  the  vowels  and  consonants,  or  at  least  the  intro. 
duction  of  the  former  by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue.     The  only  exceptions  to  this  uni- 
formity of  opinion  are  some  few  hints  of  Aben  Ezra, 
and  a   doubtful   passnge  of  the  book   Cozri.      The 
same   view  was  adopted  by  the  Christian  writers 
Eaymund   Martini    (cir.  1278),  Perez  de  Valentin 
(cir.  1430),  and  Nicholas  de  Lyra,    and  these  are 
followed  by   Luther,  Calvin,  and   Pellicanus.     The 
modern  date  of  the  vowel-points  was   first  argued 
by   Elias   Levita,  followed    on    the    same  side  by 
Cappellus,  who  was  op[)osed  by  the  younger  Bux- 
torf.     Later  defenders  of  tlieir  antiquity  have  been 
Gill,  James  Robertson,  and  'I  ychsen.     Others,  like 
Hottinger,   Prideaux,  Schiiltens,  J.  D.  IMichaelis, 
and  Eichhorn,  have  adopted  an  intermediate  view, 
that  the  Hebrews  had  some  few  ancient  vowel-points, 
which  they  attached  to  ambiguous  words.     "  The 
dispute  about  the  antiquity  and  origin  of  the  He- 
brew vowels  commenced  at   a  very  early  date;  for 
while  Alar-Nartroiiai  II.,  Gaon  in  Sura  (859-80'J), 
prohibited  to  provide  the^  copies  of  the   Law  with 
vowels,  because  these  signs  had  not  lieen  communi- 
cated on  iVIount  Sinai,  liut  h,ad  only  ijeen  introduced 
by   the   sages    to   assist  the   reader:    the   Karaites 
allowed  no  scroll  of  the  Pentateuch  to   be  used   in 
the  synagogue,  unless  it  was  furnished  with  vowels 
and    accents,    because  they  considered   them  as  a 
divine  revelation,  which,  like  the  language  and  the 
letter,  was  already  given  to  Adam,  or  certaiidy  to 
.Moses  "  (Dr.  Kalisch.  ileb.  Gr.  ii.  65).     No  vowel- 
points  are  to  be  found  on  any  of  the  Jewish  coins, 
or  in  the  Palmyrene  inscriptions,  and  they  are  want- 
ing in  all  the  relics  of  Phoenician  writing.     Some 
of  the  Maltese  inscriptions  were  once  thought  by 
Gesenius  to  have  marks  of  this  kind  (Gesch.  der 
Ihbr.  Spr.   p.    184),   but  subsequent  examination 
led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Phoenician  mon- 
uments have  not  a  vestige  of  vowel-points.     The 
same  was  the  case    originally  in    the    Estrangelo 
and  Cufic  alphabets.     A  single  example  of  a  dia- 
critical mark  occurs  for  the  first  time  on  one  of  the 
Carthaginian  inscriptions  (Gesen.  Mon.  Phten.  pp. 
56,  179).     It  ajipears  to  correspond  to  the  diacrit- 
ical mark  which  we  meet  with  in  Syriac  wi'iting, 
and  which  is  no  doulit  first  alluded  to  by  Eijhraem 
Syrus  (on  Gen.  xxxvi.  24,  Opp.  i.  184).     The  age 
of  this  mark  in  Syriac  is  uncertain,  but  it  is  most 
nearly  connected  with  the  wjrfcAetowo  of  the  Samar- 
itans, which  is   used  to  distinguish  words  which 
have  the  same  consonants,  but  a  different  pronun- 
ciation and  meaning.     The  first  certain  indication 
of  vowel-points  in  a  Shemitie  language  is  in  the 
Arabic.     Three  were  introduced  by  All,  son  of  Alm- 
Thalleb,  who  died  A.  ii.  40.     The  Sabian  writing 
also  has  three  vowel  points,  but  its  age  is  uncertain. 
Five  vowel-points  and  several  reading  marks  were 
introduced  into  the  Syriac  writing  by  Tlieophilus 
and  Jacob  of  Edessa.     The  present  Arabic  systeu 
of  punctuation  originated  with  the  introduction  of 
the  Nischi  character  by  ICbn  Mokla,  who  died  a.  d. 
939.     On  the  whole,  taking  into  consideration  the 
nature  and  analogies  of  the  kindred   Shemitie  Ian 
guages,  and  the  .lewish  ti'adition  that  the  vowels 
were  only  transmitted  orally  by  Moses,  and  were 
afterwards  reduced  to  signs  and  fixed  by  Ezra  and 
the  (ireat  Synagogue,  the  preponderance  of  evidence 
r'oes  to  show  that    Hebrew  was   written    without 


WfllTING 

rowels  or  diacritical  marks  all  the  time  that  it  was 
1  livina;  lanjiiiage.  The  fact  that  tlie  syiiasjogue 
folis  are  written  witiiout  points,  and  that  a  strong 
traditional  prescription  agTiinst  their  being  pointed 
exists,  is  in  favor  of  the  later  origin  of  the  vowel 
marks.  The  following  passages  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, quoted  by  Gesenius,  tend  to  the  same  con- 
clusion.    In  Gen.  xix.  37,  the  name  Jloab  (2W^X3), 

is  explained  as  if  it  vpere  2SQ,  "from  a  fether," 
in  which  case  all  trace  not  only  of  vocalization,  but 
of  the  quiescent  letter  has  disappeared.     In  Gen. 

sxxi.  47,  ^2?7^,  Gilead  is  made  to  take  its  name 

from  "TS^yS,  "heap  of  witness,"  and  Gen.  1.  11, 

n'ly^Tp  Sris  ^  an^ ??  ^?^'.    so  also  in  2  k. 

xsii.9,  "^pDrr  ]2ti7  ^53"},  appears  in  the  parallel 

narrative  of  2  Chr.  xx.xiv.  IG  as  HS  1'DW  Sn*T 

'npSrTj  which  could  not  have  happened  if  the 
chronicler  had  had  a  pointed  text  before  him.  Upon 
examining  the  version  of  the  LXX.  it  is  equally 
clear  that  the  translators  must  have  written  I'rom 
an  unpointed  text.  It  is  objected  to  this  that 
the  awa^  Ki-ySfxfva  are  correctly  explained,  and 
that  they  also  distinguish  between  words  which 
have  the  same  consonants  but  different  vowel-points, 
and  even  between  those  which  are  written  and  pro- 
nounced alike.  On  the  other  hand  they  frequently 
confuse  words  which  have  the  same  consonants 
but  different  vowels.  The 'passages  which  Gesenius 
quotes  {Gvsch.  </.  fhb.  Spr.  §  50)  would  necessarily 
be  explained  from  the  context,  and  we  must  besides 
this  take  into  consideration  that  in  the  ambiguous 
cases  there  were  in  all  probal)ility  traditional  in- 
terpretations. The  proper  names  afford  a  more 
accurate  test.  On  examining  these,  we  find  that 
they  sometimes  have  entirely  different  vowels,  and 
sometimes  are  pointed  according  to  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent system,  analogous  to  the  Arabic  and  Syriac, 
but  varying  from  the  Masoretic.     Examples  of  an 

entirely  different  vocalization  are,  ^FIHS,  A/xa9i, 

1^17^1  Uktuv,  l"!!"?^,   JopSauTis,  '^^^^,  MoiTOx, 

^?"^~l^>     UapSoxaios,       Tly^f^l,,      Po^eAtas, 

n^?2^,  -^ocpoyias,  '^???,  2o)3oxn',  etc.  That 
the  punctuation  followed  by  the  LXX.  was  essen- 
tially distinct  from  that  of  the  ^lasoretes  is  evident 
from  the  following  examples.  Moving  s/wrn  at  the 
beginning  of  words  is  generally  represented  by  a; 
as  in  'S,a/j.ovri\,  Xa^aood,  Za0ov\oov'-  seldom  by  e, 

as  in  BeAia\,  Xepov^ifx;  before  1  or  ''  liy  o  or  y, 
as  2oSo/xa,  '2,o\ofiwv,  ro/xoppa,  Zopo/3a/3eA,  (pv\t- 
<7Ti€i/U,  etc.  Fdt/iach  is  represented  by  e;  as  MeA- 
Xio-eSex,  'Ne^daKei/x,  EMaa^ee.  Patliach  fur- 
(iruiii  =  e;  e.  <j.  Ciarji,  TeK^oue,  Qenwe,  Zarcoi. 
Other  examples  might  be  multiplied.  We  find  in- 
stances to  the  same  effect  in  the  fragments  of  the 
otiier  Greek  \ersions,  and  in  Josephus.  The  agree- 
ment of  the  Targums  with  the  present  punctuation 
aiiglit  be  supposed  to  supply  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  latter,  but  it  might  equally 
oe  appealed  to  to  show  that  the  translation  of  the 
Targums  embodied  the  traditioiral  pronunciation 
"vhich  was  fixed  in  writing  by  the  punctuators.  The 
Talmud  has  likewise  been  appealed  to  in  su])port  of 
khe  antiquity  of  the  modern  points;  Init  its  utter- 
»nces  ou   this  suliiect  ai-e  extremely  dark  and  ditfi- 


WRiTiNG  3573 

cult  to  unaerstand.  They  have  respect  oi  the  one 
hand  to  those  passatces  in  which  the  sense  of  a  text 
is  disputed,  in  so  far  as  it  depends  upon  a  different 
pronunciation;  for  instance,  whether  in  Cant.   i.  2, 

we  should  read  tJ'^TI^'^  or  "jI^I^^"^  !  i"  Ex.  sxi.  8, 

■11221  or    11^2;    in    Lev.    x.    25,    U^VI^p  or 

WVD.Wi  hi    Is.   liv.    13,  717211  or  Htt^.     A 

■  -    :    T  '  V   -  T   T 

Rabbinic  legend  makes  Joab  kill  his  teacher,  be- 
cause in  Ex.  x\h.  U  he  had   taught  him  to  read 

"IIDT  for  "ipT.  The  last  passage  shows  at  least, 
that  the  Tahnudists  thought  tlie  text  in  David's 
time  was  unpointed,  and  the  others  prove  that  the 
punctuation  could  not  have  been  fi.xed  as  it  must 
have  been  if  the  vowel-points  had  been  written. 
But  in  addition  to  these  instances,  which  are  sui)- 
posed  to  involve  the  existence  of  vowel-points,  there 
are  certain  terms  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  which 
are  interpreted  as  referring  directly  to  the  vowel 
signs  and  accents  themselves.     Thus  in  the  treatise 

Beriichoth  (fol.  G2,  3)  we  find  the  phrase  '^^2571^ 

min,  ta'diiie  tliurdli,  which  is  thought  to  denote 
not  only  the  distinctive  accents  and  those  which 
mark  the  tone,  but  also  the  vowel-points.  Ilupleld, 
however,  has  shown  that  in  all  probability  the  term 

C^12,  tn'am,  denotes  nothing  more  than  a  logical 

sentence,  and  that  consequently  C'^I^ID  pID'^D, 
jMsuk  /e'  dmim  {Nedarim,  fol.  37,  1),  is  simply  a 
division  of  a  sentence,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  either  with  the  tone  or  the  vowels  {Stud.  u.  Krlt. 

1830,  ii.  5G7).  The  word  l^'^D,  siinaii  (Gr.  ay^- 
fiuov)  which  occurs  in  the  Talmud  {Nedariin,  fol. 
53),  and  which  is  explained  by  Kashi  to  signify  the 

same  ^  Hp^j  nikkud^  "  a  point,"  has  been  also 
appealed  to  as  an  e\idence  of  the  existence  of  the 
vowel-points  at  the  time  the  Talmud  was  com- 
posed, but  its  true  meaning  is  rather  that  of  a  mne- 
monic sign  made  use  of  to  retain  the  memory  of 
what  was  handed  down  by  oral  tradition.  The 
oldest  Biblical  critics,  the  collectors  of  the  Keri  and 
Cethib,  have  left  no  trace  of  vowel-points :  all  their 
notes  have  reference  to  the  consonants.  It  is  now 
admitted  that  Jerome  knew  nothing  of  the  present 
vowel-points  and  their  names.  He  expressly  says 
that  the  Hebrews  very  rarely  had  vowels,  by  which 

he  means  the  letters  j7,  '',  "1,  H,  W,  in  the  middle 
of  words;  and  that  the  consonants  were  pronounced 
differently  according  to  the  jileasure  of  the  reader 
and  the  province  in  which  he  lived  {Ej)Ut.  nd 
lOv  Kjt:  125).  The  term  ucctittus,  which  he  there 
uses,  appears  to  denote  as  wtU  the  pronunciation  of 
the  vowels  as  the  nice  distinctions  of  certain  con- 
sonantal sounds,  and  has  no  connection  whatever 
with  accents  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word.  Tiie 
remarks  which  Jerome  makes  as  to  the  possibility 
of  reading  the  same  Hebrew  consonants  ditlereutly, 
according  to  the  different  vowels  which  were  affixed 
to  them,  is  an  additional  proof  that  in  his  day  the 
vowel-points  were  not  written  (see  his  Coinin.  m 
[Jos.  xiii.  3;  //'i/>.  iii.  5).  llupfeld  concludes  that 
the  present  systeu)  of  pronunciation  had  not  com- 
menced in  the  (ith  centiu'y,  that  it  belonged  to  a 
new  epoch  in  .lewish  literature,  the  ^lasoretic  in 
opposition  to  the  Tahnudic,  and  that,  taking  into 
consideration  that  the  Syrians  and  .Vrabs,  anion)^ 
whom   the  Jews  lived,  had  already  made  »  Ix.'jfiu- 


8574 


WRITING 


ning  in  punctuation,  there  is  the  highest  probabil- 
ity that  the  Hebrew  system  of  points  is  not  indig- 
enous, but  transmitted  or  suggested  from. without 
t^Slud.  u.  Krit.  1830,  ii.  589).  On  such  a  question 
it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  with  absolute  certainty, 
but  the  above  conclusion  has  been  arrived  at  liy  one 
of  the  first  Helirew  scholars  of  Europe,  who  has 
devoted  especial  attention  to  the  subject,  and  to 
whose  opinion  all  deference  is  due. 

"  According  to  a  .statement  on  a  scroll  of  the 
Law,  which  may  have  been  in  Susa  from  the  eighth 
century,  Mo.ses  the  Punctator  (Hannakdan)  was 
the  first  who,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  reading  of 
the  Scriptures  for  his  pupils,  added  vowels  to  the 
consonants,  a  practice  in  which  he  was  foUoweil  by 
his  son  Judah,  the  Corrector  or  Reviser  (Hamma- 
giah).  These  were  the  beginnings  of  a  full  system 
of  Hebrew  points,  the  completion  of  which  has,  l>y 
tradition,  been  associated  with  the  name  of  the 
Karaite  Acha  of  Irak,  living  in  the  first  half  of  the 
sixth  century,  and  which  comprised  the  vowels  and 
accents,  dagesh  and  rapheh,  keri  ani  kethiv.  It 
was,  from  its  local  origin,  called  the  Babylonian  or 
Assyrian  system.  Almost  sinndtaneously  with 
these  endeavors,  the  scholars  of  Palestine,  especially 
of  Tiberias,  worked  in  the  same  direction,  and  here 
Kabbi  Mocha,  a  disciple  of  Anan  the  Karaite,  and 
his  son  JMoses,  fixed  another  system  of  vocalization 
(about  570),  distinguished  as  that  of  Tiberias, 
which  marks  still  more  minutely  and  accurately  the 
various  shades  and  niceties  of  tone  and  pronuncia- 
tion, and  which  was  ultimately  adopted  by  all  the 
Jews.  For  though  the  Karaites,  with  their  ch.ar- 
acteristic  tenacity,  and  their  antagonism  to  the 
Rabbanites,  clung  for  some  time  to  the  older  signs, 
because  they  had  used  them  before  their  secession 
from  tlie  Talnmdical  sects,  they  were,  at  last,  in 
957,  induced  to  abandon  them  in  favor  of  those 
adopted  in  Palestine.  Now  the  Piabyloniaij  signs, 
besides  differing  from  those  of  Tiberias  in  shape, 
are  chiefly  remarkable  by  being  almost  uniformly 
placed  above  the  letters.  There  still  exist  some 
manuscripts  which  exhibit  them,  and  many  mure 
would  probably  have  been  preserved  hud  not,  in 
later  times,  the  habit  prevailed  of  substituting  in 
old  codices  the  signs  of  Tiberias  for  those  of  Paby- 
lonia "  (Dr.  Kalisch,  Ihhr.  Gram.  ii.  G3,  (i-i)." 
From  the  sixth  century  downwards  the  traces  of 
punctuation  become  more  and  more  distinct.  The 
Masorah  mentions  by  name  two  vowels,  kaintts 
and  palhach  (Kalisch,  p.  66).  The  collation  of 
the  Palestinian  and  Baliyloniaii  readings  (8th  cent.) 
refers  at  least  in  two  passages  to  the  mappik  in  Ih 
(Kichhorn,  Einl.  i  274);  but  the  collation  set  on 
foot  l)y  Ben  Asher  and  Ben  Naphtali  (cir.  A.  D. 
1034)  has  to  do  exclusively  with  vowels  and  read- 
ing-marks, and  their  existence  is  presupposed  in 
the  Arabic  of  Saadias  and  the  Veneto-Greek  ver- 
sion, and  by  all  the  Jewish  grammarians  from  the 
11th  century  onwards. 

It  now  remains  to  say  a  few  words  on  the 
accents.  Their  especial  properties  and  the  laws 
by  which  they  are  regidated  jjropei'ly  i)eloug  to  the 
department  of  Hebrew  grammar,  and  full  informa- 
tion on  these  points  will  be  found  in  the  works  of 
'Jesenius,  Hupfeld,  Ewald,  and  Kalisch.  The  object 


WRITING 

of  the  accents  is  twofold.  1.  They  serve  to  inarli 
the  tone  syllable,  and  at  the  same  time  to  show  the 
relation  of  each  word  to  the  sentence:  hence  they 

are  called  D'*lp27tp,  as  marking  the  sense.  2. 
They  indicate  the  modulation  of  the  tone  accord- 
ing  to  which  the  Old   Testament  was  recited   in 

the  synagogues,  and  were  hence  called  jn^3"^23. 
"  The  manner  of  recitation  was  different  for  the 
Pentateuch,  the  prophets,  and  the  metrical  books 
(Job,  the  Proverbs,  and  the  Psalms):  old  modes 
of  cantillation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  prophets 
(in  the  Haphtaroth)  have  been  preserved  in  the 
German  and  Portuguese  synagogues;  Iiotli  differ, 
indeed,  considerably,  yet  manifestly  show  a  com- 
mon character,  and  are  almost  like  the  same  com- 
position sung  in  two  different  keys;  while  the 
chanting  of  the  metrical  books,  not  being  emjiloyed 
in  the  public  worship,  has  lont;  been  lost  "  (Kalisch, 
p.  84).  Several  modern  investigators  have  decided 
that  the  use  of  the  accents  for  guiding  the  public 
recitations  is  anterior  to  their  use  as  marking  the 
tone  of  words  and  .syntactical  construction  of  sen- 
tences. The  great  numl)er  pf  the  accents  is  in 
favor  of  this  hypothesis,  since  one  sign  alone  would 
have  been  sufficient  to  mark  the  tone,  and  the  log- 
ical relation  of  the  different  parts  of  a  sentence 
could  have  been  indicated  by  a  much  smaller  num- 
ber. Gesenius,  on  the  other  hand,  is  inclined  to 
think  that  the  accents  at  first  served  to  mark  the 
tone  anil  the  sense  {Gescli.  p.  221).  The  whole 
question  is  one  of  mere  conjecture.  The  advocates 
for  the  antiquity  of  the  accents  would  carry  them 
back  as  far  as  the  time  of  the  ancient  Temple  ser- 
vice. The  Gemara  (JVedaiiiii,  fol.  37,  2 ;  Mec/iUn/i, 
c.  i.  fol.  3)  makes  the  Levites  recite  according  to 
the  accents  even  in  the  days  of  Neheniiah. 

Writing  MitterUils,  etc. — ^  The  oldest  docu- 
ments which  contain  the  writing  of  a  Shemitic  race 
are  probably  the  bricks  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon 
on  which  are  impressed  the  cuneiform  Assyrian 
inscriptions.  Inscribed  bricks  are  mentioned  by 
Pliny  (vii.  5G)  as  used  for  astronomical  obserx ac- 
tions ,by  the  Babylonians.  There  is,  however,  no 
evidence  that  tbey  \\ere  ever  employed  by  the  He- 
brews,'' who  certainly  at  a  very  early  period  prac- 
ticed the  more  difficult  but  not  more  durable 
method  of  writing  on  stone  (Ex.  xxiv.  12,  xxxi.  18, 
xxxii.  15,  xxxiv.  1,  28;  Deut.  x.  1,  xxvii.  1;  Josh, 
viii.  32),  on  which  inscriptions  were  cut  with  an 
iron  graver  (Job  xix.  24;  Jer.  xvii.  1).  They 
were  n'loreover  acquainted  with  the  art  of  engraving 
upon  metal  (Ex.  xxviii.  36)  and  gems  (Ex.  xxviii. 
9).  \\'ood  was  used  upon  some  occasions  (Num. 
xvii.  3;  comp.  Hom.  J  I.  vii.  175),  and  writing  tab- 
lets of  box-wood  are  mentioned  in  2  Esdr.  xiv.  24. 
The  "  lead,"  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  Job  xix. 
24,  is  supposed  to  have  been  poured  when  melted 
into  the  cavities  of  the  stone  made  by  the  letters 
of  an  inscription,  in  order  to  render  it  duralile,"^ 
and  does  not  appear  ever  to  have  been  used  by  the 
Hebrews  as  a  writing  material,  like  the  ^dpTai 
/xoAv^Stvoi  at  Thebes,  on  which  were  written 
Hesiod's  Wurks  and  Days  (Pans.  ix.  31,  §  4, 
com]).  Plin.  xiii.  21 ).  Inscriptions  and  documents 
whiph  were  intended  to  be  permanent  were  written 


a  For  further  information  on  the  Babylonian  sys- 
tem of  puuctuatiun,  see  Fiusker's  Einlfilung  in  i/ie 
B.iby/oniscli-Hfljraisrhe  Funktationssyslem,  just  pub- 
iUUed  at  Virnna  (1863). 


b  The  case  of  Ezekiel  (iv.  1)  is  evidently  an  e.\cep 
tion. 

f  Copper  was  used  for  the  same  purpose.  M.  Be  ttJ 
found  traces  of  it  in  letters  on  the  pavement  slabs  o/ 
Khorsabad  (Layard,  Nin.  iii.  188). 


WRITING 

m  tablets  of  brass  (1  Mace.  viii.  22,  xiv.  27),  but  I 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  are  mentioned  it  is 
clear  tliat  their  use  was  exceptional.  It  is  most 
probable  that  the  most  ancient  as  well  as  the  most 
common  material  which  the  Hebrews  used  for 
writing  was  dressed  skin  in  some  form  or  other. 
We  know  that  the  dressing  of  skins  was  practiced 
by  the  Hebrews  (Ex.  xxv.  5;  Lev.  xiii.  48),  and 
they  may  have  acquired  the  knowledge  of  the  art 
from  the  Egyptians,  among  whom  it  had  attained 
great  perfection,  the  leather-cutters  constituting 
one  of  the  principal  subdivisions  of  the  third  caste. 
The  fineness  of  the  leather,  says  Sir  G.  Wilkinson, 
"  employed  for  making  the  straps  placed  across  the 
liodies  of  mummies,  discovered  at  Theljes,  and  the 
beauty  of  the  figures  stamped  upon  them,  satisfac- 
torily prove  the  skill  of  '  the  leather-cutters,'  and 
the  antiquity  of  embossing:  some  of  these  bearing 
the  names  of  kings  who  ruled  Egypt  about  the 
period  of  the  Exodus,  or  3,300  years  ago  "  (Anc. 
Ky.  iii.  155).  Perhaps  the  Hebrews  may  have 
borrowed,  among  their  other  acquirements,  the  use 
of  papyrus  from  the  Egyptians,  Imt  of  this  we  have 
no  positive  evidence.  Papyri  are  found  of  the  most 
remote  Pharao]iic  age  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eij.  iii. 
148),  so  that  Pliny  is  undoulitedly  in  error  when 
he  says  that  the  papyrus  was  not  used  as  a  writing 
material  before  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great 
(xiii.  21).  He  probal)ly  intended  to  indicate  that 
this  was   the  date   of  its  introduction  to  Europe. 


WRITING 


3575 


Ancient  Writing  Materials. 

[n  the  Bible  the  only  allusions  to  the  use  of  papyrus 
are  in  2  John  12,  where  xV''"')?  occurs,  which 
refers  especially  to  papyrus  paper,  and  3  Mace.  iv. 
20,  where  -x^apT^pia  is  found  in  the  same  sense. 
lu  .Josephus  {Anl.  iii.  11,  §  0)  the  trial  of  adultery 
is  made  by  writing  the  name  of  (^od  on  a  skin,  and 
the  70  men  who  were  sent  to  Ptolemy  from  .Jeru- 
salem by  the  liigh-|)riest  Eleazar,  to  translate  the 
Law  into  Greek,  took  with  them  the  skins  on  which 
the  Law  was  written  in  golden  characters  {Aiil.  xii. 
2,  §  10).  The  oldest  Persian  annals  were  written 
on  skins  (Diod.  Sic.  ii.  32),  and  these  appear  to 
have  been  most  frequently  used  by  the  Sheraitic 
races  if  not  peculiar  to  theni.«  Of  the  byssus 
which  was  used  in  India  before  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander (Strabo  XV.  p.  717),  and  the  palm-leaves 
mentioned  by  Pliny  (vii.  23),  there  is  no  trace 
vmoiig  the  Hebrews,  although  we  know  that  the 
raraijs  wrote  their  earliest  copies  of  the  Koran  upon 


"  The  word  for  "  book,"   TSD,  sSpher,  is  from  a 

•oot.    ~15D.   saphar,  "to  scrape,  shave,"  and  indi- 
rectly riointa  U   *ixe   use  of  skin  as  a  writing   mate- 


the  roughest  materials,  as  stones,  the  shoulder- 
bones  of  sheep,  and  pahn-leaves  (De  Sacy,  Jft^t. 
de  tAcad.  des  Insci-ipt.  1.  p.  307).  Hendotus, 
after  telling  us  that  the  lonians  learnt  the  art  of 
writing  from  the  Phoenicians,  adds  that  they  called 
their  books  skins  (tolj  /3i'/3Aoi)S  5i(^06pas),  because 
they  made  use  of  sheep-skins  and  goat-skins  when 
short  of  paper  (0[0Kos)-  Among  the  Cyprians,  a 
writing-master  was  called  5i<|  BepaKoKpos-  Parch- 
ment was  used  for  the  ftlSS.  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
the  time  of  .Josephus,  and  the  ixeix^pavci  of  2  Tim 
iv.  13  were  skins  of  parchment.  It  was  one  of  the 
provisions  in  the  Tahnud  that  the  Law  should  be 
written  on  the  skins  of  clean  animals,  tame  or  wild, 
or  even  of  clean  liirds.  There  are  three  kinds  of 
skins  distinguished,  on  which  the  roll  of  the  Pen 

tateuch  may  be  written :   1.    ^7i2)   kehph    [Meg. 

ii.  2;  Shabb.\ui.  S);  2.   Dlt^DlDDIl  =  Sixao"- 

t6s  or  Si|e<rTo$;  and  3.  ^"'"IS,  (/evil.  The  last 
is  made  of  the  undivided  skin,  after  the  hair  is 
removed  and  it  has  been  properly  dressed.  For 
the  other  two  the  skin  was  split.  The  part  with 
the  hairy  side  was  called  kekph,  and  was  used  for 
the  iephiUiii  or  phylacteries;  and  upon  the  other 

(  DlD'n)  the  mezusoth  were  written  (Maimonides, 
//(7c.  Tepliil.).  The  skins  when  written  upon  were 
formed  into  rolls  (HI  v3D,  meyillolh ;  Ps.  xl.  7 
(8);  comp  Is.  xxxiv.  4;  Jer.  xxxvi.  14;  Ez.  ii.  9: 
Zeeh.  V.  1).  They  were  rolled  upon  one  or  two 
sticks  and  fastened  with  a  thread,  the  ends  of  which 
were   sealed    (Is.  xxix.  11;  Dan.  xii.  4;  Kev.  v.  1, 

etc.).     Hence  the  words   773,   <jalid  {iihiaffnv), 

to  roll  up  (Is.  xxsiv.  4;  Rev.  vi.  14),  and  Ji'l'S, 
paras  {avaTTTiiffaeiu),  to  unroll  (2  K.  xix.  14; 
Luke  iv.  17),  are  used  of  the  closing  and  opening 
of  a  book.  The  rolls  were  generally  written  on  one 
side  only,  except   in  Ez.  ii.  10 ;  Kev.  v.  1.     They 

were  divided  into  columns  (Dinv'^,  delallwth, 
lit.  "doors,"  A.  V.  "  leaves,"  Jer.  xxxvi.  23);  the 
upper  margin  was  to  be  not  less  than  three  fingers 
broad,  the  lower  not  less  than  four;  and  a  space 
of  two  fingers'  Ijreadth  was  to  be  left  between  every 
two  columns  (Waehner,  Ant.  Ebrmor.  vol.  i.  sect. 
1,  cap.  xlv.  §  337).  In  the  Herculaneum  rolls  the 
columns  are  two  fingers  broad,  and  in  the  MSS.  iii 
the  library  at  Stuttgart  there  are  three  colunms  on 
each  side,  each  three  inches  broad,  with  an  inch 
space  between  the  columns,  and  margins  of  three 
inches  wide  (Leyrer  in  Herzogs  Kncykl.  "  Schrift- 
zeichen").     The  case  in  which  the  rolls  were  kept 

was  called  reDxos  or  Qi)K7},  Talmudic  TJ73,  cerec, 

or  H3'^2,  carca.  But  besides  skins,  which  were 
used  for  the  more  permanent  kinds  of  writing, 
tal)lets  of  wood  covered  with  wax  (Luke  i.  63, 
TTifa/ci'Sia)  served  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  life- 
Several  of  these  were  fastened  together  and  formed 

volumes    (m^lTD,  ^  tomos).     They  were  written 

upon  with  a  pointed  style  (t-37,  ^ei,  Job  xix.  24), 
sometimes  of  iron  (Pa.  xlv.  1  (2);  Jer.  viii.  8,  xvii. 
1)  For  harder  materials  a  graver  (tDHn,  cheret, 
Ex.  xxxii.  4;   Is.  viii.  1)  was  employed:  the  hard 

point  was  called  ^"7:^^'  tsip/ioren  (.ler.  xvii.  1). 
For  parchment  or  skins  a  reed  w.as  used  (3  .John 
13;  3  Mace.  iv.  20)    and   according    to  soine  thf 


3576  WRITING 

Law  was  to  be  written  with  nothing  else  ( Waehner, 
§  334).  The  ink,  V?,  diyo  (Jer.  xxxvi.  18),  lit- 
erally "  black,"  like  the  Greek  ij.4Kav  (2  Cor.  iii. 
3;  2  John  12;  3  John  13),  was  to  be  of  lamp- 
black dissolved  in  gall  juice,  though  sometimes  a 
mixture  of  gall  juice  and  vitriol  was  allowable 
(Waelmer,  §  335).     It  was  carried  in  an  inkstand 

(~l2Dn  npp,  keselh  hassoplter),  which  was 
suspended  at  the  girdle  (Ez.  ix.  2,  3),  as  is  done  at 
the  present  day  in  the  East.  The  modern  scribes 
"  have  an  apparatus  consisting  of  a  metal  or  ebony 
tube  fur  their  reed  pens,  with  a  cup  or  bulb  of  the 
game  material,  attached  to  the  upper  end,  for  the 
ink.  This  they  thrust  through  the  girdle,  and 
carry  with  them  at  all  times  "  (Thomson,  The 
Land  and  the  Book,  p.  131).  Such  a  case  for 
holding  pens,  ink,  and  other  materials  for  writing 

Is  called   in  the  Mishna  ]"^7^  •  l2)    kalmar'm,    or 

^V^u5V(7,      kaliiiaryon    {calamariuni ;     Mishn. 

CeUrn,  ii.  7;  Mikv.x.  1)  while  p;nD"l~l.ri1,  termtek 
(Mish.  CMn,  xvi.  8),  is  a  case  for  carrying  pens, 
penknife,  style,  and  other  implements  of  the  writer's 
art.  To  professional  scribes  there  are  allusions  in 
Ps.  \\k.  1  [2] ;  Ezr.  vii.  6 ;  2  Esdr.  xiv.  24.  In 
the    language    of   the  Talmud    these    are    called 

^^")  V27i  lablann,  which  is  a  modification  of  the 
h&Clib'llirli  (Talm.  Slinbh.  fol.  16,  1). 

For  the  literature  of  this  subject,  see  especially 
Gesenius,  Gesclnchte  der  hebrdischen  Sprache  und 
Schrift,  1815;  Lehi-yehdude  c/tr  hebr.  Sprache, 
1817;  Munumenta  Phmnlcin,  1837;  Art.  P(da- 
ographie  in  Rrsch  and  Gruber's  Ally.  Kncycl.  : 
Hupfeld,  Aus/iihrliche  hebraische  Gravinmtik, 
1841,  and  his  articles  in  the  Siudien  und  Kritikan, 
1830,  Band  2:  A.  T.  [G.]  HofFmann,  Grainimtlkii 
Syrtaca,  1827:  A.  G.  Hoffmann,  Art.  Hebraische 
Schrift  in  Ersch  and  Gruber:  Fiirst,  Lehryebdw/e 
der  aramdischen  Idiome,  1835:  Ewald,  Ausfiihr- 
lickes  Lehrbuch  der  hebr.  Sprache  :  Saalschiitz, 
Forschunt/en  im  Gtbitte  der  hebrdisch-df/ypt- 
ischen  Archdologie,  1838;  besides  other  works, 
which  have  been  referred  to  in  the  course  of  this 
article.  W.  A.  W. 

*  This  may  be  a  suitable  place  to  speak  of  the 
writuKj  on  the  Moabite  stone  recently  discovered 
on  the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  In  August,  1868, 
the  Kev.  F.  Klein,  connected  with  the  Church 
Missionary  Society  in  Jerusalem,  met  with  this 
oionumental  stone  at  Dhiban,  the  ancient  Uilion 

(^h"*!)  on  a  journey  from  Es-Sall  to  Kernk,  a 
region  seldom  visited  by  Europeans  and  still  com- 
paratively unknown.  He  coined  a  small  part  of 
the  inscription  and  took  measurements,  whicli  show 
the  stone  to  have  been  about  3  feet  9  inches  long, 
2  feet  4  inches  in  breadth,  and  1  foot  2  inches 
thick.  It  was  in  almost  perfect  preservation,  lying 
with  the  inscription  uppermost,  and  was  a  liasaltic 
Btone,  exceedingly  heavy.  No  inscription  was  on 
the  bottom  of  the  side,  which  was  perfectly  smooth, 
and  without  marks.  But  unfortunately,  before  the 
Btone  coulrl  be  properly  examined,  owing  to  the 
unwillingness  of  the  Arabs  to  give  it  up,  it  was 
broken  into  fragments  by  cold  water  having  been 
thrown  upon  it  after  it  had  been  heated  by  fire. 
We  are  indebted  mainly  to  tiie  eilbrts  of  Capt. 
Warren,  and  the  French  vice-consul  at  Jerusalem, 
M.  (ianneuu,  for  impressions  or  si/ueezes  taken  of 
»he  main   block   and   son)e  of  the  recovered   parts, 


WRITING 

from  which  we  learn  the  character  and  importance 
of  this  interesting  monument.  The  investigations 
irre  not  yet  complete,  but  are  supposed  to  establish 
the  following  results.  (1.)  The  stone  is  undoubt- 
edly the  oldest  Shemitic  monument  yet  found.  (2.; 
It  is  stated  by  Mr.  Deutsch,  of  the  British  Mu- 
seum, tliat  the  characters  appear  older  "  than  many 
of  the  Assyrian  bi-lingual  cylinders  in  the  British 
Museum,  the  date  of  which  is,  at  the  very  least, 
as  old  as  the  ninth  century,  B.  c."  (3.)  The  stone 
chronicles  the  achievements  of  one  Mesha,  king 
of  the  Moabites.  Now  it  was  about  this  time 
(namely,  900  B.  c),  that  Mesha  lived,  against 
whom  Jehoram  and  Jehoshaphat  fought  (2  K.  iii. 
4  ff.).  [Mksha.]  (4.)  The  inscription  is  full  of 
well-known  Biblical  names,  such  as  Beth-Bamoth, 
Beth-Baal- .Meon,  Uoronaim,  and  Dibon.  (5.)  Men- 
tion is  frequently  made  of  Israel,  a  rival  power, 
and  of  Chemosh,  the  national  God  of  iMoab.  (6.) 
It  is  invaluable  to  the  student  of  alphabets.  Nearly 
the  whole  of  the  Greek  alphaliet  is  found  here,  not 
merely  similar  to  the  Phcenician  shape,  but  as 
identical  with  it  as  can  well  be. 

Some  of  the  words,  and  even  lines,  it  should  be 
added,  are  too  illegilJe  to  be  clearly  deciphered ; 
some  parts  of  the  stone  remain  (if  still  existing) 
to  lie  examined,  and  interpreters  differ  somewliat 
in  the  reading  of  portions  of  the  text  in  their 
possession.  One  value  of  the  discovery  is  its  con- 
firming the  Scripture  intimations  (1  Sam.  vii.  12 
and  XV.  12),  that  the  inbaliitants  of  Palestine,  like 
those  of  Egypt  and  Assyria,  had  monumental 
records,  and  it  encourages  the  hope  that  by  per- 
severance still  others  may  be  found.  (For  fuller 
details  see  Quart.  Statement  of  the  Pal.  L'xplur. 
Fund,  Nos.  iv.  and  v.) 

Among  tlie  best  accounts  of  this  stone  is  un- 
questionably that  of  Prof.  Schlottmann,  Bte  Sieyes- 
sdule  lUesa's  Koniijs  der  Moabiter ;  ein  Beitrug 
zur  hebrdUchen  Alterlhuinskunde  (Halle,  1870). 
supplemented  by  an  art.  in  the  Zeitschr.  d.  1).  M 
Gesellschaft,  1870,  p.  253  ff.  He  gives  at  length 
the  details  of  its  discovery,  and  shows  the  impos- 
sibility of  any  collusion  or  fraud  on  the  part  of 
the  Arabs.  lie  presents  a  German  translation  of 
the  epigraph,  supplying  in  brackets  the  missing  or 
illegible  words,  on  conjectural  grounds  of  course, 
and  gives  the  same  in  Hebrew,  for  the  sake  of  com- 
paring the  cognate  dialects.  It  is  remarkable  that 
no  word  occurs  in  the  Moabite  fragment  of  which 
tlie  root  does  not  exist  in  the  Hebrew  Biblical  text. 
It  reads  in  this  respect,  as  M.  de  Vogii^  remarks, 
almost  like  a  page  from  the  Helirew  Scriptures. 
I'rof.  Schlottmann  points  out  various  important 
connections  between  tliis  document  and  the  Biblical 
history.  Prof.  G.  Kawlinson,  on  "the  Moabite 
Stone"  [Contemp.  Jiev.  Aug.  1870,  pp.  97-112), 
dwells  particularly  on  "  the  palseographical  value 
of  the  discovery."  He  argues,  among  other  points, 
that  the  more  primitive  forms  of  the  letters  on 
"  the  stone  "  resemble  the  objects  from  which  they 
are  named  much  more  strikingly  than  the  later 
forms,  and  tiierefore  confirm  the  theory  of  tlie 
pictorial  origin  of  alphabetic  writing.  He  finds 
evidence,  also,  in  the  closer  resemblance  between 
these  more  primitive  figures  and  the  earliest  Greek 
letters,  that  the  Greeks  liorrowed  the  art  of  writing 
from  the  Phoenicians  at  a  much  earlier  date  tlian 
many  have  assigned  to  that  event  Letters,  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  were  not  necessarily  unknown 
to  the  Greeks  in  tlie  time  of  Homer  and  Hesiod 
The  Pentateuch  and  other  oldest  parts  ot  the  He- 


WRITING 

orew  Scriptures  were  not  iniproliably  written  at  first 
in  characters  like  thuse  represented  on  tlie  Moaljite 
stone. 

Essa3-3  on  the  Moabite  stone,  with  translations 
of  the  inscription,  have  also  been  published  b)' 
MM.  Ganneau,  de  Vo^ni^,  Sachs,  Dereiibouri;, 
Nuldeke,  Neubauer,  HauLC,  Geiger,  and  others, 
and  in  this  country  by  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Ward 
{Proceedings  of  the  Amer.  Oriental  Society  for 
May,  1870),  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the 
pala(Oi!;ra^hical  supplements  to  the  present  article. 
iMr.  Ward's  essay  is  to  appear,  enlarged,  in  the 
BilA.  Sncra  for  Oct.  1870.  H. 

*  The  last  few  years  have  seen  the  study  of  the 
history  of  writing  advanced  considerably  by  the 
labors  of  Osiander,  Geiger,  Levy,  Lauth,  Bragsch, 
KirchhofF,  Lenormant,  de  Vogii^,  and  others. 
Scores  of  new  and  important  inscriptions  in  vari- 
ous languages,  of  which  the  most  important  is 
that  of  King  Mesha  of  Moab,  found  the  present 
year  in  the  ancient  Dibon,  have  been  discovered 
and  seized  upon  by  eager  students. 

The  general  result  of  these  investigations  has 
been  to  magnify  the  importance  and  to  extend  the 
sway  of  the  old  Canaanite  or  Phoenician  alphabet, 
and  to  indicate  more  clearly  to  us  its  original 
cliaracters.  It  is  not  improbable  that  every  style 
of  script  now  in  use,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Chinese  and  Japanese,  is  the  lineal  descendant 
of  tlie  letters  of  Cadmus. 

Whether  the  three  systems  of  picture-writing, 
the  Egyptian,  the  Central  American,  and  the 
Chinese;  the  two  alphabetic  systems  of  the  an- 
cient Persians  and  the  Phoenicians,  and  the  mixed 
system  of  Assyria  had  all  a  common  origin,  as 
Geiger  maintains,  in  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates, 
it  is  as  yet  impossible  to  decide.  In  order  to  ex- 
press thought  to  the  eye,  pictures  would  first  be 
emplo3'ed.  These  pictures  would  next  stand  for 
the  first  syllable  of  the  words  which  they  had 
represented,  and  finally  for  the  first  vocal  elements 
of  those  syllables.  Such,  no  doubt,  was  the  his- 
tory of  the  Shemitic  alphabet.  The  names  of  the 
letters  seem  to  point  to  a  hieroglyphic  period,  as 
they  all  si;;nify  objects  of  which  pictures  could  be 
drawn.  Then  the  fact  that  the  Shemitic  alphabet 
has  no  vowels  points  to  a  period  when  the  vowel 
system  of  the  language  was  less  developed,  and 
when  each  written  consonant  carried  its  own  vowel 
with  it,  as  in  the  syllabic  system  of  ancient  As- 
syria. W^e  know  of  two  modern  cases,  one  of  the 
Cherokee  Indian  Sequoya  or  Guest,  and  the  other 
of  l-ioalu  Bukere  in  Africa,  in  which  savages,  hav- 
ing gained  some  inkling  of  the  civilized  method 
of  representing  fractions  of  words  by  arbitrary 
signs,  have  themselves  invented  an  alphabet.  It 
is  a  suggestive  fact  that  in  both  of  these  cases  the 
gystem  which  they  hit  upon  was  syllaiiie.  Sequoya 
in  1823  had  devised  an  alphabet  composed  of  two 
hundred  syllables,  which  he  afterwards  reduced  to 
eighty  five.  Such  was  probably  the  original  syl- 
labic char.acter  of  the  Shemitic  alphabet,  consisting 
of  consonants  followed  by  the  primitive  vowel  ". 
Had  the  alphabet  originally  been  formed  by  making 
an  ultimate  analysis  of  sounds  it  would  lie  difficult 
to  explain  the  fact  that  the  vowels,  the  most  prom- 
inent elements  in  such  an  analysis,  are  all  absent. 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  Phoenician 
or  Shemitic  alphabet  was  derived  from  the  I'^gyp- 
tian  hieratic  characters  (Brugsch,  Zeitschr.  f. 
Sienoyraphie,  18(U,  p.  70  tf.,  and  in  his  Bildunr/ 
u.  EiU'u.  d.   Sclirifl,   Herl.  18u8.      F.  Lenormant, 


WHITING  3577 

Sur  la  prop,  de  Valph.  phuii.,  Par.  1866.  Lauth, 
Ueberd.u(/ypt.  Urspruny  um.  Buchstaben  u.  Zif- 
fern,  in  the  Sitzunysb.  d.  bair.  Akad.  d.  Wiss., 
1867,  ii.  84-124.  G.  Ebers,  Agtjplenu.  d.  Biiclier 
Mose's,  Leipz.  1868,  pp.  147-151.  Schroder,  Die 
phoniz.  Spriic/ie,  Halle,  ISG'J,  p.  76.  E.  Schrader, 
in  De  Wette's  Eiid.  in  d.  Biicher  d.  A.  T.,  8' 
Aufl.,  1869,  p.  189).  Taking  as  our  basis  for  com- 
parison on  the  one  hand  the  most  archaic  Phoeni- 
cian forms  as  given  on  gems  and  seals  and  on  the 
Moabite  Inscription,  and  on  the  other  the  most 
ancient  hieratic  characters  as  found  on  the  papyrus 
Prisse,  a  manuscript  of  the  twelfth  dynasty,  and  so 
older  than  the  Hyksos,  we  find  that  in  at  least 
half  of  the  Phoenician  letters  there  is  an  evident 
resemblance  to  the  corresponding  hieratic.  In  the 
Phoenician,  as  in  the  Hel)rew,  D  deth  and  Eeih  are 
almost  identical.  The  same  is  true  in  the  hieratic 
writing.  In  these  two  letters,  and  in  Lamed,  Nun, 
and  S/iin,  the  resemblance  is  quite  striking.  Prob- 
ably the  adaptation  of  the  Egyptian  characters  to 
the  use  of  the  Phoenician  or  Canaanite  language, 
was  due  to  the  large  Shemitic  colony  which  occu- 
pied the  Delta  of  the  Nile  even  before  the  Hyksos 
invasion ;  although  some  have  given  the  credit  to 
the  Hyksos  conquerors,  and  others  even  to  the 
Israelites,  although  their  condition  in  Egypt  was 
certainly  not  favorable  to  literary  pursuits. 

The  names  of  the  letters  are  pure  Shemitic  and 
not  Egyptian.  This  shows  that  although  hieratic 
characters  were  borrowed,  the  Egyptian  names 
were  not  taken  with  them.  In  selscting  these 
names  it  is  probable  that  the  simplest  and  most 
fiimiliar  objects  were  chosen  which  happened  to 
have  names  beginning  with  the  desired  letter 
In  most  cases  it  is  useless  to  try  to  find  in  the 
characters  any  resemljlance  to  the  objects  whose 
names  they  bear.  Thus  in  the  Egyptian  hiero- 
glyphic Lamed  is  a  lion.  This  in  the  hieratic  is 
reduceil  to  a  conventional  form  which  was  adopted 
almost  exactly  into   the  Phoenician  alphabet,   but 

with  a  change  of  name  from  "lion"  to  T^^, 
'•  an  ox-goad,"  which  it  does  not  resemble  at  all  in 
shape.  The  most  we  can  say  is  that  the  selection 
of  common  visible  objects  for  names  of  the  letters 
is  in  imitation  of  the  Egyptian  picture-writing,  and 
in   a   few  cases   it  may  have  been   possible,  as  in 

n^"^?  a  door,  and  3'^^,  water,  to  find  words 
beginning  with  the  requisite  letter  which  agreed  in 
sense  with  the  shape  of  the  letters. 

We  can  be  approximately  certain  of  the  origina 
form  of  the  Phoenician  letters.  By  far  tlie  most 
important  monument  for  this  purpose  is  the  Moab- 
ite column  of  Mesha,  belonging  to  the  first  half  of 
the  ninth  century  before  Christ.  Next  in  impor- 
tance to  this  are  the  inscriptions  on  some  weights 
found  in  Assyria  by  Layard,  and  which  are  nearly 
as  old.  Beside  these  are  quite  a  number  of  seals 
and  gems  of  extreme  antiquity.  The  later  Phoeni- 
cian monuments  are  counted  by  hundreds,  and  one 
of  them,  the  great  Sidonian  inscription,  is  of  con- 
siderable palEeographical  value.  De  Vogii(?.  con- 
cludes as  the  result  of  his  study  of  these  remains 
that  the  al[)habet  in  its  archaic  form  was  cliaraa- 
terized  by  the  prevalence  of  sharp  angles  {.Journal 
Asiaiique,  1867,  p.  171).  The  zigzag  shape  of  .Mem 
and  Shin  is  a  certain  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
monument  that  contains  them.  A  few  letters,  nota- 
bly Z '»/«'«  and  J'.srff/e,  retained  their  sharp  am;les  to  a 
late  period.    Of  this  original  form  we  do  no  t  possess 


3578  WKiTiXG 

a  single  pure  example,  unless  it  be  a  single  scara- 
bseus,  bearing  the  legend  D  ^li?  V,  "  belonging  to 
Shallum,"  which  may  be  as  old  as  the  time  of  Da- 
vid. In  the  Moaliite  Inscription  these  sharp  angles 
are  generally  preserved,  although  Lamed  has  lost  its 
angle  to  the  right,  and  Bilh,  Kaph,  Mem,  Nun, 
and  Pe,  curve  their  first  stroke  somewhat  to  the  left. 
Ayin,  which  means  "an  eye,"  may  have  been 
originally  circular,  as  we  here  find  it,  and  the  same 
may  have  been  the  case  with  Vau  and  Knpli,  botli 
of  which  have  rounded  heads  on  the  Moabite  stone. 
AVe  here  first  find  Dnhth  the  simple  Greek  Delta,  A, 
and  quite  distinguishable  from  liexh  ,•  and  Sumekh 
identical  with  the  earliest  Greek  |r  as  found  in  the 
Corcyra  inscriptions  of  the  forty-filth  01yn)iiiad. 
From  this  archaic  Phcenician,  of  which  Lenormant 
gives  the  characters  so  far  as  they  were  then  known 
(JCevue  Archeoloaique,  18G7),  were  derived  the 
Greek  letters  of  which  we  have  specimens  as  old  as 
the  ninth  century  before  Christ,  written  so  exactly 
in  the  Phoenician  character,  and  still  turned  to  the 
left,  that  Prof.  F.  Hitzig  {ZeiUchr.  <L  D.  M.  O. 
1858,  p.  273)  has  tried  to  translate,  as  if  Phoeni- 
cian, the  inscription  from  Shera,  cut  under  the 
picture  of  a  fish,  "  [TiJ^aij/  i-ypacpe  jue." 

The  first  stage  in  the  modification  of  the  original 
Phcenician  character  was  the  substitution  of  trans- 
verse bars  for  the  original  zigzags,  first  in  J/e//( 
and  afterwards  in  Shw.  At  the  same  time  the 
letters  show  more  curves,  and  in  the  Aranic'ean 
dialects  all  the  zigzags  disappear;  and  the  heads 
of  Beth,  Dalelh,  and  Resh,  which  were  at  first  closed 
and  triangular,  are  opened  at  the  top.  From  the 
Aramaean  character  by  gradual  changes  was  derived 
the  Palmyrene  and  the  modern  square  Hebrew. 

This  is  hardly  the  place  to  give  the  genealogy  of 
any  other  than  the  square  Hebrew  of  all  the  alpha- 
bets that  are  descendants  of  the  old  Shemitic.  For 
the  Greek,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  elaborate 
alphabets  of-  Greece,  Asia  Minor,  and  the  Ionian 
Islands  given  by  KirchhofF  (Stud,  zur  Gesch.  d. 
f/riech.  Alphabets,  in  the  Ab/i.  d.  Alcnd.  d.  Whs. 
zu  Berlin,  1863).  For  tlie  Latin  iNIommsen  has 
done  a  similar  service.  Weber,  following  Prinsep, 
makes  it  not  improbable  {Zeitschr.  d.  D.  M.  G.  x. 
389  ft'.)  that  the  Sanskrit  had  a  similar  origin,  car- 
rying with  it  all  the  alphabets  of  India,  Hurniah, 
Java,  and  Thibet.  His  argument,  however,  is  by 
no  means  universally  accepted  as  conclusive.  The 
Zend  and  Pehlevi  alphabets  are  of  Shemitic  origin. 
as  Spiegel  shows  in  his  Gram,  dcr  Uuzwdfescii- 
sprache,  pp.  26,  34  ft".  Klaproth  has  remarked 
that  the  Mongolian,  Tungusian,  and  Manchu  alpha- 
bets are  from  the  Syrian;  though  modified,  it  is 
true,  by  the  perpendicular  columnar  arrangement 
of  the  Chinese.  Add  to  these  the  Samaritan, 
Kthiopic,  and  Syriac;  the  Arabic,  with  its  charac- 
ters modified  or  unmodified  as  accepted  by  Turks, 
I'ersians,  Malays,  Hindostanees,  Herbers,  and  Tou- 
areks;  still  further  remember  that  the  Cyrillian 
and  (llagolitic  alphabets  of  Bulgaria  and  Kussia, 
and  the  Gothic  of  Ulphilas,  were  of  Shemitic  oritjin 
through  the  Greek,  and  those  of  the  rest  of  the 
civilized  world  through  the  Latin:  and  we  have 
the  Chinese  left  as  the  only  living  written  language 
whose  alphabet  is  not  lineally  descended  from  that 
nf  Cadmus.  To  the  literature  referred  to  above, 
add  M.  A.  Levy,  P/ionizische  Htudten,  4  Hefte,  Bresl. 
1856-70;  Siec/el  u.  6Vmme?«,  ibid.  1869;  Die  pa l- 
myren.  Inschriften,  in  Zeitschr.  d.  D.  .1/.  G.,  1864, 
p.  65  ff.  \V.  H.  \V. 


YEAR 

X. 

XAN'THICUS.     [Month,  iii  2007.] 


Y. 

YARN(n)r?»;  S1|?a).  The  notice.of  yan. 
is  contained  in  an  extremely  obscure  passage  in 
1  K.  X.  28  (2  Chr.  i.  16):  "Solomon  had  horses 
brought  out  of  Egypt,  and  linen  yarn  ;  the  king's 
merchants  received  the  linen  yarn  at  a  price."  The 
LXX.  gives  e/c  QiKove,  implying  an  original  read- 
ing of  3?°1pri^  ;  the  Vulg.  has  de  Coa,  which  ia 
merely  a  Latinized  form  of  the  original.  The  He- 
brew Received  Text  is  questionable,  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  second  mikceh  has  its  final 
vowel  lengthened  as  though  it  were  in  the  status 
constructus.  The  probability  is  that  the  term  does 
refer  to  some  entrepot  of  Egyptian  commerce, 
but  whether  Tekoah,  as  in  the  LXX.,  or  Coa,  as  in 
the  Vulg.,  is  doubtful.  (Jesenius  (Thes.  ]>.  1202) 
gives  the  sense  of  "  number  "  as  applying  equally 
to  the  merchants  and  the  horses:  "  A  band  of 
the  king's  merchants  bought  a  drove  (of  horses)  at 
a  price;  "  but  the  verbal  arrangement  in  2  Chr.  is 
opposed  to  this  rendering.  Thenius  {Exey.  Hdb. 
on  1  K.  X.  28)  combines  this  sense  with  the  former, 
giving  to  the  first  mikveh  the  sense  "  from  Tekoah," 
to  the  second  the  sense  of  "drove."  Bertheau 
{Kxe(j.  [Idb.  on  2  Chr.  i.  16)  and  Fiirst  {Lex.  s.  v.) 
side  with  the  Vulgate,  and  suppose  the  place  called 
Guu  to  have  been  on  the  I'^gyptian  frontier :  "  The 
king's  merchants  from  Coa  {i.  e.  stationed  at  Coa) 
took  the  horses  from  Coa  at  a  price."  The  sense 
adopted  in  the  A.  V.  is  derived  from  .Jewish  in- 
terpreters. W.  L.  B. 

YEARCrrStt?:  6Tos:  "?!»?'«),  the  highest  or- 
dinary division  of  time.  The  Hebrew  name  is 
identical  with  the  root  nStf?^  "  he  or  it  repeated, 
did  the  second  time;"  with  which  are  cognate  the 
ordinal  numeral  "^3117  "  second,"  and  the  cardi- 
nal, 0^5^',  "two."  The  meaning  is  therefore 
thought  to  be  "an  iteration,"  by  Gcsenius,  who 
conqiares  the  Latui  annus,  properly  a  circle.     Ge- 

senius  also  compares  the  Arabic  (J*,^,  which  he 

says  signifies    "  a  circle,  year."     It  signifies  "  a 
year,"    but   not    "a    circle,"   though    sometimess 


■  around  :  "  its  root  is 


JU. 


it  be 


meanmg 

came  altered  or  changed,  it  shifted,  passed,  revolved 
and  passed,  or  became  complete"  (on  Mr.  Lane'f 
authority).  The  ancient  Egyptian  EENP,  "  t 
year,"  seems  to  resemble  annus;  for  in  Coptic  on« 

of  the  forms  of  its  equivalert,     pOJATlJj     th» 

Bashmuric   p^AlHJ,    A^itinj,   is  identical 

with  the  Sahidic    p^JfATlJ,    "  a  handle,  ring," 

P<i-JULIT6I,  "nngs."  The  sense  of  the  He- 
brew might  either  be  a  recurring  period,  or  a  cir- 
cle  of  seasons,  or  else  a  period  circling  through  the 
seasons.  The  first  sense  is  agreealile  with  any 
period    of  time  ;  the  second,   with   the   I;]gy))tiaii 


YEAR 

"primitive  j'ear,"  which,  by  the  use  of  tropical 
leusuiis  as  divisions  of  the  "  Vague  Year,"  is  shown 
to  have  been  tropical  in  reality  or  intention  ;  the 
third  agrees  with  all  "  wandering  years."' 

I.    Years,  properly  so  called. 

Two  years  were  known  to,  and  apparently  used 
by,  the  Hebrews. 

1.  A  year  of  3G0days,  containing  twelve  months 
of  thirty  days  eacli,  is  indicated  by  certain  passages 
in  the  prophetical  Sci'iptures.  'I'he  time,  times, 
and  a  half,  of  Daniel  (vii  2.3,  xii.  7),  where  "time" 

(Ch.  I'^V,  Heb.  ^y^Q)  means  "year,"  evi- 
dently represent  the  same  period  as  the  42  months 
(Kev.  xi.  2)  and  l,2(j0  days  of  the  IJevelatioii  (xi.  3, 
xii.  6),  for  3(iO  X  3.5  =  1,200,  and  30  X  42  =  1,200. 
Tliis  year  perfectly  corresponds  to  the  Egyptian 
vague  year,  without  the  five  intercalary  days.  It 
appears  to  have  lieen  in  use  in  Noah's  time,  or  at 
least  in  the  time  of  the  writer  of  the  narrative  of  the 
I'lood,  for  in  that  narrative  the  interval  from  the 
ITth  day  of  the  2d  month  to  the  ITth  day  of  tlie 
7th  of  the  same  year  appears  to  be  stated  to  be  a 
period  of  150  days  (Gen.  vii.  11,  24,  viii.  3,  4,  comp. 
13),  and,  as  the  1st,  2d,  7th,  and  lOtli  months  of 
one  year  are  mentioned  (viii.  13,  14,  vii.  11,  viii.  4, 
5),  the  1st  day  of  the  lOth  month  of  this  year  being 
separated  from  the  1st  day  of  the  1st  month  of  the 
next  year  by  an  interval  of  at  least  54  days  (viii. 
5,  6,  10,  12,  13),  we  can  only  infer  a  year  of  12 
months.  Ideler  disputes  tlie  former  inference, 
arguing  that  as  the  water  first  began  to  sink  after 
150  days  (and  then  had  been  15  cubits  above  all 
high  mountains),  it  must  have  sunk  for  some  days 
ere  the  Ark  could  have  rested  on  Ararat,  so  that 
the  second  date  must  liave  been  moie  tlian  150 
days  later  tlian  the  first  {llnndbiich,  i.  09,  70,  478, 
479).  This  argument  de|)ends  upon  the  meaning 
of  the  expression  "  high  mountains,"  and  upon  the 
height  of  ''the  mountains  of  Ararat,"  upon  which 
the  Ark  rested  (Gen.  viii.  4),  and  we  are  certainly 
justified  by  Sheuiitic  usage,  if  we  do  not  consider 
the  usual  inference  of  the  great  height  attained  by 
the  Flood  to  be  a  necessary  one  (Genesis  of  the 
Jiarth  and  of  Man,  2d  ed.  pp.  97,  98).  The  ex- 
act correspondence  of  the  interval  mentioned  to  5 
months  of  30  days  each,  and  the  use  of  a  year  of 
360  days,  or  12  such  montlis,  by  the  prophets,  the 
latter  fact  overlooked  by  Ideler,  favor  the  idea  tliat 
such  a  year  is  here  meant,  unless  indeed  one  iden- 
tical with  the  Egyptian  vague  year,  of  12  months 
of  30  days  and  5  intercalary  days.  The  settle- 
ment of  this  question  depends  upon  the  nature  and 
histv/ry  of  these  years,  and  our  information  on  the 
latter  subject  is  not  sufficiently  certain  to  enable  us 
to  do  more  than  hazard  a  conjecture. 

A  year  of  300  days  is  the  rudest  known.  It  is 
formed  of  12  spurious  lunar  months,  and  was 
probably  the  parent  of  the  lunar  year  of  354  days, 
and  the  vague  year  of  305.  That  it  should  liave 
continued  any  time  in  use  would  be  surprising 
were  it  not  for  the  convenient  length  of  the  months. 
Tlie  Hebrew  year,  from  tlie  time  of  the  Exodus,  .as 
we  shall  see,  was  evidently  lunar,  though  in  some 
manner  rendered  virtually  solar,  and  we  may  there- 
lore  infer  that  the  lunar  year  is  as  old  as  tlie  date 
f)f  the  Exodus.  As  the  Hebrew  year  was  not  an 
Egyptian  year,  and  as  nothing  is  said  of  its  being 
new,  save  in  its  time  of  connnencement,  it  was  per- 
haps earlier  in  use  among  the  Israelites,  and  eitlier 
brought  into  Egypt  by  them  or  borrowed  from 
tShemile  settlers. 


YEAR  357S 

The  va^u^year  was  certainly  in  u,se  in  Egvpt  in 
as  remote  an  age  as  tlie  earlier  part  of  tlie  Xllth 
dynasty  (B.  O.  cir.  2000),  and  there  can  be  no  rea 
sonalile  doubt  that  it  was  there  used  at  the  time 
of  the  building  of  the  Great  I'yramid  (b.  c.  cir. 
2350).  The  intercalary  days  seem  to  be  of  Egyp- 
tian institution,  for  each  of  them  was  dedicated  to 
one  of  the  great  gods,  as  though  the  innovation  had 
been  thus  made  permanent  liy  tlie  priests,  and  per- 
haps rendered  popular  as  a  series  of  days  of  feast  - 
ing  and  rejoicing.  The  addition  would,  however, 
date  from  a  very  early  period,  that  of  the  final 
settlement  of  the  Egyptian  religion. 

As  the  lunar  year  and  the  vague  year  run  up 
parallel  to  so  early  a  period  as  tliat  of  the  Exodus, 
and  the  former  seems  to  have  been  tlien  .Shemite, 
tlie  latter  then,  and  for  several  centuries  earlier, 
Egyptian,  and  probably  of  Egyptian  origin,  we 
may  reasonably  conjecture  that  the  former  origi- 
nated from  a  year  of  300  days  in  Asia,  the  latter 
from  the  same  year  in  Africa,  this  primitive  year 
having  been  used  by  the  Noachians  before  their 
dispersion. 

2.  The  year  used  by  the  Hebrews  from  the  time 
of  the  I'^xodus  may  be  said  to  have  been  then  insti- 
tuted, since  a  current  month,  Abib,  on  the  14tli 
day  of  which  the  first  I'assoN'er  was  ke[it,  was  then 
m-.ide  the  first  month  of  the  year.  The  essential 
characteristics  of  this  year  can  be  clearly  deter- 
mined, though  we  cannot  fix  tho.se  of  any  single 
year.  It  was  essentially  solar,  for  the  offerings  of 
productions  of  the  earth,  first-fruits,  harvest-prod- 
uce, and  ingathered  fruits,  were  fixed  to  certain 
days  of  the  year,  two  of  which  were  in  the  periods 
of  great  feasts,  the  third  itself  a  feast  reckoned  from 
one  of  the  former  days.  It  seems  evident  that  the 
.year  was  made  to  depend  upon  these  times,  and  it 
may  be  observed  that  such  a  calendar  would  tend 
to  cause  thankfulness  for  God's  good  gifts,  and 
would  put  in  the  background  the  great  luminaries 
which  the  heathen  worshipped  in  Egypt  and  in 
Canaan.  Though  the  year  was  thus  essentially 
solar,  it  is  certain  that  the  months  were  lunar,  each 
commencing  with  a  new  moon.  There  must  there- 
fore have  been  some  method  of  adjustment.  The 
first  point  to  lie  decided  is  how  the  comnieiieemeiit 
of  each  year  was  fixed.  On  the  10th  day  of  Abih 
ripe  ears  of  corn  were  to  be  offered  as  first-fruits 
of  the  harvest  (Lev.  ii.  14,  xxiii.  10,  11):  this  was 
the  day  on  which  the  sickle  was  begun  to  be  put 
to  the  corn  (Ueut.  xvi.  9),  and  no  doubt  Josepliua 
is  right  in  stating  that  until  the  offering  of  first- 
fruits  had  been  made  no  harvest-work  was  to  be 
begun  {Ant.  iii.  10,  §  5).  He  also  states  that  ears 
of  barley  were  ofti^red  (ibid.).  That  this  was  the 
case,  and  that  the  ears  were  the  earliest  ripe,  is 
evident  from  the  following  circumstances.  The 
reaping  of  barley  commenced  the  harvest  (2  Sam. 
xxi.  9),  that  of  wheat  following,  apparently  with- 
out any  considerable  interval  (Ruth  ii.  23).  On 
the  day  of  I'entecost  thanksgiving  was  offered  for 
the  harvest,  and  it  was  therefore  called  the  "  Feast 
of  Harvest."  It  was  reckoned  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  harvest,  on  the  16th  day  of  the 
1st  month.  The  50  days  must  include  the  whole 
time  of  the  harvest  of  both  wheat  and  ..arley 
throughout  Palestine.  According  to  the  observa- 
tions of  modern  travellers,  barley  is  ripe,  in  the 
warmest  parts  of  Palestine,  in  the  first  days  of 
April  The  barley-harvest  therefore  begins  about 
half  a  month  or  less  after  the  vernal  equinox. 
ICaeh  year,  if  solar,  would  thus  begin  at  about  thit 


3580  YEAR  YEAR 

squinox,  when  the  earliest  ears  of  barley  must  be   of   the  first-fruits  to  be    made  at  the  time  fixed 


ripe.  As,  however,  the  months  were  lunar,  the 
somniencenieiit  of  the  year  must  have  been  fixed 
by  a  new  moon  near  this  point  of  time.  The  new 
moon  must  have  been  that  which  fell  about  or  next 
after  the  equinox,  not  more  than  a  few  days  before, 
on  account  of  the  ofTering  of  first-fruits.  Ideler, 
whose  observations  on  this  matter  we  have  thus  far 
followed,  supposes  that  the  new  moon  was  chosen 
by  observation  of  the  forwardness  of  the  barley- 
crops  in  the  warmer  parts  of  the  country  [Hund- 
buch,  i.  490).  But  such  a  method  would  have 
caused  confusion  on  account  of  the  different  times 
of  the  harvest  in  different  parts  of  Palestine;  and 
in  the  period  of  the  .ludges  there  would  often  have 
lieon  two  separate  commencements  of  the  year  in 
regions  divided  by  hostile  tribes,  and  in  each  of 
which  the  Israelite  population  led  an  existence 
almost  independent  of  any  other  branch.  It  is 
more  likely  that  the  Helirews  would  have  deter- 
mined their  new  year's  day  by  the  observation  of 
heliacal  or  other  star-risings  or  settings  known  to 
mark  the  right  time  of  the  solar  year.  By  such  a 
method  the  beginning  of  any  year  could  have  been 
fixed  a  year  before,  either  to  one  day,  or,  suppos- 
intr  the  month -commencements  were  fixed  by 
actual  observation,  within  a  day  or  two.  And  we 
need  not  doubt  that  the  Israelites  were  well  ac- 
quainted with  such  means  of  marking  the  periods 
of  a  solar  year.  In  the  ancient  Song  of  Deborah 
we  read  how  "  They  fought  from  heaven ;  the  stars 
ill  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera.  The  river 
of  Kishon  swept  them  away,  that  ancient  river,  the 
river  Kishon  "  (.Judg.  v.  20,  21).  The  stars  that 
marked  the  times  of  rain  are  thus  connected  with 
the  swelling  of  the  river  in  which  the  fugitive 
Canaanites  perished.  So  too  we  read  how  the  Lord 
demanded  of  Job,  "  Canst  thou  bind  the  sweet  in- 
fluences of  Ciniah,  or  loose  the  bands  of  Cesil?  " 
(.Job  xxxviii.  31).  "The  best  and  most  fertilizing 
of  the  rains,"  in  Palestine  and  the  neighboring 
lands,  save  Egypt,  '•  fall  when  the  Pleiades  set  at 
dawn  (not  exactly  heliacally),  at  the  end  of  au- 
tumn; rain  scarcely  ever  falling  at  Wie  opposite 
season,  when  Scorpio  sets  at  dawn."  That  Cimah 
signifies  the  Pleiades  does  not  admit  of  reasonable 
doubt,  and  Cesil,  as  opposite  to  it,  would  be  Scor- 
pio, being  identified  with  Cor  Scorpionis  by  Aben 
Ezra.  These  explanations  we  take  from  the  arti- 
cle Famine  [vol.  i.  p.  810  6,  and  note].  There- 
fore it  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  Israelites, 
even  during  the  troubled  time  of  the  .Judges,  were 
well  acquainted  with  the  method  of  determining 
the  seasons  of  the  solar  year  by  observing  the  stars. 
Not  alone  was  this  the  practice  of  the  civilized 
Egyptians,  but,  at  all  times  of  which  we  know  their 
history,  of  the  Aralis,  and  also  of  the  Greeks  in  the 
time  of  Hesiod,  while  yet  their  material  civilization 
and  science  were  rudimentary.  It  has  always  been 
the  custom  of  pastoral  and  scattered  peoples,  rather 
than  of  the  dwellers  hi  cities;  and  if  the  Eiiyptians 
le  thought  to  form  an  exception,  it  must  be  recol- 
lected that  they  used  it  at  a  period  not  remote 
from  that  at  which  their  civilization  came  from  the 
olain  of  .Shinar. 

It  follows,  from  the  determination  of  the  proper 
new  moon  of  the  first  month,  whether  by  observa- 
tion of  a  stellar  phenomenon,  or  of  the  forwardness 
Kf  the  crops,  that  tlie  method  of  intercalation  can 
July  have  lieen  that  in  use  after  the  Captivity,  the 
addition  of  a  thirteenth  month  whenever  the  twelfth 
iuded  too  long  liefore  the  equinox  for  the  offering 


This  method  is  in  accordance  with  the  permission 
granted  to  postpone  the  celeiiration  of  the  Passover 
for  one  month  in  the  case  of  any  one  who  wag 
legally  unclean,  or  journeying  at  a  distance  (Num. 
ix.  9-1.3);  and  there  is  a  historical  instance  in  the 
case  of  Hezekiah  of  such  a  postponement,  for  both 
reasons,  of  the  national  celebration  (2  Chr.  xxx. 
1-3,  15).  Such  a  practice  as  that  of  an  intercala- 
tion varying  in  occurrence  is  contrary  to  western 
usage ;  but  the  like  prevails  in  all  Muslim  countries 
in  a  far  more  inconvenient  form  in  the  case  of  the 
commencement  of  every  month.  The  day  is  deter- 
mined by  actual  observation  of  the  new  moon,  and 
thus  a  day  is  frequently  unexpectedly  added  to  or 
deducted  from  a  month  at  one  place,  and  months 
commence  on  diflferent  days  at  different  towns  in 
the  same  country.  The  Hebrew  intercalation,  if 
determined  by  stellar  phenomena,  would  not  be  lia- 
lile  to  a  like  uncertainty,  though  such  may  have 
been  tlie  case  with  the  actual  day  of  the  new  moon 
The  later  Jews  had  two  commencements  of  tho 
year,  whence  it  is  commonly  but  inaccurately  said 
that  they  had  two  years,  the  sacred  year  and  the 
civil.  We  prefer  to  speak  of  the  sacred  and  civil 
reckonings.  Ideler  admits  that  these  reckonings 
obtained  at  the  time  of  the  Second  Temple.  The 
sacred  reckoning  was  that  instituted  at  the  Exodus, 
according  to  which  the  first  month  was  Abib :  by 
the  civil  reckoning  the  first  month  was  the  seventh. 
The  interval  between  the  two  comniencements  was 
thus  exactly  half  a  year.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  the  institution  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  was  a 
change  of  conimencemeiit,  not  the  introduction  of  a 
new  year,  and  that  thenceforward  the  year  had  two 
beginnings,  respectively  at  about  the  vernal  and  the 
autumnal  equinoxes.  Tlie  former  supposition  is  a 
hypothesis,  the  latter  may  almost  be  proved.  The 
strongest  point  of  evidence  as  to  two  beginnings  of 
the  year  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  strangeb 
unnoticed  in  this  relation  by  Ideler,  is  the  circum- 
stance that  the  sabbatical  and  jubilee  years  com- 
menced in  the  7th  month,  and  no  doubt  on  the 
10th  day  of  the  7th  month,  the  Day  of  Atonement 
(Lev.  XXV.  0,  10),  and  as  this  year  immediately  fol- 
lowed a  saltbatical  year,  the  latter  must  have  begun 
in  the  same  manner.  Both  were  full  years,  and 
therefore  must  have  commenced  on  the  first  day. 
The  jubilee  year  was  proclaimed  on  the  first  day  of 
the  month,  the  L)ay  of  Atonement  standing  in  the 
same  relation  to  its  beginning,  and  perhaps  to  the 
civil  beginning  of  the  year,  as  did  the  Passover  to 
the  sacred  beginning.  This  would  be  the  most 
convenient,  if  not  the  necessary  conmiencement  of 
a  year  of  total  cessation  from  the  labors  of  agricul- 
ture, as  a  year  so  commencing  would  comprise  the 
whole  round  of  such  occujiations  in  regular  sequence 
from  seed-time  to  harvest,  and  from  harvest  to  vint- 
age and  gathering  of  fruit.  The  command  as  to 
both  years,  apart  from  the  mention  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  clearly  shows  this,  unless  we  suppose, 
but  this  is  surely  unwarrantable,  that  the  injunction 
in  the  two  places  in  which  it  occurs  follows  the  reg- 
ular order  of  the  seasons  of  agriculture  (Ex.  xxiii. 
10,  11;  Lev.  xxv.  3,  4,  11),  but  that  this  was  not 
intended  to  apply  in  the  case  of  the  ol)servance. 
Two  expressions,  used  with  reference  to  the  time 
of  the  Feast  of  Ingathering  on  the  15th  day  of  the 
7th  month,  must  be  here    noticed.     This  feast  ia 

spoken  of  as  n3ti?n  HS^S,  "  in  the  going  out" 
or  "end  of  the    year"    (Ex.    xxiii.    16),    and    oi 


YEAR 

nStSrn  nS^Pi^,  "  [at]  th^  change  of  the  year  " 
(xxxiv.  22),  the  latter  a  vague  expression,  as  far  as 
we  can  understand  it,  but  quite  consistent  with  the 
uther,  whether  indicating  the  turning  point  of  a 
natural  year,  or  the  half  of  the  year  by  the  sacreil 

reckoning.  The  Rabbins  use  the  term  HD^piil 
to  designate  the  coninienceuient  of  each  of  the  four 
seasons  into  which  they  divide  the  year  {Hnndbacli, 
L  550,  551).  Our  view  is  confirmed  by  tlie  simi- 
larity of  the  1st  and  7th  niontiis  as  to  their  observ- 
ances, the  one  containing  the  Feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread  from  the  15th  to  the  21st  inclusive;  the 
other,  that  of  Tabernacles,  from  the  loth  to  the 
22J.  Evidence  in  the  same  direction  is  found  in 
the  S|)ecial  sanctification  of  the  1st  day  of  the  7th 
month,  which  in  tiie  blowing  of  trumpets  resembles 
the  proclamation  of  the  jubilee  year  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  We  therel'ore  hold  that  from  the  time 
of  the  luxodus  there  were  two  tegiimings  of  the  year, 
with  the  1st  of  the  1st  and  the  1st  of  the  7th 
mouth,  the  former  being  the  sacred  reckoning,  the 
latter,  used  for  the  operations  of  agriculture,  the 
civil  reckoning.  In  Kgypt,  in  the  present  day,  the 
Muslims  use  the  lunar  year  for  their  religious  ob- 
seivances,  and  for  ordinary  afiiiirs,  except  those  of 
a^r, culture,  which  they  regulate  by  the  Coptic 
Julian  year. 

We  must  here  notice  the  theories  of  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  year  from  the  Egyptian  vague 
year,  as  they  are  connected  with  the  tropical  point 
or  points,  and  agricultural  phenomena,  by  which 
the  former  was  regulated.  The  vague  year  was 
counnoniy  used  by  the  Egyptians;  and  from  it  only, 
if  from  an  Egyptian  year,  is  the  Hebrew  likely  to 
have  been  derived.  Two  theories  have  been  formed 
connecting  the  two  years  at  the  Exodus. 

(1.)  Some  hold  that  Abib,  the  first  month  of  the 
Hebrew  year  by  the  sacred  reckoning,  was  the  Egyp- 
tian Epiphi,  called  in  Coptic  GIlHnjj  and  in  Ara- 

bic,  by  the  modern  Egyptians,   i^^AJi,  Abeeb,  or 

I'^beeb,  the  lltli  month  of  the  vague  year.  The 
similarity  of  sound  is  remarkable,  but  it  must  be 
remenibered  that  the  Egyptian  name  is  derived 
from  that  of  the  goddess  of  the  month,  F1<^P-T  or 
APAP-T  (?)«  whereas  the  Hel)rew  name  has  the 
sense  of  "an  ear  of  corn,  a  green  ear,''  and  is  derived 

from  the  unused  root  2?S,  traceable  in  3M,  "  ver- 

dure,"  3W, Chaldee,  "  fruit,''  i,_)f ,  "  green  fodder." 
Moreover,  the  Egyptian  P  is  rarely,  if  ever,  repre- 
sented by  the  Hebrew  2,  and  the  converse  is  not 
common.  Still  stronger  evidence  is  afforded  by  the 
tict  tl\at  we  find  in  ICgyptian  the  root  AB,  "a  nose- 
gay," wliioh  is  evidently  related  to  Al)ib  and  its  cog- 
nates    Supposing,  however,  that  the  Hebrew  calen- 


YEAR 


3581 


a  The  names  of  the  Egyptian  mouths,  derived  from 
their  divinities,  are  alone  known  to  us  iu  Greek  and 
Coptic  forms.  These  forms  are  shown  by  the  names 
of  file  divinities  given  iu  the  sculptures  of  the  ceiling 
of  the  Rameseuui  of  El-Kurneh  to  be  corrupt:  but 
'.u  several  casaj    they  are    traceable.     The   following 

ire  certain:  1.    ©aiS,    OtUOTT,   divinity    T£ET 

;Thoth),  as  well  as  a  goddess.  1.  Uom^L,  IX^CWIIJ, 
9TEU,  i.  e.  PAPTEU,  belonging  to  Ptah.  3.  'Agup, 
3.eC«p,     HATllAR.     9.   Ilaxul^  1^1,'^'^^, 


dar  was  formed  by  fixing  the -Egyptian  Epiphi  as  tiu 
fii'st  month,  what  would  be  the chronolo^iical  result? 
The  latest  date  to  which  the  Exodus  is  assigned  is 
about  li.  c.  1320,  In  the  .Julian  year  b.  c.  1-320 
the  montii  I'^pipiu  of  the  Egyptian  vague  year  com 
uienced  .May  10,  44  days  after  tlie  day  of  tiie  vern;d 
equinox,  April  2,  very  near  which  tlie  Hebrew  year 
must  have  begun.  Thus  at  the  latest  date  of  the 
Exodus,  there  is  an  interval  of  a  month  and  a  half 
between  the  lieginniiiLC  of  tlie  Hebrew  year  and 
Epiphi  1.  This  interval  represents  aliout  180  years, 
through  which  the  vat;ue  year  would  retrograile  in 
the  .Julian  until  the  commencement  of  Epiplii  cor- 
responded to  the  vernal  equinox,  and  no  metliod  can 
reduce  it  below  100.  It  is  possible  to  ettect  thus 
much  by  conjecturing  that  the 'month  AI)ib  began 
somewhat  after  this  tropical  point,  though  the  pre- 
cise details  of  the  state  of  the  crops  at  the  time  of 
the  plagues,  as  compared  witli  the  phenomena  of 
agriculture  in  Lower  Egyjit  at  the  present  day, 
make  half  a  month  an  extreme  extension.  At  the 
time  of  the  plague  of  hail,  the  barley  was  in  the  e:ir 
and  was  smitten  with  the  flax,  but  the  wiie^it  was 
not  sufficiently  forward  to  be  destroyed  (Ex.  ix.  .31, 
32).  In  Lower  Eg^pt,  at  the  present  day,  this 
would  be  the  case  about  the  end  of  February  and 
ijeginning  of  March.  The  E.Kodus  cannot  have 
taken  place  many  days  after  the  plague  of  hail,  so 
that  it  must  ha\e  occurred  aljout  or  a  little  after 
the  time  of  the  vernal  equinox,  and  thus  Abib  can- 
not possibly  have  begun  much  after  that  tropical 
point:  half  a  month  is  therefore  excessive,  ^\'e 
have  thus  carefully  examined  the  evidence  as  to  the 
supposed  derivation  of  Abib  from  Epiphi,  because 
it  has  been  carelessly  taken  for  granted,  and  more 
carelessly  alleged  in  support  of  the  latest  date  of 
the  Exodus. 

(2.)  ^Ve  have  founded  an  argument  for  the  date 
of  the  Exodus  upon  another  comparison  of  the  He- 
brew year  and  the  vague  year.  AA'e»  have  seen 
that  the  sacred  commencement  of  the  Hebrew  year 
was  at  the  new  moon  aliout  or  next  after,  but  not 
niucli  before,  the  vernal  equinox:  the  civil  com- 
mencement must  usually  lia\'e  been  at  the  new  moon 
nearest  the  autumnal  equinox.  At  the  earliest  date 
of  the  lixodus  computed  by  modern  chronologers, 
about  tiie  middle  of  the  17tli  century  h.  c.^the 
Egyptian  vague  year  commenced  at  or  about  the 
latter  time.  The  Hebrew  year,  reckoned  from  the 
civil  conniiencement,  and  the  vague  year,  therefore, 
then  nearly  or  exactly  coincided.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  if  tiiey  used  a 
foreign  year,  must  be  supposed  to  have  used  the 
vague  year.  It  ia  worth  while  to  inquire  whether  a 
vague  year  of  this  time  would  further  suit  the  char- 
acteristics of  tlie  first  Hebrew  year.  It  woukl  be 
necessary  that  the  14th  day  of  Abib,  on  which  fell 
the  full  moon  of  the  Passover  of  the  Exodus,  should 
correspond  to  the  14th  of  Phamenoth,  in  a  vague 
year  commencing  about  the  autumnal  equinox.     .A. 

KHUNS,  i.  e.  PAKHUNS.  11.  •Ettk^i,  enHTll, 
PEP-T,  or  .\PAP-T.  The  names  of  months  are  there- 
fore, in  their  corrupt  forms,  either  derived  from  thf 
names  of  divinities,  or  the  same  as  those  names.  The 
name  of  the  goddess  of  Epiphi  is  written  PT  TEE,  oi 
PT,  "  twice."  As  T  is  the  feminine  termination.  th« 
r-ot  appears  to  be  P,  "  twice,"  thus  PEP-T  or  Al>AP-T, 
tlie  latter  being  Lepsius's  reading.  (Sec  l.epsius 
DtnkmaLer,a.h\,h.  iii.  bl.  170,  171,  Cliron.  il.  .©,'.  i 
141,  and  Poole,  HorcB  jEgi/pliacix,  pp.  7-9  14,  13 
18) 


3.582 


YEAR 


full  moon  fell  on  the  14th  of  Phatnenoth,  or  Thnrs- 
da_y,  April  21,  b.  c.  1652,  of  a  vasrue  year  comnieKc- 
iaiU  on  the  day  of  the  autumnal  equinox,  Oct.  10, 
B.  c.  1653.  A  full  moon  would  not  fall  on  the  same 
day  of  the  vague  year  within  a  shorter  interval  than 
twenty-five  years,  and  the  triple  near  coincidence  of 
new  uioon,  vague  year,  and  autumnal  equinox,  would 
not  recur  in  less  than  1,500  vague  years  {Enc. 
Brit.  8th  ed.  E()ypi,  p.  468).  This  date  of  the 
Exodus,  B.  c.  1652,  is  only  four  years  earlier  than 
Hales's,  b.  c.  1648.  In  confirmation  of  this  early 
date,  it  must  be  added  that  in  a  list  of  confederates 
defeated  by  Thothmes  III.  at  Megiddo  in  the  23d 
year  of  his  reign,  are  certain  names  that  we  believe 
can  only  refer  to  Israelite  tril)es.  The  date  of  this 
king's  accession  cannot  be  later  than  alwut  b.  c. 
1460,  and  his  23d  year  cannot  therefore  lie  later 
than  about  b.  c.  1440."  Were  the  Israelites  then 
settled  in  Palestine,  no  date  of  the  Exodus  but  the 
longest  would  be  tenable.     [Chronology.] 

II.  Divisions  of  the  Year.  —  1.  Seasons.     Two 

seasons  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  \^^f2j  "sum- 
mer," and  ^Tli^j  "winter."  The  former  properly 
means  the  time  of  cutting  fruits,  the  latter,  that  of 
gathering  fruits ;  they  are  therefore  originally  rather 
summer  and  autumn  than  summer  and  winter. 
P>ut  that  they  signify  ordinarily  the  two  grand  di- 
visions of  the  year,  the  warm  and  cold  seasons,  's 
evident  from  their  use  for  the  whole  year  in  the  ex- 
pression ^"^m  V^l7»  "  summer  and  winter  "  (Ps. 
Ixxiv.  17;  Zecli.  xiv.  8,  perhaps  Gen.  viii.  22),  and 
from  the  mention  of  "  the  winter  house  "  (Jer.  xxxvi. 
22)  and   "the  summer  house"  (Am.  iii.  15,  where 

both  are  mentioned  together).  Probably  ^QH, 
when  used  without  reference  to  the  year  (as  in  Job 
xxix.  4),  retains  its  original  signification.  In  the 
promise  to  Noah,  after  the  Flood,  the  following  re- 
markable passage  occurs:  "  While  the  earth  re- 
maineth,  seed  time  and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat, 
and  summer  and  winter,  and  day  and  night  shall 
not    cease"    (Gen.  viii.  22).     Here  "seed-time," 

^T'?.)  ^"cl  "  harvest,"  T^^p,  are  evidently  the 
agricultural  seasons.  It  seems  unreasonable  to 
supi)ose  that  they  mean  winter  and  summer,  as  the 
beginnings  of  tlie  periods  of  sowing  and  of  harvest 
are  not  separated  by  six  months,  and  they  do  not 
last  for  six  months  each,  or  nearly  so  long  a  time. 

The  phrase  "  cold  and  heat,"  nn")  "^p,  probably 
indicates  the  great  alternations  of  temperature. 
The  whole  passage  indeed  speaks  of  the  alternations 
of  nature,  whether  of  productions,  temperature,  the 
seasons,  or  light  and  darkness.  As  we  have  .seen, 
the  year  was  probably  then  a  wandering  one,  and 
therefore  the  jiassage  is  not  likely  to  refer  to  it,  but 
to  natiu-al  phenomena  alone.  [Seasoks;  Chro- 
nology.J 

2.  Months.  —  The  Hebrew  months,  from  the 
vime  of  the  Exodus,  were  lunar.  The  year  appears 
(rdinarily  to  have  contained  twelve,  but,  when  in- 
tercalation was  necessary,  a  thirteenth.  The  older 
year  contained  twelve  months  of  thirty  days  each 
[MuXTii ;  Chronology.] 

3.  Wtcks.  —  The  Hebrews,  from  the  time  of  the 
institution  of  the  Sabbath,  whether  at  or  before  the 
Exodus,  reckoned  by  weeks,  but,  as  no  lunar  year 

«  Tho  writer's  paper  on  this  subject  not  having  3et 
been  pulilished,  he  must  refer  to  the  abstract  in  the 
iUnnanri,  No.  1847,  Mar.  21,  1SG3. 


YOKE 

could  have  contained  a  number  of  weeks  without  a 
fractional  excess,  this  reckoning  was  virtually  inde- 
pendent of  the  year  as  with  the  Muslims.  [Week  ; 
Sabbath;  Chronology'.] 

4.  Festivah,  Holy  Days,  and  Fasts.  —  The 
Feast  of  the  Passover  was  held  on  the  14th  day  of 
the  1st  month.  The  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
lasted  7  days;  from  the  15th  to  the  21st,  inclusive, 
of  the  same  month.  Its  first  and  last  days  were 
kept  as  sabbaths.  The  Feast  of  Weeks,  or  Pen- 
tecost, was  celebrated  on  the  day  which  ended  se\'en 
weeks  counted  from  the  16th  of  the  1st  month, 
that  day  being  ex,cluded.  It  was  called  the  •'  Feast 
of  Harvest,"  and  "  Day  of  First-fruits."  The  Fea/i( 
of  Trimipets  (lit.  "  of  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  ", 
was  kept  as  a  sabbath  on  the  1st  day  of  the  7tl: 
month.  The  Day  of  Atonement  (lit.  "of  Atone- 
ments") was  a  fast,  held  the  10th  day  of  the  7th 
month.  The  "  Feast  of  Tabernacles,"  or  "  Feast 
of  Gathering,"  was  celebrate<l  from  the  15th  to  the 
22d  day,  inclusive,  of  the  7th  month.  Additions 
made  long  after  the  giving  of  the  Law,  and  not 
known  to  be  of  higher  than  priestly  authority,  are 
the  Feast  of  Purim,  commemorating  the  defeat  of 
Hanian's  plot:  the  Feast  of  tb.e  i'edication,  re- 
cording the  cleansing  and  re-dedication  of  the 
Temple  by  Judas  Maccabasus :  and  four  fasts. 

III.  Sacred    Years.  —  1.  The  Sabbatical    year, 

ntS^^n  n3tt.\  "  the  fallow  year,"  or,  possibly, 

"year  of  remission,"  or  HtS^tt?  alone,  kept  every 
seventh  year,  was  commanded  to  be  oliserved  as  a 
year  of  rest  from  the  labors  of  agriculture,  and  of 
remission  of  debts.  Two  Sabbatical  years  are  re- 
corded, commencing  and  current,  b.  c.  164-3  and 
136-5.     [Sabbatical  Year;   Chronology.] 

2.  The  Jubilee  year,  b^Vn  PQW,  "the  year 

of  the  trumpet,"  or  Vlll'^  alone,  a  like  year, 
which  innnediately  followed  every  seventh  Sabbat- 
ical year.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  Jubi- 
lee year  was  every  49th  or  50th :  the  former  is 
more  probalile.     [Jubilee;  Chronology.] 

R.  S.  P. 

*  YELLOW.     [Colors.] 

*  YER  =  ere,  in  the  A.  Y.  ed.  1611.  Num. 
xi.  33,  xiv.  11.  H. 

YOKE.  1.  A  well-known  implement  of  hus- 
bandry, descrilied  in  the  Helaew  language  by  the 
terms  mot,''  motdh,'^  a}]d  M/,'' tlie  two  former  specif- 
ically applying  to  the  bows  of  wood  out  of  which 
it  was  constructed,  and  the  last  to  the  application 
{binding)  of  the  article  to  the  neck  of  the  ox.  The 
expressions  are  combined  in  Lev.  xxvi.  13  and  Ez, 
xxxiv.  27,  with  the  meaning,  "  bands  of  the  yoke." 
Tiie  term  "yoke"  is  frequently  used  metaphor- 
ically for  suhjection  (e.  (j.  1  K.  xii.  4,  9-11;  Is.  ix. 
4;  Jer.  v.  5):  hence  an  "  iron  yoke"  represents  an 
unusually  galling  bondage  (Dent.  xxvi\i.  48;  Jer. 
xxviii.  13).  2.  A  pair  of  oxen,  so  termed  as  being 
yoked  together  (1  Sam.  xi.  7 ;  1  K.  xix.  19,  21 ). 
The  Hebrew  term,  tzemedf-  is  also  applied  to  asses 
(Jndg.  xix.  10)  and  mules  (2  K.  v.  17),  and  even 
to  a  couple  of  riders  (Is.  xxi.  7).  3.  The  term 
tzemed  is  also  applied  to  a  certain  amount  of  land, 
equivalent  to  that  which  a  couple  of  oxen  could 
plough  in  a  day  (Is.  v.  10;  A.  V.  "acre"),  cor- 


6  '^^12. 


ll'^^72. 


b3:. 


^»5 


YOKE-FELLOW 

•espoiidiiig  to  the  Latin  jugum  (Varro,  R.  R.  i. 
10).  The  term  staiuls  in  this  sense  in  1  Sam. 
xiv.  14  (A.  V.  "yoke");  lint  the  text  is  doubtful, 
and  the  rendering  of  the  LXX.  sugiie.sts  that  the 
true  reading  would  refer  to  the  instruments  (iv 
K<Jx^«?')  wherewith  the  slaughter  was  effected. 
[Oxi:n.]  W.  L.  B. 

*  YOKE-FELLOW.  The  interest  of  this 
word  lies  in  the  question  whether  the  Greelc  word 
iav^uye  or  avv^vye)  is  correctly  so  rendered,  Phil. 
iv.  3,  or  should  be  taken  as  a  proper  name,  Syzyyus 
or  Symygus.  If  as  in  the  A.  V.  it  lias  the  appel- 
lative force,  it  must  be  a  man  who  is  meant  and 
not  a  woman;  for  the  accompanying  adjective 
{•yvr](ne)  has  properly  three  teruunations,  and  is 
here  masculine,  and  hence  though  the  noun  may  be 
masculine  or  feminine,  the  Apostle's  wife  is  not  to  be 
thought  of,  as  some  strangely  imagine,  in  opposition 
also  to  the  manifest  inference  from  1  Cor.  vii.  8 
that  Paul  was  never  married  {ayafxas)-  Some 
suppose  Luke  to  be  intended,  who  from  the  omis- 
sion of  his  name  in  Phil.  i.  1  ajipeai's  not  to  have 
been  at  Kome  when  Paul  wrote  the  letter;  and 
others  that  it  was  Epaphroditus,  who  was  at  the 
Apostle's  side  at  the  moment,  and  was  thus  abruptly 
addressed  {ipcorcu  Kai  ae)-  These  and  similar  ex- 
planations presuppose  a  knowledge  of  personal  rela- 
tions on  the  part  of  the  readers  rendering  the  allu- 
sion obvious  to  theni  though  utterly  obscure  to  us. 

We  think  the  best  view  after  all  to  be  that  of 
Meyer  (Br.  an  die  PhUipptr,  in  loc),  Laurent 
{Neatest.  Stiii/ieii,  pp.  134-137),  and  others,  that 
Syzygus  or  Synzygus  is  a  proper  name,  borne  by 
one  who  had  been  associated  with  Paul  in  Chris- 
tian labors,  who  was  at  Philippi  when  the  Apostle 
wrote  the  letter,  and  was  well  known  there  as 
deserving  the  encomium  which  this  a|>peal  to  him 
implies.  Paul  nowhere  else  uses  this  word  (av^vyos) 
of  any  one  of  his  official  associates,  not  using  it  in 
fact  in  any  otiier  passage.  It  is  found  here  in  the 
miilst  of  other  proper  names  (vv.  2,  3 ) ;  and  the 
attributive  "  geiuiine  "  {yvriffn)  corresponds  finely 
and  significantly  to  the  appellative  sense  of  such  a 
name.  That  such  an  alliteration  is  not  foreign  to 
Paul's  manner,  see  Philem.,  vv.  10,  11.  The  name, 
it  is  true,  does  not  appear  anywhere  else;  but  many 
other  names  also  are  found  only  i}i  single  instances, 
and  certainly  many  names  must  have  been  in  use 
among  the  ancients  which  have  not  been  trans- 
mitted at  all.  Paul  himself  repeatedly  mentions 
persons  in  his  epistles  who  are  named  only  once, 
and  a  catalogue  of  names  might  be  made  out  from 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  those  whose  whole  his- 
tory for  us  lies  in  a  single  passage.  H. 


ZAANA'IM,  THE    PLAIN    OF 

^.??¥-^  •  hpvs  -irXioviKTOvvToiv;  Alex.  5.  avor 
wavofievctv:  VidlU  quie  vocal ur  Sennim);  or, 
more  accurately,  "  the  oak  by  Zaannaim,"  such 
being  probaldy  the  meaning  of  the  word  clun. 
[Plain,  iii.  2547  6.]  A  tree  —  probably  a  sacred 
tree  —  mentioned  as  marking  the  spot  near  which 
lielter  tha  Kenite  was  encamped  when  Sisera  took 
'efuge  in  his  tent  (Judg.  iv.  11).  Its  situation  is 
.lefined  as  "near  Kedesh,"  /.  e.  Kedesh-Naphtali, 
,he  name  of  which  still  lingers  on  tlie  high  ground, 
ooith  of  SdJ'ed,  and  west  of  the  Lake  of  el-IIukli, 


ZAAVAN  3583 

usually  identified  with  the  Waters  cf  ^lerom.  The 
Targum  gives  as  the  equivalent  of  the  name,  mis/Ku' 
agfjaniya,  "the  plain  of  the  swamp,"  and  in  tht 
well-known  passage  of  the  Talmud  {Megillnh  Je- 
riish.  I.)  which  contains  a  list  of  several  of  the 
towns  of  Galilee  with  their  then  identifications,  the 
equivalent  for  "  Elon  (orAijalon)  be-Zaannaim"  ia 
Aijniya  hnk-kodesk.  Ague  appears  to  signify  a 
swamp,  and  can  hardly  refer  to  anything  but  the 
marsh  which  borders  the  lake  of  Hideh  on  the  north 
side,  and  which  was  probably  more  extensive  in  the 
time  of  Deborah  than  it  now  is  [Mehom].  On  the 
other  hand.  Professor  Stanley  has  pointed  out  (Jew- 
is/i  Cliurch,  p.  324;  Luadilies,  p.  197)  how  appro- 
priate a  situation  for  this  memoralile  tree  is  afforded 
by  "  a  green  plain  ....  studded  with  massive 
terebinths,"  which  adjoins  on  the  south  the  plain 
containing  the  remains  of  Kedesh.  The  whole  of 
this  upland  country  is  more  or  less  rich  in  tere- 
binths. One  such,  larger  than  usual,  and  bearing 
the  name  of  Hejar  em-.Messiaii,  is  marked  on  the 
map  of  Van  de  Vekle  as  G  miles  X.  W.  of  Kedes. 
These  two  suggestions  —  of  the  ancient  Jewish  and 
the  modern  Christian  student  —  may  be  left  side 
by  side  to  await  the  result  of  future  investigation. 
In  favor  of  the  former  is  the  slight  argument  to  be 
drawn  from  the  early  date  of  the  interpretation, 
and  the  fact  that  the  basin  of  the  Hideh  is  still  the 
favorite  camping-ground  of  Bedouins.  In  favor 
of  the  latter  is  the  instinct  of  the  observer  and  the 
abundance  of  trees  in  the  neighborhood. 

No  name  answering  to  either  Zaannaim  or  Agne 
has  yet  been  encountered. 

The  Keri,  or  correction,  of  Judg.  iv.  11,  substi- 
tutes Zaanannim  for  Zaanaiin,  and  the  same  form 
is  found  in  Josh.  xix.  33.  This  correction  the  lex- 
icographers adopt  as  the  more  accurate  form  of  the 
name.  It  appears  to  be  derived  (if  a  Hebrew  word ) 
from  a  root  signifying  to  load  beasts  as  nomads  do 
when  they  change  their  places  of  residence  ((iesen. 
T/ies.  p.  1177).  Such  a  meaning  agrees  well  with 
the  habits  of  the  Kenites.  But  nothing  can  be 
more  uncertain  than  such  explanations  of  topo- 
graphical names  —  most  to  be  distrusted  when 
most  plausible.  G. 

ZA'ANAN  Cl3S'4  [richin /terds:]2fWadp; 
[Comp.  Satvaf :]  in  exilu).  A  place  named  by 
Micah  (i.  11)  in  his  address  to  the  towns  of  the 
Sliefel((}t,  This  sentence,  like  others  of  the  same 
passage,  contains  a  play  of  words  founded  on  the 
meaning  (or  on  a  possible  meaning)  of  the  name 
Zaanan,  as  derived  from  yatsidi,  to  go  forth:  — • 

"  The  inhabitress  of  Tsaanan  came  not  forth." 

The  division  of  the  passage  shown  in  the  LXX. 
and  A.  V.,  by  which  Zaanan  is  connected  with 
Beth-ezel,  is  now  generally  recognized  as  inac- 
curate. It  is  thus  given  by  Ur.  Pusey,  in  his 
Commentnry :  "The  inhabitant  of  Zaanan  came 
not  forth.  The  mourning  of  Beth-ezel  shall  take 
from  you  its  standing."  So  also  Ewald,  De  Wette, 
and  Zunz. 

Zaanan  is  doubtless  identical  with  Zenan. 

G. 

*  ZAANAN'NIM     (t:''222?^  :    Beo-e/xuV  , 

Vat.   -€11'  ;  Alex.  Beo-ei'avi^;    Comp.    "Xiivaviixi 
Saananiin),  Josh.  xix.  33.      [Z.A.ANAIM.]        .\. 

ZA'AVAN  (]lp!  Idisquieied]  :  ZouKdf., 
Alex.  luiuKa,u,  loiaKaV-  Z'lpaii).  A  Horite  chief, 
son  of  Ezer  the  sou  of  Seir  (Gen.  'xxvi.  27:  1  Chr 


8584 


ZA.BAD 


i.  421.     The  LXX.   appear  to  have   read  ^pV. 
In  1  Chr.  the  A.  V.  has  Zavax. 

ZA'BAD  (I^T  [gift, present]  ■.Za&e5,Za^fT; 
Alex.    Za/Sar  in  1  Chr.  xi. :    Zubad :    short    for 

iT'l^t  :  see  Zebadiah,  Zabdi,  Zabdiel,  Zebedee, 
T  ;  - :  ^       '  '  '  ' 

"  Gud  hath  given  Mm  "). 

1.  Son  of  Nathan,  son  of  Attai,  son  of  Ahlai, 
Sheshan"s  daughter  (1  Chr.  ii.  31-37),  and  hence 
called  son  of  Ahlai  (1  Chr.  xi.  41).  He  was  one 
of  David's  mighty  men,  but  none  of  his  deed?  have 
been  recorded.  The  chief  interest  connected  with 
him  is  his  genealogy,  which  is  of  considerable  im- 
portance in  a  chronological  point  of  view,  and  as 
throwing  incidental  light  upon  the  structure  of  the 
book  of  Chronicles,  and  the  historical  value  of  the 
genealogies  in  it.  Thus  in  1  Chr.  ii.  2G-41,  we 
have  the  following  pedigree,  the  generations  pre- 
ceding .Jeralnneel  being  prefixed :  — 

(13.)  Nathan. 
(14.)  Zabad. 
(15.)  Ephlal. 
(16.)  Obea. 
(17.)  Jeliu. 

(18.)    .\ZARIAH. 

(19.)  Helez. 
(20.)  Eleasah. 
(21.)  Sisamai. 
(22.)  Shalluin. 
(23.)  Jekamiah. 


(1.)  Judah. 

(2.)  I'liarez. 

(3  )  Hezron. 

(4  )  .Jerahineel. 

(5.)  Onam. 

(6.)  Shaiuinai. 

(7.)  Nadab. 

(8.)  Appaim. 

(9.)  Ishi. 
(10.)  Sheshan. 

(11.)  Alilal,  his  J  z=  Jarha  the 
daughter  J       Egyptian. 
(12  )  Attai.  (24.)  Elishama. 

Here,  then,  is  a  genealogy  of  twenty-four  gen- 
erations, commencing  with  the  patriarch,  and  ter- 
minating we  know  not,  at  first  sight,  where;  but  as 
we  ha])pen  to  know-,  from  the  history,  where  Zabad 
the  son  of  .4hlai  live<l,  we  are  at  least  sure  of  this 
fact,  that  the  fouriecnth  generation  brings  us  to 
the  time  of  David ;  and  that  this  is  aliout  the  cor- 
rect number  we  are  also  sure,  because  out  of  seven 
other  perfect  genealogies,  covering  the  same  inter- 
val of  time,  four  have  the  same  number  (four- 
teen), two  ha.vejifleen,  and  David's  own  has  eleven. 

[(iKXKAL.  OF  JUSUS  ClIKIST,  i.  880.] 

But  it  also  happens  that  another  person  in  the 
line  is  an  historical  personage,  whom  we  know 
to  have  lived  during  the  usurpation  of  Athaliah, 
jiamely,  Azariah  the  son  {i.  e.  grandson)  of  Obed 
(2Chr.  xxiii.  1).  [Azariah,  13.]  He  was /()(/*■//( 
after  Zabad,  while  Jehoram,  Athaliah's  husband, 
was  six/h  after  David  —  a  perfectly  satisfactory  cor- 
respondence when  we  take  into  account  that  Zabad  « 
ni.ay  probalily  have  been  considerably  younger  than 
David,  and  that  the  early  marriages  of  the  kings 
have  a  constant  tendency  to  increase  the  number 
of  generations  in  the  royal  line.  Again,  the  last 
name  in  the  line  is  the  sixth  after  Azariah;  but 
Hezekiah  was  tlie  sixth  king  after  Athaliah,  and  we 
know  tiiat  many  of  the  genealogies  were  written 
out  by  "  the  men  of  Hezekiah,"  and  therefore  of 
course  came  down  to  his  time  [Bkcheh  i.  259] 
(see  1  Chr.  iv.  41;  I'rov.  xxv.  1).  So  that  we 
may  conclude,  with  great  probability,  both  that 
this  genealogy  ends  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  and 
that  all  its  links  are  perfect. 

One  other  point  of  importance  remains  to  be 
joticed,   namely,  that  Zabad   is    called,  after  his 


"  He  does  not  appear  in  the  list  in  2  Sam.  xxiv., 
ind  may  therefore  be  prL-sunieil  to  have  been  added 
(J  the  latter  part  of  David's  reign. 


ZABADEANS 

great-grandmother,  the  founder  of  his  house,  son 
of  Alilni.  For  that  Ahlai  was  the  name  of  She- 
shan's  daughter  is  certain  from  1  Chr.  ii.  31 ;  and 
it  is  also  certain,  fiom  vv.  35,  3(5,  that  from  her 
marriage  with  Jarha  de.scended,  in  the  third  gen- 
eration, Zabad.  It  is  therefore  as  certain  as  such 
matters  can  be,  that  Zabad  the  son  of  Ahlai,  Da- 
vid's mighty  man,  was  so  called  from  Ahlai  his 
female  ancestor.  The  case  is  analogous  to  that 
of  .Joab,  and  Abishai,  and  Asaliel,  who  are  always 
called  sons  of  Zeniiah,  Zeruiab,  like  .■\hlai,  having 
married  a  foreigner.  Or  if  any  one  thinks  there  is 
a  difference  between  a  man  being  called  the  son  of 
his  mother,  and  tfie  son  of  his  great-grandmother, 
a  more  exact  parallel  may  lie  found  in  Gen.  xxv. 
4,  xxxvi.  ]2,  13,  10,  17,  where  the  descendants  of 
Keturah,  and  of  the  wives  of  Ksau,  in  the  third 
and  fourth  generation,  are  called  "  the  sons  of  Ke- 
turah," "  the  sons  of  Adah  "  and  "  of  Bashemath  " 
respectively. 

2.  (Za)3a5;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Za)3e5.)  An  Ephraim- 
ite,  if  the  text  of  1  Chr.  vii.  21  is  correct.  [See 
Shutiielah.] 

3.  {Za^eS;  [Vat.  ZcijieW]  Alex.  Za;3€0.)  Son 
of  Shimeath,  an  Ammonitess,  an  assassin  who, 
with  Jehozabad,  slew  king  Joash,  according  to  2 
Chr.  xxiv.  26;  but  in  2  K.  xii.  21,  his  name  is 
written,  probably  more  correctly,  Jozachar  [.loz.\- 
chah].  He  was  one  of  the  domestic  servants  of 
the  palace,  and  apparently  the  agent  of  a  powerful 
conspiracy  (2  Chr.  xxv.  3;  2  K.  xiv.  5).  Joash 
had  become  unpopular  from  his  idolatries  (2  Chr. 
xxiv.  18),  his  oppression  {ibid.  22),  and,  above  all, 
his  calamities  {ibid.  23-25).  The  explanation 
given  in  the  article  Jozachar  is  doubtless  the 
true  one,  that  the  chronicler  represents  this  violent 
death  of  the  king,  as  well  as  the  previous  invasion 
of  the  Syrians,  as  a  Divine  judgment  against  him 
for  the  innocent  blood  of  Zechariah  shed  by  him : 
not  that  the  assassins  themselves  were  actuated  by 
the  desire  to  avenge  the  death  of  Zechariah.  They 
were  both  put  to  death  by  Amaziah,  but  their 
children  were  spared  in  obedience  to  the  law  of 
Moses  (Deut.  xxiv.  10).  The  coincidence  between 
the  names  Zechariah  and  Jozachar  is  remarka- 
ble. A.  C.  H. 

4.  {ZaBdS  [Vat.  Za/3a5a;3].)  A  layman  of 
Israel,  of  the  sons  of  Zattu,  who  put  away  his  for- 
eign wife  at  Ezra's  command  (Ezr.  x.  27).  He  is 
called  Sahatus  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  28. 

5.  ([Horn.]  Za5a3'  [Vat.  FA.,  with  prec.  word, 
Aeafa^fX;  .41ex.]  ZafiaS-)  One  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Hashum,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife 
after  the  Captivity  (Ez.  x.  33):  calletl  Bannaia  in 
1  Esdr.  ix.  33. 

6.  (Za/8a6;  [Vat.  FA.  SeSe^u:]  Alex,  om.) 
One  of  the  .sons  of  Nebo,  whose  name  is  mentioned 
under  the  same  circumstances  as  the  two  preceding 
(Ezr.  x.  43).  It  is  represented  by  Zahauai.vs  ia 
1  Esdr.  ix.  35.  ^^'.  A.  W. 

ZABADA'IAS  [4  syl.]  (Za^oSa.'as:  Sa/j- 
adus).  Zabad  C  (1  Esdr.  ix.  35;  comp.  Ez.  x. 
43). 

ZABADE'ANS  [properly  Zabad.e'axs] 
(ZayBeSaloi;  [Sin.  ZaBaSaioi;]  Alex.  ZaPuSeof 
Zabiidiei).  An  Arab  tritie  who  were  attacked  and 
spoiled  by  Jonathan,  on  his  -way  back  to  Danias(  U8 
from  his  fruitless  pursuit  of  the  army  of  Demetrius 
(1  Mace.  xii.  31).  Josephus  calls  them  Nabatseana 
(.(/?/.  xiii.  5,  §  10),  but  he  is  evidently  in  error 
Nothing  certain  is  known  of  them.     Ewald  {Ginck 


ZABBAI 

iv.  382  finds  a  trace  of  their  name  in  that  of  the 
place  Zabthi  given  by  lioliinson  in  his  hsts;  hut 
tills  is  too  far  south,  between  the  Yin-iinik  and  the 
Zurk'i.  Michaelis  insjijests  the  Arab  tribe  Zo- 
beideli  ;  but  they  do  not  appear  in  the  necessary 
locality.  Jonathan  had  pursued  the  enemy's  ai'my 
as  far  as  the  river  Eleutherus  (,V«/;r  el-Ktbir),  and 
was  on  his  march  back  to  Damascus  when  he  at- 
tacked and  plundered  the  Zaliadeans.  We  must 
look  for  them,  therefore,  somewhere  to  the  nortli- 
R'est  of  Damascus.  Accordingly,  on  the  road  from 
Damascus  to  Baalbek,  at  a  distance  of  about  8] 
hours  (2G  miles)  from  the  former  place,  is  the  vil- 
la^;e  ZeMdni/,  standini;  at  the  upper  end  of  a  plain 
•jf  the  same  name,  which  is  the  very  centre  of  An- 
ti-Libanus.  The  name  Zcbddny  is  possibly  a  relic 
of  the  ancient  tribe  of  the  Zabadeans.  According 
to  Burckhardt  (Syria,  p.  3),  the  plain  "  is  about 
three  quarters  of  an  hour  in  breadth,  and  three 
hours  in  leniith;  it  is  called  Ard  Z<^bi/eiii,  or  the 
district  of  Zebdeni;  it  is  watered  by  the  Barrada, 
one  of  whose  sources  is  in  the  midst  of  it;  and  by 
the  rivulet  called  Afmel  Ztbdeni,  whose  source  is  in 
themountaiii  beliind  the  village  of  (he  same  name." 
The  plain  is  "  limited  on  one  side  by  the  eastern 
part  of  the  Anti-Libanus,  called  here  DJebel  Zeb- 
tU-ni."  The  village  is  of  considerable  size,  contain- 
ing nearly  3,000  inhabitants,  who  breed  cattle,  and 
the  silkworm,  and  have  some  dyeing-houses  {ibid.). 
Not  far  from  Zebddiiij,  on  the  western  slopes  of  An- 
ti-Libanns,  is  another  village  called  Kejr  Zebad, 
which  again  seems  to  point  to  this  as  the  district 
formerly  occupied  by  the  Zabadeans.      W.  A.  Vi. 

ZAB'BAI  [2  syl.j  (^21  [perh.  pure,  innocvnt]  : 
Za^ov-  Z'ibbai).  1.  One  of  the  descendants  of 
Bebai,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  in  the  days 
of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  28).  He  is  called  Josabad  in  1 
Esdr.  ix.  2IJ. 

2.  (Za/3oO;  FA.  ZajSpou:  Zachai.)  Father  of 
Baruch,  who  assisted  Neheraiah  in  rebuilding  the 
city  wall  (Neh.  iii.  20). 

ZAB'BUD    (1^2T    [yiven,  besUnced],  Keri, 

"1^3T  :  ZafioiiS;  [Vat.  omits:]  Zachur).  One  of 
the  sons  of  Bigvai,  who'returned  in  the  second  car- 
avan with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  14).  In  1  Esdr.  viii.  40 
his  name  is  corrupted  into  Istalcurus. 

ZABDE'US  [properly  Zabd.eus]  (Za^haios' 
Vulg.  om.).  Zebadiah  of  the  sons  of  Immer  (1 
Esdr.  ix.  21;  comp.  Ez.  x.  20). 

ZAB'DI  ("'"7?!  [.Jehovah  gave]:  Zafi^pi 
[Vat.  -|6/)6i];  Alex!  Za^pt  in  -'osh.  vii.  1:  Zabdi). 
1.  Son  of  Zerah,  the  son  of  Judah,  and  ancestor  of 
Achan  (Josh.  vii.  1,  17,  18). 

2.  {ZaBSi:  [Vat.  Za/35ei.])  A  Benjamite,  of 
the  sons  of  Sliimhi  (1  Chr.  viii.  19). 

3.  ([Vat.  ZaxpeiO  Zabdins.)  David's  officer 
over  the  produce  of  the  vineyards  for  the  wine-cel- 
lars (1  Chr.  xxvii.  27).  He  is  called  "the  Shiph- 
lute,"  that  is,  in  all  probability,  native  of  She- 
pham,"  but  his  native  place  has  not  been  traced. 

4.  ([Rom.]  Vat.  and  Alex.  om. ;  FA.  third  hand, 
Zexpi-  Zebedeiis.)  Son  of  Asaph  the  minstrel 
(Xeh.  xi.  17);  called  elsewhere  Zaccuk  (Neh.  xii. 
35)  and  Zichri  (1  Chr.  ix.  15). 


ZACCH^US 


3585 


ZAB'DIEL  (bS^"l?T  [yi/l  of  God]:  Zay3- 
Si'fjK  [\'at.  -5ei-] :  Zabdiel).  1.  Father  of  Jasho- 
beam,  the  chief  of  David's  guard  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  2) 

2.  (BoSiTJA;  Alex.  ZoxP'tjA;  [FA.l  ySafirjA.]) 
A  priest,  son  of  the  great  men,  or,  as  the  margin 
gives  it,  "Haggedolim"  (Neli.  xi.  14).  He  had 
the  uversi<;ht  of  128  of  his  brethren  after  the  return 
from  Babylon. 

3.  (Zoj35ir)A:  Joseph.  Za;3r)Aos:  Zabdiel.)  An 
Arabian  chieftain  who  put  Alexander  Balas  to 
death  (1  Mace  xi.  17;  .Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  4,  §  8). 
According  to  Diodorus,  Alexander  Balas  was  mur- 
dered by  two  of  the  officers  who  accompanied  him 
(Miiller,  Fray  in.  Hist.  ii.  16). 

ZA'BUD  (1^3|  [yii-en]:  Za^ovO;  Alex.  Za0- 
^ovB:  [Comp.  ZakovS-]  Zabiid).  The  son  of 
Nathan  (1  K.  iv.  5).  He  is  described  as  a  priest 
(A.  V.  '-principal  officer;  "  Priest,  iii.  257G),  and 
as  holdiui;  at  the  court  of  Solomon  the  confidential 
post  of  '•  kinif's  friend,"  which  had  been  occupied 
liy  Hushai  the  Archite  during  the  reiiin  of  David 
(2  Sam.  XV.  37.  xvi.  10;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  33).  This 
position,  if  it  were  an  official  one,  was  evidently  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  counsellor,  occupied  by  Ahitho- 
phel  under  David,  and  had  more  of  the  character 
of  private  friendsliip  about  it,  for  Absalom  con- 
versely calls  David  the  "friend"  of  Hushai  (2 
Sam. 'xvi.  17).  In  the  V^at.  MS.  of  the  LXX.  the 
word  "  priest  "  is  omitted,  and  in  the  Arabic  of  the 
London  Polyglot  it  is  referred  to  Nathan.  The 
Peshito-Syriac  and  several  Hebrew  MSS.  for  "  Za- 
bud  "  read  "  Zaccur."  The  same  occurs  in  the 
case  of  Zabbud. 

ZAB'ULON  {Za^uvXwV-  Zabuhn).  The 
Greek  form  of  the  name  Zebulun  (Matt.  iv.  13, 
15,  Rev.  vii.  8). 

ZAC'CAI  [2  syl.J  C'Sl  \_pure,  innocenty. 
ZaKxov;  [Vat.  FA.  Zadov  in  Neh.];  Alex.  Za/c- 
yai  in  Ezra:  Zachai).  The  sons  of  Zaccai,  to  the 
number  of  760,  returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii. 
9;  Neh.  vii.  14).  The  name  is  the  same  which 
appears  in  the  N.  T.  in  the  familiar  form  of  Zac- 

CH.EUS. 

ZACCH^'US  [A.  V.  Zacche'lls]  (Za/c- 
Xa'ios-  Zacchieus).  The  name  of  a  tax-collector 
near  Jericho,  who  being  short  in  stature  climbed  up 
into  a  sycamore-tree,"  in  order  to  obtain  a  sight  of 
.lesus  as  He  passed  through  that  place. '^  Luke 
only  has  related  the  incident  (xix.  1-10).  Zacchse- 
us  was  a  Jew,  as  may  be  inferred  from  his  name, 
and  from  the  fact  tliat  the  Saviour  speaks  of  him 
expressly  as  "a  son  of  Abraham  "  {ulhs  'A^padfx)- 
So  the  latter  expression  should  be  understood,  and 
not  in  a  spiritual  sense;  fcr  it  was  evidently  meant 
to  assert  that  he  was  one  of  the  chosen  race,  not- 
withstandinu;  the  prejudice  of  some  of  his  country- 
men that  his  office  under  the  Roman  government 
made  him  an  alien  and  outcast  from  the  privileges 
of  the  Israelite.  The  term  which  designates  this 
office  (apxiTeAcov-ns)  is  ninisual,  but  describes  him 
no  doulit  as  the  superintendent  of  customs  or  trib- 
ute in  the  district  of  Jericho,  where  he  lived,  as 
one  having  a  connnission  from  his  Roman  principal 
(mancepa,  pvblicanus)  to  collect  the  imposts  levied 


a  *  They  plant  this  tree  in  the  East  by  the  wayside, 
»nd  it  ;s  easily  asceuJud  because  the  branches  start 
jut  oouiijaratively  near  tl-«  grouud.  [Svclmore,  note 
•,.]  H. 


h  *  The  A.  "V.  (laike  xix.  1)  has :  "  And  [Jesu^]  en- 
tered and  passed  through  .lerieho,"  as  if  the  incident 
took  place  after  our  Lord  had  left  the  city.  But  tlie 
'erb  is  fii^pxero,  "'as  passing  through,  which  placet 
the  occurrence  in  .lericUo.  H. 


3586  ZACCH^us 

»n  the  Jews  by  the  Romans,  and  who  in  the  exe- 
cution of  that  trust  employed  siihalterns  (the  or- 
dinary TeXai/ai),  who  were  accountable  to  him,  as 
he  in  turn  was  accountable  to  his  superior, 
whether  he  resided  at  Home,  as  was  more  coni- 
mouly  the  case,  or  in, the  province  itself  (see  U'iner, 
Renliv.  ii.  711,  and  Diet  of  Ant.  p.  80G).  The 
ofRce  must  have  been  a  lucrative  one  in  such  a 
region,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  Zacchfeus  is  men- 
tioned by  the  Evangelist  as  a  rich  man  (outos  ■fiv 
irKovcTLos)-  Josephus  states  {Ant.xw  4,  §  2)  that 
the  palm-groves  of  Jericho  and  its  gardens  of  balsam 
were  given  as  a  source  of  revenue  by  Antony  to 
Cleopatra,  and,  on  account  of  their  value,  were  af- 
terwards redeemed  by  Herod  the  (jreat  for  his  own 
benefit.  The  sycamore-tree  is  no  longer  found  in 
that  neighborhood  (Itobinson,  BM.  lies.  i.  551)); 
but  no  one  should  be  surprised  at  this,  since  "  eve>i 
the  solitary  relic  of  the  palm-forest,  seen  as  late  as 
1838  "  —  whicli  existed  near  Jericho,  has  now  dis- 
appeared (Stanley,  .'>.  4'  ^-  P-  307)."  The  eager- 
ness of  Zacchseus  to  behold  Jesus  indicates  a  deeper 
interest  than  that  of  mere  curiosity.  He  must 
have  had  some  knowledge,  by  report  at  least,  of  the 
teachings  of  Christ,  as  well  as  of  his  wonder-work- 
ing power,  and  could  thus  have  been  awakened  to 
some  just  religious  feeling,  whicli  would  make  him 
the  more  anxious  to  see  the  announcer  of  the  eooil 
tiding.?,  so  imjwrtant  to  men  as  sinners.  Ilie 
readiness  of  Christ  to  take  up  his  abode  with  hiui, 
and  his  declaration  that  ".salvation  "  had  that  dny 
come  to  the  house  of  his  entertainer,  prove  sutfi- 
ciently  that  "He  who  knows  what  is  in  man" 
perceived  in  him  a  religious  susceptibility  which 
fitted  him  to  be  the  recipient  of  spiritual  blessings. 
John  the  Baptist  must  often  lia\e  preached  near 
Jericho,  and  Zaechreus  may  on  some  occasion  have 
been  a  hearer.  Reflection  upon  his  cojiduct  on  tlie 
part  of  Zacchwus  himself  appears  to  have  revealed 
to  him  deficiencies  which  disturbed  his  conscit-nce, 
and  he  was  ready,  on  being  instructed  more  fully 
in  reu'ard  to  the  way  of  life,  to  engage  to  "  restore 
fourfold  "  for  the  illegal  exactions  of  which  he 
would  not  venture  to  deny  (ef  riv6s  ri  i<jvKO(pai/- 
Tijcra)  that  he  might  have  been  guilty.  At  all 
events  he  had  not  lived  in  such  a  manner  as  to  over- 
come the  prejudice  which  the  Jews  entertained 
airainst  individuals  of  his  class,  and  their  censure 
fell  on  him  as  well  as  on  Christ  when  they  declared 
that  the  latter  had  not  scorned  to  avail  Himself  of 
the  hospitality  of  "  a  man  that  was  a  sinner."  The 
Saviour  spent  the  night  probably  (fx,i7vat,  ver.  5, 
and  /coTaACtrai,  ver.  7,''  are  the  terms  used)  in  the 
house  of  Z.acciifBus,  and  the  next  day  pursued  his 
journey  to  Jerusalem.  He  was  in  the  caravan  from 
Galilee,  which  was  going  up  thither  to  keep  the 
Passover.  The  entire  scene  is  well  illustrated  by 
Oosterzee  (Lange's  Bibelwevk,  iii.  285). 

We  read  in  the  Rabbinic  writings  also  of  a  Zac- 
chfeus who  lived  at  Jericho  at  this  same  period, 
well  known  on  his  own  account,  and  especially  as 
the  father  of  the  celebrated  Rabbi  Joclianan  ben 
Zachai  (see  Sepp's  Ltben  Jesii,  iii.  ItJG).  This  per- 
son may  have  been  related  to  the  Zacchajus  named 
in  the  sacred  narrative.  The  faniilj- of  the  Zacchai 
wuji    an    ancient   one,  as    well  as  very  numerous. 

«  *  Both  tbese  statements  now  require  correction. 
TUe  sycamore  and  the  pahn-tree  cannot  be  .»aid  to 
flouri.-;h  there,  but  it  is  found  that  they  ai-e  not  yet 
e.xtiuct.  See  Palm-Tree,  vol.  iii.  p.  2326,  note  b,  ard 
Bi  ;.uiORE,  vol.  :v.  p.  3131,  note  b.  H 


ZACHARIAH 

They  are  mentioned  in  the  books  of  Ezra  (ii.  9 
and  Nehemiah  (vii.  14)  as  among  those  who  r» 
turned  from  the  Babylonian  Captivity  under  Zerub- 
balel,  when  their  number  amounted  to  seven  huii- 
dred  and  sixty.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the 
name  is  given  as  Zaccai  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament.  (See  Bishop  Hall's 
discourse  on  Zacchajus  in  his  CuntemplaUons  on  W.e 
^V.  T.  bk.  iv.  3,  and  Archbishop  Trench,  on  Zac- 
chaeus,  in  his  Studies  in  the  Gospels.)     H.  B.  H. 

ZACCHE'US  [properly  Zacch.is'us]  (Zaw- 
Xciios'  Ziichmus).  An  officer  of  Judas  JNIacca- 
ba-us  (2  Mace.  x.  19).  Grotius,  from  a  mistaken 
reference  to  1  Mace.  v.  56,  wishes  to  read  koI  rhv 
rod  Zaxapioy.  B.  !•'.  W. 

ZAC'CHUJl  {~1^3T  [mhu/ful]:  ZaKxovp; 
[Vat.  omits:]  Zaclmr).  A  Simeonite,  of  tlie 
family  of  Mishma  (1  Chr.  iv.  26).  His  descend- 
ants, through  his  soti  Shimei,  became  one  of  the 
most  numerous  branches  of  the  tribe. 

ZAC'CUR  ("1^21  [mindful]:  Zaxuip;  [Vat. 
ZaKxovp:]  Alex.  Zaxpov'-  Zccliuj-).  1.  A  Reu- 
benite,  father  of  Shammua,  the  spy  selected  from 
his  tribe  (Num.  xiii.  4). 

2.  {:S,aKxovp;  [Vat.]  Alex.  laKxovp'  Zachur.) 
A  Merarite  Levite,  son  of  Jaaziah  (1  Chr.  xxiv. 
27). 

3.  {%aKxovp,  ZaKxovp'i  [Vat.  2a/fxouy,  Za^- 
Xov6(]  Alex.  ZaKxovp-  Znclmv,  [Ztfclnir.])  Son 
of  .\saph,.  the  singer,  and  chief  of  the  third  division 
of  th%  Temple  choir  as  arranged  by  David  (1  Chr. 
XXV.  2.  10;  Neh.  xii.  35). 

4.  {ZaKXOvp'i  [Vat.  Za/3aoi)p;]  FA.  Saxxoi'P" 
Zacliur.)  The  son  of  Imri,  who  assisted  Nehemiah 
in  rebuilding  the  city  wall  (Neh.  iii.  2). 

5-  {ZaKx<ip.)  A  Levite,  or  ftiniily  of  Levites, 
who  signed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x. 
12). 

6.  (ZaKxovp.)  A  Levite,  whose  son  or  descend- 
ant Hanan  was  one  of  the  treasurers  over  the 
treasuries  appointed  by  Nehemiah  (Neh.  xiii.  13). 

ZACHARI'AH,  or  properly  Zkchaiu'ah 
(n'^'n^t,  "  remeu]bered  by  Jehovah:"  Zaxapias: 
[Vat.'  A^apias  in  2  K.  xiv.  29;  Alex.  A.(apias  in  2 
K.  xiv.  29,  XV.  8,  11:]  Zndiarhis),  was  son  of 
Jeroboam  II..  14th  king  of  Israel,  and  the  last  of 
the  house  of  Jehu.  There  is  a  difficulty  about 
the  date  of  his  reign.  We  are  told  that  Amaziah 
ascended  the  throne  of  Judah  in  the  second  year  of 
Joash  king  of  Israel,  and  reigned  29  years  (2  K. 
xiv.  1.  2).  He  was  succeeded  by  Uzziah  or  Aza- 
riah,  in  the  27th  year  of  Jeroboam  II.,  the  successor 
of  Joash  (2  K.  xv.  1 ),  and  Uzziah  reigned  52  years. 
On  the  otlier  hand,  Joash  king  of  Israel  reigned  16 
years  (2  K.  xiii.  10),  \vas  succeeded  by  Jeroboam, 
wlio  reigned  41  (2  K.  xiv.  23),  and  he  liy  Zach 
ariah,  who  came  to  the  throne  in  the  38th  year 
of  Uzziah  king  of  Judah  (2  K.  xv.  8).  Thus  wi 
have  (1)  from  the  accession  of  Amaziah  to  the  38th 
of  Uzziali,  29-1-38  =  07  ye.ars:  but  (2)  from  tiie 
second  year  of  Joash  to  the  accession  of  Zachariah 
(or  at  least  to  the  death  of  Jeroboam)  we  have  lo-f- 
41  ^56  years.  Further,  the  accession  of  Uzziah, 
placed  in  the  27th  year  of  Jeroboam,  according  to 


6  *  Luke  uses  KaraKvaM  elsewhere  only  in  ix.  12 
and  evidently  of  a  loil^nug  for  the  night.  The  term  ol 
itself  may  denote  a  shorter  "  breaking  up,"  or  lialt 
but  "  for  the  night  '  is  more  probable  here.  11. 


ZACriARIAS 

Ihe  above  reckoning  occurred  in  tlie  15th.  And 
this  latter  synchronism  is  contirnied,  and  that  with 
the  27th  year  of  Jeroljoam  contradicted,  l)y  2  Iv. 
xiv.  17,  which  tells  us  that  Amaziah  kini^  of  Judah 
survived  .loash  king  of  Israel  by  15  years.  Most 
'.bronologers  assume  an  interregnum  of  11  years 
between  Jeroboam's  death  and  Zachariah's  acces- 
sion, during  which  the  kingdom  was  suffering  from 
the  anarchy  of  a  disputed  succession,  but  this  seems 
unlikely  after  the  reign  of  a  resolute  ruler  like  Jero- 
boam, and  does  not  solve  the  difference  between  2 
K.  xiv.  17  and  xv.  1.  We  are  reduced  to  suppose 
that  our  present  MSS.  have  here  incorrect  numhers, 
to  substitute  15  for  27  in  2  K.  xv.  1,  and  to  lielieve 
that  Jeroboam  H.  reigned  52  or  53  years.  Jose- 
phus  (ix.  10,  §  3)  places  Uzziah's  accession  in  the 
14th  year  of  Jeroijoam,  a  variation  of  a  year  in 
these  synchronisms  being  unavoidable,  since  the 
Hebrew  annalists  in  giving  their  dates  do  not  reckon 
fractions  of  years,  [[skael,  Kingdom  of,  vol.  ii. 
1178  «.]  But  whether  we  assuu:e  an  interregnum,  or 
an  error  iu  the  MSS.,  we  must  place  Zachariah's 
accession  b.  c.  771-772.  His  reign  lasted  only  six 
months.  He  was  killed  in  a  conspiracy,  of  which 
Shallum  was  the  head,  and  by  which  the  prophecy 
in  2  K.  X.  .30  was  accomplished.  We  are  told  tliat 
during  his  brief  term  of  power  he  did  evil,  and 
kept  up  the  calf-worship  inherited  from  the  first 
Jeroboam,  which  his  father  had  maintained  in 
regal  splendor  at  Bethel  (Am.  vii.  13).  [Shal- 
lum.] G.  E.  L.  C. 

2.  (Alex.  ZaxX'^'"*-^  "^'^^  father  of  Ajii,  or 
Abijah,  llezekiah's  mother  (2  K.  xviii.  2).  In  2 
Chr.  xxix.  1  he  is  called  Zechaiiiah. 

ZACHARI'AS  ([remembered  by  Jelwrah']: 
7,axo-pi.as '■  Vulg.  om.).  1.  Zechariah  the  priest 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (1  Esdr.  i.  8). 

2.  In  L  Esdr.  i.  15  Zacharias  occupies  the  place 
of  Heman  in  2  Chr.  xxxv.  15. 

3.  (Zapaius  ;  Alex.  Zapsas  ;  [Aid.  Zaxa- 
piasO  ^''twf*')  =  Seuaiah  6,  and  Az.\kiah 
20  (1  Esdr.  V.  8;  comp.  E/;r.  ii.  2;  Neh.  vii.  7).  It 
is  not  clear  from  whence  this  rendering  of  the  name 
is  derived.  Our  transLitors  follow  the  Geneva 
Version  [and  the  Bishops'  Bible.  This  form  of 
the  name  comes  from  the  .Vldine  edition.  —  A.]. 

4:.  (Zaxapiay:  Zncluirhis.)  The  prophet  Zech- 
AKL\H  (1  Esdr.  vi.  1,  vii.  3). 

5.  Zechariah  of  the  sons  of  Pharosh  (1  Esdr. 
viii.  30;   comp.  Ezr.  viii.  3). 

6.  Zechakiah  of  the  sons  of  Bebai  (1  Esdr. 
viii.  37;  [comp.]  Ezr.  viii.  11). 

7.  Zechariah,  one  of  "  the  principal  men  and 
learned,"  with  whom  I'^zra  consulted  (1  Esdr.  viii. 
44;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  10). 

8.  Zechariah  of  the  sons  of  Elam  (1  Esdr.  ix. 
27;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  20). 

9.  Father  of  Joseph,  a  leader  in  the  first  cam- 
paign of  the  Maccaboean  war  (1  Mace.  v.  18,  50- 
62). 

10.  Father  of  .lohn  the  Baptist  (Luke  i.  5,  etc  ). 
[John  the  Baitist.] 

11.  Son  of  Barachias,  who,  our  Lord  says,  was 
Blain  by  the  Jews  between  the  altar  and  the  Temple 
(Matt,  xxiii.  35-  Luke  xi.  51).  There  has  been 
much  dispute  who  tliis  Zacliarias  was.  Froni  the 
time  of  Origen,  who  relates  that'  the  father  of 
'ohn  the  Baptist  was  killed  in  the  Temjje,  many 
i)f  the  Greek  F.athers  have  maintained  tliat  this  is 
<ie  person  to  whom  our  Lord  alludes;  but  there 
»n  l-e  little  or  no  doubt  that  the  allusion  is  to 


ZADOK  3587 

Zacharias,  the  son  of  Jehoiada  (2  Chr.  xiiv.  20 
21).  As  the  Ijook  of  Chronicles  —  in  which  thi 
murder  of  Zach.arias,  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  ocour.s 
—  closes  the  Hebrew  canon,  this  assassination  was 
the  last  of  the  murders  of  righteous  men  recorded 
in  the  Bible,  just  'as  that  of  Abel  was  the  first. 
(Comp.  Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  353.)  The  name 
of  the  father  of  Zacharias  is  not  mentioned  by  St. 
Luke;  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  name  of  Bara- 
chias crept  into  the  text  of  St.  JNIatthew  from  a 
marginal  gloss,  a  confusion  having  been  made 
between  Zacharias,  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  and  Zach- 
arias, the  son  of  Barachias  (Berechiah),  the 
prophet.     [Comp.  Zechariah,  0.] 

ZACH'ARY  {Zacharias).  The  prophet  Zech- 
ariah (2  Esdr.  i.  40). 

ZA'CHER  (''PT.?  in  pause  "12T  [^memoriall : 
ZaKXovp;  [Vat.  Zaxoup:]  Zncher).  One  of  the 
sons  of  Jehiel,  the  father  or  founder  of  Gibeon,  by 
his  wife  Maachah  (1  Chr.  viii.  31).  In  1  Chr.  is. 
37  he  is  called  Zechakiah. 

ZA'DOK  (p'"!!^  [just,  upriyhl]  :  Zahii^; 
[Vat.  Alex,  also  la^^ovK,  SaSSajK,  and  other 
forms:]  Sidoc:  "righteous").  1.  Son  of  Ahitub, 
and  one  of  the  two  chief  priests  in  the  time  of  Da- 
vid, Abiathar  being  the  other.  [.\biathau.] 
Zadok  was  of  the  house  of  Eleazar,  the  sou  of  Aaron 
(1  Chr.  xxiv.  3),  and  eleventh  in  descent  from 
.\.aron.  The  first  mention  of  him  is  in  1  Chr.  xii. 
28,  where  we  are  told  that  he  joined  David  at  He- 
bron after  Saul's  death  with  22  captains  of  his 
father's  house,  and,  apparently,  witli  'JOO  men 
(4000-3700,  vv.  20,  27).  Up  to  this  time,  it  may 
be  concluded,  he  had  adhered  to  the  house  of  Saul. 
15ut  henceforth  his  fidelity  to  David  was  inviolable. 
When  .Vbsalom  revolted,  and  David  fled  from 
Jerusalem,  Zadok  and  all  the  Levites  bearing  the 
.A.rk  accompanied  him,  and  it  was  oidy  at  the 
king's  express  command  that  they  returned  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  became  the  medium  of  communication 
between  the  king  and  Hushai  the  .\rchite  (2  Sum. 
XV.,  xvii.).  When  Absalom  was  dead,  Zadok  and 
Abiathar  were  the  persons  who  persuaded  tlie  elders 
of  Judah  to  invite  David  to  return  (2  Sam.  xix 
11).  When  Adonijah,  in  David's  old  age,  .set  up 
for  king,  and  had  persuaded  Joab,  and  Aliiathar 
the  priest,  to  join  his  party,  Zadok  was  unmoved, 
and  was  employed  by  David  to  anoint  Solomon  tc 
1)6  king  in  his  room  (1  K.  i.).  And  for  this  fidel- 
ity he  was  rewarded  by  Solomon,  who  "  thrust  out 
Abiathar  from  being  priest  unto  the  Lord,"  and 
"  put  in  Zadok  the  priest  "  in  his  room  (1  K.  ii 
27,  35).  From  this  time,  however,  we  hear  little 
of  him.  It  is  said  in  general  terms  in  the  emnnera- 
tion  of  Solomon's  officers  of  state  that  Zadok  ivas 
the  priest  (1  K.  iv.  4;  1  Chr.  xxix.  22),  but  no 
single  act  of  his  is  mentioned.  Even  in  the  detailed 
account  of  the  building  and  dedication  of  Solomon's 
Temple,  his  name  does  not  occur,  so  that  though 
.losephus  says  that  "  Sadoc  the  high-priest  was  the 
first  high-priest  of  the  Temple  which  Solomon 
liuilf  {Aa(.  X.  8,  §  0),  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
he  lived  till  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple, 
and  it  seems  far  more  likely  that  .\zariah,  his  son 
or  grandson,  was  high-priest  at  the  dedication 
(comp.  1  K.  iv.  2,  and  1  Chr.  vi.  10,  and  see 
AzAKiAH  2).  Had  Zadok  been  pnisent,  it  ia 
seai'cely  possible  that  he  should  not  have  been 
named  in  so  detailed  an  account  as  that  in  1  K. 
viii.  [HiGH-PUiEST,  ii.  1071.] 


3588 


ZADOK 


Several  interesting  questions  arise  in  connection 
with  Zadok  in  regard  to  the  high-priesthood.  And 
first,  as  to  the  causes  which  led  to  the  descendants 
of  Ithaniar  occupjing  the  high-priesthood  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  house  of  Eleazar.  There  is,  how- 
ever, nothing  to  guide  us  to  any  certain  conclusion. 
We  only  know  that  Fhinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar 
was  high-priest  after  his  fatlier,  and  that  at  a  suh- 
Bequent  period  Eli  of  the  house  of  Ithaniar  was 
high-priest,  and  that  the  office  continued  in  his 
house  till  the  time  of  Zadok,  who  was  first  Abia- 
thar's  colleague,  and  afterwards  superseded  him. 
Zadok's  descendants  continued  to  be  hereditary 
high-priests  till  the  time  of  Antiochus  Eupator, 
and  perhaps  till  the  extinction  of  the  office.  [Uigh- 
l'iiiK3T,  ii.  1073.]  But  possibly  some  light  may 
be  thrown  oil  this  question  iiy  the  next  which 
arises,  namely,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  double 
priesthood  of  Zadok  and  Al)iathar  (2  Sam.  xv.  2IJ ; 

1  Chr.  xxiv.  0,  31).  In  later  times  we  usually  find 
two  priests,  the  high-priest,  and  the  second  priest 
(2  K.  XXV.  18),  and  there  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  any  great  difference  in  tlieir  dignity.  So  too 
Luke  iii.  2.  The  expression  "  the  chief  priest  of 
the  house  of  Zadok  "'  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  10),  seems  also 
to  indicate  that  there  were  two  priests  of  nearly 
equal  dignity.  Zadok  and  Abiathar  were  of  nearly 
equal  dignity  (2  Sam.  xv.  3.5,  36,  xix.  11).  Hophni 
and  Phinehas  again,  and  Eleazar  and  Ithaniar  are 
coupled  together,  and  seem  to  have  been  holders 
of  the  office  as  it  were  in  commission.  The  duties 
of  the  office  too  were  in  the  case  of  Zadok  and 
Abiathar  divided.  Zadok  ministered  before  the 
Talieniacle  at  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  xvi.  39),  Abijithar 
liad  the  care  of  the  Ark  at  Jeru.salem.  Not,  how- 
ever, exclusively,  as  appears  from   1  Chr.  xv.  II: 

2  Sam.  XV.  21,  25,  29.  Hence,  perhaps,  it  may  be 
concluded  that  from  the  first  there  was  a  tendency 
to  consider  tlie  office  of  the  priesthood  as  somewhat 
of  the  nature  of  a  corporate  office,  alt  hough  some 
of  its  functions  were  necessarily  confined  to  the 
chief  member  of  that"  corporation ;  and  if  so,  it  is 
very  easy  to  perceive  how  superior  abilities  on  the 
one  hand,  and  infancy  or  incapacity  on  the  other, 
might  operate  to  raise  or  depress  the  members  of 
this  coriX)ration  respectively,  .lust  as  in  the  Saxon 
royal  families,  considerable  latitude  was  allowed  as 
to  the  particular  member  who  succeeded  to  the 
throne.  When  hereditary  monarchy  was  estab- 
lished in  Judtea,  then  the  succession  to  the  high- 
priesthood  may  have  become  more  regular.  Another 
circumstance  which  strengthens  the  conclusion  that 
the  origin  of  the  double  priesthood  was  anterior  to 
Zadok,  is  that  in  1  Chr.  ix.  11 :  Neh.  xi.  11, 
Ahitub  the  fatlier  of  Zadok  seems  to  be  described 
as  "  ruler  of  the  House  of  God,"  an  office  usually 
held  by  the  chief  priest,  though  sometimes  by  the 
second  priest.  [Higii-piuest,  ii.  1069  a.]  And 
jf  this  is  so.  it  implies  that  the  house  of  Eleazar 
had  maintained  its  footing  side  by  side  with  the 
house  of  Ithaniar,  although  for  a  time  the  chief 
dignity  had  fallen  to  the  lot  of  Eli.  What  was 
Zadok's  e.xact  position  when  he  first  Joined  David, 
is  imiwssible  to  determine.  He  there  appears 
inferior  to  Jehoiada  "  the  leader  of  the  Aaron- 
*es." 

2.  [taSdiK'  Sadoc]  According  to  the  gene- 
alogy of  the  high-priests  in  1  Chr.  vi.  12,  there 
was  a  second  Zidok,  son  of  a  second  Ahitub,  sou 
of  Amariah:  about  the  time  of  King  Ahaziah. 
Hut  it  is  highly  iniproliable  that  the  same  sequence, 
iniuriali,  Ahitub,  Zadok,  should  occur  twice  over; 


ZADOK 

and  no  trace  whatever  remains  in  history  of  this 
second  Ahitub,  and  second  Zadok.  It  is  probable 
therefore,  that  no  such  person  as  this  second  Zadok 
ever  existed ;  but  that  the  insertion  of  the  two 
names  is  a  copyist's  error.  Moreover,  these  two 
names  are  quite  insufficient  to  fill  up  the  gap 
between  Amariah  in  Jehoshaphafs  reign,  and 
Shallum  in  Anion's,  an  interval  of  much  above  200 
years. 

3.  [Vat.  in  2  Chr.  xxvii.  1,  SaScop.]  Father 
of  Jerushah,  the  wife  of  King  Uzziah,  and  mother 
of  King  .lothani  [8  K.  xv.  33;  2  Chr.  sxvii.  1]. 
He  was  proliably  of  a  priestly  family. 

4-  ['S.aSwK,  2,a8ovK;  in  Neh.  x.  21,  Vat.  FA. 
2a55ou/c:  iii.  4,  FA.  ^aSovK,  Alex,  omits.]  Son 
of  Baana,  who  repaired  a  portion  of  the  wall  in  the 
time  of  Neheniiah  (Neh.  iii.  4).  He  is  probably 
the  same  as  is  in  the  list  of  those  that  sealed  the 
covenant  in  Neh.  x.  21,  as  in  both  cases  his  name 
follows  that  of  Meshezabeel.  But  if  so,  we  know 
that  he  was  not  a  priest,  as  his  name  would  at  first 
sight  lead  one  to  suppose,  but  one  of  "  the  chief  of 
the  people,"  or  laity.  With  this  agrees  his  patro- 
nvniic  Baana,  which  indicates  that  he  was  of  the 
trilje  of  .ludah;  for  Baanah,  one  of  David's  mighty 
men,  was  a  Netophathife  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  29),  /.  e. 
of  Netophah,  a  city  of  -ludah.  The  men  of  Tekoah, 
another  city  of  .ludah,  worked  next  to  Zadok. 
MeshuUam  of  the  house  of  Meshezabeel,  who  pre- 
ceded him  in  both  lists  (Xeh.  iii.  4,  and  x.  20,  21), 
was  also  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Neh.  xi.  24).  In- 
termarriages of  the  priestly  house  with  the  tribe 
of  Judah  were  more  frequent  than  with  any  other 
tribe.  Hence  probably  the  name  of  Sadoc  (Matt, 
i.  14). 

5.  [2a5Sou/c;  FA.  2a5oux.]  Son  of  Immer, 
a  priest  who  repaired  a  portion  of  the  wall  over 
against  his  own  liouse  (Neh.  iii.  29).  He  belonged 
to  the  16th  course  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  14),  which  was 
one  of  those  which  returned  from  Babylon  (Ezr. 
ii.  37). 

6.  [^aSevK,  2,aSSouK;  Alex,  in  Ezr.  SaaSou/c; 
F.\.  in  Neh.  2aSovK-  Sacloc/i,  Sadoc.']  In  Neh. 
xi.  11,  and  1  Chr.  ix.  11,  mention  is  made  in  a 
genealogy  of  Zadok,  the  son  of  Meraioth,  the  son 
of  Ahitub.  But  as  such  a  sequence  occurs  nowhere 
else,  Meraioth  being  always  the  grandfather  of 
Ahitub  (or  great-grandfiither,  as  in  Ezr.  vii.  2,  3),<» 
it  can  hardly  be  doubtful  that  Meraioth  is  inserted 
by  the  error  of  a  copyist,  and  that  Zadok  the  sou 
of  Ahitub  is  meant. 

It  is  worth  noticing  that  the  N.  T.  name  Justus 
(Acts  i.  23,  xviii.  7;  Col.  iv.  11)  is  the  Hteral 
translation  of  Zadok.  Zedekiah,  Jehozadak,  may 
be  compared. 

The  name  appears  occasionally  in  the  post-bibli- 
cal history.  The  associate  of  Judah  the  Gaulonite, 
the  well-known  leader  of  the  agitation  against  the 
census  of  Quirinus,  was  a  certain  Pharisee  named 
Zadok  (.loseph.  Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  1),  and  the  sect  of 
the  Sadducees  is  reputed  to  have  derived  both  its 


a  Compare  the  followiug  pedigrees  :  — 

1  Clir.  vi.  6-14.  lb.  52,  53.    Ezr.  vii.  1-3.   Neh.  xi.  11,  ai.d  1 
Chr.  ix.  11. 
Meraiotli.     Meraioth.     Meraioth,      Ahitub. 

Azariah. 
Amariali.  Amariah.  Amariah, 
Aliitub,        Aliitub,  Aliitub. 

Zadiik.  Zadok.  Zadok. 

Shallum,  Shallum. 

Hilkiah.  Hilkiah. 

Azariah.  Azariah. 

Seraiah.  Seraiah- 


Meraioth. 

Zadok. 

Meshullam. 

Hilkiah. 


ZAHAM 

name  and  origin  from  a  person  of  the  same  name, 
a,  disciple  of  Antigonus  of  Socho.  (See  the  cita- 
tions of  I.ightloot,  llebr.  ntid  Tnlm.  F.xerc.  on 
Matt.  iii.  8.)  The  personality  of  the  last  men- 
tioned Sadbk  has  been  strongly  impugned  in  the 
article  Sadducees  (p.  2778  f. );  but  see,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  remark  of  M.  Kenan  (  Vie  de  Jesus, 
p.  216).  A.  C.  H. 

*  7.  (2aSc^/c;  Vat.  FA.  2a55ov«:  Sadoc.)  A 
Bcribe  in  the  time  of  Neheniiaii,  one  of  the  "  treas- 
urers "  (Neh.  xiii.  13).  A. 

ZA'HAM  (nriT  [loaihln;/] :  Zad/x  ;  [Vat. 
PooAAa/x;]  Alex.  ZaKa/x-  Ziioiii).  Son  of  Keho- 
boam  by  Abihail,  the  daughter  of  Kliab  (2  (Jhr.  xi. 
19).  As  Eliab  was  the  eldest  of  David's  brothers, 
it  is  more  probable  that  Abihail  was  his  grand- 
daughter. 

ZA'IR  ("T^V?  [simdl,  few]:  [Rom.  2ia5p: 
Vat.]  'ZiKiip;  Alex,  omits:  Seira).  A  place  named 
in  2  K.  viii.  21  only,  in  the  account  of  Joram's 
expedition  against  the  Edoniites.  He  went  over  to 
Zair  with  all  his  chariots;  tliere  he  and  his  force 
appear  to  have  been  surrounded,"  and  only  to  have 
escaped  by  cutting  their  way  through  in  the  night. 
The  parallel  account  in  Chronicles  (2  Chr.  xxi.  9) 
agrees  witli  this,  except  that  the  words  "to  Zair  " 
are  omitted,  and  the  words  "  with  his  princes  " 
inserted.  This  is  followed  by  Josephus  {Ant.  ix.  5, 
§  1).  The  omitted  and  inserted  words  have  a  cer- 
tain similarity  both  in  sound  and  in  their  compo- 
nent letters,   n~l"^3?!5  and  V'^JyCl?  ;    and   on 

T       .     T  T     T  •      ' 

this  it  has  been  conjectured  that  the  latter  were 
substituted  for  the  former,  either  by  the  error  of  a 
copyist,  or  intentionally,  because  the  name  Zair  was 
not  elsewhere  known  (see  Keil,  Coiiiin.  on  2  K. 
viii.  21).  Others  again,  as  Movers  ( Clironi.k,  p.  2 18 ) 
and  Ewald  {Gescli.  iii.  521),  suggest  that  Zair  is 

identical  with  Zoar  ("117^  or  "1171").  Certainly 
in  the  Middle  Ages  the  road  by  which  an  army 
])assed  from  Judsea  to  the  country  formerly  occu- 
pied by  Kdom  lay  through  the  place  which  was  then 
believed  to  be  Zoar,  below  Kerak,  at  the  S.  E. 
quarter  of  the  Dead  Sea  (Fulcher,  Ges/u  Dei,  p. 
40.5),  and  so  far  this  is  in  favor  of  the  identification; 
but  there  is  no  other  support  to  it  in  the  MS.  read- 
ings either  of  the  original  or  the  Versions. 

The  Zoar  of  Genesis  (as  will  be  seen  under  that 
head)  was  probably  near  the  N.E.  end  of  the  lake, 
and  the  chief  interest  that  exists  in  the  identifica- 
tion of  Zair  and  Zoar,  resides  in  the  fact  that  if 
It  could  be  established  it  would  show  that  by  the 
time  2  K.  viii.  21  was  written,  Zoar  had  been  shifted 
from  its  original  place,  and  had  come  to  be  located 
where  it  was  in  the  days  of  Joseph,  Jerome,  and 
the  Crusades.  Possibly  the  previous  existence  there 
of  a  place  called  Zair,  assisted  the  transfer.'' 

A  third  conjecture  grounded  on  the  readings  of 
the  Vulgate  {Stira)  and  the  Arabic  version  {HtCir, 

wA£.Lww)  is,  that  Zair  is  an  alteration  for  Seir 
O'^'SW),  the  country  itself  of  the  Edomites  (The- 


n  This   is  not,  however,   the  interprel»tion  of  the 

Jewish  commentators,  who  take  the  word  li^ZlDn 
to  refer  to  the   neighboring   parts  of  the  country  of 
Cdoui.     See  Rashi  on  2  Chr.  xxi.  9. 
6  *  Under  the  hpadi  Sodom  and  Zoj^r  (Amer.  ed.), 


ZALMUNXA 


85811 


nius,  Kurzg.  Ex.  Ilandb.).  The  objection  to  thi» 
is,  that  the  name  of  Seir  appears  not  to  have  been 
known  to  the  author  of  the  Kook  of  Kings.'^ 

G. 

ZA'LAPH  (^^3J  [bncise,  ivound]  :  SsAfip; 
[Vat.  26A€;  FA.]  EAe.^:  Seleph).  Father  of 
Hanun,  who  assisted  in  rebuilding  the  city  wall 
(Neh.  iii.  .30). 

ZAL'MON  {'i''\6^'2  [shady]  :  'EAAcij/;  Alex. 
'XeK\jo/j.;  [Comp.  'XeXfxwi':]  Stlmon).  An  Ahohite, 
one  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  28).  In  1 
Chr.  xi.  29  he  is  called  Ilai,  which  Kennicott 
[Diss   p.  187)  decides  to  be  the  true  reading. 

ZAL'MON,  MOUNT,  ("|'l?:2b*2-nn  [shidy 
mount] :  [Jjpos  2f\/j,coi'  ;  Vat.  A'lex.]  opo?  Ep- 
IxQjv:  mons  Selmon).  A  wooded  eminence  in  tha 
inmjediate  neighborhood  of  Shechem,  from  which 
Abimelech  and  his  people  cut  down  the  boughs  with 
which  he  suffocated  and  burnt  the  Shechemites  who 
had  taken  refuge  in  the  citadel  (Judg.  ix.  48).  It 
is  evident  from  the  narrative  that  it  was  close  to 
the  city.  ]5ut  beyond  this  there  does  not  appear  to 
be  the  smallest  indication  either  in  or  out  of  the 
Bible  of  its  position.  The  Kabbis  mention  a  place 
of  the  same  name,  but  evidently  far  from  the  neces- 
sary position  (Schwarz,  p.  137 ).  The  name  SKkiiniJ- 
jfh  is  attached  to  the  S.  E.  portion  of  Mount  Ebal 
(see  the  map  of  Dr.  Rosen,  Zeitsch.  der  D.  M.  G. 
xiv  631);  but  without  further  evidence,  it  is  hazard- 
ous even  to  conjecture  that  there  is  any  connection 
between  this  name  and  Tsalmou. 

The  reading  of  the  LXX.  is  remarkable  both  in 
itself,  and  in  the  fact  that  the  two  great  MSS.  agree 
in  a  reading  so  nuich  removed  from  the  Hebrew; 
i)ut  it  is  impossilJe  to  suppose  that  Hermon  (at  any 
rate  the  well-known  mountain'  of  that  name),  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  narrative  of  Abimelech. 

The  possibility  of  a  connection  between  this 
mount  and  the  place  of  the  same  name  in  Ps.  Ixviii. 
14  (A.  V.  Salmon),  is  discussed  under  tlie  head  of 
Salmon,  p.  2791  f. 

The  name  of  Dalmanutha  has  been  supposed  to 
be  a  corruption  of  that  of  Tsalmon  (Utho,  Lex. 
/?a46.  "Dalmanutha").  G. 

ZALMO'NAH  {'r}^^'^''4  [s!uuhj]:Ze\uoc.^5- 
S(diiwna).  The  name  of  a  desert-station  of  the  Is- 
raelites, which  they  reached  between  leaving  Mount 
Hor  and  camping  at  Punon,  although  they  nuist 
have  turned  the  southern  point  of  Edomitish  terri- 
tory by  the  way  (Num.  xxxiii.  41).  It  lies  on  the 
east  side  of  Edom;  but  whether  or  not  identical 
with  Mann,  a  few  miles  E.  of  Petra,  as  Kaumer 
thinks,  is  doubtful.  JNIore  probably  Zalmonah 
may  be  in  the  Wady  Ithm,  which  rims  into  the 
Arabah  close  to  where  Elath  anciently  stood. 

H.  H. 

ZALMUN'NA  (rspb^  [perb.  shelter  at- 
niedtoone]:  [Vat]  ^eAfjtava,  [exc.  once,  2aA-, 
Rom.]  Alex.  SaA^acct,  and  so  also  Josephus:  Sul- 
iiiana).  One  of  the  two  "  kings  "  of  Midian  wliose 
capture  and  death  by  the  hands  of  Gideoi^imself 


the  reader  will  find  reasons  for  the  belief  that  the  lat- 
ter haa  a  at  been  "  shifted  from  its  original  place." 

S.  W. 
c  The  variations  of  the  MSS.  of  the  L.XX.  (Uoluie* 
and  Parsons)  are  very  singular  —  ex  Sitoj-,  eic  2i)<u»'   tn 
fip.      But  they  do  not  point  to  any  dirterence  ia  th« 
Hebrew  text  from  that  now  existiuii. 


S590 


ZAMBIS 


formed  the  last  act  of  his  great  conflict  with  Mifl 
ian  (Judg.  viii.  5-21;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  11).  Ko  satis- 
factory explanation  cf  the  name  of  Zalmunna 
has  been  given.  That  of  Gesenius  and  I'iirst 
('•shelter  is  denied  him"]"  can  hardly  be  enter- 
tained. 

The  distinction  between  the  "  khigs  "  ("^57^) 

and  the  "  princes  "  ('^"jCt'')  of  the  Midianites  on 
this  occasion  is  carefully  maintained  throuudioiit  the 
narrative''  (viii.  5,  12,  2G).  "Kings"  of  Midian 
are  also  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxi.  8.  But  when  the 
same  transaction  is  referred  to  in  Josh.  xiii.  21, 

they  are  designated  by  the  title  Xesiii  ("'S"'tt73), 
A.  V.  "  princes."  P21sewhere  (Num.  xxii.  4,  7)  the 
term  zekeniin  is  used,  answering  in  signification,  it 
not  in  etymology,  to  the  Arabic  shtikh.  It  is  dif- 
ficult, perhaps  impossible,  to  tell  how  far  these  dis- 
tinctions are  accurate,  and  how  far  they  represent 
the  imperfect  acquaintance  which  the  Hebrews  nnist 
have  had  with  the  organization  of  a  people  with  i 
whom,  except  during  the  orgies  of  Shittim,  they 
appear  to  ha\'e  been  always  more  or  less  at  strife 
and  warfare  (1  Chr.  v.  10,  19-22). 

The  vast  horde  which  Gideon  repelled  must  have 
included  many  tribes  under  the  general  designation 
of  "  Midianites,  Amalekites,  children  of  the  East;  " 
and  nothing  would  be  easier  or  more  natural  than 
for  the  Hebrew  scribes  who  chronicled  the  events  to 
confuse  one  tribe  with  another  in  so  minute  a  point 
as  the  title  of  a  chief. 

In  the  great  Bedouin  tribes  of  the  present  day, 
who  occupy  the  place  of  Midian  and  Amalek,  tliere 
is  no  distinctive  appellation  answering  to  the  mcli  c 
and  snr  of  the  Hebrew  narrative.  Differences  in 
rank  and  power  there  are,  as  between  the  great 
chief,  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  parent  trilie, 
and  the  lesser  chiefs  who  lead  the  sub-tribes  into 
which  it  is  divided,  and  who  are  to  a  great  extent 
independent  of  him.  But  the  one  word  slieikli  is 
employed  for  all.  The  great  chief  is  the  iS/iei/c/i 
el-kebir,  the  others  are  Jiiin  el-masheikh,  "  of  the 
sheikhs,"  i.  e.  of  sheikh  rank.  The  writer  begs  to 
express  his  acknowledgments  to  Mr.  Layard  and 
Mr.  Cyril  Graham  for  information  on  this  point. 

G. 

ZAM'BIS  {Za/xl3pl  [Vat.  -/3p6i] ;  Alex.  Za/x- 
jSpis;  [Aid.  Zo^jSi'?:]  ZainbrU).  The  same  as 
Amariah  (1  Esdr.  ix.  34;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  42). 

ZAM'BRI  (ZttjU^pi;  [Sin.  Za/x;3pei:]  Zamri). 
ZiJiRi  the  Simeonite  slain  by  Phinehas  (1  Mace, 
ii.  26). 

ZA'MOTH  (Za^<i0:  [Vat.]  Alex.  Za^o0: 
Zidl(oiiH)=  Zattu  (1  Esdr.  ix.  28;  comp.  Ezr.  x. 
27). 

ZAMZUM'MIMS  (C^^tpt  [see  below]: 
[K'oni.]  ZoxoiJ-fxiv  [Vat.  -fxtiv];  Alex.  [Zo^^o/u- 
ju6i;'0  Zuinzummim).  The  Ammonite  name  for 
the  people,  who  by  others  (tho\igh  who  they  were 
does  not  appear)  were  called  Hkphai.m  (Deut.  ii. 
20  only).  They  are  described  as  having  originally 
been  a^jowerful  and  numerous  nation  of  giants, — 
''great,  many,  and  tall," — inhabiting  the  district 


a  The  unintelligibility  of  the  names  is  in  favor  of 
their  being  correctly  retained  rather  than  the  rever.se. 
Vud  It  should  uot  be  overlooked  that  they  are  not, 
MkeHreb  and  Zeeb,  attached  also  to  localities,  which  al- 
ways throws  a  doubt  on  the  name  when  attributed  to 
\  p<n-8ou  as  well. 


ZANOAH 

which  at  the  time  of  the  Hel)rew  conquest  was  it 
the  possession  of  the  Ammonites,  by  whom  the 
Zamzummim  had  a  long  time  previously  been  de- 
stroyed. Where  this  district  was,  it  is  not  per- 
hajjs  possible  exactly  to  define;  but  it  probably  lay 
in  the  neigliborhood  of  Rabbath-Ammon  {Amiiian), 
the  only  city  of  the  Ammonites  of  which  the  name 
or  situation  is  preserved  to  us,  and  therefore  east- 
ward of  that  rich  undulating  country  from  which 
Moab  had  been  forced  by  the  Amorites  (the  mod- 
ern Belk(i),  and  of  the  numerous  towns  of  that 
country,  whose  ruins  and  names  are  still  encoun- 
tered. 

From  a  slight  similarity  between  the  two  names, 
and  from  the  mention  of  the  Emim  in  connection 
with  each,  it  is  usually  assumed  that  the  Zamzum- 
mim are  identical  with  the  ZuziM  (Gesenius.  T/ies. 
p.  410  (i;  Ewald,  Gesc/i.  i.  .308,  7i<ite  ;  Knobel  on 
Gen.  xiv.  5).  Ewald  further  supports  this  by  iden- 
tifying Ham,  the  capital  city  of  the  Zuzim  (Gen. 
xiv.  5)  with  Amnion.  But  at  best  the  identifica- 
tion is  \  ery  conjectural. 

Various  attemiits  have  been  made  to  explain  the 

name:  as  by  comparison  with  the  Arabic  f»Y>0\, 
"long-necked;"  or  *,,«3i*.«Oj '' strong  and  big  " 
(Simonis,  Onom.  135);  or  as  "obstinate,"  from 
t2DT  (Luther),  or  as  "noisy,"  from  D^^^  (Gese- 
nius, Thes.  p.  419),  or  as  onomatopoetic,<^  intended 
to  imitate  the  unintelligilile  jabber  of  foreigners. 
JMichaelis  {Siipjjl.  No.  029)  playfully  recalls  the 
likeness  of  the  name  to  that  of  the  well  Zem-zem 
at  Mecca,  and  suggests  thereupon  that  the  tril)e 
may  have  originally  come  from  Southern  Arabia. 
Notwithstanding  this  banter,  however,  he  ends  his 
article  with  the  following  discreet  words,  "  Nihil 
historic,  nihil  originis  populi  novimus:  fas  sit  ety- 
mologiam  seque  ignorare."       »  G. 

ZANO'AH  (ni3T  [perh.  niais/i,  hog']  :  Za/jidv 
in  both  MSS.;  [Aid  Zafci;  Comp.  Zavoe-]  Za^ 
noe).  In  the  genealogical  lists  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
in  1  Ch.,  .lekuthiel  is  said  to  have  been  the  father 
of  Zanoah  (iv.  18);  and,  as  far  as  the  passage  can 
lie  made  out,  .some  connection  appears  to  be  intended 
with  "  Bithiah,  tlie  daughter  of  Pharaoh."  Zanoah 
is  the  name  of  a  town  of  .Judali  [Zakoah  2],  and 
this  mention  of  Bithiah  probably  points  to  some 
colonization  of  the  place  by  Egyptians  or  by  Israel- 
ites directly  from  Egypt.  In  Seetzen's  account  of 
Samite  (or  more  accurately  Zn'nuf.nli),  which  is 
possibly  identical  with  Zanoah,  there  is  a  curious 
token  of  the  influence  which  events  in  Egypt  still 
exercised  on  the  ])lace  (Jitisi'n,  iii.  29). 

I'he  Jewish  interpreters  considered  the  whole  of 
this  passage  of  1  Chr.  iv.  to  refer  to  Moses,  and  in- 
terpret each  of  the  names  \vliich  it  contains  as  titles 
of  him.  "  He  was  chief  of  Zanoach,"  says  the 
Targum,  "  because   for   his    sake  God  put    away 

(HD^)  the  sins  of  Israel."  G. 

ZANO'AH   (ni3|   [marsh   or   bog]).      The 
name  of  two  towns  in  the  territory  of  Judah. 
1.   {Tauci,  Zav<i}\  Alex.  Zavw\   [in  Neh.  xi.  80, 


b  Josephus  inverts  the  di.«tinction.  lie  styles  Oreb 
and  Zeeb  /3ao-iAci5,  and  Zebah  and  Zalmunna  i7yefioi/es 
{Am.  v.  7,  §  5). 

t'  In  this  sense  the  name  was  applied  hy  controver 
sialist?  of  the  17th  century  as  a  nickname  for  fanatic* 
who  pretended  to  speak  with  touxuea. 


zaph:^  ath-p  a  aneah 

flom.  Vat  FA.i  Alex,  omit,  FA.''  Zavwe']  Zanoe, 
l^Zamm.])  In  the  (S/uyeAi/i  (.losh.  xv.  34),  named 
in  the  same  i>;roiip  with  Zoreah  and  .Jarmutli.  It 
is  possililj'  identical  with  Zdnu''a,'*  a  site  whicli  was 
pointed  out  to  Ur.  rioliinson  from  Beit  Nullif 
\BM.  lias.  ii.  16),  and  whicii  in  the  maps  of  Van 
de  Velde  and  of  Tobler  {3116  Wcniderunij)  is  located 
on  the  N.  side  of  the  IViiJy  Ismail,  2  miles  1*2.  of  Zn- 
re"hy  and  4  miles  N.  of  Y<i)-muk.  Tiiis  position  is 
sufficiently  in  accordance  with  the  statement  of  Je- 
rome (Onoiniisl.  "  Zannoiuia"),  that  it  was  in  the 
district  of  Eleutheropolis,  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem, 
and  called  Zanua. 

The  name  recurs  in  its  old  connection  in  the  lists 
of  Nehemiah,  both  of  the  towns  which  were  re- 
inhaliited  liy  the  people  of  Judah  after  the  Captiv- 
ity (xi.  30  *),  and  of  those  which  assisted  in  repairing 
the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (iii.  13).  It  is  an  entirely 
distinct  place  from 

2.  (ZaKavai/j.  [Vat.  -ei/^] ;  Alex.  ZavceaKet/x- '^ 
ZanueL)  A  town  in  the  highland  district,  the 
mountain  proper  (Josh.  xv.  50).  It  is  named  in 
the  same  group  with  Maon,  Carinel,  Ziph,  and  other 
places  known  to  lie  soutii  of  Ileliron.  It  is  (as  Van 
de  Velde  suggests,  Memoir,  p  354)  not  improliably 
identical  with  S/inule,  which  is  mentioned  by  Seet- 
zen  {Jieisen,  iii.  29)  as  below  Setiinn.,  and  appears 
to  be  about  10  miles  S.  of  Hebron.  At  the  time 
of  his  visit  it  was  the  last  inhabited  place  to  the 
south.     Robinson   {Bibl.  Ees.  ii.  204,  nole)   gives 

the  name  differently,   dkJ^a^£.'w  ZiCnidnh;  and 

it  will  be  observed  that,  like  Znmi'ah  just  men- 
tioned, it  contains  the  '.-Im,  which  the  Hebrew 
name  does  not.  and  which  rather  shakes  the  identi- 
fication 

According  to  the  statement  of  the  genealogical 
lists  of  1  Chr.,  Zanoah  was  founded  or  colonized  by 
a  person  named  Jekuthiel  (iv.  18).  Here  it  is  also 
mentioned  with  SSclio  and  Eshtemoa,  both  of  which 
places  are  recognizable  in  the  neighborhood  of 
ZCnutah.^  G. 

ZAPH'JSTATH-PAANE'AH  ('^?^^ 

n3375  [see  below]:  ^oveo,u<pavj^x'  '5"/(V(<or 
mundi),  a  name  given  by  Pharaoh  to  Joseph  (Gen. 
xli.  45).  Various  forms  of  this  name,  all  traceable 
to  the  Heb.  or  LXX.  original,  occur  in  the  works  of 
the  early  Jewish  and  Christian  writers,  chiefly  Jo- 
sephus,  from  different  MSS.  and  editions  of  whose 
Ant.  (ii.  6,  §  1)  no  less  than  eleven  forms  have  been 
collected,  following  both  originals,  some  variations 
being  very  corrupt;  but  from  the  translation  given 
by  -losephus  it  is  probable  that  he  transcribed 
the  Hebrew.  Philo  (Dn  Noniiuam  Mat.  p.  819, 
c,  ed.  Col.  G13)  and  Theodoret  (i.  p.  100,  ed. 
Schulz)  follow  the  LXX.,  and  .lerorne,  tlie  Hebrew. 
The  Coptic  version  nearly  transcribes  the  LXX., 

•^lonecwjULc^^nHK. 

Ill  the  Hebrew  text  the  name  is  divided  into  two 
parts.  Every  such  division  of  Egyptian  words  be- 
ing in  accordance  with  the  I'^gyptian  orthography, 
as  No-Ammon,  I'i-liesetli,  Poti-pherah,  we  cannot, 
if  the  name  be  Egyptian,  reasonably  propose  any 
change  in  this  case;  if  tiie  name  be  Hel)rew,  the 
same  is  certain.  There  is  no  prima  facie  reason 
for  any  change  in  the  consonants. 

a  This  name,  howevtr  '^c  •Jlv))  P><hibits  the  'ain, 
rliich  is  not  prasent  in  ;he  Hebrew  name 


ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH     359] 

The  LXX.  form  seems  to  indicate  the  same  divig 
ion,  as  the  latter  part,  (pavrjxj  is  identical  with 
the  second  part  of  the  Hebrew,  while  what  pre- 
cedes is  diflerent.  There  is  again  no  prima  facit 
reason  for  any  change  from  the  ordinary  reading 
of  the  name.  The  cause  of  the  difference  from 
the  Hebrew  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  name  must 
be  discussed  when  we  come  to  examine  its  mean- 
ing. 

This  name  has  been  explained  as  Hebrew  or 
Egyptian,  and  always  as  a  proper  name  It  has 
not  been  supposed  to  be  an  official  title,  but  this 
possibility  has  to  be  considered. 

1.  The  Rabbins  interpreted  Zaphnath-paaneah 
as  J-Iebrew,  in  the  sense  "  revealer  of  a  secret." 
This  explanation  is  as  old  as  .lose[)hiis  (KpvTTTcJok 
supsTr}i',  Ant.  ii.  G,  §  1);  and  1  beodoret  also  follows 
it  (twv  aTToppiiTocu  kpixrivevTV,v,  i- p-  1"<J,  Schulz). 
Philo  offers  an  explanation,  which,  tiioiigh  seem- 
ingly different,  may  be  the  same  (eV  awoKpioei 
(TTdaa  Kpivof,  but  Mangey  conjectuies  the  true 
reading  to  lie  eV  airoKpv\l/€t  cnSfxa  a.woKpi.v6ij.evoy, 
I.  c).  It  nnist  be  remembered  that  .losephus  jier- 
haps,  and  Theodoret  and  Philo  certainly,  follow  the 
LXX.  form  of  the  name. 

2.  Isidore,  though  mentioning  the  Heljrew  inter- 
pretation, rem.arks  that  the  name  should  be  Egyp- 
tian, and  offers  an  Egyptian  etymology:  "Joseph 
.  .  .  .  hunc  Pharao  Zaphanath  Phaaneca  appel- 
lavit,  quod  Hebraice  absconditorum  repertorem 
soiiat  ....  tameii  quia  hoc  nomen  ab  jEgyptio 
ponitur,  ipsius  linouoe  debet  habere  rationem. 
Interpretatur  ergo  Zaphanath  Phaaneca  yEgyptio 
serinone  salvator  mundi "  ( Orig.  vii.  c.  7,  t.  iii. 
p.  327,  Arev.).  Jerome  adopts  the  same  render- 
ing. 

3.  Modern  scholars  have  looked  to  Coptic  for 
an  explanation  of  this  name,  Jablonski  and  others 
proposing  as  tlie  Coptic  of  the  Egyptian  original 

nctuT  JUL  c^eite^,  or  nccwt",  etc., 

"  the  preservation  "  or  "  preserver  of  the  age." 
This  is  evidently  the  etymology  intended  by  Isidore 
and  Jerome. 

We  dismiss  the  Hebrew  interpretation,  as  un- 
sound in  itself,  and  demandhig  the  improbable 
concession  that  Pharaoh  gave  Joseph  a  Hebrew 
name. 

It  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  result 
without  first  inquiring  when  this  name  was  given, 
and  what  are  the  characteristics  of  Egyptian  titles 
and  names.  These  points  having  been  discussed, 
we  can  show  what  ancient  Egyptian  sounds  corre 
spond  to  the  Hebrew  and  LXX.  forms  of  this  name, 
and  a  comparison  with  ancient  Egyptian  will  then 
be  possible. 

After  the  account  of  Joseph's  appointnient  to  be 
governor,  of  his  receiving  the  insignia  of  authority, 
and  Pharaoh's  telling  him  that  he  held  the  second 
place  in  the  kingdom,  follow  these  words :  "  And 
Pharaoh  called  Joseph's  name  Zaphnath-paaneah; 
and  he  gave  him  to  wife  .A.senath  the  daughter  cf 
Poti-pherah  priest  of  On."  It  is  next  stated,  "  And 
Joseph  went  out  over  [all]  the  land  of  Egypt " 
((jen.  xli.  45).  As  .Joseph's  two  sons  were  born 
"before  the  years  of  famine  came"  (ver.  50),  it 
seems  evident  that  the  order  is  here  strictly  chro- 
nological, at  least  that  the  events  spoken  of  are  of 


t>  Here  the  name  ia  contr.acted  to  H^T. 

-       T 

<■  These    curlou.s   words    are  prnduciMl    by  joining 
Zanoah  to  the  name  followini.r  it.  Cain,  or  hac-(.'iiii 


3592    ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH 

the  time  before  the  famine.  It  is  scarcely  to  be 
supposed  that  Pharaoh  would  have  named  Joseph 
"the  preserver  of  the  a^e,"  or  the  hke,  when  the 
calamity,  from  the  worst  effects  of  which  his  ad- 
ministration preserved  En;ypt,  had  not  come.  The 
name,  at  first  sis^ht,  seems  to  be  a  proper  name, 
but,  as  occurring  after  tlie  account  of  Joseph's  ap- 
pointment and  honors,  may  be  a  title. 

Ancient  Egyptian  titles  of  dignity  are  generally 
connected  with  the  king  or  the  gods,  as  SUTEX- 
SA,  king's  son,  applied  not  only  to  royal  princes, 
but  to  the  governors  of  KEESH,  or  Cush.  Titles 
of  place  are  generally  simply  descriptive,  as  MEK- 
KETU,  "  superintendent  of  l)uildinu:s  "  ("  public 
works"?).  Some  few  are  tropical.  Ancient  Egyp- 
tian names  are  either  simple  or  compound.  Sim- 
ple names  are  descriptive  of  occupation,  as  MA, 
"the  shepherd,"  an  early  king's  name,  or  are  the 
names  of  natural  objects,  as  PE-MAY(?),  "the 
cat,"  etc.;  more  rarely  they  indicate  qualities  of 
character,  as  S-NUEliE,  "  doer  of  good."  Com- 
pound names  usually  express  devotion  to  the  gods, 
as  PET-AM  EN- APT,  "  Belonghig  to  Amen  of 
Thebes;  "  some  are  composed  with  the  name  of  the 
reigning  king,  as  SH.\FliA-SHA,  •'  Shafra  rules;  " 
SESEPtTESEN-ANKlI,  "  Sesertesen  lives."  Oth- 
ers occur  which  are  more  difficult  of  explanation,  as 
AMEN-EM-HA,  "  Amen  in  the  front,"  a  war- 
cry  ?  Double  names,  not  merely  of  kings,  but  of 
private  persons,  are  found,  but  are  very  rare,  as 
SNUFR1<:  ANKHEE,  "  Doer  of  good,  living  one." 
These  double  names  are  usually  of  the  period  before 
the  XVIIlth  dynasty. 

Before  comparing  Zaphnath-paaneah  and  Pson- 
thomphanech  with  Egyptian  names  we  nuist  ascer- 
tain the  probable  Egyptian  equivalents  of  the  letters 
of  these  Ibrnis.  The  Egyptian  words  occurring  in 
Hebrew  are  few,  and  the  forms  of  some  of  them 
evidently  Shemiticized,  or  at  least  changed  by  their 
use  by  foreigners:  a  complete  and  systematic  alpha- 
bet of  Hebrew  equivalents  of  Egyptian  letters  there- 
fore cannot  be  drawn  up.  There  are,  on  the  other 
hand,  numerous  Shemitic  words,  either  Hebrew  or 
of  a  dialect  very  near  it,  the  geographical  names  of 
places  and  tribes  of  P:destine,  given,  according  to  a 
system,  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  and  papyri, 
from  which  we  can  draw  up,  as  M.  de  lioug6  has 
done  (Revue  Arclieoloyique,  N.  S.  iii.  351-354),  a 
complete  alphabet,  certain  in  nearly  all  its  details, 
and  approximati\ely  true  in  the  few  that  are  not 
determined,  of  the  {'Egyptian  equivalents  of  the  He- 
brew alphabet.  The  two  comparative  alphaliets  do 
not  greatly  diflTer,  but  we  caimot  be  sure  that  in  the 
endeavor  to  ascertain  what  l''.gyptian  sounds  are 
intended  by  Hebrew  letters,  or  their  Greek  equi\- 
alents,  we  are  quite  accurate  in  employing  the 
latter.     For  instance,  different  Egyptian  signs  are 

used  to  represent  the  Hebrew  "1  and  V,  but  it  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  these  signs  in  Egyptian 
represented  any  sound  but  K,  except  in  the  vidgar 
dialect. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  Egyptians  had 

a  hard  "t,"  the  parent  of  the  Coptic  25L  and  0  » 
which  we  represent  by  an  Italic  T ;  that  they  had 
an  "  a  "  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  V,  which 
we  represent  by  an  Italic  A  ;  and  that  the  Hebrew 
C  may  be  represented  by  the  Egyptian  P,  also 
pronounced  PTi,  and  by  the  F.  The  probable 
jriginals  of  the  Egyptian  name  of  Joseph  may  be 
'.has  stated ;  — 


ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH 


!'     ^ 

3    n 

2 

3?    3    n 

T    P 

N     T 

P 

^     N    KH 

F 

y    0    J/ 

e  0  /J. 

<P 

a      y  V   X 

PS   N 

T      M 

P 

F 

N     KH 

The  second  part  of  the  name  in  the  Hebrew  is 
the  same  as  in  the  LXX.,  although  in  the  latter  it 
is  not  separate :  we  therefore  examine  it  first.  It 
is  identical  with  the  ancient  Egyptian  proper  name 
P-ANKHEE,  "  the  living,"  borne  by  a  king  who 
was  an  Ethiopian  ruling  after  Tirhakah,  and  prob- 
ably contemporary  with  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign 
of  Psamnu'tichus  I.  The  only  doubtful  point  in 
the  identification  is  that  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
"a"  in  P-ANKHEE  is  that  which  represents  the 

Hebrew  ^.  It  is  a  symbolic  sign  of  the  kind 
which  serves  as  an  initial,  and  at  the  same  time 
determines  the  signification  of  the  word  it  partly 
expresses  and  sometimes  singly  represents,  and  it 
is  only  used  in  the  single  sense  "hfe,"  "to  live." 
It  may,  however,  be  conjectured  from  its  Coptic 
equivalents  to  have  begun  with  either  a  long  or  a 

guttural  "a"     (  ^Jt^g     B,  S,     ^Jt^     B, 

on^g,  on^  s,  oji^,     tuji^  m, 

OJJl^g     B,   tUJlit^  S). 

The  second  part  of  the  name,  thus  explained, 
affords  no  clew  to  the  meaning  of  the  first  part, 
being  a  separate  name,  as  in  the  case  of  a  double 
name  already  eited  SNUFRE  ANKHEE.  The 
LXX.  form  of  the  first  part  is  at  once  recognized 
in  the  ancient  Egyptian  words  P-SENT-N,  "the 

defender  "  or  "  preserver  of  "  the  Coptic  II  CtU"] 

JU-j  "  the  preserver  of."  It  is  to  lie  remarked 
that  the  ancient  Egyptian  form  of  the  principal 
word  is  that  found  in  the  LXX.,  but  that  the 
preposition  N  in  hieroglyphics,  however  pronounced, 

is  always  written  N,  whereas  in  Coptic  Jl  becomes 

W.  before  n.  The  word  SENT  does  not  appear 
to  be  used  except  as  a  divine,  and,  under  the  Ptol- 
emies, regal  title,  in  the  latter  case  for  Soter.  The 
Helirew  form  seems  to  represent  a  compound  nanie 
commencing  with  TKTKh',  or  Z'EF,  "he  says,"  a 
not  infrequent  element  in   compound   names   (the 

root  being  found  in  the  Coptic  2tOj    2tOT  I   S 

25.00,  ZOT),  or  TEF,  "incense,  delight"? 
the  name  of  the  sacred  incense,  also  known  to  us 
in  the  Greek  form  Kvcpi  (Plutarch,  de  hid.  el  Osir. 
c.  80,  p.  383;  Diosc.  .1/.  m.  I.  24,  Spr.).  But,  if 
the  name  commence  with  either  of  these  words,  the 
rest  seems  inexplicalile.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
last  two  consonants  are  the  same  as  in  Asenath, 
the  name  of  .loseph's  wife.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  in  both  eases  this  element  is  the  name  of  the 
ffoddess  Neith,  .\spnath  having  been  conjectured  to 
he  AS-X1<:ET;  and  Zaphnath,  by  Mr.  Osburn,  we 
lielieve,  rEF-NEET,  "  the  deli-bt(?)of  Neith." 
Neith,  the  goddess  of  Sais,  is  not  likely  to  have  lieen 
reverenced  at  Heliopolis,  the  city  of  Asenath.  It 
is  also  improbable  that  Pharaoh  would  have  given 
.loseph  a  name  coimected  with  idolatry;  for  Joseph's 
position,  uidike  Haniel's,  when  he  was  first  crdled 
Belteshazzar,  would  have  enabled  him  efl^'ectually  tc 
protest  against  receiving  such  a  name.  The  lattei 
Bart  of  the  name  might  suggest  the  possibility  of 


ZAPHON 

the  letters  "aiieah  "  corresponcliiitr  to  ANKH,  and 
the  whole  preceding  portion,  Zaphnath  and  the 
initial  of  this  part,  forming  the  name  of  .losepli's 
Pharaoh;  tiie  form  being  that  of  S1':sERTES1':N- 
ANKH,  "  S.esertesen  lives,''  ah'eadj  mentioned; 
Ijut  the  occurrence  of  the  letter  P  shows  that  the 
form  is  P-ANKHEK,  and  were  tins  not  sutticient 
proof,  no  name  of  a  Pharaoli,  or  other  proper  name 
is  known  that  can  be  compared  with  tlie  supposed 
first  portion.  We  have  little  doubt  that  the  mon- 
uments will  unexpectedly  supply  us  with  the  infor- 
mation we  need,  giving  us  the  original  I'^gyptian 
name,  though  probablj'  not  applied  to  Joseph,  of 
whose  period  there  are,  we  believe,  but  few  Egyp- 
tian records.  K.  S.  P. 

ZA'PHON  0^3^  Inorthward]  :  Sac^aj/  ; 
Alex.  2a0a)v:  Siiphon).  The  name  of  a  place 
mentioned  in  the  enumeration  of  tlie  allotment  of 
the  trilie  of  Gad  (Josh.  xiii.  27).  It  is  one  of  the 
places  in  "  the  valley  "  which  appear  to  have  con- 
stituted the  "remainder"  ("^0.1)  of  the  kingdom 
of  Silion  "  —  apparently  referring  to  the  portion  of 
the  same  kingdom  previously  allotted  to  Reuben 
(vv.  17-21).  The  enumeration  appears  to  proceed 
from  south  to  north,  and  from  the  mention  of  the 
Sea  of  Chinneroth  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  Zaphon 
was  near  tliat  lake.  No  name  resembling  it  has 
yet  been  encountered. 

In  Judg.  xii.  1,  the  word  rendered  "  northward  "' 
(tsaphondli)  may  with  equal  accuracy  be  rendered 
"  to  Zaphon.''  This  rendering  is  supported  by  the 
Alex.  LXX.  (Kecpeiva)  and  a  host  of  other  MSS., 
and  it  has  consistency  on  its  side.  G. 

*  Of  the  later  critics,  Ewald,  Bunsen,  Keil,  and 
Cassel  make  Zaphon  a  proper  name.  It  is  evident 
from  vv.  1  and  5  that  the  Ephraimites  crossed  the 
Jordan,  and  the  main  direction  of  the  march  would 
be  from  west  to  east.  If  tliey  went  northward  it 
would  be  for  strategic  reasons  which  are  not  appar- 
ent. The  known  existence  of  a  place  of  this  name 
(Josh.  xiii.  27)  fully  justifies  this  conclusion  (see 
especially  Cassel,  Jiicliter  u.  Ruth,  in  loc).  Ber- 
theau  {Riclikr,  p.  166),  De  Wette  {Uehersetz- 
ung)  and  Perret-Gentil  {version),  prefer  "  north- 
ward." H. 

ZA'RA  {Zapa.-  Zara).  Zak.^h  [or  Zerah] 
the  son  of  Judah  (Matt.  i.  3). 

ZAR'ACES  (ZapaK-ns;  [Vat.  Zapaios:]  Zar- 
aceies).  Brother  of  Joacim,  or  Jehoiakim,  king 
of  Judah  (1  Esdr.  i.  38).  His  name  is  apparently 
a  corruption  of  Zedekiah. 

ZA'RAH  {rn\  [rising  of  light]  :  Zapd: 
Ziira).  Properly  Zkkah,  the  son  of  Judah  by 
Tamar  (Gen.  xxxviii.  30,  xlvi.  12). 

ZARA'IAS  [3  syl.]  [Kom.]  (Vat.  omit;  Alex. 
Zapaias'  Vulg.  omits).  1.  Zehaiiiah,  one  of  the 
ancestors  of  Ezra  (1  Esdr.  viii.  2);  called  Akna  in 
2  Esdr.  i.  2. 

2.  {Zapaias-  Znrceus.)  Zerahiah,  the  father 
of  Elihoeuai  (1  Esdr.  viii.  31). 

3.  [Zapdias'i  [Alex,  omits:]  Zarias.)  Zeua- 
DlAii,  the  son  of  Michael  (1  Esdr.  viii.  3-1). 

Z.A'REAH  {T^^y^   [perh.  ;;tace  (//iomtis]  : 


I"  In  1  K.  xvii.  9,  the  Alex.  MS.  has  Ze^Oa,  but  in 
the  other  two  passages  agrees  with  the  \a.t. 

b  The  name  is  given  as  Sarphaiid  hy  Ibn  Edris  ; 
Sarphen  by  Maundeville  ;  and  Sarpkan  by  Maun- 
•Irell. 


ZARETAN  3593 

Vat.  [Rom.  Alex.  FA.i]  omit;  Alex,  [rather 
FA. 3]  'S.apaa-  Suran).  The  form  in  which  our 
translators  have  once  (Neh.  xi.  29)  represented  the 
name,  which  they  elsewhere  present  (less  accu- 
rately) as  ZoRAH  and  Zoreah.  G. 

ZA'REATHITES,       THE       (\nX'"l^n 

J  *■     .  T   :  T  - 

[patr.]  :  oi  'ZapaQaloi-  Siiraitce}.  The  inhalj- 
itants  of  Zareah  or  Zorah.  The  word  occurs 
in  this  form  only  in  1  Chr.  ii.  53.  Elsewhere  the 
same  Hebrew  word  appears  in  the  A.  V.  as   the 

ZoRATHlTES.  G. 

ZA'RED,  THE  VALLEY  OF  {1~}\  bm 
[vallei/  of  thick  fulia/je] :  [Rom.]  (pdpay'^  ZupiS; 
[Vat.  (p-ZapiT',]  Alex.  <p.  Zape."  tor  reus  Znrtd). 
The  name  is  accurately  Zeheu  ;  the  change  in  tlie 
first  syllable  being  due  to  its  occurring  at  a  pause. 
It  is  found  in  the  A.  V.  in  this  form  only  in  Num. 
xxi.  12;  though  in  the  Hebr.  it  occurs  also  Dent, 
ii.  13.  G. 

ZAR'EPHATH  (H^l^J,  ;.  e.  T.sarfah  [smell- 
ing house,  Ges.]:  Zapewrd;"  in  Oljad.  plural:' 
Sdrephtha,  [Sarepln].).  A  town  wliicli  derives 
its  claim  to  notice  from  having  been  the  resi- 
dence of  the  prophet  Elijah  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  drought  (1  K.  xvii.  9,  10).  Beyond  stat- 
ing  that  it  was   near  to,  or  dependent  on,  Zidon 

(P"T"'^7\  the  Biljle  gives  no  clew  to  its  position. 
It  is  mentioned  by  Obadiah  (ver.  20),  but  merely 
as  a  Canaanite  (that  is  Phcenician)  city.  Joseplius 
{Ant.  viii.  13,  §  2),  however^  states  that  it  was 
"  not  far  from  Sidon  and  Tyre,  for  it  lies  be- 
tween them."  And  to  this  Jerome  adds  {Onoui. 
"  Sarefta  ")  that  it  "lay  on  the  public  road,"  that 
is  the  coast-road.  Both  these  conditions  are  im- 
plied in  the  mention  of  it  in  the  Itinerary  of  Paula 
by  Jerome  {Epil.  Paulie,  §  8),  and  both  are  ful- 
filled m  the  situation  of  the  modern  village  of  Sui'a- 

fend t>  [i^iji y/a  ,  a  name  which,   except  in  its 

termination,  is  almost  identical  with  the  ancient 
Phoenician.  SiiniJ'end  has  been  visited  and  de- 
scri))ed  by  Dr.  iloliinson  {B.  R.  ii.  475)  and  Dr. 
Thomson  {L'ind  and  Book,  ch.  xii.>.  It  appears 
to  have  changed  its  place,  at  least  since  the  11th 
century,  for  it,  is  now  more  than  a  mile  from  the 
coast,  high  upon  the  slope  of  a  hill  (Rob.  p.  474), 
whereas,  at  the  time  of  the  Crusades,  it  was  on  the 
shore.  Of  the  old  town,  considerable  indications 
remain.  One  group  of  foundations  is  on  a  head- 
land called  Ain  el-KenUirtih  :  but  the  chief  remains 
are  south  of  this,  and  extend  for  a  mile  or  more, 
with  many  fragments  of  columns,  slab.s,  and  other 
architectural  features.  The  lioman  road  is  said  to 
l)e  unusually  perfect  there  (Beamont,  Diary,  etc., 
ii.  186).  The  site  of  the  chapel  erected  by  the 
Crusaders  on  the  spot  then  reputed  to  be  the  site 
of  the  widow's  house,  is  probably  still  preserved."^ 
(See  the  citations  of  Robinson.)  It  is  near  the 
water's  edge,  and  is  now  marked  by  a  wely  and 
small  khan  dedicated  to  d-Kiiudr,  the  well-known 
jjersonage  who  unites,  in  the  popular  Moslem  faith, 
Elijah  and  St.  George. 

In  the  N.  T.  Zarephath  appears  under  the  Greek 
form  of  S.^HEi'TA.  G. 

ZAR'ETAN   ("?niV,  i.  e.    Tsarthan    [cooL 

c  A  grotto  (as  usuall  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  on  which 
the  uioderu  village  stands  is  now  shown  as  the  resi- 
dence of  Elijah  (Van  de  Velde,  6'.  if  P.  i.  102 1. 


3594 


ZARETH-SHAHAR 


ing']  :  LXX.  omits  in  both  JMSS. :  Snrthan).  An 
inaccurate  re[)iesentation  of  the  name  elsewhere 
more  correctly  given  as  Zahthan.  It  occurs  only 
iu  Josh.  iii.  10,  in  detining  the  position  of  Adam, 
the  city  Ity  which  the  upper  waters  of  the  Jordan 
remained  during  the  passage  of  the  Israelites: 
"  The  waters  rushing  down  from  above  stood  and 
rose  ;»p  upon  one  heap  very  far  otf —  by  Adam,  the 
city  tiiat  is  by  the  side  of  Zarthan."  No  trace  of 
these  names  has  been  found,  nor  is  anything  known 
of  the  situation  of  Zarthan. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  LXX.  should  exhibit 
no  "  trace  of  the  name.  G. 

ZA'RETH-SHA'HAR  ("inii^rT  n~!'?., 
i.  e.  Zereth  has-shachar  [/>ri(/IUness  of'  dawn] : 
^ipaSa  Kal  'S.idiv  [Vat.  -S,^lwv]  ;  Alex.  Sape  Kai 
liLup-  Seretk  Assaliar).  A  place  mentioned  oidy 
in  Josh.  xiii.  19,  in  the  catalogue  of  the  towns  al- 
lotted to  Keuben.  It  is  named  Ijetween  Sui:MAH 
and  Bi:th-pkoh,  and  is  particularly  specified  as 
"  in  Mount  ha-Kmek  "  (A.  V.  "in  the  JMount  of 
the  Valley  ").  From  this,  however,  no  clew  can  be 
gained  to  its  position.  Seetzen  {Reisen,  ii.  ^69) 
proposes,  though  with  hesitation  (see  his  note),  to 
identify  it  with  a  spot  called  Sard  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Wiu/y  Zerka  Main,  about  a  mile  from  the 
sdge  of  the  Dead  Sea.  A  place  Slidkiir  is  marked 
on  Van  de  Velde's  map,  about  six  miles  south  of 
eg-Salt,  at  the  head  of  the  Valley  of  the  IVadtj 
Stir.  But  nothing  can  be  said  of  either  of  these 
hi  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge.  G. 

ZAR'HITES,  THE  (^n^TH  [patr.]  :  6 
2apat;  [Vat.]  Alex,  o  Zapaa,  [exc.  Vat.  Zapta  in 
1  Chr.  xxvii.  11,  Alex.]  Zapiei  in  Josh  :  Zartitw, 
Zare,  stirps  Zar'ihi  and  Zcirn'i).  A  branch  of  the 
tril)e  of  .ludah:  descended  from  Zerah  the  son  of 
Judah  (Num.  xxvi.  1.3,  20;  Josh.  vii.  17;  1  Chr. 
xxvii.  11,  13).  Achan  was  of  this  family,  and  it 
was  represented  in  David's  time  by  two  distin- 
guished warriors,  Sibhechai  the  Husbathite  and 
Maharai  the  Netophathite. 

ZART'ANAH  (nDrrn'^  [coolhig]  :  2eo-a- 
edv,  Alex.  EaAiavdaV,  [Oomp.  Aid.  l.apddi''-] 
tiitrthana).  A  place  named  in  I  K.  iv.  I'i,  to  de- 
fine the  position  of  Bkth-shean.  It  is  possibly 
identical  with  Zakthan,  but  nothing  positive  can 
be  said  on  the  point,  and  the  name  has  not  been 
discovered  in  post-biblical  times.  G. 

ZAR'THAN  dn"]*^'  \cooUny]:  Xiipd;  Alex. 
2.iapafx-   Sarthnn). 

1.  A  place  in  the  ciccar  or  circle  of  Jordan, 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Succoth  (1  K.  vii. 
lU). 

2.  It  is  also  named,  in  the  account  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Jordan  by  the  Israelites  (.losh.  iii.  Itj), 
as  defining  the  position  of  the  city  Adam,  which 

was  beside  ("T*^p)  it.  The  difti^rence  which  the 
translators  of  the  A.  V.  have  introduced  into  the 
name  in  this  pas.sage  (Zaretan)  has  no  existence 
ill  the  original. 

3.  A  place  with  the  similar  name  of  Zartanah 
(which  in  the  Hebrew  differs  from  the  two  forms 
already  named  only  in  its  termination)  is  men- 
tioned in  the  list  of  Solomon's  commissariat  dis- 
tricts     It  is  there  specified  as  "  close  to  "  (^^t?) 


M8S.  ;   the  edition  of  Holmes  and  I'arsons  shows  it  in 
Due  only,  iud  that  a  cursive  -MS    of   tiie  13th  cent 


ZEBADlAH 

Beth-shean,  that  is,  in  the  upper  part  of  the  Jor- 
dan Valley. 

4.  Further,  in  Chronicles,  Zeredathah  is  sub- 
stituted for  Zarthan,  and  this  again  is  not  impos- 
siljly  identical  with  the  Zererah,  Zererath,  or  Zere- 
rathah,  of  the  story  of  Gideon.  All  these  spots 
agree  in  proximity  to  the  Jordan,  but  beyond  this 
we  are  absolutely  at  fault  as  to  their  position. 
Adam  is  unknown;  Succoth  is,  to  say  the  least, 
uncertain ;  and  no  name  approaching  Zarthan 
has  yet   been  encountered,  except  it  be  SurUtbek 

(&/j5«.,<a),  the  name  of  a  lofty  and  isolated  hill 

which  projects  from  the  main  highlands  into  tha 
.lordan  Valley,  about  17  miles  north  of  Jericho 
(Van  de  Velde,  Mtmoir,  p.  354).  But  Hv.rUtbeh, 
if  connected  with  any  ancient  name,  would  seem 
rather  to  represent  some  compound  of  the  ancient 
Hebrew  or  Fhcenician  Tsor,  which  in   Arabic  is 

represented  by  Suv  (\^ao),  as  in  the  name  of  the 


y> 


G. 


modern  Tyre. 

ZATH'OE  {ZaeSt]-.  Zttclmes).  This  name 
occurs  in  1  Esdr.  viii.  32,  for  Zattu,  which  ap- 
pears to  have  lieen  omitted  in  the  Hebrew  text  of 
Kzr.  viii.  5,  which  should  read,  "  Of  the  sons  of 
Zattu,  Shechaniah  the  son  of  Jahaziel." 

ZATHU'I  (Zadovi;  [Vat.  ZaroV.]  Demu). 
Zattu  (1  Ksdr.  v.  12;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  8). 

ZAT  THU  (S^nt  [lovely,  pleasant,  Fiirst] : 
Zadouia\  Alex.  ZaQdovia'-  Zethu).  Elsewhere 
Zattu  (Neh.  x.  14). 

ZAT'TU  (SWT  [lovely,  pleasant]:  ZarBovd, 
ZaOova,  ZaOovia;  Alex.  ZadOova'-,  FA.  Zadovia, 
Zadoveta'-  Ztiiiua).  The  sons  of  Zattu  were  a 
family  of  laymen  of  Israel  who  returned  with  Ze- 
rulibabel  (Ezr.  ii.  8;  Neh.  vii.  13).  A  second  di- 
vision accompanied  Ezra,  thougii  in  the  Hebrew 
text  of  Ezr.  viii.  5  the  name  has  been  omitted. 
[Zathoe.]  Several  members  of  this  family  had 
married  foreign  wives  (Ezr.  x.  27). 

ZA'VAN  =  Zaavan  (1  Chr.  i.  42). 

ZA'ZA  ("SJ^  [projection,  Fiirst]:  '0(dfj.;  Ales- 
OCaCa;  [Aid.  ZaCd;  Comp.  ZiC"-]  2iza).  One 
of  the  sons  of  Jonathan,  a  descendant  of  Jerahmeer 
(1  Chr.  ii.  33). 

ZEBADI'AH  (n^int  [yift  of  Jehovah, 
Ges.]:  Za&aSia;  [Vat.  A{a^a;8ia;  Alex.  A(a/So- 
Sia-]  Zahadia).  1.  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of 
Beriah  (1  <.'hr.  viii.  15). 

2.  [Za/3aSia.]  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of  EI 
paal  (1  Chr.  viii.  17). 

3.  [Vat.  i\I.  Za)3i5ia.]  One  of  the  sons  of  Je- 
roham  of  Gedor,  a  Benjamite  who  joined  the  for- 
tunes of  David  in  his  retreat  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xiL 
7). 

4.  (Za/3a5ias;  [Vat.  A^Seias:]  Alex.  Za|35ns: 
Zabadids.)  Son  of  Asahel  the  brother  of  Joab  (J 
Chr.  xxvii.  7). 

6.  ([Kom.  Alex,  as  in  4;  Vat.  ZajSSeio:]  ^f^e- 
dia.)  Son  of  Michael  of  the  son.s  of  Shepliatiab 
(Ezr.  viii.  8).  He  returned  with  80  of  his  clan  in 
the  second  caravan  with  Ezra.  In  1  Esdr.  viii.  34 
he  is  called  Zakaias. 

6.   (Za/3Sia;    [Vat.]    FA.   Za/SSeia.)     A    priest 


a  This  is  not  only  the  case   in    the   two  principal    [This  MS.,  however,  No.  58,  is  described   by  Holme* 


■'  quantivis    pretii."     Comp.    art.    Sehtuaiunt,    p 
2yl4.     Tlie  Comp.  Polyglott  also  rruds  •^aoBav.  —  A.! 


ZEBAH 

Df  the  sons  of  Imraer  who  had  married  a  foreign 
wife  alter  the  return  Irom  Babylon  (Ezr.  x.  20). 
Called  Zaf.i>eus  in  1  Ksdr.  ix.  21. 

7.  (Jin^l??  :  ZajSaSi'a;  [Vat.  Zaxapias-]  Alex. 
Za0a5ias'-  Zaljadias.)  Third  son  of  Meshelemiah 
the  Korhite  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  2). 

8.  {Za^Stas;  [Vat.  Za,85eias.])  A  Levite  in 
the  rei£;n  of  Jehoshaphat  who  was  sent  to  teach 
the  Law  in  the  cities  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 

9.  [As  in  8.]  The  son  of  Ishniael  and  prince 
of  the  house  of  .Judah  in  the  reign  of  .Jehoshaphat 
(2  Chr.  xix.  11).  In  conjunction  with  Aniariah 
the  chief  priest,  he  was  appointed  to  the  superin- 
tendence of  the  Levites,  priests  and  chief  men  who 
had  to  decide  all  causes,  civil  and  ecclesiastical, 
which  were  broui^ht  before  them.  They  possibly 
may  have  formed  a  kind  of  court  of  appeal,  Zebe- 
diah  acting  for  the  interests  of  the  king,  and  Ama- 
riah  being  the  supreme  authority  in  ecclesiastical 
matters. 

ZE'BAH  (naT  [sacrifice]:  Ze0ee:  Ze.bee). 
One  of  the  two  '■  k-ings  "  of  Midian  who  appear  to 
have  commanded  the  great  invasion  of  Palestine, 
and  who  finally  fell  by  the  hand  of  Gideon  him- 
self, lie  is  always  coupled  with  Zalniunna,  and  is 
mentioned  in  ,lud<f.  viii.  5-21;   Ps.  Ixxxiii.  II. 

It  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  unconscious 
artlessness  of  the  narrative  contained  in  .Judg.  vi. 
33-viii.  28,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  any  of  the 
chiefs  of  the  JMiilianites  during  the  early  part  of  the 
story,  or  indeed  until  Gideon  actually  comes  into 
contact  with  them.     We  then  discover  (viii.  18) 


ZEBEDEE 


3595 


Dedouins  were  entirely  unprepared  for  his  attack 
—  they  tied  in  dismay,  and  the  two  kings  were 
taken. 

Such  was  the  Third  Act  of  the  great  Tragedy. 
I'wo  more  remain.  First,  the  return  down  the 
long  detiles  leading  to  the  Jordan.  We  see  the 
cavalcade  of  camels,  jingling  the  golden  chains,  and 
the  crescent-shaped  collars  or  trappings  hung  round 
their  necks,  lligh  aloft  rode  the  captive  chiefs 
clad  in  their  brilliant  kcjiyelis  and  embroidered  nb- 
hayvhs,  and  with  their  "collars"  or  "jewels"  in 
nose  and  ear,  on  neck  and  arm.  Gideon  prob.alily 
strode  on  foot  by  the  side  of  his  captives.  They 
passed  Penuej,  where  Jacob  had  seen  the  vision  of 
the  face  of  God ;  tliey  passed  Succoth ;  they 
crossed  the  rapid  stream  of  the  Jordan  \  they  as- 
cended the  highlands  west  of  the  river,  and  at 
length  reached  Ophrah,  the  native  village  of  their 
captor  (Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  7,  §  5).  Then  at  Last  the 
question  which  must  have  been  on  Gideon's  tongne 
during  the  whole  of  the  return  found  a  vent.  There 
is  no  appearance  of  its  having  been  alluded  to  be- 
fore, 1  ut  it  gives,  us  nothing  else  could,  the  key  to 
the  whole  pursuit.  It  was  the  death  of  liis  broth- 
ers, "  the  children  of  his  mother,"  that  had  sup- 
plied the  personal  motive  for  that  steady  persever- 
ance, and  had  led  Gideon  on  to  his  goal  against 
hunger,  faintness,  and  obstacles  of  all  kinds. 
"  What  manner  of  men  were  they  which  ye  slew 
at  Tabor?  "  Up  to  this  time  the  sheikhs  may 
have  belie\ed  that  they  were  reserved  for  ransom; 
Ijut  these  words  once  spoken  there  can  have  been 
no  doulit  what  their  fate  was  to  be.  They  met  it 
like  noble  children  of  the  Desert,  without  fear  or 


that  while  the  Bedouins  were  ravaging  the  crops  I  weakness.  One  request  alone  they  make  —  that 
in  the  valley  of  Jezreel,  before  Gideon's  attack,  they  may  die  by  the  sure  blow  of  the  hero  himself 
three"  or  more  of  his  brothers  had  Ijeen  captured  |  _  n  and  Gideon  arose  and  slew  them;  "  and  not 
by  the  Arabs,  and  put  to  death  by  the  hands  of  i  till  he  had  revenged  his  brothers  did  any  thought 
Zebah  and  Zalmunna  themselves.  But  this  mate-  I  of  plunder  enter  his  heart  —  then,  and  not  till  then, 
rial  fact  is  only  incidentally  mentioned,  and  is  of  a  I  did  he  lav  hands  on  the  treasures  which  ornamented 


piece  with  the  later  references  by  prophets  and 
psalmists  to  other  events  in  the  same  struggle,  the 
interest  and  value  of  which  have  been  alluded  to 
under  Okkk. 

Ps.  Ixxxiii.  12  purports  to  have  preserved  the 
very  words  of  the  cry  with  which  Zeba  and  Zal- 
munna rushed  up  at  the  head  of  their  hordes  from 
the  Jordan  into  the  luxuriant  growth  of  the  great 
plain,  "  Seize  these  goodly  *  pastures !  " 

While  Oreb  and  Zeeb,  two  of  the  inferior  lead- 
ers of  the  incursion,  had  been  slain,  with  a  vast 
number  of  their  people,  by  the  Ephraimites,  at  the 
central  fords  of  the  Jordan  (not  improbably  those 
near  .lisr  D(wiklt),  the  two  kings  had  succeeded 
in  making  their  escape  by  a  passage  further  to  the 
north  (probably  the  ford  near  Beth-shean),  and 
thence  by  the  Wadij  Ynbis,  through  Gilead,  to 
Karkor,  a  place  which  is  not  fixed,  but  which  lay 
doubtless    high    up   on   the   Haurau.     Here  they 

were  reposing  with  15,000  men,  a  mere  renuiant  of 
/heii  huge  horde,  when  Gideon  overtook  them. 
Had  they  resisted  there  is  little  doubt  that  they 
might    have    easily   overcome    the    little    baud    of 

'  fainting  "  heroes  who  had  toiled  after  them  up 
the  tremendous  passes  of  the  mountains;  but  the 

lame  of  Gideon  was   still  full  of  terror,  and  the 


'«  It  is  perhaps  allowable  to  infer  this  from  the  use 
!)f  the  plural  (not  the  dual)  to  the  word  brethren 
'vei    19). 

*  Such  is  the  meftnintt  of  ''  pastures  of  Ood  "  in 
tie  e&rly  idiom. 


their  camels.  G. 

zEBA'iM  (D'^n^in,  in  Neh.  c'^'^n^sn  [««- 

ztlles]:  [Vat.]  vioi  Acre^aieiv;  [Hom.]  Alex. 
'Ao-e/SoEi/x;  in  Neh.  vl.  2a/3o'/>t  [Vat.  Alex.  FA. 
-fifi]  '■  Asi'b((iin,  Sab  dm ).  The  sons  of  Pochereth 
of  hat-Tsebaim  are  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of 
the  fauulies  of  "  Solomon's  slaves,"  who  returned 
from  the  Captivity -with  Zeriibbabel  (Kzra  ii.  57; 
Neh.  vii.  59).  The  name  is  in  the  original  all  but 
identical  with  that  of  Zeboi.m,'^  the  fellow-city  of 
Sodom;  and  as  many  of  "  Solomon's  slaves  "  ap- 
pear to  have  been  of  Canaanite''  stock,  it  is  possible 
that  the  family  of  Pochereth  were  descended  from 
one  of  the  people  who  escaped  from  Zeboim  in  tlie 
day  of  the  great  catastrophe  in  the  Valley  of  the 
Jordan.  This,  however,  can  only  be  accepted  as 
conjecture,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  two  names 
Pochei'eth  hat-Tsebaim  are  considered  by  some  to 
have  no  reference  to  place,  but  to  signify  the 
"  snarer  or  hunter  of  roes"  (Gesenius,  T/ie$.  p 
110-2  b;  Beitheau,  Exeg.  Ilandb.  Ezr.  ii.  57). 

G. 

ZEB'EDEE  ('^'7?!  or  nj"T5T  [/cAora/i' 
gift]'  Ze^eSoroj).  A  fisherman 'of 'Galilee,  the 
father  of  the  Apostles  James  the  Great  and  John 


c  Even  to  the  double  yoii.  This  name,  ou  tht 
other  h.and,  is  distinct  from  the  Zeboim  of  lienjaniiu. 

''  See  this  noticed  more  at  leugtli  under  Mf.uuyiiJ. 
SlsER.4,  etc. 


3596 


ZEBINA 


(Matt.  iv.  21),  and  the  husband  of  Salome  (Matt, 
xivii.  56;  Mark  xv.  40).  He  i)rol)aI]ly  lived  either 
at  Bethsaida  or  in  its  iiiiniediate  nei^iiliurliood. 
It  has  been  inferred  from  the  mention  of  liis  "hired 
servants  "  (Mark  i.  20),  and  from  tlie  acquaint- 
ance between  the  Apostle  John  and  Aimas  the 
hi<,di-priest  (.John  xviii.  15),  that  the  family  of 
Zebedee  were  in  easy  circunistanees  (comp.  John 
vix.  27),  although  not  above  manual  labor  (Matt, 
iv.  21).  Although  the  name  of  Zebedee  frequently 
occurs  as  a  patronymic,  for  the  sake  of  distinguish- 
ing his  two  sons  from  others  who  bore  the  same 
names,  he  appears  only  once  in  the  Gospel  narrative, 
namely  in  Matt.  iv.  21,  22,  Mark  i.  19,  20,  where 
he  is  seen  in  his  boat  with  his  two  sons  mendiui; 
their  nets.  On  this  occasion  he  allows  his  sons  to 
leave  him  at  the  bidding  of  the  Saviour,  without 
raising  any  olijection;  although  it  does  not  appear 
that  he  was  himself  ever  of  the  number  of  Christ's 
ilisciples.  His  wife,  indeed,  appears  in  the  cata- 
logue of  the  pious  women  who  were  in  constant 
attendance  on  the  Saviour  towards  the  close  of  his 
ministry,  who  watched  Him  on  the  cross,  and 
ministered  to  Him  even  in  the  grave  (Matt,  xxvii. 
55,  50 ;  Mark  xv.  40,  xvi.  1 ;  comp.  Matt.  xx.  20, 
and  Luke  viii.  3).  It  is  reasonable  to  infer  that 
Zeljedee  was  dead  before  this  time.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice,  and  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  a 
minute  confirmation  of  the  evangelical  narrative 
that  the  name  of  Zebedee  is  almost  identical  in 
signification  with  that  of  John,  since  it  is  likely 
that  a  father  would  desire  that  his  own  lianie 
should  be,  as  it  were,  continued,  although  in  an 
altered  form.   [John  thk  Apostle.]   W.  B.  J. 

ZEBI'NA  (Sr^T  [boiiffht  or  soU]  -.  ZeySe.'- 
far;  [Vat.  Zau^iw;  FA.  (with  next  word)  Za/j.- 
^eii/aSia  ;]  Alex,  omits:  ZabiiKi).  One  of  tlie 
sons  of  Nebo,  who  had  taken  foreign  wives  alter 
the  return  from  Babylon  (Ezr.  x.  43). 

ZBBO'IM  [or  ZEBOIIM].  This  word 
represents  in  the  A.  V.  two  names  which  in  the 
original  are  quite  distinct. 

1.  (Qp^^,     C^^htr,    Cte',     and,    in    the 

Keri,  C*'13!i  :  [Hom.  26/3a)iV,]  « 2e3a)6<V, 
[2ey8o€iV;  V.at.  2e;8weiu  ;]  Alex.  2e;8a)i/x,  2e- 
&coei/ji.,  ['Xe^ccetv  :]  ISeboini  )  One  of  the  five 
cities  of  the  "plain"  or  circle  of  Jordan.  It  is 
mentioned  in  Gen.  x.  19,  xiv.  2,  8;  Deut.  xxix.  23; 
and  Hos.  xi.  8,  in  each  of  which  passages  it  is 
either  coupled  with  Admah,  or  placed  next  it  in 
the  lists.  The  name  of  its  kins;,  Shen)eber,  is 
;)reserved  (Gen.  xiv.  2);  and  it  perhaps  appears 
again,  as  Zebaim,  in  the  lists  of  the  menials  of 
the  Temple. 

No  attempt  appears  to  have  been  made  to  dis- 
cover the  site  of  Zeboim,  till  INI.  de  Saulcy  sug- 
gested the  Ta/dn  Stbdaii,  a  name  which  he,  and 
he  alone,  reports  as  attached  to  extensive  ruins  on 
the  high  ground  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  Kerak 
( ^^<>y"'J''i  'J •'"I-  22;  Map,  sht.  7).  Before  however 
this  can  be  accepted,  M.  de  Saulcy  must  explain 
bow  a  place  which  stood  in  the  plain  or  circle  of 

n  In  Gen.  x.  19  only,  this  api^ears  in  Vat.  (Mai), 
Ze(3wi/iei'u.  [The  Vat.  MS.  does  not  contain  this  part 
of  Genesis.  — A.] 

''  *  The  conjecture  of  M.  de  Saulcy  has  no  appar- 
Dnt  basi.'^  :  but  the  present  distance  of  the  site  from 
the  river  is  not  a  fatal  objection  to  it.  The  explana- 
tion asked  for  above,  the  reader  will  find  from  Mr. 
drove's  own  pen  in  the  article  Lot  (ii.  1686).    S.  W. 


ZEBUL 

(he  Jordan,  can  have  been  situated  on  the  high 
lands  at  least  50  miles  from  that  river.  [Se» 
Sodom  and  Zoak.] 

In  Gen.  xiv.  2,  8,  the  name  is  given  hi  the  A.  V 
Zeisoiiji,  a  more  accurate  representative  of  tha 
form  in  which  it  appears  in  the  original  both  there 
and  in  Deut.  xxix.  23.* 

2.  The  Valley  of  Zeboim  (D'^^h^Jn  "'S : 
[Vat.]  Ta.  TTif  lafieiv  ;  [Rom.  Aid.  ^a^ia; 
Comp.  2a/3a/>;]  the  passage  is  lost  in  Alex. :  \'riUis 
Seboim).  The  name  differs  from  the  preceding, 
not  only  in  having  the  definite  article  attached  to 
it,  but  also  in  containing  the  characteristic  and 
.stubliorn  letter  Ain,  which  imparts  a  definite  char- 
acter to  the  word  in  pronunciation.  It  was  a 
ravine  or  gorge,  apparently  east  of  Michmash,  men- 
tioned only  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  18.  It  is  there  de- 
.scribed  with  a  curious  minuteness,  which  is  un- 
fortunately no  longer  intelligible.  The  road  run- 
ning from  Michmash  to  the  east,  is  specified  as 
"  the  road  of  the  border  that  looketh  to  the  ravine 
of  Zeboim  towards  the  wilderness."  The  wilder- 
ness {mulbnr)  is  no  doubt  the  district  of  uncultivated 
mountain  tops  and  sides  which  lies  between  the 
central  district  of  Benjamin  and  the  Jordan  Val- 
ley ;  and  here  apparently  the  ravine  of  Zeboim 
should  be  sought.  In  that  very  district  there  is 
a  wild  gorge,  bearing  the  name  of  ISImk  ed-Dubba' 

(«A.oJ'     I   iLXu  ),c  "ravine  of  the  hyena,"  the 

exact  equivalent  of  Ge  hat-tsebo'im.  Up  this 
gorge  runs  the  path  by  which  the  writer  was  con- 
ducted from  Jericho  to  Muklimns,  in  1858.  It  does 
not  appear  that  the  name  has  been  noticed  by 
other  travellers,  but  it  is  worth  investigation.  G. 

*  The  name  Zeboim  (with  the  Ain)  also  occurs 
in  Neh.  xi.  34  (Kom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit;  FA.3 
2f;8oe(^,  Comp.  2e|8co6iV'!  pei'haps  designating  a 
town  near  the  ravine  of  the  .same  name.  It  is 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Hadid,  Neballat, 
Lod  and  Ono.  A. 

ZEBU'DAH  (H'l'^nT:  Keri  H-^T^HT  [{liven, 
bestowed]  :  ^leXSacp  ;  [Vat.  leXAa  ;]  Alex.  EieA- 
5a(p:  [Comp.  ZaPovSd  ■]  Zebida).  Daughter  of 
I'edaiah  of  Ruinah,  wife  of  Josiah  and  mother  of 
kin>;  Jehoiakim  (2  K.  xxiii.  36).  The  Peshito- 
Syriac  and  Arabic  of  the  London  Polyglot  read 
nT^^T  ;  the  Targum  has   miHT. 

ZE'BUL    (^3"^     [habitation,  chamber']:   Ze- 

Pov\:  Zebul).  Chief  man  {~W,  A.  V.  "ruler") 
of  the  city  of  Shechem  at  the  time  of  the  contest 
between  Abimelech  and  the  native  Canaaanites. 
His  name  occurs  Judg.  ix.  28,  30,  36,  38,  41.  He 
governed  the  town  as  the  "officer  "  (T^pQ  :  ftritr- 
KoTTos)  of  Abimelech  while  the  latter  was  absent, 
and  he  took  part  against  the  Canaanites  by  shut- 
ting them  out  of  the  city  when  Abimelech  ■  was 
encamped  outside  it.  His  conversation  with  Gaal 
the  Canaanite  leader,  as  they  stood  in  the  gate  of 
Shechem  watching  the  approach  of  the  armed 
bands,  gives  Zebul  a  certain  individuality  amongst 
the  many  characters  of  that  time  of  confusion. 

G. 

e  The  writer  was  accompanied  by  Mr.  Consul  K.  T 
Rogers,  well  known  as  one  of  the  best  living  scholars 
in  the  common  Arabic,  who  wrote  down  the  name  for 
him  at  the  moment.  [Dr.  Van  Dyck  writes  the  last 
word  without  doubling  the  6.  —  A.] 


ZEBULONITE 

ZEB'ULONITE  ("'ilVin-TrT,  with  the  def. 
article  [patr.]  :  o  Za;8ouAc^)I'I'T7/s"[^'at.  -vet-] ;  Alex. 
ill  both  verses,  o  Za^ovvtrris-  Znlndoniles)^  i.  e. 
iiieiiiber  of  tlie  tril)e  of  Zebuliiii.  Applied  only  to 
EuJN,  the  one  jiid;4e  produced  l)y  the  tribe  ('ludg. 
xii.  11,  12).  The  .article  being  found  in  the  origi- 
n.al,  the  sentence  should  read,  "  Klon  the  Zebulon- 
ite."  G. 

ZEB'ULUN  (l^bin'r,  "|b^3T,  and  "]^b^:2t, 

[«//y</e,  dweUlitg']  :  Za^ovKwv  ■  Zabidon).  The 
tenth  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  accordini^  to  the  order 
in  which  their  births  are  enumerated;  the  sixth 
and  Last  of  Leah  ((ien.  xx.^^  20,  xxxv.  23,  xlvi.  l-t; 
1  Chr.  ii.  1).  His  birth  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xxx. 
19,  20,  where  the  origin  of  the  name  is  as  usual 
ascribed  to  an  exclamation  of  his  mother's,  "  '  Now 
will  my  husband  *dvvell-with-uie  {khtliiri),  fori 
have  borne  him  six  sons !  '  and  she  called  his  name 
Zebulun." 

Of  the  individual  Zebulun  nothing  is  recorded. 
The  list  of  Gen.  xlvi.  ascribes  to  him  tlu'ee  sons, 
founders  of  the  chief  lamilies  of  the  trii)e  (comp. 
Num.  xxvi.  2(i)  at  the  time  of  the  migration  to 
Egypt.  In  the  Jewish  traditions  he  is  named  as 
tlie  first  of  the  five  who  were  presented  by  Joseph 
to  I'haraoh  —  Dan,  Naphtali,  tiad,  and  Asher  be- 
ing the  otliers  (  Tary.  Pseiulijon.  on  Gen.  xlvii.  2). 

Diu'ing  the  journey  from  Egypt  to  Palestine  the 
trilje  of  Zebulun  formed  one  of  the  first  camp, 
with  Judah  and  Issachar  (also  sons  of  Leah), 
marching  under  the  standard  of  Judah.  Its  num- 
bers, at  tlie  census  of  Sinai,  were  57,000,  surpassed 
only  by  Simeon,  Dan,  and  Judah.  At  that  of 
Shittim  they  were  60,500,  not  liaving  diminished, 
but  not  having  increased  nearly  so  much  as  might 
naturally  be  expected.  'I'he  head  of  the  tribe  at 
Sin.ai  was  Ehab  son  of  Helon  (Num.  vii.  24);  at 
Shiloh,  Eliz.aphan  son  of  Parnach  (^ib.  xxxiv.  25). 
Its  representative  amongst  the  spies  was  Gaddiel 
son  of  Sodi  (xiii.  10).  Be.'iides  wliat  may  be  im- 
plied in  its  appearances  in  these  lists,  the  trilje  is 
not  recorded  to  ha\e  taken  part,  fur  evil  or  good,  in 
any  of  the  events  of  the  wandering  or  the  conquest. 
Its  allotment  was  the  third  of  the  second  distribu- 
tion (Josh.  xix.  10).  Judah,  Joseph,  Beiyamin, 
had  acquired  the  south  and  the  centre  of  the 
country.  To  Zebnlun  fell  one  of  the  fairest  of  the 
remaining  portions.  It  is  perhaps  impossible,  in 
the  present  state  of  our  luiowledge,  exactly  to  de- 
fine its  limits;  <^  but  the  statement  of  Josephus 
{Anf.  v.  1,  §  22)  is  probably  in  the  main  correct, 
tliat  it  reached  on  the  one  side  to  the  hilce  of  Gen- 
nesaret,  and  on  the  other  to  Carniel  and  the  Med- 
it«rranean.  On  the  south  it  was  bounded  by 
Igsacliai,  who  lay  in  the  great  plain  or  valley  of 
:he  Kishon;    on   the  north  it  had   Naphtali  and 


ZEBULUN 


SSO-j 


a  Of  these  three  forms  the  iirst  is  eniploved  iu 
Icuesis,  Isaiah,  I'saluis,  and  Chronicles,  except  Gen. 
xlix.  13,  and  1  Chr.  xxvii.  19;  also  occasionally  iu 
Judges  ;  the  second  is  found  in  the  rest  of  the  Penta- 
teucli,  iu  Joshua,  Judges,  Kzekiel,  and  the  above  place 
In  Chronicles.  The  third  and  more  extended  form  is 
found  iu  Judg.  i.  30  only.  The  first  and  second  are 
used  iuaiscriminately  :  e.  gr.  .Judg.  iv  (3  and  v.  18 
fxhibit  the  first ;  Judg.  iv.  10  and  v.  li  the  second 
form. 

b  This  play  is  not  preserved  in  the  original  of  the 
I  Blessing  of  Jacob,"  though  the  language  of  the  A. 
V    implies  it.     The  word  rendered  "  dwell  "   in  Gen. 

tUx    18  is  ITIi''''     with  no  relatiou  to  the  name  Zeb- 


Asher.     In  this  district  the  tribe  possessed   the 

outlet  (the  "going-out,"  Deut.  xxxiii.  18)  of  (lie 
plain  of  Akka;  the  fisheries  of  the  lake  of  Galilee: 
the  splendid  agricultural  capabilities  of  the  gre.at 
plain  of  the  Biitt/ui/ {equal  in  fertility,  and  aliuosl 
equal  in  extent,  to  that  of  .lezreel,  and  with  the 
inmien.se  advantage  of  not  being,  as  that  was,  the 
high  road  of  the  Peduu'ns);  and,  last  not  least,  it 
included  sites  so  strongly  fortified  liy  luature,  that 
in  the  later  struggles  of  the  nation  they  proved 
more  impregnable  than  any  in  the  whole  country. <* 
'I'he  sacred  mountain  of  Tauoh,  Zebulun  appears 
to  have  shared  with  Issacbar  (Deut.  xxxiii.  19), 
and  it  and  liimmon  were  allotted  to  the  Merarite 
Levites  (1  Chr.  vi.  77).  But  these  ancient  sanc- 
tuaries of  the  tribe  were  eclipsed  by  those  which 
arose  within  it  afterwartls,  wheii  the  name  of  Zeb- 
ulun was  superseded  by  that  of  Galilee.  Nazareth, 
Caiia,  Tiberias,  and  probably  the  land  of  Gennesa- 
ret  itself,  were  all  situated  within  its  limits. 

The  fact  recognized  by  .losephus  that  Zebulun 
extended  to  the  Mediterranean,  though  not  men- 
tioned or  implied,  as  far  as  we  can  discern,  in  the 
lists  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  is  alluded  to  in  tha 
Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix.  13):  — 

"  Zebulun  dwells  at  the  shore  of  the  seas, 

Even  he  at  the  shore  of  ships  : 

And  his  thighs  are  upon  Zidoa  '■  

a  passage  which  seems  to  show  that  at  the 
date  at  which  it  was  written,  the  tribe  was  taking 
a  part  in  Phceiiician  "  commerce.  The  '•  way  of 
the  sea  "  (Is.  ix.  1),  the  great  road  from  Damascus 
to  the  Mediterranean,  traversed  a  good  portion  of 
the  territory  of  Zebulun,  and  must  have  brought 
its  people  into  contact  with  the  merchants  and  the 
commodities  of  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Egypt. 

Situated  so  far  fiQin  the  centre  of  government, 
Zebulun  remains  throughout  the  history,  with  one 
exception,  in  the  obscurity  which  envelops  the 
whole  of  the  northern  tribes.  That  exception, 
however,  is  a  remarkable  one.  The  conduct  of  the 
tribe  during  the  struggle  with  Sisera,  when  they 
fought  with  desperate  valor  side  by  side  with  theii 
brethren  of  Naphtali,  was  such  as  to  draw  down 
the  especial  praise  of  Deborah,  who  singles  them 
out  from  all  the  other  tribes  (Judg.  v.  18):  — 

"Zebulun  is  a  people  that  threw  away  its  life  even 
unto  death : 
And  Naphtali,  on  the  high  places  of  the  field." 

The  same  poem  contains  an  expression  which  seetni 
to  imply  that,  apart  from  the  distinction  gained  by 
their  conduct  in  this  contest,  Zebulun  was  already 
in  a  prominent  position  among  the  tribes:  — 

'^  Out  of  Machir  came  down  governors  : 
And  out  of  Zebuluu  those  that  handle  the  pen  (oi 
the  wand)  of  the  scribe  ;  " 


ulun.  The  LXX.  put  a  different  point  on  the  ex 
clamation  of  Leah  :  "  My  husband  will  choose  me  ' 
(aipeTitt  ne)-  This,  however,  hardly  implies  any 
diiiereuce  in  the  original  text.  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  19, 
§  8)  gives  only  a  general  explanation  :  "  a  pledge  ol 
goodwill  towards  her."' 

'•  Few  of  the  towns  in  the  catalogue  of  Josh.  xix. 
10-16  have  been  identified.  The  tribe  is  omitted  in 
the  lists  of  1  Chronicles. 

<'  Sepphoris,  Jotapata,  &c. 

c  In  the  "  Testament  of  Zabulon "  ^Fabricius 
PseudeiiiiiT.  Y.  T.  i.  630-45)  great  stress  is  laii  on  his 
skill  in  fishing,  and  he  is  commemorated  as  the  first 
to  navigate  a  skiff  on  the  sea. 


3598 


ZEBULUNITES 


refen-iiig  probably  to  the  officers,  who  registered 
ajid  marshalled  the  warriors  of  the  host  (coni|). 
Josh,  i  10).  One  of  these  '•  scribes  "  may  have 
been  Klon,  the  single  judge  produced  by  the  tribe, 
who  is  recorded  as  having  held  office  for  ten  years 
(Judg.  xii.  11,  12). 

A  similar  reputation  is  alluded  to  in  the  men- 
tion of  tlie  tribe  among  those  who  attended  the 
inauguration  of  David's  reign  at  Hebron.  The 
expres.sions  are  again  peculiar:  "Of  Zebuhm  such 
as  went  forth  to  war,  rangers  of  battle,  with  all 
tools  of  war,  50,000;  who  could  set  the  battle  in 
nrray;  they  were  not  of  double  heart"  (I  Chr.  xii. 
8-3).  The  same  passage,  however,  shows  that 
while  proticient  in  the  arts  of  war  they  did  not 
neglect  those  of  [leace,  but  that  on  the  wooded 
hills  and  fertile  plains  of  their  district  they  pro- 
duced liread,  meal,  figs,  grapes,  wine,  oil,  oxen,  and 
sheep  in  abundance  (ver.  40).  The  head  of  the 
tribe  at  this  time  was  Lshmaiah  ben-Obadiah  (1 
Chr.  xxvii.  10). 

AVe  are  nowhere  directly  told  that  the  people  of 
Zebulun  were  carried  off  to  Assyria.  Tii;lath- 
pilesei-  swept  away  the  whole  of  Naphtali  (2  K.  xv. 
20:  Tol).  i.  2),  and  Shalmaneser  in  the  same  way 
took  "Samaria"  (xvii.  6);  but  though  the  de- 
portation of  Zebulun  and  Issacliar  is  not  in  so 
many  words  asserted,  there  is  the  statement  (xvii. 
18)  that  the  whole  of  the  norfliern  tribes  were 
removed;  and  there  is  also  the  well-known  allusion 
of  Isaiah  to  the  atHiction  of  Zebulun  and  Naphtali 
(ix.  1),  winch  can  hardly  point  to  anything  but 
the  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser.  It  is  satisfactory 
to  reflect  that  the  very  latest  mention  of  the  Zelm- 
lunites  is  tiie  account  of  the  visit  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  them  to  .lerusaleni  to  the  I'assover  of  Ilez 
ekiah,  when,  by  the  enlightened  liberality  of  the 
king,  they  were  enabled  to  ^eat  the  feast,  even 
though,  through  long  neglect  of  the  provisions 
of  the  Law,  they  were  not  cleansed  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  the  ceremonial  law.  In  the  visions 
of  Ezekiel  (xlviii.  26--3;i)  and  of  St.  John  (Itev. 
vii.  8)  this  trilje  finds  its  due  mention.  G. 

ZEB'ULUNITES,  THE  C^bb^^TH,  i.  e. 
"the  Zebulonite"  [patr.] :  Za^ovXdiV-  Zabulon). 
The  members  of  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (Num.  xxvi. 
27  only).  It  would  be  more  literally  accurate  if 
spelt  Zkbulonites.  G. 

ZECHARI'AH  (n;^~l5'T  {Jehovah  remem- 
bers]: Zaxapiu-s'-  Zachnrifis).  1.  The  eleventh 
in  order  of  the  twelve  minor  prophets.  Of  his 
personal  history  we  know  but  little.  lie  is  called 
in  his  prophecy  the  son  of  Berechiah,  and  the 
grandson  of  lildo,  whereas  in  the  book  of  Kzra  (v. 
1,  vi.  14 )  he  is  said  to  have  been  the  son  of  Iddo. 
Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  reconcile  this 
discrepancy.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  [Pre/.  Com- 
ment, ad  Zech.)  supposes  that  Berechiah  was  the 
father  of  Zechariah,  according  to  the  flesh,  and 
that  Iddo  was  his  instructor,  and  might  be  re- 
garded as  his  spiritual  father.  Jerome  too,  accord- 
ing to  some  MSS.,  has  in  Zech.  i.  1,  "  filium 
Barachiffi,  filium  Addo,"  as  if  he  supposed  tliat 
Berechiah  and  Iddo  were  different  names  of  tiie 
Sfvnie  person:  and  the  same  mistake  occurs  in  the 
LXX. :  rbf  rov  Bapax't-ov,  vlhv  ' A55ci.  Gesenius 
(L(x.  s.  v.'I'Z)  and  Rosenmliller  {On  Zech.  i.  1) 


a  As  Hezehiah  (Is.  i.  1,  Hos.  i.  1)  and  Jehezekiah 
■?  K.  xviii.  1,  9.  101,  Coniah  (Jer.  xxii.  24.  xxxvii.  1) 


ZECHARIAH 

take  "^5  in  the  passages  in  Ezra  to  mean  "  grand 
son,"  as  in  Gen.  xxix.  5  Laban  is  termed  "  th» 
son."  /.  e.  "grandson,"  of  Nahor.  Others,  again, 
have  suggested  that  in  the  text  of  Ezra  no  men- 
tion is  made  of  Berechiah,  because  he  was  already 
dead,  or  because  Iddo  was  the  more  distinguished 
person,  and  the  generally  recognized  head  of  tiie 
family.  Knobel  thinks  that  the  name  of  Berechiah 
has  crept  into  the  present  text  of  Zechariah  from 
Isaiah  viii.  2,  where  mention  is  m.ade  of  a  Zecha- 
riah "  the  son  of  Jeherechinh,''  which  is  virtually 
the  same  name  (LXX.  Bapaxiou)  as  Berechiah." 
His  theory  is  that  chapters  ix.-xi.  of  our  present 
book  of  Zechariah  are  i^ally  the  work  of  the  older 
Zechariah  (Is.  viii.  2);  that  a  later  scribe  finding 
the  two  books,  one  bearing  the  name  of  Zechariah 
the  son  of  Iddo,  and  tiie  other  that  of  Zechariah  the 
son  of  Berechiah,  united  them  into  one,  and  at  the 
same  time  combined  the  titles  of  the  two,  and  that 
hence  arose  the  confusion  which  at  iiresent  exists. 
This,  however,  is  hardly  a  probal)le  hypothesis. 
It  is  surely  more  natural  to  suppose,  as  the  prophet 
himself  mentions  his .  father's  name,  whereas  the 
historical  books  of  Kzra  and  Nehemiah  mention 
oidy  Iddo,  that  Berechiah  had  died  early,  and  that 
there  was  now  no  intervening  link  between  the 
grandfather  and  the  grandson.  The  son,  in  giving 
his  pedigree,  does  not  omit  his  father's  name:  the 
historian  passes  it  over,  as  of  one  who  was  but 
little  known,  or  already  forgotten.  This  view  is 
confirmed  if  we  suppose  the  Iddo  here  mentioned 
to  have  been  the  Iddo  the  priest  who,  in  Neh.  xii. 
4,  is  said  to  have  returned  from  Babylon  in  com- 
pany with  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua.  He  is  there 
said  to  have  had  a  son  Zechariah  (ver.  16),  who 
was  contem])orary  with  Joiakini  the  son  of  Joshua; 
and  this  falls  in  with  the  hypothesis  that,  owing 
to  some  unexplained  cause  —  perhaps  the  death  of 
his  father  —  Zechariah  became  the  next  repre- 
sentative of  the  family  after  his  grandfather  Iddo. 
Zechariah,  according  to  this  view,  like  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel  before  him,  was  priest  as  well  as 
prophet.    He  seems  to  have  entered  upon  his  office 

while  yet  young  ("^V?)  Zech.  ii.  4;  comp.  Jer.  i. 
6),  and  must  have  been  lorn  in  Babylon,  whence 
he  returned  with  the  first  caravan  of  exiles  under 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua. 

It  was  in  the  eighth  month,  in  the  second  year 
of  Darius,  that  he  first  pulilicly  discharged  his 
office.  In  this  he  acted  in  concert  with  Haggai, 
who  must  have  been  consider.ably  his  senior,  if,  as 
seems  not  improbable,  Haggai  had  been  carried 
into  captivity,  and  hence  had  himself  been  one  of 
those  who  had  seen  "the  house"  of  Jehovah  "  iu 
her  first  glory"  (Hag.  ii.  3).  Both  prophets  had 
the  same  gre.at  object  before  them;  both  directed 
afl  their  enei-gies  to  the  building  of  the  Second 
Temple.  Haggai  seems  to  have  led  the  way  in  this 
work,  and  then  to  have  left  it  chiefly  in  the  hands 
of  his  younger  contemporary.  The  foundations  of 
the  new  building  had  already  been  laid  in  the  time 
of  Cyrus;  but  during  the  reigns  of  Cambyses  and 
the  pseudo-Smerdis  tlie  work  had  been  broken  off 
through  the  jealousies  of  the  Samaritans.  AVhen, 
however,  Darius  Hystaspis  ascended  the  throne 
(521),  things  took  a  more  favorable  turn.  He 
seems  to  have  been  a  large-hearted  and  gracious 
prince,  and  to  have  been  weD-disposed  towards  the 


and  Jeeoniah  (Jer.  xxiv.  1,  xxvii.  20),  Aziel  (1  Chr.  .\^ 
20)  and  Jaaziel  (1  Chr.  xv.  18). 


ZECHARIAH 

Jews.  Encouraged  by  the  hopes  which  his  ac- 
eession  held  out,  the  prophets  exerted  themselves 
to  the  utmost  to  secure  the  completion  of  the 
Temple. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  see  of  how  great  moment, 
under  such  circumstances,  and  for  the  discliarge  of 
the  special  duty  with  which  he  was  entrusted, 
would  be  the  priestly  origin  of  Zechariah. 

Too  often  the  prophet  had  had  to  stand  forth  in 
direct  antagonism  to  the  priest.  In  an  age  when 
the  service  of  God  had  stiffened  into  formalism, 
and  the  priests'  lips  no  longer  kept  knowledge,  the 
prophet  was  the  witness  for  the  truth  which  lay 
beneath  the  outward  ceremonial,  and  without  which 
the  outward  ceremonial  was  worthless.  But  the 
thing  to  be  dreaded  now  was  not  superstitions 
formalism,  but  cold  neglect.  There  was  no  fear 
now  lest  in  a  gorgeous  temple,  amidst  the  splen- 
dors of  an  imposing  ritual  and  the  smoke  of 
sacrifices  ever  ascending  to  heaven,  the  heart  and 
life  of  religion  should  be  lost.  The  fear  was  all  the 
other  way,  lest  even  the  body,  the  outward  form 
and  service,  should  be  suffered  to  decay. 

The  foundations  of  the  Temple  had  indeed  been 
<aid,  but  that  was  all  (Ezr.  v.  16).  Discouraged 
by  the  opposition  which  they  had  encountered  at 
first,  the  Jewish  colony  had  begun  to  build,  and 
were  not  able  to  finish;  and  even  when  the  letter 
came  from  Darius  sanctioning  the  work,  and  prom- 
ising his  protection,  they  showed  no  hearty  dis- 
position to  engage  in  it.  At  such  a  time,  no  more 
fitting  instrument  could  be  found  to  rouse  the 
people,  whose  heart  had  grown  cold,  thm  one  who 
Uw^ted  to  the  authority  of  the  prophet  the  zeal  and 
the  traditions  of  a  sacerdotal  family. 

Accordingly,  to  Zechariah's  influence  we  find 
the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  in  a  great  measure 
ascribed.  "And  the  elders  of  the  .lews  builded," 
it  is  siid,  "  and  they  prospered  through  tlie  proph- 
esying of  Haggai  the  prophet,  and  Zechariah  the 
son  of  iddo"  (Kzr.  vi.  14: ).  It  is  remarkable  that 
in  this  juxtaposition  of  the  two  names  both  .are  not 
styled  prophets:  not  "Haggai  and  Zechariah  the 
prophet.^,"  but  "  Haggai  the  prophet,  and  Zecha- 
riah l/ie  »o/i  (if  Iddii."  Is  it  an  improbalile  con- 
jecture that  Zechariah  is  designated  by  his  father's 
(or  grandfather's)  name,  rather  than  by  his  office, 
in  order  to  remind  us  of  his  priestly  character? 
Be  this  as  it  may,  we  find  other  indications  of  the 
close  union  which  now  subsisted  between  the  priests 
and  the  prophets.  Various  events  coiuiected  with 
the  taking  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Captivity  in  Baby- 
lon had  led  to  the  institution  of  soleuni  fest-days; 
and  we  find  that  when  a  question  arose  as  to  the 
propriety  of  observing  these  tast-da3's,  now  that  the 
city  and  tlie  Temple  were  reljuilt,  the  question  was 
referred  to  "  the  priests  which  were  in  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  and  to  the  proi)hets,"  —  a  recognition,  not 
only  of  the  joint  authority,  but  of  the  harmony 
Subsisting  between  the  two  bodies,  without  parallel 
in  Jewish  history.  The  manner,  too,  in  which 
Joshua  the  high-priest  is  spoken  of  in  this  proph- 


«  Hence  Pseud-Epiphanius,  speaking  of  Haggai,  says 
Kal  aiiTo;  e\j/a\\€V  exei  TrpwTOs  aAATjAou'i'a  (in  allusion 
to  tlie  Hallelujah  with  which  some  of  tbi-^e  Psalms 
begin)  Sio  Ae'yo^ei/'  aAArjAouia  o  tcTTtc  ii;iii/os  'AyyaCov 
KoX  Zaxop'ow. 

b  Tr.  Megill  I,  fol.  17,  2.  18,  1 ;  Rashi  ad  Baba 
Bat/ira,  fol    15,  1. 

c  Pseud-E|:iiih.  rie  Prop/i.  cap.  21,  oCtos  ^ASei-  ajrb 
f^^  XoAcaiwi'  rj6)j  irpo/3e^7])fu)S  Kal  txel  i}u  ttoWo.  t^ 


ZECHARIAH 


3599 


ecy  shows  how  lively  a  sympathy  Zechariah   fe^ 
towards  him. 

Later  traditions  assume,  what  is  indeed  very 
probable,  that  Zechariah  took  personally  an  active 
part  in  providing  for  the  litui-gical  service  of  the 
Temple.  He  and  Haggai  are  both  said  to  have 
composed  psalms  with  this  view.  According  to 
the  LXX.,  Pss.  cxxxvii.,  cxlv.-cxlviii. ;  according 
to  the  Peshito,  Pss.  cxxv.,  cxxvi.;  according  tc 
the  Vulg.,  Ps.  cxi. ;  are  psalms  of  Haggai  and 
Zechariah. a  The  triumphant  "  Hallelujah,"  with 
which  many  of  them  open,  was  supposed  to  be 
characteristic  of  those  psalms  which  were  first 
chanted  in  the  Second  Temple,  and  came  with  an 
emphasis  of  meaning  from  the  lips  of  those  wh.) 
had  been  restored  to  their  native  land.  The  allu- 
sions, moreover,  with  which  these  psalms  abound, 
as  well  as  their  place  in  the  psalter,  leave  us  in  no 
doubt  as  to  the  time  when  they  were  composed,, 
and  lend  confirmation  to  the  tradition  respecting 
their  authorship. 

If  the  later  Jewish  accounts  *  may  be  trusted, 
Zechariah,  as  well  as  Haggai,  was  a  member  of 
the  Great  Synagogue.  The  patristic  notices  of  the 
prophet  are  worth  nothing.  According  to  these, 
he  exercised  his  prophetic  office  in  Chaldaea,  and 
wrought  many  miracles  there;  returned  to  Jeru- 
salem at  an  advanced  age,  where  he  discharged  the 
duties  of  the  priesthood,  and  where  he  died  and 
was  buried  by  the  side  of  Haggai."^ 

The  genuine  writings  of  Zechariah  help  us  but 
little  in  our  estimation  of  his  character.  Some 
faint  traces,  however,  we  may  observe  in  them  of 
his  education  in  Babylon.  Less  free  and  inde- 
pendent than  he  would  have  been,  had  his  feet  trod 
from  childhood  the  soil,  — 

"  Where  each  old  poetic  mountaia 
Inspiration  breathed  around," 

he  leans  avowedly  on  the  authority  of  the  older 
prophets,  and  copies  their  expressions.  Jeremiah 
especially  seems  to  have  been  his  favorite;  and 
hence  the  Jewish  saying,  that  "  the  spirit  of  Jere- 
miah dwelt  in  Zechariah."  But  in  what  may  be 
called  the  peculiarities  of  his  prophecy,  he  ap- 
proaches more  nearly  to  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  Lilce 
them  he  delights  in  visions ;  like  them  he  use.** 
symbols  and  allegories,  rather  than  the  bold  figures 
and  metaphors  which  lend  so  much  force  and 
beauty  to  the  writings  of  the  earlier  prophets; 
like  them  he  beholds  angels  ministering  before 
Jehovah,  and  fulfilling  his  behests  on  the  earth. 
He  is  the  only  one  of  the  prophets  who  speaks  of 
Satan.  That  some  of  these  peculiarities  are  owing 
to  his  Chaldoean  education  can  hardly  be  doubted. 
It  is  at  least  remarkable  that  both  Ezekiel  and 
Daniel,  who  must  have  been  influenced  by  the 
same  associations,  should  in  some  of  these  respects 
so  closely  resemble  Zechariah,  widely  as  they  differ 
from  him  in  others. 

Even  in  the  J'oryyi  of  the  visions  a  careful  crit- 
icism might  perhaps  discover  some  traces  of  the 


Aao)  7rpoe</»)Teu(r«f ,  ktA.  Dorotheus,  p.  IH  :  "Hie  Zaoh- 
arias  e  Chaldaea  venit  cum  ajtate  jam  esset  provccta 
ntque  ibi  populo  multa  vaticiuatus  est  prodigiaque 
pi-ob.mdi  gratia  edidit,  et  sacerdotio  Hierasolymis  fuuo- 
tus  test,"  etc.  Isidorus,  cap.  51.  ''  Zacharias  de  regione 
Chaldujorum  valde  senex  iu  terram  suam  reversus  est, 
in  qua  et  mortuqs  est  ac  sepuitus  justa  Agija  aiu  q-ii 
escit  in  pacii  " 


3600 


ZECHARIAH 


prophet's  early  training.  Possibly  the  "  valley  of 
myrtles"  in  the  first  vision  may  have  been  sug- 
gested by  Chaldsea  rather  tiian  by  Palestine.  At 
any  rate  it  is  a  curious  foct  that  myrtles  are  never 
mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  before  the 
exile.  They  are  found,  besides  this  passar^^e  of 
Zecbariah,  in  the  Deutero-Isaiah  xli.  19,  Iv.  1-3, 
and  in  Neh.  viii.  15."  The  forms  of  trial  in  tlie 
third  vision,  where  Joshua  the  high-priest  is  ar- 
raigned, seem  borrowed  from  the  practice  of  Per- 
sian rather  than  Jewish  courts  of  law.  The  tiltliy 
garments  in  which  Joshua  appears  are  those  which 
the  accused  must  assume  when  brought  to  trial; 
the  white  robe  put  upon  him  is  the  caftan  or  robe 
of  honor  which  to  this  day  in  the  East  is  put  upon 
the  minister  of  state  who  has  been  acquitted  of  the 
charges  laid  against  him. 

The  vision  of  tlie  woman  in  the  Ephah  is  also 
oriental  in  its  character.  Ewald  refers  to  a  very 
Biniilar  vision  in  Tod's  Rnjas/litm,  i.  ii.  p.  G88. 

Finally,  the  chariots  issuing  from  between  two 
mountains  of  brass  must  have  been  suggested,  there 
Jan  scarcely  be  any  doubt,  by  some  Persian  sym- 
bolism. 

Other  peculiarities  of  style  must  be  noticed, 
when  we  come  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  In- 
tegrity of  the  Pook.  Generally  speaking,  Zecha- 
riah's  style  is  pure,  and  remarliably  free  from 
Chaldaisnis.  As  is  common  with  w-riters  in  the 
decline  of  a  language,  he  seems  to  have  striven  to 
imitate  tlie  purity  of  the  earlier  models;  but  in 
orthography,  and  in  the  use  of  some  words  and 
phrases,    he  betrays  the  influence  of  a   later  age. 

He  writes  iHS,  and  ^^1"^,  and  employs  HP^ 
(v.  7 )  in  its  later  use  as  the  indefinite  article,  and 
n"1~iri?¥    with  the  fem.  termination  (iv.  12).    A 

full  collection  of  these  peculiarities  will  be  found  in 
Kiister,  Meltti-inatri  in  Ztcli.,  etc. 

Contents  nf  the  Prophecij.  — The  book  of  Zecb- 
ariah, in  its  existing  form,  consists  of  three  prin- 
cipal parts,  chaps,  i.-viii.,  chaps,  ix.-xi.,  chaps, 
xii.-xiv. 

I.  The  first  of  these  divisions  is  allowed  by  all 
critics  to  be  the  genuine  work  of  Zecbariah  the  son 
of  Iddo.  It  consists,  first,  of  a  short  introduction 
or  preface,  in  which  the  propiiet  announces  his 
commission  ;  then  of  a  series  of  visions,  descriptive 
of  all  those  hopes  and  antici|)ations  of  whicli  the 
b'likling  of  tlie  Temple  was  the  pledge  and  sure 
loundation  ;  and  finally  of  a  discourse,  delivered  two 
years  later,  in  reply  to  questions  respecting  the  ob- 
servance  of  certain  established  fasts. 

1.  The  short  introductory  oracle  (chap.  i.  1-6) 
is  a  warning  voice  from  the  past.  Tlie  prophet 
polemnly  i-eminds  the  people,  by  an  appeal  to  the 
t.xpcrience  of  their  fathers,  that  no  word  of  (iod 
had  e\er  fiiUen  to  the  ground,  and  that  therefore, 
if    with  sluggish  indifference  they  refused  to  co- 

n  In  the  last  passage  the  people  are  told  to  "  fetch 
olive-brauches  and  cypress-branches,  and  myrtle- 
branches  and  palni-brauches  ....  to  make  bootlis  '' 
fur  the  celebration  of  the  Fi  ast  of  Tabernacles.  It  is 
interesting  to  couipare  this  with  the  original  direction. 
as  given  in  the  wilderness,  when  the  only  trees  men- 
tioned are  '■  palms  and  willows  of  the  brook.'  Pales- 
tine was  rich  in  the  olive  and  cypress.  Is  it  very  im- 
Drobable  that  the  myrtle  may  have  been  an  importa- 
ioa  from  Babylon  ?  Esther  was  also  called  Iladassah 
,the  myrtle),  perhaps  her  Persian  designation  (Ksth.  ii. 
7);  and  the  myrtle  is  said  to  be  a  native  of  Persia.      ' 


ZECHARIAH 

operate  in  the  building  ol  the  Temple,  they  musl 
expect  the  judgments  of  Uod.  This  warning 
manifestly  rests  upon  the  former  warnings  of  Haw 
gai. 

2.  In  a  dream  of  the  night  there  passed  before 
the  eyes  of  the  prophet  a  series  of  visions  (chap, 
i.  7-vi.  15)  descriptive  in  their  different  aspects  of 
events,  some  of  them  shortly  to  come  to  pass,  and 
others  losing  themselves  in  the  mist  of  the  future. 
These  visions  are  obscure,  and  accordingly  the 
lirophet  asks  their  meaning.  The  interpretation  is 
given,  not  as  to  Amos  by  Jehovah  Himself,  but  by 
an  angel  who  knows  the  mind  and  will  of  Jehovah, 
who  intercedes  with  Him  for  others,  and  by  whom 
.lehovah  speaks  and  issues  his  commands:  at  one 
time  he  is  called  "  the  angel  who  spake  with  me  " 
[or  "by  me  "J  (i.  'J);  at  another,  "  the  angel  of 
Jehovah"  (i.  11,  12,  iii.  1-6). 

(1.)  In  the  first  vision  (chap.  i.  7-15)  the  prophet 
sees,  in  a  valley  of  myrtles,''  a  rider  upon  a  roan 
horse,  accompanied  by  others  who,  having  been  sent 
forth  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth,  had  returned 
with  the  tidings  that  the  whole  earth  was  at  rest 
(with  reference  to  Hag.  ii.  20).  Hereupon  the 
angel  asks  how  long  this  state  of  things  shall  last, 
and  is  assured  that  the  indifference  of  the  heathen 
shall  cease,  and  that  the  Temple  shall  be  built  in 
Jerusalem.  This  vision  seems  to  have  been  partly 
borrowed  from  Job  i.  7,  etc. 

(2.)  The  second  vision  (chap.  ii.  1-17,  A.  V.  i. 
18-ii.  13). explains  how  the  promise  of  the  first  is 
to  be  fulfilled.  The  four  horns  are  the  symbols  of 
the  differ^t  heathen  kingdoms  in  the  four  quarters 
of  the  world,  which  have  hitherto  combined  against 
•lerusalem.  The  four  carpenters  or  smiths  sym- 
bolize their  destruction.  What  follows,  ii.  5-9 
(A.  V^.  ii.  ]-5),  betokens  the  vastly  extended  area 
of  Jerusalem,  owing  to  the  rapid  increase  of  the 
new  population.  The  old  prophets,  in  foretelling 
the  happiness  and  glory  of  the  times  which  should 
succeed  the  Captivity  in  Pabylon,  had  made  a  great 
part  of  that  happiness  and  glory  to  consist  in  the 
gathering  together  again  of  the  whole  dispersed 
nation  in  the  land  given  to  their  fathers.  This 
vision  was  designed  to  teach  that  the  expectation 
thus  raised  —  the  return  of  the  dispersed  of  Israel 
—  shoukl  be  fulfilled ;  that  Jerusalem  should  be  too 
large  to  be  compassed  about  by  a  wall,  but  that 
Jehovah  Himself  would  be  to  her  a  wall  of  fire  — 
a  light  and  defense  to  the  holy  city,  and  destruc- 
tion to  her  adversaries.  A  song  of  joy,  in  prospect 
of  so  bright  a  future,  closes  the  scene. 

(3.)  The  next  two  visions  (iii.  iv.)  are  occupied 
with  the  Temple,  and  with  the  two  jirincipal  per- 
sons on  whom  the  hopes  of  the  returned  exiles 
rested.  The  permission  granted  for  the  rebuilding 
of  the  Temple  had  no  doubt  stirred  afresh  the 
malice  and  the  animosity  of  the  enemies  of  the 
Jews  Joshua  the  high-priest  had  been  singled 
out,  it  would  seem,  as  the  especial  object  of  attackj 


b  Ewald  understands  by  Hv^^   not  "a  valley" 

or  "bottom,"  as  the  A.  V.  renders,  but  the  heavenly 
tent  or  tabernacle  (the  expression  being  chosen  with 
reference  to  the  Mosaic  tabernacle),  which  is  the 
dwelling-place  of  Jehovah.     Instejid  of  "  myrtles  "  he 

understands  by   □"'Sin   (with  the  LXX.  ava  fiiaoy 

Tu)>'  bpeiov  Ttic  Karaa-Kiuif)  "mountains,"  and  suppose! 
these  to  be  the  ''  two  mouutsiins  "  mentioned  vi.  1, 
and  which  are  there  called  "  mountaius  o   brass  " 


ZECHARIAH 

ai  (I  perhaps  formal  accusations  had  already  been 
laid  ai^aiiist  hiin  before  the  I'ersiaii  court."  The 
proi)iiet,  in  vision,  sees  him  summoned  liefore  a 
higlier  tribunal,  and  solemnly  acquitted,  despite  the 
chary;es  of  the  Satan  or  Adversary.  This  is  done 
with  tlie  forms  still  usual  in  an  eastern  court. 
The  filthy  jjarments  in  which  the  accused  is  expected 
to  stand  are  taUen  away,  and  the  caftan  or  robe  of 
honor  is  put  upon  him  in  token  that  liis  innocence 
has  been  established.  ,  Acquitted  at  that  bar,  he 
need  not  fear,  it  is  implied,  any  earthly  accuser. 
He  shall  be  protected,  he  shall  carry  on  the  build- 
ins;  of  the  Temple,  he  shall  so  prejjare  the  vpay  for 
the  comini;  of  the  Messiah,  and  upon  the  foun- 
dation-stone laid  before  him  shall  the  seven  eyes 
of  God,  the  token  of  his  ever-watchful  Providence, 
rest. 

(4.)  The  last  vision  (iv.)  supposes  that  all  oppo- 
sition to  the  buildini;  of  the  Temple  shall  be  re- 
moved. This  sees  the  completion  of  the  work.  It 
has  evidently  a  peculiarly  impressive  character;  for 
the  prophet,  though  his  dream  still  continues, 
seems  to  himself  to  be  awakened  out  of  it  by  the 
angel  who  speaks  to  him.  The  candlestick  (or 
more  properly  chandelier)  with  seven  lights  (bor- 
rowed from  the  candlestick  of  the  ^Mosaic  Taber- 
nacle, Kx.  XXV.  31  ff. )  supposes  that  the  Temple  is 
already  finished.  The  seven  pipes  which  supply 
each  lamp  answer  to  the  seven  eyes  of  .lehovah  in 
the  preceding  vision  (iii.  9),  and  this  sevenfold 
supply  of  oil  denotes  the  |)resence  and  operation  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  through  whose  aid  Zerubbabel 
will  overcome  all  ol)stacles,  so  that,  as  his  hands 
had  laid  the  foundation  of  the  house,  his  hands 
should  also  finish  it  (iv.  ij).  The  two  olive-branches 
of  the  vision,  lielonging  to  the  olive-tree  standing 
by  the  candlestick,  are  Zerubbabel  himself  and 
Joshua. 

Tlie  two  next  visions  (v.  1-11)  signify  that  the 
land,  in  which  the  .sanctuary  has  just  been  erected, 
shall  be  purged  of  all  its  pollutions. 

(5.)  First,  the  curse  is  recorded  against  wicked- 
ness in  the  wliolt  Liiid  (not  in  the  whole  earth,  as 
A.  v.),  V.  3;  that  due  solemnity  may  be  given  to 
it,  it  is  inscribed  upon  a  roll,  and  the  roll  is  repre- 
sented as  flying,  in  order  to  denote  the  speed  with 
which  the  curse  will  execute  itself. 

ifi.)  Next,  the  unclean  thing,  whether  in  the 
form  of  idolatry  or  any  other  aliomination,  shall  be 
utterly  removed.  Caught  and  shut  up  as  it  were 
in  a  cage,  like  some  savage  beast,  and  pressed  down 
with  a  weight  as  of  lead  upon  it  so  that  it  cannot 
esca|)e,  it  shall  be  carried  into  that  land  where  all 
evil  things  have  long  mmle  their  dwelling  (Is.  xxxiv. 
13),  the  laud  of  Babylon  (Sliinar,  v.  11),  from 
which  Israel  had  been  redeemed. 

(7.)  .\nd  now  the  night  is  waning  fiist,  and  the 
morning  is  about  to  dawn.  Chariots  and  horses 
appear,  issuing  from  between  two  brazen  moun- 
tains, the  horses  like  those  in  the  first  vision ;  and 
these  receive  their  several  commands  and  are  sent 
forth  to  execute  the  will  of  .lehovah  in  the  four 
quartern  of  the  earth.  The  four  chariots  are  images 
of  the  tour  winds,  which,  according  to  Fs.  civ.  3, 
as  servants  of  Cod,  fulfill  his  behests;  and  of  the 
Dne  that  goes  to  the  north  it  is  particularly  said 
diat  it  shall  let  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  rest  there  — 
IS  it  a  spirit  of  anger  against  the  nations,  .\ssyri<i, 
Babylon,  Persia,  or  is  it  a  spirit  of  hope  and  desiie 
»f  return  in  the  hewt.s  of  those  of  the  exiles  who 


ZECHARIAH 


8601 


a  So  Kwald    U'e  Propketen,  ii.  528. 


still  lingered  in  the  land  of  their  Captivity  ?  Stiihe- 
lin,  Maurer,  and  others  adopt  the  former  view, 
which  seems  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  preceding 
vision :  Ewald  gives  the  latter  intei-pretation,  and 
thinks  it  is  supported  by  what  follows. 

Thus,  then,  the  cycle  of  visions  is  completed. 
Scene  after  scene  is  unrolled  till  the  whole  glowing 
picture  is  presented  to  the  eye.  All  enemies 
crushed ;  the  land  repeopled  and  Jerusalem  girt  as 
with  a  wall  of  fire;  the  Temple  rebuilt,  more  truly 
splendid  than  of  old,  because  more  abundantly  filled 
with  a  Divine  Presence;  the  leaders  of  the  people 
assured  in  the  most  signal  manner  of  the  Divine 
protection;  all  wickedness  solemnly  sentenced,  and 
the  land  forever  purged  of  it:  such  is  the  mag- 
nificent panorama  of  hope  which  the  prophet  dis- 
plays to  his  countrymen.  * 

And  very  consolatory  must  such  a  prospect  hava 
seemed  to  the  weak  and  disheartened  colony  in  Je- 
rusalem. For  the  times  were  dark  and  troublous. 
.Accoriling  to  recent  interpretations  of  newly-dis- 
covered inscriptions,  it  would  appear  that  Darius  I. 
found  it  no  easy  task  to  hold  his  vast  dominions. 
Province  after  province  had  revolted  both  in  the 
east  and  in  the  riorth,  whither,  according  to  the 
prophet  (vi.  8),  the  winds  had  ciu'ried  the  wrath 
of  Cod;  and  if  the  reading  Mudraja,  i  e.  Egypt,  is 
correct  (Lassen  gives  Kurdistan),  Egypt  must  have 
revolted  before  the  outbreak  mentioned  in  Herod, 
vii.  1,  and  have  again  been  reduced  to  subjection. 
To  such  revolt  there  may  possibly  be  an  allusion 
in  the  reference  to  "the  land  of  the  south"  (vi. 
G). 

It  would  seem  that  Zechariah  anticipated,  as  a 
consequence  of  these  perpetual  insurrections,  the 
weakening  and  overthrow  of  the  Persian  mon- 
archy and  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
for  which  Judah  in  faith  and  oljedience  was  to 
wait.'' 

Innnediately  on  these  visions  there  follows  a 
symbolical  act.  Three  Israelites  h.ad  just  returned 
from  IJabylon,  bringing  with  them  rich  gifts  to 
Jerusalem,  apparently  as  contributions  to  the  Tem- 
ple, and  liaLl  been  received  in  the  house  of  Josiah 
the  son  of  Zephaniah.  Thither  the  prophet  ii 
connnanded  to  go,  —  whether  still  in  a  dream  or 
not,  is  not  very  clear,  —  and  to  enqjloy  the  silver 
and  the  gold  of  their  offerings  for  the  service  of 
Jehovah.  He  is  to  make  of  them  two  crowns,  and 
to  j)lace  these  on  the  head  of  Joshua  the  higli- 
prie-st,  —  a  sign  that  in  the  Jlessiah  who  should 
build  the  Temple,  the  kingly  and  priestly  offices 
should  be  united.  This,  however,  is  expressed 
somewhat  enigmatically,  as  if  king  and  priest 
should  be  perfectly  at  one,  rather  than  that  the 
same  person  should  be  both  king  and  priest.  These 
crowns  moreover,  were  to  be  a  memorial  in  honor 
of  those  by  whose  hberality  they  had  been  inade, 
and  shoidd  serve  at  the  same  time  to  excite  other 
rich  Jews  stid  living  in  Babylon  to  the  like  lib- 
erality. Hence  their  symbolical  purpose  having 
been  accomplished,  they  were  to  be  laid  up  in  the 
Temple. 

3.  From  this  time,  for  a  space  of  nearly  two 
years,  the  prophet's  voice  was  silent,  or  his  words 
lia\'e  not  been  recorded.  But  in  the  fourth  year 
of  King  Darius,  in  the  fourth  day  of  the  ninth 
month,  there  came  a  deputation  of  Jews  to  the 
Temple,  aaxious  to  know  whether  the  fast-days 
which    had    been    instituted    during    the   seventj 

(<  Stiilielia,  Einleit.  in  die  Kan.   Biic/i.  p.  318. 


3602 


ZECHARIAH 


years'  captivity  were  still  to  be  observed.  On  the 
one  hand,  now  that  the  Captivity  was  at  an  end, 
and  Jerusalem  was  rising  from  her  aslies,  such  set 
times  of  mourning  seemed  quite  out  of  place.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  was  still  much  urouiK,  for 
eerious  uneasiness ;  for  some  time  after  their  return 
they  had  suffered  severely  from  drought  and  famine 
(Hag.  i.  G-11),  and  who  could  tell  that  they  tt'ould 
not  so  suffer  again  ?  the  hostility  of  their  neigh- 
bors had  not  ceased ;  they  were  still  regarded  with 
no  common  jealousy;  and  large  numhurs  of  their 
brethren  had  not  yet  returned  from  IJabylon.  It 
was  a  question  therefore,  that  seemed  to  admit  of 
much  debate. 

It  is  remarkable,  as  has  been  already  noticed, 
that  this  question  should  have  been  addressed  to 
priests  and  prophets  conjointly  in  the  Temple. 
This  close  alliance  between  two  classes  hitherto  so 
separate,  and  often  so  antagonistic,  was  one  of  the 
most  hopeful  circumstances  of  the  times.  Still 
Zechariah,  as  chief  of  the  prophets,  has  the  decision 
of  this  question.  Some  of  the  priests,  it  is  evident 
(vii.  7),  were  inclined  to  the  more  gloomy  view; 
but  not  so  the  prophet.  In  language  worthy  of 
his  position  and  his  office,  language  which  reminds 
us  of  one  of  the  most  striking  passages  of  his  great 
predecessor  (Is.  Iviii.  5-7),  he  lays  down  the  same 
principle  that  God  loves  mercy  rather  than  fasting, 
and  truth  and  righteousness  rather  than  sackcloth 
and  a  sad  countenance.  If  they  had  perished,  he 
reminds  them  it  was  because  their  hearts  were 
hard  while  they  fasted;  if  they  would  dwell  safely, 
they  must  abstain  from  fraud  and  violence  and  not 
from  food  (vii.  4-1 -f). 

Again  he  foretells,  but  now  in  vision,  the  glori- 
ous times  that  are  near  at  hand  when  Jehovah 
shall  dwell  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  Jerusalem  be 
called  a  city  of  truth.  He  sees  her  streets  thronged 
by  old  and  young,  her  exiles  returning,  her  Temple 
standing  in  all  its  beauty,  her  land  rich  in  fruitful- 
ness,  her  people  a  praise  and  a  blessing  in  the  earth 
(viii.  1-15).  Again,  he  declares  that  "truth  and 
peace"  (vv.  16,  19)  are  the  bulwarks  of  national 
prosperity.  And  once  more  reverting  to  the  ques- 
tion which  had  been  raised  concerning  the  observ- 
ance of  the  fasts,  he  announces,  in  obedience  to  the 
conmiand  of  Jehovah,  not  only  that  the  fasts  are 
abolished,  but  that  the  days  of  mourning  shall 
henceforth  be  days  of  joy,  the  fasts  lie  counted  for 
festivals.  His  prophecy  concludes  wiih  a  jjrediction 
that  Jerusalem  shall  be  the  centre  of  relii,ious  wor- 
ship to  all  nations  of  the  earth  (viii.  lG-23). 

II.  The  remainder  of  the  book  consists  of  two 
Bections  of  about  equal  length,  ix.-xi.  and  xii.-xiv., 
each  of  which  has  an  inscription.  They  have  the 
general  prophetic  tone  and  character,  and  in  subject 
they  so  far  harmonize  with  i.-viii.,  that  the  prophet 
seeks  to  comfort  Judah  in  a  season  of  depression 
with  tht  hope  of  a  brighter  future. 

1.  In  the  first  section  he  threatens  Damascus 
and  the  sea-coast  of  Palestine  with  misfortune;  but 
declares  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  protected,  for  Je- 
hovah himself  shall  encamp  about  her  (where  ix.  8 
reminds  us  of  ii.  5);  her  king  shall  come  to  her, 
he  shall  speak  peace  to  the  heathen,  so  that  all 
weapons  of  war  shall  perish,  and  his  dominion  shall 
be  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  Jews  who  are 
still  in  captivity  shall  return  to  their  land;  they 
shall  be  mightier  tiian  Javan  (or  Greece);  and 
Ephraim  and  Judah  once  more  united  shall  van- 
quish all  enemies.  I'he  land  too  shall  be  fruitful 
ta  of  old  (c  nip.  viii.  12)      The  Teraphini  and  the 


ZECHARIAH 

folse  prophets  may  indeed  have  spoken  lies,  but 
upon  these  will  the  I^ord  execute  judgment,  anj 
then  He  will  look  with  favor  upon  his  people  and 
Ijring  back  both  Judah  and  Ephraim  from  their 
captivity.  The  possession  of  Gilead  and  T^ebanon 
is  again  pro  iiised,as  the  special  portion  of  Ephraim  ; 
and  both  Egypt  and  Assyria  shall  be  broken  and 
humbled. 

The  prophecy  now  takes  a  sudden  turn.  An 
enemy  is  seen  approaching  from  the  north,  who 
having  forced  the  narrow  passes  of  Lebanon,  the 
great  bulwark  of  the  northern  frontier,  carries  des- 
olation into  the  country  beyond.  Hereu]ion  the 
proi)het  receives  a  commission  from  God  to  feed  his 
flock,  which  God  himself  will  no  more  feed  because 
of  their  divisions.  Tlie  i)rophet  undertakes  the 
office,  and  makes  to  himself  two  staves  (naming  the 
ojie  Beauty,  and  the  other  Union),  in  order  to  tend 
the  flock,  and  cuts  off  several  evil  shepherds  whom 
his  soul  abhors;  but  observes  at  the  same  time  that 
the  flock  will  not  be  obedient.  Hence  he  throws 
up  his  office;  he  breaks  asunder  the  one  crook  in 
token  that  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  was  dis- 
sohed.  A  few,  the  poor  of  the  flock,  acknowledge 
God's  hand  herein ;  and  the  jirophet  demanding 
the  wages  of  his  service,  receives  thirty  pieces  of 
silver,  and  casts  it  into  tiie  house  of  Jehovah.  At 
the  same  time  he  sees  that  there  is  no  hope  of  union 
between  Judah  and  Israel  whom  he  had  trusted  to 
feed  as  one  flock,  and  therefore  cuts  in  pieces  the 
other  crook,  in  token  that  the  brotherhood  between 
them  is  dissolved. 

2.  The  second  section,  xii.-xiv.,  is  entitled, 
"  The  burden  of  the  word  of  Jehovah  for  Israel." 
But  Israel  is  here  used  of  the  nation  at  large,  not 
of  Israel  as  distinct  from  Judah.  Indeed,  the 
prophecy  which  follows,  concerns  Judah  and  Jeru- 
salem. In  this  the  prophet  beholds  the  near  ap- 
proach of  troublous  times,  when  Jerusalem  should 
lie  hard  pressed  by  enemies.  But  in  that  day  Je- 
hovah shall  come  to  save  them:  "the  house  ol 
David  be  as  God,  as  the  angel  of  Jehovah  "  (xii.  8) 
and  all  the  nations  which  gather  themselves  against 
Jerusalem  shall  be  ile.>troycd.  At  the  same  time 
the  deliverance  shall  not  be  from  outward  enemies 
alone.  God  will  pour  out  upon  them  a  spirit  of 
grace  and  supplications,  so  that  they  shall  bewail 
their  sinfulness  with  a  mourning  greater  than  that 
with  which  they  bewailed  the  lieloved  Josiali  in  the 
valley  of  Mei^iddon.  So  deep  and  so  true  shall  be 
this  repentance,  so  lively  the  aversion  to  all  evil, 
that  neither  idol  nor  false  prophet  shall  again  be 
seen  in  the  land.  If  a  man  shall  pretend  to  proph- 
esy, "his  father  and  his  mother  that  begat  him 
shall  thrust  him  through  when  he  prophesieth," 
fired  by  the  same  rii;hteous  indignation  as  I'hinehas 
was  when  he  slew  those  who  wrought  folly  in  Israel 
(xii.  1-xiii.  G). 

Then  follows  a  short  apostrophe  to  the  sword  of 
the  enemy  to  turn  against  the  shepherds  of  tlie 
people:  and  a  further  announcement  of  searching 
and  purifying  judgments;  which,  however,  it  must 
be  acknowledged,  is  somewhat  abrupt.  Ewaid's 
suggestion  that  the  passage  xiii.  7-9,  is  here  out  of 
place,  and  should  be  transposed  to  the  end  of  chap, 
xi.  is  certaiidy  ingenious,  and  does  not  seem  im- 
probable. 

The  prophecy  closes  with  a  grand  and  stirring 
picture.  AU  nations  are  gathered  together  against 
.lerusalem:  and  seem  already  sure  of  their  prey. 
Half  of  their  cruel  work  has  been  acconinlished 
when   Jehovah  himself   appears  on   behalf   of   hit 


Z,ECHARIA1T 

people.  At  his  coming  all  nature  is  rcoved :  the 
Mount  of  Olives  on  which  his  feet  rest  cleaves 
asunder;  a  mighty  earthquake  heaves  the  grounrl, 
and  even  the  natural  succession  of  day  and  night  is 
broken.  He  goes  forth  to  war  against  tlie  ailver- 
saries  of  his  people.  He  establishes  his  kingdoni 
over  all  the  earth.  Jerusalem  is  safely  inhaliited, 
and  rich  with  the  spoils  of  the  nations.  All  nations 
that  are  still  left  shall  come  up  to  Jerusalem,  as 
the  great  centre  of  religious  worship,  thero  J.'  wor- 
ship ••  the  King,  Jehovah  of  hosts,"  and  the  city 
from  that  day  forward  shall  be  a  holy  city. 

.Such  is,  briefly,  an  outline  of  the  second  portion 
of  that  book  which  is  commonly  known  as  the 
Prophecy  of  Zechariah.  It  is  impossible,  even  on 
a  cursory  view  of  the  two  portions  of  the  prophecy, 
not  to  feel  how  different  the  section  xi.-xiv.  is  from 
the  section  i.-viii.  The  next  [joint,  then,  for  our 
consideration  is  this,  —  Is  the  book  in  its  present 
form  the  work  of  one  and  the  same  prophet,  Zecha- 
riah the  sou  of  Iddo,  who  lived  after  the  Babylonish 
exile  ? 

Integrity. —  Mede  was  the  first  to  call  this  in 
question.  The  probability  that  the  later  chapters 
from  the  ixth  to  the  xivth  were  by  some  other 
j.rophet,  seems  first  to  have  been  suggested  to  him 
by  the  citation  in  St.  Matthew.  He  says  (Epist. 
xxxi.),  "  It  may  seem  the  Kvaiigelist  would  inform 
us  that  those  latter  chapters  ascribed  to  Zachary 
(namely,  ixth,  xth,  xith,  etc.),  are  indeed  the  pro[ih- 
ecies  of  Jeremy:  and  that  the  Jews  had  not  rightly 
attributed  them."  Starting  from  this  point,  he 
goes  on  to  give  reasons  for  supposing  a  different 
author.  "  Certainly,  if  a  man  weighs  the  contents 
of  some  of  them,  they  should  in  likelihood  be  of  an 
elder  date  than  the  time  of  Zachary ;  namely,  before 
the  Captivity :  for  the  sulyects  of  some  of  them 
were  scarce  in  being  after  that  time.  And  the 
chapter  out  of  which  St.  Matthew  quotes  may  seem 
to  have  somewhat  much  unsuitable  with  Zachary's 
time;  as,  a  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple,  then  when  he  was  to  encourage  them  to 
build  it.  And  how  doth  the  sixth  verse  of  that 
chapter  suit  with  his  time?  Thfre  is  no  scripture 
saith  they  are  Zachary's;  but  there  is  scripture 
saith  they  are  Jeremy's,  as  this  of  the  Evangelist." 
He  then  observes  that  the  mere  fact  of  these  being 
found  in  the  same  book  as  tlie  pi'tiphecies  of  Zecha- 
riah does  not  prove  that  they  were  his;  difference 
of  authorship  being  allowalile  in  the  same  way  as 
in  the  collection  of  Agur's  Proverbs  under  one  title 
with  those  of  Solomon,  and  of  Psalms  by  other 
authors  with  those  of  Ua\id.  Even  the  absence  of 
a  fresh  title  is,  he  argues,  no  evidence  against  a 
change  of  author.  "  The  Jews  wrote  in  roUs  or 
volumes,  and  the  title  was  liut  once.  If  aught 
were  added  to  the  roll,  ub  simiUtudintiii  nrcjuuiiftiti, 
or  for  some  other  reason,  it  had  a  new  title,  as  that 
of  Agur;  or  perhaps  none,  but  was  avwuv/nou." 
The  utter  disregard  of  anything  like  chronological 
order  in  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  where  "  some- 
times all  is  ended  with  Zedekiah ;  then  we  are 
brought  back  to  Jehoiakiin,  then  to  Zedekiah 
again  "  —  makes  it  probable,  he  tlunks,  that  they 
were  only  hastily  and  loosely  put  together  in  those 
distracted  times.  Consequently  some  of  them 
.liii;ht  not  have  been  discovered  till  after  the  return 
from  the  Captivity,  when  they  were  ap])roved  by 
Zechariah,  and  so  came  to  be  incorporated  with  his 
prophecies.  MeJe  evidently  rests  his  opinion,  partly 
»n  the  authority  of  St.  Matthew,  and  partly  on  the 
toiitents  of  the  later  chapters,  which   '"e  considers 


ZECHARIAH 


5603 


require  a  date  earlier  than  the  exile  He  say 
again  (Epist.  Ixi.):  "  Tliat  which  nioveth  me  inor< 
than  the  rest  is  in  chap,  xii.,  which  contains  a 
prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  a  de- 
scription of  the  wickedness  of  the  inhabitants,  for 
which  God  would  give  them  to  the  sword,  and  have 
no  more  pity  on  them.  It  is  expounded  of  the  de- 
struction by  Titus;  but  methinks  such  a  prophecj 
was  nothing  seasonable  for  Zachary's  time  (when 
the  city  yet,  for  a  great  part,  lay  in  her  ruins,  and 
the  Temple  had  not  yet  recovered  hers),  nor  agree- 
able to  the  scope  of  Zachary's  commission,  who, 
together  with  his  colleague  Haggai,  was  sent  to  en- 
courage the  people  lately  returned  from  captivity  to 
build  their  temple,  and  to  instaurate  their  common- 
wealth. Was  this  a  fit  time  to  foretell  the  destruc- 
tion of  both,  while  they  were  but  yet  a  buildiffg  ? 
and  by  Zachary,  ton,  who  was  to  encourage  them  it 
would  not  this  better  befit  the  desolation  by  Neb- 
uchadnezzar"? " 

Archbishop  Newcome  went  further.  He  insisted 
on  the  great  dissimilarity  of  style  as  well  as  subject 
between  the  earlier  and  later  chapters.  And  he  was 
the  first  who  advocated  the  theory  which  Buiisen 
calls  one  of  the  triumphs  of  modern  criticism,  that 
the  last  six  chapters  of  Zechariah  are  the  work  of 
two  distinct  prophets.  His  words  are:  "  The  eight 
first  chapters  appear  by  the  introductory  parts  to 
be  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  stand  in_ connection 
with  each  other,  are  pertinent  to  the  time  when 
they  were  delivered,  are  u)iifurm  in  style  and  man- 
ner, and  constitute  a  regular  whole.  But  the  six 
last  chaptei's  are  not  expressly  assigned  to  Zecha- 
riah; are  unconnected  with  those  which  precede: 
the  three  first  of  them  are  unsuitable  in  many  parts 
to  the  time  whem  Zechariah  lived ;  all  of  them 
have  a  more  adorned  and  poetical  turn  of  composi- 
tion than  the  eight  first  chapters;  and  they  mani- 
festly break  the  unity  of  the  prophetical  book." 

'•  I  conclude,"  he  continues,  "  from  internal 
marks  in  chaps,  ix.,  x.,  xi.,  that  these  three  chapters 
were  written  much  earlier  than  the  time  of  Jere- 
nnah  and  before  the  captivity  of  the  tril)es.  Israel 
is  mentioned  chaps,  ix.  1,  xi.  H.  (But  that  this 
argument  is  inconclusive,  see  Mai.  ii.  11.)  Ephraim, 
chaps,  ix.  10.  13,  x.  7;  and  Assyria,   chap.   x.  10, 

11 They  seem  to   suit    Hosea's  age   and 

manner The  xiith,  xiiith,  and  xivth  chap- 
ters form  a  distinct  prophecy,  and  were  written 
after  the  death  of  Josiah;  but  whether  before  or 
after  the  Captivity,  and  by  what  prophets,  is  uncer- 
tain. Though  I  incline  to  think  that  the  author 
lived  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Babylonians."  In  proof  of  this  he  refers  to  xiii.  2, 
on  which  he  observes  that  the  "prediction  that 
idols  and  false  prophets  should  cease  at  the  final 
restoration  of  the  Jews  seems  to  have  been  uttered 
when  idolatry  and  groundless  pretensions  to  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  were  common  among  the  .Tews, 
and  therefore  before  the  Babylonish  Captivity." 

A  large  number  of  critics  have  followed  Mede 
and  Archbishop  Newcome  in  denying  the  later  f.ate 
of  the  last  six  cha|iters  of  the  book.  In  England, 
Bishop  Kidder,  Winston,  Hammond,  and  more 
recently  Pye  Smith,  and  Davidson:  in  Germany, 
Fliiilge,  Eichhorn,  Bauer,  Bertholdt,  Augusti, 
Forberg,  Eosenm idler,  Gramberi;,  Credner,  Ewald. 
Maurer,  Knobel,  Hiizig,  and  Bleek,  are  agreed  in 
maintainini;'  that  these  later  chapters  are  not  the 
work  of  Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  later  date  of  these  chap- 
ters has  been  maintained  among  ourselves  by  Blay 


360-1 


ZECHAllIAH 


ney  and  Henderson,  and  on  the  continent  by 
CHrpzov,  Beckhaus,  Jalni,  Kiister,  Henwsteiiberfi:, 
Hiivernick.  Keil,  De  Wette  (in  later  editions  of  liis 
Einleituny  ;  in  the  first  tiiree  he  adopted  a  differ- 
ent view),  and  Stiihelin. 

Those  who  impugn  the  later  date  of  these  chap- 
ters of  Zechariah  rest  their  arguments  on  the 
ehauEte  in  style  and  subject  after  the  viiith  chapter, 
but  differ  much  in  the  application  of  their  criticism. 
Roseinniiller,  for  instance  (Sclwl.  in  Proph.  Min. 
vol.  iv.  p.  2.57),  argues  that  chaps,  ix.-xiv.  are  so 
alike  in  style,  that  they  must  have  been  written  by 
one  author.  He  alleges  in  proof  his  fondness  for 
images  taken  from  pastoral  life  (ix.  IG,  x.  2.  3,  xi. 
-•i,  4,  5,  7,  8,  9,  11,  1.5,  17,  xiii.  7,  8).  From  the 
allusion  to  the  earthquake  (xiv.  5,  comp.  Am.  i.  1) 
be  thinks  the  author  must  have  lived  in  the  reign 
of  Uzziah. 

Davidson  (in  Home's  hit  rod.  ii.  082)  in  like 
manner  declares  for  one  author,  but  supposes  him 
to  have  been  the  Zechariah  mentioned  Is.  viii.  2, 
who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz. 

Eichhorn,  on  the  other  hand,  whilst  also  assign- 
ing (in  his  JiUnltilunff,  iv.  4-4-1)  the  whole  of  chaps. 
ix.-xiv.  to  one  writer,  is  of  opinion  that  they  are 
tlie  work  of  a  later  prophet  who  flourished  in  the 
time  of  Alexander. 

Others  again,  as  Bertholdt,  Gesenius,  Knobel, 
Maurer,  Bunsen,  and  Ewald,  think  that  chaps. 
ix.-xi.  (to  which  Ewald  adds  xiii.  7-9)  are  a  dis- 
tinct prophecy  from  chaps,  xii.-xiv.,  and  separated 
from  them  by  a  considerable  interval  of  time.  These 
critics  conclude  from  internal  evidence,  that  the 
former  jjortion  was  written  by  a  prophet  who  lived 
in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (Knobel  gives  ix.,  x.  to  the 
reign  of  .lotham,  and  xi.  to  that  of  Ahaz),  and 
most  of  them  conjecture  that  he  was  the  Zechariah 
the  son  of  Jeberechiah  (or  Bereciiiah),  mentioned 
[s.  viii.  2. 

Ewald,  without  attempting  to  identify  the  prophet 
with  any  particular  person,  contents  himself  with 
remarking  that  he  was  a  subject  of  the  Southern 
kingdom  (as  may  be  inferred  from  expressions  such 
as  tliat  in  ix.  7,  and  from  the  Messianic  hopes 
which  he  utters,  and  in  which  he  resemliles  his 
countryman  and  contemporary  I.saiah ) ;  and  that 
like  x\^nios  and  Hosea  before  ■him,  though  a  na- 
tive of  Judah,  he  directs  his  pro[ihecies  against 
Ephraim. 

There  is  the  same  general  agreement  among  the 
last-named  critics  as  to  the  date  of  the  section 
xii.-xiv. 

The}'  all  assign  it  to  a  period  immediately  pre- 
vious to  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  and  hence  the 
author  must  have  been  contemporary  with  the 
prophet  -leremiah.  Bun.sen  identifies  him  with 
L'rijah  the  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kirjath-jearim  (.ler. 
xxvi.  20-23),  who  prophesied  "  in  the  name  of  Je- 
hovah "  against  .ludah  and  .Jerusalem. 

Accordiniz:  to  this  hypothesis  we  have  the  works 
of  three  difi^rent  prophets  collected  into  one  book, 
and  passing  under  one  name:  — 

1.  Chapters  ix.-xi.,  the  book  of  Zechariah  I., 
a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  under  Ahaz,  about  736. 

2.  Chapters  xii.-xiv.,  author  unknown  (or  per- 
haps Urijah,  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah),  about 
607  or  606. 

3.  Chapters  i.-viii.  the  work  of  the  son  (or 
grandsc  i)  of  Iddo,  Haggai's  contemporary,  about 
520-518. 

^\  e  have  then  two  distinct  theories  before  us. 
The  one  merely  affirnis  that  the  six  last  chapters 


ZECHARIAH 

of  our  present  book  are  not  from  the  same  author 
as  the  first  eight.  The  other  carries  the  dismem- 
berment of  the  book  still  further,  and  maintains 
that  the  six  last  chapters  are  the  work  of  two  dis- 
tinct authors  who  lived  at  two  distinct  periods  of 
Jewish  history.  The  arguments  advanced  by  the 
su'pporters  of  each  theory  rest  on  the  same  grounds. 
They  are  drawn  paitly  from  the  difference  in  style, 
and  partly  from  the  difference  in  the  nature  of  the 
contents,  the  historical  references,  etc.,  in  the  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  book ;  but  the  one  sees  thia 
difference  only  in  ix.-xiv.,  as  compared  with 
i.-viii.;  the  other  sees  it  also  in  xii.-xiv.,  as  com- 
pared with  ix.-xi.  We  must  accordingly  con- 
sider, — 

1.  The  difference  generallj'  in  the  style  and  con- 
tents of  chapters  ix.-xiv.,  as  compared  with  chap- 
ters i.-viii. 

2.  The  differences  between  xii.-xiv.,  as  compared 
with  ix.-xi. 

1.  The  difference  in  point  of  style  between  the 
latter  aisd  former  portions  of  the  prophecy  is  ad- 
mitted by  all  critics.  Rosenmiiller  characterizes 
that  of  the  first  eight  chapters  as  "  prosaic,  feeble, 
poor,"  and  that  of  the  remaining  six  as  "  poetic, 
weighty,  concise,  glowing."  But  without  admitting 
so  sweeping  a  criticism,  and  one  which  the  verdict 
of  abler  critics  on  the  former  portion  has  contra- 
dicted, there  can  be  no  doubt  tb.at  the  general  tone 
and  character  of  the  one  section  is  in  decided  con- 
trast with  that  of  the  other.  ''  As  he  passes  from 
the  first  half  of  the  prophet  to  the  second,"  says 
Eichhorn,  "  no  reader  can  fail  to  perceive  how 
strikingly  different  are  the  impressions  which  are 
made  upon  him  l.>y  the  two.  The  maimer  of  writ- 
ing in  the  second  portion  is  far  loftier  and  more 
mysterious;  the  images  employed  grander  and 
more  magnificent;  the  point  of  view  and  the  hori- 
zon are  changed.  Once  the  Temple  and  the  ordi- 
nances of  religion  formed  the  central  point  from 
which  the  prophet's  words  radiated,  and  to  which 
they  ever  returned;  now  these  have  vanished.  The 
favorite  modes  of  expression,  hitherto  so  often  re- 
peated, are  now  as  it  were  forgotten.  The  chrono- 
logical notices  which  before  marked  the  day  on 
which  each  several  prophecy  was  uttered,  now  fail 
us  altogether.  Could  a  writer  all  at  once  have 
forgotten  so  entirely  his  habits  of  thought?  Could 
he  so  completely  disguise  his  innermost  feelings? 
Could  the  world  about  him,  the  mode  of  expression, 
the  images  employed,  be  so  totally  different  in  the 
case  of  one- and  the  same  writer?"  {Einl.  iv.  443. 
§  605). 

I.  Chapters  i.-viii.  are  marked  by  certain  pecul- 
iarities of  idiom  and  phraseology  which  do  not 
occur  afterwards.  Favorite  expressions  are  —  "  The 
word  of  .Jehovah  came  unto,"  etc.  (i.  7,  iv.  8,  vi. 
i),  vii.  1,  4,  8,  viii.  1,  18);  "Thus  saith  Jehovah 
(God)  of  hosts"  (i.  4,  16,  17,  ii.  11,  viii.  2,  4,  6, 
7,  9,  14,  18,  20,  23);  "  And  I  lifted  up  mine  eyea  • 
and  saw"  (i.  18,  ii.  1,  v.  1,  vi.  1):  none  of  these 
modes  of  expression  are  to  be  met  with  in  chapters 
ix.-xiv.  On  the  other  hand,  the  phrase  •'  In  that 
day  "  is  entirely  confined  to  the  later  chapters,  iu 
which  it  occurs  frequentlj'.  The  form  of  the  in- 
scriptions is  different.  Introductions  to  the  sep- 
arate oracles,  such  as  those  in  ix.  1,  xii.  1,  do  not 
present  themselves  in  the  earlier  portion.  Zecha- 
riah, in  several  instances,  states  the  time  at  wliicb 
a  particular  prophecy  was  uttered  by  him  (i.  1,  7 
vii.  1).  He  mentions  his  own  name  in  these  pa* 
sages,  and  al.»j  in  vii.  8,  and  the  names  of  conteno 


ZECHARIAH 

Dorarles  in  iii.  1,  iv.  6,  vi.  10,  vii.  2:  the  writer 
(or  writers)  of  the  second  portion  of  tlie  book  never 
doe*  -this.  It  has  also  lieen  observed  that  after  the 
first  eight  chapters  we  hear  notliing  of  "  Satan," 
or  of  "  tlie  seven  eyes  of  Jehovah;  "  that  there  are 
no  more  visions;  that  chap.  xi.  contains  an  alle- 
gory, not  a  symbolic  acti(jn;  that  here  are  no  rid- 
dles which  need  to  be  solved,  no  anyelus  intcrpres 
to  solve  them. 

n.  Chapters  i.\.-xi.  These  chapters,  it  is  al- 
leged, have  also  their  characteristic  peculiari- 
ties ;  — 

(1.)  In  point  of  style,  the  aiitlior  resembles 
Hosea  more  than  any  other  jirophet:  such  is  the 
verdict  both  of  Knobel  and  HwaUl.  He  delights 
to  picture  Jehovah  as  the  Cireat  Captain  of  his 
people.  Jehovah  comes  t*j  Zion,  and  pitches  his 
camp  there  to  protect  her  (i,K.  8,  9).  He  blows  the 
truiiipet,  marches  against  his  enemies,  makes  his 
people  his  bow,  and  shoots  his  arrows  (ix.  13,  14); 
or  He  rides  on  Judah  as  his  war-horse,  and  goes 
forth  thereon  to  victory  (x.  3,  5).  Again,  he  speaks 
of  the  people  as  a  Hock,  and  the  leaders  of  the  peo- 
ple as  their  shepherds  (ix.  IG,  x.  2,  3,  xi.  4  if.). 
He  describes  himself  also,  in  his  character  of 
prophet,  as  a  shepiienl  in  the  last  passages,  and 
assumes  to  himself,  in  a  symbolic  action,  which 
however  may  have  been  one  only  of  the  imagina- 
tion, all  the  guise  and  the  gear  of  a  sliepherd.  In 
general  he  delights  in  images  (ix.  3,  4,  13-17,  s.  3, 
5,  7,  <tc.),  some  of  which  are  striking  and  forcible. 

(2.)  The  notes  of  time  are  also  peculiar:  — 

1.  It  was  a  time  when  the  pride  of  Assyria  was 
yet  at  its  height  (x.,  xi.),  and  when  the  Jews  had 
alreaily  suffered  from  it.  Ihis  first  took  place  in 
the  time  of  Menaiiem  (u.  c.  772-701). 

2.  The  Trans-jordaiiic  territory  had  already  been 
swept  by  the  armies  of  the  invader  (x.  10),  but  a 
still  further  desolation  threatened  it  (xi.  1-3). 
The  first  may  have  been  the  invasion  of  Pul  (1 
Chr.  V.  26),  the  second  that  of  Tiglath-I'ileser.« 

3.  The  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Ephraim  are 
both  standing  (ix.  10,  13,  x.  6),  but  many  Israel- 
ites are  nevertheless  exiles  in  Egypt  and  Assyria 
(ix.  11,  X.  6,  8,  10,  ifec). 

4.  I'he  struggle  between  Judah  and  Israel  is 
supposed  to  be  ah'eady  begun  (xi.  14).  At  the 
same  time  Damascus  is  threatened  (ix.  1 ).  If  so, 
the  reference  must  be  to  the  alliance  formed  be- 
tween I'ekah  king  of  Israel  and  Kezin  of  Damas- 
cus, the  consequence  of  which  was  the  loss  of  Elath 
(739). 

5.  Egypt  and  Assyria  are  b"th  formidable  powers 
(x.  9,  10,  11).  The  only  other  prophets  to  whom 
these  two  nations  appear  as  formidable,  at  tlie,  sniiit 
time,  are  Hosea  (vii.  11,  xii.  1,  xiv.  3)  and  his  con- 
temporary Isaiah  (vii.  17,  Ac);  and  that  in  proph- 
ecies which  must  have  been  uttered  between  743 
and  740.  The  expectation  seems  to  have  been  that 
the  Assyrians,  in  order  to  attack  Egypt,  would 
march  by  way  of  Syria,  Phoenic.a,  and  Philistia, 
along  the  coast  (Zech.  ix.  1-9),  as  they  did  after- 


ZECHARIAH 


360. 


a  So  Knobel  suppases.  Ewald  also  refers,  xi.  1-3, 
\o  the  deportation  of  Tiglath-Fileser,  and  tliiuks  that 
X.  10  refers  to  some  earlier  deportation,  the  Assyrians 
having  invaded  this  portion  o)  the  kingdom  of  I.srael 
iu  the  former  half  of  Pekah's  reign  of  twenty  years. 
To  this  JJunsen  {(tou  in  t/er  Gtsc/i.  j.  450)  objects 
Ihat  we  have  no  record  of  any  earlier  removal  of  tlie 
nhabibintR  from  the  land  than  that  of  Tiglath-I'ileser, 
ritieh   occnrred  at   the   close  of  Pekah's  reign,  and 


wards  (Is.  xx.  1),  and  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
would  suffer  chiefly  in  consequence  (Zech.  ix.  9- 
12),  and  Judah  in  a  smaller  degree  (ix.  8,  9). 

6.  The  kingdom  of  Israel  is  described  as  "  a 
flock  for  the  slaughter  "  in  chap,  xi.,  over  which 
tin-ee  shepherds  have  been  set  in  one  month.  This 
corresponds  with  the  season  of  anarchy  and  confu- 
sion which  followed  immediately  on  the  murder  of 
Zechariah  the  son  of  Jeroboam  II.  (700).  This  son 
•eigneil  only  six  months,  his  murderer  Shallumbut 
one  (2  K.  xv.  8-15),  being  put  to  death  in  his 
turn  by  iMenahem.  3Ieanwhile  another  rival  king 
may  have  arisen,  Bunsen  thinks,  in  some  other  part 
of  the  country,  who  may  have  fallen  as  the  mur- 
derer did,  before  Jlenahem. 

The  symbolical  action  of  the  breaking  of  the  two 
hepherds'  staves  —  Favor  and  Union  —  points  the 
same  way.  The  breaking  of  the  first  showed  that 
God's  favor  had  departed  from  Israel,  that  of  the 
second  that  all  hope  of  union  between  Judah  and 
Ephraim  was  at  an  end. 

All  these  notes  of  time  point  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, and  make  it  probable  that  the  author  of  chaps. 
ix.-xi.  was  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  and  prophe- 
sied during  the  reign  of  Ahaz.* 

2.  Chaps,  xii. -xiv. . —  By  the  majority  of  tho.se 
critics  who  assign  these  chapters  to  a  third  author, 
that  author  is  supposed  to  have  lived  shortly  before 
the  Baliylonish  Captivity.  The  grounds  for  sepa- 
rating these  three  chapters  from  chapters  ix.-xi. 
are  as  follows :  — 

1.  This  section  opens  with  its  own  introductory 
formula,  as  the  preceding  one  (ix.  1)  does.  This, 
however,  only  shows  that  the  sections  are  distinct, 
not  that  they  were  written  at  difiei'ent  times. 

2.  The  olject  of  the  two  sections  is  altogether 
dititjrent.  The  author  of  the  former  (ix.-xi.)  has 
both  Israel  and  Judah  before  him;  he  often  speaks 
of  them  together  (ix.  13,  x.  6,  xi.  14,  comp.  x.  7); 
he  directs  his  prophecy  to  the  Trans-jordanic  terri- 
tory, and  announces  the  discharge  of  his  ofhce  in 
Israel  (xi.  4  ff.).  The  author  of  the  second  sec- 
tion, on  the  other  hand,  has  only  to  do  with  Judah 
and  Jerusalem :  he  nowhere  mentions  Israel. 

3.  The  political  horizon  of  the  two  prophets  ia 
different.  By  the  former,  mention  is  made  of 
the  Syrians,  Phoenicians,  Philistines  (ix.  1-7),  and 
Greeks  (ix.  13),  as  well  as  of  the  Assyrians  and 
Egyptians,  the  two  last  being  descrilied  as  at  that 
time  the  most  powerful.  It  therefore  belongs  to 
the  earlier  time  when  these  two  nations  were  l)e- 
giiming  to  struggle  for  supremacy  in  Western  Asia. 
By  tlie  latter,  the  I'^gyptians  only  are  mention»d  as 
a  hostile  nation :  not  a  word  is  said  of  the  Assyr- 
ians. The  author  consequently  must  have  lived 
at  a  time  when  Egypt  was  the  chief  enemy  of 
Judah. 

4.  The  anticipations  of  the  two  prcphets  are 
different.  The  first  trembles  only  for  Ephraim. 
He  ])redicts  the  desolation  of  the  Trans-jordanic 
territory,  the  carrying  away  captive  of  the  Israel- 
ites, but  also  the  return  from  Assyria  and  Egypt 


which   in   x.   10   is   supposed    to   have    taken    plac« 
already. 

b  According  to  Knobel,  ix.  and  x.  were  probably 
delivered  in  .Jotham's  reign,  and  xi.  in  that  of  Ahaz 
who  summoned  Tiglath-Pileser  to  .his  aid.  Mauret 
thinks  that  ix.  and  x.  were  written  between  the  tirst 
(2  K.  XV.  29)  and  second  (2  K.  xvii.  4-0)  Assyrian 
invasions,  chap.  k.  during  the  seven  years'  iuteneg- 
num  which  followed  the  death  of  I'ekah,  and  xi  in 
the  reign  of  Uoshea. 


8^06 


ZECHARIAH 


(x.  7,  10).  But  for  Juflan  he  lias  no  cause  of  fear. 
Jehovah  will  protect  her  (ix.  8),  and  bring  back 
hhose  of  her  sons  who  in  earlier  times  had  gone 
into  captivity  (ix.  11).  The  second  prophet,  on 
the  other  hand,  making  no  mention  whatever  of  tlie 
northern  kingdom,  is  full  of  alarm  for  Judah.  He 
sees  hostile  nations  gathering  together  against  her, 
and  two  thirds  of  her  inhal)itants  destroyed  (xiii. 
6);  he  sees  the  enemy  laying  siege  to  .Ierus;dem. 
taking  and  plundering  it,  and  carrying  half  of  her 
people  captive  (xii.  3,  xiv.  2,  5).  Of  any  return  of 
the  captives  nothing  is^ere  said. 

5.  The  style  of  the  two  prophets  is  different. 
The  author  of  this  last  section  is  fond  of  the  pro- 

phelic  formulae:  HTfl,  "And  it  shall  come  to 
pass"  (xii.  9,  xiii.^2,  3,  4,  8,  xiv.  6,  8,  13,  16); 
S^nn  D'"1*S,  "in  that  day"  (.xii.  3,  4,  6,  8, 
9,  11,  xiii.  1,  2,  4,  xiv.  8,  9,  13,  20,  21); 
Tl'yn'',  DSD,  "saith  Jehovah"  (xii.  1,  4,  xiii.  2, 
7,  8).  In  the  section  ix.-xi.  the  first  does  not 
occur  at  all,  the  second  but  once  (ix.  16),  the  third 
only  twice  (x.  12,  xi.  6).  We  have  moreover  in 
this  section  certain  favorite  expressions  :  "  all 
peoples,"  "all  people  of  the  earth,"  "all  nations 
round  about,"  "  all  nations  that  come  up  against 
Jerusalem,"  "  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,"  "  the 
house  of  David,"  "  family "  for  nation,  "  the 
families  of  the  earth,"  "the  family  of  Egypt," 
etc. 

6.  There  are  apparently  few  notes  of  time  in  this 
section.  One  is  the  allusion  to  the  death  of  .losiali 
in  "  the  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  valley 
of  Megiddon;  "  another  to  the  earthquake  in  the 
days  of  \jzz\»h  kin<j  of  .ludnh.  This  addition  to 
the  name  of  the  king  shows,  Knobel  suggests,  that 
he  had  been  long  dead :  but  the  argument,  if  it  is 
worth  anything,  would  make  even  more  for  those 
who  hold  a  post-exile  date.  It  is  certainly  remark- 
aide  occurring  thus  in  the  body  of  the  prophecy, 
and  not  in  the  inscription  as  in  Isaiah  i.  1. 

In  reply  to  all  these  arguments,  it  has  been  urged 
by  Keil,  Stiihelin,  and  others,  that  the  ditferenee 
of  st3le  between  the  two  principal  divisions  of  the 
prophecy  is  not  greater  than  may  reasonably  be 
accounted  for  l)y  the  change  of  subject.  The  lan- 
guage in  which  visions  are  narrated  would,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  be  quieter  and  less  animated 
than  that  in  which  prophetic  anticipations  of  future 
glory  are  described,  i'hey  differ  as  the  style  of 
the  narrator  differs  from  that  of  the  orator.  Thus, 
for  instance,  how  different  is  the  style  of  Ilosea, 
chaps,  i.-iii.,  from  the  style  of  the  same  prophet  in 
shaps.  iv.-xiv. ;  or  again,  that  of  Ezekiel  vi.,  vii. 
from  Ezekiel  iv. 

But  besides  this,  even  in  what  may  be  termed 
the  more  oratorical  portions  of  the  tirst  eight  chap- 
ters, the  prophet  is  to  a  great  extent  occupied  with 
warnings  and  exhortations  of  a  practical  kind  (see 
i.  4-6,  vii.  4-14,  viii.  9-23);  whereas  in  the  subse- 
quent chapters  he  is  ropt  into  a  far  distant  and 
glorious  future.  In  the  one  case,  therefore,  the 
language  would  naturally  sink  down  to  the  level  of 
prose;  in  the  other,  it  would  rise  to  an  elevation 
worthy  of  its  exalted  subject. 


a  Maurer's   reply    to  this,  namely,   that   the    like 
phrase,  !l3^li71   ^"IDI?,  occurs  in  Ex.  xxxii.  27,  and 

Utt?"^  "13^  in  Ez-  XXXV.  7,  it  must  be    confessed   Is 

T    T 

)f  little  force,  because  those  who  argue  lor  oac  author 


ZECHARIAH 

In  like  manner  the  notes  of  time  in  the  former 
part  (i.  ],  7,  vii.  1),  and  the  constant  reference  to  the 
Temple,  may  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  the 
prophet  here  busies  himself  with  the  events  of  his 
own  time,  whereas  afterwards  his  eye  is  fixed  on  a 
far  distant  future. 

On  the  other  hand,  where  predictions  do  occur  in 
the  first  section,  there  is  a  general  similarity  be- 
tween them  and  the  predictions  of  the  second.  The 
scene,  so  to  speak,  is  the  same;  the  same  visions 
float  before  the  eyes  of  tiie  seer.  The  times  of  the 
Messiah  are  the  theme  of  the  predictions  in  chaps, 
i  -iv.,  in  ix.,  x.,  and  in  xii.-xiii.  6,  whilst  the  events 
which  are  to  prepare  the  way  for  that  time,  and 
especially  the  sifting  of  the  nation,  are  dwelt  upon 
in  chap,  v.,  in  xi.,  and  in  xiii.  7-xiv.  2. 

(3.)  The  same  |)eculiar  forms  of  expression  occur 
in  the  two  divisions  of  the  prophecy.     Thus,  for 

instance,  we  find  2Ii?!2^  I^^^P   ""t  only  in  vii. 

14,  but  also  in  ix.«  8 ;  "T'327n,  in  the  sense  of 
"to  remove,"  in  iii.  4,  and  in  xiii.  2  — elsewhere 
it  occurs  in  this  unusual  sense  only  in  later  writ- 
ings (2  K.  xvi.  3;  2  Chr.  xv.  8)  —  "the  eye  of 
God,''  as  betokening  the  Divine  Providence,  in  iii. 
9,  iv.  10,  and  in  ix.  1,  8. 

In  both  sections  the  return  of  the  whole  nation 
after  the  exile  is  the  prevailing  imag*  of  happiness, 
and  in  both  it  is  similarly  portrayed.  As  in  ii.  10, 
the  exiles  are  summoned  to  return  to  their  native 
land,  because  now,  according  to  the  principles  of 
righteous'  recompense,  they  shall  rule  over  their 
enemies,  so  also  a  similar  strain  occurs  in  ix.  12,  &c. 
Both  in  ii.  10  and  in  ix.  9  the  renewed  protection 
wherewith  God  will  favor  Zion  is  represented  as  an 
entrance  into  his  holy  dwelling;  in  both  his  peo- 
ple are  called  on  to  rejoice,  and  in  both  there  is  a 
remarkable   agreement   in  the  words.     In  ii.  14, 

wn  ^J3n  "'D  iV!J  nn  ^^■nw^  "^a-^,  and  in 
ix.  9,  nn  "^ynn  'iv!^  m  isa  ^b"': 

Again,  similar  forms  of  expression  occur  in  ii.  9, 
11,  and  xi.  11;  the  description  of  the  increase  in  Je- 
rusalem, xiv.  10,  may  be  compared  with  ii.  4;  and 
the  prediction  in  viii.  20-23  with  that  in  xiv.  16. 
'I'he  resemblance  which  has  been  found  in  some 
other  passages  is  too  slight  to  strengthen  the  ar- 
gument; and  the  occurrence  of  Chaldaisms,  such  ag 

sn^  (ix.  8),  nasT  (xiv.  lo),  bnn  (which 

occurs  besides  only  in  Prov.  xx.  21),  and  the  phrase 
nt^;7.  Sbrp  (ix.  13),  instead  of  rw'Q_  in-^T, 
really  prove  nothing  as  to  the  age  of  the  later  chap- 
ters of  Zechariah.  Indeed,  generally,  as  regards 
these  minute  comparisons  of  different  passages  to 
prove  an  identity  of  authorship,  Maurer's  remark 
holds  true :  "  Sed  quffi  potest  vis  esse  disjectorum 
quorundam  locorum,  ubi  res  judicanda  est  ex 
totoV" 

Of  far  more  weight,  however,  than  the  argu- 
ments already  .advanced  is  the  fact  that  the  writer 
of  these  last  chapters  (ix.-xiv. )  shows  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  later  prophets  of  the  time  of  the 
exile.     That  there  are  numerous  allusions  in  it  to 


build  not  only  on  the  fact  that  the  same  forms  of  ex- 
pression are  to  be  found  in  both  sections  of  the 
prophecy,  but  that  the  second  section,  like  the  first, 
evinces  a  familiarity  with  other  writings,  and  especiallj 
with  Uitcr  prophets  like  Kitkiel.      t^ee  below. 


ZECHARIAH 

sarlier  prophets,  such  as  Joel,  Amos,  Mic.ah,  has 
been  shown  by  Hitzig  {L'oiiniiKnl.  p.  354,  2d  ed.), 
but  there  are  also,  it  is  alleged,  allusions  to  Zeph- 
aniah,  .Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  later  Isaiah 
(cc.  xl.-lxvi).  If  this  can  be  established,  it  is  evi- 
dence tliat  this  portion  of  the  boolc,  if  not  written 
by  Zecliariali  liiniself,  was  at  least  written  after  the 
sxile.  We  find,  then,  in  Zecii.  ix.  2  an  allusion  to 
Ez.  xxviii.  3;  in  ix.  3  to  1  K.  x.  27;  in  ix.  5  to 
Zeph.  ii.  4;  in  ix.  11  to  Is.  li.  14;  in  ix.  12  to  Is. 
xlix.  9  and  Is.  Ixi.  7;  in  x.  3  to  Ez.  xxxiv.  17.  Zech. 
xi.  is  derived  from  Ez.  xxxiv.  (coinp.  esp.  xi.  4 
with  xxxiv.  4),  and  Zech.  xi.  3  from  .ler.  xii.  5. 
Zech.  xii.  1  alludes  to  Is.  li.  13;  xiii.  8,  9,  to  Ez. 
V.  12;  xiv.  8  to  Ez.  xlvii.  1-12;  xiv.  10,  11,  to  Jer. 
Kxi.  38-40;  xiv.  lG-19  to  Is.  Ixvi.  23  and  Ix.  12; 
xiv.  20,  21,  to  Ez.  xliii.  12  and  xliv.  9. 

This  inanitifst  acriuaint.ince  on  the  part  of  the 
writer  of  Zech.  ix.-xu .  witli  so  many  of  the  later 
propliets  seemed  so  convincing  to  De  Wette  that, 
after  liaving  in  the  first  three  editions  of  his  Intro- 
duction declared  for  two  authors,  he  found  himself 
compelled  to  change  his  mind,  and  to  admit  that 
the  later  chapters  must  lielong  to  the  age  of  Zeclia- 
riah,  and  might  have  been  written  by  Zechariah 
himself. 

Bleek,  on  the  other  hand,  has  done  his  best  to 
weaken  the  force  of  this  argument,  first  by  main- 
taining that  in  most  instances  tlie  alleged  agree- 
ment is  only  apparent,  and  next,  that  where  there 
is  a  real  agreement  (as  in  Zech.  ix.  12,  xi.  3.  xii.  1, 
xiv.  Iti)  witli  tlie  passages  above  cited,  Zechariah 
may  be  the  original  from  whom  Isaiah  and  .Jere- 
miah borrowed.  It  must  be  confessed,  howerer, 
that  it  is  more  pvohnhle  that  one  writer  should 
have  allusions  to  many  others,  than  that  many 
others  should  borrow  from  one;  and  this  prob- 
ability approaches  certainty  in  proportion  as  we 
multiply  the  number  of  quotations  or  allusions.  If 
there  are  passages  in  Zechariah  which  are  mani- 
festly similar  to  other  passages  in  Zephaniah,  in 
ileremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Deutero-Isaiah,  which 
is  tlie  more  probable,  that  they  all  borrowed  from 
him,  or  he  from  them?  In  ix.  12  especially,  as 
Stilhelin  argues,  the  expression  is  decidedly  one  to 
be  looked  for  after  the  exile  rather  than  before  it, 
and  the  passage  rests  upon  Jer.  xvi.  18,  and  has 
an  almost  verbal  accordance  with  Is.  Ixi.  7. 

Again,  the  same  critics  argue  that  the  historical 
ruf'trKiices  in  the  later  chapters  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  a  post  exile  date.  This  had  been 
alreaily  maintained  by  Eichhorn,  althouglf  he  sup- 
poses these  chapters  to  have  been  written  by  a 
Inter  prophet  than  Zechariah.  Stiihelin  puts  the 
case  as  follows:  Even  under  the  Persian  rule  the 
political  relations  of  the  Jews  continued  very  nearly 
the  same  as  they  were  in  earlier  times.  They  still 
were  placed  between  a  huge  eastern  power  on  the 
one  side  and  Egypt  on  the  other,  the  only  diflference 
nijw  being  that  Egypt  as  well  as  Judisa  was  suljject 
to  the  Persians.  Hut  Egypt  was  ati  unwilling  vas- 
sal, and  as  in  earlier  times  when  threatened  by 
A.ssyria  she  had  sought  for  alliances  among  her 
neighbors  or  had  endeavored  to  turn  them  to  ac- 
count as  a  kind  of  outwork  in  her  own  defenses,  so 
DOW  she  would  adopt  the  same  policy  in  her  at- 
tempts to  cast  off  the  Persian  joke.  It  would 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course  that  Persia  would  be 
an  the   watch   to   check   such    efforts,  and   would 


ZECHARIAH 


3607 


<•  Althougli  the   Per.^ians  had  succeeded  to  the  As- 
ljria:is,  the  land   might  still   be  called  by  its  ancient 


wreak  her  vengeance  on  tiiose  among  her  own 
tributary  or  dependent  provinces  which  sliould 
venture  to  form  an  alliance  with  Egypt.  Such  of 
these  provinces  as  lay  on  the  sea-coast  must  indeetl 
suffer  in  any  case,  even  if  they  remained  true  in 
their  allegiance  to  the  Persians.  The  armies  which 
were  destined  for  the  invasion  of  l^ypt  would  col- 
lect in  Syria  and  Phoenicia,  and  would  march  by 
way  of  the  coast;  and,  whether  they  came  as  friends 
or  as  foes,  they  would  probaldy  cause  sufficient  dev- 
astation to  justify  the  prophecy  in  Zech.  ix.  1,  tic, 
delivered  against  Damascus,  Phcenicia,  and  Philis- 
tia.  Meanwhile  the  prophet  seeks  to  calm  the  minds 
of  his  own  people  by  assuring  them  of  God's  pro- 
tection, and  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  who  at 
the  appointed  time  shall  again  unite  the  two  kii.g- 
doms  of  Judah  and  Ephraim.  It  is  observalJe 
moreover  that  the  prophet,  throughout  his  dis- 
courses, is  anxious  not  only  to  tranquillize  the 
minds  of  his  countrymen,  but  to  prevent  their  en- 
gaging in  any  insurrection  against  their  Persian 
masters,  or  forming  any  alliance  with  their  ene- 
mies. In  this  respect  he  follows  the  example  of 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  and,  like  these  two  prophets, 
he  foretells  the  return  of  Ephraim,  the  union  o' 
Ephraim  and  Judah,  and  the  final  overthrow  both 
of  Assyria  (x.  11),  that  is,  Persia,"  and  of  Egypt, 
the  two  countries  whicli  had,  more  than  all  otliers, 
vexed  and  devastateil  Israel.  That  a  large  portion 
of  the  nation  was  still  supposed  to  be  in  exile  is 
clear  from  ix.  11,  12,  and  hence  verse  10  can  only 
be  regarded  as  a  reminiscence  of  Mic.  v.  10;  and 
even  if  x.  9  nnist  be  explained  of  the  past  (with 
Ue  Wette,  Eiitl.  §  250,  6,  note  (t),  still  it  appears 
from  .losephus  {Ant.  xii.  2,  §  5)  that  the  Persians 
carried  away  Jews  into  Egypt,  and  from  Syncellua 
(p.  486,  Niebuhr's  ed.),  that  Ochus  transplanted 
large  numbers  of  Jews  from  Palestine  to  tlie  east 
and  north ;  the  earlier  custom  of  thus  forcibly  re- 
moving to  a  distance  those  conquered  nations  who 
from  disafti?ction  or  a  turbulent  spirit  were  likely  to 
give  occasion  for  alarm,  having  not  only  continued 
among  the  Persians,  but  having  become  even  more 
common  than  ever  (Heeren,  /(/ee/i,  i.  254,  2d  ed.). 
This  well-known  policy  on  the  part  of  their  con- 
querors would  be  a  sufHcient  ground  for  the  as- 
surance which  the  prophet  gives  in  x.  9.  Even  the 
threats  uttered  against  the  false  prophets  and  the 
shepherds  of  tlie  people  are  not  inconsistent  with 
the  times  after  the  exile.  In  Neh.  v.  and  vi.  we 
find  the  nobles  and  rulers  of  the  people  oppressing 
their  brethren,  and  false  prophets  active  in  their 
opposition    to    Nehemiah.     In   like   manner  "  the 

idols  "  (D'^2^1^)  in  xiii.  1-5  may  be  the  same  as 
the  "  Terapliim  "  of  x.  2,  where  they  are  mentioned 
in  connection  with  "the  diviners  "  (C^^pi|"?rT), 
Malachi  (iii.  5)  speaks  of  "  sorcerers  "  (D"^Dtt?^P), 
and  that  such  superstition  long  beld  its  ground 
among  the  Jews  is  evident  fi'om  Jo.seph.  Ant.  viii. 
2,  §  5.  Nor  does  xiv.  21  of  necessity  imply  either 
idol-worship  or  heathen  pollution  in  the  Temple. 
Chapter  xi.  was  spoken  by  tlie  prophet  later  than 
ix.  and  x.  In  ver.  14  he  declares  the  impossiiiility 
of  any  reunion  between  Judah  and  Ephraim,  eithei 
because  the  northern  territory  had  already  been 
laid  waste,  or  because  the  inhabitants  of  it  liad 
shown  a  dispositior.   to  league  with  Pluenicia  in  a 


name  of  Assyria, 
iv.  120. 


See  Ezr.  vi.  22  and  I'^vald.   Gescn 


3608 


ZECHARIAH 


(fain  effort  to  throw  off  the  Persian  yoke,  which 
would  only  involve  them  in  certain  destruction. 
This  dithcult  passage  .Stiihelin  admits  he  cannot 
solve  to  his  satisfaction,  but  contends  that  it  may 
Lave  been  designed  to  teach  the  new  colony  that  it 
was  not  a  part  of  God's  purpose  to  reunite  the 
severed  tribes  i  and  in  this  he  sees  an  argument  for 
the  post-exile  date  of  the  prophecy,  inasmuch  as 
thfi  union  of  the  ten  tribes  with  the  two  was  ever 
one  of  the  brightest  hopes  of  the  prophets  who 
lived  l)efore  the  Captivity. 

Having  thus  shown  that  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  sections  ix.-xi.  should  not  belong  to  a  time  sulj- 
Bequent  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  tjtiihehn  pro- 
ceeds to  argue  that  the  prophecy  directed  against 
tlie  nations  (ix.  1-7)  is  really  more  applical  le  to  the 
Persian  era  than  to  any  other.  It  is  only  the  coast- 
line which  is  here  threatened ;  whereas  the  earlier 
prophets,  whenever  they  threaten  the  maritime 
tribes,  unite  with  them  Moab  and  Amnion,  or 
Edom.  JNIoreover  the  nations  here  mentioned  are 
not  spoken  of  as  enemies  of  Judah;  tor  being  I'er- 
Bian  subjects  they  would  not  venture  to  attack  the 
Jewish  colony  when  under  the  special  protection  of 
that  power.     Of  Ashdod  it  is  said  that  a  foreigner 

(■^Tip:^,  A.  V.  "bastard  ")  shall  dwell  in  it.  This, 
too,  might  naturally  have  happened  in  the  time  of 
Zechariah.  During  the  exile,  Arabs  had  estab- 
lished themselves  in  Southern  Palestine,  and  the 
prophet  foresees  that  they  would  occupy  Ashdod  ; 
and  accordingly  we  learn  from  Neh.  xiii.  24  that 
the  dialect  of  Ashdod  was  unintelligilile  to  the 
Jews,  and  in  Neh.  iv.  7  the  people  of  Ashdod  ap- 
pear as  a  distinct  tribe  united  with  other  Arabians 
against  Judah.  The  king  of  Gaza  (mentioned 
Zech.  ix.  5 )  may  have  been  a  Persian  vassal,  as  the 
kings  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  were,  according  to  He- 
rod, viii.  G7.  A  king  in  Gaza  would  only  be  in 
conformity  with  the  Persian  custom  (see  Herod,  iii. 
15),  although  this  was  no  longer  the  case  in  the 
time  of  Alexander.  The  mention  of  the  "  sons  of 
Javan  "  (ix.  13;  A.  V.  '"Greece")  is  suitable  to 
the  Persian  period  (which  is  also  the  view  of  Eich- 
liorn),  as  it  was  then  that  the  Jews  were  first 
brought  into  any  close  contact  with  the  Greeks. 
It  was  in  fact  the  fierce  struggle  between  Greece 
and  Persia  which  gave  a  peculiar  meaning  to  his 
words  when  the  prophet  promised  his  own  people 
victory  over  the  Greeks,  and  so  rever.sed  the  earlier 
prediction  of  Joel  iv.  6,  7  (A.  V.  iii.  C,  7).  If, 
however,  we  are  to  understand  by  .bi\an  Arabia, 
as  some  maintain,  this  again  equally  suits  the 
period  supposed,  and  the  prophecy  will  refer  to  the 
Arabians,  of  whom  we  ha\e  already  spoken. 

We  come  now  to  the  section  xii.-xiv.  The  main 
proposition  here  is.  that  however  hard  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  may  be  pressed  liy  enemies  (of  Israel 
there  is  no  further  mention),  still  with  God's  help 
thsy  shall  be  victorious:  and  the  result  shall  be 
that  Jehovah  shall  be  more  truly  worshipped  both 
by  Jews  and  Gentiles.  That  this  anticipation  of 
the  gathering  of  hostile  armies  against  Jerusalem 
was  not  unnatural  in  the  Persian  times  may  be  in- 
ferred from  what  has  been  said  above.  Persian 
hosts  were  often  seen  in  Judsea.  We  find  an  in- 
stance of  this  in  Josephus  {Ant.  xi.  7,  §  1),  and 
Sidon  was  laid  in  ashes  in  consequence  of  an  insur- 
rection against  Persia  (Diod.  xvi.  45).  On  the 
other  hand,  how  could  a  prophel  in  the  time  im- 
mediately preceding  the  exile  —  the  time  to  which, 
HI  Aci;ouiit  of  xii.  12,  most  critics  refer  this  section 


ZECHARIAH 

—  have  uttered  predictions  such  as  these?  Since 
the  time  of  Zephaniah  all  the  prophets  looked  upon 
the  fate  of  .lerusaleni  as  sealed,  whereas  here,  in 
direct  contradiction  to  such  views,  the  preservation 
of  the  city  is  announced  even  in  the  extreniest 
calamities.  Any  analogy  to  the  general  strain  of 
thought  in  this  section  is  only  to  l>e  found  in  Is. 
xxix.-xxxiii.  Besides,  no  king  is  here  mentioned, 
i)ut  only  "  the  house  of  David,"  which,  according 
to  Jewish  tradition  (Herzfeld,  Gcsc/i.  dts  I'olkes 
Jisrad,  p.  378  ff. ).  held  a  high  position  after  the 
exile,  and  accordingly  is  mentioned  (xii.  12,  13)  in 
its  different  branches  (comp.  Movers,  Das  Plioniz. 
Alterth.  i.  531),  together  with  the  trilie  of  Levi; 
the  prophet,  like  the  writer  of  Ps.  Lxxxix.,  looking 
to  it  with  a  kind  of  yearning,  which  before  the 
exile,  whilst  there  was  still  a  king,  would  have  been 
inconceivable.  Again,  the  manner  in  which  Egypt 
is  alluded  to  (xiv.  I'J)  almost  of  necessity  leads  us  to 
the  Persian  times ;  for  then  Egypt,  in  con.sequence  of 
her  perpetual  efforts  to  throw  off  the  Persian  yoke, 
was  naturally  brought  into  hostility  with  the  Jews, 
who  were  under  the  protection  of  Persia.  Before 
the  exile  this  vi-as  only  the  case  during  the  interval 
between  the  death  of  Josiah  and  the  battle  of  Car- 
cheniish. 

It  would  seem  then  that  there  is  nothing  to 
compel  us  to  place, this  section  xii.-xiv.  in  the  times 
before  the  exile;  much,  on  the  contrary,  which  can 
only  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  on  the  supjiosi- 
tion  that  it  was  written  during  the  period  of  the 
Persian  dominion.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that 
we  have  here  that  fuller  development  of  the  JMessi- 
anic  idea  which  at  such  a  tiuje  might  be  expected, 
and  one  which  in  fact  rests  upon  all  the  prophets 
who  flourished  before  the  exile. 

Such  are  the  grounds,  critical  and  historical,  on 
which  Stiihelin  rests  his  defense  of  the  later  date  of 
the  second  portion  of  the  prophet  Zechariah.  We 
have  given  his  arguments  at  length  as  the  ablest 
and  most  complete,  as  well  as  the  niost  recent,  on 
his  side  of  the  controversy.  Some  of  them,  it  must 
be  admitted,  are  full  of  weight.  And  when  critics 
like  Eichhorn  maintain  that  of  the  whole  section 
ix.  1-x.  17,  no  exjjlanation  is  possible,  unless  we 
deri\e  it  from  the  history  of  Alexander  the  Great; 
and  when  De  \\'ette,  after  having  adopted  the 
theory  of  different  authors,  felt  himself  obliged  to 
abandon  it  for  reasons  already  mentioned,  and  to 
vindicate  the  integrity  of  the  book,  the  grounds  for 
a  post-exile  date  must  be  very  strong.  Indeed,  it  is 
not  easy  to  say  which  way  the  weight  of  evidence 
preponderates. 

\Mth  regard  to  the  quotation  in  St.  Matthew, 
there  seems  no  good  reason  for  setting  aside  the  re- 
ceived reading.  Jerome  oliserves,  '•  I'his  passage  is 
not  found  in  Jeremiah.  But  in  Zechariah,  who  is 
nearly  the  last  of  the  twelve  prophets,  something 
like  it  occurs;  and  though  there  is  no  great  differ- 
ence in  the  meaning,  yet  Ijoth  the  order  and  the 
words  are  different.  I  read  a  short  time  since,  jn 
a  Hebrew  volume,  whicli  a  Hebrew  of  the  sect  of 
the  Nazarenes  presented  to  me,  an  apocryphal  book 
of  Jeremiah,  in  which  I  found  the  passage  word 
for  word.  But  still  I  am  rather  inclined  to  think 
that  the  quotation  is  made  from  Zechariah,  in  the 
usual  manner  of  tbe  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  who 
neglecting  the  order  of  the  words,  only  give  th« 
general  sense  of  what  they  cite  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment." « 


a    Comment,  in  Evang.  Mattk.  cap.  xxvii   9,  10. 


ZECHARIAH 

F.use'iius  {Ki'ttn<jeL  Demomstr.  lib.  x  )  is  of  opin- 
ion that  the  passage  thus  quoted  stood  originally 
in  the  propliecy  of  Jereuiiah,  but  was  either  erased 
iubsequently  by  the  malice  of  the  Jews  [a  very  im- 
probable supposition  it  need  hardly  be  said];  or 
that  the  name  of  Zechariah  was  substituted  for  that 
of  Jeremiah  through  the  carelessness  of  copyists. 
Augustine  (f/e  Cons.  Evanytl.  iii.  30)  testifies  that 
the  most  ancient  (Jreek  copies  had  Jert/niah,  and 
thinks  that  tlie  mistake  was  originally  St.  Mat- 
thew's, but  that  this  was  divinely  ordered,  and  that 
the  Evangelist  would  not  correct  the  error  even 
when  pointed  out,  in  order  that  we  might  thus  infer 
that  all  the  prophets  spuke  by  one  Spirit,  and  tliat 
what  was  the  work  of  one  was  the  work  of  all  (et 
singula  esse  onuiium,  et  omnia  singulorum). « 
Some  later  writers  accounted  for  the  non-appear- 
ance of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah  by  the  confusion 
in  tlie  Greek  MSS.  of  his  prophecies  —  a  confusion, 
however,  it  may  be  remarked,  which  is  not  confined 
to  the  Greek,  but  which  is  found  no  less  in  our 
present  Hebrew  text.  Others  again  suggest  that 
in  the  Greek  autograph  of  Matthew,  ZPIOT  may 
have  been  written,  and  that  copyists  may  have 
taken  this  for  IPIOT.  But  there  is  no  evidence 
that  abbreviations  of  this  kind  were  in  use  so  early. 
Kpiphanius  and  some  of  tiie  Greek  Fathers  seem 
to  have  read  eV  toT?  Trpo<pr]Tai^.  And  the  most 
ancient  copy  of  the  Latin  Vfr--.ion  of  the  Gospels 
omits  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  and  has  merely  dic- 
tum est  per  PropIietKiii.  It  has  been  conjectured 
that  this  represents  the  original  Griek  readng  rh 
pr]d\v  5ia  Tov  -irpocpvTov,  and  that  .some  early  an- 
notator  wrote  'l^pifxiov  on  the  margin,  whence  it 
crept  into  tlie  text.  The  choice  lies  between  this, 
and  a  slip  of  memory  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist 
if  we  admit  the  integrity  of  onr  present  book  of 
Zechariah,  unless,  indeed,  we  suppose,  with  Eich- 
horn,  who  ibllows  Jerome,  tiiat  an  apocryphal 
book  of  Jeremiah  is  quoted,  'i'heophylact  proposes 
to  insert  a  Kai,  and  wonld  read  5ia  'lepefxiov  Kal 
rov  irpocf^riTov  ^yovv  Xax^-piiv.  He  argues  that 
the  quotation  is  really  a  fusion  of  two  passages; 
that  concerning  the  price  paid  occurring  in  Zecha- 
riah, chap.  xi. ;  and  that  concerning  the  field  in 
Jeremiah,  cha]).  xix.  But  what  N.  T.  writer  would 
have  used  such  a  form  of  expression  "  by  Jeremy 
and  the  prophet"  ?  Such  a  mode  of  quotation  is 
without  parallel.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  passage  as  given  in  St.  Mat- 
thew does  not  represent  exactly  eitlier  the  Hebrew 
text  of  Zechariah,  or  the  version  of  the  LXX.  The 
other  passages  of  the  prophet  quoted  in  the  N.  T. 
are  ix.  9  (in  Matt.  xxi.  5;  John  xiii.  15);  xii.  10 
(in  John.  xix.  37;  I!ev.  i.  7);  xiii.  7  (in  Matt, 
xxvi.  31;  Mark  xiv.  27);  l)ut  in  no  instance  is  the 
prophet  quoted  by  name.* 

Literature.  — 'I.  Patristic  Commentaries.  —  Je- 
rome, Comment,  in  xii.  Mimires  Pruphetas.    0pp. 

a  This  extraordinary  method  of  solving  the  difficulty 
has  been  adopted  by  Dr.  Wordsworth  iu  his  note  on 
the  passage  in  St.  Matthew.  He  says  ;  "  On  the  whole 
there  is  reason  to  believe  ....  that  the  prophecy 
which  we  read  iu  Zech.  (xi.  12,  13)  had,  in  Ike  first  iii- 
stmice,  been  delivered  by  Jeremiah  ;  and  that  by  refer- 
ring here  not  to  Zech.  where  toe  read  it,  hue  to  Jer 
where  we  do  not  read  it,  the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  us  not 
to  regard  tlie  prophets  as  the  anc/iors  of  their  proph- 
ecies," etc.  And  again:  "He  intends  to  teach,  that 
alt  prophecie.s  proceed  from  One  Spirit,  and  that  those 
by  whom  they  were  uttered  are  not  sources,  but  only 
channels  of  the  same  Divine  truth."  But  if  so,  whv,  it 
227 


ZECHARIAH 


3609 


ed.  Vallars.  (Veron.  1734),  tom.  vi.  Theodoret, 
/fiterpri'Idtid  in  xii.  Pioph.  Min.  Opp  ed.  Schulze 
(HaL  1769-74),  vol.  ii.  pars  2. 

2.  Later  Exegetical  Works.  —  Der  Prophet 
Ziichariis  aus<jelegt  durch  I).  JIart.  Luthern.  Vit- 
emberg,  1528.  (Also  in  the  collected  works  of 
Luther  in  German  and  Latin.)  Phil.  Melancthonis 
Comm.  in  Proph.  Zacli.,  1553  (Opp.  ii.  531).  J. 
J.  Grynffii  Comm.  in  Zacli.,  Genev.  1581.  Caspar 
Sanctii  Comm.  in  Zach.,  Lugd.  1616.  C.  Vi- 
tringa.  Comment,  ad  lib.  Proph.  Zoch.,  1734.  F. 
Venema,  Sermones,  Acad,  in  lib.  Proph.  Zach., 
1789. 

3.  \^'riters  who  have  discussed  the  question  of 
the  Integrity  of  Zechariah.  JMede,  Works,  Loud. 
1004,  pp.  780,  884.  Bishop  Kidder,  Denwnstni- 
iion  of  the  Messias,  Lond.  1700,  vol.  ii.  p.  199. 
Archbp.  Newconie,  Minor  Prophets,  Lond.  1785. 
Blayney,  Neto  Translation  of  Zech.,  Oxf.  1797. 
Carpzov,   Vindic.  Crit.,  Lips.  1724.     Flligge,   Die 

Weissagungen,  trelche  bey  den  Schriften  des 
Proph,  Zach.  beygehoyen  sind,  u.  s.  w.,  Hamb 
1784.  Bertboldt,  Hisior.  hit.  Kinl.  in  die  Bixcher 
des  A.  u.  N.  Test.,  iv.  1702  ff.,  1712  ff.  Eichhorn, 
Hebr.  Prophet  en,  iii.  327-360,  380-92,  415-28, 
515-18;  Einl.  iv.  427  ff.  (4th  edit.  1824).  Bauer, 
Kinl.,  p.  510  ff.  Beckhaus,  die  Integrildt  der 
Proph.  Schri/i.  des  A.  B.,  p.  337  ff.  Jahn,  Kinl 
ii.  675  ff.  Kiister,  Melelemnta  Crit.  et  Exegei.  in 
Zach.  Proph.  piart.  post.  Gotting.  1818.  Forberg, 
Comm.  Crit.  et  Exegei.  in  Zach.  Vaiicc.  part 
post.  Cob.  1824.  Gramberg,  Krit.  Gesch.  der 
Religkmsideen,  ii.  520  ff.  Koseinn idler,  Sclioli  i, 
vii.  4,  254  ff.  Credner,  der  Prophet  Joel,  p.  67  ff. 
Hengstenberg,  Beitrdge,  i.  361  ff.,  and  Chrislo- 
logie,  iii.  De  Wette,  Einl.  (Edit.  1-3,  asrainst  the 
Integrity,  later  editions  in  favor  of  it).  Keil,  Einl. 
Havernick,  Einl.  Maurer,  Comment,  in  Vet.  Test. 
ii.  621  ff.  Ewald.  die  Propheten,  and  Gesch.  iv. 
Bleek,  Einl.  Stiihelin,  Einl.  in  die  kamm.  Biicher 
des  A.  7'.,  1862.  p.  315  ff.  Hitzig,  in  Stwl.  und 
Krit.  1830,  p.  25  ff.,  and  in  Prophet.  HendersoTi 
on  the  Minor  Prophets,  1830.  Davidson,  in 
Second  Vol.  of  Home's  Introd.,  10th  edit.  1856, 
and  more  recently  in  his  Introduction  to  the  0.  T. 
[vol.  iii.  1803].  Bunsen,  Bibelwerk,  2ter  Band, 
Ite  Abtheil.  2ter  Theil;  [and  Bd.  vi.  272  ff.,  498 
ff.  (1870);]    Gott  in  der  Geschichte,  i.  449. 

J.  J.  S.P. 
*  Additional.  —  R.  David  Kimchi,  Comm.  on  the 
Proph.  of  Zech.,  trans,  from  the  Hebrew  by  A. 
AT  Cold,  \.oi\A.  1837.  J.  Stonard,  Comm.  on  the 
Vision  of  Zech.,  Lond.  1824.  J.  D.  F.  Biirger, 
Etudes  exeg.  et  crit.  sur  le  proph.  Znch.,  Strasb. 
1841,  4to.  F.  Bleek,  Ueber  d,  Zeiialter  von  Sack. 
Kap.  9-14,  in  the  Theol.  Sind.  u.  Krit.  1852,  pp 
247-332.  M.  Baumgarten,  Die  Nachtgesichte 
Sacharia's,  2  Theile,  Braunschw.  1854-55.  H.  L. 
Sandrock,  Prioi-is  el  post.   Part.   Vaticin.  ab  uno 


may  be  asked,  do  the  writers  of  the  Sacred  Books  ever 
give  their  names  at  all  ?  Why  trouble  ourselves  with 
the  question  whether  St.  Luke  wrote  the  Acts,  or 
whether  St.  Paul  wrote  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  or  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  ?  What  becomes  of  the  argumeut, 
usually  deemed  so  strong,  derived  from  the  testimony 
of  the  Four  Evangelists,  if,  after  all,  tht  four  are  but 
one '! 

It  would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  such  a  theory 
is  as  pernicious  as  that  against  which  it  is  directed. 

ft  *  On  this  question  of  the  apparent  citation  from 
Zechariah  instead  of  .leremiah.  see  Aceij)ama,  vol 
i.  p.  10  ;  and  Jod.\s,  vol.  ii   p.  1503.  .\uier.  ed.     11 


3610 


ZECHARIAH 


eofhmque  Anfore  pi-ofecln,  Vratisl.  1856.  E.  F. 
J.  von  Ortenberg,  f)ie  Besiftndlhdh  d.  Buches 
Srtc/i'-nja,  Gotha,  1859.  W.  Neumann,  Die  Weis- 
taguncjen  d.  Sakliavjnh,  Stuttg.  18G0.  A.  Kiihler, 
Die  nnrhexil.  Proph.  ei-klaii,  Abth.  ii.,  iii.,  Erl. 
1801-63,  and  art.  Zaclinrias  in  Herzog's  lieal- 
Kncyk.  xviii.  353-360  (1864).  Th.  Kliefoth,  Der 
Proph.  Sachar/'iih,  ii/iers.  u.  mtsffeler/t,  Schwerin, 
1862.  C.  F.  Keil,  Bib.  Omim.  iih.  d.  12  kleiiien 
Proph.,  pp.  517-662,  Leipz.  1866,  Eng.  trans.  1868 
(Clark's  For.  Theol.  Libr.).  E.  Sehrarler,  in  L)e 
Wette's  Einl.  in  d.  BiXcher  d.  A.  T.,  8^  Ausg.,  Berl. 
186!».  T.  V.  Moore,  Prophets  of  the  Reslor/ition, 
N.  Y.  18.')6.  G.  R.  Noyes,  New  Trans,  of  the 
lleb.  Prophets,  3d  ed.,  Best.  1866.  II.  Cowles,  The 
Minor  Prophets,  ivith  Notes,  N.  Y.  1866.  Pusey, 
Minor  Prophets,  Part  iv.  (1870).  It  should  also 
1)8  noted  that  the  valualile  Introductions  of  Keil  and 
Bleek  are  now  (1870)  translated  into  English.     A. 

2.  {Zaxapia^'i  [i"  1  Chr.  xvi.  2,  Vat.  Zaxap^ov^] 
Ziiclinrins.)  Son  of  !Mesheleniiah,  or  Sheleuiiah,  a 
Korhite,  and  keeper  of  the  north  gate  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation  (1  Chr.  ix.  21)  in  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  porters  in  the  reign  of  David.  In 
1  Chr.  xxvi.  2,  14,  his  name  appears  in  the  length- 
ened form  ^iT^npT,  and  in  the  last  quoted  verse 
he  is  described  as  "  one  counselling  vvith  under- 
standing." 

3.  {ZaKXOvf)-,  [Vat.  Sin.  Zaxafia;]  Alex. 
ZaxX^wp-)  ^"^  °f  the  sons  of  .lehiel,  the  father  or 
founder  of  Gibeon  (1  Chr.  ix.  37).  In  1  Chr.  viii. 
31  he  is  called  Zacher. 

4.  iZaxapiaS')  A  Levite  in  the  Temple  band 
as  arranged  by  David,  apiwinted  to  play  "  with 
psalteries  on  .AJamoth"  (1  Chr.  .\v  20).  He  was 
of  the  second  order  of  I.evites  (ver.  18),  a  porter  or 
gatekeeper,  and  may  possibly  be  the  same  as  Zech- 
ariah  the  son  of  JMeshelemiah.     In  1  Chr.  xv.  18  his 

name  is  written  in  the  longer  form,  ^H^"??.** 

5.  One  of  the  princes  of  .ludah  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoshaphat  who  were  sent  with  priests  and  Levites 
to  teach  the  people  the  law  of  Jehovah  (2  Chr.  xvii. 
7). 

6.  {'A(apLas.)  Son  of  the  high-priest  Jehoiada, 
in  the  reign  of  .Joash  king  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xxiv. 
20),  and  therefore  the  king's  cousin.  After  the 
death  of  Jehoiada  Zechariah  probably  succeeded  to 
his  office,  and  in  attempting  to  check  the  reaction 
in  favor  of  idolatry  which  immediately  followed,  he 
fell  a  victim  to  a  conspiracy  formed  against  him  liy 
the  king,  and  was  stoned  with  stones  in  the  court 
of  the  Temple.  The  memory  of  this  unrighteous 
deed  lasted  long  in  Jewish  tradition.  In  the  Jeru- 
salem Tahnud  ( Taanith,  fol.  69,  quoted  by  Light- 
foot,  Temple  Service,  c.  xxxvi.)  there  is  a  legend 
told  of  eighty  thousand  young  priests  who  were 
slain  by  Nebuzaradan  for  the  blood  of  Zechariah, 
and  the  evident  hold  which  the  story  had  taken 
upon  the  minds  of  the  people  renders  it  probable 
that  "  Zacharias  son  of  Barachias,"  who  was  slain 
between  the  Temple  and  the  altar  (Matt,  xxiii.  35), 
is  the  same  with  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada, 
and  that  the  name  of  Barachias  as  his  father  crept 
into  the  text  from  a  marginal  gloss,  the  writer  con- 
fusbg  this  Zechariah  either  with  Zechariah  the 
prophet,  who  was  the  son  of  Berechiah,  or  with 
snother  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jeberechiah  (Is.  viii. 
2). 

7.  (Zaxap''as.)  A  Kohathite  T.evite  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  who  was  one  of  the  overseers  of  the 


ZECHARIAH 

workmen  engaged  in  the  restoration  of  the  Temple 
(2  Chr.  xxxiv.  12). 

8.  The  leader  of  the  sons  of  Pharosh  who  re- 
turned with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  3). 

9.  [Vat.  A(apia.]  Son  of  Bebai,  who  came  up 
from  Babylon  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  11). 

10.  (Zacharin  in  Neh.)  One  of  the  chiefs  of 
the  people  whom  Ezra  summoned  in  council  at  the 
river  Aha\a,  before  the  second  caravan  returned 
from  Baliylon  (Ezr.  viii.  16).  He  stood  at  Ezra's 
left  hand  when  he  expounded  the  Law  to  the  people 
(Neh.  viii.  4). 

11.  (Zaxapia:  Zncliarias.)  One  of  the  family 
of  Elam,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife  after  the 
Captivity  (Ezr.  x.  26). 

12.  Ancestor  of  Athaiah,  or  Uthai  (Neh.  xi.  4). 

13.  {Zaxapias\  [Vat.  07)^'eia;  FA.  OTjSefa.]  I 
A  Shilonite,  descendant  of  Perez  (Neh.  xi.  5). 

14.  (Zaxapi'a.)  A  priest,  son  of  Pashnr  (Neh. 
xi.  12). 

15.  {Zacharin.)  The  representative  of  the 
priestly  family  of  Iddo  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  the 
son  of  Jeshua  (Neh.  xii.  16).  Possilily  the  same 
as  Zechariah  the  prophet  the  son  of  Iddo. 

16.  l,[Zaxapias\  ver.  41,  Rom.  A"at.  Alex.  FA.i 
omit:]  Zdchari'fs,  Zicharin.)  One  of  the  priests, 
son  of  Jonathan,  who  blew  with  the  trumpets  at 
the  dedication  of  the  city  wall  by  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
nuah  (Neh.  xii.  35,  41). 

17.  (^"f^"l??  :  Zaxapia.)  A  chief  of  the  Reu- 
benites  at  the  time  of  the  captivity  by  Tiglath-Pi- 
leser  (1  Chr.  v.  7). 

18.  [Alex.  Zaxapias.^  One  of  the  priests  who 
blew  with  the  trumpets  in  the  procession  which  ac- 
companied the  ark  from  the  house  of  Obed-edom 
(1  Chr.  XV.  24). 

19.  [Zaxapia.]  Son  of  Isshiah,  or  Jesiah,  a 
Kohathite  Levite  descended  from  Uzziel  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.  25). 

20.  (Zaxapias.)  Fourth  son  of  Hosah  of  the 
children  of  Merari  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 

21.  (ZaSaias;  [Vat-  Za^Seias-]  Alex.  Zafi- 
5ias.)  A  Manassite,  whose  son  Iddo  was  chief  of 
his  tribe  in  Gilead  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr. 
xxvii.  21). 

22.  (Zaxap'ny.)  The  father  of  Jahaziel,  a  Ger- 
shonite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr. 
XX.  14). 

23.  One  of  the  sons  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xsi. 

2). 

24..  A  prophet  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  who  ap- 
pears to  have  acted  as  the  king's  counsellor,  but  of 
whom  nothing  is  known  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  5).  The 
chronicler  in  describing  him  makes  use  of  a  most 
remarkable  and  unique  expression,  '•  Zechariah, 
who  understood  the  seeing  of  God,"  or,  as  our  A. 
V.  has  it,  "who  had  understanding  in  the  vision.t 
of  God  "  (comp.  Dan.  i.  17).  As  no  such  term  ia 
ever  employed  elsewhere  in  the  description  of  ,any 
prophet,  it  has  been  questioned  whether  the  read- 
ing of  the  received  text  is  the  true  one.  The 
LXX.,  Targum,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Rashi,  and  Kim- 

chi,  with  many  of  Kennicott's  MSS.,  read  iHST'D, 

"  in  the  fear  of,"  for  HIWHS,  and  their  reading 
is  most  probably  the  correct  one. 

25.  [Vat.  Zaxapta  (gen.)-]  The  father  of  Abi- 
j.ah  or  Abi,  Hezekiah's  mother  (2  Chr.  xxix.  1); 
called  also  Zachariah  in  the  A.  V. 

26  [Vat.  A(apiaj.]  One  of  the  family  cf 
.\saph  the  minstrel,  who  in  the  reign  of  HezekiaJj 


ZEDAD 

jook  part  with  other  Levites  in  the  purification  of 
Ihe  Temple  (2  Chr.  xxix.  13). 

27.  One  of  the  rulers  of  tlie  Temple  in  the  reign 
of  .losiah  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  8).  He  wa.s  probably,  as 
Hertheau  conjectures,  "  the  second  priest  "  (comp. 
2  K.  XXV.  18). 

28.  The  son  of  Jeberechiah,  who  was  taken  by 
the  prophet  Isaiah  as  one  of  the  •'faithful  witnesses 
to  record,"'  when  he  wrote  concerning  Jlaher-sha- 
lal-hash-b.az  (Is.  viii.  2).  He  was  not  the  same  as 
Zechariah  the  pro])het,  who  lived  in  the  time  of 
Uzziah  and  died  before  that  kin?,  but  he  may  have 
been  the  i-evite  of  that  name,  who  in  the  reign  of 
Ilezekiah  assisted  in  the  purification  of  the  Temple 
(2  Chr.  xxix.  13).  As  Zechariah  the  prophet  is 
called  the  son  of  Berechiah,  with  which  Jeberechiah 
is  all  but  identical,  Bertlioldt  {l-iid.  iv.  1722, 
1727)  conjectured  that  some  of  the  prophecies  at- 
triliuted  to  him,  at  any  rate  cc.  ix.-xi.,  were 
leiUy  the  production  of  Zechariah,  the  contempo- 
rary of  Isaiah,  and  were  appended  to  the  volume  of 
the  later  prophet  of  the  same  name  (Gesen.  />er 
Pfopli.  Jcsnia^  i.  327).  Another  coiyecture  is  that 
Zechariah  the  son  of  .Jebei-echiah  is  the  same  as 
Zechariah  the  father  of  Abijah,  the  queen  of  Ahaz 
(foli,  Synopsis,  in  loc):  the  witnesses  summoned 
by  Isaiah  being  thus  men  of  the  higliest  ecclesias- 
tical and  civil  rank.  W.  A.  W. 

ZE'DAD  ("T"f^  [mountrriii-sule,  or  steej] 
pl'ice]:  'ZapaSd.K,  HyttaireASa/i;  Alex.  2a5a5a/c, 
EKSafi;  [Comp.  Aid.  2aSaSd,  27j5a5a:]  Hefhidd). 
One  of  the  landmarks  on  the  north  liorder  of  the 
land  of  Israel,  as  promised  by  Moses  (Num.  xxxiv. 
8)  and  as  restored  by  Kzekiel  (xlvii.  15),  who  prob- 
ably passed  through  it  on  his  road  to  Assyria  as  a 
captive.  In  tiie  former  case  it  occurs  between  "  the 
entrance  of  llamath  "  and  Ziphron,  and  in  the 
latter  between  the  "road  to  Hethlon  "  and  Ha- 
math.  A  place  named  Suiltul  exists  to  the  east  of 
the  northern  extremity  of  the  chain  of  Anti-Libanus, 
about  50  miles  E.  X.  V..  of  Baalbec,  and  35  S.  S.  E. 
of  Hums.  It  is  possilde  that  this  may  ultimately 
turn  out  to  be  identical  with  Zedad;  but  at  present 
the  passages  in  which  the  latter  is  mentioned  are  so 
imperfectly  understood,  and  tliis  part  of  the  coun- 
try has  been  so  little  explored  with  the  view  of  ar- 
riving at  topographical  conclusions,  that  nothing 
tan  be  done  beyond  directing  attention  to  the  co- 
incidence in  the  names  (see  Porter,  Five  I'ears, 
ate,  ii.  354-356).  G. 

ZEDECHI'AS  (ScSe/ci'aj:  Sedecias).  Zed- 
KKi.VH  king  of  Judah  (1  Esdr.  i.  40). 

ZEDEKI'AH.     1.  (^n»fp"T!J,  Tsidkiyyahu, 

knd  thrice  n*[)'T!i,  Tsidkiyyah  [pcstice  of  Je- 
h>  vail]  :  2e5e/ci'a,''  SeSe/ci'aj:  Sedecifis.)  The 
liist  king  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem.     He  was  the 


•-  Jer.  xxvii.  12,  xxTiii  1,  xxi.'c.  .3.  In  this  form  it 
s  iilevjtical  with  the  name  which  appears  in  the  A.  V. 
(itt  connection  with  a  different  person)  as  Zidkijau.  A 
Biuiilar  inconsistency  of  our  translators  is  shown  in  the 
cases  of  Uezekiah,  Uizkijah.  and  Ilizkiah  ;  Ezekiel  and 
Jehezekel. 

t>  The  pecuharities  of  the  name,  as  it  appears  in  the 
Vatican  LXX.  (Mai),  may  be  noted  :  — 

(a.)  It  is  2.tS(Kia  in  2  K.  xxiv.  17  ;  1  Chr.  iii.  15  ; 
Ter.  xxxiv.  4  only. 

(6.)  The  seniiive  is  ^eBexCov  in  2  K.  x.xv.  2  ;  Jer  li. 
59,  Hi.  ],  10,  11  ;  but  teSexCa  in  Jer.  i.  3,  xxviii  1, 
Kx.\ix.  1  ;  and  SeSexeia  in  xxxix   2  only. 


ZEDEKIAH  3611 

son  of  .Tosiah  by  his  wife  Hamutal,  and  therefore 
own  brother  to  Jehoahaz  (2  K.  xxiv.  18;  comp. 
xxiii.  31).  His  original  name  had  been  iMatt.\- 
NiAH,  which  was  changed  to  Zedekiah  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, when  he  carried  off  his  nephew  Jehoi- 
achim  to  Babylon,  and  left  him  on  the  throne  of 
Jerusalem.  Zedekiah  was  but  twenty-one  years 
old  when  he  was  thus  placed  in  charge  of  an  im- 
poverished kingdom,  and  a  city  which,  though  still 
strong  in  its  natural  and  artificial  impregnability, 
was  bereft  of  well-nigh  all  its  defejiders.  But  Je- 
rnsaleu)  might  have  remained  the  head  of  the  Bab- 
ylonian pi'ovince  of  Judah,  and  the  Temple  of 
Jehovah  continued  standing,  had  Zedekiah  pos- 
sessed wisdom  and  firmne.ss  enough  to  remain  true 
to  his  allegiance  to  Babylon.  This,  however,  he 
could  not  do  (Jer.  xxxviii.  5).  His  history  is  con- 
tained in  the  short  sketch  of  the  events  of  his  reigu 
given  in  2  K.  xxiv.  17-xxv.  7,  and,  with  some 
trifling  variations,  in  Jer  xxxix.  1-7,  Iii.  1-11,  to- 
gether with  the  still  shorter  summary  in  2  Chr. 
xxxvi.  10,  ifec.;  and  also  in  Jer.  xxi.,  xxiv.,  xxvii., 
xxviii.,  xxix.,  xxxii.,  xxxiii.,  xxxiv.,  xxxvii.,  xxxviii. 
(being  the  chapters  conta-ining  the  prophecies  de 
livered  by  this  prophet  during  this  reign  and  hia 
relation  of  various  events  more  or  less  affecting 
Zedekiah),  and  Ez.  xvii.  11-21.  To  these  it  is  in- 
dispensable to  add  the  narrative  of  .losephits  (Anl. 
X.  7,  1-8,  §  2),  which  is  partly  constructed  by 
comparison  of  the  documents  enmnerated  above, 
but  also  contains  information  derived  from  other 
and  independent  soui^ces.  From  these  it  is  evident 
that  Zedekiah  was  a  man  not  so  much  bad  at  heart 
as  weak  in  will.  He  was  one  of  those  unfortunate 
characters,  frequent  in  history,  like  our  own 
Charles  I.  and  Louis  XVI.  of  France,  who  find 
themselves  at  the  head  of  attiiirs  during  a  great 
crisis,  without  having  the  strength  of  character  to 
enable  them  to  do  what  they  know  to  be  right,  and 
whose  infirmity  becomes  moral  guilt.  The  princes 
of  his  court,  as  he  himself  pathetically  admits  in 
his  interview  with  Jeremiah,  described  in  chap, 
xxxviii.,  had  him  completely  under  their  influence. 
"  Against  them,"'  he  complains,  "  it  is  not  tlie  king 
that  can  do  anything."  lie  was  thus  driven  to 
disregard  the  counsels  of  the  prophet,  which,  as  the 
event  proved,  were  perfectly  sound ;  and  he  who 
might  have  kept  the  fragments  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  together,  and  maintained  for  some  genera 
tions  longer  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  brought  its 
final  ruin  on  his  country,  destruction  on  the  Tem- 
ple, death  to  his  family,  and  a  cruel  torment  and 
miserable  captivity  on  himself. 

It  is  evident  from  Jer.  xxvii. <^  and  xxviii.  (ap- 
parently the  earliest  prophecies  delivered  during 
this  reign),  that  the  earlier  portion  of  Zedekiah's 
reign  was  marked  by  an  agitation  throughout  the 
whole  of  Syria  against  the  Babylonian  yoke.    Jeru- 


(c.)  The  name  is  occasionally  omitted  where  it  is 
present  in  the  Hebrew  text,  e.  g.  Jer.  xxxviii.,  Iii.  5, 
8  ;  but  on  the  other  hand  is  inserted  in  xlvi.  1,  w  ;ere 
also  Elam  is  put  for  "  gentiles.'' 

N.  B.  The  references  above  given  to  Jeremiah  ar« 
according  to  the  Hebrew  capitulation. 

c  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  ver.  1  of  xxvii.,  as  it 
at  present  stjinds,  contains  an  error,  and  that  for  .le- 
hoiakim  we  should  read  Zi-dekiah.  The  mention  oi 
Zedekiah  in  vv.  3  and  12,  and  in  xxviii.  1,  as  well  a.( 
of  the  captivity  of  Jeconiah  in  ver.  20,  no  less  than 
the  whole  argument  of  the  latter  part  of  the  cliapter 
renders  this  evident. 


8612 


ZEDEKIAH 


ZEDEKIAH 

respite  <t  reassert  their  power  over  the  king,  and 
their  tlefiaiice  of  Jehovah,  by  reiinslaving  those 
whom  they  had  so  recently  manumitted ;  and  the 
propliet  thereupon  utters  a  doom  on  those  miscre- 
ants which,  in  the  fierceness  of  its  tone  and  in  soma 
of  its  expressions,  recalls  those  of  Elijah  on  Ahab 
(ver.  20).  Tl)is  encounter  was  quickly  followed  t)y 
Jeremiah's  capture  and  imprisonment,  which  but 
for  the  interference  of  the  king  (xxxvii.  17,  21) 
would  have  rapidly  put  an  end  to  his  life  (ver.  20). 
How  long  the  Babylonians  were  absent  from  Jeru- 
salem we  are  not  told.  It  must  have  required  at 
least  several  months  to  move  a  large  army  and 
baggage  through  the  difficult  and  tortuous  country 
which  separates  Jerusalem  from  the  Philistine 
Plain,  and  to  effect  the  complete  repulse  of  the 
Egyptian  army  from  Syria,  which  Josephus  afErn:a 
was  effected.  AU  we  certainly  know  is  that  on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  tenth  month  of  Zedekiaii's  ninth 
year  the  Chaldseans  were  again  before  the  walls 
(Jer.  lii.  4).  Prom  this  time  forward  the  siege 
progressed  slowly  [)Ut  surely  to  its  consummation, 
witli  the  accompaniment  of  both  famine  and  pesti- 
lence (Joseph.).  Zedekiah  again  interfered  to  jire- 
serve  the  life  of  Jeremiah  from  the  vengeance  of  the 
princes  (xxxviii.  7-13),  and  then  occurred  the  in- 
terview between  the  king  and  the  prophet  of  which 
mention  has  already  been  made,  and  which  affords 
so  good  a  clew  to  the  condition  of  abject  depend- 
ence into  which  a  long  course  of  opposition  had 
brought-the  weak-minded  monarch.  It  would  seem 
from  tliis  conversation  that  a  considerable  desertion 
had  ah'eady  taken  place  to  the  liesiegers,  proving 
that  the  prophet's  view  of  the  condition  of  things 
was  shared  l)y  many  of  his  countrymen.  But  the 
unhappy  Zedekiah  throws  away  the  chance  of  pres- 
ervation for  himself  and  the  city  which  the  prophet 
set  before  him,  in  his  fear  that  he  would  be  mocked 
Ijy  those  very  Jews  who  had  already-  taken  the  step 
Jeremiah  was  urging  him  to  take  (xxxviii.  19). 
At  the  same  time  his  fear  of  the  princes  who  re- 
mained in  the  city  is  not  diminished,  and  he  even 
condescends  to  impose  on  the  projihet  a  subterfuge, 
with  the  view  of  concealing  the  real  purport  of  his 
conversation  from  these  tyrants  of  his  spirit  (vv. 
24-27). 

But  while  the  king  was  hesitating  the  end  was 
rapidly  coming  nearer.  The  city  was  indeed  re- 
duced to  the  last  extremity.  The  fire  of  the  be- 
siegers had  throughout  been  very  destructive  (Jo- 
seph.), but  it  was  now  aided  by  a  sev«e  famine. 
Tlie  bread  had  for  long  been  consumed  (Jer. 
xxxviii.  9),  and  all  the  terrible  expedients  had  been 
tried  to  which  the  wretched  inhabitants  of  a  be- 
sieged town  are  forced  to  resort  in  such  cases. 
Mothers  had  boiled  and  eaten  the  flesh  of  their  own 
infants  (Bar.  ii.  3;  Lam.  iv.  10).  Persons  of  the 
greatest  wealth  and  station  were  to  be  seen  search- 
ing the  duMg-heaps  for  a  morsel  of  food.  The 
effeminate  nobles,  whose  fair  complexions  had  been 


salem  seems  to  have  taken  the  lead,  since  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Zedekiah's  reign  we  fi.id  ambassa- 
dors from  all  the  neighboring  kingdoms —  Tyre,  Si- 
don,  Edom,  and  Moab  —  at  his  court,  to  consult  as 
to  the  steps  to  be  taken,  'i'his  happened  either 
during  the  king's  absence  or  immediately  after  his 
return  from  Babylon,  whither  he  went  on  some  er- 
rand, the  nature  of  which  is  not  named,  but  which 
may  have  been  an  attempt  to  blind  the  eyes  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  to  his  contemplated  revolt  (Jer.  li. 
59).  The  project  was  attacked  by  Jeremiah  vvi  h 
the  strongest  statement  of  the  folly  of  such  a  course 
—  a  statement  corroborated  Ijy  the  very  material 
fact  tliat  a  man  of  .Jerusalem  named  Hananiah. 
who  had  opposed  him  with  a  declaration  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  that  the  spoils  of  the  Temple 
should  be  restored  witiiin  two  years,  had  died,  in 
accordance  with  Jeremiah's  prediction,  within  two 
months  of  its  delivery.  Tiiis,  and  perhaps  also  the 
impossibility  of  any  real  alliance  between  Judah  and 
the  surrounding  nations,  seems  to  have  put  a  stop, 
for  the  time,  to  the  anti-Babylonian  movement. 
On  a  man  of  Zedekiah's  temperament  the  sudden 
■leath  of  Hananiah  nuist  have  produced  a  strong 
impression ;  and  we  may  without  improbaliility  ac- 
cept this  as  the  time  at  which  he  procured  to  be 
made  in  silver  a  set  of  the  vessels  of  the  Temple,  to 
replace  the  golden  plate  carried  off"  with  his  prede- 
cessor by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Bar.  i.  8). 

The  first  act  of  overt  rebellion  of  which  any  rec- 
ord survives  was  the  formation  of  an  alliance  with 
Egypt,  of  itself  equivalent  to  a  declaration  of  en- 
mity with  Babylon.  In  fact,  according  to  the 
statement  of  Chronicles  and  Ezekiel  (xvii.  13), 
with  the  expansion  of  Josephus,  it  was  in  direct 
contravention  of  the  oath  of  allegiance  in  the  name 
of  Elohim,  by  which  Zedekiah  was  bound  by  Neb- 
uchadnezzar, namely,  that  he  would  keep  the  king- 
dom for  Nebuchadnezzar,  make  no  innovation,  and 
enter  into  no  league  with  Egypt  (Ez.  xvii.  13;  2 
Chr.  xx,xvi.  13;  Jos.  Ant.  x.  7,  §  1).  As  a  natu- 
ral consequence  it  brought  on  Jerusalem  an  imme- 
diate invasion  of  the  Chaldeans.  The  mention  of 
this  event  in  the  Bible,  though  sure,  is  extremely 
slight,  and  occurs  only  in  Jer.  xxxvii.  5-11,  xxxiv. 
21,  and  Ez.  xvii.  15-20;  but  Josephus  (x.  7,  §  3) 
relates  it  more  fully,  and  gives  the  date  of  its  oc- 
currence, namely  the  eighth  year  of  Zedekiah. 
Probably  also  the  denunciations  of  an  Egyptian 
aUiance,  contained  in  Jer.  ii.  18,  36,  have  reference 
to  the  same  time.  It  appears  that  Nebuchadnez- 
zar, being  matle  aware  of  Zedekiah's  defection, 
either  by  the  non-payment  of  the  tribute  or  by 
other  means,  at  once  sent  an  army  to  ravage  Ju- 
daea. This  was  done,  and  the  whole  country  re- 
duced, except  Jerusalem  and  two  strong  places  in 
the  western  plain,  Lachish  and  Azekah,  which  still 
held  out  (Jer.  xxxiv.  7).  In  the  panic  which  fol- 
lowed the  appearance  of  the  Chakla!ans,  Zedekiali 
succeeded  in  inducing  the  princes  and  other  inhab- 
itants of  Jerusalem  to  abolish  the  odious  custom  I  tlieir  pride,  wandered  in  the  open  streets  hke  black- 


which  prevailed  of  enslaving  their  countrymen.  A 
solemn  rite  (ver.  18),  recalling  in  its  form  that  in 
which  the  original  covenant  of  the  nation  had  been 
made  with  Abram  (Gen.  xv.  9,  &c.),  was  per- 
formed in  the  Temple  (ver.  15),  and  a  crowd  of  Is- 
raeli tes  of  both  sexes  found  themselves  released 
from  slavery. 

In  the  mean  time  Pharaoh  had  moved  to  the 
assistance  of  his  ally.  On  hearing  of  his  approach 
the  Chaldees  at  once  raised  the  siege  and  advanced 
o  meet  him.     The  nobles  seized  the  moment  of 


ened  but  living  skeletons  (Lam.  iv.  5,  8).  IStill 
the  king  was  seen  in  pubhc,  sitting  in  the  gcite 
wliere  justice  was  administered,  that  his  people 
might  approach  him,  though  indeed  he  had  no  help 
to  give  them  (xxxviii.  7). 

At  last,  after  sixteen  dreadful  months  had 
dragged  on,  the  catastrophe  arrived.  It  was  on 
the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month,  about  the  mid- 
dle of  July,  at  midnight,  as  Josephus  with  careful 
minuteness  informs  us,  that  the  breach  in  thosa 
stout  and  venerable  walls  was  effected.     The  mooiu 


ZEDEKIAH 

jino  days  old,  had  gone  down  below  the  hills  which 
Siria  the  western  edge  of  the  basin  of  Jerusalem,  or 
«as,  at  any  rate,  too  low  to  illuminate  the  utter 
darkness  which  reigns  in  the  narrow  lanes  of  an 
eastern  town,  where  the  inhabitants  retire  early  to 
rest,  and  where  there  are  but  few  windows  to  emit 
light  from  within  the  houses.  Tiie  wretched  rem- 
nants of  the  army,  starved  and  exhausted,  had  left 
tiie  walls,  and  there  was  nothing  to  ojipose  tlie 
eutrance  of  the  Ghaldseans.  Passing  in  through 
the  breach,  they  made  their  way,  as  their  custom 
was,  to  tbe  centre  of  the  city,  and  for  tbe  (irst  time 
the  Temple  was  entered  by  a  hostile  force,  and  all 
the  princes  of  the  court  of  the  great  king  took  their 
Beats  in  state  in  the  middle  gate  of  tiie  hitherto 
virgin  house  of  .lebovah.  The  alarm  quickly 
spread  througli  the  sleeping  city,  and  Zedekiah, 
collecting  his  wives  and  children  (Joseph.)  and 
surrounding  himself  with  the  few  soldiers  who  had 
survived  tiie  accidents  of  the  siege,  made  his  way 
out  of  the  city  at  the  opposite  end  to  that  at  which 
the  Assyrians  had  entered,  Ijy  a  street  which,  lilve 
the  Beiii  cs-Surtin  at  Damascus,  ran  between  two 
walls  (prol)ably  tiiose  on  the  east  and  west  sides  of 
the  so-called  Tyropoeon  valley),  and  issued  at  a 
gate  above  the  royal  gardens  and  the  Fountain  of 
ISiloani.  Thence  he  took  the  road  towards  the 
Jordan,  perhaps  hoping  to  find  refuge,  as  Uavid 
had,  at  some  fortified  place  in  the  mountains  on  its 
eastern  side.  On  tlie  road  they  were  met  and 
recognized  by  some  of  the  Jews  who  had  formerly 
deserted  to  the  Ghaldseans.  By  them  the  intelli- 
gence was  communicated,  with  the  eager  treachery 
of  deserters,  to  the  generals  in  the  city  (Joseph.), 
and,  as  soon  as  tlie  dawn  of  day  permitted  it,  swift 
pursuit  was  made.  The  king's  party  must  have 
had  some  hours'  start,  and  ought  to  have  had  no 
difficulty  in  rea<;hing  the  Jordan;  but,  either  from 
their  being  on  foot,  weak  and  infirm,  while  the 
pursuers  were  mounted,  or  perhaps  owing  to  the 
incumbrance  of  the  women  and  baggage,  they  were 
overtaken  near  Jericho,  when  just  within  sight 
of  the  river.  A  few  of  the  people  only  remained 
round  the  person  of  the  king.  The  rest  fled  in  all 
directions,  so  that  he  was  easily  taken. 

Nebuchadnezzar  was  then  at  Kd)lah,  at  the 
upper  end  of  the  valley  of  Lebanon,  some  35  miles 
beyond  Baalbec,  and  therefore  about  ten  days' 
journey  from  Jerusalem.  Thitlier  Zedekiah  and 
his  soiis  were  dispatched ;  his  daughters  were  kept 
at  Jerusalem,  and  shortly  after  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  notorious  Islimael  at  Mizpah.  When  he 
was  brought  before  Xebucliadnezzar,  the  great 
king  reproached  him  in  the  severest  terms,  first  for 
breaking  Jiis  oath  of  allegiance,  and  ne.\t  for  ingrat- 
itude (Joseph.).  He  then,  witli  a  refinement  of 
cruelty  characteristic  of  those  cruel  times,  ordered 
Ir.s  sons  to  be  killed  Ijefore  him,  and  lastly  his  own 
m'^s  to  be  tlirust  out.  He  was  tlien  loaded  with 
brazen  fetters,  and  at  a  later  period  taken  to  Baby- 
lon, wliere  he  died.  We  are  not  told  whether  he 
was  allowed  to  connnunicate  with  his  brotlier  Je- 
hoiachin,  who  at  that  time  was  also  in  captivity 
there;  nor  do  we  know  the  time  of  his  death;  but 
from  the  omission  of  his  name  in  the  statement  of 
Jehoiakim's   release  by   ICvil-.Merodach.    26    years 

fter  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  natural  to  infer 
that  by  that  time  Zedekiah's  suflferings  had  ended. 
The  fact  of  his  interview  with  Nebuchadnezzar 
tt  Riblali,  and  his  lieing  carried  blind  to  Halnlon, 
reconciles  two  predictions  of  Jeremiah  and  Kzekiel, 

rhich   at    the    time  of  their  delivery   must  have 


ZEDEKIAH  3613 

sopeared  conflicting,  and  which  Joseplms  indeed 
particularly  states  Zedekiah  alleged  as  his  reason 
for  not  giving  more  heed  to  Jeremiah.  The  formei 
of  these  (Jer.  xxxii.  4)  states  that  Zedekiaii  shall 
"  speak  with  the  king  of  Babylon  mouth  to  mouth, 
and  his  eyes  shall  behold  his  eyes;  "  the  latter  (ICz. 
xii.  13),  that  ''  he  shall  be  brought  to  Babylon,  yet 
shall  he  not  see  it,  though  he  die  there."  The 
whole  of  this  prediction  of  Ezekiel,  whose  prophe- 
cies appear  to  have  been  delivered  at  Babylon  (Ez. 
i.  1-3,  xl.  1),  is  truly  remarkable  as  describing 
almost  exactly  the  circumstances  of  Zedekiah's 
flight. 

2.  (^n»p_T^*  and  nji7T.;1«:  2€S6K/as;  [Vat. 
in  1  K.  xxii.  24,  SeSe/ciou:]  Sedecias.)  Son  'of 
Chenaanah,  a  prophet  at  the  court  of  Ahab,  head, 
or,  if  not  head,  virtual  leader  of  the  college.  He 
appears  but  once,  namely,  as  spokesman  when  the 
prophets  are  consulted  by  Ahab  on  the  result  of  his 
proposed  expedition  to  Kamoth-Gilead  (1  Iv.  xxii.; 
2  Ghr.  xviii.). 

Zedekiah  had  prepared  himself  for  the  interview 
with  a  pair  of  i"'on  horns  after  the  symbolic  custom 
of  the  propheta  (comp.  Jer.  xiii.,  six.),  the  horns 
of  the  reem,  or  buffalo,  which  was  the  recognized 
emlilem  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (Deut.  xxxiii.  17). 
With  these,  in  the  interval  of  Micaiah's  arrival,  he 
illustrated  the  manner  in  which  Ahab  should  drive 
the  Syrians  before  him.  When  Micaiah  appeared 
and  had  delivered  his  prophecy,  Zedekiah  sprang 
forward  and  struck  him  a  blow  ou  the  face,  accom- 
panying it  by  a  taunting  sneer.  For  this  he  is 
threatened  by  Micaiah  in  terms  which  are  hardly 
intelligible  to  us,  but  which  evidently  allude  to 
some  personal  danger  to  Zedekiah. 

The  narrative  of  the  Bible  does  not  imply  that 
the  blow  struck  by  Zedekiah  was  prompted  by 
more  than  sudden  anger,  or  a  wish  to  insult  and 
humiliate  the  prophet  of  Jehovah.  But  Josephua 
takes  a  very  different  view,  which  he  develops  at 
some  length  {Ant.  viii.  15,  §  3).  He  relates  that 
after  Micaiah  had  spoken,  Zedekiaii  again  came 
forward,  and  denounced  him  as  false  on  the  ground 
that  his  prophecy  contradicted  the  prediction  of 
Elijah,  that  Ahal)'s  blood  should  be  licked  up  by 
dogs  in  the  field  of  Naboth  of  Jezreel;  and  as  a 
further  proof  that  he  was  an  impostor,  he  struck 
him,  daring  him  to  do  wdiat  Iddo,  in  somewhat 
similar  circumstances,  had  done  to  Jeroboam 
namely,  wither  his  hand. 

This  addition  is  remarkable,  but  it  is  related 
by  Josephus  with  great  circumstantiality,  and  was 
doubtless  drawn  by  him  from  that  source,  unhap- 
pily now  lost,  from  which  he  has  added  so  many 
admirable  touches  to  the  outlines  of  the  sacred 
narrative. 

As  to  the  question  of  what  Zedekiah  and  his 
followers  were,  whether  prophets  of  Jehovah  or  of 
some  false  deity,  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  entei 
tain  any  doubt.  True,  they  use  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  but  that  was  a  habit  of  fiilse  prophets 
(Jer.  xxviii.  2,  comp.  xxix.  21,  31),  and  there  is  a 
vast  difference  between  the  casual  manner  in  which 
they  mention  the  awful  Name,  and  the  full,  and  as 
it  were,  formal  style  in  which  Micaiah  proclaims 
and  reiterates  it.  Seeing  also  that  Ahab  and  his 
queen  were  professedly  worshippers  of  Baal  ami 
Ashtaroth,  and  that  a  few  years  only  liefore  this 
event  they  had  an  establishment  consisting  of  twc 

a  Ouoe  only,  namely,  1  K.  xxii.  11. 


3614 


ZEEB 


bodies  —  one  of  450,  the  other  of  400  —  prophets 
of  this  false  worship,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  tli;tt 
there  could  have  been  also  400  prophets  of  .lehovah 
at  his  court.  But  the  inquiry  of  the  king  of  -ludah 
seems  to  decide  the  point.  After  hearing  tlie  pre- 
diction of  Zedekiah  and  bis  fellows,  he  asks  at  once 
for  a  prophet  of  Jehovah:  "  Is  there  not  here  be- 
sides ("T"l27)  a  prophet  of  Jehovah  that  we  may 
inquire  of  hiinV  The  natural  inference  seems 
to  be  that  the  others  were  not  prophets  of  Jehovah, 
but  were  the  400  prophets  of  Ashtaroth  (A.  V. 
'•the  groves")  who  escaped  the  sword  of  Elijah 
(comp.  1  K.  .wiii.  19  with  22,  40).  They  had 
siwken  in  His  name,  but  there  was  something 
about  them  —  some  trait  of  manner,  costume,  or 
gesture  —  which  aroused  the  suspicions  of  Jehosh- 
aphat,  and,  to  tlie  practiced  eye  of  one  who  lived  at 
the  centre  of  Jehovah-worship  and  was  well  versed 
in  the  marks  of  the  genuine  prophet,  proclaimed 
them  counterfeits.  AVitli  these  few  words  Zede- 
kiaii  may  be  left,  to  the  oblivion  in  which,  except 
on  this  one  occasion,  he  remains.  G. 

3.  (^n*p~T^.)     The  son  of  Maaseiah,  a  false 

prophet  in  Baliylon  among  the  captives  who  were 
taken  with  Jeconiah  (.ier.  xxix.  21,  22).  He  was 
denounced  in  the  letter  of  Jeremiah  for  having, 
with  Ahab  the  son  of  Kolaiah,  buoyed  up  the  peo- 
ple with  false  hopes,  and  for  profane  and  flagitious 
conduct.  Their  names  were  to  becon.e  a  by-word, 
and  their  terriWe  fate  a  warning.  Of  this  fate  we 
have  no  direct  intimation,  or  of  the  maimer  in 
which  they  incurred  it:  tlie  prophet  simply  pro- 
nounces that  they  should  fall  into  the  hands  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  be  burnt  to  death.  In  the 
Targum  of  li.  Joseph  on  2  Chr.  xxviii.  3,  the  story 
is  told  that  Joshua  the  son  of  Jozadak  the  high- 
priest  was  cast  into  the  furnace  of  fire  with  Ahali 
and  Zedekiah,  but  that,  while  they  were  consumed, 
he  was  saved  for  his  righteousness'  sake. 

4.  The  son  of  Hananiah,  one  of  the  princes  of 
Judali  who  were  asseml»led  in  the  scribes'  chamber 
of  the  king's  palace,  when  JNIieaiah  aimounced  tiiat 
Baruch  had  read  the  words  of  Jeremiah  in  the  ears 
of  the  people  from  the  chamber  of  Gemariali  the 
ecribe  (Jer.  xxxvi.  12).  W.  A.  ^V. 

ZE'EB  (3ST   [see  below]:  6  Ztj/S:  Ztb).  One 

of  the  two  '-princes"  C'^^'^)  of  Midian  in  the 
great  invasion  of  Israel  —  inferior  to  the  "  kings  " 
Zel)ah  and  Zalmunna.  He  is  always  named  with 
Oreb  (Judg.  vii.  25,  viii.  3;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  11).  The 
name  signifies  in  Hebrew  "wolf,"'  just  as  Oreb 
does  "crow,"  [or  "raven"]  and  the  two  are 
appropriate  enough  to  the  customs  of  [)redatory 
warriors,  who  delight  in  conferring  such  names  on 
their  chiefs. 

Zeeb  and  Oreb  were  not  slain  at  the  first  rout 
of  the  Araljs  Ijelow  the  spring  of  Harod,  l)ut  at  a 
later  stage  of  the  struggle,  probably  in  crossing 
the  Jordan  at  a  ford  further  down  the  river,  near 
the  passes  which  descend  from  Mount  lOpln-aim. 
.\n  enormous  mass  of  their  followers  perished  with 
them.  [Oreb.]  Zeeb,  the  wolf,  was  brought  to 
bay  in  a  wine-press  which  in  later  times  bore  his 


n  The  meaning  is  slightly  altered  by  the  change  in 
the  vowel-poiuts.  In  the  former  case  it  signifies  an 
'  addition  "  (ahiian^),  in  the  latter  a  "  rib  "  (Flirst, 
Hwh.  ii.  275  a).  Compare  the  equivalents  of  the 
LXX.  and  Vulg   in  Samuel,  as  jjiveu  above. 


ZELOPHEHAD 

name  —  the  "  wine-press  of  Zeeb  "     (3^*iT     ^17^ 
'laKecpOrifp;  Alex.  laKe<p(7]0'-    Torcular  Ztb). 

G 

ZE-LAH  (rb!^  and  2?b^,a  i.  e.  Tsela  [//6 

iJic/e]  :  in  Josh.  [Kom.]  Vat.  omit  [or  read  SeAr;- 
Kav\-,  Alex.  2T/Aa[Ae</);  [Sarrav.  2eAa;]  in  Sam. 
eV  Tj7  TrAeup  J  in  both:  Stla,  in  latere).  One  of 
the  cities  in  the  allotment  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii. 
28).  Its  place  in  the  list  is  l)etween  Taralah  and 
ha-Eleph.  None  of  these  places  have,  however, 
been  yet  discovered.  The  interest  of  Zelah  resides 
in  the  fact  that  it  contained  the  family  tomb  of 
Kish  the  father  of  Saul  (2  Sam.  xxi.  14),  in  which 
the  bones  of  Saul  and  Jonathan,  and  also  appar- 
ently of  the  two  sons  and  five  grandsons  of  Saul, 
sacrificed  to  Jehovah  on  the  hill  of  Gibeah,  at  last 
found  their  resting-place  (comp.  ver.  13).  As 
containing  their  sepulciire,  Zelah  was  in  all  proba- 
bility the  native  place  **  of  the  family  of  Kish,  and 
therefore  his  home,  and  the  home  of  Said  before 
his  selection  as  king  had  brought  him  into  promi- 
nence. This  appears  to  have  been  generally  over- 
looked, but  it  is  important,  because  it  gives  a  dif- 
ferent startijig- point  to  that  usually  assumed  for 
the  journey  of  Saul  in  quest  of  his  fiither's  asses, 
as  well  as  a  different  goal  for  his  return  after  the 
anointing;  and  although  the  position  of  Zelah  is 
not  and  may  never  be  known,  still  it  is  one  step 
nearer  the  solution  of  the  complicated  difficulties 
of  that  route  to  know  that  Gibeah  —  Saul's  royal 
residence  after  he  became  king  —  was  not  neces- 
sarily the  point  either  of  his  departure  or  his 
return. 

The  absence  of  any  connection  lietween  the  names 
of  Zelah  and  Zelzah  (too  frequently  assumed)  is  no- 
ticed under  the  latter  head.  G. 

ZE'LEK  (p2>*  [deft]:  'EA.f'  [Vat.  EAete] 
2eA7j:  Alex.  2^\eyi,  SeAAtjk:  Zelec).  An  Am- 
monite, one  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  37; 
1  Chr.  xi.  39). 

ZELOPH'EHAD  (insbv  [perh./rs<-iw«, 
Ges.] :  2aA7raa5,  [exc.  Josh.  xvii.  3,  Alex.  2oA- 
(paad\  1  Chr.  vii.  15,  Kom.  Vat.  2air0aaS:]  ^"l- 
plinad).  Son  of  Hepher,  son  of  Gilead,  son  of 
Machir,  son  of  Manasseh  (.Josh.  xvii.  3).  He  was 
apparently  the  second  son  of  his  father  Ilepher  (1 
Chr.  vii.  15),  though  Simonis  and  others,  following 
the  interpretation  of  the  Babbis,  and  under  the 
impression  that  the  etymology  of  his  name  indi- 
cates a  first-born,  explains  the  term  "^St^H  as 
meaning  that  his  lot  came  up  second.  Zelophehad 
came  out  of  Egypt  with  j'Moses:  and  all  that  we 
know  of  him  is  that  he  took  no  part  in  Korah'a 
reljeUion,  but  that  he  died  in  the  wilderness,  as  did 
the  whole  of  that  generation  (Num.  xiv.  35,  xxvii, 
3).  On  his  death  without  male  heirs,  his  five 
daughters,  just  after  the  second  numbering  in  the 
wilderness,  came  before  Closes  and  Eleazar  to  claim 
the  inheritance  of  their  father  in  the  tribe  of 
Manasseh.  The  claim  was  admitted  by  Divine 
direction,  and  a  law  was  promulgated,  to  be  of 
general  application,  tliat  if  a  man  died  without 
sons  his  inheritance  should  pass  to  his  daughters 
(Num.  xxvi.  33,  xxvii.  1-11),  which  led  to  a  further 
enactment  (Num.  xxxvi.),  that  such  heiresses  should 


6  In   like  manner  the  sepulchre  of  the  fiimily  ol 

Je.sse  was  at  Bethlehem  (2  Sam   ii.  32). 


ZELOTES 

Kit  marry  <mt  of  tlieir  own  tribe  —  a  remilntion 
ivliich  the  five  daui^hters  of  Zelophehad  complied 
with,  being  all  married  to  sons  of  Maiiasseh,  so 
that  Zelophehad's  inheritance  continued  in  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh.  The  law  of  succession,  as  exempli- 
fied in  the  case  of  Zelophehad,  is  treated  at  length 
by  Selden  {Di-  Success,  capp.  xxii.,  xxiii.)- 

The  interest  of  the  case,  in  a  legal  point  of  view, 
has  led  to  the  careful  preservation  of  Zelophehad's 
genealogy.  Beginning  with  Joseph,  it  will  lie  seen 
that  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  are  the  seveiitli 
generation.  So  are  Salmon,  13ezaleel.  and  Zophai 
(apparently  the  first  settler  of  liis  family),  from 
their  patriarchal  ancestors;  while  Caleb,  Achan, 
and  Phinehas  are  the  sixth ;  Joshua  seems  to  have 
been  the  eighth.  [Shuthelah]  The  average, 
therefore,  seems  to  be  l)etween  G  and  7  genera- 
tions, which,  at  40  years  to  a  generation  (as  suited 
to  the  length  of  life  at  that  time),  gives  lietween 
240  and  280  years,  which  agrees  very  well  with  the 
reckoning  of  215  years  for  the  sojourning  of  the 
Israelites  in  Kgypt  -|-  40  years  in  the  wilderness 
=  255  (Joseph.  A7it.  iv.  7,  §  5;  Selden,  Be  Suc- 
cess, xxii.,  xxiii.).  A.  C.  H. 

ZELO'TES  (ZijAcoTijj:  Zelo/es).  The  epithet 
given  to  the  Apostle  Simon  to  distiiiguish  him  from 
Simon  Peter  (Luke  vi.  15).  In  Matt.  x.  4,  he  is 
called  "  Simon  the  Canaanite,"  the  last  word  being 
a  corruption  of  the  Aramaic  term,  of  which  "  Ze- 
lotes  "  is  the  Greek  equivalent.  [Canaanite  ; 
Simon  5.] 

ZEL'ZAH  (n^bi?:  i.  e.  Tseltsacn  [shadow, 
Ges. ;  or,  double  shadow,  Fiirst] :  aKKofxiVovs" 
(/.fydXa,  in  both  MSS.:  in  meridie).  A  place 
named  once  only  (1  Sam.  x.  2),  as  on  the  boundary 

of  Benjamin,  close  to  (257)  Rachel's  sepulchre. 
It  was  the  first  point  in  the  homeward  journey  of 
Saul  after  his  anointing  by  Samuel.  Kachel's 
sepulchre  is  still  shown  a  short  distance  to  tlie 
north  of  Bethlehem,  but  no  acceptable  identifica- 
tion of  Zelzach  has  been  proposed.  It  is  usually 
considered  as  identical  with  Zelah,  the  home  of 
Kish  and  Saul,  and  that  again  with  Beit-jnUi. 
But  this  is  not  tenable;  at  any  rate  there  is  noth 
ing  to  support  it.  The  names  Zelah  and  Zelzach 
are  not  only  not  identical,  but  they  have  hardly 

anything  in  common,  still  less  have  n!27!i  and 

JfL^;  nor  is  Btit-jala.  close  enough  to  the  Kub- 
bet  Rahil  to  answer  to  the  expression  of  Samuel. 
[Ramaii.]  G. 

ZEMARA'IM  (D^r?'-*  [double  forest-mount, 
Fiirst] :  2apa:  Alex.  'S.^^pifx'  Semaraim).  One 
of  the  towns  of  the  allotment  of  Benjamin  (Josh. 
xviii.  22).  It  is  named  between  Beth  ha-Arabah 
»nd  Bethel,  and  therefore  on  the  assumption  that 
Arabah  in  the  former  name  denotes  as  usual  the 
Jordan  Valley,  we  should  expect  to  find  Zemaraim 
either  ia  the  valley  or  in  some  position  on  its 
western  edge,  between  it  and  Bethel.  In  the 
former  case  a  trace  of  the  name  may  remain   in 


ZEMARITE,  THE 


3615 


Ch'drhet  el-Sz6mra,  which  is  marked  in  Seetzcn'a 
map  {Ile!se7i,  vol.  iv.  map  2)  as  about  4  miles 
north  of  Jericho,  and  appears  as  es-Sumrah  '>  in 
those  of  Robinson  and  Van  de  Velde."  (See  also 
Rol).  Bibf.  Jies.  i.  569.)  In  the  latter  case  Zema- 
raim may  be  connected,  or  identical,  with  Mount 
Zi;jiak.\im,  which  must  have  been  in  the  highland 
district. 

In  either  event  Zemaraim  may  have  derived  its 
nan;e  from  the  ancient  tribe  of  the  Zemarim  or 
Zemarites,  who  were  related  to  the  Hittites  and 
Amorites;  who,  like  them,  are  represented  in  the 
HibliL-al  account  as  descendants  of  Canaan,  but, 
from  some  cause  or  other  unexplained,  ha\e  left 
but  very  scanty  traces  of  their  existence.  The 
list  of  the  towns  of  Benjamin  are  remarkable  for 
the  number  of  tribes  which  they  commemorate. 
The  Avites,  the  Ammonites,  the  Ophnites,  the 
.leliusites,  are  all  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of 
Josh,  xviii.  22-28,  and  it  is  at  least  possible  that 
the  Zemarites  may  add  another  to  the  list.      G. 

ZEMARA'IM,    MOUNT    (Q")"]:^*^    in 

[see  above]:  rh  upoi  "SofiSpcov:  iitons  Semeron). 
An  eminence  mentioned  in  2  Chr.  xiii.  4  only.  It 
was  "  in  Mount  Ephraim,"  that  is  to  say  within 
the  general  district  of  the  highlands  of  that  great 
tribe.  It  appears  to  have  been  close  to  the  scene 
of  the  engagement  mentioned  in  the  narrative, 
which  again  may  be  inferred  to  have  been  south 
of  Bethel  and  Ephraim  (ver.  19).  It  may  be  said 
in  passing,  that  a  position  so  far  south  is  no  con- 
tradiction to  its  being  in  Mount  Ephraim.  It  has 
been  already  shown  under  Kamah  [iii.  2G70  b] 
that  the  name  of  IMount  Ephraim  probably  ex- 
tended as  far  as  er-Ji'iiii,  4  miles  south  of  Beitin, 
and  8  of  Taii/i/ieh,  the  possible  representative  of 
Ephraim.  Whether  Mount  Zemaraim  is  identical 
with,  or  related  to  the  place  of  the  same  name 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  article,  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained. If  they  prove  to  be  distinct  places  they 
will  furnish  a  double  testimony  to  the  presence  of 
the  ancient  tribe  of  Zemarites  in  this  part  of  the 
country.  No  name  answering  to  Zemaraim  has 
been  yet  discovered  in  the  maps  or  information  of 
tra\ellers  on  the  highland. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  LXX.  and  \\\\~ 
gate,  this  name  is  rendered  by  the  same  word 
which  in  the  former  represents  Samaria.  But  this, 
though  repeated  (with  a  difterenoe)  in  the  case  of 
Zemarite,  can  hardly  be  more  than  an  accidental 
error,  since  the  names  have  little  or  no  resemblance 
in  Hebrew.  In  the  present  case  Samaria  is  be- 
sides inadmissible  on  topographical  grounds. 

G. 

ZEM'ARITE,  THE  (^"l^^H  [patr.] :  6 
2ayuaf)o?oj;  [in  1  Chr.  Rom.  Vat.  omit:]  Saina- 
nei(s).  One  of  the  Hamite  tribes  who  in  the 
genealogical  table  of  Gen.  x.  (ver.  18),  and  1  Chr. 
i.  (ver.  16),  are  represented  as  "sons  of  Canaan." 
It  is  named  Ijetween  the  Arvadite,  or  people  of 
Ruad,  and  the  Hamathite,  or  people  of  Hamah. 
Nothini;  is  certainly  known  of  this  ancient  tribe. 


«  Apparently  reading  V^7!J.  The  Tulmud  hag 
numerous  explauations,  the  favorite  one  being  tliat 
fclzah  was  Jerusalem  — «  the  shadow  ( vV)  of  Ood."' 
Something  of  this  kind  is  at  the  root  ot  the  meridie 
»f  the  Vulg. 

t  The  name  Siiwrah  occurs  more  than  once  else' 


where  m  the  Jordan  Valley.  It  is  found  close  to  the 
"  Round  Pountain  '"  in  the  Plain  of  Gennesareth  ;  also 
at  the  S.  E.  end  of  the  Lake  of  Tiberias. 

c  In  the  2d  ed.  of  Robinson  (i.  509)  the  name  is 
g\ven  !is  ei-S'imra;  but  tliis  is  probably  a  misprint. 
See  the  Arabic  Index  to  ed.  i-,  thti  t<ixt,  ii  305.  au'l 
the  maps  to  both  editions. 


8616  ZEMIEA 

rhe  old  interpreters  (Jerusaleiii  Targuni,  Arabic 
V^ersioi),  etc.)  place  them  at  Eniessa.  the  modern 
Hums.  Miehaelis  (SjMcilet/iuin,  ii.  51),  revoltiiiti; 
s,t  the  want  of  similarity  between  the  two  names 
(which  is  perhaps  the  strongest  argument  in  favor 
of  the  old  identification),  proposes  to  locate  tljein  at 
Siimra  (the  Sinijra  of  the  classical  geogra pliers), 
which  name  is  mentioned  by  Shaw  as  attached  to 
a  site  of  ruins  near  Arka,  on  the  west  coast  of 
Syria,  10  or  11  miles  above  Tripoli. 

On  the  new  French  map  of  the  Lebanon  {Ci'vie 
du  Liljan,  etc.,  18C2)  it  appears  as  Kubhtt  ouiii 
Sliouinra,  and  lies  between  Ar/cn  and  the  Mediter- 
ranean, 2  kilometres  from  the  latter,  and  .5^  from 
the  former.  Beyond,  however,  the  resemlilance  in 
the  names,  and  the  proximity  of  Rund  and  Arkn, 
the  probable  seats  of  the  Arvadites  and  Arkites, 
and  file  consecpient  inference  that  the  origii:al  seat 
of  the  Zeniarites  must  have  lieen  somewhere  in  this 
direction,  there  is  nothing  to  prove  tliat  Sviin-a  or 
Shouim-a  have  any  connection  with  the  Tsemarites 
of  the  ancient  records. 

Traces  of  their  having  wandered  to  the  south  are 
]X)ssibly  afforded  b}'  the  name  Zemaraim,  formerly  ly-*"'""' 
attached  to  two  places  in  tlie  topographical  lists  of 
Central  T'alestine  —  a  district  which  appears  to  have 
been  very  attractive  to  the  aboriginal  wandering 
tribes  from  every  quarter.  [Zemaraim;  see  also 
AviM,  Ophni,  etc.] 

The  I, XX.  and  Vulgate  would  connect  tlie  Zem- 
arites  with  Samaria.  In  this  they  have  been  fol- 
lowed by  some  commentators.  But  the  idea  is  a 
delusion,  grounded  on  the  inability  of  the  Greek 
alphabet  to  e.xpress  the  Hebrew  letters  of  both 
names.  G. 

ZEMFRA  (nn"'a!S    [sonff,  Ges.]:   Zefxipd; 

[Vat.  Afj.apias:]  Ale.x.  Xanipias'-  Zamh-fi).  One 
of  the  sons  of  Becher  the  son  of  Benjamin  (1  Clir. 
vii.  8). 

ZE'NAN  (p!J  [place of  focks]  :  :S.evvd;  Alex. 
Sefj/a/x:  Siinan).  One  of  the  towns  in  the  allots 
ment  of  Judah,  situated  in  the  district  of  the 
SlicJT'ldh  (Josh.  XV.  37).  It  occurs  in  tiie  second 
group  of  the  enumeration,  which  contains  amongst 
others  ]\Iigdal-o;ad  and  Lachish.  It  is  probat)ly 
identical  with  Zaanan,  a  place  mentioned  by  the 
prophet  JNIicah  in  the  same  connection. 

Schwarz  (p.  103)  proposes  to  identify  it  with 
"  the  village  Zan-abra,  situated  2^  English  miles 
southeast  of  Mareshah."  By  this  he  doulitless  in- 
tends the  place  which  in  the  lists  of  Robinson 
(Bil/l.  Ii(S.  1st  ed.,  vol.  iii.,  App.  117)  is  called  es- 

Htndbirah,   Sv^LLwJI,  and  in  Tobler's   Brilte 

Wcmdernvf)  (p.  149),  es-Sennabereh.  The  latter 
ti  iveller  in  his  map  places  it  about  2^  miles  due 
east  of  Mcirash  (.Uareslin).  But  this  identifica- 
tion is  more  than  doubtful.  G. 


ZEPHANIAH 

jurisconsult  or  a  .lewish  doctor.  Grotius  accepts 
the  former  alternative,  and  thinks  that  he  was  a 
Greek  who  had  studied  Roman  Law.  The  N.  T. 
usage  of  vofiiKos  leads  rather  to  the  other  infer- 
ence. Tradition  has  been  somewhat  busy  with  tha 
name  of  Zenas.  The  Synapsis  de  Vitu  et  Morlc 
Pniplietarum  Apostoloruiii  et  Dlsclpulorum  Domini, 
ascrilied  to  Dorotheus  of  Tyre,  makes  him  to  have 
been  one  of  the  "seventy-two"  disciples,  and  sub- 
sequently liishop  of  Diospolis  in  I'alestine  {Bibl. 
Pulr.  iii.  150).  The  "seventy-two"  disciples  of 
Dorotheus  are  however,  a  mere  string  of  names 
picked  out  of  salutations  and  other  incidental  no- 
tices in  the  N.  T.  The  Greek  ]\Ienologies  on  the 
festival  of  SS.  Bartholomew  and  Titus  (Aug.  25) 
refer  to  a  certain  Life  of  Titus,  ascribed  to  Zenas, 
which  is  also  quoted  for  the  supposed  conversion 
of  the  younger  Pliny  (compare  I-'abricius,  f'udex 
Apiicr.  N.  T.  ii.  831  f.).  The  association  of  Zenas 
with  Titus,  in  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  latter,  sufii- 
ciently  accounts  for  the  forgery.  W.  B.  J. 

ZEPHANFAH  (H^??^ :    S.o^ovias  :    So- 

These  forms  refer  to  another  punctuation, 

n^3t^,  a  participial  form).     Jerome  derives  the 

name  from  HC^,  and  supposes  it  to  mean  specii- 
l<(lor  Domini,  "  watcher  of  the  Lord,"  an  appro- 
priate appellation  for  a  prophet.  The  pedigree  of 
Zephaniah.  ch.  i.  1,  is  traced  to  his  fourth  ancestor, 
Hezekiah :  supposed  by  Aben  Ezra  to  be  the  cele- 
brated king  of  that  name.  This  is  not  in  itself 
improbable,  and  the  fact  that  the  pedigree  termi- 
nates with  that  name,  points  to  a  personage  of  rank 
and  importance.  Late  critics  and  commentators 
generally  acquiesce  in  the  hypothesis,  namely, 
Eichhorn,  Hitzig,  F.  Ad.  Strauss  (  Vnlicinia  Zeph- 
(iniie,  Berlin,  1843),  Havernick,  Keil,  and  Bleek 
{Einltituny  in  das  Alte  Testament). 

Annlysis.  Chap.  i.  The  utter  desolation  of 
Judaea  is  predicted  as  a  judgment  for  idolatry,  and 
neglect  of  the  Lord,  the  luxury  of  the  princes,  and 
the  violence  and  deceit  of  their  dependents  (3-9). 
The  prosperity,  security,  and  insolence  of  the  peo- 
ple is  contrasted  with  the  horrors  of  the  day  of 
wrath;  the  assaults  upon  the  fenced  cities  and  hish 
towers,  and  the  slaughter  of  the  people  (10-18). 
Ch.  ii.,  a  call  to  repentance  (1-3),  with  prediction 
of  the  ruin  of  the  cities  of  the  Philistines  and  the 
restoration  of  the  house  of  Judah  after  the  visita- 
tion (4-7).  Other  enemies  of  Judah,  —  ISIoab,  Am- 
nion,—  are  threatened  with  perpetual  destruction, 
Ethiopia  with  a  great  slaughter,  and  Nineveh,  the 
capital  of  Assyria,  with  desolation  (8-15).  Ch.  iii. 
The  prophet  addresses  Jerusalem,  which  he  reproves 
sharply  for  vice  and  disobedience,  the  cruelty  of  the 
princes  and  the  treachery  of  the  priests,  and  for 
their  general  disregard  of  warnings  and  visitations 
(1-7).  He  then  concludes  with  a  series  of  prom- 
ises, the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  God's  ])eople, 
tiie  restoration  of  exiles,  the  extirpation  of  the 
])roud  and  violent,  and  the  permanent  peace  and 
lilessedness  of  the  poor  and  afflicted  remnant  who 
shall  trust  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The.se  exhorta- 
tions to  rejoicing  and  exertion  are  mingled  with  in- 
timations of  a  complete  manifestation  of  God's 
righteousness  and  love  in  the  restoration  of  his 
people  (8-20). 

The  chief  characteristics  of  this  book  are  the 


ZE'NAS  (Zrji/as,  a  contraction  from  Ztjuo- 
Saijjos,  as  'ApTf/xas  from  'ApTf/x'iSiopos,  Nv/J.<l>as 
from  Nv/j.(p(iSapos,  and,  proliably,  'Ep/nas  from 
'Epfj-SSupos),  a  believer,  and,  as  may  be  inferred 
from  the  context,  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  who  is 
mentioned  in  Tit.  iii.  13  in  connection  with  Apol- 
los,  and,  toL;ether  with  him,  is  there  commended 
by  St.  Paul  to  the  care  and  hosi)itality  of  Titus 
»nd  the  Cretan   brethren.      He  is  further  descrilied 

^  "  the  lawyer"  (rhv  vofiiKov).     It  is  impossible  I  unity  and  harmony  of  the  composition,  the  grace, 
to  determine  with  certainty  whetlier  we  are  to  infer  i  energy,  and  dignity  of  its  style,  and  the  rapid  and 

a-om   this  designation  that  Zenas  was  a   Pioman  '  ettective  alternations  of  threats  ard  promises.     It» 


ZEPHAXIAH 

propheiical  import  is  chiefly  shuwn  in  the  accurate 
predictions  of  the  desolation  which  has  fallen  upon 
each  of  the  nations  denounced  lor  their  crimes; 
Ethiopia,  which  is  menaced  with  a  terrible  invasion, 
being  alone  exempted  from  the  doom  of  perpetual 
ruin.  Tlie  general  tone  of  the  last  portion  is  Mes- 
sianic, but  without  any  specific  reference  to  the 
Person  of  our  Lord. 

The  date  of  the  book  is  given  in  the  iiiscriptioii ; 
namely,  the  reign  of  Josiah,  from  64-2  to  Gil  h.  C. 
This  date  accords  fully  with  internal  indications. 
Nineveh  is  represented  as  in  a  state  of  peace  and 
prosi^erity,  while  the  notices  of  Jerusalem  touch 
upon  the  same  tendencies  to  idolatry  and  crime 
which  are  condemned  by  the  contemporary  .leremiah. 

It  is  most  probable,  moreover,  that  the  prophecy 
was  delivered  before  the  18th  year  of  Josiah,  when 
the  reformation,  for  which  it  prepares  the  way,  was 
carried  into  efft;ct,  and  about  the  time  when  the 
Scythians  overran  the  empires  of  western  Asia,  ex- 
tending their  devastations  to  Palestine.  The  no- 
tices which  are  supposed  by  some  critics  to  indi- 
cate a  somewhat  later  date  are  satisfactorily 
explained.  The  king's  children,  who  are  spoken 
of,  in  ch.  i.  8,  as  addicted  to  foreign  habits,  could 
not  have  been  sons  of  Josiah,  who  was  but  eight 
years  old  at  his  accession,  but  were  probably  his 
brothers  or  near  relatives.  The  renmant  of  Baal 
(ch.  i.  4)  implies  that  some  partial  reformation  had 
previously  taken  place,  while  the  notices  of  open 
idolatry  are  incompatible  with  the  state  of  Judah 
after  the  discovery  of  the  Book  of  tke  Law. 

F.  C.  C. 

*  Lilerniure.  —  Among  the  special  writers  on 
Zephauiah  are  J.  H.  Gebhardi,  Erkldruny  cks 
Proph.  Zepluinjah  (1728);  D.  (j.  C.  von  Culln, 
Spicikff.  Ubservatt.  exey.-crit.  ad  Zepl/diiue 
Vadcinia  (1818,1;  P.  Ewald,  Ber  Prop/itl  Ztph- 
ania  (1827);  Fr.  A.  Strauss,  Vaticinia  Ztphauue, 
Cvm/ii.  illustr.  (18-13);  and  L.  Keinke,  Z>e;'  Propli. 
Zepkunja  (1808).  On  particular  topics,  J.  A.  Nol- 
ten.  Diss.  extg.  in  Pivplietiam  Zep/umiie  (1719); 
C.  F.  Cramer,  Scythisclie  Denkindler  in  Pal- 
dsiina,  with  a  Commentary  (1777),  and  C.  Th. 
Ant-^n,  I'ersio  c.  ill.  Prop/i.  Zeph.  etc.  (ISil).  The 
later  writers  on  Zephauiah  are  Kosenmiiller,  Hitzig, 
Theiner,  Alaurer,  Ewald,  Unibreit,  Keil  (18G(i), 
Kleinert  (1800,  in  Lange's  Bibelicerk),  Henderson, 
Noyes,  Cowles,  and  Pusey  (1870),  in  their  well 
known  commentaries  on  the  minor  prophets.  For 
works  relating  to  the  overthrow  of  Nineveh,  so  dis- 
tinctly foretold  by  Zephauiah,  see  the  additions  to 
N.\:iUM  and  NI^•E^■KII.  See  also  the  art.  Zi-plumju 
by  Uelitzsch  in  Uerzog's  Jital-A'ncijL  xviii.  493- 
501  (1804).  H. 

2.  (Sa^avi'a;  Alex.  "Xacpavias'-  Sop/iunias.) 
A  Kohathite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Samuel  and  lie- 
man  (1  Chr.  vi.  30  [21]). 

3.  (2o<^oytas>)  Tlie  son  of  Maaseiah  (Jer.  xxi. 
1),  and  sayan  or  second  priest  in  the  reign  of 
Zedekiah.  He  succeeded  .Jehoiada  (Jer.  xxix.  2.j, 
20),  and  was  probably  a  ruler  of  the  Temple,  whose 
office  it  was  among  others  to  punish  pretenders  to 
the  gift  of  prophecy.  In  this  capacity  he  was  ap- 
pealed to  by  Shemaiah  the  Nehelaniite,  in  a  letter 
from  Babylon,  to  punish  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxix.  29). 
Twice  was  he  sent  from  Zedekiah  to  inquire  of 
leremiah  the  issue  of  the  siege  of  the  city  by  tlie 
Chalda^ans  (.ler.  xxi.  1),  and  to  implore  him  to  in 
tercede  for  the  people  (.ler.  xxxvii.  3).  On  the 
Wpture  of  -lerusalem  by  Nebuzaradan  he  was 
taken  with  Seraiah  the  high-priest  and  others,  and 


ZEPHATHaH,  VALLEY  OF    3617 

slain  at  Riblah  (Jer.  lii.  24,  27;  2  K.  xxv.  18,  21). 
In  2  K.  xxv.  18,  Jer.  xxxvii.  3,  his  name  is  writ- 
ten in  the  longer  form  ^TT'iDtJ. 

*  T  ;  -  ; 

4.  Father  of  Josiah  2  (Zech.  vi.  10),  and  of 
Hen,  according  to  the  I'eading  of  the  received  text 
of  Zech.  vi.  14,  as  given  in  the  A.  V. 

W.  A.  W. 

ZE'PHATH  (nD!5  [usatch-tower']:  [Rom. 
Sei^e'e;  Vat.]  2e<?>€K-;  Alex.  2€(f»ep:  Sepliaath). 
The  earlier  name  (according  to  tiie  single  notice  of 
Judg.  i.  17)  of  a  Canaanite  town,  which  after  its 
capture  and  destruction  was  called  by  the  Israelitei 
HuHji.\7i.  Two  identifications  have  been  pro- 
posed for  Zephath.:     that  of   Ur.    Robinson  with 

the  well-known  pass  ts-SiiJa  fsLjLoJI))  by 
which  the  ascent  is  made  from  the  borders  of  the 
Arnljiih  to  the  higher  level  of  the  "  South  country  " 
{Bihl.  Jit.-;,  ii.  181),  and  that  of  JMr.  Powlands 
(Williams's  U'll//  City,  i.  404)  with  ^'eiriC*/,  2^ 
hours  beyond  Klinlnsd,  on  the  road  to  Suez,  and 
i  of  an  hour  north  of  liokvbeli  or  Jiiiheibelt. 

The  former  of  these,  Mr.  Wilton  ( T/ie  Neyeb, 
etc.,  pp.  199,  200)  has  challenged,  on  account  of  the 
impracticability  of  the  pass  for  the  approach  of  the 
Lsraelites,  and  the  inappropriateness  of  so  rugged 
and  desolate  a  spot  fur  the  position  of  a  city  of  any 
importance.  The  question  really  forms  part  of  a 
much  larger  one,  which  this  is  not  the  place  to  dis- 
cuss —  namely,  the  route  by  which  the  Israelites 
approaciied  the  Holy  Land.  But  in  the  mean 
time  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  attenqjt 
in  question  was  an  unsuccessful  one,  which  is  so  far 
in  favor  of  the  steepness  of  the  pass.  The  argu- 
ment from  the  nature  of  the  site  is  one  which 
might  be  brought  with  equal  force  against  the  ex- 
istence of  many  others  of  the  towns  in  this  region. 
On  the  identification  of  Mi-.  Rowlands  some  doubt 
is  thrown  by  the  want  of  certainty  as  to  the  name, 
as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  no  later  traveller  has 
succeeded  in  finding  the  name  Sebaia,  or  the  spot. 
Dr.  Stewart  [Tent  and  Khan,  p.  205)  heard  of  the 
name,  but  east  of  Khalusd  instead  of  south,  and 
this  was  in  answer  to  a  leading  question  —  always 
a  dangerous  experiment  with  Arabs. 

It  is  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  some  means  may 
shortly  be  found,  to  attempt  at  least  the  examina- 
tion and  reconcilement  of  these  and  the  like  contra- 
dictory statements  and  inferences.  G. 

ZEPH'ATHAH,  THE  VALLEY  OF 
(nri2'^  S''2  [_w,itch~hw:tr]:  f,  (pdpay^  Kara 
poppav,"  in  both  MSS. ;  Joseph,  (p.  "XacpOd-  V(dlis 
Hi-pltdti).  The  spot  in  which  Asa  jciined  battle 
with  Zerah  the  Ethiopian  (2  Chr.  xiv.  10  only).  It 
was    "at"   or  rather  "belonging  to"   Mai'eshah 

(ntrnp?  :  Joseph.  ovK  aTrwdfv).  This  would 
seem  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  its  being,  as  sug- 
gested by  Dr.  Robinson  (ii.  31),  at  I'ell  es-SaJit/i, 
which  is  not  less  than  8  miles  from  Marask,  the 
modern  representative  of  Mareshah.  It  is  not  im- 
probable that  an  examination  of  the  neighborhood 
might  reveal  both  spot  and  name.  Considering 
the  enormous  number  of  the  combatants,  the  valley 
must  be  an  extensive  one.  G. 

*  Mareshah  has  not  been  identified  by  name,  but 

a  Probably  reading  n312ii.     It  will  be  observed 

T  T 

that  Joseplius  here  forsakes  tUe  LXX.   for   the   H» 


3618  ZEPHi 

is  prolialily  marked  by  '•  the  founrlations  on  the 
Boutheastern  part  of  tlie  remarkable  Tell"  south 
of  iicil  Jibiin  (Robinson).  There  is  a  deep  valley 
which  runs  past  the  Tell  down  to  Bait  Jibrin  and 
thence  into  the  plain  of  Philistia.  Mr.  Porter  sug- 
gests (if  Ttll  €S-Safieh  be  too  far  from  the  su]i- 
posed  site  of  ]\Iareshah)  that  this  valley  may  lie 
Zephathah  (Kitto,  Cjcl.  of  Bibl.    Lit,  iii.  115(5). 

H. 

ZE'PHI  ("C^i  \wntch-luwer'\  :  -Zux^dp-  Sejj/ii), 
1  Chr.  i.  36.     [Zepho  ] 

ZE'PHO  02!J  [watck-(owe7']:  Sox^ap: 
Sep/iu).  A  son  of  Eliphaz  son  of  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  11),  and  one  of  the  "dukes,"'  or  phylarchs, 
of  the  Edomites  (ver.  15).  In  1  Chr.  i.  3G  he  is 
called  Zephi.  E.  S.  I'. 

ZE'PHON  CJ12^'  laluokinff  ont]:  '2.a<pd,v\ 
Alex,  omits:  Seplion).  Ziphion  the  son  of  Gad 
(Num.  xxvi.  15),  and  ancestor  of  the  family  of  the 
Zephojjite.s. 

ZE'PHONITES,  THE  OD'I^vH  [patr.]: 
6  'Sacpooi/i  [Vat.  -i/ei]  '■  S(pliuni/(e).  A  branch  of 
the  tribe  of  Gad,  descended  from  Zephon  or  Ziphion 
(Num.  xxvi.  15). 

ZER  ("I!?  [.fl'ii*]-Tvpos--  Ser).  One  of  the 
fortified  towns  of  the  allotment  of  Naphtali  (.losh. 
six.  35  only).  From  the  names  which  succeed  it 
in  the  list  it  may  be  inferred  that  it  was  in  the 
neiirhborhood  of  the  S.  W.  side  of  the  Lake  of 
Gennesareth.  The  versions  of  the  LXX.  and  of 
the  Peshito,  both  of  this  name  and  that  which 
precedes  it,  are  grounded  on  an  obvious  mistake. 
Neither  of  them  has  anything  to  do  with  T\re  or 
Zidon. 

Ziddira  may  possibly  be  identified  with  [Itiitln  ; 
but  no  name  resembling  Tser  appe;irs  to  have  been 
yet  discovered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Tiberias. 

G. 

ZE'EAH  (n"3T  {i-isiny,  oriyin]  :  Zape,  [Zapd :] 
Zirra,  \_Zare\ ).  A  son  of  Keuel  son  of  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  13;  1  Chr.  i.  37),  and  one  of  the  "dukes," 
or  phylarchs,  of  the  Edomites  (Gen.  xxxvi.  17). 
Jobab  of  Bozrah,  one  of  the  early  kings  of  Edom, 
perhaps  belonged  to  his  family  (xxxvi.  33 ;  1  Chr. 
i.  44).  E.  S.  P. 

ZE'RAH,  less  properly,  Z.\'p>au  (Hjlfj    with 

the  pause  accent,  ^'^^  \_rhin(j^:  Zapd;  [in  1 
Chr.  ix.  6,  Vat.  Zapne:]  Zara).  Twin  son  with 
his  elder  brother  Pharez  of  Judah  and  Tamar 
(On.  xxxviii.  30;  1  Chr.  ii.  6;  Matt.  i.  3).  His 
descendants  were  called  Zarhites,  Ezrahites,  and 
Izrahites  (Num.  xxvi.  '20;  1  K.  iv.  31;  1  Chr.  xxvii. 
3.  11),  and  continued  at  least  down  to  the  time  of 
Zerubbabel  (1  Chr.  k.  7;  Neh.  xi.  24).  Nothing 
is  related  of  Zerah  individually,  beyond  the  [lecul- 
iar  circumstances  of  his  birth  (Gen.  xxxviii.  27- 
30),  concerning  which  see  Heidegg.  Hist.  Pnlri- 
irch.  xviii.  28.  A.  C.  H. 

2.  {Zapes:  Alex.  Zapaf'-  ■Znrn.)  Son  of  Simeon 
^1  Chr.  iv.  24),  called  ZonAR  in  Gen.  xlvi.  10. 

3.  (Zapd  [Vat.  laapo],  Zaapai:  Alex.  Zapa, 
KCapias)  A  Gershonite  Levite,  son  of  Iddo  or 
Idaiah  (1  Chr.  vi.  21,  41  [Heb.  vi.  20]). 

4.  (n^T  :  Zape'   Zerah.)     The   Ethiopian   or 

Cushite,  "^tt'^Sn,  an  invader  of  Judah,  defeated 
r>j  Asa  [2  Chr.  xiv.  9]. 


ZERAH 

1.  In  its  form  the  name  is  identical  with  tht 
Helirew  proper  name  aliove.  It  has  been  supposed 
to  repiesent  the  Egyptian  USAHKEN,  possibly 
pronounced  USARCHEN,  a  name  almost  certainlj 
of  Shemitic  origin  [Shishak,  ii.  1289].  The 
difference  is  great,  but  may  be  partly  accounted 
fur,  if  we  suppose  that  the  Egyptian  deviates  from 
the  original  Shemitic  form,  and  that  the  Hebrew 
represents  that  form,  or  that  a  further  deviation 
than  would  have  been  made  was  the  result  of  the 
similarity  of  the  Hebrew  proper  name  Zerah.     So, 

S"1D,  even  if  pronounced  SEWA,  or  SEVA,  is 
more  remote  from  SHEBEKor  SHEBETEK  than 
Zerah  from  USARKEN.  It  may  be  conjectured 
that  these  forms  resemble  those  of  Memphis,  Moph, 
Noph,  which  evidently  represent  current  pronun- 
ciation, probably  of  Shemites. 

2.  The  war  between  Asa  and  Zerah  appears  to 
have  taken  place  soon  after  the  10th,  and  shortly 
before  the  15th  year  of  Asa,  probably  late  in  the 
14th,  as  we  shall  see  in  examining  the  narrative. 
It  therefore  occurred  in  about  the  same  year  of 
Usarken  II.,  fourth  king  of  the  XXIId  dynasty, 
who  began  to  reign  about  the  same  time  as  the 
king  of  Judah.  Asa's  reign,  as  far  as  the  14th 
year  inclusive,  was  b.  C.  cir.  953-940,  or,  if  Ma- 
nasseh's  reign  be  reckoned  of  35  years,  933-920. 
[Siiishak,  pp.  3010  fr.] 

3.  The  first  ten  years  of  Asa's  reign  were  un- 
disturbed by  war.  Then  Asa  took  counsel  with  his 
sulijects,. and  willed  and  fortified  the  cities  of  Ju- 
dah. He  also  maintained  an  army  of  580.000  men, 
300,000  spearmen  of  Judah,  and  280,000  archers 
of  Benjamin.  This  great  force  was  probal)ly  the 
whole  number  of  men  able  to  bear  arms  (2  Chr. 
xiv.  1-8).  At  length,  probably  in  the  14th  year 
of  Asa,  the  anticipated  danger  came.  Zerah,  the 
Ethiopian,  with  a  mighty  army  of  a  million, 
Cushim  and  Lubim,  with  three  hundred  chariots, 
invaded  the  kingdom,  and  advanced  unopposed  in 
the  field  as  far  as  Mareshah.  .4.S  the  invaders  af- 
terwards retreated  by  way  of  Gerar,  and  Mareshah 
lay  on  the  west  of  the  hill-country  of  Judah,  where 
it  rises  out  of  the  Phihstine  plain,  in  the  line  of 
march  from  Egypt  to  Jerusalem,  it  cannot  lie 
doubted  that  they  came  out  of  Egypt.  Between 
the  border  on  the  side  of  Gerar  and  Mareshah,  lay 
no  important  city  but  Gath.  Gath  and  Mareshah 
were  both  fortified  by  Rehoboam  before  the  invasion 
of  Shishak  (xi.  8),  and  were  no  doubt  captured  ajid 
probably  dismantled  by  that  king  (comp.  xii.  4), 
whose.hst  of  conquered  towns,  etc.,  shows  that  he  not 
only  took  some  strong  towns,  but  that  he  subdued 
the  country  in  detail.  A  del.ay  in  the  capture  of 
Gath,  where  the  warlike  Philistines  may  have  oj> 
posed  a  stuliborn  resistance,  would  have  removed 
the  only  obstacle  on  the  way  to  Mareshah,  thus  se- 
curing the  retreat  tliat  was  afterwards  made  l)y 
this  route.  I'rom  Mareshah,  or  its  inniiediate 
neigliburhood,  was  a  route  to  Jerusalem,  presenting 
no  difficulties  biit  those  of  a  hilly  country;  for  not 
one  important  town  is  known  to  have  lain  between 
the  capital  and  this  outpost  of  the  trilje  of  Judah. 
The  invading  army  bad  swarmed  across  the  border 
and  devoured  the  Philistine  fields  before  Asa  could 
march  to  meet  it.  The  distance  from  Gerar  or  the 
southwestern  border  of  Palestine,  to  Mareshah,  wan 
not  nmch  greater  than  from  Mareshah  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  considering  the  nature  of  the  tracts, 
would  have  taken  about  the  same  time  to  traverse 
and  only  such  delay  as  would  have  been  caused  bv 


ZERAH 

the  siefres  of  Gath  ami  ilaresliah  could  have  en- 
ibletl  Asa  hastily  to  collect  a  levy  and  march  to 
relieve  the  l)eleaguered  town,  or  hold  the  passes. 
"  In  the  "\'alley  of  Zephathah  at  iNlareshah,"  the 
two  armies  met.  We  cannot  perfectly  determine 
the  site  of  the  liattle.  Mareshah.  according;  to  the 
Onoi/iasliccn,  lay  within  two  miles  of  Kleutherop- 
olls,  and  Dr.  Kobinson  has  reasonahly  conjectured 
its  })Osition  to  be  marked  by  a  remarkable  •'  tell," 
or  artificial  mound,  a  mile  and  a  half  south  of  the 
site  of  the  latter  town.  Its  signification,  "that 
which  is  at  the  head,"  would  scarcely  suit  a  posi- 
tion at  the  opening  of  a  valley.  Hut  it  seems  that 
a  narrow  valley  terminates,  and  a  broad  one  com- 
mences at  the  supposed  site.  The  Valley  of 
Zephathah,  "  the  watch-tower,"  is  supposed  by  Dr. 
Kobinson  to  be  the  latter,  a  broad  wady,  descend- 
iiip;  from  Eleutheropolis  in  a  northwesterly  direc- 
tion towards  Ttll  es  Sdficli,  in  which  last  name  he 
is  disposed  to  trace  the  old  appellation  {B'M.  lies. 
ii.  31).  The  two  have  no  connection  whatever,  and 
Robinson's  conjecture  is  e.xtremely  hazardous.  If 
this  identification  be  correct,  we  must  suppose  that 
Zerah  retired  from  before  Mareshah  towards  the 
plain,  that  he  might  use  his  '■  chariots  and  horse- 
men "  with  effect,  instead  of  entangling  them  in 
the  narrow  valleys  leading  towards  Jerusalem. 
From  the  prayer  of  Asa  we  may  judge  that,  when 
he  came  upon  the  invading  army,  he  saw  its  huge- 
ness, and  so  that,  as  he  descended  through  a  valley, 
it  lay  spread  out  beneath  him.  The  l';g\ptian 
monuments  enable  us  to  picture  the  general  dispo- 
sition of  Zerah"s  army.  The  chariots  formed  the 
first  corps  in  a  single  or  double  line;  behind  them, 
massed  in  phalanxes,  were  heavy  armed  troops; 
probably  on  the  flanks  stood  archers  and  horsemen 
in  lighter  formations.  Asa,  marching  down  a 
valley,  must  have  attacked  in  a  heavy  column;  for 
lioue  but  the  most  highly  disciplined  troops  can 
form  line  from  colunui  in  the  face  of  an  enemy. 
His  spearmen  of  .hidah  would  have  composed  this 
column :  each  bank  of  the  valley  would  have  been 
occupied  by  the  Benjamite  archers,  like  those  who 
can)e  to  David,  "  helpers  of  the  war,  armed  with 
bows,  and  [who]  could  use  both  the  right  hand 
and  the  lelt  in  [hurling]  stones  and  [shooting] 
arrows  out  of  a  bow  ''  (1  L'hr.  xii.  1,  2).  No  doubt 
the  Ethiopian,  confident  in  his  numliers,  disdained 
to  attack  the  Helirews  or  clear  the  heights,  but 
waited  in  the  broad  valley,  or  the  plain.  Asa's 
prayer  before  the  battle  is  full  of  the  noble  faith  of 
the  age  of  the  Judges:  "Lord  [it  is]  alike  to 
Thee  to  help,  whether  the  strong  or  the  weak:  help 
us,  0  Lord  our  God ;  for  we  rest  on  Thee,  and  in 
Thy  name  we  go  against  the  nudtitude.  0  Lord, 
Thou  [art]  our  God;  let  not  man  prevail  against 
Thee."  From  the  account  of  Abijah's  defeat  of 
Jeroboam,  we  may  su[)pose  that  the  priests  sounded 
their  trumpets,  and  the  men  of  Judah  descended 
with  a  shout  (2  Chr.  xiii.  14,  15).  The  hills  and 
mountains  were  the  favorite  camping-places  of  the 
Helirews,  who  usually  rushed  down  upon  their 
more  nmiierons  or  better-disciplined  enemies  in  the 
plains  and  valleys.  If  the  battle  were  deliberately 
set  in  array,  it  would  have  begun  early  m  the 
iiorning,  according  to  the  usual  practice  of  these 
times,  when  there  was  not  a  night  surprise,  as 
when  Goliath  challenged  the  Israelites  (1  Sam.  xvii 
20-20),  and  when  Thothmes  III.  fought  the  Cana 
auites  at  Megiddo,  and  as  we  may  judge  from  the 
lonu  pursuits  at  this  period,  the  sun  would  have 
»eeii  in   the  eyes  of  the  army  of  Zerah,  and  its 


ZERAH 


3619 


archers  would  have  been  thus  useless.  The  chariots, 
broken  by  the  charge  and  with  horses  made  un- 
manageable by  flig'its  of  arrows,  must  have  been 
forced  back  upon  the  cumbrous  host  behind.  "  So 
the  Lord  smote  the  Ethiopians  before  Asa,  and 
before  Judah;  and  the  Ethiopians  tied.  And  Asa 
and  the  people  that  [were]  with  him  jiursued  them 
mito  Gei-ar:  and  [or  "for"]  the  Ethiopians  were 
overthrown,  that  they  could  not  recover  themselves." 
This  last  clause  seems  to  relate  to  an  irremediable 
overthrow  at  the  first;  and,  indeed,  had  it  not  been 
so,  the  pursuit  would  not  have  been  carried,  and, 
as  it  seems  at  once,  beyond  the  fhjiitier.  So  com- 
jilete  was  the  overthrow,  that  the  Hebrews  could 
capture  and  spoil  the  cities  around  Gerar,  which 
nmst  have  been  in  alliance  with  Zerah.  From  these 
cities  they  took  very  much  spoil,  and  they  also 
smote  "  the  tents  of  cattle,  and  carried  away  sheep 
and  camels  in  abundance"  (2  Chr.  xiv.  9-15). 
JNIore  seems  to  have  been  captured  from  the  Arabs 
than  from  the  army  of  Zerah :  probably  the  army 
consisted  of  a  nucleus  of  regular  troops,  and  a 
great  body  of  tributaries,  who  would  have  scattered 
in  all  directions,  leaving  their  country  open  to  re- 
jirisals.  On  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  x^sa  was  met 
by  Azariah,  who  exhorted  him  and  the  people  to  be 
faithful  to  God.  Accordingly  Asa  made  a  second 
reformation,  and  collected  his  subjects  at  Jerusalem 
in  the  3d  month  of  the  16th  year,  and  made  a  cov- 
enant, and  ottered  of  the  spoil  "  seven  hundred 
oxen  and  seten  thousand  sheep"  (xv.  1-15). 
From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  battle  was 
fought  in  the  preceding  winter.  The  success  of 
Asa,  and  the  manifest  Idessing  that  attended  him, 
drew  to  him  Ephraimites,  Manassites,  and  Sim- 
eonites.  His  father  had  already  captured  cities  in 
the  Israelite  territory  (xiii.  19),  and  he  held  cities 
in  Mount  Ephraim  (xv.  8),  and  then  was  at  peace 
with  Israel.  Simeon,  always  at  the  mercy  of  a 
powerlid  king  of  Judah,  would  have  naturally 
turned  to  him.  Never  was  the  house  of  David 
stronger  after  the  defection  of  the  ten  tribes;  but 
soon  the  king  fell  into  the  wicked  error,  so  con- 
stantly to  be  repeated,  of  calling  the  heathen  to 
aid  him  against  the  kindred  Israelites,  and  hired 
Benhadad,  king  of  Syria-Damascus,  to  lay  their 
cities  waste,  when  Ilanani  the  prophet  recalled 
to  him  the  great  victory  he  had  achieved  when 
he  trusted  in  God  (xvi.  1-9).  The  after  years  of 
Asa  were . troubled  with  wars  (ver.  9);  but  they 
were  with  Baasha  (1  K.  xv.  16,  32).  Zerah  and 
his  people  had  been  too  signally  crushed  to  &,ttack 
him  again. 

4.  The  identification  of  Zerah  has  occasioned 
some  difference  of  opinion.  He  has  been  thought 
to  have  been  a  Cushite  of  Arabia,  or  a  Cushite  of 
Ethiopia  above  I'^gypt.  But  lately  it  has  been  sup- 
posed that  Zerah  is  the  Hebrew  name  of  Usarken 
I.,  second  king  of  the  Egyptian  XXlId  dynasty; 
or  perhaps  more  probably  Usarken  XL,  his  second 
successor.  This  question  is  a  wider  one  than  seems 
at  first  sii;ht.  We  have  to  inquire  whether  the 
army  of  Zerah  was  that  of  an  Egyptian  king,  and, 
if  tlie  reply  be  atfirniative,  whether  it  was  led  by 
either  Usarken  I.  or  II. 

The  war  of  Shishak  had  reduced  the  angle  of 
Arabia  that  divided  Egypt  from  Palestine.  Proba- 
bly Shishak  was  unable  to  attack  the  Assyrians, 
and  endeavored,  by  securing  this  tract,  to  guard 
the  approach  to  Egypt.  If  the  army  of  Zerah  were 
Kgyi)tian,  this  would  account  for  its  connection 
with  the  people  of  Gerar  aud  the  pastoral  tribes  of 


3620 


ZERAH 


the  neighborhood.  The  sudden  decline  of  the 
power  of  Egypt  after  the  reign  of  Shishak  would 
be  explained  by  the  o\ertlirow  of  the  Egyptian 
army  about  tliirty  yenrs  later. 

The  composition  of  the  army  of  Zerah,  of  Cushim 
and  Lubiui  (2  Chr.  xvi.  8),  closely  resembles  that 
of  Shisliak,  of  Lubim,  Sukkiim,  and  Cushim  (xii. 
3):  both  armies  also  had  chariots  and  horsemen 
(xvi.  8,  xii.  3).  The  Cushim  might  have  been  of 
an  Asiatic  Cush,  but  the  Lubim  can  only  have  been 
Africans.  The  army,  therefore,  must  have  been 
of  a  king  of  Egypt,  or  Ethiopia  aliove  Egypt.  The 
uncertainty  is  removed  by  our  finding  that  the 
kings  of  th»  XXIId  dvnasty  employed  mercenaries 
of  the  .MASHUWASHA.'a  Liljyan  tribe,  which 
apparently  supplied  the  most  important  part  of 
tlieir  hired  force.  The  army,  moreover,  as  con- 
sisting partly,  if  not  wholly,  of  a  mercenary  force, 
and  with  chariots  and  horsemen,  is,  save  in  the 
horsemen,  exactly  what  the  Egyptian  army  of  the 
empire  would  have  been,  with  the  one  change  of 
the  increased  importance  given  to  the  mercena- 
ries, that  we  know  to  have  marked  it  under  the 
XXIId  dynasty.  [Smishak,  p.  3012.]  That  the 
army  was  of  an  Egyptian  king  therefore  cannot  be 
doubted. 

As  to  the  identification  of  Zerah  with  an  Usar- 
ken,  we  speak  diffidently.  That  he  is  called  a 
Cushite  must  be  compared  with  the  occurrence  of 
the  name  NAMUKET,  Ninirod,  in  the  line  of  the 
Usarkens,  but  tliat  line  seems  rather  to  have  been 
of  eastern  than  of  western  Ethiopians  (see,  how- 
3ver,  Shishak,  p.  3012).  The  name  Usarken 
Las  been  thought  to  be  .Sargon  [Shi.shak,  /.  c], 
in  which  case  it  is  unlikely,  but  not  impossible, 
that  another  Hebrew  or  Shemitic  n.ame  should 
have  been  ailopted  to  represent  the  Egyptian  form. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  kings  of  the  XXIId  dynasty 
were  of  a  warlike  family,  and  their  sons  constantly 
held  military  commands.  It  is  unlikely  that  an 
injportant  army  would  have  been  intrusted  to  any 
but  a  king  or  prince.  Usarken  is  less  remote  from 
Zerah  than  seems  at  first  sight,  and,  according  to 
our  computation,  Zerah  might  have  been  Usarken 
II.,  but  according  to  Dr,  Hincks's,  Usarken  I. 

5.  The  defeat  of  the  Egyptian  army  by  Asa  is 
without  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  Jews.  On 
no  other  occasion  did  an  Israelite  army  meet  an 
army  of  one  of  the  great  powers  on  eitlier  side  and 
defeat  it.  Shishak  was  unojiposed,  Sennacherib 
was  not  met  in  the  field,  Kecho  was  so  met  and 
overthrew  Josiah's  army,  Nebuchadnezzar,  like 
Shishak,  was  only  delayed  by  fortifications.  The 
defeat  of  Zerah  thus  is  a  solitary  instance,  more 
of  the  power  of  iaith  than  of  the  bravery  of  the 
Hebrews,  a  single  witness  that  the  God  of  Israel 
was  still  the  same  who  had  led  his  peoi)le  through 
the  Ued  Sea,  and  would  give  them  tlie  same  aid  if 
they  trusted  in  Him.  We  have,  indeed,  no  dis- 
tinct statement  that  the  defeat  of  Zerah  was  a 
miracle,  but  we  have  pi'oof  enough  that  God  provi- 
dentially enabled  the  Helirevvs  to  vanquish  a  force 
greater  in  number,  stronger  in  the  appliances  of 
war,  with  horsemen  and  chariots,  more  accurate  in 
discipline,  no  raw  levies  hastily  equi]iped  from  the 
king's  armory,  but  a  seasoned  standing  militia, 
strengthened  and  more  terrible  by  the  addition  of 
Bwarms  of  hungry  Arabs,  bred  to  war,  and  whose 
whole  life  was  a  time  of  pillage.  Tliis  great  deliv- 
erance is  one  of  the  many  proofs  that  God  is  to 
^lis  ]ieople  ever  the  same,  whether  He  bids  them 
Itaud  still  and  behold  his  salvation,  or  nerves  them 


ZEREDA 

with  that  courage  that  has  wrought  great  thingi 
in  his  name  in  our  later  age;  thus  it  bridges  ovei 
a  chasm  between  two  periods  outwardly  unlike, 
and  bids  us  see  in  history  the  immutability  of  the 
Divine  actions.  R.  S.  P. 

ZERAHI'AH  (n;^n"nT  [Jehovah  caused  to 
»prinij  Jbrt/iJ:  Zapaia,  'Sapaia,  Zapaia'-,  Alex. 
Zapaias,  Zapias,  ZapaCa'  Zarains.  ZaraJiin).  A 
priest,  son  of  Uzzi,  and  ancestor  of  Ezra  the  scribe 
(1  Chr.  vi.  6,  51  [Heb.  v.  32,  vi.  36] ;  Ezr.  vii.  4 
[where  the  A.  V.  ed.  IGll  reads  Zeraiah]). 

2.  (Sapaia;  [Vat.  Zapeia\]  Alex.  Zapaia- 
Znre/ie.)  Father  of  Elihoenai  of  the  sons  of 
I'ahath  Moab  (Ezr.  viii.  4):  called  Zaeaias  in  1 
Esdr.  viii.  31. 

*  ZERA'IAH  (3  syl.),  Ezr.  vii.  4  (A.  Y.  ed. 
IGU).     [Zekamiah  l.j 

ZE'RED  {1~}^.  [dense  forest]  :  [Rom.]  Zope'S, 
[^'at.]  ZapeT,  [.\lex.  Zape,  Zaper'-]  Zared).  The 
name  of  a  brook  or  valley  running  into  the  Dead 
Sea  near  its  S.  E.  corner,  which  Dr.  Robinson 
{BiU.  lies.  ii.  157)  with  some  probability  suggests 
as  identical  witii  the  Wady  el-Alisy.  It  lay  be- 
tween Moab  an<l  Edom,  and  is  the  limit  of  the 
proper  term  of  the  Israelites"  wandering  (Deut.  ii. 
14).  Laborde,  arguing  from  the  distance,  thinks 
that  the  source  of  the  Wady  Uliiirimdel  in  the 
Araliah  is  the  site;  as  from  Mount  Hor  to  el-Alisy 
is  by  way  of  Ezion-geber  65  leagues,  in  which  only 
four  stages  Occur:  a  rate  of  progress  quite  beyond 
their  power.  ■  Tliis  argument,  however,  is  feeble, 
siTice  it  is  clear  that  the  march-stations  mentioned 
indicate  not  daily  stages,  but  more  permanent 
encampments.  He  also  thinks  the  palm-trees  of 
Wndy  G.  would  have  attracted  notice,  and  that 
Wcidy  Jellnim  (el-Jtlim)  could  not  have  been  the 
way  consistently  with  the  precept  of  Deut.  ii.  3. 
Tiie  camping  station  in  the  catalogue  of  Num. 
xxiii.,  which  corresponds  to  the  "  pitching  in  the 
valley  of  Zared  "  of  xxi.  12,  is  probably  Dibon-Gad, 
as  it  stands  next  to  Ije-Abarim ;  compare  Num. 
xxxiii.  44,  45  with  sxi.  12.  The  Wndy  el-Ahsy 
forms  the  l)Oundary  between  the  districts  of  Jebnl 
and  Kerek.  The  stream  runs  in  a  very  deep 
ra\ine  and  contains  a  hot  spring  which  the  Arabs 
call  the  "  Bath  of  Solomon,  son  of  David  "  (Irby, 
May  29).     [Zaked.].  ■ 

The  .lewish  interpreters  translate  the  name  in 
the  first  case  "  osiers,"  and  in  the  second  '■  bas- 
kets "  (Targum  I'seudojonathan),  which  recalls  the 
"brook  of-  the  willows"  of  Isaiah  (xv.  7).  The 
name  Siifs'if  (willo\y)  is  attached  to  the  valley 
which  runs  down  from  Kera/c  to  the  Dead  Sea; 
liut  this  appears  to  be  too  far  north  for  the  Zered. 
[Willows,  bhook  of  the.]  H.  H. 

ZER'EDA  (n'7^-!in,  i.  e.  the  Tseredah, 
with  the  def.  article  [cooling] :  j]  "Xapipa  [Vat. 
-pii-\\  Alex,  n  'S.api^a-  Sai-edn).  The  native, 
place,  according  to  the  present  Hebrew  text,  of 
.leroboam,  the  leader  of  the  revolt  of  the  northeru 
tribes,  and  the  first  king  of  the  "  Kingdom  of 
Israel."  It  occurs  in  1  K.  xi.  26  only.  The 
LXX.  (in  the  Vatican  Codex)  for  Zereda  substitute 
Sareira,  as  will  be  seen  above.  This  is  not  in  itseli 
reniarkalile,  since  it  is  liut  an  instance  of  the  ex-' 
ciuinge  of  r  and  d,  which  is  so  often  oliserved  both 
in  the  lAX.  and  Syriac  Versions,  and  which  has 
not  impossibly  taken  place  in  the  Hebrew  text 
itself  of  Judg.  vii.  22,  where  the  name  Zererah 
appears  attached  to  a  place  which  is  perhaps  else- 


ZEREUATHAH 

xhere  called  Zdredathah.  But  it  is  more  remarlc- 
able  that  in  the  long  addition  to  the  history  of 
Jeroboam  which  these  translators  insert  between 
1  K.  xii.  2-1:  and  25  of  the  Hebrew  text,  Sarira  is 
frequently  mentioned.  In  stronj;  contrast  to  the 
merely  casual  mention  of  it  in  the  Hebrew  narrative 
as  Jeroboam's  native  place,  it  is  elevated  in  the 
narrative  of  the  LXX.  into  great  prominence,  and 
becomes  in  fact  the  most  important  and,  it  may 
naturally  be  presumed,  the  niost  impregnable  for- 
tress of  I'.phraim.  It  there  appears  as  the  town 
which  Jeroboam  fortified  for  Solomon  in  Mount 
Ephraira;  thither  he  repairs  on  his  return  from 
Egypt;  there  he  assemlihs  the  tribe  of  Ephraim, 
and  there  he  builds  a  fortress.  Of  its  position 
nothing  is  said  except  that  it  was  "  in  Mount 
Ephraim,"  but  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  must 
lave  been  central.  The  LXX.  further  make  it 
the  residence  of  Jeroboam  at  the  time  of  the  death 
of  his  child,  and  they  suljstitute  it  for  I'irzah  (not 
)nly  on  the  single  occasion  on  which  the  latter 
lame  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  of  this  narrative,  but) 
three  times  over.     No  explanation  has  been  given 

)f  this  change  of  H^iri  into  HIHIS.  It  is 
oardly  one  which  would  naturally  occur  from  the 
jormptions  either  of  copyists  or  of  pronunciation. 
The  question  of  the  som-ce  and  value  of  these  sin- 
gular additions  of  the  LXX.  has  never  yet  been 
fully  examined;  but  in  the  words  of  Dean  Milmaii 
(fiist.  of  the  Jeics,  3d  ed.  i.  ;i32),  "there  is  a 
circumstantialness  about  the  incidents  which  gives 
them  an  air  of  authenticity,  or  rather  antiquity," 
and  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  will  prompt  some 
scholar  to  a  thorough  investigation. 

Zeredah  has  been  supposed  to  be  identical  with 
Zeredathah  (2  Chr.  iv.  17)  and  Zakthan  or 
Zaktanah.  But  even  if  the  two  last  of  these 
names  were  more  similar  to  it  than  they  are,  there 
would  remain  the  serious  topogra[ihical  difficulty 
to  such  an  i<lentification,  that  they  were  in  the 
/alley  of  the  Jordan,  while  Zeredah  was,  according 
lo  the  repeated  statement  of  the  LXX.,  on  Mount 
Ephraim.  If,  however,  the  restricted  statement  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible  be  accepted,  which  names  Zeredah 
merely  as  the  native  place  of  Jeroboam,  and  as  not 
concerned  in  the  events  of  his  mature  life,  then 
there  is  no  obstacle  to  its  situation  in  that  part  of 
the  tribe  of  Ephraim  which  lay  in  the  Jordan  Val- 
ley. G. 

ZEREDA'THAH  (nn-jn^  [coolhi,/]: 
[Vat.]  2ip5a0oi;  [Kom.  2ap7j5aea:]  Alex.  2a5a9a: 
Snfedi(th(().  Named  (in  2  Chr.  iv.  17  only)  in 
specifying  the  situation  of  the  foundries  for  the 
brass-work  of  Solomon's  Temple.  InSthe  parallel 
passage  in  1  K.  vii.  40,  Z.vkthan  occupies  the 
place  of  Zeredathah,  the  rest  of  the  sentence  being 
literally  the  same;  but  whether  the  one  name  is 
merely  an  accidental  variation  of  the  other,  or 
whether,  as  there  is  some  ground  for  believing, 
there  is  a  connection  between  Zeredah,  Zeredathah, 


ZERUBBABEL 


3621 


a  The  tli  terminating  the  name  in  the  A.  V.  is  the 
Hebrew  mode  of  connecting  it  witli  the  particle  of 
uiotioa  :  Zererathah,  i.  e.  to  Zererali. 

''  The  Ta  at  the  commencement  of  this  barbarous 
word  uo  doubt  befougs  to  the  preceding  name,  Hetli- 
Bhittah  ;  and  tliey  sliould  be  divided  as  follows,  Bj(6- 
TceSra  Vapayada.  'J'lie  Vatican  Codex  appears  to  be 
yie  only  MS.  which  retains  any  trace  of  the  name. 
The  others  quoted  by  Holmes  and  Parsons  either  sub- 
Kitute  eu>;  k«i>ov;  for  it,  oi-  exhibit  some  variation  of 


Zererah,  and  Zarthan,  we  have  now  no  moans  o 
determining.  It  should  be  observed  that  Zeredah 
has  in  the  original  the  definite  article  prefixed  to  it, 
which  is  not  the  case  with  either  Zeredathah  or 
Zerera.  G. 

ZER'ERATH  (rfTl.!;,"  i.  e.  Tsererah:  Ta- 
yapayaddi''  Alex.  Kai  avv7)yfxev7)'-  Vulg.  omits). 
A  place  named  only  in  Judg.  vii.  22,  in  describing 
the  flight  of  the  Midianite  host  before  Gideon. 
The  A.  V.  has  somewhat  unnecessarily  added  to 
the  original  obscurity  of  the  passage,  which  runs 
as  follows:  "And  the  host  fled  into  Beth  has- 
shittah  to  Zererah, '^  unto  the  brink  of  Abcl-me- 
holah  upon  Tabbath  "  — apparently  describing  the 
two  lines  of  flight  taken  by  the  two  portions  of  tha 
horde. 

It  is  natural  to  presume  that  Zererah  is  the  sarao 
name  as  Zeredathah.''  They  both  appear  to  have 
been  in  the  Jordan  Valley,  and  as  to  the  difference 
in  the  names,  the  termination  is  insignificant,  and 

the  exchange  of  T  and  "1  is  of  constant  occurrence. 
Zeredathah,  again,  appears  to  be  equivalent  to  Zar- 
than. 

It  is  also  difficult  not  to  suppose  that  Zererah  \% 
the  same  place  with  the  Sarira  which  the  LXX. 
present  as  the  equivalent  of  Zereda  and  of  Tirzah. 
lint  in  the  way  of  this  there  is  the  difficulty  which 
has  been  pointed  out  under  Zereda,  that  the  two 
last-named  places  appear  to  have  been  in  the  high- 
lands of  Ephraim,  while  Zererah  and  Zeredathah 
were  in  the  Jordan  Valley.  G. 

ZE'RESH  {W-)l  [Fers.  gohq-.  Zoiffdpa; 
[Alex  ]  5a)0-apa;  Joseph.  Zapata-  Zares).  The 
wife  of  Ilaman  the  Agagite  (Esth.  v.  10,  14,  vi. 
1  y ),  who  counselled  him  to  prepare  the  gallows  for 
Mordecai.  but  predicted  her  husband's  ruin  as  soon 
as  she  knew  that  Mordecai  was  a  Jew. 

A.  C.  H. 

ZE'RETH  (nn^  [perh.  splejidoi-] :  Sepe'S; 
[Vat.  Aped;]  Alex,  iaped'-  Serelh).  Son  of  Ashur 
the  founder  of  Tekoa,  by  his  wife  Helah  (1  Chr.  iv. 
7). 

ZE'RI  0^^  [patr.,  Jezer]  :  2ovpi  [Vat.  -p?,]  : 
Suri).  One  of  the  sons  of  Jeduthun  in  the  reii^n 
of  David  (1  Chr.  xxv.  3).  In  ver.  11  he  is  called 
Iziti. 

ZE'ROR  (~i"TI^  [pebble]:  'UpeS;  Alex. 
ApeS;  [Comp.  2apdp'-]  Seror).  A  Benjamitc, 
ancestor  of  Kish  the  father  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  ix.  1). 

ZERU'AH  (n^-"n!J  [le/yrous]:  [Rom.]  Vat. 
omit;  Alex.  'Xapova'-  Sarun).  The  mother  of 
Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  (1  K.  xi.  2(j).  In  the 
additional  narrative  of  the  LXX.  inserted  .after  1 
K.  xii.  24,  she  is  called  Sarira  (a  corruption  of 
Zereda),  and  is  said  to  have  been  a  harlot. 

ZERUB'BABEL     (^^Sr^'    i^'-^P*'-sed,  oi 


the  words  quoted  above  from  the  Alex.  MS.    The  Vul- 
gate entirely  omits  the  name. 

c  Or  possibly   the  two   first   of  theue   four    names 
should  be  joined,  Beth-hus-shittah-Zererathah. 

d  Zererah    appears   in    Judg.    rii.  22,     nn~l~l?, 

with  the  particle  of  motion  attached,  which  ia  all  bal 

identical  with   nmntJ,   Zeredathah. 
T  T  ••  :  ' 


3622 


ZERUBBABEL 


beyoiten,  in  Babylon:  Zopo^dSeK'-  St-rubahd). 
The  head  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  at  the  time 
of  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  Captivity  in 
tlie  first  year  of  Cyrus.  His  exact  parentage  is  a 
little  obscure,  from  his  being  always  called  the  son 
of  Shealtiel  (Ezr  iii.  2,  8,  v.  2,  &c. ;  Hag.  i.  1,  12, 
14,  &c.),  and  appearing  as  such  in  the  genealogies 
(Matt.  i.  12;  Lnke  iii.  27),  whereas  in  1  Chr.  iii.  I'J, 
he  is  represented  as  the  son  of  Pedaiah,  Shealtiel  or 
iSalathiel's  brother,  and  consequently  as  Salathiel's 
nephew.  Probably  the  genealogy  in  1  Chr.  exhibits 
his  true  parentage,  and  he  succeeded  his  uncle  as 
head  of  the  house  of  Judah  —  a  supposition  which 
tallies  with  tlie  facts  that  Salathiel  apiiears  as  the 
first-born,  and  that  no  children  are  assigned  to  him. 

There  are  two  histories  of  Zerubbabel:  tlie  one, 
Ihat  contained  in  the  canonical  Scriptures:  tlie 
other,  that  in    the  apocryphal  books  and  .Josephus. 

The  history  of  Zerubbabel  m  the  Scriptures  is  as 
follows:   In  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  he  was  living  at 

Babylon,  and  was  the  recognized  prince  (S"'tp3) 
of  Judah  in  the  Captivity,  what  in  later  times  was 
called    nn^ban   W^-^      or    ntt^'-^nn  (Rhesa), 

"the  Prince  of  the  Captivity,"  or  "the  Prince." 
On  thft  issuing  of  Cyrus's  decree  he  immediately 
availed  himself  of  it,  and  placed  himself  at  the  head 
of  those  of  his  countrymen  "  whose  spirit  God  had 
raised  to  go  up  to  build  the  House  of  the  Lord 
which  is  in  Jerusalem."  It  is  probable  that  he 
was  in  the  king  of  Babylon's  service,  both  from  his 
having,  like  Daniel  and  the  three  children,  received 
a  Chaldee  name   [Sheshbazzar],  and  from  his 

receiving  from  Cyrus  the  ofRce  of  governor  (nn??) 
of  Judcea.  The  restoration  of  the  sacred  vessels, 
which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  brought  from  the  Tem- 
ple, having  been  effected,  and  copious  presents  of 
silver  and  gold,  and  goods,  and  beasts,  having  been 
bestowed  upon  the  captives,  Zerul>babel  went  forth 
at  the  head  of  the  returning  colony,  accompanied 
by  Jeshua  the  high-priest,  and  perhaps  by  the 
prophets  HaKUai  and  Zechariah,  and  a  consideralde 
number  of  priests,  Levites,  and  heads  of  houses  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin  with  their  followers.  On  ar- 
riving at  Jerusalem,  Zerubbabel's  first  care  was  to 
build  the  altar  on  its  old  site,  and  to  restore  the 
daily  sacrifice.  [Jeshua.]  Perhaps  also  they 
kept  the  Keast  of  Taliernacles,  as  it  is  said  they  did 
in  Ezr.  iii.  4:  but  there  is  some  reason  to  suspect 
that  vv.  4,  5,  and  the  first  half  of  ver.  G,  are  in- 
terpolated, and  are  merely  an  epitome  of  Neh.  viii., 
which  belongs  to  very  different  times.  [Ezka, 
Book  ot'";  Nehemi.\h,  Book  of.]  But  his  great 
work,  vvhich  he  set  about  innnediately,  was  the  re- 
Ijuilding  of  the  Temple.  Being  armed  with  a  grant 
from  Cyrus  of  timber  and  stone  for  the  building, 
and  of  money  for  tiie  expenses  of  the  builders  (Ezr. 
vi.  4),  he  had  collected  the  materials,  including 
cedar-trees  brought  from  Lebanon  to  Joppa,  ac- 
cording to  the  precedent  in  the  time  of  Solomon  (2 
Chr.  ii.  16),  and  got  together  masons  and  carpen- 
ters to  do  the  work,  by  the  opening  of  the  second 
year  of  their  return  to  Jerusalem.  And  accordingly, 
in  the  second  month  of  the  second  year  of  their  re- 
turn, the  foundation  of  the  Temple  was  laid  with 
all  the  pomp  which  they  could  command:  the 
priests  in  their  vestments  with  trumpets,  and  the 
ions  of  Asapli  with  cymbals,  singing  the  very  same 
psalm  of  praise  for  (iod's  unfailing  mercy  to  Israel 
wiiicb  was  smig  when  Solomon  dedicated  his  Tem- 
ple (2  Chr.  V.  11-14);  while  the  people  responded 


ZERUBBABEL 

with  a  great  shout  of  joy,  "  because  the  foundation 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord  was  laid."  How  strange 
must  have  been  the  emotions  of  Zerubbaljel  at  this 
moment !  As  he  stood  upon  Mount  Zion,  and  be- 
held from  its  summit  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem, 
the  site  of  tlie  Temple  blank,  David's  palace  a  heap 
of  ashes,  his  fathers'  sepulchres  defiled  and  overlaid 
with  rubbish,  and  the  silence  of  desertion  and 
emptiness  hanging  oppressively  over  the  streets  and 
waste  places  of  wliat  was  once  the  joyous  city; 
and  tlieii  remembered  how  his  great  ancestor  Da^d 
had  lirought  up  the  ark  in  triumph  to  the  very 
spot  where  l;e  was  then  standing,  how  Solomon  had 
reigned  there  in  all  his  magnificence  and  power, 
and  how  the  petty  kings  and  potentates  of  the 
neighboring  nations  had  been  his  vassals  and  tribu- 
taries, Ikjw  must  his  heart  alternately  have  swelled 
with  pride,  and  throbbfid  with  anguish,  and  sunk 
ill  huniiliation !  In  the  midst  of  these  miuhty 
memories  he  was  but  the  ofhcerof  a  foreign  heathen 
despot,  the  head  of  a  feeble  remnant  of  half-emaiici- 
jiated  slaves,  the  captain  of  a  band  hardly  able  to 
bold  up  their  heads  in  the  presence  of  their  hostile 
and  jealous  neighbors;  and  yet  there  he  was,  the 
son  of  David,  the  heir  of  great  and  mysterious 
promises,  returned  by  a  wonderful  Providence  to 
the  home  of  his  ancestors.  At  his  bidding  the 
d.iily  sacrifice  had  been  restored  after  a  cessation  of 
half  a  century,  and  now  the  foundations  of  the 
Temple  were  actually  laid,  amidst  the  songs  of  the 
Levites  singing  according  to  David's  ordinance, 
and  the  shouts  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  It  was  a 
heart-stirring  situation;  and,  despite  all  the  dis- 
couragements attending  it,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
Zerubbabel's  faith  and  hope  were  kindled  by  it  into 
fresh  life.  . 

But  there  were  many  hindrances  and  delays  to 
be  encountered  before  the  work  w.as  finished.  The 
Samaritans  or  Cutheans  put  in  a  claim  to  join  with 
the  Jews  in  rebuilding  the  Temple;  and  when 
Zerubbabel  and  his  companions  refused  to  admit 
them  into  partnership,  they  tried  to  hinder  them 
from  building,  and  hired  counsellors  to  frustrate 
their  purpose.  They  probably  contrived,  in  the 
first  instance,  to  intercept  the  supplies  of  timber 
and  stone,  and  the  wages  of  the  workmen,  which 
were  paid  out  of  the  king's  revenue,  and  then  by 
misrepresentation  to  calumniate  them  at  the  court 
of  Persia.  Thus  they  were  successful  in  putting  a 
stop  to  the  work  during  the  seven  remaining  years 
of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  and  through  the  eight  years 
of  Cambyses  and  Smerdis.  Nor  does  Zerubbabel 
appear  qiiite  blameless  for  this  long  delay.  The 
dithculties  in  the  way  of  building  the  Temple  were 
not  such  aS  need  have  stopped  the  work:  and  dur- 
ing this  long  suspension  of  sixteen  years  Zerub- 
babel and  the  rest  of  the  people  had  been  busy  in 
building  costly  houses  for  themselves,  and  one  might 
even  suspect  that  the  cedar-wood  which  had  been 
brought  for  the  Temple  had  been  used  to  decorate 

private  dwellings  (couip.  the  use  of  *(?P  in    Hag. 

i.  4,  and  1  K.  vii.  3,  7).  They  had,  in  fact,  ceased 
to  care  for  the  desolation  of  the  Temple  (Hag.  i. 
2-4),  and  had  not  noticed  that  God  was  rebuking 
their  lukewarmness  by  withholding  his  blessing 
from  their  labors  (Hag.  i.  5-11).  But  in  the 
second  year  of  L)arius  light  dawned  upon  the  dark- 
ness of  the  colony  iroin  Babylon.  In  thit  year  — 
it  was  the  most  memorable  event  in  Zerubbabel's 
life  —  the  spirit  of  prophecy  suddenly  blazed  up 
with  a  most  brilliant  light  amongst  the  returned 


ZERUBBABEL 

laptives;  and  the  long  silence  which  was  to  ensue 
till  the  ministry  of  ,lohn  the  liaptist  was  preceded 
hy  tlie  stirring  utterances  of  Haggai  and  Zecliariah. 
Their  words  feh  like  sparlis  upon  tinder.  In  a  mo- 
ment Zerubbabel,  roused  from  liis  apathy,  threw 
his  whole  strengtli  into  the  woric,  zealously  seconded 
by  Jeshua  and  all  the  peojile.  [Jksiiua.]  Unde- 
terred by  a  fresh  attempt  of  their  enemies  to  iiiiider 
the  progress  of  the  building,  they  went  on  with 
the  work  even  while  a  reference  was  being  made  to 
Darius;  and  when,  after  the  original  ilecree  of 
Cyrus  had  been  found  at  Ecliatana,  a  most  gracious 
and  favorable  decree  was  issued  by  Uarius,  enjoin- 
ing Tatnai  and  Slietliarboznai  to  assist  the  .lews 
with  whatsoever  tliey  had  need  of  at  the  king's  ex- 
pense, the  work  advanced  so  rapidly  that  on  tlie 
third  day  of  the  montli  Adar,  in  the  sixth  year  of 
Darius,  the  Temple  was  finished,  and  was  forthwith 
dedicated  with  much  pomp  and  rejoicing.  It  is 
ditticult  to  calculate  how  great  was  the  effect  of  the 
jiropiiecies  of  Haggai  and  ZcL'hari.ih  in  sustaining 
tlie  courage  and  energy  of  Zerubbabel  in  carrying 
his  work  to  completion.  Addressed,  as  many  of 
them  were,  directly  to  Zerulibabel  by  name,  speak- 
ing, as  they  did.  most  glorious  things  of  the  Temple 
which  he  was  building,  conveying  to  Zerubbabel 
himself  extraordinary  assurances  of  Divine  favor, 
and  coupling  with  them  magnificent  and  consola- 
tory predictions  of  the  future  glory  of  Jerusalem 
and  Judah,  and  of  tlie  conversion  of  the  Gentiles, 
they  necessarily  exercised  an  immense  iTifluence 
upon  his  mind  (Hag.  i.  i;^,  U,  ii.  4-9,  -21-23;  Zech. 
iv.  6-10,  viii.  3-8,  "J,  18-23).  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  these  prophecies  upon  Zerubliabel  were 
the  immediate  iiistruuient  by  whicli  tlie  cluireh  and 
commonwealth  of  Judah  were  preserved  from  de- 
struction, and  received  a  life  wliich  endured  till  the 
coming  of  Christ. 

The  only  other  works  of  Zerubbabel  which  we 
learn  i'roni  tlie  Scripture  iiistory  are  tlie  restoration 
of  the  courses  of  priests  and  Levites,  and  of  the 
provision  for  their  maintenance,  according  to  the 
institution  of  David  (Ezr.  vi.  18;  Neh.  xii.  47); 
the  registering  the  returned  captives  according  to 
their  genealogies  (Neh.  vii.  5);  and  the  keeping  of 
a  Fa.ssover  in  the  seventh  year  of  Darius,  with 
which  last  event  ends  all  that  we  know  of  the  life 
of  Zerubbabel  the  son  of  Sliealtiel:  a  man  inferior 
to  few  of  the  great  characters  of  Scripture,  whether 
we  consider  the  perilous  imdeitaking  to  which  he 
devoted  himself,  the  importance,  in  the  economy 
of  the  Divine  government,  of  his  work,  his  coura- 
geous faith,  or  the  singular  distinction  of  being  the 
object  of  so  many  and  such  remarkable  prophetic 
utterances. 

The  aiioeryphal  history  of  Zerubbabel,  which, 
as  usual,  Josephus  follows,  may  be  summed  up  in  a 
few  words.  The  story  told  in  1  lilsdr.  iii.-vii.  is, 
that  on  the  occasion  of  a  great  feast  made  by 
Darius  on  his  accession,  three  young  men  of  his 
body-guard  had  a  contest  who  should  write  the 
wisest  sentence.  That  one  of  the  three  (Zerubba- 
bel) writing  '■  Women  are  strongest,  but  above  all 
things  Truth  beareth  away  the  victory;  "  and  after- 
wards defending  his  sentence  with  much  eloquence, 
was  declar(>d  by  acclamation "  to  be  the  wisest. 
Hid  claimed  fur  his  reward,  at  the  king's  hand, 
that  the  king  should  perform  his  vow  which  he 


n  With  the  shout,  "  Mugna  est  Veritas,  et  prseva- 
•bit  1  " 


ZERUBBABEL 


3n2y 


had  vowed  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple 
Upon  which  the  king  gave  him  letters  to  all  hit 
treasurers  and  governors  on  the  other  side  the  river, 
with  grants  of  money  and  exemption  from  taxes, 
and  sent  him  to  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple, 
accompanied  by  the  familijes  of  which  the  list  is 
given  in  Ezr.  ii.,  Neh.  vii. ;  ami  then  follows,  in 
utter  confusion,  the  history  of  Zerubbabel  as  given 
in  Scripture.  App.arently,  too,  the  compiler  did 
not  perceive  that  Sanabasar''  (Slieshbazzar)  was 
the  same  person  as  Zerubbabel.  Josephus,  indeed, 
seems  to  identify  Slieshbazzar  with  Zerubbabel, 
and  tries  to  reconcile  the  story  in  1  Esdr.  by  say- 
ing, "  Now  it  so  fell  out  that  about  this  time 
Zorobabel,  who  had  been  made  governor  of  the 
Jews  that  had  been  in  captivity,  came  to  Darius 
from  Jerusalem,  for  there  bad  been  an  old  friend- 
ship between  him  and  the  king,"  etc.  (Ant.  xi.  3). 
But  it  is  obvious  on  the  face  of  it  that  this  is  sim- 
ply Josephus's  invention  to  reconcile  1  Esdr.  with 
tlie  canonical  Ezra  [Esi>k.\s,  Fikst  Book  of.] 
Josephus  has  also  another  story  (Ant.  xi.  4.  §  9) 
which  is  not  found  in  1  Esdr.,  of  Zorobabel  going 
on  an  embassy  to  Darius  to  accuse  the  Samaritan 
governors  and  hipparchs  of  withholding  from  the 
Jews  the  grants  made  liy  Darius  out  of  the  royal 
treasury,  for  the  ottering  of  sacrifices  and  other 
Temple  expenses,  and  of  his  obtaining  a  decree 
from  the  king  commanding  bis  officers  in  Samaria 
to  supply  the  high-priest  with  all  that  he  required. 
But  that  this  is  not  authentic  history  seems  pretty 
certain  from  the  names  of  the  governors,  Smnbabas 
being  an  imitation  or  corruption  of  Sunhallat, 
Tanyanex  of  Tdtniii  (or  Thauthanai,  as  in  LXX.), 
Sadrnccs  of  Sathrabouzanes,  confused  with  Sliii- 
dracli,  Bobelo  of  Zoro-babel ;  and  the  names  of  the 
ambassadors,  which  are  manifestly  copied  from  the 
list  in  1  Esdr.  v.  8,  where  Zorobabel,  Enenius,  and 
Mardochseus,  correspond  to  Zorobabel,  Ananias, 
and  Alardochajus  of  .losephus.  Moreover  the  letter 
or  decree  of  Darius,  as  given  by  Josejihus,  is  as 
manifiestly  copied  from  the  decree  of  Darius  in  Ezr. 
vi.  0-1(1.  In  all  probability,  therefore,  the  docu- 
ment used  by  Josephus  was  one  of  those  numerous 
apocryphal  religious  romances  which  the  Hellenis- 
tic Jews  were  so  fond  of  about  the  4th  and  3d  cen- 
tury before  Chri.st,  and  was  written  partly  to 
explain  Zorobabel's  presence  at  the  court  of  Darius, 
as  spoken  of  in  1  Esdr.,  partly  to  explain  that  of 
Mordecai  at  the  court  of  Ahasuerus,  though  he  was 
in  the  list  of  those  who  were  Zorobabel's  compan- 
ions (as  it  seemed),  and  partly  to  give  an  opportu- 
nity for  reviling  and  humiliating  the  Samaritans. 
It  also  gratified  the  favorite  taste  for  emliuUishing, 
and  corroborating,  and  giving,  as  was  thought, 
additional  probability  to  the  Scripture  narrative, 
and*  dwelling  upon  bygone  times  of  Jewish  tri- 
umphs.     [EsTiiEi;,  Booiv  OF.] 

It  only  remains  to  notice  Zerubbabel's  place  in 
the  genealogy  of  Christ.  It  has  already  been  ob- 
served that  in  the  genealogies  Matt  i.  12,  and  Luke 
iii.  27,  he  is  represented  as  sou  of  Salathiel,  though 
the  book  of  Chronicles  tells  us  he  was  the  son  of 
Pedaiah,  and  nephew  of  Salathiel.  It  is  of  more 
moment  to  remark  that,  while  St.  Matthew  deduces 
his  line  from  Jechonias  and  Solomon,  St.  Luke 
deduces  it  through  Neri  and  Nathan.  Here  then 
we  have  the  head  of   the    nation,  the  Prince  of 


t  2aco/3o<7-ap  is  merely  a  corruption  of  2aj-a;3a<rao- 


3624 


ZERUIAH 


Judah,  the  foremost  man  of  his  country,  with  a 
double  genealogy,  one  representing  him  as  descend- 
ing from  all  the  kings  of  Judah,  the  other  as  the 
descendant  indeed  of  David,  but  through  s  long 
line  of  private  and  unknown  persons.  We  find 
him,  too,  filhng  the  position  of  I'rince  of  Judah  at 
a  time  when,  as  far  as  the  history  informs  us,  the 
royal  family  was  utterly  extinct.  "  And  though,  if 
descended  from  the  last  king,  lie  would  have  been 
his  grandson,  neither  the  history,  nor  the  contem- 
porary prophets,  nor  Josephus,  nor  the  apocryphal 
books,  give  the  least  hint  of  his  being  a  near  rela- 
tive of  Jeconiah,  while  at  the  same  time  the  natural 
interpretation  of  Jer.  xxii.  30  shows  Jeconiah  to 
have  been  childless.  The  inference  from  all  this  is 
ob\  ious.  Zerubbabel  was  the  legal  successor  and 
heir  of  Jeconiah's  royal  estate,  the  grandson  of  Neri, 
and  the  lineal  descendant  of  Nathan  the  son  of 
David.  [Sai-athiei.;  Genealogy  of  Chkist. 
For  Zerubbabel's  descendants  see  Hananiah  8.] 

In  the  N.  T.  the  name  appears  hi  the  Greek 
form  of  ZoKoBABEL.  A.  C.  H. 

ZERUFAH  (n;;:^"!^,  and  once  «  ni;^'^  : 
Xapoma;  [Alex.  1  Sam.  xxvi.  6,  'Sapoueia']  »5'(/- 
vi'().  A  woman  who,  as  long  as  the  Jewish  records 
are  read,  will  be  known  as  the  mother  of  the  three 
leading  heroes  of  David's  army — Abishai,  Joab, 
and  Asahel — the  "sons  of  Zeruiah."  She  and 
Abigail  are  specified  in  the  genealogy  of  David's 
family  in  1  Chr.  ii.  13-17  as  "  sisters  of  the  sons 
of  Jesse"  (ver.  IG;  comp.  Joseph.  Anl.  vii.  10,  § 
1).  The  expression  is  in  itself  enough  to  raise  a 
suspicion  that  she  was  not  a  daughter  of  Jesse,  a 
susjiicion  which  is  corroborated  by  the  statement 
of  2  Sam.  xvii.  25,  that  Al)igail  was  the  daughter 
of  Nabash.  Abigail  being  apparently  tlie  j'ounger 
of  the  two  women,  it  is  a  probable  inference  that 
they  were  both  the  daughters  of  Nabash,  but 
whether  this  Nahash  be — as  Professor  Stanley  has 
ingeniously  conjectured  —  the  king  of  the  Ammon- 
ites, and  the  former  husband  of  Jesse's  wife,  or 
gome  other  person  unknown,  must  forever  remain 
a  mere  conjecture.  [David,  vol.  i.  p.  552.]  Other 
explanations  are  given  under  Nahash,  vol.  iii. 
p.  2053  f.  Her  relation  to  Jesse  (in  the  original 
Ishai)  is  expressed  in  the  name  of  her  son  Ah- 
ishai. 

Of  Zeruiah's  husband  there  is  no  mention  in  the 
Bible.  Josephus  {AiU.  vii.  1,  §  3)  explicitly  states 
his  name  to  have  been  Souri  (2oupi)i  hut  no  cor- 
roboration of  the  statement  appears  to  have  been 
discovered  in  the  .lewish  traditions,  nor  does  Jose- 
phus himself  refer  to  it  again.  The  mother  of  such 
remarkable  sons  must  herself  have  been  a  renjark- 
able  woman,  and  this  may  account  for  the  fact, 
unusual  if  not  unique,  that  the  family  is  always 
tailed  after  her,  and  that  her  husband's  name  has 
not  been  considered  worthy  of  preservation  in  the 
sacred  records.  G. 

ZE'THAM  (Dn"f  [perh.  oUve-tree] :  Zrjeo;/ 
[Vat.  ZfOofj.],  ZM/x;  Alex.  ZaiOo/^,  ZoOoti-  ^e- 
ihaii,  Z'lthan).  Tlie  son  of  Laadan,  a  Gershonite 
Invite  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  8).  In  1  Chr.  xxvi.  22  he 
appears  as  the  son  of  Jehiel,  or  Jehieli,  and  so  the 
grandson  of  Laadan. 

ZETHAN  (in^,:  ZaMv,  Alex.  H0ay:  Ze- 
Qinn).  A  Benjamite  of  the  sons  of  Bilhau  (1  Chr. 
rii.  10). 


ZIBEON 

ZETHAR  Oni  [perh.   stary.   ^A&araic,. 
Ze/har).     One  of  the  seven  eunuchs  of  Ahasuerus 
who  attended  upon  the  king,  and  were  commanded 
to  bring  Vashti  into  his  presence  (Esth.  i.  10). 

ZFA  C^^l  :  Zove;  [Comp.  Zjo:]  Zie).  One 
of  the  Gadites  who  dwelt  in  Bashan  (1  Chr.  v 
13). 

ZI'BA  (S;i^!f,  once  H3*i  " :  [Rom.  :^,fid. 
Vat.]  Xet0a-,  Alex.  2i/3a,  and  in  ch.  xvi.  [1,]  2 
[b,  3,  4,]  2,;8^a;  Joseph.  2,;3as:  Sibn).  A 
person  who  plays  .»  prominent  part,  though  with 
no  credit  to  himself,  in  one  of  the  episodes  of 
David's  history  (2  Sam.   ix.  2-12,  xvi.   1-4,   xix. 

17,  2:)).  He  had  been  a  slave  (121?)  of  the  house 
of  Saul  before  the  overthrow  of  his  kingdom,  and 
(probably  at  the  time  of  the  great  Philistine  incur- 
sion which  proved  so  fatal  to  his  master's  family) 
had  been  set  free  (Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  5,  §  5).  The 
opportunities  thus  afforded  him  he  had  so  far  im- 
proved, that  when  first  encountered  in  the  history 
he  is  head  of  an  establishment  of  fifteen  sons  and 
twenty  slaves.  David's  reception  of  Mephibosheth 
had  the  effect  of  throwing  Ziba  with  his  whole 
establishment  back  into  the  state  of  bondage  from 
which  be  had  so  long  been  free.  It  reduced  him 
from  being  an  independent  landholder  to  the  posi- 
tion of  a  mere  dependent.  The  knowledge  of  this 
fact  gives  the  key  to  the  whole  of  his  conduct 
towards  David  and  towards  iMephiiwsheth.  Be- 
yond this  the  writer  has  nothing  to  add  to  his 
remarks  on   Ziba  under  the    head  of    Mei'HII'.o- 

SHETH.  G. 

*  The  adverse  judgment  here  expressed,  though 
it  may  rest  on  a  prol  ability,  strikes  us  as  more 
decisive  than  the  record  warrants.  InZiba's  "  con- 
duct towards  David"  we  fail  to  discover  evidence 
of  anything  l)Ut  kindness  in  feeling  and  act.  If  an 
explanation  of  his  course  is  necessary,  we  do  not 
find  "  the  key  "  to  his  supposed  treachery  in  any 
derogatory  service  to  which  the  king  had  sub- 
jected him.  His  relation  to  the  survivor  of  the 
royal  family  that  he  had  served,  in  which  he  re- 
tained his  own  servants,  was  a  token  of  David's 
confidence  in  him;  and  we  think  that  an  Oriental 
of  his  standing,  at  that  day  or  this,  would  regard 
it  in  the  light  of  a  responsible,  honorable,  remuner- 
ative trust.     [MEPninosHETH,  Amer.  ed.] 

S.  W. 

ZIB'EON  Cl'll^T^  [''ye'T\:  S.^fieydiV.  Stb- 
eon).  Father  of  Anah,  whose  daughter  Aholilia- 
niah  was  Ksau's  wife  (Gen.  xxxvi.  2).  Altliough 
called  a  Hivite,  he  is  probably  the  same  as  Zibeoii 
tlie  son  of  Seir  the  Horite  (vv.  20,  24,  2i) ;  1  Chr. 
i.  38,  40),  the  latter  signifying  "cave-dweller,"  and 
the  former  being  the  name  of  his  tribe,  for  we  know 
nothing  of  the  race  of  the  Troglodytes;  or  more 

probably  ''^Hn  (the  Hivite),  is  a  mistranscriptiuu 
for    "'■pnn    (the  Horite). 

Another  difficulty  connected  with  this  Zibeon  is, 
that  Anah  in  ver.  2  is  called  his  daughter,  and  in 
ver.  24  his  son ;  but  this  difficulty  appears  to  be 

easily  explained  by  supposing  that  Pi2,  refers  to 
Aholibamah,  and  not  to  tlie  name  next  preceding 
it:  the  Samaritan,  it  should  be  observed,  has  ]D, 


«  'i  Sam.  xir.  1. 


6  2  Sam.  xvi.  4. 


ZIBIA 

An  allusion  is  made  to  some  utirecorded  fact  in  the 
history  of  the  Ilorites  in  the  passaije,  "  this  [was 
that]  Auah  that  found  the  mules  in  the  wilderness, 
as  he  fed  the  asses  of  Zibeon  his  father  "  (Gen. 
xsKvi.  24).     The  word  rendered  "  mules  "  in  the 

A.  V.  is  the  Heb.  D^^."],  perhaps  the  Emiuis  or 
giants,  as  in  the  readins^  of  the  Sam.  D'^P'^SH,  and 
60  also  Onkelos  and  Pseudojun.ithan.  Gesenius  pre- 
fers "  hot- springs,"  following  the  VuIij;.  renderinfj. 
Zibeon  was  also  one  of  the  dukes,  or  phylarchs,  of 
the  lloiites  (ver.  20).  For  the  identification  with 
Beeri,  fiither  of  Judith  the  Hittite  (Gen.  xxvi.  34), 
■ee  Beeri,  and  see  also  Ak-Ih.  E.  S.  P. 

ZIB'IA  (W!;??  ['■"<?]:  26^(a:  [Vat.  le^fa:] 
Sebia).  A  Benjamite,  apparently,  as  the  text  now 
stands,  the  son  of  Shaharaim  by  his  wife  Hodesh 
(1  Chr.  viii.  9). 

ZIB'IAH  (n;5^  [roe]  :  2a0i,i  ,  [Vat.] 
Ales.  A/810:  Sebid).  A  native  of  Beer-sheba, 
and  mother  of  king  Joash  (2  K.  xii.  1;  2  Chr. 
xxiv.  1). 

ZICH'RI  ("''^?t  [^reinembered,  J'amoiis]: 
Zexpei':  Zechri).  1.  Son  of  Izhar  the  son  of 
Kohath  (Ex.  vi.  21).  His  name  is  incorrectly 
given  in  modern  editions  of  the  A.  V.  "  Zithri," 
though  it  is  printed  Zichki  in  the  ed.  of  1611. 

2.  (Zaxpi  [Vat.  -pei];  Alex.  Zexpi-)  A  Ben- 
jamite of  the  sons  of  Shinihi  (1  Chr.  viii.  19). 

3.  (Zex-pi  [Vat.  -peij;  Alex.  Zoxpt-)  A  Ben- 
jamite of  the  sons  of  Shashak  (1  Chr.  viii.  2-3). 

4.  (ZexP'!  [Vat.  Zaxpe'-]  '  A  Benjamite  of  the 
sons  of  Jeroham  (1  Chr.  viii.  27). 

5.  [ZexP'i  Vat.  Zaxpfi.]  Son  of  Asaph,  else- 
where called  Zabdi  and  Zaccuk  (1  Chr.  ix.  15). 

6.  [ZexP''  ^'^^-  Zexpe'-]  -^  descendant  of 
E^ezer  the  son  of  Moses  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  25). 

7.  The  father  of  Eliezer,  the  chief  of  the  Reu- 
benites  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  16). 

8.  iZapi;  [Vat.  Zapei;]  Alex.  Zaxpi.)  Of  the 
tribe  of  Judah.  His  son  Amasiah  commanded 
200,000  men  in  Jehoshaphat's  array  (2  Chr.  xvii. 
16). 

9.  iZaxaptas  !  [Corap.  ZexP'-])  Father  of 
Elishaphat,  one  of  the  conspirators  with  Jehoiada 
(2  Chr.  x.xiii.  1). 

10.  (ZfxP'';  [^at  EC€Xpe':]  Ale.x".  ECexP'.) 
An  Ephraimite  hero  in  the  invading  army  of  Pekah 
the  son  of  Kemaliah  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  7),  In  the 
battle  which  was  so  disastrous  to  tlie  kingdom  of 
Judah,  ilaaseiah  the  king's  son,  Azrikara,  the 
prefect  of  tlie  palace,  and  l^lkanah,  who  was  next 
to  the  khig,  fell  by  the  hand  of  Zichri, 

11.  (Z6XP'=  [^^a,t.  FA.  Zexpei.])  Father  or 
ancestor  of  .Ioel  14  (Neh.  xi.  'JJ.  He  was  prob- 
»bly  a  Benjamite. 

i2.  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit.]  A  priest  of  the 
family  of  Abijah,  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  the  son 
of  Jeshua  (Neh.  xii,  17).  W.  A.  W. 

ZID'DIM    (Q'^^-!5n,    with    the   def.    article 

[  lecUmiies,  Dietr.]:  Ta>v  Tvp'iaiv:  Assediin).  One 
(rf  the  fortified  towns  of  the  allotment  of  Naphtali, 
according  to  the  present  condition  of  the  Hel)rew 
t«xt  (Josh.  xix.  .35).  The  translators  of  the  Vat. 
LXX.  appear  to  have  read  the  word  in  the  original, 

□^"1'2n,    "  the    Tyriang,"    while    those   of    the 

Peshito-Syriac,    on    the  other   hand,    read    it   as 

]n!?,  Zidoa.     These  readings  were  probably  both 

228 


ziDON  3625 

influer.ced  by  the  belief  that  the  name  next  fol- 
lowing that  in  question,  namely,  Zek,  was  that  of 
Tyre.  But  this  is  more  than  doubtful,  and  indeed 
Tyre  and  Zidon  were  included  in  the  allotment, 
not  of  Napbtali,  but  of  Asher  (xix.  28,  29).  The 
Jerusalem  Talnnid  {MeyiWih,  i.)  is  probably  nearer 
the  mark  in  identifying  hat-Tsiddim  with  Kvfr 
Chittai,  which  Scliwarz  (p.  182)  with  much  prob- 
ability takes  to  lie  the  present  Hatt'in,  at  the  north- 
ern foot  of  the  well-known  Kurn  Hatliii,  or  "  Horns 
of  Hattin,"  a  few  miles  west  of  Tiberias.  Thid 
identification  fiiUs  in  with  the  fiict  that  the  threa 
next  names  in  the  list  are  all  known  to  have  b(v/i 
connected  with  the  lake.  G 

ZIDKI'JAH  (n*|:"T^  [justice  of  Jehovah]: 
'S.^BfKias'-  Sedeciiis).  A  priest,  or  family  of  priests, 
who  signed  the  covenant  with  Xehemiah  (Neh.  x. 
1).  The  name  is  identical  with  that  elsewhere  in 
the  A.  V.  rendered  Zedeki.\h. 

ZFDON  or  SI'DON  O'lTS  and  I'T'^  : 
SiScic;  [Vat.  generally  SeiStoj/;  Judg.  xviii.  28, 
2i5aJfioi,  \at.  2et5a)vioi;  Ezr.  iii.  7,  oi  SiScowoi, 
Vat.  SrjSayuei!/;  1  K.  x\ii.  9,  r)  SiSdvia,  Vat.  2ei- 
Sojvm;  Is.  xxiii.  2,  ^olvikti;  Is.  xxiii.  12,  Alex. 
Stcoj/;]  Suioii).  Gen.  x.  15,  19;  Josh.  xi.  8,  xix. 
28;  Judg.  i.  31,  xviii.  28;  Joel  iii.  4  (iv.  4);  Is;, 
xxiii.  2,  4,  12;  Jer.  xxv.  22,  x.xvii.  3;  Ez.  xxviii. 
21,  22;  Zech.  ix.  2;  Matt.  xi.  21,  22,  .xv.  21;  Luke 
vi.  17,  x.  1.3,  14;  Mark  iii.  8,  vii.  24,  31.  An  an- 
cient and  wealthy  city  of  Phoenicia,  on  the  eastern 
coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  in  latitude  33° 
34'  05"  N.,  less  than  twenty  Enghsh  miles  to  the 
north  of  Tyre.  Its  Hebrew  name,  Tsidon,  signi- 
fies "  Fishing,"  or  "  Fishery"  (see  Gesenius,  s.  v.). 
Its  modern  name  is  Suii/n.  It  is  situated  in  the 
narrow  plain  between  the  Lebanon  and  tlie  sea, 
to  which  it  once  gave  its  own  name  (.loseph.  Ant. 
'•'■  3,  §  1,  rh  fifya  ntSiov  ^iSuvos  irSXeois)  at  a 
point  where  the  mountains  recede  to  a  distance  of 
two  miles  (Kenrick"s  PJioenicia,  p.  19).  Adjoin- 
ing the  city  there  are  luxuriant  gardens  and  or- 
chards, in  which  there  is  a  profusion  of  the  finest 
fruit  trees  suited  to  the  climate.  <'  The  plain  is 
flat  and  low,"  says  Mr.  Porter,  author  of  the 
Handbook  for  Syria  and  Paltstine,  "  but  near 
the  coast  line  rises  a  little  hill,  a  spur  from  which 
shoots  out  a  few  hundred  yard*  into  the  sea  in  a 
southwestern  direction.  On  the  northern  slope 
of  the  promontory  thus  formed  stands  the  old 
city  of  Zidon.  The  hill  behind  on  the  south  is 
covered  by  the  citadel"  {Enc.  Britannica,  8th 
edition,  s.  v.). 

From  a  Biblical  point  of  view,  this  city  is  infe- 
rior in  interest  to  its  neighbor  Tyre,  with  which 
its  name  is  so  often  associated.  Indeed,  in  all  the 
passages  above  referred  to  in  which  the  two  cities 
are  mentioned  together,  Tyre  is  named  first  —  a 
circumstance  which  might  at  once  be  ddemed  acci' 
dental,  or  the  mere  result  of  Tyre's  being  the 
nearest  of  the  two  cities  to  Palestine,  were  it  not 
that  some  doubt  on  this  point  is  raised  by  the 
order  being  reversed  in  two  works  which  were 
written  at  a  period  after  Zidon  had  enjoyed  a  long 
temporary  superiority  (Ezr.  iii.  7;  1  Chr.  xxii,  4). 
However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that,  of  the  two, 

Tyre  is  of  the  greater  importance  in  referenoe  to 
the  writings  of  the  most  celebrated  Hebrew  proph- 
ets; and  the  sjilendid  prophecies  directed  against 

Tyre,  as  a  single  colossal  power  (Ez.  xxvi.,  xxiii., 
x.\viii.  1-19;  Is.  xxiii.),  have  no  parallel  iu  the 


6&2Q 


ZIDON 


ihorter  and  vaguer  utterances  acjainst  Zidon  (Ez. 
Mviii.  21-23).  And  the  predominant  Biblical  in- 
terest of  Tyi-e  arises  from  the  prophecies  relating 
to  its  destiny. 

If  we  could  believe  Justin  (xviii.  .3),  there  would 
be  uo  doubt  that  Zidon  was  of  greater  antiquity 
than  Tyre,  as  he  says  that  the  iidial.iitants  of  j 
Zidon,  when  their  city  had  been  reduced  by  the 
king  of  Ascalon,  founded  Tyre  the  year  before  the  | 


ZIDON 

capture  of  Troy.  Justin,  however,  is  such  a  weak 
authority  for  any  disputed  historical  fact,  and  hi,« 
account  of  the  early  history  of  the  Jews,  wherein 
we  have  some  means  of  testing  his  accuracy,  seema 
to  be  so  much  in  the  nature  of  a  romance  (xxxvi. 
2)  that,  without  laying  stress  on  the  unreasonable- 
ness of  any  one's  assuming  to  know  the  precise 
time  when  Troy  was  taken,  he  cannot  be  accepted 
as  an  authority  for  the  early  history  of  the  Phoe- 


Modern  Saida  —  Zidon  or  Sidon  (Kitto). 

nicians.  In  contradiction  of  this  statement,  it  has  I  to  such  an  almost  accidental  founding  of  a  city, 
been  further  insisted  on,  that  the  relation  lietween  I  as  is  implied  in  the  account  of  Justin,  (^ertainly' 
a  colony  and  the  motlier-city  among  the  Thceni-  |  there  is  otherwise  nothing  improbable  in  Zidon ianij 
cians  was  sacred,  and  tliat  as  the  Tyrians  never  i  having  founded  Tyre,  as  the  Tyrians  are  called 
acknowledged  this  relation  towards  Zidon,  the  sup-  •  Zidonians.  but  the'Zidonians  are  never  called  Tyr- 
posed  connection  between  Tyre  and  Zidon  is  morally  ians.  And  at  any  rate  this  circumstance  tends 
nnpossible.  This  is  a  very  strong  point;  but,  per-  I  to  show  that  in  early  times  Zidon  was  the  most 
haps,  not  absolutely  conclusive,  as  no  one  can  prove  ;  influential  of  the  two  cities.  This  is  shadowed 
that  this  was  the  custom  of  the  Phoenicians  at  the  i  forth  in  the  book  of  Genesis  by  the  statement  that 
very  distant  period  when  alone  the  Zidonians  would  Zidon  was  the  first-born  of  Canaan  ((ien.  x.  15), 
have  built  Tyre,  if  they  founded  it  at  all;  or  that  and  is  implied  in  the  name  of  "Great  Zidon,"  or 
it  would  have  applied  not  only  to  the  conscious  "  the  Metro|iolis  Zidon,"  which  is  twice  given  to  it 
md  deliberate  foundinj;  of  a  colony,  but  likewise   in  Joshua  (xi.  8.  xis-  28).     It  is  confirmed.  Uk»- 


ZIDON 

wise,  by  Sidonians  being  used  as  the  generic  name 
of  the  Phceuicians  or  Canaanites  (Josh.  xiii.  0 ; 
Judg.  xviir.  7 ) ;  and  by  the  reason  assigned  for 
there  being  no  dehverer  to  Laish  when  its  peace- 
able inhaliitants  were  massacred,  that  "  it  was  fur 
from  Zkkiii ;  "  whereas,  if  Tyre  had  been  of  equal 
importance,  it  would  have  been  more  natural  to 
mention  Tyre,  which  professed  substantially  the 
same  religion,  and  was  almost  twenty  miles  nearer 
(Judg.  xviii.  28).  It  is  in  accordance  with  the 
inference  to  be  drawn  from  these  circumstances 
that  in  tiie  Homeric  poems  lyre  is  not  named, 
while  there  is  mention  both  of  Sidon  and  the 
Sidonians  ((?•/.  xv.  -125;  11.  xxiii.  74-3);  and  the 
land  of  the  Sidonians  is  called  *' Sidonia "  {Od. 
tiii.  285).  One  point,  however,  in  the  Homeric 
poems  deserves  to  be  specially  noted  concerning 
the  Sidonians,  that  they  are  never  here  mentioned 
as  traders,  or  praised  for  their  nautical  sliill,  for 
which  they  were  afterwards  so  celebrated  (Herod, 
vii.  4-1,  9G).  The  traders  are  invariably  known  by 
the  general  name  of  Phoenicians,  which  would, 
indeed,  include  the  Sidonians;  but  still  the  special 
praise  of  Sidonians  was  as  si<illed  workmen.  When 
Achilles  distributed  prizes  at  the  games  in  honor 
of  I'atroclus,  be  gave  as  the  prize  of  the  swiftest 
runner,  a  large  silver  bowl  for  mixing  wine  with 
water,  which  had  been  cunningly  made  by  the  skill- 
ful Sidonians,  but  which  Phoenicians  had  brought 
over  the  sea  {11.  xxiii.  743,  744).  And  when 
Menelaus  wished  to  give  to  Telemachus  what  was 
most  beautiful  and  most  valuable,  he  presented 
him  witli  a  similar  mixing-bowl  of  silver,  with 
golden  rim,  a  divine  work,  the  work  of  Hepha;stus, 
which  had  been  a  gift  to  iMenelaus  himself  from 
Phsedimus,  king  of  tlie  Sidonians  (Od.  iv.  614-1)18, 
and  Od.  XV.  /.  c).  And  again,  all  the  beautifully 
embroidered  robes  of  Andromache,  from  which  she 
selected  one  as  an  ofi'ering  to  Athene,  were  the  pro- 
ductions of  Sidonian  women,  which  Paris,  when 
soniing  to  Troy  with  Helen,  had  brought  from 
Sidonia  (//.  vi.  289-21)5).  But  in  no  case  is  any- 
thing mentioned  as  having  been  brought  from 
Sidon  in  Sidonian  vessels  or  by  Sidonian  sailors. 
Perhaps  at  this  time  the  Phoenician  vessels  were 
principally  fitted  out  at  sea-ports  of  Phoenicia  to 
the  north  of  Sidon. 

From  the  time  of  Solomon  to  the  invasion  of 
Neliuchadnezzar  Zidon  is  not  often  dfrectly  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible,  and  it  appears  to  have  been 
subordinate  to  Tyre.  W'hen  the  people  called 
"Zidonians"  is  mentioned,  it  sometimes  seems 
that  the  Phoenicians  of  the  plain  of  Zidon  are 
meant,  as,  for  example,  when  Solomon  said  to 
Hiram  that  there  was  none  among  the  Jews  that 
could  skill  to  hew  timber  like  the  Zidonians  (1  K. 
r.  6);  and  possibly,  when  Ethbaal,  the  father  of 
Jezebel,  is  called  their  king  (1  K.  xvi.  31),  who, 
According  to  ilenander  in  Josejihus  {Ant.  viii.  13, 
§  2),  was  king  of  the  Tyrians.  This  may  likewise 
be  the  meaning  when  Ashtoreth  is  called  the  God- 
dess, or  Abomination,  of  the  Zidonians  (1  K.  xi. 
5,  33;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  or  when  women  of  the 
Zidonians  are  mentioned  in  reference  to  Solomon 
(1  K..  xi.  1).  And  this  seems  to  be  equally  true 
)f  the  phrases,  "daughter  of  Zidon,"  and  "mer- 
chants of  Zidon,'"  and  even  once  of  "  Zidon  "  it- 
self (Is.  xxiii.  2,  4,  12)  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah 
♦gainst  Tyre.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that 
Zidon  itself,  the  city  properly  so  called,  was  threat- 
ened ijy  Joel  (iii.  4)  and  Jeremiah  (xxvii.  3). 
Still,  all  that  is  known  respecting  it  during  this 


ZIDON 


3627 


epoch  is  very  scanty,  amounting  to  scarcely  more 
than  that  one  of  its  sources  of  gain  was  trade  in 
slaves,  in  which  the  inhabitants  did  not  shrink 
from  selling  inhabitants  of  Palestine  [fHCENi- 
CiANS,  iii.  2518  6]  ;  that  the  city  was  governed  by 
kings  (Jer.  xxvii.  3  and  xxv.  22);  that,  previous 
to  the  invasion  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  had  fur- 
nished mariners  to  Tyre  (Ez.  xxvii.  8);  that,  at  one 
period,  it  was  subject,  in  some  sense  or  other,  to 
Tyre;  and  that,  when  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria 
invaded  Phoenicia,  Zidon  seized  the  opportunity  to 
revolt.  It  seems  strange  to  hear  of  the  subjection 
of  one  great  city  to  another  great  city  only  twenty 
miles  oft",  inhabited  by  men  of  the  same  race,  lan- 
guage, and  religion ;  but  tlie  fact  is  rendered  con- 
ceivable by  tlie  relation  of  Athens  to  its  allies  after 
the  Persian  war,  and  by  the  history  of  the  Italian 
republics  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  not  improb- 
ble  that  its  rivalry  with  Tyre  may  have  been  in- 
fluential in  inducing  Zidon,  more  than  a  century 
later,  to  sulmiit  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  apparently 
without  offering  any  serious  resistance. 

During  the  Persian  domination,  Zidon  seems  to 
have  attained  its  highest  point  of  prosperity ;  and 
it  is  recorded  that,  towards  the  close  of  that  period, 
it  far  excelled  all  other  Phoenician  cities  in  wealth 
and  importance  (Diod.  xvi.  44;  Mela,  i.  12).  It 
is  very  probable  that  the  long  siege  of  Tyre  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  tended  not  only  to  weaken 
and  impoverish  Tyre,  but  likewise  to  enrich  Zidon 
at  the  expense  of  Tyre ;  as  it  was  an  obvious  ex- 
pedient for  any  Tyrian  merchants,  artisans,  and 
sailors,  who  deemed  resistance  useless  or  unwise,  to 
transfer  their  residence  to  Zidon.  However  this 
may  be,  in  the  expedition  of  Xerxes  against  Greece, 
the  Sidonians  were  highly  favored,  and  were  a 
preeminently  important  element  of  his  naval  power. 
When,  from  a  hill  near  Abydos,  Xerxes  witnessed 
a  boat  race  in  his  Heet,  the  prize  was  gained  by 
the  Sidonians  (Herod,  vii.  44).  When  he  reviewed 
his  fleet,  he  sat  beneath  a  golden  canopy  in  a 
Sidonian  galley  (vii.  100);  when  he  wislied  to 
examine  the  mouths  of  the  river  Peneus,  he  in- 
trusted himself  to  a  Sidonian  galley,  as  was  his 
wont  on  similar  occasions  (vii.  128);  and  when 
the  tyrants  and  general  officers  of  his  great  expedi- 
tion sat  ill  order  of  honor,  the  king  of  the  Sidonians 
sat  first  (viii.  07).  Again,  Herodotus  states  that 
the  Phoenicians  supplied  the  best  vessels  of  the 
whole  fleet;  and  of  the  Phoenicians,  the  Sidonians 
(vii.  96).  And  lastly,  as  Homer  gives  a  vivid  idea 
of  the  beauty  of  Achilles  by  saying  that  Nireus 
(thrice-named)  was  the  most  beautiful  of  all  the 
Greeks  who  went  to  Troy,  af/er  the  son  of  Peleiis, 
so  Herodotus  completes  the  triumph  of  the  Sido- 
nians, when  he  praises  the  vessels  of  Artemisia 
(probably  for  the  daring  of  their  crews),  by  saying 
tiiat  they  were  the  most  renowned  of  the  whole 
fleet,  '■'■  (ifier  the  Sldoiiians  "  (vi.  9). 

The  prosperity  of  Sidon  was  suddenly  cut  short 
by  an  unsuccessful  revolt  against  Persia,  which  lei 
to  one  of  the  most  disastrous  catastrophes  recorded 
in  history.  Unlike  the  siege  and  capture  of  Tyre 
by  Alexander  the  Great,  which  is  narrated  liy  sev- 
eral writers,  and  which  is  of  commanding  interest 
through  its  relation  to  such  a  renowneti  con([ueror, 
the  fate  of  Sidon  is  only  known  through  the  his- 
tory of  Diodorus  (xvi.  42-45),  and  is  mainly  con- 
nected with  .A.rtaxerxes  Ochus  (b.  c.  359-338),  a 
monarch  who  is  justly  regarded  with  mini;led  aver- 
sion and  contempt.  Hence  the  calamitous  over- 
throw of  Sidon  has  not,  perhaps,  attracted  so  much 


3628 


ZIDON 


attention  as  it  deserves.  The  principal  circum- 
Btauces  were  these.  While  the  Persians  were  mak- 
ing preparations  in  Phoenicia  to  put  down  the  revolt 
in  Kirypt,  some  Persian  satraps  and  generals  be- 
haved oppressively  and  insolently  to  Sidoniaiis  in 
the  Sidonian  division  of  the  city  of  Tripolis." 
On  this,  the  Sidonian  people  projected  a  revolt; 
and  having  first  concerted  arrangements  with  other 
Phoenician  cities,  and  made  a  treaty  with  Nectane- 
bus,  they  put  their  designs  into  execution.  They 
commenced  by  committing  outrages  in  a  residence 
and  park  (irapaSeio-os)  of  the  Persian  king;  they 
burnt  a  large  store  of  fodder  which  had  lieen  col- 
lected for  the  Persian  cavalry;  and  they  seized  and 
put  to  death  the  Persians  who  had  been  guilty  of 
insults  towards  the  Sidonians.  Afterwards,  under 
their  King  Tennes,  with  the  assistance  from  Egypt 
of  4,000  Greek  mercenaries  under  Mentor,  they 
expelled  the  Persian  satraps  from  Plicenicia;  they 
strengthened  the  defenses  of  their  city,  they 
equipped  a  fleet  of  100  triremes,  and  prepared  for 
a  desperate  resistance.  But  their  King  Tennes 
proved  a  traitor  to  their  cause  —  and  in  perform- 
ance of  a  compact  with  Ochus,  he  betrayed  into 
the  king's  power  one  hundred  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguisiied  citizens  of  Sidon,  who  were  all  shot  to 
death  with  javelins.  Five  hundred  other  citizens, 
who  went  out  to  the  king  with  ensigns  of  supi)lica- 
tion,  shared  the  same  fate;  and  by  concert  between 
Tennes  and  itlentor,  the  Persian  troops  were  ad- 
mitted within  the  gates,  and  occupied  the  city 
walls.  The  Sidonians,  before  the  arrival  of  Ochus, 
had  burnt  their  vessels  to  prevent  any  one's  leav- 
ing the  town;  and  when  they  saw  themselves  sur- 
rounded by  the  Persian  troops,  they  adopted  the 
desperate  resolution  of  shutting  themselves  up  with 
their  families,  and  setting  fire  each  man  to  his 
own  house  (b.  c.  351).  Forty  thousand  persons 
are  said  to  have  perished  in  the  flames.  Tennes 
himself  did  not  save  his  own  life,  as  Ochus,  not- 
withstanding his  promise  to  the  contrary,  put  him 
to  death.  The  privilege  of  searching  the  ruins 
was  sold  for  money. 

After  this  dismal  tragedy,  Sidon  gradually  re- 
covered from  the  blow;  fresh  immigrants  from 
other  cities  must  have  settled  in  it ;  and  probably 
many  Sidonian  sailors  survived,  who  had  been  ply- 
ing their  trade  elsewhere  in  merchant  vessels  at  the 
time  of  the  capture,  of  the  city.  The  battle  of  Is- 
Bus  was  fought  about  eighteen  years  afterwards  (b. 
C.  333),  and  then  the  inhabitants  of  the  restored 
city  opened  their  gates  to  Alexander  of  their  own 
accord,  from  hatred,  as  is  expressly  stated,  of  Da- 
rius and  the  Persians  (Arrian,  Anab.  Al.  ii.  15). 
The  impolicy,  as  weU  as  the  cruelty  of  Ochus  in 
bis  mode  of  dealing  with  the  revolt  of  Sidon  now 
became  apparent;  for  the  Sidonian  fleet  in  joining 
Alexander  was  an  essential  element  of  his  success 
against  Tyre.  After  aiding  to  bring  upon  Tyre  as 
great  a  calamity  as  had  afflicted  their  own  city, 


a  In  an  excellent  account  of  this  revolt,  Bp.  Thirl- 
wall  seems  to  have  regarded  Diodorus  as  meaning 
Sidon  itself  by  the  words  ev  t^  XiSuiviuiv,  xvi.  41  {His- 
tory of  Crrecce,  vi.  179) ;  and  Miot,  in  his  French  trans- 
lation of  Diodorus  (Bibliolhcyue  Historique  de  DioiJort 
lie  Sicile,  Paris.  1837,  torn.  v.  73),  actually  translates 
Jhe  words  by  "  Sidon."  The  real  meaning,  however, 
seems  to  be  as  stated  in  the  text.  Indeed,  otherwise 
there  was  no  sulficieiit  reason  for  mentioning  Tripolis 
vg  specially  connected  with  the  causes  of  the  war. 

t  Pliny  elsewhere  {Hist.  Nal.  xxxvi.  65  [26])  gives 


ZIDON 

they  were  so  far  merciful  that  they  saved  the  live* 
of  many  Tyrians  by  concealing  them  in  their  ships, 
and  then  transporting  them  to  Sidon  (Q.  C'urtius, 
iv.  4,  15).  From  this  time  Sidon,  being  dependent 
on  the  fortunes  of  war  in  the  contests  between  the 
successors  of  Alexander,  ceases  to  play  any  impor- 
tant political  part  in  history.  It  became,  however, 
again  a  flourishing  town  —  and  Polybius  (v.  70) 
incidentally  mentions  that  Antiochus  in  his  war 
with  Ptolemy  Philopator  encamped  over  against 
Sidon  (b.  c.  218),  but  did  not  venture  to  attack  it 
from  the  abundance  of  its  resources,  and  the  great 
immber  of  its  inhabitants,  either  natives  oi  refu- 
gees. Subsequently,  according  to  Josephus  (Ant 
xiv.  10,  §  2),  Juhus  Csesar  wiote  a  letter  respecting 
Hyrcanus,  which  he  addressed  to  the  "  M'jcjig- 
tra/es,  Council,  and  Demos  of  Sidon."  This  s'lows 
that  up  to  that  time  the  Sidonians  enjoyed  the 
forms  of  liberty,  though  Dion  Cassius  says  (,'jciv 
7)  that  Augustus,  on  his  arrival  in  the  F2ast,  da 
prived  them  of  it  for  seditious  conduct.  Not  long 
after,  Stralio,  in  his  account  of  Phosnicia,  says  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  "  Both  were  illustrious  and  splen- 
did formerly,  ond  now ;  but  which  should  be  called 
the  capital  of  Phoenicia,  is  a  matter  of  dispute  be- 
tween the  inhabitants  "  (xvi.  p  756).  He  adds  that 
it  is  situated  on  the  main-land,  on  a  fine  naturally- 
formed  harbor.  He  speaks  of  the  inhabitants  ai 
cultivating  the  sdiences  of  arithmetic  and  astron- 
omy; and  says  that  the  best  opportunities  were  af- 
forded in  Sidon  for  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  theso 
and  of  all  other  branches  of  philosophy.  He  adds, 
that  in  his  time  there  were  distinguished  philoso- 
phers, natives  of  Sidon,  as  Boethus,  with  whom  In 
studied  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  and  liis  l)rother 
Diodotus.  It  is  to  be  otjserved  that  both  these 
names  were  Greek;  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  that 
in  Strabo's  time,  Greek  was  the  language  of  the 
educated  classes  at  least,  both  in  Tyre  and  Sidofi. 
This  is  nearly  all  that  is  known  of  the  state  of  Si- 
don when  it  was  visited  by  Christ.  It  is  about 
fifty  uiiles  distant  from  Nazareth,  and  is  the  most 
northern  city  which  is  mentioned  in  connection 
with  his  journeys.  Pliny  notes  the  manufacture  of 
glass  at  Sidon  {//ist.  Nat.  v.  17,  19);''  and  during 
the  Eoman  period  we  may  conceive  T3  re  and  Si- 
don as  two  thriving  cities,  each  having  an  exten- 
sive trade,  and  each  having  its  staple  manufiicture; 
the  latter  of*  glass,  and  Tyre  of  purple  dyes  from 
shell-fish. 

There  is  no  Biblical  reason  for  following  mi- 
nutely the  rest  of  the  history  of  Sidon.  It  shared 
generally  the  fortunes  of  Tyre,  with  the  exception 
that  it  was  several  times  taken  and  retaken  during 
the  wars  of  the  Crusades,  and  suffered  accordingly 
more  than  Tyre  previous  to  the  fetal  year  1291  A 
D.  Since  that  time  it  never  seems  to  have  fallei 
quite  so  low  as  Tyre.  Through  Fakhr  ed-Din, 
emir  of  the  Druses  between  1594  and  1634,  and 
the  settlement   at    Sayda  of  F'rench    commercial 


an  account  of  the  supposed  accidental  invention  ol 
glass  in  Phoenicia.  The  story  is  that  some  merchants 
on  the  sea-shore  made  use  of  some  lumps  of  natron  to 
support  their  cauldrons  ;  and  that,  when  the  natron 
was  subjected  to  the  action  of  fire  in  conjunction  v>ith 
the  sea  sand,  a  translucent  vitreous  stream  was  seen 
to  flow  along  the  ground.  This  story,  however,  ia 
now  discredited  ;  as  it  requires  intense  furnace  heat 
to  produce  the  fusion.  See  article  "  Crlass  "  in  th« 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  8th  editioa. 


ZIDOM 

houses,  it  bad  a  revival  of  trade  in  the  17th  and 
part  of  the  18th  century,  and  became  tlie  principal 
city  on  the  Syrian  coast  for  commerce  between  the 
east  and  the  vrest  (see  Memoires  dm  ChcVidier 
d'Aivieux,  Paris,  1735,  torn.  i.  p.  294-379).  This 
was  put  an  end  to  at  the  close  of  last  century  by 
violence  and  oppression  (Hitter's  Erdkunde.  sieb- 
Eehnter  Theil.  erste  Alitheilung,  drittes  Buch,  pp. 
405,  40G),  closing  a  period  of  prosperity  in  which 
the  population  of  the  city  was  at  one  time  esti- 
mated at  20,000  inhabitants.  .  The  population,  if 
it  ever  appvo.ached  such  a  high  point,  has  since 
materially  decreased,  and  apparently  does  not  now 
exceed  5,000;  but  the  town  still  shows  signs  of 
former  wealth,  and  the  houses  are  better  con- 
structed and  more  solid  than  those  at  Tyre,  being 
many  of  then)  built  of  stone.  Its  chief  exports  are 
silk,  cotton,  and  nutgalls  (liobinson's  BibUcid  Re- 
searches, iii.  418,  419).  As  a  protection  against 
the  Turks,  its  ancient  harbor  was  filled  up  with 
stones  and  earth  by  the  orders  of  Fakhr  ed-Diii,  so 
that  only  small  boats  can  now  enter  it;  and  larger 
vessels  anchor  to  the  northward,  where  they  are 
only  protected  from  the  south  and  east  winds 
(Porter's  Hnndboukfor  Syria  awl  P< destine,  1858, 
p.  398).  The  trade  between  .Syria  and  Euroi^e 
now  mainly  passes  through  Beyrout,  as  its  most 
important  commercial  centre ;  and  the  natural  ad- 
vantages of  Beyrout  in  this  respect,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  modern  navigation,  are  so  decided  that  it 
is  certain  to  maintain  its  present  superiority  over 
Sidon  and  Tyre. 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  observed,  that  while  in 
our  own  times  no  important  remains  of  antiquity 
have  been  discovered  at  or  near  T3're,  the  case  is 
different  with  Sidon.  At  the  base  of  the  moun- 
tains to  the  east  of  the  town  there  are  numerous 
sepulchres  in  the  rock,  and  there  are  likewise  se- 
pulchral caves  in  the  adjoining  plain  (see  Porter, 
Encyclop.  Britann.  1.  c).  "  In  January,  1855," 
says  IMr.  Porter,  "  one  of  the  sepulchral  caves  was 
accidentally  opened  at  a  spot  about  a  mile  S.  E.  of 
the  city,  and  in  it  was  discovered  one  of  the  most 
beautiftd  and  interesting  Phoenician  monuments  in 
existence.  It  is  a  sarcophagus  ....  the  lid  of 
which  was  hewn  in  the  form  of  a  mummy  with  the 
face  bare.  Upon  the  upper  part  of  the  lid  is  a  i»r- 
fect  Phcenician  inscription  in  twenty-two  lines,  and 
on  the  head  of  the  sarcophagus  itself  is  another  al- 
most as  long."  This  sarcophagus  is  now  in  the 
Nineveh  division  of  the  .Sculptures  in  tlie  Louvre. 
At  first  sight,  the  material  of  which  it  is  composed 
may  be  easily  mistaken ;  and  it  has  been  supposed 
to  be  black  marlile.  On  the  authority,  however, 
of  iSl.  Suchard  of  Paris,  who  has  examined  it  very 
closely,  it  may  be  stated  tliat  the  sarcophagus  is  of 
black  syenite,  which,  as  far  as  is  known,  is  more 
abundant  in  Egypt  than  elsewhere.  It  may  be 
added  that  the  features  of  the  countenance  on  the 
lid  are  decidedly  of  the  Egyptian  type,  and  the 
head-dress  is  Egyptian,  with  the  head  of  a  bird 
sculptured  on  what  might  seem  the  place  of  the 
right  and  left  shoulder.  There  can  therefore  be 
little  reason  to  doubt  that  this  sarcophagus  was 
5ither  made  in  Egypt  and  sent  thence  to  Sidon,  or 
that  it  was  made  in  Phoenicia  in  imitation  of  simi- 
ar  works  of  art  in  Egypt.  The  inscriptions  them- 
lelves  are  the  longest  Phoenician  inscriptions  which 


ZIDONIANS 


3629 


o  •  'I'he  tninslation  of  this  epitaph  by  Mr.  Deutsch 
M  yhv  Hi..i,-.i  .\lu>fuui,  uu  tlie  basis  of  that  of  Muuk 


have  come  down  to  our  times.  A  translation  ol 
them  was  published  by  Professor  Dietrich  at  3Iar- 
burg  in  1855,  and  by  Professor  Ewald  at  Gottingen 
in  1856."  The  predoujinant  idea  of  them  seems  to 
be  to  warn  all  men,  under  penalty  of  the  monarch's 
curse,  against  opening  his  sarcophagus  or  disturbing 
his  rejwse  for  any  purpose  whatever,  especially  in 
order  to  search  for  treasures,  of  which  he  solenmly 
declares  there  are  none  in  his  tomb.  The  king's 
title  is  "  King  of  the  Sidonians  ";  and,  as  is  the 
case  with  Ethbaal,  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Kings 
(1  K.  xvi.  31),  there  must  remain  a  certain  doubt 
whether  this  was  a  title  ordinarih'  assumed  by 
kings  of  Sidon,  or  whether  it  had  a  wider  signifi- 
cation. 'W't  learn  from  the  inscription  that  the 
king's  mother  was  a  jjriestess  of  Ashtoreth.  With 
regard  to  the  precise  date  of  the  king's  reign,  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  conclusive  indication. 
Ewald  conjectures  that  he  reigned  not  long  before 
the  11th  century  b.  c.  E.  T. 


Coin  of  Zidon. 

*  Zidon  or  Sidon  has  points  of  cont.act  also 
with  the  N.  Testament.  The  Saviour  himself  in 
all  prob.ability  visited  that  city  (certainly  if  we  read 
5ia  SiSoJi/o?,  Mark  vii.  31,  according  to  the  best 
opinion),  and  at  all  events  passed  near  it  in  his  ex- 
cursion across  the  southern  spur  of  Lebanon  and 
back  thence  into  DecapoUs  (Matt.  xv.  21  ft'.;  Mark 
vii.  24  ff).  The  .Apostle  Paul  touched  at  this  port 
on  his  voyage  to  Home,  and  found  Christians  there 
v.'hom  the  courtesy  of  Julius  permitted  him  to  visit 
(.\cts  xxvii.  3).  Very  possibly  a  church  had  ex- 
isted there  from  the  time  of  the  dispersion  of  the 
disciples  from  Jerusalem  after  the  death  of  Stephen, 
some  of  whom  went  into  Phoenicia  (Acts  xi.  10). 

Among  the  antiquities  of  Zidon  may  be  men- 
tioned "  the  immense  stones  which  form  the  north- 
west angle  of  the  inner  harbor,  each  one  some  ten 
feet  square  ....  and  columns,  sarcophagi,  brolien 
statuary,  and  other  evidences  of  a  great  city  found 
everywhere  in  the  gardens,  with  the  oldest  trees 
growing  in  a  fertile  soil  many  feet  thick  above 
them  "  (Thomson,  fjind  and  Book,  i.  154  f. ). 
Greek  and  Roman  coins  are  not  uncommon,  having 
on  them  the  conmiercial  emblem  of  a  ship.  Zidon 
has  become  in  our  own  day  the  se.at  of  a  flourishing 
mission  from  this  country,  with  outposts  at  various 
points  in  that  part  of  Syria.  H. 

ZIDO'NIANS  O?'"!?,  Ez.  xxxii.  30,  D"'?!"'?. 

C'^pIT*!?,    n"^31>\    and    once    (1    K.    xi.    33) 

]'^31^ :  SiSaSrioi,  [Vat.  SeiScoj/ioi,]  exc.  Ez. 
xxxii.  30,  (TTfiaTTjyol  'Aireroup:  Sidoiiii,  exc.  Ez. 
xxxii.  30,  venalores).  The  inhabitants  of  Zidon. 
They  were  among  the  nations  of  Canaan  left  to 
practice  the  Israelites  in  the  art  of  war  (Judg.  iii.  3), 

and  Levy  (inserted  In  Kitto's  Bibl.  Ci/doprpdin,  iii 
11(51),  is  uo  doubt  as  trustwortliy  as  any  olUcr.     H. 


3630  ziF 

and  colonies  of  them  appear  tx)  have  spread  up  into 
the  hill  country  from  Lebanon  to  Misrephoth-maim 
(Josh.  xiii.  4,  G),  whence  in  later  times  they  hewed 
cedar-trees  for  Uavid  and  Solomon  (1  Chr.  xxii.  4). 
They  oppressed  the  Israelites  on  their  first  entrance 
into  the  country  (Judg.  x.  12),  and  appear  to  have 
lived  a  luxurious,  reckless  life  (Judg.  xviii.  7);  they 
were  skillful  in  hewing  timber  (1  K.  v.  6),  and  were 
employed  for  this  purpose  by  Solomon.  They  were 
idolaters,  and  worshipped  Ashtoreth  as  their  tute- 
lary goddess  (1  K.  xi.  5,  33;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  as 
well  as  the  sun-god  Baal,  from  whom  their  king  was 
named  (1  K.  xvi.  31).  The  term  Zidonians  among 
the  Hebrews  appears  to  have  been  extended  in 
meaning  as  that  of  Phoenicians  among  the  Greeks. 

In  Ez.  xxxii.  30,  the  Vulgate  read  D'^T^!i%   the 

LXX.    probably  "Itt^S    "'nk?,  for  ■^?r^^  >3'-f2. 

Zidonian  women  (ilT'Il'ljJ  :  'S.vpai'  Siduntce)  were 
in  Solomon's  harem  (1  K.  xi.  1). 

ZIF«  (TT  [blooiii]:  [Rom.  Ziov;  Vat.]  veicra); 
Alex.  Zeiov:  Zio),  1  K.  vi.  37.      [Mo^th.] 

ZI'HA  (Sn"'^  [dry,  thirsty]:  :S,oveia,  •S.-rja.; 
Alex.  Souaa,  2iaa:  Siha,  Soha).  1.  The  chil- 
dren of  Ziha  were  a  family  of  Nethinim  who  re- 
turned with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  43;  Neh.  vii.  46). 

2.  (Vat.  [Kom.  Alex.  FA.i]  omit;  [FA.«]  -Ziad: 
Suahn.)  Chief  of  the  Nethinim  in  Ophel  (Neh. 
xi.  21).  The  name  is  probably  that  of  a  family, 
and  so  identical  with  the  preceding. 

ZIK'LAG  O^n?  and  twice ob|7''!J  [n  wind- 
huj,  bendiiuj,  FiirstJ  :  Se/ceAct/c,  onceSiweAaK;  in 
Chr.  [Vat.]  StuKAa,  "XooyXafx;  Alex.  SiKeAay,  but 
also  2(KeAe-y,  [2i«eAa,]  2e/ceAa;  Joseph.  2sK-6Aa: 
Sicelei/).  A  place  which  possesses  a  special  inter- 
est from  its  having  been  the  residence  and  the  pri- 
vate property  of  David.  It  is  first  mentioned  in 
the  catalogue  of  the  towns  of  Judah  in  Josh,  xv., 
where  it  is  enumerated  (ver.  31)  amongst  those  of 
the  extreme  south,  between  Hormah  (or  Zephath) 
and  Madmannah  (possibly  Beth-marcaboth ).  It 
next  occurs,  in  the  same  connection,  amongst  the 
places  which  were  allotted  out  of  the  territory  of 
Judah  to  Simeon  (xix.  5).  We  next  encounter  it 
in  the  possession  of  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  xxvii. 
6),  when  it  was,  at  David's  request,  bestowed  upon 
him  by  Achish  king  of  Oath.  He  resided  there 
for  a  year  <^  and  four  months  (xxvii.  7,  xxx.  14,  20 ; 
1  Chr.  xii.  1,  20).  It  was  there  he  received  the 
news  of  Saul's  death  (2  Sam.  i.  1,  iv.  10).  He 
then  relinquished  it  for  Hebron  (ii.  1).  Ziklag  is 
finally  mentioned,  in  company  with  Beer-sheba,  Ha- 
zar-shual,  and  other  towns  of  the  south,  as  being 
reinhabited  by  the  people  of  Judah  after  their  re- 
turn from  the  Captivity  (Neh.  xi.  28). 

The  situation  of  the  town  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine, notwithstanding  so  many  notices.  On  the 
yne  hand,  that  it  was  in  "  the  south  "  {negeb) 
»eems  certain,  both  from  the  towns  named  with  it, 
and  also  from  its  mention  with  "the  south  of  the 
Cherethites  "  and  "  the  south  of  Caleb,"  some  of 
whose  descendants  we  know  were  at  Ziph  and  Maon, 
perhaps  even  at  Paran  (1  Sam.  xxv.  1).  On  the 
other  hand,  this  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  its 
x>nnection  with  the  Phihstines,  and  with  the  fact 


ZILLAH 

—  which  follows  from  the  narrative  of  1  Sam.  xtx 
(see  9,  10,  21 )  —  that  it  was  north  of  the  l.rook 
Besor.  The  word  employed  in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  5,  7, 
11,  to  denote  the  region  in  which  it  stood,  is  pecul- 
iar. It  is  not  h(ts-Shefel(di,  as  it  must  have  been 
had  Ziklag  stood  in  the  ordinary  lowland  of  Philia- 
tia,  but  Ivts-Sddeh,  which  Professor  Stanley  (S.  <^ 
P.  App.  §  15)  renders  "  the  field."  On  the  whole, 
though  the  temptation  is  strong  to  suppose  (as 
some  have  suggested)  that  there  were  two  places  of 
the  same  name,  the  only  conclusion  seems  to  be 
that  Ziklag  was  in  the  south  or  Negeb  country, 
with  a  portion  of  which  the  Philistines  had  a  con- 
nection which  may  have  lasted  from  the  tin;e  of 
their  residence  there  in  the  days  of  Abraham  and 
Isaac.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  word  sadnh  ia 
used  in  Gen.  xiv.  7,  for  the  country  occupied  by 
the  Amalekites,  which  seems  to  have  been  situated 
far  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  or  near  Kadesh.  The 
name  of  Paran  also  occurs  in  the  same  passage. 
But  further  investigation  is  necessary  before  we  can 
remove  the  residence  of  Nabal  so  far  south.  His 
Maon  would  in  that  case  become,  not  the  Mn'm 
which  hes  near  Zif  und  Kurnn'd,  but  that  which 
was  the  headquarters  of  the  Slaonites,  or  Me- 
hunim. 

Ziklag  does  not  appear  to  have  been  known  to 
Eusebius  and  Jerome,  or  to  any  of  the  older  trav- 
ellers. Mr.  Rowlands,  however,  in  his  journey  from 
Gaza  to  Suez  in  1842  (in  Williams's  Jfoly  City,  i. 
463-4G8)  was  told  of  "an  ancient  site  called  Asloodg, 
or  Kasloudff,  with  some  ancient  walls,"  three  hours 
east  of  Sebdta,  which  again  was  two  hours  and  a 
half  south  of  Klmlnsn.  This  he  considers  as  iden- 
tical with  Ziklag.  Dr.  Robinson  had  previously 
(in  1838)  heard  of  ^Asluj  as  lying  southwest  of 
Milk,  on  the  way  to  Abdeh  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  201),  a 
position  not  discordant  with  that  of  Mr.  Row- 
lands. The  identification  is  supported  by  Mr. 
Wilton  {Neyeb,  p.  209);  but  it  is  impossible  at 
present,  and  until  further  investigation  into  the 
district  in  question  has  been  made,  to  do  more  than 
name  it.  If  Dr.  Robinson's  form  of  the  name  is 
correct  —  and  since  it  is   repeated  in  the  Lists  of 

Dr.  Eli  Smith  (_,«JLwwk£,  App.  to  vol.  iii.  of  1st 

eJ.  p.  115  n)  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  this  —  the 
similarity  which  prompted  Mr.  Rowlands's  con- 
jecture almost  entirely  disappears.  This  will  be 
evident  if  the  two  names  are  written   in   Hebrew, 

ZIL'LAH  (nb^J  [shadow]:  2eAAo:  Sella). 
One  of  the  two  wives  of  Lamech  the  Cainite,  to 
whom  he  addressed  his  song  (Gen.  iv.  19,  22,  23). 
She  was  the  mother  of  Tubal-Cain  and  Naamah.  Dr. 
Kalisch  (Comm.  on  Gen.)  regards  the  names  of  La- 
mech's  wives  and  of  his  daughter  as  significant  of  tha 
transition  into  the  period  of  art  which  took  place  in 
his  time,  and  the  corresponding  chance  in  the  position 
of  the  woman.  ♦'  Naamah  signifies  the  lovely,  beauti- 
ful woman  ;  whilst  the  wife  of  the  first  man  was  sim- 
ply Eve,  the  lifegiving.  .  .  .  The  women  were, 
in  the  age  of  Lamech,  no  more  regarded  merely  as 
the  propagators  of  the  human  family;  beauty  a!)d 
gracefulness  began  to  command  homage.  .  . 
Even  the  wives  of  Lamech  manifest  the  transition 


«  The  only  instance  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  use  of  F  in 
a  proper  name. 

b  1  Chr.  xii.  1  an.'  20. 


c  Josephus  (Ant.  vi.  13,  §  19)  ^res   this  as  on* 
month  and  twenty  days. 


ZILPAH 

uto  this  epocn  of  beauty;  for  whilst  one  wife, 
Ziliah,  reiuiiids  still  of  assistance  and  protection 

irtvU,  'shadow'),  the  other,  Adah,  bears  a 
name  almost  synonymous  with  Naamah,  and  like- 
wise signifying  ornament  and  loveliness." 

In  the  apocryphal  book  of  Jashar,  Adah  and 
Ziliah  are  both  daughters  of  Cainan.  Adah  bare 
children,  but  Zillali  was  barren  till  her  old  age,  in 
consequence  of  some  noxious  draught  which  her 
husband  gave  her  to  preserve  her  beauty  and  to 
prevent  her  from  bearing.  W.  A.  W. 

ZILTAH  (nS^T  ldrop^■.  [ZeA-^civ,]  ZeA- 
^a'  Zelpha).  A  Syrian  given  by  Laban  to  his 
daughter  Leah  as  an  attendant  (Gen.  xxix.  24), 
and  by  Leah  to  Jacob  as  a  concubine.  She  was 
the  mother  of  Gad  and  Asher  (Gen.  xxx.  9-1-3, 
sxxv.  26,  xxxvii.  2,  xlvi.  18). 

ZIL'THAI  [2syl.]  {''nh'2  [shady]:  :Sa\ael; 
[Vat.  2a\e6£;]  Alex.  SaAei:  Selet/iai).  1.  A 
Benjamite,  of  the  sons  of  JShimhi  (1  Chr.  viii. 
20). 

2.  (■Xa/xadl;  [Vat.]  FA.  Se^aflei;  [Comp.  Aid. 
Xa\adi'-]  Sidatlti.)  One  of  the  captains  of  thou- 
sands of  iManasseh  who  deserted  to  David  at  Zik- 
lag  (1  Chr.  xiL  20). 

ZIM'MAH  (nat  \_plan,  2)uypose^:  Za/j.fj.a,d ; 
[Vat.  Ze^iixa;]  Alex.  Za/x/jia  •  Zumma).  1.  A 
Gershonite  Levite,  son  of  .Jahath  (1  Chr.  vi.  20). 

2.  {Za/jLixdfx;  [.\lex.  Za/xua;  Comp.  Aid.  Ze/j.- 
fia-])  Another  Gershonite,  son  of  Shimei  (1 
Chr.  vi.  42);  possibly  the  same  as  the  preceding. 

3.  {Ze/xfxdd;  [Comp.  Aid.  Ze/J-nd  ■]  Zainma.) 
Father  or  ancestor  of  Joah,  a  Gershonite  in  the 
reign  of  Ilezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  12).  At  a  much 
earlier  period  we  find  the  same  collocation  of  names, 
Zimmah  and  Joah  as  father  and  son  (1  Chr.  vi.  20). 
Compare  "  iNlahath  the  son  of  Aniasai "  in  2  Chr. 
xxix.  12  with  the  same  in  1  Chr.  vi.  ;J5;  ".Joel  the 
son  of  Azariah  "  in  2  Chr.  xxix.  12  and  1  Chr.  vi. 
36;  and  "  Kish  the  son  of  Abdi  "  2  Chr.  xxix.  12 
with  "  ivishi  the  son  of  Abdi  "  in  1  Chr.  vi.  -i-t. 
Unless  these  names  are  the  names  of  families  and 
not  of  individuals,  their  recurrence  is  a  little  re- 
markable. 

ZliM'RAN  iX^PI  isimg,  celebrated] :  Zo/j.- 
^puv,  ZefM^pufj.  [Vat.  -pav]  ;  Alex.  * -^f^pav, 
**  Zffx^paw,  Zf/jLpav:  Zuinrriii,  [Zamram]).  The 
eldest  son  of  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2;  1  Chr.  i.  32). 
His  descendants  are  not  mentioned,  nor  is  any  hint 
given  tliat  he  was  the  founder  of  a  tribe:  the  con- 
trary would  ratlier  appear  to  be  the  case.  Some 
would  identify  Ziniran  with  the  Zimri  of  Jer.  xxv. 
2.5,  but  tliese  lay  too  far  to  the  north.  The  Greek 
form  of  the  nan^.e,  as  found  in  the  LXX.,  has  sug- 
gested a  comparison  with  Za^pd/x,  the  chief  city  of 
the  CinwdocolpitiB,  who  dwelt  on  the  Red  Sea, 
west  of  Mecca.  But  this  is  extremely  doubtful,  for 
this  tribe,  probably  the  same  with  the  ancient 
Kenda,  was  a  branch  of  the  Joktanite  Arabs,  who 
in  the  most  ancient  times  occupied  Yemen,  and 
may  only  have  come  into  jMssession  of  Zabram  at 
a  later  period  (Knobel,  (Jenesis).  Hitzig  and 
Lengerke  propose  to  connect  the  name  Ziniran  with 
Zimiris,  a  district  of  Ethiopia  mentioned  by  Pliny 
(xxxvi.  25);  but  Grotius,  with  more  plausibility. 


ZIMRI 


3631 


a  The  word  is    ]^Q'1Sl,   which  Ewald  (after  J.  D. 
jlichaelis),  both   here  and  in  2  K.  xt.  25,  insists  on 


finds  a  trace  of  it  in  the  Zamereni,  a  tribe  of  tiie 
interior  of  Arabia.  The  identification  of  Zimran 
with  the  modern  Beni  Omran,  and  the  Bani  Zo- 
maneis  of  Diclorus,  proposed  by  JMr.  Forstei 
{Gtoyv.  of  Arabia,  i.  431),  cannot  be  seriously 
maintained.  W.  A.  W. 

ZIM'RI  C'T'^T  [.sung,  theme  of  song]:  Zajx- 
^pi  [Vat.  -fipei]  ■  Zambri).  1.  The  son  of^Salu, 
a  Simeonite  chieftain,  slain  by  Phinehas  with  the 
Midianitish  princess  Cozbi  (Num.  xxv.  14).  When 
the  Israelites  at  Shittim  were  smitten  with  plagues 
for  their  impure  worship  of  Baal-peor,  and  were 
weeping  before  the  Tabernacle,  Zimri,  with  a  shame- 
less disregard  to  his  own  high  position  and  the 
sutterings  of  his  tribe,  brought  into  their  presence 
the  Midianitess  in  the  sight  of  JMoses  and  in  the 
sight  of  the  whole  congregation.  The  fierce  anger 
of  Phinelias  was  aroused,  and  in  the  swift  ven- 
geance with  which  he  pursued  the  offenders,  he 
gave  the  first  indication  of  that  uncompromising 
spirit  which  characterized  him  in  later  life.  The 
wliole  circumstance  is  much  softened  in  the  nar- 
rative of  Josephus  {Ant.  iv.  G,  §§  10-12),  and  in  the 
hands  of  the  apologist  is  divested  of  all  its  vigor 
and  point.  In  the  Targum  of  [Pseudo-]  Jonathan 
ben  Uzziel  several  traditional  details  are  added. 
Zimri  retorts  upon  Moses  that  he  himself  had 
taken  to  wife  a  Midianitess,  and  twelve  miraculous 
signs  attend  the  vengeance  of  Phinehas. 

In  describing  the  scene  of  this  tragedy  an  un- 
usual word  is  employed,  the  force  of  which  is  lost 
in  the  rendering  "tent"  of  the  A.  V.  of  Num. 
xxv.  8.     It  was   not   the  ohel,  or  ordinary  tent  of 

the  encampment,  but  the  rT2|7,  kubbdh  (whence 
Span,  alcova,  and  our '^rtowc),  or  dome-shaped  tent, 
to  which  Phinehas  pursued  his  victims.  ^^Tlether 
this  was  the  tent  which  Zimri  occupied  as  chief  of 
his  tribe,  and  which  was  in  consequence  more 
elaborate  and  highly  ornamented  than  the  rest,  or 
whether  it  was,  as  Gesenius  suggests,  one  of  the 
tents  which  the  Midianitess  used  for  the  worsliip  of 
I'eor,  is  not  to  be  determined,  though  the  latter  is 
I'avored  by  the  rendering  of  the  Vulg.  lupanar. 
The  word  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  Hebrew.  In 
the  Syriac  it  is  rendered  a  cell,  or  inner  apartment 
of  the  tent.  W.  A.  W. 

2.  (*'~l^^  :  Za/xj8pi  [Vat.  -fipei] ;  Joseph.  Ant. 
viii.  12,  §  5,  ZafidpT]?:  Zambri.)  Fifth  sovereign 
of  the  separate  kingdom  of  Israel,  of  which  he  oc- 
cupied the  throne  for  the  brief  period  of  seven  days 
in  the  year  is.  c.  930  or  929.  Originally  in  com- 
mand of  half  the  chariots  in  the  royal  army,  he 
gained  the  crown  by  the  murder  of  king  Elah  son 
of  Baasha.^who,  after  reigning  for  something  more 
than  a  year  (compare  1  K.  xvi.  8  and  10),  was  in- 
dulging in  a  drunken  revel  in  the  house  of  his 
steward  Arza  at  Tirzah,  then  the  capital.  In  the 
midst  of  this  festivity  Zimri  killed  him,  and  im- 
mediately afterwards  all  the  rest  of  Baasha's  family. 
But  the  army  which  at  that  time  was  besieging  the 
Philistine  town  of  Gibbethon,  when  they  heard  of 
I'Llah's  nmrder,  proclaimed  their  general  Omri 
king.  He  immediately  marched  against  Tirzah, 
and  took  the  city.  Zimri  retreated  into  the  iimer- 
most  part  of  the  late  king's  palace,"  set  it  on  fire 
and    perished   in    the   ruins    (1     K.    xvi.    9-20). 

translating  "  harem,"  with  which  word  he  thinks  that 
it  is  et.vuiologically  connected,  and  lieuce  seeks  cou- 
tirmatiou   of   bis  view   that  Zimri  was  a  voluptuoiM 


3682 


ZIN 


EwaWs  inference  from  Jezebel's  speech  to  Jehu  (2 
K.  ix.  31),  that  on  Klah's  death  the  queen-mother 
welcomed  his  murderer  with  smiles  and  blandish- 
ments, seems  rather  arbitrary  and  far-fetched. 
[Jp:zebel.]  G.  E.  L.  C. 

3.  (Zinnvi.)  One  of  the  five  sons  of  Zerah  the 
»on  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  6). 

4.  [Alex,  twice,  1  Chr.  viii.  36,  Za/xpi-]  Son 
of  Jehoadah  and  descendant  of  Saul  (1  Chr  viii. 
30,  ix.  42). 

5.  (Om.  in  LXX. :  Znmbri.)  An  obscure  name, 
mentioned  (Jer.  xxv.  25)   hi  probable  connection 

with  Dedan,  Tema,  Buz,  Arabia  (,3~127),  the  min- 
gled people  "  'ereb  "  (3"].^n),  all  of  which  im- 
mediately precede  it,  besides  other  peoples;  and 
followed  by  Elam,  the  jNIedes,  and  others.  'J'he 
passage  is  of  wide  comprehension,  but  the  reference, 
as  indicated  above,  seems  to  be  a  tribe  of  the  suns 
of  the  East,  the  BeniKedem.  Nothing  further  is 
known  respecting  Zimri,  Ijut  it  may  possibly  be  the 
same  as,  or  derived  from  Zimkan,  which  see. 

E.  S.  P. 

ZIN  iX'''!  [Jow  palm-iree,  Ges.]:2iV;  [Vat. 
Seiv;  Num.  xxvii.  14a,  Alex.  2i>'a;  Josh.  xv.  1,  Alex. 
2i^;  Josh.  XV.  3,  Kom.  Alex,  ^eud,  Vat.i  Ei'raK,  2. 
ni.  QfvvaK'-  t^iii.])  The  nan)e  given  to  a  portion 
of  the  desert  tract  between  the  Dead  Sea,  Ghi'r,  and 
Arabah  (possibly  including  the  two  latter,  or  portions 
of  them)  on  the  E.,  and  the  general  plateau  of  the 
Tih  which  stretches  westward.  The  country  in  ques- 
tion consists  of  two  or  three  snccessi\e  terraces 
of  mountain  converging  to  an  acute  angle  (like 
stairs  where  there  is  a  turn  in  the  flight)  at  the 
Dead  Sea"s  southern  verge,  towards  which  also  they 
slope.  Here  the  drainage  finds  its  chief  vent  by 
the  \l'(ulij  tl-Fiki-fh  into  the  Ghur,  the  reniaininc 
waters  running  by  smaller  channels  into  the  Ara- 
bah, and  ultimately  by  the  Wcahj  d-Jeib  also  to 
the  Ghor.  Judging  from  natural  features,  in  the 
vagueness  of  authority,  it  is  likely  that  the  portion 
between,  and  drained  by  these  wadies,  is  the  region 
in  question ;  but  where  it  ended  westward,  whether 
at  any  of  the  above  named  terraces,  or  blending 
iniperceptilily  with  that  of  Paran,  is  quite  uncer- 
tain. Kadesh  lay  in  it,  or  on  this  unknown 
boundary,  and  here  also  Iduma?a  was  conterminous 
with  Judah;  since  Kadesh  was  a  city  in  the  border 
of  Edom  (see  Kadesh;  Num.  xiii.  21,  xx.  1,  xxvii. 
14,  xxxiii  36,  xxxiv.  3;  Josh.  xv.  1).  The  re- 
searches of  Williams  and  Kowlands  on  this  sub- 
ject, although  not  conclusive  in  favor  of  tiie  site 
tl-Kuikis  for  the  city,  yet  may  indicate  that  the 
"wilderness  of  Kades,"  which  is  indistinguishable 
from  that  of  Zin,  follows  the  course  of  ^he  Wady 
Miirreh  westward.  The  whole  region  requires 
further  research;  but  its  difBculties  are  of  a  very 
formidable  character,  .losephus  (Anl.  iv.  4,  §  6) 
speaks  of  a  "hill  called  Sin  "  (2iV),  where  Miriam, 
who  died  in  Kadesh,  when  the  people  had  '•  come 
to  the  desert  of  Zin,"'  was  buried.  This  "  Sin  " 
uf  Josephus  may  recall  the  name  Zin,  and,  being 
ijjplied  to  a  hill,  may  perhaps  indicate  the  most 
singular  and  wholly  isolated  conical  acclivity  named 
Mudtrah  {Mndura,  or  Miahtra),  standing  a  little 
S.  of  the  Wady    Fikreli,  near  its   outlet  into  the 


ZION 

Ghor.  This  would  precisely  agree  with  the  frz» 
of  country  above  indicated  (Num.  xx.  1,  Seetzeu 
Reisen,  iii.  JJebrun  to  Madura ;  Wilton,  Ntytb, 
pp.  127,  134).  H.  H. 

ZI'NA  (K3"*T  [prob.  abundance]  :  Zi^d-  Ziza) 
ZizAH  the  second  son  of  Shimei  (1  Ghr.  xxiii.  10 
comp.  11)   the   Gershonite.      One   of  Kennicotfs 

MSS.  reads  S*"^?,  Ziza,  Uke  the  LXX.  and  Yulg 

*  ZI'ON  (I'V!?,  sunny,  from  nn^  :  2i&;«'; 
Vat.  2eia!»',  exc.  Xm.  i.  2,  and  21  places  in  Psalms; 
Sin.  or  FA.  Ifiuv  in  Ps.  ii.  6,  xlviii.  2,  Ixix.  3-5, 
Ixxxiv.  7,  Ixxxvii.  2,  5,  xcix.  2,  cxlvii.  12,  cxlix.  2:  Is. 
i.  8»  iii.  16, 17,  viii.  18,  x.  32,  xii.  6,  xviii.  7,  xxviii.  li>, 
xxxi.  4,  9,  xxxvii.  22,  xl.  9,  xli.  27,  Ii.  3.  11,  iix.  20, 
Ixi  3,  Ixiv.  10;  Jer.  xxvi.  18  (so  Alex.):  Joel  iii.  2i; 
Obad.  17;  Zech.  ii.  10,  ix.  13;  elsewhere  Z/oji/:  in 
t'ant.  iii.  11  Vat.  and  Sin.  omit:  Siun).  In  the 
Apoc.  and  N.  T.  the  A.  V.,  following  the  Greek, 
uses  Slon  as  a  variation  of  Zion  [Siox,  Mof  m". 
2J ;  but  the  latter  is  an  essentially  ditterent  name 
from  the  ISkin  of  Heul.  iv.  48  [Sion,  iM(ji:NT,  1]. 

Mount  Zion  is  the  southern  terminus  and  west- 
ern tongue  of  the  high  talile-land,  or  double  prom- 
ontory, on  which  Jerusalem  was  built,  and  is  the 
higliest  of  its  liills.  Elevated,  and  surrounded  by 
deep,  trench-like  lavines  on  the  west,  south,  and 
east,  with  a  deep  depression,  or  vallev,  in  the  ridge 
on  the  north,  it,  was  a  position  of  great  natural 
strength.  .  It  first  appears  in  sacred  history  as  a 
stronghold  of  the  Jebusites  who  had  fortified  it, 
and  who  held  possession  of  it  long  after  the  Israel- 
ites had  gained  the  rest  of  the  territory  (Josh.  xv. 
63).  It  was  assaulted  at  Itngth,  and  captured  by 
king  Uavid  (1  Chr.  xi.  4-7),  who  built  both  a 
palace  and  a  citadel  upon  it,  and  subsequently 
brought  to  it  the  ark  of  tiie  Lord. 

As  the  seat  not  only  of  re<;al  dominion,  but  of 
sacred  worship  until  the  Temple  was  built,  this  emi- 
nence came  to  he  designated  as  the  •'  holy  hill  of 
Zion  '■  (Ps.  ii.  6)  and  as  the  "  cliosen  habitation  '' 
of  Jehovah  (Ps.  cxxii.  13),  and  this  naturally  led 
to  its  employment  by  the  N.  T.  writers  as  a  type 
of  heaven  (Heb.  xii.  22;  liev.  xiv.  1).  It  being 
the  royal  residence,  it  was  called  the  City  of  Davia 
(2  Sam.  vi.  12);  and  its  prominence  in  the  city 
led  to  the  fiequent  use  of  its  name  as  the  synonym 
of  JeniS'dem  (Is.  x.  24);  as,  also,  to  tlie  designa- 
tion of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  collectively,  as 
Zion,  or  tlie  dauyliter  oj'  Zion  (Is.  xlix.  14;  Ps.  ix. 
14;  Zech.  ii.  10). 

The  summit  of  the  ridge  presented  a  liroad  level 
tract,  the  southern  portion  of  which  lies  outside 
of  the  modern  walls.  This  is  now  occupied,  in 
])art,  by  the  cemeteries  of  different  Christian  sects, 
including  the  Protestants,  and  among  them  is  the 
stone  building,  once  a  Christian  church,  which 
covers  the  traditional  site  of  the  sepulchre  of  king 
David.  Muslim  jealousy  has,  hitherto,  prevented 
a  thoroutrh  exploration  of  the  locality.  A  part  of 
this  ground  has  been  cultivated  —  literally  fulfill- 
ing the  remarkable  prediction  that  Zion  should  be 
"ploughed  like  a  field"  (Is.  xxvi.  18:  Mic.  iii. 
12).  Zion  was  a  natural  rocky  terrace,  and  heuca 
the  force  of  the  Scriptural  comparisons  which  asso- 
ciate with  its  strong  foundations  the  safety  of  be- 


slave  of  women.  But  its  root  seems  to  be  EZ^S,  "  to  i  rather  than  "  a  harem."'  Ewald,  in  his  .sketch  of 
be  high  ■'  (Ge.=enius)  ;  and  in  otlier  passastes.  esplciallv  Z'"i"'  "»  P<=''li'^P=  somewhat  led  astray  by  the  desiw 
Prov.   ^n]i.    19.  the    meaning    is  "a    lofty    fortress,"' 1  of  ^"'^''^2  a  historical  parallel  with  9.ardauapal  us. 


ZION 

lievers  and  the  stability  of  Christ's  kingdom  (Is. 
xxviii.  IG). 

Until  a  late  period,  the  site  of  Zion  was  un- 
questioned. A  glance  at  the  ground  of  the  city, 
or  at  a  plan  of  it,  shows  that  the  southwest  hill 
was  the  largest  and  most  important  of  the  hills  on 
which  it  was  built.  The  position  of  this  hill  accords 
so  fully  with  almost  all  the  traditional  and  histor- 
ical notices  which  have  reached  us,  that  it  has  been 
accepted  without  dissent  as  the  Zion  of  David.  A 
few  years  since,  Mf.  Fergusson  started  the  theory 
that  Zion  was  identical  with  the  .southeast  hill,  or 
Moriah.  The  present  writer  in  a  preceding  article 
has  stated  the  grounds  of  dissent  from  this  view 
(.Jekusai-EJI,  ii.  1.330-1332;  see  also  BM.  Sacra, 
xxiv.  llfi-UO). 

Quite  lately,  still  another  theory,  as  novel,  has 
been  started,   affirming   the  identity  of  Zion  with 


ZION 


C638 


Akra,  the  hill  on  the  north;  and  this  we  will  briefly 
examine  here.  (See  also  Bihl.  Sacra,  xxvii.  565- 
50'J.)  This  originated  with  Captain  Warren,  the 
British  engineer  who  has  made  such  important  and 
interesting  subterranean  exidorations  in  Jerusalem, 
and  who  appears  to  have  enlivened  his  labors  below 
ground  with  historical  researches  aljove,  which  are 
quite  independent  of  his  professional  work.  It  is 
projX)unded  liy  him  in  Qwirltrlij  Statement,  No. 
III.,  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  under  the 
title:  "  The  Comparative  Holiness  of  Mounts  Zion 
and  Moriah''  (pp.  70-88).  It  is  expanded  and  de- 
fended by  Kev.  John  Forbes,  LL.  I).,  Edinburgh,  in 
the  Bibi.  Sacra  (xxvii.  191-190).  Both  writers 
concede  the  liaselessness  of  Mr.  I'ergusson's  theory, 
wliich  will  not,  probably,  be  put  forward  agahi; 
and  the  new  theory,  we  apprehend,  will  be  ta 
transient. 


JEETSALEM 


(Palestine  Exploration  Fund.) 


A  decisive  t«st  which  does  not  appear  to  have 
occurred  to  these  writers,  is  the  ascertained  course 
of  the  ancient  walls,  respecting  which  Josephus  has 
given  us  the  desired  information.  He  says:  "The 
city  was  fortified  by  three  walls  wherever  it  was 
not  encircled  by  impassable  valleys;  for  in  that 
quarter  there  was  but  one  wall  "  (6.  ./.  v.  4,  §  1). 
He  then  describes  the  configuration  of  the  city,  — 
its  hills  and  valleys,  —  and  in  the  next  section 
traces  the  courses  of  these  walls,  respecting  the  first 
a!id  oldest  of  which  there  is  no  dispute.  Beginning 
at  Hippicus,  on  the  north,  it  ran  southward,  and 
then  eastward,  along  the  western  and  southern  brow 
of  the  southwest  hill,  and  thence  across  to  Ophel 
and  the  eastern  side  of  the  Temple  on  Moriah.  The 
latter  part  of  its  course  is  not  definitely  known  ,• 
but  all  are  agreed  that  from  Hippicus  it  followed 
the  brow  of  the  southwest  hill,  forming,  with  the 
deep  valleys  below,  ample  protection  in  this  quarter. 
From  Hippicus  eastward  this  wall  ran  along  the 
northern  brow  of  the  southwest  hill  to  the  Xystus, 
an  open  place  on  the  eastern  crest  of  this  hill  op- 
p(«ite  the  Temple,  and  thence  acrose    the  valley  to 


the  western  side  of  the  Temple-area.  This  is  un- 
disptited.  And  this  part  of  the  first  and  oldest 
wall,  from  Hippicus  eastward,  was  the  strongest 
wall  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  last  which  was  taken  in 
every  siege.  Josephus  descrilies  it  as  difficult  to  be 
taken,  and  assigns  two  reasons.  The  first  is  its 
natural  position,  built  on  the  brow  of  a  hill;  and 
recent  excavations  have  strikingly  confirmed  his 
statement,  and  vitidicated  Robinson's  theory  of  the 
course  of  the  Tyropoeon  Valley,  disclosing,  below 
the  present  surface,  deiiths  at  different  points  of 
from  thirty  to  nearly  eighty  feet  along  the  ancient 
cliff  (.lEROSALE:\r,  ii.  1221).  His  second  reason 
is  the  extraordinary  strength  of  the  wall  itself, 
through  the  zeal  which  David  and  Solomon  and 
the  kings  who  succeeded  them  took  in  the  work 
(/)'.  J.  V.  4,  §  2).  All  are  agreed  that  this  oldest 
and  strongest  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  piotected 
the  southwest  hill,  and  was  constructed  for  this 
sjjecial  purpose.  This  part  of  the  city,  having  the 
highest  area  and  the  most  precipitous  sides,  offered 
the  strongest  natural  advantages  for  defense;  and 
king  David  a-nd   his   successors  took  advantat[e  of 


8634 


ZION 


its  natural  position,  and  threw  around    it  a   wall 
which  made  it  well  nigh  impregnable. 

Now,  the  advocates  of  the  new  theorj'  must  give 
Bome  consistent  explanation  of  the  royal  zeal,  shown 
tlyough  successive  reigns,  in  fortifying  this  broad 
and  goodly  summit.  They  take  pains  to  explain 
that  Zion  was  not  an  isolated  fortress,  but  included 
a  coifcideral)le  part  oT  the  city  —  the  palace  of  the 
king  and  the  dwellings  of  the  people;  and  the  u))- 
per  city  was,  confessedly,  larger  than  the  lower. 
The  most  commanding  spot  in  the  capital,  by  na- 
ture and  art  combined  made  the  most  secure,  and  of 
ample  extent,  withal,  —  the  royal  palaces  (accord- 
ing to  their  theory)  were  not  here;  the  royal  treas- 
ures were  not  here;  the  royal  sepulchres  were  not 
here;  the  citadel  was  not  here;  the  Tabernacle  and 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  before  the  building  of  the 
Temple,  were  not  here;  and  the  wise  nionarchs  of 
Israel  fortified  this  elevated  quarter  of  their  capital, 
until  it  could  bid  defiance  to  almost  any  assault, 
and  then  built  their  own  residence  outside  of  it, 
looking  Tip  with  admiration  to  its  strong  bulwarks, 
congratulating  the  inhabitants  who  dwelt  within 
its  fastnesses,  but  depriving  themselves,  their  fanji- 
lies,  and  their  possessions,  secular  and  sacred,  of 
the  benefit  of  their  own  defenses! 

There  succeeded  a  period  of  prolonged  peace,  in 
which  the  monarch  could  have  his  summer  resi- 
dence in  the  country,  and  build  a  palace  for  his 
queen  in  the  unwalled  suburbs.  But  from  the  first 
conquest  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  point  of  as 
alisolute  security  as  possible;  and  what  conceivable 
point  would  naturally  be  guarded  with  more  jealous 
care  than  the  principal  seat  of  the  royal  family  — 
the  seat  of  empire  ?  For  a  considerable  period 
(we  know  not  how  long)  the  wall  around  the  south- 
west hill  was  the  only  wall  of  the  city.  Josephus 
repeatedly  refers  to  it  as,  by  way  of  distinction, 
"  the  old  wall."  And  the  interval  in  which  it 
served  as  the  sole  protection  of  the  capital  was  not 
a  season  of  peace,  but  a  period  of  incessant  war 
with  the  trilies  and  nations  on  every  side  of  Israel. 
And  when  new  walls  were  afterwards  erected,  new 
defenses  were  added  to  this. 

Capt.  Warren  says:  "If  we  place  three  round 
shot  close  together  we  have  a  rough  model  of  Jeru- 
salem in  the  time  of  Solomon  —  the  shot  to  the 
north  being  JMount  Zion;  that  to  the  southeast, 
IMoriah ;  and  that  to  the  southwest,  the  remainder 
of  Jerusalem  "  (p.  81).  Accepting  this  "  model," 
we  call  the  north  shot  Akra;  the  southeast,  Moriah ; 
and  the  southwest  (which  to  Warren  is  nameless), 
Zion.  The  north  hill  was  subsequently  protected 
on  its  exposed  side  by  a  strong  wall  —  the  second 
wall  of  Josephus;  and  at  a  still  later  day,  in  the 
reign  of  king  Herod  Agrippa,  a  fourth  hill,  on  the 
m  rtheast  (Bezetha),  was  protected  on  its  exposed 
side  by  the  third  wall  of  Josephus.  Jerusalem  was 
never  attacked  from  the  south.  The  point  of 
menace  and  peril,  in  every  siege,  was  in  the  high- 
lands on  the  north.  These  three  walls  on  the  north 
were  successive  breastworks  against  a  foreign  fue. 
When  the  hill  represented  by  Warren's  north  shot 
Was  protected  by  one  wall,  the  southwest  hill  was 
protected  by  two  walls;  when  the  former  was 
protected  by  two,  the  latter  was  protected  by  three. 
And  the  security  enjoyed  by  the  upper  city,  on  the 
southwest  hill,  above  that  of  the  lower  city,  con- 
s'sted,  besides  its  natural  defenses  on  the  south,  in 
the  strength  of  the  old  wall  on  the  north,  in  the 
sonstruction  of  which  successive  kings  had  taken 
Ml  enthusiastic  interest.     Consequently,  aa  we  have 


ZION 

said,  this  part  of  Jerusalem  held  »ut  the  1(  ngest  in 
every  siege.  "  No  attack  or  approach  is  ever  de- 
scriiied  as  made  against  the  vpiJtr  city  of  Zion  until 
after  the  besiegers  had  broken  through  the  second 
wall,  and  had  thus  got  possession  of  the  loicer  city  " 
(Kob.  Bihi  Res.  1852,  p.  214).  When  the  city 
was  invested  by  Titus  after  he  had  stormed  and 
carried  every  part  but  the  southwest  hill,  the  course 
of  the  siege  is  thus  stated  by  ^Ir.  Grove:  "The 
upper  city,  higher  than  Moriah,  inclosed  by  the 
original  wall  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  on  all 
sides  precipitous,  exce])t  on  the  north,  where  it 
was  defended  by  the  wall  and  towers  of  Herod,  was 

still  to  be  t.aken It  took  eighteen  days 

to  erect  the  necessary  works  for  the  siege.  The 
four  legions  were  once  more  stationed  on  the  west 
or  northwest  corner,  where  Herod's  palace  abut- 
ted on  the  wall,  and  where  the  three  magnificent 
and  impregnalile  towers  of  Hippicus,  Phasaelus,  and 
Mariamne  rose  conspicuous.  This  was  the  main 
attack"  (Jkkusalkm,  ii.  1307).  The  wall  thus 
strengthened  by  Herod  for  the  protection  of  that 
part  ot  the  city  which  embraced  his  own  palace  was 
the  old  wall,  which  ran  from  Hippicus  eastward  to 
the  Xystus.  "  The  interior  and  most  ancient  of 
the  three  walls  on  the  north  was,  no  doubt,  the 
same  wall  which  ran  along  the  northern  brow  of 
Zion,"  or  the  southwest  hill.  (Hob.  BI/jL  Bts.  i. 
413.)  For  whose  protection,  as  more  important 
than  their  own,  was  this  wall  built  and  strength- 
ened by  David  and  Solomon  and  their  immediate 
successors '? 

The  reasons  offered  by  these  writers  for  their 
hypothesis  are  not  based  on  recent  discoveries,  nor 
are  they  new.  These  speculations  have  not  the 
remotest  connection  with  Capt.  Warren's  explora- 
tions in  Jerusalem.  The  argument  rests  mainly, 
on  two  or  three  passages  in  Josephus  and  the  first 
book  of  Maccabees,  relating  to  the  Ak-rn  or  castle 
which  .Antiochus  Fpiphaiies  built  on  the  hill  sus- 
taining the  lower  city,  and  which  are  familiar  to  all 
who  have  studied  the  topography  of  the  city.  These 
parallel  nairatives  involve  a  perplexity  which  Prof. 
liobinson  fully  examined,  and,  we  think,  satisfac- 
torily ex])lained,  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago 
(BiOI.  Siicra,  iii.  629-634).  His  suggestion  is, 
that  in  process  of  time  "  the  City  of  David,"  at 
first  restricted  to  the  Hill  of  Zion,  came  to  be  used 
by  synecdoche  for  the  whole  city,  so  as  to  be  synony- 
mous with  Jerusalem ;  and  he  cites  evident  traces 
of  such  usage  from  Isaiah,  the  Maccabees,  and 
Josephus.  This  is  a  much  simpler  solution  of  the 
difficulty  than  the  transler  of  site  by  these  writers. 

The  immemorial  conviction,  which  has  not 
merely  survived  centuries  of  observation,  but  been 
confirmed  by  the  investigations  of  keen-*yed 
witnesses,  will,  we  are  confident,  abide.  The 
southwest  hill,  fortified  beyond  the  rest,  and  its 
dwellings  more  carefully  protected ;  the  most  im- 
portant strategic  point  in  the  city,  and  the  last 
rallyii.g-point  in  memorable  sieges;  the  hill  for 
which  the  propounders  of  the  new  theory  have  no 
name  —  Forbes  contenting  himself  with  applying 
the  epithet  "pseudo  ''  to  the  cun-ent  apt)ellation, 
and  Warren  designating  it  as  "  the  remn.inder  of 
Jerusalem,"  —  this  historic  hill  has  borne,  and  will 
continue  to  bear  the  sacred  and  classic  name  of 
Zion. 

Every  Christian  reader  has  felt  —  what  every 
Christian  visitor  to  the  holy  city  who  has  stood  on 
its  southwest  hill  has  felt  more  —  the  force  and 
beauty  of  such  passages  as  these,  in  the  I'salms  o 


ZIOR 

David :  "  Beautiful  for  situation,  the  jo}'  of  the 
whole  earth,  is  Mount  Zion,  on  the  sides  of  the 
iiorth,  the  city  of  the  <;reat  King"  (Ps.  xlviii.  2); 
'•  They  that  trust  in  the  Lord  shall  be  as  Mount 
Zion,  which  cannot  be  removed,  but  abideth  for- 
3ver  "  (Ps.  exxv.  1).  From  strains  like  these  the 
transition  is  abrupt  and  startling  to  such  sentences 
as  the  following:  "  The  site  where  Zion  once  was, 
and  is  not"  (Warren,  p.  85);  "  Mount  Zion,  once 
80  holy,  was  at  lengtii  razed  to  the  ground  and  oli- 
literated  "  (Forbes,  p.  195).  We  take  coujfort  in 
the  undoubting  conviction  that  the  grand  similes 
of  the  sacred  writers  have  not  been  tlius  emptied 
of  their  significance.  The  Zion  of  the  psalmist  and 
the  prophet  still  stands,  with  its  rocky,  precipitous 
sides,  and  the  deep  valleys  sweep  around  its  base, 
as  of  old.  Its  "  palaces  "  have  disappeared;  and 
in  its  desolation,  literal  and  moral,  it  is  no  longer 
"  the  joy  "  which  it  once  was.  But  "  beautiful  for 
situation  "  it  still  is;  and,  to  the  eye  of  the  traveller 
who  approaches  it  from  the  south,  it  still  lifts  itself 
in  strength,  though  not  in  the  ancient  grandeur, 
"on  the  sides  of  the  north."  [Gutter;  .Jebus; 
Jerusalem;  Tykoposon.]  S.  W. 

ZI'OR  ("li7''!J  [smalliiess]:  Scpot'e;  Alex. 
Sicop:  Si<ir).  A  town  in  the  mountain  district  of 
Judah  (Josh.  xv.  5-4,  only).  It  belongs  to  the 
same  group  with  Heliron,  next  to  which  it  occurs 
in  the  list.  By  Eusebius  and  .Jerome  {Oiioin.  -^.tdip) 
it  is  spoken  of  as  a  village  between  jElia  (Jerusa- 
^m)  and  Eleutheropolis  {Beit  jibrin),  in  the  tribe 


ZIPH 


ZQhi 


of  Judah.     A  small  village  named  Sa'ir 


7 


lies  on  the  road  between  Tekun  and  Hebron,  about 
gix  miles  northeast  of  the  latter  (Rob.  Bibl.  Ees. 
i.  488),  which  may  probably  be  that  alluded  to  in 
the  0 noma sti con ;  and  but  for  its  distance  from 
Hebron,  might  be  adopted  as  identical  with  Zior. 
So  little,  however,  is  known  of  the  principle  on 
which  the  groups  of  towns  are  collected  in  these 
lists,  that  it  is  impossible  to  speak  positively  on  the 
point,  either  one  way  or  the  other.  G. 

ZIPH  (^"T  [battlement,  pinnacle,  Ges.  ed. 
1803;  melliny-place,  Fiirst]).  The  name  borne 
by  two  towns  in  the  territory  of  Judah. 

1.  {Matyafx;  Alex.  Iduaj^ip:  Ziph.)  In  the 
south  [neffeb);  named  between  Ithiian  and  Telem 
(Josh.  XV.  24).  It  does  not  appear  again  in  the 
history  —  for  the  Ziph  of  David's  adventures  is  an 
entirely  distinct  spot  —  nor  has  any  trace  of  it  been 
met  with.  From  this,  from  the  apparetit  omission 
of  the  name  in  the  Vatican  LXX.,  and  from  the 
absence  of  the  "and"  before  it,  Mr.  Wilton  has 
been  led    to  suggest    that    it    is  an  interpolation 


(Xegeb,  85);  hut  his  grounds  for  this  are  hardly 
conclusive.  Many  names  in  this  list  have  not  yet 
been  encountered  on  the  ground ;  before  several 
others  the  '-and"  is  omitted;  and  though  not 
now  recognizable  in  the  Vat.  LXX.,  the  name  is 
found  in  the  Alex,  and  in  the  Peshito  {Zib).  In 
our  present  ignorance  of  the  region  of  the  Negeb  it 
is  safer  to  postpone  any  positive  judgment  ou  Ae 
point. 

2.  ([Rom.  'O0&,  Zi(p\  Vat.]  oCff/3,  Zsic^,  r] 
Zei^i  Alex.  Zi(p,  Zfi(p'-  Ziph.)  In  tlie  highland 
district;  named  between  Carmel  and  Juttah  (Josh. 
XV.  55).  The  place  is  immortalized  by  its  connec- 
tion with  David,  some  of  whose  greatest  jierils  and 
happiest  escapes  took  place  in  its  neighborhood 
(1  Sam.  xxiii.  14,  15,  24,  xxvi.  2).  These  pas- 
sages show,  that  at  that  time  it  had  near  it  a  wil- 
derness {/nulbai;  i.  e.  a  waste  pasture  ground)  and 
a  wood.  The  latter  has  disappeared,  but  the  for- 
mer remains.  The  name  of  Z/J'  is  found  about 
three  miles  8.  of  Hebron,  attached  to  a  rounded  hill 
of  some  100  feet  in  height,  which  is  called  Tell 
Zif.  About  the  same  distance  still  further  S.  ia 
Kurmill  (Carmel),  and  between  them  a  short  dis- 
tance to  the  W.  of  the  road  is  I'ulta  (Juttah). 
About  half  a  mile  E.  of  the  tell  are  some  consid- 
erable ruins,  standing  at  the  head  of  two  small 
wadies,  which,  commencing  here,  run  otf  towards 
the  Dead  Sea.  These  ruins  are  jjronounced  by  Dr. 
Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  i.  4Si2)  to  be  those  of  the 
ancient  Ziph,  but  hardly  on  sufficient  grounds. 
They  are  too  far  from  the  tell  for  it  to  have  been 
the  citadel  to  them.  It  seems  more  prot)able  that 
the  tell  itself  is  a  remnant  of  the  ancient  place 
which  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chr.  xi.  8)." 

"  Zib  "  is  mentioned  in  the  Oiiomuiticon  as  8 
miles  east  of  Hebron;  "the  village,"  adds  Jerome, 
"  in  which  David  hid  is  still  shown."  This  can 
hardly  be  the  spot  above  refeired  to,  unless  the 
distance  and  direction  have  been  stated  at  random, 
or  the  passage  is  coiTupt  both  in  Eusebius  and 
Jerome.  At  7  Roman  miles  east  of  Hel)ron  a  ruin 
is  marked  on  Van  de  Velde's  map,  but  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  investigated.  Elsewhere 
(under  "  Zeib  "  and  "Ziph")  they  place  it  near 
Carmel,  and  connect  it  with  Ziph  the  descendant 
of  Caleb. 

From  Eusebius  to  Dr.  Robinson  no  one  appears 
to  have  mentioned  Zif.  Yet  many  travellers  r.iust 
have  passed  the  tell,  and  the  name  is  often  in  the 
mouths  of  the  Arab  guides  (Stanley,  S.  if  P.  p. 
lOl*-). 

There  are  some  curious  diflTerences  between  the 
text  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Hebrew  of  these  pa.s- 
sages  which  may  be  recorded  here. 


Hebrew. 

1  Sam.  xxiii.  14.   .  .  reioained 

in  the  mountain  in  ttie  wilderness 
of  Ziph. 

15 in  the  wilderness  of 

liph  in  the  wood. 

19.  And  .'^iphites  came  to  Saul 


Vatican  LXX.  (Mai). 

e>ca0T)TO   kv   rfj  ep^^tw  ev   Tip   bpei 
ZeliJ),  eu  rfj  yfj  rfi  au;(|u.iij5et. 


ei'    T<|)    opet    Toj   ov;^fiujdei    iv   tt) 
Kaiufi    Ze'iip,      yjj      Kaivrj    [koiitj  =z 

Win   -ead  for   27nn]. 

Koi    dve'^Tjo'av    oi    ZfM^atot  in  ttjs 


.     ■     .     .     tv  TO}  opti  ev  TT)  epr}nM 
Zei<|>   615  opos    TO    avxixwSes   fv  y>| 


Zei<j)  fv  Ti)  KatVT). 


a  *  In  his  Index  to  Clark's  Bible  Atlas,  p.  Ill,  Mr. 
3rove  withdraws  this  objection  and  speaks  of  Ziph  aa 
<now  Zif,  3  miles  south  of  Hebron,"'  H. 


6  See  a  remark  curiously  parallel  to  this  by  Mar 
moat  in  his  Voyage  between  Naplouse  and  JerufW 
lem. 


S636  ziPH 

Hebrew. 

1  Sam.  xxiii.  24.     And  they  arose 
lU'i  weut  to  Ziph  before  Saul. 

xxTi.  1.  And   the   Ziphites  came 
Unto  Saul. 


ZIZ,  THE  CLIFF  OF 

Vatican  LXX.  (Mai).  i  Alex.  LXX. 


KaX    aveaTTjarav     oi     Zet^aioi   KaX 
iiropevOria'av  c^TTpofrOev  2. 

k.     ep^oi'Tai    ot    Zei<f>aloi.    es    rq^ 
avxixuiSovi  Trpbs  TOf  S. 


enopevOrftraV  di  Zii^aioi 


*The  recurrence  of  the  word  aiixmosi  "  dried  up,"  "  parched,"  would  almost  suggest  that  the  LXX.  under- 
stood the  Ziph  of  the  negeb  to  be  intended.  G. 


ZIPH  (^"'T:  Zi'iS;  [Vat.  omits;]  Alex.  ZicpKii 
Siph],     Son  of  Jelialeleel  (1  Chr.  iv.  16). 

ZI'PHAH  (npn, :  ze<l>d  ;  [Vat.  Za<t>d  ;] 
Alex.  Zai<t>a-  Zipha).  One  of  the  sons  of  Jelia- 
leleel, who.se  family  is  enumerated  in  an  obscure 
genealogy  oT  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  16). 

ZIPH'IMS,  THE  (a'^P'^-Tn  :  rohs  Zeicpal- 
ovs-  Ziphcci).  The  inhabitants  of  Ziph  (see  the 
foregoing  article,  No.  2).  In  this  form  the  name  is 
found  in  the  A.  V.  only  in  the  title  of  \'%.  liv.  In 
the  narrative  it  occurs  in  the  more  usual  "  form  of 

ZIPHTTES,  THE  0?''-Tn :  oi  Ztcpa^oi 
[Vat.  Zeicp-]  ■  Ziphcei),  1  Sam.  xxiii.  I'J,'' 
xxvi.  1.  G. 

ZIPH'ION  ("iV?^  :  ^a<piv:  Sephimi).  Son 
of  Gad  (Gen.  xlvi.  16);  elsewhere  called  Zevhon. 

ZIPH'RON  ("I'l^T  [fragrance']  :  Aecppo^vd;'' 
Alex.  Zf(ppa}ya'-  Zeplirona).  A  point  in  the  north 
boundary  of  the  promised  land  as  .siiecified  by 
Moses  (Num.  xxxiv.  9).  It  occurs  between  Zedad 
and  Hatsar-Knan.  If  Zedad  is  Sildud,  and  Hatsar- 
Enan  Kuriclein,aa  is  not  impossible,  then  Ziphron 
must  be  looked  for  somewhere  between  the  two. 
At  present  no  name  at  all  suitable  has  been  discov- 
ered in  this  direction.  But  the  whole  of  this 
topoijraphy  is  in  a  most  unsatisfactory  state  as 
retrards  both  comprehension  of  the  original  record 
and  knowledge  of  the  ground;  and  in  the  absence 
of  more  information  we  must  be  content  to  abstain 
from  conjectures. 

In  the  parallel  passage  of  Ezekiel  (xlvii.  16,  17) 
the  words  "  Hazar-hatticon,  which  is  by  the  border 
of  Hauran,"  appear  to  be  substituted  for  Ziphron. 
The  Hauran  here  named  maybe  the  modern  village 
Jffiiiudi'Vi,  which  lies  between  Sm/ud  and  Kurie- 
tein,  and  not  the  district  of  the  same  name  many 
miles  further  south.  G. 

ZIP'POR  ("1"^S'J,  and  twice  "^  ~lb!5  [spar- 
nnv]:  "Siiirtpdop-  Sephor).  Father  of  Balak  king 
of  Moab.  His  name  occurs  only  in  the  expression 
"  son  <^  of  Zippor  "  (Num.  xxii.  2,  4,  10,  16,  xxiii. 
18;  Josh.  xxiv.  9;  Judg.  xi.  25).  Whether  be 
was  the  •'  former  king  of  Moab  "  alluded  to  in 
Num.  xxi.  26,  we  are  not  told,  nor  do  we  kiKnv 
that  he  himself  ever  reigned.  The  Jewish  tradi- 
tion already  noticed  [Moab,  iii.  1981J  is,  that 
Mcab  and  Midinn  were  united  into  one  kingdom, 
and  ruled  by  a  king  chosen  alternately  from  each. 
In  this  connection  the  similarity  between  the  names 
Zippor  .and  Zipporah,  the  latter  of  which  we  know 
to  have  been  the  name  of  a  Midianitess,  jnir  sanij, 
is  worthy  of  notice,  as  it  suggests  that  balak  may 
have  been  of  Midianite  parentage.  G. 


ZIPPO'RAH  (n~5^  [fem.  «/;r(r)wo] :  26ff- 
(pd>pa\  Joseph.  'Xa.iripdpa'  Sephwa).  Daughter 
of  Keuel  or  Jethro,  the  priest  of  Midian,  wife  of 
Moses,  and  mother  of  his  two  sons  Gershom  and 
I'Lliezer  (I'.x  ii.  21,  iv.  25,  xviii.  2,  comp.  6).  The 
only  incident  recorded  in  her  life  is  that  of  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Gershom  (iv.  24-26),  the  account  of 
which  has  been  examined  under  the  head  of  Moses 
(iii.  2019.  See  also  Stanley's  Jtivisli  Cl(urch, 
p.  114). 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Zipporah  was  the 
Cushite  (A.  V.  "  Ethiopian  ")  wife  who  furnished 
Miriam  and  Aaron  with  the  pretext  ibr  their  attack 
on  Moses  (Num.  xii.  1,  &c.).  The  chief  ground 
for  this  appears  to  be  that  in  a  passaye  of  Habakkuk 
(iii.  7)  the  names  of  Cushan  and  Midian  are  men- 
tioned together.  But  in  the  immense  interval 
which  had  elapsed  between  the  Exodus  and  the 
period  of  Habakkuk  (at  least  seven  centuries),  the 
relations  of  Cush  and  Midian  may  well  have  altered 
too  materially  to  admit  of  any  argument  being 
founded  on  the  later  passage,  even  if  it  were  certain 
that  their  being  mentioned  in  juxtaposition  implied 
any  connection  between  them,  further  than  that 
both  were  dwellers  in  tents  and  enemies  of  Israel; 
and  unless  the  events  of  Num.  xii.  should  be  proved 
to  be  quite  out  of  their  proper  place  in  the  narra- 
tive, it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  charge  could 
have  been  made  against  Moses  on  the  ground  of  his 
marriage,  after  so  long  a  period,  and  when  the 
children  of  his  wife  must  have  been  .several  years 
old.  The  most  feasil)le  suggestion  appears  to  be 
that  of  Ewald  {Gesctddite,  ii.  229,  nutt),  namely, 
that  the  Cushite  was  a  second  wife,  or  a  concubine, 
taken  l)y  Moses  during  the  march  through  the 
wilderness  —  whether  after  the  death  of  Zipjjorah 
(which  is  not  mentioned)  or  from  other  circum- 
stances must  be  uncertain.  This  —  with  the  utmost 
respect  to  the  eminent  scholar  who  has  supported 
the  other  alternative  —  the  writer  ventures  to  ofller 
as  that  which  commends  itself  to  him. 

The  similarity  between  the  names  of  Zippor  and 
Zipporah,  and  the  possible  inference  from  that  sim- 
ilarity, have  been  mentioned  under  the  former  head. 

[ZiFPOK.]  G. 

ZITH'RI  (^"inp  [Jehovah's  protection]: 
2e7pei;  [Vat.  Xepyei;]  Alex.  ^e6pei:  Selhri). 
Properly  "  Sithri;  "  one  of  the  .sons  of  Uzziel,  the 
son  of  KohatH  (Ex.  vi.22).  In  Ex.  vi.21,  "Zithri" 
should  be  "  Zichri,"  as  in  A.  V.  of  1611. 

ZIZ,  THE  CLIFF  OF  iy^'^U  nbl?p 
[ascent  of  the] :  i]  ava^aais  'Atroe  [Rom. ' haffih] 
in  both  MSS. :  clivits  nomine  Sis).  The  pass 
(such  is  more  accurately  the  meaning  of  the  word 
niadUh  ;  comp.  Adummim;  Gur,  etc.)  by  which 


a  Examples  of  the  same  inconsistency  in  the  A.  V. 
ire  found  in  .\viM,  Avites  ;  HoRra,  HoRrrES  ;  Philis- 
TM.  Philistkes. 

''  Til  this  passage  there  ie  no  article  to  the  name  in 
tiie  Ueurew. 


<-•  The  final  a  in  LXX.  and  Vulgate  is  due  to  th« 
Hibrew  particle  of  motion  —  "  to  Ziphron." 
d  Num.  xxii.  10,  xxiii.  18. 
e  In  LXX.  vlbt  2.,  •  :cept  iu  Joeh.  xxiv.  9,  6  tov  2 


ZIZA 

the  borde  of  Moabites,  Animonit«s,  and  Jlehnnira, 
made  tlieir  way  up  from  the  shores  of  the  Uead 
Sea  to  the  wilderness  of  Judah  near  Tekua  (2  Chr. 
XX.  10  uidy;  coinp.  20).  There  can  be  very  little 
doubt  that  it  was  the  pass  of  \liii  Jit/y  —  "the 
very  same  route,"  as  Ur.  liobinsoii  remarks, 
"  which  is  taken  by  the  Arabs  in  their  marauding 
expeditions  at  the  present  day;  aloni,'  the  shore  as 
far  as  to  \Aiii  Jidy,  and  then  up  the  pass,  and  so 
northwards  below  Tekwi,  "  {Bi'jl.  Ris.  i.  508,  530). 
The  very  name  (whicli  since  it  has  the  article  pre- 
fixed is  more  accurately  haz-Ziz  than  Ziz)  may 
perhaps  be  still  traceable  in  el-//usas'ih,  vyhich  is 
attached  to  a  large  tract  of  tal)le-land  lying  inune- 
diately  above  the  pass  of  Aiii  Jidy,  between  it  and 
l\di'iii,  and  bounded  on  the  north  by  a  wady  of  the 
sauje  name  (Bibl.  Jits.  i.  527).  JMay  not  both 
haz-Ziz  and  Husasah  be  descended  from  Hazezon- 
:amar,  the  early  name  of  En-gedi  ?  G. 

ZI'Z  A.  (^^^^^  [fuli  breast,  abundance]  :  Zov^d.; 
[\^at.  corrupt:]  Zizn).  1.  Son  of  Shiphi  a  chief 
of  the  Simeonites,  who  in  the  reign  of  flezekiah 
made  a  raid  upon  the  peaceable  Hamite  sheidierds 
of  Gedor,  and  smote  them,  "  because  there  was 
pasture  there  for  tueir  Hocks  "  (1  Cln-.  iv.  37). 

2.  (Z7)(,a;  [Vat.  Zei<,a;  Alex.  ZiCa-])  Sou  of 
Rehoboani  by  Maachah  the  granddaughter  of  Absa- 
lom (2  Chr.  xi,  20). 

ZI'Z  AH  (nrt  [full  breast]:  ZiCd:  Ziza). 
A  Gershonite  Levite,  second  son  of  Shimei  (1  Chr. 
xsiii.  11);  calleil  Zina  in  ver.  10. 

ZO'AN  (]2;ir:  Tavis--  Tunis,  [Ez.  xxx.  14, 
in  Tap/mis]),  an  ancient  city  of  Lower  Egypt.  It 
is  mentioned  by  a  Shemitic  and  by  an  Egyptian 
name,  both  of  the  same  signification.  Zoan,  pre- 
served   in  the  Coptic     25:^JtH,  X^Jll,     S. 

2t^^Jie,  2t^^JlI,  the  Arabic  ^l^ 
(a  viUage  on  the  site),  and  the  classical  Tai/is,  I'anis, 
whence  the  Coptic  transcription  X^Jt6UL5Cj 
comes  from  the  root  T^-,  "  he  moved  tents  "  (Is. 

xxxiii.  20),  cognate  with  ]P^»  ''  he  loaded  a  beast 
of  burden;"  and  thus  signifies  "a  place  of  de- 
parture," like  □^23p!i,    Zaanannini   (Josh.  xix. 

33),  or  Q'^.???,  Zaanaim"  (,Judg.  iv.  11),  "  re- 
niovings  "  (Gesen.),  a  place  in  northernmost  Pales- 
tine, on  the  border  of  Naphtali  near  Kedesh.  The 
place  just  mentioned  is  close  to  the  natural  and 
constant  northern  border  of  Palestine,  whetlier 
under  tiie  spurs  of  Lebanon  or  of  Ilermon.  Zoan 
lay  near  the  eastern  border  of  Lower  Eiiypt.  _  The 
tense  of  departure  or  removing,  therefore,  would 
seem  not  to  indicate  a  mere  resting-place  of  cara- 
vans, but  a  place  of  departure  from  a  country. 
The  Egyptian  name  HA-AWAlt,  or  PA-AWAK, 
Avaris,  Aouapi9,  nieans  "  the  abode"  or  "  house  " 
of  "going  out"  or  "  departure."  Its  more  pre- 
cise sense  fi.xes  that  of  the  Shemitic  equivalent.* 

Tanis  is  situate  in  N.  lat.  31°,  E.  long.  31°  55', 
on  the  east  bank  of  the  canal  which  was  formerly 
the  Tanitic  branch.  Anciently  a  rich  plain  extended 
due  east  as  far  as  Pelusium,  about  thirty  miles  dis- 
^nt,  gradually  narrowing  towards  the  east,  so  that 
n  a  southeasterly  direction  from  Tanis  it  was  not 


ZOAN 


mi 


more  than  half  this  lireadth.  The  whole  of  this 
plain,  about  as  hv  south  and  west  as  Tanis,  was 
anciently  known  as   -'the   Fields"    or    "Plains," 

JtJliecy  Cy  OJT  ,       "  the  Marshes,"  ra  "EAtj. 

'EAfa/)X'«>  O""  "  ^'^"^  pasture-lands,"  BovKoAia. 
Through  the  subsidence  of  the  .Mediterranean  coast, 
it  is  now  almost  covered  by  the  great  Lake  Menzeleh. 
Of  old  it  was  a  rich  marsh-land,  watered  by  four  of 
the  seven  l)ranches  of  tlie  Nile,  the  Pathmitic, 
Mendesian,  Tanitic,  and  I'elusiac,  and  swept  by  the 
cool  breezes  of  the  Mediterranean.  Tanis,  whiltj 
Egypt  was  ruled  by  native  kings,  was  the  chief  town 
of  this  territory,  and  an  important  post  towards  the 
eastern  frontier. 

At  a  remote  period,  between  the  age  when  tlia 
pyramids  were  built  and  that  of  the  empire,  seem- 
ingly about  B.  C.  21)81),  Egypt  was  invaded,  over- 
run, and  subdued,  by  the  strangers  known  as  the 
Shepherds,  who,  or  at  least  their  first  race,  appear 
to  have  been  Aralis  cognate  with  the  Phoenicians. 
How  they  entei  ed  Egypt  does  not  appear.  After  a 
time  they  made  one  of  themselves  king,  a  certain 
Salatis,  who  reigned  at  JMeiuphis,  exacting  tribute 
of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  and  garrisoning  the 
fittest  places,  with  especial  regard  to  the  safety  of 
the  eastern  provinces,  which  he  foresaw  the  .Assyr- 
ians would  desire  t<j  invade.  With  this  view,  find- 
ing in  the  Saite  (l>etter  elsewhere  Sethroite)  nome, 
on  the  east  of  the  Bubastite  branch,  a  very  fit  city 
called  Avaris,  he  rebuilt,  and  very  strongly  walled  it, 
garrisoning  it  with  210,000  men.  He  came  hithei 
in  harvest-time  (about  the  vernal  equinox),  to  give 
corn  and  pay  to  the  troops,  and  exercise  them  so  as 
to  terrify  foreigners.  This  is  Blanetho's  account  ot 
the  foundation  of  Avaris,  the  great  stronghold  of 
the  Shepherds.  Several  points  are  raised  by  it. 
We  see  at  a  glance  that  Manetho  did  not  know 
that  .\varis  was  Tanis.  By  his  time  tlie  city  had 
fallen  into  obscurity,  and  he  could  not  connect  tlie 
H.A-A  W.AK  of  his  native  records  with  the  Tanis  of 
the  (jreeks.  His  account  of  its  early  history  must 
therefore  be  received  with  caution.  Throughout, 
we  trace  the  iiiBuence  of  the  pride  that  made  the 
Egyptians  hate,  and  affect  to  despise  the  Shepherds 
al)Ove  all  their  conquerors,  except  the  Persians. 
The  motive  of  Salatis  is  not  to  overawe  I'^gypt  but 
to  keep  out  the  Assyrians ;  not  to  terrify  the  natives 
but  these  foreigners,  who,  if  other  history  be  cor- 
rect, did  not  then  form  an  important  state.  The 
position  of  Tauis  explains  the  case.  Like  the  other 
principal  cities  of  this  tract,  Pelusium,  Bubastis. 
and  Heliopolis,  it  lay  on  the  east  bank  of  the  river, 
towards  Syria.  It  was  thus  outside  a  trreat  line  of 
defense,  and  afibrdeil  a  protection  to  the  cultivated 
lands  to  the  east,  and  an  obstacle  to  an  invader, 
while  to  retreat  from  it  was  always  possible,  so  long 
as  the  Egyptians  held  the  river.  But  Tanis,  though 
doubtless  fortified  partly  with  the  object  of  rejiell- 
ing  an  invader,  was  too  far  inland  to  be  the  frontier 
fortress.  It  was  near  enough  to  be  the  place  of  de- 
parture for  caravans,  perhaps  was  the  last  to«n  in 
the  Shepherd -period,  but  not  near  enough  to  com- 
mand tiie  entrance  of  Egypt.  Pelusium  lay  upon 
the  great  road  to  Palestine,  —  it  has  l)een  until 
lately  placed  too  far  north  [Sin],  —  and  the  plain 
was  here  narrow,  from  north  to  south,  so  that  no 
invader  could  safely  pass  the  fortress;  l)ut  it  soon 
became  broader,  and,  by  turning  in  a  southwesterly 
direction,  an  advancing  enemy  would  leave  laiii* 


o  Keri,  as  in  Joshua. 


t>  The  ideutiflcation  of  Zoan  with  .\varis  is  d  ai«  S* 
M.  de  Kouiitj. 


3638  ZOATS 

far  to  the  uorthward,  and  a  bold  general  would  de- 
tach a  force  to  keep  its  garrison  in  check  and  march 
upon  Heliopolis  and  Memphis.  An  enormous 
standing  militia,  settled  in  the  Bucolia,  as  the 
Egyptian  militia  afterwards  was  in  neighboring 
tracts  of  the  Delta,  and  with  its  headquarters  at 
Tanis,  would  have  overawed  Egypt,  and  secured  a 
retreat  in  case  of  disaster,  besides  maintaining  hold 
of  some  of  the  most  productive  land  in  the  country, 
and  mainly  for  the  former  two  objects  we  believe 
Avaris  to  have  been  fortified. 

Manetho  explicitly  states  Avaris  to  have  been 
older  than  the  time  of  the  Shepherds;  but  there  are 
reasons  tor  questioning  his  accuracy  in  this  matter. 
'I'he  name  is  mcjre  likely  to  be  of  foreign  than  of 
Egyptian  origin,  for  Zoan  distinctly  indicates  the 
place  of  departure  of  a  migratory  people,  whereas 
Avaris  has  the  simple  signification  "  abode  of  de- 
parture." 

A  remarkable  passage  in  the  book  of  Numbers, 
not  hitherto  explained,  "  Now  Hebron  was  built 
seven  years  before  Zoan  in  Egypt"  (xiii.  22),  seems 
to  determine  the  question.  Hebron  was  anciently 
the  city  of  Arba,  Kirjath-Arba,  and  was  under  the 
rule  of  the  Anakim.  These  Anakim  were  of  the 
old  warlilve  Palestinian  race  that  long  dominated 
over  the  southern  Canaanites.  Here,  therefore,  the 
Anakim  and  Zoan  are  connected.  The  She|)lierds 
who  built  .\varis  were  apparently  of  the  I'hoenician 
stock  which  would  be  referred  to  this  race  as,  like 
them,  without  a  pedigree  in  the  Noachian  geo- 
graphical list.  Hebron  was  already  built  in  Abra- 
ham's time,  and  the  Shepherd-invasion  may  lie 
dated  about  the  same  period.  Whether  some  older 
village  or  city  were  succeeded  by  Avaris  matters 
little:  its  history  begins  in  the  reign  of  Salatis. 

What  the  Egyptian  records  tell  us  of  this  city 
may  be  briefly  stated.  Apeiiee,  proisably  Apophis 
of  the  XVth  dynasty,  a  Shepherd-king  who  reigned 
shortly  before  the  XVHIth  dynasty,  built  a  temple 
here  to  Set,  the  Egyptian  Baal,  and  worshipped  no 
other  god.  Accorditig  to  Manetho,  the  Shepherds, 
after  .511  years  of  rule,  were  expelled  from  all  l'>gypt 
and  shut  up  in  Avaris,  whence  they  were  allowed 
to  depart  by  capitulation,  by  either  Amosis  or 
rhuuunosis  (Aahmes  or  Thothmes  IV.),  the  first 
ind  seventh  kings  of  the  XVMlIth  dynasty.  The 
aionuments  show  that  the  honor  of  ridding  Egypt 
of  the  Shepherds  belongs  to  .Aahmes,  and  that  this 
^vent  occurred  about  r..  €.  1500.  Kameses  H.  em- 
jellished  the  great  temple  of  Tanis,  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  his  son  Memptah. 

It  is  within  the  period  from  the  Shepherd-inva- 
sion  to  the  reign  of  Memptah,  that  the  sojourn  and 
Exodus  of  the  Israelites  are  placed.  We  believe 
that  the  Pharaoh  of  Joseph  as  well  as  the  oppressors 
were  Sheplierds,  the  former  ruling  at  Jlempiiis  and 
Zoan,  the  latter  probably  at  Zoan  oidy;  tliough  in 
the  case  of  the  I'haraoh  of  the  Exodus,  the  time 
would  suit  the  annual  visit  Manetho  states  to  have 
been  paid  by  Salatis.  Zoan  is  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  the  Plagues  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
leave  no  doulit  that  it  is  the  city  spoken  of  in  the 
narrative  in  Exodus  as  that  where  Pharaoh  dwelt. 
The  wonders  were  wrought  "  in  the  field  of  Zoan  "■ 

IPs.    Ixxviii.    12,    43),  'J^"^"^"!^,  which    may 

either  denote  the  teiTitory  immediately  around  the 
sity,  or  its  nome,  or  even  a  kingdom  (Gesen.  Ltx. 

i.  V.   niti').     This  would  accord  best  with  the 

Shepherd  period ;  but  it    cannot   be  doubted  that 


ZOAN 

Rameses  II.  paid  great  attention  to  Zoan,  and  niaj 
have  made  it  a  royal  residence. 

After  the  fall  of  the  empire,  the  first  dynasty  ia 
the  XX  1st,  called  by  Manetho  that  of  Tauites.  Ita 
history  is  obscure,  and  it  fell  before  the  stronger 
line  of  Buba-^tites,  the  XXIId  dynasty,  founded  by 
Sliishak.  The  expulsion  of  Set  from  the  Pantheon, 
under  the  XXlId  dynast^',  must  have  been  a  blow 
to  Tanis :  and  perhaps  a  I'eligious  war  occasioned 
the  rise  of  the  XXllId.  The  XXIlId  dynasty  ia 
called  Tanite,  and  its  last  king  is  probably  Sethos, 
the  contemporary  of  Tirhakah,  mentioned  by  He- 
rodotus. At  this  time  Tanis  once  more  appears  in 
sacred  history,  as  a  place  to  which  came  ambassa- 
dors, either  of  Hoshea,  or  Ahaz,  or  else,  possibly, 
Hezekiah :  "  For  his  princes  were  at  Zoan,  .and  his 
messengers  came  to  Hanes "  (Is.  xxx.  4).  As 
mentioned  with  the  frontier  town  Tahpanhes,  Tanis 
is  not  necessarily  the  capital.  But  the  same 
prophet  perhaps  more  distinctly  points  to  a  Tanite 
line  where  saying,  in  "  the  burden  of  Egypt,"  "  the 
princes  of  Zoan  are  become  fools;  the  princes  of 
Nopii  are  deceived  "  (xix.  13).  The  doom  of  Zoan 
is  foretold  by  Ezekiel:  "  I  will  set  fire  in  Zoan" 
(xxx.  14),  where  it  occurs  among  the  cities  to  be 
taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 

"  The  plain  of  San  is  very  extensive,  but  thinly 
inhaliited:  no  village  exists  in  the  immediate  vicin- 
ity of  the  ancient  Tanis;  and,  when  looking  from 
the  mounds  of  this  once  splendid  city  towards  the 
distant  palms  of  indistinct  villages,  we  perceive  the 
desolation  spread  around  it.  The  '  field  '  of  Zoan, 
is  now  a  barren  waste:  a  canal  passes  through  it 
without  being  able  to  fertilize  the  soil;  'fire'  has 
been  set  in  'Zoan; '  and  one  of  the  principal  capi- 
tals or  royal  abodes  of  the  Pharaohs  is  now  the 
habitation  of  fishermen,  the  resort  of  wild  beasts, 
and  infested  with  reptiles  and  malignant  fevers." 
It  is  "  remarkable  for  the  height  and  extent  of  its 
mounds,  which  are  upwards  of  a  mile  from  N.  to 
S.,  and  nearly  |  of  a  mile  from  E.  to  W.  The 
area  in  which  the  sacred  inclosure  of  the  temple 
stood  is  about  1,500  ft.  by  1,250,  surrounded  by 
mounds  of  fallen  houses.  The  temple  was  adorned 
by  Kameses  II.  with  numerous  obelisks  and  most 
of  its  sculptures.  It  is  very  ruinous,  but  its  re- 
mains prove  its  former  grandeur.  The  number  of 
its  oljelisks,  ten  or  twelve,  all  now  fallen,  is  un- 
equaled,  and  the  labor  of  transporting  them  from 
Syene  shows  the  lavish  magnificence  of  the  l'".gyptian 
kings.  The  oldest  name  found  here  is  that  of  Se- 
sertesen  HI.  of  the  Xllth  dynasty,  the  latest  that  of 
Tirhakah  (Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson's  Handbouk\  pp. 
221,  222).  Recently,  M.  Mariette  has  made  ex- 
cavations on  this  site  and  discovered  remains  of  the 
Shepherd-period,  showing  a  markedly-characteristic 
style,  especially  in  the  representation  of  face  and 
figure,  but  of  Egyptian  art,  and  therefore  after- 
wards appropriated  jy  the  Egyptian  kings. 

R.  S.  P. 

*  The  past  ten  years  have  been  rich  in  discoveries 
of  historical  value  at  San.  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Avaris,  Tanis,  or  Zoan.  M.  Mariette's  excavations 
have  brought  to  light  a  colossal  statue  of  Amen- 
erahe  I.  founder  of  the  Xllth  dynasty;  a  colossal 
statue  of  Osirtasen  I.  represented  as  Osiris;  a  third 
of  Sevekhotep  HI.  of  the  Xlllth  dynasty;  a  fourth 
of  another  Sevekhotep,  not  fully  identified,  but  hav- 
ing the  prefix  of  Osirtasen  II.;  and  a  fifth  colossua 
of  a  sovereign  whose  name  is  not  yet  known  Iron; 
any  list  of  kings. 

In  .addition  to  these,  a  number  of  sphinxes  o/ 


ZOAR 

fine  workmanship  have  l>eeii  unveiled.  From  a 
personal  inspection  of  these  monuments,  Count  de 
liouire  states  that  the  art  has  all  the  vit::or,  tlie 
nicety,  the  perfection  of  the  time  of  the  old  em- 
pire, but  the  type  cannot  be  confounded  with  any 
Eiryp''-'"  O'Pfi'  so  characteristic  is  its  impress  that 
the  difference  of  races  at  once  strikes  the  eye  of  the 
observer.  The  jrod  Soutekh  or  Set  is  also  promi- 
nent upon  tliese  monuments.  Here  then  are  indu- 
bitable traces  of  the  Hyksos  or  "  Shepherds,"  who 
do  not  appear  to  have  been  such  ruthless  iconoclasts 
as  Egyptian  historians  have  represented  them. 

The  papyrus  "  Sallier  I."  establishes  the  fact 
that  a  Shepherd-king  built  to  Set  a  substantial 
temple  at  Avaris,  and  established  in  his  honor  festi- 
vals and  sacrificial  days;  and  a  religious  feud  aris- 
ing froui  the  attempt  to  force  this  hostile  divinity 
upon  the  Egyptians  seems  to  have  prom[)ted  the 
expulsion  of  the  Shepherds. 

There  are  serious  oljections  to  the  theory  that 
the  Hebrews  were  in  Egy[)t  under  the  Hyksos.  If 
the  Pharaoh  of  .loseph's  time  was  a  Hyksos,  how 
could  the  name  "  Shepherd  "  have  been  an  "  abom- 
ination "  to  him,  and  how  could  Joseph  have  se- 
cured the  isolation  of  his  brethren  by  introducing 
them  as  shepherds  V  What  motive  could  have  led 
these  foreign  invaders,  if  then  in  power  in  Egypt, 
to  suppress  a  kindred  [jeople,  strangers  and  shep- 
herds like  themselves,  and  who  would  have  been 
their  natural  allies  against  Egypt,  in  a  civil  war? 
The  narrative  of  the  I'Lxodus  forbids  the  .supposition 
that  the  Hebrews  were  driven  out  with  the  Hyksos, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  that  they  were  suf- 
fered to  remain,  if  they  were  in  the  country  at  the 
Hyksos  period. 

For  a  full  discussion  of  this  question,  see  Ebers, 
JEyyiJten  uivl  die  Biicher  A  fast's;  Chabas,  Les 
Pnsteurs  en  Eyypte,  and  the  Bibl.  Sacra,  vol.  xxvi. 
p.  581. 

Tanis  has  recently  furnished  a  valuable  help  to 
Egyptian  philology  in  a  stone  containing  an  in- 
scription of  Ptoleuiy  111.  Euergetes  I.  in  thirty- 
seven  lines  of  hieroglyphics,  followed  by  seventy-six 
of  Greek.  The  complete  disinterment  of  the  stone 
has  also  very  recently  brought  to  light  a  third,  or 
demotic  text  of  the  inscription,  also  completely 
preserved.  {See  Pniceedinr/s  af  the  Amer.  Orien- 
tal Sociefy,  May,  1870,  p.  viii".)  This  Tablet  of 
Canopus  remarkably  confirms  the  general  system  of 
ChampoUion.  See  Das  bilint/ue  Dekrct  von  Kami- 
ptis,  von  R.  Lepsius  (Berl.  1807)  :  Die  zicti- 
spraclnye  Inschrift  von  Tanis,  von  Keinisch  und 
Roesler  (Wien,  18(J7);  also  Bibl.  ^'ao/-a,  vol.  xxiv. 
p.  771.  J.  F.  T. 

ZO'AR  C^P'^,  and  twice"  "ll^S^  [smnllness']  : 

Saniar.  throughout  "^3*2 :  Zi-yopa,  'S.-t^ydp,  Zo- 
■y6p\  .loseph.  Zou>p,  ra  ZSapa,  or  Ziiapa-  Seyor). 
One  of  the  most  ancient  cities  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
[Moab.  —  S.  ^\'.].  Its  original  name  was  Bei.a, 
and  it  was  still  so  called  at  the  time  of  Abram's 
first  residence  in  Canaan  (Gen.  xiv.  2,  8).  It  was 
then  in  intimate  connection  with  the  cities  of  the 
"  plain  of  Jordan  "  —  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah, 
and  Zeboiim  (see  also  xiii.  10;  but  not  x.  lil)  — 
and  its  king  took  part  with  the  kings  of  tiiose 
ctowns  in  the  liattle  with  the  Assyrian  host  which 
(uded  in  their  defeat  and  the  capture  of  Lot.     In 


ZOAR 


1639 


a  Gen.  xix.  22.  30. 

6  In  the  Tavgum  PseudojonatUan,  to  vv.  22,   23, 


the  general  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the  plain, 
Zoar  was  spared  to  aff.ird  shelter  to  1  ot,  and  it  w-aa 
on  that  occasion,  according  to  the  quaint  statement 
of  the  ancient  narrative,  that  the  change  in  its 
name  took  place  (xix.  22,  23,  •30).''  It  is  men- 
tioned in  the  account  of  the  death  of  Moses  as  ona 
of  the  landmarks  which  bounded  his  view  from 
Pisgah  (Deut.  xxxiv.  3),  and  it  appears  to  have  beeu 
known  in  the  time  both  of  Isaiah  (xv.  5)  and  Jere- 
miah (xlviii.  34).  These  are  all  the  notices  of  Z^ar 
contained  in  the  Bible. 

1.  It  was  situated  in  the  same  district  with  the 
four  cities  already  mentioned,  namely,  in  the  Ciccar, 
the  "  plain  "  or  "  circle  ''  "  of  the  Jordan,"  and  the 
narrative  of  Gen.  xix.  evidently  implies  that  it  waa 
very  near  to  Sodoin  —  sufficiently  near  for  Lot  and 
his  family  to  traverse  the  distance  in  the  time  be- 
tween tiie  first  appearance  of  the  morning  and  the 
actual  rising  of  the  sun  (vv.  15,  23,  27).  The 
definite  position  of  Sodom  is,  and  probably  will  al- 
ways be  a  mystery,  but  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  plain  of  the  Jordan  was  at  the  north  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  that  tlie  cities  of  the  plain  must 
therefore  have  been  situated  there  instead  of  at  the 
southern  end  of  the  lake,  as  it  is  generally  taken 
for  granted  they  were.  The  grounds  for  this  con- 
clusion have  been  already  indicated  under  Sodom 
(p  3008),  but  it  will  be  well  to  state  them  here 
more  at  length.     They  are  as  follows :  — 

(a.)  The  northern  and  larger  portion  of  the  lake 
lias  undoubtedly  existed  in,  or  very  nearly  in  its 
present  form  since  a  date  long  anterior  to  the  age 
of  Alirahara.  (Tiie  conviction  of  the  writer  is  that 
this  is  true  of  the  whole  lake,  hut  every  one  will 
agree  as  to  the  northern  portion,  and  that  is  all 
that  is  necessary  to  the  pre.sent  argument.)  The 
.Jordan  therefore  at  that  date  discharged  itself  into 
the  lake  pretty  nearly  where  it  does  now,  and  tinis 
the  -'plain  of  the  Jordan,"'  unless  unconnected 
witli  tlie  river,  must  have  lain  on  the  north  of  the 
Head  .Sea. 

{/>.)  The  plain  was  within  view  of  the  spot  from 
which  Abram  and  Lot  took  their  survey  of  the 
country  (Gen.  xiii.  1-13),  and  which,  if  there  ia 
any  connection  in  the  narrative,  was  "  the  mountain 
east  of  Bethel,'  "  between  Bethel  and  Ai,''  with 
"  Bethel  on  tlie  west  and  Ai  on  the  east  "  (xii.  8, 
xiii.  3).  Now  the  lower  part  of  the  course  of  the 
.lordan  is  plainly  visible  from  the  hills  east  of 
Beilin  —  the  whole  of  that  rich  and  singular  valley 
spread  out  before  the  spectator.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  southern  half  of  the  1  >ead  Sea  is  not  only 
too  far  off  to  be  discerned,  but  is  actually  shut  out 
from  view  by  intervening  heights. 

(c.)  In  the  account  of  the  view  of  Moses  from 
Pisgah  the  Ciccar  is  more  strictly  defined  aa  "  the 
Ciccar  of  the  plain  of  Jericho  "  {A.  V.  "  plain  of 
the  valley  of  Jericho"),  and  Zoar  is  mentioned  io 
immediate  connection  with  it.  Now  no  person  who 
knows  the  spot  from  actual  acquaintance,  or  from 
study  of  the  toposiraphy,  can  believe  that  the  "  \)\nm 
of  Jericho  "  can  have  been  extended  to  the  southern 
end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  The  Jerus.alem  Taranm  (not 
a  very  ancient  authority  in  itself,  but  still  valuable 
as  a  storehouse  of  many  ancient  traditions  and  ex- 
planations), in  paraphrasing  this  passage,  actually 
identifies  Zoar  with  Jericho  —  "  the  plain   of  the 


the  name  of  Zoar  is  given  "1271^'  and  the  plaj  on  tne 
'•  smallness  "  of  the  town  is  suDpresntM 


3640 


ZOAR 


valley  of   Jericho,    the   city   which   produces   thr 

palms,  that  is  Zeer  "  {I^V'^).^ 

These  considerations  appear  to  the  writer  to 
render  it  higiily  probable  that  the  Zoar  of  the 
Pentateucli  was  to  the  north  of  the  Dead  Sea,  not 
far  from  its  northern  end,  in  the  general  parallel 
of  Jericho.  That  it  was  on  the  east  side  of  the 
valley  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  fact  that  the  de- 
scendants of  Lot,  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  are 
in  possession  of  that  country  as  their  original  seat 
when  they  first  appear  in  the  sacred  history.  It 
seems  to  follow  that  the  "  mountain  "  in  which  Lot 
ajid  his  daughters  dwelt  when  Moab  and  Ben- 
Ammi  were  born,  was  the  "  mountain  "  to  which 
he  was  advised  to  flee  by  the  angel,  and  between 
which  and  Sodom  stood  Zoar  (xix.  30,  compare  17, 
19).  It  i«  also  in  favor  of  its  position  north  of 
the  Dead  Sea  that  the  earliest  hiformation  as  to 
the  Moabites  makes  their  original  seat  in  tiie  plains 
of  Heshbon,  X.  E.  of  the  lake,  not,  as  afterwards, 
in  the  mountains  on  the  S.  E.,  to  which  they 
were  driven  by  the  Amorites  (Num.  xxi.  3'j). 

2.  'I'he  passages  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  in  which 
Zoar  is  mentioned  give  no  clew  to  its  situation. 
True  they  abound  with  the  names  of  places,  ap- 
parently in  connection  with  it,  but  they  are  places 
(with  only  an  exception  or  two)  not  identified. 
Still  it  is  remarkable  that  one  of  these  is  Elealeh, 
which,  if  the  modern  el-A<il,  is  in  the  parallel  of 
the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  that  another 
is  the  Waters  of  Nimrim,  which  may  turn  out  to 
be  identical  with   Wady  Nimrin,  opposite  Jericho. 

Wialy  Stir,  a  short  distance  south  of  Niinrin,  is 
suggestive  of  Zoar,  but  we  are  too  ill-informed  of 
the  situations  and  the  orthography  of  the  places 
east  of  Jordan  to  be  able  to  judge  of  this. 

3.  So  much  for  the  Zoar  of  the  Bible.  When 
however  we  examine  the  notices  of  the  place  in  the 
post-Biblical  sources,  we  find  a  considerable  differ- 
ence. In  these  its  position  is  indicated  with  more 
or  less  precision,  as  at  the  S.  E.  end  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  Thus  Josephus  says  that  it  retained  its 
name  (Zouip)  to  his  day  {Ant.  i.  11,  §  4),  that  it 
was  at  the  fuither  end  of  the  Asphaltic  Lake,  in 
Arabia — by  which  he  means  the  country  lying 
S.  E.  of  the  lake,  whose  capital  was  Petra  (B.  J. 
Lv.  8,  §  4;  Ant.  xiv.  1,  §  4).  The  notices  of  Ense- 
bius  are  to  the  same  tenor;  the  Dead  Sea  extended 
from  Jericho  to  Zoar  {Zoopwv;  Onoin.  QaKacrcra  tj 
aKvKJi)-  Phieno  lay  between  Petra  and  Zoar  (J/j. 
^ivciv)-  It  still  retained  its  name  {Zcoapa),  lay 
close  to  (napaKfifieyri)  the  Dead  Sea,  was  crowded 
with  inhabitants,  and  contained  a  garrison  of  l!o- 
raan  soldiers;  the  palm  and  the  balsam  still  flour- 
ished, and  testified  to  its  ancient  fertility  {Jb. 
Ba\d). 

To  these  notices  of  Eusebius  St.  Jerome  adds 
little  or  nothing.  Paula  in  her  journey  beholds 
Segor  (which  Jerome  gives  on  several  occasions  as 
the  Hebrew  form  of  the  name  in  opposition  to 
Z'<ora  or  Zoara,  the  Syrian  form)  from  Caphar 
liorucha  (]K)ssibly  Be7ii  Naiin,  near  Hebron),  at 
the  same  time  with  Engaddi,  and  the  land  where 
once  stood  the  four  cities ;  *  but  the  terms  of  the 


a  The  Samaritan  Text  and  Version  afford  no  li^ljt 
on  tfiis  pa.<!iiage,  as  they,  for  reasons  not  difficult  to 
livine.  have  thrown  the  whole  into  confusion. 

*  None  of  these  places,  however,  can  be  seen  from 
&»«  Nairn  (Bob.  i.  491). 


ZOAR 

statement  are  too  vague  to  allow  of  any  infereiiijs 
as  to  its  position  {Epist.  cviii.  §  11).  In  his  co:u- 
mentary  on  Is.  xv.  5,  he  says  that  it  was  "  in  the 
boundary  of  the  Moal)ites,  dividing  them  from  the 
land  of  the  Philistines,"  and  thus  justifies  his  use 

of  the  word  vectis  to  translate  nrT^n^  (A.  V. 
"his  fugitives,"  marg.  '' borders;  "  Gesen.J^uc//?- 
liiKjt).  The  ii-rra  J'hili.^fhiim,  unless  the  words 
are  corrupt,  can  only  mean  the  land  of  Palestine  <■' 
—  i.  e.  (according  to  the  inaccurate  usage  of  later 
times)   of  Israel  —  as  opposed   to   Moab.     In  his 

Qiuestwnes  HebniiccB  on  Gen.  xix.  30  (comp.  xiv. 
3)  Jerome  goes  so  far  as  to  affirm  the  accui'acy  of 
the  Jewish  conjecture,  that  the  later  name  of  Zoar 
was  Shalisha:  "Bale  [)rinium  et  postea  Salisa  ap- 
pellata "  (comp.  also  his  connnent  on  Is.  xv.  5). 
But  this  is  probably  grounded  merely  on  an  inter- 
pretation of  sli(UUhiyi:li  in  Is.  xv.  5,  as  connected 
with  held,  and  as  denoting  the  "third  "  destruction 
of  the  town  hy  "earthquakes."' "^ 

In  more  modern  times  Zoar  is  mentioned  by  the 
Crusading  historians.  Enlcher  (Gi^sta  Dti,  p.  405, 
quoted  by  von  Kauiner,  p.  23U)  states  that  "  having 
encircled  {yiralu)  the  southern  part  of  the  lake  on 
the  road  from  Hebron  to  Petra,  we  found  there  a 
large  village  which  was  said  to  be  Segor,  in  a 
charming  situation,  and  abounding  with  dates. 
Here  we  l)egan  to  enter  the  mountains  of  Arabia." 
The  palms  are  mentioned  also  by  William  of  Tyre 
(xxii.  30)  as  being  so  abundant  as  to  cause  the 
place  to  be  called  Villa  Palmarum,  and  Palmer 
(t.  e.  probably  Paumier).  Abulfeda  (cir.  A.  D. 
1320)  does  not  specify  its  position  more  nearly  than 
that  it  was  adjacent  to  the  lake  and  the  Ghor,  but 
he  testifies  to  its  then  importance  by  calling  the 
lake  after  it  —  Bahretzeghor  (see,  too,  Ibn  Idris,  in 
Keland,  p.  272).  The  natural  inference  from  the 
description  of  Eulcher  is,  that  Segor   lay   in   the 

Wady  Keralc,  the  ordinary  road,  then  and  now, 
from  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  eastern 
highlands.  The  conjecture  of  Irby  and  Mangles 
(June  1,  and  see  May  9),  that  the  extensive  ruins 
which  they  found  in  the  lower  part  of  this  wady 
were  those  of  Zoar,  is  therefore  probably  accurate. 

The  name  Dra'a  or  Bcrn'ak  (&^\  3)  which  they, 
Poole  (Oeogr.  Journ.  xxvi.  63),  and  Burckhardt 
(July  15),  give  to  the  valley,  may  even  without 
violence  be  accepted  as  a  corruption  of  Zoar. 

Zoar  was  included  in  the  province  of  Palestina 
Tertia,  which  contained  also  Kerak  and  Areopolig. 
It  was  an  episcopal  see,  in  the  patriarchate  of  Jeru- 
salem and  archbishopric  of  Petra;  at  the  Council 
of  Chaleedon  (A.  d.  451)  it  was  represented  by  its 
bishop  Musonius.  and  at  the  Synod  of  Constanti- 
nople (a.  1).  536)  by  John  (Le  Quien,  Oritns 
Christ,  iii.  743-746). 

4.  To  the  statements  of  the  niediseval  travellers 
just  quoted  there  are  at  least  two  remarkable  ex- 
ceptions. (1.)  Brocardus  (cir.  A.  n.  1290),  the 
author  of  the  Descriptio  Terra  Snnctie,  the  stand- 
ard "  Handbook  to  I'ulestine"  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
the  work  of  an  able  and  intelligent  resident  in  the 
country,    states    (cap.    vii.)    that    "five    leagues' 


c  Similarly,  Stephanus  of  Byzantium  places  Zoai 
€V  noAaio-Tirrj  ("quoted  by  Reland,  p.  1065). 

''  See  Rahuier,  Die  Hebr.  Tradit.  in  Hieronymm 
(Breslau,  1861),  p.  29. 

e  The  dtstance  from  .Jericho  to  En-gedi  is  under 
itated  here.     It  is  really  about  24  Eujjlisli  miles. 


ZOAR 

(leucs)  to  the  south  of  Jericho  is  the  city  Segor, 
Bituated  beneath  the  mountain  of  Kngadtli,  between 
which  mountain  and  the  Dead  iSea  is  tlie  statue  of 
salt." "  True  he  confesses  tliat  all  his  eftbrts  to 
visit  the  spot  had  been  frustrated  by  the  Saracens; 
but  the  passage  bears  marks  of  the  greatest  desire 
to  obtain  correct  information,  and  he  must  have 
nearly  approached  the  place,  because  he  saw  witli 
his  own  eyes  the  "pyramids"  which  covered  the 
"wells  of  bitumen,"  which  he  supposes  to  have 
been  those  of.  the  vale  of  Siddim.  Tliis  is  in  curi- 
ous agreement  with  the  connection  between  En-gedi 
and  Zoar  implied  in  Jerome's  Itinerary  of  Paula. 
(2.)  The  statement  of  Thietmar  (a.  d.  1217)  is 
8ven  more  singular.  It  is  contained  in  the  11th 
and  12th  chapters  of  his  Perei/riiKUio  (ed.  Laurent, 
Hamburgi,  18-57).  After  visiting  Jericho  and  Gil- 
gal  he  arrives  at  the  "  fords  of  Jordan"  (xi.  20J, 
wheie  Israel  crossed  and  where  Christ  was  baptized, 
and  where  then,  as  now,  the  pilgrims  bathed  (22). 
Crossing  this  ford  (.3.3)  he  arrives  at  "the  field 
and  the  spot  where  the  Lord  overthrew  Sodom  and 
Gomorra."  After  a  description  of  the  lake  come 
the  following  words :  "  On  the  shore  of  this  lake, 
about  a  mile  {ad  millare)  from  the  spot  at  which 
the  Lord  was  baptized,  is  the  statue  of  salt  into 
which  Lot's  wife  was  turned"  (47).  "Hence  I 
came  from  the  lake  of  Sodom  and  Gomorra,  and 
arrived  at  Set'or,  where  Lot  took  refuge  after  the 
overthrow  of  Sodom ;  which  is  now  called  hi  the 
Syrian  tongue  Zora,  but  in  Latin  the  city  of  palms. 
In  the  mountain  hard  by  this  Lot  sinned  with  his 
daughters  (.xii.  1-3).  After  this  I  passed  the  vine- 
yard   of   Benjamin   (?)  and  of   Engaddi 

Nest  I  came  into  the  land  of  Moab  and  to  the 
mountain  in  which  was  the  cave  where  David  hid 
....  leaving  on  my  left  hand  Sethim  (Shittim), 

where   the  children  of   Israel  tarried At 

last  I  came  to  the  plains  of  Moali,  which  abound 
in  cattle  and  grain A  plain  country,  de- 
lightfully covered  with  herbage,  but  without  either 
woods  or  single  trees;  hardly  even  a  twig  or  shrub 
(■1-1.5).  .  .  .  After  this  I  came  to  the  torrent 
Jabbok  '■  (xiv.  1). 

Slaking  allowance  for  the  confusion  into  which 
this  traveller  seems  to  have  fallen  as  to  Engaddi 
and  the  cavern  of  David,  it  seems  almost  certain 
from  his  description  that,  having  once  crossed  the 
Jordan,  he  did  not  recross  it,''  and  that  tlie  site  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  pillar  of  salt,  and  Zoar, 
were  all  seen  by  him  on  the  east  of  the  Head  Sea 
—  the  two  first  at  its  northeast  end.  Taken  by 
itself  this  would  not  perhaps  be  of  much  weight, 
but  when  coihbined  with  the  evidence  which  the 
writer  hag  attempted  to  bring  forward  that  the 
"  cities  of  the  plain "  lay  to  the  north  of  the 
lake,  it  seems  to  him  to  assume  a  certain  sitruif- 
icance. 

5.  P)ut  putting  aside  the  accounts  of  Brocardus 
iknd  Thietmar,  as  exceptions  to  the  ordinary  me- 


ZOAR 


3641 


a  In  the  map  to  the  Tlualrum  TerrcE  SaiictrF.  of 
Adrichomius,  Sodom  is  placed  within  the  lalie,  at  its 
N.  W.  end ;  Segor  near  it  on  the  shore ;  and  the 
Statua  Salis  close  to  the  mouth  of  the  torrent  (ap- 
j<areLitly  Kidron). 

f>  Thietmar  did  not  return  to  the  west  of  the  Jor- 
dan. From  the  torrent  Jabbok  he  ascended  the  moun- 
tains of  .\banm.  He  then  recrossed  the  plain  of 
Heshbon  to  the  river  Arnon  ;  and  passing  the  ruins 
»f  Robd'i  I  lljibba),  and  Orach  (Kerak),  and  again  cross- 
ing the  Anion  (probably  the  Wndy  el-Ahsi/),  reached 
the  top  of  a  very  liigh  mountain,  where  he  was  half 
229 


dijEval  belief  which  placed  Zoar  at  the  Wady  ed- 
Dni'd,  how  can  that  belief  be  reconciled  with  the 
inference  drawn  above  from  the  statements  of  the 
Pentateuch  ?  It  agrees  with  those  statements  in 
one  particular  only,  the  position  of  the  place  on 
the  eastern  side  of  the  lake.  In  everything  else  it 
disagrees  not  only  with  the  Pentateuch,  but  with 
the  locality  ordinarily  =  assigned  to  Sodom.  For 
if  Usduiii  lie  Sodom,  at  the  S.  W.  corner  of  the 
lake,  its  distance  from  the  Wady  ed-Dra'a  (at 
least  15  miles)  is  too  great  to  agree  with  the  re- 
quirements of  Gen.  xix. 

This  has  led  M.  de  Saulcy  to  place  Zoar  in  the 
Wady  Zuwelrali,  the  pass  leading  from  Hebron  to 
the  Dead  Sea.  But  the  names  Zuweirah  and  Zoar 
are  not  nearly  so  similar  in  the  originals  as  they 
are  in  their  western  forms,  and  there  is  the  fatal 
obstac'e  to  the  proposal  that  it  places  Zoar  on  the 
west  of  the  lake,  away  from  what  appears  to  have 
been  the  original  cradle  of  JMoab  and  Animon.'' 
If  we  are  to  look  for  Zoar  in  this  neighborhood,  it 
would  surely  be  better  to  place  it  at  tlie  7\U  um- 

Zo(jkal,e  the  latter  part  of  which  name  ((_^£.«0 

is  almost  literally  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  Zoar. 
The  proximity  of  this  name  and  that  of  Usdum, 
so  like  Sodom,  and  the  presence  of  the  salt  moun- 
tain —  to  this  day  splitting  off  hi  pillars  which 
show  a  rude  resemblance  to  the  human  form  —  are 
certainly  remarkable  facts;  but  they  only  add  to 
the  general  mystery  in  which  the  whole  of  the 
question  of  the  position  and  destruction  of  the 
cities  is  involved,  and  to  which  the  writer  sees  at 
present  no  hope  of  a  solution. 

In  the  A.  V.  of  Kill  the  name  Zoar  [2aap: 
haar,  or  et  Sahar,  ed.  1590]  is  found  in  1  Chr. 
iv.    7,  following   (though    inaccurately)  the   KeH 

("^niJI).  The  present  received  text  of  the  A.  V. 
follows  (with  the  insertion  of  "and")  the  Cethib 
("^nU"').  In  either  case  the  name  has  no  con- 
nection with  Zoar  proper,  and  is  more  accurately 
represented  in  English  as  Zohar  (Tsochar)  or 
Jezohar.     [Jezoai:.]  G. 

*  The  theory'  oflered  above,  "  that  the  Zoar  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  to  the  north  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
not  far  fiom  its  northern  end,  in  the  general  par- 
allel of  Jericho,"  is,  we  believe,  original  with  its 
author;  and  we  present  some  reasons  for  discarding 
it,  and  in  favor  of  the  received  opinion  that  it  lay 
southeast  of  the  sea. 

Zoar  was  a  frontier  town  of  Moab.  The  "  bur- 
den "  or  wail  of  Moab  which  appears  in  the  proph- 
ecy of  Isaiah  (xv.)  and  is  repeated  in  that  of  Jere- 
miah (xlviii.)  both  possibly  derived  from  a  more 
ancient  common  source,  associates  the  town  with 
the  territory,  and  Mr.  Grove  includes  it  in  his  list 
of  the  towns  of  Moab.  The  borders  of  Israel  and 
Moab  touched,  as  we  know  (Num.  xxiv.  3),  near 
the  southeast  corner  of  the  Salt  Sea.     Zoar,  then, 


killed  by  the  cold.  Thence  he  journeyed  to  Petra 
and  Mount  Hor,  and  at  length  reached  the  Red  Sea 
Uis  itiuei-ary  is  full  of  interest  and  iutelligeuce. 

c  Though  incorrectly,  if  the  writer's  argument  for 
the  positiou  of  the  plain  of  Jordan  is  tenable. 

f'  Dr.  Robinson's  arguments  against  this  proposal 
of  De  Saulcy  {BiU.  Res.  ii.  107,  517),  though  they 
might  be  more  pleasant  in  tone,  are  unanswerable  in 
substance. 

e  The  Re'/jrim  el-Mezorrliel  of  De  Saulcy.  The  g/i 
and  rrh  each  strive  to  represent  the  Arabic  ^hain, 
which  is  pronounced  like  a  guttural  rolling  ». 


3642 


ZOAR 


was  east  of  the  boundary,  and  Sodom  vreat  of  it, 
and  both  were  near  it. 

The  first  alhision  to  the  spot  (Gen.  xiii.  10)  ac- 
cords entirely  with  tlie  position  which  we  ad\ocate, 
and  does  not  readily  admit  of  any  other  construc- 
tion. The  sacred  writer  refers  to  the  extent  of  the 
watered  and  fruitful  plain  of  Jordan,  before  the 
Lord  destroyed  the  cities,  "  as  thou  comest  unto 
Zoar."  Like  a  later  description,  in  which  Zoar  is 
a  terminus,  the  reader  naturally  understands  a  ref- 
erence to  the  southern  extremity  of  the  plain.  If 
Znar  had  been  east  of  the  Jordan,  on  a  line  with 
Jericho,  the  description  would  be  unnatural.  It 
might  still  be  claimed  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  breadth 
of  the  valley  divided  by  the  Jordan,  but  it  would 
exclude  the  more  pertinent  and  manifest  allusion  to 
its  length.  So  far  is  this  "  narrative  in  Genesis  " 
from  seeming  to  "state  positively  "  that  the  site 
"  lay  at  the  northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,"  that 
it  becomes  unintelligible  to  us  on  any  other  hypoth- 
esis than  that  it  lay  at  the  southern  end.  And  the 
description  is  perfectly  natural,  though  the  terminus 
was  not  actually  visible. 

The  above  interpretation,  which  Mr.  Grove  sets 
aside  as  impossible,  he  has  himself  put  forward  as 
unquestioned  and  unencumbered,  and  in  previous 
articles  it  stands  as  his  own.  His  exposition  (see 
Lot,  vol.  ii.  p.  1685  a)  reads  thus:  — 

''The  two  Hebrews  looked  over  the  comparatively 
empty  land  in  the  direction  of  Sodom,  Gomorrah, 
and  Zoar  (xiii.  10).  And  Lot  lifted  up  his  eyes 
toward  the  left,  and  beheld  all  the  precinct  of  the 
Jordan  that  it  was  well-watered  everywhere;  like  a 
garden  of  Jehovah,  like  that  unutterably  green  and 
fertile  land  of  Egypt  he  had  only  lately  cpiitted. 
liven  fmm  that  distance  through  the  clear  an-  of 
Palestine,  can  be  distinctly  discovered  the  long  and 
thick  masses  of  vegetation  which  fringe  the  numer- 
ous streams  that  descend  from  the  hills  on  either 
side,  to  meet  the  central  stream  in  its  tropical 
depths.  And  what  it  now  is  immediately  opposite 
hethel,  such  it  seems  then  to  have  lieen  'even  to 
Zoar,'  to  the  furthest  extremity  of  the  sea  which 
now  covers  the  '  valley  of  the  fields  '  ('  Valley  of 
Siddini,'  Siddim  fields),  the  fields  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah.  So  Lot  'chose  all  the  i)reciiict  of  the 
Jord.an,  and  journeyed  east,'  down  the  ravines 
which  give  access  to  the  Jordan  Valley;  and  then 
when  he  reached  it,  turned  again  southward  and 
advanced  as  far  as  Sodom  (11,  J2)."  See  also 
Betiikl,  vol.  i.  p.  289. 

Besides  the  passages  in  Genesis  and  the  two  in 
the  prophecies  which  have  been  referred  to,  Zoar  is 
named  in  but  one  other  place  in  the  Bilile  (l)eut. 
xxxiv.  ;J),  and  that  is  decisive  against  Mr.  Grove's 
theory.  Moses  had  ascended  "  the  mountain  of 
Nebo,  to  the  top  of  I'isgah,  that  is  over  against 
.lericho,"  to  take  his  view  of  the  Promised  Land. 
The  Lord  showed  him  its  different  sections,  and 
among  others  "  the  jilain  of  the  valley  of  Jericho, 
the  city  of  palm-trees  unto  Zoar."  Mount  Nel)0 
has  been  identified,  if  we  accept  Mr.  Tristram's  se- 
Kction,  and  if  we  do  not,  Mr.  Grove  has  stated  pre- 
cisely where,  on  the  testimony  of  the  Bible,  and  also 
ot  .losephus  {Ant.  iv.  8,  §  48)  and  the  Fathers,  it 
nuist  be,  '■  facing  Jericho  on  the  east  of  Jordan."  If, 
now,  •'  the  Zoar  of  the  Pentateuch  was  to  the  north 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  not  far  from  its  northern  end,  in 
the  general  parallel  of  .lericho,"  "on  the  east  side  of 
the.  valley,"  it  must  have  lain  between  Jericho  and 
Nebo.  near  the  base  of  the  latter,  a  supposition 
which  renders  unintelligible  the  descriptive  sketch 


ZOAR 

just  quoted,  as  also  Mr.  Grove's  own  declaration 
that  the  site  which,  on  this  theory,  thus  lay  directly 
below  the  prophet-leader,  was  "  one  of  the  landmarks 
which  bounded  his  view  from  Pisgah." 

The  two  definite  references  in  the  Pentateuch  to 
the  extent  of  the  plain  obviously  mean  the  same. 
They  both  describe  it  as  seen  lengthwise  from 
northern  summits,  the  one  on  the  one  side,  and  the 
other  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley.  The  incred- 
ible feature  of  JMr.  Grove's  theory  is,  that  it  makes 
Lot  and  iMoses  look  across  the  plain  ♦f  the  Jordan 
eastward  and  westward  on  the  same  parallel,  ex- 
tending in  both  cases  "  unto  Zoar,"  though  one 
viewed  it  from  the  western  hiUs,  and  the  other  from 
the  eastern. 

Has  Jlr.  Grove  considered,  withal,  the  relation 
of  the  river  Jordan  to  this  theory?  Lot  was  ad- 
monished not  to  tarry  in  the  plain,  but  escape  with 
all  haste  to  the  mountain  —  flee,  that  is,  from  the 
plain  west  of  the  river  in  the  territory  of  Canaan, 
where  Mr.  Grove  places  Sodom,  to  the  mountain  on 
the  further  border  of  the  plain  east  of  the  ri\er  in 
the  territory  of  Moab,  near  which  he  places  Zoar, 
crossing  with  his  family,  without  any  apparent 
facilities,  the  deep  and  rapid  river. 

Lot  subsequently  ascended  the  mountain  and 
dwelt  in  a  cave  with  his  daughters ;  and  thence 
sprung  the  mountain-tribes  of  Moab  and  Amnion. 
The  heights  southeast  of  the  Dead  Sea  have  been  the 
traditional  seat  and  radiating  "  centre,"  as  stated 
by  Mr.  Grove,  of  these  "brother  tribes."  They 
pushed  northward  and  eastward  and  spread  over  a 
large  territory,  keeping  distinct,  and  the  former 
were  afterwards  dispossessed  of  theirs  as  far  south 
as  the  line  of  the  Arnon  by  the  Amorites,  but  re- 
tained their  original  fastnesses  (Num.  xxi.  26). 
This  natural  inter|)retation  of  the  sacred  record  is 
sustained  by  Bitter,  who  has  sketched  with  great 
clearness  the  territories  and  courses  of  conquest  of 
the  "  tribes  outside  of  Canaan"  {Geoy.  of' Pales- 
tine, ii.  110,  1.51). 

The  argument  adduced  above,  "  that  the  earliest 
information  as  to  the  Moaljites  makes  their  original 
seat  in  the  plains  of  Heshbon,  northeast  of  the  lake, 
not  as  afterwards  in  the  moutitains  on  the  south- 
east, to  which  they  were  driven  by  the  Amorites 
(Kum.  xxi.  26)"  has  been  refuted  by  Mr.  Grove 
himself  in  a  preceding  article  (Moab,  vol.  iii.  p. 
1980 1!/):  "The  wailike  Amorites,  either  forced 
from  their  original  seats  on  the  west,  or  perhaps 
lured  over  by  the  increasing  prosperity  of  the  young 
nation,  crossed  the  .lordan,  and  overran  the  richer 
portion  of  the  territory  on  the  north,  driving  !Moab 
lack  to  his  original  position  behind  the  natural 
bulwark  of  the  Arnon." 

In  the  former  of  these  passages,  the  "original 
.seat  "  of  the  Bloaliites  is  represented  to  have  been 
northeast  of  the  sea.  In  the  latter  their  "  original 
position  "  is  represented  to  have  been  southeast  of 
the  sea,  and  again,  in  the  same  article,  "  the  south 
eastern  border  of  the  Dead  Sea  "  is  spoken  of  at, 
"  their  original  seat."  In  the  former  they  are  said 
to  have  been  driven  by  the  Amorites  out  of  their 
original  seat;  and  in  the  latter  they  are  said  to  have 
been  driven  by  the  same  into  their  original  position. 

We  acce])t  the  second  interpretation  as  that 
which  lies  on  the  face  of  the  sacred  narrative,  and 
has  been  received  by  all  Biblical  students  until  now. 
And  in  the  highlands  above  what  we  claim  to  have 
been  the  site  of  Zoar,  are  identified,  at  this  day,  the 
ruins  of  the  strongholds,  Kir  of  Moab  and  Ar  of 
Moab.     To  remove  the  cradle  of  these  tribes  north 


ZOAR 

Rrnrd  is  to  disturb  and  dislocate   the  associations  I 
iiid  allusions  of  the  sacred  writers,  as  universally 
Understood  by  their  readers. 

;SIr.  Grove  suggests  that  "  if  Usduin  be  Sodom, 
its  liistauce  from  the  Wik///  ed-Dra'a  (at  least  15 
miles;  is  too  great  to  agree  with  the  requirements 
of  Gen.  xix."  — assuming  tlie  i.ecessity  of  the  pres- 
ent circuitous  route.  AVhile  we  recognize  in  the 
name  of  tliis  singular  mountain  a  memorial  of  an- 
cient Sodom,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  it 
designates  tlA  exact  site  of  the  city,  nor  is  it  cer- 
tain that  Zoar  lay  at  the  mouth  of  Waxlij  Kerak. 
We  only  claim  that  lioth  places  lay  not  very  far 
from  a  point  southeast  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  tliis 
we  think  demonstraMe.  We  would  suggest  that  a 
fut;itive  family  mi^ht  even  reach  Wady  cd-Dra'ii 
from  near  the  site  of  Khasinn  Usdum  with  less 
difficulty  and  in  less  time  (especially  in  the  direct 
line  which  may  then  have  been  jji-acticable)  than 
tliey  could  cross  the  .lordan  and  reach  the  liase  of 
the  eastern  mountains  on  the  parallel  of  Jericho. 

The  allus'ons  to  this  site  by  Josephus  are  explicit. 
He  says:  "  It  is  to  this  day  called  Zoar  "  (Ant.  i. 
11,  §  4).  In  describing  the  lake  Asphaltites,  he 
Bays:  "  It  extended  as  far  as  Zoar  in  Arabia  "'  {B. 
./.  iv.  8,  §  4)  by  which  he  plainly  designates  its 
southern  point;  conformably  with  his  own  defini- 
tion. "  Arabia  is  a  country  that  borders  upon 
Judaea  "  {Ant  xiv.  1,  §  4).  Ritter,  with  his  usual 
thoroughness,  collates  the  early  post-Biblical  testi- 
mony, and  says:  "  Zoar  can  only  be  looked  for  at 
the  southern  extremity  of  the  I'ead  Sea."  Of  the 
two  "  mediasval  travellers  "  quoted  above  asapjiarent 
exceptions  to  this  general  current  of  testimony  and 
belief,  only  one  wrote  from  personal  observation, 
and  both  are  nearly  unintelligible.  Their  confused 
testimony,  on  which  no  stress  is  laid,  is  not  worth 
sifthig;  and  that  it  has  no  weight  with  the  writer 
is  evident  from  his  adniis-;ion  in  another  place: 
"  that  the  Zoar  of  Josephus,  Jerome,  and  tlie  Cru- 
saders probably  lay  where  Dr.  Kobinson  places  it" 
(SouoM,  p.  3069 '()•  ^''6  cautioiis  Professor,  who 
devoted  a  special  paper  to  the  site  of  Zoar  (BiU. 
Res.  ii.  648-651 ),  speaks  of  it  without  references  in 
his  latest  work  as  an  ascertained  site:  "  Zoar,  as 
we  know,  was  in  the  mouth  of  W'adi/  Kerak;  as  it 
opens  upon  the  neck  of  tbe  peninsula"  (Pliys. 
(jeog.  p.  23.'i).  While  this  may  have  been  the  ex- 
act site  of  Zoar,  we  have  no  data  whicli  gives  us 
ftlisolute  knowledge,  and  probably  never  shall  have. 
His  earlier  conclusion  was  imprcgnalile:  "  All  these 
circumstances  seem  to  be  decisive  as  to  the  position 
of  Zoar  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  the 
foot  of  the  mountains  near  its  southern  end  "  {Bibl. 
Res.  ii.  649).  This  is  not  more  positive  than  Mr. 
Grove's  original  statement:  "There  Is  no  doulit 
that  it  [Zoar]  was  situated  on  the  southeastern 
border  of  the  Dead  .Sea.'"  (MoAii,  vol.  ii.  p.  391 
6,  1st  Eng.  ed.;  comp.  iii.  1980 «,  Anier.  eil.,  tbr 
a  later  alteration.) 

Mr.  Tristram  oft".n-s  a  still  stranger  theory  re- 
ipecting  the  site  of  Zoar.  He  proposes  to  place  it 
jn  the  west  side  of  the  valley,  south  of  .lericho. 
He  suggests  th's  location  without  any  trace  of  name 
iir  ruin,  or  any  hint  of  history  or  tradition,  as  cor- 
re.sponding  with  the  view  granted  to  Jloses  from 
t!ie  top  of  Pisgah.  "  If  we  place  Zoar,  as  it  nat- 
urally would  be  placed  according  to  the  narrative 
Bf  Ix)t's  escape,  at  the  foot  of  the  hill,  between 
Wddi/  D  ihi'ir  and  Has  Feshkhah,  we  see  that  here 
ft-as  just  the  limit  of  Moses's  view,  in  accordance 
r/iii  the  record."    {Land  of  hrael,  p.  366,  2d  ed.) 


ZOBA 


3643 


Xo  one  can  have  imagined  that  the  southeast  lior- 
der  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  walls  of  Zoar  at  that 
point  were  visible  to  the  prophet  from  the  top  of 
Pisgah,  unless,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Jlelvill  in  his 
sermon  on  the  "  Death  of  Moses,"  his  vision  wag 
aided  by  God  who  was  with  his  servant  on  that 
lonely  summit.  The  suggestion  of  Dean  Stanley 
on  tliis  point  commends  itself  to  us.  He  says: 
"  It  was  a  view,  doubtless,  which  in  its  full  extent 
was  to  be  imagined,  rather  than  actually  seen. 
The  foreground  of  tlie  picture  alone  was  clearly  dis- 
cernible; its  dim  distances  were  to  be  sui)plied  hy 
what  was  beyond,  though  suggested  by  what  was 
within  the  range  of  the  actual  prospect  of  the  seer  " 
(.S.  (j-  P.p.  295). 

Mr.  Tristram's  own  description  is  as  full  a  con 
firmation  of  the  sacred  record  as  we  could  have  an- 
ticipated from  a  visitor  who  should  identify  the  lo- 
cality and  describe  the  scene.  In  selecting  this 
site,  without  any  indication,  local  or  traditional,  he 
sets  aside,  without  answering  it,  the  array  of  evi- 
dence convincing  to  Mr.  Grove,  as  to  the  writers  of 
note  who  preceded  him,  which  makes  the  Zoar  of 
the  Pentateuch  a  town  of  Moab  on  the  east  side  of 
the  valley.  And  by  no  possilJe  interpretation  can 
tlie  plaintive  cry  and  panic  flight,  recorded  in  "  the 
burden  of  Moab,"  be  associated  with  a  city  off  on 
the  northwestern  shore  of  the  .sea:  "  ily  heart  shall 
cry  out  for  Mo.ab;  his  fugitives  shall  flee  unto  Zoar, 
an  heifer  of  three  years  old ;  for  by  the  mounting 
up  of  Luhith  with  weeping  shall  they  go  it  up;  for 
in  the  way  of  Horonaim,  they  .shall  raise  up  a  cry 
of  destruction "  (Is.  xv.  5).  "From  the  cry  of 
Heshbon  even  mito  Klealah,  and  even  unto  Jahaz, 
have  they  uttered  their  voice,  from  Zoar  even  unto 
Horonaim,  as  an  heifer  of  three  years  old;  for  the 
waters  also  of  Nimrim  shall  be  desolate "  (Jer. 
xlviii.  34). 

A  fuller  examination  of  Jlr.  Tristram's  positions 
may  be  found  in  Bibl.  Sac.  (1868),  xxv.  136-143. 
In  a  private  letter  since  written,  Mr.  T.  intimates 
his  relinquishment  of  his  published  theory.  For 
iurther  argument  against  the  theory  that  the  Pen- 
tnpolis  lay  north  of  the  sea,  as  applied  to  the  other 
cities,  see  under  Sodom  (Amer.  ed.).  S.  \V. 

ZD'BA  or  ZO'BAH  (^211%  nri'"1!J  [statue, 

public  place]:  ^ov0d\  [2  Sam.  viii.  12;  2  Chr. 
viii.  3,  Alex.  2a)|6a;  1  Chr.  xix.  0,  Rom.  Vat. 
Sco/SaA.,  FA.  2co3a;  2  Chr.  viii.  3,  Rom.  Vat. 
Bai]o-wPa:  Ps  Ix.,  title,  2o)3aA,  Sin.  2a)/8a?> ;  2 
Sam.  xxiii.  36,  no\vSvvdfj.ea>s,  Alex.  ttoAAus  Svva- 
fxeciis'l  Soba,  [once]  Siiba,  [once  Subal])  is  the 
name  of  a  portion  of  Syria,  which  formed  a  sepa- 
rate kingdom  in  the  time  of  the  Jewish  monarchs, 
Saul,  David,  and  Solomon.  It  is  difficult  to  fix 
its  exact  position  and  limits;  but  there  seem  to  be 
orounds  for  regarding  it  as  lying  chiefly  eastward 
of  Coele-Syria,  and  extending  thence  northeast 
and  east,  towards,  if  not  even  to  the  Euphrates. 
[Syiu.\.]  It  would  thus  have  included  the  east- 
ern flank  of  the  mountain-chain  which  shuts  in 
Ctt'le-Syria  on  that  side,  the  high  land  aliout 
Aleppo,  anrl  the  more  northern  portion  of  the 
Syrian  desert. 

Among  the  cities  of  Zobah  were  a  Hamath  (2 
Chr.  viii.  3),  which  must  not  be  confounded  with 
"  liaraath  the  Great  "  (Hamatii-Zohah);  a  place 
called 'libhath  o>-  Uetah  (2  Sam.  viii.  8;  1  Chr. 
xviii.  8),  which  is  perhaps  Taibeh,  between  Pal- 
myra and  Aleppo;  and  another  called  Herotliai, 
which    t>as    '^een   supposed    to    be    Ueyrril.       S"** 


3644  zoBA 

Winer,  Eeahrorterbiic/i,  vol.  i.  p.  155.)  This  last 
supposition  is  hislily  improbaljle,  for  the  kingdom 
of  Haniath  must  have  intervened  between  Zobah 
and  the  coast.      [Hkrotmah.] 

We  iirst  hear  of  Zobah  in  the  time  of  Saul,  when 
we  find  it  mentioned  as  a  separate  country,  gov- 
erned apparently  by  a  number  of  kings  who  own 
no  common  head  or  chief  (1  Sam.  xiv.  47).  Saul 
engaged  in  war  with  these  kings,  and  "  ve.\ed 
them,"  as  he  did  his  other  neighbors.  Some  forty 
years  later  than  this,  we  find  Zobah  under  a  single 
ruler,  Hadadezer,  son  of  Kehob,  who  seems  to  have 
been  a  powerful  sovereign.  He  had  wars  with  Toi, 
king  of  Haniath  (2  Sam.  viii.'lO),  while  he  lived  in 
close  relations  of  amity  with  the  kings  of  Damas- 
cus, Reth-l!ehob,  Ish-tob,  etc.,  and  held  various 
petty  Syrian  princes  as  vassals  under  his  yoke  (2 
Sam.  X.  19).  He  had  even  a  considerable  influ- 
ence in  JMesopotamia,  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and 
was  able  on  one  occasion  to  obtain  an  important 
auxiliary  force  from  that  quarter  {ibid.  16 ;  com- 
pare title  to  Ps.  Ix.).  David,  having  resolved  to 
take  full  possession  of  the  tract  of  territory  orig- 
inally promised  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham  (2 
Sam.  viii.  3;  compare  Gen.  xv.  18),  attacked  Ha- 
dadezer in  the  early  part  of  his  reign,  defeated  his 
army,  and  took  from  him  a  thousand  chariots, 
seven  hundred  (seven  thousand,  1  Chr.  xviii.  4) 
horsemen,  and  20,000  footmen.  Hadadezer's  allies, 
the  Syrians  of  Damascus,  having  marched  to  his 
assistance,  David  defeated  them  in  a  great  battle, 
in  which  they  lost  22,000  men.  The  wealth  of 
Zobah  is  very  apparent  in  the  narrative  of  this 
campaigii.  Several  of  the  officers  of  Hadadezer's 
army  carried  "shields  of  gold"  (2  Sam.  viii.  7), 
by  which  we  are  probably  to  understand  iron  or 
wooden  frames  overlaid  with  plates  of  the  precious 
metal.  The  cities,  moreover,  which  David  took, 
Betah  (or  Tibhath)  and  Berothai,  yielded  him 
"exceeding  much  brass"  (ver.  8).  Jt  is  not 
clear  whether  the  Syrians  of  Zobah  submitted  and 
became  tributary  on  this  occasion,  or  whether, 
although  defeated,  they  were  al>le  to  maintain  their 
independence.  At  any  rate  a  few  years  later,  tjiey 
were  again  in  arms  against  David.  This  time  the 
Jewish  king  acted  on  the  defensive.  The  war  was 
provoked  by  the  Anuuonites,  who  hired  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Syrians  of  Zobah,  among  others,  to 
help  them  against  the  people  of  Israel,  and  obtained 
■|n  this  way  auxiliaries  to  the  amount  of  3-3,000 
■uen.  The  allies  were  defeated  in  a  great  battle  by 
Joab,  who  engaged  the  Syrians  in  person  with  the 
flower  of  his  troops  (2  Sam.  x.  9).  Hadadezer, 
upon  this,  made  a  last  effort.  He  sent  across  the 
Euphrates  into  ^Mesopotamia,  and  "  drew  forth  the 
Syrians  tliat  were  beyond  the  river  "  (1  Chr.  xix. 
16),  who  had  hitlierto  taken  no  part  in  the  war. 
With  these  allies  and  his  own  troops  he  once  more 
renewed  the  struggle  with  the  Israelites,  who  were 
now  commanded  by  David  himself,  the  crisis  being 
such  as  seemed  to  demand  the  presence  of  the  king. 
A  battle  was  fought  near  Helam  —  a  place,  the 
situation  of  which  is  uncertain  (Hklam)  —  where 
the  Syrians  of  Zobah  and  their  new  allies  were 
defeated  with  great  slaughter,  losing  between  40,000 
and  50,000  men.  After  this  we  hear  of  no  more 
hostilities.  The  petty  princes  hitherto  tributary 
to  Hadadezer  transferred  tlieir  allegiance  to  the 
king  of  Israel,  and  it  is  probable  that  he  himself 
became  a  vassal  to  David. 

Zobah,  however,  though  subdued,  continued  to 
ause  trouble  to  the  Jewisli  kings.    A  man  of  Zobah. 


ZOHELETH.  THE  STONE 

one  of  the  subjects  of  Hadadezer —  Eezon,  son  of 
Eliadah  —  having  escaped  from  the  battle  of  Helam, 
and  "  gathered  a  band  "  (i.  e.  a  body  of  irregular 
marauders),  marched  southward,  and  contrived- 
to  make  himself  master  of  Damascus,  where  he 
reigned  (apparently)  for  some  fifty  years,  proving 
a  fierce  adversary  to  Israel  all  through  the  reign 
of  Solomon  (1  K.  xi.  23-25).  Solomon  also  was 
(it  would  seem )  engaged  in  a  war  with  Zobah  itself. 
The  Hamath-Zobah,  against  which  he  "  went  up  '' 
(2  CLr.  viii.  3),  was  probably  a  town  in  that 
country  which  resisted  his  authority,  and  which 
he  accordingly  attacked  and  subdued.  This  is  the 
last  that  we  hear  of  Zobah  in  Scripture.  The 
name,  however,  is  found  at  a  later  date  in  th* 
Inscriptions  of  Assyria,  where  the  kingdom  of 
Zobah  seems  to  intervene  between  Hamath  and 
Damascus,  falling  thus  into  the  regular  line  of 
march  of  the  Assyrian  armies-  Several  Assyrian 
monarchs  relate  that  they  took  tribute  from  Zobah, 
while  others  speak  of  having  traversed  it  on  their 
way  to  or  from  Palestine-  G.  R. 

ZOBE'BAH  (n^3!5  [sIowmorin</]:  2a- 
0add;  Alex,  ^w^-n^a'-  Svbuba).  Son  of  Coz,  in 
an  oliscure  genealogy  of  the  tribe  t,f  Judah  (1  Chr 
iv.  8). 

ZO'HAR  pn2  [whiteness]:  Sadp-Seor).  1. 
Father  of  Ephron  the  Hittite  (Gen.  xxiii.  8,  xxv.  9)- 

2.  {ISvlnir,  Sdiir.)  One  of  the  sons  of  Simeon 
(Gen.  xlvi.  10;  Ex.  vi.  15);  called  Zekah  in  1 
Chr.  iv.  24. 

*  3.  Incorrectly  printed  Zoar  (A.  V.  ed.  1611, 
latei-  eds.  Jezoar),  1  Chr.  iv.  7.      [ZoAi:,  p.  3641  6.] 

A. 

ZOHELETH,     THE     STONE       ("J^^J 

n^n-^n  [see  below]  :  AlOr)  tov  ZooeKfdi  [Vat. 
-Oei];  Alex,  top  KlBov  rov  ZuieKeO:  l<ipis  Zolie- 
Ittli).  This  was  "by  En-Kogel "  (1  K.  i.  9):  and 
therefore,  if  En-I!ogel  be  the  modern  Um-er/-  Dtr'ij, 
this  stone,  '•  where  Adonijah  slew  sheep  and  oxen." 
was  in  all  likelihood  not  far  from  the  Well  of  the 
Virgin.  [En-I!ogel.]  The  Targuniists  translate 
it  "the  rolling  stone;  "  and  Jarchi  affirms  that  it 
was  a  large  stone  on  which  the  yoimg  men  tried 
their  strength  in  attempting  to  roll  it.  Others 
make  it  "  the  serpent  stone  "  (Gesen.),  as  if  from 

the  root  vHT,  "  to  creep."  Jerome  simply  says, 
"Zoelet  traotura  sive  protractum."  Others  con- 
nect it  with  runnint:  water:  but  there  is  nothing 
strained'  in  making  it  "  the  stone  of  the  conduit '" 

(nb^riTQ,  Mazchdah),  from  its  proximity  to 
the  great  rock-conduit  or  conduits  that  poured  into 
Siloam.  Bochart's  idea  is  that  the  Hebrew  ¥?ord 
ziihd  denotes  "  a  slow  motion  "  (//ieroz.  part  i.  bk. 
1,  c.  9):  "  the  fullers  here  pressing  out  the  water 
which  dropped  from  the  clothes  that  they  had 
washed  in  the  well  called  Rogel."  If  this  be  the 
case,  then  we  have  some  relics  of  this  ancient  cus- 
tom at  the  massive  breastwork  below  the  present 
Bir/cet  el-I/ainni,  where  the  donkeys  wait  for  their 
load  of  skins  irom  the  well,  and  where  the  Arab 
washerwomen  may  be  seen  to  this  day  beating  theii 
clothes." 


a  We  give  the  following  Rabbinical  note  on  Zohe- 
leth,  from  the  Arabic  comuieutar.v  of  Tanchum  of 
Jerusalem,  trau.slated  by  Uaarbrucker  :  — 

"  Ver.  9.   n^ntn  Verbum  vHT  significationen 


ZOHELETH,  THE  STONE 

Tlie  pr<actice  of  placing  stones,  and  naming  theui 
from  a  person  or  an  event,  is  very  common.  Jacob 
•lid  so  at  Betliel  (Gen.  xxviii.  22,  xxxv.  14;  see 
Bochart's  Caiutan,  pp.  785,  786);  and  he  did  it 
ftgain  when  parting  from  Laban  (Gen.  xxxi.  4.5). 
Joshua  set  up  stones  in  Jordan  and  Gilgal,  at  the 
command  of  God  (.Josh.  iv.  9-20);  and  again  in 
Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  20).  Near  Betli-shemesh 
there  was  the  Kben-(/edoL(ih  ("  great  stone,"  1  Sam. 
vi.  14),  called  also  A/iel-ffedol/t/i  ('•  the  great  weep- 
ing," 1  Sam.  vi.  18).  There  was  the  Eben-Bohan, 
Boiith  of  Jericho,  in  the  plains  of  Jordan  (Josh. 
XV.  6,  xviii.  17),  "the  stone  of  Bohan  the  .son 
of  lieuben,"  the  Ehrenbreitstein  of  the  Ctcciir,  or 
«  plain  "  of  Jordan,  a  memorial  of  the  son  or 
grandson  of  Jacob's  eldest  born,  for  which  the 
writer  once  looked  in  vain,  but  which  Felix  Fabri 
iu  Ihe  loth  century  (h'vttfjcit.  ii.  82)  professes  to 
ha\t!  seen.  'I"he  Rabbis  preserve  the  memory  of 
this  stone  in  a  book  called  Eben-Bohan,  or  the 
touchstone  {Chron  of  Rabbi  Joseph^  transl.  by 
Bialloblotzky,  i.  192).  There  was  the  stone  set  up 
by  Samuel  between  Mizpeh  and  Shen,  Ebeit^Ezer, 
"  the  stone  of  help  "  (1  Sam.  vii.  11,  12).  There 
was  the  Grenl  Stone  on  which  Samuel  slew  the 
sacrifices,  after  the  great  battle  of  Saul  with  the 
Philistines  (1  Sam.  xiv.  3.3).  There  was  the  Eben- 
Ezd  ("  lapis  discessus  vel  abitus,  a  discessu  Jona- 
thanis  et  Uavidis,"  Simonis,  Oiwiii.  p.  1.50),  where 
L)avid  hid  himself,  and  which  some  Taluiudists 
identify  with  Zoheletii.  Large  stones  have  always 
ol)tained  for  themselves  peculiar  names,  from  their 
shape,  their  position,  their  connection  with  a  person 
or  an  event.  In  the  Sinaitic  Desert  the  writer 
found  the  Hajav  el-litkab  ("  stone  of  tlie  rider  "), 
Uiijar  el-Ful  ("  stone  of  the  bean  ''),  fLtjur  Miisa 
("  stone  of  Moses  ").  The  subject  of  stoins  is  by 
no  means  uninteresting,  and  has  not  in  any  respect 
been  exhausted.  (See  the  Notes  of  I)e  Sola  and 
Lindenthal  in  their  edition  of  Genesis,  pp.  175, 
226 ;  Bochart's  Canaan,  p.  785 ;  Vossius  de  Idol- 
uir.  vi.  38;  Scaliger  on  Eusebliis,  p.  198;  Heral- 
du.s  (m  Arnobius,  bk.  vii.,  and  Klnienhorstius  on 
Arnobius  ;  also  a  long  note  of  Ouzelius  in  his  edi- 
tion of  Minucius  Felix,  p.  15 ;  Calmefs  Fmy- 
ments,  Nos.  166,  735,  736  ;  Kitto's  Palestine. 
See,  besides,  the  works  of  antiquaries  on  stones  and 
stone  circles;  and  an  interesting  account  of  the 
curious  Phceuician  llajar  Chem  in  Malta,  in  Tal- 
lack's   recent  volume  on  that  island,  pp.  115-127) 

H.  B. 

*  It  should  be  added  that  M.  Clermont-Gan- 
oeau,  connected  with  the  French  consulate  at  Jeru- 


tiepidationis  habet  et  reptationis  et  cunctationis  in 
iucessu.  Inde  Saturnum  A~.^v  appellaverunt 
propter  muUos  ejus  regre.'ssus  incessusque  retrogrados. 
Biiqiie  senteutia  est  iu  verbis  MT^SI  '^n  VHT  (i/t. 
82,  6)  I.  e.  cuiictab.ar  vobis  respondere  con-siliunique 
mcum  vobiscuni  communicare,  propterea  quia  vos 
verebar  et  gravitatem  astatis  vestriB  adniirabar.     Ser- 

p  ntes  "DV  ^^mT  appellantur,  quia  in  terra  ser- 
punt,  et  ob  incessum  suum  quasi  trepidautemcunctan- 
iemque.    Inde  porro  dicuut:  {Sahb.  fol  65,  6.)   S^!£? 

Mikvaot/i,    cap.    5),       ]''S!i''T    l^bPITD    D'^J^rTI 

e.  aqua  leuiter   fluens   in    teiTa.      Fortas-se  igitur 

"1 /nitn   lUS  similitei  nxplicandum  est,  nimirum 


ZOPHIM,  THE  FIELD  OF     3645 

saiem,  reports  the  supposed  recovery  of  Zoheleth  it 
the  present  Ez-Zehwek,  tlie  nan\e  of  a  rocky 
plateau  nearly  in  the  centre  of  the  line  along  which 
stretches  the  village  of  Siloam  (which  see):  the 
western  face,  cut  perpendicularly,  slightly  over- 
hangs the  valley.     He  assumes  this  to  be  the  stone 

of  Zoheleth,  near  (^r."^)  En-Rogel  (1  K.  i.  9), 
though  the  Helirew  and  the  Arabic  names  differ, 
as  Zuhelet  and  Zi  hoelet.  He  proposes  also  to  iden- 
tify En-Ro(/el  with  the  Virgin's  Fountain,  and  not 
with  Bir  Eyub :  the  former  being  oidy  60  metres 
from  Zehwele,  while  the  latter  is  700  metres  and 
the  Pool  of  Siloam  400.  He  suggests  further,  that 
on  this  supposition  we  can  more  easily  trace  the 
line  which  sep.arated  the  territories  of  Benjamin 
and  Judah  as  stated  in  Josh.  xv.  7,  xviii.  16.  He 
maintains  that  the  feilahin  divide  the  valley  of  the 
Kedron  into  three  sections,  the  second  of  which, 
extending  ft'om  the  southeast  angle  of  the  Haram 
to  the  confluence  at  the  north  of  Bir  Eyub,  they 
call  Wndy  Fer'aun,  Fharaoh's  Valley,  i.  e.,  as 
the  n.ame  imports  in  that  application,  "  Valley  of 
the  King;  "  and  the  front  of  the  valley  so  desig- 
nated is  precisely  that  which  the  Kiny's  Gardens 
(G.VKDEN,  1.  870)  used  to  occupy  (Quarterly 
Statement  of  the  P.  E.  Fund,  No.  v.,  pp.  251- 
253).  H. 

ZO'HETH  (nniT  [corpulent,  stronr/,  Fiirst] : 
Zoodv;  .A.lex.  ZooxaS:  Zohetii).  Son  of  Ishi  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  20). 

ZO'PHAH  (nCVi  \ct.  cruse]:  Zco<pd;  [Vat. 
in  ver.  35,  Zct>xa9\]  Alex,  [in  ver.  35]  Zaxpaf)'- 
Stipha).  Son  of  Helem,  or  Hotham,  the  son  of 
Heber,  an  Asherite  (1  Chr.  vii.  35,  30). 

ZO'PHAI  [2  syl]  05^!?  [p.atr.]:  Zov<pi\ 
[Vat.  Zov(pfr-]  Sopha'i).  A  Kohathite  Levite, 
son  of  Elkanah  and  ancestor  of  Samuel  (1  Chr.  vi. 
26  [11]).     In  ver.  35  he  is  called  Zupii. 

ZO'PHAR  n?'"12  [perh.  spar7-ow]:  Zoicpdp: 
Sophar).  One  of  the  throe  friends  of  Job  (.lob  ii. 
11,  xi.  1,  XX.  1,  xlii.  9).  He  is  called  in  the  He- 
brew "  the  Naamathite,"  and  in  the  LXX.  "the 
Mhirean,"  and  "  the  king  of  the  Minceans." 

ZO'PHIM,  THE  FIELD  OF  (S'^p'tJ  ni'W 
[prob.  feld  if  dropphujs,  i.  e.  fertile] :  &ypou 
aKOTTidv'  locus  sublimis).  A  spot  on  or  near  the 
top  of  Pisgah,  from  which  Balaam  had  his  second 
view  of  the  encampment  of  Israel  (Num.  xxiii.  14). 


lapis  volutatus  et  liic  illic  tractu.s,  quern  sa;pe  quasi 
ludentes  volvebant ;  aut  peusus  est  eum  per  se  fuisse 
teretem  (volubilcm)  acclivitatis  lustar,  cujus  latus 
alterum  elatius,  alterum  depres.sius  esset  iu  modum 
poutis  exstructi,  iu  quo  ad  locum  altiorem  sine  gradi- 

bus  ascendatut  ;  quern  I£?3D  vocaverunt  qualemque 
ad  altare  struxoruiit,  ut  eo  a.scendereut,  quum  ad 
altare  per  gradus  ascendere  nou  liceret  (Ex.  xx.  23) 
Nee  absurdum  mihi  videtur  euudcm  fuisse  huiic  lapi- 
dem  atque  eum,  qui  in  Davidis  Jonathauique  historia 

vTSn    13S  Tocatus  est,  quern  interpretautur  lap:- 

dem  viatoruu),  ad  quern  videlicet  viatores  devertebant. 

Targum  h.  1.  SjITSD  13S  transtulit,   ('.  e.   altui  . 

fnrtasse  euim  lapis  altns  fuit  et  elatus,  quem  viatore* 
e  louginquo  conspicerent." 


3646 


ZOKAH 


If  the  word  swh-li  (rendered  "  field  ")  may  be  taken 
in  its  usual  sense,  then  the  "  field  of  Zopldm  "  was 
a  cultivated  spot «  high  up  on  the  top  of  the  range 
of  Pisgah.  But  that  word  is  the  ahiiost  invariable 
term  for  a  portion  of  the  upper  district  of  JNloab, 
and  therefore  may  have  had  some  local  sense  which 
has  hitherto  escaped  notice,  and  in  which  it  is 
employed  in  reference  to  the  spot  in  question.  The 
position  of  the  field  of  Zophim  is  not  defined,  it  is 
only  said  that  it  commanded  merely  a  portion  of 
the  encampment  of  Israel  Neither  do  the  ancient 
vereions  attbrd  any  clew.  Tlie  Targum  of  Onkelos, 
the  LXX.,  and  the  Peshito-Syriac  take  Zophim  in 
the  sense  of  "watchers"  or  '-lookers-out,''  and 
translate  it  accordingly.  But  it  is  probably  a  He- 
brew version  of  an  aboriginal  name,  related  to  that 
which  in  other  jilacesof  the  present  records  appears 
as  Mizpeh  or  Mizpah.''  May  it  not  be  the  same 
place  which  later  in  the  history  is  mentioned  (once 
only)  as  Mizpah-Moab? 

Mr.  Porter,  who  identifies  ^^i(?/'»B- with  Pisgah  « 
mentions  [[hmdhixih,  p.  300  a)  that  the  ruins  of 
Alum,  at  the  foot  of  that  mountain,  are  surrounded 
by  a  fertile  and  cultivated  plain,  which  he  regards 
as  the  field  of  Zophim.  G. 

*  The  gently  sloping  and  turf-clad  brow,  a  mile 
and  a  half  west  of  Main,  and  eight  miles  north  of 
''Attariis,  which  Tristram  proposes  as  the  site  of 
Nebo,  he  also  suggests  as  the  probable  ■'  field 
of  Zophim."  (Land  of  Israel,  p.  540,  2d  ed.) 
[Nebo,  Amer.  ed.]  S.  W.' 

ZO'RAH  (^V"^?  tl^*^*''^-  -'^'"^''"'^  '^'""•■"'  ^"'^' 
(/i-ouiid] :  2apa0,  Sapaa  [Vat.  Josh.  xiii.  2, 
2apaA] ;  Alex.  'S.apaa,  2apa,  Apaa  ;  Joseph. 
SapiWa:  Saraii).  One  of  the  towns  in  the  allot- 
ment of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  -11).  It  is 
previously  mentioned  (xv.  3-3)  in  the  catalogue  of 
Judah,  among  the  places  in  the  district  of  the  She- 
felah  (A.  V.  Zokkau).  In  both  lists  it  is  in  imme- 
diate proximity  to  Esutaol,  and  the  two  are  else- 
where named  together  almost  without  an  exception 
(Judg.  xiii.  is,  xvi.  31,  xviii.  2,  8,  11;  and  see  1 
Chr.  ii.  53).  Zorah  was  the  residence  of  Manoah 
and  the  native  place  of  Samson.  The  place  both 
of  his  birth  and  his  burial  is  specified  with  a  curi- 
ous minuteness  as  "  between  Zorah  and  Eshtaol;  " 
"in  Mahaneh-Dan  "  (Judg.  xiii.  25,  xvi.  31).  In 
the  genealogical  records  of  1  Chr.  (ii.  53,  iv.  2), 
the  "  Zareathites  and  Eslitaidites  "  are  given  as 
descended  from  («'.  e.  colonized  by)  Kirjath-jearim. 

Zorah  is  mentioned  amongst  the  places  fortified 
by  Kehoboam  (2  Chr.  xi.  10),  and  it  was  re-inhab- 
ited by  the  men  of  Judah  after  the  return  from  the 
Captivity  (Neh.xi.  29,  A.  V.  Zareah). 

In  the  OiKimristicon  {^apSa  and  "Saara")itis 
mentioned  as  lying  some  10  miles  north  of  Eleu- 
theropolis  on  the  road  to  Nicopolis.  By  the  .lew- 
ish  traveller  hap-Parchi  (Zunz's  Benjaiinii  of  Tad. 
ii.  441),  it  is  specified  as  three  hours  S.  E.  of  Lydd. 
These  notices  agree  in  direction  — though  in  neither 
is  the  distance  nearly  sufficient  —  with  the  modern 

village  of  Sur'ah  (iLCwo))  which  has  been  visited 

by  Dr.  Robinson  (Blbl.   Res.  iii.   153)  and  Tobler 
(3te  Wcmd.  181-183).  It  lies  just  below  the  brow  of 


a  See  Stanley,  S.  ^  P.,  Appendix,  §  15. 

i  The  Targuui  treats  the  names  Mizpeli  and  Zophim 

IS  identical,  translating  them  both  by  Sri-lSD. 

c  *  Mr.  Porter  disavows   this   inference    from   the 
language  yHandb.  p.  300  n)  as  well  as  the  opiuion  itself 


ZUPH,  THE   LAND  OF 

a  sharp-pointed,  conical  hill,  at  the  shoulder  of  the 
ranges  which  there  meet  and  form  the  north  side  of 
the  Wddy  GInirdli,  the  northernmost  of  the  two 
branches  which  unite  just  below  <Suc'«A,  and  form 
the  great  Wiv/i/  Surar.  Near  it  are  to  be  seen 
the  remains  of  Zanoah,  Beth-shemesh,  Tinuiath, 
and  other  places  more  or  less  frequently  mentioned 
with  it  in  the  narrative.  Eshtaol,  however,  has  not 
yet  been  identified.  The  position  of  Sur'idi  at  the 
entrance  of  the  \alley.  which  forms  one  of  the  in- 
lets Irom  the  great  lowland,  explains  its  fortifica- 
tion by  Kehoboam.  The  spring  is  a  short  distance 
below  the  village,  "  a  noble  fountain  "  —  this  was 
at  the  end  of  April  —  "  walled  up  square  with 
large  hewn  stones,  and  gushing  over  with  fine  water. 
As  we  passed  on,"  continues  Dr.  Robinson,  with  a 
more  poetical  tone  than  is  his  wont.  "  we  overt<i(.>k 
no  less  than  twelve  women  toiling  upwards  to  the 
village,  each  with  her  jar  of  water  on  her  head. 
The  village,  the  fountain,  the  fields,  the  mountain, 
the  females  liearing  water,  all  transported  us  back  to 
ancient  times,  when  in  all  probability  the  mother  of 
Samson  often  in  like  manner  visited  the  fountain 
and  toiled  homeward  with  her  jar  of  water." 

In  the  .\.  V.  the  name  appears  also  as  Zareah 
and  Zoueah.  The  first  of  these  is  perhaps  most 
nearly  accurate.     The  Hel:)rew  is  the  same  in  all. 

G. 

ZO'RATHITES,  THE  On^"1-^n  :  ^,,5 
'Apatii  [Vat  -Bet]--  Alex.  t.  2apa0i:  Sanitlii),  i.  c. 
the  jieople  of  Zorah,  are  mentioned  in  1  Chr.  iv. 
2  as  descended  from  Shobal.  one  of  the  sons  of  Ju- 
dah, who  in  1  Chr.  ii.  52  is  stated  to  have  founded 
Kiijath-jearim,  from  which  again  "  the  Zareathites 
and  the  Eshtaulites  "  were  colonized.  G. 

ZO'REAH  (I^VIv-  'Paa;  Alex.  2apaa:  Sn-  • 
red).  Another  (and  slightly  more  accurate)  form 
of  the  name  usually  given  in  the  A.  V.  as  Zorah, 
but  once  as  Zareah.  The  Hebrew  is  the  same  in 
all  cases.  Zoreah  occurs  only  in  Josh.  xv.  33, 
among  the  towns  of  Judah.  The  place  appears, 
however,  to  have  come  later  into  the  possession  of 
Dan.      [Zorah.]  G. 

ZO'RITES,  THE  (^V1?'3  [patr-]  =  'Htrap.' 
[Vat.  -pet] ;  Alex.  Hftapoei;  [Comp.  6  ^apai-] 
Sural),  are  named  in  the  genealogies  of  Judah  (1 
Chr.  ii.  54),  apparently  (though  the  passage  is 
probably  in  great  confusion)  amongst  the  descend- 
ants of  Salma  and  near  connections  of  Joab.  The 
Targum  regards  the  word  as  being  »  contraction 
for  •'  the  Zorathites ;  "  but  this  does  not  seem  likely, 
since  the  Zareathites  are  mentioned  in  ver.  52  of 
the  same  genealogy  in  another  connection. 

ZOROB'ABEL  {Zopo&dHeK:  Zorobabel),  1 
Esdr.  iv.  13,  v.  5-70,  vi.  2-29;  Ecclus.  xlix.  11; 
Matt.  i.  12,  13 ;  Luke  iii.  27.     [Zerubbabel.] 

ZU'AR  ("127^^  [synallness]:  S.aiydp:  Suar). 
Father  of  Xethaneel  the  chief  of  the  tribe  of  Issa- 
char  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (Num.  i.  8,  ii.  5, 
vii.  18,  23,  X.  15). 

ZUPH,  THE    LAND    OF    (^=12    V"!!^ 

[honey-comb]:   els  rijv  [2i<?),  Vat]  2€«f>; ''.  Alex. 

that  Attartis  is  Pisgah.     (See  Kitto's   £ibl.    Cijcl.  vol. 
iii.  p.  11P6.)  H- 

d  As  if  reading  ?]'*^  (Tsiph),  which  the  origiDal 
text  {Cetliib)  of  1  Chr.  vi.  35  still  exhibits   fur  Zupb 


ZUPH,  THE  LAND  OF 

Kis  yriv  2ei(^;   Sjr.   Peshito,  50-     Tsui- :  Vulg. 

terra  Suph ).  A  district  at  which  Saul  and  his 
lervant  arrived  after  passing  through  those  of  Shai- 
isha,  of  Slialini,  and  of  the  Benjaniites"  (1  Sam. 
is.  5  only).  It  evidently  contained  tlie  city  in 
which  they  encountered  Samuel  (ver.  6),  and  that 
Again,  if  the  conditions  of  the  narrative  are  to  be 
accepted,  was  certainly  not  far  from  the  "  tomb  of 
Rachel,"  probably  the  spot  to  which  that  name  is 
still  attached,  a  short  distance  north  of  Bethlehem. 
The  name  Zuph  is  connected  in  a  singular  manner 
with  Samuel.  One  of  his  ancestors  was  named 
Zuph  (1  Sam.  i.  1 ;  1  Chr.  vi.  '6b)  or  Zophai  (iliid. 
20 ) ;  and  his  nati\e  place  was  called  Ramathaim- 
zophim  (1  Sam.  i.  1). 

But  it  would  be  unsafe  to  conclude  that  the 
"  land  of  Zuph  "  had  any  connection  with  either 
of  these.  If  Ramathaim-zophim  was  the  present 
Neljy  Hamwil,  —  and  there  is,  to  say  the  least,  a 
strono;  probability  that  it  was,  —  then  it  is  difficult 
to  imagine  that  Ramathaim-zophim  can  have  been 
in  the  land  of  Zuph,  when  the  latter  was  near 
•Rachel's  sepulchre,  at  least  seven  miles  distant 
from  the  former.  Neby  Samwil,  too,  if  anywhere, 
is  in  the  very  heart  of  the  territory  of  Benjamin, 
whereas  we  have  seen  that  the  land  of  Zuph  was 
outside  of  it. 

The  name,  too,  in  its  various  forms  of  Zophim, 
Mizpeh,  jMizpah,  Zephathah,  was  too  common  in  the 
Holy  Laud,  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan,  to  permit 
of  much  stress  being  laid  on  its  occurrence  here. 

The  only  possible  trace  of  the  name  of  Zuph  in 
modern  Palestine,  in  any  suitable  locality,  is  to  be 
found  in  Sol/a,  a  well-known  place  about  seven 
miles  due  west  of  Jerusalem,  and  five  miles  south- 
west of  Neby  Samwil.  This  Dr.  Robinson  {Btbl. 
Jii:S.  ii.  8,9)  once  proposed  as  the  representative  of 
Ramathaim  Zopldm  ;  and  although  on  topograph- 
ical grounds  he  virtually  renounces  the  idea  (see  the 
foot-note  to  the  same  pages),  yet  those  grounds 
need  not  similarly  affect  its  identity  with  Zuph, 
provided  other  considerations  do  not  hiterfere.  Jf 
Slialini  and  Shalisha  were  to  the  N.  E.  of  Jerusa- 
lem, near  Taiyibeh,  then  Saul's  route  to  the  land 
of  Benjamin  would  be  S.  or  S.  W.,  and  pursuing 
the  same  direction  he  would  arrive  at  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Sobii.  But  this  is  at  the  best  no  more 
than  conjecture,  and  unless  the  land  of  Zuph  ex- 
tended a  good  distance  east  of  Soba,  the  city  in 
which  the  meeting  with  Samuel  took  place  could 
hardly  be  sufficiently  near  to  Rachel's  sepulchre. 

The  signification  of  the  name  of  Zuph  is  quite 
doubtful.  Uesenius  explains  it  to  mean  "honey;  " 
while  Fiirst  understands  it  as  "  abounding  with 
water."  It  will  not  be  overlooked  that  when  the 
LXX.  version  was  made,  the  name  probably  stood 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible  as  Ziph  (Tsipli).  Zophim  is 
usually  considered  to  signify  watchmen  or  lookers- 
out;  hence,  prophets;  in  which  sense  the  author 
of  the   Targum   has  actually  rendered  1  Sam.   ix. 


ZUZIMS,  THE 


3617 


5, — "  they  came  into  the  laud  in  which  was  a 
prophet  of  Jehovah."  G. 

ZUPH  C^^!?  :  [in  1  Sam.,  Ales.  2ou7r,  Comp. 
2a)(p;  Rom.  Vat.  corrupt;]  ^ovtp'in  1  Chr.:  Stiph). 
A  Kohathite  Levite,  ancestor  of  Elkanah  and  Sam- 
uel (1  Sam.  i.  1;  1  Chr.  vi.  35  [20]).  In  1  Chr. 
vi.  26  he  is  called  Zophai. 

ZUR  ("^2  [i-oc/c]:  Soi^p:  Sur).  1.  One  of  the 
five  princes  of  JNIidian  who  were  slain  Ly  the  Israelites 
when  Balaam  fell  (Num.  xxxi.  8).  His  daughter 
Cojbi  was  killed  by  Phinehas,  together  with  her 
paramour  Zimri,  the  Sinieonite  chieftain  (Num. 
xxv.  15).  He  appears  to  have  been  in  some  way 
subject  to  Sihon  king  of  the  Amoritea  (Josh.  xiii. 
21). 

2.  [In  1  Chr.  viii.  30,  Alex.  Icroi/p;  in  ix.  3(j, 
Vat.  Sin.  Alex.  Icreip.]  Son  of  Jehiel  the  founder 
of  Gibeon  by  his  wife  Maachah  (1  Chr.  viii.  30, 
ix.  36). 

ZU'RIEL  (bsn/i^    [my  rock  is  God] :  Zov- 

pirjA:  Suriel).  Son  of  Abihail,  and  chief  of  the 
iMerarite  Levites  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (Num. 
iii.  35). 

ZURISHAD'DAI    [4    syl.]      (\"ntt;n^!5 

[my  rock  is  the  Almighty'] :  ^ovpicraSal  [Vat.  in 
Num.  i.  G,  -pel-]  :  SurisadJai).  Father  of  Shelumiel 
the  chief  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  at  the  time  of  the 
Exodus  (Num.  i.  6,  ii.  12,  vii.  36,  41,  x.  19).  It  is 
remarkable  that  this  and  Animishaddai,  the  only 
names  in  the  Bilile  of  which  Shaddai  forms  a  part, 
should  occur  in  the  same  list.  In  Judith  (vii.  1) 
Zurishaddai  appears   a*  Salasadai. 

ZU'ZIMS,  THE    (a^n-Tn  :  ^e^-n  lax^pa  in 

both  MSS. :  Zuziiii ;  but  Jerome  in  Qiuest.  Ilehr., 
(/elites  fortes).  The  name  of  an  ancient  people 
who,  lying  in  the  path  of  Chedorlaomer  and  his  al- 
lies, were  attacked  and  overthrown  by  them  (Gen. 
xiv.  5  only).  Of  the  etyujology  or  signification  of 
the  name  nothing  is  known.  The  LXX.,  Targum 
of  Onkelos,  and  Sam.  Version  (with  an  eye  to  some 
root  not  now  recognizable  ^)  render  it  "  strong 
people."  The  Arab.  Version  of  Saadiah  (in  Wal- 
ton's Polyglott)  gives  ed-Dakakin,  by  which  it  is 
uncertain  whether  a  proper  name  or  appellative  is 
intended.  Others  understand  by  it  "  the  wander- 
ers "  (Le  Clerc,  from  t'"lT),  or  "  dwarfs  "  (Mi- 
chaelis,  Suppl.  No.  006).''  Hardly  more  ascertain- 
able is  the  situation  which  the  Zuzim  occupied. 
The  progress  of  the  invaders  was  from  north  to 
south.  They  first  encountered  the  Rephaim  in 
Ashteroth  Karnaim  (near  the  Leja  in  the  north 
of  the  Hituriin):  next  the  Zuzim  in  Ham;  and 
next  the  Eraim  in  Shaveh  Kiriathaim.  The  last 
named  place  has  not  been  identified,  but  was 
probably  not  far  north  of  the  Arnon.  There 
is  therefore  some   plausibility   in   the  suggestion 


(see  margin  of  A.  V.).     This  is  a  totally  distinct  name 

from  Ziph   (^"^T), 

«  If  indeed  tlie  "  land  of  Yemini  "  be  the  territory 
if  Benjauiiu. 

*  "  Seiisum  magis  quam  verbum  ex  verbo  trans- 
fereutes  "  (Jerome,  Qinzst.  Hebr.  in  Gen.).     Schumanu 

Genesis,  p.  237)  suggests  that  for  C'^T^-TH  they   read 
tZ^T^T^,     The  change  iu   the  initial  letter  is  the 


same  which  Ewald  proposes  in  identifying  Ham  (Gen. 
xiv.  6)  with  Ammon. 

c  Comparing  the  Arabic  X3S«v  By  adopting  thi^ 
(which  however  Ge.senius,  TAes.  p.  510  a,  resists!  and  al- 
tering the  points  of  L^nill  to  CriS,  as  it  is  plain 
the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  read  them,  Michaelis  ingeniously 
obtains  the  following  i-eading :  "  They  smote  the 
giants  in  Ashteroth  Karnaim,  and  the  people  uf 
smaller  (1.  e.  ordinary)  stature,  who  were  with  theui.'' 


3648  ZUZIMS,  THE 

of   Ewald   {Gesck.  i.    308,   note),   provided  it    is 

etymologically  correct,    that    Ham    DH,  is    D2?, 


ZUZIMS.  THE 


already  mentioned  under  Zajizummim,  but  at  the 
best  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  conjecture,  in 
Am,  i.  e.  Ammon;  and  thus  that  the  Zuzim  inhab-  f^'P^'^'  *°  f''"^  *''^  ^'"^^'"  '^"^'''^^  ^  ^ay  with  Ee- 
ited  the  country  of  the  Ammonites,  and  were  iden- I  ^^""~^"./*^  ^™"'''  ^'^  difficult  to  find  a  fitter 
tical  with  tlie  Zamzummim,  who  are  known  to  '  ff"  „"f^  ^'^^  "^'""^  *°  conclude  a  Dictionary  of 
have  been  exterminated  and  succeeded  in  their  ,  ^  ^^'"'^  ~  " ''""J®*'''"''*' l"''^"^  "^onfl^lectamur." 
land  by  the  Ammonites.     This  suggestion  has  been  '  ^ 


APPENDIX. 


NOTES   ON   THE   ART.    "WILDERNESS   OF   TFIE    WANDEEING." 

BY    niK    REV.    F.    W.    HOLLAND,    FELLOW    OF    THE    KoYAL   GEOGRAl'HICAL    SOCIETY    OF    LONIXm. 


[Thi;  following  notes  were  received  too  late  for 
insertion  in  their  proper  place,  but  are  too  valuable 
to  be  omitted.  Mr.  Holland  here  gives  the  results 
of  personal  observation,  having  four  times  visited 
the  Sinaitic  Peninsula  and  spent  many  months  in 
wandering  over  it  on  foot.  —  A.] 

Page  3513  a,  line  35,  ''  the  wilderness  of  Etham." 

—  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  wilderness 
of  Etham  extended  on  both  shores  of  the  gulf. 
"  The  ed(je  of  the  wilderness  ''  probably  refers  not 
to  the  limits  of  vegetation,  but  to  the  boundary  of 
the  desert  east  of  the  gulf,  marked  by  the  higher 
ground  which  divides  the  Bitter  Lakes  from  the  sea. 
This  would  form,  then  as  now,  the  natural  road  from 
Egypt  to  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  thither  iMoses 
would  lead  the  Israelites.  A  deviation  from  the 
natural  road  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  command 
to  turn  and  encamp  before  Pihahiroth. 

Page  3513  6,  1.  17,  "  The  wilderness  hath  shut 
them  in."  —  Pharaoh  seeing  that  the  Israelites  had 
missed  the  road  leading  round  the  head  of  the  gulf, 
would  naturally  exclaim  "  The  wilderness  hath  shut 
them  hi."  The  sea  was  on  their  left,  the  high  range 
of  Jebel  Attnkah  on  their  right,  and  beyond  them 
a  narrow  road  along  the  shore  leading  only  to  a  yet 
more  barren  desert.  l'>scape  was  impossible  unless 
God  had  opened  a  way  for  them  through  the  sea. 

Page  3513  6,  I.  2  from  bottom,  "  Wudy  AhthV 

—  The  proper' Lame  is  Wady  el-Alidhd  (SlX;^'^ 
derived  from  l/adhwah,  impression  of  a  horse's  foot. 

Page  3513,  note  c.  — The  excavations  of  the  Pal- 
estine Exploration  Fund  at  Jerusalem  have  proved 
that  the  language  of  Josephus  concerning  the  height 
of  the  buildings  of  the  Temple  was  not  extravagant. 

Page  Sbli,  note  a.  —  The  warm  spring  mentioned 
by  Mr.  Hamilton  is  situated  near  Tor,  and  has  no 
reference  to  the  Ayi'in  Musn  near  Suez;  it  is  that 
referred  to  in  the  following  note.  The  sprinijs  of 
Hummam  Phdraun  have  il  temperature  of  160°,  and 
emit  a  strong  suli)hurous  smell.  I  have  never  seen 
any  warm  spring  among  those  at  Ayuit  Miis  ',  al- 
though [  have  several  times  examined  them.  Water 
is  found  there  by  digging,  and  the  water-holes  are 
increased  at  the  pleasure  of  the  gardener. 

Page  3514  (t,  1.  37,  "  Shur  '  before  Egypt,'  "  etc. 
—  The  name  Shur  means  "  a  wall,"  and  was  perhaps 
given  to  the  wilderness  of  Etham,  which  lay  on  tlie 
east  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez  and  of  tiie  head  of  the 
^ulf,  from  the  wall-like  range  of  mountains,  Jebil  er- 
Ri(h<di,  by  which  it  is  bomided.  When  seen  from  a 
listance  tiiis  r.ange  presents  the  appearance  of  a  long 
Sne  of  white  cliffs,  with  a  nauarkable  tabular  outline. 
The  Arab"  know  many  places  in  the  Peninsula  by 


two  names,  —  one  being  the  proper  name,  the  o*hei 
a  name  derived  from  some  characteristic  feature. 

Page  3514  b,  1.  20,  '^Debbet  er-Ramleh."  —  This 
tract  of  sand  does  not  run  uninterruptedly  across 
the  Peninsula.  It  is  divided  by  the  rocky  plateau  at 
the  head  of  Wady  el-Akhdar  tnul  Wudy  el-Usli. 
The  name  appears  to  be  applied  more  particularly 
to  the  belt  of  sand  near  Wady  Nusb  and  SerdbU 
el-K/iddim. 

Page  3514  b,  1.  36.  —  El-Kda  cannot  be  Sin, 
which  lay  north  of  Wady  Feirdn,  the  most  south- 
erly road  that  the  Israelites  can  have  taken  to 
Mount  Sinai.  The  name  el-Kda  is  only  applied  to 
the  plain  south  of  Wady  Feiran.  The  plain  to  the 
north  is  called  el-Mnrkhah,  and  that  probably  cor- 
responded with  the  ^^'ilderness  of  Sin.  The  Wady 
Hibraii  south  of  Jebel  Serbdl  was  pronounced  by 
the  Sinai  Survey  Expedition  to  be  an  impossible 
route  for  the  Israelites  to  have  taken. 

Page  3515  a,  1.  10.  —  Um  Shaumer  is  not  the 
highest  mountain.  Mount  Catherine  is  consider- 
ably higher,  and  forms  the  true  Omphalos  of  the 
Peninsula.  Jebel  Zibir  is  the  highest  peak  of 
Mount  Catherine,  and  therefore  the  highest  point 
in  Sinai. 

Page  3515  b,  1.  6  from  bottom,  "  Three  passes 
through  the  et-Tih  range,"  etc.  —  Besides  the 
three  passes  mentioned  by  Robinson,  there  is  a  road 
leading  over  Jebel  Odjiaek  from  the  head  of  Wailii 
ts-Sik,  a  pass  to  the  east  of  Jebel' Dhelel,  and  an- 
other further  eastward  at  the  head  of  Wady  el-Ain. 

Page  3510  6,  note  y. — The  sound  produced  by 
the  sand  at  Jebel  Nnkiis  is  not  caused  by  its  pour- 
ing over  the  clifTs,  but  by  the  friction  of  its  grains 
when  set  in  motion.  The  sand  is  drifted  up  into  a 
steep  bank  in  a  recess  in  the  mountain  side,  and 
when  set  in  motion,  either  artificially,  or  by  the 
wind,  rolls  down  like  a  cascade,  and  then  the  sound 
is  produced.  It  resemliles  the  noise  made  by  rub- 
bing the  finger  round  a  glass,  but  is  so  loud  <as  to 
be  heard  sometimes  at  a  distance  of  several  hundred 
yards.  It  causes  a  great  viliration,  which  often  sets 
in  motion  the  surrounding  sand.  The  Aral)s  sup- 
pose that  the  sound  is  caused  by  the  nnkus  (wooden 
lioards  used  for  bells)  of  a  monastery,  which  was 
swallowed  up  by  the  earth  in  consequence  of  the 
wickedness  of  the  monks.  See  Proceediiujs  of  the 
Royal  Geog.  Soc.  vol.  xiii.  p.  215  f. 

Page  3517  b,  I.  11.  —  The  Jfeccn  pilyrims  are 
previously  provided  for,  stores  of  corn  being  sent  on 
to  the  various  stations  on  the  HadJ  yomI,  and  tanks 
prepared  for  water.  Their  case,  therefore,  is  quits 
difterent  from  that  of  the  Israelites. 


3G50 


APPENDIX. 


Page  3517  b,  note  c.  —  I  have  measured  acacia 
trees  upwards  of  nine  feet  in  circurafereiice.  Tlie 
trees  g;row  to  a  large  size,  when  they  are  not  stunted 
by  having  their  shoots  annually  cut  oflF  to  feed  the 
goats  of  the  Arahs. 

Page  3518, 1.  2,  "  the  Wady  er-Raheh."  —  I  have 
myself  seen  the  Wady  er-Maludi  "  a  vast  yreeii 
plam,"  so  that  looking  up  its  slope  it  appeared  com- 
pletely covered  by  herbage.  It  is  never  entirely 
bare,  being  thickly  studded  with  low  plants,  which 
after  a  few  showers  of  rain  in  spring  quickly  be- 
come green.  I  have  even  seen  blades  of  grass 
springing  up  in  every  direction  upon  it.  But  I 
have  also  seen  the  tr-Jinliah  after  a  long  dry  season 
to  all  appearance  irora  a  little  distance  a  barren 
plain. 

Page  3518  6,  1'.  1.  —  Quicksands  in  Debbet  er- 
Raiiileh  are  merely  caused  by  the  sand  drifting  into 
ihe  hollows,  whicli  catch  the  rain-water.  They  are 
not  real  quicksands. 

Pages  3517-3521.  —  Supply  of  Water  and  Pas 
Uiraije.  —  Large  tracts  of  the  northern  portion  of 
the  plateau  of  the  Tih,  which  are  now  desei't,  were 
evidently  formerly  under  cultivation.  The  Gulf  of 
Suez  (probably  by  means  of  an  artificial  canal  con- 
necting it  with  the  Bitter  Lakes)  once  extended 
nearly  fifty  miles  further  north  than  it  does  at  pres- 
ent, and  the  mountains  of  Palestine  were  well  clothed 
with  trees.  Thus  there  formerly  existed  a  rain- 
making  area  of  considerable  extent,  which  must 
have  added  largely  to  the  dews  and  rains  of  Sinai. 
Probably,  also,  the  Peninsula  itself  was  formerly 
a;uch  more  thickly  wooded. 

The  amount  of  vegetation  and  herbage  in  the 
Peninsula,  even  at  the  present  time,  has  been  very 
much  underrated ;  and  a  slight  increase  in  the 
present  rain-fal!  would  produce  an  enormous  addi- 
tion to  the  amount  of  pasturage.  I  have  several 
times  seen  the  whole  face  of  the  country,  especially 
the  wadies,  marvelously  changed  in  appearance  by 
a  single  shower. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  con- 
vent gardens  at  the  foot  of  .lebel  Jfi'isa,  and  those 
In  Wady  Ftiidii,  and  at  Tu}\  mark  the  only  three 
spots  where  any  considerable  amount  of  cultivation 
could  exist  in  the  Peninsula.  Hundreds  of  old 
monastic  gardens,  with  copious  wells  and  springs, 
are  scattered  over  the  mountains  throughout  the 
granitic  districts;  and  I  could  mention  at  least 
twenty  streams  which  are  perennial,  excepting  per- 
haps in  unusually  dry  seasons. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  present  physical  con- 
ditions of  the  country  are  such  as  to  render  it  ut- 
terly impossible  that  the  events  recorded  in  the 
book  of  Exodus  can  ever  have  occiuTed  there.  It 
is  wonderful,  however,  how  apparent  difficulties 
melt  away  as  one's  acquaintance  with  the  country 
increases.  I  see  no  difficulty  myself  in  the  provis- 
ion of  sufficient  pasturage  for  the  flocks  and  herds, 
if,  as  I  have  shown,  there  are  good  reasons  for  sup- 
posing the  rain-fall  was  in  former  days  larger  than 
it  is  at  present;  and  with  regard  to  the  cattle,  I 
will  point  out  one  important  fact,  which  appears  to 
me  to  have  been  overlooked,  namely,  that  they  were 
probably  used  as  beasts  of  burden,  and,  in  addition 

o  W.  Ethai  is  its  real  name,  so  called  from  Et/iet, 
a  Bpjcies  of  tamarisk. 

b  *  It  is  important  to  notice  here  that  Mr.  Holland 
has  altered  the  opinion  respecting  the  route  of  the 
Israelites  which  he  had  presented  in  a  paper  read  be- 
fore the  Roy.  Geog.  Society  in  1868,  already  referred 
lo  in  this  Dictionary  under  the  arts.  Sra,  Wildersess 


to  other  things,  carried  their  own  water,  sufEcient 
for  several  days,  slung  in  water-skins  by  their  side, 
just  as  Sir  Samuel  Baker  found  them  doing  at  the 
present  day  in  Abyssinia.  —  See  pajjer  On  Recad 
l-'.xplarativn  in  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  read  [by 
Jlr.  Holland]  at  the  Liverpool  Church  Congress, 
Oct.  18G9.   [See  also  art.  Sinai,  p.  3054,  Amer.  ed.] 

Page  3521  «,  1.  34.  —  "  ^Ain  eUHawdra.'"  —  The 
water  varies  much  in  bitterness.  I  have  found  it  at 
one  time  so  bitter  that  I  could  not  even  hold  it  in 
my  mouth,  at  another  more  pleasant  to  drink  than 
the  water  I  had  brought  in  water-skins  from  Suez. 
The  size  of  the  spring  is  very  small,  but  the  masH 
of  calcareous  deposit  which  surrounds  it  seems  to 
prove  that  the  water-sup|)l\  from  it  was  formerly 
larger  than  at  the  present  time. 

There  appears  to  be  a  strange  confusion  of  places 
here  by  the  writer  of  the  article.  My  own  oliser- 
vations,  made  at  several  different  times,  and  con- 
firmed by  tliose  of  the  Sinai  Survey  Expedition  in 
1868,  have  led  me  to  the  following  conclusions. 
'Ain  Uau'dra  is  not  a  brook,  but  a  spring  standing 
on  an  elevated  plateau  at  the  head  of  Wady 
Amaru,  which  does  not  contain  any  other  water, 
although  a  little  to  the  north  of  its  mouth  are  the 
Ayiin  Abu  Szouireira/i,  two  water-holes  about  8 
feet  deep,  supplied,  I  think,  by  the  drainage  from 
Wady  Wai-ddn.  A  few  stunted  palms  grow  near 
them.  The  water-holes  might  be  increased  by 
digging.  The  water  is  slightly  brackish  but  drink- 
able. Wady  T(H"  lies  to  the  south  of  Wady 
Ghurundel,  running  into  the  gulf  a  few  miles  to 
the  north  of  Wady  Tayibeh.  The  Arabs  obtain 
rock-salt  from  it.  At  Jebel  Bis/ier,  commonly, 
but  wrongly,  known  as  Taset  es-Sudr,  there  is  a 
good  siqiply  of  water.  This  mounfaiu  lies  much 
nearer  to  .'^uez.  It  is  known  in  the  charts  as 
"  Barn  Hill,'"  and  forms  a  prominent  landmark. 

Page  3521  6,  1.  2  from  bottom.  —  By  "  icnter- 
courses "  Stanley  evidently  does  not  intend  to 
imply  the  presence  of  water;  he  especially  mentions 
their  being  dry.  Wady  Useit  does  not  connect 
Ghurundel  with  Tayibeh ;  it  is  entirely  separate 
from  both,  luit  drains  the  plateau  that  lies  between 
them.  The  hot  springs  near  it,  visited  by  Nie- 
buhr,  are  those  of  the  Nummdin  Pharaun.  Wady 
Useit  drains  an  elevated  plateau  at  the  back  of 
Jebel  Huminam.  Wady  Tayibeh  funs  from  the 
south  of  the  same  plateau.  Wady  Ghurmulel,  as 
it  approaches  the  sea,  is  certainly  one  of  the  best 
watered  and  wooded  valleys  in  the  whole  Penin- 
sula. 

Page  3522  (7,  4th  par.  "  Tur."  —  The  advantages 
of  this  spot  for  an  encampment  have  "been  much 
exaggerated.  The  water  is  brackish  and  unwhole- 
some, and  it  is  the  most  unhealthy  spot  in  the 
Peninsula.  It  is  true  that  there  are  large  groves 
of  palms  and  thickets  of  tamarisk,  but  the  ground 
is  impregnated  with  salt,  and  is  not  otherwise  par- 
ticularly fertile.  At  the  mouth  of  Wady  Tayibeh 
is  tlie  plain  of  Ras  Abu  Zellmeh,  which  probably 
wa;  the  spot  where  tlie  Israelites  encamped;  it  is 
divided  from  el-Murlcluih  by  a  narrow  strip  of 
desert,  and  might  almost  be  considered  as  a  por- 
tion of  the  Wilderness  of  Sin.* 


OP,  p.  3049,  note  a,  and  Six.u,  p.  3054.  He  now  re- 
gards el-Murkliah, -.inA  not  thejjlain  of  f s- Sei/A,  as  the 
"  Wilderness  of  Siu,''  and  supposes  the  Israelites  from 
this  point  to  have  journeyed  up  the  Wady  Feiran 
See  his  paper  On  Recent  Explorations  in  the  Peninsula 
of  Sinai,  read  at  the  Liverpool  Church  Congress,  Oct 
186D.  A 


APPENDIX. 


3g:.i 


Page  3522  6,  1.  12.—  El-Kaa.  —  This  name  is 
rciifiiied  to  the  plain  south  of  Wudy  Feiirln.  The 
whole  of  the  northern  plain  is,  I  believe,  known  by 
the  general  name  of  el'Murkkah. 

Page  3522  b,  2d  par. —  Manna.  — T  have  now 
(1870)  some  pots  of  manna  that  I  brought  from 
Sinai  in  1801.  It  remains  perfectly  good,  but  be- 
comes liquid  like  honey  in  hot  weather.  When  I 
first  obtained  it,  it  still  remained,  as  when  collected 
from  the  trees,  in  the  shape  of  hardened  drops. 
It  is  sold  in  I'^gypt  for  medicinal  purposes,  or  to  pil- 
grims as  a  I'elic  from  the  desert. 

Page  .352y  <i,  near  end  of  1st  par.  —  The  height 
of  the  Sinaitic  inscriptions  has  lieen  much  exagger- 
ated. I  have  not  seen  one  that  I  have  failed  to 
reach  without  difhcuity,  except  in  a  few  cases, 
where  tliere  were  evident  traces  of  a  lower  ledge 
of  rock  having  fallen  down.  See  Proctedbiys  li. 
G.  Soc,  vol.  xiii.  p.  213  f. 

Page  3523  a. —  Repli'uUm.  —  On  the  site  of 
Rephidim,  where  the  battle  with  the  Amalekites 
was  fought,  my  opinion  diflers  from  that  of  Captain 
Wilson  and  j\lr.  Palmer.  They  belie\e  the  battle 
to  have  been  fought  in  the  Wady  Feirdn,  near  the 
site  of  the  ancient  city  of  Paran,  and  that  Je6e/ 
Tahunuli  (not  the  hill  on  which  the  old  church 
stands,  which  the  Dean  of  Westminster  advocates, 
but  one  opposite  it  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley) 
was  the  hill  on  which  Closes  sat,  with  Aaron  and 
Hur  supporting  his  arms. 

The  road  up  this  hill,  and  the  churches  and 
chapels  ou  its  summit  and  sides,  certainly  mark 
this  hill  as  a  ^•ery  sacred  spot  in  the  eyes  of  the 
old  inhaliitants  of  Paran.  I  have  little  doubt  that 
they  believed  it  to  be  the  site  of  Kephidim,  when 
iStrbdl,  as  was  once  certainly  the  case,  was  held  to 
be  the  traditional  Mount  Sinai.  But  I  have  no 
faith  in  monastic  traditions,  either  ancient  or  mod- 
erii,  as  far  as  the  monks  of  the  convent  of  St. 
Catherine  are  concerned. 

Besides,  it  appears  to  me  tliat  Itephidim  is  clearly 
spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  within  a  day's  journey 
of  Mount  .Sinai;  and  this  spot  is  two  days'  jour- 
ney from  Jtbei  Miis'i,  even  by  tlie  short  cut  of  the 
yukb  IJdiry. 

I  am  strongly  of  opinion  that  the  Israelites 
marched  up  the  Wady  es~!Sliei/i/i,  and  that  the 
narrow  defile  of  el-Wat/ye/i,  aliout  twelve  miles 
from  Jeb(^l  Musa,  marks  the  site  of  the  battle  of 
Eephidim. 

From  the  head  of  Wady  Ilibran  there  stretches 
across  the  western  side  of  the  Peninsula  a  remai'k- 
able  line  of  precipitous  granite  mountains,"  through 
which  are  found  only  three  passes,  leading  to  the 
high  and  well-watered  central  group  A  mountains, 
which  includes  Jubel  Musa.  The  two  vvesterti 
passes  of  Wady  Tlah  and  Nukb  lldwy  are  too 
narrow  and  rugged  to  have  afforded  a  road  for  the 
mass  of  the  Israelites. 

They  are  altogether  out  of  the  question,  if  the 
Israelites  had  wagons  «ith  them  at  this  time. 
We  know  that  the  princes  presented  six  wagons 
for  the  use  of  the  Tabernacle  at  Mount  Sinai,  and 
we  can  hardly  suppose  them  to  have  been  built 
there. 

The  remaining  pass  of  el-  Wntlyeh  is  a  narrow 
iefile,  with  perpendicular  rocks  on  either  side,  and 


«  This  Ibrmcd,  probuljly,  the  northern  limit  of 
the  Wilderness  of  Sinai,  tlie  high  central  cluster  of 
mountains  to  the  south  bearing  the  district  name 
if  ilortb.  y.  \V.  11. 


the  holding  of  this  defile  by  the  Amalekites  would 
render  them  secure. 

All  the  requirements  of  the  account  of  the  bat- 
tle are  found  at  this  spot.  There  is  a  large  plain, 
destitute  of  water,  for  the  encampment  of  the  Israel- 
ites ;  a  conspicuous  hill  on  the  north  side  of  the 
defile,  commanding  the  battle-ground,  and  present- 
ing a  bare  cliff,  such  as  we  may  suppose  the  rock 
to  have  been  which  Moses  struck.'' 

There  is  another  plain  on  the  south  of  the  pass 
for  the  encampment  of  the  Amalekites,  witii  abun- 
dance of  water  within  easy  reach ;  and,  curiously 
enough,  at  tliis  very  spot,  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  oa 
which  Moses  sat,  if  this  be  Kephidim,  the  Arabs 
point  out  a  rock,  which  they  call  '•  the  .seat  of  the 
prophet  Moses." —  See  paper  read  l)efure  the  Liver- 
pool Church  Congress,  pp.  7,  8 ;  also  paper  read 
before  R.  G.  S.,  May  11th,  1868,  p.  17. 

Page  3523  «,  2d  par.  —  Hvreb.  —  A  name  given 
probably  to  the  central  granite  mountains  (includ.- 
ing  Jebtl  Musa,  St.  Catherine,  Fureiali,  etc.), 
which  lie  to  the  south  of  the  remarkable  line  of 
cliffs  stretching  eastward  from  the  head  of  Wady 
Uebrdii.  The  country  between  this  line  and  Wady 
es-Slieikh,  including  the  low  mountains  of  Jebel 
el- Or/,  is  comparatively  open,  and  contains  several 
plains  or  broad  wadies  of  considerable  size.  No 
trace  of  the  name  Horeb  now  remains,  unless  Jebel 
^Aribeli,  the  central  portion  of  Jebel  ed-Deir,  be  a 
corruption  of  it.  The  Arabs,  however,  say  that  this 
mountain  is  so  called  from  a  plant  that  grows  there. 

Page  3521  b,  end  of  1st  par. —  Jebel  Feirdn.  — 
The  Aralis  often  call  the  mountains  by  the  names 
of  the  adjoining  wadies. 

Page  3521  b,  2d  par.  —  Summit  of  Serbdl.  — 
Dr.  Stewart's  "  circle  of  loose  stones,"  and  Dr.  Stan- 
ley's "  ruins  of  a  building,  granite  fragments  ce- 
mented with  lime  and  mortar,"  refer  to  the  same 
ruins.  The  latter  description  is  the  true  one.  There 
are  a  considerable  number  of  inscriptions  on  the 
summit,  some  painted  under  an  overhanging  rock 
covered  with  wliitewash,  which  seenjs  to  connect 
them  with  this  building,  similar  whitewash  being 
found  upon  its  stones.  For  a  description  of  Jebel 
Serbdl,  see  Proceedings  R.  G.  Soc,  vol.  xiii.  p.  212. 

Page  3525  a,  2d  par.  —  Jebel  Musa.  —  Fof 
description  see  Proceedings  R.  G.  Soc,  vol.  xiii.  p. 
210.  I'he  approach  from  the  W.  by  Nukb  Hdwy  is 
not  so  difficult  as  represented.  I  liave  several  times 
ascended  the  pass  with  lightly-laden  camels. 

IF.  Sotaiit  should  be  written  Sold/'.  Tite  Bus 
Sufsdfeh  is  not  a  mountain  interposed  between  the 
slope  of  Jebel  Musa  and  the  plain,"  but  the  north- 
ern portion  of  Jebel  Musa  itself. 

Page  3525  6,  1.  10.  —  Jtbel  Fiireid.  —  There  is 
properly  speaking  no  mountain  of  that  name.  The 
name  tl-Fureiah  is  applied  to  the  high  and  fertile 
mountain  plateau  that  lies  between  Wady  er- 
Rakalt  and  the  upper  part  of  Wady  es-Slieikh 
Ihe  surrounding  peaks  each  have  a  separate  name. 

Page  3525  b,  note  c.  —  It  is  a  mistake  to  think 
that  ihe  dendrites  have  become  scarce —  at  the  top 
of  Abbas  Pasha's  road  they  especially  abound. 

Page  3527  a,  1.  38.  —  The  "  offerings  of  the 
princes  "  included  wagons  (Num.  vii.  3),  a  proot 
that  the  route  followed  by  the  Israelites  did  not 
lead  over  any  very  difficult  passes,  and  therefore 
a  help  in  tracing  out  their  course. 

I'age  3527  «,  1.  4  from  bottom.  "  Over  its  soutn' 


6  This  would  be  "  in  Horeb  ' 
the  preceding  uoto  is  correct. 


if  the  suggestion  in 
F.  W.  H. 


S652 


APPENDIX. 


evn  face,"  etc.  —  There  are  several  passes  over  the 
southern  face  of  the  Tih  range;  if  the  Israelites 
did  not  march  down  to  the  Gulf  of  Akaba,  they 
probably  crossed  by  one  or  more  of  these,  if  not  too 
steep  for  their  wagons.  The  direct  road  from 
Jebel  Miisa,  northward  to  the  Till  range  j)reseiits 
no  ditHculty,  a  rising  expanse  of  hard  desert  lead- 
ing gradually  up  to  the  plateau  of  Teranilc,  where 
there  is  plenty  of  vegetation,  and  good  water  at 
Aiii  el-Aklulhar.  The  wadies  leading  down  to 
the  Gulf  of  Akaba  are  somewhat  narrow  and  rocky ; 
a  stream  of  good  water  is  found  at  the  lower  Wniiy 
el-Aiii.  There  is  an  upper  el-Ain  at  the  bottom 
of  Wdilii  ZtUci/ei  further  to  the  northwest.  The 
Iwo,  I  believe,  are  connected. 

Vag".  ib-27  h,  1.  29.  —  Ddliid  appears  to  me  too 
far  to  the  south  to  be  identified  with  Dizahab;  it 
is  also  inclosed  by  mountains  on  the  north.  The 
road  to  it  lies  down  Wdfly  Nusb,  which  rises  south 
of  ./eitZ  C'lllierine.  There  is  another  road  across 
the  plain  of  St«;;er/ which  joins   Wady  Nusb. 

I'age  3.527  6,  1.  3C. —  Kl-Huilliei-d.  —  This  copi- 
ous spring  is  situated  at  the  head  of  the  wady  of  the 
same  name,  which  forms  a  cul-ite-snc  surrounded 
by  high  cliffs.  Two  narrow  paths,  so  steep  that  a 
laden  camel  cannot  well  descend  them,  lead  down  to 
it.  It  is  difficult  to  identify  this  with  Hazeroth, 
where  the  whole  host  of  the  Israelites  encamped 
for  seven  days,  if  they  marched  straight  north  from 
jMount  Sinai  we  miuht  place  Hazeroth  in  the  open 
plateau  near  i'LAklidliar.  Here  numerous  very  an- 
cient inclosures  and  ruins  of  numus  are  found. 
The  iiainiig,  or  in  the  yjlural  nuainls,  "  mosqiiitos,'" 
are  the  dwellings  or  storehouses  of  the  ancient  in- 
habitants of  the  Peninsula.  Their  style  of  architect- 
ure is  the  oldest  that  is  known,  resembling  the 
"  Beehive  Houses"  in  Scotland.  They  wereperha|)S 
built  by  the  Amalekites.  (See  Pfoccedinas  R.  G. 
Sue.  vol.  xiii.  p.  21 1 ;  paper  read  before  R.  G.  S-,  Jlay 
11,  18G8;  and  paper  read  at  Liverpool  Church 
Congress,  Oct.   18G'J.) 

I'age  3527,  note  rt.— The  edilile  locusts  invade 
the  Peninsula  in  great  numbers  about  every  third 
year.  I  have  seen  the  ground  covered  with  them. 
'J'he  Aralis  in  Sinai  do  not  eat  them.  Partridges 
of  two  kinds  are  very  connnon.  C,!uails  are  met 
with  occasionally.  Vast  Hocks  of  storks  annually 
cross  northwards  from  Egypt.  I  have  counted 
them  by  hundreds  on  several  occasions. 

Page  3532  c,  1.  4.  —  Kl-  Ain.  —  When  tracing 
up  Wadij  el-Ain,  my  Arabs  pointed  out  a  route 
leading  northwards  to  Palestine.  They  said  the 
road  v\as  good,  and  the  pass  over  the  Tih  range 
not  difficult.  1 

P.  3534  b.  —  Zoology.  —  There  are  i\o  lions,  I 
believe,  in  Sinai.  Hyenas  are  common;  so  al«o 
are  foxes,  of  which  there  are  two  kinds.  Leo]>ards 
are  found  on  the  higher  mountains;  wolves  in  Wady 
Ftiran,  and  other  places.  The  ibex  is  very  con?- 
mon.  1  have  sometimes  seen  as  many  as  40  or  50 
in  a  day;  and  have  occasionally  found  30  or  40  Id 
one  herd.  The  tlesh  is  exceflent,  and  when  sta- 
tionary for  a  few  days  the  tra\eller  can  generally 
employ  an  Arab  to  shoot  him  some.  They  are 
quite  contented  with  five  or  six  shillinos  for  each 
ibex.  The  young  are  killed  in  consideraljle  num- 
bers for  the  sake  of  their  skins,  which  aie  used  for 
sewing  dates  in.  The  ibexes  are  commonly  known 
by  the  name  of  bedru,  but  other  names  are  given 
Uiem  according  to  their  age  and  the  length  of  their 
horns.  Hares  are  com«ion.  Amongst  other  ani- 
mals which  are.  often  seen  may  be  mentioned  the 


gazelle,  coney  {Hyrax  Syriacus),  called  by  tlis 
.Arabs  webi;  jerboas,  mice  of  several  kinds,  lizards- 
and  snakes,  of  which  I  have  caught  five  or  six 
different  kinds.  Amongst  the  birds,  vultures  of 
two  kinds,  kites,  hawks,  storks,  wild  ducks,  teal, 
snipe,  herons,  partridges,  sand-grouse,  quail,  pig- 
eons, turtle-doves,  iJryiiuecas,  stonechats,  plovers, 
ravens,  crows,  owls,  bats,  red-starts,  larks,  swallows, 
sea-gulls,  etc.,  etc.  Porcupines  and  hedgehogs  are 
found,  but  they  are  rare.  Small  fish  are  found 
in  the  warm  springs  near  Tut:  One  cannot,  of 
course,  compare  the  amount  of  life  found  in  a 
desert  with  that  in  other  countries,  which  supply  a 
larger  amount  of  food,  but  I  have  frequently  seer., 
and  have  shot  or  caught  most  of  the  animals  and 
birds  which  1  have  mentioned,  besides  others  the 
names  of  which  I  cannot  pow  remember. 

Page  3536  rt.  —  Vegef.dlion.  —  The  statement 
th.at  "  the  palms  are  almost  always  dwarf,"  is  not 
correct.  The  dwarf  trees  are  the  exception,  not  the 
rule.  ]N[any  of  the  trees  at  Tir  and  Wady  Ftiran 
are  particularly  fine. 

IiO.ses  of  .Jericho  are  found  at  the  nioi>th  of 
Wady  Gliunuidel,  Wady  Mvkatleb,  and  many 
other  places. 

The  Ijisdf,  or  caper  plant,  is  found  in  Tayibeh, 
and  is  very  common  in  the  wadies  south  of  Jebel 
Musr(.  The  fruit,  which  is  of  the  size  and  shape 
of  a  moderate  sized  pear,  is  eaten  by  the  Arab* 
It  has  a  pungent  and  very  pleasant  taste. 

The  Bait-irae  (Bdlsdmum  Aaronis)  abounds  in 
some  of  the  wadies  near  Serbdl. 

The  Osl/er  1  have  found  in  Wady  Nusb,  S.  E. 
of  Jebd  Musn  and  also  near  Wady  el-Ain.  A 
large  blue  kind  of  locust  feeds  upon  it. 

The  Butm  {Pistdcliid  terebintl/vsf)  occurs  on 
the  v,es,t  of  .Jebel  Serbdl  on  the  higher  slopes;  it 
does  not  appear  to  grow  on  the  east  of  the  moun- 
tain. 

Page  3537.  —  The  name  Serbdl  is   not  derived 

from  Ser  ;  the  word  serbal  ((jLj«.*u)   signifies  a 

"  shirt  "  or  "coat  of  mail,"  and  the  name  has 
reference  to  the  manner  in  which  a  storm  clotiies 
the  smooth  summit  of  the  mountain,  and  perhaps 
to  the  sheet  of  ice  with  which  it  is  sometimes  cov- 
ered, when  it  shines  in  tlie  sun  like  a  coat  of 
mail.  F.  W.  H. 

*  We  ought  perhaps  to  mention  here,  as  at 
least  a  cin-iosity,  a  new  theory  of  the  route  of  the 
Israelites, -set  forth  with  no  little  learning  and 
ingenuity  by  a  writer  in  Lawson  and  Wilson's 
Cyrlo/xedin  (if'  Bihl.  Geoyrdpluj,  etc.,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
5li-liJ9  {Edin.  1866),  under  (he  title  Kxode,  Aller- 
iid/ice  View  of  the.  We  can  only  indicate  his 
chief  results,  without  discussing  the  arguments 
liy  which  tliey  are  supported.  This  writer  main- 
tains that  the  (iulf  of  .\kaba  is  the  "  Ked  .Sea  " 
of  our  version,  and  was  of  nuich  larger  dimen- 
sion.? in  the  days  of  i\Ioses  and  Herodotus,  extend- 
ing across  Uiodern  Arabia  to  the  Persian  (julf; 
that  Mizraim  is  improperly  rendered  -'Egypt  "  in 
oiu'  version,  being  really  apjilied  to  a  part  of  Ara- 
bia near  Egypt;  that  the  water  in  which  Moses, 
as  an  infant,  was  laid,  was  not  the  Nile,  but  a 
sweet  water  channel  connecting,  in  early  times,  the 
istbnuis  of  Suez  with  the  JMeditewanean  Sea:  that 
Goshen  was  the  high  region  known  to  the  ancients 
as  Mount  Casion :  that  the  Horeb  of  Scripture  was 
the  ridge  of  the  Tih,  and  Mount  Siuai  Jebel  el- 
Ajiiiah  (or  Ojiiieh).  A. 


INDEX 


PRINCIPAL   PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTURE    ILLUSTRATED. 


Note  —  Passages  which  would  be  readily  found  without  the  aid  of  this  Index  are  for  the  most  part  cmittad 


GENESIS. 

1.1 i.  631b 

.2 iv.  3106  b 

i.  5 i.  567  b 

i.  7 i.  631b 

1.  14 iv.  3W5a 

i.  21 i.828a 

ii.2  iv.  2922  a 

ii.  i....i.  888  b,  891   a,H. 

ii.  5 i.  891  b.  n. 

ii.  6 i.  825  a,n. 

ii.  7 i.  25  b,  ii.  1411a, 

iv.  3406  a 

ii.  14 i.  636  b 

ii.  18 iii.  1793  b 

ii.  24 iv  3407  a 

iii.  l....iv.  2928b,  2931a 

iii.  1-14 i    421b 

iii.  5 i".  3406  a 

iii.  7 i.  624  b 

iii.  8 iv.  3406  b 

ill.  12 i.  26  b,  n. 

ii*.  14 iv.  2928  b 

iii.  14,  15 iv.  2929  b 

iii.  15 iii.  1906  a,  iv. 

3426  a,  H. 

iii.  17-24 iv.3418a  f. 

iii.  19  ..i.  323a,  ii.  1411  a 

iii.  24.. i  420  a,  423  a,  iv. 

2961a 

iv.3 iv.  3490  a 

iv.  7 i.  5a,   341  a,  b 

iv.  8.  . . .  iv.  2809  a,  2923  a 

iv.  15 i.  341  a 

iv.  20 iv.  2989  b 

iv.  21 ii.  1485  a 

iv.  22.  ...i.  490  a,  ii.  992  a 

iv.  23,24 ii.  1583  a 

iv.  24 iii.  2640  b 

V.  1 i.  888a 

V.  1,2: i.  26  a 

v.22-24..i.  737  b,iv.  2708a 

vi.  1-4....  ii.  910  a,  iii.  2175 

b,  2360  b,iv.  3317  a 

vi.  2 ii.  1506  b 

vi.  3  iii.  2177  a 

vi.  9.  ..   i.  888  a 

vi.  14,  16 ii.  992  a 

vi.  15 i'i.  2178  a 

vi.  16 iii.  2177  b 

vi.  17 ii.  1485  a 

vii.  2 iii.  2179  a 

vii.  2,  8,9. ..iii.  2179b,)?. 

vii.  11 i.  631b 

yii.  22 ii.  1411a 

viii.  4 iii.  2181  a,  n. 

viii.  6 iii.  2178  a,  11. 

viii.  7 iii.  2678  a 

Fiii.  10 iv.  8490  a 

viii.  14 iii.  20U4  b 

viii.  17 iii.  2181b 

viii.  20 iv.  .3346  b 

viii.  21 iv.  ^1)5  a, 

S416  b 

X.  3 iv.e347a 

X  6 iv.  .3408  a 

>x.9 iv.  3213  b 

B.13.  ...iii.  2188  a.  261)7  b 


ix.20,  21 iv.  3445  b 

ix.  25,  27 iii.  2188  b 

ix.  26 iv.  2968  b 

ix.  27 iv.  3406  b 

X.  2.  ...ii.  966  a,  iii.  2677  b 

X.  5 i.  383  a 

x.11,12 ii.  984  b 

X.  14 iii.  2496  a,  n., 

2496  b 

X.17 ii.  1083  a 

X.  18.  19 i.  353  b 

X.  19 iv.3067  a.n. 

X.  21-29.  ...  iii  2516a,  n. 

X.  30 i.  140  a,  275  a 

xi.  2 i.  146  b 

xi.  3 i.  221  b 

xi.  4 i.  222  b 

xi.  5 iv.  3405  a 

xi.  26 i.  442  a 

xi.  29 i.  13  b,  n. 

xii.  1 iv.  3113  b 

xii.  6.  ...ii.  968  a,   985  a, 

iii.  1888  a,  2012  b,  2416 

b,  2.547  b 

xii.  7 iii.  2011  a 

xii.  9 iv.  3211b 

xii.  14 iv.  3370  a 

xii.  16.  .i.  743  b,  iii.  2462 a 

xiii.  7 ii.  985  a 

xiii.  10 i.  636  a 

xiii.  10,  11,  12.  .iv.  2697  a 

xiii.  11 i.  146  b 

xiii.  18.  .i.l5a,M.,ii.  968a, 

iii.  2417  b,  2547  b 

xiv..i.79a,  iii.  1987  b,  n. 

xiv.  1 ii  898  b 

xiv.  5 iii.  2654  a 

xiv.  6 iii.  2200  a 

xiv.  7 i.  79  a 

xiv.  13 iii.  2547  b 

xiv.  14 i.  535  b,  536  a, 

iii.  2417  b 

xiv.  16 i.  .329  a 

XV.  1 iii.  2598  b 

XV.  2,  3 i.  701a 

XV.  9 ii.  1044  b 

XV.  10 i.  68  b 

XV.  12 iii.  2592  b,?!.  iv. 

3318  h 

XV.  13,14 i.  442  b 

XV.  15 iv.  2708  b 

XV.  17 ii.  15">9  a 

XV.  19 ii.  1388a 

xvi.  7 iv.  3508  a,  n. 

xvi.  12 i.  183  a 

xvii.  1 iv.  2938  b 

xvii  22 iv.  3406  b 

xviii.  1.  . .    .i.  15  a,  n  ,  iii. 

2547  b 

xviii.  2 i.  873  a 

xviii.  3 ii.  1675  b 

xviii  6 i.  323  h 

xvi^i.  8 i.  336  b,  833  b 

xviii.  16 i.  328  b 

xviii.  18 ii.  1018  b 

xviii.  23-33.  ..ii.  1686  a,  n. 

xviii.  25 ii.  3405  a 

xix.  38 i.  274  b 


XX.  3 iv.  3406  b 

XX.  7 iii.  2592  b 

XX.  12 ii.  1415  b 

XX.  16 i.  504  b,  505  a, 

iii.  1994  b 

xxi.l4 iii.  2536  b 

xxi.  20 iv.  3406  b 

xxi.  26 iv.  3559  a 

xxi.  31 ii.  1224  b, «. 

xxi.  33 ii.  968  a 

xxii.  1 iv.  3207  a 

xxii.  2 iv.  3406  a 

xxii.  2ef. ii.  901  b 

xxii.  11,12 i.  95  b 

xxii.  1.3 ..  ...iv.  3408a 

xxii.  14 iii.  2012  a 

xxii.  21 i.  145  b,  iii. 

2663  b 

xxiii.  2 iv.  3572  a 

xxiii.  2-4 i.  335  a 

xxiii.  3-18 i.  756  b 

xxiii.  4 iv.  3121  b 

xxiii.  6 i.  332  a 

xxiv.  10 i.  145  a.  636  a 

xxiv.  21 iv.  .3551  b 

xxiv.  22 i.  8.37  b 

xxiv.  22,  53.  .iii.  2267  a,n. 

xxiv.  25 ii.  1045  b 

xxiv.  53 iv.  3041  b 

xxiv.  64 iv.  2795  b 

xxiv. 65 1.619  a,  622  b, 

iii.  1805  a,  i  v.. 3370  a 

xxiv.  67 iv.  3211  a 

XXV.  16 ii.  1169  a,  n. 

XXV.  17, 18.  ..ii.  1170  a,  n. 
XXV.  18.. iv.  3514  a,  3649  a 

XXV.  19 i.  888  a 

XXV.  27 i.  518  a 

XXV.  28 ii.  1146  a 

xxvi.  19 ii.  1062  b 

xxvi.  20-22.  ...1.  769  a,  n. 

xxvi.  34 i.  53  b,  91  a 

xxvii.  3 iii.  2652  b 

xxvii.  9 ii.  1533  b 

xxvii.  19,37 ii.  1035  b 

xxvii.  23 iv.  2795  a 

xxviii.  14 i.  634  a 

xxviii.  18 i.  68  b,  n. 

xxviii.  19 i.  288  a 

xxix.  14 iii.  2004  b 

xxix.  27 iv.  3490  b 

XXX.  11 i.848  b 

XXX.  13 i.  172  a 

XXX.  20 i.  735  a 

XXX.  27 ii.  1122  b 

XXX  37 i.  478  a 

XXX.  37,38 iii.  2532  b 

xxxi.  1-3,17-23.  .ii.  1000  a 

xxxi.  10 i.  478  b 

xxxi.  13 i.  1)1  a 

xxxi.  19,  30,32-35ff.  ...ii. 
1743  a 

xxxi.  33 iv.  3211  a 

xxxi.  34 i.  846  b 

xxxi.  46 i.  503  a 

xxxi.  47 i.  142  a 

xxxi.  48,  49 ii.  1225  a 

xxxi.  52 i.  68,  >i. 


xxxi.  55.  ...  ii.  1497  b,  ». 

xxxii.  2 ii.  1627  a 

xxxii.  15 i.  347  a,  n. 

xxxiii.  12 iv.  3211b 

xxxiii.  17.  . .  .ii.  1.509  b,  n. 
xxxiii.  18.  . .  .iii.  1877  b.  iv. 

3123  b 

xxxiii.  19 i.  229  a 

xxxiv.  2  ii.  1082  b 

XXXV.  2 iii.   2606  b 

XXXV.  4.  .1.  89  b,  630  b,  ii. 

1476  a 
xxxT.  8  ...  1.  69  a,  «.,  iv. 

3166  b 

XXXV.  9 i.  576  a 

XXXV.  13-15 i.  288  a 

XXXV.  19,  20 iii.  2660  b 

.\.x.xv.21 iv.3211  b 

XXXV.  27 ii.  15  5  a 

xxxvi.  2 iv.  3624  b 

xxxvi.  2,3 i.  252  a 

xxxvi.  2,  14,  20.  . .  i.  90  b 

xxxvi.  15 i.  663  b 

xxxvi.  15,  40 i.  626  b 

xxxvi.  20-25.  ...ii.  1388  b 

.xxxvi  24.. i.  91a,  iii.  2035 

b,  iv.  3624  b,   3625  a 

xxxvi.  31 iii.  2417  a 

xxxvi.  33 ii.1407  b 

xxxvi.  37 iv.  2947  a 

xxxvi.  40-43 i.  53  b 

xxxvii.  3,  23 i.  619  a 

xxxvii.  22 i.  466  a 

xxxvii.  25 iii.  2045  b 

xxxvii.  28,  26.  .iii.  1847  b 

xxxvii.  35 iv.  2708  b 

xxxvii.  33 .  .  .  i.  790  b,  iii. 

2567  a 

xxxviii.  14,  19.  . .  .  i.  619  a, 

622  b 

xxxviii.  14,  21. . . .  i.  732  a 

xxxviii.  18.  .ii.  1661  b,  iii. 

2267  b,  »i. 

xxxviii.   18,  25. .  i.   322  b, 

ii.  1578  b 

xxxviii.  21,  22.  .iv.  3074  a 

xxxix.  1 i.  385  b,  iii. 

2567  a 

xxxix.  8 iv.  3559  a 

xl.  3.  4 i.  385  b 

xl.  16 i.  2.53  a,  321b 

xii.  2,  18.  .ii.  1465  b,  n., 

iii.  1841b 

xii.  14... i.  230a,    258  a, 

466  a 

xii.  42.  ...i.  143  b,  625  a, 

iii.  2267  b,  n.,iv.  3489  a 

xii.  44 iv.   34117  b 

xliii.  11... i.  40  b,  834  b, 
ii.  1085  b,  iii.  2045  b,iv. 

3544  a 

xliii.  16 iii.  1842  b 

xliii.  21 ii.  936,b 

xliii   23 ii.9.S6a 

xliii.  3.3 i.  678  a 

xliii.  34 iii.  1845  a 

xliv.  6 i.  320  b,  608  a 

ii.  17451 


3654 

xliv.  5,  15 iv.3362a 

xliv.  15 iv  3'i59  a 

xlv.  6.  ., i.  629  b 

xlv.  8 ii.ll09a,  n. 

xlv.  12 iv.  3405  b 

Xlv.  26 iii.  1865  b 

slvi.  1 iv.  3211b 

xlvi.  21... i.  151  a.   276  b, 

ii.  1223  a 

xlvi.  30...... ..iv.  3406  b 

xlvii.  3 ii.   1102  b 

xlvii.  7, 10 iv.  2795  a 

xlvii.  9 iv.  3211  b 

xlvii.  11 ii.  940  a 

xlviii.22 iv.  3404  b 

xlix.  5-7 ii.  1638  a 

xlix.  6 ii.  1636  a,  iv. 

3430  a 
xlix.  10 iii.  1906  a, 

3430  a 
xlix  ll..iv.3095b,  3370  a 

xlix   12 iv.  3.543  a 

xlix   13 iv.  3597  b 

xlix.  17 i.  30  a 

xlix.  19 iii.  1984  a.  n. 

xlix.  21 ii.  1077  b 

xlix.  22 iv.  29.58  a 

xlix.  26 iii.  2074  b,  n. 

1.  1 ii.  1185  b 

1.  3 i.335a,  n. 

1.  11 i.   353  a 

1.  23 ii.  1467  a,  n. 

1.  26 i.  424  a,  475  b 

EXODUS. 

i.  n ii.  941  b 

i.  15, 18, 19 iii.  2636  a 

i.  16....   iii.  1870a,  1929a 

i.  19 iii.  1929  a,  n. 

1.20,  21 iii.  1929  a 

ii.  1 i.  45  1  b 

ii.  3 i.  673  a 

ii.  3,  5.. i.  830  b,  iii.  2682  b 

ii.  4 iv.  3551  b 

Ii.  14....i.l508  b,  15119b 

ii.l6,  18 iii.  2662  b 

ii.  18 ii.  1388  a 

iii.  1.  .ii.  1388  a,  iii.  2662a, 

iv.  3406  b 

iii.5.  .ii.  1104  a,  iv.  2837b 

iii.  6 iv.  27117  b 

iii.  13,  14 iii.  2415a 

iii.  14.  .11.1240  b.ii  1244b 

iii.  21.  22 iii.  2539  b 

iii.  22 iii.  2268  a.  n. 

iv.  16 iv.  2922  a 

iv.  22 i.  310  a 

iv.  22,23 iv.  3087  a 

iv.  22,  23,  24.  ...iii.  2019  b 

iv.  24-26 ii  1388  a 

iv.  26 iii.  2019  a,  m. 

V.  2 Iv.  34'J6  b 

V.  9 iv.  3-60  b 

V.  12 i.  406b 

V.2,  3 iii  1415  a 

vi.  8.  ...ii.  1244  a, b,  1246 
a,  n.,  iii.  2415  b 

vi.  12,30.  . i.  465  a 

vi.  20 i.  450  b 

vi.  24 i.  6  a 

vii.  10-12 iii.  2.539  b 

vii.  19 iii.  2693  a 

vii.  24 iii.  2540  a 

viii.  1-15 iii.  2540  b 

viii.  16-19 iii.  2540  b 

viii.  16-31 i.  674  b 

viii  20-32 iii.  2541a 

ix.  1-7 Hi.  2-541  b 

ix.  8-12 Hi.  2,542  a 

ix.  10 iii.  1865  b 

ix.  1.3-35 Iii.  2542  b 

ix.  15 iii.  2465  a 

IX.  35 ii.  I'i75  a 

X.  1-20 iii.  2542  b 

X.  15 ii.  1045  a,  n 

X.  21 iii    2543  b 

xi.  4-10 Hi.  2544  b 

ti.-5 Hi.  193ib 

Iii.  6.  .iii.  2.341b,  «.,  2342 

tii  7 ii.  1102  b 

(.:   8,  39 iii.  2354  b 


INDEX. 


xli.  13 iv.  .3405  a 

xii.  19 iii.  261  3  a,  iv. 

3121  b,  n. 

xH.  27 iii.  2340  b,  n. 

xi\.  29,30 in.  v544  b 

xH.  .34 i  322  V-,P24a 

xli.  .38,  44 iii    2356  a 

xii.  40 i.  450  a 

xli.  40,  41 '.  ..i.  442  b 

xli.  46 H.  1379  b 

xill.  2-4 iii.  2.355  a 

xiil.  17,  18 i.  795  a 

xHi.20...iv.3211b,3513a. 

3514  a,  3 '.49  a 

xiv.3 IV.  3513  b, 

3649  a 

xiv.  11 Hi.  2152  a 

xiv.  19  iv.  2961  a 

xiv.  21 iH.  2691  a,  iv. 

3513  b,  3.540  a 
XV.  11.  .ii.  1708  b, iv.  3106a 
XV.  15.  .i.  6i6  b,  ii.  14"3  h 
XV.  20.  .1.  5.39  a,  iii.  19K8  b 

XV.  20,  21 iii.  2037  a 

XV.  25 iv.3  3i  b 

XV.  27.  ..i.  56a,  iv.  3i22a 

xvi.  15 iv.  3551  a 

xvi.  33-36 Hi.   2416  b 

xvii.  2,  7 iv    3.07  a 

xvii.  9 i.  la 

xvii.  14. ..  .iii.  2412  a,  «., 

iv.  3559  b 

xvii.  14,  16....  -ii.  '^197  b 

xvn.  16 iH.  2023  a 

xvlii.   2 ii.    1388  a 

xvHi.  14-24.  ...  H.   1508  a 

xvlii.  15 ii.  1509  a 

xix.  4 i.  629  a 

xix.   9,  16,  18.  .iv.   2960  a 

xix.  li> Hi.   2606  b 

xix.   13 ii.   1484  b 

XX.  5 iv.  3407  a 

XX.  11 iv.  3207  a.  n. 

XX.  24 i.  74  b 

XX.  26 Hi.  2579  a 

xxi.  9 il.  1.5119  a 

xxl.  22 Hi.  1865  b 

xxi.  24 il.  1356  a 

xxi.  28 iii.  2^77  b 

xxi.  32 H.  1464  a,  n., 

1503  b 

xxu.  8 i.  589  b,  n. 

xxH.15, 16...Hi.l803a.  M. 

xxii.  16 i.  735  a 

xxli.  17 iii.  1803  a,  ?t. 

xxli.  26 i.  624  a 

xxii.  27 i.  624  a 

x.\ii.  28 1.315  b 

xxii.  29 iv.  3541  a 

xxn.  31 iv.30y9b 

xxiil.  17 ii.  1675  b 

xxiu.17,18^19.  ...in.  2343 

b,  n. 

xxin.  19.  ..i.  489  b,  835  a, 

H.   1129  a,  1.533  b,   iii. 

1934  b,  2474  b,  n 

xxlli.  25 iii.  2474  a 

xxin.  28 ii.  1091  a 

xxiv.  4. .  .ii.  1077  a,  1364  a 
xxiv.  5 n.  1638  b,  v\. 

2577  b 

xxiv.  9 il.  1510  a,  n. 

xxiv.  10 i.  824  b 

xxiv.  16 ..iv.  2960  a 

XXV.  5.  .i.  480  a,  iii  2676  b 

xxv.  8 iv.  2959  a 

XXV.  25 i.512b 

xxv.  31-37.. i.  354  b,  355a, 
356  a 

xxv.  38 i.  75  a,  824  a 

xxvi.20 1.633  b 

xxvi.  28 iv.  3196  b 

xxvi.  31 ii.  929  b 

xxvH.  2 i.  74  b 

xxvH.  9 i.  634  a 

xxvli.  12 ii.  li)47  a 

xxvii.  13 i.  637  a 

xxviH.  4,39 i.  729  b 

xxviii  8 ii.  929  b,  ill. 

1969  a 
xxvin.  14,22,24  ..i.  492a 
xxviii.  18 ii.  1218  a 


xxviii.  19 n.  1192  a 

xxviii.  21 il.  1364  a 

xxvlH.  28,37 H.  1578  b 

xxviH.  3j.  . .  .ii.  1067  a  iv. 

3357  a 

xxvin.  33 i.  272  b 

xxviii.  36 iv.  3117  b 

xxviH.  39 i.  896  a,  n. 

929  b 
xxvui.  42 in.  2578  b, 

2579  a 

xxix.  9.  . ..  li.  1017  a,  iii. 

2578  n,  H. 

xxix.  23 i.  324  a 

xxix.  45,  46 iv.  2959  b 

XXX.  13 n.  1510  a 

XXX.  19,  21....    iv.  3486  a 

xxx.  26-28 i.  101  a 

XXX.  34 H.  11.36  a 

xxx.  35 i.  488  a,  iv. 

2793  b 

xxxi.  18 iv.  3362  b,  n. 

xxxii.  1 iv.  3559  a 

xxxn.  4 i.  .344  b 

xxxil.  18 Hi.  2023  a 

xxxii.  20 Hi.  1940  a 

xxxli.  35 iv.  3405  b 

xxxlli.  6 .  . .  .iv.  3524  a,  n. 

xxxill.  7-11 iv. 2960  b 

xxxiii.  11 in.  2063  a 

xxxill.  20 it.  1775  b 

xxxiii.  22,23.  ...iv.  34ii6a 

xxxlv.  21 i.  629  b 

xx.xiv.  22 iv.  3'.81  a 

xxxlv.  23 ii   16^5  b 

xxxlv.  26 i.  835  a,  ii. 

1129a,  1533b,  Hi.  19.34  b, 
2474  li,  n. 

xxxiv.  28 ni.  2023  a 

xxxiv  29,30,35.  .n.  I(i90a 

xxxiv.  33 Hi.  2022  b 

xxxiv  34,35.  .iii  2923a, n. 

X.XXV.  12 ii.  998  a 

XXXV.  22.  ...i.  322  b,  in. 
1804  a,  2268  a, )!. 

XXXV.  29 il    1075  a 

XXXV.  35 i.  736  b,  iv. 

3489  b 

xxxvii.  17-24 i.  354  b, 

3=i5  a 

xxxvii.  23 i.  824  a 

xxxviii.  8.  . .  .iii.  2268  a,  n. 

xxxviil.  23 i.  736  b 

xxxviii.  24 Hi.  2208  a 

xxxix.  3 ii   1578  b 

xxxix.  15,  17 i  492  a 

xx.xix.  21,31.  ...n.  1.578  b 

xxxix.  28 ii.  1017  a 

xxxix.  29  ii.  929  b 

xxxix.  30 i.  143  a,  iv. 

3559  b 

xxxix.  34 ii.  998  a 

xl.  20 i.  155  b 

xl.21 H.  998  a 

xl.34,  35 iv.  2960  a 

LE-VITICUS. 

ii.  1-15 iH.  1846  a 

ii.  7 i.  325  b 

n   13 iv.  2793  b 

ii.  14 i.  478  a 

Iv.  3 i.  100  b 

vi   12,13 i.  76  a 

vlH.  13 H.  1017  a 

ix.  6,23 iv.  '-'960  b 

ix.  24 1.  76  a 

X.  1 1.  824  a 

X.  1, 2...  i.  823  b,  iii.  2051b 

X.  6 ii.  981  a,  lii69a 

X.  9,  10 1.  2  a 

XI.14...H.  9.32b, iv.  3.343a 

xi.  16 Hi.  2148  b 

xi.  17 H.  922  a 

xi.  18 H.  922  a 

xi.  18,30 iii.  1990  b 

xi.  21 iv.  3343  b 

xi.  21,22....ii.  1669  h,  »i. 

xi.  22 ii.  1671a 

xl.  30 iii.  1990  b 

xi  a5.  ...i.325a,  ii.l017b 

xiii.  10 ii.  1631  a,  n. 

xiU.  18-23... in.  1865b,  n. 


xin.  45 il.  10161! 

.xiil.  55 i.  842  b 

xlv.  6 i.  400  a 

xiv.  6,  7 i.  198  b,  n. 

xlv.  1(1-32 i.2  a,;,. 

XV.  2,  3 in.  1863  b 

XV.  19 in.  1864  a 

xvi,  3-10 i.  195  a 

xvi.  10 i.  196  b,  f. 

xvi.  12 i.  403  b,  824a 

xvl.  14 i.  195  a,  n. 

xvi.  18,  20.  . .  i.  195  b.  n. 

xvi.  26 i.  197  b 

xvii.  3,4 ii.  1064  a 

x'ii.  7 ni.  1807  b 

-xvii.  11 ...n.  1660b 

xviil.  6 .iii.  1797  a,  ». 

xviii.  6-18. . .  in.  1797  b,  f. 

xviii.  9  iii.  1798  a,  n. 

xvlii.  11 iii.  1798  a,  n. 

xvHi.  18.  . .  ii.  16,50  a,  n., 
Hi.  1798  a.  n. 

xviii.  28 HI.  2417  b 

xix.  12 li.  1356  a 

xix.  19 iv.  3-553  b 

xix.  23 i.  466  a 

xix.  28 H.  1129  a 

xix  29 iv.  3450  b 

xix.  81 iv.  2708  a 

XX.  6 iv  2708  a 

XX.  12 iH.  1798  h.  n. 

XX.  17 iii.  1798  b,  n. 

XX.  21 iii.  1798  b,  n. 

XX.  2.3-26 ii   1129  a 

xxl.  9 ii.  1003  a 

xxi.  10 Hi.  li  65  b 

xxi.  12 in.  2074  b 

xxl.  20 iH.  1863  b 

xxii.  4  (marg.).  .Hi.  Is63  b 

xxii.  8 iv.  3099  b 

xxn.  22 Hi.  1863  b 

xxii.  24 HI.  2277  a 

xxiil.  5 iii.  2342  a,  n. 

xxili.  5,  6....  Hi.  2352  b,  n. 
xxin.  11,  15,16,32 in. 

2432  a,  n. 

xxiii.  14 i.  478  a 

xxlii.  15 i.  4.35  a,  n. 

xxiil.  32 1.  434  a 

xxlii.  36 Hi.  2343  a,  n. 

xxin.  40 1.  180  b 

xxHi.  43 iv.  3162  b,  n. 

xxiv.  6 iv  2992  b 

xxiv.  9  i.  7  a 

xxiv.  11 i.  600  a 

.xxiv.  16 i.  315  b 

xxv.  5 iii-  2077  a,  n. 

xxv.  9 ii.  1483  b,  n 

xxv.  lo,16-..ii-  1484  a,  n. 

xxv.  23 iv.  3121  b 

x.\v.  49 ii.  1537  b,  iii 

1797  h,  n 

xxvi.  1 il.  112(1  h.  iv. 

3116  b 

xxvi.  19 i.  323  a,  in 

2667  a 

xxvi.  30 n.  1127  a 

xxvi.  41 i.  465,  a 

xxvil.  5 ii.  1464  a,  n 

NUMBERS. 

iii.  4 i.S23b 

iii.  47 iii.  1510  a 

iv.  5 il.  998  a 

iv.  7.  ...  iv.  2992  b,  2993  b 

iv.  9 i.  824  a 

V.  11-29 i.  86  a 

V.  15 i.  247  a,  323  a 

V.  18 n.  1016  b 

V.  23 iv.  3559  b 

vi.  3 iv.  3544  a 

vi.  22 iv.  31,36  b 

vii.  3 iv.  3651  b 

vll.  89 iv.  3960  b 

Ix.  3,5 iii.  2.342  a,  n. 

ix.  15,  16 iv.  296"  a 

X.  1-10 ui.  20.37  b 

X.  11,12 iv.  a528b 

X.  11-18,  3-36.  ..iv.  3.527  b 

X.  12 iv.  3527  b 

X.  29 n.  1388  a,  iii 

2662* 


INDEX. 


ti  20,21 iii.  2004  b 

su.  1 ii.l388a,  iii. 

1801  b,  n..  iv.  3036  b 
xii.  1,2 iii.  19158  b, 

2196  b 

xii.  3 iii.  2U24  a 

xii.  6-8 iii.  2597  b 

xii.  8 iii.  2599  a 

xii.  12 iii.  2641  b 

xiii.  8 ii.  1098  b 

xii.  17,  22 iv.  3528  b 

xiii.  22 iii.  1978  a,  iv. 

8638  a 

xiii.  23,24 iv.  3446  a 

xiv.  lU iv.  2960  b 

tiv.  43-45 i.  134  b 

xiv.  45.  .iii.  2195  b,  241X  a 

XV.  20,21 i.  324  a 

XV.  38 ii.  1578  b 

xvi.  6  tf i.  824  a 

xvi.  13 ii.  15  i8  b 

xvi.  17 i.  4U3  a,  n. 

xvi   30,  Si iii.  2535  b 

xvi.  46 i.  4U3  b 

xviii.  19 i.  68  b,  5:)3a, 

iv  2793  b 

xix.  6 i  48u  b 

XX.  6 i".  2961)  b 

XX.  15 iv   3445  a 

xxi.  1 iii.  2195  b 

xxi.  1.  xxxiii.  40.  .i.  144  b 

xxi.  2,  8 iv.  3530  a,  «. 

xxi.  4 i.  13)  a 

xxi.  6,8 iv.  2929  b 

xxi.  9 ii.  1057  b 

xxi.  11 iii.  1981a 

xxi.  14 iii.  1831b 

xxi.  14.  15 iii.  2197  b 

xxi.  16-18 i.  264  a,  n. 

xxi.  17,  18 iii.  2197  b 

XXI.  22 iv.  3.508  a 

xxi.  27 ii.  1565  b 

xxi.  -.27-30 iii.  2198  a, 

2551b 

xxii.-xxiv ii.  1748  bf. , 

iii.  1987  b,  2197  a 

xxii.  4 ii.  1045  a,  n. 

xxii.  5 ii.  1737  b 

xxii.  24 iv.  8484  a 

xxii.  41 i.  231  b 

xxiii.  3 i.  231  a,  n. 

xxii).  7 ii.  1737  b 

xxiii.  9 iv.  3508  a,  n. 

x.xiii.  10 ii.  1345  a 

xxiii.  21 ii.  1067  a 

xxiv.  1 i.  734  b 

xxiv.  2 ii.  1015  a 

xxiv.  4,  16 i.  227  b 

xxiv.  6 i  72  b 

xxiv.  10 iii.  1988  a 

xxiv.  17 ii.  1738  h,  iii. 

1981a,  H.,iv.  2991  b 

xxiv.  17-19 iii.  1906  b 

xxiv.  25 ii   1497  b,  rt 

XXV.  4 iii.  1889  a,  n. 

XXV.  7,8 ii.  1364  b 

XXV.  8 iv.  36.31  b 

x.xv.  14 ii.  1508  a,n. 

XXV.  15 iii.  1926  a 

xxT.  17   19 iv.  3508  a 

xxvi.  3,63 i.  752  h,n. 

xxvi.  38 ii.  1223  a 

xxvi.  .59 i.  450  b 

xxvi.  61 i.  823  b 

xxvii.  11 ii.  1.'37  b 

xxvii.  21 iv.  3357  a 

xxxi.  6 iii  26.54  b,  n., 

iv.  8358  a,  n. 

xxxi.  23 iii.  1909  b 

xxxi.  30,  47. .iii.  1875  a.  n 

sxxi.  ."iO i.  99  a 

xxxi.  50,52.  .iii.  2268  a,  v. 
xxxiii... iii.  29.35  b,  3.528  b 

xxxiii.  1 iii.  2023  a 

txxiii.9 iii.  2323  b 

Kxxiii  88,  .39 iv.  3-530 

b,  n. 

txxiii  40 i.  144  b 

xxxiii  48 i.  752  b,  }i. 

ixxiii  52 ii.  1120  b 

txxiv.  4 ii.  10.56  b 

ixxiv  8 ii.  1622  a 


xxxiv.  11  i.  56  a,  ii.  1458  b 

XXXV.  4 i.  4  '9  a 

XXXV.  24 ii.  1510  b,  n. 

XXXV.  25 ii.  1065  b 

xxxvi.  4. . . .  ii.  1483  b,  n., 

1486  b,  n. 

xxxvi.  11 iv.  3057  a 

DEUTERONOMY. 

i.  1 iv.  3533  a 

i.  2. i.  570  a 

i.  6-18 i.  593  a 

i.  7,  19,20 iii.  20'/9  a 

i.  19 iv.  3529  b 

i.2i i.  593  a 

i.  44.  ...i.  184  b,  262  a,  n., 
593  b 

i.  46 iv.  3520  b,  3.530  a 

ii.  2-8 i.  593  b 

ii.  23 i.  .383  b,  n. 

ii.  36 i.  165  a 

ii.  49 1.  172  a 

iii.  9 i.  87  b,  161  b,  ii. 

1046  b 
iii.  11.... iii.  2210  a,  2654  a 

i  i.  14 ii.  lOlO  b 

iii.  17 i.  172  a 

iii.  19 ii.  1045  b 

iv.  13 iv.  3213b 

iv.  18 i.  828  a 

iv.  34 iv.  3207  b 

iv.  41,43.  ...iv.  35.30b,  »i. 
iv.  48... i.  161  b,  ii.  1047a 

V.  15 iv.  3207  a,  n. 

vi.  4 iv.  3088  a 

vi.  4,  9 iii.  2474  b 

vi.  8 1.90  a 

vi.  16. ii.  1351a 

vi.  18 ii.  1215  a 

vii.  19 iv.  3207  b 

viii.  3 ii.  1350  b 

viii   7 i.  56  b 

viii   15 iv.  2929  b 

X.  6.  7.  .1.593  b,iv.  3530  b 

xi.  10. i.  33  a,  40  b,  836  b, 

868  b,  iv.  3090  b 

xi.  10,  11 i.  671a 

xi.  30 iii.2i47b 

xi.  30,31 i.  639  a 

xii.  2....i.  477  b,  ii.  1047  b 

xii.  11-14 ii.  liKjl  a 

xii.  15.  22 iv.  8163  a 

xiii.  1-5 ii.  1447  b 

xiii.  1-11 iv.  3u90  a 

xiv.  1 ii.  980  a 

xiv.  5 ii.  984  a 

xiv.  15 iii.  2148  b 

xiv.  16 iii.  1990  b 

xiv.  17 ii.  922  a 

.xiv.  21. .1.  835  a,  ii.  1129  a, 

iii.  1533  b,  1934  b,  2474 

b,  n. 

xiv.  24 iv.  3266  a 

-xvi.  2 iv.  29i4  a 

xvi.  3 iii.  2.354  b 

xvi.  6 1.  484  b 

xvi.  8 iii.  2343  a,  n 

xvi.  12 iii.  2433  b 

xvi.  21 ii.  1064  a 

xvii.  8 ii   1126  b 

xvii.  7 iii.  2643  a 

xvii.  8 ii.  1611  b 

xvii.  8,  9 i.  la9a 

xvii   8-11.. .  iii.  '2473  a,  n. 

xvii.  12 ii    1510  a 

xvM.  14-20 ii    1.541a 

xvii.  15 ii.  10i3  b,  n. 

xvii.  18, 19..ii.  151i)  b,  iii. 
2412  b,n. 

.xviii.  9-11 iv.  2708  a 

xviii.  9-14 ii  1748  a 

xviii.  11 i    7-34  b 

xviii.  18 ii.  1417  a.  iii. 

1906  b 

XX  5 i.  162  b 

xxi.  4 i.  629  b 

xxi.  6-8 iv.  33t8a 

xxi.  10-14 iii.  1797  a 

xxi.  12.  .i.  350  b,  iii.  2058  a 

xxi.  18-21 ii.l602  b 

xxi.  23 «.  1379  b 

Xiii.  10 i.  182  a 


xxii.  11 iv.  3553  b 

xxii.  19,  20 iii.  2526  a 

xxii.  30 i.603a 

xxiii.  2 iii.  1797  b 

xxiii.  13 iii.  2279  a 

xxiv.  6 ii.  1506  b 

xxiv.  12,  18 i.  624  a 

XXV.  9 iv.  2838  a 

xxvi.  5-10.  .  .iii.  2.355  a,  n. 

xxvii.  2,  4 iii.  2548  a 

xxvii.  8,8 iv.  3.560  a 

xxviii.  5,17.  .i.253a,  328  b 

xxviii.  13 iv.  8405  b 

-xxviii.  23 iii.  1969  b 

xxviii.  23,  24.  ...iii  2667a 

x.xviii.  26 i.  842  b 

xxviii.  27 i.  730  a,  iii. 

1863  b 
xxviii.  27,35. . .  .iii.  1864  b 

xxviii.  85 .iii-  1864  a 

xxviii.  65 iii.  1865  b 

xxviii.  68 ii.  1775  a 

x.xix.  3 iv.  3207  b 

XXX.  6 i.  465  a 

xxxi.  9-12,24..  iii.  2412  b 

xxxi.  15 iv.  2960  b 

xxxi.  26 i.  1.55  b 

xxxii.  10. 1.181  b,ii.  1,343  b 

xxxii.  11 i.629  a 

xxxii.  12 iii.  2107  b 

xxxii.  13 i.  262  b 

xxxii.  14 iv.  3511  a 

xxxii.  32 iii.  2561  b 

xxxiii iii.  2074  b,  n. 

xxxiii.  2 iv.  2961  a 

xxxiii.  7 ii.  1215  a 

xxxiii.  8 ii.  1067  b,  iv. 

3357  a 

xxxiii.  9 iv.  3405  b 

xxxiii.  12 i.  2T9  a,  iv. 

3406  a 

xxxiii.  14 iii.  2008  a 

xxxiii.  17. . .  ii.  1769  b,  «., 
iv. 3351  a 

xxxiii.  18,  19 i.  860  b 

xxxiii.  19 ii.  932  a,  iv. 

3165  a 

xxxiii  22 ii.  1459  a 

xxxiii.  24 i.  172  b,  iv. 

3406  a 

x.xxiii.  25 i.  .322  b 

•xx.xiv.  1 ii.  1343  b 

xxxiv.  1,2, 3. iii.  2083  a,  n. 

xxxiv.  1-3 iv.  3420  a 

xxxiv.  6 iii.  2083  a 

JOSHUA. 

ii.l5 iv.  3540  a 

iii.  4 iv.2767  a 

iii.  16 i.  27  a,  iv.  3594  a 

iv.  3 ii.  1364  a 

v.  2 ii.  1573  b 

V.  2,  3 i.  159  b 

V.  5,  9 i.  464  a 

v.ll iii.  2482  a,  «. 

V.  14 iv.  3.558  b 

V.  15.  .ii.  1104a,  iv.  2887  b 

vi.  4 ii.  1483  b,  n.,  iv. 

2961  b 

Ti.  4,  5 ii.  1090  a 

vi.  25 iii.  2663  b 

vii.  14,18 ii.  1687  b 

vii.  21.  ...i.  618  b,  iii.  1909 

b,  iv.  3003  b 

vii.  25.  ..i.  20  b,  iii.  2642  a 

viii.  9 ii.  1047  a 

viii.  15 ii.  1759  b 

viii.  18 i.424b 

viii.  22 iii.  2273  a 

viii.  32.. iii.  2413  a,  2.548  a 

ix.  5 i  472  b 

ix.  5,12 i..325b 

ix.  27 iii.  2109  a 

xi.  2 ii.  897  a 

xi.  8 i.  245  b 

xi.  16,  21 iii.  2029  a 

xii.  23 ii.  89Sb 

xiii.  2,3 i.  200  b 

xiii.  8 i.  172  a 

xiii.  4 iii.  1845  b 

xiii.  6 iii.  1972  a 

xiii.  9, 16 i.  165  a 


3655 

xiii  17 i.  287a 

xiii  21.  ...1.626  b,  iii.  1926 

XV.  9 'i.  1077  a 

XV.  10 i.  423  b 

XV.  18 iii.  lS05b,7t. 

XV.  19 ii.  1085  b 

XV.  25. .  .ii.  1016  a,  1364  b, 

1495  b,  iv.  3189  b 

XV.  83,  43...%...  iv.  3017  a 

XV.  36 iv.  3028  a 

XV.  4-5-47 iii.  2498  a,  n. 

XV.  46 ii.ll90a,n. 

xvii.  18 i.413b 

xviii.  8 iv  3559  b 

xviii.  12 i.  286  b 

xviii.  13 ii.  1699  a,  n. 

xviii.  16 i.  149  b.  n. 

xviii.  18 i.  133  a 

.xviii.  23 i.201» 

xviii.  23,28.  ...i.  277  a.  ». 

xix.  1 ii.  1492  a 

xix.  7 iv.  3191  a 

xix.  11 ii.  1,5()9  b 

xix.  27 ii.  1.394  b 

xix.  .33 i.  68  b 

xix.84..ii.  14S8a,  1491a,n. 

xix.  41,  42 ii.  1492  a 

XX.  7 iii.  2029  a 

xxi.  86 1.302  a 

xxii.  34 i.  654  a 

xxiv.  8 iv.  8296  b 

xxiv.  26 iii.  1888  a 

xxiv.  27 iii.  2532  a 

xxiv.  30 ii.  1573  b 

xxiv.  30,  33 ii.  1070  b 

xxiv.  32.  ..i.  229  a,  11.1476 

a,  iv.  2958  b 

xxiv.  11 ii.  1487  b 

JUDGES. 

i.  1 iv.  3484» 

i.  14 iii.  1805  b,  n. 

i.  16 ii.  1()15  a,  1265  a, 

1.388  a,  1488  b,  iii.  2603  b 

i.  18 iii.  2499  a,  n. 

1.19.  ...i.  413b,ii.l09ea, 
iii.  2679  b 

i.23 i.590a 

i.  81 1.58  a 

i.  34,  35 i.  54  b,  n. 

iii.  8 ii.  1047  b 

iii.  9,  15 iv.  28.58  a 

iii.  10 ii.  12.50  b 

iii.  13 ii.  1265  a 

iii.  16.  ..1.622  a,  i  v.  .3.501  b 
iii.  19,  26.  ...ii.  1121a,  iii. 

2651  a 

iii- 20 i.  667  b 

iii.  20,23 ii.  1105  b 

iii.  31 ii.  933  a 

iv.  5 i.69a 

iv.  11..  i.  68b,69a,  ii.  968 

a,  1194  b,  1.530  a,  n.,  ill. 

2.547  b,  2662  a 

iv.  13 ii.  1570  b 

iv.  19 i.  347  a,  n...  iii, 

1934  a 

V.  1-10 iv.  8414  a,  f. 

V.  3,  15 ii.  1.508  b,  n. 

V.  4 iv.  .3530  b 

v.  7,16 i.  327  b 

V.  10 i.  182  a,  478  b 

V.  11...   iii.  2687  b 

V.  14. .iv.  2863  b,  2866  a, 
S560  a,  a597  b 

V.  16 ii.  1180  a,  n. 

V.  17 i.  534b 

V.  18.  .iii.  2066 a,  iv.3o97b 

V.19 i.245a 

v.  20,21 i.  141  b,  iv. 

358  I  a 
V.  21..ii.  1569  a,  n.,  1570  b 

V.  28 1.  787  b 

V.  25...i.  833  b,  iii.  1934  a 

V.  28 iv.  3539  b 

V.  30 i.  619  b 

vi.  11 iv.  3545  b 

vi.  15 ii.  962  b,  ii.  1769 

b,». 

vi.  19 ii   1533  b 

vi.25 ii.  1044  b 


8656 

vi.  25,26 ii.l064a 

vi.  32 ii.  1271  a 

vi.  33-piii.  28. .  .iv.  3595  a 

vi.  34.  .-. ii.  1260  b 

vii.  1. . . .  iii.  2011  a,«.,  iv. 
3508  a,  n. 

vii.  1,3 ii.  1393  a 

vii.  9-15. i.  142  a 

vii.  12 iii.  1926  b.»t. 

v'i.  13 J.  247  a,  323  a 

vii.  16,  20.  ."....ii.  1589  a 

vii.  18 ii.  920b,«. 

vii.  20 ii.  1243  b 

vii.  22 iv.  3621  b 

vii.  25 iii.  1927  a,  n. 

viii.  10 i.  274  b,  275  a 

vui.  14 ii.  1509  b,iv. 

3559  b 

viii.  21,  26 i.  347  b 

viii.  24 i.  89  b 

viii.  25  i.624a 

viii.  26.  ..i.  630  b,  iii.  1910 
a,  2268  a,  n. 

viii.  35 ii.  1167  b 

ix.  6 iii.  1888  a 

ix.  6 iv.  2955  a 

.X.  6,  37...ii.  968  a,  2548  a 

IX.  7ff iv.  2955  b,  re. 

ix.  31 i.l67  a 

Ix.  37.  ..i.  607  a,  633  b,  iii. 

1888  a 

ix.  -53.. i.  10,  n.,  iii.  1935  a 

X   7 iii.  2500    a,  n. 

xi.  20 i.  474  a 

xi.  29 ii.  r250b 

xi.  .31,  40 ii.  1251a 

xi   34 ii.  1250  b 

xi    ■iO iv.  3415  a 

xii    1 iv.  3593  a 

xii.  4 ii.  9i7  a 

xii  5 i.  852  b,  n. 

xii.  14 iv.  3057  a 

xiii.  15 ii.  1533  b 

xiii.  25 iii.  1914  a 

xiv.  3 iii.  1797  a 

xiv.  6 ii.  1250  b 

xiv.  8 i.  263  a 

xiv.  11 iii.  1805  a 

xiv.  12,  13.... i.  621b,iv. 
2964  a 

xiv.  18 ii.  1034  b 

XV.  1 ii.  Ilu5  a 

XV.  4 i.  840  b 

XV.  14 ii.  1200  b 

XV.  19 ii.  1627  b,  «. 

xvi.  7 i.  491  b 

xvi.  7,  8 i.  478  a 

xvi.  9 ii.  1578  b 

xvi.  11 iii.  2208  a 

xvi.  14 iv.  34S9b 

xvi.  21..i.  407  b,  iii.  1935b 
xvii.  7,  9. . .  .ii.  1491  b,  n. 

xvii.  13 iii.  1913  a,  n. 

xviii.  1 i.  534  a,  ?(.,  iii 

1914  a,  n. 
xviii.  3 ii.  1759  b,  iii. 

1913  b 
xviii.  12.  .ii.  1306  a,  n.,  iii. 

1914  a 

xviii.  14 iii.  1913  a,  n. 

x-viii.  21 i.  392  a 

xviii.  30.. i.  534  b,  n.,535 

b,  n.,  iv.  3572  a 

xviii.  31 iv.  3000  a 

xix.  1 ii.  1491  b,  n. 

XX.  4-7 ii.  1510  b,  n. 

XX  10 i.  877  a 

xj.  18,  26.. ii.  916 a,  1106b 

Xi.  18,  26,  31 i.288b 

XX.  26 iv.  3215  a 

XX.  27,  28... ii.  1070  b,  iv. 
3484  a 

XX.  29 iii.  1842  a 

XX.  33...i.  820b,877a,  ii. 
914  a,  re,  iii.  1841b 

XX.  43 iii.  1887  b 

xxi.  2 i.  288  b 

xxi.  2.... ii.  1106b,  1070  u 

KUTTI. 

1.17 1.3-32  a 

i.  20 iii.  '-062  h 


INDEX. 


1.  22 Iv.  2756  a 

ii.  3.  ...1.  820  b,  iv.  2766  a 
ii.  14... i.  833b,iv.  2766b 

ii.  17 iv.  2.56  b 

iii.  3.  ..ill.  1805a,  iv.  3347 

iii.  3,  6 iv.  2756  a 

iii.  9 i.  624  a 

iii.  12 iv.  3150  a 

iii.  15.  ...i.  622  a,  624  a,  ii. 
997  a,  iv.  2756  b,  3539  b 

iv.  1 iv.  3450  a 

iv.  2 ii.  1511  b 

iv.  3f ii.  1486  a,  n. 

iv.  3,  4 ii.  1484  a,  re. 

iv.  7,  8.1.  143  b,  iv.  2«38  a 

iv.  10 iii.  18ii3  b 

iv.  12 iv.  3171a 

1  SAMUEL. 

1.  3,9,24 ii.  1070  b 

i.  9.  ..iv.  3000  a, «., 32411  a 

i.  12 iv.3370a 

i  22 iii.  2592  b,«. 

ii.,  iii ii.  1071  a 

ii.  1-4 iv.  3415  a 

ii.  8 1   627  b 

ii.  1-10 ii.g37b 

ii.  11,18 ii.  2592  b,  re. 

ii.  16 iii.  2576  a 

ii.  19 iv.  3489  a 

ii.  30 i.  2  b 

ii    36 i.  324  a 

iii.  3 i.  355  b. 

iv.  3,  4 ii.  1070  b 

iv.  1.3 iii.  1976  a,  re. 

iv.  18 ii.  1510  a.  n. 

V.  6 1-  474  a 

V.  9 iii.  1862  a,  n.. 

vi.  5 iii.  2033  a 

vi.  5,  11, 18.  .iii.  1862  a,  re. 
vi.  18  . . ,  .1.  5  a,  ii.  1060  a 
vi.  19.  .ii.  1642  b,  iv.  3572  a 

vii.  4 ii.lll44  b 

vii.  5,  17.  ...iii.  2f92b,  re. 

vii.  9 iv.  3484  b 

vii.  10 ii.  1064  a 

vii   12 iv.  3iil7  a 

vii.  17 iii.  267u  b 

viii.  5,20 ii.  1510  a 

viii.  12 i.  629  b 

viii.  15,  17 iv.  3266  a 

ix.  1 ii.  l-25b 

ix.  4 iv.  3021a 

ix.  5 iv.  3239  a,  3647  b 

ix.  5,  12 iii.  2671  a 

ix.  7 i.225b 

ix.  9 iii.  2591  a,  re.,  iv. 

3363  a 

ix.ll ii  1077  b 

ix.  22 ii.lSlOa,  re. 

X  l.i.  320  b,  iii.  2592  b,  re. 

X.  2.  3,  5 iii.  2671  b 

X.  3....i.69a,  ii.  968  a,  iii. 

2548  a 

x.5.ii.l064a,iii.2499a,n 

X.  10 iii.  1866  a,  re. 

X.  27.  .ii.  922  b,  iv.  3183  b 

xi.  5 i.  277  a,  re. 

xi.  7 ii.  1044  b 

xi.  8 iv.  3190  a,  re. 

xii.  3 ii.  1511  b 

xii.  11 i.  4  a,  ii.  1513  a 

xii.  17 i.  42  a 

xiii.  3.  .iii.  1922 a,  re.,  2499 

xiii.  6.. i.  286  b, iii  2500  b, 

re. 

xiii.  9.ii.  1064  a,  iv.  3184  b 

xiii.  11 iii.  2592  b,  re. 

xiii.  16 i  877  a 

xiv.  3 ii.  I(i70b 

xiv.  14.. i.  160  b,iv.  3582b 
xiv.  18. i.  49b,ii.  916  a.  re. 

xiv.  19 iv.  3362  a,  re 

xiv.  24-27 iii.  1865  b 

xiv.  3i ii.  1064  a 

xiv.  36 i.  49  b 

xiv   37 iv.  3484  a 

XV.  6 ii.  1388  a 

XV.  12..i.  391b   iii.  2531  b 

XT.  28 ii.  1130  a,  re.,  iv. 

3358  a 


XV.  27 i.  621  a 

XV.  29 iv.  2855  b 

xvi.  5 ii.  Iu64  a 

xvi.  12 1.  553  a,  re. 

xvi.  14-23.  .1.653  b,  565  a 

xvi   16 i.  518  a 

xvii.  2,19 i.  690  a 

xvii.  6 Ii.  973  a 

xvii.  5,38 1.161  a 

xvii.  6 1.  161b 

xvii.  6,45 i.  160  a 

xvii.  7..i.  161  b,  ii.  1187  b 

xvii.  8 iv.  3416  b,  f. 

xvii.  20 i.  392  a,  733  a 

xvii.  22..i.392a,563a,  re. 

xvii.  25 iv.  3183  b 

xviii.  4 1.  621  a,  625  a 

xviii.  6 iii.  2'4ii  b 

xviii.  10 iii.  1943  b 

xviii.  10,  11 i.  16la 

xviii.  23 iii.  1804  a 

xviii.  25 ill.  1920  b,re. 

xix.  9,  10 i.  160  a 

xix.  13..i.261a.567a,  608 

a,  624  a,  ii.  1745  a,  re., 

iii.  19i!l  a,  re.,  2532  b 

xix.  13,  16 i.  818  b 

xix.  21-24 ii.  1733  b 

xix.  24. i.  620  b,  iv.  3318  b 

XX.  2,  12 ii.  981  a 

XX.  6-24 iii.  2111b 

XX.  19.. i.  81.2  a,  iii.  2531  b 

XX.  29 ii.  16i3  a,  re. 

XX.  33 i.  16)  a 

XX.  40 i.  IW  a 

XX.  41 i.  802  a 

xxi.  4-6 iv.  2992  b 

xxi.  9 i.  6.'4  a 

xxi.  13 ii.  y68a 

xxi.  13-15.- ii.  1733  b 

xxii.  1 i.  35  b 

xxii.  5 ii    lOi  2  a 

xxii.  6 ii.  968  a 

xxii.  8 ii.  981a 

xxii.  14 ii    969  a 

xxiii.  2 iv.  3484  a 

xxiii.  6,  9 iv.  3363  a 

xxiv.  4 i.  621a 

XXV.  20 iii.  2  30  a 

X.XV.  22 i.  624  b 

XXV.  23 iv.  2795  b 

XXV.  25 iii.  2'  62  b 

XXV.  41 iv.  3059  b,  re. 

xxvi.  5,  7 i.  733  a 

xxvi.  20 ii.  1011  b,  iv. 

3' 99  a 

xxvii.  3 ii.  1183  b 

xxvii.  5 i.  820  a 

xxvii.  6  ii.  1492  a 

xxvii.  10 iv.273S  b 

xxviii iv.  2708  a 

xxviii  3-25. .  .ii.  1749  a,  f. 

xxviii.  6 iv.  33i7  a 

xxviii.  14 1.  621  a 

xxix.  l....i.  120  b,298b, 
ii.  1393  a 

x.xix.  4-11 ii.  1453  b 

xxx.S.ii.  1399b,  iv.  3484  a 

2  SAMUEL. 

i.21 ii.  1048  b 

i.  23 iv.3484  b 

ii.  10,11 i.  12  a 

ii.  14 1.  8o4  a 

ii.  18 iv.  3163  a,  3484  b 

ii,  25 ii.  1394  b,  re, 

iii.  7 i.  486  b 

iii.  8 iv.  3002  a 

iii.  12 iv.  3191a 

iii.  14 iii.  1803  a,  re. 

iii.  22 iii.  1984  b,  re. 

iii.  30-37 ii-  1541  a 

iii.  33 iii-  20o0  b 

iii.  33,34 i.  12  b 

iv.  6 i-  498  a 

iv.  7 ii.  1168  a 

V.  6-8 ii.  970  a  f. 

Iv   6-9 ii.l220  b 

V.  8 ii  1282  b,  n. 

v.  9 iii.  1937  a 

V.  17-25 iii.  2i00  b.  n. 

I  V.  23 i.  485  b,  834  a 


vi.  2 ii  1.566  b 

vi.  5-22 i.  638a 

vi.  8 iii.  2436  a 

vi.  14 1.  558  a,  1),  re. 

vi.  19 i.  831  a,  836  a 

vi.20.i.620b,iii.l921b,re. 

vii.  2 i.  619  a 

viii.  1 iii.  2501a 

viii.  6,  14 1.  870  b 

viii.  12 ii.  1705  a,  re. 

viii.  13 iv.  3485  b 

viii.  17 i.  6  b 

viii  18.1.  561  b,  iii.  2575  b 

X  4 i.  624  b 

X  18 iv.  3572  a 

xi.  ii iv.  34 84  a 

xi.  14 iv.  3560  a 

xi.  21 iii.   1936  a 

xii.  17 i.  693  b 

xii  24,  25 iv.  3075  a 

xii   25 1.561  a.  re. 

xii.  30.  ..iii.  1910  a,  1991  b 

xii.  30,  31  ii.  1762  b 

xii.  31 iii.  1993  b 

xiii.  6,8,10 i.  324  b 

xiii.  9 i.  325  a 

xiii   18 ii.  1463  a,  n. 

xiii.  21 i.  16  b 

xiv.  2 iii.  1988  a 

xiv.  7 1.  473  a 

XV.  1-4 ii.  1510  h 

XV.  3 ii.  1510  b,  n. 

XV.  7 i.  17  a 

xv.30.iii.2242b,iv.2S38a 

XV.  32 i.  563  a,  re.,  iii 

2243  a,  re. 
xvi.  1.. 1.834  a,  iv.  3542  b 

xvi.  5 1.  260  b 

xvi.  9 iv.  3002  a 

xvU.  19 1.498  a 

xvii.  23 iv.  3539  b 

xvii.  25.  ..i.  8  a,  ii.  1183  a, 

1387  a 

xvii.  28 i.  834  a 

xvii.  29.  ...i.833b,ii.l(j44 
b.  re. 

xvii.  18 i.  391  b 

xviii.  23 iv.  2697  b 

xix.  18 ii.  1458  a,  n 

xix.  24 iii.  1890  a,  re., 

1988  a 

xix.  37,  88 ii.  1138  b 

.xix.  41-43 ii.l491  b 

XX.  8 1.  622  a 

XX.  14.  .1.  4  b,  re.,  1.  282  a 

XX.  15 iv.  3484  b 

XX.  23 iii.  249i  a,  re. 

XX.  26..1.  561  b,ji.  1140  b 

xxi 1.  35  a 

xxi.  6 ii.  915  b,  re 

xxi.  8 iii.  1892  b 

xxi  9 iv.  2738a 

x.xi.  9, 13 iii.  1889  b 

xxi.  15-22 iii.  2501a 

xxi.  19.  .1.  5.Ha,  n.   696  b 

xxii.  6 iv.  30H4  b 

xxii.  6, 19 iii.  2575  a 

xxii.  8 1.  631  b 

xxii.  9,13 i.472b 

xxii.  16 1.  6i  3  a. 

xxii.  30 ,.iii  1984  a,  re. 

xxii.  35 iii.  1909  a  iv. 

3110  a 

xxiii.  1 1.  5',4  b,  re 

xxiii.  8 ii.  1217  a 

xxiii.  11.  ...11.  1628  a,  iv 
.  30i  2  a 

xxiii.  15 i-  295  b 

xxiii.  20 i-  154  a 

xxiii.  36 ii.980a 

xxiv  9.ii.  1544  b,  iii.  1910  b 

xxiv.  11 iii.  2591  a 

xxiv   13 !v.  3572  a 

xxiv.  23.... i.  148  a,  564a 

xxiv.  24 iii    1910  a 

xxiv.  25 JT-  3215  a 

1  KINGS. 

i.  1 1.   624  a 

i    23 iii-   2068  a 

i.  .31 iv.  2795  b 

i.  33. ....... iv.  2997  a,  n. 


INDEX. 


U.  3  iii.  2418  b 

ii.  5 iv.  2837  a,  n. 

ii.  19 ii.  1540  b 

ii.  19  ff iii.  ajyl  b 

ii.  21-24 i.  486  b 

iii.   1 iii.  246(3  b 

iii.  2 iv.  30011a 

iii.  7 ii.  1254  a 

iv.  7 ii.  1304  a 

iv.  12 i.  299a 

iv.  16 i.  73  a 

iv.  19 iii.  1922  a,  n. 

iv.  21 iii.  2501  a,  n. 

iv.  23 i.  839  b 

iv.  25...iT    3446b, 3447  b 

iv.  26 iv.  3572  a 

iv  28 i.   626  a 

V.  18 iii.  2515  a 

vi.  13 iv.  2959  b 

vi.  21,22 i.  77  a 

Ti.  23.  .iii.  2213  a,  n.,  2241 
b,  n. 

vii.2,  6 iii.  2531b 

vii.  8 ii.   1105  a 

vii  25 ii.  1364  a 

vii  26  iv.2992  b 

vK.  29 i  421  a,  n. 

vii.  33 i.  415  a,  n. 

vii  39 ii.  1191b 

viii.9 i.  155  b 

viii.  10, 11 iv.  2960  a 

viii.  12,13 iv.  •2959  b 

viii.  66 iv.  2795  a 

ix.  16 iii.  '2467  a 

is.  18 iv.3167a 

ix.  22 i.  163  a 

X  2 i.  14ua 

X.  15 iii.  1941  b 

X.  16 iii.  2525  b 

X.  19 iv.  3240  a 

X.  22...i.  119  a,  iii.  2402  b 

X.27 ii.  1619a 

X.  28....ii.  1492b,  16(33 a, 
iv.  3578  b 

X.28,  29 i.67b 

xi.  5-8 .-...ii.  1044  b 

xi.  7.. ii.  1064  b, iii. 2243b, 
iv.  3039  a,  3u4.  lb 

xi.  19 iii.  2651b 

xi.  24,25 iii.  1984  a,  n. 

lii iv.  3012  b 

xii  11,14 iv.  2865  a 

xii.  16 iii.  2620  a 

xii.  21-24 ii.  1640  a 

xiii.  4-6 iii.  1866  a 

xiii.  6 iii.  18.59  a 

xiii.  31 i.  332  a 

xiv.  8 i.  325  b,  505  b 

xiv.  10 i.  624  b 

xiv.  12 iii.  1859  a 

xiv.  27,28 i.  837  a 

xiv.  31 i.  8  b 

XV.  8 ii.  1540  b 

XV.  13 i.  168  a 

XV.  16,32.  ...iv.3'10b,n. 

XV  23 iii   1836  a 

xvi.  18 iv.  3(3.31  a,  7i. 

xvi.  24 iii.  2029  a,  n. 

xvi.  31 ii   1044  b 

xvii.  1 iv.  3203  b   f. 

xvii.  3,  5. .  .i.  418  b.  419  a 

xvii.  4,  6 iii.  2678  a 

xvii.  6 i.  '.04  a 

«vii.l2 i.  704  b,  n. 

xvii.  12,  14, 16.  ...i    248a 

xvii.  17 iii.  1859  a 

xvii.  19 ii.  1105  b 

xvii.  21-24 iv.  2708  a 

xviii.  7,9 i  705  a,  n. 

xviii.  19 i.45b 

xviii  26 iv.  2706  a 

xviii  26,28 ii.  1733  b 

xviii.  28 i.  160  a 

xviii.  80 ii.  1064  a 

xxiii.  83 i.  248  a 

xviii.  42 i.  703  b,  n. 

xviii.  46 iv.  3362  b,  n. 

xix.  3 ii.  1492  a 

xix.  4  ff i.  571a 

xix.  6 i.  .325  a,  473  a 

dx.  9 i.  706  a,  n  ,  ii. 

.  16(6  a 

Nsf"  230 


xix.  11-13 iv.  3416  a 

xix.  13 iv.  2926  b 

xix.  19.  .i.  706  a,  n.,  b,  «., 

714  a,  n. 

xx.jXxi 45  b 

XX.  10 i.  840a,  b 

XX.  14 iii.  2587  a 

XX.  14,  15,  19... iii.  2617  a 

XX.  23 ii.  1064  a 

XX.  23,  25 ii.  935  b 

XX.  30 ii.  1106  a 

XX.  31 i.  492  a 

sx.  34 iv  3123  a 

xxi.  1 u.  1483  b,  n. 

xxi.8-14 ii.  1511b 

xxi.  9 iii.  2051  a,  n. 

xxi.  19 i.  46  a 

xxi.  21 i.  624b 

xxii.  6 iv. 3484a 

xxii.  11 ii.  1090  b 

xxii.  25 ii.  1105  a 

xxii.  27 i.  324  a 

xxii.  28 iU.  2596  b 

xxii.  35 ii.  1688  a 

xxii.  38 ii.  1003  b,  iv. 

3074  a,  n. 

xxii.  39 i.  298  b,  w. 

xxii.  48 iii.  2687  b 

2  KINGS. 

i.  2 ii.  1105  b 

i.  4 iii.  1859  a 

i.  8 i.  347  a,  618  a, 

703  a,  n. 
i.  9.  .i.  707  a,  n.,  ii.  1077  a 

i.  9-15 i.  390  b 

ii.  1 ii.  927  b 

ii.  2 i.  709  a,  n. 

ii.  5 i.  709  a,  n. 

ii.  8 i.  7ii3b,  n., 

709  a,  n. 
ii.  9 i.  310  a,  709  a,  n. 

715  a,  n. 

ii.  11 i.  709  a,  n. 

ii.  12 i.  709  b,  n.,iii. 

2679  b 

ii.  18 i.  714  b 

ii.  19 i.  716  b 

ii.  21..  ii.  1784  a,  iii.  1859  a 

ii.  23 i.716b,n. 

iii.  1 i.  708  b,  n. 

iii.  6 i.  717  a 

iii.  9 i.485b 

iii.  15 iii.  1943  a,  n. 

2040  a,  iv.  3362  b 

iii.  21 iii.  1983  a,  n. 

iii.  26 i.  161a 

iv.  10.  .ii.  1105  a,  n.,  iii. 
1843  a,  n.,iv.  3240  a 

iv.  10,  11 ii.  1105  b 

iv.  16 ii.  971  a 

iv.  19 iii.  1866  a 

iv.23 iii.  2593  a 

iv.  24 ii.  932  b 

iv.  27... i.  890  b,  717  a,  «. 
ii.  1077  a 

iv.29 iv.  2795b 

iv.  32-86 iii.  18.59  a 

iv.  39 i.  622  a,  717  b 

ii.  961  b 

iv.  39-41 iii.  1859  a 

iv.  42. . .  .i.  718  a,  n.,  b,  n. 

V.  1 iii.  2048  a 

V.  2.  .i.  718  b,  n.,iii.  1984 
b,  71. 

V.3 i.  718  b,n. 

V.  4 i.  718  b,  «.,  iii. 

2048  a,  n. 
V.  5 i.  718  b,  n.,iii. 

2526  b 

V.  14 iii.  1859  a 

V.  17.... i.  631  a,  iii.  2048  b 

V.  21 iv.  2795  b 

v.23....i.  344b,  11.  982  b 

V.24 iii.  2258  a 

vi.  6 :  .i.  719  a,  ?i. 

vi.  9 i.  719  b,  n. 

vi.  22 i.  719  b,  n. 

vi.  25 i.  182  b,  614  b 

vii.  6 ii.  1082  a 

vii.  10 i.  733  b 

viii.  1 ii.  1234  a,  Ji. 


viii.  3  ....... .i.  720  a,n. 

viii.  13 i.  721  a,  n.,  ii. 

1012  b 

viii.  15 i.  275  b,  721 

a,  n.,  iii.  18.59  b 

vui.  26 iv.  3572  a 

ix.  1,3 i.  320  b 

ix.  8 i.  624  b 

ix.  11 ii.  1733  b 

Ls.  22 ii.  1390  b,  iii. 

1807  b,  n. 

ix.  26 iii.  2051  h,n. 

ix.  27 i.  49  a,  735  b,  ii. 

1558  b 

ix.  30 ii.982  a,  1391 

a,n.,iii.  2280  a 

ix.  36 ii.  1391b,  ?i. 

X.  14 iii.  2679  a,  n. 

x.22 ii. 1128a 

X.  26 iv.  3117  a 

X.  27 i.  627  b 

xi.  1 ii.  961a 

xi.  1,3 ii.  1540  b 

xi.  4 i.837a 

xi.  6 i.  193  b 

xi.  12 iii.  2418  b 

xi.  18 ii.  1044  b 

xii.  9 i.384b 

xiii.  14 iii.  2679  b 

xiii.  20. .. .  i.  721  b,>i.,  iii. 
1983  b,n. 

xiii.  21 i.  721  b,n. 

xiv.  5 iii.  2639  a,  n. 

xiv.  7 ii.  1523  b 

xiv.  13 i.SCb 

xiv.  23 ii.  1178  b 

xiv.  25  ff ii.  I(i94  b 

XV.  1 ii.  1178  a,  b 

XV.  7 'i.  1279  b 

XV.  10 iii.  1885  a,  n. 

XV.  16 iii.  2639  b 

XV.  19.... iii.  2639b 

XV.  25 i.  153b 

XV.  27 ii.  1178  b 

xvi.  2 i.  47  b 

xvi.  6 i.  48  a,  145  b, 

662  b 
xvi.  10-15. ..  .ii.  1124  h.n. 

xvi.  10-16 i.  190  b 

xvii.  6 iv.  2942  a,  n. 

xvii.  9 ii.  1064  b 

xvii.  10,11 ii.  1047  b 

xviii.  8 iii.  2501  b 

xviii.  9, 10.  .iv.  2845  a,  n  , 
2942  a.  n. 

xviii.  13 ii.  1058  b 

xviii.  17  ff ii.    1(J60  a 

xviii.  17 iv.  3430  a 

xviii.  21.. i.  669  a,  ii.  997  b 

xviii.  24 iv.  3312  b 

xviii.  26,28 ii.  985  b 

xix.  1,2 ii.  1072  a 

xix.  9 i.  636  a 

xix.  14 iv.  3575  b 

xix.  23 i.  820  a 

xix.  28 ii.  1092  b 

xix.  32 iv.  34S4b 

xix.  37 i.  6.36  a 

XX.  1 iv.  3539  b 

XX.  2,  3 ..ii.  1771  b 

XX.  4 ii.  1013  b,  n. 

XX.  7 iii.  18.59  a, 

18(33  b 

XX.  11 ii.  1477  a 

xxvi.  14 i.  161a 

XX.  13 iii.  1897  b,  iv. 

8102  b 

xxi.  3 iii.  20il8  b 

xxi.  7 i.  45  b,  173  b 

xxi.  13 i.  58  a,  492  a 

xxii.  1 i.  26  a 

xxii.  8,10 ii.  1076  b 

xxii.  12-14 ii.  1072  a 

xxii.  14 1.  476  a,  b 

xxiii.  6 i.  45  b,  173  b, 

3^2  a,  ii.  967  b 

xxiii.  7..ii.  998  a,  1064b, 

iv.  3451  a 

xxiii.  8 i.  74  a 

xxiii.  12 i.48a 

xxiii.  13 iv.  3039  a, 

.^040  b 


3657 

xxiii.  24 iv.  3358  a 

xxiv.  12 ii.  1708  a 

xxiv.  12,15 u.  1540  b 

xxiv.  14 iv.  3062  a,  n. 

xsiv.  15 ii.  1105  a 

XXV.  1 iv.  3484  b 

XXV.  3 ii.  1156  a.  n. 

XXV.  8 iii.  2089.b 

XXV.  19 f  ...i.  162  b 

XXV.  25 ii.  991b 

XXV.  27. . .  .i.  446  b,  n.,m. 
2005  a,  rt. 

1  CHRONICLES. 
.  41.  ...i.  89  a,  ii.  1043a 

.  51 i.  78  b 

i.  7 i.  21a 

18 iii.  1794  b,  n. 

i.23..ii.  1197  b,1529b,  n. 
■    24.  ...i.  177  b,  344  a,  b 

i.  54,55 iii.  2681a 

i.  55.  .ii.  1190  a,  iii.  2679  b 

ii.  1 i.  8a 

ii.  5 i.  52b 

ii.  17 i.  184  b 

ii.  24 ii.  1487  b 

V.  1 i.  391b 

V.  2 ii.  1190  a 

V.  7 iv.3641  b 

V.  13,  14 iii.  1888  b 

V.  17-19 ii.  1249  a 

V.  18 iii.  1969  a 

V.  21 iv.  3489  a 

V.  22 ii.  1399  b 

V.  32 i.  56  a 

V.  38 ii   1.508  b,n. 

V.  40-42 iii.  1874  b 

V.  20 i.  743  b 

V.  23.  .i.  208b,ii.  1047a.b 

vi.  11,12 i.  53  a 

vi.  22 i.  83  b 

vi.  28 iii.  2592  b,  n. 

vi.  44 i.  3  b 

vi.  37 i.  6  a 

vii.  12 i.  49  a 

vii.  14 i.  181b,  ii. 

1467  a,  n. 

vii.  20-23 i.  281a 

viii.  1 ii.  1223  a 

viii.  6,  7 iii.  2049  a 

ix.  2-34 iii.  2099  b 

ix.ll iv.  3045  a 

ix.  27 ii.  1675  a 

ix.  30 iv.  3368  a 

xi.  11..  ii.  1217  a,  iv.  3166  b 

xi.  22 i.  164  a 

xi.  42 i.  31b 

xii.  2 i.  160  b,698b 

xii.  2,3 ii.  1271a 

xii.  3.  .i.  205  a,  ii.  1899  b 

xii.  8 iv.  3484  b 

xii.  21 ii.  1399b 

xii.  23 ii.  1180  b,n. 

xii.  27 ii.  1069  a 

xii.  33 iv.  3698  a 

xiii.  1 iii.  1932  a,  n. 

xiii.  3 i.  155  b 

xiii.  8 ill.  2038  b 

xiv.  8 i.  558  a,  n. 

xiv.  14 1.  834  a 

XV.  2 ii.  1642  b 

XV.  10-12 i.  83  b 

XV.  18 iii.   2043  b 

XV.  19 iii.  2038a 

XV.  22 ii.  11.54  b,  n. 

xvi.  1-7,37 ii.  1(J70  b 

xvi.  3.  .i.  831  a,  iv.  3542  b 
xvi.  7-36. . .  .ii.  1718  a,  n. 

xvi.  22 ii.  1847  b 

xvii.  1 i.  519  a 

xviii.  8 1.  283  b 

xviii.  12 i.  11  a 

xviii.  13 i.  870  b 

xviii.  17 1.  561  b,  iii. 

2575  b 

xix.  18 Iv.  3572  a 

XX.  2 U.  1183  b 

XX.  3 i.  201  b 

XX.  5 ii.  1187  b,  ill. 

1910  b 

xxi.  12 Iv.  a572a 

xxi   26 iii.   19K»  a 


3658 

rxi.  26 ii.  1064  a 

sxii.  H iii.  1910  a 

xxiii.  21,  22 i.  695  a 

sxiy.  7 ii.l8S3b 

xxiv.  12 ii.  1073  a 

sxv.  2,3 ii.  1642  a 

xxr.  3 iii.  2592a 

xxvi.  15,  17.  ...iv.  3239  b 

xxvi.  16,  18 i.  396  b 

xxvi.  SO ii.  1032  a,  n. 

xxvii.  28 ii.  1399  b 

xxvii.  32 ii.  14.52  a 

xxvii.  33 iv.  2697  a 

xxriii.  18 i.  420  a 

xxviii.  19 iv.  3559  b 

xxix.  2 iii.  2280  b 

xxix.  2-4 iii.  1910  a 

xxix.  29 ii.  1552  b,  iii. 

2590  b 

2  CHRONICLES. 

1.6 ii.  918  b 

i.  16 ii.  1663  a,  iv. 

3578  b 

iii.  2 ii.  1545  a 

Ix.  21 iii.  2402  b 

ix.  25 iv.  3572  a 

X.  11,14 iv.  2865  a 

xi.  7 i.  300  b 

xi.  10 i.  34  a,  n..  ii. 

1492  a 

xi.  18 i.  698  b 

xii.  10,11 i.  837  a 

jdii.  2 i.  9  a 

xiii.  5 i.  68  b,  ,^03  a, 

iv.  2793  b 

xiii.  9 iii.  2578  a,  n. 

xiii.  11 iv.  2992  b 

xiii.  19 ii.  1492  a 

xiv.  8 i.  168  a 

xiv.  10 iv.  3617  b 

XV ii.  1072  a 

XV.  8 i.  75  b,  ii.  1492  a 

XV.  16 iv.  3433  b 

XV.  19 iv.  3010  a 

xvi.  I..i.l68b,  iv.  3010a 

xvi.  7 ii.  1493  a 

xvi.  10 iv.  3115  b 

xvi.  12..  iii.  1859  b,  1866  a 
xvii.  2.  ...i.  168  b,  870  b, 

ii.  1492  a 

xviii ii.   1072  a 

xviii.  5 iv.  .3484  a 

xviii.  33 i.  161  b 

XX.  1 i.  85,  a  n. 

XX.  1,10,22.  ...iii.  1874  b 

XX.  2 ii.  1520  a 

XX.  14,15 ii.  1072  a 

xxi.  3,  4 ii.  1540  b 

xxi.  16 i.  875  a 

xxi.  20 J.  591a,  ii. 

1279  b,  iv.  3572  a 
xxii.  2.  .1.  48  b,  iv.  .3-572  a 

xxii.  5 i.l46  b 

Jxii,  6 i.  48  b,  203  a 

xxii.  7-9 ii.  1558  b 

xxiii.  13 i.  743  b 

xxiii.  20 ii.  963  a 

xxiv.  25 ii.  1279  b, 

iv.  3035  a,  n. 

xxvi.  5 iv.  3610  b 

xxvi.  6 i.  875  a 

xxvi.  8 i.  85  a,  n. 

xxvi.  11,13.  .iii.  1984  b,  n. 

xxvi.  14 i.  161  a 

xxvi.  15 i.  736  b 

xxviii.  7 ii.  963  a    1172 

a,  n.,  1399  b 

xxviii.  15 ii.  1530  a 

xxviii.  18 i.  875  a 

xxix.  13 iii.  2619  b 

XXX.  21 i.  558  a,  b,  n. 

xxxii.  4 ii.  1534  b 

xxxii.  9  flf. ii.   1060  a 

xxxii.  22 iii.  2273  a 

xxxii.  28 i.498b, 

iii.  2675  a 
Etxli.  30 ii.  1287  a, 

iv.  8039  b 

xxxii.  31 i    598  a 

xxxii.  32.  . . .  ii.  1158  b,  n. 
sxxiU.  3,  5. . . .     n  3327  a 


INDEX. 


xxxiii.ll ii.l086a 

xxxiii.  18 i  i.  2591  a 

xxxiv ii.  1076  b 

xxxiv,  4 ii.  1120  a 

xxxiv.  14 ii.  1075  a 

xxxiv.  14-19,30 iii. 

2421  a 

xxxiv.  22 i.  476  b 

XXXV.  3 i.  156  a 

XXXV.  6 ii.  1075  a 

xsxv.  13 ii.  1631  b 

XXXV.  15 iii.  2619  b 

XXXV.  25 ii.  1588  a 

xxxvi.  21 i.  437  b 

EZRA. 

i.  1-4 ii.  1736  a 

ii.  5 iii.  2097  a 

ii.  6 ii.   1397  a 

ii.  26 iii.  2670  a 

ii.  34 iii.  2663  b 

ii.  53 ii.l004  b 

ii.  63 iii.  2101  b,  iv. 

3357  a 

ii.  64 i.  40i  b 

iii.  4,5,6 iv.  3622  a 

iii.  9.  ...ii.  1344  b,  1416  a 

iv.  7-'23 iii.  2095  b 

iv.  14 ii.  963  b 

iv.  17-24 ii.  1736  a 

V.  1,2 ii.  1736a 

V.  6 iv.  2701  a 

vi.  2 i.642a 

vi.  7,  8 ii.  1736  a 

vi.  9 iv.  3542  a 

vi   11 i.   627b 

vi.  14 iv.  3699  a 

vii.  1-5 i.433b 

vii.  22 iv.  3542a 

viii.  15 ii.  1185  a 

viii.  18,19,24,30 iii. 

1894  a 
viii.  27. -i.  490  b.  iv.  3110  a 

viii.  32 iii.  2091  b,  n. 

ix.  6 i.812b 

X.  8 ii.  1509  b 

X.9 iv.3122b 

X.  15 ii.  991  b 

X.  23,31 ii.  1450  a 

X.  25 i.  179  a 

X.  31 ii.  1456  a 

NEHEMIAH. 

ii.  10 ii.906a 

ii.  11 iii.  2091  b,n 

ii.  13 iii.  2565  b,  i v. 

3508  a,  n. 

iii.  2 iii.  2663  b 

iii.  8.  ...i.  129a,  ii.  1066a 

iii.  11 i.  323  b,  846  a 

iii.  14 iii.  2681  a,  iv. 

3447  b 

iii.  26 iv.3041a 

iv.  2 ii.  1289  a 

V.  1-13 ii.  1668  a 

V.  5 iv.  3059  b 

vu.  2,  3 ii.  992  a 

vii.  5,6 iii.  2098  b 

vii.  7 iii.  2094  b 

vii.  11 ii.  1397  a 

vii.  30 iii.  2670  a 

vii.  36 iii.  2663  b 

vii.  46-59 iu.  2604  a 

vii.  65,  70 iii.  2101  b 

viii.  9 iii.  2101b 

viii.  15 iii.  2212  b,  iv. 

3600  a,  n 

viii.  17 ii.  1290  a.  n. 

ix.  2 iv.  3122  a 

ix.  27 iv.  2858a 

X.  1 iii.  2101  b 

X.  29 ii.  1075  a 

X.  37 i.  324  a 

xi.  9 i.  476  b 

xi.  10 ii.  1222  b 

xi.  26 ii.  1565  a 

xi.26 i.  56a 

xi  33 iii.  2670  a 

xii.  10,26 ii.  1397  a 

xii.  15 iii.  1896  a 

xii.  24 ii.  1344  b 


xii.  25..i.  191b,  iv.  8239: 

xii.  28 iii.  2681a 

xii.  38 i.  323  b,  846  a, 

ii.  li!80  b 

xiii.  1 iii.  2095  a 

xiii.  3 iv.  3122  a 

xiii.  6 ii.  1762  a 

xiii.  23,  24 ii.  1490  b 

xiii.  24 ii.  985  b 

xiii.  28 ii.  1291a,  n. 

ESTHER. 

i.  5,6 iv.  3027  a 

i.  6 i.  261b,  478  a, 

501  a, n. 

i.  9 iv.  8026  b 

i.  10 i.  308  b 

i.  10,14 iv.  2934  b 

i.  11 i.  597  a 

i.  14 iii.  1896  a 

ii.9.  11 iv.  3026  b 

ii.  17 i.  597  a 

ii.  21...i.  308  b,  iv.  3026  b 

iii.  7 ii.  1687  b 

iii.  10 iii.  2267  b,  n. 

iv.  6..iv.  3122  b,  iii.  2646  b 

V.  1 iv.  3026  b 

vi.  2 i.  308  b 

vi.  8.  9,  12 ii.  1067  a 

viii.  2 iii.  2267  b,  n. 

viii.  10 i.  626  a 

viii.  10,14.  .iii.  2035  b,  n. 

viii.  15 i.  624  a,  625  a 

ix.  24-32 ii.  1687  b 

JOB. 

i.1,8 i.762b 

i.  6 ii.910b 

i.  15 iv.  3a54b 

i.  17 .i.  636  a,  ii.  1166 

i.  19 iv.3540a 

i.  20 i.  H21a 

ii.  1 ii.910b 

ii.  3 i.  762  b 

ii.  12 i.  621a 

iii.  8..i.674a,n.,ii  1636b 

iii.  11-19 iv.  2708  b 

iii.  12 iii.  2575  a 

iv.  15-21 iv.  3465 

iv.  19 iii.  2028  a 

iv.  21 i.  491b 

vi.  4....i.  161a,  iii.  2561  a 

vi.5 ii.  1046  b 

vi.  6 i.  834  b 

vi.  12 i.  823  a 

vi.  16  ff. i.  577  a 

vi.  16 ii.  1638  b,»i. 

vi.  19 iv.  .3192  a 

vii.  7 iv.  3541  a 

viii  11. .  .ii.  1466  a,  «.,  iii. 
1841b 

viii.  12 ii.  1045  a,  n. 

viii.  16 i.  478  a 

ix.  19 ii.  1511b 

ix.  26,  26 i.  670  a 

ix.  30 iv.  3066  b 

XV.  2 iv.  3541  a 

XT.  27 i.  476  b 

XV.  33 iii.  2242  a 

xvi.  14 i.  8.37  a 

xvi.  15 ii.  1091  a 

xvi.  21 ii.  1512  a 

xvii.  16 iii.  2535  b 

xviii.  9 ii.  n08a 

xviii   10 ii.  1108  a 

xviii.  10,  11 iii.  2152  a 

xviii.  15 i.  328  a 

xviii.  17 ...iv.3123a 

xviii.  19 iv.  30.57  b 

xix.  19 ii.  1140  a 

xix.  23-27 iv.  2709  a 

xix.  24 Ii.  1619  a,  b, 

iv.  3574  b 

xix.  26 iv.  3558  a 

XX.  17 i.  336  b 

XX.  24. .i.  490  a,  iii.  1909  a, 

iv.  3110  a 

xxi.  18 i.406b 

xxi.  24 iu.  1934  a,  n. 

xxii.  6 i.  624  a 

xxii.  14 i.  631b 


xxii.  34,  25., iii   19.39  a,  «. 

xxiii.  8,  9 i.  637  a 

xxiv.  7 i.  624  a 

xxiv.  24 iii.  2273  a 

xxvi.  5. .  .i.  576  a,  ii  912  b 

xxvi.  5,  6 ii.  912  a 

xxvi.  7 i.  633  a 

xxvi.  11 i.  681  b 

xxvi.  12 iii.  2665  a 

xxvi.  32 ii.  1090  a,  n. 

xxvii.  16 i.  625  a 

xxvii.  18 iii.  2028  a 

xxvii.  21 iv.  3540  a 

xxviii.  1-11 iii.  1938  a 

xxviii.  17 i.517  a 

xxviii.  17,  18 ii.  931  a 

xxviii.  18 i.  491  a 

xxix  6 i.  336b 

xxix.  7-9 ii.  1509  b 

xxix.  12,13 ii.  1512  a 

XXX.  l...iv.  2961b,  3099  b 
XXX.  4...i.  834  a,  ii.  1518  b 
XXX.  6,  7.  ...ii.  1089  b,  iy. 

3364  b 

XXX.  7 iii.  2111  a 

XXX.  11 i.  491b 

XXX.  18 i.  476  a 

XXX.  27.  .iii.  1865  a,  2675  a 
XXX.  29.. i,  329 a, iii. 2271b 

xxxi.  22 i.  412  a 

xxxi.  26-28 i.  141b 

xxxiii.  18,  24,  28,  30.... iU. 

2586  a 

xxxiii.  21 iii  1865  a 

xxxvi.  19.  . .  .iii.  1939  a,  n. 

xxxvii.  3,  11, 15 ii. 

1090  a.  n. 

xxxvii.  9 iv.  3511,  a 

xxxvii.  17 iv.  3540  b 

xxxvii.  18 i.  824  a,  iii. 

1969  a,  b 

xxxvii.  22 i.  634  a,  ii. 

936  a 

xxxviii.  7 ii.  910  b,  iii. 

2176  a,  iv.  3482  a,  b 
xxxviii.  14.  .......  .i.  478  b 

xxxviii.  24 iv.  3540  a 

xxxviii.  31.  ...i.  141  b,  iii. 
2548  b,  iv.  3580  a 

xxxix.  1 ii.  1007  a 

xxxix.  13...  .iii.  2272  a,  iv. 

3118  b 

xxxix.  14 ii. 1658  b 

xxxix.  19 iv.  3240  b 

xxxix.  23 i.  160  a 

xxxix.  26 ii.  1010  b 

xl.  l.i ii.  1045  a,  n. 

xl  15-24 i.  268  a,  b, 

269  a  b,  ii.  1079  b 

xl.24 ii.  1086  a, 

xii i.  674  a 

xii.  2....i.  829a,  ii.  1086a 
iii.  2693  b 

xii.  7 i.829a 

xii.  10 i.  674  a,  n. 

xii.  11 iii.  2575  b 

xii.  15 i.  696  b 

xii.  20 ii.  1531b 

xii.  31 iii.  2160  b 

xiii.  11 i.229a 

xiii.  15 u.  1035  a 

PSALMS 

ii  2 ii.  1539  b 

ii.  7 iv.  3087  a 

iii.  4 ii.  1077  a 

iv.  2 ii.  1620  b 

V.  6 ii.  1620  b 

Tii.  14 iii.  1866  t 

viii ii.  1384a 

viii.  4-6 iv.  3462 

ix.  5,15,17 ii.  1019  a 

ix.  16 ii.  1063  b 

X.  16 ii.  1019b 

xii.  6 i.  846  a,  iii.  2696 

a,  n. 

xvi.  5 iv.  ,3357  b 

xvi.  6 i.  416  a,  492  a 

xvi.  8-11 iv.  .3462 

xvi.  10 iv.  2923a 

xviii.  2 ii.  1090  b,  n. 

xviii.  5 iv.  3064  b 


INDEX. 


iviii.  5,18 iii.  2575  b 

iviii.  7-14 i.  562  a,  n. 

STiii.  12 ii.  1020  a 

sviii.  34 i.  490  a,  iii. 

1909  a 

xviii.  34,  35 ir.  3110  a 

3dx.  4 ii.  1661  a 

six.  5. . .  i.  837  a,  iv.  3462 
xxi.  3..  .i.  562  a,  iii.  2575  a 

zxii.,  title i.  55  a 

xxii ii.  1453  b 

xxii.  13 iii.  2277  b 

xxii.  17 iv.  2923  a 

xxii.  20 i.  550  b 

xxiii  4 i.  224  a 

xxiii.  6 i.  100  b 

rxiv i.  558  b,n. 

EdT.  3 ii-  1077  a 

zxTiii.  1 iii.  2536  a 

xxviii.  2 iv.  3135  a,  n. 

xxix i.  558  b,  re. 

xxix.  3-9 iv.3208a 

xxix.9 i.603a 

XXX ii.  1290  b,  re. 

xxxi.21 ii.  1528  b,  re. 

xxxiii.  2 iii.  2629  b 

xxxiii.  14 ii.  1275  a 

xxjiv.,  title.. ..i.  21  b,  51  b 

xxxiv.  12-16 iv.3462 

xxxiv.20 ii.  1379  b 

XXXV.  7 iii.  2535  b 

XXXV.  17 i.550  b 

xxxvii.  35 i.  256  a 

zxxix ii.  1224  a 

xxxix.  1-4 iv.3462 

xl.6 iv. 3058b 

xl.6-8 iv.3462 

xl.  7 iv.  3575  b 

xli.  9 i.  52  b 

xlii.l...ii.  1006  b,  1011b, 
1077  b 

xlii.4 i.  538  a,  b 

xlii.  7(6) ii.  1047  a 

xUii.  3 iv.  3362  a,  n. 

xlv.  1 i.  377  a 

xlv.  6,  7 iv.  3087  b 

xlv.  7 1.101  a 

xlv.  8.... 1.72  b,  iii.  2040  b 

xlv.  13 iv.  3490  a 

xlviii.  7 iv.  3540  a 

xlix.  14,  15,  19. .  .ii.  912  b 

U.  18,  19 i.562b,  n. 

Iv.  21 i.  336  b 

Iviii.  4,5....1. 179b,180a 

Ivlii.  6 iv.  2933  a 

Iviii.  9 iv.  3064  b 

lix.5 ii.  1019b 

llx.  10 iii-  2575  a 

lx.3 i.  862a 

Ix.  8 iv.  2838  a 

Ixii Ii.  1224  a 

Ixiii.  10 1.  840  a 

Ixviii i.  558  b,562a, 

ii.  1290  b,  re. 

Ixviii.  Ir,  24 Iv.  3484  a 

Ixviii.  7 ii.  1343  b 

Ixviii.  13  ....1.478  b,  614 
a,  re. 

Ixviii.  14 iv  3065  a 

Ixviii.  15 ii.  lU77  a 

Ixviii.  20 iv  2857  b 

Ixviii.  25.... iii.  1921  b,re. 

Ixviii.  29 ii.  922  b 

Ixviii.  30 iii.  2526  a 

Ixviii.  31 1.  393  b 

Ixxii.  10, 15 ii.  1738  a 

Ixxli.  20 111.2619  b 

Uxlv.  2 Iv.  2959  b 

Ixxiv.  4 i.  743  a 

Ixxiv.  8 ii.  1004  b 

Ixxiv.  9 Iii.  2620  b 

Ixxiv.  13, 14 1.674  a 

Ixxiv.  14 11.  1637  a 

Ixxiv.  17 1.436  b 

Ixxiv.  20 iv.  3213  b 

Ixxv.  8 ii.  1627  a,  iv. 

3542  a,  3543  a,  3544  a 

ixxvi.  1,2.  ..11.  1271b,  n., 

iii.  19"*4  b,  n. 

Uivi.lO iii.  2206  b 

(ixvi.  11 ii.  922  b 

Xxvii 11.  1224  a 


Ixxvli.  15-20. . .  iii.  2692  a 

Ixxvii.  16 iv.  2960  a 

Ixxvil.  18 iv.  3-511  a 

Ixxvii.  20 iv.  2961  b 

Ixxviii ii.  1351  b 

Ixxviii.  9 i.  752  b 

Ixxviii.  18,  41, 56 iv. 

3207  a 

Ixxviii.  23 1.  631  b 

Ixxviii.  27 iii.  2649  b 

Ixxviii.  39 iv.  3541  a 

Ixxviii.  40 11.  1343  b 

Ixxviii.  60 ii.  1070  b 

Ixxviii.  63 iii.  1805  b,n. 

Ixxix.  6 iii.  2620  b 

Ixxix.  8 iii.  2575  a 

Ixxix.  12 1.622  a 

Ixxx 1.67  a,  386  b 

Ixxx.  8,  10 iv.  34i6b 

Ixxxi.  9 ii.  1130  b,  re. 

Ixxxl.  16 1.  262  b 

Ixxxii.  1,  6 1509  a 

Ixxxii.  6 iv.  3087  a 

Ixxxiii.  12 iv.  3595  a 

Ixxxiii.  13 iv.  3122  b 

Ixxxiv.  3 1.  840  a,  iv. 

3097  b 

Ixxxiv.  6 iii.  2035  a 

Ixxxvii.  4 iii.  2664  b 

Ixxxvii.  5. . .  .Iii.  2606  a,  n. 

Ixxxvu.  7 iii.  2038  b 

Ixxxviil.  10 1.675  a 

Ixxxviii.  11 1.127  a 

Ixxxviil.  13 ill.  2575  a 

Ixxxix.  8 ii.  1196  a 

1  xxxix.  12 ii.  1047  a 

Ixxxix.  27 1.  310  a,  11. 

1275  a 

xc.  2 iii.  2264  b 

xc.  10 iii.  2023  b 

xcll.3..ui.  2040  b,  2629  b, 
iv.  2996  a 

xcii.  4 11. 1063  b 

xcii.  10 1.  100  b 

xcix.  1 iii.  1895  a 

cii.  6 Hi.  2275  b 

ell.  7 Iv.  3098  a 

cii.  17 11. 1018  a,  re. 

cli.  26 1.  624  b 

ciii.  5 1.629  b 

cill.  16 iv.  3.541  a 

civ.  2 1.  519  a 

civ.  3 i.824  b 

civ.  4 iv.  3541  a 

civ.  12 Iv.  3098  b 

civ.  17 ill.  2107  b,  iv. 

3120  a 
civ.  26. .  .ii.  1636  a,  1637  b 

cv 1.  156  a 

cv.  15.U.  1347  b,  iii.  2,592  b 

cvl.  14 ii. 1343b 

cvi.  20 1.345  b 

cvl.  28 ii.  1127  b 

evil.  4 ii.  1343  b 

cvii.  38 iv.  3520  b 

cviii.  9 iv.  2838  a 

ex.  1 Iv.  3090  a,  re. 

ex.  4 iii.  1877  a 

cxi.  1 ii.  1345  a 

cxi.  5,  10 iii.  1846  b 

cxiii.-cxviil i.  67  a 

cxiii.-cxlv 11.  1376  a 

cxiii ii.  998  a 

cxiii.  7 i.627b 

cxv.-cxviii ii.  1376  a 

cxviii.  22 i.  499  b 

cxviii.  25 ii.  1093  b 

cxix.  83 1.  319  b 

cxix.  147, 148. .  .iii.  2575  a 

cxix.  166 iii.  2209  a 

exx.  4 i.  161  a,  473  a 

cxxi.  6 iii.  200 S  a 

cxxiv.  7 iv.  3099  a 

cxxvi.  6 iv.  3096  a 

cxxvii.  1 iv.  3486  b 

cxxviii.  3. . .  .11.  1104  b,  iv. 

3446  b 

cxxix.  6,  7 11.  1106  a 

cxxxii.  b 11.  1566  b 

cxxxlii.  2 ii.  1066  a 

exxxiii.  3.ii.  1047  a,  1048  b 
oxxxiv 11.  1644  b,  re 


cxxxvi.  15 iii.  2465  a 

cxxxvii.  2 iv.  3538  a 

cxxxix.  24 iv.  3488  b 

cxi.  3 i.  29  a 

cxli.  6 ii.  1391b,  re. 

cxliii.  7 iii.  2536  a 

cxllv.  9 iu.  2629  b 

cxlvill.  4 1.  631  b 

cxlix.,  heading. . .  .iv.  3437 
a,  re. 

PROVERBS, 
i.  9 iii.  2269  a 

I.  17 Hi.  2108  a,  re. 

ii.  16.  ...Iv.  3074  a,  .3121  a 

II.  17 iii.  1804  b,  »i 

ii.  18 i.  575  a 

iii.  10 iv.  3545a 

iv.  9 Iii.  2269a 

V.  16 Iv.  3123  a 

V.  19 11. 1195b 

vl.  5 iv.  3163  a 

vl.  30,  31 iv.  2739  a 

vii.  6 iv.  3539  b 

vii.  12 iv.  3123  a 

vii.  22 iv.  3115  b 

viil  ,  ix ii.  1409  a,  re. 

via.  2 ii.  1138  b 

viii.  23 iii.  2264  b 

ix.  1-3 iv.  3081  b,  re. 

ix.  2,  5 Iv.  3544  a 

ix.  14 iv.3240a 

ix.  18 1.  575  a 

xi.  22 HI.  2269  a 

xii.  12 iii.  2107  b 

XV.  17.11. 1045  b,  ill.  1842  b 

XV.  24 ii.  1038a 

xvl.  11..  1.  229  b,  ii.  1619  a 

xvi.  15 1.  471  b 

xvl.  33 ii.  1687  b 

xvii.  3 iii.  1940  a 

xvii.  18 ii.  1668  a 

xvii.  23 1.  622  a 

xviii.  19 Iv.  3632  a,  re. 

xix.  13 ii.  1106  a 

xix.  24.  .i.  490  a,  516  b,  iii. 

1844  b 

XX.  15 iii.  2269  a 

xxi.  1 i.  868  b 

xxi.  14 i.622a 

xxi.  16 ii.912a  b 

xxii.  13 iv.  3123  a 

xxii.  23 n.  1512  a 

xxii.  26 11  1668a 

xxii.  29 iii.  1845  b 

xxiii.  11 11. 1.512  a 

xxiii.  30..  iv.  3542  a,  3544  a 
xxiii.  34,  35.  .iii.  2616  a,  re. 

xxiv.  31 ii.  1034  a 

XXV.  11 iii.  2525  b 

XXV.  12 iii    2269a 

XXV.  13 Iv.  3U65a 

XXV.  18 Ii.  988  b 

XXV.  20 iii.  2174  b 

XXV.  22 1.  473  a 

XXV.  23 iv.  3540  a 

xxvi.  3 ii.  1092  b 

xxvi.  8 iv.  3062  b 

xxvi.  10 iv.  2731  b 

xxvi.  15.1.  516  b, ill.  1844  b 

xxvi.  21 1.  473  a 

xxvH.  15.i.  626a,ii.  1106  a 

xxvii.  21 Iii.  1940  a 

xxvii.  22 iii.  2015  b 

XXX.  l...iii.  1829b,  2614  b 

XXX.  4 1.  624  a 

XXX.  8 1.  489a 

XXX.  25 i.  102  b 

XXX.  31 ii.  1093  a 

XXX.  33 1.  3.36  b 

xxxi 1.  255  b 

xxxi.  1 iv.  3075  a,  re. 

xxxi.  6 1.862  a 

xxxi.  9 ii.  1512  a 

xxxi.  13,  19,  24.  .iv.  3489  a 

xxxi.  21 iv.  3065  a 

xxxi.  22 ii.  1662  a,  iv. 

3035  a, rt. 
xxxi.  24 Iv.  2964  a 

ECCLESIASTES. 
ii.  7 11.  1018  b 


3059 

ii.  8 Hi.  2040  b 

xi.  1 1.  246  b,  247  a 

xii iii.  1867  a 

xu.  3 iv.  3539  b 

xii.  4.  .1.  551  a.  Hi  1935  a, 
iv.  3098  b 

xii.  5 H.  981b,  1525  b 

xii.  6 i.  320  b,  491b 

xii.  11 in.  18.30  a 

CANTICLES. 

i.  5 1.  519  a,  iv.  3210  a 

1.9 ...H.  1092  a 

i.  10 i.  407  a 

1.10,11 in.  2268  b 

1.  13 Hi. 2436b 

1.  14 1. 350  a.  Hi.  2280  b 

1.17 1.862  k 

ii.  1 1.  478  b 

ii.  3 1.131  a 

H.  5.  ...i.  831a,  iv.  3542  b 

ii.  7 ii.  1077  b 

u.  9 iv.  3539  b 

H.  11-13 in.  2667  a 

H.  13 1.478  a 

iii.  5 ii.  1077  b 

iU.  6 iii.  2436  b 

iv.  l,3.n.981  b,iv.  3-370a 

iv.  4,  5 ii.  1.5-32  b,  n. 

iv.  4,  9 Hi.  2268  b,  n. 

iv.  8.  ...1.  79  b,  ii.  1046  b, 
1088  b,  1624  a 

iv.  9 n.  982  a 

Iv.  13 i.  350  a 

iv.  16 iv.  3540  a 

V.  7 1.  622  b 

V.  11 H.981b 

V.  12,  14 IH   2268  b,  n. 

V.  14 1.  283  a,  .322  b 

vl.  4 iv.  2796  a 

vl.  7.  ..u.  981  b,  iv.  3-370  a 
vl.  10. Hi.  2007a,  re., 2008  a 
vl.  12.  ..1.83  b,  Hi.  2264  b 

vi.  13 1.  538  b 

vH.  1 iH.  2268  b,  re. 

vii.  2. .  .1.  498  a,  ii.  1666  b, 
iv.  3542  a 
vu.  4. . .  .1.  828  b,  ii.  1056  b 
vii.  5...i.  479  b,  862  b,  ii. 
981  b,  982  a,  b 
vlH.  6.  .1.158  a,  Hi.  2268  b 

ISAIAH. 

1.1 H.  1149  a 

1.8 1  261  b,,518a 

1.  17 H.  1512  a 

1.  18 i.  480  b 

1.22 iv.  3543  b 

1.  25.iu.2696b,iv.  3066  b, 

3260  b 

H.  2-4 H.  1151b 

H.  6 1.  607  a 

H.  9 Hi.  1845  b 

H.  10,  19,  21 1.397  b 

ii.  12 H.  1243  b 

H.  20 iH.  1991a 

Hi.  6,  7 1.625  a 

iH.  16 in.  2280  b 

Hi.  16,18,  20,  23.  ..1.407  a 
Hi.  18.  ..i.  347  b,  n.,396a 

Hi.  18,22 ii.  982  b 

iH.  18-23.  . .  .Hi.  2269  a,  re. 

iH.  19. .  i.  630  b,  Iv.  3-370  a 

Hi.  20.  ...1.  99a,  630  b,  H 

929  a,  982  b,  iii.  24.36  a 

iH.  21.  ...1.89  b,  iii.  1804  a 

iH.22..i.  225b,508a,  622 

a,  b,  625  a,  Iv.  3539  b 

iii.  23.  .1.622  b,  H.  1016  b. 

Hi.  1971  a,  iv.  2964  a 

iH.  24.  .1  622  b,  H.  929  a, 

982  a,  iii.  2437  a,  iv. 

3116  a 

iv.  1 iH.  I8o2  b 

iv.  5 lv.2960a 

V.  2 iv.  3030  a,  3095  b 

V.  5 n.  1034  a 

V.  10 iv.  8582  b 

V.  15 Hi  1845  b 

v.  22 iv.3544a 

V.  24....  i.  403  b,n.  1012a 
vl.  1. .., H.  1775  b 


3660 

rl.  2 i.624b 

Ti.  6 i.4V3a 

Ti.  13 iii.  2200  b 

tii.  1&-22 i.  336  b 

vii.  18 i.  263  a,  669  a 

vii.  20  .  .i.  258  b,  ii.  982  b 

Tii. 22 iii. 1934a 

Tiii.  1 iii.  1971  a,  iv. 

2740  a 

Tiii.  14 iii.  2209  a 

Tiii.  19 iii.  2404  a,  iy. 

2708  a,  3310  a 

Tiii.  21.  .i.  283  a,  ii.  1762  b 

ix.  l....iT.  2799  a,  3246  a, 

n.,  3445  a,  3597  b 

ix.  1,2 iT.  3464 

ix.  3.  .iii.  2227  a,  iv.  2924  b 

ix.  6 ii.  1532  b 

ix.  9-19 ii.  1546  a 

Is.  14 i.  331b 

E.  5 ii.  1059  a 

X.  14.  ..iii.  2404  a,  iT.  3310 
a,  n. 

X.  17 i.  327  b 

X.  18 i.  743  a,  820  a 

X.  28 i.  392  a 

X.  28-32. .  .i.  877  a,  ii.  916 

a,  iii.  2669  b 

X.  29 ii.  1675  a 

X.  30  i.  285  a,  n.,ii. 

1581b 

■A ii.l059  a 

xi.4 i.lllb 

xi  7 ii.  1045  b 

xi.  15 iii.  2153  a,  2685 

a,  iv.  2837  a,  n. 

xii.  2 ii.  1195  b 

xiii.  4 i.  634  a 

xiii.  14 iii.  1941  b,  n. 

xiii.  21 i.l20a 

xiv.  1 iv.  3121b,  n. 

xiv.  4 i.  271  a,  n.,  iii. 

2608  a 

xiT.  5 ii.  1512  a 

xiv.  9 ii.  933  a,  b,  iv. 

2708  b 

xiv.  22 iv.  3057  b 

xiv.  29 iv.  2929  b 

XV.  2 i.  231  b,283b 

XV.  3 ii.  1106  a 

XV.  5...i.  270b,ii.  103»  b, 
1044  b,  iv.  3640  b 

XV.  7 iv.  3538  b 

xvi.  1 ii.  1523  b 

XTi.  5 iii.  1984  b,  n. 

xvi.  6 iii.  1985  a,  n. 

xvi.  8 i.  820  a 

xvi.  9,10 iv.  3541  a 

xvi.  10. .  .i.  820  a,  iii.  1985 
a,  n. 

xvi.  11 ii.  1005  b 

xvii.  2 i.  165  b 

xvii.  8 ii.  1120  b 

xvii.  9 i.  8.37  b 

xviii.  l..i.  780  a,  iii.  2150  a 

xviii.  2 i.  81  a,  673  a, 

780  a,  iii.  2150  b,  2532  b 

xviii.  7 ii.922b 

xix.  5.  ..iii.  2150  b,  2153  a, 

2682  b,  n.,  2685  a 

xix.  7.  .i.  673  a,  ii.  1465  b, 

n.,  iii.  2153  a,  2327  b, 

2695  a 

Xix.  8 iii.  2108  a 

'  Xix.  8.10 iii.  2153  b 

xix.  9 iv.  3035  a.  n., 

3489  a 
Xix.  10. .  .i.  829  b,  iii.  2562 

b,  iv.  3062  b 

Xix.  15 i.  3.31  b 

xix.  18.  ..ii.  985  b,  1390  a, 

iii.  2252  a,  2502  a,  iv. 
2975  a 

xix.  18, 19 ii!.  2634  b 

xix.  22 i.  743b 

IX.  2. .  .i.  620  b,  iv.  28.38  a 

Sxi  5 i.  101  a 

Jtxi  7 i.  347  a 

xxi.  11,  12 iv.  2922  a 

sxi.  13 i.  636  b 

ixi.  14 iii.  2.575  a 

txii.  1,5 U  1078  a 


INDEX. 


xxii.  1-7 ii.  1059  b 

xxii.  2 ii.  1156  a,  n. 

xxii.  8 i.l58  b,603a 

xxii.  12-14 ii.  1059  b 

xxii.  15 i.  699  a,  b,  iv 

3081a 

xxii.  15-25 ii.  1540  b 

xxii  16,18 u.  10.58  a 

xxii.  18 i.393  b 

xxii.  21... i.  625  a,  ii. 929b 

xxii.  24 iii.  2629  b 

xxiii.  4 iii.  1840  b 

xxiii.  8 i.  3^1  b 

xxiii.  11 i.  361  b 

xxiii.  17 iii.  1807  a,  n. 

xxiv.  18 i.  631  b 

sxiv.  20.  ...i.  261  b,501  b 

xxiv.  23 iii.  2007  a,  n. 

XXV.  2 iii.  1985  b 

XXV.  10 ii.  173Sa 

XXV.  12 iii.  1971  a 

xxvi.  4 ii.  1195  b 

xxvi.  14, 19.  ...ii.  912  a,  b 

xxvi.  18 iii.  1866  b 

xxvii.  1. . .  .i.  674  a,  ».,  ii. 

1637  b 

xxvii.  1,13 ii.  1156  a 

xxvii.  3 ii.  1411  a 

xxvii.  4 i.  327  b 

xxvii.  8.  .iv.  3540  a,  3541  a 

xxvii.  9 iii.  2548  a,  n. 

xxvii.  13. . . .  ii.  1485  a,  n. 

xxviii.  14 ii.  1057  b 

xxviii.  16 iv.  3465 

xxviii.  17 i.  492  a 

xxviii.  21.. i.  209  a,  558  a, 
n.,  iii.  2435  b 

xxviii.  25 i.  498  a,  iv. 

3096  b,  3511  a 

xxix.  1 iii.  1984  b,  n. 

xxix.  1,  2,7..ii.  1271  b  n. 

xxix.  4 iv.  3.310  a 

xxix.  11 iv.  3575  b 

xxix.  17 i.  820  a 

XXX.  6.  ...iv.  2929  b,  3.535 
b,  n. 

XXX.  7 iii.  2665  a 

XXX.  9 ii.  1158  a,  n. 

XXX.  20 i.  324  a 

XXX.  24.  ...i.  182  b,  629  b, 
ii.  1045  b 

XXX.  26 iii.  2007  a,  n. 

XXX.  33 i.  328  a,  iii. 

1991b 

xxxi.  1 ii.  1775  a 

xxxi.  8 iii.  1845  b 

xxxii.  14 iii.  2257  b 

xxxii.  15,16 i.820a 

xxxii.  20.  ...i.  42  a,  246  b, 

247  a,  iv.  3096  b,  3511  a 

xxxiii.  11 i.  406  b,  ii. 

1012  a 
xxxiii.  12. . .  .ii.  1661  a,  iv. 

3238  b 

xxxiii.  22 iv.  3416  a 

xxxiv.  6 i.  636  b 

xxxiv.  8 ii.  1243  b 

xxxiv.  11 i.  492  a,  iii. 

2406  b 

xxxiv.  13.  ...ii.  1626a,  n., 

iii.  2271  b 

xxxJt.  14. . .  iii.  2149  a,  iv. 

3430  a 
xxxiv.  15. .  .iii.  2276  a,  iv. 

3482  b 

xxxvi ii.  1060  a 

xxxvi.  2 iii.  2659  a 

xxxvi.  6 i.  669  a,  ii.  997 

b,  iii.  2467  b 

xxxvi.  9 iv.  3312  b 

xxxvi  11 iT.3430a 

xxxvi.  11,  13. . .  .ii.  985  b, 

iv.  2975  a 

xxxvi.  15, 16. ii.  1153  b,  n. 

xxxvii.  22-36.  ...ii.  1540a 

xxxvii.  24 i.  820  a 

xxxvii.  25 i.  827  a 

xxxvii.  27 i.  820  a,  ii. 

1045  a,  n.,  1106  a 

xxxvii.  29 ii.  1092  b 

xxxvii.  30 Ii.  1485  b,  n. 

xxxvu.  33  iv.  3484  b 


xxxviii.  1 iv.  3539  b 

xxsviii.  8.  ...i.  598  a,  ii. 

1101  b 
xxxviii.  12... ii.  1013b,  iv. 

3211b 

xxxviii.  14. . .  .i.  505  b,  iv. 

3310  b,  n. 

xxxviii.  21 iii.  1859  a 

xxxix.  2 iv.  3102  b 

xl.3 iv.  3167  b 

xl.  12 i.  229  b,  840  b 

xl.  15 i.  229  a 

xl.  22 i.  631b,  633  b 

xli.  2 ii.  1737  b,  iv. 

3122  b 

xli.   14 ii.  1767  a 

xli.  19 iii.  2213  b 

xliii.  1 iii.  2063  a 

xliii.  20 iii.  2271b 

xliv.  5 i.  522  a 

xliv.  12 i.473a 

xliv.  13 ii.  1661a 

xliv.  14 i.  523  a 

xliv.  26,  28 Jv.  3338  a 

xliv.  28 ii.  1736  a 

xiv.  1 i.  101a 

xiv.  13 iv.  3338  a 

xlvi.  1 i.  392  a 

xlvi.  6 i.  229  b,  iii. 

1995  b 

xlvi.  11.  ...i.  629  b,  637  a, 

ii.  1737  b 

xlvii.  2.  ...i.  622  b,  624  b, 

ii.  981  b,  iv.  3370  a 

xlvii.  5,  6 iv.  3338  a 

xlvii.  12,  13 ii.  1751b 

xlix.  22 i.  425  a 

Ii.  3, 11,17-23.  ..iv.  8338  a 

Ii.  8 • iv.  3557  b 

)ii.  2,  9 iv.  3338  a 

liii iii.  2235  a 

liii.  4 m.  2464  b,  iv. 

3464 

liii.  9 ii.  1474  b 

liii.  10 i.  112  b 

liv.  2 i.  519  a 

liv.  11 iii.  2280  b 

liv.  11,  12,  14,17 ii. 

1067  b 

liv.  12 i.  387  b 

liv.  13 ii.  1067  a 

liv.  16 i.  473  a 

Iv.  1 IT.  3543  a,  n. 

Iv.  3 iii.262iia 

Iv.  12 iii.  1887b 

Iv.  13 i.  327  b 

lvi.7 ii. 1360a 

Ivi.  10 iv.  3099  b 

Ivii.  6 iv.  3116  b 

Ivii.  7 ii.  1129  a 

Ivii.  9 iii.  1991b 

lix.  11 i.  258a 

lix.  17 ii.  973  a 

lix.  19 i.  743a 

Ix.  1 ii.  1067  a 

Ix.  6.  ...1.348  a,  ii.  1738  a 

Ix.  7 iv.  3017ai 

Ix.  8 i.  614b  ! 

Ix.  13 iii.  2213  b! 

lx.16 iii.  1934a| 

Ix.  22 ii.962b 

Ixi.l ii.  1362a 

Ixi.  1,  2 iv.  3465 

Ixi.  3 ii.  1016b 

Ixi.  10 ii.  1016  b,  iii. 

1804  b 
Ixii.  1,  2.  . .  .ii.  1067  a,  iii. 

2063  a 
Ixii.  3.... ii.  1016  b,  1067  a 

Ixii.  4,  6 ii.  1772  a 

Ixii.  11 iv.  2857  b 

Ixiii.  1 i.480b 

Ixiii.  9 iv. 2993b 

Ixiv.  6 iv.  3541  a 

Ixiv.  10,11 iv.  3338  a 

Ixv.  3 i.  77  a 

lxv.4 i.  606  b 

Ixv.  6,  7 i.  622  a 

Ixv.  11.  . .  .i.  141  b,  850  b, 
iii.  1886  b,  iv.  3542  a 

Ixv.  15 iii.  2063  a 

Ixv.  16 i.  82  a 


IxT.  17-22. .  .Ui.  2478  a,  n. 

Ixv.  25 ii.  1045  b 

Ixvi.  12 i.  425  a 

Ixvi.  17 iii.  2033  a,  b 

Ixvi.  20 i.  348  b 

Ixvi.  24 iv.  3558  a 

JEREMIAH. 

i.11,12 i.70a 

ii.  2 iT.3518b,n. 

ii.  14-16 ii.  1775  a 

ii.  21 iv.  3095  b 

ii.  23.  ...i.348a,  ii.  1078  a 
ii.  32. .  .ii.  929  a,  iii.  1805  a 

iii.  6 ii.  1064  a 

iii.  16 i.l55b 

iii.  24 u.  1167  b 

iv.  4 i.  465  a 

iv.  11 iv.  3541  a 

iv.  20 i.  519  a 

iv.26 i.  820a 

iv.  30 iii.  2280  a 

V.  1 iv.  3123  a 

V.  27.  ...i.  340  b,  8.39  b,  iv. 
3098  b 

vi.  1 iv.  3447  b 

vi.  6 i.  736  b 

vi.  10 i.  465  a 

vi.  20 iii.  2695  b 

vi  28 i.323  a 

vi.  29 iii.  2696  b 

vi.  30 iv.  3042  a 

Tii.  11 ii.  1360  a 

Tii.  18 iii.  2008  b 

vii.  31 ii.  1064b 

vii.  32 ii.  1279  b 

vii.  33 ).  842  b 

vii.  34 iii.  1805  b,  n. 

viii.  7 i.  505  b 

viii.  14 i.  862  a 

Tiii.  16 ii.  1581b 

viii.  19 iv.  3121  a 

ix.  21 iv.  3123  a 

ix.24 i   464b 

ix.26 ii. 1128b 

ix.  9 iii.  2258  b 

X.  11 iv.  3416  a 

X.  20 i.  b\%t. 

xi  13 ii.  1167  b 

xi.  23 ii.  1486  a 

xii.  9 ii.  1111a 

xiii.  18 iii.  2587  b 

xiii.  22 i.  622  b 

xiii.  22,26 i.  624  b 

xiii.  24 iv.  3640  a 

XT.  9 i.  654  a 

XT.  12 iU.  1909  a 

XT.  18 i.  577  b 

xvi.  7...  i.  325  b,  ii.  1681b, 
1682  a,  n. 

xvi.  9 ii.  972  a 

xvii.  1 i.  27  b 

xvii.  11 iii.  2339  a 

xvii.  21 ii.  1363  a 

xviii.  3 iii.  1870  a,  n. 

xviii.  14 iv.  3065  a 

xviii.  17 iv.  3541  a 

XX.  1 ii.  1069  a 

xxi.  1,2 ii.  1072  a 

xxii.  20 i.  8  a 

xxiii.  8 iv.  3167  b 

xxiii.  10 iii  2203  b 

xxiii.  33  £f. i.  aSl  b 

xxiv.  2 ii.  1531  b 

XXV.  1 i.  539  a,  n. 

XXV.  23.  ...ii.  981  a,  1128  b 

XXV.  30 iv.  3541  a 

xxT.  38 i.  614  b 

xxvi.  23 ii.  1534  a 

xxvii.  1 iii.  1986  a,  «., 

iv.  3611  b,  n. 

xxix.  2 ii.  1708  a 

xxix.  26 ii.  1733  b,  iv. 

3318  b 

XXX.  6 i.  478  a 

XXX.  9 iii.  2620  a 

XXX.  13 ii.  1512  a 

xxxi.  15.  ...iii.  2659  b  n., 
2670  a,  iv.  3464 

xxxi.  27 ii.  1393  b 

xxxi.  31-34 ii.  1681 1 

xxxi.  33 iv.  3213t 


INDEX. 


Dxi  40.  ...i.  171  a,  §20  a, 
ii.  1078  H.lo*!  a 

sxxii.  4 iv.  3613  b 

sxxii.  6-12 ii    1486  a 

XKxii.  10  £f i.  786  1) 

sxxii.  14 i.  471  a 

xxxii.  18 i.  622  a 

sxxii.  24 i.  736  b,  ii. 

1288  b 

xxxiii.  4 ii.  1288  b 

xxxiv.  5 ii.  1481  a 

xxxiv.  8-16.   .il.  1603  b, «. 
sxxiv.  12-17....ii.  1609  b 

xxxiv.  14 iv.  Boss  b 

sxxv.  3,4,  19...iii.  2680  b 

Kxxv.  6 IV.  8.544  b 

tiST.  19. . .  .iii.  2594  a,  «., 

26Slb 

ixxvi.  14,  21.  . .  .ii.  1516  a 

xxxvi.  18 iv.  3576  a 

sxxvi.  23.  . .  .iv.  2740  b,  «., 
3575  b 

xxxvii.  15 iii.  2589  a 

sxxvii.  21.  ...i.323  b,  324 

a,  ii.  1792  b 

Kcxviii.  4,  2,  14-27.  . .  .ii. 

1540  a 

xxxviii.  6 i.  466  a 

si.  4 i.  489  a 

si.  7, 13 ii.  1172  a,  «. 

sli.  5.... u.  1289b, iv. 2955 

b,  3000  a 

sU.  7... u.  1013b,  ».,  1172 

b,  a. 

xli.  17.  .i.  294  a,  426  a,  n., 

ii.  1138  b 

liiii.  6,  7 iii.  2635  a 

xliii.  10 iii.  2402  b 

xliii.  12 i.  624  b 

xliii.  13 ii.  1141a, 

iii.  2252  a 

xliv.  17 iii.  2008  b 

xliv.  18, 19 iii.  2652  a 

xlvi.  1 iv.  3ill  b,  n. 

xlvi.  2 i.  639  b,  n. 

xlvi.  15 i.  315  b 

xlvi.  20 ii.  1034  b 

xlvi.  25 i.  86  a 

xlvii.  1,2 iii. 2152b, «. 

xlvii.  4 iii.  2497  a,  n. 

xlviii.  11 ii   1627  a 

xlviii.  29.  ...iii.  1985  a,  n. 

xlviii.  33 i.  820  a,  iii. 

1935  a,  n.,  iv.  3541  a 

xlviii.  34 i.  270  b,  ii. 

1034  b,  1044  b,  iv.  2940  b 

xlviii.  37 iii.  1988  a 

xlviii.  45.  . .  .iii.  1981  a,  n., 

iv.  2934  a 

xlix.  1,3 ii.  1762  b 

xlix.  28 i.  275  a 

xlix.  29 i.  519a 

xlix.  32 ii.  981  a 

I.  1 ii.  1075  a 

1.  11 ii.  965  a 

1,  23 ii.  989a 

1.  34 ii.  1512a 

I.  3-J i.  219b 

II.  20.. ii.  988  b,  iii.  1840  a 
Ii.  32.  .i.  785  a,  iii.  2693  b 

ti.  36 ii.  1512  a 

Ii.  58 ii.  972  a 

Ui.  4 iv.  3484  b 

Iii.  18 i.  253  a 

Iii.  21 iv.  2992  b.  »i. 

Ui.  29 i.  446  a,  n. 

Iii.  31 i.  446  b.  ?j. 

iii.  2005  a,  >i. 

LAMENTATIONS. 

1.6 ii.  1006b 

H.  3 ii.  1091a 

Ii.  4 ii.  1289  a 

ii.  6 iii.  1984  b,  n. 

Ii.  8 i.  492  a 

U.  13 i.  759  a 

«.  19 i    434  b,  n. 

Iii.  62 ii.  1063  b 

'v.  1 ii.  936  a 

V.  4 ii.   1682  a,  n. 

V.  5 i.  627  b 


iii.  2076  a 

iv.  8. i.  473  a 

iv.  20 ii    1539  b 

V.  13 iii.   1935  b 

EZEKIKL. 

i.  3 iv.  3362   b,  n. 

i.  4,  27 iii.  1909  a 

i.  5   £f iv.  2927  a 

i.  22 i.  617  a,  ii.  931  a 

ii.  6 i.327b 

iii.  9 i.  27  b 

iii.  14 iv.  33)2  b,  n. 

iii.  15 iv.  3318  b 

iv.  2 iii.  2669  a,  iv. 

34S4b 

iv.  12,  15 i.  325  a 

V.  2 iv.  3212  a 

vii.  21 ii.  1019a 

viii.  2 iii.  1909  a 

viii.  3..ii.  982  a,  iv.  3318  b 

viii.  7-12 ii.  1752  a 

viii.  12.  .ii.  1120  b,  1133  a 

viii.  16  iii.  2565  b 

viii.  17 ii.  1129  b 

ix.  2 ii.  929  b 

ix.  2,  3 iv.  3.576  a 

ix.  3 iv.  3239  b 

ix.  4 i.  522a 

ix.  4,  5,  6 i.  837  a 

x.  4,18 iv.  3239  b 

X.    12 iv.  2927  a 

X.  13 iv.  3511a 

X.  14 i.  421a 

xi.  15,  16.  ..iv.  3134  b,  h. 

xii.  13 iv.  3613b 

xii.  25 ii.  972  a 

xiii.   10 iii.  2016  a 

xiii.ll,  13 iii.   2403  a 

xiii.  17  ff ii.  1752  a 

xiii.  18 ii.  1017  a 

xiii.  18,  21 iii.  2.532  b 

xiii.  18,21 iv.3370a 

xiii.  19 i.  247  a,  840  b 

xvi.  3,  45 ii.luSlb 

xvi.  8 i.  624  a 

xvi.  10 ii.  1017  a,  iv. 

2837  a 

xvi.  12 i.  837  b 

xvi.  16 ii  KI64  b 

xvi.  31 ii.  1064  b 

xvi.  36.  ...i.  323  a,  490  b, 
iii.  1995  b 

xvii.  5  i.  820a 

xvii.  17 iv.  3484  b 

xvii.  19 ii.  1144  a 

xviii.  6 ii.  1064  a 

xix.  4 ii.  1086  a 

xix.  11,12 iv.  3447  a 

XX.  29 i.  231a 

xxi.  2 iii.  2590  b 

xxi.  19-22 ii.  1745  a 

xxi.  21.  .i.  607  b,  ii.  1687  b, 

1752  a 

xxi.  22 iv.  3484  b 

xxi.  27 iv.  2998  b 

xxii.  28 ii.  1752  a 

xxiii.  12.  ...i.  480  a,  619  b 

xxiii.  14 ii.  1133  b 

xxiii.  15....i.  697  b,  619  b 

xxiii.  40 iii.  1805  a 

xxiii.  41 ii.  1129  a 

xxiv.  17 i.  844  b,  ii. 

981  a,  1681  b 

xxiv.  17,23 ii.  1016  b, 

iv.  28.33  a 

xxiv.  23,24 iii.  2620  a 

XXV.  4 iii.  1934  a  iv. 

2989  b 

XXV.  4,10 i.  275  a 

xxvi.  8 i.  736  b,  iv. 

3484  b 

xxvi.  9 i.  736  a 

xxTi.  11 i.  870b 

xxvii.  5 i.  400  a, 

ii.  1046  b 

xxvii.  6.  ...i.321  b,  427  a, 

iv.  3019  a 

xxvii.  9 i.   693  b,  iii. 

2208  a 
xxvii.  12 i.  809  b 


xxvii.  14 i.  157  b 

xxvii   16.  ...i.  491  a,  729 
a,  b,  iii.  2208  a 

xxvii.  17 i.  834   b,  ii. 

1085  b,  iii.  2619  a,  n., 
iv.  3544  a 

xxvii.  19 i.  394  b,  ii. 

1143  a.  iv.  3365  a 
xxvii.  19,  21,  22. iii.  2208  a 

xxvii.  22,  23 iv.  2951a 

xxvii.  23 i.  426  a 

xxvii.  26 iv.  3540  a 

xxvii.  27 iii.  2208  a 

xxviii.  4,  39.  ...iv.  3489  b 
xxviii.  13.  . .  .iv.  3250  a,  b 
xxviii.  14,  16.  .i.  421  b.  n. 

xxix.  3,  4,5 i.  674  a 

xxix.  3,9 iii.  2684  a 


xxix.  6 
xxix.  18. 
XXX.  2. 


T.  7.  ...i.  478 b. iv. 3U65  a    xxvii.  13 ii.  1417  a 


....iii.  2532  b 

....iv.   3.552a 

XXX.  14,16 iv.  3216  a 

XXX.  21 iii.  1870  a 

xxxi.  3 i.  837  b 

xxxi.  14,  16.  ...iii.  2536a 
xxxi.  14-18.. ii.  1164a,  n. 

xxxii.  18,24 iii.  2536  a 

xxxii.  18-32.. ii.  1164a,  n. 
xxxvi.  9,  10.... ii.  1393b 

xxxviii.  5 ii.  1691b 

xxxviii.  11 ii.  1016  a 

xxxviii.  12 i.  633  b 

xxxviii.  22 iii.  24ii3a 

xl.  3 ii.  1578  b 

xl.  24 i.  6.33  b 

xli.  11 iii.  2226  b 

xli.  15 i.  862  b 

xli.  22 i.  76  b 

xiii.  3,  6,  6 i.  862  b 

xiii.  10 u.  1034  a 

xliii.  7,9 iv.  2959  b 

xliii.  7-9 iv.  3204  a 

xliv.  16 i.  74  b 

xliv.  30 i.  324  a 

xlv.  12 u.  1510  a 

xlvi.  23 ii.  1106  b 

xlvu.  19.  ...iv.  3172  a,  n. 

DANIEL. 

i.  1 i.  446  », n. 

i.  4 i.  410  a 

i.  10 ii.  16.58  b 

i.  11,  16 iii.  1881a 

i.  17 iii.  2.598  a 

ii.  5 i.  627  b 

ii.  31 i.  787  a 

iii.  2 ii   1658  a 

iii.  6,15 i.  4.34  a 

iii.  19 iv.  3173  a 

iii.  21.  ..i.  597  a,  623  b,  ii. 

1017  b 
iii.  25.. iii.  2176  a,  iv.  3087  b 

iii.  29 i.  627  b 

iv.  16 iii.  2088  b,  n. 

iv.  33.. iii.  1866a, 2087  b,ra. 

V.  1  ff iv.  3542  a 

V.  2 i.273b 

V.  5 iii.  2548  a 

V.  7,  16,  29 i.  479  b 

V.16 i.  603b 

V.  27 i.  229  b 

V.  31 i.219a 

vi.  l..ii.  1658  a,  iii.  2587  b 

vi.  3,  16,26 ii.  1736  a 

vi.  18 iii   2040  b 

vi.  24 iii.  2264  b 

vii.  1 iii.  2598  b 

vii.  9 ii.  981b 

vii.  13.. ii.  1384 a, iv.  3092  a 
vii   25.  .i.  435  b,  iv.  2935  b 

viii.  3 ii.  1091  a 

viii.  5-7 i.  61b 

viii.  7 i.  116  a 

vui.  14.. i.  4-34  a,  632  b,  iv. 

2935  b 
viii.  21... i.  61b,  636  a.  ii. 

1219  a 

ix.  4-8 iv.  3454 

ix.  11,  13 iii.  2419  a 

ix.  26.  ...ii.  1065  b,  1.539  b 

ix.  27 iv.  29.35  b 

X.  5 iii.  22.58  b 


3661 

X.  13,2(1,  21.... iii.  2587  b 

X.  20 ii.  1219* 

xi.  2 li.  1219  a 

xi.  5 iii.  2631  a,  a  n 

xi.  6 iii.  1805  b,  n. 

xi.  6-19,  21....i.  115  a,  b, 

116  8 

xi.  8 iii.  2632  a 

xi.  14 iii.  2633  a 

xi.  24 i.ll6a 

xi.  26, 34. 37,40,41..  i.  116  b 

xi.  29-35 ii.  1714  a 

xi.  30 iv.3008a,  n. 

xi.  31ff. ii.  1516  k 

xi.  37 i.  117  a^  b 

xii.  1 iii.  2587  b 

xii.  2,3 iv.  2709  a 

xii.  4 iv   3575  b 

xii.  5,6 iii.  2684  a 

xii.  7...i.  435  b,  iv.  2935  b 
xii.  11,  12 iv.  2935  b 

HOSEA. 

i.  7 iv  3367  b 

i.  10 iv.  .3465 

U.  13 i.  89b 

ii.  15 i.  21  b 

ii.  16.  ..i.  207  b,  210a,  ii. 
1130  a 

ii.  22 ii.  1393  b 

ii.  24 iv.  3465 

iii.  l...i.  831a,  iv.  3542  b 
iii.  2. .  .5.  247  a,  iii.  1803  b 

iii.  3 iv.  3367  b 

iii.  5 iu.  2620  a 

iv.  2 iii.  2203  b 

iv.  11 iv.  3.543  a 

iv.  13. .  .iii.  2200  b,  2201  a 

iv.  14 iv.  3074  a 

iv.l5..i.8b,286b,ii.927b 

iv.  16 ii.  1034  b 

iv.  18  iv.  3543  b 

V.  1 iv.  3165  8- 

v.  12 iU.  2028  a 

vi.  2 ii.  1447  a 

vi.  6 U.  1363  b' 

vii.  4 i.  324  a 

vii.  5 iv.  3543  a 

vii.  8 i.  325  a 

ix.  4 ii.  1681  b 

ix.  7 iv.  3310  b 

ix.  10.  ..i.  769  b,  u.  1167  b 

ix.  15 ii.  927  b 

X.  3,  7 ii.  1546  a 

X.  11 ii.  965  a 

xi.  1 ui.  2600  a,  n. 

xi.  4 i.  491  b 

xii.  1 iv.  3541  a 

xu.  4,5 i.  288« 

xii.  7 i.  351  b 

xii.  11 ii.  927  b 

xiii.  3 iv.  3539  b 

xui.  14 iv.  .3465 

xiv.  2 i.  .331  b,  346  a 

JOEL. 

i.  18 iv.  3513  a,  n 

i.  20 ii.  1418  a 

ii.  2 ii.  1418  a 

ii.  7 i.  837  a 

ii.  10,31 i.  654  a 

ii.  11,  25 ii.  1416  b 

ii.  15 i.  500  b,  501  a 

ii.  17 iii.  2565  b 

u.  23.... i.  41a,  iii.  2667  a 

ii.  28-32 ii.  1418  a 

ii.  28 iii.  2.598  a 

ii.  32 u.  1237  a 

iii.  1,6, 16,17, 18.. U.  1237  a 

iii.  2,  12 i.  166  b 

iii.  ,4 iii.  2518  b 

iii  6 ui.  2518  b,  n. 

iii.  15 i.  664  a 

iii.  18 iv.  .3019  a,  n. 

vii.  18 iu.  1988  b 

AMOS. 

i.  1 iii.  1901a 

i.  5,8 ii.  1612  a 

i.  9,  10 iU.  2518  b 

ii   7 i.  628fc 

u.  8 i.  624a,ii.  11» 


3662 

li.  16 i.  620  b 

tii.  5 u.  1108  a 

iii.  6 u.  1219  a,  n. 

iii.  12.  .i.  532  b,  a.  1106  a, 
n.,iu.  1843  a,  iv.  3035  b 

Iv.  1 U.  1034  b 

iv.  4 ii.  927  b 

iv.  7 iii.  2667  a 

iv.  10,11 iii.  2539  a 

iv.l3 ii.  1412b 

V.  5 u.927b 

T.  8. .  ii.  1412  b,  iii.  2548  b 

V.  11 i-  499  a 

Y.  16 iv.  8123  a 

V.  26. .  .ii.  1064  b,  1762  b, 

iii.  1841  a,  1991b,  1992  b, 

iv.  2703  b 

vi.  10. .  i.332  b,iv.  2832  b, ». 

vi.  13 ii.  1U90  b,  n. 

vi.  14. .  .iii.  1984  b,  n.,  iv. 

3.539  a 

vii.l..ii.  1012  a,  iii  2034  a 

vii.  7.  ...i.  492  a,  ii.  1661a 

vii.  7,  8 ii.  1619  a 

vii.  9,  16 u.  1148  b 

Tii.  13.  ..i.  412a,  503  a,  iii. 
1991b 

vii.  14 iii.  2593  b 

vii.  16 iii  2590  b 

viii.6 i.  499  a 

viii  9 i.  6.54  a 

viii.  14..i.  535  b, iv. 3488  b 

ix.  1 ii.  1573  b 

ix.  6 u.  1412  b 

ix.  7 i.  384  a 

Ix.  lo iii.  2575  b 

ix.  13 iv.  3096  a 

OBADIAH. 

1,2, 8, 19, 20, 21..  iii.  2206  a 
11 ii.  1687b 

JONAH. 

i.  3 ii.  1454  b 

i.  6 iv.  3007  a 

ii.  1 i.  828a 

ii.  5 i.  830b,ii.  1017  a 

iii.  6 i.618b 

iv.  7 iv.  3.558  a 

iv.  11 iii.  2158  b 

MICAH. 

i.  6 i.  603  a 

i.  8 iii.  2272  a 

i.  10 i  121a 

i.  11.  ...i  291  b,  iv.  3583  b 
i.  13.  ...i.  626  a,  ii.  1092  a 

i.  14 i.  22  a 

1. 16.  ...i.  628  b,  iv.  3482  b 

ii.5 i.  492a 

u.  6,11 iii.  2590  b 

ii.  12 i.  322a 

iii.  6 i.  654  a 

iv.  1-3 U.  1151  b 

iv.  13 iv.  34ola 

v.  2 ii.  962b,iv.  3464 

vi.  4 iv.  341tib 

vi.  5 i-  227  b 

vi.  5-8 ii.  1748  a 

vii.  4 ii.  1034  a 

NAHUM. 

u.  3 iii.  1909  a 

u.  3[4] iv.  3110  a 

U.  4 iv.  3123  a 

ii.  5 iii.  2167  a 

ii.  6.   ..i.  327  a,  iu.  2167  b 

ii.  7 iv.  3151b 

iii.  4 iii.  1807  b,  n. 

iii.  5 i.  624  b 

Iii.  8.  ..i.  333  a,  iii.  2150  b, 

2682  b 

\ii.  19 i.  189  b,  831b 

HABAKKUK. 

i  2-4 ii.  971b 

U.  6.  . .  .i.  624  a,  iii.  2608  b 

iii.  1 iv. 2995b 

lu.4 u.  1090a 

Iii.  5 i.  473  a 

Iii.  7 i.619a 

Hi  17 i.820a 


INDEX. 


ZEPHANUH. 

i.  7 ii.  972  a 

i.  8...ii.  1128  a,  iv.  3554  a 

i.  10.  .i.  476a,b,  u.  1288  a, 

1774  a,  n. 

i  ll..i.  851b,u.l534a,n. 

i.  12 ii.  1627  a 

U.  4-7 iu.  2502  a 

u.  6 iv.  2989  b 

ii.  14.. ii.  1574  a, iii. 2406b 

HAGGAI. 

i.  4,  9 ii.  1290  a 

i.  8 iv.  2959b 

U.12 i.'  622a 

ii.  16 iv.  3545  b 

ZECHARIAH. 

i.  8..i.  479  a,  iy.3600b,n. 

i.  18 ; ii.  1091a 

i  21 i.  842  b 

ii.  10 iv.  2959  b 

iii.  1  S ii.  1067  a 

iii.  1,2 iii.  1919  b,  n. 

iii.  4 i.  625  a 

ui.  6 ii.  1016  b 

V.  1,2  iv.  2740  a 

V.  3 iv.  3601a 

vi.  1 i.  323  a 

vi.  2,3 i.479a 

vi.  8,  6 i.  478  b 

vi.  9,  14 ii.  1481  b 

vii.  12 i.27b 

viu.3 iv.  2959  b 

ix.  1,  2 ii  976b, n. 

ix.  5-7 iii-  2501  b.  n. 

ix.  6.  .iii.  1797  b, iv.  3608  a 

ix.  9 iv.  3465 

ix.  13..ii.l219a.iv.3608a 

ix.  15 iv.  3062  b 

x.  2..ii.  1752  b,  iv.  3212  b 

"x.  3 ii.933a 

X.  9 ii.  1393  b 

xi.  8 iii.  1885  a,  n.,  iv. 

2941a 

xi.  12,13 ii.  1503  b 

xi.  15,  16 i.  225  b 

xii.  2 iii.  1866  b 

xii.  3 iv.  3117a 

xii.  6 iii.  2-327  a,  n. 

xii.  10 iv.  3423  a 

xii.  11 ii.l481  a 

xii.  11-14 iu.  1872  b 

xiii.  1-4 ii-  1752  b 

xiii.  4. -i.  618  a,  708  b,  n., 
ii.  1783  a 

xiii.  6 i-  522  a 

xiv.  4 i.  636  b 

xiv.  6 i.  654  a 

xiv.l5 i.733b 

xiv.  20.  .i.  272  b,  523  a,  U. 

1091b 
MALACHI. 

i.  1 u.  1762  a 

i.  7,12 i.  74  b 

ii.  3 i.  627  b 

ii.  12 iii.  1830  a 

iii.l iv. 3213b 

iii.  8 ii   1''45  a 

iii.  4 ii-  1427  a 

iv.  2 ii.  1045  b 

iv.  5 i.  709  b 


APOCRYPHA. 

1  ESDRAS. 

i.28 ^.ii.l481  b 

viii.  32 ii-  1196  b 

viii.  36 ii.  1481b 

viii.  43,  44 ui.  1829  a 

2  ESDRAS. 


vu.  28 i-  123  a 

xvi.42 iu.  2208a 

TOBIT. 
i  2.  ...i.  702b,ji.,iv.  3235 

i.  7,8 iv.  3265  b 

iv.  15  iv.  2870  b,  71. 


iv.  17 U.  1681b 

vi.  2ff i.  828  a 

vi.  12 ii.  I(j35a 

vu.  13 ii.  10.35  a 

xiu.  17 iv.3123a 

JUDITH. 

ii.24 i.l6  a, 148b 

iii.  9 i.6i3b 

V.  14,  marg.  .iv.  8051  a,  n. 

vii.  3 i.  522  a 

ix.  7 iv.  3u62  a 

X.  3 ii.  982  a 

xiii.  9 i.  376  a 

xiii.  16-23 ii.  1064  a 

xvi.  8 ii.  1016  b 

xvi.  13,19 ii.982a 

ESTHER, 
xvi i.  124  b 

AnSDOM. 

ii.  12-20 iv.  8548  a,  M. 

V.  22 iv.  3116  b 

vi.  13 iii-  2575  a 

ix.  8 iv.  3197  b,  n. 

X.  4 iv.  3321b 

X.  7 iv.  3068  b 

xi.  22 i.  229  a 

xvi.  28 iii.  2575  a 

xvi.-xix i  124  a 

xviii.  15,16 iv- 3654  b 

xviii-  25 i.  179  a 

ECCLESIASTICUS. 

iv.  17 ii.l538b,  n. 

xi.30.  ..i.  2.53  b,  340  b,  ii. 

1108  a,  iii.  2339  a,  iv. 

•    3098  b,  3099  a 

xii.  5 i.  70  a,  b 

xxiii.  20 iii.  2264  b 

xxiv.  27 iii.  2149  a,  n. 

xxviii.  24 ii.  1034  b 

xxviii.  25 ii.  932  b 

xxxviii.28 iv.  3062  b 

xxxviii.  30 ii.  1619  b 

xl.  16 ii.  1466  a,  n. 

xiv.  10 iv.  38-57  a,  3357 

b,  n. 

xlvi.  19 ii.  1347  b 

xlvii.  18 iv.  3260  a 

xlix.  10 i.543b 

xlix.  12 ii.  1344  b 

1.  Iff. ii.  1292a 

1.  26. -iii.  2011  a,   it.,  iv. 
2955  b 
BARUCH. 

ii.  12 ii-  16.38  b,n. 

iv.  13 ii.  1538  b,  n. 

V.  2 ii.  1016  b 

vi.  22 i.  395  b 

vi-43 iv.8450b 

1  MACCABEES 

i  43,53 ii-  1389  a 

iii.  38 iii.  2630a 

iii  41 ii.  1417  a 

iv.  23 i.  479  b 

V.  3 i.  57  b 

V.  15 iv.  2799  a 

V.  43 iii.  2676  a 

vi.  7.  26 ii.  1294  b,  n. 

vi.  15 iii.  2267  b,  n. 

vi.  18 ii.  1294  b 

vi.  51...iv.  3062  a,  3116b 

vii.  16,17 iii.  2620  b 

vii  31 iv.  3445  b 

viii.  8  ..i.  781b,  ii.  1140a 

ix.  11 iv.  3062  a 

ix.  73 iii-  2635  a 

xi-  10 iii.  2634  a 

xi.  82 ii.  1109  a,  n. 

xii.  20,21 i.  124  b 

xii.  36 iii.  2029  a 

xiii.  27-30.  ..iii.  1989  b,  n. 

xiii.  48 iv.  3484  b 

xiii.  51 ii.  1094  a 

2  MACCABEES. 

i i.  124b 

i.lO iii  26.35  b 

i.  24 ii.  1347  b 


i.32 iii.  2066 

iii-2066h 

ii.  14 i.  358  a,  n. 

iii.  4 iv.  3045  b 

iii.  32 iv.  2857  b 

iv.  2 iv.  3210  a 

iv.  12 ii.  1017  b 

iv.  27 iu.  2687  b 

i.625a 

V.  9,  10,  13 ii.  1019  a 

ii.l518b 

vm.  »,  9 iii.  2630  a 

viii.  10,11 iv.  3059  b 

viii.  22 ...ii.  1419  b 

viii.  23 i.  695  a 

ix.  5-10 iii.  1866  a 

ix.,  xi i   124  b 

X.  6,7 ii.  1094  a 

xi.  2 ii. 1019a 

xii.  9 ii.  1275  a 

xii.  35 i.  624  a 

XV.  36 iii.  2646,  a,  n. 

8  MACCABEES, 
iv.  20 iv.  3576  a,  b 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 

MATTHEW. 

i.  3 iv-  8171  a 

i.  5..  iii.  2663  b,  2664  a,  n. 

i.  7,  8 i.  169  a 

i.  8 i.433b 

i.  17 i.  888  a 

i  19 i-  36-a 

i.  21 iv.  2857  b 

i.  22,  23 iii.  2595  a 

i.25 i  S30b 

ii.  1  ff i.275a 

ii.  11 iv.  2132  a 

ii.  15 iii.  2600  a,  n. 

ii.  16 ii.  1381b 

ii.  16-18 u.  1051a 

ii.  22 i.  149  a 

ii.  23 iu.  2070  a 

iii.  2 i.234a 

iii.  4.--ii.929a,  n.,  1673  b 

iii.  5 iv.  2697b 

iii.  6 iv.  3427a 

iii.  7 i.  888a 

iii.  9 ii.  1360  b 

iii.  11.  .i.  239  b.  iv.  2838  a 

iii.  12 i.  44  a 

iii.  14,15 i  285  a 

iv.  1-11 ii.  1884  b 

iv.  3 i.  324  a 

iv.  5 ii.  1271  b,  n.,  iii. 

2633  a 

iv.  18  ff i.94a 

V iv.  3459  b 

V.  13 iv.  2793  a 

V.  17 ii.  1856  a 

V.  18.  ...iv.  2985  a,  3266a 

V.  21 iv.  3138  b,  n. 

v-22 iv.  3427  a 

V.  26 ii.  1668b 

V.  29,80 iii.  2209  a 

v-31,32 i.eiOa 

V.  32.. iii.  1796a  n-,1802a 

V-  89-41 ui.2.5f9  b 

V-  40- --i-  624  a,  iv.  3538  a 

V.  41 i.  95  a 

V.  42.  .ii.  1668  a,  iii.  2670  a 

vi.  1 i.  71  a 

vi.  2 i.  71  b 

vi.  7.  .U.  1019  a,  iv.  2706  a 

vi.  11 i.  324  b,  669  a 

vi.  13 iii.  2127  t 

vi.l9 i  625a 

vi.  19,  20.  ...iii.  2028  a, iv. 

2764  b 

vi.26,27,28,81,34....iv. 

8239  a 

vi.  30 i.  325  a 

vi.33 ii.  1080  b 

vii.  8-5 iii.  2028  » 

vii.  9 i.  321a 

vii.  10 i.82So 

viii.  2 iv.  &350  b 

viii.  6 iii-  18W* 


INDEX. 


fiii  11 iii.  1844  a,  n. 

viii.  16 i.  568  b 

»Ui.  20 iii.  2107  a 

viii.  23-27 iv.  3008  a 

viii.  28 ii.  900  a 

viii.  30 i.  853  a,  n. 

Ix.  2,  xxvi.  64.  .i  108  a,  n. 

ix.  6 iv.  3163  b 

ix.  15 iii.  1805  a 

IX.  17. .  i.  319  b,  iv  3543  b 
X  3.  .ii   1504  a,  iv.  3214  a 

X  4 i  352  a,  b 

X  9 iii.  2003  a,  2647  b 

X,  9,  10 ii.  1496  a 

X   10  iv.  2873  a 

X   14 i.  628  a 

X   16 iv.  2928  a 

X    17 iv.  3138  b 

X   19 iv.  3w9a 

X  27.  ...iv.  2871b,  3398  a 

xi.2  ff ii.  1728  b 

xi.  5 iii.  2574  b 

xi.  7-11 ii.  13i5  a 

xi.  14,27 iv    3538  a 

xi.  25 ii.  1436  b 

xi  27.. ii.  1436b, iu. 2114a 

xii.  1 i.  44  b 

xii.  1-8 ii.  1363  a 

xu.  10-13 iii.  1866  a 

xii.  24-26 iv.  2849  b 

xu.  27 i.  796  b 

xii.  28 ii.  1542  b 

xu.  31 iv.  3104  b 

xii.  32 i.  3l5b 

xii.  40 ii.  1454  b 

xii.  45 iii.  1813  a 

xiii.  2 ii.  '393  b 

xiii.4 i.  820b 

xiii.  8 iv.  3511  a 

xiii.  10-18 ii    1355  a 

xiii.  U iii.  2047  a 

xui.  13 iii  23»  a 

xiii.  21 iii.  2209  a 

xiii.  82 iii.  2042  b 

xiii.  55 ii-  1475  a 

xiv.2 ii.  1398a 

xiv.  6 i.  309  b 

xiv.  8,  11 i.  413  a 

xiv.36 ii.  1042a 

XV  2....iv.  3349  a,  3485  b 

XV.  5 i.  491b 

XV.  5,  6 ii.  13i6a 

XV.  15 ii.  1788  a 

XT.  22 iv  3445  a 

XV.26 i.  6r2b 

X¥i.  1  iv.  3207  b 

xvi.  6 u.  1366b 

xvi.  14 i.  124  a 

XTi.  17-19 ii.  1788  a 

xvi.  18.  ..i.  r28b,ii.  1039 

b,  iii.  24.59  b,  iv.  3092  b 

xvi.  23 ii.  1496  b,  TO  , 

iii.  2209  a,  iv.  2S63  a 

xvi.  24,25 iv.  3538  a 

xvii.  1,2   iv    3166  a 

xvii.  1-13.  ...iv.  3319  a,  S. 

xvii.  10 i.  234  a 

xvii.  24.  .i.  588  b,  iv.  3183 
b,  3322  H,  f. 

xvii.  24-27 iii.2n03a 

xvii.  25 iii  2575  a 

xvii.  27 iii.  1998  b.  iv. 

3109  b 

xvii.  51 iii.  2586  a.  n. 

xviii.  6.  ..i.  182  a,  iu.  1935 
a,  b 

xviii.  6-9 iii.  2209  a 

xviii.  10 i.  97  b 

xviii.  26 iv,  3>58  b 

.iviii.  34 ii    1668  b 

«x.  1 ii.   1488  a 

six.  3,  9 i.  609  a 

xix.  7,  8 ii.  1602  b 

xix.  9.    iii.  18' i2  a 

Jix.  12 1    783  a 

xix.  19 iv  3558  b 

Xix.  20 ii   1042  a 

xix.  24 i  349  a 

Kix.  28 ii.  1788  a 

«x.  2 iv  34S3a 

tx.  22 i.  23ra 

IX.  26,27 iv.  3538  a 


XX.  29-34. i.  248  b,f. 

xxi.  1-17 . .  .ii.  1373  a 

xxi.  2 iv.  3445  b 

xxi.  7 i.  624  a 

xxi.  9,  15 iv.  2858  a 

xxi.  33 iv.  3447  b 

xxi.  35 i   88b,«. 

xxii.  4 iii.  1805  b,  n. 

xxii.  6 i.  743  b 

xxii.  11 ii.  922  b 

xxii.  15-21 iii.  2003  a 

xxii.  16 iv.  2870  a,  n. 

xxii.  23-30..... -.ui.  1800a 

xxii.  31,  32 ii.  1608  b, 

iv.  2707  b,  2781  b 

xxii.  35 iv.  8207  b 

xxii.  41  ff ii.   1436  b 

xxiii.  5 i.  843  b,  844  a 

xxiii.  6 iii.  1843  b, 

1844  b,  11.,  iv.  2751  b 

xxiii.  9 iv.  2872  b 

xxiu.  14 iv.  2872  b 

xxiii.  23 i.  98  b 

xxiii.  24 iv.  2120  b, 

3120  b 

xxiii.  27 i.  332  b 

xxiii.  29 i    333  a 

xxiu.  35... u.  1220  b,  1229 
a,  1398  b,  iv.  a587  a, 

3610  a 
xxiv.  . .  .i.  103  a.  ii.  1417  a 

xxiv  10 iii.  2209  a 

xxiv.  17 ii.   1116  a 

xxiv.  18 i   624  b 

xxiv.  20 iv.  2767  a 

xxiv.  24 iv.  3089  a 

xxiv.  28 i.  629  b 

xxiv.  41 iii.  1934  b 

XXV.  1 ii.  1589  a 

XXV.  7 iii.  1805  a,  M. 

x,\v.  25 i.  589  a,  n. 

XXV  27 iii.  2 '04  b 

xxvi.  6 ii.  1613  a 

xxvi.  7 ii.  1617  a,  iii. 

1814  a 

xxvi.  15 iii   2526  a 

xxvi.  23 i.  603  a 

xxvi  80.  ..i.  67  b,  ii.  1376 
a  «.,  iii   2.345  b 

xxvi.  31,33 iii.  2209  a 

xxvi.  53 ii.  1627  a, 

iii.  2575  a 

xxvi.  63 iv.  3089  b 

xxvi.  63,  64.  ...iv.  3092  b 

xxvi.  64 iv.  2961  a 

xxvi.  69.. i.  503a,  ii.  983b 
xxvi.  71 ii  984  a,  iii. 

2565  a 
xxvii.  2 ii.  964  a,  iii. 

2527  a 
xxvii.  3,  5,  6,9.  .iii.  2526a 

xxvii.  4 ii.  1384  b 

xxvii.  6 i.  491  b,  iii. 

i527  b,  n. 

xxvii.  6,  7 ii.  1502  a, 

xxvii.  7 i.  332  b 

xxvii.  8 i.  19  b 

xxvii.  9..i.  20  a,  iii.  22  i9  b 

xxvii.  9,  1') ii.  1508  a 

iii.  2667  b,  iv.  3608  b 

xxvii.  15 iii.  2.347  a 

xxvii.  17 i.  245  a,  iii. 

2115  a 

xxvii.  19 iii    2617  b 

xxvii  19,  24-54.  .ii.  1384  b 
xxvii.  26 i.513  b,  iii. 

2570  b 

xxvii  28 i.  624  a 

xxvii.  34 i.  862  a,  iv. 

3449  a 

xxvii.  38 i  514  a,  n. 

xxvii   45 i.  550  a 

xxvii.  51 iii.  2338  b 

xxvii.  52,53.  ...iv.  2,85  b 
xxvii.  53.  ...ii.   1271  b,  ti. 

xxvii.  56 ii.  1475  a 

xxvii.  65 iii.  2529  b,  n. 

xxvii.  66 i.  471  a 

MARK 

i.7 Iv.  2838a 

1.  10 i.  241a,  n. 


i.  29 i  94a,  n. 

i.  32 i.  568  a,  n. 

ii.  1 i.  381  a 

ii.  14 i.  73  b,  ii.  1504  a 

ii.  22 iv.  2139  b 

ii.26 i.6b,f. 

ii.  27 i.  568  b,n. 

iii.  16  ff i.  94  a 

iii.  17 ii.  1421  b 

iii.  18 i.  352  a,  b,  ii. 

15*^4  a,  iv.  3214  a 
iii.  20,  21,  31. . .  .ii.  1205  b 

iii.  21 iii.  1812  b,  1820 

a,  n. 

iii.  28 i.  315  b 

iv.  17 iii.  2209  a 

iv.  85-41 iv  30'i8a 

iv.  3ii iv.3008a,n. 

iv.  38...i.  261a,  iii.  2532  b 

V.  3,  4 i.  407  b 

V.  9....ii.  1627  a,  iii.  1818  a 

V.  14 i.  820  b 

V.  23 ii.  1599  a 

V.  34 iv.  2795  a,  n. 

V.  48 ii.  1616  b 

vi.  3.  ...ii.  1475  a,  1487  b, 

iii.  2215  a 
vi.  8..iii.  2647  b,  iv.  2873  a 

vi.  11 i.  628  a 

vi.  15 iii.  2130  a,  >i. 

vi.21,22 ii.l427a 

vi.  25 i.  337  b 

vi.  25,  28 i.413a 

vi.  27 i.  790  b 

vi.  36,  56 i.  820  b 

vii.  3. . .  .iii.  2645  a,  n.,  iv. 

3485  b 

vii.  4....i.  237  b,  n.,  255  a, 

iv.  3163  a 

vii.  11. .i.  491b, iii.  2527  b, 

n.,iv.  3209  a 

vii.  27 i.612b 

vii.  31. ...iii.  2515  b,  «.,  iv. 

3629  b 

viii.  15 ii.  1366  b 


viii.  23 i.  316  a 

viii.  27 iv  3445  b 

viii.  34,  35 iv.  .3538  a 

ix.  6 iv.  8.551  a 

ix.  17,  18 iii.  1865  b 

ix.  17-26 ii.  1699  b 

ix.  42 iii.  1935  b 

ix.  42,  43,  45,  47 iii. 

2209  a 

ix.  44,  46 iv.  3558  a 

ix.  44-49 iv.  34.56 

X.  1 ii.  1488  a 

X.  3 ii.  1504  a 

X.  18 iv.  3135  b,  n. 

X.  17,18 iii.  1830  a. 

X.  39 i.  237  a,  ii.  1424 

a,  n. 

X.  43,  44 iv.  353Sa 

X.  50 i.  624  b 

xi.  1-11 ii  1373  a 

xi.  13 i.  821a 

xii.  26 i.  306  a,  336  b 

xii.  35  ff ii.  1436  h 

xii.  39 iv.  2751b 

xii.  41. ...i.  71  a,  iv.  3.321  a 

xiii.  1 iv.  8116  a 

xiii.  3 ii.  1342  a 

xiii.  9 iv.  3138  b 

xiii.  21 i.  .337  b 

xiii.  35. .i.  435  a,  iv.  3486  b 

xiv.  3....    i.  58  b,  59  a,  ii. 

1613  a,  1617  a,  iii.  1814  a 

xiv.  12  iii.  2347  b 

xiv.  15 iii.  1843  b 

xiv.  20 i.  608  a 

xiv.  26 ii.  1376  a,  n. 

xiv.  27,  29 iii.  2209  a 

xiv.  36... I.  3b,ii.  1590  a 

xiv.  51 iv.  2904  a 

xiv.  51,  52.  ...il.  1422  a,  n. 

xiv.  61,62 iv.  3092  b 

xiv.  66 503  a,  ii.  983  b 

xiv.  63 ii.  983  b,  iii. 

2565  b 

XV.  15  ii.  1599  a 

XV.  16 i.  503  a 


3663 

XV.  21  ..i.  95a,  iv.  2746a 

XV.  23..i.  862  a,  ii.  2045  a, 

iv.  3449  a,  3544  a 

XV.  40 iii.  1813  a 

xvi.  9 iii.  1813  a 

xvi.  9-20 iii.  2128  a,  b, 

iv.  3305  b 
xvi.  16 i.  633  a 

LUICE. 

i.  8 i.  787  a 

i.  5...ii.  1888  b,  iii.  2.585  t 

i.  26 ii.  1383  b 

i.  28 iii.  1818  a,  b, 

iv.  3430  a 

i.  39 ii.  1519  b 

i.39,  65 ii.  1077  b 

i.  48 iii.  1818  b 

i.  63 iv.  3163  a,  3576  b 

i.69 ii.  1090  b,»i. 

ii.  2.  ...i.525a,  f..  ii.  1848 
b,  iii.  2617  b 

ii.  7 i.  295  a,  507  b 

ii.  8 i.  295  b,  ji 

ii.9 iv.  2960  b 

ii.  29-32 iv.  3044  b 

ii.  35.  ...iii.  1819  a,  1826  b 

ii.  43-46 i.  266  a 

ii.  48,  49 iii.  1819  b 

iii.  1 iii.  2589  b 

iii.  2 ii.  1069  a 

iii.  3 iv   2697  b 

iii.  11 i.  621b 

iii.  14 iii   2570  a 

iii.  28-28 iv.  3094a 

iii  27 iii.  2107  a 

iii.  33 i.  145  b 

iv.  17... i.  306a,  iv.  3575b 

iv.  19 ii.  1487  a 

iv.  20 i.  671b,  iii. 

1942  b 

iv.  25 iv.  2935  b 

V.  18 iii.  1860  a,  n. 

V.  19.... iv. 3249b 

V.  27 ii.  1504  a 

vi.  1 iii.  2433  a,  n. 

vi.  Iff i.  820  b 

vi.l5 i.  78b 

vi.  17 ii.  1355  b 

vi.  19 iii.  1860  a 

vi.  22 i.  93  a,  788  a 

vi.  38 i  622  a 

vi.  41,42 iii.  2028  a 

vii.  4 ii.  1139  b 

vii.  11-16 iii.  2059  a 

vii.  14 i.  475  b 

vii.  18,  20 ii.  1728  b 

vii.  24-28 ii.l365a 

vii  36 iii.  1844  a,  ». 

vii.  37-50 iii.  1814  a 

vii.  38 ii.  1104  a,  iv. 

2837  b 

vii.  88,  44 iv.  3486  a 

vii.  42 i.  842  b 

vii.  45 i.  232  b 

vii.  46 i.  100  b 

vii.  50 iv.  2796  a,  n. 

viii.  1 iv.  3445  b 

viii.  10 ii.  1356  a 

viii  22-25 i v.  3008  a 

viii.  81 i.  579  a,  ii. 

1088  b 

viii.  43  ff iv.  33.j0  b 

viii.  44 ii.  1042  a,  iii. 

I860  a 

viii   51 ii.  1420  a,n. 

viii.  54 ii.  1.591  a 

viii.  55 iii    1860  a 

ix.  5 i.  628  a 

ix.  7 ii.  1398  a 

ix.  10 i.  298  a 

ix.l2 iv.  3.586  b,»i. 

ix.  23,24 iv.  3.538  a 

ix.  28,37 ii.  1077  b 

ix.  31 iii.  2025  a 

i.x.  32 iv.aiWb 

ix  a5 iii.  2025  b 

ix  37 ii.  1048  a 

ix.  51-.'>o i.  707  b 

ix.  52  ff ii.  1099  a,  n. 

ix.  58 iii.  2107  a 

?s.  62 iv.  3096  h,n 


3664 

X.  4 iii.  2647  b.  ir. 

27&5b 

X.11 i.628a 

X.I8 iv.  2848b 

X.  22 iv.  353Sa 

X.  29,  3) i.  329  a 

X.  31 iii.  2585  b 

X.36 iv.  3122a 

X.  38 iv.  3445  b 

xi.3 i.  323  b 

xi.  5 i.  324  a 

xi.  11 i.  829  b 

xi.  16 ii.  1351  b 

xi.  28 iii.  1820  a 

xi.  38 iv.  3485  b 

xi.  44-46 ii.  1612  b 

xi.  49 iv.  3550  b 

XI.  .52 iv.  2872  a 

xii.l3 ii.  1035  b 

xii.  17 iv.  2761  a,  n. 

xii.  33 iii.  2647  b,  iv. 

2873  a 

xii.  60 i.  237  a 

xii.  55 iv.  3540  b 

xiii.  8 i.  627  b 

xiii.  11 iii.  1866  b 

xiii.  15 i.  507  b 

xiii.  16 iv.  2850  a 

xiii.  19 iii.  2041b 

xiii.  31 ii.  1398  a,  iv. 

3538  a 

xiii.  33 ii.  1359  a 

xiv.  7,8 iv.  2751b 

xiv.  10 iv.  3-558  b 

xiv.  12 iii.  1842  b 

xiv.  15-24 iii.  1843  a 

XV.  8,9 iii.  2526  a 

XV.  11-32 i.  67  a 

XV.  16 ii.  1110  a 

XV.  22 i.  625  a 

xvi.  8 i.  888  a 

xvi.  12 i.589a 

xvii.  1 iii.  2209  a 

xvii.2...i.l82a,iii.l935b 

xvii.  6 i.  834  a 

xvii.  7 i.  337  b 

xvii.  21 ii.  1542  b 

xvu.  37 i.  629  b 

xviu.  18,19 iii.  1830  a 

xviii.  35-43.  ...i.  248  b,  f. 

xviii.  38 i.  249  a 

xix.  1 iv.  3.586  b,  n. 

xix.  2 iii.  2637  b 

xix.  4 i.  834  a 

xix.  5,  7 iv.  3586  a 

xix.  12-27 iii.  2.569  a 

xix.  13 iii.  2208  a 

xix.  17,  19 i.  468  a 

xix.  20 iii.  2067  b 

xix.  29-44 ii'.  1373  a 

XX.  11 i.  743  b 

XX.  19-25 iii.  2003  a 

XX.  36 i.  96  a 

XX.  41  ff ii.  1436  b 

XX.  46 iv.  2751  b 

xxi.  1 iv.  3321a 

xxi.  5 i.  150  b 

xxi.  9 i.337  b 

xxii.4 i..384b 

xxii.  19,  20 a.  1.357  b, 

1696  b 

xxii.  25 i.  781  a 

xxU.  28.  ...ii.  1384  b,  iv. 

320,7  b 

xxii.  35,  36 iii.  2647  b 

xxii.  51 u.  17t34  a 

xxii.  52 ii.  1645  b,  n.. 

iii.  2570  a,  iv.  3233  b 

xxiii  5 ii.l488  b 

xxiii.  22-47 ii.  1384  b 

xxiii.  23 ii.  1139  b 

xxiii.  32 iii.  2273  a 

xxiii.  .33 i.  346  b 

xxiv.l3 i.  730b 

xxiv.  18 i.  73  b,  ii. 

1786  b 
xxiv.  27-32, 45... ii.  1447b 
■xxiv.  50 ii.  907  a 

JOHN. 

.13  iii. 2114(1 

.'  14 jy.2960b 


I]S'DEX. 


i.l7. . iii.  2415  b,  iv.  3428  b. 

i.  18 i.  16  a,  iii.  1844 

a,  n.,  iv.  2135  b,  n. 

i.  25 iii.  2607  a 

i.  27 iv.2838a 

i.  28 i.  2S4a 

i.  29 iv.2860a 

i.  37-40 ii.  1421a 

i.  40(39) ii.  1102  a 

i.43 iii.  2486  b 

i.44 iv.3445b 

i.  47 ii.  1389  a 

i.  51 i.  96  a 

ii.  1 i.  284  b 

ii.  4 iii.  1819  b 

ii.  8 iii.  1845  a 

ii.  9 ii.964a 

ii.  15.  ..i.  492  a,  iii.  2004  b 

ii.  19 ii.l43ob 

ii.20 ii.  1051b 

ii.23 ii.  1351b 

iii.  1 iii.  2145  b 

iii.  3-5... ii.  1433  b, and >i. 

iii.  5 i.239b 

iii.  8 iv.3541a 

iii.  10 ii.  1360  b,   iii. 

1830  a,  2607  a 

iii.  14,15 iy.  2859  a, 

2931a 

iii.  23 i.  37  a 

iii.  33 i.  143  b 

iv.  5.  ...i.  8  b,  ii.  1470  b, 

iv.  2956  a 

iv.  6,  12 iv.  2957  b 

iv.  6,52 ii.  1102  a 

iv.  20 ii.  1064  a,  iv. 

2958  a,  n. 

iv.  35 iii.  2646  b,«. 

iv.  46,  47 iii.  2191b 

V.  1 iii.  2646  b 

v.  1-6 iv.  34.56 

v.  2 i.  233  a 

V.  3,  4 ii.  1430  a.  n. 

V.4 iv.  3039b 

V.  17 i.  893  a,  n. 

V.18 iv.2760a 

V.  40 iv.  35.38  a 

V.  46.  ...iii.  1906  b,  2025  a 

vi iv.  .3460b 

vi.4 iii.  2647  a 

vi.  16-25 iv.  3008  a 

vi.  32-58 ii.  1681  b 

vi.  51,53 iv.  2859b 

vi.  66 ii.  1355  a 

vi.  71 ii.  1495  b 

vii.  5ff i.  329  b 

vii.  17 iii.  2597  a,  n., 

iv.  3538  a 

vii.  19 iv.  3160  b,  w. 

vii.  ,31 ii.  1351b 

vii.  35. .  .i.  387  a,  ii.  1019  a 

vii.  37,38 iv.  3161a 

vii.  39 iii.  2415  b 

vii.  49 li.  1610  b 

vii.  50 ii.  1360  b 

vii.  63-viii.  12..  ..  ii.  1430 
a,  71.,  iii.  2128  a  b 

viii.  1-11 iv.  a317a 

viii.  1-12  iv.  3161  a 

Tiii.  12 i.  a56a,  b 

viii.  20 iv.  3321a 

viii.  39 ii.  1425  b 

viii.  41 iii.  1797  a,  n. 

viii.  44 iv.  2848  b, 

3538  a 

viii.  46 ii.  1384  b 

viii.  56 i.  15  b,  iii. 

1906  a 

ix.  2 iii.  2477  a,  n. 

ix.  22 i.93a 

ix.  22.  23,  84,  35.  i.  787  b 

ix.  27 iv.  3.538  a 

X.  1-16 iv    2961b 

X.  3 iii   2.565  b 

X.  3,4 iv.  2990  a 

X.  4 iv.  2961  b 

X.  16 iv.  2963  a 

X.  22.  ...U.  1294  b,  n.,iv. 
2966  a 

X.  33 i   108  a,  n. 

K.  40 i.  284  b 

xi-2 ill.  1814b 


xi.  18 ii.  1436  b 

xi.  39 iv.  8277  b 

xi.  44 iii.  2067  b 

xi.  51 ii.  1066  b 

xi.  ,55.  .i.  238  a,  iii.  2645  a 

xii.  3.. iii.  1814  b,  2436a, 

iv.  8486  a 

xii.  6.  ..i.  225  b,  iii.  2647  b 

xii.  7 i.  333  b 

xii.  12-19 u.  1-373  a 

xu.  18 iii.  2324  b 

xii.  22 i.  94  a 

xii.  22,28 iii.  2487  a 

xii.  24,  26 ii.  1486  b 

xii.  29 iv.  8208  a 

xii.  31 iv.  2850  a 

xii.  32 ii.  1436  b 

xiii.  1,2,29.  .iii.  2848  a,  ff. 

xiii.  1-15 ii.  1683  a 

xui.  4 i.  624  b 

xiii.  5 i.  2.53  a 

xiii.  5,  6 iv.  2837  b 

xiii.  10.  .i.  255  a,  iv.  3486  a 

xiii.  16,20 ii.  1436  b 

xiii.  23 i.  16  a 

xiii.  23-26.  ..iii.  1844  b,  n. 

xiii.  26 iii.  1844  b 

xiii.  29 ui.  2647  b 

xiv.  26 ii.  1855  b 

-xiv.  27 iv.  2795  a 

xiv.  81 u.  1436  b 

XV.  1-8 i.  67  a 

XV.  4-10 ii.  1.347  b 

xvi.  1 iii,  2209  a 

xvii.  17-19 iv.  2869  b 

xviii.  28-xix.  16. .  .iii.  2.529 

xviii.  l...i.401  b,  ii.  908  b 

xviii.  3 ii.  1589  a 

xviii  12 ,iii.  2449  a,  n. 

xviii.  15.  .i.  508  a,  ii.  988  b 

xviii.  18 i.  473  b 

xviu.  28.  .ii.  983  b,  iii.  2.348 

a,  ff.,  iv.  2924  a 

xviii.  31  .  .iii.  2617  b,  iv. 

28.39  a 

xviii.  33,34 iii.  2528  a 

xix.  14 ii.  1102  b 

xix.  14,  31... iii.  2348  a,  ff. 

xix.  17,  20 i    738  a 

xix.  19 Ui.  2571  a 

xix.  23 i.620a 

xix.  25.  .i.  73  b,  829  b,  471 
b,  iii.  1813  a,  iv.  2792  b 

xix.  26 i.  380  b 

xix.  27  .ii.  1617  a,  iii.  1820  b 

XX.  1 iv.  3278  a 

XX.  7 iii   2067  b 

XX.  14,15 iii    1813  b 

XX.  16 iii.  2657  a 

XX.  17 iii.  1813b 

xxi.  1-8 iv  3()li8a 

xxi.7.  ...i.  620  b,  621  a,ii. 
898  a 

xxi.  9 i.  473  b 

xxi.  12 iii. 1842b 

xxi.  18-22.. .iii.  2450  a,  «. 

ACTS. 

.4-25 iv.  3460  b 

12 ii.  907a 

.  13.  ..i.  73b,  ii.  1420a,  n. 

.16-20 ii.  1508  b 

.  18 ii.  1502a 

.  19 i.  19b 

.  21-23. iv.298-ib 

i ii.  1417a 

i.  1 iii.  24.38  b 

i  2 iv.  3541a 

i   5 iii   2605  b 

i.  7 ii   1495  b 

U.  10 iv.  2751  b,3122 

a,  «.,  b,  Ji. 

ii.  13.  ...ii.  1738  b,iv.8641 

a,  3544  a 

ii.  23 ii.  1610  b 

ii.31 ii.  10.38a 

ii.36 iv.8090a 

ii.38 i.  241  a,  b 

ii.  42,  46,  47 ii.  1682  b 

ii.  47 iv.  3436  b,  »!. 

iii.  14....  ii.  1378  a,  1384  b 


Iii.  17 iv.  30.50  b 

iv   1,  6 iii.  i:586a 

iv.  1,26 u.  1645  b,  n 

iv.  13 iii.  I446ii 

iv.  16 ii,  1516  a 

iv,  86 i.  5U3b 

V.  15.  ...i.  468a,  iv.  8163b 

V.  17 iii.  2686  a 

V.  30 i.  19  b,  iv.  8-321  a 

vi.  2 iv.8163a 

vi.  7,  ..ii.lti45b,iii.2586a 

vi.  8 iv.  3110  b 

vi.  9ff ii.  1339  ft 

vi.  11 iv.  3110b 

vii.. iv.  3111  a,  f.,  3113  b.  f. 

vii   2 iii.  2605  b 

vii.  2-53. ...  iv.  3111  a,  ff. 

vii.  8 i.  7  0 

vii.  4 i.  13b,n. 

vii.  13 ii.  1516  a 

vii.  16 1.  7b,  iv.  2956a 

vii.  19 i.743b 

vii.  22,  23,  30.  ...ii.  1506  b 
vii.  88.  .i.  489  a,  iii,  2264  b 
vii,  43. iii.  1992  b,  iv.  2703b 

vii.  46 iv.  3162  a,  n. 

vii.  58.  .i.  624b,iv.  3449  b 

viii.  3 iii.  2.364  a,  n, 

viii.  5 ii.  1362  a 

viii.  9 ii.  1737  b 

viii.  16 i.  241  a,  b 

viii.  26 300  b,  301a 

viii.  27 i.  78o  b,  n. 

viii.37.iii.2128a,2488a,n. 

viii.  39 i.  241  b,  >i. 

"x,,  xxii.,  xxvi. .  .iii.  23*34  b 

X.  1  ff ii.  1494  a 

X.  1,14 ii,  1078b 

X.  2..  i.  267  a,  n.,iv.  3488  b 

x.3-19 ...iii.  2364b 

x.  5 ii.  932b 

X.  9 i.  31«a 

X.  11 iv.  31::3a 

X.  17 iii.  2365a 

X.  23 iii  2366a 

X.  1 i.  164a 

X.  25 i.  34  b 

X.47 i.237b 

X.  48 i.  241a,  b 

xi.  19,20 ii.  1690  b 

xi.  20 ii.l039h 

xi.  -.48 i.  37  b 

.xii.  l...ii.  1201a,  iv,  3445  a 
xii.  4,  ...i.  637 b,iv.  3486  b 
xii.  6.  ...i.  164a,  iii.  2651b 

xii.  6,  7 i.  407  b 

xii.  8 i,  624b 

xii.  13 iii.  2565  b 

xii.  20 i.  410  a,  783  a 

xii.  21 u.  1053  b 

xii.  21-23 iv.  3215  b 

xiii.  1 ii.  1398  a 

xiii. 6 iii.  1942b 

xiii.  6,  8 ii.  1737  a,  n 

xiii.  7 iii.  2617  b 

xiii.  9 iv.  2857  a 

xiii.  20...ii.  1514a,  1,545a 

xiii.  21 ii.  1538  a,  n. 

xiii.  25  .i.  866  a,  iv.  2838  a 

xiii.  42 iii.  2605  b 

xiii.  43,60 iii.  2607  b 

xiii.  50 iji.  2870  a,  n. 

xiii.  51 i.  628  a 

xiv.  11 ii.  1700  a,  n., 

iu.  1895  a 

xiv.  12,13 u.  1618  b 

xiv.  13 i.  870  b  . 

xiv.  15 iv.  3369  a 

XV.3 i.  .328b 

XV.  3ff iii.   2636  a,  n. 

XV.  7  i.  498  b 

XV  10 ii.   1608a 

XV.  20 i.  835  a 

XV.  23 iv.  2795  b 

XV.  28-29 i.  759  a,  n. 

XV.  28,  41 i.  4e2b,/i. 

XV.  29 ii.  1003  b 

XV.  36 i.  247  b 

XV.  41 1.463  b,  n 

xvi.  2,3,4.    .iv.  3263a,  b 

xvi.  6 i.  178  s 

xvi.  7. .. .   ■'■'•}   2373  b,  n 


INDEX 


trl.  11, 12 iv.  3006  b 

STi.  12 iU.  2490  b,  n., 

2493  b.n. 

Kvi.  13 iii.  2490  a,  n. 

xvi.  13, 14 ii.  1727  b 

xTi.  13-37 ui.  2490  a 

xvi.  16-18 ii.  1748  b 

XTl.  19,  20 i.  477  a 

XTi.  19-22 iv.  3;321b 

STi.  22 iii.  2617  b 

XTi.  25 ii.  1376  b,  n. 

xvi.  35 iv.  2927  a 

xvi- 36 iv.  2795  a,  ?i. 

xvii.  4 iii.  2370  a,  n 

xvii.  6. .  .u.  1653  b,  1792  a 

xvii.  7 iv.  3224  b 

xvii.  9 ii.  1599  a 

xvii  11 ii.  1727  b 

xvu.  15,16 iii.  2376  b 

xvii.  16-34 iv.  3460  b 

xvii.  17 i.  152  a 

xvii.  19-31.  ..iii.  1808  a,  b 

xvii.  21 i.  194  b 

xvii.  22 i.  194  b.  ui. 

2376  a 
xvii.  23 i.  77  b,  596  b, 

ui.  2376  a 

xvii.  26 ii.  1019  a 

xvii.  24  ff u.  1705  b 

xvu.  26 iv.  3285  b 

xviii.  2 i.  131b,  1.32  a 

xviu.  5. .  .iv.  3223  a,  3253 
b,  ;t. 

xviii.  6 i.  628  a 

xviii.  12.  ...i.  20  b,  8:3  b, 
iii.  2589  b,  2617  b 

xviu.  12-17 iv.  3321b 

xviii.  18 ii.  981  a,  iii. 

2076  a,  n.,  2378  a,  ;i., 

iv.  3451  a 

xviii.  24-28 i.  66  a 

xix.  1-6 i.  234  b 

xix.  3,  4 ii.  1426  a 

xix.  4 U.  1.350  a 

xix.  5 i.  241  a,  b 

xix.  9,23 iv.  3488  b 

xix.  12 ii.  1017  a 

xix.  16 iv.  2864  a 

xix.  19 i.  90  a 

xix.  24 i.  582  a 

xix.  24,  25 i.  749  a 

xix.  28,39 iv.  2705  a 

xix.  35 ii.  1519  a,  n  , 

iv.  3558  b 

xix.  37 i.  462  a 

xix.  38  .i.  749  b,  iii.  2617 
b,iv.3322a 

XX.  2 iii.  2380  a 

XX.  3-6 iv.  3254  a 

XX.  6 ii.  1454  b,  n. 

XX.  7 ii.  1677  a 

XX.  8 ii.  1589  a 

XX.  9 iv.  3-540  a 

XX.  11 ii.  1684  a 

XX.  13,  14 i.  185  a 

XX.  17-35 iv.  3254  a 

XX.  18-35.  ...iii.  2385  a,  n. 

XX.  24 i.  866  a 

XX.  28 iv.  3437  a,  n. 

XX.  35.  .i.  -311  b,  iv.  .3.317  a 

xxi.  15 i.392a 

xxi.  24 i.  413  a,  iii. 

2075  a,  iv.  3451  a 

xxi.  24,26 iii.  2645  a 

xxi.  27  Ef ii.  1.591  b 

xxi.  27-30 iii.  23.38  b 

ixi.  31 i.  164  a 

txi.33 i.407b 

sxi.  34 i.  870  b 

xxi.  39 iii.  1845  b 

xxu.  4 iv.  3488  b 

txii   14 iii.  2365  a 

xxii.  15,20 iii.  1811  a 

xxii.  16 i.  238  b 

jxii.  22 iii.  2387  a,  n. 

xxii.  23 i.628a 

xxiii.  2 ii.  1069  a,  iii. 

2643  b 

xxiii  3-6 iii.  2387  b 

xxiii.  6.  .iii.  2388  a,  2478  a 

Kxiii.  6-11 iii.  23S8« 

Uiii-8 iv.  278?b 


xxiii  15 iii.  2264  b 

xxiii.  23 i.  164  a 

xxiii.  26 i.  787  a 

xxiv.  5 iv.  2734  a 

xxiv.  10 iii.  2590  a 

xxiv.  14 iv.  2901a 

xxiv.  14,  22. . . .  iv.  34S8  b 

xxiv.  17 iii.  2386  a,  «. 

xxiv.  24 iii.  2617  b 

xxiv.  25 iii.  2389  a,  «. 

XXV.  9 i.  129  a 

XXV.  11 i.  129  a,  469  b 

XXV.  12 iii.  2617  b 

XXV.  23 iii.  2590  b,  n. 

XXV.  26 i.  818  b,  iii. 

2617  b 
xxvi.  4,  5.  ..iii.  2363  b,  «. 

xxvi.  7 ii   1139  b 

xxvi.  9 ii.  1494  a 

xxvi.  10 iv.  3449  b 

xxvi.  14.  .ii.93i  b,  1.591b 
xxvi.  28,29.  ...'ii.  2390  b 
xxvii.  (passim)  iv.  3004  ff. 

xxvii.  1 i.  164  a 

xxvii.  3 i.  743  b 

xxvii.  9 i.  813  b 

xxvii.  11 iii. 1830a 

xxvii   13 i.  185  b 

xxvii.  13,  14 i.  507  a 

xxvii.  14.  ...iii.  2391  a,  n., 
iv.  3541  a 

xxvii.  16 i.484a 

xxvii.  17 i.  35  a,  iii. 

2391b,  2652  b 

xxvii.  27 i.  3i  a 

xxvii.  27-?9.  ...iii.  1878  a 

xxvii.  35 ii.  1684  a 

xxvii.  38 ii.  2391  a,  n. 

xxvii.  39 iii.  1878  a 

xxvii.  41 iv.  2876  a 

xxviii.1,2,  10.  .iii.   1879  a 

xxviii.  2 i.  246  a 

xxviii.  2,  3 iii.   1878  b 

xxviii.  3 iv.  2930  b 

xxviii.  4 i.  246  a 

xxviii.  7 iii.  2638  a 

xxviii.  8 i.  316  b 

xxviii.  11 i.  395  a 

xxviii.  13 i.  485  b 

xxviii.  15 i.  130  a 

xxviii.  16 i.  164  a.  338 

a,  384  b,  385  a,  iii.  2392 

xxviii.  16,20 i.407b 

xxviii.  22 iv.  2901a 

xx.xii.  39 iii.  1878  b 

.xxxiii.  2ff ii.  1049  a 

ROMANS. 

.13-15 iv.  3160  b 

.  14 i.  245  b 

.  16 ii.  1389  a 

.  19  ff ii.  1705  b 

.  28 i.489a 

.31 iv.  3.325  b 

i.9, 10 ii.  1389  a 

i.  16 ii.  1696  b 

i   29,  ...ii.  1476  b,  1494  a 

ii.  25,  26 iv.  2861b 

V.  18 ii.  1501b 

V.  1 ii.  1209  a 

V.6  8 IV.  2861  b 

V.  8 ii.  1380  b 

V.  12ff ii  1384  a 

V.  15-20 iv.  3094  a 

vi.  4 i.240a,  b 

vii.  6 iv.  2132  b 

vii.  14-24 iv.  2851  b 

viii.  5 iv.  2863  a 

viii.  13 iii.  2016  b 

viii.  15 i.  33b 

viii.  23 iii.  2a56  a 

viii.  29 i.  310  a 

viii.  32 ii.  1380  b 

ix.  3 i.  789  b 

ix.4 iv.  2960  b 

X.  7 i.  579  a 

X.  12,13 ii.  1417  a 

X.  14 iii.  2574  b 

X.  15 iii.  2574  b 

X.  18     ii.  1661a 

xi.  2 i.  7  Oa 


xi.  16 iii.  2356  a 

xi.  16-25 iii.  2240  b 

xi.  26 iv.  3090  a 

xii.  3, 16 iv.  2863  a 

xii.  12 ii.  1139  b 

xii.  20 i.  473  a,  b 

xiii.  1-3 iii.  2569  b 

xiii.  2 i.  533  a 

xiii.  3 iv.  3538  a 

xiii.  9 iv.  3209  a,  n. 

xiii.  13 ii.  1085  a 

xiv.  20 iii.  2209  a 

xiv.  21 iii.  2209  a 

xiv.  23 i.  533  a 

XV.  8 ii.  1476  b 

XV.  19 ii.  1727  b 

XV.  24 i.  328  b 

XV.  28 iii.  2395  a 

xvi.  1,2 iii.  2514  a 

xvi.  5 i.  20  b 

xvi.  10 i.  155  a 

xvi.  13 iv.  3046  a 

xvi.  21 iv.  3231b 

xvi.  23.  .i.  783  a,  iii. 2651  a 

xvi.  25,27 ii.  1506  b 

xvi.  26 iv.  2874  a 

1    CORINTHIANS. 

i.  14 iv.  3253  b 

i.  22 iii.  2381  a 

ii.  9..i.  711  a,  ii.  1684  b,n. 

iv.  3 i.  569  a 

iv.  4 i.  337  a 

iv.  9.  ..i.  865a,  iv.  3215  b 

V.  1.' iii.  1796  a,  n. 

V.  1,9,11 ii.  1003  b 

V.  3-5 ii.  1112  a 

V.  6-8 iii.  2354  b 

vi.ll i.  238  b 

vii.  8 iv. 3449b 

vii.  10-16 i.  610  a 

vii.  12 ui.  1797b 

vii.  18 i.464b 

viii.  4ff iv.  3369  a 

ix.  5.  .ii.  1504b,iii.  1813a 

ix.  21 ii.  1610  b 

ix  24.  .i.  865  b,  iii.  2575  b 

ix.  25 ii,  1186  a 

ix.  25,  27 i.  865  a 

ix.  26 i.  57  a 

ix.  27.  .i.  866  b,  iv.  2707  a 
X.  1,  2.  .i.  236  b,  237  a,  n. 

X.  2 iii.  2692  a 

X.  4.  ...i.  124  b,  264  b,  iv. 
3317  a 

X.  4-29 iv.  3461a 

X.  12 ii.  1377  a 

X.  16 iii.  2345  a,  iv. 

3544  b 

X.  16,21 ii.  1683  a 

X.25 iv.  2942b 

X.  32 ii.  1019  a 

xi.  2 iv.  3316  b 

xi.  5-15 iv.  3370  b 

xi.  10 iii.  1805  a 

xi.  18,  19 iv.  2901b 

xi.  20 ii.  1680  a,  n. 

xi.  2.3-25 ii.  1696  b 

xi.  25 u.  1681  b 

xi.  29 i.  533  a 

xi.30,  33,  34.  ...ii.  1683b 

xi.  34 ii.  1684  a 

xii i.  786  a 

xii,  5 ii.  1041  b 

.xii.  8-11 iii. 2592a 

xii.  13 i.  240  a 

xii.  28 i.311b 

xiii.  1 iv.  3309  a 

xiii.  2 iii.  2047  a 

xiii.  12 iii.  1971  a 

xiii.  13 i.  243  b 

xiv.  2 iii.  2047  a 

xiv.  9 i.  57  a 

xiv.  11 i.  246  a 

xiv.  16.  .i.  82  a,  iv.  8138  a 

xiv.  21 Iv.  a310a 

xiv.  26 ii.  1113  a 

xiv.  35 iv.  &538a 

XV.  8 iii.  2365a 

XV.  18 ii.  1.347b 

XV.  27 ii.  1384  a 

XV.  29 i.  241b 


8605 

XV.  32.  .i.  864  b,  iii.  2380  b 
XV.  55....  ii.  1033  a,  1039  b 

xvi.  1,  2 ii.  1677  a 

xvi.  2 u.  1683  b,  iv, 

3135  b,  n. 

xvi.  6 i.  328  b 

xvi.  10,  11 iv.  3254  a 

xvi.  22 i.789a 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

i.  9 i.  865  a 

i.  19 iv.  3223  a 

i.  21 i.  244  a,  b 

i.  22... i.  630a,  iii.  2549  b 

u.  1 iii.  2380  a 

iii.  3 iv.  3576  a 

iii.  7 ii.  1612  a 

iii.  11-18 iv.  3461a 

iii.  13, 14 iii.  2023  a 

iii.  14 iv.  3213  b 

iv.  4 iv.  2850  a 

V.  1 iv.  3211b 

v.5....i.  630  a,  iii.  2.549  b 

V.  14-21 iv.  2861b 

V.18 ii.  1.380b 

V.21 ii.  1384b 

vi.  12 i.  .320  a 

vi.  14,17 iii.  1797  b 

vi.  15 ii.  1138  a 

viii.  1.  .i.  614  a,  iv.  35-51  o 

viii.  16-24 iv.  3325  a 

viii.  18 ii.   1693  b 

ix.  11 iv.  3253  b,  n 

X.  16 ii.  1661b 

xi.  9 iv.  3225  b 

xi.  22.  ...ii.  1022  b,  1389  a 

xi.  23-28 iii.  2383  a 

xi.  25.  .i.  434  a,  iv.  3007  b 

xi.  27 iii.  2079  b 

xi.  29 iii.  2209  a 

xi.  32.  ...1.  144  b,    871a, 

ii.  964  a,  1728  b,iii 

2366  b 

xi.  33.  .i.  263  b,  iv.  .3.540  a 

xii.  1-4 iv.  3319  a 

xii.  2 ii.  1020  a,  1347  b 

xii.  4 iii.  2.333  a,  n. 

xii  7.  .iii.  2383  a,  iv.  28-30  a 

xii.  9 Iv.  2960  b 

xii.  21 ii:  1003  b,  iii. 

2.380  a 

xiii.  2 iii.  2380  a 

xiii.  6,  7 iv.  2707  a 

GALATIANS. 

i,  8 i.789b 

i.  14 iv.  3316  b 

i.l7f. ii.978b 

i.  19 ii.  1422  b 

i.  21..i.  462  b,  n.,  iii.  2.366 
b.  n. 

ii i.24b 

ii.  1-15 ui.  2452  b 

ii.  2.  .i.  593  b,  iii.  2371  a.  Ji. 

a.  3 iv.  3253  b 

ii.  11-14.  ...iii.  2372  b,  iv. 
3339  b 

ii.  13 i.  247  a,  n. 

iii  H iii.  2574  b 

iii.  13 iv.  2860  b 

iii.  14 ii.  1019  a 

iii.  14-25 iv.3461a 

ui.  16 ii.  1018  b 

iii.  19. .  .i.  1  a,  7  b,  ii.  1075 
a, 1506 b 

iU.  23-28 i.  239  b 

iv.  2.  ..ii.  964  a,  ii.  10*5  a, 
n.,  iv.  3a30a 

iv.  3,9 i.  ti95b 

iv.  4 iv.  2743  a 

iv.  10 iii,  2111b,  n. 

iv.  13 iii,  2373a 

iv.  15 ui.2373b,». 

iv.  22  ff ii.  978  a 

jv.24 i.  67a 

iv.  25 iii.  2-366  a,  n. 

iv.  25  ff ii.  1170  b,  n. 

iv.  29 ii.  1145a 

v.6 iii.  2026  s 

V.  19-21 iv.  2901b 

V.  20.  .iii.  2561b,  iv.  2901  a 
vi.  11 i.  7o8b 


3666 

»i.  17 J.  522a 

EPIIESIANS. 

J.  10 ii.  1380  b 

i.  13 i.  244b 

i.  14....i.  630a,  iii.  2519b 

i.  21 iii.  2588  a 

ii.  2 i.  56  b,  iii.  2569  a, 

iv.  2850  b.  n. 

ii.  14 iii.  2338b 

ii.  22 i.  454  b 

iii.  10 iii.  2588  a 

iv.  8 iv.  3105a 

iv.  11 iv.  8136  a 

iv,  18 iv.  3050b 

iv.  30 i.244b 

T  4 i.  489a 

V.  14  . .  .i.  711  a,  ii.  937  a, 
1684  b,  n. 

T  23 iv.  2867  b 

V.  26 i.  237b,f. 

V.  26,  27 ...iii.  1805a 

vi.  6 i.  796  b 

vi.  12.  ...i.  57  a,  iii.  2587  b 
vi.  20 i.  407  b 

PHILIPPTANS. 

i.  1 iii.  1943a 

i.  13.  ...i.  338  a,  iv  2750  b 

j.  25 iii.  2394  a,  £f. 

u  1 i.  320  a 

ii.  2-30 iv.  3461  a 

ii  3 iii.  2273  a 

ii.  17.  ...iii.  1942b,  2491b 

ii.  24 iii.  2394  a,  ff. 

ii.  26 iii.  2491  b 

ii.  30 iii.  2491b 

iii.  2 i.  485  b 

iii.  2, 3 i.  465  a,  iii. 

2491  b 

iii.  8 i.  628a 

iii.  12, 13 i.l31b 

iii.  12-14 i.  866  a,  b 

iii.  14 iii.  2,575  b 

ui.  19 iv.  2863  a 

iii.  20 i.  489  a 

iii.  20,  21 iv.  2857  b 

iv.  2,3 ii  1727b 

iv.  3 i.  783  a,  ii.  1703 

a,  iii.  2273  a,  2492  a,  n., 
2493  a,  n.,iv.  3583  a 

iv.  14-16 iv.  3225  b 

iv.  15 iv.  8253  b 

iv.  22. .  .i.  338  b,  iv.  3116  a 

COLOSSIANS. 

i.  16 iii  2588  a 

i.  20 ii.  13x0  b 

i.  27 i.  239  a 

ii.  1 i.  481b 

ii.  2 i.  239  a,  iii.  2047  a 

ii.  8 iii.  2511  b 

ii.  8,20 i.  695  b 

ii  10 ui.  2588  a 

ii.  11 i.  237  a 

ii.  12 i.240a,  b 

ii.  14,15 iii.  2587  b 

ii  16 ii  1679  a 

ii.l8 i.  481b 

iii  2 iv.  2863  a 

Iii  6 iii.  2016  b 

iii.  11 ii.  1389  a 

iii.  15 i.  865  a 

iii.  22 i.  796  b 

iv.  7,9 iii.  2483  b 

iv.  10.. i.  154  b,  iv.  3057  a 

iv.  14 iii.  2493  a 

iv.  16 ii.  lf-95a 

iv.l7..ii.  1596  a,iii.  2483  a 

1  THESSALONIANS. 

ill.  2 i.  280  a 

iv  3 ii  1003  b 

It.  12 ii.l085a 

IT.  15 iii.  2575  a 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

Ii.  1-12 iv.  8228  b,  f. 

H.6 i    103b 

Ii.  6 i.  110  a 

U.  15 iv.  3316  b 

»i.  17 i.  758  b 


INDEX. 


1  TIMOTHY. 

i.  4 i.  808  b,  iv.  3257  b 

i.  8 iv.  3257  b 

i.  10 ii.  1003  b 

i.  12 i.  732  a 

i.  13 ii.  1494  a 

i.  19,20 i.  788  b 

i.  20 ii.  1111a 

ii.  7 u.  1044  a,  1347  b 

ii.  9. . .  .i.  828  b,  ii.  982,  a, 
iv.  2942  b 

iii.  1-12 iv.  3461a 

iii.  1-13 iv.  3257  a,  b 

iii.  2.  ...i.  elOb.iv.  3515a 

iii.  2,  12 iii.  1302  a 

iii.  3 iv.  3545  a 

iii.  4 ii.  1085  a 

iii.  6 iv.  2848 

iii.  8-13 iii.  1943  a 

iii.  13 i  579  b 

iii.  16 i.  239  a 

iii.  18 iii.  2126  b 

iv.  1-7.  .i.  808  b, iii.  2511b 

iv.  8 i.  866  b 

iv.  14 i.  311a 

iv.  15 ii.  1516a 

V.  3-10 i.573b 

V.4 iii.  2526  b.iv. 

3057  b 

V.  8 ii.  1138  a 

V.  9 i.  573  b,  iii.  1802a 

V.  10 iv.  8486  a 

V.  11 iv.  3588  a 

V.  17 iv.3136a 

V.22 i.311a 

V.  23 iii.  2210b.,iv. 

8545  a 

vi.  12 i.  241  a,  865  a 

vi.  20 iii.  2511  b,  iv. 

2864  a,  3257  b 

2  TBIOTUY. 

i.  11 ii.  1044  a 

i.l8 i.241  a 

i.  16 i.  311a,  407  b 

i.  16-18 iv.  8258  b 

i.  18 iii.  2253  b 

ii.  5 i.  865  a,  iii.  1830b 

ii.  8 ii.  1696  b 

ii.  11 iii.  2561  a 

ii. 16-18 iii.  2511  b 

ii.  17,18 ii.  1111  a 

ii.  18 iv.  3257  b 

iii.  3 iv.  8325  b 

iii.  8 i.  124  b,ii.  1506b 

iii.  8,9 ii.  1746  b 

iii.  10,  11 ii.  1705  a 

iii.  11 ii.  1701  a 

iii.  12 iv.  35S8a 

iii.  16 iv.  2878b 

iv.  7,8 i.  865a.,  i.  867a 

iv.  10 i.  854  b.iv. 

8258  b 

iv.l3 i.  624  a, iii. 

2394  a,  n.jiv.  3259  a 

iv.  14 i.  490  b 

iv.  14,15 iv.  3259  a 

iv.  16 ii.  1693  b 

iv.  17 i.  865  a 

iv.  18 ii.  1541b 

iv.  20 iii.  1933  b,  iv. 

3259  a 
iv.  21 i.  470  a 

TITUS. 

i.  6 i.eiOb 

ii.  3 iv.  3545  a 

ii.  7 ii- 1085  a 

ii.  14 iv.  2862  a 

iii.  5 i.  238a 

iii.  9 i.  441a 

iii.  12 i.  167  a 

PHILEMON. 

1 iii.  2483  b 

1,2 ii.  1595b 

2 i.  129  b,  149  b 

7,12,  20 i.  320  a 

8 i.489a 

9 i.  39  b 

11,13 i.  759a 

14,21 iii.  2484  b 


19 i.  759  a,  iii.  2483  a 

22 i.  481b 

24 iii.  2493  a 

HEBREWS. 

i.  2-8 ii.  lS84a 

i.  6 i.  310a 

i.  7 iv.  8541  a 

i.  9 i.  li'l  a 

ii.  2 ii.l5e6b 

ii.  10 i.384b 

ii.  12 ii.  1376  b,  n. 

iv.  2 iii.  2574  b 

iv.  8 ii.  1476  b,  1477  a 

iv.  8-10 iv.  2766  a 

iv.9 ii.  1680a 

iv.  15 ii.  1384  b 

vi.  1,2 i.  243  a 

vi.  2 i.  311  a 

vi.  4 i.  238  b 

vi.  9 ii.  1102  b 

vi.  16 i.  589  a 

vi.  19 iv    3005  b 

vii.l9 ii.   1609  b 

vii.  26 ii.  1384  b 

ix.4..i.  77  b,  155  b.  403  b 

ix.  5 i.  420  b 

ix.  7 iv.  3050  b 

ix.  11 i.  65  a 

ix.  16,17 i.  508  b,  iv. 

8213  b 

ix.  23 iii.  2362  a 

X.19,  29 ii.  1379  a 

X.  22 ii.  1683  a 

X.  23 iii.  2127  b,n. 

X.  25 ii.  1677  a 

X.  26 iv.  3050  b 

X.  28 iii.  2641  b 

X.  32 i.  238  b 

X.  33 •. i.  865  a 

X.  38 iv.  3486  b,  n. 

xi.  24 ii.  1506  b 

xi.  24-26 iii.  2464  a 

xi.28 iii.  2354  a 

xi.  83,  34 iv.  2989  a 

xi.  35 i.  88  b,  M. 

xi.  87 ii.  1258  b,  iv. 

3317  a 
xii.  1.. 1.865  a,  iv.  8216  a 

xii.1,2 i.  866  a 

xii   28 iv>  3185  a,  n. 

xiii.  12 ii.   1686  a 

xiii.  7 ii.  1207  b,  iv. 

3136  a 

xiii.  12 i.  733  a 

xiii.  18 ii.  1085  a 

xiii.  23 iv.  8254  b 


i.l. 


JAMES. 


i.  11 iv.3540b 

ii.  2 iv.  2734  a 

ii.  14-26 ii.  1209  a 

iii.  4...ii.  964b,iv.  3007  a 

iii.  7 iv,  2932  b 

iv.  6-10 ii.  1151b 

iv.  18 ii.  1792  b 

V.  2 i.  625  a 

V.  3 iv.  2754  b 

V.  14,15 ii.  1209  b 

V.  17 ii.  1506  b 

1  PETER, 
i.  l....i.  387  a,  ii.  1442a 

i.  10-12 iii.  2599  b 

i.  14 iv.  3050  b 

i.  17 i  787  a 

i.  18,19 iv.  2861  b,  ii. 

1384  b 

ii.  2 iii.   2434  a,  n. 

ii,  5 ii.  1666  b 

ii.  16 ii.  1684  b,  n. 

ii,  22 ii.  1384  b 

ii.24 iv.  2860  b,  2861 

a,  3821  b 

iii.  3 ii.  982  a 

iii.  5 iv.  2785  b 

iii.  11 i.  743  b,  762  b 

iii.  18 ii.  1384  b 

iii.  19 ii.  1038  b,  iii, 

2574  b 
iii.  20 iii.  2126  b 


iii.  21 i.  236  b,  241a 

iv.  17 ii.  1416  b 

V.  1 ii.   1442  a 

v.5-9 ii.  1151b 

T.  13 iv.  2751  a 

2  PETER. 

i.  1 ii,  1442  a,  iv. 

8044  b 

i.  1-11 iii.  2458  a,  >i. 

i.  14 ii.  1427  b 

i.  15 iii,  2025  a 

i.  16 i.  808  b 

i.  20 iv.2874a 

ii.  1 iv.  2901  a 

ii.  3 i.  633  a 

ii.  4 iv  2848  b 

ii.  5 ii.  1044  a 

ii.  6-9 ii  1686  a 

ii   13 ii.  1682  a.  n. 

ii.  15 i.  228,  226  b,  iii. 

2146  b,  n. 

iii.  2 i.808a 

iii.  15 .ii.  1028  a 

iii.  16 i.  303  a 

iii.  18 iu.  2458  a,  n. 

1  JOHN. 

ii.l6 ii.  1360  b 

ii.  18 i.  103  t 

ii.  20 i.  244  a,  fc 

ii.  23 ii.  1440  a,  b 

ii.  29 ii.  1384  b 

iii.  5,  7 ii.  1384  b 

iii.  9-12 iv.  2848  b 

iv.  2,  3 iv.  3311b 

iv.8 i.l03b 

iv.  9 ii.  1380  b 

V.  6 i.  235  b 

V  7,8 ii,  1440  a,  b, 

iii.  2129  b,  2130  b,  2134 
b,  71. 

V.  8 i.  235  b 

V.  16 i.  315  b 

2  JOHN. 

12 iv.  8575  a,  8576  a 

3  JOHN. 

10 i.  789  a 

13 iv.  3675  b,  3576  a 

JUDE. 

5 iv.  8538  a 

6 iv.  2848  b 

9 i.  124  b,  iii,  2026  a 

12, , .  .i  471  b,  ii.  1682  a,  n 
23 ii.  1634  a 

REVELATION. 

i.  2 ii.  1428  b 

i.8 i.  73b 

i.  10 ii.  1676  a,  f. 

i.  13 ii.  1069  b 

i.  14 ii.  9811: 

i.  16.  ...i.  323  a,  490  b,  iii. 
1909  b 

i.  20 iv.  3136  b 

ii.  1 iv.  3136  b 

ii.  1-7 iv.  3255  a 

ii.  9 iv.  3064  a 

ii.l4 i.  227  b 

ii.  17 ii.  1100  b.  iii 

2063  a, iv.  3117  a 

ii.  18. .  .ii.  1703  a,  iii.  1909 

b,  iv.  3242  a 

ii.  20 ii.  1390  b 

ii.  20,  21 iv.  3242  a 

iii.  7 ii.  1582  b 

iii.  8 iii.  2482  b 

iii.  12 iii.  2063  a 

iii.  14 i.  82  a 

iii.  18 i.  101a 

iv.  8 i.  478  a 

iv.  7 ii.  1424  b 

iv.  7,8 iv.  2961a 

iv.8 iv.  2927a 

V.  1 iv.  3675  b 

V.8 i.  518b 

V.  9 iv.  3445  a 

vi.  1,3,5,  7 i.  4-^3  a 

vi.  2.  ...i.  179  a,  ii.  1093  a 


INDEX. 


3661 


i.  479  a  I  xi.  5 

i.  478  a    xii.  1. .. 

i.  522  a,  837  a  '  xii.  3. . . 

iii.  2325  b  I  xii.  7,  9. 

ii.  113fib    xiii.  1-  •• 

.i.  403  b    xiii.  5  .  • 

iv.  2934  b    xiii.  11. 

ix   1  -.i     •       •••i'i-  2536  a    x'ii.  16. 

ix:i',2,n '■  5-9  ^b    xiii.  16, 

i,f  4  i.  83i  a    xiu.  18. 

x7 i.  597  b    xiv.  1.  . 

li' 8.' .".■.■. li  S82b   xiv.  4.. 

S  U     i.  127  a  1  xiv.  9. . 


rt.  4 

vl.  8 

vii  3... 
vii.  9.  . . . 
viii.  1. . . 
viii.  3,  4, 
viii.  13.  . 
ix.  1, 


...iv.3533a 

xiv.  10. . 

...iii.  2008  b 

XV.  2,  3. 

479  a,  597  b 

XV.  7 

...  iv.  2848  b 

i.  597  b 

xvi.  2.  . . 

. .  .iv.  2935  b 

xvi.  14. . 

i.  109  a 

xvii.  5. . 

i.  522  a 

xvii.  6. . 

i.  8.37  a 

xviii.  2 . 

iv.  3081  a,  n. 

xviii.  12. 

i.  837  a 

xviii.  13 

...iii.  2^6  a 

xix 

I.  837i> 

xix.  1-6 

....iv.  3542  b  I 

.   ...iii.  2023  a 

...1.618  b,iv. 

3445  a 

i.  518b 

ii.  1243  b 

.i.  522  a,  837  a 

iii.  1811a 

i.340b 

iv.  3035  b 

i.  85  b 

ii.  1417  a 

i.  67b 


xix.  8,14 ii.  1662  b 

xix.  11,14 ii.  1093  a 


xix.  12 
xix.  20 

XX.  4 

XX. 13 

xxi.  3 

xxi.  11,  19-21 

xxi.  21 

xxii.  2 

xxii  3,4 

xxii  4 

xxii  13 


597  b 
109  a,  522  a 

i.  837  a 

, .  .ii.  103S  a 
. .iv.  2961  a 
.ii.  1067  a 
iv.  3123  a 
iv.  2993  a 
.ii.  1246  a 
...I.  887  a 

...  ».:«• 


Princeton   Theologic.il   Semmary-Spe' 


1    1012  01124  4524 


1  »-«'■•  -.^vft^ir-J 


r 


*•:*    f 


»^i--s'. 


Date  Ehie 


.J  • 


<vX 


m 


^/*fi 


j£***;.  ^ 


•  O     •• 


4f  ♦ 


.'%r^-^:s^ 


#•  • 


■^W 


